I want to make a point about all Wes Anderson movies being R. The point I'm trying to make is that The Fabulous Mister Fox is actually an R-rated movie disguised as a G-rated movie. I don't know if this is the best place to argue this point. Most of the time, the Wes Anderson films are only R for language and that language is fairly tame compared to some of their counterparts. This one has a character who is nude for a chunk of the movie. There's also some comedic violence. Regardless, I'm cool with this one being R.
DIRECTOR: Wes Anderson It's kind of amazing that I haven't reviewed a Wes Anderson movie at this point. It's a really weird thing because I really like Wes Anderson. In college, like most snobs in college, I kind of just had his movies on a loop in my dorm. It's because I was terrified of experiencing new things, but still wanted to be more pretentious than the masses. That's a little unfair to attach to Anderson and his films because they really are great films. But I also like comfort zones like most people. Probably the basis of this website and my obsession with film comes from the need to expand my knowledge of art film beyond Wes Anderson. (The fact that I refer to Wes Anderson as an art house director is such a simple concept at this point that I can't believe I wrote it or am currently discussing it.) But, besides The Grand Budapest Hotel, I haven't really watched a Wes Anderson movie. But there was going to be a podcast, so I decided on watching one that I didn't remember too well. That happened to be The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I remember that this is the one that a lot of people jumped off. I always found that odd because I remembered really loving this one. I thought it was the funniest of the films up to that point. I'm kind of right about that. But "funniest" doesn't always equate with "best." Anderson and (then new) collaborator Noah Baumbach wrote a really funny script. On top of that, they let Bill Murray off the chain. Up to this point in the Anderson movies, Murray had been playing a far more straight-laced character, different from his traditional bill (murray) of fare. I know that he had a large part in Rushmore, but most of the jokes aren't on the part of Bill Murray. When they are, he's not giving his traditional delivery. The Life Aquatic has Bill Murray in normal form. He's playing that smug character that we've seen time and again. In every version, there's the deadpan. But when given complete freedom, he's more playful with that, often getting frustrated. Now, there's so much I want to look at in terms of what this does to the film. Anderson is infamous for doing flat affect. His characters interact with the world from a distanced perspective. It's not to say that they don't feel the world like people do. It is simply that the characters' outward reactions are always somewhat skewed by Anderson's lens. The Life Aquatic experiments a little with this formula. It is Murray with his range of emotions in a world that doesn't act like he does. This makes the movie funnier, but also tends to pander more than the other movies do. I also think that this is the beginning of the era of Wes Anderson doing an impression of himself. It is really telling that Noah Baumbach is attached to this film because I always thought that Noah Baumbach was kind of reactionary to the success of Wes Anderson. I really think that Anderson hit his apex with The Royal Tenenbaums. This is the follow-up. I don't know if he could capture the same magic. That said, The Life Aquatic is a better movie than most people give it credit for. Fundamentally, this is a movie about a guy coming to terms with both regrets and aging. I know that this isn't a new theme and lots of movies deal with it. But this might be a commentary more about Murray's other characters having to grow up. I don't know if this is done on purpose, but it feels like this is the logical end to Murray's characters from Stripes or Ghostbusters. Murray's Zissou is cocky and successful for years. Those lovable rascals tend to thrive in their films because of their confidence and cockiness. They rarely learned their lessons. If Zissou is those characters grown up, there had to be a period of diminishing returns. Zissou is a has been, still living by the old rules. By having Ned show up in his life, Zissou has to make a series of subconscious choices that force him to change his outlook. He never becomes a different person. If anything, Zissou simply shifts his perspective. His actions of making his films isn't what is wrong, but it is the focus of those films that becomes the center. I love that Anderson makes the audience and Zissou himself question the events surrounding Esteban's death. It makes us question the fundamental morality of Steve Zissou. Steve is a bad guy. He's not a healthy individual, but there is a fine line between what is respectable and was is the realm of scoundrel. Keeping that secret until the end makes the movie about faith in a weird way. (I feel I left the intellectual reservation long ago.) Anderson keeps feeding us these insecure personality traits for Zissou. His fear of being called father while simultaneously having Steve yearn for Ned to think of him as a father is very telling. He's the manchild. He wants the adulation without the responsibility. That is Peter Venkman. That is John from Stripes. It is only through the tribulations of this movie that he actually learns anything that changes him to shift his outlook. It's a very sobering film that works on a whole bunch of levels. But that said, it still is very funny. I am starting to call Jeff Goldblum our national treasure because he's perfect in this. I know that he's played comedic roles before, but it is this Jeff Goldblum that I like seeing in movies. Putting him across from Bill Murray and the cast. Honestly, I'm starting a new paragraph about how much I love the cast. The cast is everything I've ever wanted. I wrote my review of The Florida Project talking mostly about how much I loved Willem Dafoe in that role. I'm so sick of seeing him as the bad guy. It's mainly because he makes such a good alternative to that character. Klaus is such a child who simply looks like Willem Dafoe. The disparity between Klaus and Dafoe's other roles is what makes the role work so well. I know that he's not the main part in any way, but he's just so great there. Also, I was really confused by Owen Wilson's involvement in this movie. It was the first movie that he didn't have a hand in writing and I feel like he is giving the movie his all. But there is a shift from his other roles to this role. Lauren kept saying that his accent was driving her crazy because it was all over the place. I honestly don't know about that. This isn't my favorite Anderson role, but it is very good. I love the genuineness that Owen Wilson imbues Ned with, especially when he is full into his Kingsley role. It's so charming. I know the movie is a bit of a bro-party because Cate Blanchett is a bit standoffish and Anjelica Huston is barely in the movie (despite the fact that she's playing the same role she does in the other Anderson movies). I would love to give a few more bits to Blanchett and I always want more Anjelica Huston in my Anderson movies. I do see why people don't love this movie though. I think it has to do with the pacing, which is just terrible. I kept laughing at the movie, which was its primary job. But I also kept looking at my phone. That might spell death for the movie. It is such a simple plot, but it keeps coming up with ways to get in its own way. A good filmmaker knows to give all kinds of impediments between points A and B. But there are moments where Anderson tests the goodwill of the viewers. I really love the pirate stuff. In fact, the pirate stuff is my favorite moments in the movie. But there's a lot of really stressing that the boat doesn't work like it used to. Again, I stressed the Goldblum stuff as being an amazing part of this movie. But every time they go out of their way to mess with Operation Hennessey is very bizarre. This is a two hour movie that should have been an hour and a half. That seems minor, but it is just padded out a bit too much. Steve stays in the same level of his character for a bit too long. But even the most boring parts of this movie are still very pretty. Anderson, despite doing an impression of himself, knows how to handle a camera and knows how to score a film. This movie might have my favorite soundtrack out of the entire series, and that's saying something against The Royal Tenenbaums. (That soundtrack is pretty great. I don't know how much I'll go to bat for this statement.) I love the little details, like the claymation animation that is infused in this movie. This movie is more about detail and character than it is story. That's pretty standard for him, but for some reason the story's weaknesses stand out more in this one than in his other films. But it is a very pretty and fun movie. One of the dumbest problems I have making this blog is that I'm always excited to expand my horizons with new films. I rarely go back and rewatch. But I have so many Wes Anderon movies that I'd love to re-examine. I wish I had an excuse to do so. I also know that Lauren probably wouldn't be down for this any time soon. Plus, I have all of these other movies that I haven't watched my copies of, which I need to get around to. Regardless, I had a good time with this one, even if I was a little bored in the middle. I now really want to watch Rushmore and see if my opinion changes on that one.
