"SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" (1952) Review

"SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" (1952) Review

There are certain movies in this world that I cannot be objective about - one way or the other. One of those movies happened to be the 1952 MGM musical, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN". 

Directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" was the brain child of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) producer and songwriter, Arthur Freed. While his 1951 musical "AN AMERICAN IN PARIS" was in its last stages of production, Freed came up with the idea of a musical that depicted - somewhat - the transition from silent films to talking pictures in Hollywood, during the late 1920. He recruited Broadway playwrights Betty Comden and Adolph Green, who had written three previous musicals for the studio, to write a screenplay that revolved around a collection of songs he had co-written with Nacio Herb Brown during the same period that the movie is set.

"SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" begins at Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, where a premiere is being held for Monumental Pictures' latest release - "The Royal Rascal". Starring the film's protagonist Don Lockwood and his leading lady, Lina Lamont, the movie is a big hit with the audience. On his way to a party held by the studio's head, R.F. Simpson, Don manages to avoid a group of screaming fans by hitching a ride with a young woman named Kathy Seldon. The two have a brief argument over the merits of screen and stage acting before Kathy delivers him to Simpson's home. During the party, Simpson reveals his plans to convert the studio to talking pictures following the success of Warner Brothers' 1927 release, "THE JAZZ SINGER".

Monumental's employees and contract players finally realize that Simpson was serious when orders for Don and Lina's next assignment - "The Dueling Cavalier" - to be converted into a talking picture. However, the production is beset by a few problems. One, Don has to contend with his leading lady, the shallow and conniving Lina Lamont, being convinced that they are meant to be great lovers in real life. Two, Don has fallen in love with Kathy Seldon, whom he discovers is a minor contract player on the Monumental lot. Three, no one - including the film's director Roscoe Dexter - has no idea of how to film a talking picture, let alone deal with the new sound equipment. And worst of all, Lina possesses a grating voice and strong New York accent that no diction coach can erase. Despite these problems, Don continues to pursue Kathy and Monumental Pictures soldiers on in its attempt to produce and release its first talking picture.

As many know, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" is considered one of the best Hollywood musicals ever made. And honestly, I would be the last to argue against this opinion. But upon my recent viewing of the film, I realized that I had one or two problems with the movie. Yes . . . definitely two. One of those problems proved to be the Cosmo Brown character portrayed by Donald O'Connor. Do not get me wrong. I love the character. But . . . what exactly was his position at Monumental Pictures? The movie began with flashbacks featuring Don and Cosmo's careers as barely successful vaudevillian song-and-dance men, their arrival in Southern California, Don's early career as a stunt man, Cosmo's role as a studio musician, and Don's start as a major star and Lina Lamont's leading man. Also, Cosmo seemed to serve as Don's sole member of his entourage in Hollywood. Yet, by the end of the film, he has become head of Monumental Pictures' music department, due to a few ideas he had about saving "The Dueling Cavalier"? That was all it took for Cosmo to unintentionally force the studio's previous music department's head out of a job? That seemed a bit too much for me to swallow. I was also disturbed by one scene in which Lina Lamont managed to intimidate studio chief R.F. Simpson into acquiescing to her every demand. I found that scenario rather hard to swallow. I do not care what kind of contract she had. I simply cannot see any Hollywood studio willing to agree with one that would give any contract player that level of power. Not even in a movie.

My bigger problem with "SINGIN IN THE RAIN" proved to be the film's second half. It seemed that by the time Cosmo, Don and Kathy discussed how to save the studio's first talking picture, the movie's narrative was in danger of running out of steam. Of course, we all know that the movie had to deal with Lina's downfall and Kathy's ascension as a star. But I found it disturbing that screenwriters had to include a seventeen-minute ballet - the famous "Broadway Melody" - to stretch out the film. Without it, the movie's running time would have lasted roughly 86 minutes. Hmmm . . . one would think that screenwriters Betty Comden and Adolph Green could have stretched out the film's narrative a little better than that. Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed the "Broadway Melody" . . . well, most of it. I must confess that I am not a fan of the segment that featured Gene Kelly, Cyd Charisse and a long white scarf. Needless to say, I found it extremely boring! Every time the ballet came to this point, I have to press that FastForward button on my DVD remote to skip past it.

