Rated R for aggressive, uncomfortable sexuality. There's some mild violence, but it is uncomfortable violence. There's just a bunch of creepy behavior happening throughout the film, ranging from language to drinking poisonous material. The Master really lets you sit in some uncomfortable stuff throughout the film, so be aware of that. R.
DIRECTOR: Paul Thomas Anderson Out of all of the major works by Paul Thomas Anderson, this is the only one that I hadn't seen. There was a time in my life when I would get the inside scoop on the major things coming out. I would go to small indie movie theaters with a tiny popcorn and relish seeing something that wouldn't be talked about until the Oscars. The Master was probably a bigger movie than I gave it credit for, but I also had a newborn at the time. I was a new dad and I know that I couldn't just tell my wife that I HAD TO SEE THE NEW PTA! Sure, just because I'm a monster doesn't mean that I'm a monster. A few years later, once The Master hit Netflix for the first time, I --for some reason --thought it would be a good idea to watch this movie when my parents were in town to visit. Within the first few minutes of sexual deviancy, we decided to go a totally different direction. Regardless, this movie has been sitting on my watch list for a while now and I'm glad that I finally got to it. I'll be honest, I think PTA is in a different phase of his artistic career, veering away from the stuff that I really dig. The Master probably hits me in the same place that Phantom Thread does as opposed to There Will Be Blood or Boogie Nights. Like Phantom Thread, The Master rests almost entirely in its characters and its vignettes. As opposed to being a linear story with a definitive beginning, middle, and end, The Master is more about this really odd and toxic relationship between Freddie Quell and Lancaster Dodd. Both characters are extremely hard to relate to. Freddie seems very mentally ill. He exists in this odd sexual sphere where he has these compulsions. He is attracted to underage girls and comes across as fairly gross. Coupled with this sexual deviancy comes this penchant for violence. It could be read as a character who has an extremely short temper with rage issues, but there's a scene early in the movie that almost counters this. He's a portrait artist and there's a guy he just doesn't like. So he starts a fight with him. Freddie is just a messed up mental health case. Perhaps it's a very specific form of PTSD, but Freddie genuinely can't interact and cooperate with society. He's then coupled with Lancaster Dodd, a cultish figure who, according to his son, is making up an entire religion around himself. I read somewhere that PTA showed this movie to Tom Cruise. Because Anderson was inspired by the origins of Scientology, he wanted apparently to avoid burning bridges with the star of Magnolia. If Dodd's religion is inspired by Scientology, it isn't very flattering of the movement. But on the other end of the cycle, it isn't as damning as it could be. It's odd watching how someone who is so screwed up could end up following someone like Lancaster Dodd. Dodd is a charming guy. (Note: I didn't realize how much I missed Phillip Seymour Hoffman, especially when he has something impressive to work with.) Dodd seems less like a cult leader and more like a father figure who has all of the answers. There are moments where we see the facade slip, but most of the movie just a cool dad. He's a guy who really thrives because of his way to comfort people with his "tough-but-fair" attitude around him. It's odd that Freddie climbed so quickly within the ranks of this movement, but it also makes an interesting story seeing how made up psedo-science can fail someone who doesn't follow the traditional social cues. Like I mentioned, the movie is almost told in the form of vignettes. These vignettes give us more of a peek into the world of cult following. Sometimes, Dodd's movement seems fairly harmless, interested in the affect of past lives on the present. As a devout Catholic, I get that some of the things we believe and choose to believe can come across as crazy pants. While I have no belief in past lives or anything like that, there are things that I totally accept as truth that sound crazier. But then there are moments where we see Dodd, the man, peek through. We see this flawed guy who loves being the center of attention create chinks in his authoritative persona. There's the scene when everyone's singing in the house in Pennsylvania. Every single woman in the room is nude. Not one dude is naked. It's this guy who loves justifying what he wants against the message of his movement. I wasn't sure what the movie was exactly going to be about when I watched the trailer in 2012. I wasn't sure if this was going to be a question about whether Dodd was the real deal or a scam artist. Instead, there are these moments that tell us that it is more complicated than that. Part of me wants to believe that Dodd believes his own gospel. His son, Val, straight up tells Freddie that he's making it up as he goes along. But Val always is there. He's there, in England, when the movie is ending. Dodd seems so convinced that what he's speaking is true. When he's arrested and Freddie is losing his mind, look how calm and collected he is. He's literally being silenced by the government. He knows what that looks like. It's perfect for him. Juxtaposed against Freddie's hair trigger, he has this perfect image of the martyr. But look how that compares to when Laura Dern asks him a very simple question about the semantics of his book. He loses his mind. He's a cannon, just like Freddie. Maybe that's what brings the two together. Freddie acts as a reminder for what he really is. They share that love of poison that they drink together. He refers to Freddie as an animal when he laughs or fights or farts. It's probably why he misses Freddie so much when he leaves to find his formerly underage girlfriend. There's something so very cold about Dodd in England and that's probably because he doesn't get his sense of superiority over Freddie. It's really interesting that everyone hates Freddie except Dodd. His wife doesn't want him there. His son-in-law, who might be the most brainwashed of the entire group, keeps bringing up evidence against him. Dodd's actually kind of right with his reasoning about keeping Freddie around. If Freddie doesn't need spiritual help, who does? It's odd that the conversation leads to borderline torture for Freddie. His walk between the window and the wood panel is so revelatory for both Freddie and Lancaster. If the major accusation by Val is that everything that Lancaster does is made up on the spot, Freddie's trials might indicate that Val is accurate. Freddie walks back and forth, doing takeaways from each until he is mentally broken. If Lancaster wants Freddie to lose sense of reality, Freddie's last comment after Lancaster frees him reminds us that nothing that Lancaster says or does is real. It's not the answer that Lancaster wanted. But since he already pulled the plug on the exercise, they both double down on what they want to believe. It's interesting. I can't believe the cast of this movie. I know PTA really casts the heck out of his movie, but every major actor is in this movie. It's insane. It's not my favorite out of the PTA films, but it is insane how much is going on with the movie.
0 Comments
PG, but that's because the world of witches can be kind of scary. There's definitely some scary stuff happening and the art is so good, that it actually comes across as kind of scary. But the movie as a whole definitely has a PG vibe to it. It is aimed at kids and the tone overall fits a younger audience. My son was really cool with it, but he's very comfortable with Ponyo as well. PG.
