Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Reply to Topic
The Turning Point (1952)
This “A” picture from Paramount is an atypical noir, defined more by its mood, tone, and narrative structure. Directed by William Dieterle, his only other noir pictures are Rope of Sand (1949) and Dark City (1950). The photography by Lionel Lindon, while nicely done, is not at all evocative of the classic chiaroscuro style so typical of classic noir.
The cast is a stunning one for its day. William Holden, fresh off from Sunset Boulevard (1950), had become an overnight A-lister, and was perfectly cast as a suspicious world-weary big city newspaper reporter Jerry McKibbon, who is doubtful that the special investigator, played by Edmond O’Brien, is up to the task of taking on the leader of the city’s big gangster syndicate, played by Ed Begley. The investigator’s love interest, played by the lovely and unique Alexis Smith, becomes attracted to McKibbon, so there is a simmering love triangle background during the story.
As it develops, there is a veteran cop close to the investigator who is taking bribe money from the gangster boss, playing both ends against the middle. The rest of the story shows how the various relationships play out, leading to the inevitable outcome, but which has an uncharacteristic ending.
It’s noteworthy how many Hollywood famous character actors are featured in the film: Ed Begley, Tom Tully, Danny Dayton, Ray Teal, Whit Bissell, Neville Brand, and Don Porter are all featured in important roles. All of them were in high demand for character parts, and here they all earned their money.
The screenplay by Warren Duff was undoubtedly influenced by the recent U.S. Senate Kefauver Committee hearings investigating organized crime. In the film, during the committee hearings, we’re treated to a memorable wisecracking moll character played to perfection by a blonde Carolyn Jones in her first screen role. She was later famous for playing “Morticia” in TV’s The Addams Family in the mid-’60s.
The film is a classic newsman vs. gangster crime picture, done during the peak of the noir movement. Available on YouTube.
Doc’s rating: 7/10
X
Favorite Movies
I've only seen the first two, both of which I like quite a bit (I'd call The Hateful Eight a thriller though). I've heard of several of those though, so I'll keep an eye out for them.
I think western encompasses many other genres. Some are romances, comedies. adventures, actioneers, horrors, thrillers, and even courtroom dramas. One of its greatest strengths as a genre is how DIVERSE it is.
X
User Lists
I think western encompasses many other genres. Some are romances, comedies. adventures, actioneers, horrors, thrillers, and even courtroom dramas. One of its greatest strengths as a genre is how DIVERSE it is.
You've got the period trappings of the old west for wind-swept romance. You've got the thriller/horror aspect of a liminal space on the edge of law and order. You've got the gunfights and horseback-riding for your action. And so on and so on.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Great! Spoilers for peaches!
WARNING: spoilers below
So one of the only things I knew about the movie going in were many references to "the peach scene". As you might imagine, the fact that it seemed like all the fuss was just about him masturbating with a peach made me roll my eyes a bit. (Though I do think it's a great portrayal of the foolish directions many people--male and female--have gone in the name of teenage horniness).
But it's really a two-part thing, right?
So Oliver comes in and figures out what Elio did, and laughs about it. When he playfully picks up the peach, Elio says, "Don't." But Oliver persists, asking "Do you want to see something really sick?" Elio tries to wrestle it away, Oliver easily overpowers him, Elio says, "You're hurting me," Oliver retorts, "Then stop fighting," and then Elio breaks down and cries.
I see this as a crucial turning point between the two of them, as I think it's the first moment that Oliver realizes the emotional gravity of what's happening with Elio and where Elio has to confront what is probably some mix of body shame, embarrassment, and internalized homophobia.
That phrasing of "Want to see something really sick?" really hit me, because at that point Oliver's mindset is of kind of one-upsmanship. It's the "are we really doing this?", dare mode of a sexual relationship. It's a level of game playing that Elio isn't ready for. It's where Elio's facade really cracks. It's also a moment where Elio is saying no to something, and repeating that fact over and over, and he's being laughed over and disregarded. While it would obviously be a stretch to put the words "assault" and "consent" into that scene, there's a combination of physical and emotional vulnerability that left me with a lot sorrow for people who are overmatched in such moments.
