This is my favorite Nick Hornby book, so I doubt that anything would really live up to my expectations. That said, I think this film is remarkably well cast (Rose Byrne, Ethan Hawke, and Chris O'Dowd) and fairly charming. It's rote, though, and has been quite altered from the source material.
Byrne plays Annie, the long-suffering girlfriend of Duncan (O'Dowd), who has a pop culture obsession that he's parlayed into a day job as an instructor at a small-town university in Sandcliff, England. He teaches a class on The Wire. But his true love is nitpicking the work of reclusive rocker Tucker Crowe (Hawke), who abruptly disappeared from the music scene some 20+ years ago. Duncan runs a website dedicated to Crowe where visitors deconstruct the music and theorize on his life. Blurry pictures of Crowe "sightings" abound.
Annie is mildly dissatisfied with life but too cautious to shake things up. Then change comes to her in the form of an anonymous CD sent to Duncan of the demo tapes of Tucker Crowe's album Juliet—only this is called Juliet, Naked. She listens to it before Duncan, sparking his ire. After they spar, Annie writes a scathing review of the recording on Duncan's own site.
Her contradictory point of view grabs the attention of Tucker Crowe himself, and he and Annie begin an email correspondence. Things more or less go paint-by-number from there, with Duncan of course also having a physical affair with another instructor so that Annie can look like the better person in this narrative. If Duncan had only been obnoxious but Annie had carried on with this emotional attachment, she would run the risk of being the bad guy.
That said, it is a cute little movie, if rote. I still greatly prefer the book because there's something about the tone of the novel that this film doesn't quite catch. But the movie is worth a watch on its own merits.
I have a tendency to think of Ethan Hawke as a villain, or at the very least intense—he was my inspiration for Uncle Eoin in my Hamlette novel—so it's nice to see him in a more laid-back role. And Azhy Robertson as Tucker's son Jackson is adorable.
In short: a good movie but, as is so often true, the book was better.
Showing posts with label books on film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books on film. Show all posts
12.07.2018
11.11.2018
Movies: Crazy Rich Asians
I was really excited for this movie. The book has been on my TBR list for a long time, and at first I thought I'd try and read it before seeing the adaptation, but last night I gave in and watched. And... I was a little disappointed. Like so many things these days, I think it might have been overhyped.
This isn't to discount the fact that a film with an all-Asian cast made money. I'm so, so glad to see new faces, new cultures on screen. And I'm equally enthused that the film did well. Hopefully that will open doors to more of these kinds of movies.
And by "these kids" I also mean good, old-fashioned rom-coms of the type they really don't make any more. Ultimately, that's what Crazy Rich Asians is, and I guess that might be where it fell down for me. Because I do love rom-coms. But this one was so predictable, so rote... And I think maybe the book has more depth? The film hits all the typical beats, and in some cases developments seem to come out of nowhere (the dad thing), or get semi-lost in the shuffle (the affair subplot). Everything is really slick here—it's actually a gorgeous film to look at—but it loses something in introducing so many characters that none of them gets enough screen time to make much of an impression. (Peik and Oliver excepted, of course.) Like, we're introduced to Amanda as a "threat" in the form of an ex, and then she just drops off the face of the film. Bernard and Alistair are jerks, and that's their only defining qualities. The grandma switches sides on a dime. And we're supposed to feel bad for Astrid, but he hardly know her either. Meaning a lot of what should have had tension... didn't.
At least for me. But I think the casting and acting was spot on. It was the script or the editing that failed. Perhaps it presupposed that viewers had read the book and already knew the characters? That we'd walk in with the background info we needed to fully enjoy what we were about to watch?
I think what I'm getting at is: I should have waited and read the book first. I still want to. And, to be clear, this isn't a bad movie. The hype just didn't do it any favors because it made me expect more. Still, I enjoyed it. In a sea of action flicks and... whatever else they're making these days (horror?)... this was a nice change.
This isn't to discount the fact that a film with an all-Asian cast made money. I'm so, so glad to see new faces, new cultures on screen. And I'm equally enthused that the film did well. Hopefully that will open doors to more of these kinds of movies.
And by "these kids" I also mean good, old-fashioned rom-coms of the type they really don't make any more. Ultimately, that's what Crazy Rich Asians is, and I guess that might be where it fell down for me. Because I do love rom-coms. But this one was so predictable, so rote... And I think maybe the book has more depth? The film hits all the typical beats, and in some cases developments seem to come out of nowhere (the dad thing), or get semi-lost in the shuffle (the affair subplot). Everything is really slick here—it's actually a gorgeous film to look at—but it loses something in introducing so many characters that none of them gets enough screen time to make much of an impression. (Peik and Oliver excepted, of course.) Like, we're introduced to Amanda as a "threat" in the form of an ex, and then she just drops off the face of the film. Bernard and Alistair are jerks, and that's their only defining qualities. The grandma switches sides on a dime. And we're supposed to feel bad for Astrid, but he hardly know her either. Meaning a lot of what should have had tension... didn't.
At least for me. But I think the casting and acting was spot on. It was the script or the editing that failed. Perhaps it presupposed that viewers had read the book and already knew the characters? That we'd walk in with the background info we needed to fully enjoy what we were about to watch?
I think what I'm getting at is: I should have waited and read the book first. I still want to. And, to be clear, this isn't a bad movie. The hype just didn't do it any favors because it made me expect more. Still, I enjoyed it. In a sea of action flicks and... whatever else they're making these days (horror?)... this was a nice change.
10.27.2018
Movies: BlacKkKlansman
Time for me to make an embarrassing confession: the only other Spike Lee "joint" I've ever seen is The 25th Hour. But I did really like that movie. And I really liked this one, too.
For those not in the know, BlacKkKlansman is an adaptation of the true story of Colorado Springs' first black police officer Ron Stallworth (played by John David Washington). In the early 70s, Stallworth infiltrated the KKK with the help of a white narcotics officer named "Flip" Zimmerman (portrayed here by Adam Driver). There is, as one might expect, a fair amount of tension in the situation. But it's been well tempered by lighter moments. In all, it's just a really good and engaging movie: well acted and thoughtfully composed.
Lee is a weensy bit heavy handed in the parallels to today's political climate, but the comparisons are justified. Unfortunately, a movie is unlikely to make a difference in people's ways of thinking or behaviors. The kinds of people Lee is preaching against are the kinds that won't be watching BlacKkKlansman anyway.
