Inferno (2016)

"There is a switch. If you throw it, half the people on earth will die, but if you don't, in 100 years, the human race will be extinct." -Bertrand Zobrist

*SPOILERS*  Read further at your own peril.

I have nothing particularly pro or con to say about the acting or execution of Dan Brown's novel, Inferno, as a movie.  I read the book and then was pleasantly surprised to learn the movie was coming out. In fact, the ending of the book I thought one of the more audacious and surprising endings I've read in a while. Inferno is unleashed. The world cannot go back.  1/3 of all people are now sterile and 1/3 of all our progeny will be sterile from this time forward. And we have decide what to do next.

That is an ending. It is chilling and real and full of actual terror about the prospect of what we can do to ourselves, what has been done, and what we will do going forward. Do we work to keep our decreased fecundity a secret? Do we attempt to undo genetic tampering on mass scale? Should we even try? Can we trust ourselves to not screw up worse? The new world Inferno, the book, leaves the reader in is fascinating and plays to our current relationship with our planet, ourselves, and our creator(s) -which is now us.

The movie version ends with Robert Langdon and Co. saving the day before the virus can be released.  No harm.  Earth saved!  Yay!

And it made me incredibly sad.  So, I have to ask, screenplayer writer, David Koepp 1; WHY?

Why change this most magnificent and interesting ending to one so simple? Are audiences not prepared for a more challenging if chilling finale? Does it make for bad ticket sales? Does it make for a poor narrative? Why?

On a scale of Harris Tweed to Chamois cloth, I give Inferno 1.9 out of 5 stars.

London Has Fallen (2016)

SAS SGT: There's more than 100 terrorists in there!

Mike Banning: Yeah? Well, they should've brought more men.

So LHF is nothing special.  Nothin. Everyone has seen this movie before. 

But, it did make me consider some critical questions about America, cinema, and global politics. 

America: If I were a Brit or really any other nationality, wouldn't I consider it kind of arrogant and strange for a pro-america film to take place and destroy somewhere else? Imagine if a film about a French secret service agent protecting the French President devolved into the destruction of iconic symbols of Washington DC and New York City. It would seem strange, but if America does it...everyone seems ok with it.  There have apparently been enough movies like this for no one to take notice of its rather troubling premise.  It's like a film was made on the utter surety that "We're #1" around the world, so we can destroy whatever. 

Cinema: Boy, have we perfected the Secret Service shoot 'em up. LHF in this regard is spectacular. It is the pure essence of mindless patriotic defensive based violence. It's like there is formula and they just followed it. President+Terrorist+Guns+Government traitors+A good hearted secret service agent about to a be a father=a repeatable recipe.

Global Politics: Don't other nationalities and specifically other heads of state just start to feel marginalized by American films? The American President always survives, but the Japanese PM...you know he's not going to make it. German Chancellor? Goner. Leader from outside of the G20? -absolutely no chance.  This hierarchy of importance may not serve to re-enforce the natural order in the way that merits cooperation. 

On a scale of NFL to EPL, I give London Has Fallen 2.3 out of 5 stars. 

Bad Words (2013)

This post will be explicit and full of potty mouth. In case my mother or anyone with delicate ears reads my blog, you've been warned. ( I don't recommend Bad Words for you either.)

"Why don't you take your potty mouth, go locate your pre-teen cock-sucking son and stuff him back up that old blown-out sweat sock of a vagina and scoot off back to whatever shit-kicking town you came from!" -Guy Trilbi

I don't like to swear. I find it crass in most situations. However, I think swearing can also be versatile, potent, endearing, playful, funny, and cathartic. Part of the reason to have defined bad words is to use them to emphatically express with all the precision of a dull surgical axe the things we truly mean. Fuck, Yeah! (Bad Words is not the greatest example of coarse script writing I have ever seen, in fact it's pretty mild, but the juxtaposition of the Spelling Bee with double-teamed menstruating whores gets me to the topic at hand.)

Bad Words is actually an engrossing movie, but most of that is through the consistent and, often brilliant, use of cunts, twats, fucks, shits, dicks, and more in front of children. The gross factor of the script is pretty fucked up. In my mind, after they finished the first draft, I think the writers went back and added an expletive or horrifying descriptive metaphor where ever they could. I would have fun with that as a writer because I'm the kind of guy that finds the idea of pushing a small child off of a tall unicycle during a parade and then farting directly into their tears, hysterical. (mwhahaha).

I also want to congratulate Jason Bateman. This was his directorial debut. He did a great job. Scenes were clean. Camera positions well chosen. Transitions were tight. I do wish he had found a way to withhold critical mystery information till later in the film, but that's a small thing.  I hope he directs other films.

Oh, and Allison Janey, please be in anything you want in any role you want.

