Genesis 3

This is a story I always wanted to see in those Japanese modern-kids-visit-Biblical-times-cartoons like Superbook and Flying House because I wanted to see how creatively the animators covered up the nudity. (Apparently, it wasn't that creative because I don't remember. I do remember that Superbook had a cool effects sequence whenever the kids went back in time, and that the flying house seldom actually flew.)

When the serpent tempts Eve with fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (not the tree of life), she thinks, in verse 6, that it is "good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom." I've given in to temptations that were pleasing on the surface, but I knew that they would indubitably not give me wisdom. Yet I gave in anyway. Snapping at annoying people, "desirable" in that it makes them go away, will not magically increase my IQ or make me feel better, yet I've still done it more often than I'd like to admit. So how much more tempting would a corporeally edifying enticement be for me? Again, a reminder of how much I need God.

In verse 8, I like the image of of God "walking in the garden in the cool of the day." God can chill and enjoy Himself too can't He? It's a remarkably relatable and humanizing image before Jesus even enters the human story. The idea that Adam and Eve attempt to hide from God seems silly until you realize that many--including Christians like me--try to hide from God today. When I'm about to do something I know I wouldn't want on my C.V., I "hide" from God and attempt to avoid chagrin. It feels like if I can distance myself, then I won't have to face God's disappointment/displeasure/heartache. But because God is much less of an overt presence today, it does seem easier to evade Him. I've never had God talk to me as explicitly as He did to Adam and Eve, yet if He did, I would probably still end up disobeying by relying on my own strength.

Adam doesn't even name Eve until verse 20, only after they've both screwed up. Nice, Adam.

In verse 22, God says, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." At first glance, this makes God look awfully jealous and petty (though as we'll learn later, God is a jealous God--but not jealous in the way we are). But sin has entered into the human heart; we know good and evil, but that doesn't mean we will always choose to do good. And who wants an immortal, sinful being? In fact, we get hints at how such beings might conceivably act in the stories from just about every other religion with deities. Egyptian, Greek, and Norse myths spring to mind first; all the gods are pretty much immortal yet fallible humans with superpowers. They make for great entertainment and apt templates for today's superhero comics and films, but such all-powerful despots, nincompoops, and thugs would be pretty horrifying in real life.

God, being all-good, can't tolerate sin, and thus Adam and Eve had to face His judgment. But His love and grace still allowed for humans to live off the resources of the land and launch a species that now exceeds seven billion souls. Yes these were just precursors for the ultimate solution that was yet to come: Jesus.

Genesis 2

As God rested on the seventh day, so too did He, in the Ten Commandments, instruct humans to rest on the Sabbath. In our work-obsessed culture, rest is often seen as indolent, a waste of time and productivity. As for me, I have no trouble with resting if it involves wasting time. But God used the day of rest to reflect upon and admire His creation. Thus, the rest of a Christian should be Christ-focused. When I rest, I just want to loaf around, read, listen to music, or watch a movie, so I've still got ample room to improve.

I like how in verse 12, the author makes a parenthetical aside about the fascinating geological resources of Havilah. Not only is there gold, there's resin and onyx (or is it Onix?) as well. And it's not just your everyday, prosaic gold--it's great gold. Make sure you memorize that verse for Sunday school, kids!

Now that I've gotten the flippancy over with, I'll come to the verse that struck me. Verse 18 says, "The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'" I've always fancied myself a solitary fellow; for most of my time as a student, I didn't interact with a whole lot of people and never felt particularly depressed. An intensely shy person, I never initiated conversations and, for the most part, no one did likewise with me. I was never bullied, but, to quote Tim Burton, "It was as if I was exuding an aura that said, 'Leave Me The F*** Alone'" (Salisbury, 2). Which I was fine with; it wasn't until I graduated from college that I started thinking, "Hmm. Maybe it would be good for me to interact with people outside of my own family."

