How Beloved Superhero Universes Can Stay Beloved

For the first time since the superhero film boom of the 21st Century, Marvel Studios, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and Sony Pictures have all received Certified Fresh ratings on Rotten Tomatoes for their blockbuster superhero films in the same calendar year. With Spider-Man: Homecoming‘s release, that firmly puts the average critic rating at 7.5/10 with ~90% positive critic scores.

So what does this mean for the future of superhero movies? Well, for one, it means that, despite the numerous predictions of “superhero fatigue,” these superhero films are still being well-received by both critics and audiences. More importantly, the success of each of these films can, in some ways, provide a template for the movie studios to keep filling their superhero cinematic universes with films that audiences can enjoy. With that in mind, let’s take a look at how these films earned their Fresh rating, how the next film(s) can attain another Fresh rating, and various pitfalls to avoid. We’ll be going in order of the studio that needs the least amount of help to the one that needs the most.

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (Marvel Studios; Marvel Cinematic Universe)

   Ironically enough, we’re starting off with the film with the least favorable reviews of the bunch, but in a universe that I believe needs the least amount of help. Like them or not, Marvel Studios has been building their cinematic universe for almost a decade now and started the trend in the first place. If anybody is going to be in good shape, it’s going to be them.

   How They Earned Their Fresh Rating: From the looks of the critical consensus, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 earned its Fresh rating through most of the ways that other Marvel movies have: irreverent humor and an action-packed story. The wrinkle here is that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 features “dazzling visuals” from the directorial eye of James Gunn, known for striking cinematographic choices. I personally praised it for going into a fresh new direction than the last film.

   Pitfalls to Avoid: While the MCU films haven’t gotten outright negative reviews, plenty of people have level common criticisms for the majority of the films. They tend to have underdeveloped villains (save GotG Vol. 2), most of the films look washed-out and devoid of color (save GotG and Dr. Strange), most of the films’ scores are unmemorable (save GotG), nearly all of the films use humor to undercut serious moments, and nearly all of the films are starting to lose a sense of tension due to the awareness of the slate of sequels.

   How to Earn Another Fresh Rating: Honestly, even if the next Marvel films don’t address those previous criticisms, there’s a good chance that they’ll receive positive reviews regardless. Again, Marvel Studios have been doing enough superhero films to know what works and what doesn’t. Going into Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther, all they’d need to do is to keep applying what they already know works: likable protagonists, lived-in world-building, good supporting characters that the protagonist can properly bounce off of, and proper emotional development for the audience to invest in.

2. Logan (20th Century FOX; X-Men franchise)
   To put it bluntly, the X-Men franchise is very hit-and-miss when it comes to the quality of their films. While they have essentially been building a superhero universe before Marvel Studios even existed, it was 1) not a cinematic universe in the sense that we know today and 2) not even close to being perfected. In some ways, the inconsistency made me hesitate to put it higher than the next one, but overall, 20th Century FOX has been ~4.5 for 6 since X-Men: First Class.

   How They Earned Their Fresh Rating: Honestly, 20th Century FOX kind of stumbled onto a one-of-a-kind film. There might not be another superhero film that expresses the kind of sheer emotional resonance found in Logan. A culmination of nearly two decades of superhero media and one man portraying a single character across nine films (only two of which he is not the lead) put Logan in a unique position to take advantage of emotional attachments that were built over years and years and years. Furthermore, said actor is giving the performance of a lifetime along with his other two co-stars. However, one thing that is undeniable is that it cornered a market that Marvel Studios seems too afraid to explore themselves: R-rated superhero films. By carving out a “niche” for the 17+ crowd, the X-Men franchise has been able to get away with a lot more explicit violence that the MCU can’t, while also appearing as the superhero universe for “mature audiences.” It’s one of the riskiest moves for a superhero universe that’s actually paid off.
   
   Pitfalls to Avoid: It’s tough to capture 17 years of bad X-Men film trends in broad brushstrokes. However, one trend that I’ve noticed has to do with cramming so many characters into a single film they lose their entire purpose of being in the film (see X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men: Apocalypse). Furthermore, poor creative decision-making has haunted the franchise from sewing “Deadpool’s” mouth shut in X-Men Origins: Wolverine to turning Apocalypse into a generic Ivan Ooze-looking mutant with unclear powers and motivations. Then, there’s some laughably bad CG across some of the films (particularly X-Men Origins: Wolverine.) Basically, the small scale/budget of movies like Deadpool and Logan benefited from avoiding these tropes.

   How to Earn Another Fresh Rating: Unlike several other superhero universes, not much is known about the future projects of the X-Men franchise. It’s well-known that Deadpool 2 will feature Cable, but it also had the misfortune of losing Deadpool director Tim Miller. There’s also New Mutants on deck as well as X-Men: Dark Phoenix. My advice would be to keep the cast size small or to anchor the story around 1-2 characters. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Bryan Singer’s only bad X-Men film is the one where he didn’t anchor around Wolverine. If possible, get good creative in-house talent like Matthew Vaughn or James Mangold to make more X-Men films.
   
   

3. Spider-Man: Homecoming (Sony Pictures; Spider-Man franchise/Marvel Studios; Marvel Cinematic Universe)

   How They Earned Their Fresh Rating: You know how Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man films tried to do everything that the Raimi films did but worse, while also cramming in every Sinister Six tie-in they could? It turns out that all Marvel Studios had to do was do the complete opposite of that and it resulted in a good Spider-Man movie. Who would’ve thought that creativity, coherent plot structure, relatable villains, a consistent tone, easily discernible character motivations, proper characterization, a lack of Sony product placement, a lack of cynical tie-ins, a lack of creative bankruptcy, a lack of cringe-inducing pop songs that don’t fit the scene whatsoever, and a lack of incessant studio meddling would make for a movie that feels like a movie (and not a cynical corporate cash-grab that only exists to avoid the film rights from going back to their original owner)?
   
   Pitfalls to Avoid: First and foremost, if you’re Sony Pictures, EXTEND YOUR AGREEMENT WITH MARVEL STUDIOS IMMEDIATELY. AVOID MAKING ANY CREATIVE DECISIONS ON YOUR OWN. DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO KNOW SPIDER-MAN BEST ARE IN CHARGE OF YOUR SPIDER-MAN MOVIE. THIS MOVIE OPENED TO $117 MILLION DOMESTICALLY (Sony, please. You like money, right? Do the right thing.)

