Ghostbusters 2016

OK, it's finally here and people can speak about it from an informed point of view rather than a knee-jerk reaction from internet trolls. I loved the original "Ghostbusters", and I had no problem with the idea of a reboot featuring women in the leads. The cast looked promising but I will say I am unfamiliar with the work of Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, but as alums of SNL they could be great or complete busts. The idea of putting together four funny women as a new crew of Supernatural fighters should work. The hate this movie generated however was amazing. The trailer has three times as many dislikes as likes and I've heard it is the most disliked video ever on YouTube. Many people are locked and loaded to hate this film, but I was not one of them.

As it turns out the haters are closer to the truth than are the naively optimistic. It is not something to hate but it is not very good. It seems strange with the talent and money spent putting it together that the film misfires so much. Most of the ways the movie fails have little to do with the cast or the concept but everything to do with the script and the tone. There are good things in the movie but they are passing elements rather than things that grow from the characters or the situations. The most laughs I had were in the end titles and it seems like they were just tossing in material they did not think would work in the film but for me was the stuff that worked the best.

Maybe the biggest problem is that no one will ever be able to reproduce the odd, karmic attitude and timing of Bill Murray in the original. This movie tries very hard to make the characters funny but it just feels flat almost in every scene. The opening sequence, which has none of the featured performers in it, is the best moment of the film. When the titles came up I was excited that the movie was getting started on the right foot. Kristen Wiig is a character so unsure of herself that she denies authorship of a book. Murray on the other hand was so self assured that every time something did not go as planned, you were amused by his reaction. Wiig's Erin Gilbert expects to be mocked and that just does not work for the movie. Melissa McCarthy on the other hand is mostly just progressively loud. When given the chance she can be great. She carried last year's "Spy" on her back very effectively. This performance feels more like one of those numerous comedies of hers that I have avoided in the last few years[Tammy, The Boss, Identity Theft].

In the plot of the movie, political forces get involved and it comes out of no where and it makes absolutely no sense.  Andy Garcia as the Mayor tries to thank and deny the Ghostbusters simultaneously. His annoying assistant seems to pop up every so often to divert the plot from the original point and basically for no reason at all. One of the reasons stuff worked in the original film was it was played in a somewhat serious vein. The Mayors office was interested in election year politics and the EPA guy was a bureaucratic weeny drunk on his own power. Every character the Ghostbusters interact with in this film are unrealistic and unconvincing. From the Department chair who thinks Princeton is not a prestigious enough school to get a recommendation from, to the Dean of the other institution who uses the middle finger as his primary form of communication and the Mayor who is so indifferent, nothing feels real. There are segments that feel cut and pasted into the story, there never is any drive behind the story as it develops. In spite of all the frenetic energy being put into this, I thought it was pretty lifeless.

When the original theme music is used in the film, you can almost convince yourself that there is something worthwhile happening on the screen. When you hear the theme from Fall Out Boy, you will want to cry because it mangles all that was fun in the Ray Parker Jr. original.   There are call backs and cameos throughout the movie. Keep your eyes open for familiar faces, except for Rick Moranis and Harold Ramis (RIP), everyone shows up for a bit and they are fun. It's just not enough to justify seeing the movie.

Lambcast: The Towering Inferno

KAMAD joins the Lambcast to discuss a 70s classic, the disaster spectacular "The Towering Inferno".

Swiss Army Man

Well I can safely say you have never seen anything quite like this. I've watched some strange stuff over the years, including films that I immediately loathed, despite their pretensions at philosophical depth. There have been horror movies that made no sense but I enjoyed them and there have been pieces of work that some have claimed as masterpieces that seemed like total crap to me. "Swiss Army Man" defies any categorization along those lines. It is coherent but ambiguous. There are pretentious elements to it but it never gets so self satisfied as to be annoying. I kept trying to think of comparisons to be made that would help someone decide to see this or not but all of those comparisons are inadequate in a number of ways. For instance, the most obvious hybrid/mash-up description of the film is that it is a cross between "Cast Away" and "Weekend at Bernies". That combination is technically on the nose but misses so much of what this film seems to be about that you would be lost using it as a compass.

Plot is not really the point of the film, it is really a long mediation on loneliness that uses a desert island scenario to kickstart our thinking on what the feeling of isolation really does to us. Along the way though, we are given plenty to laugh at and be horrified by. There are moments in this movie that are so over the top sincere that you wonder that anyone could take it seriously, and then you find yourself being caught up in one of those moments and in spite of your better judgement, going along with it. Many of you will have heard of this film being referred to as the "farting corpse" movie. I really think that short hand description will keep plenty of people who might find this interesting from coming out to see it. Again, while technically accurate, it is misleading.

As I sat watching the movie I also tried to figure out where it was going. I thought I had it nailed when I remembered an unusual episode of the "Twilight Zone",  An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. It is actually a French Short film that Rod Sterling obtained for one time use. I was it in high school for an English class I was taking, and today, I kept thinking, that "Swiss Army Man" was an update of the concept; it isn't. They do have elements in common but the psychological/supernatural points that they share turned out to be minimal. I also thought I might be seeing a "Wizard of Oz" pay off, that turned out to be wrong as well. As I said earlier, this movie defies most conventional forms of description, and those that it doesn't, will result in a lack of understanding of the film. 

Weird, is not necessarily a hindrance to a movie but it is not a magic charm to make a movie good. As weird as this film is, I have a hard time putting my finger on the things that made it worthwhile to me. Paul Dano is an actor that I have seen heavily criticized on some other blogs. Apparently he irritates a number of people. I thought he was very sincere and emotionally connected in this film. There are obvious places where there could be histrionic techniques used to try and make his character either sympathetic or important. He relied on more natural tools and expressions to pull us in. Daniel Radcliffe appears to be taking plenty of risks with his career. This is maybe the biggest and he succeeds in making a somewhat animated corpse a character that we will care about and believe it or not, relate to. 

