Movie Posters!

I've queued up some of my favorite movie posters over on my tumblr that will post today and tomorrow.  Afterwards I'll talk in-depth about why I like some of them in particular.

Check is out here!

(Note: my tumblr is not dedicated to movies, so if you go through my backlog you'll get mostly pictures that amused me, many of which are owls.)

The Deal With Wonder Woman

This property is not curse, no matter what some people might tell you.  Developers are simply going about it the wrong way.

I will be the first person to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about Wonder Woman.  But I do know a couple of things about movies: first, this is the peak time to make a superhero movie.  People may tell you that they're getting burnt out of the spandex features, but they're lying; the box office numbers for Thor tell you a much different story, and he's not even a corner stone character.

Second, the hero landscape is crying out for a strong, identifiable female lead.  Catwoman was an unmitigated disaster, and so was Elektra - even though I thought the latter was fun and a HUGE improvement on its parent film Daredevil.  The truth is, there aren't a whole lot of powerful lady superheroes that have standalone stories.  Many of the ones I can think of (Black Canary, Super Girl, Batgirl, Wasp) are dependent on other heroes for context, and of the few that are not (Zatanna, and even she was retconned to be associated with Batman) Wonder Woman is the most recognizable.  She also stands for a lot of great things that I think we need in the media: strong women who can save themselves.

But she has problems.  A lot of what made her a feminist icon in the 1940's is outdated today.  Her origin is more like Thor than Batman, and at this point in time I think her patriotic iconography is problematic (but then I would have said that about Captain America, and his movie is slated for release this summer.  So what do I know?).  The whole...bondage thing...is not good.  The invisible jet is goofy rather than awesome.

For Wonder Woman to be successful now, in this day and age, Hollywood is going to have to do what they do best: ignore the fans.  No matter what happens or what writers do with the character, fans and the internet will be a riot of hate-mongering.  And I’m going to go on the record and say that’s ok, because here’s the thing about Wonder Woman:

Her origin blows.

.

It’s true.  You can yell at me all you want to about how she’s rooted in Greek mythology, or that her history as an Amazon princess is necessary to her character, but her whole background is ridiculous.  I do not believe there is a way to successfully adapt her canon back-story to a modern setting and make it believable or something to relate to.  It’s just too awful.

What writers need to do is preserve the spirit of the character and re-imagine where she comes from.  There are ways to turn her into a relevant female icon, but I think Wonder Woman needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.  And maybe that means she’s not the same character that she was in the 1940’s, but you know what?  We’re not in the 40’s anymore.  What was revolutionary and feminist then, is now staid and old (and probably offensive).  Wonder Woman needs to be brought into the modern age.  She needs a good villain, and she needs a new costume.  I would love to see a gritty reboot a la Batman Begins, maybe putting Diana in some sort of foster-kid situation in New York City or Chicago.  She’s a tough girl, she could handle it.  The point is: I think there’s a way to preserve the character while scrapping the origin.  

She can keep the whip, though.  Indiana Jones had a whip and no one accuses him of being into bondage. 

Really, Hollywood? REALLY?

(As per Ashley's request, I'm posting this now instead of tomorrow.  You lucky dogs, you.)

To make up for the fact that I didn't post for a while, here's a list of real things that, while I SERIOUSLY QUESTION their necessity or validity, are actually happening in Hollywood.  Where I am able I have linked to a news article or IMDB page to prove that there is, in fact, some shit even I can't make up.

Hobo With A Shot Gun (I know, this is old news, but WHY)
Men in Black III (Will Smith, you are a quality actor with a dynasty-esque family.  Do you really feel the need to inflict this on us?  Because even though I WANT it to be an apology for MIB2, you know it will just hurt my feelings more.)
Piranha 3DD (Was one D not enough?  Also, David Hasselhoff is in it.  That was a gift for you guys.)
Dominion: Dinosaurs vs. Aliens (Don't lie, you think this sounds kind of awesome.  But it still gets a REALLY? stamp because this whole "versus" crap is now squarely in "self-parody" territory.)
Final Destination 5 (Apparently they're spelling the title with a 5 replacing every "a." I...I can't, you guys. And I LIKED the first one.)
Human Centipede volumes 2 and 3 (Here I'll just take the opportunity to refer you back to my previous entry, Human Centi-WHUT)
Tomb Raider reboot (This is so ridiculous I can't even be witty about it.)
Django Unchained (Just watch the movies referenced in this article that Tarantino lists as his "inspirations," and you'll have seen this film.  Dear Tarantino: I am over you.)
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (The most hilarious thing about this is that James Franco is in it.  I thought he was too much of a ~special snowflake~ to do a cheesy reboot of a cheesy remake of a terrible sci-fi movie.)

