3 Short Paragraphs: Papillon

2017, Michael Noer (Northwest) -- download

I was a big fan of the original in my youth, the movie with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. Both movies are semi-biographical, about a Frenchman framed for a murder in the 30s and sent to French Guyana to serve out a life sentence. Neither McQueen nor Charlie Hunnam are really believable as the bold, determined, charismatic Frenchman but their charm carries it off.

I remember the earlier version as more an adventure movie, where a man is pitted against the system and the environment, surviving against all odds. Like most 70s adventure movies, they are never remembered as contiguous stories but as key events. The new one likes to focus on Hunnam's innate animal-ism, likening him to a caged tiger who will escape, it being a matter of time, not circumstances. The events happen, as he mixes it up with friend and co-conspirator Degas (Rami Malek), but nothing really stands out, not even the locale.

If you are going to recreate a critically acclaimed, if no widely remembered, older movie then you need to do something that raises its spirit above the original. But in the end, this movie is so uninspired,  that even the vague emotional connection I have with the original is more tangible than this one. All that I can remember is that Malek and Hunnam were really, really good but... what did they do again? Survive, make escape attempts, survive, fail, finally succeed.

Polar

2019, Jonas Åkerlund (Lords of Chaos, lots and lots of music videos) -- Netflix

Music videos still exist? Where is our late night half-hour TV show that highlights the charts?

Anywayz, from a director whom I am not surprised he did Ramstein videos, and a very very very loose connection to John Wick (Constantin Films, production company, helped distribute Wick in Europe) comes a very very very over the top movie that tries to resurrect the visual appeal of 90s edgy action flicks while melding it with a Suicide Squad aesthetic. But it stars Mads Mikkelsen, which is the only reason I forgave it.

So, first up. There is no real reason this movie is called Polar other than that the original web-comic / graphic novel is called that, and it is sometimes a wintry movie. The Miller-ish comic looked incredible, and did its best Sin City impression using snow and shadows to set a mood. Parts of this movie take place in a cabin by a lake in the heart of winter, but it's nowhere close to being polar.

Anywayz.

Holey fricking crow, this movie was all over the place. Mads is soon-to-retire assassin Duncan Vizla haunted by one kill from his past, that must have gone wrong. He will retire to his rustic cabin in the woods in small town Montana/Wyoming/Dakota/Somewhere with Snow and Mountains, and live off his well-earned pension plan. Yep, Damocles the Assassination Company has pension plans. You would think assassins would just make so much money, they could set up their own offshore money, but psss-shaw, we need a premise. And that premise is that the owner of Damocles has been squandering the money, so his ingenious plan is to kill his own assassins as they turn 50, so the clause in the contract means all their banked money goes to him. And he uses a gawdy, inclusive band of not-near-50 assassins to take out his own veterans.

The movie flips between Vizla's attempts to retire, or prepare to retire, in his cabin in the woods, across the lake from almost unrecognizable Vanessa Hudgens whom he has taken a shine to, to gory, over the top killing scenes as the Band of Younger Ne're Do Wells take out the random people at Vizla's Other Addresses. The colours and imagery are drastically different between the two types of scenes, which are well directed and shot, but quickly become tiring. The thing that made John Wick work so well was that it was tonally solid and knew who it was. This movie is suffering a major split personality.

And the sex. Edgy 90s tried to pull away from the politically correct late 80s with lots of racy sex. But this movie just seems to be yelling "BOOBS !" every ten minutes, for no particularly good reason. An extended sex scene between Sexy Bimbo Assassin and Vizla may be based on the scene from the comic, but it goes much further than it needs to. Why?  Just because.

And don't get me fucking started on it's extreme "FUCK YOU!" to John Wick when Vizla brings home a puppy. I almost turned it off right there.

In the end I watched it through, and despite some incredibly well shot scenes and decent acting (I loved every clothing change scene with Katheryn Winnick [ed. note: that's not what it sounds like; i mean she wore a diff outfit in every scene.]) it just didn't win me over.

