RESEARCH
Film as a medium has gone through numerous shifts and changes to its components, the discussions after viewing a film naturally lead to word-of-mouth reviews and are still a popular part of the experience. The influence of reviews, especially online, has created an entirely new way we approach the topic. Whereas before the Internet age, a relative thumbs-up-or-down approach was taken to discussing the quality of a film, old media dominated the landscape with magazines such as Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair discussing at length production details and giving reviews, or, with a few pages dedicated to television shows and films at the back of your general entertainment magazine.
In the modern age; information must be instantaneous: whether it is calling an Uber for a ride or having food delivered, streaming information or entertainment from YouTube, researching through Wikipedia with heavily cited articles for reliability, checking product and experience reviews especially in comment sections; this is where film sites such as IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes dominate.
IMDB utilises reviews from the sites user base who also create watch lists and the site categorises and labels films for easy access and archival, there is far more personal a touch because of the discussions and debate on the site. The word-of-mouth component that was previously seen is pushed to the forefront. Simultaneously, this is its greatest strength and limitation because of the ability to interact. To be able to discuss cinema intimately is a valuable asset but this impulse leads to blatant biases around certain films; hysteria around the significance of and or irreverence towards certain titles. The debates can get heated and the interactive element can get bogged down in streams of inane or offensive comments.
Rotten Tomatoes is a professional film review aggregator and has a user element in place but predominantly functions from authoritative figures or outlets. Established outlets such as Shotgun Cinema, Screen Rant or Empire, for example, contribute their reviews fresh from a companies embargo. In previous years the site has become infamous with figures such as popular director Brett Ratner, known for classics like Rush Hour (1998) and X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) saying that Rotten Tomatoes has irreparably damaged the film business (Hudson, 2017). The site compiles all the most high-profile reviews and gives a weighted score, film companies predominantly use weekly box office numbers above DVD sales as a measure of success, to see which franchises and star vehicles are most popular so they can plan for future releases. In previous decades word-of-mouth reviews still allowed a level of leeway for filmmakers but with the level of trust placed on the review site in contemporary times and it’s rising popularity, numerous film releases have tanked because of negative reviews before they could find a viewership.
There are many names in the industry such as Roger Ebert, Bob ‘Moviebob’ Chipman, Jeremy Jahns and Comic Book Girl 19 just to name a few. Reviewers come in all shapes and sizes and obviously have their own preferences but in the films which I focus on, I will contrast my thoughts alongside another reviewer, specifically with the purpose of improving a different aspect of my writing. Jeremy Jahns introduces comedy to his discussions and writing, Bob Chipman has a rich knowledge of film history and his capacity to heavily reference is a valuable trait I would wish to implement in my own writing. Roger Ebert has lengthy genre deconstructions and focuses on the stylistic elements in a film, I want to deconstruct the action genre, in the same manner, he approaches his reviews. Comic Book Girl 19 introduces fandom and alternative perspectives by discussing feminist themes in her reviews.
References:
Hudson, J. (2017, March 23). Director Brett Ratner: Rotten Tomatoes is destroying the film industry. Breitbart. Retrieved April 15, 2017 from http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/03/23/diretor-brett-ratner-rotten-tomatoes-is-destroying-hollywood/
===========================================================================
Review 1 – Dirty Harry
Dirty Harry is a 1971 action thriller film, it is the first entry in the Dirty Harry series and is directed by Don Siegel. Clint Eastwood plays the titular character and is a San Francisco Police Department inspector seeking out a violent criminal: the location, profession and characteristics of the serial-killer are all inspired by the real-life ‘Zodiac’ murders which engulfed the bay area during the period (Bergara, 2016). The film was a commercial and critical success; paving the way for many of the tropes that are still seen in police procedurals today. Harry ‘Dirty Harry’ Callahan is a hot-headed cop with a mercurial temperament, strong sense of self-reliance and quiet confidence. He is infamous throughout his precinct for his no-nonsense approach and garnered respect because of his decisiveness. The film was chosen in 2012 by the American National Film Registry by the Library of Congress to be preserved for its historical and artistic significance (Library of Congress, 2012). The impact of the film on future action franchises such as Die Hard and Predator can not be overstated.
