Reviews up the Wazoos

This is where I provide my opinion on movies (and possibly other stuff). Letterboxd: Reigntall

[viewagain]

Some Pun Involving How ‘Gay’ Also Means ‘Happy’

The film’s opening credits starts with a collage of images, which I will sprinkle throughout the review. An interesting blend of tacky, unflattering art style and uncanny valley. All-in-all, completely appropriate.

Mackenzie Davis with Kristen Stewart (allegedly)

“The Gay Agenda strikes again! America weeps!!1” shouts the strawman homophobic keyboard warrior. A stereotypical rom-com has been made, except now the lead couple are lesbians. But I will console the bigot, who is now lamenting another hetero-institution being destroyed by the gays, this is not a case of tokenism and shoehorning as they so hate. “Happiest Season” is actually a story about LGBTQ people and their trials and tribulations. Unfortunately, it’s also not very good.

There are two types of Christmas movies. One, are movies that take happen to place on or around Christmas - ‘Die Hard’, ‘Catch Me if You Can’, ‘Eyes Wide Shut’. And others which are about Christmas. And for the latter, Christmas isn’t just a holiday, it is a way of life. It is a concept, a cult, a universal constant that you are either a part of or a weird outsider, who has yet to be converted. “Happiest Season” is bookended with extra-capital C, capital M ‘Christmas Movie’ scenes. It starts with the couple where one, Harper (Mackenzie Davis) is the Christmas-lover and the other, Abby (Kristen Stewart), is a curmudgeon. And it ends with a snapshot of a Hallmark saccharine utopia: 2.5 children, beautiful, big living room with an over-decorated tree, stockings perfectly lined up over the fireplace, and everyone in matching robes. But in between, the film kind of forgets all that. Christmas is just the coincidental backdrop.  Abby doesn’t even go into believing in the spirit of Christmas, but its more of an indifferent acceptance.

Maybe it’s me who doesn’t know what Kristen Stewart looks like.

The film has further trouble knowing what it is. It inhabits the gray zone of comedy-romance-drama. There are scenes of slapstick humor; scenes of emotional hardship as a relationship starts to crumble; scenes of off-beat characters saying odd things; scenes; and scenes where events transpire, but nothing happens emotionally or comedically. Considering the ending, it is trying to seriously tackle LGBTQ issues. And ‘wew lad’, what an ending.

Do you love those scenes at the end of every rom-com, where the main character gives an impassioned speech, soft sad piano in the background, pure pathos? They are at the verge of tears, onlookers – since there always has to be a public display – watch wide-eyed with serious expressions? If you do, then you’ll love this movie. It has at least 5 (five) in a fifteen-minute stretch. Not to say that the movie has a lot of energy throughout, but it really draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaags its feet at the end.

Ok, closer, but I don’t know, something still seems off...

The film ultimately tries to be about a life-experience that many (most? all?) LGBTQ people can relate to. The central conflict may be Harper and her inability to come out of the closet, fearing what her family will think, she even forces the woman she loves to come back into the closet with her. And yet, this is told from Abby’s perspective. She has no arc; she doesn’t even have the Christmas movie arc of learning to believe in the spirit of Christmas (she just becomes to indifferent acceptance). Harper’s parents are non-characters, since they are in the film for so little and don’t have meaningful interactions with Abby. Beyond one off-hand sarcastic comment about a ‘lifestyle choice’, I did not feel like there was any hostility toward homosexuality, no tension of ‘oh no! What if they find out?!’. Oh, by the way, Abby’s parents died on Christmas. Not that it has any bearing on anything really, it’s just something the movie mentions a half-dozen times throughout, so you don’t forget.

Am I going crazy or are the faces really shoddily photoshopped on?

As a non-LGBTQ+ person, I did not feel engaged about the thematic crux. I found it to be too barebones and simplistic. Something more at home ten years ago, and I would like to think that society has moved on to be more nuanced on the topic. However, I see the value in it. For some, it may be significant to see this topic that they have experience with in their own life, represented prominently like this. And here I will close, by blatantly stealing the summary of my own ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ review. Despite my negative review, I am glad this movie was made. There should be more representation of every demographic in film. This means there should be more representation in bad movies, mediocre movies, forgettable movies, and hopefully great movies as well. “Happiest Season” just isn’t one of the latter.

5/10

IMDB: 6.9 RT: 83% / 84%

[viewagain]

The Trip to Greece

It’s time again to take a trip with our favorite travel-buddies, 7-time BAFTA winner Steve Coogan and happily-married father of two Rob Brydon. Ten years ago, it was to travel around restaurants in England, then a few years later Italy, then Spain, and now a week in – surprise, surprise   – Greece. Don’t worry if you haven’t traveled with them before, you can still delight in their dinnertime conversations!

The duo remark that already since the ancient times everything is derivative, just look at the Aeneid vs the Odyssey. Originality is overrated they say, as they appear in their fourth, almost identical film together. This itself is a point they had already expressed in an earlier sequel, though it is difficult to recall which one since big-picture-wise they are the same. Such is the case with travel documentaries as a whole, which “The Trip to Greece” is framed as. The two leads – who play exaggerated versions of themselves – are talented impressionists and poke fun at one another at every opportunity with the iconic British dry wit. Their conversations mostly consist of fun facts about Ancient Greece and lengthy bits of trying to one-up each other with impressions, itself a derivative act (but it’s OK, as Rob starts the film quoting Aristotle praising the art of imitation).  There is a natural ebb and flow to their dynamic. At times they laugh at each other’s jokes, playing off one another perfectly, but just as often are annoyed with each other.

Each film has a slight dramatic arc that ties it all together and stops it from being a disconnected series of funny conversations. The drama is usually happening back home and the conversations take place via phone. It makes the journey feel special and in a separate, carefree reality as vacations often feel like. While the comedy in this entry is some of the best in the series, these dramatic elements are weaker and more disjointed.

Sitting near Steve and Rob in a restaurant and hearing them constantly shout Michael Caine quotes would be an awful experience, but the audience gets to sit at the same table, laughing along. It is similar to how one can binge “Friends” and feel like the 7th member of the group. With the Trip series, it is like meeting up again with old friends you haven’t seen for several years. And when they start doing that same scene from James Bond for the fourth time, it isn’t unoriginal or repetitive, but an inside joke between close friends.

Enjoying the film is completely dependent on how long you can enjoy Rob and Steve’s humor. In another moment of great self-awareness, Steve tells Rob at the end of their trip that he finds Rob entertaining, but exhausting. It is probably not best to watch these films in quick succession but one sub two-hour trip every few years is the perfect bite.

8/10

IMDB: 6.6 RT: 87% / 56%

[viewagain]

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga

Jaja Ding Dong

You’d be forgiven for thinking “Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga” is a music-comedy akin to “Walk Hard” or Lonely Island’s “Popstar”. It starts promisingly enough with “Volcano Man”, a generic sounding electro-pop song with goofy lyrics and music video that would fit right at home at Eurovision Nothing too crazy, but it is just beginning of the film after all. Then the song ends and… “Gotcha!” This isn’t even the song Fire Saga, the Icelandic music duo, will be submitting to the national competition. Instead they go with a boring, forgettable duet which, actually, is quite fitting representative for the film itself.

