Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Comic Con part deux…the not so good

Yesterday I posted what I felt were some of the highlights of this year’s San Diego Comic Con, all related to upcoming movies (and I didn’t focus on the plethora of TV and *gasp* comic book related material!).

As fascinating as so much of the stuff released and teased was, there was one noticeable negative to emerge, and that involved the panel focused on the as of yesterday, July 25th just released The Killing Joke, the animated DC feature adaptation of the controversial Alan Moore written, Brian Bolland drawn graphic novel from 1988.  This is the cover to that graphic novel…

Over at i09.com, the i09 Staff offer a very good article concerning the panel and how it went so very wrong…

The Killing Joke movie is a disaster, right down to its Comic-Con panel

I don’t want to step too hard on the article’s toes (you really should read it) but the bottom line is the panel revealed additions were made to the original graphic novel story as it was only 48 pages worth of material, in order to make it a full length animated film.

To many in the audience, these additions didn’t go over well.

In the original Alan Moore penned graphic novel, readers learn possible aspects of the Joker’s origin while wrapped around what I considered then, and still do now, one of Mr. Moore’s darkest -and most perverse- stories, if only because it features such comic book icons (take that haters of Batman v Superman!).

I nonetheless say this with considerable regret because up to about that point, Alan Moore was an author that, in my mind, could do absolutely no wrong.

I got into Alan Moore’s writing earlier than most people on this side of the pond for I was one of the very few buying Saga of the Swamp Thing, his first American work, as it was released to newsstands.  In fact, I recall many snickering when I told them the book was really, really good.

I still recall the thrill of reading “The Anatomy Lesson”, Issue #21 of the book which brilliantly framed the beloved character in a whole new light.  So blown away was I by Mr. Moore’s storytelling that I hunted far and near in those pre-internet/pre-Amazon days desperately searching for more of Mr. Moore’s works.  Imagine my thrill when I got my hands on issues of Warrior Magazine and was exposed to MarvelMan (later MiracleMan) and V for Vendetta.

My point is this: I was a HUGE fan of Mr. Moore’s writing.

And then things changed.

While Saga of the Swamp Thing started so incredibly well, I found the series lost steam as it went on.  Sometimes the stories Mr. Moore presented were really out there and while this worked in some cased, in others it didn’t.  Part of the problem, I suspect, was the grind of releasing a book on a monthly basis.  Because of the time crunch, Stephen Bissette and John Totleban, the magnificent main artists during Mr. Moore’s run, were unable to keep up that schedule and there were more than a few “fill in” stories presented now and again.  Some worked (Issue #28’s “The Burial”) while others…didn’t.

I also noted that as good a writer as Mr. Moore was, his strengths lay in “single issue” stories and in initiating longer stories and not so much in providing a strong conclusion (the “American Gothic” storyline, IMHO, started strong and then kinda limped to its end).

Having said all that, Mr. Moore would go on to write Watchmen, one of the greatest superhero deconstructions ever made, before going on to write The Killing Joke.

When the graphic novel was announced, I was very hyped to see it.  An Alan Moore written, Brian Bolland (one of the greatest British artists to come, ever!) drawn Batman graphic novel?  One focused on Batman’s arch-enemy, the Joker?

I mean, come on!  What was not to love?

As it turned out, quite a bit.

In Mr. Moore’s story, the Joker pushes Batman to his limits.  He does this by ambushing Barbara Gordon, ie Batgirl while she’s in her civilian clothing in her apartment.  He shoots her, she falls backwards through a glass table, then he strips her and, as the cover of the book shows, starts photographing her nude while in her injured/bleeding state.  While it isn’t outright stated, I couldn’t help but wonder if the Joker hadn’t raped her as well.

But wait, there’s more!

Afterwards, when she’s in the hospital, we learn Barbara Gordon was crippled as well.  Later still, Commissioner Gordon, her father, is captured by the Joker who tortures him by showing off those nasty nude photographs he took of Barbara.

Incredibly, incredibly nasty stuff…and what made it all worse is that the story, for all its bleak perversity, just wasn’t all that good.

In looking back, the release of The Killing Joke may well have been the moment I really started questioned Mr. Moore’s writing.  While there was always a dark edge to his works, it seemed he went too far.

Mr. Moore would leave DC comics soon afterwards and the split was far from amicable.  Mr. Moore swore to never again write for the company, a promise he’s kept to this day.  He produced more comics, some which featured a softer tone while others were just as -if not more, dark, but these independent works never appealed to me quite as much as his 1980’s output and, with a couple of exceptions (From Hell, among them), I haven’t read most of his post DC stuff.

