Why Gavin Hood Should Be Director of THE WOLVERINE

The internet is abuzz with discussion of The Wolverine, a 2012 installment in the popular X-Men genre centered around its most popular character, Wolverine. The script has already been written, thanks to Valkyrie and The Tourist writer Christopher McQuarrie. Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler and Black Swan) was originally slated as director, but had to back out due to personal matters. Now the question of who should helm the project is generating a colossal amount of attention.
Now, I think, is an important time to point out that 20th Century Fox (the studio behind every X-Men film) is going about this in an offensive and incompetent way. Credit should be given to the creative team behind X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the film that makes The Wolverine possible. It is outrageous that they have not been invited to join the new project.
It is certainly true that the 2009 W0lverine film was not a fan favorite. The criticism, though, is mostly unwarranted. Here are the complaints about that movie and here is why Gavin Hood (the director) and David Benioff and Skip Woods (the writers) should not be blamed.

1) The movie was underwhelming compared to the original trilogy. Well, yes and no. When the original X-Men movie came out, most people were unfamiliar with the characters and a straightforward, coherent movie had to be taken from the thousands of comics to ensure this would be a franchise. The people Fox hired managed to make that happen--they took important themes from the comic book and the coolest characters and weaved them together to make an entertaining super-hero story. In order to do that, though, they needed to merge characters and cut crucial parts from the comic book mythology. As a result, we had elements such as Wolverine's longstanding feud with Sabretooth packed into one picture and all the most interesting characters were put front and center. This trend was continued in the sequels, since fans always want the next movie in a franchise to outdo its predecessors in terms of scale. The third movie was hinted as a conclusion to the saga, and Fox made it clear they wanted to halt sequels for a time. However, aside from Avatar, Fox lags behind most other major studios in terms of blockbusters, so they were not going to take any significant brake from making X-Men movies.
Therefore, the inevitable decision was decided to make prequels and spin-offs. After all, the comic book spans many decades and has millions of stories to draw from. Unfortunately, the most popular characters had already been used. Seeing as all of the X-Men other than Wolverine (who's mutant power slows aging) are young adults (or teenagers), Fox was either going to make a movie with unheard of supporting characters or they were going to make a movie about Wolverine. Seeing as X-Men Origins: Longneck was not a surefire hit (yes, that is a real X-Men), the first spin-off movie was going to be about Wolverine.
This sounds great, but in fact it is difficult. Wolverine is a very interesting character, but while Storm can control the weather and Colossus can headlock and elephant, Wolverine's sole powers are 1) the ability to recover from painful injuries and 2) the ability to have knives stick out of his arm.
Wolverine's comic books work because his villains tend to have awesome powers that don't consist of tolerance to excruciating pain. Unfortunately for Fox, these villains fall into the categories of "Were already in the original X-Men films and are thus five years old in the prequel" or "Are prevented from killing Wolverine only by the fact that he has X-Men friends who could actually pose a threat." While I admit that a small demographic of movie-goers would pay to watch Hugh Jackman beat the snot out of pre-schoolers, it is unlikely this would have been enough to pay the legal fees when Marvel sues for defamation of their flagship super-hero.
Thus, the team hired for X-Men Origins: Wolverine were given the task of making a super-hero franchise out of B-level supporting characters while maintaining perfect continuity and using a protagonist who lacks no aggressive powers and, according to the source material, spent his pre-X-Men years carving American flags on veterans' faces (yes, that really is a comic book).
Astoundingly, this happened. Of course, villains with the ability to make the elevator music play during a blackout are not quite as impressive as Mystique and Magneto, but this movie works. It is exciting, it doesn't contradict anything in the original series, and it features thousands of characters who could get their own solo movies despite being considered un-worthy of the original trilogy.

