"Superman" 40 Years of Believing a Man Can Fly

Richard Donner's Superman was released 40 years ago and it's arguably the greatest superhero film of all time. It's certainly the one to which all subsequent superhero films are most indebted; not just because it was the first large-scale superhero film but due to its indelible images, music and performances that left their imprint on audiences' imaginations, including the creators behind future superhero films. One can see Superman's D.N.A in something even as singular as Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man (2002). Christopher Nolan has acknowledged it's influence on his approach to Batman Begins (2005) and Kevin Feige, architect behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has said its the constant reference point for the films. Its casting of major stars Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman also led to the early Batman films utilising big name actors for its villains. I would argue Superman and the original Star Wars- released a year and a half earlier- helped shape movie culture in to what it is today.

Superman (who was created Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) made his original appearance 40 years earlier in Action Comics #1 in 1938, so the film is at the exact mid-point of the character's history. It re-contextualised the character after nearly half a century of stories and defined many peoples' idea of the character since then. Instead of drawing inspiration solely from the comics, Donner used other films and genres as references. The early scenes on Krypton are reminiscent of other 70s sci-fi films, Clark Kent's teenage years feel like something out of Norman Rockwell and John Ford. When Clark gets to Metropolis, the scenes at The Daily Planet invoke His Girl Friday (1940) and Hackman's Lex Luthor is like a Bond villain. 

Donner's versatility as a director remains underappreciated. This is the man who went from The Omen (1976) to Superman, and eventually the Lethal Weapon franchise. He reminds me of Robert Wise, who also had an eclectic career, and Donner's old-school approach was beneficial to the film. Superman needed a classic approach rather than an "auteur's" touch.    

Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather, wrote the screenplay, with Leslie and David Newman, and Robert Benton coming in to do re-writes. It's important to note the screenplays for Superman and Superman II (1980) were written at the same time, with the first movie originally envisioned to end on a cliffhanger. The two films were filmed simultaneously but Donner was fired during work on Superman II. This was due to his poor relationship with the producers, father and son team Alexander and Ilyka Salkind. Richard Lester, director of the Beatles first film, A Hard Day's Night (1964), was brought in to finish Superman II. 

Returning to the screenplay, the film's structure is not a conventional three-act structure. Instead, it's a series of short films that tell an overarching story. The first film is the Krypton prologue. We witness Kal-El's (Clark/Superman's Kryptonian birth-name) father Jor-El sentencing General Zod (Terence Stamp) and his co-conspirators, who planned a coup, to the Phantom Zone. This version of the Phantom Zone, which is like a floating mirror prison, is its most frightening depiction in the Superman mythology.

We've come to accept acclaimed actors appearing in superhero films as a given. However, having Brando play Superman's father was significant casting for its time. It helped lend credibility to the film as a serious production. Production designer John Barry, who won the Oscar for his work on Star Wars,establishes a sterile and cold society which won't listen to Jor-El's reasonable conclusion that  Krypton will explode

I like how the sentencing of the trio to the Phantom Zone leads naturally to the discussion of Krypton's destruction. The Phantom Zone is a "living death" as Trevor Howard's Elder says but, as Jor-El responds, it's at least a chance at life, since everyone on Krypton will die. When baby Kal-El's ship flies through space, it passes by the prisoners. It's a darkly comic moment that thematically connects Kal-El and the other Kryptonians. They're survivors floating through space.

The second film is Clark's ship crash-landing in Smallville. He's discovered and adopted by Martha and Jonathan Kent (Phyllis Thaxter and Glenn Ford). We then flash forward to Clark as a teenager. It's a testament to Ford's performance that in his short screen time he makes him such a warm and likable character, a good man who Clark clearly respects and after which he will model himself. After Jonathan's death of a heart attack Clark discovers the Kryptonian crystal Jor-El stored in his ship and will help him unlock the secrets of his heritage. I think my favourite scene in the whole film is Clark's goodbye to Martha in the field, which invokes John Ford's The Searchers (1956). Thaxter, whose screen time is also short, gives a achingly touching performance. 

After Clark spends some 12 years learning from Jor-El in the Fortress of Solitude, Christopher Reeve finally enters the film as the adult Clark. Some pretty famous actors were considered for the role of Superman, including some odd choices- Nick Nolte, James Caan- and some understandable ones- notably Robert Redford. Reeve was practically an unknown actor at the time but the decision to go with an unknown- as I mentioned in my piece on Romeo & Juliet- allowed the audience to accept Reeve as the character without associating him with other characters he played. Reeve not only looked like the character but he was a strong actor who had screen presence. He also made us believe that people would never suspect bumbling Clark Kent was actually Superman. 

Reeve's portrayal of Superman has a reputation in certain circles as being boring but I feel his performance is charismatic, witty and sexy. He made this character flesh and blood in a way I don't think he'd been before on screen. And yes, he's old fashioned but he has to be so there's a strong contrast between him and the modern world he occupies. Costume designer Yvonne Blake, who died earlier this year, deserves a lot of credit for creating a Superman suit that was simple but iconic, as well as functional.

This is also the rare superhero film where the male is the object of allure rather than the woman. It seems fitting Zack Snyder became the heir to the franchise since he's also fascinated with the masculine body. 

Margot Kidder's performance as Lois Lane is also key to the film's success. She and Reeve have instant chemistry as both Clark and Lois and Superman and Lois. We understand why Clark would be attracted to her and respect her. Clark places himself in a weird love triangle with himself. He has a great night with Lois but then reverts to the Clark Kent persona, seeing Lois still occupied with thoughts of Superman. In a great moment he almost reveals his identity to Lois, changing his posture, taking his glasses off, changing from Clark to Superman and back again seamlessly.

I honestly love Gene Hackman's performance as Lex. I know for many he doesn't match the image they have of the character but his portrayal makes sense in the context of what I mentioned earlier- which he's essentially a Bond villain. And I do think he's true to comic-book Lex's megalomaniacal nature. Hackman is just broad enough with delving in to camp- and the dynamic between him and Superman in their one big scene together is well-defined.  

I will say I don't like the reversal of time ending, which was originally intended for the ending of Superman II (and was restored in the 2006 Richard Donner Cut version of the film) and I think it would've worked better as the conclusion of a two film story. The "Can you read my mind?" voice-over also undermines the flight scene with Lois and Superman.

I realised I talked this long with mentioning John Williams' majestic and triumphant score. I'd say the Superman theme is still the definitive superhero theme, aided by the visually stunning credits sequence. Williams' scores imbue in me a deep sense of nostalgia. The music for the film is whimsical, romantic, and filled with a sense of awe.

The film is dedicated to the film's cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth, who died only a few months before the film's premiere. He photographed Stanley Kubrick 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Roman Polanski's Tess (1979), for which he won a posthumous Oscar, his second after Cabaret (1972). Unsworth creates a distinct look for each world of the film, from Krypton to Smallville, to Metropolis, stressing how the film is largely about the different worlds Clark/Superman inhabit.  

Clark/Superman doesn't have a traditional character arc. The film is more about the world around Superman and its reaction to him, as well as his purpose on Earth, which to inspire the good in people. Superman remains an important pop culture figure because of his innate goodness and the importance of hope in dark times. Superman lives on because it's such a happy and hopeful film, even with its darker moments. Reeve and Kidder are no longer with us but they live on in their performances, which are as timeless as the performances from classic Hollywood. To them, Donner, and the rest, thank you.  

