12 Years a Slave

My efforts to make up for a lackluster year of movies with as many "awards season" films as possible are well under way. Last week, Mark and I brought you some thoughts on Gravity, and clearly we had quite an impact, because it has been steam-rolling the competition at the box office for the past couple of weeks. Mr. Clooney, Ms. Bullock, you're welcome.

Which brings us, or rather just me, to another notable October release, 12 Years A Slave. This year has been pretty strong on the African (-American) history flicks, with Lee Daniels' The Butler receiving a lot of attention, and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom set to hit theaters before the year is out. Though, truthfully, I saw this movie for one reason, and one reason only: Michael Fassbender.

That's not entirely true; but I do love that guy. And if actors are the reason you go to the movies, I can tell you 12 Years a Slave features a lot of them: in addition to Magneto, there's Metro Man, the Rhino, Khan, Omar Little, and that guy who gets beaten to death with a bowling pin in There Will Be Blood...Oh I'm sorry, I can't seem to get into art-house mode. I meant that alongside Fassbender, there's Brad Pitt, Paul Giamatti, Benedict Cumberbatch...um, Chalky White, and...that guy who gets tortured and killed in Looper. Seriously though, Paul Dano is a talented actor, but he always plays a sniveling weasel that other actors get to hit. (And if my nods to The Wire and Boardwalk Empire aren't clear enough, that's Michael K. Williams I am referencing.)

Also, you don't have to point out that this movie is about slaves, but all of the names I mentioned belong to white actors. It's not because I am a racist. In fact, I, too, found the cast a bit imbalanced. I'm sure it says something about either the studio and its expectations for the film's reception, or the director's interpretation of the dehumanizing anonymity that the institution of slavery inflicts on history through the use of unfamiliar black actors. Or something.

Anyways, can I just review the fucking movie now?

It should not really come as a surprise that Michael Fassbender found his way into this film. Two of director Steve McQueen's (no, not the one that died in 1980) previous projects -- Hunger and Shame -- have featured the versatile actor. This time around, thanks to Brad Pitt's production company, we can now say that the number of words in a McQueen title is directly proportional to the film's budget, since, as I mentioned, this film is loaded with familiar, albeit pale, faces.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup, a happy family man living in New York in the 1840s, who is kidnapped and forced into slavery. At first Solomon tries to maintain his identity and dignity, but he slowly succumbs to the realities of slavery. Even his name is stripped from him, and he becomes simply Pratt. I'm going to spoil the end right now, but I don't think it's a big deal, and you'll see why. Solomon makes it back to his family. Boom. Cat's out of the bag. Anyways, what becomes more and more obvious and unsettling as time goes by after leaving the theater, is that this happy ending is meaningless. This free man was kidnapped and enslaved, and that's unjust. But during his time in the South, we, the viewers, witnessed the horror of slavery in all of its forms. And when Solomon escapes and regains his freedom, it almost seems unfair. He leaves the others behind, left to die, nameless, in a system that has been around for centuries and will linger for another couple of decades. There is nothing particularly special about Solomon our protagonist, other than the fact that something unfair happened to him, and in the end, his situation was righted. And so we're left wondering -- only to realize that we know clearly enough -- the fate of Pratt's contemporaries.

The strengths and weaknesses of this film are kind of the same. We are introduced to each antebellum southern male archetype: the benevolent patriarch who cares for his slaves, the brutal and pitiful plantation owner who justifies his actions with whiskey and the word of God, the abolitionist, and an array of overseers. While it makes sense to offer these extremes, in terms of the narrative, and the trials of Solomon, it tends to walk the line between character and caricature, reminiscent of that other popular slave film, Django Unchained. On a separate, some of the dialogue delivery was a little wobbly, and it felt like high school students reciting half-memorized Shakespearian verses. Likewise, it seemed a bit forceful whenever a character would wax poetic on a core theme of the film, like slavery, freedom, equality, etc. The audience has the right and the intellect to walk away with their own opinions; and for a film where the subject matter is made so vivid and unrelenting, having the characters repeat the themes verbally is unnecessary.