Roger Ebert’s (1971) review is filled with political discourse and at one point he even uses the word fascist to describe the plot machinations because of the circumstances Harry confronts and how he handles himself. Which I didn’t like because it unnecessarily politicises the proceedings, regardless of the framing of the narrative, although, some would argue that the real-life nature of the Zodiac murders creates a platform for this criticism. He sees the film as not a celebration of action cinema but more importantly a statement about America; government overreach and vigilance. That ultimately the piece is captivating but that there are divisive political ramifications when discussing the law-enforcement procedures. Conduct and The Bill of Rights are discussed as a way of commenting on law-enforcement abuses and the brutality in which Harry engages with criminals. Ebert clearly views the way the narrative is framed as odious because the very lawless aspect that is enjoyed and sought out as an empowerment fantasy by the average viewer is not a behaviour that he sees as something to be encouraged amongst officers, a barbed criticism. Harry’s vigilante status and apparent exemption from certain facets of accountability because it is all for ‘the greater good’. He asserts the notion of art, or cinema, in this case, being a mirror of reality; a way to look in on ourselves and our culture and create discussions about these realities. Don’t shoot the messenger as I’m sure Eastwood would rebuke.
References:
Library of Congress. (2012). 2012 National Film Registry picks in a league of their own. Retrieved May 8, 2017 from https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-12-226/
Ebert, R. (1971). Dirty Harry movie review. Retrieved May 8, 2017 from http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-harry-1971
Bergara, R. (2016, June 26). The horrifying murders of the Zodiac killer. Buzzfeed. Retrieved May 8, 2017 from https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanbergara/these-guys-went-to-the-murder-sites-of-the-infamous-zodiac-k?utm_term=.nxL7nNo5Qz#.jgbde3Wj01
============================================================================
Review 2 – The Road Warrior
Mad Max: The Road Warrior is a 1981 post-apocalyptic action film which was directed by icon George Miller; the film is a follow-up to the original Mad Max (1979). This is the film that made Mel Gibson into a household name. The first film focused on a police officer who because of the slaughter of his family, loses his sanity and takes the law into his own hands, I’m sure you’re beginning to see a theme here. After the last film, in which he had his tranquil life interrupted by marauders dead-set on taking him apart, he kills them only to disappear into the perilous desert, which is actually Austrailia, but I digress, he leaves to find himself; seeking to manifest any sense of his humanity again. He becomes unconsciously feral in his absence from any human interaction and adapts entirely to his environment, riding endlessly into the abyss for the thrills looking for purpose and in the tradition of The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell (2008) his journey finds him. There is a settler colony with vast amounts of oil; a valuable resource in the desert, obviously, and although he is at first apathetic to their prostrations for his assistance; they are constantly hunted by violent bandits and are capable but severely underprepared to handle the situation. In an ode to Campbell, Max’s raw self-preservation and self-loathing pushes him to disqualify peoples’ sentimentality or their attempts to connect with him because of the emotional scarring he has. He is flawed and human, much like Harry, seeking justice in an uncaring world. And just like Harry, we rejoice in their righteous vengeance, this response to lawlessness is still a staple in the modern-day and comes from this framework. Max is most importantly humanised; he takes the reigns and helps defend the colony in high-flying, mind-bending spectacle as all the practical car effects take precedent and they sweep around the desert.
Ebert (1981) focuses on the film’s pure spectacle and I can’t blame him what-so-ever because it is designed to eviscerate your eyeballs. He scoffs at the dystopian setting and the notion of bandits who act like thugs, mafia members, kamikaze fighters, rogue samurai etc. as a mishmash of tropes that they represent across a number of narratives and how Max is essentially the ‘cowboy’. The ludicrousness of some of the film’s set-pieces is a sight to behold and are a thorough focus of Ebert’s review. He recognises that the camp is intentional and notes as anyone who has sat down to watch the film, that there is barely any dialogue. George Miller was still a budding film-maker at this point in his career and props, costumes and vehicles were all expensive parts of his project; the budget he was given led to compromises such as extras (biker gang members) being paid in beer or that the props were stacked together from scraps from the sets of movie studios (Robinson, 2015). He gives the film high praise comparing some of its chase sequences in style to notable titles such as Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) which arrived that same year. In my mind it is a staple and should be in the collection of any serious film fan; let alone action film fan because, before the age of CGI, everything was executed for real.