2) There was no greater theme. This complaint is simply based on critic's laziness to re-watch the original X-Men. As a solo movie, Origins might seem a bit vacuous, but you have got to keep in mind it is meant to be a back story to its predecessor.
Why do Wolverine and Sabretooth keep ending up in each other's lives, and why does Silver Fox aid the villains? If you have watched the original, you will know this is because they are family. Of course, if you just watch this movie you will be little depressed that the movie ends with a lonely Wolverine drinking shot after shot in order to remember his name. However, this was already a required part of the movie since the original X-Men opens with Wolverine still suffering amnesia and it is a build-up for the theme of that movie. In the trilogy (especially the first two) the thing that keeps Wolverine from returning to the side of the villains is his attachment to the X-Men. Origins is stressing the fact that this is because Wolverine has now found a new family with the band of mutant super-heroes. This was stated in X2, but the prequel really highlights why the X-Men are superior to their foes: They care about one another, they protect one another, they love one another, and they give each other a home.
I highly recommend you watch all four X-Men movies with this in mind.

3) The visuals were unimpressive. Okay, yes and no. Sure, there were a few continuity errors in the fight sequences (holes punched through character's chests without damaged clothing; unbreakable claws that run the length of a villains arm while still allowing him to bend his ellbows...). Still, this is pretty inevitable in a movie of this scale. As for the rest of the visuals, they were great. The reason people did not like them is because they are not of the same scale as the special effects in the original trilogy. This is not the fault of the director and writers. The characters they were given to adapt have far less interesting power sets as the ones in X-Men, and the budget they were given is a fraction of what was used in the original trilogy. The Last Stand--the third movie in the franchise--had a budget comparative to Avatar and was 3/4 of what is cost to make the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is absolutely impossible to make a more impressive visual out of a man with shock-absorbing fat than a man who is made out of sentient ice, especially when you have half the money.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is X-Men Origins: Wolverine still got a GREEN of Metacritc with NO negative reviews (this is, incidentally, an impressive feat) and made more money than--and I looked this up--the Department of Veterans' Affairs spent on insurance (presumably to pay for Wolverine-related facial scarring). Fox thought the movie was good enough to finance, and they sure thought it was good enough to collect millions upon millions of dollars for. It only seems fair for the team behind it to be able to make a sequel. Especially considering they used the first movie to build a groundwork in order for their to be enough characters and continuity to have a sequel.

It is offensive and a mistake for Fox to have not hired back the original movie's writers for the sequel and it will be a bigger mistake if they once again higher another director than Gavin Hood.

Hop (B+)

Hop is a delightful family comedy, with a few particularly good parts to balance out the most cliché elements.

When the Easter Bunny (Hugh Laurie)’s teenage son (Russel Brand), about to inherit the family job, runs away from home (on Easter Island, of course) to pursue a career as a musician, he is accidentally hit by the car of Fred, a young adult (James Marsden) just kicked out of home by his parents in the hopes he will finally get a job. The bunny decides that he can get some much needed shelter sticking around the human, but the man intently believes he is hallucinating and attempts to keep the bunny secret to prevent upsetting his father. Meanwhile, Carlos (Hank Azaria), the Easter Bunny’s right hand chick (old chicks do not age into ducks or roosters on Easter Island) attempts to throw a coop—sorry, coup—due to his frustration that his boss’s role is inherited and always given to a rabbit. Of course, the opening narration showed Fred saying this was the story of the first human Easter Bunny.

Seeing as Easter has not been a holiday mined to the extent of Halloween and Christmas by Hollywood, I had hoped this film would add in some interesting new elements or at least make the original ones look cool (for example, The Polar Express’s title train). Sadly, the movie merely anthropomorphizes bunnies and chicks—the Easter factory looks like a normal factory with a Christmas-y feel, the Easter Bunny travels around in an actual sleigh. Even the animals seem a little too artificial and out-of-place.

Fortunately, the colors shown of the Easter lair are so bright and vivid the movie has a festive feel in and of itself (the picture is directed by Tim Hill, who also did the original Alvin and the Chipmunks) Furthermore, the musical element is a nice touch, and keeps the movie rock-and-rolling along.

