Friday, April 15, 2022

3 Short Paragraphs: Antlers

2021, Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart) -- download

I started writing about this movie a week ago, and as often happens, any thread of a post trickled off because I remember very little about the movie. Or more precisely, I remember very little of what I want to SAY about the movie. I do remember the earlier buzz around it, with Guillermo del Toro onboard to Produce. I remember it was a Pacific North West / wendigo horror story, that suffered COVID related delays, only to end up with lackluster reviews. And rather than waiting for October, we used it to fill in yet another click click click night.

But what really stands out is how this is a bleak looking movie full of bleak settings and people. It's a dark, filthy, dying town full of tired people - the perfect horror movie setting.  It begins with an addict's kid, sitting in his dad's truck while the meth cooker and his brother (fav Canadian supporting actor 93, Michael Eklund) go deeper into an abandoned mine to cook, but are torn apart by ... something from deeper in the mine. Does the child escape? We don't know, but we soon meet his brother who is badly hiding the fact he is alone from his school teacher (Keri Russel, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker), who sticks her nose into his life, something people in this town just don't do. She has her own issues, having returned to the town where her father abused her, after having run away, leaving behind her little brother. But she's back to live in the same house, to face the resentment and guilt, to escape something, to focus her mind on something.... good?

Of course, the wendigo has taken the meth cooker and his son, more of an infection than a possession, constantly hungry, locked in their house by the older brother/son, fed road kill to keep the monster at bay. Until the teacher disturbs things. Creature features are my thing, and the practical mixed with CGI effects of the monster were impressive. The lore of an indigenous American creature is lightly updated, and given some impressive visuals, especially the titular massive set of antlers. The plot is rather forgettable, mundane and should have been cooked longer, but all in all, it settled somewhere between the "that was alright" and the usual "meh" of the October viewings. Usually, all it takes is a small thing standing out, a key feature or character or setting element, for it to be raised higher in my mind, but even the memorably bleak town was not fleshed out enough -- I needed it to have a ... darker past to explain this depression that lingered on it, not just typical dying middle America.

Wednesday, April 13, 2022

3 Short Paragraphs: The 355

2022, Simon Kinberg (X-Men: Dark Phoenix) -- download

Are we surprised that the director of X-Men: Dark Phoenix directed had a movie flop at the box office? I am surprised that this very mediocre Women With Guns thriller actioner even made it to the theatre. But considering how utterly bland the X-Men movie was, I am not surprised that this one was very much by the books, which means, I was not all that put out by it. Again, just confused that it actually made it to the cinema when it felt more along the Straight To vibe of flicks like MI-5 which had being a spin-off of a TV series to blame.

Jessica Chastain (Ava) is a Mace, a CIA agent who loses her partner Nick (Sebastian Stan, Pam & Tommy) in an op gone wrong, right after she breaks her no-emotional-connection rule and and has smoochy smoochy with Nick.  The op was to recover a McGuffin, some sort of magical HDD that contains a program (with appropriately flash interface) that can interface with any network, any! Now its on the loose. Mace then travels around gathering a crew of other Women With Guns to hunt down the McGuffin and exact revenge for Nick's death. They include Diane Kruger (The Bridge), Penelope Cruz (Murder on the Orient Express), Lupita Nyong'o (Black Panther) and eventually Bing Bing Fan (X-Men: Days of Future Past).

So yeah, by the books. So that means we have some tense chase scenes in exotic European locales, at least one fancy dress party that needs to be infiltrated assisted by fancy tech (pretty much exactly like a recent episode of Picard) and eventually a twisty reveal (which wasn't much of a surprise) and confrontation in another exotic locale. The acting and production values are all pretty tight, if uneventful, but there was not enough of the stuff around the edges (as I mentioned when writing about Ava) to make it... interesting. A better version of this would be gathering women, with guns, from other existing movies and doing an Expendables style flick.

P.S. Are we wondering why it's called The 355 ? No, yeah and the incredibly boring reason is not worth explaining, in the worst (failed) attempt to create a franchise.

Tuesday, April 12, 2022

I Saw This!! Oscar Bait Edition

 I Saw This (double exclamation point) is our feature wherein Kent(yes!) or Toasty attempt to write about a bunch of stuff they watched some time ago and meant to write about but just never got around to doing so. But we can't not write cuz that would be bad, very bad.  Like, stoopid Pootin bad.

For the past few years (decades?) I've been pretty bad about seeing the Oscar nominated movies. The truth is, the types of movies that generally get nominated for Oscars aren't my preferred style of movie.  Then again, they're few people's preferred style of movie.  What the Academy Awards, and the attention they garner, present is the opportunity for the everyperson to elevate their movie-watching game.  But as the years drag on, it's become evident to me that the "elevated cinema" the Academy is interested in rewarding tend to be cut from the same cloth, more often than not.  They pepper in a populist choice or two for best picture (otherwise relegating them to technical categories) and they will often seed in a few dark horse choices for performers and picture, but the majority of their selections seem obvious...well, obvious for the academy.  This is not to say that nominated films and actors don't deserve the accolades, but they're rarely daring, and so often flooded with biopics and melodrama.  This isn't the Palm D'or.  There will be no Oscar for something like Titane.

This year, as a half-assed exercise I tried to jam into my viewing cycle some of the more notable nominated movies.  There was really no rhyme or reason for why I watched what I watched except that I made a list, sectioned off into "Must See", "Maybe" and "Nope".  Most of this ranking was based off critical reaction from the various movie podcasts I listen to or film reviewers I read.  My top three Must See movies, well, I still haven't seen, mainly because they're not on one of my streaming services yet (these were Licorice Pizza, Drive My Car, and The Worst Person In The World all which remain on my must see list even post-Oscars).  A couple on my Nope list actually won awards (Belfast, The Eyes of Tammy Faye), and most of the big winners were in my "Maybe" list.

all is not ok

The Awards ceremony, as you may have heard, was a bit of a shit show in the last hour.  There's enough commentary on
the slap that I won't spend much time on it except to say I felt very anxious when it happened and really bad for both Chris and Will...Chris is a hapless victim of whatever trauma Will is clearly working through.  A great essayist on Black culture on youtube, Fiq Da Signifier, did an off-the-cuff video on his Patreon delving into it with empathy for both men as well as its stupidity but the layers of context, both personal and cultural, that underpin it (a condensed version is public on youtube). 


