CinePendejo Reviews

Toy Story 2 (1999)

They made this movie within 9 months. 9! Don't give up on your dreams.

[9/10 · 9 July 2019]

This movie, without question, fails to live up to the purity of the original. Right down to the callbacks and the often slack narrative, TOY STORY 2 only further highlights the truly unique experience of the first one. One of the few crazy ideas that alchemized into something thoughtful, character-driven, and thrilling, there's no way it could be replicated. I mean, just look how A BUGS LIFE turned out.

But with all the baggage held against the sequel, it's also without question it's the most ambitious. Thoroughly expanding its story to deeper, more existential questions, it's the rare sequel that earns its EMPIRE STRIKES BACK level praise. It's finally a movie that questions what truly makes for a great life for a toy: standing behind glass walls and loved by everybody forever, or live with a finite relationship with a child destined to grow out of you soon.

Buzz gets the backseat this time around, centering the story on Woodys turmoil while his space friend endure some hijinks to rescue him. People might say his side story is the sole weak point but I'd argue it's necessary for the story; it's a lot of heavy themes at play, so the gang deliver just the right amount of humor to level the tone.

By now, everybody knows the Prospector turns out to be a last minute bad guy at the end. My take on this is how seamless of an antagonist he is; the idea that all toys are destined to be thrown out looms heavy on these characters. So much so that any of these characters can snap to immoral tendencies at any minute. This is why Kelsey Grammer delivers a phenomenal performance here. He's comforting as the Prospector but you can clearly hear the history behind it all. You can hear the desperation of his character, let alone Jesse and Bullseye too, and the film slowly builds that desperation into villainy that seems tangible.

As for Jesse, let's just say there's a particular moment with her that personally spoke to me. Not gonna say which though, seems like an easy answer.

Again what can I say; TOY STORY 2 is a grand achievement that could've done much less.

X2 (2003)

"Booooooooring" - Homer Simpson

[4/10 · 9 July 2019]

Here's what I say about the "best" movie in the X-Trilogy: I took a nap during this slog three times. Three.

I'm all for movies that focuses on character work and personal stakes instead of big explosions in my superhero movies, but this constructs the blandest and vaguest versions of those possible. An aggressively boring movie not only wrecked by ugly sets and a horrendous pace, but also by how it fails to live up to the central conflicts in the movie. Strykers son feels completely contrived, only there to freeze Xavier out of commission in the third act, and Wolverines journey to his past just marks down things we already know. It all feels like filler, with the whole "global headache" in the end not holding any stakes.

The only scene that really registered with me is probably the least necessary plot-wise but perfectly highlights the "Mutants as metaphor for civil rights" angle. The scene where Iceman meets his parents in shock - which then follows Pyro killing armed cops with explosions - is easily the most emotionally riveting and coolest scene out of all of these movies. And the crazy thing about it: we don't even need it in the movie! It's just a detour for the characters to seek refuge only to get picked up by the hovercraft anyway.

Yeah, I just don't care. Personally, I choose the first movie simply because it's shorter and more to-the-point, despite looking a whole lot cheaper.

The Front Runner (2018)

Not without merit, but still out of touch, long-winded, and hollow.

[5/10 · 10 February 2019]

I hate having a rather lukewarm conclusion to every Jason Reitman film as of late, but so far the man constantly fumbles his own potential. In telling the story about Senator Gary Hart's promising presidential campaign gone wrong after a sexual allegations, Reitman faces this bold canvas with all bias and no bite. In which he frames the snooping, persistent news journalists as the real bad guys for ruining a promising future, and that sexual wrongdoings should never interfere with a mans success.

Now obviously I REALLY don't agree with this - like AT ALL - but a better movie should explain their case as to why. But this movie keeps him at a distance, focused too much on journalist banter, and brushes off his ideals and complexities to even make a case for Hart. It's like the film constantly assures you that you'd be on his side and understand the squandered potential. Which inofitself reeks of our-of-touch entitlement, especially faced with the #MeToo movement, but it also results in a limp, one-note, overlong movie.

But I can't say it's all bad. Jason Reitman is a damn good visualist and he mimics an Altman-like banter and style quite well. High Jackman holds his own damn well as Gary Hart, even among his laughable wig. And even though she barely get enough screen time or agency, Sara Paxton gives an especially heartbreaking performance.

If there's one thing about his shortcomings, it's that at least Reitman knows how to use his tools.

Bigger (2018)

Well, I always wonder when Bodybuilding.com would have their own answer to UNITED PASSIONS.

[2/10 · 18 January 2019]

Before I get started, I want to address that I LOVE bodybuilding. I enjoy watching movies as well, hence my frequent visits in this site, but I first nurtured a strong passion for muscle building, clean dieting, and physical achievement. Currently embarking toward my Bachelors Degree in Athletic Training, I hold a high standard of how we treat our bodies as well as the unbelievable feats of strength of that involved. Sure we may be egocentric and a little too masculine, there's a lot of virtues about ideals tucked away within bodybuilding that would benefit all of life.

But even then, even I wasn't shocked by how godawful BIGGER turned out to be. A cheap and manipulating Lifetime special, it's a movie that way too often glorifies the life of one Joe Weider (The father of Bodybuilding) while unironically presenting the self-centered, borderline toxic elements of said life with an earnest smile. It's not even appropriate to call this a mandate by committee; if you tell me a whole bunch of meatheads from IFBB came together and made a film school project, this would've fit the bill.

For those who don't know, Joe Weider is what many would consider the Father of Bodybuilding, commencing his rise to fame by pioneering the Muscle&Fitness magazine and the Mr. Olympia competition. Growing up Jewish and poor during the dreadful years before World War 2, he envisioned that all people of different stripes have a right to achieve physical achievement the likes of the elite strongman of which he aspires from.

And from there is literally rinse and repeat; he gets bullied along with his brother Ben Weider, they discovered something revolutionary, a string of violins cue in at the inspirational moments, Joe meets a girl, they get a divorce due to complications with his work, he meets an archnemesis - a cartoonishly evil rival magazine publisher played by one of the bad guys from LOST - and he soon reaches entrepreneur status. There's facts about Muscle&Fitness, fit chick models, where he got the name Mr. Olympia, and the famous encounter with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Yes they're all important things that happened, but the film does absolutely nothing exceptional about it. Right down to a lazy framing device and the annoying Polish inflections by the otherwise capable Tyler Hoechlin, there's too many bad or uninspired filmmaking choices here to keep you invested. Even the admittedly timely philosophy within Weiders mission - about equality and female empowerment - just gets simplified by having the movie frame an opposing magazine publisher as a literal Nazi cartoon villain for the mighty Weider to defeat. I've seen Kevin Durand play one-note baddies before, but this somehow became a new low for the once-promising TV actor.

What's even more depressing yet totally expected is the refusal to delve deep into Weiders darker side. There's a hint within Victoria Justice's throwaway wife role that suggests that Weider might actually be a psychotic, workaholic weirdo who obsesses about how people look without considering the "normal" ways of living. As a man who personally had complications like this before, It would've looked intriguing to see this manifest properly but no. The movie is too much on his side to even think about challenging him, so it frames anybody with any questions about bodybuilding as equal to the Nazis and the bullies who dare take away his glory. It's just vaguely toxic and just misguided to watch onscreen.

But not about as misguided as the shockingly dumb decision to cast Callum Von Moger as Golden Age Schwarzenegger. The dude looks nothing like him no matter what fitness gurus tell me, and the audacity to see this lunk share clunky dialogue with dangly weirdo Weider makes me cringe. It's the type of obvious casting stunt that summarizes this uninspired, obviously calculated agenda of which this movie metastasizes from. Unless if you're biased about bodybuilding itself and thus don't have such a low tolerance for bargain-basement pablum, I would say that this man deserved a better movie.

