I saw Rise of the Skywalker on whatever day it came out.
That movie was a mess, dudes. Pacing was fucked, new major characters were introduced way too late in the series. The "Rey is a Palpatine" plot point was INCREDIBLY stupid.
Major end-beats for Poe and Finn and Rey were okay. The resolution of the Kylo Ren character was alright.
They should have just had Leia die early instead of trying to cobble a character together out of old footage.
It was clumsy, and I expect more out of movies that cost that much and have so many pros at the helm.
As much of a bummer as it is to say I think this is the last Star Wars movie I'm going to end up seeing because of how powerfully I haven't cared about the new trilogy.
So up until about a year ago if you asked me about the character Thor I'd go off on a several-minute rant about exactly why I despised him in the comics as well as the MCU. He was too straight-faced, he got caught in really stupid traps, he put others in danger because he was too trusting. It was like someone gave a credulous three year old lightning powers and a hammer.
I've been relaxing about Thor in comics for a while - Squirrel Girl was largely instrumental there - but I'd maintained my apathetic-to-actively-aggressive attitude toward the MCU Thor. The Thor films seemed tedious and overly earnest, the character was inflexibly THOR, confused Asguardian who doesn't understand you silly hu-mans.
Ragnarok fixed that for me. Thor gets to be really silly. Thor gets to talk about his ridiculous history with Loki. Thor puts his foot in his mouth talking to people who are equally godlike and immortal. Thor experiences consequences.
I loved what Ragnarok did for the character of Thor and I actually appreciated Loki's opportunities for growth as well.
The rest of the film, well, that wasn't stupendous. Almost everything involving Hela was tedious and frustrating to sit through, the time on Sakkar seemed to drag on and I actually didn't like the Grandmaster character at all (not as in he's a bad guy and you're not supposed to like him, as in he wasn't even fun to watch and the "whee I'm so zany" writing seemed really forced) though the post-credits scene was pretty great. The "save my people because Asgard is my people, not a place" thing was actually a decent motivation and they pulled it off well.
I also liked the other gladiators and enjoyed watching them but they were perhaps a bit too silly. They weren't awful, just maybe a bit misused or overdone? "Fuck off, ghost" is a great line but "Oh, my god, the hammer pulled you off?" is maybe taking the jokes a bit too far.
The movie as a whole wasn't really that fantastic (it did look great), which is a shame because Taika Waititi is fucking fantastic and I want him to make so many more movies, but it did loads to rehabilitate the character of Thor for me and I'm really glad for that.
Hey go watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KznZcK7ksf4
Okay that basically sums up my thoughts on Disney's Hercules.
I rewatched this with my sister recently and was really surprised at how manipulative the film was, especially because of the tone problem that Lindsay Ellis discusses so much in that linked essay.
There were at least two moments in the film where I was crying in spite of the cynicism I know was at the heart of the production and the zany song and dance numbers that bracketed the pathos-heavy parts of the film. It's fuckin weird to go from bright and shiny winning battles at Olympus to Meg bleeding to death internally while Hercules watches her die. That is dissonant and unpleasant but it happens so quickly that you can basically ignore it.
It's a weird movie.
BUT.
The songs are pretty great (not Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast great), the animation looks fantastic and the character design is some of Disney's strongest.
I first saw this film as a child when it was released with a big hullabaloo at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood. El Capitan does lots of Disney premiers - they'll set up movie-themed obstacle courses, include a kid's candy combo with a screen-printed cup in the cost of a ticket, and hand out little goodie bags of tchotchkes. I'm pretty sure I still have my deck of Hercules cards somewhere. I know I went through a labors-of-Hercules-themed bounce house.
I've got some pretty solid nostalgia linked with this flick, but even that isn't enough to fix the broken parts.
I recently re-watched Jurassic Park with my family and hot damn is that a good movie.
Some things are obviously a bit dated (the conflict with the park computer system is ridiculous in retrospect but I get that most folks in 1993 had no idea what computers or operating systems did) but the dino effects aren't and really that's a huge chunk of why the movie holds up.
But I think the bigger reason that the film still works and is so resonant is because of how well the characters and their relationships are written. Ellie and Alan are still fantastic, Alan's growing closeness to the Hammond kids is still organic and sweet, Ian Malcom's mania and prophecy is still hilarious and hilariously skeevy. These are great characters and I like watching them get chased by dinosaurs. That's the only reason I can forgive Jurassic Park 3. I still like seeing Dr. Grant run away from toothy monsters. Incidentally that's why I can't forgive Jurassic World - none of those characters are fun to watch surviving, and somehow it's not even fun to watch people getting eaten in that movie.
It's well known as an exciting movie, a scary movie, an exhilarating movie, but on this rewatch I realized just how charming Jurassic Park is. There's more sap to this film than just the stuff wrapped around ancient mosquitos but you hardly notice because your heart is pounding so hard. But Hammond is charming (and all the more terrifying for it). Alan and Ellie and Ellie's cajoling of Alan is charming.
These characters are so cute, so loveable - even the reprehensible Dennis Nedry is frustrated and lost and does little things that make us like him, even as we loathe him.
Anyway, it's still a great movie and the raptors are terrifying. Go watch Jurassic Park.
I saw a lot of praise for The Love Witch in 2016 and quietly added it to the checklist of movies in my brain under the heading of "I'd watch that but I'm not going to go out of my way for it."
I watched it last week and while I enjoyed it I'm glad that I didn't go to much trouble to see it (it's included in Amazon Prime and all I did was search Prime and then suddenly I was watching a movie.)
