We've decided that it's impossible for Generation Xers to dispassionately review the new Star Wars movie. There's too much emotional baggage. Star Wars is an essential strand in our shared pop culture fabric. Just as the first three movies electrified our imaginations and the three prequels delivered a devastating let-down bordering on betrayal, this new movie is more than a movie. It connects to all of us on some weird primal level.
Critics have been mostly positive in reviewing Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Many Generation Xers, however, have been less generous, crossing their arms, looking for fault in every frame, shaking their head in disappointment. You can find entire articles on the internet full of snarky nitpicking that examines the movie with the kind of ruthless scrutiny no film could withstand. We're not entirely sure of the motivation here because it's not just honest film criticism - some of these people have taken the movie's shortcomings personally somehow. It's like that guy in the back of the class who makes fun of successful, popular bands to make himself look cooler and hipper by contrast.
Let the record show that we hated the prequels. We know a bad Star Wars movie when we see one. The prequels were pointless and George Lucas' obsession with new technology (and lack of interest and/or ability in directing actors) gave the movies a sterile, flat quality. We understand the fan outrage.
But The Force Awakens is not a bad movie. It has flaws, yes. But it's passionate and tactile and fun and surprising in ways a Star Wars movie hasn't been since 1983. It may not be a great movie. But it's certainly a good one. And one that's very well made.
We liked it the first time we saw it, but had reservations. To paraphrase a colleague, we spent most of the first hour of The Force Awakens on edge, waiting for it be terrible. Not the best way to see a movie.
So we decided to go see it again.
Upon further review, we hereby stipulate that The Force Awakens has three genuine problems:
1. Lack of context for Han Solo's death. In one of the more overt parallels to A New Hope, a Dark Side villain proves his evil bona-fides by killing a beloved mentor right in front of his youthful mentee. Just as Luke saw Darth Vader kill Obi-Wan, here Rey watches helplessly as Kylo Ren kills Han Solo. That's a great idea. The problem is that the moment lacks sufficient set-up. It's not completely "earned," as they say in Hollywood script meetings. It's a big moment, but it could have been an even bigger moment. Remember, we'd spent almost all of A New Hope with Luke and Obi-Wan. His death mattered. It packed a punch. But we don't get to see much of Rey and Han Solo's relationship outside of the nice scene where he offers her a job. So while we get the sense that she's an orphan who just found a scruffy nerf-herder father figure, further development to clarify that angle would have helped audiences appreciate what she lost. The movie probably should have gotten Han and Rey together sooner, in other words, so we could get an idea of a future together that Kylo destroyed.
And then there's the extra delicious layer of patricide. Kylo Ren is killing his father with that lightsaber. Dude. That's about as dramatic and Shakespearean as it gets, but did the movie undermine that moment by giving such short shrift to the Han-Leia-Kylo backstory? We get a few lines of dialogue between Han and Leia about their lost son and that great moment when Kylo tells Rey his father was a disappointment, but that's it. We would argue that - as with the Rey-Han relationship - the movie could have gone further to expand this subplot. There are plenty of opportunities for this. Give Leia a monologue about that one time when she tried to go grab Kylo and her strike team all died - even better, let the sole survivor of that strike team talk to Han or Rey about it. Let Han wax on a little to Rey about his lost son and his feelings. Give Kylo a scene with Admiral Hux about Han Solo and Resistance. Or maybe even give Han a beat where it looks like he's not going to go after Kylo when he sees him to show Han's uncertainty. Small moments like that could have added up to something more.
That said, it's worth noting how effective that catwalk scene is. Even without much set-up, Harrison Ford and Adam Driver sell the hell out of that moment. Yes, yes, we figured it was curtains for Han as soon as he walked out there on that catwalk. But for a moment, we thought maybe it was going to work. Didn't you? Kylo Ren says he knows what he has to do, but isn't sure he has the strength to do it. Driver certainly looks confused and lost. We assumed (hoped?) maybe he wanted to reject the Dark Side. To the filmmakers' credit, those lines of dialogue are ambiguous enough to work both ways. Indeed, it's soon clear what Kylo really meant: he knew he had to kill his father but didn't know if he could do it. The point is, even hamstrung by a lack of narrative context that mutes the drama, it's still one of the biggest moments in the movie.
Of course, none of this addresses another nagging problem with the scene - the fate of the Resistance hangs in the balance with time running out, and these two are having a father-son moment. Sigh. We get it, but sometimes you have to go with the flow.
2. The coincidence that brings Rey to Maz's basement. The second half of the movie is all about Rey connecting with the Force, kicked off when Anakin's lightsaber beckons to her at Maz's castle. This is good. Rey is a fantastic character. But the only reason she's in that basement was because Han figured Maz could help. So... if Rey doesn't meet Han and if Han doesn't think to go to Maz, Rey doesn't get the lightsaber. Hitchcock said that audiences could swallow at least one coincidence early on, but we have a hard time with this one. You could explain it away with mumbo-jumbo about fate, but we prefer clearer cause-and-effect logic. The filmmakers could have closed this loophole with something as simple as suggesting that Han heard Maz was one of the last people to see Luke, which would maybe more clearly motivate his need to get Rey and Finn and BB8 to Maz (and might also explain why Maz has the lightsaber in the first place).
3. The repeated callbacks to A New Hope. This is the big one. We want to say it's lazy writing. But it seems completely intentional. Disney - the new keepers of the Star Wars kingdom - seemed interested in both stoking the fires of nostalgia with this sequel for the older audiences and resetting from scratch the Star Wars universe for the younger audiences. And so, in essence, they remade A New Hope. So we get another planet-detsroying machine, another droid on the run, another loner on a desert planet destined for something more. There's archetypal "call to action" hero myths... and then there's needless retreading. Alongside so much in the movie that's exciting and new (the stormtrooper defector, the petulant adolescent villian, the TIE fighter theft, the bad-ass female hero, a lightsaber fight in the snow), the repeated callbacks to A New Hope are a big disappointment. Why couldn't Rey live on a grassland world to avoid the Luke-Tattooine references? Why not think of some other sinister machine the First Order's using to control the galaxy so we don't have a fleet of X-wings yet again trying to blow up a little vent?
These aren't small problems. The filmmakers could have done better. They should have done better. Even so, we remain surprised by many other complaints and petty fanboy bickering about the film's smaller plot points. Why doesn't R2D2 wake up sooner to provide his piece of the map? Why is this the first time Finn decides to defect? Why doesn't Chewbacca get more angry when Han dies? Where did the First Order come from? Who is this Snoke person? Why is Rey so much quicker at learning the Force than Luke? Why did Leia hug Rey at the end of the movie, someone she hadn't met until that moment? To us, these are interesting narrative questions worth discussing, not ironclad exhibits to prove that The Force Awakens sucks. Every movie has "ellipses" where audiences are asked to fill in the gaps. You can't have every little detail spoonfed, lest the movie turn into an unending series of expositional monologues and speeches. A balance must be struck - keep the audience engaged (and not stepping back and saying "huh?) but keep the story moving.
But about all of those narrative threads left dangling... If any movie was guaranteed to be a part of a trilogy, it's this one. Should the filmmakers thus be allowed some latitude? Should audiences be more patient and wait to see what the next two films bring before arguing about plot holes and unanswered questions? The old-school film geek in us says no. If audiences are distracted by plot holes and unanswered questions, then the story doesn't work. Audiences need to know what they need to know. But then again... as serialization grows more common in television and in movies (see also: Marvel's Cinematic Universe) and as they become more integrated with comic books and games and novels and websites to tell these larger interconnected stories, are we seeing the emergence of a new paradigm where titles are no longer bound to tell complete, logical stories within their own medium's boundaries? Okay, we're getting way out there, but you get the point. Messy narratives with more loose ends may be where we're headed. How media delivers stories may be slowly evolving, whether us Generation Xers like it or not.
And surely even the most angry Force Awakens detractor would have to admit, when Kylo Ren freezes that blaster bolt with the Force... that's pretty bad ass.
1.25.2016
Knee-jerk review: Fox's "The X-Files" revival
1. The ridiculously complicated UFO conspiracy mythology that so clearly excites writer-director-creator Chris Carter has always been, to us, one of the more frustrating and unsatisfying elements of the "X-Files" experience. We loved the standalone procedural cases, which were often quite brilliant, but to get to those, each season you always had to sit through 3 or 4 ponderous episodes about this byzantine mythology that kept getting more and more convoluted.
2. That's the problem with this first episode of this... whatever this is. Reboot? Revival? Mulder and Scully are immediately and abruptly back drawn into this same world of lies and coverups and aliens and evil government conspiracies.
3. But what's most upsetting is that in this new revival, Carter is now suggesting that the entire "X-Files" mythology that unspooled for all those years on Fox was just a smokescreen, a lie covering up an even bigger, badder conspiracy.
4. Stop it. Just stop.
5. And all of that vague double-talk dialogue about who's doing what and why and how it's all so important to everything. It just makes our head hurt. Bring back the monsters of the week.
