Jon McDonald’s “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/the-hyperions">The Hyperions</a>” is the latest in a long tradition of humorous, offbeat superhero movies. The operatic tone of the genre, combined with the origin cliches and the inherent silliness of the costumes, lend themselves to parody surprisingly well. 
As a kid, I enjoyed watching the “X-Men” and “Batman” animated series, but I was genuinely in love with “The Tick,” which gleefully pokes fun at the genre cliches. Since then, there have been numerous movies — both sincere and otherwise — that have turned the genre on its head and looked inward. Below are a few examples of offbeat superhero movies that deserve further attention.
<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217869/">UNBREAKABLE</a> (2000)
Night Shyamalan’s follow-up to the immensely-successful “The Sixth Sense” had all the trappings of a supernatural thriller before it was eventually revealed to be a superhero origin story. Bruce Willis plays the survivor of a horrible train wreck who soon discovers that he may be nigh indestructible. This attracts the attention of Samuel L. Jackson, an eccentric comic book enthusiast, who believes superhero tales to be the mythology of the modern world and rooted in truth. The film is a moody, thoughtful exploration of superhero lore, bolstered by committed performances. Shyamalan would revisit these characters years later, to middling effect, but “Unbreakable” stands on its own as an original, engaging riff on the genre.
<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">SUPER</a> (2011)
Before he made “Guardians of the Galaxy” in 2014, director James Gunn crafted this hilarious, violent, and heartfelt superhero movie starring Rainn Wilson from “The Office.” A movie that owes just as much to “Taxi Driver” as it does “Batman,” the story revolves around an anonymous schlub who becomes The Crimson Bolt, a costumed vigilante who desires to cripple the underworld. With the help of his trusty wrench, The Crimson Bolt calls out major crime and minor slights with equal passion, resulting in set pieces that are equal parts hilarious and disturbing.
<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">CHRONICLE</a> (2012)
Josh Trank’s found-footage movie about three high school boys who gain super powers from a crashed meteor hits many of the same beats as Spider-Man’s well-known origin, but this film is much more interested in the honest exploration of what would happen if a teenager was suddenly imbued with unspeakable abilities. While there are plenty of moments dedicated to the boys using their powers for their own enjoyment, the eventual emotionality inherent in the teenage experience pushes the film in a more tragic direction. Featuring great performances by Michael B. Jordan, Alex Russell, and Dane DeHaan (two of whom would go on to play supervillains in major franchises), “Chronicle” places superhero cliches in the middle of an all-too-real world.
<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343727/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">DREDD</a> (2012)
This one may be a bit of a cheat, as some might consider the character of Judge Dredd to be anything but heroic — and not particularly super. In fact, he is just one of many brutal law enforcement officials keeping the peace in a dystopian future. However, Pete Travis’s “Dredd,” featuring a committed performance by Karl Urban (now the lead of “The Boys”), is every bit as action-packed as “Iron Man” and as visually distinctive as Tim Burton’s “Batman.” Travis creates a heightened, nightmarish world where violent crime is the norm, and only the most seasoned, hard-bitten enforcers would dare try to make a difference. The character of Dredd may be brutal — and borderline fascist — but he is in the tradition of such anti-heroes as The Punisher and Rorschach, whose brutality and rage suggests a deep longing for a better world.
<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7752126/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">BRIGHTBURN</a> (2019)
There’s nothing new about a superhero movie questioning itself. As far back as Alan Moore’s classic “Watchmen” comic, writers have been speculating about the potential societal hazards of masked vigilantes and their lack of accountability. David Yarovesky’s “Brightburn” goes a step further, suggesting that super-powered individuals are not the stuff of escapist dreams, but of nightmares. A horror riff on Superman’s origin story, this film sees a young boy adopted by a kindly rural couple after he falls to Earth from space. As he grows older, he develops frightening powers and soon uses them to exact revenge on those that would seek to oppress him. Soon, the boy is found to be an unstoppable monster, much more akin to Jason Voorhees than Clark Kent. A terrifying but thought-provoking film.
Of course, there are several other films we could mention here, including “Kick-Ass,” “Mystery Men,” “The Incredibles,” and more, but these are just a few movies for those who might be growing tired of what traditional superhero films have to offer. Feel free to add more in the comments below. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v5 Smith – The Hyperions and other Offbeat Superhero Movies

Five More Offbeat Superhero Movies Like ‘The Hyperions’

DailyWire+

Hollywood

Movies

Readers Pass

Superheroes

Hollywood can be so divisive these days that it’s hard to believe there was once a time when it put out movies that were meant to actually unite the audience &#8211; in fear, in heartbreak, in inspiration. These were films that recognized our shared humanity, regardless of our political, religious, or racial differences. Certain directors were counted on to unify audiences who were eager to engage with the characters and stories on the screen. These directors would put their artistry before their personal agendas. Even when telling overtly political stories, these filmmakers would instinctively find a core theme that ran even deeper than any of-the-moment political messaging.
Unfortunately, many of these directors have abandoned devotion to their artistry to prioritize pandering to their side of the political aisle. Undoubtedly, they are sincere in their desire to use these stories to make these points, but, as Milton Friedman once said, “sincerity is a much-overrated virtue”. Despite their best intentions, in the end, their films suffered due to their political blinders. Thankfully, there are still a handful of directors whose creative instincts are still preserved, leading them to make movies that speak to something common within all of us. One such director is Ron Howard, whose filmography reads like a list of reliable, well-made films that are emotionally impactful without sacrificing intellectual complexity. His films include such sturdy classics as “Parenthood,” “Backdraft,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “The Paper,” “Cinderella Man,” “Frost/Nixon,” and “Rush,” just to name a few. 
Howard’s 1995 drama “Apollo 13” remains his greatest achievement. The true story of the successful rescue of three astronauts trapped in a crippled space shuttle is a space travel masterpiece. He never lets the audience forget that — while the rescue may have been inspiring — it required a tremendous amount of tedious troubleshooting to make it happen. The film is a tribute to human ingenuity and shared commitment. 
His latest film, “Thirteen Lives”, flows from the same vein as “Apollo 13” and it is all the better for it. Based on the 2018 true story of the Thailand boys soccer team trapped in a flooded cave, this film attempts to depict all the different elements of the boys’ rescue, which was planned and carried out by British divers and Thai Navy Seals, and assisted by scientists, farmers, soldiers, and politicians. The details are so complicated that it’s a marvel that the audience has any idea what is going on at all, but Howard and his writers have laid out the multiple problems and their solutions in a way that is clear and concise. Though these details are made easy to understand, we are still able to appreciate just how horrendous this rescue will be.
A film like this requires tremendous patience, both from the filmmaker and the viewer, as the rescue is so meticulous. Far from being a slambang action film, it takes the divers seven hours of navigating treacherous, claustrophobic caverns just to reach the kids. Getting the kids back out is an even more complicated matter. Meanwhile, the waters keep rising and locals work their hardest to divert the waters from the cave, destroying nearby crops (a reminder that this catastrophe didn’t just affect the boys and their families). 
To outline these complicated plans, Howard brings in such reliable actors as Viggo Mortensen, and Colin Farrell as the expert divers, each of whom deal with the difficult circumstances in their own way. Farrell’s character, John Volanthen, himself a father, sees his young son in the face of each trapped boy, creating an even deeper sense of urgency. Mortensen’s character, Rick Stanton, meanwhile, chooses to keep himself at arm’s length, adopting a fatalistic attitude, just in case things don’t go well. These characters feel lived-in and relatable. Attempting to keep the film grounded, Howard and his actors avoid scenes of melodrama, choosing instead to allow the audience to imbue the situation with their own emotions. 
If you know the story, none of these elements will be particularly surprising to you. However, as in most films based on true stories, knowing the details and seeing them are two very different things. Howard and his cinematographer, Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, manage to transport the audience right into the middle of the action, even if we don’t want to be. These caves would be claustrophobic in even the best conditions. Submerged in water, they’re a living nightmare, and Howard allows the characters — and the audience — to really contemplate the horrendous details of the experience.
The difficulty of the dive not only draws the viewer in, but serves to make the eventual rescue all the more inspiring. Thousands of people from several different countries stepped away from their own lives — and in some cases, actually put their lives on the line — to try to help thirteen strangers. It was an arduous endeavor, but those people thought it was worth it. 
It’s the kind of film that, especially in the midst of such dark times as these, can remind us that there are some things that can bring us all together, if we let them. “Thirteen Lives” explores the best of what humanity has to offer and, in the process, becomes a shining example of what mainstream Hollywood filmmaking can be.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v1 Smith – Movie review- Thirteen Lives

