Tonight I watched Ghostbusters in theaters. And as the credits were rolling, all I could think of was how fast can I get home to my computer to write about it. You can thank Ghostbusters for resurrecting this blog.
I have been waiting with bated breath for this movie since it's initial announcement. I have been excited for this movie since before they finished casting, before we even knew who our Ghostbusters were. It was an idea--to reboot a beloved franchise with female actors as the leads. I was in as far as a person could be in. I was pro-Ghostbusters reboot from the beginning.
The reboot has garnered its fair share of negative energy and I have felt combative, like a protective mother bear, since I first sensed the outrage. I was combative and defensive and aggressively pro-Ghostbusters reboot until about 5 minutes into the film. I stopped feeling defensive then because that was when I realized. I won.
We won. Anyone who had hopes for this movie is a winner. All the negative energy couldn't stop this beautiful, funny, action-packed film to get made. Not only did it get made. It got made well.
Not since--and I am not kidding-- 2003 when I first saw the trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: The Black Pearl and six months later saw the film, have I been so excited by a trailer and so satisfied by a final product. Let me put it more simply. It has been 13 years since I saw a film that lived up to the expectations I set for it from the trailer.
I've had films that I was excited for that bombed in my eyes. Since I brought up Pirates of the Caribbean, a great example of this can be found in every sequel (including the one to be released in 2017) in that franchise. Plenty of people have been disappointed by films. And plenty of people have been pleasantly surprised by films they thought looked disappointing. By the looks of it, I had no faith in the movie Legally Blonde. Turns out, that movie is amazing and I will always be baffled that I initially wrote it off.
It is very rare (every 13 years?) that a movie you are very, VERY excited for is as good, or in fact BETTER, than you expected it.
Let me take you back to my mental state three hours ago. I was sitting in the theater before the previews started, fidgeting with my phone, doing all those compulsive millennial things like checking my Facebook or refreshing Twitter just to here the *chk-pop* sound. I was nervous and I was consciously trying to lower my expectations.
I had a theater teacher tell me and a group of young actors that she had seen so much good theater that she used to be disappointed by shows that other people thought were great because her expectations were so high. So, one day she decided that before every performance she saw she assumed it would be terrible. Then, according to her, she was always pleasantly surprised. Have you ever tried to lower your expectations? This strategy might have worked for my acting teacher, but I find it actually raises my expectations in a sort of self-imposed reverse psychology.
The previews started and my heart started beating faster. I crossed and recrossed my legs and I tried really hard not to seem like a crazy person having a fit in a movie theater.
But then the movie started. And I won. And I could relax. I didn't have to fight anyone and I didn't have to be disappointed. I could just enjoy the movie.
This movie is pure joy. I was smiling a big, dopey, toothy grin (again, sort of like a crazy person) for the entirety of this movie. I laughed out loud, I giggled joyfully, I cried out in childlike joy. This is the movie I was looking for. So much so that I don't care if it's not the movie anyone else was looking for.
All four women were perfectly cast. Kate McKinnon is magnetic and quietly hysterical. Leslie Jones is honest and comically relatable. Melissa McCarthy is passionate and bluntly pragmatic. Kristin Wiig is goofy and charmingly neurotic. They work well together as both a team of actors and a team of Ghostbusters. Their relationships feel real and probable, although I hope in future installments (pleeeease) delve deeper into their distinct relationships.
The plot is driving, the special effects are impressive, the humor is on point, and the action is well spaced. The last action sequence is so well choreographed I wanted to jump up and clap at the end of it. Kate McKinnon in particular has one of the most satisfying action moments of the movie (right after licking her weapon). I'll be honest, I fell in love with Kate McKinnon a little bit throughout this movie.
Just like Pirates of the Caribbean 13 years ago, I can't be objective about this movie. I love it too much. I loved it before I even saw it, and now that I've seen it I love it even more. I haven't fully processed it's merits and I sure as hell haven't thought about it's flaws. Please go see it.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
The Oscars
It feels like if you have a blog that talks predominately about movies, you should write about The Oscars. Truth be told, given that I'd like to think my interests include but are not limited to the Oscars, I should be covering all award ceremonies, but I'm not.
I could go into all the reasons I don't watch every ceremony but it basically boils down to this:
1. I have always watched the Oscars and
2. I work weekends so I usually don't have time to watch a four hour awards ceremony live.
Fortunately I had the day off work and so I tuned into the event.
I don't think I have a lot of really gripping revelations about the experience, but like I said, it feels like I should debrief.
The first thing I want to address is Chris Rock. I think he did a great job. I used to find his humor distasteful but these days I really do like him. He, like any good comedian, sees the world very clearly. And when your job is to make fun of the world, that is very important. I know he's been criticized for being offensive (both at the Oscars and in general), but if I'm honest, I don't really care. I don't think that's an appropriate response to have to a comedian. Every comedian worth his salt-- any comedian you have heard of-- from Louis CK to Sarah Silverman to Patton Oswalt-- agrees that when someone is offended at a joke, that person is misunderstanding the meaning of the comedian. I try not to be controversial here on this blog, but this isn't a new proposition I'm putting forward. A comedian holds up a mirror to the society he is addressing. It might be a fun house mirror, distorted or exaggerated, but you aren't looking at the comedian when he tells a joke, you are looking at the context. I think it's great if a joke makes you mad, or makes you think, or makes you cry. There's a reason professional comics don't tell knock knock jokes-- they aren't contextual, they aren't risky, they don't make you think, they don't offend--and they also don't get laughs. Also, as a final note for anyone still upset: comedians have scripts, awards show hosts have scripts-- these jokes are not their person private diary entries--these are their JOKES.
The second thing on my mind is Leo: mostly, I'm happy we have one more dead meme that is no longer relevant. I kind of wish it wasn't for Revenant but that's because of my unfounded bias against that movie (which I haven't even seen) and it is probably great but I refuse to appreciate it. He has deserved it time and time again, and honestly, although I feel bad saying this, I feel like the Academy just gave him the award as a solid, and also so they didn't have to give the Oscar to Eddie Redmayne for a second time in a row. I don't know, maybe he really did deserve it.
Third important thing: Mad Max Fury Road. Won. All. The. Things. Well six of the things. Which is a lot of the things considering their are 24 total awards are some of those are for like documentaries, and animated films, and shorts... Anyway it's very impressive, and honestly I'm really glad it got as much recognition as it did. I was worried it was going to be relegated to the Hollywood Blockbuster category and ignored by the pretentious Academy. Given just how many awards it won, it's hard for me to complain, but I have one bit of beef. I thought Mad Max Fury Road deserved he award for best director. For two reasons. One, because George Miller is a brilliant director (I mean, did you see Babe: Pig in the City??? I kid). His vision is outstanding and his understanding about pacing is unreal. If you have not heard about his tweaking of the frames per second in the movie-- which undoubtedly helped seal the deal on the Oscar for film editing, you need to educate yourself. And two, because when a movie wins so many awards, for costumes, make up, production design, film editing, and sound mixing and editing-- those are facilitated and overseen by the director. The director has a hand in all of those elements-- so why didn't George Miller win? Because freaking Alejandro Iñárritu (of Birdman fame) had to win for the freaking Revenant. I'm not bitter.