Eurovision is one of the most over-the-top, ridiculous events and a perfect topic for comedy. Crank all the dials to 11 and you could have hilarious spectacle! However, this perhaps is too daunting of a task. Even looking at Iceland who was most recently represented by an anti-capitalist, BDSM industrial techno performance, the bar is quite high. The drama in Lars (Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (Rachel McAdams) being an embarrassment to Iceland is not so much to do with their song being horrible, but rather their frequent technical mishaps. Fire Saga’s song is a romantic duet with no comedic nuance. Most of the other songs in the film feel like tributes rather than parody. There is even a whole musical medley featuring past Eurovision winners and competitors, including Estonia’s own Elina Nechayeva. This film clearly comes from the creators’ sincere love of the competition and chose it more as a setting for a comedy rather than the subject of it.

The comedy instead skews towards just general foolishness - dick jokes, physical comedy, and yelling – with a few insightful jokes here and there (like how the ideal representative for Iceland should sing in perfect English). The film puts a strong emphasis on the leads riffing off of each other rather than well-structured jokes. Though both can be funny comedic actors, there is an unfortunate lack of chemistry between Ferrell and McAdams. A lot of scenes linger for too long without building on the jokes. A lot of time could have been saved from this surprisingly long two-hour movie with better editing. Though the main issue is not the comedy itself, but what surrounds it.

The bulk of the film is focused on one of the most bizarre love triangles. Sigrit is infatuated with Lars. He shows no interest in her, even pushes her face away as she tries to kiss him. In swoops Alexander (Dan Stevens), the representative for Russia. He is a great listener, supportive, caring, and much more interested in Sigrit than Lars. Despite the fact that he is gay (which he denies since there of course are no gays in Mother Russia).  It seems Sigrit is destined for an asexual relationship anyway, and it is clear that the latter is the better choice. The lack of romantic chemistry between the leads makes the numerous long and sincere dramatic scenes about their relationship ring hollow. It becomes melodrama, which can have its place in a comedy, but in “Eurovisoin” it is not absurd enough to be funny nor believable enough to be engaging and emotional.

This years Eurovision is disappointing. There are laughs to be had, but they are spread thin and you have to suffer through a boring love triangle to get to them. Thankfully, this is a Netflix film, so you can just put it on in the background while you do something else more productive.

4/10

IMDB: 6.6 RT: 64%

[viewagain]

The True History of the Kelly Gang

I don’t give a fuck about no doughnuts!

Forget everything you know about Ned Kelly. Or don’t. It doesn’t really matter as this film, is not even attempting to be an accurate historical film. “The True History of the Kelly Gang” by Australian director Jeff Kurzel, is based on the 2000 novel of the same name which gives a fictionalized account of the famed 19th century Australian bandit.

Many historical films have the tried and true phrase ‘based on a true story’ and then go on to distort, misrepresent, and fabricate. This film is honest in its dishonesty: the opening text says that nothing you’re about to see is true. As the other words fade, the ‘true’ lingers and becomes part of the title. This itself is a lie, because this this depiction of Ned Kelly is a blend of lie, legend, as well actual true facts about the Kelly gang. There are layers upon layers of subtext and metatext in this film on the topic of posthumous storytelling. Ned Kelly is the perfect subject: he is a man haunted by his past and the lies leveled against him, a man who wrote lengthy letters giving his side of the story, and to this day is still hailed a hero and a villain.

Inner Machinations of the Mind Are an Enigma

Another misdirect by the film, is that this is not about the crime-spree of the Australian outlaws but focuses much more heavily on the life of pre-infamy Ned Kelly. Edward “Ned” Kelly is the eldest son of a poor Irish family. His father is sent to prison when Ned is young and a variety of potential father figures – some law enforcement, some criminals – flow quickly in and out of his life. The constant is his mother with whom he has strange, deep yet toxic relationship.  Ned is shown to mostly be a good person but has pushed him into a life a crime through unjustified (but also justified) persecution. His decision to become an outlaw seems to be done as an act of protest. It seems everyone in his life is tied into the eternal struggle of authoritarian police and anarchist outlaw, which is extrapolated further to be a conflict between the English and the Irish, centuries old rivals.

Despite being the focal point of the film, Ned remains an enigmatic figure throughout. He wordlessly stares for an uncomfortable amount of time, the gears turning in his head, before suddenly acting and the reason for his decision is often left for the viewer to decipher. This also gives the sense that some of the plot lines weren’t fully developed. Perhaps cutting back on certain scenes to focus more on others could have also helped the uneven pacing. The film is a slow burn that doesn’t so much gradually grow into madness, but suddenly lurches headfirst into the depths. George MacKay is captivating as he goes from the wide-eyed nervous staring, to the chaos that is the final act. Kurzel has a great eye and even during the slower segments, there are enough beautiful and intriguing shots to keep viewers engaged; some may find the journey to the brilliant climax to be arduous.

Violent delights have violent ends

And it would be a shame if people gave up before the end. Kurzel’s ‘Macbeth’ is bookmarked by inventive and memorable action scenes and in the same vein, ‘The True History of Ned Kelly’ culminates with one of the most adrenaline pumping action scenes in film. It is bloody; it is brutal; it is grotesque; and most importantly, it feels real. Many blockbuster action films give a sense of being an observe to highly-choreographed, consequence-free twirling. The combination of visuals and sound design in this film make the viewer feel like they are part of the chaotic firefight.

Beyond just the sound design, the score deserves great praise as well. The composer Jed Kurzel (director’s brother) uses string, percussion, and folk instruments to create a rich sonic atmosphere. There are fun, adventures songs where the bass is cheerfully plucking away, but where Kurzel excels is in the intense. Though this core may not be overall as haunting as his masterful work on ‘Macbeth’, there are still pieces where low notes pound away like an oppressive heartbeat as the abrasive, off-key high strings become almost overwhelming.

What does it mean to be a man?

This movie is not without controversy. Despite telling the audience from the first sentence that this is not a factual depiction, you can find numerous angry user reviews and articles from Australians upset at two aspects of the film: the cross-dressing and homoerotic undertones. The Kelly gang is not trying to be women; they adopt dresses as part of their battle dress (pun intended) in a way that can be interpreted to be an act of protest to masculine ideals. The world of cops and robbers is hyper masculine. Men size each other up, posturing to be the tougher man, sticking guns in each other’s faces. The constable’s desire to subdue Ned is like a passionate obsession. Robin Hood is oft joked to be gay, living in the woods with his merry men, and Ned Kelly being the Australian Robin Hood… It seems to me as a logical progression, and a delightful deconstruction of the ultra-masculine.

So, did we learn anything about the Kelly gang at the end of this two-hour journey? With fact so entwined with fiction it’s hard to say. So instead, one can mull over the multitude of ideas and themes and meta-commentary that this film provides long after it’s over. Not that there are any clear answers there either. Or one can just appreciate the moments of great acting, interesting visuals, top-notch score or memorable finale.

8/10

IMDB: 5.9 RT: 79% | N/A

[viewagain]

Jojo Rabbit

Nazis have been the target of ridicule already during World War II with films such as Chaplin’s ‘The Great Dictator’ or Lubitsch’s ‘To Be or Not to Be’. They are an easy target; they are a shorthand for evil. Who is going to get offended, who is going to defend them? …Well, nowadays, there actually might be a depressingly sizable amount of people who would. That’s why it is such a delight that there is yet another film mocking them.

