Shattered Glass

Year 13, Day 183 - 7/2/21 - Movie #3,886

BEFORE: The calendar says that 2021 is just about halfway done, but I've only got about two weeks to go until my Movie Year is 2/3 over, when I reach 200 watched out of 300 movies for the year.  How does that happen?  Oh, right, because of the pandemic I've been watching just a bit more movies each month than there are days, and that really starts to add up by now.  BUT, I'm planning to slow down if I can, space out my planned July movies to maybe reach into mid-August, if the chain will allow it.  Five movies per week should be fine for a while, and then I'll have less time off when September and November roll around.  

But, here's the question, does the math support this plan?  I've programmed up to Movie 3,918, originally planned for a point in the first week of August.  And the October chain is already set, though the plan for a horror chain is somewhat flexible, with multiple "outs", my favorite of the three endings results in a chain of 23 horror films, so 3,918 plus 23 is 3,941, leaving 59 slots open for late August, September, November and December.  

Now, the even bigger question, can I link from the end of my current chain to the start of the horror chain on October 1, and can I do it in the right number of steps?  Well, if you give me enough slots I can probably link from any movie to any other movie, so I'll give it a try - from the Arnold Schwarzenegger film "Killing Gunther" to the 1977 horror film "Salem's Lot", which means my target actor is Fred Willard...  My first attempt got me there in 14 steps, which is actually too short, that would leave 46 slots open for November and December, and that's too much, I may be busy with Christmas cards and Christmas shopping.  My second attempt got me there in 17 steps, which was little better, but then, still, 43 slots to fill at the end of the year.  

But this was still good research, usually I'm scrambling to get to my benchmarks quickly, to avoid doubling up or cramming too many films into too tight a time-frame, it seems now I've just got the opposite problem, I've got two chains that will get me there, but I maybe need to add a few detours, some side-roads that will burn up some more slots and allow me to reach the same destination.  Maybe if I take a piece of the first chain, dabble a little into Westerns, a couple silly kids' movies, and I plan to see both "Black Widow" and "The Suicide Squad" in theaters, yes, this could work.  The third chain that gets me to a Fred Willard movie is 24 steps, that would leave just 36 open slots to fill in November and December.  Just 18 in each month, or 20 in November and 16 in December, whatever works, I can do that.  Now, if I can just get from the end of the horror chain to some kind of Christmas movie in 36 steps, then I've got the whole chain for the year sewn up, for the third year in a row.  That's a nice feeling - knowing that I"ve closed the gap way ahead of schedule.  

Cas Anvar carries over from "The Operative". 

THE PLOT: The story of a young journalist who fell from grace when it was discovered he fabricated over half of his articles for The New Republic magazine.  

AFTER: Going back to the past again today, for a film that was released in 2003, about a magazine writer who got caught up in a scandal in 1998.  It seems that back in those days, a scandal was when somebody wrote a bunch of magazine articles that turned out to not be fact-based.  Fifteen or twenty years later, a scandal was when someone who had their own news show or was a celebrity chef turned out to be sexually harassing all the women in their office.  These days printing or broadcasting news that isn't true barely even moves the needle any more, now we just call it "Fox News" (or "fake news", if you're on the other side) and we move on.  

I mean, really, seriously, what's the big deal here?  I don't recall following the Stephen Glass story at the time, because I didn't read "The New Republic" or "The New Yorker", and what's his sin, printing fiction as if it's fact?  If he had just created these articles as essays and printed them in a collection of fiction, there would be absolutely no harm done.  1998 was in the early days of the internet, and so it seems that this writer got caught just because people started being able to search for things on the web, and the people and organizations that he quoted and credited his information to turned out to be, shall we say, non-existent?  Whoopsie!  Did somebody forget to tell him that news articles need to be based on facts?  

The whole structure is weird here, because in the first part of the film, Glass' character writes an article about the hijinx performed by young, horny Republican men in a hotel during the CPAC convention - and what trips him up is the fact that he wrote they were drinking tiny bottles of alcohol from the hotel minibar, and it turned out that the hotel didn't have minibars.  What a very weird, oddly specific thing to get tripped up on.  But then, was his mistake really a mistake, because they could have rented a small refrigerator and brought in their own alcohol, plus Glass seemed VERY apologetic over his mistake, which might not have even been a mistake.  Still, if he was fabricating story elements, why wasn't this incident a clear sign to him that he should stop doing that?  

His next article concerned a teen hacker who then got hired by the company he hacked, to work security for them and prevent future hacks.  A great story, but very untrue, because another competing magazine couldn't find any proof that the hacker, the company or any of Glass' sources existed, so if the story couldn't be corroborated, then how in the heck did it get approved for print?  Again, if he had published this as a work of fiction, it could have been a modern-day O. Henry type of ironic story - how silly of the universe to make this event not happen to bring Glass' vivid imagination into reality.  But then again, if you think about it, how many teen hackers would then ACCEPT a 9-to-5 job working corporate security for a tech firm?  That would leave no time for skateboarding, loitering and smoking weed, which is what all teens want to do - why skip the fun parts of life and move straight on into his mid-30's?  That right there should have been enough to make the story unbelievable, so what gives?  

Also, what gives the other magazine the right to poke holes in the New Republic article?  Go find your own damn story, Forbes, do your own investigating on a different topic, why you gotta harsh another reporter's mallow?  This forced Stephen Glass to come up with a phony phone number for the fictional people he quoted, and he had his brother waiting on the other end of the phone line to answer the call with "Vandelay Industries", I suppose.  Stephen Glass was just a younger, hipper George Costanza, it turns out.  

So Forbes magazine investigated the New Republic articles Glass wrote, and Vanity Fair then did an article on Glass that got turned into this movie.  Probably the ultimate irony here is that we all know that most directors can't turn someone's life story into a movie without changing a few details here and there, but we call that "artistic license", as opposed to "fraud", which is what people called Glass' articles.  But it's the SAME damn principle - every time a story is told or re-told, minor details may get changed, added or omitted, it's practically inevitable.  Yet we give a pass to the filmmakers and hold the journalists to a much higher standard - why?  Just because it's "news"?  Again, there's plenty of fake news going around these days, or news told from a certain point of view or with a certain political slant, and that should be considered just as dangerous. 

