Category Archives: Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Ocean’s 8

Yes, I realize I am very late coming to this party, but ages after the film released to video I have finally gotten around to watching it. There was a combination of factors that resulted in me seeing Ocean’s 8 some eight months after its launch. On one hand life got in the way. But also, the first reviews I heard were pretty lackluster. And I can see why.

*Note: This review is filled with spoilers.

Image from the internet.

First, let me say I am a huge fan of the 2001 version of Ocean’s 11. I love nearly everything about the movie that I had no expectations for. I loved the heist. I loved the acting and in particular the way it was filmed. There was a great cohesion of costume choices, music, props and stage layout that really worked seamlessly together to create a great environment for the story. Everything worked together, so it felt unified and purposeful in design.

There are also some very classic scenes that stylistically are so interesting. For example, there is one scene with Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) sitting in a bar. Danny is talking about the numbers of his crew for the heist and whether they need one more person. Rusty is flopped over the counter of the bar, with a glass of alcohol in one hand. The only reaction from Rusty in the entire scene is when he blinks his eyes. The interaction of these two characters suggests a history that monologues of words couldn’t convey in the same elegant fashion. It is these moments of quiet, mixed in with moments of banter and action that really add to the pacing.

While, Ocean’s 12 was not as much a favourite for me, I have come to greatly appreciate the experimentation that it took. Unfortunately, Ocean’s 13 demonstrated the film-makers didn’t really know what had caused 11 to be so successful (strong plot and excellent filming!) and as a result we get something that is watered-down and mostly boring. This is one of the biggest failings of Ocean’s 8. It is a paler version of a great movie. Here the film-makers knew that having one great heist with a twist was central. But they missed all the other stuff that elevated Ocean’s 11 into greatness.

Image from the internet.

I like the all female cast. I even like the basic premise of the heist. And the costumes, particularly for the MET gala were pretty awesome too. Unfortunately, the plot was shallow, the characters were one dimensional and the twist at the end was not cleaver so much as a cheat. If I was to describe the film in one word, it would like be: Flat. Everything was pretty boring, which is a shame when you have such a talented caste. The actors did not shine in this film, where the most interesting character is the Fence/Stay-at-home Mom, Tammy (Sarah Paulson). Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) and Lou (Cate Blanchett) did not have great chemistry. They felt more like strangers than long time friends that understand how the other works. I know there is not enough time to develop every character in the crew, but surely they could have done more with Debbie and Lou.

The heist could have been interesting, but it wasn’t. There was never any real sense that things could go wrong. With a lack of stakes, it was difficult to become emotionally engaged. There was a lack of set up, which meant the big final twist was so unexpected I really felt cheated in the process. One of the great things about Ocean’s 11 is re-watching the movie knowing how the ending works. Doing this you can see all the little signs and clues of how things are really going to work. The first time you watch the heist, you are following the characters with great interest and anticipation. You think you know what is going on, you believe you are watching the heist play out. And when it looks like they are going to be caught – well, you are nervous as you should be. When the twist is revealed, you can look back over all those previous scenes and see how it fits together. This was cleaver filming and story telling. Unfortunately, Ocean’s 8 was not cleaver. It was bland. Roping in a character you never heard about in this film, to pull off a stunt that the characters expressly said they were not going to do – it was cheating, not smart story telling. Other’s may have thought it was cute to have the return of Yen (Shaobo Qin), but I thought it was disjointed. Two reasons, one Debbie makes a point of turning down men for this job. And two, it was like they were trying too hard to connect back with Ocean’s 11 instead of doing their own thing.

Image from the internet.

Also, the pacing felt off. Partly because you think you know when the ending is going to strike but then it keeps going. In concept, I don’t mind pushing the actual ending back further, but then de-escalate the importance of the heist. I also would have loved to see more of a set up with Claude Becker (Richard Armitage). This could have been way tenser if he seemed to be catching onto Debbie’s plan. Also, her revenge streak felt a little contrived. The writers needed to flesh out that plot line in more detail. They also should have show how much of a player/con Claude was throughout the film. Using him properly, they really could have upped the stakes during the heist.

Image from the internet.

I liked Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway) being in on the plot. I even like the idea that most of the crew would have no idea she was part of it. But I would have had her in from the beginning – because I can see how this could played for a good laugh. I think the most frustrating aspect of Ocean’s 8 is how they squandered what could have been a really good movie. They had some descent ideas, a fantastic caste and some wonderful costumes. They lacked depth of character, a unified presentation (in visual and musical design) and an intelligently filmed heist. I wished it was better, I wanted it to better. In the end it is a fine movie to watch on a plane or an evening when there is nothing else to do.

Movie Review – Mary Poppins Returns

I confess this is being written far later than I intended. I was able to watch Mary Poppins Returns over the holiday. I enjoyed the experience. It was a nice to sit numbly for the 2 hours that I was in the theatre. But alas, it does not come close to replacing the original Mary Poppins with Julie Andrews.

First, I think it is important to point out some of the good things about the film. The animation was very pretty. The choreography was well done to my untrained eye. Lin-Manuel Miranda and Emily Blunt were fun to watch. The guest appearances by Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury were cute. (I was not so sold on Meryl Streep’s character.) There were also several catchy songs – most notably the bathtub song: “Can you imagine that?”.

Now onto a few of my disappointments. This was not a proper sequel. Yes, it had the Banks children grown up, but it was trying to follow the same plot line as the original movie only less well done. It was so like the original in pacing, design, layout, song type … that it felt more like a remake than a sequel.

In fact, Mary Poppins Returns spent so much time referencing the original film, I am surprised anyone of a younger generation who didn’t grow up with Julie Andrews likes the movie at all. Nearly every scene, song, and design choice was a direct “hey-do-you-remember-this-from-Mary-Poppins”. It was very paint by numbers and because of that, it felt shallow, disconnected and ultimately unsatisfying.

If the writers were set on doing a sequel with the Banks children then they really needed to come up with a more original issue. Having Michael Banks, a creative artist with his head in the clouds, try to pull off being too serious like his father was utterly unconvincing. In fact, Michael Banks was the least successful character in the film.

The easiest fix, would have been to follow a different family. This way, the paint-by-numbers format, where every song and scene in MP Returns mirrored the original MP would have felt less creatively flat. As it stands I wonder at all the work that went into producing a film that was a paler reflection of the original source material.

You can see how much more frivolous Emily Blunt’s Mary Poppins is compared with the portrayal of Mary Poppins by Julie Andrews.

However, a different family, even if they still lived on the same street would have added just enough variation that the thin plot would have worked. To improve the movie and really appeal to the audience, I would have loved to see the writers go beyond a regurgitation of old material.

It would have been wonderful to have a fully realized and relatable problem facing this new family. MP Returns didn’t have a strong problem to solve, so all the characters, both the good and the bad felt weak and washed out. They could have then themed all the songs and scenes around this new and original issue. In stead have having a collection of disjointed musical numbers. Also, the writer should explore an issue other than the idea we should all have a little more fun in our lives and be more like children. It is an overdone concept and this film did not pull it off successfully. But they could have worked with kindness, honesty, truth, perspective, oh, any number of different themes.  

Rather than trying to constrain Mary Poppins to a few familiar lines from the original movie, I would love to have seen greater development of her character. At least better dialogue. There were too many instances when what she said didn’t really make sense. I suppose she needed to be less focused on sounding like and enigma and more time sounding like a wise nanny – which in theory she is supposed to be.

In the end I would give the movie 2.5 stars, because Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda tried so very hard to do something special.

Feature Image

Look Who’s Back

So I have a friend and one of our favourite past times is to watch really bad movies. And when I say really bad, I mean Flash Gordon bad. A peruse of Netflix’s horror section will show a large list of things that’ll make you question why they were ever made. Yes, I contribute to the existence of the Sharknado series (even though we have yet to start it – beginning with the last and working our way back of course).

It’s our equivalent of “mindless entertainment” though mostly it’s revelling the sensation of confusion than anything else. And who knew there was such a large bafflement market?

Granted, a number of these movies are quite likely honest attempts at art which produced questionable results. The more earnest the creator, the more guilty the pleasure.

Thus, when my friend discovered a comedy about time-travelling Hitler who starts his own news program, we thought we were in for a treat.

What we didn’t expect was an actual good movie.

There is something to be said for foreign films and their liberty from the Hollywood blockbuster mould. That conversation can be saved for another day, however. But that German film isn’t as beholden to rigid American film standards certainly made Er ist wieder da a far better better experience than one that would be filmed in the oppressive heat of Los Angeles, California.