DIRECTORS: Hiromasa Yonebayashi and Giles New Oh man, I'm running out of movies to write about. I didn't think it would happen. I was so far behind on reviewing them that I started to watch TV. Then I looked at my list and saw that I only have three movies left. What am i going to do? I have to convince those people I know to watch a movie. But not only do I have to convince them to watch a movie, it has to be a movie that I haven't written about. We watched Jaws last night. I love that movie. Too bad I have already written about it. But I was sitting on watching Mary and the Witch's Flower for a while. I don't know why I wasn't in the mood when I first saw this on Netflix. But it was family movie night and it was inside my list, so we explored it. The biggest question mark I had over my head was the relation that this movie had was its connection to Studio Ghibli. Admittedly, my knowledge of anime and the world of Japanese animation is basically limited to Ghibli. Immediately upon seeing the art from this movie, it screamed Ghibli. I have tried lots of other stuff, but usually get pretty turned off to most anime. There's a heavy Ghibli influence over this movie and that's because one of the animators for the Ghibli movies left to go start this studio. Part of that is great. After all, I love the Ghibli stuff. I will say that there's maybe a bit too much influence from the Ghibli background. The opening soldiers scream Ponyo. The character is just Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service. The entire vibe of the magical world really feels like a solid photocopy of the world of Spirited Away. I'm sure there's more, but I can't give Mary and the Witch's Flower all the points in the world because there is something redundant about the whole thing. In fact, the movie is so part of the Ghibli world that the movie really confused me for the first half hour. The movie's start shows The Red-Haired Witch escaping this scary place for a long time. She falls to Earth, her hair changes color...and we see a new red haired girl. Now, for a lot of the movie, I thought it was the same character. I thought Mary was the Red-Haired Girl. Did time pass? Was it a flashback? It was such a narrative break that wasn't addressed, I had no clue what was going on. The world of Kiki's Delivery Service has witches as part of society. It is a world of fantasy realism. But Mary lives in a world like ours. I had no idea. To Mary, witches aren't a thing. So I'm watching this movie for a good deal of time thinking, "Why isn't Mary flying?" When magic showed up, I thought that was just part of the world. Really, the first half-hour might be the most confusing kids movie I had seen in a while, mainly because I couldn't separate its influences. But once I figured out the most basic plot ever and pulled my head out of my butt, the movie becomes this awesome story of self-sacrifice and finding value in oneself. It's interesting the filmmakers decided not to go heavy-handed with Mary's background. She's realistically klutzy. She makes mistakes that every child her age makes. She tries to be helpful, but keeps making silly mistakes. No one hates her for it. But the movie sets up the frustrations of adolescence well. The idea that every kid feels like an outsider and a failure at times is palpable. Going to a world where she's the star student, albeit in a world where she suffers from impostor syndrome, makes her feel special. She has the opportunity to join this world and to be the most impressive girl in the world. But that's what makes Mary interesting. There are lots of kids' movies where a character really wants a talent. "I want to be the best [insert skill here]." Because the character believes in themselves, they are good at that. In the case of Mary, she stumbles across something accidentally. She is given these magic powers temporarily, which give her a much needed boost to her ego. But then she's given this opportunity to choose the objective good or to meet her subjective needs. She knows that everything that she's doing was a lie. (I didn't. I was convinced that she was an actual witch because the movie kept telling me that she was.) But she sees this dark undertone to the wizarding school. It's so bizarre because the movie makes this school super appealing. Who wouldn't want to be the star student at a school that let you fly and stuff? But Mary isn't the dumb character. She knows this is all too good to be true and it's this nice moment in the film where she isn't even tempted by this world where she could be aces. Of course, her gut is accurate. The morality kind of gets a little muddied in this part of the movie. At best, I can see the questionable ethics of the professors in the movie as an anti-animal thing. Yeah, when she starts kidnapping people, they're scary, archvillain evil. In terms of narrative structure, its actually really weird. Mary makes her big moral choice to save Peter early in the film. She risks her life to go after Peter, despite the fact that the odds are against her. She frees all of the animals and is about the leave with Peter...when Peter is kidnapped again. The odd structure here is an odd choice. Does Mary make the same choice to save Peter? That's her character's decision. If anything, her quest is now easier because all of the animals have been saved. Where is her character's moral choice in this moment? It's kind of the same thing? Listen, I really like this movie. Like, I REALLY liked it. But it also is about an hour's worth of actual movie. Mary doesn't really have much of a character arc. She gets over her internal conflict pretty early. The rest of the movie is action and a quick explanation over the most confusing opening in the world. It's good, but it isn't very satisfying. The movie quickly evolves into action movie tropes. But then why am I so emotionally moved by the film? Perhaps it comes from Mary's resolve to keep pushing herself. Perhaps her initial internal conflict comes from the conflict of ego vs. objective good. But then it becomes a story about a warrior growing into a heroine, despite lacking the physical advantage. Everything in the movie is about Mary being wildly outclassed in her abilities, yet standing up to bullies. But I also think that the movie amazing because of craftsmanship. These kinds of films are absolutely gorgeous. What Mary and the Witch's Flower lacks in storytelling, it makes up for in being an absolutely gorgeous movie. It is just a beautiful movie and the animation is so impressive throughout the story. Yeah, Ghibli really nails those small moments, but Witch's Flower is all about how immersive the movie really is. It pulls out the tricks to really make it the most flashy of the films. It is a gambit that works, but I would love a more immersive story. I enjoyed the movie. It's a great movie, but it really kind of lacks a depth that some of the other movies in this genre do. G, but with a large amount of parental intervention. Because all Disney animated films were G rated back in the day, we have to hold it up to the standards of today. This film's racism is downright upsetting by today's standards. It's not something that can really be eliminated from the film because it occupies a large section of the film. For some reason, Peter Pan kind of gets a pass when it really shouldn't. Maybe because it's considered a classic, people forget about the very uncomfortable stereotypes. Still technically G.
DIRECTORS: Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske, and Jack Kinney Hey, if there's ever been a day that has made me want to quit this blog, it was today. There's nothing that makes me want to write right now. Peter Pan isn't exactly the movie that's going to keep me going, so be aware what I'm doing right now? It's a mitzvah. I feel like I've written about this movie before, so this also feels like a waste of digital real estate. But since it doesn't show up in the film index, I'm going to write about it. It's what I do and sometimes it just feels like a chore. I want to talk about the racist elements of Peter Pan. Disney's no stranger to confronting its racist past. I mean, considering that Disney+ decided not to release Song of the South, it understands its checked past when it came to the portrayal of separate races. But stuff like Dumbo can get ignored from time-to-time. While Dumbo is recognized enough as a brand, it never really transcended the threshold into becoming a true Disney classic. Peter Pan is a different beast. Heck, Tinkerbell appears at the beginning of a whole bunch of Disney movies. She's probably the second place mascot for Disney behind the Mouse So the film just dares us to not comment on the very uncomfortable storytelling elements that this movie still presents. Disney is not willing to divorce itself from Peter Pan and it makes sense. Heck, I still love the loose concept of Peter. The boy who wouldn't grow up is an alluring concept. But is it worth it to the success of Disney to keep showing wildly offensive portrayals of Native Americans. I know that there have been changes to the song "Why is the Red Man Red?", but these seem to be small moves. I commented on this when I looked at The Love Bug. There's an argument to be made that some art still needs to be presented when separated from its cultural biases. But there's also stuff like Peter Pan. Peter Pan is the ultimate escapist fantasy. The movie even implies that the events of the film are simply the product of Wendy's imagination. Wendy imagines this whole world where she learns about the joys of childhood and the dangers of adulthood. Eventually, because she needs to learn a lesson in the process of aging, she discovers that eternal youth can actually be pretty toxic. But Neverland is the product of Wendy's imagination Sure, Victorian London could be far less progressive than 2020 America (by a smidge), but one of the adventure stories that Wendy identifies with is being kidnapped by a savage. In her head, that's the American Indian / the Native American. Wendy's concept of excitement is remarkably telling. I know, I'm taking the magic out of Peter Pan. Neverland is completely fictional, at least in this entry. The fact that Captain Hook is Wendy's father is really telling to the whole adventure. You could argue that it's real and, to a certain extent, it is. Neverland is a liminal place, between reality and fantasy. I do be believe that Michael and John went to Neverland, but it's something outside of being grounded in a place. Second star to the right and straight on until morning is a great location, but it is also wildly subjective. But Wendy's imagination is a place where she's constantly being a passive character in her own adventure. This is Wendy's story. Her dream is to meet a boy who can take her on his adventures. She wants to be the damsel in distress. Yeah, it's good that she learns her lesson about how toxic immaturity / arrested development can be. But she never really puts herself in a place that would be self-actualized. Why isn't it Wendy who fights alongside Peter against Captain Hook? It's something really telling what Wendy thinks of herself. Her conflict with her father is what inspires the entire adventure to Neverland. The stories that she has been telling come to life and Wendy is transported to a fantasy world full of mermaids, savages, and pirates. No one in this world really likes her except Peter. Peter is her only friend and there seems to be a sense of romance building between them. But rather than make herself a hero in this land full of brigands and fantasy monsters, she's completely content to place herself in constant danger, only to have Peter rescue her. Now, this all could be a metaphor for the fact that she's completely dependent on her parents. Rather than striking out into the real world, her parents, particularly her father, criticizes her for being so childish. But Neverland is full of independent children. Why isn't Wendy the greatest of these? Michael and John take to Neverland's system of child heroes immediately. Wendy, however, sticks to the outmoded sense of a patriarchal system. She mirrors Tiger Lily, a model for heroism who is captured. However, the mermaids immediately hate Wendy and try drowning her. Wendy doesn't have an excuse for not understanding that the mermaids want to drown her. After all, this is her fantasy. (I'm really sticking with this interpretation.) Similarly, she's mortified that the Lost Boys view her as a mother. The creation of Neverland in her mind is an attempt to avoid growing up and becoming a mother. Perhaps most telling about Wendy's self-esteem is the fact that the only other major female character hates her. J.M. Barrie might actually hate women. Maybe this is part of the Disney story, not the novel. I only got to the first fifteen pages with Olivia before she got bored, so Tinkerbell never entered into the storyline. But look how catty Tinkerbell gets with the only other sign of femininity. This is Wendy's fantasy and she's afraid of savages, and other women. The pirates, despite being the only characters that act as antagonists, aren't really to be feared. Captain Hook, as the bad guy of the piece, is the least scary. He's actually evil in this land of make believe and no one is really scared of him. But Tinkerbell actually wants to murder Wendy. Heck, everyone wants to murder Wendy, especially if they are female. The story of a boy who never grows up hides the actual fears that Wendy has and that's of the female sex. Everything is competitive. Men like Peter are inherently children and refuse to help the situation. Rather than live in a world where she shirks responsibility and looking from man-to-man to help, she needs to grow up and marry young. It's a really weird message. Again, a lot of this analysis is based on the idea that Wendy is making this all up, or believes that she is. It really does feel like Wendy's dream because Wendy is doing all of the growing. I'm actually bummed that I'm finishing up (it's getting so late), but there's some stuff to unpack if my theory is right. I hate that it is fundamentally a racist film nowadays, but there's something really interesting going on in the background...that is ALSO regressive? Rated R for sexuality, nudity, language, drunkenness, and drugs. It's a B- raunchy movie. It's not the most offensive thing you'll ever see, but it does glorify the vices of the college scene pretty hard. Also, the obsession with sex is pretty immature throughout the film. Guys treat each other fairly terribly and there's talk of some really depressing material in a light-hearted tone. It's well-deserving of its R rating.