If you're into 70s exploitation flicks and witchcraft then oh boy is this the movie for you. It's not a great film, it doesn't have a great plot. But it's impressive for at least two major reasons:
1 - The visuals perfectly nail that dreamy, soft-focus 70s-almost-porno feel and it's beautiful. You have daytime interior shots that feel short and compressed and washed out and cramped contrasted with these beautiful exterior or isolated shots that are fuzzed around the edges and projecting rainbows. It's so pretty, and so well done.
2 - The acting looks like crap at first but when you remember the actors are aiming for that stilted, disconnected style and suddenly it's brilliant. The movie feels like a time capsule when it's really more like time travel.
And that's about all that I can really say for the movie. It does have this nice build of creeping horror and there were some moments when I felt genuinely unsettled, but it wasn't as engaging as I'd imagined from all the hype and I wasn't as invested as I like to be when I'm watching a movie.
If this were the kind of blog that gave stars I'd rate it about a 3 out of five - I probably wouldn't watch it again but I'm not mad that I saw it, and while I was a bit bored occasionally that was made up to me with the really fantastic art direction of the film.
I've meant to watch What We Do in the Shadows for years and just hadn't gotten around to it when finally I made the terrible decision to press play on my prime account at 2:45. I meant to just watch until my coffee finished brewing then go to bed, but then it was so great and I just had to watch the whole thing.
Look, I've only ever heard good things about this movie and as it turns out that's because it's a beautiful, perfect, adorable piece of art that I want to protect and cherish and show to everyone I know.
It's the funniest movie that I've watched in years, it's *so* sweet and charming, everyone and everything about the movie is perfect, it's shockingly well done for its very small budget, and the script is just so unbelievably good that I can't handle that it was written by humans.
This movie is PERFECT. It goes on my very short list of perfect movies (Legend, Galaxy Quest, Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Last Unicorn, Point Break, Dune - I will not argue these, these movies are great and I love them) and I want to watch it again today. THE SAME DAY. TWICE.
I'm so happy that I saw it and I want you to see it too. I know it's on a few streaming services but this is going into my very limited "I actually own this on a physical disc" collection.
IT'S SO FUCKING GOOD PLEASE WATCH IT I LOVE IT OKAY THANK YOU.
Kill Me Now is a low-budget horror/comedy flick written by and co-starring Michael Swaim, whose work I know and love best from Cracked.com. When Swaim left Cracked he started working on a project called Small Beans, and he shared the film on the Small Beans youtube channel.
I'd heard of the movie waaaaaay back when it was released in 2012 but was never really interested in seeking it out - it fell into my lap once I subscribed to Small Beans and I'm delighted that it did.
Kill Me Now is shockingly witty and wry for a faux teen horror flick - I like backwoods slasher movies like the Evil Dead, I like humorous serial killer stories like Dexter, and I like well done parodies like Airplane! (not like Vampires Suck). Kill Me Now manages to mix in a little bit of all of these and add in some of the best dialogue I've ever found in a teen slasher movie.
Michael Swaim is so friggin funny y'all.
It's not a perfectly made film; the acting is stilted sometimes and the staging and sets have a clear, low-budget look. But that kind of adds to the cheesy "we love Evil Dead and Wes Craven and Horror" feel of the thing.
I'm into it. If you're looking for a laugh at a slasher movie this is a good way to spend your time. You should go watch it, I hope you enjoy it.
On the one hand it's a wonderful example of Del Toro's lovely vision of fairy tales - that they are comforting lies that cover up evil in the world, that they are a potent narcotic lulling people into complacency because they are always the princess in the story and they believe they'll win someday even as they support the system that crushes them, that they are a beautiful trap - a dream we want to reach for that sucks us down under the surface and keeps us from breaking free.
On the other hand I had some issues with the framing of Elisa in the film.
Elisa believes that she is broken because society believes that she is broken - she bonds with the Amphibian because he doesn't see that there's anything "less than" about her. She is whole to him, he is whole to her - even though the rest of the world may see them as wrong they recognize that they are fine, it's society that's wrong.
Which is why I was so bothered by the singing scene where Elisa had her voice. The ending doesn't bother me so much - the world isn't accommodating of them so they go off to live in a world where their muteness or alienness isn't a barrier. In the happiest of endings this is perfect for the social model of disability - the other world they go to accommodates their needs. However some people have, correctly, brought up that Del Toro is essentially saying "these people have no place in this world, they are monsters who have to run away, and we cannot have them here." Which is, you know, pretty shitty.
That is why I found the singing scene so jarring: Elisa is acceptable, beautiful, stunning, admired, looked upon with love and kindness from strangers - but only in a fantasy, and only when she has a voice.
Another thing that I found difficult to approach was the sexual framing of Elisa. Disabled folks are frequently infantalized and desexualized so seeing Elisa as sexual is liberating in one way; she candidly masturbates and is sexually attracted to a river god who is attracted to her - neat! Disabled people like sex too. But Strictland's fetishization of Elisa's mutness is all too real a reminder that disabled women are sexually abused in numbers that are frankly horrific. Which is especially upsetting because Del Toro's focus on Elisa's morning masturbation routine feels voyeuristic and fetishistic in the same way that Strickland acts.
And I'm not saying that was an intentional choice to make the viewer feel uncomfortable with how women are seen as sexual objects - I'm saying that seems to have been somewhat subconscious and for a movie that is concerned with commenting on male violence and xenophobia it's a disconcerting viewpoint. The camera lingers on Elisa's body and observes her orgasms in a way that is meant to feel charming, not creepy, but it comes off very poorly from my perspective.
