#i get the criticism hes making but its really funny to complain about seeing disney characters at disney

[despazito]

*watching poseidon entertainment video* *he shows footage of a disney building*

me: oh that looks neat

poseidon: as you can see, the theming here is horrible and it's decorated in too many disney characters.

me: oh okay i guess it's liquid dogshit

[threewaysdivided]

I'm struggling to nail down Tucker’s personality. I need him to act slightly out of character in a way that suggests he's upset but I can't even get him regular

Hmmm… that’s an interesting challenge and I think there’s kind of two questions wrapped up in one. 1) What makes Tucker a Tucker? and 2) How might you convey that a character is upset (especially if that character is Tucker)?

Let’s explore shall we?

Time to talk Tuck’

Disclaimer: I haven’t done a detailed re-watch of DP in quite a while so I may be a little fuzzy on some details, and canon has its share of inconsistencies and rather significant gaps that sort of require a dash of ‘reading into’ to bridge. I’m not trying to codify a definitive ‘One True Tucker’ here, this is just my personal go-to reading of him.

To start with, let’s look at some of Tucker’s obvious surface-level traits:

He’s a technology geek, to the point of naming his PDAs and grieving them when they break.

He’s food-focussed and extremely carnivorous, so much so that he complains about missing meals, can tell meats apart by smell and gets sick if he eats something too vegetable/plant-heavy.

He likes pretty girls and frequently flirts with/ asks new girls out in passing.

That’s something, but those don’t really say much about actual character. As a favourite author of mine might say, not a picture of a life as much as a thumbnail sketch. And in isolation there are a veritable army of creepy, sleezy “Hollywood Nerd” characters with the same traits - peak example being the Big Bang Theory boys, who (while maybe kind of pitiable) I wouldn’t exactly call likeable or sympathetic or good, or even funny. So why isn’t he like this?

What is the soul of a Tucker?

If you’re looking for comparisons to other characters, the main three that come to mind for me are Ron Stoppable from Disney’s Kim Possible, the Wally West version of the Flash from the 2001 Justice League/ JL Unlimited cartoon and I can’t believe I’m saying this for all of Tumblr dot com to see Donkey from Shrek.

Okay let me explain, especially that last one.

To me, Tucker reads as a very sincere and self-actualised character, and that’s part of why he’s lovable. Ron, Flash and (sigh, yes) Donkey have character traits that could be really aggravating or even unlikable (in fact, I would argue that Donkey is intentionally written to aggravate Shrek) but there’s an earnestness to these character that makes them endearing instead of annoying. (Go watch Sideways’ video about the musical structure of Shrek and Donkey’s role in it). There’s also a degree of self-awareness and self-acceptance in all these characters; on some level they (and the narrative) are aware of themselves as flawed- that they aren’t perfect and that people can find them annoying - they don’t necessarily see themselves as the top dog in the room and they sincerely admire and respect other characters around them. That’s probably part of why the Big Bang boys don’t work; they’re not written to have any introspection beyond whiney self-pity and the show has a cynical and slightly mean sense of humour that constantly pits them against each other in insincere games of one-upmanship.

Of the main Team Phantom Trio, Tucker is probably the most sincerely optimistic and self-actualised. Danny gets down on himself a lot in a very self-critical way, and Sam can come across as extremely defensive, but by comparison Tucker seems kind of content to just be who he is.

I have no idea if this was consciously in the minds of the writers but not for nothing I think there’s a reason why Angeline and Maurice Foley are the most normal and unconditionally loving parents we actually see in the show. Sam’s parents are extremely conditional; generously you could say that there’s conflict between their love for her and them having a very narrow/ outdated/ judgemental/ image-focussed model of ‘success’ which she doesn’t fit, but you could equally read them as seeing her more as an extension of themselves/ their reputation/ their ambitions than her own person. Danny, meanwhile, very often reads to me as being the less-favourite Fenton child, even before the portal accident and having to deal with their pervasive hatred toward half of himself. Jazz is extremely gifted and I think she sort of set the standard for Maddie and Jack kids-wise, and at times Jack seems to have wanted a son who would be just like him… and while they do still love Danny, sometimes it feels like it’s in spite of him not being another Jazz or miniature Jack, rather than loving him for being Danny.

You can kind of see it in how the trio react to things - Sam sees a world that rejects her and gets angry at the injustice, sets out to make that world acknowledge her value; Danny sees a world that rejects him and takes it as evidence of his own inadequacy, worries that he needs to change himself in hopes of becoming ‘good enough’. Meanwhile, Tucker seems to have grown up in a household where he was loved and accepted and valued for who he was, unconditionally. Sure, it sucks that the jocks target him, it sucks that people don’t see him as cool, he would like to be more popular, and if a girl wanted to say ‘yes’ he certainly wouldn’t say ‘no’… but at the same time he doesn’t show much interest in forcing other people to change, and he also doesn’t express any significant desire to change himself or stop being the way he is. He’s self-actualised and capable of self-love in a way that the others aren’t, and he brings a needed internal stability to the trio because of it.

Tucker also tends to talk himself up more than he talks himself down. Personally I read him doing that with at least a dash of irony (see that post about how sarcastic positive self-talk is a better habit than self-loathing commentary). But again, that earnestness. I don’t think he sees himself as being as important/ attractive/ special as he puts on… or at the very least he respects other characters to the same degree. Self-actualisation isn’t just about thinking you’re awesome, it’s about accepting yourself and others as you are, flaws included, and of the three Tucker is the most comfortable in his own skin. He’s okay with being goofy and dorky and unapologetically into food and tech, making cheesy quips and geeky references. It also makes it hilariously fitting that a convention-goer being turned into a werewolf-furry during Reality Trip is not at all a deal-breaker for him.

Which isn’t to say that Tucker is a perfect or purely honest, naïve sunshine character. He still lies (even though he’s often bad at it), he has his share of insecurities and phobias (hospitals and sick bays are his kryptonite), he still has moments of selfishness, he can be jealous and stubborn and petty and… yeah a little bit creepy with the girl thing sometimes. Although in defence of the girl thing, we do have to acknowledge that Elmer Hartman’s works have pervasive patterns of sexism and toxic masculinity I mean, penname “Butch”, what did we expect? and, while I think the other DP writers are less egregious and more skilled as storytellers, a lot of their non-Hartman work end up being on shows like Family Guy which have the same sort of issues. It can be hard to distinguish between a character being intentionally written a certain way and the show just thinking that “the swimsuit edition”, “perving in the women’s lockers”, “ha ha he’s in a bra” and “any girl who actually enjoys being feminine is a shallow, capital-B Witch” are acceptable as jokes. And, to Tucker’s credit, he doesn’t usually react angrily or with entitlement when he gets turned down, and he doesn’t get up to any of the kind of creepy techno-geek stalker-ism that Big Bang and similar would pass off as “just boys being boys”. He might not enjoy hearing it but Tucker can respect a firm ‘no’ without taking it too personally (most of the time). This is one of the reasons I think he’s closer to JL/JLU’s Flash!Wally rather than YJS1’s Kid Flash!Wally. I like KF a lot as a character but he can be rather pushy and wilfully obtuse when Miss Martian is very obviously not giving him a yes. Flash meanwhile gets shut down by Big Barda and immediately switches to ‘okay, here’s a flower anyway, let’s be friends’. Like I said in my other post, DP as a show doesn’t treat singlehood/virginity as a deficiency or reason for ridicule (again contrast Big Bang Theory) and that kind of insecure, validation-desperate creepiness doesn’t really appear in his character. Girls are fun and Tucker would like to have fun with them, but if they say no then that’s okay - he’ll keep looking until he finds someone who can properly appreciate how “Too Fine” he is. Plus I’m not actually sure he’d know what to do if he got a ‘yes’ - sometimes it feels like he’s more enamoured with the chase or the idea of having the affections of a girl than with a specific girl or having a girlfriend. (Not helped by underdeveloped female characters, but on the other hand, very convincing teen-just-figuring-this-out behaviour).

That said, things have changed for Tucker and he deals with more than just girl woes during the series. He and Danny are basically honorary brothers (so close that they’re completely comfortable falling asleep on top of each other); they grew up together, shared everything with each other and kept each other company on the bottom rung of the loser ladder. But now Danny has superpowers; he’s a hero, a somebody, a person people want to be around… and Tucker is left wondering whether he brings anything worthwhile anymore and if maybe he’s getting left behind. Tucker’s jealousy/ insecurity over this is a character beat that crops up a couple of times throughout the show - @redrobin-detective wrote a really good post about it which articulates things far better than I could.

Going a little into headcanon territory, I think Danny and Tucker kind of mirror each other in that regard; neither can quite internalise how valuable they themselves are to their friends. Tucker is incredibly talented with technology but, in his eyes, how can that compare to an heiress and a literal superhero? Meanwhile, in Danny eyes, Tucker is smart and skilled, Sam is passionate and driven, and then there’s him; the disappointing 'dumb' Fenton with annoying, inconvenient, life-disrupting freaky powers that he got from a complete accident. They don’t necessarily see themselves clearly, and they tend to downplay their own worth relative to the people they respect.

As for making Tucker feel authentically Tucker-ish in terms of actual writing, dialogue and word-choice, I’m not sure I can give much helpful advice. My approach is to reference the source material and/or fics that captured it really well until I can get an intuitive grasp of his specific patterns. Mystery Meat, One of a Kind, What You Want, Doctors Disorders and King Tuck are all episodes with some good Tucker-centric reference scenes if you don’t have the time for a full watch-through.

Now, with that as a foundation, let’s take a look at question 2.

Portraying that a character is upset

This is a little complicated because ‘upset’ can cover a lot of things, and the reasons why and way in which a character is upset can do a lot to change how they’re behaving.

Are they Afraid? Worried? Depressed? Ashamed? Resentful? Dealing with trauma? Maybe they’re angry, or that anger is hiding something else; a mask for fear or shame or sorrow.

Are they trying to hide that they’re upset, hoping no-one notices because they don’t want to talk about it? Are they secretly hoping someone notices? Maybe they want it to be obvious? Or maybe they don’t care what people see.

All of these things will subtly influence the details but there still are some common signs you can use. As you said, an upset character will often act in ways that are not typical of them - that can feel “out of character”.

Sometimes there are behavioural disruptions, especially if the character is stressed/ distressed. They might be more tired because they’re not sleeping well - maybe because of nightmares or insomnia. They could also show a loss of appetite; forgetting to eat, becoming disinterested in food and only picking at food when it’s given to them.

Some characters respond to upset by withdrawing - they might find excuses to pull away, especially if they’re trying to hide it. Other characters go the opposite direction, overcompensating by becoming too outgoing, bubbly, busy, happy etc. in a “fake it ‘til you make it” kind of way.

Emotional distress can cause a person to seem preoccupied, distracted by their own thoughts or troubles. This can manifest in a lack of interest in their usual hobbies, struggling to pay attention or remember things, or a general lack of focus.

There’s also just general mood stuff, which will depend on the way in which they are upset and whether they’re trying to hide it. A character who is angry/ resentful might get more passive-aggressive or mean in their snarky-ness, make comments under their breath or be outright hostile if they don’t care who knows it. A character who’s upset at themself might make more self-depreciating remarks than usual, be faster to diminish their own achievements. A character who’s anxious might fret noticeably, run through decisions in conversation or try to keep it to themselves but start increasingly checking and cross-checking things. A character who is sad or depressed might show a general tiredness, pessimism, or apathy towards things that they’d usually be enthused or passionate about.

As mentioned, anger can sometimes be a mask for deeper issues so watch out if a character becomes defensive or cross about things - that can be a sign that there’s something else going on that they’re insecure/ ashamed about.

When it comes to Tucker, some things that would ring warning bells for me would be a lack of interest (or outright disinterest) in his usual hobbies, as well as him going from optimistic/sincere to more pessimistic/cynical.

Food especially would be a big sign since not only can appetite-loss be a general sign that someone is struggling, but Tucker in particular is usually very food focussed so it would pull double-duty as a loss of interest. Similarly, he might be distracted to the point of not noticing some big new tech thing that he’d usually be very enthusiastic about, and if he were in a particularly bad mood he could get angry at someone who tries to use it to distract him. Tucker doesn’t always notice every pretty girl on the street but if a whole group were to walk past with nary a look from him then that could signal preoccupation.

If he’s trying to hide that he’s upset, he could overcompensate in the opposite direction - playing up the happy-go-lucky food and tech-focus until he’s almost a caricature of himself in a way that weirds the others out.

Tucker is also a very chatty and bubbly character so him going quiet or withdrawing could also signal something’s wrong (although you could also play this one for comedy Spiderman-style by having everyone freak out worrying that something’s wrong when really he just has a sore throat). If he’s trying to hide it, perhaps he might come up with a plausible excuse, such as burying himself in some big tech project so that he doesn’t have to talk to people or deal with the problem.

Him suddenly becoming very pessimistic, negative or mean in his comments/ sarcasm would a very obvious warning bell that something’s eating at him, and specifically that he’s probably angry/ resentful about whatever it is.

Like I said, the specifics will depend on what he’s upset about and how it’s making him feel.

Tucker is kind of funny like that; he’s simultaneously a very simple character and yet very nuanced in his particular form of sincere simplicity. He wears his heart on his sleeve and this means you can usually get a sense of what he’s feeling even when he tries to hide it.

Hope this helps.

[that-shamrock-vibe]

Movie Review: Cruella

Disclaimer: This is my non-spoiler review for Cruella, posting either the day or the day after the movie is released in the U.K, so if you are yet to see the movie and want to go in with a clear head do not read on until you do.

General Reaction:

Cruella however, I knew from the first trailer I was determined to see in cinemas and the fact it was my first time back in cinemas seeing a movie, I could not think of a better opening play.

It has been a while not only since I have been to the cinema, but also since I watched a new movie. Anything new that has come to me through the lockdowns have been older movies that are new to me. I haven't watched movies on PVOD or Premier Accees because I don't want to pay for them while in my bedroom on a small television and also they don't interest me enough to pay for them.

And that's what this movie is, an origin story. It's a Disney live-action adaptation of a beloved Disney villain's origins, sound familiar? That's what fans originally believed Maleficent to be before it became a redemption story of sorts.

Cruella was the villain of One Hundred and One Dalmatians because she wanted to skin puppies to make a coat, but this movie isn't about that, despite there being some excellent foreshadowing and even reworking as a prequel to the original story, this movie is about how Cruella became Cruella, not necessarily how she became a villain but making the character more three-dimensional and layered.

Here, without going into spoilers, we do see the reasoning behind Cruella being the villain we love her for and it is very much a nature vs nurture style of moral, but it isn't done to the detriment of the villainy Cruella is known for.

What Disney and the creatives behind Cruella have done with this movie is not only take note with everything great and bad with the more recent Disney live-action movies and filter out the bad, but also the potential of movies like Maleficent and even Mulan to a degree which failed to live up to their promises creatively, have seemingly been reworked for this origin story.

Does that mean she's not a villain in this movie? Well while she's not the movie's primary antagonist, Cruella stays true to herself and doesn't compromise why fans love the original character, if anything she amplifies why she's such a great character.

Cruella is such a love letter to the 1970s punk rock era while also managing to not just be style over substance but deliver on story and character as well, that I can't imagine anyone having that much of a problem with it.

It's what I would honestly call an artisan's delight, I'm not creative in a fashion sense, I love fashion and it's a reason I connect with Cruella so much, but I couldn't do what she does. I'd possibly be the Artie of her gang if not Horace and honestly I'm okay with that. But the way fashion, music and visual storytelling is used in this movies rivals the 1996 live-action 101 Dalmatians in that sense when scenes largely focused on the dogs selling the scenes without speaking. A picture paints a thousands words and Cruella's eccentric fashions were scene stealers.

It's funny, it's dramatic, it's well acted and directed. The writing is brilliant with maybe one exception with the Baroness which we will discuss in the spoiler review.

Speaking of spoilers. Way back when this movie was first announced I believe in 2016 I was adamantly against it, I thought it was sacrilege and that it would not be a patch on the original movies.

That being said, since seeing that first trailer and that stunning dress reveal I was hooked and have since watched pretty much every single trailer and TV spot this movie could churn out to the point where I feel I saw the entire movie already...but I was wrong.

From the trailers if you think this movie is going to end at a certain point you'd be wrong. I could kinda tell when the movie was going to end based on how the scene was set up, but even then there's more to the story.

I mentioned how this movie foreshadowed to the original One Hundred and One Dalmatians story as a prequel of sorts but also how it rewrote history so to speak, again the mid credits scene blows my mind as a Dalmatians fan and it cries out for a sequel.