BTW, Hayden Christensen is still a terrible actor - he just never advanced much beyond his deadpan, unemotional performances as Anakin Skywalker in two "Star Wars" movies.  Here I just couldn't really believe anything he said as Stephen Glass, he remained unconvincing throughout - but in playing a pathological liar, perhaps that was the point?  I'm not sure, this maybe made him the perfect casting choice.  Still, he always comes off as somebody who's trying too hard to be authentic. 

Also starring Hayden Christensen (last seen in "Little Italy"), Peter Sarsgaard (last seen in "Hostiles"), Chloe Sevigny (last seen in "The Dead Don't Die"), Rosario Dawson (last seen in "Zombieland: Double Tap"), Melanie Lynskey (last seen in "Ever After: A Cinderella Story"), Hank Azaria (last seen in "The Wizard of Lies"), Steve Zahn (last seen in "Where'd You Go, Bernadette"), Mark Blum (last seen in "Desperately Seeking Susan"), Simone-Elise Girard, Chad Donella (last seen in "Taken 3"), Jamie Elman (last heard in "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Luke Kirby (last seen in "The Samaritan"), Linda E. Smith, Ted Kotcheff, Owen Roth, Bill Rowat, Michele Scarabelli, Terry Simpson, Andrew Airlie (last seen in "Big Eyes"), Mark Camacho (last seen in "Arrival"), Lynne Adams, Caroline Goodall (last seen in "Third Person"), Sean Cullen, Louis Philippe Dandenault, Morgan Kelly (last seen in "The Lookout'), Christian Tessier, James Berlingieri, Brett Watson, Russell Yuen, Brittany Drisdelle. 

RATING: 4 out of 10 conference calls

The Operative

Year 13, Day 182 - 7/1/21 - Movie #3,885

BEFORE: Before I kick off July's movies, here's a look at the formats for the movies of June:

13 Movies watched on cable (saved to DVD): After Class, The Limits of Control, City of Ember, The Last Word, The Jesus Rolls, The Burnt Orange Heresy, The Calling, Arbitrage, Employee of the Month, Brigsby Bear, Bill & Ted Face the Music, The Way Back (2020), Ode to Joy

5 Movies watched on cable (not saved): Clear History, The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper, Atlantic City, Trapped in Paradise, Let's Go to Prison

4 watched on Netflix: The Kindergarten Teacher, Thunder Force, Middle Men, Like Father

1 watched on Amazon Prime: Brittany Runs a Marathon

1 watched on Apple TV+: On the Rocks
1 watched on Tubi: The Bill Murray Stories

2 watched on HBO MAX: The Eagle Has Landed, An American Pickle
1 watched on a random site: Howl
28 TOTAL

Cable's still coming on strong, but July is going to be very different - I anticipate fewer movies out of the next 31 coming from cable.  I still have to clear some films off the DVR and make progress on that front, but I'm also getting ready to start my big Summer Music Concert and/or Documentary series, and many those films will be streaming from Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO Max (I know HBO is technically cable, but I'm counting films watched via their streaming service separately...)

Now, WHEN the Summer Concert series begins is a bit at issue, because after July 4 I think I'm going to slow things down a bit, maybe watch 4 or 5 movies each week instead of a solid 7 - it's just becoming too difficult to juggle two jobs and the movie habit, plus all the other things in my life.  So while I've got the next 31 movies planned already, if that chain creeps into August, it should still be OK, and it will take the pressure off of me.  I still have to link up the end of the Summer Concert series to the start of the Shocktober horror chain, but I'll discuss these plans more tomorrow.

For now, Martin Freeman carries over from "Ode to Joy". 

THE PLOT: A German woman is recruited by the Mossad to work undercover in Tehran. 

AFTER:  What troubles me greatly tonight is the fact that this film WAS available on HBO Max - perhaps right up until the time I, you know, wanted to watch it.  Now, of course it's gone - and I had to rent it from iTunes, which was one dollar cheaper than renting it from iTunes.  But WHY, WHY did it scroll off HBO Max?  I thought that service was going to be different - and I've got five more films in the July chain that are on HBO Max, are they going to disappear, too, before I get a chance to watch them?  HBO Max, you're just as bad as Netflix, it seems - films on my watchlist could disappear with no warning, and then I have to shill out three or four bucks just to maintain the chain.  At least I KNOW with Netflix that the usual availability period is two years for most films, a bit longer for ones that Netflix funded themselves.  What's YOUR availability period, HBO Max, because your service has only been around since May 2020, so how could a film like "The Operative" disappear so (relatively) quickly?  

Maybe it's because this film's plot is such a mess - and maybe that's why HBO Max dropped it so fast?  I found it very difficult to follow, and I don't think the plotline that's posted on Wikipedia got it right, it's full of mistakes.  Umm, I think.  "Working undercover" shouldn't be an excuse to have a character whose motivations and mission are unclear - the Israeli Mossad agency inserts Rachel as an ESL teacher to get close to Farhad through his son (nephew?), but WHY, exactly?  He's the heir to an electronics company that makes computer servers and racks that hold computer servers, but his job seems to be tangential to something else that is very unclear.  It might have something to do with Iran's potential nuclear capability, but I'm just not sure, and I swear I was paying attention.  There's that standard spy scene where an agent is copying information from the company's computer to a flash drive, but what, exactly, was she copying?  That's also unclear.  

To make matters worse, Farhad then asks Rachel to smuggle something in to the country, which he claims has something to do with medical tech, but does it really?  I have no idea.  Her agency also asks her to smuggle in some equipment, which has to do with explosives.  So, umm, which is it?  Is she smuggling in the medical stuff, or the bombs, or both?  And why does she only have a problem with the bomb part, is it just because of the danger involved, or is it because she loves Farhad and will do whatever he asks, and that makes it less of a job and more of a favor?  Again, unclear.  Unclear, unclear, unclear.  What is the mission and how do her personal feelings for Farhad affect it?  And what was it about Farhad that took precedence over the terms of that mission?  