DIRECTOR: Richard Linklater Shhh! I have a bit of a secret. I've been citing this movie without having seen it for a lot of movies. It's always in that lumped together Richard Linklater Dazed & Confused genre of film. I've been talking about these kinds of movies as the ultimate nostalgia machines. I'm not wrong. At least, I don't think that I'm wrong. But I wanted to watch this movie for a while. Despite the fact that I've written long diatribe about the nostalgia movie, I kinda/sorta enjoy them. They aren't amazing movies to me, mainly because they rely to heavily on an individual nostalgia that isn't necessarily universal. But at least Everybody Wants Some!! offers something besides the traditional nostalgia. For being a movie about baseball and college, there's very little of actual baseball or actual college in this movie. I'm not exactly minding the lack of baseball. They talk about baseball all the time, but rarely actually play or practice. It's part of the conceit of the film and is more of a commentary on the competitive nature of the alpha male. It's slightly toxic, but it also feels pretty darned honest at the same time. Considering that one of the motifs running through the film is the male need to be competitive, I get that they're going to talk about baseball a whole bunch. The lack of actual classes in the movie actually makes a bit of sense as well. The film surrounds a countdown for the first class, giving a really interesting frame of reference for how jam packed this opening weekend actually is. The thing that really separates me from really embracing anything universal in this film is that it really speaks to a demographic that I have nothing in common with. My senior year of college, I told my parents that I wanted to go up to my apartment at school a week early because I wanted to work on my thesis. This was not true. (I'm actually confessing something real, yet minor, right now.) Instead, I ate a bunch of Chinese food from the best Chinese takeout place that I've ever eaten and binged a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the entire series of Firefly. I grew into a pretty dark depression for how little I actually moved in that room. My couch got a nice Tim-shaped-lump in it and I didn't move. It was great / terrible. But the concept of pre-semester fun is very specific in Everybody Wants Some!!. There's an understanding that everyone in college is there to party. I like Linklater...kind of. There are times here I get behind everything he does and I namedrop him in intellectual debates. But there are also these moments where he just comes across as so bro-ey that I can't even slightly relate to him. Linklater is always known for his honesty with character. He creates these flawed individuals who mimic the dialogue that the witty have in his films. But there's slightly something off between Dazed & Confused and Everybody Wants Some!!. These characters are archetypes. Jake serves as the avatar for the audience. As the freshman, Jake communicates of being outside the comfort zone of the film. Because Jake doesn't know what he's getting into, we also have to follow the examples of the veterans. But the veterans aren't exactly nuanced. Rather, they are all fulfilling a role. Finnegan is the pseudo-intellectual and comic relief. Always the one who communicates the message of the scene, Finnegan is criminally self-aware. He never breaks the fourth wall, but he mind as well be. McReynolds is the loose cannon, toxic alpha. It's weird for me because I only see him as Superman now. You can go down the list. Probably the most criminal example of archetype as opposed to something real is Jay. Honestly, I think that Juston Street was channeling Michael Showalter for the majority of the film. He felt like more of a character from The State than he did a real person. But the movie actually can break down into some interesting ideas. Jake, as a protagonist, is sympathetic mainly because the rest of the cast is wildly unsympathetic. I think Linklater is doing this on purpose. The goal for this character is to find the girl who liked him. But Jake is quiet from the beginning of the film. He is the hesitant participant in their trip to the bar immediately upon arrival. When they run into Beverly, she only flirts with Jake because the other guys in the car are so aggressive. That's really a metaphor for the story. We consider Jake to be moral mainly because the other characters are immoral. But he's not actually a good guy. In terms of Jake's goals, he wants to find Beverly because he found her pretty and interesting. (I never said that it was going to be an impressive goal.) He looks for her room number and implies that this is the girl that he's going to date throughout his college career. Cool? Too bad that, the same evening, Jake hooks up. Not accidentally. He doesn't meet a girl who is really into him and she makes the first move. No, he goes on the attack. When he goes to the disco, he goes with the express intention of hooking up. When they go back to the house with the girls, in direct violation of coach's rules, he gets frustrated at Beuter for stopping him from entering the room. Remember, this is our male protagonist. We want him to find Beverly. Now, Beverly and Jake are not together. Heck, they haven't even technically spoken. But his hookup with the girl in his car doesn't really deter him from chasing Beverly. Perhaps I'm overly moralizing, but Linklater is commenting on the fickleness of attraction and adolescence. Jake is handsome and charming. Compared to the mooks that he shares a house with, he's downright a saint. But he's actually not actually a good dude. Instead, he acts as a chameleon in every environment. Linklater grasps onto the image of "chameleon" throughout the film as almost a commentary on the individual. There's something interesting going on with that discussion of blending in. Jake and Finnegan have a concrete discussion about the idea of shedding skins for one's personal gain. It's really interesting because it could take a far greater moral choice. But the movie is kind of about self-discovery. Listen, you want to tell a story about not knowing who you are. You plant the movie at a college where everyone is so desperate to determine what they are going to be for the rest of their lives. You put this white male, Jake, at the center of that. We know that he's a baseball player, but he's outside the troupe because he's a pitcher. He's both inside and out. He likes baseball, but he's not obsessed like McReynolds. He dates a girl who puts on masks and characters for a major. There's a guy in the group who is 30 but pretending to be 20. There's a lot of narrative cues about hiding oneself. That's why I find the Justin interaction so cool. When the boys are forced to leave their comfort zone of the disco, they instantly adapt and shift to the Country Western joint. There's a nod to the fact that there is a hint of deception happening with this choice. But that choice is made clear when Justin, who has completely abandoned his personality as a baseball player. He adapts the garb of punk and invites Jake to join him. That conversation that Jake and Finnegan have is perhaps illuminating to the human need for identity. On one end, it could simply be read as the characters are liars, manipulating the truth to selfishly get what they want out of others. And you wouldn't be wrong with that analysis. But there's also the concept that identity is maleable. Jake seems to be honestly enjoying himself at the punk show, especially when the Gilligan's Island theme is played. The same attitude can be seen at the theater party. Rather than seeing himself as better than others, he simply adapts to each situation. It's why Jay comes across as so icky, because he's obsessed with his own identity. It's actually a pretty decent movie, just not one that resonates on every level. I'm glad that I've seen it so I can officially start doubling-down on my arguments. Not rated because it was a Disney Channel Original Movie from 1987. Yeah, that's where things get dicey. There's an evil toy CEO who wants to militarized an android. That can get pretty scary, I guess? Also, Chip makes some really uncomfortable teen smoking jokes which just scream 1987. At one point, it looks like Chip is dead. Also, the evil toy CEO nearly murders some of the main characters. It's 1987 Disney Channel Original Movie terror.
