I feel I've been too positive about Disney on this blog lately, as I've covered their recent films, series, and other output. Frankly, there are a lot of negatives to their company practices and their recent acquisition of 20th Century Fox that I'm not at all happy with. I thought it was time for a post specifically discussing this.
Let's start with the basic facts of the merger and reorganization. Disney has assumed control of Twentyfirst Century Fox and most of its subsidiaries, which removes competition from the entertainment industry on a fundamental level. So far, Disney has announced the shut down of the Fox 2000 label, which gave us "Hidden Figures" and "Love Simon." Fox Sports Networks has been sold to Sinclair Broadcasting Group. There have been several waves of layoffs so far, and it has been estimated that they may eventually affect up to 4,000 employees.
Many Fox films in development, such as the fantasy tentpole "Mouse Guard," have been cancelled. A list circulated in August, with over 200 projects that had been cut loose. A few like Paul Greengrass/Tom Hanks film "News of the World" and an adaptation of Angie Thomas's "On the Come Up" have been picked up by other studios, but most have simply been left adrift. What remains of the current Fox slate is being limited to ten films a year (down from 15-18 theatrical releases), with half of those films expected to be destined for Hulu and Disney+. Franchise films like "Avatar," "Kingsman," and "Planet of the Apes" will be getting the most attention, and there have been rumblings of reboots being planned for older franchises like "Home Alone" and "Night at the Museum," which will likely go to streaming. Fox Searchlight Pictures, the vaunted indie division of Fox, has so far been left untouched. However, there have been some troubling reports, like a screening of Taika Waititi's "Jojo Rabbit" leaving an executive worried "that the material would alienate Disney fans."
Another issue that has come up is the hit that repertory theaters have taken since Disney's policy toward its catalogue titles is now being applied to Fox films. In short, Disney isn't a fan of its older films being exhibited for profit, and now it's taking many popular Fox titles out of circulation as well, including "Fight Club," "Alien," "The Princess Bride," "Die Hard," and "The Sound of Music." The only exempt title at the moment seems to be perennial midnight screening favorite, "Rocky Horror Picture Show." There's been a lot of speculation as to Disney's reasons for doing this, whether it's to bolster the appeal of its streaming libraries or remove competition for its new releases. However, the net effect is that the policy will make a lot of movies more difficult to see in the way they were originally intended.
Other theater owners are looking at tougher treatment from Disney too. Disney has been notorious for its stringent exhibitor requirements for showing its bigger blockbusters, often demanding larger percentages of the box office returns, more screens and showtimes, and longer holds. A few years ago, you might remember that Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight" wasn't able to play the Cinerama Dome in Los Angeles, because Disney was hogging screens for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." Now, with control of the Fox films, they'll have even more leverage to squeeze theater owners. The strongarm tactics and unreasonable demands have already caused some exhibitors to drop certain Disney titles. One recent casualty is Terrence Malick's "A Hidden Life," which many smaller art house theaters simply can't afford to show with Disney's restrictions.
We've yet to see much of the effect of the merger on Fox's television holdings, but there are some troubling portents, with Disney clearly prioritizing its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services. Ryan Murphy has jumped ship for Netflix after years of working with Fox, directly pointing to his concerns with the merger as the reason for his decision. Tensions between Disney and Netflix have been steadily on the rise for a while. Netflix also lured away ABC Studios hitmaker Shonda Rimes, and there's been rumors that Disney dropped David Benioff and D.B.Weiss from "Star Wars" after their deal with Netflix. Disney also inherited the acrimonious lawsuit between Fox and Netflix over executive poaching.
Honestly, I'm not as upset about the merger as some, because while Disney is now the biggest entertainment conglomerate on the block, they still have plenty of competition. The streaming wars are heating up. Theatrical exhibition is never as predictable as is seems. Inevitably, some of their more underhanded tactics are going to backfire on them - remember the backlash over the "Frozen" short attached to "Coco"? Disney is a juggernaut, but it's far from invincible. After the record year they've had, 2020 is going to be a much softer one.
I'm also seeing some looming problems with Disney+, but that's a post for another day.
---
Monday, December 30, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Painting Houses With "The Irishman"
Martin Scorsese's long-gestating mob epic has finally hit Netflix, and it's a doozy. Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci are all back onscreen together with a loaded supporting cast, tackling the events around the disappearance of union leader Jimmy Hoffa in 1975.
DeNiro plays Frank Sheeran, the Irishman of the title, who is brought into the criminal enterprises of Russ Bufalino (Pesci), a Philadelphia crime boss. He also becomes a close friend of Hoffa (Pacino), who helps fund the mob, but grows increasingly hostile to them over time, especially a New Yorker named Tony Pro (Stephen Graham). Much of the story is told in flashback, with the main action taking place in 1975, when Frank and Russ are driving to Detroit with their wives to attend a wedding, and conduct some business along the way.
"The Irishman" is three and a half hours in length, it takes a long time to really get a sense of the story that it's telling. At first, it's a typical, rowdy Scorsese crime picture, charting Frank's career as a mob enforcer over several years, and his cozy friendships with Russ and Jimmy. The violence is quick and slick, and Frank is a loyal soldier who stays out of trouble and in everyone's good graces. And the movie is a lot of fun. Then we're in 1975 and the pace slows to a crawl. Frank is on his way to his final meeting with Jimmy, and suddenly the stakes are incredibly high, the tension is unbearable, and the prospect of violence is sickening. And then there's the denouement, which seems inexorable, an unblinking depiction of what happens to Frank in the aftermath of his mob career. In old age and infirmity, the consequences of his lifestyle finally catch up with him, and Scorsese is all too ready to address it head on.
The greatest pleasure of "The Irishman" is seeing Scorsese get these fantastic performance out of a trio of acting greats who haven't had the chance to tackle material like this for too long. DeNiro, I'm sad to say, gets significantly hampered by the heavy use of digital de-aging in the early going. There's simply no disguising that in many scenes a 70-something DeNiro is trying to play a 40-something man in his physical prime. The technology is much better than it used to be, but there are still some notable shortcomings. Fortunately, the more emotionally fraught sequences requiring more subtle acting come later in the film. Al Pacino delivers classic Al Pacino, as fiery and fierce as ever. The real surprise of the picture, however, is Joe Pesci. Russ Bufalino is a very smart, very self-controlled man with a kindly disposition. When he does terrible things, he tends to do them gently - and it's fascinating to watch. I had no idea that Pesci had this in him.
And then there's Scorsese and his crew. Scene by scene, "The Irishman" feels very much of a piece with "Goodfellas," "Casino," and all the rest. Steven Zaillian's dialogue is wonderfully memorable. Rodrigo Prieto's cinematographer never falters. Thelma Schoonmaker is as sharp as ever, juggling multiple timelines and versions of the characters. But while all the sections of the film involving Frank's mob career are excellent, what "The Irishman" is going to be remembered for is that final forty minutes, where Frank grows older and we reach the present day. Scorsese has only briefly touched on the final fates of his mobster anti-heroes in previous films. Here, he's merciless about confronting them with their ultimate fates - untimely deaths for most, and for the few survivors, estrangement and guilt. Much of the film actually hinges on a character who appears briefly, and says very little - Frank's daughter Peggy (Anna Paquin), whose absence haunts him worse than any of his misdeeds.
There are little touches throughout the whole film that signal the film's preoccupation with ignoble ends, notably that every time a new mob figure is introduced, onscreen text gives us not only their name and description, but their date and manner of death. Some of the names and events depicted should be familiar, but Scorsese keeps the narrative perfectly penetrable for those ignoramuses (including yours truly) who aren't up to speed on their mob or union history. "The Irishman" should satisfy those viewers primarily interested in Scorsese's take on Hoffa. But as far as I'm concerned, this movie is Scorsese's last word on the world of organized crime, and it's a magnificent finale.
---
DeNiro plays Frank Sheeran, the Irishman of the title, who is brought into the criminal enterprises of Russ Bufalino (Pesci), a Philadelphia crime boss. He also becomes a close friend of Hoffa (Pacino), who helps fund the mob, but grows increasingly hostile to them over time, especially a New Yorker named Tony Pro (Stephen Graham). Much of the story is told in flashback, with the main action taking place in 1975, when Frank and Russ are driving to Detroit with their wives to attend a wedding, and conduct some business along the way.
"The Irishman" is three and a half hours in length, it takes a long time to really get a sense of the story that it's telling. At first, it's a typical, rowdy Scorsese crime picture, charting Frank's career as a mob enforcer over several years, and his cozy friendships with Russ and Jimmy. The violence is quick and slick, and Frank is a loyal soldier who stays out of trouble and in everyone's good graces. And the movie is a lot of fun. Then we're in 1975 and the pace slows to a crawl. Frank is on his way to his final meeting with Jimmy, and suddenly the stakes are incredibly high, the tension is unbearable, and the prospect of violence is sickening. And then there's the denouement, which seems inexorable, an unblinking depiction of what happens to Frank in the aftermath of his mob career. In old age and infirmity, the consequences of his lifestyle finally catch up with him, and Scorsese is all too ready to address it head on.
The greatest pleasure of "The Irishman" is seeing Scorsese get these fantastic performance out of a trio of acting greats who haven't had the chance to tackle material like this for too long. DeNiro, I'm sad to say, gets significantly hampered by the heavy use of digital de-aging in the early going. There's simply no disguising that in many scenes a 70-something DeNiro is trying to play a 40-something man in his physical prime. The technology is much better than it used to be, but there are still some notable shortcomings. Fortunately, the more emotionally fraught sequences requiring more subtle acting come later in the film. Al Pacino delivers classic Al Pacino, as fiery and fierce as ever. The real surprise of the picture, however, is Joe Pesci. Russ Bufalino is a very smart, very self-controlled man with a kindly disposition. When he does terrible things, he tends to do them gently - and it's fascinating to watch. I had no idea that Pesci had this in him.
And then there's Scorsese and his crew. Scene by scene, "The Irishman" feels very much of a piece with "Goodfellas," "Casino," and all the rest. Steven Zaillian's dialogue is wonderfully memorable. Rodrigo Prieto's cinematographer never falters. Thelma Schoonmaker is as sharp as ever, juggling multiple timelines and versions of the characters. But while all the sections of the film involving Frank's mob career are excellent, what "The Irishman" is going to be remembered for is that final forty minutes, where Frank grows older and we reach the present day. Scorsese has only briefly touched on the final fates of his mobster anti-heroes in previous films. Here, he's merciless about confronting them with their ultimate fates - untimely deaths for most, and for the few survivors, estrangement and guilt. Much of the film actually hinges on a character who appears briefly, and says very little - Frank's daughter Peggy (Anna Paquin), whose absence haunts him worse than any of his misdeeds.
