Category: New Releases

Going Gansta In Middle Earth- Hunt for the Wilderpeople

wilderpeople

Welcome Taika Waititi, to a place in my heart. It’s a space you’ll have to share with my family, chocolate, the Lord of the Rings, and soft blankets, but I’m sure you’ll find room.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople is the native New Zealander’s fourth feature film after Eagle vs. Shark, Boy, and What We Do In The Shadows. Hunt for the Wilderpeople is based on a book by Barry Crump. The film is about a young foster boy named Ricky Baker (a fantastic Julian Dennison) whose last chance at a foster-home before being thrown in Juvie is an older couple, Bella (Rima Te Wiata) and Hector (Sam Neill). Bella is excited and inviting, full of positivity and charm. Hector is, well, not as excited, but doesn’t bother Bella or Ricky, so everyone is happy. Ricky begins to love his home, until tragedy strikes, and he and Hector find themselves in the bush, running for their lives as a massive manhunt tries to find them.

Wilderpeople takes cliches (fat city kid, grumpy old geezer, road trip that leads to bonding) and twists them just enough that they work. The city kid, Ricky, is a lovable protagonist, who is a bit off-putting, but wants a family, and will fiercely protect the one he gets. The grumpy old geezer is a man with heart, who is tough but not unwilling to learn, and in the end, makes the right decisions.

None of the characters are a complete subversion of the trope (characters like the social worker and incompetent police officer don’t get the above treatment at all), but there is still thoughtfulness to all of them that should be appreciated. All the performances are great, with Neill and Dennison as standouts with good chemistry.

Maybe the best thing about this film is the humor. My family and I laughed out loud several times. Not just chuckles, but belly laughs. The film is completely secure in its ability. It doesn’t turn its head and look at you for approval or acknowledgment, it keeps on trucking along in a mix of deadpan, slapstick, and exaggeration, with complete confidence. The scene with a cameo by Waititi is worth the ticket price alone.

It must be really nice to work in New Zealand. You get actors with amazing accents, breathtaking settings, Weta Workshop is nearby, and it’s full of Middle Earth goodness. Waititi makes good use of all of these things. The film is sprinkled with screensaver-worthy shots, a sense of magic grounded in a real world, and lovely accents. There aren’t many special effects, but one sequence in particular makes good use of a CGI wildebeest. The film also makes incredible use of its score. From indigenous music in a sweeping opening shot to more modern fare, I was moved to look up the soundtrack after seeing the film.

It’s worth mentioning that the film stumbles near the end. It has to make the decision to be realistic or to go in a more whimsical direction. It decides to go halfway, which leaves the audience with a content, yet not completely satisfying, ending. It makes the journey feel more important than the destination. However, since the journey is so wonderful, I’ll give it a pass.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople is about to be out of theaters (you might still have time to catch it at Circle Cinema!) but from me to you, please look out for it on streaming and DVD. It is a gem of a film. It mixes a tried-and-true story with new blood, a fresh perspective, and a sweet look at family and what it takes to be a family in a modern day world. It mixes sentimentality with raw emotion. The performances are great, and it is truly funny in a moving way. It is an ode not only to New Zealand, but to children still finding their homes, and to people who have one.

Now, who else is stoked for Waititi’s next film- Thor: Ragnarok?

-Madeleine D

Pete’s Dragon: A Rewatch

petes-dragon-1977

I’m not reviewing the newest Pete’s Dragon remake.

Sorry. Here instead is a rewatch of the original!

I must confess, before anything else, that I am quite partial to this film. It’s been an important film to the Dorst family for a while. When my dad was a kid, he watched it with his family. When my sister and I were little, we watched it, too. We’re very defensive about it, and it gets quoted a lot in our household.

However, I’m going to do my best to put that aside and review the film for what it is- a heartwarming, wholesome and sweet film that, while it is no Citizen Kane, is too much fun to pass up.

The film begins with easily one of the darkest Disney scenes ever. The Gogans, a nasty family, have adopted Pete (Sean Marshall,) a young orphan, and are trying to find him after he runs away. They sing a lovely song about how they’re going to brutally murder him. You thought Bambi was bad.

This scene of the Gogans hunting down Pete and singing about working him to death is disguised with slapstick and mud-pits, so everybody wins. They eventually leave, and Pete comes out of hiding. We discover he has a dragon with him- an animated dragon named Elliot- who can turn invisible at will. He’s big, green, pink, friendly, and best of all, doesn’t act like a dog. That’s something I like. The filmmakers decided to take the time to decide what a dragon would be like, and didn’t just give it the personality of a dog, unlike more modern Disney fare where all the animals act like dogs (Maximus the horse from Tangled, Sven the reindeer from Frozen, etc…).

Pete and Elliot rhapsodize their love for one another in a song, then Pete decides to head to the nearest town, Passamaquoddy. There, Elliot causes mischief and scares the local drunk Lampie. Pete gets upset with Elliot, but later in a cave they make up. Meanwhile, Lampie (Mickey Rooney) goes around to the local bar, yelling about the dragon. His daughter Nora (Helen Reddy) comes and gets him. They go back to their lighthouse, where Nora finds Pete. She invites him inside, and she learns about his abuse.  Nora doesn’t believe in Elliot, but she wants to take care of Pete, so she humors him about his ‘dragon.’ About the same time, Dr. Terminus and his “intern” Hoagie, con artists pretending to sell miracle cures, arrive in Passamaquoddy. When they hear about a dragon, they get interested and team up with the Gogans to snatch Pete and Elliot.