This film will not be for everyone. I recorded a Lambcast the other day, and one of the other participants, J.D. was making the point that if movies like this one are not supported by film audiences who protest the lack of imagination in Hollywood, they should shut the hell up. I'm not one of those people, although I have groused about some of the sameness end endlessly repeated sequels and plot lines of film fare. I also go out of my way when possible to see films that are clearly different. Over the years I have been irritated by some of those "unique" films. "The Tree of Life", "Black Swan" and "Beasts of the Southern Wild" jump immediately into mind and give me a headache remembering the painful experience. However, there are plenty of other films that I've sought out, things like "Sing Street" or "Win-Win" or "City Island" which make a gamble of the atypical so worthwhile.  "Swiss Army Man" falls into the later category. It was only playing on one screen in my neck of the woods, and only one screening a day, at 10:30 in the morning, but if you are bored with most of the films you are seeing this summer, this will take you out of that rut.

The Legend of Tarzan

As a character, Tarzan has been around for more than a hundred years. He is nearly as old as another literary creation of the era, Sherlock Holmes. It was inevitable I suppose that with the new digital technology at their fingertips, someone was going to do a new version of the Tarzan story. Robert Downey Jr. gets to be Ironman and Sherlock Holmes, but the new millennium and the nature of the character probably suggest that the new Tarzan be a different face, an actor who is competent but not well established as a star.  Enter Alexander Skarsgård, a handsome man with solid credits on high quality television programs and some supporting parts in other films. This is his chance to step up and become a star, if he can manage to sell us on the idea that he is an enlightened British Lord who started his life as an adopted member of a troop of Great Apes. It's a tall order to fill but he manages to do a credible job for a couple of reasons. First of all, Tarzan is not a character known for eloquence. He is not unsophisticated because as Lord Greystoke, he is a member of the House of Lords, but as the child of a savage world without humans for the most part, he has learned to communicate in subtle, non-verbal ways. Skarsgård, may have the fewest lines of the four major characters in the film, but it is not really noticeable because he says so much with his actions. Second, he is a close doppelganger for the young version of Christopher Lambert, who made his debut on the international film stage in the same character vehicle.

In a way, his resemblance to Lambert connects the two films that were made 32 years apart. Had "Greystoke, The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" been a bigger success, this could easily have been the follow up film. A large section of the 1984 film, was devoted to the origin story of Tarzan. This film pays homage to that story but does not make it the focal point of the film. The structure of "The Legend of Tarzan" is mostly a straightforward narrative with occasional flashback sequences to provide exposition and context. It's a rather effective way of including the origin story without belaboring it. As a result, this movie feels fairly fresh and works as a stand alone episode in the story of our jungle pulp hero. The difference in tone is important. Unlike the Johnny Weissmuller films, which are  somewhat campy adventure stories, the Greystoke film of 84 sought to probe more deeply into what distinguishes man from beast. It had a solemn message about the savagery of colonial times but also about the duality of Lord Greystoke/Tarzan. This film touches ever so briefly on the later and spends most of it's time on the former. The plot concerns the exploitation of Africa bu European powers that are willing to use unscrupulous methods to achieve their objectives. Naturally, Tarzan stands in the way. Some of the 50s and 60s version of the Tarzan tale told the same kind of story.  "The Legend of Tarzan" takes the colonial period in Africa and uses it much like a James Bond thriller, with a plot to enslave a whole country by an evil figure being thwarted by our hero, while at the same time he saves the woman he loves. It's pretty good stuff but not very deep.

The three other main characters also bring something to the table that make this version of the legend even more successful. Quinton Taratino's favorite German actor of the last decade, is cast in another villainous role. After "Inglorious Basterds", he has been the heavy in a half dozen films. Most recently Christoph Waltz was the featured antagonist of James Bond in SPECTRE.  I'm fine with him collecting a paycheck but I hope he is able to expand his resume a little more. In this movie he is Leon Rom, an envoy of the King of Belgium, tasked with gaining access to the riches of the Congo, and using a plot against Lord Greystoke to do so. His scenes with Tarzan's mate when she is his prisoner, have a suitably creepy tone to them. There is one good moment where his eyes and voice express admiration for Jane, and for a moment he feels like a human and not just a cardboard bad guy, although he plays that cliched role well. Margot Robbie seems to have come out of nowhere in the last couple of years and is on the verge of exploding into mega stardom, if she can act as well as she looks a part. She will soon be Harley Quinn in a series of D.C. comic book movies and that will add fuel to the fire of her career.In this film she was solid. There was a great degree of sexual chemistry between her and Skarsgård. Tarzan and Jane look and sound like a couple who are in love and actually care about one another. Each is given an opportunity to show the desire they have for their partner in a non-lascivious way. She also gets some action scenes and as the dialogue intentionally lampoons, she is not just a damsel in distress.

The final major star of the film is somewhat surprising. What Samuel L. Jackson is doing in this film is not entirely clear. A black Doctor, as an envoy from the government of the United States personally selected by President Benjamin Harrison, he is an anachronism that defies story telling with one exception, he brings his personality to the movie. Jackson is a frequent spark plug for a moment of humor or dramatic intervention in the film. Amazingly enough, he manages to do this without once using the word that he is the foremost practitioner of in movie dialogue. It is frequently said that Samuel L. Jackson simply plays Samuel L. Jackson when he is cast, but I see differences in his tone and personality from film to film that do make his characters more distinctive. Just as in "The Hateful Eight", he is a Civil War veteran in this movie. Major Marcus Warren was a malevolent and hateful character, but George Washington Williams is sad and hopeful. The way he handles his six guns in this movie are completely different that the Tarantino chamber piece from last Christmas. The tone here is light and fun and he seems to care for humanity rather than despise it. I think you have to be a pretty good actor to sell the misanthrope of last year and the heroic side kick in this picture. Jackson does so and the movie benefits as a result. 

