Outlaw King (2018)

"It must be done in Scoooouuuunnnne!" -Robert the Bruce

Outlaw King is a waste of basically everything except:

• Male Nudity 
• Drone Footage for www.travelscotland.com
• Decent sword-wielding extras

I am of the firm opinion that actors can transcend time, location, and culture; and that there shouldn't be a difference between American and European actors.  We all have the same abilities on paper.  Unfortunately, Chris Pine -while generally being a competent actor- has not mastered the Scottish accent of the era.  It's painful. 

Outlaw King has the potential as a concept to be a wonderful story...but on a grand scale of a (mini)series or conversely on a small scale, like only covering the last battle.  The decision to middle ground for Outlaw King was a mistake.  We go no passion and a very broad confusing story.

2.0 out of 5 stars -editing and drone footage were great. 

Wreck it Ralph (2012)

"I can fix it!" -Fix-it-Felix Jr.
"You're not going Turbo, are you?" -Everyone

Cute. Real cute. Just a solid effort throughout. No crazy wholes. Nice animations. Great structure to achieve emotional reaction from the audience.

-Basically, I would say that it was clear that Jon Lasseter was involved. And for me, his ability to get a story to page and emote is long and full of my theater tears.

So, I am not sure how I feel about nostalgia as an underpinning to nerd culture and thus an emotional tent pole.  On one hand, I am not immune. The Characters, brands, and games of the past are on an expanding curve. In my thinking if in 1950 the total count of imaginary characters and games that made emotional connections with more than 10000 individuals was 1, the count in 2012 is 10000.  With more options, ubiquitous channels, and boundless imagination. The global emotive character pool is exploding.   Maybe to the point where it becomes a business question of why make a new one?  Obviously, I am of an age that has general connection to first person shooters, 8-bit characters, Zangief and Bowser.

On the other hand, -it's just lazy. (opinion.)

Highlight of Wreck It Ralph for me include:

1. Penelope Von Schweetz
1. and her banter with Ralph
2. Alan Tudyk
1. ALWAYS
2. "King Candy!!"
3. John C Rielly
4. Sarah Silverman

Wreck It Ralph actually deserved a sequel.  Hard to imagine, but true. 

3.4 out 5

  

The Princess Switch (2018)

"You know what they say...." -everyone

I'm going to float this out there and see what the internet thinks. I am envisioning that Netflix will soon be announcing the NCU. The Netflix Cinematic Universe. I'm serious. All of their Christmas movies are set in a fictional yet contained joint universe.  -I came to this realization from the kindly old man played by Robin Soans. He's everywhere. Without any reason.

Once you abandon any sense of writing or accountability to taste, then The Princess Switch is at best a marginal hack.

Also for any of you SG-1 fans out there. Tell me that Nick Sagar 1 should not be cast as the new Apophis.  I'd absolutely watch a beta universe version of SG that had him as the villain.

You may have noticed that I really haven't talked anything about The Princess Switch. I'm not going to. Let that sink in as to my feelings.

1.9 out of 5 stars. It is a movie. It had actors. It is should will not be remembered.

A Star is Born (2018)

Jack: Can I tell you a secret?

[Ally looks over to him]

Jack: I think you might be a songwriter. And don't worry, I won't tell anybody. But I'm not very good at keeping secrets.

And we have a clear winner for the best film of 2018 so far and it's not even close.

1. Gaga is Cher but better. 3.0 if you will.
2. To my chagrin, Bradly Cooper can sing, well.    And direct with intention.
3. Sam Elliot is a confluence of soul, sadness, wisdom, and grit.

Here's how I knew I was watching something special. First, I clapped at the end of a performance in the theater just like if I had been in the scene. Second, I cried multiple times. And third, I remembered song lyrics and quotes instantly.

I can't recommend that people with or without souls see A Star is Born. A remake that doesn't make me want to talk about it.

4.28 out 5 stars.

Oh and yes, Andrew Dice Clay is back.

Lilo and Stitch

Lilo: IT'S FISH!! If I gave Pudge tuna, I'd be an abomination! I'm late because I had to go to the store, to get peanut butter, because all we have is, is stinking tuna!!

Stitch: "'Ohana" means "family."

Yeah, I'd never seen this. Sometimes things like this just happen.

What an adorably sad sad movie. It's nothing special in the grand theme of things but, it is made me feel and that is worthy of praise to the creators.

oh and everyone could use more Hawaiian-era Elvis in their lives.

Looking backwards now it impossible that Disney knew or planned for this to be their animated release post 9-11 (obviously), but given that they made cuts and changes to avoid linking the movie to the tragedy, it was clearly on theirs and everyone's mind.

I've been thinking about a direct allegory between Stitch and the Post 9-11 era.  I know it's flimsy..but what is the point of a blog if not put out an untested idea?

Stitch, the fuzzy ball of chaos looking to escape and indestructibly irrational is America in 2002.
Stitch settles down with his new family, controlling his nature. So might America -eventually.

