|
|
Post by epicgordan on Nov 6, 2017 10:53:03 GMT -5
Admittedly, this is a pretty cool poster. 
Thor: Ragnarok is a mixed bag of extremes--a lot of stuff in this film is really cool, really funny, or really good. But there is also a lot of cringe in there as well. Next to every aspect of the film possesses such polarizing aspects to it that to give it a straightforward review of the film would be pointless. As such, I might as well deal with a pro-con sort of format.
The good stuff: Overall, the special effects and production values across the board are first rate. That's pretty much the one thing about the film not to have any level of inconsistency. Even if the effects are not the best ever, visually, the film is very pleasing. It's not going to get any notice by the Academy Awards outside for perhaps Special Effects, but Costume Design, Production Design, and Makeup and Hairstyling all deserve at least a little bit of attention.
Acting for the most part is well, acceptable. Everybody does their job well, including of course, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins--who even got a chance to play Loki at one point--among others, and of course, uh, uh, Jeff...Jeff, uh...Goldblum in his, uh, most...most, uh, self-self aware of, uh, performances. Cate Blanchet even gets some funny lines while chewing the scenery (either that, or it's the scenery and the Sorceress Edea-esque costume that is chewing her...I'll show a picture of her later on in the review) as the villainous. Be on a lookout for a cameo appearance from a recent Marvel movie (hint: It's nobody from Guardians of the Galaxy).
World building is actually pretty solid. Thor barely even visits Earth in the third installment, only going there alongside his brother, Loki to pick up their father, Odin. The rest of the movie is spent visiting various worlds--a Hell-like environment with a devil and dragon inhabiting it; a world filled to the brim with trash--both figuratively in the people left behind, and also quite literally--and where time seems to flow differently from the rest of the universe. And then of course, we already know about Asgard.
For once, a Marvel film actually felt like it had stakes and that there were irreversible consequences in play here. True, I've felt the same way with Iron Man 3 with the destruction of the Iron Man units, as well as Captain America: The Winter Soldier with the presence of Hydra as well as S.H.I.E.L.D. being compromised from within. And in both instances, they've barely, if at all, were even addressed in later Marvel movies. But in Thor: Ragnarok, it's pretty clear certain things are irreversible. Specifically in the ending, which I will not spoil for those who haven't watched it (more on that later), but the clearest example actually occurs early on in the movie, with Thor's hammer getting destroyed by the film's main antagonist. Of course, we could always end up seeing the hammer come back; after all, if Iron Man's suits were able to make a comeback after having been destroyed by Iron Man, why not Thor's Hammer during the Infinity War saga? That would probably piss me off.
Oh, yeah. Might as well give a shout out to the soundtrack. "The Immigrants" actually does play in the movie. Twice. So there's that.
The Bad: The worst thing about the film that single-handedly makes all but the visual aesthetics a weakness is the bloody comic relief. Some of it is fine--like in the matchup between Thor and Hulk, or the scene where Anthony Hopkins was playing Loki in disguise, or even the stuff involving the Marvel cameo. Or best of all, uh, Jeff Goldblum. But most of it was either downright painful, or utterly compromises the important moments of the film.
For example, at the very beginning of the film, while Thor was busy ripping the crown off the devil's head, Karl Urban is in this movie trying to show off his assault rifles (which do not exist in real life) to some Asgard maidens. The next time we cut to him--while Thor is being chased down by a dragon--we get to really see how much of a jackass Karl Urban's character is when we see him messing around with a shake weight. Not asshole--jackass. Not only was the joke particularly painful in of itself, but when the moments come where Karl Urban tries to play a subtle and nuanced character with inner doubts, not only did I not buy a single one of these subtle moments from him, but I felt nothing for him when he sacrifices his life at the end of the film...nor did the rest of the movie itself for that matter.
