movies

Trick or treat or my recommended list for Halloween movies

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment
halloween-1702677_640

It is no secret that Halloween is one of my favorite celebrations of the year. It has some mystical aura where you can mix the fun with the scary. And in this line of thought, I consider then one of the best ways to spend the day is with a movie marathon. Now, for me, not any movie makes it because let’s be frank, for the past decade most of the horror movies show gratuitous violence for the sake of it. Therefore I consider that a true Halloween movie must mix some elements of humor, suspense and horror or simply be a classic where a true horror is a tool used to narrate a good story. So no Saw, zombie fest (I hate zombie stories with passion, aside from the one mentioned here) nor gore classics in my list.

And to show my point, here is my list of recommendations for the day when the dead and the monsters walk the Earth in search of candies and horror. Bear in mind that most of these movies are meant to be seen in a family, so aside from one case, most are not as intense as ‘It’.

 

1. Ghostbusters:

 

A true classic in all sense. One of my favorite movies. When I was a kid this movie made me laugh in the same amounts that it scared me (especially the library scene). Now it might not be at all scary, but more than two decades after, it is still pulling its weight. If you haven’t seen it, stop wasting your time on the internet and do it. If you don’t like it, then you are a soulless creature and I would like you to introduce my friends Stantz, Spengler, and Venkman, they might want to have a few words with you. And avoid marshmallows, trust me. The bottom line, if you don’t like this movie you are either dead or soulless. In either case, I know who I’m gonna call to deal with you.

2. Fright Night

 

 

 

Seductive vampires? Check. ‘Intrepid’ (in the loosest definition of the word) hunters? Check. Scary story? Hell yeah. Unlike the current crop of vampires, the Fright Night really delivered the goods. A forgotten classic by now, it is still an enjoyable piece of horror film from the 80’s. The remake is not bad (thanks mostly to David Tennant who is always awesome), but it doesn’t hold a candle to the original.

3. Re-animator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know I said no zombie films and this is considered a zombie film. However, it is one of those movies that have become really good on the basis of being soooo bad. Inspired by a short story from a true master of horror, H.P Lovecraft. Maybe what makes this movie a classic is not the story nor the (excessive gore), but the large, ham-fisted acting of Jeffrey Combs (better known as The Question from JLU). He eats the scenery like a zombie eats a brain. If I have to break one of my movie rules for Halloween, it has to be for this one.

4. Sleepy Hollow

Unlike many of my friends, I’m not a fan of Mr. Burton’s work in general (my opinion is quite similar to Kevin Smith’s in that regard). However, I recognize that this particular work, always including the master of the strange that is Johnny Depp captures to a ‘t’ the spirit of the legend of the Headless Horseman like no one else did since Disney filmed that short movie with the narration of Bing Crosby (which you need to see as well).

5. Gremlins

Granted, the second one is funnier, but honestly? It is also kinda lame. But man the first one was really scary and good for the time it was released. It was at what I consider the peak of Spielberg’s work and whether you laughed at the antics of the green menaces or you were downright scared of them, this movie is a great fit for Halloween. Ironically enough, it was released as a Christmas movie. Take that as you wish.

6. Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Vampires have been part of the Halloween mystique from ages and what better than watching a movie inspired by the novel that practically launched the bloodsuckers to the stardom. This movie is ripe with good actors (yes even Keanu) and for what I remember, follows the book pretty well. Highly recommended, if only because of Gary Oldman’s portrayal of the Count, sexy and scary at the same time. Or if you want to go for a more alternative route, watch The Shadow of the Vampire with Willem Defoe.

7. The Exorcist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C’mon, just the theme tune of this movie gives you the chills. The movie will leave you with nightmares. Just avoid the sequels and prequels. Nuff said.

9. Lost Boys

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the best vampire movies, a classic with a stellar cast and bonafide jump scares. It’s a bit dated -very 80s’ as my wife would say- but the main theme ‘Cry, Little Sister’ is haunting and its plot twist still holds after all these years. Plus it gives you good tips to fight vampires. In a way, this movie is to vampires what ‘Zombieland’ is to the walking dead.

10. Pet shop of horrors

 

 

 

 

For the anime fans, now, while most anime fans would tell you that Mermaid’s Scar is the quintessential anime horror by excellence (amidst a very decent record of horror animes, man the Japanese writers know how to do scary stuff), I would argue that Pet Shop of Horrors is a good alternative, especially if like Brent, you are more into Twilight Zone kind of stories. This is an anthology of four bizarre short stories, that will keep you glued to your seat while realizing that more often than not, humans are the true monsters.

11. Event Horizon

 

 

My favorite proper horror movie: Event Horizon. A movie which is the result of mixing the old haunted house trope (lightning storm included) with the ghost ship trope and a heavy dose of Lovecraft. Most people in geekdom consider this an unofficial prequel to Warhammer 40k (if you don’t know what’s that, let’s say that is the most grimdark tabletop wargame known to man and wickedly fun); I consider it a sci-fi version of At the Mountain of Madness, but with a bit more gore. Also a good horror movie for dates (trust my teenager self on this one). Sam Neill aces it on this film.

12. 30 Days of Night.

 

I can’t believe I almost forgot to put this one. maybe it was because when I went to see it I was with a friend in a cinema in the middle of nowhere, mist all over the place (like is typical of UK) and it was the midnight release, but this movie made for a tense return to home and me starting to plan how to deal with something like this. Everything in this movie is pitch perfect to scare you. These are not sexy vampires, these are predators and we are their food. Also the design of the monsters is disturbing to say the least. And the music, eerie as hell.

13. The Addams Family (1991).

 

 

 

 

 

In my 13th entry of the list (very ad hoc), here is the ‘family movie’. My wife and I recently watched the animated film and we enjoyed it a lot. It was charming and had a lot of heart. The kind of family movie that can be enjoyed in these days. But, the 1991 film is a way better fit for this time of the year. It has a stellar cast, it’s very spooky kooky and a lot of heart. Besides, it is an opportunity to see late thespian Raul Julia chewing the scenery like a vampire chews a victim’s neck

 

Well, this is my list. Obviously, with the current output of films, this reads more like a classic list than a modern one. I know there are other movies worth watching today like Ringu or The Grudge, but I think this list captures pretty well the spirit of Halloween (not of Samhain, that is different, but I will talk about that later).

Do you think a movie is missing? Want to talk about your personal list? Please go ahead and join the conversation in the comments below.

Enjoy and ‘trick or treat!!!’

‘Lost in Translation’ and writing about a character’s introspection.

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

I have a special relationship with ‘Lost in Translation’, as when I watched it, I was going under some personal issues. I recall that I went with my parents to watch it (because no one else wanted to do it and my mom enjoys going to the cinema) and when it ended, as ‘Just like honey’ sounded along the rolling credits I told them: “that’s what Tokyo looks like… and that´s how I feel most of the time.” And they understood. Never a movie so far had explained better for me the level of isolation and need to connect that one can feel on a bad period of life.