3.2 out of 5 stars

Camelot (1967)

"RUN boy!" -Wort

I am a fan of musicals. I think that my record (see the rest of this blog) is pretty clear on that. I even generally advocate for film adaptations to do their best to adhere to their source material for fidelity. However, there are times when this can go to far. Camelot is one of those.

Honestly, the film adaptation wastes all kinds of opportunities that are only available on film in favor sticking to the play, and thus the whole movie comes off as interminable and boring. I think its run time is about 3 hours excluding an intermission and an overture. *That's basically as long as the play version that I was a part of in 2002.

As the 11th best grossing film of 1967, I can understand why it has fallen into the blurs history, but the music is pretty good and that should count for a little.

2.7 out of 5 stars.

Moana (2016)

Tamatoa: Well, Tamatoa hasn't always been this glam
I was a drab little crab once.

Ground-breaking music but not a new story. Yet, the creators and actors are authentic artists and produce something of joy; a worthwhile experience.

I may be behind the time, but I think Lin-Manuel Miranda is talented. Just a hunch.

Usually, I am much more of traditionalist, musically. I like symmetry, repetition, choruses, catchy melodies, and structure. And Moana by design pays only lip service to these concepts. Yet, the music is gorgeous. It is free and unencumbered.

Allegories are specious at best, but what do you all think about Moana being a more mythic take on Ferngully:The Last Rainforest?  Islanders are more likely to be affected by climate change on this planet and I drew parallels between Moana's impetus for restoring the heart of Tafiti and a global need to see our planet as alive. (and angry.)

3.9 out of 5 stars. 

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Samantha: [while helping an aching Reacher walk] Dude, you jumped off a building.

Jack Reacher: Yeah, I know.

Samantha: Did it hurt?

Jack Reacher: Yes.

Samantha: Did you see how high that was?

Jack Reacher: Can we possibly have this conversation some other time?

Seriously, just don't see this movie. It's not worth it. I was sick on a couch and didn't want to move. I regret it even then.  And it's not because of anything that Jack Reacher: Never Go Back did. It's more that it is. The formula is so pat that I think I lost some brain cells from not thinking.  Even the New Orleans stuff.

Take the movie's advice. Never go back.

On a fun point, Tom Cruise really is ageless.

2.0 out 5

Akira (1988)

Kaneda (2001 Pioneer dub): Hands up now! Where in the hell is the frickin baby room?

30 years ago Katsuhiro Otomo dreamed of a frightening, fantastic, brutalist future. His vision has dominated Anime and even Western animation since. The impact is so profound as that it is difficult to find any Anime since that doesn't draw on Akira as inspiration or as source material.

Here's what's wild.  I watched the 2001 version blueray 1280 and honestly, I couldn't tell the difference between Akira and any anime released since on a technical level. It is bloody, gory, and stunning.

To the point, if you haven't seen Akira, it's never too late.

4.1 out of 5 stars. -the plot is a little hard to follow but that's not the point.

Now to geek out.  So, it is currently 2018 and Akira is set in 1988's future of 2019- next summer to be exact.  And Tokyo is preparing for the summer games of 2020. Yeah....that's true in both our present and their neo-future.

1.  How did Katsuhiro Otomo know that Tokyo would win the Olympic bid for 2020 what with him destroying Tokyo as a part of WWIII?
2. Did someone in the Japanese government around 2000 just think that it would be cool to emulate the future of Akira?

But, my chief thought was why has the technology that they envisioned for our now not happened? For example....why did they think that biker gangs on high-end motorcycles would still be a thing? I've done some checkin with now and not only are biker gangs kinda dated, but motorcycles aren't all that different from what was available in 1988. Is it just that motorcycles embody teenage rebellion and thus it was easy to co-opt it as a future vehicle rather than invent something wild?

Finally, my thought process on gore has always been that each success attempt at producing nausea or disgust in audiences is met by someone or some concept that can 1-up it.  Gore is a field of escalaction dominance.  The most recent is a linear process from what came before.   But, then why does the viscera in Akira still make me wince when it's been out of date for 30 years. It's as if the laws of time and inoculation don't apply.

Warcraft (2016)

Durotan: Can you hide your fat belly?
Draka: Better than you can hide your fat head.

And it is possible. A Warcraft movie beats expectations. You heard it here. Extra! Extra! Malcontent movie reviewer finds soul in mostly worthless MMORPG to cinema fiasco. Extra!

On a serious note, Warcraft: The Beginning somehow against all odds made me feel something positive. It's a trainwreck that one can look away from, but something about it wasn't just schlock.

I like to think the answer is casting Paula Patton and Clancy Brown. I'm huge fans of both and I credit them with being 100% of all of the watchable parts of Warcraft. (I know I asked why Paula wasn't in MI:Fallout.....this is why.)

As to why I was able to sit through the other parts, I'll really never know. I really just wanted them to say all the catchphrases I knew- "Zug Zug", "Loktar", "For the King!" etc.

Upon reflection, I realize that if they had abandon all the trappings of Warcraft and used the exact same plot and characters, this would have been an acceptable fantasy film.  Making this the first instance I can think of where brand and engrained audience was not a technical asset. Honestly, I like the ideas of a horde abandoning their world dying of magical evil to spread it to verdent lands, led by a hideous hornspined mage dedicated to destruction. -the set up is all there, it's just Warcraft that seems lame.