When I heard Warner Brothers was working on an animated version of The Killing Joke, I was curious yet harbored doubts this was a worthwhile project to tackle.  Well, the movie was made and, incredibly, it appears to be even nastier than the graphic novel.

In the movie, panelists at the Comic-Con found, the story was expanded to include Barbara Gordon and Batman “getting it on,” this despite the fact that she’s the daughter of his biggest ally!  Further, the movie then presents her as a jilted lover, pining for the return of her beloved Batman, when the Joker comes-a-callin.

And then there’s this tidbit of something that happened during the panel, as presented in the article linked to above:

It was during the Q&A that things got dicey. A Joker cosplayer asked the writers why they would downplay Barbara Gordon, such a strong female character, and make her story more about the men in her life. According to Bleeding Cool reporter Jeremy Konrad, the writers insisted she was still a strong female character. Konrad, who’d already seen the film and didn’t agree, himself sarcastically shouted, “Yeah, by using sex and then pining for Bruce.”

That’s when co-screenwriter Brian Azzarello seemed to put it all out there. “Wanna say that again? Pussy?” he asked.

Now, I wasn’t there and who knows what the mood and emotions were like in that panel up to that point.  I’ve been a guest at conventions and know that sometimes the pressure can get to you. Regardless, if Mr. Azzarello said what he said…come on, man.  Control yourself.

Regardless of all that, the bottom line for me is this: The Killing Joke graphic novel was, to put it kindly, a very flawed product to begin with and the animated film and the additions it makes to an already flawed story are just as, if not more, questionable.

In the long run, however, this is but one Batman animated film -and graphic novel- out of tons of them so for those who find the whole thing icky, just get it out of your system and ignore the movie.

Certainly another, better one is to come.

Movies

Comic Con trailers…

This past weekend and at San Diego’s huge Comic Con, fans of the fantastic were treated to an incredibly large variety of trailers and clips from some very hotly anticipated movies.  DC comics, IMHO, had the best showing and, ironically enough, possibly the worst as well (I’ll get into the one sour note in the next posting.  Why spoil the good?).

Here we have the beautiful trailer to the upcoming Wonder Woman film…

And here’s an intriguing first look at the Justice League film…

Here we have another intriguing trailer, this one to Kong: Skull Island, which looks like it takes equally from the King Kong features as well as, of all things, Apocalypse Now!

Lest you think Marvel Studios had nothing to offer, here’s the first, in my opinion, intriguing Doctor Strange trailer.  As much of a fan of Benedict Cumberpatch as I am, until this trailer, I wasn’t all that impressed by what I saw.  Now I am…

Looks like there’s some really interesting stuff coming your way very soon!

Movies

Apropos of nothing in particular…

In these days it seems many studios rely on popular young adult novels (like Harry Potter and Twilight) to create movie franchises.

But just because you have a successful book franchise it doesn’t mean your path to movie success is a given…

The Last “Divergent” Movie Did So Badly That The Finale Will Be Made For TV

I haven’t seen any of the Divergent films nor have an interest in doing so.  Having said that, there is absolutely no joy/gloating at the (mis)fortunes of these films/filmmakers and the various people who worked on these films.

I feel it is nice the producers of these films, despite the disappointment of the last film, will present a conclusion to this series for the many (though not enough) fans out there.

If nothing else, its an interesting new wrinkle in the way films can be made and series can be concluded.

Movies

Zoolander 2 (2016) a (mildly) belated review

Released mere weeks in 2001 after the tragedy of 9/11, the original Zoolander was a film that came to theaters and disappeared quickly.  The country, needless to say, didn’t appear to be in the mood for something light and funny at that time.

As this things are wont to do, time somewhat healed the pain of 9/11 and over the subsequent years people caught this film when it appeared on cable and regular TV…and they liked it.  Though even today I don’t think people consider the original Zoolander a comic “masterpiece”, they do acknowledge it is a pleasant, entertaining goof that featured some wild cameos (David Duchovny and David Bowie in particular come to mind) and an almost surreal alternative world plot: What if male fashion models –idiot male fashion models- were the most important people in the world?

Again, while the film may not be a stone cold classic, it had its charm and as a time killer, you could do far worse.

I wish the same could be said of the movie’s very belated sequel, 2016’s Zoolander 2.

While amping up (ridiculously, it must be said) the number of star cameos, this movie also tries to meld James Bondian and DaVinci Code-type plots.  There are laughs to be found, for certain, and some are (IMHO) quite hilarious, but when the film reached its climax I turned to my wife and daughter who sat through this with me and said:

This has to be the stupidest film ever made.