Despite these quibbles, I love "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN". Why deny it? One, I enjoyed the story. I thought Comden and Green had created a very entertaining and romanticized story about Hollywood's transition from silent films to talkies in the late 1920s. Not only did I find it entertaining, I also found it extremely funny. Among the film's best moments include Don Lockwood's amusing and rather exaggerated recollection of his and Cosmo Brown's years in vaudeville and their arrival in Hollywood; Don and Kathy's rather funny first meeting on the streets; the revelation of Lina Lamont's awful voice; the hilarious and chaotic filming of "The Dueling Cavalier"; and the equally hilarious test screening of the film that proved to be a disaster. There were just so many moments that left me in a state of uncontrolled laughter.

As for the film's narrative - it is simple enough. "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" is about the Hollywood's transition from silent movies to talking films via the experiences of a fictional movie studio. I realize that this might sound like pretentious bullshit, but there were times that I found myself wondering if Don Lockwood served as a metaphor for Monumental Pictures. Or if Lina Lamont and Kathy Seldon symbolized the silent and upcoming sound eras. Okay, that does sound like pretentious bullshit. But I do find it odd that Don eventually eases into a relationship with Kathy around the same time that Monumental embraces talking pictures. You know what? Perhaps I should back off and simply state that I enjoyed the film's comedic narrative about the transition to sound and leave it at that.

Of course, I cannot discuss "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" without bringing up the film's musical numbers. I learned that most of the songs were written by the movie's producer, Arthur Freed and his former partner, Nacio Herb Brown. Comden and Green wrote two of the film's songs - "Make 'Em Laugh" (which strongly resembled Cole Porter's tune, "Be a Clown") and "Moses Supposes" (with Roger Edens). But if I had to be honest, the choreography that accompanied most of these songs made those songs memorable to me. This was especially the case for "Make 'Em Laugh", "Moses Supposes", "Good Morning" and "Singin' in the Rain". 

"Make 'Em Laugh" featured a delightfully frenetic dance number by Donald O'Connor that still boggles the mind after 66 years. For a guy who claimed that he was basically a hoofer, this extraordinary dance number proved that he was a lot more. O'Connor was also featured in two dance numbers with star Gene Kelly. And one of them was "Moses Supposes". Although I found the song amusing, but not particularly memorable, I thought Kelly and O'Connor's dancing was superb. In fact, I would consider their dance routine to be among the best I have seen on film. "Good Morning", a song that was featured in one of MGM's past films, was also charming and peppy. I could say the same about the dance number by Kelly, O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds. I could . . . but I would also like to add that this dance number conveyed that the trio had a magical screen chemistry, which is why it has always been a favorite of mine. Now, the "Singin in the Rain"was a pleasant song written and published back in 1927 and if I must be honest, Gene Kelly did not utilize any special dance steps for his performance. And yet . . . there is something special about it. The entire number struck me as an ultimate expression of unadulterated joy. And it reminded me of a happy moment during my childhood when my sister, brother and I were outside of our apartment building scampering on the lawn during a rain shower. 

