Voices By: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Taraji P. Henson, Alan Tudyk
Directed by: Phil Johnston, Rich Moore
Written by: Phil Johnston & Pamela Ribon (screenplay); Rich Moore, Phil Johnston, Jim Reardon, Pamela Ribon, Josie Trinidad (story)
Walt Disney, 2018
PG; 102 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Okay, so I'm going to make a big confession here: I never saw Wreck-It Ralph. I've had it explained to me, and I've seen enough scenes from it that I basically understand the story, and I've just never felt compelled to sit down and watch it (no matter how many people told me how great it is—or maybe because of that).
So maybe you have to already be a fan to 100% love this movie. I only kind of liked it. I thought the representation of the Internet was great, and there are definitely some cute moments, but either I already needed to love the main characters or... Something.
The story: Vanellope is bored. The levels in her game are all the same, nothing ever changes. So Ralph tries to make her feel better by creating a new racing track in her game. The result: the girl playing the game at the time breaks the steering wheel and Mr. Litwak can't afford to buy another one (the only one being on eBay since the game manufacturer is out of business), so he plans to scrap Sugar Rush.
Clearly, this is a problem. But thanks to Mr. Litwak also recently joining the 21st century by acquiring Wi-Fi, Ralph and Vanellope are able to jump online in search of that elusive steering wheel. Hilarity ensues? I mean, to some extent, I guess so. But none of it made me truly laugh. Maybe I'm just too hardhearted. Or am not the target audience.
The major conflict is that Ralph wants to get the steering wheel and get back to life as they know it. Meanwhile, Vanellope has now been exposed to the wider world and wants to stay in an online racing game called Slaughter Race. The theme of the movie then pursues rather predictable and tired lines: following one's dreams, friendship, "Let It Go," etc. In fact, the whole thing is a bit heavy handed for my tastes, and while I can see that much of what happens (no spoilers) is Ralph's fault, the fact that Vanellope is never called out on some of her behavior bothers me.
Largely, I enjoyed the style of the film. However, the attempts to thrust what I suppose counts as "substance" down my throat... Sure, I want substance in my movies. But there is such a thing as too much, and this movie definitely works overtime to make sure I "get it."
Bottom line: cute but a bit too pointed with its message. I don't really like Ralph or Vanellope, so again, maybe I needed to see the first one in order to appreciate the characters here. As things stand, though, I give this a slightly better than middling score. It's entertaining but—at least for me—nothing special.
Showing posts with label action/adventure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label action/adventure. Show all posts
11.24.2018
11.17.2018
Movies: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Zoë Kravitz, Ezra Miller, Callum Turner
Directed by: David Yates
Written by: J.K. Rowling
Warner Bros., 2018
PG-13; 134 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Well, I liked it more than the first one. But... There are still a lot of problems here. At least for me.
This film picks up six months after the last one ended. Grindelwald escapes during his extradition from New York's Ministry of Magic to London's. Three months after that, we discover Newt has been confined to the UK, his... travel pass or whatever the Ministry of Magic gives out... revoked. He's given the chance to travel again if he'll join his brother Theseus, the auror, in his work to find Grindelwald. Newt says no.
But then Dumbledore asks Newt to go to Paris to search for Grindelwald anyway. Um... I dunno. All the motivations in this film crisscross into knots. People want to find Grindelwald, they want to find Credence (remember him?), they want to find their girlfriends and sisters and... 🙄 There are a lot of unnecessary flashbacks and subplots, a lot of hitting the audience over the head with information, and not a lot of actual tension. Plus the action scenes are so heavily edited that one can't follow them; you just sort of sit and wait for them to play out. Very little sense of wonder here, or amazement at what we're seeing. And the big reveal can be spotted miles away—and contains some revisionist history so heavy handed that I just couldn't swallow it.
All this and yet, as I mentioned, I did actually like it more than the first one. Which isn't saying a ton, since I found the first one pretty meh. This one is meh, too, in other ways, and a bit irritating (again, with that revisionist history), but the story overall was more interesting. Though it had almost nothing at all to do with "The Crimes of Grindelwald."
And if you were one of those people who anticipated that Jude Law would only be on screen for about ten minutes... You were right. Pick up your prize at the door.
What did I like, then? Leta LeStrange. I think her story would be fascinating. And I like Theseus Scamander, too (what little I've seen of him). I think younger Dumbledore is cool and wouldn't mind more of that, either. Even Nagini's story might be interesting to read or watch.
But. Newt + Tina does nothing for me. Jacob + Queenie does nothing for me either. ::shrug:: I'm not sold on either of those relationships or plot lines. Not feeling the chemistry there.
So. I know I'll be in the minority. But I'm no huge Harry Potter fan to begin with; I only ever thought the series was okay. So this movie isn't aimed at me, and my lukewarm feelings toward it won't douse the fire of all the fans who are sure to love it.
Directed by: David Yates
Written by: J.K. Rowling
Warner Bros., 2018
PG-13; 134 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Well, I liked it more than the first one. But... There are still a lot of problems here. At least for me.
This film picks up six months after the last one ended. Grindelwald escapes during his extradition from New York's Ministry of Magic to London's. Three months after that, we discover Newt has been confined to the UK, his... travel pass or whatever the Ministry of Magic gives out... revoked. He's given the chance to travel again if he'll join his brother Theseus, the auror, in his work to find Grindelwald. Newt says no.
But then Dumbledore asks Newt to go to Paris to search for Grindelwald anyway. Um... I dunno. All the motivations in this film crisscross into knots. People want to find Grindelwald, they want to find Credence (remember him?), they want to find their girlfriends and sisters and... 🙄 There are a lot of unnecessary flashbacks and subplots, a lot of hitting the audience over the head with information, and not a lot of actual tension. Plus the action scenes are so heavily edited that one can't follow them; you just sort of sit and wait for them to play out. Very little sense of wonder here, or amazement at what we're seeing. And the big reveal can be spotted miles away—and contains some revisionist history so heavy handed that I just couldn't swallow it.
All this and yet, as I mentioned, I did actually like it more than the first one. Which isn't saying a ton, since I found the first one pretty meh. This one is meh, too, in other ways, and a bit irritating (again, with that revisionist history), but the story overall was more interesting. Though it had almost nothing at all to do with "The Crimes of Grindelwald."
And if you were one of those people who anticipated that Jude Law would only be on screen for about ten minutes... You were right. Pick up your prize at the door.
What did I like, then? Leta LeStrange. I think her story would be fascinating. And I like Theseus Scamander, too (what little I've seen of him). I think younger Dumbledore is cool and wouldn't mind more of that, either. Even Nagini's story might be interesting to read or watch.
But. Newt + Tina does nothing for me. Jacob + Queenie does nothing for me either. ::shrug:: I'm not sold on either of those relationships or plot lines. Not feeling the chemistry there.
So. I know I'll be in the minority. But I'm no huge Harry Potter fan to begin with; I only ever thought the series was okay. So this movie isn't aimed at me, and my lukewarm feelings toward it won't douse the fire of all the fans who are sure to love it.
9.21.2018
Movies: Ocean's Eight
I just . . . didn't care. About any of these characters. None of them charmed me* or made me want to cheer them on. And there was a noted lack of witty banter, which is usually the backbone of these kinds of films.
Between this and the all-female Ghostbusters, I feel like scripts are really giving female-driven movies the short end of the stick. Instead of playing to strengths, they just try to take male characters and plug women into them. The result is a mismatch, something that comes off as vaguely discordant.
I worked with Sandy Bullock, and she can be so funny and charming. This movie just didn't do her justice. Nor did it do much for any of the other wonderfully talented women involved.
For anyone who might not know, this girly version of the heist franchise centers on Bullock as Debbie Ocean, Danny's (you remember him as George Clooney) sister. Apparently the entire family are unrepentant criminals. Make a family reunion movie, guys. It'd probably be way more entertaining than this was.
Anyway, Ocean gets out of prison and immediately puts together a big job—stealing a famous necklace during a Met Gala. Because we all know women like jewelry, I guess.
The writers tried to shoehorn in some revenge-on-the-lover-who-put-her-away story, but though hinted at early on, it wasn't brought forward until much later, which gave the whole thing the feeling of, "Oh, we need something to thicken this plot soup." By then, we didn't care and it was too late to get us to start.
The short answer is, the movie took itself too seriously. Even in the moments I think it was trying to be lighthearted. There needed to be greater ease between the characters, a more relaxed atmosphere over all. Instead, everyone was stiff. Dour. It wasn't fun to watch, and these movie need to be fun. That's the point of them.
And we need to care. About the characters, and about whether or not they succeed. That's where tension comes from, and here there just was none. The whole thing was flat and uninteresting. Meh.
* I did kind of like Helena Bonham Carter's character?
Between this and the all-female Ghostbusters, I feel like scripts are really giving female-driven movies the short end of the stick. Instead of playing to strengths, they just try to take male characters and plug women into them. The result is a mismatch, something that comes off as vaguely discordant.
I worked with Sandy Bullock, and she can be so funny and charming. This movie just didn't do her justice. Nor did it do much for any of the other wonderfully talented women involved.
For anyone who might not know, this girly version of the heist franchise centers on Bullock as Debbie Ocean, Danny's (you remember him as George Clooney) sister. Apparently the entire family are unrepentant criminals. Make a family reunion movie, guys. It'd probably be way more entertaining than this was.
Anyway, Ocean gets out of prison and immediately puts together a big job—stealing a famous necklace during a Met Gala. Because we all know women like jewelry, I guess.
The writers tried to shoehorn in some revenge-on-the-lover-who-put-her-away story, but though hinted at early on, it wasn't brought forward until much later, which gave the whole thing the feeling of, "Oh, we need something to thicken this plot soup." By then, we didn't care and it was too late to get us to start.