The Sisters Brothers (2018)

John C Riley and Joaquin Phoenix should do more movies together.

[8/10 · 20 December 2018]

You could tell by the directors name alone that this won't be your typical western. By no means a new concept, Jaques Audiard wishes to revise a western cowboy story into an intimate, gradually bleak character piece that questions the genres conventions in the first place. There's some shootouts and some galloping across landscapes and old shantytowns, but there's subtlety at play here. How abusive parents control our psyche, how we either want to continue our life of crime or end it all and start an honest life, and so on. There's even a whiff of social commentary, like building new inventions to get richer, only to destroy nature around us.

There's plenty enough at play here, but THE SISTERS BROTHERS isn't focused on allegory. It proves that these twists and extra insight could conjure some effective drama, to which it does. John C Riley and Joaquin Phoenix have great chemistry and pathos with each other, and the movie finds comfort - maybe a little too much confort, granted - in just having these guys talk real conversations instead of lazy exposition.

Like I said before, it does meander at a lot of points and some might feel impatient with its weird structure. However, I felt patient enough to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's a exceptionally shot, slowly heartbreaking, quietly subversive curiosity. Can't recommend it enough.

Roma (2018)

I liked it.

[8/10 · 16 December 2018]

Lord knows how much we owe to Alfonso Cuarons achievement as a filmmaker. Starting as a curiosity, then a flash in a pan, but then all of a sudden a critical darling, all of his efforts evoke a bold, minutely assembled quality. Paired with elaborate one-shot sequences, pseudo-veriteé dialogue, indulgent moments of artistic symbolism, and bits and pieces of socio-political commentary, he's willing to take the independent film scene by storm.

So it's no surprise to see ROMA currently leading the Metacritic charts of 2018. And it often deserves that high praise; it's gorgeously shot, wonderfully acted, achingly heartbreaking yet sympathetic, full of memorable scenes, and holds a great sense of visual and symbolic filmmaking. Cuarón seems to have a lot of his mind while making this movie - about class, miserable mothers, war, protest, and dwindling innocence - all while taking notes from other acclaimed movies of the past decade to culminate it together.

And yet there's just a small thing missing from it. Even as I nearly loved all the shots and moments of emotional ballast, I felt as though Cuarón is trying too hard? Maybe it's how often his camera lingers on some scenes, or how he clutters a lot of extras and action in one pan shot, or how there's one outlandishly grandiose moment after another in tandem to Mexican socioeconomic commentary.

There's a lot of heart into this movie, but I just wished it relaxed a bit and stop trying to be, well, perfect? The scenes that mostly stick out to me were when Yalitza Aparicios character Cléo goes through their relatable and stripped-down character journey. There's no flashy panache or anything, just a maid doing her best to do her job while life flings at her face.

Maybe I'm asking for too much. Maybe I should be grateful ROMA gets the recognition movies like these need, especially during these harsh times. And for the record, it does outright look like a masterpiece in some cases - that beach scene will stick with me for days. But sometimes it just slightly pales in compared to the captivatingly raunchy Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN and the action-movie-with-big-ideas charm of CHILDREN OF MEN.

But please relax, guys. I liked it.

The Other Side of the Wind (2018)

Yeah, let's see how Charlie Kaufman can top this.

[9/10 · 4 November 2018]

Not only is THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND a striking achievement in film history - a nearly faithful assembly of the infamously scrapped project by THE Orson Welles - but it's also an impressive statement on movie-making itself. How film isn't always defined by one lens. How approaching movies as autobiographies makes a directors life less valuable. How a desperate production hell takes its toll on a legends vision. And how sexual or psychological baggage bite you in the ass as the years pass by. You'd also see how he's deconstructing himself as he makes his movie, which probably started as this avante-garde film starring two people, then a story about how a legendary director makes this avante-garde film, then the issues he deals with in showing this movie to a fanbase that may or may not hold him too high of a standard.

It's also an uneasy film to watch. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND isn't afraid to alienate you with it's off-the-wall filmmaking techniques. A movie that juggles with plenty of ideas about moviemaking it's probably too hard to grasp at once. In fact, I'm very simple minded so my interpretation barely scratched the surface of this behemoth. But I'd say if you're a huge fan of Welles as well as filmmaking in general, this movie is nothing you've ever seen before.

Madeline's Madeline (2018)

Sometimes you just have to see it to believe it

[9/10 · 21 October 2018]

I. AM. SHOOKETH!!

This is easily the most unsettling, transporting, and densely-packed art pieces I've ever seen this year. It's one of those rare movies where it takes multiple themes - about artistic integrity, exploiting pain for profit, mental illness, family stability, overcoming the struggles of being a female, and mother-and-daughter dynamics - and blends them into one ambiguous, anarchic whole. It's one of those movie where it makes the case not whether or not you get it, but whether we trust our subjectivity to make us care nonetheless.

The movie is centered around Madeline, a young teenager diagnosed with a mental illness that triggers her to commit multiple episodes at almost everyone she sees, one of which is her single mother played by a wonderful Miranda July. She feels trapped and frustrated with her domestic life so she attends a theatre class, where she's allowed to lash out and act as outlandish as she wants, instantly fostering a niche of channeling her disability for what should or should not be considered as "talent". Along the way, because it still is a coming of age movie, we see her come of age as she questions her sexuality, the weight of how her actions affect those around her, and her place in the world going forward.

Josephine Decker, a indie curiosity that for sure gained my attention, frames the movie in her perspective, regulating the camera firmly locked onto our heroine, tuning the music as pandemonium of the senses, and often cutting randomly through multiple shots and images. It's a fascinating example of modern abstract cinema, one that delves into the characters potential insanity yet trusts that we empathize with a broken soul in need to express herself.

The movie also commentates on how we package and sell someones emotional pain and call it art. Thankfully, the movie is so free-wheeling that it never bothers to become too didactic or preachy. In one of the films best moments, Madeline reenacts an argument she had with her mom that not only might be the most harrowing cases of self-revelation but one of the most honest and achingly tangible view of her life. It's then followed by the theatre director stunned by the performance, but wishes to adapt the performance in her vision in well-intentioned but wrongheaded means. And THATS followed by a anxiety-driven performance act that further highlights the main point of what art is supposed to be.

Art, like MADELINE'S MADELINE, isn't meant to be deciphered or filtered through a simpler perspective, but interpreted as what it is by many other perspectives. We live and breathe and experience in our own way, and analyzing art through our own lens crafts something truly special. We feel the artists happiness, pain, and self-expression in some way or another and we don't need someone spelling it out for us.

MADELINE'S MADELINE is a wonderful film to behold. It's no doubt what I'm saying is a cliche, but this is one of those film that makes me point my finger and shout "This! This is why I love film". An achievement in bold filmmaking as well as a magnifying showcase for newcoming actress Helena Howard (I mean all I gotta say is Elsie Fisher should eat her heart out) it's one of those movies jam packed with interpretations and emotional rapture that I'll never forget it for quite a long time.

One of the best of the year. Believe the hype.

Madeline's Madeline (2018)

Sometimes you just have to see it to believe it.

[9/10 · 21 October 2018]

I. AM. SHOOKETH!!

This is easily the most unsettling, transporting, and densely-packed art pieces I've ever seen this year. It's one of those rare movies where it takes multiple themes - about artistic integrity, exploiting pain for profit, mental illness, family stability, overcoming the struggles of being a female, and mother-and-daughter dynamics - and blends them into one ambiguous, anarchic whole. It's one of those movie where it makes the case not whether or not you get it, but whether we trust our subjectivity to make us care nonetheless.