0 Comments
There are different kinds of R, especially when it comes to horror movie. I would say about 90% of this R comes from genuinely spooky gore effects. The entire movie is spooky and, for all we know, the MPAA might just give a movie an R because it is extremely effective at being creepy. The rest boils down to language and sexuality. There isn't a ton of sex in the movie, but what is there is haunting.
DIRECTOR: Trey Edward Shults Immediately after finishing this one, I went to Google. I had to know if my interpretation was accurate. (I'm sure as a guy who claims he's a film guy, I should have rewatched the movie. When my frustration would hit a fever pitch, I should have watched the movie again with commentary. But we haaaaaavvvveee Google...) There are so many interviews with Trey Edward Shults about the film. I can see why. The movie is one that naturally brings up a lot of questions. But in every interview, he states, "I didn't make a movie to frustrate people." Yes, you did. Oh my goodness, you did. You might not like the connotation of the word "frustrate", but you wanted people scratching their heads and asking themselves what they just watched. That is the point of the movie and that's not a bad thing. Just embrace that attitude, Mr. Shults, and we can all continue discussing what was and wasn't important. Besides, I kind of like movies that intentionally don't tell you stuff. Not Mulholland Drive, of course, because I need to maintain my rep as the sole David Lynch skeptic. But other stuff. You know? Memento. (I hate myself.) I love A24. They have made me excited to see movies again. I'm not saying that I'm never excited to see movies, but when they announce a horror movie, I get excited. The weird part is that they don't scare me as much as I think they will. But the point is that I believe that they might genuinely destroy me and I haven't felt that since high school. There is a possibility to each of these movies. Even if a movie doesn't destroy me, like The VVitch or It Comes at Night, I still really enjoy them. They are authentically spooky. I think it might be the A24 aesthetic. I consider A24 to be the home of arthouse horror. Arthouse horror, which I feel like I've coined that term, can be really bad. Lars von Trier is always way too much for me. I've always respected von Trier's craftsmanship, but the execution and enjoyability of the film has always suffered because of his extremism. I feel like the A24, It Comes at Night included, know how to balance heavy themes and gorgeous cinematography with entertainment. Admittedly, these movies are paced at a snail's pace compared to the horror movies of today. Rather, these movies just relish atmosphere. The look of these movies is very similar. Whatever A24 movie I watched last, I think I commented that the producers might have a bit of influence over what one of these movies should look like. (I think it was A Ghost Story.) But these movies relish hard light, low light, and natural light like other movies don't even dare to. I'm so used to the bathing of a scene in light that I'm just thinking that's how reality looks now. But these movies are so dynamic with their lighting and use of muted colors that it becomes far more interesting. These shadows are real shadows, but they are far more haunting. It Comes at Night also takes it a step further by using the uniqueness of nature to build off of those shadows. Trees aren't upright. They are sideways and coiled in on themselves. Because of the greater setting, the house takes on a personality in harmony with that. The wooden house, spartan and dark, feels like an extension of the woods. Travis's lantern illuminates the imperfections of the walls and the naturalness of the woods. It makes these objects in the film gain significance. The red door seems like such a color contrast to the grays and greens of the forest, which makes the imagery effective. I mentioned that this movie is meant to frustrate. I say this in the most playful way. Shults adds constant red herrings to the film seemingly on purpose. Again, I highlight my hypocrisy because I'm the guy who hated the Lost ending because its paid nothing off. But everything that is dropped in this movie is a choice. These scenes are in the movie because we are experiencing the story from Travis's perspective. Travis, as a character, is not an investigator. He spies on the new people in the house, but he does not really look for answers. When clues to the events around him happen, he is as puzzled as we are. I'm sure that Shults probably has an answer for everything that happens in this movie. But the movie intentionally avoids world building, at least in a way that panders to the audience. There are rules to this world that exist, but we aren't allowed to know these rules. I think my favorite perk about this attitude is that there is no info dump. At no point does the film attempt to shoehorn in exposition. What are the rules of the virus? I don't know, but the characters certainly seem to. We can glean enough to follow along, but why would the characters be talking about things that they all know? What attacked the dog? Who knows, but it exists. Who opened the door? That's creepy as heck and there definitely is answer. BIG OL' SPOILER: Is Andrew sick? He's gonna film the movie to not let you know. Andrew will always be blocked or out of focus. Oh my gosh. I mean, you can glean an answer based on the end of the film, but even the end of the film is kind of ambiguous. (Okay, my Google search reveals the true meaning of the end, which cheapens it a little bit. But that's my fault, not the movie's.) You could read into this that the director thinks that he's smarter than his audience. I never get that vibe. I get the vibe that the director really loves his audience. I think that he wants people to talk about this movie afterwards. I guess that's probably my best advice. Watch it with like minded individuals who want to talk. It would be easy to write this movie off, but it is way more fun to discuss it. (I think I take this blog so seriously because no one ever wants to talk movies with me.) The performances in this movie are awesome. This is another one of the movies where Joel Edgerton delivers an amazing performance, but audiences hate the movie. (I swear, there are actors who are consistently pretty great, but never catch a break successfully.) I have to give Edgerton props for being just the most intense while realistic. There are these moments to his performance where he seemingly lets his hair down. But knowing what I now know about the movie, I have to question whether these moments were him disguising his true intentions or that he was actually vulnerable. Most of this movie, shy of red herrings, is about mistrust and paranoia. Playing that without telegraphing is an impressive feat. But even more impressive is the kid who plays Travis. His name is Kelvin Harrison Jr. I don't know him, but he's got the weight of the movie on him. It would be a mistake to chalk his entire performance up to looking scared, but he's got this wealth of stuff to deal with and mostly just his facial expression to deal with. He doesn't really have a surplus of lines, so there's so much communicated by his simple wandering. No moment is really overplayed by this kid and I'm kind of impressed by it. Honestly, the creepiest part of the movie isn't the gore effects or the whatever it is in the woods. It's him walking around his house at night with that Coleman lantern. I don't know why it bothers me so, but it really does. It's not my favorite A24, but it is really good. I don't really understand the negative reviews for the movie. I suppose most audiences had the same problems with The VVitch, But I did really enjoy it. I'd even consider rewatching it and see if I find clues to the mysteries hidden within. There's probably nothing there, but I can't say there's nothing until I've tried my best to spot them. Oh, wait. There's Google. TO THE INTERNET! Not rated because all of the crime in the movie! Hot bicycle action! Thieves rampant! Are the criminals stealing bicycles or are the bicycles themselves actual thieves? Sentient bicycle! This movie spits at the laws of nature and sanity and makes the world's most prized possession criminal masterminds! Look how that guy has to fight off a violent bicycle attack while talking to his child! Not! Rated! (Okay, it's a perfectly fine movie to watch if you like crying.)
