Flashpoint in Peril

I’ve avoided discussing The Flash for a while now. For one, I’m not so engrossed in The DCEU, so my thoughts would feel incomplete. And two, Ezra Miller has been a PR headache for years, and they’re starring in it. But since there’s a tentative release date now, I should get my thoughts out. Because I’m incredibly-mixed on it.

There’s a lot to like with the trailer. The premise of “Oh crap, I accidentally messed up the timeline!” is a great way to set high stakes. Considering X-Men: Days of Future Past is my favourite canonical entry in Fox’s X-Men franchise, having a DC movie do something similar has my interest piqued. Time travel movies allow for interesting story ideas, so this could be the big break Warner Bros. Discovery wants.

The emotional stakes are cemented: Barry Allen finds a way to save his mother, so he jumps on it. In the process, he makes everything worse. Ultimately, he’s forced to sacrifice his personal happiness to make everything right. It’s basically Spider-Man: No Way Home ported to a DC movie, except with DC’s in-house style. Given how I enjoyed Spider-Man: No Way Home, I might enjoy this too…hopefully.

I like that Michael Shannon’s Zod’s getting another chance. Shannon’s a great character actor, and even detractors of Man of Steel have acknowledged how wasted he was. Revisiting the role, this time (hopefully) to get it right, gives me hope. It’s like Jamie Foxx as Electro: great casting, wrong script. And since Foxx had his redemption, why can’t Shannon?

I really appreciate Michael Keaton’s return as Batman. This’ll probably make some of you mad, but I thought his time as Batman was wasted in the Tim Burton movies. It was pretty obvious that Burton wasn’t interested in Batman as a character, and while the movies were “decent”, I didn’t care for them because of that. Still, Keaton did a great job, and, like Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man, he deserved better. If The Flash turns out to be good, this could be his opportunity.

On the subject of casting, Supergirl’s a great one. The trailer only has a few moments with her, but I like Sasha Calle’s Kara. Yes, it’s an unconventional take. And yes, she looks different than what Kara’s usually portrayed as. But ignoring that, I’m excited for Calle. She seems genuinely invested here, and unlike Leslie Grace in Batgirl, she’s actually getting a chance. It’s a win-win for everyone.

The movie looks to have genuine humour. The part where Barry Allen and Barry Allen meet Keaton’s Batman, and one of them faints? That’s a solid joke right there. The part where Barry Allen tells the other Barry Allen not to film Supergirl on his phone, only to be met with “Our kids will want to see this”? Same deal. Even Barry Allen bouncing off of Barry Allen lends to some great meta-jokes.

\

Finally, the movie’s director’s a perfect fit. For those unfamiliar, he was behind the recent IT films. Say what you want, but he did a great job adapting the novel to the big-screen. He knows stakes, and he knows drama. I’d sooner trust him than, say, Zack Snyder on this, that’s for sure!

Unfortunately, all of the potential hinges on Ezra Miller pulling this off. And I don’t know if they’ll do it. Miller’s Barry Allen looks lost before bouncing off of another Barry Allen, and that’s not a good sign. Sure, Miller’s a great actor. I loved them in The Perks of Being a Wallflower! But that was a different kind of role, one that required a different energy. Miller’s best roles are unhinged or effeminately gay, not “the straight guy with a quippy sense of humour”. Essentially, Miller looks and sounds out of their league.

Outside of that, I don’t want to give Miller any credit. This is the same person who has multiple instances of violence over the past few years. And they’ve been accused of grooming teenagers. And they’ve also been accused to cultish behaviour. Miller’s a loose cannon who needs help, not an acting career. Even if The Flash ends up good, that’s a sore spot. It also, as a survivor of childhood sexual indecency, makes me feel icky.

This is the big reason for why I’m uncomfortable. Sure, the trailer looks good. But the trailers for Pacific Rim looked good, and I wasn’t impressed with that. Trailers can lie or be misleading, and having a sex offender with that many skeletons lead a tentpole film doesn’t give me hope. Especially when they look lost.

That’s also why I’ve been so conflicted over discussing this. Remember, The Flash was in production for a long time. It’s outlived Zack Snyder’s tenure, and it’s outlived DC trying to pivot from Snyder. It’s been reworked and rewritten several times too. That it’s even coming out, and looks interesting, is a miracle. So that its lead doesn’t seem to be clicking is concerning.

I could be wrong about everything. The movie could be amazing, or it could be terrible. Miller could also end up working with this, too. Remember, trailers can lie! But they also set the tone for what to expect. And given how mixed I feel, well…I’m cautiously-optimistic.

Marvel's End Game?

MCU discourse is often irritating because of how immature it is. On one hand, the fans demand unrealistic expectations and are angry when they’re not met. On the other hand, detractors zone in on trivialities and blow them out of proportion. Either way, it feel like an endless game of asking people to calm down. Especially now with Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, The MCU’s second critical failure.

This isn’t a review of the movie. While I definitely enjoyed it and think many of its detractors are picking sour grapes, the movie was messy and raised more questions than it answered. I also don’t want to discuss MODOK, as I don’t care about MODOK anyway and consider the argument over him tiresome. My focus will be on the franchise in general, as well as why it’s not out of steam (yet).

Now, I’m not a diehard about The MCU. It took several years to get hooked, and even now few entries are better than 4/5 stars. They’re simply fun action movies. And while they might occasionally delve into serious subjects, there are better examples of tackling those subjects in other films or franchises. The MCU’s baseline: nothing exceptional, but you can do a lot worse.

I don’t get why there’s controversy over their existence. I know people want variety. But variety exists, you simply have to look for it. I also know that The MCU eats into yearly box-office totals, “crowding out” original ideas. But that’s less the franchise and more how Disney markets it. Besides, not all “original” ideas are worth my time.

