VULCANIZADORA

Over the last two years I’ve been struggling with the idea of homages and references in modern movies after an appearance on a movie podcast that will probably never see the light of day. If you’ve been following this blog for the last 15 years or keeping up with my Twitter/X activity, then you know homages and references are pretty much all I do outside of the occasional non-PINNLAND EMPIRE article. I will never hide the fact that I find similarities between films fascinating but at a certain point are modern directors getting carried away? Does anyone want to try and make something “new”? Is that even possible? I know everything is influenced by something but most new movies aren’t even trying to hide it. 

In the case of Joel Potrykus I guess this is to be expected. I’ve written about most of his films on here with plenty of interview excepts and he never hides the fact that his films are often heavily influenced by older filmmakers. His latest movie is no exception. 

Potrykus pays homage to some of the same filmmakers he’s referenced in the past.

The 400 Blows/
The Alchemist Cookbook/
Vulcanizadora

Made In Britain /
Funny Games /
Vulcanizadora

Gummo / Vulcanizadora

I’m also convinced there’s a few nods to Buffalo 66…

Buffalo 66 / Culcanizadora

Buffalo 66 / Culcanizadora

Outside of those moments, the movie itself is sort of an unofficial/loose remake…

Gerry / Vulcanizadora

In addition to being a sequel to his 2014 film; Buzzard, Vulcanizadora is Potrykus doing his iteration of Gus Van Sant’s Gerry. Much like how Rick Alverson wanted to make his version of Two Lane Blacktop with Entertainment (2015) or how Steven Soderbergh wanted to make what he felt was a more digestible version of Tarkovsky’s Solaris, Potrykus is doing something with Vulcanizadora that I’m sure a lot of filmmakers want to do but wouldn’t want to be disrespectful to their heroes. I’m sure most cinephiles (especially filmmaker cinephiles) have those movies that they wish they could tweak or change to benefit their own personal taste. That’s what Joel Potrykus is doing. Personally, I enjoy this unofficial retweak of Gerry and he approaches Van Sant’s material with the utmost respect. 

Gus Van Sant is no stranger to this either. Not only did he have the balls to remake a classic like Hitchcock’s Psycho, but years after it bombed he brought up the idea of remaking his remake as an experiment. 

Every few years I get on a heavy Van Sant kick.

I rewatched Gerry and I had kind of forgotten all about it. It ended at a place where I thought it started to really get interesting. I was like, "I thought these guys were going out there on a mission. I should write that movie instead." That's what this movie is - Joel Potrykus, Variety 

Both films follow two friends out in the wilderness on a vague mission that ends with a fatality. The difference is Potrykus really delves in to what happens when the credits roll. Van Sant was never interested in that. Some might think remaking a film just so you can resolve something that was never meant to be resolved is a little arrogant. That’s perfectly understandable to think that. Are you really interested in seeing what happens when Jeanne Dielman finally gets arrested for murdering her john? Do you want to know what’s in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction? Do you want a more literal explanation of Mulholland Drive? Probably not. But there is some serious grief and self-reflection that would come along with the actions that take place in Gerry/Vulcanizadora (strangely enough, the average person that does want an explanation for open-ended/abstract movies probably wouldn’t like this).

At the end of the day it’s really up to you if you want to sit through another loose remake/homage-heavy new movie or not. It’s understandable if you don’t, but I found this movie and its approach interesting and it sort skates around my growing cynicism towards comparisons, similarities and references. 

CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD

Captain America: Brave New World is one of those Marvel movies that you sit through just to get to the mid and post-credit scenes. I know that sounds harsh, and it’s not like it’s bad, but this is one of those movies that feels like a minor puzzle piece for the next ensemble Avengers movie rather than a memorable standalone story (it makes perfect sense that this was released in February instead of the summer). This isn’t exactly disposable but it’s one or two levels away from that. 