There were other musical numbers that I enjoyed. "All I Do Is Dream of You" is a delightful song-and-dance number performed by Debbie Reynolds and a group of chorus girls. This scene must have marked the first time moviegoers saw how talented the actress truly was. I also enjoyed Kelly and O'Connor's first dance number in the movie, "Fit as a Fiddle (And Ready for Love)", which served as a part of Don Lockwood's hilarious early recollections of him and Cosmo Brown as part of a vaudeville act. And of course, there was the "Broadway Melody" ballet. Yes, I admit that I did not care for one part of it; which involved Kelly, Cyd Charisse and a long scarf. However, the rest of the ballet struck me as outstanding . . . especially that sexy-as-hell dance number between Kelly and Charisse. I will be the first to admit that "Beautiful Girls" number struck me as a bit of a bore. However, I was entertained by the number's fashion show (something that many studios used to include in their movies between the end of the 1920s to the beginning of the 1940s) that featured some of Walter Plunkett's most colorful costume designs:



What can I say about the performances in "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN"? They were outstanding. Even those performances from supporting characters like Millard Mitchell, a hilarious Douglas Crawley, Kathleen Freeman, Madge Blake and a very young Rita Moreno proved to be very entertaining. The movie's best performance came from Jean Hagen, who hilariously portrayed the vain and talentless Lina Lamont, whose unattractive voice threatened to end her career with the emergence of talking pictures. Hagen, who had earned a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination, had based her performance on Judy Holliday's Billie Dawn character from the play, "BORN YESTERDAY". Hagen had been Holliday's understudy. What I found impressive about Hagen's portrayal is that not only did I find her Lina Lamont beneath contempt, a small part of me found her a bit pathetic and sad. Because she had only appeared in the "Broadway Melody" ballet, Cyd Charisse did not have a speaking role. But her superb and sexy dance number with Kelly re-charged her movie career for greater glory throughout the 1950s.

Another cast member who earned an acting award was Donald O'Connor, who won a Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy for portraying Don Lockwood's closest friend, the musically inclined Cosmo Brown. Aside from his brilliant dancing, O'Connor gave a delicious performance as the sardonic and witty musician, who seemed to take great pleasure at taking pot shots at Lina Lamont. Aspiring actress Kathy Selden proved to be Debbie Reynolds' sixth role in her long film and television career. Was it the role that finally led her to stardom? Probably. For most of the film, Kathy Selden is a nice, peppy girl with ambitions to make it big in films. I would have dismissed Reynolds' performance as that of a safe, leading lady if it were not for her dancing talents that had emerged in this film (thanks to Kelly's tutoring). However, there is one scene - namely Kathy Seldon's first meeting with actor Don Lockwood - that foreshadowed her brilliant talent for comedic acting. 

When people discuss Gene Kelly's performance in "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN", they usually talk about his . . . well, his dance numbers. Especially the "Broadway Melody" ballet, his duet with O'Connor in the "Moses Supposes" number, and of course . . . the "Singin' in the Rain" dance. As much as I enjoyed his dancing performance, I had to admit that I also enjoyed his portrayal of Don Lockwood. I liked how Kelly made it clear that although Don's wit is not as sharp as Cosmo's, it still existed and that he can be a very good comedic actor. This was especially clear in those scenes in which he has to fight off Lina's constant pursuit of him. One truly funny moment featured a sequence in which he shot a series of insults at Lina, while they filmed a scene from the silent version of "The Dueling Cavalier". Kelly was also very funny when his character, Don Lockwood, gave a hilarious account of his and Cosmo's early years on the vaudevillian circuit and in Hollywood. More importantly, I enjoyed how Kelly skillfully conveyed Don's insecurities and fear of the latter's career fading, after his initial encounter with Kathy Seldon's faux pretentious attitude toward movie acting. 

Yes, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" is not perfect. But . . . I cannot deny that I believe it is one of the best movie musicals I have ever seen, hands down. It is a masterpiece, thanks to Betty Comden and Adolph Green's entertaining and funny screenplay, Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly's direction of both the narrative and musical scenes and wonderful performances by a cast led by Kelly, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor. To this day, I find it hard to believe that following its initial release, it was only a modest hit.

Transformations in “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.”