The details of that journey are too personal (and, frankly, too soporific) to put in a public post such as this, but as the Incredibles know, no man is an island. I haven't had any interactions that I would call truly cathartic--if only it were as easy as Robin Williams saying, "It's not your fault to you" ad infinitum. But at the very least, sharing experiences--many of them humorous--with friends has opened my eyes to how much I need to socialize, draining and daunting as it may be at times.

Maybe some people can live their whole lives as hermits, content not to interact with anyone. But God has slowly, inexorably led me out of my comfortable little nest into having conversations with others that at least approach normalcy on my part. In fact, as I look back, I'm amazed at how God has maneuvered me into positions and jobs that have forced me to talk to other people and actually derive enjoyment from them at times. It's definitely not the path I would have chosen for myself--I would be content with a job that just required me to write without interacting with anyone. Yet would I have developed these essential life skills if I had found a job that allowed such complacency on my part?

God is the master of the unexpected plot twists of life. But unlike the twists of M. Night Shyamalan, God's are edifying and actually make sense.

Works Cited:
Salisbury, Mark. Burton on Burton. Revised ed. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 2006.

Genesis 1

In the immortal words of Oscar Hammerstein II, "Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start." (I love The Sound of Music, but those lyrics are either alarmingly vapid or so deliberately and ironically vacuous as to be deviously brilliant. Then again, the main body of that marvelous song is basically one stanza over and over with one additional line as counterpoint.)

God created man and woman in His image (v. 27). This passage is particularly apposite to some of the current issues I'm wrestling with. If we are created in God's image, representing Him as His agents on Earth, aren't we supposed to reflect Him in character and attitude? I know I don't--far from it, in fact. I am in need of God's loving grace, because otherwise, my attitude tends to stink.

I can be self-deprecating to a fault, easy to acknowledge my weaknesses. I suck at math. A kindergartener would look at my drawing and visual artistry skills with mirthful disdain. My few sad attempts at poetry fail to rise above the jejune. I probably have the worst grip on the planet--I just cannot open Gatorade bottles without using one of those rubber cap opener things. (Probably doesn't help that I always have sweaty hands at the time, because who wants Gatorade when you haven't been exercising?) So even if I don't always put my trust in God, allowing Him to be strong where I'm weak, I do acknowledge my weak points. I think my problem is when I rely on that weakness instead of God, which is when it all goes to crap.

That's kind of a big tangent--I suspect that's also going to become a regular feature of these posts. Anyway, in verse 2, we have the wonderfully evocative image of God hovering over the waters. Now, this is before He says, "Let there be light," so a human wouldn't have been able to actually see anything, (or breathe, probably) but imagine--an omnipresent, omniscient, loving presence just waiting, suspended over an expansive seascape. Existing, but unseen. (Remember what I wrote about my poetry skills earlier?) And that God, who in that moment is alone (or maybe angels existed at this point--I'm obviously no Biblical scholar) and about to unleash his sublime powers of creation to bring this world into existence--He wants to have a personal relationship with me?

Inconceivable!

Well, God, unlike our poor friend Vizzini, clearly did conceive such a notion. I am utterly undeserving, yet He still loves me, you, and everyone else.

Rebirth

Why wait?

That's a question that's been in the back of my mind for most of my life, one that I've always pushed away. Life is short, so why wait?

Why wait to use my talents at writing (comparatively meager as they may be) instead of spending hours reading badly written, asinine YouTube and Disqus comments? Why wait to write those soundtrack reviews I've promised myself I'd write for close to four years now? Why wait to read Game of Thrones when it's been sitting in my room for months, and why wait to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer when it's readily available on Netflix (though with my luck, the show's probably expired by now)?

Most importantly, why wait to reestablish my relationship with God, a relationship that has stagnated and, indeed, backslid over the past few years? "I'll do it later," I keep telling myself. To which God, in effect, replies, "Well, if that's your attitude, Buster, 'later' will never come." (Prime lyrics for a James Bond song).