However, to sum up, the original 1961 animated One Hundred and One Dalmatians is to this day my favourite movie of all time. Dalmatians are my favourite dog breed despite the fact I currently own a frenchie pug and Cruella De Vil I believe to be my spiritual mother.

Usually in these reactions I'll give a quick recap of my opinions of the movie or franchise the one in question is a part of, but I feel I've spoken about my love of all things Cruella De Vil and One Hundred and One Dalmatians enough in the past to get the point across.

All that being said, I am trying to compartmentalise my thoughts and be unbiased in my opinions for this movie. But honestly if this movie was bad I'd be coming down the hardest out of any critic on it because of what the property means to me personally.

So yes, I am going to big this movie up because pretty much every single element in this movie is 99% perfect. There is room for improvement, but that's where a sequel comes in to not only capitalise but better itself. And keeping the same creative team and bringing back the same cast, I feel this will be the Disney sequel to break the mould just as Cruella is the Disney movie to break the mould

But I have hyped up the lore and the character enough, what do I think of the movie? Well as much as I praised the creatives behind the movie for such a fabulous movie, director Chris Gillespe is partially to blame for how the movie looks. It’s still a visually orgasmic movie in terms of how it portrays its artistic choices, but in terms of those scenes and shots that could’ve been and should’ve been as visually pleasing as the fashion and art shots, just don’t leave as striking and lasting an impression as those shots and scenes.

Cast:

Honestly upon the announcement, to the point where I made a rant session post about it, Emma Stone as Cruella just didn’t land with me upon said announcement. However, as I said since seeing the first trailer, Emma Stone is young Cruella for me.

Glenn Close for me is Cruella De Vil in live-action. Victoria Smurfit on Once Upon a Time was fabulous but in opinion an elseworlds version of Cruella because she had magic and her story wasn’t really in line with the source material. Now, without spoilers but because it’s an origin you kinda can guess, Emma Stone’s version isn’t really in line with the source material either and up until seeing the movie I was all for viewing this version as an elseworlds story. even after seeing it I am all for viewing it as an elseworlds story from the original source material.

But does that mean it’s bad? No it’s just different. As I said earlier this is definitely a more fleshed out three-dimensional version of the Cruella that the original animated version and Glenn Close’s adaptation delivered, but honestly I’m excited to know where this Cruella goes from after seeing this movie. This is my favourite Emma Stone performance to date.

As for the other Emma, Emma Thompson as the Baroness, well she and Stone’s Cruella not only capitalize on Meryl Streep’s The Devil Wears Prada performance, but also adds that extra layer that make both characters not only believable as people but also villains. There’s no mistaking Thompson’s Baroness is a villain, but she does it in the best way and has never looked more fantastic doing so.

This movie also humanizes Jasper and Horace for me, I’m still unsure as to their relationship, if they’re friends or brothers, but based on the fact Jasper is race-bent in this movie and Hotace is still caucasian I’m going with not. However, without spoilers, based on how they meet Cruella I’m in favour of them not being related and simply lost souls coming together. But yeah they’re both funny, you believe they’re Jasper and Horace there’s no thinking one should be the other, and the chemistry between Jasper and Cruella is so electric that it demands a pay off in a sequel and actually speaks to a problem I know some male fans (including me) may actually have with Cruella as a character.

The other biggest breakout in this movie is John McCrea as Artie, who is not only Disney’s first clearly openly LGBT character but a scene-stealer in every shot that he is in. I said I would probably be Artie or Horace in Cruella’s gang and I stand by that because I think Artie is who I’d want to be (aside from Cruella herself) but Horace is physically who I would be.

Then as for the side characters, the movie does an interesting turn on the Anita/Roger origin story, Mark Strong as the Alonzo substitute is mysterious and brilliant, and the dogs are again scene stealers. Aside from 3 dalmatians (who are still alive at the end) there are two completely original new dogs who are part of Cruella’s gang and whether or not it’s because I’m a dog lover and own a dog or just because of the dog’s direction, they just pull focus every scene and make the characters more sympathetic because of how they interact with them.

Is this a knockout movie? Unfortunately no, I feel mistakes are made that leave holes for trolls to swoop in, however, I don’t think they should/ Honestly uou cannot make the “live-action” The Lion King a billion dollar flick and then complain about this movie, this is original, brilliant and 95% well executed. Yes I’ve dropped from 99 and we will discuss the issues in the spoiler review.

Recommendation:

But honestly this movie is worth the watch, it deserves the watch. As for seeing it in cinemas vs. Disney+, I could say it’s worth the £20/$30, but to get a true feel of some of the bigger and better artistic scenes it demands a big screen viewing. Also support local cinemas and all that jazz.

So that’s my non-spoiler review for Cruella, what did you guys think? Post your comments and stay tuned for my spoiler review hopefully coming soon, meanwhile you can check out other Movie Reviews and posts.

[destressjournal]

DCOM Rankings #92: Teen Beach Movie

This received a lot of hype when it came out, though not nearly as much as camp rock or HSM. But it tried to be the next big DCOM Sumer musical. And from my knowledge I think it was pretty popular, again, just not as much as previous musical movies.

Still, I remember a high school friend saying that she was obsessed with the movie, and even though I didn’t watch Disney channel anymore, it still intrigued me. So I was curious to watch it for this ranking. My thoughts are as follows:....

The first half was good, the second half fell flat.

Ok review is over!!

No I kid.

So let’s talk about the overall story and themes. You got a girl with a dead mom (of course) who wants her to fullfill her dreams and be successful, but never really specifies beyond that. From a young age, Mack carried that journal with her as her one true reminder of her mom, and got it in her head that she needed to be successful like her aunt that raised her, as if that’s what her mom meant. Over the course of the movie, she figures out that she likes being on the beach and surfing, and wants to stay where she knows she belongs. And she realized that was probably what her mom really meant.

I love the concept of a girl thinking that she needs to be something her whole life, because her dead mom said so. I think it’s so powerful how kids can just attach to that as if it will still make them closer together. And take those words to heart. That to me is great (thematically, not actually) and the way it’s portrayed at the beginning of the movie is pretty solid, with its own DCOM cringiness. She was willing to leave the town she loved to “become successful” like what her mom wanted, and if she didn’t fullfill that, it’s like she’s severed her last connection with her.

I WISH THIS WAS SHOWN/SAID IN THE MOVIE A FUCK TON MORE!!!

Idk I feel like we should have gotten more context in the beginning, I felt like we were kinda thrown into the movie world a little too early. Maybe not, idk. Now I’m second guessing myself. I guess I just wish Mack explained this more to Brady to make him understand why she needs to leave their beach town. Because throughout the movie she kept saying she needs to leave because “she has to” and that’s pretty much it. She could have said “cuz this is what my mom wanted and I want to make her proud of me” OOF, right in the feels. Maybe she can say “has to” near the end when she isn’t sure anymore and is tired of explaining it. Maybe it’s me just not being attached to any of the characters that much that I need them to be more motivated.

But let’s move onto something else, the movie and movie world. So it’s based loosely on west side story. Now I don’t know that much about west side story, and I know that I need to edumacate myself, but i think the overall theme is there, right? Two different groups of people, two people from those groups fall in love and start a gang war. But I don’t know any of the specifics other than that. But yeah this movie within a movie is supposed to be set in the early 60’s, and there are times when it kinda looks like it, and there are times when you don’t believe it at alll...I think mostly because beaches look the same regardless of time period but yeah. The editing for this DCOM is not very good, and you know they’ve been trying to add more visual effects over the years and 2013 was still in the early stages of that for TV, so I’m not going to be too critical of it, but it’s mostly how the characters dress and talk doesn’t seem very 60’s a lot of the time. But hey what do I know? I wasn’t alive in the 60’s.

I do NOT like the weather machine side plot though. I thought that was really really stupid. But I do understand that there needed to be a common enemy for the two groups to work together to fight, but mad scientists and a weather machine is the best they could come up with??? They were in the movie for like 5 minutes total I would say. They have 0 motivation, they are only used to get the two groups to get along, and they are used as an excuse for the storm. That’s it. The villains are just devices and not actual characters. Like I don’t need a sob story for a villain to get behind them, just someone at least interesting...I mean, I know the movie within the movie is supposed to be really cheesy and dumb, but you can still have interesting characters.

I do however like the way that Mack and Brady call out some of the bull crap that’s in these movies sometimes, like how they suddenly know what’s going to happen next even though they couldn’t have known, in order for the movie to move forward. It’s so meta haha I like it a lot. At least the writers have some idea of what’s up.

The characters. I did mention it a bit earlier. Mack is probably my favorite (again, it’s not like she’s my favorite character ever, like by any means). And the main biker girl I forget her name. She is really cute and her mannerisms and looks are perfect for the time period I think. The boy characters kinda suck. I mean Brady has a point that he didn’t realize Mack was even leaving until the night before she was supposed to leave. Like,I feel like that’s something you should mention when you meet someone you wanna date??? “Oh by the way I have to leave in a year for school so I’m not going to be here long” like was it that effing hard to say???

Sorry off topic. Brady just loves surfing and having fun on the beach, and that’s about it. Oh and he loves this movie a lot so when they get trapped in it he already knows the context. So that’s basically it. Mack is pretty much the only real character in the entire DCOM and everyone else is just used as a prop to get her where she needs to go. BUT it doesn’t mean I hate all the rest of the characters, in fact I find pretty much all of them to be entertaining, except for the villains who are really useless.

Let’s talk about the aunt and the grandpa for a second. So they made a deal that mack would stay with her grandpa for her first two years of high school, and then she would go with her aunt to this new school for her last two years. Alright, cool. I thought grandpa would have more of a presence in the movie, or talk more to Mack about....well anything. But I guess not? He just stands there and watches Mack get swallowed by the wave and seems to be told to act sad. Sorry my mind is all over the place. Anyway, Mack says at the end of the movie that she wants to stay where she is and the aunt is like okay, even though her character was all stiff and huffy and uptight. Like you’re not even gonna put up a little fight??? Things don’t go this well in real life, I hope kids know this.

Okay ranting over lol. The songs were pretty good, not the absolute best I’ve ever heard but they’re good, just not catchy enough I guess. It’s just trying too hard to be HSM but it’s fine I guess. At this point nothing can top the HSM songs, so I won’t knock off too many points for that. I really do like the twist in the middle where Mack and Brady mess up the movie, but it basically ends up not mattering later (something I’m also mad about) but for a while I was like ooooooooo spicy! And I also like how Mack gave the biker girl advise about boys and standing up for yourself and doing things because you want to, not cuz someone else told you to, which directly applies to her own life. Clever stuff man.

Alright time for an overall grade. I gave this one a straight B because even though I did rant about this movie a lot, I felt weird giving it a C. There is slightly more going for it than against it. It’s still a fun summer movie, and it’s not meant to be taken too seriously, just like camp rock 2. And that’s alright in my book! I just wish this one put more heart and meaning to it, but it was definitely itself entertaining with some classic DCOM cheesy and cringey elements.

One last thing I forgot to mention: I guess they don’t allow lip kissing anymore (I’m sure I mentioned this before) all the main character couples do is hold hands and hug and stare into each other’s eyes. Like who the eff made that decision that all kissing was banned? (Cheek kisses are still a thing but wtf) I’m just ugh did parents complain or something? Is kissing seriously too gross for Disney channel, even if it’s just a peck? What the poop?? Ughh second rant over.

So the next DCOM looks like a snowboarding movie which is like the complete opposite of this movie about surfing, just thought that was funny! I’m going to challenge myself and see if I can get the rest of these movies done by September 1st, but at the rate I’m going now, I doubt it...but we’ll just have to see. Wish me luck lol

[spongeguyandlelouchvibridankia]

SpongeGuy Reviews Every Disney Cartoon Ever!: Big City Greens (1.1 and 1.2): “Space Chicken” and “Steak Night”

This is easily one of the most underrated cartoons ever because it focuses on comedy. Jesus Christ. That, and Cricket has an arc, and I’m gonna prove it here.

Big City Greens is a comedy oriented show that is sort of a sleeper hit for the network, at least, in ratings. Fan reception has been mostly positive, but not the best, and the reason seems to be a lack of story, because the 2010′s have been dominated by this, and apparently only Loud House and maybe We Bare Bears can truly succeed with such a formula (maybe Clarence? I don’t think it succeeded as well).

The show is about the green family moving to the big city, each Green slowly improving each episode while retaining their core characteristics so that jokes can still be told at rapid fire succession. And I’m gonna show you how (specifically with MC Cricket, who gets too much hate imo. Yes, this is a slightly personal review because I really like this show and I hope to work on it one day).

SUMMERIES:  Cricket enlists the help of Tilly and new friend Remy when he comes up with a plan to impress his new neighbors by launching a chicken into space.

The Green's traditional Steak Night is threatened when Cricket accidentally leaves the steaks behind on the subway.

COMEDY: 3 Out of 5 (”Space Chicken” and “Steak Night”)

While not the first chronological episode, this is very much a pilot of sorts, so you can see that just like the voices are still getting fitted for the characters, so are the jokes. The fact that they are still good jokes is pretty impressive to say the least!

As the trend of character focused jokes is at its height here, most of the jokes derive from characters being themselves and how they interact with each other and their enviorment. This leads to Cricket causing shenanigans (we’ll get to that), Bill stressing over everything, Tilly being herself (always a good thing) and Alice mostly complaining and being paranoid.

And like all comedy, execution is key; These are good character types, one just has to make them click.

And again, while the comedy isn’t yet at full strength, it’s still really funny! There are lots of great incorrect quote fodder material, lots of great voice acting, lots of exaggeration, and it makes it feel like a cartoony jumble of fun! And this is BEFORE it gets really sharp and crazy!

But, tbh, comedy isn’t the best thing in these episodes. Arguably the show’s greatest strength is that even when the episodes aren’t the show’s best, the characters shine.

CHARACTERS: 4 Out of 5 (”Space Chicken”) and 5 Out of 5 (”Steak Night”)

Again, as I said, these are the first episodes, they’re not gonna be perfect, but the characters are already almost fully realized and likable, that is an ACHIEVEMENT.

To prove this, I’m gonna go through each one and show you how the show knows with what quantity and in what role each one should inhabit in every episode!

Let’s start with the least important character for now: Alice, the grandma. Alice is right now serving only as a comedy tool, and most of the time she is just a comedy tool, as it’s rare for an episode to show other, more fragile and lonely sides to her (but since this show rules, we do get those). The show knows that right now Alice can’t impose since she isn’t important to the main story, so unlike a lot of shows who basically mandate a character must have a big role in every episode regardless of importance to the actual plot, Alice features just as much as she should, quickly showing us who she is (a crabby but deep down loving old woman) and supplying some laughs with her core personality, endearing us to her while she serves no real role.

Then there’s Bill, here really to serve as Cricket’s Superego. If Cricket is the flawed MC with leanings towards good and bad, and Tilly is his soul, Bill is his nagging concious, always worrying, stressing and disappointed. Bill is an understandably nervous man, post divorce, two wild kids, a mother who is very tough on him, things just don’t go well for him. Like Cricket he also wants to be loved, but he has a different way of doing things. In fact, one could argue that Bill is what Cricket could become if he lost his core, and Nancy, the mom (who we WILL GET TO) is what Cricket could become if he never learned a lesson (not that Nancy is a bad person, but she too is a mess). Bill is a great character since his role is the least fun, but he still gets to tell jokes and be an entertaining presence (but trust me we get to see that later in a way better way).

Tilly is the cutest character in the show and an absolute treat. But unlike other “cute” characters, Tilly has a personality, an edge, and flaws. She is a fully realized character, and she serves a special role. Tilly is Cricket’s big sister, but only in name, as she operates more as a younger sister. This is due to her childlike innocence, which culminates in amazing lines and ideas like saying “I have seen danger... And I love it” and wanting to be the queen of rats.

But Tilly’s real role is as Cricket’s soul. Nearly every character in the show reflects or contrasts with Cricket in one way or another (as said before, Bill is Cricket without his fun core, Nancy is Cricket if he never changed, and to add to that, Alice is Cricket if he was only selfish, and Remy is Cricket’s fanboy, almost enabling him and proving his good and bad sides by still showing that Cricket cares). But it is Tilly that serves as Crickey’s soul. She both appreciates his wilder, more troublesome nature, and his risk taking caring side, but she knows that balance must be maintained. She is not perfect: She screws up a lot, and can get selfish and lost. But when it comes to Cricket, she knows what he needs. The world keeps wanting to change him or to love him, but Cricket’s problem is that he needs balance most of all.