Little Jojo is the perfect Hitler-Jugend, so much so that his imaginary friend is the Führer himself, who is played by the director, Taika Waititi, a Polynesian Jew. He portrays one of the evilest men in history as a buffoon with a slight invocation of a gay stereotypes, though not as blatant as the iconic gay-Hitler in ‘The Prodcuers’. (It is delicious irony, since the Nazi’s were famously not fans of the homosexuals). Unfortunately, we do not see too much of this silly, fun Hitler character, as ‘Jojo Rabbit’ is not a straight comedy, but also a heartfelt story of zealous child whose world view is challenged. Jojo Rabbit, with his healthy hatred of the Jews, is shocked to find a Jewish girl hiding in his home. Jojo is endearing, yet annoying. But annoying in a childlike ignorant yet confident way, not an annoying of an overacting child. 

Though not a straight comedy, it is not a depressing Holocaust film either. Last year’s fascist parody film, ‘Death of Stalin’, made the mistake of depicting the horrible suffering caused by the people participating in the farce, creating jarring tonal shifts. Comedy should be at the expense of the transgressor, not those transgressed against. Waititi thankful does not take the film to any concentration camps; there are some somber scenes of loss and the consequences of war, but it is tasteful and not explicitly shown.

‘Jojo Rabbit’ does the Nazi mockery aspect wonderfully. There are no cool Nazis in intimidating Hugo Boss uniforms; attention is rather drawn to Hitler’s silly poofy pants. The SS bureaucrat are creepy and Captain Klenzendorf, the main Nazi officer in the film, has a cool aloofness to him which is contrarian to the rigid and powerful Fascists aesthetic. (It is also strongly implied that he is gay). In anti-fascist drama films, like ‘American History X’ have powerful Nazi imagery, taken out of context, could be used as pro-Nazi propaganda tools.  Nothing in ‘Jojo Rabbit’ could be used to further such despicable causes.

‘Jojo Rabbit’ is a solid film with Waititi’s quirky sensibilities. It is not as funny as his previous comedies. It is not as insightful a WWII drama as other films. But it’s fine, enjoyable. The satire is effective at mocking the Nazi Party of 20th Century Germany, but with the bare minimum relevance to modern day. Satire doesn’t necessarily need to be deeper. For Mel Brooks’s ‘The Producers’, the point was to rob Hitler of his posthumous power and myths. And ‘Jojo Rabbit’ does the same. However, while Neo-Nazis are not a recent occurrence, their prominence in society has grown in recent years, and if you are going to make a fascism satire in this political climate, it seems like a missed opportunity to not have sharper teeth.

7/10

IMDB: 8.0 RT: 80% | 95%

[viewagain]

“Doctor Sleep”: Remember how great ‘The Shining’ is?

When “The Shining”, based on a book by Stephen King, was released, it was ridiculed and earned Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest directors of all time, a Razzie nomination for worst director. Among the detractors of this now highly-regarded horror classics was author Stephen King himself. Stephen King went on to write and produce a TV adaptation of “The Shining” in 1997, which is held in high-regard by probably no one. In 2013, the sequel to The Shining was published and now there is a film adaptation as well, also produced by Stephen King. It is a sequel that is obsessed with “The Shining”, not the 1997 version, but – perhaps due to King’s own softening opinions – the iconic 1980 version.

Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself. This statement has become a meme. When a sex trafficker who is friends with many prominent powerful people, including the President of the United States is going to give up his clients ends up “killing himself’ under suspicious circumstances, it lends itself to be one of the more probable conspiracy theories. Unlike those other ones about incredibly evil, wealthy people like the Illuminati, lizard people, or Satan worshippers who eat aborted fetuses to gain immortality. “Doctor Sleep” is not actually that far off from the latter. While “The Shining”, in very simplified way, is a family drama in a haunted house, the sequel is about a magical child must save the other magical children of the world from a group of evil magical adults who want to kill them to live forever. This may read like a YA fantasy novel, but the sequence where a young boy is kidnapped and brutally murdered as a group of adults crowd the horrifyingly screaming child and orgasmically breathing in his escaping life force is grotesque and genuinely upsetting. Especially when you think about the parallels in the real world.

Despite all the fantastical elements, this film is surprisingly realistic. You don’t encounter super-powered protagonists inappropriately quipping – characters vomit when seeing a corpse and their hands shake as they poor out whiskey to calm their nerves. Though the beginning can be quite chaotic, as it jumps between characters, states, decades, but once it is settled, “Doctor Sleep” is a slow-paced thriller that is tense and engaging on its own, independent of its connection to “The Shining”. Compared to its genre contemporaries it is well above average, but unfortunately, it is unavoidable to compare it to the horror classic that preceded it. “Doctor Sleep” is obsessed with “The Shining” and constantly reminds of Kubrick’s film. Therefore, despite all the praise one can give to Rebecca Ferguson’s hypnotically charismatic performance as the lead villain, you are reminded of Jack Nicholson’s insane intensity as Jack Torrance. Pretty much any villain performance loses in that comparison

It is not just Jack Torrance who is back, pretty much every character from the Overlook Hotel returns. Remember that lady in the bathtub from that one scene in “The Shining”? Be prepared to see her multiple times. Or that bloody tuxedoed partygoer who says one line? You’ll see him too! With “The Shining” being almost 40 years old, obviously the rolls are recast and for the most part, the film does a good job. Notably, Alex Essos as Wendy Torrance, though her screen time is  brief, is amazingly spot on. Henry Thomas, on the other hand, had the thankless job of portraying Jack. It would have been better to just not try.

Having recurring characters is not a sign of over-reliance on the success of a previous film, it is to be expected. As well as little Easter eggs, like a house number being 1980. However, it is crossing a threshold, when the final act is basically a reenactment of all the iconic moments of the predecessor – the blood elevator, a face in a shattered door, the shot of the great hall, a limping man with an ax and so forth. Some shots serve no other purpose than to be call-backs for people to recognize which is seemingly maybe recognized by characters in the film.  Similarly, the score is an endless tribute to the orignal, instead of just musical themes connecting the film. There are plenty of moments when the music does not fit, because it wasn’t really written for this film. This constant fan service is a detriment to “Doctor Sleep”. Call backs may excite some, but when it becomes this over-saturated, you end up thinking about how much better those moment are in “The Shining”.

One of Stephen King’s gripes with Stanley Kubrick’s version was the reduced emphasis on the alcoholism theme of the book. Jack Torrance was an alcoholic, tried to get clean, but the ghost of alcoholism claimed him. Alcoholism runs in the family, as it sadly tends to do, and Danny Torrance too has the vice of liquor. He tries to break the cycle. In the cycle of life and death, Danny, the titular Doctor Sleep, helps the dying in hospice care to go peacefully into the big sleep of death. This cycle, however, should not be broken, as the haunting evil spirits do or the aforementioned immortality seeking child murderers. Though it could never fully escape its sequel status, “Doctor Sleep” could have broken the Hollywood cycle of uninspired reboots and nostalgia-dependent sequel. It almost does. But then it limps over the finish line, dragging the corpse of the old classic instead of letting it rest in peace.