3+1 Short Paragraphs: Mortal Engines

2018, Christian Rivers (Peter Jackson's art dept) -- cinema

There is a subset of gonzo (def. outlandishly unconventional, outrageous, or extreme) scifi movies that seem to have been created for me: The Fifth Element, Buckaroo Banzai, Sucker Punch, Jupiter Ascending, etc. The definition of the sub-genre is in debate (just try Googling lists) but 'unconventional' is the best description. This movie, if it could be called anything, is definitely from unconventional source material, but tries to make a much more conventional adventure movie from it.

Get this. In the distant future, after an apocalyptic war, the great cities of the world made themselves mobile: wheels, treads, tires and tracks. Entire cities are set upon engines and wheels, and rove across the countryside eating each other. Yes, eating. For with the fall of the world, resources could not be gathered, but had to be taken. So cities have hunted other cities until few were left. And London is the greatest.

Tom (Robert Sheehan), an apprentice historian, gets mixed up in a revenge plot between the city's greatest hero, historian Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), and Hester, the young woman he tried to murder ages ago. Valentine seeks control over London and a great power from the past, a weapon great enough to allow London to challenge the greatest of the Anti-traction League cities, Shan Guo in the far east. Along the way they meet an odd ball collection of heroes and villains.

That last sentence is as mundane as the movie wants to be. But why? It could have gone all Terry Gilliam and embraced its outrageous premise, but instead it tried to establish a more classic adventure scifi movie. Now, to be honest, so did the source material and the books are kind of disappointing considering where and when they are set. Easily digested is what they, and the movie, were seeking. So, in the end, not so gonzo afterall.

ReLoaded: The Rookie & Magnum PI

The doors open elevator style and a man on a strange bicycle type device, all gears and steampunk pipes, pedals his way out furiously. The bicycle extends out into a dark void, from the meager light through the door, attached to telescoping tubes, only precariously connected to the fevered pedaling of the cyclist.

At full extension, the bike clicks and locks and distant gears begin grinding, the bike shifting down in gears, the pedaling slows. In the blackness surrounding the cyclist, lights begin flickering on, no not lights but screens. 4x9 screens suspended without CRT, just light and colour. TV shows and movies, red and green and blue and all the colours of life and fiction, flicker into life in a sphere around the cyclist. Interspersed are screens of text, Times New Roman and Verdana, HTML and plain text.

"Miss blogging, miss putting thoughts into words, even when they won't come, miss being a part of something I once embraced, even if I sucked at it..."

"Friendships are like muscles, they have to be worked, but no matter what you do, they change over time..."

"I am not That Movie Guy anymore, I am not even the guy who used to be him. Its been longer not being That Guy then I was that guy, but I still see hints of him on the screen..."

"Media consumption has gone from being a thoughtful process, or even an escape, and fallen into a comfort food or nubby blanket, something to wrap your self  in distraction..."

The cyclist twitches, flinching at the words on the screen. Some hurt, some remind, some inspire. He leans on the handlebars, sweat beading on his pale taught face. Suddenly, he reaches out and grabs at one of the screens, tapping it like a UI and it expands, while off to his right, a screen of text goes blank and begins to fill...

***

Magnum PI, 2018-19, CBS -- download

My best friend from high school died about a year ago, on New Year's Eve. I don't have the circumstances or the story, but I suspect he took his own life. But whatever happened, it was an unfortunate event. I wish I could say I miss him, but to be honest, we had faded away decades ago. I let that happen a lot. It is easier to let things fade, then to suffer loss.

Shawn would have hated this reboot, but when I watch it, I remember him fondly. He was a huge original Magnum PI fan. Parts of his post-high school personality was taken from Thomas Magnum, a tall jovial lady's man who was constantly getting himself in trouble. They both loved red cars. They both looked terrible in short shorts. We played many a RPG scenario which was lifted directly from episodes of this show.