Dr. Terminus’ first scene (and really, let’s be honest, every one of his scenes) is one of my favorite scenes in all of cinematic history. Jim Dale kills it as a whimsical, memorable, yet still subtly menacing villain. All the characters in the film shine, because they’re allowed to be big and bold. The film is a musical, and it has all the sensibilities of one.

Another standout in the cast is Nora, one of the most underrated film role models I have ever seen. Films today are so focused on making their female characters strong physically that rarely do they give these characters mental strength, and more importantly, acknowledge and appreciate that type of strength. Nora is kind, wise, compassionate, while at the same time also being brave, determined, and smart. She works hard and never lets people take advantage of her or the people she loves. Helen Reddy, who was mainly known as a singer at the time, is fabulous in the role, and her singing shines.

Pete’s Dragon is a movie all about love. The love between Pete and Elliot. The love between Nora and Pete, Nora and Paul, and Nora and Lampie. The film ends happily because all the characters find a home with love in it, and it succeeds, not in a Pollyanna way, but because it earns its happy ending. The characters go through hardships, but endure. The optimistic outlook on life is a nice reminder in an age that is obsessed with darkness and gritty realism, and it’s only accentuated with the bright settings, jokes, and of course, Elliot. The animation for Elliot holds up surprisingly well, and even if some effects are outdated, the timeless setting of Passamaquoddy makes up for it.

The film, however, isn’t without its flaws. The plot sometimes drags. The slapstick can get old. The musical numbers can feel long when the actors are just standing and singing them. In case you need to take a break during the film, I’ve helpfully listed the soundtrack below and what purpose each song serves, so you know what you can miss.

The thing is, Pete’s Dragon doesn’t need a remake. It doesn’t need a reality check because it uses its fantasy-reality mix perfectly, not only on the animation but the story. Real life magic is around us, and while in this story it takes the form of Elliot, in our world it takes the form of love. How can it get any better than that?

Soundtrack:

“Happiest Home in These Hills” – Child-labor laws song

“Boo Bop Bopbop Bop (I Love You Too)” – Actors attempting to interact with animation

“I Saw A Dragon”- The waste of good beer ft. Nora

“Passamaquoddy” – Before we had the FDA….

“It’s Not Easy”- Emotional bonding

“Candle on the Water”- Oscar please!

“There’s Room for Everyone”- Strangely timely song about how we should all just care for one another

“”Every Little Piece”- The PETA song

“Brazzle Dazzle Day”- This seems like a rather informal adoption, but okay

“Bill of Sale”- Don’t peeve off Nora

“Brazzle Dazzle Day (Reprise)”- Mary Poppins ending song

-Madeleine D

How to Not Make A Disney Movie: Kubo and the Two Strings

Warning: Spoilers Ahead!

kubo_and_the_two_strings

2016 has been a spectacular year for animated movies. Not really for anything else, but animation is at least on a roll. The year started off with Kung Fu Panda 3 and Zootopia, and has recently had strong entries like Finding Dory and The Secret Life of Pets. Later this year will be Moana, Sing, and Storks, which all look solid to me.

Now, along comes Kubo and the Two Strings, which I went into cold. I usually do research beforehand on all the movies I see (i.e, watch trailers, research the studio and talent names, etc.). With Kubo, all I knew was that it was from Laika entertainment, and starred Matthew McConaughey and Charlize Theron (Mad Max: Fury Road’s Furiosa!).

I was a little nervous because so far I haven’t loved any of Laika’s stuff. Laika is the only studio right now doing stop-motion films. They are known for being dark, creepy, and very artistic. Laika is the Martin Scorsese of animated movies. Everyone respects them, they always get nominated, but Pixar always wins anyway.

So, in a year of great animated movies, will Kubo and the Two Strings ruin the streak of coming in #2? Or will it represent proudly and possibly win Best Animated Oscar?

Kubo and the Two Strings begins with Kubo (voice of Art Parkinson), a young boy who had his left eye taken from him by the Moon King, his grandfather, in an act of revenge against Kubo’s parents. His father was lost, and now Kubo spends his days taking care of his sickly mother. She warns him to never go out after dark, or the Moon King (Ralph Fiennes) will be able to see him and take his other eye.

One day Kubo sees the people of his village celebrating their ancestors and praying to them. He goes with the group to a river and makes his own monument for his father, and tries praying to it. He doesn’t get a response, and starts to go home angry, when he suddenly realizes it is after dark. The Sisters (Rooney Mara), henchmen of the Moon King, attack Kubo. His mother comes to save him, giving up her life, and telling Kubo to go find a suit of armor that will protect him. He is joined on his quest by Monkey (Charlize Theron), whom his mother sends to guide him, and Beetle (Matthew McConaughey), who used to serve Kubo’s father.

Right off the bat, the film warns you it is going to be dark, and it is not going to take its themes of death and loss lightly. In just this short intro, two people have died, and a child has had his eye removed. This is not a little-kids film, the deaths portrayed being more Grimm Brothers than Disney. There was some crying in my theater. I went with my family and two elementary school kids, and both talked about how scary the film was afterwards. I myself was a little freaked out by the villains in this film. Laika doesn’t mess around. That is what makes it work so well.

Speaking of Disney, there are some things I really appreciate about this film that I wish Disney (representing all mainstream animation) would take notes on. To be clear, I enjoy Disney movies, they’re some of my favorites. But, I also have a lot of beef with them as a studio and the formulas I see emerging in their newest movies (impress me, Moana). Here is a film that does anti-Disney so well, and it works wonders.