The movie is centered around Madeline, a young teenager diagnosed with a mental illness that triggers her to commit multiple episodes at almost everyone she sees, one of which is her single mother played by a wonderful Miranda July. She feels trapped and frustrated with her domestic life so she attends a theatre class, where she's allowed to lash out and act as outlandish as she wants, instantly fostering a niche of channeling her disability for what should or should not be considered as "talent". Along the way, because it still is a coming of age movie, we see her come of age as she questions her sexuality, the weight of how her actions affect those around her, and her place in the world going forward.

Josephine Decker, a indie curiosity that for sure gained my attention, frames the movie in her perspective, regulating the camera firmly locked onto our heroine, tuning the music as pandemonium of the senses, and often cutting randomly to different shots and images. It's a fascinating example of modern abstract cinema, one that delves into the characters potential insanity yet trusts that we empathize with a broken soul in need to express herself.

The movie also commentates on how we package and sell someones emotional pain and call it art. Thankfully, the movie is so free-wheeling that it never bothers to become too didactic or preachy. In one of the films best moments, Madeline reenacts an argument she had with her mom that not only might be the most harrowing cases of self-revelation but one of the most honest and achingly tangible view of her life. It's then followed by the theatre director stunned by the performance, but wishes to adapt the performance in her vision in well-intentioned but wrongheaded means. And THATS followed by a anxiety-driven performance act that further highlights the main point of what art is supposed to be.

Art, like MADELINE'S MADELINE, isn't meant to be deciphered or filtered through a simpler perspective, but interpreted as what it is by many other perspectives. We live and breathe and experience in our own way, and analyzing art through our own lens crafts something truly special. We feel the artists happiness, pain, and self-expression in some way or another and we don't need someone spelling it out for us.

MADELINE'S MADELINE is a wonderful film to behold. It's no doubt what I'm saying is a cliche, but this is one of those film that makes me point my finger and shout "This! This is why I love film". An achievement in bold filmmaking as well as a magnifying showcase for newcoming actress Helena Howard (I mean all I gotta say is Elsie Fisher should eat her heart out) it's one of those movies jam packed with interpretations and emotional rapture that I'll never forget it for quite a long time.

One of the best of the year. Believe the hype.

First Man (2018)

I mean, it aint't APOLLO 13, but it'll do

[8/10 · 13 October 2018]

I still can't believe I'm saying this, but Damien Chazelle did it again.

That's not to say I'll not one day get tired of his central thesis laid on his filmography at this point. The idea that nobody should ever criticize anyone's ambitions no matter how much of a physical/emotional toll it takes on them borders way too close to masochism. And while WHIPLASH and LA LA LAND stands as genuine classics in their own right, there's a waning sense that Chazelle takes his goals too much to heart, wishing that he'd take a breather for once.

So it's a refreshing change to see him showcase the bare basics of film craft with FIRST MAN, utilizing impressive special effects and cool 60s style stock lens without calling attention to itself. It pays a lot of detail to many of the mechanics of astrophysics, down to every strategic conversations and to each linger on rocket windows and altitude dials. You almost feel like you're there in the cockpit with the legendary astronaut yourself, experiencing both awe and panic at the same time.

At first I felt trouble with the characterization of Neil Armstrong. A emotionless stoic trying to risk his life to land on the moon in order to cope with the loss of his daughter but then inflicts damage upon other people in the process. It doesn't really gel at first since that's not how grief works and it sounds like yet another self-deprecating parable by Chazelle but it wraps up in unexpected ways. Once he finally lands on the moon does he realize how finite and small life on Earth really is, how the glory of human achievement regains the pride of a nation, and how that same achievement needs to make us more fulfilled and humble as human beings. It's fairly faint but the wonderful visuals accompany it perfectly.

There are some issues unaddressed, however. It does get repetitive at times and, while I do like how it gives Janet Armstrong and her family an agency, the movie does little for them other than "make their scenes look like a Terrence Malick movie". I also wanted some more comraderie, especially with co-pilot Buzz Aldrin. That would've been cool.

Aside from that, color me unsurprisingly satisfied. Ryan Gosling, Jason Clarke, Clair Foy, Kyle Chandler, and Corey Stoll did an amazing job with their performances, the filmmaking is top notch, and the overall concept of watching the moon landing on the big screen alone is worth it itself.

Houston, we have a winner.

Searching (III) (2018)

They should've let this director make SNOWDEN instead.

[9/10 · 3 September 2018]

Alas, this movie is a masterpiece.

Yeah, you heard me. This movie, which is about a dad finding her missing daughter using the internet, is the best movie I've seen this year. A movie strictly screen recorded from laptops will soon drive the medium of filmmaking to newer, exciting heights. What could've easily sounded obnoxious and trite somehow evokes more drama, tension, airtight plot progression, and a strong grasp of cinematic language. There are many movies that surpassed my expectations, but not since this years YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE has a film truly transcended me.

This is one of those "dad-knows-best" movies that secretly critiques and twists that formula to interesting heights. Sure we see the main character dive in to multiple websites and somehow piece together who the killer is faster than the police, but the films genius is in the context. We all became so engrained into technology that a simple dive to your daughters Instagram account makes us detectives of our own. So watching this man explore comments and track phone numbers becomes instantly more relatable yet seemingly implausible.

Speaking of implausible still at awe of how perfectly written this is. Strip away all the gimmick and you have a really smart, sturdy thriller that expertly blends interesting themes into the genre mold. But what takes this the extra mile comes from how Director Aneesh Chaganty's talented use of screen record. Every type and clench of the Delete key perfectly resembles speechlessness and every pull on a webpage to reveal clues clenches with tension. A gimmick like this could only go so far by anyone, like the dudes who still make those UNFRIENDED movies, but this guy really holds his own with it.

It's also, by all stretches of the word, a deeply uncynical film. Anyone could easily commentate on how much we're fixated on our laptops, yet this film reminds us the cherished memories we keep with it. Anyone could easily revolve around the incompetencies of parenthood admist a tragedy, yet it still finds sympathy and pathos instead. Anyone could easily blame the callous behaviors of teenagers on the internet, and yet the film never dwells or even highlights that to be the main issue. It properly sets up the vivid world we live in today, yet all it's used for is to tell a thought-provoking yet sympathetic story.

SEARCHING is just pure master stroke within every frame. John Cho, Michelle La, Sarah Sohn, Debra Messing, and Joseph Lee all deserve Hollywood stardom after this considering the powerhouse talent they bring; the filmmaking, yes filmmaking, hits every right beat; the lingering questions emotional ballast, like the family photos you keep in your folder, stays with you forever; there's just too much to recommend in this.

Get your arses to a movie theater to see this right now. It deserves every penny.

Jerry Maguire (1996)

Pretty swell.

[8/10 · 26 July 2018]

1996 seemed like a weird year at the movies.

People could finally laugh at horror movies with SCREAM, American culture's obsession with the end of the world led to INDEPENDENCE DAY and TWISTER's box office success, both FARGO and TRAINSPOTTING caught audiences and critics by surprise, and the whole sector of cinephiles stood together in disgust that a movie like THE ENGLISH PATIENT could win Best Picture.

I'm not a sociologist so I'm not sure how that amounts to when defining the cultural zeitgeist of the late 90s. However I will say that if there's any movie that, to me, properly distills what life felt like back then, I'd say it's either JERRY MAGUIRE or FARGO. Since I already saw FARGO, this Scavenger Hunt is dedicated to this instead.

