Whisky Tango Foxtrot (2016)
Now I am a big fan of Tina Fey but chiefly for 30 Rock and her SNL work, when I see a preview for a new movie she's in I seldom have much desire to go see it. Whisky Tango Foxtrot is an exception to that rule however, when I first saw the preview I knew that I defiantly wanted to see it, not so much that I would pay full price to see it after it just came out, but as a dollar movie definitely. So the other week I went and saw the thing and rather enjoyed it. The movies a dramedy which appealed to me because I have long been interested in seeing Ms. Fey do some more serious work, and this really is the perfect vehicle for her to begin lightly moving in that direction.
Based on the memoir The Taliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan and Pakistan by journalist Kim Baker, the story has been somewhat fictionalized, for example the real Ms. Baker is a print journalist, while the Ms. Baker of the film works in television. I suspect this slight adjustment to the leads profession was made because television is a more visually interesting medium for a movie character to work in then print, as well as to play off of Ms. Fey's strong association with TV. In fact the whole movie plays to Tina's strengths and established tropes, her character in the film is a workaholic, unmarried career women in her 40's, not much different then Liz Lemon. Only here she is a deskbound journalist who takes her networks offer to be their on air correspondent in Afghanistan after most of the big name field talent is relocated to Iraq in 2003. In the movie Ms. Baker spends about 3 years reporting from Afghanistan and goes from fish out of water to established veteran. Ms. Fey gets to have some fun interplay off her costars which include the likes of Martin Freeman and Margot Robbie, as well as Alfred Molina and Billy Bob Thornton in fun character parts. There is of course some good comedy here, but Ms. Fey gets a few not overly taxing dramatic
moments as well. A solid movie which largely hits the right notes and I hope to see more films of this caliber in Tina Fey's future. ***
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)
Perhaps the most surprising thing about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is the fact that you can graft a zombie apocalypse onto the plot of Jane Austin's 1813 novel of manners amongst the landed gentry of Regency Britain, and it can still be surprisingly coherent. Based on the 2009 parody novel of the same name by Seth Grahme-Smith of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter fame, the story takes place in a alternate universe where a zombie plague was introduced to England in the 18th century having been inadvertently carried into the country via trade from the far reaches of the empire. By the early 19th century this plague has been largely contained though periodic outbreaks of the undead remain a problem requiring constant vigilance. It is a world in which the daughters of the privileged landed classes are expected to not only be prim, proper and cultured young women, but also skilled warriors capable with the sword. Into this scenario we plant the Bennet Family, the Reverend Collins, 'Colonel' Darcy and all the reset, complete with their various romantic prides and societal prejudices.
The movie is inherently an odd one, idiocentric fan fiction on the big screen. I was expecting really over the top, very broad farce, so excuse me if I have to say that P&P&Z was a more subtle movie then I'd anticipated. One thing I couldn't help but notice about this movie is just how good looking everyone in it is, in contrast no doubt to actual Regency England. In the source materiel I think on the whole the Bennet sisters are supposed to be kind of plan, here they are all gorgeous, even bookish Mary is played by a professional model. This cast somehow makes it work though, I especially liked Lily James as Elizabeth Bennet, now I have another reason to watch Downton Abby. One of the strangest films of the year, with a combination of zombies and Jane Austin it is on paper at least the ultimate date compromise movie. **1/2
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Titanic (1943)
Of the various cinematic versions of the Titanic story none is odder in its very existence then the version made in Nazi Germany during World War II. Not merely a pet project but rather an obsession of Nazi propaganda minister and self styled film buff Joseph Goebbels, the desire was to make a high end epic film that would rival anything to come out of Hollywood and to use it as a propaganda metaphor for the doomed course of the greedy American and British societies. Filmed during 1942 and 1943 at a time when even the German population was living largely on rations, the film cost an astonishing 4 million reichmarks, or the modern equivalent of roughly $180,000,000 making it the most expensive German produced film ever made up until that time. No expense was spared, the sets were ornate, some specials effects shots so good that they were reused in the British Titanic film A Night to Remember made a decade and a half later, Goebbels even forced the German navy to turn a ship over to him for production. Cost and production over runs were so extensive that Goebbels had its director Herbert Selpin executed. By the time the film was ready to be distributed the course of the war had turned and the film was barred from distribution in Germany proper, on account that the scenes of human suffering it depicts would have been demoralizing to a home front audience that had lost so many in war. The movie was distributed in the occupied territories however, where deprived of American and British film product it evidently did decent business.