The rest of the night was about the most enjoyable Oscars ceremony I've seen in years, and yet there's heavy criticism that the humour of the ceremony (basically roasting the nominees and film in general) and its weird editing of the technical awards (plus those stupid Twitter fan-voted categories that were naturally usurped by the Snyner-bros) was just chasing an audience that really doesn't care anyway.  Movies, as a thing, are becoming less and less relevant.  Kids would rather play video games, watch other kids dance on tik tok, watch other kids play video games on youtube, and binge anime and manga.  Television has caught up to and sometimes surpassed film in quality, and there's no shortage of content to pull people away from theatres, nevermind the impact of the pandemic.  The relevance of the Oscars maybe should pull inward.  Instead of trying to appeal to a broader crowd, it should really go insular, and make the Academy Awards show more of a fly-on-the-wall, real insider-like ceremony. 


I dunno.  Let's talk about some movies I watched.  I was really keen to write about these before the ceremony, but I ran out of time, and I'm a lot less interested in doing so now.


---


Being the Ricardos
(2021, d. Aaron Sorkin - AmazonPrime) was on my "Maybe" list.  I thought that the choices made for Lucy and Ricky were a little odd, as Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem aren't exactly known for their comedic chops.  But as Oscar co-host Amy Schumer so astutely pointed out on the big night, Being the Ricardos is not a comedy.  It's a moment in time drama about Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in the prime of their run of I Love Lucy.

This is a movie from Aaron Sorkin, who, as a writer and creator, and I guess filmmaker, appeals so distinctly to Boomers.  The Social Network is his only work that stands outside of the rest of his output, mainly because of the the Fincher-factor.  But if you will recall the short-lived Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which premiered alongside the other show that was about Saturday Night Live (but not SNL in name), only one was a comedy and one was a drama about comedy.  Well, it's the same thing here.  Sorkin isn't interested in making a funny movie, nor is he really that interested in what made I Love Lucy or its stars funny, he's interested in the drama behind the scenes.

The moment-in-time the film is engaged with is a fraught one... Lucy has been accused of being a communist as McCarthyism is on the rise, Desi is facing infidelity accusations, Lucy is now pregnant which you couldn't be on TV at the time, Desi is feeling his control on the show slip away, there's fighting with everyone: producers, network, writers, sponsors, cast members, and each other.  It's a lot.  There's no calm.  Sorkin puts you at the center of a storm with no respite , the dialogue is non-stop (a Sorkin specialty).  There are flashbacks, showing how Lucy and Desi first met, or some classic Lucy bits, and there are wholly unnecessary and distracting "modern day" talking heads trying to editorialize what we're watching as we watch it. 

The point is, less than halfway through the film I was exhausted with it.  I got the gist of what Sorkin was doing and I really didn't care.  As great as the actors all were (Kidman especially really did something special and disproved the nay-sayers) it's a tiresome movie, and not something I felt I needed to finish.  I'm much more interested in Amy Pohler's documentary, Lucy and Desi, which is probably time better spent.

---


Given that my wife loves Shakespeare and generally likes the Coens, it's surprising that it took us a couple months before we decided to sit down for The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021, d. Joel Coen - AppleTV+).  I neither love nor hate the Shakes, but it always will take a little motivation to get me to partake.  In this case, I believe it was a podcast talking about Kathryn Hunter's contorting portrayal of the witches.  And they were right, it's amazing.  The witches of Macbeth are usually three performers, but here, Hunter plays them first as a singular being with three voices, and through Coen's direction and Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography, there's one amazing shot of the witch reflected in two pools of water that makes them three.  


I was immediately smitten with Denzel Washington's performance as Lord Macbeth.  What I'm used to with Shakespeare is people adopting an accent and being theatrical, saying words but rarely in a way that seems to convey real understanding of what is said.  Most actors just seem like delivery vehicles for the word, and the performaces often seem set aside from the language.  Denzel, however, speaks his lines as if he understands the intent of every word.  He's not emoting while regurgitating, he's full-on inhabiting a role, not just doing a Shakespeare.  Expressing my delight early in the film, my wife pointed out that it was a massive step forward since Washington was in Much Ado About Nothing, which she opines was a terrible performance (I haven't seen it).


The set design is, for a second time this year (beside Villeneuve's Dune) to employ really brutalist design, very sparse, with big slabs of flat, unadorned surfaces, and a lot of sharp angles casting shadows.  Shooting in black and white, it's very striking, and the lighting so very precise as to create hard lines of black against white.  It's all quite staged, and yet it's something more than a play, but also not a conventional film.


A favourite critic of mine, Alonso Duralde, asked what the purpose of this adaptation of Macbeth was... as in Why now? What's it saying?  And ultimately if the movie disappointed him it's in not having such a purpose.  It really was a production put on by Coen to appease his wife, Francis McDormand, who really wanted to play Lady Macbeth.  I'm sure if like, say, West Side Story there had been some sort of modern commentary made, then the film would have been critically loved, rather than just liked.  I kind of agree.  But as *just* a presentation of a Shakespeare work, it's really pretty good.  I only nodded off once.


---

There's not really a good poster for this moive.
This is perhaps the most interesting but it's also
the most off-putting "theatre kid" version

Basically at the bottom of my "Maybe" list was
Tick, Tick...BOOM! (2021, d. Lin Manuel Miranda - Netflix).  I talked about my feelings on musicals in my West Side Story write up, but that's not the be-all and end-all to my feelings on musicals.  It's an ever-evolving opinion.  I started that review stating that "I don't like musicals", and by the end I had proven that untrue.  But I certainly don't have passion for musicals.  I don't avidly seek them out, I don't care much to listen to cast recordings (last week I queued up the 1999 Broadway revival of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown" on Spotify but am unlikely to ever really listen to it).