As Roger Ebert put it:

“”‘Lost in Translation’” offers an experience in the exercise of empathy.”

It’s often decried that the movie is about nothing, or confused with a romantic comedy. I say no to the first assertion and might agree partially to the second one. ‘Lost in Translation’, in my opinion, is a character study between two people that feel isolated and find a kindred soul to share said isolation, through mutual understanding of their different circumstances. The movie is about both: personal introspection on the dual questions of ‘what am I doing with my life/what am I doing here?’ and the sense of isolation and impersonality created by a being in a foreign place or in a big city.

Anyone that has moved abroad to study or live could agree that the first months there feel like this until you manage to make human connections. An even then, the feeling truly never goes away. Regardless of what Bob told Charlotte in that famous final scene, both made a connection, both grew up as persons and both realized things about them that couldn’t figure it alone, but couldn’t figure it with a relative either. It was through breaking that wall of isolation that they found what was literally ‘Lost in Translation’ in their personal lives.

I was thinking about this movie recently, as I drafted a list of my 10 favorite movies, and recalling it made me think something we, as writers, tend to forget: character’s internal growth or introspection. Due to a variety of reasons, readers and writers –including myself- tend to skip the calmer moments of a story, in search of the next action beat. When I was showing to some friends the outline for the Tempest Blades sequel, one pointed that a chapter describing a training period could cut the flow of the action. But I’m planning to leave for now said chapter. I’m not interested in the training part per se, but in the connection between characters to make the protagonist look inside and realize some things he needs to solve inside his head and heart before moving to the next stage. The whole theme of the book is about that learning.

I have a particular fondness for that kind of bittersweet, slow stories because they offer a window to the soul of a character (or characters) and the kind of inner exploration we rarely give even to ourselves. We have grown accustomed to hectic lifestyles where we forgo the time to look inside and reach outside. And our characters reflect that.
Regardless of whether we add or not quieter, slower scenes of introspection –scenes that some readers can say are about nothing- to our action-packed or politically intriguing stories, we as writers can and have to do it. Even if it’s something that will remain in our notebooks, part of the hinted background of a character. Allowing ourselves to help our characters to go through this introspection, through this ‘exercise of empathy’, I believe, would allow us as writers to create more believable characters.

Characters that can react with a certain amount of believability to what we as might gods of fate throw at them. We write about actions but rarely dwell on consequences. The actions of our characters change the world –relative to scale and theme of course- but are also changed by them, for what’s life but constant change. In ‘Lost in Translation’, Bob and Charlotte are being changed by their current circumstances as well as their previous personal histories. The introspection they are subjected by the events depicted in the film force them to come to terms to what has traversed and move on to the next stage. Our characters, regardless of the genre we are writing (well, perhaps not in horror because odds are they will be dead by the end), need to go through the same process, even if it’s never to be depicted in the story and takes place only in our heads. But by doing it, we can write them better and thus, the story is improved.

We are not cardboard beings, nor should our characters be. Maybe that’s why is taking me so long to start writing the sequel because I need to figure out how much my characters have changed inside by the events of the first book in order to show where they are moving. I did this exercise for the main characters of my short stories ‘Asherah’s Pilgrimage’ and ‘No-sell’ (both to be published this year in different anthologies) and I think it improved them. At least made me understand better their motivations so I could try to portray them as needed. I hope I did achieve that. Because now I want to try that at a larger scale. I’m connecting with my characters in order to understand their particular isolation and thus understand what they are looking for, so the plot is better serviced by that.

‘Lost in Translation’ will always have a special place in my heart. And now I realize, in the list of influences I have.

Why I love Ghostbusters as a writer.

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

Let me preface this entry with the following statement: I love both the original films and the new one (Kate McKinnon as Holtzman is brilliant) as well as the Real Ghostbusters cartoon. Every incarnation brought something different to the table and all are equally good and equally valid so you won’t find any argument to support your ‘complaints’*.

When I was a little kid, one of my older cousins, who worked for a cinema magazine gave me a copy of their latest issue, that was entirely dedicated to promoting the original  Ghostbusters film. He thought that magazine would be a good help for me to practice my reading. Which it did. The magazine was mostly composed by interviews with the main cast, the set and FX designers (which I guess was a sign for me to study design) and how they came about with the concept. Later on, my dad managed to procure a copy of the film in one of those rental places and I think I watched the film like 4 times before returning the tape. Then a local channel kept it in the rotation for years, until the cartoon and the sequel appeared (I got to watch the sequel at the cinema). Since then, I try to watch it at least on Halloween every year -now is a marathon of the three films-. I have played the video games, have a couple of toys, comics, and books. I can say that I know the story like the back of my hand. And probably quote the first film most of the time in random conversations.

“Ray, When Someone Asks If You’re a God, You Say YES.”- Winston

Like now. Yeah, I’m that guy. As for the record, I think that one is the best line of the whole movie.

So as you can surmise, this is one of my favorite films (only topped by the 90’s TMNT film). I wanted to work as Ghostbuster, which explains the eclectic part book collection of physics and the occult. For me the whole explanation of how high energy physics could be used to explain and deal with the paranormal in a very coherent way (within the movie’s universe) made perfect sense. Having an engineer dad that was also a Star Trek fan helped, as he explained to me (or simply gave me the books, like A Brief History of Time) some of the basic concepts of what Ray, Egon -and years later Jillian, Abby, and Erin- were saying.

“Well, let’s say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. According to this morning’s sample it would be a Twinkie…thirty-five feet long weighing approximately six-hundred pounds.” -Egon.

Knowing that the quote was part of a longer explanation of the inflationary universe theory and how it made our reality prone to paranormal incursions, more or less, makes have even more respect for the whole concept of mixing science with magic. This is where my inspiration to make my own mix of science and magic for my stories comes from. The cartoon really expanded onto it, courtesy of the always super work of JMS.

However, the lesson I take from the first Ghostbusters film (a lesson more or less repeated in the 2016 film) is the economy of narrative to present complex worldbuilding and detailed characters, all around a pretty basic simple premise: a pest removal service where the pest is the paranormal.

The original film has a surprisingly short runtime of 1 hour and 45 minutes. Compared to more modern films, it’s at least 15-30 minutes shorter. It might look like too little, but in film 15 minutes is an eternity. So in such a relatively short amount of time, the movie does a lot. Once I read a column by Charlie Jane Anders at io9, about how the way ‘Back to the Future’ was filmed makes it a perfect movie and one of the reasons is how the film efficiently uses its runtime to set up the world, the characters, the conflict, and resolution. I want to believe that the same applies to the first Ghostbuster film.

We’re Ready To Believe You.

The opening, the library scene before the title card -which I consider one of the bonafide great jump scare scenes ever made- sets up nicely half of the premise: ghosts are real and are scary. The following minutes set up the other half: a trio of unconventional scientist that not only believe ghosts are real but are applying the scientific method to prove their existence. Not only they succeed but realize that a) they are ill-equipped for dealing with ghosts and b) there is a business opportunity here (it’s the 80’s, greed was good… for a few).

