blatherskitenoir Reviews

Villains Incorporated (2023)

Better for kids

[4/10 · 21 April 2024]

I was completely stunned to see a full-length Studio C film being offered at a major theater in my Midwest city, far, far away from Provo. So I had to check it out.

Unfortunately, the sparkling wit of the cast, who are so entertaining in comedy sketches, doesn't survive being stretched out to a full length show.

This is the sort of direct-to-VHS type movie I would have obsessively watched over and over and over again when I 6, but find bland and unmoving as an adult.

So, embrace that. It keeps the Studio C standards for no swearing or lewd humor, and all violence is cartoon level, so take your super hero obsessed preschool and younger elementary-aged kiddos and scroll your phone in boredom while they laugh their heads off at things like an "Evil Petco" plan to take over the world or a robot bracelet that makes the wearers do silly dances on command.

Civil War (2024)

More thoughtful than action

[9/10 · 14 April 2024]

They probably should have named it something else, because people will go in (or avoid it) believing it to be some right wing propaganda film.

Instead, it's a borderline art piece on how inhumanity is required to capture and document humanity.

We follow a group of war correspondent journalists and learn exactly why the job is on the top five professions for sociopaths list as they trail combatants in active fire to get the perfect shot of horror, and then laugh and pal around with whichever group escorted them before moving on.

They take no sides but always hunt for the perfect angle, the most dramatic image, and the biggest story, often having no idea which army they're working with at any moment, and neither do we.

Our reporters want the biggest scoop of the century: to capture the last moments of a leader thrown from power. And they'll do just about anything to get there ahead of the encroaching armies in time to get it, though they'll scavenge extra shots along the way like the carrion birds they are.

It is only by their being ghouls can they perform so vital and human a task as documenting history, and starting to care always leads them to doom.

A visually stunning (and visually disturbing) film, where each still frame would make a perfect photograph in its own and with excellent audio, I can see clips of this being shown in both film editing classes and psych courses.

Lisa Frankenstein (2024)

Teenage gothic romance fails its Chemistry test

[5/10 · 11 February 2024]

Extremely frustrating because it could have been SO GOOD, and really should have been, if only the separate elements were just a tad more polished. If the writing was a bit wittier, the comedy half a laugh funnier, the editing a touch snappier, if the actors were just a smidge more compatible. Nothing is exactly wrong, per se, but a pile of not-quite-there's add up to tripping and falling short.

Still, this movie has...something. Some small spark of something, especially in the final 15-20 minutes or so, which will ignite a fascination. This is one which will be less famous on its own, and more for the fanfiction (I can just see the fanfiction!) it inspires.

Cole Sprouse, who plays the monster, is the highlight, impressively doing the heavy lifting while acting a silent part and bringing the smolder even when half rotting. Without him hold up the movie, it wouldn't be watchable. Liza Soberano, who plays the sunny step sister Taffy, is likewise delightful, but her character is fairly out of place.

Unfortunately, I think Katheryn Newton was miscast, as she comes across as hopelessly naive, with all the chemistry of a sexless little sister.

Watch it for those glimmers of something I mentioned, and for the fun campiness of it, but this is slumber party fare, not an instant cult classic.

Poor Things (2023)

Pretty pornographic

[9/10 · 25 January 2024]

I am genuinely shocked this isn't NC-17. The sex scenes are graphic, extended, and pervasive throughout the film. Expect full frontal male nudity (multiple actors), and blunt discussions and portrayals of sex acts, on top of the many, many graphic sex scenes. Seriously, it is weird this is only rated R.

The porn IS serving a purpose. It's more porn being used as a tool to tell a complex story, than a scrap of story being used to allow the porn.

The movie is beautifully artistic and thought provoking, but maybe watch it alone, and definitely don't watch it with your parents.

This film is an exploration of what the genders want for themselves and what they want from each other.

To men, Bella Baxter embodies the "born sexy yesterday" trope, and proves a temptation and torment to the men whose instincts push them to try to trap, control, and monopolize her attention and sexuality. And to go completely bonkers when she does not react like women conditioned by society would.

In return, Bella often says the things women think about men, but do not ever say. She is without shame and will not be controlled. She generally finds men and sex pleasant and necessary, but a small part of her overall day and her quest to make the world better and finds little benefit in allowing men to give in to their instincts to control or shame her. Rather, she does what she wants, and they are a tertiary bonus to that.

