Posts
Welcome to the miscellaneous category of movies that I watched and do not fit into any genre in
particular. There are several movies
that I wanted to see, and now that some are on Netflix could have watched with
ease, but for whatever reason I just didn’t bother to. Films that while they look interesting, are
popular after a fashion, or are 100x’s more relevant than they should have
been, I just feel no drive to watch.
Maybe I am missing out on something that would surprise me (one of my
top movies this year I watched on a complete lark when it was free and it blew me
away), but I may never know.
“Frank” is on Netflix, stars one of
my favorite actors, and has a quirky premise that is probably very amusing;
haven’t seen it. “The Interview” is one
of the most talked about movies because of its relation to a hacking scandal,
saber rattling by a third world dictator, and that its digital release was a
very interesting impromptu experiment; I do not really want to watch it. “A Million Ways to Die in the West” has been
blasted as one of the worst movies of the year, I am sure I would have had a
much more middling reaction, from what I have heard of the thesis of the movie
about traditional masculinity vs intellectualism it sounds like a movie that
failed in spite of itself.
“The Monuments Men” looked to be a good and original take on World War II, with
commentary on art, and an all-star cast; I actually don’t know why I didn’t see
it. Conversely
“Fury” is a very traditional looking take on WWII and I didn’t see that either. “The Fault in Our Stars” is based on
a book by John Green, of who I am a fan for his work via Crash Course and
Mental_Floss, I would have liked this to be some kind of gateway into his work,
but I just didn’t get around to seeing it.
“Nightcrawler” is a movie I still plan to see and will probably do some
kind of review in March once I get around to it, though I would have put it
into the CRIME category based on what I have seen in the promotional materials.
I wish I were a professional critic
so that I could have been paid to see for free lots of movies and to write
about them at time of viewing, but instead I do this run down more as a writing
exercise to increase my own proficiency in recognizing what I like and dislike
about things so that I can relate them to others.
This was disappointing. After the focus that the first movie had with
a main character, a clear goal, and a road trip that was a natural outcropping
of the plot… This movie was sort of a mess.
While it certainly has its funny elements and many characters get
chances to shine with silly moments and sketches… It doesn’t work as a
collective whole. The best part of the
movie is when the cast is trimmed down to Walter (the main character from the
first movie) and some others going on a mission to save Kermit. If that had been the whole plot with a ‘b’
plot of Gonzo and Ratso trying to catch Kermit’s impostor, or running the stage
show in Kermit’s absence (in that instance there would be no villain) then I
think this would have worked really well.
But it is cluttered and that causes an emotional distance from what is
happening, the jokes start to fall flat and then… It’s over.
Maybe I
just lack the nostalgia for this property that is needed to love it, because I
would be happy to see much of the old cast fade to the background to make room
for a new generation of characters. I
have seen enough of the originals and would like to see them pass the baton to
some new muppets. “Muppet Babies” was my
gateway drug to this franchise and it had a much smaller cast with a much
tighter environment to work humor in. In
the context of a variety show having lots of characters makes sense, but a
movie needs to keep things smaller and on target.
Overall: 5/10
 |
| Strangely this poster which just is a group shot of 1/5th of the cast is not that bad. |
This was
also disappointing. I like everyone in
this movie, I do not think there is a single actor not pulling their weight,
everyone brings something to the table, nobody misses a beat, nobody’s time is
wasted and there are a lot of gags that I am still referencing with my roommate
months later. “You can say that again.”
So why do I
find this movie so ‘meh’? “Tell me about
it.” What was missing? Why am I just looking back on the parts I
liked? What am I blacking out? I can’t tell you. Maybe this thing is actually some kind of
masterpiece but I am just having a fit of depression and can’t appreciate the
genius. I doubt it, but how else do I
explain that I just did not feel it?
I wanted to
like this movie, but I can’t recommend it.
Just watch the best parts on youtube maybe?
Overall: 5/10
(Maybe this should be in the CRIME section). I thought
the first one was fine. I have issues
with comedies based around police because of how little they have to do with
police work ("Hot Fuzz" and "Super Troopers" being notable
exceptions), hence why I did not bother to see "Let's be Cops" which
looked painfully unfunny.
This one is
also fine. There are lots of good parts
and little gags, I laughed loud and hard several times. The plot and the mystery of it work well and
the chemistry between Tatum and Hill is on target and the core the movie
rightfully uses as its bedrock. It has
the funniest credit sequence in the history of cinema. The issue with comedies is judging whether
they made you laugh and this one did, but it didn’t make me feel deep and
lasting feelings. It was just a fine
little movie to pass the time. Go ahead
and watch it, I am sure many people will get deeper and more lasting enjoyment
from this movie than I managed.