What Kubo and The Two Strings does that no other animated movie so far this year has done:

  • Some of the most breathtaking, painstakingly detailed animation that I have ever seen. I saw this film in 2D, yet it felt 3D with its textures, colors, and worldbuilding.
  • The quiet moments. Films this year have had a few quiet moments, scenes that focused on worldbuilding, character development, and mythology more than action or comedy, but not many. Kubo takes every opportunity to sit the characters down and have them talk, banter, and share stories.
  • A plot with stakes. A plot that lets people die, doesn’t give us boring fake-outs, and one that commits to its premise.
  • Save for Finding Dory, it is one of the most family-affirming films of the year, and shows how we all need parents and/or mentors in our lives.
  • Despite some of its Eastern-religious themes, the film explores how we relate to the dead, and the people (God) put in our lives to guide us.
  • Every. Single. Action. Sequence is memorable. They are all different, they all use their locations creatively, reveal character, and advance the plot.
  • A beautiful use of score.
  • It made me feel the feels without manipulating my emotions.

Besides the breathtaking animation (describing it here doesn’t do it justice), the voice acting is a highlight. Charlize Theron brings a sweet, yet fierce, wit that really works in the film. I loved every second her character was on screen, and the emotion portrayed with her voice. Matthew McConaughey gives it his all, and while at first I was apprehensive of his character, I grew to like him more and more. However, his very-American country twang sounds out of place sometimes more than others, but I appreciated the energy and enthusiasm in the performance. Art Parkinson, Rooney Mara, and Ralph Fiennes all do admirable work too as their respective characters. Maybe one day we’ll get Japanese voice actors to play Japanese characters, but since this is animation and the cast does a fine job, I’ll let it slide.

I can’t recommend Kubo and The Two Strings enough. Suicide Squad got you down? Remakes making you bored? Want to see something different? This film will do the trick.

-Madeleine D

When You’re Too in Love With Your Own Idea: Suicide Squad

Warning: Spoilers Below

suicide-squad

You had one job, Suicide Squad. One job.

After the catastrophe that was Batman v Superman, Warner Bros. and DC studios had one last hope for 2016: Suicide Squad, the movie with an all-star cast about a group of bad guys that save the world. This movie was supposed to have everything moviegoers like. Superheroes! Supervillains! Hot new stars! Style! Pizazz! A slick new album starring the biggest bands of today’s hits! The Joker!

The stage was set for the biggest potential hit of the summer. While film after film let people down, there was still an attitude of, “Well, at least we have Suicide Squad.”

If there’s one things we now know, it’s that high expectations =  disappointment.

Suicide Squad starts out with Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), evil granddaughter of Nick Fury, pitching an idea to some government heads. What if we had a group of supervillains that could do the stuff superheroes couldn’t do? Superheroes have moral codes. Let’s get some bad guys who can do the dirty work.

It’s an interesting idea, and that’s the kicker with this movie. It is full of interesting, out-of-the box ideas that have amazing creative potential. What if Harley’s gun says love and hate? What if El Diablo tells his backstory through flames? What if we have an awesome soundtrack? What if we make the Joker a mob-boss character to update and modernize him? What if Captain Boomerang has a… pink… unicorn fetish..??? (maybe not the best idea, whatever)

However, that is also the film’s biggest weakness. The small stylistic details of this film are fantastic. The overall movie is messy, chaotic, and boring. The only explanation I can make for this is that David Ayer, the director, got too caught up in his little spurts of genius that he forgot to make a coherent movie with a story.

Why does the story fail? Here’s the rest of the plot. After Amanda Waller gives baseball-card origin story intros (i.e, a still frame giving quick intros to the characters and a flashback) to the two biggest stars, Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), and name drops the others, the government says yes. When you live in a world where Batman and Superman destroy cities and kill people in the name of justice, you can basically justify anything.

So Amanda Waller goes to the Belle Reve prison and introduces us to each of the characters with a theme song playing in the background. When you see Deadshot hitting a punching bag, you get a sample of “House of The Rising Sun” (can you guess where the prison is located, maybe “down in New Orleans”?). Then we see Harley Quinn doing gymnastics, and hear “You Don’t Own Me.” It’s perfect because she’s a strong independent woman. Get it? No? Here’s a shot of her butt to distract you. Yay girlpower!

So on and so forth. Once the team is assembled, with a cameo by Slipknot, a certified redshirt, and the only lines of dialogue you’ll hear from Killer Croc, Captain Boomerang, and Katana for a while, they are sent into the city. The city looks exactly like a normal DC city, one devoid of life, light, color, and hope.

Why must they go into the city? If you’ve seen The Avengers, Ghostbusters, etc, you know there’s a monster creating a portal in the city that creates a faceless, bloodless army. In this case, the monster is Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), an evil spirit that invades mild-mannered archeologist June Moone.

The first part of this movie is fast-paced and jumpy, but it works. It has a style, and I admire that. I was enjoying the film. Then comes the middle. The middle is all about getting to the portal in the city and destroying bad guys along the way, but the film makes no effort to make that interesting. We never understand what these faceless soldiers are or their strengths and weaknesses. We never understand why June Moone and Rick Flag are in love. We never understand why after an hour and a half of not talking to anyone, El Diablo calls the squad his family. We don’t understand why Joker and Harley are in love, except that they are both crazy. This middle section relies on what the director thinks audiences think is interesting, which is half-executed, lazily repetitive action sequences that don’t do anything except move the squad a little towards point B. The style of the first part of the film vanishes.

The whole film plays like a video game. Introduce the characters. Choose which character you want to be (Deadshot or Harley). Joker cameo! Curveball. Move towards portal. Fight. Take a break. Exchange one-liner. Fight. Get in elevator. Fight. Leave elevator. Joker cameo. One-liner. Get to portal. Power up. Each shot only lasts 5-10 seconds, each scene no longer than a minute.

