Cheaper By the Dozen

Year 11, Day 264 - 9/21/19 - Movie #3,362

BEFORE: Some actors and actresses have already confirmed their spots in my year-end countdown, and three appearances is usually the cut-off point.  A number of people qualified after voicing characters in "Toy Story", like Flea, Keanu Reeves, and Christina Hendricks.  Now with this film and tomorrow's, I can hold spots for both Steve Martin, who appeared in a couple of those documentaries about comedians, and Bonnie Hunt, who carries over from "Toy Story 4".

I forgot to point out that "Toy Story 4" was the return to the back-to-school theme, but it was sort of accidental - like, I didn't go to see that film in the theater because part of it took place in Bonnie's kindergarten class, that was just a happy accident.  Today's film was always part of the plan thematically, I figure there's just got to be some school stuff in here somewhere, what with 12 kids in this family.

THE PLOT: With his wife on a book tour, a father of twelve must handle a new job and his unstable brood.

AFTER: I'm pretty sure this one's been on my list for quite some time, it just never seems to be the right time to cross it off the list.  I think maybe a couple back-to-school chains have come and gone since I dubbed this one to DVD, I guess the linking was never there.  (Or perhaps I was avoiding this film, because I'd already seen "Parenthood", and this seemed a bit like a carbon copy.) Just like this year, I find myself again with a limited number of slots, so I won't be able to get to films like "Wonder", "Thirteen" and "Eighth Grade". Better luck next year, guys.

It looked at the start of the week that I had a running theme going about the African-American experience, with "If Beale Street Could Talk", "Higher Learning", "Top Five", "Sorry to Bother You", and "Creed II", and actors like Tracy Morgan and Ice Cube.  But that's too easy, plus the films here at the tail end of the week don't even have many prominent black actors in them.  But there's another common thread, this week's films all feature people making bold moves to get ahead - Eddie Krumble going on that talk show to find his girlfriend, Andre Allen taking a dramatic role in a slave biopic, Cassius Green changing his voice to become a power caller, and Adonis Creed agreeing to the rematch with Viktor Drago.  Even in "Toy Story 4", Woody takes a bold step at the end to change his fate - and tonight a football coach at a small college in Indiana accepts a head coach job at a larger college and moves his family to Illinois. All 11 out of 12 kids (the oldest kid moved out already, and conveniently co-habitates with her boyfriend in the Chicago area.)

There's a lot of bad parenting going on here, and some of that can be attributed by what probably happens when you have 12 children - even on your best day, your parental attention is probably spread so thin that it's impossible for every child to get what they deserve, both on a tangible and an emotional level.  The explanations for WHY this couple continued conceiving children long past the point of when any rational person would have stopped are shaky at best.  "Oh, he didn't know that a vasectomy takes a couple of weeks to kick in..."  Umm, is that a real medical thing, or just some screenwriter's excuse?  You can't tell me that most parents would have stopped FOR SURE after 10, or after 8, or really, after 6 - for financial reasons, if nothing else.  Everything's a struggle for people with THREE kids, so imagine 12, how can anything, from a communal breakfast to juggling sports and other extra-curricular activities for 11 school-attending kids, possibly go right?

Still, they seem to manage, until Tom Baker is offered his dream job, coaching at his old college, with a huge jump in salary that seems, at first, to be the answer to all of the family's problems.  However, as you might imagine for the sake of comedy, it's only the beginning.  Ha, ha, isn't it funny that mom and dad are going to uproot 11 kids, take them away from their friends and the schools they've become comfortable in, and throw them all to the wolves in a new city, where they don't have any idea how everything works?  Well, no, not really.  Isn't it funny that Mom gets the opportunity to publish her book, which takes her away from her kids for a two-week book tour, leaving Dad to juggle his new job AND taking care of 11 kids?  Again, not really.

I'm probably not in the target audience for this film, because I stopped at having ZERO kids, so this just doesn't represent my world.  I don't have the skill set for raising kids, I can barely take care of myself - plus I never played sports in high school or college (except math team and College Bowl - the trivia game, not football).  But I'm usually a big Steve Martin fan, and I've worked hard to catch up on all of his movies that I missed the first time around, even those horrible "Pink Panther" reboots.  I think his only features that I haven't seen now are "Bringing Down the House" and "Jiminy Glick in Lalawood".  I think he's a great actor, but unfortunately, most child actors just aren't capable of delivering dialogue in a believable way, it almost always FEELS like they're acting, because some director or acting coach just hasn't been able to get them to stop acting and start just "being".  There were a lot of line deliveries here by kid actors that just made me wince.

Contained here is a common enough dilemma (I assume) regarding whethers a parent should take a better job in another city, forcing a kid to move if that will be "better" for them in the long run.  The Baker parents here let their children vote on the issue, however the vote is non-binding.  So, then, umm, why do it?  To teach their kids a lesson about the unimportance of the election process?  Or is it just "my way, and none other" when it comes to parenting?  So, parents are going to do what they perceive as "best" for their kids, and make empty promises about how life's going to be "better" after the move, and then just never follow through on that?  Eventually lessons are learned and Tom Baker learns to put his kids first, but it's possible that the damage is already done by that point.

Neither gender gets portrayed well here - Mom can't have a career AND take care of her family, or if she goes on the book tour (which she does) that means the house is going to fall into chaos, and it almost feels like she didn't care.  Meanwhile Dad wrote a check that he couldn't cash, allowed his kids to become more and more chaotic, while he failed to find a way to juggle his new job, home chores, and instituting some measure of discipline.  Collectively they thought they could have it all, and all the pieces would just somehow fall into place, but that's not the way that life works.  Anything worthwhile requires effort, whether that's taking care of kids or doing home repairs, or focusing on your career.  You might be able to skate on one of those things part of the time, but trying to take on too much could mean that you'll end up failing at all three.

Sure, they could have hired professional help, especially with Dad's new salary, but then we wouldn't have a movie, would we?  There's a montage of Mr. Baker calling every child-service agency in town, and either not being taken seriously, or having his business rejected, again and again.  Gotta call a NITPICK POINT here, because if you ran a child-care agency and someone with 10 kids under the age of 18 called you, theoretically that could be a gold mine.  Your eyes should light up with dollar signs at that point, and you could send three caregivers over to the house and charge whatever you wanted.  But then the whole conflict in the second half of the film wouldn't exist, I suppose.

You might call this a comedy, but to me it's something closer to a horror film.  I may have nightmares next week about being the father of 12 kids and not being able to handle them all, unless I get stress dreams about the upcoming New York Comic-Con instead, which is a distinct possibility.

