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.

Only God Forgives

I'm a movie critic. And not even a professional one. I do this because I like movies and have seen a lot of them. If you asked me to make a movie, I'd probably make a pretty shitty one. Knowing what goes into a good movie does not qualify me to make my own, just as knowing what goes into a delicious meal does not enable me to cook one. There's a critic for just about everything. I know art when I see it, though I can't always say what's significant about it and whether or not it has any value. Or, for that matter, who it has value to.

This is a review for Only God Forgives. Mark and I have been looking forward to this one pretty much since it was announced. It is Nicolas Winding Refn's first film following Drive, and also happens to star Ryan Gosling. It is our consensus that Drive was pretty damn good, so we had high expectations going into this one.

I'm going to make this review short and sweet, because the more I think about this movie, the more frustrated I get. Take a good look at that poster up there. Get a feel for the colors. It's trippy, it's different, it's cool. Now watch this trailer for the movie:

Pretty badass. More humorless, ass-kicking Gosling. That's a plus. An intense and formidable bad guy. Check. A stylish and exotic backdrop. Got it. But before you find yourself dishing out money at the box office, let me just say that whatever movie you put together in your mind after looking at that poster and watching that trailer...it's better than Only God Forgives. The poster tells you everything you need to know about the style; every visual is draped in dark neon colors. And Ryan Gosling is essentially his character from Drive; he just kind of stands there until it's time to beat something to death.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that he does very little death beating this time around. After his psycho brother does some psycho things for some psycho reasons that are never revealed, and gets himself killed, Gosling's character Julian is tasked by his mother to find and eliminate his killer. As you can imagine, things pretty much go straight downhill from there.

When going into a film directed by Refn, it is best to leave your expectations at the ticket booth. His films seem to dance on the border between fantasy and reality, structured storytelling and lucid stream of consciousness; Bronson and Drive are relatively straightforward, albeit very odd, but Valhalla Rising just baffles me. And it's with the latter that I would pair Only God Forgives. The pacing of this movie is all over the place; we'll get a chase scene through the dark, neon streets of Bangkok followed by six minutes of Gosling staring at a stripper and sort of touching himself. We are never really told who is who, or why things are happening. I inadvertently found myself pretending that Gosling's Julian was the same character from Drive, in the events following his flee from Los Angeles. At least that way I felt compelled to see his story through to the end.

If this movie is a puzzle to be sorted and pieced together before the big beautiful picture can be taken in, then I think maybe some of the pieces are upside down, and maybe others have been chewed on by the dog. My point is, I just can't seem to wrap my mind around what this film is about and what it's telling me.

That bit I wrote in the beginning about art and criticism is my disclaimer. Everyone has their breaking point when it comes to tolerating and even appreciating artistic film-making. Mark and I have walked this line in the past, on movies like Holy Motors and Brick. For me, Only God Forgives was just too far out there. Every film is a work of art. But the thing about art is that it rarely has mass appeal, and it usually baffles people. I can't say this film is a masterpiece, and I can't say it's shit. Maybe that's for other critics and filmmakers to decide. But for the (possibly above) average moviegoer, such as myself, it was not very enjoyable.

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

Feel free to comment with your interpretation of the film, or just what you thought of it. Unfortunately, not being in wide release, I doubt many people are going to see this one until it comes out on Netflix or something. At any rate, I would love to know if anyone else got more out of it than I did.

Sonatine

So it’s taken me awhile to get back into doing solo reviews.  It’s not my fault, it’s HBOGO’s and Netflix’s fault.  Here I am, trying to get back into The Wire so Dylan will stop sending me death threats, and I “accidently” start The Walking Dead.  And then I noticed Rome and you can’t say no to that.  Ever.  So needless to say, the threats haven’t stopped.  But coming out of my zombie and oddly British Roman haze, I realized I had to do something.

So thought you might like a review on something new.  Well I thought about that and then I noticed that that Kitano film sitting in my que on Netflix, and it looked so lonely.  So for now, I’m continuing my incredibly slow moving campaign of reviewing his films.  My first one, Outrage, was one of his recent films, so now I’m going all the way back to the pre-enlightened age of 1993 to bring you one of his earliest and successful films.

Netfilx: I already answered this

Viewer: Maniac McMark

Greatest. Tagline. Ever.

So, much like Outrage, Kitano brings us into the life of an aged Yakuza who has been living this life for quite a while.  And quite successfully, as we hear from his bosses.  And yet, that is the biggest problem.  Not for the film, but for the story.  Aniki Murakawa, Kitano’s character, has been doing so well controlling his clan and his territory, that it’s become the jewel of the Yakuza.  And the big boss wants it for himself.  But you can’t just off one of your best men, oh no, that would cause too many problems.  So obviously the sensible thing to do is send him and his men to deal with the rising tensions between two smaller clans, The Nakamatsu and Anan, in Okinawa.  But unlike most gangster films, Murakawa doesn’t just agree and walk blindly into an obvious trap.  He’s too old for this shit and knows right off the bat that this is probably a plot to kill him.  But without evidence, though not without trying to get some, he has to go with his men.  And against type again, things go swimmingly for him and his men.

Are you kidding?  Of course not.  And after a slow start, we see the violence that Kitano is famous for; quick, brutal and joyless.  No build up, no musical cue that things are about to go sideways, just a sudden burst of bullets and blood.  Unlike most films, the violence in his films is never glorified, it looks as painful as it would be in real life.

Though, in a way I always find strange with his films, no one moves when the bullets let fly.  Apparently this is no time for dramatics or diving into cover, this isn’t John Woo film.  No, they stand stock still with stoic faces, firing until one side is dead.  it’s just so strange from what we’re used to in films, what with no action but shooting and absolutely no joy to be had in the moment for us or them.  I always find his stark depiction of the yakuza life refreshing from most crime films.  And in this film, after the violence blows over, we’re left with only a handful of members, and surprisingly a lot of time left.  And this is when things become interesting, in a very bizarre kind of way.

As Murakawa and his men wait in hiding for the violence to subside, we watch as they become more at ease with everything.  They’re at the seaside, they’re playing games, Murakawa is playing tricks on people, and everything feels fine.  It’s like were made to see that these are men of violence, but only violent when they have to be.  Other than that, they are no different from you or me.  Kitano is trying to show us this, but it’s such a sudden left turn from what the movie had been, that it takes awhile to get used to it.  I won’t say it wasn’t fun watching the two younger guys play “shoot the can off my head with live rounds” and throw friendly insults at each other, but the films comes to a crawl during these parts.  Basically it’s a time for the older characters to share some wisdom, usually through incredibly weird and tense ways.  And yet, as we get used to this seemingly out of place second act, the violence comes roaring back, and as the third act comes to a close, we’ve witnessed more violence and bloodshed than you’d ever think would happen in this.

It’s a subversive Yakuza film; it’s not here to satiate your need for violence, but it gives you that violence anyway but a lesson along for the ride.  That these are all people, with thoughts and personalities.  And sometimes circumstances arise that force us to be violent, for “justice” or self preservation.  It’s not for everyone, what with the whole suddenly turning into a trip to the beach with the yakuza family in the middle.  And it is slow, lingering on shots of character just standing and staring.  It looks beautiful, which helps to make those scenes bearable.  It’s the story of an old man of violence and wisdom whose organization, that he’s given so much too, now sees him doing more for them dead than alive.  And he completely disagrees.  He just might get distracted by fun in the sun before getting around to them though.