Nerdland

Year 8, Day 110 - 4/19/16 - Movie #2,310

BEFORE: It's the day of the New York primary, and I screwed the pooch when it came to voting today.  I'm registered, I believe I could have, should have voted, but I didn't.  And now it's 7:40 pm and I'm seeing this film "Nerdland" tonight at the Tribeca Film Festival, and anyway, my heart's just not into voting today.  Let me explain why.

First off, if you're registered and you get the chance to vote in your state, or your country, you totally should.  Definitely, definitely - do as I say, not as I do.  Because a whole lot of people died over the years to preserve your right to do that, and not voting totally dishonors their memories.  Plus, there are people in countries who don't GET to vote, or not in a fair way, so you should reap the benefits of free elections and enjoy the fact that you live in a society that allows them.  OK, enough with the PSA.  

I'm abstaining from voting (yeah, that's good, that can work) not because I don't care, because I do care very much.  And not because I don't believe my vote counts, but rather because I know EXACTLY how much my vote counts, which is so small it's essentially statistically insignificant.  We've just got too many people in this country - and I don't mean too many Mexicans, or immigrants, or people of color, or anything like that - there are just. too. many. people.  What's one vote against the rest, when you live in a city of 8 million, a state of nearly 20 million, a country of (gasp) 319 million?  Thinking that my vote's going to change anything is like thinking I could choose the winning PowerBall numbers while being eaten by a shark and struck by lightning at the same time.  It's not going to happen.

I hear the arguments in favor of voting - "Maybe one vote can't change things, but ten thousand votes like yours can".  OK, go out and get those ten thousand votes, then give me a call.  But at that point you probably don't even need me, because you've got those ten thousand other people.  "But what if nearly everyone was like you, and didn't vote?"  Well, then those people that found a way to get to the polls would find that their votes were suddenly very important.  And, you're welcome.  

But allow me to make a distinction between the people who were just too lazy to vote (and I get that, I really do, I understand lazy) and people who were too busy.  Turns out I was both, too lazy and too busy, but let's focus on the "busy" part for a moment.  I had to work in Brooklyn today, which means from my place in Queens, I had to go into Manhattan and catch an express subway to Brooklyn.  

My boss got a short accepted into the Tribeca Film Festival, as part of a block programmed by Whoopi Goldberg.  We had an opportunity to get several free tickets for other screenings, but I let the deadline pass, because I hadn't found any other scheduled films I wanted to see.  But a few weeks ago,  I checked out the whole program guide, and I found "Nerdland", a film animated by a studio that's just down the street.  AND it featured the voice of Paul Rudd, and I realized it would fit right into my schedule, especially if I watched "Ant-Man" on April 18.  So it seemed like a sign, it had to happen, so I bought a ticket, not realizing that April 19 was also the date of the NY Primary.  

The screening's not until 9:15 pm, so theoretically after I got out of work, I could have gone back home to vote.  But that would have meant going Queens to Manhattan to Brooklyn, back to Manhattan, back to Queens, back into Manhattan to see the film, then finally back home to Queens.  Yeah, I'm not doing that. Too much travel.  So it's Queens to Manhattan to Brooklyn, into Manhattan to see the film, home to Queens, and no voting.  

Oh, I suppose I could have gotten up early, maybe voted around 9 am, then started my day, but the voting place is in the OPPOSITE direction from the subway, so I would have had to walk like 7 blocks, then 7 back, then two to the subway.  Again, not doing that.  Plus, I'm not a morning guy - the only way I would be there at 9 am would be to stay up all night, and then I'd be a wreck for the rest of the day.  Look, this is the digital age, why can't I vote on my computer, why isn't there an app on my phone that allows me to take part in the democratic process?  Why does it involve so much walking, isn't that an unfair system against people who have trouble walking, or don't own cars?  Aren't those people being repressed and their voices not being heard?  I should hold my vote back in a silent protest of solidarity...

Look, if it's any consolation, I feel really bad about it, OK?  I hemmed and hawed over which candidate to choose, the one who has a ton of scandals but could end up being really proficient at the  job, or the one who's promising everyone the moon but may not be able to deliver those things.  I believe that HE believes he can deliver, but I strongly suspect he's delusional.  Truth be told, I don't like either candidate, and maybe that's part of why I'm OK with not voting.  But as I said, I feel bad about it, so I promise to vote in November for whichever candidate isn't Trump, OK?  We cool?

