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.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