The following scenes go to introducing Peter, Ray, and Egon as actual characters. Each line they spout is full with meaning: Ray is a dutiful son with the heart of a child (which becomes a key plot point at the end). Egon is, for the most part, the stereotypical aloof genius that comes with the technobabble and equipment… except that he does have a sense of humor, social skills and can explain the most complex topic with ease and /or a twinkie.

Egon Spengler: There’s something very important I forgot to tell you.
Peter Venkman: What?
Egon Spengler: Don’t cross the streams.
Peter Venkman: Why?
Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Peter Venkman: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad”?
Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously, and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

And Peter… oh Peter. He is a sleazebag, a rascal, a loveable rogue and beneath the jerkass attitude, the most heroic of the three. Watch the movie, I can’t recall a single challenge he doesn’t want to tackle with dry humor and a can-do attitude.

The movie then introduces Dana and her neighbor Louis Tully, romantic interest and comic relief, apparently. While their roles are not that large, every scene where they appear is full of meaning, both at the character level and as part of the plot, foreshadowing included. They are vital parts of the plot later on.

You then move to the growth of the business, the addition of sassy Janine and the fourth musketeer Winston. I want to stop here for a bit. At the outset, the addition of Winston seems like an afterthought, the kind of stuff you could expect from the 80’s where certain unsavory stereotypes about minorities were still in vogue, especially PoC background as a blue collar worker surrounded by white scientists, just to fill a quota. It doesn’t help that the role was originally meant for Eddie Murphy and when he rejected it, probably was considered to be dropped. It is certainly problematic.

As a side note: this is something I believe the 2016 film improves on just a bit, as making Patty not only part of the team right away, but also a vital part given her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the city and somewhat of a leader to keep the rest of the team focused on the tasks at hand.

However, with all its warts -and this is not an apology, that part of the film has not aged entirely well- the role Winston goes to play becomes one of big importance in current narratives: the common person point of view. At some point in the story, if you kept only the three founders of the GB around, you would have faced a wall with all the technobabble, after all, they all know what they are talking about, but not the audience, which would be confused or would have lost the suspension of disbelief. But Winston helps to ground the story, not by dumbing it down, but by providing the shady commentary that complements the technobabble and lampshades the ridiculousness of the film’s premise with well-delivered zingers. That makes the story more relatable and the insufferable geniuses more palatable. He is us in the film, the regular person thrown into a wider, incredible and mysterious new world and has to learn to navigate it fast. Those characters help a lot to create world building without using info dumps.

Winston Zeddemore: Hey, wait a minute! Hold it! Now, are we actually gonna go before a federal judge, and tell him that some moldy Babylonian god is gonna drop in on Central Park West and start tearing up the city?!
Egon Spengler: Sumerian, not Babylonian.
Peter Venkman: Yeah. Big difference.
Winston Zeddemore: No offense, but I gotta get my own lawyer.

The movie never wastes a minute waxing lyrical about the world they are or with not-so-necessary setups for jokes -a problem the sequel does have-. No, it moves at a neck-breaking speed introducing a complex world full of ancient cults, crazy architects,  Babylonian… Sumerian deities and spiritist guides that can describe pretty much anything paranormal in the world (which makes you wonder who or better say WHAT wrote the Tobin’s Spirit Guide). All with tight packed dialogue that takes you to the ‘End of the World’ Scenario where the heroes, in order to beat a god, use guile rather than blunt force and explosions. Kinda…

Egon Spengler: I have a radical idea. The door swings both ways. We could reverse the particle flow through the gate.
Ray Stantz: How?
Egon Spengler: We’ll cross the streams.
Peter Venkman: Excuse me, Egon, you said crossing the streams was bad.
Ray Stantz: Cross the streams…
Peter Venkman: You’re gonna endanger us, you’re gonna endanger our client. The nice lady who paid us in advance before she became a dog.
Egon Spengler: Not necessarily. There’s definitely a very slim chance we’ll survive.

What is most interesting of the Ghostbuster film is how the climax and the end pay off every single bit of foreshadowing from the beginning, ties all loose ends -Slimer notwithstanding- and at the same time leaves the door open for potential sequels without leaving anything hanging out. If there were not a film/video game combo sequel or an animated series (both with different canons), the original GB film would have been a perfect stand alone movie.

The animated series and the 2nd film/video game took different directions with the plot. The animation went for the ‘monster of the week’ approach, featuring every corner of the paranormal -including, yes Cthulhu-, strange episodes like the Agatha Christie inspired one or even heartbreaking ones like the ghost dog of the circus that helped them to beat a bigger monster while sacrificing itself (I cried when I watched it as a kid). The 2nd movie and the film tried to create a more coherent narrative where the video game -seriously, play it, especially the PS3 version- ties every plot from the first two films to create a mytharc.

Both are nice, but they don’t surpass the excellent narrative execution of the first film. In a world full of interconnected franchises and multiple sequels, the fact that you can pack so much story in so little space and deliver a satisfying ending that can be as closed or as open as the audience wants is the biggest lesson to take from the 1984 film as a writer.

For me, it’s one of the ways you could approach writing your novel, no matter if it will be a stand-alone or a series or a series of stand-alone movies interconnected -which is what I’m trying to do-. Give the reader a conclusion to that particular arc, with well-defined characters and great dialogue, leaving yourself the door open for a continuation, but without leaving the reader hanging up. I don’t know if I’m making sense or if I might achieve it with my novel. But I think as a writer is an interesting challenge. I undertook it because one of my best friends, who is an avid reader told me once that she yearned for a fantasy book where she didn’t have to wait for the next book to know how the story of the first book ends and yet be part of a series. And also don’t be a doorstopper. In my opinion, it’s a healthy way to do things, self-contained arcs that can work as parts of a bigger arc but can be read independently.

That’s why I’m using the GB films as a guide for writing my novels because I believe -especially the first one- its a good template for an interesting arc based in a simple premise, efficient pacing, world building, a mashup of genres (in this case horror, comedy, science fiction and a bit of fantasy), good character development and sly, quotable dialogue. The materials for a classic story are there. The trick, like in cooking, is in the execution as to achieve balance rather than get one of the elements to overcome the other. I sincerely hope I achieved it in my novel.

Rarely has a movie this expensive provided so many quotable lines.
Roger Ebert, Review of Ghostbusters (1 January 1984)

I agree. And they ain’t afraid of no ghost.

 

*I also liked The Last Jedi. It is the best deconstruction of the fallacy of the ‘happily ever after’ ending in a setting that thrives in conflict and a reality check to many people about managing our expectations as we grow old. So take that.

 

Archery doesn’t work that way.