So now I'm waiting for the early results, which might come in around 9 pm, but most likely they won't post anything until I'm halfway through this movie.  I'll know when I come out of the theater whether my lack of voting had any effect upon society, but I'm betting that it won't.  Who knows, maybe Clinton will lose New York by ONE VOTE, and then we can all point to "Nerdland" as the film that maybe changed the course of history.  For want of a nail, and all that - if I hadn't bought this ticket, I would have gone home and voted after work, and we'd have a female President.  OK, if that happens, it's on me.  

BUT, I lived through the 2000 presidential election - so I have much more right to be jaded and cynical than any of these damn slacker millennials do.  I know that if any election is that close, like with 1 or 2 percent separating the candidates, then someone's going to contest things or demand a recount.  And then we'll have that situation where they count the votes 17 times and get 17 different results.  Welcome to the world of politics, kids.  It's filled with shady dealings and disappointment and watching the a-hole you didn't vote for win, and someday you'll be as jaded as I am, for real.

I don't think I'm far off-base here, because this whole election season has been the craziest, dumbest, most soul-crushing political period I've ever seen.  I'll wrap up for now, but in a few weeks I've got a film or two about politics, and I reserve the right to pick up this topic again then.  But I think the whole system stinks, it feels like a season of "American Idol" with no stand-out singers, and every week instead of voting for the best, people just vote for the least worst, and that's really not the same thing. 

THE PLOT:  Story of two best friends, aspiring screenwriter Elliot and aspiring actor John, whose dreams of super-stardom have fizzled. With their 30th birthdays looming and their desperation growing, John and Elliot decide that in this 24/7, celebrity-obsessed world of over-shared navel-gazing, there are more ways to become famous -- or infamous -- then ever before.

AFTER: The animation studio here is Titmouse, a name you may recognize if you've seen "Venture Brothers", "Metalocalypse" or "Super Jail".  I haven't watched those shows, because I work for a living, and my Adult Swim viewing is therefore limited to new episodes of "Robot Chicken".  I think I'm probably too old for the rest of their line-up.  So I'm coming in at a loss here, I have to just review the movie put before me, without much background.  

I approve of animation made for adults, I work for a studio that makes animation for adults, and so I want to support animation made for adults.  Among my co-workers, the anticipation for "Nerdland" is probably second only to "Sausage Party", a CGI film full of anthropomorphized grocery food, coming out this summer.  But again, let me try to stick just to "Nerdland" and judge it on its own merits.

It's not too much of a mental leap from "Beavis and Butthead" to John and Elliot.  Maybe if those kids finally stopped watching videos and got off the couch, moved to L.A. and tried to find work in the entertainment industry.  In the meantime, they have to support themselves with various jobs to pay the rent - and just like Scott Lang in "Ant-Man", Elliot's been fired from an ice-cream shop (and a record store, and a video-store, and...)  

But in a few days they'll both be 30 years old (Ya feel that, millennials?  It's coming...) so they decide to take the fast-track to being famous, and these days that means only one thing - making internet videos.  When that doesn't work, they decide to become hackers, then pop-culture news heroes, and when THAT doesn't work, really, there's only one solution, right?  If the first two words you thought of were "hard work", then you're way off-base.  Think more like "murder spree".  I think the twisted logic that gets them there is quite an interesting turn, even though if we like these guys, we don't want to see them kill a bunch of people.  

But there's a message here, kids, if you can stop texting long enough to hear it - there is NO fast track to fame.  For most people, there isn't even a slow track.  Every person who became famous, for the right reasons anyway, had to work hard to get there.  I heard some rock stars bad-mouthing "American Idol" about a month ago, because it seemed like such a fast-track to them, and the people involved don't seem to be paying their dues.  Yeah, but nobody has natural talent, not even pop stars, they have to practice, they have to learn songs, they have to get up on stage and perform.  They even have to appear in silly Ford commercials, and that's not easy.  

Oh, sure, there are YouTube stars, and there are Kardashians.  But even YouTubers have to work hard to make good videos, and anyone who has success thrust upon them for the wrong reasons - do you really WANT their kind of fame, in the end?  You might have some money, but no soul.  So quitcher whining and get a job, because no one's going to give you a free college education, and nobody's going to successfully wrestle money from the corporations and banks and distribute it out to twenty-somethings.  

I say this with confidence, because I came out of the screening to learn that Clinton won the NY primary, 57 to 42 percent at last count, which really saved my bacon.  OK, so the state delegates are going to be split, but it looks like she'll get 135 of them, and she now needs only 500 or so more for the nomination.  See, everything worked out fine, when you're stressed about something, you should just go to the movies and try not to worry about it.  Well, go and vote first, then go to the movies. 