From what I've heard, roughly 80% of the script was improvised by the actors, and it really shows. And it is instructional for writers, filmmakers, actors, and otherwise artists to understand one important detail concerning comic relief: It says an awful lot about not just the character, but the work itself. I felt nothing for Karl Urban's character because my very first impression of him was as a jackass showing off to some women rather than a character wallowing in self doubt wanting to prove himself. And as such, many of these comic relief moments take me out of the movie and are such tonal distractions from when really big, emotional moments are supposed to occur.
But I'm merely using an early non-spoiler moment in the film as an example. The ending of the film is supposed to be the biggest emotional moment in the entire film, and there's this rock alien whose sole purpose it is in this movie is to kill emotional moments on the spot by essentially playing this movie's "wah-wah" music, as if the film is a parody rather than a real movie. And I hated that alien creature every time he appeared on screen because all he does is kill the mood.
There is only one emotional moment in the film that isn't ruined by comic relief--presumably because it got it all out of the way in the earlier strings of scenes leading up to it--and it works. That's the death of Odin--and for those of you calling spoilers, it's during the film's first act, right before Thor's hammer gets destroyed, and it's also patently obvious that it was going to happen. Everything else either involves that obnoxious rock alien, or lazy slapstick (okay, so the early jokes involving Thor's hammer destroying everything in its path trying to find its way to him is rather amusing).
And remember when I said that there were actually stakes that could be felt, as well as irreversible consequences? Well, a good portion of the movie is derided from Planet Hulk, and Bruce Banner's subplot is the fact that he fears that the next time he becomes the Hulk, that he wouldn't be able to revert back to Banner again. I don't buy that for one minute because of this little thing called sequels. We're going to see them again during the Infinity War saga, and he's gonna be Bruce Banner again. Sorry, but I didn't care about the Hulk's story for much the same reason I did not care about anything in Civil War. Just what exactly is at stake here? It's a good idea to explore more in later entries if Marvel was flexible enough to pursue such ideas. But they're not.
Also, is it me, or did Thor steadily decline from dignified gentleman from an ancient way of life to sissy social justice warrior? And by sissy, I even mean "scream like a little girl at one point." Like the shake weight joke, I am not kidding.
Overall: If the comic relief was woven in more carefully and with tact, I'd probably consider it the best Thor movie by far. Even surpassing the first movie. The idea of taking Thor and giving it a cheesy Flash Gordon-esque spin isn't awful unto itself. But Flash Gordon works because the people that made it did so while taking every bit of itself seriously. And what Thor: Ragnarok doesn't do is take itself seriously under any circumstances. And by taking itself seriously, I do no mean making it dark, brooding, and overall unpleasant. Fun can be taken seriously. Wit and humor can be taken seriously. Raw, unadulterated entertainment can, and by all accounts, should be taken seriously, for better or worse. What do you think films like James Bond, North by Northwest, Indiana Jones, or to use as a comparative example again, Flash Gordon, have such a lasting impact and are going to be remembered for years to come going forward? All entertaining films, but are all in their own unique ways, masterpieces of filmmaking. Heck, the Guardians of the Galaxy films are going to be remembered in much the same ways as the aforementioned films going forward. And want to know what REAL irony is? The newest Pokémon movie is being screened in select theaters tonight, and I guarantee you no matter what you may think of them, all the Pokémon movies are made and taken seriously.
Thor: Ragnarok, if anything, is a lot more comparable to the likes of Ghostbusters (2016) or just about any of our R-rated comedies as of late. Granted, nowhere near as bad as those films (I'd rather rewatch this fifty times over than watch either of the Bad Moms movies, CHiPs, or Baywatch, just to name a few), as I doubt I'd consider Thor: Ragnarok bad per se. Seriousness in film merely means you intend to deliver on the best product possible, even if the product in general doesn't have much of a chance at being good (there are plenty of bad works of art out there that are "serious," like Evangelion, Wall-E, Fifty Shades of Grey, or Lars von Trier's entire body of work among many, many others). But that's also why I judge such serious films a lot more harshly than I do films like Thor: Ragnarok.