6. David Duchovny's Fox Mulder was always low-key, but here it's like he just woke up from a long nap.
7. At least Gillian Anderson is trying. Kind of.
8. Whoever decided to cast Joel McHale in a serious role... what were you thinking? Seriously. What?
9. And big demerits for lending even a little credence to the idea that the 9/11 attacks was committed by the U.S. government. That's not funny. A lot of people - fueled by real-life Fox Mulders on the internet where being a crackpot isn't charming but actually dangerous - really believe that nonsense and it's hurting the country. Not cool, "X-Files." Not cool. End of rant.
10. The same vintage opening credit sequence reminds us how far television and pop culture have come since those creepy Friday nights on Fox. This isn't exactly a good thing for "The X-Files."
11. We also forgot about the incredibly moody score by Mark Snow. Those mournful electronic strings are just so distinctive. A big part of the "X-Files" vibe.
12. There are all kinds of ways that the show could have reunited Fox and Mulder and reopened the X-Files unit. This is definitely one of those ways. We just don't think it was the best way.
13. Will it get better? We're hopeful. But realistic.
Update: the second episode is better.
2. That's the problem with this first episode of this... whatever this is. Reboot? Revival? Mulder and Scully are immediately and abruptly back drawn into this same world of lies and coverups and aliens and evil government conspiracies.
3. But what's most upsetting is that in this new revival, Carter is now suggesting that the entire "X-Files" mythology that unspooled for all those years on Fox was just a smokescreen, a lie covering up an even bigger, badder conspiracy.
4. Stop it. Just stop.
5. And all of that vague double-talk dialogue about who's doing what and why and how it's all so important to everything. It just makes our head hurt. Bring back the monsters of the week.
6. David Duchovny's Fox Mulder was always low-key, but here it's like he just woke up from a long nap.
7. At least Gillian Anderson is trying. Kind of.
8. Whoever decided to cast Joel McHale in a serious role... what were you thinking? Seriously. What?
9. And big demerits for lending even a little credence to the idea that the 9/11 attacks was committed by the U.S. government. That's not funny. A lot of people - fueled by real-life Fox Mulders on the internet where being a crackpot isn't charming but actually dangerous - really believe that nonsense and it's hurting the country. Not cool, "X-Files." Not cool. End of rant.
10. The same vintage opening credit sequence reminds us how far television and pop culture have come since those creepy Friday nights on Fox. This isn't exactly a good thing for "The X-Files."
11. We also forgot about the incredibly moody score by Mark Snow. Those mournful electronic strings are just so distinctive. A big part of the "X-Files" vibe.
12. There are all kinds of ways that the show could have reunited Fox and Mulder and reopened the X-Files unit. This is definitely one of those ways. We just don't think it was the best way.
13. Will it get better? We're hopeful. But realistic.
Update: the second episode is better.
12.30.2015
Knee-jerk review: "Spectre"
1. It's way, way too long. And there's about three endings. But this is common practice nowadays for Hollywood tentpole franchise movies. Guess they want audiences to feel like they got their money's worth so they won't stay home with Netflix.
2. We liked it.
3. In fact, we may have even loved it. The last Bond movie - Skyfall - had perhaps a more emotional undercurrent, but we hated the ending. The one before that - Quantum of Solace - was decent, but suffered from the WGA strike that forced filmmakers to proceed with a half-baked script. So you'd probably have to go all the way back to the stripped-down, slam-bang Casino Royale in 2006 to find a more enjoyable Daniel Craig Bond movie.
4. Fantastic fight scene in the train.
5. Who knew Ralph Fiennes could be an action hero?
6. The tradition of music stars recording the theme songs continues its slow slide into irrelevant, unmemorable oblivion, Adele's "Skyfall" being the only recent exception. Has there been a truly catchy one since Duran Duran's silly "View to a Kill" earworm in 1985?
7. Daniel Craig cuts an imposing figure. Despite his reported disinterest in continuing as Bond, he owns this role in a way no one's owned it since Sean Connery. Stout, suave, unflappable.
8. Fantastic fight scene in the helicopter.
9. Does the white cat make an appearance? We don't understand this new trend in which filmmakers play coy with audiences regarding a main character's identity. Everyone knew Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness and no one's going to be shocked when Christoph Waltz announces that his name is Blofeld. It's a cool twist, but not one that need to be preserved at all costs.
10. We are now fans of Lea Seydoux, just as an FYI.
11. Have you ever actually gone to a bar and asked for a vodka martini shaken, not stirred? Probably should be on our bucket list.
12. What's most fascinating about the movie is the way (even as the series continues to pursue Bourne Identity-style gristle and grit) it's harkening back to the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan era of 007 excess. Spectre offers more old-school Bond fun than previous Craig titles. Most notably, you get a villain with endless army of henchmen in a secret lair - bonus points for the secret evil board room meeting - and proof that Bond is simply (and somewhat illogically in one instance) irresistible to women within moments of meeting him.
13. How can audiences resist the exotic, affluent travelogue nature of these movies? Bond globehops from Mexico to London to Austria to Africa, all of it while driving the fastest cars, wearing the finest bespoke fashion, and staying at the best hotels. Here's a free pitch to the Travel Channel: a tie-in with MGM and Eon to make a series about where Bond has visited on his adventures.
14. Somewhere someone's surely written a critical studies paper on the need to kill villains with freefalls from high places. Why is that so satisfying (because it most definitely is)? Is it the fact that it takes so long to fall, thereby drawing out the punishment? Or is it the gruesome, presumably painful nature of splatting on the hard ground that delivers catharsis in a way a knife or bullet can't?
15. Plane sliding down a snow-covered mountain. Awesome.
16. Worth your while.
2. We liked it.
3. In fact, we may have even loved it. The last Bond movie - Skyfall - had perhaps a more emotional undercurrent, but we hated the ending. The one before that - Quantum of Solace - was decent, but suffered from the WGA strike that forced filmmakers to proceed with a half-baked script. So you'd probably have to go all the way back to the stripped-down, slam-bang Casino Royale in 2006 to find a more enjoyable Daniel Craig Bond movie.
4. Fantastic fight scene in the train.
5. Who knew Ralph Fiennes could be an action hero?
6. The tradition of music stars recording the theme songs continues its slow slide into irrelevant, unmemorable oblivion, Adele's "Skyfall" being the only recent exception. Has there been a truly catchy one since Duran Duran's silly "View to a Kill" earworm in 1985?
7. Daniel Craig cuts an imposing figure. Despite his reported disinterest in continuing as Bond, he owns this role in a way no one's owned it since Sean Connery. Stout, suave, unflappable.
8. Fantastic fight scene in the helicopter.
9. Does the white cat make an appearance? We don't understand this new trend in which filmmakers play coy with audiences regarding a main character's identity. Everyone knew Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness and no one's going to be shocked when Christoph Waltz announces that his name is Blofeld. It's a cool twist, but not one that need to be preserved at all costs.
10. We are now fans of Lea Seydoux, just as an FYI.
11. Have you ever actually gone to a bar and asked for a vodka martini shaken, not stirred? Probably should be on our bucket list.
12. What's most fascinating about the movie is the way (even as the series continues to pursue Bourne Identity-style gristle and grit) it's harkening back to the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan era of 007 excess. Spectre offers more old-school Bond fun than previous Craig titles. Most notably, you get a villain with endless army of henchmen in a secret lair - bonus points for the secret evil board room meeting - and proof that Bond is simply (and somewhat illogically in one instance) irresistible to women within moments of meeting him.
13. How can audiences resist the exotic, affluent travelogue nature of these movies? Bond globehops from Mexico to London to Austria to Africa, all of it while driving the fastest cars, wearing the finest bespoke fashion, and staying at the best hotels. Here's a free pitch to the Travel Channel: a tie-in with MGM and Eon to make a series about where Bond has visited on his adventures.
14. Somewhere someone's surely written a critical studies paper on the need to kill villains with freefalls from high places. Why is that so satisfying (because it most definitely is)? Is it the fact that it takes so long to fall, thereby drawing out the punishment? Or is it the gruesome, presumably painful nature of splatting on the hard ground that delivers catharsis in a way a knife or bullet can't?
15. Plane sliding down a snow-covered mountain. Awesome.
16. Worth your while.
12.23.2015
Knee-jerk review: "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"
1. Now that's what we call a Star Wars movie.
2. It's not flawless, but it's got way more passion and emotion than those horribly sterile and labored prequels George Lucas foisted on us.
3. There's no way to describe the giddiness, is there, we all feel when that fanfare strikes up and up pops the yellow Star Wars logo on the starfield? That's what dreams are made of, right?
4. We all just got to watch Daisy Ridley become a star.
5. Who wouldn't want to steal a TIE fighter?
6. The most interesting characters were all of the new characters, which surprised us.
7. We certainly didn't miss C-3P0, who's barely in the movie but still overstays his welcome.
8. The villain Kylo Ren is particularly fascinating to us, especially the way he's prone to preschool-style temper tantrums.
9. That is one bad-ass name you got there, Poe Dameron.
10. Who wouldn't want to steal the Millennium Falcon, sit in that pilot chair, and reach around flipping all those mysterious switches?
