Month: March 2022

If I’m being truthful here, I was debating whether or not to bring this up on this blog.  But there are things that need to be said.  As most of you are aware, March 27 was the night of the 94th Academy Awards ceremony.  For those might NOT know, it’s a celebration of the entire film industry and the accomplishments of film-makers and actors alike.  While I generally don’t watch the show, I do pay attention to the results.  Seeing Dune walk away with 6 Academy Awards was awesome.  But everybody in their respective categories did very well.  When comedian Chris Rock got on stage to present the award for a particular documentary, he made a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith’s hair.  Jada Pinkett Smith is Will Smith’s wife, but she also suffers from a condition called alopecia which causes hair loss for women.  Jada’s been dealing with that for a while, so it’s a sensitive issue for her.  But, even though he was caught laughing at the joke, Will Smith walked on stage and slapped Chris Rock across the face.  Returning to his seat, he screamed at Rock to keep his wife’s name out of his fucking mouth.  To Rock’s credit, he maintained his composure and presented the award for best documentary, Summer of Soul.  There’s a lot of things wrong with this.  First off: The optics.  Seeing a 6’3″ black man slap a 5’5″ black, while he was presenting an award for a documentary ABOUT a black man, is shocking.  Not only that, Smith claiming to do it in defense of his wife is incredibly arrogant.  Jada didn’t need Will to defend her like that.  She’s a tough woman, she can handle herself.  Secondly, this was done in front of millions of people around the world.  Everybody saw it happen.  I don’t care what reason Will had to do that, it was wrong on every level.  Yeah, Chris Rock’s joke was bad and in poor taste, but that doesn’t mean he deserved to be assaulted.  Again, to Rock’s credit, he didn’t press charges.  What IS going to happen is that Chris Rock is going to use this incident as a punch line for many stand-up specials to come.  If Will Smith had an issue with Rock’s joke, he should’ve handled it off-camera and behind the scenes.  Finally, this slap overshadowed his own big moment when he won his first Oscar for Best Actor.  It was an incredibly stupid thing for him to do.  But, I do understand where he was coming from.  He let his emotions get the better of him, and to his credit, he did apologize to Chris Rock.  Not on the night he slapped him, but still.

Say what you want about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock, but he rarely does something like that.  Everything that I’ve read about Will Smith says that he’s really an upstanding guy, and this was an isolated incident.  It’s going to have consequences, as it should, but still: I don’t see him making a habit of doing that again.  The other individual that I want to talk about that DOES have a pattern of behavior is Ezra Miller.  For those of you who don’t know who he is, he plays Barry Alan, a.k.a. The Flash in the Justice League movie and the upcoming Flash film, set to be released in 2023.  On Monday, it was reported that Ezra Miller was arrested in a karaoke bar in Hawaii.  The details are that he got drunk and didn’t like the song that was being sung, so he barged on stage and yanked the microphone from the girl’s hands.  When he was criticized by a couple of guys playing darts, he lunged at them issuing threats and other things.  So, the police were called and he was arrested, pending charges.  But wait, it gets worse:  Yesterday, it was revealed that a couple that had bailed him out of jail took him in and he allegedly robbed them, stealing their wallets, passports, and other things that have yet to be returned.  He also threatened to kill them and bury the man’s “slut wife.”  Obviously, substance abuse is an issue here, but it’s not an excuse for what happened.  I mentioned that this was a pattern of behavior, because he pulled this crap before.  Several years, he was accused of choking a woman and throwing her to the ground outside of a bar.  No charges were filed, and Warner Bros. quietly swept the incident under the rug.  Well, THAT move has certainly come back to bite WB in the ass.

The problem here, is that Miller is in two of Warner Bros’ biggest movies: Fantastic Beasts 3 and the upcoming Flash movie.  Nothing can be done about Fanatastic Beasts.  It’s about to be released.  But because The Flash is a year off, there’s been talk of wanting Warner Bros. to recast the role of Barry Alan and reshoot those scenes.  It’s not without precedent as there was a movie where Kevin Spacey got erased from the movie was replaced by the late Christopher Plummer.  But that was on a much smaller scale.  This would be an entire movie, but they have a year, so they could get it done.  Will they do it?  I don’t know, but I’m sure discussions are taking place.  Let’s face it: Ezra Miller’s name is toxic.  There are going to be very few companies that are going want Ezra Miller to be onboard because he is now a liability.  Unless his managers and family stage an intervention on his behalf, he’s going to continue pulling crap like this because he thinks the law doesn’t apply to him.  Here’s the problem, if he pulls this crap against the wrong people, somebody is going to end up dead, possibly Ezra.  I hope he gets the help he needs, I really do, but he’s going to have to want it.