DIRECTOR: Vittorio De Sica And we're back to writing about movies that I can't be objective about anymore because they are so good. This is another example of a movie I've seen so many times that it almost becomes hard to write about it. But I've written some tomes about movies that I didn't think I could get two words about, so we'll see how this plays out. (Takes a long break. Finds things to distract him.) I have always said that I like really depressing things. I don't know if that cheapens all of the things that I enjoy because there is a lot more going on with Bicycle Thieves (Also, The Bicycle Thief? When did Criterion do a literal translation?) than simply being a depressing movie. But at the same time, it might be the most depressing movie I own. I'm going to review It Comes at Night tomorrow and that movie has a scene that is so depressing, but it is also one moment that really rides it. De Sica creates something really more interesting here that really just crescendos into a wave of necessary misery. The world of Bicycle Thieves is one that is so entrenched in the worst parts of our culture that it almost makes you rethink humanity. I try to be optimistic. I do. I want to think that we, as a people, are inherently good and there are only a few terrible people making it hard for them. I get the vibe that De Sica doesn't think this. Rather, he not only presents the opposite argument, but takes it a step further into saying that there can be innocent people, but they will eventually be corrupted by the harsh world around them. Society defends the unjust and it is those who follow the rules who hurt. In typical De Sica fashion (he tends to show society's ills while offering no solution on how to cure these ills), he does condemn his protagonist for being weak. The protagonist has the moral goal and does everything, from his perspective, that he can. When he breaks his own moral code, however, he is also punished for doing so. The movie comments on the absurdity of following a code, but also condemns those who break the code. The world is a terrible place, guys. Why do you think I like this movie so much? Am I that broken that I can't appreciate the joys of the world? I'm not always in this mood, but I coincidentally am in this mood every time I watch Bicycle Thieves. Am I wrong, or is this the movie that kind of tortured that little kid? The kid's performance at the end of the movie is one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever. That kid is fantastic. Again, mini lesson for people who don't know much about this movie or Neorealism. Much of Italian cinema during this era cast regular people in major parts. The two leads, who play father and son, at the time were just regular Joes. But both of their performances are remarkably expressive. I'm not saying that every time a non-actor is cast in a major role, it is absolutely perfect. More often than not, it doesn't work that way. But these two guys are so good in their roles that I never am pulled out of the world of the film. I tend to get angry at that. Anything that reminds me that I'm watching a movie is a point against the film. Nothing in Bicycle Thieves does that. Rather, the movie focuses so closely on these two guys. I like to watch the movie from the perspective of Bruno, the kid. (I opened up IMDB, guys.) The movie, from Antonio's perspective is one of stress and frustration. If it was just that, the movie would still work. But adding Bruno to the story gives an even greater sense of hopelessness. Bruno looks to his father as this strong guy, a provider in the worst of circumstances. Bruno works, but he seems to idolize his dad. As the movie progresses, that faith and illusion is quickly crushed. The worst part of it is that Antonio is still the man who was idolized by his kid. The illusion, in many ways, is the sins that Antonio presents. There are theories that we present our true selves in the worst moments. Bicycle Thieves can be interpreted that way. If you read the movie that way, I don't think you are wrong by any stretch of the imagination. But what I see is that Antonio is still the same man. Perhaps he is humanized a little bit, but I see his sins as acts of desperation covered with deep shame. Even though he does something that he never really saw himself capable of doing (twice, I may add), he finds the actions revolting. I know, I know. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." But this story is kind of a story of forgiveness, even if those words are never said. Antonio never becomes a bad guy. One of my students yelled at him and didn't want the movie to play out the way it did, but I don't think she ever hated Antonio. There is one scene that really strikes a chord with me. I don't know if it is because this is how I see the world and it just felt real. This is going to be a real insight into a bad mood because the most effective sequence for me (outside of the slap) is the confrontation with the thief. That entire sequence bothers me in the best way possible. De Sica captures the frustration of trying to deal with the legal system and the criminal world in a way that I haven't seen portrayed since. The mix of guilt and self-doubt that comes with being in the right is so perfect in this movie. As a viewer, we all share Antonio's confidence when it comes to confronting the kid in the neighborhood. But the sheer amount of people calling him a liar and threatening to attack him does something psychologically to both the character and the viewer that creates anxiety on a level that I'm really not comfortable with. I just wanted to beg him to stay and to fight a battle that he couldn't possibly win. But I also wanted to run with him and get him out of there. Having Bruno there to see all that is even more frustrating? What if something happened to him? De Sica plays with that concept when dealing with the kid in the water. There are all these moments and the coolest part is that it all stems out of a very basic action, such as having a bicycle stolen. Perhaps that is De Sica's greatest triumph. He takes something that should almost be a non plot and gets every last drop out of it. It is kind of the opposite of Your Name. (I'm going to to be the only person in history to make that connection.) Your Name is about covering a wealth of material without ever really going deep into any of them. De Sica in Bicycle Thieves takes barely a moment in any other story and manages to extract so much from that. It's such a simply concept! It shouldn't work. It totally does! This movie destroys me. I am but ash. This might be one of my favorite movies. I can talk about it all day and I can't really communicate why this movie works so much. There is something beautiful and humbling about the entire experience. This is the movie where students get a gutteral reaction. The movie speaks to the soul without ever pandering. It presents this world of darkness, yet never feels like a dark movie. It shows hope through the veil of sadness. I'm getting overly poetic, but that is almost the movie. I'm not alone on this. I'm not preaching a movie that people haven't heard of. There is a reason that this movie is a classic. I'll probably watch this movie at least a dozen more times before I die. It is so good and it never really falters. I was putzing around on the SquareSpace page and I was going to change the photo to something closer to our discussion points, but then I couldn't stop laughing. Mr. Henson knocked it out of the park with the image for today's podcast.
The guys talk about the summer movie slate based on the trailers that came out (apparently around the time of the Olympic opening ceremonies). There's some good juju in here. Take a listen! http://literallyanything.net/blog/2018/2/12/episode-28-literally-summer-trailers-2018 Now I don't know what the rules for the MPAA are. It's not G. It's live action. It's PG. But the end is actually pretty scary. I didn't bring Henry to this movie because I knew it would completely destroy him. (He gets scared really easy.) But it also shouldn't be a PG-13. Does the MPAA choose their ratings based on intended audience? This movie is meant for kids and PG-13 connotes that the content is assumed for older audiences. But the same amount of scariness that would be in a Marvel movie is in this one. I guess the rating system is really "intended audience" nowadays. PG.