11. Nice rapport between Ridley and costar John Boyega.
12. BB-8 is amusing and cute, but not in a cloying, cheesy way like the Ewoks. Or in a transparent attempt to appeal to kids, like the international waking nightmare that was Jar Jar Binks.
13. There are surely other ways intergalactic bad guys can prove their bona-fides besides blowing up planets. This is the third Death Star in seven movies. Not very imaginative (but we do give begrudging points for pulling power from a star). Ditto the way the good guys try to destroy the weapon. But then again, if it ain't broke...
14. And as much as we like Ridley's character, sticking her on a desert planet is just too much of a callback to Tattooine. Why not keep her scenes all as is, but just make Jakku a grassland planet or a mountain planet? But then writer Lawrence Kasdan didn't ask us for script notes.
15. It's those kinds of retreads of previous Star Wars elements (like Ren's silly Vader mask - he's just as scary when he takes it off) that make this movie a kind of fanboy mashup. As a friend put it - it's part remake, part sequel.
16. But it moves with energy and purpose and leanness. There's no denying that. It's exciting and offers good surprises and twists. Two developments in particular made our jaded, seen-it-all mouth drop open.
17. That stands in stark contrast to the loud, chaotic mess that was the Star Trek Beyond trailer that preceded the movie. Yuck. That reboot franchise makes money, we suppose, but what a disappointment overall. Sci-fi as tent-pole action. But we digress.
18. Han Solo has a bigger role in the plot than we expected. By the way, "Chewie, we're home" isn't even his best line.
19. There's something odd going on with Carrie Fisher's voice. You can discuss the hows and whys amongst yourselves.
20. The final two minutes are undeniably goosebump-worthy. Epic and sweeping and mythic in a Lord of the Rings sort of way. We're excited to see what the next two movies bring.
21. And what they'll look and feel like without J.J. Abrams. He's okay, but not what we'd call a visionary.
22. We went in wanting to like it very badly, but worried we would be very disappointed. We weren't. We liked it.
2. It's not flawless, but it's got way more passion and emotion than those horribly sterile and labored prequels George Lucas foisted on us.
3. There's no way to describe the giddiness, is there, we all feel when that fanfare strikes up and up pops the yellow Star Wars logo on the starfield? That's what dreams are made of, right?
4. We all just got to watch Daisy Ridley become a star.
5. Who wouldn't want to steal a TIE fighter?
6. The most interesting characters were all of the new characters, which surprised us.
7. We certainly didn't miss C-3P0, who's barely in the movie but still overstays his welcome.
8. The villain Kylo Ren is particularly fascinating to us, especially the way he's prone to preschool-style temper tantrums.
9. That is one bad-ass name you got there, Poe Dameron.
10. Who wouldn't want to steal the Millennium Falcon, sit in that pilot chair, and reach around flipping all those mysterious switches?
11. Nice rapport between Ridley and costar John Boyega.
12. BB-8 is amusing and cute, but not in a cloying, cheesy way like the Ewoks. Or in a transparent attempt to appeal to kids, like the international waking nightmare that was Jar Jar Binks.
13. There are surely other ways intergalactic bad guys can prove their bona-fides besides blowing up planets. This is the third Death Star in seven movies. Not very imaginative (but we do give begrudging points for pulling power from a star). Ditto the way the good guys try to destroy the weapon. But then again, if it ain't broke...
14. And as much as we like Ridley's character, sticking her on a desert planet is just too much of a callback to Tattooine. Why not keep her scenes all as is, but just make Jakku a grassland planet or a mountain planet? But then writer Lawrence Kasdan didn't ask us for script notes.
15. It's those kinds of retreads of previous Star Wars elements (like Ren's silly Vader mask - he's just as scary when he takes it off) that make this movie a kind of fanboy mashup. As a friend put it - it's part remake, part sequel.
16. But it moves with energy and purpose and leanness. There's no denying that. It's exciting and offers good surprises and twists. Two developments in particular made our jaded, seen-it-all mouth drop open.
17. That stands in stark contrast to the loud, chaotic mess that was the Star Trek Beyond trailer that preceded the movie. Yuck. That reboot franchise makes money, we suppose, but what a disappointment overall. Sci-fi as tent-pole action. But we digress.
18. Han Solo has a bigger role in the plot than we expected. By the way, "Chewie, we're home" isn't even his best line.
19. There's something odd going on with Carrie Fisher's voice. You can discuss the hows and whys amongst yourselves.
20. The final two minutes are undeniably goosebump-worthy. Epic and sweeping and mythic in a Lord of the Rings sort of way. We're excited to see what the next two movies bring.
21. And what they'll look and feel like without J.J. Abrams. He's okay, but not what we'd call a visionary.
22. We went in wanting to like it very badly, but worried we would be very disappointed. We weren't. We liked it.
11.28.2015
Knee-jerk review: "Mockingjay Part 2"
1. True story: the night before we saw this in theaters, we watched Mockingjay Part 1 for the first time on Amazon Prime. An interesting experience because Part 2 essentially picks up moments after the end of Part 1, which means we had the chance to watch a single narrative (totaling about four hours) split between two completely different environments - one, an HD wide-screen television in our living room and two, a huge movie screen in a packed theater. Cool.
2. The Hunger Games series revolves around a fairly ridiculous premise: a future world, as penance for trying to revolt against the government, agrees to sacrifice children in a battle-to-the-death live television special. It's a fun, if dark, world... but only if you try not to think too much about how and why this world came to be. It's just crazy.
3. But the point is that the filmmakers and actors play this stuff completely straight, giving the story genuine gravitas and import.
4. Having an Oscar-winning actress as the lead for your PG-13 sci-fi franchise series certainly doesn't hurt either.
5. It's a touching and satisfying ending, but we're still on Team Gale. Which is kind of funny when you look back at what we said two years ago about Gale in our Knee-Jerk Review of the second movie Catching Fire.
6. Woody Harrelson. He's a genius. But Jenna Malone always seems to be trying too hard.
7. We remember well reading the Mockingjay book and wondering how in the world they'd ever turn it into a movie. It's a far cry from the bottle-vibe of the first book.
8. Some of the scares in the mutt-in-the-sewers sequence are certainly cliche. But they still work.
9. Why do movie characters always risk their lives going back to save a pet?
10. President Coin, tsk tsk.
11. "Real or not real?"
12. Philip Seymour Hoffman completely disappears and we couldn't help but wonder how much of that was planned and how much of that was because of his unexpected death during production. We get a rather odd sideways shot of him towards the end that feels wholly unnatural, plus another character delivers a letter from Hoffman's character. If he hadn't died, would that letter have been replaced by an actual dialogue scene?
13. Here's an interesting analysis of the creepy song "Hanging Tree."
14. That's one fantastic last line (which apparently came from the novel). Slow clap.
15. Three books, four movies, all top notch.
2. The Hunger Games series revolves around a fairly ridiculous premise: a future world, as penance for trying to revolt against the government, agrees to sacrifice children in a battle-to-the-death live television special. It's a fun, if dark, world... but only if you try not to think too much about how and why this world came to be. It's just crazy.
3. But the point is that the filmmakers and actors play this stuff completely straight, giving the story genuine gravitas and import.
4. Having an Oscar-winning actress as the lead for your PG-13 sci-fi franchise series certainly doesn't hurt either.
5. It's a touching and satisfying ending, but we're still on Team Gale. Which is kind of funny when you look back at what we said two years ago about Gale in our Knee-Jerk Review of the second movie Catching Fire.
6. Woody Harrelson. He's a genius. But Jenna Malone always seems to be trying too hard.
7. We remember well reading the Mockingjay book and wondering how in the world they'd ever turn it into a movie. It's a far cry from the bottle-vibe of the first book.
8. Some of the scares in the mutt-in-the-sewers sequence are certainly cliche. But they still work.
9. Why do movie characters always risk their lives going back to save a pet?
10. President Coin, tsk tsk.
11. "Real or not real?"
12. Philip Seymour Hoffman completely disappears and we couldn't help but wonder how much of that was planned and how much of that was because of his unexpected death during production. We get a rather odd sideways shot of him towards the end that feels wholly unnatural, plus another character delivers a letter from Hoffman's character. If he hadn't died, would that letter have been replaced by an actual dialogue scene?
13. Here's an interesting analysis of the creepy song "Hanging Tree."
14. That's one fantastic last line (which apparently came from the novel). Slow clap.
15. Three books, four movies, all top notch.
11.27.2015
Knee-jerk review: "The Martian"
1. It was a great book, but at times a little too Robinson Crusoe wonky when it came to explaining scientific minutiae. The book takes pages to explain steps in making oxygen or growing food in the Martian soil. It was our only real criticism of the novel. The movie, of course, takes care of that problem. You get a taste of the science, yes, but the 2-hour running time means a good chunk of detail gets tossed to keep things moving.
2. Matt Damon is great, of course, but his character is so good-natured and cool-and-collected that it's a jarring - and effective - moment when he understandably starts to break down towards the end of the movie.