To be clear, I didn't dislike the movie. I was underwhelmed and disappointed, but still thought that it was a beautiful film with powerful moments (in particular I will say that Elisa forcing people to listen to her was painful and raw-feeling and reaffirming); the music and set decoration and creature creation were all stunning (and I love Doug Jones *so* much). Everyone's acting was a delight. But I feel like it could have been more. I think people who are comparing The Shape of Water to Pan's Labyrinth are making a mistake, and I don't think that The Shape of Water will be remembered in ten years the way that Pan's Labyrinth is now because Pan's Labyrinth had something serious to say and said it, whereas The Shape of Water is a love letter to cinema that is sweet and personal, but ultimately not that important.
Look, we're all stoked when we get to see a new Star Wars move but sometimes I'm a little sick of the hype.
The Last Jedi is far from the worst film in the series, but I will happily and loudly disagree with anyone who says it's the best. The parts of it that I liked I like more than I like most of the rest of the series, the parts of it that I disliked are more irksome to me than the worst of the prequels.
TLJ needed a heavier hand with the editing - there are about three main stories happening all at the same time and while I know it's typical to bounce between mains in a Star Wars movie at least most of the time all of the stories are doing something that matters. That's not the case here, and unfortunately it seems like only one of the stories really makes a difference in-universe. It fucking sucks that the Leia storyline and the Finn storyline are the least interesting and least impactful.
There's also some shitty writing going on here. I feel like with a couple of relatively simple changes the film could have felt a lot more whole and complete.
Spoilers here:
Admiral Ackbar's death is pointless and meaningless and the audience isn't given a chance to feel it or care about it. You know what would be a really easy way to fix this? Skip Laura Dern's character and fill that role with Admiral Ackbar. There's no need to waste time (in an already extremely long movie) with characterization on a one-and-done character while denying a legacy character the death both he and the audience deserve when you've got it right fucking there. It would make more sense for Ackbar to butt heads with Poe, for Ackbar to sacrifice himself for the remains of the resistance, for Ackbar to survive the bridge exposion and still die - it would give us a moment of real tragedy instead of the blank "wait, did Ackbar just die" moment followed by the vast hollow depths of my inability to give a shit about Holdo's death (because I don't know her, I don't know her history, I don't respect her because all I've seen her do up until this point is fuckin drive into the goddamned nether when for real IF THE HYPERSPACE TRACKER IS ONLY ENABLED ON THE SUPREMACY SHIP THEN WHY DID THEY WAIT FOR SO MUCH OF THE RESISTANCE TO GET SHOT DOWN AND DEPLETE FUEL IN THAT RUN TO CRAIT MOTERHFUCKERS ADMIRAL ACKBAR COULD HAVE DIED A HERO TAKING OUT THE SUPREMACY AFTER ALL CREW HAD BEEN MOVED TO VESSELS THAT STILL HAD FUNCTIONAL WEAPONS AND SOME TRAVEL ABILITY YOU JACKHOLES. WHY DID YOU SAVE THAT FOR YOUR BIG END MOVE AND LET MOST OF YOUR FORCES DIE IN A LONG AND POINTLESS SLOG THROUGH SPACE INSTEAD OF SENDING ONE FUCKIN PILOT THROUGH THE FUCKIN SUPREMACY AT LIGHTSPEED WHILE EVERYONE ELSE STILL HAD THE ABILITY TO GET AWAY GODDAMNIT).
Anyway, I feel like the film could have used a couple more treatments.
Kylo and Rey's force bond, their fight in Snoke's throne room, his betrayal of her, Leia's first onscreen use of the force, Poe's love for BB8, Rose's sister (though not her fucking ridiculous bomber), DJ, and everything having to do with Luke was fantastic and I loved it.
Finn and Rose were wasted in this film, though Finn's role in the fight on Crait and Rose's freeing of the animal on that incredibly boring gambling planet were very nice.
Again, a couple more treatments or a heavier hand with editing and I feel like this would have been a fucking amazing Star Wars movie. As it is, it's flawed and I enjoy large parts of it but other large parts of it are just frustrating.
Okay, the number is 2049 (did you know I am dyscalculic and dyslexic?
When there’s a number in a title I tend to just think of it as “Title:
Number” unless it’s like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 and I’ve learned it, so I
thought of this movie as Bladerunner With Numbers After but now I’ll
probably remember it was 2049. Side note, the dyslexia is also why I
only know the main elves in Tolkien - the names in the Silmarillion are
too similar for me to parse them with such similar characters, but I
know if it starts with “El” they’re probably related to Elrond and
Arwen)
But, now on to other things about the movie.
Hans
Zimmer was a bad choice. There are tons of people working now who could
have done a better job of maintaining the feel of the Vangelis
soundtrack while modernizing it without the movie going “BWWWWWAAAAAAMMMMMM”
during every exterior flying shot. That was incredibly distracting and
I’m fucking salty about it. It happens within like the first thirty
seconds of the movie and my first thought was “This will get annoying
very fast if they keep it up” and then they kept it up and I was
annoyed. A lot. It was literally so loud that it vibrated my seat. It
was painful and distracting in a movie that had lots of quiet dialogue.
