Thursday, May 28, 2020

The Last Airbender (2010)


Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan, the poor devil
Starring: Noah Ringer, Aasif Mandvi, Shaun Toub

Not as bad as it could’ve been, which is more than I expected.

Honestly, it’s pretty bad, but everything outside of the actors was ... all right. The scenery looked GREAT, the costumes looked GREAT, the CGI looked GREAT - it’s just that as a loyal adaptation of existing material, it’s terrible. The original feels like a magical kung fu action film, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. This feels like ... an adequate Hollywood fantasy film. It’s not trying to be its source material, and people were HOPING for its source material, so it’s bad.

Its trying to be Hollywood instead of Hong Kong also explains a lot of its poor choices - why are most of the actors random white actors instead of Asian ones? Hollywood. Why didn’t they hire martial artist choreographers for the fight scenes instead of the people who did The Bourne Ultimatum and Casino Royale? Hollywood. Why didn’t they pick a good action director for a film that’s 40% fighting? Hollywood. Why did they reveal the Fire Lord early and thus remove all menace from his appearance? They needed to pad out runtime; Hollywood. Throw in the usual pack of quirks and jokes that Shyamalan films are infamous for having, and it’s no wonder this movie got meme’d up and down the street even before release.

I’ll give it props - it had the decency to only be an hour and forty two minutes, which is more than I can say for some bad films I’ve watched; the AUDACITY of a bad film to be over two hours...

It also got a good actor for Aang; he’s not Asian like he’s supposed to be, but he is part-Native American, so a step in the right direction, and he did a genuinely good job with his action scenes. Being the face and lead of a major Hollywood action blockbuster at age twelve could NOT have been easy, but he did a good job. Even Daniel Radcliffe didn’t have to do any action scenes at twelve.

2 out of 5. If you want it to be the original, 0 out of 5. It’s on Netflix for free, which is the main reason I watched it.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald


Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Eddie RedmayneJohnny DeppJude LawKatherine Waterston

Pretty good. You don't need to know TOO much of the first one to watch this, and it's arguably better than its predecessor, which seemed more about setting the stage than it was about telling a story.

3.5 out of 5. The characters are memorable, the plot-line is interesting, the setting is cool-looking and it's bound to provoke some discussion with its themes. It's J.K. Rowling-style storytelling, with the mix of magic, intrigue, mystery, and backstory that makes the characters so interesting. Recommend if you're a Potter fan. There's a weird twist at the end that doesn't make much sense, but just assume they'll fix that in the sequel. It’s also a LITTLE long - two hours and twelve minutes - so keep that in mind before you make the commitment.

Real talk, this was a good film for discussion, though. The Harry Potter books always had TONS of social commentary, only the bare points of which ever made it into the films. Now that J.K. Rowling is writing the screenplay herself, the commentary is front and center again, but not like in an immersion-breaking way.

Monday, May 25, 2020

Hot Take - Sunset Boulevard is a ...

This is not a review - it’s a look at a Hollywood classic through a studied but informal lens. There’ll be spoilers for the film in question.

   Sunset Boulevard is a classic 1951 Hollywood film noir/drama held together by EXCELLENT screenwriting and meta-commentary on Hollywood career life. It's about a down-on-his-luck screenwriter who comes across a secluded lady in a hillside mansion who initially hires him to ghostwrite her screenplay and then gradually sucks him into a life of being her emotional meat puppet. The key to the hot take is in that last sentence. This film is remembered as Hollywood looking back on itself and how its obsession with appearances can end up destroying itself, and is thus well-liked by Hollywood-types, but at its heart, it is first and foremost ... a VAMPIRE STORY.


Vampire stories are about heroes being drawn in towards a mostly-normal person with something different about them and then discovering they're ultimately something sinister, and then having to get away from them. Twilight upended the formula by being about getting closer to them. That's part of why it's different.

Similarly, Sunset Boulevard is a film about a woman seducing an unassuming man into an emotionally abusive relationship, but the way it chooses to tell it is steeped in gothic vampire tropes and habits. The fact that it's reversing the genders and examining issues of personal appearance perhaps makes it more difficult to look at on a personal level, but it also makes it ring true, since things we don't like to talk about arguably need to be talked about at least a little.

