Retro Review - First Blood (1982)

    Most people associate the character of John Rambo, as portrayed by Sylvester Stallone, with 80’s-style schlock machismo action; not helped by the greater emphasis on over-the-top action concepts in the later films and other unusual projects, like the Saturday morning cartoon show, Rambo: The Force of Freedom (it was very common for 80’s “R” rated action heroes to have toy lines and cartoon shows made after them, including Terminator and Robocop.) In fact, the most iconic image of Rambo is of him wielding a massive machine gun screaming in rage as he spray-fires all around him (with no shirt on). 

While it’s easy to remember the kind of action icon that Rambo would become, it is just as easy to forget that he came from a much humbler and more nuanced beginning. The very first Rambo film, First Blood from 1982, is not only a classic action movie; it is also a significantly more nuanced and relevant story about soldiers with PTSD, unfair treatment of military veterans, and a near perfect representation of true vs. toxic masculinity. It is also one of my favorite films of this particular genre, serving as an important reminder of how much more seriously we, as a nation, need to take mental and emotional health, and why caring for our soldiers matters more than we may choose to believe. 

Based on the book by David Morrell, the story follows a Vietnam War veteran named John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) walking his way through the mountains of Washington. As Rambo makes his way to a small town called Hope looking for a place to eat, he’s confronted by the local Sheriff, a stern man named Teasle (Brian Dennehy), who takes an instant disliking of Rambo (mistaking him for a dangerous drifter) and escorts him outside of town insisting he not return. Rambo instantly ignores Teasle’s warning and is arrested for vagrancy. As the rather abusive officers try to put Rambo through processing, they inadvertently trigger his memories as a P.O.W. (Prisoner Of War) and set him spiraling into a rampage, escaping the Sheriff’s Station with only his knife. As the authorities chase Rambo down, Teasle soon discovers they he has started a new kind of war that he, nor his deputies, are equipped to handle, and could have easily been avoided, were it not for his misplaced sense of pride. 

First Blood is one of those films where the story behind its production is equally nuanced and engaging as the narrative presented therein. The biggest obstacle this film faced was the lack of people interested and willing to make it in the first place. At the time, any discussion about the Vietnam war was incredibly sensitive and too difficult for discussion, especially in the realm of Hollywood. Multiple known directors, including John Frankenheimer, either dropped out of the project or rejected it entirely. This problem also lent itself to the casting of the protagonist, which had a slew of well-known actors considered for the role, including Robert Redford, James Caan, and Al Pacino. All of these recurring problems weren’t helped by the script (more on that later), which was going through so many drafts near-complete rewrites, that it almost became nothing like the book that inspired the whole thing in the first place. Then again, a script starting with one idea, only to morph into something else entirely, is how we eventually got Robocop.

After nearly a decade of directors, writers, and actors dropping out or rejecting the project, the film finally found a home in director Ted Kotcheff, and a finalized script by Michael Kozoll, William Sackheim, and Sylvester Stallone, who also played the lead role. 

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is how much it differs from the original book, while more or less maintaining the intended spirit and message. According to Dominic Noble of the YouTube show Lost in Adaptation, many of the characters, including Rambo, went through a few fundamental changes for the adaptation. David Morrell (the original author) intended the story to be morally ambiguous enough to raise uncertainty as to who the hero and villain were. One startling difference that showcases this intention is how, in the film, Rambo goes out of his way to not kill the people who are pursuing him, making efforts to merely wound and incapacitate them; whereas in the original book, Rambo murders every single person he encounters during his rampage, including a few dogs. In both the film and the book, Sheriff Teasle still drew the proverbial first blood, but Rambo from the book has a little more claim to the destruction and death he causes. Also, minor spoiler, unlike the film version, Rambo dies at the end of the book. 

This isn’t to say that the changes made in the film are “simplified” or “dumbed down” for the sake of the audience, not at all; both takes on the story are valid in their reasoning and intentions with regard to its overall theme of judging people by their looks and mistreating soldiers. David Morrell himself stated that he prefers the film over his book, and I think it’s easy to see why; it’s a classic case of the right version living on and the right one meeting his demise. 

Despite all of this, what makes First Blood a true classic of its kind isn’t the action or the incredible stunt work (most of which was done by Stallone); it’s the ending scene with the most powerfully delivered monologue ever put to celluloid. Without spoiling anything for those who have still not yet seen this film, the ending of First Blood features, arguably, one of Stallone’s greatest performances, and showcases his intelligent ability as a writer. Because, in this moment, we see someone who has spent the entire film taking down forces of foes with little to nothing, enduring unspeakable situations, and receiving no sympathy from anyone around him, suddenly break down and reveal his humanity. It is a moment that, at least to me, shows true masculinity through vulnerability and emotional frustration. It is the one scene in the entire film that has stood the test of time and is the most vital moment cementing the films theme and message. I dare you to watch this scene without feeling something, anything, for what is happening and the implications of its real-world connections. 