The look of the film is accomplished, blending CGI jungles and mountains with real backgrounds to effectively give the movie a sense of scope. Director David Yates, who did the last four Harry Potter films, is accomplished at moving exposition along with the action. That ability serves him well with this picture. While I might still prefer the Rick Baker ape make-up and costumes, the CGI animals in this film are impressive and make the impossible possible on film. I could have used more practical vine swinging, the CGI in these sequences draws attention to itself, but most modern audiences will accept it easily. 

I really wanted this film to be good, but after an early trailer, I thought it might end up as a special effects laden mess. I was pleasantly surprised and quite pleased with the results. I was out of town last week when it opened and I tried not to read anything about it. I did hear a few positive words from some media sources but they only raised my fear threshold. As it turns out, "The Legend of Tarzan" is a respectable addition to the legacy of Edgar Rice Burroughs on film and a mid summer treat that I would encourage anyone to see, but especially those who like the pulp characters of the past and want to see them live on to the future.

The Secret Life of Pets

Do you have a dog? Is there a cat sitting in your lap right now? Have you ever made bubble noises to a fish? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, than you will enjoy this film that speculates on how the other side of people pet relationships might feel about the connection. Ultimately, this movie is more for kids than I thought it would originally be, but it does pick out several of the things that we animal lovers believe about our friends and uses those to make us smile, laugh and worry.

I'm going to start with a cautious comparison here. The pets featured in this movie are much like the Toys featured in the Toy Story films. There is a major focus on how the humans relate to the subject of the film, and then there is a plot element about how the subject relates to other similar characters. Finally, there is a plot concerning the separation of the subject from it's human owner. Those are the basics of the story in the films I mentioned. The Toy Story films though, manage to build more heart and drama into their telling of the tale. Illumination Studio has created a nice design, and built in a number of gags to entertain us, but they miss the elusive spark that manages to make the Pixar films work so memorably [ at least most of the time].  This is a solid entertainment for certain, but it is not a classic that will be treasured by audiences down through the years.

We pet owners who have given voice to our furry and feathered and scaled pals over the years, both inside our heads and out loud, will have an easy time relating to this movie. Anthropomorphic conversations and interpretations of animal behavior are one of the delights in pet ownership. We get to project our own desires for the relationship onto the pet and there is basically no way we can be wrong. When an outcome is not as we predicted or wanted, we will come up with an internalized excuse and then put it in the mouth of our buddies. If that sounds like you, this movie will have a lot going for it. The main problem is that the humans disappear after the opening and only the animals remain. Instead of a thoughtful exploration of the connection that humans and pets make with one another, as last years Inside/Out did with families and our own feelings, we get an extended Road Runner cartoon. The plot is funny and manic and very entertaining, but it leaves all the nuance on the table.

Max is the star of the movie. He is a terrier voiced by Louie C.K., for the most part without any snark. When Duke, a oversized shaggy stray is interjected into his life, Max changes his demeanor in some ways and it looks like there will be an interesting story about the differences between animal and human nature to follow. What happens instead is that Max and Duke get thrown together in a buddy road comedy with a variety of complications tossed in. Both Max and Duke, voiced by Eric Stonestreet from Modern Family, seem like they are amiable dogs that have to resolve some differences. Those differences become mostly irrelevant when they are both pursued by animal and human antagonists, at which point, their behavior is basically interchangeable.

Kevin Hart provides the voice for a demented bunny and this is his third movie role this year and ninth in the last three years. The danger of over-exposure here is high, but since it is an animated character and the antics never have any sense of reality to them, his over the top manner is not really a problem for the movie. Albert Brooks is back in an animated film that is competing with his other animated film, "Finding Dory" this weekend. While not as egregious as last year's "Minions",  this movie does make repeated use of music cues from other films for the sake of getting the audience to connect emotionally with the story, rather than building a solid plot line. The one spot where it works effectively though, is in the sausage dream that the two main characters share, a better use of "We Go Together" from "Grease" cannot be imagined.

If you enjoy kids movies on their own, this is a peach of a film. If you are expecting something deeper, you may be disappointed but you will still be entertained. Don't let the fact that there is a "Minions" cartoon in front of this discourage you. "The Secret Life of Pets" may not rise to the level of "Despicable Me" but it sure as heck does not sink to the banality of that last film with the banana colored characters in overalls. If you have kids, definitely take them, if you are an adult, you can put this one off for a bit and not feel like you have been denied an important film, just like you skipped a candy bar that you would enjoy more at a later time.

The Obligatory July 4th Post on JAWS

Don't let the title fool you, it is not just an obligation it is a pleasure to see and write about the greatest adventure movie of the second half of the last century [and so far, the first Sixteen years of the current one.]

No film has been covered as in depth on this blog site as the original Steven Spielberg classic. If you go back a year to the 40th anniversary, you will see that I saw the movie on the big screen four times in 10 days and did a different post on each one of those visits. You will also be able to find an extensive collection of posts at the following: Jaws Week.

It is late however, and I have some obligations in the next few hours so I will keep this years comments short.

First, I think this may be the first time I saw the movie at the Egyptian Theater, a spot that has become my go to cinema for classic films, including several events each year at the TCM Classic Movie Film Festival. The popcorn is good, the butter flavor rich and they have Coke Zero. Oh yeah, they also have the coolest old school design on the Boulevard.

