PG and it pretty much should be. There's something that's kind of insidious in the back of this movie that is really the product of its era more than anything in it. While the film might have mild alcoholism and the lowest-key sexuality imaginable in it, the real problem is that this has that 1951 mentality of Africa as a place of "otherness." This tells that old chestnut of the white missionaries bringing civilization to the primitives. There's also some death and the World War I Germans have more in common with Nazis than was probably accurate.
DIRECTOR: John Huston I'm going to step in it today. I have a feeling that this is the blog that is going to bring it all down around me. I hate criticizing things that are universally loved. Similarly, I hate criticizing things that I don't loathe either. I even liked this movie for a long time. I think there's a part of me that still really likes it. But this watch of my newly acquired copy of The African Queen ended up being a little more tedious than I care to admit. Maybe it was that I just wasn't in the mood. But honestly, I couldn't wait for The African Queen to be over this time. It seems really smarmy of me, but that's the position I'm taking. For a long time, The African Queen was just that movie that was really hard to get a copy of. Well, a legal copy. For some reason, it took forever to get transferred to DVD. When it finally was released, I watched it immediately. It was a missing hole in my film canon and I just needed it for completion. And because the movie is charming as heck, I really liked it. I can't deny that the movie is still one of the most charming things that is out there. It takes an unbelievably wholesome approach to patriotism and romance imaginable. I mean, that idea that these two people must make a path for the Allied Forces to make their way into Africa is borderline silly. But even beyond that comes the notion that these two characters are criminally mismatched. I don't think I've ever had to be so intellectual about a relationship in a movie before. While I can imagine that Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn could play characters that would fall in love (it makes way more sense than I care to admit), these two characters really get that relationship going fast. The thing about Charlie and Rose is that they have absolutely nothing in common, which Huston wisely plays up. That's fine. The opposites attract thing is one of those touchstones of storytelling. But Huston gets them together way too early. There's a reason that most action films have the leads admit their romance in the final act. That final act romance forces us not to think of the practicality of the relationships. Speed talked about that quite a bit. There's the bond that comes together with adrenaline and working together for a common good. But the power dynamic between Charlie and Rose is borderline uncomfortable. There are these two alpha characters from two worlds. Rather than both characters really shifting equally, Rose barely moves out of her comfort zone for the sake of the story. Rose starts off her time with Charlie Allnut in a place of no choice. She either leaves with Charlie or she is slaughtered by the invading German army. She is stuck in this passive position where she owes her life to this stranger who leads a drastically different life from Rose. But that's her biggest shift. Perhaps she gets more agency with her experience with the eponymous boat, but her moral code doesn't move at all. Charlie, on the other hand, goes from good-natured drunk to soldier in Her Majesty Rose's Royal Navy. His alcoholism, which is a character trait that is meant to rankle Rose, simply goes away with her disposal of his booze. There's not much of a transition from Rose the authoritarian to Charlie the dutiful lover. He has one moment of anger which he quickly apologizes for. That alcoholism and self-reliance is part of his internal conflict and it kind of just shuts off. One could write it off as love, but there's nothing kind about Rose up to this point. The only thing that could really support a relationship is the impulsive move to kiss Rose once they survive the fort attack. That's a pretty thin relationship to build off of. But the intellectual in me wants to support it. My brain really likes the Charlie and Rose dynamic because it makes for interesting storytelling. I can't help but look to the direction of John Huston for the clunkiness of the relationship. Huston is a man's man director. He's borderline toxic, but he makes a solid gruff film. He's not the guy who can sell the romance as well as he can sell the notion of a mission. He knows that he's dealing with a relationship. I get that. But in Huston's mind, the relationship isn't about character. It's about joining under a common flag. It's the idea of patriotism and taking down those darned Nazis. By the way, I write "Nazis" for a reason. Even though the events of The African Queen take place at the start of World War I, Huston really portrays his Germans as Nazis. The movie was made in 1951 and it starred Humphrey Bogart. The emotional tie to anti-Fascism is pretty strong here. With the World War I Germans, while problematic in their own right, they weren't these over-the-top manaical villains like we