   If that isn’t possible, then by the time Spider-Man: Homecoming 3 rolls around, you’ll have a likable protagonist with a solid cast of supporting characters and at least 3 villains to choose from (given they aren’t killed off in Homecoming 2). Focus on making a good movie rather than a movie that advertises another upcoming movie. Don’t introduce new characters unless they have a very good reason to be included (this was the problem with Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.) Avoid studio meddling at all costs, especially if your director has proven that he can make a good movie (this was the problem with Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.) Keep that laundry list of things that have been done-to-death with Spider-Man (Uncle Ben’s death, the origin story, focus on the conflict between Spider-Man’s dual identity/romantic interest, sympathetic scientist-types who turn into villains, etc.) and avoid repeating previous villains (this was the problem with… you get the idea).

   How to Earn Another Fresh Rating: Since Sony Pictures is hell-bent on creating their own Spider-Man Cinematic Universe, starting with an R-rated Venom film, an animated Miles Morales Ultimate Spider-Man film, a Silver Sable spinoff, and a Black Cat spinoff, there probably isn’t anything I can do to convince them to stop spinning off their properties.

   Sony Pictures have taken a step in the right direction by making sure there is a respectable level of talent within their upcoming films. The R-rated Venom film will star Tom Hardy (Mad Max: Fury Road, The Revenant, The Dark Knight Rises) and the animated Ultimate Spider-Man film touts a script written by Phil Lord and Chris Miller (The LEGO Movie, 21/22 Jump Street, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs). One suggestion I would have is to get Genndy Tartakovsky (Samurai Jack, Dexter’s Laboratory, Star Wars: Clone Wars, and The Powerpuff Girls) to direct the animated Ultimate Spider-Man film. He’s already directed two feature films for Sony Animation and is arguably the most stylistic director of animation working today. Getting him to direct a project as important as this could also make up for his canceled Popeye project as well as put his unique action direction to use.

   However, the most far-reaching piece of advice that I could give to Sony Pictures is to STOP interfering in the creative production of their blockbusters.
   
   

4. Wonder Woman (Warner Bros.; DC Extended Universe)

   How They Earned Their Fresh Rating: Anchoring a fairly simple war story behind a likable heroine in Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, who is well-captured by Gal Gadot, and her sympathetic love interest Steve Trevor, well-captured by Chris Pine; both of whom are well-directed by Patty Jenkins. The closest thing to a “controversial casting choice/unpopular character interpretation” concerns someone who appears towards the end of the film (and even at that, they aren’t too far of a resemblance from another character). Action scenes are informed by Diana’s need to protect.

   Pitfalls to Avoid: While Wonder Woman does have a fair bit of criticism for its use of CG and its somewhat inconsistent conclusion, it’s a huge step in the right direction for the DCEU (which looked D.O.A prior to the film’s release). Wonder Woman’s WWI environment was appropriate for washed-out color-grading, but other films that feature more hopeful/lighter-hearted heroes will require a more vibrant color palette.

   If there’s one thing that Wonder Woman should teach the DCEU, it should be to focus on establishing a likable hero. Much of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman‘s criticisms had to do with their bleak, almost cynical outlook on heroism for both characters. Superman seemed burdened to be a hero and Batman seemed like a psychotic, gun-toting murderer. Neither of these characterizations is likable, which is a huge issue when it comes to a superhero movie. Let your heroes be heroes and stop forcing them to doubt whether they should act heroicly or not.

   Likewise, Warner Bros. should stop forcing directors outside of their comfort zone. Giving David Ayer 6 weeks to write a script and promptly reshooting Suicide Squad to fit in a bunch of forced jokes probably wasn’t the best use of his talents. Similarly, they should allow the team who actually worked on the film from principal shooting to actually edit their own film. Getting a trailer company to edit Suicide Squad might be the single dumbest thing any movie studio has done in at least a decade. It should go without saying that something this stupid should never ever be attempted again.

   Lastly, the DCEU should avoid making unpopular creative decisions with iconic characters like Lex Luthor, The Joker, and Jimmy Olsen. I know there’s an argument to be made that doing the same thing over with these characters could grow stale, but I’d rather have familiar characters that make sense than outrageous characters that look dumb and act cringeworthy. Warner Bros. was never plagued with the same character fatigue that plagued the Spider-Man series since seemingly everyone still loves Batman and Superman hasn’t been all that relevant in recent years. In my opinion, the character reimaginings were unnecessary, so long as they stayed away from stale elements (like say, Batman’s parents being shot in front of him). By contrast, Wonder Woman stuck to what they knew with appropriate characterizations and benefited from not out-thinking themselves.
   
   How to Earn Another Fresh Rating: One advantage that DCEU films have is this: People want to like their movies. Their characters are iconic and they have a plethora of great villains. So, give them a reason to like these movies. While it may seem like the “dishonorable thing” to do, Wonder Woman’s reception might have something to do with following Marvel’s model for telling good superhero stories. Establish a likable protagonist, support them with good characters to bounce off of, and create some emotional development for the audience to invest in. After the DCEU has a few well-received films under its belt, THEN it can deconstruct ideas of what it means to be a hero, reimagine iconic characters, and attempt ensemble films. For now, keep it basic and stick to what works with the added wrinkle that the villain doubles as a supporting character to bounce the protagonist off of (see Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy). Unfortunately, the next film is Justice League, a Zack Snyder-directed ensemble film that looks to introduce 4-5 new major characters and establish relationships right off the bat (man). We’ll see if it can learn from Wonder Woman‘s achievements, but if anything, Wonder Woman has allowed the DCEU at least 1-2 more critical bombs before audiences give up hope entirely. Perhaps 2018’s Aquaman, which takes place in a similar mystical setting, can apply lessons learned from Wonder Woman.

All in all, the fact that every single superhero release in 2017 has become Certified Fresh is nothing short of outstanding news for superhero film fans everywhere. While it’s unlikely that this may ever happen again (or may still be valid if either Thor: Ragnarok or Justice League get Rotten reviews), the superhero genre looks like it isn’t going away anytime soon. As moviegoing audiences, the best we can do is to hold these films to the high standard that this hot streak suggests they are capable of.