The statement was not intended as a complement.

As I said before, there were moments I found myself laughing and sometimes the laughter was quite loud.  For the most part, and unfortunately, this happened toward the film’s end, when our “heroes” the lame-brained Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller, who also directed) and his equally stupid partner/friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) confront Jacobim Mugatu (Will Ferrell) who, as he did in the first film, is apoplectic at the stupidity of everyone around him.

Good as that joke is, it was done better in the Pink Panther films via Chief Inspector Dreyfus (a hilarious Herbert Lom) and his having to deal with the inept Inspector Clouseau (an equally hilarious Peter Sellers).

The worst problem Zoolander 2 has is that it appeared the story totally got away from Mr. Stiller.  There were moments I couldn’t understand what the heck was happening and the gag cameos, while at times interesting, ultimately felt like they became the movie’s sole reason for being.

For example, as famous as Katy Perry is, her cameo was completely pointless and, even more importantly, not at all funny.  Had Mr. Stiller exerted more self-control over his product, he should have decided that despite her popularity and (I’m certain) the hoops he had to go through to get her into his film, the movie might have worked a little better without that unfunny scene.  Or, barring that, create a funnier scene!!!

The movie also inexplicably hired the usually hilarious Kristen Wiig but chose to hide her behind so much makeup that you can’t tell who she was and, further, she like so many others had precious few humorous things to add to the proceedings.  Later in the film, when the makeup was removed (SPOILERS, I suppose), instead of revealing Ms. Wiig under the makeup we have another actor appear, this time one of the stars of the original Zoolander, as the person hiding behind that disguise.  This actress’ appearance, like many of the cameos within the movie, felt like it was done before a green screen in no more than an hour of time and stitched into the film proper long afterwards.

As for jokes that completely flopped, no bigger example of that was the extended joke involving Hansel’s Harem, which has, among others, Kiefer Sutherland in it.  They kept returning to this joke and it…Just.  Didn’t.  Work.

I could go on and on (why, Sting, why!?!) but suffice to say this film isn’t recommended.  For those out there who so gleefully slagged Ghostbusters, I dare you to compare these two films and not say that Ghostbusters, even with its faults, isn’t a far better product.

General, Movies

A little more on Ghostbusters, and specifically Leslie Jones

Yesterday I reviewed the new Ghostbusters film and found it a solid, enjoyable comedy that did not, in my opinion, reflect the extreme negative comments people made on the internet regarding it.

Today, I find this article on CNN.com, written by Sandra Gonzalez:

Leslie Jones busts Twitter haters, gets love in return

All I have to say about this is the people who are going out of their way to insult Ms. Jones are nothing more than cowards and bullies.

I suspect the people insulting her are among those who claim Ms. Jones’ portrayal in the Ghostbusters movie was nothing but a “loud, annoying, street-smart stereotype”, as I mentioned yesterday.

First, those who have seen the film should know her character is not presented this way.  Secondly, her character proves very useful because her “street-smarts” involve knowledge of New York’s HISTORY.  She is the one who knows what happened in certain parts of the city, knowledge that eventually helps the others understand what is going on.

I will repeat what I wrote yesterday regarding those slamming Ghostbusters from way before its release: If you don’t like something, why focus so much on it?

Couldn’t you spend that energy doing something more productive?

Movies

Ghostbusters (2016) a (for the most part) right on time review

With the Ghostbusters remake, one need look no farther than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice to see another example of a movie being completely taken in by pure, unadulterated craziness.

Look, I completely get it: We’re human, aren’t we?  We’re just as capable of loving one thing and hating another.  God knows, I was never a fan of Star Wars and to this day cannot understand why people love it so much.

However, I don’t go out of my way to point fingers and yell from the rafters as to why Star Wars is crap.  Frankly, I’m happy people found something they like and enjoy the hell out of it.  Especially those people my age who experienced it first, in 1977, as a child.

When BvS was first announced, there seemed to almost immediately appear a group absolutely convinced the movie would be terrible…even when it was a year or more away from release.  Some of their opinions I can’t debate: If you have experienced all of the Zach Snyder directed films and found they weren’t your cup of tea, it was logical to assume you would probably not be pleased you with his latest film.

Having seen only one Zach Snyder directed film in its entirety before BvS (for the record, it was Dawn of the Dead), I came into that film a near “virgin” with regard to the works of Mr. Snyder.  I also tried, despite the very negative critical reactions, to see it with as neutral a mindset as I could.

I liked the film.  I really liked the film.

And I now hate it because the Ultimate Cut of the film is so much better than the theatrical cut!