Shakesepeare on Film: "Romeo & Juliet" (1968)

Released 50 years ago, Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet can appear old-fashioned to modern day eyes but it was a departure from previous Shakespeare adaptations in several ways. One, it wasn't star-driven as was usually the case with Shakespearean adaptations. 1935's A Midsummer Night's Dream (dir. Max Reinhart) featured James Cagney, Olivia de Havilland and Mickey Rooney, among others. 1953's Julius Caesar (dir. Joseph Mankiewicz) had Marlon Brando playing against type as Mark Antony. And we can't forget Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles' films, which were  showcases for their talents as filmmakers and actors.    

Zeffrielli forego typical star casting and went with largely unknown actors: Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, who at 16 and 17, respectively, were much closer to the actual age of Shakespeare's star-crossed lovers than Leslie Howard, 43, and Norma Shearer, 34, were in George Cukor's 1936 film. After Olivier and Welles' personality driven films there's something significantly more humble about Hussey and Whiting's performances. And even the supporting characters are played by actors who weren't huge stars. This was an early role for Michael York, who plays Tybalt; he had previously been in Zeffirelli's film adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew, released one year previously, and which did feature two big stars in Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. York would go on to star in Cabaret (1972) and Logan's Run (1973).

What also set Zeffirelli's film apart was the rawer sense of realism. Gone was the British storybook quality of Olivier's Henry V (1944) and Richard III (1955), and Welles' impressionism, replaced with an authentic Verona. There's a distinctly Italian feel to the film that separates it from both the previous Hollywood and British adaptations.  

While Hussey and Whiting had previous acting experience, these where their first major leading roles Having unknown actors gets rid of any association with any previous roles and allows the audience to just see Hussey and Whiting as the characters/. It also helps they truly feel like they've walked off from the page. We can't know what image Shakespeare had in mind when he was writing these characters, but it wouldn't be surprising if they looked like Hussey and Whiting. They give naturalistic performances whilst not losing the poetry of Shakespeare's language. 

Let's talk about the balcony, scene, perhaps the greatest love scene in Western literature, and how Zeffirelli stages it. He isolates Romeo and Juliet throughout the early parts of the scene, never having them in the same shot, waiting until later when Romeo climbs up a tree to bring them together in a shot. At the beginning of the scene we see Juliet through a shot of Romeo's POV. And even when the shots aren't strictly POV, we're kept at a distance from Juliet.

We get medium close-ups on Romeo's face during this section, which adds to our association with Romeo's perspective. We're eventually put in Juliet's perspective when we get POV and high angle shots of Romeo. Zeffirelli ends the scene perfectly, with Juliet on the balcony in the left hand corner of the shot and Romeo on the ground in the right hand corner. They're together emotionally but not yet married and still having to part from each other.  

I also love how the duel between Tybalt and Mercutio  (John McEnery), which leads to Mercutio's death. The fight starts out as "fun and games-"with McEnery's performance encapsulating Mercutio's volatile jokester quality- until Mercutio is stabbed  by Tybalt. Romeo and the other Montagues and Capulets don't realize Mercutio has been fatally wounded, which underlines how despite the Montagues and Capulets constantly fighting, the idea of someone being killed as a result hasn't occurred to the anyone. There's a real intensity to the fight between Romeo and Tybalt, accentuated by Reginald Mills's editing. Mills was Oscar-nominated for his work on Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger's The Red Shoes (1948), and also edited several of their other films, including 

A Matter of Life and Death (1946), and Black Narcissus (1947).

The film was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture, and won two, for Pasqualino De Santis' lush cinematography and  Danilo Dontali's costume design, which contrasts the two families. Dontali would win a second Oscar for Federico Fellini's Casanova (1976).

Nino Rota's score was un-nominated but contributes vastly to the film's romantic power- the love theme being of the film's most recognizable aspects.

Zeffirelli crafted what's arguably the definitive version of this story of woe, capturing two impossibly beautiful actors playing two people whose love probably couldn't last, who almost did need to die for their love to remain pure. Friar Laurence believed Romeo and Juliet's marriage would bring together the Montagues and Capulets but it's ultimately their death which stops the violence. It's this cruel irony that proves Friar Laurence correct in a sense- but at a great and tragic cost.  

The Boogeyman: "Halloween"

Mild Spoilers Below

What's most impressive about the Halloween franchise is its status as a franchise at all. John Carpenter's original 1978 film was so simple and mystique-indrenched; the idea of making sequels was counter-intuitive. Halloween's ending is so haunting in its implication evil never dies, that Michael Myers presence will always be felt by families of his victims. Despite the film's supernatural undertones regarding Michael the film feels grounded in everyday reality. And there's no explanation as to why Michael killed his sister Judith and the other babysitters, with only Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) surviving. The last image of Laurie in the film is her crying after being saved at the last moment by Michael's doctor, Doctor Loomis (Donald Pleasance), who shoots him out a window (and then sees Michael's body has disappeared) Laurie has survived but she's been scarred by the horrific murders Michael committed.

The latest chapter in the franchise, simply called Halloween, takes this final shot of Laurie and asks how this night would've affected her 40 years on. The film cleans the slate, asking us to ignore everything post the original film, nixing the twist that Laurie and Michael are half-siblings. and gets back to the more grounded reality of the original, with Michael being caught that night and locked up for 40 years. Laurie is still traumatized by her encounter with Michael, which has complicated her relationship with her daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak). I'll admit I was surprised when it was announced the film would be a direct sequel to the original, with the franchise's major twist being gone. But now I do think it was a smart choice to ignore the sequels and just tell a story about the the legacy of trauma on a family.

I will say, I'm mixed on the overall film. I feel there's some good and even great stuff but the film feels like it should've been better given the pedigree. This feels a little too much like just another Halloween sequel. However, I think it's a good horror film and with some distance from expectations and a re-watch down the line, the film will likely come across a little bit better.  

We're introduced to both Michael and Laurie through the perspective of two British journalists/podcasters, Dana Haines (Rhian Rees) and Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) who are investigating Michael and Laurie. The introductory scenes with Michael and Laurie are bookends to the main credits; The film parallels victim and victimizer in several ways. The first is how neither gives the two any information. Michael doesn't speak even when Aaron shows him his mask. Laurie, while she does speak to Aaron and Dana, doesn't offer any "fresh insights" or  sympathy towards Michael. Aaron and Dana want to be objective but Laurie doesn't believe Michael is someone who should be understood. 

The other way in which Laurie and Michael are paralleled is they're both prisoners. Michael is in jail  whereas Laurie has made herself a prisoner of her trauma and anger, locking herself in her house, equipped with a security system and basement full of weaponry. We learn Laurie trained Karen from a young age to defend herself. I couldn't help but be reminded of Sarah Conner, who prepared her son for the robot apocalypse. Except in this case, the situation is more realistic- Karen isn't the only hope for mankind, just another person who- in Laurie's mind- could fall prey to the horrors of the world. Karen tells Laurie in one scene that the world is a wonderful place, which a little naive and I'm not Karen entirely believes it. 

While Laurie may have been too extreme a mother, she has a point that the world isn't safe. Laurie knows firsthand that your normal way of life can veer off in to a nightmare. The film does appear to want to have it both ways: to show Laurie as someone who wasn't a fit mother while still arguing the value of her teachings. Because of Michael, Laurie's relationship to her child was irrevocably changed. And we eventually learn that Karen has taken in her mother's lessons and his her mother's daughter.

