Year 11, Day 358 - 12/24/19 - Movie #3,400
BEFORE: For nearly twelve months now, I've planned out my chains -
299 films watched and just one remains.
Though I've wrapped my last presents on this Christmas Eve,
There's just one more hurdle before I can leave.
Scarlett Estevez carries over from "Daddy's Home 2"
And I can drive up to Boston right after this review.
(You're probably wondering, "Can he do this in rhyme?"
And I think I can manage if I have the time.)
So here's the last film of Two Thousand Nineteen,
a familiar story about a villain who's green.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (Movie #360)
THE PLOT: A grumpy Grinch plots to ruin Christmas for the village of Whoville.
AFTER: Back in the 70's I was a pre-teen,
So this is a story I've already seen.
But some people felt that old version was dated,
So in 2017 a new film was created.
Or perhaps you're a bit younger than I was,
and you remember the version where Jim Carrey wore fuzz.
Either way, I question whether this update was needed,
Because really, the same story's just being repeated.
There's a Grinch who hates Christmas and so he attacks
the village of Whoville with his faithful dog, Max.
He sneaks into houses like Santa in reverse
and steals all their presents to make their lives worse.
The Whos wake to find that they've got nothing left
After the Grinch's long night of theft.
But instead of killing their Christmas spirit
The Whos sing out loudly, from afar he can hear it.
He learns that his heart was two sizes too small
Then he brings their stuff back, and they all have a ball.
So now it's in CGI, hooray, whoopee -
From the people who brought you "Despicable Me".
I don't think hip-hop music makes the film stronger,
But I have to admit that it does feel longer.
(If you think about it, Dr. Seuss made it happen
Before there was even a thing they call rappin'.)
The voice-work is fine, the narration's OK
But I think the new sub-plots are just there to delay.
Cindy-Lou sets out to trap Santa Claus -
She really wants to talk to him, well, just because.
I think it also behooves me to mention
The Grinch falls a lot, just to hold kids' attention.
They also added a reindeer named Fred -
Great, another sidekick, shoot me in the head.
The Grinch also has some crazy devices
But beyond that, there aren't too many surprises.
The Grinch's back-story was a new deviation
And I'll have to admit that it gave motivation.
I'm just glad that it's over, and I'm still alive.
And I'm feeling generous, so I'll give it a five.
That's it, I'm done, no more movies this year.
I should be packing my bags, why am I still here?
I'll be back in a week for my annual shakedown
As long as I don't have a Christmas breakdown.
I'll crunch all the numbers, try to make some sense
From the films of this year that were so intense.
Three hundred films, all linked by actor -
Quality often wasn't the determining factor.
Next week, I'll come back and review my creation
But for now, I think I've earned my vacation.
My list is still filled with movies a-plenty
So, God help me, I'll start over in 2020.
(Forgive me for aping the great Dr. Seuss -
I'm not so original, that's my excuse.)
Also starring the voices of Benedict Cumberbatch (last heard in "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle"), Cameron Seely (last seen in "The Greatest Showman"), Rashida Jones (last seen in "Tag"), Kenan Thompson (last seen in "Going in Style"), Angela Lansbury (last seen in "Mary Poppins Returns"), Tristan O'Hare, Ramone Hamilton, Sam Lavagnino, Pharrell Williams (last seen in "Michael Jackson's Journey from Motown to Off the Wall") and Pentatonix.
RATING: 5 out of 10 cups of coffee
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
Monday, December 23, 2019
Daddy's Home 2
Year 11, Day 357 - 12/23/19 - Movie #3,399
BEFORE: Just one more film in my 2019 chain after this one - I'm bringing this year in for a landing right on Christmas Eve tomorrow, with the second of two Christmas-themed movies. I love it when a plan comes together...
Will Ferrell carries over from "Holmes & Watson", and this is his third appearance for the year, which is my cut-off, so he's going to qualify for my year-end countdown, at nearly the last minute. Mel Gibson and John Lithgow also now make the cut, and so does comedian Bill Burr. (Sorry, Mark Wahlberg...)
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Daddy's Home" (Movie #2,484)
THE PLOT: Having finally gotten used to each other's existence, co-Dads Brad and Dusty must now deal with their own intrusive fathers during the holidays.
AFTER: They never say in the film where this story takes place, probably because they want people to feel that it could happen in THEIR state, or even their town. Any place that gets snow in the winter and is a 4 or 5 hour drive from a ski resort would qualify - that's probably the whole upper half of the U.S, plus places like L.A. But a little research on IMDB and Wikipedia tells me that they filmed this in Massachusetts, the ski town was Great Barrington in the Berkshires, and the other parts of the film were shot around Boston, in towns like Framingham, Wellesley, Concord, Quincy and Cambridge. I grew up around there, very close to Framingham and I've been to most of those other towns at one point or another. Mark Wahlberg never lost his Bah-ston accent, so this tracks with the story. The airport seen in the film is probably Logan, if it's not just a set.
This doesn't really impact my enjoyment of the film, but I am headed up that way in just a couple days - we'll drive up to suburban Boston on Christmas Eve, with our annual stop at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut. This is our tradition, we've been doing it for at least a decade, though only in the last few years have we clued my parents in on our casino stop. My mother would always be busy doing church stuff on 12/24, so she'd say, "Be sure to eat something on the trip up, when you get here it could be too late to order something..." Don't worry, Mom, I know where there's a solid buffet, and it's within view of some slot machines. With a little luck, this holiday trip will pay for itself - it's happened before. And even if I don't win on the slots, I'll make a killing at the buffet.
But today's film is all about breaking with tradition, in a positive way. In the previous film, Brad and Dusty came to terms with their new-era post-divorce family, setting aside their differences for the sake of their shared kids. Biological Dad Dusty and step-Dad Brad realize, however, that their daughter is still complaining about Christmas, and tells the whole school assembly that Christmas now is better than when she had "no dad", but it's still not as good as it used to be. So the co-dads come up with an idea to have a "Together Christmas", celebrating with everyone in one house so the kids don't have to shuttle back and forth, or see one parent on Christmas Eve, the other on Christmas Day, and so on. (I've got to call NITPICK POINT #1 here, because everyone and his uncle knows that this is how we all placate children of divorced parents, by pointing out that they now get to have TWO Christmases, with double the presents. Did little Megan not get the memo on this point?)
But before Brad and Dusty can even figure out whose house they're going to hold the "Together Christmas" in, and who's going to cook what, they're visited by their fathers Don and Kurt, aka "Pop-Pop" and "El Padre", and this throws a couple of monkey-wrenches into the whole plan. Don and Kurt are like even greater caricatures of the extremes their sons represent, so now we have super-sensitive Don and super-macho Kurt. Don's a retired mail-carrier who kisses his adult son on the lips (umm, yeah...) and Kurt's a former space shuttle astronaut still chasing younger women who thinks kids are coddled these days and still maintains the sexist attitudes of the 1950's. It's basic liberal vs. conservative stuff here, it's not too hard to figure out where these two are on the political spectrum, so really they represent our country's current divided nature. I'd wager one flew in from a blue state and one from a red state, right?
Many of us are about to visit our families for Christmas, or have them visit us, and so we may find ourselves in the same situation. And even for those who share the same political views as our parents, when it comes to raising children the different generations have very different approaches, what was acceptable on or two generations ago may now be frowned upon, like physically disciplining children, for example. For our parents or grandparents it was just the way things were done, and these days if you hit your kid (no matter how badly they're acting up in a restaurant) you'll be publicly vilified, if not arrested. And that's where this film finds most of its humor that works, by pointing out that each generation is still dealing with the mistakes that their fathers made, and trying very hard not to make the same mistakes themselves. (Congratulations, you get to make ALL NEW mistakes!)
Macho Kurt throws his weight around by making a unilateral decision to book a ski-house on AirBnb (more NP's about this to follow below) and then he attempts to sow contempt between Dusty and Brad, and in the end it's not that hard to do. Kurt also believes in hunting for sport (forcing the family to re-consider its stand on gun control) and in letting kids fail at sports, because failure builds character. He's not wrong about the sports thing, but just too many comedy films lately have poked fun at the whole "Everyone gets a participation trophy!" mentality, and many of us are already on the same page here, thinking that we're raising a generation of kids who aren't permitted to fail, so their egos are artificially inflated, and they never build up the mental scar tissue that enables them to deal with failure. Treating kids harshly is wrong, but P.C. helicopter parents have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction - why can't our culture find a balance point here?
The very different men bond together, though, when they find that one of the kids in the house is "fiddling with the thermostat", which I can attest is nearly a capital crime in a New England household. And "fiddling" is defined as any change made to the setting preferred by the dominant male figure in the family - even if we bumped the thermostat accidentally, my dad would freak out. The only possible worse offense during the winter was holding the door open for too long and "letting all the heat out". What's very out of character here is that Dusty, the more "macho" of the two male leads, seems to be the one afraid to discipline his child, perhaps because she's his step-daughter, can counter any argument with "You're not my REAL dad..." and her real dad is the size of a professional wrestler. Still, even with all that, this seems out of character for Dusty - when that step-daughter clearly NEEDS some discipline in this situation - she believes that she is more important than the other people in the house, who are sweating profusely while trying to sleep!
Plus, NITPICK POINT #2, a kid from Generation Y likes to sleep with the windows open and the room temperature cranked up to 80 degrees? I thought they were all about saving the planet, and that's not how you do that. If anything, a modern pre-teen would be the one yelling at her parents about how their generation killed Mother Earth, and her generation's going to be the one that has to save it. We've greated a generation of little Greta Thunbergs, and hopefully they can get rid of plastic straws and maybe build some solar panels, because the current adults aren't getting it done. Even the ones who aren't really into conservation at least pretend to be, just so they can feel superior to their parents, so I couldn't find this obnoxious energy-wasting kid believable at all. Instead of bargaining with her over the temperature, he should have pulled rank, or at least tried the argument about saving the planet.
Then the next day, the men are back at each other's throats - but wait, they were just all bonding over their shared fixation with maintaining a nightly household room temperature of 65 degrees! Why didn't they bond over this, and realize that as dads, they all have so much in common that unites them and the matters that separate them are inconsequential by comparison? I mean, come on, we all know that's where this is going to end up, but it really needs to be a gradual progression, you just can't have them seesawing back and forth, working together one day and tearing each other apart the next, right? If anything's going to kill a screenplay, it's inconsistency.
Now, let's get back to that ski house - I say that NITPICK POINT #3 concerns decorating a house you rent on AirBnb - you wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on lights and decorations, even if it is Christmas. Also, guests would NOT be allowed on their host's roof to install them anyway, I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the AirBnb rules. And most likely, even if the cabin is large enough, they would NOT be allowed to cut down a Christmas tree in the woods and bring it inside. Who's going to clean up all the pine needles and the sap that leaks out of it? Again, violation of the AirBnb terms of service, big time, unless the host specifically allows this, which I doubt. There was some mention of how it might be against the rules in those woods to cut down a tree because it was a federal nature preserve, but this was just laughed off - I'd be more worried about getting that negative review on AirBnb for being bad guests in someone's HOME.
So the whole sight gag about the snow-blower getting caught in the Christmas lights - it never should have even COME to that, because nobody in their right minds would have strung up lights on a home that they're only renting for a few days. (According to the "goofs" section of IMDB, this snowblower accident is impossible with modern snowblowers, anyway.). And WHERE was the host when all this was taking place? Sorry, it doesn't work, try again.
Then there are at least a dozen threads and jokes that never go anywhere, they're just left dangling. The voice-controlled shower, Karen's shoplifting habit, the woman Kurt picks up at the improv show - none of these things get properly followed up on, they go exactly nowhere, so WHY are they even there? The family volunteering as a human nativity scene is almost another dead-end, except it leads to a snow-brawl where everyone's dressed as a Biblical figure. Hmm, a little better, only it feels just as pointless as everything else. The kids get drunk on eggnog, and STILL nobody disciplines them? I'm starting to think that maybe the old ways are better, these kids are WAY out of control, only nobody can see it.
A Christmas Day blizzard forces everyone leaving town to turn back and the only thing to do in town is to go to the movies (when they SHOULD go back to the house they rented and clean up that giant Christmas tree...) and this probably pissed off all the Jewish people in town who spend every Christmas day catching a movie, then eating Chinese food. Oh, right, there are no Jewish people in town, because this is a Christmas movie. But they have a big Band-Aid sing-along in the theater lobby, and the management hands out free giant candy bars as snacks. As if.
Everyone becomes fast friends by the end, and polar opposites liberal Don (Pop-Pop) and conservative Kurt (El Padre) even jet off to Vegas together. They're like a new version of "The Odd Couple" or something - they'll be fine as long as they don't talk about politics. Then Brad's mom arrives with HIS new step-dad, who happens to be a celebrity. It's all well and good, I suppose, except my final NITPICK POINT is they chose a celebrity who's married in real life, so it's impossible for me to believe that he could be suddenly married to Brad's mom. They couldn't think of a celebrity who's single?
Also starring Mark Wahlberg (last seen in "All the Money in the World"), Mel Gibson (last seen in "The Beaver"), John Lithgow (last seen in "Beatriz at Dinner"), Linda Cardellini (last seen in "Welcome to Me"), John Cena (last seen in "Daddy's Home"), Alessandra Ambrosio (ditto), Scarlett Estevez (ditto), Owen Vaccaro (last seen in "Mother's Day"), Didi Costine (last seen in "The Hollars"), Daniel DiMaggio with cameos from Bill Burr (last seen in "Gilbert"), Chesley Sullenberger (last seen in "Capitalism: A Love Story") and the voice of Liam Neeson (last heard in "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker")
RATING: 4 out of 10 wild turkeys
BEFORE: Just one more film in my 2019 chain after this one - I'm bringing this year in for a landing right on Christmas Eve tomorrow, with the second of two Christmas-themed movies. I love it when a plan comes together...
Will Ferrell carries over from "Holmes & Watson", and this is his third appearance for the year, which is my cut-off, so he's going to qualify for my year-end countdown, at nearly the last minute. Mel Gibson and John Lithgow also now make the cut, and so does comedian Bill Burr. (Sorry, Mark Wahlberg...)
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Daddy's Home" (Movie #2,484)
THE PLOT: Having finally gotten used to each other's existence, co-Dads Brad and Dusty must now deal with their own intrusive fathers during the holidays.
AFTER: They never say in the film where this story takes place, probably because they want people to feel that it could happen in THEIR state, or even their town. Any place that gets snow in the winter and is a 4 or 5 hour drive from a ski resort would qualify - that's probably the whole upper half of the U.S, plus places like L.A. But a little research on IMDB and Wikipedia tells me that they filmed this in Massachusetts, the ski town was Great Barrington in the Berkshires, and the other parts of the film were shot around Boston, in towns like Framingham, Wellesley, Concord, Quincy and Cambridge. I grew up around there, very close to Framingham and I've been to most of those other towns at one point or another. Mark Wahlberg never lost his Bah-ston accent, so this tracks with the story. The airport seen in the film is probably Logan, if it's not just a set.
This doesn't really impact my enjoyment of the film, but I am headed up that way in just a couple days - we'll drive up to suburban Boston on Christmas Eve, with our annual stop at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut. This is our tradition, we've been doing it for at least a decade, though only in the last few years have we clued my parents in on our casino stop. My mother would always be busy doing church stuff on 12/24, so she'd say, "Be sure to eat something on the trip up, when you get here it could be too late to order something..." Don't worry, Mom, I know where there's a solid buffet, and it's within view of some slot machines. With a little luck, this holiday trip will pay for itself - it's happened before. And even if I don't win on the slots, I'll make a killing at the buffet.
But today's film is all about breaking with tradition, in a positive way. In the previous film, Brad and Dusty came to terms with their new-era post-divorce family, setting aside their differences for the sake of their shared kids. Biological Dad Dusty and step-Dad Brad realize, however, that their daughter is still complaining about Christmas, and tells the whole school assembly that Christmas now is better than when she had "no dad", but it's still not as good as it used to be. So the co-dads come up with an idea to have a "Together Christmas", celebrating with everyone in one house so the kids don't have to shuttle back and forth, or see one parent on Christmas Eve, the other on Christmas Day, and so on. (I've got to call NITPICK POINT #1 here, because everyone and his uncle knows that this is how we all placate children of divorced parents, by pointing out that they now get to have TWO Christmases, with double the presents. Did little Megan not get the memo on this point?)
But before Brad and Dusty can even figure out whose house they're going to hold the "Together Christmas" in, and who's going to cook what, they're visited by their fathers Don and Kurt, aka "Pop-Pop" and "El Padre", and this throws a couple of monkey-wrenches into the whole plan. Don and Kurt are like even greater caricatures of the extremes their sons represent, so now we have super-sensitive Don and super-macho Kurt. Don's a retired mail-carrier who kisses his adult son on the lips (umm, yeah...) and Kurt's a former space shuttle astronaut still chasing younger women who thinks kids are coddled these days and still maintains the sexist attitudes of the 1950's. It's basic liberal vs. conservative stuff here, it's not too hard to figure out where these two are on the political spectrum, so really they represent our country's current divided nature. I'd wager one flew in from a blue state and one from a red state, right?
Many of us are about to visit our families for Christmas, or have them visit us, and so we may find ourselves in the same situation. And even for those who share the same political views as our parents, when it comes to raising children the different generations have very different approaches, what was acceptable on or two generations ago may now be frowned upon, like physically disciplining children, for example. For our parents or grandparents it was just the way things were done, and these days if you hit your kid (no matter how badly they're acting up in a restaurant) you'll be publicly vilified, if not arrested. And that's where this film finds most of its humor that works, by pointing out that each generation is still dealing with the mistakes that their fathers made, and trying very hard not to make the same mistakes themselves. (Congratulations, you get to make ALL NEW mistakes!)
Macho Kurt throws his weight around by making a unilateral decision to book a ski-house on AirBnb (more NP's about this to follow below) and then he attempts to sow contempt between Dusty and Brad, and in the end it's not that hard to do. Kurt also believes in hunting for sport (forcing the family to re-consider its stand on gun control) and in letting kids fail at sports, because failure builds character. He's not wrong about the sports thing, but just too many comedy films lately have poked fun at the whole "Everyone gets a participation trophy!" mentality, and many of us are already on the same page here, thinking that we're raising a generation of kids who aren't permitted to fail, so their egos are artificially inflated, and they never build up the mental scar tissue that enables them to deal with failure. Treating kids harshly is wrong, but P.C. helicopter parents have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction - why can't our culture find a balance point here?