Then we come to the plot posted on Wikipedia, which states that "Rachel's personal involvement with Farhad allows Thomas to involve him in the smuggling of parts for Iran's nuclear program, which ill work to undermine that program and make Farhad a target for recruitment as a Mossad resource."  Nearly every word of that sentence is incorrect, I think.  Thomas's smuggling was separate from the smuggling that Farhad wanted Rachel to do, nobody said anything about her smuggling nuclear parts, it was always either "medical tech" or "bombs" or maybe both, and then why would Mossad want to recruit Farhad?  That was never part of the deal, it seemed more like they wanted to arrest and prosecute him than recruit him.  Now I just don't even know which way is up, after reading this.  Was I watching a different movie than the one recapped on Wiki?  

To make matters even worse, Rachel becomes pregnant, and at one point visits an abortion clinic in Tehran.  But she's spotted there by someone she met at a party, so she leaves - but does this mean she wanted the baby, or didn't want the baby?  And why did seeing somebody from that party make her leave, it's a big narrative cop-out, right?  Then later she gets in a car accident, and Rachel's obviously concerned about the fetus, but we never really find out if the baby was OK, or if there was anything bad that resulted from the accident.  Then Thomas asks her about going to the abortion clinic, but he doesn't seem to make the logical conclusion from this that Rachel was pregnant.  Huh?  Is he THAT stupid, that he doesn't realize that only pregnant women do that?  Again, I'm scratching my head.  

Then there's the ultimate cop-out at the end, where the agency that employed Rachel suddenly wants to dispose of her, again, there's no WHY presented, it's just something that happens.  And the movie ends before we get to find out if they succeeded, which is just maddening.  You can't just pull a choose-your-own-ending at the last minute, you've GOT to give me something concrete before you go away.  

The big problem here, the cause of all the other little problems, is the time-jumping.  At the start, handler Thomas gets a mysterious phone call from undercover agent Rachel, and this should set his plans in motion for immediate extraction, only it doesn't, it sets off a series of discussions between him and other Mossad agents, which essentially tell her whole story via flashbacks.  But there were no dates given via subtitles, so it was very difficult to tell when we entered flashback mode, or if the scenes with Rachel were also happening NOW.  As a result Rachel's timeline was very difficult to piece together, plus why wasn't he rushing to help her out, why did he take the time to re-tell her entire storyline to another agent?  Isn't she in, you know, some form of danger, isn't that why she CALLED you?  

Also starring Diane Kruger (last seen in "Fathers & Daughters"), Cas Anvar (last seen in "Room"), Liron Levo (last seen in "This Must Be the Place"), Yaakov Zada Daniel, Ohad Knoller (last seen in "Munich"), Rotem Keinan, Lana Ettinger, Yoav Levi (last seen in "Zero Dark Thirty"), Johanan Herson, Daniel Wandelt, Gal Friedman, Barnaby Metschurat (last seen in "Race"), Werner Daehn (last seen in "Enemy at the Gates"), Doron Tsabari, Dayani Rahmani, Arie Tcherner, Sogand Sara Fakheri, Eitan Mansuri, Tamar Gov Ari, Sarit Haimyan, Farzana Cohen, Rona Navon. 

RATING: 3 out of 10 Isuzu pickup trucks (are they THAT common in Iran?)

Ode to Joy

Year 13, Day 181 - 6/30/21 - Movie #3,884

BEFORE: I know this seems like a film that belongs in February, and maybe it does, but I need it to link to my July 4 film, which is coming up this weekend, assuming my job at the movie theater doesn't start making me late.  I've been getting sneaky and watching films in the mornings and afternoons on my days off, but I think a better plan will be to slow things down a bit after July 4, maybe cut back to 4 or 5 films a week - I should be able to do that and still finish the year on time, heck, I'm almost at my 200th film for the year, and 2021 is only half over, as of today.  I'll print the format stats for June tomorrow, again I'm in a bit of a rush today.

But I watched about half of this film, one late night a few months ago - it was on in the background while I scanned through the listings looking for new movies on cable, and it caught my attention.  But then I figured I should probably STOP watching it if I wanted to count it later on, and sure enough, it became important to making my connections now. 

Hayes MacArthur carries over from "The Way Back" - according to the IMDB, anyway, I didn't see him yesterday, so I'm trusting he was there somewhere...

THE PLOT: Charlie has a neurological disorder where strong emotions, especially joy, make him faint. Working as a librarian gives him a quiet environment but then Francesca enters the library and his life. 

AFTER: Cataplexy is a real condition, and it's possibly tied to narcolepsy - it's got something to do with a neuropeptide that stabilizes the transition between the waking and sleeping states.  And if the neurons in the hypothalamus that produce this neuropeptide (hypocretin) get damaged by the autoimmune system, this results in a condition where any strong emotion - crying, laughing, terror - can trigger a fainting spell, which technically is the unexpected transition to the sleeping state.  The brain is essentially tricked into thinking it's asleep.  This film comes into my life just as I'm undergoing strange effects, too - namely that I'm getting exercise, which is unusual for me, and I've noticed it's harder for me to stay asleep for long periods of time, I'm waking up before the alarm, and I don't like that.  I sort of have the opposite problem right now from the main character here, he feels joy and falls asleep, while I'm feeling depressed and can't stay asleep.  

But I'm also asking the universe for guidance through movies this week, and essentially this film is about learning how to be happy, despite the risks involved.  Sure, it's easy to just get yourself to a comfortable place in life, where everything is the way you want it, you never put yourself out there career-wise or romantically, and then you just sort of put your head down and get through your life to the end, with nothing ever really changing, and you die alone.  Sure, it's a way to go, but then, are you really living?  Life is change, as much as I hate to face that myself, and then when you look back on the last couple of decades and realize how much has changed over the years, then changed again and changed again, it may be hard to re-connect with that person you were 20 or 30 years ago.  But that all happened, that was you then, and this is you now, even if you've forgotten all the steps in-between.  

