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 comedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
11.24.2018
10.12.2018
Television: FBI & The Good Cop
Tried the first episodes of both these new procedurals. Here are my thoughts:
FBI was incredibly generic. The characters were all so monotone, with no personalities whatsoever. I mean, maybe the show is written and directed by A.I. robots? I also had the sense that the episode I was watching was not the first one—like maybe they'd aired them out of order. (Too lazy to go look it up and see if that might be true.) Because there was no real introduction to the characters or anything. When done well, that can be fine. When you slowly show the characters' personalities, when the characters bloom open as it were. But that didn't happen here. Or if they're trying to do that, it's too slow for anyone to find it interesting. The difference between watching an actual flower grow in real time vs. time lapse. (Hint: people watch time lapse videos; they don't sit and watch flowers actually open.)
The storyline itself was fine. ::shrug:: Nothing very different from any other procedural, really.
Verdict: I took the series recording off my DVR. But the show got a full season pick-up, I think, so there must be some people who like it.
The Good Cop was . . . not as funny as I thought it would be? This show seems to be very self-aware of the fact that it's dragging up some old tropes. But it also doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows up. Like, the title sequence is riffing on old 80s shows (and when you have Tony Danza, what else are you going to do, really?), and the music cues are over-the-top sitcom stuff. In fact, a lot of the show is over the top. The characters are all extreme versions of their types: the straight-laced, by-the-book cop; the ex-con cop; the buffoon sidekick; the dorky science guy, etc. They all seemed to be overacting a bit, and I couldn't tell whether that was intentional and, if so, why. Like, what effect the show was going for. A lot of it looks and feels very tongue in cheek, but it wasn't actually funny, so I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be or???
The plot was very basic, too. The titular good cop is framed for a murder that his ex-con cop dad may have committed. But there's an absolutely throwaway plot spur in which said dad confesses and goes back to prison. Something like that should add weight or tension, and here it didn't seem to have any impact on the story or the characters whatsoever.
Verdict: I'm still a little intrigued to see if this show finds its feet. So I'll probably try another one or two episodes.
FBI was incredibly generic. The characters were all so monotone, with no personalities whatsoever. I mean, maybe the show is written and directed by A.I. robots? I also had the sense that the episode I was watching was not the first one—like maybe they'd aired them out of order. (Too lazy to go look it up and see if that might be true.) Because there was no real introduction to the characters or anything. When done well, that can be fine. When you slowly show the characters' personalities, when the characters bloom open as it were. But that didn't happen here. Or if they're trying to do that, it's too slow for anyone to find it interesting. The difference between watching an actual flower grow in real time vs. time lapse. (Hint: people watch time lapse videos; they don't sit and watch flowers actually open.)
The storyline itself was fine. ::shrug:: Nothing very different from any other procedural, really.
Verdict: I took the series recording off my DVR. But the show got a full season pick-up, I think, so there must be some people who like it.
The Good Cop was . . . not as funny as I thought it would be? This show seems to be very self-aware of the fact that it's dragging up some old tropes. But it also doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows up. Like, the title sequence is riffing on old 80s shows (and when you have Tony Danza, what else are you going to do, really?), and the music cues are over-the-top sitcom stuff. In fact, a lot of the show is over the top. The characters are all extreme versions of their types: the straight-laced, by-the-book cop; the ex-con cop; the buffoon sidekick; the dorky science guy, etc. They all seemed to be overacting a bit, and I couldn't tell whether that was intentional and, if so, why. Like, what effect the show was going for. A lot of it looks and feels very tongue in cheek, but it wasn't actually funny, so I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be or???
The plot was very basic, too. The titular good cop is framed for a murder that his ex-con cop dad may have committed. But there's an absolutely throwaway plot spur in which said dad confesses and goes back to prison. Something like that should add weight or tension, and here it didn't seem to have any impact on the story or the characters whatsoever.
Verdict: I'm still a little intrigued to see if this show finds its feet. So I'll probably try another one or two episodes.
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.
6.09.2018
Movies: Game Night
This was a really fun movie.
The story centers around Max and Annie (Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams respectively) and their group of friends that get together weekly for game night. When Max's brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) comes to town, he plans a special game night that goes terribly, hilariously awry.
I really enjoyed the mixture of comedy and tension, and the whole thing is so well cast. I wish they made more movies like this one, which is somewhere between Clue and Scream.