Pick
an aesthetic and stick to it. When the movie was trying to mimic the
look of Bladerunner it failed (too grey, too washed out, not enough
neon) but when it was going for its own style it worked really well (the
bright, vibrant orange of the desert, the clean open spaces of the farm
- grey looked good and sensible there) but they ended up with these
weird muted pastel-brights when they were going for “vibrant in the
city.” Like it was just desaturated. And desaturated neon is bad for a
Bladerunner flick. Compare the Joi ad to the big Japanese ad in the
original - while Joi is colorful, and the only visually interesting
thing in that frame, the ad on the bottom is brighter and more saturated
- strong yellows and reds, electric blue. And the pastels create a very
dreamy feel, but I sort of feel like if you’re going for neo-noir in
the style of Bladerunner you’re doing yourself a disservice when you
back away from actual neons.
Also
the lighting and visuals of the Tyrell-corp-replacement (Wallace corp? I
don’t remember what it’s called but it’s the place that makes
replicants that Jared Leto is in charge of) are super fucking cool
looking and also way over-the-top style wank. The lighting is busy in a
way that feels like it’s spoon-feeding you the plot, shadows move and
shift so characters faces can be artfully revealed in the right moments
while the soundtrack is bwamming joyfully along. And perhaps that’s
because Leto’s character is blind but that’s not a great excuse because…
This
movie has way more characters than it needs and Leto is one of them.
And I’d like to remind people that Jared Leto has been accused of
sexually assaulting several women and has openly bragged about sending
used condoms to his Suicide Squad costars, something that should have
gotten him fired immediately as sexual harassment. Whether or not you
believe his accusers *he* has admitted to being a shit human and doing
things that would have gotten him fired, sued, and maybe had a
restraining order implemented if he was working in any other industry.
Anyway, there are too many characters with tantalizing hints of
backstory that we almost get into exploring but never spend enough time
with. It’s frustrating, but I’ll get into that more in the spoiler
section later.
Um hey this film is also really really really
white for a flick that’s supposed to take place in future Los Angeles. I
guess one of the love interests is Cuban, there are a couple of black
folx with speaking roles, Dave Bautista is in it. But the backgrounds
are full of white people eating Japanese food out of vending machines
with european languages on them. It’s a weird shift from the
aggressively multicultural background in the first movie.
Also
the way women are handled in the movie is ????? High-key pretty gross?
In every direction? I don’t know, I’ve got comments on that that are
spoilers. See them later.
People gripe about Bladerunner being
slow (it is, but that’s a good thing) and people are going to gripe
about this movie being slow (it is, but that’s a bad thing). Bladerunner
has a lot of tension in its slower scenes, and even if there’s not a
lot of tension you’re being introduced to this new world that has a ton
of stuff going on in the background to explore if you get tired of the
slow dialogue. NOT SO HERE. In fact, let me tell you a story: my family
knew people who were working on Bladerunner and everyone we knew who was
married when they started working on the film was divorced by the time
the movie was done because there was so much time and effort that went
into shit like costume design and lighting and matte paintings and
fucking architecture. There is so much shit going on that you learn
something new about the world in every frame. The new film has a lot of
empty space that is stunning to look at but doesn’t pass on any content
to the viewer. Something’s always in motion, your eye stays busy, but
the consideration and thought that went toward storytelling in the
original is missing.
It
was a pretty movie and I mostly enjoyed watching it but the music was
distracting and it wasn’t as substantive or interesting as the original
film by a long shot.
Now, onto spoilers. Also TW for Violence and misogyny.
Okay
so at one point Leto’s character disembowels a newly made replicant
woman because he’s upset that they haven’t created replicants that can
give birth. He does this while he’s complaining that they can’t create
enough replicants. So he destroys a newborn, naked woman by slashing her
open where her uterus would be. Because he’s upset that they can’t make
replicants fast enough. I ??guess?? this is supposed to be character
development that makes him look evil, but his objectification of the
replicant *before* he disembowels a newborn while talking about how
replicants just want life *in front of* his personal replicant he forces
to do horrible things and has named “Luv” is evil enough? There’s no
need for this gratuitous awful thing that is already fucking
uncomfortable as he’s handling a naked, greased woman and lamenting that
she’s sterile. Which is what I mean when I say this movie doesn’t
handle “women” as a subject well.
And they’re attempting to retcon
the rape from the original movie! Kay, the Ryan Gosling character, is
tasked with discovering the identity of some replicant bones they’ve
found, of a replicant who died giving birth. Turns out that it’s Rachel
from the first film, and when Kay tracks down her serial number he hears
part of her initial Voight-Kampff interview with Deckard. Kay’s comment
on hearing her voice for like ten seconds is “She liked him, this
Deckard, she’s provoking him” and later it’s emphasized that Deckard and
Rachel were planned to fall in love, destined for it. Which is like
cute and all but ignores that she was trying to leave and be autonomous
(you know the entire fucking point of this whole goddamned fictional
universe) when he threatened her with violence and forced her to kiss
him out of fear (and I guess then fuck her out of fear).
Also what
the fuck with scifi universes where “we can create complex adult
humans”/“have space magic”/“can travel vast distances and explore the
genesis of the human race” but delivering children is just as much of a
fucking mystery/death sentence as it was in the Victorian era?
In
2049 there are replicants with open-ended lifespans and replicants who
always obey humans. The Nexus 8s were developed around the timeline of
the first movie and it’s hinted that Deckard was one of the early Nexus
8s with an open-ended lifespan. That’s left ambiguous and I like it.
Most of the other replicants we meet are the obedient type, like Kay.
