Gal Gadot as Diana in “Surprise Girl.” Picture: Clay Enos / DC Comics-Warner Bros. Footage
Hello Mickeroo: I simply learn your piece on “why superhero films/why now.” It bought me realizing that other than the unique Toby Maguire “Spider-Man” movie, I haven’t seen any others. Is there one or two which can be price my treasured consideration?
Michael Lipman, Mill Valley
Hello Michaelero: That relies on what you imply by being price your treasured consideration. Should you imply a film that’s amusing and diverting and that may supply some pleasure, then certain, there are a handful of superhero motion pictures that fall into that class. However when you imply, “Is there a superhero film that’s price my treasured time, that offers me one thing past momentary diversion, that gives a life-expanding expertise?” — then the reply, to date, isn’t any. By that prime normal, even the perfect superhero motion pictures — reminiscent of “Black Panther” and “Wonder Woman” — aren’t price seeing.
Martin Scorsese mentioned it: They’re simply not cinema. They take a variety of your time, they usually do provide you with one thing in return, nevertheless it’s not a lot.
Rudolph Valentino in “The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (1921). Picture: S.F. Silent Movie Competition
Expensive Mick LaSalle: So whom, amongst present actors, would you forged in “The Godfather?”
Ira Barg, San Francisco
Expensive Ira Barg: No one. The second has handed. That was 50 years in the past. You couldn’t get the identical film.
But it surely doesn’t imply that actors or appearing is worse.
In 1971, when “The Godfather” was being filmed, somebody might have noticed that it might be unimaginable to forged “The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (1921) as a result of there was nobody who might fill Rudolph Valentino’s footwear — which was true, however that wouldn’t imply that appearing was any worse in 1971 than 1921.
We consider nice motion pictures as monoliths, current on their very own, however nothing lives outdoors of time. Particularly with motion pictures, the environment and psychology of an period are main components, they usually can’t be replicated 20 years later, a lot much less 50.
A scene from “WALL-E.” Picture: Pixar Animation Studios 2008
Expensive Mick LaSalle: The primary film I ever noticed was “Bambi.” I had no concept it was unhealthy for kids. I’ve it and nonetheless at all times present it to the youngsters. Or did. Can I present them “WALL-E”?
Vaughn Warriner, Santa Clara
Expensive Vaughn Warriner: Completely. It’s completely protected. They’ll be asleep properly earlier than the end.
Elliott Gould in “The Lengthy Goodbye.” Picture: United Artists 1973
Greetings Mick: I simply watched the (1973) “The Lengthy Goodbye.” I’m curious to listen to your take.
Mike Reed, Danville
Greetings Mike: It’s a fairly good film that took on a basic ebook from a mildly unique, mildly humorous viewpoint. It amused folks in its day, however there’s actually no cause to observe it anymore, until you bear in mind the Nineteen Seventies or noticed it throughout its years of relevance and now wish to take a re-evaluation.
I can’t think about what, say, a 30-year-old would get out of it.
Angelina Jolie as Maleficent in a scene from “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil.” Picture: Disney
Expensive Mick LaSalle: I watched “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” (2019) and actually loved it. The critics on Rotten Tomatoes rated it at 39%, the viewers 95%. I can not perceive how there will be such a discrepancy within the ranking of this movie. Are you able to please enlighten me?
Robert Freud Bastin, Petaluma
Expensive Robert Freud Bastin: Positive. Return to the unique “Maleficent” (2014). Solely 75% of audiences preferred it, and it was a significantly better film. So why did a worse sequel get a greater ranking from audiences than the unique? Simple. As a result of the one individuals who noticed the sequel have been the individuals who preferred the unique. It was a self-selecting group, with the viewers taken totally from the 75% that gave the unique a excessive ranking.
In the meantime, critics — half of whom (I believe wrongly) underappreciated the primary “Maleficent” — preferred the sequel even much less, as a result of it wasn’t pretty much as good. Mainly, the critics have been the identical for each motion pictures, however the normal viewers for the sequel was totally different. That viewers was primed to love it it doesn’t matter what.
Have a query? Ask Mick LaSalle at [email protected]. Embody your title and metropolis for publication, and a cellphone quantity for verification. Letters could also be edited for readability and size.
Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5