And so we get to Cricket. The fandom is quite split on him at times, seeing him either as a lovable scamp or a troublesome jerk. The fact of the matter is: That’s the POINT. He’s not perfect, or horrible, he’s both. Cricket is a boy learning how to balance childhood and adulthood, how to be fun and serious, caring and selfish in a good way, risky and cautious. He tries to launch a chicken into space because he wants attention and love, but also because his dad wants to make a good first impression and Cricket truly cares. He wants to hold the steaks to get praise for being responsible and to perserve family tradition, but he tries his best to save the steaks because again, he cares. He both thinks of himself and of others. He can be malicious and self serving at one point and genrous and loving at the other.

We as viewers love to criticize characters for being callous the moment they make a mistake. But when said character is like, 10, we need to be more forgiving. And slowly slowly, episode after episode, one can see that Cricket is learning (Season 2 will be a prime example for that, can’t wait to show you).

So yeah, Big City Greens is a show about growing up, disguised as a funny hillbilly show. Pretty impressive ;)

STORY AND HEART: 3 Out of 5 (”Space Chicken”) and 4 Out of 5 (”Steak Night”)

DAMN IT I always sum up in characters! God, what do I say now, outside of these being slow but still fun pilots with good story ideas on how to introduce the characters that manage to show contrast, fun dynamics and a loving but edgy family despite everything without sacrificing humor or fun, and that these are only the first ones and we get way better episodes after this and Big City Greens will have a way higher ranking soon?

..Oh, that might do it.

Thank you @chrishoughton​ i hope this review satisfies you! :D

FINAL SCORES: 10 Out of 15 (”Space Chicken”) and 12 Out of 5 (”Steak Night”)

Bingo bango.

Next time we have Sofia The First? OOHHH! CRAIG GERBER IS A GOD THIS SHOULD BE FUN!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/194d3gsPrhlOsFPYsXU-lJirY4sWncrBl/edit#

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael in the Mainstream - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

In 2003, one of the strangest films ever made was released. It was a live-action PG-13 Disney movie… about pirates, which were notorious box office poison… based off of a theme park ride. There was no way in Hell that this could ever work out, right? Well as we all know, it did, it worked out even though all of the odds were stacked against it. And even after all these years, even after all of the sequel escalation and more insane plots and setpieces, even with the overexposure of Jack Sparrow as the face of the franchise… this first film still rocks. And it rocks even though you can see the seeds of all the problems that would plague later entries of the franchise taking root in this film.

The major issue that later films had was how much Jack we were given, with the straight men characters that grounded him progressively being relegated to the background so Jack could be fun and wacky. In this film it is true that Jack is a scene-stealing master, with him commanding the attention of the audience from his wonderful establishing character moment where he appears to be sailing gracefully into Port Royal only for it to be quickly revealed he’s in a sad, waterlogged, quickly sinking boat that he not only manages to make it to the dock with but does it without losing a single bit of his awesome, swaggering, charming mystique, but he’s also balanced out by… just about every other major character, particularly Will and Elizabeth, who act as wonderful foils to Jack’s salty sea dog antics that he pulls at every turn.

It really must be said that Johnny Depp created a fantastic character here, turning what could have been a generically cool pirate captain into a swaggering, crazy pirate rock star. Captain Jack deserves to go down as one of the greatest characters in cinematic history, especially for this film, where everything he does oozes cool, even when he fails miserably and winds up in a pickle – Jack makes being made a fool of look cool. The thing is, and the later films forget this, his antics are only as funny as the reactions of the people around him, who are all more straight-laced pirates or seafarers. Will, Elizabeth, and even Barbossa, while certainly no strangers to hamminess or flowery dialogue, still act as grounding, lightning rods that keep Jack from electrifying the whole film, a problem that really plagued the fourth and especially the fifth films. In the first film, while Jack definitely hogs a fair bit of the spotlight, he never feels overdone, and he’s just so enjoyable to watch as he mucks about in the story you don’t care.

Another element that the next two films were criticized for is the love story between Will and Elizabeth. The romance in the first film is actually downplayed; Will doesn’t even tell Elizabeth he loves her until the last ten minutes of the movie. The next films would go out of their way to make a spectacle of the love triangle, but here I feel the romance works best, where it is downplayed and used as Will’s driving motivation to rescue Elizabeth from the pirates as opposed to just causing conflict and leading to love triangles. The comedy, too, is downplayed compared to later films which would go a bit too far in their slapstick elements. There IS plenty of slapstick and wacky moments, but they aren’t as in-your-face as some of the later entries would get.

Really, the greatest strength of this film is that it tells a rather simple, mostly grounded story with some nautical supernatural elements for flavor. Cursed gold that turns pirates into the undead? It’s all just there to add a little spice to the major plot, which is to rescue Elizabeth from the pirates. It’s simple, effective, and leads to some seriously creative fights and scenes, especially during the big climactic battle. The sequels would go for flashier, grandiose high fantasy, what with sea gods, mermaids, and Davy Jones (AKA the best villain in the franchise), but I feel that what made Curse of the Black Pearl so great is that it didn’t really try to bloat the film with flashy, crazy fantasy elements and mostly just let the film stand on the strength of the characters and the writing and the action.

I think out of the ensemble cast Geoffery Rush’s Barbossa is easily the standout aside from Jack. He’s actually one of the things that the sequels, or at least the first two anyway, did very well: rich, complex antagonists. Barbossa is a cruel, bitter, vindictive pirate, but it’s clear he does have some semblance of honor this early on, and when you find out the extent of what the curse did to him, it does elicit some sympathy. If you were forced to spend the past ten years unable to feel any sensations at all, would you not be a bit bitter and angry yourself? Of course, he definitely takes it too far, so you’ll obviously be rooting for Will and Jack and Elizabeth to defeat him, but he does leave enough room for sympathy that it’s not a big surprise the sequels saw fit to bring him back, one of the best elements about them.

Overall, Curse of the Black Pearl is just an exciting, fun swashbuckling romp that is so much better than it has any right to be. I wouldn’t even hesitate to call this one of the finest films ever made; it perfectly balances the cheesiness and the thrills, it sneaks in plenty of references to the ride, it features fantastic performances from its actors, and oh god I almost finished this review without mentioning the score. THE SCORE! The music in this film is nothing short of legendary; the iconic theme tune is in a class of its own, but the rest of the music is no slouch. Just all around, this is a fun, fantastic movie, and while of course it has some flaws here and there, it’s such a fun time you have to be one heck of a curmudgeon to complain.

Curse of the Black Pearl is a film I’d definitely recommend to anyone who enjoys fun action/adventure films, as well as anyone who loves Johnny Depp – Jack Sparrow is one of, if not the best performance of his career, which is really saying something. It is a shame the sequels could generally not keep up with the pace, though I certainly think the second one is close. And it’s not even like I hate the sequels by any means (save for the fifth movie), it’s just that when you’re stuck in the shadow of a film this good, it’s kind of hard to really stand out. Curse of the Black Pearl was really lightning in a bottle, a one-time moment where low fantasy and pirates intermingled and gave the world something awesome. It’s not much of a shock they could never do it again.

At least, not with low fantasy. HIGH fantasy, on the other hand...

[alwaysspeakshermind]

Top 5  Anti-Varchie Arguments & Why They Make No Sense

#4: “Varchie’s boring/predictable, love at first sight is so cliché(d).”

Love at first sight is so clichéd? Okay, sure, I’ll allow that.

I’ll even agree.

But think contextually for a sec: love-at-first-sight is so clichéd as opposed to what? The utterly original, never-been-done-before uniqueness of best-friends-to-lovers that Barchie and also Bughead, why do people who say they want to see a friends-to-lovers relationship keep forgetting Bughead’s in that category? represents? The novel concept of enemies-to-lovers that is Cheryl/Toni (and Veggie if you squint)? The dated-in-the-past-but-sparks-still-fly (Falice, Tom Keller/Sierra McCoy, Fred/Hermione) or misunderstood-outsider-falls-in-love-with-“perfect”-America’s Sweetheart (Bughead, and also Kevin/Joaquin, Kevin/Fangs)? 

Come on.

Whether it’s your cup of tea or not, a trope is a trope is a trope. There are only so many combinations possible when it comes to romantic dynamics, and since fiction and reality have both existed for a really long time, there’s no one trope that hasn’t already been done a million times over. So…what’s the point of harping on this particular one? Or any other trope just because it’s not your personal favorite?

Yes, Love At First Sight is the bread-and-butter of many fairytales and/or Disney movies. But it’s by no means alone in that regard. 

Best friends/childhood friends-to-lovers has been a longtime staple of books, TV shows, rom-coms, and musicals (Harry Potter, Kim Possible, 13 Going On 30, Phantom of the Opera, and Lion King all say hello), and so has enemies-to-lovers (27 Dresses, The Proposal, You’ve Got Mail, Tangled, etc.). I’m not even going to bother touching on the sparks-still-fly/loner-loves-”good” kid thing, because the first is the golden goose for Hallmark, Lifetime, an a billion-and-one romance novels, while the second is YA fiction in a nutshell. And if you’re one of those “I can’t help it, friends-to-lovers is my crack” kind of people, it might be worth noting that “Love At First Sight” is plenty of other people’s crack. Also, if your complaint against a trope you find overused is a valid argument, so is someone else’s. Childhood-best-friends-to-lovers may feel newer and unique to you, but it doesn’t to everyone. Some people are as tired of it as you are of Love At First Sight. 

And even if your claim is that “love at first sight’s not realistic/there’s like zero basis for it in the real world/it’s the exception not the rule,” that claim also extends to Childhood Best-Friends-To-Lovers and Enemies-To-Lovers. 

In the real world, the Best-Friends-To-Lovers thing is about as common as Love At First Sight, with the latter maybe being a bit more common, since the overwhelming majority of people tend to notice attraction within the first fifteen minutes of meeting someone and the overwhelming majority of childhood best friends grow up thinking of each other as a sibling. (Important distinction: when childhood best friends do grow up, fall in love and get married, they don’t tend to take until high school/college to figure out how they feel. They’re typically aware of it from puberty/slightly before puberty onward, and it doesn’t change because they already know everything there is to know about that person...they know if they’re attracted to them; they know if they’re not.) And both those tropes are more common in everyday life than enemies-to-lovers since, in truth, most people don’t want to have anything to do with the antagonistic person who made their life miserable.

So realism/unrealism? Kind of a shifting-sands argument. Especially within the context of a show that puts an ex-“gang” member in as sheriff and deputizes other “gang” members, one of whom is named Sweet Pea, of all things. I mean, if you truly feel morally obligated to reality-police Riverdale, there are far more pressing issues than the likelihood of two teens meeting each other one time and deciding within five minutes that “This is The One” (which is not even how it happens except for Archie, but still).

What it really comes down to is not the trope itself, but how well the trope is executed. 

In other words, it’s not what you’re given...it’s what you do with what you’re given. Every trope has been done many times before. Like it or not, that is an undeniable fact. Arguing that something has little-to-no value purely on the basis of its commonality is in essence weighting originality (theory) over style (practical application). To illustrate why this kind of thinking is a critical mistake, let’s put it this way: weighting originality over style is like saying Riverdale Season 3 is better than Riverdale Season 1. 

...Which, as even the most casual of Riverdale viewers knows, is not the case.

Is S3 more ambitious than S1? Yes. Does S3 contain more jaw-dropping plot twists than S1? Absolutely. Are there some damn fun episodes in S3? For sure. But guess what? S3 also contains far more plot holes, inane plot “twists” and contradictory developments/sheer why-are-you-trying-to-make-fetch-happen-with-this-storyline moments because S3 goes so hard for shock value/the unexpected, that it effectively lapses on execution and winds up with a more creative, but ultimately less-compelling finished product than S1. Moral to the story? Creativity is good, but devotion to creativity at the exclusion of all else is not. If a few predictable elements aren’t mixed into an unpredictable world (or vice versa), everything ceases to shock. On Riverdale, because things are always so wild, the biggest surprises are usually when things unfold normally/don’t go haywire.

Now.

Me personally, I’ve shipped every trope at least once. I’m in the habit of making myself set aside all preconceived notions when beginning a new show/book/movie, because I never know what, if any, ship I’ll go for. Historically, I’m about 50-50 on Childhood-best-friends-to-lovers—sometimes I love it, sometimes I hate it. Enemies-to-lovers—usually, I dig it, sometimes it’s a big, fat no from me, dawg. Love At First Sight however, I am overwhelmingly prejudiced against. And when I say overwhelmingly prejudiced, I mean that as a rule, I flat-out hate it. I find it stupid. It annoys me. I roll my eyes and make jokes.

But, here I am. Writing a bunch of long-ass Tumblr posts in defense of a fictional relationship that makes a direct play on the Love At First Sight trope.

So why are Archie and Veronica my huge exception?��

Well, for one thing, their relationship kicks off in a manner that is highly evocative of the comics. The instant Archie sees Veronica, all of time (for him) stands still. The one solitary thing he’s aware of from the moment she steps into Pop’s and he looks up is her. No matter what he’s doing, he ends up looking at her, and after a very short amount of time, the same goes for Veronica (though of course, she tries to play it cool). Regardless of how I feel about the cheesiness of the trope, the execution of the scene is fricking cute.

For another: it actually is an unusual trope, and I was surprised to see it used. 

Don’t get me wrong, the whole see-a-person-across-a-crowded-room deal is a cliché and it’s a million percent been done to death. But the funny thing is, Love At First Sight is such a clichéd cliché that it’s hardly ever used nowadays. By virtue of its extreme clichédness in fact, it has accidentally and ironically become fresh again because the second someone suggests it, someone else inevitably goes, “Nah, that’s too clichéd, we can’t do that.” In all honesty, I can’t remember one TV show or non-90s-Disney movie I watched in the last ten years where that trope was used over any/all of the other tropes available. I actually intended to make a list of the books/movies/shows I know of that have used the friends/enemies to lovers trope for comparison purposes, but it was getting so long with just the books section I ended up going, “Haha, no,” and scrapped that plan. (But for the record, almost every single Jane Austen novel is on that list.)

So, in summary: Love At First Sight clichéd? Yep. For sure.

Too clichéd?

Nope.

Certainly no more, and arguably less, than the other tropes Riverdale’s many ships adhere to. So if you’re not nonstop complaining about those other ships on the basis of the overdone/predictability factor, it shouldn’t be an issue that Varchie’s relationship is built around a recognizable trope that has been out-of-use by most everyone except Disney for a good while now. (Besides, some tropes are considered timeless for a reason.) 

And seriously, if we’re going to go down the Disney path, let’s stop a second and recall how many Disney Channel shows/movies in the last decade utilized Best-Friends-To-Lovers and Enemies-To-Lovers. Or hey, what about Nickelodeon shows? Or  maybe cop/CSI/civil service-type shows where best friend partners/partners who hate each other eventually fall in love?

Again, a relationship is not automatically made “boring” because it falls within the parameters of a well-known trope, and “predictable” does not automatically mean “bad.” If that were truly the case, no fictional relationship from probably the 18th century onward would have any popularity and/or critical acclaim. And if you try to argue that that’s just how it is for you personally: predictable/clichéd = boring, you should probably keep in mind that when measured by those standards, every single other ship on Riverdale is, by definition, boring. 

Every.

Single.

One.

Not just Varchie. 

So if you really are passionate about Riverdale not focusing on a “boring, predictable, clichéd ship instead of an interesting one,” you might want to take a break from griping about Archie and Veronica and start examining exactly how original those "interesting” ships you’re touting actually are. And if that’s not really what you mean, if you don’t really buy into the line you’re selling (i.e., you’re just using “they’re so boring” as an excuse to disguise the fact that you don’t like Varchie because they prevent your preferred ship from happening), you might also want to consider just being honest about that. 

Because when you build your argument around a point that encompasses more relationships than just the one you’re criticizing, it makes you look like you’re either extremely clueless in not realizing that your complaint also applies to your ship/other ships, or else a giant hypocrite.

[marredbyoverlength]

Year-End Awards 2019

2019 was very good for movies.  Or, rather, November and December of 2019 were very good for movies.  I could speculate about why that is (Awards season? Disney? Moloch?), but I don’t really know.  What I do know is that the Oscars are tomorrow, so I better get this post up today.

Honorable mentions in no particular order.  Strap in, chumps.

Best Lead Performance: Adam Sandler, Uncut Gems

Sometimes it feels like Adam Sandler is cheating, lowering our expectations with awful performances in even-more-awful films so that his dramatic turns look better by comparison.  But whether or not we grade him on a curve, this performance is the best of the year.  

Sandler’s character, Howard Ratner, is ridiculous.  In fact, much of the movie is ridiculous.  But Sandler makes this absurd person human, and in doing so, makes the whole movie work.  He commits hard to the role, and even though every scene is a little more unbelievable than the last, I never for a moment stopped believing in Howard.  Superb work.