The film sells its audiences on its bizarre trailers and the idea that bad guys get to have more fun. This begs the question: What makes a bad guy more fun? Is it the gun wielding, murder-fest? Because if so, this movie delivers in an untimely, tone-deft way. Is it because bad guys get the one-liners and tough talk? If you want that, head over to Stark Tower, because there are no memorable lines here. Do we like bad guys because they appeal to our own flawed character? If there is something to be said for the DC movies so far, it is that it makes its heroes more morally ambiguous. To foil those characters, these villains must be completely bad. In this film, though, they aren’t. They want to be normal, in a wet blanket sort of way, and they can’t commit to being completely evil. Will Smith never lets Deadshot be unlikable. Harley Quinn tells El Diablo to wear his tragic, murderous backstory on his sleeve, and yet her perfect ending is to be a housewife with curlers in her hair, taking care of a baby and the Joker. These “villains” are more heroic than bad, at least by this cinematic universe’s standards, so why should we think they’re more fun anyway?

If the film decided to go into depth on any topic, it would be a much better film. Explain to me the psychology of a villain. Show me how messed up people can bond. Tell me why even bad guys can be better than the good guys, and the frailty of those labels. Instead, the film just insults the audience’s intelligence over and over again, giving us no message and getting mad we don’t get its “high artistic vision.”

Now I know that there was studio meddling involved. David Ayer has confirmed there were 6-7 cuts of this film before this theatrical version. However, as the director, he has to take responsibility for what this film is, which is a film that had potential but poor execution. When the film was finished I was bored, exhausted, annoyed, and saddened all at the same time. I can’t imagine what it is like for DC comic books fans, who see their favorite characters made into racist and sexist stereotypes, lacking the depth and interest of their on-page counterparts. My message to the Suicide Squad team? Enjoy your ideas, but make sure they are good ones, and be sure you can actually deliver, or else you will have an empty gun-shell of a movie.

-Madeleine D

So That’s What My Hamster is Doing While I’m Away: The Secret Life of Pets

the-secret-life-of-pets

With the number of animated movies these days revealing the truth to us about the secret life of our household when we’re not around, it’s a wonder more people don’t quit their jobs so they can stay at home and catch their household possessions in action.

As we found out with Toy Story, Flushed Away, Bolt, and The Aristocats, our toys and pets have lives of their own. The Secret Life of Pets is here to bring us another story from that world.

The film is about Max (voiced by Louis C.K), a spoiled yet lovable dog that has an unshakable bond with his owner Katie (Ellie Kemper). Max lives a comfy life, split between being with Katie, and when she is gone, being friends with the fellow pets next door. Everything is great until one day, when Katie brings home a big, unruly dog named Duke (Eric Stonestreet). Max tries to get rid of Duke, only to find himself and Duke lost in the city, and at the mercy of a vicious pet gang led by a savage bunny named Snowball (scene-stealer Kevin Hart).

The Secret Life of Pets’ plot is a tried and true staple of kids’ movies, but that in itself doesn’t create a winner. What creates a winner is the film itself, and The Secret Life of Pets does a great job of taking the elements that work in this sub-genre and making the whole movie about these things. For example, the best parts of the things-that-don’t-talk-now-talk stories are the secondary characters we meet along the way, the bonding that happens between the two main characters, and the adventure. The Secret Life of Pets hits all these marks.

The secondary characters in The Secret Life of Pets are the most fun and interesting I’ve seen in this type of movie since Toy Story. There are a lot of characters to be sure, making me wish for more screen time for some of them, but they all add something. None of them were annoying or useless. Whether they were there for visual gags, or witty dialogue, or animal jokes, each character had a place to shine. The bonding between Max and Duke worked. Duke’s backstory is heartbreaking, and the bonding seemed earned. Max learns a lesson, and so does Duke. That’s a solid message, even if it has been done before.

The adventure through New York City is enchanting. It can be chaotic, silly, and sometimes long, but it is always creative. Alleyways, sewers, cars, streets, building tops, and fire escapes all become exciting props for this cast to use.

The biggest flaws in the movie aren’t anything new for this type of film. The pacing can be wonky sometimes. There are some unnecessary butt jokes that are becoming a staple of Illumination Entertainment. The film doesn’t have any deeper meaning than “be nice to people that annoy you and don’t judge.” There is not one, not two, not three, but four scenes where an animal drives a car (and you thought Finding Dory was bad).

For its flaws though, I had a smile on my face the whole time. I laughed out loud. I want a sequel starring Kevin Hart’s crazy bunny. I would easily watch this movie again. This is a great choice for families. It will entertain kids, make parents smile, and maybe make you hug your pet one more time before walking out the door. It’s a celebration of fun, summer, and our loved ones (furry or not), and that’s not something to dismiss.

-Madeleine D

Ghostbusters (2016): It’s Not Bad For The Reasons You Think It’s Bad

For this review, I’m going to steal the IO9 format for reviews, a Q&A Style.

So you saw Ghostbusters

Yep.

First off, have you seen the original? Because that one is the best.

I watched it right before I saw the new one. And… well, to be honest, I didn’t love it.

*gasp*

I’m sorry. I know, blasphemy. I thought it was fine. Billy Murray was great. It was creative, and should be appreciated for being one of the first of its kind. But I wasn’t in love. The film uses tropes, silly effects, some lame jokes, and the world-building and setting up of the story is rushed or nonexistent. Maybe I can’t appreciate it as much because I don’t have the nostalgia factor, but it just didn’t grab my attention.

ghostbusters

Fine, it’s your opinion. I heard there was some craziness surrounding this movie before it was even released. My feed blew up with angry tweets, and didn’t Leslie Jones just make the news for something twitter-related?