Ron Howard’s ‘Thirteen Lives’ Masterfully Captures Heroic Thai Cave Rescue

Film Reviews

It was <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-08-02/warner-bros-axes-90-million-batgirl-movie-that-had-been-planned-for-hbo-max">revealed</a> on Tuesday that Warner Bros. Discovery is scrapping its upcoming “Batgirl” film starring Leslie Grace, despite the studio investing $90 million into the film, and it nearing post-production completion.
Nevertheless, Warner Bros. has stated that the film will not receive a theatrical release, nor will be made available on HBO Max, the studio’s streaming service.
“The decision to not release &#8216;Batgirl&#8217; reflects our leadership&#8217;s strategic shift as it relates to the DC universe and HBO Max,” a Warner spokesperson <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/batgirl-shelved-at-warner-bros-hbo-max-1235191371/">stated</a>.
The statement continued, countering rumors that the studio is unhappy with the performance of Leslie Grace, who is known more as a singer than an actress. “Leslie Grace is an incredibly talented actor and this decision is not a reflection of her performance.”
The statement concluded by saying how grateful Warner Bros. is to the film’s directors and cast, and “we hope to collaborate with everyone again in the near future.”
The character of Batgirl has been a vital part of the larger Batman universe, played in the past by Yvonne Craig and Alicia Silverstone. This new film stars Grace in the title role, J.K. Simmons as Commissioner Gordon, Brendan Fraser as villain Firefly, and Michael Keaton as Batman.
This decision to shelve the film has been met with frustration by DC fans, many of whom were excited to see Keaton reprise his role as Batman. The move is also an unfortunate development for Fraser and Grace.
The film’s directors, Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah, whose last feature film was 2020’s “Bad Boys for Life,” have also released a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CgzisvCMwmk/">statement</a> about the studio’s decision.
“We are saddened and shocked by the news. … As directors, it is critical that our work be shown to audiences,” the directors stated.
They continued with praise for their lead actress, who they say “portrayed Batgirl with so much passion, dedication, and humanity.” They also mention the fans, stating, “we wish that fans all over the world would have had the opportunity to see and embrace the final film for themselves.”
Variety’s Guy Lodge tweeted: “For fans who genuinely thrill to superhero movies: those who criticize the things you love aren’t half as great a threat to your viewing pleasure as those who finance them.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
For fans who genuinely thrill to superhero movies: those who criticise the things you love aren’t half as great a threat to your viewing pleasure as those who finance them.
— Guy Lodge (@GuyLodge) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuyLodge/status/1554708121607602178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 3, 2022</a></blockquote>
The official Twitter account for the film website I Can’t Unsee This Movie drew a comparison to the Zack Snyder “Justice League” fan campaign: “Wouldn’t it be wild if the #Batgirl cancellation ends up being a brilliant subversive marketing that fuels a #ReleaseTheBatgirlFilm campaign.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Wouldn’t it be wild if the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Batgirl?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Batgirl</a> cancellation ends up being a brilliant subversive marketing move that fuels a viral <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReleaseTheBatgirlFilm?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ReleaseTheBatgirlFilm</a> campaign and skyrockets interest and demand — by design?! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReleaseBatgirl?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ReleaseBatgirl</a> <a href="https://t.co/YtCfSvMzyY">pic.twitter.com/YtCfSvMzyY</a>
— I Can&#8217;t Unsee Movie (@CantUnseeMovie) <a href="https://twitter.com/CantUnseeMovie/status/1554653297801412609?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 3, 2022</a></blockquote>
Warner Bros. Discovery will present its <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-questions-ahead-of-earnings-211645018.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHDFHWEYPEYVfwNo7NGA9F4rUcUbMs1ODpjAOrBL0qG59omiY2U4Qk7fBFTdYcCtM5ZgL74m3enH3xurG_4ZAK-1WrWNT27R4XGMvHAqbs-xnNjufp_EhO-c3vxjDNdNKmuGfIAEk-wy1pZELnXDhWTq3A4LkxhIJZpuaYd2ssfa">earnings report</a> on Thursday, at which point more news regarding company shakeups are expected.

Warner Bros. Discovery

Warner Bros. Shelves ‘Batgirl’ Movie Despite Spending $90 Million, Shocking Industry

Warner Bros. Decides Against Releasing ‘Batgirl’ Movie

Batman

Warner Bros

When a movie’s producer, writer, director, and leading star are all the same person, one can’t help but take notice. It usually means this person feels particularly passionate about the story being told &#8211; so much so that they wear multiple hats just to make sure everything is done exactly to their specifications. Actor B.J. Novak, who most audiences will know from “The Office,” makes his big screen directorial debut with “Vengeance,” a well-meaning comedy that has genuinely funny and touching moments but becomes too caught up in its messaging. This is always the risk that comes when one person has this much control. One wonders how the film’s better elements may have been elevated had Novak brought in a few more creative voices to help further develop his vision. That he opted to go it alone is truly a shame, as the film features some hilarious exchanges, memorable performances, and generally good intentions, making its ultimate third act stumbles all the more disappointing.
The story follows a self-obsessed New York writer named Ben Manalowitz (Novak) as he is trying to break into the narrative podcast field. He has a few grand ideas about America, but he needs a good story to hang them on. He then receives a call from the family of an old hook-up named Abilene Shaw (Lio Tipton), who apparently considered Ben a much bigger part of her life than he did. Abilene has died of an apparent drug overdose, and Ben flies to Texas to attend the funeral. While there, Abilene’s brother, Ty Shaw (Boyd Holbrook), expresses his belief that she didn’t die by accident; rather, he believes she was actually murdered. Ben views Ty’s delusion as a clear indicator of denial, but he is intrigued, nonetheless. He decides that he will stay in Texas and record the story of Ty’s search for his sister’s murderer, hoping to get enough material for a solid true crime podcast. Along the way, Ben learns more about Abilene’s family and their way of live, which underlines his own feelings of emptiness. Things become more complex when Ben realizes that there might actually be more to Ty’s suspicions of foul play than his initial gut feelings.
There are multiple elements to this story, which makes sense, given the investigative nature of the script. Theories are suggested, leads followed, and suspects questioned. And, throughout it all, Ben reshapes and presents the search for Abilene’s killer in the kind of slick, digestible package that has become all too familiar to true crime podcast listeners. Novak handles this well, but it all leads to an ending that is both overwrought and overwritten, going on and on until the audience can’t help but roll its eyes. Perhaps this, too, is Novak’s way of commenting on true crime podcasts, which so often try to be trenchant and meaningful in their final moments. If this is Novak’s intention, he succeeds. It doesn’t necessarily make for the most compelling ending of a film, though.
While the investigation is the driving force behind the movie, the story functions first as a fish-out-of-water story, as Ben attempts to navigate the foreign culture he is now a part of. As he gets to know more about Abilene’s family, he sees them as more than just stereotypes &#8211; they’re real people with real feelings and intellects. Soon, he is allowing himself to actually enjoy the local customs and cuisine, feeling closer to these people than he ever has with his own family or friends back in New York. This element of the film probably works best, as it effectively humanizes those characters whom other films might simply dismiss as country bumpkins.
It helps that Novak surrounds himself with solid actors, including Louanne Stephens (of “Friday Night Lights” fame), Issa Rae, and the incomparable J. Smith-Cameron. The film also features Ashton Kutcher, turning in a soulful performance as a record producer. Novak himself does well enough and truly pushes himself as an actor, but the real MVP here is Boyd Holbrook, who finds just the right balance of humor and anger as the extroverted Ty. Holbrook has been in the film industry for a while now, often playing important, but ultimately bland characters in films like “The Predator” and “Logan.” This film, however, gives him a chance to really cut loose and enjoy himself. He is, by far, the best part of the film.
Unfortunately, though the film tries to bridge the gap between the urban and the rural (and the blue and the red states), there are several moments when it’s clear that Novak still very much sees these characters &#8211; and, by extension, these types of people &#8211; as inherently different and himself &#8211; and people like him &#8211; as obviously normal. He is no doubt trying to capture Ben’s perspective, but he never seems quite able to distance the film from it. Instead, though there are often moments of genuine connection between Ben and the other characters, many of the reluctant concessions that Ben makes too often feel patronizing, an olive branch extended to those who &#8211; though obviously misguided &#8211; have good hearts.
This is best illustrated in a scene of Ben breaking down and screaming at Abilene’s family, citing every wrong-headed thing they believe, from climate change to vaccinations. While we are meant to think that Ben is being cruel, the writing, acting, and tone suggest that the film ultimately agrees with him. From that moment on, the family’s attitude towards him is much colder. Again, what we are meant to feel and what the film conveys don’t match up. We’re supposed to think that the family’s feelings are hurt, but what is actually conveyed is their refusal to face the facts that he was confronting them with.
As frustrating as these moments are, I admire Novak for at least attempting them. A story like this is a balancing act, and even the most skilled directors can have a difficult time managing it. B.J. Novak is a talented writer and director, and his desire to find the shared humanity between different cultural groups is a noble one; however, he never quite has a handle on the nuanced tone required to make a story like this work. This is particularly unfortunate, as any misstep with this kind of film will lead to a tone that can be read as condescending and dismissive &#8211; no matter the intention of the filmmaker. “Vengeance” often has its heart in the right place, but the rest of it can’t quite catch up.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v2 Smith – Movie Review VENGEANCE