7/10

IMDB: 7.7 RT: 76% | 89%

[viewagain]

The Dead Don’t Die

The modern zombie was born in 1968 in George A. Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead”. In the past 50 years there have been countless zombie films, books, and games. Peak-zombie was reached about ten years ago – “The Walking Dead” TV series premiered (2010), “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” was published (2009), and “Call of Duty: World at War” (2008), a massively popular World War II game featured a zombie survival mode.  Since then, zombies haven’t completely gone away – it would be ironic if zombies did die out –, but it is a motif that has exhausted itself. So when a zombie movie is released in the year 2019, it is difficult to imagine a fresh, new take.

Jim Jarmusch’s “The Dead Don’t Die” is a societal critique, as most zombie films are. There is a pervasive air of dullness from all the characters, the not undead ones that is; a lot of them shuffle around their dreary small-town surroundings speaking mostly monotone, Bill Murray especially. When the zombies eventually do show up, seemingly connected to a change in the Earth’s rotation, instead of groaning for “Braaaains!”, you hear calls of “Wiii-fiii!”, “Xaaanaaax!”, “Coooffeeee”. The message, that people are already essentially dead, mindlessly meandering through life is echoed in the lyrics of the titular song and musical theme by Sturgill Simpson. Romero’s second zombie film “Dawn of the Dead” (1978) was already a critique of mass consumerism; this is far from a revolutionary societal critique.

This is an environmental film. The zombie outbreak coincides with a global natural disaster. Throughout the film, characters watch or listen to newscasts that describe the slowing of the planets rotation due to human activities via polar fracking. Most people’s reactions range from indifference to mild confusion. That is, except a group of teenagers as well as Hermit Bob (Tom Waits) who lives in the forest, one with nature, and observes the impending zombie destruction. “The Dead Don’t Die” (the title is from a Sturgill Simpson song by the same name, which characters listen to throughout the film) is clearly a metaphor for the current discourse about climate change. The adults are dismissive, and it is the youths, eg Great Thunberg, who recognize it is a devastating issue and how it will bring about the destruction of human society.

“The Dead Don’t Die” (which is also a song by Sturgill Simpson that plays throughout) is not a horror film. Jarmusch is not known for his high-quality flashy special effects, so unsurprisingly instead of grotesque dismembered bodies, you get clean un-impressive CGI. Fortunately, the violence is not the focal point of the film until it ramps up at the end of the film. Like Jarmusch’s previous monster movie, “Only Lover’s Left Alive” this is an atmospheric film. The earlier film being cool, stylish vampires and this one being dull, dreary small-town zombies. There are a few moments of overt fourth wall breaks and references to Romero indicate that it is a satirical self-aware film. It is a bold strategy to try to try to make a zombie satire fifteen years after Edgar Wright’s “Shaun of the Dead” (2004), which thoroughly deconstructed the genre well before zombies became oversaturated. The satire in “The Dead Don’t Die” is too subtle and mild and it arrives a decade too late.

“The Dead Don’t Die” could’ve been a great 20-minute film. There are fun comedic moments, like how one character is wearing a parody Trump hat which paradoxically says, “Keep America White Again”. However, there is not material to sustain a 100 min film. It gets repetitive, characters repeat the same information, like how they like/dislike the song “The Dead Don’t Die” by Sturgill Simpson or comment how the day-night cycle is off due to the slowing of the Earth’s rotation. The messaging and themes are sporadic and the meta and satire elements are there, but there doesn’t seem to be any deeper point to things like Jim Jarmusch’s self-insertion. Perhaps the joke is that meta-ness and fourth wall breaks are nowadays overdone and shallow, but even so, an intentionally dull, unfocused film is still a dull, unfocused film.

5/10

IMDB: 5.5 RT: 56% | 38%

[viewagain]

Joker

Much of the discourse about this film has been about If this film is dangerous and irresponsible in the current political climate.  I want to talk about the movie, so I’ll only say this much. I understand why some people might be concerned about the film, the same way I understand why, when there is a mass shooting, giving it 24/7 news coverage and talking about all the intimate details of the murderer can encourage copy cats. Art is powerful, propaganda is an amazingly effective tool. That being said, I don’t believe this film needs to be banned or condemned. It’s the whole ‘do violent video games cause real world violence?’ debate. No, they don’t. And now to actually talk about the movie!

Well, first, let’s talk about memes.

There are:

Regular Memes

Dank memes

Deepfried memes,

And so forth. Memes have become covered in twenty-three layers of irony, self-deprecation, and meta; “authenticity” is a meaningless concept.  So, when you see an image like this:

It is equally valid to assume that it is genuine or ironic. I bring this up, because of the core message of Joker: We live in a society! I won’t go too deep into the origins of this phrase, but suffice it to say, that it is a term for edgelords who want to seem super deep, by saying obvious things that aren’t that deep or insightful. And well before this film, perhaps since Heath Ledger’s Joker, the Joker character has been held up by these people as an idol.

 But the Joker shouldn’t be held up as an idol, as demonstrated by this interpretation.  Arthur Fleck is a sad, sad individual. He has a debilitating mental illness: uncontrollable laughter at times of heightened emotion, be it fear, anger, or sadness. He is physically scrawny and misshapen reminiscent of Christian Bale from the Machinist. Arthur has no social skills. He is delusional. He and his life are pathetic, and I use that word with no judgment, but as a neutral descriptor. It is tragic. He tries to be nice, but [we live in a] society, keeps him down.

The very opening sequence is him doing his job, when some teenagers beat him up, while shouting “Keep hitting him!”, “He is so weak!”, and “He can’t fight back!” This is the type of nuanced and subtle dialogue you can expect from the film, courtesy of the writer of the Hangover sequels.

Jaoquin Phoenix is the only reason I didn’t cringe at half the lines of dialogue. His performance is phenomenal. You can see through his eyes as he struggles against his own body turns against him, almost throwing up due to intense, inappropriate laughter. The sad eyes of a laughing clown. Phoenix is both over the top yet incredibly subtle, sometimes simultaneously. He barely seems to change his expression at all yet moves between all the emotions.

Two-thirds through the film when Arthur starts to make the change to becoming the Joker, embracing his laugh and rejecting the [we live in a] society 

that rejected him. “I used to think my life was a tragedy, but then I learned it was a comedy.” Like a meme, I can’t tell if it is an awful or amazing line. Once the transformation happens, Phoenix’s posture and demeanor drastically change as well, Arthur Fleck truly becomes another person.

The film is oppressive from life beating down on Arthur, to the loud, melancholy cellos, to the gloomy, yet beautifully dilapidated shots of Gotham. Joker doesn’t have many laughs, and even those come from pitch black humor – laughter of discomfort and the absurdly morbid. One scene particularly kicked me in the empathy bone

I have colored my empathy bone white

 Arthur’s dream in life is to be a stand-up comedian. He goes to an open mic, and unsurprisingly, his laughter kicks in. He fights against it but can’t do anything about it. It felt awful to watch, and I am not ashamed to admit, that I almost shed a tear. I felt a strong emotion, and that is much more than I can say for Marvel and other 99% of other comic book films. Yes, this is technically a comic book film. Not that it needed to be, Arthur Fleck could have been a wholly original character. The only comic book knowledge that enhances the experience, is knowing that Batman’s real name is Bruce Wayne.