You’re right, it was crazy. The minute Sony announced they were going to reboot the beloved franchise with an all-new female team, the internet went beserk. Suddenly, these well-liked actresses where the four horseman of the apocalypse, about to wipe every man off the face of the earth with their feminazi ideas and girl power. Suddenly the original was a modern Citizen Kane, and must be protected at all costs. This movie is a specific attack on everything America stands for! Women? They can’t be funny or keep our interest! They don’t need to be represented. They’re only 50 percent of the population and movie-going audience! Where’s my eighth Batman reboot?

You sound bitter.

I am. Here’s the thing. Women have had to put up with being the sexy secretary or girlfriend in movies for years. Rarely are they the main heroes. So Hollywood decided, hey, let’s see if doing the exact opposite, making only women the heroes and the men the sexy secretaries and boyfriend, will work. So now we’ve gone from 0-100. The ideal situation would be if there were male and female ghostbusters. But I’m not surprised Hollywood can’t do middle ground yet. I think if this movie worked, then it would be a step in the right direction to getting that balance.

So… did the movie work? Are we going to see more female-only franchises?

I don’t think we’ll see any more female-only franchise for a while, because the movie didn’t work and it isn’t making enough money.

So you didn’t like it. Is it preachy? Is it all about girl-power?

Not at all. The problem is that it is a really bland movie. It is not spectacularly funny, or even a good action film. It doesn’t make any real points about women, and while it caters to the female gaze for a change, it doesn’t make men feel uncomfortable. It doesn’t do much of anything.

Then why is everyone overreacting so much? A lot of people seemed threatened by the very existence of this film.

Any man with any amount of skin will be able to get over this movie. There’s maybe one or two jokes aimed at men, but none of them are malicious or preachy. The whole movie is so bad and nonthreatening, that it really does look silly in hindsight that anyone got upset about it. The 1984 original still exists. Go watch that if this one makes you sad.

So does the fact that the movie was bad mean that women really aren’t as funny as-

Stop right there. No.

But-

The truth is, because there are so few female-centric franchises and movies, it means every time one comes out it has to represent the whole female population, which is ridiculous. (And this doesn’t just go for lady-movies, but also any film centered around people of color.) No movie should have to bear that kind of weight. Yes, this movie wasn’t good. But most recent reboots aren’t, and that is where the problem lies, not in its on-screen talent.

Why does the movie suck then?

Before you reboot a franchise, you need to ask yourself (if you consider yourself an artist and not just a money-hungry Hollywood exec), Why am I rebooting this? What am I going to add to this brand? What will I change? What am I trying to achieve? Apparently, Sony and director Paul Feig (Spy, Bridesmaids) did not ask themselves these questions. I think the creative meeting went something like this:

Sony Exec #1- We want to jump on the 80’s reboot train. Let’s remake Ghostbusters.

Paul Feig: Okay. As an artist, I want to know how we’ll make it different.

Sony Exec #2- I heard Frozen and The Hunger Games are doing good. Those star girls.

Paul Feig- Ohh, I like it. I’ve directed several great female-led comedies. This could be a creative, unique choice! Now let’s discuss what else we’ll change-

Sony Exec #1- Eh, we’ll finish this meeting later.

(after Sony announces the reboot, and the internet presses the self-destruction button)

Sony Exec #1- (holding a bottle of wine) So…. that went badly. (chugs)

Paul Feig- We can solve this. We just need to make this a really good movie.

Sony Exec #2- No! We need to make a generic, almost scene-by-scene remake of the original and play it safe.

Paul Feig- But-

Sony Exec #1 and #2- (still drinking) NO!

That’s more or less what happened.

The movie is a scene-by-scene remake?

Basically. All the original plot points are there. The only big difference between the two films, besides the gender-swapping of all the characters, is the absence of a Sigourney Weaver/Dana character and instead the villain is just an angry little man who creates ghosts and possesses people.

So yes, it lacks in plot. The original wasn’t much more than an extended SNL skit to be fair. However, the first at least has some funny moments. The new one has a few jokes that made me grin, but most of the time I groaned. Considering the talent involved- Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, and Chris Hemsworth (who really should be cast in more comedic roles) somehow aren’t able to elevate the material… or make better material. The film seems like a lot of the jokes were originally improvised, but were only funny on set and no one checked if they translated to the film well.

Is it true that Leslie Jones’s character was a racist stereotype?

I’m not the leading authority on that. I would suggest checking out other reviews by African-American film critics to really decide. However, I would say that Leslie Jones has branded herself with the “big, sassy, and loud black woman” type of humor. She’s been doing it on SNL for a while now, so it’s not surprising her role is written that way. It is a stereotype, and some people might think that is racist. However, it does not at all excuse the racist hate she was shown on Twitter. For what it’s worth, the group I went to see the movie with all enjoyed her performance, singling her out with Kate McKinnon as their favorite parts of the film. I thought she came off as very likeable, along with the rest of the cast.

Okay, the cast is likeable. Are there any other positives?

As a female viewer, there were little things here and there that really struck me as normal. Completely and utterly normal. There was very little “cool factor” here. These were real women doing real women stuff (in addition to, you know, busting ghosts). The fact that that stood out to me is a commentary itself on movies today. This film is also more family friendly (although it is still rated PG-13, so not for young kids). It doesn’t have all the sexual innuendo of the original. And like I said, there were some good jokes and ideas put forth. It just overall didn’t do anything for the Ghostbusters brand. Nothing was really added. No new developments were made.

Should I see it?

It’s not a must see, and I can’t really recommend it as good entertainment or even a fun movie. However, I think if you have young girls and you want them to see role models in movies, this could be a good choice. Even though the movie isn’t great, I hope I see some little kids dressed as ghostbusters for Halloween. That will make it worth it.