would see with the Nazis. But Charlie's emotions for Rose don't come from a sense of balance or character arc. Instead, she elicits a sense of justice and morality, similar to something a drill instructor would do for a soldier. That's such a Huston thing. Even though that neither of them talks about the problems with their relationship, it's understood that they need each other because that kinship is what is going to bring down the German army. It's such a bro-ey idea of what romance is about. They love each other because they're going to explode the Louisa together. It doesn't matter that Charlie views The African Queen as family. Nope. That doesn't really come into play. Even once the relationship is established and Rose has viewed Charlie at his most vulnerable, she maintains her sense of authority over Charlie by barking at him that he will stay behind while she pilots the boat. There's never that moment of vulnerability with Rose, outside of the fact that his seems like her first romantic relationship and she allows herself to be touched by a gruff sailor like Charlie. Can I talk about how I forgot what the tone of this movie was? I remember The African Queen being a far more serious film than this was. In some ways, this is almost a dramedy that I wasn't prepped for. I intended The African Queen to be a palate cleanser from my Rock Hudson / Doris Day collection. But there are some pretty silly moments throughout this movie. There's a whole sequence where Charlie's rumbling stomach interrupts a dinner. It's so odd that there are these goofy moments peppered into a movie where major characters die and slavery is discussed. It's a good choice because the romance is so important to the movie working. But that being said, I often found myself being emotionally hit by a cinematic tennis racket. I didn't know where I was supposed to be at times in the film. It really isn't a bad movie. I think if I watched it by itself without the Rock Hudson / Doris Day lead-in, it would have been something to behold again. But I knew that I wasn't in the mood for a clunky John Huston romance. Perhaps I wanted Huston to be even more Huston, ignoring the giddy elements of the Hollywood romance in exchange for a 1951 war film involving two civilians. But instead, I felt like I was watching something that was more watered down than was necessary.
1 Comment
PG for baby jokes. I feel like this one is more tame than the last one, which really played up the full diaper jokes more than I would have cared for. Like many kids' movies, there's that element of peril that can make sensitive children nervous. Using my seven-year-old sensitive boy as a litmus test, he was more upset about the anxiety that the kids were facing than the actual peril that they were in. But the movie is remarkably tame, so PG it is!
DIRECTOR: Tom McGrath Okay, I was the one who preached the first Boss Baby movie. I didn't love it, but I did respect the daylights out of that movie. Now I'm stuck with an overdue RedBox disc that I have to return on the way home and a long blog entry that I frankly don't want to write. If I have to encapsulate this movie, it might be one of the more unnecessary sequels imaginable. It seems like a big step backwards. It's not like the movie is unenjoyable or anything like that. It's just that it doesn't have anything special in it, with the exception of the casting of Jeff Goldblum as a baby. This is going to be a bit of hyperbole, but there was something special about the first movie. Sure, watching The Boss Baby for a lot of the last two generations is an exercise in irony. I remember that one of the younger teachers bought me a Boss Baby poster for my film classroom and claimed it was the pinnacle of art. (It kept trying to sneak back into my class.) But the first film took a very relatable, human experience and turned it into a comedy. The story of Tim coming to grips with the notion that his brother, who had a drastically different personality to him, might be changing the dynamic of the family is a story that a lot of kids could relate to. Tim was this character who was a savant of imagination. He lived in this rich world where his mind would create adventures for him. Because of that creativity, it is implied that Tim created the notion of BabyCorp to justify his brother's villainy. When the film ends, it has that glorious Wizard of Oz ambiguity. Was BabyCorp real or was it a way for Tim to cope with massive change in his life? That ambiguity was important. It was the Schrodinger's Cat of narrative storytelling. Similarly, the knowledge that Tim and Ted would grow up together and be there for each other was all of the epilogue we would need. Like Neo threatening to take down the Matrix, we understood the beats without it being spelled out for us. But Family Business decided to forego anything subtle that the first movie left for us and decided to capitalize on the success of a newfound franchise. This movie feels like a real cash grab compared to the first one. It's not like the first Boss Baby movie was the height of artistic merit. But I felt like there was a team that really cared about telling a good story. And that's where the movie really loses me. The first film dealt with the struggles of childhood from a child's perspective. Tim