If there's an upside, it's nowhere near as bad as Kingsmen: The Golden Circle. But it's definitely the most disappointing movie I've seen so far in 2017. At least I was taking notice on a few of the warning signs that the newest Kingsmen wasn't going to be very good. I'm giving the film a 5 out of 10.
PS: Here's Sorceress Edea's portrait.
Just remove the mask and insert Cate Blanchet's face in there, and that's a pretty fair comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by William Smith on Nov 6, 2017 23:26:38 GMT -5
That is a bit disappointing. I have some hopes for this one as a diversion, at least. My current project is The Tunnel; I'm up to 8 of the 10 episodes, and my o my. What a mess. A squalid, depressing, bloated, derivative mess. When did the British lose the ability to make good television?
A full review is forthcoming; I do need to watch the last two segments.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavaradossi on Nov 7, 2017 15:27:57 GMT -5
I have finally achieved a long sought for goal - seeing the Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera. I have seen, though years ago now, all the preceding films, and one or two of the succeeding ones, but Opera kept eluding me. For one thing, every time I tried to record it from TCM (which doesn't show it that often) something would go wrong. Finally, I came to my senses and checked Netflix. Bless their pea-pickin' hearts, they had it, and I've finally seen it.
Was it everything Inwas hoping it would be? Well, maybe not exactly. The beginning and ending segments were very funny, but I felt some parts of the middle sagged a bit. On reflection, I think those parts had more to do with MGM's insistence (actually Thalberg's I think) that the brothers' films have discernible storylines, and I may have been a little too aware of that at times. No lasting harm was done though, and I mostly had a grand old time, often laughing out loud.
One thing I noted in the immortal stateroom sequence was that, if you can tear yourself away for a second from the hilarity of it all, that the little room actually does expand a bit as all those people crowd in. It's not real obvious, but it can be caught. I thought one of the funniest sight gags in the whole sequence involved the fact that, after the room was just about stuffed to the gills, a chamber maid with mop and bucket appeared and knocked at the door. The gag was that she was of Amazonian size!
Musically, I liked the song "Alone", but felt that "Cosi-Cosa" was just an excuse for a dance sequence. "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" will never sound funnier than here, but Verdi's Il Trovatore is safe, not least because, at least musically, it was played relatively straight. (I say 'relatively', because, well, Kitty Carlisle...) Of course, the Marx Brothers demolish the performance and the stage while all the straight singing is going on. The funniest part for me was that while the tenor was singing his big bravura aria, "Di Quella Pira", the drop curtain came down, cutting him off from the audience!
The only sequence involving the Marx Brothers that didn't do too much for me was the one in which they quickly move furniture from one room to the next, utilizing the balcony, all the while befuddling an official from the opera company. I don't know why, but this one, though zany enough, didn't amuse me as much as the rest of their antics in the movie. It takes place somewhere in the middle of the film and was a contributor, for me, to that sagging felling I mentioned. I smiled, but I didn't even chuckle during it, let alone laugh. I'm hoping that I'm the only person in captivity watching A Night at the Opera to have had that reaction to the scene.
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by cmac on Nov 7, 2017 23:51:54 GMT -5
A late Halloween report. I had little time for movie watching recently but over Halloween I did get my Dracula feeding in. First was, Shadow of the Vampire a wonderful little take on the making of Nosferatu with great period sets & a look at Dracula as a fading creature of habit. It starred Willem Dafoe as Dracula in a perfect piece for him. John Malkovich, Cary Elwes, Udo Kier & Catherine McCormack all fit perfectly into this peek at Germans & German film-making at its early stages. Malkovich as Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau & Dafoe as the tired &* worn-out Dracula are a real treat to watch.
I followed that with Phantom Der Nacht (Nosferatu the Vampyre)directed by Werner Herzog which once again shows the marvelous pairing of Herzog & Klaus Kinski. This movie displays all the suspense & eeriness a movie about Dracula can show. Every image, every musical note, every scene is constructed to bring the viewer into that haunting & surreal horror of the original book by Bram Stoker. Once Isabelle Adjani appears as Lucy Harker you immediately recognize both the love of Jonathan Harker & the obsession of Nosferatu. Bruno Gantz plays Jonathan Harker to the hilt but that is no surprise as I find Bruno Gantz to be the finest actor operating out of Germany today.