Honorable Mentions: Willem Dafoe, The Lighthouse; Saoirse Ronan, Little Women; Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story; Adam Driver, Marriage Story; Ana de Armas, Knives Out; Kang-ho Song, Parasite; Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes.

Best Supporting Performance: The rest of the cast of Uncut Gems

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that Uncut Gems is a movie that survives entirely on its acting.  The Safdie brothers themselves have said that the movie wouldn’t work without Kevin Garnett nailing the scene where he first holds the black opal.  I’d extend that credit to all the other supporting roles: Idina Menzel as Howard’s wife who no longer even bats an eye at the insanity he brings on himself, Marshall Greenberg (a non-actor) as the fellow jeweler who expresses genuine concern for Howard but still gives him unfavorable terms on a pawn deal, deranged Garment District legend Wayne Diamond as a character just named “High Roller”—every one of these people is essential to the success of the film.  When it comes down to it, Uncut Gems doesn’t make any sense.  It takes a suite of perfect performances to make it feel as real as it does.

Honorable Mentions: Timothée Chalamet, Little Women; Laura Dern, Little Women; Florence Pugh, Little Women; Takayuki Hamatsu, One Cut of the Dead; Daniel Craig, Knives Out; Al Pacino, The Irishman.

The Costner Award for Worst Actor: Rebel Wilson, Cats

When we meet Rebel Wilson (as her fursona “Jennyanydots,” a name I will never utter again), she is showing her butthole to the camera.  The character never gets more likable than that, because they let Rebel Wilson ad-lib numerous “comedic” lines to punch up the script. They’re awful.

Honorable Mention: James Corden, Cats.

 Nicest Surprise: Cold Pursuit

I watch the Liam Neeson stupid action flick with my brother Rob every year. Sometimes we get something legitimately great, like A Walk Among the Tombstones.  Other times we get a movie like The Commuter, which is dumb as rocks.  But this is the first time we got a comedy.  I went in expecting a second-rate Neeson-kills-people thriller, and instead got a solid black comedy.  Apparently it’s nearly a shot-for-shot remake of the Norwegian film In Order of Disappearance, so maybe I should have known better.  But I didn’t, so I was pleasantly surprised.

Hiddenest Gem: One Cut of the Dead

One Cut of the Dead is the best movie of the year that my friends haven’t seen, and it’s a tough movie to talk about because of how fun it is to watch knowing nothing about it.  So I’ll keep it short.  One Cut is a Japanese schlock horror movie with a fun twist that manages to be creepy at first, then funny, then heartwarming.  Two things elevate this above the usual fun-twist movie.  The first is that the surprise unfolds in little pieces over the entire second half of the movie, rather than hitting all at once. The second is that there’s real substance there: under the goofy exterior there’s a charming family story that’s worth coming back for.

 Most Insulting Moment: We Hate Sensory Deprivation, Angel Has Fallen

I haven’t seen the other films in the Blank Has Fallen franchise, nor did I need to do so to understand its third installment.  It’s exactly the kind of institution-worshipping great-men-of-history support-our-troops action bullshit you’d expect.  But after the credits, there’s a totally inexplicable scene where Gerard Butler and his dad Nick Nolte agree to get treatment for their (implied) PTSD.  Instead of leaving it as just a nice moment of healing, it cuts to a comedy scene where they go to a two-person sensory-deprivation tank and float around in the dark complaining about it.  The general gist of the scene is “sensory deprivation is dumb and gay.”  I’m not a sense-dep guy, but it’s used here as a stand-in for all the forms of “modernity” that reactionary filmmakers hate: you know, like mental health treatment, or trying new things, or expressing any sincere vulnerability even for a moment.  Why not just show them affectionately kissing guns and save some production cost?

Honorable Mentions:  The trailer for A Dog’s Way Home; The narration in Ad Astra.

 Winter’s Tale Memorial “What the Hell Am I Watching” Award: Cats

At long last, a film that unites the unholy trinity of ambition, incompetence, and derangement to form a true “What the Hell Am I Watching” award-winner.  The premise of Cats, in short, is that the cats of London meet every year to perform a ritual sacrifice of one of their number, believing that the chosen cat will, after their death, be reincarnated…as another London cat.  And they determine the sacrifice by holding a talent show.  And one of the cats is a warlock.  So we’re off to a good start.

I was fortunate enough to see the original version.  You see, the film is almost entirely CGI, so much so that viewing it feels like living inside a haunted kaleidoscope.  Even the actors, through “digital fur technology,” are turned into cats which are anthropomorphized to greater or lesser degrees. The warlock cat, for example, has cat abs.  But shortly after theatrical release, director Tom Hooper realized that the film contained major visual effects oversights, including failing to CGI several of the actors’ hands, meaning that Judi Dench and Ian McKellen appeared to have human arms on cat bodies.  These are only some of the crimes of the film Cats.  A full reading of the litany would take all day.

Honorable Mentions: A Dog’s Journey; Gemini Man.

Prettiest Movie: 1917

I’d be remiss not to talk about the cinematic achievement of 1917.  The all-in-one-take thing, or the appearance thereof, is kind of a used gimmick at this point.  (Birdman, after all, used it and won Best Picture.)  I went into 1917 expecting a cheap knockoff. Instead I was blown away.  Every detail was perfect, down to the mud stains on the extras’ overcoats, the stacking of sandbags in the real dug-out trenches, the bloating of the bodies clogging the waterways.  One especially memorable scene follows our hero (George MacKay) sprinting through a ruined city by night, intermittently lit by mortar fire, dodging gunfire all the way.  Maybe “pretty” isn’t the right word, but no film this year used the visual medium as well as 1917.

Honorable Mentions: Parasite, Once Upon A Time…in Hollywood.

Best Picture: Under the Silver Lake

Yes, I know it’s weird to give Best Picture to a movie that didn’t even get an honorable mention anywhere else.  But this is my blog, dammit, I stand by it.  Under the Silver Lake is a movie about capitalist-media-technology-complex-inspired brain poisoning.  It stayed on my mind for weeks after seeing it, and I eventually gave it a second watch. It held up.  

Criticisms of the film abound, like how male-gazey a lot of the portrayals of women are, but I think the parts that some reviewers identify as flaws are intentional and important features of the movie.  We see the film through the eyes of our main character (Andrew Garfield), who is a scumbag, but the film is very clearly not endorsing being a scumbag. It’s about the interplay of personal neuroses and moral failings with the broader perverse clown-reality we all occupy, and the inescapable tinge our perspectives bring to the world we see. The film is, after all, a sort of noir film, and our hero’s attitudes are reflective in some ways of the noir mindset: find the clues, unravel the plot, get the girl.  The incongruity between the stories and attitudes of our past and the demented reality of our future define the film.

I could go on about this for much longer, which is why I’m choosing Silver Lake as the best film of the year.  It’s not notable for its acting or cinematography (though both are solid), but in terms of content, nothing else this year encapsulated my internal and external world quite so well as this.

Honorable mentions: Parasite; 1917; Little Women; The Irishman; One Cut of the Dead; Marriage Story; Uncut Gems.

 That’s it, that’s the post.  I think I’m moving to Letterboxd next year.

[reverienne]

rank the star wars movies from most to least favorite :)

Thank you so much, Isabella! ❤️

Under the cut because I have a lot of controversial thoughts (diplomatic for “I genuinely like The Phantom Menace”) and I want to spare my followers from reading this essay.

tldr; I absolutely adore the prequel trilogy and I’m so, so bitter that Jyn Erso is Kathleen Kennedy’s White Brunette™ and that Disney didn’t use Rogue 1′s full potential when it comes to merchandise, especially tie-in materials.

1. Star Wars. Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

I don’t like this movie so much because it was the first Star Wars movie I’ve ever watched and I’m feeling ~nostalgic~ (how could I, it all happened in 2015) or because Padmé Amidala was my main motivation to finish watching the whole saga (though she absolutely was). I just… genuinely love this movie so much. I don’t rewatch it very often, but whenever I do, it’s with a feeling and the movie has my undivided attention.

Listen, I can see why people get bored, I can see why they hate on the amount of politics, stilted dialogues, Jar Jar Binks or whatever the most recent criticism about the movie is, but for me it doesn’t change a damn thing. Star Wars. Episode I: The Phantom Menace is set in one of the most interesting eras in the history of the Republic. It has amazing worldbuilding. It has an interesting story. It has a badass teenage Queen and her brave handmaidens in its very centre. It introduces us to the Jedi Order in the last moments of its prime. It gives us the most iconic villains, the Sith. It shows us Darth Vader as a cinnamon roll to break our hearts even further. It has a great soundtrack, stunning costumes, beautiful locations and CGI effects that are both innovative for its time and holding up well 20 years later. How incredible is that?

Also, sue me, but Jar Jar Binks is genuinely funny if you watch the movie with the right approach. And yes, I would love to see a prequel to the movie, an actual beginning of Palpatine’s schemes, just to properly appreciate how tightly woven it had to be. The more politics, the better!

2. Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

The only Star Wars movie I would be able to rewatch on a whim, to be honest. Depending on my mood Anidala scenes may be both okay and slightly painful to watch but other than that… I like this movie a lot? It's so beautiful yet so intense. Anakin’s struggles. Dooku’s attempts at swaying Obi-Wan. The battle of Geonosis. The beginning of Boba Fett’s revenge quest. Also, don’t tell me that you didn’t get shivers when Yoda said “The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone Wars has”. I have so much appreciation for The Phantom Menace, but it is Attack of the Clones that I enjoy the most.

3. Rogue 1: A Star Wars Story.

One of the very few things Disney got right was making this prequel to ANH. Most likely because it improved the (imo, far-fetched) Legends story and built around it… or maybe was it the fact they had to put in there some genuine effort? I enjoyed Rogue 1 IMMENSELY and I refuse to watch it ever again.

(Also, go read the movie’s novelization because it makes all the events feel at least three times more heart wrenching and, seriously, I can’t recommend it enough.)

My only complains? Jyn Erso being yet another of Kathleen Kennedy’s white brunettes, the CGI faces of Leia and Tarkin, and, of course, the fact that Disney to this day doesn’t give a damn about R1. It’s astounding that they missed so many opportunities to explore their new characters and milk their fans in the process but somehow they did.

4. Star Wars. Episode IV: A New Hope.

My favourite installment of the original trilogy, hands down, and the one I would be down to rewatch anytime. I have a huge soft spot for beginnings and the beginnings of Luke, Leia and Han’s adventures fit in this image perfectly. I really like the moments when Han helps the Rebel Alliance even though he isn’t a rebel himself, I really like Leia’s space buns and I really, really like the Cantina Band. A good movie, though if I watched it first, it definetely wouldn’t make me eager to watch the rest of the series. As much as I admire Leia, I love and admire Padmé more, and good guerrilla rebel forces fighting big bad Empire is just… not my kind of a story. “A New Hope” is an enjoyable movie, though!

5. Star Wars. Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

It ranks so low as a punishment because I still haven’t forgiven Lucasfilm for killing off Padmé. Not to mention the amount of hatred I felt for Sheev for destroying my favourite Jedi Order and making my favourite Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi, suffer… You may see me reblogging Sheev memes, but I will never ever forgive this man. Also, what a fine day to remember that “Revenge of the Sith” doesn’t exist! Padmé lives! Anakin never becomes a Sith! Obi-Wan is happy! Sheev Palpatine gets ultimately killed and everyone else lives happily ever after! *breaks into ugly sobbing*

6. Star Wars. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

The first movie on my rewatch list because I just… didn’t appreciate it enough? It was okay, though. Also: Lando did nothing wrong.

7. Star Wars. Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi.

Partially it’s the fact that I’m so unimpressed with the Ewoks, partially it’s because I didn’t have enough time to process the impact of this movie on the whole saga. I definetely need to rewatch it, though preferably once I am done with “The Clone Wars” and “Rebels”, you know, for the extra drama. That being said, I have tremendous respect for this movie and, most importantly, Luke Skywalker.

[sludgyreview]

Frozen 2 Review

Okay, this is my first review on here. I am not a professional or anything so I will just kinda write what I felt when leaving the movie. 

First off, I do want to say that I actually really enjoyed the movie. I was a big fan of the first one, even with its flaws, and that’s true for this movie as well. I’m generally critically, but also easily pleased so if you’re not looking for any spoilers, I can give a quick rundown for whether or not you should see it.

Non-Spoiler Mini Review:

If you liked the first movie, you’ll like this one. The characters are still entertaining, music is still good, and it looks great. Overall, just a very solid movie, as anyone would expect.

Okay, time to get spicy. SPOILERS ARE AHEAD

Okay, so almost everything I love about this movie also has a negative side to it. Many of my complaints fall under a giant umbrella complaint of “This movie should have been longer.” The movie was 1 hour and 43 minutes, according to google. I just don’t feel like that was enough time to tell everything they were trying to tell. I’m going to run through everything I think falls under this category.

Kristoff

One of the main characters of the original movie, I think he suffers the same fate that Buzz did in Toy Story 4. He was largely written off as a recurring joke, since most of his screen time had to do with trying to propose to Anna, and failing horribly. Sure, it was funny, but it would’ve been nice to see more out of him. Maybe something about how difficult it is to be in love with a princess or something. (Idk I’m not a screenwriter)

Elsa (And her relationship with Anna)

To preface, I think Elsa was kind of boring in the first movie. She was one dimensional, with basically all of her personality being “I am scared people will know about ice power,” and “people know about ice power, now I am free.” 

I think that this could’ve been the fault of the movie, and not Elsa’s character, since the plot didn’t allow for much development here. However, the second movie is different.

There was a really good concept they started exploring, mainly regarding Anna and Elsa’s relationship. Multiple times throughout the movie, Elsa tries to leave on an adventure without anyone, so they don’t get endangered. First, when she leaves Arendelle in the first place, and second, when she leaves the camp. Anna, understandably, wants to go with her, because last time this happened everything went to hell. She manages to convince Elsa those first two times. This culminates in one last event, where Elsa forcefully distances herself from Anna using ice powers and stuff, and continues the adventure on her own, having tricked Anna (and Olaf) into thinking she was going to go with her. After Anna and Olaf are able to talk to each other again, Olaf comments that he’s actually angry, something he’s never felt before. Anna shares that he has every right to be angry, and it’s clears she’s also angry that Elsa pushed her away again.

So right here, this could’ve been great. The setup is perfect for Elsa to have more character development, realizing that pushing people away isn’t the answer. It could’ve brought depth to this one dimensional character, who realizes her flaw. But that’s just the problem. Due to a certain event, which I will expand upon later, when Anna and Elsa reunite, Anna is only happy to see her, and this aspect is never touched on again.

I love when characters have genuine flaws, and I would’ve loved if more time was spent on this.

Also, one minor thing I did like was the reveal that Elsa and Anna’s parents’ ship actually sank in the Dark Sea, while they were looking to help out Elsa. Elsa understandably felt responsible for their death, which I felt was good character development. However, it is reconciled fairly quickly with Anna, so this also suffers from not having enough time put into it.

All the Elements and Stuff

A new idea introduced in this movie was the Enchanted Forest, which is guarded by 4 spirits, Fire, Earth, Water, and Air. (Wonder where that’s been done?) It was a cool idea to have more magical stuff in this movie. A lingering question from the first movie was, “Where did she get her powers?” or whatever. Watching Elsa tame the different spirits was entertaining, especially the little lizard dude, because he was adorable.

My problem comes in with the whole Ice Spirit thing. It is revealed that Elsa is actually the ice spirit, and that the voice calling to her was her mother. To be honest, I didn’t really understand what was going on. I don’t know what her mother was, or if she had actually been alive or something. I felt like they were trying to convey something that was clear to the writers, but not to the audience. Something about it was just off, so they should’ve taken time to elaborate.

Or I’m dumb idk

Okay, gonna switch over to some other topics now. I want to talk about another main issue I had, that being, “a lack of consequences.” To start, I’m going to talk about my least favorite part of the movie.

The Elsa and Olaf Death Fakeout

My other complaint I felt were passable. Sure, they could’ve been expanded upon, but the movie was still doing fine. This though? I actually didn’t like this.

If you’re reading this without seeing the movie, I’ll give a quick rundown. After Elsa realizes she’s the ice spirit, she goes into a weird cave and learns the truth about a past event that is key to breaking open the magic wall of the Enchanted Forest. (More on that later) For some reason, what ensues is the rapid freezing of Elsa, just as Anna froze in the first movie. Elsa sends a last breath to send an ice message to Anna about the truth, so that Anna can save the forest. Olaf begins to die as well, since Elsa had “died”, and Anna is left in a cave, crying over her dying friend. What follows is a very sad song and all that, and it’s actually pretty emotional.