First Blood is a must-watch classic for many reasons. It showcases what makes a good script, how to work with limited resources, and what it means to be supportive of those who need it most. Sure, the action is incredible with resounding entertainment value in its own right, but it’s all in service to a story about the dangers of misplaced pride, the consequences of false senses of superiority, and the necessity for compassion and understanding in the modern world, especially when it comes to those willing to sacrifice so much for the sake of what is supposed to make our Country great. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Zootopia 2 - A Fine Film but Not-So-Fine-A-Follow-Up

 

Playing in Theaters 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon Prime

        The first Zootopia, released back in 2016, was a monumental achievement in narrative animation. Set in a world populated by anthropomorphic animals (a classic Disney staple), the film offered rich layers of engaging storytelling, a profound narrative, and delightful entertainment, complete with three-dimensional characters, clever dialogue, stunning visuals and action scenes, and mature themes such as systemic racism and drug abuse. Sure, many of its familiar elements had been done before in any number of buddy-cop films, but they hadn't been played with in this particular context. It's awe-inspiring when you remember the film was produced by Disney, the studio I refer to as the biggest @$$#ole in Hollywood. Still, this is a solid example of why it is essential to separate art from the artist; art must be judged on its own merits, not on the creator. 

Zootoipa remains a fantastic film, and I proudly declared it my favorite film of 2016. 

Now, nearly ten years later, Disney has finally released the long-awaited sequel, and while aspects of it were enjoyable and witty in their own way, I am sorry to report that this is not the sequel that Zootopia deserved. Yes, it has a decent story with amazing animation, and the two lead characters are still charming and engaging for many reasons, but the choices in the narrative and thematic elements leave a great deal to be desired, especially given the pedigree of its predecessor. 

Taking place about a week after the events of the first film (already not off to a good start), the story follows our beloved unlikely duo, Judy Hopps (Gennifer Goodwin) and Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), at the beginning of their partnership in the Zootopia Police Department. While they’re both excited in their own ways about their partnership, they also have a few underlining issues they have yet to resolve with each other and themselves; causing tension and uncertainty amongst themselves and their peers. In an effort to prove themselves, Judy and Nick discover the presence of something that, apparently, hasten’t been seen in Zootopia for a century: a Snake. 

According to history, Snakes and other reptiles were deemed dangerous and untrustworthy, and were cast out of Zootopia; forced into hiding or exiled to other lands. However, upon meeting the snake, a blue viper named Gary (Ke Huy Quan), who has infiltrated their world, Judy and Nick discover clues leading to a massive conspiracy pertaining to the Zootopia’s history and what really caused the distrust and displacement of reptiles. Complicating matters even further, Judy and Nick have been framed for an attempted murder and conspiracy to conspire with the Snake, and are forced to go on the run. With no back up and few resources, the two must solve the case and determine what really brought the Snake to their shores, and in the process, find out what their partnership is really meant to be about. 

On its own merits as a film, it’s okay: the story is good, the message is relevant, and Judy & Nick remain an engaging duo with witty banter and solid chemistry. If nothing else, you want to root for them, both as individuals and as partners, and you want to see their relationship grow. However, as a follow up to the first film, it is a massive disappointment! 

Setting aside a few narrative continuity errors, the second film fails to maintain the sense of balance and nuance promised by the first film. Instead of expanding the more mature and interesting elements indicated in the first film, the sequel opts to downgrade to typical western animation tropes of moving too fast, oversimplifying things, repeating exposition already established for the audience members with a seven-second attention span, and overtly placating to the younger members of the audience. And before you say it, no, I do not believe that it gets a pass by simply being a Disney film; they introduced these nuances in the first place and we should expect them to follow up on it by taking more risks. Then again, Disney has NEVER been known for taking risks, so I guess I’m the one getting a pie to the face for expecting it. 

Zootopia 2 is not necessarily a terrible film, but it is also not the follow-up to the previous masterpiece that we deserved. It is yet another sad reminder of the kind of cowardice and artistic risk aversion that plagues modern Hollywood, especially at Disney! If you want to see a proper sequel to the first film, check out Browntable’s Return to Zootopia fan film on YouTube; it is by far a superior exploration of the mature and nuanced themes presented in the first film, and is a much more interesting exploration into Judy and Nick’s relationship. 