One should not expect a direct sequel.

1.9 out of 5

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

Rachel Chu: I'm so Chinese. I'm an econ professor that's lactose intolerant.

Astrid Young Teo: God forbid we lose the ancient Chinese tradition of guilting your children.

Sometimes tradition, structure, and convention are a wonder to behold.  Like how there are mashed potatoes and there are grandma's mashed potatoes. The craft, the experience, the emotional connection matter. It's the indefinable difference between unimaginative scholck and classic.

And while Crazy Rich Asians is not new or innovative, it is tofu, noodles, mashed potatoes, spicy crab, beef stew, dumplings, and satay made by someone versed in the traditions that matter.

Go see it. Connect with it. Learn something. Embrace something. 

My own read is that CRA will resonate better with Asian Americans or Singaporeans given it's locations and characters. I like that CRA makes no bones about being Asian centic. While it does explain a lot for the audience, it goes almost out of its way to say nothing about clothing choices, habits, actor choices, multiple languages, cultural touchstones, roads, plants, and smells.  Turns out there was no need.

3.58 out of 5 stars

But dumplings made by grandma

Mission Impossible: Fallout

Ethan Hunt: I'll figure it out.

Apparently this is a very unpopular opinion.  MI:Fallout was bad. Pure and simple. It was bad.

I admit to that I can be wrong, but, as it is my opinion..pbhhhhhh

Here's why:

1. Telegraphing
      Everything was telegraphed to the audience in advance and with an Air Horn.  There were no twists. (at least not for me.) The point of a MI is that they can fool the audience or at least the characters.
2. Jokes
    It was not funny. And I laugh at basically anything Simon Pegg says.
3. Music
   I approve of musical statements: ie themes for each character so as to announce something important musically or make connections. The music of MI: Fallout was a club used to purely tell good from bad. Booooooooo!!!  Also MI has a great Theme song.  Why use it in such cliche ways?
4, Pacing
   Why do all "Action" movies insist on the same pacing? Start with a big action sequence to lure in the audience, must include at least 3 chase sequences using preferably Cars, Boats, and air vehicles: finish with a physical confrontation to prevent a horrible consequence that definitely requires a countdown. With many films, I expect that the writers, producers, directors wanted/tried to be creative and stand out, but succumbed to previous success.  I get the feeling that the makers of MI: Fallout simply bowed from the get-go.
5. Technical Elements
   On a fun note, I really did appreciate the return to to a less CG (or whoa what if it all was CG and I just don't know the difference anymore?) action style. It was clear that Tom Cruise actually was performing many of these stunts. Cool!  I like it.  Unfortunately, I am not sure that the crew, director, and cinematographers were particularly adept at capturing this kind of footage. In 1989, there would have been no alternative to achieve the director's vision. Everyone knew their game. Now, perhaps, the team is strong at the CG elements and practice, but not up to snuff on the execution of stunt reality.

Where was Paula Patton?  And Simon Pegg, I want to see you in other things.

2.4 out of 5 stars

Mama Mia: Here We Go Again

"Appollonia!!!" -Alexio

Well....I harp on unnecessary sequels quite a bit (understatement). And in this case, I continue to be correct, but it doesn't matter. MM:HWGA is a really just an excuse to have fun. It does and thus we/I did. If your spirit isn't transported by ABBA, then maybe don't go. There is certainly no excuse to claim "bait & switch".

Unusually, I did read a review of MM:HWGA, and unsurprisingly, I disagreed. Yes, they have to pull out "other" ABBA hits to make the film work, but to call them B-sides is wrong. One of Us is a purely great song. (I always want to make a chart to see if I can figure out which of them is cryin and which is lyin.) My contention is that MM:HWGA does more with less than the original. The original seemed to just flow effortlessly (seemed). MM:HWGA worked hard to achieve basically the same.

Bravo, cast, crew, ABBA and the director.

I will give my particular compliments to great performances from Lilly James and Julie Walters. 

Set It Up (2018)

Honestly Netflix, I am kinda upset at you. With all your learning algorithms, you should know; and I mean KNOW with like precision accuracy, that I will basically watch anything with Lucy Liu.  This blog might be Exhibit B behind that I actually went to see Ecks vs. Sever in the theaters. 1  So....

How is it that Set It Up was not recommended to me like immediately? The ads should have followed me around the internet until I relented. I had to type into the search bar to find it and for that you fail Netflix, FAIL! 

This is an obvious overreaction to a non-problem...but still Netflix. Know your customer. 

There is no real need to critique Set It Up. Competence is in high supply these days. Brilliance is not. But, solid B+ material can and is being made in abundance. It is nice to see that the genre of the Rom-Com is not extinct and that it has a future home on streaming services. Obviously, I would like to see Rom-Coms take more risks and be either brilliant or wretched, but that model isn't exactly a sustainable way to run a long term entertainment industry.    ....maybe a few will slip through the cracks....?