and Ted were relatable to children because they viewed the world like children with the vocabulary of adulthood. But this movie is about adults who simply look like babies. How does anyone relate to that? Part of me should be screaming that it is about Tim's imagination trying to make sense of what his daughter is going through, but that's really pushing the envelope. Don't get me wrong. That's what the script and director Tim McGrath want me to take away from the story, but it is causing me to do more legwork than the movie was ready to do. Because these aren't the same characters. Rather than be a movie about children acting like a adults, this is the story of adults looking like children. There isn't that same level of awkwardness that we see in movies like Big. Ted actually rarely comes across as funny because he's instantly on board with this absurd revelation. Coupled with this is the assurity that the world of BabyCorp is absolutely real. Because multiple people interact with the events of Family Business, both during the plot of the film and the epilogue, there's no scenario where this is a coping mechanism that Tim uses for watching his daughter grow up. Nope. Tim and Ted are now closer because they're aware of the secret world of babies. Doesn't that --I don't know --cheapen the whole thing? When it was Tim using his imagination, it was this universal message that people could really jump on. But when this is the world of a literal BabyCorp and that babies can secretly talk, what's relatable about that? My mind instantly makes a parallel about Toy Story, but that's kind of apples and oranges. The toys in Toy Story live their own lives because the two worlds never meet. For all we know, Andy is imagining these lives for his toys. But with babies just deciding to talk to adults, there's a lot to unpack that this movie absolutely refuses to do. Heck, the movie even points out its own flaw to Mom, who is in on the eponymous family business by answering a toy phone at the end. Why isn't she part of this family business? The clear answer is that the movie only cares to try and recapture the adventures of Ted and Tim for another round of baby hijinks. It's kind of why Tina's part is so garbage. We can pretend that this is the passing of the torch to Tabatha and Tina, but they have such a reduced storyline compared to Ted and Tim. From there, the movie just becomes the most generic thing imaginable. I mean, I've already stated that Jeff Goldblum gives his best in the antagonist's role, but that story is absolutely nothing. He plays a pretty over-the-top villain. The elimination of parents is a pretty weak choice. While I appreciate the commentary about adults being too devoted to their phones, it's pretty low hanging fruit. It doesn't really come down on adults for any flaws. If anything, it is more criticizing Tim for almost no reason. The only negative trait that Tim has is that he's late for things. But he's this supporting guy who continues to be supporting for the entire film. Tim doesn't actually learn anything about Tabitha. If anything, he just learns about Ted, which isn't that great of a shock. He's a good dad who will do anything for his daughter and that's not something that really needs to be corrected for the film. And that's where McGrath really drops the ball. Tim uses his opportunity at a second childhood to boost Tabitha's self-esteem. Because she won't listen to an adult, Tabitha instead confides in Tim's younger alter-ego, Marcos. From a peer, she can hear the advice that her dad wants to give her. But from an audience's perspective, it definitely feels like Tabitha is dating Marcos / her dad. It never really feels like a father / daughter relationship but more of a boyfriend / girlfriend relationship. Considering that this is one of the major elements of the film, it just doesn't read right at all. Perhaps it comes from the fact that it's father / daughter as opposed to father / son. But it looks like everyone else is seeing the same thing that I am. The fact that Tabitha's grandmother jokes that she "doesn't like that kid" implies that he's not good enough for her. I get it, Mr. McGrath. She's dogging on her own kid by means of dramatic irony, but there are repercussions to those kinds of comments. So I'm left with a movie that I was really bored by. It really tries harping on the action movie elements of the story, coupled with a reliance on good will to get through a lot of the plot. While the first Boss Baby ended up being better than a lot of people would give it credit for, the second one really feels forced and kind of a slog to get through. I will say that my kids liked it and even my wife didn't hate it. But me, it was a bit of pulling teeth. Approved, but you're going to run into some of the same problems that Pillow Talk had, with a few extra things to stick in your craw. This is the beginning of the Lost Cause theory, where the celebration of the Confederate South happens. While played for laughs, Jerry pretends to be "an ol' Southern boy", celebrating with a stripper with a Stars-and-Bars bra. But the movie prides itself on rapey-masculine behavior and forgiving people for how they behave under the influence of alcohol. Regardless, your parents are probably cool with this movie.