During my viewing of ABC's "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", I noticed that between Seasons One and Three, certain characters underwent a transformation or acquired powers through certain circumstances.   Of the four characters mentioned below, three of them were transformed, thanks to a mist from a crystal called Terrigen.  This led them to become Inhumans.  The fourth character had been transformed via science experiments conducted by the terrorist agency called HYDRA.  I also noticed that at least three characters also endured a serious physical transformation.  Here they are:

TRANSFORMATIONS IN "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D."

Mike Peterson - A civilian who had experienced a severe back injury on the job.  A group called the Centipede Project (which was controlled by HYDRA) recruited him to use their Centipede serum.  The latter acquired new superpowers, but it formula also affected his psyche.  The team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents led by Phil Coulson, saved Petersen, when HYDRA turned on him.  After serving as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent for a while, Peterson was captured by a team of HYDRA agents led by S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent John Garrett, who was betraying the latter.  Garrett and HYDRA transformed Peterson into the Cyborg known as Deathlok.

******************** 

Raina - A scientist who believed there were people in the world with the potential for special powers.  She also believed that she might be special, herself.  Due to this belief and her search, Raina was willing to work with HYDRA  Raina was eventually exposed to the Terrigen mist inside an abandoned Kree settlement discovered by Coulson, and transformed into an Inhuman.

******************** 

Dr. Andrew Garner - He was a neurologist and forensic psychologist who worked for S.H.I.E.L.D.  He was also married to S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Melinda May, until a traumatic event that she had experienced, led to their divorce.  Dr. Garner and May eventually reconciled and embarked upon a vacation together.  Upon their return, Coulson asked him to examine a book on the history of Inhumans, written by former Inhuman leader, Jiaying.  The book turned out to be a trap for any human, who was exposed by the Terrigen mist from a Terrigen crystal hidden inside it.  Instead of dying, Dr. Garner's latent  transformed into an Inhuman eventually named Lash.

******************** 

Daisy Johnson aka Skye - She was a talented hackvist who was born to future Inhuman leader Jiaying and American medical practitioner named Dr. Calvin Johnson in a Chinese village.  Not long after her birth, HYDRA agents raided the village and kidnapped her mother and a few village elders.  Dr. Johnson left baby Daisy in the hands of trusted villagers in order to find his wife.  S.H.I.E.L.D. agents investigating the massacre found Daisy and brought her back to the U.S.  After living in an orphanage and a series of foster homes, Daisy, who called herself Skye, became a hackvist who exposed the secrets of the U.S. government.  Phil Coulson's S.H.I.E.L.D. team eventually caught her and recruited her into the agency.  Over a year later, Daisy found herself inside the remnants of the Kree City with Raina.  She was exposed to the same Terrigen mist as Raina, and acquired new powers.  She eventually acquired the nickname, Quake.

********************  

Of the four characters mentioned above, S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Daisy Johnson is the only one who did not endure a complete physical transformation.  She is also the only character who is not portrayed by an actor/actress of African descent.

So, could someone explain why three characters portrayed by actors/actresses of African descent had to undergo such drastic physical changes when they became enhanced beings, while the fourth character - someone NOT of African descent, only underwent a name change and haircut when she became an enhanced being?

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2015 Best Picture Oscar winner, "SPOTLIGHT". Directed and co-written by Thomas McCarthy, the movie starred Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams and Liev Schreiber: 



"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Photo Gallery

"SHANE" (1953) Review

"SHANE" (1953) Review

The history behind the production for the 1953 classic Western, "SHANE" is a curious one. At the time, it was one of the most expensive Westerns ever made in Hollywood. And director George Stevens' first choices for the film's two male leads never panned out. Yet, despite the expenses and Stevens' initial bad luck with his casting choices, "SHANE" became one of the most famous Westerns ever made in Hollywood. 