The very different men bond together, though, when they find that one of the kids in the house is "fiddling with the thermostat", which I can attest is nearly a capital crime in a New England household. And "fiddling" is defined as any change made to the setting preferred by the dominant male figure in the family - even if we bumped the thermostat accidentally, my dad would freak out. The only possible worse offense during the winter was holding the door open for too long and "letting all the heat out". What's very out of character here is that Dusty, the more "macho" of the two male leads, seems to be the one afraid to discipline his child, perhaps because she's his step-daughter, can counter any argument with "You're not my REAL dad..." and her real dad is the size of a professional wrestler. Still, even with all that, this seems out of character for Dusty - when that step-daughter clearly NEEDS some discipline in this situation - she believes that she is more important than the other people in the house, who are sweating profusely while trying to sleep!
Plus, NITPICK POINT #2, a kid from Generation Y likes to sleep with the windows open and the room temperature cranked up to 80 degrees? I thought they were all about saving the planet, and that's not how you do that. If anything, a modern pre-teen would be the one yelling at her parents about how their generation killed Mother Earth, and her generation's going to be the one that has to save it. We've greated a generation of little Greta Thunbergs, and hopefully they can get rid of plastic straws and maybe build some solar panels, because the current adults aren't getting it done. Even the ones who aren't really into conservation at least pretend to be, just so they can feel superior to their parents, so I couldn't find this obnoxious energy-wasting kid believable at all. Instead of bargaining with her over the temperature, he should have pulled rank, or at least tried the argument about saving the planet.
Then the next day, the men are back at each other's throats - but wait, they were just all bonding over their shared fixation with maintaining a nightly household room temperature of 65 degrees! Why didn't they bond over this, and realize that as dads, they all have so much in common that unites them and the matters that separate them are inconsequential by comparison? I mean, come on, we all know that's where this is going to end up, but it really needs to be a gradual progression, you just can't have them seesawing back and forth, working together one day and tearing each other apart the next, right? If anything's going to kill a screenplay, it's inconsistency.
Now, let's get back to that ski house - I say that NITPICK POINT #3 concerns decorating a house you rent on AirBnb - you wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on lights and decorations, even if it is Christmas. Also, guests would NOT be allowed on their host's roof to install them anyway, I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the AirBnb rules. And most likely, even if the cabin is large enough, they would NOT be allowed to cut down a Christmas tree in the woods and bring it inside. Who's going to clean up all the pine needles and the sap that leaks out of it? Again, violation of the AirBnb terms of service, big time, unless the host specifically allows this, which I doubt. There was some mention of how it might be against the rules in those woods to cut down a tree because it was a federal nature preserve, but this was just laughed off - I'd be more worried about getting that negative review on AirBnb for being bad guests in someone's HOME.
So the whole sight gag about the snow-blower getting caught in the Christmas lights - it never should have even COME to that, because nobody in their right minds would have strung up lights on a home that they're only renting for a few days. (According to the "goofs" section of IMDB, this snowblower accident is impossible with modern snowblowers, anyway.). And WHERE was the host when all this was taking place? Sorry, it doesn't work, try again.
Then there are at least a dozen threads and jokes that never go anywhere, they're just left dangling. The voice-controlled shower, Karen's shoplifting habit, the woman Kurt picks up at the improv show - none of these things get properly followed up on, they go exactly nowhere, so WHY are they even there? The family volunteering as a human nativity scene is almost another dead-end, except it leads to a snow-brawl where everyone's dressed as a Biblical figure. Hmm, a little better, only it feels just as pointless as everything else. The kids get drunk on eggnog, and STILL nobody disciplines them? I'm starting to think that maybe the old ways are better, these kids are WAY out of control, only nobody can see it.
A Christmas Day blizzard forces everyone leaving town to turn back and the only thing to do in town is to go to the movies (when they SHOULD go back to the house they rented and clean up that giant Christmas tree...) and this probably pissed off all the Jewish people in town who spend every Christmas day catching a movie, then eating Chinese food. Oh, right, there are no Jewish people in town, because this is a Christmas movie. But they have a big Band-Aid sing-along in the theater lobby, and the management hands out free giant candy bars as snacks. As if.
Everyone becomes fast friends by the end, and polar opposites liberal Don (Pop-Pop) and conservative Kurt (El Padre) even jet off to Vegas together. They're like a new version of "The Odd Couple" or something - they'll be fine as long as they don't talk about politics. Then Brad's mom arrives with HIS new step-dad, who happens to be a celebrity. It's all well and good, I suppose, except my final NITPICK POINT is they chose a celebrity who's married in real life, so it's impossible for me to believe that he could be suddenly married to Brad's mom. They couldn't think of a celebrity who's single?
Also starring Mark Wahlberg (last seen in "All the Money in the World"), Mel Gibson (last seen in "The Beaver"), John Lithgow (last seen in "Beatriz at Dinner"), Linda Cardellini (last seen in "Welcome to Me"), John Cena (last seen in "Daddy's Home"), Alessandra Ambrosio (ditto), Scarlett Estevez (ditto), Owen Vaccaro (last seen in "Mother's Day"), Didi Costine (last seen in "The Hollars"), Daniel DiMaggio with cameos from Bill Burr (last seen in "Gilbert"), Chesley Sullenberger (last seen in "Capitalism: A Love Story") and the voice of Liam Neeson (last heard in "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker")
RATING: 4 out of 10 wild turkeys
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Holmes & Watson
Year 11, Day 356 - 12/22/19 - Movie #3,398
BEFORE: After this, I'm two films from the end of the year - so there's no way I'm changing up my chain now, I'm on this track to a Christmas film and even though other linking opportunities have presented themselves, I'm staying the course. This is where I planned in July to be right now, and I'm going to see it through. Three days to Christmas, and two more films to get my perfect year.
John C. Reilly carries over from "Ralph Breaks the Internet", and so does one actress who voiced one of the Disney princesses. Reilly, of course, is already scheduled to make my year-end countdown because I already did a chain of four or five films with him, and I think she's also going to be a late addition to that list, because this marks her third appearance for the year.
THE PLOT: A humorous take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic mysteries featuring Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson.
AFTER: This is just the way life goes sometimes - one day you're watching the big blockbuster "Star Wars" movie, and just two days later, it's a throwaway Will Ferrell comedy that just isn't funny (for the most part...). I often point out a big disparity with food, one day I find myself eating a spectacular meal at a fancy restaurant, and the next day for lunch, it's canned pasta. (I do like the Chef Boy-ar-Dee lasagna, though, which offends my wife's Italian heritage.). Friday night I was enjoying a wonderful meal of braised short ribs at a diner in Queens, and the next day for lunch, I was making sandwiches with some leftover Treet (that's the spam-like luncheon loaf stuff that's not even as good as spam, God help me...)
This film is a lot like Treet - it's not even up to SPAM's level. Oh, sure, you could do worse for lunch, you could accidentally some rancid meat or get food poisoning from some bad potato salad, there's nothing about Treet that will harm you or kill you, you just might not light the taste or the texture. But if you've had fried bologna, and enjoyed that, maybe it's right up your alley. (I put the slices of Treet on some sliced croissants my wife had baked, added some American cheese and honey mustard, and it wasn't too bad. But then, I like to eat head cheese and other German cold cuts - leberkäse has a similar bologna-like texture.
And please note, there was the opportunity for a solid parody of the "Sherlock Holmes" novels, or even of the "Sherlock Holmes" films that starred Robert Downey Jr. - those things took themselves so damned seriously, were so pretentious that there's a lot to make fun of there. Yeah, but this is not that parody, because it just devolves into a lot of dick jokes and vomit gags, making "Talladega Nights" look like a comedy masterpiece by comparison. Ferrell and Reilly, I thought you guys were better than this, and I'm very disappointed to learn that I was wrong.
Let's start with the main concept - that maybe Sherlock Holmes isn't as smart as everyone thinks he is. Again, there's the opportunity for some comedy there, Sherlock Holmes as a moron has some potential. But this film puts that out there, and then just can't stick with it - because let's face it, how do you write that? So then it has to backtrack and say, "Wait, he's NOT an idiot, he was right all along...", and then they have to bend the plot over backwards and sideways to ensure that that's the case. So he's smart, then he's stupid, then he's smart again, only he still finds ways to act stupid, so now I don't know which end is up. Inconsistency will KILL a film for me - PICK A FREAKIN' LANE!
There's the germ of a good idea, which is the only reason that I'm giving this film any points at all. First there's the suggestion that maybe Watson is some kind of criminal mastermind, hiding in plain sight, gathering intel on Holmes from within the organization, feeding information to Moriarty, or perhaps even Moriarty himself. God, I'd love to read a book or see a film that had that level of twist to it. But it's a dodge here, Holmes is once again mistaken (because this happens during one of the segments of the film where he's temporarily stupid again, for no reason). There is an agent close to Holmes working against him, and this might have also been a great reveal, except it's too little, too late, and then it sort of pales by comparison to the Watson idea.
There are manufactured love interests for both Holmes and Watson, and too much emphasis is placed on Holmes not understanding that Watson's girlfriend can be a doctor - OK, it's a little funny to make fun of how sexist the world used to be, but there still should be no place for sexism in a modern comedy. Holmes' girlfriend is so dumb that she can't even speak, or so we're led to believe, so then why is he, a supposedly smart man, attracted to her? And she was raised by feral cats? It's another long joke with no real payoff, and there are dozens of them here.
The whole segment where Holmes and Watson think that they've accidentally killed the Queen - it comes out of nowhere, it goes on way too long, and again, there's no payoff. It just sort of...stops, like the worst of Ferrell's SNL sketches. PLUS it's not funny, not one bit of it. Why, why, why?
The best thing I can say about this is that it was nice to see Coogan and Brydon working together again, and playing roles, not just sitting in a restaurant it Italy trying to figure out who can do a better Michael Caine impression. Though if they made another sequel to "The Trip" I'll probably watch that one, too...
The other part I liked was the depiction of Holmes as a child, when after being bullied by his classmates, he uses his deductive reasoning powers to bust them all for their various sins and gets them all expelled. Being the only student at school, he then gets full attention from all of the teachers and this explains his superior intelligence. This also doesn't make too much sense, because any proper prep school would then find other students to fill its ranks, but it's a neat little twist in a Holmes origin story. This is the only other part of the story that needed to be in a much better movie.
NITPICK POINT: The joke about characters sailing on the Titanic just plain doesn't work, because the "Sherlock Holmes" stories are set in the Victorian era, the late 1800's, and we ALL know what year the Titanic sailed, right? Even in a nonsense comedy, the dates need to line up if the gags are going to work. Same goes for listening to "Unchained Melody" on a victrola - this isn't "Airplane!".
Also starring Will Ferrell (last heard in "The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part"), Ralph Fiennes (ditto), Rebecca Hall (last seen in "The Dinner"), Rob Brydon (last heard in "Early Man"), Kelly Macdonald (also carrying over from "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Steve Coogan (last seen in "Stan & Ollie"), Lauren Lapkus (last seen in "Girlfriend's Day"), Pam Ferris (last seen in "Matilda"), Hugh Laurie (last seen in "101 Dalmatians"), Bella Ramsey, Scarlet Grace, Noah Jupe (last seen in "A Quiet Place"), Braun Strowman, Hector Bateman-Harden, Codie-Lei Eastick, with cameos from Billy Zane (last seen in "Dead Calm"), Michael Buffer (last seen in "Creed II").
RATING: 3 out of 10 bites of an onion
BEFORE: After this, I'm two films from the end of the year - so there's no way I'm changing up my chain now, I'm on this track to a Christmas film and even though other linking opportunities have presented themselves, I'm staying the course. This is where I planned in July to be right now, and I'm going to see it through. Three days to Christmas, and two more films to get my perfect year.
John C. Reilly carries over from "Ralph Breaks the Internet", and so does one actress who voiced one of the Disney princesses. Reilly, of course, is already scheduled to make my year-end countdown because I already did a chain of four or five films with him, and I think she's also going to be a late addition to that list, because this marks her third appearance for the year.
THE PLOT: A humorous take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic mysteries featuring Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson.
AFTER: This is just the way life goes sometimes - one day you're watching the big blockbuster "Star Wars" movie, and just two days later, it's a throwaway Will Ferrell comedy that just isn't funny (for the most part...). I often point out a big disparity with food, one day I find myself eating a spectacular meal at a fancy restaurant, and the next day for lunch, it's canned pasta. (I do like the Chef Boy-ar-Dee lasagna, though, which offends my wife's Italian heritage.). Friday night I was enjoying a wonderful meal of braised short ribs at a diner in Queens, and the next day for lunch, I was making sandwiches with some leftover Treet (that's the spam-like luncheon loaf stuff that's not even as good as spam, God help me...)
This film is a lot like Treet - it's not even up to SPAM's level. Oh, sure, you could do worse for lunch, you could accidentally some rancid meat or get food poisoning from some bad potato salad, there's nothing about Treet that will harm you or kill you, you just might not light the taste or the texture. But if you've had fried bologna, and enjoyed that, maybe it's right up your alley. (I put the slices of Treet on some sliced croissants my wife had baked, added some American cheese and honey mustard, and it wasn't too bad. But then, I like to eat head cheese and other German cold cuts - leberkäse has a similar bologna-like texture.
And please note, there was the opportunity for a solid parody of the "Sherlock Holmes" novels, or even of the "Sherlock Holmes" films that starred Robert Downey Jr. - those things took themselves so damned seriously, were so pretentious that there's a lot to make fun of there. Yeah, but this is not that parody, because it just devolves into a lot of dick jokes and vomit gags, making "Talladega Nights" look like a comedy masterpiece by comparison. Ferrell and Reilly, I thought you guys were better than this, and I'm very disappointed to learn that I was wrong.
Let's start with the main concept - that maybe Sherlock Holmes isn't as smart as everyone thinks he is. Again, there's the opportunity for some comedy there, Sherlock Holmes as a moron has some potential. But this film puts that out there, and then just can't stick with it - because let's face it, how do you write that? So then it has to backtrack and say, "Wait, he's NOT an idiot, he was right all along...", and then they have to bend the plot over backwards and sideways to ensure that that's the case. So he's smart, then he's stupid, then he's smart again, only he still finds ways to act stupid, so now I don't know which end is up. Inconsistency will KILL a film for me - PICK A FREAKIN' LANE!
There's the germ of a good idea, which is the only reason that I'm giving this film any points at all. First there's the suggestion that maybe Watson is some kind of criminal mastermind, hiding in plain sight, gathering intel on Holmes from within the organization, feeding information to Moriarty, or perhaps even Moriarty himself. God, I'd love to read a book or see a film that had that level of twist to it. But it's a dodge here, Holmes is once again mistaken (because this happens during one of the segments of the film where he's temporarily stupid again, for no reason). There is an agent close to Holmes working against him, and this might have also been a great reveal, except it's too little, too late, and then it sort of pales by comparison to the Watson idea.
There are manufactured love interests for both Holmes and Watson, and too much emphasis is placed on Holmes not understanding that Watson's girlfriend can be a doctor - OK, it's a little funny to make fun of how sexist the world used to be, but there still should be no place for sexism in a modern comedy. Holmes' girlfriend is so dumb that she can't even speak, or so we're led to believe, so then why is he, a supposedly smart man, attracted to her? And she was raised by feral cats? It's another long joke with no real payoff, and there are dozens of them here.
The whole segment where Holmes and Watson think that they've accidentally killed the Queen - it comes out of nowhere, it goes on way too long, and again, there's no payoff. It just sort of...stops, like the worst of Ferrell's SNL sketches. PLUS it's not funny, not one bit of it. Why, why, why?
The best thing I can say about this is that it was nice to see Coogan and Brydon working together again, and playing roles, not just sitting in a restaurant it Italy trying to figure out who can do a better Michael Caine impression. Though if they made another sequel to "The Trip" I'll probably watch that one, too...
The other part I liked was the depiction of Holmes as a child, when after being bullied by his classmates, he uses his deductive reasoning powers to bust them all for their various sins and gets them all expelled. Being the only student at school, he then gets full attention from all of the teachers and this explains his superior intelligence. This also doesn't make too much sense, because any proper prep school would then find other students to fill its ranks, but it's a neat little twist in a Holmes origin story. This is the only other part of the story that needed to be in a much better movie.
NITPICK POINT: The joke about characters sailing on the Titanic just plain doesn't work, because the "Sherlock Holmes" stories are set in the Victorian era, the late 1800's, and we ALL know what year the Titanic sailed, right? Even in a nonsense comedy, the dates need to line up if the gags are going to work. Same goes for listening to "Unchained Melody" on a victrola - this isn't "Airplane!".
Also starring Will Ferrell (last heard in "The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part"), Ralph Fiennes (ditto), Rebecca Hall (last seen in "The Dinner"), Rob Brydon (last heard in "Early Man"), Kelly Macdonald (also carrying over from "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Steve Coogan (last seen in "Stan & Ollie"), Lauren Lapkus (last seen in "Girlfriend's Day"), Pam Ferris (last seen in "Matilda"), Hugh Laurie (last seen in "101 Dalmatians"), Bella Ramsey, Scarlet Grace, Noah Jupe (last seen in "A Quiet Place"), Braun Strowman, Hector Bateman-Harden, Codie-Lei Eastick, with cameos from Billy Zane (last seen in "Dead Calm"), Michael Buffer (last seen in "Creed II").
RATING: 3 out of 10 bites of an onion
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Year 11, Day 355 - 12/21/19 - Movie #3,397
BEFORE: I don't know how else to describe my process for movie selection, other than to say that it's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle - when I start the year all the pieces are laid out in front of me (it's actually more confusing than a commercial jigsaw puzzle, because some of those pieces aren't going to fit at all, and belong to the NEXT puzzle, and some necessary pieces aren't even in the pile yet, but let's work with this metaphor, because it's all I have...). I'll start with an important corner piece, as one should, and then the February romance chain is like a whole side piece that's already put together right out of the box, which is a big help. Slowly over the spring and summer the puzzle comes together, and then once the October horror chain came into focus, I realized that I had a great view of what the final picture was going to be. So I'm at the stage of the puzzle-solving where there are just four little holes left, and four pieces left to fit into them, and I can see exactly where everything needs to end up, I just have to go through the motions and fit them in, one by one. Then next week I can step back and take a look at the whole puzzle and review that, just my way of saying, "Whoa, that was a lot of work, but it's done. Now clear this puzzle out of here so I can start solving the next one."
I'm catching this film on Netflix in what I assume to be the end of its run there, for sure when that licensing term runs out this film will migrate over to Disney Plus - I was covered either way because I got my free year of that service starting in November, so I could catch "The Mandalorian" and those Marvel TV shows, assuming they get made and premiere early next year.
Anthony Daniels carries over from "Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker", to voice the same character, C3P0, in animated form here.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Wreck-It Ralph" (Movie #1,609)
THE PLOT: Ralph and Vanellope, now friends, discover a wi-fi router in their arcade, leading them into a new adventure.