Forth: Oscars So White. I definitely don't have an original opinion on this one: The roles need to exist first, so that the awards follow. This should be obvious.
Other than that, I don't think there were any surprises or upsets. I don't think scandal abounded and that's more than okay with me.
I could go into all the reasons I don't watch every ceremony but it basically boils down to this:
1. I have always watched the Oscars and
2. I work weekends so I usually don't have time to watch a four hour awards ceremony live.
Fortunately I had the day off work and so I tuned into the event.
I don't think I have a lot of really gripping revelations about the experience, but like I said, it feels like I should debrief.
The first thing I want to address is Chris Rock. I think he did a great job. I used to find his humor distasteful but these days I really do like him. He, like any good comedian, sees the world very clearly. And when your job is to make fun of the world, that is very important. I know he's been criticized for being offensive (both at the Oscars and in general), but if I'm honest, I don't really care. I don't think that's an appropriate response to have to a comedian. Every comedian worth his salt-- any comedian you have heard of-- from Louis CK to Sarah Silverman to Patton Oswalt-- agrees that when someone is offended at a joke, that person is misunderstanding the meaning of the comedian. I try not to be controversial here on this blog, but this isn't a new proposition I'm putting forward. A comedian holds up a mirror to the society he is addressing. It might be a fun house mirror, distorted or exaggerated, but you aren't looking at the comedian when he tells a joke, you are looking at the context. I think it's great if a joke makes you mad, or makes you think, or makes you cry. There's a reason professional comics don't tell knock knock jokes-- they aren't contextual, they aren't risky, they don't make you think, they don't offend--and they also don't get laughs. Also, as a final note for anyone still upset: comedians have scripts, awards show hosts have scripts-- these jokes are not their person private diary entries--these are their JOKES.
The second thing on my mind is Leo: mostly, I'm happy we have one more dead meme that is no longer relevant. I kind of wish it wasn't for Revenant but that's because of my unfounded bias against that movie (which I haven't even seen) and it is probably great but I refuse to appreciate it. He has deserved it time and time again, and honestly, although I feel bad saying this, I feel like the Academy just gave him the award as a solid, and also so they didn't have to give the Oscar to Eddie Redmayne for a second time in a row. I don't know, maybe he really did deserve it.
Third important thing: Mad Max Fury Road. Won. All. The. Things. Well six of the things. Which is a lot of the things considering their are 24 total awards are some of those are for like documentaries, and animated films, and shorts... Anyway it's very impressive, and honestly I'm really glad it got as much recognition as it did. I was worried it was going to be relegated to the Hollywood Blockbuster category and ignored by the pretentious Academy. Given just how many awards it won, it's hard for me to complain, but I have one bit of beef. I thought Mad Max Fury Road deserved he award for best director. For two reasons. One, because George Miller is a brilliant director (I mean, did you see Babe: Pig in the City??? I kid). His vision is outstanding and his understanding about pacing is unreal. If you have not heard about his tweaking of the frames per second in the movie-- which undoubtedly helped seal the deal on the Oscar for film editing, you need to educate yourself. And two, because when a movie wins so many awards, for costumes, make up, production design, film editing, and sound mixing and editing-- those are facilitated and overseen by the director. The director has a hand in all of those elements-- so why didn't George Miller win? Because freaking Alejandro Iñárritu (of Birdman fame) had to win for the freaking Revenant. I'm not bitter.
Forth: Oscars So White. I definitely don't have an original opinion on this one: The roles need to exist first, so that the awards follow. This should be obvious.
Other than that, I don't think there were any surprises or upsets. I don't think scandal abounded and that's more than okay with me.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Spectre: A Spectacularly Lazy Film
I was surprised that Daniel Craig decided to come back for a fourth Bond film. Three is such a slick number, and with the grandeur of Skyfall, it would have made sense for him to leave it at that. In fact, I thought for sure with the ushering in of a new M at the conclusion of Skyfall, there would be a logical, clean break between Bond actors. New M, new Bond, new era.
I was wrong.
They announced a new Daniel Craig Bond flick with very little panache. I think they knew they were over extending the life span of this generation of James Bond. But they made it anyway and honestly, it was the laziest effort to make a movie that I've ever witnessed.
It was a mad lib movie. The screenplay can only have been written thusly:
James Bond is walking down the streets of ________. He is a on a mission to ________ when he seduces _______ before fighting with _____ from the evil organization _________. He fights with _____ different men on a _______. Then he travels to ______ where he discovers that ______ is involved with _______. He infiltrates _______ but gets caught by ______ and must escape with __________ to _________. He follows his gut and finds ________ who informs him that _______ is going to destroy _____ unless he can stop it. Bond joins forces with _______ and travels to _____ and fights on a _______ with _________. The _______ invites him to his _______ and ______ Bond until he escapes with _________ and kills _____ by ________..... You get the point...
And then the writers picked little pieces of paper out of a hat with things like "Thugs", "The Alps", "Helicopter", "Tortures", "Sultry Widow", "Train", "Ex-Spy", "Kills", "German Bad Guy", "Shoots", "Africa", "Sexy Blonde", "Sports Car", "South America", "Explosion"....
It feels like the people who made this film poured every James Bond trope into a cement mixer before the movie slowly oozes out in a mess of cliches. It had exactly zero original content. In fact if you had told me that Spectre was a re-cut of various Bond movies spliced together, I would have believed it. It was the first time in a Bond movie where the overriding takeaway for me was "I've seen this all before, and better."
Even the acting was stiff and unconvincing. It is a sad fact that I have never been LESS afraid of Christoph Waltz in my life, and that includes his rather nice, relaxed, real-life demeanor. Daniel Craig is clearly ready to be done, and his usual subtle portrayal of the famous British spy is absolutely sedate. Lea Seydoux, the token love interest, has such poor chemistry with Craig that when she confesses that she loves him and when he eventually decides to give up his life of spying to be with her at the conclusion of the film, it is so ludicrously unbelievable that the audience feels betrayed by the supposedly confirmed bachelor. It is quite a feat to have such little chemistry with a character as charming as James Bond, but I would have believed a romance between Bond and Q before I would between Craig and Seydoux. The rest of the cast swirls around in varying degrees of adequacy. Ben Whishaw provided some relief as Q, but for the rest of the top-rated cast it is mostly a downward spiral. Even Andrew Scott of Sherlock fame was a disappointment-- he basically plays Moriarty and his character's "twist" is predictable to the point of absurdity.