It also irks me that people use the franchise to vent about irrelevant issues. The MCU’s visuals look bad? That’s not a problem exclusive to the franchise. The MCU’s VFX artists are overworked? That’s tragic, but, again, it’s not exclusive to the franchise. Even “there are too many entries” falls flat because MCU movies constitute less than 1% of yearly releases. We get more horror, thriller and Oscar dramas than MCU films.

All of this falls on deaf ears, though. Which is why talking about it with film enthusiasts is so tiring. Whether it’s how formulaic they are, even though all franchises are formulaic, or that they’re “theme parks”, I can’t have a serious conversation that isn’t intellectually-condescending. It bothers me because it’s a waste of my time and energy, and because it’s vapid. It also lacks a coherent through-line, reading like background chatter wrapped in “discourse”.

Of course, the question that keeps resurfacing is, “Aren’t you tired of these movies?” As if it isn’t a loaded enough question, my answer is, “No.” I’m a “movie omnivore”, so I’ll watch anything as long as it’s appealing. I’ve seen many MCU films, some more than once, but I’m not even remotely bored. They simply mine lots of content. You can spend 80 years on these films and barely scratch the surface. And I’d see all of them if they were worth my time!

Outside of that, they make lots of money. Why? Because people like them. It’s a huge talking point that they’ll “run out of steam”, but that hasn’t happened yet. Even in the late-90’s, the “fatigue” with superheroes only lasted a few years. People’s memories are short, and the movies that “killed” the genre, like Batman & Robin, are looked back on now with nostalgia.

If it sounds like I’m rambling, it’s because I don’t think The MCU’s discourse factors in how little the average person cares about our hang-ups. My cousin, who isn’t a superhero fan, saw The Avengers: Endgame in theatres on a business retreat. She didn’t understand a lot of the minutiae, even asking me questions later, but she loved it! I’ve also overheard strangers discussing these films on the bus home from work! These are only two examples, but they say more about the long-term staying power of The MCU than any arguments online ever could!

Most people aren’t “terminally-online”. They’re not clued in to the controversies of the internet. They also have different tolerance standards than us, hence why CinemaScore exists. They’re more interested in being entertained, and MCU projects are largely made with them in mind. Box-office-wise, they’re not tired of these movies (yet). And we won’t know when they will be.

This circles back to the issue I have with these debates: they don’t matter. A few years ago, I dubbed The MCU “critic-proof”. I stand by that, not because the movies can’t be critical bombs (we’ve seen that happen twice), but because even when they are, so what? They make money regardless, and they’re enjoyed by people outside the film discourse bubble. That’s more important than a number that Rotten Tomatoes, a site most people don’t even understand, assigns them.

In the end, the debate around The MCU is futile and unnecessary. Does it suck that the news talks about them frequently? Maybe. Is it a problem that Disney’s marketing borders on toxic? Yes. But that doesn’t mean the movies can’t be enjoyed for what they are. They can, and anyone saying otherwise is being dishonest.

A Warty Situation

Whenever I think I’m done discussing JK Rowling and the Harry Potter franchise, something inevitably changes that. First, it was Rowling’s manifesto. Next, it was her remarks following George Floyd’s murder. Then it was her exchange with Stephen King. Now it’s a video game. And so, it’s time to discuss her again.

As always, I should state upfront that I grew up with the Harry Potter series. I read the main entries often, and I purchased the two companion pieces too. I eagerly awaited every movie, irrespective of age. Not only did the IP ignite my passion for reading, it ignited my passion for writing. And the books taught me the importance of compassion and not taking authority at face value.

It’s with great frustration that their author, a woman I once looked up to, turned out how she did. And yes, I should’ve seen the warning signs. But how could I? I had a troubled childhood, so I was more than happy to relate to something that wasn’t condescending outright. It didn’t matter that the house elves were racist, or that the goblins were Jewish-coded, because I had too much social and emotional baggage. I know I’m not alone…

Recently a new Harry Potter-adjacent video game was released. The game, Hogwarts Legacy, was mired in controversy even before its announcement, thanks to Rowling’s never-ending crusade against trans individuals. Even once it began development, there were numerous scandals that are too painful to discuss here. The game was doomed to be divisive regardless of where you landed politically, and there were attempts to both spite-purchase and openly-boycott it simultaneously. For the former, I have no sympathy: even if the IP’s creator wasn’t hateful, buying something to “own” a marginalized community is evil. It’s the latter group, however, that I want to address here, and not for the reasons you’d expect.

I sympathize with boycotting Hogwarts Legacy. I don’t want that misconstrued. I have no intentions of supporting it myself, honestly. I think Rowling’s doing herself a disservice being transphobic, and I don’t want to line her pockets because of that. I can’t go back to the books anymore because of her! So I get it.

That said, the messaging needs work. Because while saying, “This game is harmful, so please don’t promote it” is great, being nasty about it…isn’t. Yet that’s a recurring issue whenever well-intended streamers play it. Even the VTuber community, much of which isn’t American and doesn’t have the same knowledge about the controversy, has seen harassment. That’s not helpful.

But wait! Wouldn’t I be on-board with this? After all, I’m Jewish! And Rowling’s depiction of goblins, which are coded in Antisemitism, should offend me! Why wouldn’t I be incensed?

As much as it perturbs me that Rowling would dabble in something that blatant, remember that goblins as Jewish-coded wasn’t her invention. Goblins in general are Antisemitic, you can’t skirt around that. Even writers who’ve tried softening that can’t fully-escape a stock creation rooted in “the greedy Jew”. It’s unfortunate, and the only way to properly subvert the trope is by having actual Jewish characters challenge it. In other words, Herschel and the Hanukkah Goblins.