Overall: 6/10
 |
| The Spring Break portion is a very small part of the movie (roughly the last 5th) but is in a lot of the advertising. |
I really
liked this movie (I went to see it to kill time, I had accidently locked myself
out of my apartment, not much of a story so I will not dwell on it). The way it subverts the very nature of the
“chosen one” hero’s tale narrative structure that is the go to hack script of
the modern era elevates it to being something special, and the twist that shows
how imagination and creativity with structure and purpose yields fun and
enjoyment on a deeper level than merely collecting ever could… That is a
message that more people in Hollywood could stand to learn.
Maybe the
best interpretation of Batman ever on film, though the other superheroes get
the short shaft in their cameos, I would have liked the joke version of
Superman or Abraham Lincoln to have more time, but I guess that Batman is more
in need of being made fun than nearly any other character in media. It is most definitely worth a recommendation,
go watch it and enjoy it.
I do find
it strange how many people keep referencing “Everything is Awesome” as some
kind of message the movie is putting forth… IT IS NOT. That song is used as a tool for
brainwashing. It is a tool of evil. You can enjoy the song, but only ironically,
you should recognize it for what it is a parody of hollow entertainment that
makes you complacent in your day to day life.
Overall: 8/10
 |
| Strange thing wrong with this poster: Not enough Lego bricks. |
This movie
snuck up on me because I never saw (and still have not seen) Zach Braff's earlier
film of "Garden State".
“Wish I was Here” is really
touching. It manages to touch on a lot
of modern life (albeit a very millennial, upper middle class, white people
problems sort of modern life) with issues of educating kids, religion, the
death of a parent, and the overall shit nature of working in an office.
They could have cut a few lingering
shots of the desert, or the long driving scenes that are more about showcasing
the movie’s music than advancing the plot… but they go out of their way to have
gorgeous shots to keep you visually engaged.
The movie has a lot of humor to
offset the very heavy conclusion which involves the death of the main
character’s father who left a lot of unpacked emotional baggage behind. It is a good sort of sad.
Overall: 8/10
 |
| Awful poster. Should have been one of the long shots of the beautiful landscapes. Interesting use of the blue/orange color contrast that dominates modern media advertising. |
While this
movie is not in my top 5 I understand its appeal and would be happy with it
winning an Oscar for best picture (it is one of the 3 movies in that category I
have seen... and I am sure that means I have seen more of those movies that a
good number of the academy... but whatever).
Dealing
with the creeping realization of one’s own obsolescence and the desperate
struggle to establish a professional and creative legacy before finally
(literally) bowing out, that is a good topic.
And the casting is great, with the three main characters all being chosen
for meta-textual reasons related to their past careers in the superhero genre
and their real life reputations in the industry. Michael Keaton is funny as hell, especially
when working with Edward Norton… Really everybody is great, it is almost unfair
to point to anyone specifically because I am sure even the minor characters
would have consistently delivered on all the material they could be given.
I would
like to take a second to write about GIMMICKS (I will do this again in my top
5, and again when I talk about the worst movie of the year). I tend to come down on movies that have a
Gimmick. Some silly trick or set of
production rules that makes things harder on the actors and crew. An increase in difficulty that adds an
element to the craft of film making that can elevate a movie that would
otherwise be a ho-hum entry in history.
“Under the Skin” had nudity and improve acting (including Scarlet
Johansen trying to pick up real men hidden camera style). “Muppets Most Wanted” has the gimmick of celebrity
cameos and most of the cast being puppets.
“The Lego Movie” is made to look like the entire film is constructed of
Lego. “Birdman” has the appearance of having been filmed in one long continuous
take. The one long take illusion is used
to emphasize the fact that the movie is about theater work, that there are no
cuts when working on stage. There is a
hidden cut every time the movie goes to complete darkness and there are other
hidden cuts whenever there is no one on the screen, but I imagine the typical
take on any given scene was 10-20 times the length of a typical take for a
modern movie, longer if you take into account the frantic cutting used in
modern action movies. So do I think this
gimmick is something that elevates the movie?
Kind of…
 |
| For instance, the Kinect was definitely a gimmick that detracted from what it was trying to do. (image) |
The movie
would be fine without the gimmick, it is a solid story with good dialogue, good
actors, a good theme, and lots of craft and hard work went into the movie, even
with a traditional editing mindset the movie would still be really good, and
that is the key in my opinion to making a gimmick work: that the gimmick
doesn’t really matter. It is a flourish
that makes a good production better with the added context. It is a detail that makes those who learn of
it say, “Wow, that actually sounds really difficult, I am surprised the movie
was so good under those circumstances”.
“Birdman” does that. Its flourish
adds to the production.
Overall: 8/10
 |
| I get what they were going for with this. Except for it being animated/cell shaded. |
No comments:
Post a Comment