On a scale of Douch-baggery to Skull-duggery, I give Bad Words 2.7 out of 5 stars. 

Deadpool (2016)

"Happy Lent" -CopyCat

Sarcasm and witty lines will only take a movie so far. At some point, mouthiness and one-liners are just symptomatic of sadness and a lack of empathy for the audience. It is a pithy, lazy, and convenient way to generate an anti-hero.

That's all I thought about Deadpool. That's it.

Oh and I laughed a few times. -mostly at TJ Miller.

On a scale of Soulless One 1 to James Brown, I give Deadpool 1.989 out of 5 stars. 

Today's Special (2009)

Akbar: they say the Shah of Iran visited India once and said eating with a knife and fork was like making love through an interpreter.

I pretty much watched this because it stars and was written by Asif Mandvi. 

The result is a positive but unremarkable movie. My favorite character was the father, Hakim, played by Harish Patel. He played a perfect combination of concern, former authority figure, father, and disappointment. 

Other stand outs were Naseeruddin Shah and Kumar Pallana.

My big take away was that Today's Special made me think about my mother. She cooks. She doesn't have a recipe. She doesn't measure, and it tastes great.

I wish I had that kind of soul.  I'm a good cook, but I need a plan, and often it tastes like I cooked by numbers. 

Jazz and feel vs. measured and cold classical music

On a scale of Salt n' Pepper vs Masala Curry, I give Today's Special 2.44 out of 5 stars. 

The Fundamentals of Caring (2016)

Dot: I told you I only date assholes.

So, if someone asked me if the idea of Paul Rudd taking a boy with muscular dystrophy to see The World's Biggest Pit was a reasonable premise for a movie, I would have said no.  Don't make it. 

But, they did and I saw the result.  

It is genuinely  nice to be proven wrong. 

The Fundamentals of Caring was not a great movie, but I have positive feelings about it. 

I kinda hate when movie dialogue and shy away from positive asshole-ry.  I think that for a lot of people the closer a relationship the less formal and more raw one can be. This leads to expletives and dark dark jokes that in any other circumstance would be considered abhorrent, but are often delightful. The difference between "I will kill you." and "I will murder you by putting your face in den of fire ants and hungry rats." My own tendency for showing affection through the dark and disturbing puts me at an advantage to empathizing with the main characters of The Fundamentals of Caring. I appreciate the tricky high-wire act that they display. 

If you find this kind of humor and affection unsettling, you might not enjoy The Fundamentals of Caring. 

On a scale of gallows humor to The Pun-itentiary, I give The Fundamentals of Caring 2.5 out of 5 stars. 

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Spock: Lt. Uhura wears a Vokaya amulet which I presented to her as a token of my affection and respect.

Bones: You gave your girlfriend a radioactive jewelry?

Spock: The emissions is harmless, Doctor. But its unique signature makes it very easy to identify.

Bones: You gave your girlfriend a tracking device?

Spock: [realizing] That was not my intention.

I consider Star Trek Beyond the manifestation of a disturbing trend for commercial film, but also for the Star Trek Franchise. 

I am a Star Trek fan.  My favorite series is DS9. My Captain ranking is Sisko, Picard, Kirk, Archer, Janeway. My favorite species are the Cardassians.  So, I speak from a place of some fan authority when I say:

Star Trek Beyond is not a Star Trek Movie. It is a reasonable science action film; perfectly acceptable; but not a Star Trek movie. 

There have been good Star Trek movies (II, IV, VI, First Contact), marginal ones (V, Generations), bad ones (III, Nemesis), and execrable ones (looking at you "The motion picture", and Insurrection). But it is my contention that since the JJ Abrams reboot, Star Trek has lost its core and descended into indistinguishable sci-fi. 

For me, the core of a "Star Trek" movie is that ultimately it has a higher purpose. They exist to teach us something valuable. A "Star Trek" movie draws parallels to the real world; has opinions about ethical, societal, or emotional problems.  "Star Trek" in my mind means exploring, learning, and discovery for the audience and the crew. Star Trek IV is synonymous with saving whales. V is a journey to find god. VI is an allegory about the end of the Cold War.  These films and episodes have meant something. 

I do love JJ Abrams, but his versions of Star Trek lack the soul of their predecessors. We learn nothing.  The films state no opinions.  They exist to entertain.

I understand how focusing on visual effects, explosions, and character wit, can create a movie that appeals to everyone.  But, it makes me sad that the venerable Star Trek has succumbed to forces of commercialism at the expense of meaning.

 On a scale of Warp 1 to Warp 9.9 sling-shot around a sun, I give Star Trek Beyond 2.0 out of 5 stars. 

oh and here is a video of Karl Urban doing Dancing Queen. LINK