Category: Movies

Ready Player One (2018)
140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Ready Player One (2018)

Probably a lot better if you haven’t read the excellent source novel, Recognizing Things: The Movie is exactly OK. Curiously non-engaging…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Ready Player One (2018):

Meant for this to be a lightning-fast review, as I have other things to do today, but I still wanted to get this out on opening day (not only the film’s opening, but also baseball – starting the season in March? What’s up with that?). I failed miserably, because I have such mixed feelings about the film version of Ready Player One that it took me a long time and a lot of words to not necessarily resolve.

I wanted to love it. I didn’t hate it. I didn’t even dislike it. I guess I’d say I liked it.

If that sounds damning with faint praise, I think that’s my point.

I’m not going to whine that the book was better, because of course it was. I’m not going to pontificate about the obsession with the 1980’s or why nostalgia is culturally stunting, or the backlash against the book and film, or Gamergate, or gamer culture in general, or how The Iron Giant is misrepresented, or the dumb promo posters, or why the remembering things/recognizing things memes are both hysterical and accurate. There are other, better writers out there, writing more detailed thinkpieces. You’ve likely got your own thoughts about all of this and more.

Here’s what I will say:
1. My instinct is that if you didn’t read the book, and don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to obsessive geek nostalgia, you will probably enjoy Ready Player One. Spielberg is one of the all time great directors and storytellers and he seldom puts a step too far wrong in his movies, so you’re reasonably likely to enjoy the picture that arrived with your popcorn.
2. If you did read the book, and are both expectant and ok with the idea that the film version is going to be necessarily radically different, but are just looking to have fun with a movie that more or less echoes the feel and basic plot of the book, you will probably enjoy Ready Player One. The screenplay was written by the author Ernie Cline and veteran Zak Penn and so keeps most of the feel of the source material, which was a great premise for a movie to begin with.
3. If you did read the book, but are not ok with Spielberg and his ruthless faithlessness to beloved source material, you’re in for a long night…
Personally, I fall somewhere between 1 and 2. I went in with an open mind and the objective of trying to enjoy myself. I knew it was going to be totally different and just hoped that the adaptation would get the feel right and not do anything atonal. In the end, I guess I can say that it was a success on that score, even if Spielberg’s fast and loose approach bothered me more than I wanted to let it.

Because while I love so much about the director’s work, I kind of hate it in equal measure. For all of the talk about him being a unique talent and fresh face when he came in with the 1970’s film auteur movement, I’ve always considered him an incredibly traditional filmmaker – a throwback to the autocrats of the studio system. When he goes to adapt something, original story or previously published work, he has an old-school single-mindedness. He takes a quick look at the treatment, grabs the first couple of interesting things that catch his eye, and then proceeds to make whatever picture he’s already decided he wants to make. He wouldn’t have been out of place sitting next to Louis B. Mayer or the hacks who couldn’t be bothered to read the books they were adapting. If you are familiar with the original story he’s set his sights on, you can practically visualize him ripping out pages by the handful.

This attribute is a strength and weakness in equal measure. After all, you have to make hard choices when taking a story to a different medium and have the discipline to realize what will make for a compelling movie. The cinematic landscape is littered with ponderous adaptations that slavishly tried to reproduce their source material, only to collapse under their own weight. I’ve praised filmmakers who can identify the main threads of a narrative and recognize how to support and enhance that one strand they determine will make for the best picture.

But you can go very wrong with this approach; you have to have great judgment – and for all of the great filmmaking moments he deserves credit for, I simply do not trust Spielberg’s judgment. His oversimplification, his tendency to always push for “bigger, more, faster”, his adolescent fascination with creepy crawlies and jump-scares – these homogenize his movies at the expense of their stories.

Ready Player One reminded me of nothing as much as The Lost World: Jurassic Park, which sounds like a bigger dig than it is. If you read my review of that film, you’ll see that this is something of a long-time bone of contention of mine with Spielberg. He just seems to approach these things like a salad bar, picking and choosing whatever strikes his fancy and then throwing in new ideas he hastily comes up with to fill in the gaps he just created. He seems to relish solving problems, but these are problems of his own making. In The Lost World, he created poor new characters to make up for the book characters he cut out of the film. In Ready Player One, he creates huge action scenes in order to introduce dramatic tension that was lost when he cut other, better scenes.