But here’s the thing. This is a Disney movie. If a character dies in a Disney movie, they build up to it. Big time. They really let you know the character is dead. Elsa “died” so suddenly that you knew right away she was going to come back. And because she was gonna come back, Olaf was going to also. 

And come back they did. After breaking the spell on the Enchanted Forest, Elsa is revived, and saves the day from another event. (See next section.) She brings Olaf back, and everyone lives happily ever after.

This pissed me off. Elsa had pushed Anna away, gone alone, and died because of it, which seemed like a good consequence of her actions. But everything ended up fine anyways. The consequences were almost immediately resolved, and I just hate that. So, here’s what I would’ve done instead!

First off, rewrite the story in such a way that Elsa does not “Die.” Make her get trapped by something in the cave, or have her pass out. Make Anna go save her. This way, their reunion could also include the Elsa character development I wanted so badly, since Anna would know she wasn’t dead. 

Second, a more intriguing option. Some might disagree with this, but maybe make another movie. Set up some sort of conflict that leaves the movie on a cliffhanger, with Elsa comatose and Olaf out of commission until that’s resolved. I’m not sure what the ensuing movie would be, but it would be far more interesting than what we got. Of course, the main issue with this would be ending an animated Disney movie on a cliffhanger, which never happens. I know why this wouldn’t work, I’m just saying it would be better this way. 

Better than trying to fake us out.

Arendelle not being Destroyed

This one is smaller, but a conflict at the end of the movie includes destroying a dam to free the enchanted forest. However, destroying the dam would also destroy Arendelle. Anna, knowing what the “Next right thing” is, something that is commonly referred to in this movie, decides that destroying the dam is the right course of action.

The water makes way to destroy Arendelle, and then Elsa comes in at the last second and saves the day. 

My main problem with this is it lessens the blow of the movie’s message. “Doing the next right thing” is a powerful message to give today. It indicates that even though something may be hard, or you may have to sacrifice something, it’s better to do what you know is right. (Ex: climate change) However, what this demonstrates, especially to younger children, is that doing the right thing doesn’t have any consequences, I think that’s the wrong message to send.

They easily could’ve done the “Arendelle is a people, not a place,” and it all would’ve worked out.

I have one last complaint, and it’s a small one.

Twist Villain

This doesn’t matter too much, but they pulled another “twist villain” on us. The twist is that the conflict that trapped people in the Enchanted forest was started by Arendelle, not by Northuldra. 

Obviously. 

It is a huge exaggeration to call this a twist. I don’t know how it would’ve been rewritten though, so I guess I can let it slide.

Okay I know that sounds like a lot of complaining, but I do have a couple of extra things I was to pay special attention too that were great. I’m gonna go rapid fire because I’m getting tired of writing, and it’s easier to talk about the things you like.

Music- The music was integrated much better into the story than the first movie. Every song advances the plot, except for Lost in the Woods. But that’s excusable, because the whole sequence of Lost in the Woods is hilarious. Can’t wait to see the memes come out of it when the movie is released digitally. Also, they didn’t forget that the movie was a musical halfway through, like the first movie, so that’s nice.

Anna and Olaf- They were still great. Olaf was funny, and Anna was complicated enough. Just as good as they were in the first movie. Also, Anna becoming queen at the end felt right, so I’m glad they did that.

Again, the fire spirit lizard is so cute.

The movie is gorgeous. It’s still amazing to see how far animation is progressing, even since 2013. (Also, Frozen came out in 2013. That’s not okay. :(  )

Okay, that’s my review. I know it sounds like I hated it, but i really didn’t. I thought it was great. If you like animated films, or just the first movie, definitely go see it. Although I suppose at this point if you’ve been reading the whole thing you’ve either already seen it or don’t care.

I plan to review the Devil May Cry Series after this, since I just finished the fifth game. Gonna review them all at once, since I played them one after another. Not sure when that will be, guess we’ll see.

[caden]

i feel we should examine the whole idea of “do spoilers matter” or not at a deeper level then ‘people who complain about spoilers are annoying so spoiler warnings are stupid’. like the idea that a lot of you guys seem to have of “if having the plot spoiled ruins the movie for you then the plot wasnt any good anyways” seems sort of... not fully wrong but also underdeveloped to me. like, there are tons and tons and tons of stories that are widely considered to be amazing and have clear artistic merit that you absolutely wouldn’t want spoiled. Like, you wouldnt want to know darth vader was lukes father. you wouldnt want to know bruce willis was a ghost the whole time. For drama to be effective you need tension, and a very very efficient way of keeping the audience engaged is by putting them in a mindset where they’re unsure of what will happen next, or by revealing a game-changing plot twist, or by suddenly putting a character into an unexpected position. It seems totally disingenuous to me to be like ‘well it shouldnt matter to the audience whether or not they get to be surprised by what happens in the film they’re watching’. You can’t honestly believe that to be true. Being able to be surprised by a story is like one of the fundamental draws of good storytelling and probably has been for all of human history. Imagine how much worse US or Get Out or any Shakespeare play would be if you knew exactly where the plot would go before you saw it. I know there’s some research that suggests people actually enjoy stuff more if they already know what will happen but you can cast a lot of doubt on that data-- i think that it indicates more that people are more likely to appreciate a good plot once they understand it more thoroughly, hence why you might like a great movie more the second time you watch it. That doesnt mean there isnt value in the first time, it’s just a different way of viewing it.

All that said, the stuff with people not wanting spoilers for endgame has different wrinkles to it. (dont worry im not about to spoil anything). It can’t all be chalked up to ‘people care super deeply about the characters and plot and the writing is always so unpredictable and engaging that they dont want to know a single thing before going in’. Ive spent a lot of time recently thinking about the way infinity war and endgame are constructed, and they’re made in such a way that REALLY facilitates them being ‘spoiled’. because they’re written around moments. The plot isn’t so much a naturally moving thing with motivations and momentum of its own as much as a connective tissue between various cool things happening. Like, whoa, spider-man just met the guardians of the galaxy. oh sick, theyre in wakanda. holy shit, half of them died. Endgame goes REAAAAAALLY hard on this style of writing. And as a method of milking emotion from the audience, it really really works. Assuming the moments themselves are all effective, you’re guaranteeing constant engagement because every three minutes another epic thing is gonna happen. And I think when people fault marvel fans for being obsessed with spoiler warnings, this style of filmmaking is really what they’re trying to critique. because there’s a suggestion that if your movie is just jumping from crazy twist to shocking death to funny reference to epic fight, you’re losing the thing that should actually be the connective tissue of a film-- its themes, character arcs, ideas, setting... etc. And while I personally don’t think those things are mutually exclusive, (bc i do believe that infinity war and endgame genuinely have themes they try to discuss), i would also agree with the argument that reliance on shocking moments over actual ideas is bad writing. But as I mentioned earlier, a filmmaker like Jordan Peele whose works are generally agreed to be very good also uses this writing style-- his plots escalate via twists and turns and are expertly constructed to keep the audience wondering what’ll happen next, and he does a really great job with it. 

Now, i DEFINITELY think there’s an argument for ‘disney intentionally plays up the spoiler warning angle in a way that’s ultimately toxic to the filmmaking process’. Like I don’t believe that the “tom holland doesnt get to read the script” stuff is true, I 100% think it’s all a publicity stunt-- but they shouldnt be setting a precedent that makes people think doing something like that to a lead actor is acceptable. It’s not how films should be made, and the only reason I’m sure its all fake is because I have enough filmmaking experience to know itd literally be impossible to efficiently shoot a big-budget film under those conditions. Of course all the buzz about endgame spoilers is HUGELY beneficial to their marketing teams, so obviously they’re gonna go hard as hell on enforcing that narrative. Like they 100% WANT everyone to both be spoiling the movie and getting anxious about having the movie spoiled, because its all free advertising for them. But in terms of ‘big movie studios having greedy practices that harmfully affect the artistic process and make their films worse’, its incredibly low on the list of bad stuff that studios do imo. 

So, like, if you’re gonna critique all the various aspects of that, I think you should A) put your efforts towards exposing all the spoiler panic through the lens of how it affects the way that films are produced and consumed, or B) put your efforts towards analyzing the media itself, watch the film and ask ‘is this film more engaging and well-made because of its reliance on moments that can be spoiled? If no, why is that not working? If yes, is that engagement coming at a cost or is it justified? Essentially, I’d like to feel that the criticism was either coming from a social angle or an artistic one. And if that were the case I think i’d have less of an issue with it. Just saying “people are dumb for caring about spoilers” is silly. Maybe it’s dumb, but that’s not the point. People will consume media however they want to and if they want to care about spoilers then they have a right to care. You guys aren’t wrong if you think marvel shit is stupid and badly made, because art is subjective and no opinion on it is wrong. But other people also aren’t wrong for liking and caring about it, and being like ‘we should spoil it for them to teach them a lesson” is gross and totally unproductive. I know 99% of it is jokes but you gotta remember that some people have spent a very long time being very excited to see this movie and doing something that wrecks that for them is just mean and inconsiderate. It’s not about whether them feeling that way is stupid or not, because yeah, it’s stupid to be that invested in superhero movies. It’s about it not being cool to intentionally hurt someone just because you can. And the reason i don’t have a lot of tolerance for it is because I feel like saying “caring about spoilers is stupid” is a kneejerk, surface level attempt at media criticism and we can do better. I obviously care pretty deeply about the way we consume and criticize pop culture and i think it’s in everyone’s benefit to have more productive discourse about this stuff. No ill will towards my friends who are saying the things that i’m ragging on, i obviously don’t think it’s coming from a malicious place or anything-- this is just my read on the situation. Was gonna post this like two days ago but then decided someone would prob message me a spoiler because of it lol

[ahouseoflies]

The Best Films of 2018, Part II

Part I is here. Let’s keep it moving. ENDEARING CURIOSITIES WITH BIG FLAWS

103. Zama (Lucretia Martel)- In this movie there's a motif of Zama, an officer of the 18th century Spanish Empire, starting a scene by talking to someone or staring at someone off camera. After a minute or two, the camera cuts to some servant and disorients us. There's a person there, always there, to serve him, and it doesn't really matter who it is. It's a brilliant way to get at the colonialism that the character depends on but is still trapped by. So I get a little bit of what the film is trying to do, but it's boring. I'm an ignorant person who doesn't know how to watch Lucretia Martel's films or have any context for South American history, but I know what boring is. 102. I Feel Pretty (Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein)- I like that Schumer tried something different instead of falling back on her persona, but there isn't enough new or interesting here for me to recommend--besides National Treasure Michelle Williams, of course. The film nearly displays "Do you see that she's turning her back on her real friends now?" on the screen. 101. A Simple Favor (Paul Feig)- At times cheeky and sexy and juicy, but it still wears out its welcome by twists ninety-one and ninety-two. 100. Double Lover (Francois Ozon)- Diverting until it gets silly, then so silly that it gets diverting again. There are about five too many twists, and I'm still unclear on how seriously the film takes any of those twists. More importantly, I don't think there's much of a takeaway from any of it. Ozon seems to have found a real muse in Marine Vacth though. 99. Borg Vs. McEnroe (Janus Metz Pedersen)- As a Shia Pet, I felt obligated to see his portrayal of Johnny Mac. I didn't learn anything that I didn't already know from this mediocre biopic though. Watch the documentary McEnroe/Borg: Fire & Ice instead. 98. Ralph Breaks the Internet (Rich Moore and Phil Johnston)- There's some clever visualization of the the Internet, such as the way that a link shuttles an avatar off in a transparent car or the way that shady newsboy types whisper about pop-up ads. And I liked a lot of the Disney tie-in stuff that critics are wincing at. As far as textbook screenwriting goes, it's great at that idea of making you think that the protagonists will accomplish their goal very easily, only to have them be re-directed to square one. The voice acting is top-notch. Why do these movies get so plotty though? I felt as if the internal logic started getting inconsistent about halfway through--at the same time that the first one got bogged down with candy stuff instead of 8-bit video game stuff. And if there are so many lovable characters from the first entry, why do we get such tiny servings of them here? The movie's too long already, but what I wouldn't give for an occasional cut back to Fix-It Felix raising some kids.

97. We the Animals (Jeremiah Zagar)- The Tree of Life is one of my favorite movies, and on its face, We the Animals is a really similar impressionistic memory. So why do I like it half as much? Are lighting and music that important? Is Jessica Chastain? Is latent racism? All I know is that this felt like a story I had seen before pitched at the same intensity for a running time I was happy to see expire. 96. Kodachrome (Mark Raso)- The three leads are all pretty good. (Ed Harris does this bashful, pulling-on-his-eyelid thing that killed me.) But with mathematical precision, the film matched each element I liked with another thing that infuriated me. Specifically, the whole plot hinges on one scene, and that scene is preposterous and alien to human behavior. 95. Deadpool 2 (David Leitch)- The pacing of these movies is bizarre to me; they're half-over before they really get started. No one else is bothered by the fact that Cable has no motivation or backstory for the first hour? Some of the connections to X-Men felt more forced this time around, but I thought this entry was much funnier than the first, even mixing in some more subtle visual gags. (The exotic locales montage ending in Biloxi really got me.) I have to give credit to the X-Force parachute sequence, which is audacious and unexpected. And clear out for Zazie Beetz, who is a huge star in the making. 94. At Eternity’s Gate (Julian Schnabel)- Something about Van Gogh was essentially unknowable, which is a great reason to make a movie about him and a terrible reason to make a movie about him. I'm not sure that Julian Schnabel got to the bottom of the man any better than anyone else has, though maybe that's an unfair expectation. To his credit, Schnabel yada-yadas the ear business and Van Gogh's death in favor of his more poetic understanding of the artistic life. The movie doesn't coalesce for me, but there's a banger of a scene between Dafoe and Mads Mikkelsen about the responsibility an artist has toward God. That short nested inside makes the whole thing worth seeing. The conversation I had afterwards with one of the two other people in the theater, an art historian, was a solid three stars. 93. Bohemian Rhapsody (Bryan Singer)- Some biographical movies do a good job of compressing time, and their supporting characters don't feel sacrificed or glossed over. For many other mediocre ones though, including this one, I submit the Three Scene Rule. Three scenes is kind of the minimum for a character to register an arc and for an actor to present any kind of dynamic performance, so in a lot of these true story movies, that's all that a supporting character gets. If you're looking for it, it's glaring. (Watch Hidden Figures again with the husband and boyfriend characters in mind. I'll wait.) This movie has a few characters that matter: Freddie Mercury, obvs; the other Queen members; Paul Prenter, the unfairly composited villain; and Mary Austin, the platonic love of Mercury's life. The movie spends way too much time on her, as if to tease the audience with the idea that Freddie might be straight. As for everyone else? Three scenes. Ray Foster, the record executive played by Mike Myers (!): A. "Look, guys, I like formulas. This opera stuff you're talking about? That sounds crazy." B. "The opera stuff is crazy. I ain't making that the single. You can walk out of here for all I care." C. [hangs head in shame after being proven wrong] Jim Hutton, Freddie's partner for the seven years this movie doesn't care about: A. "Look, pal, I may be a waiter, but you can't just grab me like that. On second thought, let's talk. You should learn how to love yourself." B. "Oh, hey. Glad you tracked me down, slugger. You love yourself now? Sure, let's go meet your parents." C. "Guess I'm your boyfriend now. Looking forward to the show." Freddie's Parents: A. "You go out every night! What are you doing out there? Why can't you be a good boy? What's up with your new name?" B. "Why can't you be a good boy? What's up with your new name?" C. "You're a good boy, I guess, even if you're gay. Guess that's your name for real." I like the idea of reproducing the Live Aid performance in full, and the movie comes alive during its musical sequences. But I wish that the same attention given to, like, the number of Pepsi cups on the piano was also given to the nuts and bolts of the storytelling.

92. The Predator (Shane Black)-  I get why other people don't like this. The final fourth feels obligatory, and it seems cut to the verge of incoherence. But if you don't get a little tingle out of a game cast saying Shane Black things like, "Predators don't just sit around making hats out of rib cages," then we are very different moviegoers.