References:
Ebert, R. (1981). The road warrior movie review.Retrieved May 17, 2017 from http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mad-max-2–the-road-warrior-1981
Robinson, J. (2015, May 15). 8 reasons why mad max is the most improbable franchise of all time. Retrieved May 17, 2017 from http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/mad-max-history
============================================================================
Review 3 – Aliens
Aliens is a 1986 action-horror film that is a seminal part of its era; changing the game entirely. Much like The Road Warrior, it is a very popular sequel as will become a running theme throughout my reviews. The initial film much like in the Mad Max series was a well-received entry and established an original universe for us to delve into and become attached to. The Mad Max films kept the same genre of action throughout their creation, but Aliens saw a very important shift and by extension change of direction. Ridley Scott was a well-established director by the time he shot Alien (1979) and it was a science-fiction horror film, with psycho-sexual elements in the plot and a creature designed to utterly unnerve the audience. Aliens, on the other hand, saw a complete tonal shift when being placed into the hands of the infinitely capable James Cameron; who took what was already a solid foundation and asked himself the most important question in filmmaking: what would they want to see? Then delivers it. We saw politics in the form of the Bill of Rights as a plot point being questioned by Ebert in his Dirty Harry Review; in the same vain the Western world was encouraging progressive politics; changing the climate of what was possible. The radical societal shifts feminism led, created characters such as Ellen Ripley who embody what it means to be a strong woman (Kearns, 2011). Comic Book Girl 19 who I discuss below has mentioned the film as a classic, but I will be focussing on feminist themes then as opposed to in contemporary times to contrast against this film. The film definitely passes the Bechdel Test (2016) which is a feminist measure of whether women in a film interact at any substantial length about anything other than a man, I definitely feel the bar is set quite low in that regard but the stereotypes attached to women in cinema before Aliens only make the point more poignant.
Jeremy Jahns like I encountered the film during our formative years and we both agree that there is nothing quite like Aliens. The first film had a vicious entity that was spawned in a space station with the unfortunate crew becoming appetisers. The new film takes us directly to the Aliens home planet, and our immediate concern is that Cameron has overshot because of the degree in which he has raised the stakes, but he impeccably manages the proceedings. The visceral action, much like in The Road Warrior, is a spectacle that is glorious to behold, playing out all of the hypothetical situations you would wish to see that involve Xenomorphs (the film’s creatures) as a menacing and inescapable antagonist.
The universe is well-defined, the character motivations make sense, the interactions are interesting because the dialogue is well-written, in short, it just works. Ripley has since become an iconic figure because she up-ends the cowboy tradition we come from, Cameron does not pander, the fact she is female is an integral part of who she is but she is defined by what she does not her gender. She is literally the lead but more importantly, she is fearless and displays powerful LEADership qualities; which essentially culminate in her commanding a group of soldiers because of her superior tactical skills. Like Jahns, I am always left quoting the famous lines, doing a Bill Paxton impression, wailing about how the world is ending and we’re done for.
References:
Kearns, M. (2011, October 28). EllenRipley feminist film icon battles horrifying aliens and patriarchy. Retrieved May 26, 2016 from http://www.btchflcks.com/2011/10/ellen-ripley-a-feminist-film-icon-battles-horrifying-aliens-and-patriarchy.html#.WSHxe9wlFdg
===========================================================================
Review 4 – The Matrix
The Matrix is a 1999 science-fiction action film, now, the previous films I have focused on have followed tradition and the last one was essentially a feminist genre deconstruction. Directed by the Wachowski’s – The Matrix once again blew away our expectations and defied what we considered possible, inserting: philosophy, metaphysics and spirituality as themes (Chalmers, 2003). With a bit of Hong Kong action cinema stunt work for good measure. Dirty Harry and The Road Warrior are unapologetic, meat and potatoes films, oozing in machismo and although there is a shift in the scenario from lawless city to stateless desert, the mythology of the badass is swift and unironic. With Ripley defying gender role expectations for women in cinema, earning the respect of her peers and directing them, Neo is a very different kind of hero from the other variations we’ve seen. The circumstances thrust on the unwitting hero are almost always unpalatable vis-a-vis Max, mimicking the hero’s journey seen in the monomyths of yesteryear as I highlighted earlier when discussing Joseph Campbell; the hero is often unwieldy at first but faces their fears and grow as we the audience do; being inspired by their courage. Action films have always been a metaphor for overcoming adversity, watching heroes fight their battles enlivens us. The Matrix introduces the same dystopian setting as we’ve seen many times before but with destiny as a precept for the whole discussion. What if it could not be defined, avoided or derided, that you can’t escape what you have coming to you, that it is inevitable.