I've distanced myself from God for the past few years, going through the motions to make it look like nothing's wrong. Though I've yet to undergo a crisis of faith--I've never stopped believing that God exists in some capacity--I've been pushing Him away and, for reasons I'm still coming to terms with, resisted coming back to Him.

More than anything else, I've taken Jesus' ultimate sacrifice for granted. Not just taken for granted--I may as well have outright spat in His face. The enormity (in the true sense of the word) of that action has yet to fully strike me, but God has allowed just a minuscule, devastating sliver--a hint of how my offense makes Him and His feel--bring me to my knees.

I am far from fully healed--just a few days ago, I snapped at someone with an annoyance bordering on vituperative. Having heard the testimonies of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I fully expect to continue struggling until I croak. Whether I overcome said struggles, God's plan will prevail, with or without me. But if I call myself a Christian, do I really want to live my life as though Jesus means nothing to me? Or do I trust in Him, allowing Him to provide strength in my weakness, serving as His hands and feet?

Which brings me to the point of all this (to quote Gehn from the seminal computer game Riven, and yes, I realize I'm as periphrastic as he is). To serve as an instrument of God in the earthly realm, I first need to bolster my spiritual life. As one of those steps, I will strive to read a chapter of the Bible a day and write my reflections. (Leviticus will be a real hoot to write about, as will the first few chapters of Numbers and 1 Chronicles). Thus, this blog will be reborn, devoted to faith-based ramblings. (Writing on films, soundtracks, and other media will be hosted on the Soundtrack Mantis blog from now on.) Now, I'm not a Biblical scholar, nor do I boast of having any Earth-shattering insights. In fact, the posts will probably be haphazard and possibly scatterbrained. In addition, the irreverence that subtly (and, at times, not so subtly) imbues my writing at times may offend those whose sense of humor runs counter to mine, but Jesus' love, grace, and sacrificial death on the cross I will always take seriously.

I believe this is something God has laid on my heart. Yes, I enjoy writing, but it still takes hard work, discipline, and a rather dismaying amount of time. Yet considering how much of my free time I've wasted for the past couple decades, producing content, even if it benefits and spiritually edifies only me, seems like a worthwhile investment.

Consolidating Posts to Soundtrack Mantis

To make matters easier for myself, I am consolidating all movie/entertainment posts to my other blog, http://soundtrackmantis.blogspot.com I am repurposing this blog for another use.

Ranking the X-Men Films

With the recent and continuing glut of superhero films, including reboots and re-imaginings, the X-Men films seemed to have been somewhat lost in the shuffle nowadays. The Wolverine seems to have been a minor contender this summer compared to Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel. While the quality of the six released films varies widely, it is admirable that the franchise has run on for so long without a “hard reset” as experienced by the Hulk, Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and (in a few years) The Fantastic Four. Okay, so the first three films had three different actresses for Kitty Pryde, and Nightcrawler was jettisoned after one film, but in a world where major characters like James Rhodes (of Iron Man) and Rachel Dawes (of Batman) are replaced so wantonly, it’s a little refreshing to see attempts at continuity.

With Marvel Studios now being expertly shepherded by Joss Whedon, it falls to controversial comic book scribe Mark Millar (Wanted, Kick-Ass, The Ultimates 1 and 2) to provide guidance to Fox’s Marvel properties (namely, X-Men and the Fantastic Four). Whatever one may think of Millar’s work, one does have to admit that the mad Scot has a soft spot for fans, communicating to them on his website’s forum (forums.millarworld.tv).

However, his influence on Fox’s Marvel films cannot yet be determined, for he had little input on The Wolverine. The film was directed by James Mangold, whose CV includes a diverse array of films such as Cop Land, Girl Interrupted, Kate & Leopold, Identity, Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma, and Knight and Day. Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan) was originally slated to direct the film, which might have been interesting. Or it might have turned out as indistinguishable from the average blockbuster as Gavin Hood’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Hood also directed the brilliant South African film Tsotsi).  At any rate, here is my personal ranking of the X-Men films. Warning: There will be spoilers! (Though I will try not to spoil too much of The Wolverine, even though you can see the final reveal coming from a million miles away).