Charlie here feels an instant attraction to Francesca, who breaks up with her boyfriend very publicly and very loudly in the Brooklyn Library where he works.  After one date, and one very forward invitation to get physical with her, Charlie faints on her doorstep and hits his head on the sidewalk.  After that, he nixes any possible relationship with her, and sets her up with his brother, Cooper.  Charlie then goes on to date Bethany, a quiet girl who knits and studies ancient grains, and Bethany is definitely more his speed - she's pleasant, sure, but she's nothing to get excited over, and he believes that's just what he needs.  But he's essentially kept Francesca at arm's length, he still enjoys her company, but watching her date his brother makes him miserable enough to compensate, and thus keep from fainting every five minutes.  

I can't help but wonder if this is really a metaphor for something - like we all want to be happy, but perhaps some combination of self-sabotage, watching the news of the day and constant concern and angst over what COULD go wrong in life keeps us from being TOO happy.  Or is that just me?  I'm not sure any more.  Collectively we've all gone through a bunch of stuff over the last year and a half, and perhaps watching 500,000 people die in the U.S. alone just from a virus is enough misery for a while, and maybe we're all due for a little happiness this year.  But some people spent more time at home, reconnected with their immediate family, learned new ways of doing their job from home, and thus some small measure of balance was achieved?  I don't know, who can say.  I was dining out on Sunday on break and I was surrounded by people celebrating after the Pride parade, and it sure seemed like people are ready to go out and party right now, it's going to be a hot summer for sure, but that's not going to stop people who have been cooped up indoors for a long time.  People are ready to travel and ready to get their groove back.  

But, ARE they, though?  Isn't there still some trepidation involved, like people aren't ready to be joyous just yet?  Who can celebrate when so many people have recently died, and are still dying in parts of the world?  Joy still has to be tempered with somberness, and that's really what this film is about.  Can anybody truly BE happy, and take pleasure in that, in and of itself?  Or is life just a constant struggle to find that balance between doing the things that make you happy, and doing the things you have to do so that you have the time to do the things that make you happy?  It's another topic for debate.  

All that really matters here is that Charlie's plan to keep Francesca close to him by watching him date his brother looked really good on paper, but it's just not practical in the long run.  And it's certainly not fair to Bethany, not at all - so eventually he's going to have to take that leap, and that means returning to frequently passing out. Oh, well, there's no way to do it but to go through it, I guess - every relationship is going to have its positives and negatives.  But that right there makes this an unconventional romance movie, and maybe that's part of why it ended up outside of the usual February romance chain?  Just a thought.  

Also starring Martin Freeman (last seen in "What's Your Number?"), Morena Baccarin (last seen in "Deadpool 2"), Jake Lacy (last seen in "Otherhood"), Jane Curtin (last seen in "The Spy Who Dumped Me"), Melissa Rauch (last seen in "The Laundromat"), Shannon Woodward (last seen in "The Comebacks"), Adam Shapiro (last seen in "My Dinner with Hervé"), Jackie Seiden (last seen in "Jersey Boys"), Adam LeFevre (last seen in "Fool's Gold"), Sabrina Sloan, Sharon Gee (last seen in "Bill & Ted Face the Music"), Ellis Rubin (last seen in "The Greatest Showman"), Willie C. Carpenter, Mike Britt, Ed Herbstman (last seen in "Hustlers"), Neal Lerner, Tyler Bourke, Chris DiStefano.

RATING: 6 out of 10 blatant pans of the Manhattan skyline from the Brooklyn waterfront

The Way Back (2020)

Year 13, Day 180 - 6/29/21 - Movie #3,883

BEFORE: Michaela Watkins carries over from "Brittany Runs a Marathon", plus it's her third film of the week, she was also in "Brigsby Bear", non-consecutively.  But I've also programmed back-to-back films about sports, so I guess that's something.  

THE PLOT: Jack Cunningham was a high-school basketball phenom who walked away from the game, forfeiting his future. Years later, when he reluctantly accepts a coaching job at his alma mater, he may get one last shot at redemption. 

AFTER: See, now I'm starting to wonder if the universe is trying to tell me something again, through my movie choices.  I know I set up this chain months ago, so this couldn't be anything but random coincidence, but I've seen too many of these coincidences to believe that's what's going on.  Just when I've resigned myself to sticking with the new job at the movie theater for a while, the same job I had thirty years ago, I watch a movie with a character who goes back to coach basketball at his old school, where he played thirty or so years ago.  And yesterday's film was about a woman starting to exercise in order to lose some weight, and since my job is more physical than what I'm used to, it counts as exercise for me, and I'm starting to lose some weight.  I have to tell you, it's a bit eerie. Is there a film I can watch about somebody landing the producing job of his dreams and then quitting his minimum-wage side hustle?  Somebody let me know, maybe it could help me out. 

Look, I know that coaching basketball and my current situation don't have that much in common, but we see ourselves in the movies we watch sometimes, especially when films try to have universal themes or focus on characters that are "everyman" types, and that often means people who don't succeed.  Because if you think about it, like 99% of people aren't phenomenal successes at what they do, just look at actors - maybe 1 in 100 actors has the name recognition of a Ben Affleck or a Keanu Reeves, the vast majority of them are hard-working, but also very interchangeable types, like Todd Stashwick or Anthony Carrigan.  (Those last two are maybe bad examples, because they fall into the "Hey, it's THAT guy!" category, notably that guy from the "12 Monkeys" TV show and that guy who played Zsasz on "Gotham".  But maybe that's just me.)

So in any line of work, trading stocks or running restaurants or even politics, most people are not going to encounter tremendous success, because it's all a numbers game, and not everybody can be successful.  Sports movies try to bend that curve, in a way, because who wants to watch a movie about a team that assembles a bunch of ragtag misfits, tries really hard, shows a lot of heart, and then falls short?  But think about how many professional baseball, football or basketball teams there are, and only ONE gets to have a winning season each year - you see my point, right?  It's a numbers game, only one out of the 30 or 36 teams in that league is going to come out on top.  