So what’s the difference between Will Smith and Ezra Miller?  Smith has at least owned up to his stupidity and he’s going to take his punishment like a man, as he should.  His career is going to survive “The Slap.”  Ezra’s career?  I don’t know.  I seriously doubt that he’s going to be considered for top billing ever again, and he might be relegated to small indie movies for the rest of his career, however short it may be.  What these situations highlight is that the law is not applied equally across the board, even though it should be.  People in power, whether they are actors, film-makers, politicians, sports figures, what have you, they will never be treated as the same as you and I.  Now, I believe that the majority of actors and film-makers are good, honest, hard-working people, but obviously there are a few bad apples here and there.  I get that these people are human beings.  They’re not perfect.  None of us are.  But their positions should not shield them from the consequences of their actions.  Sadly, the reality is that they often do.  I won’t be bringing this up again, and if you want to find information on these two, just Google them.  It’s pretty much front-page news these days.

Released: December 2021

Director: Steven Spielberg

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 156 Minutes

Genre: Romance/Drama/Musical

Distributor: 20th Century Studios/Disney

Cast:
Ansel Elgort: Tony
Rachel Zegler: Maria
Ariana DeBose: Anita
David Alvarez: Bernardo
Rita Moreno: Valentina
Brian D’Arcy James: Officer Krupke
Mike Faist: Riff

There are many people who would consider Steven Spielberg to be the greatest filmmaker of all time.  It’s really hard to argue with that when you look at his filmography.  From Jaws and E.T. to Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park, Spielberg has one of the most impressive resumes of any director living or dead.  He might not have hundreds of movies as a director, but he’s also a producer.  As a producer, he’s just as impressive.  When you look at what he’s done, his movies have run the gamut of genres from thrillers, science fiction, action, drama, comedy, and horror.  It seems like he’s covered everything.  Or has he?  Not quite.  You see, up until two years ago, there were two genres that he had yet to add to his legacy: Westerns and musicals.  Well, with 2021’s West Side Story, he can add musicals to his repertoire.  So, is West Side Story a remake worth watching?  Uh…yeah.  It really is.  Let’s explore why.

Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of West Side Story is based on the Academy Award-winning 1961 film, which itself was based on the 1957 stage play.  It’s a story that’s been adapted from William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.  For those unfamiliar with Romeo and Juliet and the subsequent West Side Story adaptations, it’s a story of a forbidden romance between two people from opposing groups.  In West Side Story, this romance becomes the focal point in the conflict between rival street gangs: The Jets and the Sharks.  The Jets are of Irish and Polish descent, while the Sharks are Puerto Rican.  This is all set in the late 50s/early 60s New York.  The two people at the center of all this are Tony and Maria.  At a local dance when both the Jets and the Sharks show up, these two spot each other, and the sparks begin to fly.  It’s an amazing story about two people who defy the odds to be with each other, despite what other people think.  There is something enticing about a forbidden romance.  It’s not just about love, but rebellion and defiance of certain norms of what is expected of people of certain backgrounds.  The thing is, this story is not just about Tony and Maria, but also the people around them which includes Anita, Bernardo, Riff, and many others.

The performances in West Side Story are extraordinary.  Rachel Zegler, who plays Maria, simply shines in her first movie.  She gives the character this wide-eyed innocence with a rebellious streak.  Her singing is out of this world.  I was simply not expecting for someone like her to have those kind of pipes.  One of the real standouts of the film is Ariana DeBose as Anita.  She really steals the show, in my opinion.  She’s tough, feisty, and her relationship with Bernardo is one of the best in the movie.  You can’t ignore the guys on the Jets, though.  These guys are fantastic.  Mike Faist plays Riff, the de facto leader of the Jets since Tony was in jail.  He’s sinister at points, but you understand where he’s coming from and Mike just gives him this edge that makes the character unpredictable.  Most of the actors here have a background in singing and dancing, which makes sense as a lot of the side actors have come from Broadway.  Spielberg was really smart in bringing them on board.  It really elevates the film’s theatrical nature.  If there’s something about this movie that I have an issue with, it’s with Ansel Elgort as Tony.  Don’t get me wrong, this guy’s got talent. His singing and dancing are really good, but when he’s required to actually ACT, he doesn’t have it.  I’m not saying he’s awful, but he’s clearly outclassed and outgunned by everybody around him.  To be fair, he had the most difficult role to play as Tony.  He’s supposed to be tough, yet charming, but I didn’t buy it from Elgort.  His performance is incredibly uneven.  Because of that, I didn’t really buy into Tony’s romance with Maria, who upstages him at every turn.  Ansel Elgort is a weak link in what is other-wise an incredible cast.  One thing I should mention: The actress that played Anita in the 1961 film, Rita Moreno plays store owner Valentina, and has a surprisingly decent role.