Overall, it is a powerful movie, full of memorable performances. Mark read a review comparing it to Schindler's List, which, subsequently, is the expectation I had going in. In a way, I agree that the honest and straightforward approach to slavery is similar to Spielberg's vision of the holocaust. There is no glorifying of anything, not even the protagonist. And when the protagonist "wins/gets away/saves lives", no one really wins. Only see this movie if you are ready to be force-fed some cold, hard truth. If you leave the theater feeling a little queasy, it's not that month-old nacho cheese you just devoured, it's your guilt as a human being.

Gravity

Now that Mark has a full-time job, and I am, once again, a full-time student, it looks like these blog posts are going to grow increasing infrequent. There's really nothing we can do about that. But we are going to keep it going nonetheless.

Today we talk about Gravity, a film currently in theaters, starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, and directed by Alfonso Cuaron. It seems sci-fi is back in style these days, and this entry seems like the formal invitation to a new era of the genre; once again humanity is at a juncture where the window between reality and science fiction (and breakthrough filmmaking techniques) is as transparent as ever, and Cuaron is obliged to shove our faces through it for a look at the other side.

(I'm not sure if I just made a metaphor or something. My point is, watch out for broken glass. Just kidding, it's actually that there are no screens on the windows at Alfonso Cuaron's house. ...Hey, here's a review for Gravity. Enjoy.)

Dylan: Wow. It’s been a while. Let’s see if I remember how to do this. So I just saw Gravity, in 3D, in theaters. And that’s really the only way to see it I think. It’s one of those movies where the 3D plays a role in building the world we’re thrown into (or out of). And that is one aspect in which this films holds nothing back. They clearly set out with an idea of what they wanted to do, and they went and did it as perfectly (and accurately) as possible. I’m not saying the movie was flawless; don’t get me wrong. But the detail that went into the parts that were done well was pretty seamless.

Mark:  Gotta agree with you completely. I was blown away by the depth that the 3D brought to the movie.  This is one of the cases where the 3D immerses you in the environment; it’s not just going for gimmicky shots of things flying towards you, but rather to make you feel like you’re floating around in space with the characters.  And damn, Cuaron really makes the most of it, especially in those first 15 minutes, effortlessly moving you around the ship.  Did you know that was all one take?  Makes it all the more impressive to me.

Dylan: Well, it depends on what you mean by one take? Much of that scene was just faces added into an entirely CGI render. Or at least that’s what it seemed like. But the fluidity of it all was very impressive. And in response to what you consider 'gimmicky' 3D, I argue that a lot of times the 3D effect are very purposefully gimmicky. For example, in every single scene of Bullock inside of a ship there was a pen floating past her face. Did she take the pen along with her? Why did the American, Russian, and then Chinese crafts all have the same pen drifting around the cockpit? (Maybe it was a 2001 reference.) Anyways, there was also the water and the fire and what not. But the thing is, while these are here EXACTLY for gimmicky purposes, they still work to illustrate the physics and chemistry of this bizarre and unnatural setting, which is perfectly juxtaposed at the end when we return to Earth and everything is somehow familiar but also foreign.

Mark: Alright, let me clarify my two points.  By one take, I mean that there was no editing, no jumping from person to person when they speak, or to another area around the ship.  The camera floats, as if in space, all around the immediate environment.  yes it was all on green screen and whatnot, but never once does it edit.  For me it helped draw me in to the world so much more.  And as for gimmicky, I meant like the only times 3D is being used is for things to fly at the camera.  And things do, like the pen, or water droplets, or rocketing satellite debris, but it's to add tension or for the purpose of making us feel more involved in this world.  I think the one time they really did it is when Clooney’s character let go of something and reached out to grab it.  But that was really it.  But no matter what issue or problem there might have been with a moment in the film, the pace that it kept throughout, with the tension never giving up from the moment it started, made sure I was always enthralled.  That and the absolutely gorgeous visuals.  