Oh, HOLLYWOOD.

The Monster Mash-Up Literary Fad

I want to weigh in today on a slightly-off-topic-but-increasingly-on-topic subject: monster mash-up classics.  Mostly these still reside in the realm of literature, but Hollywood is always looking for a good idea to cop, which is why we're all looking forward to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which is slated for theaters next summer.

I have already expressed my enthusiasm for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, even while commenting on the dubious nature of casting (I have recently learned that Mary Elizabeth Winstead is playing Abe's wife Mary Todd, to which I say: I'm glad she's working again and I hope she can bring the crazy).  In addition, the rumor mill has been turning around Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (by the same author as AL: VH, Seth Grahame-Smith) for ages; first it was attached to Natalie Portman, then it wasn't, it had a director, then it didn't, then it did again, and now it's in that wonderful little blank space that projects occupy after they get a director but before they get actors.  I have no doubt that we'll be hearing more from it, and soon (that last article regarding director Craig Gillespie is dated April 19, 2011) but until then, Abe Lincoln is filming and the literary world is buzzing around these unconventional retreads of classic literature.

When P&P&Z was released in May of 2009, it garnered a whole lot of attention and spawned a mess of "sequels" (Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, Jane Slayre, Android Karenina, etc.).  Some of them are really good and some of them...not so much.  I read P&P&Z and enjoyed it immensely - I could not even finish S&S&S.  I'm embroiled right now in Alice in Zombieland, which, once again, I'm enjoying immensely.  And I adored Abe Lincoln.  In my personal view, I found P&P&Z to be so much fun because it was deliciously subversive: about 85% of it is Jane Austen's original prose, with key words and phrases interjected at the right time to transform the English countryside into a zombie apocalypse.  S&S&S, on the other hand, is almost entirely fabricated monster-story, and it didn't retain enough of the original text for me to find it clever or entertaining.  Alice in Zombieland is composed mostly of wording changes (instead of a White Rabbit, Alice follows a Black Rat down an empty grave), but I'm finding it retains Carroll's tone of the original work.  I think these stories work best when they stick harder to the original source material, which makes the horror-film changes that much more entertaining.  It's not all that witty or original to read about sea monsters assailing an island; zombies in an otherwise pleasant English countryside, on the other hand?  While everyone is speaking in charming Austenian dialect?  Fabulous.

But that's just my take - why have these taken off so well in the populace at large?  I may have read many of the canon works these monster manuals are based off of, but many people haven't (this is not a comment on the literacy of the US, by the way.  This isn't meant to be a chastisement.).  So why have people been devouring them off the shelves of bookstores and libraries alike?  My theory is two parts: the current mad popularity of anything supernatural, and the desire for people to cheat.

The spat of supernatural in the media can't really be denied, because it's everywhere.  My second point takes a little explaining: I think that many people read these books because they're easier to digest then the classics they're based off of.  This is my hypothesis and it's largely unfounded in statistical fact, but c'mon, how many people have read Anna Karenina?  I wouldn't go near it with a 20 foot pole.  Android Karenina, frankly, sounds both far easier to chew on and much more interesting (please don't kill me if you're a Russian lit fan). 

So anyway, that's my weigh-in.  In regards to the impending Lincoln movie: the first set pic has been released, and it's a suitably boring one of Walker in costume giving some sort of presidential speech.  (NOTE: I JUST learned that Rufus Sewell is in this movie, and he is NOT playing John Wilkes Booth.  WTF BEKMAMBETOV)  What I appreciate about this photo is what I appreciated about the book: in as many ways as possible, Grahame-Smith kept it historically accurate.  I mean, yeah, there are vampires, but the skeleton the story is hung on is historical fact that we know about Lincoln's life.  I think the movie will be more effective if it keeps that accurate feel, and from this (single, I know) photo, it looks like the filmmakers are trying to do just that.

Changing the Way We Watch Movies

Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, is on Time's 100 Most Influential People in 2011.

Yeah, that's about right.