Then again, the movie also touches on the militancy of the other side, at least at that time. Stallworth attempts to reason with his activist girlfriend who insists all cops are racist pigs (without knowing that her boyfriend is a cop). She rejects his diplomacy with a very "for or against, no middle ground" kind of attitude. So maybe the message here is that neither side is correct, and that the truth and the good in the world lies in the middle, in the gray areas.
Still, the sides are not equivalent. There is a difference between sexual assault, shooting, and bombing and peaceful (if loud) marching and protests.
In all, the movie made me want to read Stallworth's book. And it was a really entertaining film in its own right.
For those not in the know, BlacKkKlansman is an adaptation of the true story of Colorado Springs' first black police officer Ron Stallworth (played by John David Washington). In the early 70s, Stallworth infiltrated the KKK with the help of a white narcotics officer named "Flip" Zimmerman (portrayed here by Adam Driver). There is, as one might expect, a fair amount of tension in the situation. But it's been well tempered by lighter moments. In all, it's just a really good and engaging movie: well acted and thoughtfully composed.
Lee is a weensy bit heavy handed in the parallels to today's political climate, but the comparisons are justified. Unfortunately, a movie is unlikely to make a difference in people's ways of thinking or behaviors. The kinds of people Lee is preaching against are the kinds that won't be watching BlacKkKlansman anyway.
Then again, the movie also touches on the militancy of the other side, at least at that time. Stallworth attempts to reason with his activist girlfriend who insists all cops are racist pigs (without knowing that her boyfriend is a cop). She rejects his diplomacy with a very "for or against, no middle ground" kind of attitude. So maybe the message here is that neither side is correct, and that the truth and the good in the world lies in the middle, in the gray areas.
Still, the sides are not equivalent. There is a difference between sexual assault, shooting, and bombing and peaceful (if loud) marching and protests.
In all, the movie made me want to read Stallworth's book. And it was a really entertaining film in its own right.
5.27.2018
Movies: A Futile and Stupid Gesture
I always like to give a little history of my relationship to the material when I write these reviews/recaps because I think it's only fair I show my biases. In this case, I have both anecdotal and direct history with National Lampoon, specifically with their Radio Hour.
A few years before I was born, my parents lived out in the middle of nowhere. (We lived there a few years after I was born, too.) In order to hear National Lampoon Radio Hour, they had to take their radio out on the porch and fiddle with the antenna until they could—just barely—get the signal. I grew up hearing, "That's not funny, that's sick," and not really understanding where it came from.
Years later, as a pre-teen, I was in a Hastings with my parents. That was a books-and-records store, one of my favorite places to go. Dad found a box set of the Radio Hour and bought it so I could finally share the humor. We listened, and at the point someone said, "There's a lobster loose!" I said, "That sounds like Bill Murray." (I was an SNL fan.) Dad was pleased. "That is Bill Murray!" he told me.
Thus many National Lampoon bits became part of my regular dialect. I could recite the entire "A man walks into a nightclub with a beautiful girl on his arm..." bit. I still sometimes sing, "Give Ireland back to the Irish." I love Flash Bazbo. A lot of it is hugely irreverent, but that's part of the fun—you're laughing almost because you know you shouldn't.
Okay, so there's the history, and here's this movie, which focuses on the short life of one of National Lampoon's creators Doug Kenney. I think you probably have to have a love of and interest in the material to enjoy the movie, but it's impressive the talent they got, too: Domhnall Gleeson plays Doug's fellow founder Henry Beard and nails the American accent by way of sounding (and, thanks to the wig, looking a little like) Jesse Eisenberg. Martin Mull plays the narrator, an older Doug if Doug had lived that long. And there is a list of other known faces (and voices) as well, all shining in their own small parts, as this movie is clustered with personalities and so none are given too much time.
I do wonder how Chevy Chase feels about his old co-star Joel McHale playing him, though?
Will Forte plays Doug, and of course I have no idea whether he's at all like the actual guy. If he is, I'd say Doug was a difficult personality. Not in the way of being in-your-face difficult; if anything, he was self-deprecating a lot of the time. But not easy to work with thanks to a lack of discipline, and not easy to live with because of an obsessive streak as well as being prone to addiction. His refusal to face problems lent to his downward spiral. It's a damn shame, really. That's what this movie drives home.
If you were to ask, "Is it a good movie?" I don't know what I'd say. It's a curious kind of movie, and I think I enjoyed it? But I'm not entirely sure. I would like to read the book it's based on. I suppose any time a movie makes me want to engage the source material, that's a good thing. I really don't know if it's a "good" movie, but it will stay with me for a long time.
A few years before I was born, my parents lived out in the middle of nowhere. (We lived there a few years after I was born, too.) In order to hear National Lampoon Radio Hour, they had to take their radio out on the porch and fiddle with the antenna until they could—just barely—get the signal. I grew up hearing, "That's not funny, that's sick," and not really understanding where it came from.
Years later, as a pre-teen, I was in a Hastings with my parents. That was a books-and-records store, one of my favorite places to go. Dad found a box set of the Radio Hour and bought it so I could finally share the humor. We listened, and at the point someone said, "There's a lobster loose!" I said, "That sounds like Bill Murray." (I was an SNL fan.) Dad was pleased. "That is Bill Murray!" he told me.
Thus many National Lampoon bits became part of my regular dialect. I could recite the entire "A man walks into a nightclub with a beautiful girl on his arm..." bit. I still sometimes sing, "Give Ireland back to the Irish." I love Flash Bazbo. A lot of it is hugely irreverent, but that's part of the fun—you're laughing almost because you know you shouldn't.
Okay, so there's the history, and here's this movie, which focuses on the short life of one of National Lampoon's creators Doug Kenney. I think you probably have to have a love of and interest in the material to enjoy the movie, but it's impressive the talent they got, too: Domhnall Gleeson plays Doug's fellow founder Henry Beard and nails the American accent by way of sounding (and, thanks to the wig, looking a little like) Jesse Eisenberg. Martin Mull plays the narrator, an older Doug if Doug had lived that long. And there is a list of other known faces (and voices) as well, all shining in their own small parts, as this movie is clustered with personalities and so none are given too much time.
I do wonder how Chevy Chase feels about his old co-star Joel McHale playing him, though?
Will Forte plays Doug, and of course I have no idea whether he's at all like the actual guy. If he is, I'd say Doug was a difficult personality. Not in the way of being in-your-face difficult; if anything, he was self-deprecating a lot of the time. But not easy to work with thanks to a lack of discipline, and not easy to live with because of an obsessive streak as well as being prone to addiction. His refusal to face problems lent to his downward spiral. It's a damn shame, really. That's what this movie drives home.
