May the FARCE BE With ME

I notice that I have only posted three times since June, and two of them are movie reviews. This one is prompted by Michael Hiltzik's review of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" in the Times. His review is under the headline: Admit it: 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' stinks -- and here's why.

Here's the irony. I was not a big fan of the original Star Wars, but at least I did go see the second film. I have not seen any of the other four sequel/prequels. Nevertheless, and knowing what I know of the original, unoriginal Star Wars, and despite Hiltzik's cogent attack, I will still probably go see this one in IMAX 3D because I like the format of the big screen, big sound, and these days I watch most of the "gotta' drive backwards at least once in the car chase" movies (in other words, nearly every movie that makes it to the IMAX action/adventure screen) if only for the nostalgic glimpse of Harrison Ford in the "Chewie, we're home," scene that has already played 20,000 times in the previews and ads over the last year.

In 2014, I saw 55 movies in the theater. This year, I saw only 40 although Star Wars will make it 41. I didn't venture out to any of the "art house" movies this year. We didn't even see the Woody Allen movie this year which we used to go to every time one opened, but it didn't play close enough to home, and we were busy enough that we didn't get out to see his latest.

I give ratings to all the movies that I see at AMC (where I see 99% of my movies), and these are the ones that got "5 stars" from me this year (in the order in which I saw them): "Selma," "Birdman," "Spy," "Love and Mercy," "Mr. Holmes," "The Intern," and "The Martian." I wanted to see "The Walk," but I was busy those couple of weeks.

The ones that I gave top marks to were simply because they were fully satisfying films within their genres. The docudramas on a period in the lives of Martin Luther King and Brian Wilson focused on interesting and well-told aspects of those lives, though quite different in presentation. Except for those two, I noticed that each of the movies is in a different genre. "Birdman" is a quirky flight of fantasy comedy and gritty realism intertwined. "Spy" is a funny spoof of the genre, far more satisfying than "The Kingsmen" or "The Man from Uncle" because of much greater wit and humor, while balanced with a star turn for Melissa McCarthy. This is the first time that I truly enjoyed her because they allowed her to be other characters than the brash, crude, slovenly, obnoxious character that has been her stock and trade.

"The Intern" was a modest "non-rom com" casting DeNiro against type, and exploring the vagaries of today's corporate world against the questions of life and home (something that we are exploring with a political vs. business twist as we are binge-watching the Danish series "Borgen" with which we were gifted as a Christmas present). Whereas "Borgen" is gritty and dark, but enjoyable, "The Intern" was very light, but very enjoyable. "The Martian" is the only big "blockbuster" on the list, and despite being somewhat predictable, it was carried off with the right amount of humor, drama, action, and "McGyveresque" ingenuity to offer a satisfying theater experience.

I have saved "Mr. Holmes" for last because, for me, it was the best. It was perhaps the gentlest of the seven films (and the other 40 films that I saw), but it had fine character development, it had marvelous performances from the three principal actors (the child actor was terrific), and it was intriguing, powerful, and touching in a very nice combination of those emotions. "Mission Impossible-Rogue Nation" got a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes; "Inside Out" got a 98%; whereas, "Mr. Holmes" only got an 87% and only 75% of the audience liked it. Nevertheless, I rank it as my most enjoyable movie of the year. By the way, I did see both of those, and I gave them each 4 stars.

The worst on my list from this year are the remarkably story-less, character-less, "The Fantastic Four"; the mindless regurgitation with an alarmingly uninteresting protagonist and plot of "The Transporter" (the TV series is actually much more amusing, compelling, and interesting than any of the franchise movies); and my surprising number one entry for over two hours of mindless tedium was "Mad Max" which I already panned in great detail in earlier blog.

And if you haven't seen it, I still recommend my last year's top disagreement with the critics and the fans, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty," for it's marvelous blend of humor, character, story, fantasy, and marvelous cinematography. I blogged about it last year in my negative reviews of "American Hustle" and "Inside Llewyn Davis."

Now, I'm gearing up to go see "Star Wars 7: The Marketing," in a couple of hours. May the farce be with me.

"Mad Max" — It wasn't my fault; she wanted to see it, but I still had to apologize to Carolyn for this one.... We should have known better.