There are little touches throughout the whole film that signal the film's preoccupation with ignoble ends, notably that every time a new mob figure is introduced, onscreen text gives us not only their name and description, but their date and manner of death. Some of the names and events depicted should be familiar, but Scorsese keeps the narrative perfectly penetrable for those ignoramuses (including yours truly) who aren't up to speed on their mob or union history. "The Irishman" should satisfy those viewers primarily interested in Scorsese's take on Hoffa. But as far as I'm concerned, this movie is Scorsese's last word on the world of organized crime, and it's a magnificent finale.
---
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Muddling Through "Midsommar"
I didn't like "Hereditary," and I came out of "Midsommar" very, very mixed. I give director Ari Aster full credit for creating one of the most beautiful, lovingly designed films I've seen this year. However, it's all put in service of a story that feels fatally truncated, and characters who are difficult to connect to.
Dani (Florence Pugh) is recovering from the terrible deaths of her sister and parents, and stuck in a toxic relationship with Christian (Jack Reynor), an anthropology graduate student. She tags along on his trip to Sweden to visit a remote commune, the Hårga, with Josh (William Jackson Harper), Mark (Will Poulter), and their Hårga host Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren). They arrive in time for the nine-day midsummer festival that takes place every ninety years, full of strange rituals and customs.
The Hårga commune is absolutely gorgeous, meticulously designed to reflect their agrarian lifestyle and obsessions with the cycles of nature. Unlike other horror films, the visuals of "Midsommar" lean heavily on light and color, with the Hårga all dressed in white for the festival, and flowers and plant life incorporated into many of their rituals. A central event is the dancing competition to choose a May Queen, involving a giant maypole structure shaped like one of the Hårga runes. Architecture and clothing are also covered in runes and floral motifs, using charmingly rustic patterns and images. Digetic folk music features prominently. All these lovely, bucolic elements work in terrific contrast to the raw violence and sexuality that eventually come to the forefront of the revelry.
Watching the events of the festival slowly play out over two hours is very tense and disturbing. However, none of it was as emotionally wrenching as "Hereditary," or as deeply unnerving. The violent ending in particular landed with a thud. I think this has to do with the characterization of the leads, or really the lack of it. I was looking forward to "Midsommar" in large part because of its cast, which includes several excellent young actors I've already liked in other things. Here, they're playing a passel of mostly unlikeable, emotionally screwed up dullards. We know that Dani is traumatized and lets herself be a doormat to Christian, because she's afraid of losing him. We know Christian wants to dump her, but is too much of a coward to actually do it. Josh and Mark are both unscrupulous and disrespectful. When push comes to shove, all of these relationships and friendships disintegrate under the slightest pressure.
And in most horror movies, that's all well and good. Paper-thin characters are common when the point is just to deliver visceral chills and thrills. This does not work, however, when a horror film is trying to deliver more psychological horrors based on deeper emotional hurts. Watching Dani ugly cry every time she's reminded of her dead sister is borderline comical, because the movie hasn't made her sympathetic enough for her grief to resonate with the audience. Likewise, without establishing why the crumbling relationship with Christian is so important to her, those final moments of rage and destruction don't really work. I wanted to like Dani, but Florence Pugh wasn't given much to work with, and it seemed like the film was thwarting any attempts to empathize with her at every turn.
Part of the issue is also the slow, hypnotic pace of the film, and a very alienated camera that is much more interested in watching the festival progress through each ritual and activity than it is with what the characters are going through emotionally. Like "Hereditary," there are several sequences that are staged so that people look like dolls arranged in artful dioramas or tableaux, stripped of all agency and humanity. That was fine for "Hereditary" because for most of the movie it wasn't clear what the grand design of the cultists was, and the uncertainty was a big element of the film. In "Midsommar," however, the rituals are all telegraphed far in advance, and watching everyone get to that grand finale isn't nearly as shocking or moving. I appreciated the hell out of it, but wasn't caught up in it.
"Midsommar" is still fascinating, as a sort of ethnographic record of a fictional cult. I also appreciate the filmmaking craft - the psychedelic visuals, the amazing production design, and the whole presentation of this brightly lit pastoral nightmare world. I loved the fearless use of nudity, the discomfort around sexual situations, and the moments of deadpan humor. On a dramatic level, unfortunately, it left a lot to be desired.
---
Dani (Florence Pugh) is recovering from the terrible deaths of her sister and parents, and stuck in a toxic relationship with Christian (Jack Reynor), an anthropology graduate student. She tags along on his trip to Sweden to visit a remote commune, the Hårga, with Josh (William Jackson Harper), Mark (Will Poulter), and their Hårga host Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren). They arrive in time for the nine-day midsummer festival that takes place every ninety years, full of strange rituals and customs.
The Hårga commune is absolutely gorgeous, meticulously designed to reflect their agrarian lifestyle and obsessions with the cycles of nature. Unlike other horror films, the visuals of "Midsommar" lean heavily on light and color, with the Hårga all dressed in white for the festival, and flowers and plant life incorporated into many of their rituals. A central event is the dancing competition to choose a May Queen, involving a giant maypole structure shaped like one of the Hårga runes. Architecture and clothing are also covered in runes and floral motifs, using charmingly rustic patterns and images. Digetic folk music features prominently. All these lovely, bucolic elements work in terrific contrast to the raw violence and sexuality that eventually come to the forefront of the revelry.
Watching the events of the festival slowly play out over two hours is very tense and disturbing. However, none of it was as emotionally wrenching as "Hereditary," or as deeply unnerving. The violent ending in particular landed with a thud. I think this has to do with the characterization of the leads, or really the lack of it. I was looking forward to "Midsommar" in large part because of its cast, which includes several excellent young actors I've already liked in other things. Here, they're playing a passel of mostly unlikeable, emotionally screwed up dullards. We know that Dani is traumatized and lets herself be a doormat to Christian, because she's afraid of losing him. We know Christian wants to dump her, but is too much of a coward to actually do it. Josh and Mark are both unscrupulous and disrespectful. When push comes to shove, all of these relationships and friendships disintegrate under the slightest pressure.
And in most horror movies, that's all well and good. Paper-thin characters are common when the point is just to deliver visceral chills and thrills. This does not work, however, when a horror film is trying to deliver more psychological horrors based on deeper emotional hurts. Watching Dani ugly cry every time she's reminded of her dead sister is borderline comical, because the movie hasn't made her sympathetic enough for her grief to resonate with the audience. Likewise, without establishing why the crumbling relationship with Christian is so important to her, those final moments of rage and destruction don't really work. I wanted to like Dani, but Florence Pugh wasn't given much to work with, and it seemed like the film was thwarting any attempts to empathize with her at every turn.
Part of the issue is also the slow, hypnotic pace of the film, and a very alienated camera that is much more interested in watching the festival progress through each ritual and activity than it is with what the characters are going through emotionally. Like "Hereditary," there are several sequences that are staged so that people look like dolls arranged in artful dioramas or tableaux, stripped of all agency and humanity. That was fine for "Hereditary" because for most of the movie it wasn't clear what the grand design of the cultists was, and the uncertainty was a big element of the film. In "Midsommar," however, the rituals are all telegraphed far in advance, and watching everyone get to that grand finale isn't nearly as shocking or moving. I appreciated the hell out of it, but wasn't caught up in it.
"Midsommar" is still fascinating, as a sort of ethnographic record of a fictional cult. I also appreciate the filmmaking craft - the psychedelic visuals, the amazing production design, and the whole presentation of this brightly lit pastoral nightmare world. I loved the fearless use of nudity, the discomfort around sexual situations, and the moments of deadpan humor. On a dramatic level, unfortunately, it left a lot to be desired.
---
Monday, December 23, 2019
"Toy Story" Forever
Want to know a secret? I didn't really like "Toy Story 3," the Best Picture nominated, era-capping PIXAR masterpiece, as much as everyone else seemed to. I found it a little overly treacly and maudlin, even though it was overall a very fine movie, full of very fine performances and concepts, executed beautifully. I actually like the ending provided by "Toy Story 4" a bit better, keeping in mind that this ending wouldn't have been possible without the existence of "Toy Story 3."
Sheriff Woody (Tom Hanks) and his friends are helping little Bonnie (Madeleine McGraw) adjust to kindergarten. He latches on to helping Forky (Tony Hale), Bonnie's current favorite toy, who she made out of a discarded spork. Forky is having trouble adjusting to the idea that he is a toy instead of trash, and keeps getting himself lost or misplaced. He and Woody end up separated from the rest of the toys during Bonnie's family road trip. They meet several other toys at an antique store and a carnival, including Woody's old love interest Bo Peep (Annie Potts), now living in the wild as a lost toy.
I like the idea that I've seen floated around that "Toy Story 3" is about a parent letting go of their kid, and that "Toy Story 4" is about the parent realizing that it's okay to move on. It has plenty of action sequences and humor, but it's also a much more thoughtful and personal film than I was expecting. We spend most of the film with Woody, who is working through a lot of emotional and existential issues while having encounters with all the new characters. With the exception of Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), most of the old gang is kept in the background, ceding the spotlight to Forky, Bo, Giggle McDimples (Ally Maki), Duke Kaboom (Keanu Reeves), and the comedic duo of Bunny and Ducky (Jordan Peele and Keegan Michael Key). The villain of the piece is Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), an antique doll with a gang of ventriloquist dummies for minions.
It's the new characters who really enliven the movie, and I'm glad that the folks at PIXAR took the risk of putting them at the forefront. I love the weird, haphazard nature of Forky, mirroring his construction. I love that Duke Kaboom is just an excuse for a string of Canadian references and in-jokes, but still generates pathos and affection. Bunny and Ducky are awfully reminiscent of aggressive comic relief characters in lesser animated films, but the film figures out how to use them well. Gabby Gabby is also a very familiar kind of character, but she gets a well-considered arc that makes her distinct from her predecessors. These new personalities and some new settings go a long way in helping "Toy Story 4" feel like a different animal than the other "Toy Story" movies, opening up new parts of the series' universe as it tackles new thematic territory too.
