#ALSO THIS FILM IS SO MUCH FUNNIER AND MORE CLEVER THAN I REMEMBERED

[randomalistic]

LOOK AT THIS MAN. I just had my queer awakening for the 2nd time

[byebyelemonpie]

byebyelemonpie's august 2023 recommendations

Wow, my picks for this month are very weak, because I didn't watch any movie that stood up to me as much as previous months, and I've really liked only one series from the few ones I've finished.

My august top 5 movies:

Seriously. These movies are so mid that I don't even want to mention some of them in my top 5. Most movies I've seen from this month are rated 3.5 stars on letterboxd, and that's mostly because of great animation or great cinematography.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003, dir: McG) [Rewatch after more than a decade] I had rewatched the first one recently and found it worse than I remembered, but this one was actually awesome. I very much enjoyed watching it, with its action scenes, its plot twists, and its Badass Girls Doing Stuff! It's just a very fun film, and I loved rediscovering it. -

Atonement (2007, dir: Joe Wright) [Rewatch after 9 years] I actually decided to rewatch this movie because the first time I saw it, I didn't like it at all. I get why, though: it doesn't have the best ending that 18 year old me would have loved, but 27 year old me now understands the nuances and the storytelling. I think the way it's told might be a little confusing at first, but it's interesting to see the different points of view and the lies of the person who tells the story rather than what actually happened. And my goodness, the green dress cinematography and the sound design are amazing. -

Trainspotting (1996, dir: Danny Boyle) [Rewatched after seven years] I don't even know if I liked this movie. I might have even hated it at times. I surely thought that the narrator talked way too much, but the story required it and it wouldn't be it without his redundant monologues. Every character is awful, but you can't help to root for them at least a bit: they are in misery, and it doesn't matter if they've created it for themselves or if society had a big part in that creation. What I really loved though, was the originality in depicting those abstract sequences that showed the state the characters were in when they were abusing substances: the editing was all over the place. I also watched T2 for the first time, but I personally didn't find it as good as the first one. -

Red, White and Royal Blue (2023, dir: Matthew López) [First time watch] This was fun! Definitely funnier than I expected, never having read the book before. I think the first act and a half were very fast and fun to follow, while the second half of the movie was at the same time too long with a very fast ending. I thought it was quite cute, though. -

Elemental (2023, dir: Peter Sohn) [First time watch] Listen, I love Pixar and I've loved Pixar for a long time. That's why I can say with my whole heart that they can do better than this! Of course, this wasn't terrible: I enjoyed it very much and it had my attention the whole time, but I know Pixar can and has done better movies even decades ago. The story is quite nice, maybe not the most original overall, but Pixar had never made a rom-com as far as I remember, so I'll let that slide. It's fun to see how "perfect" the elements look, of course! They're beautiful! They way they interact with each other and with other elements is very clever and well animated. I know that Pixar has strived to animate realistic things since its beginnings, but this is a fictional land with abstract characters! Shouldn't the animation, or even better, the character design be a little less "perfect"? And I'm not saying it should lack talent: I'm saying it should gain more feeling, rather. And I know that this studio can do that, if even more recently we look at things like Luca or Red, even.

The fact is that this same month I also watched for the first time Atlantis: The Lost Empire, which is a Disney film from that era of Disney that made great movies, and that had amazing animation, and the character design varied from character to character, highlighting everybody's personalities from even the smallest details. I didn't put it on the top 5 list because unfortunately I watched it while doing something else and now I don't remember much of it and that's on me, but I think it can have this small shout out anyway.

Favourite series in august:

Be My Favorite (Thailand, 2023) [First time watch] This was such a cute drama, started as a light show about a boy using time travel to make a girl like him, and evolved into a deep, quite philosophical story revolving around fixed points in time, fate, fighting for what's important even if things won't change immediately, queer rights, and making a boy like him instead. Probably one of my favourite series from this year: I enjoyed its fairytale vibes and its storytelling. It's quite difficult to write a story with several parallel universes starting up from different time travels, but I think the writers of this show managed to keep it easy to understand and fun to follow.

[byebyelemonpie's 2023 recs]

[qu-film-history-to-1968]

Reflecting on the Past with Megamind

My favorite movie growing up was Megamind. This movie released when I was six and acts as an animated superhero film from the perspective of the villain after finally succeeding. What interested me the most about the film was the natural character arc the main character Megamind follows after realizing he never wanted to be the villain. Him trying and failing to be good created both a ton of comedic and emotional moments. It was also interesting seeing the facades slip from the two characters who were meant to be the heroes, as they reveal themselves to not be who everyone thought they were. Reviews at the time of the film's release in 2010 were generally positive. For example, Roger Ebert stated in his review, “‘Megamind’ is an amusing family entertainment and gains some energy from clever dialogue” (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/megamind-2010) and Jim Schembri said, “A full-bodied, busy-as-heck, funny-as-heck comedy adventure from Dreamworks that merrily riffs -- in its own fractured way -- on the Superman legend” (https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/megamind-20101208-18p2r.html).

Alongside the film, several historic releases happened in 2010. On April 3rd of 2010 the very first IPad was released. I remember my family owning one but I personally did not use it much since I preferred playing games on my DS at the time. I think the IPad’s release was very important, but at the time I never really paid attention to it. In addition to the IPad, Instagram was also first released in 2010 on October 6th. I never used Instagram until around 2019, and while I still don’t use it much, its release was very important as it is one of the most popular social media apps.

When rewatching Megamind, it was still quite similar to how I personally remembered it. I have seen it a large number of times over the years alongside videos talking about the film so that is to be expected. I did find the main villain of the film, Titan, a bit funnier than I had remembered this time. I think that change, even if small, does show something important about history, that our views on it can change. Despite the film being the same, I enjoyed a certain aspect of it more on this rewatch. That can be for a number of reasons, such as jokes going over my head when I was younger or me forgetting them so they hit harder. In the same sense, history can’t change, but our views and opinions can change over time as we grow older. For example, when I was 6 I didn’t care about IPads or Instagram at all, but as I’ve grown up I’ve gradually begun to shift my view on them and appreciate their creation more. Memories are often tied to our emotions and opinions, which is partly how they can be different from what actually happened in the past. 

  Michael Jones

  Works Cited:

  Ebert, Roger “Superman With a Great Big Blue Head” 3 Nov. 2010 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/megamind-2010

  Shembri, Jim “Megamind” The Age, 8 Dec. 2010 https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/megamind-20101208-18p2r.html

  Joblo Animated Videos “MEGAMIND Clip - "Megamind vs. Titan" (2010)” 16, Mar. 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=020ItP4GHkY

[atamascolily]

Lily liveblogs: “The Rise of Skywalker,” part two

Neener, neener, world-building is for losers. Not to mention plot, character development, and general coherence.

(Or, fifty ideas in a trench coat pretending to be one movie.)

Look, you get ONE fetch quest per film, and we've already exceeded the limit here, please stop... [does not stop]

Poe literally has to ask to kiss Zorii because she's wearing a mask, lol. I mean, I like to think he would anyway, but... just saying.

They literally slot the medallion into the designated coin slot and that's it, it's over so fast, lololololol.

Like, the FO lets them in because they have a medallion and then only sends two troopers to investigate because Something Is Clearly Up? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Okay, they're just going to straight up assault the Star Destroyer. 10/10 for style. Refuge in audacity and all that. Fine, whatever.

Finn ought to have some idea about the layout of the place, didn't the FO teach him that stuff when he was a stormtrooper? Or at least enough to have a hint. Or are they just going to wander around without a clue and magically find the right spot??

Oh, Rey's mastered the mind-trick now, good to know. (*Legally Blonde voice* "What, like it's hard?")

Poe's question if Rey does that to him and Finn is 100% spot on and he is RIGHT to ask that because the mind trick is SUPER INVASIVE and can be badly misused.Given how recalcitrant Poe’s been, I’m sure she’s been tempted.

Rey is so concerned about Chewie until she gets distracted by the dagger, sigh... [Han Solo voice] Convenient. [/Han Solo voice.]

Why do they need the dagger macguffin if they already have the coordinates? What a stupid thing to get Rey alone so she and Kylo can have a moment.

Kylo searching through Kijimi for Rey like he's got no fucking clue, lololol. So much for their "Force bond" here.

Does Finn feel, like, anything for the troopers he's shooting? I mean, obviously not in the heat of battle, but like, ever? Considering that his friend's death on Jakku was what snapped him out of the FO brainwashing in the first place... so he knows it's possible for the others to change. So... what a wasted opportunity here.

Literally, all of the troopers are patrolling either in pairs or alone, that is so dumb if there's actually an alert out on the ship for them.

Is Poe having PTSD flashbacks to the last time he got captured by the FO? Because I would, if I were in his shoes.

Rey picks up the dagger and has flashbacks again PSYCHOMETRY PSYCHOMETRY PSYCHOMETRY PSYCHOMETRY

Okay, the FUCK is going on with this fight scene. Where is she, really? Is she Force projecting? How can she do that when it killed Luke? How can BOTH of them be in two places at once? Ie, it's not that Rey is suddenly having an out-of-body experience and fighting Kylo on a spiritual plane in Kijimi - she's also fighting in Kylo's room, and even though I could see her body moving in time with her mind, is Kylo projecting himself into his room with HER, too? What is happening?

I feel like this scene would be so much more powerful if we established some parameters for HOW THIS POWER FUCKING WORKS so I know what the stakes are. Wouldn't it be interesting if this moved used life force, for instance, the same way that healing did? What are the restrictions/limitations? Why is none of this ever explained? It just happens... waaaaaahhhhhhh

I really love it when this is an open question in works that are thematically ABOUT "is it a dream? is it real? is it a mindfuck?" [see: Inception] but that's NOT THE POINT OF THIS FILM, this is a side issue, so it SHOULDN'T BE A MYSTERY, it should be actually intelligible to me what is going on even if I don't understand all the intricacies.

It does look cool, though. I'll grant them that much. The aesthetics of a night fight in the falling stone are ON POINT. Too bad the fight doesn't really use much of its scenery to any advantage. This could be literally anywhere for all that the characters draw on their surroundings.

"Wherever you are, you are hard to find." So smooth, Kylo.

Rey VERY CLEARLY SAYS "I don't want this!" in response to Kylo's "I've been in your head". Because consent is for LOSERs, am I right? [/sarcasm] ugghhhhhhh

"Your parents are no one...." but turns out they were actually someone! Never mind we never get their names or backstory anywhere! That might make them... interesting! Or even RELEVANT.

Okay, so stuff from Kijimi is literally spilling into the star destroyer and vice versa, is that actually happening or is that just a visual metaphor/dream sequence, I really need to know wtf is going on here.

Kylo using his knowledge of/from Palpatine to manipulate Rey is terrible but actually something he would do... and kinda clever. I'll grant him that much.

Ochi looks just like a twisted version of Maz, except taller... does that mean anything? probably not!

We literally have no connection to these two random new characters so their fate does not resonate as much as it SHOULD HAVE. Which one was Palpatine's kid? How did he HAVE kids in the first place? What was said kid's life like? Why did they grow up to run away and defy their dad? How did they meet the other partner? How did all this, you know, HAPPEN??

And why did Palpatine send an agent to kill them instead of killing/tortuing them himself, since they clearly had info he was interested in? THE FUCK.

I was hoping the Vader mask would finally be destroyed, but NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Lol how Kylo's like "I'm gonna only tell you the rest of the story in person" as if they weren't already fighting face to face in some weird dream-reality hybrid thingy. Kylo, you are so desperate and so so so so dumb.

LOL, Hux being all dramatic here. "I'm the spy!"

This just gets funnier when you remember how Poe trolled the SHIT out of him at the beginning of TLJ, so Poe has NO CLUE (because the writers didn't either until just now, natch), AND why Poe's reaction when Hux says he's gonna "do it himself" (ie, murder Poe) is so on point.

I approve of Rey looting Kylo's room before running off. Too bad she doesn't smash the Vader mask and be done with it. At least Chewie gets his crossbow back.

"I don't care if you win. I need Kylo Ren to lose." 10/10, excellent character motivation, and I approve. Hux is such a bastard and Kylo totally deserves this betrayal. (also: the Imperial philosophy in a nutshell.)

I'm not averse per se to Rey Palpatine, but this way of handling it is total bullshit and an asspull, sigh.

Oh, no, here comes the Force dyad nonsense. "We have no choice but to be together because we're SOULMATES! I'm stalking you because I LOVE YOU and it's DESTINY, Rey!" </sarcasm>

Oh, the destroyer is still in the atmosphere over Kijimi and not in space, I see. getting bespin feels here. This should have happened in the second movie not halfway through the third.

Yup, there's the "join me and rule the galaxy" offer right on cue.

Taking off your mask does not help here, Kylo. No one cares about your puppy dog eyes, you fucking stalker.

yeah, she would have jumped if the Falcon hadn't shown up right at the last minute, lol.

[Honestly, I would have had her jump and land smack on the back of the Falcon, but that may just be my twisted sense of humor talking.]

love kylo's dismay as she gets away. EXCELLENT LEAP. And Finn is wearing an oxygen mask, which is a detail which I <3!

Hux just dies with no drama, which is too bad, but also soooo typical of Imperial/FO management style. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Good thing your pettiness lives on!

(Pryde is clearly the Real Villain now that Hux is Actually Good, I see what you did there.)

I hate how Rey literally shuts Finn out here, when he is TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND REMIND HER SHE'S A GOOD PERSON and Rey is so confused by Kylo's constant gaslighting that she ignores him. Like, psychologically understandable (and sad) but I fucking hate it. Finn deserves so much better than this.

Palpatine talks in Kylo's head... how? why? Why does Palps have this kind of connection with Kylo when he had to make hologram calls to Vader the old-fashioned way? (I know they established at the beginning of the film that they had this relationship, but it's still odd and inexplicable. Like the whole thing that was supposed to make Mara Jade special was that she could hear his voice anywhere in the galaxy... and Kylo's just... got that... for no reason? Because Palps targeted him since he was a kid???

(Keep in mind Kylo was concieved RIGHT AFTER ENDOR, so I dunno what Palps was up to or how long it would take him to get a body or LITERALLY ANY WAY IN WHICH THIS WOULD MAKE LOGISTICAL SENSE.)

It's a moon of Endor, but a DIFFERENT moon of Endor, fine, okay, and we're going to ignore the whole "How did the Death Star ruins get here, anyway?" because that's a world-building problem of an entirely different order of magnitude and just roll with it.

I do believe Rey is mentally running the numbers on Death Star scrap/value of kyber crystals on the open market here, because old habits die hard. And that is such a gorgeous shot, with the cliffs and the churning sea and the ruins.

Oh, I see, the wayfinder was on the moon because it was in the Death Star with Palps and somehow... didn't explode or get sucked out into the vacuum of space. That's a leap, but okay, whatever, fine.

using a macguffin to find another macguffin, wow.

I don't literally don't understand how this dagger is supposed to work as a compass, but fine, whatever. now we will never see it again.

Jannah looks great, I love her character design, but unfortunately, this movie is going to spend very little time exploring the world she lives in because we have to rush onto the next thing, sigh. And apparently, they know about the Resistance! Okay. And they know Babu Frik... or Babu Frik knows them enough to call in some favors...? WHAT.