Also starring Steve Martin (last seen in "Love, Gilda"), Piper Perabo (last seen in "Looper"), Tom Welling, Hilary Duff, Richard Jenkins (last seen in "It Could Happen to You"), Ashton Kutcher (last seen in "Bobby"), Kevin G. Schmidt (last seen in "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel"), Alyson Stoner, Jacob Smith (last seen in "Dragonfly"), Forrest Landis (last seen in "Flightplan"), Lilana Mumy, Morgan York, Blake Woodruff, Brent Kinsman (last seen in "Knocked Up"), Shane Kinsman (ditto), Alan Ruck (last seen in "War Machine"), Paula Marshall, Steven Anthony Lawrence (last seen in "The Cat in the Hat"), Holmes Osborne (last seen in "The Box"), Rex Linn (last seen in "Appaloosa"), Tiffany Dupont, Cody Linley (last seen in "Where the Heart Is"), Adam Taylor Gordon, Joel McCrary, Dax Shepard (last seen in "The Judge"), Elon Gold, with cameos from Regis Philbin (last seen in "Always at the Carlyle"), Kelly Ripa (last seen in "I'm Still Here"), Wayne Knight (last seen in "Hail, Caesar!"), Jared Padalecki (last seen in "Flight of the Phoenix"), director Shawn Levy and the voice of Frank Welker (last heard in "Mulan 2").

RATING: 4 out of 10 assembly-line sandwiches

Toy Story 4

Year 11, Day 263 - 9/20/19 - Movie #3,361 - VIEWED ON 7/29/19.

BEFORE: I snuck out to the movies in late July, right between "Very Bad Things" and "The Box", to catch this one before it left theaters - it's crucial to my September linking plans, and I didn't want to miss it.  But I waited until after "The Lion King" opened, and went on a Monday night, so that attendance would be minimal, and I wouldn't have to sit next to a bunch of kids and listen to them talking all through the movie.  Plus it might not look as funny, me going out to see a kids' movie, if there just weren't that many people in the theater - when I bought the ticket and selected my seat, it looked like I'd practically have the place to myself.  Just the way I wanted it.

Tom Hanks carries over from "The Circle", this one's a no-brainer.  CORRECTION: Now Carl Weathers carries over from "Creed II", I decided to switch it up.  No-brainers are for wusses.

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Toy Story 3" (Movie #1,066)

THE PLOT: When a new toy called "Forky" joins Woody and the gang, a road trip alongside old and new friends reveals how big the world can be for a toy.

AFTER: Now here's a movie I can really overthink, to the point of annoyance - I apologize in advance.  In returning to this franchise for the first time in 19 years, there was obviously the need for new characters, new locations and new adventures.  The original owner of the toys-that-come-to-life has aged out of the program, so what do toys do when they're no longer played with by their original owner, and have already avoided the incinerator, the collector's market, and several garage sales?  Here most of them get donated by Andy to a little girl, Bonnie, with a vivid imagination.  But she's got different priorities than Andy when it comes to playtime, so some of Andy's favorite toys become less played with, and other background toys suddenly become toy superstars.  (There's some kind of metaphor in there, maybe for adults who get a new boss at work?)

She also has the ability to create her own toys, as many kids do, most notably a plastic dining tool at school that she glues arms, feet and googly eyes to.  Forky should be called "Sporky", really - but this kid's not old enough to appreciate portmanteau words, I guess.  He's the toy that wants to be trash, and keeps jumping in the wastebasket, where he feels he belongs.  But I guess it's meant to represent that "God doesn't make trash", and Bonnie is sort of like his God.  But now I'm questioning this "existential utensil", like is it appropriate in an animated movie for children to have a character that keeps trying to commit suicide because he thinks that he's worthless?  It's probably not a good message to send out to the kids.

But while tracking down the lost Forky on a road trip set between Kindergarten orientation and the first day of school (there's a NITPICK POINT in there somewhere...like why would a parent say, "Hey, school starts in three days, let's drive somewhere far away!), Woody spots Bo Peep's lamp in an antique shop, conveniently located next to a traveling carnival, and that really sets things in motion.  Woody gets his own little adventure re-uniting with Bo Peep and trying to get Forky back, while Buzz Lightyear finds himself in the carnival and enlists the help of Ducky and Bunny.  The other returning characters, unfortunately, aren't given a lot to do here, except to stay in the RV and wait for the headlining toy characters to return.  Bo-RING!

There are other obvious contrivances - the family never planned to spend the whole day at the carnival, but this becomes a must due to a flat tire that takes Bonnie's father about 6 or 7 hours to change.  (See, THIS is why people don't go on vacation a few days before school starts..) Who the hell changes their own tire in this day and age?  Couldn't he just call AAA or get a mechanic to do it?  I say this largely because I don't own a car, and I'm not sure that I'd know how to properly change a tire on a vehicle - I'm not that mechanically inclined, OK?  For me this is NITPICK POINT #2 - if I thought it was going to take me 6 hours to change a tire, I'd probably get someone else to do it - but the plot dictates that the family can't leave the RV park until the toys return, and so the toys (and the screenwriters) have to keep finding ways to delay their departure.

I also don't have kids - but if I did have a daughter, and she wouldn't go to school without a toy or she wouldn't want to leave an RV park without her toy fork, she and I would have a big problem.  That would be what you call a "teachable moment", like if you didn't want to lose your fork, you should have kept better track of it.  We're just not turning this car around and going back to the last town just because you misplaced a fork.  You wonder why kids are so soft these days?  THIS is why, they've been coddled by parents who are too afraid to teach them any tough lessons, or let them be negatively affected in any way.  They NEED to go through tough times, they need to experience loss, even in small degrees, or they won't be able to handle bigger losses when they become adults.

The road trip represents all-new, all-weird territory for the franchise, and leads to a number of problematic questions.  What makes a toy come to life, is it the energy they get from a child's love?  This can't be completely correct, because there are "lost toys" and toys that don't have kids, and they still move around and talk just fine.  Are those toys powered by residual kid energy, and if so, when does it run out?  Gabby Gabby (this world's version of "Chatty Cathy") has been around for decades in the antique store without any kid believing in her, and she still seems to be doing fine.

Speaking of her, umm, speaking, there seem to be two kinds of talking in this toy-based world - the toys talk to each other, only they're not allowed to talk to humans, but some toys, like Gabby and Woody and Buzz, also have recorded "voice-boxes" inside of them, when you pull the string they say any of a few recorded phrases.  Buzz Lightyear sort of re-discovers his voice-box in this film - did he somehow forget about it? - when Woody's talking about his own "inner voice", meaning his conscience.  It's a funny bit when Buzz confuses the two things, and mistakes his recorded messages for his deeper, advising thoughts.

But Gabby's voice-box is broken, so it's harder for kids to play with her (but even then, she's still a DOLL, so maybe that's not the real problem) yet she talks to the other toys just fine - I guess if she couldn't talk at all, then it would be hard to move the plot forward, since she's essentially cast as the villain here.  She's got a number of ventriloquist dummies that work for her like gang members in the antique shop, but they DON'T talk at all - why is that?  The other toys without voice-boxes can talk to each other when nobody is looking - but the dummies stay silent.  Is that because they're designed to speak only when a ventriloquist is moving their mouths, or is it just to make them creepier overall?  If it's the latter, then mission accomplished.  Or is something else at work here, because a ventriloquist's dummy isn't really a TOY, it's a tool.  Or am I drawing too fine of a technical distinction?