If you were to ask, "Is it a good movie?" I don't know what I'd say. It's a curious kind of movie, and I think I enjoyed it? But I'm not entirely sure. I would like to read the book it's based on. I suppose any time a movie makes me want to engage the source material, that's a good thing. I really don't know if it's a "good" movie, but it will stay with me for a long time.
5.22.2018
TV Movie: Fahrenheit 451
It's been a really long time since I read the book. Like, almost 30 years. I remember liking it, and I remember the main character's name is Montag, and that's about it.
Still, I'm fairly certain this version has been updated to showcase a more likely future dystopia than one created by Bradbury in 1953. Bradbury didn't foresee emojis, ya know?
As for the movie itself—taken on its own merits since, like I said, I don't really remember the book—it was kind of slow. I think Michael B. Jordan did an amazing job, as did Michael Shannon. They were stellar. But the story sort of dragged along at the beginning. It took its time establishing the characters and the world, and then it glossed a bit over Montag's (Jordan) starting to spend time with Clarisse (Sophia Boutella) before rushing the ending. The final ~20 minutes were [finally!] intense, but everything before that was mostly tonal and not terribly engrossing.
Still, Shannon's Beatty was perhaps the best character, the most nuanced. I'd like to hear his story. And the suicide book burner? That was a nice turn.
Also, I liked the bird.
Plus, the whole thing isn't very long, which is refreshing in these days of 2.5-hour movies and books stretched to be unnecessary trilogies. That I could watch it on a weeknight without going past my bedtime gives it an advantage.
I'm sure many people loved it. I thought it was just okay, that the story should have been emphasized differently, but that's just me. They did some interesting things with the material, so I'm not sorry I took the time to watch it, but I couldn't in good faith recommend it to anyone either.
Still, I'm fairly certain this version has been updated to showcase a more likely future dystopia than one created by Bradbury in 1953. Bradbury didn't foresee emojis, ya know?
As for the movie itself—taken on its own merits since, like I said, I don't really remember the book—it was kind of slow. I think Michael B. Jordan did an amazing job, as did Michael Shannon. They were stellar. But the story sort of dragged along at the beginning. It took its time establishing the characters and the world, and then it glossed a bit over Montag's (Jordan) starting to spend time with Clarisse (Sophia Boutella) before rushing the ending. The final ~20 minutes were [finally!] intense, but everything before that was mostly tonal and not terribly engrossing.
Still, Shannon's Beatty was perhaps the best character, the most nuanced. I'd like to hear his story. And the suicide book burner? That was a nice turn.
Also, I liked the bird.
Plus, the whole thing isn't very long, which is refreshing in these days of 2.5-hour movies and books stretched to be unnecessary trilogies. That I could watch it on a weeknight without going past my bedtime gives it an advantage.
I'm sure many people loved it. I thought it was just okay, that the story should have been emphasized differently, but that's just me. They did some interesting things with the material, so I'm not sorry I took the time to watch it, but I couldn't in good faith recommend it to anyone either.
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.)
3.16.2018
Movies: The Circle
I can't offer a full critique because we turned this one off halfway through. It just wasn't interesting. It's a wonder they got such good actors to agree to it in the first place.
This extremely generic “thriller” is about a young woman named Mae (Emma Watson) who goes to work for The Circle, which is kind of like Google/Apple or something? Basically, it's a tech firm that has linked everyone's online profiles and social media into one big ball of . . . Online Identity, I guess. You can be completely monitored, from your emails and search history to the health bracelet you wear to all the tiny (surely illegal) cameras placed pretty much everywhere. (I mean, seriously. What if someone decided to stick one of those in a changing room or bathroom or locker room? You know it would happen.)
Politicians rally to squash The Circle, but the company in turn challenges those politicians to become "transparent" and thereby wholly accountable.
Meanwhile, The Circle also helps Mae's parents as her father suffers from MS.
The whole movie is a completely unsubtle commentary on the illusion of privacy in a technological world. With the help ofFinn Ty (John Boyega), creator of some of the core tech The Circle employs, Mae eventually exposes the not-so-transparent actions of her very employers. Then goes on to happily lead a life of being watched and tracked, firm in the faith that this is a good thing. I only know this part from skimming the Wikipedia summary, which assured me that I didn't really miss much.
It's a shame, really, because it seems like this movie probably had a solid script at one point that got turned to mush via rewrites or too many notes or something. Like, it's meant to be a thriller but lacks any real tension or thrills. (The only semi-tense moment I witnessed was when the social duo came to set up Mae's account—how cultish and creepy was that?) Maybe the book was better? One can only hope so, and that everything good about the book was lost in translation.
This extremely generic “thriller” is about a young woman named Mae (Emma Watson) who goes to work for The Circle, which is kind of like Google/Apple or something? Basically, it's a tech firm that has linked everyone's online profiles and social media into one big ball of . . . Online Identity, I guess. You can be completely monitored, from your emails and search history to the health bracelet you wear to all the tiny (surely illegal) cameras placed pretty much everywhere. (I mean, seriously. What if someone decided to stick one of those in a changing room or bathroom or locker room? You know it would happen.)
Politicians rally to squash The Circle, but the company in turn challenges those politicians to become "transparent" and thereby wholly accountable.
Meanwhile, The Circle also helps Mae's parents as her father suffers from MS.
The whole movie is a completely unsubtle commentary on the illusion of privacy in a technological world. With the help of
It's a shame, really, because it seems like this movie probably had a solid script at one point that got turned to mush via rewrites or too many notes or something. Like, it's meant to be a thriller but lacks any real tension or thrills. (The only semi-tense moment I witnessed was when the social duo came to set up Mae's account—how cultish and creepy was that?) Maybe the book was better? One can only hope so, and that everything good about the book was lost in translation.
3.03.2018
Movies: The Disaster Artist
Okay, I've never seen The Room. I've seen clips, but never the entire thing. I've tried to watch it, but can never find it on streaming, and I'm not really the cult-screening-at-midnight type.
I have no idea how true the events in The Disaster Artist are, how many are perhaps a trick of the author's perception/memory, and how many have been blurred to make the story cohesive and/or entertaining. But boy is it entertaining. A bit cringe-y, but my understanding is The Room is also a cringe fest, so . . .
For the maybe two people who don't know, The Disaster Artist is based on a book written by Greg Sestero (with the help of Tom Bissell) that details Greg's friendship with Tommy Wiseau. Wiseau is the writer, director, producer, and star of The Room, and Greg acted opposite Wiseau in that film. In fact, Greg moved from San Francisco to L.A. with Wiseau and roomed with him for a while as they both tried to make it in Hollywood. When that failed, they decided to make their own movie. The Room was the result.