So, to start from the beginning:

Joe Gillis, seeking a safe refuge in Hollywood, knocks on the door of a large mansion on a hill. No one lives there except the reclusive owner Norma Desmond and her grim, misshapen manservant Max. The hero is let in, and Desmond is mysterious and exotic in the extreme, wearing a fantastic wardrobe and being vague but controlling. Upon hearing he is a screenwriter, she decides he must prolong his stay, so he can work on the script she's written, and despite something being off about her, Joe is intrigued by what he sees of her and agrees so he can stay there. That night, he looks out the window and sees a dilapidated, empty property, and outside, an oddly solemn funeral procession is held for a pet of Desmond's that died, complete with small coffin. Everything about the mansion seems to come from another age.


Over time, Joe settles into a routine, but the more suspicious Desmond becomes. She has friends around on occasion, but for the most part it's her swanning about and strangely indulging her own ego by rewatching her old features; it being revealed that she used to be a big star but fell out of the spotlight; making her essentially Hollywood royalty, but a strange breed of royalty unconcerned with anything current.

Joe grows increasingly uneasy, and it reaches a head when he realizes Desmond doesn't really have anything in her life besides this egotism, and now - he realizes uneasily - her relationship with him. He tries to escape briefly, but no sooner does he leave, then he's drawn back in by her apparently injuring herself at hearing he left her. And with his return, she metaphorically sinks her nightmare fangs into his neck and starts seeping his lifeblood.




He becomes a subject, a thrall of her whims and desires, letting her dictate most of what he wears and some of what he does. Nothing explicit is shown, but it's seen she bears an unhealthy amount of control in his life, and is really only seeing him as a means of sustenance, not a person in his own right. Her watching her old films and calling up her old pals and trying to make herself look younger and even her relationship with him are all really about one thing - holding onto her youth and the power and vitality it bestows. The only problem is that everything else must pay the price for it.

Joe still has things anchoring him to reality, but they're few and far between, and he eventually receives a final confirmation of all his fears - Max, the timid manservant, was once a charismatic film director and leader ... and used to be Desmond's husband. Joe is not the first man she has ensnared and sucked the life from. She will not stop, and Max is so infatuated with her after years of spent time with her he cannot conceive of escaping her control at all. This is not going well.

Eventually, Joe makes a choice. Pushed by a friend, he gets up, he casts away her favors and gifts, and he gets up to leave. No amount of mysteriousness, royalty, or wealthiness is worth losing his life for. But she stops him from leaving, and shoots him in the back when he insists. The vampire has claimed her last victim. But without someone to leech from, she falls too. Spiraling into madness, she is stuck in a permanent state of whole-heartedly reliving her past, and as is apparent to everyone watching, her life will not last long with her life-supporting mechanisms now destroyed.


You see this? This is Dracula. Dracula is a mysterious stranger on a hill with wealth, class, mysteriousness, and unusual habits. People are entranced by him, but eventually realize he just wants to feed on them, and try to get away from him. The ending is different, but every vampire story is different too. In this case, it's a tragedy where the hero dies, not a success story where the vampire does. The fact that the background of Golden-Age Hollywood is there is really them telling a contemporary story with an older blueprint, which is part of why the film's so good. This is probably why the director Billy Wilder is also mostly famous for directing films starring some of the earliest and most successful star-studded Hollywood dramas - he knows about obsession with beauty and status, and Sunset Boulevard is about how beauty and status can blind us, and even the people possessing them.

The moral of all this is really the same moral of the original vampire stories too, which is if a mysterious but cool stranger with some weird habits invites you up to their isolated mansion and finds excuses to make you stay, you get the heck out of there. No amount of comfort is worth having your personality sucked away by someone, even if they seemed superficially kind. Listen to your danger sense, and don't get your blood sucked.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Directed by: Guy Ritchie, the guy behind the recent Sherlock Holmes films

Two hours and fifteen minutes, a tight-paced, modern-styled ahistorical retelling of King Arthur in the vein of the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film by the same director. All-star cast, excellent acting, and although it drags a little and is a bit unconventional, it’s a darn fun watch. Lots of action, lots of London-accented story-telling (fitting, since the director is famous for coming from and directing films about the London underworld), and a great handle on action. Imagine the ‘90’s Robin Hood combined with the Sherlock Holmes film combined with ‘80’s Excalibur. It’s a banger.

This film was apparently poorly received when it came out in 2017, but that’s probably more due to poor marketing and expectations than anything else. It’s hard to make a NEW blockbuster franchise (this was scheduled to have FIVE sequels) when Marvel, DC, Disney, and Star Wars are long-established and snatching up the customers. This film cost $200 million to make and would’ve needed to make twice that much again to be a success, and people aren’t gonna want to see the tenth King Arthur screen adaptation when they can watch a comic book movie with an original plot.