THIS may be that movie, though, the one about the team that's made up of the unlikely, ragtag misfits, the team that tries really hard, shows a lot of heart and then comes up a bit short - I can't really tell you here, because no spoilers, but if you've seen this film, you know that this film is just as much about failure as it is about success, and that in itself is a little refreshing.  In most sports-based films it's so clear-cut who they want you to root for, and then you'd be a fool to bet against that team pulling out an unlikely and unexpected victory, in an unlikely and unexpected way.  

The question becomes, can Jack stop letting his personal life get in the way of his new gig, coaching the teens from his old school?  Can he stop swearing in front of the priests?  Can he stop drinking long enough to get it together?  Can he put his marriage back on track, or is his wife just ready to move on?  Late in the film, we do learn a bit more about what derailed the marriage in the first place, and perhaps once you find this out, you can forgive Jack his sins, or perhaps not, I suppose that's up to you.  We also learn more about why Jack didn't accept the basketball scholarship he was offered, and perhaps when you find this out, you can forgive Jack for not following through, or perhaps not, again, it's up to you.  

But either way, you have to accept that Jack is a screw-up, and he's been self-sabotaging himself for years.  Maybe you'll see a bit of yourself in Jack, as I did, or maybe not.  Maybe Ben Affleck saw a bit of himself in Jack, and that's why he took the role, who can say?  Or maybe you just want to watch some basketball being played, and that's OK too, just be aware that the movie's going to give you a lot of stuff about redemption and personal responsibility along with it.  Maybe right now we're all trying to find our way back to something, to what we had before, only we may find out that there is no way back, only forward, and that can be a tough thing to come to terms with.  

Also starring Ben Affleck (last seen in "Jay and SIlent Bob Reboot"), Al Madrigal (last seen in "Snatched"), Janina Gavankar, Glynn Turman (last seen in "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"), Brandon Wilson, Charles Lott Jr., Will Ropp, Fernando Luis Vega, Rachael Carpani, Marlene Forte (last seen in "Knives Out"), Melvin Gregg, Ben Irving, Jeremy Radin (last seen in "The New World"), John Aylward (last seen in "North Country"), Da'Vinchi, Matthew Glave (last seen in "First Man"), Todd Stashwick (last seen in "You, Me and Dupree"), Chris Bruno, Dan Lauria (last seen in "Another Stakeout"), Nancy Linehan Charles (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War'), T.K. Carter (last seen in "The Thing" (1982)), Jeremy Ratchford (last seen in "Jersey Boys"), Jayne Taini, Sal Velez Jr., Yeniffer Behrens, Eric Tate, with an uncredited cameo by Hayes MacArthur (last seen in "Super Troopers 2", but remember this for tomorrow...)

RATING: 6 out of 10 free throws

Brittany Runs a Marathon

Year 13, Day 179 - 6/28/21 - Movie #3,882

BEFORE: Parts of the U.S. are in the grip of a mighty heat-wave right now, there were triple-digit temperatures in the Southwest last week, and now the Pacific Northwest has them.  It seems perhaps the Earth's not done trying to get rid of humans, the pandemic may be almost over for some, but the hits just keep right on coming.  It's 90 degrees in NYC as I type this, summer only JUST started last week, so I fear this is only going to get worse.  But no, climate change couldn't possibly be a real thing, could it, Republicans?  I went out on an errand yesterday at work and I had to stop for ice cream on the way back - but that's just a temporary fix.  I have to leave the house in a few hours to go work in an air-conditioned movie theater, but I have to somehow GET there first. Needless to say, if you're into running outdoors, maybe consider today a "skip day". 

Jillian Bell carries over from "Bill & Ted Face the Music". 

THE PLOT: A young woman decides to make positive changes in her life by training for the New York City marathon. 

AFTER: I'm not a runner, but I was once married to one, so this film hits home in many ways.  My first-wife took up running in a similar fashion as a method of self-improvement, and it was one of many things we started to NOT have in common, so eventually her vision of her future didn't include being married to a non-runner / non-exerciser.  Maybe I'm just thinking about her because on Sunday I was working in the East Village, surrounded by people who had just attended the city's Pride Parade.  But I digress.  

Still, there are plot elements that do make me empathize with the main character - I'd been looking for a new part-time job since December, and it took me until June to get one.  And of course, as soon as I got one, I wanted to quit it, and part of the reason for that is that the job involves physical labor, and of course I've been against physical fitness for most of my life.  To then have to stand and walk around for eight hours at a time, well, it sure hasn't been easy.  Leg pain, foot pain, and just being exhausted overall just makes me want to pack it in, but I'm trying to stick with it as long as I can because I need to make more money, so ideally it would be great if one of the other employers I've applied to recently would give me a call, so I can get out of this madcap, illogical situation I've gotten myself into and maybe work someplace more sane and suited to my needs.  Yes, I acknowledge that I've become very spoiled over the last two decades, working for people in the realm of independent film who don't have rigid working schedules or put TOO much demand on me, physically (umm, except for working at Comic-Cons, which have often tested my limits.)

But enough about my problems - Brittany in this film is overweight and under-employed, she's got a job handing out playbills at a theater that she doesn't take very seriously, and her doctor has pointed out that her BMI puts her in the obese category, and she's in danger of more serious conditions like liver failure.  She's got toxic friendships and no stable relationship, so clearly there are some changes that need to be made, and her upstairs neighbor is a running enthusiast who seems to have it all together (only, umm, she doesn't, because really nobody does) and the neighbor encourages Brittany to make small goals, like running just one block. If you haven't run in the past ever, this of course seems daunting at first, but Brittany gives it a go.  And then to prove she's not a quitter, she meets up with a running club to go two miles, then the next goal is to enter a 5K, and, well, you know the title of the film so you can probably guess where this is going.  