6. X-Men: The Last Stand (Directed By Brett Ratner)

Many comic book fans complained that this film screwed with the characters too much. I don’t know a whit about the comic book X-Men aside from Millar’s run on Ultimate X-Men, but I still thought this was a poor film. Cyclops is dispatched with little fanfare (poor James Marsden) as is Mystique, and Xavier’s “death” doesn’t feel as impactful as it could have been. Nightcrawler, one of the best characters from X2, is forgotten about completely. The film is oddly dull and slow-moving until the climax on Alcatraz, which is competently directed, but comes across as a series of sequential video game missions. First, the minor mutants fight. Once that box is checked, then we move on to Magneto. Only when that mission is completed does Phoenix (AKA Jean Grey) decide to do anything. I realize that this is dramatically sound, but the way it’s conceived and directed is clunky, thus revealing the seams and removing any sense of organic flow.

 I do love the last shot, but it does render the rest of the film moot. This includes Rogue’s final decision, and it’s telling that the filmmakers weren’t sure what they wanted her to do either. They shot two versions of her final scene: one with her taking the cure and one with her not taking it, and they didn’t decide on which one to use until showing it to a test audience (source: DVD deleted scene commentary). Overall, while the direction by Ratner isn’t terrible, it is rather flat. Much more damaging is the screenplay by Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn, which is devoid of heart and doesn’t really make me care about the characters. Kinberg in particular has not written one movie I’ve liked, and it’s one of the reasons I’m worrying a bit about X-Men: Days of Future Past. I’m hoping co-writers Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman can balance him out. And speaking of Vaughn, he was originally slated to direct this film, but pulled out when he realized he wouldn’t be allowed to make the movie he wanted to make. He was very critical of The Last Stand, and rightly so.

5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Directed By Gavin Hood)

Most people seem to have a seething hatred for this movie. I don’t think it’s all that great, but I also don’t think it’s a disaster on the level of The Last Stand. Ryan Reynolds, who can’t seem to catch a break, is reasonably funny as pre-Deadpool, and future John Carter actors Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins as Gambit and Silverfox, respectively. The film doesn’t come together as well as it should, with a bunch of side characters who feel shoehorned in. Logan’s relationship with Victor Creed is implausibly inconsistent. I realize that making them either best buds or bitter enemies isn’t as interesting, but the lack of depth to their relationship makes it seem like Creed’s final decision comes out of nowhere. He and Logan are slicing each other up for the whole movie, and then he just decides to leave.

The actual story of the film also takes a while to get going. After a mawkish childhood prologue, there is a neat title sequence featuring Logan and Creed fighting in different wars though time, but it sadly reduces their early relationship to a montage that focuses more on the cool visuals than on character. Then there is a lengthy excursion with Logan working for William Stryker (the same jerk from X2) and an abbreviated introduction to Silverfox and her relationship with Logan before Stryker returns. Then he gets his adamantium skeleton, and before we know it, he’s flying with Gambit to Three Mile Island for the final confrontation. It’s an oddly paced film, with some scenes seeming to stretch on, but with the whole movie feeling like it could have used more flesh on its bones. The connections to the other X-Men films (particularly with Cyclops) don’t fit well onto the spine of the story. We’ll see how director Gavin Hood does with the upcoming Ender’s Game; if that’s a dog, then we’ll know that Hood really is suited to smaller, more character driven films (like the aforementioned Tsotsi).