I love me a good downer movie, but what stops this from being an amazing film is the script. There are a lot of themes addressed in the film: primarily, the poor treatment of the mentally ill in [we live in a] society, 

but also economic inequality, celebrity idolization, and the cult of fame. The film only touches upon these issues on a surface level. Depicting a concern, without anything insightful to say about it. The messages become mixed. For example, Arthur is mistreated for being mentally ill, and the film shows that is bad. But then uses a person’s dwarfism as the butt of a joke. The film says [we live in a] society 

should take care of the mentally ill. Also, Arthur goes of his medications, embraces his illness, and then is awarded with what he always wanted: a horde of people cheering for him. In this case it is a mob which is destroying the city. No shots of innocent people being assaulted, this raging mob is a good thing. And the camera frames Joker as a hero. But if we want [we live in a] society to take care of the mentally ill, medication is a vital part of that process. Joker’s final monologue is especially cringy and lacking any subtext. His thesis is essentially – [we live in a] society 

is cruel, and people should be more civil and nice. #im14andthisisdeep

 A lot of people compare Joker to Taxi Driver, which makes sense. But the plot more so resembles King of Comedy – a failed stand up comedian, idolizes a talk show host, then commits a crime against said celebrity and has a big monologue on TV like he always wanted. In King of Comedy, Robert DeNiro is the comedian, in Joker he is the talk show host. So yeah, it isn’t an original film, but not many movies are. This is a character film and Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is so amazing and enthralling that it elevates the mediocre script to a great film. And [we live in a] society should treat people with mental illness better, then there wouldn’t be as many people who see a Joker character as hero and there wouldn’t be as many mass shooters and thus this film wouldn’t be seen as problematic.

8/10

SOCIETY:  9.0 OTHER SOCIETY: 68% / 90%

[viewagain]

Lion King (2019)

Different art forms have unique attributes that lend themselves to tell certain stories better than others. Film adaptations of Lovecraft’s literally “indescribable horror” are impossible, and no one would want to read a novelization of the non-narrative visual spectacle “Koyaanisqatsi”. The same holds true for stylistic choices. A crime drama has a gritty, washed out color palate and a fluffy romance films has bright, cheerful colors. So imagine that, hypothetically, you want to make a child-friendly film version of “Hamlet”. Firstly, you aren’t going to use adults speaking fancy old English, a cartoon would be much better. Then, you have the brilliant idea for your story about royalty - lions are the kings of the jungle! Kids love animals. Since there aren’t any lions in Denmark, it should take place in Africa and you change the names to more African sounding names. Throw in a few songs that kids will like to sing along to and you’re good to go. Now you just have to pick the art style for this cartoon with talking animals. Would you rather choose A) cartoonish, colorful animals with expressive faces or B) photorealistic animals?

Humans are good at understanding the expressions of a human face. I am sure lions are adept at knowing if other lions are angry or happy or sad, but I, a human, cannot. Despite the numerous long close-ups of Simba, his emotions are an enigma trapped behind a photorealistic lion’s face. Is he sad when is father is killed? His somber voice says yes, but his face says nothing at all, thus weakening the emotional impact of the scene. It also turns out that lions tend to look very similar to one another. This is relevant in a pivotal moment where Simba’s reflection turns into his father’s – powerful symbolism in the original, unclear in the remake. And in the climactic fight with Scar who was orange in the original, but here the action is hard to follow.

The human brain is also good at learning from experience. For example, cartoon animals can talk, real animals cannot. Therefore, seeing an animal’s mouth slightly move – which tend to mostly be obscured by impressive whiskers or snouts – and hearing human voices come out, my brain sends a subconscious signal that something is off. The feeling wanes as the film goes on, but never disappears. This is all a testament to the incredibly high quality of the computer animation. At times (as long as no one is talking) it is like watching a nature documentary. The visual effects team deserve praise for their great work, but they were too busy asking, can they do it, that they forgot to ask, should they do it. They shouldn’t have.

This not a shot-for-shot remake on the level of “Psycho”, but there are only just enough changes to say that technically it is different. This is thirty minutes longer than the original, though a chunk of that additional runtime is dedicated to the billion names of animator in the credits. There are a lot of additional jokes by the numerous comic relief characters and a few extra scenes, mostly to the benefit of giving more screen time to the female characters. The depiction of the evil henchpeopleanimals, the hyenas is improved. Instead of being bumbling idiots, they realistic animals look vicious and fearsome. However, hearing their dog-like whimpers when being defeated in battle by the lions, it feels off-putting instead of victorious.  These small changes are insignificant compared to the larger issues of the film.

As a film, Lion King is a non-starter, but as a product for Disney to make money off of nostalgia, it has been incredibly successful. From an artistic standpoint, there is no justification for this film to exist, more so than most other remakes. The original is better in almost every way. This isn’t despite it being just a drawn cartoon instead of high-tech CGI, but because of it. But Disney nowadays is in the business of making money, not art.

3/10

IMDB: 7.1 RT: 52% / 88%

[viewagain]

Midsommar

Written & Directed by Ari Aster

So you want to be a writer-director. In film school you develop your passion project idea. You work on it, meticulously rewriting every line, every word until it is perfect. You run through it countless times, trying to get the pacing just right. And if you’re lucky, after 10 years of working on it, constantly improving it, your script actually gets picked up and you get to make your film. And it’s a smash hit! So now the studio throws a shitton of cash and tells you to make another one. And you only have two years to get it done. Previous victims of the sophomore slump include Neil Blomkamp following up “District 9” with “Elysium” and Dennis Hopper going from “Easy Rider” to “The Last Movie”. I felt fearful for Ari Aster’s second feature length film was to be released a year after his first, despite “Hereditary” being one of the favorite films of 2018. Seeing “Midsommar”, I felt a different kind of fear.

Mental disorders, anxiety, grief, cults, and rituals are all notable aspects of both of Aster’s films. The similarities between the two are especially prominent in the first act, before the Americans venture to Sweden, but this is not a rehash. Though “Midsommar” does not have any scenes that are as profoundly impactful and gut-wrenching than the accident sequence in “Hereditary”, this film is overall a more complete film. Most noteworthy, is that unlike Aster’s previous film which goes off the rails in a laughable manner in the final act, “Midsommar” manages to drive up the tension and stakes whilst remaining believable. All the laughs – there are a plethora of dark humor moments – are intentional. Toni Collette, as the female lead of “Hereditry”, had a memorable, manic performance, though, understandably, some found it to be over the top and ridiculous. Florence Pugh’s character is much more subdued, but she gives an equally powerful performance. A director is responsible for pulling out the best performances from the actors and Aster has a perfect record thus far.

The setting of the film is a folksy village in Hälsingland, Sweden full of flower children in folk clothing, folk dancing and folk singing and folk everything else-ing. One of the American visitors is quite unnerved by the fact that even at 9 pm, the sun in shining brightly in a bright blue sky. One the surface, it may seem like an animist utopia, but seeing one villager playing a flute as another two are locked in an overly long and intimate embrace, you get the sense that it is all too good to be true. As you spend more time with in the commune, you learn about all their bizarre and disturbing traditions.