The Boy and the Heron (2023)

Slooooooow

[5/10 · 21 December 2023]

This movie felt like it was about five hours.

While visually stunning and the world they've made is intriguing and unusual....is this based off of a very long and involved book series I'm not aware of? Because watching felt like I was missing a whole bunch of backstory and detail, like there was a reading assignment I didn't do for class.

Most-damningly: there's quite a lot of missing character development. As such, the evolution of the characters feels unnatural and forced, like they jump to the ending without the behavior making sense.

We're just expected to believe that some 9 year old on a magical adventure, who just ran into her younger sister all grown up, is totally fine and happy to learn she's dead in the future, her sister married her widower husband and is expecting a baby with him, this boy she's been running around the magic tower with is her son---and it's all good? Really? In what universe?

Also left out are why the main character suddenly flips to seeing his aunt as his mother, when they've had minimal interaction up to this point, and his real mother has been found alive, albeit younger, and why pregnant stepmom decided to run off to the magic tower in the first place.

On the whole: it's like someone went a little crazy with a hole punch on the story plot, for all the little gaps it has.

Small children may enjoy the slow meandering through various fantastical scenes, but it's likely a little too dark for the youngest bunch and at over two hours, it's not the most child-friendly of lengths. I can't see this one joining the highest echelons of the Ghibli offerings or becoming particularly beloved, outside of a few unique visuals.

Watch if you're a completionist, otherwise, pick a different Ghibli.

When Evil Lurks (2023)

Cancerous Evil

[8/10 · 7 October 2023]

A rare film which will satisfy both the gore hounds and the cerebral, this hidden gem is going to earn a cult following.

When Evil Lurks places us in a world where evil is so common place, it's become routine. Mundane and dismissible, this film explores the dangers of when people start to think bad things can only happen to other people, shared community and belief are lost, and the institutions put in place to protect us become complacent and disinterested.

The rules for safety are clearly stated, but watch as each character's downfall comes from the thoughtless certainty that they are the exception and nothing will come of *them* doing it, just this one time.

The unique demonic entities of this modern setting are alien to, yet play with, the tropes of just about every standard possession film: at once familiar and extremely inscrutable. Audiences are left to muddle through figuring things out as the protagonists do, and I strongly urge you to enter the film with as little knowledge as possible.

Good for when you want a little thought to your gore, or a lot of gore in your thought, are tired of stereotypical Catholic-based possession films, and those who enjoy well-executed worldbuilding. You can expect high production values (you can practically *smell* the Rotted through the screen) and a balance between the brutal shocks and the lingering creepies.

Those disturbed by the graphic harm of children or animals should steer clear.

The Nun II (2023)

Sigh

[4/10 · 13 September 2023]

One of the darkest films I've ever seen. That's literally dark, not thematically or tonal-wise. You will not be able to see a single flipping thing most of the time. That went from atmospheric to annoying in very short order.

Other than that, I kept expecting Tom Hanks to pop in, because this is basically the Davinci Code with some demons.

I hate Davinci Code.

The entire established character of the Nun is ruined. No longer do we have a patient corruptor, who took a full 30 years slowly picking off the nuns one by one and who relies on building up paranoia and breaking your sense of reality with creeping hallucinations.

Nope, we're now on a crash course to cannonball through Europe on a quest to find yet another relic, setting crap on fire and running rampant.

The ridiculousness of this is could maybe be fun, but the movie also drops characters and consistency like it's hot. The number of school girls being saved fluctuates shot by shot, characters are introduced and then dropped, and when balancing too many people becomes too hard, they will just leave someone somewhere and you'll wonder what in the world is happening to them because the movie may have forgotten they exist for the past 15 minutes, but you haven't. The story also does not fit with the Conjuring cannon since Maurice is supposed to be still possessed in events happening a decade after this film.

The first Nun has its flaws, for sure, but it was campy high drama with a medieval flavor. This one is charmless.

There's something seriously wrong with a film if the scariest part is the credit montage.

Gran Turismo (2023)

Inoffensively nice

[7/10 · 25 August 2023]

This is a pretty typical, feel-good, racing-champion-underdog movie. It's like it has a checklist of the standard tropes for such a movie and crosses them all off.