I'll admit, I never realized The Room had a full crew. I'd always assumed there was just one guy with a camera and a light or something. But no, apparently it was professionally filmed, all funded by Wiseau. I knew the guy had money, but didn't think he'd spent that much to make the film everyone says is the best worst movie ever made (or something like that).
There's more than a little bit of a hint that Wiseau had a crush on Greg and took it personally when Greg got a girlfriend and moved out of their shared apartment. Again, I have to wonder how much of that is Greg's perception and how much might be punched up just for the sake of drama. Or maybe it's all true.
The Disaster Artist is entertaining enough to make me want to both read the book and watch The Room. If I can find it anywhere. But even if you know nothing about The Room or Wiseau, it's a worthwhile distraction.
I have no idea how true the events in The Disaster Artist are, how many are perhaps a trick of the author's perception/memory, and how many have been blurred to make the story cohesive and/or entertaining. But boy is it entertaining. A bit cringe-y, but my understanding is The Room is also a cringe fest, so . . .
For the maybe two people who don't know, The Disaster Artist is based on a book written by Greg Sestero (with the help of Tom Bissell) that details Greg's friendship with Tommy Wiseau. Wiseau is the writer, director, producer, and star of The Room, and Greg acted opposite Wiseau in that film. In fact, Greg moved from San Francisco to L.A. with Wiseau and roomed with him for a while as they both tried to make it in Hollywood. When that failed, they decided to make their own movie. The Room was the result.
I'll admit, I never realized The Room had a full crew. I'd always assumed there was just one guy with a camera and a light or something. But no, apparently it was professionally filmed, all funded by Wiseau. I knew the guy had money, but didn't think he'd spent that much to make the film everyone says is the best worst movie ever made (or something like that).
There's more than a little bit of a hint that Wiseau had a crush on Greg and took it personally when Greg got a girlfriend and moved out of their shared apartment. Again, I have to wonder how much of that is Greg's perception and how much might be punched up just for the sake of drama. Or maybe it's all true.
The Disaster Artist is entertaining enough to make me want to both read the book and watch The Room. If I can find it anywhere. But even if you know nothing about The Room or Wiseau, it's a worthwhile distraction.
2.19.2018
Movies: Peter Rabbit
Starring: Domhnall Gleeson, Rose Byrne, Sam Neill, Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Voices by: James Corden, Colin Moody, Margot Robbie, Elizabeth Debicki, Daisy Ridley
Directed by: Will Gluck
Written by: Rob Lieber & Will Gluck, based on characters created by Beatrix Potter
Columbia/Sony, 2018
PG; 95 minutes
4.0 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Yes, yes, I know: This is a travesty of a movie for so many reasons. Beatrix Potter would have hated this version of her characters. There's the fact that someone's food allergy is used against them. I should have boycotted it.
Whatever.
In truth, despite the flaws, I was entertained. More than I expected to be. So in my book that translates to four stars.
This movie is mostly sight gags and pranks punctuated by pop music. As long as you know that going in, you're golden.
Thomas MacGregor (Gleeson) is a manager at Harrods in London. He's just been passed up for a promotion when he learns his great-uncle (that he didn't even know existed) has died, leaving him the owner of a little country house and, yes, an extensive vegetable garden.
Bea [subtle choice there, guys] (Byrne) is a would-be artist living the in cottage next to the MacGregor house. Her paintings are terrible, but her drawings of the local rabbits are really very good.
Bea and Thomas hit it off, but the one thing they don't agree on is the wildlife. Bea loves the bunnies, and Thomas . . . doesn't.
From there things take a fairly predictable path. Think Home Alone but with wildlife instead of robbers, kind of? (I don't really know because I've never actually seen Home Alone, but the physical comedy aspect is similar.)
While I think we're certainly meant to cheer for Peter and the rabbits and laugh at Thomas, I think there's a fair amount of understanding that neither side is entirely right in this fight. Gleeson's ability to pull faces, and his apparent aptitude for physicality, serves well here. [I so want him to play Dixon in 20 August.]
Anyway, it was a fun movie. My kids really enjoyed it, too, though my 12-year-old son cringed at the cutesy, lovey bits. Which is as it should be.
Peter Rabbit is a movie that knows it's nothing but fluff and doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is. Maybe it isn't true to Potter's original character, and yeah the allergy thing is questionable, but overall I enjoyed it. More than I thought I would. That's the key, you know: keep your expectations low and you'll never be disappointed.
Voices by: James Corden, Colin Moody, Margot Robbie, Elizabeth Debicki, Daisy Ridley
Directed by: Will Gluck
Written by: Rob Lieber & Will Gluck, based on characters created by Beatrix Potter
Columbia/Sony, 2018
PG; 95 minutes
4.0 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Yes, yes, I know: This is a travesty of a movie for so many reasons. Beatrix Potter would have hated this version of her characters. There's the fact that someone's food allergy is used against them. I should have boycotted it.
Whatever.
In truth, despite the flaws, I was entertained. More than I expected to be. So in my book that translates to four stars.
This movie is mostly sight gags and pranks punctuated by pop music. As long as you know that going in, you're golden.
Thomas MacGregor (Gleeson) is a manager at Harrods in London. He's just been passed up for a promotion when he learns his great-uncle (that he didn't even know existed) has died, leaving him the owner of a little country house and, yes, an extensive vegetable garden.
Bea [subtle choice there, guys] (Byrne) is a would-be artist living the in cottage next to the MacGregor house. Her paintings are terrible, but her drawings of the local rabbits are really very good.
Bea and Thomas hit it off, but the one thing they don't agree on is the wildlife. Bea loves the bunnies, and Thomas . . . doesn't.
From there things take a fairly predictable path. Think Home Alone but with wildlife instead of robbers, kind of? (I don't really know because I've never actually seen Home Alone, but the physical comedy aspect is similar.)
While I think we're certainly meant to cheer for Peter and the rabbits and laugh at Thomas, I think there's a fair amount of understanding that neither side is entirely right in this fight. Gleeson's ability to pull faces, and his apparent aptitude for physicality, serves well here. [I so want him to play Dixon in 20 August.]
Anyway, it was a fun movie. My kids really enjoyed it, too, though my 12-year-old son cringed at the cutesy, lovey bits. Which is as it should be.
Peter Rabbit is a movie that knows it's nothing but fluff and doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is. Maybe it isn't true to Potter's original character, and yeah the allergy thing is questionable, but overall I enjoyed it. More than I thought I would. That's the key, you know: keep your expectations low and you'll never be disappointed.