Outside of that, a Jewish person with lived experience on Antisemitism would be a better judge than a gentile. But there’s a problem: Jews are so few that most gentiles wouldn’t know where to find one. We make up .25% of the global population, after all. And we’re not monolithic, so there are a variety of responses you can get. It doesn’t help that, like with every group, not all of us are experts, and not all of us will argue in good faith. Tokenizing our voices doesn’t help either.

Personally, while goblins being Jewish-coded is sticky, it doesn’t keep me up at night. It’s not the kind of Antisemitism that actively frustrates me, either. Ben & Jerry’s attempt at pulling their ice cream from The Green Line in Israel, as well as the fallout that resulted, bothers me a lot more. That’s something many gentiles either don’t understand, don’t care to understand, or aren’t aware of as a problem. If we’re discussing “pressing Antisemitism”, start there.

I could go on forever about people misunderstanding the Jewish coding in a video game, including the “nontroversy” over gorgonzola cheese not being Kosher. (Spoiler alert: any cheese can be Kosher.) But my issue with Hogwarts Legacy’s discourse extends beyond that. It’s more how people are using it to be disgusting and hurtful to those who dare discuss it anyway. That’s not only not helpful, it sabotages the original message the trans community’s saying.

If you want to advocate that playing the “terf game” hurts trans people, go ahead. If you want to express disappointment in those playing it, that’s fine too. I agree with both attitudes. However, if your disappointment involves vitriol, guess what? You’re not only not helping, you’re being as awful as those who are supporting the game to spite you. You’re also being immature.

I shouldn’t have to say this. It really isn’t controversial to say, “Maybe tone it down a little?” to individuals who should know better. Because we’re not children. We can communicate our frustrations like adults. Being annoyed about something doesn’t give carte blanche to be goblins ourselves.

But that’s what’s happening. And it’s making this game a bigger talking point than necessary. It doesn’t help that this is happening on the internet, a forum that amplifies and monetizes hate. It’s bad enough that this game, and its IP, happens to be blatantly bigoted. The rift its existence is creating in online circles is making matters worse. Plus, it’s emboldening JK Rowling’s politics long-term.

This speaks to the much bigger problem, that being how media’s discussed online. There’s plenty of art that’s controversial, be it how it’s created, or what it espouses. Some of the controversies are blatant, and some are hidden. While it’s important to discuss them so as to appreciate what we consume, it needs to be done with tact in order to be healthy. Hogwarts Legacy’s no exception. If the conversation about a programmable piece of plastic overpowers its issues, that says less about the plastic and more about the conversation. Is that what we want?

Something to think about.

On Understanding Villainy...

There are many reasons film discourse sucks. I’ve covered some before, most-recently the reactions to DreamWorks’s opening cinematic, but one that’s referenced occasionally is antagonists. Particularly, the sympathetic nature of some antagonists. There’s a tendency to cite them as “misunderstood heroes” that are “only villainous because the movie says so”. I see this somewhat, but it misunderstands film literacy.

Let me explain.

(By the way, spoilers.)

I recently saw a Tweet showing four villains that were only evil because the writers were “spineless libs”. Ignoring how loaded that statement actually is, especially those last two words, the choices were baffling. Two of them, Amon from Avatar: The Legend of Korra and Killmonger from Black Panther, made me question if the poster was paying attention. Then again, it’s Twitter. Should I be surprised?

I’ll start with Amon. Amon’s purpose is providing an argument for why benders have too much influence in general. He wants to rid Republic City of all benders, including Avatar Korra. Over Season 1’s 12 episodes, we see Amon go up against powerful benders and take away their bending. Even Tarrlok’s use of Bloodbending, which allows someone to manipulate a person’s body, can’t stop Amon, only slow him down. Basically, who is Amon, and why’s he so powerful?

The answer’s simple: he’s a former Waterbender who can remove another person’s bending with Energybending, a skill Aang learned in the previous series, mixed with Bloodbending. He’s also Tarrlok’s older brother. The Guy Fawkes mask he wears over his “disfigured face”, something he claims was caused by a Firebender, ends up as a ruse when Korra unlocks Airbending and knocks Amon into some water. Amon’s a grifter, his whole manifesto was a charade. And he dies anticlimactically on a motorboat.

It'd seem like this’d be an easy win; after all, not only does Amon expose the privileges benders have, even forcing non-benders into a curfew, he also causes the oligarchy of Republic City to dismantle. Amon won! Here’s a hero…right? Not really. It all sounds good until you start poking holes in his story.

For one, Amon’s a liar. He claims to be in favour of equality, but it’s for selfish reasons. He wants no competition with other benders. That he robs them of their bending in public is proof enough. Because that’s what tyrants do: eliminate threats. That’s the hallmark of all authoritarian leaders. It doesn’t matter if he “has a point”, Amon’s a villain.

And two, the curfew’s secondary. True, it was unjust and discriminatory. And true, it probably wouldn’t have been considered by the other benders in power if Amon hadn’t been running amuck. But guess what? Tarrlok instituted this curfew, not Amon. Tarrlok’s an egocentric opportunist. Correlation and causation don’t necessarily align.

I’ve gone on enough about Amon, so I’ll switch to Killmonger. Killmonger’s ordeal is that his radicalized father was murdered when he was a child, and he wants revenge. Using Ulysses Klaue as leverage, because Klaue’s a wanted terrorist, he returns to his homeland and challenges T’Challa, the current heir, to a battle to the death. He wins, tosses T’Challa off a cliff, burns down the chamber that gives Wakandans their strength and starts an invasion on American soil. He’s defeated in a rematch with T'Challa in the climax.

There’s plenty of really interesting and sympathetic material with Killmonger. Not only is his backstory tragic, but he makes a valid point. Black people have been oppressed for centuries, and Wakanda’s refusal to help them is bad. Wakanda can’t and shouldn’t remain isolationist, and his presence causes change on Wakanda’s part. If Killmonger’s “right”, why’s he a villain?