Allyson is caught between her mother and grandmother, an unwilling observer to that relationship. Laurie comes to Allyson's school to give her the money Aaron and Dana gave her for the interview. Laurie is the grandmother who'd like to have more of a relationship with her granddaughter but the rift between her and Karen makes it difficult.

The film urges us to ask the question one of its characters puts forward: Is what Laurie went through comparable to the other horrors of the world?; but we have to understand what happened to Laurie would always be a part of her. Laurie hopes Michael does eventually escape so she can kill him. Maybe if she kills him, she can finally be at peace. Thankfully the film doesn't offer an easy answer but does suggest only through shared hardship can the Strode women truly heal their wounds. 

On the night he's being transferred to a new facility, the bus he's on crashes. There's a subplot involving the "new Loomis" Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) and his fascination with the relationship between Laurie and Michael. While the brother/sister connection is gone the film still is curious about the metaphysical connection between the two, how Michael was affected by the murders he committed and not killing Laurie. This subplot could've been developed a little more. His eventual motives and plan remain vague even by film's end.

I think the film would've been better if it just focused on the three Strode women instead of the teenage stuff, though I could've watched a whole movie with Vicky (Virginia Gardner) and the kid she babysits, Julian (Jibrail Nantambu). That kid was a hoot and Gardner makes Vicky in to a genuinely likable young woman. Matichak's reaction while confronting he boyfriend Cameron (Dylan Arnold) is also surprisingly authentic. However, the teenage stuff in the original was used to contrast with Michael's presence throughout but here it all feels like a distraction from the more appealing story involving Laurie, who sometimes drifts in to the film's background. 

Curtis is honestly great here, bringing a lot to the film beyond what's just in the script. The scene where's she waiting in her car outside of the facility from where Michael is being transferred displays Laurie's torment from what happened all those years ago and Curtis really sells it. Laurie could've just stayed home but she needed to see him, to drink in that pain and anger.

Greer remains a wildly underused actress, though she gets a great moment near the end which is one of the best payoffs I've seen in a horror movie in some time. Again, I wish we spent more time with Laurie and Karen, since it's supposed to be the emotional core of the film. For me, their relationship didn't affect me as deeply as I would've desired. 

I realize I've talked this much without mentioning the film's director, David Gordon Green. Green has had a peculiar career, starting out as indie auteur whose films George Washington, All The Real Girls and Undertow earned him comparisons to Terrence Malick. He then moved on to directing the stoner comedies Pineapple Express and Your Highness before returning to indie dramas, including last year's Oscar hopeful Stronger with Jake Gyllenhaal. Green clearly doesn't wish to pinned down and directing a direct sequel to a horror classic is another indication of this desire. Green equips himself pretty well to the horror genre; the opening sequence/cut to credits was enough to get me hyped for the rest of the film and the bathroom sequence is another standout. Gordon homages Carpenter without feeling like he's aping him too much. Speaking of Carpenter, he returned to score the film along with his son Cody Carpenter. And it's a strong composition, with "Halloween Triumphant" being a standout. 

Returning to what I said before, Halloween is a good horror which will definitely benefit from some distance from the expectations inherent to a film of this kind.. The film's strong performances and fine craftsmanship make this a respectable sequel, though I think could've been even deeper and more haunting.

Looking forward to Oscars 2019

I have a love/hate relationship with the Oscars, or more specifically a love/disappointed relationship, where I always hope for a more exciting Oscar race but have to settle in for a lot of foregone conclusions, particularly in the acting race. I find this time, early in the Oscar season, to be the most interesting and exciting. where there are still wild cards and still a guessing game around who's going to make in to the top five. I wanted to give my overview what I think is going on in the major categories. So, let's start with the big prize, Best Picture.

Best Picture

The two films poised to battle it out for Best Picture appear to be Bradley Cooper's directorial debut, A Star is Born, the latest version of this story- the last being the 1976 film starring Kris Kristofferson and Barbara Streisand- and Damien Chazelle's follow up to La La Land, First Man, the true life story of Neil Armstrong's journey to the moon. I sense people will be either team A Star is Born or team First Man. I feel First Man is getting stronger reviews but A Star is Born may end up doing what La La Land notoriously almost/kind of did, win Best Picture.

On the less traditional side of things, Yorgas Lanthimos' films have been too odd to find their way in to the Best Picture race (though he was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for The Lobster), his latest film, The Favourite, which sounds like a combination of Barry Lyndon and All About Eve, has the potential to be his first Best Picture nominee. The film takes place in the 18th Century and concerns the rivalry between Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) and servant Abigail (Emma Stone) over Queen Anne's (Olivia Coleman) favouritism.

Alfonso Cuaron's latest film Roma has received rave reviews and is being called his most personal work to date. If it were to be nominated it'd be the first film on Netflix to garner a Best Picture nomination.

Steve McQueen's Widows sounds like a more mainstream and traditionally entertaining film than we've come to expect from the director, albeit one with a social conscious akin to his previous work. With comparisons to The Departed and the Ocean's movies, this could make it in to the race.

Barry Jenkins' follow-up to his Best Picture winner Moonlight is If Beale Street Could Talk, based on James Baldwin's novel. The film is getting glowing reviews, with Jenkins being commended for translating Baldwin's prose to cinema. Furthermore, it's being called another sensitive and beautiful love story from the director.

Beautiful Boy, based on the true story of a father facing the reality of his son's drug addiction is getting mixed reviews, with most of the praise going towards Steve Carell and Timothee Chalamet's performances. However, the relatability of the subject matter could push it in to the Best Picture line-up.

The other ''Boy'' movie this year is Boy Erased. It's also based on a true story, about a 19 year boy outed to his parents as gay and sent to conversion therapy. The film is getting strong reviews and is actor Joel Edgerton's follow up to The Gift. Thankfully he's not going through a sophomore slump.

Backseat, a comedy-drama biopic about former Vice-President Dick Cheney is still a wild card with no trailer and a late December release date. Adam McKay directed it and while it could be another The Big Short (for which McKay was nominated for Best Director), it also could be another W. (Oliver Stone's George W. Bush biopic.)

Then there's the question of Black Panther. I'd argue The Dark Knight is still the closest we've gotten to a superhero film nominated for Best Picture and it'd probably get nominated if it came out this year. While horror, sci-fi and fantasy have been nominated and even won Best Picture the superhero genre still hasn't broken through, though it's been rewarded in other areas- most significantly, Heath Ledger's posthumous win for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Black Panther is already seen as a game-changer since it's a  predominantly black superhero film; it's cultural impact will certainly be an advantage.

Best Director

Bradley Cooper could join Robert Redford and Kevin Costner as actors who've won Best Director for their a directorial debuts. Damien Chazelle could also wind up as the young two-time Best Director winner but voters may not want to give him so much so soon.

Alfonso Cuaron could Ang Lee himself in to another two-time Best Director winner without the film for which he's nominated winning Best Picture, which would mean four of the six past winners would be the same two men. Alejandro G. Inarritu won back to back Oscars for Birdman and The Revenant, with Cuaron winning for Gravity just before him.

Even if Yorgas Lanthimos gets in, I don't the Academy is itching to give him an Oscar. Barry Jenkins or Steve McQueen could become the first Black director to win the Oscar. And Ryan Coogler can't be underestimated either for Black Panther. 