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.
11.12.2017
Movies: Murder on the Orient Express
Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Tom Bateman, Olivia Colman, Penélope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr., Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, Holy S*** How Many People Are In This Movie
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Written By: Michael Green (screenplay) from the novel by Agatha Christie
20th Century Fox, 2017
PG-13; 114 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
The obligatory history: I read my first Hercule Poirot book when I was thirteen years old. It was, in fact, Murder on the Orient Express. I remember this distinctly because I was nearly finished with the book when Dad called me down to take me to Lethal Weapon 2 (my first R-rated movie in the cinema). Mom was out of town, and Dad always gave me more credit for being able to tolerate things like violence and language. I'd loved the first Lethal Weapon when I'd seen . . . either the VHS tape or TV edit? So of course I wanted to see the next one.
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Written By: Michael Green (screenplay) from the novel by Agatha Christie
20th Century Fox, 2017
PG-13; 114 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
The obligatory history: I read my first Hercule Poirot book when I was thirteen years old. It was, in fact, Murder on the Orient Express. I remember this distinctly because I was nearly finished with the book when Dad called me down to take me to Lethal Weapon 2 (my first R-rated movie in the cinema). Mom was out of town, and Dad always gave me more credit for being able to tolerate things like violence and language. I'd loved the first Lethal Weapon when I'd seen . . . either the VHS tape or TV edit? So of course I wanted to see the next one.
I digress. Let's say that Murder on the Orient Express drove me to read many more Poirot novels. It was also the first Agatha Christie book I shared with my now 12-year-old son. And so I hold it very close to my heart. And my son and I were very excited to see the movie.
This is a lovely movie. In particular, the skies and the way the train is framed in certain shots—just gorgeous. I also enjoyed the subtle humor at certain moments. Wit, really. So quick and brief I think many in the cinema missed the jokes entirely.
There are flaws, however. MOTOE has a huge cast. This is not unusual for Poirot novels, or a certain genre of mysteries in general. After all, the more people involved, the harder it is for the reader to figure out the solution to the crime. But when condensing things to the screen, the number of characters can be confusing, and no one gets full development. Backstories zip by. For someone who has read the book, this may not be a problem. (It wasn't for me or my son.) But I would think anyone unfamiliar with the story might be a bit confused.
My only other quibble is the insertion of a backstory for Poirot—a lost love named Katherine. WHY???? Was it done to make Poirot more sympathetic somehow? It really added nothing to the story and actually detracted from the established character for me. This need to make Poirot into something he never was in the novel: a brilliant mind grieving for what has been lost or denied him. They also make him fastidious to the point of near OCD. Like, yes, Poirot has very high standards, but this is beyond what I remember from the books. And while it contributes to his character's "eye for details" it is also somewhat played for laughs. If Poirot has a problem—like, actual OCD—that's not funny.
The movie does deviate from the novel on a number of points, but overall it is very enjoyable. One hopes they'll do another. Though—again, just to quibble—to namecheck Death on the Nile as though to set it up as the next film is ridiculous. That murder occurs while Poirot is present, not before. He's in Egypt when Linnet is murdered is what I mean. Poirot wouldn't be getting information about the murder before he's even gone to Egypt. That's just dumb.
Well, whatever. I'd watch it anyway, so I guess my fuss is for naught. Here's hoping it gets a green light.
11.05.2017
Movies: The Beguiled
I usually really enjoy moody period dramas, and I had high hopes for this one. What I guess I'd forgotten is that, of the few Sofia Coppola movies I've seen, I haven't much enjoyed any of them. And The Beguiled is very much a Sofia Coppola movie despite being based on a novel.
The story is very simple. In 1864 Virginia, a wounded Union soldier named John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is taken in by a houseful of women—Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) and her charges, the remaining pupils of her girls' school. A man in their midst upsets the placid setting. That's pretty much the story, really. The women become beguiled by the strange man.
One of the major problems with this movie, besides the fact that it is glacially paced and not a whole lot happens, is that none of the characters are given thorough development. A few get more than others, but overall the young ladies feel somewhat interchangeable. And where tension should be building, it just never does. We all know that, in the words of Bartok the Bat, "this can only end in tears," but we don't really feel any dread.
The movie is beautiful to look at, mind. It's gorgeously shot. And I do honestly believe the actors did the best they could with the material they were given. It was a valiant effort.
But the bottom line is that the movie was slow and pretty boring. I'm somewhat curious about the novel now; I only found out about the whitewashing scandal after looking stuff up for this post. So I do wonder about ways the book is different. I feel there could definitely be more depth of character in a novel than was portrayed on the screen. Some books just don't translate to film very well. (Then again, apparently the Clint Eastwood version of this movie is much better. Not that I'm keen to try it again so soon. Not beguiled enough for that.)
The story is very simple. In 1864 Virginia, a wounded Union soldier named John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is taken in by a houseful of women—Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) and her charges, the remaining pupils of her girls' school. A man in their midst upsets the placid setting. That's pretty much the story, really. The women become beguiled by the strange man.
One of the major problems with this movie, besides the fact that it is glacially paced and not a whole lot happens, is that none of the characters are given thorough development. A few get more than others, but overall the young ladies feel somewhat interchangeable. And where tension should be building, it just never does. We all know that, in the words of Bartok the Bat, "this can only end in tears," but we don't really feel any dread.
The movie is beautiful to look at, mind. It's gorgeously shot. And I do honestly believe the actors did the best they could with the material they were given. It was a valiant effort.
But the bottom line is that the movie was slow and pretty boring. I'm somewhat curious about the novel now; I only found out about the whitewashing scandal after looking stuff up for this post. So I do wonder about ways the book is different. I feel there could definitely be more depth of character in a novel than was portrayed on the screen. Some books just don't translate to film very well. (Then again, apparently the Clint Eastwood version of this movie is much better. Not that I'm keen to try it again so soon. Not beguiled enough for that.)
10.23.2017
Movies: The Princess Bride
At the risk of being incredibly unpopular, I have to say . . . I only kind of like this movie.
The Princess Bride came out when I was 11. I didn't see it then. I've watched it maybe twice in my life, the first time while I was an undergraduate. Maybe it was the hype (everyone always saying how wonderful this movie was), or maybe it was the venue (someone's apartment; I was with a church group), but it just didn't enthrall me. It failed to charm me the way it seems to have charmed so many others. I didn't find it funny or clever or, well, much of anything.
I didn't hate it. I just didn't love it much either.