The fact that Steven Spielberg never made a full-blown musical before is really bizarre.  He’s clearly got a talent for it.  Don’t believe me?  Just go back and watch the opening sequence to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.  It’s spectacular, because Spielberg knows how to find the right talent for what he wants.  Because of that, the new West Side Story is one of the most visually spectacular musicals I’ve ever seen.  The dancing is simply stunning.  The choreography is really on point.  One of my favorite sequences is the ‘America’ song which is incredibly colorful, energetic, and just plain fun.  The use of music here isn’t just for kicks and giggles, it’s here to tell a story.  The “Cool” song sequence where Tony tries to convince Riff not to fight with Bernardo is incredibly intense, but is one of the most beautifully choreographed dances in the film.  The Ball Room dance-off is probably the big highlight of the film in terms of dance numbers.  It’s epic.  That’s really all I can say.  You have to see it to believe it.  The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is…perfect.  We get a good sense of scale of what’s going on, and we can see the dancing and the fighting in all it’s glory.  One thing I will say is that this movie is a bit grittier, especially when it comes to the Rumble.  We don’t see a lot of “dance-fighting” in this movie.  The fighting is handled fairly realistically, so there is an impact with that.

I have give credit to Steven Spielberg for this movie.  It’s one of the best movies of 2021, and it’s not surprising that it’s up for multiple Academy Awards.  Will it get ten Academy Awards like the original movie did?  Honestly, I doubt it, because the movie is up against some serious competition.  I think it might win one or two, but TEN?  Not a chance.  Not with movies like Dune, Being The Ricardos, King Richard, and Belfast being in play.  It certainly deserves the nominations that it got, and I hope it wins something.  Now that Steven Spielberg has a musical under his belt, I would love to see him tackle an actual Western.  He’d be really good at it.  I want to see that and him making a Star Wars movie, because why not?  He’s clearly capable of doing anything and everything under the sun.  So, is West Side Story worth seeing?  Absolutely.  Whether your a fan of the 1961 film or a newcomer to this kinds of movies in general, West Side Story is a remarkable movie.  Easily and highly recommended.

Released: October 1968, October 1990

Director: George A. Romero(1968), Tom Savini(1990)

Rating: Not Rated(1968), R(1990)

Run Time: 95 Minutes(1968), 88 Minutes(1990)

Distributor: Criterion Collection(1968), Sony Pictures(1990)

Genre: Horror

Cast(1968/1990):
Duane Jones/Tony Todd: Ben
Judith O’Dea/Patricia Tallman: Barbara
Karl Hardman/Tom Towles: Harry Cooper
Marilyn Eastman/McKee Anderson: Helen Cooper
Keith Wayne/William Butler: Tom
Judith Ridley/Katie Finneran: Judy

When it comes to classic horror movies, most people tend to refer to the 1920s and 30s for the classics, and they’re not wrong.  Dracula, The Wolfman, The Mummy, The Invisible Man.  These are all classics in every sense of the word.  How do you define a classic?  Is it because of its age or when it was made?  Not necessarily.  To me, a classic film is a movie that stands the test of time regardless of when it was made and released.  The aforementioned monster movies still hold up incredibly well after nearly a century.  It speaks volumes about the craftsmanship and passion of those earlier film-makers that those movies are part of modern pop culture.  When somebody asks about a classic ZOMBIE movie, that’s a little different.  Most people would refer to either the original Night of the Living Dead or it’s follow-up film, Dawn of the Dead.  Both are directed by the late and great George A. Romero.  These aren’t the first zombie movies.  That goes to White Zombie which was released in 1932 and dealt with voodoo.  No, the zombies that most people are familiar with come from Romero’s movies.  Today’s review is a bit of a double-feature.  I will be reviewing both the original 1968 black-and-white Night of the Living Dead and the first remake of the film in 1990.