Kay,
a replicant, has Joi, a personal assistant/romantic partner whom he
loves. Joi hires Mariette, a replicant sex-worker, to have sex with Kay
while wearing Joy’s projection like a second skin. This happens
immediately after Kay finds out he needs to go on the run and includes a
moment where Joi tells Mariette not to speak or participate. It’s
visually interesting, and sometimes you can see Mariette’s eyes from
beneath Joi’s projection staring at Kay and being attracted to him, but
it is weirdly timed and I think it actually cheapens Kay and Joi’s
relationship (Joi gets fridged shortly after and near the end of the
film it’s revealed that much of their relationship was stock phrases
that the Joi advertisement repeats to Kay).
We are clearly
supposed to have complicated feelings about Luv; she works for the big
bad, she kills people he commands her to, and she ends up having the big
boss battle of the flick with Kay. I don’t have complicated feelings.
Luv is done wrong by this film. She is designed to obey an evil person,
this clearly bothers her and he clearly doesn’t care about bothering
her, she wants to win his affection because he is the human being she
relies on for *everything* up to and including her ability to continue
existing, and for that we watch her brutally choked and drowned. And
yes, we’ve seen her ruthlessly murder people, but we’ve also seen that
replicants don’t have choices. They can’t say no. She was told to kill
people and she can’t say no. She was told to torture people and she
can’t say no.
Which brings us to a *very fucking interesting*
scene between Kay and his commanding officer Lieutenant Joshi (played by
Robin Wright). At one point they’re in Kay’s apartment, she asks him to
tell her a memory of his and he says there would be no point; she says
“would it make a difference if I said that was an order” and he tells
her a memory. She’s drinking with him and asks him what would happen if
she finished his vodka, he asks if she shouldn’t be back at the station
and she leaves. Prior to this scene we’ve seen her tell him that
sometimes she almost forgets that he’s a replicant and that he’s been
getting along fine without a soul. She has been admiring and assessing
him all while continually reminding him he’s beneath her, and when he
leaves Joi pops up to tease Kay about the fact that his Lieutenant wants
to sleep with him. And that’s *very fucking interesting* because the
scene flips the script on rape in the franchise - all Kay can do is ask
her not to make him do this because he doesn’t want to but he can’t say
no. It hammers home the restrictions the new generation of replicants
face, how far they are from being free. (which incidentally is why it’s
so frustrating that the film goes out of its way to retcon the rape in
the original movie)
Anyway I don’t want to spoil the whole movie
and deconstruct the entire plot on its release date so I think I’m going
to leave it here for the moment, but these are some of my major
criticisms of the film and some of the things I was disappointed by. I
didn’t hate it, but I didn’t love it the way I love the old one (it also
sucked in the dialogue department - no tears in the rain or “it’s a
shame she won’t live” lines here (Dave Bautista gets to day “You only
obey because you’ve never seen a miracle” but that’s a bad line that is
obvious and trite and shitty and they probably shouldn’t flash back to
it but that’s just an example of how little faith this movie has in its
audience to pick up the story and themes from context).
Also
everything Jared Leto did that was actually necessary to the plot could
have been done by Lawrence Fishburne on speakerphone or some shit, we
didn’t need this gratuitously gross character who was played by someone
in cripple cosplay and has been accused of rape, there is literally no
reason to have him in this movie or to have a blind character played by a
sighted actor or to make him only part-time-blind you know what okay I
have huge problems with Jared Leto in this film and look forward to
making an edit that does not include him.
Okay so my sister dragged me out to see Baby Driver because I don't go to the movies as much as I should because, again, I'm really fuckin busy, but I enjoyed the shit out of the movie even though it has some odd problems (women being written sort of badly/strangely, not enough black folks in Atlanta, that sort of thing).
But it was a joy to watch, the car chase scenes are some of the best I've ever seen and I'm super glad I got so many of them. The music was fuckin' fantastic, it was really amazing to see people signing in a film, everything looked cool as hell, and the one dance-walk scene is maybe the best thing I've seen on a screen in like five years.
I'm happy I saw the movie, I love Edgar Wright, I want Edgar Wright to make more movies, I want Kevin Spacey to make more movies, I want Jamie Foxx to get more roles he can have fun with. This was fun to go see even if it was a little popcorny, but I still think there's a deeper thing there about how hard it is to get yourself out of a situation where you've built momentum - no matter how good your motivations are for getting into a rut or how good your motivation is for getting out of a rut sometimes you're just stuck in a rut and it sucks and it feels like everything is falling to pieces around you.
I like that the film studied that kind of inertia so subtly that it took me a month to realize that's what it was doing, because it was so well hidden under a catchy (maybe gimmicky) soundtrack and big bold bright fun visuals.
Robocop is one of my top five favorite movies. I think I love it so much because it has a greater depth than it really deserves and it's an unrelentingly well-crafted piece of cinema.
I know that sounds over-the-top when you're discussing a movie with the elevator pitch of "He's a robot cop!" but it's just the truth. The writing is campy without falling into self-parody and handles issues that remain relevant thirty years after its release. The actors are pitch-perfect and crafted line readings that make sentences as simple as "I like it" endlessly quotable. The music is driven and driving, adding subtle undertones of humor and paranoia throughout. The art direction is flawless, the effects are genius (except for maybe Dick Jones' ridiculously long arms at the very end), and as a whole the movie is just entertaining. It's easy to watch but doesn't feel like junk food - it's popcorn cinema that makes you think.
As a huge fan of both Robocop and Twin Peaks I was saddened by the recent passing of the irreplaceable Miguel Ferrer and so jumped at the chance to go to a memorial showing featuring a Q&A with Peter Weller and Ed Neumeier. I got off work and drove to Hollywood to see it with my dad, my sister, and my dad's movie blogging buddy Michael (we didn't get a chance to talk much, Michael, sorry about that, hi! It was nice to meet you). The theater was packed with fans and I actually got a chance to speak to an awesome cartoonist whose work I admire, Kelly Turnbull, who was in the audience as well (her comic is Manly Guys Doing Manly Things and has a Robocop cameo, which you can see below) - she was super sweet, just FYI.