AFTER: I was apprehensive for a long time about watching this film, because of two scenes from the films preview (you may call it a "trailer", but really, it's a preview because it comes BEFORE the movie you paid to see, they no longer "trail" after.). The first was the glimpse of Vanellope somehow ending up in a room containing all of the Disney princesses (more on that in just a bit) and the other was a scene with Ralph and Vanellope doing some kind of internet search for a place that's "super-intense and fun" on the internet, and being told that there's "EXACTLY one place to go for that", and that turns out to be Disney.com, of course. By extension, I was therefore afraid that "Ralph Breaks the Internet" was just going to be one giant commercial for the Disney brand, and the story would therefore just be 90 minutes of Disney Corp metaphorically fellating itself in front of a captive audience.
Look, I get it, the internet is still like the Wild West in many ways, you can still say or do just about anything there without worrying about being fact-checked or held accountable, plus there's click-bait, spam, internet scams, phishing, identity theft, other forms of fraud, and that's not even taking into account the Dark Web or how few clicks you are from porn at any given moment. And now we're going to set a KID'S MOVIE in that location? And all at a time when we should be encouraging kids to spend LESS time on their devices, and not more? Sure, by all means, let's sugar-coat the internet experience so kids can't wait to explore it, what a terrible idea. Geezus, I set out to hold Disney to task in the last paragraph for claiming they were the only fun AND safe site on the web, and now I'm practically agreeing with them on that point in this one.
But wouldn't you know, that scene where Ralph and his little friend are told that there's "just one safe place to go on the internet" is no longer in the film, so I wonder what happened. Was it a scene made just for the trailer? Did someone realize that it sounded too much like self-promotion, and suggest that it be removed from the final film? Or was it a simple editing thing, like they tried a couple different approaches for that scene and just landed on a different one for the final cut? A glimpse at the "Trivia" Section on the film's IMDB page reveals that the original plan was to have this film's characters visit the web-site for the videogame "Disney Infinity" (I recall having to buy several Disney figures for my niece and nephew, which also unlocked characters for their copy of that game) but during production that game series was cancelled, so then changes had to be made to this film's script.
During the closing credits of the film, there's a scene where a little girl in a car is complaining to her mother about how the film they just saw didn't include one of the scenes from the internet trailer - so how's that for an in-joke? Though I don't think little kids in car seats are usually that hyper-aware of every single shot seen in a promo clip, I thought that was just my childhood. I think there was also a second scene from this film's preview, a discussion over whether Ralph would "wreck" the internet with his popularity as opposed to "breaking" it - that scene didn't make the final cut either, apparently.
But there are still all kinds of terrible ideas here, from telling kids that there IS such a thing as the dark web, implying that internet "likes" can somehow be converted to cold hard cash, and showing characters bidding on an eBay auction without understanding how money works. (This could encourage kids to go there and bid ridiculous sums of money that they don't have for every little thing they want...) And in many ways, this is still Disney Corp just showing off, since they have the legal rights to use all those princesses PLUS Marvel heroes PLUS Star Wars characters in the same film. It feels a bit like Disney's version of "The Lego Movie", or perhaps "Ready Player One", which had everything from Mecha-Godzilla to the Iron Giant to the car from "Back to the Future" in it. So really, Disney got scooped and was a little bit behind the curve on this one, since mega-franchise films with collections of characters from all over already existed. (But then again, they released the first one of its kind, which was "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", back in 1988.) Yeah, I kind of wish I could just watch a film and enjoy it for what it is, and not also try to figure out what its proper place is in the big pantheon of movies, but I guess that ship sailed long ago.
Still, I feel the need to try - because this SHOULD have just been the story about two video-game characters who leave their games, and their whole arcade, on a quest to find a replacement piece for a video-game console so that the "Sugar Rush" game won't be permanently unplugged, leaving its characters homeless. Like the toys in the "Toy Story" franchise, Wreck-It Ralph and Vanellope are two characters who have to follow the rules, like they can only interact with each other and visit other video-games when the arcade is closed, and they can't ever let humans know that they have consciousness and free will and can DO things and FEEL emotions. Because humans have not yet created A.I. life with those things, and suggesting that such things are possible would blow our little minds, or something. But then once they leave the arcade and hit the internet, they start interacting with avatars, each one representing a human in the real world, and that's oddly a little too close to breaking the rules. In the virtual world, however, it's almost like the video-game characters are the smart ones who learn how to manipulate the system, while the avatars represent the mindless humans (sheeple) who follow clickbait and distribute their likes willy-nilly and leave hurtful comments on videos. This may be somewhat accurate, but it also hits way too close to home.
How come we've had the internet for 20 years and this is the FIRST studio film to use that word in a title? Why is this the first major film set there, except for "The Emoji Movie"? Why does it seem like the Disney storytellers only JUST learned about wi-fi and internet videos and memes - or is it the studio executives who've been using the interwebs as a promotional tool since day one, but never realized the storytelling potential of it? For too many years the future has looked like "The Matrix" or more recently "Ready Player One", but did everyone forget that the virtual world of tomorrow starts with the online world of TODAY? I've got so many questions...
But let's get back to those Disney princesses, because that seems to be why many people came here in the first place. Even if we discount the dissonance of having native characters like Pocahontas and Moana, and also fairy-tale characters like Cinderella and Snow White (from when, medieval times? The 1500's?) appearing in an internet-based setting, they've got all of these princesses in some kind of green room or holding room, just waiting to take place in some kind of "Which Disney Princess Are You Most Like?" quiz. Umm, isn't there a fine line between being held prisoner in a castle tower, and being held virtually behind the scenes at Oh-My-Disney.com, just waiting for someone to click on some survey button? That seems a little off message. Plus, putting all the princesses together and poking fun at all the things these characters have in common just sort of highlights Disney's terrible track record dating back to the 1950's of showing women characters in peril, having been enslaved or charmed or kidnapped by witches, or worse, needing to be rescued by a stronger male prince character. Yes, times have been changing, and they're shown here taking actions and helping to save Ralph when he falls from a great height, but to me they're still reminders of a less enlightened time, when gender roles in fairy tales had much more disparity. "Mulan" and "Brave" and even "Tangled" were steps in the right direction, but "Sleeping Beauty", "Snow White" and "The Little Mermaid" all need to be updated for modern sensibilities. Leaning on the history of princesses here for the sake of a joke doesn't really accomplish much in that regard.
Fix-It Felix and Calhoun are a great couple - though they seem mismatched, they found a way to make it work, even though she's the tough one, the fighter, and he's the soft one, the builder, the nurturer. They adopt several homeless racer children in this film, and I wish we could have seen more of their home life, but that sub-plot was also jettisoned due to time constraints. But then the characters say they're going to reveal their advice for perfect parenting, only twice a series of racecars speed by and (intentionally, on the part of the filmmakers) makes their advice impossible for the audience to hear. What a cop-out. OK, maybe there is no magical advice on how to be a perfect parent, but then don't TELL ME that there is, and essentially bleep it. It's damn near cowardly.
The only message left that's worth a darn, therefore, is the same one that came from the ending of "Toy Story 4", which is that sometimes you have to say goodbye to a close friend, because you just have different dreams. (Parents, you can at least use this when you have to tell your kids that you're getting divorced, plus don't forget to mention to your kids that they'll have TWO Christmases from now on...). I've already seen Woody and Buzz Lightyear go their separate ways this year, because Woody reunited with Bo-Peep and found a new mission to help lost toys find new owners - and now Vanellope got bored with "Sugar Rush" and has moved on to a new game called "Slaughter Race", (which I thought was based on "Grand Theft Auto", but I guess is really more based on "Twisted Metal"). But even this was a bit confusing - she left one console game, traveled to the internet, and ended up finding a new home in a different video-game? Is that an online game, or is she living in a new arcade somewhere else? It's a bit unclear. Here I suspect the screenwriter doesn't know the difference between an arcade game, a home video-game, and an MMO game.
What I mean to say is, Vanellope is a console game character - she's like 8-bit, or maybe 16. Her old arcade game probably isn't even 3-D, and yet she goes from there to racing in a huge online game created years later, with VR players connecting from all over, full 3-D, greater resolution - and there are NO conversion issues with her entering that world? Meanwhile, I couldn't play old Mac games like "At the Carnival" or "3 in Three" for about 10 years because Mac created a new OS at some point that didn't recognize the old software. I just recently got new versions of those games after somebody created a patch, but that's the kind of thing that SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. Sony also promised that every version of the PlayStation would be able to play the all games from the previous consoles, but that promise got broken when the PS 3 wouldn't play PS1 or PS2 games. Yeah, I'm still not over it.
Also starring the voices of John C. Reilly (last seen in "The Sisters Brothers"), Sarah Silverman (last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Gal Gadot (last seen in "Justice League"), Taraji P. Henson (last seen in "Top Five"), Jack McBrayer (last seen in "Movie 43"), Jane Lynch (last seen in "Mascots"), Alan Tudyk (last seen in "Welcome to Me"), Alfred Molina (last seen in "The Front Runner"), Ed O'Neill (last heard in "Finding Dory"), Bill Hader (last heard in "Toy Story 4"), Melissa Villasenor (ditto), June Squibb (ditto), John DiMaggio (last heard in "Zootopia"), Fuchsia! (ditto), Katie Lowes (ditto), Della Saba (ditto), Phil Johnston (ditto), Rich Moore (ditto), Sean Giambrone (last heard in "The Emoji Movie"), Flula Borg (last seen in "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip"), Timothy Simons (last seen in "The Boss"), Ali Wong (last seen in "The Hero"), Hamish Blake, GloZell Green (last heard in "Trolls"), Rebecca Wisocky (last seen in "Hello, My Name Is Doris"), Sam Richardson (last seen in "Game Over, Man!"), Jaboukie Young-White (last seen in "Rough Night"), Maurice LaMarche (last seen in "Ghostheads"), Jamie Elman (last heard in "Wreck-It Ralph"), Horatio Sanz (last seen in "Lucky You"), Alex Moffat, Michaela Zee, Roger Craig Smith (last heard in "Planes"), Ana Ortiz, Dianna Agron, Colleen Ballinger, Dani Fernandez, Tiffany Herrera, with vocal cameos from Tim Allen (also last heard in "Toy Story 4"), Corey Burton, Adam Carolla (also last heard in "Wreck-It Ralph"), Vin Diesel (last heard in "Avengers: Endgame"), Brad Garrett (last seen in "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work"), Jason Mantzoukas (last seen in "Adult Beginners"), Kristen Bell (also last seen in "The Boss"), Jodi Benson (last heard in "Thumbelina"), Auli'i Cravalho (last heard in "Moana"), Nicole Scherzinger (ditto), Jennifer Hale (also carrying over from "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker"), Kate Higgins (last heard in "Norm of the North"), Linda Larkin, Kelly Macdonald (last seen in "Special Correspondents"), Idina Menzel (last heard in "Frozen"), Mandy Moore (last seen in "American Dreamz"), Paige O'Hara (last seen in "Enchanted"), Pamela Ribon, Anika Noni Rose (last heard in "The Princess and the Frog"), Ming-Na Wen (last heard in "Mulan 2").
RATING: 6 out of 10 pop-up ads
BEFORE: I don't know how else to describe my process for movie selection, other than to say that it's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle - when I start the year all the pieces are laid out in front of me (it's actually more confusing than a commercial jigsaw puzzle, because some of those pieces aren't going to fit at all, and belong to the NEXT puzzle, and some necessary pieces aren't even in the pile yet, but let's work with this metaphor, because it's all I have...). I'll start with an important corner piece, as one should, and then the February romance chain is like a whole side piece that's already put together right out of the box, which is a big help. Slowly over the spring and summer the puzzle comes together, and then once the October horror chain came into focus, I realized that I had a great view of what the final picture was going to be. So I'm at the stage of the puzzle-solving where there are just four little holes left, and four pieces left to fit into them, and I can see exactly where everything needs to end up, I just have to go through the motions and fit them in, one by one. Then next week I can step back and take a look at the whole puzzle and review that, just my way of saying, "Whoa, that was a lot of work, but it's done. Now clear this puzzle out of here so I can start solving the next one."
I'm catching this film on Netflix in what I assume to be the end of its run there, for sure when that licensing term runs out this film will migrate over to Disney Plus - I was covered either way because I got my free year of that service starting in November, so I could catch "The Mandalorian" and those Marvel TV shows, assuming they get made and premiere early next year.
Anthony Daniels carries over from "Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker", to voice the same character, C3P0, in animated form here.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Wreck-It Ralph" (Movie #1,609)
THE PLOT: Ralph and Vanellope, now friends, discover a wi-fi router in their arcade, leading them into a new adventure.
AFTER: I was apprehensive for a long time about watching this film, because of two scenes from the films preview (you may call it a "trailer", but really, it's a preview because it comes BEFORE the movie you paid to see, they no longer "trail" after.). The first was the glimpse of Vanellope somehow ending up in a room containing all of the Disney princesses (more on that in just a bit) and the other was a scene with Ralph and Vanellope doing some kind of internet search for a place that's "super-intense and fun" on the internet, and being told that there's "EXACTLY one place to go for that", and that turns out to be Disney.com, of course. By extension, I was therefore afraid that "Ralph Breaks the Internet" was just going to be one giant commercial for the Disney brand, and the story would therefore just be 90 minutes of Disney Corp metaphorically fellating itself in front of a captive audience.
Look, I get it, the internet is still like the Wild West in many ways, you can still say or do just about anything there without worrying about being fact-checked or held accountable, plus there's click-bait, spam, internet scams, phishing, identity theft, other forms of fraud, and that's not even taking into account the Dark Web or how few clicks you are from porn at any given moment. And now we're going to set a KID'S MOVIE in that location? And all at a time when we should be encouraging kids to spend LESS time on their devices, and not more? Sure, by all means, let's sugar-coat the internet experience so kids can't wait to explore it, what a terrible idea. Geezus, I set out to hold Disney to task in the last paragraph for claiming they were the only fun AND safe site on the web, and now I'm practically agreeing with them on that point in this one.
But wouldn't you know, that scene where Ralph and his little friend are told that there's "just one safe place to go on the internet" is no longer in the film, so I wonder what happened. Was it a scene made just for the trailer? Did someone realize that it sounded too much like self-promotion, and suggest that it be removed from the final film? Or was it a simple editing thing, like they tried a couple different approaches for that scene and just landed on a different one for the final cut? A glimpse at the "Trivia" Section on the film's IMDB page reveals that the original plan was to have this film's characters visit the web-site for the videogame "Disney Infinity" (I recall having to buy several Disney figures for my niece and nephew, which also unlocked characters for their copy of that game) but during production that game series was cancelled, so then changes had to be made to this film's script.
During the closing credits of the film, there's a scene where a little girl in a car is complaining to her mother about how the film they just saw didn't include one of the scenes from the internet trailer - so how's that for an in-joke? Though I don't think little kids in car seats are usually that hyper-aware of every single shot seen in a promo clip, I thought that was just my childhood. I think there was also a second scene from this film's preview, a discussion over whether Ralph would "wreck" the internet with his popularity as opposed to "breaking" it - that scene didn't make the final cut either, apparently.
But there are still all kinds of terrible ideas here, from telling kids that there IS such a thing as the dark web, implying that internet "likes" can somehow be converted to cold hard cash, and showing characters bidding on an eBay auction without understanding how money works. (This could encourage kids to go there and bid ridiculous sums of money that they don't have for every little thing they want...) And in many ways, this is still Disney Corp just showing off, since they have the legal rights to use all those princesses PLUS Marvel heroes PLUS Star Wars characters in the same film. It feels a bit like Disney's version of "The Lego Movie", or perhaps "Ready Player One", which had everything from Mecha-Godzilla to the Iron Giant to the car from "Back to the Future" in it. So really, Disney got scooped and was a little bit behind the curve on this one, since mega-franchise films with collections of characters from all over already existed. (But then again, they released the first one of its kind, which was "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", back in 1988.) Yeah, I kind of wish I could just watch a film and enjoy it for what it is, and not also try to figure out what its proper place is in the big pantheon of movies, but I guess that ship sailed long ago.
Still, I feel the need to try - because this SHOULD have just been the story about two video-game characters who leave their games, and their whole arcade, on a quest to find a replacement piece for a video-game console so that the "Sugar Rush" game won't be permanently unplugged, leaving its characters homeless. Like the toys in the "Toy Story" franchise, Wreck-It Ralph and Vanellope are two characters who have to follow the rules, like they can only interact with each other and visit other video-games when the arcade is closed, and they can't ever let humans know that they have consciousness and free will and can DO things and FEEL emotions. Because humans have not yet created A.I. life with those things, and suggesting that such things are possible would blow our little minds, or something. But then once they leave the arcade and hit the internet, they start interacting with avatars, each one representing a human in the real world, and that's oddly a little too close to breaking the rules. In the virtual world, however, it's almost like the video-game characters are the smart ones who learn how to manipulate the system, while the avatars represent the mindless humans (sheeple) who follow clickbait and distribute their likes willy-nilly and leave hurtful comments on videos. This may be somewhat accurate, but it also hits way too close to home.
How come we've had the internet for 20 years and this is the FIRST studio film to use that word in a title? Why is this the first major film set there, except for "The Emoji Movie"? Why does it seem like the Disney storytellers only JUST learned about wi-fi and internet videos and memes - or is it the studio executives who've been using the interwebs as a promotional tool since day one, but never realized the storytelling potential of it? For too many years the future has looked like "The Matrix" or more recently "Ready Player One", but did everyone forget that the virtual world of tomorrow starts with the online world of TODAY? I've got so many questions...
But let's get back to those Disney princesses, because that seems to be why many people came here in the first place. Even if we discount the dissonance of having native characters like Pocahontas and Moana, and also fairy-tale characters like Cinderella and Snow White (from when, medieval times? The 1500's?) appearing in an internet-based setting, they've got all of these princesses in some kind of green room or holding room, just waiting to take place in some kind of "Which Disney Princess Are You Most Like?" quiz. Umm, isn't there a fine line between being held prisoner in a castle tower, and being held virtually behind the scenes at Oh-My-Disney.com, just waiting for someone to click on some survey button? That seems a little off message. Plus, putting all the princesses together and poking fun at all the things these characters have in common just sort of highlights Disney's terrible track record dating back to the 1950's of showing women characters in peril, having been enslaved or charmed or kidnapped by witches, or worse, needing to be rescued by a stronger male prince character. Yes, times have been changing, and they're shown here taking actions and helping to save Ralph when he falls from a great height, but to me they're still reminders of a less enlightened time, when gender roles in fairy tales had much more disparity. "Mulan" and "Brave" and even "Tangled" were steps in the right direction, but "Sleeping Beauty", "Snow White" and "The Little Mermaid" all need to be updated for modern sensibilities. Leaning on the history of princesses here for the sake of a joke doesn't really accomplish much in that regard.