What a shame and what a disappointment. Casino Royale and Skyfall were such gems. And although Quantum of Solace is considered a forgettable chapter in the franchise, Spectre offers so little in the way of creativity or originality as to rank in the lowest of low Bond movies.
I've said it before, but it felt so lazy. It felt like the movie makers kept Daniel Craig around because they were too lazy to figure out a smart way to transition to a new Bond actor. It felt like they only cast Christoph Waltz because they know that man would seem evil reciting the alphabet song and they were too lazy to create a villain that had interesting motivation and characterization. It felt like all the action, all the dialogue, all the plotting was siphoned from other action movies because they were too lazy to think of anything, anything at all, that was original.
The one thing it does without a doubt, even though I think this was already successfully done with Skyfall, is make room for a new Bond actor. Thank God. We clearly need new blood in this franchise.
I was wrong.
They announced a new Daniel Craig Bond flick with very little panache. I think they knew they were over extending the life span of this generation of James Bond. But they made it anyway and honestly, it was the laziest effort to make a movie that I've ever witnessed.
It was a mad lib movie. The screenplay can only have been written thusly:
James Bond is walking down the streets of ________. He is a on a mission to ________ when he seduces _______ before fighting with _____ from the evil organization _________. He fights with _____ different men on a _______. Then he travels to ______ where he discovers that ______ is involved with _______. He infiltrates _______ but gets caught by ______ and must escape with __________ to _________. He follows his gut and finds ________ who informs him that _______ is going to destroy _____ unless he can stop it. Bond joins forces with _______ and travels to _____ and fights on a _______ with _________. The _______ invites him to his _______ and ______ Bond until he escapes with _________ and kills _____ by ________..... You get the point...
And then the writers picked little pieces of paper out of a hat with things like "Thugs", "The Alps", "Helicopter", "Tortures", "Sultry Widow", "Train", "Ex-Spy", "Kills", "German Bad Guy", "Shoots", "Africa", "Sexy Blonde", "Sports Car", "South America", "Explosion"....
It feels like the people who made this film poured every James Bond trope into a cement mixer before the movie slowly oozes out in a mess of cliches. It had exactly zero original content. In fact if you had told me that Spectre was a re-cut of various Bond movies spliced together, I would have believed it. It was the first time in a Bond movie where the overriding takeaway for me was "I've seen this all before, and better."
Even the acting was stiff and unconvincing. It is a sad fact that I have never been LESS afraid of Christoph Waltz in my life, and that includes his rather nice, relaxed, real-life demeanor. Daniel Craig is clearly ready to be done, and his usual subtle portrayal of the famous British spy is absolutely sedate. Lea Seydoux, the token love interest, has such poor chemistry with Craig that when she confesses that she loves him and when he eventually decides to give up his life of spying to be with her at the conclusion of the film, it is so ludicrously unbelievable that the audience feels betrayed by the supposedly confirmed bachelor. It is quite a feat to have such little chemistry with a character as charming as James Bond, but I would have believed a romance between Bond and Q before I would between Craig and Seydoux. The rest of the cast swirls around in varying degrees of adequacy. Ben Whishaw provided some relief as Q, but for the rest of the top-rated cast it is mostly a downward spiral. Even Andrew Scott of Sherlock fame was a disappointment-- he basically plays Moriarty and his character's "twist" is predictable to the point of absurdity.
What a shame and what a disappointment. Casino Royale and Skyfall were such gems. And although Quantum of Solace is considered a forgettable chapter in the franchise, Spectre offers so little in the way of creativity or originality as to rank in the lowest of low Bond movies.
I've said it before, but it felt so lazy. It felt like the movie makers kept Daniel Craig around because they were too lazy to figure out a smart way to transition to a new Bond actor. It felt like they only cast Christoph Waltz because they know that man would seem evil reciting the alphabet song and they were too lazy to create a villain that had interesting motivation and characterization. It felt like all the action, all the dialogue, all the plotting was siphoned from other action movies because they were too lazy to think of anything, anything at all, that was original.
The one thing it does without a doubt, even though I think this was already successfully done with Skyfall, is make room for a new Bond actor. Thank God. We clearly need new blood in this franchise.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Star Wars: The Tour De Force
If you haven't seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens I can only assume one of two things is going on with you. 1. The holidays have been really hectic and try as you might you just haven't gotten around to it. Or 2. You are kind of a lukewarm Star Wars fan who might get around to seeing it eventually.
I write this for neither of you. Get your priorities straight, and get back to me.
For those of us who know what is truly important in the world, let's talk Star Wars. My parents, who are way more diligent Star Wars fans, watched all three* original movies in preparation for seeing this new installment. This is really the way to go, especially if it's been awhile since you've seen the movies-- although I can't imagine it has. If your family is anything like my family Star Wars is a Christmas tradition.
The Force Awakens has had so much HYPE swirling around it that I have made a concerted effort to avoid and ignore. I wanted to know very little before I sat down to watch the movie. I watched the teaser trailer but not the theatrical trailer, I did not go snooping for the plot, or obsess over the cast lists--basically I did none of the things I usually do when I am excited for a new movie. This is primarily because I resisted being excited about this new Star Wars movie. It's not like... a Marvel movie which for the last... 10ish years has kept a relatively impressive track record (if we ignore Iron Man 2, where seemingly everyone forgot that they were banking on this being a successful, long-lived franchise). But I've been burned by Star Wars before, so I refused to be disappointed if things went south.
I'd like to think I have high standards for science fiction. Recently, a coworker was telling me about the film Ex Machina and was surprised that I hadn't seen it. In a momentary delusion brought on by the disappointment in my coworker's face I explained that I didn't watch a lot of science fiction. As I heard the words out loud I realized the extent to which I can confidently spew bold-faced lies. You've been warned.
I wouldn't say that I am a certified science fiction expert, but I'm not totally ignorant. I've mentioned here before my (relatively) new found love for Star Trek, I grew up on Star Wars (much like Kylo Ren and Rey, I consider Han Solo a father figure), and I am a card carrying cult member for the cult-classic Firefly. I've seen all the B-movie classics after an unfortunate phase in middle school wherein I subjected my family and friends to innumerable unwatchable films such as Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Blob, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and Teenagers from Outer Space (best of the lot). The line gets blurred after that. Does Walking Dead Count? Do Marvel movies count? Doctor Who? I guess if I were a true science fiction fan, I would know.
When I say I grew up watching Star Wars I mean that seriously. I have very few memories of watching television or movies as a child and although I had a standard fleet of animated Disney flicks, my parents may be disappointed to know that the first concrete memories I have of watching movies are limited to four adult movies: Groundhog Day, Romancing the Stone, A Fish Called Wanda, and Star Wars. I also have very clear memories of staying up past my bedtime to watch 3rd Rock from the Sun with my parents. This may explain why I have such a warped sense of humor. In any case, Star Wars holds a lot of nostalgic value for me. I think this is true for a lot of people.