Obviously Oliver immediately backs down when he realizes Elio is genuinely upset, but it gives you a preview of the heartbreak that's in store for Elio when their relationship ends. And for Oliver, I think it throws into stark relief the many dimensions of power that he has over Elio in terms of age, experience, authority, and actual physical strength. The person he's dealing with isn't a kid, but he's not really an adult either.
So I get why there's a bunch of snickering and winking because, you know, there's a peach full of semen. But I also think that their short interaction does a ton of heavy lifting in shifting the nature of their relationship and laying bare the dangers of a relationship with such a power imbalance.
So one of the only things I knew about the movie going in were many references to "the peach scene". As you might imagine, the fact that it seemed like all the fuss was just about him masturbating with a peach made me roll my eyes a bit. (Though I do think it's a great portrayal of the foolish directions many people--male and female--have gone in the name of teenage horniness).
But it's really a two-part thing, right?
So Oliver comes in and figures out what Elio did, and laughs about it. When he playfully picks up the peach, Elio says, "Don't." But Oliver persists, asking "Do you want to see something really sick?" Elio tries to wrestle it away, Oliver easily overpowers him, Elio says, "You're hurting me," Oliver retorts, "Then stop fighting," and then Elio breaks down and cries.
I see this as a crucial turning point between the two of them, as I think it's the first moment that Oliver realizes the emotional gravity of what's happening with Elio and where Elio has to confront what is probably some mix of body shame, embarrassment, and internalized homophobia.
That phrasing of "Want to see something really sick?" really hit me, because at that point Oliver's mindset is of kind of one-upsmanship. It's the "are we really doing this?", dare mode of a sexual relationship. It's a level of game playing that Elio isn't ready for. It's where Elio's facade really cracks. It's also a moment where Elio is saying no to something, and repeating that fact over and over, and he's being laughed over and disregarded. While it would obviously be a stretch to put the words "assault" and "consent" into that scene, there's a combination of physical and emotional vulnerability that left me with a lot sorrow for people who are overmatched in such moments.
Obviously Oliver immediately backs down when he realizes Elio is genuinely upset, but it gives you a preview of the heartbreak that's in store for Elio when their relationship ends. And for Oliver, I think it throws into stark relief the many dimensions of power that he has over Elio in terms of age, experience, authority, and actual physical strength. The person he's dealing with isn't a kid, but he's not really an adult either.
So I get why there's a bunch of snickering and winking because, you know, there's a peach full of semen. But I also think that their short interaction does a ton of heavy lifting in shifting the nature of their relationship and laying bare the dangers of a relationship with such a power imbalance.
WARNING: spoilers below
I just can't help but associate it with a semen cookbook that was memefied decades ago and have a superficial revulsion to the idea (I would be similarly grossed out if a lover bit my peach). I do think it lends a specificity and authenticity but at risk of being the cinematic equivalent of TMI and borders on lessening the effect due to being distracted by the “ew” element.
I just can't help but associate it with a semen cookbook that was memefied decades ago and have a superficial revulsion to the idea (I would be similarly grossed out if a lover bit my peach). I do think it lends a specificity and authenticity but at risk of being the cinematic equivalent of TMI and borders on lessening the effect due to being distracted by the “ew” element.
X
User Lists
I think this is a great and accurate reading of the scene.
WARNING: spoilers below
I just can't help but associate it with a semen cookbook that was memefied decades ago and have a superficial revulsion to the idea (I would be similarly grossed out if a lover bit my peach). I do think it lends a specificity and authenticity but at risk of being the cinematic equivalent of TMI and borders on lessening the effect due to being distracted by the “ew” element.
I just can't help but associate it with a semen cookbook that was memefied decades ago and have a superficial revulsion to the idea (I would be similarly grossed out if a lover bit my peach). I do think it lends a specificity and authenticity but at risk of being the cinematic equivalent of TMI and borders on lessening the effect due to being distracted by the “ew” element.