There is a subplot involving Max and Annie discussing their plans to have children that, in my view, didn't contribute much to the story, but it wasn't too obnoxious. It just felt a wee bit forced that they kept tying Max's reluctance to his feelings of inferiority when compared to his brother.
But overall, this was just a fun movie with many twists and turns to keep it entertaining. I definitely recommend it.
The story centers around Max and Annie (Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams respectively) and their group of friends that get together weekly for game night. When Max's brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) comes to town, he plans a special game night that goes terribly, hilariously awry.
I really enjoyed the mixture of comedy and tension, and the whole thing is so well cast. I wish they made more movies like this one, which is somewhere between Clue and Scream.
There is a subplot involving Max and Annie discussing their plans to have children that, in my view, didn't contribute much to the story, but it wasn't too obnoxious. It just felt a wee bit forced that they kept tying Max's reluctance to his feelings of inferiority when compared to his brother.
But overall, this was just a fun movie with many twists and turns to keep it entertaining. I definitely recommend it.
3.25.2018
Movies: Pitch Perfect 3
This movie was just . . . bad. Clunky writing seemed to be the primary problem. A lot of exposition in dialogue. A lot of ham-fisted bits (like the flashes of the Bellas' various work lives). And just a lot of half-baked plot lines that they somehow figured would be fine to wrap up via small clips as the credits rolled.
It really felt as though the writers were struggling to (a) come up with any kind of story, and (b) fit everyone in so that no one felt as though they'd been sidelined or overshadowed. But the overall result was a mishmash. It's almost as though the movie didn't know whether to take itself seriously or parody itself. So it tried to do a bit of both and none of it worked.
Even when it hung a lampshade on things ("Is there a competition? There's always a competition."), pointing out its own formula did not make the movie any better, nor did it excuse the lack of originality.
Is there a competition? you ask. Well, of course. Of sorts. Thanks to one Bella's military dad (and don't ask me to tell you which one because there are too damn many, and we all really only know Becca and Fat Amy, right?), they get invited to perform for the troops overseas. Like the USO. Except there's also some plot about how a well-known DJ/musician is going to choose someone to tour with him from these USO acts? And we're introduced to a couple other bands only to have them disappear almost immediately. Well, or become incidental as this movie sees shiny things and chases one random plot bunny after another. Until we ultimately end up with Fat Amy and her estranged dad (John Lithgow with a bad accent) and a pseudo-James Bond thing. Also, a non-romance between Becca and the DJ's righthand man.
Oh, and John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks are back as faux documentarians, following the Bellas around for no apparent reason? Except that it was decided they couldn't do another Pitch Perfect movie without shoehorning them in somehow.
It's just such a bad, boring movie. Like, not even so bad it's good. It's not funny. It's not cohesive. It's just a waste of time.
It really felt as though the writers were struggling to (a) come up with any kind of story, and (b) fit everyone in so that no one felt as though they'd been sidelined or overshadowed. But the overall result was a mishmash. It's almost as though the movie didn't know whether to take itself seriously or parody itself. So it tried to do a bit of both and none of it worked.
Even when it hung a lampshade on things ("Is there a competition? There's always a competition."), pointing out its own formula did not make the movie any better, nor did it excuse the lack of originality.
Is there a competition? you ask. Well, of course. Of sorts. Thanks to one Bella's military dad (and don't ask me to tell you which one because there are too damn many, and we all really only know Becca and Fat Amy, right?), they get invited to perform for the troops overseas. Like the USO. Except there's also some plot about how a well-known DJ/musician is going to choose someone to tour with him from these USO acts? And we're introduced to a couple other bands only to have them disappear almost immediately. Well, or become incidental as this movie sees shiny things and chases one random plot bunny after another. Until we ultimately end up with Fat Amy and her estranged dad (John Lithgow with a bad accent) and a pseudo-James Bond thing. Also, a non-romance between Becca and the DJ's righthand man.
Oh, and John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks are back as faux documentarians, following the Bellas around for no apparent reason? Except that it was decided they couldn't do another Pitch Perfect movie without shoehorning them in somehow.
It's just such a bad, boring movie. Like, not even so bad it's good. It's not funny. It's not cohesive. It's just a waste of time.
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.
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?
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.
11.15.2017
Television: The Orville, "Majority Rule"
You remember that episode of ST:TNG where Wesley is sentenced to death while visiting a foreign planet because he didn't Keep Off the Grass? Yeah, this is that episode.