DIRECTOR: Steven H. Stern I'm a turd, that's why. Watch the original High School Musical today. I'm sure some of you out there probably watch it on the reg. Does it really hold up? Be honest. Like, if you introduced a Zoomer to this movie today, would they be like "This is the best movie ever" or would they be clamoring for another sequel to Zombies or The Descendants? Now, imagine applying that same standard to a movie that most people have forgotten about, let alone had never seen. Okay. As a kid, I was obsessed with this trilogy. I watched them all on my VHS recordings on a loop until I wore out the tape. I bought the novels from the discount toy store at the outlet mall, where my dad, for some reason, decided to argue about whether a toy store really belonged in an outlet mall because it wasn't one brand of toys. Oh, not with me. With the employee who was working at the time. These are the small things I've held onto. With Disney+ out, I really wanted to test out how deep the Disney original content went. It failed with the Not Quite Human franchise. But I can also see why no one cared. We found a YouTube version of Not Quite Human (hypothetically because I actually really believe in supporting artists, but there literally is no other way to watch this that would involve the artists getting a piece of this). There's a general lack of quality to this movie. I think this is just something that my four-year-old brain locked onto. This is the same kid who would later graft onto Star Trek: The Next Generation aggressively. I think I just love the Data narrative so much that it was written into my DNA / OS. This is something I'm going to explore about myself right now. It's going to go pretty heavy and perhaps be selfish. But then again, I don't know who is clamoring to a personal film website to be reading about one dude's opinions on the 1987 forgotten trashbag that is Not Quite Human. The answer, reader, is you by the sheer fact that you are reading this. Happy jackpot, reader, because you are in a very small club. Heck, usually I dive deep to look for images that are in the proper aspect ratio to put above. I was just thrilled to find some cropped images from the movie that were high res enough to put on the page without shrinking the image. These are things I deal with on a regular basis. But back to the Pinocchio narrative. The odd thing is that I don't like Pinocchio. I really never cared for it. Perhaps it was Monstro, which puts off a lot of kids. But I think it is the very cynical nature of innocence that Pinocchio imbues to children. What I'm talking about in terms of Pinocchio is the concept that a new being is created free of the constraints of humanity. This creature wants nothing more than to be human. We saw this in A.I. and, again, in Star Trek: The Next Generation. "I want to be a real boy" is such a pure ambition. Part of it comes from the idea that we all want to be real people. As a kid, the conspiracy theory part of my brain ran to a script that told me "What if everyone is just a robot?" Everyone feels different than everyone else. As an adult, I have learned to embrace and to even feed that sense of difference from others. It's what causes me to have these goals and projects because I do value what other people find burdensome. Yeah, I'm a weird dude. But Pinocchio goes from being a block of wood to choosing every sin in the universe. Pinocchio is meant to be a cautionary tale for children, one that we probably need to hear. It's all about knowing that there will be all those temptations out there, yet we're never too far from redemption. That's pretty important for kids, but it is really moralistic. The sci-fi nerd in me doesn't really care about that. Rather, I love the idea of Data and Chip. Because I'm writing about Not Quite Human, I'll try to stay on target with that reference. Chip is born into a broken world. His dad's boss is a corrupt super evil CEO who wants to make money with war toys (things were simpler in Disney times). He also wants to sell an entire army of Chips to the military, so I can see how that's pretty evil. Also, the actor's name is Joseph Bologna, and I hope it's pronounced "Joey Baloney". Like, this might be another Joey Baloney Joint. However, his dad and creator is a good man who wanted to build a brother for her daughter. His sister, while emotional and kind of high needs, is also a pretty good person. Chip runs into temptations and, unlike Pinocchio, never understands these temptations. They actually don't serve to tempt him. Rather, he balances the only two goals that he has: please those people around him and try to become fully human. By making the goal of a character "to become human", that's the most optimistic view of humanity that I've ever heard. The result of such a goal is a contrast between what Chip expects humans to be like and what they are actually like. Throughout his adventures through high school, he runs into actual humans displaying some of our worst characteristics. There's the guy who befriends him who offers Chip up as sacrifice to the school bully. There are multiple examples of toxic masculinity running all over the place, both with the student body and the faculty. Everyone is obsessed with their own sexuality and then there's Chip, desperately trying to make everyone happy. He's never frustrated, mainly because he's incapable of really getting frustrated. Both Chip and Data act as templates of innocence throughout their adventures because they are incapable of being evil. Their greatest sin to the lack of trying. It doesn't make them heroic, but it does kind of show the potential for good. Chip gains humanity from TRYING to be human, not mimicking. It's a really weird statement because... ...Chip IS a robot? Not Quite Human has a moment where Chip kind of exceeds his programming. He starts developing feelings for certain people, which is explained away by the fact that his neural network is always trying to better itself and evolve. But I really wish that line wasn't in the movie. Like, it would have been this absolutely great moment where Alan Thicke would just have looked at this machine and known that something special was going on. Instead, there's always that weird Turing Test that we, as the audience, are putting Chip through. Having that line explain how he's bettering himself is still pretty hopeful, but it also minimizes the successes that Chip actually achieves. But then why do I find these characters so satisfying? As an adult --a fairly cynical adult for that matter --I tend to see robots as simply things. I'm the bad guy in most comic books and sci-fi. It's the idea that things have souls. Maybe what appeals to me about these stories is the concept that it challenges what a soul really is. Again, this is the entertainment and philosophy part of me that is being engaged, not the spiritual side. Chip and Data are robots, regardless of "A Measure of a Man." But we're about to enter an age of artificial intelligence, where this text will be read, re-read, and processed in a hundredth of a nanosecond and I'll be locked up for speaking out against our Skynet overlords. But I want Chip to be real. There's something earnest and honest about Chip as a character that is fundamentally good. He sees humanity as something that is perfect. We are flawed and keep pushing. It's probably pretty selfish to take Chip's journey of self-discovery and attribute it to my fleshy existence, but it's there. I do have to remind everyone that this movie is terrible. My wife saw the first minute and had flashbacks to Time Chasers on Mystery Science Theater. It's a pretty rough film and it wasn't long before I found that I was the only one watching it. Heck, I was the one who had picked it and watched it a million times and even I was bored with this trash. It's an awful movie, but there's something about it that actually asks some pretty big questions, even if it didn't mean to. Not rated, but Zatoichi continues to kill all kinds of dudes using swords. There's blood, but the blood is pretty minimal considering how many people he kills. There's also a bordello in the movie. It is treated somewhat tastefully, but I can't avoid mentioning it. I tend to watch Lone Wolf and Cub movies after I watch a Zatoichi movie. The Lone Wolf and Cub movies make these movies feel real tame. Not rated.