Dylan: That’s what I really loved about it. First of all, from a physicist’s perspective, you know I would go into this thing analyzing every detail. The title was a challenge for me. And I haven’t seen that much detail go into outer space since 2001, and that was done fifty years ago. In fact, I would have left just left out the introduction in the beginning about how nothing can survive in space. It's the 21st century; hopefully we are all aware of this fact by now. The visuals were incredible, and, as Clooney’s character occasionally states outright, the horror of space and the astonishing beauty are one in the same. It’s an uninhabitable hell, and yet you can’t help but envy the view. The scenes of moving debris were phenomenal. 

The only thing I found a little annoying was the first person perspective inside Bullock’s helmet, specifically when she’s spinning or breathing heavy enough to fog up the window. I’m not entirely against the idea, but there were a few shots that went on just long enough to make me look away from the screen, a little dizzy. I understand that we are being immersed in her reality, but if it forces you to look away, it’s forcing you back OUT of that reality. So that’s my main complaint. The other uses of first person -- climbing along the outside of the ship, trying to escape debris, etc. -- were really cool.

Mark: I didn’t have as much difficulty with those scenes, but I can see where you’re coming from.  They really play the disoriented feeling of what she’s going through, which is perfect, but I can see it being a little too perfect.  And the other thing that I loved about how this movie progresses is how it’s really quite terrifying, but it’s not trying to be a horror movie or anything.  The fear comes from how real it all is; that something like this could happen.  That in space, the smallest mistake or failure is so much worse.  And those moments when Bullock’s character is moving as fast as she can, trying to figure how to continue, you know that time is running out. And this is when things become truly terrifying: the lack of sound.  We all know that there is no sound in space, but this movie plays it perfectly.  There is a scene when she is working to open a hatch, and we see that debris is flying past, but she doesn’t know.  There’s nothing to alert her.  And we’re stuck in this tension; will she get it?  Will she get hit?  Knocked off?  And that pulls you in more.  And because no sound is there to add effect, the score pulls double duty, and holy shit does it create a whole other level to the tension.

Dylan: Yea, the score really was well done. Very subtle; nothing distracting. I’m not sure what the casualty report is for people in space. How many astronauts have had to deal with untethered slingshotting through space? I can’t think of any disasters like that. And this one is a real doozy. Russia fires a missile at one of their own satellites, but they do a shitty job, and cause a chain reaction that seems to destroy every other satellite in orbit, creating a massive debris field. This is a pretty catastrophic situation that sounds like it’s going to affect most of humanity. I’m kind of curious what’s going on on the ground during all this. But yea, I guess the drama in space is interesting too hah. Anyways, my point is, unless something goes really, really incredibly wrong, situations like this hopefully do not happen. Which is why, having seen this movie, I am more interested than ever in going into space; I think it would be awesome. But, maybe that’s not what I was supposed to take away from it all.

Mark: Yeah, because I was feeling less than interested at going into space after seeing this.  And I was thinking that everyone on earth was seeing absolutely nothing.  Based on what was happening, they had to be totally communication blackout, since most satellites were gone.  But that’s not the story here.  As for our leads, I have to say I was really surprised by Sandra Bullock.  I always thought she was an alright actress, better with comedy than drama, but she totally owned this role.  For the most part, it’s all on her, and she carries really well.  And Clooney was, well, he was Clooney, but damn he does that well.  It’s not very often that you get a movie that’s very much original, heavy, with spectacular CGI, that’s carried by a single person.  And I just realized that Life of Pi was that in a way, but I would consider this so much more than just a pretty movie.  All of its parts are great, and together it’s damn near brilliant.