Except instead an inept away team goes looking for a couple missing anthropologists on a planet where everything is determined by popular vote. Literally. Everyone wears a badge with a green "up" arrow and a red "down" arrow and basically goes through life being defined by how many Likes and Dislikes they have. As a person. And apparently there is a threshold wherein, if you reach a certain number of down votes, you are "corrected" by basically having your brain scrambled.
How could this ever go wrong?
Look, Star Trek (the chassis upon which The Orville is constructed) has a long, strong history of social commentary. And it's never been particularly subtle. So this isn't either. But . . . While I'm moderately entertained, I'm wondering what it says—either about me or the show—that I only watch The Orville when I'm looking for mindless entertainment. Like, at least it's entertaining, I guess? But some of the novelty is wearing off for me, and I find myself looking elsewhere while the episodes stack up on my DVR.
Besides the on-the-noseness of it all, I'm annoyed that every reference made is to 20th and 21st century television and culture. They watch Seinfeld, they talk about American Idol and mention Justin Bieber. REALLY? Did culture just stop when and where we now live and that's all the future has to go on? They have NOTHING ELSE? Nothing older, nothing more current? I suppose that would require the writing team to, you know, actually come up with stuff rather than grab the low-hanging fruit.
Maybe that's what I'm really railing against here. Laziness. They don't have the cleverness to be more subtle or to build a world populated by new cultural references. Well, sure, they give the Krill a religion, and they gave Bortus' people a poet, but apparently humans stopped short at Taylor Swift and have been coasting on that for hundreds of years.
Sigh. Whatever. It's an okay show. I'll keep in on my DVR for the rare occasions I may actually feel like watching it.
Except instead an inept away team goes looking for a couple missing anthropologists on a planet where everything is determined by popular vote. Literally. Everyone wears a badge with a green "up" arrow and a red "down" arrow and basically goes through life being defined by how many Likes and Dislikes they have. As a person. And apparently there is a threshold wherein, if you reach a certain number of down votes, you are "corrected" by basically having your brain scrambled.
How could this ever go wrong?
Look, Star Trek (the chassis upon which The Orville is constructed) has a long, strong history of social commentary. And it's never been particularly subtle. So this isn't either. But . . . While I'm moderately entertained, I'm wondering what it says—either about me or the show—that I only watch The Orville when I'm looking for mindless entertainment. Like, at least it's entertaining, I guess? But some of the novelty is wearing off for me, and I find myself looking elsewhere while the episodes stack up on my DVR.
Besides the on-the-noseness of it all, I'm annoyed that every reference made is to 20th and 21st century television and culture. They watch Seinfeld, they talk about American Idol and mention Justin Bieber. REALLY? Did culture just stop when and where we now live and that's all the future has to go on? They have NOTHING ELSE? Nothing older, nothing more current? I suppose that would require the writing team to, you know, actually come up with stuff rather than grab the low-hanging fruit.
Maybe that's what I'm really railing against here. Laziness. They don't have the cleverness to be more subtle or to build a world populated by new cultural references. Well, sure, they give the Krill a religion, and they gave Bortus' people a poet, but apparently humans stopped short at Taylor Swift and have been coasting on that for hundreds of years.
Sigh. Whatever. It's an okay show. I'll keep in on my DVR for the rare occasions I may actually feel like watching it.
11.11.2017
Movies: The Big Sick
I'd been hearing about this movie on various podcasts for a while, but I'd never been in the right mood or frame of mind to watch it. Until last night.
There's a certain kind of movie—almost always indie or small studio pics—that bill themselves as "comedy" but aren't really that funny. I think they're using an older definition of "comedy," the one that says things end happy rather than sad. In other words, if it's not an all-out tragedy, it's a comedy. Kind of. Like, if you have to pick between the two masks, this movie is the laughing one more than the crying one, right?
Still, while it definitely has its funny moments, this isn't, you know, what some people think of as comedy. It tends toward melodrama. It's what some call "dramedy." And that's fine, but it's not the same as a comedy.
All this may make it sound like I didn't like the movie. But I did! I actually liked it quite a lot. It's one of the few I've seen that lives up to all the hype I've heard. Kumail Nanjiani is incredibly personable (both in this movie and in interviews); it's impossible not to like him, even when he's being a jerk in the film. You honestly want him to do well. You cringe for him when [mild spoiler] his comedy set bombs. You feel for him when he finds himself caught between his family and the girl he's fallen in love with. His interactions with everyone—his family, his girlfriend's family, his fellow comedians—it's all so natural and unaffected, very enjoyable to watch.