3. Donald Glover's Asperger's scientist feels a little gratuitous, especially in that it seems like he's doing a spoof of his old co-star Danny Pudi's character of NBC's "Community."
4. Some have compared it to Cast Away. We get it. But, to us, it's more like Apollo 13 in that a horrible problem is slowly and surely solved by smart, creative, determined math-geek scientists.
5. And that's the best part of the movie. All of the math. It's science and numbers that saves Damon's character and the movie actually shows him repeatedly putting pen to paper to work out calculations.
6. Hexadecimals. Never heard of it. So we would have died up there.
7. Going to the moon took days. A Mars mission would take years. That's a serious commitment not just of manpower and money, but the lives of the astronauts.
8. Michael Pena's always fun and interesting, but we're still trying to figure out the enduring appeal to casting directors of Jessica Chastain. She's not really ever bad, but she's just so brittle and closed off.
9. Bonus points for the use of 1970s disco on the soundtrack.
10. The focus of the movie is the plot. There's not a lot of the sweeping and spectacular "ooh!" special effects shots you might expect in a Ridley Scott science fiction movie.
11. The Hermes ship is pretty cool, though.
12. Speaking of Scott, he's in his 70s. How much longer can he do this? His movies may not always be good, but they are always compelling on some level. Three of his movies are, to us, among the best ever made: Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma and Louise. This one's probably a close fourth.
2. Matt Damon is great, of course, but his character is so good-natured and cool-and-collected that it's a jarring - and effective - moment when he understandably starts to break down towards the end of the movie.
3. Donald Glover's Asperger's scientist feels a little gratuitous, especially in that it seems like he's doing a spoof of his old co-star Danny Pudi's character of NBC's "Community."
4. Some have compared it to Cast Away. We get it. But, to us, it's more like Apollo 13 in that a horrible problem is slowly and surely solved by smart, creative, determined math-geek scientists.
5. And that's the best part of the movie. All of the math. It's science and numbers that saves Damon's character and the movie actually shows him repeatedly putting pen to paper to work out calculations.
6. Hexadecimals. Never heard of it. So we would have died up there.
7. Going to the moon took days. A Mars mission would take years. That's a serious commitment not just of manpower and money, but the lives of the astronauts.
8. Michael Pena's always fun and interesting, but we're still trying to figure out the enduring appeal to casting directors of Jessica Chastain. She's not really ever bad, but she's just so brittle and closed off.
9. Bonus points for the use of 1970s disco on the soundtrack.
10. The focus of the movie is the plot. There's not a lot of the sweeping and spectacular "ooh!" special effects shots you might expect in a Ridley Scott science fiction movie.
11. The Hermes ship is pretty cool, though.
12. Speaking of Scott, he's in his 70s. How much longer can he do this? His movies may not always be good, but they are always compelling on some level. Three of his movies are, to us, among the best ever made: Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma and Louise. This one's probably a close fourth.
8.19.2015
Knee-jerk review: "Mission Impossible Rogue Nation"
1. The hanging-onto-the-side-of-a-plane-taking-off stunt that you've seen in all of the trailers and TV spots is undeniably eye-popping, but it doesn't top the ridiculous crawling-on-the-outside-of-a-skyscraper sequence from 2011's Ghost Protocol.
2. Tom Cruise may be a strangely optimistic and intensely driven person (so says our exclusive inside source), but you cannot deny that he is a movie star who knows how to project charisma and make well-oiled, audience-pleasing movies. Aside: his sci-fi thriller Edge of Tomorrow is criminally underrated.
3. If the adage is true that great movies need only three great sequences, then Rogue Nation is a great movie. Our favorite was the opera house sequence, which more than one critic has accurately described as "Hitchcockian."
4. That said, the movie's got a few too many climaxes. It's too long by probably 20 minutes. We chalk this up to writer-director Christopher McQuarrie's love of plot turns.
5. And how many times will Cruise's Ethan Hunt character have to go on the run to clear his name? It's becoming a little predictable now.
6. Rebecca Ferguson is certainly a revelation, projecting sass and smarts and keeping the audience guessing as to her true loyalties. You wonder if Rogue Nation's producers somehow missed the memo: this is an A-list tent-pole action movie here and they make a woman a co-lead rather than a tag-along, damsel-in-distress sidekick?
7. Ving Rhames doesn't look healthy to us.
8. We've always loved how these Mission: Impossible movies treat the credit sequence like an overblown version of a TV show, what with the rapid-fire editing of the "episode" we're about to watch.
9. And how can you not get pumped when that theme song kicks in?
10. Alec Baldwin's having a good time. "30 Rock" notwithstanding, this is an actor who never got used the right way.
11. Not as good as Ghost Protocol, but it's a close second.
2. Tom Cruise may be a strangely optimistic and intensely driven person (so says our exclusive inside source), but you cannot deny that he is a movie star who knows how to project charisma and make well-oiled, audience-pleasing movies. Aside: his sci-fi thriller Edge of Tomorrow is criminally underrated.
3. If the adage is true that great movies need only three great sequences, then Rogue Nation is a great movie. Our favorite was the opera house sequence, which more than one critic has accurately described as "Hitchcockian."
4. That said, the movie's got a few too many climaxes. It's too long by probably 20 minutes. We chalk this up to writer-director Christopher McQuarrie's love of plot turns.
5. And how many times will Cruise's Ethan Hunt character have to go on the run to clear his name? It's becoming a little predictable now.
6. Rebecca Ferguson is certainly a revelation, projecting sass and smarts and keeping the audience guessing as to her true loyalties. You wonder if Rogue Nation's producers somehow missed the memo: this is an A-list tent-pole action movie here and they make a woman a co-lead rather than a tag-along, damsel-in-distress sidekick?
7. Ving Rhames doesn't look healthy to us.
8. We've always loved how these Mission: Impossible movies treat the credit sequence like an overblown version of a TV show, what with the rapid-fire editing of the "episode" we're about to watch.
9. And how can you not get pumped when that theme song kicks in?
10. Alec Baldwin's having a good time. "30 Rock" notwithstanding, this is an actor who never got used the right way.
11. Not as good as Ghost Protocol, but it's a close second.
An Ode to Islands
A recent return to Los Angeles led us to revisit one of our favorite restaurants. There's nothing all that special about Islands, although they do seem to have a well-deserved reputation for excellent skin-on french fries showered with secret spices. If you mention Islands to someone, they'll probably mention the fries. Aside from that, it's one memorable element is probably that it uses "hang ten" surf culture as its gimmick, from the plastic tropical birds and thatch roofed hostess stand to the cutesy menu item names and endless surfing footage that loops on all the TVs. Prior to last weekend, we hadn't eaten at Islands since 2012 shortly before we moved back to Texas. And so there was a certain pang of nostalgia as we took a bite of the Hula Burger (see? cutesy). We started thinking about just how intertwined our 20s and 30s had been with Islands...
Our earliest memory of Islands dates back to 1999 - that's 16 years ago people - when we shared tacos with a film school friend to discuss movies and pop culture, like when we had dinner there after witnessing the abomination of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. That was in Pasadena. When we moved to West Hollywood, there was a closer Islands store in Century City with awful parking - that was where we had many mid-90s dinners with the ex-girlfriend (not always cheery in the numb, waning days of that relationship) who lived close by and that one late-90s Saturday lunch after a grueling morning of flag football with a married couple who soon got divorced and dropped out of our life. And then we started to frequent the Islands in Glendale (often paired with a trip to Ikea) - that was the one we went to when our parents visited, the one where I was the first to tell an old friend that his ex-girlfriend was getting married, the one where I argued on the phone with a car salesman who was playing car salesman games. That was also the one we first shared with our girlfriend (who became our fiancee and then our wife) and, eventually, our daughter (the plastic birds weren't dumb to her, they were a source of amazement).
No, nothing special about Islands. Except everything that happened to us and our friends on all those visits in those vinyl booths.
2.02.2015
Knee-jerk review: "American Sniper"
1. Good, but not great. Mostly because there's a sense we've seen this kind of thing before.
2. The sniper angle is fresh and there are some affecting moments depicting how post-traumatic stress disorder manifests itself. But The Hurt Locker and The Messenger, to us, offer stronger, more visceral looks at the physical and emotional costs of the Iraq War.
3. Bradley Cooper delivers a strong performance, though. We're beginning to believe he can do anything. Come a long way from the one-note jerk he played in Wedding Crashers.
4. Director Clint Eastwood is over 80 years old now. This isn't his best film (for that, take a look at Unforgiven, obviously, but also Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby) but it sure doesn't seem like a film made by a senior citizen, either.
5. Yeah, we read the book. And yeah, we know about the libel lawsuit involving real-life sniper Chris Kyle and all of the other unfortunate untruths he may have told. But this post isn't about the book. Or the real Chris Kyle. This is about the movie, a medium that has it's own unique demands and requirements.
6. Unlike Bradley Cooper, we remain ambivalent about Sienna Miller.
7. As subtle and believable as the movie treats PTSD for so much of its running time, it's a little jarring that in just a handful of scenes towards the end, suddenly Kyle seems cured and back to his old self.