The high praise for this movie must be seen for what it is: adoration of one element in filmmaking at the expense of most others. The claim that it has a complex, but subtle story, or worse, that its story is "dense" seems excessively hyperbolic. It is clearly meant to be an adrenalin rush, and it is. Unfortunately, it is an excessively redundant exhilaration. Praise is heaped on the myriad forms of inventive destruction; others note the uniqueness of the various vehicles. Notice, therefore, that I do not claim "repetition" but merely redundancy. This next observation is a personal judgment to be sure, but I also found the score to be overtly manipulative and unsubtle (although occasionally silly—the guitar player being particularly goofy and amusing...one or twice...then just gratuitously absurd, especially when it became part of the climactic action). 

This is minimalist storytelling and maximalist filmmaking, offering two hours of remarkably adept choreography of acrobatic and balletic crashes, explosions, immolations and mayhem, predicated on five minutes worth of story,  two minutes of uninteresting dialogue, and thirty seconds of character development. To be honest, though, it might have actually been more interesting if it had offered no dialogue at all (I mean this sincerely).

The young acolyte who turns (absurdly quickly) from bloodthirsty minion to devoted paramour to altruistic martyr is the only dynamic character in the film. Every other character is static, as is to be expected in a video game actioner. The emerging trust between the two main characters or the young, chrome warrior was never in doubt, though hardly credible from any character's viewpoint or experience. Of course, we didn't have time to offer a rational explanation for this instantaneous teamwork because we had gauntlets to run and endless stuff to blow up. As for the great sci-fi setting credited by some, again minimalist to the extreme: sand, mud, funny cars, stilts, and a treadmill—that's it.

Many commenters have praised the film for its subtle themes and its "showing and not telling" approach, but those themes are extremely underdeveloped; in fact, they are merely nods to a range of well-worn (but significant) and much better explored (elsewhere) themes of religion, economics, exploitation, tyranny, demagoguery, fanaticism, patriarchy, feminism, ecology, war, loyalty, courage, heroism. They are all in there, but this movie neither tells us nor shows us anything of substance about any of them. It's basically, "Yeah, society's foibles...yada, yada, yada...."

I've tried to give as few spoilers as possible and still give a reasonable assessment, but as for the ending, let's just say it was the most inexplicable and unlikely part of the movie, but since we'd wasted all of our time on all that great action, the denouement just happened, voilà, and "happy ever after," which, again, was never in doubt for a moment. I am guessing that even if you knew absolutely nothing about the Mad Max franchise, an objective viewer would find every single development thoroughly predictable.

Having watched "San Andreas" the day before, I found that movie's action sequences relatively implausible, its mass destruction derivative (or typical ala most apocalyptic movies and every Marvel superhero movie), its deus ex machina plot contrivances and coincidences completely absurd, and its saccharin family plot line cliched; nevertheless, perhaps especially because I'm a fan of Caltech, I didn't walk away feeling that I had really wasted two hours on a pointless shoot-em-up like I did with "Mad Max." 

Don't get me wrong, from an artistic point of view, as an action movie, "Mad Max" is very well done, and if all you demand from your action movie is non-stop action, then "Mad Max" is nearly perfect. On the other hand, if you want a story that at the very least challenges you to think, even slightly, about issues or ideas, then any of the three earlier Mad Max movies and nearly any other sci-fi offering, no matter the logistical gaps, will offer you more (I would, however, exclude "Lucy" from that group—it was too silly, illogical, and gap-filled to merit viewing except as an exercise in unintentional and ludicrous humor). 

It is the hyperbolic, euphoric praise and the absurdly high rating on Rotten Tomatoes that prompted me to respond to this thread. If you want to see a fine, articulate review of the movie that offers a reasonable explanation of the praise, I encourage you to read super-reviewer Nate Zoebl's analysis at the bottom of the RT page for "Mad Max." It is very well done.