So it's too dangerous to travel on the water because the waves are so big... which means some killer tides! That is actually interesting, but Rey just overrides everyone and goes anyway (alone!!) so I don't even know why this comes up as an obstacle if it is instantly resolved. This film keeps doing that, and it is not as cute as the director thinks it is.

Finn and Jannah bond over being ex-FO, and this film should spend wayyyy more time on this than it does. THEY BOTH HAD "FEELINGS" ABOUT WHAT WAS RIGHT AND THEY OVERCAME THEIR BRAINWASHING -- Finn is talking about the feeling and calling it "the Force," this is great, AND MY HEART IS DISSOLVING IN A MILLION FEELS AND I JUST... WANT THIS TO FREAKIN' MATTER... why is Finn so sure the Force is real? Faith? Or because he's actually a Jedi, too? (You already know which one I believe here. MAKE HIM A JEDI YOU COWARDS.)

Rey just fucks off and steals Jannah's boat? Where... was it? How did she find it? What... how does that even make sense??

too bad they don't have a working ship, they could just FLY over the ocean instead of surmounting the waves for extra unnecessary drama, lol.

Please keep in mind that Rey grew up in a fucking desert. That she cannot (despite what TLJ might have told you) swim. Yet she is on a boat in an ocean alone. This is a terrible idea. (I'm not going to say it's OOC, because Rey would, in fact, totally do this--just emphasizing how bad an idea this is.)

Finn says, "You have no idea what she's fighting" to Poe... who does know, actually. Kylo tortured him at the beginning of TFA, just like he tried to do later in that film to Rey. Surely Finn should... know this?

If Finn and Poe are going to fight here, fine, this is just a stupid argument. Finn says he and Leia know what Rey is up against and Poe says, I'm not Leia, YES WE NOTICED POE.

Whyyyy is Poe the Team Skeptic here and such a grouch?? not cool.

"That's for damn sure." OH SNAP. And also, actual profanity in Star Wars? Whoa!

Of course Finn is going to go after her.

I will say this: the Death Star ruins look hella cool. also, a nice callback to the beginning of TFA where Rey is exploring the Star Destroyer ruins.

my goodness, the upper arm strength required. I love this scene. they should have made Palpatine's ghost haunting the ruins so we could have the final boss fight here - that would make so much more since than him fucking off to Exegol of all places.

(the ruins are totally my aesthetic, tho.)

And the Sith wayfinder.. is just floating in midair. In the ruins of the Death Star that shouldn't exist. In some sort of chamber with no security whatsoever. wowwwwww. Oh, okay, it's in some sort of suspended chamber thingy, but still.... security measures??

Hey, Rey touches it, and experiences a creepy vision--PSYCHOMETRY, ANYONE? A security measure? Oh, no, just a crazy Force vision... maybe? I don't know anymore. I don't know why.

The double-bladed quarterstaff lightsaber is super cool, though.

Rey fighting her evil self in the crumbling tech ruins is TOTALLY MY AESTHETIC YESSSSSSSSS.

since Rey gets a vision when she touches the wayfinder and is released when she lets go of it, I honestly wonder what the other wayfinder said to Kylo, if he experienced anything when he touched it.

speaking of which, there's kylo! ughhhhh.

Like, literally Rey could have stolen the Sith wayfinder from Kylo if he had left it in his room, and she blew up at least one of his TIE fighters that had it so... I don't even know if Kylo has one anymore. Maybe he doesn't need it? WHATEVER.

Rey is not amused. GIVE ME MY MACGUFFIN!

This is, for the record, the THIRD FIGHT between Kylo and Rey in this film, please just kill him already.

Kylo trying to gaslight Rey about not being a Jedi and how she's proven she's not and she'll disappoint Leia. HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK LEIA FEELS ABOUT YOU, KYLO??? PROJECTING MUCH???

"Like I can't [go back to Leia]." Ooooohhhhhhh, forced teaming there, way to make your move by claiming to show vulnerability. YOU CHOSE THIS. YOU CHOSE THAT PATH. SHE SENT HAN TO BRING YOU HOME AND YOU MURDERED HIM BECAUSE SNOKE TOLD YOU TO SO YOU COULD LEVEL UP IN HIS STUPID DEATH CULT AND SNOKE TURNED OUT TO BE A PUPPET SO IT WAS ALL FOR NAUGHT, YOU ASSHOLE, and NOW YOU'RE TRYING GASLIGHT REY BY PROJECTING YOUR FAILURES ONTO HER.

And he shatters the macguffin rather than let her have it because he's that much of an asshole.

He doesn't pull out his lightsaber until several seconds in, just moves around because he genuinely doesn't want to hurt her even though he just provoked her into losing her temper to prove a point.

It's raining back on Jungle Planet for ATMOSPHERE and Leia is having a Force Vision of DOOOOOOOM, this was oh so clearly supposed to be for Han's death in TFA, but noooooooooooo we're using it here.

(Also, how is it not raining on the tech, I think there are roofs, but it's so hard to tell.)

Maz is so dramatic about this. "Leia knows what must be done, Artoo." Yes, Kylo is going down.

The aesthetics of the ocean ruins fight scene are 100% my jam, not gonna lie, it looks very cool.

So, once again, the Supreme Leader went off on his own... without backup... not even his own private biker gang.... AGAIN. I just.... can't even... what an idiot. What an absolute idiot.

Good thing Finn and Jannah are here, though I doubt the narrative will actually let them do much. I wish Finn and/or Jannah would just shoot Kylo here once Rey gives them an opening, but no, they're just going to stand there helpless.  

I get why Rey pushes them away so Kylo won't use them against her as hostages, but STILL. THERE ARE THREE OF YOU AND ONE OF HIM. USE THAT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE, REY.

drenched unhappy Kylo Ren is excellent, yesssss.

This is the first time I've seen anyone use the Force to halt the blade of a lightsaber... interesting.

Rey is treating her lightsaber like it's one-half of a quarterstaff, I LOVE it, but it also begs the question why didn't she just make a double-bladed saber (with, say, a split kyber crystal from TLJ?) in the first place instead of using a weapon that clearly doesn't work for her as well????

Leia could have reached out to her son at any moment, but she chose not to because she needed to save her strength... but Palps can talk to Kylo across the galaxy and he's fine?? And Kylo and Rey can be in two different places and be just fine (yeah okay, Force dyad soulmates whatever whatever)??? THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

Rey stabbing Kylo with his own damn blade is POETIC CINEMA and also justice. FINALLY.

I think if there were any questions about whether Rey has killed someone, the answer in this scene is no. I can't tell if she's crying for Leia, for shock, for relief, for grief and regret over murdering Kylo, or what.

WHY DOES SHE USE HER LIFE FORCE TO HEAL HIM? WHY? WHY? WHY??????????? (give me a motivation, I dont know what her motivation is here, I dont know why she makes this sacrifice to HIM of all people and I feel like I really should know for this scene to have emotional impact but it doesn't).

LEIA SACRIFICED HERSELF FOR YOU, REY, AND YOU'RE JUST GOING THROW IT AWAY LIKE THIS???

Now, if this movie were actually serious about Kylo and Rey being a Force dyad or two halves of the same whole, then we, the audience, would realize along with Rey that she can't let Kylo die without hurting herself... which I'm not sure I would enjoy, but would at least be COHERENT and fit into the ESTABLISHED WORLDBUILDING even if said worldbuilding is dumb and personally offensive to me. I'M JUST SAYING THERE ARE OPTIONS HERE, YOU TOTALLY HAD OPTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE MADE NARRATIVE SENSE SO I DIDN’T HAVE TO DO IT FOR YOU ON THE SPOT. 

"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." We know that. That was the whole ending of TLJ. Why is this such a shock now??? She already said that at the end of the last movie, so what have we accomplished since? Absolutely nothing has changed on that front, Kylo!!

Also, Kylo--she saved your life when she didn't have to, and you can't even say Thank you? YOU UNGRATEFUL ASSHOLE.

{there's one hour left in this movie WHATTTTTTTTTTTTT how is that even possible}

lol, she just straight up steals his ship.... which is just perched on top of the ruins nearby and hasn't been damaged at all by spray... and which should ALSO have the wayfinder macguffin in it.... so she's going to Exegol, right? The thing she's been wanting to do for the whole movie? The thing that they only have what, four hours left before the attack or whatever?

NOPE. She goes to Ahch-To. Because of course she does.

I hate this fucking movie so much.

[weekendwarriorblog]

The Weekend Warrior 10/13/20: FREAKY, THE CLIMB, MANK, HILLBILLY ELEGY, AMMONITE, DREAMLAND, DOC-NYC and MUCH MORE!

It’s a pretty crazy week for new releases as I mentioned a few times over the past couple weeks, but it’s bound to happen as we get closer to the holiday movie season, which this year won’t include many movies in theaters, even though movie theaters are still open in many areas of the country… and closing in others. Sigh. Besides a few high-profile Netflix theatrical release, we also get movies starring Vince Vaughn, Margot Robbie, Kate Winslet, Saoirse Ronan, Mel Gibson and more offerings. In fact, I’ve somehow managed to write 12 (!!!!) reviews this week… yikes.

Before we get to the new movies, let’s look at a few series/festivals starting this week, including the always great documentary festival, DOC-NYC, which runs from November 11 through 19. A few of the docs I’ve already seen are (probably not surprisingly, if you know me) some of the music docs in the “Sonic Cinema” section, including Oliver Murray’s Ronnie’s, a film about legendary jazz musician and tenor sax player Ronnie Scott, whose London club Ronnie Scott’s Jazz Club has been one of the central cores for British jazz fans for many decades.

Alex Winter’s Zappa is a much more satisfying portrait of the avant-garde rocker than the doc Frank Zappa: In His Own Words from a few years back, but I was even more surprised by how much I enjoyed Julien Temple’s Crock of Gold: A Few Rounds with Shane MacGowan, because I’ve never really been a Pogues fan, but it’s highly entertaining as we learn about the chronically-soused frontman of the popular Irish band.

I haven’t seen Robert Yapkowitz and Richard Peete’s in My Own Time: A Portrait of Karen Dalton, a portrait of the blues and folk singer, yet, nor have I watched Marcia Jarmel and Ken Schneider’s Los Hermanos/The Brothers about two brother musicians separated from childhood after leaving their native Cuba, but I’ll try to get to both of them soon enough.

Outside of the realm of music docs is Ilinca Calugareanu’s A Cops and Robbers Story, which follows Corey Pegues from being a drug dealer and gang member to a celebrated deputy inspector within the NYPD. There’s also Nancy (The Loving Story) Buirski’s A Crime on the Bayou, the third part of the filmmaker’s trilogy about brave individuals in the Civil Rights era, this one about 19-year-old New Orleans fisherman Gary Duncan who tries to break up a fight between white and black teens at an integrated school and is arrested for assaulting a minor when merely touching a white boy’s arm.

Hao Wu’s 76 Days covers the length of Wuhan, China’s lockdown due to COVID-19, a very timely doc that will be released by MTV Documentary Films via virtual cinema on December 4. It’s one of DOC-NYC’s features on its annual Short List, which includes Boys State, Collective, The Fight, On the Record, and ten others that will vie for juried categories.

IFC Films’ Dear Santa, the new film from Dana Nachman, director of the wonderful Pick of the Litter, will follow its Heartland Film Festival debut with a run at COD-NYC before its own December 4 release. The latter is about the USPS’s “Operation Santa” program that receives hundreds of thousands of letters to Santa every year and employees thousands of volunteers to help make the wishes of these kids come true.

Basically, there’s a LOT of stuff to see at DOC-NYC, and while most of the movies haven’t been released publicly outside festivals yet, a lot of these movies will be part of the doc conversations of 2020. DOC-NYC gives the chance for people across the United States to see a lot of great docs months before anyone else, so take advantage of some of their ticket packs to save some money over the normal $12 per ticket price. The $199 price for an All Access Film Pass also isn’t a bad deal if you have enough time to watch the hundreds of DOC-NYC offerings. (Sadly, I never do, yet I’m still a little bummed to miss the 10Am press screenings at IFC Center that keeps me off the streets… or in this case, sitting on my ass at home.)

Not to be outdone by the presence of DOC-NYC, Film at Lincoln Center is kicking off its OWN seventh annual “Art of the Real” doc series, which has a bit of overlap by running from November 13 to 26. I really don’t know a lot about the documentaries being shown as part of this program, presented with Mubi and The New York Times, but check this out. For just 50 bucks, you can get an all-access pass to all 17 films, which you can casually watch at home over the two weeks of the fest.

Okay, let’s get to some theatrical releases, and the one I’ve been anticipating the most (also the one getting the widest release) is Christopher Landon’s FREAKY from Blumhouse and Universal Pictures. It stars Kathryn Newton as Millie Kessler, a high school outcast who is constantly picked on, but one night, she ends up encountering the serial killer known as the “Blissfield Butcher” (Vince Vaughn), but instead of dying when she’s stabbed with a ritual blade. The next morning Millie and the Butcher wake up to discover that they’ve been transported into the body of the other. Oh, it’s Friday the 13th… oh, now I get it… Freaky Friday!

Landon is best known for writing many of the Paranormal Activity sequels and directing Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. Msore importantly, he directed Happy Death Day and its sequel Happy Death Day 2 U, two of my favorite Blumhouse movies, because they so successfully mix horror with comedy, which is so hard to do. That’s what Freaky is all about, too, and it’s even harder this time even though Freaky has way more gruesome and gory kills than anything in Landon’s other films. Heck, many of the kills are gorier than the most recent Halloween from Blumhouse, and it’s a little shocking when you’re laughing so hard at times.

Landon does some clever things with what’s essentially a one-joke premise of a killer in a teen girl’s body and vice versa, but like the Lindsay Lohan-Jamie Lee Curtis remake from 2003, it’s all about the talent of the two main actors to pull off the rather intricate nature of playing humor without losing the seriousness of the horror element.

It may not be too surprising with Vaughn, who made a ton of dramas and thrillers before turning to comedy. (Does everyone remember that he played Norman Bates in Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho and also starred in thrillers The Cell and Domestic Disturbance?) Newton is a bit more of an unknown quantity, but as soon as Tillie dawns the red leather jacket, you know that she can use her newly found homicidal attitude to get some revenge on those who have been terrible to her.

In some ways, the comedy aspects of Freaky win out over the horror but no horror fan will be disappointed by the amount of gory kills and how well the laughs emerge from a decent horror flick. Freaky seems like the kind of movie that Wes Craven would have loved.

I’m delighted to say that this week’s “Featured Flick” is Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin’s indie comedy THE CLIMB (Sony Pictures Classics), a movie that I have seen no less than three times this year, first when it was playing Sundance, a few months later when it was supposed to open in March… and then again last week! And you know what? I enjoyed it just as much every single time. It’s an amazing two-hander that stars Covino and Marvin as best friends Mike and Kyle, who have a falling out over the former sleeping with the latter’s fiancé, and it just gets funnier and funnier as the friends fight and Kyle gets engaged to Marisa (Gayle Rankin from GLOW) who hates Mike. Can this friendship possibly survive?

I really had no idea what to expect the first time I saw The Climb at the Sony Screening Room, but it was obviously going to be a very different movie for Sony Pictures Classics, who had started out the year with so many great films before theaters shut down. (Unfortunately, they may have waited too long on this one as theaters seem to be shutting down again even while NYC and L.A. have yet to reopen them. Still, I think this would be just as much fun in a drive-in.)