The humor is not constant, but is present (David Hasselhoff charms in a rather large cameo as himself). Better, though, are the relationships—Marsden’s Fred is a loveable slacker who the audience can’t help but root for.

The ending is of course upbeat, but not too absurd. We get that (spoiler, though I doubt people reading my review are going to this movie for the suspense) the young Easter Bunny’s musical career is going to have to take the backseat to his holiday responsibilities. Much of this is simply a set-up for a sequel, but I like the fact that we don’t have to watch E.B. celebrate his total lack-of-commitment to the job he is “destined” to hold, instead it is stated that family and friendship are far more important.

Uncomfortable—and a far larger issue with others—is the fact that this movie marks a huge step in the secularization of a sacred holiday. Christmas is an event celebrated by pretty-much everyone, but Easter is still much more embraced by Christians. I think it is a bit sad, but the holiday was going to be celebrated regardless. In fact, it might lead people to curiously learn more about the day they originally enjoyed just for the candy.

Overall, Hop is cute and charming.

Sucker Punch (A+)

A epic so powerful it may be easy to dismiss, Sucker Punch is nonetheless a masterpiece for those who observe it closely.

In the 1950s, a young lady nicknamed "Baby Doll" (Emily Browning) is sent to an abusive psychiatric institution after the violent death of her child sister in a fight with her rapist step-father (Gerard Plunkett). Befriending four other patients (Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, and Jamie Chung) and a music therapist (Carla Gugino), Baby Doll embarks on a dangerous quest to escape the hospital before her lobotomy, which is scheduled five days from her admission. In an attempt to cope with her terrifying situation, Baby Doll views her surroundings in two surreal landscapes in addition to the existing one: The first being a brothel she is being forced to "dance" in; the second being a fantasy war zone complete with fire-breathing dragons, cyborg zombies, and demon samurai.

I find it odd that even though i rejected critic hits such as Black Swan and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo I am the one defending a film that has been widely criticized for being far too sexual. Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, Dawn of the Dead), who produces, directs, and is one of two writers (the other being Steve Shiyuba) for the film, states he is attempting to create create a feminist feature. Of course, it is a fine line between viewers gasping in horror at the clothing and actions the villains subject the young girls to and staring in delight. The difficulty of making the "bad parts" entertaining has been a problem throughout cinematic history (how many anti-war movies count as action flicks?), and there are a few elements (such as the provocative costumes) that go too far. Snyder stated in an interview that he felt some of the sacrifices he was forced to make for the studio undermined his messages by making the girl's life in the brothel sometimes appear "great," and I do believe his vision for the movie would have been much more respectful. Even so, there is very little parts in this picture that are actually sensual--we never see any nudity, there are no shots that ogle the girl's bodies, and there are no sex scenes. Sure, there is a tone that might be a bit suggestive, but really people are going to be far more titillated by images than mostly-accidental implications. No one cared at the graphic sex scenes in Snyder's 300, and really the costumes are far less suggestive and revealing than anything you will see in Step Up. Anyway, most people astute enough to find a sexual tone are going to be paying close enough attention to realize that the story is stating that such ideas are misogynistic (or are stimulated by most PG-13s).

Though the film's critics might not know it, the biggest problem is the unconventional ending and atmosphere of the picture (don't worry there are no spoilers). Not everything is solved by Baby Doll killing her abusers. It is not sexist to make show Baby Doll as physically powerless to her oppressors: The film has a far more realistic defense mechanism. This is a story about women (and guys too, for that matter) dealing with an atmosphere of despair. One part of the message is dealing with sexism, but Synder is obviously talking about broader issues as well. Baby Doll's fantasy worlds are not a weapon, they are a literal escape. She can imagine something so great the world around her doesn't matter.

In order to accept the film, you have to believe that is possible.