In introducing the program and telling everyone the rules of conduct, our host tonight asked how many people were seeing the movie for the first time. I was flabbergasted to see nearly a third of the packed house raise their hands. While it surprised this veteran of at least a hundred trips to Amity over the years, it also created a great expectation on my part. I had to ask myself if the film would still work on a fresh audience that is jaded by the speed and CGI of today's films. I can safely report that when Ben Gardner makes his final appearance in the movie, the screams were loud and people again levitated out of their seats.

When the shark first shows up in profile, there is another jump, and everyone still nervously laughs at Roy Scheider's ad-libbed classic line. There are two more great scares, a dozen moments of levity that all break the tension in glorious ways and you can tell they were all working tonight. Finally, there was a loud outburst of cheers and applause when the hero solves the problem of the shark in a most satisfying conclusion.

As always, I picked up a couple more tidbits of information during the screening. In the hundred times I've seen the movie, this was the first time I noticed the timeline continuity error in the police report for Chrissy's death and the date of the attack on Alex Kitner. Why I had not worried about it before is beyond me, but I think I'd go crazy if I worried about all those kinds of things. A movie is made up of a million moving parts and sometimes the cog in one section is out of synch with the gears in another section.

Something that bothers me a little more because it seems like it should be obvious. At dinner, when Quint is telling the story of the Indianapolis, I suddenly realize that he and Hooper have finished their meals and that Brody hasn't even touched his food. It may be the framing on the big screen that makes this more noticeable, or maybe because Shaw is so compelling when he does the monologue, you don't really take tour eyes off him much. So the Chief has a queasy stomach on the ocean with the more experienced sailors. That's one more small detail that is so brilliant in making these characters real and representative of their types in the story.

I also think that different prints or sound systems may emphasize some parts of the music or the dialogue a bit more from one screening location to another. After forty years, it's great to say the movie still succeeds and there are still small moments to discover.
 

Centennial Birthday Screening of The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) In Honor of Olivia de Havilland

It has already been said and you can find the page link above, this is my favorite movie. Any time you get a chance to see your favorite movie on the big screen, you should jump at it. Tomorrow night will be Amanda's turn and I will get to see my second favorite movie the day after the first. This is a fortuitous set of circumstances as we get ready to celebrate the Independence Day weekend. I only wish we could have seen my wife's favorite (The Right Stuff) last night. It would have been perfect.

 Olivia de Havilland turns 100 on July 1, and is the last remaining major female star of the Golden Age of Hollywood. If I were not on the road, I would return to the Egyptian on Saturday for the American Cinematique presentation of "Gone with the Wind". Ms.de Havilland is the last surviving cast member of one of the greatest American films ever and whether you like it or not, it is a cultural milestone.

The word "luminous" might very well have been invented to describe her presence on the screen in the films she made with Errol Flynn. Her face radiated life and positive energy and she was a truly beautiful woman. No wonder that both Guy of Gisborne and Robin of Locksley fell in love with her almost at first sight.

Oh, by the way she is also a spectacular actress. Her Melanie in GWTW may be the role she is forever remembered for but but watch her on the screen in this moment of nobility in Robin Hood, and you will be moved by her words as well as her looks.



Imagine how the world has changed in the span of her lifetime. She was in her early twenties when "The Adventures of Robin Hood" was made, that was before World War Two, in the Depths of the Depression. Jet aircraft did not exist, trips to the moon were the stuff of fiction, special effects consisted of paintings on glass and stuntmen with padding being shot with dull arrows to achieve the desired effect. She won two Academy Awards, was nominated five times and starred with Errol Flynn in eight movies in a six year period.

Happy Birthday Lady Marian , from one of the Merry Men of Sherwood.

Independence Day: Resurgence

For almost twenty years, I have told the following story to my students as an illustration of a listening technique: When I took my family to see "Independence Day" for the Fourth of July Weekend in 1996, I waited in the lobby after the movie was over while the girls used the restroom. As the heavy crowds were milling around, I heard one fellow complaining out loud "Yeah right, like some alien computer is going to link up with a Macintosh". I thought to myself at that time, "Dude, you just saw a movie about an alien invasion of the planet, and the story point that bugs you is that the computers might have incompatible operating systems, lighten up!" I tell my students that sometimes you have to use a little imagination as you listen, to make what another person is telling you interesting or meaningful. The big picture is often more important than the details. After today, I will have an addendum to the teaching anecdote, "Sometimes the devil is in the details".

This movie fails on so many levels that it is hard to fathom. The overall plot might make some sense but it will only work if the pieces fit together and make the implausible plausible for two hours, that never happens. There are characters here that are in the movie only because they were in the original, they have nothing to do with the plot and they don't do anything interesting. New characters are introduced and we never get a chance to connect with them, they are cardboard cutouts and without any emotional investment, it is hard to care about what happens to them. The coincidences that happen in the span of the story are so unbelievable as to be laughable. The ideas that are developed to engage in combat with the aliens are sometimes nonsensical. Finally, the multiple plot threads don't hang together enough to make anything feel remotely possible. I get that there is a new timeline and history for the planet, but the twenty year interval hardly seems sufficient to build the community that exists in this film and still have some of the elements they want to sell us. This movie is a candidate for Mystery Science Theater 3000, and maybe by next week.