But how is it as a movie you might ask? Well not very good. One problem is its hard to find anybody to route for as the plot consists chiefly of American and British rich dudes on the boat attempting to manipulate the stock price of The White Star line by telegraph in an effort to wrest or maintain finical control of the Titanic. When they are not engaged in insider trading these characters occupy their time chiefly by being unfaithful to their lovers and not seeing the danger they have put the ship in by attempting to break a speed record through iceberg territory. In fact the only character who really seems to get the trouble the ship could be in is of course the lone German officer on the crew, who is a completely fictional character. Even the handful of likable characters, chiefly crew people and ill fated denizens of the steerage class, one can't help but be suspicious of because in the back of your mind you know that the people who played these characters were on good enough terms with the Nazi party to appear in their prestige production. The film looks nice but rings hollow and is chiefly of interest for being the historical oddity it is. But if you'd like to see the film you can here on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsFamcBHdwA**
But how is it as a movie you might ask? Well not very good. One problem is its hard to find anybody to route for as the plot consists chiefly of American and British rich dudes on the boat attempting to manipulate the stock price of The White Star line by telegraph in an effort to wrest or maintain finical control of the Titanic. When they are not engaged in insider trading these characters occupy their time chiefly by being unfaithful to their lovers and not seeing the danger they have put the ship in by attempting to break a speed record through iceberg territory. In fact the only character who really seems to get the trouble the ship could be in is of course the lone German officer on the crew, who is a completely fictional character. Even the handful of likable characters, chiefly crew people and ill fated denizens of the steerage class, one can't help but be suspicious of because in the back of your mind you know that the people who played these characters were on good enough terms with the Nazi party to appear in their prestige production. The film looks nice but rings hollow and is chiefly of interest for being the historical oddity it is. But if you'd like to see the film you can here on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsFamcBHdwA**
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)
I started a review for this film back in December after I first saw it, but with Star Wars Episode VII being by far the most anticipated movie of the year and carrying an immense amount of baggage and expectation, what I had hoped would be a quick little review quickly became unwieldy. Now about four months on and having seen the movie three times all together I think I can briefly summarize my thoughts on the film, The Force Awakens is a good, but not a great movie. There will be spoilers if you somehow have not seen this.
The Force Awakens is the start of a third Star Wars trilogy and its relationship to the previous two is important to understand, and not just in an 'in universe chronology sense', with this movie picking up about 30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi, but in the way the different popular receptions of the first two trilogies effects this movie as a finished product. The original 1977-1983 Star Wars trilogy is widely beloved in an almost religious way, while the prequel 1999-2005 trilogy not so much. The Force Awakens is the sequel to Jedi that fans have waited more then 30 years to see, and with the prequels being widely viewed as botched or unworthy the makers of this film wanted to do everything in their power to ensure that this film would strongly evoke the original films and downplay association with the bad memories of Lucas's second batch of space opera. To do this the filmmakers not only blew up Coruscant with little feeling, in the ultimate f-you to Lucas's prequels which spent so much (too much) time on the capital of the Republic, but by assiduously avoiding risks.