By the way, below I have offered the link to a short video, "Chains," created by Sharon Lewis, that adeptly, and with minimal budget, covers nearly all of the aforementioned themes in a meaningful and memorable way (and not a single car crash) in just ten minutes. It is a video that I used with both my creative writing students when exploring science fiction and with my video production students when looking at short, narrative film making. I am sorry for the 40-second intro (although the film series is worth viewing). Check it out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/black-voices-breakthrough-theater-chains-_n_3517684.html

Reviews of Rotten Tomatoes, Walter Mitty, Inside Llewyn Davis, and American Hustle

I have been using Rotten Tomatoes for years now—it is a very valuable tool— but I have not felt compelled to comment until today after watching "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.”

I have been noticing a specific phenomenon lately; it is somewhat alarming but still useful. Mediocre films by "top level" directors get absurdly high "critic" ratings, but the audience’s “liked it" ratings run well below those percentages. Whereas some fine movies get mediocre reviews, and some mediocre movies get complete trashings (“47 Ronin”), yet those critical reviews are countered by positive audience responses.

Take, on the other hand, films like “Inside Llewyn Davis” or “American Hustle,” both of which received 93% from the critics. I lived through and loved the folk era—I recognized the Dave Van Ronk album cover and the obvious Tom Paxton references. I also saw the Mark Spoelstra reference (The Five and Twenty Questions album) which no reviewer seems to have noticed, and the Peter, Paul and Mary and Al Grossman references as well. I was a fan of Jim and Jean and the Clancy Brothers as well as Van Ronk and Dylan, and I loved Dave Van Ronk’s wonderful autobiography, “The Mayor of MacDougal Street” upon which this movie was purportedly based. Unfortunately, the movie was tedious and lifeless with a complete disdain for the real musicians and the music scene of the time. The Coen’s have every right to create a story about a crass, selfish, self-important loser, but it is wrong to make so many direct references to real individuals while making no attempt to make that depiction have any basis in reality. The bit with the cat was the only redeeming virtue in this piece with the possible exception of a couple of song performances and John Goodman’s obligatory Coen Brothers’ cameo. This is either a mirthless comedy or a pointless, mean-spirited dramedy, but clearly the filmmakers could not make up their minds. The audience, of course, could make up their minds and only gave it a 75%, which is still rather generous.

“American Hustle”? More mediocrity: unfunny slapstick; aggressive scenery chewing by nearly all cast members (as much as I enjoy both female leads); missing motivation and inexplicable actions; a painfully predictable plot—even if you don’t know the “history”— with no real tension or suspense (unlike, for example, “Argo”); and nothing at all noteworthy about the actual style of the film. Critics: 93%  Audience: 81% (I would argue highly overrated by both).

“The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” is, on the other hand, quite a masterful piece of movie making. The fact that it has much more in common with the Danny Kaye movie of the same name than with the James Thurber short story is forgivable. It would be nearly impossible to film the actual story today. For one, it is extremely short (only a few pages); for another, it is a very harsh and sarcastic, though amusing, attack on a daydreaming nebbish who is a menace to himself and those around him. There is not one whit of romanticizing about foolishly fantasizing Walter and his necessarily domineering wife.

Stiller’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” is a thoroughly engrossing new take on the theme of breaking out of one’s box and taking a chance on life and love; an old story but nicely envisioned and reinvigorated. From the first instant of the very clever opening credits, the viewers understand that they are in an unusual world, a world that is an overlapping of fantasy and reality. The filming of both the “real life” and the fantasy scenes are truly noteworthy. The intertwining conceits of online dating and a mystery surrounding the final cover of the iconic Life Magazine create a compelling premise that takes the viewer on a nice set of turns along the way (and I don’t just mean the skateboard). The action sequences and the wonderful vistas are legitimately breathtaking while comfortably fitting the outlandish story. This movie is gentle in its humor—plenty of chuckles but few guffaws—yet certainly funnier than either of the other movies with which it is compared above. This movie, though, was not going for guffaws, it was going for heart, which it has in abundance. I defy anyone to find any real heart in either of those “top rated movies.”

“Walter Mitty” has only a 49% rating from the critics, but a 79% from the audience, and I predict that this assessment will rise as word of mouth allows the Stiller film to overcome both the completely unjustified critical “write-off” as well as the “I just don’t like Ben Stiller” prejudice. This is extremely well written, well acted, well filmed, and well directed, and it deserves a much wider audience.