So here's something else I would add:
WARNING: spoilers below
Yes, of course there is an "ew" element. But you know what? People (and really I mean men) expect women to have semen in their mouths or swallow it. Is it "ew" because it's semen, or "ew" because the act of eating it is taking place independent (sort of) of the ejaculation? (This is rhetorical, we don't need to discuss this here. That's what Rock's thread is for).
I actually think that part of the "ew" element comes from the fact that consuming semen is inherently coded in our culture as an act of submission. There are lots of "ew" things that people do with or for someone else's body, and the "ew"/taboo is actually part of the turn on. I think that part of what's happening is seeing such an "alpha male" so willingly committing such an act.
I agree that it walks right up to the edge in terms of what you can put on screen so that the thematic weight of it isn't totally destroyed by people going "AHHHHHH! HE ATE THE **** PEACH!!!!"
But I think it works in part because Elio's reaction is of revulsion. It's revulsion partly bound up in his own body, partly bound up in his own actions, and partly bound up in what such a sex act would say about his relationship. I think that the scene does an admirable job of centering Elio's feelings (the peach is furthest from the camera and Elio is closest), especially with how quickly Oliver puts it down and it's never mentioned again once he realizes how upset Elio is.
Also, considering how relatively chaste the film is (I understand both lead actors had it in their contracts not to do frontal nudity and we don't see much outside of makeout sessions), it's important to have something visceral to help draw that line between lust/physical and emotional.
I actually think that part of the "ew" element comes from the fact that consuming semen is inherently coded in our culture as an act of submission. There are lots of "ew" things that people do with or for someone else's body, and the "ew"/taboo is actually part of the turn on. I think that part of what's happening is seeing such an "alpha male" so willingly committing such an act.
I agree that it walks right up to the edge in terms of what you can put on screen so that the thematic weight of it isn't totally destroyed by people going "AHHHHHH! HE ATE THE **** PEACH!!!!"
But I think it works in part because Elio's reaction is of revulsion. It's revulsion partly bound up in his own body, partly bound up in his own actions, and partly bound up in what such a sex act would say about his relationship. I think that the scene does an admirable job of centering Elio's feelings (the peach is furthest from the camera and Elio is closest), especially with how quickly Oliver puts it down and it's never mentioned again once he realizes how upset Elio is.
Also, considering how relatively chaste the film is (I understand both lead actors had it in their contracts not to do frontal nudity and we don't see much outside of makeout sessions), it's important to have something visceral to help draw that line between lust/physical and emotional.
Anyway, I think the scene is brilliant and they must have known that the visceral elements of it had the potential to derail all of the great emotional work happening, so good for them for taking that risk. Kudos especially to Chalamet for the fraught, jangled emotional energy he brought to that performance and that scene in particular.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
/_derived_jpg_q90_310x470_m0/22564781_PA_Frankenstein%20sest%20echappe_2.jpg)
May Contain Spoilers...
If I'd never heard of "Frankenstein" I might rate this movie higher, but it's impossible to not compare it to the novel or other motion pictures that preceded it.
This version has little to do with the novel - with only Victor, Elizabeth and the Creature remaining from the book.
Victor Frankenstein's assistant in the movie seems to be an amalgam of Doctor Waldman (Victor's mentor from the novel), Fritz (Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant & minion in the 1931 movie version) and Henry Clerval (Victor's best friend from the novel). The assistant is named Paul - he starts out as young Victor's tutor, then becomes his lab assistant & partner, but tries to turn Victor away from his obsession with reanimation as a friend and ultimately turns against Victor.
While the acting was fine, my issues with this film are:
Why did they pick Christopher Lee as the monster? He made a great Dracula, but as Frankenstein's creation he's kind of lacking, He's gross-enough looking, but the make-up looked cheap (and oh that wig)! And while Lee was tall, he was hardly physically imposing - and thus made a rather lame monster.
Unlike the Karloff version, this one lacks any personality that garners sympathy. Karloff's creature only killed in response to torment or by accident, but Lee's creature seems to kill mindlessly yet intentionally. This creature is nothing more than a mute zombie that tries to kill anyone it encounters. The sympathy for Karloff's monster as a tormented & tortured soul that still had the potential for kindness is what made 1931's Frankenstein a success - that same quality is completely lacking in this movie.