B.J. Novak’s Texas Murder Mystery ‘Vengeance’ Can’t Hide Blue State Agenda

Film

There’s something refreshing about Michael Polish’s approach to the Western genre in “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/terror-on-the-prairie">Terror on the Prairie</a>.” The simple story, stripped-down style and uncompromising violence seem to come from a desire to engage with the genre on a more complex level. Rather than make an action-filled romp, Polish chose to focus on the quieter moments on the range. I was pleasantly surprised by his take, even if he isn’t the first one to do it.
In the early days, Westerns were boisterous celebrations of manifest destiny with minimal introspection. As time went on, though, filmmakers started to tinker with audience expectations, allowing for deeper discussions about Western myth-making.
Even the filmmaker most associated with Westerns, John Ford, seemed to develop a desire to more deeply explore character, style and story in his later films, like “The Searchers” and “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.” Sam Peckinpah continued this deconstruction in his film “The Wild Bunch,” and Robert Altman completely turned the genre on its head with “McCabe &amp; Mrs. Miller.”
For many, however, Clint Eastwood’s meditative “Unforgiven” is the definitive revisionist Western, delving into the moral price the characters have to pay in order to thrive in a brutal world. Since then, there have been a handful of notable Westerns looking to build upon Eastwood’s masterpiece, though they seldom break through into the mainstream.
If you’re a fan of Westerns, here are a few recent entries you may have missed.
<h4>“Open Range” (2003)</h4>
Before he was the star of “Yellowstone,” Kevin Costner directed, co-produced, and co-starred in this straightforward Western about two “free grazers” (Costner and Robert Duvall) who run afoul of a low-level land baron (Michael Gambon). Tensions mount until a violent confrontation is inevitable. Along the way, the main characters grapple with their pasts and their tenuous futures. It is a solid, unassuming film with some wonderful performances by Annette Bening, Diego Luna and the inimitable Duvall.
<h4>“The Proposition” (2005)</h4>
Written by musician Nick Cave and directed by John Hillcoat (who would go on to adapt Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road”), this film is that rare non-American Western. In the outback of 1880s colonized Australia, a pragmatic lawman (Ray Winstone) makes a deal with a wanted fugitive (Guy Pearce) wherein the fugitive will hunt down and kill his own demented brother (a hypnotic Danny Huston). The resulting story is wrought with questions of loyalty and guilt, punctuated by graphic violence. It is brutal and beautiful at the same time, with a haunting score by Cave and Warren Ellis.
<h4>“The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (2007)</h4>
Many modern Westerns seek to explore the legends of the Old West, attempting to bring these larger-than-life figures down to a more human level. Andrew Dominik’s melancholy depiction of the legendary Jesse James (Brad Pitt) boils all of the elements of Western myths down to their most basic elements, finding both instability and romance. Featuring astonishing cinematography by Roger Deakins, this film looks for the flaws in our heroes, then openly mourns them when it finds them. It is a genuine modern masterpiece.
<h4>“Appaloosa” (2008)</h4>
Like “Open Range” before it, Ed Harris’ “Appaloosa” (adapted from the book by Robert B. Parker) strips away all extraneous elements from its simple Western story until it resembles a bleached cow skull in the desert sand: unforgiving, ominous and unromantic. Featuring unpretentious performances by heavy hitters Viggo Mortensen, Renée Zellweger, and Jeremy Irons, this film manages to adopt a matter-of-fact tone while retaining significant style.
<h4>“Bone Tomahawk” (2015)</h4>
A harrowing blend of the Western and horror genres, S. Craig Zahler’s “Bone Tomahawk” follows a posse (led by Kurt Russell, in a career-best performance) as it attempts to rescue a young woman (played by Lil Simmons) abducted by cannibalistic humanoid monsters. What these men witness chills them to the bone, forcing them to find their true courage in the face of unrelenting inhumanity. The wonderful, poetic dialogue is offset by the nauseating amounts of gore, resulting in a unique cinematic experience that you won’t soon forget (even if you try). 
<h4>“Old Henry” (2021)</h4>
Another film to capitalize on recognizable historical figures, “Old Henry” incorporates the legend of Billy the Kid into the story of a meek rancher (Tim Blake Nelson) and his discontented son (Gavin Lewis) as they attempt to discern the intentions of a suspicious lawman (Stephen Dorff). Like “Terror on the Prairie,” this is a stand-off movie in which the hero’s mettle is tested in the face of tremendous pressure. With some delightful twists and turns, this underrated film is inherently crowd-pleasing.
These are just a handful of recommendable films that happily engage in Western tropes while attempting to expand the genre. There are many more, like “Seraphim Falls,” “The Homesman,” and “3:10 to Yuma,” just to name a few. While it remains to be seen how many of them will stand the test of time, as classic movies like “Stagecoach” and “Shane” have, they’re still absolutely worth watching and fans of the genre won’t regret doing so.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – Smith – Westerns and Terror on The Prairie16x9

Six Westerns You Need To Watch After ‘Terror On The Prairie’