Cameron Crowe missteps quite a lot since his heyday as director, but boy did he had a voice. The sensitive, emotionally broken vision he conjures transcends this otherwise melodramatic story into something we can all relate to. Beneath our grin and multi-million dollar facade, we are all still people with emotions and needs. The center of all this is the Space Pope himself Tom Cruise, reverting his TOP GUN swagger into a performance packed with charm and pathos.

Whereas FARGO captured the cynical extremes of human choices and how it affects all of us, JERRY MAGUIRE encapsulates a time where we get so fixated on fame and success to mend our lonely lives. And Cameron Crowe reassures us that sometimes, expressing your emotions won't cause the end of the world. Maybe it's okay to settle down and warm up to people once in a while. Even if you're on the hurdle towards your lowest point, all you can depend on is that one person who really cares about you for you.

It cannot possibly compare to the extended cut to ALMOST FAMOUS - because almost nothing can - but I was shocked that this still hits in the feels.

Gotti (2018)

The best movie anybody from ENTOURAGE could make.

[3/10 · 28 June 2018]

Clearly there's movies worse than this guys.

Yes, GOTTI is bad. Amateur directing, repugnant attitude towards the subject of John Gotti, a truly misplaced soundtrack, and horrible handle of tone, story structure, and presentation. It's clearly made out of incompetence and reeks of its infamous production hell.

But the film solely rests on John Travoltas performance, and he's honestly pretty impressive. I'd believe all the audience reactions from the promotional material of this movie, because this really seems like Travolta's comeback. The way he lays on a thick accent with sincerity just seems like what a person from that region could sound like, nevertheless Gotti himself.

However one performance can't save a bad picture, and Travolta still hasn't reached the renaissance I've been begging him to get.

Fuggethaboutit

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018)

WHAT IS THIS SALTY DISCHARGE STREAMING DOWN MY CHEEKS?!

[9/10 · 23 June 2018]

WONT YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR was not only one of the most heartbreaking documentaries I've ever seen this year, but it's easily the best tribute to a bygone era I could ever think of. It's a documentary that proves people like me - who never had much reference to Mr. Rogers in his life - could feel emotionally raptured by his legacy and his motives. In an era where so much of our pop culture became dense with callous nihilism, this documentary proves the powers of love, compassion, respect, and knowledge.

What's shocking is that his approach to me. Here is a man who talks to his toddlers like their actual people. Knowing full well that children could process psychology as much as adults can, Mr. Rogers educated his audience about sad and complex issues like death, depression, racism, tragedy, and cynicism. He held no punches back; he wanted to set an example, but he never wore a funny hat or a facade to do it.

The film also delivers a brilliant argument against Rogers, as TV pundits criticize his influence on children and how he made them spoiled and believed to be special. But for a guy like me who gets sick of one-sided arguments in movies lately, the film throws up a middle finger at these guys as they show a footage of Rogers at a graduation speech. I personally hate how these self-entitled baby boomers have the balls to tell us that we're wasting our lives, so it's a relief to see Rogers celebrate his old fans that proved them wrong.

There's a bunch of scenes like that in WONT YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR. Scenes like Daniel the Tiger grief-stricken about the Kennedy Assassination. Or the scene where he meets Jeff and talk about his wheelchair. Or the scene where Francois Clemmons reminisces about how Fred accepted his homosexuality and treated him like a true friend. Or the scene where officer Clemmons share a pool with Rogers, or the scene in which he talks about 9/11 and how it affected him. Or how his friends and family express his relationship with them. Or even how director Morgan Neville inserts some pleasing animation highlighting Fred Rogers psyche. There's so much to chew on here.

But if I have to pick for myself, my favorite moments of the movie comes from the "Mistakes" song. It's when Lady Aberlin was talking to Daniel the Tiger, and Daniel laments about his identity and how he judges himself by the mistakes he made. "Sometimes I wonder if... I'm a mistake" he says as he transitions to a singing duo. As someone who lived with depression before, this still hurts to recall even after the movie was over. It's a scene that reminded me how painful it feels being different, how hard it is to fully cope with it, and how openness and acceptance could almost relieve that pain.

At first I couldn't imagine how this man could live in this world. Today is just riddled with a jaded worldview, which believes children should keep their mouths shut; which believes that happiness is superficial and that we should all just waddle toward our hopeless demise as the world crumbles around us. I just hated that Even though I still love RICK AND MORTY and SOUTH PARK, their effect on this country causes a malaise that I just cant stomach anymore.

But the more I think on it, Fred Rogers never really needed to live longer to get his message across. In watching this documentary until the credits rolled, it became clear; it's not about just one man changing the world with a loving smile, WONT YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR is about how we as a community, nay a neighborhood, must gain the strength to carry out that smile for him. How we can all teach our children or friends or spouses that love could change the world.

Thank you for everything, Mr. Rogers and may you rest in peace.

All the Money in the World (2017)

The best Kevin Spacey Oscar vehicle that almost was.

[6/10 · 27 December 2017]

I'm tired of this statement more than anybody, but ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD feels like the definitive movie for the Trump era. Taking place during the Getty Hostage situation during the early seventies, it examines the frantic, greedy, and outright despairing nature of humanity under the shroud of wealth and power. Thankfully not as on-the-nose but sadly not all that complex, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD still puts you at the edge of your seat.

In summary, John Paul Getty is this big oil tycoon who is declared the richest man in the world. But now he's faced with the dilemma when his grandson gets kidnapped by mobsters during an Italian vacation and is asked to deliver 17 million dollars in ransom. Being the sly, negotiating bastard persona of all rich people, Getty refuses at first, since he would rather invest in paintings and statues rather than his own family. It's mainly centered around Michelle Williams character as the kid's mother, constantly harassing his father-in-law to grow a fucking heart already as well as getting harassed by the perpetrators.

For those who don't get it, its a movie about how money makes us more grimy and hopeless than the actual hostage. A movie where the wealthy and the greedy constantly pursue money yet don't know where to pursue it. From Getty's oil business to the counterfeit purse factories to child trafficking to simple drug dealing, everyone is guilty of money signs on their eyes. Even with all the riches he could hope for, Getty would rather spend money on inanimate pieces of art rather than his own family, claiming that they at least "hold value and stay the same over the years".

Dire as it may be, I would've like to see the film dig deeper. Let's face it, if you're not constantly aware that a rich bastard is a bastard at this point, this would all sound like revelations. However, a more nuanced or even more darkly comedic screenplay would really bite, whereas this only slightly bruises. It presents a hard case about how greed makes scum of us all, but I'd be lying if I didn't wish it became more of what it wants to be. It mostly concludes that modesty trumps sadism, with one scene highlighting the only humble character preferring a few crackers when presented a hefty steak. Hint, hint.

The message isn't all that hard to get, but the way its presented is perfectly aligned with it. Ridley shoots every frame in a gloriously gray haze, almost squeezing out the glam and style of wealth. Scott also strips all sense of hope from the main hostage storyline, constantly jerking me around with every sigh of relief followed by another trap. Say what you will about Ridley Scott at this point, he's a freaking wizard.

The acting is sort of mixed but there's no denying that Christopher Plummer is fantastic. Immediately replacing prosthetic nightmare Kevin Spacey after he pulled a Michael Jackson (sorry...) in the press, it's like he's born in this role from the start. Surprisingly lack of reshoot editing and pacing woes - AHEM!! - His scenes add a hefty amount of gravitas without him even trying. He snarks, scowls, and sometimes courteously gestures throughout the movie to instantly elevate his scummy, scummy character. Even in scenes where he isn't involved, you could still feel the shroud of his influence within the story. Adding that with Michelle Williams stern yet hopeless performance, and you almost get a recipe for a powerhouse.