DIRECTOR: Akira Inoue I think my Zatoichi posts must be the least read. I would be willing to bet that anyone from my limited readership has gotten as far into the Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman box as I have. It's a bit of a chore, to a certain respect. It's not that I don't enjoy them. I actually really look forward to when another one falls into the queue. (There's a completely organized, but ludicrous system to things showing up on the viewing list. It makes complete sense in my mind. I'll just throw it right here: Netflix DVD, streaming movie, a James Bond movie, a Fox Searchlight movie, a rotation between Zatoichi-BBS-Lone Wolf, and a movie that I own but haven't watched my copy of.) Zatoichi's Revenge is probably one of my favorite movies in a while, and it almost completely comes from the concept that it is slightly different to the other movies. I can't stress the "slightly" aspect of how different this movie is. It, like the other entries in the Zatoichi franchise, does the same things that the other movies do. Zatoichi is on the road. People underestimate him. He does some flashy swordwork. He makes friends. The local gangsters want to get rid of him. There's a big boss that Zatoichi has to take care of. He then murders a bunch of dudes. He moves on. Sorry if I spoiled both Zatoichi's Revenge, but also all the other Zatoichi movies, but I have to lay that out there because it works. The first movies in the series were all about just presenting that formula. As such, the stories weren't very interesting because the conflict always was always external. Zatoichi tended to be a force of the universe, solving problems that weren't really his own. It's kind of absurd that the movies in this arc of Zatoichi films tend to have some personal connection to Zatoichi. I've criticized this period pretty hard by forcing these emotional stakes on the character. Zatoichi's Revenge might have finally learned the lesson. Yeah, the internal conflicts tend to be a bit ham-handed, but they are introduced way earlier. Rather than have these artificial friendships hoisted upon the character, only to have them taken away, Zatoichi is intentionally visiting this place because he wishes to see his old master. He has a connection to this town that has been dominated by gangsters. His teacher has been killed and he has been stripped of his mission. Sure, we never heard of this guy before. But I do like something that would make sense for his character. As a nomad, there would be very few actual ties that Zatoichi could keep, but one would be the guy who taught him to do all this cool stuff. It also makes sense that Zatoichi would have loose ties to the people in this town. What kind of happens, and it isn't overt, is that Zatoichi shifts from the role of outsider to the spiritual fatherhood of a lot of the characters. Zatoichi tends to be hope for towns. When he can samurai sword anyone and anything faster than lightning, he becomes almost like a superhero. But it seems like, in this one, that people actually care what Zatoichi thinks of them. Denroku actually has a pretty tight arc with this movie in conjunction to his relationship with Zatoichi that we don't usually get in one of these movies. He's this guy that we instantly like. He sucks in the sense that he's kind of selfish and named "the Weasel", but he is instantly way more human than the other characters we meet. He's a rogue at the bottom of his game. He is a guy who is forced by circumstance to be a little bit gross. He has a daughter and he lost his wife. He is this hesitant bad guy, simply because he serves the gangsters. But we see this genuine friendship develop between both of these characters that, for once, makes a ton of sense. When Denroku accepts the stolen cane, it becomes this honest-to-goodness Judas moment. He goes through this whole moral conundrum. He knows that stealing the cane is the worst thing that he can do to Zatoichi, but he also wants to save his daughter from being taken away. Then the movie allows him to see beyond the binary choice and it works out. It's pretty fantastic. It also heavily implies that Zatoichi is a father figure to Sayo (if I'm mixing up my characters, I apologize. I watched this a week ago and Zatoichi movies tend to blend together). Considering that this town is personal to Zatoichi, he feels far more comfortable. Instead of the outsider commenting on the ills of this tiny society, Zatoichi almost comes to the story from a sense of authority. We know that Sayo is Denroku's daughter, but Zatoichi offers what Denroku cannot. There's a sense of normality and a tie to Sayo's mother that plays really well as a narrative function. There's this great scene where Zatoichi knows the end of the song that Sayo's mother used to sing. The previous films kept on teasing the idea that Zatochi's quest for acceptance would always be spoiled by a life of violence. It is never more so than when he has to kill the assassin, yet shelter the girl from seeing this violence. I mean, it's a bit heavy handed, but it really works in this scene. I like when it becomes really personal and when Zatoichi might see his life as a curse more than anything else. The rest of the movie is just a good time. I don't know what would make sword fighting action more interesting in one movie versus another. I know that the people behind these movies love the idea of dice being a false kryptonite for Zatoichi. This one also has the fast blade showing the reality of the dice trick. I think I wrote all about this in another Zatoichi analysis, but the movie really gives him no vulnerability through his blindness. There are moments that straight up stress that Zatoichi can see as well as anyone else. But it works. At least there are things that Daredevil avoids, knowing that there would be no way for him to identify the issues. But Zatoichi straight up doesn't care. Someone was actually holding up fingers and Zatoichi got it, first try. Okay. Regardless, I really dig Zatoichi movies if I spread them out a bit. There are just so many of them. I was kind of depressed that I was ONLY on number 10. This was a super fun time. The key is to not binge these movies. Rated PG for infidelity. Really, there's people who treat each other like jerks, but that's the only real offensive content. Can the MPAA rate something as offensive if someone's just a jerk throughout the movie? Probably not. It's an overall pretty clean movie that served to be one of those surprise great family movie nights. PG.
DIRECTOR: Tom Hanks I woke up and I was already on my last nerve. My oldest daughter brought in my youngest daughter who was screaming. Everyone was demanding things. My wife, bless her, allowed me to sleep for an extra hour. But tensions had not stilled in that time and my kids just got more and more demanding since then. So it's going to be fun to try to match the fun tone of what might be the world's most entertaining joyful movie ever, That Thing You Do! The exclamation point is well deserved. Because I'm incapable of being emotionally vulnerable enough to put a good-time movie on my favorites list, I have to present That Thing You Do! as a movie that actually isn't a perfect film. It's a very entertaining movie, especially if you have the soundtrack memorized ahead of time. I'm not proud of this, but I'm not ashamed either, that I have the That Thing You Do! soundtrack memorized. My wife does as well, as does my sister-in-law. I know, because we sang all of the songs. I know that you probably thought that the only song in the movie is the titular song, but you would be mistaken. Sure, the titular song is sung something like eleven times over the course of the film, but that's beside the point. In terms of actual narrative, Tom Hanks has fictionalized rock biopic after rock biopic. We know the story of That Thing You Do! because it has been told in reality a million times. Hanks is probably smart that he beat a bunch of rock narratives to the punch, but all of the beats are there. I mean, he named the band "The Wonders" for goodness sake. We can't claim that That Thing You Do! is an amazing story (or maybe you can? Who am I?), but we can understand that it is both a love letter to a specific era in music coupled with a charismatic script with characters that shine. Again, a friend from high school went to town that plot doesn't necessarily matter and That Thing You Do!, despite being a small fry in the grand scheme of things, might be a great example of him being right. Hanks plants all of the seeds of chaos throughout the movie. We know that The Wonders are not going to be the Beatles. With a frontman like Jimmy constantly reminding the audience that there are toxic elements in this group, the audience's role in the film is not to imagine The Wonders changing the face of music, but wondering when they are going to fall apart, pun not intended. The smartest thing that this movie does is make Guy the protagonist. Guy is both the fantasy of the rock god coupled with an avatar for the audience. He's a fan. He's probably Tom Hanks, if Tom Hanks would be honest about it. He loves music so much and he's remarkably talented at what he does, but he is an outsider. I actually kind of get why Jimmy is so hostile to him. He's this outside element. He represents how fickle loyalty is in the name of stardom. But Guy becomes the face of the band. We all know it's Jimmy's band. Guy technically didn't write anything, but he gets to come in with the cool shades and the attitude that makes the song work. But that's what makes Guy such a compelling protagonist, besides the whole rock fantasy element. Guy fundamentally gets what makes a song work. One of the weirdest moments in the movie is Guy's co-opting of the titular song. He was this guy (pun intended) that was brought in because the drummer broke his arm and he was just supposed to play one song. During practice, he took orders and worked as a for-hire performer. During that time, he never spoke up and said, "Hey guys. I know I'm new here, but maybe my fresh perspective could give us an edge" and then continued to play "That Thing You Do" like a boss. There was never that scene. It's a really weird choice that Guy, right as they're about to start the Battle of the Bands contest, mentally screams "I want to see the world burn" and rocks out as hard as he can. Yeah, it worked, but it really shouldn't have. And Guy is too talented of a drummer to not know what he's doing. Look at that dude's face and tell me that he doesn't know what he's doing? Yeah, it's sexy that he's our protagonist, but I would hate him if I was Jimmy too. It's odd how hard the movie goes out of its way to make sure that the male and female leads aren't cheating on their significant others. I mean, thank goodness. I instantly seize up when I discover that the protagonists are the ones who are doing the cheating. But to make that happen, they have to completely leave the romantic moments for the last five minutes of the film. Like Guy's co-opting of "That Thing You Do", it works even thought it shouldn't. I mean, the movie doesn't hide the fact that the chemistry between Liv Tyler and Tom Everett Scott is there throughout the film, but the fact that it doesn't really indulge it makes it all the more palpable. Sure, maybe there's a bit too much kissing when they finally do (that thing they do), but it is pretty darned satisfying to watch that moment play out. I think this is the movie where we all started to love Steve Zahn as well. He had a little wildfire following this movie. Even when I would watch Saving Silverman for the hundredth time on Comedy Central, he would always be the guy from That Thing You Do!. Again, this is all about character dynamics, so Steve Zahn reminds us that The Wonders really have potential. Jimmy is the toxic element. Lenny is the attractiveness of being a rock star (it's good times!), Guy is the audience, and The Bass Player is both the absurdity of the entire situation coupled with the clock. I talked about how the story didn't really matter in That Thing You Do! because everything else is great. There at least is a clock on the whole piece. The band has to get as good as it can before the Bass Player goes off to the military. It's basic storytelling, but I actually kind of love it. It's stupid stakes, but I don't deny that it is a stake to fight for. That Thing You Do! when it all comes down to it is a fun movie throughout. I never got bored, despite the fact that I've seen this story so many times. I like when a movie goes heavy, but really good candy is still really good. Tom Hanks is a good director. I don't know how you write a hit for a movie that actually feels like a hit, but I adore that song. It's been a while since 1996, but this movie still holds up. Rated G, but we have that Siamese cat problem that we saw in Lady and the Tramp. It mostly is a harmless movie that involves the potential death of animals, but it actually seems like the villain is going out of his way to not actually hurt the cats. Besides the moment of racism, it actually might be a genuine G rating. Yay?