The short answer is, the movie took itself too seriously. Even in the moments I think it was trying to be lighthearted. There needed to be greater ease between the characters, a more relaxed atmosphere over all. Instead, everyone was stiff. Dour. It wasn't fun to watch, and these movie need to be fun. That's the point of them.
And we need to care. About the characters, and about whether or not they succeed. That's where tension comes from, and here there just was none. The whole thing was flat and uninteresting. Meh.
* I did kind of like Helena Bonham Carter's character?
8.05.2018
Movies: Teen Titans Go! To the Movies
Voices by: Scott Menville, Tara Strong, Greg Cipes, Khary Payton, Hynden Walch, Will Arnett, Kristen Bell, Nicolas Cage, Michael Bolton
Directed by: Aaron Horvath, Peter Rida Michail
Written by: Michael Jelenic & Aaron Horvath from characters created by Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Marv Wolfman, George Pérez, Arnold Drake, Bob Kane, Bill Finger, William Moulton Marston
Warner Bros., 2018
PG; 84 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Every time we travel as a family, it seems like at some point we turn on a hotel television and Teen Titans Go! is on. We do it as a way to entertain the kids while we (the adults) try to relax for a few minutes before whatever next big thing, but we always get sucked in and end up watching too. And it's so . . . dumb. But it never fails to make me laugh.
If you're thinking a Teen Titans Go! movie is more or less an extended episode, you're not entirely wrong. You're not entirely right, though, either. I think the humor is more sustainable in smaller bites, but there is plenty here to amuse. The general plot is: Robin really wants a superhero movie to be made about him. So the Teen Titans try to make that happen. They're told that a superhero has to have an arch-nemesis, and they find one in the form of Slade. It goes from there in predictable fashion, with a few songs thrown in.
As I mentioned, there are a number of funny moments. However, the relentless focus on Robin (who, for me, is the least interesting of the characters), and the need to push some jokes into your face rather than let them play in the background (yes, I know, typical of the show), lessened the joy. Not by a ton, but by enough to notice the debit.
Still, I found myself laughing in spite of myself. Which is really all this movie is required to do: entertain and make people laugh. In which case it does a fairly solid job of it.
Directed by: Aaron Horvath, Peter Rida Michail
Written by: Michael Jelenic & Aaron Horvath from characters created by Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Marv Wolfman, George Pérez, Arnold Drake, Bob Kane, Bill Finger, William Moulton Marston
Warner Bros., 2018
PG; 84 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Every time we travel as a family, it seems like at some point we turn on a hotel television and Teen Titans Go! is on. We do it as a way to entertain the kids while we (the adults) try to relax for a few minutes before whatever next big thing, but we always get sucked in and end up watching too. And it's so . . . dumb. But it never fails to make me laugh.
If you're thinking a Teen Titans Go! movie is more or less an extended episode, you're not entirely wrong. You're not entirely right, though, either. I think the humor is more sustainable in smaller bites, but there is plenty here to amuse. The general plot is: Robin really wants a superhero movie to be made about him. So the Teen Titans try to make that happen. They're told that a superhero has to have an arch-nemesis, and they find one in the form of Slade. It goes from there in predictable fashion, with a few songs thrown in.
As I mentioned, there are a number of funny moments. However, the relentless focus on Robin (who, for me, is the least interesting of the characters), and the need to push some jokes into your face rather than let them play in the background (yes, I know, typical of the show), lessened the joy. Not by a ton, but by enough to notice the debit.
Still, I found myself laughing in spite of myself. Which is really all this movie is required to do: entertain and make people laugh. In which case it does a fairly solid job of it.
6.23.2018
Movies: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Rafe Spall, Justice Smith, Daniella Pineda, James Cromwell, Toby Jones
Directed by: J.A. Bayona
Written by: Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow—very loosely based on work by Michael Crichton
Universal, 2018
PG-13; 128 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I didn't read any reviews before going to see this movie, but I did know in an abstract way that the critics didn't like it and that it had a low score on Rotten Tomatoes. Which may be why I actually enjoyed this movie as much as I did. I had low-to-moderate expectations and yet JW:FK entertained me plenty. It might not hold up to scrutiny, but I don't much care about that.
If you've seen the trailers, you get the gist: a volcano on Isla Nublar is on the brink of erupting, and either the dinos go with it or they need to be captured and transported elsewhere. That turns out to be only a fairly brief part of the story, however. [Don't read the rest of this paragraph if you don't want spoilers. The remainder of the post is safe.] There is, of course, a greedy person involved who plans to auction said dinosaurs to the highest bidders and start a new genetic lab, etc. And there's a precocious girl named Maisie, etc. etc. So the story becomes: save the dinos from the island, then save them from the greedy men, and also save yourselves from the engineered indoraptor (indomitus rex + raptor) . . .
The movie wants to case all this in philosophy about whether it's better to let some things die. The good of the few vs. the good of the many. And also: how do you put the genie back in the bottle. But there's so much action going on that the film can't sustain that line of inquiry. This isn't a philosophy class. It's a summer blockbuster. We've come to see dinosaurs eat bad guys, so get on with it.
Still, there are moments of pathos. Two, to be exact. I have yet to decide how I feel about them. Are they overwrought? Perhaps. Would I take them out? I don't know.
JW:FK borrows liberally from earlier movies in the franchise, from plot to visual elements. It feels cobbled together in a way, but that didn't bother me. It might other people though as on the whole the film feels a little like it lacks originality. My oldest son said this one feels like a horror movie, and there are definitely some horror elements. I suppose that's Bayona's doing.
And whoever wrote this movie really hates ladders.
The final result is something that skews a little Planet of the Apes? Which isn't a franchise I enjoy, so I'm not sure I'm down for that. But since my bar is apparently lower than most people's . . . I mean, I laughed and clapped every time a dinosaur ate someone, so, you know . . . I'm definitely buying into the bread and circus thing, I guess. It's all I really want from these movies, and this one delivered.
Directed by: J.A. Bayona
Written by: Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow—very loosely based on work by Michael Crichton
Universal, 2018
PG-13; 128 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I didn't read any reviews before going to see this movie, but I did know in an abstract way that the critics didn't like it and that it had a low score on Rotten Tomatoes. Which may be why I actually enjoyed this movie as much as I did. I had low-to-moderate expectations and yet JW:FK entertained me plenty. It might not hold up to scrutiny, but I don't much care about that.
If you've seen the trailers, you get the gist: a volcano on Isla Nublar is on the brink of erupting, and either the dinos go with it or they need to be captured and transported elsewhere. That turns out to be only a fairly brief part of the story, however. [Don't read the rest of this paragraph if you don't want spoilers. The remainder of the post is safe.] There is, of course, a greedy person involved who plans to auction said dinosaurs to the highest bidders and start a new genetic lab, etc. And there's a precocious girl named Maisie, etc. etc. So the story becomes: save the dinos from the island, then save them from the greedy men, and also save yourselves from the engineered indoraptor (indomitus rex + raptor) . . .
The movie wants to case all this in philosophy about whether it's better to let some things die. The good of the few vs. the good of the many. And also: how do you put the genie back in the bottle. But there's so much action going on that the film can't sustain that line of inquiry. This isn't a philosophy class. It's a summer blockbuster. We've come to see dinosaurs eat bad guys, so get on with it.
Still, there are moments of pathos. Two, to be exact. I have yet to decide how I feel about them. Are they overwrought? Perhaps. Would I take them out? I don't know.
JW:FK borrows liberally from earlier movies in the franchise, from plot to visual elements. It feels cobbled together in a way, but that didn't bother me. It might other people though as on the whole the film feels a little like it lacks originality. My oldest son said this one feels like a horror movie, and there are definitely some horror elements. I suppose that's Bayona's doing.
And whoever wrote this movie really hates ladders.
The final result is something that skews a little Planet of the Apes? Which isn't a franchise I enjoy, so I'm not sure I'm down for that. But since my bar is apparently lower than most people's . . . I mean, I laughed and clapped every time a dinosaur ate someone, so, you know . . . I'm definitely buying into the bread and circus thing, I guess. It's all I really want from these movies, and this one delivered.
6.17.2018
Movies: Incredibles 2
Voices By: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Catherine Keener, Bob Odenkirk, Samuel L. Jackson, Sarah Vowell, Huck Milner
Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Brad Bird
Disney/Pixar, 2018
PG; 118 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Brad Bird
Disney/Pixar, 2018
PG; 118 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
A lot of people are loving this movie, and I agree it's pretty cute. But I wasn't as wowed as I expected to be.
I2 picks up right where the first movie left off 14 years ago. The Underminer is attacking, the Parr family must work together (along with Frozone) to neutralize the threat. It doesn't go quite to plan, and superheroes are again slapped with the blame for massive destruction despite their best efforts and intentions.
Then in steps siblings Winston and Evelyn Deavor. (It wasn't lost on me that both first names end in a sound to almost make it "endeavor"? Which feels kind of pointless, but whatever. Ha! "Whatever, Deavor.") Anyway, these two run a huge telecomm company, and they want to find a way to make superheroes legal again. Cue nostalgic back story about how their dad had loved supers and not long after superheroes were made illegal, their dad was killed in a break-in. (I also noticed the dad in the flashbacks looked a wee bit like Ed Catmull? Might've been my imagination though.)
The Deavors choose Helen/Elastigirl as the new face of superhero-dom. Which leaves Robert/Mr. Incredible home with the kids. Hilarity ensues, except not really. At least, not for me. Plenty of people around me laughed, but I was only kind of amused.