Okay, so for those who don't know, the movie is about Kumail falling in love with a girl named Emily. Meanwhile, his Pakistani family keeps trying to set him up with a good Muslim girl to marry. When Emily finds out Kumail hasn't even told his family about her, and when he can't commit to a future with her, she breaks up with him. Next thing Kumail knows, he's receiving a call to say Emily is in the hospital. He goes there and meets her parents (Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, both in fabulous form). Hilarity doesn't exactly ensue, though there are definite pulses of it.
If anything, the character of Emily is the weak link. Maybe because she's in a coma for a big chunk of the movie, but honestly, when she was awake I found her a tad annoying. I didn't 100% buy the attraction between her and Kumail. But that's a small thing in the overall scheme. That may sound strange considering this is, in some aspect, a romantic movie. And I think if Emily had been conscious for the entire film, it wouldn't have worked because her shrillness would have ruined things. But as things stand, it's livable.
In short, this is a really cute movie. It's drama punctuated with laughter. There's a little bit of tragedy, too. The whole thing is a stew, really—a tasty one.
There's a certain kind of movie—almost always indie or small studio pics—that bill themselves as "comedy" but aren't really that funny. I think they're using an older definition of "comedy," the one that says things end happy rather than sad. In other words, if it's not an all-out tragedy, it's a comedy. Kind of. Like, if you have to pick between the two masks, this movie is the laughing one more than the crying one, right?
Still, while it definitely has its funny moments, this isn't, you know, what some people think of as comedy. It tends toward melodrama. It's what some call "dramedy." And that's fine, but it's not the same as a comedy.
All this may make it sound like I didn't like the movie. But I did! I actually liked it quite a lot. It's one of the few I've seen that lives up to all the hype I've heard. Kumail Nanjiani is incredibly personable (both in this movie and in interviews); it's impossible not to like him, even when he's being a jerk in the film. You honestly want him to do well. You cringe for him when [mild spoiler] his comedy set bombs. You feel for him when he finds himself caught between his family and the girl he's fallen in love with. His interactions with everyone—his family, his girlfriend's family, his fellow comedians—it's all so natural and unaffected, very enjoyable to watch.
Okay, so for those who don't know, the movie is about Kumail falling in love with a girl named Emily. Meanwhile, his Pakistani family keeps trying to set him up with a good Muslim girl to marry. When Emily finds out Kumail hasn't even told his family about her, and when he can't commit to a future with her, she breaks up with him. Next thing Kumail knows, he's receiving a call to say Emily is in the hospital. He goes there and meets her parents (Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, both in fabulous form). Hilarity doesn't exactly ensue, though there are definite pulses of it.
If anything, the character of Emily is the weak link. Maybe because she's in a coma for a big chunk of the movie, but honestly, when she was awake I found her a tad annoying. I didn't 100% buy the attraction between her and Kumail. But that's a small thing in the overall scheme. That may sound strange considering this is, in some aspect, a romantic movie. And I think if Emily had been conscious for the entire film, it wouldn't have worked because her shrillness would have ruined things. But as things stand, it's livable.
In short, this is a really cute movie. It's drama punctuated with laughter. There's a little bit of tragedy, too. The whole thing is a stew, really—a tasty one.
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.
9.13.2017
Television: The Orville, "Old Wounds"
Okay, so . . . I'm a fan of Star Trek. Have been since I was a kid. Loved the original movies, made my parents rent the VHS tapes of the original series so I could watch that too. (Remember when not everything was streaming?) The Next Generation was my favorite. My first fan conventions were Trek conventions, which I went to with friends and, on one occasion, with my journalism teacher. So, you know, that's my pedigree. I'm a Trekker or Trekkie or whatever we call ourselves nowadays.
As for The Orville, well, I have seriously mixed feelings.
Seth MacFarlane stars as Ed Mercer. The year is 2417, and apparently over the course of 400 years we've really upped our technology and met a massive number of alien species. Okay, fine, I wouldn't poke at Star Trek for this, so I won't flag The Orville for it either. But I think maybe I no longer have the optimism that I used to, the belief that the human race was "going places." (Besides straight to hell.)
The opening scene is just so standard and cliché that I could hardly stand it. Mercer comes back to his quarters to find his wife in bed with a blue alien. Ugh.
Fast forward a year and he's being offered command of the titular Orville. And—wait for it, cuz you'll be astounded—the ex is his XO. (No, not Kiss Hug. It means "Executive Officer.")