Hot Take: Guardians is More Star Wars than Star Wars Right Now

Featured Image Source

I haven’t decided if this statement is more of a compliment to James Gunn’s last two Guardians of the Galaxy films or a knock on Disney’s last two Star Wars films. There’s a part of me that feels like it’s both because as I’m getting surprised and delighted by one, I’m getting underwhelmed and discontented by the other. After coming back from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 on the unofficial Star Wars holiday, “May the Fourth,” I couldn’t help, but come to this conclusion: the Guardians of the Galaxy series feels more like the original Star Wars films than the current run of Star Wars films.

To be clear, I’m not talking about lightsabers, the Force, good-and-evil, or any of the Star Wars-related lore that has been staples of the franchise since its inception. This isn’t about Star Wars as a universe as much as it is Star Wars as a work of art. And in 1977, Star Wars represented a scrappy underdog film helmed by an auteur director with a vision for a universe so strong, it felt like it came from a place of love and passion. While it recycled material from other popular film serials and Kurosawa’s samurai films, it put those elements into a new context in order to resonate with sci-fi/fantasy fans. Furthermore, it took many risks by casting several unknowns with the exception of only one well-established actor (Alec Guinness) in a role with only a modest amount of screentime. Eventually, the success translated into a sequel that brought character development, depth, and interesting relationship dynamics to a collection of brand new settings.

 

 

Similarly, in 2012 when a Guardians of the Galaxy movie was announced, even the most diehard Marvel fans seemed to scratch their heads. That obscure comic with talking raccoon and a tree who says 3 words? The director from the bleak R-rated superhero black comedy Super would be directing this? They cast the schlubby comic-relief from Parks & Recreation and a former WWE wrestler as leads?! They cast their most recognizable actors as an alien in heavy makeup, a CG role, and a CG role with only 3 words for every line?! Had Disney lost their minds?! How could such an esoteric, no-name property with such bizarre B to C-list casting choices turn a profit?

Well, not only did it turn a profit, but it became the third highest grossing film of its year behind blockbuster mega-sequels like Transformers: Age of Extinction and The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies. However, something that those films didn’t receive was an overwhelming amount of love for the film’s artistic value to both itself and the franchise that it was under as a whole. Eventually, the success translated into a sequel that brought character development, depth, and interesting relationship dynamics to a collection of brand new settings.

Though a risky venture, Guardians of the Galaxy wasn’t exactly a wholly original idea. Film audiences had seen Indiana Jones before. Yeah, they’ve seen movies where a collection of unlikely misfits get together and save the day. Yes, they’d seen smarmy likable heroes, tough independent women, brutish comic relief, and animal sidekicks, but they’d never seen them in the newly reinvented superhero genre. They have never seen a talking tree who could steal their hearts or animal sidekicks with an arsenal like Rocket’s. They’d never seen post-2000s space operas set to hit songs from the 1960s-’80s. And they’d never seen a property so esoteric and unafraid to alienate four-quadrant demographics quite like Guardians of the Galaxy did.

Or, at least like Star Wars did. A long time ago…

 

 

The problem with Star Wars right now is that it’s approaching the question of “What feels like Star Wars?” from a lore perspective rather than from an artistic perspective. To be fair to Disney, I don’t think that this problem started with them so much as it started with the Star Wars prequels and maybe even with Return of the Jedi. While Return of the Jedi did have enough creativity and gall to have the Empire overthrown by a bunch of teddy bears with sticks, it relied on bringing back two things because the Star Wars fanboys would’ve complained if they didn’t: the Death Star and Han Solo. In Return of the Jedi, the Death Star is an excuse to have a bunch of spaceships shooting at each other, while Han Solo returns because fans need to have the cool, wisecracking Han Solo character back, regardless of if he actually does anything in the film.

So far, Disney’s released two Star Wars films since 2015 and has plans to release one every year until it stops being profitable (well, they might not have said exactly that, but c’mon). 2015’s Episode VII – The Force Awakens is main series sequel that’s basically a retread of the first Star Wars film, A New Hope: the good guys are underdogs, the bad guys have an incredibly powerful lightsaber wielder and a gigantic weapon of mass destruction, there’s a lonely protagonist trapped in a desert area pulled into the major conflict, the protagonist pals around with a droid with essential information, there’s a Cantina scene where things escalate, there’s a shadowy evil master pulling all the strings, there’s a giant space battle to destroy to weapon of mass destruction, and there’s a mentor character who meets an unfortunate end. 2016’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a spin-off that tries to break away from the typical Star Wars formula by setting itself in the heist movie genre, but isn’t able to A) create any interesting new characters, B) escape from the suffocating fanservice that its story is set in, or C) justify its own existence in the larger context of the Star Wars universe. To its credit, it manages to show some shades of gray in the Rebel Alliance and create a war movie atmosphere; two points that feel absolutely moot since that story ended over 40 years ago in a text crawl. And for the next few years, we have a Han Solo spin-off to look forward to, more Luke/Leia/Chewbacca, and a rumored Boba Fett spin-off. These films bear the name of Star Wars but merely call back to a time where Star Wars was innovative.

To put it simply, Disney’s LucasFilm is wholly afraid to take risks. More specifically, they’re afraid to move on to different characters than ones from the Original Trilogy, they’re afraid to move past the Death Star and the generic evils within them, and they’re afraid to explore the universe past the same old space opera archetypes that Star Wars fans have been exposed to since the late ’70s and early ’80s. It seems that they’d rather pursue a cinematic universe set around everything related to the Original Trilogy than to actually do anything new with the $4 billion property. Yes, putting out nostalgic Star Wars films will make money in the short-term, but after all the novelty of the OT diminishes, people will get tired of it and move on. Making great, innovative Star Wars films would extend the shelf life of each film’s profitability, just as this strategy has for Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

 

As of right now, I’m around 20 hours removed from my viewing of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and it feels fresher than ever. It has all of the character development, depth, and interesting relationship dynamics that The Empire Strikes Back had. It isn’t content to merely call back to its predecessor; it makes significant and meaningful contributions to the foundation that was built. It’s a space opera that isn’t afraid to go to new, weird places or form bonds with new, exciting characters. Likewise, it isn’t afraid to put a twist on old characters who were nowhere near as developed in the previous film. For me, Guardians of the Galaxy will be my Star Wars until Star Wars can move past its stagnation.

Despite my grievances, Disney’s LucasFilm is free to make a bunch of Star Wars movies that are safe and stuck in the past. They own it, they control it, and they have every right to do what they want with it. However, LucasFilm can stuff all the references, Original Trilogy characters, Original Trilogy settings, and Original Trilogy plot points in their Star Wars sequels, prequels, and spin-offs all they want. They can choose to take the quick and easy route. But doing so will guarantee that they won’t capture the magic of Star Wars.