Neo is a man that feels at odds with his reality and Jahns famously lampoons this notion by performing skits throughout his review of the iconic bullet-dodging scenes. Cracking the ridiculous one-liners that whilst sat beside a lot of ‘new age wisdom’ still strike the right balance, with hilariously dead-pan delivery courtesy of lead Keanu Reeves. The relationships Neo forms and his understanding of the lie that his reality is is a reference to the loneliness we encounter in our day to day lives, that our routines can have us ultimately lose sight of ourselves. Raising the idea of ignorance as bliss in what has now come to be known as the famous Red Pill scene. The narrative embraces the notion of nihilism as a precursor to the dystopia that is the universe in the Matrix; that the decadence that we lived upon was ultimately our undoing. Spirituality and religious themes are raised in the idea of us returning to Zion which is the name of the final human city containing the last remnants of civilisation; as our last solace and where all things end. The new age angle was not appealing when I was younger but as I grew I came to appreciate the meta-narrative the Wachowski’s installed in the story. Jahns focuses primarily on the spectacle as you would expect and I am right there with him! The film has a number of ridiculous fight scenes with brutal, cracking, crisp punches and kicks that will leave you saying ‘Damn! I would not want to be that bastard’. Japanese Samurai films dominated the genre in the 80s followed by Hong Kong action films as the staple in the 90s. The styles of choreography are clear and present in The Matrix, it has now become a cliche in the modern day but back then… It was ground-breaking; you have to excuse me for watching with my jaw wide open as a teen.
References:
Chalmers, David. “The Matrix as metaphysics.” Science Fiction and Philosophy From Time Travel to Superintelligence 36 (2003).
============================================================================
Review 5 – The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight is a 2008 superhero action film based on DC Comics property Batman. The 2000s had brought a bevvy of superheroes to our screens from X-Men (2000), Spider-Man (2002), The Fantastic Four (2005) and of course Batman Begins (2005). Christian Bale dominates here as you would expect, encompassing the dual personas of Bruce Wayne and Batman; silly voice as the Dark Knight notwithstanding. The superhero mythology fits very neatly onto the spectacular action set-pieces that would be seen in future years with films such as Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014). Most action films have a specific template, they often are an explosion of lights and colour, have moralistic yet inoffensive characters so they can appeal to a vast range of ages, but The Dark Knight took an entirely different approach and an up and coming director named Christopher Nolan had been making his way through the industry ever since his masterpiece Momento (2000). He had helmed Batman Begins which was a critical and financial success in the years prior but with his next film, he would much like the other genre-defying films on this list, revolutionise the medium and energise the genre with new blood and fresh ideas. Coining a term in the midst of the shift called ‘Nolanising‘ because of the manner in which Nolan’s Batman universe is so uniquely designed (Blair, 2015). Superheroes had always been relatively omnipotent figures which narratively function as powered-up extensions of the hero archetypes I discussed above, the vigilante element is still obviously at play, we’re talking about Batman here, but a novel idea was generated: bringing superheroes back down to reality. Which in subsequent years can be seen in the popularity of street level superhero television series’ such as Daredevil (2015) or Luke Cage (2016), chronicling battles against crime waves that wouldn’t be world ending. Adding a pseudo-realistic style and Shakespearean plot dynamics into the mix, it essentially becomes a parable.
Moviebob, like I, was in awe of the amount of thought that had been placed into this interpretation of Batman, with all the nuances and the level of skill displayed in translating everything into a realistic context; it was all fascinating to watch. The characters are all unique, layered and expansive, you often anticipate watching their reactions because you instantly see how their character manifests in their values, actions and worldview, which makes the interactions palpable. The world building is immense, Gotham feels like a lived-in city. Health Ledger won a posthumous Academy Award for best-supporting actor for this film, really, it’s that good.