My chief problem was the way the film leaned so heavily on Jack-Jack. Sure, he's a cute gag (and in some cases a deus ex machina), but I find it funnier in smaller doses like in the first movie. Meanwhile, Violet and Dash had nearly nothing to do.
Also, the "twist" wasn't one. It was heavily telegraphed, so maybe it wasn't meant to be a surprise. I don't know.
All that said, let's talk about the subtext. One of the arguments in the movie is that people do less when superheroes are around because they expect those heroes to save them. It's a message that feels relevant right now. We all mutter about the problems in society, but we don't act because we expect others will do that for us. Which is a bit backward for a film in which we're supposed to be rooting for the supers, but maybe the flip side is that THOSE WITH POWER SHOULD USE IT TO THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY. Rather than, say, selling it to the highest bidder? Just a thought.
On the whole, I enjoyed it. Just not as much as I thought I would. But that probably would have been asking too much. The first Incredibles movie was such an unexpected delight, so different from pretty much anything else out there. Now superhero movies are a dime a dozen, and the 14-year hiatus gives us time to build [potentially unrealistic] expectations.
I2 is a good movie. It's making a ton of money, too. Not that box office has ever been a very good indicator of quality. But I can recommend this one as a fun and entertaining diversion, even if it doesn't reach the higher heights.
5.26.2018
Movies: Solo: A Star Wars Story
Starring: Alden Ehrenreich, Joonas Suotamo, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover
Directed by: Ron Howard (mostly)
Written by: Jonathan Kasdan & Lawrence Kasdan from characters created by George Lucas
Lucasfilm/Disney, 2018
PG-13; 135 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I wasn't enthusiastic about this going in. I've never once when watching any Star Wars movie (and I watched them often in my youth, especially Empire) looked at Han Solo and said to myself, "I'd like to know his story." Because honestly, I think a character like his is fine with an undefined past. More fun that way. Someone who wanders in and out of a scene, hot-footed. You don't know where he came from or where he's going, but he's great to have around when he is around.
Also, the trailers had not inspired confidence. Alden Ehrenreich as a young Harrison Ford didn't scan. And nothing of what I saw him saying or doing felt right either.
So I went in with a list of detriments already tallied against the movie. Probably not fair, but I want to be honest.
The first part of the film confirmed my fears. Ehrenreich is too earnest to be the Han Solo we all know and love. Not that Ford's Solo didn't have an earnest streak from time to time, but that was never his foremost characteristic. Here, it is. And it doesn't work.
I know, I know—the point is to show how Solo went from earnest to jaded, right? Yeah, well they failed on that front, too. By the end of the film he still comes off as more sincere than cynical.
That said, I didn't dislike the movie as much as I expected to. Yes, the first part is a trudge, but once Woody Harrelson shows up, the story picks up steam. The supporting cast does most of the heavy lifting in this movie; they're far more interesting than the titular Solo. In particular, Paul Bettany as villain Dryden Vos is classic. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge voicing the droid L3 and Jon Favreau likewise voicing Rio are also great.
The story itself is heist upon heist and double-cross upon double-cross. Nothing you wouldn't expect when dealing with Han Solo and Lando Calrissian, really. And none of the twists surprised me. If anything, things that were clearly meant to "land" fell flat. Though there are a lot of easter eggs in this film. A lot.
End result is a so-so movie, at least for me. The first part nearly tanked it, but it got better by degrees as it went on. I guess that's all anyone can hope for: to end up better than where and how you started.
Directed by: Ron Howard (mostly)
Written by: Jonathan Kasdan & Lawrence Kasdan from characters created by George Lucas
Lucasfilm/Disney, 2018
PG-13; 135 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I wasn't enthusiastic about this going in. I've never once when watching any Star Wars movie (and I watched them often in my youth, especially Empire) looked at Han Solo and said to myself, "I'd like to know his story." Because honestly, I think a character like his is fine with an undefined past. More fun that way. Someone who wanders in and out of a scene, hot-footed. You don't know where he came from or where he's going, but he's great to have around when he is around.
Also, the trailers had not inspired confidence. Alden Ehrenreich as a young Harrison Ford didn't scan. And nothing of what I saw him saying or doing felt right either.
So I went in with a list of detriments already tallied against the movie. Probably not fair, but I want to be honest.
The first part of the film confirmed my fears. Ehrenreich is too earnest to be the Han Solo we all know and love. Not that Ford's Solo didn't have an earnest streak from time to time, but that was never his foremost characteristic. Here, it is. And it doesn't work.
I know, I know—the point is to show how Solo went from earnest to jaded, right? Yeah, well they failed on that front, too. By the end of the film he still comes off as more sincere than cynical.
That said, I didn't dislike the movie as much as I expected to. Yes, the first part is a trudge, but once Woody Harrelson shows up, the story picks up steam. The supporting cast does most of the heavy lifting in this movie; they're far more interesting than the titular Solo. In particular, Paul Bettany as villain Dryden Vos is classic. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge voicing the droid L3 and Jon Favreau likewise voicing Rio are also great.
The story itself is heist upon heist and double-cross upon double-cross. Nothing you wouldn't expect when dealing with Han Solo and Lando Calrissian, really. And none of the twists surprised me. If anything, things that were clearly meant to "land" fell flat. Though there are a lot of easter eggs in this film. A lot.
End result is a so-so movie, at least for me. The first part nearly tanked it, but it got better by degrees as it went on. I guess that's all anyone can hope for: to end up better than where and how you started.
4.28.2018
Movies: Avengers: Infinity War
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, and just a whole bunch of people, I mean really, was this necessary?
Directed by: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written by: Like, 12 Guys and Not a Single Woman, So F*** Off
Marvel, 2018
PG-13; 149 minutes
2.0 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
THE SPOILER-FREE PART
People are going to like this movie, so I know I'm swimming upstream. And it's not because I want to be "different" or "contrary." I just really didn't enjoy it.
I mean, there were a couple moments I enjoyed, and a couple times I actually laughed, but overall this felt like it was trying way too hard.
And then I heard—as we were driving to the cinema—that there's going to be another one, so this isn't even, you know, the entire story. It's just a really long movie that gets you, what? Halfway there?
Sigh.
I'm no longer impressed by all the spectacle. And I've read fan fiction that's better and more engaging than this script.
The story, which we've sort of known for a while now, is that Thanos is trying to collect the six Infinity Stones and put them in his gauntlet. His goal is to save the universe by eliminating half the population in it. Similar to culling seals or whatever, I guess, the idea being that we don't have enough resources and therefore must cut down the burdens on those resources.
The one thing I can say for the movie is that Thanos is actually an interesting villain. He has depth and feeling, so that's a nice change.
The attempts to play up emotions in the protagonists, however, fell flat. These characters no longer have personalities.
SPOILERS BELOW, SWEETIES
Yes, there are deaths. We lose people who I call JIEs: "just important enough" (without being the headliners). Anyway, there's a Time Stone, so we know that eventually all these people are coming back. That's the problem with Marvel movies; there never really are any stakes.
A villain who basically has all the power actually makes things less interesting, too. I said above that Thanos is an interesting villain, and he is interesting—as a character. But his having all this power makes every fight feel feeble and unnecessary. Oh, he can change reality? Well, then, if reality can change at whim, then there is no longer any such thing as reality, is there? Whee! Nothing matters anymore!
Such stupid decisions, too. Why try to pull the gauntlet off Thanos? Why not just destroy the Stones, or take them, or cut Thanos' arm off or something? (Do not give me a lecture about how the Stones can't be removed, or the gauntlet is impervious, or anything like that. At the very least, Thanos' arm is certainly not indestructible.)
Meanwhile, I think they were trying to have Dr. Strange and Tony Stark out-ego one another, but it just didn't scan. Why didn't Strange use the Time Stone to, I dunno, stop time or something? Do another infinite loop until they won the fight? Like, anything useful?
On the plus side, Thor kept calling Rocket a rabbit, and that was amusing. For a while. But the writers leaned into what they thought was an emotional core to this movie—namely the relationships between characters—and therefore went light on the levity, which I found sorely lacking, and somewhat forced in the places it did occur. The funny is what makes Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor: Ragnarok some of the best movies in the series. And while this one is certainly tackling a more sober story line, they could have used more laughs, if only to break up the monotony.
That said, two dramatic moments gave me chills: Cap stepping out of the shadows in Scotland, and Thor arriving in Wakanda.
Bottom line: I was underwhelmed. Not that it matters what I think; this movie will make its money and people will be in line for the next one, too. Those same people who overeat at buffets because they insist on getting their money's worth and figure it's worth the bellyache.
Directed by: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written by: Like, 12 Guys and Not a Single Woman, So F*** Off
Marvel, 2018
PG-13; 149 minutes
2.0 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
THE SPOILER-FREE PART
People are going to like this movie, so I know I'm swimming upstream. And it's not because I want to be "different" or "contrary." I just really didn't enjoy it.
I mean, there were a couple moments I enjoyed, and a couple times I actually laughed, but overall this felt like it was trying way too hard.
And then I heard—as we were driving to the cinema—that there's going to be another one, so this isn't even, you know, the entire story. It's just a really long movie that gets you, what? Halfway there?
Sigh.
I'm no longer impressed by all the spectacle. And I've read fan fiction that's better and more engaging than this script.
The story, which we've sort of known for a while now, is that Thanos is trying to collect the six Infinity Stones and put them in his gauntlet. His goal is to save the universe by eliminating half the population in it. Similar to culling seals or whatever, I guess, the idea being that we don't have enough resources and therefore must cut down the burdens on those resources.
The one thing I can say for the movie is that Thanos is actually an interesting villain. He has depth and feeling, so that's a nice change.
