Like all Unbreakable fans, I was excited at what Split means for the future of David Dunn, but I'm going to say right now something that might disappoint some people. There should not be more than the one movie that Shyamalan has suggested. Think about it. Wouldn't this be the perfect film trilogy? Most trilogies follow one character as they go from villain to villain, or from encounter to encounter with the same villain. Instead, this would be an origin story for the hero, then a separate, unrelated origin story for the villain, and finally the showdown finale! Antagonists often get the short end of the stick when it comes to development, so Split is very exciting from a big picture standpoint.
But what about as a standalone film?
Split has several things going for it, and a few things going against it. First, there's that whole twist ending thing that is the Shyamalan staple. There are a few twists along the way, but nothing to freak out about except perhaps the introduction of David Dunn at the end. The main twist was that Casey is broken enough that the Beast doesn't want her, but anyone trying to understand the Beast's philosophy would know he would at least think twice about her if he knew. The entire time, we're getting flashbacks, and so we're obviously wondering when the backstory will tie in, so it's no surprise when the Beast is ranting about only the broken being worthy, that he's going to eventually discover she's okay. So, story-wise, there's not too many surprises, and certainly enough explanation from various characters, especial Dr. Fletcher, to make sure that even the most disengaged of viewers can follow the main idea of the DID (dissociative identity disorder) pros and cons and the various characters feelings about DID. Its a thrilling, but not too complex, story.
The acting, on the other hand, is certainly on par with any other blockbuster. This is, almost entirely thanks to James McAvoy. His range is explored wonderfully, with him changing not just his voice and looks, but subtle mannerisms and posture as well with each new alter. I enjoyed everything about his performance, and had a hard time remembering it was him at times. The rest of the cast supported well, with the three girls avoiding some of the hamminess of your typical teen girl in a horror film.
The soundtrack was at times startling, and constantly thrilling, and the production design evoked some of the great suspense work of the past while not quite being familiar enough for me to let my guard down. Overall, I can't say a lot of bad things about the film.
The biggest complaint I do have, is that it just didn't pull me in. It seemed like it was trying to make more of the story than it needed. The story really was about understanding who the Horde is. We want to be exposed to this villain from all angles, so we see him from the psychiatrist's view, the captive's view, and from his own view. We see his past, his present, and a glimpse of his future. We are trying to understand his disorder and the rules it follows as well as his motivations as each alter. Yet, for all these questions we have, most of them are answered through an explanation, not a discovery, and these explanations are interrupted by several escape attempts by the girls, most of which aren't plausible, and all of which are fruitless. By far the most interesting thing about this film was the DID and McAvoy's portrail, so why not make your star player shine in the most exciting moments? Nope, lets only let anything exciting happen when he's not even there. Rather than escape attempts using coat hangers and air ducts (seriously?), lets have them try to understand the obviously messed up captor, and slowly they come to find what he wants and why, but also some of his weaknesses. Finally they use his own disorder against him to make a bold escape attempt, but are stopped as the Beast or another personality seizes control just in time to stop them. I'd have bought that movie.
As it is, I'm planning to wait and see if there's a 3 pack someday with Unbreakable, Split, and the third film once it comes out, and I'll buy it then. I'll recommend watching it, especially if you liked Unbreakable, but I'm not recommending you drop $20 on the Blu-Ray just yet. We'll have to wait and see how the sequel plays out before passing more judgement.
And speaking of Unbreakable, that's a must see, and buy if you can find it, so I have high hopes for the final film in the franchise, despite some shortcomings on the part of Split.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Dark Heroes
Anyone that's been paying any attention has probably noticed that Superheroes are getting darker. This is happening across the board, though the DC cinematic universe is the most obvious, with their recent Batman v. Superman being massively criticized for going too dark. The trend is also apparent with the MCU and the X-Men, the two other superhero franchises in the top three, with Logan and Civil War being prime examples that no one wants to just make a movie about a good guy doing good things for good reasons.