Terror on the Prairie

The people behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe recently <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/07/marvel-phase-five-multiverse-saga">announced</a> their plans for “Phase Five” of their popular series of movies and TV shows. After an initial wave of excitement over hearing names like “Kang” and phrases like “Secret Wars,” the inevitable skepticism kicked in.
There are few <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/07/10/the-marvel-cinematic-universe-has-now-topped-12-billion-in-total-worldwide-gross/?sh=7f2aebc37775">box office</a> juggernauts bigger than the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Releasing <a href="https://www.imdb.com/list/ls071217506/">several movies and TV series</a> each year, the MCU has become a staple of the pop culture landscape. This is nothing new, but I’ve noticed the conversation beginning to change in the last few years. With each new release, there is an increasing impatience in the discussion. People are wondering where exactly everything is headed.
Certainly, the first “phases” in the MCU were constructed beautifully, slowly but surely setting up the inevitability of the final battle, while still telling individual stories. The eventual confrontation was as exciting a movie event as I’ve ever seen, as the heroes and villains we had been getting to know for ten years came together to accomplish a common goal, made all the more impactful when they initially failed. After Thanos’s defeat in “Avengers: Endgame,” audiences were left wondering where we could possibly go from there.
Marvel’s answer was to branch out, incorporating new (albeit lesser-known) heroes like <a href="https://www.marvel.com/movies/shang-chi-and-the-legend-of-the-ten-rings">Shang-Chi</a> and the <a href="https://www.marvel.com/movies/eternals">Eternals</a>, all while playing it safe with the occasional release featuring established characters like Spider-Man and Thor. Marvel released several shows on Disney+ to further transition audiences into the next phase, telling the story of Falcon’s emergence as the new Captain America and <a href="https://www.disneyplus.com/series/wandavision/4SrN28ZjDLwH">Scarlet Witch</a>’s increasing instability, which would eventually pay off in the latest Doctor Strange movie. This film, along with “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and the “Loki” series, would establish the concept of the “multiverse,” where there are other realities that run parallel to ours.
Obviously, this multiverse idea is where all of these shows and movies will come together. The creative decision-makers at Marvel clearly realized that it would be impossible to get much bigger than the “Infinity War” movies, so they’ve opted to just get weirder. This can be exciting, as the inherent unpredictability of the premise can push the characters in directions we might not expect.
As fun as “weird” can be, it can also be narratively risky. There is a difference between “random” and “unfocused” and, if a director isn’t careful, it can be very easy to accidentally move from one to the other, leaving the audience confused.
As counterintuitive as it sounds, it actually requires more discipline when trying to convey this kind of strange story, and the latest phase of the MCU seems to be lacking that. While it has now been revealed that we’re headed towards a confrontation with our new “big bad,” Kang the Conqueror, it doesn’t take away from the suspicion that the creators have been spinning their wheels for the last couple of years, waiting for inspiration to strike, offering a string of movies with wildly differing levels of quality.
“Black Widow” was a fine spy thriller &#8211; a sort of nod to the “Jason Bourne” movies &#8211; but, given that we know the eventual fate of the character, it seemed largely unnecessary. “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” was enjoyable, but the hero himself &#8211; played by the likable Simu Liu &#8211; was regularly upstaged by the supporting characters. And the less said about “Eternals,” the better. It’s as though the characters simply evaporated from my memory, as though they never existed at all. I did, however, really enjoy “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” which perhaps speaks to Marvel having a better handle on their established characters than their new ones.
Then, of course, there’s the inclusion of a political agenda. In some cases, it’s an asset. I’m actually all in favor of expanding racial representation. I would imagine younger Asian-American children were very excited to have a hero that looked like them and so thoroughly incorporated Chinese culture, just as the continuing “Black Panther” series (minus Chadwick Boseman, tragically) will continue to empower African American audiences.
Unfortunately, there is often an overextension to some of these elements. It’s not enough to have a female superhero; she must actively humiliate her condescending male counterparts. Characters of color aren’t merely fighting for justice, but for social justice, specifically. Sometimes these traits are organic to the character, and sometimes not. Either way, there they are, admonishing white male audience members to feel guilty and improve themselves (with the former much more important than the latter). This heavy-handedness doesn’t merely stop at race and gender, however, as it seems the only atrocities the Eternals ever seem to mourn are those done by the United States.
One of the real problems here, though, is the growing resentment that can develop in an audience that feels forced into watching these movies to keep up with the nature of a shared universe. Were one to skip “WandaVision,” one would have absolutely no idea why Scarlet Witch was suddenly a villain in “Multiverse of Madness.”If you’re wondering why Hawkeye isn’t showing up in Marvel movies anymore, you need to watch his series, whether you want to or not. And perhaps you’d prefer to skip out on the anti-American sentiment in “Eternals.” You would do so at your own risk, as there’s a good chance that the mythology set up in that film will come heavily into play in later cosmic films of this phase.
I suppose it comes down to Marvel being a victim of its own success. While not every film in the first three phases is a masterpiece, they each felt like they were contributing to something larger, which meant we were eager to see them. With no discernible narrative structure to the latest phase, however, there’s nothing really compelling us to watch, except the promise that it will all come together eventually. In the meantime, we’re being fed a political message that we may not agree with, hoping that it will all make sense in the end.
Right now, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is doing great at the box office. The audience has been willing to put up with its lack of direction and its agenda. But with each successive unfocused movie or show, it risks alienating its audience. With the announcement of “Phase Five,” Marvel is starting to reveal its larger plans. Let’s hope it is able to effectively execute them, before viewers start to feel like the MCU no longer deserves their attention (or their money). 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v3 Smith – Marvel Cinematic Universe- Where do we go from here_

Fans Abandon Marvel Cinematic Universe Over Woke Storylines And Unfocused Narratives

Marvel

The science fiction thriller “Nope” is director Jordan Peele’s third feature film. Having made a name for himself in sketch comedy, Peele entered the filmmaking scene with 2017’s “Get Out”, a wonderful horror-comedy that raised some eyebrows by exploring the subtle racism found in American liberalism.
That film made a ton of money at the box office and won Peele a screenwriting Oscar, effectively setting him up as a filmmaker to watch. Some consider his follow-up, “Us”, to be even better, though I vehemently disagree. While that film’s first forty-five minutes are incredibly compelling, it starts to lose its way as it gets bogged down in its own mythology. “Nope” falls victim to this tendency, as well, making one wonder if “Get Out” was some sort of fluke. This is a film that patiently raises questions, gives us snippets of information, and slowly revs the audience up for a fascinating confrontation, only to fumble the ball and resort to undercooked action cliches. While the film ended on a note of triumph, it only made me shrug.
Our story begins with the tragic and unlikely death of a Hollywood horse trainer (Keith David) whose kids take over the family business, though not very successfully. The dour OJ (Daniel Kaluuya) and the upbeat Emerald (Keke Palmer) do what they can to keep the business going, but soon find they must sell their horses to a nearby Old West theme park run by former child actor Jupe (Steven Yeun) to keep the lights on. Soon, strange things begin to happen. Horses are disappearing and OJ swears he sees a strange aircraft in the sky. Convinced it’s a UFO, he and Emerald go about trying to capture the craft on film, hoping for a payday that will save the family business. They recruit a veteran Hollywood cinematographer (Michael Wincott) to help them definitively document the existence of extraterrestrials. As one might assume, this winds up being more difficult than expected.
So here we have a sort of alien invasion film told on a small, familial scale. One can be forgiven for thinking of M. Night Shyamalan’s superb 2002 film “Signs”, which brought the massive scope of a film like “Independence Day” down to a more human level. But where that film brought several disparate elements together into one singular whole, “Nope” remains a series of interesting vignettes that never fully coalesce.
For example, we see scenes from Jupe’s childhood, when he worked as an actor on a sitcom based around a friendly chimp. One day, the chimp drastically changes in behavior, and savagely attacks several people on set. This moment, combined with Jupe’s attempt to capitalize on the existence of OJ’s space aliens, would seem to convey a message about trying to tame the untamable. Several wonderful films have been made around this concept, as far back as “King Kong”, but this movie never really explores the idea. Instead, like so many other elements of the story, it plays with the concept a bit, then drops it in favor of the latest plot development.
What makes this truly frustrating is that the film so effectively creates and maintains a tone of awe and dread for the first hour or so. The mystery at hand continually grows until the audience is just as eager to know what’s going on as the characters themselves. Peele has shown himself to be an extremely capable visual director. His eye for composition and his ear for sound design make for an impressive combination. However, his writing falls short, which is unfortunate, given how solid the screenplay for “Get Out” is.
The actors all do their best to unify the conflicting story and character beats, to middling effect. Kaluuya, an intensely charismatic actor, is saddled with playing a tight-lipped, no-nonsense type whose sense of loyalty to his father is palpable, but who is nonetheless difficult to connect with. Palmer brings some much-needed energy and is mostly a delight. However, once again, like so many other elements of the film, her unique qualities begin to fade away as the film enters its third act. The supporting players fare a little better, particularly the always-reliable Wincott (who, it seems, is slowly turning into Tom Waits). Here, Wincott crafts an enigmatic character whose motivations are known only to him. This makes him easily the most intriguing character of the film; a sort of Quint by way of Ansel Adams.
Despite the best efforts of the cast, “Nope” goes off the rails in its last act. As our characters work to lure the UFO towards them, always being careful to obey its rules of engagement, things eventually turn chaotic, with everybody making unmotivated choices and the UFO itself attacking seemingly at random. Given the occasional theme of trying to bring order out of chaos, this turn might make sense. However, it never quite seems like these are specific directorial choices dictated by thematic curiosity. Instead, it feels as if Peele doesn’t really know how to end his movie, so he just decides to do whatever sounds good, regardless of how it breaks down the carefully-crafted story and characters he has created.
In the end, “Nope” is an unsatisfying film. As with “Us”, the deliberate pacing of the first half gives way to a climax that amounts to little more than “just a bunch of stuff that happened”, as Homer Simpson would say. This is what makes the film so frustrating. Were the movie to be awful and unfocused throughout, that would be one thing. But Peele is clearly a talented filmmaker and visualist. He is able to build and maintain suspense, all with a wry sense of humor. Many filmmakers long to have Peele’s directorial instincts, which is why it’s so disappointing when he squanders them.