 

 

Why & How I Use Rotten Tomatoes

Featured Image: Source

With all the controversy surrounding the petition that DC fans are signing to shut down Rotten Tomatoes as well as an increased tendency to use the site in my columns, I thought it would be best to clarify why (and more importantly how) I use Rotten Tomatoes’ scores. If you haven’t already read my first column on how to read the Tomatometer, basically I say that Rotten Tomatoes tallies up all critics’ reviews and turns the positive ones (6.0+/10) into a percentage that make up the Tomatometer score (e.g. 8 positive critic reviews out of 10 total will make the Tomatometer read 80%). The Tomatometer tells you if critics like the movie, while the oft-overlooked Average Critic Score (the rating /10 that appears under the Tomatometer on the full site) tells you to what degree a critic liked a movie. I’ve found Rotten Tomatoes to be a useful resource for supporting arguments or predictions in my columns

Why Not IMDb or Metacritic?

Why do I use Rotten Tomatoes over other movie rating sites like IMDb or another aggregate like Metacritic? The short answer is reputability, sample size, and objectivity.

While there is no shortage of sample size for IMDb (it actually provides a far better sample size for movie reviews than RT does) and there are scores available for the most obscure films, its reputability can be called into question quite a bit. For one, anybody in the world can create an IMDb account and start rating movies. Further, anybody in the world can create multiple IMDb accounts and rate movies multiple times with those accounts. Moreover, any group of people can organize raids to create multiple IMDb accounts and rate movies based on a common agenda. In fact, that very situation happened in 2008 with The Dark Knight and The Godfather. Dark Knight fanboys organized a group vote to give The Godfather 1 star out of 10 to position The Dark Knight to take the #1 spot on the IMDb Top 250. A website’s score that can be manipulated like that is not a reputable source in my opinion.

Credit: IMDb

Credit: Metacritic

Credit: Rotten Tomatoes

So why not Metacritic? While review aggregator Metacritic has a similar idea as Rotten Tomatoes, it is very different in execution and philosophy. First, Metacritic collects a much smaller sample size than Rotten Tomatoes. At the time of writing this, Suicide Squad has 279 reviews on RT, while Metacritic has 53. When gathering data, I prefer to have as much of a sample size as possible so results aren’t as extreme whenever outliers occur. Also, larger sample sizes reduce the possibility of cherrypicked data. Given that Metacritic only has 53 reviews total while Rotten Tomatoes has 261 reviews with 68 positive ones, it would be easy for Metacritic to selectively choose every positive review for Suicide Squad to generate a very high score and create a false consensus. Obviously, they haven’t done that in this case (Suicide Squad has a 40/100 at the time of writing), but its sample size is exploitable. Whenever I cite a Tomatometer score with less than 100 reviews (a threshold I feel comfortable recognizing as the “consensus”), I note it next to the score. Secondly, while Rotten Tomatoes uses Tomatometer to give the impression of how many people liked a movie, Metacritic uses a 0-100 scale that assigns scores based on the stars/grades/numerical score from reviewers. The Metascore is closer to RT’s Average Critic Score than the Tomatometer. Metacritic’s scale is a bit misleading if you look at it as an American school grade (i.e. C is 75, B- is 80, etc.), but they provide a visual look at how each score is represented (i.e. F is a 0, C is 50, B- is 67, A- is 91, etc.) While I don’t have an issue with the scale itself, I do have an issue with how the aggregate is weighted. Under the subheading “Why the term ‘weighted average’ matters”, the site reads:

Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature.

I believe that film is art and that art is subjective. As something that is subjective, any criticism formed is called an opinion. As many people learned in grade school, there are no right or wrong opinions. You wouldn’t call somebody an idiot for liking strawberry ice cream or say somebody was more qualified to be President because their favorite color was blue. In the same way, while film critics may have more experience in regards to movies, what they say is ultimately an opinion. Metacritic’s weighted average score assigns a greater importance to the opinion of certain critics than others and in doing so, imply that certain critics’ opinions are more right than others. No one person’s opinion is more right than another person’s. I refuse to cite data from a website that asserts that premise (even if it’s unintentional).

I use Rotten Tomatoes because it reports the largest sample size of critics and uses a unique aggregate score (the Tomatometer) along with average critic scores. Now, Rotten Tomatoes isn’t perfect and can’t capture the initial consensus of films prior to the site’s launch in mid-1998. However, I regard it as the best tool available for reference to critical consensus and projecting whether or not I’ll like a film. Like all tools, I do believe that the site was designed for a specific purpose and there are ways to use it correctly and incorrectly.

What I DON’T Use RottenTomatoes for:

• Forming opinions on movies for me – Going into a movie, I try to keep as open a mind as possible. Often, I’ll avoid looking at RT scores entirely for movies that I’m about to watch. I’m a big believer in the psychological phenomena of confirmation bias (recontextualizing new experiences/evidence to fit an existing belief/preconceived notion), so I try not to influence my own thoughts before watching a film. Furthermore, I’ve often disagreed with RT scores (Iron Man 3 RT’s 7/10 vs. my 2/5, Spectre 6.4/10 vs. 1.5/5, Godzilla ’14 6.6/10 Certified Fresh vs. 2/5, Kingsman 6.8/10 vs. 4.5/5, Primer 6.6/10 vs. 4.5/5, Carol 8.6/10 CF vs. 2.5/5, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 7.2/10 CF vs. 2.5/10, etc.), so I’m not a slave to critical consensus.
• Asserting the objective quality of a movie – Like I said before, all film is subjective. While I do often refer to RT scores, I never use them for the purpose of validating a personal opinion on the quality of the movie itself. I will never refer to a particular film’s RT score to say, “See? Look how high its score it is. It must be good.” It’s annoying enough when people use this with Academy Awards (another column for another day), so I don’t do this with reviews.