Accessed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_Who%27s_Back_(film)

Er ist wieder da is based on the Timur Vermes novel of the same name. It is directed by David Wnendt and distributed by Constantin Film.

On it’s face, Er ist wieder da is a rather uninspiring film. Its premise is that Adolf Hitler (yes, the Adolf Hitler) is transported in time to a decided modern 2014 Berlin. It’s your typical “fish out of water” but with slapstick comedy towards the homicidal Fuhrer of history. When he first awakens, he discovers three youths playing soccer and earnestly asks them for directions to his Chancellery. The film is overlaid with Hitler’s internal monologue and at first he sees everything through his outdated viewpoint for comedic effect. The children are disappointingly useless. Hitler wanders towards Brandenburg Square only to be mobbed by a host of tourists wanting selfies with the tyrant. He eventually stumbles across a newsstand and, upon learning the actual date, passes out.

And here is where I need to discuss the film’s peculiar format. It’s really a movie about two stories. One focuses on a failing reporter (the one attempting to do a maudlin piece about inner city youths and their need for soccer as a coping mechanism to today’s hardships) who discovers Hitler and hatches a plan to use him as a means to upgrade his freelance work for a social media company to a full-time position. The other story is how modern Germans react to Hitler in their midst.

One of these stories is not like the other.

There’s a curious blend of fiction and reality traced throughout Er ist wieder da. Fabian Sawatzki (the reporter) mistakenly assumes that Hitler is just a very devoted method actor. Him and his bosses are more taken by Hitler’s dedication than his words and view him more as a joke or novelty than the villain of their history books. It really is just all fun and games with the politics at MyTV being the primary motivator for the different characters to continue to aid Hitler.

And this disbelief directly feeds into the second story.

While Hitler is being attended by the newsstand agent, he is told that his clothes are filthy and he should go get them cleaned. A flummoxed Hitler then enters into a dry cleaning service. It’s at this moment that the film gets strange.

The interaction between the clerk and Hitler is decided “off.” It’s a scene played for laughs – Hitler is determined to find a dry cleaner that will wash his undergarments – but there’s no denying the uncanny realisation that these clerks aren’t… well… actors. It becomes readily apparent that Er ist wieder da has adopted some of the Sasha Baron Cohen style satire wherein the filmmakers (ostensibly unwittingly) discuss and film real life people when one of the attendants looks directly at the cameraman as if to ask whether this is really happening.

But rather than dispel the meta-fiction of the movie and it’s premise, this splicing of real life scenes elevates Er ist wieder da from some overdone trite cliche into a rather disturbing and effective movie.

The change is grossly subtle and that is the point. Sawatzki drags his newfound Hitler about Germany like a show puppy on parade. They attempt some humorous news segments like Hitler commenting on the German coastline (before being hit by a storm) or trying to buy a puppy (which he promptly shoots for biting him). Sawatzki’s attempts to sell Hitler to his boss prompts another unscripted scene where Hitler offers to make them some money by falling back on his talents as a painter by doing (rather poor) caricatures of tourists in a German town square.

It should be no surprise that most people treat these interactions as a joke. Certainly it is unbelievable that Hitler could travel through time (even the fictional characters cannot believe it) so many tourists play along with the actors and laugh at Hitler’s comments about imprisoning vagabonds and breeding strong, pure Germans. It’s to Oliver Masucci’s credit that this film even works because he never once breaks his portrayal of Hitler. The audience may even be lulled into a sense of empathy as Sawatzki and Hitler are threatened in the town square by some rather irate looking locals about a Hitler “impersonator” and the inappropriateness of their publicity stunt.

But the filmmakers are unyielding in the message. Hitler’s commentary is crystal clear: he’s only returned to continue on with his original work. When Sawatzki hits a dead end with his variety type programming, Hitler suggests that they should do a series on political commentary. He then interviews a local foodstand owner to learn what issues she has with the government that are being ignored. She almost immediately leans into the problems of foreigners and Muslims, which Hitler is quite eager to seize upon and encourage.

It does not take long for his unscripted moments to change from slapstick laughter to horrified laughter. The audience is captive as Hitler begins stoking these angers and fears of everyday Germans. He sits down with prominent members of the community, saying that they need to purify Germany by expelling the foreign invaders or rounding them up into camps. And the people agree. One official, when asked if he would vote for Hitler should he run, even admitted that he would – only after asking that they turn the camera off (which the filmmakers do not).

But this isn’t the clumsy racist reveals of Cohen’s Borat character. Er ist wieder da is far more elegant in using this naked satire because of how blunt it truly is. There’s no ambiguity in the movie. People are talking to Hitler. And the more he talks, and the more they agree with him, the harder it is to ignore that this isn’t Hitler before them. The movie may have shown that Masucci isn’t a particularly accurate double of Hitler but his mannerisms, speech and positions are.  With a Sasha Baron Cohen film, people are interacting with caricatures that have no baggage and history. Borat is as much to the people as he is to Cohen: a coat to be adorn to parade around in a role but ultimately discarded. People’s racist or frightening beliefs can be dismissed as those getting “pranked” by the actor.

But not so with Er ist wieder da. Hitler is Hitler. We know what the conclusions of agreeing with him entail. We know the end results he’s striving for. There’s no amount of deception here. This is Hitler, scapegoating undesirable members of society and enlisting German support and affection in doing so.

And that’s what’s so terrifying about the movie. There has been a lot of discussion and other films that warn the factors of 1930’s Germany were hardly unique. Most people can, on some basic level, recognise that another Hitler could arise. But it’s a wholly different story to see it happen shamelessly before you.

The fictional story of Er ist wieder da proceeds as you’d expect it. The MyTV quickly becomes a platform to broadcast and expand Hitler’s reach in communicating with the people. His brash, anti-establishment stances garner a lot of support and applause. Youtubers create endless videos promoting Hitler’s words chasing after the high views and positive reception he garners. When footage of Hitler shooting the dog leaks, Hitler is only briefly waylaid. He’s fired from MyTV with the executive who never supported him taking over. Sawatzki takes Hitler in and Hitler turns to writing a book about his life and experiences while in modern Germany.

Mein Kaumpf 2.0 is, unsurprisingly, a hit that garners Sawatzki film rights to shoot the movie version. MyTV, now floundering without the success they had from Hitler, try desperately to get him back (going so far as to recreate the memetic scene from Downfall but showing the social media executive officer as Hitler). It’s only once Hitler meets the grandmother of Sawatzki’s girlfriend that Sawatzki starts to realize what is happening. The grandmother correctly identifies Hitler as who he is (the other characters dismissing it as her dementia) and Hitler himself is simply disappointed to learn that she was Jewish. He leans into his anti-Semitism and, as is unfortunately always the case, Sawatzki only then decides to look into Hitler’s background once someone he cares is hurt. It’s at that point that Sawatzki sees in his own filming that Hitler appeared at the site of his old bunker in a cloud of smoke and realizes that this man is the real article.

The movie, as you can probably predict now, ends on a rather low note. Sawatzki is imprisoned for his mad ravings. Hitler’s movie is a success, owing in part to the attack on him by neo-Nazis who think he’s being disrespectful to their idol. Course, as we saw in prior unscripted segments, real neo-Nazis are rather easily swooned by a strong arm figure and they quickly are wooed over to Hitler’s banner. Hitler takes to a ride around Berlin with his new publicist by his side (the prior disgraced executive of MyTV), ready to announce his intentions to enter the political sphere. As he drives by, the camera dutifully captures each Nazi salute as he passes.

Accessed from https://www.indiewire.com/2016/05/look-whos-back-how-a-german-comedy-about-hitler-predicted-donald-trump-288721/

Oliver Masucci delivers a stunning performance of Adolf Hitler that it’s hard not to point out both his skill and guts. I doubt I would enter a neo-Nazi clubhouse and accuse them all of doing a terrible job.

This movie, of course, isn’t saying that modern Germany but one step away from fascism and all its citizens are SS members in disguise awaiting the return of their glorious leader. Of course people think it’s a joke and not real. But the movie is very clear in that regard. Hitler starts off as a joke but the more people spread him and encourage him, it’s a very sudden turn until it stops being funny.

Thus, there is a conversation to be had about making comedy pieces about Hitler, Nazis and fascism. Charlie Chaplin famously said he would have never created The Great Dictator had he known about the concentration camps. I think Er ist wieder da rather straddles the line of that debate. It leverages its humour as a criticism against fascism while simultaneously acknowledging that such humour can normalise and assist those it’s meant to stop.