This trend has popped up every once in a while in the comic world, so there's no reason to be really shocked. Batman wouldn't even exist if there hadn't been a push for more complex characters in the late 30's, which led to the "Golden Age" of comics. Interestingly enough, Batman is directly responsible for this shift today as well, in what might be considered the Golden Age of Superhero Movies. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy was ground breaking. It was popularly and critically acclaimed, and put DC on the top of the movie world (albeit for the last time, as of the writing of this post). It introduced a more grounded, less fanciful, and significantly darker Batman than we got from Tim Burton a decade or so earlier, especially in the second film of the trilogy, where we were faced with some terribly troubling questions about the nature of mankind as the Joker and Two-face terrorized Gotham, apparently without motive.
I, like most everyone, loved the trilogy, and came out of The Dark Knight feeling overwhelmed, but thrilled beyond belief. Unlike the rest of the world, though, I haven't forgotten another superhero film that was released between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; a film that also took their hero down a darker path than we'd seen before. I'm talking about the infamous Spider-Man 3. I enjoyed it, and Spidey is still one of my all time favorite heroes, but no one can deny there were problems, and the main one was that Peter Parker went to a place where we didn't want him to go. He was unpleasant as a character when the symbiote was with him, and I'm not just referring to the awkward jazz scene. He was no more unpleasant than Batman was while he threw himself into obsession over the Joker, but for some reason it worked with Batman, but not with Spiderman.
Here's my theory. There are heroes that should be dark, there are heroes that can be dark, and there are heroes that should not be dark (or that at least need a really careful handling of them going dark for a very limited run). More importantly, there are fundamental characteristics that define a hero, and why we love them. He love Batman because he fights for justice against some great villains, because he has no special powers (except money and ninja skills), and he has a tragic backstory. We love Spiderman because he's a kid, because he's just trying to to what's right, because he considers his powers to be a responsibility and tries to take that seriously while juggling things like school and girls. In short, at his core, Peter is a good kid.
This theory explains perfectly why Batman v Superman failed. Superman is on of those characters that, no matter what, needs to be good at his core. He can't be morally torn. He needs to stick to traditional conservative values, not because of some propaganda, but because he represents the traditional America. Truth, justice, and the American Way, am I right? It doesn't matter that Hollywood in general is trying to move away from that, it's no longer Superman if my grandfather wouldn't agree with his choices. In an increasingly amoral, or multi-moral, world, why shouldn't we have a hero that reminds us there was a time when right and wrong were a little clearer, and that it's okay to stand up for what we feel is right no matter what the world around us says. That's what Superman is to the world, and any breach of that, results in him being poorly received.
So here's the question, is it possible to have the dark heroes that are popular without destroying the truly good characters that are sharing their world? I think so, and for proof, I once again offer up Spiderman as my example. I mentioned Civil War as being an example of a darker turn for the MCU. Turning the heroes against each other will almost always mean making some characters a little less pure than we're used to, and yet, there was one notable exception. Peter chose to help Tony, not because of some political ideology like the rest of the heroes, but because he admires Tony and wanted to please his idol. His motives are naive, but pure. He was the highlight for many viewers of the film and his solo film is one of the most anticipated films this year, an impressive feat for the second reboot and third iteration of the character in a decade.
So, the moral of the story, for any production execs that read my blog (you know you're out there?), is that we need a balance of light and dark. We need our pure heroes to remain pure, even if it makes them feel outdated. We need our fun heroes to remain fun, even if they come off a little goofy at times. We need our dark anti-heroes and we need our brooding emotional vigilantes as well. There is more than enough material out there that there's a hero to fit each mood, so we really don't need to change any of them. More importantly, there's enough material out there to show that, in print, the lighter characters can interact with the darker ones without taking away from either. Lets find more ways to make that happen on film. We don't need 30 superheroes that are all the same, we need 30 different and unique and interesting heroes.
