BEFORE: You might be wondering why I'm not running out to see the 2013 Oscar-nominated films, as many of them are getting re-released in time for Academy voter consideration. I said I wanted to catch up with current films, and it seems like this would be a perfect opportunity to do just that, right?
Well, here's the problem. I've looked at the list of films nominated for Best Picture, and I've got nearly zero interest in them, at least right now. OK, "Gravity" looks really cool and I'll probably see that at some point, but I don't feel a sense of urgency. "American Hustle"? Well, OK, that looks cool too and I've enjoyed other films from that director, so I'll see that too someday. But the others? Hmm, should I see the film about slavery, the one about a ship hijacking, or the one about people with AIDS? Why don't I just shoot myself instead? "Her" looks dumb, "The Wolf of Wall Street" got really mixed reviews, with most people saying it's too long and repetitive. "Nebraska" and "Philomena" seem like moderately interesting character studies, but again, it doesn't feel all that important that I rush to see them - not while I've got so many films from 2012 still on my list, and more films from 2013 being added all the time.
As for the next lower level of nominations (beyond Best Picture) - I definitely want to see "Blue Jasmine", but I'll be dealing with all outstanding Woody Allen films in a month or so, so I'll get to that then. "August: Osage County"? Looks like a heavy-duty snorefest. And "Lee Daniels' The Butler" commits the sin of putting the director's name in the title, so that's a pass. Plus my Mom said she liked it, so I'm guessing I would hate it.
Besides, I think it's pretty clear from my choices so far this year that this Oscar line-up is way too serious for me. I tend to gravitate more toward fantasy films - maybe I spend too much time in the world of fantasy, but really, it's OK, they know me there (or at least I imagine that they do...).
Linking from "Oz the Great and Powerful", Mila Kunis carries over.
THE PLOT: As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when John's girlfriend of four years wants more from their relationship.
AFTER: It's actually not much of a leap from "Oz the Great and Powerful" to this film as one might think - the China Doll character in Oz (she's not Asian, she's made from china...) sort of relates to a talking, thinking teddy bear in a weird way. But even though I found this film funny, there's something kind of bugging me. (I know, what a shocker!)
I think I've got this feeling that even in the realm of fantasy, things have to work according to a set of consistent physical rules, even if those rules don't work in our world. I think there should still be a way to be funny and outrageous and still be consistent. Sure, the humor in "Family Guy" goes to some pretty weird places, since they have time machines and random cutaways, and people can get "cartoon hurt" one minute and be fine the next - whatever's funny and/or shocking goes, I get that.
But it's different in a live-action/CGI film, I think. The goal is to make us believe that a teddy bear is some form of alive, can walk and talk and think. But beyond that, things don't add up. We're told that as a doll, he doesn't have, umm, male parts - but he's obviously a male who wants to have sex with women (not women bears or women teddy bears, human women) so how does he do this? And why does he have these feelings, being a bear? The character's story does not match the character's nature.
Especially since he was brought to life by a boy's wish - if magic can bring a teddy bear to life, why can't it keep him from aging, or being hurt? I assume here that since the bear's voice deepened over time, plus given its interest in adult pursuits like booze and drugs, it grew older as the boy did. I suppose this makes an odd sense, but if magic exists, why are there limitations on it?
I also think that if magic DID exist in the world, and a magic teddy bear was walking around, that would still probably freak people out on a day-to-day basis. This film equates Ted with child actors such as Corey Feldman and Frankie Muniz, meaning that after a while, no matter how cute, a famous person would eventually reach a saturation point and then be ignored by the public. But I don't think a toy that came to life would be overlooked by everyone in the room, no matter what the time-frame. That seems to be something of a dodge to explain why everyone around Ted isn't either screaming or questioning reality at all times.
I know, I'm probably overthinking things again - I shouldn't expect any more out of this film than the shock value of seeing a teddy bear do drugs, drink booze, and make sexy time. But I kinda do - in one way they went too far, but in another way they didn't go far enough. By that I mean that if you replaced the teddy bear with a human who was always tempting his friend to act irresponsibly, the story would be almost exactly the same. I think they should have done even more to distinguish the character as a stuffed animal, and given him more things related to that to do. Just my 2 cents.
Also starring Mark Wahlberg (last seen in "The Fighter"), the voice of Seth MacFarlane, Joel McHale (last heard in "Open Season 2"), Giovanni Ribisi (last seen in "Cold Mountain"), Patrick Warburton (last heard in "Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil"), Matt Walsh, with cameos from Sam Jones, Norah Jones, Ryan Reynolds (last seen in "Dick"), Tom Skerritt, Ralph Garman, Alex Borstein and the voice of Patrick Stewart (last heard in "Ice Age: Continental Drift").
RATING: 5 out of 10 white trash names
No comments:
Post a Comment