Er ist wieder da is, like a Sacha Baron Cohen piece, a weak test of modern society’s susceptibility to what we all know to be wrong. And, predictably, our society fails even the most rudimentary challenge. This isn’t an indictment of our modern institutions and beliefs. It’s a reminder. Social democracy wasn’t achieved through apathetic passivity. It was a struggle and fight to implement. It will always be a tenuous thing at best, irreparably flawed and prone to collapsing in on itself within the slightest moment of inattentiveness. It requires constant work to maintain.  We must be diligent and stand on guard against those that would do it revocable damage whether intentionally or not.

Tomb Raider, 2018

Image from the internet.

A movie based on a video game. Well, it worked for Angelina Jolie when she started as Lara Croft in the first Tomb Raider adaptation.

While I have not played any of the games, I remember the adds for the recent-ish reboot of the video game series. I was almost intrigued enough to purchase the game, but became sidetracked with other things. Still I remembered the trailers. So when I saw the trailer for the new movie, I thought – hey, this looks like the video game. And yup it was.

Apparently the latest Tomb Raider movie was based on the latest Tomb Raider video game. There is lots of running. Lots of tossing Laura around in a manner that no real human could survive with actually breaking at least a couple of bones. There is lots of grunting. But when it comes to plot, character or even dialogue – well this version is lacking.

Theoretically, this is set before the first Tomb Raider movies and is supposed to give more of an explanation as to how Laura becomes a tomb raider. As someone who saw the other films this was an large example of failure. There is a huge disconnect between the character we are introduced to by Angelina Jolie and the more recent Lara Croft played by Alicia Vikander. First, Alicia’s Lara is far more passive and mostly lacks a personality. Unfortunately, I spent most of the movie thinking – this was not the explanation we had for her father’s disappearance. This is not the name of the evil secret organization. This is not… well interesting.

Image from the internet

Even the action scenes were largely bland. There were too many running scenes that looked like they were filmed using a green screen. I should not see so easily through your special effects. The settings were less entrancing than one would hold. And there was a distinct lack of puzzles. Okay, that may be a silly complaint as there probably weren’t many actual puzzles in the 2001 film, but at least that older film had some dialogue.

While I appreciated the attempt to move away from the obviously magical to having a more scientific explanation for the central mythology. It was poorly developed, under-played and sadly executed. Also, it was rather incongruous how much effort was spent dispelling the woman as being a god with magic powers, when you completely fail to give any logical explanation for the disappearing floor. Exactly how would that have worked?

So, yup, like nearly every review I have stumbled across since first watching this movie, I will agree: Tomb Raider 2018 is a dud. I wouldn’t bother with this one.

Feature Image

Call Me Maeby

Alright, so I had a bit of a hiccough over the last couple of weeks. I came down with a cold, thanks in part to being around a bunch of children and teachers. Despite my directive, someone passed their disease to me. Then, when things were looking better, my computer decided to die. I have that sorted (maybe) with a new hard disk drive but who really knows with computers. I already had my mouse give up on the sweet struggle of life. Call me unlucky, but anything can go in this crazy world of ours.

So, yeah, I’ve missed my posting. Apologies. Good news is that I know what I’m doing for the next month or so. It may or may not be tied to an upcoming announcement. Is vague! Be excited! Tentatively!

But that leaves me with a post to make today. As I’ve fully brought you up to date with the crazy twists and turns of my life, I suppose the last thing available to me to describe is a movie I saw awhile ago. It was a little independent flick called Call Me By Your Name. I think it may have been nominated for an Oscar. I know around Oscar season, my family and friends get a little more motivated to see some flicks thus proving the effectiveness of the over marketed and highly unimportant awards ceremony. However, I’m not going to complain too vociferously over entertainment and spending time with people that I like.

Instead, I’ll give you my review of Call Me by Your Name.

It’s boring.

Boom, review done!

No but really I found the movie long and tedious. I had a hard time feeling sympathetic to the main character. There wasn’t really anything of interest or note to capture my attention. The plot is a coming of age and a coming out story of some young man in the early eighties. You’d think given those two pretty well covered themes that the movie would have something to revolve its two and some odd hour plot. But not really. It’s not like Elio has any real conflict to overcome. His parents are atypically accepting for that time period. His family is pretty well off, living in some northern Italian villa where the greatest challenges Elio faces is deciding whether he wants to swim in the local river or the family’s private pool. His greatest turmoil is that his room is given over to a summer student and he has to stay in the slightly smaller guest room right next door.

Course, this summer, it just so happens that the oh-so-dreamy Armie Hammer moves into his room and turns poor Elio’s life upside down! Or not. Maybe. It’s really hard to say. Elio still just putters around the manor though now he’s just complaining about the uncouth American under his roof in three different languages to his family and friends. Nor does Armie Hammer really introduce much in the ways of inconvenience towards Elio since he’s actually quite educated and rather polite – apparently for an American. So the plot putters around the unspoken and, generally undeserved, conflict within Elio has he tries to come to terms that he has a crush on Armie Hammer while he masturbates with a peach and pops his girlfriend’s cherry. He also eats a bunch of apples because this movie is seemingly filled with fruit.

And just when the movie starts to float the potential that maybe, possibly, theoretically his family might not approve, an older gay couple come to visit and its revealed they’re long time friends of Elio’s parents. When Elio makes some disparaging comment about them afterward, his father is quick to reprimand him for being discriminatory. So that balloon pops in the shortest conflict resolution I’ve seen in a film.

Accessed from https://teaser-trailer.com/call-me-by-your-name-poster/

Call Me by Your Name is directed by Luca Guadagnino and is produced by Frenesy Film Company and distributed by Sony Pictures Classic. I do not own it or associated media.

And it’s not like there was a lot to distract from the aimless narrative. The Italian countryside is pretty much just some small village and remote farms. The soundtrack is artsy, I suppose. I think there’s something to be made by the piano pieces used sporadically throughout. I’m not sure. I’m neither a theatre or music major. No, I spent the majority of the film trying to figure out how old Armie Hammer is supposed to be. Given the context of the film, I think he’s meant to be in his early twenties. At most he’s a master’s student and Elio’s father’s university. Which would put him around twenty-four years old? I got the impression that the movie was billed as some taboo generational gap relationship but I can’t really say that an eighteen and twenty-four year old are really of vastly different generations. And given that absolutely no one comments on the age gap in the movie, this is neither a source of concern or thematic importance. It’s mostly just Armie Hammer playing a younger character and seeming much older because Armie Hammer has always looked like a middle aged man.

So, yeah, it was boring.

There is a humorous observation I made, however. Granted, I’m hardly an expert in gay cinema, but I’ve seen a couple of movies and there’s this really bizarre element in them. For some reason, gay cinema objectifies women far more than mainstream cinema.

This isn’t to imply that they’re sexually objectified though there’s certainly quite a bit of boob in Call Me by Your Name. No, I mean that these movies quite frequently strip agency and personality from their female characters even more than normal. For example, Elio’s girlfriend and her friend exist solely in the movie to act as the socially pressured romantic interest and contribute nothing else. The girlfriend is there only for Elio to agonize over whether he should keep having sex with her despite wanting sex with Armie Hammer. The moment he realizes, no obviously everyone would go for the giraffe, the girlfriend pretty much falls right off the screen never to been seen again (save for a very brief moment wherein she forgives Elio in order to absolve him of any guilt from the plot). Elio’s mother, likewise, serves as the mouthpiece of parental disapproval for youths struggling with their identities even though she too has a scene where she expresses her undying affection for her child regardless of what he might do or who he might be. And just like that, she too disappears from the plot.

Like, I get that the core struggle of gay media is the still controversial sexual relationship between men but this doesn’t mean that gay men don’t have any relationships with women. That female characters get reduced strictly to their sexual role in the gay character’s struggle for self acceptance is strange to me. Maybe this is just a stereotype, but in my experience most gay guys I knew from school associated and connected far more with the girls in their social circles than the guys. That there’s a seeming dearth of representation for these close and important bonds in gay youths strikes me as peculiar. It’s a trend that is both perpetuating negative portrayals of women in cinema while simultaneously missing an important real world element. Maybe it’s because gay cinema focuses solely on eliciting feelings of loneliness and abandonment that this occurs since stigmatization from male peers is pretty easily explained and fairly accurate for reality. Or maybe this is an example of patriarchal influences wherein even when dealing with stories of discriminated classes, there’s a sense that to achieve some measure of respect you still need to disassociated yourself from other discriminated classes. I don’t know, I’m not brushed up on fourth wave feminism.