Later my husband sat me down to watch it again in the belief that I'd somehow just not fully absorbed it properly. But I had the same feeling the second time. He adores The Princess Bride. I . . . don't.
I only bring it up because I'm behind on my podcast listening and just got around to Pop Culture Happy Hour discussing the 30-year anniversary of the film. They gushed as per expectations, in particular over Cary Elwes, whom I've never found attractive, so he really doesn't do anything to boost the movie for me. I find a lot of the famous quotes just plain annoying, but that might be from repetition.
I've never read the book either. Maybe I'd like it more?
Sigh. I think, really, I'm mostly indifferent to The Princess Bride. I couldn't invest in any of the characters, and I didn't feel any chemistry between the leads. I did like the bits with Peter Falk and Fred Savage, if that counts for anything. ::shrug::
The Princess Bride came out when I was 11. I didn't see it then. I've watched it maybe twice in my life, the first time while I was an undergraduate. Maybe it was the hype (everyone always saying how wonderful this movie was), or maybe it was the venue (someone's apartment; I was with a church group), but it just didn't enthrall me. It failed to charm me the way it seems to have charmed so many others. I didn't find it funny or clever or, well, much of anything.
I didn't hate it. I just didn't love it much either.
Later my husband sat me down to watch it again in the belief that I'd somehow just not fully absorbed it properly. But I had the same feeling the second time. He adores The Princess Bride. I . . . don't.
I only bring it up because I'm behind on my podcast listening and just got around to Pop Culture Happy Hour discussing the 30-year anniversary of the film. They gushed as per expectations, in particular over Cary Elwes, whom I've never found attractive, so he really doesn't do anything to boost the movie for me. I find a lot of the famous quotes just plain annoying, but that might be from repetition.
I've never read the book either. Maybe I'd like it more?
Sigh. I think, really, I'm mostly indifferent to The Princess Bride. I couldn't invest in any of the characters, and I didn't feel any chemistry between the leads. I did like the bits with Peter Falk and Fred Savage, if that counts for anything. ::shrug::
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.
9.24.2017
Television: Anime
I used to watch anime a lot, but it's been a while. Like, 10-15 years. But I started to miss it, and so I re-watched some Shoujo Kakumei Utena and even the first episode of Fushigi Yuugi and began to wonder what else might be out there. Because while I still adore Cardcaptor Sakura, I'm not yet at the point in my life where I just want to relive the good times. I don't want to watch the same shows over again any more than I want to read the same books over and over.
So we got Crunchyroll and began exploring. Sampled a few things we didn't really get into, like Restaurant to Another World, and something about a kid who constantly is forced to choose between two very bad options, and another show in which the students all went to some school to be mages. But we've found some stuff we really like, too.
Aho-Girl is just a ridiculous slice of life show about an idiot girl and the literal boy next door who can't stand her. It's absurd but perfect after a long, stressful day. And the episodes are only about 12 minutes long.
Fastest Finger First is a show about quiz bowl. In fact, in seems designed to teach viewers the very techniques of quiz bowling (we learn as the new quiz bowl members do). I don't know how I feel about that, exactly, but I mostly enjoy the show.
But I think my new favorite is Classroom of the Elite. It's about a government school in which the classes (A, B, C and D) are pitted against one another in an attempt to earn the most points. There's definitely some weird stuff going on, so the show is totally intriguing.
Do you watch anime? If so, do you have recommendations? If not for anime, then manga?
So we got Crunchyroll and began exploring. Sampled a few things we didn't really get into, like Restaurant to Another World, and something about a kid who constantly is forced to choose between two very bad options, and another show in which the students all went to some school to be mages. But we've found some stuff we really like, too.
But I think my new favorite is Classroom of the Elite. It's about a government school in which the classes (A, B, C and D) are pitted against one another in an attempt to earn the most points. There's definitely some weird stuff going on, so the show is totally intriguing.
Do you watch anime? If so, do you have recommendations? If not for anime, then manga?
9.19.2017
Television: The Magicians, "Unauthorized Magic"
Okay, I know I'm really late to this particular party, but several people have suggested I try this show, so I decided to, uh, try this show. I watched the first episode last night, and . . . I don't know.
The Magicians is about a socially awkward grad student named Quentin who basically gets admitted to the American university equivalent of Hogwarts, I guess? Brakebills. ::shrug:: There is the requisite nerdy girl who, for all her primness, apparently can't find dresses that go past mid-thigh, and she has something against leggings to cover the rest of her. She's also unnecessarily unkind, though I'm sure we'll learn all kinds of things to make her more sympathetic. In this episode we discover her brother Charlie died and no one will tell her what happened to him, so she tries to contact him but it ends badly. Namely, it ends with some guy partially made of giant moths stepping through a mirror. We know he's bad because, well, moths, but also he messes up clocks, freezes everyone (though they're cognizant of being frozen, so it's not really like stopping time), and pulls the dean's eyes out.
Meanwhile, Quentin's overachiever friend from the normal world Julia was rejected from Brakebills and it's messed her up. She's not used to being rejected because she's good at everything and therefore always accepted. It turns out Julia does have a modicum of magical talent, and so a rival group swoops in and admits her into its ranks. It doesn't take much foresight to guess Julia and Quentin are being set up as rivals and/or potential enemies.
I don't know. There's something very pedantic about the whole thing. My understanding is that The Magicians is based on a book (or books), but that it's fairly different from the source material, too? I might need to look into that. As it stands, I don't find Quentin an endearing or compelling central character. And his hair annoys me. It's hard to watch a show with a lead character I don't want to look at, one that is so whiny and irritating.
That said, as you know, I try to give everything at least three episodes. I don't know *when* I'll circle back to this one, but Netflix will at least remind me I watched it. Once upon a time.
The Magicians is about a socially awkward grad student named Quentin who basically gets admitted to the American university equivalent of Hogwarts, I guess? Brakebills. ::shrug:: There is the requisite nerdy girl who, for all her primness, apparently can't find dresses that go past mid-thigh, and she has something against leggings to cover the rest of her. She's also unnecessarily unkind, though I'm sure we'll learn all kinds of things to make her more sympathetic. In this episode we discover her brother Charlie died and no one will tell her what happened to him, so she tries to contact him but it ends badly. Namely, it ends with some guy partially made of giant moths stepping through a mirror. We know he's bad because, well, moths, but also he messes up clocks, freezes everyone (though they're cognizant of being frozen, so it's not really like stopping time), and pulls the dean's eyes out.