Well, it’s a twofold answer. The first is that the movie needed an antagonist, and Killmonger’s philosophy made him a good choice. The second is harder to swallow, but needs emphasis: his actions make him a villain. He shows up unannounced to Wakanda, challenges their leader, breaks the rules of combat by pursuing T’Challa’s death after someone intervened and proceeds to expand Wakanda through war. He might’ve been “fighting for black liberation”, but how does murdering and subjugating the world do that?

Even in What If…?, where Killmonger gets what he wants, it was never about black liberation, but rather power. Killmonger, someone who marks kills on his chest, only cares about himself. He makes that clear by playing both sides of the American-Wakandan conflict. Killmonger, like Amon, is opportunistic. His father might’ve had a point, but he twisted it…sympathetic or not.

I now refer to Anne Lamott’s novel Bird by Bird. It’s a wonderful guide for anyone wanting to write a novel, but there’s one line that sticks out most: “Even your villain has a heart.” A villain can be vile, but never forget their humanity. They might not always be relatable, but they should be sympathetic to an extent. This doesn’t, however, make them a hero.

This is what I think that Tweet misses. Villains like Amon and Killmonger have a point (to some extent), but that doesn’t make them right. Their purpose is challenging the hero, be it Korra or T’Challa, to do better. That’s good character writing. And no, it doesn’t make someone a “spineless lib”. Life can’t be distilled that way.

As a final note, I’ll address one of the Replies: citing Magneto as another example. Ignoring the above, the romanticization of Magneto needs to stop. He’s sympathetic because of his experiences in Auschwitz, but he’s no hero. His goal, essentially, is to be a mutant supremacist. He’s also a deadbeat father, and an opportunist. By romanticizing his past, you frame his Jewishness as being associated with trauma. Jews deserve better.

It’s something to think about…

West Side Story (1961) VS West Side Story (2021)-Which is Better?

Romeo and Juliet, regarded as one of William Shakespeare’s most-accessible tragedies, has had such an impact on the West that it spawned West Side Story, considered one of the best musicals ever made. Getting its start on Broadway, the musical made its way to the big screen in 1961. For 60 years, it was an untouchable masterpiece. It wasn’t until Steven Spielberg in 2021 that anyone thought of remaking it. And in both cases, it was well-received by critics and fans.

On first glance, there isn’t much to discuss. Both film are viable translations of the play. Even reception-wise they’re similar, holding roughly the same aggregate on Rotten Tomatoes. So it really comes down to personal preference. Which do I prefer? Let’s find out!

As always, there’ll be spoilers!

Let’s begin with…

Story:

VS

The premise of these adaptations is the same: set in The Upper-West Side of New York City in the 1950’s, we follow two gangs, The Jets and The Sharks, as they struggle to survive. The Jets, Irish-Americans led by Riff, and The Sharks, Puerto Rican immigrants led by Bernardo, frequently get into trouble with the police as they claim overlapping territories. When Bernardo’s younger sister, Maria, meets Riff’s best-friend, Tony, at the local dance, the two immediately develop feelings. This “meeting of ethnics” doesn’t go unnoticed by Riff and Bernardo, who decide to duke it out in a fight. Torn between love and loyalty, Tony and Maria must decide if their romance is worth it…assuming it doesn’t end in tragedy.

While both outlines are similar, to the point where you could frequently argue plagiarism, they differ in subtext. For the 1961 film, it’s a straightforward story about racism and survival, as well as familial bonds. There’s also light commentary on police corruption and racism, but it doesn’t get in the way of the story. These themes carry over to the Spielberg film, but they’re delved into more. They’re even expanded on with the biting commentary on gentrification, something made blatantly-obvious with the film’s opening shot.

One point of note is the tone of both adaptations. The 1961 film, made when film musicals were largely viewed as big-screen plays, goes for heightened reality. Everything is awash in bright colours and evokes a romantic, almost dream-like vibe. The writing and tone are incredibly campy and otherworldly, making the darker moments more striking (for better or worse). In contrast, the Spielberg movie goes for grit and period accuracy. Every detail’s grounded and serves a purpose, including the gun Chino gets his hands on. This also has its shares of drawbacks, which I’ll cover later.

While both films clock in at over 2.5 hours, the former has an intermission partway. This was meant for audiences to stretch, go to the bathroom and buy more concessions, and it’s a good pause, but it feels awkward. It doesn’t help that a lot of the plot beats feel rushed, including the transitions to singing. The remake, on the other hand, has no intermission, making for a cohesive through-line.

The real question is, “Which version’s ‘feel’ do you prefer?”. A lighter, fluffier movie with an intermission partway, or do you want gritty with no intermission? While both have their strengths, I’m leaning more to the latter myself. It feels longer, and certain concepts don’t translate quite as well, but it doesn’t abruptly stop and leave you hanging. Spielberg wins.

Winner:

But a story’s only as good as its characters, which leads me to…

Cast:

VS

There are two major changes in the characters. The first is that Doc, the shopkeeper in the original movie, is replaced by Doc’s Wife in the latter. This was an interesting way to bring back Rita Moreno and have her inclusion make sense. For example, using Moreno was an effective way to make the criticism of The Jets’ molestation of Anita more currently-relevant; as Moreno’s character is the one who calls them out instead of Doc. In a post-Me Too world, giving the “You’re disgusting pigs!” speech to a woman makes more sense.

The other change in the remake, however, I’m less-enthusiastic about. The original movie had a minor character nicknamed Anybodys. She was a tough, tomboy-esque Jet who desperately craved respect from the rest of the gang. Because of her build, she also had a talent for slipping in and out of the shadows. The Spielberg movie keeps Anybodys, but makes the character a transgender man. It’s definitely interesting, lending well to a commentary on transphobia, but Anybodys doesn’t do much. He complains, gets into a scuffle with Officer Krupke and rehashes the role of slipping in and out of the shadows. I like that this actor is trans in real life, but his character, sadly, feels like a tokenized inclusion.