At any rate, when the girlfriend was telling Elio that she had a secret I was super hoping she was going to come out as a lesbian because, despite the astronomical odds, I would have found that far more engaging than Elio continuing to be grumpy while batting puppy dog eyes at Armie Hammer for another thirty minutes. Plus it would really spin his relationship with his girlfriend on its head, demonstrating quite clearly that he really didn’t care nor know anything about this girl who was just dragged across the village green so he could prove his manliness by conquering her. It would have also kicked Elio into confronting his own feelings a good twenty minutes ahead too which would have been a merciful reprieve.

Now, after saying all that, I do want to end on a positive note. Both for female representation and gay cinema in general. With the handful of gay films I’ve seen, I’d count two amongst them as being really good. There’s Weekend by Andrew Haigh but more important to the discussion is C.R.A.Z.Y. by Jean-Marc Vallee. I think both actually do a far better job of tackling homophobia within society and gay men’s experience of discovering themselves while navigating discrimination from the greater public. And C.R.A.Z.Y. is very similar to Call Me by Your Name as it specifically deals with a young man accepting his sexuality and how it impacts his relationship with his father. And yet, despite being a film strictly about male relationships (both sexual and non-sexual), C.R.A.Z.Y. still presents its women characters in a far more rounded light. While Zac’s mother is devoted to her son much in the same way as Elio’s, there’s a greater depth of characterization and portrayal to her despite still occupying a minor role in the overall narrative.

Course there’s another element in C.R.A.Z.Y. and Weekend that’s missing in Call Me by Your Name. Both films try and tackle more than the mere sexual experience of the character and draws deeper on the personal relationships of the characters with the families and society. It seeks to unveil some fundamental aspect of humanity, regardless of the sexuality of the characters and the conflict that causes, and brushes against a universalism for the human condition. Call Me by Your Name, on the other hand, comes off as some flippant summer crush that indulges the idle fantasy of “what if” towards an unlikely scenario which really only teaches us that summer flings are fleeting and ephemeral. But even this carpe diem read is more generous as Call Me by Your Name doesn’t truly push this momentary seizure as desirable when we’re revealed that Armie Hammer has returned home to marry his off-again, on-again girlfriend while Elio’s father looms over him warning that the future fast approaches when no one will want him anymore.

Maybe instead of requesting that Armie Hammer forget his name, Elio should have requested that he just keep in contact more often. Carly Rae Jepsen probably had the better idea all along.

Feature Image

All Aboard the Hype Train

Accessed from http://media.socastsrm.com/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/106/files/2017/09/MOTOE-Trailer-release-website.jpg

Murder on the Orient Express, its images and all other legal stuff belongs to Agatha Christie, 20th Century Fox, Kinberg Genre, Scott Free Productions and whoever else that I failed to mention.

So over a month ago Murder on the Orient Express released. I went to see it. I had always wanted to see it. The story is a little famous. Written by Agatha Christie if you didn’t know. Though it’s arguably her most famous story so I’d be surprised if you didn’t know. When I had expressed to my family that I wished to see it, most of them already said they had. Or knew the ending. I was a little surprised because some of them don’t even read mystery novels.

Now, my interest wasn’t based on the star power of the movie (though it does have the always entertaining Kenneth Branagh and a host of other really fantastic actors). It wasn’t even the buzz surrounding the picture. Largely because I was keeping myself divorced from the film having decided to watch it when I heard the title. I wanted to know as little about it as possible. That it was the seminal work of Agatha Christie was enough for me.

And I’m glad that I had.

If you’re like me and know nothing about Murder on the Orient Express, and you have an interest in watching it, then I’d suggest you stop reading now and go take a look. What I can tell you is that the performances are top notch and the filming of it is expertly crafted. As a cinematic piece, it is wholly worth the price of an evening ticket. So close this window now and go check it out! Scoot!

For the rest of us, either those not interest, those that have seen it or both, then I have many thoughts on the film. I suppose the first place to begin is the obvious question: did I like it?

Unfortunately, that question is possibly the hardest. So let’s talk about something else first.

I legitimately thought the acting was outstanding. There isn’t really a poor performance amongst the lot, though if I had to pick the weakest actor from the ensemble then it would go to Tom Bateman as the son of the Orient Express owner. He basically serves as Hercule Poirot’s (Kenneth Branagh) bumbling sidekick with little characterisation beyond degenerate womaniser and zero investment in the turmoil that overtakes his train. Outside of being a busy set of hands at the legendary detective’s side, he just doesn’t do anything interesting with his character or time on screen. Which is a stark contradiction to the rest of the cast who work overdrive in their brief moments before the audience to bring the colourful cast alive.

But Murder on the Orient Express is largely a Branagh affair. Bringing Hercule Poirot alive is a tall task especially since he’s been so defined by David Suchet’s portrayal. You can’t truly mimic other performer’s takes but Branagh never truly revitalises the detective or redefines him. I’m reminded of Heath Ledger’s Joker in Nolan’s movies. That was a transformational performance that changed the public’s perception of the comic book character for years to come. Branagh… isn’t doing the same. He does a fine job but it mostly left me wanting David Suchet to return.

Though I do have to give credit to Branagh for that fantastic moustache.

Accessed from https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/puNWI6hxrIcu0-zij_KQk_kv_YA=/800x600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/85/6d/856d6deb-250b-4fe6-a19f-92555a75dbcc/mv5botg1mzmzntewnl5bml5banbnxkftztgwmjc3njiymji_v1_sy1000_cr0015031000_al_.jpgOf the standout performances, I’d have to give it to Johnny Depp to be honest. Depp has been pretty lacklustre in his years since doing Pirates of the Caribbean and it felt like he was pretty much going to ride out his career coasting on that character. However, though brief, he certainly adds punch and life to Samuel Ratchett. Otherwise, I really liked Olivia Colman as Hildegarde Schmidt – the assistant to regal Judi Dench’s Princess Dragomiroff.

Part of the issue, however, is that there’s such a large cast and so little time to spend with them. And each character has seemingly a lot to say towards the plot that, by the end, it feels like you’re just blasting through most of their connections and issues to come screeching to the end. Having not read the novel, I can see where much time would be spent weaving their various backgrounds and interactions together. In a film that can only cover an agonising portion, however, their time is too brief and the story focuses more on the plot. It feels like the movie would benefit from having a smaller cast just so you could focus on those characters more but one of the problems with Murder on the Orient Express is its devotion to sticking with its source material.

I’m not film buff, however I could really appreciate the technical work done. Trying to keep action high on the cramped quarters of a train can’t be easy, and there were some very clever uses of perspective and angle to both add variety and communicate emotion. I think the moment when I really noticed this technical work was with the discovery of Ratchett’s body. The camera follows Poirot from a top down perspective, curiously removing the audience from the initial facial reaction of the discovers of the grisly scene while also cutting out the grisly scene itself! You only see Branagh’s head as the initial panic over the dead body is addressed and the doctor is brought in to do a very brief examination of the body. It was an intriguing and unexpected use of camera work that brought my attention to an otherwise ignored aspect of film making. Whether that is a good thing or not, I suppose, is more up for debate.

But all this is perhaps extraneous. Given its authenticity, the real question about Murder on the Orient Express’s quality isn’t on its production or execution. Both of those are outstanding. Instead, the movie lives and dies by its story itself. And that’s where I feel things get a lot murkier.

As I mentioned earlier, my whole impetus for watching the movie was its pedigree. Agatha Christie is really the founder of the murder mystery genre. Murder on the Orient Express is one of her famous, if not most famous, stories. And I just simply can’t see why.

It does represent the distillation of her style, however. This is the point in my movie review wherein I recommend a wholly different movie. Have you heard of Murder by Death? Yes? Good. Go watch it. No? Too bad. Go watch it.

Murder by Death is a comedy that lampoons the mystery genre. It specifically targets some very famous but very old authors and works. I really enjoyed the movie on its comedy merits alone. Seeing Murder on the Orient Express has made me appreciate Murder by Death far, far more. Now I know exactly what it’s criticising. And I absolutely agree with the writers and Capone. What they did was bullshit.

But let’s be more concrete. Agatha Christie wrote her mysteries specifically in a manner meant for the reader to be impressed by the detective. The techniques used were not opaque. The detective often had additional information never presented to the reader. Say, like in the Murder on the Orient Express, the knowledge of an earlier incident involving the kidnapping and death of a little girl. Detectives will also often go into a scene and make note of objects or evidence never elucidated to the readership. That way, when the big reveal occurs, the audience is in awe of the deductive prowess and fantastic reasoning of the principle character.