4. The Wolverine (Directed By James Mangold)

I was actually debating whether to put this before or after the first X-Men film. The Wolverine does have some really neat moments, and I loved that it was set in Japan, but it was let down by the final act. I didn’t really get into this film until Logan gets to Japan, which thankfully doesn’t take too long.  The film benefits from two superb female characters Yukio and Mariko, a rarity in comic book films. Neither is as great as Hit-Girl obviously, but both characters feature surprisingly nuanced portrayals with some earned emotional moments (though I do also like Anna Paquin in the first X-Men, dodgy accent aside). The former disappears for a long stretch of the film and the latter becomes a damsel in distress at the end, but both are very welcome whenever they appear. Much less impressive is Viper, who is more annoying than threatening, and I know this is superficial, but I was very distracted by that rather unbecoming beauty spot on her lip (I’m not a fan of beauty spots in general).  Frankly, she comes across as an asshole. Famke Janssen as Jean Grey gets a few nice scenes. Will Yun Lee (also seen in the prologue to the James Bond film Die Another Day) is fine as Mariko’s fiancée, though he could’ve used more screentime and development of his arc.

The final villain is severely underdeveloped, especially since he isn’t revealed until just before his demise. We don’t really get a sense of what drove him to do what he did and what changed him as a person. It certainly doesn’t help that his it’s obvious who he is long before the reveal. Logan’s struggle with immortality is interesting, but is merely touched on before it’s dropped. The early action scenes are mostly well done, with a neat bullet train sequence that is unfortunately not character-based at all, as Wolverine is fighting a bunch of anonymous henchmen. The final battle is underwhelming, though Yukio does get some nice moments and there are some consequences for Logan. Other pluses include Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Logan and the Japan setting, but in the end, the movie ended up promising more that it delivered. The mid-credits scene, though, is pretty chill-inducing.

3. X-Men (Directed By Bryan Singer)

This film, released in 2000, arguably set off the modern superhero film craze. The duo of X-Men and X2, followed by the even better Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 (these two are the real amazing Spider-Man films), proved that superheroes in film could be popular again. Director Bryan Singer had previously directed smaller films like Public Access, Apt Pupil, and the superlative The Usual Suspects, and proved he could adequately handle a big-budget blockbuster (though it took until X2 for him to really find his stride). X-Men has a surprisingly small feel despite a climax atop the Statue of Liberty, and the action sequences until the end are minimal. There are some uneasy touches, like the accents of Storm and Rogue, and a Joss Whedon-penned line (the “toad struck by lightning” zinger) that either Halle Barry or Singer completely misunderstood (likely both) and thus made it sound more horrible than it should have. Then again, Whedon also wrote the film’s best line (“You’re a dick.”) The actual screenplay by David Hayter (also the voice of Snake in Metal Gear Solid) is, well, solid. Get out of my mind, Liquid!

Most of the cast, including Jackman, Patrick Stewart, and Ian McKellan, is effective, and the story does an admirable job at introducing the characters and giving them depth and conflict. Rogue, played by the always-welcome Anna Paquin, happily gets a lot to do here, and in many ways it is more through her eyes than Logan’s through which we are introduced to the X-Men. Paquin superbly portrays her sense of alienation that’s actually quite affecting (if you ignore the fake accent which she thankfully dropped in subsequent films), supported by a subplot with Bobby Drake/Iceman and Mystique. In way, her character perfectly encapsulates the mutants’ struggles with acceptance in their society. It’s too bad that she was basically ignored in the sequels, though at least she got to feature in at least one film. Poor Cyclops was shafted in all three. Speaking of Cyclops, the love triangle between him, Logan, and Jean Grey isn’t quite as compelling as it could have been; Logan does come across as an opportunistic churl, and Cyclops is a bit of a cipher.  The story chugs along at a decent pace towards the climax, which is effectively staged. There is a sense of Singer and the cast getting their feet wet, so the film isn’t as polished as X2, but it’s a good introduction to these characters and their world.