The writers missed a real opportunity with Gabby Gabby - here's a character that isn't whole or complete, she's broken in a way, and she not only lets that define her, but it corrupts her into an uncaring villain.  She's willing to TAKE Woody's voice-box if it gets her ahead in the world.  What does this say to kids out there who might have a disability or some kind of health problem - that it's OK to be self-centered and mad at the world, instead of learning to cope with the situation or find a way around it?  This is another very dubious message to send out to children in the audience - like what if a kid needed a liver transplant or something, would it somehow be OK to take another kid's liver against his or her will?  I'm exaggerating to make a point, of course, but I think there were better ways to approach this character to create a better villain for this film.

What are the rules in this world, where toys are alive yet can't reveal to humans that they are alive?  For that matter, why can't they?  This shares some DNA with films like "The Secret Life of Pets", where all the pets can communicate with each other, but they can't (or don't) communicate with humans.  I think the pets can't, they somehow speak "pet language" that people can't understand, but somehow the cats can talk to the dogs, and they both can talk to birds and rabbit, which seems relatively weird, I mean cats "meow" and dogs bark, those should be different languages, right?  But toys have rules, they can only walk around and talk when humans can't see or hear them - what would be the harm in people knowing that these toys can move around?  Would people think they were crazy, would their heads explode?

And if the toys did talk to humans, would they be punished somehow by the toy police?  Or would their deity strike them down for revealing the truth about talking toys to people?  After four movies now where the toys have to follow these arcane rules, the novelty is really wearing off.  Eventually (maybe in "Toy Story 5") they're going to have to figure out a way for the toys to talk to SOME human, even if that person ends up in an asylum, because all this sneaking around and "don't let them see us" and "Keep your voice down!" is really constraining the story in parts.

There are still more new characters - the stuffed duck and bunny at the carnival, the Canadian motorcycle stuntman, and several new (new to the franchise, but they're old, forgotten toys) characters named after the famous comedians who provide their voices.  And Bo Peep is found again, I think we haven't seen her since "Toy Story 2", as the opening scene reveals why she was given away - she's not even technically a toy, since she was a porcelain figure on a lamp that a little girl kept on all night when she was afraid of the dark.  But when the kid aged out of that fear, there was no more need for the lamp, so she was given away, and became a "lost toy", umm, lamp part.  Again, this is a weird world, right?

Then, finally, we've got the Woody storyline - I wonder about whether this was pitched to appeal to older viewers, some people out there who have to make tough choices between career and family - like if you're offered your dream job but have to move across the country to accept it, or if you find that you're working so hard that you're not spending enough time with your significant other, and it's affecting the relationship.  Woody has to make a similar choice between his "job" - being Bonnie's toy - and his recently re-found love interest, Bo Peep.  (Why they didn't market this as a classic "toy meets girl, toy loses girl, toy gets girl back story", I don't quite understand.)  It seems an odd choice for the character to make, the decision to become a "lost toy", which sounds very negative, but once he gets a taste for the freewheeling lifestyle that Bo Peep found, maybe he decided he needed a break.  Some adults can perhaps understand this, if they find themselves burnt out from a high-pressure job, and they make a similar decision to drop out and go live on an island or by a beach and spend whatever time they have left a little poorer, but a lot more relaxed.  Who's to say in the end, everyone has to decide if it's time for a course correction.

I've got more animated films to watch before this year is over - six more are planned.  And what's odd is that "Toy Story 4" links to several of them, but whenever I tried to make one big themed chain out of them, it just didn't work.  The problem seemed to be that "Toy Story 4" would link to one this one here or that one there, but then there would be no possible outro - so the only way I could solve that little puzzle was to take "Toy Story 4" away from most of the others, which will now function as a mini-chain in October to help link my horror films - and coincidentally, two of the animated features are sort of horror-related - "Coco" and "Hotel Transylvania 3".  So this year, the October chain will be mostly horror, and partly non-horror animation.  And then similarly, I'm splitting off "Ralph Breaks the Internet" to screen in December, to function as another crucial link.

Also starring the voices of Tom Hanks (last seen in "Filmworker"), Tim Allen (last heard in "Toy Story 3"), Annie Potts (last seen in "It Could Happen to You"), Tony Hale (last seen in "Yoga Hosers"), Keegan-Michael Key (last seen in "The Disaster Artist"), Jordan Peele (last heard in "Get Out"), Madeleine McGraw (last seen in "Ant-Man and the Wasp"), Christina Hendricks (last seen in "Fist Fight"), Keanu Reeves (last seen in "John Wick: Chapter 2"), Ally Maki, Jay Hernandez (last seen in "Bright"), Lori Alan, Joan Cusack (last seen in "Snatched"), Wallace Shawn (last seen in "Capitalism: A Love Story"), John Ratzenberger (last heard in "Incredibles 2"), Blake Clark (last seen in "The Ridiculous 6"), Estelle Harris (last seen in "CBGB"), John Morris (also last heard in "Toy Story 3"), Jeff Pidgeon (ditto), Bonnie Hunt (last heard in "Zootopia"), Kristen Schaal (last seen in "Butter"), Timothy Dalton (last seen in "The Rocketeer"), Jeff Garlin (last seen in "Robocop 3"), Emily Davis, Laurie Metcalf (last seen in "Desperately Seeking Susan"),  June Squibb (last seen in "Table 19"), Patricia Arquette (last seen in "A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III"), Bill Hader (last seen in "Love, Gilda"), Alan Oppenheimer, Lila Sage Bromley, Juliana Hansen, with archive sound of Don Rickles (last seen in "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work") and cameos from Mel Brooks (last seen in "Richard Pryor: Omit the Logic"), Carol Burnett (last seen in "The Four Seasons"), Betty White (last seen in "If You're Not in the Obit, Eat Breakfast"), Carl Reiner (last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Flea (last seen in "Baby Driver"), Melissa Villasenor, Rickey Henderson.

RATING: 7 out of 10 carnival games

Creed II

Year 11, Day 262 - 9/19/19 - Movie #3,360

BEFORE: Well, this was supposed to be the slot for watching the movie "The Circle", available on iTunes, with Patton Oswalt carrying over, and Tom Hanks serving as the link to "Toy Story 4" tomorrow.  But as I was scrolling through my cast lists (conveniently color-coded so I can see all of the links) a week or two ago, I realized that this film could ALSO serve as a link between "Sorry to Bother You" and "Toy Story 4".  I thought about it, and decided that even though "The Circle" might fit thematically (an evil corporation is up to no good) it could be much easier to link to that other film next year, it's got more actors that pop up again and again - but it's harder to link to "Creed II", or perhaps it's harder to link AWAY from, so I feel like maybe I should clear it from the books sooner, that could help me in the long run.

Plus, "Creed II" is airing on premium cable NOW, so I can watch it at no extra cost - but "The Circle" is only available on iTunes at an extra cost, $4.99 and currently not on Netflix or Hulu - it's on Amazon Prime, but not free with Prime subscription, so it's a few bucks to watch it, no matter how.  But if I wait a few months, program this for next year sometime, there's a good chance that it may pop up on one of those services, or premium cable, and I can save - a couple bucks here, a couple bucks there, it starts to add up to real money at some point.  Jeez, after two years you'd think the price would come down - or it would find a home on some streaming service that doesn't charge by the film.