-Madeleine D

#OscarsSoWhite 2015, #HollywoodSoToken 2016? Concussion + Race

Concussion, a 2015 film, was made to be an Awards contender. Biopic? About a controversial subject? A mainstream actor being serious? That would win in most years, However, after mixed reviews, Concussion was overshadowed completely with the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, a social media riot that pointed out that there were no actors of color in the Oscar nominees for the second year in a row. Suddenly, Concussion was brought back into the conversation, as it was cited with other “black films” that should have had nominations. Was Concussion snubbed? Meanwhile this year, Race, a biopic about Jesse Owens that has a lot of the above Oscar checklists, has already been forgotten about. Yet with diversity reforms in the Academy, will Race get a chance? Does it deserve one?

concussion-movie

Concussion tells the story of Dr. Bennet Omalu, an immigrant doctor from Nigeria who was the first to discover the effects of CTE in the NFL. Dr. Omalu is played by Will Smith, who is phenomenal in the role, so much so that I forgot he was Will Smith. His accent was consistent, he was subtle when he had to be, dramatic when need-be. The only flaw in the character is from the writing. Dr. Omalu is portrayed as perfect, a more American hero than Captain America. He never gives up, he always tells the truth, and he deals with abuse graciously and with integrity. He is the definition of inspiring, and that’s what makes the movie just a tad underwhelming.

The information in this film is very important. It’s not fun, but I think everyone needs to know about the effects of CTE and its consequences. However, the movie lacks the grit it needs. It has moments, it has scenes of greatness. But overall, the film doesn’t quite “go there,” making it seem like the filmmakers themselves don’t believe this is mandatory viewing.

Concussion is still a compelling movie, though. The heart of the film is the love story between Dr. Omalu and his wife Prema Mutiso (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), and the doctor’s faith. Dr. Omalu’s faith in God is never ridiculed by the movie and is shown to be his main source of strength, which is a really nice thing to see in a film.

race-movie

Race is the story of Jesse Owen’s journey to the 1936 Olympics, held in Pre-WW2 Berlin. The film starts with Jesse Owens (Stephen James) in college, training under Coach Larry Snyder (Jason Sudeikis). In biopic fashion, Jesse finds a not-racist coach who becomes a mentor figure and guides him towards greatness. In biopic fashion, he overcomes all odds to become a great athlete and awes the world in the Olympics. In biopic fashion… well, everything kinda happens in biopic fashion.

Race is very by-the-books. It reminded me of the 2013  film 42, starring Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson and Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey, manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. 42 is a fantastic movie, and I think Race could learn a few things from that film.

42 never shies away from the fact that racism was a daily struggle for Jackie Robinson. Race shows racism, but in a way that makes you feel angry, but never uncomfortable, which is something 42 makes sure to make you feel. Race rarely gets into the head of Jesse Owens. When it does, it’s great, and it’s a shame because there was potential there. 42 gets into the head of Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey.

What I do admire about Race, though, is that it helped me understand why the Olympics and sports are so important. I’m not a sports person. I like the Olympics, but I’ve never understood quite why an athlete would dedicate their entire lives to spending mere minutes on the field. Race showed me the drive in athletes, what it means to them, and the politics behind the Olympics. I’m very glad it did, so as we gear up for the 2016 Brazil Olympics, I can be more appreciative of the event.

Race is well meaning, earnest, and a solid movie. But that isn’t enough. Race needs more to make it feel less like a really good TV movie and more like an important film everyone should see.

Now I’d like to address my initial questions. Are these Oscar-y films worth the attention of the academy? Personally, I think that if Matt Damon is going to be nominated for being an astronaut potato farmer, I think Will Smith should be nominated, too. I don’t think either film deserves anything more, though, as awards go.

Here is an interesting observation, though, that I’ve heard other places. Oscar bait movies about black people are almost exclusively about slavery or racism. Even this year’s most talked-about (but way too early to forecast) awards contender, The Birth of A Nation, is about slavery. Should #OscarsSoWhite really be about just having more black talent on screen (and we won’t even get into the discussion of how there has been an exclusion of other races. The 2016 Oscars were only about black actors, even making jokes at the expense of Asians)? Or should this discussion really be about making films about people of color the way films are made about white people? Last year, white actors were nominated for everything from being a pioneer, to being a transgender woman, and white actresses for being a shopkeeping girl to being an immigrant, while the last time a black actor was nominated and won was for playing a slave.

In the light of new diversity reforms, will a mediocre film get chosen simply because it’s “diverse?” Will movies like Race have a chance now? Because I think we should start holding all movies, “diverse” or not, to a higher standard, and include all people in those better movies. Would it have changed The Martian to have a black lead? Would it have killed Mad Max to have a Latina woman as Furiosa?

My point is, make films with diverse talent that isn’t just about slavery. Don’t forget about other races too, or we’ll have a #OscarsSoZebra. Don’t stop making quality films, including biopics and slavery films, but don’t assume they’ll win, and don’t assume they are the only place to use minority talent. And if you are going to make diversity reforms, get to the heart of the problem, and not the shallow stuff. This topic is super complex, and I haven’t even scratched the surface. I’m not the most qualified person to do so. But when I see a person on screen that I relate to strongly and feel connected to, that makes a world of difference. And I’m a white teenage girl, an audience that is being catered to more and more every day. I can’t imagine what it would be like to only see a person like yourself portrayed as a trope or token exclusively.

I hope one day I’ll be able to review films with minority leads without mentioning race (except if it’s in the title), but right now I have to, and we have to address it. I applaud these movies for not shying away from it either in their respective subjects, and I applaud all the filmmakers, black, Asian, Hispanic, white, male, or female- anyone who is trying to reflect the real world on screen.