The rest of the cast I’m giving to Spielberg here…with two exceptions. This isn’t to disparage the original, which debuted during the era of The Hays Code, but in the original, the Puerto Ricans look and sound like brown-face representations of Latino-Americans. Even Rita Moreno, who actually is Latina, comes off as a Puerto Rican stereotype. The Spielberg movie not only gets the casting right, it also gets people who look age-appropriate. If we were judging the movies on that alone, it’d tip in favour of Spielberg.

Unfortunately, the Spielberg version has a blight: the leads. Ignoring the controversy surrounding Ansel Elgort, he and Rachel Zegler are perfect for Tony and Maria respectively, but the grittier tone means their romance sticks out more. It doesn’t work in a realistic story because of how heightened it is, and they lack the chemistry Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer had. Even the way they meet, which is a neat workaround, feels too hammy.

It's unfortunate that this is an issue at all, as it throws off much of the investment in their struggle. The 1961 film, while hammier, nails that, warts and all. That, and Anybodys actually feels like a character there. Sorry, the 1961 film wins.

Winner:

That was an unfortunate loss for Spielberg, but hopefully he can recover with…

Aesthetic:

VS

This one’s all based on personal preference.

It’d seem at first glance that it’d be an easy win for Spielberg; after all, it’s more grounded! You see that with a one-take pan of a demolition site set to The Jets’ whistling in the opening. Everything here is period-accurate and lived-in. Even the “pretty” shots have a tactile grime to them, and it helps accentuate the darker, more violent moments (like the knife fight during the rumble). The 1961 film, which goes for stylization and a ballet-like approach, seems to pale in comparison!

But you know what? I kind of like that earlier approach! True, it’s over-choreographed beyond belief, and the dramatic moments feel more jarring, but since this is a schmaltzy story anyway, I think it works. If anything, it holds up as a period piece, something the Spielberg movie can’t attest to. It also makes the Tony/Maria love story more believable.

So which do you prefer? A silly, ballet-like experience that’s heightened, even at the expense of accuracy, or a gritty, period-accurate piece that looks the part, but is much harder to swallow on the narrative front? Either way, there are pros and cons. It’s a tie.

Tie:

With that in mind, it’s time for…

Sound:

VS

Both movies have excellent music and sound. West Side Story is a Sondheim-Bernstein collaboration, so the lyrics and compositions are layered and memorable. Special shout-outs to “America” and “Officer Krupke”. The former’s a microcosm of the immigrant experience in the 1950’s, while the latter highlights the failures of society to actually help troubled youth. All of the songs are great, but those two in particular are excellent.

That said, the Spielberg adaptation adds to two of the songs and somewhat to a third. With “America”, the way in which Anita and Bernardo sing the lyrics feels more weighty. The 1961 version was fun, but it was a series of catty zingers. Spielberg’s rendition has them sing like an argumentative conversation, with both having valid points and moments of naivety. It also ends with them kissing, showing that while they might be at odds over their immigrant lives, they still love each other.

“Cool Boy”, on the other hand, is a clear knock-out for Spielberg. In the 1961 movie, it happens right after the rumble goes awry, as that’s when The Jets try and compose themselves. It’s a fun song, but it’s too silly for its own good. Spielberg’s take, however, comes earlier on and focuses on Tony wrestling Riff’s newly-purchased gun from his hands. Not only does this give weight to said gun and resolve a plot-hole, it’s a much more effective use of “Cool Boy”. It’s a dark song, and it needs something dark to go along with it.

As for a half-improvement, there’s “I Feel Pretty”. The 1961 movie loved this song, whereas Spielberg almost didn’t include it. The fact that he placed it after the rumble and set it in a hotel with maids, something that fits Maria better than a seamstress, works to its advantage, as does updating several of the lyrics. But he clearly didn’t care as much for it as you’d hope. It’s a shame, as you can sense the passion that Zegler’s Maria has.

One other side-note is the use of language. The 1961 movie sporadically tosses in Spanish, but not enough to be distracting. The Spielberg version uses Spanish constantly, even having a running joke of “If you want to be American, you have to speak English” permeate throughout. It’s not so seamless, even if it feels organic. And while you can gleam the context of what the characters say, a lack of subtitles in this day and age is a missed-opportunity.

I’m going with Spielberg. Not only do the songs (mostly) work, they fit the story better. In the 1961 adaptation, a lot of the songs feel rushed and come out of nowhere, which is weird considering the movie’s length. Spielberg’s songs, aside from fitting the tone better, don’t feel rushed.

Winner:

Time for the decider! This is…

Entertainment factor:

VS

Like everything else, which adaptation’s more enjoyable is based on personal preference. Here, it’s reliant on how you view this story: do you prefer a fluffier, dreamlike take with occasional pulls to reality? Or is a grounded take that calls attention to its shallow romance what you want? Both have their ups and downs. And both are a product of their times, one of the roadshow era and the other modern sensibilities.

I’m going for Spielberg’s take. I know it’s controversial to redo what’s regarded to be the greatest musical put to film, but it feels more tangible. I don’t fully buy into the conflict of the 1961 film, it feels like a side-story. The Spielberg movie, however, drives home that, yes, this is what was actually happening. The fighting is a short-term solution for a bigger problem-Bernardo even calls it “stupid”-but that problem created the fighting. The film doesn’t hide that gentrification and social inequality led to a power/race/class imbalance, hence why this story plays out like it does. Even Tony and Maria’s romance only lacks depth because it’s not allowed to properly develop. It’s what Romeo and Juliet was going for when Shakespeare wrote it initially.

Basically, Spielberg’s movie’s the better film. No disrespect to the 1961 classic, but it simply doesn’t measure up to what I feel is the superior adaptation from Spielberg.