Let's talk about stuff that should work but doesn't. Jeff Goldblum is the biggest asset there is in the film, and he has almost no funny lines or quirky moments that hit. Part of the problem is that there is no Will Smith to play off of, and part of the problem is that he now does things in a casual everyday manner that would have been the butt of one of his comments in the original film. He is back and forth from the moon in a five minute segment, that of course happens after he makes a trek to Africa to deal with a warlord of his acquaintance. He is a hero in the story and has been given substantial power in his new job, and then nobody listens to his advise in a key moment. Bill Pullman was a heroic fighter pilot, turned President, turned war hero again, and here he is portrayed as nearly addled with some form of alien communication that is not decipherable to anyone else. Brent Spinner's character comes back from the dead, going from a short cameo in the original to a major component in this film, and unfortunately for us Star Trek fans, that was not a good thing. Robert Loggia has a wordless appearance and because he died last year, I thought his face might just have been planted in CG form onto an actor on set. It turns out he was in the film but I suspect, only because they were trying to connect the first movie to the second as much as they could. I think William Fichtner is a terrific actor and presense in movies, in this he is nearly an non-entity.

While I was watching this, I was surprised how uninteresting all the special effects looked. I flashed back to the Superman Movies of the late seventies and eighties and I remembered how great the first two films looked and how cheap the second two looked. This sequel looks like the crappy end product of a franchise that is exhausted itself, not like a revived reboot with state of the art technology behind it. It may be that because the film is designed to play in 3D, that standard screenings like the one we attended won't have the same shiny sheen to them. I can tell you I will not be going back to a more expensive 3D screening to find out. I admittedly have no musical talent but I can appreciate film music. I might be the wrong person to cast aspersions on the score for this movie, but I can tell you what my reaction to it was ass a viewer. Eh. There is not a theme or a motif that is memorable. The music cues don't seem to synch up with what is on the screen. I'd have preferred a stronger sound design than most of the score I heard in the theater today.

The best thing about this movie is the poster here

There are several incomprehensible parts to the plot line, and the wanton destruction of large patches of the planet have no horror or awe in them as they have had in other Roland Emmerich films. Every piece of destruction is done on such a massive scale with such speed that it does not feel believable. There is no iconic moment in the film like the destruction of the White House in the first movie. In fact, we appear to have simply reconstructed the White House in the same spot so it could be destroyed along with the rest of the East Coast in this movie. By any chance do you remember the scene where the dog escapes the destruction of Los Angeles in the first movie? This time the dog has been replaced by Judd Hirsh, and it is even less plausible. The original film was no piece of classic screenwriting, but at least in made sense and built to a climax. This film feels like it is all second act and the climaxes are so uninteresting that you wonder what does any of it mean. My answer to you is that it means 20th Century Fox was so focused on getting the franchise up and going, that they neglected to make it audience friendly. The rush to get to the second sequel means this film feels unessential. They spent a ton of dough making this and they were wise to skip paying Will Smith his requested Fifty Million Dollar Fee. It may not make Fifty Million on opening weekend and it will be out of theaters in three weeks or so. Someone at the studio should be losing their job over this catastrophe.

The Shallows

Back into the ocean for the second time in a week. This time the animated fish is not the friendly Dory, neurotic Marlin or sweet little Nemo. The costar of this movie is a descendant of Bruce from "Jaws", a giant aggressive shark that is defending it's feeding territory in the most violent way imaginable. While it is not a classic film story about character and class with humor and drama, as it's progenitor was, "The Shallows" is an effective thrill generator with enough personality to keep us engaged and shot with the technological innovations of the last 41 years so that no one will be complaining about a mechanical shark.

Four years ago, Blake Lively was the most irritating thing about the most irritating movie I saw in 2012, "Savages". She is a beautiful woman who could not act her way out of a paper bag in that film. In this movie, she has to carry the whole story on her shoulders and she was excellent. I doubt that anyone will consider her award worthy because of the nature of the movie, but before the Academy doles out another of it's obligatory Meryl Streep nominations, they might want to take a look at this largely wordless performance. There are places where dialogue comes up, but 80% of the movie is performed by body movement and facial expressions and she sells the pain, fear and frustration of this situation without having to rely on words . To me, that is an effective performance.

If you see any of the promotional material for the movie, you will know the plot. She is surfing in an isolated spot and gets trapped by a shark. How this is set up in an interesting way and where they find the drama and tension in the story is the success of the screenwriter and the director. Writer Anthony Jaswinski finds effective ways to build a progressive story about a woman trapped on a rock. There are some good complications that make for some excitement, and the character gets to be relateable through some reasonably good set up before the first attack and then cribs a little from "Cast Away" for the character in the last half of the movie. I won't give anything away but not all the performers are human.

The parts of the film that are most contemporary and therefore a little more likely to be dated soon involve the visualization of the social media world of today. Nancy texts her girlfriend who has traveled with her to Mexico but skipped out on the surfing part. Those messages are projected off her phone and onto the screen briefly. When she skypes with her sister and father back in Dallas, we get picture in picture split screens so that she can interact with the characters who are not really there. The director Jaume Collet-Serra, is probably best known for a trio of Liam Neeson action pictures in the last few years, "Unknown", "Non-Stop" and "Run All Night". They were all effective action flicks that required less style and more direct approaches, although each of them did have some key visual moments in them. To me, the best visual moment in the movie occurs before the first shark attack when we see the shadow of the shark in the wave that Nancy is surfing. It is a effectively shocking visual. I was a little less excited about the lingering camera as Nancy uses her earrings to try to close a gash wound in her leg. It felt a bit like that moment in "127 Hours" that everyone knew was coming, but at least it was over somewhat quickly. That was not the case with this film.