What I DO Use RottenTomatoes for:

• Noting trends in public perception/critical acclaim – This is probably my most common usage of RT and likely will continue in future columns. My most recent usage was in my Marvel Cinematic Universe column noting that the critical acclaim allowed Marvel Studios to push forward with more blockbuster projects and set trends into the present.
• Assessing general consensus – While I will not use RT as reference for my own opinion, I can use it for referencing the general consensus of the critics or RT audience. A good example would be claiming that the overwhelming majority of the moviegoing audience hated the 2015 reboot of Fant4stic due to its 9%, 3.4/10 critic score and 19%, 2.1/5 audience score. Appealing to the Tomatometer is useful when trying to assess a film or franchise’s broad appeal and goodwill with an audience.
• Making predictions about future aspirations for a particular film – While critical and public perception aren’t useful for validating the inherent quality of a film, it is useful for things like box office predictions, awards nomination hopes, sequel aspirations, and studio reactions. Critical reception does matter when it comes to this stuff. Going back to our Fant4stic example, the overwhelming hatred likely resulted in it bombing at the box office ($168M on a $120M budget), winning Worst Picture at the Golden Raspberry Awards (the Academy Awards/Oscars for poorly received movies), making a Fant4stic sequel an incredibly ill-advised financial risk, and 20th Century FOX cutting ties with director Josh Trank.
• Making predictions about future releases from a particular director, movie studio, etc. – In my Pixar column, I predicted that future Pixar releases wouldn’t be as strong or as appealing to all audiences as consistently as they were before 2011. There’s only been one release since that column (Finding Dory), so it’s going to be a while before my prediction is proven right or wrong (and I sincerely hope I’m proven wrong and that Pixar hits another 15-year stride [especially when the Toy Story franchise is on the line]). However, going back to our Fant4stic example, I will put down money on a sequel to Josh Trank’s version of the Fantastic Four with all four cast members returning will never happen (contrary to producer Simon Kinberg’s insistence on making it happen). There is too much money and goodwill lost from audiences for FOX to put out a sequel.
• Deciding if I’ll spend my hard-earned money on a film that I’m on the fence about – While I don’t always agree with RT, the Tomatometer is a useful gauge for the probability that I’ll like a film. Do you remember those Pepsi/Coke commercials where people did blind taste tests as to which one they preferred? It’s easier to think of critics as a sample of the population “taste testing” each film and the Tomatometer as the results.
  So why did I explain the Tomatometer for the 17th time? Because, I love writing columns and watching movies, but unfortunately this isn’t my day-job. My money is limited and where I spend it will count as a vote towards what types of movies I’ll want from studios in the future. If there’s a majority of people who dislike a certain release that I was on the fence about (e.g. Jason Bourne 57% 5.9/10, Chappie 32% 4.9/10, In the Heart of the Sea 43% 5.5/10, Triple 9 55% 5.8/10, etc.), I’ll decide to save my money for a movie that I’m either excited for or think deserves it. As a person who wants movie studios to keep putting out films of the highest quality possible, I’d prefer to not spend my money on films that are mediocre, unappealing, or just plain terrible. There are certain releases that I do see regardless of whatever RT score it ends up with (films from Marvel, Pixar, Disney, Refn, Nolan, Tarantino, Fincher, etc.), but for movies that I’m already in the middle towards, I’d rather not take the chance to see it in theaters barring incredible word of mouth.

All in all, Rotten Tomatoes is simply a tool. Rotten Tomatoes, as a review aggregate, does not create its own percentage. Getting mad at it for calculating scores is like getting mad at newspapers for reporting the news. Once again, I find Rotten Tomatoes to be a reliable projector of knowing whether I’ll like a film and predicting future releases. Further, it provides a large reputable sample size and weighs critical opinion equally. As far as I’m concerned, Rotten Tomatoes is one-of-a-kind and is currently the best critical film review tool available to the public.

Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Origin Story

Featured image credit to ComingSoon.net

It’s an unbelievable scenario for moviegoers to grasp, but exactly two decades ago, after a series of business mishandlings, Marvel Comics had to file for bankruptcy. Desperate throughout the ’90s to earn profits back, Marvel sold the film adaptation rights of many of their most popular comic book properties to major movie studios. As a result, New Line Cinema ended up with the rights to Blade and Iron Man, while Sony Pictures attained the rights to Spider-Man, Ghost Rider, and Thor. Eager to capitalize on Marvel’s fire sale, 20th Century FOX acquired the most rights by purchasing the X-Men (including characters like Deadpool and the term “mutant”), the Fantastic Four (including many cosmic Marvel characters like the Silver Surfer, Galactus, The Watcher, etc.), Daredevil (including characters like Elektra and Kingpin/Wilson Fisk), and the Punisher/Frank Castle. Within a decade or so, each of these companies would adapt many of these properties to varying degrees of critical and commercial success:

1998: Blade 54% (<100 reviews), 5.7/10 RT Critics; $131M worldwide gross on a $40M budget
2000: X-Men 81%, 7.1/10; $296M on $75M
2002: Spider-Man 89%, 7.7/10; $821M on $139M
2003: Daredevil 44%, 5.2/10; $179M on $78M
2004: The Punisher 29%, 4.5/10; $54.7M on $33M
2005: Elektra 10% 3.8/10; $56.7M on $43M
2005: Fantastic Four 27%, 4.5/10; $330M on $100M
2007: Ghost Rider 26%, 4.2/10; $228M on $110M

Though Marvel Entertainment slowly found its financial footing in the ’00s, they would see very little profit from these commercially successful adaptations. From Blade’s surprise $131M WW gross, Marvel only made a mere $25,000. From Spider-Man 1 and 2, which made a combined $3 billion, Marvel made $62M. In both examples, Marvel got roughly 0.02% of the total gross from these projects. Appealing to the unacceptable profit margin of 2 cents for every $100 of the major studios’ comic book adaptations, a soft-spoken businessman named David Maisel made an ambitious pitch to Marvel Entertainment in 2003:

• Marvel could make 100% of the profit if they produced the movies themselves
• the Marvel films could build off of each other by existing in a shared universe (like comic book serialization)
• the heroes of each Marvel film could crossover in an Avengers film

Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter, despite reservations, appointed David Maisel as Chief Operating Officer of Marvel Studios. He, along with Marvel Chief Creative Officer Avi Arad, would be responsible for finding funding for the dream project.