This is ironic, of course, ‘cause this film tries to be much more different than any of its predecessors in its premise, taking the humble hero premise of King Arthur (Charlie Hunman) and turning him into a kind of friendly 9th century gangster , who spends his days beating up Vikings and keeping his buddies’ kids out of trouble. From there, he becomes king because he gets spotted by the evil king Vortigern (Jude Law) and spends the film trying to fight back against his vicious reign. It takes a BUNCH of liberties with the source material, but most people in the Western Hemisphere already know the King Arthur story, so taking liberties gives us something new. 

The action in this film is stellar - using slo-mo, undercranking, CGI, and choreography all working together to make an awesome action scene. The director has a black belt in karate AND Brazilian jiu-jitsu (which takes at least seven years to get), so he has a solid base in actual fighting that he brings to the big screen in a few ways. Notably, the titular sword endows its wielder with supernatural powers, and when the hero finally gets a chance to use it, it’s like watching a person-shaped hurricane. 

The film’s a little long, and a little frenetic in its pace; the tenth scene of Cockney-accented scalliwags talkin’ ‘bout dat education don’t do ya neuw good can be a bit grating, but this film has vision it has continuity, it has EXCELLENT performances from its lead actors (Charlie Hunman can howl at the sky in rage like no other), and it’s a solid good time. 4 out of 5. 

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)

Directed by: Jeff Fowler
Starring: James Marsden, Jim Carrey, Tika Sumpter, Ben Schwartz

As someone who lived through the '90's/early 2000's obsession with "animated characters in real life" films (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Space Jam, Looney Tunes Back In Action), I can tell you this film is basically okay. And as someone who's lived through Hollywood's repeated attempts to make video-game movies and being mostly disappointed, I can tell you this film is actually quite good. I think making it the former actually helped, since there are way more successful "animated characters in real life" films than there are successful video-game films.

This film was good - solid cast, good pacing, and just a cutesy, wholesome vibe. It's an hour forty too, so if if you don't like it, at least it'll be short. It borrowed from other good films without ever feeling derivative, and it was cartoony and snappy enough that you felt entertained watching it. Jim Carrey drops some great zingers in this, and Sonic the Hedgehog never becomes as fully annoying as he could be.

If you're a fan of the games, you'll probably love this. If you're a noob for the games, like I mostly am, then you'll STILL like it. SonicGate aside, this studio really nailed it with the product, and the fact that they delayed production to fix the look of the character really is an example of a success coming from PR - companies may be reluctant to fix mistakes because ANNOUNCING their mistake makes them look incompetent and costs money; but coming out, taking responsibility and fixing the mistake makes you LOOK great and accountable, and will create goodwill and customers that compensate for the initial embarrassment and loss. This film made more money by delaying production than it ever would've done by leaving it as is.

So yeah, good time. 3.5 out of 5.

American Sniper (2014)


Directed by: Clint Eastwood, one of the great creators of American film
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller, Jonathan Groff

Basically okay. Two hours and twelve minutes. Rated R for swearing (I was watching it on TV so I missed it) and some graphic violence. It's about the war in Iraq and the hazards of conducting operations so there's naturally some explosions and shooting and hurt dealt out. It doesn't feel pornographic in its violence; check the content advisory if you're not sure. It was nominated for SIX Oscars, including Best Picture, Actor, Editing, and Adapted Screenplay.

The main thing I remember about this film when it was coming out is that it seemed like American propaganda about how killing Iraqi kids holding RPG's is just ... so sad ... for the soldier ... 'cause he has to kill that kid ... and isn't that sad 'cause Americans are so nice. But that's not really the content of the film at ALL; it's just what the trailer conveyed.

A LOT - of movies - have trouble with marketing their film; tragedies especially can't sell themselves on sadness, so they try to make it look romantic instead of tragic; which means its popular perception can encourage what the film itself DIScourages! 13 Reasons Why is a good (bad?) example. This film's really about how war veterans can build up traumatic experiences and then feel like they can't talk about it 'cause they have to be in charge. As a mentor once advised me, if mental issues emerge in you, you should find what works and move on, 'cause the same way it's irresponsible to not tell your team you have a broken ankle, it's irresponsible to not tell ANYONE you're having trouble mentally. Find someone you can tell and start the process, the same way you find someone to fix your ankle. It's not unmanly to get your ankle set. The one "shoot a kid with a gun" moment is REALLY meant to drive home that even when YOU feel like a good guy, an army will always inflict civilian casualties in its campaigns, so hopefully you believe the effects of victory outweigh the lives that'll be lost in the effort. The film isn't really taking a side beyond that.