8. We forget where we read it, but somewhere out there is an article about the extra emotional pain felt by snipers who see a bullet's horrific, destructive force through the scope. There can be no emotional detachment for the sniper.
9. The film's been politicized by people like Michael Moore on one side and Sarah Palin on the other, but is the film itself political? Not overtly. It doesn't feel like a right-wing praise of the war. And it doesn't feel like a leftist critique of the war either. But you could probably read it both ways. There's a matter-of-factness to the story, which may be the reason both sides can project onto it their own messages and meanings.
2. The sniper angle is fresh and there are some affecting moments depicting how post-traumatic stress disorder manifests itself. But The Hurt Locker and The Messenger, to us, offer stronger, more visceral looks at the physical and emotional costs of the Iraq War.
3. Bradley Cooper delivers a strong performance, though. We're beginning to believe he can do anything. Come a long way from the one-note jerk he played in Wedding Crashers.
4. Director Clint Eastwood is over 80 years old now. This isn't his best film (for that, take a look at Unforgiven, obviously, but also Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby) but it sure doesn't seem like a film made by a senior citizen, either.
5. Yeah, we read the book. And yeah, we know about the libel lawsuit involving real-life sniper Chris Kyle and all of the other unfortunate untruths he may have told. But this post isn't about the book. Or the real Chris Kyle. This is about the movie, a medium that has it's own unique demands and requirements.
6. Unlike Bradley Cooper, we remain ambivalent about Sienna Miller.
7. As subtle and believable as the movie treats PTSD for so much of its running time, it's a little jarring that in just a handful of scenes towards the end, suddenly Kyle seems cured and back to his old self.
8. We forget where we read it, but somewhere out there is an article about the extra emotional pain felt by snipers who see a bullet's horrific, destructive force through the scope. There can be no emotional detachment for the sniper.
9. The film's been politicized by people like Michael Moore on one side and Sarah Palin on the other, but is the film itself political? Not overtly. It doesn't feel like a right-wing praise of the war. And it doesn't feel like a leftist critique of the war either. But you could probably read it both ways. There's a matter-of-factness to the story, which may be the reason both sides can project onto it their own messages and meanings.
7.31.2014
Knee-jerk review: "Edge of Tomorrow"
1. Aliens meets Groundhog Day. That's what this is. And it's pretty awesome.
2. Director Doug Liman has a Hollywood reputation for making things up as he goes along, changing his mind, dragging his feet, creating endless headaches for the studio. But you cannot deny that his movies are almost always top notch. We loved Swingers and Go, Mr. and Mrs. Smith was pretty good, but his most famous is probably the instant classic The Bourne Identity, so influential and inventive that it made the James Bond franchise completely change its approach to spy thrillers.
3. Anytime you can get Bill Paxton to do what he does, we're there.
4. There are undeniable echos here of World War II, what with an invasion of France to repel invaders from Europe and a top-secret suicide spy mission far behind enemy lines. One could argue that if you swap the aliens for Nazis and take out the time-travel gimmick, this would work very well as a 1944 war movie starring Clark Gable and Ingrid Bergman as tough soldiers who develop an unlikely romance as they hunt for an enemy base.
5. "Full Metal Bitch." That is genius.
6. Tom Cruise is starting to get a wrinkled, middle-aged wariness that's working nicely for him. He's not taking the cocky know-it-all roles anymore. Now he's playing the tired seen-it-all sort. If Top Gun 2 really happens (we're hoping not), look for Cruise to take the Tom Skeritt supporting part and let someone like Channing Tatum be the hot-shot Maverick lead.
7. We'd like a moratorium on the aliens-as-a-single-organism hive-mind twist. We think we need a new approach to alien invader biology.
8. We wouldn't have cast saucy, rom-com/period-drama regular Emily Blunt as a hard-ass soldier, but she sells it. (That's probably why we don't work in casting.)
9. We didn't quite catch all of it, but Paxton has a speech early on about why he hates poker games. He wants his soldiers to believe they control their fate, as opposed to the fickle nature of luck and chance in a card game. Cruise's journey, using time travel to learn from past mistakes and control his destiny through repetition and trial and error, perfectly illustrates that theme.
10. Apparently, some have problems with the final twist. We see their point and maybe it is a logic cheat, but it's also the kind of turn audiences need.
11. Fantastic last scene, by the way, right before we crash to the "Directed by Doug Liman" credit and the loud end credits music. Cherry on the top.
12. Good stuff.
2. Director Doug Liman has a Hollywood reputation for making things up as he goes along, changing his mind, dragging his feet, creating endless headaches for the studio. But you cannot deny that his movies are almost always top notch. We loved Swingers and Go, Mr. and Mrs. Smith was pretty good, but his most famous is probably the instant classic The Bourne Identity, so influential and inventive that it made the James Bond franchise completely change its approach to spy thrillers.
3. Anytime you can get Bill Paxton to do what he does, we're there.
4. There are undeniable echos here of World War II, what with an invasion of France to repel invaders from Europe and a top-secret suicide spy mission far behind enemy lines. One could argue that if you swap the aliens for Nazis and take out the time-travel gimmick, this would work very well as a 1944 war movie starring Clark Gable and Ingrid Bergman as tough soldiers who develop an unlikely romance as they hunt for an enemy base.
5. "Full Metal Bitch." That is genius.
6. Tom Cruise is starting to get a wrinkled, middle-aged wariness that's working nicely for him. He's not taking the cocky know-it-all roles anymore. Now he's playing the tired seen-it-all sort. If Top Gun 2 really happens (we're hoping not), look for Cruise to take the Tom Skeritt supporting part and let someone like Channing Tatum be the hot-shot Maverick lead.
7. We'd like a moratorium on the aliens-as-a-single-organism hive-mind twist. We think we need a new approach to alien invader biology.
8. We wouldn't have cast saucy, rom-com/period-drama regular Emily Blunt as a hard-ass soldier, but she sells it. (That's probably why we don't work in casting.)
9. We didn't quite catch all of it, but Paxton has a speech early on about why he hates poker games. He wants his soldiers to believe they control their fate, as opposed to the fickle nature of luck and chance in a card game. Cruise's journey, using time travel to learn from past mistakes and control his destiny through repetition and trial and error, perfectly illustrates that theme.
10. Apparently, some have problems with the final twist. We see their point and maybe it is a logic cheat, but it's also the kind of turn audiences need.
11. Fantastic last scene, by the way, right before we crash to the "Directed by Doug Liman" credit and the loud end credits music. Cherry on the top.
12. Good stuff.
The One with the "Friends" Online Tool
Slate offers an interesting little tool to see which friend on NBC's "Friends" shared the most scenes together during the course of its 236 episodes.
Some findings:
9.5% of the scenes had all six
5.5% had Ross and Rachel
1.8% had Rachel and Monica
4.4% had Joey and Chandler
5.1% had Chandler and Monica
As amazing as this tool is, read the article to find out how it was made. The process is just as impressive in its obsessive-compulsive geekery.
Some findings:
9.5% of the scenes had all six
5.5% had Ross and Rachel
1.8% had Rachel and Monica
4.4% had Joey and Chandler
5.1% had Chandler and Monica
As amazing as this tool is, read the article to find out how it was made. The process is just as impressive in its obsessive-compulsive geekery.
3.07.2014
Knee-jerk review: "American Hustle"
1. Overrated.
2. This is another movie that feels flat because it just goes on too long. The plot gets a much-needed kick when Robert DeNiro shows up as a menacing mobster. That cranks up the stakes considerably and takes the story to a whole other level. So the last half hour or so is very strong. And the final twist is particularly delicious, delivering a great comeuppance to one very-deserving character. But the rest...
3. The fact that it was nominated for ten Oscars and won zero leads up to suspect that the Academy kind of fell for the hype also. Looks good enough for lots of nominations, but less so upon further inspection when it came time to actually choose winners.
4. Here's a little more about the real-life "Abscam" case that inspired the movie.
5. The Fighter had a lot of grit and punch, true. But to us, Silver Linings Playbook and Three Kings remains our favorite David O. Russell movies.
6. These are some pretty unlikable people, which doesn't always make for a fun moviegoing experience. And the fact that everyone's wearing ugly 1970s clothes and ridiculous hair... it can sort of be unpleasant just to look at everyone.
7. Christian Bale really is a marvel, don't you think? This guy completely disappears into his roles. Here he's hiding behind a bad comb-over, giant amber glasses, a beard, plus a beer belly and a New York accent. It's hard to believe he was ever Bruce Wayne.
8. Looking back over the list here, we can't help but notice parallels to The Wolf of Wall Street, another too-long movie based on a true story (and directed by a celebrated auteur filmmaker) full of icky characters making amoral, selfish choices. And both involve awful scenes where parents curse and shout and attack one another in front of their children. Is there something in the cultural zeitgeist that's leading to this kind of story?
9. As with any self-respecting movie set in the 1970s or 1980s, the soundtrack is chock full of fun old songs.
10. Amy Adams' dresses are certainly memorable.
11. We wonder what might have happened if the story focused more on the machinations of the swindles and the "who's conning who?" ambiguities and less time exploring the confusing layers of these obnoxious characters.