Source (by Mr-Saxon)

It was a risky venture in trying to build towards a mega-crossover film featuring Marvel’s C-list leftover heroes. Most contemporary crossover movies such as Freddy vs. Jason or AVP: Alien vs. Predator were not seen as particularly fine art. On top of that, the idea of a lighthearted Marvel comic crossover movie sounded more in line with a direct-to-cable Nickelodeon movie like Rugrats Go Wild or The Timmy Jimmy Power Hour than a big-budget blockbuster film set for release in theaters. In short, it seemed like a pipe dream. What if the stand-alone movies weren’t any good? How would you sell a crossover movie to an audience that might have missed 2 or 3 of the interconnected movies? How could you fit a relatively grounded character like a ’60s era spy in the same world as a goofy-looking magic-practicing surgeon without creating a clash of tones?

In spite of such a hard sell, a connection with former Marvel employee Jeff Kaplan, who had now worked for Merrill Lynch, opened the door for Marvel Studio’s funding. A deal was secured between Marvel Studios and Merrill Lynch in 2005. In exchange for $525 million over an eight-year period, Marvel risked the film rights to the remaining characters that they had: Captain America, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, Power Pack, Shang-Chi, and “The Avengers” (an intentionally vague term that would only include ultra-obscure Avengers members like Jack of Hearts, Two-Gun Kid, Tigra, and D-Man). If this plan failed, Marvel Entertainment would be out of the film adaptation rights for most of their remaining characters.

Fortunately, by the time Marvel Studios was ready for their first film production, Marvel had gotten the film rights of Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk back from New Line, Sony, and Universal. Over the course of the next few years, Marvel would see many of their characters returned back to them due to expired rights (Black Widow returned from Lionsgate, Daredevil and Punisher from FOX, Ghost Rider from Sony, Namor the Sub-Mariner from Who-Knows-Where?, etc.) In 2005, access to slightly more recognizable names to comic book readers encouraged Marvel Studios moving forward. David Maisel & Avi Arad agreed to build this Marvel Cinematic Universe on the foundation of a shared childhood favorite, Iron Man.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In the production of their first feature film, Marvel made two unconventional choices for Iron Man. One was handing the director reigns over to Jon Favreau, whose only directing credits were the whimsical Christmas comedy Elf, mobster comedy Made, and the mid-budget sci-fi box office flop Zathura. The second and most unconventional choice was casting middle-aged Oscar nominee Robert Downey Jr. coming off of a messy history with alcohol and substance abuse. Marvel was building an entire franchise out of a B-list hero played by a former drug addict and directed by a man whose most commercially successful film was a Christmas comedy. It was like trying to jumpstart a video game movie franchise using Luigi’s Mansion starring Charlie Sheen with director Terry Zwigoff. However, Marvel had faith in Jon Favreau as somebody who understood the subgenre’s success and his choice in Downey Jr.

I think it’s no coincidence that since September 11th, people have gravitated towards these simple good against evil stories. Here’s this guy who can come in and thoughtfully get rid of the bad guys, save the good guys, and solve all of our problems. People are looking for escapism… Downey Jr. wasn’t the most obvious choice but he understood what makes the character tick. He found a lot of his own life experience in Tony Stark.

–Jon Favreau in a 2008 Bang Showbiz interview

If there was something to be said about how Marvel handled their offbeat choices, it would be how committed they were to them. They trusted Jon Favreau’s vision in bringing Iron Man to life on the big screen. In a 2009 interview with InContention.com, actor Jeff Bridges admitted that Iron Man began shooting without a script. He described the set as an improvisational shoot and recalls rehearsals with Downey Jr. and Favreau moments before filming. While he describes initial anxiety about the production, he eventually came around to the shoot-from-the-hip environment.

What you can control is how you perceive things and your thinking about it. So I said, ‘Oh, what we’re doing here, we’re making a $200 million student film. We’re all just f***in’ around! We’re playin’. Oh, great!’ That took all the pressure off. ‘Oh, just jam, man, just play.’ And it turned out great!”

Iron Man would be released to American audiences on May 2, 2008. It was an overwhelming critical and commercial hit (94%, 7.7/10; $585M on a $140M budget). Overnight, the character of Tony Stark, who only had about 2-3 relevant moments in ~50 years of comic book history, became a rockstar. He was redefined as a cocky yet likable rogue in the vein of Han Solo or James Bond. Iron Man became a launchpad and template for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The humorous rapid-fire dialogue, comic book Easter eggs, lack of regard for secret identities, modern sociopolitical commentary, and post-credit sequence set the tone for all other MCU films to follow.

One year following Iron Man, The Walt Disney Corporation announced that it had purchased Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. The move was met with skepticism. Fears grew among moviegoing audiences that the famed family-friendly corporation wouldn’t let the MCU films tackle any of the characters’ darker stories concerning alcoholism, murder, sex, daddy issues, etc. By 2010’s release of Iron Man 2, fears were settled. Tony Stark’s struggles included references to a famed Iron Man story arc Demon in a Bottle as well as exploring paternal resentment for his father, Howard Stark. Furthermore, there was a sequence showcasing an intoxicated Tony Stark battling his best friend, destroying his house in the process, to Daft Punk’s “Robot Rock“. The Walt Disney Corporation proved to allow Marvel Studios lean into their characters’ complex and not-so-family-friendly backstories. By the end of Phase One (Marvel’s nickname for their slate of solo superhero films building up to The Avengers), Marvel Studios had turned out a series of solid profit margins and modest critical success:

2008: Iron Man 94%, 7.7/10 RT Critics; $585M on a $140M budget
2008: The Incredible Hulk 67%, 6.2/10; $263M on $150M
2010: Iron Man 2 72%, 6.5/10; $624M on $200M
2011: Thor 77%, 6.7/10; $450M on $150M
2011: Captain America: The First Avenger 80%, 6.9/10; $370M on $140M

En route to The Avengers, there were obstacles to overcome. Apart from growing amount of expectations, problems arose between Marvel and Incredible Hulk actor, Edward Norton. Marvel Studio’s President of Production, Kevin Feige, released a statement on the decision to recast Norton alluding to collaboration and passion:

We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back… Our decision is… rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members… We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.

Edward Norton’s history of fighting for creative control of his projects as well as his apparent insistence to Marvel that he receive final cut over The Incredible Hulk likely played a major role in this decision. This wasn’t the first time a role had to be recast in the MCU either. Terrence Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2 over a contract dispute. However, this wasn’t Tony Stark’s sidekick being recast. This was the second superhero introduced in Phase One and probably the most iconic one in The Avengers roster. Eventually, Norton’s role would go to Zodiac and Shutter Island actor, Mark Ruffalo, but this did little to settle doubts. What looked like an ensemble dream project looked like an exercise in ego management and a nightmare in funding. The production budget of The Avengers grew to $220 million, making it the 10th most expensive film ever at the time of release (17th when adjusting for inflation). The Avengers needed to be a hit at the box office (more like the Iron Man films and less like Captain America: The First Avenger) to break even.