But yeah, this film was surprisingly balanced (I hope this isn't ticking off anyone; I'm trying to be cognizant here). It didn't have any angry yelling scenes, no domestic abuse, no murder montages - there's ONE particularly violent scene in the first hour, and that's it. I can see why people like this film. If you're interested in this sort of thing, have at it

Sunday, May 3, 2020

Onward

Basically, if you have a family and want a wholesome, inoffensive evening, it’s perfect

Directed by: Dan Scanlon

There’s no meanness, no pop culture references, not even any tongue-in-cheek jokes for the parents like Shrek has. Just simple, wholesome, occasionally goofy fun for the whole family. It’s also only an hour forty or so, so not too long. Hiring all the famous actors they did also made it fun and recognizable, so good job

Basically a missing-parent drama; scratches the itch Harry Potter did when it comes to wondering what your deceased parents were like and trying to reconnect with them post-mortem. If you had a good parent who passed away before you could meet them, you’ll probably like this. 

This really feels like a love letter to Dungeons and Dragons tabletop gaming. I assume the creators are old enough to have grown up with it in the ‘80’s, so the world full of quests and magic makes sense to them. It’s kind of like watching Hail, Caesar - if you know anything about the industry, the film’s great, ‘cause it’s dramatizing your experiences.

I’d give it a 3.5 out of 5. Available in Disney+, and if you’re in the demographic for Onward, you’re probably thinking about getting it if you don’t already have it. You’re probably gonna get it, man. Get it now and treat the kids to something fun. 

Run All Night


Directed by: The director of Unknown and Non-Stop, i.e. one of Liam Neeson’s go-to action guys. 

Basically okay. I watched it on TV so there’s probably some swearing that got cut. I think it’s rated R ‘cause there’s some violent content, but it’s basically what you’d expect out of a mid-level action film. I’d give it three stars for the people that like this sort of thing. It’s got an all-star cast supporting it.

This ironically feels like another angle on the plot of The Irishman, which is funny ‘cause,

A) This came out four years before Irishman did, and,
B) The lead Liam Neeson IS actually Irish. 

Their leads are the same - a retired hitman for a criminal outfit has trouble reconciling with their kid because of the work they’ve done, and at the end they reach some satisfaction vis-a-vís the kid, even if things don’t work out. Liam Neeson action films feel like airport novels - the point isn’t to have some bigger meaning; the point is to engage your mind for a few hours with a familiar and intellectually exciting setting. And that does this all right 

Jack Reacher


Good film. Four out of five stars. Godfather-level films gets five out of five so this isn’t a knock at all. Solid action film with good action-mystery roots and an interesting setting. 


Tom Cruise “Tom Cruise-ifies” every film he comes on, so this film is a bit above its peers in its category. It’s based on a best-selling series of airport novels by Lee Child, and basically adapts them in their best possible form, minus the fact that Book-Reacher is 6’5” and Tom Cruise is 5’7”. The barroom fight is the epitome of the kind of “understated” cool that Jack Reacher is meant to be, and it’s genuinely fun to watch; the kind of Western/Noir blend that makes the books so successful. Werner Herzog shines as the story’s villain, and the premise of the setting - a distinguished ex-military police who roams the earth fighting crime - is JUST funny, cool, and inoffensive enough that it’s honestly fascinating to watch. I don’t know any military personnel that might do this, but I can think of some who’d want to watch someone do it! It’s also PG-13, so it hits a wave of marketability that a lot of this genre doesn’t reach. Good time 

I have a theory that the reason there are so many “lone guy beats/shoots people” movies — as seen in the works of Liam Neeson and Tom Cruise for example — is because every man up to a certain age likes to think they could totally waste these losers if someone really gave them a reason. I like to refer to this article vis-a-vís that mindset, which argues that most of our fighting skill is more ego than experience, and that most of us would just ruin our night in a fight more than we’d effortlessly renew our masculinity. But even with the knowledge of that reality, I’ve had a friend tell me he wants to get in at least one fight in his life, just for the experience, and he DOESN’T want the experience of getting beaten and humiliated, so he - and ergo, lots of us - must think we’ll be able to win ... somehow. Jack Reacher is arguably how we get our fantasies of martial skill out, and couch it in some real-life excuse (i.e. he was in the military ... AND a cop!). We also do this with video games. And soccer. Better video games than real life, I say!