Anyway, Peter Weller was sitting about twelve feet away from me while we watched the film and that was an odd experience. As both Alex Murphy and Robocop his characters endure so much pain that it was more difficult for me to watch knowing the man who had emoted that pain so beautifully was so close - it made it more real for me, I guess. I didn't feel so much of the giddy joy that I normally do when watching Robocop during Weller's scenes because I was busy hurting for him.
Miguel Ferrer's scenes were, of course, more painful this time around too. He's just so fucking good as skeevy businessman Bob Morton. His delivery is perfect, you like him and hate him at the same time, you laugh at him and with him by turns. He was a wonderful actor and watching him in one of his most entertaining roles so soon after his passing is painful. My parents, sister, and I are also currently watching Twin Peaks on our weekly hangout nights so I'm getting a double of this particular sadness.
I don't know how much there is to say about Robocop that I haven't already said. It's a great film, it's funny, it's tragic. I love it and if you haven't seen it you should watch it. And hell, even if you have seen it you should watch it again and pour one out for the fantastic Miguel Ferrer when you're done.
Rogue One is a totally fine if somewhat generic space opera flick that doesn't feel like it really belongs in the Star Wars canon but isn't overtly offensive by its mere existence (lookin' at you, prequels). It has too many characters who all have too much backstory to get to know any single one of them well - it's hard to feel conflicted about someone you only get to know for about seven minutes, after all. My favorite part of the movie, by miles, was the sarcastic reprogrammed Imperial Droid, K2. My least favorite part was the inclusion of digital reconstructions of Peter Cushing and a young Carrie Fisher. Both digitally inserted characters looked wrong and out of place, especially in contrast with the beautiful naturalistic settings for the rest of the film.
I will say that I'm sick of the fact that every woman with more than two lines in Star Wars is either Mon Mothma or looks like she could be related to Carrie Fisher . Jyn could easily have been a woman of color or even just blonde because it's getting weird at this point. Also, producers, it wouldn't fucking kill you to include a fat character who isn't evil or a sex slave, or a disabled person who fights for the rebellion. Just saying.
The story is a bit trite, the characters are a bit bland, the settings are flawlessly fascinating, the music is weird as fuck. I didn't hate Rogue One but I don't feel any particular need to see it again.
But goddamn do I wish I had written this review in a world where Carrie Fisher hadn't died last week.
Star Wars has been a huge part of my life, I've worn the cinnamon buns on my head, I've put on the costumes, I've played Star Wars with my sister and hugged my Wicket doll to sleep.
I'll miss you, General Organa, but more than that I'll miss you Carrie Fisher. You were a stunning, flawed, hilarious, outrageous, outspoken, and important representative for women and the mentally ill in a sad, dark world. You gave us hope, even if that hope came from a galaxy far, far away.
I read The Count of Monte Cristo last year and happened to catch the 2002 film adaptation on TV earlier this month. I'd seen the movie in theaters but I'm pretty sure I hadn't seen it since, though I remember liking it when it came out. Now I'm less sure how I feel about it.
The book is incredibly long - probably too long. It wants to do a lot of things in a really brilliant way but has to settle for doing a couple of things brilliantly and the rest of the things in kind of shitty way. The Carnival section is much too long, there's a tremendous amount of backstory on several characters who don't actually have much of an impact on the novel, and the length of the damn thing eventually makes its protagonist less sympathetic than he would be in a shorter story.
The 2002 adaptation solves a lot of these problems by dropping all but a few characters and cutting the story down to a manageable size (and almost completely ditches Carnival, which is a SIGNIFICANT improvement). But it also loses a lot of what is interesting about the novel from a historical fiction perspective, to the point that the shifting political sands that define the book become a single-scene plot point at the beginning of the movie and basically never get mentioned again. It's a tradeoff that I think makes sense from a cinematic perspective but that does make the whole less compelling - perhaps a miniseries or a TV show would be a better way to make The Count of Monte Cristo come alive on a screen than a feature-length film was.
There are a couple of changes that I think were really well done, especially in respect to the choices and agency of Mercedes. I'm never ever going to bitch that we get a soppy happy ending if that soppy happy ending replaces a master-slave/owner-lover/whatever gross relationship. The ending of the book is pretty fucked up and I think the movie did a really decent job of keeping the fucked-up revenge fantasy without completely alienating the audience from Edmond's character by having him sail off into the sunset with a brainwashed slave-girl.
The movie is a fine way to spend a couple of hours, the book is a fine way to spend a couple of weeks. One is not a brilliant reflection of the other, but it's a totally decent translation to a totally different medium.
I've talked a bit about my sister's movie month programs, and I've talked a lot about my family's obsessions with media, but I don't know if I've talked about why.
Part of it may have to do with the fact that Strother Martin is my cousin and I basically grew up in a circus family.
My Grandfather, a lifetime performing stage magician by profession, married my Grandmother - a badass lady whose first cousin happened to be one of the more recognizable bit actors in about a hundred films.
Probably his most famous line is as the Warden in Cool Hand Luke - "What we have here is failure to communicate." He played that kind of guy.
At least when he wasn't playing mad scientists or Satanic cult leaders. Because he was my grandmother's cousin (and therefore my dad's cousin and therefore my cousin) my family has seen A LOT of his hundred-plus movies. Some of them (like Cool Hand Luke and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) are legitimately good movies. Others (like Sssssss!) are not. The Brotherhood of Satan is one of Strother's movies that is NOT a good movie.