It’s certainly a style that’s run its course. And, for me, it’s definitely a style that I don’t lament fading. There’s a certain dishonesty to it. Like the author doesn’t actually feel confident the detective will come across as observant or intellectual if they don’t purposefully keep their audience in the dark. It’s the idea that if, when presented with the same information, the audience will groan and decry “it’s obviously the butler!” But unlike the audience, the detective is enslaved to literary pacing and story development.

Accessed from https://www.facebook.com/DaisyRidleyOfficial/photos/a.471098263051120.1073741828.471084793052467/759935070834103/?type=3Which is a fair concern. Literary detectives don’t work under the same restraints as real life detectives. And genre savvy readership is plenty apt to be able to parse their favourite writer’s style and method to figure out the perpetrator before the climax of the story. And the last thing you want is your audience groaning over the obvious struggle of your detective to piece together obvious clues and finger the culprit.

Murder on the Orient Express is clearly written to subvert it. It’s hard to not see it less as a story about the characters but more a game between the author and readership. There’s far too many fake-outs and misdirections than I personally like. The story is secondary to the situation as you fight with Agatha Christie, trying to beat her at her own game. And, of course, she’s leaning into the old bag of tricks because her readership would know them by now.

In the end, I don’t like the story because it’s reliant on a history of Agatha Christie’s style and characters in order to achieve it’s amusement. If you’re not really familiar with her, like I am, it’s very easy for the piece to piece moments to make absolutely no sense. And, frankly, they don’t. The characters’ motivations and methods are insanely over-the-top. It’s a mess of over complicated nonsense with no rhyme or reason to occur. At best I can imagine that the whole thing was set up because the culprit was aware that Poirot was onboard and was worried about being discovered. Unfortunately for that hypothesis, Poirot only made it on the train at the very last minute so either the culprit is capable of making insanely detailed plans involving the movements of multiple actors or that this was originally planned in order to baffle… no one?

I mean, seriously, the culprit had the ability to murder the victim in some discreet alleyway in Istanbul then ride a luxury train to Europe where they would never be caught. The whole mystery is intentionally made convoluted solely so Poirot can dazzle and amaze when he reveals who was ultimately behind it. But it’s such a blatant example of showmanship that it lays bare the ugly reality that you’re not watching anything real. This whole exercise is just a mindless excuse to amuse and entertain with nothing else to stimulate your interest.

Sure, in a reductive way this could describe any entertainment but that’s where character arcs and themes step in to give you greater pause to consider the work and its larger relevance. There is no relevance to Murder on the Orient Express save for its fame. In a sense, it’s the Kim Kardashian of murder mysteries. Its meant to be ogled for an hour and a bit but ultimately discarded and forgotten.

Contrast that with Murder by Death which examines the actual underpinnings of a genre and the relationship between author and audience and it’s hard not to think one has more value than the other despite being a shameless spoof.

So did I enjoy Murder on the Orient Express? I enjoyed its production. I enjoyed the contextualization of other work that stemmed from it. But of the mystery itself I can’t honestly say that I did. I’m glad I saw it for its role in history but, more than anything, it makes me question why it played a role in the first place.

B2 – Beauty and the Beast Movie Review

Image from the internet.

Confessions: this review is late in coming. True I did not watch the movie opening weekend. Also, true it was a couple of weeks ago that I saw the live-action remake.

To be clear I am old enough that the 1991 animated Disney version is the telling of Beauty and the Beast that I grew up with. It was a classic and grew to be one of my favourite Disney movies. Thus it was with mixed feelings that I saw the live-action 2017 release in theatres.

Unlike some of the other live-action remakes put out by Disney, this one was not bad. It had an excellent and slightly diverse caste. Gaston stood out as a perfect portrayal of his animated counterpart. It had all the classic songs that made the original Disney film a classic. The costumes and set pieces were pretty. So, overall a solid film.

Image from the internet.

That is not to say it didn’t have its faults. Some of them are with the original story – at least its interpretation. Some are because I am reluctant to change and a few were just poor decisions.

A couple of items that stood out for me as detractors to the film include: the ‘Be our guest’ dinner scene; Belle investigating the forbidden west wing; the underutilized, random inclusion of the sorceress and the connection of the castle to the town.

In the animated film, the lengthy but excellent song of the castle staff was used to tell some of their history over the past decade. The imagery devolves into a very cartoon interpretation of dancing plates and utensils. Which makes sense in the medium that it is portrayed. However, this is a live-action film. The design is to make it feel real. So, the change to pure CGI is discontinuous and disruptive to the flow. It makes the song feel unimportant, as nothing additional is being conveyed by the visuals and long, because there is nothing interesting or inventive in whirling platters. It was a clear disappointment, made slightly awkward by the fact that the all the food is passed tauntingly close to Belle, but extracted the instant she reaches to taste something.

Image from the internet.

After this epic fail in nutrition, Belle heads off to bed. Only, instead of going to her room she takes the opportunity to bolt at high speed through the halls of the forbidden west wing. What was supposed to be an act of curious exploration becomes this strangely placed invasion of his bedchamber. Really, the correction to this glaring offense is terribly simple – make it look like Belle is wandering the halls instead of running purposefully towards the magical rose. Which is really odd since she doesn’t know of its existence – in theory.

Like the original, the wrinkled old hag bangs on the door some dark and stormy night. The prince of the castle, visually depicted as a person close to 20 years old (at least 16), turns her away only to be cursed as a Beast. Well, in the live-action telling the sorceress remains in the little provincial village. Where she lives as an outcaste begging form the villagers who scorn her single and pathetic existence. Which makes you wonder why she will curse a selfish prince, but not lift a finger against Gaston – who is very much a selfish, controlling, and abusive brute. Her continued existence in the story raises more questions but seems to add nothing to the plot (which was extend to make it more convoluted).

Image from the internet.

Thus bringing me to my last point (though I could continue to point out the little irritations); the questionable relationship between castle and village. Yes, they start the explanation with a spell to cause people to forget the existence of the castle. But, at least 10 years have passed and I am pretty certain those who were transformed inside the castle (becoming utility items) did not age during that period of time. Otherwise, someone needs to explain to me how Mrs. Potts gives birth to an eight year old son. So, when the spell is lifted, the staff become humans and villagers suddenly recall their loved ones who lived at the castle. At a castle that should be a day’s drive away, unless you are marching against the beast at the end. Nope, there is no way I can look at this and not see some ill-conceived mess – unless the town was cursed too, but no one knew it. Also, what happened to all the guests who were dancing at the party when the curse was put down?

Image from the internet.

So, the final verdict: 2017 Beauty and the Beast live-action film gets a solid B+ rating. It is not the original animation, but it is not terrible either.

PS – did not love most of the ‘additional’ material.

Feature Image

Racism without Racists? Get Out

On February 22, a CERN spokesperson responded to allegations that their experiments with the Large Hadron Collider have not opened up a portal to an alternate dimension and sucked us unwittingly through to a universe where Trump won the American presidency.

I’m not convinced. On March 13, I found evidence of an artifact from the true timeline where the world hadn’t suddenly been engulfed in collective madness. I saw Jordan Peele’s Get Out.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s give the non-spoiler rundown so anyone interested can read this short list and then happily leave if they don’t want to ruin the movie for themselves:

  • Betty Gabriel is incredible. She sells the concept so hard and practically carries the entire horror atmosphere on her performance alone.
  • The first two thirds of the movie are actually pretty decent. The third act twist undermines it entirely.
  • Jordan Peele’s insertion of random comedic elements is tonally dissonant and breaks pacing.
  • Rod the TSA agent is both the worst character and worst actor. His goofy scenes demonstrate that Peele just can’t shake his comedic inclinations no matter how detrimental they are to the overall themes and narrative.
  • The movie sucks. Don’t bother watching it.
  • It’s got Josh from the West Wing trying to be creepy and sinister. But it’s still just lovable Josh from the West Wing.

We good? We good.

Now let’s get into the meat of things.

Get Out is a horror/thriller movie ostensibly about racism that is neither horrific, suspenseful or actually about racism. To say it’s a complete failure is to put it politely. Which is a shame because it was doing so well until it drove its narrative completely off a cliff.

See, there’s difficulty when an artist attempts to change genres. Oftentimes, they can miss the nuance or technique required to communicate the tone and emotion of the piece they’re trying to accomplish. In particular, Peele falls into the dangerous trap of trying to force an M. Night Shyamalan twist into something which really, really did not need it.