This movie had some minor/medium-sized issues out the gate thanks to the “anti-woke” and so-called “woke” audiences. It’s unfortunate that movies with Black actors in them cause so much reactionary nonsense from both sides because there is some worthy dialogue and critical analysis to be had about this movie. Instead, you have some people on one side mad because a Black guy is playing Captain America while folks on the other side of the argument are disingenuously invested because they’re motivated by antagonizing racist people. You know the type - the ones that care more about upsetting hypothetical Maga Bros than enjoying a piece of art and/or entertainment. This is a bigger issue that extends beyond the MCU. Everyone is motivated by disingenuous reactionaryism now more than ever, and it has spilled over in to art like never before. Instead of people deciding on their own if they genuinely like or dislike something, they wait and see what their opposition thinks and then they base their decision on that. Art is suffering because of this. Everyone is putting nuance and intellectualism aside in favor of poking at people that already don’t like them. It's like everyone is still stuck in this Jr. High mentality...

The ingredients were there for a potential fresh new chapter. Part of the new Captain America story picks up with the Isaiah Bradley/O.G. super soldier storyline from the Falcon & Winter Soldier show from a years back. All that stuff along with the inclusion of Giancarlo Esposito’s portrayal of the mid-level villain; Sidewinder should have been the sole focus. In the same way that the Doctor Strange sequel was it’s own standalone attempt at a fun horror movie or Shang-Chi was an attempt at a martial arts movie, Captain America: Brave New World could have been it’s own standalone action genre movie with Sidewinder as sole the villain. But for some reason Marvel felt the need to tie up the loose ends to a 17 year old movie that I’m pretty sure most people forgot about. As I stated in my last entry on the Thunderbolts, Brave New World is an unofficial sequel to The Incredible Hulk (2008) except without The Hulk. The storylines concerning Thaddeuus Ross’ Red Hulk and the re-emergence of Samuel Sterns/The Leader certainly deserved to be explored but why not just do that in an actual Hulk movie? I get the sense that Marvel studios isn’t interested in making another solo Hulk movie (they haven’t done one since Ed Norton). If that’s the case – just leave it alone. Sure there will be some unresolved loose ends but I don’t recall too many people asking about the return of Tim Blake Nelson’s Leader over the last 2 decades. The present-day MCU has far too many characters and storylines. I try to keep to up with all of the Marvel movies and shows but I’m not a comic book reader or too involved with all the MCU internet discourse. I'm a casual fan. Maybe I’m in the dark on this but were people really clamoring for Shang-Shi on the big screen or the Marvels or a post-mortem Black Widow solo movie? The problem is for as uninterested as I am with those projects, they are connected to other projects that I did find interesting like Thunderbolts* or Wandavision. So I guess you have to take the good/somewhat interesting with the bad/uninteresting.

The storylines concerning Isaiah Bradley and Ross/Sterns are connected in a clever way, but with a few easy changes to the script they could have been two separate movies. The writers managed to craft a clever way for Cap to defeat Thaddeus Ross/Red Hulk, but at the end of the day that isn’t an interesting matchup. A big part of the new Captain America storyline is that Sam Wilson/Falcon isn’t a super soldier or a mutant. Yes he has a special suit with wings and vibranium upgrades, but it’s nothing on the level of Ironman's suit. He’s an exceptional soldier but still has regular abilities at the end of the day. A showdown with someone like Red Hulk seems like a bit of mismatch. But that’s just my opinion. 

It would have also been nice if Giancarlo Esposito embraced his loud goofy side when playing Sidewinder but I guess we have to accept that fact that he'll be playing some slight variation of "Gustavo Fring" for the rest of his career.

Captain America: Brave New World is kind of two movies in one which is unfortunate because the load has been blown. I was never totally opposed to revisiting the loose ends from the 2008 Hulk movie but they should have started on a smaller scale with Sidewinder/Isaiah Bradley and worked their way up to a bigger film with Thaddeus Ross/Red Hulk in a buddy film with the new Captain America teaming up with David Banner/Hulk. 

THUNDERBOLTS*

The most interesting thing about the present-day Marvel cinematic universe is that as long as a character doesn’t die, there’s a chance they’ll be back at some point for one scene or an entire movie (even if a character does die, they’ll find some silly way to bring them back). After 15 years we saw Tim Roth’s Abomination brought back for She-Hulk. Ben Kingsley reprised his role as the fake Mandarin in Shang-Chi. Even the most recent Captain America film is a continuation of the (17 year old) Ed Norton Hulk movie. It’s honestly a Hulk sequel without Hulk. Thunderbolts* is the culmination of all this. Outside of Sebastian Stan’s Winter Soldier, I didn't have any emotional investment in supporting characters from the Black Widow solo movie or the Ant Man sequel or Wyatt Russell’s unlikeable “U.S. Agent” from the Falcon & Winter Soldier show, but Thunderbolts* managed to make me care about them for two hours.