DIRECTOR: Ava DuVernay This nonsense all started over a free poster that my daughter got at a comic book store. It was a fairly generic poster. The central focus is really just just logo for the film, A Wrinkle in Time. It has the cast on it and a fairly forgettable background. But my daughter got it and so she wanted it in her room. Well, if she had the poster up in her room, that means that she probably wanted to see the movie. I saw this as a teachable moment and decided to read the book with her. Ever since we opened the first page of the book, I knew that we were going to have a daddy/daughter date to see the movie. The odd thing is that, even as we were reading the book, I didn't see much comparison with the film. I love watching trailers as I'm reading the book. I want to see what scenes get translated into the film. This one didn't seem to really line up with the source material. But after seeing it, I can say that it does line up...mostly. And from a different point of view. Ava DuVernay fell onto my radar with Selma and 13th. While neither film was absolutely perfect, they were these amazing films with this radical voice that I completely dug. They were conscious and well shot. I think of the church bombing sequence in Selma and I think of how most other directors would have handled that. That scene is so striking, not just for the content of the film, but for the way it is presented. DuVernay is a skilled filmmaker and handing her a film like A Wrinkle in Time is just a no-brainer. The thing is that I kind of have bigger expectations from her now. My biggest criticism of the film, which isn't the worst thing in the world, is that a lot of it is just functional. I know that I'm writing this after criticizing The Great Gatsby for trying too hard, but with a film like A Wrinkle in Time, there could be absolutely bonkers things going on with the camera that don't really appear here. It is a very pretty movie, but Disney is kind of just copying its template for The Chronicles of Narnia series. It's that safe kind of fantasy filmmaking that makes for a kind of good time, but nothing that really sticks to the ribs. Now, this isn't true throughout. There are some really cool choices that are made in the movie, but they are made almost in isolation and can really be chalked up to just being clever. When I was talking about the trailer almost looking like a different story, these are the moments. Most of the book is in the film, with the exception of Aunt Beast. There is one major sequence that is added, but for the most part it is a fairly faithful adaptation. The reason that I didn't think that the movie was an adaptation of the novel is that DuVernay likes tampering with setting. I think it is an excellent choice for the most part. It did give me something new to watch instead of simply seeing a beholden presentation of the source material. The man with the red eyes looked completely different than I imagined. That's okay. There's no factory; it takes place on a beach. Cool. But ultimately, these changes tend to be clever. I can't say that this applies to the entire film. Some of the set changes are actually far more universal choices. The fact that the Misses live in the middle of an urban neighborhood seems like a far stronger choice. It has that It feeling to it, where people are passing this house everyday and don't even consider going in. That's a cool change. Overall, DuVernay's choices are fun, but don't often have the same weight or gravitas that they need. It's kind of like watching a modernization of Shakespeare. When I see these cool choices, that's about as far as they go with me. DuVernay is telling the story of the book, but she's just superficially making choices along the way. Some choices are better than others and I suppose that's okay. The big one is the Pegasus. It's an iconic image that's change for this. I don't normally subscribe or give credence to anyone who complains about superficial changes from the book to the movie, but I think that's all we really have the right to criticize when it comes to A Wrinkle in Time. I guess this is all a backwards way of saying that the movie is safe and sanitized. But that's not to say that DuVernay is not successful. The second half of the movie and the movie's theme is pretty strong. I actually think that DuVernay hits the theme of the movie better than the book does in a way. The goal that DuVernay has is to inspire young girls, particularly girls of color, to define themselves in the ways they were born to be defined. There's a heavy emphasis on the values of a STEM education (which I begrudgingly accept despite being an English teacher). The transcendental attitudes contained within encourage young girls to self-identify rather than conforming to societal pressures. I liked that my daughter saw this. It worked really well. In terms of performances, I kind of feel like a lot of the actors were misused. Oprah is fine in this movie, but at the end of the day, she's just giant Oprah. Reese Witherspoon plays things large and in charge, but that might not be exactly the goddess like attitude that the movie really needed. I feel like Mindy Kaling got the shortest end of the sticks, being a very adept comedian and actress. However, she gets the fewest lines and they are all quotes. I know that someone could have really pulled that off. I don't think it is necessarily Kaling's fault so much as the role wasn't meaty enough to play with. I actually would have loved to see Witherspoon and Kaling switch roles. Also, I was kind of bummed by half of Charles Wallace's performance. His real name isn't Charles Wallace. Deric McCabe delivered a great evil Charles Wallace, but kind of a boring normal Charles Wallace. McCabe made the second half of the movie work for me, but I kept rolling my eyes in the first half of the movie. I know, I'm slamming a little kid. But these were moments that just felt kind of pander-y. If DuVernay directed him a little bit differently, I would have loved to see the kid genius play out a little bit better. I hate that I keep writing this sentence in many of my reviews, but I acknowledge that the movie wasn't for me. It was meant for kids, which means the movie feels like it has to be pandery. But many people don't like this movie. I do, but I just want to it be better. I enjoyed watching it with the kid. She said it was perfect and who am I to argue with genius. She was writing a review and I offered to put it on the blog. She took a hard pass on that one. Regardless, she thought it was great. The movie is aimed at kids like her. She thinks it is perfect, which means kids like Olivia probably also think that it is perfect. As an English teacher and a film teacher, I think it had some work to do. But it is a good movie, just not great. Oh, you want to watch a movie with America's sweetheart, Kristen Wiig? (Admittedly, I am hoisting that title upon her, but I'm also weirdly standing by it.) Perhaps your sister-in-law finds her hilarious because she gives the impression that she wouldn't do anything too out there? Well you would be wrong to have a movie night with your wife's siblings to watch a fairly disturbing movie involving nudity, graphic sex, and pretty disturbing language. This one is rated "R".
DIRECTOR: Shira Piven Yeah, that was an awkward evening. In the first half of the movie, there's a fairly explicit sex scene. There was arguing over fast forwarding. Thank goodness it was quick because I stopped the movie and said, "Do we want to stop here?" It wouldn't have been the end of the world and I'm sure family members would be able to look each other in the eyes. But everyone got all wishy-washy. The vibe of the room was "That had to be the worst of it, right?" It wasn't. It all boiled down to the fact that Kristen Wiig is usually pretty funny. And she is. She's remarkably funny. I think I laughed harder than anyone in the room. (That tends to be the case and it mortifies my wife when we are in the theater.) It's just that there are moments where it is really hard to call this movie a comedy, despite the fact that it is funny. Welcome to Me is a genre almost entirely based on its feel. Back in the '90s, people would just call movies "indie movies." That's not really a genre because it has absolutely nothing to do with the plot. But this grouping, as stupid as it sounds, is kind of accurate. They were movie that seem to be made on a shoestring budget that often were challenging to traditional filmmaking conventions. Often, that sense of "make it work" defined it far better than the actual content of the piece and that filmmaking affected the way that the audience interacted with the work. Welcome to Me would kind of fall in that category. It has more of a budget than an early Linklater, but it doesn't exactly throw money at the screen, despite the fact that is the premise of the film itself. I suppose the direct to on demand market might be the new indie because this might be the story of Welcome to Me. As part of this model, filmmakers tend to push uncomfortable buttons because it almost doesn't seem to be about making a ton of money. (I'm sorry I'm just spewing generalizations right now, but I'm more concerned about setting up the feel of the movie rather than giving a nuanced understanding of marketing platforms.) There's something very garage band about the whole movie. If director Shira Piven chose this look to mirror the events of the film, I would say that she's a genius. There is this adulation of the garage band and their guerrilla music that is always idolized. But it is often the case that garage bands kind of suck. I used to love the rough cuts of Weezer songs, but then again, they ended up being great. Two weeks ago, I found myself lost in a YouTube hole looking at videos of terrible garage bands. Welcome to Me is about making a TV show and mirroring the true nature of the garage band. Alice Klieg, played by Kristen Wiig, throws money at an infomercial local channel to give her two hours of screen time a day. The show ends up being terrible, but people watch it because it is so terrible. In the course of this living nightmare, Klieg goes from being somewhat self-centered to full on insane, treating those around her like dirt. The movie plays up uncomfortableness. I know a lot of people really don't care for comedy that is meant to make a viewer uncomfortable. I tend to like it. Kristen Wiig, as weird as this movie is, knows what this movie needs to really sell the awkwardness. There were times when I watched The Office (I'm looking at you, "Scott's Tots") where I desperately wanted to change the channel. I think Wiig takes it even further than that. That sympathetic tendency is really riding hard in this movie and it is because of Wiig. It's so weird because