Joel Edgerton could be a surprise inclusion for Boy Erased though the screenplay and performances will likely get most of the attention.

Best Actress

Lady Gaga appears to be the front-runner at this point for A Star is Born, playing a role which also garnered Judy Garland an Oscar. The fact Gaga will likely also be nominated for Best Original Song could lead academy members to vote for her in that category instead. If Glenn Close gets nominated for The Wife, it'll be her 7th career nomination and fourth for Best Actress. She's arguably the most overdue actress in Hollywood; even if she's the film's only nomination- like Julianne Moore in Still Alice- the good will towards her and overdue narrative could finally snag her the prize.

It appears Coleman will go lead for The Favourite. If Gaga and Close split, Coleman could come up the middle and win. 

Yalitza Aparicio is getting tons of praise for her performance in Roma. She's a pre-school teacher who was discovered by Cuaron for this film. She'll perhaps end up taking the exciting newcomer slot in the Best Actress race.

Melissa McCarthy is also in contention for her dramatic-comic performance as real life literary document forger Lee Israel in Can You Ever Forgive Me? McCarthy was nominated in Best Supporting Actress for her breakthrough performance in Bridesmaids and is due to make a return for an against type performance.

Julia Roberts is building up buzz as the mother of a drug addict attempting to stay clean in Ben is Back, though the mixed reaction to the film may hurt her chances.

Nicole Kidman's performance in Destroyer- as a LAPD detective who is dealing with a past case that still haunts her- sounds like the kind of transformative performance which garners Oscar nominations and this probably the case where the performance is the film.

I have Felicity Jones in On the Basis of Sex, the Ruth Bader Ginsberg biopic, outside the top five. I have a feeling the film may not be that good and Jones appears to be miscast.

Best Actor

Cooper has been nominated twice in this category and once in Supporting Actor. His performance in A Star in Born is said to be his best. And having such a big hand in bringing this film to the big screen- directing the film and writing his own songs- could help him win this category. The Academy clearly likes him and it feels he'll walk away with something come Oscar night.

Ryan Gosling is also looking at his third Best Actor nomination for playing Neil Armstrong in First Man. While Claire Foy has gotten most of the acting praise as Janet Armstrong, as with La La Land, the love for the film could carry him to a nomination.

Willem Dafoe, who was an early front runner in Best Supporting Actor for The Florida Project last year- before Sam Rockwell gained momentum- could be receiving his first Best Actor nomination and fourth overall nomination as Vincent Van Gogh in At Eternity's Gate. I see Dafoe ending up as the overdue actor in this category, and sentiment left over from last year will also help.

Christian Bale playing Dick Cheney is the type of performance the Academy still leans toward (see Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour), though a movie about Cheney is a tough sell.

Jason Reitman's The Frontrunner, starring Hugh Jackman as Gary Hart, the senator caught in a sex scandal during the 1988 Presidential Election, has received mostly lukewarm reviews, with most praise given to Jackman. This feels more like a Golden Globe/possibly SAG nominee than a Oscar-nominated one.

Steve Carell stands a chance of getting his second Best Actor nominee for playing the father of a drug addict in Beautiful Boy. A very different kind of role than his previous nominated turn in Foxcatcher, the film sounds like it's using Carell's every-man likability to good use.

Best Supporting Actress

Foy is perhaps the Alicia Vikander of this year, the one to beat for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Janet Armstrong. Emma Stone is probably her closest challenger if she campaigns in this category and not lead. However, will the Academy want to give her a second Oscar so soon? I feel she'll end up like Jennifer Lawrence in American Hustle the year after she won Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook. If Amy Adams-playing Lynne Cheney- gets a nomination, she'll either ride the overdue wave or have to wait another year for an Oscar. Regina King is getting great reviews for her performance in If Beale Street Could Talk. I think the veteran actress is on her way to her first nomination.

Elizabeth Debicki is said to be a standout in Widows so look out for her possibly getting her first nomination as well.

Nicole Kidman could see herself returning to his category for Boy Erased, two years after getting nominated for Lion. 

It sounds like Rachel Weisz may be the one the of the trio from The Favorite without a nomination but I wouldn't count her out completely.

Best Supporting Actor

Likable veteran actor Sam Elliot has never been nominated but that could change with his role in A Star is Born. This category likes to honour veterans and I could see him winning, given this feels like less competitive category this year.

Timothee Chalmet is still perhaps too young to win but his performance in Beautiful Boy could make him another Timothy Hutton.

Get Out's Daniel Kaluuya has gotten comparisons to Javier Bardem's portrayal of Anton Chigurh for his performance in Widows, which has gotten me even more excited to see the film; though, like Debicki, we'll have how Widows fares as the race goes on.

Richard E. Grant is said to have great chemistry with McCarthy in Can You Ever Forgive Me?, and he's already considered a likely nomination, along with Ben Foster in Leave No Trace.

Best Original Screenplay

I'd love to see Boots Riley get nominated for his truly original and bizarre Sorry to Bother You. The Lobster was nominated in this category, so I can't see why this can't.

Speaking of The Lobster, The Favourite may end up being the favourite to win in this category. A Best Picture nominee is often honoured in at least one of the screenplay categories a Best Picture nominee. Cuaron could also win here for his Roma screenplay.

Eighth Grade is one of the year's best reviewed films and this category is its best shot at a nomination.

Best Adapted Screenplay

First Man could win here, especially given it was written by Josh Singer, who won Best Original Screenplay for Spotlight. Jenkins could also win his second in this category for If Beale Street Could Talk. But if the love for A Star is Born is strong this may be another category it takes in a sweep.

Writer/director Nicole Holofcener has never been nominated for an Oscar; winning for her Can You Ever Forgive Me? screenplay could be the upset that's actually not that upsetting.

Best Cinematography

If Cuaron were to win in this category for Roma, it'd be the first black and white film to win since Schindler's List.

Linus Sandgren is going for his second nomination and win after La La Land with First Man. Robbie Ryan, who has been working since the early 90s, is looking at his first nomination and possible win for The Favourite. 

James Laxton, who photographed Moonlight, will again be facing off against Sandgren for If Beale Street Could Talk.

And of course, A Star is Born will also be contending in this category. Matthew Libatique hasn't been nominated since Black Swan. It'll be a welcome return and he might end up winning.

Other Categories

Best Film Editing:
First Man
A Star is Born
If Beale Street Could Talk
Roma
The Favourite

Best Costume Design:
The Favorite
Black Panther
Mary Poppins Returns
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald
Mary Queen of Scots

Best Sound Mixing/Editing:
First Man
A Star is Born
Black Panther
Solo: A Star Wars Story
Ready Player One

Best Score:
First Man
The Favourite
If Beale Street Could Talk

Best Visual Effects:
First Man
Ready Player One
Aquaman
Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom
Solo: A Star Wars Story

Best Make-up/Hairstyling:
Black Panther
The Favourite
Mary Poppins Returns
Colette
Mary Queen of Scots

Best Production Design:
Black Panther
The Favourite
Mary Poppins Returns
First Man
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald

So, those are my thoughts on how the race is shaping up. Though of course it's still in the race. So, what are your thoughts on the Oscar race. Comment below and let me know.