So much of the exposition is in dialogue it's tragic. And the story is so rote it's, well, double tragic. And Mercer's best friend Gordon Mallory, whom he hires as a helmsman, is pretty unlikeable. When he's introduced, he's not too terrible; he comes off as a bit nerdy in a Simon Pegg way. But when he "drives drunk" in the next scene, he gets frat-boy obnoxious and my enjoyment of the show spiraled downward like the stupid shuttle. Exhibiting drinking and driving as "cool" is not a great move.
Part of my problem with the show, too, is that it doesn't quite seem to know what it wants to be. A parody? Straight comedy? Or an actual sci-fi show? There are elements of all these things, and I'm not saying these things can't work together, but as presented they don't appear to be stirred into the same soup. That's a weird metaphor, but I don't know how else to explain it. Sci-fi soup with chunks of comedy? Could be tasty but, as far as this episode goes, the blend isn't quite right.
The Orville is a throwback kind of show, which as far as I can tell is the intention. I'm just not sure how many people will make the time for it, or appreciate where it's coming from, particularly in the current television landscape. We have amazing shows, stuff that is better than movies (as the summer box office shows). In comparison, The Orville might come across as that dented can of off-brand beans at the bottom of the grocery shelf. If the price is right and you're desperate enough, you might buy it?
That said, I'll give it another couple episodes to see if it finds its footing. Many shows start out rough, particularly the sci-fi ones. There's something promising in The Orville, I'm just not sure what yet. Or whether it will live up to that promise.
As for The Orville, well, I have seriously mixed feelings.
Seth MacFarlane stars as Ed Mercer. The year is 2417, and apparently over the course of 400 years we've really upped our technology and met a massive number of alien species. Okay, fine, I wouldn't poke at Star Trek for this, so I won't flag The Orville for it either. But I think maybe I no longer have the optimism that I used to, the belief that the human race was "going places." (Besides straight to hell.)
The opening scene is just so standard and cliché that I could hardly stand it. Mercer comes back to his quarters to find his wife in bed with a blue alien. Ugh.
Fast forward a year and he's being offered command of the titular Orville. And—wait for it, cuz you'll be astounded—the ex is his XO. (No, not Kiss Hug. It means "Executive Officer.")
So much of the exposition is in dialogue it's tragic. And the story is so rote it's, well, double tragic. And Mercer's best friend Gordon Mallory, whom he hires as a helmsman, is pretty unlikeable. When he's introduced, he's not too terrible; he comes off as a bit nerdy in a Simon Pegg way. But when he "drives drunk" in the next scene, he gets frat-boy obnoxious and my enjoyment of the show spiraled downward like the stupid shuttle. Exhibiting drinking and driving as "cool" is not a great move.
Part of my problem with the show, too, is that it doesn't quite seem to know what it wants to be. A parody? Straight comedy? Or an actual sci-fi show? There are elements of all these things, and I'm not saying these things can't work together, but as presented they don't appear to be stirred into the same soup. That's a weird metaphor, but I don't know how else to explain it. Sci-fi soup with chunks of comedy? Could be tasty but, as far as this episode goes, the blend isn't quite right.
The Orville is a throwback kind of show, which as far as I can tell is the intention. I'm just not sure how many people will make the time for it, or appreciate where it's coming from, particularly in the current television landscape. We have amazing shows, stuff that is better than movies (as the summer box office shows). In comparison, The Orville might come across as that dented can of off-brand beans at the bottom of the grocery shelf. If the price is right and you're desperate enough, you might buy it?
That said, I'll give it another couple episodes to see if it finds its footing. Many shows start out rough, particularly the sci-fi ones. There's something promising in The Orville, I'm just not sure what yet. Or whether it will live up to that promise.
8.22.2017
Movies: Logan Lucky
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Written By: Rebecca Blunt (?)
Bleeker Street, 2017
PG-13; 119 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
An cinema employee called this, "a hick Italian Job," and that about sums it up, I suppose. It lacks the slickness or sophistication of something like Ocean's Eleven, but it's fun in its own way.
Channing Tatum plays Jimmy Logan, a down-on-his-luck West Virginian whose brother Clyde (Adam Driver) believes their family is cursed. Clyde is himself a one-handed bartender, having lost his left hand and forearm during two tours in Iraq.