movies with a bizarre central character tend to have a lot of bizarre secondary characters. It's not to say that Wiig carries the movie all by herself, but the secondary characters tend to be grounded in reality. This makes Wiig's character all the more awkward. Probably the weakest choice, then, is the inclusion of Wes Bentley's Gabe Ruskin to the story. Gabe is the more realistic awkward character. I really wonder what the choice was on Gabe to bring him into the story. Considering that all of the other characters are so grounded, having Gabe being A- awkward is an odd choice. He's there as a love interest for Alice. "Love interest" might be a very superficial thing to call Gabe's role in the movie. To make the movie more awkward, Alice and Gabe are there to provide uncomfortable explicit content. I guess they needed something in common so the entire scene wouldn't feel predatory, but it also makes Gabe's character a distraction from Alice. It also feels like a bit of a trope. I'm thinking of Garth and his lady from Wayne's World 2. (It feels so dismissive to call her "Garth's lady". I don't want to be a member of the patriarchy, but she's fairly forgettable because she's just a Garth clone.) It is so easy to have the other weird guy pair up with the weird girl that it just feels a bit lazy. The big question I have is "Why is anyone Alice's friend?" Linda Cardellini is in the movie. She's Alice's friend before everything starts. But Alice goes from self-centered to insane. She's also been insane before. Does Linda Cardellini feel bad for Alice? (I have closed IMDB and refuse to look her name up, so I will call her Linda Cardellini for the remainder of this review.) She seems to honestly bond with Alice, despite the fact that the relationship isn't reciprocal. I would say that makes me a bad person to claim that someone with autism is incapable of having friends. But Alice isn't autistic. I actually have no idea what to diagnose Alice with. It said that she's borderline personality disorder, but everyone who watched the movie said BPD doesn't look anything like what Kristen Wiig is doing. I mean, Alice is a fun character to watch, but I don't know if there's anything in reality that acts like that. Again, I'm not an expert, but everyone I watched this with seemed super confused about what Wiig was doing. I liked it, but it didn't look like BPD. I guess that makes Alice the right degree of unsympathetic. It seemed okay to laugh at her because she was just so awkward and self-destructive. (The more I write, the more I hate myself.) But she had all of these people in her life that were very supportive and I don't know why. She didn't exactly build into the behavior that led to her breakdown. Rather she was just there. The breakdown sequence really felt like a response to people yelling at her sooner than it was about indulging her. But I also feel like I'm overanalyzing the movie and that can sometimes be a problem with me and movies like this. The movie isn't great. It has its moments, especially if you are into cringy comedy. I almost definitely won't watch it again, but that's just because I don't want to feel icky. But I did enjoy that the guests that we had over felt so uncomfortable. I know I shouldn't feel that way, but sometimes you just have to laugh about how weird things got. As of the point of this review, there are 17 Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. I'm pretty sure that they are all PG-13. Trying to write seventeen pithy things about the ratings system gets tough after a while. I will say that A) I appreciate consistency and B) there is a part where Red Skull rips what appears to be his face off. My son loves Captain America. I was thinking of letting him watch this one with me. Then I remembered that the bad guy rips his face off revealing a blood red skull. Yeah, no. PG-13.
DIRECTOR: Joe Johnston Is this officially considered an alt-history war movie? Like, does it technically go in the same category as Inglorious Basterds? These are things that I think about when I watch a movie that I've seen a few times and am revisiting in an attempt to rewatch all of the Marvel movies. I mean, it is always going to be categorized as a superhero movie. I get that and it should be. But I'd love to see that rogue video store owner ("What's a video store?") who is just a genre purist and insists that this an alt-history war movie. But I get that. The entire thing, with the exception of the bookends contextualizing the movie within the MCU, is set during World War II. It's got that slight sepia color tinting in America and the faded color palate when in Europe. There's no doubt that the movie is supposed to be looking like a war movie, which is a gutsy move. The only thing, and I wasn't planning on getting into criticism about the look yet (but here we are), is that the movie is just a little bit too clean and too safe to really be a great war movie. But it is a war film and I guess some people can say that this is the only war movie that they've seen. (Oh, the sadness in my heart is overwhelming at the thought!) For a long time, Captain America: The First Avenger was my least favorite movie in the MCU. That's not saying that it is even remotely bad. It just didn't hit that sweet spot for me when it comes to the MCU. I love The Winter Soldier so much and many other movies in the franchise that I was always surprised that people claimed this one as their favorite. Part of it is that it does feel like a very safe movie, with the exception of the setting. I have to give Feige and Johnston so many props for risking a Phase I movie to be set in World War II. I'm sure that there was chatter in preproduction to pull what the '90s Captain America did and just have a few moments in the '40s. This is an excellent choice, especially during the origin heavy Phase I of the MCU. I'm really glad that we're past origin movies, but I'm also really glad that Marvel took time to do the origins right. The only real downside of this is the fact that the Red Skull doesn't become the primary antagonist for Captain America. That cryptic ending to Red Skull implies that they probably wanted him back for future movies, but Hugo Weaving kind of seems like he hates everything. He especially seems to hate the genres he's involved in and seems to view them simply as paychecks. That's a bummer, but I also don't know why they just don't recast him down the line. He's a mostly prosthetic character and it is odd that the big bad guy for Captain America is Iron Man. I guess Dr. Zola gets a little more cred, but even he is more of a cameo character than an outright bad guy. But the rest of World War II kind of works. It was kind of weird that everyone lost their minds that Wonder Woman was set in World War I. I kept thinking that it wasn't that revolutionary because Captain America did it first. The only points that I can really give Wonder Woman is that there's nothing inherent to the character of Wonder Woman that needs her in World War I. Steve Rogers needs to be punching Hitler (And boy, do I love how they handle that in the movie). There's something quintessentially American about World War II. There's a reason that so many American war movies tend to be set during that war. It's one of the few times that we were seen as the great liberators. We were the globe's heroes and to have a character like Captain America come out of this era makes the most amount of sense. Steve Rogers is fundamentally optimistic and to have this character blossom out of this war makes sense. Admittedly, the character was also created during World War II, but I think that might be a sense of kismet to see where the character ended up over the course of history. When I read that the guy who played Johnny Storm in the original Fantastic Four franchise was going to be Captain America, I couldn't see it. Johnny Storm is such a cocky character. Also, one of the few things I didn't mind about that Fantastic Four movie was the casting of Chris Evans as the Human Torch. I have to give The First Avenger props for changing my mind about him. It is so odd to think of Chris Evans as any other superhero except for Captain America at this point. Evans gets the character really well. The movie is fundamentally about earnestness and responsibility, two traits that probably define Captain America more than any origin story or any superpowers could actually do. From moment one, Evans presents Steve Rogers as a guy who doesn't consider himself a hero, but understands the difference between right and wrong at all times. Steve kind of lives in a world that has black and white morality, which is what makes him ultimately comic bookey. But that is also what makes the character heartwarming to watch. Rogers doesn't have to make dark decisions. He's a leader, even when the chips are down. Having him be this little guy (I love little guy Steve in these movies. I like Cap too, but there's something adorable about little Steve Rogers that is very relatable) standing up to bullies in allies makes him so human. He wants to serve. He is the epitome of the noble soldier. He abhors violence, but doesn't stand for tyrants. It's so odd because right now I'm waxing poetic about a character born out of propaganda, but it is the propaganda that hits me exactly where it is supposed to: right in the patriotism. Evans's portrayal of Steve is so human, yet balanced that we get that Steve is probably second guessing every single one of his choices, but he is still wildly inspiring. Since Christopher Reeve, I don't think an actor has really gotten the duality of a character in every scene he is in. He is both awkward Steve Rogers and inspirational Captain America in every scene he's in. That's pretty awesome. The plot is fun, but straightforwards. The movie is really much better than I remember, but it is somewhat hindered by origin story problems. I mentioned that I didn't want Red Skull in this movie because it really hampers how much we can understand Red Skull as a character. I know, the World War II movie is the one that has to have the Red Skull. He's bred out of fascism and is the epitome of hate. But a lot of that isn't communicated as effectively. This is why I hate when the archvillain is the first villain. This one, I feel like Feige had his hands tied because the Red Skull is so fundamental to Captain America's origins. But he is a thrown away character. Similarly, the plot that Cap is trying to defuse is pretty thin. It's all about superweapons and bombing America. That's really about it. But as with most origin stories, what is meant to be the A-plot really fills in for the B-plot. The plot, honestly, doesn't matter. It is all about the characterization. This is mostly successful. I mentioned that Steve is really fleshed