Even Victor, while always being of questionable ethics in other versions, was not a murderer himself - yet, in this film he is.
Kudos to Hazel Court for being such a looker and displaying some dazzling cleavage in the later part of the film!
May Contain Spoilers...
If I'd never heard of "Frankenstein" I might rate this movie higher, but it's impossible to not compare it to the novel or other motion pictures that preceded it.
This version has little to do with the novel - with only Victor, Elizabeth and the Creature remaining from the book.
Victor Frankenstein's assistant in the movie seems to be an amalgam of Doctor Waldman (Victor's mentor from the novel), Fritz (Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant & minion in the 1931 movie version) and Henry Clerval (Victor's best friend from the novel). The assistant is named Paul - he starts out as young Victor's tutor, then becomes his lab assistant & partner, but tries to turn Victor away from his obsession with reanimation as a friend and ultimately turns against Victor.
While the acting was fine, my issues with this film are:
Why did they pick Christopher Lee as the monster? He made a great Dracula, but as Frankenstein's creation he's kind of lacking, He's gross-enough looking, but the make-up looked cheap (and oh that wig)! And while Lee was tall, he was hardly physically imposing - and thus made a rather lame monster.
Unlike the Karloff version, this one lacks any personality that garners sympathy. Karloff's creature only killed in response to torment or by accident, but Lee's creature seems to kill mindlessly yet intentionally. This creature is nothing more than a mute zombie that tries to kill anyone it encounters. The sympathy for Karloff's monster as a tormented & tortured soul that still had the potential for kindness is what made 1931's Frankenstein a success - that same quality is completely lacking in this movie.
Even Victor, while always being of questionable ethics in other versions, was not a murderer himself - yet, in this film he is.
Kudos to Hazel Court for being such a looker and displaying some dazzling cleavage in the later part of the film!
X
Favorite Movies
By Clayton Hartley - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13287110
Almost Famous - (2000)
I've never had a great urge to see Almost Famous, but when it showed up as one of the few movies on the 2000s Countdown I hadn't seen I finally locked it in. It was about as good as it could be for me - I enjoy any story I can vicariously insert myself in, with me wanting to be both William (Patrick Fugit) or one of the rockers in this, although the music industry and rock music is only glamourized part of the time - the rest devoted to a more cynical view of the whole business. Good to see Noah Taylor, and Frances McDormand towers over the rest of the cast performance-wise. I'm not a great lover of Cameron Crowe's movies, but *looks around, feeling awkward - and whispers : "I liked Vanilla Sky"*.
7.5/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma
We miss you Takoma
Latest Review : There Will Be Blood (2007)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I guess I would just say that I reject the idea of "race-swapping" outright. White men have played just about every damn character (often indigenous peoples and even in black-face) since the dawn of cinema. And now if you have a non-white actor play a role "that was written as white (gasp!) it's somehow this big f*cking deal? Why are some people so worried about this? Just relax the sphincters a bit and let everybody have a turn for god's sake.
Moving onto to Black Adam, this is a film with a centered political message. The main theme of the film is imperialism the idea that a country wants it's own hero and that the rest of the world is wrong to come in and overthrow it and colonize it. It's not a bad idea but this is what the JSA looks like from the source material
What we ended up with was
Hawkman - the race swapped character who's personality was changed to fit an antithetical version of the lead and foster the current stereotype.
Cyclone - Another gender/race swap using a minor character instead of the major one (Red Tornado). She's basically written as a perfect person who can do everything. Let's make the black female in the film look as good and uncomplex as possible so we said that we did it. And we'll pair her with
Atom Smasher - The white guy who unlike Hawkman and Cyclone has all the flaws in the film. He's the bumbling idiot who doesn't deserve to be there the comic relief.
Doctor Fate - a dying old man who plays the mystic role but also sends the message that time moves on. He exists to be replaced.
This isn't some deep analyze of the film this is the shallow one dimensional antagonists of the film. The problem with race swaps in this movie is it compromises the political message you are already trying to tell. You are wearing a hat...and then you are putting another hat on top of that hat.