The Tragedy of Harvey Dent: ''The Dark Knight'' at 10

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is one of those before/after films; it changed how people viewed the superhero/comic-book movie sub-genre. While I'll be the first to admit I feel it perhaps gets put too high on a pedestal, I can't deny what an absorbing and affecting experience it was back in 2008 when it first premiered. It certainly connected to people apart from just featuring a popular character. It wasn't even the first Batman film ever made or the first Batman film of the modern era- it was the sequel to Nolan's previous Batman Begins (2005). But there was something about it, emotionally, thematically that made it one of the most successful films of the decade, both critically and financially. That it featured actor Heath Ledger's final completed performance played a part but I would argue it was also tthe film was something most summer blockbusters weren't and still aren't- it was an epic tragedy- the tragedy of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart)- his transformation from idealistic lawyer to revenge-fuelled killer. While tragedy is inherent to many superheroes and even their nemeses, The Dark Knight isn't about the birth of a super-villain. Two-Face is not a beginning in Nolan's universe but an end. As a result of Batman (Christian Bale) saving Jim Gordon's (Gary Oldman) young son from Dent, Dent is pushed to his death. This Two-Face isn't going to be robbing banks or teaming up with the Riddler. He's dead and the survivors have to deal with what to do next.

Nolan made a smart choice in structuring the film around Dent's downfall. Another film would have j had Dent in a supporting role, setting him up to be Two-Face in the sequel, which I think people presumed was the route the filmmakers were going. But Nolan decided to make Dent the main focus of the film, with his transformation being a product of the  Joker's machinations. Nolan's approach to the character was influenced by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's The Long Halloween, which served as a Two-Face origin story and- like The Dark Knight- is a crime epic.

Bruce Wayne/Batman and Dent are paralleled throughout the film, with Gordon referring to Dent as ''Gotham's White Knight'' in contrast to Batman being the titular ''Dark Knight.'' Bruce believes Dent is the future of Gotham and Batman's presence will soon be irrelevant. He cleaned up the city without wearing a mask or working outside the law. But Dent has a dark and violent side, which we see when he's interrogating Thomas Schiff (David Dastmalchian), who works with the Joker, putting a gun to his head. Batman says everything Dent has accomplished would be undone if people knew Dent was threatening a suspect. All his convictions would be thrown out. Batman can exist outside the law but Dent has to work within its boundaries. If Batman is Bruce channelling his inner rage for good, the Dent we see in this scene as Two-Face, is the manifestation of all Dent's worst attributes. Batman is a mask that Bruce can hide behind but Dent doesn't have that luxury.

Throughout his trilogy Nolan always attempted to contexualize Batman in a semi-realistic world and ask what his role would be in a modern urban society. Bruce feeling he can soon quit being Batman reflects how a real-wold Batman would view himself. The way comics are designed, Batman is always perpetually a man in his late thirties, with a seemingly endless crusade against crime. Comic characters never really end but in the context of this universe Batman is only a short-term solution. There's no Justice League or threat of alien invasions, there's no Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy. Bruce won't be a young man forever. Even Dent says Batman can't fight crime the rest of his life. Bruce puts his faith in Dent and the idea of law and order without the presence of a masked vigilante. Bruce also wants a future with childhood friend with whom he fell in love, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Batman Begins' Katie Holmes.), who is now dating Dent.

This optimistic future is thrown in disarray due to the Joker's presence, who operates outside the rules of conventional criminality, someone who can't be taken down by conventional means. What I love about the film is how it connects the Joker and Dent in a way I don't think was ever done in the comics. The standard Two-Face origin has mobster Sal Maroni (played in this film by Eric Roberts) throw acid in Dent's face, disfiguring him. While the film makes a nods towards that origin, it made sense to alter the origin to make Dent's transformation the logical extension of Joker's philosophy, which is that everyone is corruptible. After the Joker is successfully captured, Dent and Rachel are kidnapped by the crooked cops on Gordon's squad, strapped to explosives in separate locations. They're allowed to talk to each other, a very cruel touch. Joker tells Batman where they're both located but tricks Batman in to going to Dent's location, thinking it's Rachel's. Batman saves Dent but the police are too late to save Rachel.

This altered origin functions as another parallel of Dent and Batman. Dent was helpless to save Rachel just as Bruce was helpless to save his parents from being murdered when he was a child. The difference is that Bruce created Batman as a means using tragedy and fear to do good. Dent, on the other hand, gives in to despair and rage, seeking revenge against those who wronged him. In Batman Begins, Bruce also started out wanting revenge against his parents' killer, Joe Chill. He even had a gun and was ready to kill him until Chill was killed because he testified against a mob boss. It was actually Rachel who made Bruce reconsider his motivations. Now it's her death that sends Dent on his path of vengeance

I'm reminded of Alan Moore's graphic novel The Killing Joke, in which the Joker says one bad day is enough to make anyone exactly like him. In that story the Joker shoots Barbara Gordon, paralizing her. He uses this horrific act to push her father Commissioner Gordon in to insanity. I'd put forward The Dark Knight is The Killing Joke on a larger scale, with the soul of Gotham at the verge of complete anarchy.

It makes sense in the context of this universe that Joker would be the creator of Two-Face. This isn't a universe where super-villains pop up separate from each other;  Dent's fate had to be a result of the Joker. Joker and Dent only share one scene together in the hospital. It's where Joker converts Dent to his philosophy of chaos. It was revealed earlier Dent's coin was two-headed. Dent made his own luck. Rachel had it when she died, resulting in it becoming scarred. When Dent first wakes up in the hospital he sees the coin and believes briefly Rachel could still be alive. It's seeing the scarred side which makes Dent realize Rachel is truly gone. This is the true birth of Two-Face.

Dent understands he can't control things. Despite his good intentions, he lost everything. Chance and fate have more power over your life than a rigged coin. To Harvey the coin represents how he views the world now, driven by chance and chaos. But as Batman says, Rachel's death wasn't chance. It was a result of Batman, Dent and Gordon's actions together. But Dent asks why he lost everything, not understanding Batman is Bruce. Dent believes it's only fair one of the Gordons should die.

However, Dent is still the one pulling the trigger. He has the choice not too but doesn't take it, which leads to his death. But Batman doesn't lose his faith in what Harvey represented or he was. He turns Dent's scarred face over to the good side. He decides to take the fall for Dent's crimes. This to me is the logical extension of the real world Batman idea. If Batman was not to retire (which he does in The Dark Knight Rises) he would to be something more complicated and ambiguous than a hero, super or otherwise. A man like Dent's reputation would supersede Batman's. The film says Batman can never be Dent, despite his good intentions.

Dent lived to see himself to become the villain but what he represented is worth preserving. Dent became a crucial part of Nolan's Batman mythology and I'd argue a more significant than he is in the comics. Eckhart gives an underrated performance, working overtime to give Dent's downfall a Shakespearean grandeur while still grounding his performance in reality. The tragedy of Harvey Dent is why I believe- beyond just Ledger's performance- The Dark Knight is one of the- if not most admired superhero film of all time.

P.S. I still don't know how he got that burnt jacket but I can forgive it.