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

Here is a little secret not so secret: I actually know how to shoot with a bow. A recurve bow to be precise. While I’m not practicing it anymore due the lack of shooting ranges in my hometown, I did practice archery for three years, while I was doing my Ph.D. at Loughborough University. I had the fortune that a friend of mine was my archery instructor as well as a fellow comic geek. So back in the day, we used to chat about how bad comics, movies, and tv shows get wrong the basics. I will share a few of those chats here from time to time because I’m that kind of annoying guy and this is my blog and not yours.

For context, I’m an industrial designer with an engineering background and my friend Birm is an actual engineer that has worked in a couple of big gigs. At the very least, we think we know a bit of physics.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

A lot.

And I say this as a big Green Arrow fan. Let’s explain why.

Me: Birm, have you seen those comic images where the archer is doing acrobatics on the air while shooting his bow?

Birm: Shooting whilst jumping? Nope, can’t say that I have.

Me: They say that an image tells more than 1000 words… *shows picture above*

Birm: That’s more like it, In real life, Green Arrow would then be flat on his back.

Me: so many Brokeback Mountain jokes here.

Birm: *roll eyes*

Me: Anyways, here is a second image.

Birm: Oh good grief.

Me: What?

Birm: Do comic book artists know nothing of momentum?

Me: Considering that they work with a fictional world where a super powered alien can catch a girl in mid-air without splitting her into thirds and thus automatically killing her, I would say that No, they don’t.

Birm: That’s because Superman alters his own gravitational field dammit. It can be explained away by pseudo-science, but ‘Word of God’ states these guys have no powers.

Me: I take that you have been watching the same argument on ‘The Big Bang Theory’ and reading TV Tropes.

Birm: Why yes, yes I have done both of those things.

Me: I guess we are going down a whole new level of geekdom

Birm: Well TV Tropes provides an excellent resource for giving names to things.

Me: Also provides a good way to lose years of productive life just by browsing it. Anyways, what is more, possible to do, the previous image or this?

Birm: Shooting whilst on a motorbike is possible, with a sufficiently skilled driver.

Me: well Dinah is a skilled driver so that is not a worry (except when she is in an awful mood). Now flying bike must present the same momentum issues than before, then again we are talking about a universe where Batman could just breathe in space just because he is BATMAN.

Birm: This is true, regardless of what the situation is, simple mechanics specifies that momentum must be maintained, so firing a projectile pretty quick in one direction will lead to a force in the opposite direction.

Me: Basic Newton’s law: to every applied force there is a reaction of equal value but opposite direction or something like that.

Birm: Yup.

Me: In a normal shooting we don’t feel it as our weight overcomes the force that an arrow could generate, however, the bow does get affected, as we explained in last month’s column about how to hold a bow.

Birm: Yeah, the main principle behind it is that the bow is creating a force forwards which is transferred into the arrow. Some of this force is dissipated into the arrow but there is still a lot of force trying to force the bow forwards. This is why a lot of recurve archers use a finger sling, instead of trying to hold onto the bow they just let it drop and let the sling hold it, so the forward force is allowed to throw the bow forwards a little and is then dropped in the downward direction.

Me: And in a normal shooting we are flat footed so our legs transfer the effort towards the floor.

Birm: Yup, what happens on these images it’s not possible to do this with a longbow, you have to hold on and use your weight and stance to dissipate the force, which isn’t possible when you have nothing to brace against.

Me: Something that is lacking on these images. Basically, in these instances, Ollie or Clint would get pushed backward.

Birm: Hmm, I’m not convinced about that, I think they would get pulled forwards.

Me: Following the bow and the string vector?

Birm: Yeh, the bow enacts a force forwards of the archer, which is what is transferred into the arrow to make it move, the rest of the force is then transferred into the limbs and down into the grip resulting in a net force forwards, it’s usually up to the archer to provide a rearwards force to counteract this.

Me: So if you shoot while jumping you might as well use a pointy hat and become another arrow.

Birm: Yeh, pretty much.

Me: Arrowman!!! The Amazing pointy vigilante… or circus act. You know? I think the problem has its roots on the gunplay from action flicks.

Birm: Yes, it’s possible to shoot guns whilst firing through the air but they operate on completely different firing principles.

Me: Well they do still have the recoil, so you still get pushed backward isn’t?

Birm: The problem with a bow is that your arm is at its full extension already so there’s nowhere for the force to go to.

Me: But in movies, people shoot a gun at full arm extension. I guess the issue is that it looks cool, regardless of how possible it is and with archers, the problem is even bigger as there are just a handful ways to make the look cool in a comic. In a film/tv/cartoon is easier due to the fluidity of the movement, the speed and the dramatic moment, think Legolas in LOTR, Green Arrow in Smallville and JLU or Robin Hood in the Costner movie (and yet there the writer takes a lot of liberties).

Birm: Depicting the action of firing a bow is difficult in comics as you either show the bow at full draw which looks dramatic, or you show it with an arrow flying off it, which looks a bit rubbish because it looks like the archer isn’t doing anything. That’s why you have silly things like Legolas in the LOTR films, sliding on a shield down a staircase.

Me: I guess this is one of those cases where we might have to cut some slack to the artist and allow suspension of disbelief as in comic format it would be hard to do it unless the bow has some magical properties like the one you are trying to build and the FX of the arrow would do all the job.

Birm: It’s definitely a case for suspension of disbelief, it’d be pretty difficult to take an archery based superhero seriously if they fell flat on their face every time they fired an arrow.

Me: It would make comedy gold though… or it would be a bit sad as the BBC Robin Hood show.

Birm: I still think that would be comedy gold.

Me: I can’t stop picturing someone doing that.

Birm: That would be brilliant.

Me: Human Arrow, the acrobatic archer/arrow, he shoots himself to stop crime.

Birm: Priceless.

Me: Let’s call a major publisher, we might get lucky if we pitch this. Maybe even a movie deal with Will Ferrell as Human Arrow.

Remember, in real life -and as a writer, if you have an archer in the story- you need a good shooting positioning to make it realistic. And don’t drink while using a bow unless you are planning to share it with us.

A review: Your Name

/ Ricardo Victoria / 2 Comments

Reviewing this movie, without spoiling it is hard, because of the mix of elements it has. So there is no way around.  Read only if you don’t mind SPOILERS.

Your name. The title doesn’t evocate much, but beneath it, there is one of the best time travel stories I’ve seen in many years. It is also an alternate history story, but one that works on the departure point rather than the future consequences of that. All thanks to the powers of a comet and a Shinto deity. It is also a story about changing fate for love (to your special one, to your friends, to your estranged family) and what connects people. But you learn all of that halfway through the movie in such heart-wrenching way that makes you cry.