It's also not something that I am suddenly not okay with. This has been derivative over the last 10 years.
(2013) Man of Steel - Perry White - Superman's Boss - switched to Laurence Fishburne
(2016) Suicide Squad - Deadshot - team leader switched to Will Smith
(2019) SHAZAM - Jebediah O' Keenan - ancient wizard who gives Shazam his powers - switched to Djimon Hounsou
(2022) The Batman - James Gordon - the commissioner of Gotham and Batman's main police friend - race swapped to Jeffery Wright
How are these new stereotypes going to look 50 years from now? Because that's what these films are creating a new stereotype. Taking POC and putting them in a different box isn't a good thing
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Black authority portrayals are a modern cliche now? Here I thought it was sign of the times recognizing the advancement in their respective careers at a time where it had been denied to them.
Mr Tibbs just rolled in his grave.
Mr Tibbs just rolled in his grave.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Silverado.
A welcome exception to the rule.
Black authority portrayals are a modern cliche now? Here I thought it was sign of the times recognizing the advancement in their respective careers at a time where it had been denied to them.
Mr Tibbs just rolled in his grave.
Mr Tibbs just rolled in his grave.
"Black authority portrayals" "sign of the times"
It's also a problem because you are telling a false narrative.
"recognizing the advancement in their respective careers"
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
You do understand that you illustrate the exact problem with your statement.
Tying race to a type of character is a very bad thing that has long term negative consequences. For in the example in Black Adam taking a pretty important political massage and muddling it with US racial politics. Tells international kids yeah the US is going to come into your country and destabilize your region...but it'll be diverse group of people destabilize your country.
It's also a problem because you are telling a false narrative.
That is a very dangerous and corrosive way of thinking. It's like saying that black people in this country aren't poor look at all of these rich athletes and rappers. See the problem doesn't exist buy product. You are also raising a generation of children who are being told bad guys are white good guys are black. What are the long term consequences of setting a false race based narrative. Just because you feel like these new stereotypes are fine and good doesn't mean that it's not going to have serious issues later on.
Tying race to a type of character is a very bad thing that has long term negative consequences. For in the example in Black Adam taking a pretty important political massage and muddling it with US racial politics. Tells international kids yeah the US is going to come into your country and destabilize your region...but it'll be diverse group of people destabilize your country.
It's also a problem because you are telling a false narrative.
That is a very dangerous and corrosive way of thinking. It's like saying that black people in this country aren't poor look at all of these rich athletes and rappers. See the problem doesn't exist buy product. You are also raising a generation of children who are being told bad guys are white good guys are black. What are the long term consequences of setting a false race based narrative. Just because you feel like these new stereotypes are fine and good doesn't mean that it's not going to have serious issues later on.
Comic books movies are hardly indicative of any real progression, other than offering roles to those who have been long denied such roles. Oh no.
It’s strange that in all of your examples you ignored the case of the Ancient One in Dr Strange being represented as a white woman.
I don’t honestly care about this gender/identity/skin color swapping for the sake of representation. Is it often contrived?
Sure.
Do I care?
Nope. Why should I? (Representation is a good thing after all, regardless).
There is nothing insidious, as you suggest, going on here.
To complain about such things as to how it retains towards a film is the cinema equivalent of grasping low hanging fruit.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
That is a lot of words and weird anxiety regarding black people getting a role we might normally expect a white person to get.
I'm still not understanding why I should give a ****. Or why it makes a movie worse.
I'm still not understanding why I should give a ****. Or why it makes a movie worse.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
PARTY TIME
THE MOVIE
(2009, Fernández París)
THE MOVIE
(2009, Fernández París)
"In the mix is where you find the flavor. If there weren't any mixes, there wouldn't be Puerto Ricans."
Set in the late 1980s, Party Time: The Movie follows Javier (Rafael Albarran) and Laura (Suheil Martin), two teenagers from different cliques at the school that decide to join forces to participate in a dance competition at the show; something that Laura has been dreaming of, while also giving Javier a chance to bond with the girl of his dreams.