-Madeleine D

Formulas Can Be Fun: Finding Dory

*Minor Spoilers Below

finding-dory

It’s sequel week here at madeleinelovesmovies.com! First Now You See Me 2, and now Finding Dory. Luckily, Finding Dory has a much more steady foundation than NYSM2. Finding Nemo is still one of the most successful animated movies of all time, critically and commercially, winning Best Animated Feature Oscar in 2004. Now it’s been 13 years, and director Andrew Stanton is back. No pressure, right?

If you haven’t seen Finding Nemo (in which case, I’m so sorry, here are my condolences, I’ll send you the DVD within 5-10 business days), don’t worry. Just take Finding Dory, switch Dory and Nemo, and the various animals they meet with other animals, and you have Finding Nemo. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, though. Finding Dory has a lot of charm and wit to offer. Just know going in that it isn’t going to live up the the insane expectation of Finding Nemo. And that’s okay, because it’s still the best sequel Pixar has made (save for the Toy Story films).

Finding Dory starts off a little shaky, retreading old ground and reminding us of old characters. Dory is with Marlin and Nemo, and it’s clear Marlin is getting a little tired of having her around. She is forgetting things seemingly faster than ever. She’s also having flashbacks to her childhood, remembering her parents, her home, and losing them. So she gets Marlin and Nemo to help her try and find her family. Within five minutes, they’ve crossed the entire ocean, making me wonder what took Marlin so long in the first movie (the characters even express this: “Isn’t crossing the ocean something you only do once!”).

I’m not saying these Finding Various Talking Fish stories are the epitome of realism in cinema, but at least Finding Nemo had challenges that seemed logical for a fish. I sat down and talked this out with the ghost of my betta fish, Wilson, and he assured me that yes, things like trying to get out of a whale, trying to escape a tank, and trying not to be eaten on a daily basis are reasonable struggles for a fish that could probably be overcome. Finding Dory’s challenges are not in this same realm of possibility. Marlin had to follow a boat, Dory has to help an octopus drive a truck. Marlin had to ride the EAC, Dory has be guided through pipes with the help of a beluga whale’s echolocation. Marlin had to raise a son, Dory has to ride in a stroller with the help of said octopus that can live out of water.

All that said, Finding Dory shines with dazzling animation (you only thought Pixar couldn’t outdo themselves), great voicework from everyone involved (especially Ellen DeGeneres and Idris Elba), and humor. The film has some great one-liners and really funny scenes. Finding Dory never loses its sincerity, though, and there were several eye-watering moments here. I don’t want to give anything away, but I really liked how the messages of family were addressed. It’s good to have a loving family (a strongly traditional one, I might add), but also that you can make your family, and the people around you are just as important and can love you just as much as your biological parents. This message in particular is quite important for adopted, fostered, and neglected children.

Speaking of children, another message that really stands out is the idea that what others perceive of weakness can be a special type of strength. In the film, characters say in times of trouble, “what would Dory do?” For a special needs child, or anybody that feels different and out of place, this message is extremely important. We all have gifts and talents. They just may be different from what we expected.

Finding Dory is not a masterpiece, but it is still a great film. I would highly recommend it for anyone, and I hope Pixar stays this solid on future sequels. However, let’s hope Finding Marlin is not in the works.

-Madeleine D

My Brain Says No, But My Heart Says Yes: Now You See Me: The Second Act

*Warning: major spoilers for both Now You See Me movies

Now-You-See-Me-2

For starters, let’s recap the first movie. Now You See Me, directed by Louis Leterrier, was a surprise hit of 2013, reminding us that magicians are kinda cool I guess, and hey, isn’t that the Hulk? The first film followed four individual magicians who are brought together by something called The Eye, a mysterious magician organization that directs them to do three big magic shows and act as robin-hood characters, giving rich people’s money to the poor. Trying to track them down is FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), who has enough time in his busy schedule of being a magician mastermind/FBI agent/The Eye correspondent/Avenger/sad little orphan to have an annoying little romance with another FBI agent (Melanie Laurent). Along for the ride is narrator extraordinaire Morgan Freeman playing himself and Michael Caine, who is there to make me think for eight seconds that this is a Christopher Nolan movie.

I despised this first movie. I hated all the “protagonists” and their gimmicks and general mean personas. I hated the plot, which relied on someone being able to plan every move the other characters were going to make- I haven’t seen that in a movie before (sarcasm alert)! I hated magic tricks that were obviously made with special effects- anyone can do card tricks with jump cuts! I wasn’t impressed with anything.

But my friend sure was, and she took me to see Now You See Me 2 (which really should have been called, Now You Don’t). Now You See Me 2 takes place a year after the first film. The Four Horseman are now a bonafide group, with a new lady magician, Lulu (Lizzy Caplan, a million times more interesting and funnier than Isla Fisher), and their own group dynamics. They have been waiting around in secret as fugitives, waiting for their ringleader Dylan Rhodes to give them instruction on their next move. He’s getting his plans from The Eye, who we still don’t know anything about.

Finally Dylan has their next mission. They are going to hijack a big company announcement and exploit the con CEO and tell the audience about how their privacy is being sold. All is going well until the lights suddenly switch off. A distorted face appears on screen, revealing Dylan’s true identity. The FBI start to chase the group down. The magicians jump into a chute that is supposed to get them to safety…

But they wake up instead to find themselves in Macau.

I made a handy little cheat sheet to understanding this movie. I’m pretty sure this cheat sheet was what the writer used to create every scene in the film.

What the…

How the…

Why the…

Go to…                                                hell

In that order, in every scene.