There are other people in the film that are attacked by the shark, so all the action does not focus completely on Lively's character, but those other victims are so anonymous that it is hard to have the reactions we probably should have. We can be horrified but not necessarily empathetic. In "Jaws", Chrissy, the first victim is someone we can identify with because of the situation and the way she reacts. None of the characters in this film get that opportunity, they are mostly chum for the blood and guts crowd. We will be startled but not necessarily horrified. Nancy's battle against the shark is a different thing though. Ms.Lively has provided a sympathetic character who is assertive,  clever and resilient. She is the Leonardo character from "The Revenant" without all the mysticism. Replace the bear with a shark and I think, at least when it comes to action, the film works just as well and at nearly half the time. The high definition shots of surfing and the ocean from above the surface and below are reminiscent of the grounds eye view of the trees and the birds eye view of the forest that we got in that survival film set two-hundred years ago. The contemporary photography though can at least get some product placement money from Go-Pro.

I wanted this film to work because I love a scary movie with a shark. It's not epic as the grand daddy of all shark films is, but it does one of the same things that the Spielberg film did in 1975, it holds the audience. There was a surprisingly packed theater tonight and there was a smattering of appaluase  at the end of the film. This is a good summer movie for the kids out there on their breaks, looking for some fun and hoping to be scared along the way. At the end of the summer, I'll bet it outperforms some of the blockbusters that the studios have lined up. Once again, we will get some proof that people can be entertained without aliens, explosions or super heroes. All it takes is a shark in the water and some smart film makers to make it happen.

Finding Dory

"Finding Dory" is the seventeenth Pixar/Disney film. A couple of weeks ago,  while we sitting at home one night, we decided to play a game and rank the films in three groups. We had a ranking of the James Bond films and one for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and we also ranked all the Pixar films. The three of us participating had very similar rankings for the most part, but we averaged them together to come up with a list that represented our families opinion of the films. The only one we had not seen is "The Good Dinosaur", and we still had it ranked higher than "Cars 2".  I feel pretty save with that because Pixar has only disappointed us the one time, and although "the Good Dinosaur" was not the usual box office bonanza, I did not read any disparaging reviews on line like I'd seen for the Mater Movie.  "Finding Nemo" ranked number ten on our list of films, not because it is inadequate but because of films like "Wall-e", "Ratatouille" and "The Toy Story Trilogy".

That said, there was reasonable hope but also a certain trepidation about another sequel. "Monster's University" did not besmirch the reputation of it's predecessor,  but it was for the most part well made but unnecessary. The same can be said for today's film. It is beautiful to look at, there are charming characters and the story expands the universe we saw in the original in some inventive ways, it just is not as compelling, coming after the first film. The plot is basically the same as "Nemo" but with some role reversals and retrograde backstory. "Dory" it turns out is not a mature fish per se, but more like an adolescent. This feels like a slight alteration of the tone established in the first film and might cause me to have to look at Nemo from a new perspective. I don't think that was the intention of the film makers her.

The strongest element in the movie was choosing to set a majority of the action in a Marine Aquarium, [More like Monterey Bay than Sea World]. The movement of the action to this location results in a greater variation in the characters and plot line than we start out with. There are some clever visualizations of the layout of the Aquarium and the creatures that reside there. "Dory" was clearly the breakout character in the original, if there is a third film in this series it will certainly be "Finding Hank". He is the octopus who engages with Dory at the Aquarium and  his character design and the gags they provide for him are the highlights of the film. Ed O'Neill provides the voice and his sonorous dead pan is a good match for the characters somewhat morose view of the world. As an isolate he is matched with Dory, who has such a high need for affiliation that it is sometimes a little irritating. I don't know if he will be an appealing plush toy, but he certainly worked as a comedic character in today's film.

Marlin and Nemo are back as part of Dory's circle of friends and they are the ones who are trying to find Dory. Albert Brooks neurotic Dad is still effective but we know he has grown as a character in the first film so it comes as no surprise that he willingly pursues this quest in spite of his misgivings. Nemo is a spark plug igniting his dad to action but also helping him figure out their next moves. It was an interesting change in their dynamic and it worked for the most part. Dory herself  is a character that must change in both films to avoid being a complete irritation, but those changes are more clearly explained and processed in this story. Sometimes the writers use some shortcuts to get us to the next point, and those usually involve a sudden increase in Dory's ability to recall certain details. I can say that little Dory, appearing in the opening sections and in occasional flashbacks, may be the cutest thing in a Pixar film since "Boo". She is definitely going to be on the shopping lists for the Christmas toys this year. The "Mine", "Mine" caterwaul of seagulls is replaced by a new catch word delivered by characters that are a lot more fun, and they steal several parts of the movie from the main characters. Otter cuddling will be a thing after kids see this movie, so there is another chance for some toy sales.

I don't mean to imply that the film is just a cash grab, using familiar characters to recharge toy product marketing. There are some good themes about family and loyalty that are presented in the movie. We have to learn to trust what works and we need to question what we are sometimes settling for. Those are good points but they are not the main reasons the movie works. This film is a solid family entertainment, with a couple of surprises but mostly a comforting familiarity that kids and parents seem to crave. Do I want new and creative characters and stories? Of course I do. That doesn't mean that I don't occasionally want the comfort of recurring characters. As long as it is a cranky septuapus with Ed O'Neills voice and not Larry the Cable Guys naive and somewhat dim Mater.

Central Intelligence

Let's start with a little critical thinking lesson. Sign reasoning is the basic concept that is easily explained by the old phrase, "If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck... than it's probably a duck."  Now here is where the critical thinking comes in, how certain is the relationship between the signs and the conclusion?  Today's movie offers us several signs that it is a problem, before a single moment of the film runs. First, it's a mismatched buddy film featuring a C.I.A. plot. Second, the trailer features a cheap CGI joke about a fat kid singing in the shower getting bullied. Third, it stars Kevin Hart, a comedian and actor that I have rarely found to be funny. You put those things together and the conclusion is that this film is a piece of crap. To test the validity of the conclusion we might look for other signs that would reinforce the original point. For a guy like me, who grew up in the golden ages of poster art, the visual image on the poster, with the bright yellow background screams "Turd".