My main complaint is that the film is called "Nerdland", and the two main characters aren't really nerds, they're more like slackers.  The main nerd in the film is an overweight man who runs a collectibles store and wears a crown (King of the Nerds), but he's too much of a stereotype, an urban version of Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons" or The Collector from "PowerPuff Girls".  And like those other stereotypical nerds, he'll do just about anything for you, as long as you can get him a rare action figure that's MIB.  But we've all seen plot points like that before, right?  

Look, I've been across the country, I've met nerds from coast to coast.  Nerds are, for the most part, decent people, and the vast majority of them are hard-working and not very murder-y.  And they have smart phones, not flip phones - they love technology, after all!  If you're going to call a film "Nerdland", maybe put a few more nerds in it, that's all I'm saying. 

Also starring the voices of Patton Oswalt (last seen in "Failure to Launch"), Hannibal Buress (last seen in "Neighbors"), Julie Galdieri, Mike Judge, Riki Lindhome (last seen in "Fun Size"), Kate Micucci (last heard in "Rio 2"), Laraine Newman, Paul Scheer (last seen in "Rapture-Palooza"), Sally Kirkland, Laura Silverman.

RATING: 6 out of 10 Bloops

Ant-Man

Year 8, Day 109 - 4/18/16 - Movie #2,309

BEFORE: Michael Douglas carries over again from "A Perfect Murder", setting me up nicely for another superhero film.  And the timing couldn't be better, with the new "Captain America" film just two 1/2 weeks away.  Everything's proceeding for me according to plan, what a great time to be a movie-watcher.

THE PLOT:  Armed with a super-suit with the astonishing ability to shrink in scale but increase in strength, cat burglar Scott Lang must embrace his inner hero and help his mentor, Dr. Hank Pym, plan and pull off a heist that will save the world.

AFTER: Most people today still remember the Beatles, but maybe not the environment of the music industry when they first came on the scene.  Their name was a take on Buddy Holly's band, the Crickets, only they changed the spelling of "beetles" as a musical pun, and to place an emphasis on the importance of the beat.  (After going through the names Quarrymen, Johnny and the Moondogs, the Silver Beetles, and the Beatals...)  But in the years that followed their success, the record industry flooded the market with knock-off bands, to try to cash in on their success, and later on in the 1960's, there were the Byrds, the Yardbirds, the Animals, the Monkees, Buffalo Springfield, Iron Butterfly, the Eagles, and it just seemed like for a while there, every band needed to be named after an animal or insect.  (I'm sure there were plenty of bands that weren't, but you see where I'm going with this...)

And so it was with Batman, although he had no bat-based powers, and villains like Catwoman and the Penguin, then at some point Hawkman came into the picture, and then with Spider-Man's introduction in the 1960's (right around the time the Beatles were hitting big...) suddenly there was a new wave of super-heroes based on various creatures and often the word "--Man".  Marvel had Ant-Man and the Wasp, plus Black Widow, the Falcon and Tigra, along with villains like Doctor Octopus, White Rabbit, Toad, Lizard, Rhino, Vulture, Scorpion, Fly, Gypsy Moth, Armadillo, Porcupine, the Mongoose and the entire Serpent Society (like, 15 villains named after snakes).  I'm sure for a long while all they had to do over at Marvel to create a new villain was to just take a field trip to the zoo.  

But in the comics, at least, Ant-Man (Hank Pym) was an ORIGINAL Avenger.  One of the founding members, along with Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and the Wasp.  They didn't even thaw out Captain America until Issue #4, and Hawkeye and Black Widow came along a year or two later.  So why didn't Ant-Man appear as part of Marvel's first Avengers?  Ah, well, time marches on and certain characters gain or lose popularity, and Ant-Man became Giant-Man, then Goliath, then Yellowjacket, then Dr. Pym - this character's had more superhero identities than Spider-Man's had dead girlfriends.  Oh, and in the comic-book universe, Hank Pym, not Tony Stark, created the evil robot Ultron.  

So the Marvel Cinematic Universe has a way of twisting things around, keeping what works and (ideally) jettisoning the things that don't, with the goal of making the best movies possible.  That means bringing in Scott Lang, who was the 2nd Ant-Man in the comics - after stealing the Ant-Man suit, seeing as Hank Pym had moved on to another identity, or was busy being crazy.  The movie here even comes up with a valid reason why Hank Pym was not an Avenger, and that's because he had a falling-out with the founders of S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as Tony Stark's father and Agent Carter for good measure.  So after a few adventures as Ant-Man, and the presumed loss of the Wasp, he called it a day.  