"SHANE" was based upon Jack Schaefer's 1949 novel of the same title. Many film historians and critics believe the narrative's basic elements were based upon a historical event, the 1892 Johnson County War. Although this was never acknowledged by Stevens, Schaefer or the film's screenwriter, A.B. Guthrie Jr. And yet . . . the film's setting turned out to be the same one for the famous cattlemen-homesteaders conflict, Wyoming. The plot for "SHANE" proved to be simple. An experienced gunfighter named Shane, weary of his violent past, arrives at a county in Wyoming Territory and befriends a homesteader/rancher named Joe Starrett and the latter's family. Despite Starrett's revelation of a conflict between homesteaders like himself and a ruthless and powerful rancher named Rufus Ryker, Shane accepts a job as Starrett's ranch hand. Before long, Shane not only finds himself emotionally drawn to the Starretts, but also pulled into the range war that is raging.

Anyone with any knowledge about old Hollywood or American Western films will automatically tell you that "SHANE" is highly regarded and much-beloved movie. The American Film Institute (AFI) has list it as one of the top three (3) Hollywood Westerns ever made and it is ranked 45 on the list of top 100 films. The movie earned six Academy Award nominations and won an award for Best Cinematography (in color). Many people believe Alan Ladd should have received an Academy Award for his performance as the mysterious "former" gunslinger Shane and consider the role as his best performance. How do I feel?

I cannot deny that "SHANE" is a first-rate movie. Who am I kidding? It is an excellent look at violence on the American frontier. And thanks to George Stevens' direction, it is also brutal. Unlike many previous movie directors, Stevens did not stylized the violent deaths depicted in the film. A major example of this peek into life on the frontier is a scene that featured the brutal death of Frank "Stonewall" Torrey, a small rancher portrayed by Elisha Cook Jr., who was killed by Jack Wilson, a villainous gunslinger portrayed by Jack Palance:

Contrary to what one might originally believe, I do not believe "SHANE" preached against violence. Yes, the screenplay written by Guthrie questioned the constant use of violence to solve problems. But the movie made it clear that sometimes, one has no choice but to fight. Does this rule apply to the situation in "SHANE"? Hmmmm . . . good question. 

Another aspect of "SHANE" that I found fascinating was Shane's attempts to put his violent past behind him in his interactions with the Starrett family. Whether Shane was working or riding beside Joe, befriending Joey and struggling to suppress his obvious sexual desire for Marian; it seemed pretty obvious that he had developed close feelings for the entire family. And it would also explained why he would hang around, despite the danger of being dragged into a range war. 

I cannot deny that "SHANE" featured some first-rate performances. I also cannot deny that Alan Ladd was in top form as the soft-spoken gunslinger who tried to hang up his gun belt, while staying with Starretts. I have always believed that Ladd was an underrated actor. Many critics have regarded his role as Shane as a singular example of how excellent he was as an actor. Do not get me wrong. I also admire his performance as Shane. It was a prime example of his skills as a movie actor. But I have seen other Ladd performances that I found equally impressive. Van Heflin's portrayal of the determined small rancher, Joe Starrett, struck me as equally impressive. I could never really regard his character as complex, but Heflin made it easy for me to see why Shane had no problems befriending Joe . . . or why other ranchers regarded him as their unofficial leader. Jean Arthur had been lured out of an early retirement by Stevens for the role of Marian Starrett. I thought she did a superb job of conveying her character's complicated feelings for Shane. Thanks to Arthur's performance, Marian seemed to be torn between her love for Joe, her attraction to Shane and her revulsion toward his violent past. 

Brandon deWilde had received an Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his role as the Starretts' young son, Joe Jr. (Joey). Do not get me wrong. I thought deWilde gave a very good performance as the impressionable, yet energetic young Joey. But an Oscar nod? Honestly, I have seen better performances from a good number of child actors - then and now. Another Best Supporting Actor nomination was given to Jack Palance for his role as the villainous gunslinger, Jack Wilson. When I re-watched this movie for the last time, there seemed to be two faces to Palance's performance. Most of his appearances featured the actor projecting the stone-faced villainy of his character. But there were moments when Palance managed to convey the more human side of Wilson - whether it was his boredom toward his employer's other minions or weariness at the idea of facing another person to kill. It is strange that I had never noticed this before. 