However, we also get Mark Wahlberg's puppy voice donning the gruff anti-hero detective and I get taken out of the experience. Though I commend Ridley to have Michelle sock his face with a telephone. Bless.

Anyway, it's still two out of three for me, to which I conclude with ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. Not the best deconstruction of greed, but certainly one of the most exhilarating.

cinependejo.wordpress.com

The Greatest Showman (2017)

Turn it down a notch, will ya?

[3/10 · 20 December 2017]

Even after seeing the overblown mess that is THE GREATEST SHOWMAN, I still can't believe they bother to make this. Dawning the promotional tagline "from the same lyricists of LA LA LAND", this years hot new musical feels slap-dashed, scrambled, and razzle-dazzled together in order to cynically profit off its success with embarrassing results. It's the type of year-end crowd-pleaser that talks your ear out about following your dreams and forget the haters, yet is also so obnoxiously over-the-top yet thoroughly forgettable it almost tunes itself out. It's like if HAMILTON was remade for the Disney Channel.

It stars Hugh Jackman as P.T. Barnum as he goes through the "Started From The Bottom" routine and turn from a poor apprentice into the worlds most famous entertainers. He falls in love with Charity to her fathers disapproval, but prevails because true love. He then gets stuck in a low-end job that gets bankrupt, to which he gets inspired to create a museum full of larger-than-life characters. He then gets the extra endorsement from Zac Efron as a playwright who falls in love with one of the performers played by Zendaya. Then he suddenly gets bitter after a dispute with his troupe and his wife after he discovers that he wants more, which suddenly leads to big consequences. Then they get back together through a sing and dance number.

Jumping Jesus, that's a lot of story. The whole thing has too much both onscreen and on paper that it suddenly became nauseating. Penned by Bill Condon in his second forgettable musical this year, it has the usual crap pacing, wasted opportunities, at least half a dozen arcs and cliches, and subplots left on the cutting room floor. It constantly blows over predictable storybeats through break-neck speed that you start to wonder what the fuck is going on. On top of that, commercial director Michael Gracey adds a whole bunch of calculated splendor - even in scenes where they're just talking - to this garbage screenplay in order to fool you into its supposed majesty. To me, I just got tuned out after the third time they sing.

Speaking of things overproduced, I've never heard anything so needlessly bombastic as that soundtrack. Along with the aforementioned visual eye rape, each music number sounds like it really thinks the movie is some transporting adventure. It really just sounds like they took that opening song from HAMILTON and copied the same swooning violin and blaring percussion in every goddamn song. Even in scenes where it calls for a moody, somber treatment instead feels like we're fighting in the Battle in Narnia. I just wanted to tell these guys to dial it the fuck down.

And then there's Barnum himself. It's admittedly nice to see Jackman shine in a happier role after LOGAN, but this is just a thinly written character. Glossing over the more nitty-gritty aspects of the historical figure, Barnum trudges along the same familiar beats of first being a starry-eyed optimistic to flat-out dickhead in the end. Even the shambling script leaves him no real footing to his arcs, leaving Jackman all dewey-eyed through numerous pitfalls and successes that mean nothing.

If the film offered me a glimmer of hope, it's when we're introduced to the "acts" themselves. Even at first seems exploitative to their appearances, these larger-than-life misfits look like they're packed with hidden stories and aspirations of their own. During one scene in which they sing in defiance against their oppressors, I almost leaped with joy... until it suddenly cuts to the same damn music template, in which I felt pissed again. For a movie about finding humanity in unusual places and finding your place, it's saddening to see these characters pushed aside for butthole Barnum and his stupid white people problems. I'd rather watch these guys again.

A common criticism about last years rapturous LA LA LAND was that it was all glam but no depth. Even if I'd agree that most people - like me admittedly - overrate this movie to kingdom come, there's a certain charm, effort, and specificity to LA LA LAND that made it sing more clearly than this movie ever can. Imagine if LA LA LAND was like a smooth, adventurous melody while SHOWMAN was like what if your 5-year-old son fumbles with your keyboard set.

Like any crummy movie, though, it tries to excuse itself by being for the fans and not the dreary critics. In one scene, a critic meets Barnum and states that the show is little more than smoke and mirrors, to which Jackman remarks by highlighting how much smiles he makes by the audience. As glib as that sounds, I couldn't help but agree. In many ways, THE GREATEST SHOWMAN is like the latest pop music that the current generation won't shut up over; its loud, repetitive, incomprehensible, and packed with a heavy-handed message to make you think it's more important that it really is.

But hey! Give it a month, and you'll get tired of it and forget it even exists.

Wonderstruck (2017)

A well-intentioned slog until it suddenly becomes freaking stupid.

[3/10 · 7 November 2017]

The worst films to ever watch or even talk about are ones that try hard but fail miserably. A movie where you can see a few spots of a really touching or affecting picture buried under such misguided garbage. An example from earlier this year was A MONSTER CALLS, a rather underwritten, cynical slog of a film that at least tried to tackle themes of loss and the will to move on.

However this new film WONDERSTRUCK, written by the guy who made HUGO and directed by the guy who made CAROL, is so fundamentally bad that it makes that film look like a masterpiece. Easily one of the dullest movies I ever fooled myself into getting hyped for, WONDERSTRUCK left me destitute before it suddenly blunts me in the head with its half-formed sentiment. It's the movie equivalent of a really pretty but stuck-up date that wont lead you on for the whole night, but then sucker-punches you in the face, takes your money, and leaves.

So the story is about this kid named Ben (played by the not-too-shabby-for-a-kid-actor Oakes Fegley) that longs to be an astronomer while also dealing with the trauma of losing his dad, dealing with a passive mom, and premonitions that keep him up at night. But suddenly, after losing his will to hear by the most laughably executed electrocution ever made to celluloid, he runs away from his house in order to pursuit his missing dad after finding a book supposedly made for his dad.

Cut to 50 years earlier in the past, where we see a young deaf girl named Rose living in the 1920s dealing with a strict, upper-class father who forces her into a school for the deaf. Thinking that she had enough of all this nonsense, she too escapes from her house. This time from her New Jersey home in search of her mother played by Julianne Moore (in her second double-role this year). A once-famous silent actress, Rose slowly witnesses her once-favorite opera place and her mothers career in shambles due to the new invention of sound. And yes, it relates to little ol' Ben's story about how his dads favorite bookstore gets shut down.

There's no doubt what this movie is trying to be. Much like the theme of dealing with culture change in Scorsese's whimsical HUGO, it tries to chronicle these two children as they find their place in the world that's slowly rejecting them. However, there's no reward for consuming any of that along with the structural dumpster that surrounds it.

It's either the film constantly cock-teases you from an actual plot, or that Todd Haynes doesn't know how to even tell it. The film ceases to draw any meaningful plot details, character development, or forward momentum until the very end. It's then that the film decides to shoot itself in the face with easily the most pointless, clichéd, and stupid reveals I've seen in 2017. It's just lazy, sinful screen writing, and also one constantly made by aspiring book authors who have no idea how movies work. And that is after the atrocious way it mixes the two kids stories, budgeting their respected tones and rhythms until it suddenly doesn't give a f*ck anymore.