So Set It Up takes basically no risks in a well worn genre. It hits all the highlights and conspicuously avoids any fail opportunities. Thus does it succeed. And, of course, Lucy Liu. 

I liked that two people of color are depicted as successful in their professions and as a realistic couple. Obviously, it's not all roses for the characters, but I like that these roles went to Liu and Diggs. 

I also thought the whole nervous naked peeing thing in an elevator was stupid funny.  Well done. 

2.8 out of 5 stars

 

Ant-Man and The Wasp (2018)

Cassie: [to Scott] You can do it. You can do anything. You're the world's greatest grandma.

I'm not really going to bother "reviewing" Ant-man and The Wasp.  It was fine. It lives up to all the other Marvel movies. It made me laugh. It me my expectations which were vaguely positive.

3.4 out of 5 stars.

Done.

But what I want to talk about is something stranger. How do you go about power down a series without making people hate it? I talked about this before in a post about Jurassic World: Power Creep. The next biggest, baddest, scariest thing has to be out done by the next next biggest, baddest, scariest thing. Monster movies that induced vomiting in audience in the 1950s look like laughable children's toys to modern viewers.

Referencing a different medium entirely: When Magic: The Gathering (MTG) released a block of 3 sets that basically broke their game -Urza Block in 1998-1999, it was a problem. It was fun to have the power of the gods, but it was unsustainable. The sets to be release in 1999-2000 could not get more powerful with being ridiculous and destroying their very business. So, their solution was to radically power-down the following sets in an attempt to restore balance.  Basically, they made 3 pretty bad sets on purpose. And it worked. -sort of.  MTG survived 1999-2000 and continues today. But those 3 sets are considered today to be so terrible that the cards are worth basically no money to collectors and no one plays them.

The above was MTG's solution to the same problem facing the MCU. How do you power down the expectations of the audience after Infinity Wars?  We just came from a movie that ended on the powerful note of half the universe was destroyed. What universe+1 issue can you find to carry on being impressive?  Marvel's answer seems to be Ant-Man: smaller budget, smaller cast, tiny terror, no sense of mass destruction, but with big dose of size-based comedy.

Will it work?  I think the film stands on its own, just fine. But it remains to be seen if it worked to reset audience baselines before going back to Infinity War II

The Incredibles 2 (2018)

"It means fire, Robert." -Edna Mode

Yeah, I watched another sequel. I know better. I do. But..."this is how they get ya". Honestly, I do feel better about The Incredibles 2 than most sequels. There were 14 years between releases. The length of time between some how makes me feel better. It just does. It makes me think that the sequel was not hastily made or pushed out to capitalize on buzz, but created, at the very least, with intention.

As such, I would say Incredibles 2 was a qualified success. It was markedly different from its predecessor and yet stayed within the boundaries of its world and believability. It was not as good as the original -it just wasn't.

But there were many things to love, if not adore.

1. Competent Voice Acting and a good script
1. Brad Bird as Edna Mode should narrate audio books. Or have a podcast.
2. It was Funny -I would think funnier than the original. I certainly laughed more. 
1. Reflux ---perfect
1. “Name's Reflux. Medical condition or super power, you decide.”
2. Jack-Jack's fight with the Racoon
1. Better than many real fights. 
3. Dedication to the details
1. What makes PIXAR movies special to me is that, while they do not use the most detailed or technologically sophisticated imagery in their styling. They always ALWAYS have the character behave and emote so that the audience is ensorceled.  
1. Exhibit A for me was Violet milking out her nose. They went the extra mile. 
1. 1

One thing I will say is that I was a little confused as to the underlying "uber-man" esque quality of being a Super within the world of the Incredibles. I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with stories about certain people being blessed with abilities and others not- as a general. Yet, the cultural structures come undone when you start working real-world issues like law and equality into the mix.

3.73 out of 5 stars. 

Dunkirk (2017)

Commander Bolton: The tide's turning now.

Captain Winnant: How can you tell?

Commander Bolton: The bodies are coming back.

Dunkirk was for me a masterclass in cinematography and the proper use of Handheld vs. Stationary vs. Steadycam work. I think Christopher Nolan hit just the right tone with his selection of which camera type fit his needs. I think that his was a necessity for the film because of the four basic level on which it took place: the sky, the boats, the beach, and the water. Each distinct area was best served by different camera work.  -Brilliant.  Honestly, this is probably the best camera work done for planes and arial combat I'v seen in years. 

Now, on a story element, I couldn't help but feel a little like Charlie Brown with the football being pulled away over and over. The main characters just had to go through all the steps and all the setbacks and all the terror to make it compelling. But it is a credit to the film that at each juncture I logically believed that the characters had made it -only to have it all pulled away..again. 

3.8 out of 5 stars. 

The Death of Stalin (2017)

Nikita Khrushchev: This is how people get killed, when your stories don't fit.

The Death of Stalin is the darkest, most absurd, hilarious, film I have seen this year that I didn't laugh out loud at.  Sure, the entire morbid theater of the communist ethos is almost debilitating funny, but none once did any of it break through in an uncontrolled physical outburst from me.  This is a British farce soup set on high simmer that never boils.