Actually all parts are expertly portrayed except for Dr. Van Helsing & that cannot be attributed to the actor. It is the way that character is envisioned in the movie by Herzog that is so mystifyingly wrong. It is an unaccountable error that the Dr. is portrayed as a ignorant & powerless country bumpkin which is totally uncharacteristic of Herzog in composition of character. If it were not for that mistake I'd rate the movie as a masterpiece but it so close to a masterpiece that I heartily recommend it to any fan of classic horror. It is not a party movie but rather an introspection into a time period & timeless characters. Watch it alone (on a dreary day) or in the company of 1 other person that can keep their mouth shut & think.
Unfortunately after this glut of excellence I decided to see Bram Stoker's Dracula which I find hard to describe without fluid cursing. It stars numerous people I usually like but the portrayal of the entire movie was horrendous and I'll conclude with a rating of 1 star out of 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Smith on Nov 10, 2017 22:59:45 GMT -5
It's been a long time since I saw either the Coppola Dracula or the Herzog Nosferatu. I certainly don't recall the former deserving a 1 out of 10, but I ought to give it another look.
A Night At The Opera is far and away my favorite Marx Brothers films--perhaps because of the operatic background!
And now to more serious matters. I've been saying for some time that British television is not what it used to be. But I'm open minded. I streamed The Tunnel from Amazon. (I regret doing so.) Let us see how this highly regarded series plays.
And how does it play? A monumental waste of seven and one half hours; actually, make that seven hours and just under fifty minutes. Just how bad is it? Let's look at it from several points of view: originality, narrative, writing, visual style, and acting. Please note: I fully intend to disclose many plot points, so if you intend to see it--against, I hasten to made, my advice--then you are forewarned.
Orginality: None. Yes, none. We know that it is in large part a remake of the Danish-Swedish series The Bridge, and so my remarks must in some degree cover that as well. To begin with, the body-on-a-border-forcing-odd-couple-of-cops-to-investigate isn't even original with The Bridge; it was first used in a little known Canadian film Bon Cop Bad Cop (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479647/?ref_=nv_sr_2), which is--a comedy! Not so the deadly serious The Tunnel, which incorporates a wide variety of disparate elements, shaken until addled: the publicity-seeking terrorist criminal, like the Unibomber; secret government conspiracies; detectives with considerable psychological oddities, in this case Captain Wassermann (Clémence Poésy), firmly on the autism spectrum (an idea done far more effectively in the brilliant Zero Effect); a plot device straight from Christie's The ABC Murders, in which a series of killings is a shield for the actual intentions of the killer; more than a few echos of The Abominable Doctor Phibes; a liberal dose of that peculiar affliction Bond Villainitis, in which the allegedly brilliant villain is completely incapable of any degree of clarity and efficiency; a liberal dose of Socially Relevant Elements about Immigration, Police Brutality, Corrupt Businesspeople, and the like; a great deal of personal detail about the investigators and their dysfunctional families; and a degree of official ineptitude that makes Inspector Japp look like Nero Wolfe. Individually, all tired; collectively, a mess.
Narrative: It would, I suppose, given writers of some talent, be possible to string these disparate elements into something resembling a coherent narrative. Nearly eight hours of screen time would, one thinks, provide a sufficiently broad canvas on which to at least provide a semblance of resolution to all the elements introduced into the plot. No such luck. Enough red herrings to stock an entire chain of Swedish fishmongers; lots of pointless and distracting sexual encounters; but very little logic. Can we really believe, for instance, that the killer John Sumner (James Frain) has all the skills and resources to pull off the elaborate campaign we see? Why don't we find out about the mysterious Peloton is? Who killed M. Jourbet? Why does a computer expert keep shelves and shelves of paper documents? (I do have an answer for that--first, it's makes for a dandy visual, and second, it sets up a preposterous moment in which Captain Wassermann dumps a stack of documents on the floor and, in a matter of seconds, finds exactly what she needs.) What about the other people in the car that killed Sumner's wife--the loathsome journalist (now there's a tautology!) Danny Hillier (Tom Bateman) is the only one killed in that group.