out, but I also have to commend this movie for making Peggy Carter an interesting character. There's a reason that there was an Agent Carter TV series. Most of that comes from Hayley Atwell fleshing out a pretty complicated and fascinating character. The rest of it comes from the fact that she kicks all kinds of butt (I'm ashamed of this review because of that sentence). I also have to say that I keep forgetting that Tommy Lee Jones is part of the MCU. I wonder what his experience with the movie was because I get the vibe that he was fulfilling a role. He's good in this, but he is typical Tommy Lee Jones. He doesn't have a ton of jargon, but there are moments where I don't think he necessarily gets the whole plot. Then there's Stanley Tucci, who is wonderful as Abraham Erskine. I know, it's a small and thankless role, but I really like him in that part. Sebastian Stan, weirdly enough, is underserved in this. That will be compensated for in the next one, but I never really got the Cap / Bucky dynamic in this one. The movie is a movie about establishing character and tone. I didn't get that on the first few watchings. The little things bothered me. I didn't love Cap's suit in this one. Who cares? The movie gets the big things right and leaves the little things for future films. Feige knew what needed to be in this one and what didn't. The other movies can be about plot. He knew that Captain America had to be a central figure in the MCU and this movie does everything it can to establish that. I now have to rerank my whole list because this movie is better than I give it credit for. TV-MA, but that makes sense. The focus of the documentary is about how subversive The Dana Carvey show was. There's a lot of cursing. I don't know if anyone is going out of his or her way to be offensive, but I would feel real awkward watching this with my mom. I'm also probably glad that I didn't watch the actual Dana Carvey Show with my mom because I would have been the target audience for Home Improvement at the time.
DIRECTOR: Josh Greenbaum Man, Hulu is killing it with their pop culture documentaries. I watch the serious stuff, too, guys. You've seen the reviews. But there's nothing that really grabs my attention about a pop culture thing that I don't know too much about that should be down my alley. I had heard of The Dana Carvey Show before, but I had never officially watched it. Some of the more famous sketches have crossed my path through YouTube and through social media, but I never really thought to check it out. I don't know if Hulu has full on convinced me to check the show out, mainly because I've now seen the best skits in short form through this documentary. But the story of The Dana Carvey Show is pretty interesting, even if the documentary probably lacks a little something. I know that Dana Carvey disappeared from the comedy landscape for a long time. As far as I understand, there was some kind of illness that was keeping him away. I was a big fan of his era of Saturday Night Live and like many SNL fans, I tended to prefer the cast that I grew up with. I thought that he was one of the funniest people alive. What I didn't realize is that he had his own primetime show on ABC that may have gotten him in a lot of trouble. If you don't remember it, don't feel bad. They were cancelled after eight episodes, of which only seven were shown. What is more interesting than writing the memoirs of a show that barely rings a bell for most of my readers is who came out of that show. Louis C.K., Robert Smiegel, Stephen Colbert, and Steve Carell all cut their teeth on this show before dominating the comedy landscape. I know that Louis C.K. is an uncomfortable topic now, but all of those guys went on to crush on whatever projects they worked on after this show. This is really the story of those young guys and how far away they were from being the people they are today. That's what really grabbed my attention. Perhaps we've heard the up-and-comers story too often that we can be somewhat desensitized from that tale, but these guys just seemed so young and in over their heads. I know that they are subjectively old men now, but they really just wanted to create something that was really funny to them and were probably devastated to have that thing ripped apart from them. I mean, for many, that was their one chance. They were comedians on prime time television and that show was cancelled before it really found its audience. (That's not entirely accurate. The documentary stresses that it quickly lost its audience, most of whom found the material on The Dana Carvey Show more than mildly offensive considering that it was pretty raunchy stuff being shown on prime time on a recently acquired Disney network.) While the stuff about The Dana Carvey Show is fascinating, it is almost a documentary about the rise of Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert. I guess that might be unfair to Dana Carvey himself, but he seems to have nothing but absolute love and adoration for those two. Considering how influential either one of them is today, it's funny to see them talking about a show that almost no one had seen with them on it. I don't know if I can recommend this documentary, though. Josh Greenbaum wrote, produced, and directed this documentary. He had to be a fan. It just screams "I'm a fan" all over it and it goes so down the middle of road in terms of presentation and adulation. There are the good guy creative types and the stuff shirted executive types. That's not the worst thing in the world, but this isn't an investigative documentary. The movie is formatted as a series of interview segments intercut with clips from The Dana Carvey Show. While the interviews are fairly entertaining, considering that the interviewees are charming and entertainers themselves, there is only so much that I can really take of cutting to the same people talking about the history of the show. There are about five to seven people who just seem to cycle through the narrative of what happened to that show. On top of that, there are glaring omissions to the interviewees. I feel for Mr. Greenbaum because I feel like he couldn't get these large personalities to participate or that they wouldn't have behaved for the camera. I'm thinking of Louis C.K. and Dino Stamatopoulos. Constantly referring to these two guys only brings to mind that they aren't telling their own stories. To compensate, they also bring in Bill Hader, who seems to be a big fan of the show. But cutting back to Bill Hader also shows a little bit of weakness on the part of the director. There had to be more fans of the show. The documentary, while professional and clean, seems to cut a lot of corners and feels like it was made in the course of a week-and-a-half. There's nothing wrong, but there's nothing really all that risky that makes this movie special. Instead, it often feels like a really well made special feature that would belong on the collected DVD of The Dana Carvey Show. It's more than a special feature, but not by much. The title itself places the movie in an interesting place from a perspective of someone who didn't know too much about the subject matter. This is, inherently, a tale of failure. The movie starts with people expressing regret for the death of the show, which is fine. I actually like this bit. But the movie then rewinds to the beginning of the story with constant reminders that they should have seen the death of this show from moment one. This is where it gets either interesting or odd. I'm not quite sure yet. The interviewees keep stressing these choices that were made in the creation and execution of this show. Then they lament the choice that they made. However, they also praise these choices as the best possible choice ever. Colbert even points out the insane collection of talent on this show and verbalizes that he can't understand how it failed. Perhaps that's more of the message. I don't know if the movie actually ever comes to this epiphany or if it is simply subtext, but there really probably would have been no way for The Dana Carvey Show to succeed in the way that would have made anyone happy. Perhaps the death of this show is what made the comedians we love today so successful. I'm saying that it seems like they really made the show that they wanted to make. There doesn't actually seem to be any regret about the actual show itself, but they are so proud of it because it alienated people. Yes, there is a bit of regret that they sabotaged sponsors, but it quickly becomes the running gag over the course of the hour and a half documentary. It seems like the no win situation. If they hadn't made the show they wanted, they would have probably survived on the air. But then we wouldn't have these geniuses doing what they do best. They also would have had a mild show that probably would have died a sad and forgotten death versus an epic death that was unseen. There is no win in this situation. The studio wanted one thing. The creatives never would have made that thing so why try? It is odd that I don't want to binge the entire Dana Carvey Show right now. I mean, it's right there on Hulu. I actually stumbled across it trying to find the documentary. It's not like I'm not absorbing way too much media right now. But there is something remarkably dated about it. I found myself laughing my rear end off during the clips, but these clips really did tell me that I found the good stuff. It's kind of the same reason I don't ever want to binge Saturday Night Live or Monty Python's Flying Circus. I know that I've seen the sketches that I really want to see. It almost seems a little more unfair to The Dana Carvey Show because I know that I could watch eight half-hour episodes in a reasonable amount of time. But it would seem like a chore. Also, there is the weird paradoxical thing of the fact that The Dana Carvey Show really seemed like a show ahead of its time, but it is littered with references to the time is was broadcast. I don't know if I'm itching to get a bunch of Bill Clinton or Joey Buttafucco references thrown at me as if they were topical. The documentary is solid enough and the content is fascinating. I wish I got a little bit more out of it, but at least I got a lot of good laughs. Think of this documentary as an annotated "Best of" clip show of The Dana Carvey Show and you'll have a really good time with it. A typical PG-13. You know, scantily dressed girls and lots of violence are socially acceptable. The message of all of these scathing criticisms of the MPAA is that I just ask for consistency. Someone full on drops an f-bomb. I know. You get one or two, but shouldn't that be in isolation. There's a lot of mildly suggestive stuff in here, so it gets the PG-13. I'm not even that upset. I just like consistency.