Dylan: You said it on the acting. I’ve never been a fan of Clooney or Bullock. But while Clooney seems to play the same character in every movie, I am starting to fall for his charm. Bullock I have even less respect for, but she seems to be reworking her career in a very good way. Also, I did not see Life of Pi. But since you brought it up, what are your thoughts on Gravity’s possible performance come Oscar time? It definitely excels in a number of categories, not just effects. And it’s also impressively dominating the box office these past two weeks.

Mark: I was thinking about that, and honestly, the way that this is both a critical and commercial success, I can see it going up for a lot.  While there will be competition, this will be the frontrunner for most if not all the technical awards.  I think that the score was as important to this movie as the CGI, so that’ll probably get some love.  And on the major side, I would love to see Cuaron go up for directing.  He’s always done well, but this is doing so well that I can’t imagine they’ll ignore him.  And really, I think Bullock deserves at least a nomination.  This is all her.  And like I said, she carries it well.  What about you?

Dylan: The reason I ask you is because you’re much more in tune with the awards season drama than I am. I usually don’t even see the major contenders until the following year. But since so much of 2013 has been pretty crappy in the movie department, I am trying to stay interested on developments over the next couple months. Thinking back, this may be my favorite movie of the year so far. Certainly the most original. But who knows what the 'academy' will think.

Mark:  One behind-the-scenes thing I found interesting, which you may not be aware of, is how much Cuaron had to fight to keep his vision of this film.  The executives wanted a male lead as well as a love interest.  I believe the love interest came into play more once Cuaron wouldn’t give in and kept his female lead.  It was just interesting thinking how different this could have been.  Do you think it would have changed how you viewed this movie if the executives won out?

Dylan: I’m going to say yes. Only because it became excruciatingly obvious to me the point the director was trying to make with a female lead, specifically at the very end when Bullock stood up, and the camera, level with her ankles, panned up to show her sculpted, heroic body fresh out of the water. The survivor. The heroine. It reminded me of Ellen Ripley, but that’s probably because I kept thinking of the tagline “In space no one can hear you scream” from Alien. But yes, I think it made a difference having a woman. And I did not have a problem with it. 

Mark: I agree completely, and I also got the Ellen Ripley vibe from her, and from the whole movie. And it worked perfectly.

----------------------------------------------------

And there it is, kids. Go see Gravity. It is one of the best movies of the year, and possibly one of the most original films of the past couple of decades -- especially in the science fiction department -- not just because of the story and subject matter, but because of its manipulation of modern filming techniques to present a story in a way we haven't really seen before (fuck Avatar). On top of that, as we discussed, it will resonate not just with critics, but with audiences as well. And I think this film is going to be remembered as a turning point in filmmaking and storytelling on many levels.

RoboCop

The great thing about not getting paid to pay attention to your blog is that, by the time you get around to fleshing out a thought or idea that's been bouncing around your head for a few weeks, someone else who does it for a living has probably already written about it. Two weeks ago I watched the original 1987 RoboCop starring Peter Weller, hoping to validate next year's remake. But of course, being a grad student and all, among other setbacks -- cough, Mark never got around to watching it, cough -- I did not have time to write until now. A couple days later a Cracked article was published covering pretty much the same topic. Being a good sport and all (and an avid reader of Cracked), I'll go ahead and link the article here.

(I'll point out that I avoided reading the article before writing this, as not to steal any ideas, consciously or otherwise)

I won't blame you for choosing their article over this one; they have funny pictures. But damn it, I sat down to watch this movie and by God, I'm going to write about it!

Where to begin. How about I first remind everyone of the plot. Alex Murphy (Weller) is a policeman in near future Detroit, where crime is out of control, and the police force is privately owned by a technology company currently developing a machine that will replace cops and more effectively restore order. When Alex Murphy gets killed in the line of duty, he becomes the guinea pig for an alternative program at the same company, one attempting to meld man and machine. As a result, he becomes RoboCop (I think in the '80s it was just cool to prefix words with robo-).