Eight major films and counting, Todd Haynes proves to be one of the most experimental and illusive indie directors working today. But even if he could try, there's no denying how out of depth he is in this picture. There's no payoff to the social setting that made FAR FROM HEAVEN shine, the botched mixing of story lines feels like an insult to the effort IM NOT THERE made with six, and there's not even a single bit of emotional connection worth investing in in the same caliber as CAROL. Heck, there's a third-act plot reveal that uses the same Barbie dolls from SUPERSTAR, and at that point it feels phoned in out of vanity. This is a sore-thumb of a movie that sticks from the rest of an otherwise stellar filmography.

I could go on, but overall WONDERSTRUCK is just a dull and brain dead piece of self- importance. Haynes always gets criticism that his films are little more than pretty but uninviting curiosities, but this might be the film that left me genuinely, frustratingly bored. It aims to be so much more to those struggling to find their place in the worlds, and the way that the film complements their deafness is translated wonderfully. But those saving graces don't offer nearly enough to make up the pretentious slog that surrounds it. For all the films punishing 2 hours making me watch all these beautiful shots, soaring music cues, thematic posturing, and scenes of raw performances, it made me not care about any of it. And considering how I've waited a year to see this, hoping it might top my best of the year list even among its flaws, that really ticks me off.

But shieet! Why waste $100 to go to a museum when you can pay $10 a ticket to see one right now?!

Brigsby Bear (2017)

One of the years most curious fumbles.

[4/10 · 5 November 2017]

If anything else, BRIGSBY BEAR should get by solely on novelty. The entire Hollywood system is just so infested in unimaginative redundancy that we'd take any oddball, high concept indie movies as some sort of call from the heavens. Last years SWISS ARMY MAN explored enough social and psychological intrigue among its batsh!t insanity, and this years COLOSSAL blends B-movie antics with real drama. It was like we finally reach the new age of risk-taking filmmakers, crossing the lines of what movies can be the same way Lucas, Coppola, and Spielberg did back in the day.

So it's displeasing, then, that BRIGSBY BEAR reminds me of a footnote of that era, where aspiring directors made infamous, high-reaching misfires. A movie full of heart and way too much on its plate, BRIGSBY BEAR aims to handle an audacious premise only to trip on its shoes with every wrong decision possible. It's easily the years most curious fumble, and saying that makes me sound like I'm kicking a baby.

The movie centers on Kyle Mooney as James Pope, a 25-year-old manbaby who obsesses over a BARNEY-esque TV show Brigsby Bear, in which he watches magical adventures, fight an evil sun Sun Snatcher, and learn obligatory life lessons. He lives with his family, one of which played by Mark Hamil, who keep him at a bunker to keep away the supposed virus that eliminated the human race. Really.

Turns out that is what the trailer wants you to think. Instead, through an admittedly nice twist of events, James was actually held hostage his entire life and the TV bear was made by Hamil himself so that he could stay cooped inside. So after starting to adjust to his real life under the jurisdiction of Greg Kinnear as the cop, James decide, through random interactions and the films cheeky use of plot convenience, to make a movie about his teddy bear friend.

There's no doubt where this film is trying to say: A man who experienced trauma wants to appropriate it into art as a means of catharsis. But in order for that, it would actually require James to actually have any sort of trauma or any other motivation to do so. He's just too passive for the film to really delve into his perspective, and whatever the film does tackle is little more than stupid, fish-out-of-water jokes.

That is literally the whole film in a nutshell. It tackles on what is essentially an exaggerated ROOM by way of BARNEY, but it constantly ransacks both its tone and logic to fully do any of it justice. James adapts to his setting unconvincingly fast, the comedy stinks of awkward SNL sketches in which this movie spawned from, Kinnear's character does many things that would easily get him arrested, and many scenes that should be serious pay off in offensively boneheaded ways. There's a character that plays BRIGSBY's companion that was apparently paid to be in part of the show, and she ends up having to actually show up in the show itself. Meanwhile, Hamil reunites with his "son" while being locked up, but only in request of providing the voice of Brigsby. It just feels wrong and potentially scarring, and the film keeping such a cloying smile about it makes me angrier.

What's worse is that, near the end when it's about making the movie, it feels like a completely different movie in which it tries to mimic the charms of CINEMA PARADISO and BE KIND REWIND, two vastly overrated culture items where movies want to suck off to other movies.

And yet, I simply just wish it turned out better than it was. For such a ballsy premise, you'd think the minds of Charlie Kaufman, Spike Jonze, or even Nacho Vigalondo would knock this out of the park. There's a scene in the end in which James gets a standing ovation for his movie, and its easily the most affecting moment centering around such a distant, obnoxious character in which BRIGSBY BEAR ultimately represents. But then I remember one other scene in which James gets caught by Sun Snatcher in which The Joker's voice blares out "DID YOU SMASH!?" and I couldn't freaking stand it again.

https://letterboxd.com/itachisan125/film/brigsby-bear/

Professor Marston & the Wonder Women (2017)

A very smart, funny, and inspiring work from one of Comic Books eccentric minds

[7/10 · 23 October 2017]

OK I'm not going to say a whole lot but I'm short: I really like this one.

Even if, by design, it looks like an unexceptional biopic by each fricken frame, the characters and dialogue more than make up for it. The story is centered around William Moulton Marston who - and I'm not kidding here - is 1. The inventor of the lie detector, 2. a radical progressive feminist that thinks women are the superior race with proof in the form of his psychological research 3. One of which include bondage (seriously) 4. Manages to have 2 wives who loved and lived together and 5. Used all his fixations and progressive ideals to invent Wonder Woman.

I mean hell! You could tell me if this guy could turn water into wine and I would believe you. The film knows how bonkers this guy is, but presents him matter-of-factly rather than with scorn or praise. Much like my closest film comparison THE PEOPLE VS LARRY FLINT, it's the type of eccentric, perverse mindset that doesn't allow you to like the man but understand and appreciate how he changed the world with his ideals.

However, the film is mostly concerned with the three-way (sorry) love story at the center. The wife gets all the most complexity as she struggles with her bisexuality, her suppressed opportunities based on her gender, and the everyday family lifestyle that rejects her. It gets deep as well as heartbreaking.

Olive turns out to be the partner of the two, and easily gets more of an arc. At first very shy and uncertain of her status in life, the film progresses her to the free-spirited bisexuality that the movie treats as a hopeful triumph. The best moment is when she dawns the Wonder Woman costume in order to perform S&M ( Just bare with me, guys) and it's presented as a sign of self-discovery rather than gratuitous sleaze. I'm not sure if people like her would connect to this, but I would say it's a lot more hopeful and cathartic than anything BATTLE OF THE SEXES could ever wish to offer.

Angela Robinson directs this with the type of directing chops you expect from a run-of-the-mill miniseries rather than a movie. But much like Patty Jenkins work with WONDER WOMAN, her limited chops is unmatched by the utter love and conviction to the subject matter. It's the type of film where the imperfections make the film more real and self-confident.

Professor Marston & The Wonder Women is a damn good time and the rare biopic you rarely see anymore. Classy, funny, sexy, delightful, brilliantly acted, and overall passionate, you have to see this!

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Beautiful and faithful, even if a bit far-reaching

[8/10 · 9 October 2017]

The original Blade Runner is one of those films that left me cold at first but got progressively better the more I watch. It had a very dreamlike ambiguity that fit well to its futuristic noir setting but needed more dissecting to fully appreciate. Considering the many cuts that it had, director Ridley Scott couldn't muster with what he had either. It wasn't until the then-unsuccessful movie got a final cut that Scott found the soft balance between artistic dreamscape and science fiction in the film, which ultimately was declared a classic upon many film nerds. It was purely a unique and meditative experience which, like 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY, told a complete story that questions our sense of reality and how far can we as man can reach beyond it.