Now…this was far from perfect. Enjoyable and fun but there were a few things that bothered me. I get that the underlying theme with this movie was self-doubt, insecurity and depression, but that doesn’t mean the color palette had to convey that for the entirety of the movie. I don’t know why so many comic book-based superhero movies refuse to take on a fun & colorful aesthetic. I make a point to say this because when I saw this in the theater, they showed the very colorful trailer for James Gunn’s Superman beforehand. The visuals from that trailer were so fresh in my mind that is made Thunderbolts* looks a little drab in comparison. 

Sidenote - I'm not exactly sure who James Gunn pissed off but everyone seems to suddenly dislike him and they're taking it out on his latest movie (before even seeing it). Last time I checked, between the new Suicide Squad, Peacemaker and The Guardians Of The Galaxy, I thought everyone liked him. 

The drabness is also highlighted when you compare scenes from Thunderbolts* and the movies that it borrows from…

The Matrix /
Thunderbolts*

Ghost In The Shell /
Thunderbolts

 

I also don’t know why so many post-End Game Marvel films refuse to commit to a full-time villain. Someone completely evil in the vein of early bad guys like Ironmonger, Red Skull or Abomination. There are some obvious exceptions but these days, Marvel always feels the need to give a sappy backstory to the villain or put in some subplot or flashback that makes them sympathetic or an anti-hero more than a full villain. Namor certainly did unforgivable things in Black Panther 2, but his reasoning sort of made sense and by the end of the movie he only ended up being kind of a villain. Thaddeus Ross/Red Hulk absolutely broke the law but by the end of the movie he’s reunited with his daughter and we kind of feel bad for this pitiful old man with a weak heart. Between Age Of Ultron, Wandavision and the Doctor Strange Sequel – they can't seem to decide what side Scarlett Witch is on from one story to the next. The same applies to Loki. I understand that the source material does this with characters from time to time but I just think the movies are going a little overboard. Strangely enough, Thunderbolts* is a collection of “almost-villains” and anti-heroes from pre-existing Marvel stories that finally get to do good and/or fully redeem themselves.

Taskmaster (R) got the Slipknot in Suicide Squad (L) treatment

Without spoiling too much, I’m not exactly sure why Olga Kurylenko was brought back if they were going to make her character so disposable. But again – this is Marvel. Maybe we’ll see her again.

This might be extra nitpicky but there’s also no excuse for the some the background inconsistencies. At the end of the movie there’s a big showdown where the Thunderbolts drive a truck through the ground floor of a building and have a shootout with a s.w.a.t. team in the middle of Manhattan. If you pay attention to the people in background – everyone is going on about their day as nothing is happening. No onlookers, no screaming no panic or anything. This becomes inconsistent because minutes later Sentry terrorizes the city and suddenly the same background players react in terror. To me, there’s no excuse for that.

Complaints and criticisms aside, this was a fun movie with a consistent tone that allows humor and wittiness at the right time in comparison to something like Thor Love & Thunder which felt like three different unrelated movies mushed together. It’s unfortunate that we’re in a lengthy period of Marvel fatigue because there are a few exceptional movies from the last few years that are good/fun/entertaining, but get lost in the shuffle (I still think Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is really good). I’m not fully sold on the Thunderbolts* ending or the way the film’s actual villain was let off the hook. But, like the final scene with Namor in Black Panther 2, I guess we’ll have to wait and see how the relationship between our heroes and the “almost villain” will play out. 

Julia Louis Dreyfus’s Valentina Allegra de Fontaine is, in my personal opinion, the perfect comic book villain performance. Unfortunately they don’t fully commit to her being completely bad (even though, according to what’s presented in the movie, she is indirectly responsible for the deaths of lots of innocent people).

While there is of course a post-credit scene that sets up a much bigger story for the future, Thunderbolts* did feel like it’s own individual movie instead of a feature length means to a 60 second post-credit scene like a handful of recent/semi-recent Marvel movies. I’m not too excited for the next big Avengers movie but I do look forward to the next Thunderbolts*/New Avengers chapter.