Directed by Paul Verhoeven (Starship Troopers) you should pretty much know what to expect. For one thing, I am now convinced that his main method of world-building is cutting to faux commercials that provide exposition of the setting and time period: futuristic organ transplants, extremely violent video games, and other things meant to juxtapose advanced technology with a declining society. Part of what irritates me about this is that in some sense, this vision of the future has already been achieved. We have medical technology these days that would boggle Asimov, and violence in video games is laughable. And yet, unlike the world of RoboCop, our society continues to function.

RoboCop, having spawned a couple of sequels, seems like a bit of a cult classic. It has the shoddy plot, ultra-violence, and poor CG that are the mainstays of a 'great' '80s sci-fi actioner. And yet, watching it, I was mostly annoyed at how terrible a cop RoboCop proved to be (each perp either got away or was brutally murdered). It also aligned disturbingly well with The Crow, if you replace vengeful ghost with cyborg, right down to the cartoonish villain archetypes. Now that I think about it, a Crow-RoboCop crossover would be pretty awesome (RoboCrow? Crowbot?).

Anyways, let me rope myself in here. This movie is being remade, because robots are obviously a new theme with seemingly endless cinematic possibility.

That is assuming you ignore Elysium, three Iron Man movies, Dredd 3D, and to a lesser extent Avatar, the Matrix, AI: Artificial Intelligence, and Wall-e, all films that ask us what it means to be human. (Well okay, I put Dredd in there because I like it, and the new RoboCop suit is a blatant ripoff of judge armor).

Decide for yourself...

At least Urban gets an ass kicking chin.

Okay, this is just frustrating.

I mentioned something earlier about endless possibilities. I do truly believe that there are new ideas out there to be explored, even in the realm of robot sci-fi. There are thousands of original and exciting robot and man/machine stories waiting to be told. (I'll reference Isaac Asimov again; I'll do it, I swear). And as I said, the technology of RoboCop is not far off, what with pilotless drones and constant advancement in military robotics. So why limit a story idea to remaking a hokey, ultra-violent '80s action movie, when the real world that we live in is already more futuristic and interesting? On top of this, the next few years are going to be overwhelmed with sci-fi movies, all trying to up the "wow, future" ante.

In conclusion, the 2012 remake of Total Recall is a good example of why remaking an '80s sci-fi film just doesn't work. Oh hey, and that was also based on an original by Paul Verhoeven.

As it happens, the trailer for the remake was recently released. Check it out and see what you think.

Elysium

Reviewer: Mad Mark

So I will be the first to admit, I am not a huge fan of most of District 9.  Now hold on, put down that pitchfork and napalm, there were a bunch of things throughout that movie I liked about it.  How seamlessly he blended the fiction with reality through story and CG, as well as the stellar first and second acts.  I really enjoyed the documentary style of the beginning, and I was still engaged when Wickus was on the run.  But when people started exploding and it kinda lost itself in the violence, I was lost.  So all this rambling sums up my interest in Elysium: interested but very wary.  From what I’d seen, Elysium was more action and excitement, so I was conflicted about it.  But still I found myself in the theater.  So I hoped this would have that action, but blended better with the politics and story.

Oh how hopelessly naive of me.

Man, the next Wii is intense.