It doesn't really push the video-gamer side of things, dwelling in that world briefly before turning into a straightforward racing flick. It's genuinely funny, it's feel-good, it's better put together than most films of it's type, and it targets your feels just enough to keep it real, but not so much that the impact lingers.

The true standout here is David Harbour, playing the guerrillas chief engineer in charge of turning nerds into star athletes. He is the heart and soul of this film, and steals every scene he's in. He is so, so, so fun to watch. Watch it just for him.

The perfect choice for when you want to cheer on an underdog coming out on top, without too much emotional investment.

The Boogeyman (I) (2023)

Decent, watchable, nice visual design

[6/10 · 8 June 2023]

A serviceable horror film with a decent amount of creepiness.

The monster design is excellent. Very unique, disturbing, and they showed the just-right amount of. The frame work, shots, and design were also attractive and unique.

I really liked and found it refreshing that this was a real and actual creature, not some physical manifestation of a mental problem.

The movie's weaknesses are the annoying pock-mark sized plot holes and inconsistencies. Nothing too big, but enough to irritate (think a character with a significant phobia of the dark later sitting alone in the dark to play video games. Or the monster being able to disable candles and electric lights at certain times, but being unable to approach even the smallest light at other times. Or no one turning the lights on, ever.)

They also weren't sure on what they were trying to say, when they shouldn't have said anything at all. Does this thing target neglected children of distracted parents (which doesn't fit; the dad is very attentive)? Or does it go after the grieving and vulnerable? They couldn't decide and ultimately should have left it in the air as a thing which latches on at random, and won't leave until it's eaten all of the children in a household.

Overall: a pretty standard horror flick, with above average visuals and meh plot. Doesn't require a whole lot of thought; appropriate for a sleep over or any other time you'd like something kind of creepy, but don't feel like paying rigid attention.

Silence (I) (2016)

Masterpiece for an extremely niche audience

[8/10 · 6 March 2023]

This heavy film is not for the faint of heart or the casual viewing. To truly appreciate this masterpiece (and it is a masterpiece, undeniably so, crafted by a master at the height of his craft) you must simultaneously belong to two narrow demographics:

First, you must be intimately acquainted with and ingrained in Japan and its culture, yet still be an outsider. And I do not mean the weeabu, otaki dork Japanophiles. They would be horrified to see this under side of their anime utopia and soundly reject it all as lies. But if you've lived there, worked for a Japanese company, been raised with the real, actual, culture, been in, but never of, Japan? The frustration, the exclusion, and the total and complete irreconcilable alienation between the two cultures in the film will feel as familiar as going home and you'll be as comfortable as a frog in slowly heating bathwater as you nod along and agree that, yes, this is exactly what Japan is like under the welcoming surface gloss: Japan is a mud swamp.

Secondly, you must also be Christian. A legit, have-read-the-bible, believing, questioning Christian. Having attended seminary would absolutely help, as this is not a surface exploration. The questions of faith will not stab you straight through the heart if you have no faith to question.

With those two conditions met, you're in for a defining movie which will crush your soul, twist it up, then spit it out, queasy and disoriented, to stumble away and never forget the experience.

If you meet only one condition, you'll miss a large chunk of the movie and not even know it exists, but the exquisite construction of the film might carry you through to appreciation nonetheless. (Though it won't kick you in the head like it would others.)

Have neither and you'll be lost and bored.

A historian might appreciate the film, but this is more for the religious philosopher than the cultural anthropologist. Torture porn fans may erroneously flock to the film, but this is not for them. The true horror of the torture is the mundanity of it. How everyday and boring it has become to treat humans in the worst of ways. Excellent for deep thinkers and those having existential crises.

You will only ever need to watch it once, but that will be enough.

See How They Run (2022)

decent, but missing something

[6/10 · 5 October 2022]

I'm kind of confused. It has basically everything it should to be effervescently charming. Yet it doesn't quite hit it.

Brilliant writing, genre-savvy plot, cast full of some of the best, beautiful sets, nostalgia factor--it has it all. Theater and murder-mystery fans should be rabid for this.

Yet, the sum of the parts added up to a lesser whole. Not quite sure why. Maybe it was music, maybe some of the pacing, maybe it tried just a little too hard, or not hard enough.