However, Pym's scientific protegé, Darren Cross, is close to unlocking the secrets of the Pym particle, that's the chemical doodad that allows things to shrink, by decreasing the distance between atoms, and increasing the object or person's density at the same time.  This is what allows Ant-Man to have a version of super-strength, because he's more "dense".  (Scientific NITPICK POINT, however, if he becomes more dense, and maintain the same mass in a smaller volume, that would make him as heavy as a full-grown man, yet we often see Ant-Man riding a flying ant.  An ant may be proportionally stronger, but it can't carry the full mass of a human.)  

The film adds a character, a daughter for Pym, who never appeared in the comic-books - but I'll allow it because this character obviously exists for two reasons, first as a love interest for Ant-Man, and the 2nd to be revealed in the sequel.   But she's really a stand-in for Janet Van Dyne, they took part of the Scott Lang story and mixed it with part of Pym's back-story to meld the best parts of both.  But in the comic-books the elder Van Dyne was a socialite and a fashion plate, her daughter here is just a science expert with a terrible haircut.  

(EDIT: I stand corrected, there is a Hope character in the comic-books, but she's Hope Pym, not Hope van Dyne, and she's a villain named the Red Queen, but in Marvel's MC2 line, which is set in an alternate future, not the main Marvel present one. Plus, she had a twin brother, Henry Jr.)

We're also led to believe here that prolonged exposure to the Pym particles causes some kind of mental instability - now, why didn't the comic-book writers ever think of that?  That would have gone a long way toward explaining the creation of Ultron, the split-personality of Yellowjacket, and why Hank Pym once smacked his wife around.  Perhaps that's why Pym stopped using the suit himself, but how long will he allow Scott Lang to be Ant-Man, if it's so dangerous?  There's the additional danger of shrinking down too small and becoming lost in the quantum reality, but in the comic books this just led characters to the Microverse, which was its own plane, or something.   

Pym's a scientist and Lang is a thief, which is important because both talents are needed to stop Cross from moving forward with his own Yellowjacket armor and selling it to the world's biggest criminal organizations.  I liked the way that Pym targeted Lang to become his replacement, his motives for selecting that guy were clear, and then even when they were suspect, they made sense again - because this is a superhero story mixed with a science story, mixed with a heist story.  It has no trouble being all of those things, plus it has comic elements and characters that care about each other, even if the relationships are a little strained.  That all rings true somehow.  

There are a ton of in-jokes as well, from the visual pun of a "little lamb" to a character whistling "It's a Small World".  A character refers to a persons stories as "Tales to Astonish", which is the title of the comic in which Ant-Man first appeared.  Lang lives at the Milgrom Hotel, a reference to comic editor Al Milgrom, and he gets sucked up by a "Kirby" vacuum cleaner. 

But NITPICK POINT #2, which is kind of the reverse of N.P. 1 - if something can be made to shrink and still retain its original weight (higher density), then the opposite should also be true.  Near the end of the film certain objects are made to grow larger, and they seem to gain weight.  By rights they should weigh the same as they did when they were small, if the movie wants to remain consistent.  

Also starring Paul Rudd (last seen in "They Came Together"), Evangeline Lilly (last seen in "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"), Corey Stoll (last seen in "This Is Where I Leave You"), Bobby Cannavale (last seen in "Snakes on a Plane"), Michael Peña (last seen in "The Martian"), Judy Greer (last seen in "The Wedding Planner"), Martin Donovan (last seen in "Inherent Vice"), Anthony Mackie (last seen in "The Man"), T.I., David Dastmalchian, Wood Harris, with cameos from Hayley Atwell (last seen in "Avengers: Age of Ultron"), Chris Evans (ditto) John Slattery (last seen in "The Adjustment Bureau"), Sebastian Stan (also last seen in "The Martian"), Garrett Morris, Stan Lee (last heard in "Big Hero 6") and the voice of Tom Kenny.

RATING: 7 out of 10 sugar cubes

A Perfect Murder

Year 8, Day 108 - 4/17/16 - Movie #2,308

BEFORE: We're about as far away from Halloween as we can get right now, but Turner Classic Movies has chosen to run a bunch of early horror/German expressionist films, like "Nosferatu", "Faust" and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", and I'm thinking that I've got a couple of vampire films lined up for Halloween, wouldn't these fit in nicely?  And while each individual film might not thrill me, the chance to have all THREE of those on a DVD is a chance I can't pass up.  And this is why I'm still making no headway on my watchlist - I got it down from 140 to 139 last week, but progress is stalled again.

Michael Douglas carries over from "Don't Say a Word".

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Dial M For Murder" (Movie #1,752)

THE PLOT: A Wall Street hedge fund manager whose speculations allow him to live an extravagant lifestyle with his younger wife discovers she is having an affair with an artist.