Like many other PIXAR features, this one balances adult concerns with plenty of kid-friendly hijinks and silliness. I like that this one gets a little stranger and a little more surreal than I've come to expect from PIXAR. There's a lot of dark humor involving Forky, some slightly off-color insinuations made by Giggles, and what I suspect is an honest-to-god "Akira" reference delivered by Key and Peele. It feels like the rules of the universe have shifted a bit, to the point where the toys are actively messing with Bonnie's parents (Jay Hernandez, Lori Alan) without any hesitation. Then again, that fits in with the arc of the franchise, where Woody learns to see things from different perspectives over time.
For longtime PIXAR fans, there are more in-jokes and references here than I think I've seen in any of their other films. Of course the animation is spectacular, and of course the production design, performances, writing, music, and everything else is sublime. Nitpickers can point to reused plot points and concepts from other recent PIXAR films, but the execution is so impeccable, I can't bring myself to care. In short, "Toy Story 4" easily lives up to the rest of the "Toy Story" films, and if PIXAR wants to make another one somewhere down the line, I'm all for it.
---
Sheriff Woody (Tom Hanks) and his friends are helping little Bonnie (Madeleine McGraw) adjust to kindergarten. He latches on to helping Forky (Tony Hale), Bonnie's current favorite toy, who she made out of a discarded spork. Forky is having trouble adjusting to the idea that he is a toy instead of trash, and keeps getting himself lost or misplaced. He and Woody end up separated from the rest of the toys during Bonnie's family road trip. They meet several other toys at an antique store and a carnival, including Woody's old love interest Bo Peep (Annie Potts), now living in the wild as a lost toy.
I like the idea that I've seen floated around that "Toy Story 3" is about a parent letting go of their kid, and that "Toy Story 4" is about the parent realizing that it's okay to move on. It has plenty of action sequences and humor, but it's also a much more thoughtful and personal film than I was expecting. We spend most of the film with Woody, who is working through a lot of emotional and existential issues while having encounters with all the new characters. With the exception of Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), most of the old gang is kept in the background, ceding the spotlight to Forky, Bo, Giggle McDimples (Ally Maki), Duke Kaboom (Keanu Reeves), and the comedic duo of Bunny and Ducky (Jordan Peele and Keegan Michael Key). The villain of the piece is Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), an antique doll with a gang of ventriloquist dummies for minions.
It's the new characters who really enliven the movie, and I'm glad that the folks at PIXAR took the risk of putting them at the forefront. I love the weird, haphazard nature of Forky, mirroring his construction. I love that Duke Kaboom is just an excuse for a string of Canadian references and in-jokes, but still generates pathos and affection. Bunny and Ducky are awfully reminiscent of aggressive comic relief characters in lesser animated films, but the film figures out how to use them well. Gabby Gabby is also a very familiar kind of character, but she gets a well-considered arc that makes her distinct from her predecessors. These new personalities and some new settings go a long way in helping "Toy Story 4" feel like a different animal than the other "Toy Story" movies, opening up new parts of the series' universe as it tackles new thematic territory too.
Like many other PIXAR features, this one balances adult concerns with plenty of kid-friendly hijinks and silliness. I like that this one gets a little stranger and a little more surreal than I've come to expect from PIXAR. There's a lot of dark humor involving Forky, some slightly off-color insinuations made by Giggles, and what I suspect is an honest-to-god "Akira" reference delivered by Key and Peele. It feels like the rules of the universe have shifted a bit, to the point where the toys are actively messing with Bonnie's parents (Jay Hernandez, Lori Alan) without any hesitation. Then again, that fits in with the arc of the franchise, where Woody learns to see things from different perspectives over time.
For longtime PIXAR fans, there are more in-jokes and references here than I think I've seen in any of their other films. Of course the animation is spectacular, and of course the production design, performances, writing, music, and everything else is sublime. Nitpickers can point to reused plot points and concepts from other recent PIXAR films, but the execution is so impeccable, I can't bring myself to care. In short, "Toy Story 4" easily lives up to the rest of the "Toy Story" films, and if PIXAR wants to make another one somewhere down the line, I'm all for it.
---
Saturday, December 21, 2019
The State of the Superhero, 2019
Spoilers for "Endgame" ahead.
Oh boy, what a year. Disney and Marvel are on top of the world, with the record breaking "Avengers: Endgame," and billion dollar earners "Captain Marvel" and "Spider-man: Far From Home." I liked "Endgame" because it delivered a lot of payoff, but the other two were on the weaker side. The MCU definitely reached a climactic moment in 2019, because of the momentum of all of these films in one continuous storyline. Next year, however, with "Black Widow" and "Eternals," we're bound to see an ebb in Marvel's fortunes as far as the box office is concerned. However, there's every reason to hope that the films will be good. Both will be directed by women and star women, a nice break from form.
Disney also acquired Fox and their slate, absorbing the critical and commercial failure of last summer's "Dark Phoenix," and punting "New Mutants" to next spring. Frankly, the acquisition looks worse the longer I think about it. If Disney had "X-men" from the start, the movies would have been more consistent, but they also would have been duller and blander. We never would have had "Logan" or the "Deadpool" movies. There's no way that "Legion" would have made it past a first season. I think about the "Iron Man" sequel we could have had, addressing Tony Stark's battles with alcohol, and I'm still a little pissed off. "New Mutants" is being retooled to be a standalone film, and I'm looking forward to it as a quasi-horror film with a lot of young actors I like. Everything else that Fox had in development, including "X-Force," "Gambit," and even "Deadpool 3," are in limbo.
So right now Warners and Sony are the best hope for more interesting superhero film content. Warners has already delivered with "Joker," possibly the most unlikely Oscar hopeful of the past several years. While technically a comic book feature, this is really a throwback to '80s Scorsese pictures, and directed by Todd Philips of all people. It's a great example of someone taking a big chance with a well known property. I also wish that "Shazam!" had done better. It had its problems, but it was nice seeing a superhero film aimed squarely at kids, and I like the characters that it set up. I'm also looking forward to Cathy Yan's "Birds of Prey," which is a female ensemble piece. It may be a mess, but it'll be a novel kind of mess. I expect that "Wonder Woman 1984" will be the film to beat next year at the box office, banking heavily on more nostalgia. Further out, "The Batman" with Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson, and the "Suicide Squad" reboot with James Gunn are all in various stages of coming together.
Sony's superhero films next year are "Morbius" and "Venom 2," neither of which I have much interest in. However, the studio also deserves many kudos for throwing the biggest wrench into Disney and Marvel's plans by not backing down in the custody battle over Spider-man. Frankly, I would have been perfectly happy to see Spidey leave the MCU. Holland has proven he's popular enough that he'll be able to carry future films just fine by himself. Sony has had its ups and downs with the character, but "Into the Spider-verse" showed that they're willing to take risks that Marvel isn't in a position to. The superhero film I'm looking forward to the most right now is the proposed Spider-Gwen spinoff, possibly featuring more Spider heroines.
Alas, the smaller superhero films like "Brightburn" and the "Hellboy" reboot all crashed and burned. These were reportedly pretty awful films anyway, so it's no great loss. If you count "Glass" as a superhero film, it was a win for M. Night Shyamalan, but audience reactions were unenthusiastic to say the least. Next year, there are a couple of smaller superhero projects that might make some waves. The most prominent one is "Bloodshot," technically a Columbia/Sony production, about a nanotech-enhanced hero played by Vin Diesel. That one's currently set for February.
Television and streaming, of course, are offering even more superhero content, but that's a post for another day.
---
Oh boy, what a year. Disney and Marvel are on top of the world, with the record breaking "Avengers: Endgame," and billion dollar earners "Captain Marvel" and "Spider-man: Far From Home." I liked "Endgame" because it delivered a lot of payoff, but the other two were on the weaker side. The MCU definitely reached a climactic moment in 2019, because of the momentum of all of these films in one continuous storyline. Next year, however, with "Black Widow" and "Eternals," we're bound to see an ebb in Marvel's fortunes as far as the box office is concerned. However, there's every reason to hope that the films will be good. Both will be directed by women and star women, a nice break from form.
Disney also acquired Fox and their slate, absorbing the critical and commercial failure of last summer's "Dark Phoenix," and punting "New Mutants" to next spring. Frankly, the acquisition looks worse the longer I think about it. If Disney had "X-men" from the start, the movies would have been more consistent, but they also would have been duller and blander. We never would have had "Logan" or the "Deadpool" movies. There's no way that "Legion" would have made it past a first season. I think about the "Iron Man" sequel we could have had, addressing Tony Stark's battles with alcohol, and I'm still a little pissed off. "New Mutants" is being retooled to be a standalone film, and I'm looking forward to it as a quasi-horror film with a lot of young actors I like. Everything else that Fox had in development, including "X-Force," "Gambit," and even "Deadpool 3," are in limbo.
So right now Warners and Sony are the best hope for more interesting superhero film content. Warners has already delivered with "Joker," possibly the most unlikely Oscar hopeful of the past several years. While technically a comic book feature, this is really a throwback to '80s Scorsese pictures, and directed by Todd Philips of all people. It's a great example of someone taking a big chance with a well known property. I also wish that "Shazam!" had done better. It had its problems, but it was nice seeing a superhero film aimed squarely at kids, and I like the characters that it set up. I'm also looking forward to Cathy Yan's "Birds of Prey," which is a female ensemble piece. It may be a mess, but it'll be a novel kind of mess. I expect that "Wonder Woman 1984" will be the film to beat next year at the box office, banking heavily on more nostalgia. Further out, "The Batman" with Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson, and the "Suicide Squad" reboot with James Gunn are all in various stages of coming together.
Sony's superhero films next year are "Morbius" and "Venom 2," neither of which I have much interest in. However, the studio also deserves many kudos for throwing the biggest wrench into Disney and Marvel's plans by not backing down in the custody battle over Spider-man. Frankly, I would have been perfectly happy to see Spidey leave the MCU. Holland has proven he's popular enough that he'll be able to carry future films just fine by himself. Sony has had its ups and downs with the character, but "Into the Spider-verse" showed that they're willing to take risks that Marvel isn't in a position to. The superhero film I'm looking forward to the most right now is the proposed Spider-Gwen spinoff, possibly featuring more Spider heroines.