First off let me say that this is by no means a bad movie.  There is a lot here, much like District 9 for me, that was done right.  And then there were a lot of places where it misstepped and cracked it’s skull open.  And then exploded.  I guess, on the highest level, this story was incredibly predictable and straightforward.  Things happened obviously without skipping a beat.  Things happened conveniently for Max (Matt Damon) throughout the movie.  Not always good, what with the whole lethal blast of radiation after we watch as his life as an ex-con trying to go straight proves difficult in an unforgiving world, but still, everything lead into each other without any turn.  And any pretense for a “twist” was shown and obviously set up a few scenes prior.  But what of the political messages and social commentary, cry the voices in my head?  They’re there.  Right there, on the surface for all to see.  And that’s where they stay.  Oh so the 1% sit in space while the 99% survive in squalor, forced to look up at what life could be, fully knowing that they’ll never reach it?  Yep, don’t expect it any deeper than that.  Headlines from recent newspapers are lifted and given a sci-fi tune up and then thrown in.  Medicare?  Machines that heal literally anything, but only the 1% can use them.  Why?  Cause the 1% are dicks, as it seems on Elysium.  Immigration laws?  Jodi Foster blows illegals out of the sky if they try to make it to Elysium, but then this is seen as a tad, shall we say, brutal.

Speaking of Jodi Foster, that was one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen from her.  It was bland and uninterested from the word go.  And she puts on an accent that can’t be placed, and while you can use the logic defying statement of “it’s the future”, no one else has it.  She’s a cardboard cutout; no depth or complexity.  That really goes for everyone.  Damon gives Max some emotional depth, but he gets to concerned or angry and flips between the two.  Sharlto Copley returns as Kruger, the psychotic agent of Foster’s Minister of Defense, who plays evil like it’s the only song on the jukebox and it’s free song night.  He’s entertaining to start, with his wild abandon style of murdering, but soon it just becomes grating, since there’s nothing else he can do.  And there are moments when there seems to be something else to him, but then he kills that and keeps killing and shouting and killing.  And let me bring up the love interest/plot progressor Frey (a bland Alice Braga).  There, I brought her up, which is about what they did with her in the movie.  I honestly forgot she was in the movie for stretches because she felt so irrelevant until she was used to move Max along.  There are a plethora of side characters, but each is as forgettable as the last, so lets not waste anymore of your time.

And then there was the violence.  I have no problem with violence, as long as it serves a purpose.  Wanton violence does nothing but diminish the impact of the story and this movie reveled in it’s violence.  Or to be more specific, reveled in the explosions.  Honestly, Neill Blomkamp is the artsy, more refined clone of Michael Bay.  Now before anyone thinks I’m giving Michael Bay some praise or something, let me explain.  Almost every death happens via some variation of explosion.  Almost always, as well, in slow motion.  Making us really watch as the futuristic tech does it’s thing and then explode.  And of course the violence is on the level of Drive, in that Neill pulls no punches.  When one characters face blows off, we watch it break into bloody pieces.  And then later watch the medicare machines rebuild it, healing that elevated case of tension, much to my chagrin.  It’s only to look again at the violence and carnage.  And the final climactic fight between Max and Kruger?  It’s an over edited mess; I couldn’t make heads or tails as to who was hitting who until we stopped to show them standing apart before diving back at each other.  And guess how it ends?  If you can’t, go see this movie.  At least you’ll be surprised.

And then it ends as predictably, as explained earlier in the third act.  Just with some emotional baggage that feels weightless when we realize how little was given to the building of the relationship between Max and Frey.  Oh there were flashbacks as them as kids, but not nearly enough to make me care about the choices he was making for her.  And then we end.  And here I am now, mouthing off like a know a damn about this.  But in my opinion, as this is all it is, the movie was good.  It has a lot of faults, some very glaring and others just subtle ones the bugged throughout.  But it was still an absolutely gorgeous film with some stunning set pieces.  This was a technically brilliant film.  It’s just a shame that the story and acting can’t even reach that same height.

The Crow

Welcome to the brand spanking new Future Film Flashback. If you didn't read my intro page to this new section, here's the deal: Mark and I have found some films that are soon to be remade, for whatever reason. We're going to watch the originals and decide if a remake is a good idea. This is not entirely a review, as we've done in the past. Since this is the pioneer post, we're not really sure how it's going to go. It will probably mold itself into something more coherent and hopefully interesting once we get into the swing of things.