The movie starts with a long, extended scene of the two leads riding bikes on a steep mountain in France, talking to each other as Kyle (once the athlete of the duo) has fallen out of shape. During the conversation, Mike admits to having slept with Kyle’s fiancé Ava (Judith Godréche) and things turn hostile between the two. We then get the first big jump in time as we’re now at the funeral for Ava, who actually had been married to Mike. Kyle eventually moves on and begins a relationship with his high school sweetheart Marisa, who we meet at the Thanksgiving gathering for Kyle’s extended family. In both these cases, we see how the relationship between Mike and Kyle has changed/evolved as Mike has now fallen on hard times.

It's a little hard to explain why what’s essentially a “slice of life” movie can be so funny. On one hand, The Climb might be the type of movie we might see from Mike Leigh, but Covino and Marvin find a way to make everything funny and also quite eccentric in terms of how some of the segments begin and end.  Technically, it’s also an impressive feat with the number of amazing single shot sequences and how smooth some of the transitions work. It’s actually interesting to see when and how the filmmakers decide to return to the lives of their subjects – think of it a bit like Michael Apted’s “Up” series of docs but covering a lot shorter span in time.

Most importantly, The Climb has such a unique tone and feel to other indie dramedies we’ve seen, as the duo seem to be influenced more by European cinema than American indies. Personally, I think a better title for The Climb might have been “Frenemied,” but even with the movie’s fairly innocuous title, you will not forget the experience watching this entertaining film anytime soon.

Maybe this should be called “Netflix week,” because the streamer is releasing a number of high-profile movies into theaters and on the streaming service. Definitely one of the more anticipated movies of the year is David Fincher’s MANK, which will get a theatrical release this week and then stream on Netflix starting December 4.

It stars Gary Oldman as Herman Mankiewicz, the Hollywood screenwriter who has allowed himself to succumb to alcoholism but has been hired by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write his next movie, Citizen Kane, working with a personal secretary Rita Alexander (played by Lily Collins). His story is told through his interactions with media mogul William Hearst (Charles Dance) and relationship with actress and Hearst ingenue and mistress, Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried).

It I were asked to pick one director who is my absolute favorite, Fincher would probably be in my top 5 because he’s had such an illustrious and varied career of movie styles, and Mank continues that tradition as Fincher pays tribute to old Hollywood and specifically the work of Orson Welles in every frame of this biopic that’s actually more about the troubled writer of Citizen Kane who was able to absorb everything happening in his own Hollywood circles and apply them to the script.

More than anything, Mank feels like a movie for people who love old Hollywood and inside Hollywood stories, and maybe even those who may already know about the making of Welles’ highly-regarded film might find a few new things to appreciate. I particularly enjoyed Mankiewicz’s relationships with the women around him, including his wife “Poor Sarah,” played by Tuppence Middleton, Collins’ Rita, and of course, Seyfried’s absolutely radiant performance as Davies.  Maybe I would have appreciated the line-up of known names and characters like studio head Louis B Mayer and others, if more of them had any sort of effect on the story and weren’t just

The film perfectly captures the dynamic of the time and place as Mank is frequently the only honest voice in a sea of brown nosers and yes-men. Maybe I would have enjoyed Oldman’s performance more if everything that comes out of Mankiewicz’s mouth wasn’t an all-too-clever quip.

The film really hits a high point after a friend of Mank’s commits suicide and how that adds to the writer’s woes about not being able to save him. The film’s last act involves Mank dealing with the repercussions after the word gets out that Citizen Kane is indeed about Hearst.

Overall, Mank is a movie that’s hard to really dig into, and like some of Fincher’s previous work, it tends to be devoid of emotion. Even Fincher’s decision to be clever by including cigarette burns to represent Mank’s “reels” – something explained by Brad Pitt in Fight Club – just drives home the point that Mank is deliberately Fincher’s most meta movie to date.

You can also read my technical/crafts review of Mank over at Below the Line.

Ron Howard’s adaptation of JD Vance’s bestselling memoir HILLBILLY ELEGY will be released by Netflix into theaters ahead of its streaming debut on November 24. It stars Amy Adams and Glenn Close, but in honesty, it’s about JD Vance, you know, the guy who wrote the memoir.  The film follows his younger years (as played by Owen Asztalos) while dealing with a dysfunctional white trash family in Middletown, Ohio, dealing with his headstrong Mamaw (Close) and abusive mother dealing with drug addiction (Adams).  Later in life, while studying at Yale (and played by Gabriel Basso), he has to return to his Ohio roots to deal with his mother’s growing addiction that forces him to come to terms with his past.

I’m a bit of a Ron Howard stan – some might even say “an apologist” – and there’s no denying that Hillbilly Elegy puts him the closest to A Beautiful Mind territory than he’s been in quite some time. That doesn’t mean that this movie is perfect, nor that I would consider it one of his better movies, though. I went into the movie not knowing a thing about JD Vance or his memoir but after the first reviews came out, I was a little shocked how many of them immediately went political, because there’s absolutely nothing resembling politics in the film.

It is essentially an adaptation of a memoir, dealing with JD Vance’s childhood but then also the past that led his mother and grandmother down the paths that made his family so dysfunctional. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between the older Vance and his future wife Usha (as played by Freida Pinto) earlier in their relationship as they’re both going to Yale and Vance is trying to move past his family history to succeed in the realm of law.

It might be a no-brainer why Adams and Close are being given so much of the attention for their performances. They are two of the best. Close is particularly amusing as the cantankerous Mamaw, who veers between cussing and crying, but also has some great scenes both with Adams and the younger Vance. The amazing special make-up FX used to change her appearance often makes you forget you’re watching Close. I wish I could say the same for Adams, who gives such an overwrought and over-the-top performance that it’s very hard to feel much emotionally for her character as she goes down a seemingly endless vortex of drug addiction. It’s a performance that leads to some absolute craziness. (It’s also odd seeing Adams in basically the Christian Bale role in The Fighter, although Basso should get more credit about what he brings out in their scenes together.)

Hillbilly Elegy does have a number of duller moments, and I’m not quite sure anyone not already a fan of Vance’s book would really have much interest in these characters. I certainly have had issues with movies about people some may consider “Southern White Trash,” but it’s something I’ve worked on myself to overcome. It’s actually quite respectable for a movie to try to show characters outside the normal circles of those who tend to write reviews, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the movie might be able to connect with people in rural areas that rarely get to see themselves on screen.

Hillbilly Elegy has its issues, but it feels like a successful adaptation of a novel that may have been difficult to keep an audience invested in with all its flashbacks and jumps in time.

Netflix is also streaming the Italian drama THE LIFE AHEAD, directed by Edoardo Ponti, starring Oscar-winning actress Sophia Loren, who happens to also be the filmmaker’s mother. She plays Madame Rosa, a Holocaust survivor in Italy who takes a stubborn young street kid named Momo (Ibrahima Gueye), much to both their chagrin.

I’ll be shocked if Italy doesn’t submit Ponti’s film as their choice for the Oscar’s International Film category, because it has all of the elements that would appeal to Oscar voters. In that sense, I also found it to be quite traditional and formulaic.  Loren is quite amazing, as to be expected, and I was just as impressed with young Ibrahima Gueye who seems to be able to hold his own in what’s apparently his first movie. There’s others in the cast that also add to the experience including a trans hooker named Lola, but it’s really the relationship between the two main characters that keeps you invested in the movie. I only wish I didn’t spend much of the movie feeling like I knew exactly where it’s going in terms of Rosa doing something to save the young boy and giving him a chance at a good life.

I hate to be cynical, but at times, this is so by the books, as if Ponti watched every Oscar movie and made one that had all the right elements to appeal to Oscar voters and wokesters alike. That aside, it does such a good job tugging at heartstrings that you might forgive how obviously formulaic it is.

Netflix is also premiering the fourth season of The Crown this week, starring Olivia Colman as Queen Elizabeth and bringing on board Gillian Anderson as Margaret Thatcher, Emma Corin, Helena Bonham Carter, Tobis Menzies, Marion Bailey and Charles Dancer. Quite a week for the streamer, indeed.

Another movie that may be in the conversation for Awards season is AMMONITE (NEON), the new film from Francis Lee (God’s Own Country), a drama set in 1840s England where Kate Winslet plays Mary Anning, a fossil hunter,  tasked to look after melancholic young bride, Charlotte Murcheson (Saoirse Ronan), sent to the sea to get better only for them to get into a far more intimate relationship.

I had been looking forward to this film, having heard almost unanimous raves from out of Toronto a few months back. Maybe my expectations were too high, because while this is a well-made film with two strong actors, it’s also rather dreary and not something I necessarily would watch for pleasure. The comparisons to last year’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire (also released by NEON) are so spot-on that it’s almost impossible to watch this movie without knowing exactly where it’s going from the very minute that the two main characters meet.

Winslet isn’t bad in another glammed-down role where she can be particularly cantankerous, but knowing that the film would eventually take a sapphic turn made it somewhat predictable. Ronan seems to be playing her first outright adult role ever, and it’s a little strange to see her all grown-up after playing a teenager in so many movies.

The movie is just so contained to the one setting right up until the last 20 minutes when it actually lives the Lyme setting and lets us see the world outside Mary’s secluded lifestyle.  As much as I wanted to love Ammonite, it just comes off as so obvious and predictable – and certainly not helped by coming out so soon after Portrait of a Lady. There’s also something about Ammonite that just feels so drab and dreary and not something I’d necessarily need to sit through a second time.

The animated film WOLFWALKERS (GKIds) is the latest from Tomm Moore and Ross Stewart, directors of the Oscar-nominated Secret of the Kells (Moore’s Song of the Sea also received an Oscar nomination a few years later.) It’s about a young Irish girl named Robyn (voiced Honor Kneafsey) who is learning to be hunter from her father (voiced by Sean Bean) to help him wipe out the last wolf pack. Roby then meets another girl (voiced by Eva Whittaker) who is part of a tribe rumored to transform into wolves by night.

I have to be honest that by the time I got around to start watching this, I was really burnt out and not in any mood to watch what I considered to look like a kiddie movie. It looks nice, but I’m sure I’d be able to enjoy it more in a different head (like watching first thing on a Saturday morning).

Regardless, Wolfwalkers will be in theaters nationwide this Friday and over the weekend via Fathom Events as well as get full theatrical runs at drive-ins sponsored by the Landmark, Angelika and L.A.’s Vineland before it debuts on Apple TV+ on December 11. Maybe I’ll write a proper review for that column. You can get tickets for the Fathom Events at  WolfwalkersMovie.com.

Next up is Miles Joris-Peyrafitte’s DREAMLAND (Paramount), starring Margot Robbie as Allison Wells, a bank-robbing criminal on the loose who encounters young man named Eugene Evans (Finn Cole) in rural Dust Bowl era North Dakota and convinces him to hide her and help her escape the authorities by taking her to Mexico.

Another movie where I wasn’t expecting much, more due to the generic title and genre than anything else, but it’s a pretty basic story of a young man in a small town who dreams of leaving and also glamorizes the crime stories he read in pulps. Because of the Great Depression in the late ’20, the crime wave was spreading out across the land and affecting everyone, even in more remote locations like the one at the center of Dreamland.

The sad truth is that there have been so many better movies about this era, including Warren Beatty’s Bonnie and Clyde, Lawless and many others. Because of that, this might not be bad but it’s definitely trying to follow movies that leave quite a long shadow. The innocent relationship between Eugene and Allison does add another level to the typical gangster story, but maybe that isn’t enough for Dreamland to really get past the fact that the romantic part of their relationship isn’t particularly believable.

As much as this might have been fine as a two-hander, you two have Travis Fimmel as Eugene’s stepfather and another generic white guy in Garrett Hedlund playing Allison’s Clyde Barrow-like partner in crime in the flashbacks. Cole has enough trouble keeping on pace with Robbie but then you have Fimmel, who was just grossly miscast. The film’s score ended up being so overpowering and annoying I wasn’t even remotely surprised when I saw that Joris-Peyrafitte is credited with co-writing the film’s score.

Dreamland is fine, though it really needed to have a stronger and more original vision to stand out. It’s another classic case of an actor being far better than the material she’s been given. This is being given a very limited theatrical release before being on digital next Tuesday.

This might have been Netflix week, but maybe it could have been “Saban Films Week,” since the distributor also has three new movies. Actually, only two, because I screwed up, and I missed the fact that André Øvredal’s MORTAL was released by Saban Films LAST week. Not entirely my fault because for some reason, I had it opening this week, and I only realized that I was wrong last Wednesday. Oh, well.  It stars Nate Wolff as Eric Bergeland, an American in Norway who seems to have some enigmatic powers, but after killing a young lad, he ends up on the lam with federal agent Christine (Iben Akerlie from Victoria).

This is another movie I really wanted to like since I’ve been such a fan of Øvredal from back to his movie Trollhunter. Certainly the idea of him taking a dark look at superpowers through the lends of Norse mythology should be right up my alley. Even so, this darker and more serious take on superpowers – while it might be something relatively unique and new in movies – it’s something anyone who has read comics has seen many times before and often quite better.

Wolff’s character is deliberately kept a mystery about where he comes from, and all we know is that he survived a fire at his farm, and we watched him kill a young man that’s part of a group of young bullies.  From there, it kind of turns into a procedural as the authorities and Akerlie’s character tries to find out where Eric came from and got his powers. It’s not necessarily a slow or talkie movie, because there are some impressive set pieces for sure, but it definitely feels more like Autopsy of Jane Doe than Trollhunters. Maybe my biggest is that this is a relatively drab and lifeless performance by Wolff, who I’ve seen be better in other films.

Despite my issues, it doesn’t lessen my feelings about Øvredal as a filmmaker, because there’s good music and use of visual FX -- no surprise if you’ve seen Trollhunters -- but there’s still a really bad underlying feeling that you’re watching a lower budget version of an “X-Men” movie, and not necessarily one of the better ones.  Despite a decent (and kinda crazy) ending, Mortal never really pays off, and it’s such a slog to get to that ending that people might feel slightly underwhelmed.

Seth Savoy’s ECHO BOOMERS (Saban Films) is a crime thriller based on a “true story if you believe in such things,” starring Patrick Schwarzenegger as Lance, a young art major, who falls in with a group of youths who break into rich people’s homes and trash them, also stealing some of the more valuable items for their leader Mel (Michael Shannon).

There’s a lot about Echo Boomers that’s going to feel familiar if you’ve seen Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring or the heist movie American Animals from a few years back, but even with those similarities, Seth Savoy has a strong cast and vision to make more out of the fairly weak writing than another director might manage. Schwarzenegger, who seems to be pulling in quite a wide range of roles for basically being another generic white actor is only part of a decent ensemble that includes Alex Pettyfer as the group’s ersatz alpha male Ellis and Hayley Law (also great in the recent Spontaneous) as his girlfriend Allie, the only girl taking part in the heists and destruction. Those three actors alone are great, but then you add Shannon just doing typically fantastic work as more of a catalyst than an antagonist.

You can probably expect there will be some dissension in the ranks, especially when the group’s “Fagan” Mel puts Lance in charge of keeping them in line and Allie forms a friendship with Lance. What holds the movie back is the decision to use a very traditional testimonial storytelling style where Lance and Allie narrate the story by relaying what happened to the authorities after their capture obviously. This doesn’t help take away from the general predictability of where the story goes either, because we’ve seen this type of thing going all the way back to The Usual Suspects.