Now, let's point out the weakness of this conclusion using the other tests of sign reasoning, are there any contradictory signs?  Before seeing a frame of the movie, I can say there are two signs that might undermine the conclusion above. First, Kevin Hart is balanced out by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Maybe you haven't noticed yet but "The Rock" has become a legitimate movie star and he exudes charisma in everything he's been in.  [As a caveat to the argument, he has been in a lot of crappy pictures, but they were not bad because of him.] Second, the marketing team has had one great idea to sell this film with, a pun based on the names of the two stars. It's not much but I'm a Dad and everyone knows that Dad's like bad puns. In one of my classes this last quarter, I had a student take it upon himself to keep a tally of all the bad puns I made in class. He had me over 150, which for a class that meets twice a week averages almost 4 bad puns an hour, and by the way, more than 40% of class time is taken up by student performance, so if we calculate based on my speaking time the average is well over ten an hour. Which explains why I appreciated the "Little Hart/Big Johnson" tag line, despite it's low brow approach.

Drawing inferences from the above issues, I think it is safe to say I probably would stay away from a film like this for the most part. So how, you might ask, did I end up seeing it?  Now it's time for a little cause-effect reasoning. It's hot here this weekend, and the theater is cold. Also, "Finding Dory" is off limits until my daughter can go with us. Finally, a little disjunctive deductive reasoning, my alternatives for the time we had were "Warcraft" "X-Men Apocalypse" "Now You See Me 2" and "Me Without You". I barely escaped the wheelchair love story, and everything else looked worse.

Having rationalized my way into the film, "How was it?" The answer is, ...not as bad as you might think. Although Kevin Hart did not do much for me, he did not undermine the film and there were a couple of places where he delivered a pretty fair line or two. I could have done without the string of dialogue he throws out when describing his character as being scarred "S***less", but maybe his audience likes that kind of humor. Johnson on the other hand seems to be having a ball, and he actually conveys a series of convincing emotions, which are supposed to be contradictory because we are not really supposed to understand his real character. It's all very convoluted and not important except to say that once again, the man once known as "The Rock" is worth every penny he was paid to be a part of this film.

The movie trades on cliches in some deliberate ways, but it also repeats some cliches without the irony that would make them less likely to choke us. There are two surprise cameo appearances and both actors add a little something to the film that it needed to avoid being dreck. I was pleasantly surprised by last year's "Spy" which covers some of the same territory. This is not quite as satisfying and I can't recommend it highly, but if you have no air conditioning, and you want a couple of laughs, this film will kill two hours and not too many brain cells.

Ghostbusters (1984) 2016 Revisit

In keeping with my commitment to do some kind of post on every film I see in a theater, I offer you a few words on the original "Ghostbusters" from 1984.

"It Still Holds Up!!!"

I'm not one of the many haters that the new version of Ghostbusters is bringing out of the woodwork. I know the world is full of people who disdain the idea of re-makes and are horrified by the recasting that the movie has done. Me, I'll hold my opinion until I see the product. Today's Fathom Event could be construed as a two hour commercial for the new film. Included at the end of the screening was a sizzle reel of material that will almost certainly be included on the home release of the female version of Ghostbusters later this year. It was hosted by Paul Feig, this was after the opening of the movie was hosted by original director Ivan Reitman. You have big shoes to try to fill Mr. Feig.

Fathom, this is a great strategy for launching a new film, get people to pay full price for a 32 year old movie, then plug your new film as a bumper. It practically pays for itself. I would like to recomend to both Fathom and AMC Theaters that they get their act together a bit more. I have attended several Fathom Classic movie events and there are frequently technical issues. Today, the promo material before the film did not screen for us, I had to request the staff of the movie theater start the film after we waited for ten minutes past the scheduled screening time, after staring at a blank screen for nearly 40 minutes. At the conclusion of the promo, the house lights never came up and the two dozen patrons had to make their way out of the theater in the dark. My wife who has vertigo and walks in a very unbalanced way with a cane, had a little difficulty managing the stairs in the dark. Fortunately, everyone seems to have flashlight apps on their phones or else we might still be sitting there.

When I did the post on this for the 1984 project, I lucked out and saw a 30th Anniversary Screening a week or two later. Any chance to see it on a real theater screen is worth a few inconveniences, so make sure you bring your flashlights and I'll let you know next month what I think of the new version.

The Conjuring 2

The original movie is now three years old and it remains one of my favorites in the horror genre. The spin-off story of "Annabelle" was not nearly as effective but it was not from the same director and it lacked the elements that "The Conjuring" had, mainly the Warrens , Ed and Lorraine, played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. These two very sympathetic characters help make sense of the ghost story and allow the possession material to fit with the other scares in the last section of the first film. They are even more centrally involved in this new story and the result is a movie that is satisfying but not nearly as engaging as the predecessor.

These films both play the "Based on a True Story" game, and since the leads are supposed to represent actual historical figures, I guess it makes sense that they have to deal with some of the controversies they were involved with. Their involvement with the Amityville Horror case may be the crucial point at which you either accept or reject the legitimacy of their investigations. In this film, the opening makes reference to their involvement and there is a nicely creepy trance scene that recounts the horrors that precipitated the story that became so famous. When the Amityville case was later characterized as a hoax, it would seem to put a dent in the Warren's credibility. That twist actually becomes an important plot point in this film, since the possibility of a hoax would keep the church out of the situation.