“They’re coming to get you, Barbara.”  These infamous words are spoken by Barbara’s brother, Johnny at the beginning of each film.  Johnny and Barbara are at a cemetery to pay respects to their father.  In the 1990 film, it’s their mother.  As Johnny begins to taunt Barbara, a lone figure stumbles into the cemetery and attacks Barbara.  Johnny is ultimately killed by this stumbling “person.”  Escaping with her life, Barbara makes her way to an abandoned farmhouse for cover.  A black man named Ben eventually shows up to find cover as well.  Trapped in the farmhouse, the pair discover other survivors and try to survive the night and hope to escape to safety.  The story for both films is essentially the same: A group of people isolated in a lone farmhouse against an onslaught of the undead.  The original film, which was released in 1968, had the “benefit” of being released during such a tumultuous time.  This was at the height of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, so what you see in this movie could be interpreted as heavy-handed American cynicism and nihilism about what was happening both politically and socially.  You could take the meaning of this movie as a form of “forced assimilation.”  Or, you could see the undead as mindless citizens grasping onto whatever political or religious reasoning to give them sustenance.  I don’t think there’s a wrong interpretation here.  The movie has a lot more impact because of the subtext.  The 1990 remake doesn’t have nearly as much to say, but that’s not really a fault of the movie.  Again, the Tom Savini-directed film was released in 1990.  Ultimately, while the story is very similar in many respects, it plays out a bit differently, and some people aren’t okay with it.  They very much prefer the bleak nihilism of the original, and that’s I prefer too, but I won’t dismiss the 1990 film for doing something a little different, even if it doesn’t always work.

Let’s talk about casting here, because that’s another important thing to talk about when it comes to Night of the Living Dead.  The original film featured Duane Jones as the first African-American man as the lead in a horror movie.  He wasn’t hired because of that, but because Jones was the best actor for the part, but the effect that Jones’ casting had on movies in general couldn’t be understated.  Duane Jones did such a fantastic job that it was hard to follow-up, but Tony Todd did a great as well.  Todd, who would go on to play the titular character in the film, Candyman, was mesmerizing.  Judith O’Dea plays Barbara in the 1968 movie.  The character was kind of hard to connect with because she was catatonic for a good chunk of the movie.  Unfortunately, women weren’t really allowed to be more than window dressing in horror movies at the time.  Patricia Tallman plays the character a bit differently.  In fact, the character was written differently in the 1990 remake because of the advances that women had made as leads in movies.  Sigourney Weaver from Alien pretty much paved the way for Ms. Tallman’s portrayal in Night of the Living Dead.  Her version of Barbara is tougher, but still vulnerable in certain ways, but she more than handles herself in the situation.  Karl Hardman and Tom Towles play Harry Cooper, a despicable and cowardly character that eventually gets what’s coming to him.  The casting was pretty good in both films, but there is a bit of a role reversal in the 1990 remake.  That may not sit well with die-hard fans of the original film, but for 1990, it kind of works.

As far as effects go, I would have to say that the original 1968 film is a bit more visceral than the remake.  First off, the movie was shot in black-and-white which adds a whole new layer of dread to what’s going on.  There’s more gore in the original film, but because the film was in black-and-white, Romero got away with it.  It’s not the goriest film I’ve ever seen, but there is definitely some blood-and-guts going on here.  While most movies tend to use corn syrup for blood, Romero and company used chocolate syrup in some cases because of their shoe-string budget.  Because of the black-and-white aesthetic, you really couldn’t tell the difference.  The downside?  The make-up on the zombies was pretty minimal, resulting in them having to move slow in order to get across the fact that they were the dead that came back to life.  The 1990 film has better make-up design on the zombies, but some of the gorier moments were forced out because of the MPAA(now MPA).  Yet, there were still some gruesome moments that would please the fans.  Tom Savini, who is an effects artist himself, felt that less was more.  That’s weird coming from HIM because he’s responsible for some of the most ghoulish effects in horror movies.  In fact, he also runs his own Special Make-up Effects Program at the Douglas Education Center in Pennsylvania.  The 1990 remake was his directorial debut and it’s not that bad.

Which movie do I prefer?  The answer, unfortunately, is rather easy.  The original 1968 movie gets my vote.  This was a revolutionary kind of movie for 1968, and it came out during a particularly rough time in America, which added to the film’s impact and social commentary.  It was also made on a shoe-string budget.  You could tell by the lack of make-up effects and sets.  Yet, that is one of the main reasons why the film has done so well over the years.  The 1990 film doesn’t have that.  It doesn’t have that real indie-level feel of the original and lacks the social and political subtext that made Romero’s movie so powerful.  It has a lot to do with timing.  The 1990 movie has some commentary, but it’s not as poignant.  That’s not to say that the remake is a bad movie.  Far from it.  As a remake, it’s definitely one of the better ones out there, even though it doesn’t come close to some of the remakes of the 80s.  It’s definitely a lot more polished than the original film with better make-up effects and a different conclusion.  For a first-time director: Tom Savini did pretty good here.  Tony Todd is always fun to watch and Patricia Tallman was pretty good.  Sadly, the 1990 film wouldn’t be the ONLY remake of Night of the Living Dead.  It was the first, but there have been several since…and the less said, the better.