I think the picture that best compares to Sucker Punch is Precious. They both feature female characters in abusive and powerless situations, who's imaginations is what helps them survive. The difference here is that Precious imagines dancing in a big ballroom and Baby Doll imagines killing orcs. Understandably, while Precious is the more realistic and down-to-earth of the two, Sucker Punch is vastly more entertaining. Snyder has always been a stylistic director, and in the surreal landscape of Sucker Punch he is unencumbered by continuity points such as why '50s asylum patients have unlimited access to mascara. Sure, easily 90% of the movie is in slow-mo, but along with the visual effects team and Cinematographer Larry Fong (300, Watchmen) this is an entrancing picture with visuals that add too the power of the scenes.

An additional plus is Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story) as the villainous orderly in the hospital. Isaac manages to come up with a unique brand of evil as a mild-mannered yet talkative pervert. The character is creepy, but the performance greatly adds to the role and actually enhances the meaning of the story.

Sucker Punch is a masterpiece. It might be hard to tell, but it is.

Beastly (D+)

People look funny. We have too many zits, we have asymetrical faces, we have tattoos we wish we could remove, we have buck teeth, we have unsavory scars, we have boogers dripping down our noses. Somehow we survive.
Among our survival mechanisms is the belief held by easily 99% of the people in the world that looks are not everything. And this belief is working out pretty well. People focus on values such as loyalty, honesty, creativity, kindness, and other menial things like this to reconcile the fact they might end up with someone who is missing a tooth or features a facial mole.
Ironically, people who practice this belief--that it is what is on the inside that counts--live in constant fear that they are the only people in the world who see this. They think that while they manage to look away when their coworker has a lip sore most other people spend their lunch hours laughing in the restroom over it. And thus people adapt themselves and others to look as beautiful as can be simply to impress everyone else. And inside is a self-righteous feeling that they are the only ones who don't actually care about these things.
The makers of Beastly are attempting to retell a beloved story about a very beautiful lady falling for a man who's arrogance has made him appear less than human. Unfortunately, they cannot imagine that anyone would see a movie about someone who is actually ugly.
The "Beast" of this story is played by Alex Pettyfer. For those of you who do not know what he looks like, here is an image:



















Ok, ok--maybe not the best casting choice. But, he had to look really good before he got cursed, right? Well, let's see what the modern-day wonders of make-up and CGI can do to make this guy look ugly.























Wait, that's the best they can do? I get that it looks like he fell down the stairs and got a bad tattoo, but that's not that terrible. At all. I mean, a wig and some make up will make him look pretty great. And even if he has to look like that, its a tragedy, but not a disability. No one is going to refuse to talk to him because of that.
In the movie, when the transformation occurs, "Beast"'s father decides to shut him away in the edge of the city and hire a blind tutor (Peter Krause) to teach him since there is nothing he could pay to hire a seeing-person to mentor THAT. "Beast" thinks this seems pretty logical. He only goes out of the house at night while wearing a large hoody. His maid (Lisa Gay Hamilton) and teacher try to comfort him, but never do they consider the fact that it is immoral to be paid to keep a pretty-normal looking kid hidden from society because of his lunatic father's obsession.
As with the timeless tale, the curse can be broken by the kiss of a true love. The time limit in this version is a year.
The story is far to fast-paced and lacks any depth (and uses phrases like "embrace the suck" to try and sound hip), but it is cute and features genuine emotion and interaction between its cast (Beauty is played by Vanessa Hudgens), with the exception of Mary-Kate Olsen, who hams everything up in the role of the witch. Unfortunately, Writer/Director Daniel Barnz (Phoebe in Wonderland), Producer Susan Cartsonis (What Women Want), and the entire crew end up insulting the fairy tale by revealing there lack of confidence in the story's value.
Beastly preaches that love is not based on looks, but maintains that no one would see a movie with actually ugly people.

Insidious (C-)

A largely uneven film, Insidious has a lot of great things but cannot manage to make a good movie.

When a seemingly ordinary family moves into a seemingly ordinary house, things start going very wrong. As one of the children (Ty Simpkins) slips into an unexplainable coma, the mother (Rose Byrne) and grandmother (Barbara Hershey, who is absurdly young for the role) begin to believe the cause is demonic. The father (Patrick Wilson) thinks they are total morons even when adult handprints start appearing on his child’s bed in blood. Luckily, the women have invited in an elderly psychic (Lin Shaye) to try and figure things out.