If I didn't watch "Creed II" here, it does link to a couple other films, like "Dumbo" and "Men in Black: International", but I'm not ready to watch either of those, they're also only on iTunes, but I may get to see them for free after the new wave of Academy screeners comes in January.

So new plan, Tessa Thompson carries over from "Sorry to Bother You", and the switch doesn't affect my count for the year.

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Creed" (Movie #2,508)

THE PLOT: Under the tutelage of Rocky Balboa, newly-crowned heavyweight champion Adonis Creed faces off against Viktor Drago, the son of Ivan Drago.

AFTER: If you haven't been watching the calendar closely, the dates during the whole last week have been palindromic - today is 9/19/19, which reads the same either way, assuming you leave off the initial "0" in the number of the month.  I wish I could have devised a week that somehow began as it started - or maybe this week, like me, if you couldn't tell which end was up or whether you were coming or going, perhaps this was why.  But here's a movie that feels sort of palindromic, in a way, because it reflects back to the film "Rocky IV" and brings back many of that film's elements, though in a different way, like the way that the end of a palindrome reflects the beginning, with different words, or the same letters in reverse order.

If you don't remember "Rocky IV", Apollo Creed fought Ivan Drago, a bigger, tougher, more Soviet opponent, who liked to ominously declare "I must break you..." in a thick Russian accent right before each match.  And that fight cost Apollo everything, and prompted Rocky to train in Russia, old-school style, to take down Drago in the next fight.  So there were a number of ways that this film could revisit the past while also moving the story forward, all of which would end up feeling like a proper sequel to both "Creed" and "Rocky IV", and that everything old could seem new again.

So Ivan Drago raised a son who is now a boxer - hey, a lot can happen when you don't check in on a family in 33 years - but he was apparently a single parent, and Ludmilla Drago left the family fairly soon after giving birth, it seems, because of the shame that came with losing the world heavyweight title to an American, even worse, an Italian-American, and even worse than THAT, it was Rocky Balboa. Look, we have no idea how things work on the Russian social scene, maybe it's all about winning, or things changed under Putin so that the strong had to shame the week, or social status is all determined by money and/or trophies.  Look back on the Russian doping incidents, or the scandals associated with the last few Russian Olympic teams, and then maybe this theory isn't so far-off.

Boxing's a weird sort of sport, I must admit that I have no idea how it's structured internationally - it seems like many of the early "World Heavyweight Champions" came from the U.S., so it was the "World" championship in name only, sort of like the "World" Series or the "Miss Universe" pageant.  (Do we even INVITE women from other galaxies to enter?  It seems like we're stacking the deck in our solar system's favor, if you ask me.)  For heavyweight boxing over the years, once in a while there would be a champion from Germany, Sweden or Italy, but for the most part, it was a bunch of Americans, because really, who's better at the old ultra-violence?  A Russian champ was unheard of at the time of "Rocky IV", but then in 1999 and 2000 came Vitaly and Wladimir Klitschko from the Ukraine, so really, that film was just a bit ahead of its time.  These days, it seems like a WHC can come from just about anywhere, like Nigeria, Syria or Mexico.

So naturally there has to be a setback, like that first bout between Adonis and Viktor, that's probably going to go south here - we've got two hours to fill, of course.  Then a number of things could happen - there could be a re-match, assuming Adonis survives the match.  Or he could meet the same fate as his father, during the first match or the second one.  If Adonis suddenly isn't around any more, then maybe Rocky would have to get back in the ring and avenge him, like he did for Apollo.  OK, Rocky's a bit long in the tooth now, so I don't see that happening.  But maybe Rocky's own son would have to suddenly become a boxer and take down Drago - wouldn't that be something?  Nah, I've seen the guy, he's not much of the boxing type.  Better keep the story as it is.

Besides, Rocky's on the outs with his son, and prefers the company of his (more or less) adopted son, Adonis.  Rocky keeps trying to pick up the phone all throughout this movie to call his son, but he never can quite bring himself to do that. (Probably Milo Ventimiglia wasn't available at the time of the first "Creed" movie, and even though he's still super-busy filming "This Is Us", he at least managed to spare half a day to shoot one scene here.  Mostly (when the boxing isn't happening, or training is taking place) this film ends up being about trying to maintain and mend relationships - Rocky with his son, Adonis trying to maintain relationships with his mother, wife and Rocky, and then there's the Drago family.  Ivan and Viktor seem like they might be chasing a reconciliation with Ludmilla, since Viktor barely even knows his mother, but is becoming champion really the BEST way to accomplish this?  Maybe send a card, just a thought.

I think this is one of the better boxing movies I've seen, because my chief complaint at this point is usually that the film didn't get into the strategy of enough.  Since I'm not a fan of the sport I want a boxing film to explain some of what's going on, like how one boxer can draw the other one in, or fake this way or that in order to set the other boxer up for a hit, or how a boxer can over-extend himself with a punch and leave himself vulnerable.  But I don't want a film to over-explain things, either, because then I might feel like I'm being talked down to.  Maybe it's a delicate balance, but I think this film walked that line very well.  I was involved in every match, and I understood more than usual about what was taking place - and even if that knowledge and understanding may be fleeting, I appreciate that somebody made the effort to bring it to me.

They couldn't do another "training in Russia" montage for the big rematch, so they had to go in the other direction here, and train Creed out in the desert - so apparently the opposite of Siberia is Death Valley.  But I wonder why they didn't come up with a "Rumble in the Jungle" or "Thrilla in Manila"-style nickname for the fight in Russia.  Did nobody else think of "Hysteria in Siberia" or "Spar in the U.S.S.R."?  OK, maybe those are terrible rhymes, but why not "The Crusha in Russia"?  Come on, screenwriters, do I have to think of everything myself?

Overall NITPICK POINT, though, I don't think Michael B. Jordan looks like a heavyweight boxer.  He's not that tall, so to qualify for the weight class, he'd probably end up looking morbidly obese.  Technically, a heavyweight boxer is 200 pounds and up, and he looks too trim for that, in addition to being too short.  It's a great contrast between the two boxers when Viktor Drago towers over him, and that helps reinforce the notion that Creed is the underdog, but the size difference between them also has the negative effect of making it hard for me to believe that they qualify in the same weight class.

Also starring Michael B. Jordan (last seen in "Fruitvale Station"), Sylvester Stallone (last seen in "Life Itself"), Wood Harris (last seen in "Blade Runner 2049"), Russell Hornsby (last seen in "The Hate U Give"), Dolph Lundgren (last seen in "Aquaman"), Florian Munteanu, Phylicia Rashad (last seen in "Creed"), Andre Ward (ditto), Jacob "Stitch" Duran (ditto), Jim Lampley (ditto), Max Kellerman (ditto), Brigitte Nielsen (last seen in "Rocky IV"), Milo Ventimiglia (last seen in "Sandy Wexler"), Patrice Harris, Ana Gerena, Robbie Johns, Christopher Mann, Michael Buffer (last seen in "You Don't Mess With the Zohan"), Roy Jones Jr. (last seen in "Southpaw"), Scott Van Pelt, with archive footage of Carl Weathers (last heard in "Eight Crazy Nights").