For the main problem I had with Ready Player One isn’t that they made a lot of changes – it’s that I dislike and disagree with the changes. I’d argue that the largely poor choices made by the filmmakers (particularly regarding exposition and explanation of the setting, the changing of storylines, and the diminishing of characters) led to a non-engaging film lacking excitement or emotional investment. That’s really what it all comes down to; there were things I liked, there were things I disliked, but ultimately I didn’t really care too much either way. I was oddly detached throughout the whole movie. I could have been watching one of the joyless, cold DC Comics movies that keep escaping.

And that is a real problem for me; for while there are certainly valid criticisms of the original novel (obsessions of the author and characters, male-centric focus, objectification and reduction of female characters), IT WAS FUN. I love the novel – I’ve seldom had so much fun reading a book not set in Discworld. I liked it so much I reviewed it twice. As I noted in the review of the book (not to be confused with the audiobook), I had a great time following along the story of the treasure hunt. I guess it played a little more effectively six or seven years ago, before it became obvious how toxic gamer culture was; it felt like more of an escapist lark. But it was truly enjoyable. And that’s what’s missing from the film.

Above anything else, I think the joy of the hunt for Halliday’s easter egg is lost in the face of the choices made by the filmmakers. I am truly curious to see what people who didn’t read the book think about the film; did you follow it? Was it clear why the hunt was important? Did you understand what the Oasis really was and how omnipresent it was? Did you know who all of the characters were and what they were there for? Because I don’t think it was made at all clear. And with a 200 minute run-time, there really was no reason for the exposition to be so weak.

I do want very much to re-watch Ready Player One. History has shown that I generally can enjoy these things better for what they are after making peace with what they are not. I’m sure that once the pressure of hoping that things turn out differently passes, I’ll be able to enjoy the gorgeous battles and appreciate the new challenges the film has the characters undertake in order to obtain the keys (even while lamenting how poor they are in comparison to the book).

I want to enjoy this movie – I always did – and it’s more good than bad, for certain. The fact that Ready Player One represents a missed opportunity to promote virtual reality, create a new Spielberg classic, and capture the excitement of Ernie Cline’s fun read, does not mean that it is a bad film. It’s good-looking, with great music, geeky-fun subject matter, and retains the bones and some of the touches from a great source story. It just could have been so much more…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: C (either 4 or 5 pts – not sure if celebrating geek cultural stereotypes counts as “offensive”)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” name=”Ready Player One” description=”In the year 2045, the real world is a harsh place. The only time Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) truly feels alive is when he escapes to the OASIS, an immersive virtual universe where most of humanity spends their days. In the OASIS, you can go anywhere, do anything, be anyone-the only limits are your own imagination. The OASIS was created by the brilliant and eccentric James Halliday (Mark Rylance), who left his immense fortune and total control of the Oasis to the winner of a three-part contest he designed to find a worthy heir. When Wade conquers the first challenge of the reality-bending treasure hunt, he and his friends-aka the High Five-are hurled into a fantastical universe of discovery and danger to save the OASIS.” director=”Steven Spielberg” ]
March 29, 2018
A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Critics, before prattling on about how simplistic & messy this film is, look at the excited & inspired kid a few rows over. Then shut up…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of A Wrinkle in Time (2018):

Thursday night (not coincidentally on International Women’s Day) my wife, daughter, and I went to see A Wrinkle in Time. We’ve all been eagerly waiting some time for this adaptation, ever since it was first announced. The trailers and released images looked great, the actors seemed well-chosen, and we were all extremely excited about the amount of representation this project signified. This is the first picture with a nine-digit budget directed by a woman of color. Even if it absolutely stunk, we were going to go see it.

As is my custom, I had avoided the early press, but I did glance quickly at the first few lines of several reviews, just to get some sense of what we were in for. I don’t usually do this, but my girls were really looking forward to the film, and if it was getting absolutely hammered, I’d at least warn them to temper their expectations.

Despite what the early reviews have suggested, it didn’t stink. For my well-read wife it was a solid picture, not equal to the beloved source material, of course, but a good time. For me, who hadn’t read the book since childhood, it was a really fun picture that left me happy and smiling despite its faults. For my daughter – it was AWESOME!

Look, everyone doesn’t have to get the same things out of every film. It’s hard, but you really have to take the goals of the filmmaker, the demographics of the prospective audience, and the film environment into consideration with your criticism.