Overall winner:

That about does it! Big thanks for reading this, and I’ll see you next time!

GoldenEye 007 Ranked

GoldenEye 007!

Not long ago, I wrote about my concerns revisiting this game on The Switch. Having now beaten it, I figured I’d share my thoughts while they were fresh in list form. So that’s what I’ll do. And yes, there’ll be spoilers. You’ve been warned.

Two disclaimers: one, I’m not including bonus levels, as they require specific unlocking conditions that I won’t abide by. And two, I’m discussing these levels on the easiest difficulty. If that bothers you…make your own damn list.

18. Train

I hate “Train”. I’m sorry. It’s not that the majority of it’s a shootout with every enemy on the train. That gets boring quickly, but if you time everything properly you can take everyone out without dying. It’s also not even shooting the breaks in every section of the train, because that’s relatively easy.

No, I hate this level because of the last objective. Ignoring how you need to shoot General Ourumov at the right angle to not accidentally hit Natalya, which is difficult if you struggle with hand-eye coordination, blasting open the floor grate with your watch is a pain. It doesn’t help that you only have 300 blasts and roughly a minute, or that you keep squatting whenever you get too close to the grate. Factor in that the bolts require multiple shots each, and that the aiming controls suck, and you’re left with constant failures. It’s maddening.

I’ve tried many suggestions, all to no avail: standing further from the grate reduces my accuracy, while standing too close makes me squat. Changing angles throws off my rhythm. Blasting the bolts before shooting Ourumov delays Natalya’s death. Aiming for both Ourumov and Xenia simultaneously might buy me more time, but not enough. I always beat this challenge accidentally after dozens of attempts. It’s less a challenge and more an exercise in futility.

17. Jungle

“Jungle” is a level I initially loved, but have slowly learned to hate over time. I feel bad, as it’s the only level where Natalya helps defeat enemies. She might be more vulnerable than you, but her marksman skills are excellent. That, and Xenia’s a fun mini-boss, leaving you a Rocket Launcher when you beat her. So why do I not like “Jungle”? Two reasons.

The first involves those blasted turrets. It’s bad enough that you’re heading into the lion’s den, you also have to take out weapons that require precision aiming. Considering this game’s aiming feature’s garbage, it’s a chore to take each turret out. Especially the one you climb a ladder for! That is, assuming you don’t realize that you can save energy by going the long way and sneaking up on it! Why was that ladder there again?

The second is that there are only three Body Armours total, and they’re in the first-half. Once you cross the bridge and confront Xenia, you’re on your own. Which sounds easy…until you remember that 75% of the enemies are in the cave. Even if you let Natalya take on a few herself, assuming she doesn’t get killed, you have to hope and pray that you don’t die. I didn’t even realize initially that the final stretch requires you to run past enemies, as they don’t stop coming otherwise!

16. Cradle

Speaking of obnoxious, “Cradle” is yet another example! Except, this time, it’s the final level. Who’d have thought confronting and defeating Alec would be laborious? I didn’t, even though I figured it out after multiple attempts! How do you mess this up?!

The big kicker here isn’t disabling the GoldenEye satellite, because that’s easy if you know what you’re doing. No, Alec’s the real challenge! He’s a cheap coward, shooting you before you can react and running away when you fire back. He’ll even send out his troops while he’s running away, making hitting them much more difficult. Yay!

To top it off, the finale requires you to climb to the bottom of the satellite’s antenna and shoot Alec. That sounds simple enough, but you can’t shoot in midair. And you need sharper reflexes than him, or you’ll fall to your death. Fortunately, the level’s manageable once you figure everything out, so it’s better than “Train” and “Jungle”. That, and there’s Body Armour near the beginning of the level.

15. Depot

Moving on to simply annoying, “Depot” reminds me of one of those games where you select doors and pray that you guessed where the prize was. That’s what it is in a nutshell: opening warehouse doors to find the train. It gets tiring, especially with all the enemies. Thankfully, you get plenty of good weapons, so it’s not too bad. It’s still annoying, though.

There are some aspects that make it bearable. For one, once you get the hang of it, it’s not that long a level. Nor is it that difficult. It’s rote memory mixed with light-rail shooting, made better by all the enemies. It’s also never boring, which is nice. And that you constantly acquire new guns makes for some interesting mixing-and-matching.

“Depot” is a mixed-bag. On one hand, the premise is irritating. On the other hand, it’s exciting. It’s rare that something can be both, but hey! That’s GoldenEye 007!

14. Control

The final entry that’s legitimately frustrating, “Control” is known amongst fans as the level that instantly triggers PTSD. Replaying it, it’s easy to see why. And while it’s not as bad as I remember, it’s still annoying. Specifically blowing up those Armoured Mainframes, of which there are 6! Leave it to Rare to make an objective more complicated than necessary!

“Control” is a two-fold level, both parts equally annoying. The primary annoyance is protecting Natalya as she hacks into GoldenEye. The challenge is moving back-and-forth and shooting waves of enemies, as they never stop coming to you. Fortunately, the technical limitations of The N64 mean that there aren’t more than a few at a time, so you can move around in-between kills. So while this it’s annoying, it’s manageable.

The hard part, however, is finding the last Armoured Mainframe. You can’t access it until Natalya has successfully hacked into the satellite, and it’s tucked away behind glass in a heavily-guarded room. I keep forgetting where it is, so I have to look it up. I’m also usually pretty low on health by this point, so I have to make sure I don’t die. This game, man…

13. Surface-2

How do you take a challenging level and make it worse? Simple: set it at night. It’s unfortunate that this game reuses levels, but “Surface-2” suffers from taking something that was already difficult and complicating it more by making it hard to see. Spatial geography being familiar isn’t helpful when it’s nighttime. Especially when that masks any changes to the layout.