DIRECTOR: Wolfgang Reitherman Oh my goodness, I am so tired. I straight up woke up in a panic attack about Covid this morning and I've been overdoing the internet trying to talk about Black Lives Matter. Everything in my body is saying, "Don't write about a movie today. It's not the time." I've probably alienated a majority of my readers with my support of BLM and my blog is dying on the vine. I'm not going to try to paint writing as heroic because there's nothing heroic about writing a film blog. Instead, I'm hoping that some part of my brain will shut off for five minutes so I can sleep and start again rejuvenated. In light of all of that, do you know how wind-out-of-sailsish I felt when I read off of my notes list that I would be writing about The Aristocats? It couldn't have been The Aristocrats. That might actually have a little weight and I could talk about if vulgar humor held up in a time where hate is spouted so readily. Nope, I have to write about some rich cats who get booted out of their house by a goofy butler and meet up with an alley cat. That's my chore. Instead of sleeping, I'm writing about this. It's actually my niece's favorite movie. She's teeny-tiny and adorable and she won't stop talking about the "kitty movie." She was really tired when we were sitting for her once, so I put on The Aristocats, despite the fact that I haven't seen it. That was a while ago. I didn't watch it when she was here. But it was my son's pick for a movie because my kids tend to watch it when they are over at their cousins. It's about time that I've watched it and I didn't hate the runtime. An hour eighteen puts me in a good head space, so I gave this one an honest shot. I can see why Aristocats doesn't really make a lot of highlight reels. I'm not saying the movie's bad. I actually had a pretty fun time with the movie, but it also might be one of the laziest movies I've seen for a while. It kind of feels like The Aristocats might be the greatest hits of Disney in one movie. Eva Gabor, who would go onto doing The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under is one of the protagonists. Phil Harris is just doing his bear voice for O'Malley, taken from The Jungle Book and Robin Hood. The story is just The Lady and the Tramp with kids. If I'm not mistaken from the many Facebook videos that I get distracted by, The Aristocats might be one of the movies that steals motion from the other Disney films. There's something that just feels so recycled about the movie. The only thing that I didn't see coming is the motive for the antagonist to carry out his plan the way he did. Maybe I'm just a broken person who wants my villains to be super evil, but why didn't the Butler just wait until the Madame died? Hear me out. The movie surrounds a rich dowager who leaves a vast estate to the butler...after the death of the cats. The will implies that this butler will take care of the cats until they die and then, with what little life the butler has left, he can enjoy the remainder of the fortune. I'm going to step out of line here and sympathize with the butler. He has been seen as less than human in this scenario and I would probably be upset to. She could have given everything to the butler with the condition that he takes care of the cats. That seems like a win-win. But he comes up with this plan to kidnap the cats and dump them out somewhere way down the line. I mean, that's a humane option. First of all, just kill the cats. Sending them farther away probably won't do the trick. Sorry that I want my villains to be scary evil. Alright, that was the first thing. The second thing probably makes more sense to everyone: just wait until the dowager dies. Listen, the butler won't get the money in any scenario until the dowager dies, right? The cats are making their way back to see the dowager (which, I'll admit, the butler wouldn't know). But also, it's not like the dowager, upon the loss of her precious cats, is running to change her will so the butler gets the money. Heck, spend the time that the dowager has left to take extra care of the cats. For all we know, seeing a kindred spirit might have her change the will. It's a really obvious concept. He goes through all this risk to kidnap these cats, especially considering that he's kind of inept at kidnapping. He makes the front page of the news (oh, 2020, to have a cat-napping incident be the lead story...) because the dowager, of course, reported it. Why bring all this heat in your direction? Now, just to prove the butler's point about his value in terms of his humanity. *ahem* The dowager freaks out about her missing cats. Sure, reasonable point. But when the butler goes missing, happy ending for everyone! Shouldn't the dowager be mortified at the sudden disappearance of her trusted servant, who will receive her vast fortune? That's kind of the whole "I'm with the butler on this thing." Okay, I'm not a cat murderer. That's all I need to add onto my anxiety. People googling my name with the term "Cat murderer" next to it. But he should be mad. Like, I get that he can't confront his employer about this injustice. After all, he's not supposed to know about the fortune and the will. But also, like, cats? The cats get money? I don't even know if that's entirely legal. I hope that one of my few readers remaining are able to confirm that a litter of cats can't receive a vast fortune. But even if they did, what are their needs? Sure, pet ownership can be expensive, but giant French mansion expensive? They like milk with spices in it. That's it. That's their real luxury. I can throw some nutmeg in a cup of milk and microwave it for 50 seconds. Why is she doing this? It's a sign of affection for cats who can't even understand it. The cats in this movie are sentient and able to communicate with other animals with complex ideas, but they have no idea what the dowager is offering to them. There's never a scene where Duchess says, "You know what? That's so generous, but what about the guy who actually works for a living? We don't need a lot. We're cats." Is there a character arc for O'Malley? I feel like there is, but I have a really hard time defining it. O'Malley is an archetype. He's the rogue who hits on a hot lady cat. When he finds out that she has kids, he's admittedly nervous. But he keeps coming to these major character growth moments in seconds? Is it really character growth if you think about the flaws in your character and immediately come to the right decision? The Aristocats is formulated like a road movie adventure. They have to get to a destination in a reasonable amount of time and there are going to be all these hijinks along the way. Cool. We're all on board. But the role of a road trip narrative is to have the characters grow slowly. As they physically progress on their journey, they emotionally grow as well. O'Malley is clearly the character who has this journey. He's the only one who changes from point A to point B. But he's never really all that much of a hesitant rogue. He sees pretty lady Duchess. He hits on her. He finds out that she has kids and is anxious to take care of a whole family, especially knowing that this date with Dutchess isn't going to be casual...and he immediately embraces it. Sure, we understand that urge. We're watching The Aristocats. We're good people. But O'Malley keeps making this decision over and over. He doesn't go from rascal to hero. He goes from slightly hesitant to less hesitant than that. That's not much. That's probably why The Aristocats doesn't have the same legs as some of the other Disney movies. Look at Meg in Hercules. I don't love Hercules, but it does Meg right. Meg is the rogue character who is holding onto something significant at the beginning of the story. Through the journey, she learns that her biases and preconceptions might be at the root of the problem, so she abandons them to great sacrifice to herself. Really, O'Malley is actually a really good guy. He does the right thing, in spite of a desire for self-care. That's probably more noble than it just coming naturally. He knows what he wants for himself, his selfish desires, and always makes the choice to ignore those decisions. That's pretty rad. But it also makes for boring storytelling. I preach the hour and eighteen minute Disney movies because they are easy to digest. But The Aristocats might be the most entertaining of those movies. There's nothing really all that bleak about the film. Honestly, The Aristocats is like cotton candy. There's almost nothing valuable about it whatsoever, but it is just a good time. The reason that my niece likes the movie is because it is the kitty movie. She's totally right. This is a great kitty movie. The kitties are adorable. They say cute things THROUGHOUT THE FILM. There's very little actual danger. It's just a movie about kitties. No, I don't actually want to be a cat, despite the thesis of the film, but who cares? The Aristocats is a film pretty weak on substance, but that never spoils a good time to be had. It shows up, shows me a bunch of funnyish cats, and doesn't overstay its welcome. I won't fight this one. PG. I was almost willing to forgive the opening credits sequence because the nudity is actually more implied in this one. Then I forgot that we have some straight up rear end nudity in this one. Timothy Dalton's movies were always known for their very serious approach to Bond, similar to what Daniel Craig brought to the role. While nothing is outside the realm of being in a Bond movie, the movie's deadly serious tone highlights the darkness that is inherent to sex and violence. It's still PG, but it feels more like a PG-13 movie.