v3 Smith – MOVIE REVIEW- Jordan Peele’s NOPE

Jordan Peele’s ‘Nope’ Gives Way To Undercooked Action Cliches After Compelling Start

Olivia Newman’s “Where the Crawdads Sing,” based on the bestselling novel by Delia Owens, is a good-looking melodrama that begins well enough but quickly loses its way, sacrificing moments of genuine humanity and connection for two-dimensional efficiency. It often feels like the film is terrified of alienating fans of its source material. It is unwilling to omit a single plot point, resulting in a film that feels like a sequence of events that never actually comes together to form a coherent character piece. It is a Wikipedia summary cloaked in pretty scenery; appealing to look at, but far from impactful.
The story follows the life of Kya Clark (Daisy Edgar-Jones), a young woman whose family abandons her when she is a little girl growing up in 1950s North Carolina. She spends several years fending for herself, living alone in her family’s cabin in the secluded marshes outside the small town of Barclay Cove. As she gets older, she meets and falls in love with Tate Walker (Taylor John Smith), a sensitive biologist who teaches Kya to read and write. This romance soon gives way to another, as Kya is then courted by the rich, cocky Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson), whose eventual untimely death lands Kya in jail for murder. Defending Kya is a kindly old lawyer named Tom Milton (David Strathairn), who attempts to push past the jury’s prejudice against “the marsh girl” and only present the facts, which would seemingly exonerate her.
This is an extensive amount of story to try to fit into two short hours of screen time, and the film suffers greatly under the strain. Scene after scene, audiences are rushed through major character developments, which are summed up with expository dialogue or voiceover narration. Whatever weight these developments are meant to have is put squarely on the shoulders of the actors, who are required to convey romance, loneliness, tension, and fear all in a matter of seconds. As hard as the cast may try, they aren’t up to the task. I’m not sure if any actor would be able to do what this story requires, considering the screenplay they are given to work with. It is simultaneously too much and not enough.
Perhaps if the director were more willing to condense or combine certain story elements, there would be more time for the emotional implications of those elements to truly connect, both with the characters and with the audience. Certainly, the film’s screenwriter, Lucy Alibar, would have been more than capable of giving the characters the room to thoroughly explore what they’re feeling, had the director and studio allowed it. Alibar is the writer behind the fascinating, “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” another film exploring the plight of the waterlogged and forgotten. If any writer could have put us inside the world of an illiterate “marsh girl,” it would have been her. Being shackled so securely to the popular source material, though, Alibar’s never really allowed to fly.
The same can be said of lead actress Daisy Edgar-Jones, who is able to embody Kya’s naivete, vulnerability, cynicism, and hopefulness, despite the script’s breakneck pacing. However, even with Edgar-Jones’s humanizing performance, Kya is written as an overly-pure soul; a character with no visible faults, who is constantly wronged by those around her. She is essentially perfect, which actually works against the character. With no real flaws, Kya has nothing to learn and nowhere to go, ultimately simplifying her character into a two-dimensional bore.
It doesn’t help that the character’s perfection extends to her appearance, as well. While the natural environments of the film are photographed beautifully &#8211; as they should be &#8211; the movie’s visual aesthetic is often too pristine, too pretty. Given that our main character has been living all alone in a cabin with no electricity in the middle of a swamp, wearing only the ratty clothes left behind by her family, one would think that Kya might occasionally be permitted to look a little dirty at times; perhaps even a bit grimy. However, that’s not how this film operates. Kya always looks flawless; not a hair out of place. Just another instance of our protagonist’s perfection. She’s so pure that not even the dirt will stick to her.
In the end, all of these different elements &#8211; the archetypal characters, the too-clean aesthetic, the constant exposition &#8211; add up to a theatrical Hollywood film that both looks and feels much like a standard Lifetime movie. It is the story of a pure spirit constantly let down by the world around her, until she finally calls upon her inner strength to assert herself and live a happier life. This inner strength, which is ever-present and not something she ever has to discover or develop, only underlines the flatness and predictability of the story.
I have no doubt that many of Kya’s struggles and motivations are more clearly outlined in the novel and couldn’t be fully explored in a two-hour film, but that’s the problem with adaptations, isn’t it? When drawing upon an existing work of art in order to make a movie, everything doesn’t always translate. Eventually, the director must choose whether she is making a visualized novel or an actual movie. In the case of “Where the Crawdads Sing,” it’s obvious which choice Olivia Newman made. When a director is simply following a pre-approved template, she shouldn’t be too surprised if the resulting movie is uninspired. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – Smith – Movie Review- Where the Crawdads Sing_216x9