The first half of the movie is an anime take on body swapping. A provincial girl, Mitsuha, who is a Shinto maiden, yearns to get away from her small village and her politician father. she finds out that every other day she trades bodies with a boy from Tokyo, Taki, who works as a waiter, is in love with the restaurant hostess -a nice person by the way- and dreams of becoming an architect. Only the Mitsuha’s grandma and sister realize what’s happening. Most movies would dwell in the hijinks of the trade, but not this one. Here, both characters soon realize what is happening and create plans so a to don’t disrupt their lives, leaving notes and journal entries in each other’s phones and basically trying to help each other through their weird experience and also improve each other’s lives. Soon they start to grow fond of each other, to the point they become in love and just when they realize it, an overbearing sense of sadness overcomes them and soon the exchanges stop happening. Taki, helped by best friend and his former romantic interest, the hostess, goes on a quest to find the town and the girl that has conquered his heart and they find it…

… obliterated by a comet’s fragment that crashed in the town three years before, killing everybody. This is where the story goes straight into alternate history and fantasy. Even if it feels a bit Deux ex Machina (there is a subtle but logical divine intervention for the rest of the plot to work), the story is cohesive. Soon everybody starts forgetting about the girl, but Taki fights back and with the help of the Shinto god of the temple where Mitsuha’s worked, a god of time and connection, travels back to her body in an attempt to convince the town to evacuate before they are killed by the natural phenomenon. Even if that leads Mitsuha’s friends to commit criminal acts and her father to dismiss her as crazy. During the golden hour, both souls exchange bodies again and see each other, finally meeting in person. But before they can exchange names (hence the title of the movie) she disappears. The town is still destroyed and Taki forgets about her. It is devastating. But you are treated with a ‘what happened after’ and you find if Taki’s efforts saved the town. You get a happy ending, but you have to work for it.

There is no way my brief description does justice to the movie. It is something you have to experience fo yourself. The message is clear, you can fight destiny, moreover if time is not as linear as we think it is, but you need a good reason to do so. Love and the desire to save others are powerful motivations. The closest referent I have for those that are not anime fans, in terms of similar feelings is “Somewhere in Time”, but with a happier ending. Hearts will find each other in time, against any obstacle, being an erased memory or a cataclysmic event.

Music wise, the main theme is beautiful, one of the best I’ve heard in years, and the animation is flawless, combining 3D rendered landscapes with traditional animation in a way I have not seen before. And the sequence following the broken comet’s fall is breathtaking.

The movie, I dare to say, is perfect. I can’t recommend it enough. You have to see it to believe it.

Watch it if: you enjoy good slice of life stories, character driven stories, romantic plots and Japanese mythology.

Don’t watch it if: if you don’t like anime or time travel stories where there is no science behind.

Grade: 6 out of 5.

Desirability: I will put it this way, since we watched it, my wife and I have been looking for the blu-ray. I loved it, my wife doesn’t have words for how much she enjoyed it.

A review: Wonder Woman

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

As a fan of DC Comics from childhood to the date, getting a good DCEU movie has been a grueling process. I liked BvS, although it was a flawed movie. Suicide Squad was bad and Man of Steel has some controversial details. So Wonder Woman had a lot on her shoulders if this DC project was to succeed. Did it work?  Read only if you don’t mind SPOILERS.

I will put it this way, at risk of sounding like hyperbole: I haven’t seen such a great origin superhero movie since the first Iron Man movie and for DC, since the first Superman movie. Wonder Woman is so great that she alone has proved that this shared universe has hope. And it did it in the most logical way, by not talking about the shared universe, but concerning itself to tell a character story first and leave the shared universe out, aside from the framing device that amounts to less than 5 minutes of the total run. In that regard, WW does what the earlier installments of the MCU did (and have lost as they have become more formulaic and the universe more expansive), take the best elements of the characters long history (75 years for Wondy) and distillate them into a character study of growth and learning. Yes the background is the codifier for ‘War is Hell’, WWI which was the clash between old war strategies and new weaponry, but at the end of the day is the story of a heroine coming to terms with the fact

Yes the background is the codifier for ‘War is Hell’, WWI which was the clash between old war strategies and new weaponry, but at the end of the day is the story of a heroine coming to terms with the fact that she can’t save everyone as much as she wishes and there is not a single cause for the woes of humanity. But that doesn’t make humans irredeemable, just fallible. Thus the role of a heroine like Diana is to inspire humans to be better, to learn, grow and forgive. And the only way she can do that is by learning to do those things herself. In that way, she becomes better than her parents or her half-brother.

There are some obvious tropes and twists in the film that a keen-eyed writer can see a mile away (mainly the Godslayer weapon misdirection) but those don’t affect the story negatively since they don’t matter, this is the journey of Diana, not a journey to beat a villain. It is a personal journey of discovery. I would say that it is a ‘coming of age’ story enveloped in the superhero cape. It explains the jaded views of Diana during BvS (and how the introduction of Superman and Batman brings her out of her funk). The ending is a bit cheesy, 90’s level of cheesiness. But you know? That’s ok. Superheroes can be cheesy.

I loved the small details that added to the movie: the take on Diana’s origins (both classic & New 52), the foreshadowing of the New Gods, Bruce Wayne’s touching detail, Diana’s day job… all were perfect.

The real gem of the movie is Gal Gadot. She IS Wonder Woman as much as RDJR is Iron Man or Hugh Jackman is Wolverine (yes I know, Linda Carter is also WW). She embodies the character like a form fitting glove. The way she portrays Diana, from naive to jaded, from hopeful to in the midst of despair, from peace lover to the greatest Amazon warrior ever is a testament to her range and love for the character. Wonder Woman is a complex character as she predicates peace but is a mighty warrior. Gal Gadot makes you believe that there is no contradiction there.

Kudos to Chris Pine, he gave us a very human Steve Trevor, a regular man deciding to do the right thing even if he was scared beyond his guts. He conveyed several emotions with just his face. And his chemistry with Gal Gadot sold an otherwise common love relationship in a way that is heartbreaking in a good sense.

In general everyone did a great job (even if a few of the characters are paper thin). The movie took advantage of a great cast (of special note is Robin Wright as Antiope. She was incredible in the few scenes she appeared).

Music wise, the soundtrack does it work, the theme of Wonder Woman that premiered in BvS is back to great effect. I love the heavy guitar riff. It’s regal, action packed and iconic. Of the DCEU characters’ themes, is by far the best.

The only weak point of the movie is the photography in certain scenes (mostly some combat ones where the CGI a la 300 is too obvious). However, I doubt it is due Paty Jenkins but more an issue of the in photography style that DC and WB have chosen for the DCEU that owes more to Snyder’s vision. When Jenkins introduced her own style, it was magnificent like with Themiscyra.

One of the parameters I use to measure how much I like a story, in general, is what I call the ‘yearning factor’. Do you know when you finish a story and are left with this bittersweet feeling, a good melancholy vibe that makes you yearn for more stories about that particular character? The need for more to the point you imagine your own extra adventures? The feel to watch the movie over and over because it makes you warm inside? That’s what I call the yearning factor, the need to get more of the story. And WW has it in spades, which is good because given that it aims to be part of a shared universe, will serve an extra hook for watching more about this universe and her role in it.