I do know that Sam Rockwell as the main inspector was a definite miscast. He can't quite pull off "British", and he's played so many skeevy villains it's difficult to see him as otherwise. Still, it's not the worst miscast in the world.

Watch if you enjoy talking through the movie, because this once definitely has a ton of twists and turns that keep you guessing, and guessing with your friends is going to be the majority of the fun.

The Invitation (II) (2022)

Ready or Not knock off

[3/10 · 28 August 2022]

It's like a melodramatic highschool girl wrote a garbage vampire AU fanfic of "Ready or Not".

Which wouldn't be too bad. That could be campy good fun, gaping plot holes, convenient deus ex machina, zero-surprise bad writing, and all.

But our female lead, Nathalie Emmanuel, renders it almost too embarrassing to endure at times. Imagine a combination of the worst traits of every pompous American, oblivious liberal arts major, "eat the rich" self-righteously jealous poor, 5th wave feminist, "artist" rolled into a single person, who also enjoys pulling the race card. She's less a character, and more a collection of checklist items focus groups said will appeal to about 10 different (conflicting) demographics. You will cringe so hard you risk having a stroke.

Unless you're an angry teen girl, (or want something extremely predictable and find cringe hilarious instead of mortifying), you should pass.

Elvis (2022)

Glib, frenetic emptiness

[3/10 · 29 June 2022]

What a garbled mess.

It could not decide if it wanted to be about white entertainers appropriating black artists' materials (to the point where Elvis seemed a plagiarizer), and big ticket historical events and characters are wedged in like a less effective Mad Men,

Or If it wanted to be a well known story made "unique" by being told from an unusual perspective: that of the unsympathetic scumbag conman wanting to ride Elvis for all he could get out of him,

Or If it wanted to be an artistic biopic about a tortured artiste who sells his soul and finds himself enslaved because he's trapped, lonely, and the indentured thrall of music, money, and love.

They didn't pick one and it couldn't be all three. We wound up with an absurdly flashy, yet strangely boring, meandering spectacle that dragged on into the eternities. I think my soul separated from my body at one point to escape.

The characters received a similarly confused treatment. Is Colonel Parker a puppeteering genius mastermind, or a idiotic, sloppy, dough lump with no idea how show biz works? Is Elvis a music industry savant who made brilliant career moves in defiance of his moronic management, or hapless rube who got used and abused by his closest advisors? The movie seems to think both can be both at the same time.

The good: Austin Butler did an absolutely fantastic job as Elvis and deserves many, many awards. He was a diamond in a turd.

It's also a visually beautiful movie, with some interesting cuts and layouts, though it is manic and empty under its shiny, shiny surface.

The ugly: the storytelling is a garbled mess. It doesn't know what it wants to say, or what it wants to tell us.

And, I hate to say it, Tom Hanks. I have no idea how accurate he is as this person, but whenever he was on screen, with his fat suit and repulsive baby voice, I felt nothing but revulsion and a bone deep irritation. If stepping in something unpleasant that won't scrape off were a person, it would be him. And that doesn't appear to have been done on purpose.

Go watch "Walk the Line" instead.

The Lost City (2022)

ugh

[4/10 · 1 June 2022]

The stars are for Daniel Radcliff and the the cameo from Brad Pitt, the only good parts of the film.

Watch as Sandra Bullock flops around like a human water wiggle and expects us to find it funny when she's mean to nice people and continues to drag the dead carcasses of crude jokes out long, loooooooong after we're tired of them.

A deeply unfunny film, which baffles when you realize the entire plot rests on Sandra Bullock being such a horrible, unhelpful *****, that she refuses to assist a (completely legal and sanctioned by the local government!) archeological dig in her tiny, very niche area of interest, with a spot of translating which literally took her all of 5 minutes.

After being told these priceless discoveries were in danger of being lost forever due to an impending eruption if they could not be found and preserved in time!

I think she's going to have to revoke her professor card for that.

There's a feeling of incredulity that this entire cluster**** mess with multiple deaths and a destroyed temple wouldn't have happened if she'd given less than an hour of time to Daniel at the beginning, and I spent most of the film feeling sorry for his character, since all he wanted was to find this treasure and prove he wasn't crazy to his family.