12. We suppose we're glad we saw it. Kind of.
2. This is another movie that feels flat because it just goes on too long. The plot gets a much-needed kick when Robert DeNiro shows up as a menacing mobster. That cranks up the stakes considerably and takes the story to a whole other level. So the last half hour or so is very strong. And the final twist is particularly delicious, delivering a great comeuppance to one very-deserving character. But the rest...
3. The fact that it was nominated for ten Oscars and won zero leads up to suspect that the Academy kind of fell for the hype also. Looks good enough for lots of nominations, but less so upon further inspection when it came time to actually choose winners.
4. Here's a little more about the real-life "Abscam" case that inspired the movie.
5. The Fighter had a lot of grit and punch, true. But to us, Silver Linings Playbook and Three Kings remains our favorite David O. Russell movies.
6. These are some pretty unlikable people, which doesn't always make for a fun moviegoing experience. And the fact that everyone's wearing ugly 1970s clothes and ridiculous hair... it can sort of be unpleasant just to look at everyone.
7. Christian Bale really is a marvel, don't you think? This guy completely disappears into his roles. Here he's hiding behind a bad comb-over, giant amber glasses, a beard, plus a beer belly and a New York accent. It's hard to believe he was ever Bruce Wayne.
8. Looking back over the list here, we can't help but notice parallels to The Wolf of Wall Street, another too-long movie based on a true story (and directed by a celebrated auteur filmmaker) full of icky characters making amoral, selfish choices. And both involve awful scenes where parents curse and shout and attack one another in front of their children. Is there something in the cultural zeitgeist that's leading to this kind of story?
9. As with any self-respecting movie set in the 1970s or 1980s, the soundtrack is chock full of fun old songs.
10. Amy Adams' dresses are certainly memorable.
11. We wonder what might have happened if the story focused more on the machinations of the swindles and the "who's conning who?" ambiguities and less time exploring the confusing layers of these obnoxious characters.
12. We suppose we're glad we saw it. Kind of.
Knee-jerk review: "Her"
1. It's a completely crazy premise: man falls in love with artifically-intelligent operating system that's just a voice in his earpiece.
2. But this movie sells it. What happens - and a lot of odd stuff happens - always seems completely plausible.
3. In fact, we wound up rooting for the romance of Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson's voice in a way that we don't often root for movie couples.
4. The look and feel of this movie (set in the future, but not that far into the future) made us want to learn more about the minimalist future style created by K.K. Barnett. Genius. Fun fact: the filmmakers avoiding showing any cars in the movie to give it a strange, future feel.
5. At this point, you really do have to sit up and pay attention when a new Spike Jonze movie arrives. His work is always singular in ambition and technique. See also: Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are.
6. We all have this image of Phoenix as this exaggerated, look-at-me weirdo, but here he's completely normal and ordinary and sweet. We suppose that's a tribute to his talent.
7. There's a lot going on here. Questions about our interactions with technology and how that shapes our interactions with others, about what it means to be human, about the fragile nature of love and marriage, about conforming to social norms.
8. We feel like we need to see it again to really appreciate the layers. It's that good.
9. Love the little video game avatar guy. What a quirky detail.
10. The nuanced, powerfully evocative way the film captures both the giddy excitement of falling in love and the scary panic of realizing your relationship is crumbling reminded us of how rarely these things happen in most movies. It's a hard thing to pull off. And most movies don't even try to go beyond superficial romance cliches.
11. For a story about a guy in love with his computer, it's surprisingly sexy and romantic. And maybe a little unsettlingly so.
12. Oh yeah, and the third act works in the theory of singularity. Wow.
13. It's just a brilliant movie.
2. But this movie sells it. What happens - and a lot of odd stuff happens - always seems completely plausible.
3. In fact, we wound up rooting for the romance of Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson's voice in a way that we don't often root for movie couples.
4. The look and feel of this movie (set in the future, but not that far into the future) made us want to learn more about the minimalist future style created by K.K. Barnett. Genius. Fun fact: the filmmakers avoiding showing any cars in the movie to give it a strange, future feel.
5. At this point, you really do have to sit up and pay attention when a new Spike Jonze movie arrives. His work is always singular in ambition and technique. See also: Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are.
6. We all have this image of Phoenix as this exaggerated, look-at-me weirdo, but here he's completely normal and ordinary and sweet. We suppose that's a tribute to his talent.
7. There's a lot going on here. Questions about our interactions with technology and how that shapes our interactions with others, about what it means to be human, about the fragile nature of love and marriage, about conforming to social norms.
8. We feel like we need to see it again to really appreciate the layers. It's that good.
9. Love the little video game avatar guy. What a quirky detail.
10. The nuanced, powerfully evocative way the film captures both the giddy excitement of falling in love and the scary panic of realizing your relationship is crumbling reminded us of how rarely these things happen in most movies. It's a hard thing to pull off. And most movies don't even try to go beyond superficial romance cliches.
11. For a story about a guy in love with his computer, it's surprisingly sexy and romantic. And maybe a little unsettlingly so.
12. Oh yeah, and the third act works in the theory of singularity. Wow.
13. It's just a brilliant movie.
3.06.2014
Knee-jerk review: "The Wolf of Wall Street"
1. Maybe you like to spend 165 minutes with despicable, amoral, drug-addicted thieves. Turns out we do not.
2. You may have heard about all of the f-bombs. It's true. This is one supremely foul-mouthed movie
3. There's no denying Leonardo DiCaprio's charisma. He's magnetic, even when playing someone this unlikable.
4. It's all just a little... much. There's no reason this movie should run longer than two hours. Some scenes go on too long, others serve no clear purpose. The same beats get hit again and again and again. One critic argued that director Martin Scorsese was making the movie excessive to echo the movie's theme of excess. Yeah... we don't buy that. There's an arrogant indulgence to the movie, a mistaken belief that every little moment is gold.
5. There's a definite GoodFellas vibe here. You have the period costumes and music, the extravagant rise and fall of a criminal, the R-rated vice, the documentary element of learning about a strange subculture. You even have the hero thwarted by a dimwitted sidekick to whom he feels a foolish loyalty. Casino used the same template. A kind of trilogy, maybe?
6. The better movie may have been the crackling 10-minute scene with (a very gaunt) Matthew McConaughey shamelessly explaining the cruel truth of the stockbroker business to DiCaprio...
7. ...or the darkly comic sequence involving FBI wiretaps and "lemon" quaaludes. That's a great bit full of twists and outrageous imagery, though the film ruins the fun - probably intentionally - with an uncomfortable shot of a little girl watching her father stumble around high on drugs. Not cool.
8. You ever hear of something called penny stocks before?
9. Strange how the many many supporting characters make so little impact. They're mostly interchangeable.
10. This is becoming a real pet peeve of ours: movies that hold all of the titles until the end. This seems pretentious somehow, like the movie is so urgent and important and special that it can't waste any time on something so common as titles. Here, you get the Paramount logo and then the movie just starts. It's not until after the last fade-out that we get "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "Directed by Martin Scorsese" and all the rest. Stop it, Hollywood. Just stop. Quit trying to be cute and different.
11. It's an interesting moment when the camera shows an audience of "regular people" paying rapt attention to DiCaprio's instructional bluster about how to sell. This may be the film's most subtle moment, a suggestion that as awful as that world of lying, stealing stockbrokers may be, we all want the secrets to wealth. We want to be just like them. And, perhaps, if given the chance, we would be. Not sure if we agree with that or not.
12. It didn't win any Academy Awards. It didn't deserve any. Too harsh?
13. A disappointment.
2. You may have heard about all of the f-bombs. It's true. This is one supremely foul-mouthed movie
3. There's no denying Leonardo DiCaprio's charisma. He's magnetic, even when playing someone this unlikable.
4. It's all just a little... much. There's no reason this movie should run longer than two hours. Some scenes go on too long, others serve no clear purpose. The same beats get hit again and again and again. One critic argued that director Martin Scorsese was making the movie excessive to echo the movie's theme of excess. Yeah... we don't buy that. There's an arrogant indulgence to the movie, a mistaken belief that every little moment is gold.
5. There's a definite GoodFellas vibe here. You have the period costumes and music, the extravagant rise and fall of a criminal, the R-rated vice, the documentary element of learning about a strange subculture. You even have the hero thwarted by a dimwitted sidekick to whom he feels a foolish loyalty. Casino used the same template. A kind of trilogy, maybe?
6. The better movie may have been the crackling 10-minute scene with (a very gaunt) Matthew McConaughey shamelessly explaining the cruel truth of the stockbroker business to DiCaprio...
7. ...or the darkly comic sequence involving FBI wiretaps and "lemon" quaaludes. That's a great bit full of twists and outrageous imagery, though the film ruins the fun - probably intentionally - with an uncomfortable shot of a little girl watching her father stumble around high on drugs. Not cool.