I get what the critics are harping on:
- it’s more visually appealing than truly substantive;
- probably overly simplifies the source material in an effort to appeal to all;
- there’s too much music and a muddy sound mix;
- many of the performances are over the top;
- the outlandish costumes and design is polarizing.
But so what? The fact that this film will miss a lot of people does not mean that it will fail to resonate with a whole lot of other people.

For example, as an adult, there was a complete lack of suspense – I never had any doubt where the story was going or if any of the main characters were in any danger. But it would be myopic and limiting for me to assume that everyone would react the same way. In fact, I found a lot of the scenes quite dark and intense for younger viewers. Don’t tell me that those filmgoers would consider the picture uneventful and slow.

I’ll be the first to admit that I have a habit of sticking up for films that are getting panned, but the last to admit it as a character flaw. It’s important to stick up for pictures that might miss their chance to be seen in the face of overwhelming criticism.

And I must clarify here that I’m not just sticking up for the underdog here – I truly enjoyed A Wrinkle in Time.
- I smiled from ear to ear through the whole film. It was genuinely fun.
- I loved the child actors, led by a very promising Storm Reid as Meg Murry, a heroine I wish my daughter had been exposed to at an even earlier age.
- I enjoyed all the adult performances, even if I could have done with much more screen-time for the charming Gugu Mbatha-Raw (and a lot less Reese Witherspoon).
- Despite the rather short run-time, there were several scenes where emotional moments were really allowed to breathe. Too often in tentpole films, when the heroes have actually come face to face with their objective – the raison d’être – it’s just another scene. They don’t take time to actually reflect on what has been accomplished. The actors and characters in A Wrinkle in Time are given the space to actually slow down the pace and experience these moments. It’s lovely, and a credit to director Ava DuVernay.
- The project was greenlit by Disney in the wake of Tim Burton’s dreadful but ginormously profitable Alice in Wonderland, and while it shares a few of that movie’s criticisms (over-reliance on CGI and lack of subtlety), it is worlds more grounded.
Because at its heart, A Wrinkle in Time has one – a heart, that is. The film contains a ton of empowering, hopeful, positive messages aimed at an audience that desperately needs power, hope, and positivity. I was proud to sit alongside my wife and daughter and watch a beautiful film filled with representation, diversity, body positivity, hope, respect, and appreciation for intelligence and uniqueness.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: A (14! pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://movies.disney.com/a-wrinkle-in-time” name=”A Wrinkle in Time” description=”After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.” director=”Ava DuVernay” ]
March 11, 2018

Ghostbusters (2016)

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

If you think you’re not going to enjoy this, you’re almost certainly right. It’s not made for you. That’s ok: watch how your kids eat it up.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Ghostbusters (2016):

Since this will likely be a long review, let’s just get the basics down first: Ghostbusters, the 1984 film is a near perfect movie and in no way needed to be remade/rebooted. But it was always going to happen, so let’s just accept that fact and judge the movie that got made. Judgment: it is great fun and you’ll have a good time if you let yourself.

The amount that has been written about this film even before cameras began rolling would lead you to believe this is a cultural touchstone of great, even historic importance. It isn’t. It’s a movie. If you like it, great. If you don’t, great. Let’s not get carried away here, people…

Like many, I find the bile spewed by misogynistic internet trolls deeply disturbing. The fact that “people” would have such a blinding hatred for a movie – any movie – that they’d actually try to tank reviews and ratings in order to alter perception and make a picture fail is so bizarre and unsettling that it says a great deal about the nature of our “culture”. Look at that, two uses of quotes in one sentence – see what we’ve been reduced to…

Rather than enter into a long piece about the outright misogyny that I truly believe lies at the heart of much of the outrage over the 2016 Ghostbusters (they quietly renamed the picture Ghostbusters: Answer the Call recently, but since no one else seems to be calling it that I don’t see why I should), I’m going to take the haters at their word that this isn’t about sexism and focus strictly on their non-gender-based complaints. In effect, I’m ignoring the he-man woman haters and acknowledging that there are genuine good reasons to oppose the reboot of Ghostbusters.

Because you’re not wrong if you think this movie didn’t need to exist – it really doesn’t. In my reviews of Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II (1989), I practically pleaded with the rights holders to let the franchise stay dormant. As you will have swiftly realized if you’ve read more than one of my reviews, I am disheartened by the whole remake/reboot modus operandi of Hollywood. So I didn’t really want them to make this picture.