Similar negative vibes moved to the Ghostbusters remake.  People primed themselves to hate it many months before the film was released and, surprise surprise, many of the things they were so-damn-certain they would hate they wound up finding -and hating- in the film.

A self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.

Over at the IMDB listing for the movie you have a featured 1 star review wherein the author, Girlycard, goes over everything s/he felt was wrong with the film.

Here’s the first of their complaints: This movie was stolen. Everything in this movie was stolen from the first two. All they did was literally take the first movie, and remove the action parts and the horror parts.

I don’t get it.  The movie is a remake.  If you hear they’re remaking Ghostbusters and the movie comes out and turns out to be a romantic film set in the 1800’s British highlands involving the upper and lower casts, wouldn’t people have been scratching their heads and wondering what the hell did this have to do with the original Ghostbuster films?

Then there’s this: The sexism. This movie is probably the most sexist movie since Doomsday Machine. They replaced the entire main cast with only women to appeal to the radical Feminists. When your ideology discriminates against who you can cast in a role, that is called Fascism, and it’s not a good thing.

Hoo boy.

I just didn’t see it.  If anything, the film slyly inverts some standard movie sexism jokes.  In the Mel Brooks comedy The Producers, you have a sexy (female, natch) secretary who is a complete bimbo and does absolutely nothing but get oogled over by the men.

In Ghostbusters, you have Chris Hemsworth play Kevin, the male iteration of this stereotypical female role.  He’s quite literally this very same “dumb blonde” secretary who the female staff (actually, mostly Kristen Wiig’s Erin Gilbert) oogles over and makes an ass out of herself doing so.

So, in The Producers using the dumb blonde female secretary is ok but if we invert this trope in Ghostbusters we’re being…sexist?!

Worse, fascist?!?!?

Complete bullshit and the purest of exaggerated hyperbole.

Also, the male characters in this films are not all portrayed as idiots.  Apart from Kevin, they seem reasonably “normal” characters (male AND female) for a slapstick comedy.  It’s like focusing on Rick Moranis’ Louis Tully playing a nerdy/horny fool in the original Ghostbusters and thinking that’s anti-male sexism.

Allow me one more thing pointed out by Girlycard: The racism. The only black character was turned into a loud, annoying, street-smart stereotype.

In this case, I have to admit when I saw the first trailers for the film, I feared there might be a possibility of this being the case.  Not the “racism” (more bullshit hyperbole) but rather that the “only” (by the way, she isn’t) black character was turned into a “loud, annoying, street-smart stereotype.”

Instead I was delighted to find Leslie Jones’ Patty Tolan far from just “loud” and “annoying”.  She was presented as “street smart”, but this was done in a positive way.  For you see, her “street smarts” involved knowing about historical aspects regarding New York the other Ghostbusters did not and proved herself to be very much a helpful character in their mission.  And she does this while not yelling!  Imagine that!

Not to get too far afield, but if you compare her character with that of Ernie Hudson’s in the original film, she comes out better.  Remember that Mr. Hudson himself stated in interviews he views his participation in the original Ghostbusters with great ambivalence.  He was brought into the film thinking he would have a meatier role but once the cameras started rolling his character’s participation in the film was trimmed to almost nothing but the token “African-American” guy by the end.

My point here is this: I can totally understand people really, really loving the original Ghostbusters and not stomaching a remake that does not involve Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray, et al.

I get it.

But you know what?  You can do as I do with films I don’t care all that much about:  You can simply ignore them.  Why expend so much energy hating on something you probably aren’t interested in seeing in the first place?  Seriously, you don’t have to do it.

The Ghostbusters remake, for those willing to give it a shot, is a funny, engaging film that, while far from perfect, promises a good time…if you can overlook some of the movie’s faults.  At times there is a certain choppiness to the story and there was at least one major plot element that was clearly cut from the theatrical version…though perhaps it was just as well.  Finally, not all the jokes land, but –shocker– that’s not unusual for a comedy.  As long as you do laugh several times during the film’s run, it’s done its job.

The movie, like the original Ghostbusters, concerns a group of people (yes, women are people, too) who are drawn together because mysterious things are a’happenin’ in New York.  As already mentioned, Kristen Wiig plays Erin Gilbert, nerdy scientist who is desperately seeking tenure at a prestigious university.  Melissa McCarthy is Abby Yates, her childhood friend who, along with Erin, were once a duo determined to prove ghosts exist.  Erin left that behind but is drawn back and meets up with Abby at her university.  There, Erin meets Abby’s right hand woman, the bizarre Jillian Holtzmann (a very funny turn by Kate McKinnon) and they go investigate a potential spiritual apparition.