DIRECTOR: Delbert Mann I thought that I had loved Rock Hudson and Doris Day movies. Honestly, I had Doris Day synonymous with virginal innocence. I think a lot of that comes from the fact that it is the archetype that she plays. But the reason that the virginal innocence comes through is because she is drastically contrasted to all of the other characters of the movie. She's in pretty dirty films as the nice girl. That's what culture has stolen from me: important context. For a long period of this movie, I thought that Lover Come Back was simply a tonal remake of Pillow Talk, but it is actually a different beast because of the lack of culpability. First of all, Lover Come Back might be the most generic rom-com title I've experienced in a long time. That's saying something because rom-coms tend to embrace the really generic title. But there's nothing in Lover Come Back that ties into the plot, unless you squint and imagine the epilogue as something that could have been a central theme. I don't know why this gets under my skin so much. It just adds to the concept that these movies are kind of disposable. It's that title that may have colored me to the fact that this movie could have been something else. It has its charm. It totally has its charm. But it also feels like a retread of so many tropes that it is hard to really take it seriously as a film in its own right. Okay, let's talk about why I get annoyed with movies like this. A lot of it comes from Pillow Talk. A LOT of it comes from Pillow Talk. Pillow Talk has a few redeeming qualities. As much as Pillow Talk is a celebration of toxic masculinity, Rock Hudson's character does have an arc. It's a weak arc, but he runs into this internal conflict over the course of the dramatic irony. He starts off the charade as a joke, but his conscience jumps in pretty early. His conflict involves knowing that he will hurt the one he loves if he reveals the truth, so he has to keep that secret to save the relationship. Yeah, it's scummy, but it is at least mildly sympathetic. He took a joke too far. With Lover Come Back, the most he moves is from a place of pure awfulness to uncomfortable respect. But Pillow Talk is not about escalation. He realizes the joke is in poor taste and has no way to get out. With Lover Come Back, when that slight change of character happens, Jerry decides to keep upping the stakes. He never really has that thought that he took it too far. Instead, he derives joy from his lies. He keeps stealing from Carol and rubbing it in her face. All of which culminates in the most sexual assaulty thing that happens in the movie. He crosses a lot of lines in the pursuit of deceiving Carol. Okay, that's what it is. But it is in the realm of rom-com morality. Stealing a kiss is gross in reality, but we can kind of say that Hollywood has told us that this is within the context of the events of the story. But Jerry actively tries to bed Carol. And we're not talking about early in the story, while he's supposedly "Evil Jerry." No, this is pretty late in the film. The only reason that he doesn't is that this is the moment that Carol discovers the truth about Jerry. She gets a comical revenge, which fits within the tone of the movie. But really, Jerry was about to rape Carol. It's the same thing as the sexual assault that is in Revenge of the Nerds. Jerry is pretending to be another person to take advantage of a girl that he wants revenge on her. He doesn't even hate her. He wants revenge as a gag. He thinks that she's too high strung, so he wants to take her down a peg. That...might be the grossest plot point that I've written about. There's something about this era that feels bygone, but it also is weird to watch movies from this era. Apparently the late '50s and early '60s were about making rom-coms that were marketed towards women, but a celebration of male toxicity. My overthinking it is the only reason I'm not getting it right now, by the way. There probably would have been a time in my life when I would have bent over laughing at how this gender dynamic was part of the good ol' days. But watching it now, also having seen Pillow Talk really recently, makes this movie come across as gross. And the thing is, it is well made. This was a movie that was written around its actors. Apparently, Rock Hudson comes across as the least sensitive human being in the world. Perhaps it is his traditional good looks, but he keeps being this guy who looks like he beds women constantly and doesn't respect boundaries. Tony Randall, always going to be a mousey guy who can only play second fiddle to the toxically male lead. And then there's Doris Day, a strong willed woman who shouldn't try to keep up with the men. In terms of the reception of these characters, I suppose they all fit those roles super well. But he biggest issue I have is Carol's complete change of character. Carol almost seems aware of how egregious Jerry's behavior can be. While attracted to the physicality of Jerry, she abhors his personality. He never really makes an active change, outside of giving her the account in apology for his behavior. But agreeing to marry him seems criminal. There's no way that anything good can come out of that marriage. They don't know each other in any real way. If anything, Jerry represents the opposite of what she actually found attractive in him. She prided herself on Linus's meekness and innocence and Jerry is the epitome of the opposite of that. The marriage is just there for the forced happy ending. It's really a problem. In terms of funniness, sure, there's some charm to it. But Lover Come Back is one of the grosser comedies I've ever seen. It's lazy in terms of structure and it really needs some character development to make it functional. |
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 |