Alas, the smaller superhero films like "Brightburn" and the "Hellboy" reboot all crashed and burned. These were reportedly pretty awful films anyway, so it's no great loss. If you count "Glass" as a superhero film, it was a win for M. Night Shyamalan, but audience reactions were unenthusiastic to say the least. Next year, there are a couple of smaller superhero projects that might make some waves. The most prominent one is "Bloodshot," technically a Columbia/Sony production, about a nanotech-enhanced hero played by Vin Diesel. That one's currently set for February.
Television and streaming, of course, are offering even more superhero content, but that's a post for another day.
---
Thursday, December 19, 2019
My 2019 Holiday Wish List
I'm cutting it close this year.
I've hit a patch of burnout, and haven't really been keeping up with what's going on in the entertainment industry. However, there's a lot going on. Disney's takeover continues. The streaming wars are heating up even more. Post #Metoo and diversity efforts are going strong. We're rolling ahead into another election year, and social media is still awful. I've never felt older and more out of touch, yet simultaneously recognized and catered to by media in my life. In short, it's a weird point in time and bound to get weirder.
So, this year for Christmas I want…
For all the super-heroine movies coming out next year to do well, That includes "Wonder Woman," "Birds of Prey," "Black Widow," and possibly "The Eternals." Recent years have established that there's room for multiple franchises to score wins, and after the disappointment of "Captain Marvel," I want to see some superheroic women really kick some ass this time. I want them to shake up the boy's club and ensure that they are a permanent fixture of this genre for years and years to come. And since all of these movies are being directed by women, it becomes doubly important to support them.
For the 2020 election to conduct itself in a way that will allow me to ignore it as much as possible. I know that the campaigns are going to get dirty and ugly and nasty, and I accept that. However, I already know who I'm going to vote for, so my goal will just be to remove myself from the chaos to the greatest extent possible. No good can come of me getting involved. Frankly, if the social media companies are going to keep dragging their feet about deplatforming bad actors, maybe I should just deplatform myself.
For original properties to make waves at the box office. Yes, we're all excited that Bond and Dominic Toretto are back, but I'm much happier that there are so many original IP on the slate for next year. Two original PIXAR movies, plus another from Disney animation, a new Christopher Nolan film, Shawn Levy's "Free Guy," Edgar Wright's "Last Night in Soho," and Miguel Sapochniks "Bios" are all high on my "Most Anticipated" list. These are all studio produced films, or at least studio distributed films, and fairly high profile. And yet…
For certain sequels in the middle of development snafus to work things out. I want to see the "Crazy Rich Asians" sequel. And the next "Mad Max" movie. And whatever happened to that "Edge of Tomorrow" sequel? I've complained in the past about prominent directors having to wait years between projects because of the difficulties in getting their projects off the ground. However, these days it seems like anything that's not a franchise film faces similar hurdles. Heck, have we heard anything about the status of "Deadpool 3"?
For some help in keeping track of what's premiering on streaming services. There are some good sites devoted to this, but I'm still finding that too many titles are slipping through the cracks, especially with the smaller ones that don't get as much of a marketing push. And the buzz cycle is so short these days that once you miss that initial push, things can get buried quickly. And it doesn't help that some projects have little lead-up hype, so it can feel like they come out of nowhere.
For the success of Simemia, AMC Stubs A-List, Cinemark Movie Club and Regal Unlimited. Moviepass is kaput, but it succeeded in disrupting the market in a good way, and now consumers are seeing the benefits. It proved that there is still a movie-going audience out there, and if the theaters are willing to cut them a deal, there's still money to be made. My hope is that theater subscription services catch on in a more permanent way, similar to the ones that have been used in the UK for ages.
For all the new films and television shows coming out next year to exceed my expectations, and for those that didn't to improve.
For someone to please give Kyle Kallgren a hug, because I think he really needs it.
And for "Bill & Ted Face the Music" to be most excellent.
Happy holidays!
---
I've hit a patch of burnout, and haven't really been keeping up with what's going on in the entertainment industry. However, there's a lot going on. Disney's takeover continues. The streaming wars are heating up even more. Post #Metoo and diversity efforts are going strong. We're rolling ahead into another election year, and social media is still awful. I've never felt older and more out of touch, yet simultaneously recognized and catered to by media in my life. In short, it's a weird point in time and bound to get weirder.
So, this year for Christmas I want…
For all the super-heroine movies coming out next year to do well, That includes "Wonder Woman," "Birds of Prey," "Black Widow," and possibly "The Eternals." Recent years have established that there's room for multiple franchises to score wins, and after the disappointment of "Captain Marvel," I want to see some superheroic women really kick some ass this time. I want them to shake up the boy's club and ensure that they are a permanent fixture of this genre for years and years to come. And since all of these movies are being directed by women, it becomes doubly important to support them.
For the 2020 election to conduct itself in a way that will allow me to ignore it as much as possible. I know that the campaigns are going to get dirty and ugly and nasty, and I accept that. However, I already know who I'm going to vote for, so my goal will just be to remove myself from the chaos to the greatest extent possible. No good can come of me getting involved. Frankly, if the social media companies are going to keep dragging their feet about deplatforming bad actors, maybe I should just deplatform myself.
For original properties to make waves at the box office. Yes, we're all excited that Bond and Dominic Toretto are back, but I'm much happier that there are so many original IP on the slate for next year. Two original PIXAR movies, plus another from Disney animation, a new Christopher Nolan film, Shawn Levy's "Free Guy," Edgar Wright's "Last Night in Soho," and Miguel Sapochniks "Bios" are all high on my "Most Anticipated" list. These are all studio produced films, or at least studio distributed films, and fairly high profile. And yet…
For certain sequels in the middle of development snafus to work things out. I want to see the "Crazy Rich Asians" sequel. And the next "Mad Max" movie. And whatever happened to that "Edge of Tomorrow" sequel? I've complained in the past about prominent directors having to wait years between projects because of the difficulties in getting their projects off the ground. However, these days it seems like anything that's not a franchise film faces similar hurdles. Heck, have we heard anything about the status of "Deadpool 3"?
For some help in keeping track of what's premiering on streaming services. There are some good sites devoted to this, but I'm still finding that too many titles are slipping through the cracks, especially with the smaller ones that don't get as much of a marketing push. And the buzz cycle is so short these days that once you miss that initial push, things can get buried quickly. And it doesn't help that some projects have little lead-up hype, so it can feel like they come out of nowhere.
For the success of Simemia, AMC Stubs A-List, Cinemark Movie Club and Regal Unlimited. Moviepass is kaput, but it succeeded in disrupting the market in a good way, and now consumers are seeing the benefits. It proved that there is still a movie-going audience out there, and if the theaters are willing to cut them a deal, there's still money to be made. My hope is that theater subscription services catch on in a more permanent way, similar to the ones that have been used in the UK for ages.
For all the new films and television shows coming out next year to exceed my expectations, and for those that didn't to improve.
For someone to please give Kyle Kallgren a hug, because I think he really needs it.
And for "Bill & Ted Face the Music" to be most excellent.
Happy holidays!
---
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Oh, "Barry"
I made it through four episodes of "Barry" and quit. I really tried with this one, but I couldn't bring myself to get involved in another show where a depressed hitman gets into wacky hijinks that juxtapose outrageous amounts of violence with an eye-rolling journey of trite self-discovery and self-improvement. I may just not be in the right mood for this after seeing similar premises done badly by other genre shows.
Anyway, individual elements of "Barry" are better than the whole. Bill Hader plays the title character, an international assassin having a midlife crisis, who stumbles upon an acting class one day and unlocks a hidden passion that he now wants to pursue. This is a problem for his handler, Monroe (Stephen Root), as the new extracurriculars immediately impact Barry's latest job for Goran (Glenn Fleshler), a Chechen mobster operating out of Los Angeles. Then Barry falls for his acting classmate Sally (Sarah Goldberg) and is taken under the wing of his instructor Gene (Henry Winkler). There a several familiar faces among the other students, including characters played by Kirby Howell-Baptiste and D'Arcy Carden. And I'd be remiss in not mentioning the genial NoHo Hank (Anthony Carrigan), one of Goran's minions.
My failure to connect with the show really boils down to my exasperation with Barry for getting himself into such contrived, ridiculous situations. I know that he's going through a tough time, but he's completely dropped the ball on a very delicate job, put a friend in danger, and put himself in danger. And for what? Getting in with the L.A. acting scene, full of desperate wannabes, washed up hasbeens, and raging narcissists. And make no mistake that Sally and Gene are both in that last category, desperately inflating their own egos and their own self-importance to keep the spectres of failure at bay. The show also uses the various acting lessons to push Barry to open up, which is very tedious and dull.
I respect and appreciate that "Barry" deglamorizes the acting profession, and is often pointedly critical of it, but this also makes "Barry" a tough watch. A lot of Barry's fascination with acting comes off as intense navel-gazing, aimed at assuaging Hader and co-creator Alec Berg's own insecurities about creative work. Also, while I like that Sally is a self-absorbed parasite, and yet actually talented, I have absolutely no desire to watch her story unfold. Sarah Goldberg is lovely, but a little of Sally goes a long way, and her interaction with Barry often left me cringing. One of the reasons I bailed on the show was that it was starting to shift more and more of its focus over to Sally.
The mobster side of the show is also lacking, mostly due to the absence of proper development of the Chechens. At least they're more lively than Barry's actor friends, and used as a way to make fun of organized crime stereotypes. I especially enjoy NoHo Hank, for both his unflappable positive attitude and his remarkable personal style. I hear that he gets a much bigger role in the second season, but I'm not willing to sit through the rest of the show for him. I feel a little bad about it, but Corrigan has been getting plenty of attention for his performance, so bygones.
I'd much rather shine a light on the work of the eternally underappreciated Stephen Root, as Barry's hapless handler. Or on Henry Winkler for his lovable old grifter, playing the part of esteemed acting guru with everything he's got. And that brings me to the biggest strike against "Barry" - I'm just not getting anything out of Bill Hader in the lead role. And I've generally been a fan of Hader these past few years. It's been great seeing him in more dramatic work like "The Skeleton Twins" and "Trainwreck." As Barry, however, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.
As I said, I only made it through four episodes, so there should be a heap of caveats attached to this post. I suspect I'd like the show more if it were only about the mob and hitman story instead of the struggling gang of actors, but there's no use reviewing the show that doesn't exist, instead of the one that does.