Some thoughts on ''RoboCop Returns'' and other recently announced films

It was recently announced that another RoboCop film-entitled RoboCop Returns- is in development with Neil Blomkamp attached to direct. What intrigues me about this announcement is it's not another remake or re-imagining but a direct sequel to the original, essentially ignoring RoboCop 2 and 3, and based on a story by the writers of the original film, Edward Nuemeier  and Michael Miner. Nuemeier and Miner wrote a script for RoboCop 2, which was never used. Justin Rhodes- who wrote the new Terminator film in production- will be writing the screenplay 

I know for many Blomkamp is a director who made one good movie (District 9) and hasn't made anything worthwhile since. I agree Blomkamp hasn't completely lived up to his promise; both Elysium and Chappie partly felt like attempts to replicate District 9's success. However, I do believe he's a talented director and working from another writer's script may be beneficial. Also, Blomkamp is somewhat of a spiritual heir to Paul Verhoeven who directed the original. Like Verhoeven Blompkamp blends social commentary and gory violence, though with all together different aesthetic. 

This isn't the first time a franchise film has ignored previous sequels. Superman Returns acted as alternate Superman 3 to the first two Christopher Reeve films; the upcoming Halloween (with Jamie Lee Curtis returning) is ignoring everything post John Carpenter's original, nixing the brother-sister twist regarding Michael Myers and Laurie. Funnily enough, Blomkamp wanted to make a follow-up to Aliens with Sigourney Weaver, disregarding David Fincher's controversial Alien 3. I was worried that Blomkamp just wanted to do Aliens again, even though I still want Weaver to come back for another film. Ideally, RoboCop Returns won't just be Blomkamp remaking the original but expanding upon its themes- similar to Blade Runner 2049.

. 

I'll freely admit I'm more of a fan of the DCEU than the MCU, despite the behind the scenes problems and reshuffling constantly going on at Warner Bros. I'm also one of those people who want to see Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League, despite having fun with the theatrically released version. With that said, it's a little odd to be getting two Joker movies, one with the already established Jared Leto version from Suicide Squad and an origin film set a different continuity, starring Joaquin Phoenix and directed by Todd Phillips, with Martin Scorsese on board as a producer. But I do like that DC is further distancing itself from the MCU, with movies set in alternate continuities, which reflects DC Comics history.

While I was excited for Leto's performance in Suicide Squad I  was a little disappointed in the depiction of the character, though in a better written and realized film I think he can be great. I love Phoenix as an actor, and I've always have since seeing in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs back in 2002. I think he's a perfect fit for the Joker. 

The problem I have is this film is to be a Joker origin story. I feel the Joker works best without a origin story. It differentiates him from Batman's other villains and super villains in general. The Joker isn't defined by a tragic past or any psychological motivation, which makes him the complete opposite of Batman, who is all about having a tragic past and psychological motivations. Batman wants to control the chaos of his mind and the world, while the Joker is an "agent of chaos," as Heath Ledger's Joker proclaimed himself in The Dark Knight. And a big part of what made Ledger's Joker great is the character's ambiguous nature. Were any of the stories he told true, were some aspects true, can he not even remember? In Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel The Killing Joke the Joker says he prefers his backstory to be "multiple choice," casting doubt on the backstory we're given in the story.  

I'm also not excited about Phillips directing. though I see how his background in directing gritty comedies about masculinity does fit. It's just I'd be more enthusiastic if someone like Fincher or Denis Villenueve was behind the camera.

Almost a decade later, a sequel to Zombieland has been officially announced, with the original cast members (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin) all returning, as well as original director Ruben Fleischer. I don't know exactly what you do with a sequel to this property. I really liked the original when I first saw it but it essentially was a re-worked TV pilot made in to a movie. Certainly, Eisenberg and Stone are bigger names than they were in 2009. Back then he was probably still seen as the ''poor man's Michael Cera'' and she was still the ''girl from Superbad.'' It'll be weird seeing them back in these parts, particularly Stone who to me always comes across as just being Emma Stone. Given the gap in time between movies, especially in regards to Breslin- I assume this movie will be ten years post the original, so I'd be kind of interested in what the world of the original looks like now. Maybe civilization has rebuilt itself though the charm of the original came from it being a four-hander. I think it's best to not incorporate too many new characters. Keep it simple. 

So, what are your thoughts on these upcoming projects? Comment below and let me know.

The Essential Films: Touch of Evil (1958): 60 Years Later

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me.

Orson Welles' Touch of Evil (1958)  begins with a literal ticking bomb and ends with a man whose time has run out. Like other noirs it's inherently tragic and fatalistic. The making of the film would end sadly as well, with Welles losing control over the film. His rough cut was re-edited and re-shot by Universal. After Welles viewed the re-edited version, he was prompted to write a 58 page memo outlining what he wanted changed. His notes were ignored and it wasn't until 1998, 13 years after Welles' death, that a restored version, based on Welles' notes, edited by the legendary Walter Mursch and produced by Rick Schmidlin, was released. There can never be a true "Director's Cut" of Touch of Evil, since Welles' rough edit is lost, but the restored version is likely the closest to Welles' original vision. And admittedly it's the only version I've seen- the one on which this essay is based.

The film begins with what is heralded as one of the greatest tracking shots in cinema history. A bomb is placed in the trunk of American businessman Rudy Linnekar (Jeffrey Green) . The camera follows the car and drives though a Mexican border town, while also introducing us to Mexican narcotics officer Miguel "Mike" Vargas (Charlton Heston) and his wife Susie (Janet Leigh) on their honeymoon. When Linnekar and his girlfriend Zita (Jo Lansing) drive across the border of the United States, the car blows up. Since the bomb was planted on the Mexican side of the border Vargas has to postpone his Honeymoon and join the investigation with the American police. 

Captain Hank Quinlan (Welles) arrives on the scene and is antagonistic towards Vargas, establishing the racial tension that's a prominent theme throughout the film. The encounter between Vargas and Quinlan is paralleled with Susie's encounter with Joe Grandi (Akim Tamiroff), the brother of a drug dealer whom Vargas put in prison. Despite being married to a Mexican man, I couldn't help but feel she harbours some prejudice against certain Mexican people. She calls one of Grandi's nephews "Pancho" and Grandi himself "Little Caesar." The film does portray its Mexican villains very broadly but to be fair the motel nightman (Dennis Weaver) appears later isn't exactly subtle either. And Quinlan is another theatrical Wellesian character. The film ultimately walks a fine line between being about racism but also having troubling aspects of its time period- the largest one being Heston in brown face. Thankfully, the portrayal of Vargas is that of noble man attempting to navigate an in-noble world.   

As the investigation proceeds Quinlan plants evidence (two sticks of dynamite) in the apartment of Manolo Sanchez (Victor Millan), who's been having a relationship with Linneker's daughter Marcia. The interrogation sequence is a another long take, emphasizing the claustrophobia felt by Sanchez Vargas, who saw the empty shoe box that the dynamite was planted in it, calls him out on it. The fact Quinlan is so easily caught planting evidence shows he's losing his edge. It's also a major turning point for both Quinlan and Vargas. Both their motives will now change. Vargas will attempt to reveal that Quinlan has been planting evidence over the years; and Quinlan will do anything undermine Vargas' investigation. He conspires with Grandi to make Susie look like a drug addict.
.
Quinlan recounts to his partner Pete Menzies (whom Quinlan took a bullet for in his leg) his wife was strangled back when he was a rookie cop. Quinlan never caught the killer, who he says was killed in battle during WWI. "That was the last killer that ever got out of my hands," Quinlan says. This line is the key to his character. His guilt over never finding his wife's killer drives him to make sure no one ever escapes justice. Quinlan is sympathetic. He may have been a good cop once but has become a cynical and corrupt man. Menzies idolises Quinlan but eventually comes to realise-or maybe he always knew- that Quinlan is unethical. Menzies' arc is quietly heartbreaking and arguably the most significant in the film. 