As to the cast: I will basically watch anything with Michael Palin, Jason Isaacs, and Steve Buscemi... so hats to those that signed off on pros. Yet, -and I say this with knowledge of his current troubles, and having never really watched Arrested Development- Jeffery Tambor was a disappointment in the role of Gregory Malenkov. There was something about his deadpan and somber voice that did not carry over into the spirit of the character.

3.1 out of 5

Ocean's 8 (2018)

"There are barely any Russians that aren't hackers." -Lou


Heist movies are fun. They just are. I like them. I enjoyed Ocean's 8. Others probably will too. Yet that is extent of the uniquely positive things I have to say. (and I may be have been influenced by The Solo movie here...) Having good materials and technique does a masterpiece not make. It just means it was set up as best it could for success.  And to use a painting metaphor, I think heist movies in particular need to hide their brush strokes. Knowing how it is all done, ruins the con on the audience. Ocean's 8 was a lot more paint by numbers.

So given that Ocean's 8 had a mildly positive outcome despite its promising set up, here are somethings I already knew. Sandra Bullock can act and is pretty funny. Assembling a team of misfits is probably the most satisfying element of any heist movie. If you hire good actors you will get generally good results. (No one in the cast was outstanding, but no one was terrible either.) And, to have an impactful twist, one first must set up the impossibility of success. (Ocean's 8 kinda failed on this one.)

2.8 out of 5

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

Han Solo: I heard a story about you. I was wondering if it's true.

Lando Calrissian: Everything you've heard about me is true.

So in the long tradition of Disney cash grabs comes Solo: A Star Wars story. A well-meaning if benign take on the origins of Han Solo. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but also not a lot right. I personally felt that it lacked soul. It was a well-constructed, visually entertaining, bit of camp with a good cast that appears to have emerged fully formed from the product strategy group of Disney. I understand there were some issues with the Director position, hence the need to bring in Ron Howard, but even he can't mask the paucity of passion that meh'd throughout the film.

While I understand the good intentions of having the droid be a radical for droid rights and I am in favor of the obvious corollaries to current social trends of the past 10 years, I hated the execution. It all played to me like when a Jostens representative told me that the "dazzle" tassel was really "bling bling".

To all you business folks out there, remember that bringing together Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water is not enough to make Captain Planet. You need Heart.  So does Solo: A Star Wars story. 

3 out of 5 stars. 

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Peter Quill: I'm gonna ask you this one time: where is Gamora?

Tony Stark: Yeah, I'll do you one better. *Who* is Gamora?

Drax: I'll do *you* one better. *Why* is Gamora?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Gamora: [scoffs] Really? Tears?

Red Skull (Stonekeeper): They are not for him.


*SPOILERS*

What a strange yet, engaging, emotional, debilitating movie.  The last time I saw a film where the bad guy was the protagonist and wins was "Manos and the Hands of Fate".  If we as the audience didn't know 100% for certain that there was more coming...Infinity Wars would be considered one of the great failures of all time.  It was as if a dark depressing juggernaut just smashed all that it took 10 years to make.  If that was all she wrote, we, the audience would be crushed, and angry. This is a new tactic and a story telling power that only large scale franchises can exploit.  Will it become passe? Will it lose effectiveness if done every 10 years? Will 1-off stories end on a nadir with greater frequency in the future?

I agree with several other writers that the main theme of Infinity Wars was "Sacrifice". Each character was generally presented with an opportunity to sacrifice -physically, mentally, or emotionally. (Spoilers, I think the Soul Stone has greater power than we know and will be critical to part 2.) Yet what disturbed in terms of the sacrifices was how often the torture of another was used as the impetus for action. I know that it is a movie cliche...but the ubiquity of this situation for the characters was over the top. My own preference would be for the writers to not use torture in this way. A. It normalizes torture. B. It makes people think that torture works, which it doesn't. C. It's a little lazy. I can understand that the source material of the comics uses pain and anguish as motivators...but this is something we as a society need to work on.

On the other had, Infinity Wars basically achieves the impossible, it made a 2.5 hour movie compelling across 4-5 major plots and like 20 characters. It was emotionally wrenching and delivered on explosions/magic destruction what have you. I would suggest everyone see it.

3.798 out of 5 stars. THANOS WILL RETURN

Pitch Perfect 3 (2017)

Calamity (Leader of Evermoist): I’m Calamity. This is Serenity, Veracity and Charity

My expectation meter was set to "Mole People" when I strapped in for PP#3 and to my delight it outperformed my prediction. #1 is cute an fun. #2 was execrable. #3 pulled the plane up and brought the franchise over the shark into the far green pastures of "maybe again in 20 years."

Is DJ Khalid really that big a deal? I mean I have heard of him, but in no way did I place him as a headliner for a USO tour.

In short, the Bellas fulfilled all sequel obligations, sang, had pretty good quips, and made a happy exit. Here's to decent producers (film and music).

Big points for me: John Lithgow's Aussie accent is either fantastic or Dick Van Dyke level buffoonish.  Either way...I'll watch basically anything with John Lithgow.  I always forget that he played the preacher against dancing in Footloose.  (He was only 37 then -I don't think I will be cast as a preacher with HS teenager daughters in 4 year.)