Source

However, The Avengers didn’t only become a success at the box office; it became a phenomenon. On its opening weekend, The Avengers made $200 million: the most amount of money a film had made on its first weekend ever. Overall, it made $1.52 billion worldwide. People from all age groups and cultures gravitated towards this movie and its characters. Director Joss Whedon turned out to be an excellent choice to showcase the various Avengers. While Whedon was a known figure in geek culture through TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, it was his experience on ensemble comedy show Roseanne that helped form the foundation of The Avengers. Whedon’s sensibilities for balancing characters (and playing them off each other) allowed everybody’s favorite heroes to get shining moments of their own (as opposed to allowing a character like Iron Man to overshadow the other Avengers). Mark Ruffalo captured Bruce Banner & the Hulk so well that audiences forgot The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton had even existed. The screenplay managed to juggle as many as 9 major characters, 3-4 action set pieces, introduce a few new peripheral characters, tie them all around a mystical/multidimensional alien story, and managed to make it all perfectly coherent. While I can imagine The Avengers being slightly better, I can much more easily imagine The Avengers being significantly worse.

Since The Avengers‘ staggering success, Marvel Studios is widely believed to be the frontrunner when it comes to the production of superhero movies. Over the last 4 years since The Avengers was released, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has lead the pack in both critical and commercial success in an overwhelming way:

Marvel Cinematic Universe: 82%, 7/10; $6.42B on a $1.3B budget over 7 films
20th Century FOX (X-Men, Fantastic Four, Deadpool, etc.): 60%, 6/10; $2.65B on $676M over 5 films
Warner Bros. (Batman, Superman, etc.): 56%, 6.3/10; $2.63B on $705M over 3 films
Sony Pictures (Amazing Spider-Man): 63%, 6.3/10; $1.47B on ~$476.5M over 2 films

Furthermore, they’ve turned no-name properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man into household names while other studios have struggled with rebooting iconic characters just so they could feel fresh again. They’ve done this by both understanding their own source material and understanding what works well with it. They didn’t try to overexplain a giant talking tree or force a dark and gritty tone onto Ant-Man; Marvel just used what worked for those characters. When Captain America and Iron Man met face to face in the airport in Captain America: Civil War, Marvel didn’t worry about the credibility between two men in uniform. When introducing Peter Parker/Spider-Man into the same film, there was no need to make him a mud-running hot yoga-practicing vegan to appeal to Millenials. Marvel Studios is the result of a comic book company that transitioned into producing films and because of this, they trust that their own source material is good enough to reach an audience (no matter how outlandish or esoteric it may seem). They never betray the spirit of their own heroes for the sake of broad appeal or profitability. The stories of executive meddling from Marvel are far and few between (especially when compared to other major studios producing superhero films) and I believe that is why they’ve made $10 billion worldwide over 8 years while other studios have not. Marvel’s films feel genuine.

Source: DenOfGeek.com

Source: JoBlo.com

Source: MoviePilot.com

There is no end in sight for Marvel’s success story. Online streaming pioneer Netflix helped Marvel put the newly reacquired Daredevil, Elektra, and Punisher to good use for two seasons of a Daredevil TV show (as well as an upcoming Avengers-esque crossover The Defenders). Like Kevin Durant, Sony has adopted the attitude of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” and is now sharing the film rights to Spider-Man with Marvel. 20th Century FOX is currently developing an X-Men TV series Legion with Marvel (since Marvel still owns the television rights to the X-Men). Marvel Studios has not only risen to the top of the superhero movie genre, but its drawn collaboration from its biggest competitors. Over the last 8 years, be it Hollywood or its own moviegoing audiences, Marvel Studios has made true believers out of everyone.

Excelsior!

Midterm Top 10 of 2016

With the halfway point of the year already having come to a close, it’s time for me to recap what I thought were the best films I’ve seen of the year so far. For eligibility, I have decided to include films that were wide released in the USA between the dates of January 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016. Certain films that were on festival circuits throughout 2015 may have experienced a wide or limited release for 2016 and thus will count for this list. While these won’t necessarily be proper reviews, I will write a few words on their strengths and weaknesses. Of the films featured in the title image, I have yet to see The Witch, The Nice Guys, Zoolander 2, The BFG, and unreleased films such as Doctor Strange, Ghostbusters, etc. Without further ado, let’s get started on the list:

Credit to Entertainment Weekly

Credit to NationalTimes.com

Credit to MindofTatlock.com

10. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping

While its box office performance has been atrocious, the actual film is anything but. The triple-threats that make up music group The Lonely Island, Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer, bring each of their talents as lead actors, writers, and directors roles to hysterical results. This mockumentary satirizes modern musical artists through the character of Conner4Real (Andy Samberg), a recently-gone-solo pop rapper with a painful lack of self and social awareness. While a rise-and-fall type documentary has been done to death, Popstar shows a surprising amount of heart, a delightfully catchy soundtrack, polished production value, memorable gags, and an ultra-satisfying finale that makes it enough to be a standout this year. Mark my words that this will be a cult favorite in a few years.

9. The Boy and the Beast

With Hayao Miyazaki retired and Studio Ghibli looking to head off into the sunset with him, anime director Mamoru Hosoda (known for The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, Summer Wars) and his newly founded animation studio, Studio Chizu (known for 2012’s Wolf Children) look to be filling the vacuum. While The Boy and the Beast is the first film I’ve seen out of the studio, I’m very impressed by polish and confidence in the approach to their material. The Boy and the Beast is only the sophomore outing by Studio Chizu, but features grown-up themes of responsibility, humility, and the nature of mentorship. With 2D animation going out of style for American film, it’s fallen on anime to fill that void. Thankfully, The Boy and the Beast’s animation looks absolutely gorgeous and fluid. Further, it serves to aid the journey of both main characters learning from one another and letting go of their rigid, inflexible ways of thinking. The Boy and the Beast feels like a classic coming-of-age story right out of a Miyazaki movie. Check this one and Wolf Children out if you have the chance.