All in all, this is one of the best superhero movies ever made. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but it is. And it is fitting that one of the members of the Trinity of DCU can claim such stake. If someone can teach Superman and Batman a few things is Wonder Woman. This is a movie about belief and trust, but in story and outside (the trust that WB gave to Patty Jenkins is something that Marvel should examine for once). And it is great that we have now a female lead superhero movie that also works as a positive role for many girls and women around the world. It was about time. And as usual, it had to be Wonder Woman the one to show the way, as it befits the ambassador of Themiscyra and demi-goddess of truth and peace.

Watch it if: you enjoy good superhero films, you like DC comics, kick ass women, Wondy or Gal Gadot. And if you still have hopes for the DCEU project.

Don’t watch it if: if you don’t like DC comics, you don’t like the in-house photography style, you don’t like female superheroes or like the idea of a female director showing how it is done. (but if that’s the case, you shouldn’t be reading this blog either).

Grade: 6 out of 5.

Desirability: I loved the film but my wife liked it so much that even she has agreed we put the preorder of the blu-ray as soon as is possible.

Moana’s Quest and the ethereal villain

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

 

Let me preface this entry by explaining that this is not a review of Moana. I’m too late for that train. It is more of a reflection upon some comments my wife made me the other day about Moana. For better context: my wife and I grew up with a steady diet of Disney movies, so we are basically Disney children. However where things differ is that my wife is really into Dinsey animated movies, especially the Princess ones to the point that she and my sister in law can recite, word for word, songs included, most of the classics f the om top of their heads. Her all time favorite is the Little Mermaid by the way (and she knows ALL songs by heart. ALL). She tends to watch them with a critical eye I only use for comic related things or my own writing. She didn’t like Frozen and is warm luke to Moana, whilst for me, Moana is my second favorite Disney movie (the first one being the Lion King). Moana as well holds a special place in my heart, not only for the theme (Polynesian culture is quite interesting) but for the cast and the personality of the characters, is colorful, I’m learning ‘You’re welcome’, but most important, it reminds me of our first wedding anniversary last year, where we had the opportunity to go to Disneyworld and watch a featurette on the movie. That trip by itself was a magical thing shared with the love of my life. So for me, the attachment to Moana is more sentimental (which might make this reflection a bit biased).

Moana as well holds a special place in my heart, not only for the theme (Polynesian culture is quite interesting) but for the cast and the personality of the characters, it’s a sustainability parable  is colorful, I’m learning ‘You’re welcome’, but most important, it reminds me of our first wedding anniversary last year, where we had the opportunity to go to Disneyworld and watch a featurette on the movie. That trip by itself was a magical thing shared with the love of my life. So for me, the attachment to Moana is more sentimental (which might make this reflection a bit biased).

So it was a shock for me a few days ago, when I finally had money to buy the blu-ray edition, that my wife said that while she liked Moana enough, it wasn’t a good movie for her. I was aghast so I asked her to explain herself and in summary, her biggest complaint is that Moana, unlike other Disney Princess movies (or Disney movies in general) lacks a clear villain, taking away some of the conflicts from the plot. And that left me thinking about what I’m gonna write right now.

Moana, for the most part, is a kid-friendly approach to the Hero of Thousand Faces heroic journey or monomyth as author Joseph Campbell called it (which by the way, if you are planning to write fantasy, it would be a good idea to check that book). From the refusal of the call to the visit to the underground, Moana checks many of the items of the monomyth. However, my wife is right. It doesn’t have a proper villain.

Teka is more a force of nature created by the actions of men (this is important later for the sake of the post), looking for the heart of Te Fiti for spoilery reasons. Other than that it doesn’t have more motivation that just exists. The Kokomora and Tamatoa are not the main villains, they act more as obstacles. But they are not the main antagonist of the movie. And none of them spend time on screen beyond a few minutes to explain their real motivations. They are just there. Compare that to other classic villains like Ursula, Scar, and Jaffar, who are antagonistc villains and you can see that my wife has a point there.

Now the movie does have a few antagonists, but not in the traditional good-bad dichotomy. One of them, in particular, is vital for the story. This antagonist is there to counter Moana’s views and help her with her personal growth. Notice that I’m not calling him a villain because he is not. He is for most of the movie an anti-hero at a crossroads and goes by the name of Maui. You will say: ‘hey he is the deuteragonist, the other hero of the story’. And for the last third of the movie he is. But on the first part of the movie he is there messing with Moana’s plans for his selfish/not-so-selfish reasons and is on a personal growth journey as well. It’s only when he realizes that both journeys share the same ultimate objective that he goes from anti-hero to bonafide hero. To put it simply, he is the Han Solo to Moana’s Luke/Leia, down to the last minute rescue in a falcon shape.

So if Moana apparently doesn’t has an antagonistic villain, where is the conflict? Well, I think that it does has a villain, but is not a physical one.

Stories like Game of Thrones have got us used to the idea that even villains have proper motivations, that deep inside, they believe they are right and that they are the true heroes of the story. Cersei, for example, does at first most things for the sake of her children. Only the Others/White Walkers haven’t shown a real motivation so far, acting more like a boogeyman or a force of nature. Long gone are the days of evil for the sake of evil villains, like Palpatine. But even so, we are still used to think of villains in terms of an actual guy opposing the heroes for nefarious purposes. And this is where Moana deviates from the norm in a clever way.

Remember when I mentioned the ‘acts of men’ as the cause of the crisis in the story of Moana? Well, it was their constant abusing of Maui’s desire for approval (the guy is still hurting from being abandoned as a baby) that pushed too far the balance, making him steal the heart of Te Fiti and creating Tekai as result. The ‘acts of men’ are also seen in the way of thinking uphold by Moana’s father about not venturing away form the island, forgetting completely his culture’s tradition of wayfinding. This is where Moana becomes a sustainability parable: the actions of our predecessors have caused a disruption on the futures of our descendants. I see Tekai as a symbol of Mother Earth lashing out against humankind for their excess, as a representation of climate change for example, or pollution, that withers the land and deprive us of nurturing elements.

It’s only when Moana understands this, that the ‘acts of men’, the loss of their traditional communion with nature, the close minded way of thinking and greed has caused this crisis that she is capable of reaching an agreement with Tekai to return the heart to its proper place and restore the balance. Of all the people of her island she was chosen  by the Ocean, that allied force of nature, because she is not only smart enough to realize this but compassionate and brave enough to raise up to the challenge of breaking with the societal conventions, the popular wisdom of her context to find a new way of life. In this case, the villain is not a physical one, is an ethereal one composed by many negative thoughts that mired her, her family and even Maui and take a final embodiment in Tekai.

Sometimes, the villains of a story, the real ones, are not the guys in black robes trying to conquer the world, but the inner demons, the preconceptions, the baggage that drags the main character down. Those are villains of equal importance if not more and only when the hero realizes that and is willing to overcome them is that they become able to solve the crisis at hand. So I contend that Moana does have a villain and a central conflict, but not in the shape we are used to from other Disney movies.  And for that,  and for having such a kickass female hero that breaks from the traditional role of a Disney Princess (that’s a topic for another post), I think Moana is superb.