If you have agreed that "The Shark" is one's friend and you want to punch it in the nose in poor taste as you write over it, more power to you.

2.4 out 5 star. 

Battle of the Sexes (2017)

Billie Jean King: Hello?
Bobby Riggs: Eureka, Billie Jean! It’s Bobby. Bobby Riggs.
Billie Jean King: Bobby? How did you get my number?
Bobby Riggs: I called every hotel in the city. Listen, I have a great idea.

Gladys Heldman: You do the Tennis. I'll do the smoking.

I'm sorta glad that I watched this on a plane. The Battle of Sexes just left me kinda wanting to stop watching but not enough so that I did, so it was good that the design of the situation kept me from changing things.

In a truly strange confluence, The Battle of the Sexes manages to take a good script, with a good cast, and an inspiring level of 1973 set/costume detail and turn it into something less than memorable. In this case 1+1=1.

I think the answer to this debacle is that while the original "Battle of the Sexes" was an interesting social point in history and worthy of a movie.  The event more easily lends itself to pure comedy than the elements of drama that were written to make a script. The drama somehow took away from the spectacle. And spectacle was the purpose of the the 1973 battle.

if you are a Steve Carrell or Sarah Silverman fan, both are fantastic in their roles.

2.4 out of 5 stars. 

The Wizard of Lies (2017)

Ruth Madoff: Can't we just have quiet?

Bernie Madoff: I can't fall asleep unless I watch something.

Ruth Madoff: You just took a whole fucking bottle of Ambien, Bernie. Sleep's not gonna be your problem.

Bernie Madoff: My mind races.

Ruth Madoff: Fine. Our last night on Earth will be you, me and Judy Garland. How romantic.

Bernie Madoff: Let's not get started, Ruth.

[Bernie takes Ruth's hand]

Bernie Madoff: We had a good life, didn't we?

Ruth Madoff: Hmm. Yeah. Until you ruined it.

It's often fun to see two different team's projects and work on basically the same topic.  Your Deep Impact vs. Armageddon or Dante's Peak vs. Volcano.  Good ideas just seem to happen in twos and sometimes they arrive into the culture at the same time. So having watched The Richard Dreyfuss "Madoff" from 2016, I jumped at the chance to see "The Wizard of Lies" also about Bernie Madoff but starring Robert DeNiro.   *Madoff" was a TV mini-series so I didn't/don't feel obliged to review it on this blog.

Similarities
The two seem to be working off of the same source materials (the events aren't that long ago..like 10 years) and both were filmed in 2015 so only like 6 years after the events. They even both go into details about Bernie's back problems and how he was forced to lay on the floor. They both spend time showing the Madoff family's love for seafood/lobster. -I think this was chosen for some accuracy but also to give the family the proper fancy tropes so as to make them broad strokes understandable/dislikeable.

My own focus were I writing The Bernie Madoff story would have been to focus on Bernie, the regulators, the process, the machinations of how the pyramid was held up, and how it came down with some time for wife/brother and less time for his children.  But, I can understand that I am not a mainstream audience and that for a narrative that works for more people, there needed to be more focus on the sons etc.  A final similarity I noted is that both of these films made a point of signaling out the wealth/prosperity and even celebrity of those effected. This was much emphasis on the victims and not a lot on the system/foundations that allowed this.

Differences
Richard Dreyfus was a better Bernie than De Niro -I know I was surprised- and Blythe Danner was better than Michelle Pfeiffer -again surprising.  Unfortunately, the chemistry between Blythe and Dreyfus was negligible, while Robert and Michelle were good together. It was interesting to me that Dreyfus's Bernie was an interestingly pitiable figure in that his arc included that he knew exactly what he was doing to support everyone -"I'm the magic man." and just not getting caught, while De Niro's was not asking for understanding as he seemed to be of the opinion that he got away with it for so long that it was the fault of everyone else. -His portrayal also seemed to intentionally lack empathy, which I found uncomfortable.

3.7 out 5 stars. 

Spotlight (2015)

Mitchell Garabedian: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.

Fiction is really preferable to reality. Yet, sobering truths, without question, are substantively important. Fantasy is a sugar. The truth is more like durian.

I bring this up because, I think everyone should see Spotlight. It is very very important, in the way that vegetables, vitamins, and sunlight are good for us. Spotlight speaks with an authenticity seldom approached in "non-fiction" and was written/performed in such a way as to be more true tale of journalism than hero journey concocted from a true story.  My hats off to everyone involved for handling a tale of Church child sex abuse with dexterity, openness, and dare I say truth.

4.12 out of 5 stars.

Post viewing, my thoughts went in a design direction. Spotlight took in about $90M overall and $50M of that was after it won best picture like 90% of it domestic USA. I do not believe awards or financial returns are our best measures of quality as it comes to art, but I can say that a middling grade marvel movie, let's say Ant-Man, did $520M in returns. Assuming ticket prices are the same, 6 people saw Ant-Man, an admittedly charming movie, for every 1 person that saw Spotlight. (If adjust for just domestic USA I get more of a 1:1.8 ratio) Why the edge to Ant-Man? There is no question that Spotlight was a more important film in terms of learning, empathy, knowledge of the world, history, legal process, journalism, integrity, etc. So why are so many people opting for fantasy?