RATING: 6 out of 10 heavy truck tires

Sorry to Bother You

Year 11, Day 261 - 9/18/19 - Movie #3,359

BEFORE: I've got just over 40 films left to watch this year, then I'm calling it - until January 1, of course.  Did you think I was going to STOP, just because I got (sorry, will get) my first "perfect year"?  I may want another one, or as close to one as I can get, I'm greedy that way.  Anyway, the process is underway to figure out where Movie Year 12 is going to start, but in order to do that, I'm going to do what I did when setting up Movie Year 10, which is to figure out the February romance-themed chain first, and then work backwards until I get to a good film for January 1.

I know it's still very early, and a lot can change, but yesterday I was able to assemble a chain of 40 films, nearly all based on the theme of romance or relationships, and sure, it's longer than the month of February, but right now it's something to work with.  And hey, this year's romance chain extended into half of March, and things worked out just fine.  I can always make it shorter if need be - but I can't move forward with January plans until I know where January needs to end.  I can also start a couple days before Feb. 1 if I want.

It's odd that until yesterday, the films were resisting my attempts to link them coherently, there were just too many choices or something, because I couldn't see the big picture.  But then I added ONE crucial little film, and then it all started coming together.  Now, even if I stick to this plan, I still have two options - the chain has two ends, and either one could be my film on Feb. 1, I can flip it around in either direction.  So I'm not locked in to any ONE film as a starting point for this chain, that will give me more options for making a coherent January line-up.

Rosario Dawson carries over from "Top Five".

THE PLOT: In an alternate present-day version of Oakland, telemarketer Cassius Green discovers a magical key to professional success, propelling him into a universe of greed.

AFTER: My choice for a link to carry over to this film was random, more or less.  It got me to another film that I've been very curious about, that seems to be the recurring driving force.  Now, it turns out that Rosario Dawson only provides the voice of a computer, one heard in an elevator, but that counts, too.  This film is all about voices, and what they sound like, and what they mean.  I've hung my linking chain on much more questionable appearances than this, for sure.  But it doesn't matter if an actor just provides a voice for a film, or appears for just a few seconds as someone seen sleeping on a train, both are confirmed appearances.  Archive footage is also allowed, but I try to draw the line at someone just appearing in a stock photo, or singing on a song, especially one not recorded just for the current film.  (Elton John doing a cameo in "Kingsman: The Secret Service" linking to a film that just used an Elton John song on the soundtrack would be a no-no.  But if he appeared in archive footage at the end of "Rocketman", and I was desperate, I'd consider it.  As long as it wasn't just a still photo.  Makes sense?)

I'm almost getting tired of using the phrase "This was a weird movie" - because ultimately saying that just isn't constructive, and this year I think I've watched more than my fair share of "weird movies".  Breaking them all down by their various levels of weirdness is going to be quite a task at the end of 2019 - weird in what way?  Non-linear structure weird, fantastical unbelievable storyline weird, time travel weird, or "what was the point of this little exercise" weird?  Mel Gibson talking through a beaver hand puppet weird, or Walter Matthau cast as Albert Einstein weird?  In a year where both Ryan Reynolds and Kathleen Turner played serial killers in dark comedies, just where is the bar set, exactly?  "Dogville", "Paterson", "The Lego Movie 2" - in many ways, it feels like "weird" is the new normal, or maybe it's just that movies these days have to go pretty far in order to stand out from the herd.

So they set this film in an alternate-reality - that's helpful to know, because it prevents me from saying, "Hey, that's not right, that's not the way things work..." and I kind of lose all ability to file a NITPICK POINT, but then I wonder if it's also sort of a cop-out.  Sure, it means anything can happen, and that can be great when forming a creative narrative, but it can also be a bit distancing, like why should I care about what happens in this film if it's not happening in the world outside my window?  This is an issue that's plagued the comic-book industry for decades, because clearly the DC and Marvel universes are not OUR Earth, because we don't have people with super-powers in ours.  So they have to be alternate realities, but this also makes it too easy for the creators to destroy the universe and start again, whenever they want or whenever sales are lagging.  (So the Batman and Superman and Spider-Man in the comics today are just NOT the same characters they were in the 1940's, the 1960's or even the 1990's, there have been several reality-warps or universe shifts since then.)

In this altermate version of Oakland, CA there's a great racial divide, and everyone's struggling to get by, they're living in other people's garages and basements, or even living on the streets.  I know, I know, how is this different from our world?  Just wait for it... Some people, including the lead character, are lucky enough to find employment doing telemarketing work, but it's long hours, frustrating and tedious work with little chance of success.  (Again, how is this different?)  Cassius's girlfriend, Detroit, works as a sign-spinner out on the street but is also a graphic artist working on putting together a gallery show.

Finally, the movie deviates from our reality when Cassius gets the advice to start using a "white voice" when he makes his sales calls.  No spoilers here, because you probably saw this part in the trailer for the film, the voice is obviously that of another actor and it gets dubbed in, the black actors lip-sync to more stereotypically Caucasian voices.  (And if you're wondering if this is racist at all, just flip it around and think about whether it would be racism, or at least cultural appropriation, to have white actors lip-syncing to African-American voices...so the answer is YES)

But for Cassius, this is the fast-track to success, using his "white voice" to make sales over the phone.  He's supposedly able to close more deals because his voice is friendlier, and he's able to gain the trust of the customers.  There's a greater point being made here, I suppose, but it only leads to more questions - like if the white voice is so successful, why aren't there more white people making these calls?  Why did they even hire black people in the first place, if no customers buy anything from them and just hang up on them?  If white voices sell things, the recipe for success would be to hire more white people to make the calls, right?  So the premise here doesn't really work, it's clunky at best.  But for the sake of argument, once he starts using the white voice, he becomes a "power caller" and gets sent upstairs, where he can call more and more important clients and make bigger and bigger deals.

We've got so many anti-discrimination laws now, but do they really work?  I worked for a summer in a movie theater in NYC, and for some reason the manager would only hire women to work at the popcorn counter, and men to work as ushers.  I applied for one job, but was told that I had to be an usher, despite my experience and preference to work at concessions.  And this was in 1989 - should I have filed a lawsuit?  There are still jobs that remain gender-based, like you can't hire a man to work as a women's restroom attendant, or vice versa.  There are probably other examples that I just can't think of right now, and I bet there are plenty of private clubs around the country that still won't hire people of color.  End of Rant.

Once Cassius heads upstairs and starts making some real money, getting himself out of debt and out of his uncle's garage, the film takes a turn, which I don't want to say anything about, but you'll know it when you see it. Obviously this is a huge metaphor for slavery, with Cassius wondering if he's become an "Uncle Tom" at the end of the day.  All you really need to know is that there's a company seen in the background, in the news reports and such, called WorryFree, where people who are having trouble making ends meet can sign lifetime work contracts to live in miserable conditions, and though their food and basic needs are covered, they'll be working this job for the rest of their days, with no chance of parole.  Sorry, I mean vacation.