While Echo Boomers might be fairly derivative of far better movies at times, it also has a strong directorial vision and a compelling story that makes up enough for that fact.

In theaters this Friday and then On Demand and Digital on November 24 is Eshom and Ian Nelms’ action-comedy FATMAN (Saban Films/Paramount), starring Mel Gibson as Santa Claus and Walton Goggins as the hired assassin sent to kill him by a spoiled rich boy named  Billy (Chance Hurstfield) who unhappy with the presents he’s being brought for Christmas.

While we seem to be surrounded by high concept movies of all shapes and sizes, you can’t get much more high concept than having Mel Gibson playing a tough and cantankerous* Kris Kringle (*Is this the week’s actual theme?) who is struggling to survive with Mrs. Klaus (played by the wonderful Marianne Jean-Baptiste from In Fabric) when they’re given the opportunity to produce military grade items for the army using his speedy elf workshop. Unbeknownst to the Kringles, the disgruntled hitman who also feels he’s been let down by Santa is on his way to the North Pole to fulfill his assignment.

You’ll probably know whether you’ll like this movie or not since its snarkier comedic tone is introduced almost from the very beginning. This is actually a pretty decent role for Gibson that really plays up to his strengths, and it’s a shame that there wasn’t more to it than just a fairly obvious action movie that leads to a shoot-out. I probably should have enjoyed Goggins more in a full-on villainous role but having been watching a lot of him on CBS’ The Unicorn, it’s kind of hard to adjust to him playing this kind of role.  I did absolutely love Marianne Jean-Baptiste and the warmth she brought to a relatively snarky movie.

I’m not sure if Fatman is the best showing of Eshom and Ian Nelms’ abilities as filmmakers, because they certainly have some, but any chance of being entertaining is tamped down by a feeling the filmmakers are constantly trying to play it safe. Because of this, Fatman has a few fun moments but a generally weak premise that never fully delivers. It would have thrived by being much crazier, but instead, it’s just far too mild.

Malin Åkerman stars in Paul Leyden’s CHICK FIGHT (Quiver Distribution) as Anna, a woman unhappy with her life and inability to survive on the little money she makes at her failing coffee shop. When Anna’s lesbian traffic cop friend Charleen (Dulcé Sloan) takes her to an underground fight club, Anna her trepidation about joining in, because she has never been in a fight in her life.  Learning that her mother has a legacy at the club, Anna agrees to be trained by Alec Baldwin’s always-drunk Murphy in order to take on the challenges of the likes of Bella Thorne’s Olivia.

Another movie where I’m not sure where to begin other than the fact that I’m not sure I’ve seen a movie trying so hard to be fun and funny and failing miserably at both. Listen, I generally love Akerman, and I’m always hoping for her to get stronger material to match her talents, but this tries its best to be edgy without ever really delivering on the most important thing for any comedy: Laughs.  Sure, the filmmakers try their best and even shoehorn a bit of romance for Anna in the form of the ring doctor played by Kevin Connolly from Entourage, but it does little to help distinguish the movie’s identity.

Listen, I’m not going to apologize for being a heterosexual male that finds Bella Thorne to be quite hot when she’s kicking ass in the ring. (I’m presuming that a lot of what we see in her scenes in the ring involves talented stuntwomen, but whoa! If that’s not the case.) Alec Baldwin seems to be in this movie merely as a favor to someone, possibly one of the producers, and when he disappears with no mention midway through the movie, you’re not particularly surprised. Another of trying too hard is having Anna’s father Ed (played by wrestler Kevin Nash) come out as gay and then use his every appearance to talk about his sex acts.  Others in the cast like Fortune Feimster seem to be there mainly for their bulk and believability as fighters.

Ultimately, Chick Fight is a fairly lame and bland girl power movie written, directed and mostly produced by men. I’m not sure why anyone might be expecting more from it than being a poorly-executed comedy lacking laughs.

And yet, that wasn’t the worst movie of the weekend. That would be Andrzej Bartkowiak’s DEAD RECKONING (Shout! Studios). Yes, the Polish cinematographer and filmmaker who once made the amazing Romeo is Bleeding, starring Gary Oldman and Lena Olin, has returned with a movie with the onus of a premise that reads “a thriller inspired by the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.” No, I did not make that up. It mostly takes place in Nantucket, Massachusetts, which I guess is sort of close to Boston, but instead it focuses on the relationship between teens Niko (K.J. Apa) and Tillie (India Eisley), the latter whose parents died in a plane crash that might have been caused by a terrorist. It just so happens that Niko’s brother Marco (Scott Adkins) is an Albanian terrorist. Coincidence? I think not!

Once you get past the most generic title ever, Dead Reckoning is just plain awful. I probably should have known what to expect when the movie opens with Eric “Never Turned Down a Job” Roberts, but also, I strong feel that Scott Adkins, better known for his martial arts skills, is easily one of the worst actors ever to be given lines to say in a movie. And yet, somehow, there are even worse actors in this movie. How is that even possible?

Although this presumed action movie opens with one of three or four fight sequences, we’re soon hanging out on the beach with a bunch of annoying teenagers, including Tillie, who is drowning the sorrow of recently losing her parents by literally drinking constantly in almost every single scene. When she meets the handsome Eastern European Niko, we think there’s some chance of Tillie being saved, but it isn’t meant to be.

Part of what’s so weird is that Dead Reckoning begins in territory familiar to fans of Barkowiak’s movies like Exit Wounds, Cradle 2 the Grave and Maximum Impact but then quickly shifts gears to a soppy teen romance. It’s weird enough to throw you off when at a certain point, it returns to the main plot, which involves Adkins’ terrorist plot and the search by FBI Agent Cantrell (played by James Remar) to find the culprit who killed Tillie’s parents. Oh, the FBI agent is also Tillie’s godfather. Of course, he is.

Beyond the fact that I spent much of the movie wondering what these teens in Nantucket have to do with the opening scene or the overall premise, this is a movie that anything that could be resembling talent or skill in Barkowiak’s filmmaking is long gone. Going past the horrendous writing – at one point, the exasperated and quite xenophobic Cantrell exclaims, “It’s been a nightmare since 9/11... who knows what's next?” -- or the inability of much of the cast to make it seem like anyone involved cares about making a good movie, the film is strangled by a score that wants to remind you it’s a thriller even as you watch people having fun on the beach on a sunny day.

Eventually, it does get back to the action with a fight between Cantrell and Marco… and then Marco gets into a fight with Tillie’s nice aunt nurse Jennifer where she has a surprisingly amount of fighting skills. There’s also Nico’s best friend who is either British or gay or both, but he spends every one of his scenes acting so pretentious and annoying, you kind of hope he’ll be blown up by terrorists. Sadly, you have to wait until the last act before the surfboards are pulled out.  (Incidentally, filmmakers, please don’t call a character in your movie “Marco,” especially if that character’s name is going to be yelled out repeatedly, because it will just lead to someone in the audience to yell out “Polo!” This is Uwe Boll School of Bad Filmmaking 101!)

The point is that the movie is just all over the place yet in a place that’s even remotely watchable. There even was a point when Tillie was watching the video of her parents dying in a car crash for the third or fourth time, and I just started laughing, since it’s such a slipshod scene.

It’s very likely that Dead Reckoning will claim the honor of being the worst movie I’ve seen this year. Really, the only way to have any fun watching this disaster is to play a drinking game where you take a drink every time Eisley’s character takes a drink. Or better yet, just bail on the movie and hit the bottle, because I’m sure whoever funded this piece of crap is.

Opening at New York’s Film Forum on Wednesday is Manfred Kirchheimer’s FREE TIME (Grasshopper/Cinema Conservancy), another wonderful doc from one of the kings of old school cinema verité documentary filmmaking, consisting of footage of New York City from 1960 that’s pieced together with a wonderful jazz score. Let me tell you that Kirschheimer’s work is very relaxing to watch and Free Time is no exception. Plus the hour-long movie will premiere in Film Forum’s Virtual Cinema, accompanied by Rudy Burckhardt’s 1953 film Under the Brooklyn Bridge which captures Brooklyn in the ‘50s.

Also opening in Film Forum’s Virtual Cinema Friday is Hong Khaou’s MONSOON (Strand Releasing) starring Henry Golding (Crazy Rich Asians) as Kit, who returns to Ho Chi Minh City for the first time since his family fled after the Vietnam War when he was six. As he tries to make sense of it, he ends in a romance with Parker Sawyers’ American ex-pat and forms a friendship with a local student (Molly Harris). Unfortunately, I didn’t have the chance to watch this one before finishing up this column but hope to catch soon, because I do like Golding as an actor.

I shared my thoughts on Werner Herzog and Clive Oppenheimer’s FIREBALL: VISITORS FROM DARK WORLDS, when it played at TIFF in September, but this weekend, it will debut on Apple TV+.  It’s another interesting and educational science doc from Herr Herzog, this time teaming with the younger Cambridge geoscientist and “volcanologist” to look at the evidence left behind by meteors that have arrived within the earth’s atmosphere, including the races that worship the falling space objects.

Opening at the Metrograph this week (or rather on its website) is Shalini Kantayya’s documentary CODED BIAS, about the widespread bias in facial recognition and the algorithms that affect us all, which debuted Weds night and will be available on a PPV basis and will be available through November 17. The French New Wave anthology Six In Paris will also be available as a ticketed movie ($8 for members/$12 for non-members) through April 13. Starting Thursday as part of the Metrograph’s “Live Screenings” is Steven Fischler and Joel Sucher’s Free Voice of Labor: The Jewish Anarchists from 1980. Fischler’s earlier doc Frame Up! The imprisonment of Martin Sostre from 1974 will also be available through Thursday night.

Sadly, there are just way too many movies out this week, and some of the ones I just wasn’t able to get to include:

Dating Amber (Samuel Goldwyn) The Giant (Vertical) I Am Greta (Hulu) Dirty God (Dark Star Pictures) Where She Lies (Gravitas Ventures) Maybe Next Year (Wavelength Productions) Come Away (Relativity) Habitual (National Amusements) The Ride (Roadside Attractions, Forest, ESX) Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey (Netflix) Transference: A Love Story (1091) Sasquatch Among the Wildmen (Uncork’d) All Joking Aside (Quiver Distribution) Secret Zoo (MPI Medi Group/Capelight Pictures)

By the way, if you read this week’s column and have bothered to read this far down, I think you’re very special and quite good-looking. Feel free to drop me some thoughts at Edward dot Douglas at Gmail dot Com or drop me a note or tweet on Twitter. I love hearing from readers … honest!

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael in the Mainstream - Spider-Man: Far From Home/Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

It really is a good time to be a Spider-Fan.

This guy is hitting all the right notes lately: he’s got a great video game beloved by all who plays it, he’s one of the golden boys of the MCU after only a handful of appearances, and he featured in one of, if not THE greatest animated movie of all time. Now if only his comics would undo One More Day and they renewed Spectacular Spider-Man and gave it the finale it deserves, things would be absolutely perfect.

So with me being a big Spider-Man fan, I think it’s about time I talked about his greatest cinematic achievments: Into the Spider-Verse and Far From Home. That’s right, Spidey is so good he’s conquered two mediums and delivered his best stories within a year of each other. My only regret is not talking about both of these films sooner, but I suppose that just gives me the opportunity to praise them both at once.

The greatest common factor these two movies have between each other, and what makes both films infinitely relatable and entertaining, is how both films feature a young protagonist who has great responsibility thrust upon them and they must find some way to deal with it. In the case of Peter, he is saddled with the pressure of being able to live up to his mentor, Tony Stark, in the wake of Endgame’s finale and Tony’s sacrifice. Frankly, Peter just wants to be a normal teenager, get the girl, and have a good vacation – it’s perfectly understandable, and while it may come off as a bit selfish, Peter is still a young man, a young man who has suffered through numerous traumas in his life and is probably upset he can’t just be normal for once. Of course over the course of the film he remembers that with great power comes great responsibility, and he rises up to save the day.

Miles, on the other hand, while initially a bit confused and unsure of himself and what to do, really does want to live up to the memory of Spider-Man, who he only knew a brief time before his death. However, he lacks training, he doesn’t understand his own powers, and he just lacks faith in himself. The entire movie builds up his character, his relationships to others, and all he does so that moment when he takes his “leap of faith” is well-earned and solidifes the moment when he goes from merely being a Spider-Boy to truly earning the name of Spider-Man. I find it very interesting how the two Spider-Men in the two best Spidey movies have sort of opposite motivations – one is being crushed by the pressure to be a world-saving hero while only wanting to be normal, while the other wants to live up to the destiny thrust upon him but initially lacks the skill and finesse to do so – before coming to the same sort of ending. More than the man in the comics who sold his marriage to a demon because he couldn’t deal with the consequences of his actions, these Spideys realize the immortal phrase from Uncle Ben that I need not repeat.

Of course, what would a hero be without a villain to oppose them? Thankfully, both films deliver some of the best superhero movie villains anyone could ask for. Far From Home is a bit more focused, giving us one major antagonist: Mysterio, in the least shocking movie twist of all time. But it truly is a testament to how great an actor Jake Gyllenhaal is and how good a character Mysterio is that he is able to sell you on all of his hero garbage right up until the reveal, and even afterwards he never once drops that affable charm and charisma that belies his true nature as a petty sociopath. Mysterio has always been a character who has struggled to find good use in the comics due to writers not knowing how to use him; he does not have that problem here.

Into the Spider-Verse, on the other hand, goes for what most Spider-Man movies tend to do: cram a bunch of villains in and see what sticks. Thankfully, they manage to hit home runs three out of six times and only whiff twice. Let’s get the less impressive villains out of the way first: Tombstone and Scorpion. While Scorpion’s design is cool and he gets some decent fight scenes, he really could be swapped out with a generic mook and it really wouldn’t make any difference either way. Tombstone, on the other hand, is an absolutely pointless waste of a character, which is a real shame. He’s the bodyguard for a guy who killed Spider-Man with his bare hands and has superhumans and cyborgs under his employ, he’s frankly a bit superfluous. Green Goblin is the only middle ground villain, one who isn’t amazing but is certainly cool enough in his own right to leave an impression despite only having a single scene. His monstrous design really goes a long to selling his threat level and his brutal fight with the original Peter really is impressive. Sadly, he dies at the end of the fight and is quickly overshadowed.

Then we have the two side villains that really work: Prowler and Dock Ock. Prowler is the obvious one, as due to him being Miles’ uncle he adds a sort of tragic emotional connection, one that is only exacerbated once Prowler hesitates in killing his nephew and ends up becoming Miles’ stand-in for Uncle Ben. Dock Ock is a bit surprising, seeing as she is a somewhat unique take, essentially a genderbent original character version of Otto Ocatavius, complete with all that implies (yes, I am talking about the relationship with Aunt May). She’s been the big breakout villain of the movie, and with good reason: she’s cool, she’s cunning, and she’s hot, all hallmarks of a quality villain beloved by the masses.

