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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)