Fix-It Felix and Calhoun are a great couple - though they seem mismatched, they found a way to make it work, even though she's the tough one, the fighter, and he's the soft one, the builder, the nurturer. They adopt several homeless racer children in this film, and I wish we could have seen more of their home life, but that sub-plot was also jettisoned due to time constraints. But then the characters say they're going to reveal their advice for perfect parenting, only twice a series of racecars speed by and (intentionally, on the part of the filmmakers) makes their advice impossible for the audience to hear. What a cop-out. OK, maybe there is no magical advice on how to be a perfect parent, but then don't TELL ME that there is, and essentially bleep it. It's damn near cowardly.
The only message left that's worth a darn, therefore, is the same one that came from the ending of "Toy Story 4", which is that sometimes you have to say goodbye to a close friend, because you just have different dreams. (Parents, you can at least use this when you have to tell your kids that you're getting divorced, plus don't forget to mention to your kids that they'll have TWO Christmases from now on...). I've already seen Woody and Buzz Lightyear go their separate ways this year, because Woody reunited with Bo-Peep and found a new mission to help lost toys find new owners - and now Vanellope got bored with "Sugar Rush" and has moved on to a new game called "Slaughter Race", (which I thought was based on "Grand Theft Auto", but I guess is really more based on "Twisted Metal"). But even this was a bit confusing - she left one console game, traveled to the internet, and ended up finding a new home in a different video-game? Is that an online game, or is she living in a new arcade somewhere else? It's a bit unclear. Here I suspect the screenwriter doesn't know the difference between an arcade game, a home video-game, and an MMO game.
What I mean to say is, Vanellope is a console game character - she's like 8-bit, or maybe 16. Her old arcade game probably isn't even 3-D, and yet she goes from there to racing in a huge online game created years later, with VR players connecting from all over, full 3-D, greater resolution - and there are NO conversion issues with her entering that world? Meanwhile, I couldn't play old Mac games like "At the Carnival" or "3 in Three" for about 10 years because Mac created a new OS at some point that didn't recognize the old software. I just recently got new versions of those games after somebody created a patch, but that's the kind of thing that SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. Sony also promised that every version of the PlayStation would be able to play the all games from the previous consoles, but that promise got broken when the PS 3 wouldn't play PS1 or PS2 games. Yeah, I'm still not over it.
Also starring the voices of John C. Reilly (last seen in "The Sisters Brothers"), Sarah Silverman (last seen in "The Last Laugh"), Gal Gadot (last seen in "Justice League"), Taraji P. Henson (last seen in "Top Five"), Jack McBrayer (last seen in "Movie 43"), Jane Lynch (last seen in "Mascots"), Alan Tudyk (last seen in "Welcome to Me"), Alfred Molina (last seen in "The Front Runner"), Ed O'Neill (last heard in "Finding Dory"), Bill Hader (last heard in "Toy Story 4"), Melissa Villasenor (ditto), June Squibb (ditto), John DiMaggio (last heard in "Zootopia"), Fuchsia! (ditto), Katie Lowes (ditto), Della Saba (ditto), Phil Johnston (ditto), Rich Moore (ditto), Sean Giambrone (last heard in "The Emoji Movie"), Flula Borg (last seen in "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip"), Timothy Simons (last seen in "The Boss"), Ali Wong (last seen in "The Hero"), Hamish Blake, GloZell Green (last heard in "Trolls"), Rebecca Wisocky (last seen in "Hello, My Name Is Doris"), Sam Richardson (last seen in "Game Over, Man!"), Jaboukie Young-White (last seen in "Rough Night"), Maurice LaMarche (last seen in "Ghostheads"), Jamie Elman (last heard in "Wreck-It Ralph"), Horatio Sanz (last seen in "Lucky You"), Alex Moffat, Michaela Zee, Roger Craig Smith (last heard in "Planes"), Ana Ortiz, Dianna Agron, Colleen Ballinger, Dani Fernandez, Tiffany Herrera, with vocal cameos from Tim Allen (also last heard in "Toy Story 4"), Corey Burton, Adam Carolla (also last heard in "Wreck-It Ralph"), Vin Diesel (last heard in "Avengers: Endgame"), Brad Garrett (last seen in "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work"), Jason Mantzoukas (last seen in "Adult Beginners"), Kristen Bell (also last seen in "The Boss"), Jodi Benson (last heard in "Thumbelina"), Auli'i Cravalho (last heard in "Moana"), Nicole Scherzinger (ditto), Jennifer Hale (also carrying over from "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker"), Kate Higgins (last heard in "Norm of the North"), Linda Larkin, Kelly Macdonald (last seen in "Special Correspondents"), Idina Menzel (last heard in "Frozen"), Mandy Moore (last seen in "American Dreamz"), Paige O'Hara (last seen in "Enchanted"), Pamela Ribon, Anika Noni Rose (last heard in "The Princess and the Frog"), Ming-Na Wen (last heard in "Mulan 2").
RATING: 6 out of 10 pop-up ads
Friday, December 20, 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Year 11, Day 354 - 12/20/19 - Movie #3,396
BEFORE: If you've read my blog for any length of time, then you know the "Star Wars" saga is a driving force, no pun intended. It's what keeps me going - it's what got me interested in filmmaking as a career, and for the last 40 years it's brought me (mostly) joy and sparked countless conversations and debates with fellow fans all over the damn place. I've collected well over a hundred autographs from the actors in the saga and interacted in person with, well, let's say a couple dozen of them. So this is big big BIG when the "last" Star Wars film hits the screen, at least until they reboot the franchise or start up another round of sequels about five years down the road.
First off, let's catch up because it's been a while since I last rapped at ya. My last post was dated November 7, which was over a month ago as I write this intro (on December 9) and by the time December 20 gets here, that will mark 43 days since I last watched a movie. As I've said before, watching 295 movies in a little over 300 days is fairly easy for me - it's NOT watching any movies for over a month that's the tough part. But I've tried to keep busy - I made myself a list of things to do, like re-organizing the comic book collection, captioning my vacation photos, and I've got it all done except for sending out Christmas cards with my annual mix CD, and then the Christmas shopping itself. Yeah, I've got 11 days left before "Star Wars" so I'd better get on that ASAP. I'm using Episode 9 as the motivator to get the Christmas presents bought, and if I don't do the task, then I don't deserve the prize.
But it's hard to find motivation when I'm not in the mood - we had to say goodbye to our oldest cat, Data, who was at least 15 years old (he was a stray so we count from when we took him indoors) and while we were consoled by reminding each other that he had a darn good life, and probably lived a lot longer than he would have if we hadn't taken him in, that didn't make driving him to the vet that last time any easier. I'll probably have more to say about Data in my first post of 2020, especially if I dedicate next year's musings to him - he had been watching nearly every movie with me since I started this project. (I won't say he understood them, but he joined me to watch them, even if he usually fell asleep during them.)
So that's one reason that's it been tough lately, and then there's also this planned break of over a month. I'm like an addict in desperate need of a fix - so I'm thinking that watching the new "Star Wars" movie is going to be THAT MUCH more impressive when I haven't seen a new film in over a month. I've been catching up on TV, though - like I watched all 3 seasons (39 episodes) of "Daredevil" on Netflix, while also dramatically reducing the number of shows stored on my DVR devoted to TV. (The DVR devoted to movies, however, is still about 70% full.) After "Daredevil" I started up with "The Punisher", but then also caught up on the new HBO "Watchmen" series, which was just darn amazing. Hard to understand at first, but eventually the pieces fell into place and it became this glorious, elegant, well-put-together thing. My one nitpick is that it referenced the ending of the comic book, which got changed (I thought for the better) in the conclusion of the Zack Snyder film. I would have preferred for the TV series to act as a sequel to the film and not the comic book on this point, but I guess I'm in the minority.
But "Watchmen" happens to share something with the recent "Star Wars" films (Episodes 7-9). In both cases there's an attempt to continue a franchise, build on what has gone before and extrapolate a new narrative, even though the creator(s) of the source material are no longer involved. George Lucas and Alan Moore have both signed away their rights and privileges, so Disney and DC Comics are free to continue the franchises as they see fit. Yeah, maybe this is just the way of the world now, and if I tried I could probably come up with many more examples of this phenomenon, in franchises like "Godzilla", "Creed" and "The Terminator", among others. Today's filmmakers have tough challenges ahead, based around questions like "How do we create a new story that also pays tribute to what has gone before, make a new narrative that feels organically grown from the old one, as if our movie is the logical continuation of that older story, but still feels timeless, or at least new-ish?" Yeah, I don't know the answer to that one, I guess you just have to keep making movies with the same characters until the audience tells you to stop.
Oh, and then there's "The Mandalorian", of course. I got a free year of Disney+ when we upgraded our phone to unlimited data (this was necessary when I upgraded my phone in Vegas, and also in one of the hotels we couldn't get the wifi to work) and so that's helped greatly, to have a new episode of a "Star Wars" TV show every week to look forward to. My other challenge during this drought has been trying to prepare for "The Rise of Skywalker" without learning too much about the storyline. I made the mistake of buying the paperback novelization of "Return of the Jedi" before the movie came out in 1983, and reading half of it the night before the film's premiere. And so I went in knowing way too much, and I vowed to never let that happen again. I've watched a couple of the previews, because the filmmakers apparently WANT me to know whatever's in them, but I've tried to let those go in one ear and out the other. Come December 20, I want to go in as cold as I can, even though I realize that's probably an impossible goal. But hey, I once thought that linking 300 films together by actors in a year was an impossible goal, and right now I'm only FIVE films away from making that a reality.
Richard E. Grant carries over from "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" - at least, I sure HOPE he does. I had several good ways to get here, via Adam Driver or John Boyega - and God knows I watched more than my share of Oscar Isaac movies this year, same goes for Domhnall Gleeson. I passed on all those opportunities and went all in, counting on Richard E. Grant to carry over. Was I right?
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (Movie #2,796)
THE PLOT: The surviving Resistance faces the First Order once more in the final chapter of the Skywalker saga.
SPOILER ALERT: I'm a notable Star Wars early adopter and influencer (I've got the street cred to prove it, I was interviewed in a documentary called "The People vs. George Lucas", plus I've built my lifestyle around an appreciation for this franchise above all others.) so if you're not like me and you didn't go to see Episode IX on opening day, please TURN BACK now!
STILL BEFORE: As I write this second introduction, it's still December 18, 2 days before the final (yeah, right...) episode in the "Star Wars" saga opens, a culmination of 42 years of storytelling. So thanks for making me feel very old, JJ Abrams...
But I've got a lot of questions right now, and since I haven't been scouring the internet for information, I don't know if this film will be answering those questions or not. Let's start with the title - "The Rise of Skywalker". Which Skywalker are we talking about? Luke? He's probably only in this film as a Force Ghost. Leia? She's a Skywalker, though she hasn't tended to use that name - but her presence in today's film is probably reduced because they didn't create a CGI Carrie Fisher, so they were limited to using unused footage from the last two films. Kylo Ren is technically also a Skywalker, so is he the one rising? Or is there another Skywalker yet to be revealed? Jeez, the filmmakers really may have tipped their hat with this one, via the title alone.
As I said above, and in my reviews of "The Force Awakens" and "The Last Jedi", the big trend these days is continuing a franchise's storyline to make new material, in a way that both pays tribute to the past and also feels fresh and new, but with "echoes" of the things that have gone before. Episodes 7 and 8 were filled with callbacks to the previous "Star Wars" films, like the battle on Crait that felt a lot like the snowspeeder/AT-AT battle from "The Empire Strikes Back", only in salt instead of snow. And the Starkiller Base seen in "The Force Awakens" was an obvious echo of the Death Star, only on a larger scale and with more power. So getting ready for "The Rise of Skywalker", I'm expecting to see some callbacks to "Return of the Jedi", the film where teddy bears rose up and took down the Empire. Baby Yoda is a thing now, so I'm fearing we'll see even cuter creatures taking up arms in Episode IX.
And remember that "Return of the Jedi" was the film that revealed the family connection between Luke and Leia (despite the fact that they'd made out a couple times in the first two films, they were allegedly "always" designed to be brother and sister. Sure, George, that's your story and you stick to that...) So perhaps we'll see another callback when we find out who Rey really is, who her parents were and how she came to be abandoned on Jakku. Or, maybe we won't - Episode 7 teased this, and then Episode 8 really backed away from it. What's the connection between Kylo Ren and Rey? Are they brother and sister? Cousins? Future lovers? Some combination of these? It's been implied that Supreme Leader Snoke created the mental connection between the two, but what if that was a lie?
I know these stories aren't considered canonical any more, but there was an entire book series written where Han and Leia had twin children, Jacen and Jaina, and they studied as Junior Jedi Knights at Luke's training academy on Yavin IV. As a teenager, Jacen fell under some bad influences while fighting the Yuuzhan Vong and determined that there was no light side or dark side to the Force, there was just the Force. But he eventually took up the identity of a Sith Lord named Darth Caedus, and Jaina had to study Mandalorian combat techniques under Boba Fett in order to take him down. Again, these stories no longer exist as part of the "Star Wars" story, but as we saw from the film "Solo: A Star Wars Story", today's filmmakers were able to read all the (many) interpretations of Han's infamous "Kessel Run" tale, and cherry-pick the pieces and parts that they wanted to use when they made the "official" film version. The story of Jacen and Jaina Solo could have been tweaked and adjusted to fit the tale of Ben and Rey Solo, except then you'd expect that Ben should probably remember that he had a sister, and therefore not be surprised when he meets Rey years later.
Similarly, the whole "what went wrong at Luke's Jedi Academy" story has yet to be fully explained. We saw a few glimpses of it in "The Last Jedi", but it wasn't enough. Whatever sent Luke into exile for 20 years may be fully detailed in a future TV series or film, or comic book, in the future. But the fact remains that Luke WAS in exile for 20 years, his whereabouts were unknown, and it's not too far of a stretch to think that he might have had a relationship or fathered a child somewhere along the line. The Jedi of the Republic were instructed to not have any "attachments", but it's possible that Luke never got that memo, or was in the process creating a new kind of Jedi Order, without all the arcane rules. So perhaps the two big force-users are cousins? Anything is possible at the moment, but I'm counting on Episode IX to PICK A GOD-DAMNED LANE already!
The cast list alone (and this is public information, thanks to IMDB) reveals that two important characters are coming back to the "Star Wars" saga, Lando Calrissian and it seems Emperor Palpatine as well. How Palpatine survived the fall down the reactor core of Death Star II, and the subsequent explosion, also has yet to be revealed. But looking at another book tie-in, which I think also has been removed from the official canon, we could get another idea about this. "Dark Empire" was a 1991 Dark Horse comic book that was also made at a time when it was believed there would be no more movies with Luke, Han and Leia, so they were free to continue their story in any direction, and this has since been retconned out of the SW Universe - but the comic introduced Grand Admiral Thrawn, who over the last few years has been re-added to the canon via the "Star Wars: Rebels" TV show and a couple of new books, also. In that comic, Luke battled against a clone of the Emperor - his mind, spirit and memories that had found their way into a young, fit clone body. Clones are not a new storytelling tool in the Star Wars universe, and it's even possible that Baby Yoda could be a clone of the original. The timeline could allow for Jedi Sifo Dyas and the Kamino cloners to have done more work besides cloning Jango Fett, and in "Revenge of the Sith" Palpatine discussed (very cryptically with Anakin) that there might be ways for Jedi or Sith to conquer death itself.
So there you go, now I'm ready. Whatever "The Rise of Skywalker" wants to bring my way, whether it's lost twins, secret cousins, clones or something else entirely, let's get it over with!
AFTER: Right after watching the film (2 pm showing, AMC Empire on 42nd St. in Manhattan) with my friend Adam, who bought the ticket for me months ago, I went back to the snack counter to start buying up the collectables - an AMC R2D2-shaped popcorn and drink holder for my friend Charles in Hawaii (by special request) and two metal popcorn tins (clean, unused) - one blue one for the "light side" and a red one for the "dark side" of the Force. The concession stand had run out of the red ones, so I decided to try the snack counter upstairs. Yep, there they were - and as the man behind the counter sold me the red (clean, unused) popcorn tin, he saw me holding the giant plastic R2D2 and asked if I had just seen the movie. (No, I often just hang out randomly in movie theater lobbies, holding large plastic R2D2-shaped popcorn holders...). OK, so it was a valid question, because maybe I was on my way IN to see the movie, I mean, what kind of a person goes BACK to the snack counter after the movie? (Just me, apparently.). When I said that yes, I'd just seen the film, he asked, "Is it any good?"
I know, I pretty much rate movies around the clock, but I found his question difficult to answer. I'm well aware that everyone's mileage varies, and different people can have vastly different opinions about the same movie. To properly answer his question, I'd need to know more about him as a person. I wanted to say, "That depends, do you have a long, enduring relationship with this film franchise? One that stretches back, say, 40 or so years? Did you grow up watching the original trilogy or the prequel trilogy? Did you get exposed to the "Star Wars" films in the proper order (4, 5, 6, then 1, 2, 3) or did you (shudder) watch the prequels first? Do you like the "Special Editions" or do you long for the classic versions? Who do you believe shot first, Han or Greedo?"
Had he watched 295 films this year in preparation for THIS one? (No, that's probably just me...). Had he avoided watching films for the last month so that he'd really, really appreciate the next one that he saw? (Again, probably just me...) Had he had a particularly challenging time in the last 30 days, what with his cat dying and his boss riding his ass and was he using the promise of seeing the new "Star Wars" film as his sole motivation for getting his Christmas cards sent out and his holiday shopping done? Did he, like me, really really NEED this film to be good? Because that's all important stuff to know about him if I was going to properly answer his question.
Instead, I sort of punted and said, "Well, a lot of stuff happens in it, so there's that." What a terrible non-answer, and now I regret it, of course - but what if I said the movie was really, really great, and then he went on break or stayed late to catch the midnight show and he didn't like it, would that then be my fault? Better to undersell it, right? So there you go, there's my review, "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" is a film where a lot of stuff happens. And hey, that's spoiler-free as a bonus! It's nearly two-and-a-half hours of "Star Wars" stuff, in fact, so they crammed more Star Wars into a Star Wars film than ever before, I think. Our heroes go to several different planets, looking for stuff, going on personal quests of various natures in order to find a way to defeat the evil power.
Jesus, what more do you people WANT from me? If you want to know the whole plot, you can look elsewhere, go read it on Wikipedia, it's all there. There were droids, there were lightsaber battles, there was John Williams music, space battles, and the good guys win and the bad guys lose, but you knew all that already, right? It's "Star Wars" so it has all the characters and all the things that you'd expect from a movie in this franchise - and then probably a bit more, too.
I don't even feel bad about mentioning above that the Emperor is back, because literally that's the FIRST thing you learn in "The Rise of Skywalker", like it's the first line in the opening crawl - see? That's followed by about 2 1/2 hours of stuff that I'm not even going to mention. (And the few cameos that COULD make any difference to your enjoyment are withheld below, for safety's sake.)