In my own fantasy world, there would be equal audiences for butterfly documentaries and Ken Burns mini-series as Infinity Wars, but I know that is not the case. People just don't choose to spend their dollars and time to eat their vegetables as they do on sugar. Movies are an escape.

What can be done to increase the audience for socially important but not sugary movies?  Comment with your thoughts. I've bulleted out some of my early ideas for a solution.  (You can also comment if you disagree that the disparity in market size for documentaries, histories, journalism films, is a problem.)

• Lie in the trailers ( and just trick some people into thinking there will be explosions)
• Bundle go to 4 films for the price of 3 in certain categories. 
• Latch on to success -What if every Blockbuster had to be a double feature? Like when Totoro came out with Grave of the Fireflies....only in this case it would Dr. Strange 2 and a documentary on the Ainu. 
• We could design subsidies to make certain film prices cheaper for the consumer. You can see 1 fiction film or 2 histories at the same price. (same revenue to the theaters or movie houses)
• Take a cue from Bollywood and include dance numbers in everything whether they need it or not. -this might compromise integrity....but...spitballin. 

The Help (2011)

"Minny don't burn the chicken." -Minny Jackson

The help is one of those movies that I kept seeing in parts. And now, I have finally seen it in its entirety, uninterrupted, and as they intended. It happened.

There are a number of topics within The Help that deserve and have been discussed online for the past 7 years. These include, racism, structural racism, inequality, civil rights, power, social structure, and more, but I thought I would bring up a specific choice by the creators that I noticed more in the breath of fresh air from it's absence. In this case, men.

Men are specifically and almost in a reverse of the tradition of storytelling/cinema, not included. There are male characters, but they serve as the backdrop and seem to expected to be almost inconsequential or to serve as a foil. The only man of any serious not, Stuart Whitworth is presented only as a reminder of the cost of change against the status quo.  It's refreshing to see so much space for women in a story by the conscious relegation of men to the background. They might be heard, but they are generally not seen, and their thoughts aren't of particular consequence.  Not every movie needs this, but I like it when it is done right and want to see these sorts of choices more often.

Here was another thought, as I want to give a particular nod to the excellence by Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain. BDH, I have in the past not enjoyed your performance- but your portrayal of the scurrilous Hilly Holbrook was wonderful. It makes the film to have the villain played with such contempt and competency. JC,  I actually didn't know you were Celia Foote, and that is one of the best compliments I can give. You disappeared.   Yet, I realized that let's say Hilly was 25 in 1963 as was Celia.  So born in 1938, if they were alive today they would be 80 years old (not impossible). So, would they have been real, it is entirely possible that 72 year old Hilly and Celia went to see The Help.  It's hard for me to empathise and imagine with what they thought about how accurate the social norms and structures of Jackson were portrayed. How do they feel about this that the standards of their prime years are now maligned for a global audience? I don't know. But, there are people we can ask. 

I would encourage all to engage in discussions on this topic with older generations.

Pacific Rim (2013)

"Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!" -Stacker Pentecost

Guillermo Del Toro has kind of cracked the code. (And I am in no way certain that he is the innovator.) But, it seems that for a huge chunk of the modern film going office doesn't care about the details of things like plot, character development, structure, science, etc. What they do care about is monsters and robots that fight. I repeat, monsters and robots that FIGHT. Guillermo Del Toro feels similarly and made a film to meet his desires and their wants. 

If I were to accept Pacific Rim on its own terms, then it comes off pretty well. Unfortunately, the CGI and costumes etc. did not really come close to suspending my disbelief. Oh, I disbelieved, I did. I thought they were slightly better effects than Beast Wars. Somehow, if they had been more unrealistic, or overly detailed, I would have would have engaged with film on a greater level. The middle ground never works. 

Yet, I am an old, structured curmudgeon, and I don't want to abandon art in favor of RAWRRRRR.  #oldmanisold

So, Pacific Rim is complete non-event for the release of monster stress. 

That doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable. It was!  And I love that GDT loves Kaiju.  Me too. 

Charlie Day, Ron Perlman, Rinko Kikuchi, and, or course, Idris Elba. Be in anything you want. 

The Wind Rises (2013)

Still at your mackerel bones? -Honjo

Something about The Wind Rises was less stunning and more genuine than a traditional Miyazaki directed film.  I found it far more comfortable to watch then the rest of the pantheon.

My take away was that of understanding the importance of self reliant failure. If your goal is to simply be competitive, follow the best practices of the current leader.  This is what our characters were doing in Germany. The Japanese airforce had to be competitive- thus they looked to and copied the leader. This is a standard recipe for competition and a safe reliable way to not lose.

It also as noted by our hero, that this process is a lock into perpetual 'also-ran" status. If you only look to the current best, you  won't see beyond. There will be no victory, no edge, just continual learning from others. It takes daring, failure, belief and gumption to achieve that which is new and produces an enduring edge.