But, fuck, it almost could be. The director was more competent than I expected, the cinematographer took some chances and landed on some kickass shots. Dialogue that could have been straight-up rotten mostly lands because the casting director got lucky.
I actually feel like this would be a damn decent little film if someone would sit down and do a fan edit and maybe mix up the music a bit. It's an early 70s schlock horror flick about a satanic cult so there's probably no way to make it a great film (some of those costumes and props just can't be gotten around) but it's surprisingly understated for what it is and pretty damn entertaining in spite of all the ways it easily could have failed.
If you're looking for a goofy horror film to throw on in the background of a party you could do a lot worse than The Brotherhood of Satan.
I don't know any way that I could make it clearer that my family is obsessed with movies. My dad has something like 3 dedicated movie blogs and does podcasts as part of a movie podcast network, my sister minored in film, and when I go back to my parents' house it's difficult to find a surface that isn't in some way covered in posters and memorabilia, from my dad's collection of signed lithograph James Bond prints to my sister's pop figures and special edition DVD display shrine to the rotating posters over our fireplace (currently The Mechanic, Jodorosky's Dune, and 50 Shades of Grey because I'm pretty sure my mom is the ultimate troll), to the TWO walls of DVDs and the thousand-plus laserdiscs. We are a movie family. I'm the least movie person in my family and I'm still one of the most movie-oriented people in my friend group.
For a couple of years now my sister has had a Christmas Movie Advent Calendar - a foam-core tree with paper ornaments that hide the printed out cards she's made to tell her what movie she's watching that day. Usually around Thanksgiving she'll sit down and make sure all the cards have their appropriate posters neatly glued on and then she'll organize that year's configuration. There are some staples and standards (Die Hard, the ultimate Christmas movie, is always on the first) but she likes to vary the lineup. This year, for the first time, she's made an October Horror Movie Calendar.
Because I hang out with my parents and my sister at least once a week that means I sometimes get sucked into her movie projects. I don't always stay for the film they're watching that day (The Polar Express sucks, I'm out) but sometimes she'll schedule a film she knows I like for a day she knows I'll be there (see also why I've written about Edward Scissorhands twice so far).
Which is a lot of backstory to tell you that Bubba Ho Tep is fucking awesome.
I actually saw this weirdo little film in its incredibly limited theatrical release with my dad way back in 2003. There was a tour of showings, one happened to be at UC Irvine, and there was going to be a Q&A with Bruce Campbell and Don Cascarelli after the show (if you didn't find that exciting you probably won't like the movie). Seeing that showing with my dad was really cool. I got a few photos of Bruce Campbell, the cast and crew were funny and engaging in their responses to the audience, and I got a tee shirt out of the deal. Plus the movie was good!
Watching it with my sister as she saw it for the first time I was reminded that it's a perfect storm of campy excellence. The plot is that Elvis and JFK are still alive and in a nursing home together where they have to fight off a mummy who sucks souls out of the assholes of the aged residents of the home. That sounds like the stupidest thing ever, and in some ways it is, but Bruce Campbell is a fucking GREAT old grumpy Elvis, Ossie Davis is an odd but entertaining JFK, and Don Coscarelli literally has "scare" in his name and it was like he was genetically engineered to make perfect, cheap, strange horror movies.
I know that there's just too much disbelief to suspend for this to be a serious movie, or even a movie that many people will like. At one point Bruce Campbell (who it should be noted has "Camp" in his name, it's like these two are a dream team) as Elvis fights a giant rubber scarab with a bedpan, a meat fork, and a space heater. There's a climactic battle that involves a motorized wheelchair and a flamethrower. There are SO, SO MANY dick jokes. But there are also a ton of really good low-budget effects that serve as a reminder that you can make a scene really creepy without desaturating your film or tossing in jump scares. Just some flickering light and intense music will add more of a creep factor than adding film grain and CGI monsters for millions in post. It's a great way to handle a budget of about a million bucks when you're making a super indie flick.
It's occasionally a genuinely touching movie too - it takes place in a home full of dying people and addresses how people handle death.
(Spoilers?)
Kemosabe is a character who has reverted to childhood and wears a Lone Ranger mask and holds cap guns at all times. He goes down fighting and the combination of the way it's shown and Cambell's voiceover at that moment makes me cry every time.
(/Spoilers)
Side note: Ella James is also in this movie as a kind but condescending nurse and she's fucking rad. And I'd like to note that Ella James and Ossie Davis are two black actors in a horror movie and at no point are either of them gratuitously murdered to make it more scary for the white main. There's some tension around both of them, yeah, but it's really great to avoid the "kill the minority" stereotype.
Anyway I had a blast watching this with my sister and it was nice to be reminded of what a fun little film Bubba Ho Tep is.
This just in: Buzz Osborne is super nice and I am super lucky to have said hi to him
I swear to fuck I'm going to post that photo every time it seems even slightly relevant. Which has been at least six times already. Because I'm a huge irretrievable fangirl. Which is probably why I'm one of a couple hundred people in the Los Angeles area who went to watch a documentary about The Melvins last week.