So what finally drew me into Tick, Tick...Boom!, a musical biopic about the guy who wrote Rent (a musical I've never seen, which, while beloved in its time, has been critically reassessed in the past 15 years)?  It's kind of sad, honestly, but the draw was two-fold: first, seeing Andrew Garfield again in Spider Man: No Way Home reminded me that I do like him as a performer, and then finding out that Toast and Kent's favourite switching princess VanHudg was in it (only to be disappointed in how minimal a role she plays).


Unlike many a Letterboxd hipster millennial, I've not tired of Lin Manuel Miranda.  I don't spend much time on social medias and I haven't seen a million Miranda memes, but it was evident that much of Tick, Tick... Boom!'s initial lack of resonance was this Maranda lash-back.  Yet, the opening five minutes of the film just pulled me right in.  Garfield, on a stage, before a live, if smallish, theatre crowd, fakes playing the piano but belts out the opening number so hard it looks like the veins in his neck are about to explode.  I can't even remember the song, but the emotion and investment Garfield exhibits just blew me away.  We're so used to lip synching on screen, that when we see someone *actually* belt out a tune on camera it's really, really powerful ...see Anne Hathaway in Les Miserables or Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls...this is just as revelatory.


By the end of the film, I was just completely enamoured. While not a single song stuck in my head, I found more than a few of them, most of them in fact, to be surprising and likeable, as opposed to static and du rigueur.  The film is adapted to the screen from Jonathan Larson's biographical stage musical, which is about how he tried to make a dystopian sci-fi musical out of college and, despite garnering some good attention, failed.  Of all the musicals I've seen, I've never seen an autobiographical one, and it's such a more intimate experience than the usual fare.  Only once, during an early number, cutting between different members of the ensemble in different locations singing and dancing, did it feel theatre-kid stagey.  Otherwise there's a rawness that feels so very fresh.


The film jumps between the live, on stage performance of Garfield-as-Larson, and the story in the film as he tells it.  A lot of the musical numbers are done within the story as Larson tries to bring his first effort, "Superbia" to life.  He's a struggling artist, working at a diner, often sacrificing his relationships for his art.  It's a real "how the bread gets made" story, behind the scenes of how young theatre talent evolve into broadway hit makers. It's certainly not a world I've been exposed to, although it mirrors most my-life-is-my-art narratives.


I'll get to Will Smith in the Venus and Serena superhero origin story shortly, but I thought Garfield's performance was the strongest of the five nominees this year (and I actually saw all of them).  I should also note that Tick, Tick...BOOM! made the top 5 list in the oscar's Twitter fan vote for best film (not that it really was a realiable measure of anything considering the bad faith incel edgelords who stacked the vote for an unheard of Johnny Depp movie and Snyder's Army of the Dead).

---



Summer of Soul (or When the Revolution Could Not Be Televised) (2021, d. Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson - Disney+) was the obvious frontrunner for best documentary feature.  It's an uplifting story of discovery and rediscovery, while also grounding itself with an honest portrayal of the social politics of the time.


The Harlem Cultural Festival was held over 6 weeks in 1969.  It was a respite from the overwhelming events of the era - the deaths of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the Kennedys, the civil rights protests- turned-horror shows, riots - there wasn't a lot to celebrate.  But Black music was only getting more powerful, more prominent, and a definite unifier of the community.  The festival was a sponsored event, and was put together in part with the goodwill of John Lidnsey, the then Mayor of New York who was invested in the well-being of the Black community, if only for votes, but maybe more.


The Festival featured acts like Stevie Wonder, The 5th Dimension, Nina Simone, B.B. King, David Ruffin, Gladys Knight and the Pips, as well as activists and leaders like Jesse Jackson, and comedians Moms Mabley and Willie Tyler & Lester.  The crowds were packed show after show after show, this was something monumental.  The moon landing happened during the festival and, at least for the attendees, was a distant second of interesting things happening at that time.


The festival organizer had the forethought to film the entire event, and worked with the production crew to ensure the stage and space was set up in a way that would take advantage of the natural light.  The hope was to sell the footage to a network for replay but the narrow-mindedness/systemic racism of 1969, the networks thought it wouldn't attract viewers or sell ads, and so the footage was stashed away in a basement for 50 years before being recently rediscovered and restored.


Questlove's documentary isn't just playing footage of the Festival, which, on its own, would have been astounding.  It's an examination of the times in which the Harlem Cultural Festival inhabited, but also the director gets talking heads of people who were actually there, both performers and attendees.  Some who were there were only children, and without much documented on the festival, had thought it was perhaps just a dream, and are moved by seeing the footage.


Seeing these in-the-moment performers, some at the height of their popularity, some just starting to explode, is pretty powerful stuff.  Most "live" musical performances from the 60s is talk show footage where the singers are lip-syncing to album tracks and pretending to play instruments.  Sly and the Family Stone singing "I Want to Take You Higher" live is like an aural explosion.  It moved me, as did Stevie jamming out on his organ, so blissfully, and Nina Simone proselytising Black love and self love is so full of power and beauty.


I can only imagine that someone is working on securing all the song rights and shopping all this footage around to streaming services for a hefty penny, because all of this is gold that needs to be shared and preserved.

---



Now as powerful as Summer of Soul is, my pick for best Documentary for 2021 is Flee (2021, d. Jonas Poher Rasmussen - AmazonPrime).  I'm sure most people are wondering just what Flee is.  And maybe their only familiarity with it is the fact that it was nominated for Best Documentary, Best Animated and Best Foreign Feature at the Academy Awards this year, a first that's not likely to be repeated any time soon.


This film burrowed deep and moved me to tears, frequently. It is indeed an animated documentary, as adult Amir (the animation is in part used to conceal his identity) details to the director (and long-time friend) his harrowing story, and revealing the truth of his story for the first time.  The retelling captures the temperature shift of politics in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, from peaceful and prosperous to war-torn, to having to run following the fall of communism only to wind up in a differently bad situation in the only country that would take them as refugees, Russia.  Life in Russia seems a miserable experience even in the best of circumstances, but as a POC refugee, it's a literal hell, facing harassment the most from the police.  Amir, in the retelling, it is evident, has PTSD from his time there.