---
Anyway, individual elements of "Barry" are better than the whole. Bill Hader plays the title character, an international assassin having a midlife crisis, who stumbles upon an acting class one day and unlocks a hidden passion that he now wants to pursue. This is a problem for his handler, Monroe (Stephen Root), as the new extracurriculars immediately impact Barry's latest job for Goran (Glenn Fleshler), a Chechen mobster operating out of Los Angeles. Then Barry falls for his acting classmate Sally (Sarah Goldberg) and is taken under the wing of his instructor Gene (Henry Winkler). There a several familiar faces among the other students, including characters played by Kirby Howell-Baptiste and D'Arcy Carden. And I'd be remiss in not mentioning the genial NoHo Hank (Anthony Carrigan), one of Goran's minions.
My failure to connect with the show really boils down to my exasperation with Barry for getting himself into such contrived, ridiculous situations. I know that he's going through a tough time, but he's completely dropped the ball on a very delicate job, put a friend in danger, and put himself in danger. And for what? Getting in with the L.A. acting scene, full of desperate wannabes, washed up hasbeens, and raging narcissists. And make no mistake that Sally and Gene are both in that last category, desperately inflating their own egos and their own self-importance to keep the spectres of failure at bay. The show also uses the various acting lessons to push Barry to open up, which is very tedious and dull.
I respect and appreciate that "Barry" deglamorizes the acting profession, and is often pointedly critical of it, but this also makes "Barry" a tough watch. A lot of Barry's fascination with acting comes off as intense navel-gazing, aimed at assuaging Hader and co-creator Alec Berg's own insecurities about creative work. Also, while I like that Sally is a self-absorbed parasite, and yet actually talented, I have absolutely no desire to watch her story unfold. Sarah Goldberg is lovely, but a little of Sally goes a long way, and her interaction with Barry often left me cringing. One of the reasons I bailed on the show was that it was starting to shift more and more of its focus over to Sally.
The mobster side of the show is also lacking, mostly due to the absence of proper development of the Chechens. At least they're more lively than Barry's actor friends, and used as a way to make fun of organized crime stereotypes. I especially enjoy NoHo Hank, for both his unflappable positive attitude and his remarkable personal style. I hear that he gets a much bigger role in the second season, but I'm not willing to sit through the rest of the show for him. I feel a little bad about it, but Corrigan has been getting plenty of attention for his performance, so bygones.
I'd much rather shine a light on the work of the eternally underappreciated Stephen Root, as Barry's hapless handler. Or on Henry Winkler for his lovable old grifter, playing the part of esteemed acting guru with everything he's got. And that brings me to the biggest strike against "Barry" - I'm just not getting anything out of Bill Hader in the lead role. And I've generally been a fan of Hader these past few years. It's been great seeing him in more dramatic work like "The Skeleton Twins" and "Trainwreck." As Barry, however, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.
As I said, I only made it through four episodes, so there should be a heap of caveats attached to this post. I suspect I'd like the show more if it were only about the mob and hitman story instead of the struggling gang of actors, but there's no use reviewing the show that doesn't exist, instead of the one that does.
---
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Trailers! Trailers! 2020 Cometh
2020 is soon upon us, and there have been a spate of new trailers for some of the big blockbusters and blockbuster hopefuls. It's been a while since I've done a trailer post, so let's get cracking. All links below lead to Trailer Addict.
Fantasy Island - First, I'm including this one just because I've got to talk about the wild approach the filmmakers are taking with this property. The original "Fantasy Island" was a '70s television series about people getting to experience their fantasies on a magic island. There were a few "be careful what you wish for" stories, but the tone was generally lighthearted. Now, Blumhouse has gotten their hands on it, and we have a horror reboot. Michael Pena, god bless him, is not remotely an adequate substitute for Ricardo Montalban, Tattoo is nowhere in sight, and the scares look pretty tedious. That said, I like the look of the cast and I like that the filmmakers are taking a big risk. So, fingers crossed. We'll see how this turns out.
No Time to Die - Bond is finally back. He's got a fantastic supporting cast around him, some comforting (and not-so comforting) old faces around, and a nice hook for the latest installment. Apparently at some point James Bond retired to be with Lea Seydoux, and now he'd being reluctantly un-retired for more mayhem. Lashana Lynch looks like she'll have a bigger role than I originally anticipated, and I like how they're setting up Rami Malek. What peeved me a bit was the was the multiple acknowledgements that Bond is getting old - something they've been harping on for several movies now. Craig's tenure may be long, but he isn't the oldest Bond we've had, and still looks great in the suit.
Black Widow - I still have no idea what to make of this movie, but the new character introductions are good. I know to expect lots of action in the same vein as the "Captain America" movies, plenty of dodgy Russian accents, and very good actors saying very silly things. It worries me that our heroine looks to be the least interesting character in her own movie, but it's far too early to conclude anything yet. I just hope that the filmmakers make better use of Scarlett Johanssen, who clearly has the chops to make Natasha into a truly iconic hero, but has never really been given the right material to do it, even after so many other MCU appearances. Don't screw this one up, kids!
Wonder Woman 1984 - I'm not really digging the clunky golden eagle armor. That aside, I love this trailer to bits. I love the music, the rampant '80s nostalgia (which I now accept is not just a phase), and all the wow moments. Diana seems to have gotten all the glamour shots and badass shots that "Black Widow" is missing. She's dressed to kill! She's riding lightning! I'm glad that Chris Pine is back too, and keeping an open mind about Pedro Pascal playing a Trump stand-in, and Kristen Wiig being primed for future villainy. As far as I'm concerned, of all the superhero movies coming our way in 2020, "Wonder Woman 1984" is the one to beat.
Free Guy - Oh boy. This looks a lot dumber than I was expecting, but then again I shouldn't be too surprised with Shawn Levy directing. On the other hand, Ryan Reynolds is as charming as ever, the premise has a lot going for it, and I like the entire cast. I just hope that Jodie Comer's role isn't going to be as dull as I think it's going to be. Also, making a mental note that Hollywood has managed to update their gaming references roughly to the point of "GTA" with some "Fortnite" characters types. They're still behind, but they're not as far behind as they used to be, and that's something.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife - It looks like we're all going to pretend that the Paul Feig "Ghostbusters" never happened, and I'm perfectly okay with that. The new tactic is clearly to go for full "Stranger Things" style spooky nostalgia (Hi, Finn Wolfhard!) and downplay the comedy. It feels very appropriate to have Jason Reitman taking over, though his filmography contains nothing that remotely resembles this. I'm just hoping that the culture wars don't decide to blow up around this franchise again - and that the filmmakers are smart enough to address and defuse it.
In the Heights - It's nice to see musicals making a comeback, and I'm happy to see a more recent one getting an adaptation. I hardly know anything about this title, and it's staying that way until I see the movie.
---
Fantasy Island - First, I'm including this one just because I've got to talk about the wild approach the filmmakers are taking with this property. The original "Fantasy Island" was a '70s television series about people getting to experience their fantasies on a magic island. There were a few "be careful what you wish for" stories, but the tone was generally lighthearted. Now, Blumhouse has gotten their hands on it, and we have a horror reboot. Michael Pena, god bless him, is not remotely an adequate substitute for Ricardo Montalban, Tattoo is nowhere in sight, and the scares look pretty tedious. That said, I like the look of the cast and I like that the filmmakers are taking a big risk. So, fingers crossed. We'll see how this turns out.
No Time to Die - Bond is finally back. He's got a fantastic supporting cast around him, some comforting (and not-so comforting) old faces around, and a nice hook for the latest installment. Apparently at some point James Bond retired to be with Lea Seydoux, and now he'd being reluctantly un-retired for more mayhem. Lashana Lynch looks like she'll have a bigger role than I originally anticipated, and I like how they're setting up Rami Malek. What peeved me a bit was the was the multiple acknowledgements that Bond is getting old - something they've been harping on for several movies now. Craig's tenure may be long, but he isn't the oldest Bond we've had, and still looks great in the suit.
Black Widow - I still have no idea what to make of this movie, but the new character introductions are good. I know to expect lots of action in the same vein as the "Captain America" movies, plenty of dodgy Russian accents, and very good actors saying very silly things. It worries me that our heroine looks to be the least interesting character in her own movie, but it's far too early to conclude anything yet. I just hope that the filmmakers make better use of Scarlett Johanssen, who clearly has the chops to make Natasha into a truly iconic hero, but has never really been given the right material to do it, even after so many other MCU appearances. Don't screw this one up, kids!
Wonder Woman 1984 - I'm not really digging the clunky golden eagle armor. That aside, I love this trailer to bits. I love the music, the rampant '80s nostalgia (which I now accept is not just a phase), and all the wow moments. Diana seems to have gotten all the glamour shots and badass shots that "Black Widow" is missing. She's dressed to kill! She's riding lightning! I'm glad that Chris Pine is back too, and keeping an open mind about Pedro Pascal playing a Trump stand-in, and Kristen Wiig being primed for future villainy. As far as I'm concerned, of all the superhero movies coming our way in 2020, "Wonder Woman 1984" is the one to beat.
Free Guy - Oh boy. This looks a lot dumber than I was expecting, but then again I shouldn't be too surprised with Shawn Levy directing. On the other hand, Ryan Reynolds is as charming as ever, the premise has a lot going for it, and I like the entire cast. I just hope that Jodie Comer's role isn't going to be as dull as I think it's going to be. Also, making a mental note that Hollywood has managed to update their gaming references roughly to the point of "GTA" with some "Fortnite" characters types. They're still behind, but they're not as far behind as they used to be, and that's something.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife - It looks like we're all going to pretend that the Paul Feig "Ghostbusters" never happened, and I'm perfectly okay with that. The new tactic is clearly to go for full "Stranger Things" style spooky nostalgia (Hi, Finn Wolfhard!) and downplay the comedy. It feels very appropriate to have Jason Reitman taking over, though his filmography contains nothing that remotely resembles this. I'm just hoping that the culture wars don't decide to blow up around this franchise again - and that the filmmakers are smart enough to address and defuse it.
In the Heights - It's nice to see musicals making a comeback, and I'm happy to see a more recent one getting an adaptation. I hardly know anything about this title, and it's staying that way until I see the movie.
---
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Youtubing, Part 7
My yearly Youtube playlist is mostly made up of media ephemera that's difficult to categorize, and the only thing they really have in common is utilizing a strong musical element. Still, I think that they're worth recommending and writing about. This batch includes more tie-in music videos, advertising, and oddball musical numbers you probably forgot about.