‘Where The Crawdads Sing’: Picturesque Adaptation Falls Flat, Feels Uninspired

With President Trump’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-trump-laments-oscars-giving-a-movie-from-south-korea-best-picture-internet-responds">recent remarks</a> about “Parasite” and its Best Picture win, many a comment section has been filled with talk about foreign films, too often in a dismissive way. “Those movies are weird” and “I don’t want to read” are common refrains in the ol’ comment section. There are even some who act as though these films don’t deserve any real consideration by American audiences simply because they’re made elsewhere. While I can understand some of these objections (I’m not the fastest reader myself), others demonstrate an astonishing solipsism, which is the antithesis of what art is all about.
The responses haven’t all been all negative, though. Some readers have expressed interest in expanding their awareness of international cinema, but are overwhelmed by its enormity. After all, it’s not as though “Foreign” is a specific genre. French films are different than Japanese films, which are different than Indian films. And so on. And those countries have their own take on drama, comedy, and action. Each country has its own sensibilities, and each individual filmmaker his or her own filmmaking preferences.
Just as American films have different levels of accessibility, so do foreign films. Certainly, the image of the black and white French film featuring people in turtlenecks smoking cigarettes in profile may loom large in the American mind, but there are also French films that are just as crowd-pleasing as any domestic movie. But, to be fair, there are certainly some foreign films that curious American viewers will be more comfortable with than others.
Below is a list of ten non-American films that more adventurous American viewers might enjoy. As accessibility is the name of the game here, the list leans European. There is no Indian, African, or Middle Eastern film, though there are plenty that deserve recognition. If you’re a film fan interested in expanding your horizons, these films might be a good place to start.
10. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) &#8211; Mexico/Spain
Guillermo Del Toro’s horror riff on “Alice in Wonderland,” this film takes place shortly after the Spanish Civil War. A young girl attempts to escape her hellish life by traveling to a magical kingdom full of beauty and peril. Visually stunning but still imbued with the tonal darkness that Del Toro had become known for, “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a deeply disturbing but hopeful take on the horror of war and its impact on the most innocent and vulnerable in society.
9. Bicycle Thieves (1948) &#8211; Italy
Vittorio De Sica’s depiction of post-World War II economic depression in Italy is widely considered one of the best movies of all time. An out-of-work family man finally lands a job that requires him to purchase a bicycle. On his first day, his bike is stolen and he recruits his young son to help him find it. Along the way, the two grow closer, but the search becomes more and more hopeless. Despite its downbeat tone, the film remains a humanistic look at poverty and family. An absolute masterpiece.
8. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974) &#8211; West Germany 
R.W. Fassbinder’s romantic drama about the attraction of two lonely souls features some of the most naturalistic acting I’ve ever seen. An older woman, largely ignored by her family, falls in love with an Moroccan immigrant with no social connections. The two grow closer, but soon find their relationship tested beyond anything they ever expected. A lovely little film with a clear-eyed look at the intricacies of enduring romance.
7. The Wages of Fear (1953) &#8211; France/Italy
One of the most intense films ever made, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s story of social outcasts hired to transport nitroglycerin over a mountain pass takes stress to a new level. As our characters journey – slowly, cautiously – toward their destination, they open up about their lives and backgrounds, knowing that any word could be their last. A master class in cinematic tension.
6. Hero (2004) &#8211; China
Chinese wuxia films have always combined stunning action choreography with a certain grace of execution, creating a wholly new and exciting kind of adventure story. Directed by visualist Zhang Yimou and starring Jet Li, “Hero” features beautiful action set pieces that rank with some of the best in film history. Quiet and patient one moment and dangerously complex the next, this film is bound to satisfy anybody who likes their action to be more considered and mature.
5. Life is Beautiful (1998) &#8211; Italy
Roberto Benigni took the world by storm with this Charlie Chaplin-inspired depiction of World War II-era anti-semitism. As a Jewish shopkeeper – played by Benigni himself – is taken to a concentration camp with his young son, his protective instinct kicks in and he does everything he can to shield the boy from the horrifying truth of their situation. Criticized by some for soft-pedaling Nazi atrocities, the film remains committed to his blending of drama and comedy, ending on an inspiring note, effectively suggesting that hope is possible in even the most dire of circumstances.
4. Amelie (2001) &#8211; France
When visualist Jean-Pierre Jeunet takes on the romantic comedy genre, the results are bound to be unique. In the story of “Amelie,” a young woman (played by the charming Audrey Tatou) in the middle of a personal quest to improve the lives of those around her, suddenly finds herself falling in love. Her usual boldness fails her in her pursuit of romance, making for adorable mishaps and endearing awkwardness, all in the midst of a beautiful – and more fanciful – reality, courtesy of Jeunet’s hyperactive imagination.
3. The Vanishing (1988) &#8211; Netherlands/France
Dutch filmmaker George Sulzier riffs on the standard 80s thriller with this straightforward, sobering tale of a young man whose girlfriend disappears without a trace. As his search stretches on, Sulzier explores the familiar theme of obsession, but with a chilling twist. A deeply disturbing film made all the more terrifying due to its matter-of-fact tone, “The Vanishing” will linger in your memory much longer than you want it to.
2. M (1931) &#8211; Germany
German director Fritz Lang, who helped to define the look of 1920s cinema, here tells the story of a city on the brink of collapse. A mysterious man has been abducting and murdering children, and it is having an impact on both local law enforcement and the criminal underground. Featuring a haunted performance by a young Peter Lorre, this film is a visual feast that explores compulsion with the pitch black tone of a horror film.
1. Throne of Blood (1957) &#8211; Japan
Filmmaker Akira Kurosawa may have been best known for his samurai stories set in feudal Japan, but he was nevertheless enamored with Western narratives. His influences were as varied as the novels of Dashiell Hammett to the early works of John Ford. And, as we see with “Throne of Blood,” Kurosawa clearly had a fondness for the works of William Shakespeare, as well. Starring famous Japanese leading man Toshiro Mifune, “Throne of Blood” is a feudal retelling of “Macbeth,” Shakespeare’s play about an overly ambitious man, his murderous rise to power, and his eventual downfall. Incorporating the mysticism of the original play, Kurosawa’s film is beautifully-realized, often feeling oddly-dreamlike in its sensibilities. It is a gorgeous film that hardcore Shakespeare fans will find exhilarating to watch.
Of course, it feels ridiculous to narrow the entirety of world cinema through the decades down to a simple list of ten, but this is meant to be a gateway. For every one of the films mentioned, there are dozens more in the wings, waiting to dazzle and challenge any filmgoer curious enough to engage with them.
And, hey, these are just my recommendations. I’d love to hear from you in the comments. What foreign films do you recommend? What are some of your favorites?

Popcorn

SMITH: Ten Great Foreign Films To Get You Started

Parasite

I don’t begrudge any artist having a point of view, or even attempting to express that point of view. Art is all about communication between the artist and audience. The sticking point comes not in the fact of a work of art having a message, but in how that message is expressed. The same goes for film. Film critic Roger Ebert was known to say, “A movie isn’t what it’s about, it’s how it’s about it.” I agree. A film’s tone not only heightens its story, but can actually undercut it, as well. This is certainly the case with Cathy Yan’s “Birds of Prey,” DC’s latest offering in its increasingly-disjointed cinematic universe.
It’s clear from the beginning that the film is attempting to overtly incorporate a feminist message into its story. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. The message itself is artistically neutral. Some great movies have been feminist in nature, released as recently as Greta Gerwig’s charming and clear-eyed “Little Women” and Patty Jenkins’ inspirational “Wonder Woman.” Unfortunately, as sometimes happens, the ideological goals of “Birds of Prey” begin to cloud the narrative execution, resulting in a film that is so intent on getting its message across that it hits the viewer over the head, not unlike Harley Quinn with her trademark mallet.
While the performers all do their best to breathe life into these stock characters, and the production design is appropriately off-kilter, the film is thematically shallow. In its attempt to champion its female protagonists, it ends up denigrating every last one of its male characters. From the cops to the criminals, and every man in between, this vision of Gotham City is one teeming with misogyny and oppression. Not only do the men of Gotham take credit for women’s achievements, but they are often incompetent and predatory while they’re doing it.
This would be fine if our protagonists were equally flawed – suggesting perhaps that Gotham inevitably corrupts and distorts everybody that inhabits it – but this is not the case. While the men are undeniable monsters, our five female heroes have an inherent purity to them, both in their motives and their methods. What minor flaws they do have are seen as delightful character quirks, meant to endear them to the audience. Consequently, any violence they enact upon their oppressors is clearly seen as justified.
Strange as it may sound, I’m reminded of Harold Cronk’s 2014 faith-based film “God’s Not Dead.” In it, a Christian college student butts heads with his atheist professor. The film was a big hit, but many were frustrated with the depiction of the professor, and of atheists in general. They felt that the character was a straw man, a loathsome antagonist meant to make our main character – and Christians – look better by comparison. I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment and cite it as the film’s primary weakness among many. “God’s Not Dead” attempts to make its protagonist likable not through character development and specificity, but by confronting him with a villain so unabashedly antagonistic and one dimensional that the audience has no choice but to root for him.
It’s the same with “Birds of Prey.” In its desire to get the audience cheering for its female protagonists, it goes the easy – and safe – route of simply surrounding them with male characters so depraved, so selfish, so bumbling that the audience couldn’t possibly see our heroes as anything less than saintly.
Messaging is one thing, but lazy messaging is another. Even the plainest truths contain complexity and nuance. To shave those off in order to more effectively guide the audience toward a theme is to undercut the goal itself. Just as Sigourney Weaver’s “All women are superheroes” comment at the Oscars fails to acknowledge the truly despicable women in the world – and tacitly dismiss genuinely heroic men – so too does “Birds of Prey” choose to go the easy, broad route of making generalized statements, free of subtlety and nuance, ultimately deflating its themes to the point of irrelevance.