The attempts to leave Russian to the Scandinavian countries are heart wrenching and horrifying.  Having seen dramatizations of the horrors of human trafficking on TV and movies, I knew things could get really really bad, and was preparing for the worst in the telling. But reality isn't TV or Movies, most of the time, and where we may think the worst is death, sometimes surviving these situations seems even more the worst-case scenario, the scars they leave on one's psyche.


We see, intercut with Amir's narration of his history, his life modern day, and the toll his past trauma has had on his relationship with his fiancee.  It's not a documentary just about a particular place or event, it's rounded picture of one very specific story that puts us deep into Amir's whole journey over 30 years.  That Amir is gay is just a subtle undercurrent.  Coming out stories tend to be center focus of entire documentaries, here, it's just one small facet that Amir didn't have the luxury to contemplate for a very, very long time, and once he did it frightened him intensely.


In one of the most moving aspects of his story, Amir tells of finally feeling settled into his new home in Denmark, prospering in school, and feeling resolved enough to visit family in Sweden (he told the Danish authorities that his whole family was dead when seeking asylum...his fear of being found out, and the repercussions that may fall  is why he remains anonymous in the film).  But after years separated he feared his family finding out he was gay, that as alone as he has been at least he knew he still had family elsewhere.  He feared his family would reject him, ostracise him, and that he would truly be alone.  Amir's narration throughout the film is so matter-of-fact for much of it, a steely, shut-down demeanour he's had to adopt to survive, but the vulnerability is just boiling under the surface, all the hurt and pain and trauma, yes, but also the joys and triumphs appear to be too much, too dangerous, threatening to crack the facade.  But when it cracks, it's one of the most affecting moments I've ever seen, and it makes me tear up just thinking about it.  I've tried to retell this moment to a few people and I myself break down from the weight of it all.


Flee was not destined to be the best animated movie in a year where Encanto so expertly defied all-ages animation conventions.  Flee's, rotoscoping is effective enough to do the job its there to do, and that its animated allows the "flashbacks" to contain details that may otherwise be hard to recreate.  Meanwhile, the film also intercuts footage from global news sources in live action as grounding points during transition times... it's very effective and captivating.  Flee I knew would also not be the best foreign feature because a couple of heavyweight entries in that category (Drive My Car, The Worst Person in the World, both critically adored juggernauts), which I kept hearing about for months, yet nothing about Flee.  But I thought it had the best shot at winning best doc, and likely would have if not for the potency of a very American story in Summer of Soul.


The journey in Flee is so alien to me, but it is told from its first person perspective so beautifully, that it removes the separation.  Amir's weary animated face and burdened tone are so empathetic, that even though you may not relate to his experiences, you can indeed feel the weight they have and how those memories and his fear weigh down his life.  The events in Afghanistan, like those in Iran as detailed in Persepolis are exactly what fervent conservatives are trying to push around the globe, police states that will only prosper for those who fit the mould and fall in line.  It's a beautiful, powerful, emotional movie, but take it also as a warning.

---



In his 5-minute long, tear-filled, rambling acceptance speech(/apology) for Best Actor at the 94th Academy Awards ceremony, Will Smith was having a moment. Having just barely an hour before stomped up on stage and slapped Chris Rock in the face for a stupid joke Rock made about Jada Pinkett-Smith's hair (Rock apparently unaware, like I was, of her alopecia), Smith was attempting to explain, but not condone his own actions.  He was regretful, apologetic (though not to Rock), and a mess of emotions poured out.  This angst-invoking drama soiled the evening, ruined Questlove's ability to give an acceptance speech for best documentary feature, and basically will be the thing Smith is most remembered for in spite of a massive career.  But, letting go of this, what was evident from the "speech" was that playing Richard Williams had a profound affect upon him, one that he's still wrestling with in his inner monologue.


Richard Williams was the overbearing, overprotective, and complicated patriarch of the Williams family that birthed two of the greatest tennis stars in history.  His unapologetic and relentless efforts in coaching and then bullying their way into an otherwise closed, elitist system made a huge impact in what was (and by-and-large still is) a predominantly white, upperclass sport.


Williams worked a lot to ensure his five girls would have the best they could possibly get.  When he was home he was making sure everyone was studying and setting their ambitions high.  Nobody was going to get in the way of their success, even if it meant he had to take a few lumps, and in one particular moment, consider killing a man, in order to keep them safe.  


His hucksterism, his ability to promote, was shameless, but it had to be. His dishevelled appearance and stilted gait was likely to get him arrested if not for his disarming smile, pluck and civility.  It didn't hurt that, when put on display, Venus and Serena had the goods.  But the most telling aspect of Willaims was that he always wanted his girls to enjoy life, to enjoy what they were doing.  The only pressure he put upon them was to be as good as they wanted to be.  Getting into country clubs or competitions put them in stark contrast with the mostly white kids who, after a loss, would berate themselves followed by a berating from their parents.  He led with love...mostly.


I wasn't thrilled with King Richard when it was announced.  A Venus and Serena movie but centered around their dad?  In the lead into the Oscars though it became evident that, as producers, this was a story Venus and Serena wanted told, their father, in spite of his flaws, made them what they were.  They could not be where they are without him.  He was one in a hundred million, so driven to see his children succeed, even if his initial motivations were perhaps self serving.  Watching the film, you almost have to see it from the perspective of his children to get it.  From outsider standpoints he's a challenging personality, but to those girls he was their dad and he fought tirelessly to give them everything he thought they deserved.


Will Smith doesn't disappear in the role...he can't.  He's Will Smith.  But it's a performance delivered with conviction, one that seems to have resonated with him deep down.  It's evident he has some hurt in his past, relating to his own father, and mother, and that in being a father and a husband he may have some guilt.  Playing Williams, he said, taught him about protecting your family at all costs....  Smith talked about having to protect his co-stars, particularly the young girls playing his daughters.  Through his connection with them he started talking at Venus and Serena in a balcony booth, as if he had to protect them as his own daughters.  We don't know Smith as a method actor, but somewhere in the making of King Richard and likely in writing his own memoir, not to mention the public display of their private life his wife started relating, he got lost, confused.