Director James Wan (Saw and Dead Silence) does an excellent job of scaring everyone with a budget of only one and half million. The suspense is perfect, the demons significantly creepy, and everything remains engrossing for most of the movie. Less impressive techniques include sudden use of the excellent score (composed by Joseph Bishara) and artificial coloration, but they are done so effectively it adds to the excitement if one chooses to ignore the blunt nature of their use. There are glimpses here and there of too far-fetched or obvious things (particularly evident in the lengthy final act), but the film manages to cover them up with comic relief while still remaining scary throughout.

I do not take great enjoyment in horror films compared to other genres like action, but I admit that on scares alone the film delivers well. I respect that. I do not even begrudge its lack of a moral or thoughtful conclusion. I feel the problem with Insidious is that it is dealing with issues and themes too important to dismiss for extra screams. People want to know more about the demons and spirits inhabiting the movie’s landscape. Recent horrors such as The Last Exorcism have sacrificed some frightening content to get into what makes their story’s psychics and exorcists able to expel malevolent entities. Insidious does not. True, I would not mind an action film with themes so slim they have no affect on anyone as much as this picture. I think the difference here is that horror films, especially supernatural ones, are dealing with feelings much more important to a person than perhaps any other genre, and the audience of these pictures are—perhaps subconsciously—are quite curious about these subjects. Writer Leigh Whannell (Saw and Dead Silence), who’s job was less to scare as to story tell, is far less invested than he should be. The menial and even meaningless attitude to the tale is far more disturbing to the viewer considering the subject matter discussed than if it was used in another genre.

As strange as it seems, supernatural horrors are affecting viewers in a far more profound way than most other genres. Therefore, filmmakers in this genre must put more effort into thematic content.

Thematic content is mostly absent from Insidious. The movie may have moments where the scares seem to make up for it, but in the end this bell doesn’t ring.

Red Riding Hood (C-)

A well-crafted story fizzles out with a particularly lazily-constructed ending.

In the middle ages, a young lady named Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) is being forced by her parents (Billy Burke and Virginia Madsen) to marry a gentlemanly (and wealthy) young man (Max Irons) when she wants to marry a bad boy woodcutter (Michael Shanks). Everything is complicated by the werewolf that poses as a villager in day while running around killing people at night and the ruthless priest Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) who tears the village apart trying to find it.

For the first ¾ or so, writer David Leslie Johnson (Orphan) makes a compelling mystery story with romantic elements. Director Cathrine Hardwicke (Twilight), who made a dark romance out of the birth of Jesus in The Nativity Story, is in her element.

This makes it more disappointing when the ending just fizzles out.

The earliest known legends of creatures like vampires and werewolves were not of a disease or a mutation. They were a curse. A curse not only to one’s body but to one’s soul.

Obviously, that is a bit intense even for a dark fantasy. Therefore, generally modern vampire and werewolf cinema tends to ignore the spiritual aspect of it all. This is not a perfect choice, seeing as it is sanitizing symbols of evil. Still, it avoids most of the controversy associated with these subjects.

Red Riding Hood wants it both ways. The movie puts in all the parts about lycanthropy being demonic in origin: To the point of showing anyone with the werewolf curse burst into flames when entering the vicinity of a church. Then it ends with no clear explanation for why it suddenly became a minor setback to be a wolf instead of a loss of one’s soul. Obviously God is real (or else there is some scientific explanation for why placing a cross on a steeple makes any nearby werewolf burn) in the Red Riding Hood universe, but he is pretty useless. His “followers”—the only people who actually have a plan for eliminating the wolf—are creepy and violent. In fact, the movie does not have much of a way to keep your life from being ended by a monster other than—stay inside, lock your doors, and if you are bitten practice good self-control. That’s not really a great life message.

Romanticizing damnation seems an interesting choice to make in a movie. Certainly one there should have been a good conclusion for.