Meanwhile, Quentin's overachiever friend from the normal world Julia was rejected from Brakebills and it's messed her up. She's not used to being rejected because she's good at everything and therefore always accepted. It turns out Julia does have a modicum of magical talent, and so a rival group swoops in and admits her into its ranks. It doesn't take much foresight to guess Julia and Quentin are being set up as rivals and/or potential enemies.
I don't know. There's something very pedantic about the whole thing. My understanding is that The Magicians is based on a book (or books), but that it's fairly different from the source material, too? I might need to look into that. As it stands, I don't find Quentin an endearing or compelling central character. And his hair annoys me. It's hard to watch a show with a lead character I don't want to look at, one that is so whiny and irritating.
That said, as you know, I try to give everything at least three episodes. I don't know *when* I'll circle back to this one, but Netflix will at least remind me I watched it. Once upon a time.
8.06.2017
Movies: The Dark Tower
Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor
Directed By: Nikolaj Arcel
Written By: Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen, Nikolaj Arcel (screenplay), based on the books by Stephen King
Sony Pictures, 2017
PG-13; 95 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
There's a common trope in YA novels these days—fantasy YA novels, that is—where the main character has a dream, or several dreams, that gives him or her important information. That's where The Dark Tower starts, too. Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) has been seeing a psychiatrist because he keeps having nightmares about a man in black and a, er, dark tower. Everyone assumes the dreams are trauma from having lost his father in a fire a year before, but of course like every good YA story the child is right all along and is the true hero.
While watching The Dark Tower, I was reminded of things like the Percy Jackson books. This really is a young adult story, and I wonder if that is why the critics have taken it so badly. They expected (or wanted) something else?
I read The Gunslinger a very, very long time ago and have little memory of it. Never read any of the other books in the series. So I was able to approach the movie as a mostly clean slate and with little to no expectations. My only thought was: Idris Elba is the coolest guy who ever guy'd, and I like Matty McConaughey, so why not?
It's a short movie, and somewhat perfunctory, by which I mean the parts that should have had the most emotional impact failed to fully land their punches. And the "funny" parts could have been played for more laughs. But for what it is, The Dark Tower is . . . ::shrug:: It's fine. McConaughey hams it up a bit, and his jacket has weird sleeves that I found distracting, but eh. Whatever.
My 11-year-old son, though? He came out of the movie really liking it. Which only reinforced my feeling that it was definitely more a YA story than an adult one.
Lots of fun easter eggs for King fans (and I'm sure I didn't even catch all of them). I can at least say I liked it more than Valerian; I did not at any point get bored as Tower moves along at a brisk clip. Part of me wants to say Elba is wasted here, but at the same time he's so perfect as Roland that, even if he is wasted, we benefit from it. And so does the film.
In short, not as bad as everyone seems to think. Or else I just think differently. Wouldn't be the first time.
Directed By: Nikolaj Arcel
Written By: Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen, Nikolaj Arcel (screenplay), based on the books by Stephen King
Sony Pictures, 2017
PG-13; 95 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
There's a common trope in YA novels these days—fantasy YA novels, that is—where the main character has a dream, or several dreams, that gives him or her important information. That's where The Dark Tower starts, too. Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) has been seeing a psychiatrist because he keeps having nightmares about a man in black and a, er, dark tower. Everyone assumes the dreams are trauma from having lost his father in a fire a year before, but of course like every good YA story the child is right all along and is the true hero.
While watching The Dark Tower, I was reminded of things like the Percy Jackson books. This really is a young adult story, and I wonder if that is why the critics have taken it so badly. They expected (or wanted) something else?
I read The Gunslinger a very, very long time ago and have little memory of it. Never read any of the other books in the series. So I was able to approach the movie as a mostly clean slate and with little to no expectations. My only thought was: Idris Elba is the coolest guy who ever guy'd, and I like Matty McConaughey, so why not?
It's a short movie, and somewhat perfunctory, by which I mean the parts that should have had the most emotional impact failed to fully land their punches. And the "funny" parts could have been played for more laughs. But for what it is, The Dark Tower is . . . ::shrug:: It's fine. McConaughey hams it up a bit, and his jacket has weird sleeves that I found distracting, but eh. Whatever.
My 11-year-old son, though? He came out of the movie really liking it. Which only reinforced my feeling that it was definitely more a YA story than an adult one.
Lots of fun easter eggs for King fans (and I'm sure I didn't even catch all of them). I can at least say I liked it more than Valerian; I did not at any point get bored as Tower moves along at a brisk clip. Part of me wants to say Elba is wasted here, but at the same time he's so perfect as Roland that, even if he is wasted, we benefit from it. And so does the film.
In short, not as bad as everyone seems to think. Or else I just think differently. Wouldn't be the first time.
7.23.2017
Movies: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen, Rihanna
Directed By: Luc Besson
Written By: Luc Besson (screenplay); Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mézières (comic books)
Europa, 2017
PG-13; 137 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Look, it's not . . . terrible. It's just not amazing, either, and movies like this need to be amazing.
I haven't read the comic books, so I can't speak to whether this film does them justice. I can only comment on how this movie does on its own. And that is: okay.
First, the story: 30 years after the destruction of the planet Mül, Major Valerian and Sergeant Laureline are given a mission to confiscate a Mül "converter" which is really a cute little creature that, if you feed it things, it poops out lots more of whatever you just fed it. So people are mostly interested in feeding it things like money and jewels. And with the Human economy in the toilet, the government could really use something like that. Cuz I guess just printing more money or something isn't an option.
Converter acquired (after a certain amount of fuss, of course), Valerian and Laureline take it to Alpha, the titular City of a Thousand Planets. Strange things are afoot there as Commander Filitt (Clive Owen) tries to suss out why a radioactive area has suddenly appeared in the center of this station.
Nothing in this movie comes as a surprise; it's fairly rote, a kiddie roller coaster that stays on its tracks and doesn't even go very fast. My eight-year-old loved it. The remainder of my family walked out shrugging. Meh.
Problem areas include:
I didn't really have any expectations going in, so I can't say I was disappointed. I just failed to be wowed.
SPOILERS BELOW
We spend some time on Mül before it is destroyed, and Valerian is then imbued with the soul of the dead princess Lïhio, something that is hardly utilized during the rest of the movie. At the very least, have Laureline call him "Your Highness" or something. Geez.
And after all the talk of the beach, the movie ends with them in some space capsule?
END SPOILERS
The best parts of the movie are the ones without Valerian, or at the very least the ones in which Valerian and Laureline are apart. What does that tell you? DeHaan seemed to be trying for "Discount Leonardo DiCaprio"? For all I know, he's a fabulous actor, but Valerian is not a particularly likable character (and maybe he's not meant to be, maybe the comic character is just as bad), and since, as I mentioned, Valerian's "growth" as a character feels nil in this film, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about him or DeHaan.