It's a good movie, but not great.  It's a superhero origin story for Venus and Serena, and the last act is largely young Venus (Saniyya Sidney) in the spotlight.  The film shows us some of the hardships, but seems to whitewash what I'm sure was plenty of racism along the way.  The filmmakers want this to be that  pleasant type of Oscar bait that's an uplifting experience for everyone ... and nothing tamps that sentiment down like white guilt. 


Honestly, I would like a sequel, but with more focus on the two champions in their teen years and more insight into their lives, thoughts and experiences.  And maybe less of an intensive experience for Smith.


---


Dune (2021, d. Denis Villeneuve - in theatre) was probably the big winner of the evening, pulling in many, many technical awards.  Toast and I have been ...what's the opposite of working on?... noodling with a collaborative review for months now, not getting very far...but one day it will come together... so you can wait until then for our thoughts...but the short answer is Toasty loved it, and I liked it, but sure to like it more when Part 2 comes out and tells a complete story.


-fin-


Monday, April 11, 2022

10 for 10: Migraine

[10 for 10... that's 10 movies which we give ourselves 10 minutes apiece to write about.  Part of our problem is we don't often have the spare hour or two to give to writing a big long review for every movie or TV show we watch.  How about a 10-minute non-review full of half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable?] 

In this edition:
The Mask of Zorro - 1998, d. Martin Campbell (Netflix) 
Jumanji: The Next Level - 2019, d. Jake Kasdan (AmazonPrime)
F9 - 2021, d. Justin Lin (rental)
Turbo Kid -  2015, d. François Simard, Anouk Whissell, Yoann-Karl Whissell (AmazonPrime)
Dog Days - 2018, d. Ken Marino (on demand)
Unstoppable - 2010, d. Tony Scott (Disney+/Star)
Charade - 1963, d. Stanley Donen (Netflix)
Police Story - 1985, d. Jackie Chan (Crave)
Police Story2 - 1988, d. Jackie Chan (Crave)
Wing Chun - 1994, d.  Woo-Ping Yuen (dvd)

---

I really wanted nothing to do with a Zorro movie when it came out 20+ years ago. The property was so old-world to me, that I questioned why, why revive a property that had been long in the tooth even 15 years earlier? I now realize that the franchises of any era are built on the childhood nostalgia of the producers who are in their 40's and 50's at the time, so with pulp heroes like The Phantom, The Shadow, Dick Tracy and Tarzan all getting a go in the 90's, of course Zorro was an option. 

Also no property is ever dead if there's the possibility of making money off it. 

Even at that time, 1998, I knew there was something off about casting British (Hopkins) and Spanish (Banderas) actors as a Mexican folk hero (especially when the Spanish are the enemy in the film).  Were this made today there would certainly be some noise about it (I think there was even at the time but calling out that kind of casting barely made a dent back then).

But, you know, that aside, (if you can put such things aside) it's a pretty fun romp about legacy and choosing to serve greater good over self, and of course both Hopkins (who I assumed was a mistake) and Banderas are just charismatic as fuck.  Zeta-Jones, though a big part of the film, is basically the cliched reactive female of these sorts of things.  I was hoping she would have a more to do.

It's perhaps a smidge overlong, but quite, quite watchable, a testament to Campbell's keen sense of adventure and a script that plays nicely with themes of legacy.

---


Jumanji: The Next Level
 is a surprisingly entertaining return to the video-game reality established in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. Spencer, having seemingly come out of his shell after the last Jumanji adventure finds that his newfound bravado was short lived, and he longs for the Rock-like strength and willpower he had in the game.  After he disappears into the game his confused romantic interest Martha joins him, but so do his grandpa Eddie (Danny Devito) and Eddie's antagonistic friend and former business partner Milo (Danny Glover).  And unfortunately for Spencer, it's Eddie in Rock's body and Milo get into Kevin Hart's compact frame.

Honestly, after many months, I can't really tell you too much about the events of the film, except to say that Dwayne Johnson's Devito impersonation is great fun, but it's Hart's Danny Glover impression made me laugh every single moment on screen.  The avatars of Jumanji are a suitable mask to explore the emotional subtext of the exterior world, the only problem being we don't really care so much about those characters in the exterior world.  While Spencer's feelings of disappointment and insecurity are pretty much expected, it was the emotional underpinning of Eddie and Milo's septuagenarian friendship that really lifted this movie out of its middle ground.  There's a whole body-swapping bit in the middle of the picture which gives all the main performers a chance to play as each other, with Karen Gillen getting to really show off her versatility.

There's a plenty of action, most of it fairly non-descript and excessively video-gamey (apt for a video-game movie but not altogether exiting).  Overall, enjoyable, but, like the first one, ultimately forgettable, or, at best, kind of indistinguishable from one another.

---


F9, the Fast and Furious Saga
, just as with each film in the series before it, takes things to another level.  Somehow the budgets get bigger, the action more unbelievably ridiculous, the mythology more intricately (though far from delicately) woven, and the family keeps expanding.

In F9, we get our first ever flash-back sequences, to a young Dom Teretto and his heretofore unheard of brother Jakob as they help their father as pit crew for his race car.  But when Dom learns that Jakob helped his dad rig his car to fail, thus throwing the race, but causing a fatal accident killing their dad, well, family apparently doesn't mean enough to young Dom.

Now, the world's in danger because Jakob (in the form of John Cena, supposedly Vin Diesel's older brother) has allied with some maniac and a returning Cypher (Charlize Theron in a veeery bad wig) and only Dom can stop him.  There's some other nonsense with the rest of the gang too, including bringing back supposedly dead Han and, independently of that, some of the other crew from Tokyo Drift who are now rocket scientists for the sole reason that they'll need to launch Roman and Tej into space.  Yeah, they go to space... in a car... what of it?

Helen Mirren gets a driving sequence (and wakes Vin Diesel out of his acting coma, seriously there's infinitely more heat between Mirren and Diesel that between Diesel and any of his other female co-stars in any of his other films...he kind of lights up when she's around...but I mean, who wouldn't?) and there's a whole wonderfully absurd sequence involving magnets that has to be seen to be believed (but even then you won't believe it).  Dom at one point even pulls a whole building down upon the dozens of bad guys rushing him because he performs herculean feats now.