That aside, how’s the level itself? Fine, I guess. Ignoring my complaints, having been here before does make it a little easier. I also appreciate the changes, like having outhouses near the end of the map. And I like how you have to explore the full map to find everything, including a key for an important objective.

Ultimately, this level’s a good stress reliever. Whether it’s blowing up a helicopter, or shooting incoming enemies, it’s a way to let out your frustrations over not seeing where anything is. And make no mistake, it’s hard to see. Which I get, repetition and all, but still. If “Surface-2” were set in the daytime, I’d probably like it more.

12. Statue

“Statue” has my favourite track in the OST. I said it. It also, with two exceptions, is the most-enjoyable level to shoot enemies in. Unfortunately, those exceptions pull it down several rankings. I don’t make the rules.

The first one is halfway through, where you encounter Janus. While Janus being Alec is a good twist, despite it bringing up plenty of unanswered questions, you’re forced to put your gun away the entire time. This’d be less-annoying if I remembered that, especially since the impulse when you see enemies is to shoot. Even walking up to Alec with your gun raised bungles the objective. That’s not fair!

The other moment comes at the end. Right after you save Natalya and retrieve the black box, you’re met with Mishkin’s men holding up weapons to her head. Once again, you need to put your gun away. And once again, that’s hard to remember. You have to let yourself be taken prisoner by Mishkin, basically. Which sucks.

11. Bunker-1

It was a toss-up between this and the repeat, but “Bunker-2” edges out because it’s more enjoyable. That’s not to downplay “Bunker-1”, which isn’t so bad. It’s a “get in and get out” level, with you infiltrating the bunker, doing “spy stuff” and promptly leaving. This “spy stuff” involves taking a picture of the spy satellite, finding the operations key, downloading a copy of it and throwing it on the ground. Oh, and not dying.

If this sounds too technical, it’s not. The level’s designed to be straightforward, with most of your objectives in the room near the exit. The one complication is that it can be easy to miss either the satellite screen and the key if you don’t know where to look for them. Or both, honestly. Both objectives also contain clues you’re expected to figure out. Smooth.

While this level isn’t bad, it gets held down by being too simple and short. Getting to the main room is a pain, especially with the security cameras alerting enemies to your presence, but you can whizz through it way too quickly. I like the retread for what it added, though. It’s those little differences that matter most. Speaking of which…

10. Bunker-2

“Bunker-2” is the superior level. I said it. It might be a repeat with a similar layout, but you’re already familiar with the place, have an ally this time and don’t need to be stealthy. You also start the level with the funniest part of the entire game. Seriously, you grab the escape key with your watch’s magnet, and you karate chop your guard to death. Never mind the logic, that’s hilarious!

I remember this level being irritating years ago, but time has been kind. I learned during this particular play-through that you don’t need Natalya until the end. She not only slows you down, but if you tag her along until she’s needed you’re forced to watch your back constantly. So I recommend waiting until you’re at the control room to go back to get her. I only wish I’d known that before…

The kicker is when Natalya accidentally triggers the countdown for the bunker’s explosion. It’s tense, and a little annoying, but it’s made easier by everything being a smooth escape from there. Simply shoot oncoming enemies and get out before the timer finishes counting down. This is also one of the more-lenient timers in the game. It’s a hair-raising finale to a superior retread of “Bunker-1”, too. Go figure.

9. Surface-1

“Surface-1” is the superior surface level. I mean that wholeheartedly. It’s not only more streamlined, it takes place during the daytime. Essentially, you can see where you’re going. A Winter level in the daytime where you can see makes a big difference! It’s also the first time you’re at this location, so no one’s expecting you.

The level itself is pretty straightforward: find the control tower, disable the ventilation shaft and enter the control room. While there’s not much going on, it’s a fun level to traverse. It’s also a good for atmosphere, something this game excels at. Because of the long stretches where nothing happens, you have time to take in your surroundings. Who’d have thought a level mostly consisting of narrow, interconnected pathways would be so…relaxing? I didn’t!

While not much happens outside of your objectives, it’s a fun level to return to. It’s also fun to get lost in because you can see where you’re going! You heard me! That’s right, a snow level in the daytime beats that same level at night! Take that, “Surface-2”!

8. Silo

A level so unattached to the film it’s based on that it might as well be filler, this one’s also kind of forgettable. It’s not long, it’s not deep, and there’s little to do. You simply take a photograph of your objective and leave, all while not harming any scientists. So if it’s all there is, then why’s it so high up? Because it’s fun. And don’t we need that every-so-often?

I’d say so! So what if it’s a filler level? And so what if it feels inconsequential? There are 20 levels in GoldenEye 007, 2 of them optional. Given that some of these filler levels were obnoxious (I’m looking at you, “Depot”!), isn’t it nice to enjoy “Silo” for what it is?

The one detail that sticks out most, surprisingly enough, is Ourumov’s briefcase. You acquire it by killing him early on, though what that briefcase does is a mystery. I’ve heard that this was an unfinished objective that Rare forgot to remove, but the lore of this briefcase is fascinating. Where was Ourumov going with it? And what was inside? Will we ever know?

7. Streets

A level with a countdown timer that’s way too generous, it’s clear that “Streets” and “Depot” should’ve been merged. While “Depot” plays out like an obnoxious game of chance, “Streets” has stakes. Plus, you get to ride in a tank! And the tank is actually important! Who doesn’t love that?

I know there’s little to this level save from “get to the next level within the time limit”. But so what? That doesn’t make it less fun riding around in a tank and running people over! It’s the closest this game will get to Grand Theft Auto, and it’s enjoyable because of that. Taking down enemies certainly helps.

I’m not sure what else to add. Um, you can crush cars? Did I mention that you can crush cars? Because I’m mentioning it now. Moving on.