91. Sorry to Bother You (Boots Riley)- I admire Boots Riley's ambition, the way he's taking many of the ideas that drove his music and channeling them into film. But there are too many ideas and, strangely, too much plot to cohere. I liked some of the jokes, especially the Robocop-py TV clips laced throughout. I think my main problem, however, is Lakeith Stanfield as Cassius. He's a fascinating actor, but his energy is completely wrong for an everyman lead like this. I don't think he was the right choice to carry it. 90. Thoroughbreds (Cory Finley)- The repartee at the beginning is sharp, and there are some engaging elements of style. God knows I've never complained about rich, sad, nubile brunettes with strange eyes. But there are pieces missing in that forest-for-the-trees way that happens sometimes with debuts. Like, how do these privileged girls not have access to a gun when our national nightmare is based on all young people having access to guns? Or what is the exact motivation behind the crime at the center? Lots of great characters have been spurred by a violent curiosity, but a zinger here and there doesn't make these girls Raskolnikov. 89. White Boy Rick (Yann DeMange)- Even if this isn't it, I think Yann Demange has a great film in him. There's some urgency to White Boy Rick's politics, and it looks interesting. If nothing else, it succeeds in making the surroundings seem as gloomy as the characters all acknowledge them to be. But this isn't a great film in either of its halves. It's motivated by plot until a crucial event that I don't want to reveal, then it veers much more into character. I would normally sign off on that, but this movie grinds to a halt in the change and never recovers. McConaughey pulls his weight, but Richie Merritt is pretty bad in the lead. 88. The Strangers: Prey at Night (Johannes Roberts)- Despite some striking images and a welcome lack of explanation for the menace, Prey at Night doesn't reach the heights of its predecessor, mostly because the characters are too paint-by-numbers. 87. Ant-Man and the Wasp (Peyton Reed)- Probably the first Marvel movie that would benefit from more action. Some of the material is genuinely funny thanks to Michael Pena and Randall Park, but I got a little drowsy during the middle hour of talk about phase-shifting and the quantum realm. Get back to making things big or making things little, Dr. Molecule! 86. Creed II (Steven Caple Jr.)- The pieces are there, but it's a problem when Jim Lampley, who has one hundred times as many lines as the fifth lead, explains to the audience what they literally saw an hour earlier. If nothing else, this movie proves, through his absence, how good of a director Ryan Coogler is. I would be lying if I said I didn't get the chills at some key moments. Stallone’s performance and Jordan's muscles are good. But there was a dark, honest way for this movie to end, and it went directly against that ending into something more Hollywood. 85. Let the Sunshine In (Claire Denis)- Like Taxi Driver if Travis Bickle just wanted the guy to get him a glass of water afterwards. The film does have that kind of myopic focus--the sexy, ever-candid Binoche is in every scene--but it's far more elliptical, progressing only through character, never through plot. Let the Sunshine In is unique in a way that is different from Denis's other unique works: No one talks like an actual person, and she acts as if you should know all of the characters instead of properly introducing them. It's not supposed to be funny ha-ha, so excuse me if that's what I wanted.

84. Revenge (Coralie Fargeat)-  like the style of this film, the color palette, the synth score, how far it's willing to go with the gore. But if it's called Revenge, and it's clear who the hero is (hint: not the rapist), then the whole thing feels like a fait accompli. We know exactly who's going to be the last woman standing, and we even know the order of the people she's going to kill.

PRETTY GOOD MOVIES 83. The Rider (Chloe Zhao)- This movie is trying to be a poem, but the parts I like the most are prose. It's a promising piece of filmmaking with heartbreaking moments, but I found it most effective when the storytelling spelled things out. It's an all-hands-on-deck independent film, so the amateurism of the piece shines through in the performances from non-professional actors. The relationship between Brady and his autistic sister is interesting because she speaks with that sarcastic cadence that can be learned from only children's programming. It's unlike what we usually see because, you know, she's a non-professional actor and real autistic person. So what do I know? 82. Unfriended: Dark Web (Stephen Susco)- Pretty tight from a storytelling standpoint and definitely grisly enough to get under the skin. But these laptop flicks move with such alacrity that it's hard to believe them whenever they ask you to buy something like love, since they paint it with the broadest strokes imaginable. Not that I would want a two-hour version of this anyway. 81. Juliet, Naked (Jesse Peretz)- Charming enough, arriving at a more realistic place than I expected, Juliet, Naked does nothing to make me revoke my charter membership in the Rose Byrne fan club. What an odd shape this film has though. The inciting incident happens at the hour mark, and it races obligatorily to an ending at an hour, thirty-seven. 80. Ocean’s Eight (Gary Ross)- It sets its marks and hits them adequately, with most of the charm that made the other Ocean movies fun. But there's something lifeless about Ocean's 8, both in the direction and the score. Take, for example, Richard Armitage's bland, sort of lost performance as an old flame/mark. It's such a nothing part that I began to think that it was a thesis: The men are just chess pieces, and they shouldn't take attention away from the women this time. But then James Corden emerges in the last half-hour and shines. So maybe Armitage was just bad and directed poorly? This movie exists for the Movie Star interplay though, and it delivers on that level. Cate Blanchett was good for so long that she's popular, and Sandra Bullock was popular for so long that she's good. Rihanna has to dress like a janitor at one point as a disguise, and she proves how absurd it would be for her to ever blend in. Anne Hathaway is the funniest of the bunch, balancing on a highwire of how big she's supposed to seem. Helena Bonham Carter gets the "and" hammer for all my credit fetishists. 79. Mary Poppins Returns (Rob Marshall)- I saw this on Christmas night with my family. The original Mary Poppins was the first movie my mom ever saw in theaters, and it's probably my wife's favorite. To the extent that insulting it is kind of insulting an important part of who she is. So I couldn't be the guy coming out of the theater like, "The Bankses definitely deserved to lose their house." Between you and me though, it's just fine. Entire sequences could be cut without damaging anything--do we ever come back to the bowl that Meryl Steep is supposed to be mending?--and most of the conflict feels manufactured. These legasequels always end up feeling like boxes being checked. We all know that the guys with the cannon had to come back, right? But some of the numbers are so joyful or stirring that even this grinch snuck a few smiles at his daughter as she pointed to the screen and said, "That's so silly." It's a good movie to see on Christmas night with your whole family. 78. RBG (Betsy West, Julie Cohen)- This movie is designed to make the viewer who would seek it out go, "What an American hero." It does that, I suppose, and there isn't a whole lot wrong with it. Yes, she is a very impressive person. But the film has too much untapped potential and too few teeth to recommend beyond that rubric of achieving its goals. For example, what about half of the population that would sneer at the notion that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an American hero? Besides the inclusion of some radio clips over the credits, the filmmakers aren't concerned. "Look, she was friends with a conservative!"

77. Searching (Aneesh Shaganty)- Since I've seen thousands of movies that don't take place inside of a computer, there's still some novelty to the handful that do. On one hand, there are four or five twists too many, and the film isn't consistent with its own rules. On the other hand, it gets intriguingly dark for PG-13, and it never stops moving. 76. Uncle Drew (Charles Stone III)- The attitude toward women is retrograde, and to call the plot cookie-cutter would be an understatement. But this works, mostly because of the sunny, natural performances. Kyrie Irving, whose handles are even more of a marvel on a forty-foot screen, has to act through pounds of makeup, but he pulls it off. With only commercials to his name, he has to carry scenes of, like, standing at someone's grave and apologizing, and he has the presence and confidence to do it. I also should mention that Nick Kroll has a nothing-to-lose, galaxy brain performance for which probably zero of the lines were written ahead of time. "Shout-out to Oberto, shout-out to Aleve, the number one pain reliever in the game right now." I have to extend some of the credit here to Charles Stone III, who has made a calling card out of coaxing performances from newcomers. 75. Christopher Robin (Marc Forster)- Cute. 74. Unsane (Steven Soderbergh)- What seems to be a B-movie hitting its marks gets elevated by one fantastic scene that makes it seem timely and vital. I can't help but think Steven Soderbergh is punching below his weigh class though. I'm glad that an experiment like shooting a movie with an iPhone gets him up in the morning, and I know he doesn't want to make another Traffic or Out of Sight. But maybe, here's an idea, audiences might? 73. 22 July (Paul Greengrass)- The first thirty minutes are harrowing, in part because of their disciplined cross-cutting and Anders Danielsen Lie's chilling stoicism. The mistake that Greengrass makes is thinking that, later on, the three strands of story are equal in importance. He cuts away from the court case at its apex to see a kid trying to walk again or a prime minister demanding that his administration get tougher. Some moments are powerful, and Greengrass's composition and editing have mercifully softened, but this becomes a grind at a certain point. 72. Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard)- I hate to state the obvious, but this feels like multiple movies stitched together because that's exactly what it is. On one hand, we have the foggy opening, featuring an airtight inciting incident and setting up Emilia Clarke as that rarest of things in a Star Wars movie: a character with unclear motivations. But as the film goes on, it reveals why Han doesn't work as a protagonist. (Ehrenreich is bad, but the storytelling sinks the movie more than his performance does.) Everyone else in the movie drips with charisma and comments on the action while Han is left to connect the dots. In other words, the other characters get to be Han Solo, and Han Solo doesn't. By the time we get to the marauders, past the two hour mark of a movie that shouldn't have been more than two hours, the narrative crumbles under its own weight. These movies are way too competent to fail--I can list five or six moments that transcend the flaws--but each of these origin stories has a way of erasing the myth of Star Wars with a pen. 71. Bird Box (Susanne Bier)- This is a genre film that you've seen before in one way or another, so your expectations (and filmgoing experience even?) will dictate what you think of it. There's a metaphorical reading available, but that doesn't make the picture more artful automatically. Trevante Rhodes is a Movie Star. Here's what I can tell you: We need to appreciate John Gavin Malkovich while we can. Delivering the apotheosis of the selfish dickhead survivor character, he a) asks why the group can't stay in the grocery store forever, b) points shotguns at people when they try to let in strangers, c) drinks as he's telling people matter-of-factly that this is the end of the world, and d) (sort of) explains why he is the way he is. And-he-does-it-all-with-the-deliberate-cadence-that-you-are-doing-in-your-HEAD-right-NOW. I'm not saying the guy should win Best Supporting Actor or anything, but I admire his career more than any that would get a Best Supporting Actor.

[fandumbstuff]

Favourite films from 2017

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi Directed by Rian Johnson

Star Wars fans suck, and I’m so happy to see Disney wrench the franchise from their greasy paws and deliver it to a general audience. Rian Johnson picks up where J. J. Abrams left off by fleshing out the character development of the new franchise leads. Poe learns hard lessons about sacrifice. Rey and Kylo’s complex relationship is given more layers. Even the oft-criticized Finn and Rose subplot is an important bit of character development for Finn to gain unconditional courage. The movie is highlighted by standout performances from Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley, a career best Mark Hamill and an iconic turn from Laura Dern. Rian Johnson delivers rousing action sequences (_that _throne room scene) and emotional highlights. Accompanied by polished sound design, visual (and practical) effects, and John Williams doing what he does best, The Last Jedi is one of the franchises best. It brings the franchise into a new era, reinstating the true spirit of Star Wars- that anyone can be a hero, as long as we look to the stars and hope

2. Lady Bird Directed by Greta Gerwig

It’s hard to stand out in the field of coming of age movies, but Greta Gerwig manages to do it and tell a story that is simultaneously unique and relevant. The often-ignored daughter-mother relationship is given full attention, exploring some poignant moments in middle age and young adulthood equally well. This is an incredible script that makes every plot detail and situation count, giving the actors a lot to work with. Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf deliver in spades, playing off each other with incredibly nuanced performances. Gerwig performs marvellously, allowing her actors to find the moments of humour and melancholy in her script, and creating a visually pleasing movie to boot. That she manages to do this all in her directorial debut is a remarkable achievement.

3. Logan Directed by James Mangold

Hugh Jackman is given a great vehicle for his final performance as Wolverine. Adapted from Mark Millar’s Old Man Logan, the movie hugely surpasses its source material. While it maintains the gritty sense of violence from the graphic novel, its emotional substance is much more… substantial. Logan is a superhero film that finds a distinctive voice both in terms of its visuals and its temperament. Its characters aren’t simply grappling with “doing the right thing” but with debility, lethargy, loneliness and remorse. Jackman and Patrick Stewart explore these themes expertly. They’re accompanied by Dafne Keen’s standout performance as Laura/X-23 forming an emotional crux to carry the story. It’s a story that stands out from the others in its genre, and one that I certainly consider one of the best.

4. Get Out Directed by Jordan Peele

In Jordan Peele’s directorial debut, he manages to tell a story that is remarkably relevant and important, without ever losing his distinctive creative voice. Get Out is very much a horror movie, but Peele lends a fair bit of levity whenever he can. He drops scares that are so jarring they’re practically self aware. The movie is sold by Daniel Kaluuya’s incredible lead performance, as we’re left to ponder the sheer ridiculousness of his circumstances, slowly evolving into genuine terror. This movie has a very clear message, and despite its importance if there are those who may complain that it’s too heavy handed, they need only look to it’s masterfully crafted finale. Watching the movie in a crowded theatre gives you a shared experience, where we all jump at the same scares, laugh at the same jokes, but most importantly feel the injustice that presents itself at the end, and cheer for the twist. It’s this shared experience that is Peele’s master stroke. A perfectly enjoyable finale that leaves us pondering the very real message of the film.

5. Wonder Woman Directed by Patty Jenkins

This is the most important superhero film since 1976’s Superman. Bringing to life the most iconic female superhero of all time took a long time to happen but it delivers in spades. Patty Jenkins has given the DCU it’s finest film yet, establishing a convincing mythos with interesting characters. Amidst DC’s penchant for dark brooding characters, Diana is a breath of fresh air: a hero that is compassionate and optimistic, even slightly naive. This lends to a truly compelling character arc that allows her to learn firsthand how complicated “the world of man” is. Gal Gadot commands the lead role expertly. She is the most convincing superhero performance since Christopher Reeve, and just like him it’s to bring to life an icon- a role model that she will forever be associated with.

6. Blade Runner 2049 Directed by Denis Villenueve

It is truly incredible that a sequel made 25 years after its predecessor can maintain the same tone and feel of the original, while lending a new creative voice. The original Blade Runner is one of sci-fi’s most contemplative stories, and it’s incredible that 2049 doesn’t do anything to damage this aura. It asks important questions while expanding on the franchise’s greater theme of what it means to be human. Denis Villeneuve is quickly becoming one of the most distinctive visual filmmakers currently working in Hollywood, and with this movie and Arrival it’s clear to see why. Hans Zimmer along with Benjamin Wallfisch manages to deliver some of his best work in years with a soundtrack that pays homage to Vangelis’s iconic original score. And then there’s the legendary Roger Deakins-lighting each scene with a painterly stroke to add a bit of nuance to already strong performances.

7. Thor: Ragnarok Directed by Taika Waititi

Perhaps more than any director in the MCU, Taika Waititi delivers his own distinctive creative voice to his entry in the franchise. While its easy to get carried away by the stunning 80’s visuals and synth score from Mark Mothersbaum, it’s Waiiti’s signature wit and charm that really shine through. He makes Thor, Loki and Hulk (and Banner) more likeable than they’ve ever been in the MCU and introduces new characters like Valkyrie and the Grandmaster that are instantly noteworthy. Stellar performances from practically the whole cast help to sell this, and we’re left with a movie that fully entertains while gearing us up for the MCU’s next big offering.

8. The Post Directed by Steven Spielberg

Amidst all the hoopla surrounding Ready Player One, Spielberg manages to sneak away and make a movie with his dream team of Tom Hanks, John Williams and Janusz Kaminski. And include Meryl Streep. I mean, just on paper this looked to be a sure-fire success, and shockingly it doesn’t disappoint. It is absolutely a movie that speaks volumes about the current political climate in the United States, but it also honours the importance of investigative journalism and freedom of the press. Hanks delivers an incredible performance, but it is purely to support Streep’s powerhouse portrayal of Katharine Graham. She charts a fascinating and incredibly relevant character arc to show us just how important it is to find your voice and your courage in the face of prejudice.

9. The Big Sick Directed by Michael Showalter

Being such an incredible comedic talent, Kumail Nanjiani is finally given a chance to create a personal story. Along with his wife Emily V. Gordon they deliver a comedy movie that is so much more than just funny. It is deeply affecting, introducing us to two leads that are charming and worth rooting for. Culturally, relationally and physically, they contend with serious struggles that makes their character arcs incredibly meaningful. This is one of the strongest screenplays of the year and a testament to passionate storytelling.

10. The Shape of Water Directed by Guillermo Del Toro

The Shape of Water is very much Guillermo Del Toro at his best- telling an extremely humanistic story under a fantastical lens. As per most of his movies, it features an isolated hero searching for self-actualization. Mirroring this character with that of a monster, he subverts the idea of abnormal for a sense of harmony. He trusts his audience to be empathic, to see the benevolence in the creature and the compassion in Eliza. This is balanced by his clear depiction of immorality in Michael Shannon’s Colonel Stickland. Supported by incredible compositions from Alexandre Desplat and ethereal cinematography from Dan Laustsen, Del Toro once again proves that he is one of Hollywood’s most affecting storytellers and that even the most high concept fantasy stories can be poignant ones.