And then we come to the big one, and I do mean big: Kingpin. Here, his size and intimidation is played up for all its worth, turning him into an absolute mountain of a man and giving him one of the slickest designs I have ever seen. He’s a brutal, ruthless thug, but he’s also given a legitimately tragic and heartbreaking reason to his actions, and while it certainly doesn’t redeem him, it does make him an interesting and complex character. If nothing else, it’s just really nice to see Liev Schreiber finally get to be the villain in a good superhero movie and a good animated movie villain, after getting the shaft in both regards on two previous occasions.

The ensemble casts of both films are great. Far From Home ropes in Maria Hill and Nick Fury, and finally gives Hill some more to do while letting Fury have a lot more fun and taking a more direct approach than usual. Aside from that, all the returning characters are improved – Happy is nicer, funnier, and a better mentor; Dash is still a jerk but he’s toned down and has a bit of tragedy to him; and MJ is fleshed out, given a personality, and has excellent chemistry with Peter. And then there is Peter’s best buddy Ned, who gets ne of the funniest romantic arcs I have ever seen in a movie. And I’d be remiss to not mention Peter’s bumbling teachers, who deliver some more top quality humor to the proceedings. I think it would be best to state now that Far From Home is honestly really funny, with pretty much all of its humor hitting the bullseye, and a lot of that has to do with just how well these people play their parts and dive into their characters with the sort of fun conviction you’d want out of Spider-Man characters.

Into the Spider-Verse has the heavily advertised Spider-Ham, Peni Parker, and Spider-Man Noir, but they actually only appear in the last third of the film and really only stick around to showcase how good the animation can handle other styles, fuel jokes, and help fight in some awesome fight scenes. Frankly, this is enough; they don’t really stick around long enough to overshadow Miles, but they’re also around just long enough to establish personalities and endear themselves to the audience. Out of the three, I find Peni to be the least interesting due to changing her mecha’s design from the more Evangelion-esque one from the comics as well as her just not really grabbing my attention all too much, but it’s easy to see why she has fans. Personally, I preferred the cartoony antics of Spider-Ham and the noir-tinged grittiness of Noir. Also, Noir is voiced by Nicolas Cage and Ham is John Mulaney. It would be a challenge for me to not love them.

The major supporting characters are Peter B. Parker and Gwen Stacy, and both manage to be great in their own right while, again, not overshadowing Miles, with Peter especially being an absolute blast, giving us the miserable, chubby, downbeat Peter we never knew we needed and having him go through a full arc of his own where Miles helps him overcome his hangups as much as Peter helps Miles. Gwen is a fun character, but she sadly doesn’t get quite as much of an arc as Peter, but that will definitely be expanded upon in sequels; she’s still a solid sidekick here. The rest of the supporting cast, such as Miles’ dad, are solid characters, and the film also gives what may be the best version of Aunt May ever (though all Aunt Mays are great and let no one tell you different); I don’t really think the supporting cast is quite as good as Far From Home’s overall, but it certainly does have memorable characters that will stick with you.

Before wrapping up, I of course have to address this: Spider-Verse has some of the most amazing animation I have ever seen. It truly captures that look of being taken right from a comic book, and there are just so many clever visuals and shots that it’s simply astounding. This is the pinnacle of CGI, and revolutionary in the field of stylized CGI. I hope other studios take notes on how to make CGI look good and stylish like this.

Into the Spider-Verse is just a stunning piece of animation. It has good characters, a solid plot, a lot of great humor, a lot of great emotion, and some really decent morals, all while paying tribute to the comics and the Raimi films and giving us some closure by adapting bits of the unused Raimi Spider-Man 4. It’s a beautiful tribute to everything we know and love of Spider-Man while also being a fantastic “passing the torch” story that gives Miles his own time to shine in the spotlight. This movie is basically what Big Hero 6 tried to be, but where that movie kind of stumbled over itself and felt more like a TV pilot for a series on the big screen, this feels like a fully fledged story unto itself. It also has one of the most beautifully poignant Stan Lee cameos ever, as well as what may be the greatest joke in Spider-Man history after the credits. If you love Spider-Man, see this movie. If you love animation, see this movie. If you love movies, see this movie. This might very well be the greatest animated film of all time, and it deserves to be seen.

Far From Home, meanwhile, is a fantastic achievement in live action Spidey cinema. It gives us a wonderful supporting cast, a love interest who actually has chemistry and isn’t a boring damsel that disgraces the name of her comic counterpart, an awesome villain, and genuine funny moments, and for once all of these things are in the same moment! This really solidifies MCU Spider-Man as being a fun, fresh take on a character who has been done to death in almost every medium; it keeps most of what we love while changing some details here and there so that Spider-Man can resonate more with modern audiences. What they do change tends to be for the better, too – I really have no problem, unlike a lot of people, with Tony “taking Uncle Ben’s place,” for a variety of reasons but not the least of which is the fact I’m frankly tired of seeing Uncle Ben die. Having him merely be the long dead motivator for Peter’s early heroics is enough for me. This is absolutely peak MCU, and a fantastic epilogue to the Infinity Saga. If you’re invested in the MCU or Spider-Man at all, this movie will be right up your alley. If you still need more convincing: they combined Raimi Jameson and PS4 Game Jameson into a character, and Simmons still plays him.

Both of these films are the cream of the crop when it comes to cinematic versions of Spider-Man, with Far From Home sitting comfortably up there with Spider-Man 2, if not surpassing it, and Into the Spider-Verse frankly taking on a league of its own, Both projects really alter the course of what can be done with Spider-Man, and it has me excited for all the future works involving the Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man we might be seeing soon. With Spider-Verse getting sequels and spinoffs and Far From Home absolutely getting a sequel, it’s safe to say that anyone who loves Spidey will have plenty to love for years to come. And the best part is we will never have to worry about either Spidey making deals with Mephisto.

[buddaimond]

Pattinson's High Life. Actor on challenges and rewards of Claire Denis' space drama 

by Amber Wilkinson (Eye for Film UK)

Robert Pattinson was in San Sebastian last week to attend screenings of Claire Denis' latest film High Life, alongside co-stars Juliette Binoche and Mia Goth. The film tells the story of man who finds himself isolated in deep space with only his baby daughter for company, flashing back to consider what happened on this ship full of ex-convicts, including the feisty Boyse (Goth), overseen by a doctor (Binoche) obsessed with inseminating the female members of the crew and with extracting semen from Pattinson's abstemious Monte.

Catching up with Pattinson in a suite at the city's exclusive Marie Cristina Hotel, I ask him about how challenging building a relationship with the baby (Scarlett Lindsey) was, given that the first act of the film is just the two of them alone in space. It turns out it was just as difficult as you might imagine.

"I always thought the character was supposed to be a lot weirder than it ended up becoming," he says. "We'd already cast these identical twins for the babies. I met them the night before and there were two things. They were constantly with their mum and twins. You might have thought identical twins would be good because if one's not working you get another in to do the same thing. But no one figured out that if you split up twins who are constantly with each other, they go crazy.

"The night before, I was trying to bond with these kids for two-and-a-half hours and the only way I could make them even slightly happy was to pretend to be a monster. They weren't even happy, they would just stop crying for one second and scream instead. I was like, 'This is not going to work, unless you want to have an entire movie with a baby that's looking absolutely terrified.' So we cast Scarlett, who's one of my best friend's kids like the night before we started shooting and, so, I didn't want to be horrible to her because she's my friend's kid."

He says he had met the tot previously, when she was very young, adding, "Well, she didn't cry",  but it was still a full-on job and not just when it came to acting.

"With this, it was kind of in the morning when she first left her parents she kind of cried for about 30 minutes but then she was fine. But if I gave her back to her parents then there would be the same process again. So it ended up being that I would babysit her the entire day - and it's not even normal babysitting because she could never cry ever, so I was with her for hours, so if there was the slightest hesitation or the tiniest bit of a tear coming on, I was like [Pattinson makes playful baby noises]. It was absolutely exhausting but it definitely ends up adding to their relationship. I really didn't want her to be upset, whereas in the script my character was much more indifferent."

The British actor says that he "prioritised" the film, which was in development for five years. "I was initially going to do The Lost City Of Z with James Gray and they almost overlapped and that shows because it was ages ago when I did that," he adds.

"There are certain directors who I would kind of cancel everything else for. James Gray was kind of one of them too. I don't know how ready I was but I just knew that I wanted to do it."

Pattinson, whose career has taken a much more adventurous trajectory since he found fame as vampire Edward Cullen in the Twilight series, says: "I couldn't really have had a more perfect career. To have that crazy explosion which was great fun. I really liked making all the Twilight movies which were great fun. Then to basically transition as soon as it ended to doing exactly what I wanted to do - I couldn't have asked for more."

The 32-year-old reveals that his experience of working with David Cronenberg on Cosmopolis "changed everything about how I go after different filmmakers".

"He randomly came to me," he says. "I'd never met him. I found the initial email exchange with my agents the other day and I was saying, 'I don't think I should do it, I'm going to mess it up.' I was trying to get out of it. I don't remember that at all, and I got really convinced into doing it.

"But with Clare, I said I wanted to work with her years before I even met her and it took ages for a meeting to happen and years after that for the movie to happen."

The list of directors he's also like to work with includes Catherine Breillat, Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Audiard and Leos Carax. Speaking about the way his attitude changed towards the shaping of his career after working with Cronenberg, he adds: "I thought I had to have more control before".

"I would make decisions where I was thinking I had a more direct relationship with the audience rather than the directors. So I did [fiml]Bel Ami[/film]. It was the only time I really thought I'd try to subvert the audience's expectations. Because, at the time I had Twilight which has a very female audience so I thought it would be kind of funny to play a part that was specifically screwing over women and stealing their money. I was thinking I shouldn't rely on myself, I should work with people who are cleverer than me. After working with Cronenberg, I didn't know how to do the movie at all. I was avoiding rbrn talking to him. When I finally talked to him, I said, 'I'm sorry, I've been nervous to talk to you because I don't really know what the movie's about about' and he said, 'Yeah, me neither'. But he said, 'It's kind of juicy, right?' It's a cool thing. As soon as I realised that, whenever I watched a movie that had a big impact on me, I'd immediately go after the person and I still do that now."

Speaking about working with Brady Corbet on Childhood Of A Leader, he adds: "I'm always a little bit wary of working with first-time directors because I don't know how to judge someone at all, I'm really bad. Every director is good in a meeting. But with Brady I'd just know him for such a long time - since I was 14 - and anyone could tell you that he was a savant. I like people who really feel that there's a particular imprint that they put on a movie. With Cronenburg and Clare it just feels like a very specific world they've built - it doesn't just feel like they've recorded some stuff happening and just stuck it together, it feels like a world that's existing and it's contained in the movie."

As for the less mainstream nature of his more recent films, he says: "I don't feel like I'm 'properly' arthouse - these are big names. I don't feel like I'm trying to be super-obscure.

"I think most super-commercial movies, generally the directors have only done TV commercials before or they are random people. With mainstream movies, I feel like I've seen them all before. The amount of scripts you get that are quite formulaic and I don't know what the point is."

With High Life, he says: "I had no idea what to expect. I had no expectations in a really good way. If you see a director who has made Beau Travail - I could look at that and feel so much from that movie without really knowing what it is saying at all. But I just know it's great. So I just very much trusted in whatever Claire wanted to do with it. The first time I saw it, I definitely found it funnier than I expected. Nobody is finding it funny but the first two times I watched it I was crying laughing."

And, like many before him who have worked with the French director, he is full of praise for her.

"She's just a unique person," he says "I'd met up with her tons of times over the years before we started doing it. I just loved hanging out with her, she can be so kind of warm but at the same time, just so weird. She'll pick subjects out of nowhere and I've never met anyone like her. On set, she's just very funny. No one quite knew what the story was about but there was so much faith in her. It was an interesting work environment where no one's trying to sabotage it. Normally, if a director couldn't fully explain exactly how they want things to be done, a lot of the time actors will start going, 'You don't know what you're doing, this is going to be shit.' and then they start protecting themselves and their performance. There wasn't a single day, no matter how strange the subject matter got, it seemed that everyone was very supportive of the movie. That's because of Claire, she inspires that a lot. She's a very sweet person."

He says he wishes that the directors he works with had more of an audience but is self-deprecating when I suggest that he brings fans along with him to his films.

"Like 10 people," he says "I think the majority of people who would go and see this are people who like Claire, adding, "I hope that every movie I do that it starts to create a sort of expectation that I only do stuff that's trying to be interesting."

[anokayblogaboutdating]

the use of liberalism to attract my liberal ass

holla out to all my liberal ladies out ttttthhhhhheeeeerrrrreeeee!

can I hear you say “don’t reel me in with your socially conscious views to get laid” 

yeaaahhhhhhh!!

so I went out on a date on Sunday, in fact I actually went out on TWO dates on Sunday but the second one is going to be a different post. this story is kind of funnier anyway so you’ll enjoy it, I promise. 

I was feeling pretty damn confident: two dates in one day, living my 20s, bein’ a cool, single lady. For the first date, we were going to meet at a hip coffee shop in a trendy part of town. It was a bit of a drive for me but I didn’t mind because he had been very funny and charming, making clever jokes and complimenting me through message. He also seemed like he had some pretty solid perspectives on feminism and the patriarchy (often referring to himself as a “straight white dude” in a self-aware way). In retrospect, a very dumb thing to be THE thing to be sticking out as attractive but alas, this is why i’m writing this so just stay with me girlfriend, we will GET THERE. 

One thing I want everyone to remember about this is that we are meeting in the morning (11am) and we are in a coffee shop. Very important details. Continuing on...

I always get to dates early from tinder/bumble/hinge because I hate the idea of having to be the person who recognizes someone from their picture, second guess myself, feel awkward in the space. A long explanation to essentially say, I get there, get settled, order my drink etc. so I don’t have to be an anxious wreck. 

He walks in.

He waves and stands in line for coffee.

He’s cute! I message all my friends in our group chat, almost a live tweet if you will.

“He’s so cute!!!”

“OMG GIRL GET IT” or something like that from all my friends who see it.

Okay, good boost of confidence. Put my phone down, he sits down with his coffee.

We got along GREAT. I brought up I had started watching season 3 of queer eye and we chatted about it for probably a good 20 minutes. We agreed season 3 has a bit of a more “manufactured” way to it than the previous seasons. We talk about loving the episode with the black lesbian. 

We talked about film, and very niche film at that! I was super impressed at his knowledge. We talked about his cool job that allows him to travel and camp all over the world. He’s an educated, intelligent guy.

Then, we talked about housing, how expensive it is, la la la, oh he lives near by? do I want to go check out his place?

He made it clear he wasn’t “trying to make a move or anything”, he insisted he just has an awesome place and wanted to show it off. He did have cheap rent, I was curious. 

Now I know what you’re thinking. You idiot. I know. But in my defence I wasn’t going in totally oblivious, I knew the situation could evolve but I sort of believed him that it wasn’t a move because he seemed so LIBERAL and would not POSSIBLY ***LIE*** to another liberal! Liberal codeeee bro! 

Anyway, it was a lie.

We were sitting on his couch, apart but facing each other, he brewed me bengal spice tea, we chatted about music, he put on his record player (damn, he’s a good little hipster boy). Very friendly conversation. 

Suddenly, he was closer, he was footsie-ing me, his hand was on my thigh, it was moving up my thigh... WHOA WHOA WHOA... I moved back. I laughed, uncomfortably. He said “Oh, sorry! I don’t have to... ah..”