The New York City marathon is not open to everyone, surprisingly.  Or maybe not surprisingly - if they let everyone enter who wanted to enter, there would be like 2 million people who have convinced themselves they can do it (they can't ALL be right) and then it would take like two days just to have everyone cross the starting line - it just wouldn't work.  But there are several paths to entry, one of which is being a member of this Road Runners club, and having a track record of completing a different marathon in another city in a certain amount of time.  I guess it's like anything else, you can't get a job in a certain field unless you already HAVE experience in that field, right?  But then there are a few alternative paths to qualifying, like entering a lottery for a small number of open spaces, or raising money for a charity, or volunteering for certain other organizations, or, and this might be on the tough side, just become an Olympic marathon champion and wait for an invitation.  

Look, I get that this film is (somewhat) based on a true story, and it's designed to be an inspirational story about finding one's motivation and setting goals and then sticking with them and following through.  And maybe if each one of us does that and follows our bliss and stays on our true path, good things will come to us as rewards.  But I'm not sold on that idea, for some reason, something deep down tells me that it just can't be that simple.  What if you follow your dreams, find your motivation, achieve your goals, and then get hit by a bus when you're out running one day?  It's just as likely, I think.  

Also, things are quite fuzzy here because Brittany is depicted as backsliding from time to time - sneaking out for a cheeseburger and fries, or projecting her insecurities on to an overweight guest at her brother-in-law's birthday party?  Exercising and getting down to her goal weight didn't seem to dispatch the demons inside, now, did it?  And taking that job as a dog-sitter in the fancy house, while it was a great opportunity, ended up causing more problems than it solved, which was just an odd narrative bit of business.  She still took the easy way out, once she realized she could basically live in that house for a time and escape from her problems.  Then the whole relationship with Jern was weird, too - she hated him, they had nothing in common, and he represented everything she was trying to not BE any more, so I couldn't even understand why she was drawn to such a negative character.  

I guess at the end of the day, we are who we are, and that means we can take steps to improve our lives, work hard and try to get somewhere, but we're always going to make mistakes.  Still, that's a bit of a weird message to get from a film, right?  OK, this character's a screw-up, but then she's going to try to change, then she keeps screwing up.  I guess it works for Peter Parker, it makes Spider-Man more accessible for some people, that he never really gets things quite right either in the superhero world or his personal life.  Is that really going to make us all feel better, though, at the end of the day?  I've got my reservations about this. 

Plus, haven't we been hearing in the last few years about being "body-positive", how we're supposed to be getting away from this unrealistic notion of some impossible standard of how being skinny represents being beautiful, and that some people just aren't designed to be skinny?  There's that whole movement around being more accepting of our bodies, even if they have a few extra pounds on them, and there's Lizzo and Chrissy Metz and others shining a light on this issue, even Victoria's Secret is getting away from their unrealistic "Angels" and same goes for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, I thought we were, as a society, trying to get away from the Barbie-like definitions of fitness and beauty, and so, therefore, what gives?

Also starring Michaela Watkins (last seen in "Brigsby Bear"), Utkarsh Ambudkar (last seen in "Game Over, Man!"), Lil Rel Howery (last heard in "The Angry Birds Movie 2"), Micah Stock (last seen in "Life Itself"), Alice Lee, Patch Darragh (last seen in "Sully"), Peter Vack, Kate Arrington (last seen in "The Irishman"), Juri Henley-Cohn, Adam Sietz, Mikey Day, Max Pava, Erica Hernandez, Dan Bittner (last seen in "Marshall"), Beth Malone (last seen in "The Comedian"), Esteban Benito (last seen in "Isn't It Romantic"), Nadia Quinn, Gene Gabriel, Sarah Bolt, Ian Unterman. 

RATING: 4 out of 10 shin splints

Bill & Ted Face the Music

Year 13, Day 178 - 6/27/21 - Movie #3,881

BEFORE: Wow, I've been sitting on this one for almost a year - I had saved a slot for it several times last year, between two Keanu Reeves movies, and I think again between two films with Kid Cudi in them.  But I would have either had to GO to the movie theater in August (which just wasn't recommended) or pay like $25 to see this on demand, and that just seemed too high - and then by the time the film made it to premium cable, my chances to link to it had fallen by the wayside.  Then, of course, I did a Keanu Reeves chain in February, but I felt this film just wouldn't fit in there, so I'm glad I found a home for it here today. 

BUT, all good things come to those who wait, right?  When I saw the chance to sneak this one into the chain between my Father's Day film and my July 4 film, I just had to take it. So Beck Bennett carries over from "Brigsby Bear". (I could probably have snuck in "The Mitchells and the Machines" here, also with Beck Bennett, but again, I just don't have the time if I'm going to hit July 4 on the nose.)

A few weeks back, I tried to list all the celebrities I've had random encounters with over the years, and I'm fairly sure I included "Weird Al" Yankovic on that list, after working for the man who animated two music videos for him, our office staff (3 people) was invited to see his concert at the Beacon Theater in 2011, on Al's birthday no less, and we got to attend the post concert Meet & Greet, I keep the photo of Al & me on my. phone, and I show it to just about everyone. But this film reminds me that I forgot to mention two people I also met - I went to a book signing at Barnes & Noble and got George Carlin to autograph a book, and then one time I rode in an elevator with Alex Winter, who at the time lived in the same NYC building as my boss.  I tried very hard to not think of the elevator as a time-traveling phone booth, but such a thing was impossible to do.  

THE PLOT: Once told during a time-traveling adventure that they'd save the universe with their music, two would-be rockers from San Dimas, CA find themselves as middle-aged dads still trying to crank out a hit song and fulfill their destiny.  

AFTER: You know, I really needed this film to be good - the last film that I rated over a "6" was "Bohemian Rhapsody", and that was over a month ago.  And I think this was a good film, provided you don't try to take it too seriously - God knows the filmmakers and actors sure didn't, but that's kind of refreshing in a way.  Instead of struggling to make a "great" film, which is always a difficult prospect, especially when trying to revive a franchise, they got the next film MADE, which in many ways is more important.  It's been an on-again, off-again thing for DECADES, the "Bogus Journey" sequel came out in 1991, and that's THIRTY years ago now. ("Station!")