Every time I talk to someone about The Melvins I hear "you know, I think I've heard of them but I don't know any of their songs," or "fuck those guys" or "OH MY FUCKING GOD I LOVE THE MELVINS." Those are the only reactions. No others. And the first reaction is the most common and was my position about a year ago. I'm not sure what switched flipped or exactly when it flipped for me but at least by last October I was tormented by the fact that driving to Sacramento to see Faith No More meant I had to miss The Melvins Lite at the Echo. They played the Troubador a few months ago and I couldn't afford tickets. And then Songkick (an indispensable tool if you're a fan of weird or semi-obscure bands that don't have massive tour announcements everywhere like some bands I know *cough*GNR*cough*) told me there was a Melvins show at the Regent Theater for $25. I bought a ticket without even reading what it was really about. I didn't know there was a movie involved until a week before the day of the show.
And it was really more about the movie than the set (which is slightly heartbreaking). The evening opened with an appetizer of The Melvins self-made tour documentary, followed by an amazing half-hour set, then came The Colossus of Destiny: A Melvins Tale; a Kickstarter-funded documentary about the long history and general adventures of a band that nobody's heard of who are largely responsible for the current rock landscape. We finished with a short Q&A and were released back onto the streets shellshocked and ready to rock.
The documentary is fantastically well made, let's start with that. The interviews are all a fantastic example of what to do well when you're trying to put together a narrative, the archive footage of the band is visceral and evocative, and the interactions with Buzz Osborne and Dale Crover (which are so long and involved that I can't really call them interviews) are a fascinating look at two people who may be among the hardest workers the music industry has ever seen. Pacing is a large part of what makes this film work, which is important since the movie has the audacity to try to break a thirty year history down into bite-sized chunks. I do think that it is perhaps a bit too long - I can't find the runtime anywhere online but I get the feeling that trimming 15 minutes would make it infinitely more watchable. The music is, of course, great.
Since this movie has JUST been released, and is in extremely limited release, I'd recommend that you try to go see the damned thing instead of reading reviews about it but I understand that it probably just won't be possible for a lot of people. Hopefully there will be DVDs and such available soon, and I wouldn't be surprised if it started showing up in music history class syllabi in a couple of years. It feels very important while never taking itself too seriously - just like The Melvins themselves.
The Melvins Across the USA in 51 Days: The Movie is pretty aptly described by its long title. In fact the title may be the most cohesive part of the film, which follows The Melvins (with a lineup of Buzz Osborne, Dale Crover, and Trevor Dunn - also known as The Melvins Lite when they play together these days) on their record-breaking 2012 tour across 50 states and DC in 51 days with no breaks or relief for their madness.
The movie was made on the iPhones of the band members. It's a short flick, spending only about a minute at each of the tour stops, with no real story aside from the endurance of the band members. Lots of time is spent in truck stops and Starbucks as the guys grabbed a few spare seconds of downtime on their grueling trek. They play pranks on one another and marvel at ludicrous landmarks. Some of the most engaging and hilarious moments are slow pans from the facades of the nightly venue to their neighbors, which include a Holocaust museum and a pet groomer. There are occasional absurd special effects thrown in to break the monotony, things like comets screaming across the sky or someone's head exploding for no reason.
All in all it's a surreal and disorienting experience. The camerawork is as shaky and unpleasant as you'd expect it to be coming from cell phone cameras, periodically moving from landscape to portrait orientation with nauseating suddenness. It IS very interesting to watch, even if you don't know who The Melvins are, for the sheer value of seeing a group of grown-ass men torturing themselves for almost two months straight. Between each stop is a title-card featuring a cartoon; all of these are amusing and well-crafted, some are just fucking hilarious.
I don't know that I can recommend it. Watching it made me feel physically ill and I'm not generally susceptible to shaky-cam sickness. There is nowhere near enough music in the movie for it being a flick about a traveling band, but that adds to the reality and mounting exhaustion you feel as you witness this marathon of a tour. In all honesty I kind of want to call it a horror film or a thriller - there is a constantly-mounting, unpleasant but satisfying tension that ratchets up with every new location and that is a credit to the editing, which must have been just a monumental task.
I'm really excited to see the kind of career Daniel Radcliffe is going to have outside of Harry Potter. Obviously he's been working on other projects and I've enjoyed every not-HP piece of work I've seen from him, but it's a bit sad because A LOT of his not-HP films are little indie oddballs that not enough people get to see.
Swiss Army Man is a great example. And it is great - the film is whimsical and sad and charming. Swiss Army Man evoked all of the feelings I wanted but didn't get from Where the Wild Things Are but used a farting corpse instead of relentless nightmare fuel to get the point across. But it is a TINY movie. It had a budget of around three million dollars (almost all of which I hope went to a brilliant set team and prop department) and it's barely made back its budget. Last weekend it took in around $100k, this weekend it's going to be on fewer screens.
You don't get to see movies like this if you live in Arkansas, you don't get to see them if you live in North Dakota. When I went to go see it with my sister only three theaters in a thirty mile radius were playing it, those theaters had only one or two showings of it each, and I live in Los Angeles where we get to see ALL of the movies.
I know DVD and streaming are the future of films - there's no way a charming indie flick is going to do well during blockbuster season but it can perform beautifully on Netflix a year later. And I hope that happens because I want people to see movies like this.
Dano and Radcliffe are both fun to watch but Radcliffe's performance is the more technically impressive because of how limited he was by the role and how much he still communicated in spite of that. The Dans who wrote and directed the thing should get a cabinet full of shiny awards, which they would deserve, and then hand those to their prop department and cinematographers, who were amazingly brilliant and pulled of wonderful tricks that I didn't even know to look for in this odd little movie.
Swiss Army Man has been described as Castaway with a corpse or an hour of fart jokes but it's so much more. It's sad and sweet and it's the story of two lost people (or maybe one lost person) finding out who they are.