I think there’s definitely room for both the 1968 Night of the Living Dead AND the 1990 remake.  While the original is an absolute classic, the remake is pretty good in its own right, and I would recommend people check out both if they’re curious.  As someone who is normally NOT a fan of zombie movies, Night of the Living Dead is the bar by which all other zombie movies are measured.

In the decade since Disney bought Lucasfilm and Star Wars from George Lucas at the tune of 4 BILLION DOLLARS, they’ve put out a lot of Star Wars content.  We got an entirely new trilogy that was supposed to cap off the Skywalker story.  We got two spin-off movies: Rogue One and Solo.  Disney Plus has put out two seasons of The Mandalorian and one season of The Book of Boba Fett.  They’ve got a lot more planned.  I’m not bringing the video games into this because Disney is not directly responsible for those.  Well, the teaser trailer for the upcoming Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi series has dropped.  And…I’m not impressed.  I’ll explain why in a bit, but let me tell you what IS going for this new show, though.  First of all: Ewan McGregor has returned as the legendary Jedi Knight.  He was absolutely the best part of the Prequel Trilogy, which I’ve always had an affinity for, despite the trilogy’s glaring problems.  Secondly: Hayden Christiansen is returning as Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker.  Say what you will about Hayden’s performance in Episodes II and III, his turn as the newly-minted Dark Lord was pretty good.  I like the look of Obi-Wan and the world here.  Deborah Chow, who directed the best episodes of The Mandalorian, is directing this entire show.  THAT’S awesome.

Here’s the problem, though.  Disney’s handling of Star Wars has been abysmal.  As someone who is very forgiving as a Star Wars fan, I’ve been less than impressed with what they’ve been here.  Truth be told, I do enjoy the sequel trilogy, especially The Force Awakens, but The Last Jedi proved that there was no plan in place for how this trilogy was going to unfold, and Rise of Skywalker cemented that idea in reality as the worst Star Wars movie since Attack of the Clones.  It hurts the most because it was supposed to be the culmination of the entire Skywalker story-line.  Well, the fan reception to Episode VIII forced a course correction which ruined the final movie.  The ideas in Episode VIII were jettisoned almost entirely to please the fan-base.  But by doing so, they pissed off the fans even more.  Rogue One was outstanding, but even that movie was mired by behind-the-scenes issues.  Solo was a middling affair surrounding the franchise’s favorite rogue, Han Solo.  It bombed at the box office, forcing Disney to rethink their strategy for Star Wars.  The Book of Boba Fett took one of the most infamous bounty hunters in all of Star Wars and turned him into an incompetent fool.

That brings me back to Obi-Wan Kenobi.  This trailer is NOTHING but blatant fan service.  Is it going to get people’s attention?  Absolutely.  That’s what it was designed to do.  But the real big issue here, is that we already know where the character ultimately ends up, so that’s going to rob the series of any form of tension.  Am I curious to see what Ben Kenobi’s been up to after Revenge of the Sith?  Sure, but in a six-episode limited series?  Is that going to be enough time to tell a really compelling story?  Unless each episode is going to be an hour-long, I seriously doubt it.  Honestly, as vast as the Star Wars universe is, why are we retreading old territory?  Why aren’t we exploring brand new characters and events that aren’t related to what’s come before.  Is it really that difficult?  Look, do I want Obi-Wan Kenobi to fail?  Absolutely not.  This is one of my favorite characters in the entire franchise.  I want this show to be good.  I want it to succeed.  But my experience with what Disney has done with the IP leaves me with very little faith that they won’t screw this up.  I will go on record saying that I have enjoyed the sequel movies and Rogue One in particular, but these movies are NOTHING compared to the Original Trilogy, and I really enjoyed The Mandalorian.  But, I just can’t get excited for this.  I’m not going to trash-talk people who are.  If you’re excited about this, great.  That’s awesome.  I wish I was.  I’m willing to give it a shot.  The show is set to debut on May 25 of this year, which also marks the 45th anniversary of the original film, which was written and directed by George Lucas.  This show could go either way, but this trailer really did nothing for me.