As I was watching the film, I started to feel confused. Wait, I was laughing? No! I’m against this movie! Hold on…I have to admit, that was pretty cool. And man, I love that actor. Lizzy Caplan is great! That joke was perfect. What’s happening?!

NYSM2 does the incredible feat of fixing everything I hated about the first movie, and still making a bad movie. This time around, there is no exhausting setup. The film assumes you remembered everything from the first movie. In this film, the characters are more interesting, but there are way too many of them. The first film had a boring finale, this film has a finale that makes no sense. The first film was slick and empty, this film tries way too hard to have an emotional core and dramatic backstory to give it umph. In this film, Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg get worse lines but better hair.

Now You See Me 2 is sloppy. The plot revolves around a mumbo-jumbo plot MacGuffin and absurd tricks that are clearly CGI and movie-magic. There are some truly cringe-inducing lines. All the characters are given long, drafty monologues about what is going on and what is going to happen in future movies. And the film obviously caters to Chinese audiences, giving us a promising young Chinese character who doesn’t get to do anything in the movie except be available for the press tour.

But despite all this, I was enchanted. I liked the location change, even if I know it’s just for the box-office numbers. The tricks are cool, even though it’s not real magic. The actors have such good chemistry the dialogue is easy to ignore. Having all the characters be unified as a team creates a lot more on-screen interest and development. There are some fantastic jokes that had me in stitches. Once again, Daniel Radcliffe proves his best roles are magic ones.

Now You See Me 2 is not a great film. I cannot recommend you go see it if you didn’t have interest in it already. However, for what it’s worth, I had a smile on my face the entire time. The ensemble factor was wonderful. There were some incredible jokes that landed perfectly. I was in suspense. I wanted this little gang of magician vigilantes to be best friends and conquer the world. And for the movie that it is, I’ll take that.

-Madeleine D

ADVENTURES IN MISSING THE POINT: ME BEFORE YOU

When a movie advertises itself as a “tearjerker,” I quickly become cynical and determined not to cry. I rarely cry at the movies. I cried twice at Inside Out, and of course, like everyone, teared up at Avengers: Age of Ultron (curse you hulkbuster scene, playing with my emotions like that!).

I didn’t mean to go see Me Before You, but sometimes you just gotta go to the movies with a friend and see what the hubbub is about. So I saw it.  (Paging all studio execs reading this review- I’m a girl who goes to big blockbusters, too. There were men in the theater. Please stop it with the obsession about making a lady-movie genre and excluding us from everything else.)

Anyway, I did not cry. I did, however, smash my water cup between my fingers and get very, very angry.

Me Before You

(HUGE SPOILERS BELOW)

Me Before You stars your favorite quirky neighbor girlfriend Louisa “Lou” Clark (Emilia Clarke), who lives in the most Englishy-place to ever be English. After she loses her job, she and her eccentric wardrobe of character development tries to find a new job so she can support her family. Luckily, the family who owns the castle next door needs someone to be a companion for their very beautiful and very rich son, Will (Sam Claflin), who is a quadriplegic.

Luckily for Lou, she doesn’t have to do any of the “heavy lifting” when it comes to Will (which would make this romance less glamorous) and instead is supposed to be a ray of sunshine. This is difficult though, when your patient is prepared to have physician-assisted suicide in a few months.

So obviously, Lou decides she’s going to make Will change his mind through expensive vacations, which obviously will work because how else do you find the meaning in life besides going on short, frivolous vacations that your rich family can easily bankroll? Will decides, however, that he must go through with the plan. His identity is too tied up in who he “used to be,” and at the age of 29, and 2 ½ years into being a quadriplegic, he obviously has the perspective to understand his life has absolutely no meaning now and no potential. So he tells Lou that even though he led her on, he is still going to die. But it’s actually super noble, because now she won’t be tethered down to him and he’s going to give her money to travel.

Yea!

So after a cry, Louisa and his parents decide to be supportive of him, because it’s “his choice.” “His choice” to play God, “his choice” to throw away all the good things life has given him, “his choice” to give a big middle finger to caretakers who spend their lives nobly.

Now I’m going to defend the movie for one second. The film makes it clear that this character, Will, is making this decision because his whole rich, playboy lifestyle was based on his image. It was his idol, his everything. He couldn’t imagine a life without it. The movie does not condemn all people with disabilities as burdens.

But, a lot of people with disabilities feel the same way Will does, but they are braver than him and power on. They live their lives because they know their value. Will is portrayed as a tragic figure. Real life disabled people are not tragic figures, there to make you inspired to run that marathon. They are just real people.

When I go to the movies, I look for examples of hope. Will showed no hope. And as someone who believes life is valuable and should be protected, the fact that the movie just shrugged and said, “hey, if you’re in pain or have it rough, just forget moral fiber and do what you want,” made me angry.

But let’s forget that glaring problem for a second and focus on some positives. The film is incredibly well-acted. Emilia Clarke takes what could be an insufferable role and makes Louisa very likable. I liked the emphasis on parents, and what they do for their children with disabilities. Besides the CGI leaves representing time, haircuts representing change, and overbearing vocals of Ed Sheeran singing “loving can hurt” while characters look glumly out of windows, the film is pleasant to watch. Solid cinematography and production design contribute to a film that is very well directed technically by Thea Sharrock.

But I can’t get the ending of the film out of my mind. The film does not glorify Will’s decision. But it is okay with it. And that’s wrong. I find it fascinating that the twitter hashtag for this movie was #LiveBoldy. Maybe, taking the actual movie into account, the hashtag should be #LiveBoldyIfYoureAbleBodied. In fact the title, Me Before You, is the epiphany of the selfishness in this movie, which misses the point of romance and relationships completely.

-Madeleine D