Roger Ebert coined the term "idiot plot" for the type of narrative kept in motion solely because everyone acts like a complete idiot. That certainly applies; Bond Villainitis is an idiot plot trope. Why on earth, for instance, does Wassermann fail to keep an eye on Karl Roebuck's son Adam (Karl Lowden) and let him wander off to be captured and killed? I can multiple instances--but why try to pick out all of the gristle in the dog's dinner?
The worst failing of all, I think, is a simple one. There isn't a single major character who is remotely sympathetic--except that, perversely, I think that we are intended to feel sympathy for--the serial killer! There are supporting characters among the French and English police who actually act like sensible human beings, but they really haven't much to do.
Writing: There isn't a memorable line in the entire series. The dialogue is distinguished by being utterly undistinguished in any way whatsoever. The characterization, if you can call it that, is lifeless and cliched.
Visual style: The fashionable greyed-out palette. Eerily depopulated ugly modern buildings. Endless shots of either side of the tunnel. In fact, if you were to edit out all of the mood-setting shots of Dover cliffs, or the tunnel, or shipyards, or ugly apartment buildings--you would probably save a good hour or so.
Acting: What can an actor do with material like this? Stephen Dillane as the British detective Karl Roebuck gives a reasonably honest performance up to the last two episodes, in which his son is kidnapped and murdered, and then there is nothing he can do--particularly when called upon in the closing moments to behave almost as though nothing had happened. Clémence Poésy looks unkempt and completely without affect as Captain Wassermann 95 percent of the time. It's not a performance, it's an exercise in sleepwalking. The rest? There is literally nothing interesting.
It is profitable to compare this sorry mess with David Fincher's Se7en, which covers the same territory without pointless digressions in just over two hours.
Zero stars, and a pointless, ugly, and unpleasant waste of time. Esquire Magazine, in its annual Dubious Achievement Awards, always had a category like "Still More Proof That The Sun Has Set For Good And All On The British Empire". We could cite The Tunnel as "Still More Proof That The Sun Has Set For Good And All On British Television."
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cmac on Nov 16, 2017 3:23:18 GMT -5
I agree with your assessment of The Tunnel but we all know the chances of a remake being as good as the original is slight. The original Bron/Broen is far better than The Tunnel & as for a remake of that, The Bridge from 2013 set in Mexico & America is better than The Tunnel also. The North American version of Bron/Broen does, at the end descend into a mess but it is a worth while viewing unless you consider that the time you spent watching The Bridge could have been spent watching Bron/Broen. Unfortunately it is near impossible to escape the social building that is the bane of movies to day. It seems to be Hollywood's only function today & what could writing & believable storyline be compared to that right? My wife & I used to go to the movies once a week, with the garbage being put out today it's unusual for us to go once a year. Try the Bridge from 2013. Just don't expect a great wrap-up at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Smith on Nov 18, 2017 21:29:48 GMT -5
I watched the first part of Bron/Broen last night. I may watch a second. However, since it is exactly the same lunatic plot and unlikable characters, albeit, I suspect, done a little more effectively, I very much doubt that I can stomach the entire thing.
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cmac on Nov 19, 2017 5:39:17 GMT -5
It is a certainty you are wasting your time if unlikable characters (I believe you mean irrational & immoral) cannot be your cup of tea. These shows outdo The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo for oddball characters & I of course enjoy that. The shows don't have moral or social fiber building at all but then it was never the intent of the creators to have any of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Smith on Nov 25, 2017 17:43:29 GMT -5
Irrational, certainly; immoral, frequently; but it would be refreshing if there were a single character who was even remotely likeable in the I-could-stand-to-be-at-a-dinner party with them. And furthermore, the plot--as I detailed in discussing The Tunnel, above, makes no sense whatsoever.