It's not hard to draw an indirect line between WorryFree and certain notable corporations in our reality, like the tech companies that make their products in China with little regard for the working conditions there or the social impact they're having on the foreign workers.  Or U.S.-based corporations like Amazon that don't seem to care much for the health and well-being of their employees, especially the ones that can't hustle and fulfill a certain number of orders per hour.  We went through this in NYC earlier this year, with Amazon eyeing space in Long Island City, which seemed like the best deal at first, but then people started thinking about what the impact would be on the local economy, the fact that whatever small stores are left in this city could close, and the fact that once you figured in the tax breaks they were lured here with, Amazon would probably be taking more money OUT of the city than they'd be bringing in.  Or maybe it's just that right after watching "Sorry to Bother You", I watched the last two episodes of last season's "South Park", and they were riffing on exactly this subject.

But this film and my last three before it all share a plot point in common - someone becomes a "viral sensation", and there are implicaions of that.  The teacher fight in "Fist Fight" gets hashtagged and then the whole city finds out about it, Eddie Krumble in "The Clapper" gets filmed by people on the street who recognize him from the TV talk-show, and Andre Allen in "Top Five" goes viral when he tears apart a store display in a supermarket.  Here Cassius blows up on the internet while crossing a picket line, when a protestor throws a cola can at his head.  Before long, everyone's wearing an afro wig with a cola can in it as their Halloween costume.  Well, it is that time of year, after all - I must remember to go buy some candy before the drug stores start to run out.

There is one character who does not seem to have a name, his last name is blank on the IMDB credits, and it gets whenever somebody talks to him directly in the film.  There must be a story there, but I can't seem to find any information about this on-line.  I guess I'm not one of the cool people, because I couldn't figure out what was going on there.  I'm sorting through the various theories about this character now, but even if I land on something, I don't want to publish that here either, because spoilers.

Also starring Lakeith Stanfield (last seen in "War Machine"), Tessa Thompson (last seen in "Avengers: Endgame"), Jermaine Fowler, Omari Hardwick (last seen in "Kick-Ass"), Terry Crews (last seen in "Deadpool 2"), Danny Glover (last seen in "The Old Man & The Gun"), Robert Longstreet (ditto), Steven Yeun, Armie Hammer (last seen in "The Birth of a Nation"), Kate Berlant, Michael X. Sommers, Indigo Jackson, Eric Jacobus, and the voices of David Cross (last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Patton Oswalt (last seen in "Gilbert"), Lily James (last seen in "Baby Driver"), Forest Whitaker (last seen in "Jane Fonda in Five Acts"), with a cameo from W. Kamau Bell.

RATING: 5 out of 10 claymation cavemen

Top Five

Year 11, Day 260 - 9/17/19 - Movie #3,358

BEFORE: The Toronto International Film Festival is going on right now - damn, but it's been a long time since I went there, I think it was in 1997 that I drove up there with a crew, stayed in a hotel with my workmates and impressed them with my eating abilities.  I met Trey Parker at a screening of "Orgazmo" and introduced him to my boss, and I think I also saw Michael Moore in person at a screening of "The Big One".

It's a festival that everybody looks to in order to get an idea about what films will be released during the upcoming fall "awards season", like November and December.   I'm hearing there's something of a Hitler trend this year, with "Jojo Rabbit" and two other Nazi-centric films screening.  I'm working on something of a Hitler chain myself for next April, so I'm going to be on the lookout for more material now.  "Joker" is also screening at TIFF, I'm also hearing good things about "Marriage Story", "Knives Out", that Tom Hanks biopic about Mr. Rogers, that Renee Zellweger biopic about Judy Garland, and I guess I'll have to watch "The Goldfinch" at some point - peer pressure, don't you know.  Whoops, I just found out that "The Goldfinch" tanked, as is already regarded as one of the biggest bombs of the year.  I guess it will be on cable very soon, then.

Today's film also screened at the Toronto Film Festival, in the Special Presentations section in 2014. It doesn't really feel like a typical festival film, but I shouldn't pre-judge it, I suppose.  Tracy Morgan carries over again from "The Clapper".

THE PLOT: A comedian trying to make it as a serious actor is interviewed while his reality television star fiancée talks him into broadcasting their wedding.

AFTER: I suppose this touches on some of the same elements that "The Clapper" did yesterday, regarding what it means to be famous in this age of reality TV and the internet.  What's the upside of being famous again?  Surely there must be an upside, and it can't just all be about being embarrassed in front of a hungry public.  At least the lead character here has some money, which he earned from appearing in a series of action films as a bear named Hammy.  Or is he supposed to be a guy in a bear suit?  That's a bit unclear.  I mean, I guess the film-within-a-film is a comedy and those don't have to make much sense, I think my viewing history lately has pretty much proven that point. ("I Feel Pretty", "Welcome to Me", "The Clapper", they're all pretty nonsensical.)

But even though Andre Allen started out as a stand-up comic, he wants to be taken seriously, so instead of making another film as a crime-fighting bear (again, WTF?) he starred in a biopic about Dutty Boukman, leader of a Haitian slave revolt (this was a real historical figure, but I had to check) and so far the critics have not been kind about Andre's move to dramatic work.  And everywhere he goes, people want to know when he's going to make another "Hammy" movie.  For some reason he agrees to let a reporter from the (failing) New York Times follow him around for a day, as he criss-crosses New York City in a limo appearing on various radio shows to promote the new film.

It helps that she's an attractive woman, and they end up bonding over their addiction/sobriety stories, so it's not to hard to imagine that this film might be setting them up romantically - however, she's got a boyfriend and he's engaged with a wedding just days away.  Thankfully this is one of those movie-magic days, where a lot can happen, and does - probably 24 hours of stuff happens in this one never-ending day, they visit Andre's family, he has a bachelor party with several famous comedians guest-starring as themselves, and Andre freaks out in a grocery store and ends up in jail.  Umm, I may not have the order of the events correct here, but a lot goes down.  Finally they end the day at a comedy club, and Andre is encouraged to do a set, even though he hasn't done one in a while.  But hey, if you've got Chris Rock as your lead, why not let Chris Rock be Chris Rock?

Everywhere they go, people are fond of listing their top five rappers, which I didn't even know was a common pastime.  But come on, who gives a crap about this?  Rap's a dead medium, isn't it?  Biggie, Tupac, Sir Mix-a-Lot, who cares?  And isn't it a bit racist to suggest that all black people care about is rap music?  I mean, they're not exactly doing anything to dispel the stereotypes with this, there must be some African-American people who don't care for the genre.  Jeez, even rapper DMX just wants to stop rapping and sing standards from the great American songbook.

Chris Rock also wrote and directed this, and sometimes he has a knack for predicting the future - like in "Head of State", where he played a black presidential candidate, and this was released 5 years before Obama got elected.  Here there's a fake movie in the Tyler Perry franchise called "Boo! A Medea Halloween", and Tyler Perry liked the idea so much that he went and made a movie with that exact title, based on the fake one. That's weird.

I wish I could give this film an appropriate 5 rating, but it didn't quite get there for me.  Some people have compared this to Woody Allen's film "Stardust Memories", but I didn't really pick up on that.  Anyway, if you're going to rip off Woody, why not choose a better film to emulate?

