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.