AFTER: They had to change the title of this Hitchcock story, I guess, because nobody dials the phone according to the letters anymore, am I right?  I miss those days when people tried to figure out a 7-letter word that would help them remember their phone numbers more easily, because who can keep 7 numbers straight?  Way back in the 1930's they had to use exchanges based on neighborhood names to keep things straight, like FAIrway-6704 or such.  And if you wanted to talk to an operator (because again, who can remember 7 digits?) you just dialed "0" and if you wanted someone killed, I guess you just dialed "M".  It was a rough time, but at least it was easier to hire a killer.  

The problem with a lot of Hitchcock films, besides his refusal to shoot in color, is that they look like they were shot on a very simple set, which they were.  Like with "Lifeboat", you know they didn't take Tallulah Bankhead out to the ocean and put her in a real boat, they had a fake boat on a gimbal and a rear-projection screen with the image of an ocean's horizon.  Compare that to a film like "Unbroken" or "Castaway" and you can see how far movies have come.  "Dial M For Murder" was based on a stage-play, which sort of explains how it all takes place in one apartment, and all the action is based on the movements and phone calls one can make inside that space.  But it's the rare case where the lack of different venues is forgivable, because it does add a distinct claustrophobic feel to the proceedings.  

Here with the remake, they did a really good job of opening the locations up, we get to see the artist's loft space in Greenpoint, the grand apartment on the Upper  West Side, complete with giant circular staircase, even the wife's mother's mansion out on Long Island.  Yes, we (eventually) find out that the young wife here is even richer than her older husband, which leads to a secondary motive for wanting her dead, her affair is not enough.  I guess when you put the two together, divorce is out of the question, because then she'd keep all her inherited money, plus half of the joint money, and that's just not acceptable once his stock speculations lead to margin calls, or something. 

So, Gwyneth Paltrow's character has to die.  And not for the usual reason, which is that she's recently pitched herself as a "lifestyle guru" with a blog with a ridiculous brand name (Goop) that pitches cooking and eating tips as if they're mantras for feeling good about yourself.  I read a Daily News article that took her cookbook to task - like grilled cheese sandwiches, for which you'll need bread, cheese, and a broiler.  Who knew?  And pita bread pizzas, which require pitas, store-bought tomato sauce, mozzarella cheese and, let me guess, an oven.  She also recommends making beet chips and tomato soup that simmers for hours, when there are much, easier solutions already on the market.  But for someone who claims to want to "simplify" things for "super-busy" people, what could be simpler than opening a can of soup?  But I guess this is what you feel you have to do to stay relevant when it seems like Hollywood no longer has roles for you.

Hitchcock films also frequently featured characters talking about a "perfect murder", as if there could be such a thing, one with no clues, no loose ends, nothing to point the police toward who really committed the crime.  Steven Taylor here thinks he's come up with one, by hiring his wife's lover to kill her, thus exposing his true nature and motives for sleeping with her, getting rid of him and her at the same time, and allowing him to keep all of his money, and perhaps half of hers.  That's assuming that things go according to plan, which they don't.  After that it becomes a more dangerous game, with each side jockeying for position, hiding things from police, and seeing who can come out on top with the most assets.  Because speaking honestly or going for marital counseling was apparently never an option.  

It's a lot like someone put "Wall Street", "Fatal Attraction" and "Unfaithful" into a blender and hit "purée", then used that mixture as a sauce to cover Hitchcock's original film.  

NITPICK POINT: I get that Emily, the wife, works at the U.N. as a translator.  But why point out that she can speak to the lead police detective on the case in, what, Russian?  Especially if that's never going to be important later on.  I kept thinking there would come a time where she needs to tell him something without her husband being able to understand it, but it never came up.  So, that was a waste of time.  

NITPICK POINT #2: The murder plan hinges on Emily taking a bath at a particular time, because that's what she does when her husband plays poker.  OK, maybe people are creatures of habit, but she was clearly going through some emotional stuff, there's no guarantee she would have stuck to her routine.  Plus, who gets out of a bathtub to answer a telephone?  Yeah, people still called landlines back in 1998, but weren't they rich enough to afford an answering machine?  Hell, they were rich enough to hire someone to stand there and answer the phone for them.  

Also starring Gwyneth Paltrow (last seen in "Bounce"), Viggo Mortensen (last seen in "Hidalgo"), David Suchet, Sarita Choudhury (last seen in "Admission"), Constance Towers, Novella Nelson, Will Lyman (last heard in "Little Children"), David Eigenberg.

RATING: 5 out of 10 kitchen knives