The attempts to play up emotions in the protagonists, however, fell flat. These characters no longer have personalities.
SPOILERS BELOW, SWEETIES
Yes, there are deaths. We lose people who I call JIEs: "just important enough" (without being the headliners). Anyway, there's a Time Stone, so we know that eventually all these people are coming back. That's the problem with Marvel movies; there never really are any stakes.
A villain who basically has all the power actually makes things less interesting, too. I said above that Thanos is an interesting villain, and he is interesting—as a character. But his having all this power makes every fight feel feeble and unnecessary. Oh, he can change reality? Well, then, if reality can change at whim, then there is no longer any such thing as reality, is there? Whee! Nothing matters anymore!
Such stupid decisions, too. Why try to pull the gauntlet off Thanos? Why not just destroy the Stones, or take them, or cut Thanos' arm off or something? (Do not give me a lecture about how the Stones can't be removed, or the gauntlet is impervious, or anything like that. At the very least, Thanos' arm is certainly not indestructible.)
Meanwhile, I think they were trying to have Dr. Strange and Tony Stark out-ego one another, but it just didn't scan. Why didn't Strange use the Time Stone to, I dunno, stop time or something? Do another infinite loop until they won the fight? Like, anything useful?
On the plus side, Thor kept calling Rocket a rabbit, and that was amusing. For a while. But the writers leaned into what they thought was an emotional core to this movie—namely the relationships between characters—and therefore went light on the levity, which I found sorely lacking, and somewhat forced in the places it did occur. The funny is what makes Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor: Ragnarok some of the best movies in the series. And while this one is certainly tackling a more sober story line, they could have used more laughs, if only to break up the monotony.
That said, two dramatic moments gave me chills: Cap stepping out of the shadows in Scotland, and Thor arriving in Wakanda.
Bottom line: I was underwhelmed. Not that it matters what I think; this movie will make its money and people will be in line for the next one, too. Those same people who overeat at buffets because they insist on getting their money's worth and figure it's worth the bellyache.
4.02.2018
Movies: Ready Player One
Starring: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Ben Mendelsohn, Lena Waithe, Mark Rylance, Simon Pegg
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Zak Penn & Ernest Cline (screenplay), from the novel by Ernest Cline
Warner Bros., 2018
PG-13; 140 minutes
5.0 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Yeah, I gave it five stars.
Let me be clear: I didn't even finish the book. It bored me. It clearly wasn't written for the likes of me. Despite having grown up in the 80s and being passingly familiar with gaming culture . . . While I could appreciate the references made in the book, I couldn't like the main character. And since the entire story is told from that character's POV, I bailed.
Ready Player One is also told from this character's POV, and yes, there's even (*groan*) voice over. But they've managed to make him likable. And the story more interesting.
It's not just for fanboys any more.
Quick summary: Wade Watts lives in a near future Cleveland (2045). Most people in this future spend their time plugged in to the VR world known as the Oasis. When the creator of the Oasis (Rylance, doing a version of Garth from Wayne's World?) dies, he leaves behind a contest: find three keys and win the easter egg that will give you control of the Oasis.
At first Wade wants to win just for the sake of the money. He's poor, he's downtrodden and misunderstood, etc. But after meeting Artemis in the Oasis, he has a bigger purpose: stop big business IOI from winning and ruining the Oasis—and by extension, the world—forever.
It's a white-boy nerd savior fantasy if ever there was one, and that's been seen as problematic in this day and age. I get that, and I even agree with it to a point. Remember that I felt excluded when reading the book. But I had faith in my longtime love of Mr. Spielberg, and that faith proved sound. The changes made from the book to the movie tell a very different story, at least as much as I can tell from only having read half the book.
Some of the changes are a simple matter of visual interest. Watching someone watch WarGames over and over would not be entertaining. So the contests have been upped, and I'll admit to pumping a fist and hissing, "Yes!" when Wade (or, per his avatar name, Parzival) figured out the first one. A marked difference from the book: I felt like I could cheer for this guy.
Beyond those surface changes was the sense that this was not just Wade's story. Though told from his POV, the movie had a more classic Spielberg feel of a group of misfits coming together to beat the big bad. Wade may be Chief Misfit, but there's never a hint that he could have done it alone. He's not a sole savior; he gets saved by others plenty of times. And that's a very important difference.
In short, you don't have to be a fanboy to enjoy this movie. You don't even have to be a gamer (I'm not). It might help if you're of a particular generation that's primed to enjoy the nostalgia factor. And it definitely helps if you love classic Spielberg. Because by the end of Ready Player One, that's what I was left thinking: "This is the Spielberg of my childhood, the one I love." There's nostalgia for you.
(P.S. The PG-13 rating is key; my 8- and 9-year-olds struggled with the scene set in The Shining. Consider yourselves warned.)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Zak Penn & Ernest Cline (screenplay), from the novel by Ernest Cline
Warner Bros., 2018
PG-13; 140 minutes
5.0 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Yeah, I gave it five stars.
Let me be clear: I didn't even finish the book. It bored me. It clearly wasn't written for the likes of me. Despite having grown up in the 80s and being passingly familiar with gaming culture . . . While I could appreciate the references made in the book, I couldn't like the main character. And since the entire story is told from that character's POV, I bailed.
Ready Player One is also told from this character's POV, and yes, there's even (*groan*) voice over. But they've managed to make him likable. And the story more interesting.
It's not just for fanboys any more.
Quick summary: Wade Watts lives in a near future Cleveland (2045). Most people in this future spend their time plugged in to the VR world known as the Oasis. When the creator of the Oasis (Rylance, doing a version of Garth from Wayne's World?) dies, he leaves behind a contest: find three keys and win the easter egg that will give you control of the Oasis.
At first Wade wants to win just for the sake of the money. He's poor, he's downtrodden and misunderstood, etc. But after meeting Artemis in the Oasis, he has a bigger purpose: stop big business IOI from winning and ruining the Oasis—and by extension, the world—forever.
It's a white-boy nerd savior fantasy if ever there was one, and that's been seen as problematic in this day and age. I get that, and I even agree with it to a point. Remember that I felt excluded when reading the book. But I had faith in my longtime love of Mr. Spielberg, and that faith proved sound. The changes made from the book to the movie tell a very different story, at least as much as I can tell from only having read half the book.
Some of the changes are a simple matter of visual interest. Watching someone watch WarGames over and over would not be entertaining. So the contests have been upped, and I'll admit to pumping a fist and hissing, "Yes!" when Wade (or, per his avatar name, Parzival) figured out the first one. A marked difference from the book: I felt like I could cheer for this guy.
Beyond those surface changes was the sense that this was not just Wade's story. Though told from his POV, the movie had a more classic Spielberg feel of a group of misfits coming together to beat the big bad. Wade may be Chief Misfit, but there's never a hint that he could have done it alone. He's not a sole savior; he gets saved by others plenty of times. And that's a very important difference.
In short, you don't have to be a fanboy to enjoy this movie. You don't even have to be a gamer (I'm not). It might help if you're of a particular generation that's primed to enjoy the nostalgia factor. And it definitely helps if you love classic Spielberg. Because by the end of Ready Player One, that's what I was left thinking: "This is the Spielberg of my childhood, the one I love." There's nostalgia for you.
(P.S. The PG-13 rating is key; my 8- and 9-year-olds struggled with the scene set in The Shining. Consider yourselves warned.)
2.22.2018
Books: The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzi Lee
This is a cute book. The narrator has a strong and engaging voice and is charming if not always likable.
The story in a nutshell: It is the 1700s. Henry "Monty" Montague—known rake and heir to an earldom—and his best friend Percy Newton are off on their Grand Tour. Monty's younger sister Felicity is along for the ride as they're meant to drop her at finishing school in Marseilles. Of course, everything goes awry when Monty steals a little something from the Duke of Bourbon during a visit to Versailles.
The novel attacks a number of issues, including race relations (Percy is part black), and health (Percy also has epilepsy), and abuse (Monty's father beats him), as well as homosexuality (Monty has a huge crush on Percy). It also glances over gender issues as Felicity protests having to go to finishing school because she'd rather become a surgeon.
Overall, it was a swift read up until the last 20-25% of the book. At that point, I felt the book had begun to suffer from a surfeit of plot. Things just kept happening, and I was beginning to be exhausted, not in a good way. But I plowed through (sometimes tempted to skim) to see how it would end.
Still, the book is largely a fine marriage of character and plot. If you like Lestat, you'll probably like Monty's narration. Many nice descriptions, though they sometimes get rather thick.
The main characters being teenagers, it's listed as YA, but if you're thinking of this for your teen, be sure they're ready for some of the heftier issues.
The story in a nutshell: It is the 1700s. Henry "Monty" Montague—known rake and heir to an earldom—and his best friend Percy Newton are off on their Grand Tour. Monty's younger sister Felicity is along for the ride as they're meant to drop her at finishing school in Marseilles. Of course, everything goes awry when Monty steals a little something from the Duke of Bourbon during a visit to Versailles.
The novel attacks a number of issues, including race relations (Percy is part black), and health (Percy also has epilepsy), and abuse (Monty's father beats him), as well as homosexuality (Monty has a huge crush on Percy). It also glances over gender issues as Felicity protests having to go to finishing school because she'd rather become a surgeon.
Overall, it was a swift read up until the last 20-25% of the book. At that point, I felt the book had begun to suffer from a surfeit of plot. Things just kept happening, and I was beginning to be exhausted, not in a good way. But I plowed through (sometimes tempted to skim) to see how it would end.
Still, the book is largely a fine marriage of character and plot. If you like Lestat, you'll probably like Monty's narration. Many nice descriptions, though they sometimes get rather thick.