This is the big question, however - did J.J. Abrams get the trilogy back on track, after Rian Johnson decided to fill the slower parts of "The Last Jedi" with a bunch of human rights and animal rights activism issues that really just clouded the main character arcs for Rey, Finn and Poe? "Come on, we have to get back to the fleet, the First Order's been inching closer to them for the last hour of this story!" "Hang on, I'll be right with you, but first I have to free these horse-like creatures from their servitude, because animals are people too." WHAT? Then Chewbacca went vegetarian and I'm screaming "HOW IS THIS A PLOT POINT?"
Then we got to the relationship stuff, and this was the OTHER maddening thing about "The Last Jedi". In "The Force Awakens", it looked like they were setting up Rey and Finn as romantic partners, but then in the next film, it seemed more like Rian Johnson wanted to explore the bond between Rey and Kylo (or "Reylo" if you ship) and OK, that's a bold new direction, let's bring in Rose as a new potential love interest for Finn, and everyone's happy, right? WRONG, because here comes J.J. Abrams again, and he wants to explore both Rey/Finn AND Rey/Kylo in Episode IX. Wait, I thought it was suggested that Snoke made the mental connection between Rey and Kylo, but now it seems they've got real relationship potential? Only she's a Jedi and he's a Sith, how's that going to work out? Is she going to turn him good or is he going to lure her to the Dark Side? Ah, now maybe we're getting somewhere meaty, right?
But still, "The Rise of Skywalker" storyline seems determined to fire in every direction possible, all at once. All this romantic potential, and in the end, nobody's getting any action! Everybody just seems like they're co-workers in the Resistance now and they're afraid of getting in trouble with H.R. so everybody's cool with being friends, and that's boring as hell. And then after the racists started hating on having a prominent Asian character in "The Last Jedi", it seems like THIS movie is afraid now to explore Finn/Rose or even Finn/Rey, so they bring in BRAND NEW love interests for Finn, and even Poe, and poor Rose is now left out in the cold. Is that fair? Do we let the racists win? In the old days, the big love triangle was between Han, Leia and Luke (umm, we didn't know at the time about the brother-sister thing) but we knew in the end Leia was going to choose SOMEBODY. Now we've got love quadrangles and pentangles and I'd settle for a Finn/Poe romance if it meant that something would finally get resolved. The good news here is that no matter which two characters you see romantic potential in, there's something in this movie for you. AND that's also the bad news, if you think about it.
However, when you consider how Abrams had to bend the storyline over backwards (and sideways, and sort of pretzel-shaped) to undo some of the directions that "The Last Jedi" took, I think the effort that it took to right this ship was something close to super-human. My friend Andy used to say about the "Star Wars" films directed by Lucas, whenever something weird came in to the mix, "It's OK, Daddy's driving..." By which he meant that someone responsible was behind the wheel, and if you want to feel like a kid in the back-seat it's OK to relax or take a little nap even, because your father's going to make sure that you get home OK. (Still, even with that there's the possibility of another careless driver on the road, or an unwanted appearance of Jar Jar Binks...). Where Abrams excels is his ability to examine the films Lucas made, and then continue the story in a new direction, while still paying tribute to what has gone before, so that the end result FEELS like maybe it was made by the original creator. He did this with "Star Trek" in 2009 - it was a new movie, new timeline, but it had to also FEEL like the old TV series in some way, and that's a difficult row to hoe.
So to do this, there are a lot of callbacks in the sequel trilogy. I mentioned several of them already, like the Battle of Crait resembling the Battle of Hoth in some ways, but it also had to be a new thing at the same time. And as I correctly predicted, there are many callbacks here to "Return of the Jedi" - not just the presence of Palpatine being alive and Lando Calrissian flying the Falcon, but there are sets designed to look like old locations, just in a new way. And some scenes are direct visual references to ROTJ, like a conversation between Rey and her old mentor that neatly mirrors one that Luke had with his.
In fact there are a lot of "ghosts" in this film - some literal force-ghosts and other symbolic ones. At one point a character was searching through the wreckage of a familiar "Star Wars" set for a useful object, and I thought, "Wow, there's a metaphor. This film is searching through the wreckage of the previous trilogy to find something that could propel THIS story forward." And that's what writers do now, they go through the old stories in a franchise and they look for gaps, or story possibilities between the scenes we know, and they try to make something new that fits between the other things or is a logical extension of them. Comic-book writers do this all the time, the new writer on "Spider-Man" is eventually going to consider the older stories and maybe say, "Well, it's now time for Spider-Man to fight the Green Goblin again..." but the better writers will also say, "What can I do differently this time he fights the Green Goblin, so it's not like every OTHER time they fought before?"
Stan Lee created Spider-Man, and also most of the other major Marvel super-heroes, but after a couple of decades he let other writers pick up most of the workload. I don't think he wrote a decent comic-book story himself after the late 1970's, but I could be wrong. In the same way, George Lucas created this universe, but when he sold out to Disney, it became an opportunity for other people to play with the toys he created. So like it or not, "J.J. Abrams is my master now." I'll defend the job he did here, even though he still left a LOT of questions unanswered...and I just KNOW that's going to piss a lot of people off.
Who, exactly, are the Knights of Ren? Was "Ren" a person, or a planet or another thing? There's fertile ground between Episodes 6 and 7 for more stories, and Marvel Comics (also a Disney subsidiary now) is going to start exploring that in a new Kylo Ren comic. How, exactly, did Palpatine survive his fall to the reactor core in Episode 6? Again, yet to be revealed - basically if you're looking for clear answers in "The Rise of Skywalker", you'd better get used to disappointment. Do we finally learn who Rey's parents were? Thankfully, there's a resounding YES here. So there you go, take some comfort in the fact that the war is finally over, Rey finally has a last name, the good guys win and the bad guys lose, and I think Lando FINALLY gets his spaceship back, but I could be wrong about this, too. I hope he does, I think he deserves it.
But it already seems like the reviews of this film are either middling or poor - yet it's sold more advance tickets than just about any film, other than "Avengers: Endgame". It seems like as on nearly every other issue, our populace is split right down the middle - you're probably either going to REALLY love this film, or REALLY hate it. That's it, there's no in-between. Get on board and enjoy the ride, or else don't show up at all, there's just no middle ground. I just don't expect many people to say, "Eh, this film was just OK for me." You either go all in or you don't.
I'm sure I left some NITPICK POINTS around here somewhere, let me take some time to think about it, and if I come up with any this weekend I'll add them right here. (or maybe I'll add them after a second viewing in January...) Beyond R2-D2 being CRIMINALLY under-used in this installment, that is. Or was that a callback to "The Force Awakens", where he spent nearly the whole film deactivated and just taking up space in a storeroom?
Wait, I've got one - what about this Force healing? It's a new power we've never seen before, so very obviously it's here because it needed to be to make this plot work. So how come we've never seen the Force used this way before, except for last week in an episode of "The Mandalorian"? Why didn't any Jedi use this power while fighting the Clone Wars? "Screw it, they're clones, we've got like a zillion of them, let 'em die..." Why didn't Obi-Wan use this power when Qui-Gon or Padme were dying? Was he not aware of it, or is it some recent innovation in the use of the Force? Either way, I'm not buying it...
UPDATE: I went to see Episode IX a second time on New Year's Day, with my wife who was seeing it for the first time. She really enjoyed it, which helps me justify my rating a bit - but she was also left emotionally drained afterwards, and that was how I felt after my first viewing, too.
Part of what stuck with me the first time I saw it was how Rey's battle with the Emperor (and to a lesser extent, her ongoing relationship (?) with Kylo Ren, and how they seemed to be riffing off of issues of sexual harassment. I know, there's not really any SEX in "Star Wars", so I don't know how all the space people manage to have space babies, but I digress. OK, you have to admit that even if it's not sexual, what's been going on in the new trilogy is a form of harassment. Kylo and Rey are mentally connected somehow, and they've been sharing intimate conversations over vast distances for several films now, but sometimes on Kylo's end these devolve into threats, mixed with offers for Rey to come to the Dark Side so they can rule the galaxy together. Putting aside the fact that these mental confabs can happen at even the most inconvenient times (like, what happens if Rey's in the shower or something?) they've put her through the emotional wringer, with Kylo being somewhat kind, then taunting her about her parents, then threatening her life. It's like some kind of emotional abuse cycle, where the abuser keeps saying whatever he has to in order to maintain contact, and after a while, the victim doesn't know which end is up, whether to hate or love in return. It's been like some ongoing form of mental rape, right?
Then to make matters worse, the Emperor comes back - and he's the classic example of the white man (really really white, like super-pale) in power, and to him Kylo's a joke, and the young girl's a pawn, someone who lives just to service his needs. He's like super-replusive Harvey Weinstein, or Trump, and/or Epstein all rolled into one. Emperor Trumpatine, or Palp-Weinstein maybe. Forget the connection between them, he just wants her body (OK, not like THAT exactly, but is there really a difference?). And she can't strike him down, because then he gets what he wants, which is for her to demonstrate hatred and join the Dark Side, so it seems like she can't win - much like how a harassed woman can't fight back against her accuser, because she'll lose her job and maybe become an outcast, and who's going to believe her story anyway?
Anyway, that was my first impression, and this stuff bothered me a little less during the second viewing, but it's still THERE. Still, since I knew the major plot points, the second time I could relax a bit and pay more attention to things like foreshadowing, and how the whole movie flows, and really just the elegance of clues being placed in the early parts that tip off the twists in the later parts. I think the film will hold up over time, there's just so much there that can be analyzed by the experts, so many little callbacks and Easter eggs and winks at the fans about Star Wars ephemera.
Also starring Daisy Ridley (last heard in "Peter Rabbit"), Adam Driver (last seen in "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote"), John Boyega (last seen in "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi"), Oscar Isaac (last seen in "Triple Frontier"), Lupita Nyong'o (last seen in "Black Panther"), Domhnall Gleeson (last seen in "A Futile and Stupid Gesture"), Kelly Marie Tran (aslo last seen in "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi"), Mark Hamill (ditto), Jimmy Vee (ditto), Mike Quinn (ditto), Joonas Suotamo (last seen in "Solo: A Star Wars Story"), Anthony Daniels (ditto), Billie Lourd (last seen in "Billionaire Boys Club"), Naomi Ackie, Keri Russell (last seen in "We Were Soldiers"), Billy Dee Williams (last seen in "Quincy"), Greg Grunberg (last heard in "The Cloverfield Paradox"), Dominic Monaghan (last seen in "Mute"), Ian McDiarmid (last seen in "The Lost City of Z"), Jodie Comer, Billy Howle (last seen in "Outlaw King"), with archive footage of Carrie Fisher (last seen in "The 'Burbs") and cameos from (REDACTED - but last seen in "Always at the Carlyle"), (REDACTED) and (ALSO REDACTED), John Williams, Lin-Manuel Miranda (last seen in "Mary Poppins Returns"), Jeff Garlin (last heard in "Toy Story 4"), Kevin Smith? (if so, last seen in "The Disaster Artist"), Dhani Harrison and the voices of J.J. Abrams, Shirley Henderson (last seen in "Stan & Ollie"), Andy Serkis (last heard in "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle"), James Earl Jones (last seen in "The Comedians"), Alec Guinness (ditto), Hayden Christensen (last seen in "Factory Girl"), Olivia d"Abo (last seen in "Kicking and Screaming"), Ashley Eckstein (last heard in "Star Wars: The Clone Wars"), Jennifer Hale (last heard in "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies"), Samuel L. Jackson (last seen in "Glass"), Ewan McGregor (last seen in "Christopher Robin"), Frank Oz (last seen in "Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey"), Angelique Perrin, Freddie Prinze Jr., Liam Neeson (last seen in "Widows"), Matthew Wood and Debra Wilson.
RATING: 8 out of 10 Star Destroyers
BEFORE: If you've read my blog for any length of time, then you know the "Star Wars" saga is a driving force, no pun intended. It's what keeps me going - it's what got me interested in filmmaking as a career, and for the last 40 years it's brought me (mostly) joy and sparked countless conversations and debates with fellow fans all over the damn place. I've collected well over a hundred autographs from the actors in the saga and interacted in person with, well, let's say a couple dozen of them. So this is big big BIG when the "last" Star Wars film hits the screen, at least until they reboot the franchise or start up another round of sequels about five years down the road.
First off, let's catch up because it's been a while since I last rapped at ya. My last post was dated November 7, which was over a month ago as I write this intro (on December 9) and by the time December 20 gets here, that will mark 43 days since I last watched a movie. As I've said before, watching 295 movies in a little over 300 days is fairly easy for me - it's NOT watching any movies for over a month that's the tough part. But I've tried to keep busy - I made myself a list of things to do, like re-organizing the comic book collection, captioning my vacation photos, and I've got it all done except for sending out Christmas cards with my annual mix CD, and then the Christmas shopping itself. Yeah, I've got 11 days left before "Star Wars" so I'd better get on that ASAP. I'm using Episode 9 as the motivator to get the Christmas presents bought, and if I don't do the task, then I don't deserve the prize.
But it's hard to find motivation when I'm not in the mood - we had to say goodbye to our oldest cat, Data, who was at least 15 years old (he was a stray so we count from when we took him indoors) and while we were consoled by reminding each other that he had a darn good life, and probably lived a lot longer than he would have if we hadn't taken him in, that didn't make driving him to the vet that last time any easier. I'll probably have more to say about Data in my first post of 2020, especially if I dedicate next year's musings to him - he had been watching nearly every movie with me since I started this project. (I won't say he understood them, but he joined me to watch them, even if he usually fell asleep during them.)
So that's one reason that's it been tough lately, and then there's also this planned break of over a month. I'm like an addict in desperate need of a fix - so I'm thinking that watching the new "Star Wars" movie is going to be THAT MUCH more impressive when I haven't seen a new film in over a month. I've been catching up on TV, though - like I watched all 3 seasons (39 episodes) of "Daredevil" on Netflix, while also dramatically reducing the number of shows stored on my DVR devoted to TV. (The DVR devoted to movies, however, is still about 70% full.) After "Daredevil" I started up with "The Punisher", but then also caught up on the new HBO "Watchmen" series, which was just darn amazing. Hard to understand at first, but eventually the pieces fell into place and it became this glorious, elegant, well-put-together thing. My one nitpick is that it referenced the ending of the comic book, which got changed (I thought for the better) in the conclusion of the Zack Snyder film. I would have preferred for the TV series to act as a sequel to the film and not the comic book on this point, but I guess I'm in the minority.
But "Watchmen" happens to share something with the recent "Star Wars" films (Episodes 7-9). In both cases there's an attempt to continue a franchise, build on what has gone before and extrapolate a new narrative, even though the creator(s) of the source material are no longer involved. George Lucas and Alan Moore have both signed away their rights and privileges, so Disney and DC Comics are free to continue the franchises as they see fit. Yeah, maybe this is just the way of the world now, and if I tried I could probably come up with many more examples of this phenomenon, in franchises like "Godzilla", "Creed" and "The Terminator", among others. Today's filmmakers have tough challenges ahead, based around questions like "How do we create a new story that also pays tribute to what has gone before, make a new narrative that feels organically grown from the old one, as if our movie is the logical continuation of that older story, but still feels timeless, or at least new-ish?" Yeah, I don't know the answer to that one, I guess you just have to keep making movies with the same characters until the audience tells you to stop.
Oh, and then there's "The Mandalorian", of course. I got a free year of Disney+ when we upgraded our phone to unlimited data (this was necessary when I upgraded my phone in Vegas, and also in one of the hotels we couldn't get the wifi to work) and so that's helped greatly, to have a new episode of a "Star Wars" TV show every week to look forward to. My other challenge during this drought has been trying to prepare for "The Rise of Skywalker" without learning too much about the storyline. I made the mistake of buying the paperback novelization of "Return of the Jedi" before the movie came out in 1983, and reading half of it the night before the film's premiere. And so I went in knowing way too much, and I vowed to never let that happen again. I've watched a couple of the previews, because the filmmakers apparently WANT me to know whatever's in them, but I've tried to let those go in one ear and out the other. Come December 20, I want to go in as cold as I can, even though I realize that's probably an impossible goal. But hey, I once thought that linking 300 films together by actors in a year was an impossible goal, and right now I'm only FIVE films away from making that a reality.
Richard E. Grant carries over from "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" - at least, I sure HOPE he does. I had several good ways to get here, via Adam Driver or John Boyega - and God knows I watched more than my share of Oscar Isaac movies this year, same goes for Domhnall Gleeson. I passed on all those opportunities and went all in, counting on Richard E. Grant to carry over. Was I right?
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (Movie #2,796)
THE PLOT: The surviving Resistance faces the First Order once more in the final chapter of the Skywalker saga.
SPOILER ALERT: I'm a notable Star Wars early adopter and influencer (I've got the street cred to prove it, I was interviewed in a documentary called "The People vs. George Lucas", plus I've built my lifestyle around an appreciation for this franchise above all others.) so if you're not like me and you didn't go to see Episode IX on opening day, please TURN BACK now!
STILL BEFORE: As I write this second introduction, it's still December 18, 2 days before the final (yeah, right...) episode in the "Star Wars" saga opens, a culmination of 42 years of storytelling. So thanks for making me feel very old, JJ Abrams...
But I've got a lot of questions right now, and since I haven't been scouring the internet for information, I don't know if this film will be answering those questions or not. Let's start with the title - "The Rise of Skywalker". Which Skywalker are we talking about? Luke? He's probably only in this film as a Force Ghost. Leia? She's a Skywalker, though she hasn't tended to use that name - but her presence in today's film is probably reduced because they didn't create a CGI Carrie Fisher, so they were limited to using unused footage from the last two films. Kylo Ren is technically also a Skywalker, so is he the one rising? Or is there another Skywalker yet to be revealed? Jeez, the filmmakers really may have tipped their hat with this one, via the title alone.
As I said above, and in my reviews of "The Force Awakens" and "The Last Jedi", the big trend these days is continuing a franchise's storyline to make new material, in a way that both pays tribute to the past and also feels fresh and new, but with "echoes" of the things that have gone before. Episodes 7 and 8 were filled with callbacks to the previous "Star Wars" films, like the battle on Crait that felt a lot like the snowspeeder/AT-AT battle from "The Empire Strikes Back", only in salt instead of snow. And the Starkiller Base seen in "The Force Awakens" was an obvious echo of the Death Star, only on a larger scale and with more power. So getting ready for "The Rise of Skywalker", I'm expecting to see some callbacks to "Return of the Jedi", the film where teddy bears rose up and took down the Empire. Baby Yoda is a thing now, so I'm fearing we'll see even cuter creatures taking up arms in Episode IX.