DIRECTOR: John Glen When I was a kid, my dad constantly scoffed at Timothy Dalton as James Bond. We would watch James Bond movies for family movie nights because family movie nights meant something very different in the '80s and '90s. Trying to seem knowledgable, I would peg Timothy Dalton as the worst James Bond and, until my 20s, did I actually believe it. Timothy Dalton is to Bond as Paul McGann is to Doctor Who. He's an actor who isn't super associated with the role, unless you are Timothy Dalton himself in which case he is ONLY associated with James Bond. In my mind, he's the liminal Bond. He firmly has his foot in the classic Bond era, but really has a lot of the sensibilities of modern nu-Bond. Since I came to terms with Timothy Dalton as a great James Bond, I realized that The Living Daylights might be one of my favorite James Bond movies. I don't think the world was ready for Timothy Dalton post-Roger Moore and thus he was shelved. Also, I really don't like Licence to Kill. Maybe the 73rd viewing of it will change my mind, but Licence to Kill is really one of the worst movies in the series. But Timothy Dalton is basically Daniel Craig. From what I understand, both Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig both had a desire to return closer to what Ian Fleming had written. I'm mostly done reading the James Bond novel. I just finished Ian Fleming's You Only Live Twice and that character is very different from what is presented on screen. Fleming's Bond is borderline depressed with the violence that surrounds his life. His drinking is not sexy or charming, as it is in the films. He's an alcoholic trying to drown out the pain of lost loves and nightmares running through his head. The Bond of The Living Daylights is actually probably an appropriate hybrid of both book Bond and film Bond. Dalton's Bond is about professionalism, a counter to Moore's sly peacock. He understands that Bond works better in the shadows than he does in the limelight. He is cold like Fleming's Bond, but also has a little fun coupled with insane stunts. While Fleming's Bond is a bit of a Mary Sue (sorry) as well, his action is far more grounded in the world of reality. He's not the kind of guy who will find himself escaping the Russians on a cello case. Fleming's Bond isn't the "realistic Bond" however. Fleming's Bond is more soap-operaish. Spoiler for the end of You Only Live Twice: Bond lives a life as an amnesiac and then goes to Russia to discover his true identity. That's a bit much. But Dalton's Bond really captures the nice mix of both page and screen. He's never going to be my favorite Bond, but he really does an amazing job with the role. He basically has the misfortune of trying what he did WHEN he did it. While many of the Roger Moore films may not hold up today, The Living Daylights probably does hold a bit of weight... ...if you can forget that the Afghani rebellion was considered our allies in 1987. Between Rambo III and The Living Daylights, it is so odd to see factions that we consider to be in conflict with the United States today in such a sympathetic light. But that's part of what makes The Living Daylights one of my favorite Bond movies. Yeah, it's still absurd. Bond movies have an absurdity that makes them fun. But The Living Daylights tries injecting complication into the Bond formula. Like how Octopussy really tries embracing the complexities of the Cold War, The Living Daylights continues on with that tradition. Grounding what ends up being kind of a silly plot is the defection of Georgi Koskov, played by Jeroen Krabbe. Krabbe, oddly enough, is the villain of my childhood. I remember a version of Robin Hood that has always been associated with the best version. (It's entirely based on nostalgia and I'm terrified to watch this movie because the only reason it is good is because it was from my childhood.) But centering on Koskov's defection feels like this is what Bond was meant for. The exchange of spies, the vetting of information? This stuff is great. Add to this Cold War intrigue a concept from the early Bond novels, "Spiert Spionem" / "Death to Spies" and that's what Bond was built for. There's a reason that Indiana Jones is interesting with the Nazis and that James Bond is interesting with the Russians. The KGB, towards the end of the Cold War, only escalated. They got scary and smart. Anyone could be a Russian and they were this larger than life concept. They infiltrated everything and their training was somehow mysterious. When a villain is really good, it acts as a foil for the value of the hero. As dark as Bond is in The Living Daylights, he comes across as the line between the West and Russia. Oddly enough, the stakes in this movie aren't exactly huge. But it is actually through its limited scope that we see the value of these spygames. Like when I got obsessed with Vijay's death in Octopussy, the same attitude continues in here. We have characters, even unlikable characters, whose deaths have weight. Saunders, when he dies, Bond cares. The entire deception is to get Bond to murder General Pushkin. That matters for Bond. He doesn't want to kill an innocent man. The idea that Bond has a license to kill, but choose not to use it is what makes the characters' deaths important. The movie starts with Bond intentionally not killing Kara Milovy, the Bond girl of the film. Heck, the title even loosely ties to the idea that he doesn't murder her. Because Bond isn't cool and collected with each death in the movie, we get the idea that even though the consequences for the film are smaller, each choice has a personal stake for James Bond. It makes the movie so much better. Look at Bond after he finds the balloon labeled "Smiert Spionem". Saunders was kind of a turd with a last second redemption arc. Cool. But Bond takes that death very personally. He sees the death of a good agent and the failure on his part to see it coming. He knows that, because he got Georgi Koskov out of Bratislava, that Saunders and the people at base are all dead now. There's a lot going on there and I have to applaud Dalton for conveying that. This movie may not have crushed at the time, but it slays today. It's so deep because Bond actually cares about the consequences of each choice. He's ruthless not because he wants to be, but because he knows that there are consequences. It's why he gets so mad at Kara for wanting to go back for her cello. It seems unimportant when lives are on the line. This is a character who sees both the small and the big picture and I really like that out the character. And yet, the stunts are great. There still is a sense of fun to this movie. The Aston Martin section of the film is one of the best uses of the car. The cello sequence is hilarious. Bond hanging off the back of a plane is actually my strongest pieces of evidence to why stunts should be actually done versus digital. (Wait until I hit Die Another Day. Hopefully, I have the forethought to cite The Living Daylights when I write about that film.) The Living Daylights is evidence that you can take a silly thing kind of seriously and see that it still works. I'm never going to detract from the Roger Moore era. I genuinely love a handful of those films, but The Living Daylights is such a moment of puberty for the Bond era, without the awkwardness. It is serious yet fun, engaging yet soap-operay. It's a fun movie that delivers at every opportunity. I adore this movie. PG and I suppose that's mostly fine. But the movie is really loaded with a lot of uncomfortable and problematic racial stereotypes. It's a "laugh-at" movie for a good chunk of the film instead of "laugh with". The movie is also really cool with bullying. It's something that we're supposed to be laughing at. I'm coming down hard, but it is something that really gets ignored in the film as a whole. There's also some sexual predatory behavior in the movie. Regardless, PG kinda sorta makes sense. It's really on that line.