The main characters being teenagers, it's listed as YA, but if you're thinking of this for your teen, be sure they're ready for some of the heftier issues.
1.13.2018
Movies: Despicable Me 3 (or, Despicable M3)
Ugh.
Okay, I've never seen the first two movies in this franchise, so maybe I was just coming in at the wrong point. But based on the previews—which were really just the first full scene of the movie—I thought this was going to be cute and funny. It was neither.
Here's what I knew going in:
Honestly, you don't have to know much more than that to understand the dynamic. Gru has a wife named Lucy who is also an agent (it's called the Anti-Villain League, or AVL), and they've adopted three girls. You can glean that from the story without having to know it ahead of time. Also, I've just told you.
The real problem with this movie (besides the Minions, who I hate with a passion that blazes like a million suns) is that it's crazy disjointed. It starts with that opening scene we all saw in the trailers: Gru fighting 80s-loving villain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker, the only good thing in this movie). Then it goes on to be about Gru discovering he has a twin brother, and that he comes from a line of pig-farming villains. There is exactly no tension. No laughs. The movie attempts to set up jokes and gags, but none of them are funny. Plot lines like the one about the boy who has a crush on Margo get squashed and kicked to the curb without serving any real purpose. (Yes, okay, it was supposed to bring Lucy and Margo closer, I guess? But there was never enough discord between them for us to feel gratified by that story thread.)
Meanwhile, the Balthazar Bratt stuff takes a back seat, which is a shame because, as I mentioned, he's the only truly entertaining thing about the movie. Sure, he's pretty one-note, but that note is way more interesting than anything else that's going on. That's not saying much, but there you have it.
In some ways, D-Me 3 feels like two stories Frankensteined together. The writers wanted to tell about this Bratt guy, and they wanted to do this family story, so they did both and neither came out well.
Minor spoiler posed as a question: If Lucy saved Gru and Dru at Bratt's lair, how did they get their speedboat back? (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Bratt drove it back to Dru's when he came to get back the diamond? Still, sloppy work not making that clear. Also, why is the giant Bratt mecha under water?)
In short, this is a really terrible movie. My husband laughed, but only at the faces I made while watching. "I can't remember the last time a movie made you this angry," he told me.
It was just . . . so bad. So very, very bad.
Okay, I've never seen the first two movies in this franchise, so maybe I was just coming in at the wrong point. But based on the previews—which were really just the first full scene of the movie—I thought this was going to be cute and funny. It was neither.
Here's what I knew going in:
- Gru used to be a villain but now he was some kind of agent who fought villains
- There were Minions
Honestly, you don't have to know much more than that to understand the dynamic. Gru has a wife named Lucy who is also an agent (it's called the Anti-Villain League, or AVL), and they've adopted three girls. You can glean that from the story without having to know it ahead of time. Also, I've just told you.
The real problem with this movie (besides the Minions, who I hate with a passion that blazes like a million suns) is that it's crazy disjointed. It starts with that opening scene we all saw in the trailers: Gru fighting 80s-loving villain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker, the only good thing in this movie). Then it goes on to be about Gru discovering he has a twin brother, and that he comes from a line of pig-farming villains. There is exactly no tension. No laughs. The movie attempts to set up jokes and gags, but none of them are funny. Plot lines like the one about the boy who has a crush on Margo get squashed and kicked to the curb without serving any real purpose. (Yes, okay, it was supposed to bring Lucy and Margo closer, I guess? But there was never enough discord between them for us to feel gratified by that story thread.)
Meanwhile, the Balthazar Bratt stuff takes a back seat, which is a shame because, as I mentioned, he's the only truly entertaining thing about the movie. Sure, he's pretty one-note, but that note is way more interesting than anything else that's going on. That's not saying much, but there you have it.
In some ways, D-Me 3 feels like two stories Frankensteined together. The writers wanted to tell about this Bratt guy, and they wanted to do this family story, so they did both and neither came out well.
Minor spoiler posed as a question: If Lucy saved Gru and Dru at Bratt's lair, how did they get their speedboat back? (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Bratt drove it back to Dru's when he came to get back the diamond? Still, sloppy work not making that clear. Also, why is the giant Bratt mecha under water?)
In short, this is a really terrible movie. My husband laughed, but only at the faces I made while watching. "I can't remember the last time a movie made you this angry," he told me.
It was just . . . so bad. So very, very bad.
12.22.2017
Movies: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle
Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Kevin Hart, Jack Black
Directed By: Jake Kasdan
Written By: Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Scott Rosenberg, Jeff Pinkner (screenplay); Chris McKenna (story); from the picture book by Chris Van Allsburg
Sony, 2017
PG-13; 119 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I did not read any in-depth reviews before going to this movie; I went because (a) the trailer was cute, and (b) my kids wanted to go. I never saw the 1995 movie either. So I went into this pretty fresh, with only one word in my head: "generic." That was the one criticism I'd seen of this film—that it was "generic," its setting was "generic."
Well, you know, in board games and video games, the settings often are generic. Sure, they give places names, but those places are mapped of very generic elements: here is a desert, here is a bazaar, here is a jungle, etc. So I think those elements in this movie are kind of the point rather than problematic.
The film begins in 1996 when a teen named Alex gets zapped into Jumanji, once a board game but now upgraded to a video cartridge. Fast forward twenty years, and four teens are given detention in the school basement. They unearth this old game, and zap! In they go, their selves now transformed into the game characters they selected from the menu. If they ever want to get out of the game and go home, they must play through to the end of the game. They each have three lives in order to complete the quest.
Things play out (har, see what I did there?) pretty much as expected. The awkward nerd teen gets to be Dwayne Johnson, the big football player becomes Kevin Hart, and the self-absorbed girl morphs into Jack Black. The jokes are not original, but they work well enough. My kids loved it, and I was entertained, so . . . ::shrug::
The movie would have done a bit better if it had upped the villain quotient and made him a bit more sinister and/or given him more of a presence. The stakes here never feel quite high enough. But then again, this is a kids' movie more than anything, so I might be asking for too much.
Also, this is one movie I think would benefit from 3D. Since I usually hate 3D, that's really saying something.
Overall, not a bad movie though not a stellar one. Maybe that's the "generic" the critics are really feeling. It's a mediocre film, but if you ever need a man to play teen girl, Jack Black is the go-to guy. He's got that nailed. And it's fun to see Dwayne Johnson do, well, anything really. 😍
So. Would I recommend it? Maybe, depending on your tastes. I wouldn't warn anyone away from it at any rate. I don't think you absolutely need the big screen for it, though. This one will work just as well at home. Save it for game night?
Directed By: Jake Kasdan
Written By: Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Scott Rosenberg, Jeff Pinkner (screenplay); Chris McKenna (story); from the picture book by Chris Van Allsburg
Sony, 2017
PG-13; 119 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I did not read any in-depth reviews before going to this movie; I went because (a) the trailer was cute, and (b) my kids wanted to go. I never saw the 1995 movie either. So I went into this pretty fresh, with only one word in my head: "generic." That was the one criticism I'd seen of this film—that it was "generic," its setting was "generic."
Well, you know, in board games and video games, the settings often are generic. Sure, they give places names, but those places are mapped of very generic elements: here is a desert, here is a bazaar, here is a jungle, etc. So I think those elements in this movie are kind of the point rather than problematic.
The film begins in 1996 when a teen named Alex gets zapped into Jumanji, once a board game but now upgraded to a video cartridge. Fast forward twenty years, and four teens are given detention in the school basement. They unearth this old game, and zap! In they go, their selves now transformed into the game characters they selected from the menu. If they ever want to get out of the game and go home, they must play through to the end of the game. They each have three lives in order to complete the quest.
Things play out (har, see what I did there?) pretty much as expected. The awkward nerd teen gets to be Dwayne Johnson, the big football player becomes Kevin Hart, and the self-absorbed girl morphs into Jack Black. The jokes are not original, but they work well enough. My kids loved it, and I was entertained, so . . . ::shrug::
The movie would have done a bit better if it had upped the villain quotient and made him a bit more sinister and/or given him more of a presence. The stakes here never feel quite high enough. But then again, this is a kids' movie more than anything, so I might be asking for too much.
Also, this is one movie I think would benefit from 3D. Since I usually hate 3D, that's really saying something.
Overall, not a bad movie though not a stellar one. Maybe that's the "generic" the critics are really feeling. It's a mediocre film, but if you ever need a man to play teen girl, Jack Black is the go-to guy. He's got that nailed. And it's fun to see Dwayne Johnson do, well, anything really. 😍
So. Would I recommend it? Maybe, depending on your tastes. I wouldn't warn anyone away from it at any rate. I don't think you absolutely need the big screen for it, though. This one will work just as well at home. Save it for game night?
Movies: Atomic Blonde
Ugh.
Okay, I haven't read the source material. But I knew how this story was going to play out within the first five or ten minutes of the film. And I could tell it had all come from men. Because this is a male fantasy masquerading as a strong female story. There are a lot of those, especially in comics and graphic novels, which is where this originated.
Sigh.
Charlize Theron stars as Lorraine Broughton, MI6 agent sent to Berlin in the weeks before the Wall comes down to retrieve aMacGuffin list of agents (remember Skyfall?). Yawn. Her contact is David Percival (James McAvoy, with not enough to do). The list is missing and too many people seem to know who Broughton really is, so she spends a lot of time fighting off people, and the movie is really just one action sequence after another strung together by a plot none of us actually cares about. We don't even care much about the characters because we don't know them and aren't made to particularly like them. This movie is an excuse for a soundtrack, nudity, and blood. That's about it. You see the "twist(s)" coming miles away thanks to the absolute lack of originality. Boo.