And remember that "Return of the Jedi" was the film that revealed the family connection between Luke and Leia (despite the fact that they'd made out a couple times in the first two films, they were allegedly "always" designed to be brother and sister. Sure, George, that's your story and you stick to that...) So perhaps we'll see another callback when we find out who Rey really is, who her parents were and how she came to be abandoned on Jakku. Or, maybe we won't - Episode 7 teased this, and then Episode 8 really backed away from it. What's the connection between Kylo Ren and Rey? Are they brother and sister? Cousins? Future lovers? Some combination of these? It's been implied that Supreme Leader Snoke created the mental connection between the two, but what if that was a lie?
I know these stories aren't considered canonical any more, but there was an entire book series written where Han and Leia had twin children, Jacen and Jaina, and they studied as Junior Jedi Knights at Luke's training academy on Yavin IV. As a teenager, Jacen fell under some bad influences while fighting the Yuuzhan Vong and determined that there was no light side or dark side to the Force, there was just the Force. But he eventually took up the identity of a Sith Lord named Darth Caedus, and Jaina had to study Mandalorian combat techniques under Boba Fett in order to take him down. Again, these stories no longer exist as part of the "Star Wars" story, but as we saw from the film "Solo: A Star Wars Story", today's filmmakers were able to read all the (many) interpretations of Han's infamous "Kessel Run" tale, and cherry-pick the pieces and parts that they wanted to use when they made the "official" film version. The story of Jacen and Jaina Solo could have been tweaked and adjusted to fit the tale of Ben and Rey Solo, except then you'd expect that Ben should probably remember that he had a sister, and therefore not be surprised when he meets Rey years later.
Similarly, the whole "what went wrong at Luke's Jedi Academy" story has yet to be fully explained. We saw a few glimpses of it in "The Last Jedi", but it wasn't enough. Whatever sent Luke into exile for 20 years may be fully detailed in a future TV series or film, or comic book, in the future. But the fact remains that Luke WAS in exile for 20 years, his whereabouts were unknown, and it's not too far of a stretch to think that he might have had a relationship or fathered a child somewhere along the line. The Jedi of the Republic were instructed to not have any "attachments", but it's possible that Luke never got that memo, or was in the process creating a new kind of Jedi Order, without all the arcane rules. So perhaps the two big force-users are cousins? Anything is possible at the moment, but I'm counting on Episode IX to PICK A GOD-DAMNED LANE already!
The cast list alone (and this is public information, thanks to IMDB) reveals that two important characters are coming back to the "Star Wars" saga, Lando Calrissian and it seems Emperor Palpatine as well. How Palpatine survived the fall down the reactor core of Death Star II, and the subsequent explosion, also has yet to be revealed. But looking at another book tie-in, which I think also has been removed from the official canon, we could get another idea about this. "Dark Empire" was a 1991 Dark Horse comic book that was also made at a time when it was believed there would be no more movies with Luke, Han and Leia, so they were free to continue their story in any direction, and this has since been retconned out of the SW Universe - but the comic introduced Grand Admiral Thrawn, who over the last few years has been re-added to the canon via the "Star Wars: Rebels" TV show and a couple of new books, also. In that comic, Luke battled against a clone of the Emperor - his mind, spirit and memories that had found their way into a young, fit clone body. Clones are not a new storytelling tool in the Star Wars universe, and it's even possible that Baby Yoda could be a clone of the original. The timeline could allow for Jedi Sifo Dyas and the Kamino cloners to have done more work besides cloning Jango Fett, and in "Revenge of the Sith" Palpatine discussed (very cryptically with Anakin) that there might be ways for Jedi or Sith to conquer death itself.
So there you go, now I'm ready. Whatever "The Rise of Skywalker" wants to bring my way, whether it's lost twins, secret cousins, clones or something else entirely, let's get it over with!
AFTER: Right after watching the film (2 pm showing, AMC Empire on 42nd St. in Manhattan) with my friend Adam, who bought the ticket for me months ago, I went back to the snack counter to start buying up the collectables - an AMC R2D2-shaped popcorn and drink holder for my friend Charles in Hawaii (by special request) and two metal popcorn tins (clean, unused) - one blue one for the "light side" and a red one for the "dark side" of the Force. The concession stand had run out of the red ones, so I decided to try the snack counter upstairs. Yep, there they were - and as the man behind the counter sold me the red (clean, unused) popcorn tin, he saw me holding the giant plastic R2D2 and asked if I had just seen the movie. (No, I often just hang out randomly in movie theater lobbies, holding large plastic R2D2-shaped popcorn holders...). OK, so it was a valid question, because maybe I was on my way IN to see the movie, I mean, what kind of a person goes BACK to the snack counter after the movie? (Just me, apparently.). When I said that yes, I'd just seen the film, he asked, "Is it any good?"
I know, I pretty much rate movies around the clock, but I found his question difficult to answer. I'm well aware that everyone's mileage varies, and different people can have vastly different opinions about the same movie. To properly answer his question, I'd need to know more about him as a person. I wanted to say, "That depends, do you have a long, enduring relationship with this film franchise? One that stretches back, say, 40 or so years? Did you grow up watching the original trilogy or the prequel trilogy? Did you get exposed to the "Star Wars" films in the proper order (4, 5, 6, then 1, 2, 3) or did you (shudder) watch the prequels first? Do you like the "Special Editions" or do you long for the classic versions? Who do you believe shot first, Han or Greedo?"
Had he watched 295 films this year in preparation for THIS one? (No, that's probably just me...). Had he avoided watching films for the last month so that he'd really, really appreciate the next one that he saw? (Again, probably just me...) Had he had a particularly challenging time in the last 30 days, what with his cat dying and his boss riding his ass and was he using the promise of seeing the new "Star Wars" film as his sole motivation for getting his Christmas cards sent out and his holiday shopping done? Did he, like me, really really NEED this film to be good? Because that's all important stuff to know about him if I was going to properly answer his question.
Instead, I sort of punted and said, "Well, a lot of stuff happens in it, so there's that." What a terrible non-answer, and now I regret it, of course - but what if I said the movie was really, really great, and then he went on break or stayed late to catch the midnight show and he didn't like it, would that then be my fault? Better to undersell it, right? So there you go, there's my review, "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" is a film where a lot of stuff happens. And hey, that's spoiler-free as a bonus! It's nearly two-and-a-half hours of "Star Wars" stuff, in fact, so they crammed more Star Wars into a Star Wars film than ever before, I think. Our heroes go to several different planets, looking for stuff, going on personal quests of various natures in order to find a way to defeat the evil power.
Jesus, what more do you people WANT from me? If you want to know the whole plot, you can look elsewhere, go read it on Wikipedia, it's all there. There were droids, there were lightsaber battles, there was John Williams music, space battles, and the good guys win and the bad guys lose, but you knew all that already, right? It's "Star Wars" so it has all the characters and all the things that you'd expect from a movie in this franchise - and then probably a bit more, too.
I don't even feel bad about mentioning above that the Emperor is back, because literally that's the FIRST thing you learn in "The Rise of Skywalker", like it's the first line in the opening crawl - see? That's followed by about 2 1/2 hours of stuff that I'm not even going to mention. (And the few cameos that COULD make any difference to your enjoyment are withheld below, for safety's sake.)
This is the big question, however - did J.J. Abrams get the trilogy back on track, after Rian Johnson decided to fill the slower parts of "The Last Jedi" with a bunch of human rights and animal rights activism issues that really just clouded the main character arcs for Rey, Finn and Poe? "Come on, we have to get back to the fleet, the First Order's been inching closer to them for the last hour of this story!" "Hang on, I'll be right with you, but first I have to free these horse-like creatures from their servitude, because animals are people too." WHAT? Then Chewbacca went vegetarian and I'm screaming "HOW IS THIS A PLOT POINT?"
Then we got to the relationship stuff, and this was the OTHER maddening thing about "The Last Jedi". In "The Force Awakens", it looked like they were setting up Rey and Finn as romantic partners, but then in the next film, it seemed more like Rian Johnson wanted to explore the bond between Rey and Kylo (or "Reylo" if you ship) and OK, that's a bold new direction, let's bring in Rose as a new potential love interest for Finn, and everyone's happy, right? WRONG, because here comes J.J. Abrams again, and he wants to explore both Rey/Finn AND Rey/Kylo in Episode IX. Wait, I thought it was suggested that Snoke made the mental connection between Rey and Kylo, but now it seems they've got real relationship potential? Only she's a Jedi and he's a Sith, how's that going to work out? Is she going to turn him good or is he going to lure her to the Dark Side? Ah, now maybe we're getting somewhere meaty, right?
But still, "The Rise of Skywalker" storyline seems determined to fire in every direction possible, all at once. All this romantic potential, and in the end, nobody's getting any action! Everybody just seems like they're co-workers in the Resistance now and they're afraid of getting in trouble with H.R. so everybody's cool with being friends, and that's boring as hell. And then after the racists started hating on having a prominent Asian character in "The Last Jedi", it seems like THIS movie is afraid now to explore Finn/Rose or even Finn/Rey, so they bring in BRAND NEW love interests for Finn, and even Poe, and poor Rose is now left out in the cold. Is that fair? Do we let the racists win? In the old days, the big love triangle was between Han, Leia and Luke (umm, we didn't know at the time about the brother-sister thing) but we knew in the end Leia was going to choose SOMEBODY. Now we've got love quadrangles and pentangles and I'd settle for a Finn/Poe romance if it meant that something would finally get resolved. The good news here is that no matter which two characters you see romantic potential in, there's something in this movie for you. AND that's also the bad news, if you think about it.
However, when you consider how Abrams had to bend the storyline over backwards (and sideways, and sort of pretzel-shaped) to undo some of the directions that "The Last Jedi" took, I think the effort that it took to right this ship was something close to super-human. My friend Andy used to say about the "Star Wars" films directed by Lucas, whenever something weird came in to the mix, "It's OK, Daddy's driving..." By which he meant that someone responsible was behind the wheel, and if you want to feel like a kid in the back-seat it's OK to relax or take a little nap even, because your father's going to make sure that you get home OK. (Still, even with that there's the possibility of another careless driver on the road, or an unwanted appearance of Jar Jar Binks...). Where Abrams excels is his ability to examine the films Lucas made, and then continue the story in a new direction, while still paying tribute to what has gone before, so that the end result FEELS like maybe it was made by the original creator. He did this with "Star Trek" in 2009 - it was a new movie, new timeline, but it had to also FEEL like the old TV series in some way, and that's a difficult row to hoe.
So to do this, there are a lot of callbacks in the sequel trilogy. I mentioned several of them already, like the Battle of Crait resembling the Battle of Hoth in some ways, but it also had to be a new thing at the same time. And as I correctly predicted, there are many callbacks here to "Return of the Jedi" - not just the presence of Palpatine being alive and Lando Calrissian flying the Falcon, but there are sets designed to look like old locations, just in a new way. And some scenes are direct visual references to ROTJ, like a conversation between Rey and her old mentor that neatly mirrors one that Luke had with his.
In fact there are a lot of "ghosts" in this film - some literal force-ghosts and other symbolic ones. At one point a character was searching through the wreckage of a familiar "Star Wars" set for a useful object, and I thought, "Wow, there's a metaphor. This film is searching through the wreckage of the previous trilogy to find something that could propel THIS story forward." And that's what writers do now, they go through the old stories in a franchise and they look for gaps, or story possibilities between the scenes we know, and they try to make something new that fits between the other things or is a logical extension of them. Comic-book writers do this all the time, the new writer on "Spider-Man" is eventually going to consider the older stories and maybe say, "Well, it's now time for Spider-Man to fight the Green Goblin again..." but the better writers will also say, "What can I do differently this time he fights the Green Goblin, so it's not like every OTHER time they fought before?"
Stan Lee created Spider-Man, and also most of the other major Marvel super-heroes, but after a couple of decades he let other writers pick up most of the workload. I don't think he wrote a decent comic-book story himself after the late 1970's, but I could be wrong. In the same way, George Lucas created this universe, but when he sold out to Disney, it became an opportunity for other people to play with the toys he created. So like it or not, "J.J. Abrams is my master now." I'll defend the job he did here, even though he still left a LOT of questions unanswered...and I just KNOW that's going to piss a lot of people off.
Who, exactly, are the Knights of Ren? Was "Ren" a person, or a planet or another thing? There's fertile ground between Episodes 6 and 7 for more stories, and Marvel Comics (also a Disney subsidiary now) is going to start exploring that in a new Kylo Ren comic. How, exactly, did Palpatine survive his fall to the reactor core in Episode 6? Again, yet to be revealed - basically if you're looking for clear answers in "The Rise of Skywalker", you'd better get used to disappointment. Do we finally learn who Rey's parents were? Thankfully, there's a resounding YES here. So there you go, take some comfort in the fact that the war is finally over, Rey finally has a last name, the good guys win and the bad guys lose, and I think Lando FINALLY gets his spaceship back, but I could be wrong about this, too. I hope he does, I think he deserves it.
But it already seems like the reviews of this film are either middling or poor - yet it's sold more advance tickets than just about any film, other than "Avengers: Endgame". It seems like as on nearly every other issue, our populace is split right down the middle - you're probably either going to REALLY love this film, or REALLY hate it. That's it, there's no in-between. Get on board and enjoy the ride, or else don't show up at all, there's just no middle ground. I just don't expect many people to say, "Eh, this film was just OK for me." You either go all in or you don't.
I'm sure I left some NITPICK POINTS around here somewhere, let me take some time to think about it, and if I come up with any this weekend I'll add them right here. (or maybe I'll add them after a second viewing in January...) Beyond R2-D2 being CRIMINALLY under-used in this installment, that is. Or was that a callback to "The Force Awakens", where he spent nearly the whole film deactivated and just taking up space in a storeroom?
Wait, I've got one - what about this Force healing? It's a new power we've never seen before, so very obviously it's here because it needed to be to make this plot work. So how come we've never seen the Force used this way before, except for last week in an episode of "The Mandalorian"? Why didn't any Jedi use this power while fighting the Clone Wars? "Screw it, they're clones, we've got like a zillion of them, let 'em die..." Why didn't Obi-Wan use this power when Qui-Gon or Padme were dying? Was he not aware of it, or is it some recent innovation in the use of the Force? Either way, I'm not buying it...
UPDATE: I went to see Episode IX a second time on New Year's Day, with my wife who was seeing it for the first time. She really enjoyed it, which helps me justify my rating a bit - but she was also left emotionally drained afterwards, and that was how I felt after my first viewing, too.
Part of what stuck with me the first time I saw it was how Rey's battle with the Emperor (and to a lesser extent, her ongoing relationship (?) with Kylo Ren, and how they seemed to be riffing off of issues of sexual harassment. I know, there's not really any SEX in "Star Wars", so I don't know how all the space people manage to have space babies, but I digress. OK, you have to admit that even if it's not sexual, what's been going on in the new trilogy is a form of harassment. Kylo and Rey are mentally connected somehow, and they've been sharing intimate conversations over vast distances for several films now, but sometimes on Kylo's end these devolve into threats, mixed with offers for Rey to come to the Dark Side so they can rule the galaxy together. Putting aside the fact that these mental confabs can happen at even the most inconvenient times (like, what happens if Rey's in the shower or something?) they've put her through the emotional wringer, with Kylo being somewhat kind, then taunting her about her parents, then threatening her life. It's like some kind of emotional abuse cycle, where the abuser keeps saying whatever he has to in order to maintain contact, and after a while, the victim doesn't know which end is up, whether to hate or love in return. It's been like some ongoing form of mental rape, right?
Then to make matters worse, the Emperor comes back - and he's the classic example of the white man (really really white, like super-pale) in power, and to him Kylo's a joke, and the young girl's a pawn, someone who lives just to service his needs. He's like super-replusive Harvey Weinstein, or Trump, and/or Epstein all rolled into one. Emperor Trumpatine, or Palp-Weinstein maybe. Forget the connection between them, he just wants her body (OK, not like THAT exactly, but is there really a difference?). And she can't strike him down, because then he gets what he wants, which is for her to demonstrate hatred and join the Dark Side, so it seems like she can't win - much like how a harassed woman can't fight back against her accuser, because she'll lose her job and maybe become an outcast, and who's going to believe her story anyway?
Anyway, that was my first impression, and this stuff bothered me a little less during the second viewing, but it's still THERE. Still, since I knew the major plot points, the second time I could relax a bit and pay more attention to things like foreshadowing, and how the whole movie flows, and really just the elegance of clues being placed in the early parts that tip off the twists in the later parts. I think the film will hold up over time, there's just so much there that can be analyzed by the experts, so many little callbacks and Easter eggs and winks at the fans about Star Wars ephemera.
Also starring Daisy Ridley (last heard in "Peter Rabbit"), Adam Driver (last seen in "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote"), John Boyega (last seen in "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi"), Oscar Isaac (last seen in "Triple Frontier"), Lupita Nyong'o (last seen in "Black Panther"), Domhnall Gleeson (last seen in "A Futile and Stupid Gesture"), Kelly Marie Tran (aslo last seen in "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi"), Mark Hamill (ditto), Jimmy Vee (ditto), Mike Quinn (ditto), Joonas Suotamo (last seen in "Solo: A Star Wars Story"), Anthony Daniels (ditto), Billie Lourd (last seen in "Billionaire Boys Club"), Naomi Ackie, Keri Russell (last seen in "We Were Soldiers"), Billy Dee Williams (last seen in "Quincy"), Greg Grunberg (last heard in "The Cloverfield Paradox"), Dominic Monaghan (last seen in "Mute"), Ian McDiarmid (last seen in "The Lost City of Z"), Jodie Comer, Billy Howle (last seen in "Outlaw King"), with archive footage of Carrie Fisher (last seen in "The 'Burbs") and cameos from (REDACTED - but last seen in "Always at the Carlyle"), (REDACTED) and (ALSO REDACTED), John Williams, Lin-Manuel Miranda (last seen in "Mary Poppins Returns"), Jeff Garlin (last heard in "Toy Story 4"), Kevin Smith? (if so, last seen in "The Disaster Artist"), Dhani Harrison and the voices of J.J. Abrams, Shirley Henderson (last seen in "Stan & Ollie"), Andy Serkis (last heard in "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle"), James Earl Jones (last seen in "The Comedians"), Alec Guinness (ditto), Hayden Christensen (last seen in "Factory Girl"), Olivia d"Abo (last seen in "Kicking and Screaming"), Ashley Eckstein (last heard in "Star Wars: The Clone Wars"), Jennifer Hale (last heard in "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies"), Samuel L. Jackson (last seen in "Glass"), Ewan McGregor (last seen in "Christopher Robin"), Frank Oz (last seen in "Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey"), Angelique Perrin, Freddie Prinze Jr., Liam Neeson (last seen in "Widows"), Matthew Wood and Debra Wilson.