Agony! - Whatever you want to say about the 2014 film version of Sondheim's "Into the Woods," directed by Rob Marshall, at least it gave us this priceless version of "Agony," with Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen hamming it up as the princes. Of all the cuts and omissions that were made to the second half of the adaptation, I've gotta say that the "Agony Reprise" being dropped hurt the most. I still hold out hope that they may have actually filmed it, or at least recorded a demo version, and it's just sitting in the back of the Disney vault waiting to be rediscovered in a decade or two.
Blue Danube - I love digging up the old Muppet sketches. This one aired on the 1967 CBS musical variety show "Our Place," hosted by Rowlf the Dog. Only ten episodes ever aired. The sketch would be repurposed for "The Muppet Show" a few years later with different music.
Shelling Sequence - One of the only things that I felt the "Ghost in the Shell" remake got right was the score. In addition to the work of Lorne Balfe and Clint Mansell, they also got the original film's composer, Kenji Kawaii, to update the main theme. I really wished that they'd used it with the opening "shelling" scene, which would have given us a proper live action third iteration of the sequence after the original hand-drawn one in the 1995 anime, and the CGI version in 2004's "Innocence." Fortunately, this is the internet, and everyone has editing software, so an enterprising fan gave us just that.
Reach - Once upon a time in 1983, Bill Paxton and Andrew Todd Rosenthal, formed a new wave musical band called Martini Ranch. For their 1988 single "Reach," James Cameron directed the music video. It includes cameos from Lance Henriksen, Paul Reiser, Jenette Goldstein, Judge Reinhold, Brian Thompson, Adrian Pasdar, Bud Cort, and Kathryn Bigelow - several of the actors being from the cast of "Near Dark," which Bigelow was shooting at roughly the same time. This was made a few years before Cameron and Bigelow got married. Oh, and Judge Reinhold is credited as the whistler.
Danny Elfman in Concert - Danny Elfman went on tour with his "Danny Elfman's Music from the Films of Tim Burton" concerts back in 2015, resulting in a "Live From Lincoln Center" episode among other things. Elfman, who of course was the singing voice for Jack Skellignton, does a fantastic job onstage in the "Nightmare Before Christmas" segment. If I didn't have time constraints, I'd have just put in the whole thing. You know what? I don't have time constraints. Go watch the whole thing.
Inferno - Can you imagine the kind of pull you have when putting together this insane '70s rock parody video is possible? Where you can just call up David Hasselhoff and all these MCU stars, and ask them to sing nonsense in ridiculous costumes? Is that Michael Rooker as a lion? Written by James Gunn and Tyler Bates, this "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2" tie-in video is actually a spoof on Meco's disco "Star Wars Theme." Speaking of which, I should go and find THAT music video.
C is for Cookie - The folks over at Sesame Street have been producing some new content specifically for web viewers, including new animated lyric videos for several of their beloved songs. So, the new 2018 version has an animated Cookie Monster and friends getting up to hijinks, including Cookie chasing around a giant cookie. It's charming as heck, though I prefer the original, and I'm very relieved that they mostly kept the original audio.
The World is Not Enough - I always liked the title song of "The World is Not Enough" far more than the mediocre James Bond movie that it was attached to. I'd completely forgotten that it had an official music video, starring Garbage lead singer Shirley Manson as a gynoid infiltrator. The music video, no surprise, is also better than the movie.
Climax Opening Scene - And all you need to see of the latest Gaspar Noe movie is this sequence. Trust me.
---
Agony! - Whatever you want to say about the 2014 film version of Sondheim's "Into the Woods," directed by Rob Marshall, at least it gave us this priceless version of "Agony," with Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen hamming it up as the princes. Of all the cuts and omissions that were made to the second half of the adaptation, I've gotta say that the "Agony Reprise" being dropped hurt the most. I still hold out hope that they may have actually filmed it, or at least recorded a demo version, and it's just sitting in the back of the Disney vault waiting to be rediscovered in a decade or two.
Blue Danube - I love digging up the old Muppet sketches. This one aired on the 1967 CBS musical variety show "Our Place," hosted by Rowlf the Dog. Only ten episodes ever aired. The sketch would be repurposed for "The Muppet Show" a few years later with different music.
Shelling Sequence - One of the only things that I felt the "Ghost in the Shell" remake got right was the score. In addition to the work of Lorne Balfe and Clint Mansell, they also got the original film's composer, Kenji Kawaii, to update the main theme. I really wished that they'd used it with the opening "shelling" scene, which would have given us a proper live action third iteration of the sequence after the original hand-drawn one in the 1995 anime, and the CGI version in 2004's "Innocence." Fortunately, this is the internet, and everyone has editing software, so an enterprising fan gave us just that.
Reach - Once upon a time in 1983, Bill Paxton and Andrew Todd Rosenthal, formed a new wave musical band called Martini Ranch. For their 1988 single "Reach," James Cameron directed the music video. It includes cameos from Lance Henriksen, Paul Reiser, Jenette Goldstein, Judge Reinhold, Brian Thompson, Adrian Pasdar, Bud Cort, and Kathryn Bigelow - several of the actors being from the cast of "Near Dark," which Bigelow was shooting at roughly the same time. This was made a few years before Cameron and Bigelow got married. Oh, and Judge Reinhold is credited as the whistler.
Danny Elfman in Concert - Danny Elfman went on tour with his "Danny Elfman's Music from the Films of Tim Burton" concerts back in 2015, resulting in a "Live From Lincoln Center" episode among other things. Elfman, who of course was the singing voice for Jack Skellignton, does a fantastic job onstage in the "Nightmare Before Christmas" segment. If I didn't have time constraints, I'd have just put in the whole thing. You know what? I don't have time constraints. Go watch the whole thing.
Inferno - Can you imagine the kind of pull you have when putting together this insane '70s rock parody video is possible? Where you can just call up David Hasselhoff and all these MCU stars, and ask them to sing nonsense in ridiculous costumes? Is that Michael Rooker as a lion? Written by James Gunn and Tyler Bates, this "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2" tie-in video is actually a spoof on Meco's disco "Star Wars Theme." Speaking of which, I should go and find THAT music video.
C is for Cookie - The folks over at Sesame Street have been producing some new content specifically for web viewers, including new animated lyric videos for several of their beloved songs. So, the new 2018 version has an animated Cookie Monster and friends getting up to hijinks, including Cookie chasing around a giant cookie. It's charming as heck, though I prefer the original, and I'm very relieved that they mostly kept the original audio.
The World is Not Enough - I always liked the title song of "The World is Not Enough" far more than the mediocre James Bond movie that it was attached to. I'd completely forgotten that it had an official music video, starring Garbage lead singer Shirley Manson as a gynoid infiltrator. The music video, no surprise, is also better than the movie.
Climax Opening Scene - And all you need to see of the latest Gaspar Noe movie is this sequence. Trust me.
---
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
My Top Ten Films of 1972
This is part of my continuing series looking back on films from the years before I began this blog.
The ten films below are unranked and listed in no particular order. Enjoy.
The Godfather - One of the key films of the New Hollywood era, heralding the arrival of a slew of new talent, subject matter, and filmmaking aesthetics. Francis Ford Coppola successfully married a gangster narrative to an immigrant family saga, creating an entirely new genre of film. The copious violence on display is not nearly as important as the starkness with which it was portrayed, through Gordon Willis' groundbreaking cinematography. And ironically, the iconic Don Corleone is memorable not for his shrewd criminal mind, but for Marlon Brando's sensitive portrayal of a gentle, humane paterfamilias.
Cabaret - Bob Fosse pushes so many boundaries, creating one of the darkest and most fascinating film musicals of the 1970s. His approach to choreography and his directing sensibilities are perfectly suited to a story about the rise of Nazi Germany and the loss of innocence. I love the way that the musical numbers are used like interstitials, allowing Joel Gray's garish emcee to appear throughout to comment on the twists and turns of the plot. I love the frank sexuality of the main characters, and the unusually direct discussion of sexual and gender politics. Most of all I love the despairing, cynical mood and tone.
The New Land - The sequel to Jan Troell's "The Emigrants," featuring much of the same cast and crew. Having made the journey to America, the Swedish settlers now get down to the business of building their new home and community. There's less momentum here, and less of a sense of discovery, but the characters remain deeply moving, and the struggles they face are considerable. I especially enjoy the more personal stories - Kristina turning on an intolerant pastor, and Robert going West in search of gold. This is a story about time, rather than distance, but it connects to the prior narrative beautifully.
Solaris - An existential science fiction film that invites no easy comparisons, except perhaps to Andrei Tarkovsky's other work. Thoughtful and deliberate in every aspect, the film's mysteries unfold at their own unhurried pace, occasionally creating startling and disturbing juxtapositions through the performances and editing. Few answers are provided, but many clues help to suggest the nature of the manifestations we witness. I especially love the look of the film, the way that it combines alien landscapes and science-fiction imagery with deeply personal memories and impressions.
Aguirre the Wrath of God - One of the earliest and most satisfying of Werner Herzog's collaborations with Klaus Kinski. The film is a portrait of madness, set in the wilderness, made with perhaps too much fidelity to the plight of the Spanish conquistadors who inspired the story. Shot on location in the lush Peruvian rainforest, "Aguirre" perfectly sets the stage for one of the greatest screen performances of all time. Kinski wonderfully embodies Aguirre's descent into madness and horror, surrounded by the unforgiving jungle. It's no wonder Herzog would return to both subjects again and again over the years.
The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant - One of the most over-the-top, stylized films from Rainer Werner Fassbender, but still exemplary of his stripped down, low-budget style. It's a lesbian psychodrama that indulges in all the problematic tropes and stereotypes, but the characters are rich and fascinating, even if they exist in this heightened, surreal place. The film discusses so many taboo and illicit subjects in a candid, uninhibited way, while never stooping to salaciousness. The performances are very strong, flamboyant but fueled by genuine emotion. And the film knows how to use silence when it needs to.
Cries and Whispers - Death and grief transport a trio of sisters into a frightening maelstrom of emotional turmoil. This was one of Ingmar Bergman's first color films, and one of his most visually striking. The blood red interiors of the house, the ambiguous frames of reality, and the various groupings of the female characters all give the film a very distinct look and unusual tonal intensity. One trauma magnifies and builds upon another, until the web of shared history and tragedy engulf all the characters. It's a magnificent, devastating piece of work, a painful but deeply rewarding watch.