8. You ever hear of something called penny stocks before?
9. Strange how the many many supporting characters make so little impact. They're mostly interchangeable.
10. This is becoming a real pet peeve of ours: movies that hold all of the titles until the end. This seems pretentious somehow, like the movie is so urgent and important and special that it can't waste any time on something so common as titles. Here, you get the Paramount logo and then the movie just starts. It's not until after the last fade-out that we get "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "Directed by Martin Scorsese" and all the rest. Stop it, Hollywood. Just stop. Quit trying to be cute and different.
11. It's an interesting moment when the camera shows an audience of "regular people" paying rapt attention to DiCaprio's instructional bluster about how to sell. This may be the film's most subtle moment, a suggestion that as awful as that world of lying, stealing stockbrokers may be, we all want the secrets to wealth. We want to be just like them. And, perhaps, if given the chance, we would be. Not sure if we agree with that or not.
12. It didn't win any Academy Awards. It didn't deserve any. Too harsh?
13. A disappointment.
12.28.2013
Knee-jerk review: "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"
1. It'd be interesting to see some kind of study about what impact, if any, Katniss Everdeen has had on archery lessons among tween girls.
2. This sequel is much better than the first film. This is due in part to the bigger scope and budget. No more cheesy special effects from the late night SyFy movie-of-the-week bargain bin, not for a multi-million dollar tent-pole franchise.
3. But there's also a stronger emotional undercurrent to the story, whether it's Katniss dealing with a kind of PTSD from her experiences in the Games in the first movie or simply watching her evolve from a disinterested figurehead to a determined rebel leader.
4. Yes, we're one of those people who's read all of the books. We liked the last book, Mockingjay, the least. And the filmmakers are turning that one into two movies. We'll see how that works out. (The first book is the best one.)
5. We've seen Battle Royale. It's worth a look if you're into this kind of dystopian story. Similar plots, but it's got an entirely different tone than the Hunger Games stories.
6. All of this is fairly ridiculous, but the cast sells you. They are fully committed. How can you go wrong with Woody Harrelson and Philip Seymour Hoffman and Geoffrey Wright and Stanley Tucci? That's a rhetorical question, people.
7. "Tick tock."
8. We really can't get behind the Gale-vs-Peeta thing. Why is this such a torturous decision? Gale just seems like a meathead. The fact that we're even talking about this shows how this movie lays bare a Twilight-style romantic triangle and betrays the story's young-adult, female-skewing roots.
9. Donald Sutherland certainly seems to be having a good time.
10. The movie is way over the top with its depiction of the gap between the haves and have-nots, but there are certain similarities between Panem of the future and America of the present.
11. Brilliant name for the Capital's violent, brutal shock troops: Peacekeepers.
12. We're going to have to find a way to work the three-fingered salute into our everyday life.
13. The ending is rather abrupt, but it's very faithful to the book and clearly sets up Katniss as a jaded, determined hero who will spend the next two movies kicking ass and taking names.
14. And, oh yeah, Jennifer Lawrence is a movie star with real acting chops. We'll be talking about her for years to come. How can you not like her? She's like Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock. But maybe with more range than them.
12.02.2013
"Come on down, you're the next game theorist to play..."
This is the kind of OCD-driven exploration of meaningless pop culture that the Cheese Fry can get behind. Ben Blatt at Slate.com recently created a detailed examination of how to use game theory to better contestant odds on "The Price is Right."
If you're a fan of the show, you simply have to take a look at the level of detail Blatt put into this thing. He's not only offering broad strategies for the Big Wheel, Contestant's Row, and the Showcase Showdown, he is breaking down the rules and odds and theories for every single pricing game. It is mind-boggling.
12.01.2013
"Battle of the Network Stars 2013"
If it wasn't for finding proof at Wikipedia and YouTube, we might think that youthful memories of "Battle of the Network Stars" was just some sort of fever dream. In what world would vain TV actors wear spandex bathing suits and compete in lame elementary-school P.E. sports like tug-of-war or participate in traveling circus gags like the dunk tank? In what world would one network allow its top stars to appear on a rival network? In what world would a collection of A-list talent draw just a small collection of spectators and fans on the rolling hills of Pepperdine University, treating this Hollywood showdown like some boring Division II volleyball game?
It really happened, people.
Twice a year on ABC in the late 80s and early 90s, viewers across America just like us bore witness to "Battle of the Network Stars." It seems steeped in kitschy irony today, but at the time, this was mostly serious stuff. Which is why it is so compelling.
Stuck in an Atlanta hotel room for a four-day conference, we recently stumbled onto a marathon of this show broadcast on some outer-fringe ESPN channel. We couldn't look away. Older actors like Ed Asner and William Devane inappropriately sporting Speedos; youthful actors like Melissa Gilbert and Scott Baio sporting terrycloth headbands; amazing displays of athleticism by ex-jocks like Gregory Harrison and Mark Harmon (we saw Luke Duke himself, Tom Wopat throw beautiful football spirals) side by side with humiliating displays of complete ineptitude by the likes of William Shatner (the dude could not figure out how to get into a kayak) and Charlene Tilton; actors we'd never heard of who likely popped champagne on getting their big network TV show gig only to vanish into the ether of history; and all of it covered by the one and only Howard Cosell who called these ridiculous events like he was covering some "Monday Night Football" contest with playoff implications.
It's genius.
And it got us to thinking.
What if somehow the networks agreed to recreate this thing today? If we stuck to the same scenarios and gimmicks of the old show, how would a 2013 edition look?
First we'd have to assume two things.
1. That TV actors would be interested. Back then, actors got big checks, yes, but not the kind of million-dollar contracts that are so regular now. Financial incentives were apparently a big factor on "Battle of the Network Stars." Ashton Kutcher today makes six figures per episode of "Two and half Men." And there's 22 episodes in a season. We'll let you go do the math. You might have to try and go the old "donations to charity" route, but that further assumes all of them have passion side projects.
2. That TV networks would allow such aggressive cross-promotion. We live in a world where NBC's "The Today Show" does everything it can to avoid promoting an ABC show. Back then, the networks seemed to see value in exposing their shows to a wide audience by any means necessary. Now, outside of award shows or Jay Leno's couch, network talent just don't mingle.
But let's pretend that somehow you got the actors and networks to agree. Then what?
* The host - You'd need someone with gravitas like Cosell. But also someone who, like Cosell, was sort of in on the joke. Who's our Howard Cosell? A few years ago you might have said John Madden. But he's long been retired, leaving us only one possibility. Bob Costas. (Though you just know Ryan Seacrest's agents will be pitching him for the job.) Full of himself but articulate, somewhat brilliant, and sometimes - with that little smirk - a little aware of how goofy the whole thing is. So we hire Bob to patrol the sidelines with a corded mike, maybe asking a sitcom actor about how he feels going into the next obstacle course sprint, how the team captain is strategizing about the next event, or maybe even uttering subtly creepy sexual innuendos as some attractive ingenue gets dunked in the tank. In 2013, no host goes it alone so Costas probably needs some female sidekick. We nominate "Extra's" Maria Menounos because why not.
* The location - Out of tradition, let's keep it at Pepperdine. The green hills, the wide open spaces, the blue skies.
* The spectators - This is going to be a whole lot different in our social-media-infused world. No longer will the contest be witnessed by whoever seemingly happened to be driving through Malibu on the way to the beach. No, in 2013, "Battle of the Network Stars" will be a mega-media event. You've got to get coverage on all of those inane "Entertainment Tonight" shows, buzz on Twitter hype, multiple collector edition covers on Entertainment Weekly. And so the bleachers at Pepperdine (and big giant ones will have to be constructed just for this show) will be filled not by random passersby but by ticket holders who paid top dollar for the privilege. And just think of all the paparazzi swarming outside, feeding candid and embarrassing shots (sample cover headline: "Guess Who Almost Drowned?") to "Us Weekly" and "In Touch" and those rags. We're not sure if there should be a red carpet, but our gut tells us there probably should be.
* The fourth network - We can't stick to the old three-network field. It's probably possible to ignore the CW, but we can't keep out Fox. So rather than a tug-of-war final pitting the top two networks (networks earn points at each competition) for a final, it may be better to do some kind of bye for the top team and let the second-place and third-place networks duke it out somehow to advance to the finals. This may need some further review in the competition committee.
* The grizzled captain. The pattern seems to be that some older male dramatic actor serves as a fatherly captain for his network team. Think William Shatner, Willian Devane, Daniel J. Travanti, Gabe Kaplan, Robert Urich. Today, that would be "SVU's" Dann Florek or "Dancing with the Stars's" Tom Bergeron or "CSI's" Ted Danson or, best of all, "Modern Family's" Ed O'Neil. And if you include the network football shows, there's always Fox's Terry Bradshaw or CBS's Dan Marino. You could also go full circle and bring in "NCIS's" Mark Harmon, who was just a youngster back when the original "Battle of the Network Stars" ran. He's our legacy player!