I'll pull no punches, this movie is insanely dumb, but it knows it's dumb and doesn't care.  In fact it embraces it, and has fun...it's really only Diesel, for the most part, who is taking the whole thing seriously, bless him.  I can't believe they make these films. I can't believe I watch these films. I can't believe I like these films. I can't believe so many other people like these films too.

---


Toasty really seemed quite taken with Turbo Kid in his review years ago, and it stuck with me.  But I couldn't get past the very Canadian appearance of it's poster...plus Michael Ironside is who Canadian low-budget filmmakers get to add gravitas (because they can't afford Bruce Willis or Nic Cage). As I've established many times in this blog, I have Canadian inadequacy issues, and it keeps me from even attempting to enjoy most Canadian film and television.  

But, sometimes all one really wants is something familiar, but also new.  You know, a simple order for a Sunday afternoon.

Turbo Kid is a post-apocalyptic science-fiction adventure film about a lone teenager who manages to survive the roving gangs and toxic lands with dreams and aspirations of being a hero like Turbo Man from his comic books.  He meets a quirky, perky, yet completely capable girl named Apple who follows him around like a lost puppy despite his protestations.  They get in trouble with the big mob boss of the wastelands (Michael Ironside) but team up with a rambling vigilante to fight him change the landscape of the wasteland.

The aesthetic of the film is intentionally retro 80's futuristic, as it's post-apocalyptic time period is 1997, which for a film made in 2015 is just so cheeky but they do a great job with it.  While being a pretty clean adventure film with a young protagonist, the storytelling aesthetic is paired with a ridiculously cartoonish level of gore.  It takes what would otherwise be a PG movie into a hard R rating.  It's quite absurd, the blood spray and kill gags which seem so out of step with this otherwise kind of innocent seeming po-ap-for-kids story.  I think it's ultimately what distinguishes it, but it's also quite a barrier to get over.

---


Dog Days
 is yet another quasi-anthology/ensemble cast romcom in the vein of Love, Actually or New Year's Eve or Valentine's Day or any of those other holiday themed romcoms.  Here, it's centred around people with dogs (or people without dogs, as it were). 

Nina Dobrev (Love Hard) is a morning news show host who has a big time will they/won't they with her new cohost (Tone Bell) which becomes more "they will" when their  dogs take a shining to one another.  Meanwhile, Vanessa Hudgens (The Princess Switch) is a coffee shop employee crushing on the cute veterinarian (Michael Cassidy) who patronizes her establishment, but befriends the dorky Jon Bass (who has been crushing on her) and starts volunteering at his animal care shelter.   Eva Longoria and Rob Coddry are new parents to an adopted 9-year-old with whom they are having trouble connecting, but when a stray dog is brought home, the girls starts to open up.  But that stray dog is the beloved pet of lonely widower Ron Cephas Jones, who winds up befriending his nuisance teenager, Finn Wolfhard as he helps him look for the dog.  

These are the main threads, but the cast is stacked with others in LA's comedy scene (and from the sketch comedy troupe The State which director Ken Marino was a part).  These include Adam Pally, Jessica St. Clare, Thomas Lennon, Lauren Lapkus, Jon Gemberling, Ryan Hansen, David Wain and Tig Notaro.

Given the talent involved, this should be a far funnier film than it is, but it's not actually trying to lean into the rom or the com.  It's just trying to be like every one of these romcom anthologies, which means it's just the same mixed bag that they all are.  It's not an outright disaster but it leans too hard into the sentimentality and tries too hard to tug at the heart strings and you can see the results coming a mile off.  The main Dobrev story is weakend by the terrible attempt at recreating a morning talk show vibe (they're typically unscripted and this is so scripted).  Hudgen's arc is much better mostly because, well, it's Hudgens, but it suffers a bit with just how dorky Jon Bass plays his role...it's supposed to be charming, but always smacks a bit of desperation.  The adoptive parent story and the runoff into the Jones/Wolfhard story are both emotionally resonant, but don't fit well into the romcom mainline vibe. 

It's not the worst of this style of film.

----


In 2010, Tony Scott made a movie about a runaway train with Denzel Washington and Chris Pine called Unstoppable.  Through a series of silly misfortunes, a train manages to take off, gaining speed, without a conductor.  It's carrying hazardous materials, and at a certain point it will hit a bend which will cause it to tip over and contaminate a whole Pennsylvanian town. The events of the film follow the various employees and the corporate train overlords, as well as a couple of hero conductors as they all independently plot on what to do about stopping that dang train.

It's not an outright silly movie concept, and were it made in the 70's there would be a very grounded feel to it, as well as a very modest amount of action.  In Tony Scott's hands, this thing just keeps ramping up, with the train crashing into things and helicopters and hopping from train to train and all sorts of blue collar heroics.

The film tries very very hard to feel like it's at the blue collar level, peppering the dialogue with "train speak" and union talk, and it looks to speak directly to the blue collar workers of America.  But how many of them look like Chris Pine, Denzel Washington or Rosario Dawson? There's got to be a few right, and of course if anything bad were to happen, the prettiest ones would step up to save the day.  But that's Hollywood.  Scott wants this to be both grounded in lower-middle class America and also have all the glamorous facade of Hollywood.  He achieves both but they really don't fit together well.

I don't know if this film birthed the term "peril fatigue" - describing how the increasing stakes and dangers of a story ultimately become tiresome and tedious - but it definitely fits the bill.  I found this film to be more exhausting than exciting.

---


I'll be honest, I started writing this, the last 10-for-10 ever (or so he says), about 6 weeks ago.  I also stopped writing it about 6 weeks ago.  Why? Because I've kind of forgotten everything about Charade, which I watched over half a year ago now.

Looking to pilfer what I wrote in Letterboxd, all I came up with was:
Is it worth watching Audry Hepburn and Carey Grant be witty and playful with each other for almost two hours? Yes, it absolutely is.
Seriously, it's like a charm duel between these two, and everyone's a winner.
I mean, I kinda just want to watch it again.