Vargas is not the traditional noir hero. He's not an anti-hero or someone who goes through a tragic downfall. I'd put forward that Vargas' whole persona is designed to contrast with Quinlan, but also suggests the man Quinlan used to be or could have been. Vargas is young, honourable, newly married and thin. Quinlan is old, fat, practically unrecognisable to Tanya (Marlene Dietrich), the brothel owner who- besides Menzies- is the only person with whom Quinlan has some kind of emotional connection. She's also the one who delivers the fatalistic line, "Your future is all used up." At the end of the film Vargas is reunited with Susie but Tanya doesn't get to Quinlan in time before he dies from Menzies' bullet.

Welles was a life-long Shakespeare fan, directing and starring in film adaptations of Othello and Macbeth, as well as Sir John Falstaff in Chimes of Midnight.  Charles Foster Kane and Hank Quinlan are themselves grand, tragic figures. Even Tanya's final words about Quinlan- "He was some kind of man. What does it matter what you say about people"- invokes the ending of Shakespearean tragedy, with a character remarking on the hero and the events of the play. While Tanya is only in a few scenes, the film ends on her, reminding the audience that despite Vargas' Hollywood happy ending, life goes on for others. Tanya isn't a sentimental person, which gives the final image of her walking back to the brothel an stronger emotional resonance than an outpouring of grief.       

The final irony of the film is that Sanchez really did plant the bomb. However, if not for the planted evidence, would Sanchez have gotten away with the crime? Ultimately, I feel whodunit and why is always beside the point in noir. It's more about, style, behaviour and dialogue.

Cinematographer Russell Metty would win an Oscar several years later for Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus but he should've been nominated and won for Touch of Evil. The world of Touch of Evil is atypically shadowy for noir but also has a distinct blend of grounded-ness and stylization. Welles' films often had a surreal quality to them, with sometimes nightmarish images. In the case of this film, when Susie is attacked in the motel by Grandi's nephews. However, I don't like the Susie subplot, and think the film would be tighter with something different for her to do. The problem is she's not proactive enough and feels like a victim throughout the whole film.

Despite being acknowledged as one of the greatest and most innovative filmmakers in history, Welles had a career full of financial and artistic struggles, though the fact he was still able to craft worthwhile and artistically ambitious films is a testament to his genius as a filmmaker. The restored version of Touch of Evil may not be the director's cut but it still an evocative and sad film made by a master filmmaker.

"We Belong to the Light": Deadpool 2

Warning: Spoilers Below

Deadpool 2 is the most surprising superhero film I've seen in some time. This isn't due to any originality regarding the plot; as with the first instalment it borrows plot points from other films, most prominently from The Terminator and Looper. What I mean by surprising is how emotionally affecting it is. For all the irreverence and ironic detachment associated with the character, Deadpool 2 is perhaps the most nakedly sentimental superhero film since last year's Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. And like GOTG Vol. 2 I ended up liking this go-around more than it's predecessor. 

Now, since the film has been out a while I believe I can talk freely about the plot but but if you still haven't seen the film, turn back. At the film's beginning mercenary Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) fails to kill one of his targets, resulting in the death of his lover, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), when the target returns to enact revenge.  While it appears like an example of killing the love interest as a revenge motivation, the film handles her death with genuine pathos. Deadpool can't get revenge since the guy who killed Vanessa is killed after he and Deadpool are hit by a car. Deadpool has a healing factor so he can't die. Deadpool blames himself for Vanessa's death and attempts suicide but again-due to his healing factor- he's essentially Bill Murray in Groundhogs Day. 

Deadpool attempts to better himself, finally conceding to X-Men Colossus and joining the X-Men as aa trainee. His first mission involves talking down Russell (who nicknames himself Firefist due to to his firestarting abilities) at a mutant re-education centre. Realizing Russell has been abused by the orphanage staff, Deadpool kills one of the staff, leading to him and Russell being put in a mutant prison called the "Ice Box."

David Leitch, co-director of the John Wick films, takes over from Tim Miller; Leitch's approach is both consistent with the original but he brings his specific action sensibilities to the table, specially in a jail break-in sequence with time-travelling mutant Cable (Josh Brolin). While the action was good in the first, I feel it's even stronger here. The film is packed with comedic and genuinely impressive comic-book-brought-to life set-pieces.

I love how this film delves more in to X-Men thematic territory than the first, focusing on a young mutant who has the choice to either be a Magneto or a Xavier. Funnily enough, this film feels more like the X-Men comics than the traditional X-Men comics- we have yellow costumes, Juggernaut being monstrously big, and power suppressor collars. 

Complicating things further is the emergence of the aforementioned Cable (Josh Brolin). Russell kills Cable's family in the future and Cable plans to prevent that. Brolin is spot-on casting considering his history of playing gruff tough guys. He plays Cable seriously but not to the point of self-parody.  To stop Cable, Deadpool puts together "X-Force," which includes Domino (Zazie Beetz), whose mutant power is being lucky. The movie anticipates the audience reaction to has Deadpool outright say that luck isn't a power. The film then has fun visualizing how luck actually is her power in both cool and humourous way.

This isn't strictly a Deadpool/Cable buddy film though the two eventually have to team-up when Russell aligns himself with the Juggernaut and attempts to enact his own revenge. Deadpool and Cable are both men who've suffered tragic losses. The difference is in how they deal with them. Cable represents the more atypical revenge quest while Deadpool blames himself for Vanessa's death, attempting to better himself through helping Russell. This puts both their motivations at odds and the climax is largely about the two character arcs will be reconciled

I will say, as much as I loved the set-up and subversion of the X-Force team- with them all except Domino dying after jumping from a helicopter, it does feel like the second act is just a extended joke rather than structurally pushing the story forward. I also wish Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) had gotten a little more to do. On a side note, it's great that she has a girlfriend-Yukio- and the film doesn't make a big deal out of it. There's a little bit of contrivance in how Deadpool says he doesn't care about Russell so that Russell can team up with Juggernaut; I think Deadpool and Russell needed a few more moments together to beef up their relationship.

The film pays off emotionally when Deadpool does "die," taking a bullet for Russell while having a collar on. The whole idea of Deadpool going to heaven may sound hokey to some but I really went with it. And as I said before, it's surprising since these films would be the last you'd expect to literally take it's wise-cracking character to heaven. I believe these two films have been able to ground Deadpool in some kind of emotional reality while stilling injecting the requisite fourth-wall breaking and digs at the superhero subgenre. 

I also liked how Cable's arc payed off, with him going back in time and finding a way to saving Deadpool. He finds redemption and discovers the future is not set, that Russell can still be a good person. I wanted more future scenes with Cable to flesh out where he came from but I understand the filmmakers didn't want to waste too much time getting Cable in to the story.

Deadpool 2 may be surprisingly sentimental but maybe it's par for a character who's all about subversion and unpredicatability. And of course, in the mid-credits, Deadpool goes back in time and saves Vanessa. Does that make the film pointless? I'd say no, since these films don't strictly obey strict continuity and may even ignore that going forward. That, and Deadpool still has learned about family throughout the film. I'd be interested to see the next film explore the consequences of bringing Vanessa back, especially if she becomes more like her comic-book counterpart, the mutant Copycat.