When I watch this show now, it is like curling up on the couch and wrapping myself in nostalgia, and the show knows it. From the setup to the friendships to the backgrounds of the characters, the show remains faithful to what it once was. But of course, much has changed. Gone is the Tom Selleck tall, mustachioed swagger, replaced Jay Hernandez's compact smirk-y confidence -- and it works. Higgy Baby is now a woman (Perdita Weeks), but still British, still ex-MI6 and still sicking the dogs (Zeus & Apollo) on Magnum. Rick & TC are exactly what they were back then, but the show endeavours to make them less background material and more equals in Thomas's actions. They even worked Nuzo into the opening episodes, so they could more strongly tie in Magnum's military background. And with the theme music perfectly recreated and the provision of a new, updated red Ferrari, the show is just meant to draw in people who loved the original show.

My, how Shawn would have hated it, especially the budding relationship between Thomas and Higgins. Right now, deep into Season One, they still don't really get along -- Magnum keeps on abusing her good faith, as he squats in the guest house and constantly asks favours of her. But there have been enough episodes where she witnesses Thomas's delicate sensitivities and strong moral code, that you can see she may grow from grudging respect into something more. I hope the show dispenses with it, and just makes them strong friends, but you know how shows like this need romance. What I truly expect them to do, is drawn upon the canonical relationship from Magnum's past (Michelle) and throw up a wall between Magnum & Higgins hooking up.

Oh, and can I say I love the cross-over? The original series loved its crossover episodes (Murder She Wrote, Simon & Simon), so the fact that this show takes place in the same continuity as the Hawaii Five-Oh remake makes me chuckle.

The Rookie, 2018-19, ABC -- download

From nostalgia for a show past, to a nostalgia for an actor past. But to be honest, even if I wasn't a massive (MASSIVE) fan of Firefly I would still be a strong fan of Nathan Fillion. That this show has drawn upon his likable personality and reputation as a "nice guy" is apparent, in a show about a rookie cop in LA who stands out, not just because he is over 40 (oldest rookie on record), but because he is just genuinely a stand-up guy with no agenda.

Migawd, I am just loving this show. When every other show is showing itself to be gritty and dark and edgy and contemporary, and every aspect of real life is Trump or stress tainted, I just need this fucking unabated optimism. Sure, they are being shot at every single episode. Sure, it is un-shirking in its reflection of modern life, and how crime perpetrators are often victims themselves, but it doesn't stop him and his fellow rookies from just doing Good, capitol G, good.

I find myself being strung along with all the standard tropes of this show, all the familiarities and the standard setups to the cliches of each and every character. Sure, one Training Officer is a gung-ho asshole, but he has a heart of gold and a tragic history. And the women in the focus have to constantly deal with their equality among their peers, working harder and doing more. And the other male rookie has to live up to his dad's force legend. The tropes are there, obvious and heavy handed, but I find myself instantly falling into alignment with Fillion's John Nolan as he experiences tragedy in the field, from the outrageous treatment after his first kill (do they really call a cop shooting, a homicide??) to just the victims of crime who he tries to help, and sometimes fails.

I am just waiting for the late season Act 3 trouble to stir up. I hope they leave at least one season relatively unscathed and give me reasons to keep on smiling at it.

Blade Runner 2049

2017, d. Denis Villeneuve - blu-ray

The dull poster designs didn't help in 
selling the film

I consider the original Blade Runner to be a sleep aid.  I've never made it through the film without falling asleep at least once, but, being a longtime sci-fi nerd, I've tried again more than a few times, with a few different editions, to the same effect.  So powerful is the narcoleptic effect that, years distant from last viewing, just hearing a few chords of its score in the trailer for 2049 started making me legit drowsy in the theatre (Every. Time.  Those trailers leaned hard on that classic score, treading heavily on nostalgia for Ridley Scott's original production.)

Put bluntly, I'm not a fan.  Don't hate it, but the property never resonated with me.