I think Miyazaki may be encouraging those that are coming after him to break away from his mold. Japanese anime now all looks and feels like Studio Ghibli. He would rather they broke out and failed in new directions that will have new imitators.

Copying Miyazaki-sama is good idea as a standard to chase, but don't make it THE standard. Thank you for the lesson, The Wind Rises. 

Coco (2017)

I think Pixar has a rule. If they audience does not cry, we have failed as filmmakers. There's just something about the culture of an organization that can continue to create quality.  Coco is admittedly not the greatest of all Pixar films, but I don't care, because it is of the highest quality.

There was a meme I read a while back about that Pixar movies could be expressed simply:

What if_____had feelings?  And Coco is exactly that.  What if the dead had feelings?  And this is not an existential question. In a colorful, profound, and unrepentantly Mexican story, Pixar made me consider the feelings of the dead and how they affect our current lives.

My own thoughts were with my Great-grandmother Esther. When I was young, it was natural for me to be a child and focused on my own experiences, but as an adult there is little more I would want to do than to spend time with Esther again and ask her about all the things she saw; all the changes she witnessed, everything. And as my grandparents and parents, move on, Coco has reminded me (and hopefully everyone) that history is about living memory, songs, stories, and life as much as it about names, dates, and books. If we forget how to remember, then we are officially untethered from all that has come before. Sounds like, I should play another round of Yatzee with Grandma over tea.

Hats off Pixar.  -you once again made me cry.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

"Now!" -several characters

This is what I get for being a little sick and uncaring when on netflix.

First, I think movies like this actually add to a climate for fear in general and stoke antagonism between nations, in this case the USA and Russia. So.... It might be time to reconsider making them.

Beyond, I think "Cold War" Tom Clancy and his All-American hero taking on Russians is a bygone stereotype long dead.  We would do well not to try and revive it.

Lastly, I expect more from you, Kenneth Branagh. I admit you took something that in lesser hands could have been found on the bottom of my shoe and turned it into a passable film, but my question is Why? Why this project? and why that accent? -I trust you as performer and a director, and Jack Ryan in no way will diminish my respect for your talent...but if someday we meet, I might ask about this particular Russian accent.

So in short. Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit is longer than necessary, with acceptable acting, slightly strange accents, and nothing worth investing one's emotions or time in. Making it simply a forgettable action film.

I think this kind of a trend, I am noticing in the Action genre in general. Nothing new has happened in many years.  The whole field has been played out -see Red and The Expendables.

From Chris Pine to Chris Pratt, I give Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit 2.2 out of 5 stars.

It's officially Chris Pine has moved into last place in my "Chris" rankings. 

When We First Met (2018)

"You know you make me what to..." -Noah

Hey, so here's a weird one. I didn't hate When We First Met.  It surpassed my expectations.  Sure, they were low; but that should cement its position as an over-performer.

So I would normally harp on that WWFM is simply Goundhog's day, Big, and Click all rolled into a Rom Com because it is. But, that would be a redundant abomination, because it turns out that by taking elements of each there emerges a semi-respectable story that can be performed by people of modest talent.

Hey hey.

On a scale of Wednesdays forever to Flag days forever, I give When We First Met, 2.4 out 5 stars. 

Black Panther (2018)

"This corset is really uncomfortable, so can we all just wrap it up and go home?"
―Shuri

Yup, another Marvel movie.

I am not one to use superlatives -best, fastest, greatest, etc.- I think they are just meaningless hype. So, I will do my best to not use any to describe Black Panther.

Black Panther was a wonderful movie; clearly in the top pantheon of the MCU. I think it is a success in terms of cast, story, and directing. And it also had glaring failures in terms of continuity and special effects.

Yet what is striking to me is that Black Panther is conceptually and specifically not targeting white audiences. This is certainly not the first film to do this (#knowsomecinemahistory) but it was refreshing to see a major studio release for a global viewers reject the default of a white audience. It is quite a sterling rebuke to the notion that catering to what "was" the norm is how to be successful, at least financially. This is an African/African American film for a changed audience. We shall see if this has moved the economic/cultural norms of the industry.

I want to particularly commend the performance of Letitia Wright as Shuri.  Fabulous! And your gun arms reminded me of Transmetal Cheetor.

Unfortunately, I do have to ask the question of why were the special effects so bad? The war rhinos were just out of place. (Not thematically or to the story.  WAR RHINOS!!) But, the digital execution fell well short, as did the fight sequences between the two Panthers. I get the feeling that Marvel producers and their digital houses may be not putting their best efforts into art, but rather producing piece-meal. 1000s of shots is no joke and takes hours and hours, but at the end of the day the only thing that they have to accomplish is to not take away from the overall experience. If I don't notice them, they've done their job.

I totally understand that Disney/Marvel has a proven track record of not being technical innovators. They use what they know works.  I don't need more unbelievable visual wizardry to keep my attention, but visual effects (low tech or high) should service the narrative and drama.

3.79 out of 5 stars.