Also starring Chris Rock (last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Rosario Dawson (last seen in "The Captive"), Gabrielle Union (last seen in "The Birth of a Nation"), Sherri Shepherd (last seen in "Quiet Riot: Well, Now You're Here, There's No Way Back"), J.B. Smoove (last seen in "Spider-Man: Far From Home"), Romany Malco (last seen in "Night School"), Hayley Marie Norman (last seen in "Hancock"), Anders Holm (last seen in "Game Over, Man!"), Cedric the Entertainer (last heard in "Planes: Fire & Rescue"), Leslie Jones (last seen in "Masterminds"), Michael Che, Jay Pharoah (last heard in "Sing"), Ben Vereen (last seen in "Time Out of Mind"), Karlie Redd, Rachel Feinstein (last seen in "I Feel Pretty"), Dan Naturman, Rick Shapiro (last seen in "Project X"), Greer Barnes, Brian Regan, Hassan Johnson, Doug Stanhope, Tichina Arnold, Julie Halston, Miriam Colon, Olga Merediz (last seen in "The Place Beyond the Pines"), Sherrod Small, with cameos from Whoopi Goldberg (last seen in "Richard Pryor: Omit the Logic"), Adam Sandler (last seen in "The Week Of"), Jerry Seinfeld (also last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Luis Guzman (last seen in "Sandy Wexler"), Kevin Hart (also last seen in "Night School"), Opie and Anthony, Taraji P. Henson (last seen in "Hidden Figures"), Gabourey Sidibe (last seen in "The Brothers Grimsby"), DMX, Charlie Rose (last seen in "The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley"), Bruce Bruce, Jim Norton (last seen in "Special Correspondents"), Tom Papa, Rich Vos

RATING: 4 out of 10 bottles at the club

The Clapper

Year 11, Day 259 - 9/16/19 - Movie #3,357

BEFORE: I've got to put the "back to school" films on hold for a couple of days, my chain's going to bring me right back there, I promise.  It's very tempting to try to tear the September chain apart and look for a path that will put all the school-based films together, like I could see how Christina Hendricks would link "Fist Fight" to "Toy Story 4", but I don't really want to mess with my chain again, especially since I've got the last 43 films already worked out, to end the year right on time.  Skipping ahead is going to throw off my count and my plans.  I could also have linked to "Life of the Party" or "Central Intelligence", but right now all the Melissa McCarthy films are together in one chain, which dovetails into the Dwayne Johnson chain, and I want to preserve those groupings.  So I've got to resist the urge to find a better order, the one I have planned is fine.

Tracy Morgan carries over from "Fist Fight".

THE PLOT: 15 minutes of fame destroys the life of a man who works as an audience member for TV infomercials.

AFTER: In a way, this film is about someone who's had his whole life yanked out from under him, and the panic that sets in when he sees that might be happening again.  I can relate - maybe anybody who's lost a spouse to either death or divorce can.  There's a similar grieving process for those situations.  Eddie Krumble has managed to rebuild his life, he works as a paid audience member for infomercials, talk shows and the like.  It's a weird walk of life, like I'm not even sure whether those people get paid IRL, or if they just walk out of the studio with ginsu knives and ShamWows or whatever.  But for the purposes of this film, you have to assume that some fictional production company that makes such things has an army of regular people who are designed to not stand out but blend into the crowd, clap and gasp at the right times, and occasionally ask rehearsed pertinent questions.

Personally, I'm a fan of the "Copper Pan" guy, Eric Theiss.  I've seen some of his 30-minute sales pitches so often that I can practically recite them along with the show - they're great to fall asleep to at 3 am, very relaxing.  We finally bought one of his copper pans for use at home (though we got it at the "As Seen on TV" store, where everything that was formerly advertised as being "not available in stores" is ironically very available).  Eric has since branched out into the Power Smokeless Grill, Power Air Fryer and Power Pressure Cooker markets, but I think we ended up buying an InstaPot instead of the combination slow cooker/pressure cooker/rice cooker/soup and stew maker that he promotes.  Still, all of his shows are well-produced and equally soporific.  I've tried falling asleep to Emeril's NuWave Bravo XL Smart Oven show, but it's just not the same.

Anyway, the life that he's made for himself as a non-famous audience member is threatened when the host of a late-night talk show plays footage of him appearing in the audience of several different shows, and asks the audience for any information about the mystery man, who they call "The Clapper".  And just like that, the career, life and relationships that this man has built up for himself are all threatened, because he was happy working in the background as an unknown.  It's easy given the state of the world today, with so much social media, to assume that everyone secretly wants to be famous, and it's easy to forget that some people just don't want excess attention.  I can relate to this, too - I'm happiest working in the animation industry as someone mostly behind-the-scenes, arranging festival screenings and directors' travel arrangements and a comic-con booth now and again.  If I'm lucky I'll get to do a voice for an animated character, or even sing on a soundtrack, but I don't depend on those things for income.

But what if everything changed for me?  What if, one day, I couldn't keep doing what I've been doing for 25 years, and I had to come up with something else?  I did have to scramble a bit about 5 years ago, when one of my gigs ended - my boss was a sales rep for animation companies, the business changed over time and he just didn't feel like continuing.  After two years of working only part time, I took another part time gig that's almost exactly the same as my other one, so now I do the same things for two different directors.  I can't really say that I've stretched myself, although at the new job I have learned new things, like uploading files, filling out exposure sheets and a little bit of compositing work.  But since I'm more accustomed to accounting work, festival entry and general clerical work, I still consider myself more of an office manager than a production manager.

What's the dream for me?  What should I be aspiring to do with whatever time I have left?  If my job went away tomorrow, what would I do, where would I go?  These thoughts have been coming up lately - should I transition to working at some film festival?  The problem with that is, though I have a background in coordinating events and screenings, I'd probably have to start at the bottom, I probably couldn't become a festival programmer overnight, though I'd love to watch movies all day and help select them for a festival.  My fear is that I'd end up in ticket sales or promotions or some grunt job like folding chairs for events because all the good jobs at the festival are already taken, and it would take years to work my way up to where I'd want to be.  Same goes for moving to San Diego and trying to get a job working at Comic-Con.  The other problem is that those jobs are seasonal, they'd go away for 6 months out of the year, so there could be a few months of steady prep-work, a month of frantic activity, then nothing for the next 6 months.

What about working with something else I love, like at a brewery or a BBQ restaurant?  I'm great at coming up with the ideas for restaurant names or beer flavor names, but I don't think somebody just gives you that gig.  Plus I have very little experience in the food & beverage industry, unless you count the summer I worked the popcorn counter at a big movie theater.  I've eaten enough BBQ and watched enough TV shows about it to consider myself an expert, but am I?  Plus again, I'd have to start at the bottom in a restaurant, unless I just sank my savings account into opening my own place, but if that didn't work, I'd be out of a job AND money.  So maybe this is why I feel like I'm stuck right where I am, because even when I identity a place I'd like to be, I don't seem to have the ability, means or drive to get there.