You can probably guess where the story goes from there. Although the script does incorporate some nice local touches, the basics of the story have been done dozens of times. But regardless of how predictable the story is, the film manages to be fun. Most of it is because of the cast, all of which have pretty good chemistry. The performances from Albarran and Martin feel natural, and the way their relationship develops, although expected, makes sense.
Grade:
Full review on my Movie Loot
__________________
Check out my podcast:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
That is a lot of words and weird anxiety regarding black people getting a role we might normally expect a white person to get.
I'm still not understanding why I should give a ****. Or why it makes a movie worse.
I'm still not understanding why I should give a ****. Or why it makes a movie worse.
__________________
X
User Lists
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
May Contain Spoilers...
If I'd never heard of "Frankenstein" I might rate this movie higher, but it's impossible to not compare it to the novel or other motion pictures that preceded it.
This version has little to do with the novel - with only Victor, Elizabeth and the Creature remaining from the book.
Victor Frankenstein's assistant in the movie seems to be an amalgam of Doctor Waldman (Victor's mentor from the novel), Fritz (Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant & minion in the 1931 movie version) and Henry Clerval (Victor's best friend from the novel). The assistant is named Paul - he starts out as young Victor's tutor, then becomes his lab assistant & partner, but tries to turn Victor away from his obsession with reanimation as a friend and ultimately turns against Victor.
While the acting was fine, my issues with this film are:
Why did they pick Christopher Lee as the monster? He made a great Dracula, but as Frankenstein's creation he's kind of lacking, He's gross-enough looking, but the make-up looked cheap (and oh that wig)! And while Lee was tall, he was hardly physically imposing - and thus made a rather lame monster.
Unlike the Karloff version, this one lacks any personality that garners sympathy. Karloff's creature only killed in response to torment or by accident, but Lee's creature seems to kill mindlessly yet intentionally. This creature is nothing more than a mute zombie that tries to kill anyone it encounters. The sympathy for Karloff's monster as a tormented & tortured soul that still had the potential for kindness is what made 1931's Frankenstein a success - that same quality is completely lacking in this movie.
Even Victor, while always being of questionable ethics in other versions, was not a murderer himself - yet, in this film he is.
Kudos to Hazel Court for being such a looker and displaying some dazzling cleavage in the later part of the film!
May Contain Spoilers...
If I'd never heard of "Frankenstein" I might rate this movie higher, but it's impossible to not compare it to the novel or other motion pictures that preceded it.
This version has little to do with the novel - with only Victor, Elizabeth and the Creature remaining from the book.
Victor Frankenstein's assistant in the movie seems to be an amalgam of Doctor Waldman (Victor's mentor from the novel), Fritz (Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant & minion in the 1931 movie version) and Henry Clerval (Victor's best friend from the novel). The assistant is named Paul - he starts out as young Victor's tutor, then becomes his lab assistant & partner, but tries to turn Victor away from his obsession with reanimation as a friend and ultimately turns against Victor.
While the acting was fine, my issues with this film are:
Why did they pick Christopher Lee as the monster? He made a great Dracula, but as Frankenstein's creation he's kind of lacking, He's gross-enough looking, but the make-up looked cheap (and oh that wig)! And while Lee was tall, he was hardly physically imposing - and thus made a rather lame monster.
Unlike the Karloff version, this one lacks any personality that garners sympathy. Karloff's creature only killed in response to torment or by accident, but Lee's creature seems to kill mindlessly yet intentionally. This creature is nothing more than a mute zombie that tries to kill anyone it encounters. The sympathy for Karloff's monster as a tormented & tortured soul that still had the potential for kindness is what made 1931's Frankenstein a success - that same quality is completely lacking in this movie.
Even Victor, while always being of questionable ethics in other versions, was not a murderer himself - yet, in this film he is.
Kudos to Hazel Court for being such a looker and displaying some dazzling cleavage in the later part of the film!
And yes, this is different from the book and previous movies in much the same way that the previous movies were a departure from the book itself.