Horror, like sci-fi, works best when used as metaphor or allegory and about more than just killing people and scaring the audience. “Hereditary” went a step further and for most of the film is a family drama lacking overt horror elements. There are more traditional horror elements - body horror and gore – throughout “Midsommar”, but it still retains a strong emotional core. A seemingly utopian love-empathy cult is the perfect setting for a break-up movie. Dani is an anxious person who needs a lot emotional support, but her boyfriend, Christian – and with a name like that, should you really be going to pagan villages? – is not as invested in the relationship. Their relationship deteriorates as does the situation in Hälsingland.

Once again, Aster shows how he is a master of unease and tension. The feeling of dread and danger builds slowly over two and half hours. Though at times there might not be a lot going on in the foreground, the cinematography is so wonderful, that the film never drags. Every shot either has something weird going on in the background, or is beautifully composed, or is it simply cool. Characters take psychedelics and the special effects of them experiencing the visual hallucinations – faces being distorted or the breathing trees – is top notch and hypnotizing without going over the top. His depiction of anxiety via Dani is also spot on.  The opening shot is of bright summer Swedish nature with folk singing which suddenly cuts to silent winter scene. Aster often uses this technique of edits with sharp visual & aural contrast which stops the audience for getting a proper emotional footing. And of course, there is a perfect creepy horror score that incorporates the local folk songs. There are no jump scares, but meticulously crafted mood.

Ari Aster is a filmmaker to look out for. For a second time he has mastered cult horror and I hope he will branch out and make just as great films in other genres. Hopefully, he teams up once again with cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski, because that duo is something special. A lot of movies are created to be entertainment, which is especially true for the horror genre. “Midsommar” is not just entertaining, it is art.

10/10

IMDB: 7.7 RT: 82% / 61%

[viewagain]

Pain and Glory (Dolor y gloria)

Written & Directed by Pedro Almodovar

A simple piece of advice for writers is: “write what you know”. Lo and behold, so many movies about about filmmakers and writers. “Pain and Glory” is another film in which renowned director Pedro Almodovar examines his own life. This is probably the most autobiographical of his films being the least narratively stylized. There is no murder mystery and no supernatural element; It is just about an old, gay Spanish filmmaker, who makes autofiction works.

Almodovar is anything but subtle with the titles of his films; "Women at the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" is my personal favorite. The pain in “Pain and Glory” is, unsurprisingly, pain. Salvador narrates to the audience all his physical ailments from back pain to headaches. It is, ironically, a delightful scene and one of the handful of comedic moments of this otherwise measured drama, which even lacks, for the most part, the over-the-top Spanish melodrama. For his physical pain, he chooses the glory of heroin. But – thankfully for the audience –  it is not just thankfully physical pain that Salvador turns to drugs. He has the pain of lost love, the pain of grief. He is unable to make more art. All this pain can be seen on Banderas’ morose face in his captivating and understated performance Drugs can only do so much to cure what ails him emotionally in this three-quarters life crises. He needs the glory of new love and the glory of new art. He expresses his pain through his writing and in that way can set that pain free. Just like Almadovar himself.

How do you summarize a life, a person? There are many aspects of Salvador's – and by extension, Almodovar’s - life that makes him who he is. One could explore his time at catholic school, but Almodovar already covers that in "Bad Education". One could focus on his close relationship with his mother, but Almodovar already covered that in "All About My Mother". "Pain and Glory" does not go in depth in any one aspect of Salvador's life, but – like the movie poster – it is a collage of moments. Salvador reminisces and the film seamlessly transitions to scenes from his youth, like when he had to sleep in a train station with his mother or an intimate moment of sexual awakening. All these moments, or fragments of moments are important in understanding Salvador. What is a person, but a collection of memories and experiences?

8/10

IMDB: 7.8 RT: 91%

[viewagain]

Stockholm

Written & Directed by Robert Budreau

Making a comedy film about Stockholm syndrome – where a victim develops positive feelings towards their abusers - seems disrespectful. It is a coping mechanism for dealing with helplessness and intense stress. It is associated with the hostage situations, domestic abuse, cults, etc. However, this film is not a deep dive into the psychological depiction, but rather the depiction of the events, a bank robbery in Stockholm in 1973, after which is was named. After all, it is titled just “Stockholm”.

The tag line for this film is “Based on an absurd but true story.” The name of the main character was changed for the movie, so I don’t know how much of it was actually true, but it was definitely absurd. Both the amateurish bank robber Lars (Ethan Hawke) and the police are quite inept. The series of laughable missteps from both sides are akin to a Coen brothers’ movie; there is also a resemblance in tone. The Coen brothers are masters of the dark comedy, perfectly blending gritty violence with absurd humor. This film tries, but is not quite on that same high level. There are great moments and laughs. There are also conflicted moments, like when Bianca (Noomi Rapace), freshly taken hostage, is given the opportunity to talk to her husband and she give him detailed instructions on how to cook dinner for their children. It is probably played as a joke, but Rapace’s tearful, panicked performance is so genuine, that it feels inappropriate to laugh.

So how can a captive fall in love with their captor? It is easier when, instead of being a violent psychopath, the bank robber is kind-hearted and buffoonish. Ethan Hawke steals the show as Lars. He is manic and does a lot of shouting. With these kinds of crazed performances, it is hard to distinguish between “great” acting and just “the most” acting, but Hawke’s performance is dynamic and captivating. Lars has moments of high-energy as well as tender vulnerability. He is both charismatic and goofy. Wearing a shoddy wig, cowboy hat, aviator glasses, and a porn mustache he asks, “Do I look like an idiot?” Though the comedic timing is slightly off, cutting away too quickly just as the answer rings in your mind “Yes, yes you do.”

Though the exploration of the titular syndrome is not extensive, it is not ignored entirely. Some years ago, a series of “36 questions to fall in love” (which came from a psychological study on closeness) made the rounds on the internet. The premise is that affection comes in large part intimacy. In a similar fashion, Lars and Bianca spend a lot of intimate time together; he talks about his past and she learns of the flawed, but kind person that he is. Though not explicitly stated, there are hints – like the aforementioned cooking instructions scene – that Bianca is in an unsatisfying marriage which makes the wild and exciting Lars all the more appealing. The personal connection makes sense and feels believable. Yet, when the relationship becomes romantic and there is a love making scene, I felt it went a step too far.

History is the best teacher, so what did we learn? Bianca gives an indignant speech about how she has no faith in the police and government and Nixon and Watergate are mentioned in passing a few times.  This message of distrust in the powers at be is relevant to our chaotic times, though it is drowned out by the ridiculousness of Lars’ antics. So maybe, the only thing we learned was, that if you are going to rob the biggest bank in Sweden, then have a good plan and don’t be an idiot.

6/10

IMDB: 7.2 RT: 69% / 94%

[viewagain]

The Beach Bum

Written & Directed by Harmony Korine

Poe’s Law states that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, It is impossible to create a parody of extreme views that it cannot be mistaken for a sincere expression of the parodied views. That’s how you get people wishing they could be Jordan Belfort from „Wolf of Wall Street“ and I am sure there are people who will be jealous of the life of the titular beach bum, Moondog (Matthew McConaughey). Based on the trailer and its 52% on Rotten Tomatoes, it would seem at a cursory glance that this is just another dumb stoner comedy. However, there are plenty of clues – starting from the fact that this is a Harmony Korine movie – that “The Beach Bum” is actually a satire of the genre as well as a societal critique of hedonism, nihilism, and the glorification of the bohemian artist.