I cut him off- “it’s okay! I’m sorry”(dammit why do women always appologize for men’s stupid actions)

he sort of took that as an invitation to keep going. and to be honest, I did want to kiss him so I leaned in. It was enjoyable at first! Although he did have a slobbery kiss which is just too much on a Sunday morning. 

but then it kept going farther and farther. I realized his intention was not a cute make out sesh. 

suddenly his hand was in my bra some how and I was at his mercy on his couch. I stopped, and I forced him to eat some honesty pie:

“if we go farther, will you ever call me again?”

he backed off: “honestly, you’re cute and I will probably call you once or twice but with the lay of my life, I can’t be committed to anyone”

“uh huhhhh”

He says, “I guess we should just call it right now then”

“yep”

I leave his okay-looking bachelor apartment and we go our separate ways.

Here’s what I think. I know i’ve painted him in a pretty bad light at this point, but I don’t think this guy is a bad human being, rather, radically unaware of his own privilege as much as he pretends to be a cool, liberal guy.

Here’s what bothered me the most about this:

1. on my profile on hinge, I clearly have “looking for... Relationship” he just ignored that...

2. he invited me to get COFFEE in the MORNING on a SUNDAY(god’s day...)

He reeled me in with his liberalism to get me to sleep with him. 

I think the moral of this story is, never go over to a boy’s house on the first date (I broke this rule twice in one day, read next post for more details) and also to remember that someone’s political introspection does not make them holier than thou or even interesting! This was a dude who proved himself to be unkind, rude and a liar, all in one fell swoop. Not really who i’d want to date anyway.

All in all, I wasted about two hours of my time and had to deal with excessive slobber for a good 15 minutes. (god I hate bad kissers) .

It’s a story for the ages.

I’m going to end the post here because it’s getting too long and it actually relates to date number TWO and I will elaborate more on political views and dating in a more meaningful way (but still with dumb jokes, don’t worry).

END OF PART ONE... PART TWO COMING SOON!

[jisungshotfirst]

bias tag 💕

I did this yesterday but it didn’t save coz tumblr is shiiity (sorry tumblr i don’t mean it please don’t delete my blog.

tagged by @ultminsung thank you <333 anyway, here’s me being really gay x

1. who is your bias?

jisungiee

2. how long have you biased them?

I can’t really remember, a couple months now

3. what is their zodiac sign?

virgo

4. what is your favourite thing about them?

just one?? I love his humour sooo much he’s hilarious. And he’s an idiot most of the time but is really clever when it comes to kindness - tapping the beat on Minho’s hand

5. emoji you associate with them?

💛🍫☀️

6. colours that remind you of them?

orange ad yellow 

7. one gift you would give them?

hugggssss. Also a chocolate cake or anything chocolate coz he’s still petty about the one that melted

8. what song would you listen to with them?

show tunes! we’d butcher defying gravity together x also I just have a feeling he’d love Roaring 20s by Panic! at the Disco so yeh

9. movie you would watch with them?

Studio Ghibli <3 also any comedy where he can make comments that are funnier than the actual film 

10. what flowers remind you of them?

sunflowers and orange tulips

11. what made you fall for them?

he was so caring in the show- with Minho and Jeongin. And he was just adorable in it. Also the K-Rush interview made me laugh for a week.

12. dream date you would go on?

Watching a Broadway show! or just cuddling 

13. who would be more clingy?

probably me and that’s saying a lot coz he’s a koala

14. one thing you want them to know?

that I love him so so so much and that he’ll always have my love and support! And that I’m so proud of him x

15. who falls asleep first on facetime?

Idk, I’m not always great at staying awake so probably me

16. place you’d like to go with them?

cat cafe so I can die of cuteness

tagging: @funkylittlebisexualsworld (regret asking me now hah) @hyun-jean @bcjhope @tikism @koalasblogsposts @koalapilikseu @theworldcant-stopus @ultminseok <333 

[bluezey]

Bluesy ramblings about Spongebob SquarePants

@scribblinglee made a post about Spongebob as a cartoon currently, and it's basically what I hear about a lot. Usually people who talk about the show miss the older seasons and believe the current seasons are hollow or utter trash. Which makes me think, where do I fit in this? Because, I'm not sure myself. So, I thought I decide to talk about my experience with the show.

So, Spongebob began in 1999. And, here's where things get interesting from my perspective: I was a freshman in high school at the time. Maybe that's not weird cause the show can reach teenagers and adults, but I dunno, it still baffles me. And what did I think of the show when it came out? I thought it was a good show. I wasn't obsessed with it, it lived it, but I did see it's potential. I liked it enough to watch it and have a few favorite episodes. One was Pizza Delivery. I think one reason I liked it was how in the end of the episode Squidward stood up for SpongeBob. He does in other episodes, but how he did it in this one felt perfectly Squidward. Another all time favorite of mine was Band Geeks, but that's for a biased reason as I was a band geek in high school. So, seeing an episode about a marching band was awesome to me, and also amazing as I don't remember watching another cartoon that focused on marching bands. While in the end it didn't show off marching bands as accurately, compared to the movie Drumline, Band Geeks was as accurate as band geeks are gonna get. Also, I love the ending of the episode, and how Squidward came out on top.

You know, I'm noticing now that even back then I may have found a favorite character with Squidward. I have my reasons for liking him now, but back then I had no favoritism, I just liked him out of the others. My best guess was even back then his character seemed to be the straight man of the series. He was gruff and mean, but you could sympathize with him as you can tell he got that way from life beating him down when he chased his dreams, while others kept chasing their dreams in the show and not getting much of a beating from life. I think Squidward was and is representing how jaded adults got after trying to pursue their dreams, and every decade I'm seeing people become jaded sooner in life, even before they graduate high school.

But, back to the show. The episodes were funny, clever at times, and even brash with it's humor. I mean, looking back, they got away with a lot of crap in the early seasons. Like the Christmas episode has aired fir nearly two decades, and every year they get away with blatantly calling Squidward a jackass. Oh, and how Sailor Mouth got away with swearing, and the infamous cut scene from Just One Bite and how it managed to make it to air for a while before being cut from future airings. And the characters were loveable, funny and relateable, but if I had to make one critique they did hammer in one particular aspect of their personality. It didn't make them one dimensional, but enough that we only knew Spongebob as happy, Patrick as dumb, Krabs as money loving, Sandy as a cowgirl and Squidward as grumpy. The one who barely had a blatant personality trait to me was Plankton, and that's barely as his motivation for being the villain flipped between evil and jealousy. One episode he just wants the formula to destroy the Krusty Krab, and another episode it's world domination. But they weren't blatant flaws, just little speed bumps that kept a great show from being perfect.

Now I remember watching the Spongebob SquarePants movie in 2005 on DVD, and I thought it was fun and simple like the show. But, I'll admit, as we went into the era of seasons 5-8, I did see a slump in in the show. But, believe it or not, I couldn't grasp why. I just assumed it was going through the same slump all shows go through when they've been on the air for that long. Every show hits their slope, and usually it's a sign that the show would end if it didn't hit that upswing back to what it once was. But, looking back, I can see the problems some fans gripe about. Mr Krabs got a little too greedy for money that he came off as evil as Plankton at times. Patrick would be mean, and at first I thought it was because he was too dumb to know any better, but there are times when even I couldn't see that as an excuse. I mean bratty toddlers don't know right from wrong, but eventually someone would step in and talk some sense into the kid. Squidward kept getting brow beaten by life for seemingly no reason. I mean, I actually believe Squidward getting the shirt end of the stick would work if he did something to deserve it. Like in Scavenger Pants, the more dangerous the tasks he gave the two, the bigger his coneuppance. But in these seasons, most of the time he didn't do anything to get what life gave him, so the joke fell flat because it was a punchline with no setup. And, yeah, eventually it just look like cruel torture at his expense. But, despite these major flaws and the show losing it's spark, I could still see it's potential. It had it's okay episodes, some good episodes, and even some jokes that would get a big laugh. I could still see effort, and the crew trying to make the show work. So while many call seasons 5-8 it's dark times, I just see it as a rough patch. This was after the creator left, and the show was showing that they were running out of ideas.

So, eventually I stopped watching Spongebob around season eight. Now, you may think it's because I gave up on the show. But, funny enough, it was an outside source that pulled me away from the show, as well as Nickelodeon. That's when my college roommates introduced me to Cartoon Network, and their shows were better, funnier and more bizarre than what Nick was making at the time. So I quit watching Spongebob and whatever Nicktoons the network was trying or failing with, and was watching shows like Kids Next Door, Camp Lazlo, Foster's, and Ed, Edd and Eddy. Oh, Chowder and Flapjack too. And, they still had reruns of Courage and the Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, and I was surprised with how much Cartoon Network got away with such scares.

So, for years I was watching Cartoon Network. I went through it's dark times of CN Real, and it's next generation of classic cartoons such as Adventure Time, Regular Show and Steven Universe. While I switched over to Nick for Avatar and Monsters vs Aliens (I liked the DreamWorks movie and Dr Cockroach okay? Also Staabi was a great character too), I hardly ever saw Spongebob, and when I did catch it it was an episode I saw before.

I did come back to the show, and how is kinda as strange as how I left it. It was also kinda an outside force. It was when I saw the cast of the Spongebob musical perform Bikini Bottom Day at the Macy's Parade. After that, it was a full month of following clips and pictures from the musical, until I came to a point where I needed more, but the bootleg wasn't out yet. (By the way, I keep losing my link to the bootleg!! Can someone link me a good copy of the Broadway show so I can FINALLY see this thing??) So, I went back to the show by watching a livestream on YouTube, full of never seen episodes from seasons nine and ten. And guys, it's like seeing the light of heaven. This is Spongebob! This is the show! They got back on track and are making new episodes for a new generation!

Okay, now that we got my initial reaction out of the way, let's talk about seasons 9-11. First, drastic change in animation. But, you have to expect that for being on for twenty years. There's a wider aspect ratio, and the animation is now digital. But, it's not that distracting, it's just the show, only brighter and bouncier. Now, the controversial thought, I like the bouncy animation. It reminds me of bouncy animation from the 50s, 60, hell, even 90s, and Spongebob is a 90s show. Is it reminding me of Ren and Stimpy? Only because Ren and Stimpy does bouncy, expressive and over detailed still. If anything, the bright and bouncy reminds me more of Superjail. Nice to know where those animators went. (Oh, can we have the Warden guest star?) The characters are back to how they started, mostly. Patrick can be mean, but usually he's just dumb. Krabs isn't mean for money, but damn is he still hungry for it. Squidward gets some torture, but now there's setup and reason. Also, he's not tortured in every episode he's in. Mustard O'Mine had him following along, hell he was happy at times. Mermaid Pants may had him grumpy, but man was his shift at the end perfect! Pate Horse, horse puns. Squid Noir. Squid Noir. Other changes, I can see they're being inventive. Some shows are mixing up character dynamics. At least two episodes have Squidward and Plankton. One episode had Sandy and Karen. An upcoming episode has Squidward and Pearl. Hell, Mall Girl Pearl was all Pearl. They're doing small things that surprisingly make a big difference. For example, Spongebob isn't always happy. Yeah, he can not be happy, like sad, but it was so rare yes almost one dimensional. In Drive Happy, however, we see him get sad, tired and even pissed. In Old Man Patrick, he starts acting like an adult when babysitting the old folks at Bun E Buns. And back to Squidward, but did you know he's germophobic, claustrophobic, allergic to nuts and snails (but he can handle one or two snails in a room) and apparently has an inking problem. Okay, I could go on and on about this part, now controversial thanks to Ink Lemonade, but did you know Stephen Hillenberg himself wanted ink jokes to begin with? The biggest character change I believe is Plankton. Ever since Sponge Out of Water (and yes, I saw that too, a lot, Nick plays it every other week) Plankton has become somewhat of a friend, at least with Spongebob. Sure he's the villain, but Spongebob sees him as a friend who happens to be a competitor, and I think the others do too since the second film. I mean, Grandmum's the Word would never had worked before the second film.

So, we've gone from classic from the 90s, to so downhill that I switched to Cartoon Network, to back to it's original stride. But, is it the same show or us it a hollow shell? Guys, it's neither. Spongebob has gone through a lot of development over the years. It's had it's golden times, it's been out of ideas, it's had it's instant classic and it's blunders. The characters are still the same, but if they appear different it's because they've been through a lot. We all act different after twenty years of life's crap. And yes, to reiterate, this show has been on for twenty years!! It has it's own big task of changing for a new generation while entertaining the old one. It needs to bring in new viewers while keeping the old ones. It needs to be fresh and relevant while remaining classic and timeless. It will follow the trend of theonth, but it will try not to steer too far from it's core of being a 90s cartoon. Will it lose viewers? Yeah. It even lost me for a time. Will it deserve it? No. Even it's bad episodes have a silver lining. Did you know I watched a list of dark kids episodes where the reviewers said good things about Are You Happy Now? (Please send all flames to where they will most likely ignore you https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXwhVUWwHlM) Through it's ups and downs, Spongebob's going to be on for years. But, just years. Sadly, the creator has ALS, and if the show doesn't retire after the creator does, every show has to end sometime. But through it's ups and downs, and even the praise and criticisms, we can all agree that fans young and old will enjoy the ride.

[concerningwolves]

For your line up: do you maybe have any advice about writing comedy/funny scenes/comedic relief? I'm sure there's a ton of unfunny writers like me out there who'd appreciate some tips :)

Sorry this is taking so long! I’ve had this ask in my inbox for a long time, but the thing is I, too, struggle with comedy. I do it sometimes, but don’t know how I’ve done it, so this took quite a bit of thinking through.

You’re usually a lot funnier than you think you are, that’s the first thing. Writing humour isn’t something that you can force, because a forced joke is never funny. It comes weirdly naturally to a lot of people, and they just don’t see it.

Some things you can do to improve are by consuming a lot of comedy. Books, TV series, films, talk shows… and not doing that passively, either! Really consider what makes them funny: is the way they talk, the dialogue, the sarcasm, what? Take notes, mentally or physically, and experiment in applying them to your own writing. I read a lot of books that were exclusively in the comedy section, including Apathy and Other Small Victories, and am currenly binge-watching Brooklyn Nine-Nine “as research”.

There are all kinds of comedy and hundreds of ways to make something funny. Look at the TV show Supernatural, which is horror- but there are plenty of inside jokes, fourth wall breaks, one-liners and comic relief characters (although, be careful to avoid harmful things with those, such as “dumb, fat kid”. Spn blunders on that)  which mean that you get a few good laughs each episode. A step on from that is dark comedy, bitter humour, self-deprication: the kind of stuff that fuels the negative depression meme culture on here, but can also make for really funny characters when handled carefully in small doses. The kind of dry humour that leads to a character going “Fun, I’ve always wanted to know what a dead body smells like.” as they haul the corpse out of the room, whistling mock-cheerfully.

You can also do what I call extended comedy, which is where the whole situation is funny. A good example is As You Like It, a Shakespeare play, which as well as being littered with jokes and political satire, is also based on a mass confusion of cross-dressing, coincidences and confused or mistaken identity. This employs a very powerful comedy technique, dramatic irony, where the audience knows something that none of the characters do. In this case, the identity of the characters. Admittedly, this is designed to be done on stage, but you can also apply it to your writing–but be careful, dramatic irony can also be used to create tension (the readers know that there is a monster behind the door, but the character doesn’t).