Well you are actually going back 40-50-100 years. It's like when people say black people are only shown as maids, criminals, and victims you are talking about something that goes back to point when most of those actors are dead. The problem with the "black authority figure" is it's a modern cliiche it's a disposable character that doesn't really have any agency it simple exists to make people feel better about the movie they are watching. You think it's a good message because the character is "positive" well hold onto your socks but this isn't new...before every movie had the black authority figure they had the "magical negro".
Moving onto to Black Adam, this is a film with a centered political message. The main theme of the film is imperialism the idea that a country wants it's own hero and that the rest of the world is wrong to come in and overthrow it and colonize it. It's not a bad idea but this is what the JSA looks like from the source material
What we ended up with was
Hawkman - the race swapped character who's personality was changed to fit an antithetical version of the lead and foster the current stereotype.
Cyclone - Another gender/race swap using a minor character instead of the major one (Red Tornado). She's basically written as a perfect person who can do everything. Let's make the black female in the film look as good and uncomplex as possible so we said that we did it. And we'll pair her with
Atom Smasher - The white guy who unlike Hawkman and Cyclone has all the flaws in the film. He's the bumbling idiot who doesn't deserve to be there the comic relief.
Doctor Fate - a dying old man who plays the mystic role but also sends the message that time moves on. He exists to be replaced.
This isn't some deep analyze of the film this is the shallow one dimensional antagonists of the film. The problem with race swaps in this movie is it compromises the political message you are already trying to tell. You are wearing a hat...and then you are putting another hat on top of that hat.
It's also not something that I am suddenly not okay with. This has been derivative over the last 10 years.
(2013) Man of Steel - Perry White - Superman's Boss - switched to Laurence Fishburne
(2016) Suicide Squad - Deadshot - team leader switched to Will Smith
(2019) SHAZAM - Jebediah O' Keenan - ancient wizard who gives Shazam his powers - switched to Djimon Hounsou
(2022) The Batman - James Gordon - the commissioner of Gotham and Batman's main police friend - race swapped to Jeffery Wright
How are these new stereotypes going to look 50 years from now? Because that's what these films are creating a new stereotype. Taking POC and putting them in a different box isn't a good thing
Moving onto to Black Adam, this is a film with a centered political message. The main theme of the film is imperialism the idea that a country wants it's own hero and that the rest of the world is wrong to come in and overthrow it and colonize it. It's not a bad idea but this is what the JSA looks like from the source material
What we ended up with was
Hawkman - the race swapped character who's personality was changed to fit an antithetical version of the lead and foster the current stereotype.
Cyclone - Another gender/race swap using a minor character instead of the major one (Red Tornado). She's basically written as a perfect person who can do everything. Let's make the black female in the film look as good and uncomplex as possible so we said that we did it. And we'll pair her with
Atom Smasher - The white guy who unlike Hawkman and Cyclone has all the flaws in the film. He's the bumbling idiot who doesn't deserve to be there the comic relief.
Doctor Fate - a dying old man who plays the mystic role but also sends the message that time moves on. He exists to be replaced.
This isn't some deep analyze of the film this is the shallow one dimensional antagonists of the film. The problem with race swaps in this movie is it compromises the political message you are already trying to tell. You are wearing a hat...and then you are putting another hat on top of that hat.
It's also not something that I am suddenly not okay with. This has been derivative over the last 10 years.
(2013) Man of Steel - Perry White - Superman's Boss - switched to Laurence Fishburne
(2016) Suicide Squad - Deadshot - team leader switched to Will Smith
(2019) SHAZAM - Jebediah O' Keenan - ancient wizard who gives Shazam his powers - switched to Djimon Hounsou
(2022) The Batman - James Gordon - the commissioner of Gotham and Batman's main police friend - race swapped to Jeffery Wright
How are these new stereotypes going to look 50 years from now? Because that's what these films are creating a new stereotype. Taking POC and putting them in a different box isn't a good thing
Open Range I think also qualifies. And as far as something more recent I loved Old Henry. The Ballad of Lefty Brown was also not bad. Slow West. The Homesman. Appaloosa. They might be spaced out but there's good stuff out there.