A review: King Arthur: the legend of the sword

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

I’m a sucker for Arthurian cycle reinterpretation (one of my favorites versions is the one written by John Steinbeck). Now Guy Ritchie brings his own take to it.  Read only if you don’t mind SPOILERS.

There is not much to talk about this movie in terms of story. And I don’t mean that as something bad. Arthur’s story tells the most basic hero’s plot. Not for nothing, it has been the template for hundreds of movies, video games and fantasy stories (with a few sci-fi ones). Excalibur is the ur-example of the magical sword. In that regard, I would dare to call it one of the most faithful depictions of King Arthur’s story in years (more that King Arthur with Clive Owen at least). It mixes a vibe that could easily fit Lord of the Rings with that of Excalibur by John Boorman.

Now that I think about it, this movie feels like an updated version of that movie, through the lens of Ritchie, which means that true to his personal style, has running scenes in first person, slow motion in combat and a grittiness that made Ritchie’s brand in movies such as Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Also, there is a London here, well Londinium (Down to some roman buildings as it should be at the time), it wouldn’t be a Ritchie movie without London. Sound hectic isn’t? I would say eclectic. But that’s what makes this movie such a good piece, one that has been underrated.

Aside from the aesthetic, what this movie brings in a interwoven tale of the main features of an Arthurian cycle for modern audiences. Let’s talk about the differences to the regular legend:

  • Humans share the land with a humanoid race named Mages, who are capable of controlling beasts and can enter a parallel world similar to our but with bestial creatures. It is reminiscent of the Underside of the Tuatha de Danaan in Celtic lore.
  • Uther Pendragon is a good king, owner of Excalibur that defeats the usurper of the Mage throne Mordred, to be later betrayed by his own brother Vortigern. He then becomes the proverbial stone where the sword is trapped.
  • Vortigen is in cahoots with dark powers and is a genocidal king. And can transform into a fiery demon wielding a double scimitar (very similar to a Frazetta drawing), through the sacrifice of his wife and daughter.
  • Merlin doesn’t appear in the movie aside a flashback, but his presence can be felt through others. For starters he is the one to forge Excalibur from the staff of the Mage King and with the help of the Lady of the Lake binds it to Arthur0s lineage. His bidding is carried out through a hooded female mage who….
  • …Is actually, Guinevere! Well, just in name, because power and character wise, she acts more like Morgan Le Fay (which makes sense since Mordred is already dead by then and bypasses the issue of the incest from the legend). She is also the one to guide Arthur through his quest.
  • Talking about Arthur, he is the one that suffers the most changes under Ritchie’s approach: after parent’sents deaths here he is left in a river (very Moses) and raised by prostitutes and criminals, learning martial arts and becoming a criminal boss with his own team. He is forced to pull the sword from the stone and then rescued by the Rebellion, formed by the old allies of his father (Djimon Hounsou as Belvedere and Aidan Gillen as Goosefat Bill/Lord Willian, who acts like Sir Kay mixed with Robin Hood). From there he starts a guerilla warfare against his uncle, while training to use the full power of Excalibur and finally things come to a head.
  • Excalibur itself has been changed here. It is more than just an unbreakable sword with glowing runes. Under the control, of Arthur it becomes a magical sword that can unleash gusts of wind and allows Arthur to achieve some sort of sixth sense (it’s when the camera goes into bullet time) that makes him invincible.

The movie ends when Arthur takes the crown, knighting his companions (you find there that his right hand in his gang is actually Sir Tristan), building the Roundtable and dealing with Vikings, while Guinevere looks from afar. It’s a good open ending that closes all the plot threads while leaving room for further adventures. Which we might not get.

Apparently, the movie is bombing (which considering that is going against GotG and Alien Covenant it was expected). But I think the critics are being too harsh with this movie. While it has some defects, it is a good movie. One that I think with time will become a cult movie. For me it is already a must for my collection.

On a personal note, watching Arthur’s fights with Excalibur in hand is exactly how I envisioned the fights of my main characters on my novel Tempest Blades. So if by any miracle I manage to publish the novel and becomes good enough to become a movie or a miniseries, I would love for Guy Ritchie to direct it. This is how Fionn fighting should look.

galwuvzdjpylmo4gg80p.gif

Watch it if: you are a fan of Guy Ritchie signature style (like in Sherlock Holmes), you want a more high fantasy version of Arthur or you liked Excalibur.

Don’t watch it if: if you prefer more down to earth Arthurian movies, you can’t stomach Ritchie’s signature style or you are a stickler for orthodoxy in terms of how a movie based on King Arthur’s should be (although this is an oxymoron, considering that not even the medieval romances could agree how it should be and there are tons of versions already).

Grade: 4 out of 5.

Desirability: I will be buying the blu-ray when possible. Just because the photography is that good, and a dvd wouldn’t make it justice.

A review: A Silent Voice

/ Ricardo Victoria / 3 Comments

My wife and I just recently watched a beautiful anime movie about human connection and compassion. Here is what I thought.

 

Now that ’13 reasons why’ has put the issues of bullying and suicide on the debate table (whether it does it correctly or a total mess of it, that’s matter for another blog post), I think it is fair to talk about this movie that might be dismissed at first hand but actually does a superb job talking about bullying, redemption, special needs and depression.

The basic story is this: Shoya is a bullied, solitary teenager getting ready to kill himself, paying debts and closing circles. Once he is ready to jump off a bridge, he stops and returns home, where his mother coaxes him into being alive. And thus starts his redemption story. You see, Shoya was a bully himself, and a mean one to that. The object of his bullying was a deaf girl when they were kids. He bullied her for being different so much that he got his school into troubles and in turn becomes the scapegoat and bullied by others for the following five years, losing all his friends and interest in human contact.

Since then he has lived with the regret of his actions, to the point he thinks that he is nothing but trash. However a chance meeting with Shoko, the deaf girl he bullied changed everything. He decides to live his life with the aim of making her happy (she has a sad family life too) as payment for his transgressions. They start to connect, trying to understand each other and forgive each other and in the process they heal their emotional wounds and meet new friends, in some cases even rekindling old friendships.

Most of the depression/ suicide tendencies that the main characters show come from the fact that they hate themselves more than others do and see themselves as a waste of space and the bullying they suffered as something they earned. It’s sounds fucked up, right? But the harsh truth is that many people undergoing depression feel exactly that. In this movie (especially those singled out for a dissability), it is through friendship as a support network, better communication and actually caring for other that the characters are able to overcome their demons and false sense of guilt and move on into a better life. 

The movie focuses more on the aftermath of the bullying and depression side of things, more on how the characters try to move on, but the story is constructed in a melancholic yet hopeful way. The story concludes with an open ending that has an upbeat tone to it. In no moment the film acts as exploitative or creates drama for the sake of drama (contrary to other anime) but it is a logical progression of acts-consequences and learning not only to own that but move from there. Even the characters you might dislike start to earn their redemption because they are fallible humans who also have needs and problems.