Honorable Mentions

War for the Planet of the Apes (Directed by Matt Reeves), God’s Own Country (Directed by Francis Lee), Mudbound (Directed by Dee Rees), Call Me By Your Name (Directed by Luca Guadagnino), Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Directed by Martin McDonagh), The Florida Project (Directed by Sean Baker), Phantom Thread (Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson), Logan Lucky (Directed by Steven Soderbergh), The Disaster Artist (Directed by James Franco), Wind River (Directed by Taylor Sheridan)

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/technology/entertainment/review-in-beetlejuice-the-afterlife-is-exhausting/

Review: In ‘Beetlejuice,’ the Afterlife Is Exhausting

The dead lead lives of noisy desperation in “Beetlejuice,” the absolutely exhausting new musical that opened on Thursday at the Winter Garden Theater. This frantic adaptation of Tim Burton’s much-loved 1988 film is sure to dishearten those who like to think of the afterlife as one unending, undisturbed sleep.

Because as directed by a feverishly inventive Alex Timbers, and starring Alex Brightman as the manic ghoul of the title, this production proposes that not being alive just means that you have to try harder — a whole lot harder — than you ever did before. Otherwise, you’ll wind up invisible, with nary a soul to acknowledge your starry self. And in today’s world of chronic self-advertising, this may be the true fate worse than death.

Invisibility is definitely not among this show’s problems; overcompensating from the fear that it might lose an audience with a limited attention span is. Though it features a jaw-droppingly well-appointed gothic funhouse set (by David Korins, lighted by Kenneth Posner), replete with spooky surprises, this show so overstuffs itself with gags, one-liners and visual diversions that you shut down from sensory overload.

The sum effect suggests Disney World’s Haunted Mansion ride (and, hey, I’ve spent some very happy moments there) as occupied by an especially competitive meeting of the Friars Club. The industrious cast keeps spitting out spoken and sung jokes — good, bad and boring — at the velocity of those armies of bats that regularly swoop over the audience, summoned by the projection designer Peter Nigrini.

Mr. Burton’s original film, which cemented his reputation as a Hollywood moneymaker, divided critics when it first came out. (“About as funny as a shrunken head — and it happens to include a few,” Janet Maslin wrote in her review in The New York Times.)

But moviegoers swooned for Mr. Burton’s stylized blend of morbid darkness and cartoon brightness, and it remains a cult favorite. Certainly, no one complained that it was understated. The biggest objection from its fans was that Michael Keaton’s Beetlejuice — the scurrilous phantom who wreaks havoc among both the living and the dead in a haunted middle-class home — didn’t get enough screen time.

The creators of this musical adaptation — led by Eddie Perfect (songs) and Scott Brown and Anthony King (book) — apparently concluded that everything people liked about the film should be multiplied ad infinitum, starting with Beetlejuice himself. But, oh dear fans, be careful what you wish for.

Let me say that after Mr. Korins’s set, Mr. Brightman is the best reason to see “Beetlejuice,” which also stars the talented but misused Sophia Anne Caruso as his arch-frenemy, a living teenager with a death wish. Mr. Brightman, who received a Tony nomination for the Jack Black part in the stage version of “School of Rock,” again faces the unenviable task of reinventing a memorable madcap screen performance.

As coiffed (by the wigmaker Charles G. LaPointe) and attired (by William Ivey Long) with a newly punkish edge, this Beetlejuice is no pale imitation of Mr. Keaton or anyone else. Or not one single person. Instead, he seems to be channeling the entire ensemble from the early years of “Saturday Night Live,” with a soupçon of Jerry Lewis and Robin Williams at their most frenzied.

The show’s high point, by far, is Mr. Brightman’s opening number, “Being Dead,” one of the best meta-theatrical songs since “The Book of Mormon.” He materializes on a coffin in a graveyard, after the funeral for the mother of Lydia (Ms. Caruso), who has sung the first of what will be several tedious ballads of bereftness. “Holy crap! A ballad already!” exclaims Beetlejuice. “And such a bold departure from the original source material.”

[What’s new onstage and off: Sign up for our Theater Update newsletter.]

I felt a thrill of relief at that point, a sense that this show might not be a chore to sit through, after all. (I was on guard, as “Beetlejuice” had been roasted to a crisp in an earlier incarnation in Washington.)

What follows is an extremely lively introduction to the premise that death is indeed a laughing matter, punctuated with dark, rib-jabbing asides. (“If you die during the performance, this show will not stop.”)

Still, Mr. Brightman is so electrically, relentlessly on here that you wonder if he can sustain that level of all-out energy. As it turns out, Mr. Brightman and “Beetlejuice” can indeed sustain this anything-for-a-laugh intensity. And it is not a trait that benefits from prolonged exposure.

Nearly everything appears to be operating on the principle that it must somehow top what came before. So at the drop of a punch line, the show is suddenly crowded by throngs of ghostly cheerleaders, gospel singers, a dead football team (for a sequence set in hell), not to mention really big puppets (by Michael Curry). There’s even (no, please, make it stop!) a phalanx of cloned, dancing Beetlejuices. (The hyper choreography is by Connor Gallagher.)

This being a Broadway musical, “Beetlejuice” has been given a freshly broadened sentimental streak. There’s an enhanced treacly through line, at odds with the prevailing frat-house high jinks, about the search for family. At its center is the lonely, mom-missing Lydia, who resents that her dad, Charles (Adam Dannheisser) has taken up with Delia (Leslie Kritzer, taking zany to the max), a perky but insecure life coach.

In parts charmingly originated onscreen by Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, the house-haunting, newly dead young couple Adam and Barbara (the talented Rob McClure and Kerry Butler in thankless roles) are shown mourning the absence of the child they never got around to having while they were alive.

Ms. Caruso, the precocious teenage actress who was an incandescent presence in the David Bowie musical “Lazarus,” lacks the devilish, deadpan piquancy that Winona Ryder brought to the same role in the film. When this Lydia sings about a place called home, you can imagine what Britney Spears might have been like in the title role of “Annie.”

The music mostly exists in a loud, undifferentiated blur. That includes, I am sorry to say, “Day-O (The Banana Boat Song),” in which the denizens of a dinner party find themselves possessed by a calypso spirit. In the film, the incongruity of stuffy, dressed-up philistines making like Jamaican backup dancers was a hoot.

Here, everybody, including every member of the support cast, has already gone so far over the top that there’s no room for comic contrast. The disheartening moral of “Beetlejuice” is that when anything goes, nothing much registers in the end.

[kittymonks-fanfiction]

Genderswapped Nations Review - Chapter 4

Welcome back to Genderswapped Nations, the fanfic where it’s possible for nine American minors in Germany without passports to buy nine plane tickets all heading to eight different countries at the same time using USD. There were less attempted sexual assaults last time, which is always a plus, but I can’t say that there won’t be any attempted crimes against minors this time around. What do I mean by that? Let’s jump in and figure that out.

Chapter 4: Substitutes and Suitcases

Believe it or not, this is actually one of the better chapter titles in Genderswapped Nations…even if, as you’ll find out later, the ‘suitcases’ aspect of the title has very little to do with the plot of the chapter.

The plane landed, and Ariana got off. She was immediately greeted by businessmen, who looked at her nicely at first but then looked confused. “What?” Ariana asked.

“We were expecting Mr. Kirkland,” one of the businessmen replied.

“Wait a minute…you’re not our boss who’s hundreds of years old and is the embodiment of the country we live in! Harvey, you said he would be on this flight!”

And wasn’t she just getting off a normal passenger flight? If they were expecting England, why would they intercept a thirteen year old girl?

“You mean England?” Ariana asked. “Shouldn’t he be here right now?”

“No, he left yesterday on classified matters,” another one of the businessmen said.

Oh cool, so nobody knows why he left to go to Germany. That’s why he…left businessmen at the airport so they could talk to him once he got off the plane with his genderbend? Sorry to say, but it’s not ‘classified’ anymore if these guys witness you getting off a plane with a younger female version of yourself after the fact.

“Oh, is that so?” Ariana said. “I’ll fill in for him until he gets back.”

Uhhhh, what? Why would this be the first thing she suggests? She’s only come to Britain so she can…um, avoid England (I think?). If he’s only going to be gone for a little while longer, why would she volunteer to take control of the entire country? Isn’t there a prime minister to do that? Isn’t there the UK Parliament? I mean hell, if you really want to prove that you’re an idiot, past me, you could even claim that Queen Elizabeth II is in charge—she’s not, but it would make more sense than what’s going on here.

“And why would we put a teenager in charge of Great Britain?” one of the businessmen asked.

“I can cook better,” Ariana said.

“Oh, well, that was the only thing that we thought was wrong with Mr. Kirkland. And since you are technically just him in a dress, I guess you could fill in for him for a while.” One of the businessmen decided.

“Great!” Ariana exclaimed.

This reads like a fucking parody. But no, this is real canon! She just shows up, volunteers to take control of the country while England is away, and they let her do it because she can cook better (despite the fact that she shouldn’t know that England’s a bad cook since she’s never even met the guy). This is like the plot to some Disney Channel movie, it’s insane.

This was also the case for the other girls; they all filled in for their counterparts while they were away.

And as if it couldn’t get any more ridiculous, the same thing happens to all of the other girls. Even Allison, who’s not even old enough to register for an account on YouTube according to its terms of service. Wow.

Later, Ariana got a phone call after she was brought to England’s house. She answered it, and was greeted by Louella. “Ariana, the countries are having a meeting. Get to Berlin.”

But…didn’t they just leave Berlin? And I’m sure that if England left Berlin right after Ariana, he should be back by now. And if he hasn’t left yet because of flight delays, then you’re going right back to him!

“Why do we have to have a meeting now?” Ariana asked.

“None of the other countries know we’re filling in for the real ones,” Louella explained. “We need to introduce ourselves.”

“Right,” Ariana said.

You couldn’t just use Skype or hold a press conference or something? They don’t hold entire world meetings every time a new president/prime minister gets elected. It makes it seem like Louella wants to hold this meeting just to brag or something. In fact, by the time this meeting ends, all of the nations are going to be home and ready to take control again! What’s the point?

She got money to board a plane to Berlin, and did just that. When she entered the meeting room, she noticed all the nations, except the gender swapped ones, were staring at her. When she sat down, Louella stood.

Well that’s a familiar occurrence. I have to wonder if Ariana was really the last to arrive though. How did the North Americans arrive in Berlin within the same day that they were asked to go there, even arriving BEFORE another European did?

“May I have your attention, please?” She asked firmly. The other nations gave her their attention, but many still had confused faces. “First, I want to discuss-”

“Why are we being bossed around by a thirteen year old girl?” one of the nations questioned.

I don’t know what nation this was supposed to be (I think I sort of headcanoned that it was Romano or Belarus or someone??) but I love them. They should be the main character of the fanfiction instead of Mary-Sue Ariana.

“I was getting to that,” Louella growled, before regaining her normal voice. “As you can see, a few of the attendees are the thirteen year old female counterparts of our respective countries.”

“So, where are the original ones?” another voice asked Louella.

They should know where they are if they had a meeting just a few days ago about Prussia kidnapping these girls in the first place.  Obviously they’re away ‘rescuing’ the thirteen year old girls that have now replaced them.

By the way, past me, you missed a good opportunity to have someone freak out and think that the original countries were killed and these children are trying to replace them. It would have made this meeting have an actual point because that would’ve been funny as hell with Louella on the spot having to prove that they don’t have nefarious intentions and that the originals are probably fine.

“I��ve consulted the other gender swaps, and the original countries are away on ‘classified matters’.” The counterpart answered.

“Was that it?” Another country asked.

“I guess, I don’t really have any other important things to talk about,” Louella said. Some of the nations grumbled as they all stood up and left the gender swaps in the room alone. “How did I do?” Louella asked.

That was, without a doubt, the best political meeting I’ve ever witnessed in my life. Wow. If all UN meetings are like that, where they only discuss one point of business that only affects nine countries and immediately becomes irrelevant a few hours later, then I should really look into joining the UN. It would be a walk in the park. I am the Shenandoah River, after all. That counts as a nation that can be united with other nations, right? I have poisonous fish who can vouch for me!

“You just let some of them walk all over you.” Ariana said.

“You and three other people were the only ones who got to speak,” Kierra said.

“Yeah! Those meetings are nothing when I don’t get to speak!” Allison complained.

All of those are completely justified criticisms because really, the meeting didn’t have a point at all. And would you be surprised if I told you that this exact same thing essentially happens next chapter too??

Louella nodded. “Well, we should get going now. Be sure to visit Germany more often, okay?” She asked her friends.

She doesn’t have anything to say to these criticisms. She knows that it was a pointless meeting, she just wanted to make everyone respect her authority by forcing them to come to Berlin for two minutes for a pointless meeting.

Everyone nodded, except Francisca. “It’s very unusual that you aren’t speaking for once, Francisca,” Ariana teased.

“Yeah, what’s wrong with you? You’ve seemed worried this whole meeting.” Louella said.

“It’s just…” Francisca began. “I don’t think it was very smart to say out counterparts weren’t present. Some countries would take our ‘Substitution’ as an opportunity to take over our countries.”

This is almost a decent point, but the United States doesn’t get conquered every time the president leaves to go meet with foreign leaders. I’m American, so I can’t speak for Europe on this point. For all I know, the presidency in France could be trading hands quicker than a hot potato right now.  

And hahahahahaha Francisca said Substitution like the chapter title Substitution and Suitcases oh how charming.

Kierra nodded in agreement. “I’d say the only one safe from that would be Iscah.”

“And why wouldn’t I be safe?” Allison questioned.

“Seriously?” Ariana said. “Just because you’re in the west doesn’t mean you’re safe.”

“So why is Iscah safe?” Allison questioned, but quickly took it back, remembering the night she hid in Ariana’s closet to keep away from the creepy girl.

It’s super funny, the way the fic just keeps telling us how creepy Iscah is even though Iscah never does anything creepy. I also have to point out the fact that not only is Iscah safe because ‘she’s creepy’, but it’s implied to be (I think) wintertime and, well…ask Napoleon how well invading Russia on foot during the winter usually goes.

Aaaand Allison should be safer from active ‘invasion’ compared to the European countries because if America’s already on his way back from Europe, then it would be impossible for someone currently in Berlin to leave this meeting to go to America and invade while he’s still on the plane. Since he left to go to the same place way before they did, it goes without saying that they wouldn’t get to America before he would. Not only that, but, the U.S. has the second largest military in the world. I don’t care how ‘evil’ you think you are, it would be a pretty bad idea to single-handedly troll a country that throws as much money at its military as the U.S. does.

“We should be getting back then,” Ariana said.

“Remember! Don’t forget to visit Germany!” Louella called as the nations walked away.

“If there is one, aru,” Yiesha muttered.

Oh god, edgy. Anyway, as you can see, it was by this point that I caught on to China’s verbal tick from the Japanese version of Hetalia and threw it in for good measure. It…doesn’t make much sense, really. That’s all there really is to say about it.

Meanwhile, England’s plane landed. He got his bags, and was confused not to find any businessmen waiting for him like they were told to.

So he straight up just told those businessmen to amble about aimlessly until he came back? But why? The mission was ‘classified’, so what were they there for?

He decided to walk back to his house himself, but when he got there, the door was locked.

Is that…unusual? Doesn’t he normally leave the country’s capital locked when he leaves on business trips? No wonder everyone thinks that their countries are going to get conquered, England doesn’t leave his door locked when he leaves!! Who knows who else could be leaving their doors wide open right now??

He rang the doorbell, aggravated enough to kick down the door but not wanting to harm his house.

And he doesn’t have his key? This almost seems offensive to people from the UK. This is the sort of forgetfulness you’d expect out of a character like America or Italy, definitely not England.

…unless the joke is that he’s old and forgetful, in which case…ha? There’s not much of a punch line if it’s a joke. It’s more of a nuisance than anything.

Ariana heard the chime of the doorbell, and ran to the door.

OH GOD I think I have whiplash, that POV change was so sudden.

But she was shocked, because when she opened the door, England was there, and he threw one of his briefcases at her about two seconds after the door was opened, assuming it was France or some other perverted intruder.

What the shit?? Why would he throw his suitcase at the first person who opened the door assuming that someone broke into his house?  Does he not have maids and butlers? Why would he ring the doorbell if he expected a home intruder to answer?

Oh and by the way Ariana’s totally dead now. England might not be the strongest but he is a grown man and he threw that briefcase directly at her face. Someone needs to call the funeral home up the street.