This investigation winds up squelching any chance for Erin to get her tenure so the trio decides to form their own “ghost hunting” business.  Soon, they are hired to take on a job by the not-always-yelling Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), who later joins the group, while also hiring the absolutely clueless Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) as their secretary.

As it turns out, there is a menace brewing which may lead to an apocalypse.  The Ghostbusters not only fight this menace but, in an amusing turn, they also have to deal with the Mayor of New York who…ah, I won’t give it away but will say the Mayor proves a funny twist on the “typical” higher-up reaction to something fantastic.

Getting back to something I noted a little before: The one major plot element which seems to have been trimmed from the film involves Erin leaving the Ghostbusters.  This sequence is never shown and when Erin does get back to the group in the movie’s climax Abby happily states “You’re back!” yet we never saw her leave in the first place.  Why they didn’t remove or change that line I don’t know.

Again, nothing terribly big but it does point out the film had sequences which were eventually discarded (they also got rid of the very funny joke about the selfie picture in the heavy metal concert.  I thought its presentation in the trailer was funnier than the truncated version in the film proper).

As for the cameo appearances by the original cast…I hate to say it but they were largely not all that great.  There are those who stated Bill Murray’s cameo was the best but, frankly, I thought it was only ok.  It was, however, the longest of the cameos and involved two sequences.  My favorite was probably Sigorney Weaver’s but even that one could have been funnier, IMHO, if instead of having her they had Dan Ackroyd in that particular scene instead of Ms. Weaver.  It just “fit” Ackroyd’s character in the original movie a little better.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on enough.  If you can put aside your emotions and nostalgic fondness regarding the original Ghostbusters and give this new version a shot, you’re in for some fun.  This film may not be the best comedy evah, but it will have you laugh plenty of times.

Recommended.

Movies

Bitch n’ moan…

For the past however-many months, there were two movies on many people’s radar as being all but guaranteed “horrible.”

The first, which I’ve gone into ad-nauseum, is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.  You name it, people had problems with it.  Among the many sins the film was guilty of in the eyes of many (pre-release) the biggest was that Zach Snyder was the movie’s director and, in the eyes of many, he had already revealed himself via previous films as a “talentless hack”.

When the movie came out, two camps were quickly formed: Those that loathed the film (it met every one of their darkest predictions) and those who saw it and…liked it.

This was not a small group.

While the film would go on to make a ton of money, the detractors found cause for snipping in that as well.  “Had the film been good, its $872 million plus take would have been a billion!” they said, ignoring the fact that the film’s take makes it one of the five most successful films released this year.

And when the “Ultimate Cut” of the film was released digitally and people like me got to see it, it proved both that the theatrical cut of the film was -let’s put it kindly- haphazard at best and further proved that Mr. Snyder had delivered a much more coherent story (even I, as a fan of the film. would admit the theatrical cut is, in light of the Ultimate Cut, something to be ignored completely), it still didn’t matter.

The hatred was already baked in and nothing could change opinions.

Fine.

The other film to receive fan scorn near the Batman v Superman levels has to be the Paul Fieg directed, Melissa McCarthy/Kristen Wiig/Kate McKinnon/Leslie Jones Ghostbusters.

The scorn heaped upon the film following its admittedly not-great first trailer was something to behold.  It turned into something of a runaway train and the trailer received the highest negatives ratings of ANY video on YouTube to that moment, quite the feat for something that was at worst, IMHO, “only” an OK trailer.

As the film was nearing release, those who were determined to hate the product were already posting comments along the lines of “how bad will the critics hate it?” to “those critics who like it are clearly in Sony’s pocket”.

And when the critics were finally allowed to post their reviews, something most curiously happened:  Most of them…liked the film.

Currently, Ghostbusters stands at a high 74% positive among critics but among audiences has a far worse 44% approval, almost the direct opposite reaction critics/audiences had to Batman v Superman, which was loathed by critics yet found a much higher positive rating among your average movie-goers.  I suspect it was the positive reaction by audiences which allowed Batman v Superman to make the box office it did.  I further suspect if the audience ratings remain as they are for Ghostbusters, this movie may do only mediocre box office before leaving theaters.

I point all this only because it intrigues me and shows the power of the internet and group thinking within it.

This won’t be the first (two) times internet pre-reactions to upcoming movies sows the seeds of love…or hate…with a particular work.

Movies

Cast A Deadly Spell (1991) a (very) belated review

Had this one on my list of films to catch whenever I could, thinking I hadn’t seen it but realizing, as the film reached its final act, that I’d seen at least that part of it.  Check that: Either I saw the film’s closing act or the movie’s resolution was so predictable it just seemed like I had seen it before.