Think about the level of impact this service has had, not just on the way people rent movies, but on the entertainment industry as a whole. It's changed the way we watch tv, by providing not only access to the DVDs for series, but offering instant streaming superior to Hulu in almost every way - and even Netflix is positioned now to offer some current episodes. It's changed the way we relate to media. It drove a flawed company to bankruptcy (sorry, Blockbuster, but you know it's true). Netflix reaches the widest audience, on the most platforms, in the most formats, than any other media outlet. It's even forcing media giants like HBO to rethink how they reach their customers

I'm not sure even Hastings could have predicted how flamingly successful Netflix would end up. But the important part is that they don't seem to be in danger of going away. Which is good, because I only just got The Talented Mr. Ripley, and I'd like to watch an episode of The Tudors when I get home tonight.

Sucker Punch: Sweet Pea Edition

Don't worry, this is the last Sucker Punch post for a while (at LEAST until it comes out on DVD and I get to see all the fun stuff Snyder wanted to put in, but couldn't or didn't). This is the entry I promised from my review, where I tell you all what I think the movie is really about, so here's the obligatory SPOILERS warning.

There are SPOILERS HERE. If you haven't seen the movie, and you want to keep yourself fresh, DON'T READ THIS. Wait until my next Trailer Talk.

Anyway. When I reviewed Sucker Punch, I intimated that there was a lot I wanted to say about the character of Sweet Pea, played by Abbie Cornish. The thing is, as Babydoll tells us at the conclusion of the film, this is not her story.

It's Sweet Pea's.

And it's a little deeper-running than the fact that Sweet Pea is the only girl left alive at the end of everything. There are really only three characters that we're meant to care about: Babydoll (negligible), Sweet Pea, and her sister Rocket. Blondie and Amber are sidekicks, and they're disposable; when Blue caps them in the head, we not only don't get to see it, but we don't really care. There isn't much to them. But Sweet Pea and Rocket we're made to care about. The moments of sympathy, the quiet moments of character development, happen between them. And when Rocket sacrifices herself to save her sister, it's drawn out and touching. It's sad in a way the other deaths are not.

Babydoll is the mask of the movie. We start the story with her, but we don't stay there; the least amount of screen time is given over to the asylum of the real world. Babydoll herself is a blank, almost emotionless doll (I see what you did there, Snyder) of a character, and I don't think that's because Emily Browning is a bad actress. I think it's because Babydoll is supposed to be the facade of the film so that in the end, when she takes the mask off and tells the audience that "This isn't my story," it's a revelation to find out we've been in Sweet Pea's story the whole time. And Babydoll does tell us this explicitly, that she was always only meant to be a tool, always only the fifth object needed for escape.

Sweet Pea, on the other hand, has a stake in the outside world. She has parents, she could have a life. Babydoll can't, Rocket can't, or at least, she believed she couldn't, which is nearly the same thing. Rocket tells us that "We're (the girls) dead already," but Sweet Pea isn't. She doesn't want to risk her life to get out because she values her life in a way that Rocket doesn't any more. Rocket fucked up her life in the past we don't get to know much about, and hasn't found a new reason to keep living...but she knows her sister hasn't made those mistakes and can still find a place for herself in the world.

I would like to posit, then, that the bordello circle of this nightmare doesn't exist in Babydoll's head. It's in Sweet Pea's. That's why she's the star of the show, she's running things inside her own head. I think that Babydoll's "dances" are a substitute for sexual assault, which Sweet Pea either can't or doesn't want to witness, which is why we don't get to see them, either. (I also think this is why Blue is SO upset at the end after Babydoll's lobotomy - he's the main culprit in molesting her.) The fight scenes are Babydoll's escape from what's happening to her.

I'm not sure how much of this makes sense, but I tried to compose it as coherently as possible. Join us next time, when I will probably wax rhapsodic about how Chris Pine should make more movies (we're watching Unstoppable tonight).

And I promise, no more Sucker Punch for a while.

Sucker Punch Was Made For Girls

Sucker Punch is pretty bad. But it's bad in a MAGNIFICENT way, and it actually has a lot of good things going on.