I just took another 5 minutes to read the Wikipedia synopsis which did remind me that, yes, in spite of my failing memory, I had seen the film.  The plot is fairly fleet involving death and deception, but it's sort of a pithy comedy.  On the romantic side, Hepburn and Grant should seem like an ill-suited pair, given their age difference, and yet, they basically speak the same language the same way, so the attraction quickly becomes palpable. 

It's obviously not keenly memorable -- visually, nothing sticks out in memory -- but it remains quite enjoyable nearly 60 years later.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
---

The other day I was thumbing through my "Diary" on letterboxd to see just how many movies I gave 5* to, and the results were...well, not many, but more than I thought.  Star rating is not something we do here on the blog, because I think Toasty and I agree that those kinds of ratings systems are problematic.  I mean how do you give a classic like The Third Man 4 stars, and also give a cheapy holiday romance like Under The Christmas Tree the same 4*.  Well...it's because it's not the same 4*.  Those two movies are ranked on completely different scales in relation to one another. 

Much in the same way a decent, if forgettable, holiday romance would get 2* but also Jackie Chan's classic stunt-fest Police Story also only gets 2*?  It's a Criterion selection, and the letterboxd average puts the film at a 4.0?  What's going on here?

Well, here's the deal.  Police Story isn't a very good movie.  It's not even a good movie.  It's a very bad movie with some amazing stunts.  

I was so very excited to watch Police Story and I was definitely not expecting what I got. I tried so hard not to view this with the detached western ironic gaze but I couldn't help but laugh and laugh at so much of the early scenes, but the police breakdown of the targets, the subsequent bungled surveillance mission and resulting clusterfuck of a shootout. I often couldn't tell the difference between what was intentional comedy and what wasn't. That made me feel bad.

It's an ugly looking movie with an atrocious soundtrack, but obviously everything to do with Jackie Chan's physicality  --and the life-endangering stunts by he and his team -- are always marvellous to watch .  They are absolutely the draw and Chan's comedic abilities should also never be undervalued, with all the skills of a silent film master. But the majority of this was just so painful to watch, and I don't mean in the "oof, that's gotta hurt" kinda way. That courtroom scene was so cringe inducing. 

If you were to just watch the compilation of stunts on youtube, you wouldn't be missing anything.  


I was told Police Story 2 is superior, and well, that's true, it is, as reflected by my letterboxd rating of 3 1/2 (which puts it squarely in league with the top tier cheapo holiday romances) but if you were to ask me what stood out, what I took away, it would mainly be that Chan's character Chan Ka-kui is such an awful boyfriend to Mai (a fully put-upon Maggie Cheung) and it makes him rather unlikable.  

The comedy in this second feature is certainly much more heightened (and perhaps more obvious) than in the first, as well the characters here are much better defined (even if we like them less as a result).  Even the storytelling is more cohesive and not *just* a framework for building towards stunts.  The production quality is better, but Chan is only marginally a better director than the last go around.

I really like Jackie Chan's on screen persona, he's got a million-dollar smile, and his energy is infectious.  His physical talents and comedic sensibilities are beyond reproach, and yet I really don't like either of these films.  I appreciated more attention to story on the second, but it seems to have come at the expense of stunts, and the first one's singular fixation on phyiscal gags makes the story a slog to get through.

The third police story co-stars Michelle Yeoh, and though I have yet to see it I can absolutely declare it the best of the franchise....

---


I've had a little crush on Michelle Yeoh since first seeing her in Tomorrow Never Dies, but cemented when someone, not long after, invited me to a screening of Wing Chun.

If you're not absolutely steeped in wuxia films all the time, then I have a sneaking suspicion that your favourites are almost always going to be the first few you see.  Wing Chun, Iron Monkey, Legend of the Drunken Master, and Zu Warriors from the Magic Mountain are going to be hard to ever top, because they are cemented in my mind as the best of the genre... maybe it's because they were presented to me as such.  I don't watch wuxia often (or often enough) and I find it tedious to wade through the melange of cgi messes in order to find the gems that still get made (I'm sure).  I don't even watch classic wuxia enough because I don't really have a guide to help me wade through the miasma of dreck that surround the stone cold classics.  And I don't even watch the ones that I have genuine affection for enough, because my precious screen time these days is so given over to watching new things.

That all said, I think Wing Chun is my favourite.  I dig it so hard.  And it's not just that Michelle Yeoh is so pretty, and graceful, and badass in this movie (ok, yeah, it's mostly that) but it's also really, sincerely funny.  It's basically a 1980's style sex comedy/rom com in wuxia form that dabbles in misguided, backwards gender politics but comes out the other side sort of ok.  I mean, it's patently absurd that Wing Chun's childhood best friend (I mean, Donnie Yen, c'mon!) would return some ten years later and both not recognize her but also mistake her for a man... I mean...Michelle Yeoh, one of the most beautiful women in the world...a man... right.  

Directed by master choreographer Yeun Woo-ping, this is just an astounding display of what he does best.  I like the wire work here better than The Matrix or Crouching Tiger...better than most movies.  The cast here does everything asked of them perfectly (no matter how regressive it may be),  and in the end the three female characters are decidedly the strongest of the feature, each in their own distinct way. 

---
I started this post months ago with a migraine, and now I'm ending it with a headache, so...progress?
As noted (somewhere) this will be the last 10-for-10.  It's proving to be more inhibitive to posting than helpful in getting more reviews done. I'm sure I start some other similarly stupid means of trying to crank out more posts that won't hold water after the first few attempts....

-fin-



Thursday, April 7, 2022

I Saw This!! What I Have Been Watching: A Long Long Look Back, Pt. E - I Suppose They're All Radomalia

I Saw This (double exclamation point) is our feature wherein Kent(!) or Toasty attempt to write about a bunch of stuff they watched some time ago and meant to write about but just never got around to doing so. But we can't not write cuz that would be bad, very bad.  Freedumb Convoy bad.