Our first film is The Crow, starring Brandon Lee and directed by Alex Proyas. It came out in 1994; the remake, according to IMDb does not yet have a release date, though F. Javier Gutierrez is set to direct, and Luke Evans is starring. The original spawned a few sequels, but I don't believe they had the critical approval or cult following of the original.

Netflix: Yes

Mark: This was my first time watching The Crow, so I went into it knowing only what I have gleaned here and there. Mainly that it had good set and production design and some nice action, and really that was all I’d heard. So I went it with 'meh' expectations. That being said, I came out wondering why I’d never gotten around to seeing this sooner. I think the first thing I would want to focus on, since it would be the major thing any remake would go after, is that much touted set design. This is a movie that combined miniature sets with the real streets of Detroit and it worked wonderfully. Proyas, the director, blended them seamlessly, which for it’s time, was remarkable to me. But, from what I know of remakes, all of this will be lost in the “grand” age of CGI.

Dylan: Yea, set design is not something I usually focus on. But this movie totally mastered it. It reminded me a lot of the section of the Narrows (section of Gotham) in Batman Begins. You can tell it’s not a real city, but the way it flows and moves -- which is enhanced by the first person view of the crow soaring over the buildings, through steam and smoke and snow -- gives the city just enough dystopian grit to make it both fantastical and believable. The thing is, this movie came out in 1994, and it really shows. Not necessarily because of the CGI, but pretty much everything else. The aesthetic style, the characters, the music; these are things that make this movie unique and great, but also anchor it to the time period. I mean, come on, the main character is like this hardcore but sensitive rocker, and the bad guys are all metal heads in leather and spikes. It’s kind of goofy in its seriousness. It just seems like a remake would deliberately get rid of all this, since it’s not going to work with today’s audience. But then it’s not really a remake, is it?

Mark: I understand what you’re saying. I mean, Top Dollar (the main bad guy, obviously, with a name like that) wore very gothic outfits and had a ridiculous collection of swords, not to mention his general mannerisms made him at one point unbelievable but at another wildly engaging. Everyone in this movie, beyond the cop and Sarah are, let's be honest, insane. But the movie seemed to be fueled both on the serious thread of revenge and love, and at the same time, it’s manic rush of action and vividly cartoonish characters. They played well against each other, when movies nowadays are often tonally imbalanced. My fear would be that this remake will be in line with comic book movies nowadays: brooding (anti)hero in serious world. There is a moment that is really only a second long, but when the mass of cops tell Draven (The Crow) to freeze, he literally dances off the screen. It was funny, but it fit his character and underlined how ridiculous all this action and violence really is. And I feel a remake would lose that kind of self-aware satiric attitude.

Dylan:In a sense, I think the movie has already been remade, with The Punisher: Warzone. That takes a lot of what works in this film, as well as the general premise, but just loses itself in ridiculousness. It’s hard to say why one works and the other doesn’t. For one thing, dark, goofy superhero movies made sense in the '90s; look at Blade, Spawn, Tim Burton's Batman movies, and even the original Punisher with Dolph Lundgren. But my point is, can something like The Crow still work today, in a world with a million other vigilante/superhero movies?

Mark: I guess, what it has going for it in that regard, is that in the mainstream eye, I don’t think a lot of people know this it's based on a comic book. But either which way, this is still a costumed vigilante out for justice, so it’s all the same in the end. And the problem will be making it stand out. To revisit the Batman analogy, a remake would probably function the same way Batman Begins did after Tim Burton's movies. A complete shift in tone and seriousness that may be new and entertaining, except for the fact that at this point it's not new at all. And of course they'd be looking for a franchise, so you can expect an even mildly successful remake to have at least two sequels. I don’t think a remake has enough to put itself apart from the pack, especially since when it comes out, we’re already gonna be into the new Batman and a whole new wave of DC and Marvel properties. The original Crow stood alone in a genre that wasn’t even a genre then.