When Jimmy's ex-wife tells him she and her new husband are moving—and taking Jimmy's daughter Sadie with them—Jimmy's determination to be able to stay close prompts him to hatch a plan to rob the motor speedway. With the help of Joe Bang (Daniel Craig doing a fair, if somewhat uneven, job of a Southern accent), Joe's brothers, and their own sister Mellie, Jimmy and Clyde set the heist in motion.
I expected this to be funnier, but it certainly has its moments. The pacing is a little weird, and there are some half-baked subplots that either needed more cooking time or should have been left out of the ingredients list entirely. But on the whole, the movie is enjoyable and serves up more or less exactly what is stated on the menu.
Best scene: Game of Thrones argument. Runner up: Joe Bang explains science.
This isn't one that needs to be seen on the big screen, but it is a fun little film. Too bad it opened opposite The Hitman's Bodyguard because, while I think the two movies are very different, they'd likely have some audience overlap. And THB is certainly the glossier, shinier bit of celluloid. (No, not literally. I know it's all digital now.) So I think more people went for that one than this. Not having seen THB yet, I can't compare, but Logan Lucky is worth consideration.
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Written By: Rebecca Blunt (?)
Bleeker Street, 2017
PG-13; 119 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
An cinema employee called this, "a hick Italian Job," and that about sums it up, I suppose. It lacks the slickness or sophistication of something like Ocean's Eleven, but it's fun in its own way.
Channing Tatum plays Jimmy Logan, a down-on-his-luck West Virginian whose brother Clyde (Adam Driver) believes their family is cursed. Clyde is himself a one-handed bartender, having lost his left hand and forearm during two tours in Iraq.
When Jimmy's ex-wife tells him she and her new husband are moving—and taking Jimmy's daughter Sadie with them—Jimmy's determination to be able to stay close prompts him to hatch a plan to rob the motor speedway. With the help of Joe Bang (Daniel Craig doing a fair, if somewhat uneven, job of a Southern accent), Joe's brothers, and their own sister Mellie, Jimmy and Clyde set the heist in motion.
I expected this to be funnier, but it certainly has its moments. The pacing is a little weird, and there are some half-baked subplots that either needed more cooking time or should have been left out of the ingredients list entirely. But on the whole, the movie is enjoyable and serves up more or less exactly what is stated on the menu.
Best scene: Game of Thrones argument. Runner up: Joe Bang explains science.
This isn't one that needs to be seen on the big screen, but it is a fun little film. Too bad it opened opposite The Hitman's Bodyguard because, while I think the two movies are very different, they'd likely have some audience overlap. And THB is certainly the glossier, shinier bit of celluloid. (No, not literally. I know it's all digital now.) So I think more people went for that one than this. Not having seen THB yet, I can't compare, but Logan Lucky is worth consideration.
7.02.2017
Movie: Bridget Jones's Baby
This was a stupid movie. Which is maybe all it was meant to be, but still. Just really dumb and rote.
I only watched it because I was captive on a 10+-hour long flight and the movie options were really pathetic. There was stuff I'd seen and had no particular desire to see again and stuff I hadn't seen and mostly had no interest in. Which is surprising since there are plenty of movies I want to see but haven't had the opportunity to yet. Somehow this airline didn't have any of them. So I was forced to settle for something that I thought might be mildly entertaining.
This was . . . not. While watching I constantly debated whether to just turn it off and stare into space for a few hours rather than continue the movie. Seriously.
Okay, so I saw Bridget Jones's Diary, like, years ago. Way back when. Can barely remember it. Never saw the second one at all. And then there was this. Bridget celebrates her 43rd birthday, gets a hip new boss who wants to rebrand the television show Bridget works on, gets dragged to (a) a memorial service for the Hugh Grant character because he apparently couldn't be talked into returning to this train wreck, (b) a music festival where she hooks up with the American equivalent of Hugh Grant (aka Patrick Dempsey), (c) a christening where she hooks up with Colin Firth's character. And then of course she's pregnant and isn't sure which of these hook-ups produced the baby. Everything then goes on at a predictable clip until the equally predictable ending.
Colin Firth is the only good thing about this movie. The fact that he's able to do anything with the material is a flat-out miracle, but his reactions are priceless.
If you have time to waste, as I did, I'm still not sure I'd recommend you do it with this movie. It fails to be funny at all, instead leaning on really old and used bits of humor. It's almost painful to watch. Skip this one.