But I feel sort of OK about that, because whatever might be wrong or annoying about the life I've crafted for myself, it's MINE and I don't want anything interfering with it.  I'm at least comfortable with where I am and what I've done to get here, and if I don't get any farther than this because I'm afraid to push myself, I'm oddly OK with that too.  My mother worked for 40 years as an elementary school music teacher, and my father just as long as a truck driver.  At different points he tried getting back into baking or selling water filters on the side, both ventures were disasters.  Maybe that's what subconsciously urges me to stay in my lane and not even try to branch out.

Eddie does have his close friend, and is working on establishing a relationship with the cashier at the gas station, but honestly it's a little hard to see why, from an audience perspective.  They didn't really do much to give her a personality, all we (and Eddie) know is that she likes taking care of animals and Brian Wilson music.  That doesn't seem like a lot to work with, but I guess it's enough for Eddie - she felt like a big blank to me.  But hey, we all just want someone to spend our time with, somebody to have running jokes with, somebody who gets our references - liking the same foods, TV shows or music isn't everything, but it's a big plus.

I think it would have been better if the film had something constructive to say about fame and its potential, both good and bad, but the message here is so muddled, if there even is one at all.  Instead it just came off to me as a series of nearly random occurrences, barely strung together.  It's hard even to see what the producers of the late-night talk show were trying to do when they made Eddie and his friend Chris recurring characters with their own segment.  Network time is valuable, so it's hard to imagine a production company giving up such a large block of it if the segment doesn't promote another TV show or a big-budget movie.  But then again, they never said WHICH network the Stillerman Show is on - so it could be one of the smaller ones that would be willing to take these chances at a potential financial loss.

Also starring Ed Helms (last seen in "Tag"), Amanda Seyfried (last seen in "Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again"), Brenda Vaccaro (last heard in "Kubo and the Two Strings"), Leah Remini, Adam Levine (last seen in "Clive Davis: The Soundtrack of Our Lives"), Russell Peters (last seen in "Chef"), James Ransone (last seen in "Mr. Right"), Alan Thicke (last seen in "Alpha Dog"), Roger Guenveur Smith (last seen in "Marshall"), P.J. Byrne (last seen in "Green Book"), Nico Santos (last seen in "Crazy Rich Asians"), Mickey Gooch Jr. (last seen in "How to Be Single"), Todd Giebenhain (last seen in "The Hero"), Greg Vrotsos (last seen in "Lovelace"), Robert Axelrod (last seen in "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie"), Wendy Braun, Sara Sampaio, Don Cheto, Marcela Macias, with cameos from Billy Blanks (last seen in "The Last Boy Scout"), Mark Cuban (last seen in "Game Over, Man!"), Rob Gronkowski, Vince Offer and archive footage of Brian Wilson (last seen in "The Wrecking Crew!")

RATING: 5 out of 10 costumed weirdos on Hollywood Blvd.

Fist Fight

Year 11, Day 258 - 9/15/19 - Movie #3,356

BEFORE:  This one's a no-brainer, Ice Cube carries over from "Higher Learning" for another school-based film.

THE PLOT: When one school teacher unwittingly causes another teacher's dismissal, he is challenged to an after-school fight.

AFTER: OK, it turns out this film is set on the LAST day of school, and it's September IRL, so that doesn't really work, but a film about school is a film about school at this point.  Keeping the chain alive is more important than worrying about finding the perfect month to watch every film in.

The lead character is a teacher, who finds himself being bullied by another teacher - a bigger, stronger, more "urban" teacher.  But haven't we all been bullied by somebody at one point?  I mean, aren't we all mild-mannered English teachers, on the inside?  OK, maybe that's a bit of a stretch.  Or are we riffing on the fear that white Americans tend to have, that inside every black person is a thug waiting to come out?  That's what's really behind racism, right?  It's fear, in one form or another.

I may be reading too much into this, because the film doesn't really get into race issues, it sort of skirts neatly around them.  The teacher with anger issues and a hair trigger just happens to be black, I get it.  And the lead is a white everyman with a wife and a daughter and another kid on the way.  Then there's the other fear that's referenced here, the fear of losing one's job.  Everyone knows that feeling, right?  When you'll do anything to save your job, throw your co-worker under the bus or imply to the boss that they simply can't run the place without you.  Truth is, everyone is replaceable in one form or another, but that deep fear that if you lose your job you may never find another one, or another one as good?  That just never goes away.

What's weird here is that the teacher who's a bully, the one with anger issues, also seems to be a pretty good teacher, since he refuses to give the students a free period, even though it's the last day of class.  Nobody's ever accomplished anything on the last day of anything - but then if we all skated on the last day, then the temptation is there to slack off on the NEXT to last day, too.  It's a slippery slope.

The film's star and director come from the show "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia", which I haven't seen a lot of, but I know the humor in the series comes from being more and more outrageous, to the point of almost becoming nonsensical.  There's a bit of that feel here, too, as the pranks that the students pull seem mostly unbelievable, certainly some of them seem like they're on a professional level, or would break the bank of the average teen.  But who knows, maybe in this new world of social media that's exactly what people feel they need to do these days to get attention.  The news of the #teacherfight goes viral, and maybe that's possible too given today's circumstances.  For me it's been a long time since high-school, and we had a "Prank Day" during Homecoming Week, but it was nothing like this.

(I was prepared to call a NITPICK POINT on the student's use of a cell phone to control a VCR - like, why would the newest technology be able to control an old device like a VCR?  But I did a little research, and some of the newer Samsung phones are capable of emitting infra-red signals, and there are apps that enable them to control TVs and DVD players and yes, even VCRs.  So there you go, no NP.)

The overall situation of a lead character having a bad day, that's pretty standard - we've seen it in everything from "Due Date" to "Girls Trip" to "Raising Arizona".  This takes it a little over-the-top in that so many things happen to this guy in one day, that school day would need to be 17 hours long to fit all this into it, but it's all in the name of comedy.  (If anything, it's hard to believe that meetings between teachers and the superintendent would take place DURING the school day, and not after.)
Whether you're willing to suspend your disbelief to allow all these shenanigans to take place is up to you.  Same goes for the fight itself, when it finally happens it's all very choreographed, also quite unbelievable, but also funny in the end.

I couldn't really get a handle on the French teacher, they really didn't develop her character enough to be easily understood.  It's hard to even say where they were trying to go with her.  But nearly everything else, I'm sort of forced to allow.

Also starring Charlie Day (last heard in "The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part"), Tracy Morgan (last heard in "The Boxtrolls"), Jillian Bell (last seen in "Game Over, Man!"), Christina Hendricks (last seen in "Pottersville"), Dean Norris (last seen in "Secret in Their Eyes"), Kumail Nanjiani (last seen in "Hello, My Name Is Doris"), Dennis Haysbert (last seen in "Kodachrome"), JoAnna Garcia Swisher (last seen in "The Internship"), Kym Whitley (last heard in "Rango"), Conphidance, Max Carver, Charlie Carver (last seen in "I Am Michael"), Stephnie Weir, Alexa Nisenson, Austin Zajur, Gordon Danniels (last seen in "Gifted"), Bill Kottkamp, Robert Pralgo (last seen in "American Made"), Michael Beasley (last seen in "The Accountant"), Terence Rosemore, James Donadio, Winston James Francis.

RATING: 5 out of 10 9-1-1 operators