* The hot young ingenue. There's also a clear preference to get attractive young actresses on the show, mostly - it seems - to get them wet in their one-piece bathing suit when they get dunked in the dunk tank. Full disclosure: we love seeing the actresses of our youth (Heather Thomas, Randi Oakes, Erin Gray) in this situation even as we hate ourselves for loving it. In 2013, you'd have to consider "The Big Bang Theory's" Kaley Cuoco, "Two Broke Girls's" Kat Dennings, "Nashville's" Hayden Panetierre, "Revolution's" Tracy Spiridakos, "Modern Family's" Sarah Hyland, and maybe maybe "New Girl's" Zooey Deschanel. We don't think even in this alternate universe the producers could ever get "The Voice's" Christina Aguilera, but how hilarious would that be?
* The ex-jock. There's a lot of awkward displays of athleticism among most of the actors. These aren't people gifted with speed or balance or stamina. These are people who look good, can cry on cue, and can remember lots of words at a time. But each team at least one young buck actor, the strapping hunk who played ball in college. And you can tell. They are into this. This is no joke. For people like Mark Harmon, Greg Evigan, Tom Selleck, and Douglas Barr, this a return to the glory days. Who do we have nowadays to fill that role? Who are the 30-somethings with something to prove? We can see "The Good Wife's" Josh Charles, "Bones's" David Boreanaz, "Person of Interest's" Jim Caveziel, "Revolution's" Billy Burke, "Survivor's" Jeff Probst, and most definitely "Hawaii Five-O's" preening Alex O'Loughlin. A few years ago, this would be a slam dunk for "Two and Half Men's" Charlie Sheen. If Maria's busy maybe Charlie could be the color man for Costas.
* The speedster youths. We also noticed a trend of the really young actors displaying blazing speed, especially on the obstacle course. There was apparently a whole slew of shows in which Kristy McNichol broke her own record again and again. She could not be stopped. There's a lot of potential for this kind of ringer in 2013. The casts of "Parenthood" and "Modern Family" and "Glee" are filled with teenagers who are probably a lot more agile and spry than their older peers.
* The contests. There's really no need to mess with perfection. For students of this show, you know what we're talking about. In the new edition, we'd want to keep the dunk tank, the flag football scrimmage, the kayaking, the tug of war, and - of course - the obstacle course with it's little pool swing and blue and red tires. That's the show's signature, iconic event. You may even want to somehow make the obstacle course as the final. We'd suggest cutting the swimming and cycling because they're so ordinary and without the possibility of real humiliation. Maybe add in a basketball event since the NBA is so huge and because lots of white guys mistakenly think they can ball which can be funny. Maybe "horse" or 21. Another possibility is some kind of wacky "Survivor" style puzzle gag or an endurance thing where everyone tries to hang onto a telephone pole or maybe even a gross-eating contest. These could be a nice tip of the hat to the reality TV boom. And please please... no "Simon Says" bit. It's cute but it's more gag than game.
So what do you think? Would you watch this kind of show? We think it'd be a smash success, especially if you only ran it once a year. Time it to coincide with the new fall season, drum up interest in the old returning shows and the new shows.
And since TV loves franchises, spin this off into a "Battle of the Cable Stars" and include the cast of "Mad Men" and "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones."
We are genius. Hollywood, you're welcome.
11.28.2013
"Good morning. Florrick/Agos. How may I direct your call?"
If you're not watching CBS' genius legal/political drama "The Good Wife," shame on you. Now is the perfect time to dive in - a few weeks ago the show reorganized itself with a radical upheaval that's just this side of a complete reboot. When two lead characters defected from the cozy confines of the show's plush law firm to strike out on their own, old coworkers became new adversaries and whole new avenues of conflict were opened up.
It's the kind of creative jolt most shows never dare attempt. When the name of the game is maintaining loyal viewers to sell to advertisers like Ford and Apple and Paramount Pictures, you don't rock the boat. Networks spend years looking for a hit show. When they land one, they milk it for all its worth. That's how you get ten years of derivative "CSI" episodes, each one just like the next, the interchangeable detectives solving case after case after case where the only thing different is the gory details. Most TV watchers don't really want to be challenged. They want comfort food.
We have no doubt that if "The Good Wife" threw in some obscenity and nudity or if it aired on a trendier cable network like AMC or HBO, it would be raining Emmys. It's far, far sharper and more layered than just about any show on network TV. It really is "Game of Thrones" good. The cast is uniformly outstanding, the characters all richly contradictory and well-rounded, the legal twists and turns always as surprising as they are plausible. These are smart characters showing off how smart they are. But it's 2013 and network TV is considered lame and uncool, so "The Good Wife" gets mostly shut out of the big awards.
More and more, the show's starting to make technology its narrative brand. This doesn't mean just using tech to solve cases (though it does do that). "The Good Wife" also builds a lot of its plots out of the ethical and legal problems surrounding technology, whether it's privacy concerns, cyberbullying, search engine algorithms, NSA spying. The list goes on and on. (In the fictional world of the show, all-powerful Google is something called Chumhum.) Just as technology and the web have influenced every corner of our collective existence, so too does it impact all areas of the show. "The Good Wife" has become so skilled in this area that it's drawn the attention of both Wired and Slate. If you're a fan of the show, these articles are worth a look.
Now go set your DVRs.
11.24.2013
A few words about "Gravity"
We saw this almost two months ago, far past the self-imposed expiration date of our usual "Knee-Jerk" review. But it's stuck with us and if you haven't seen it, what are you waiting for?
It's a masterpiece, plain and simple, a stirring example of the narrative and visceral power of cinema. Was that pretentious enough for you? Get off the couch and go, people.
Technically, the movie is nothing sort of awesome, using watershed visual effects to show you things you've never seen before. Think about that a moment. Filmmakers face an incredibly sophisticated audience that, like some kind of CGI junkie, needs bigger and bigger spectacles to get that kick of excitement to justify $8 tickets and $10 soft drinks. (We suspect that the protracted, eye-popping finale of The Avengers is one reason that movie was such a ridiculous success, but we digress.) But writer-director Alfonso Cuaron and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki find multiple ways here to push the envelope. Disintegrating spacecraft coming apart in the soundless vacuum of space, glorious sunrises and sunsets from orbit, beautiful-yet-deadly microgravity flames, out-of-control astronauts spinning in and out of sunlight, Sandra Bullock floating in a space station. Read a little about the movie's years-in-the-making backstory and you'll see what we mean. The filmmakers invented entire new camera rigs and production processes. You may have heard comparisons to the iconic, groundbreaking outer space visuals of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's no hyperbole. This movie is that good. (Just make sure you see it in 3D and/or in IMAX for the full effect.)
As for the story, it's a cousin of Cast Away, putting a smart-but-inexperienced character into an impossible situation where survival depends on resourcefulness, luck, and a need to toughen up real quick. Stories of survival are our most primal; everyone can relate to a desire to cheat death. So there's a simplicity to the story. We know what Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's characters must do, so it becomes a question of watching them succeed or fail by overcoming obstacles the plot throws in the way. And there are a lot of obstacles. This is one of those "Murphy's Law" movies we love so much - everything that can go wrong will go... and at the worst possible moment. Even better, unlike so many recent would-be blockbusters, Gravity doesn't feel the need to drag everything out over 120+ minutes and cram in multiple loud climaxes and arbitrary, exhausting plot twists. This movie's barely an hour and a half long. That gives the action a lean, sparse quality. There is no fat. It's got, like, momentum.
It's also got something else: narrative ambiguities. This is the sort of extra layer that can transform good movies into great art. We don't want to spoil the movie, but there's more than one way - as you may have heard - to read the movie's last act. There is no right answer. We viewed it one way, then started wondering if maybe we had it wrong. (And it's not one of those annoying European-style open endings where you have no idea what you just saw or where the film just ends abruptly before a resolution like "The Sopranos." This is more of a... fuzzy ending.) Cuaron seems to want his audience to, you know, think. He's designed it that way. Even better, the story's plot is ingeniously linked directly to Bullock's own personal crisis of faith. Screenwriting professors talk a lot about how a character's external struggle should mirror his/her internal struggle. This is a textbook example of how it's done. Admittedly, we didn't catch on to some of these poetic parallels until much later (i.e. Bullock may be sort-of, kind-of suicidal, which is echoed in her situation in the movie, stuck between the earth and the heavens). But that's why the movie is so brilliant, people. It begs repeat viewing to look for more meaning, more connections, more metaphors.
As for the acting, Clooney does what Clooney does best: exude swagger and charm. Bullock has the harder task since she's alone for a good chunk of the movie. The part isn't as showy as Tom Hanks' part in Cast Away if only because this movie has more of an action vibe. It's a lot of "Argh!" and "Oh no!" and "Eeeek!" But she does get a couple of powerful monologues and a showy emotional breakdown moment. An Oscar nomination is a sure thing. Will she win? Not sure. But it's a far more subtle, emotional performance than the showy, rather shrill "look-at-me" one from The Blind Side that got her Best Actress a few years ago.
A+
11.19.2013
Even zombies need mobile phones
You waited three months for this? After this long, cold Cheese Fry period of dormancy, yes, this is the post we use for a relaunch.
We love zombies ("The Walking Dead" this season is killing it, as TJ Lavin might say) and this Sprint spot always makes us laugh.
We love zombies ("The Walking Dead" this season is killing it, as TJ Lavin might say) and this Sprint spot always makes us laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)