DIRECTOR: Jared Hess My stepfather and I had a really big blow out post-college. It was over a broken printer and I was going to leave home. It makes sense, because I was out of college. But I had very few prospects. I was finishing up a post-bachelors education degree. My mom settled things up. Well, as a gesture of good will, I wanted to take the 'rents to a movie that was mostly non-offensive but was life changing. This had to be the second or third time that I was seeing Napoleon Dynamite in theaters. I guffawed the entire time. My side hurt. My stepfather thought it was one of the dumbest things he'd ever seen. But he might have had a point. Like, I don't know if Napoleon Dynamite holds up. Since the halcyon days of almost severing ties with my family in 2004, people have so completely embraced Napoleon Dynamite that it has become part of the cultural lexicon. The movie was quoted and overquoted. Everyone had a Napoleon impression. Uncomfortable people had a Pedro impression. It's a movie that almost can't be surprising anymore. In 2020, my students still love this movie. The senior class a few years ago made their class tee-shirt a "Vote for Pedro" shirt with their graduation year hidden in the name. It's something that really won't die. I'm glad it won't die. But what happens to a movie when it becomes so commonplace that the movie holds no surprises anymore? I'm going to go real hipster with this review. I'm aware that the battle for "I liked it before it was cool" is a weak position to take, but there might actually be an argument for hipster cred here. There are movies that are so culturally transcendent that they actually become kind of annoying. Before Napoleon Dynamite, there was Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It doesn't only stick for comedies. I easily rank Fight Club and The Dark Knight in these lists too. They are so part of the zeitgeist that they stop being cinematic experiences anymore. Instead, they are rated on a sense of being rad. The movies lose their emotional resonance and they become about the Mountain Dewing of film. Rather than experience things anew or rediscovering something forgotten, these movies tend to be about who can watch the same film over and over. Now, I am one of the criminals who did this. I watched and re-watched Napoleon Dynamite. I knew every line. But then I went on my quest to watch basically every movie and I kind of left Napoleon Dynamite in the dust. But it is one of the foundational pieces in my Fox Searchlight box set and my mental process is that, if I own a copy of it, I have to watch that copy. (Note: I just got the Criterion edition of The Darjeeling Limited and I just watched the non-Criterion version kind of recently. I watched it anyway. I'm intense.) What was it like watching a movie after a decade that I knew every moment? Fine, I guess. It wasn't a movie experience. Rather, it was a series of "Oh, I remember this scene." But as a guy who is creeping up on 40, I didn't find Napoleon Dynamite to be as smart as I used to. The opening credits are wonderfully deceiving. I honestly forgot about the opening credits and how the tone is mimicking the quirky tweeness of Wes Anderson. The film screams "Fox Searchlight", but that's what kind of allows the film to have a non-traditional narrative. Rather than having a traditional narrative, the film is actually loosely connected vignettes mirroring the experiences of an outsider in a year of high school. That seems kind of obvious, but we have to accept that these moments in the movie aren't Napoleon's greatest moments. Rather, this is a typical day in the life for Napoleon. I remember that there was an animated series follow up to the movie which kind of retreaded some of the same beats as the film. That's probably a big mistake because nothing implies that these are the glory days for Napoleon. Napoleon himself has no long term goals for the film. He lives his life the way that he wants to, but doesn't actually crave change. Really, any goals that are attached to Napoleon are artificially put on by the audience. As audience members, we fight for Napoleon's acceptance in this world. Summer and Don are the actual worst and we want a Revenge of the Nerds style conclusion for these characters, without all the sexual assault. But Napoleon doesn't really want that. Instead, he wants to continue living his weird life. He does nothing to really change his behavior for others. One could argue that Napoleon improves himself for Deb, but the movie never really establishes that Napoleon has any vices when it comes to treating the opposite sex with respect. The Napoleon of the beginning of the movie is the same Napoleon as the end of the movie. This does create a weird element in the film that is entirely meant for the audience's sense of completion. It's everyone's most memorable part of the film and it makes almost no sense. It's there as emotional manipulation. I'm prefacing it by saying that manipulation is fine, but I do want to point it out and then ruin it for everyone because I'm the worst! I'm talking about the dance sequence. You know the act that shows up at every talent show where someone does the Napoleon moon boot dance? That scene is great. It is this absolutely cathartic. Napoleon, because of all of his practicing in his room alone, has this silly, but well-honed dance number. Summer has just presented her Helping Hands Club presentation (which is actually way more awesome than Napoleon's) and Pedro doesn't have a shot. But Napoleon presents this dance in spite of seeming impossible odds. Cool. We all applaud because Summer and Don don't get what they want. Pedro is president. That's what we all want. But let's talk about how the rest of the movie doesn't support this ending at all. Trust me, Jared Hess should have included this in the movie. It's the emotional moment we all needed. But the entire film shows people treating Napoleon like dirt. He's shoved and we all laugh. When Napoleon has terrible things happen to him, that's the joke of the film. The scene that cracks me up still is Napoleon and the time machine. He's the punching bag. We've all been trained to understand that the punching bag is supposed to have his big moment of joy. But remember, in the story of the film, everyone still really likes Summer and Don and no one really likes Napoleon. It's not like Napoleon went through this spiritual journey befriending the outcasts of the school. No, Napoleon is still completely isolated. If the entire school gives a standing ovation, it should be for Pedro. Pedro is the character who actually takes chances and has a character journey. Oddly enough, the movie should have Pedro as the protagonist of the movie with Napoleon as his hilarious sidekick. Pedro goes from being social outcast to taking chances throughout the film, leading to his success as president. Pedro "offers his protection" to the weak and bullied. If the film was going to applaud actions, it would be Pedro's standing up to the toxic culture of the high school. He's the one who asks Deb and Summer out. He's the one who brings his cousins to the school and protects the nerdier kids. Really, Napoleon is just doing the same thing on a different day. It's not like Napoleon didn't let his freak flag fly from the beginning of the film. The emotional shift from his dance doesn't really makes sense. But if it's Pedro that everyone's clapping for, then it actually makes a modicum of sense. But again, this scene works despite any logical sense. I mentioned in the MPAA section that this movie has a bit of a problematic view of racism. I think that people forgive the movie because the white people come across as the worst people in the group. The only likable white people in the movie are Napoleon and Deb. But I don't necessarily love the stereotypes presented in the other characters. Pedro and his cousins is overly simplistic. These characters come across as one dimensional. The fact that Kip's girlfriend's name is Lafawnduh is pretty cringy as well. Then there's the casual attitude of Uncle Rico's boundaries. Uncle Rico is probably the bad guy of the film (that for some reason is made sympathetic at the end?). Is Rico sleeping with these women around town? It's implied that Rico is going on dates trying to sell tupperware. But Rico actually comes across as really rapey to Deb when he's selling his Bust Must Plus. It's all done for the sake of a joke, but I really don't like that scene. It feels like he's trying to seduce her, and then he only does it so that she buys a gross product. It's a lot of stuff done for humor that doesn't fly well. (Don't worry, I'm going to get really virtue signal-y later because my son picked Peter Pan for family movie night.) I will never begrudge anyone for liking this movie. I absolutely adored it when it came out. I may have ruined it for myself by watching it too much. But Napoleon Dynamite is more of a movie of atmosphere than actual crafting. The jokes are laughing at awkwardness without the actual content to actually make sense. I feel bad for my stepfather for having to sit through that. If you didn't feel like making fun of this kid for being a dork, there's really not much content beyond that. But I also get why it's really funny at the same time. Regardless, I wish that there was a way to get back the discovery of Napoleon Dynamite for the first time. |
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
March 2024
Categories |