The stakes were high sitting in the movie theater a few nights ago. I knew that although I had kept my excitement on lock-down, I would still be very disappointed if the movie was a flop. Twenty minutes of trailers later, there was no turning back.
Long story short, I enjoyed myself immensely. This may have been due to my subterranean expectations, but I was impressed. The movie *felt* like the originals. It didn't feel like 38 years (yes, 38 years) had passed since A New Hope. I wish I had a more technical way of explaining how this was done, but I don't have much more to go on other than this feeling of continuity.
Part of this is undoubtedly due to the parallels between A New Hope and The Force Awakens. Although I would recommend being intimately familiar with the first three* before seeing The Force Awakens, honestly, they are so blunt with the parallels and head nods to the originals, that it would be hard to miss even if you haven't seen them in... 38 years. I liked some of the parallels but after a while I thought it was a little heavy handed. Movie makers are setting themselves at a disadvantage when they try to set up the same exciting twist over and over. This is, after all, why magicians don't do the same trick twice; they don't want the audience to see it coming.
The movie was funny-- truly laugh out loud funny several times, which quickly eased the tension I was experiencing in anticipation of a let down. I thank the nearly instant chemistry between all the characters for this. Finn (John Boyega) gets the award for funniest character and best comedic timing. I instantly felt at ease in his presence. BB-8 was also funny and cute which everyone already knows because BB-8 merchandise is everywhere now.
I will always be vocal about my desire to see lots of strong females in pop culture. It's been a pretty good year for female characters. I think the best advertised version of this was Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) in Mad Max: Fury Road. I would argue that Rey (Daisy Ridley) should be ranked among Furiosa as a really badass lady. In my opinion they should have a new Oscar category for Best Badass Lady in an Action Movie. This year, I nominate Charlize Theron and Daisy Ridley. I finally understand people who name their children Luke or Leia. I would totally name my daughter Rey.
I can't even handle Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) right now. He's too good at being bad and I always knew Adam Driver was amazing, and I have to stop now before I start crying.
It's an overwhelming movie and honestly, I can't wait to watch it again.
*a gentle, yet forceful, emphasis on the word three
I write this for neither of you. Get your priorities straight, and get back to me.
For those of us who know what is truly important in the world, let's talk Star Wars. My parents, who are way more diligent Star Wars fans, watched all three* original movies in preparation for seeing this new installment. This is really the way to go, especially if it's been awhile since you've seen the movies-- although I can't imagine it has. If your family is anything like my family Star Wars is a Christmas tradition.
The Force Awakens has had so much HYPE swirling around it that I have made a concerted effort to avoid and ignore. I wanted to know very little before I sat down to watch the movie. I watched the teaser trailer but not the theatrical trailer, I did not go snooping for the plot, or obsess over the cast lists--basically I did none of the things I usually do when I am excited for a new movie. This is primarily because I resisted being excited about this new Star Wars movie. It's not like... a Marvel movie which for the last... 10ish years has kept a relatively impressive track record (if we ignore Iron Man 2, where seemingly everyone forgot that they were banking on this being a successful, long-lived franchise). But I've been burned by Star Wars before, so I refused to be disappointed if things went south.
I'd like to think I have high standards for science fiction. Recently, a coworker was telling me about the film Ex Machina and was surprised that I hadn't seen it. In a momentary delusion brought on by the disappointment in my coworker's face I explained that I didn't watch a lot of science fiction. As I heard the words out loud I realized the extent to which I can confidently spew bold-faced lies. You've been warned.
I wouldn't say that I am a certified science fiction expert, but I'm not totally ignorant. I've mentioned here before my (relatively) new found love for Star Trek, I grew up on Star Wars (much like Kylo Ren and Rey, I consider Han Solo a father figure), and I am a card carrying cult member for the cult-classic Firefly. I've seen all the B-movie classics after an unfortunate phase in middle school wherein I subjected my family and friends to innumerable unwatchable films such as Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Blob, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and Teenagers from Outer Space (best of the lot). The line gets blurred after that. Does Walking Dead Count? Do Marvel movies count? Doctor Who? I guess if I were a true science fiction fan, I would know.
When I say I grew up watching Star Wars I mean that seriously. I have very few memories of watching television or movies as a child and although I had a standard fleet of animated Disney flicks, my parents may be disappointed to know that the first concrete memories I have of watching movies are limited to four adult movies: Groundhog Day, Romancing the Stone, A Fish Called Wanda, and Star Wars. I also have very clear memories of staying up past my bedtime to watch 3rd Rock from the Sun with my parents. This may explain why I have such a warped sense of humor. In any case, Star Wars holds a lot of nostalgic value for me. I think this is true for a lot of people.
The stakes were high sitting in the movie theater a few nights ago. I knew that although I had kept my excitement on lock-down, I would still be very disappointed if the movie was a flop. Twenty minutes of trailers later, there was no turning back.
Long story short, I enjoyed myself immensely. This may have been due to my subterranean expectations, but I was impressed. The movie *felt* like the originals. It didn't feel like 38 years (yes, 38 years) had passed since A New Hope. I wish I had a more technical way of explaining how this was done, but I don't have much more to go on other than this feeling of continuity.
Part of this is undoubtedly due to the parallels between A New Hope and The Force Awakens. Although I would recommend being intimately familiar with the first three* before seeing The Force Awakens, honestly, they are so blunt with the parallels and head nods to the originals, that it would be hard to miss even if you haven't seen them in... 38 years. I liked some of the parallels but after a while I thought it was a little heavy handed. Movie makers are setting themselves at a disadvantage when they try to set up the same exciting twist over and over. This is, after all, why magicians don't do the same trick twice; they don't want the audience to see it coming.
The movie was funny-- truly laugh out loud funny several times, which quickly eased the tension I was experiencing in anticipation of a let down. I thank the nearly instant chemistry between all the characters for this. Finn (John Boyega) gets the award for funniest character and best comedic timing. I instantly felt at ease in his presence. BB-8 was also funny and cute which everyone already knows because BB-8 merchandise is everywhere now.
I will always be vocal about my desire to see lots of strong females in pop culture. It's been a pretty good year for female characters. I think the best advertised version of this was Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) in Mad Max: Fury Road. I would argue that Rey (Daisy Ridley) should be ranked among Furiosa as a really badass lady. In my opinion they should have a new Oscar category for Best Badass Lady in an Action Movie. This year, I nominate Charlize Theron and Daisy Ridley. I finally understand people who name their children Luke or Leia. I would totally name my daughter Rey.