RATING: 8 out of 10 Star Destroyers
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Year 11, Day 311 - 11/7/19 - Movie #3,395
BEFORE: I know November just started three movies ago, but I've reached the end of my November chain. Weird, huh? But I've been very diligent this year, more so than most years, and I find myself running out of movie slots before running out of year. I capped my years at 300 many moons ago, when I realized that 365 movies per year was too much - I need some time for work matters, vacations, comic-cons, chores around the house, and just general mental health. Interacting with people IRL may be overrated in general, but it's necessary to maintaining some semblance of a normal, non-fictional life. There has to be more to life than watching movies, and over the next month, I'm going to try and get some.
Still, I'll pat myself on the back for maintaining quite a pace this year - 295 movies in 311 days is pretty damn good, and half of those 16 days off were spent in Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago. It felt weird to take a week off, and now I'm staring at over a month off. I feel like my blog is a seasonal resort in the Catskills or something, once the leaves all drop off the trees and the frost comes, nobody wants to drive up there for the weekend, so the place just sort of shuts down, at least until hunting season and maybe a big Christmas party.
Quickly, here are the stats on November's formats:
2 Movies watched on Cable (not saved): The Portrait of a Lady, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
1 Watched on Netflix: Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile
3 Total in October
Richard E. Grant carries over from "The Portrait of a Lady", and he's also the link to my next film, which is "Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker". As a fan I've tried very hard to not learn too much about this film, I've looked at each trailer, but only once, because I just wanted to get an impression, not learn any plot details - but just knowing the cast list, which was necessary to plan the linking, probably gives away too much. Obviously I had several ways to get here, I'd been stockpiling films with Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac, but once I knew that my path could lead here in another way, I was free to watch (nearly) all of those films.
(You might well ask, why not watch this film with the other Melissa McCarthy films? Why treat this as a Richard E. Grant film instead? Looking back, I certainly COULD have included this one with the other McCarthy films - or perhaps it hadn't started airing on premium cable yet, now I'm not sure. I think it had more to do with the count, though, and getting to start horror movies square on October 1. Sure, this film could have gone THERE instead of HERE, but then my counts would have been off - it would have meant an extra film in September, and so it got moved here into November, where there was much more room. Capice?)
But damn, December 20 seems like a long ways off, and no movies until then? That's going to be rough. You might think that watching 295 films in 311 days is the tougher part, nah, that's quite easy. For me, 42 days WITHOUT watching a new movie is incredibly difficult. And trying not to let my list get any longer during the break, that's even harder. We'll see how THAT goes. I've got my ticket for opening day of "Star Wars" (a tradition for me on all "Star Wars" films going back to "The Empire Strikes Back") and from there, it will be just four more films to close out 2019. After tonight, it's back to work compiling that list of actors' multiple appearances for the year, so I'll have it for my annual round-up.
THE PLOT: When Lee Israel falls out of step with current tastes, she turns her art form to deception.
AFTER: Eh, I'm not sure about this one, I can't really say I felt sympathetic to the main character in the way that the film clearly WANTED me to. I give props to Melissa McCarthy to trying to stretch herself and do something outside of the inoffensive slapstick comedy of films like "The Boss" and "Life of the Party", and I think she's come a long way from films like "The Heat" and "Identity Thief", but something's just not quite right here. Maybe it's the character, Lee Israel, somebody who apparently was well-known for writing celebrity biographies, but ended up passing off fake autographed letters when she couldn't cut it as an author any more.
Here's the thing, it's possible to get too comfortable as yourself, to get set in your ways and essentially stuck in your career, not moving forward but just basically treading water. Look, just trust me on this, OK? When that happens to you, you've got two choices - either keep treading water for as long as you can, because at least you're not drowning, or get out of the pool, find another job, find another reason for getting up in the morning. OK, if you want to play armchair analyst then maybe I'm seeing a bit of myself in the character, because I've been at one of my jobs for over 25 years - but at some point I'd like to think I got sort of GOOD at it, and in the end, who's to say how long anybody should stay at a job? I'm still getting PAID, right? Not much, like I'll never get rich, but I'm still meeting my monthly expenses most of the time, and I get to take an exhausting vacation every now and again. And I've achieved a certain level of respect, or at least recognition, for hanging in for so long - plus whenever I do travel or socialize with others, chances are there will be someone there who knows my boss's name, and I can humblebrag just a bit. So it's not a fantastic life, but it's the one I've built for myself.
But if something changed, like the whole animation industry fell out of favor or became unprofitable, or my boss died or I suddenly forgot how to do payroll or book airline tickets, then I'd HAVE to move on, right? I can't really say where I'd go or what line of work I'd fall back on, but there's got to be something, right? I can type very fast, maybe I could caption the news in real time for the hearing-impaired. Or I could go work at Marvel Comics or the Daily News and fix spelling and grammar mistakes all day long. I've got tenuous connections at Disney or a couple networks where friends or ex-co-workers are now, maybe I could check around and see what's available. I don't necessarily feel like I've worn out my welcome at my current jobs, though, so I'm likely to hang tough for as long as I can. But still, I don't quite understand why Lee Israel stayed for so long in an industry that didn't seem to want her in it.
You lose a job, get a new job. You lose a pet, get a new pet. Yeah, the cat thing in this film hit a little too close to home, since our oldest cat took a turn while we were on vacation, he spent the last half of that week at the vet's. He's back home now, and functioning, but we just don't know for how long. We had plans to take in the stray cat from our front porch before the weather got cold, so we went ahead and did that, because we figured by now we'd be replacing the older cat - so now we have three, because he's still hanging on. Yes, it will be sad when he goes, but as a friend reminded me, he was a former stray, so we vastly improved his life by housing and feeding him for 15 years - chances are on the streets he wouldn't have lasted so long. That's how you have to look at these life changes, focus on the positive, and not get all bogged down in entropy and depression and the endings of things - otherwise they'll drag your spirit down with them.
But even if life sends a couple of shitburgers to eat, that's still no justification for forging letters from famous people like Dorothy Parker and Noel Coward. I don't care if you can write in their voice or not, typing out a couple of witty letters, forging a signature and then selling the result for top dollar is just NOT O.K., O.K.? I also have some experience with autograph collecting, my focus of course is actors from the "Star Wars" franchise, and by going out to so many San Diego cons, I've amassed a nice little collection, about 114 and counting. Many times I've met the actors in person, like Kenny Baker, Carrie Fisher, Peter Mayhew and Mark Hamill, even Jake Lloyd, Daniel Logan, Ray Park and Richard LeParmentier (yep, look him up...) In the later years I fell back on trusted autograph web-sites so I could build the collection faster - and simply EVERYBODY knows that an autograph is just no good without a COA, certificate of authenticity. Lately they've added holograms and digital tracking, but for years, it was all about the COA, I wouldn't dream of spending money on a signed 8x10 unless I knew I was getting one. (I even bugged Carrie Fisher for the COA, even after she signed her photo and then posed for a pic with me, cheek to cheek.)
Of course, as this movie points out, the COA's can be forged too - they're only as reliable as the company that makes them, so in the end, it all comes down to trust. How well do you trust this company on-line that's selling James Earl Jones' signed photo, or LeBron James' signed basketball, or Alex Rodriguez' autographed baseball card? Every few years there's an exposé on how corrupt the collectibles market is, and how 80% or so of everything on the market is not legit. So I know with the large autograph collection I have, there's a chance that there's little resale value there, but I don't care that much, having the collection brings me a measure of joy, and I'm not really in a position to haggle over what's real and what isn't. So I guess I take it very personally that someone was out there in the 1980's passing off phony letters from famous authors for years, and nobody called her out on it, not for a long time, anyway.
Why couldn't she put that level of creativity, the kind it takes to crack a joke in Noel Coward's or Dorothy Parker's voice, into some sort of work of her own? Why couldn't she BE the next Dorothy Parker, if she could at least pretend to write like her? There's doing and there's faking, and this person spent so much time getting good at faking that it seems she forgot about the doing. Oh, wait, later she wrote a book about her years working as a professional forger, and that book is what this film is based on. But, that's CHEATING, creating a story about the bad stuff you did when you couldn't create a story - it seems worse than making a movie about a writer with writer's block and what they do when they can't write. Plus, isn't there some law that says that people can't profit from their crimes? So how could she write a book about her forgeries and get a check for that?
But, essentially, this is also a film about how we humans form relationships with friends, co-workers, and/or romantic partners, and then often a few months or years later, we often act in ways that are counter-productive and then put barriers up between each other, or act in ways that drive the others away. It's a form of self-sabotage, and we're all capable of it if we're not cognizant of it. Neither Lee or her partner-in-crime Jack have many (or any) friends, and Lee makes reference to a female romantic partner in her past, while Jack seems to prefer the free-wheeling lifestyle of the gay scene - so free-wheeling that it's a bit unclear if he even has an apartment of his own at all.
But with two lead characters who happen to be gay, and are either incapable of or unwilling to be in long-term relationships, what message does that send out? It's almost like the film is suggesting that gay people aren't cut out to be in long-term relationships, and as a point of order, that was something of a stereotype back THEN, which of course has been proven wrong, many many times over, as of NOW. So I guess back in the late 80's or early 90's it was a prevailing myth, but that didn't make it true, and after reverting to that old tired trope, I'm surprised that there wasn't some kind of backlash from the gay community over the way relationships are portrayed here. This story is essentially a tragedy, partly because all relationships within are portrayed as doomed to fail.
But it's also a tragedy because it shows that in life people make mistakes, or have a run of bad luck, or miss opportunities to improve their situations, and then find themselves chasing a couple of broken dreams, wondering when it was exactly that they missed the move that they should have made. But even if all that is the case, committing crimes to get ahead should still never be the solution to one's problems, and any film that even half-glorifies commiting fraud as an option is questionable at best. As seen here, that can tend to make a bad situation even worse, leaving someone with the only goal in life left to get through it, even though we know deep down that nobody ever gets out alive.
And on that cheery note, I'm on break for the next month. Please meet me back here after December 20 for whatever my take on "Star Wars: Episode IX" turns out to be.
Also starring Melissa McCarthy (last seen in "Central Intelligence"), Dolly Wells (last seen in "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), Jane Curtin (last seen in "Love, Gilda"), Ben Falcone (last seen in "The Boss"), Anna Deavere Smith (last seen in "The Human Stain"), Stephen Spinella (last seen in "Cradle Will Rock"), Gregory Korostishevsky (last seen in "2 Days in New York"), Christian Navarro, Erik LaRay Harvey (last seen in "Rounders"), Brandon Scott Jones (last seen in "Don't Think Twice"), Shae D'Lyn (last seen in "Café Society"), Marc Evan Jackson (last seen in "Jumaji: Welcome to the Jungle"), Kevin Carolan, Michael Cyril Creighton (last seen in "Game Night"), Joanna P. Adler, Mary McCann (last seen in "Little Children"), Tim Cummings, Rosal Colon, Ethel Fisher, Michael Laurence, Justin Vivian Bond and archive footage of Bette Davis.
RATING: 4 out of 10 fax machines (kids, ask your parents...)
BEFORE: I know November just started three movies ago, but I've reached the end of my November chain. Weird, huh? But I've been very diligent this year, more so than most years, and I find myself running out of movie slots before running out of year. I capped my years at 300 many moons ago, when I realized that 365 movies per year was too much - I need some time for work matters, vacations, comic-cons, chores around the house, and just general mental health. Interacting with people IRL may be overrated in general, but it's necessary to maintaining some semblance of a normal, non-fictional life. There has to be more to life than watching movies, and over the next month, I'm going to try and get some.
Still, I'll pat myself on the back for maintaining quite a pace this year - 295 movies in 311 days is pretty damn good, and half of those 16 days off were spent in Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago. It felt weird to take a week off, and now I'm staring at over a month off. I feel like my blog is a seasonal resort in the Catskills or something, once the leaves all drop off the trees and the frost comes, nobody wants to drive up there for the weekend, so the place just sort of shuts down, at least until hunting season and maybe a big Christmas party.
Quickly, here are the stats on November's formats:
2 Movies watched on Cable (not saved): The Portrait of a Lady, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
1 Watched on Netflix: Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile
3 Total in October
Richard E. Grant carries over from "The Portrait of a Lady", and he's also the link to my next film, which is "Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker". As a fan I've tried very hard to not learn too much about this film, I've looked at each trailer, but only once, because I just wanted to get an impression, not learn any plot details - but just knowing the cast list, which was necessary to plan the linking, probably gives away too much. Obviously I had several ways to get here, I'd been stockpiling films with Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac, but once I knew that my path could lead here in another way, I was free to watch (nearly) all of those films.
(You might well ask, why not watch this film with the other Melissa McCarthy films? Why treat this as a Richard E. Grant film instead? Looking back, I certainly COULD have included this one with the other McCarthy films - or perhaps it hadn't started airing on premium cable yet, now I'm not sure. I think it had more to do with the count, though, and getting to start horror movies square on October 1. Sure, this film could have gone THERE instead of HERE, but then my counts would have been off - it would have meant an extra film in September, and so it got moved here into November, where there was much more room. Capice?)
But damn, December 20 seems like a long ways off, and no movies until then? That's going to be rough. You might think that watching 295 films in 311 days is the tougher part, nah, that's quite easy. For me, 42 days WITHOUT watching a new movie is incredibly difficult. And trying not to let my list get any longer during the break, that's even harder. We'll see how THAT goes. I've got my ticket for opening day of "Star Wars" (a tradition for me on all "Star Wars" films going back to "The Empire Strikes Back") and from there, it will be just four more films to close out 2019. After tonight, it's back to work compiling that list of actors' multiple appearances for the year, so I'll have it for my annual round-up.
THE PLOT: When Lee Israel falls out of step with current tastes, she turns her art form to deception.
AFTER: Eh, I'm not sure about this one, I can't really say I felt sympathetic to the main character in the way that the film clearly WANTED me to. I give props to Melissa McCarthy to trying to stretch herself and do something outside of the inoffensive slapstick comedy of films like "The Boss" and "Life of the Party", and I think she's come a long way from films like "The Heat" and "Identity Thief", but something's just not quite right here. Maybe it's the character, Lee Israel, somebody who apparently was well-known for writing celebrity biographies, but ended up passing off fake autographed letters when she couldn't cut it as an author any more.
Here's the thing, it's possible to get too comfortable as yourself, to get set in your ways and essentially stuck in your career, not moving forward but just basically treading water. Look, just trust me on this, OK? When that happens to you, you've got two choices - either keep treading water for as long as you can, because at least you're not drowning, or get out of the pool, find another job, find another reason for getting up in the morning. OK, if you want to play armchair analyst then maybe I'm seeing a bit of myself in the character, because I've been at one of my jobs for over 25 years - but at some point I'd like to think I got sort of GOOD at it, and in the end, who's to say how long anybody should stay at a job? I'm still getting PAID, right? Not much, like I'll never get rich, but I'm still meeting my monthly expenses most of the time, and I get to take an exhausting vacation every now and again. And I've achieved a certain level of respect, or at least recognition, for hanging in for so long - plus whenever I do travel or socialize with others, chances are there will be someone there who knows my boss's name, and I can humblebrag just a bit. So it's not a fantastic life, but it's the one I've built for myself.
But if something changed, like the whole animation industry fell out of favor or became unprofitable, or my boss died or I suddenly forgot how to do payroll or book airline tickets, then I'd HAVE to move on, right? I can't really say where I'd go or what line of work I'd fall back on, but there's got to be something, right? I can type very fast, maybe I could caption the news in real time for the hearing-impaired. Or I could go work at Marvel Comics or the Daily News and fix spelling and grammar mistakes all day long. I've got tenuous connections at Disney or a couple networks where friends or ex-co-workers are now, maybe I could check around and see what's available. I don't necessarily feel like I've worn out my welcome at my current jobs, though, so I'm likely to hang tough for as long as I can. But still, I don't quite understand why Lee Israel stayed for so long in an industry that didn't seem to want her in it.
You lose a job, get a new job. You lose a pet, get a new pet. Yeah, the cat thing in this film hit a little too close to home, since our oldest cat took a turn while we were on vacation, he spent the last half of that week at the vet's. He's back home now, and functioning, but we just don't know for how long. We had plans to take in the stray cat from our front porch before the weather got cold, so we went ahead and did that, because we figured by now we'd be replacing the older cat - so now we have three, because he's still hanging on. Yes, it will be sad when he goes, but as a friend reminded me, he was a former stray, so we vastly improved his life by housing and feeding him for 15 years - chances are on the streets he wouldn't have lasted so long. That's how you have to look at these life changes, focus on the positive, and not get all bogged down in entropy and depression and the endings of things - otherwise they'll drag your spirit down with them.
But even if life sends a couple of shitburgers to eat, that's still no justification for forging letters from famous people like Dorothy Parker and Noel Coward. I don't care if you can write in their voice or not, typing out a couple of witty letters, forging a signature and then selling the result for top dollar is just NOT O.K., O.K.? I also have some experience with autograph collecting, my focus of course is actors from the "Star Wars" franchise, and by going out to so many San Diego cons, I've amassed a nice little collection, about 114 and counting. Many times I've met the actors in person, like Kenny Baker, Carrie Fisher, Peter Mayhew and Mark Hamill, even Jake Lloyd, Daniel Logan, Ray Park and Richard LeParmentier (yep, look him up...) In the later years I fell back on trusted autograph web-sites so I could build the collection faster - and simply EVERYBODY knows that an autograph is just no good without a COA, certificate of authenticity. Lately they've added holograms and digital tracking, but for years, it was all about the COA, I wouldn't dream of spending money on a signed 8x10 unless I knew I was getting one. (I even bugged Carrie Fisher for the COA, even after she signed her photo and then posed for a pic with me, cheek to cheek.)
Of course, as this movie points out, the COA's can be forged too - they're only as reliable as the company that makes them, so in the end, it all comes down to trust. How well do you trust this company on-line that's selling James Earl Jones' signed photo, or LeBron James' signed basketball, or Alex Rodriguez' autographed baseball card? Every few years there's an exposé on how corrupt the collectibles market is, and how 80% or so of everything on the market is not legit. So I know with the large autograph collection I have, there's a chance that there's little resale value there, but I don't care that much, having the collection brings me a measure of joy, and I'm not really in a position to haggle over what's real and what isn't. So I guess I take it very personally that someone was out there in the 1980's passing off phony letters from famous authors for years, and nobody called her out on it, not for a long time, anyway.
Why couldn't she put that level of creativity, the kind it takes to crack a joke in Noel Coward's or Dorothy Parker's voice, into some sort of work of her own? Why couldn't she BE the next Dorothy Parker, if she could at least pretend to write like her? There's doing and there's faking, and this person spent so much time getting good at faking that it seems she forgot about the doing. Oh, wait, later she wrote a book about her years working as a professional forger, and that book is what this film is based on. But, that's CHEATING, creating a story about the bad stuff you did when you couldn't create a story - it seems worse than making a movie about a writer with writer's block and what they do when they can't write. Plus, isn't there some law that says that people can't profit from their crimes? So how could she write a book about her forgeries and get a check for that?