We're at that point in cultural history where everything old needs to be new again, in some way, and some people are desperate for the next James Bond film, or the "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" revival, or, Jesus Christ, any Marvel movie, "Black Widow" or "Spider-Man: No Way Home" or even "Shang-Chi" at this point.  The "Dune" remake?  Sure, bring it on.  The "Suicide Squad" sequel?  OK, I'm listening.  "Fast & Furious 9"?  Well, I'll take a pass but I'm sure that SOME people somewhere are enjoying it, or at least watching it.  So they couldn't wait for theaters to fully re-open, they went ahead and released "Bill & Ted 3" in August 2020 - but also on people's TVs and computers if there was still hesitancy over going out to theaters.  I get it.  

SPOILERS AHEAD, please be warned - stop here and go see "Bill & Ted Face the Music", if you haven't already.  I can't talk about the film without giving some stuff away, and I just can't be held responsible if you're not in the know.  

In a very funny and ironic way, the ongoing attempts to make another "Bill & Ted" film are mirrored in the characters, Bill and Ted have been trying for decades to write that spectacular song that's going to unite the universe and bring harmony to everything.  Allegedly.  But their band broke up, Death went and released a solo album, and they had to sue him just to regain the rights to use the name "Wyld Stallions" again.  Three decades on, Bill and Ted are still married but both marriages are a little shaky, they each have a teen daughter, Billie and Thea (also conveniently nicknamed Bill & Ted) and they can count the number of loyal fans they still have on one hand - they can even name all of them, not good.

Once again, they're called out by the Elders of the Future, including Rufus' widow (one presumes) who is the Great Leader, and his daughter, one of whom wants to give them the opportunity to write that unifying song (in the next 72 minutes, which also happens to be the amount of time until the closing credits roll) and the other one wants to kill them, thus possibly saving the galaxy from ruin, or dooming it, this is all a bit unclear.  Feeling not up to the task creatively, because writing that killer song sounds like WAY too much work, and under pressure to get it done, Bill and Ted decide to visit future versions of themselves, to see if they can borrow a copy of the song that they haven't written yet, but those other us'es already have.  Genius, right?  And it's not stealing if they give the song to themselves - and this is a thinly veiled version of the time-travel paradox about someone in the future who builds a time machine going back in time to give the plans for a time machine to a younger version of himself, or to someone else - so, then, who really invented the time machine?   

They find out why you should never, ever interact with yourself while you're time-traveling - first of all, there's the possibility you might kill a younger version of yourself (or kill your father), which would be another paradox, and the older you killing the younger you would be a form of suicide - umm, maybe.  But also the older you has a memory of what the younger you encountered, so that you is always going to be one step ahead, should the two of you not get along and come into conflict.  It happens, I guess.  The 2020 Bill & Ted encounter the 2022, 2025 and then really really old versions of themselves, and of course, it doesn't go well, as the rules of comedy dictate.  Meanwhile the older versions of their wives are taking the current versions of their wives on a tour of parallel universes, desperately looking for one in which they're happy and able to work through their commitment issues and that proper balance of relationship with saving the world through music.  

Also meanwhile (if meanwhile means anything to time-travelers, which it really doesn't) Bill & Ted's daughters are on a quest of their own, to find great musicians throughout history to sample and maybe inspire their fathers in the art of totally excellent songwriting.  They meet such figures as Jimi Hendrix, Louis Armstrong, Mozart and more, essentially mirroring their father's quest from the first Bill & Ted film, where they had to find historical figures for their live school oral report.  And it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what the dramatic twist is going to be here, but the film follows the "always darkest before the dawn" formula by killing everyone off and sending them to hell, which of course is another shout-out to the second film, "Bogus Journey".  

Their only hope is to find Death again, and convince him to rejoin the band - which could be a good thing. And the whole time/space continuum is breaking down, historical figures are disappearing from their proper times in history and re-appearing in 2020 - but if you think about it, what better way is there to get the new Wyld Stallions song to resonate across all of human history, if they can ever get the damn song written, that is?  It's very clever here how every negative thing that happens ultimately becomes a positive or some kind of shortcut to a positive result.  Kind of like how it took WAY too long to get this sequel made, but then that also allowed them to poke fun at the delays in the creative process within the film itself.  Way to turn things around, guys!

Also starring Keanu Reeves (last seen in "The Private Lives of Pippa Lee"), Alex Winter (last seen in "The Borrowers" (1997)), Kristen Schaal (last seen in "Going the Distance"), Samara Weaving (last seen in "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, MIssouri"), Brigette Lundy-Paine (last seen in "The Wilde Wedding"), Anthony Carrigan, Erinn Hayes (last seen in "Rumor Has It..."), Jayma Mays (last seen in "American Made"), Amy Stoch, Holland Taylor (last seen in "Bombshell"), Scott "Kid Cudi" Mescudi (last seen in "Drunk Parents"), William Sadler (last seen in "The Highwaymen"), Jillian Bell (last seen in "Fist Fight"), Hal Landon Jr. (last seen in "Pee-wee's Big Holiday"), DazMann Still, Jeremiah Craft, Daniel Dorr (last seen in "20th Century Women"), Sharon Gee, Patty Anne Miller, Kelly Carlin, Jared Bankens (last seen in "Venom"), Mickey Gooch Jr. (last seen in "Jay and Silent Bob Reboot"), Billy Slaughter (ditto), William E. Harris (last seen in "Elvis & Nixon"), Kimberly Stockton, Bridget Andrews, Ned Yousef (last seen in "Shock and Awe"), with cameos from Dave Grohl (last seen in "Sound City"), "Weird Al" Yankovic (last seen in "How to Be a Latin Lover", Guillermo Rodriguez and archive footage of George Carlin (last heard in "Tarzan 2: The Legend Begins").

RATING: 7 out of 10 prison tattoos

Brigsby Bear

Year 13, Day 177 - 6/26/21 - Movie #3,880

BEFORE: Ugh, I'm in a real lull when it comes to comedy movies, it seems.  If only I worked at a place where movies were being shown around the clock, and I could get free tickets...  I kid, but there's nothing playing at the multiplex where I work that I even want to see - one more reason to quit that job, I have no interest in using my benefit of getting free passes to see anything.  Should I stick with the job, just to get a free ticket to "Black Widow" when it gets released?  I'm just not sure it's worth it.  