2. X2: X-Men United (Directed By Bryan Singer)

X2 improves upon the first X-Men film, with more assured direction by Singer and a script that, for the most part, expands upon issues only touched upon previously. It also introduces one of the best cinematic X-Men characters: Nightcrawler. Alan Cumming gives a highly sympathetic performance as the character grows from mind-controlled killer to insecure outcast to hero. We get more backstory for Logan without sacrificing all the mystery, a temporary team-up of the X-Men with Magneto, and a truly detestable villain in William Stryker, who provides a real threat without coming across as just annoying and toothless (see Viper in The Wolverine). The theme of mutant acceptance is fleshed out with a scene featuring Iceman and his parents. This time, we not only get a sense of rejection and betrayal—his stupid brother calls the police!—but also an immediate sense of danger as Pyro attacks the police when they arrive. It’s effective, even if it borders on preachy.

There are also some great action set pieces, starting with Nightcrawler’s attack on the White House and continuing with a horrifying assault by Stryker’s forces on the X-Men mansion. The X-Jet chase with the fighter jets is kind of stupid, but is given visual interest by Storm’s “perfect storm.” The extended climax is tense and exciting with constant reversals of fortune, highlights being Logan’s fight with Deathstrike, Magneto’s manipulation of Xavier in Stryker’s Cerebro, and Jean’s “sacrifice.” But the climax does drag on for too long and seems to end several times (at 134 minutes, this is the longest X-Men film). The scene where Stryker’s son manipulates Xavier to kill all the mutants seems a little off and unconvincing. Maybe it’s because Xavier gives in so easily, or maybe because the kid in that scene doesn’t act very well (or wasn’t directed well). The final scene with Stryker drags a bit, and the whole thing gets a little cumbersome by the end. Some of the themes are stated in a heavy-handed manner as well. But these are only small issues that detract only minimally from this film’s considerable strengths.

1. X-Men: First Class (Directed By Matthew Vaughn)

Ironically, my favorite X-Men film has only one cast member from the previous X-Men films, and it’s in a cameo—though it’s probably one of the funniest cameos I’ve seen. Before the film came out, certain fanboys derisively referred to the film as a choice phrase made by taking one letter out of the word First and two out of Class (I’ll let you figure out which letters they are.) Most of them were shut up by the final product, an expertly-directed film featuring two elite lead performances and depth of character beyond any found in the previous X-Men films. The few minor hiccups include underdeveloped side characters and a wooden performance by January Jones as Emma Frost, the former due to diminished prep time and the latter due to who knows what. But these are vastly overshadowed by the film’s firm grasp of character and story structure, and much of that is probably attributable to director Matthew Vaughn.

I was a fan of Vaughn before First Class (he also directed Layer Cake, Stardust, and Kick-Ass), but was worried about how his anarchic sensibility would fit into the more mainstream world of X-Men. There are some more conventional elements, such as the side characters, but Vaughn was able to bring a sense of unpredictability and even harshness into the X-Men films. From the first scene with Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and a young Magneto to Shaw’s demise, the aforementioned cameo, some of Magneto’s early acts, and not one but two scenes set at sex parlors, the film is at the higher end of the PG-13 rating. (The Wolverine undoubtedly benefited from the trail blazed by Vaughn in First Class). But beyond these superficial elements, Vaughn also devotes extensive time to building the relationship between Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik/Magneto (Michael Fassbender). The script, a rewrite by Vaughn and Jane Goldman from a previous draft by Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz, mines the richness between the two mutants as much as a major superhero film can. The scene where Charles helps Erik move the radar dish is my favorite scene in the whole X-Men series—a perfect combination of despair, triumph, and release. Despite these explorations, the film never drags, and even the scenes with the “sidekick” mutants are entertaining. Jennifer Lawrence also does a stellar job as Mystique, creating a charismatic character who still has a ways to go before she becomes the Mystique of the first three X-Men films. Her relationship with Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult) is understated, and the inner conflicts of both characters deeply affect that relationship. Vaughn and the actors do a great job of bringing the characters—especially Charles, Erik, Mystique, and Beast—to life.