Oh, and there's a frame story, of course. Broughton is being debriefed, and you're supposed to wonder why, although it's painfully obvious where everything is headed.
Look, I love a good Cold War story (I even wrote one, though mine is 1960s rather than 80s), but this clearly wasn't made for me. It's for men who want an excuse to stare at women and like to think they're supporting women by watching a movie with a "strong female lead." Or something. Yuck.
Okay, I haven't read the source material. But I knew how this story was going to play out within the first five or ten minutes of the film. And I could tell it had all come from men. Because this is a male fantasy masquerading as a strong female story. There are a lot of those, especially in comics and graphic novels, which is where this originated.
Sigh.
Charlize Theron stars as Lorraine Broughton, MI6 agent sent to Berlin in the weeks before the Wall comes down to retrieve a
Oh, and there's a frame story, of course. Broughton is being debriefed, and you're supposed to wonder why, although it's painfully obvious where everything is headed.
Look, I love a good Cold War story (I even wrote one, though mine is 1960s rather than 80s), but this clearly wasn't made for me. It's for men who want an excuse to stare at women and like to think they're supporting women by watching a movie with a "strong female lead." Or something. Yuck.
12.21.2017
Movies: Star Wars: The Last Jedi (second viewing)
It's really just . . . It's like Force Skype, right? And Luke gets mad when he finds out Rey has been Force Skyping with Kylo.
Rey: He's not as bad as you think he is!
Luke: No, he's really as bad as I think he is.
Rey: We're going to meet and have a real date and you'll see!
LATER
Kylo watches the Millennium Falcon fly by and, I mean, think about that: It's his [late, hated] dad's ship and the girl he crushes on who rejected him is flying it. It's the quintessential adolescent nightmare really.
MEANWHILE
Rey to Luke: Okay, so he was as bad as you said.
I'm not saying this to be mean. It's actually my favorite part of the movie. It's the exact same kind of YA drama that we love in novels, right? I eat that stuff up.
There are still things about the movie that I didn't love, like Leia floating back to the ship after being Yondu'd. I get she has powers or whatever, but that stretched credulity by a lot for me. And there are plot holes, but that's almost required in Star Wars movies. I mean, why didn't Holdo just tell Poe why she was doing what she was doing? That would have saved everyone some trouble.
But on the whole I enjoyed it more the second time.
Rey: He's not as bad as you think he is!
Luke: No, he's really as bad as I think he is.
Rey: We're going to meet and have a real date and you'll see!
LATER
Kylo watches the Millennium Falcon fly by and, I mean, think about that: It's his [late, hated] dad's ship and the girl he crushes on who rejected him is flying it. It's the quintessential adolescent nightmare really.
MEANWHILE
Rey to Luke: Okay, so he was as bad as you said.
I'm not saying this to be mean. It's actually my favorite part of the movie. It's the exact same kind of YA drama that we love in novels, right? I eat that stuff up.
There are still things about the movie that I didn't love, like Leia floating back to the ship after being Yondu'd. I get she has powers or whatever, but that stretched credulity by a lot for me. And there are plot holes, but that's almost required in Star Wars movies. I mean, why didn't Holdo just tell Poe why she was doing what she was doing? That would have saved everyone some trouble.
But on the whole I enjoyed it more the second time.
12.15.2017
Movies: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Starring: Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac
Directed By: Rian Johnson
Written By: Rian Johnson, from characters created by George Lucas
Disney, 2017
PG-13; 152 minutes
4.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Fair warning: I'm probably going to be a tad nitpicky here. I liked this movie, but not as much as I expected to, which is kind of sad. That said, it's still a lot of fun and a worthy addition to the Star Wars legacy. Spoilers are likely to follow, so if you don't want to know details and haven't seen the movie yet, come back here afterwards to compare notes.
Directed By: Rian Johnson
Written By: Rian Johnson, from characters created by George Lucas
Disney, 2017
PG-13; 152 minutes
4.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Fair warning: I'm probably going to be a tad nitpicky here. I liked this movie, but not as much as I expected to, which is kind of sad. That said, it's still a lot of fun and a worthy addition to the Star Wars legacy. Spoilers are likely to follow, so if you don't want to know details and haven't seen the movie yet, come back here afterwards to compare notes.
We begin with the Resistance in retreat as the First Order, under Supreme Leader Snoke, takes hold across the galaxy. The hope is that Rey will find Luke and bring him back to help the Resistance. Of course, Luke is a cranky old hermit now, so . . . hilarity ensues.
I really do think that the corny moments of humor are what detracted for me. I laughed, certainly, but I wanted or expected this movie to have more weight than it did, if that makes any sense? Turning Luke into an almost punchline bothered me a little.
That said, there are some great humorous moments. So it's not like I wanted the movie to be entirely serious—of course it shouldn't be—but there were times when the jokes broke the stride for me.
Like Luke in The Empire Strikes Back, Rey has a "cave" moment that shows her . . . nothing much. So that scene felt completely pointless really.
Rey and Kylo Ren develop a kind of psychic bond, and when Luke refuses to help Rey, she decides Kylo is her new bestie and goes off to join forces with him. It goes about like you would expect, but does include a great battle scene (though why the Guard would even bother fighting at that point is questionable).
Meanwhile, Finn and some engineer (I guess?) named Rose are sent on a mission to find a master codebreaker so they can get into Snoke's ship and turn off the tracking device that allows them to follow the Resistance cruiser. So that's a whole thing.
Cute animals abound in the film, from the porgs that have been everywhere, to the cat-horse things on another planet, and the salt fox things on yet another planet. I'm pretty sure the crystal shop at Disney will have cut crystal versions of the fox things soon.
I'm a little worried about the consequences of setting those horse things free. Would the herd be gathered up and whipped? What about the kids who were meant to be tending them? (Yes, we see them at the end, but we don't know what punishment they endured.) Feels like, in some ways, a bad situation was made worse by our supposed heroes.
What I did really enjoy, however, was the moral ambiguity and nuances that infused this film. There are moments when you think, Maybe so-and-so isn't bad after all, and, Maybe so-and-so is worse than I thought. Characters—at least some of them—are fluid here, which makes them more interesting.
It's a long movie, to the point that I began to feel the length toward the end. Like, I definitely had a moment of, Is this still going? It felt a bit stretched, not always with the tension to sustain that stretching.
Still, it's a fun movie. Entertaining. My kids are highly amused by my Kylo Ren impressions, and this film gave me a lot to work with on that front, so there's that. My daughter's reaction to the movie was: "So much Kylo! Swoon!"
By the way, I get the sense that Admiral Ackbar goes through life dialed up to 11. Like, just in a constant state of panic. You could tell him you're out of milk and he'd be, "We're all going to die!"
Anyway. I enjoyed it but, as I mentioned, not as much as I expected to. And while I might need longer to mull it over about exactly why that is, I know in the long run it won't matter. People will see it and love it, and my nitpicking is just that. In the big scheme, the movie comes through and does its job, and that's really all anyone can ask for.
ETA: Oh, and . . .
Laura Dern felt really out of place to me.
AND . . .
I felt like some social commentary was being shoved down my throat. I agree with the views being presented, but it still felt like I was being hit upside the head with them.
ETA: Oh, and . . .
Laura Dern felt really out of place to me.
AND . . .
I felt like some social commentary was being shoved down my throat. I agree with the views being presented, but it still felt like I was being hit upside the head with them.
11.25.2017
Movies: The Hitman's Bodyguard
Not quite as clever or endearing as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but in the same vein.
Ryan Reynolds plays Michael Bryce, a hired protection . . . agent? Is that what they're called? He was once the cream of the crop, but after losing a client, he now slums it and picks up jobs where and when he can.
Samuel L. Jackson plays an assassin named Darius Kincaid whose testimony is needed in International Court trial against the tyrannical president of Belarus. But of course INTERPOL has a mole, or a leak, or whatever they're calling it nowadays. So one of the agents—Bryce's ex, in fact—calls in Bryce to get Kincaid to the Hague. Hilarity in the form of banter and action set pieces ensues.
In truth, Reynolds and Jackson play well off one another. However, the plot here is rote and everything that happens is utterly predictable. Also, the two love stories—Bryce's ex, Kincaid's equally incarcerated wife (played wonderfully by Salma Hayek)—unfortunately fail to have impact because we're simply told that these two main characters love these women and are expected to take it at face value. We don't see them interact much with their respective ladies, only hear them talk about their relationships. If there's anything I dislike in movies, it's being told: "Here. Believe this. We're not going to show you (which is the f'ing point of a movie), just tell you, but we need you to believe it because a big part of the plot hinges on it." Ugh. Fuck no. Do the work.
Still and all, the movie is overall fairly entertaining. Good soundtrack, too. If you like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or The Nice Guys, you'd probably like this one, even though it's not Shane Black. It has a similar vibe.
Ryan Reynolds plays Michael Bryce, a hired protection . . . agent? Is that what they're called? He was once the cream of the crop, but after losing a client, he now slums it and picks up jobs where and when he can.
Samuel L. Jackson plays an assassin named Darius Kincaid whose testimony is needed in International Court trial against the tyrannical president of Belarus. But of course INTERPOL has a mole, or a leak, or whatever they're calling it nowadays. So one of the agents—Bryce's ex, in fact—calls in Bryce to get Kincaid to the Hague. Hilarity in the form of banter and action set pieces ensues.