Play it Again Sam - Easily the best Woody Allen film that Woody Allen didn't direct. Allen did write it, however, and starred alongside his frequent leading lady Diane Keaton. The gimmick is that Allen is playing a neurotic "Casablanca" fan, and is constantly interacting with an apparition of Humphrey Bogart who serves as an imaginary friend of sorts. The films is a sweeter, kinder counterpart to Allen's later "Purple Rose of Cairo," examining the relationship between a piece of media and one of its fans. The little visual recreations and bits of cinematic magic are especially rewarding for classic film nerds.
Sleuth - It's such fun to watch Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine take turns destroying each. Honestly, the filmmaking isn't much to talk about, but the two central performances are so magnificent that it's all the audience is going to be paying attention to anyway. "Sleuth" manages to pull off some outrageous tricks, hairpin turns, and surprises that have to be seen to be believed. This is one of the few films I've ever watched that literally got me to scream at the big reveal. There have been many imitators over the years, and one well-meaning but ineffectual remake, but the original "Sleuth" remains unmatched.
What's Up, Doc? - One of my favorite comedies, a lighthearted farce featuring Barbara Streisand at her most irresistibly charming. Director Peter Bogdanovich gamely keeps the energy high, fueling screwball antics, silly sight gags, and one of the greatest comedic chase scenes ever filmed. The Buck Henry scripted dialogue is full of swell puns and one liners, Streisand gives the musical numbers plenty of kick, and the roster of veteran comedic actors is put to excellent use. It may be a throwback, but "What's Up Doc?" is such a comedic triumph that I'm sorry that they don't make them like this anymore.
Honorable Mention:
Fellini's Roma
---
Sunday, December 8, 2019
"Dolemite is My Name" is a Winner
It's easy to draw comparisons between "Dolemite is My Name" and "The Disaster Artist" or "Ed Wood," other notable chronicles of notorious amateur directors, especially since "Dolemite is My Name" shares the same screenwriters and many plot elements with "Ed Wood." However, I think the better comparison is with "Dolemite is My Name" director Craig Brewer's earlier film "Hustle and Flow." Both are about black men with dreams of stardom, who battle their way through adversity to success, with a little help from their friends. The hero of "Hustle and Flow" was fictional, but "Dolemite is My Name" is based on the life of a very real person, Rudy Ray Moore, who gives Eddie Murphy a fantastic comeback role.
We first meet Moore as a struggling performer, managing a record store as a day job, and emceeing for bigger acts at a Los Angeles nightclub. After a long string of failures, he finally hits upon a winning idea: he creates the persona of Dolemite, an exuberantly profane and vulgar pimp, who knows karate, and appeals to black audiences. He starts to see success as a comic, sharing his success with friends Jimmy Lynch (Mike Epps), Ben Taylor (Craig Robinson), Theodore Toney (Tituss Burgess), and discovering newcomer Lady Reed (Da'Vine Joy Randolph). However, it's still an uphill battle for Moore as he fights against censors, racial prejudice, and the entertainment establishment of the times. Moore keeps getting more ambitious ideas like recording his own comedy album, and eventually sets his sights on making his very own "Dolemite" movie.
"Dolemite is My Name" is a long film, and a little unwieldy since the first half is all about Rudy Ray Moore's rise to fame as a comic, and the second half shifts gears to chronicle the making of the 1975 blaxploitation film "Dolemite." The film's production is eventful and entertaining enough to sustain a whole feature by itself, with a Moore wrangling a snooty director, D'Urville Martin (Wesley Snipes), a high-minded screenwriter Jerry Jones (Keegan-Michael Key), and a crew comprised mostly of UCLA film students, lead by Nicholas von Sternberg (Kodi Smit-McPhee). However, the second half works because the first half sets up Moore and all these other characters, and ensures that our sympathies are with them. Moreover, it establishes the stakes of the production and everything that Moore and his friends are up against as outsiders to the movie business and an independent production.
The main event, however, is Eddie Murphy's performance. He's mostly playing a variation of his usual screen persona, but a little older, a little heavier, and a little more heartfelt. He is so much fun here, summoning up seemingly endless amounts of energy to sell the standup scenes, but also endearing and vulnerable when he gets nervous before a sex scene or has a heart-to-heart with Lady Reed. He makes it clear that he knows the Dolemite persona is all pretend, but the outrageousness of the character seems to propel his own ambitions and his own confidence. There's so much affection in the portrayal of Moore, and for the whole era of blaxploitation and underground comedy that he was a part of. The filmmakers tying Moore's struggles to the race representation issues is very on the nose, but handled well enough that it's all very uplifting and goes down easy.
I watched the original "Dolemite" after watching "Dolemite is My Name," and I'm glad I waited. Without the context of the biopic, it would have been easy to write off "Dolemite" for its amateurish production, gratuitous content, and over-the-top story. Frankly, I thought it was pretty terrible, but the movie wasn't made for me, and that's all right. I can appreciate all the effort and the daring that went into the creation of "Dolemite," and the importance of the film to black cinema history. As for "My Name is Dolemite," it's one of those rare films about the making of a film that's better than its subject matter. It's howlingly funny. It's genuinely touching. It gives Eddie Murphy a perfect opportunity to shine once again.
Surprise, surprise, this is currently the top contender for my favorite feel-good film of the year. And maybe just my favorite of the year.
---
We first meet Moore as a struggling performer, managing a record store as a day job, and emceeing for bigger acts at a Los Angeles nightclub. After a long string of failures, he finally hits upon a winning idea: he creates the persona of Dolemite, an exuberantly profane and vulgar pimp, who knows karate, and appeals to black audiences. He starts to see success as a comic, sharing his success with friends Jimmy Lynch (Mike Epps), Ben Taylor (Craig Robinson), Theodore Toney (Tituss Burgess), and discovering newcomer Lady Reed (Da'Vine Joy Randolph). However, it's still an uphill battle for Moore as he fights against censors, racial prejudice, and the entertainment establishment of the times. Moore keeps getting more ambitious ideas like recording his own comedy album, and eventually sets his sights on making his very own "Dolemite" movie.
"Dolemite is My Name" is a long film, and a little unwieldy since the first half is all about Rudy Ray Moore's rise to fame as a comic, and the second half shifts gears to chronicle the making of the 1975 blaxploitation film "Dolemite." The film's production is eventful and entertaining enough to sustain a whole feature by itself, with a Moore wrangling a snooty director, D'Urville Martin (Wesley Snipes), a high-minded screenwriter Jerry Jones (Keegan-Michael Key), and a crew comprised mostly of UCLA film students, lead by Nicholas von Sternberg (Kodi Smit-McPhee). However, the second half works because the first half sets up Moore and all these other characters, and ensures that our sympathies are with them. Moreover, it establishes the stakes of the production and everything that Moore and his friends are up against as outsiders to the movie business and an independent production.
The main event, however, is Eddie Murphy's performance. He's mostly playing a variation of his usual screen persona, but a little older, a little heavier, and a little more heartfelt. He is so much fun here, summoning up seemingly endless amounts of energy to sell the standup scenes, but also endearing and vulnerable when he gets nervous before a sex scene or has a heart-to-heart with Lady Reed. He makes it clear that he knows the Dolemite persona is all pretend, but the outrageousness of the character seems to propel his own ambitions and his own confidence. There's so much affection in the portrayal of Moore, and for the whole era of blaxploitation and underground comedy that he was a part of. The filmmakers tying Moore's struggles to the race representation issues is very on the nose, but handled well enough that it's all very uplifting and goes down easy.
I watched the original "Dolemite" after watching "Dolemite is My Name," and I'm glad I waited. Without the context of the biopic, it would have been easy to write off "Dolemite" for its amateurish production, gratuitous content, and over-the-top story. Frankly, I thought it was pretty terrible, but the movie wasn't made for me, and that's all right. I can appreciate all the effort and the daring that went into the creation of "Dolemite," and the importance of the film to black cinema history. As for "My Name is Dolemite," it's one of those rare films about the making of a film that's better than its subject matter. It's howlingly funny. It's genuinely touching. It gives Eddie Murphy a perfect opportunity to shine once again.
Surprise, surprise, this is currently the top contender for my favorite feel-good film of the year. And maybe just my favorite of the year.
---
Friday, December 6, 2019
"Yesterday" and "Late Night"
These two comedies have a bit more in common than there appears to be at first glance. Both star members of the South Asian diaspora. Both are about the characters' relationships with mostly white-male dominated pop culture, music in "Yesterday," and comedy in "Late Night." And oddly, both involve the creation of these weird alternate realities to explore the themes of creativity and personal growth. I don't think either film is particularly good, though both are pretty watchable and feature some decent performances.
First, there's "Yesterday," written by romantic-comedy vet Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle. It stars Himesh Patel as Jack Malik, an aspiring singer/songwriter of limited talents. His childhood friend and manager, Ellie (Lily James), is the only one who believes in him. Then one day, Jack is hit by a bus and wakes up in a world where the Beatles apparently never existed. Jack is the only one who seems to remember their songs, so he uses their catalog to propel his own music career to new heights. However, when his fame really starts to take off, he has to weigh his newfound success against his relationship with Ellie and his own artistic integrity.
"Yesterday" is a lot of fun as a Beatles fan, because the filmmakers got the rights to a big batch of the original songs, and there are some good gags with Google-as-exposition, Jack coming to grips with his circumstances, and the Beatles' extensive cultural footprint. There's a lot of dunking on Ed Sheeran, who plays a loser version of himself in the film, and Kate McKinnon is firing on all cylinders as a monstrous L.A. music agent. The trouble is that the entire romantic side of the film is awful, with developments that make no sense whatsoever. It was infuriating to watch Lily James being wasted in a nothing of a role. And while Patel carries the film with no problems, Jack isn't particularly interesting or sympathetic either.
While the premise is a lot of fun, it feels like the movie exists to be an excuse for Beatles nostalgia. And if you're not already familiar with the Beatles - and they are receding in the popular culture at a pretty rapid pace these days - the movie doesn't work nearly as well. Frankly, it strains credibility that some of these songs written in the '60s and '70s would gain so much traction in 2019. And while I appreciate that Himesh Patel was cast as the lead, it doesn't feel like the filmmakers took enough advantage of his background. I don't think there's any acknowledgement of it within the film itself.
This is not a problem with "Late Night," which was written by Mindy Kahling and based off of her own experiences as a comedy writer in an industry full of white men. It may be Emma Thompson headlining, but the bulk of the movie is following Kahling's Molly on her journey from newbie to cornerstone of the writer's room. What strikes me as curious, however, is that "Late Night" also takes place in an alternate reality. Molly is hired to write for late night host Katherine Newbury, played by Thompson, a female, British host on American late night, who has been a comedy icon for decades, but is now in danger of losing her once massively successful show.