Watch Zootopia 2 for the pretty animation (and occasionally funny sight gags) and not much else! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Send Help - Girl Boss Done Right (mostly)

 

Playing in Theaters 

        One aspect of society, by and large, is the unfortunate and impractical enforcement of “male privilege:” the notion that men are automatically elevated to high positions of authority simply because they are male. This is a real issue that still plagues many aspects of society and business, and should have died out by now, but that’s neither here nor there. Still, it would benefit more people to take a moment and reevaluate their place in the world from time to time. 

Such is one of the many messages and themes from todays subject, Send Help, a horror-themed survival thriller about, among other things, sexism, power dynamics, and the consequences of refusing to adopt, adapt, and improve. Not to mention a clever exploration into moral grey areas, which I always appreciate. And it doesn’t help that it’s also a better example (mostly) of how to do girl bosses. 

The story follows a middle aged woman named Linda (Rachel McAdams), who works in the strategy and planning department of some unspecified corporation, and has been the backbone of the company for years. The original CEO of the company had promised her a Vice President position once the torch had been passed down to his son, Bradly (Dylan O’Brian), an insufferable frat boy who snubs Linda out of the promotion, in favor of one of his old fraternity buddies. As Bradly heads overseas to secure the final details of a deal with another company in Thailand, Bradly decides to bring along Linda, recognizing that her work is still needed (and will be subsequently stolen as her work has been before). 

However, things take an unexpected turn, when the private jet crashes into the Ocean, killing most of the passengers, save for Linda and Bradly, leaving them stranded on a deserted Island. Fortunately, Linda happens to be a huge fan of the classic reality show, Survivor, with dreams of becoming a contestant, and has prepared herself for outdoor survival skills; including building shelter, getting water, and gathering food. Meanwhile, her one companion on the Island, Bradly, has a severe injury to his leg, and isn’t able to do much, relying upon Linda’s skills to keep them both alive. Still, Bradley refuses to accept the situation, and insists upon maintaining his false sense of power and control, causing tension between the two survivors. 

As they spend more time on the Island together, and slowly come to terms with their situation, will they learn to work together properly, or will the need to maintain male privilege overcome the greater needs of the situation? 

For the most part, this film is a solid story, with textured character brought to life by two excellent actors, revolving around a witty and clever script that succeeds in being gripping, provocative, and occasionally funny. Then again, this being a Sam Raimi film, a little bit of humor is to be expected. 

Yes, you read that correctly, our good old horror buff, Sam Raimi, directed this little film, and it shows in all the best ways. While the film does include many of Sam Raimi’s signatures (including some of the more grotesque and exaggerated), it also has his signature storytelling talent. Sam Raimi succeeds in reminding audiences that story and characters are always more important than anything else in a film. The way he guides the cast through the whole ordeal is masterful and witty. When you see Linda close the plane window because of something outside of it, you know this is a Sam Raimi film through and through. 

The cast is absolutely remarkable. Rachel McAdams and Dylan O’Brian have stupendous chemistry, and bounce off each other incredibly well. They both also succeed in carrying the weight of the film on their shoulders, since they are almost entirely the only ones on screen. Rachel McAdams is especially phenomenal for portraying a character who is both sympathetic and terrifying at the same time. Without spoiling anything, her character has a backstory that both justifies her actions and causes one to question her sanity a little bit. It’s a wonderful case of understanding someone without entirely agreeing with them; something we need so much more of in our movies. 

The only issue I have with the film is that it is yet another case of “men are evil; women are good” trope that has oversaturated the feminist movement in films these days. While I am a feminist and do understand the issues with male privilege, I cannot stand this narrative choice of rendering all men as incompetent and evil, while all women are smarter and more capable; it only adds to the anger and resentment rather than offers any kind of middle ground for proper solutions, and it bothers me (both as a feminist and as a man) that too many writers are relying upon this aggressive and impractical narrative tool. Yes, narrative liberties and empowerment fantasies are understandable, but would it really hurt to at least have one male character in these stories who isn’t cartoonishly evil?

Which leads me to the MVP of the film, Dennis Haysbert, who not only has as much of an awesome screen presence as say Morgan Freeman, but is also the only male character in the film who isn’t a sexist, misogynist, evil dude-bro like the rest of the male characters; offering at least a little bit of representation for the “real” men that do exist. Aspiring screenwriters, take note! 

Despite this annoying narrative aspect, Send Help is a fantastic film that tackles so many real-world issues wrapped up in a neat story about survival, strength, and the importance of reevaluation. If you can handle the occasional gross-out moments, of which there aren’t too many, then please give this film a shot. It’s a silly little horror-ish film that has a lot to say, and it deserves your attention. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.