You would also need to consider what audience your book is aiming for. Teenagers and young adults generally appreciate an odd mix of really immature humour, refined wit and lots of sarcasm. Younger readers will laugh at more simple things, such as tabboo language (remembering that things like the cheese-touch are still more important to their age group than school, which really carried along the Diary of a Wimpy Kid books). Adults in their middle-ages and into elderly years would usually look for more blatant wit, not always clever humour, but definitely sophisticated. They also seem fond of the shock factor, which I’ve noticed only ever works as a comedic device on older members of my family. Siblings and younger friends don’t find that one very funny.

A blend of all of them also works, which is why Shakespeare’s comedies are still so successful. They appeal to everyone.

Finally, pick where and when to drop the funnies. A lot of humour and comedy is situational. For example, when walking my dog and talking to other dog owners, we laugh a lot about really random things like “Oh look, he’s interested in the ball.. he’s going, nope. Eating it!” and in the situation, that’s hilarious. Out of the situation, to someone who has never experienced it? Not so much, or at least, not in the same way. So get your readers invested in the same thing as the character so that the readers and character find humour in the same things.

Similarly, if there has been a moment of high tension, a bit of comic relief through teasing or cheeky dialogue is always good.

This is the best that I can offer. Hope it helps!

[academiablogs]

Writing is Writing it Over Again

(Fox’s The Orville, which takes its cues from many sci-fi series)  Every writer—if you’ve written long enough—knows this moment: the moment where you’re watching a movie, or perhaps just reading a book, and there it is. Your story. Your idea. Your character. Your dialogue. Not that it’s been stolen from you, but you both lucked on the same source of inspiration; they just beat you to it.

For me, it was a situation—a humorous moment that two characters found themselves in, which led to very awkward dialogue that made the situation even funnier. And I had imagined it all. Some contextual details aside, it was more or less the same scene, with quite similar dialogue, though with a slightly different conclusion. My story—almost my words. And now I couldn’t use them. Or I could, but it would forever be in the shadow of the previous work, which would lead to a profoundly guilty conscience.

Even if I did pass it off as my own, the internet is keen to point out unoriginal premises, such as when a recent (and very clever) episode of The Orville borrowed an idea from the show Black Mirror. Comment after comment accused the show of plagiarism, of being derivative, of how much better the “original” was…though, sadly, that idea was not coined by the writers of Black Mirror, and must have been used in countless science fiction stories over the years (for those interested, check out The Orville, Season 1, Episode 7, “Majority Rule”).  Indeed, with the encyclopedic knowledge of the average fan, as well as the endless database that is the internet, why would anyone want to risk writing a story that might be—that will be—that already is a copy of a copy of a copy?

But is it a copy if you’ve never seen the original? Certainly it’s not plagiarism, but if you luck on a story that borrows ideas and twists from another show, or a story now out of print for 60 years, should you hastily withdraw from the scene with a desperate mea culpa? If so, then where would the apologies end? The simple truth is that every story is an act of unconscious plagiarism, borrowing the essence of a thousand stories that preceded it. Characters are traded like faded playing cards, used year after year in a kindergarten classroom. And plots—well, they’re like faces, which repeat in an endless loop, making a hundred year-old photograph or a five hundred year-old painting look like your best friend’s mother.

Let’s face it, the very act of writing is derivative, since self-expression goes back to the very idea of history itself. We tell stories to be remembered, and to remember ourselves. In general, we all want to remember the same things: acts of love and heroism, moments of greed and sacrifice, and the five or six dick jokes that never get old (even Shakespeare enjoyed them). With so many books telling so many stories, most of them more or less the same, is there really any reason to keep going? In the past, when books vanished through war or were devoured by time, it made more sense: books had to be replaced, stories needed to be retold, particularly when so much literature only existed in the mind’s and voices of nomadic storytellers.

(The forefather of borrowed plots, revisited characters, and dick jokes). In the 21st century, however, nothing gets lost: a hundred years of books are jockeying for space in used bookstores, while a hundred million more are waiting to be downloaded, with new ones published by the second (or milisecond). It is the nature of literature to help us remember, but how many reminders do we truly need? Aren’t a hundred thousand—even a million—books sufficient to jar our memory of the basics: that we’re human, we’re flawed, we’re capable of the greatest evils and the greatest triumphs, and we love a good dick and fart joke?

The same question has been asked throughout history; no doubt the Sumerians (who invented pretty much everything known to man) asked themselves, “haven’t all the songs been sung? What more could any human say about his or her adventures?” After all, Gilgamesh not only fought all the monsters on earth but also stormed the Underworld to rescue his best friend from the jaws of death. What more could you conjure up for a sequel? So if we drained the well a good five or six thousand years ago, shouldn’t we throw in the towel? It’s not like we’ll ever be at a loss for good books, and there’s more authors than we could ever discover or five or six lifetimes devoted solely, and slavishly, to reading.

The answer is a surprisingly simple one: storytelling is an art. And all art is a language, something that must grow and develop through speech and intercourse with the world. If we stopped writing words themselves would grind to a halt. We would probably stop reading, too. Once books become museum pieces, something we once did when we had more to say, they will no longer seem relevant. The beauty of art is that it’s a living conversation: we all add to it, even by reading and discussing it with others (particularly those of us in college, since college is an embodiment—even a metaphor—of the process of art).

The struggle of art is to find new ways to keep it relevant and meaningful to a new generation. We do that, largely, by writing new books on old themes; old characters in new worlds; timeless love affairs with modern mores. The story remains the same, but the readers are ever-changing. Even to read a book changes what it was, since every new generation reads with fresh eyes and different voices in their heads. Writing a new book based on a timeless folktale makes us read the original anew. We see how the modern author interprets it, and writes it into existence by a careful act of addition and subtraction. This doesn’t negate the original or exalt the revision. They exist together, like father and son, mother and daughter, or better yet, siblings; they both share the same DNA, even if it speaks a different language.

In fact, one work can help us translate the other—and we can go in either direction. Too often, we’re taught to see works as existing in a vacuum, each one “original” or “derivative,” and the greatest works betray the greatest originality. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Both Shakespeare and Chaucer pilfered nearly all their plots, carefully cherry-picking through the annals of Greek and Italian literature for the ripest fruits. To be sure, they took these threadbare plots (some of them very homely) and built them into towers that could be seen for a thousand generations. Even Chaucer’s most original creation, The Wife of Bath, tells a story of King Arthur that was second-hand in the 14th century.

At its heart, writing is more a response than an act of creation, so the more you know the conversation, the easier it is to write. Shakespeare wanted to write poetry, to create dialogue, to make audiences laugh; why waste time concocting an original plot that might do none of these things, when he had Boccaccio or Ovid for inspiration? In this sense, we’re the luckiest generation of writers: for we have everything to draw from. Every writer who ever drew breath, every story, every poem, every play, every biography. All we have to do is find the best ones (and they’ve been carefully curated for us by generations of scholars and critics) and write a love letter in response.

The best works, after all, are affairs of the heart, written not to this or that person, but to the works we first fell in love with. Look at the recent Netflix smash, Stranger Things, which is almost scholarly in its homages to every great 80’s horror and science fiction film large and small. To me, nothing is more Shakespearean: give the audience what it wants, but remind us why we want it. Once you figure that out, the rest is just taking dictation. 

But be warned: taking something apart is much easier than putting it back together. We can easily see how a Shakespeare play is composed of iambic pentameter and a plot of mistaken identities; but trying to make it sing is alchemy of a higher order. Perhaps that’s the real reason we keep writing in defiance of time and an increasing volume of books: to convince us that it can actually be done, by mere mortals, writing against time and advancing senility.

[justanothercinemaniac]

Epic Movie (Re)Watch #192 - Robin Hood: Men in Tights

Spoilers Below

Have I seen it before: Oh yes

Did I like it then: It’s grown on me.

Do I remember it: Yes.

Did I see it in theaters: No.

Format: DVD (although we watched my brother’s blu-ray copy)

1) Watching this film is a tradition to do on my brother’s birthday (which was in August but I’m behind on my rewatch posts). We’ve been doing it for 9 years (give or take a year) and it kinda grows on you.

2) I’m a sucker for 4th wall breaks in movies, so the numerous ones in this film are appreciated.

3) Honestly, the rapping which bookends the film feels like a misguided attempt by Mel Brooks to make the film “hip”. It just doesn’t really work and doesn’t feel like it belongs in a Mel Brooks bit.

4) There are actually quite a few clever gags in this film. A lot of them come from the very first scene in Jerusalem’s prison with Robin and Falafel.

(GIF source unknown [if this is your GIF please let me know].)

5) Cary Elwes as Robin Hood.

Elwes was cast in The Princess Bride back in 1987 because of his “Errol Flynn” like quality. Now he plays a role which is one of Flynn’s most iconic. He commits to the part in the grandest of Mel Brooks’ tradition, as set before by Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein and Bill Pullman in Spaceballs. Elwes’ Robin is wonderfully buffoonish and ridiculous, with most of the humor coming from his lack of self awareness. It would be easy for an insecure actor to give a wink to the audience that lets them know he’s aware they’re stupid, but Elwes isn’t afraid of appearing idiotic. He embraces it. Robin should come across as an idiot. That’s the gag!

6) I relate to Achoo so much.

Robin [while going into a fight]: “Watch my back!”

[Robin gets hit in the back twice.]

Achoo: “You’re back just got hit twice.”

Robin: “Thank you.”

7) Dave Chapelle as Achoo.

Chapelle’s ability to play the straight man in this film is absolutely amazing. A legendary comic, Chapelle basically represents the audience. I mentioned that Robin is blissfully unaware of the foolishness in his life, but Achoo is hysterically aware of it. He’s observations are comedically wonderful and just all around inspired. Chapelle is a wonderful addition to the cast.

8) Blinkin, the blind butler.

The film is able to take an absurd concept that was taken so seriously in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and take it to its naturally funny punchline. While many of Blinkin’s jokes may fall flat, his overall presence is appreciated and does lend to some nice comedy all around.

9) Robin losing everything he loved shouldn’t this funny.

(Screenshot taken of a GIF set originally made by @thorinss)

10) I despise the Home Alone “joke” this film makes. It is the first in a long line which shows that just because you make a pop culture reference doesn’t mean you’re being funny.

11) Roger Rees as the Sheriff of Rottingham

Roger Rees is the definite scene stealer of the show, outshining even Dave Chapelle’s Achoo. He is able to take ownership of every moment he’s in by playing the Sheriff as a bigger idiot than even Robin to a wonderfully hysterical degree. I got a chance to see Rees on stage before his passing (when he played Gomez Addams in The Addams Family) and I could see from that his comedic talent was not only limited to his work with Mel Brooks. All in all, for me, Roger Rees will always be my favorite performance in the film.

12) Amy Yasbeck as Marion.

Yasbeck - like Elwes - commits to the silliness of Marion. Although more of a spoof than a character at times, it’s a damn good spoof. By taking aim at old school “fair maiden” tropes and sort of the humorous daintiness of that, Yasbeck is able to hold her own against Elwes and the insanity of a Brooks’ movie.

13) Richard Lewis as Prince John.

If the Sheriff of Rottingham is the evil version of Elwes’ Robin (in his embracing of the character’s foolishness) then Roger Lewis is the evil version of Achoo. He plays it modern, very aware of kind of the idiocy around him, and casual to the point of funny. He has the ridiculously strong chemistry with Roger Rees which makes all their scenes a treat and all in all totally fun.

14) Tracy Ullman as the witch/cook Prince John goes to in times of need and she’s fine enough in the part. It’s not exactly a fountain of character writing but she’s funny enough and works with the part well.

Prince John [after Latrine says her family changed the name when they came to England]: “You changed it TO Latrine?”

Latrine: “Yeah. Used to be shit house!”

Prince John [after nodding]: “Good change!”

14.1) Also, Latrine promises to make a magic potion that’ll make Robin worthless if Prince John puts in a good word for her with Rottingham. He agrees and then…it never comes up again. At all. It’s like the scene never happened. And I’m just like…

15) Hey, that’s Erik Allan Kramer!

16) The bow staff fight between Robin and Little John is actually pretty clever, primarily because of just how funnily it deteriorates into a slapping game.

17) Remember what I mentioned in note #10? Well, we get these two “jokes” back to back.

Will Scarlett: “My full name is Will Scarlett O’Hara. We’re from Georgia.”

Achoo [after Robin fails to jump on his horse]: “Man, white men can’t jump.”

Repeat after me: making a pop culture reference is not the same as making a joke.

18) However, this is pretty funny.

According to IMDb:

The gag about Robin being able to speak with an English accent is a reference to Kevin Costner's performance in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991). Unfortunately viewers who saw both movies in a dubbed version couldn't get this gag. For the German dubbed version the gag was changed to: "because I - unlike some other Robin Hood - do not cost the producers 5 million". The German word "kosten" (cost) was also pronounced to sound a little bit like Costner. In the French (France) and Italian (Italy) dubbed versions, it is translated as, "Because unlike other Robin Hoods, I do not dance with the wolves", referring to another Kevin Costner movie Dances with Wolves (1990). In Quebec, the translation becomes "Because unlike other Robin Hoods, I accept to wear tights," which refers to the fact that Costner didn't wear tights in the 1991 movie. In the Hungarian version, he says "Because unlike Kevin Costner, I have a shapely bottom," a reference to the infamous fact that Costner used a body double in the nude scene.

19) The castle fight has a number of clever bits but some could’ve been cut in support of pacing. The scene as a whole drags at times and can come across as dull instead of fun like it should be. Tightening it up may have helped.

20) If only for Dave Chapelle’s Malcolm X impression, this is my favorite scene in the entire film.

I also love the juxtaposition between Robin’s Churchill and (again) Chapelle’s X. It just really works for me.

21) Hey…isn’t that David DeLuise? The dad from “Wizards of Waverly Place?”

22) Ah, the obligatory Mel Brooks cameo.

23) Dom DeLuise as Don Giovani.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights - Don Giovanni - watch more funny videos

Okay, I lied. THIS is my favorite scene in the entire film. DeLuise is absolutely hysterical and why the scene may be a bit too long, I just don’t care. He’s so fucking funny! His Brando impression is a gift from above and I’ve got a feeling most of his shit was improvised. It’s just…it speaks largely to the talent of Dom DeLuise. I love it.

24) This is probably the best Blinkin gag in the film.

[Blinkin falls from a tree, dusts himself off, then starts to look around.]

Blinkin: “I can see!”

[Blinkin walks right into a tree then takes a step back.]

Blinkin: “Nope. I was wrong.”

25) The “Men in Tights” song is a much better fit for this film than the rap. It feels organic to the kind of comedy the film embraces and is just pretty fun.

26) “The Night is Young” is similarly organic and a better fit than the wrap, but it probably shouldn’t have been put back-to-back with the previous song. We need a little variety.

27) I love this.

(GIFs originally posted by @summercountess)

I love that the filmmakers aren’t even trying to explain why he gets another shot. It’s just, “It’s in the script.” I mentioned I’m a sucker for fourth wall breaks and this one takes the cake for me!

28) There are a lot of gags in this movie which were funnier in other Mel Brooks films.

Prince John’s, “I have a mole?” vs Igor’s, “What hump?” from Young Frankenstein.

“Walk this way!” in this film vs Young Frankenstein.