In other words, "Late Night" takes place in a universe where David Letterman was a British woman, who dealt with the boy's club by more or less joining it and upholding the status quo. The movie diligently explores these issues, putting Molly in a position where she has to deal with the prejudices of both the totally white male writer's room and a demanding female boss. I understand why Kahling put Newbury into the movie, because the dynamic is interesting, and it allows them to look at some of these issues from a different perspective. On the other hand, Katherine Newbury is not a well constructed character. Emma Thompson's performance is just the right mix sympathetic and awful, but I just don't buy Newbury as a late show host - even one past her prime.
"Late Night," despite being about comedy, isn't very funny. "Yesterday" deploys far more successful gags and one-liners. Instead, it's an office workplace dramedy trying very hard to be insightful and sincere, with mixed results. I can't help wondering if it would have made its points better and been overall more successful if it had just been about Molly in a more real-world scenario. Kahling and company still could have talked about life after #Metoo, the reality of being a diversity hire, and the pitfalls of being a funny woman. Emma Thompson could have still been involved playing another writer or a director, or a talent wrangler. Heck, Newbury being a more recently hired host instead of part of the old guard would have solved a lot of issues. The current version, the fading icon, often just feels like wishful thinking, and I don't think anyone really thought through all the implications that came with it.
---
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
My Favorite David Fincher Film
I'm a little apprehensive about writing this post, as David Fincher is one of the most recent directors that I've profiled so far. However, he has been active for well over a quarter century, and has more than enough classics to qualify. Also, while I'm sure that Fincher will make another film that actually gets released in theatres eventually, for now he's in a bit of a hiatus, and I suspect we're seeing him transition from one stage of his career into another. So, it's a good time to take stock.
My first David Fincher film remains my favorite. "Fight Club" was one of those movies that I never would have seen before 1999, when nearly all my cinematic selections had to be negotiated with my loving, but rather squeamish parents. "Fight Club" came out right when I was leaving home for college, however, and an R-rating for "disturbing and graphic depiction of violent anti-social behavior, sexuality and language” was no longer any kind of barrier. At that point in my life, it was more of a selling point.
In short, I was perfectly primed to really enjoy and appreciate the subversiveness and plentiful vileness of "Fight Club." Based on the Chuck Palahniuk novel about modern masculinity in crisis, the film is absolutely bursting with violence and depravity, presented with pitch black humor and a gleeful transgressive verve. The characters revel in cathartic brawling and nasty pranks, as they work themselves up to full anarchic rebellion. And Tyler Durden and friends don't just stick it to the Man, but they do it in the most brazenly family-unfriendly way possible. There actually isn't as much adult content in the film as you might expect, but all the violence is realistically gory, the attractive actors constantly look like hell, and the nocturnal world they inhabit is full of broken glass, spilled fluids, and grimy stains. The memorable dialogue follows suit. There's the famous story of Fincher being ordered to remove the word "abortion" form the script, so he replaced it with a cringe-inducing pedophilia joke.
When I think of David Fincher movies, I immediately think of the tactile unpleasantness of "Fight Club," of the bag of liposuctioned fat getting stuck on a chain link fence, or Jared Leto being pummeled to a pulp. I also think of the very exacting camera work, tightly controlling perspective, mood, and tone. The narrative twists and turns are executed so well because of the precision with which Fincher parses out the amount of information that the viewer is privy to. He also plays with the cinematic form itself, shaking the frame during episodes of mental strain, and including subliminal images to make the audience question the fidelity of the film's reality. I love the little instances of fourth wall breaking, the penetrating virtual camera, the in-jokes, the multiple frames of reality, and a very, very unreliable Narrator. Already a notorious perfectionist, Fincher shot roughly three times as much footage as a normal production, orchestrated complex special effects shots, and ran considerably over budget.
Everyone talks about Brad Pitt's elevation to cinematic icon status with Tyler Durden, but what really holds the movie together is Ed Norton's performance. He is absolutely fearless, getting so much abuse and degradation heaped on his head as the movie's stand in for the hapless modern schlub. His monotone line readings, describing horrific car accidents and the banality of his own life, are alternately hysterical and depressing. Of course, onscreen he's no match for the charisma bomb that is Pitt as Tyler Durden, the Devil figure of the piece. Not even a scuzzy pink bathrobe could stop the sheer amount of masculine intensity coming off of Pitt. I suspect this is why some viewers never got it through their heads that "Fight Club" was supposed to be a cautionary tale, and the shallow philosophy of Project Mayhem was a pipe dream.
"Fight Club" famously didn't do well at the box office, but quickly became a cult film, misunderstood and beloved by a generation of disaffected young malcontents. In hindsight, it's a fantastic snapshot of certain attitudes and afflictions of the '90s, and a great example of the kind of no-holds-barred filmmaking that David Fincher was capable of with the right collaborators and the right material. Sadly, that perfect confluence wasn't so easy to achieve, and became less and less so as his career went on.
What I've Seen - David Fincher
Alien 3 (1992)
Seven (1995)
The Game (1997)
Fight Club (1999)
Panic Room (2002)
Zodiac (2007)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
The Social Network (2010)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Gone Girl (2014)
Mank (2020)
---
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Bye Bye Box Office Mojo
Sadly, I didn't see this one coming. The Box Office Mojo website has been the default source of online box office statistics for as long as I can remember, offering up-to-date information on ticket sales, screen counts, and more. Amazon bought it through IMDb back in 2008, but has largely left it alone. When IMDb's redesign happened a few years ago, there were some indications that the two sites would be combined, but this didn't end up happening. And then, at the end of October, a massive redesign of Box Office Mojo finally went through, breaking the functionality of much of the site, and sticking access to certain data behind paywalls - specifically an IMDbPro subscription. Box Office Mojo is now "Box Office Mojo by IMDbPro." You can't even look up budgets or inflation-adjusted figures without a paid account anymore. This has kicked up a ruckus, because everyone used Box Office Mojo, including most of the entertainment industry, journalists, and fans.
There's been plenty of griping from all corners of the entertainment world, but it's doubtful that Amazon is going to budge. They declared that the changes were "made in response to customer feedback and usage patterns, which will continue to inform future feature launches.” The customers in question are clearly IMDbPro users, as Amazon is now treating Box Office Mojo as an extension of their IMDb services, which have grown to include networking tools and streaming content over the past few years, while jettisoning popular features like the message board system and user reviews. I guess we should have realized this was going to happen back in 2014, when Box Office Mojo was taken offline briefly, and visitors redirected to IMDb. No explanation was offered at the time, and none have been offered since, so it's clearly not worth it trying to engage with whoever is making these decisions.
It's been a strange and disheartening, watching Amazon gradually monetize these bare bones, statistics-centered resource sites. Not content with simply sticking ads on the pages, they keep mucking around with the basic elements that made them appealing in the first place - their ease of use, their accessibility, and their strong, simple presentation of data. Thankfully, though IMDb is now obnoxiously graphics heavy, the site's basic functionality is mostly still intact. I can look up bits of data like release dates and production credits without too much hassle. Box Office Mojo, however, may be permanently, irreparably broken. It wasn't just one or two things that were removed, like the message boards. The vast majority of the data that was at the core of the site has been walled off, and the navigation is truly impenetrable. Users have been reporting errors everywhere, and some of the old functions are gone for good, even for the IMDb Pro users. What remains free and easily accessible to the public can be found at a dozen other film sites around the internet.
As a result, Box Office Mojo's users have proved perfectly willing to abandon the site in search of alternatives. There has been a noticeable exodus to rival site The Numbers. Box Office Pro has its boosters. It was announced that there are efforts underway to build a non-profit replacement site for Box Office Mojo, though like all fan driven projects, this doesn't look like it'll amount to much. What's clear is that a major tool used by everyone connected to the business of movies is gone. It went, suddenly, and without warning, and there's no way of getting it back. And it now stands as yet another stark reminder of how quickly things change online, and with so little rhyme or reason. A site as useful and well-regarded as Box Office Mojo can disappear overnight at the whim of Amazon or Google or Facebook. And all we can do is ask, "what's next?"
---
There's been plenty of griping from all corners of the entertainment world, but it's doubtful that Amazon is going to budge. They declared that the changes were "made in response to customer feedback and usage patterns, which will continue to inform future feature launches.” The customers in question are clearly IMDbPro users, as Amazon is now treating Box Office Mojo as an extension of their IMDb services, which have grown to include networking tools and streaming content over the past few years, while jettisoning popular features like the message board system and user reviews. I guess we should have realized this was going to happen back in 2014, when Box Office Mojo was taken offline briefly, and visitors redirected to IMDb. No explanation was offered at the time, and none have been offered since, so it's clearly not worth it trying to engage with whoever is making these decisions.
It's been a strange and disheartening, watching Amazon gradually monetize these bare bones, statistics-centered resource sites. Not content with simply sticking ads on the pages, they keep mucking around with the basic elements that made them appealing in the first place - their ease of use, their accessibility, and their strong, simple presentation of data. Thankfully, though IMDb is now obnoxiously graphics heavy, the site's basic functionality is mostly still intact. I can look up bits of data like release dates and production credits without too much hassle. Box Office Mojo, however, may be permanently, irreparably broken. It wasn't just one or two things that were removed, like the message boards. The vast majority of the data that was at the core of the site has been walled off, and the navigation is truly impenetrable. Users have been reporting errors everywhere, and some of the old functions are gone for good, even for the IMDb Pro users. What remains free and easily accessible to the public can be found at a dozen other film sites around the internet.
As a result, Box Office Mojo's users have proved perfectly willing to abandon the site in search of alternatives. There has been a noticeable exodus to rival site The Numbers. Box Office Pro has its boosters. It was announced that there are efforts underway to build a non-profit replacement site for Box Office Mojo, though like all fan driven projects, this doesn't look like it'll amount to much. What's clear is that a major tool used by everyone connected to the business of movies is gone. It went, suddenly, and without warning, and there's no way of getting it back. And it now stands as yet another stark reminder of how quickly things change online, and with so little rhyme or reason. A site as useful and well-regarded as Box Office Mojo can disappear overnight at the whim of Amazon or Google or Facebook. And all we can do is ask, "what's next?"
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