I only watched it because I was captive on a 10+-hour long flight and the movie options were really pathetic. There was stuff I'd seen and had no particular desire to see again and stuff I hadn't seen and mostly had no interest in. Which is surprising since there are plenty of movies I want to see but haven't had the opportunity to yet. Somehow this airline didn't have any of them. So I was forced to settle for something that I thought might be mildly entertaining.
This was . . . not. While watching I constantly debated whether to just turn it off and stare into space for a few hours rather than continue the movie. Seriously.
Okay, so I saw Bridget Jones's Diary, like, years ago. Way back when. Can barely remember it. Never saw the second one at all. And then there was this. Bridget celebrates her 43rd birthday, gets a hip new boss who wants to rebrand the television show Bridget works on, gets dragged to (a) a memorial service for the Hugh Grant character because he apparently couldn't be talked into returning to this train wreck, (b) a music festival where she hooks up with the American equivalent of Hugh Grant (aka Patrick Dempsey), (c) a christening where she hooks up with Colin Firth's character. And then of course she's pregnant and isn't sure which of these hook-ups produced the baby. Everything then goes on at a predictable clip until the equally predictable ending.
Colin Firth is the only good thing about this movie. The fact that he's able to do anything with the material is a flat-out miracle, but his reactions are priceless.
If you have time to waste, as I did, I'm still not sure I'd recommend you do it with this movie. It fails to be funny at all, instead leaning on really old and used bits of humor. It's almost painful to watch. Skip this one.
6.03.2017
Movies: The LEGO Batman Movie
This was . . . okay. Not as funny and cute as The LEGO Movie. I think maybe the Batman character, as portrayed in the LEGO movie(s), is better in small snippets rather than 100+ minutes.
Part of the problem may also be that The LEGO Movie had original characters while here Batman is necessarily circumscribed by his known self and the DC Universe.
Also, a lot of this seemed rushed and not fully explored. Why have Voldemort and Daleks, etc. and not use them to full potential?
As for the plot, it was generally this: Barbara Gordon takes over as Commissioner of Gotham City and believes there is no longer any need for Batman because look at how long he's been on the job and there's as much crime in Gotham as ever. Not a bad point. Meanwhile, Joker is upset that Batman won't "commit" to their hate-ship. When Batman sends the Joker to another dimension, one filled with bad guys (see aforementioned Daleks et al), the Joker brings these baddies back to Gotham. Hilarity does not ensue. Instead a rushed and chaotic battle of the kind one usually sees in Avengers movies occurs. Meh.
Oh, and there's Robin spending all his time trying to find ways to call Batman his "dad" without offending him.
Except maybe for the would-be bromance between Batman and Joker, I wasn't all that hugely amused by this movie. It wasn't terrible, just not as laugh-out-loud funny as I expected, which means I was disappointed in the end. Maybe Unikitty needs her own movie instead.
Part of the problem may also be that The LEGO Movie had original characters while here Batman is necessarily circumscribed by his known self and the DC Universe.
Also, a lot of this seemed rushed and not fully explored. Why have Voldemort and Daleks, etc. and not use them to full potential?
As for the plot, it was generally this: Barbara Gordon takes over as Commissioner of Gotham City and believes there is no longer any need for Batman because look at how long he's been on the job and there's as much crime in Gotham as ever. Not a bad point. Meanwhile, Joker is upset that Batman won't "commit" to their hate-ship. When Batman sends the Joker to another dimension, one filled with bad guys (see aforementioned Daleks et al), the Joker brings these baddies back to Gotham. Hilarity does not ensue. Instead a rushed and chaotic battle of the kind one usually sees in Avengers movies occurs. Meh.
Oh, and there's Robin spending all his time trying to find ways to call Batman his "dad" without offending him.
Except maybe for the would-be bromance between Batman and Joker, I wasn't all that hugely amused by this movie. It wasn't terrible, just not as laugh-out-loud funny as I expected, which means I was disappointed in the end. Maybe Unikitty needs her own movie instead.
5.17.2017
Television: Great News
If you like Tina Fey's brand of comedy (and I do), Great News is more of that. Some of the lines are so Fey, you can imagine her saying them. As it is, Briga Heelan nails the delivery. (Note that Fey did not write any of the scripts, but she is an executive producer.)
What's the show about? Briga Heelan plays Katie, a segment producer on the afternoon news magazine show The Breakdown. Echoes of 30 Rock abound, though the personalities here are slightly less eccentric. Just as neurotic, though. And yes, there is a difference.