The simple fact is that it was going to be made, however. Too many people, executives and creative talent alike wanted to keep the franchise going. Sure, not all of them, which is why Ghostbusters II was such a mixed bag and why it took 27 years to get some version of Ghostbusters back on screen, but the original picture was such a beloved hit that there really was no chance whatsoever that it wasn’t going to be <drumroll> resurrected. </rimshot>

So there’s no use whining that they shouldn’t have remade the film – they did. Get on board or stay away. Personally, I’m pulling on the proton pack. If it had to happen, I’m glad that this current team was at the helm. Because the idea of reimagining the modern team as female and populating it with some of the funniest women alive was inspired and almost entirely the reason I am behind the picture.

We made sure to go to see the film on opening night; it’s really important to vote with your wallet – if filmmakers can point to a strong opening for a film it helps convince the suits that there’s an audience and a financial reason to make movies that don’t insult half of the human race. Think about that the next time you consider waiting to see a picture at home.

My daughter was incredibly excited about the film. She even gave herself a haircut inspired by Kate McKinnon’s character earlier in the day (looks awesome). We got there early, picked up our complimentary Ghostbusters pins, took a picture by the ginormous cardboard standee and proceeded to have a great time. Everyone in the theater was howling and having a blast, even applauding at the end.

And I came to the important realization that the picture isn’t for me – it’s for the current generation. There’s really no purpose in comparing the new Ghostbusters with the old – this is something new.

<soapbox>

Everyone goes through this at some point, but those of us who lived through the greatest years of cinema (the 1980’s don’cha know) with a historic run of franchises are probably among the guiltiest. We got to experience Star Wars and Star Trek and Indiana Jones and Terminator and Aliens and we think we have some ownership over these things because they were so integral to our coming of age. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – it’s great to be passionate about things you love. But we’re greedy about it. We want our memories to remain sacrosanct and turn positively feral when anyone tries to update “our” properties.

I think it’s telling that whether new Bond films please or disappoint, no one complains that their childhood is being violated. Perhaps it’s partly because the pictures are aimed at an older audience and so they didn’t get hard-wired into our formative years. But I think it has more to do with the fact that the franchise is so long-running that it doesn’t belong to any one generation. Same with Doctor Who. So why can’t we take the same view with our 80’s franchises? You can enjoy one version, one series, and another might miss you. So what?

We all have to be grown-ups about these things and, well, grow up. Our childhood was our childhood; we got to have one. Let someone else take a turn.

</soapbox>

Soooo….how was the movie, pal?

For me it was a solid good. I enjoyed it very much. For my daughter it was nearly perfect – a mammoth hit. For my wife and I, it was a very funny and solid picture. It wasn’t amazing, but it was quite good.

Paul Feig, who rescued the picture from development hell, is a great fit for the story. He gets the tone right, which is the most important thing by far. Written by Feig and Katie Dippold (of Parks and Recreation & The Heat), the story is fine but not overwhelming – it’s a bit slight. So was the original.

The villain, played by Neil Casey is weak and lacking an interesting backstory. So was the original. See where I’m going with this? These films are greater than the sum of their parts. The mood, the feel, the commitment to entertain – this is what you need to aim for. And Ghostbusters does exactly that.

The story follows broadly the same rough structure as the first film, and if not horribly original, you can understand the split directive that comes with any remake/reboot; “make it like the original but not too like the original”.

Interestingly, in some ways this film is a little too wedded to the original picture. There’s a self-awareness and the inclusion of all the cameos and references pads what is already a long run-time. The movie comes in just under the two hour barrier, and there’s new content during the credits, mid-credits and in a post credit stinger. This film is just stuffed – there’s not a lot of room to breathe.

So I can understand why Feig went with the more is more approach. The other big reason he may have been tempted to cram everything in is that there’s so much good in there:

the effects are really good
despite Sony’s usual hallmarks (blatant product placement, antiseptic picture), the Boston for New York production looks pretty good
right balance of scary/funny
the new Ecto-1 is bangin’
the new gear is pretty fun

Most importantly, the comedy is rock solid. These are some great comic actors. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones are all riotous with great chemistry. Chris Hemsworth totally goes for it as dim-witted receptionist Kevin.