Episode VII is essentially a remake of Episode IV, the original Star Wars film. It follows the first movie in plot, story beat, visuals, location, costume, mythology, character type, editing etc. so closely as to be a case of authorized plagiarism. That being said its still an enjoyable flick, its just different enough from the source material to work independently, but close enough to it to be comforting. I liked the new characters and enjoyed seeing the old ones, the action sequences and visual effects were most everything one could hope for, and there were enough little mysteries and cases of foreshadowing sprinkled throughout to give one hope that the coming films in this trilogy may be willing to take more risks then this movie did. So while I was with this movie most of the way it sure would have been nice if the dues ex machine was something other then another Death Star, and if the climatic scenes of the film weren't so very, very derivative. While this movie did not make me miss Lucas's prequels per say, it did make me appreciate the fact that Lucas wasn't content to just repeat himself, that he really did want to expand the scope and parameter of the universe he created, even if much of his efforts to do so fell short of being compelling.
Episode VII accomplished what both the suites at Disney and the fans evidently wanted, which was a new Star Wars movie as much like an old Star Wars movie as possible. The franchise has been reawakened, and lets hope now that its up going forward it can manage to evoke original trilogy Star Wars without repeating it. ***
The Force Awakens is the start of a third Star Wars trilogy and its relationship to the previous two is important to understand, and not just in an 'in universe chronology sense', with this movie picking up about 30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi, but in the way the different popular receptions of the first two trilogies effects this movie as a finished product. The original 1977-1983 Star Wars trilogy is widely beloved in an almost religious way, while the prequel 1999-2005 trilogy not so much. The Force Awakens is the sequel to Jedi that fans have waited more then 30 years to see, and with the prequels being widely viewed as botched or unworthy the makers of this film wanted to do everything in their power to ensure that this film would strongly evoke the original films and downplay association with the bad memories of Lucas's second batch of space opera. To do this the filmmakers not only blew up Coruscant with little feeling, in the ultimate f-you to Lucas's prequels which spent so much (too much) time on the capital of the Republic, but by assiduously avoiding risks.
Episode VII is essentially a remake of Episode IV, the original Star Wars film. It follows the first movie in plot, story beat, visuals, location, costume, mythology, character type, editing etc. so closely as to be a case of authorized plagiarism. That being said its still an enjoyable flick, its just different enough from the source material to work independently, but close enough to it to be comforting. I liked the new characters and enjoyed seeing the old ones, the action sequences and visual effects were most everything one could hope for, and there were enough little mysteries and cases of foreshadowing sprinkled throughout to give one hope that the coming films in this trilogy may be willing to take more risks then this movie did. So while I was with this movie most of the way it sure would have been nice if the dues ex machine was something other then another Death Star, and if the climatic scenes of the film weren't so very, very derivative. While this movie did not make me miss Lucas's prequels per say, it did make me appreciate the fact that Lucas wasn't content to just repeat himself, that he really did want to expand the scope and parameter of the universe he created, even if much of his efforts to do so fell short of being compelling.
Episode VII accomplished what both the suites at Disney and the fans evidently wanted, which was a new Star Wars movie as much like an old Star Wars movie as possible. The franchise has been reawakened, and lets hope now that its up going forward it can manage to evoke original trilogy Star Wars without repeating it. ***
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Allegiant (2016), Night Moves (1975), Our Brand is Crisis (2015), Us and Them: Religious Rivalry in America (2013)
Allegiant (2016)
Most recent movie in the Divergent series picks up right where the last one left off, and I really mean right where the last one left off, the first scene in this film is set about 2 days after the climax of the previous film, all these movies really seem to run together with very little recapping. Well here we finally get to see what is on the other side of the cities wall and well, I was a little underwhelmed. I was underwhelmed with the whole movie really, I mean its fine but surprisingly pedestrian, especially after the last film broke my expectations creatively. I thought this was supposed to be the last of a trilogy but the ending strongly implies more to come, though I thought the next book in the series was supposed to be something of a sidequile, well I could be wrong. Weakest Divergent movie so far. **
Update: Okay so it seems that they split the last book into two movies, as studios tend to do with YA fair.