It wouldn’t be a major superhero film without action, and Vaughn proves that he is one of the best action directors working today. All of Erik’s early scenes are filled with suspense and brutality, including the boat scene where he runs into Charles. Shaw’s attack on the mutant compound exceeds the mansion attack in X2 in terms of terror, thrills, conflict, and emotion. The last half hour of the film is a cornucopia of exhilarating action, nail-biting suspense, and emotional release. Unlike in X2, the pace never drags and all the various action scenes are masterfully conceived and put together. Vaughn always shows the action clearly, his unobtrusive camera work letting the thrills stand on their own. There is no shortage of great moments, including Banshee’s method of flying, the sub lift, and the final confrontation with Shaw. Even after the “boss” is defeated, there is still a threat, and it relates to Erik’s character. And he is stopped not by a slash of adamantium claws or a bursting dam, but by himself when he realizes what he’s done to Charles. It all culminates in an emotional apotheosis that, while not spectacular or tear-jerking, is entirely fitting. I know I sound like a raving fanboy, but I do enjoy this film a lot, and I do acknowledge its mentioned weaknesses (yes, “mutant and proud” is pretty cheesy). It’s not even my favorite comic book or superhero film, and it’s actually my least favorite of Vaughn’s four films. But I still like it, and I can’t really apologize for that.

The Future

Next up is X-Men: Days of Future Past, directed by Bryan Singer and written by Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman, and Simon Kinberg. As it features both the First Class cast and the original cast in a time travel story, there is a risk that the film could become a bloated mess. I would be a little more excited about the film if Vaughn were directing (he originally was, but left, and to top it off, he’s not doing Kick-Ass 2 either) or if Kinberg wasn’t involved (unfortunately, he’s working on a Star Wars film too, though not Episode VII). Though admittedly, most of the original cast is probably in the film because of Singer. The Usual Suspects was a high peak early in Singer’s career, and one could argue that X2 was a later, somewhat smaller peak that he hasn’t matched since. After X2, Singer went on to do Superman Returns, Valkyrie, and Jack the Giant Slayer. Not a lot to inspire confidence there, but maybe he can reach his earlier heights again. There’s a lot of expectation for this film, and as it’s always a bummer to be disappointed, here’s hoping that Singer delivers.

See also Ranking the X-Men Film Scores on the other blog.

Christopher Nolan and Re-watchability

Director Christopher Nolan has inspired two bandwagons: one consisting of devoted followers and one consisting of those who think he’s an overrated hack. There are certainly those like me who fall in between, but they are either drowned out by the screaming of the opposing camps or they simply do not wish to participate in what has become a tired debate.

If I had to generalize about Nolan’s films, I would say that he’s one of the better writers and filmmakers working today, but there are other films that appeal to me more. I have seen six of his films: Memento, the Dark Knight trilogy, The Prestige, and Inception. I enjoyed all of them on first viewing but found something troubling on repeat viewings: four of them didn’t have a whole lot of re-watch value for me.

Why should this be so? Ironically, the ones that do have re-watch value are the two with “twist” endings: Memento and The Prestige. Memento in particular remains my favorite Nolan film; it so well crafted that I don’t really care that I know the “twist.” Nolan enriches the films with subtle details and character moments that dazzle and astonish more than the large-scale action in his later blockbusters. There is also a dark humor in many scenes (I love the scene where Leonard is running, sees another guy running, then wonders whether he’s the one chasing or being chased) that works better than some of the limp attempts at humor in later films. The Prestige was especially exciting on first viewing, as I had no idea what to expect and what was going to happen. It’s the film where Nolan best captures the mingled senses of mystery and anticipation. These feelings that Nolan engenders are what make The Prestige superior to Inception to me; although the latter is structurally impressive, there is a rote, detached feeling to the goings-on.