The entire cast does a fine job, but John Michael Higgins as news personality Chuck Pierce is the one who makes me laugh out loud. Nicole Richie holds her own against him as they form a mismatched pair of old-school anchorman versus millennial ADHD energy.
Katie's mother Carol (Andrea Martin) comes to intern on the show. (Don't ask, just watch.) Somehow she ends up being the only one who can manage Chuck and therefore becomes indispensable. While PCHH gushed over Martin, I can't say she's my favorite character. This is only after three episodes, however; maybe she gains depth over time. For now she's one joke: helicopter mom annoying her daughter in the workplace. It has its moments but isn't consistently funny. Though it comes in myriad flavors—Mom tries to hook Katie up with coworkers, Mom tries to keep Katie safe during a potentially dangerous assignment—it's all really much of the same: Mom meddling.
Still, if the show should branch away from Carol and Katie a little, I can anticipate devouring the episodes in short order. There is a lot of fun to be had if we can stop focusing on the one gag.
What's the show about? Briga Heelan plays Katie, a segment producer on the afternoon news magazine show The Breakdown. Echoes of 30 Rock abound, though the personalities here are slightly less eccentric. Just as neurotic, though. And yes, there is a difference.
The entire cast does a fine job, but John Michael Higgins as news personality Chuck Pierce is the one who makes me laugh out loud. Nicole Richie holds her own against him as they form a mismatched pair of old-school anchorman versus millennial ADHD energy.
Katie's mother Carol (Andrea Martin) comes to intern on the show. (Don't ask, just watch.) Somehow she ends up being the only one who can manage Chuck and therefore becomes indispensable. While PCHH gushed over Martin, I can't say she's my favorite character. This is only after three episodes, however; maybe she gains depth over time. For now she's one joke: helicopter mom annoying her daughter in the workplace. It has its moments but isn't consistently funny. Though it comes in myriad flavors—Mom tries to hook Katie up with coworkers, Mom tries to keep Katie safe during a potentially dangerous assignment—it's all really much of the same: Mom meddling.
Still, if the show should branch away from Carol and Katie a little, I can anticipate devouring the episodes in short order. There is a lot of fun to be had if we can stop focusing on the one gag.
5.14.2017
Movies: She's Funny That Way
If you like Woody Allen and/or screwball comedies, this movie should be right up your alley.
A theatre director named Arnold (Owen Wilson) gets his kicks by giving call girls big payoffs so they can start new lives. When one of those call girls named Isabella (Imogen Poots) turns up to audition for a play, Arnold's life begins to fall apart. For one thing, Arnold's wife Delta (Kathryn Hahn) is also in the play, so the risk is high she will discover what Arnold has been up to. Meanwhile, Isabella has an obsessed stalker who has hired a private eye to follow her. The story is rounded out by a terrible therapist (Jennifer Aniston), her boyfriend who is the playwright (Will Forte), and the sassy star of the play (Rhys Ifans).
There's a bit of a frame story in that Isabella is talking to a journalist, and one is led to wonder how much of the story she tells is true and how much is romanticized.
The cast is stellar, and the movie is legitimately cute and funny in a sweet way. The whole thing feels a bit like a stage play itself, or like it could be. Even Richard Lewis and Cybill Shepherd turn up as Isabella's parents. (Hey, I loved both Anything But Love and Moonlighting back in the day.)
In any case, I'm glad to have stumbled across this little gem. Really enjoyed it.
A theatre director named Arnold (Owen Wilson) gets his kicks by giving call girls big payoffs so they can start new lives. When one of those call girls named Isabella (Imogen Poots) turns up to audition for a play, Arnold's life begins to fall apart. For one thing, Arnold's wife Delta (Kathryn Hahn) is also in the play, so the risk is high she will discover what Arnold has been up to. Meanwhile, Isabella has an obsessed stalker who has hired a private eye to follow her. The story is rounded out by a terrible therapist (Jennifer Aniston), her boyfriend who is the playwright (Will Forte), and the sassy star of the play (Rhys Ifans).
There's a bit of a frame story in that Isabella is talking to a journalist, and one is led to wonder how much of the story she tells is true and how much is romanticized.
The cast is stellar, and the movie is legitimately cute and funny in a sweet way. The whole thing feels a bit like a stage play itself, or like it could be. Even Richard Lewis and Cybill Shepherd turn up as Isabella's parents. (Hey, I loved both Anything But Love and Moonlighting back in the day.)
In any case, I'm glad to have stumbled across this little gem. Really enjoyed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)