Tim Heidecker carries over from "Let's Go to Prison". 

THE PLOT: After being freed from his life in an underground bunker, a man sets out to make a movie of the only TV show he has ever known. 

AFTER: I think it's safe to say I've seen a bunch of weird movies in my time - and man, this is just plain one of the weirdest.  Maybe with repeat viewings it could get a little less weird, like "Napoleon Dynamite" did, but I'm just not sure.  It's so out there it kind of comes back again, do you know what I mean?  Like WHY would anybody write this story in THIS way, where did this whole idea come from?  

Part of the issue, I think, is Kyle Mooney, he's one of those actors who I'm unable to get a read on, I'm never sure if he's "doing a bit" as a character, or if he's genuinely that weird and out of touch with how he's presenting himself.  Or he played weird, out of touch characters for so long that he kind of became one, if you know what I mean.  He reminds me a bit of a young Woody Allen, from the time of "Bananas", when Woody was doing comedy, but you always knew that Woody was in on the joke, and with Kyle Mooney I'm never really sure.  Adam Sandler used to have a knack for playing the same kind of out-of-touch man-boy characters, like in "The Waterboy" or "Happy Gilmore", but again, you always felt with Sandler that when they called "Cut" he turned it off and went home to a semi-regular life, and it feels like Mooney just doesn't do that, he's THAT GUY all the time.  

The story here concerns James, a man who was abducted as an infant and raised in a particular way by a couple that was not his parents, only they pretended to be, and they were slightly insane.  They kept him isolated in a bunker, and told him that the world outside was toxic and dangerous (OK, so they weren't completely wrong) and kept him away from the internet and TV, except for a show called "Brigsby Bear" which his non-father was making in a makeshift TV studio not far away.  The TV show, as his only source of entertainment, was also filled with the insane couple's philosophies of life and rules for living, so they were also part of James' indoctrination into their world, or a set of principles designed to mold him into who they wanted him to be, or perhaps just a method of spreading their insanity to one more person, all of this is a bit unclear.  

When the authorities (finally) solve the abduction case and raid the bunker, this leads to James being reunited with his real parents, and after finding out his whole world is a lie, James has to learn how to interact with other humans, discover what parties are, and figure out what society is all about - only all he knows of pop culture is the Brigsby Bear show, and nobody else knows anything about it.  I have to wonder if this is somehow a metaphor for nerds who discuss "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" with other people who just aren't all that into those franchises.  

Despite the advice of a therapist who tells him he's got to give up "Brigsby Bear" and discover more about the true reality, James can't seem to let go - he talks up the show enough that his one friend, Spencer, uploads some clips to the internet and soon there are more people interested in the show, or at least oddly curious about it, and suddenly James becomes not just a celebrity for being in the news, but also becomes known as "the Bear guy" and since no new episodes are being produced by his now-incarcerated abductor, James sets out to make a "Brigsby Bear" movie that will tie up all the dangling plotlines, and also serve as a metaphor for his current situation - Brigsby Bear also finds out that his whole world is a lie, and the space police come and take his family away, sending him on a quest for the truth, while also defeating the evil Sun-Catcher once and for all.  

The whole mythology of "Brigsby Bear" seems much too complicated to get into here, and I have to wonder if some screenwriters mapped it all out, or just threw a bunch of random elements together to simulate a proper background - either answer is equally likely.  The costume is like a giant Teddy Ruxpin doll, the facial features are designed to move along with the voices played on a cassette tape in the costume's head.  This is somehow both endearing and creepy, especially when the dialogue reflects a crazy person's thoughts on topics like politics, exercise and masturbation.   

Random thoughts after watching this - it was released in 2017, but somehow feels very pandemically appropriate, with James not being allowed to leave his home and being led to believe that the air outside is dangerous.  We all went through some form of this, and once the emergency was over and we could safely leave our homes again, it felt weird, right?  Like we had to re-discover what's possible and what reality is, to some degree.  I don't think I've ever seen Mark Hamill and Greg Kinnear in the same film, they do look similar in some ways, like they could believably play brothers in some other movie, just not this one.  And of course Mark Hamill is an amazing voice actor, so perfect casting here as the man who was making an underground show and also voicing the characters.  

The inspiration for this came from Mooney's own obsession with collecting old VHS tapes, he's apparently got a huge library, and certain poorly-made, psychedelic and creepy children's shows from the 1980's, particularly "Prayer Bear", though if you spot some similarities to "Teletubbies", I wouldn't say that you were wrong.  "Sesame Street" also had an agenda to teach children certain things about the world, only I think we all agree that CTW never had malicious intent.  

I'm left with the concept that, like James, I can't really tell where the fake reality leaves off and the real reality starts, because the film is about James and a few close friends making a movie that means a lot to him, but isn't very good technically, but still manages to connect with people.  And that's exactly what Kyle Mooney did, in the end, in writing "Brigsby Bear" - so once again, I can't get a read on Kyle Mooney and whether he's playing a character, or he's really THAT GUY.

Also starring Kyle Mooney (last seen in "Playing It Cool"), Mark Hamill (last heard in "Batman: The Killing Joke"), Greg Kinnear (last seen in "The Gift"), Claire Danes (last seen in "The Family Stone"), Matt Walsh (last seen in "Drillbit Taylor"), Andy Samberg (last seen in "Palm Springs"), Beck Bennett (last heard in "The Angry Birds Movie 2"), Michaela Watkins (last seen in "How to Be a Latin Lover"), Ryan Simpkins (last seen in "A Single Man"), Jorge Lendeborg Jr. (last seen in "Love, Simon"), Alexa Demie, Chance Crimin, Kate Lyn Shell, Kiera Milan Hendricks, Jane Adams (last seen in "The Wackness"), Nick Rutherford (last seen in "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot"). 

RATING: 5 out of 10 camera tricks