Margot Robbie

SMITH: Feminist Messaging In ‘Birds Of Prey’ Lacks Nuance, Flattens Film

Feminism

This time of year, it’s not uncommon for my fellow conservative commentators to discuss the growing disparity between the Oscars and the average moviegoer. They bring up the 2016 winner of Best Picture, “Moonlight,” citing the film’s low box office as a clear example of this division. The Academy chose to proclaim a film that “nobody saw” as the best of the year. Many see this as the latest in a Hollywood trend, referencing the poor financial performance of recent Best Picture winners as proof of the Academy growing further and further out of touch.
As often happens in the conservative assessment of the film industry, the “good old days” are invoked; a time when the most popular movies were often given the coveted Oscar statuette. Past winners like “Ben-Hur” and “The Godfather” were the most successful films of their respective years and 1939’s “Gone with the Wind” is the most successful film of all time (when one takes inflation into account). So when did the Academy begin to stand in opposition to the financial will of the masses?
I think that this actually is the wrong question to ask. Rather than wonder when the opinion-makers stopped rewarding popular films, perhaps we should instead ask when people stopped being interested in better movies?
Yes, yes, I know that such a question will be viewed as somehow elitist, but that doesn’t mean it’s unwarranted. A cursory look at the history of American filmgoing will yield some unexpected results. Take the year 1979. In a year featuring a Bond movie and numerous science fiction outings, one might expect the highest grossing film of the year to be a big budget fantasy or an entry in a beloved franchise.
But no, the most successful film was that year’s Best Picture winner, “Kramer vs. Kramer,” a kitchen sink drama about a divorced father trying to take care of his son. With “Marriage Story” currently nominated for a number of Oscars, it’s not hard to picture a film like this being a modern Academy Awards contender. So that is fairly constant. But does anybody really think that a film like this would even crack the top ten of 2019, let alone be number one?
<div id="attachment_86126" style="width: 2045px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-86126" class="wp-image-86126 size-full" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/8F7CB3BA-5B06-4F9D-8AC5-FF083715EBD6.jpeg" alt="Actor Dustin Hoffman and actress Meryl Streep smile happily after winning their respective Oscars at the 52nd Annual Academy Awards presentations at the Music Center 4/14. Hoffman won his Oscar for the Best Actor Award for his role in &quot;Kramer vs. Kramer,&quot; and Streep won her Oscar for Best Actress In a Supporting Role for her role in &quot;Kramer vs.Kramer.&quot;" width="2035" height="1145" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/8F7CB3BA-5B06-4F9D-8AC5-FF083715EBD6.jpeg 2035w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/8F7CB3BA-5B06-4F9D-8AC5-FF083715EBD6-300x169.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/8F7CB3BA-5B06-4F9D-8AC5-FF083715EBD6-1024x576.jpeg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/8F7CB3BA-5B06-4F9D-8AC5-FF083715EBD6-768x432.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/8F7CB3BA-5B06-4F9D-8AC5-FF083715EBD6-1536x864.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2035px) 100vw, 2035px" />Photo: Bettmann / Contributor via Getty Images</div>
In 1988, Best Picture went to “Rain Man,” the story of a selfish young man getting to know his mentally disabled brother. It was also the highest grossing film of that year. Another story about an interpersonal relationship, it’s pretty unlikely that a film like this could top the box office these days.
And if we want to go all the way back to the 1940s, 1946 Best Picture winner “The Best Years of Our Lives” was a box office smash, despite it being a three-hour long film about the emotional and financial struggles of World War II veterans. This is hardly the stuff of modern box office dreams, but movies like this are still nominated for Academy Awards.
So what changed? Why is there such a chasm between the Academy and audiences?
The answer, I think, lies less with anything overtly ideological and more with changing technology. As films became more ambitious with their special effects – with movies like “Star Wars” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” leading the charge – spectacle became big business. And few movies were more spectacular than fantasies. Certainly, period epics like “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Braveheart,” or the aforementioned “Gone with the Wind” were popular, but they were rooted firmly in reality.
With directors like Robert Zemeckis, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron pushing the boundaries of digital compositing in the 1980s, other worlds could be created and material previously considered too ambitious could finally be mined for box office gold. Richard Donner’s 1979 “Superman” was pitched with the tagline “You will believe a man can fly.” But with digital technology, not only could men fly, but aliens could attack, dinosaurs could return, and Hobbits could trek into Mordor.
<div id="attachment_86124" style="width: 2039px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-86124" class="size-full wp-image-86124" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/E1AB679B-E75C-4917-B049-D3E0815610D7.jpeg" alt="Best Supporting Actor nominee Ian McKellen (L) as Gandalf with Elijah Wood as Frodo." width="2029" height="1141" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/E1AB679B-E75C-4917-B049-D3E0815610D7.jpeg 2029w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/E1AB679B-E75C-4917-B049-D3E0815610D7-300x169.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/E1AB679B-E75C-4917-B049-D3E0815610D7-1024x576.jpeg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/E1AB679B-E75C-4917-B049-D3E0815610D7-768x432.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/E1AB679B-E75C-4917-B049-D3E0815610D7-1536x864.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2029px) 100vw, 2029px" />Photo by New Line/WireImage via Getty Images</div>
As budgets inflated, it became important for studios to broaden their audiences as much as possible. Bringing in a mere $100 million would no longer suffice. Movies were greenlit with a wider audience in mind, trying to capture a younger demographic, so vital to the box office success of a film. And, just as a little boy will clap his hands and shout “Again, again!,” so younger audiences demanded more, prompting sequel after sequel to be produced.
Before long, remakes, kids movies, and franchise films dominated the box office, until the more adult fare of years past became total non-starters. What once were financially successful would now be touted as “prestige pictures,” made for an older audience looking for some kind of break from the barrage of CGI carnage occupying the multiplexes.
Occasionally, there will be some overlap, as when the Academy rewarded the third “Lord of the Rings” film with Best Picture, Director, and a slew of other awards. And sometimes an Oscar-caliber film will be embraced by a wide audience, such as “American Sniper,” “Hidden Figures,” or “Moneyball.” But, for the most part, the Oscars are doing what they’ve always done: recognize movies for grown-ups that feature thematically and artistically challenging components.
What is “Green Book” if not the latest example of a feel-good interracial buddy film, just like previous winners “In the Heat of the Night” and “Driving Miss Daisy”? “Moonlight” is in the tradition of intimate character portraits like “Marty” and “The Lost Weekend.” And if the current frontrunner “1917” wins Best Picture, it will take its place alongside past war movies like “The English Patient,” “Patton,” “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” and even 1930’s “All Quiet on the Western Front,” a World War I story from the German perspective.
So, as you regard this year’s Academy Awards and lament its dearth of box office hits, please consider that this isn’t a simple case of left-leaning Hollywood removing itself further and further from the mainstream. The current divide between the Academy and the average moviegoer has been steadily growing since the 1980s, the dominance of special effects, and the courting of a younger – less discerning – audience.

Oscars.