I can't even handle Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) right now. He's too good at being bad and I always knew Adam Driver was amazing, and I have to stop now before I start crying.
It's an overwhelming movie and honestly, I can't wait to watch it again.
*a gentle, yet forceful, emphasis on the word three
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Master of Something
It feels like there was a lot of hype about Master of None when it first was released, but I'm not sure the hype has continued passed the initial few weeks. This may be because Jessica Jones has overshadowed Master of None as the new Netflix it girl. Not surprisingly because Jessica Jones is a phenomenal show that at a future time I will expound upon.
However, Aziz Ansari's show is also a fantastic show, that should not be overlooked. If you like Louis CK's Louie, you will like Master of None. If you like Aziz Ansari's stand-up you will definitely like this show.
I don't think this show is getting enough credit for being ground breaking. I think Aziz Ansari and Alan Yang deserve a lot of credit for being very real in a very subtle way. It almost takes effort to see that the show they created is different from many shows made today because the show feels so... real and... right. Because it is right, and they are right to make it the way that they did.
Ten years ago this show would have been made with an all white, male cast. There would have been a token black guy and a token (white) girl, to give the illusion of diversity or reality and then been done with it. We've seen it before, I don't have to spell it out for you.
It's comforting, and sadly, refreshing to see such refined racial and gender parity in the casting of this show. I think this show, more than anything I've seen in recent history, created a diverse cast without it seeming manufactured. In the most beautiful way, these people are people. They don't feel like caricatures, and they certainly don't feel like political statements.
It's a refreshing show in that it is successfully light-hearted while also tackling some more serious themes. I hesitate to call it a comedy even though it is co-created by one of the funniest men out and about these days. It certainly fits within the realm of sitcom in that the cast of characters is given a situation each week-- Parents, Sexism, Racism, even Old People-- and then deals with the situation in comical ways.
I never would have thought I would call Aziz Ansari a subtle dude. Maybe it is a symptom of watching him play the outlandish Tom on Parks and Recreation, but I would have imagined a much grander, much more slap-stick show from Aziz Ansari. But this show is gentle in many ways. Sure there are some silly goofs, throwaway jokes, and immature laughs--but overall it is a show full of smart people, smart jokes, and smart take-aways.
If you haven't checked it out, please do. And if you have checked it out and been distracted by Jessica Jones, Star Wars, or The Holidays, please go back to it. I think it deserves the love. And shows like this don't get made again if they don't get support. This is a show, if nothing else, that should set an example for future television.
However, Aziz Ansari's show is also a fantastic show, that should not be overlooked. If you like Louis CK's Louie, you will like Master of None. If you like Aziz Ansari's stand-up you will definitely like this show.
I don't think this show is getting enough credit for being ground breaking. I think Aziz Ansari and Alan Yang deserve a lot of credit for being very real in a very subtle way. It almost takes effort to see that the show they created is different from many shows made today because the show feels so... real and... right. Because it is right, and they are right to make it the way that they did.
Ten years ago this show would have been made with an all white, male cast. There would have been a token black guy and a token (white) girl, to give the illusion of diversity or reality and then been done with it. We've seen it before, I don't have to spell it out for you.
It's comforting, and sadly, refreshing to see such refined racial and gender parity in the casting of this show. I think this show, more than anything I've seen in recent history, created a diverse cast without it seeming manufactured. In the most beautiful way, these people are people. They don't feel like caricatures, and they certainly don't feel like political statements.
It's a refreshing show in that it is successfully light-hearted while also tackling some more serious themes. I hesitate to call it a comedy even though it is co-created by one of the funniest men out and about these days. It certainly fits within the realm of sitcom in that the cast of characters is given a situation each week-- Parents, Sexism, Racism, even Old People-- and then deals with the situation in comical ways.
I never would have thought I would call Aziz Ansari a subtle dude. Maybe it is a symptom of watching him play the outlandish Tom on Parks and Recreation, but I would have imagined a much grander, much more slap-stick show from Aziz Ansari. But this show is gentle in many ways. Sure there are some silly goofs, throwaway jokes, and immature laughs--but overall it is a show full of smart people, smart jokes, and smart take-aways.
If you haven't checked it out, please do. And if you have checked it out and been distracted by Jessica Jones, Star Wars, or The Holidays, please go back to it. I think it deserves the love. And shows like this don't get made again if they don't get support. This is a show, if nothing else, that should set an example for future television.
Friday, November 27, 2015
REWATCH: Star Trek Into Darkness
Tonight my mother and I debated for quite some time about what movie to pop in our DVD player. I brought up Romancing the Stone (in seriousness) and my mom countered with Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones led us logically to Star Wars (which for my family is a holiday classic), but I wasn't convinced. This is when my dad reminded both of us that we've had the same Netflix DVD since October which my mother and I rejected in unison (Sorry Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo in Begin Again). At this point I suggested (turning my back on my upbringing in the process) that instead of watching Star Wars, we watch Star Trek: Into Darkness.
As much as I appreciate that Hollywood didn't just smack a backwards number 2 (or worse, Roman numerals) onto the Star Trek title to signify the sequel, I think the subtitle "Into Darkness" is a bit silly. I mean, we are talking about shooting off into space-- deep, DARK space. That subtitle is either very redundant or very dramatic. The other thing that annoys me is that the people responsible for the first of Star Trek reboot knew this was going to be a franchise-- I mean it is a reboot of (one of) the most successful franchises in history-- so why didn't the first of the series get a subtitle? It could have been Star Trek: The Trek Begins and then Star Trek: The Trekking Continues. Okay, I'm not good at naming movies, whatever, not the point.
The reboot was successful (duh) and the sequel was almost immediately commissioned. And here we are today watching the sequel on blu-ray in my living room. And again, this was successful enough for the franchise to be granted another movie (Star Trek: The Trek is Still Going Strong). Actually the third installment is going to be called Star Trek Beyond (which, honestly, isn't that different from Star Trek: The Trek is Still Going Strong). And according to IMDb there is a forth movie in the mix that so far is creatively called Star Trek 4 (I would have called it Star Trek: Can't Stop Trekkin').
I was born and raised a Star Wars fan and although I had seen many of the Star Trek movies (and a few of the episodes of the TV show), I'm not a superfan like some people are. I once had a professor who was simultaneously obsessed with Star Trek and Smurfs (Canadians, amiright?!). He would intermittently sprinkle in quotes from both in his lectures. Now HE was a superfan of Star Trek.
I don't know if there are a lot of haters out there for those of us who joined the Star Trek fandom with the reboot or if they are just happy to have more join the live-long-and-prosper ranks, but I am unashamedly a new recruit to the Starfleet. I don't think it is wise for people to bogart things they love that are easily shared. It does not take away from your experience or enjoyment of music, movies, books, or television shows to share it. These things are immortal only when new people can appreciate it. Sophocles, Homer, Shakespeare, Moliere, Chaucer, Dickens, Austen, and many more long dead are still remembered because a new generation picked them up, played with them, and passed them along selflessly. We should take that example in terms of more modern media like television and film.