I also have to give kudos to Elisha Cook Jr. as the doomed Frank Toomey, who spent most of the movie aggressively expressing his anger at Ryker's attempts to drive him and other small ranchers out of the valley. And yet . . . Cook's best scene featured Toomey's last moments, when he began to silently express regret at his quick temper and his realization that he was about to meet his death."SHANE" also featured some first-rate performances from Emilie Meyer as the ruthless and greedy Rufus Ryker; Ben Johnson as one of Ryker's ranch hands, whose early encounter with Shane made him see the light; and the likes of Ellen Corby, Edgar Buchanan, Douglas Spencer and Edith Evanson.

Despite my admiration for "SHANE", George Stevens' direction and A.B. Guthrie Jr.'s screenplay . . . the movie is not a particularly favorite of mine. I like the film, but I do not love it. There are certain aspects of "SHANE" that prevents me from fully embracing it. One is Loyal Griggs' cinematography. I realize that he had won an Academy Award for his work. And I must say that he did an excellent job in capturing the beauty of the movie's Wyoming and California locations. But I found his use of natural lighting for the interior shots very frustrating, especially since I could barely see a damn thing in some shots. Another aspect of "SHANE" that annoyed me was its message regarding violence. I have no problem with any story declaring the use of violence in certain situations. My problem is that I did not find the local ranchers' situation with Ryker dire enough that they had to insist upon fighting it out. Granted, if they had agreed to sell their land to Ryker and leave, it would have meant his victory. I do not know. Perhaps I did not care. Or perhaps this feeling came from my contempt toward the Frank Toomey character, who had stupidly decided to give in to his anger and aggression by facing Ryker and Wilson.

Another aspect of "SHANE" that annoyed me was the Joey Starrett character. I have seen my share of on-screen precocious children in movies and television. But there was something about Joey Starrett that truly got under my skin. I do not blame Brandon deWilde. He was only following Stevens' direction. But before the movie's last reel, I found myself wishing that someone would push dear Joey into the mud . . . face first. If there was one aspect of "SHANE" that truly annoyed me, it was bringing the U.S. Civil War into the narrative. I can only recall three characters who were established as Civil War veterans - Shane, Frank Toomey and Jack Wilson. Of the three, guess which one fought with the Union? That is correct. The evil and slimy Wilson. And to make matters worse, Guthrie's screenplay had Shane utter these words to Wilson before shooting him - "I've heard that you're a low-down Yankee liar." In other words, "SHANE" became another example of Hollywood's subtle, yet never-ending reverence for the Confederate cause. And considering that only three characters in this film were established as war veterans, why on earth did Schaefer, Guthrie or Stevens had to drag the damn war into this story in the first place? It was so unnecessary.

Regardless of my frustrations, I must admit that "SHANE" is a first-rate Western. Director George Stevens, screenwriter A.B. Guthrie Jr. and the excellent cast led by Alan Ladd did an exceptional job in creating a Western that many would remember for decades. If only I had enjoyed it more than I actually did.

MARVEL Netflix Franchise and the Serial Drama Format

MARVEL NETFLIX AND THE SERIAL DRAMA FORMAT

I have only seen two shows from the Marvel Netflix franchise – “DAREDEVIL” Season One and “JESSICA JONES” Season One.  Overall, I enjoyed both shows, but . . . I have noticed a flaw regarding both.  I have also noticed that other bloggers and television critics have noticed, as well.

I do not think the writers for the Marvel Netflix series know how to write a TV serial drama very well.  Many have complained that their shows are “too slow”.  Let me put it another way . . . the franchise’s 13 episode format for the franchise is a deterrent for the shows and they come off as being too slow.  Frankly, I believe this is bullshit.