While it may sound like a big knock against the film, trust me when I say I don’t intend it to be as this film entertained me through to that (at least to me) predictable ending.

Cast A Deadly Spell biggest draw is in the fact that it presents a Raymond Chandler-esq “noir” L.A. of 1948 merged with the dark magics of H. P. Lovecraft’s literature.

The story features a very game and engaging Fred Ward who plays private detective Harry Phillip Lovecraft (yes, H. P. Lovecraft).  He lives in this “noir” L.A. and shuns any form of magic…even though it is a commonality in this world.  You see, everyone has some kind of relationship with the dark arts.  In this world, bloody rain can fall one overcast day and police stations bring in vampire and werewolf suspects for questioning.

In the film’s opening minutes Lovecraft finishes a case.  This serves to establish both his character -he’s very much a noble knight in the Phillip Marlowe tradition- and the peculiar world he lives in.  Following the opening, viewers are side-routed to some goings on involving a book and the shadowy people trying to get their hands on it.  It is during this sequence we see Julliane Moore in one of her earlier large roles.  Her character, Connie Stone, will play a role in the story to follow.

It is also during this interlude that one of the film’s “surprises” is presented, a character who doesn’t seem to be who they are, but viewers should detect a particular blonde’s secret right away.  At the risk of again sounding very down on the film, this was one of those plot twists that if you didn’t pick up on it right away, you truly need to get your eyes checked.

Afterwards we return to Lovecraft.  He’s directed to the Amos Hackshaw (David Warner) estate and, while driving in, sees a unicorn and a woman on horseback and carrying a bow and arrow hunting the creature.  The woman will turn out to be Olivia Hackshaw (Alexandra Powers), Amos’ 16 year old “innocent” daughter.

Amos, it turns out, lost his copy of the (in) famous Necronomicon (the book we saw in the interlude presented beforehand) and he needs to get it back in two days for, he states, a conference he needs to attend.  Amos tells Lovecraft he suspects his recently fired chauffeur, a man who he says had his eyes on the youthful Olivia, stole the book when he was sent away.

I won’t get into too many more details beyond what I’ve laid out above but, apart from the ending you see coming and the non-surprise regarding one of the characters, Cast A Deadly Spell is an entertaining film that pleasantly mixes the noir and dark magic genres in an effective way.  While the mystery at its heart may not be quite as clever as those found in the best works of Raymond Chandler and the horror elements may not be quite as horrifying as those found in the best works of H. P. Lovecraft, the film nonetheless hits its marks and entertains which is, after all, what any good film should do.

So, while the film may feature a couple of “surprises” that aren’t all that surprising, Cast A Deadly Spell is a pleasant, entertaining feature that presents a unique melding of genres, a pleasant cast, and an engaging story.

Recommended.

Here’s the movie’s trailer.  Sorry for the poor quality…

A Random Thought: Hollywood really loves remaking films they shouldn’t yet here’s a case of a good film that might make a really great remake.  Should be considered!

Movies

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016) a (almost right on time) review

Of late it would appear critics (and some audiences) and I don’t see eye to eye.

I thought 10 Cloverfield Lane was a bust while over at Rottentomatoes.com its earning an incredibly high 90% approval among critics and an equally impressive 80% approval from audiences.  Then there’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.  I really liked the film, even moreso in its “ultimate edition”, yet critics flayed the film alive.  It currently stands at a woeful 27% positive among critics and a not-too-bad-but-not-great 66% among audiences.

I had some free time yesterday and, after looking around at the latest films in theaters, decided to go see Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates.  Here’s the film’s redband trailer.  Beware some NSFW language…

I could make this review really short and sweet and say: If you found the above trailer funny, then see this film.  The trailer does a very good job of telling you what you’re in for so if the above didn’t make you laugh, steer clear.  Otherwise, give the movie a try.

Now, to get back to those pesky critics.  Over at Rottentomatoes, the film has a poor 41% positive among critics though a much brighter 70% positive among audiences.  In this case, I go with the audiences.

Look, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (let’s abbreviate it to MDNWD from here on) is not The Godfather.  It’s not Citizen Kane.  It most certainly does not intend to be.

What it is is what you see in the trailer above: A foul mouthed romantic comedy.  The movie features some dodgy acting here and there (come on, the characters are caricatures…even Robert DeNiro in his prime would have a hard time making these cartoons lifelike), some dodgy direction here and there (especially in the movie’s opening act, where the characters and situations are established), and a plot which, though foul-mouthed, ultimately goes for the sweet romantic movie ending…something you can see coming a mile away.