But first let’s talk about the shallow, empty promise of Get Out.

Get Out and its associated trainwreck and media all belongs to Jordan Peele, Blumhouse Productions, Universal Pictures and whatever other sorry saps would want to tie their names to this mess.

The trailer and the majority of the movie promises to take a peek into the horrifying effects of racism. Even more, the premise offers something fresh in that we’re offered a window into the terror of social racism from the viewpoint of the victims. It’s such a beautiful concept in its simplicity. Pluck an urban black boy and plunk him down in rural, white, pampered walled communities and watch the growing horror of a world that appears so normal for everyone else take on slow, terrifying new dimensions from another perspective.

The one promising aspect of Get Out is its topicality. There’s no denying that American has a race issue. There was perhaps an argument at some naive point a mere year ago where sweet summer children perhaps professed that racism was a thing of the past. “We’re in a post-racist society!” exclaimed those—at best—idealistic voices. “We’ve elected a black man to be President. Surely man has reached equality amongst himself.”

It’s a quaint proposition and one people had been trying to politely refute beneath Obama’s tenure. But as the Tea Party voices rose and then we had a hugely polarising election where a giant, orange blow-hard who ran on the most blatantly racist platform swept into the highest echelons of the American government, bringing in tow the most racist and corrupt appointments seen in… well… it might have the distinction of being the most racist and corrupt government America has ever had. No one is refuting that racism is alive and kicking in American now. Not when the Ku Klux Klan openly announced a victory parade in Trump’s honour in the streets of North Carolina.

It was cancelled – I think. Due to protest. But I hazard to guess they didn’t plan such demonstrations when Obama won two terms. I certainly didn’t hear anything about their jubilation over Bush winning.

And this isn’t even touching any of the other events making world news.

Ferguson. Flint. Trayvon Martin.

What do all of these events have in common? They are all far more horrific than Get Out.

If I can be generous to the movie, it seems made under the assumption that Hillary would win. It’s a gentle finger wave from yuppie liberal capitalists looking to cash-in on the persistent racial driven protests without carrying an ounce of understanding or clarity for what those protests are about.  It’s a movie meant to villainize micro-aggressions—small social faux pas that accidentally perpetuate racist stereotypes or uncomfortable atmospheres towards marginalised groups—instead of actually making any comment on blatant or systemic hatred. It reduces persecution to a small swarm of nettling questions and statements of varying levels of inappropriateness.

“Is it true what they say about sex with a black man?”

“Tell me Chris, what is the black experience like?”

“You don’t have to worry; I voted for Obama myself. Twice. I’d have voted for him a third time.”

It is a movie, as the title says, about racism but without racists.

Which is a pity because it’s clear that Peele isn’t ignorant about those issues. The interaction with the police officer demanding Chris’ licence even though he wasn’t driving after the accident involving the deer shows an awareness for systemic racism in law enforcement. The dramatic pause when the apparent police car pulls up the driveway in the end—to find a pile of dead bodies and the house on fire—only works as a tense situation if the expectation is that Chris will unfairly be killed by an outside actor immediately assuming his guilt due solely to his skin colour.

However, those are the only two moments of racism. Everything else is a fake-out.

You see, Get Out isn’t about American home grown racism. It’s about magical pseudo-science brain transfers. That’s the third act turn. Well, it’s a part of the third act turn.

No, the true third act turn is Peele proposing that white people are racist because they just desperately want to be black people oh so much.

I cannot easily convey how mindbogglingly awful the twist is. There’s nearly an hour and a half of lead up drawing on black slavery and abuse that’s suddenly and immediately dispelled upon the realization that the villains of the movie are simply motivated out of a deep, profound sense of wanting to be black people.

I wish I was making it up because even typing it out sounds so stupid.

You see, Josh Lyman is a brilliant neurosurgeon who has perfected a technique for transplanting human brains into new bodies. He first performed this technique on his ailing mother and father. Unfortunately, the process requires a rather larger organ donation than the Red Cross is used to providing so the Armitage family looks to darling Rose’s love interests to provide the necessary vessel for dear Grandmama and Grandpapa’s grey matter.

This is, in Peele’s own words, the Armitage’s new millennial slavery. The only problem is that this isn’t slavery at all.

When pressed for why any of the villains are doing their evil, Stephen Root’s character best summarizes their motivations during his explanation for why he purchased Chris as his new body: “Why do they want this? I don’t know. I just want your eyes.”

There’s literally no explanation offered for why the Armitage’s target only black people for their bodies. Sure, Stephen Root hypothesises that black people are more fashionable—whatever the hell that means. But why any character is involved with this villainy is never provided a reason. Why does Rose fall in love with so many of the victims to lure them home? We know she actually loves them as both her moments with Chris are never once held as anything but sincere and she confesses that he was one of her favourites. And as for those aforementioned micro-aggressions? They take on new meaning with the reveal that these old, crusty people are looking at a new body. They want some insight into the persecution or perks they’ll gain by shedding their withered, dried husks.

These aren’t people that hate black people. These are people who desperately want themselves or their husbands to be black. They see those lithe Nubian bodies and think “I wish I were them.”

Seriously though, the only shining star in this is Betty Gabriel. If there’s one positive to be squeezed from this travesty it’s in me wanting to see more of this woman’s work.

This is about as racist as turning to a pretty Asian woman and saying, “You are so beautiful. I wish I could look like you.”

To best describe how the brain transfer element of the movie undermines Peele’s bumbling attempts to tap into racial conflict, I want to turn to the debate around same-sex marriage. Often times, LGBT campaigns pull on the civil rights movement to inform why their causes deserve equal sympathy and support. I just want to take a moment to marvel that it’s now the LGBT struggle that can inform how misguided and empty Get Out is.

See, one of the prevailing arguments against same-sex marriage and LGBT rights is the assertion that sexuality is a choice. It’s not, according to pretty much all research in the field. But it’s the largest argument used against it. The counterargument to the claim was elegant in its simplicity:

“Why would someone choose to be gay if all it will lead to is social ostracism, imprisonment, chemical castration and discrimination?”

No one would choose to be gay in societies preceding ours. And yet they existed. Hell, I’d be surprised if anyone would choose to be gay in today’s society and we have incomparable support and acceptance compared to the last five hundred years.

And yet, here is Get Out proposing just that. These rich, old white folk are, en mass, rushing into the wilderness of rural, white America eager to throw their cash and their lives into the hands of crazy Josh Lyman in order to become black. These same people know that black people face discrimination—they ask Chris about it directly and even Rose has been dating enough black guys to be offended when the police officer pulling them over displays systemic racism against them.

But apparently the mystical strength and sexual prowess of the black man is just too much for the white man to resist.

Course, the mind numbing stupidity doesn’t rest there. Once we learn that the black people are actual white people in black bodies, it seems suddenly weirdly cruel how the Armitages are treating their beloved Grandma and Grandpa. Georgina and Walter—originally introduced as the housemaid and the gardener—aren’t being enslaved by the Armitages. They are the Armitages. And yet Josh and his wife are happy to force them into sparse living quarters and put them at menial work in their old and vulnerable age. All to make creepy slavery illusions whenever Rose brings a lover home.

It lays bare the naked and mindless emotional manipulation attempts of Peele. Since, you know, the Armitages could have simply introduced Georgina and Walter as family friends while still maintaining their cover that the two black people on the estate aren’t really the family’s matriarch and patriarch. That wonderful hour and a half spent on creating the unsettling racism of suburban white communities is so hollow and meaningless.

There’s no maliciousness in the Armitage and their clients. They’re not motivated by racism. They don’t hate black people. No one even knows why they specifically pick black people. They could chose white people. It’s not like Armitage’s brain swapping procedure can only work along separate ethnic lines. And, in fact, if the family and friends were actually racist, you would think they would be kidnapping white people to extend their lives indefinitely as.

I think the best summation for Get Out and it’s clumsy, fumbling attempts at a message and horror are best described in the final scenes as Chris is breaking free from the Armitage’s basement clinic.

Having knocked out Jeremy Armitage and plucking a deer head from the wall, Chris ambushes Josh Lyman wondering what is taking his son and patient so long. After being fatally impaled, Josh Lyman stumbles into the operating room and in his last dying grasp reaches for stability and knocks over a single candle lit at the foot of Chris’ empty operating chair, setting the whole room aflame.

It’s such a wonderful scene for how absolutely stupid it is.