Fortunately, I have watched two things recently that were enjoyable. I hadn't seenHannah And Her Sisters in a very long time, and I was frankly astounded--it was even better than I remembered it. I don't think it is an exaggeration to call it Shakespearean in its range and mix of genres--it bears comparison to the great Shakespeare comedies in every way except the language, which is not to say that Allen's script isn't sharp, intelligent, funny, and often moving. Great performances, remarkable depth of casting, visually superb, and, of course, a love letter to New York. How often do we get to see a film about intelligent people? What a pleasure to see it again! It's just one in the string of great films Allen made in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that firmly establish him as one of the great directors.
Another film I had not revisited in a long time is Last Year At Marienbad. This would have to be at least my third or fourth trip to the enigmatic hotel, and, like Hannah, it just gets better. I have to admit that this is a film that is not readily accessible. It is chilly, artificial, and remote. It is not a conventional narrative. The dominant word is "peut-etre"--perhaps. There are endless visual and verbal repetitions. It defies reduction to conventional meaning--or, perhaps, invites the viewer to supply his or her own meaning to the film. (The director and screenwriter differed on their views of what actually may, or may not, have happened.) I would apply a somewhat extreme but perhaps appropriate metaphor--the three main characters and their interactions are like three quantum wave equations with many possible superimpositions and the viewer's task is to collapse the state vectors into an interpretation. Or not. Fifty viewings could not settle the questions. It's gorgeous and enigmatic, and every time I start it, I get drawn in again. You may not like it. But I don't think one can dispute that it's a very great film. Starred 10s in both cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavaradossi on Nov 29, 2017 18:10:49 GMT -5
The odd thing about Coppola's Dracula is that, for me at least, it's the only film version of the classic tale that hasn't a single scare in it. How could he not have seen that? Maybe scares weren't his intent, but, if so, how could he not expect viewers to be disappointed? After all, when one determines to see a Dracula film, surely one is expecting at least an eerie experience, if not a frightening one. I didn't think Coppola's movie was even eerie. The best I can say for it is that I thought it looked good.
Mention was made of Herzog's remake of the silent classic Nosferatu. I liked it, but have only seen it once. I prefer the original. Now THAT's an eerie film.
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cmac on Nov 29, 2017 22:31:35 GMT -5
Yes the original Nosferatu is known as a classic for exactly that reason but I think Herzog's remake is only slightly behind it & Shadow of the Vampire is certainly an entertaining & original take on the making of Nosferatu. Directed by E. Elias Merhige & I would believe, undoubtedly his best work. A wonderful cast performing extremely well in a wonderful recreation of that time & place and I watch them all each year.
I'm fond of the Hammer Horror Dracula movies also, Christopher Lee plays a deliciously eerie Dracula. One last one I like a lot is Count Yorga, Vampire. Robert Quarry had the tone just right in his discussions with the mortals he crossed paths with. It is interesting to note that the initials of Nosferatu & Dracula are the same as Notre Dame.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavaradossi on Nov 30, 2017 1:23:44 GMT -5
cmac
It's been many years since I saw Shadow of the Vampire, but I well remember liking it a lot. I would recommend it to any Dracula fan, especially for those who are familiar with the original Nosferatu. I agree that most of the Hammer Draculas were good. I consider four actors to have been THE great film Draculas: Max Shreck, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, and, perhaps controversially, Frank Langella. The rest are wanna-bes, though there should be an honorable mention for Jack Palance in the 1980s telefilm version.
I've seen Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula three times, and I still wonder why some consider it effective as a version of the famous story. As I've said elsewhere, other than it's looking good, I can't think of a single thing to praise about the movie. Gary Oldman is moviedom's worst major Dracula IMO. I've always liked Oldman in virtually everything I've seem him, and I believe the reason he's so ineffective as the vampire is due to Coppola, There is no reason Oldman, who's a fine actor, couldn't have been effective as Dracula, so who else should one blame for the fact that he isn't other than the director?