There have been TV shows in the past that utilized the serial drama format – especially in the science-fiction/fantasy genre or the comic book genre (which might be more or less the same thing).  But these past shows have more or less aired a season long story arc within 22 episodes.  Remember “BABYLON 5″?  “BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”?  “LOST” (until Season Four)?  Arrowverse shows like “ARROW” and “THE FLASH”?  Until recently, even “AGENTS of S.H.I.E.L.D.” and “GOTHAM” have utilized a 22-episode story arc.

So, what happened?  When did television viewers and critics stop tolerating longer story arcs in television serial dramas?  More importantly, when did TV writers stop knowing how to utilize the serial drama format?  When did it become difficult for them to balance action and drama, while writing a season long arc within 13 episodes?

While watching Season One of “DAREDEVIL” (which I enjoyed), I can recall at least two or three episodes that seemed to feature a lot of talk and very little action. I am thinking of the episode called (1.10) “Nelson v. Murdock”, in which Foggy Nelson confronted Matt Murdock after discovering that the latter was dark clad vigilante wanted by the New York police at the end of the previous episode.  At first, I found Foggy’s confrontation with Matt rather interesting.  Eventually became somewhat boring to me.  If it were not for the plot lines involving characters like Karen Page, Ben Urich and Wilson Fisk sporadically interrupting the Matt-Nelson interaction, I would have ended up regarding this episode as a two-man stage play between actors Charlie Cox and Elden Henson.

I am not advocating less drama and more action.  I still have bad memories of Season Two of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.”, in which the addition of more action, at the expense of drama, nearly ruined that season for me.  Marvel Netflix’s solution to their problems – at least as far as their fourth series, “IRON FIST”, is concerned – was to shortened that series’ 13-episode arc to 10 episodes for its second season.  And yet . . . the seasons that followed Season Two of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.” managed to provide a better balance of drama and action without shortening its next three seasons.

Balance.  Perhaps that is the true problem with the Marvel Netflix shows.  There is no real balance between the use of drama and action in their shows.  If that is the case, I do not see how limiting the number of episodes from 13 to 10 will solve the problem.  After all, Marvel Television is only willing to do this for “IRON FIST”.  And this lack of balance seemed to be a problem with all six shows.  If the show runners and writers of the other five Marvel Netflix series do not want to reduce the number of episodes per season, perhaps they and their staffs need to learn to balance the use of drama and action in their narratives.

"THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES" (1939) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE HOUNDS OF THE BASKERVILLES", the 1939 adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1902 novel. The movie starred Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce: 




"THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES" (1939) Photo Gallery

"DEADPOOL" (2016) Review

"DEADPOOL" (2016) Review

The Hollywood industry received a great surprise when it discovered that a low-cost superhero movie became the first box office hit for 2016. The movie? "DEADPOOL", which is based upon a character from Marvel comics and the "X-MEN"franchise. 

Actually, "DEADPOOL" is the eighth installment in the "X-MEN" movie franchise and it starred Ryan Reynolds in the title role. This was not the first time that the character appeared in one of the franchise's films. Nor was it the first time that Reynolds portrayed the character. He also portrayed Wade Wilson aka Deadpool in the maligned 2009 film, "X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE". In the 2009 film, he was a mutant special forces operative who worked under U.S. officer, William Stryker. Wade is transformed into Deadpool, a being with the powers of former mutants who were either dead or captured by Stryker. In this film, Wade is simply a well-trained former Special Forces operative who becomes a mercenary. He meets escort Vanessa Carlysle at a local bar and they become romantically involved. A year later, Wade collapses after proposing marriage to Vanessa. He is diagnosed with terminal cancer and decides that he does not want her to watch him die. A recruiter for a secret program approaches Wade with an offer of an experimental cure for his cancer. Wade finally decides to undergo the procedure. Unfortunately, Wade meets Ajax aka Francis Freeman, a weapon expert and leader of the program. The two end up disliking each other and Ajax subjects Wade to days of torture that eventually triggers the latter's latant mutant genes, which cures his cancer. Unfortunately . . . Ajax continues to torture Wade and ends up disfiguring the latter's face. Unwilling to subject Vanessa to deal with his disfigurement, Wade leaves her, changes his name to "Deadpool" and searches for Ajax in revenge for what happened to him.