In truth, Reynolds and Jackson play well off one another. However, the plot here is rote and everything that happens is utterly predictable. Also, the two love stories—Bryce's ex, Kincaid's equally incarcerated wife (played wonderfully by Salma Hayek)—unfortunately fail to have impact because we're simply told that these two main characters love these women and are expected to take it at face value. We don't see them interact much with their respective ladies, only hear them talk about their relationships. If there's anything I dislike in movies, it's being told: "Here. Believe this. We're not going to show you (which is the f'ing point of a movie), just tell you, but we need you to believe it because a big part of the plot hinges on it." Ugh. Fuck no. Do the work.
Still and all, the movie is overall fairly entertaining. Good soundtrack, too. If you like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or The Nice Guys, you'd probably like this one, even though it's not Shane Black. It has a similar vibe.
11.04.2017
Movies: Thor: Ragnarok
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Idris Elba
Directed By: Taika Waititi
Written By: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Marvel, 2017
PG-13; 130 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
A couple of caveats: (1) the sound in our cinema kept going out, which may have influenced my overall sense of the film, even though they did fix it and rewind the scenes for us; (2) I've literally just come home from this movie, which means that I'm on that bit of a film high that one sometimes gets. I considered giving this movie just a 4/5 for a few things, but the fact is, despite the niggling issues, it was highly entertaining. And that's all it's really required to be, right?
On the plus side of this film: lots of comedy and more of the Loki-as-pseudo-hero that we all sort of seem to want. We know Loki is a villain, but we like him so much we want him to win a little, and I feel the franchise is trying to do that for us. It's a very difficult line to walk, though. We don't want him to, you know, go the way of Drax and become base comic relief. We want him to stay smart and wily, and we want him and Thor not to get too close and happy because that won't work either. Anyway, this film balances very carefully on that line, though it does teeter a bit toward Loki as goofy. We're going to want to nudge that a bit in the other direction in the next film. Loki should be darker than this is all I'm saying.
The story in a nutshell: Thor heads home to Asgard after attempting to stop Ragnarok from happening only to find Loki pretending to be Odin. So then they go find Odin (in Norway, cuz where else would he be?), and—stop reading if you don't want to know—Odin dies, which means Thor's and Loki's older sister Hela is released from her prison. Being the oldest, she assumes the throne of Asgard. She's also the goddess of death so, you know, things in Asgard go to Hel . . . a . . .
Meanwhile, the part the trailers all showed: Thor gets captured by a scraper (Thompson) who brings The Grandmaster (Goldblum) fighters for his big Tournament of Champions or whatever it was called. Thor's goal: get away and go save Asgard.
This movie is crowded with cameos and clever casting, and it mostly works. At the same time, it does pull viewers out of the moment sometimes.
My main problem with Thor: Ragnarok is that it tries to subvert expectations and yet the audience is too smart for it. An example: Bruce Banner jumps off a spaceship to face a threat. We're supposed to expect him to land as the Hulk. But he just falls face first and then, moments later, emerges as the Hulk. It's a funny moment but not as much of a cute surprise as I think the writers and filmmakers thought it would be. We as viewers are ahead of the story, and that's not always a good thing. We know Skurge (Urban) is going to have to make a choice, and we know what the choice is going to be and how it's going to end for him. What I'm saying is, this movie hits all the beats, and they're fun ones, but they're also super predictable. The story ends up tied in a neat little bow, and that's weirdly unsatisfying.
Still, this is a largely lighthearted chapter in the ongoing Marvel thread. (Too lighthearted perhaps given the gravitas that the ending needs but lacks.) It seems someone took notes from Guardian of the Galaxy's success and decided to lean in—but not as far in as GOTG Vol. 2, which was a smidge too far. Thor: Ragnarok knows not to take itself too seriously, which is a good thing. As I said, it's highly entertaining, which is all it really needs to be. If the next one could maybe be a little bit more clever or subversive or something, though, I'd appreciate it.
Directed By: Taika Waititi
Written By: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Marvel, 2017
PG-13; 130 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
A couple of caveats: (1) the sound in our cinema kept going out, which may have influenced my overall sense of the film, even though they did fix it and rewind the scenes for us; (2) I've literally just come home from this movie, which means that I'm on that bit of a film high that one sometimes gets. I considered giving this movie just a 4/5 for a few things, but the fact is, despite the niggling issues, it was highly entertaining. And that's all it's really required to be, right?
On the plus side of this film: lots of comedy and more of the Loki-as-pseudo-hero that we all sort of seem to want. We know Loki is a villain, but we like him so much we want him to win a little, and I feel the franchise is trying to do that for us. It's a very difficult line to walk, though. We don't want him to, you know, go the way of Drax and become base comic relief. We want him to stay smart and wily, and we want him and Thor not to get too close and happy because that won't work either. Anyway, this film balances very carefully on that line, though it does teeter a bit toward Loki as goofy. We're going to want to nudge that a bit in the other direction in the next film. Loki should be darker than this is all I'm saying.
The story in a nutshell: Thor heads home to Asgard after attempting to stop Ragnarok from happening only to find Loki pretending to be Odin. So then they go find Odin (in Norway, cuz where else would he be?), and—stop reading if you don't want to know—Odin dies, which means Thor's and Loki's older sister Hela is released from her prison. Being the oldest, she assumes the throne of Asgard. She's also the goddess of death so, you know, things in Asgard go to Hel . . . a . . .
Meanwhile, the part the trailers all showed: Thor gets captured by a scraper (Thompson) who brings The Grandmaster (Goldblum) fighters for his big Tournament of Champions or whatever it was called. Thor's goal: get away and go save Asgard.
This movie is crowded with cameos and clever casting, and it mostly works. At the same time, it does pull viewers out of the moment sometimes.
My main problem with Thor: Ragnarok is that it tries to subvert expectations and yet the audience is too smart for it. An example: Bruce Banner jumps off a spaceship to face a threat. We're supposed to expect him to land as the Hulk. But he just falls face first and then, moments later, emerges as the Hulk. It's a funny moment but not as much of a cute surprise as I think the writers and filmmakers thought it would be. We as viewers are ahead of the story, and that's not always a good thing. We know Skurge (Urban) is going to have to make a choice, and we know what the choice is going to be and how it's going to end for him. What I'm saying is, this movie hits all the beats, and they're fun ones, but they're also super predictable. The story ends up tied in a neat little bow, and that's weirdly unsatisfying.
Still, this is a largely lighthearted chapter in the ongoing Marvel thread. (Too lighthearted perhaps given the gravitas that the ending needs but lacks.) It seems someone took notes from Guardian of the Galaxy's success and decided to lean in—but not as far in as GOTG Vol. 2, which was a smidge too far. Thor: Ragnarok knows not to take itself too seriously, which is a good thing. As I said, it's highly entertaining, which is all it really needs to be. If the next one could maybe be a little bit more clever or subversive or something, though, I'd appreciate it.
9.30.2017
Movies: The LEGO Ninjago Movie
Voices By: Jackie Chan, Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, Fred Armisen
Directed By: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan
Written By: Bob Logan, Paul Fisher, William Wheeler, Tom Wheeler, Jared Stern, John Whittington (screenplay); 7 other people, except a few are the same people (story)
Warner Bros., 2017
PG; 101 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
So on the LEGO movie spectrum, I liked this one almost as much as The LEGO Movie and quite a bit more than The LEGO Batman Movie.
Dave Franco voices Lloyd Garmadon, son of the world's greatest villain. Lloyd has just turned 16, and he's hated by pretty much everyone simply because his dad is the worst. Of course, Lloyd is secretly one of the Ninjas that defend the city every time Garmadon (Justin Theroux) attacks. It's a sweet gig but Lloyd is naturally conflicted. He longs to have a father-son relationship, but how is that possible when his dad (a) left when he was a baby, and (b) is an evil tyrant?
During a particularly vicious battle between the Ninjas and Garmadon's army, Lloyd takes the nigh unforgivable step of using The Ultimate Weapon. It only makes things worse and hands Garmadon a victory. So Lloyd must go in search of the Ultimate Ultimate Weapon to make things right again.
The story is simplistic and predictable, but there's enough humor to keep things going. Jackie Chan is a natural as the voice of Master Wu, who also happens to be Lloyd's uncle and Garmadon's brother. A live-action frame story featuring Chan as the proprietor of a cluttered shop is also very cute, if stereotypical.
I do feel like there could have been more in-depth introductions to the other Ninjas. I've never watched the television show, so maybe that's something I'm already supposed to be familiar with. And I get that this is a kids' movie and character development isn't necessarily a focus. But it just seems to me that they could have done a wee bit more there. (This may be a bi-product of writing by committee.)
But overall, a cute movie, and my kids really enjoyed it, which was kind of the point. The fact that I liked it as much as I did is a bonus.
Directed By: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan
Written By: Bob Logan, Paul Fisher, William Wheeler, Tom Wheeler, Jared Stern, John Whittington (screenplay); 7 other people, except a few are the same people (story)
Warner Bros., 2017
PG; 101 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
So on the LEGO movie spectrum, I liked this one almost as much as The LEGO Movie and quite a bit more than The LEGO Batman Movie.
Dave Franco voices Lloyd Garmadon, son of the world's greatest villain. Lloyd has just turned 16, and he's hated by pretty much everyone simply because his dad is the worst. Of course, Lloyd is secretly one of the Ninjas that defend the city every time Garmadon (Justin Theroux) attacks. It's a sweet gig but Lloyd is naturally conflicted. He longs to have a father-son relationship, but how is that possible when his dad (a) left when he was a baby, and (b) is an evil tyrant?
During a particularly vicious battle between the Ninjas and Garmadon's army, Lloyd takes the nigh unforgivable step of using The Ultimate Weapon. It only makes things worse and hands Garmadon a victory. So Lloyd must go in search of the Ultimate Ultimate Weapon to make things right again.