The new sequel, BLADE RUNNER 2049, with ARRIVAL and SICARIO director Denis Villeneuve, aims to both expand and pay faithful attention to the original film and what it stood for. Updating the scenes while blending with the original, expanding the philosophies of our existence and our persistence to recreate it, continuing the story of Rick Decker rather than rehashing it, and even mostly replicating the Vangelis score. Its bold, far-reaching, and tightly restrictive sequel filmmaking, one that Hollywood cinema seriously needs considering the franchise-sequel-remake dreck we are forced to live in. Even though there are some elements that overreach its grasp, it mostly gets the job done as a worthy successor.

One thing it does right is get right down to humanizing the replicants. Now centered around Ryan Gosling as a replicant hunting other replicants, the film puts him on center as a guide to the films themes about how these beings cope with reality. Some small replicant details from the original get blossomed here, as they cope with their love, anger, memories, nostalgia, and the quest to find existence. The key difference is that it puts the themes to expand and even humanize the life of a replicant rather than leaving them illusive. We get brilliant techno ways in which our titular character finds love, identifies memories, copes with his existence, and ultimately comes to term with it. The whole subplot alone with Gosling and his robot love interest (Yeah yeah put HER joke in here) makes for easily the most emotionally resonant moments in the film. Its a film that fully branches from the foundation of the original in ways other sci-fi films in the past decade failed miserably on their own.

The sole caveat, however, is that it sacrifices the one key ingredient from the film; subtle poetry. Whereas the original felt ambiguous and transcendent in exploring our humanity, 2049 could not help but feel too modernized and accessible. The bloated run time, sudden swell of percussion of the score, fairly streamlined plot, expository dialogue up the wazoo, and a little too much of slow pace made it clear that the overall film could try so much while also keeping a modern blockbuster aesthetic. Much like the replicants, 2049 could only go so far for achieving the real thing.

Still it doesn't mean it totally falls apart. Even if the films ambitious reach is only as good as its grasp, the movie does have one hell of a reach. The set pieces are amazing, the small amount of action scenes puts me on edge, the acting from Gosling, Ford, Robin Wright, Ana De Armas and even freaking Jared Leto was phenomenal, and the story pays off relatively well. May not be the masterpiece everyone else says it is, but I'd be glad Hollywood takes notes from this rather than from JURASSIC WORLD, AVENGERS, or another STAR WARS spin off.

Definitely worth your time.

More reviews: https://letterboxd.com/Itachisan125/

Battle of the Sexes (2017)

It's about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump! GET IT?!?!

[5/10 · 2 October 2017]

I'm getting torn between the work of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Farris, and ultimately their latest BATTLE OF THE SEXES. Obtaining a firm grasp of visual storytelling and great performances but a clear ailment in general writing, they always attempt to offer grounded and smart comedies that always aim to coincide with current sociopolitical issues. But as of now, it's met with mixed results; even far from perfect, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE succeed in capturing the aspiring yet hopeless American zeitgeist, but also turn out to be a funny and charming road trip comedy. But then there's RUBY SPARKS, a Charlie Kaufman wannabe film that attempts to subvert the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope in male-written narratives with confused and often embarrassing results.

Now with BATTLE OF THE SEXES, they opted to recreate the Tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Briggs, but frame it in a well-intentioned but totally obvious angle. Yes folks, they made a movie about the 2016 Presidential Debate. And yes, it ends declaring that the woman will win. Anyone wants to say "too soon"?

Representing the careless liberal hubris during which the film was written, BATTLE OF THE SEXES depicts the documented marketing strategy of the famous game in which the spirited and determined Emma Stone must beat the power-hungry, chauvinistic Steve Carell in order to gain more appropriation for the women who play the sport. And considering what REALLY went down during the election, saying all that makes me even more depressed.

It's just naked choir-preaching, and yet still makes me conflicted. To be clear, I'm totally against chauvinism and believe that the message of the film does hold some merit. But at the same token, outside of preachy, it leaves the rest of the script underdeveloped. The story jumps back and forth between scenes with no rhythm, the dialogue spells everything out where it doesn't need to, the lesbian subplots with King and a hair stylist barely takes off, and Riggs family life and gambling issues never get resolved. It breezes the very compelling, character-building side stories just to prattle on about how much men are pigs and women are better. Again, a message I'm ALL FOR, just not in a way it's presented here.

Still, all that aside, I do find a lot more merit in this than RUBY SPARKS. Emma Stone is incredible as King, and while the misogynist jokes got old fast, Steve Carell still owns as Riggs. There are ways in which dialogue is restraint for clever storytelling cues that I really liked, and the setting looks nicely retro. And yes, like the directors old films, they do offer a pretty compelling climax with the actual game.

BATTLE OF THE SEXES is frustratingly biased and unfocused, but I'm compelled to like it more. It's not airtight as LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, but thankfully not as icky or off-the-rails as RUBY SPARKS. And it goes without saying that the gals going into this need some sort of pick-me-up what with the shitty year they're going through, so that's a plus. Still, I say they still deserve more.

Ruby Sparks (2012)

Pretty much does every wrong decision for this premise.

[5/10 · 30 September 2017]

RUBY SPARKS starts off with a killer premise: a useless schmuck of a writer, suffering from writers block and a breakup from her girlfriend, decided to write about a perfect, ditzy, happy-go-lucky girl spawned from his shallow, unsocial male gaze. But after one Twilight-Zone-Ray-Bradbury night, she ultimately comes to life from the pages and acts like just the perfect character booster for our titular hero. Now to anyone pulling out the Manic Pixie Dream Girl card (lord knows it's not unwarranted based on the first 30 minutes alone), the kicker is that she would grow and adapt as a real human being, blossoming with her own agency instead of acting for someone else.

You'd think with a killer premise, they'd come up with some insightful ways this could play out. Maybe a statement of our modern relationship issues, or how women don't get proper credit in fictional literature, or how the world will process to someone like her. Considering the directing duo behind the surprisingly clever LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, anything is possible right?

LOL NOOOPE!

For all it's buildup, it sets up as a statement on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope only to then make up something even worse. For one thing, even if she did try to make up her own mind, the writer still has control over her by just typing on a keyboard. Yep, she's still basically influenced by man anyway, but it's all ironic right?

I seem to get that impression anyway, because otherwise how the f#@k do you end like that with a straight face? After all the 90+ minutes of wasted potential, it decided to end on such an awkwardly staged and hilariously stupid climax ever. Without spoiling, this so-called set piece would be if like if someone threw around a voodoo doll and made it play the hokey pokey. Sure their last film ended with girl stripping to Super Freak on a little beauty pageant, but this is plain f@#ing stupid.

And yet somehow it manages to be the one true novel thing about the entire damn movie. The rest of it just feels like a rote, first draft Woody Allen comedy. The characters are either despicable or one-note, the script sorely lacks, Paul Dano was obnoxious, Poor Zoe Kazan tries to liven up the scene with nothing to work with, the final 5 minutes feels like nothing was accomplished, and the whole thing was an overall chore. Only things going for it is Zoe Kazan again, the directors tight filmmaking and that howl of a climax.

Much like STRANGER THAN FICTION, though, it goes all in with interesting Kaufman-esque scenarios but can't cash the check. But hey, at least unlike that it didn't LOOK like total pretentious sh!t.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

Where's Matthew Vaughns balls?!

[3/10 · 25 September 2017]

*Copied from my twitter feed.

Hoooooooly sh!t I need to get all of this out of my system, so brace for thread tweet. SPOILERS!!

1. "Hey yknow what might be a great idea? Copying the same set piece from the first movie and not change sh!t! Brilliant!"