Night Moves (1975)
Gene Hackman plays Harry Moseby, a retired pro football player turned private detective who tracks the run away daughter of a fading B level actress of Hollywood's golden age from California to Florida, where he stumbles upon some pretty serious nefarious dealings, only he doesn't' realize it at first. Directed by Arthur Penn the film feels a very intentional effort to make a contemporary picture in the style of one of Raymond Chandler's stories and its succeeds, though more as a work of fine imitative craftsmanship then of independent art. An 18 year old Melanie Griffith plays the runaway girl, and look for a young James Woods in a small role. Hackman's great as always. ***
Our Brand is Crisis (2015)
The screenplay was originally intended for George Clooney but was lightly rewritten for its eventual star Sandra Bullock, that and the fact its story is loosely based on real events are perhaps the only things interesting about this movie. American political consultants involved in a foreign presidential election campaign, in this case Bolivia's in 2002, is doubtless more interesting in documentary of the same name from which this film was adapted. Like too many political films Our Brand is Crisis thinks it has something important or interesting to say but it really doesn't. Always helps some to have Billy Bob Thornton in your film thought, even when he's not given that much to do. **
Us and Them: Religious Rivalry in America (2013)
Bryan Hall is a life long Mormon from Utah who was taken aback, as many Mormons were, by the extent of religiously motivated opposition to Mitt Romney in his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. This opposition, though existing to an extent on the left, was most concentrated amongst evangelicals on the right. Hall uses this as more or less his starting point for what becomes more broadly a discussion of a conceptual fight, long running, over the identity of the United States vis a vie its status as 'A Christian Nation' and what that means for those who fall outside of the 'main stream' definition there of. The movie discusses JFK's efforts to overcome the discomfort many Protestants had with his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign, the vocal protesting over a Hindu cleric who was invited to offer the opening prayer of a U.S. Senate session some years ago, problems many Evangelicals had with the idea of a Mormon President in the previous two presidential election cycles. Hall does a pretty good job with his film, especially given his apparent amateur status as a filmmaker and comes down predictably on the side of tolerance. The film ends with his extoling Americans toward religious civility, which he demonstrates by his making what appears to be a legitimate friendship with one of those Evangelical protesters who like to show up at the LDS General conference. I had a few minor issues with the way some things were handled in this film but on the whole liked this good spirited film. **1/2
Most recent movie in the Divergent series picks up right where the last one left off, and I really mean right where the last one left off, the first scene in this film is set about 2 days after the climax of the previous film, all these movies really seem to run together with very little recapping. Well here we finally get to see what is on the other side of the cities wall and well, I was a little underwhelmed. I was underwhelmed with the whole movie really, I mean its fine but surprisingly pedestrian, especially after the last film broke my expectations creatively. I thought this was supposed to be the last of a trilogy but the ending strongly implies more to come, though I thought the next book in the series was supposed to be something of a sidequile, well I could be wrong. Weakest Divergent movie so far. **
Update: Okay so it seems that they split the last book into two movies, as studios tend to do with YA fair.