What I Have Been (or Am) Watching is the admitted state of me spending too much time in front of the TV. But what else was the last few years about? Sure, we got a few breaks from being confined at home, and might have actually gone outside (gasp!) and socialized with (double-gasp!) human beings (faint-dead-away) but we always ended up back on the sofa, flicker in hand, trying to find something to watch amidst the 35 shows we downloaded, and the 5 or so streaming services we are subscribed to.

Part A is here. Part B is here. Part C is here. Part D is over there

And yet, I still regularly go looking for something new to watch. I just need something to enthrall me, something to entertain me long enough to not pick up my phone 10,000 times, something that doesn't have me nodding off after one 9pm stout. 

Only Murders in the Building, 2021, Hulu/download

Kent wrote about it closer to when it actually came out, but I wasn't writing about TV then.

I actually loved this show, and it fit much closer to what I wish to watch, when using my time... well. You see, we have our "shows of the season", those shows we actively look to download or catch week to week on a streaming service. Most keep my attention, or we wouldn't make the effort, but few enthrall me. This did. Maybe not in the obsessive way the main characters obsessed over true crime podcasts, but at least I put my phone down.

Brazzos Charles-Haden Savage (Steve Martin, The Jerk; and not Thomas Haden Church), Oliver Putnam and Mabel Mora (Selena Gomez, The Dead Don't Die; ohhhh those NAMES !) live in the Arconia, a high-end, Upper West Side Manhattan (it always seems necessary to identify the section of NYC, to impart... socioeconomic placement) apartment building. Savage had a run on a popular copy show (Brazzos), Putnam had some mild success on Broadway and Mora is basically squatting in her rich aunt's apartment claiming to be renovating it. They don't know each other and very likely would not like each other, but for the murder of a fellow tenant and their shared fondness for true crime podcasts. None of them are really doing much, but Oliver needs a new success, or he will lose everything, so he drags the other two into doing their own podcast in order to sleuth out who killed Tim Kono.

The production values! The sets! The costuming! That coat! The jacket! Yes, the outfits Mabel wears, the ensembles of vintage choices, make her as iconic as LoFi Girl, but really all three dress definitively and live in incredibly distinctive locations. It may be shallow, but to me it tells of commitment to the production when they spend more than a bit on the set dressing.

The first episode was great, but the second felt a bit off kilter, prompting me to wonder if this was going to be the kind of series where different writers/directors would append their own views to the characters as well as the plots, something I always find jarring. I cannot remember the exact point, but something felt off about Martin's Savage character in the second episode. But I was happy it pulled back for the rest, and despite some rather creative choices made to subsequent episodes, it still all felt cohesive as a single series. And a great one!

Wolf Like Me, 2022, Amazon

** Spoiler Warning -- There is no point in talking about this show without spoiling it; but even the mention that there are spoilers might spoil something about it.

I had no interest in this series. The trailer did a great job of showing us a series that was probably about a metaphor, a woman with something dark and weird in her life, one that makes her spontaneously run away from the potential love interest. I expected it would be quirky but ultimately just another *yawn* metaphor for how hard life is. But Marmy started watching, so I stayed in the room.

Bing! It wasn't a metaphor. Of course she has to run away, and usually once a month, because she's a werewolf. I love werewolfs! Werewolves? Meh, werewolfs. So, yeah I love me some wolfie story, and despite my usual aversion to Josh Gad, I rather enjoyed this series. In fact, we pretty much binged it over three nights.

Gary (Josh Gad, Frozen) is an American living in Australia, the home of his late wife. He's not dealing well with her death, despite it being seven years prior, and is struggling to raise his daughter.  They bump into Mary (Isla Fisher, Arrested Development), and keep bumping into her. Mary is weird, and despite her connecting with Gary's daughter quite easily, she pulls away, or more accurately... runs away.

You see, as a werewolf, she has to run home once a month, close up her house bunker style, lock herself in the basement and ... change. She doesn't want to kill anyone (else) so lives off chickens, goats, etc. whatever she can get from suppliers, usually animals that didn't have long to live to begin with. When Mary was initially infected/cursed, she ate her husband and another nice couple on holidays. So she is rather hesitant to connect with Gary and his daughter, despite feeling some sort of destiny inspired connection to the two.

Gad is tolerable doing more drama than comedy, conveying a man who has never recovered from his loss, but is open to something new. Fisher's role is typical for her, kind of quirky, introspective and cute. It was a short "mini series" but just perfect considering what it wanted to present, and ends on a reveal that could lead somewhere, but doesn't have to.

The Book of Boba Fett, 2022, Disney+

A coworker, after I confessed I had an irrational dislike for Timothée Chalamet, asked what I thought of the mods in The Book of Boba Fett. I was luke-warm on them initially, not seeing how they fit into the Star Wars universe, but once I caught onto the joke (Mods vs Rockers) and saw that their speeder bikes were decked-out Vespas, I began to love them. It was such a terrible in-joke, that there has to be something sly going on there. But, in general, I could see how most straight-forward Star Wars Fans would loathe them, and with good reason. After the turmoil that was the final three movies in the franchise, Star Wars Fans are not up for different.

Boba is definitely different, despite the loads of fan service from other sources, as it takes the fan fav character, digs him out of the gut of the Sarlacc, and has him decide to become the new crime boss on Tattooine. Sure, weird flex, as the kids say, but as a trailer born plot point, it was kind of exciting. But for the point that he does such a terrible terrible job of going about it.

I loved watching each episode of this show, even as I watched him make terrible choices. It should have been a bad joke that he kept ending up back in the bakta tank. I think their intent was to say that is how legendary characters keep on coming back -- take tons of damage, one Cure Serious Wounds spell, and back to the action! But the fact he kept on getting battered & knocked around by just about every foe must have infuriated the fan who saw Boba as an epic warrior.

The two episodes of The Mandalorian were intentionally meant to be a catch up, but felt very very weird, even if you ignored Deep Fake Luke. I just felt that being so jarringly pulled out of the main plotline unnecessary, when they could have hinted at the changes, and left the full reveal to his next season.

But the fan service was incredible, even if you didn't know the characters from other sources, as they were just fun choices, especially Black Krrsantan.

Ken't take, and my original comment, as I wasn't expect to write about it at that time. We pretty much agree.