But the picture belongs to Kate McKinnon; as Dr. Jillian Holtzmann she damn near steals the whole show. I could watch another two-hour movie of the team just doing routine jobs if it meant getting to watch more Holtzmann shenanigans…

Ghostbusters is a fun movie. It’s not a masterpiece, it’s not an abomination – it’s a very good summer movie and likely to be one of the more fun pictures I see this season. If you don’t have a bone to pick with the very existence of this picture and just want a good time, then you know who to call…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: A (12 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”www.ghostbusters.com” name=”Ghostbusters” description=”Erin Gilbert and Abby Bergman are a pair of unheralded authors who write a book positing that ghosts are real. A few years later, Gilbert lands a prestigious teaching position at Columbia University, but her book resurfaces and she is laughed out of academia. Gilbert reunites with Bergman and others when ghosts invade Manhattan and try to save the world.” director=”Paul Feig” producer=”Ivan Reitman” actor_1=”Melissa McCarthy” ]

Main Cast	Melissa McCarthy Abby Yates Kristen Wiig Erin Gilbert Kate McKinnon Jillian Holtzmann Leslie Jones Patty Tolan
Rating	PG-13
Release Date	Fri 15 Jul 2016 UTC
Director	Paul Feig
Genres	Action, Comedy, Sci-Fi
Plot	Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.
Poster
Runtime	116
Tagline	Who you gonna call?
Writers	Katie Dippold (written by) &, Paul Feig (written by) …
Year	2016

July 15, 2016

The Jackie Robinson Story (1950)

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

What can you say? As a film it’s fairly pedestrian, but it’s hard to care about that while watching this hero relive his story… #Jackie42

Spoiler-free Movie Review of The Jackie Robinson Story:

Today is April 15th, Jackie Robinson Day. It’s one of the most important days of the year, not just the baseball season. It would be impossible to overstate the impact of Robinson on our world. Greater talents than mine have articulated the significance of #42 and I’m not going to try to improve upon them. Suffice it to say, Jack Roosevelt Robinson was a hero of nearly mythical stature, which should not obscure the fact that he was a phenomenal ballplayer and athlete.

The story of the collaboration of Jackie and Brooklyn Dodgers President Branch Rickey to break baseball’s color barrier is such a great one that it was destined to be the subject of a feature film. The only surprising thing is that it was made while he was still playing. In a move that would never happen today, the titular hero played himself in his own autobiography. The movie was filmed in the off-season following Robinson’s third year in the majors. That’s the season of 1949, in which he won the Most Valuable Player award, hitting .342 with 124 RBIs. Busy year…

As inspiring as Robinson’s story is, there’s no getting around the fact that this is a B-movie. It must have been made for about $11, and none of it was spent on production values. The picture is so slapped together it stops just short of employing cartoon sound effects to let you know how you should feel (since you’re not likely to get any clues from any of the actors).

I find it interesting and appropriate that no one would do as good of a job portraying Robinson than Jackie himself, but it does play a bit weird. I’ve seen this technique used before and it’s no less strange. I suppose it’s like watching those dramatic recreations of scenes from bad TV shows like Unsolved Mysteries. Still, he is the only man truly qualified for this role, and he’s a pleasure to watch. It’s just a bit awkward. No one should be asked to reenact their own life – it’s odd.

Ruby Dee acquits herself nicely as Rae Robinson and Minor Watson nails Branch Rickey. Yes, he’s over the top and unbelievable, but reportedly that really is how Rickey conducted himself.

The baseball footage is pretty good, even if it’s filmed entirely wrong; nice to see a little footage of Ebbetts Field, even if I’m certain it’s just stock. The movie in general just suffers from old movie lack of polish. Nothing really wrong, just workmanlike.

There’s almost no humor in the film at all. Not really an issue, but the filmmakers clearly thought it was, since they shoehorn in a recurring bit with a short ballplayer called – wait for it – Shorty, who keeps popping up the ball because he’s…short. It’s exactly as funny as it sounds…

Since Jackie and Rae Robinson were involved, you’d expect the historical accuracy of the picture to be pretty unassailable, and for the most part it is. It just makes the few missteps even more surprising, like the Kansas City Monarchs being re-christened the “Black Panthers”. Seriously? Also, the film shows him speaking before the House of Representatives; it’s a nice moment, but the real reason he was “invited” was to testify before the House of Representatives’ Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). Sigh…

The Jackie Robinson Story is not a great biopic. It would take until 2013’s 42 for that. (Although the 1996 HBO movie Soul of the Game was pretty good.) But it’s really not important – you can’t judge all films just on their technical merits. It’s a powerful and wonderful story, and Jackie Robinson deserved the spotlight and to take a bow…