2. "Also, we should bring back an old friend who died in the last film" "Wouldn't that ruin the impact of his death?" "Yep" "Do it!"

3. "Let's also kill someone vital, but with an obnoxious song cue and set up in the most contrived way possible!" "Yaaas!"

4. "Oh, and let's also have the first two acts bullsh!ting and start the plot within the last 40 minutes! That worked w/ ROGUE ONE, right?"

5. I get that dark comedy is still at play here, but that GPS scene with the girl was just the worst.

6. They should've hired the guys from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS to do the CGI work better here bc this looks like dogsh%t.

7. Elton John shows up here as a cameo six billion times as a joke. Wasn't funny the first time, slowly gets less funny.

8. "Hey, y'all thought we're gonna use Statesman? Huh? Tough luck, we have all of them useless for the whole movie"

9. Also, can we stop with the f@€king President Trump allegories in my movies?!?! That whole FOX news business made me cringe. Anyone who does this again either needs a strict rewrite or a stake to the heart.

10. I also like how they bring questions about the computer guys not getting enough of the fighting, and how they literally blew that up, making it all for nothing. Real f%€king classy.

11. HOW DARE YOU DO THAT TO ROXY AND JB!?!?!

12. If I have to hear Country Roads Take Me Home again, I'm gonna scream in the theatre!

13. It's literally just heated leftovers. Nothing expanded, explored, or even made coherent or developed, just copied setpieces and lack of any real bite. All they did for "novelty" is satirizing the drug trade for another "war on drugs" allegory that feels ripped wholesale from 2005. Juliane Moore is great and so is that surprise return, (and I also like that the evil lair is like the 50s diner in the jungle as metaphor for colonialism) but everything else sucks.

Good Time (2017)

Propulsive energy amongst a grimy world.

[8/10 · 29 August 2017]

A few months ago, I watched the Safdie Brothers previous film HEAVEN KNOWS WHAT. Chronicling the moment-to-moment life of a homeless drug abuser in the dregs of New York, it was a film that took me awhile to adjust to by the very nature of it's design. It aimed to replicate the shoddy, aimless, claustrophobic mindset of these drug addicts while neither praising nor condemning their questionable characterization. It felt genuinely unique, drawing me in to a world that I wouldn't imagine myself being in and leaving me shocked while doing so. Even though it's several beats away from being perfect, I wouldn't imagine anything more unique than that film.

The Safdies' follow up GOOD TIME, however, is a genuine improvement while also keeping true to the originals grimy language. Telling a story about a robber trying to break out his mentally handicapped brother from prison after a heist blunder, it finds both genuine heart and humor among such a grungy world while also adding propulsive energy and polish. It's The Safdies' at their peak, and may be one of the most oddly enjoyable rides I've seen in a while.

There's more of a plot at play, but there's still mostly a lot more downtime. The whole film revolves around Robert Pattinson as Connie plowing through multiple tough situations to get his brother out, but it never feels confined to it. Mostly feeling like a purped-up ride shifting from dreamy to dynamic then back to dreamy, it's only concerned is immersing you in this crazy world.

I was a touch disappointed, at first, by how there's barely any connection with the two brothers. Looking into it more, there's a subtle theme with not condoning to the old "Mice and Men trope". The whole thing is centered around the much more adaptable Connie trying to break his brother out by fear that his nature would bring him to pain, but the film delivers a sly swap between them. All of Connie's extreme means ultimately cost him his freedom, while Nick gradually grows. It's a clever subversion, one that complements the danger their world has.

None of that wouldn't work, however, without the sheer talent on hand. Pattison became that one teen heartthrob who now chooses daring roles, but never has he felt this believable. Connie's character, by design, might be the biggest asshole ever put to film, but Pattison makes him like a full-fledged human being rather than a cliché. One of the director Benny Safdie plays the not-so-bright brother Nick, and its a damn great performance. For only just barely any lines, he comes off painfully heartbreaking as he struggles with this world he lives in without turning into a comedic buffoon. These two make this film.

It may not be a perfect film - it does move a bit too slow at times and The Safdies are no professionals in the special effects parts - but it's a film worthy of its title. Funny, delightful, and full of adrenaline, it's a film that needs to be seen.

Death Note (I) (2017)

What a stupid, visually bloated trainwreak

[2/10 · 28 August 2017]

Let's get this right upfront: I don't think an Americanized version of beloved anime would be a bad idea. Whitewashing, which isn't the same as "americanizing", is about as wrong and fairly demonized, but I believe that applying one culture and background to an original material of different countries would be a great idea. Movies like Scarface, The Departed, or even last years brilliant The Handmaiden proved that these grounded stories could expand in many areas.

In that case, an American Death Note would sound very ripe with opportunities. Acting as both a questioning on the meaning of justice over malice and a commentary on the Japanese paralegal system, the show gained wide acclaim for being both sadistic, smart, and genuinely one of it's kind. Given the wide amount of opportunities this could bring in our culture and legal system, I wasn't really against this new Netflix Death Note before it's release.

What I am against, though, is the final film sucking as hard as this.

A completely stupid, laughably over directed missed opportunity, Death Note is pretty much a slap to my face for ever letting my guard down like this. The type of bad movie that makes you annoyed during it, but makes you sad when it's over. Every pre-production news warned me about the upcoming disaster I was about to witness, and the waste of my 100 minutes now counts as punishment.

Committing it's first mistake, it stars bratty loser Nat Wolff as Light Turner who has an thirst for purging the world because of a tragic family death and he's a nerd who gets bullied at school. This walking cliché of a character then gets a Death Note, a magical book that kills people with random occurrences once their name is written down. He then meets an ugly CGI Ryuk (Willem DaFoe, barely making even 5 minutes here) who originally owns the death note.

As he kills notorious criminals with implausible yet admittedly cool Rube Goldberg setups, he is then called Kira by an unexplained cult that worships his presence but only show up on screen for when the plot needs them to. Light is then tracked by an unknown Sherlock Holmes character named L (Keith Stanfield, with this and WAR MACHINE being proof he's capable of being good in bad Netflix movies) who somehow tracks down who the real Kira so fast you'd be surprised it wasn't even an hour in. Oh yeah, and there's this obnoxious girl who was supposedly Misa from the original anime, but only as a bland sidekick to Light who doesn't prove any threat to his secret until a pointless midway twist.

The whole thing makes no sense. The characters are complete opposites to their original selves, the plot is rushed and clunky, every action is completely illogical and only serve to keep this whole burning trainwreak moving, and the supposed commentary on what justice is or who is the real immoral center is thrown away for lousy Hollywood action chops. At first Ryuk is set up as this main threat to these characters, but then barely does anything in the slightest. The subplot with finding L's real name never went anywhere, and even the thematic threat with Mia and Light falls flat on it's face. It's like a speeding racecar gradually loosing all its hardware as it moves to the finish line.

And then there's Adam Wingards direction. I'm still a firm believer that he makes legit great work with YOU'RE NEXT and THE GUEST, but not even he could make this good. Knowing full well he has a wretched script on his hands, he tries wholeheartedly to cover it up with his usual hyper stylized aesthetic with embarrassing results. Constant camera tilts, speed-ramping, overly used color lighting, highly dramatic killings, an over-the-top foot chase, and a Ferris Wheel sequence that completely throws the movie off the rails. It's visual overkill, as if Wingard is covering up a mound of turd with as much ice cream topping as possible to make it look great.

Death Note is stupid and overly stylized where the anime was intelligent and grounded. If there was any sort of example on how NOT to do an adaptation, this takes the cake.

Read here for more reviews : https://letterboxd.com/Itachisan125/