Very much as in the first film, we get a nicely paced introduction to a family that is struggling to make it through a divorce and tough economic times, this time in England. A mom and her four kids live in a dilapidated row house in Northern London, and strange things begin to happen. From the beginning of this story however, the possession angle is clear and there are lots of indicators that this is where the danger lies. The two young girls in the film, struggle to stay grounded but events really seem to push the idea that something supernatural is happening here. Unlike the earlier case, this event is being played out in public and there are a number of other "experts" involved in investigating and maybe helping the family. The Warrens are there as consultants but it does not take long for them to fully embrace the events and become part of the story themselves.

Horror films succeed on creativity, timing and a good sense of what creeps us out. This movie works those ideas well about 80% of the time. There are dark visions with horrific images that you know are going to give you a jump scare, but only if they are handled well. I think Director James Wan does a good job making the fright scenes he and his co-screenwriters put on paper. He is not always as successful with the drama outside of the scare scenes. Ed and Lorraine are good characters but sometimes they come off as a little too perfect. I did like the sequence where Ed helps the family calm down for a night with a little music, that was the most real moment that the two paranormal investigators have in the movie. The mumbo jumbo about having the name of the demon they seek to exorcise, comes out of nowhere as does the key to discovering the truth behind the events at the public housing house in Enfield Borough. The final sequence has a good taut climax without going over board on the effects.

By sticking to the principles of a good haunting story, and not getting carried away with CGI effects, the film sustains a sense of dread as well as personal empathy for the family involved. We are not put at too great a distance by the scope of the horror and we can understand the family's desire to protect the kids as they are being attacked. The kids friends disappear from the film, and given the nature of the possession story, that makes sense. I did think that the loyalty of the family's neighbors across the street was surprising, but maybe they could imagine that if something were not done to draw a line, they could easily have been in the same spot. I can't see this making a year end "best of" list as the original did three years ago, but it is a worthy follow up and except for what seems like a slightly rushed resolution, a well made story.

KAMAD Guests on "The Lambcast" Podcast

This is this weeks Lambcast Podcast. I am a guest, sharing a top five list and playing some games. Hope you can listen for a while.



You can also download this directly at this link:

http://lambcast.podomatic.com/entry/2016-06-08T23_44_44-07_00

30 Years On: We Are Catching Up this Summer.

This project did not get finished two years ago for all kinds of reasons. I haven't posted a new entry in almost a year, but I have not forgotten it. I have some time this summer and I am going to get it done. Seven more to polish off. There ain't no mountain high enough to keep me from finishing. [At Least Eventually]

30 Years On A Great Year For Movies

The Nice Guys

Here is a film with no redeeming social value whatever, except that it will tickle your funny bone, startle you with sudden shock and leave you feeling invigorated afterwards. The film is a hoot and if there is anyone still living in America with a sense of humor, this film was made for you. While it it not politically incorrect in any way, it features characters that are so amusingly not hip, that the irony police might be called out. "The Nice Guys" is vulgar but not cynical. There is plenty of violence played for humor, but there are real reactions to most of those moments which let the film be much friendlier than you have any right to hope for.

The movie has a retro feel because it is set in the 1970s but also because the characters will remind you of a dozen TV show detectives you may have watched in that era. Jim Rockford is one step away from being a partner in this detective agency, but that would turn the film into a takeoff of the three stooges rather than an homage to Abbot and Costello. Ryan Gosling plays Holland March, the boozy private eye, as if he were a handsome Lou Costello. He has the double takes and flustered line delivery that would fit perfectly in a comedy place filler from 1948, "Abbot and Costello Meet the Bimbo". He even has a moment where upon discovering a corpse he becomes a dysphagiatic  mute.

Russell Crowe has settled into middle aged beefiness with as much grace as a guy can muster. He's not the matinee idol of twenty years ago, but he is still a hell of a good actor and he puts on some great comic chops here. Crowe and Gosling play off of one another in such a natural way that it is easy to imagine a series of films  featuring these characters. Of course I thought the same thing eleven years ago with Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer in pretty much the same roles. Shane Black may be cribbing from himself but at least he's doing it from "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang" and not "The Last Boy Scout". The convoluted plot and the violent gangsters are standard for him, as is the involvement of a woman, more competent that the two leads, in this case March's thirteen year old daughter Holly, played by Angourie Rice.

The Warner Brothers logo from the seventies is on the opening credits of the movie. The city of Los Angeles is in it's deep dark days of heavy smog overcast, and Hollywood was a sleaze factory of sex more than violence. Southern California residents will recognize the decay of the Hollywood sign, the Los Angeles River Bridge, and the intersection of Jefferson and Figueroa are not anything like they once were. [In fact, the bridge is gone now]. The hillsides of Hollywood though are played for great laughs and Ryan Gosling may be a comic genius because he manages to make the most incompetent Private Eye in the world, still come off as a sometimes insightful investigator, of course sometimes he just gets lucky.



I hope they do make this into an adult cartoon, ala "Archer" or at least plan a couple of other big screen adventures. It would be a shame to leave this much enjoyment to just the current movie season. This is my most anticipated movie of the summer, and The Temptations "Papa was a Rolling Stone" had me hooked from the first few frames. Plenty of soul music from the era plus a Bee Gees tune and Kiss anthem. It's as if they found one of the home made 8-track mix tapes from my old Cutlass and plugged it into the speakers for the film. Maybe it's the nostalgia factor that worked for me but I believe others much younger than me will get a kick out of this as well, burnt orange palate aside. 

Aliens Loot Crate Un-Boxing

My first Un-Boxing Video, POW, Take that Social Media.