References:
Blair, A. (2016, April 25). Christopher Nolan and his impact on comic book movies. Retrieved May 27, 2017 from http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/christopher-nolan/40161/christopher-nolan-and-his-impact-on-comic-book-movies
==========================================================================
Review 6 – Fury
Fury is a 2014 action-war film and a throwback to a bygone era; reminiscent of films such as Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Platoon (1986) in terms of style, needless to say, the film is richly textured and atmospheric. Patriotism in the modern day is perceived as quite quaint, albeit, an artefact of a distant time where jingoism pervaded much of our culture. Even in the contemporary age, especially when honouring fallen soldiers, war is effectively glorified because of the grit and righteous nature of the sacrifices. Fury, by contrast, reminds us of a fundamental reality we have forgotten in our privileged position of safety from the ongoing conflicts in the world and what we see and hear in the media, through popular culture and in entertainment; war is not glorious, war is hell. The film is composed of a tightly-knit tank crew led by Brad Pitt as Don “Wardaddy” Collier, Shia Labeouf as Boyd “Bible” Swan, Jon Bernthal as Grady “Coon-ass” Travis, Michael Pena as Trini “Gordo” Garcia and with newcomer Logan Lerman as Norman “Machine” Ellison – the greenie (new to war). Wardaddy utters the film’s most iconic line and the advertisers have the quote etched throughout ‘ideals are peaceful, history is violent’. This sentiment is in every frame.
The film follows a smart and impressionable young man as he gets acquainted with a tank crew who have a very rugged ‘honour amongst thieves’ approach. As you would expect the crew takes an instant disliking to him; this is first emphasised as active hostility but it therein serves two purposes; discerning his place in the figurative pecking order as well as to begin to toughen him up because his fear and disengagement with the situation is palpable. As expected Norman has issues and in more than one instance puts the lives of other soldiers in jeopardy because of his inability to act. The leader – Wardaddy, recognises this as a problem and the film effectively becomes a loose retelling of Moby Dick (1956). Through violence, hazing, sexual awakening and essentially embracing his masculinity and vigour, Norman goes through a powerful character arc and earns his title Machine. The father-son dynamic between Don and Norman is at the core of the film, from the ‘stubborn’ old man to the ‘arrogant’ young man; a transition of experience and knowledge takes place. The tank crew is a close team and there is strong allegiance in place; they don’t necessarily always agree, often they fight fiercely but at the core of it, they will die to protect one another. The film is dark and foreboding with sweeping shots and subtle effects, but most importantly the vivid world and character building which makes it essential viewing.
References:
==========================================================================
Review 7 – Fury Road
Finally is 2015 action-epic Mad Max: Fury Road! Now we began by talking about the monomyth of the noble badass, we have seen how progressive social change has been anchored in cinema through titles such as Aliens but with Fury Road – which takes many of these same elements; expands on them and brings them to the forefront. The ridiculous vehicular mayhem that was popular in The Road Warrior is back; the action seen in The Matrix especially as it pertains to digital effects are on glorious display. As noted by Comic Book Girl 19 the feminist themes that were present in Aliens return in another format. Aliens was an action film with badass women in the forms of Vasquez and of course, Ripley, this trope of fearless women returns again. As the times and social climate has gone through more shifts. Feminism as a movement has changed and with this change, the application of critical theory brings third-wave and eco-feminism roaring into cinema. Relaying discourse about the marginalisation of women and ‘patriarchal’ levers being placed into society to keep a male ruling class; with eco-feminism playing a role because of the desecration of the Earth or Mother Nature. Man’s relentless use of resources and capitalistic endeavours; how this longing destroys the environment.
The film drops us right back into the desolate deserts of the Mad Max universe, shot in Namibia this time. Throughout the series there have been different forces that have caused the environment or humanity as a whole to disintegrate, in The Road Warrior, for example, it was the need for oil as it was an invaluable commodity; in Fury Road there is a lack of water and the masses are suffering and dying without its presence. Max, eternally drifts through the desert fighting traumatic memories of past sagas and is captured by a group of bandits led by a patriarch named Immortan Joe. His general, Imperator Furiosa played by Charlize Theron is a fearless leader who has attempted to undermine his rule by taking women from his harem of sex slaves, he seeks to father children with these women but with his egomaniacal reputation and destruction of the environment, he can never be given an opportunity to bare a legacy. Furiosa leads the other women much like Ripley did with her soldiers and although the film highlights Max’s name; for all intents and purposes you could be forgiven for thinking it’s her film. They balance each other out and as mentioned earlier the ideologically feminist themes are interwoven into the universe and are not merely window-dressing (Smith, 2015). The film is simplistic in terms of its plot but it understands exactly what it is and what function it serves. Excelling at relieving the thrills you came for, with characters that will keep pulling you back to this universe.
References:
Smith, K. (2015, May 14). Why mad max fury road is the feminist picture of the year. New York Post. Retrieved June 7th, 2017 from
http://nypost.com/2015/05/14/why-mad-max-fury-road-is-the-feminist-picture-of-the-year
Adil's iReflect 