SMITH: Maybe The Oscars Aren’t As ‘Out Of Touch’ As People Think

Oscars

Most right-leaning people don’t care about the Academy Awards. I know this because every Oscar night, I see a flurry of Facebook status updates and Twitter posts from my fellow conservatives boldly announcing their disinterest in the awards ceremony (often going out of their way to denounce liberal virtue signaling in a cringe-worthy display of irony).
The Oscars are not very well-regarded in film critic circles either. Many view it as an industry popularity contest in which, with rare exception, the mediocre studio offerings ultimately beat out the more influential and groundbreaking films. From “Citizen Kane” to “Apocalypse Now” to “Saving Private Ryan” to “The Social Network,” Oscar history is littered with unrewarded classics, leading people to wonder why an Academy Award is so important in the first place when it so regularly goes to films and performances of lesser quality.
I find the Oscars valuable mostly for academic purposes. The nominees and winners prove to be an interesting snapshot of their time. One need only look to the nominees from 1976 to get a picture of the changing American culture. “All the President’s Men,” Bound for Glory,” “Network,” and “Taxi Driver” – four films that turned a cynical eye toward the cultural landscape – lost to John G. Avildsen’s “Rocky,” an inspirational film that suggested the American dream was alive and well. The message was clear. After Vietnam and Watergate, the Academy seemed willing to acknowledge the divisions within the country while ultimately affirming its strength and inspiration.
This year has yielded an interesting crop of Best Picture nominees. Some are epic while others are intimate. Some are inspiring while others are cynical. It will be interesting to see what future Oscar historians are able to conclude about our current culture based on these nominees.
Ranked from worst to best – based on my own personal preferences, of course – these are the 2019 nominees for Best Picture.
9. Joker
Despite a truly remarkable performance from Joaquin Phoenix, Todd Philips’ “Joker” is a letdown. The film is directed with the gusto of somebody utterly convinced of his film’s importance, but whose every choice is as broad and obvious as a teenager’s one act play. A film that purports to explore mental illness, it instead exploits it, treating its main character’s sickness not as a genuine tragedy but as a way to morally subsidize his monstrous actions. Covering the well-trod ground of “Taxi Driver” and “Falling Down,” the film’s cliches are elevated by a committed and heartfelt performance from Phoenix, who proves once again that he is one of the most vital and exciting actors working today.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t433PEQGErc" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
8. Ford v Ferrari
A rip-roaring good time from director James Mangold, “Ford v Ferrari” is a solidly-made – if overlong – film in the tradition of “Moneyball” and “The Martian.” Featuring enjoyable performances from Matt Damon and Christian Bale, it’s a big budget mainstream American film for grown-ups that also contains subtle themes about uncompromising individualism in the face of corporate assimilation. To put it in car terms, it may not be flashy, but it is sturdy and reliable.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zyYgDtY2AMY" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
7. Jojo Rabbit
Director Taika Waititi dips his toe into the tumultuous waters of political satire and emerges with a film that is largely toothless but extremely endearing. With a refreshing manic energy and an appealing cast, Waititi tells the story of Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis), a rabid young Nazi at the end of the war who is so dedicated to the cause that his imaginary friend is none other than Hitler himself. As the soldiers around him resign themselves to an eventual loss, Jojo befriends a young Jewish girl who forces him to question his entire belief system. What it lacks in edginess, it makes up for in heart.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tL4McUzXfFI" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
6. 1917
Since his Oscar win twenty years ago for “American Beauty,” Sam Mendes has reinvented himself as a solid action director, having helmed the two most recent James Bond films. He brings those sensibilities to his real time World War I thriller “1917,” about two British soldiers crossing enemy lines to warn their fellow troops of an impending German trap. With virtuosic camerawork by the ever-exciting Roger Deakins, the film is a cinematic marvel. However, while this technical meticulousness is undeniably impressive, it can keep the viewer at arm’s length. Nonetheless, while so many movies fall into a predictable, by-the-numbers pattern, it’s nice to know there are still films like “1917” out there willing to be ambitious.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YqNYrYUiMfg" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
5. Little Women
It must be difficult adapting classic works of literature. Many such adaptations have a tendency to be stodgy and unengaging. Thankfully, Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women” is youthful and vibrant, bringing much-needed energy to Louisa May Alcott’s oft-adapted novel. With a likable ensemble of actors, including Saoirse Ronan, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, and Timothee Chalamet, the film remains reverential to the original book while employing modern filmmaking techniques – such as non-linear editing – to make it relatable to the viewer. With now two solid films under her belt – 2017’s “Lady Bird” being her directorial debut – Greta Gerwig has emerged as refreshing new voice in filmmaking.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AST2-4db4ic" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
4. Marriage Story
It would be easy to watch Noah Baumbach’s “Marriage Story” and see it simply as a stagy, depressing family drama. It is those things, but it is also undeniably human, both in its goals and its execution. It does what too few films do these days; it approaches an all-too familiar aspect of our culture and asks why we’re all so comfortable with it. His story of a young couple’s divorce and bitter custody fight is told with the heartbreak that should accompany the dissolution of a marriage. In a country where divorce has become so commonplace, Baumbach – along with a stellar cast that includes Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson – chooses to reopen that wound to let the audience contemplate the daily tragedy that we’ve long since stopped mourning, but probably should.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BHi-a1n8t7M" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
3. The Irishman
For four decades now, Martin Scorsese’s mob films have crackled with exciting and dangerous energy. Scorsese always seemed more interested in recreating the sociopathic, ultraviolent appeal of the gangster lifestyle, choosing to leave the operatic tragedy to Francis Ford Coppola. With his new crime epic “The Irishman,” however, Scorsese has made a film that looks back at a life of crime with introspection and regret. Telling the story of real life mob enforcer Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) and his unlikely friendship with union boss Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), “The Irishman” creates a sense of impending, inevitable doom. Gone is the gleeful, frat boy energy of “Goodfellas” or “Mean Streets”; Scorsese frames the events of Sheeran’s life with a tone of existential disgust. Not since Clint Eastwood made “Unforgiven” has a director worked so hard to recontextualize his previous work. A mature, somber, clear-eyed film from one of history’s best directors.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WHXxVmeGQUc" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
2. Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood
Quentin Tarantino has always unapologetically told stories of lowlives and hitmen, underlining the appeal and coolness inherent in that lifestyle. The flashiness of his characters and dialogue has always been his hallmark. But, much like Scorsese, it would seem that Tarantino has chosen to look inward in 2019 and has, in turn, produced a film that is surprisingly meditative, and a bit melancholy. The story of an aging Hollywood star desperate for a comeback could be considered less-than-compelling to most Tarantino fans. But, set against the historical backdrop of the late 1960s and the imminent rise to prominence of Charles Manson, the film begins to take on the epic proportions suggested by its iconic title. In the end, the film is about the desperate, narcissistic, redemptive nature of art and its ability to provide a brief reprieve from the cold, brutal reality we inhabit. A beautiful, elegiac work from one of the unlikeliest of sources, “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood” marks an astonishing leap forward in Tarantino’s already-formidable career.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ELeMaP8EPAA" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
1. Parasite
There is no perfection in art. How could there be? While concepts of aesthetic beauty, realistic fealty, and editing rhythms are tangible, the larger idea of emotional resonance is not. It’s all subjective. As such, critics tend not to use a word like “perfect” when describing a movie; it’s just too definitive. So when I write that Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite” is perfect, I recognize that it’s not a quantifiable term, but an instinctive one. Every choice that the director makes seems so complete in itself, yet such an intrinsic part of the larger whole, that it’s hard to discuss any single element of his film by itself. The deliberate editing and camerawork help to fully realize the story of a poor South Korean family meticulously infiltrating the home of a well-meaning rich family. This long con requires multiple layers of deceit, underneath which lies a deep-seated insecurity and fear, which the actors pull off beautifully. The film manages to operate as a thriller, a drama, and a comedy all at once, modulating these different components according to the requirements of each narrative beat. The final product is a film that is tremendously entertaining, coldly intelligent, and deeply emotional. It being a South Korean film, many Americans likely won’t watch it. Those who do, though, will be treated to a well-crafted, engaging film that, if not perfect, is still a genuine masterpiece.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5xH0HfJHsaY" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
So there you have it! My rankings of the Best Picture nominees. Of course, I can only rank the ones that are there. I’d gladly include “Uncut Gems,” “Ad Astra,” and “A Hidden Life” into the discussion, but I’m sadly prevented by the Academy from doing so. Nonetheless, it’s a pretty solid slate of films.
What are some of your favorite films of 2019? Whom are you rooting for – if anybody – at this year’s Oscars? Leave your comments below!

Menu

Tyler Smith