Blade Runner 2049 seemed like a weird and risky $150million+ gamble for Warner Brothers.  It's not like the original was ever anything but a cult favorite.  It's not like it has the mass cultural appeal of Star Wars, Star Trek or even the Alien franchise (of which it's loosely a part).  It's not adventurous enough, not action-oriented really at all to appeal to the broader range of moviegoing public.  It's a bleak and bleary future world that always feels heavy and uninviting.  It's inspired dozens upon dozens of impersonators, few of which have been successful. 

Somewhere deep down, the WB was thinking that The Force Awakens was such a smash hit primarily because it brought Harrison Ford back in the fold, and that doing so again with another sci-fi property would be a sure fire hit.  Nevermind that director Denis Villeneuve was just coming off the critically successful Arrival and a string of other sleeper hits, they must have thought they had box office gold forthcoming.

But the original Blade Runner hadn't ever transcended its cult status and the box office for 2049 reflected that quite handily.  It struggled to draw an audience beyond the fandom despite healthy critical praise (and a little cultural blowback, which we'll get to).  The excitement of Ford returning as Deckard was certainly nothing compared to returning as Han Solo.  I mean, I love big budget sci-fi (conceptually) and tend to gravitate towards it even when it's bad, but good word of mouth still couldn't draw me into this one at the theatre.  Not that I didn't think about it, figuring that I would have a harder time falling asleep watching it if I was at the theatre.  As much as Blade Runner's reputation is of that as a classic of the genre, I think there's probably more people who saw the original and weren't entertained or engaged by it than love it, and that reputation kept people away from this sequel. 

The thing is it's good.  It's really good.  It doesn't fundamentally shift away from its predecessor in tone, and it's a loving homage to its past, yet, to be perfectly honest, it's more than a few steps up in quality, and not just because of the money and technology modern filmmaking can throw at it (not that it doesn't help).  I mean, Roger Deakins cinematography is miles beyond Jordan Cronenweth's of the original ...not that it doesn't still hold up fairly well, all things considered, but it's nothing like Deakins, who is if not THE master of his craft today, certainly in the conversation for it.  This is just a flat-out gorgeous-looking film.  Villeneuve has a great eye to start and I think Deakins knows how to perfectly execute that intent (having worked with him before on Sicario and Prisoners, it's clear they have a compatible partnership).

With a script from returning Blade Runner writer Hampton Fancher (with Michael Green), the sequel more than understand its need to act as both sequel and stand alone story.  Although I've seen Blade Runner in full a handful of times, because I've fallen asleep so often during those viewings I really don't remember the specifics...it's like trying to remember the finer details of a dream.  Yet I was never lost with 2049.  I'm sure there were probably a few nods to the past I missed, but it's just savvy filmmaking to put the viewer into a very fleshed-out world and fill in any necessary details as you go.  It does so remarkably.  Honestly, had they called this something else other than "Blade Runner", a different title altogether, it probably would have pulled another 50 to 100 million in the box office.  It's certainly accessible enough to stand on its own while also carrying forward a story from 35 years ago.  Think about a gorgeous sci-fi epic starring Ford and Ryan Gosling that didn't lean so heavily on the franchise name, it should have been an much easier sell.

Much of the negative reaction has been around the film's troubling depiction of women.  As I watched, aware of the criticism, I found myself keenly observing how the women's roles are depicted.  There is certainly an awareness within the film itself of the troubling life for women in this dystopic future...I mean life is generally harsh, but the film is just that much harsher on its female characters.  Prostitution and subservience is largely their role, acting as sexual aggressors seems to be their response to gain control.  I found Ana de Armas' Joi to be the most fully realized female character, and seemingly most in control of her destiny, as a holographic artificial intelligence and partner to Gosling's K, a replicant, and hunter of replicants.  Joi expresses her desires, and establishes a sense of ownership over her limited detiny that was honestly surprising, moreso than troubling or like she was any less of a partner to K.  K is clearly in love with her, though as a replicant and blade runner, he seem keenly aware he's not supposed to be feeling any emotions.  But that sense of control Joi had really gets the rug pulled out from under it when K encounters a promotional hologram for the "Joi model", which creates a very thought provoking paradox about what's self-awareness and what's just programming.  Ultimately those criticisms of the film being sexist are accurate, but the rebuttal that it is knowingly so is also accurate.  What it's trying to say about the sexism as commentary on society is also obfuscated enough that it's easy to fall on the critical or defensive side and be right either way.