Night Moves (1975)
Gene Hackman plays Harry Moseby, a retired pro football player turned private detective who tracks the run away daughter of a fading B level actress of Hollywood's golden age from California to Florida, where he stumbles upon some pretty serious nefarious dealings, only he doesn't' realize it at first. Directed by Arthur Penn the film feels a very intentional effort to make a contemporary picture in the style of one of Raymond Chandler's stories and its succeeds, though more as a work of fine imitative craftsmanship then of independent art. An 18 year old Melanie Griffith plays the runaway girl, and look for a young James Woods in a small role. Hackman's great as always. ***
Our Brand is Crisis (2015)
The screenplay was originally intended for George Clooney but was lightly rewritten for its eventual star Sandra Bullock, that and the fact its story is loosely based on real events are perhaps the only things interesting about this movie. American political consultants involved in a foreign presidential election campaign, in this case Bolivia's in 2002, is doubtless more interesting in documentary of the same name from which this film was adapted. Like too many political films Our Brand is Crisis thinks it has something important or interesting to say but it really doesn't. Always helps some to have Billy Bob Thornton in your film thought, even when he's not given that much to do. **
Us and Them: Religious Rivalry in America (2013)
Bryan Hall is a life long Mormon from Utah who was taken aback, as many Mormons were, by the extent of religiously motivated opposition to Mitt Romney in his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. This opposition, though existing to an extent on the left, was most concentrated amongst evangelicals on the right. Hall uses this as more or less his starting point for what becomes more broadly a discussion of a conceptual fight, long running, over the identity of the United States vis a vie its status as 'A Christian Nation' and what that means for those who fall outside of the 'main stream' definition there of. The movie discusses JFK's efforts to overcome the discomfort many Protestants had with his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign, the vocal protesting over a Hindu cleric who was invited to offer the opening prayer of a U.S. Senate session some years ago, problems many Evangelicals had with the idea of a Mormon President in the previous two presidential election cycles. Hall does a pretty good job with his film, especially given his apparent amateur status as a filmmaker and comes down predictably on the side of tolerance. The film ends with his extoling Americans toward religious civility, which he demonstrates by his making what appears to be a legitimate friendship with one of those Evangelical protesters who like to show up at the LDS General conference. I had a few minor issues with the way some things were handled in this film but on the whole liked this good spirited film. **1/2
Friday, April 15, 2016
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
DC and Warner Brothers seemingly desperate efforts to build an analog to Disney's mega successful Marvel Cinematic Universe to me seemed kind of sad, on top of that early reviews for Batman v Superman (whose subtitle Dawn of Justice nobody uses) were on the whole negative, so I was a bit surprised how much I enjoyed this film. I must confess I like director Zack Snyder's superhero movies, I liked Man of Steel (though with some hesitation) and really liked Watchman. Snyder has an ability to create immersive worlds so he's a very logical choice for what Time Warner is trying to accomplish here. Batman v Superman felt like part of a larger world, and in fact teased for no less then a half dozen additional movies. It is a movie that went in some directions I didn't expect it to and much of what bears talking about in this film would constitute massive spoilers so I will forgo those.
The movie and its story grows rather organically out of the previous film Man of Steel and contains a lot of little nods, and extra details that really added to my enjoyment of the film. We get some revealing back story for Lex Luther's childhood, an interesting and seemingly new geographical relationship between Metropolis and Gotham, and an Alfred (Jeremy Irons) who is refreshingly a little tired of Bruce Wayne's crap. I thought Ben Affleck was perfectly acceptable for what this movie demanded of its Batman, though I don't know if he could anchor a successful Batman film on his own. I also liked Holly Hunters Senator character, Jesse Eisenberg's ADD Luther, and could never quite place Wonder Woman Gal Gadot's accent (oh she's Israeli). Purists take issue with a number of things in this film but I'm not a purest I liked it and am legitimately curious about what's coming next in the DCU. ***1/2
The movie and its story grows rather organically out of the previous film Man of Steel and contains a lot of little nods, and extra details that really added to my enjoyment of the film. We get some revealing back story for Lex Luther's childhood, an interesting and seemingly new geographical relationship between Metropolis and Gotham, and an Alfred (Jeremy Irons) who is refreshingly a little tired of Bruce Wayne's crap. I thought Ben Affleck was perfectly acceptable for what this movie demanded of its Batman, though I don't know if he could anchor a successful Batman film on his own. I also liked Holly Hunters Senator character, Jesse Eisenberg's ADD Luther, and could never quite place Wonder Woman Gal Gadot's accent (oh she's Israeli). Purists take issue with a number of things in this film but I'm not a purest I liked it and am legitimately curious about what's coming next in the DCU. ***1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)