6. Archives

Rewinding to the previous level, “Archives” is an escape level that requires precision and stealth. You and Natalya have been captured after the incident at “Statue”, and now you have to stop Alec’s dastardly plan. Along the way, you need to convince Mishkin, the man who arrested you and Natalya, that General Ourumov’s a traitor. Sounds simple, right? Well…kind of.

The trick is knowing where to look for Mishkin. There are so many locked doors in “Archives” that require keys, and that means looking everywhere. Even once you’ve convinced Mishkin, you have to plan your inevitable escape. Where would you go for that? Simple: through the windows.

Brilliant! Windows are usually not the answer to escaping from somewhere, so subverting conventions here is a nice change. It also helps that Natalya, usually a burden, suggests it, making this one of the few instances where she’s actually useful. (The other time is in “Jungle”, sadly.) Either way, this is my second-favourite of the later levels, which sounds strange considering how much fun “Streets” is.

5. Frigate

I completed “Frigate” on my recent play-through in one attempt. It’s also pretty straightforward. Those two details should make it another “Silo”, but it isn’t. It’s actually a lot of fun traversing through the ship and freeing the hostages. But yeah, don’t play this one with DK Mode on. You’ll regret it.

“Frigate” is a great example of an “in-and-out” level. With the exception of putting a tracking device on the helicopter, you do exactly that. You go in through a private boat, make your way around the interior, rescue the hostages and leave the way you came. It’s all about stealth here, really taking advantage of the “Secret Agent James Bond” moniker. It’s also lots of fun sniping terrorists in the head, I won’t lie.

The only time you do anything else is when you have to bug the helicopter. That part’s easy-peasy. I would’ve actually been fine with it being the only objective too, as it’s lots of fun traversing “Frigate”. It’s rare that a level with mostly shooting embraces this. And it’s not even my favourite example.

4. Facility

Like “Dam”, “Facility” is the most well-known part of GoldenEye 007. There are so many great moments: do I go with encountering Dr. Doak, a reference to one of the game’s programmers? The explosive rendezvous with Alec? Or how about, if you’re stealthy enough, sniping the soldier on the toilet from the ventilation shaft? To all of these questions, I simply answer “yes”.

I remember having lots of trouble with “Facility” as a kid, namely because I was 7 years-old. I kept going around in circles, eventually either giving up or dying from enemy fire. There were even a few times where I destroyed the security panels and realized that-oops-that wasn’t what I was supposed to do. When I got older, my challenges were transferred to blowing up the gas tanks. Nowadays, I can do everything in one go. But it’s fun anyway.

There are plenty details about “Facility” that make it excellent, but it’s the above that matters most. Like I said, the rendezvous with Alec’s the inciting incident. Ourumov basically shoots him in front of you. And while I have questions that’d constitute an entire blog post, for now it’s safe to say that this was really intense. It’s the perfect way to start GoldenEye 007, right after “Dam”. But even without “Dam” it’s great.

3. Dam

“Dam” is one of the best entry levels in an FPS game, let-alone a game period. It not only serves as a perfect tutorial level, it also is streamlined enough to orient you to what the game’s about. It’s a “get to the end goal” level, but the terrain’s your own little sandbox. It also has moments where you have to be patient like a good little spy, allowing you to take in the scenery. And it ends with a dive into the chasm below. Bravo.

If I have one complaint, it’s that the game’s dreaded aiming controls are first used here. To be fair, it’s only once, and it’s not that bad. But the lock on the gate should’ve been on a nearby wall instead of the centre of a fence, as shooting it can be a chore. I always dread that one spot, as I know my hand-eye coordination sucks that much. Alas!

The rest of the level’s a chef’s kiss. The beginning trek to the tunnel? Wonderful. Having to follow a freight truck that doesn’t even have a driver? A little creepy, but also wonderful. And that free-fall dive at the end? What can I say that hasn’t already been said?

2. Runway

If “Dam” was the perfect opening level, “Runway” is the perfect capper to it. The objective is simple: find the ignition key and dart to the escape plane. It sounds tough, but it’s not. If you have good fight-or-flight reflexes, then you should have no trouble. You even get an optional tank, though I doubt you’d need it.

I remember this level giving me anxiety. It’s not hard to see why, as you’re constantly being shot at. But in hindsight, it’s kind of funny that it did. Because while that might be adrenaline, it’s not bad if you know what you’re doing. Like the ending few seconds of “Train”, most of the bullets being fired won’t even hit you.

Let’s talk about that tank, though. You don’t need it. I beat the in-level’s time of completion without it. It also, embarrassingly enough, is the one vehicle I don’t know how to control, and I wish it wasn’t even there. But it’s optional, hence it doesn’t impact the enjoyment of “Runway”.

1. Caverns

This is the best level in GoldenEye 007. Remember how I said that “Streets” and “Depot” should’ve been a combined level? “Caverns” is a similar deal with “Control”, but I actually don’t mind it being its own experience. Why? Because it’s pure, unadulterated action, with no other objectives. You simply have to make it to the end without dying. The criteria of minimizing scientist casualties is automatically completed by not encountering any of them. Even radioing Jack Wade for help, which is annoying, is optional.

I’m not kidding when I say this is the most fun level. Yes, it’s a shameless filler level, delaying the inevitable encounter with Alec. And yes, it didn’t need to be its own level. But you know what? Sometimes you want to be a spy, and sometimes you want to be John Rambo. This is the latter instance.

Everything about “Caverns” is amazing! It even has secret routes that you can explore or avoid! Think about it: a level where parts are optional? And you’re not penalized for ignoring them? What more could you want? I can think of several answers to that question, but “Caverns” is still the definitive experience of the game’s 18 primary levels.

***

And there you go: my ranking of GoldenEye 007’s 18 levels. If only the game’s end credits were interesting too, but what can you do?