This trend has popped up every once in a while in the comic world, so there's no reason to be really shocked. Batman wouldn't even exist if there hadn't been a push for more complex characters in the late 30's, which led to the "Golden Age" of comics. Interestingly enough, Batman is directly responsible for this shift today as well, in what might be considered the Golden Age of Superhero Movies. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy was ground breaking. It was popularly and critically acclaimed, and put DC on the top of the movie world (albeit for the last time, as of the writing of this post). It introduced a more grounded, less fanciful, and significantly darker Batman than we got from Tim Burton a decade or so earlier, especially in the second film of the trilogy, where we were faced with some terribly troubling questions about the nature of mankind as the Joker and Two-face terrorized Gotham, apparently without motive.
I, like most everyone, loved the trilogy, and came out of The Dark Knight feeling overwhelmed, but thrilled beyond belief. Unlike the rest of the world, though, I haven't forgotten another superhero film that was released between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; a film that also took their hero down a darker path than we'd seen before. I'm talking about the infamous Spider-Man 3. I enjoyed it, and Spidey is still one of my all time favorite heroes, but no one can deny there were problems, and the main one was that Peter Parker went to a place where we didn't want him to go. He was unpleasant as a character when the symbiote was with him, and I'm not just referring to the awkward jazz scene. He was no more unpleasant than Batman was while he threw himself into obsession over the Joker, but for some reason it worked with Batman, but not with Spiderman.
Here's my theory. There are heroes that should be dark, there are heroes that can be dark, and there are heroes that should not be dark (or that at least need a really careful handling of them going dark for a very limited run). More importantly, there are fundamental characteristics that define a hero, and why we love them. He love Batman because he fights for justice against some great villains, because he has no special powers (except money and ninja skills), and he has a tragic backstory. We love Spiderman because he's a kid, because he's just trying to to what's right, because he considers his powers to be a responsibility and tries to take that seriously while juggling things like school and girls. In short, at his core, Peter is a good kid.
This theory explains perfectly why Batman v Superman failed. Superman is on of those characters that, no matter what, needs to be good at his core. He can't be morally torn. He needs to stick to traditional conservative values, not because of some propaganda, but because he represents the traditional America. Truth, justice, and the American Way, am I right? It doesn't matter that Hollywood in general is trying to move away from that, it's no longer Superman if my grandfather wouldn't agree with his choices. In an increasingly amoral, or multi-moral, world, why shouldn't we have a hero that reminds us there was a time when right and wrong were a little clearer, and that it's okay to stand up for what we feel is right no matter what the world around us says. That's what Superman is to the world, and any breach of that, results in him being poorly received.
So here's the question, is it possible to have the dark heroes that are popular without destroying the truly good characters that are sharing their world? I think so, and for proof, I once again offer up Spiderman as my example. I mentioned Civil War as being an example of a darker turn for the MCU. Turning the heroes against each other will almost always mean making some characters a little less pure than we're used to, and yet, there was one notable exception. Peter chose to help Tony, not because of some political ideology like the rest of the heroes, but because he admires Tony and wanted to please his idol. His motives are naive, but pure. He was the highlight for many viewers of the film and his solo film is one of the most anticipated films this year, an impressive feat for the second reboot and third iteration of the character in a decade.
So, the moral of the story, for any production execs that read my blog (you know you're out there?), is that we need a balance of light and dark. We need our pure heroes to remain pure, even if it makes them feel outdated. We need our fun heroes to remain fun, even if they come off a little goofy at times. We need our dark anti-heroes and we need our brooding emotional vigilantes as well. There is more than enough material out there that there's a hero to fit each mood, so we really don't need to change any of them. More importantly, there's enough material out there to show that, in print, the lighter characters can interact with the darker ones without taking away from either. Lets find more ways to make that happen on film. We don't need 30 superheroes that are all the same, we need 30 different and unique and interesting heroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)