What can I say about "DEADPOOL"? Well . . . it is rather funny. It is a very witty film, thanks to Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. Even the movie's opening credits featured more of the movie 's sharp humor and ability to mock the comic book hero genre. And the screenwriters, the producers and director Tim Miller were lucky to have Ryan Reynolds as the star of the film. The actor seemed well-suited for the film's style of humor and the main character in general. It is not surprising that the character's penchant for breaking the fourth wall and mocking the comic book movie genre - especially the "X-MEN" film franchise - appealed to so many moviegoers. I certainly found it appealing. The film's sharp humor seemed to manifest in the supporting cast's performances as well. For me, the funniest performances - other than Reynolds' - came from T.J. Miller as Wade's best friend Weasel; Leslie Uggams as Wade's elderly and sardonic roommate, Blind Al; and Brianna Hildebrand as teenage X-Men trainee, Negasonic Teenage Warhead. Even leading lady Morena Baccarin, who portrayed Vanessa Carlysle, had her moments of sharp humor, especially in the movie's first half hour. And although voice actor Stefan Kapičić portrayed X-Men Colossus in a straightforward manner, his interactions with Wade provided the movie with a good deal of humor.

What else did I like about "DEADPOOL"? Well . . . nothing. I hate to say this, but aside from the movie's wit, I was not impressed with "DEADPOOL". Not one bit. For a movie that was supposed to mock comic book hero films, it eventually sank into one. This was pretty obvious in the movie's last half hour, as Deadpool prepared to rescue lady love Vanessa from Ajax and the latter's assistant, Angel Dust. And what led Deadpool and Ajax to become such bitter enemies? They pissed each other off. Simple as that. Between Wade's uncontrollable sarcasm and Ajax's penchant for torture, they became enemies. And Deadpool sought revenge against Ajax for the torture and leaving his face scarred. Ajax retaliated after a near miss and went after Vanessa in revenge. I have never felt so disappointed over a pointless movie plot in my life. It seemed so weak. 

To make matters worse, the Vanessa character was also a mutant named "Copycat". For some reason, the producers and screenwriters decided to remove her mutant abilities and simply portray her as Wade's girlfriend. Baccarin made a big deal about how Vanessa was no "damsel in distress" . . . that she was a kickass. Yes, Vanessa managed to escape from being tied up on her own. And she even managed to drive a pole (or stake) into Ajax, even if her action failed to cause him any harm. But in the end, she was a "damsel". Finally, there is the matter of the Wade/Vanessa romance. Overall, I had no problem with it. Reynolds and Baccarin made an engaging on-screen couple. They even provided a good deal of pathos, when the scene demanded it. But could someone please explain why it was necessary to include a montage of Wade and Vanessa in a series of sexual positions as a means of conveying their love for one another? A sexual montage? Really? What is this? "CINEMAX AT NIGHT"? Accuse me of being a prude if you like. But I stand by my words. I would not have minded if there had been one sex scene. But a montage? I get the feeling that the screenwriters and Miller had included this scene for the benefit of the immature fanboys.

Actually, this entire film seemed to be an ode to comic book fanboys. This is the only way I can explain this pointless film. I find it ironic that many "X-MEN" fans and Reynolds had put down the 2009 film that first introduced the character. I would not regard "X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE" as one of the best Marvel films, let alone one of the best in the "X-MEN"franchise. But I thought it was a hell of a lot better than this mess. No amount of sharp humor, breaking the fourth wall or comic performances could save this movie . . . at least for me.