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cmac on Nov 30, 2017 2:50:45 GMT -5
I find that the Coppola's to be a love/hate thing as directors. His work on The Godfather I & II, Apocalypse Now, The Cotton Club, The Conversation & even the episode he did for Faerie Tale Theatre I love. The Rest.....not so much. Sofia was a better actress than director. I did like Marie Antoinette though.
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cmac on Nov 30, 2017 19:49:20 GMT -5
William- I don't believe we've every discussed Fantastic Voyage a movie which I like very much. I thought the Sci-fi of miniaturization was well conceived & the Sci of the storyline was excellent. I enjoyed it as much as Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, Andromeda Strain & The Satan Bug. They are closer to Sci & not so ridiculously far into Fi. What is your take on that movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Dec 2, 2017 1:21:12 GMT -5
Well, I needed to buy a new pair of work shoes, so I went back down to Southlands mall, had some fun down there, and decided to go see a couple of movies. Both are gonna be big awards contenders, one directed by a man whose work I previously admire, while the other saw the directorial debut of Greta Gerwing. First off:
This movie is about the star, Saoirse RonanSaoirse Ronan, whose mother drives her off to a Catholic College...eh, I mean High School...for her Senior Year. She plays Christine McPherson, who always likes to go by the name, "Lady Bird," given to her by herself. She is a rebellious and noncomformist high school student who thinks she knows just about everything in life, disobeys her parents--specifically her frantic-yet controlling mother (Laurie Metcalf); meets up and falls in love with various boys in high school; and lies almost compulsively. If not to her friends and family, then to herself. She hates her hometown of Sacramento, California, and wishes to enroll in a University that is not only on the East Coast (preferably New York), but in a non-Catholic school to boot as she rather would go on as an atheist.
Yeah...just about every single thing about this film's main character is pretty despicable on paper, isn't it? I mean, why would anybody want to watch a character like this?
Actually, in spite of all these things, I think the film is fine. Not great. Just fine. It may have a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but if every single critic on the planet were to refer to a movie as a decent sit down, it doesn't automatically make it the greatest movie ever made. It's just fine. Nothing more or less.
But to be fair, this is a somewhat semi-autobiographical film for director Greta Gerwing, but she has been open that literally nothing that happened in this movie happened to her in real life and that it's solely based on what she knows personally. In spite of all this, the film is shot and edited in a way that feels a bit more like a collection of recorded memories, with a hint of introspection.
You see, in spite of Christine's nasty and rebellious nature, the film is at least objective enough to be honest about herself. What we see of Christine is by all intents and purposes, is supposed to be questionable. Not once in this movie does she seem to be in the right, and her own personal ignorance essentially closes herself out from the rest of her family--and over time, even her best friend, Julie.
This is because of the very real fact that Christine cannot bring herself to be honest about herself, let alone to anyone at all. So much so that she changes her name to Lady Bird, symbolizing her dishonesty as well as her rebellious and ignorant nature; and it is only at the end of the film that she decides to refer to herself as Christine--the name given to her by her parents--and contemplates her memories of Sacramento. She enlists in a College in New York behind her mother's back, who in spite having her moments as a shill, is very much a loving mother (she even picked out a dress for her earlier on in the film which Christine fell in love with).
And yet in spite of all this, she essentially closes herself off to all the problems the rest of her family, friends, and colleagues may be having, which is why they are given very little details to address. Her father, for example, is suddenly fired as his company goes belly-up; his brother and sister (who are Asian for some reason--not a race thing personally, but the whole rest of the family is so pasty-white that genetically, it doesn't make any sense; but I digress) are at dead-end jobs and do not do anything to improve their standards of living; her first boyfriend, who at first you'd think would be this cringe-inducing teen sentimental hogwash turns out to be a closet homosexual; and one of Christine's teachers is battling through depression.