And yet when all the pieces are in place and the central characters, the goofy Stangle brothers (Zac Efron and Adam Devine) are fooled by (its in the trailer, folks) and invite the equally rude and crude Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza) and Alice (Anna Kendrick) to be their “respectable” wedding dates for their dear young sister (a fearless turn by Sugar Lyn Beard), the pieces fall together and there are plenty of laughs to be had.

Again, we’re not talking high levels of cinema art here, and it tickles me to read some of the critics’ negative comments (one noted how Anna Kendrick’s wigs -for some reason she wears one in the film- aren’t even the same color from scene to scene.  To which I say: Come on, you noticed this?!?  And it was among the things that ruined the film for you!??!  Seriously?!?).

Let’s make this real simple: If a film advertises itself as a “comedy” and it makes me laugh a good deal throughout its runtime, it has accomplished its goal.

In the end, I laughed plenty during the film.  While I already mentioned the fearless turn by Sugar Lyn Beard, props also have to be given to Adam Devine.  His manic turn is another highlight.

Based on the above trailer (and the outtakes shown at the film’s end), there appears to be a ton of material that didn’t make it into MDNWD’s final cut.  If you’re like me and you liked this film, you may be curious to see it when it gets released to home video.  Perhaps a ruder/cruder director’s cut is out there?  At the very least there are probably quite a few cut scenes.

Either way, if you liked the above trailer and it made you laugh, you’ll like MDNWD.

Don’t let the “professional” critics drag you down.  This one is recommended.

Movies

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) a (mildly) belated review

1 Comment

I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll mention it again: There was a time I was a fierce critic of movies.  Back then almost nothing was perfect and the imperfections I noted gnawed at me and made me hate films that I might otherwise enjoy.

Then came the change.

I suspect a part of the reason for the change was that I started writing and in doing so realized that when you’re creating a work rather than simply watching/reading it, you come to realize just how hard -indeed near impossible- it is to create something “perfect”.

So I went the other way and started giving movies and books and songs and artwork the benefit of the doubt, especially when a film was a low budget affair and it appeared (at least to my eyes), that the people making it were genuinely trying to create something good.

That’s not to say my “giving the benefit of the doubt” extends to liking bad movies.  Well intentioned as it was, I couldn’t watch the low budget yet ambitious Synchronicity to its end, though I could admire the fact that at least the makers of the film tried -but in my eyes failed- to create a thoughtful sci-fi work.

As mellow as I may have become, expectations work the other way as well.  When I see a big budgeted film produced by a very big Hollywood name and reviews for the film are for the most part great, I can’t help but go into the film expecting good things.  And when those “good things” don’t appear, it is possible my negative reactions are magnified.

I mentioned before how I bought Guardians of the Galaxy on BluRay and popped it into my player and expected good things.  Audiences and critics gobbled up the movie and it made a ton of money.  There are many who feel this is the best Marvel Comics film ever made.

Yet I hated, hated, hated the damn film.

After watching it I felt I was the victim in an old Allen Funt Candid Camera routine.  The routine I’m referring to involves a group of pranksters, one of whom tells a joke to all the others while the single “victim” listens in with the rest of the group.  At the conclusion of the wildly unfunny joke the pranksters uproariously laugh and we watch the “victim” of the prank as s/he frowns and wonders just what the hell was so funny about that horrid joke.  Sometimes, the “victim” actually laughs along with the group even though we know s/he’s doing so only to fit in with the rest of the group.  The joke sucked, after all.  And sometimes the victim doesn’t laugh and asks the others just what the hell was so funny about that.

In a long winded way that brings me to 10 Cloverfield Lane, the J. J. Abrams produced, small-cast-in-a-claustrophobic-setting suspense/terror film.

Filmed in secrecy before being suddenly released, 10 Cloverfield Lane (10CL from now on) brought a high level of interest among fans of 2008’s Cloverfield, a “found footage” monster movie also produced by J. J. Adrams.  Was the film a direct sequel?  Was it something else?

By now the cat’s out of the bag: If the film is a sequel to Cloverfield, its at best a “sideways” sequel even as the bulk of the movie may not suggest this be the case.

In fact, the first 3/4ths of the film could accurately be described as a mashup of the opening act of Psycho as well as the entirety of Misery.  The opening ten minutes or so of the film in particular tries (too hard, in my opinion) to evoke the tension of Janet Leigh’s character in Psycho as she runs away with stolen money.  Alas, by using the stolen money there was good reason to feel the tension.  In 10CL we have our lead, Michelle (well played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving her fiance after a fight.  Hardly the thing of great tension.