The music and the art are beautifully done, but the most striking scenes are those where we get inside Shoko’s head and her struggles to communicate. This is a film I will buy for my lectures on universal design and how disabilities should be understood.

The most important thing is that, while the movie summarizes 7 tomes of manga (which according to my wife does faithfully even if it downplays a bit the uglier parts of bullying), you can see the maturing process of the main cast and how that process helps others to heal their own emotional wounds.

It’s a story about understanding and empathy. It’s a story about learning to forgive yourself and forgive others. About learning to conduct meaningful human interactions in a world where feeling alone in the middle of a crowd is commonplace. But most important, it is a love story, but more than romantic love is a story about loving each other and loving yourself so you can live a life worth living. And that is a really powerful message

Watch it if: you are a fan of ‘slice of life’ anime and are interested in a well-done story about empathy/friendship and bullying/depression in a non-exploitative way.

Don’t watch it if: I can’t think of a reason to don’t watch it.

Grade: 5 out of 5.

Desirability: I will be buying the blu-ray when it comes out. One for my home and one for work.

A review: Power Rangers

/ Ricardo Victoria / Leave a comment

Disclaimer: these are my personal views and I admit sometimes I don’t have the best taste in movies. This is for fun so if you disagree let’s keep it civil. 🙂
Also, SPOILERS!


This was the other film I watched during the weekend and I have to say that I’m not only pleasantly surprised but it has become my favorite iteration of the franchise (even above my all time favorites TimeForce and DinoThunder). I guess I loved it for very different and personal reasons compared to others. Go Go into the review.

This movie is a retelling of the first two episodes of the original Mighty Morphing Power Rangers, with hints and elements of other seasons (such as Alien Rangers, Zeo & DinoThunder). However, instead of copying beat by beat such story with all the included cliches, it is instead a character driven story. And what characters.

Long gone are the squeaky clean ‘teenagers with attitude’ that had nothing close to actual attitude of the original show (when Tommy ‘Ph.D. & the closer thing to Superman’ Oliver is your rebel of the group you can’t say they had an attitude). I get it that being a kids show at the time they had to give a certain image of the ideal teenager but truth is that it was hard to identify with them and their perfection.

Most of the times teenagers show attitude because they are dealing with the turmoil of growing up and finding who they are. And in this new movie, the core of the story is the struggles that the main cast, one of the most diverse in cinema today) is undergoing and how unexpected friendships and challenges help them grow:

Jason: (the only white member of the group) while he was seen as the town hero due his athletic prowess and now is seen as a pariah, he is hiding a deep-seated anger and frustration at being stuck in this town and having the expectations and wishes of his dad imposed on him. But is his sense of right which makes him grow into a real leader.

Kimberly: (who seems to be British-Asian based on the ethnicity of Naomi Scott) used to be the queen bitch of the school and a bully that has learned her lesson and is trying to be a better person and treat her friends well. She is also the other leader of the team.

Billy: (African-American) genius who is also on the autism spectrum who is not only the one that reunites the team but the true heart and soul of it. Probably the overall best character of the movie who finds friends that love him and help him.

Trini: (Latina) the outlier of the team, the ‘new girl’ at school (despite being there for almost a year and a half already) and who not only has no friends but is also struggling with her sexual preferences (it’s more than implied that she is Lesbian). A tough girl unwilling to be labeled and who despite being the more likely to betray the team is the one that asks the fundamental question: are we just friends or just Rangers?

Zack: (Asian-American) is probably the less developed character, a jokester l, reckless boy and a slacker that hides the real fear of waking up one day and find himself an orphan in a poor neighborhood due to his ill mother. But he is also the most insightful of the team and the one more willing to accept others as they are.

Kudos in particular to Dacre Montgomery, who in his first job made Jason a likable character and to RJ Cyler for his respectful portrayal of a person with autism. Ludi Lin is enjoyable as Zack both as the comic relief and as the one that finds the key to become a team. But the best, in my opinion, are Naomi Scott as Kimberly and Becky G as Trini who portrays kickass girls that you go beyond the ‘chick’ stereotype of these movies and become powerful leads on their own.

img_0532
Worth to note is that this Zordon is not the venerable mentor of yore but a resented former ranger that grows as well into his teacher role. Rita, a mix between the original one, the original Green Ranger and Divatox goes from creepy to chewing the scenery with equal glee. Elizabeth Banks was pitch perfect here. And Alpha 5 for once is not annoying but a helpful sidekick. This movie is full of nuisance and it’s better for it.

Because in this movie, the value of true friendship is hammered not in a heavy handed way but in a process that goes along their training as Rangers. This is not just a team but fire forged friends that discover that to unlock their true power they have to be willing to trust and open themselves to others as well as accept others as they are. In these times of segregation, this movie has the über important message of friendship, diversity & tolerance.

As well, I liked is that there is no idiot ball here nor with the heroes or the villain. Everything makes sense. And it’s a highly realistic take on Power Rangers, with the reality of that kind of battle ensuing but without falling into the pitfalls of a DCEU movie. If you saw ‘Chronicle’ this film will give you pretty similar vibes but with a more hopeful note and the occasional, well-timed humor.

In terms of visual effects, the movie shows the budget during the third act, with the Zords and the armors. Goldar looks clumsy but after all, it’s made of molten gold. The best looking Zord is the Tyrannosaurus and luckily they don’t suffer from the horrible issues that make watching Transformers a torture. Everything in this film feels real but relatable and amicably without resorting to cheesiness.


Music wise, the soundtrack is serviceable and a good listen but lacks the power of the iconic theme tune, unless you count the mournful rendition of ‘Stand by me’ by the Bootstraps. Thus when it’s played during the climax my skin got goosebumps. That would be my only complaint. This was the time for a proper cover of the original theme (just not in dubstep, please).

 And that is why I loved the movie even if the second act crawls. Because it took a simpler franchise and turned it into a character study of relatable people. An example of tolerance and diversity. When I was a solitary kid I dreamed with that kind of friends and adventures. And for that this movie, despite its flaws is one I loved it.

Bottom line, this is a highly enjoyable movie even with the lag of the second act. It’s even better thanks to its diverse cast and diverse characters that feel like actual people with actual problems.

Watch it if: you are a fan of the concept of Power Rangers but you are open to reinterpretations, like character driven stories, want a Chronicle-like movie but lighter in tone and more helpful, you are looking for a film with a positive, accurate portrayal of race and sexual diversity as well as that of disabilities such as autism. Or if you are looking for the ‘Breakfast Club with superheroes’ stories about friendship.

Don’t watch it if: you are expecting a copy of the classic show, don’t have the patience to allow the characters to grow or are you expecting ridiculous poses. Or you don’t like superhero origin stories.

Grade: 3.5 out of 5.

Desirability: I will be buying the blu-ray when it comes out.