DIRECTOR: Justin Lin Amnesia? Oh geez... These movies really tend to blend together. A few years ago, I decided to catch up on the Rocky franchise. Everyone has seen those movies and I felt like I was missing out on a cultural talking point. So, in the period of a week, I watched all of the Rocky movies. I didn't love them. I didn't hate them. That's kind of the attitude I have about the Fast and Furious franchise. I don't love them. I don't hate them. I don't really like them either, but that's a different story. But the thing about Rocky is that I could tell you exactly what happened in each movie. Despite the fact that they are all about boxing and they mostly follow the same structure, they don't really blend together. I can't say that about The Fast and the Furious franchise. There's a "previously on" sequence as the opening credit sequence and I mostly spent time trying to figure out what happened when. Luckily, the mythology of this franchise is pretty fast and loose (pun intended). But I don't really want to rewatch these movies because they are all pretty forgettable. We were wondering how they would become super spies. That's frankly what I have been waiting for. I don't really think that the street racing element was sustainable and I guess I was right. But James Bond has a lot of movies just based on being a spy, so I guess that we can surgically graft the spy genre onto a street racing series of movies. But how can a story justify that change? The easy answer is that it really can't. Like many of these movies, the audience is asked to shut their brains off and just accept the premise. There is no natural transition into this world of spies. When the movie starts off with the Rock talking about the political situation in Russia, you know that the movie wants to take a hard left without alienating audiences too much. There is no doubt at any point that you are watching a Fast and Furious movie. The tone is exactly the same as the other movies, especially the later Justin Lin directed films. But there is a bunch of really superficial spy jargon being thrown around. Getting this group of car thieves into this world is absolutely stupid, but the movie never treats it like it is stupid. I guess, good for them because I don't know how to nuance that relationship any better. Like the franchise itself, it careens high speed into a spy thriller and no one really questions what they are doing there. There are one or two moments where the movie becomes self-aware about that issue, but it treats it in a really dramatic way. Shaw, played by Beauty and the Beast's Luke Evans, comments that Dom has come a long way from stealing DVD players. (Let's establish. Those were VHS players. Stop trying to retcon my favorite part of the series.) As a spy movie, it works closer to the depths of Johnny English than it does Bourne Identity. It follows the old plot of "Bad guy steals technology to ransom big city; we have to get it back." Really, the story is just a shell for bigger stunts that would be allowed in the previous film. It never really feels like a threat to the world, so much as the characters are allowed to blow up a lot more things and be morally justified to do so. As part of that, the characters' morality has gotten slightly better. They still needlessly endanger innocent civilians, but they do seem concerned when the bad guys endanger innocent civilians. That's where the morality line gets weird. They still consider themselves criminals, but they are doing the right thing. But they are constantly endangering lives. I don't know why I can't get over this, but I keep seeing pancaked cars and I know that people are inside those cars. Heck, the opening recap of the movie shows the bus flip and I instantly remembered, "Oh yeah, these guys are bad guys." Since Fast FIve, the movies have become more fun. As stupid as this is, the whole spy thing is probably a refreshing add on to the series. The movie just becomes about action and that, fortunately or not, works. There is a line in the sand though that I really don't like. It happened in Charlie's Angels and it really happens here. Death is completely arbitrary in these movies. The protagonists are unkillable until they aren't unkillable. There are things that are instant deaths for some characters while other characters don't even take a scratch on them. As the lightest spoiler in the world, at least one character dies. The same problems happen to Dom over and over and he doesn't even slow down. Something bad happens to another character, and it clearly is death. As part of that, where is the investment for the audience? Characters die because they need to die to give the movie weight. But that weight doesn't work because the deaths are the most convenient deaths to begin with. SPOILER FOR THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT: because we know that Han dies in Part III and that the movies are out of order, there are so many threads that need to be cleaned up in this one. Part of that involves retconning characters so they make a lick of sense. It's odd how a character can become a fan favorite, so their entire history has to be changed. But this means that all of Han's relationships that he never mentions have to be gone. That makes a cheap death. (Okay, I'm inadvertently spoiling Furious 6, but I don't care at this point. It's stupid.) But there are moments where the characters have played it so fast and loose with physics that major moments in other movies are a walk in the park. Characters jump onto moving vehicles so often that it doesn't even become a stressful moment. No one looks nervous to jump because it is just commonplace now. That shouldn't be a thing. This leads to my least favorite thing in Furious 6: The Dom Jump. There's a moment in Die Another Day that tarnished Bond for me. It probably ruined Bond for a lot of people. In Die Another Day, James Bond is on a glacier being chased by a space laser. (Why do I love that franchise? I'm a hypocrite.) The laser cuts off a piece of the glacier and Bond has to ski down the side of the glacier. The problem with that is that there is no one actually doing the student. It is uncanny valley via space laser. I know that it is impossible that any one person could possibly do the things that James Bond does. But before this moment, someone actually did a close proximity to the stunts that Bond performs. Sure, it was done with safety rigging and wires, but it was still done. My suspension of disbelief is right at that line. If someone really does the stunt, then I could believe that the characters could do the stunt. The Dom Jump in Furious 6 is an example of the completely digital stunt. It is supposed to be so bombastic that no human being could possibly do that. I am so pulled out of this movie at this moment. It's not like I was deeply invested. At no point did I scream, "Go, Dom! Go!" But I watched nothing get launched into the air and catch another nothing only for nothing to hit the windshield. I never feel tension in those moments because these things aren't real. I know I'm waxing poetic about the philosophy of the action movie, but I need something to feel real and that scene feels so artificial that I can't get behind it. I know that The Fast and the Furious isn't Shakespeare. I know that the series lacks real basics when it comes to being something that might even be interpreted as deep, but I want the bare bones of the movie to feel exciting. I want to be able to lie to myself, but the movie doesn't even allow me to do that. The weakest parts of the Fast and Furious movies is that they over-rely on CG. Every time there is a CG part, it is the weakest part of the movie. I'd rather see smaller action sequences done well rather than cool action sequences done artificially. But that's not what these movies are about. They are about going as big as possible and that often hurts. I do like the newer movies better than the older movies, but they still lack any real value to them. I don't mind popcorn cinema, but I still lack any investment with these characters, with the possible exception of Dom and the Rock. We're two movies away from being caught up and I actually can't wait to have the entire franchise under my belt. Overall, I can't recommend these films. Your preconceived notion of what these films are is probably pretty darned accurate, so I'm not going to change any minds. Regardless, they are getting kind of better despite how far they still have to go. This might be my favorite kind of TV-MA. This is TV-MA for sci-fi gross out scares. I don't know why that seems wholesome. I know it isn't. I'm an American hypocrite with that logic, but there's no one evil causing malice. It's a series of gross out events that no one is behind. People die really gross deaths, but it's not like someone is doing it to them. Regardless, pretty gross.