In all, Valerian has very little energy behind it. It moves quickly enough from plot point to plot point, but there's no tension. I can't tell if it's the lack of chemistry between the actors, or the weak dialogue, or some combination thereof, but this movie needs a shot in the arm that never comes. Instead it just bobs along . . . Again, it's not the worst thing ever. It's just not all that exciting either.
Directed By: Luc Besson
Written By: Luc Besson (screenplay); Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mézières (comic books)
Europa, 2017
PG-13; 137 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Look, it's not . . . terrible. It's just not amazing, either, and movies like this need to be amazing.
I haven't read the comic books, so I can't speak to whether this film does them justice. I can only comment on how this movie does on its own. And that is: okay.
First, the story: 30 years after the destruction of the planet Mül, Major Valerian and Sergeant Laureline are given a mission to confiscate a Mül "converter" which is really a cute little creature that, if you feed it things, it poops out lots more of whatever you just fed it. So people are mostly interested in feeding it things like money and jewels. And with the Human economy in the toilet, the government could really use something like that. Cuz I guess just printing more money or something isn't an option.
Converter acquired (after a certain amount of fuss, of course), Valerian and Laureline take it to Alpha, the titular City of a Thousand Planets. Strange things are afoot there as Commander Filitt (Clive Owen) tries to suss out why a radioactive area has suddenly appeared in the center of this station.
Nothing in this movie comes as a surprise; it's fairly rote, a kiddie roller coaster that stays on its tracks and doesn't even go very fast. My eight-year-old loved it. The remainder of my family walked out shrugging. Meh.
Problem areas include:
- Zero chemistry between the two leads.
- Clunky, poorly written banter between the two leads.
- Lack of tension in any scene—action or otherwise.
- Valerian's "arc" feels fake; we're supposed to believe he's a changed man by the end of the movie, but he doesn't seem any different from when we first meet him.
- Aforementioned predictability.
- Lost opportunities that I will discuss under the spoilers heading below.
I didn't really have any expectations going in, so I can't say I was disappointed. I just failed to be wowed.
SPOILERS BELOW
We spend some time on Mül before it is destroyed, and Valerian is then imbued with the soul of the dead princess Lïhio, something that is hardly utilized during the rest of the movie. At the very least, have Laureline call him "Your Highness" or something. Geez.
And after all the talk of the beach, the movie ends with them in some space capsule?
END SPOILERS
The best parts of the movie are the ones without Valerian, or at the very least the ones in which Valerian and Laureline are apart. What does that tell you? DeHaan seemed to be trying for "Discount Leonardo DiCaprio"? For all I know, he's a fabulous actor, but Valerian is not a particularly likable character (and maybe he's not meant to be, maybe the comic character is just as bad), and since, as I mentioned, Valerian's "growth" as a character feels nil in this film, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about him or DeHaan.
In all, Valerian has very little energy behind it. It moves quickly enough from plot point to plot point, but there's no tension. I can't tell if it's the lack of chemistry between the actors, or the weak dialogue, or some combination thereof, but this movie needs a shot in the arm that never comes. Instead it just bobs along . . . Again, it's not the worst thing ever. It's just not all that exciting either.
7.05.2017
Television: Riverdale
Was casting around for something to watch and settled on trying this one. (I'm not at any loss for things to watch, mind; my DVR is packed full of stuff that I just didn't feel like watching.)
Anyway, I used to live in the town Riverdale was modeled after. The local Applebee's was practically devoted to all things Archie. It really was this one town's biggest claim to fame. That and Rob Zombie.
As for Riverdale, it's so corny and self-aware that I couldn't help but enjoy it. The pilot, that is. Jughead as the narrator . . . It's really all pretty ridiculous, and of course all the characters are turned up to eleven. The mean girl is not just mean but MEAN. Betty isn't just sweet, she's SWEET. And layered under it all is the drama and decay. Nothing simply is in Riverdale; it's all extreme. A breakup leads to someone being institutionalized, and of course there's MURDER.
I dunno. I guess I was just in the right mood for this amount of silly. It's sort of like if the Archie comics went slightly Twin Peaks.
And of course I grew up reading Archie. They were some of the only comics my mother felt were clean and wholesome enough to allow. But Riverdale seems to be making a concerted effort to skew the other direction. No one wants to watch wholesome. So let's go salacious instead and have Archie bonk a teacher.
Yeah, okay.
Archie isn't entirely likable here, but then again, at least from what I recall, he wasn't all that likable in the comics either. Kind of a chowder head. But in innocent ways, whereas here he makes more egregious errors in judgement. Makes for better drama, I suppose. In any case, while Archie is central, he doesn't come across as the main character. As far as the pilot goes, Betty gets the focus and the sympathy. Maybe that changes as the show goes along.
I'll probably watch more. Don't know yet if I'll get through an entire season though. Will largely depend—as tonight's outing did—on my mood and viewer appetite.
Anyway, I used to live in the town Riverdale was modeled after. The local Applebee's was practically devoted to all things Archie. It really was this one town's biggest claim to fame. That and Rob Zombie.
As for Riverdale, it's so corny and self-aware that I couldn't help but enjoy it. The pilot, that is. Jughead as the narrator . . . It's really all pretty ridiculous, and of course all the characters are turned up to eleven. The mean girl is not just mean but MEAN. Betty isn't just sweet, she's SWEET. And layered under it all is the drama and decay. Nothing simply is in Riverdale; it's all extreme. A breakup leads to someone being institutionalized, and of course there's MURDER.
I dunno. I guess I was just in the right mood for this amount of silly. It's sort of like if the Archie comics went slightly Twin Peaks.
And of course I grew up reading Archie. They were some of the only comics my mother felt were clean and wholesome enough to allow. But Riverdale seems to be making a concerted effort to skew the other direction. No one wants to watch wholesome. So let's go salacious instead and have Archie bonk a teacher.
Yeah, okay.
Archie isn't entirely likable here, but then again, at least from what I recall, he wasn't all that likable in the comics either. Kind of a chowder head. But in innocent ways, whereas here he makes more egregious errors in judgement. Makes for better drama, I suppose. In any case, while Archie is central, he doesn't come across as the main character. As far as the pilot goes, Betty gets the focus and the sympathy. Maybe that changes as the show goes along.
I'll probably watch more. Don't know yet if I'll get through an entire season though. Will largely depend—as tonight's outing did—on my mood and viewer appetite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)