Memento and The Prestige also have by far the least amount of action out of the six Nolan films I’ve seen. I love action films—or I should say, I love good action films. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, the first two Terminator films, Aliens, The Matrix, The Incredibles, Kick-Ass, and The Avengers are just a few of my favorites. I even enjoy “guilty” pleasures like Speed, The Mummy, and the first Pirates of the Caribbean. But I do not think Nolan is a great, or even good action director. Batman Begins had the curse of the close-up shaky cam where you can’t tell what’s going on. Even though Nolan has since rectified this, his action scenes come across as rather plodding and prosaic. Worst of all, they fail to generate any sense of excitement or tension. The Tumbler/Batpod/truck chase in The Dark Knight is the only exception I can think of. From the muddy fight scenes in Batman Begins and the tedious fistfight with the Joker’s goons in The Dark Knight (the “sonar-vision” detracting from the scene more than anything) to the infamous, interminable “Call of Duty” snow level in Inception and the surprisingly flaccid climax in The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan’s action scenes fail to impress.

I don’t want to be to hard on a director who is clearly trying to create a more intelligent breed of action blockbuster. I certainly think he’s infinitely preferable to Michael Bay and his ilk. It’s just a shame that his action scenes come across so flat; Stephen Sommers stages and shoots better action scenes (though the stories surrounding them are vastly inferior). Sadly, many of the character scenes in the Batman films and Inception come across as lethargic as well. I don’t know whether they are brought down by the surrounding action or are just weak on their own. Regardless, individual scenes in a film have to work together in order for the film as a whole to work (duh).

The big ideas and general concepts in Inception and the Batman films (well, the first two at least) are great, but Nolan doesn’t pull them off with the finesse that I see in Memento and The Prestige. Tighter editing and better dialogue would help. I’m thinking specifically of the Rachel scenes in BOTH of the first two Batman films (recasting didn’t help and actually might have hurt), the rather on-the-nose nature of Harvey Dent’s dialogue, some of Selina Kyle’s lines regarding the haves vs. the have-nots, and the school bus scene in The Dark Knight Rises. As for Inception, many of Cobb’s scenes with Mal drag when really they should be intriguing, disturbing, and heartfelt. Instead of being the soul of the film, they feel tacked on.

But these are minor quibbles compared to the cold, clinical tone of these films. Nolan works hard to create this sense of grittiness and as a result, most attempts at creating emotion feel forced. Combining grit and heart is difficult to do well. Even great filmmakers like David Fincher (The Game) and Steven Spielberg (War of the Worlds) struggle with this, and these films aren’t among the best in their oeuvre. Perhaps Nolan should be lauded for trying to do achieve this balance, even if it takes many films until he gets it right (if ever). But as much as Nolan is praised for his “grit,” it comes across to me as more detachment than the down-and-dirty darkness that directors like Fincher and Kubrick excel at portraying in compelling ways. Nolan’s taste in music also adds to the sense of droning monotony; David Julyan and Hans Zimmer have done much better work (admittedly not in fifteen years as far as the latter is concerned, though that’s another topic).  The dreariness of both action and general atmosphere make many of Nolan’s films a chore to get through with subsequent viewings. And that’s relatively rare of films that I like the first time around.

I admit to harping on Nolan, but I wouldn’t be writing so much about him if I thought he was utterly without merit. He seems like a smart guy, and his concepts and ideas, if not truly innovative, (though what is—nothing new under the sun indeed) are certainly welcome in big-budget blockbusters. I find little wrong with The Prestige and especially Memento, but I do feel he could improve in the areas of action and emotional involvement—both heart and grit. The good news is that he did take some baby steps in terms of action from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, so maybe he will learn to develop his skills instead of becoming complacent. Although I was looking forward to Interstellar a little more with Spielberg at the helm, (still a missed opportunity as far as the score goes—what we could have gotten with John Williams!) I am still eagerly anticipating it as another step in Nolan’s growth and evolution as a filmmaker.