The hangman in this film vs Blazing Saddles.

etc.

29) The fight scene is actually what the castle fight should’ve been more like. The swashbuckling action is fun and mixed well with gags and slapstick humor.

Rottingham: “En guard!”

Robin: “Thanks for the warning!”

Also they run into a crew member on his break, which continues my love for 4th wall breaks.

30) And a wild Patrick Stewart appears!

He has a Scottish accent because Sean Connery made a similarly random cameo at the end of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with his natural accent. It’s kinda weird and doesn’t add much but who cares, it’s Patrick Stewart!

While there are other funnier Mel Brooks movies out there and better Robin Hood films out there, Robin Hood: Men in Tights does exactly what it is supposed to do: it gives you a 100 minute distraction with silly comedy and fun performances that can act as a break from your day. Cary Elwes is a delight as Robin, with Roger Rees, Richard Lewis, Dave Chapelle, and Amy Yasbeck all showing off their comedic chops. It’s just fun. Occasionally stupid, yes. Some of the jokes do fall painfully flat (like that Home Alone gag), but by the end of the film you’ll probably have gotten in a few chuckles and feel like it’s time well spent. It’s just silly Mel Brooks fun.

[qu-film-history-to-1968]

First Week Essay

My favorite movie growing up was Megamind. This movie released when I was six and acts as an animated superhero film from the perspective of the villain after finally succeeding. What interested me the most about the film was the natural character arc the main character Megamind follows after realizing he never wanted to be the villain. Him trying and failing to be good created both a ton of comedic and emotional moments. It was also interesting seeing the facades slip from the two characters who were meant to be the heroes, as they reveal themselves to not be who everyone thought they were. Reviews at the time of the film's release in 2010 were generally positive. For example, Roger Ebert stated in his review, “‘Megamind’ is an amusing family entertainment and gains some energy from clever dialogue” and Jim Schembri said, “A full-bodied, busy-as-heck, funny-as-heck comedy adventure from Dreamworks that merrily riffs -- in its own fractured way -- on the Superman legend.” 

Alongside the film, several historic releases happened in 2010. On April 3rd of 2010 the very first IPad was released. I remember my family owning one but I personally did not use it much since I preferred playing games on my DS at the time. I think the IPad’s release was very important, but at the time I never really paid attention to it. In addition to the IPad, Instagram was also first released in 2010 on October 6th. I never used Instagram until around 2019, and while I still don’t use it much, its release was very important as it is one of the most popular social media apps.

When rewatching Megamind, it was still quite similar to how I personally remembered it. I have seen it a large number of times over the years alongside videos talking about the film so that is to be expected. I did find the main villain of the film, Titan, a bit funnier than I had remembered this time. I think that change, even if small, does show something important about history, that our views on it can change. Despite the film being the same, I enjoyed a certain aspect of it more on this rewatch. That can be for a number of reasons, such as jokes going over my head when I was younger or me forgetting them so they hit harder. In the same sense, history can’t change, but our views and opinions can change over time as we grow older. For example, when I was 6 I didn’t care about IPads or Instagram at all, but as I’ve grown up I’ve gradually begun to shift my view on them and appreciate their creation more. Memories are often tied to our emotions and opinions, which is partly how they can be different from what actually happened in the past. 

  Michael Jones

[mrmichaelchadler]

Home Entertainment Consumer Guide: May 24, 2018

8 NEW TO NETFLIX

"The 40-Year-Old Virgin" "Bridge to Terabithia" "The Kingdom" "Mamma Mia!" "Only God Forgives" "The Phantom of the Opera" "Small Town Crime" "Wanted"

11 NEW TO BLU-RAY/DVD

"The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"

The steelbook phenomenon has been an interesting one to watch, as films that diehard fans already own are re-released in collectible, exclusive, limited edition packaging. Personally, I'm a big fan of keeping physical media in existence and so anything that helps is good by me, especially when they're a pair of movies this fun. I'm a huge fan of Bill and Ted, and the news of a potential third movie should hopefully rekindle interest in the first two, especially the timeless original. The steelbook packaging (right) is gorgeous, and all of the previous special features have been imported. You should watch "Excellent Adventure" again. It's funnier than you remember. And let's go collect steelbooks if it keeps physical media alive!

Buy them here 

Special Features - Buckaroo "Into The 8th Dimension" – A Two-Hour Retrospective Documentary Including Interviews With The Cast And Crew Audio Commentary With Michael And Denise Okuda Audio Commentary With Director W.D. Richter And Writer Earl Mac Rauch "Buckaroo Banzai Declassified" Featurette Alternate Opening Sequence (With Jamie Lee Curtis) Deleted Scenes Jet Car Trailer Theatrical Trailer

Special Features - Bill & Ted's Audio Commentary With Star Alex Winter And Producer Scott Kroopf Audio Commentary With Writers Chris Matheson And Ed Solomon Time Flies When You Are Having Fun! – A Look Back At A Most “Excellent Adventure,”Featuring Interviews With Actors Alex Winter And Keanu Reeves, Producer Scott Kroopf, Composer David Newman, Supporting Cast Members, And More Theatrical Trailer

"Beyond the Hills" (Criterion) "Graduation" (Criterion)

Criterion's timing of new releases is always interesting. They don't pay attention to the theatrical market as much as some other studios, who commonly release special editions timed to new sequels or major projects from the same stars. But it does feel like May's releases have been slightly timed to something with which Criterion collectors are probably familiar, the Cannes Film Festival. Take for example, this pair of Cristian Mungiu films that premiered at the most famous film event in the world. Mungiu has been a darling of Cannes for the new century, winning the Palme in 2007 for "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days," Best Screenplay for "Beyond the Hills" in 2012, and Best Director for "Graduation" in 2016. The latter two are now available in sturdy Criterion editions, including special features and fantastic critical essays. Mungiu is one of the more essential filmmakers of his era, and it's nice to see Criterion keeping up with his work as it's released, creating essential editions for any Blu-ray library.

Buy them here 

Special Features - Beyond 2K digital transfer, approved by director Cristian Mungiu, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray New interview with Mungiu The Making of “Beyond the Hills,” a documentary from 2013, produced by Mungiu Press conference from the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, featuring Mungiu and actors Cosmina Stratan, Cristina Flutur, Valeriu Andriuta, and Dana Tapalaga? Deleted scenes Trailer New English subtitle translation PLUS: An essay by film scholar Doru Pop

Special Features - Graduation 2K digital master, approved by director Cristian Mungiu, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray New interview with Mungiu Press conference from the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, featuring Mungiu and actors Adrian Titieni, Maria Dragu?, Malina Manovici, and Rare? Andrici Deleted scenes Trailer New English subtitle translation PLUS: An essay by film critic Bilge Ebiri

"Black Panther"

Will "Black Panther" be the first Marvel movie nominated for Best Picture? It's very possible, but whether it is or isn't, it has already become one of the most important films of 2018. Not only did critics fall head over heels for what is aruably the best MCU movie, but it also made a fortune, captivating audiences around the world to the tune of over $1.3 billion worldwide, top ten all time. To call "Black Panther" a smash hit seems inadequate. It's a movement. It's a phenomenon. And it's a great film. And Disney/Marvel has granted one of their biggest film an expectedly lavish Blu-ray treatment, complete with deleted scenes and hours of details on the making of the film. It's one of the biggest films of 2018, and it's been given a matching Blu-ray treatment.

Buy it here 

Special Features Director's Intro From Page to Screen: A Roundtable Discussion – Delve into the film's making Crowning of a New King – Explore the world of "Black Panther" in all its color and complexity The Warriors Within – Get to know Wakanda's women and the actors who portray them The Hidden Kingdom Revealed – Wakanda's diverse people Wakanda Revealed: Exploring the Technology Deleted Scenes U.N. Meet and Greet Okoye And W'Kabi Discuss the Future of Wakanda T'Challa Remembers His Father Voices from the Past Gag Reel Exclusive Sneak Peek at "Ant-Man and The Wasp" Marvel Studios the First Ten Years: Connecting the Universe Director's Commentary

"Early Man"

There are few film critics on Earth who love Aardman Animation as much as this one, but I was pretty mixed on their latest offering, a comedy about the collision between the Stone and Bronze Age. I don't just love the classics like "Wallace and Gromit" and "Chicken Run," but I'll go to bat for "Flushed Away" and "Pirates!" But the new one, while having its moments of inspired Aardman physical humor, feels shockingly thin and less ambitious than the humor that made them famous. It's more of a short film stretched to barely feature running time. Having said that, it's a perfectly serviceable family flick and certainly a better way to keep your kids occupied than a lot of garbage in the animated genre. You could do a lot worse. But most Aardman is usually better.

Buy it here 

Special Features Before the Beginning of Time: Creating Early Man Nick Park: Massaging the Funny The Valley Meets the Bronze Hanging at Aardman Studios: A Workshop Exploration

"A Fantastic Woman"

The ascendancy of Sebastian Lelio's "A Fantastic Woman" to such a place of critical prominence that it won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film was somewhat shocking. Sony Pictures Classics has always been a major player in that category, but I didn't see voters connecting with this story as much as they did (I expected "Loveless" or "Foxtrot" to win the prize). I think history will note the success of this film, the story of a trans woman's journey after the death of her lover, spurned by his family in her attempts to mourn. It's a powerful drama, anchored by Lelio's sensitive direction and a truly breakthrough performance by Daniela Vega, who should have been in the acting races for the Academy more than she was. One step at a time, I suppose. 

Buy it here 

Special Features "The Making of A Fantastic Woman" Featurette Audio Commentary with director Sebastián Lelio

"Game Night"

There are so many things to like about "Game Night," the clever comedy starring a perfectly-cast Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams as that couple you know that always takes game night with friends a little too competitively. When Bateman's brother, played by Kyle Chandler, initiates a murder mystery game to one-up his bro, it starts to get hazy as to what's a game and what's not. There are so many little things this comedy does right. It doesn't fall back on gross-out humor. It lets its couple act like actual couples. A lesser film would split up Bateman and McAdams instead of allowing them to work together. And it's perfectly cast down to even its minor roles. Although McAdams walks away with the movie, reminding us she has killer comic timing too.

Buy it here 

Special Features An Unforgettable Evening: Making Game Night - Featurette Gag Reel

"Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters" (Criterion)

As Paul Schrader's brilliant "First Reformed" is getting rapturous praise in theaters, Criterion digs into the vault and gives the 4k HD upgrade to what was arguably his best film as a director before his latest, "Mishima," presented with some spectacular special features. It's interesting to watch this unconventional biopic (which Roger included in his Great Movies) in light of "Reformed" as they share some similar themes and structure. Sure, "First" isn't as fragmented as this brilliant film but it's also a piece that relies heavily on narration, often over a man alone in a room (as Roger pointed out, a Schrader motif). The Criterion release is packed with great supplemental material, especially a fantastic commentary with Schrader himself and producer Alan Poul. Most of all, the movie itself looks GORGEOUS.

Buy it here 

Special Features New, restored 4K digital transfer of the director’s cut, supervised and approved by director Paul Schrader and cinematographer John Bailey, with 2.0 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray Two alternate English narrations, including one by actor Roy Scheider Audio commentary from 2006 featuring Schrader and producer Alan Poul Interviews from 2007 and 2008 with Bailey, producers Tom Luddy and Mata Yamamoto, composer Philip Glass, and production designer Eiko Ishioka Interviews from 2008 with Yukio Mishima biographer John Nathan and friend Donald Richie Audio interview from 2008 with coscreenwriter Chieko Schrader Interview excerpt from 1966 featuring Mishima talking about writing The Strange Case of Yukio Mishima, a documentary from 1985 about the author Trailer PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Kevin Jackson, a piece on the film’s censorship in Japan, and photographs of Ishioka’s sets

"The Other Side of Hope" (Criterion)

The thematicaly tied month for Criterion continues with another major fest premiere (this one from Berlin), the latest from the fantastic Aki Kaurismaki, whose dry sense of humor and deep humanism blend perfectly in this tale of an immigrant who finds sanctuary with a restaurant owner and his staff. This is a gentle, sweet little film that builds a surprisingly strong degree of emotional power and political statement by its final act. Criterion has a pattern of releasing more current foreign art house hits, often from IFC or Sundance Selects, and have sometimes taken criticism over some of the choices made in that department. No such criticism could be levied here. This is an excellent film that not nearly enough people saw when it was released. Make up for that now.

Buy it here 

Special Features New 2K digital transfer, approved by director Aki Kaurismäki, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray New interview with actor Sherwan Haji Footage from the press conference for the film’s premiere at the 2017 Berlin International Film Festival, featuring Kaurismäki, Haji, and actor Sakari Kuosmanen Aki and Peter, a new video essay by filmmaker Daniel Raim, based on a 1997 essay by critic Peter von Bagh, to whom The Other Side of Hope is dedicated Music videos Trailer PLUS: An essay by critic Girish Shambu

"Red Sparrow"

The latest Jennifer Lawrence spy drama is such an unusual film in that it's MUCH darker than your average multiplex blockbuster fare and yet also has that sheen of Hollywood product that sometimes holds it back from greatness. You should be warned though that this is a violent, brutal film, featuring more than one sequence of rape and torture, and that it runs over 140 minutes. Those are not the kind of elements that Hollywood studios usually allow into their blockbuster star vehicles. And so I'm tempted to give "Red Sparrow" a bit more of a pass than some other critics just because of the risks it takes. Still, it's an often unpleasant experience. You've been warned.

Buy it here 

Special Features A New Cold War: Origination and Adaptation Agents Provocateurs: The Ensemble Cast Tradecraft: Visual Authenticity Heart of the Tempest: On Location Welcome to Sparrow School: Ballet and Stunts A Puzzle of Need: Post-Production Director Commentary by Francis Lawrence 10 Deleted Scenes (With Optional Commentary by Francis Lawrence) Movies Anywhere Digital Code

from All Content https://ift.tt/2IHTRYp

[movieroundup-blog]

Ghostbusters (2016)

Directed by Paul Feig

Four women combine their talents to stop a madman from unleashing a ghost apocalypse on Manhattan.

I barely remember the original Ghostbusters, so I can only judge this reboot on its merits, which, unfortunately, doesn’t work in its favor very much. After seeing the overall uninspired efforts put into this production, I can’t say the franchise was worth reviving. With the majority of the comedy being anything but clever, choppy editing, and a generic plot, this seriously fell short of what could’ve easily been a solid good time.

The four actresses who portrayed the ghost wranglers were well casted, but the poor writing prevented them from gaining any sort of real favorability. Fortunately, the same can’t be said for the wonderfully imbecilic secretary, Kevin. More often than not, dumb characters are either given the “obnoxious” or “aloof” treatment, however this guy was crafted with such sincerity and endearment, making the jokes centered around him all the funnier. It’s almost criminal that Chris Hemsworth hasn’t been given enough opportunities to flex his funny bone, up to this point.

The other highlight was the creative direction surrounding the supernatural elements. I enjoyed all the new gadgets, specifically their implementation during the main battle sequence in the third act. I also really dug the rich neon aesthetic of the ghosts. They reminded me of the spirits summoned by Dr. Facilier in The Princess and The Frog. It’s too bad everything else wasn’t approached with the same level of fun and care.

I always wish the best for a film, especially one riddled with such controversy, but this simply didn’t deliver.