Mr. Korine is not a stranger to critical failure. His only ’fresh’ film, “Spring Breakers“ sits at a lukewarm 66%. Many said it was the worst film they had ever seen, while other film critics – myself included – thought it was one of the best movies of the year. It was even nominated for the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Therefore, considering Harmony Korine’s abrasive and controversial filmography, “The Beach Bum’s” poor critical and commercial reception is to be expected.

Moondog is the embodiment of hedonism. His only virtue in life is fun, which for him is booze, drugs, and sex. He wears ridiculous outfits and doesn’t care about social norms. He is a perfect stoner comedy protagonist to follow along with on his wild antics as he meets one crazy character after another. Yet, when he kicks a random passerby off the pier into the water, this is not a moment of physical comedy. We see Moondog as the sad clown, and dick, that he is. Other stoner comedy staples go hilariously over the top: like the blind Rastafarian smoking a joint like a tree trunk or a strain of weed that is treated like holy artifact. While the film mocks the genre, there are a lot of subtle and satirical jokes which make for a solid comedy.

Moondog poetic genius is known by basically everyone he meets. He even receives a prestigious award. Standing on stage in his colorful dress, reading his quasi-deep poem about his dick to thunderous applause by the crowd in formal wear, it is clear, that Korine is making fun of the audience – and society – who would see Moondog as some sort of hero. Or maybe he just thinks that poetry is stupid. His mockery reaches far and wide – obsession with wealth, weed culture, inauthentic art, and so forth. Many of the themes are interconnected, though a more focused satire would have been better, like with “Spring Breakers”.

It is hard not to directly compare “The Beach Bum” to “Spring Breakers”. Thematically both are about hedonism while the former focuses more on weed culture and the latter gun culture. Visually, both offer a colorful neon feast for the eyes, courtesy of Benoit Debie behind the camera, who is best known for his head spinning cinematography of Gasper Noé’s film. In this film, dialogue scenes imploy jump cuts, imitating the confusion and lost sense of time that comes with being impossibly high. The Korine-Debie Florida Cinematic Universe is a place I would surely want to visit again.

The film may have a deeper layer, but that doesn’t automatically make it flawless. Like with most satires, it struggles with the fact that to make fun of something you think is stupid, you have to depict that stupid thing. There are misogynistic undertones, as most of the women in the film are used as background accessories for the lavish wealthy lifestyle; some sections drag where it just scene after scene of Moondog’s nihilistic lifestyle; the themes can be a bit all over the place. That being said, it would be a shame if the only people who end up seeing it are those looking for a stoner comedy, because “The Beach Bum” offers much more than that.

8/10

IMDB: 6.3 RT: 52% / 32%

[viewagain]

Border (Gräns)

Written & Directed By Ali Abbasi Based on a short story by John Ajvide Lindqvist

Border is a fairy tale. It is not a happy-go-lucky Disney princess story. Despite some similarities, it is not like last years Best Picture Oscar winner, The Shape of Water. It is most akin to old-school, traditional Grimm fairy tales. Just replace all the limb dismemberment with child pornography. Border is horrific, but also, at times, sweet and beautiful. This is unsurprising considering it is based on a Lindqvist short story, who also wrote Let the Right One In.

Tina is the fairy tale ‘princess’ of this story. She has the magical ability to literally smell wickedness as well as being whimsically in tune with nature. However, there is one caveat stopping her from being the traditional princess. Simply put, Tina is ugly. This is not some “Hollywood” ugly; she resembles a caveperson. It is no surprise to hear her lament how she was teased throughout her life. And we see plenty of people give her long, bewildered glances behind her back. However, she doesn’t face much conflict due to her abnormal appearance. She gets along with her colleagues, has a sort-of boyfriend, and her neighbors are friendly. Sweden really is the tolerance capital of the world. One of the main themes of the films is the desire for a sense of belonging, so it would have been nice to see more challenges for Tina in fitting in. However, the films greatest accomplishment – besides the fantastic work by the make-up department – is, that the movie itself does not gawk at its protagonist. This is not a circus freak show. Border is full of intimate close-ups and there are only a few short scenes without Tina. For many, her appearance may be off-putting, but thanks to Ali Abbasi’s delicate direction – and Eva Melander’s subtle performance -, it doesn’t take long to stop focusing on her looks, but rather her inner beauty.

This is not to say that the film doesn’t want to elicit strong emotions of discomfort and disgust. Early on, Tina meets Vore, a fellow uggo with a grotesque and creepy smile. There is one scene in particular where I couldn’t decide if I should cover my eyes or burst out laughing at the almost surreal quality of it. While some of these negative emotions are invoked due to the appearance of the main characters, mostly Vore, the stronger feelings are generated not by the visuals, but from Tina’s investigation into a child pornography ring. There you will find perfectly normal, attractive looking people, who are the real monsters on the inside.

Borders is not all darkness and ugliness, though there is a lot of that. There is a lot of beauty. The timid Tina grows more confident and learns a lot about herself. Seeing her feel free and with an unrestrained smile warms the heart. It is unlikely, however, that you’ll leave the theater with warmed heart. The themes of the film – like what defines who you are, what does it mean to belong, can an outsider ever truly belong - are not neatly wrapped up by the end.

8/10

IMDB: 7.1 RT: 98% / 69%

[viewagain]

Oscars 2019

Once again, I have managed to see all the Best Picture winners. Hurray!

Numbered lists are great, but you know whats even better/worse? Tier lists. And not just any tier list, but one with almost as many tiers as listables.

Y-Tier: As in “But Why?”

A Star is Born – The movie is awful for Christ’s sake! Lady Gaga’s ‘acting’, the sappy songs, the unearned melodrama – it’s all bad. Doesn’t anyone notice this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills! If this movie wins Best Picture, I will be irrationally upset. Ok, fine. Bradley Cooper is a great actor. It’s not a huge revelation, but seeing him act circles around Lady Gaga and her soulless, lifeless eyes just made it so much more apparent. Walk the Line is such a better “musician-love-story-where-the-dude-has-a-substance-abuse-problem” movie. And that was based on real people. This movie was fiction, they could’ve chosen to do literally anything plotwise and yet it is an hour until something actually happens.

M-Tier: Mediocre

Bohemian Rhapsody – A contradiction of a movie. Is it about Freddie Mercury (which is 95% of the marketing) or Queen, the band as a whole? If the former, then why do you skim over so much of his life and never go in depth enough? If the latter, then why is Freddie the only band member who has his personal life shown? It is a series of events and songs in the band’s history yet changes a lot of facts. Ok, so if it is not trying to be a serious, accurate depiction, then it’s just a nostalgia trip that doesn’t actually use Freddie’s iconic voice … Man, Walk the Line is such a great movie.

Green Book – It’s supposed to be a comedy, right? I suppose Viggo Mortenson’s parody of a New Yorker stereotype was somewhat amusing, but there wasn’t much else to laugh at/with. Also, it is a bit insensitive to make a movie where race, a very loaded topic, is such a prominent aspect of the plot, yet approach it in such a simplistic, childish manner.