In any case, I enjoyed revisiting this reboot and I'm excited for the continuation of this franchise. I'm always a fan of ensemble pieces, especially when they all are as sassy as the cast of Star Trek. Bones is definitely my favorite character.
For more Star Trek related hilarity, please check out Eddie Izzard's Star Trek bit from Unrepeatable. Especially if you are a fan of the old TV show.
As much as I appreciate that Hollywood didn't just smack a backwards number 2 (or worse, Roman numerals) onto the Star Trek title to signify the sequel, I think the subtitle "Into Darkness" is a bit silly. I mean, we are talking about shooting off into space-- deep, DARK space. That subtitle is either very redundant or very dramatic. The other thing that annoys me is that the people responsible for the first of Star Trek reboot knew this was going to be a franchise-- I mean it is a reboot of (one of) the most successful franchises in history-- so why didn't the first of the series get a subtitle? It could have been Star Trek: The Trek Begins and then Star Trek: The Trekking Continues. Okay, I'm not good at naming movies, whatever, not the point.
The reboot was successful (duh) and the sequel was almost immediately commissioned. And here we are today watching the sequel on blu-ray in my living room. And again, this was successful enough for the franchise to be granted another movie (Star Trek: The Trek is Still Going Strong). Actually the third installment is going to be called Star Trek Beyond (which, honestly, isn't that different from Star Trek: The Trek is Still Going Strong). And according to IMDb there is a forth movie in the mix that so far is creatively called Star Trek 4 (I would have called it Star Trek: Can't Stop Trekkin').
I was born and raised a Star Wars fan and although I had seen many of the Star Trek movies (and a few of the episodes of the TV show), I'm not a superfan like some people are. I once had a professor who was simultaneously obsessed with Star Trek and Smurfs (Canadians, amiright?!). He would intermittently sprinkle in quotes from both in his lectures. Now HE was a superfan of Star Trek.
I don't know if there are a lot of haters out there for those of us who joined the Star Trek fandom with the reboot or if they are just happy to have more join the live-long-and-prosper ranks, but I am unashamedly a new recruit to the Starfleet. I don't think it is wise for people to bogart things they love that are easily shared. It does not take away from your experience or enjoyment of music, movies, books, or television shows to share it. These things are immortal only when new people can appreciate it. Sophocles, Homer, Shakespeare, Moliere, Chaucer, Dickens, Austen, and many more long dead are still remembered because a new generation picked them up, played with them, and passed them along selflessly. We should take that example in terms of more modern media like television and film.
In any case, I enjoyed revisiting this reboot and I'm excited for the continuation of this franchise. I'm always a fan of ensemble pieces, especially when they all are as sassy as the cast of Star Trek. Bones is definitely my favorite character.
For more Star Trek related hilarity, please check out Eddie Izzard's Star Trek bit from Unrepeatable. Especially if you are a fan of the old TV show.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
No Panacea for Peter
I totally gave Pan the benefit of the doubt. First of all because the Peter Pan is one of my all time favorite stories and second of all because origin stories, if done right, can be great for super-fans.
The movie Pan offers one of the most disappointed possible origin stories I've seen in recent history. It essentially ignores all aspects of the Peter Pan story that are worth going into during a prequel in order to offer endless cliches that have not only been done before, they've been done better.
No story can ever start at the very beginning. As a story teller or audience member, you have to take some facts for granted. Captain Hook is Peter's nemesis, Captain Hook has a hook for a hand from a run-in with a crocodile that Peter had something to do with, Peter is kind of a mettlesome prick, Tinkerbell is Peter Pan's best friend, and neither Hook nor Peter Pan should mess with (the mostly racially problematic) Tiger Lilly. These are the key elements of the story not usually addressed because the original story of Peter Pan is about Wendy, John and what's-his-face (just looked it up, Michael). We get their backstories because they are our real protagonists (actually, if you ask me, only Wendy is). Knowing the specific details on how Hook lost his hand and how Peter Pan may or may not have been involved is not important in a story about the Darling family.
That's why origin stories are made. They offer answers to questions never asked in the main story line because what is important in that moment is often what is happening, not why it is happening. Presumably J. M. Barrie, creator of Peter Pan, knew the back stories of all his characters. He may very well have gone in great detail into the particulars of Peter Pan and Hook's origins in the book, I must admit I've never read it.
But I know a bit about about the Peter Pan canon because I've seen the play and musical based on the book, the Disney animated movie, Robin William's Hook, and the 2003 movie (with pretty-boy-Peter Jeremy Sumpter and my personal favorite Jason Isaacs as Hook). I even saw the nearly unwatchable live broadcast of the musical that aired last winter as well as the Johnny Depp film based loosely around the life of J. M. Barrie. Although now that I think about it, that could very well have been a fever dream on my part, as so many of Johnny Depp's films in the last ten years seem to run together into an amalgamation of whimsical overacting and bizarre costume choices. In any case, with all this knowledge of Peter Pan, I still don't have a firm idea of quite how they became such ferocious foes.
To put it simply, Pan betrays the audience by not living up to its promise as an origin story. Pan tells the story of an orphan boy whose life is terrible because his orphanage is run by Miss Hannigan/ Miss Minchin/ Agatha Trunchbull/ Petunia Dursley. Then he is kidnapped by pirates who work for Blackbeard. Blackbeard is enslaving orphans to mine fairy dust because it keeps him immortal and looking fresh just like Mother Gothel/ the Sanderson Sisters/ Nicolas Flammel/ miscellaneous succubi. Pan decides to team up with rebel without a cause/ Han Solo/ lone wolf/ anarchist/ reluctant ally, Captain Hook, and bumbling idiot/ spineless nobody/ comic relief/ token British person, Sam Smiegel. They meet up with (still mostly racially problematic) Tiger Lilly/ Faith Lehane/ Michonne/ Black Widow/ brooding trained killer. This is what follows: action sequence, action sequence, self-doubt (on Peter's part), action sequence, action sequence, self-serving action (Hook), action sequence, action sequence, self-sacrificing action (Hook behaving almost precisely like Han Solo), final action sequence, victory.
It could have been anything. It could have been Matilda, or Harry Potter, or Star Wars, because there wasn't a single original plot point in the whole movie. But that wasn't even the worst part. The worst part is that it answered none of the questions a prequel to Peter Pan should answer. Sure, it alluded to some things-- like there is a crocodile for about three minutes during an action sequence. But it did not tell us anything we came here to be told.