It's a little up in the air whether we will actually get a Deadpool 3. The next film may be an X-Force film with Deadpool as part of the ensemble or in a cameo appearance.  I love Brolin and Beetz in their roles and am excited to see them explored further down the line. Regardless, I hope Leitch stays around in this universe and the other creatives behind the franchise take even bigger risks going forward. I'm not quite ready to say Deadpool 2 is in my top ten superhero/comic-book films but it's certainly one of the my favourite of the recent superhero output.                         

Shakespeare on Screen: "Romeo + Juliet" (1996)

Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet is both of its time but also slightly outside of it. It wasn't the first time Shakespeare was modernised on screen (Richard Loncraine's Richard III starring Ian McKellen as Richard in a fascist 1930s England was released the previous year) nor was it the first re-contextualisation of Romeo and Juliet in to a contemporary setting- West Side Story, which began as a play before becoming an Oscar-winning film in 1961, had already approached the story via the concept of rival gangs. But while Romeo + Juliet technically wasn't the first of its kind, it's still a one of a kind adaptation, fully committed without irony or embarrassment, sincere without being sappy- a genuine vision.

I would argue Romeo and Juliet, perhaps more than any of Shakespeare's other plays, makes the most sense to set in the present day. Two sexually aroused teenagers who take their love way too seriously and whose parents hate each other suits the modern era conceivably better than it did in 1597. Luhrmann opens the film with a television set in the distance, surrounded by black, an ominous image that immediately establishes the contemporary nature of the film and differentiates it from Franco Zeffirelli's classic and controversial (he cast actual teenage actors- Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting) 1968 version. The TV screen also establishes how in a modern setting, the story of Romeo and Juliet would be a media frenzy, especially with them being the children of prominent families in Verona Beach.

Luhrmann stages the opening brawl between the Capulets and Montagues at a gas station. Luhrmann plays it out like the most frantic neo-western you've ever seen, reminiscence of something out of a Robert Rodriguez movie. The media plays a part in this sequence as the shootout (I love that the guns are called swords and daggers) moves in to the wider area and we see Juliet's father Fulgencio Capulet (Paul Sorvino) turn on the news and see the headline "Third Civil Brawl." Prince Escalus from the play Captain Prince of the police, played by the stalwart actor Vondie Curtis-Hall. It's a bombastic opening that establishes the film's style and it's approach to the Bard.

I mentioned West Side Story earlier and I believe Luhrmann owes something to both the musical and film since Romeo + Juliet is a musical as well. No, Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Juliet (Claire Danes) don't burst in to song but the film's key emotional moments are accompanied by people singing either in the the scene or on the soundtrack. Also, most of the songs were written specifically for it. "Kissing You," the film's love theme sweetly underscores the first meeting of Romeo and Juliet as they view each other through a fish tank. This occurs after Romeo has sobered himself up after taking ecstasy from Mercutio (Harold Perrineau, clearly having a blast), during which we see Mercutio in drag sing "Young Hearts." The sequence is brazen and the transition to the softer interlude with Romeo and Juliet is reminiscence of what we would see in a musical, with a big number followed by a more intimate one by two lovers.  

It's not surprising Shakespeare has been adapted in to Opera. He lends itself to the form since he's...well operatic. And appropriately, Luhrmann's next film would be Moulin Rouge (2001). I would also argue Romeo + Juliet is less about the poetry of Shakespeare's words than it is about the visuals and music. DiCaprio and Danes aren't great Shakespearean actors but I would put forward that for this film and it's intention, they don't have to be. Their sincerity is what really carries the film. Between this and Titanic the following year, I think DiCaprio was the biggest heartthrob on the planet, though DiCaprio did distance himself from these kind of roles. And Danes may be at her most beautiful here. The late Pete Postlethwaite (who had one of the great faces in movies) is supposedly the only actor in the film to speak in iambic pentameter and he's terrific as the no-nonsense but empathetic Father Laurence. 

The movie's energetic style also slows down considerably when it's focused on Romeo and Juliet. When the two first meet in the aforementioned fish tank scene, the movie is slowing down, making us feel the immediate intimacy and affection Romeo and Juliet share. The scene also communicates how time does slow down when you're falling in love. I also like the symbolic touch of Juliet wearing angel wings.

The famous balcony scene is staged in a pool, giving the scene an erotic energy. It also makes sense in a modern-context for them to be more intimate during this scene. I don't think they would allow themselves to be restricted by any barriers. The pool also parallels them meeting at a fish tank. 

Romeo and Juliet represent teenage love at its most extreme. They fall in love after meeting and agree to get married. Moreover, they can't bare to live without each other. Romeo drinks poison when he believes Juliet to be dead. When Juliet wakes up and sees Romeo is dead she stabs herself. However, Romeo and Juliet begin the play in different emotional places. Romeo is in love with a girl named Rosaline but Juliet isn't interested in getting married to Paris, Dave Paris in the film (played by Paul Rudd). Romeo can't conceive of loving anyone else other than Rosaline. Then he literally falls in love at first sight with Juliet. We have to wonder, would Romeo had dropped Juliet for someone else had they lived? Romeo feels more obviously the one to kill himself over a girl than Juliet to kill herself over a boy. In a bold move, Luhrmann has Juliet wake up as Romeo is taking the poison. Unlike the play they do share one last moment together.

I can't help but think there's a lot of Romeo and Juliet in many teenagers- especially if you agree with critic Harold Bloom that Shakespeare invented human consciousness. Hell, I was probably too stuck on certain girls in my teenage years. It may be a little hard for many readers and audiences to non-ironically accept Romeo and Juliet's love. But I doubt is the story works if the interpretation is ironically detached. 

It's worth noting that what sets the tragedy in to motion is Mercutio's death by Tybalt (John Leguizamo), a casualty of the conflict between the Montagues  and Capulets,  who is of neither house. Mercutio's "A plague on both your houses" is essentially what happens. Mercutio is the play's most laid-back and jovial character and his death truly marks a dark turn for the story. For all his hyper-stylization, Luhrmann knows how to compose a shot. My favourite shot in the film is Romeo going off to kill Tybalt. Mercutio's body is in the foregound while Romeo in the background gets in the car while being persuaded to stay. 

I'd say Romeo shooting down Tybalt is more potent than stabbing with him a sword. In the context of this universe Romeo has essentially committed a gangland murder. He's become a gangster, not that different than Tybalt.

At last, it is Romeo and Juliet's deaths that bring the Montagues and Capulets together. The story ends up being about parents' actions affecting their children, with the parents having to deal with those consequences. With Shakespeare, tragedy always is necessary for positive change or for a lesson to be passed down by the survivors In the context of this film's universe, the story is being told through the media. How will the people in this world react to this story. When viewing the film now in 2018, I can't help but think of how the media is criticised for supposedly spinning a particular narrative.

Luhrmann's film still stands as one of the boldest cinematic interpretations of Shakespeare, one that emphasises the appropriateness of placing the doomed romance in a modern setting. There's something more provocative in seeing the suicide of two young lovers in the present. Seeing them in body bags on a TV screen invokes real-life tragedy and asks how would we react to a story like this. Could we sum it up as eloquently as Shakespeare. Probably not.