Why is there a single candle in an operating room? Surely a brilliant neurosurgeon like Josh Lyman would know that the smoke released from it is unsanitary considering he’s moving a person’s brain literally through it. It’s not like the damn thing was providing any needed light since it was both set at the foot of the chair (as far away from the brain as it could get which is where Peele seems to be most comfortable) and there were a number of bright clinical lights to allow him to see. We can’t even rely on the old Satanic Ritual that mindless, C grade horror schlock lean upon in their creative bankruptcy since there wasn’t any upside down pentagrams drawn in Chris’ blood to bless the holy surgery.

No, the candle literally existed to be knocked over in Josh’s death to set the house on fire.

Just like the racism literally existed just so you could be horrified that the movie wasn’t about racism in the first place. It’s sad that even Jordan Peele doesn’t feel like racism itself is scary enough to carry a horror movie.

Nothing makes sense. Everything is cobbled together in an amateur attempt to draw on topical controversy to sell tickets. Peele’s Get Out has as about much substance on the issues of modern American race relations as the empty cavity of senior Roman Armitage’s skull.

The most poignant moment in the movie is when Andrew Logan King grabs Chris by the shirt and tells him to “Get Out.” It’s a message that resonates across the screen since if the audience doesn’t heed it immediately, they’re about to be left as brain dead as the movie’s protagonist.

Feature Image

Guess Who’s Coming for Dinner

So our copy of Arrival finally came in to the library over the weekend. This was actually one of the few movies this year I was excited to see. Unfortunately, circumstance saw that I wasn’t around when it passed through theatres so I was left waiting for rentals before I could enjoy it.

And there is something for the theatre experience. I had always dismissed people’s preference for the cinema as being delusional. However, whether it was through a worn disk or ailing DVD player, the audio quality was a bit lacking. We missed a good five minutes of the film trying to get a functional volume that didn’t burst our eardrums anytime an aircraft entered the scene (which is quite frequent) but still allowed us to hear the dialogue.

Granted, no one wants to read a review of someone complaining about their substandard view conditions. Or, maybe they do. I don’t know, I haven’t polled anyone about it. I’m assuming they don’t so I’ll just leave off with going to the cinema is definitely better even if it is crazy more expensive. But I’m not here to review Arrival either. At least, not really. Since I’m so late to this discussion, just throwing my opinions on the matter is probably redundant by now.

So I’ll just give a broad strokes review: I enjoyed it. I didn’t enjoy the time paradox. That’s not how language actually works. Conceit is better than Interstellar’s magic space library.

That should summarize the salient points.

No, there’s a different aspect of Arrival that I really want to discuss.

Awhile ago I wrote a little piece on racism in fantasy. It wasn’t my best argued piece, largely because it was just for the blog and beyond getting a first draft up, I wasn’t going to wed myself to the argument to tighten it further. Suffice to say, it’s a very common pitfall for creators to lean heavily on historical or cultural precepts when making new fantasy and science fiction races. This can, inadvertently, introduce biases, prejudices or stereotypes that were unintended. This can lead to a very flat depiction of a fantasy race wherein all members behave and act as one concept thus reinforcing preconceived notions that “all people are like X.” Wherein X is the original inspiration for the race but oftentimes is a rather unflattering depiction of a real world culture.

For a very simple shorthand, take a look at the modern depiction of elves. What do you imagine? Isn’t it a drunk, hairy midget who speaks like a Scotsman? I’d would be shocked if it was this:

Accessed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alv%C3%ADssm%C3%A1l#/media/File:All-wise_answers_Thor.jpg

Thor converses with the dwarf Alviss by W. G. Collingwood.

Here we have the potato-headed Alviss coming to Thor to claim his daughter as his wife. Thor, conversing with the dwarf, argues he was made unaware of such an arrangement and will hand his daughter over if the dwarf is able to answer his questions. The dwarf is exhaustive in his reply, speaking with Thor until the morning sun rises and turns him to stone.

Sound familiar? It’s the concept Tolkien used in the Hobbit for defeating the trolls. Tolkien pulled heavily on older mythology and the Poetic Edda in particular for crafting his world. He laid the groundwork for most of our modern tropes.

But outside of being short, Alviss is hardly what you’d first imagine for a dwarf. Not to mention that Tolkien did exhaustive work to present his races in as rounded a manner as he could. I have little beef with Tolkien’s representation outside of it simply being copied ad infinitum since its creation. Hell, the Hobbit had so many dwarves in it that it would be hard to draw a single stereotype of them since they were presented with such a wide spectrum of behaviour.

Anyway, I don’t want to rehash the old argument because my driving point was that the issue with modern races is that instead of shooting for Tolkien’s creativity and diversity, we were getting endless derivatives that were reducing these concepts down to shallow stereotypes. Why not have new species and races that are formed and expanded beyond simple conceits and are informed by their own culture, biology and history into something wholly new, different and challenging?

Thus, we come full circle to Arrival.

Arrival is everything I want in a fantastical race. Not only are the aliens weird but their weirdness is a pivotal crux to the philosophy and themes in the piece. It’s the driving portion of the conflict and it’s really well done.

Needless to say, I’m going into spoiler territory so if you care… why are you reading one of my reviews again?

Anyway, Arrival does a fantastic job of enveloping its audience in confusion and uncertainty. Partly this is the editing and format through which the movie is presented. Sequences are played out of chronological order but, seemingly, in a benign way. I don’t wish to spend too much time discussing the nonlinear time elements. I hate time paradoxes and, sadly, Arrival introduces them with almost maniacal glee at the climax of its action which, instead of being the highlight for me, was the film’s lowest point. I’ve actually studied language and perception so the idea that thinking in the alien’s language suddenly grants super powers is a bit lame. I was willing to accept the conceit – I mean, you always have to accept some outlandish components of genre pieces – but that Amy Adam’s magic powers came even before she fully learned the language meant that their own explanation wasn’t internally consistent in the piece.

Regardless, I don’t want to discuss that. The whole circular time element is only good for its visualization within the written language of the cephalopods. Which ties back to my whole argument of designing alien cultures that are incredibly alien to what we know.

And everything about the cephalopods is meant to be alienating. It feeds into the overall disorientation of the piece and it’s done with such expertise that I couldn’t help but fall in love. I mean, the first appearance of the alien’s vessel – their black kidney bean shaped structure passingly reminiscent of the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey – is probably the most underwhelming aspect of the film. The smooth black curved contours were likely meant to reveal as little as possible for what was to come next and, potentially, lull the audience into a brief sense of respite.

If that is the case, then it does a good job since the first meeting with the aliens is pretty nerve-wracking. I absolutely loved how Arrival puts you on edge even though most of the film is, essentially, going through the daily drudgery of what would occur should we actually make first contact with an alien species. That is it say, it’s focused almost entirely on diplomatic efforts with a high priority placed on creating a line of communication than adhering to any action beats. In fact, the only action beat in the whole film seems really out of place.

However, there’s nothing more delightfully unsettling than that first scene where they board the cephalopod ship and enter the partitioned room. Watching the glass fill with gas as two dark shapes drift down  to hover like enormous disembodied hands before the minuscule contact team and their small, caged budgie is sheer visual brilliance.

And, ultimately, we don’t get to see much into the cephalopod culture over the course of the movie. There’s some excellent visual flair in rendering the language as some sort of mutable ink pattern, whose beginning and ending is so indecipherable that their program for creating responses has to present the cobbled lexicon together in multiple configurations during the course of a conversation. But even as we start to understand what little we can between the interactions of the lead characters and the alien visitors (including humanizing them by giving the two characters names of famous comedians), the movie throws us further off kilter when Amy Adam’s is brought aboard their vessel without the standard protective bio-suits near the film’s culmination.

Arrival and all associated images belong to Denise Villeneuve and Paramount Pictures.

We get a peek behind the curtain and we discover things are even weirder than the little we’d grown accustomed. The ground of the alien’s craft is actually some peculiar white ridged surface that looks more like frozen soundwaves. We’re introduced to an even more monstrous cephalopod that looks stranger than the other two we’ve met and the film itself takes on a grainy, dream-like quality for the exchange. Then, Amy Adams is dropped off and, instead of the ships taking to the sky, they just sort of roll over and vanish in a cloud of disembodied smoke.

It’s such a well conceived depiction of an alien that shares nothing in common with humans and I simply love how their own baffling biology is considered from their culture (language) to their technology (ship propulsion). Even better, you never actually see any terminals or anything in the ship since the aliens don’t have any appendages remotely similar to hands.