The movie sets us up for failure. One of the first lines in the prologue says, "Sometimes friends begin as enemies and enemies begin as friends. Sometimes to truly understand how things end, we must first know how they begin." Great, I was thinking. We are about to see how friends, Peter and Hook, become enemies. That's just what I want to see. But I was mistaken. The movie ends with an exchange that goes something like this:
Peter: Nothing will ever come between us, will it, Hook?
Hook: No way, we'll be friends forever!
Okay, I might be paraphrasing, but as I can't find the quote online, you'll have to take my word for it. What a dismally disappointing ending to an already mediocre movie. I wanted betrayal, heartbreak, loss. Not BFFs on a quest to defeat Hugh Jackman in drag.
There were other problematic things about this movie, other than the misleading concept of finally finding out what happened between Peter and Hook. It is one of those movies, unfortunately, that not only fall below your expectations, they flounder on the floor in front of you as you frown disapprovingly. Here are a few things, besides the let down of not giving me the kind of prequel I wanted, that I was not happy about.
I don't deny that Rooney Mara delivered a good performance, but it will always be problematic for me when a character is white washed by Hollywood. In fact, for the most part the indigenous peoples of Neverland were treated sloppily in terms of casting. They apparently don't have a race or ethnicity so much as they have whatever people of color the casting department could scrounge up at the time of shooting. The village elder is Australian (Jack Charles), the village warrior is Korean (Na Tae-Joo)... so... I'm clearly missing their casting concept. In any case, I think the creators have run into the common problem of casting a handful racially diverse actors, patting themselves on the back, and then giving them all collectively about 30 seconds of screen time. When the cast of Pan was first released, many online forums lambasted the creators for casting Tiger Lilly as a white woman and I tend to agree.
I also had some issues with our characters's motivations. I have a personal distaste for the "I must do blank so I can lie forever" plot point which is basically our only motivation for our baddie, Blackbeard. It has been done so much and it offers no interpersonal conflict. No one is doing anything for love, or loss, or revenge, or betrayal. Blackbeard just wants to be young forever, Hook just wants to go home (to the... Midwest?.. apparently?), and Peter just wants to fulfill a prophecy he didn't even know existed until five seconds ago. The plot seems very forced and not at all emotionally charged. During various moments the writers try to rectify this by crow-barring some mommy issues into what Peter is dealing with, but again it feels too artificial. Peter literally says at one point something along the lines of, "How can I love someone so much when I haven't even met them?" and it should have been left unsaid. Orphans universally want their mothers and fathers to come back and adopt them (see the whole plot of Annie). You don't have to force feed the audience emotional depth like that--it brings us out of the story and makes us question the plot.
In general the writing left something to be desired. Some lines were cute, some were funny, some referenced the Peter Pan canon and felt like a little Easter egg, but a lot of the writing felt stale before it left the character's mouth. Twice Peter Pan refuses to kneel to Blackbeard-- and a swear I've seen that scene one thousand times. At one point, and this may tell more about me than the writing in the movie, Blackbeard has Peter down in his captain's chambers, telling him of a prophecy. When he finishes his story Peter says, "I don't believe in bedtime stories" and I swear I was back on the Black Pearl when Elizabeth says, "I hardly believe in ghost stories anymore, Captain Barbossa" and Barbossa says, "You best start believing in ghost stories, Miss Turner-- You're in one!" (I didn't even need to look that quote up, I have that one locked in my brain for all eternity). Anyway, so much of the plot and so much of the dialogue felt old and recycled, poorly re-purposed for this story.
I won't harp on the problems I have with a Hook-Tiger Lilly romantic side plot-line but just know that I do. not. approve.
The last thing I will complain about is the CGI. I really don't know a lot about graphics so it should say a lot that I noticed how weird they were. They instantly felt outdated, like CGI used for television. The friend I went with said afterwards that she has seen better graphics in cut scenes in video games. It must be hard to do CGI because technology moves so fast, and so many movies are pouring an unreasonably large amount of money for top of the line graphics. Movies can't afford to budget their special effects, it ages the movie so fast. It's like seeing a movie made today featuring flip phones. It just feels cheap and cheesy even if I know it is not.
I will give props to a few who deserve it. Levi Miller (Peter) is properly adorable and offers a good bit of character development from beginning to end. Always a sucker for handsome, aloof, bad-boys I appreciated Garrett Hedlund (James Hook) and I think he will probably get picked up for other roles because of his work in this movie. Adeel Akhtar plays Smie and is endearing and hilarious in that spineless coward sort of way. Jacqueline Durran designed amazing costumes and if you like costumes and she's not on your radar, immediately look her up. She's great and wonderful and fantastic, especially for period pieces.
This movie, if it has done well enough, will be a franchise. That's what I saw at the end of the movie, anyway. They are setting us up for more, but I desperately don't want more of what I have just seen. Other reviews seem to agree which means we may be in one of those instances like the Jim Carry Series of Unfortunate Events which was so abysmally bad they gave up on the series. We may never find out what happens between Peter and Hook that tears their friendship apart and turns them into mortal enemies. Which is a real bummer, 'cause I'd paid to see it. I mean, I already tried.
The movie Pan offers one of the most disappointed possible origin stories I've seen in recent history. It essentially ignores all aspects of the Peter Pan story that are worth going into during a prequel in order to offer endless cliches that have not only been done before, they've been done better.
No story can ever start at the very beginning. As a story teller or audience member, you have to take some facts for granted. Captain Hook is Peter's nemesis, Captain Hook has a hook for a hand from a run-in with a crocodile that Peter had something to do with, Peter is kind of a mettlesome prick, Tinkerbell is Peter Pan's best friend, and neither Hook nor Peter Pan should mess with (the mostly racially problematic) Tiger Lilly. These are the key elements of the story not usually addressed because the original story of Peter Pan is about Wendy, John and what's-his-face (just looked it up, Michael). We get their backstories because they are our real protagonists (actually, if you ask me, only Wendy is). Knowing the specific details on how Hook lost his hand and how Peter Pan may or may not have been involved is not important in a story about the Darling family.
That's why origin stories are made. They offer answers to questions never asked in the main story line because what is important in that moment is often what is happening, not why it is happening. Presumably J. M. Barrie, creator of Peter Pan, knew the back stories of all his characters. He may very well have gone in great detail into the particulars of Peter Pan and Hook's origins in the book, I must admit I've never read it.
But I know a bit about about the Peter Pan canon because I've seen the play and musical based on the book, the Disney animated movie, Robin William's Hook, and the 2003 movie (with pretty-boy-Peter Jeremy Sumpter and my personal favorite Jason Isaacs as Hook). I even saw the nearly unwatchable live broadcast of the musical that aired last winter as well as the Johnny Depp film based loosely around the life of J. M. Barrie. Although now that I think about it, that could very well have been a fever dream on my part, as so many of Johnny Depp's films in the last ten years seem to run together into an amalgamation of whimsical overacting and bizarre costume choices. In any case, with all this knowledge of Peter Pan, I still don't have a firm idea of quite how they became such ferocious foes.