Problematic or not, 2049 is going to be another cult classic in time.  It's just too well crafted not to be.

Aquaman

2018, James Wan - in theatre

Yes, the orange tunic does make an appearance.

 Simply stated, Aquaman is an absolute mess, but an entertaining one.

James Wan didn't seem to know what kind of film he wanted to make this, so he just tried to make this all of them. Action, adventure, superhero, drama, comedy, science fiction, fantasy, romance, giant monster, horror... at some point he steers through all of them with absolute conviction, if little coherence. Part Indiana Jones, part Star Wars, part Excalibur and beyond, it's genre whiplash even if the glib and balls-to-the-wall tone sort of persist throughout. There's an energy to it all, and a conviction from the people involved, that make the sum of its parts equal "good enough".

Yes, it really did seem like Willem Dafoe gave
a crap.

Aquaman was always going to be a hard sell. He persisted as a running joke in fandom for decades, even if comic book and cartoon creators took him seriously. Zach Snyder(/Joss Whedon) introducing him as a surfer-dude/he-bro in the messy-in-all-the-wrong-ways Justice League and this movie has to recover from that. The narrative thrust asks us to believe that Jason Momoa's Arthur is worthy of being king, but beyond the story telling us its his destiny, it's a role that doesn't quite fit. Taking down his war-mongering half brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) seems certainly the job he's equipped for, but despite being a complete dick, he's a far sight more kingly than Aquaman. The film wants to send Arthur on a quest of discovery, finding a fabled trident that will prove to the seven underwater kingdoms that he is the true ruler, but it gets distracted too much by action and romance and origin stories to build up Aquaman as a leader.

Yes, that is Nicole Kidman looking amazing
as a fish lady and kicking ass while doing it

It is rare, though, to feel a director's enthusiasm so prevalently when watching a movie. There's a decided amount of care, thought and detail put into the each sequence, if only forgetting to see how it fits as part of the whole. The costume, character and set designs are all quite outstanding, the undersea effects fared far better than the trailers suggested (and certainly better than what Justice League gave us), and there are more than a few moments of real awe and stunning beauty.

The score from Rupert Gregson-Williams is as all over the map as the film itself, and in more assured hands could have aided the tonal consistency of the film rather than accentuating its incongruities. The composer uses a lot of 80's synth sounds throughout juxtaposing against traditional orchestral (and some of that guitar riffing which the DC cinematic universe is strangely keen on) and it winds up invokinga heavier sci-fi feel than the script really demanded. The consistency of the film would have been helped by a more assured hand. That said, it is these synth elements that stand out and are the most appealing aspects of the score, they're just incongruous to the overall narrative design.

Yes, Dolph Lundgren is riding an armored
sea horse.  This movie really is bonkers.

The supporting cast is quite stellar and surprisingly committed to this utterly bizarre production (riding giant seahorses or sharks and a lot of floating about or fighting with giant crab-men), with Wilson, Willem Dafoe, Dolph Lundgren and Nicole Kidman delivering earnest and likeable performances. Their acting chops give the film a needed gravity that Momoa and Amber Heard just aren't quite capable of. The two leads seem to be starring in a goofier B-movie to the rest of the cast's A-list blockbuster. It's unfortunate, since both are quite likeable, but at times it seems painfully obvious that they are thinking about acting and not so in the moment.