He soon apologized as Ariana lifted the suitcase off her face and they recognized each other.

“That’s the same guy from Prussia’s house,” Ariana thought. “Prudence was lying!”

She may not be dead, but she definitely has some brain damage. Seriously, that should be abundantly obvious now. Nobody put two and two together and assumed that the countries were away looking for their genderbends since they couldn’t find the real guys anywhere in the capital buildings of these countries?

“Who are you?” England asked.

“Ariana,” the girl replied. “And you must be England.”

“Yeah.” The man replied.

They stared at each other awkwardly for a minute or two, until this silence was broken by a phone call.

What a fantastic exchange. This is exactly how I would greet my genderbent counterpart upon first meeting them and walloping them with a suitcase. At least Ariana’s completely fine after having been physically assaulted by a grown man though, that’s a relief.

Ariana walked over and answered. “Hello, England, Ariana speaking,” she said.

“This is the awesome Prussia,” the other line said. “And I’m coming over there soon!”

What the fuck??

“What?” Ariana asked. England ran over to his counterpart and yanked the phone from her hand.

“Hey! Who’s this?” he demanded.

England just telepathically knows that the phone call was bad news from Ariana’s only reply being a calm—and not incredulous—“What?”

“This is the awesome me,” Prussia repeated. “And I’m guessing this is England now.”

WHY DID HE ASSUME THAT ENGLAND WASN’T HOME YET??? It’s bizarre enough that it took him this long! Assuming that it would take him even longer is just insane!!

“You’re bloody right this is England now!” England shouted. “Now what did you just say to my counterpart?”

“Eh, nothing.” Prussia said. He hung up.

Hold on, what the hell just happened?? No, seriously! Does this imply that Prussia planned for the girls to take over their host countries? Did he place a diversion to keep the countries from getting home in a timely manner so he could single-handedly conquer them? What’s this Batman Gambit bullshit??

“So, what did he say to you?” England said in a normal but slightly aggravated tone.

“He said he was invading,” Ariana replied. “But I guess he quit out on it when he realized you’re here.”

“Probably,” England muttered.

Is this…a common occurrence? If our president leaves again anytime soon, can I call the White House and threaten to invade in the hopes that they’ll just give me the job instead? I’m way too young, but I’m sure I can cook better than our current president can. That’s all the work experience I need to run a country, after all.

Then, the phone rang again. Ariana walked over to pick it up, but England stopped her and answered it himself. “What is it?” he questioned.

“Hey, it’s France,” the phone said. “I just wanted to brag about how cute my gender swap is!”

“Really?” England asked.

Did…nobody else get a threatening call from Prussia? Just England for some reason? None of the countries actually bordering Germany? Like, say…France??

Not to mention that it’s squicky for a grown man to gush about how cute a little girl is to another grown man, like, 99% of the time.

(Note: The other 1% is just Maes Hughes raving about how much he loves his daughter. In all other contexts, it’s squicky.)

“Who is it?” Ariana asked loudly.

England covered the speaking part of the phone as h answered, “It’s just France.” Ariana nodded in understanding, and England brought the phone back to his ear.

There was no purpose for that little segment of England explaining who was on the line since all it did was repeat to the audience, “Hey, the person on the other end of the phone is France.” That was the perfect opportunity to tell a joke via Ariana’s reaction to this information and you blew it.

“Yes, she’s so cute! And by that background voice I just heard, yours must be dreadfully ugly!” France responded.

“That’s not true!” England vindicated.

Do I need to remind my audience of the ‘fun fact’ I pulled out in chapter one about England’s English VA?? I don’t like having to share that information more than I have to, but I’ll do it. I’ll fricking do it man.

He abrubtly got another phone call, and he made France hold as he answered the phone. “Hello?”

“Hey, British dude, it’s America,” the phone said.

…British dude. I’ll let that speak for itself. Just…British dude. This man raised you when you were a child!!

“And I bet this is about your gender swap,” England sighed.

“Hey, how’d you know?” America asked.

“Lucky guess.” England replied sarcastically. America, though, did not catch this sarcasm, and instead continued to talk.

What are the chances that both countries would call England specifically at the same time to give him the same information? If England just got home, shouldn’t America still be on his plane going over the Atlantic Ocean? There’s no way a flight from Berlin to London would take the same amount of time as a flight from Berlin to Washington, D.C..

“I just wanted to say, my gender swap is awesome! She likes all the same foods I do, and she gets along well with Mr. Tony!”

Does…Does America usually call him ‘Mr. Tony’? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I remember him being referred to as just Tony.

in the background, England could lightly hear the alien mentioned muttering swears, probably knowing England was on the phone. Then, America hung up.

That’s just it? No reply? He just hangs up when he’s finished talking? That’s cold.

England redialed France, and the French man asked, “Who was calling?”

“Who do you think?” England questioned.

France seemed to understand who England meant.

Great, now they both have telepathy.

“Well, anyway, I just wanted to say that my gender swap is better than yours.”

France hung up before England could protest.

How productive a conversation that was. It was so unnecessary that it hurt. When you have a German extremist kidnapping children from America, brainwashing them, and threatening to conquer Europe, is bragging to your rival over the phone really your biggest concern?

He unplugged his phone, and faced Ariana and said, “Still sorry about the suitcase thing.”

“No problem,” Ariana replied with a smile.

“It’s okay, I just have a broken nose and five missing teeth. All is forgiven.” “Besides, it makes me look more British anyways!”

I’ve finally caught on to the China ‘aru’ thing, even if the only China reference was one line by China’s counterpart.

Yes, because that was the only thing wrong with this fic.

It seems like it’s over again, right? You should know better by now that something like this is not the kind of ending I throw into the end of FanFics. Seriously, remember Chapter 2, ‘Conversation and Costumes’? It’s like that ending.

Oh, you mean how it ended on a cliffhanger of ‘are the countries going to accept the girls or not?’ Because no, this ending is nothing like that. The plot should actually be over now, with maybe just one more chapter where Prussia gets punished somehow for kidnapping a bunch of little girls.

And it’s weird that I capitalized both ‘f’s in ‘fanfics’. I don’t know why that is. Maybe I assumed it looked cooler.

Also, *spoiler alert* the next chapter will feature Allison and America! Because neither of them has said ‘I’m the hero’ yet, and I thought that would only be appropriate :3

Fan-fricking-tastic. Because America and his counterpart weren’t Flanderized enough as it was.

Well, that was chapter 4 and my god was it a clusterfuck of horrible decisions and insane world politics. Anyway, be sure to come back next time for more pointless meetings, senseless violence, and the beginning of World War III. No, seriously.  I’m not exaggerating. And the abuse counter doubles, if you were worried that Alexis wasn’t being tortured enough as it was.

(CANADA/ALEXIS ABUSE COUNTER=5)

[omniversalobservations]

“The Rise of Mash-Up Cinema”

In the opening minutes of Ralph Breaks the Internet, John C. Reilly’s Ralph and Sarah Silverman’s Vanellope Von Schweetz — stars of the film’s 2012 predecessor, Wreck-It Ralph — sit in a sort of Grand Central Terminal for video-game characters and play a round of “I Spy.” “I spy with my little eye, something that is round, yellow, and eats dots,” one of them says to the other. That something is, of course, Pac-Man. There’s a bit of banter about that fact, all of it only funny if you know who Pac-Man is. The bit is predicated on you being at least a little excited by the existence of Pac-Man in this movie, which is not a movie about Pac-Man. He’s making a special guest appearance, one brand hopping into another. That intended frisson of recognition, of wonder that a thing could cross over with another thing, is the foundation upon which the Wreck-It Ralph franchise is built.

As of 2012, such crossovers were a rarity. When critics praised the first film, they took note of how potent the idea was. “It’s impossible not to feel a strong sense of nostalgic amusement, if not sheer delight, at the comings and goings of all these characters,” said The Globe and Mail’s Dave McGinn in a characteristic write-up. “I don’t own an MRI machine, but I guarantee that just seeing Sonic the Hedgehog lights up the Gen X amygdala like a house on fire.” Not just Gen X, either: those younger could marvel at the presence of the host of Dance Dance Revolution, those older could giggle when the paddles and ball from Pong popped up. Street Fighter’s Zangief and Chun-Li waved hello, Q*Bert played a memorable role, and so on. It was a shock-and-awe tactic: viewers were supposed to sit back and wonder, How is any of this legal?

The answer is: it’s legal because, really, what corporation wouldn’t want to have its intellectual property appear in a cheery Disney cartoon that’ll be in front of the eyeballs of millions of consumers? All the House of Mouse had to do was ask, pay the licensing fees, and put the characters into situations deemed appropriate by the copyright holders. Everybody wins. The idea makes so much sense that it’s becoming increasingly commonplace. Indeed, it’s not unreasonable to expect that branded mash-ups are on their way to becoming a staple aspect of blockbuster cinema. It’s not necessarily a cheery thought.

The past 17 months will have seen the release of no fewer than four movies that fall into this basket. First came The Emoji Movie, a saga in which anthropomorphized pictograms ventured through an array of popular apps inside a teen’s phone. Then there was Ready Player One, the most infamous of these offenders, derided for relying on the weaponized nostalgia of an array of cultural artifacts from the 1980s and beyond. Disney’s Avengers: Infinity War brought together virtually every strand of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including Spider-Man, a character Disney doesn’t own the film rights to but borrows from Sony. These were all hits of one size or another. The market is speaking.

It’s hard to imagine Ralph Breaks the Internet breaking that streak. It’s a decently written kids’ movie with a constant stream of amusing gags and comforting character beats. It offers up the kind of clean whiz-bang CGI visuals that we’ve come to expect in a post-Pixar animation environment. The voice acting is often delightful. But these factors, on their own, can only take the flick so far. What its creators clearly believe is that viewers will be over the moon at the melange of familiar brands that agreed to throw their lot in with Ralph and Vanellope.

There are appearances from game characters, but the real action this time around is in the tech sector. Thanks to a newly installed modem at the arcade in which they dwell, Ralph and Vanellope leave their respective games and embark on a quest inside the internet. The film’s visualization of the world wide web is a gleaming hyper-metropolis of flying vehicles and impossible skyscrapers, something between Tokyo and Coruscant. As our protagonists venture through it, they find all the behemoth brands made manifest: here’s the endless warehouse of Amazon, there’s a tower that Pinterest calls home, watch out that you don’t crash into the Fandango building — and why not make a little pit stop at Snapchat HQ?

“This is the most beautiful miracle I’ve ever seen,” Vanellope declares upon entering the internet, and we are given no reason to disagree. This is the digital utopia that tech CEOs verbally conjure when they attempt to sell us on their agendas, a marketplace of dollars and ideas where everyone’s free to satisfy their desires and escape the disappointments and inefficiencies of fleshy existence. Sure, there’s a brief excursion to the darknet, where viruses and scams lurk, but no brands appear there, and it’s presented as a marginal portion of the landscape. This is not the Internet as it truly is — Ralph encounters no racist Facebook memes, Vanellope never accidentally wanders into Pornhub — but rather as it is sold to us.

The brands are not strictly bits of set-dressing, either. The instigating conceit of the plot is that Vanellope’s arcade game breaks and, in order to save it from being decommissioned, she and Ralph attempt to purchase a replacement part via eBay. The filmmakers could have chosen a generic stand-in auction site, but going with eBay is a win-win for creators and licensors, alike. In this vision of the company’s service, fast-talking, old-timey auctioneers bark at the avatars of potential buyers in a bustling, capacious work space. Ralph and Vanellope don’t have sufficient funds to pay for the part and have to find the cash within a set time period, during which they’re periodically hit with automated reminders that take the anthropomorphized form of a plucky little bellboy (Ralph calls him eBoy). The soullessness of an online transaction is thus replaced by charmingly anachronistic human faces seeking to engage you as a human being. One can imagine an eBay boardroom erupting in delight at an early screening. There would be nothing for them to complain about.

The same goes for all of these excursions into cinematic corporate symbiosis. The Emoji Movie is a curdled yogurt of perfunctory storytelling and Bible-page-thin characterization, but it sure is nice to its beloved mobile apps. The heroic emojis ride a boat through the “music streams” of Spotify, dance their little yellow butts off in Just Dance, and satisfy their sweet teeth over at Candy Crush — and I’ll be forever haunted by my colleague Emily Yoshida’s description of hearing a child at a screening delightedly bellow, “It’s Instagram!” upon the appearance of the beloved photo app. Ready Player One was a binder stuffed near to bursting with pop-culture love letters: the leads hung out in the world of The Shining, drove around in a Back to the Future DeLorean, and fought a grand video game battle royale alongside the Iron Giant, Voltron, and Spawn, all of which accounts for maybe 1/1000th of all the references in the film. Infinity War was easiest to pull off from a licensing perspective, given that Disney owns the film rights to all the non-Spidey Marvel characters therein, and it is what all of these movies aspire to be: a billion-dollar picture that milks every bit of excitement that can come from having its various pieces of IP hang out together.

It’s long been obvious that studios are trying to ape the Marvel model by building their own cinematic universes in which various characters are established in their own movies and then thrown together for crossover appearances. But crucially, no one has succeeded in their imitation attempts. The DC Extended Universe is moving away from interlinked stories, the Valiant universe is years behind schedule, and only the maddest of scientists would say Universal’s monster-filled Dark Universe has a promising future. All of that leaves the higher-ups with a conundrum: how can you synthesize Marvel’s crossover thrills without going through the trouble of building a shared universe that people give a rat’s ass about?

Brand-synergy movies offer an alternative that’s expensive in dollars but cheap in creative effort. If you can’t build out a pantheon of characters that you convince an audience to become familiar with, why not just rent a bunch of properties they’re already familiar with, duct-tape them together, hoist them aloft before the camera, and declare that movie magic has been made? That way, the viewer gets to feel the thrill of seeing people, places, and things that come from different worlds coexist for a moment in time, but you don’t have to put in the work of establishing these properties.

It’s the next level up from mere cinematic adaptation. We no longer feel any particular elation when it’s announced that someone is making a filmed version of our favorite brand — that’s become de rigueur in the nostalgia economy. If you want to feel that old excitement, now you have to see your favorite brand be adapted in conjunction with another one of your favorite brands, and another, and another, until you have a filmic turducken of corporate interests. The ante has been upped, and as long as the big players in Hollywood can play nice with corporate partners, it will only elevate further.

This trend doesn’t have to be a death knell for creativity in blockbuster cinema. A turducken can be baked and seasoned well by the right cooks. The ne plus ultra of this phenomenon actually predates our present trend by 25 years: Robert Zemeckis’s 1988 Disney flick Who Framed Roger Rabbit? In preparation for Ralph Breaks the Internet, I rewatched Roger Rabbit for the first time since childhood and was amazed by how well it holds up. Sure, it gets its fair share of kicks out of constructing a world inhabited by classic Disney animated characters, their Looney Tunes competition, and a cavalcade of other cartoon stars. But their appearances in this surprisingly daring neo-noir are sparing and clever: Daffy and Donald Duck in an increasingly violent dueling-pianos competition, a black-and-white Betty Boop struggling to prove she’s still got it it in the world of color cartoons, a headline reading, “GOOFY CLEARED OF SPY CHARGES,” and the like.

Roger Rabbit uses these cameos as building blocks for story and world-building, not mere showing-off. Okay, there’s a little bit of showing-off — I mean, how cool is it that Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse signed a truce long enough to appear together for a gag in the third act? — but for the most part, these characters are present to help critique show business. The toons, disrespected by humans and isolated in Toontown, are stand-ins for marginalized groups (particularly black people) whose labor has fueled the entertainment economy while being exploited by greedy white people who exclude them from the highest echelons of the industry. When we see Dumbo literally working for peanuts, it’s not just a joke about elephants’ preferred diet, but also a way to make our hearts break at the injustice of one of our most beloved figures being nickel-and-dimed by a crass studio chief. There’s just so much good storytelling and acting — not to mention still-impressive integration of 2-D animation and live action — that you can’t help but get caught up in the ride. These things can be done well.

But it seems all too likely that they will be done poorly. One struggles to imagine brands being okay with Roger Rabbit–level subversion these days. It’ll all be focus-group-approved portrayals that advance the joint agendas of the creators and the companies, alike. The temptation to take a dull plot and spice it up with branded guest appearances is simply too strong. Such a process can create an illusion of familiarity and comfort that masks mediocre workmanship, and lord knows Hollywood will take any chance to spray a new perfume on a turd. To paraphrase Orwell: If you want a vision of the future, imagine Luke Skywalker and Jean-Luc Picard fighting Voldemort — forever.

Source: Vulture

(images via YouTube)