To put it simply, Pan betrays the audience by not living up to its promise as an origin story. Pan tells the story of an orphan boy whose life is terrible because his orphanage is run by Miss Hannigan/ Miss Minchin/ Agatha Trunchbull/ Petunia Dursley. Then he is kidnapped by pirates who work for Blackbeard. Blackbeard is enslaving orphans to mine fairy dust because it keeps him immortal and looking fresh just like Mother Gothel/ the Sanderson Sisters/ Nicolas Flammel/ miscellaneous succubi. Pan decides to team up with rebel without a cause/ Han Solo/ lone wolf/ anarchist/ reluctant ally, Captain Hook, and bumbling idiot/ spineless nobody/ comic relief/ token British person, Sam Smiegel. They meet up with (still mostly racially problematic) Tiger Lilly/ Faith Lehane/ Michonne/ Black Widow/ brooding trained killer. This is what follows: action sequence, action sequence, self-doubt (on Peter's part), action sequence, action sequence, self-serving action (Hook), action sequence, action sequence, self-sacrificing action (Hook behaving almost precisely like Han Solo), final action sequence, victory.
It could have been anything. It could have been Matilda, or Harry Potter, or Star Wars, because there wasn't a single original plot point in the whole movie. But that wasn't even the worst part. The worst part is that it answered none of the questions a prequel to Peter Pan should answer. Sure, it alluded to some things-- like there is a crocodile for about three minutes during an action sequence. But it did not tell us anything we came here to be told.
The movie sets us up for failure. One of the first lines in the prologue says, "Sometimes friends begin as enemies and enemies begin as friends. Sometimes to truly understand how things end, we must first know how they begin." Great, I was thinking. We are about to see how friends, Peter and Hook, become enemies. That's just what I want to see. But I was mistaken. The movie ends with an exchange that goes something like this:
Peter: Nothing will ever come between us, will it, Hook?
Hook: No way, we'll be friends forever!
Okay, I might be paraphrasing, but as I can't find the quote online, you'll have to take my word for it. What a dismally disappointing ending to an already mediocre movie. I wanted betrayal, heartbreak, loss. Not BFFs on a quest to defeat Hugh Jackman in drag.
There were other problematic things about this movie, other than the misleading concept of finally finding out what happened between Peter and Hook. It is one of those movies, unfortunately, that not only fall below your expectations, they flounder on the floor in front of you as you frown disapprovingly. Here are a few things, besides the let down of not giving me the kind of prequel I wanted, that I was not happy about.
I don't deny that Rooney Mara delivered a good performance, but it will always be problematic for me when a character is white washed by Hollywood. In fact, for the most part the indigenous peoples of Neverland were treated sloppily in terms of casting. They apparently don't have a race or ethnicity so much as they have whatever people of color the casting department could scrounge up at the time of shooting. The village elder is Australian (Jack Charles), the village warrior is Korean (Na Tae-Joo)... so... I'm clearly missing their casting concept. In any case, I think the creators have run into the common problem of casting a handful racially diverse actors, patting themselves on the back, and then giving them all collectively about 30 seconds of screen time. When the cast of Pan was first released, many online forums lambasted the creators for casting Tiger Lilly as a white woman and I tend to agree.
I also had some issues with our characters's motivations. I have a personal distaste for the "I must do blank so I can lie forever" plot point which is basically our only motivation for our baddie, Blackbeard. It has been done so much and it offers no interpersonal conflict. No one is doing anything for love, or loss, or revenge, or betrayal. Blackbeard just wants to be young forever, Hook just wants to go home (to the... Midwest?.. apparently?), and Peter just wants to fulfill a prophecy he didn't even know existed until five seconds ago. The plot seems very forced and not at all emotionally charged. During various moments the writers try to rectify this by crow-barring some mommy issues into what Peter is dealing with, but again it feels too artificial. Peter literally says at one point something along the lines of, "How can I love someone so much when I haven't even met them?" and it should have been left unsaid. Orphans universally want their mothers and fathers to come back and adopt them (see the whole plot of Annie). You don't have to force feed the audience emotional depth like that--it brings us out of the story and makes us question the plot.
In general the writing left something to be desired. Some lines were cute, some were funny, some referenced the Peter Pan canon and felt like a little Easter egg, but a lot of the writing felt stale before it left the character's mouth. Twice Peter Pan refuses to kneel to Blackbeard-- and a swear I've seen that scene one thousand times. At one point, and this may tell more about me than the writing in the movie, Blackbeard has Peter down in his captain's chambers, telling him of a prophecy. When he finishes his story Peter says, "I don't believe in bedtime stories" and I swear I was back on the Black Pearl when Elizabeth says, "I hardly believe in ghost stories anymore, Captain Barbossa" and Barbossa says, "You best start believing in ghost stories, Miss Turner-- You're in one!" (I didn't even need to look that quote up, I have that one locked in my brain for all eternity). Anyway, so much of the plot and so much of the dialogue felt old and recycled, poorly re-purposed for this story.
I won't harp on the problems I have with a Hook-Tiger Lilly romantic side plot-line but just know that I do. not. approve.
The last thing I will complain about is the CGI. I really don't know a lot about graphics so it should say a lot that I noticed how weird they were. They instantly felt outdated, like CGI used for television. The friend I went with said afterwards that she has seen better graphics in cut scenes in video games. It must be hard to do CGI because technology moves so fast, and so many movies are pouring an unreasonably large amount of money for top of the line graphics. Movies can't afford to budget their special effects, it ages the movie so fast. It's like seeing a movie made today featuring flip phones. It just feels cheap and cheesy even if I know it is not.
I will give props to a few who deserve it. Levi Miller (Peter) is properly adorable and offers a good bit of character development from beginning to end. Always a sucker for handsome, aloof, bad-boys I appreciated Garrett Hedlund (James Hook) and I think he will probably get picked up for other roles because of his work in this movie. Adeel Akhtar plays Smie and is endearing and hilarious in that spineless coward sort of way. Jacqueline Durran designed amazing costumes and if you like costumes and she's not on your radar, immediately look her up. She's great and wonderful and fantastic, especially for period pieces.
This movie, if it has done well enough, will be a franchise. That's what I saw at the end of the movie, anyway. They are setting us up for more, but I desperately don't want more of what I have just seen. Other reviews seem to agree which means we may be in one of those instances like the Jim Carry Series of Unfortunate Events which was so abysmally bad they gave up on the series. We may never find out what happens between Peter and Hook that tears their friendship apart and turns them into mortal enemies. Which is a real bummer, 'cause I'd paid to see it. I mean, I already tried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)