DIRECTOR: Julius Onah I think the Cloverfield franchise might be the most low-stakes franchise that I tend to watch. I don't need them to be great. I just need them to be entertaining. That's a pretty damning criticism of a franchise, but it also fits pretty well. When I saw the first Cloverfield movie, I got motion sick. I normally can handle found footage films, but that one had a lot of insane motion. Plus I watched it on the big screen. It's (what was considered at the time only a spiritual) follow up, 10 Cloverfield Lane went as far as to say it was a pretty great movie. It really destroyed my expectations. But it also was way more of a psychological thriller that kind of (SPOILER FOR 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) slipped when it started to show monsters. But the movie itself was very clever because it seemed like it had such low stakes. This wasn't a "blow up the city" movie. It was a Twilight Zone episode. It was a really good Twilight Zone episode. That's what I like from this. When Cloverfield continued its tradition of viral guerrilla marketing by just releasing the movie unannounced after the Super Bowl, I lost my mind. "How are they doing this?" I thought. I almost watched it there and then, but it was Oscar season and everything took a backseat. I know that most of the reviews for this movie are garbage, but when is that going to stop me, especially when I have little to lose? The Cloverfield Paradox isn't a great movie. In fact, it's probably the weakest of the bunch. But like I mentioned, who cares? It is fun. I can't help but make connections to Event Horizon or Final Destination. The big criticism I hear is that the movie is so cryptic and goes over everyone's heads. I think people might be overthinking this movie...by a lot. I can see why there is this confusion with this movie. The Cloverfield movies are good at doing one thing, teasing the question of "What does this all mean?" This is a J.J. Abrams thing. There are always these Easter Eggs that imply that there is a master narrative behind the obvious narrative. But at the end of the day, these are suspenseful monster movies. Like Lost, these Easter Eggs are fun little details, but they ultimately mean very little. For die hard fans, there's something to explore. But The Cloverfield Paradox only kind of works because of its superficial level. I heard that 10 Cloverfield Lane wasn't originally supposed to be a Cloverfield movie. It was just a high concept movie that, like Die Hard (I just used "Die Hard" in two different ways in the past two sentences. I. Am. Lazzzzzzyyyy) and its third installment. At the end of the day, this is an outer space supernatural horror. What caused all of this? They went to another dimension. Why does going to another dimension make nature want to kill you? Nothing really, but if you just accept that other dimensions want to kill you, the movie kind of works. It works on the same logic that Final Destination works. The idea that the universe is trying to purge any kind of mistake is a fun one, but it is ultimately unsatisfying. I love a well reasoned explanation for my sci-fi. But I also acknowledge that I'd rather have no explanation than a bad explanation. The Cloverfield Paradox kind of lives in that zone. It would be ultimately improved if the events on board the space station even made a lick of sense, but the movie would have been way worse if there was an infodump of technobabble that asked its audience to ignore the flaws of the argument. If I was in the filmmakers's shoes, I probably would have done the same thing. The movie is the fun kind of scary. Like, it never makes me actually scared (because I am infected with toxic masculinity that dares not be vulnerable). But it is fun and suspenseful. I imagine that a lot of this movie rested on cool visuals. The Chris O'Dowd sequence that harkens back to Evil Dead 2 is super fun. It plays on that joke one time too many, but the concept is fun overall. Similarly, the ice scene is super great. These are moments that don't really need to be in the movie, but really define the movie. It's funny. I always groan when people tell me that a Star Wars prequel was great because the lightsaber sequences are way better or that the podracer scene rules. I think it is my lack of investment that makes it okay. The Cloverfield Paradox is not a good movie as a whole, but just a sequence of great moments all cobbled together. It's like I know how the magic trick is done, but the execution of it was still pretty impressive. There are these moments that are supposed to drop my jaw, but all I can think is "That's pretty fun. Let's go with that." Also, the best addition to this movie to give it a fun tone is Chris O'Dowd. I know it isn't exactly gutsy to praise the comic relief for his contribution to the movie, but he is, by far, the best part of the movie. I do want to give some credit to Gugu Mbatha-Raw's Hamilton for holding down the movie. But her character hit beats that I've seen in other movies. (MINOR SPOILERS) It seems like any woman who goes into space has the major internal conflict of dealing with dead children. I don't know why that trope exists. Perhaps the amount of time that it would take to become an astronaut implies that a mother couldn't be home, but I find that emotional challenge a bit tiresome. The Cloverfield Paradox really makes that the heart of the story and I don't know if it works as much as it has in other movies. The best thing that the internal conflict does is present her with a moral dilemma that has an obvious answer. I will give the movie a small amount of points when it comes to the villain of the piece. It's not the best example of a villain who has a point. That award goes to Killmonger. But the villain of this story does have a good point about her goal. She might not be the bad guy. We all know that she's a bad guy because her means to solving the problem is a bit abhorrent, but would I do differently in the same situation. (Yes, I know I would. But at least I would think about it.) I like when the villain is somewhat sympathetic. The end wraps up a bit nicely and I don't necessarily love that. The part that kind of loses points is that the end of the movie, that is meant to be a twist, is telegraphed way too much throughout the film. That final shot isn't what it is supposed to be. As part of that, I don't necessarily love that the purpose of The Cloverfield Paradox is meant to unify their stories. I like that the only connection before this moment was that they were just supernatural horror movie that shared a similar look. The Cloverfield Paradox is a little bit of a hamfisted retcon explaining the other two movies. I didn't need it, but it does make them officially sequels and prequels of one another. I guess that makes the franchise have legs, but it also restricts them overall. The movie isn't the worst thing in the world. I know when a sequel gets worse reviews, it tends to be the worst thing ever. It's a fun movie that ultimately doesn't matter. But it is still a good time for people who like supernatural horror. |
Film is great. It can challenge us. It can entertain us. It can puzzle us. It can awaken us.
AuthorMr. H has watched an upsetting amount of movies. They bring him a level of joy that few things have achieved. Archives
April 2024
Categories |