Yet to the creator’s credit, they do evoke a certain amount of tension as she travels a dark road at night and winds up in a terrific accident.  When she awakens, she finds herself chained to a wall in a small concrete bunker.  She soon finds she’s inside a larger underground bunker.  There are two other people there with her, the odd and tempermental Howard (John Goodman, also pretty damn great in the film), who claims to have found Michelle’s crashed car and brought her to his underground bunker just as an “attack” happened, and the good-natured Emmett (John Gallagher Jr., also quite good), who nurses an injured arm and agrees that an attack has happened and that leaving the bunker is a death sentence.

The early parts of the film, despite the clear Hitchcock emulations, are pretty good and the dynamics between Michelle, Emmett, and Howard make for some great scenes.

Unfortunately, as the film plays out, my patience started to wear thin.  The characters, while interesting at first, lost me as time went along.  Frankly, I cared less and less for them and their situation and found them artifacts rather than “real” people.  By somewhere around the half-way point of the film I considered shutting it off.

But I kept at it, and was “rewarded” with a beyond silly -to me- conclusion that didn’t feel like it belonged in the film at all.

What’s most frustrating is that as in reading about the film’s original script, it was apparently not meant to tie into the Cloverfield “universe” at all and, I’m guessing here, may well have been more of a psychological drama.  I see that at the edges of this movie and can’t help but wonder if certain things were done instead of others, we might not have had a very tense and thoughtful horror film instead of one that ultimately squandered its decent setup.

While the critics generally loved 10CL, I can’t help but feel this movie was a wiff.  It could, indeed should have been far better than it was and that’s the greatest shame of it all.

More thoughts, and SPOILERS, after the trailer…

Still there?

Beware…

SPOILERS!!!!

As I said above, the movie is at its best when exploiting the tension between the characters in this relatively small bunker.  But that’s also where the film commits its bigger errors.

For example, given how small the bunker is, how do Michelle and Emmett manage to do as much as they do (I know I said I’d get into spoilers, but it doesn’t mean I’ll spoil everything) without Howard knowing?  How do they talk in secret without him hearing them?

Also, making it clear Emmett is a good guy came a little too quickly.  Wouldn’t it have been more intriguing if his nature had been kept more nebulous and Michelle couldn’t tell whether Emmett was better than Howard or vice versa?

There are also a good number of story contrivances that bothered me as well.  For example, Michelle seeing Howard’s truck and making a startling realization about it.  Did Howard have to park it the way he did and in such plain sight?  Wouldn’t he have parked it closer to the bunker’s entrance when he was last outside and had to carry Michelle in?

Also mighty coincidental, for the story, that when fairly early in the film Michelle makes a break and is just one door away from escaping the bunker but just happens to do so when facing evidence that things are not right outside.  Up to that point, she thought she was being held by two crazy people but upon seeing this evidence, realized they might be right.  However, what are the odds that she would try to escape exactly at the moment she could see this evidence?

Afterwards, you have Howard show (and tell) Michelle about freezing stuff and making metal brittle, which of course comes in mighty handy later in the film, as well as the fact that the air unit filter happens to malfunction (only a few days into their being in the bunker!) and that allows Michelle to see evidence of Howard’s possible dark side while also coincidentally finding a way out where she can escape without Howard following her.  And what about the fact that Michelle just happens to have a desire to design clothing and just happens to have to stitch Howard up which allows her to find a needle to use in making said special clothing…

Too much stuff is laid out and then becomes important later in the story.  These story contrivances effectively make Michelle the one “perfect” character to escape this situation.  Thank goodness she could sew, remembered freezing metal made it brittle, and was skinny enough to fit into a vent.

Otherwise, game over.

But there’s one other thing that, depending on your disposition, may break the movie down even further: The climactic last act.

To put it bluntly, that whole part just didn’t work for me.  Worse, given what came before it just felt…silly.  Hell, it was silly.  People lambast the movie Signs because the alien invaders -surprise surprise- were defeated by water.  In 10CL, we see the nasty alien invaders and Michelle manages to take out one of their mighty ships (or is it a big alien?)…with a single molotov cocktail?!?!

I mean…really?

The ship/alien (it is hard to tell) is that weak?

Mind you, I’m not even going to get into how awkward the change from bunker to outside world was handled.  We went from a Hitchcock Psycho/Misery-type movie into War of the Worlds…all in one cut!

Despite good acting and good direction, 10CL falls because of its silly and contrived story.  I really wish I could say it worked better for me, but despite some good stuff buried within, I cannot recommend it.