And yet neither she nor the film necessarily cares too much about the film. Based on the way the film is edited and shot, these are mere memories that Christine takes for granted. As the scene where Danny turns out to be gay was shown in a long take and he was in the background when Christine and Julie both find out about it, it isn't shown as important enough detail for the characters at that present time. We never find out what her teacher is depressed about because it never concerns Christine in the least. If she shows any signs of acknowledging the problems of others over the course of the film, it might be her father, and even then, in spite bringing up that he is both unemployed and depressed, she never bothers to address it. The next best note where Christine is shown to care about anybody else but herself though is when she betrays Julie by ignoring her for a popular girl who happens to be good friends with her second boyfriend (who betrays her trust by lying about being a virgin), and then Julie calls her out on it. They do rekindle their friendship though and go to the prom together as dates (a platonic one, mind you).
I think, however, that the heart and soul of the film, if anything, belongs to the mother. Again, played by Laurie Metcalf. She is a survivor of family abuse, specifically from her drunken mother, and had previously lost one of her sons to a street gang at a public school. This is why Christine is attending a Catholic school, by the way. And in spite constantly rebuking and pushing her away, you really sympathize with the mother in this film--so much so that one has to wonder if she'll win, or at the very least, get nominated, for an Academy Award this year. She may be clingy, smothering, confrontational, and overall domineering, but it all comes from a place of fear--specifically that she is losing her daughter to an increasingly corrupt world, and wants to do everything she can to keep her close. And when it comes out that Christine had gone behind her back to enroll in a New York college, she is so stricken by this sense of betrayal that she refuses to even speak to Christine, even as she begged, tried to excuse herself, and apologize. The fact of the matter is, Christine had literally betrayed her mother, and her mother at that point in time, had conceded her child lost.
Even as she has a change of heart, it is too late for her to see her daughter off as her plane had already taken off by that point. And it is only after a near-death experience from alcohol consumption during a hedonistic frat party where Christine meets an atheistic boy who utterly denounces Christianity and God by virtue of them being stupid. Once she gets out of the hospital welcomed by nobody, she decides to attend a local Catholic Church and is shown to be a little bit homesick. She leaves a message over her cellphone sharing her thoughts about Sacramento and apologizing.
And just like that, the movie's over.
For a film that came from personal experiences and feelings, this film is brutally honest. Even in a series of moments that seems to gloss so much content away as much of the integrating side stories are not even remotely important to the persona of Lady Bird, they do turn out, in the grand scheme of things, to be important to Christine. It is only through her ego, her dishonesty and her rebellion, however, that the stories and lives of others are pushed aside and ignored. And it is only through the introspection of these snippets of memories that you, as well as she, suddenly realize the hurt she has left behind. Even the hurt that was not directly her fault.
Now, what do I think the chances of this film winning Best Picture? Well, at the very least, I imagine the film will at least get nominated; Saoirse Ronan is pretty much a lock for Best Actress at this point. I imagine Best Director and Screenplay are also in the works for Greta Gerwig. Maybe even Best Supporting Actress for Laurie Metcalf. And if the film is lucky enough, perhaps even Film Editing and Cinematography as both aspects of the film were important enough characteristics to the way the film exists as well. But, if it gets in for Best Picture, that 100% that it currently sports on Rotten Tomatoes definitely would help validate it as an immediate frontrunner. It's all a matter of just how much emphasis they're gonna put on politicizing the entire event; for all we know, we might see a La La Land-type scenario yet again.
But do I think it would deserve all of its praises? Eh, I'll say it's fine and leave it at that. Then again, maybe it's because these sorts of films have a reputation of making their entire cast of characters so thoroughly unlikeable and somehow justifying their unlikability. But it's fine. It's fine. It's fine. Don't worry; it's fine.
I personally thought about giving it a 7 out of 10, but maybe I'll bump it up to an 8 instead. If this film really resonates with you, this might feel like a 9 or a 10 though. Even if it really hit me in the gut with the honesty though, I do not consider it a genuinely great film...yet.
Maybe. I don't know.
Bye.
|
|