8. Hush

Hush is a film that came out of nowhere. This low budget horror thriller hit Netflix back in April and has shown up on Netflix horror recommendation lists ever since. The hook is simple yet engaging: a deaf-mute woman must survive her isolated backwoods home being terrorized by a cunning serial killer with a crossbow. The execution is wonderful with this game of cat-and-mouse being taken to an extreme as each other character tries to outwit each other in increasingly violent ways. Hush is an extraordinarily suspenseful watch as you can’t help but root for one of the most vulnerable protagonists ever put onscreen.

Credit to PostApocalypticMedia.com

Credit to AVoyageThroughFilm.Wordpress.com

Credit to MixDeSeries.com

7. 10 Cloverfield Lane

Though 10 Cloverfield Lane seems to have been an original film retrofitted into the Cloverfield canon to sell more tickets, I thought it turned out to be a great film. Admittedly, the final act of the film feels a tad disjointed from the rest and is almost unanimously the #1 complaint from of this movie. However, the preceding acts of the film are so well realized, so well acted, and foreshadow the climax so well that I don’t count a slightly jarring finale against it. Given my love for a film like Rosemary’s Baby, it isn’t a surprise that I’m a fan of suspenseful “are they crazy or aren’t they crazy?” stories. John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead give phenomenal performances in a film that really only features three characters and do justice to a concept that could’ve easily fallen on its face (and with meddling that could’ve easily ruined the film’s focus).

6. The Jungle Book

While Jon Favreau has been very hit-or-miss with his blockbusters (Zathura, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Cowboys & Aliens), he very much knocked his adaptation of The Jungle Book out of the park, in my opinion. Teetering the line between a primal beast’s sinister revenge plot and a happy-go-lucky journey through a beautifully computer-generated wilderness, The Jungle Book meshes these two elements perfectly. Moreover, The Jungle Book delivers a far deeper story than its 1967 Disney animated predecessor and manages to create a world as emotionally as it can digitally. Every single actor in this absolutely loaded voice cast (Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Scarlett Johannsen, Christopher Walken, Lupita Nyong’o, Giancarlo Esposito, etc.) is perfect for their respective characters and bring clout to a project that seemed like a gimmicky remake during production. However, as with all books, The Jungle Book teaches audiences not to judge it by its cover.

5. The Revenant

Alejandro González Iñárritu managed to create another film that made it into my Top 10. The Revenant is a daring mixture of a revenge and survival story that focuses more on raw, natural, and a gritty presentation than a traditional, cleaned-up “Hollywood” look. The Revenant won cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki his third Oscar in a row and Leonardo DiCaprio his very first (if the overplayed “Leo doesn’t have an Oscar” jokes dying wasn’t enough of a hint) in what I thought were well deserved wins. Lubezki captures so much beauty, bleakness, and emotion through his deep focus lenses in addition to capturing one of the best action sequences all year. DiCaprio makes a turn against his regular characters as an introverted bilingual woodsman, Hugh Glass, who spends the majority of the film expressing himself through body language, facial cues, and sheer physicality. It’s this subdued character that makes for such an interesting foil against Tom Hardy’s loudmouthed and confrontational villain, Fitzgerald. Set to the haunting primal score by the impressive trio of Japanese musician Ryuichi Sakamoto, The National’s Bryce Dessner, and German electronic musician Alva Noto, The Revenant is transformed into a feast for the eyes and ears.

Credit to The LA Times

Credit to The LA TImes

Credit to IndieWire.com

4. Captain America: Civil War

Captain America: Civil War may be Marvel’s best film yet. The approach to the Avengers core being turned against each other in an ideological battle was so superbly done that I actually worry for the future slate of Marvel films that are about to follow it up with another “villain-of-the-week”/”end-of-the-world” conflict. Civil War managed to tell a grand-sweeping story of ideological conflict and introduce/reintroduce a bunch of characters in a way that neither Batman v Superman or X-Men: Apocalypse couldn’t pull off. It brought its characters to the lowest depths that any of them could reach and positioned each character in a place where audiences weren’t sure whether to root for or against them (in a good way). Captain America: Civil War is perhaps Marvel’s most nuanced film to date, functioning as both a sneaky good character piece for the locked-in Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark and a fanboy-pleasing action romp between hero factions.

3. Room

Emotional. Tragic. Uplifting. Describing Room is like describing your favorite color to a blind man. Both Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay turn in incredible Oscar-worthy performances under the astute direction of Lenny Abrahamson. There’s a wide range of emotions that one undergoes in watching this film and the stakes shift from an external threat to an internal one as the film goes on. The writing is smart, tight, and unpredictable with one particular sequence being the most tense of the entire year. This story about freedom, captivity, nurture, and perspective is one that is sure to change your view on all of these ideas.

2. Anomalisa

Don’t be fooled by the stop-motion animation: this is not a film for children. Anomalisa is a more slow-burn, mature meditation on life, psychosis, existential crises, attraction, and basic human communication. With one of the most interesting voice casts I’ve ever heard, writer Charlie Kaufman and director Duke Johnson create one of the more unique animated experiences in some time. The scale is small and intimate, while the events are both painfully mundane and outlandishly surreal. This is a film that doesn’t hold your hand and doesn’t play by typical conventions of storytelling. It takes its time with its characters, takes chances with its presentation, and takes the audience out of their comfort zone. Anomalisa is definitely a film better experienced on your own than described to you from another person, but one thing I will say is this: Anomalisa absolute could not have been done as a live action film.

Credit to MargetheLarge.Wordpress.com

1. Zootopia

Zootopia has stolen my heart. With the resurgence of Disney Animation Studios thanks to the Pixar acquisition back in 2006, Zootopia tops off what has been the best streak of films that Disney Animation has had since the ’90s. It’s an extraordinarily appealing film with imaginative world-building, peculiarly true-to-scale character models, fun comedic beats, and intriguing sociopolitical commentary. While Anomalisa is niche independent animation at its finest, Zootopia is big-budget broad appeal animation at its finest. With its noir detective story and grown-up themes, Zootopia feels more like a Pixar film than a Disney film. It even feels more like a Pixar film than 3 of the last 6 Pixar films (The Good Dinosaur, Brave, and Cars 2). Zootopia was able to pull a far wider range of emotions than anything else I’d seen this year and remains as my most rewatchable film of 2016. It’s a conspiracy thriller meets buddy cop comedy meets fun anthropomorphic Disney fare in a way that hasn’t been executed since Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Until further notice, Zootopia is my favorite film of 2016.