The story is simplistic and predictable, but there's enough humor to keep things going. Jackie Chan is a natural as the voice of Master Wu, who also happens to be Lloyd's uncle and Garmadon's brother. A live-action frame story featuring Chan as the proprietor of a cluttered shop is also very cute, if stereotypical.
I do feel like there could have been more in-depth introductions to the other Ninjas. I've never watched the television show, so maybe that's something I'm already supposed to be familiar with. And I get that this is a kids' movie and character development isn't necessarily a focus. But it just seems to me that they could have done a wee bit more there. (This may be a bi-product of writing by committee.)
But overall, a cute movie, and my kids really enjoyed it, which was kind of the point. The fact that I liked it as much as I did is a bonus.
9.27.2017
Movies: Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Starring: Taron Egerton, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Julianne Moore . . . Elton John?
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Written By: Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (screenplay) from the comic book by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons
20th Century Fox, 2017
R; 141 minutes
3.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
First question: Was there a fire sale on John Denver music for use in film or something? Or is it just that films with any connection to Channing Tatum are required to use John Denver songs now? Because between this one and Logan Lucky, I've heard more John Denver in the past few weeks than I have since that episode of The Muppet Show from when I was a kid. You know the one.
If that weren't weird enough, Elton John is in this movie and you still hear more John Denver than anything else.
Okay, okay, whatever. Let's get to the nuts and bolts.
A disgruntled Kingsman reject attempts to hijack Eggsy's very sophisticated cab one night, and while Eggsy manages to fend the baddies off, they still get the info they need to incite the rest of the plot. Namely, they discover locations of all Kingsman agents and properties and destroy them all. Only Eggsy and Merlin survive.
There is a Doomsday Protocol for this kind of thing, and that leads our heroes to Kentucky, where they team up with the Statesman operation—a U.S. cousin to the British Kingsman, natch. But while the Kingsman cover is a tailor shop, the Statesman agency makes whiskey.
Julianne Moore plays Poppy, a psycho drug dealer who craves recognition for her work as the most successful "pharmaceutical CEO" in the world. Alas, she's forced to live in the jungles of Cambodia in an HQ that looks more like she runs Johnny Rocket's. She explains this by saying she grew up amid 50's nostalgia and still loves it. Which is why she's also kidnapped Elton John for her personal entertainment.
Questions you didn't even know you wanted answered:
(1) Do they give an explanation for Colin Firth's survival? A: Yes, and while it feels like a bit of a reach, it is in keeping with the world that has been built.
(2) Is Channing Tatum in this movie? A: For about five minutes. Despite what the trailers have led you to believe, we mostly spend time with Pedro Pascal (you know him from Game of Thrones, but in this film he looks like he's going for gold in a Burt Reynolds lookalike contest).
(3) Is it as violent as the first movie? A: Hmm. There are a couple not lovely moments with a meat grinder, but other than that, it's not terrible.
I enjoyed this film, though not nearly as much as the first. Apparently Eggsy is still in a relationship with the princess who let him "do butt stuff" (and her English has improved) . . . I feel like there is a lot of talent that didn't get fully explored in this movie, and I think the overall problem of drug users being in imminent danger of dying if Poppy doesn't distribute the antidote was weak. As in, not very compelling. And then the denouement felt too easy, and Agent Whiskey's motivation was not established early on, and Galahad Sr.'s mental issues get dropped halfway through, etc. Like, just a lot of minor problems that built up to be a distraction for me from my overall pleasure in the film.
And then at the end (minor spoilers), I have to assume some time has passed? Impeachment doesn't happen that quickly (as we all know), and I don't think a wedding can be slapped together so fast either. So I can only assume there's a leap in time there somewhere.
That said, the action sequences are well done as ever. Halle Berry does a fine job with a limited role. Too bad there wasn't more Jeff Bridges, but I'd say that even about movies in which Jeff Bridges is the star, so . . .
tl;dr: I had fun. But not as much fun as I expected to have.
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Written By: Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (screenplay) from the comic book by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons
20th Century Fox, 2017
R; 141 minutes
3.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
First question: Was there a fire sale on John Denver music for use in film or something? Or is it just that films with any connection to Channing Tatum are required to use John Denver songs now? Because between this one and Logan Lucky, I've heard more John Denver in the past few weeks than I have since that episode of The Muppet Show from when I was a kid. You know the one.
If that weren't weird enough, Elton John is in this movie and you still hear more John Denver than anything else.
Okay, okay, whatever. Let's get to the nuts and bolts.
A disgruntled Kingsman reject attempts to hijack Eggsy's very sophisticated cab one night, and while Eggsy manages to fend the baddies off, they still get the info they need to incite the rest of the plot. Namely, they discover locations of all Kingsman agents and properties and destroy them all. Only Eggsy and Merlin survive.
There is a Doomsday Protocol for this kind of thing, and that leads our heroes to Kentucky, where they team up with the Statesman operation—a U.S. cousin to the British Kingsman, natch. But while the Kingsman cover is a tailor shop, the Statesman agency makes whiskey.
Julianne Moore plays Poppy, a psycho drug dealer who craves recognition for her work as the most successful "pharmaceutical CEO" in the world. Alas, she's forced to live in the jungles of Cambodia in an HQ that looks more like she runs Johnny Rocket's. She explains this by saying she grew up amid 50's nostalgia and still loves it. Which is why she's also kidnapped Elton John for her personal entertainment.
Questions you didn't even know you wanted answered:
(1) Do they give an explanation for Colin Firth's survival? A: Yes, and while it feels like a bit of a reach, it is in keeping with the world that has been built.
(2) Is Channing Tatum in this movie? A: For about five minutes. Despite what the trailers have led you to believe, we mostly spend time with Pedro Pascal (you know him from Game of Thrones, but in this film he looks like he's going for gold in a Burt Reynolds lookalike contest).
(3) Is it as violent as the first movie? A: Hmm. There are a couple not lovely moments with a meat grinder, but other than that, it's not terrible.
I enjoyed this film, though not nearly as much as the first. Apparently Eggsy is still in a relationship with the princess who let him "do butt stuff" (and her English has improved) . . . I feel like there is a lot of talent that didn't get fully explored in this movie, and I think the overall problem of drug users being in imminent danger of dying if Poppy doesn't distribute the antidote was weak. As in, not very compelling. And then the denouement felt too easy, and Agent Whiskey's motivation was not established early on, and Galahad Sr.'s mental issues get dropped halfway through, etc. Like, just a lot of minor problems that built up to be a distraction for me from my overall pleasure in the film.
And then at the end (minor spoilers), I have to assume some time has passed? Impeachment doesn't happen that quickly (as we all know), and I don't think a wedding can be slapped together so fast either. So I can only assume there's a leap in time there somewhere.
That said, the action sequences are well done as ever. Halle Berry does a fine job with a limited role. Too bad there wasn't more Jeff Bridges, but I'd say that even about movies in which Jeff Bridges is the star, so . . .
tl;dr: I had fun. But not as much fun as I expected to have.
9.17.2017
Movies: Baby Driver
As a rule, I generally really enjoy Edgar Wright movies. This one is no exception.
Ansel Elgort plays the titular Baby, whose job is to drive a getaway car for Doc (Kevin Spacey). Baby is evidently in Doc's debt and digging his way out via this gig. But of course one is never really "out." So just as Baby is getting his life straight and trying to have a steady girlfriend, he gets pulled back in for one more big job. That goes all to hell. Yes, it's cliché. But still an engaging story. Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx pull nice turns as badass baddies.
Wright has, in my opinion, a wonderful style. For me, watching his films is a treat. His tracking shots, the way he frames things—just very visually interesting and entertaining. But he's not perfect at everything. He's weak when it comes to love stories. I didn't love the one in this film, particularly the early banter between Baby and Deborah in the diner. Wright also tends to have very long third acts that sometimes go on longer than absolutely necessary. I found that, despite all the action going on, my interest began to waver.
[SPOILER BELOW - HIGHLIGHT TO READ CLEARLY]
I understand why the film ends the way it does, with Baby going to prison rather than he and Deborah taking off. I think Wright wanted the definitive, "happy" ending that showed Baby and Deborah free and clear instead of on the run for the rest of their lives. I get that, but I found it not terribly satisfying. I don't know why.
[END SPOILER]
These are minor gripes. On the whole, Baby Driver is highly entertaining, and all the actors do an awesome job. Another winner from Mr. Wright in my book.
Ansel Elgort plays the titular Baby, whose job is to drive a getaway car for Doc (Kevin Spacey). Baby is evidently in Doc's debt and digging his way out via this gig. But of course one is never really "out." So just as Baby is getting his life straight and trying to have a steady girlfriend, he gets pulled back in for one more big job. That goes all to hell. Yes, it's cliché. But still an engaging story. Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx pull nice turns as badass baddies.
Wright has, in my opinion, a wonderful style. For me, watching his films is a treat. His tracking shots, the way he frames things—just very visually interesting and entertaining. But he's not perfect at everything. He's weak when it comes to love stories. I didn't love the one in this film, particularly the early banter between Baby and Deborah in the diner. Wright also tends to have very long third acts that sometimes go on longer than absolutely necessary. I found that, despite all the action going on, my interest began to waver.
[SPOILER BELOW - HIGHLIGHT TO READ CLEARLY]
I understand why the film ends the way it does, with Baby going to prison rather than he and Deborah taking off. I think Wright wanted the definitive, "happy" ending that showed Baby and Deborah free and clear instead of on the run for the rest of their lives. I get that, but I found it not terribly satisfying. I don't know why.
[END SPOILER]
These are minor gripes. On the whole, Baby Driver is highly entertaining, and all the actors do an awesome job. Another winner from Mr. Wright in my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)