Dylan: From what we’re saying, I’m surprised they’re remaking this film at all. You figure, the studios these days are afraid of R-rated comic book movies (Kick-Ass 2 being the exception. And I suppose you could make an argument for upcoming Sin City and 300 films). But chances are this one will get lowered to a PG-13, in order to bring in an audience that is already going to be scratching their heads at the movie’s premise. While I do sort of think The Crow story could benefit from a more modern treatment (Batman again), I just don’t think this is the era for it. And then they’re going to put it in 3D and set it up for sequels and shit. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I just don’t see it.

Mark: Oh they will most definitely set it at PG-13. The film itself is coming up on 20 years old, so most of the people who know it, will shirk the new film since, you know, the original is still good. And the younger audience will have no idea what this is about beyond what is told to them from the studio and whatnot.

Dylan: To be fair, there are like three sequels to The Crow.

Mark: This is true, but let's be honest, less and less people saw them and those who did, probably forced themselves to forget. So, for a remake, they will have to make it more accessible to younger audiences. Unless they go for a small budget, so there is less to recoup from sales, and can risk the R rating. But almost no ones does that without having huge muscle behind them in terms of director or actor. And I don’t see them getting that, since the director they seem to have has done little to nothing and Luke Evans is set to be Draven, and I forget who he is. I just don’t see this remake doing well. Now it’s still early, and little has come out, so maybe they’ll create some really interesting reimagining, but for now, with how well, in my opinion, the original stands out, a remake seems like nothing but a cash grab on a property that has been out of the general public mind for just long enough to seem “fresh”.

Dylan: Fun fact: Luke Evans was also in the movie The Raven. Get it? Raven...Crow. He was born for this role. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. They're remaking The Crow. If you're someone like me, who was young in the 90s, perhaps you haven't seen the original. And that's probably what the studio behind the remake is counting on. Since it's on Netflix, I would definitely recommend a viewing. And then feel free to comment. Do you think this movie deserves a remake? Have you even heard of the original? Tell us what you think.

Future Film Flashback

With a little bit of thought and patience, alliteration can make just about anything sound catchy. Today, Mark and I have decided to throw together some cool-sounding 'F' words and then build a new blog section around it. It's pretty much how we make all of our important decisions. And thus, Future Film Flashback was born.

The idea is based on the realization that movies are becoming less and less original. Either it's our ever-diminishing youth making us cynical and dispassionate, or, equally possible, Hollywood has grown so apprehensive of new material that they are desperately trying to find other properties -- and other media -- on which to base a film; comic books, board games, and even memes are being converted to the silver screen, with varying success.

The other trend that has most film buffs in an uproar -- or whatever the aggressive, sweaty blogging equivalent of an uproar is -- is the remaking of well-known brands. Some are classics, some were originally released too recently to warrant a remake, and some are foreign films that American studios feel would appeal to audiences more if they starred a handsome American instead of some Asian guy (Oldboy).

As you are well aware, we strive, here at Back Row Critics, to find titles that break the mold and present something new to enjoy. With this brand new section, Mark and I are will watch the original versions of films that are soon to be remade, and decide if a remake is a good idea, from the critic/audience member's perspective. We have already watched a few movies that are in the works as remakes, including The Host and The Raid: Redemption. However, with this new section of reviews, we will not just be reviewing the film, but analyzing its merits and its relevancy, to see if a remake could work.

Abe

Remember when I said we'd be doing some short films and then we only did two? Yea, well, like I said in my introductory post, shorts are damn hard to come by. As it happens, I stumbled upon another one. Five, in fact; but there is only one that I want to bring here. If you want to look at all five, here's the link.

The one I'm bringing to you is called Abe. It is sort of in the same vein as The Gate; creepy futuristic sci-fi that will leave you thinking. If you haven't read any Isaac Asimov, you should probably start. His vision of the future may not be that far off.

Abe is about...well, you should probably just watch it.