It is this kind of detail and consideration that makes you intrigued and wanting to learn more. It also works well for convening the mood and atmosphere of the story. Arrival addresses all my standard criticisms and I wholly recommend it for such an outstanding presentation of the power of science fiction imagining and just how it can be used to promote atmosphere and philosophy without falling back on tired and tried tropes and stereotypes.

Unless, of course, we want to argue that they were Lovecraftian horrors. But given the overall lack of destruction of Earth, I’m willing to let the antediluvian pelagic references to slid this time.

Grumpy White Men By The Sea

I don’t always review video games on this blog. Sometimes I review other things as well. Video games just happen to be a field I’m more experienced in. But if there is one thing that I require little encouragement, it is in providing my unsolicited opinion about topics in which I’m not adequately knowledgeable to provide.

Thus, let’s do a movie review this week!

Oscar season is nearly upon us. At least, I assume Oscar season is nearly upon us. Perhaps it has already happen and this discussion is merely academic between two handsome intellectuals like you, dear reader, and myself. In which case, the rest of my introduction is wholly unnecessary so let’s just get to the review on Manchester by the Sea.

As is often my style, I’ll give the short summary before going into detail: I liked it.

There, if that was all you needed from me to form an opinion about something then we’re done! See you next week!

For a more in-depth and tirelessly examination of why is going to take quite a bit longer. And, of course, necessitate spoilers.

Manchester by the Sea and all associated images are properties of Kenneth Lonergan, Amazon Studios and whoever else.

I saw Manchester by the Sea almost two months ago. I realized I hadn’t seen much within the theatre that didn’t result in me complaining about big Hollywood blockbusters and how they’re morally and creatively bankrupt wastes of time design solely to fleece you of your money and return little more than a fleetingly saccharine experience. Manchester by the Sea is no such thing. It is, as we casuals like to say, an “artsy-farsty” movie. If you’re looking for big explosions, big set pieces and big noises then you’re going to be disappointed.

In fact, I had low expectations for the movie in the first place. By the time it actually released near me it was already generating a bunch of positive buzz but from the trailers I thought I had the movie pegged pretty squarely down: a redemptive story about some cold-hearted uncle returning to his ancestral home to raise his bereaved nephew and learning the importance of family, love, God and warm apple pie.

Ho, how wrong was I!

There’s a funny thing about expectation. Ofttimes it can be the most impactful element to determining your feelings on a piece of art. Usually I’m sorely disappointed because my expectations are well above what the artist is actually delivering. But there are the rare times when I completely misread a piece and am shocked to discover that it surpasses my expectations by doing something I never imagined and I didn’t even realize I wanted it to do.

Manchester by the Sea is such a movie. First, it’s a character piece. If you’re looking for a tight or compelling narrative then this is not the place for it. In fact, my earlier assumptions weren’t too far from the mark in what the actually story is about. But the thing with character pieces is that a simple story isn’t a detriment but often required in order to concentrate on the development and emotions of the character you’re examining. But the way that Manchester engages the audience is by exploring its character in a novel way:

They don’t talk about it.

Manchester by the Sea is more a movie of people not speaking than it is anything else. It’s both the source of the film’s greatest strengths and biggest missed opportunities. I have a keen interest in communicating without communication. Many of my stories involve characters that are either discussing some greater matter couched in a discourse over a petty incident or are telling a story through the things they won’t tell. So I was enraptured watching the film execute a technique with which I struggle constantly.

And the movie delivers on its method with varying success. I find it hard to believe that most audience goers don’t pick on this “lack of communication” element. It’s presented almost heavy-handedly but still manages to not be overbearing. I mean, the opening sequence with Casey Affleck working his janitorial job presents three instances of characters talking without directly talking.

You have the stilted conversation between the old man and Affleck as they stare at a dripping tap. In seconds you can get the older man’s frustrations as he tries to wrangle an answer for how he should fix the tap while Affleck – not being a plumber – refuses to say anything that could be held as a liability against him. Then, we see him fixing the toilet of a woman who is talking on the phone with a friend of hers in a neighbouring room where she’s going on and on about how she has a crush on her janitor and doesn’t know what she should do about it without realizing Affleck can hear every word. Then we have the most important (technique wise) conversation between Affleck and a tenant who thinks he’s being a pervert and trying to see her shower naked when in actuality he’s trying to tell her he simply needs to run the water to find where the leak is while getting more insulted with her insinuations.

The third interaction is perhaps the most important in my mind because it’s a moment where two characters are talking past each other. Presenting the audience with this technique early on and clearly is vital for the later interactions between characters to be understood. There’s a lot of moments in Manchester by the Sea where cross purposes are what lead to the tragedies its narrative encircles.

Following this rather lengthy opening sequence, we then see Casey Affleck go to a bar and turn down the advances of a single lady before displaying clear self-destructive tendencies by getting in a fight with two innocent bar goers. This clearly establishes Affleck’s character as a broken man from the start with the initial intrigue for the audience being the explanation for how he got there.

And this is the point where Manchester by the Sea sort of loses me.

I have no idea how this project was originally conceived by the pacing in its reveal of information seems rather disjointed to me. There are essentially three major hooks at the start of Manchester to draw the audience in to its unfolding story. These are, not in chronological order: why does Affleck have such a negative reputation in town, why is his nephew’s mother unable to be his guardian and why is Affleck self destructive? Unfortunately, two of these hooks are revealed by the end of the first act. The last of the hooks ends up being incredibly minor. We then have a large portion of the movie lurch between rather unnecessary scenes that reinforce what we’ve already learned by that neither advance the character’s arc or lead to a greater understanding of the situation.

And I can’t help but wonder if maybe this was the result of some editing room decisions. I want to say that Manchester by the Sea was originally conceived so that you never had a direct explanation for why Casey Affleck moved away from Manchester and is absolutely against raising his nephew. I feel like the movie meant for you to piece together a lot of vague scenes to come to the conclusion itself. Unfortunately, given what we have of the film, I could see in early screenings that a lot of audiences might be confused or unused to filling in the blanks themselves. Thus, a clear cut explanation was provided in a rather brutish and drawn out solution.

See, the worst part of the movie is when Affleck must sign the guardianship papers for his nephew. He then stares off into space as we go into a very long “flashback” sequence that illuminates us about why he’s self-exiled from his hometown. We learn of the tragic fire, the loss of his children and how he blames himself and tried to commit suicide. Then we hop back to reality and watch the rest of the movie unfold with the new understanding of his personal demons.

Except, so many of the scenes afterwards lose their poignancy because they mostly feel redundant. We see him try to get a job in Manchester but the wives of the men are adamant he shouldn’t be allowed within their stores. We know those minor characters blame him for the tragedy and think he’s irresponsible but this rather obvious conclusion was better represented in Affleck’s ex-wife’s sub-arc. We also have moments where he burns his pasta because he fell asleep on the couch and starts to panic. We know this is because it triggers his memories of the accident but it doesn’t make us feel any greater sympathy or emotional connection to the character. So much of the movie is this reinforcement of rather basic concepts already established that I can’t help but think they were the sole vessel for the narrative before.

If that were the case, I’d have really liked to see Manchester by the Sea without its flashback sequence. As such, I’d say that its pacing is easily the worst thing about the movie since there are many examples of small scenes that don’t do much but just remind you about characteristics of the principle characters that we already knew.

Now, the film still succeeds even with this clumsy editing. I think part of what makes Manchester by the Sea so powerful is that, ultimately, it’s not a redemption movie. We watch Affleck eventually fail to meet his duty to his brother and his family. The wounds inflicted by his past – all almost entirely self inflicted too – are simply too great for him to overcome. Here’s a dramatic moment that should transform a man and he shrinks away from it, retreating from the pain much like he was at the very start. It’s tragic and that’s what makes it work.

But as far as tragedies go, Manchester by the Sea is a fairly cerebral one. Ancient Greek tragedies were meant to put your emotionally through the wringer so that at the end you were utterly drained and left in a numbed state of catharsis. Manchester is a bit strange for its genre because it doesn’t really wring the emotions from you. I feel like it asks that you engage with the movie not emotionally but intellectually in order to understand what is happening. This is largely because, once again, no one is truly talking to each other. It’s like the whole movie is in passive voice and keeping you as detached from the involved emotions as Affleck is trying to be detached from his pain.

So… yeah. I enjoyed the film. It did something I could immediately recognize and in a way that was a little different to keep me intrigued. It’s experimental and from that experiment we see results not normally produced by traditional methods. It’s not particularly refined but I was engaged nonetheless. I would definitely say it’s Oscar worthy though I suspect it won’t be an Oscar winner.

But it has earned its acclaim. That is for certain.