But, essentially, this is also a film about how we humans form relationships with friends, co-workers, and/or romantic partners, and then often a few months or years later, we often act in ways that are counter-productive and then put barriers up between each other, or act in ways that drive the others away. It's a form of self-sabotage, and we're all capable of it if we're not cognizant of it. Neither Lee or her partner-in-crime Jack have many (or any) friends, and Lee makes reference to a female romantic partner in her past, while Jack seems to prefer the free-wheeling lifestyle of the gay scene - so free-wheeling that it's a bit unclear if he even has an apartment of his own at all.
But with two lead characters who happen to be gay, and are either incapable of or unwilling to be in long-term relationships, what message does that send out? It's almost like the film is suggesting that gay people aren't cut out to be in long-term relationships, and as a point of order, that was something of a stereotype back THEN, which of course has been proven wrong, many many times over, as of NOW. So I guess back in the late 80's or early 90's it was a prevailing myth, but that didn't make it true, and after reverting to that old tired trope, I'm surprised that there wasn't some kind of backlash from the gay community over the way relationships are portrayed here. This story is essentially a tragedy, partly because all relationships within are portrayed as doomed to fail.
But it's also a tragedy because it shows that in life people make mistakes, or have a run of bad luck, or miss opportunities to improve their situations, and then find themselves chasing a couple of broken dreams, wondering when it was exactly that they missed the move that they should have made. But even if all that is the case, committing crimes to get ahead should still never be the solution to one's problems, and any film that even half-glorifies commiting fraud as an option is questionable at best. As seen here, that can tend to make a bad situation even worse, leaving someone with the only goal in life left to get through it, even though we know deep down that nobody ever gets out alive.
And on that cheery note, I'm on break for the next month. Please meet me back here after December 20 for whatever my take on "Star Wars: Episode IX" turns out to be.
Also starring Melissa McCarthy (last seen in "Central Intelligence"), Dolly Wells (last seen in "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), Jane Curtin (last seen in "Love, Gilda"), Ben Falcone (last seen in "The Boss"), Anna Deavere Smith (last seen in "The Human Stain"), Stephen Spinella (last seen in "Cradle Will Rock"), Gregory Korostishevsky (last seen in "2 Days in New York"), Christian Navarro, Erik LaRay Harvey (last seen in "Rounders"), Brandon Scott Jones (last seen in "Don't Think Twice"), Shae D'Lyn (last seen in "Café Society"), Marc Evan Jackson (last seen in "Jumaji: Welcome to the Jungle"), Kevin Carolan, Michael Cyril Creighton (last seen in "Game Night"), Joanna P. Adler, Mary McCann (last seen in "Little Children"), Tim Cummings, Rosal Colon, Ethel Fisher, Michael Laurence, Justin Vivian Bond and archive footage of Bette Davis.
RATING: 4 out of 10 fax machines (kids, ask your parents...)
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
The Portrait of a Lady
Year 11, Day 309 - 11/5/19 - Movie #3,394
BEFORE: A big loss today, I accidentally overwrote a saved file on my Blogger account, which is very easy to do. Sometimes if you click on a post to open it, but accidentally drag it a little, it's too easy to overwrite one draft with another - and the problem is that the file that I overwrote, essentially deleting it, was the long record of cameos and multiple appearances for the entire year. It was a rough list, sure, but I relied on that almost every day for quick checks of what each actor's previous appearance was, and at the end of the year, I was going to turn that file into the list of who's been in the most films this year, with at least three appearances and up.
I can't "un-erase" it, so I've got to build it all back up again, and that's a LOT of typing. A lot of searches with IMDB's advanced search page, and then I have to double-check each one, because the IMDB stupidly doesn't make a distinction between someone appearing in a film as an actor, and appearing in the credits of a film with a "thanks to" credit, or a credit for doing stunts or even writing a song. Here's where the IMDB and I don't see eye to eye, if an Elton John song is used in a film, that database counts that as an "appearance", and I don't. Meanwhile, if they use footage of Carl Weathers from a previous "Rocky" movie in "Creed II", I count that as an "appearance", and the IMDB doesn't. So now I have to back through my notes on EVERY film I watched in 2019 - 294 so far, and count every appearance of people in archive footage that I noted, even when the IMDB didn't list them, and cross-reference the hell out of each actor's filmography. It's an enormous amount of work, thankfully I've got some down time coming after this week so maybe I can pull a couple of late nights and knock the whole thing out, rebuild the list before the end of the year.
I suppose it's a blessing in disguise, I was going to have to double-check the list I had anyway for any errors or omissions, now I can just work my way from January to November, 10 or 20 films at a time, and just do one solid pass. I remember quite a bit of it, but still, it's going to be a few days worth of typing before I have anything like the file I just accidentally erased. I should probably keep a back-up of it in the future, because this has happened before, just not with such a large file. All my other lists are backed up on a flash drive and three computers, but there was only one copy of this file, and I should know better than that.
John Malkovich carries over again from "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile", and that's it for the Malkovich films for this year - I've got two more films with him, but I've got no room, so I'm saving them for next year, it looks like.
THE PLOT: An American girl inherits a fortune and falls into a misguided relationship with a gentleman confidence artist whose true nature, including a barbed and covetous disposition, turns her life into a nightmare.
AFTER: I watched this film before over-writing that file, so I know it's not my own clumsiness that put me in a bad mood. I can safely say I didn't like this film because I didn't like the film, not because of any outside influences. It's based on a classic novel by Henry James, and it really made me not want to read any novels by Henry James. God, the story was so boring, it's from the 1880's and I really don't give a rat's ass about the relationship politics of Victorian England, even though the story then spilled over to Florence and Rome, following the adventures of ex-pat Brits is almost as boring as following the adventures of homebound ones.
Now I almost understand why somebody tried to spice up "Pride and Prejudice" by adding zombies to it, I know that a zombie attack could maybe have done this storyline a world of good. Just the sight of a bunch of finely-dressed people at a ball, filling out each other's dance cards (God, was that ever a real thing?) and the men fretting over whether they had enough money to marry the right woman, or the women worrying over if they were attractive enough to marry the right man. Jeez, was that ALL that people thought about back then, just marrying well to improve their social status? Didn't they have anything better to do? Oh, right, they didn't have movies yet or the internet, so it was either attend dances and mingle or go out and shoot themselves, I guess. I doubt I would have lasted a week in British society in the 1880's.
The lead character, Isabel Archer, is an American, but her aunt is married to a rich Brit, so she's got a rich uncle, a sick cousin and the rich uncle has a rich neighbor, Lord Warburton. Warburton proposes to Isabel, but she turns him down for some reason, and also turns down the heir to a Boston mill fortune shortly after that. It seems like she might be holding out for her own cousin - this was back in the days when it was somewhat acceptable to marry a cousin, but it's not really mentioned if her cousin Ralph is a blood relative, or just perhaps the son of her uncle. I guess the latter scenario would be more OK, right? Like if you get it on with someone you share grandparents with, that's a little nasty, and you'd think that would be improper in high society, too - but hasn't royalty been getting away with that for centuries?
Anyway, Isabel's sick cousin, Ralph, convinces his dying father to leave Isabel a large inheritance, because he wants to see what she'll do with it. What she does is travel to Florence, where she meets another American, Gilbert Osmond, and marries him. Osmond has a daughter, Pansy, and Pansy has a boyfriend, Edward Rosier, who's another one of those men who's worrying that he's not rich enough to marry a good woman. Turns out he's right, because Mr. Osmond doesn't think Edward's wealthy enough, and he wants his daughter Pansy to marry someone more like Lord Warburton. What a coincidence, Warburton shows up, and shows interest in Pansy, only Mr. Osmond suspects that he's only pretending to be interested in Pansy in order to get closer to Isabel. This drives a wedge between Mr. Osmond and his wife, Isabel, but really, at this point, who cares? And Pansy gets sent to a convent because she would prefer to marry Edward, who loves her, instead of Warbucks - I mean, Warburton.
Isabel gets called away to visit her dying cousin (as one character points out, he's been dying for the last ten years at this point) and this puts her back in touch with that heir to the mill fortune when she returns to the U.K. She brushes him off and returns to Rome, but it's unclear whether Isabel goes back to Rome to save her marriage, or to rescue Pansy from the convent and end the marriage. This is not a fault of the film, James ended his novel ambiguously, apparently, and my guess is that he couldn't decide on an ending, or else he felt that either possible ending would alienate half of the audience, so he did the old narrative cop-out. (aka "Choose Your Own Ending"). What a dick move.
I don't know, I've sort of had it with the corseted dramas, even though I didn't watch that many of them this year, I did do a whole British-set chain, including "Mary Queen of Scots" and "W.E.", both of which dealt with royalty debating whom to marry, so I've sort of had my fill of this topic. Then I watched "Bright Star", which dealt with John Keats never having enough money (as a struggling poet) to marry the woman he loved, and just as he was getting close, he died from consumption. So this is all old hat to me, I've seen this all before and this story just didn't appeal to me. Why are some people so enamored of this period of human history? Sure, the fashions were elaborate, but all that upper-crust nonsense over who's good enough to marry whom, PLUS the complete inequality that was built into the whole infrastructure of that society. Even when Isabel was the one who inherited a fortune, and was therefore the provider for her family, she still didn't have the power in the relationship, which naturally belonged to her husband. Now, how is that fair? It's not, so instead of glorifying the patriarchy in films, we should be working on tearing it down, pointing out how unjust the Victorian age really was.
Ah, I just realized that this film has the same director, Jane Campion, as "Bright Star" - so naturally that could explain some of the similarities in subject matter and tone. But this film was made right after she directed "The Piano", which worked on the same theme of arranged marriage - only that film won three Oscars, and this one didn't. (Got two nominations, though - only one was for Best Costume Design.).
Anyway, I'm taking a pass on this one. Didn't get it, it didn't win me over. Now I'm off to start rebuilding that list so I'll know at the end of the year how many films each actor and actress appeared in. Nicole Kidman's making the list for sure, only there's just no way she can match some of the politicians who appeared in so many documentaries over the summer.
Also starring Nicole Kidman (last seen in "Dogville"), Barbara Hershey (last seen in "The Stunt Man"), Mary-Louise Parker (last seen in "Red Sparrow"), Martin Donovan (last seen in "Fahrenheit 451"), Shelley Winters (last seen in "Filmworker"), John Gielgud (last seen in "The Elephant Man"), Shelley Duvall (last seen in "Filmworker"), Richard E. Grant (last seen in "The Hitman's Bodyguard"), Viggo Mortensen (last seen in "Green Book"), Christian Bale (last heard in "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle"), Valentina Cervi (last seen in "Jane Eyre"), Roger Ashton-Griffiths (last seen in "Bright Star'), Catherine Zago.
RATING: 3 out of 10 Channel crossings
BEFORE: A big loss today, I accidentally overwrote a saved file on my Blogger account, which is very easy to do. Sometimes if you click on a post to open it, but accidentally drag it a little, it's too easy to overwrite one draft with another - and the problem is that the file that I overwrote, essentially deleting it, was the long record of cameos and multiple appearances for the entire year. It was a rough list, sure, but I relied on that almost every day for quick checks of what each actor's previous appearance was, and at the end of the year, I was going to turn that file into the list of who's been in the most films this year, with at least three appearances and up.
I can't "un-erase" it, so I've got to build it all back up again, and that's a LOT of typing. A lot of searches with IMDB's advanced search page, and then I have to double-check each one, because the IMDB stupidly doesn't make a distinction between someone appearing in a film as an actor, and appearing in the credits of a film with a "thanks to" credit, or a credit for doing stunts or even writing a song. Here's where the IMDB and I don't see eye to eye, if an Elton John song is used in a film, that database counts that as an "appearance", and I don't. Meanwhile, if they use footage of Carl Weathers from a previous "Rocky" movie in "Creed II", I count that as an "appearance", and the IMDB doesn't. So now I have to back through my notes on EVERY film I watched in 2019 - 294 so far, and count every appearance of people in archive footage that I noted, even when the IMDB didn't list them, and cross-reference the hell out of each actor's filmography. It's an enormous amount of work, thankfully I've got some down time coming after this week so maybe I can pull a couple of late nights and knock the whole thing out, rebuild the list before the end of the year.
I suppose it's a blessing in disguise, I was going to have to double-check the list I had anyway for any errors or omissions, now I can just work my way from January to November, 10 or 20 films at a time, and just do one solid pass. I remember quite a bit of it, but still, it's going to be a few days worth of typing before I have anything like the file I just accidentally erased. I should probably keep a back-up of it in the future, because this has happened before, just not with such a large file. All my other lists are backed up on a flash drive and three computers, but there was only one copy of this file, and I should know better than that.
John Malkovich carries over again from "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile", and that's it for the Malkovich films for this year - I've got two more films with him, but I've got no room, so I'm saving them for next year, it looks like.
THE PLOT: An American girl inherits a fortune and falls into a misguided relationship with a gentleman confidence artist whose true nature, including a barbed and covetous disposition, turns her life into a nightmare.
AFTER: I watched this film before over-writing that file, so I know it's not my own clumsiness that put me in a bad mood. I can safely say I didn't like this film because I didn't like the film, not because of any outside influences. It's based on a classic novel by Henry James, and it really made me not want to read any novels by Henry James. God, the story was so boring, it's from the 1880's and I really don't give a rat's ass about the relationship politics of Victorian England, even though the story then spilled over to Florence and Rome, following the adventures of ex-pat Brits is almost as boring as following the adventures of homebound ones.
Now I almost understand why somebody tried to spice up "Pride and Prejudice" by adding zombies to it, I know that a zombie attack could maybe have done this storyline a world of good. Just the sight of a bunch of finely-dressed people at a ball, filling out each other's dance cards (God, was that ever a real thing?) and the men fretting over whether they had enough money to marry the right woman, or the women worrying over if they were attractive enough to marry the right man. Jeez, was that ALL that people thought about back then, just marrying well to improve their social status? Didn't they have anything better to do? Oh, right, they didn't have movies yet or the internet, so it was either attend dances and mingle or go out and shoot themselves, I guess. I doubt I would have lasted a week in British society in the 1880's.
The lead character, Isabel Archer, is an American, but her aunt is married to a rich Brit, so she's got a rich uncle, a sick cousin and the rich uncle has a rich neighbor, Lord Warburton. Warburton proposes to Isabel, but she turns him down for some reason, and also turns down the heir to a Boston mill fortune shortly after that. It seems like she might be holding out for her own cousin - this was back in the days when it was somewhat acceptable to marry a cousin, but it's not really mentioned if her cousin Ralph is a blood relative, or just perhaps the son of her uncle. I guess the latter scenario would be more OK, right? Like if you get it on with someone you share grandparents with, that's a little nasty, and you'd think that would be improper in high society, too - but hasn't royalty been getting away with that for centuries?
Anyway, Isabel's sick cousin, Ralph, convinces his dying father to leave Isabel a large inheritance, because he wants to see what she'll do with it. What she does is travel to Florence, where she meets another American, Gilbert Osmond, and marries him. Osmond has a daughter, Pansy, and Pansy has a boyfriend, Edward Rosier, who's another one of those men who's worrying that he's not rich enough to marry a good woman. Turns out he's right, because Mr. Osmond doesn't think Edward's wealthy enough, and he wants his daughter Pansy to marry someone more like Lord Warburton. What a coincidence, Warburton shows up, and shows interest in Pansy, only Mr. Osmond suspects that he's only pretending to be interested in Pansy in order to get closer to Isabel. This drives a wedge between Mr. Osmond and his wife, Isabel, but really, at this point, who cares? And Pansy gets sent to a convent because she would prefer to marry Edward, who loves her, instead of Warbucks - I mean, Warburton.
Isabel gets called away to visit her dying cousin (as one character points out, he's been dying for the last ten years at this point) and this puts her back in touch with that heir to the mill fortune when she returns to the U.K. She brushes him off and returns to Rome, but it's unclear whether Isabel goes back to Rome to save her marriage, or to rescue Pansy from the convent and end the marriage. This is not a fault of the film, James ended his novel ambiguously, apparently, and my guess is that he couldn't decide on an ending, or else he felt that either possible ending would alienate half of the audience, so he did the old narrative cop-out. (aka "Choose Your Own Ending"). What a dick move.
I don't know, I've sort of had it with the corseted dramas, even though I didn't watch that many of them this year, I did do a whole British-set chain, including "Mary Queen of Scots" and "W.E.", both of which dealt with royalty debating whom to marry, so I've sort of had my fill of this topic. Then I watched "Bright Star", which dealt with John Keats never having enough money (as a struggling poet) to marry the woman he loved, and just as he was getting close, he died from consumption. So this is all old hat to me, I've seen this all before and this story just didn't appeal to me. Why are some people so enamored of this period of human history? Sure, the fashions were elaborate, but all that upper-crust nonsense over who's good enough to marry whom, PLUS the complete inequality that was built into the whole infrastructure of that society. Even when Isabel was the one who inherited a fortune, and was therefore the provider for her family, she still didn't have the power in the relationship, which naturally belonged to her husband. Now, how is that fair? It's not, so instead of glorifying the patriarchy in films, we should be working on tearing it down, pointing out how unjust the Victorian age really was.
Ah, I just realized that this film has the same director, Jane Campion, as "Bright Star" - so naturally that could explain some of the similarities in subject matter and tone. But this film was made right after she directed "The Piano", which worked on the same theme of arranged marriage - only that film won three Oscars, and this one didn't. (Got two nominations, though - only one was for Best Costume Design.).
Anyway, I'm taking a pass on this one. Didn't get it, it didn't win me over. Now I'm off to start rebuilding that list so I'll know at the end of the year how many films each actor and actress appeared in. Nicole Kidman's making the list for sure, only there's just no way she can match some of the politicians who appeared in so many documentaries over the summer.
Also starring Nicole Kidman (last seen in "Dogville"), Barbara Hershey (last seen in "The Stunt Man"), Mary-Louise Parker (last seen in "Red Sparrow"), Martin Donovan (last seen in "Fahrenheit 451"), Shelley Winters (last seen in "Filmworker"), John Gielgud (last seen in "The Elephant Man"), Shelley Duvall (last seen in "Filmworker"), Richard E. Grant (last seen in "The Hitman's Bodyguard"), Viggo Mortensen (last seen in "Green Book"), Christian Bale (last heard in "Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle"), Valentina Cervi (last seen in "Jane Eyre"), Roger Ashton-Griffiths (last seen in "Bright Star'), Catherine Zago.
RATING: 3 out of 10 Channel crossings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