We have seen over and over again from Snyder that he can do big, exciting, and beautiful. Up to now, he's dealt with some pretty awesome source material; as his first project from an original source, I expected Sucker Punch to live up to his visual style and maybe offer something intriguing in the way of story - but to be totally honest, I never really cared about the story Sucker Punch was trying to tell. The trailers, through their ambiguity, encouraged you not to ask too many questions. Which made it pretty shocking when I realized that there was actually a story of some depth going on, it just wasn't happening to our "main" character and it wasn't the forefront of the action (more on this later). The rest of the ride is a sensory overload. Sucker Punch shines on two wavelengths: the over-the-top, visually and aurally rich action sequences, and the subtle undercurrent of Sweet Pea's (Abbie Cornish) story.

I want to talk about Sweet Pea here, but since almost everything I want to say is a spoiler I've decided the best course for this is to do a second entry with a big fat SPOILER ALERT tag that people can read if they've seen the film or if they don't care. This review, then, is spoiler free.

There are three levels of reality being dealt with here, and the one in which the film spends the most time on (the secondary level, dressed up like a burlesque house/prostitution ring) is the least interesting. I thought we could have benefited from spending more time in reality, the quasi-60's insane asylum for troubled teenage girls, but the important bit is that Snyder doesn't skimp on his third level, Babydoll's high-octane war zone. This is where the good stuff is: shrieking planes, zombie robot Germans, orcs, catapults, a fire-breathing dragon. Amber (Jamie Chung) pilots a gun bunny mech. There's a train with a bomb on it. It's good times. And these sequences are permeated with Snyder's typical bullet-time slow-downs, but it works here. You can really see the action (I HATE the speed-shaky action cam that makes it impossible to tell who's hitting whom), and you can see where the girls pull their own stunts (all five of our heroines went through extensive physical training for this flick, and it shows).

The other signature trait Snyder brings to these scenes is his color palette. The whole movie is shot in a gray tone, but the action sequences are highlighted with pops of color: gunfire, regular fire, the pink on Amber's mech, the gold in Rocket's (Jena Malone) hair. It plays into the overall fantasy effect, but it also makes the scenes beautiful in an interesting way (like the ever-falling snow). The snow, in fact, gives it a decidedly shojo feel, which I like. It gives the very masculine backdrops a feminine feel, reminding the audience that we are watching a girl's (and a young girl, at that) fantasy play out, rather than a boy's video game dream.

The soundtrack is brilliant, and would have saved the movie for me even if I hadn't had as much fun watching it as I did. Emily Browning covers two of the tracks and her voice is thin, a little reedy, very sweet, and completely haunting as it plays over the rain-soaked gray dreariness of the hospital. Especially in the opening sequence, where we see the circumstances through which Babydoll finds herself at the hospital, and there's no dialogue except Browning's rendition of "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)." It's beautiful. Also, whether by accident or design, almost all of the music is sung by women. I don't care what the reviewers are saying, this movie was made for girls.

That's the good, now for the bad: in a cast of about 10 characters, there are three really good performances. Emily Browning is a blank doll of a character, never showing more emotion than a small smile or glazed-over look. Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung are never required to do more than smile secretively and fire really big guns, but the film suffers for never asking more of them (although neither actress convinces me that they could have given more - Hudgens is all doe eyes and crocodile tears, and Chung is most emotive when she sucks on her lollipop). Carla Gugino, who I know is better than this, hides behind her absurd Germussion accent. John Hamm might have been effective, but he was onscreen for maybe two minutes - there was supposedly a scene between Hamm and Browning that got cut to keep the PG-13 rating, and I'm interested to see it just to see Hamm actually work a little.

Cornish and Malone together are rapturous. As sisters (supposedly, in the whorehouse reality), they are best when acting off each other. For getting surprisingly little space to actually act, they become the girls we care about and get invested in. The real winner, though, is Oscar Isaac as Blue, the orderly-cum-pimp: he is sleazy, smarmy, and, like a car wreck, impossible to turn away from on the screen. He's a fabulous villain, and he really owns the "Baby, why you gotta make me hit you?" abusive attitude in a shameless way.

Undoubtedly, Sucker Punch would have benefited from Snyder going all in and embracing the R-rating it so desperately wants; there are places he obviously pulled his punches to keep the PG-13, and the quality of the film suffers for it. However, I find it hard to disagree totally with his decision: this movie was made for adolescent girls. I know, the fetishist clothing and extraneous guns might disagree with me, but this is a movie about girls trying to take back their own lives and their own bodies. And I can't really blame Snyder for wanting the movie to reach the largest audience possible in the teen girl demographic.