B-Tier: Movies about black people that were mostly good, though still not quite Best Picture Winner material. My most specific category.

NB! It would have been nice if Green Book was less bad so it could fit in this category too. Oh well, fuhgeeeettaboutit.

Black Panther – A lot of people are up in arms with this, a Marvel superhero movie, being nominated for Best Picture. Those who are upset by it, I say that Avatar was nominated for Best Picture and this is much better. And it is a culturally impactful film in the US. To those saying it should win as well, I say. No. It’s good, but it’s not that good. Though compared to other Marvel movies with paper-thin villains and plots, it might seem like a mastapiece.

BlacKkKlansman – It’s a Spike Lee film. It’s about race and gets preachy (though not too much). Some of the evil racists might seem cartoonish strawmen, but then the movie shows real footage of Charlottesville and you’re like ‘Oh yeah, people like that exist’. Funny and sad at the same time. I wouldn’t mind if it won.

A-Tier: Acceptable

Vice - Like The Big Short before it, this takes a topic that otherwise would be dry and stuffy to many and spices it up with 4th wall breaks and metahumor. It is entertaining which is more than could be said by some of the other nominees. Dick Cheney sure was a dick and he did do plenty of horrible things. The movie doesn’t skip over them, but with the generally lighthearted tone overall, it does end up underplaying the more serious aspects. Is an incompetent person in power worse than a competent, malicious ruler? 

Roma - The artsy-fartsy movie of the bunch. It’s a black and white mood piece with subtitles. That’s about as artsy as a fartsy gets.

S-Tier: The Highest Tier

The Favourite – My favorite movie of the bunch and it isn’t particularly close. This movie has everything: men in powdered wigs racing ducks and Emma Stone performing cunnilingus on a manic gout-ridden Queen. Enough said.

__________

Overall, a pretty disappointing list by the Academy. But awards are overrated anyway. It would be nice if one of the top-tier movies won, but if I won’t be too bummed. The best movie of the year, Annihilation, wasn’t even nominated, so what does it matter? No, I don’t need my opinions validated. I like having my opinions validated, I enjoy having my opinions validated. I have to have my opinions validated. But it’s not, like, this compulsive need.

[viewagain]

Crazy Rich Asians

Representation in Hollywood has been a hot button issue for a while now, like with the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag from a few years ago. “Crazy Rich Asians” is the first major Hollywood studio film to have a majority Asian American cast since 1993. This lack of representation shows, because the not-so-subtly titled film became the highest grossing romantic comedy of the past ten years with a large percentage of the audience being Asian Americans. It is unfortunate they had to wait twenty-five years for something so mediocre.

Rachel’s boyfriend Nick finally decides to introduce her to his family and it turns out he is crazy rich - standard fairy tale wish fulfillment. It is clear where the story is going: as a poor, Rachel is going to have trouble having the obnoxious and pompous family accepting her lack­-of-having-money-ness. Argh, those rich people are jerks! But first, before it gets to anything resembling conflict in the lead pair’s relationship or otherwise, the film spends 45 minutes showing off how awesome it is to be über wealthy in Singapore. This tone-deaf disconnect between theme and story is exemplified by the introduction of Nick’s sister Astrid. Nick says she is the one in family with a heart of gold.  How does the movie try to show that to the audience? She stops to have a conversation with a little girl in a hotel lobby and complements her stuffed rabbit. Then she goes into the next room where she buys herself 1.2-million-dollar earring. End scene.  That is literally it. Well, she also goes home and has her servants hide the fruits of her shopping spree from her husband, because he is a former poor. Astrid truly is an angel on Earth.

Towards the end, the theme develops into something more interesting: the difference in how American/Western culture focuses on the self and individual success while Chinese culture has family success as the higher priority. This is one of the few details that shine through and make the film unique. Despite the actors all being Asian and the film taking place in Asia, “Crazy Rich Asians” feels very western. The story is full of romcom clichés, like a public romantic gesture at an airport (after which everyone clapped). Strangely, the person providing sassy put downs during the outfit test montage is the fashion designer who himself is choosing the outfits or her to wear. The dialogue is overly explanatory and all the arguments end in sassy putdowns. The humor is mostly acceptable, but safe, so when Ken Jeong’s tells his kids to finish their food because there are children starving in America, a joke with actual teeth, it feels out of place. The supporting cast has several great comedic actors and they tend to overshadow the forgettable lead couple.

I will admit that I am not the foremost expert on the romcom genre.  For me, there is very little appeal to the parade of fancy dresses, jewelry, and shirtless men. My testosterone fueled brain might be guilty of being more forgiving for action-packed spectacle superhero movies, but if a gratuitously violent film that reveled in blood started preaching non-violence, I would have just as much problem with that (*ahem*, Logan). Despite my negative review, I am very glad this movie was made. There should be more representation of every demographic in film. That means there should be more representation in bad movies, mediocre movies, forgettable movies, and hopefully great movies. “Crazy Rich Asians” just isn’t one of the latter.

5/10

IMDB: 7.4 RT:  92% / 80%

Directed by Jon M. Chu Written by Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim

[viewagain]

Searching

The movie starts with what feels like a sappy time capsule commercial for the internet. All you see is a computer screen: photos are saved, emails are read, old websites are visited, and so on. This is not just an interesting way to set up backstory, but rather this is the format of the entire film: you watch a computer screen. There are also sections where the story is told via newscast or security camera feeds, but there is always an extra “screen” between the viewer and the action. It is an interesting approach to a crime mystery film. David’s (John Cho) daughter goes missing and he desperately looks for her by going through her emails, message, and by searching online. You get a sense of being part of the investigation.

This is not the first movie to do this – notably the horror movie Unfriended from 2014. The biggest improvement (besides just being a better movie all around) is that the camera is not stagnant. It zooms in on David during dramatic moments and tracks his cursor as he slowly (and sometimes annoyingly slowly) drags it to click on an intriguing link. It is able to stay visually fresh for the most part. There are a lot of nice little touches that give the computer world and internet a feeling of authenticity: David uses Google, not Bing (in fact, there doesn’t seem to be a corporate sponsor demanding product placement); YouTube and Twitter are full of mean comments and jokes in bad taste; the video quality for FaceTime dips now and then. However, David has the cleanest desktop possible, I have not met anyone over 40 whose desktop wasn’t a cluttered mess.

One of the greatest things a film can do is forget you are watching a movie, allowing you to get fully immersed the world and the story. The layer between reality and fiction, the screen, melts away. “Searching” adds an extra layer instead. Throughout the movie it is hard to shake the feeling of watching a Youtube video off a computer. John Cho, who is most famous for the stoner comedy “Harold and Kumar”, shows that he is a legitimate dramatic actor and has a great performance. It is disappointing however that you mostly see him via webcam feed in the corner of the screen.

The other benefit of the chosen format is that perhaps it makes the movie at least memorable, like the aforementioned “Unfriended”. It is a bad horror movie, but I still remember it because it was different. “Searching” at its core is harmlessly average. There is some excitement and tension, the appropriate amount of twists and false leads in the story, and it even has a dated Justin Bieber joke. The format does however detract from the immersion. But at the same time, paradoxically, maybe the format elevates an otherwise forgettable movie.

6/10

IMDB: 7.8 RT: 93% / 89%

Written & Directed by Aneesh Chaganty