THE FOUL KING

Now that the Venn Diagram crossover between professional wrestling and cinema has reached an all-time high, perhaps it’s the perfect time for a re-evaluation of Kim Jee-Woon’s Foul King. It’s completely understandable that this movie isn’t as well known as something like The Wrestler or The Iron Claw. Generally speaking, foreign films still have an unfair stigma attached to them when it comes to English speaking audiences. There’s a good amount of mainstream English speaking audiences that consider anything with subtitles to be “slow” or “artsy”. We see it every day on social media - An actor or filmmaker are asked to name their favorite movies during a press tour and when they list something that isn’t Star Wars or Pulp Fiction they’re called pretentious simply because they like movies where people have accents or something. Not every movie with subtitles is slow or hard to follow. And not every English-speaking film is easy to digest. The Foul King is silly, goofy, sometimes explosively violent and full of heart. Another reason this movie is so niche is because it references non-American wrestling. There is one quick moment that shows a match between Steve Austin and The Undertaker, but for the most part this movie focuses on Japanese wrestling. At the time this movie was made, we were in the throws of the Monday night wars between the two biggest wrestling companies at the time (WWE & WCW). It wasn’t easy to keep up with foreign wrestling in 1999/2000 so it’s understandable that casual wrestling fans would have no idea who’s being referenced outside of crossover stars like Jushin Thunder Liger or The Great Muta. Even the most hardcore wrestling fans couldn't keep up with watching foreign wrestling on a consistent basis outside of reading newsletters & dirt sheets. Instead of Hulk Hogan, Sting and The Rock, The Foul King references wrestlers like El Hijo Del Santo, Tiger Mask and Vader (Vader certainly had a solid career on U.S. soil but he was a mega star in Japan).

Vader's entrance / The Foul King

Tiger Mask's backstage entrance / The Foul King

Masked wrestling plays a huge part in Foul King. The importance and lore behind the masked wrestler, made popular by Rey Mysterio, didn’t really reach American audiences until way later. Prior to that it was more of a novelty compared to wrestling in Japan and Mexico. There’s a scene towards the end of Foul King where our protagonist is partially unmasked in the ring which causes the audience to gasp similar to the classic Rey Mysterio/Eddie Guerrro Halloween Havoc match (it should be noted that while Foul King certainly gets in to the predetermined/"worked" aspects of Pro-wrestling, all of the in-ring scenes are made to feel real). 

 

Halloween Havoc '97 / The Foul King

It isn't identical, but the mask worn by our protagonist in Foul King is similar to the Great Zebra's mask...

The Great Zebra / The Foul King

The film even opens with archived footage of what appears to be a New Japan or All Japan wrestling match.

 

Wrestling aside – Foul King pulls from the likes of The Coen Brothers and Shinya Tsukamoto. It would actually make for a great double feature with Tsukamoto’s Tokyo Fist. Both movies have incredibly similar plots: an unmotivated office worker finds his calling inside of a ring. The only difference is Tokyo Fist is boxing and Foul King is wrestling. As silly as wrestling can sometimes be, it can be a motivation for some. Teachers incorporate it in their lesson plans for elementary school kids. The physical element behind it, when done right, can improve your health. It also just provides an escape.

As far as filmmakers that I respect and like - Martin Scorsese, the Coen brothers - Kim Jee Woon, Indiewire.com

Raging Bull /
The Foul King

Barton Fink /
The Foul King

There are lots of little coincidental shots throughout Foul King that are reminiscent of Scorsese. The basic premise kind of owes a little to After Hours. Imagine if instead of going out for a night in the city, Griffin Dunne's "Paul" joins a wrestling school to cure his lack of motivation in life...

After Hours / The Foul King

After Hours / The Foul King

Taxi Driver / The Foul King

And if you have the stamina, the ultimate triple feature would Foul King, Tokyo Fist and Raging Bull…

Raging Bull /
The Foul King

I have seen almost all Scorsese's films and I continue to be amazed. I'm astonished by his capacity to produce great films. He pushes forward the boundaries and potential of cinema - Shinya Tsukamoto, Variety

Raging Bull / Tokyo Fist

Now that both international films and international wrestling is way more accessible, Foul King could be a double gateway to new alternative lanes of cinema and professional wrestling.