Aquaman isn't a good movie, but it's not a bad one either, it sort of transcends these labels through sheer enthusiasm. It's a really weird, massive experiment with a playfulness that had me smiling broadly more often than not. I did notice a walkout at the end of the first act, which I totally get. This isn't going to appeal to a lot of people, but if you're in for seeing stuff you've never seen before on screen, this definitely has that.

Yes, they actually did Black Manta comics-
accurate.  Amazeballs.

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

2018, d. David Slade -- netflix

For the better part of the last 25 years we've been hearing that movies can't compete with video games. As they advance in graphics and maturity, and continue to outearn most cinematic offerings, the perception is that video games offer an interactive experience that is superior to the passive experience of watching a film.

Enter creator Charlie Booker's latest entry in his Black Mirror anthology, Banderstanch. This is an interactive film, based on the conceit of the popular Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novellas of the 1980s, which allows the viewer to direct the flow of the film. It's the type of project we've been anticipating for quite some time, but has never been feasible for the cinematic group experience. Even for DVD this type of idea would be a hard sell. It's only because of the ubiquitousness of Netflix, and the power of video streaming that such an endeavor is even possible.

The "film", if we can even properly call it that, present a metatextual story set in the early 1980's, about Stefan, a young man who is developing a video game based on a pick-a-path adventure novel. As the film progresses we are frequently presented with options to guide Stefan...choosing breakfast, saying yes or no to an offer, deciding to react violently or calmly, those sorts of things. When the choices are presented (for a limited time before it chooses for you) the scene on screen continues to play out with almost unnoticeable stalling tactics, and after you make your choice the story progresses, in most cases seamlessly.

If you make the "wrong" choice, as would happen with a CYOA novel, your journey ends, but where with a book you would simply flip back to the last fork in the path and change options, Bandersnatch will send you back to a certain starting point or sometimes present options of forking points to return to. As you return, deftly edited sequences reiterate the path you've taken to this point.

Where Bandersnatch really comes alive is in the awareness that the "wrong" choices weren't without an impact, as the characters on screen experience deja vu or become confused about reality. Stefan is a troubled young man as is, taking medication and seeing a therapist are aspects of his life introduced early. As things progress, Stefan's grip on "reality" become strained, and he will, I guess depending on the paths you take, start breaking the fourth wall, his mind bending with notions of being controlled, but uncertain of whom his controller is.

Invariably, one's grip on the reality of Stefan's world gets strained, as you begin to backtrack on choices over and over again. Bandersnatch is a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book in the movie, it's also a game in the movie, and it's also the name of the story you are watching. It is many things, and it's aware that it is these many things. The metatextual nature is partly the point, that reality and control of reality are somewhat delusional. And in this case the idea that you actually have control over the narrative is what's in question, as many times the story leads you to where it wants to go.

It's not unlike a video game. Regardless of what video game you play or how advanced they get, you can only do so much with what the creators have programmed into it. Your perception of choice and control in a video game is still only limited to what has been given to you. As a storytelling vehicle, a video game only allows you to do what will progress the story they want to tell. Until you do what they want, the story doesn't progress. The illusion of control.

There's a certain amount of sophomoric philosophy at play in Bandersnatch, but it does provide a foundation for further contemplation once one completes their viewing of the "movie". That completion point is completely up to the viewer, as the way it's set up seems to allow the viewer unending opportunity to "flip" back in the story. It can get tedious if you've passed your second hour of what's otherwised posed as a 90-minute story, and there's likely a saturation point for most viewers. Even still, after spending about 130 minutes with Bandersnatch, I'm keen to revisit from scratch at least once more.

To criticise this experiment based on the story it tells is to overlook the experience, which is absolutely unique to the medium. The story, for what its worth, is a far cry better and more thoughtful than every Choose-Your-Own-Adventure story I've ever read, so there's that. It's pioneering, but time will tell if anyone decides to pick up the ball on this challenge and make it into an art.