The Outfit (2022)

Complex and gorgeous

[7/10 · 1 June 2022]

Watch a little, quiet, fussed man, the human equivalent of beige walls with crisp corner edging, speak so calmly, so eloquently, and from a place of utter trust because he appears so deceptively harmless. Watch him as he talks until what he says bends how the bad people around him perceive reality and themselves.

This is a dialogue-heavy thriller which entirely takes place in one claustrophobic little shop. You will need patience and close attention to appreciate, no double duty-ing it with your phone! The build is like a freight train, slow, so slow, at first, and then picking up until it can't be stopped and slams home. Yet the complex, overall structure is as delicate and intricate of one of our main character's bespoke suits.

As a bonus: Craftsmen and sewists familiar with textile arts will find absolute delight in watching the lead accurately portray the skills involved.

Watch if you want a thriller, but want to feel smart about it, enjoy smooth speaking, manipulative characters, or if you are a sewing or clothing enthusiast.

The Northman (2022)

Not blockbuster entertaining enough for the masses, but not niche art house enough for Eggers devotees.

[4/10 · 1 June 2022]

I did not realize who made this and, based on the trailers, went into this expecting a "dad movie". You know, the somewhat violent, action/ heist/ revenge/ fighting movies you sit down and watch with your dad, like Snatch or Gladiator, but with Vikings.

I was very mistaken.

Instead, I wound up at a film dipped in metaphysically trippy mysticism that had me going WTF as the actors start barking at each other and hallucinating Willem Dafoe.

My dad (and probably your dad) would HATE this movie.

Style and tone, it feels like a mix of The VVitch (which I LOVE) and The Green Knight (which I HATE) heavily leaning towards The Green Knight. With a teensy bit of The 300 hypermasculinity for seasoning.

Extra weirdly, the overall morale seems to be "Men are stupid, overly dramatic creatures" so listen to the women. And that's from the movie itself, not from me.

There is a lot of silly, frat-boy-esque bonding, like dressing up like wolves and howling while they pretend they are cool, which I found difficult to take seriously, and neither did the film.

Another example: Amleth seeks out some super special sword, forged by dwarves in Mordor or something, that can only be drawn from its scabbard in the dark or at the gates of Hel, which he has to fight an ancient creature for, as his tool of choice for revenge.

The female lead, Olga, seems exasperated and incredulous of his self-indulgent emo drama, and is like "Well, picking them off one by one with your special night sparkle sword is one option. Or, hear me out, how about we just poison them? I've got poison. And they put me on cooking duty. We can just poison them." Then stares at him like he has a paper head when he responds he can't fight his enemies unless it's in a lake of fire.

And I am sat here wondering why, if he can sneak out like that, he didn't just set the village on fire the first night, and needs a sword which looks and acts like all other swords, except it can't be used half the time.

The movie continues to juxtapose Amleth's Wagnerian Ring Saga epic self image and high drama with more complex, and sedate, grey shaded realism, and can't quite find the balance. Amleth's demands for seers and lakes of fire seem out of place against a tiny pastoral chieftain just trying to do what's best for his blended family as he takes care of the sheep.

I found entertaining Amleth's self delusions exhausting and the movie exhaustively long as well by osmosis.

Our main character, Amleth, is self-indulgently oblivious in all things. Amleth moves through his world, wreaking untold tragedies on others similar or worse to the one inflicted on himself. Yet Amleth continues to view himself as the saga hero, the only one ever wronged, and the only one deserving of self righteous revenge. There is one very obvious scene where a young boy who resembles the young Amleth fights against Amleth's berserker group who has just captured his mother, and Amleth is unmoved and doesn't notice he just became the villain of that boy's life.

After the film, I discovered that the movie had be exquisitely researched for an extreme degree of accuracy and tons of references and little easter eggs to Nordic/ Rus stories and mythology.

Pretty much all of that flew right over my head.

I missed it all and I had actually thought it was badly researched since some bits seemed so dramatic. (example: If you don't know the correct way to prevent a draugr from rising again, you'll think Amlin is doing some ancient Viking method of teabagging his enemy).

(I am now wondering if this is how people who were not obsessed with witch trials and Salem as preteens felt as they watched the VVitch and were wondering WTF the naked lady was doing with the baby, why there were hares everywhere, and why they kept doing close up shots of corn mold.)

I believe a certain degree of historical knowledge outside of that available to causal watcher of The Vikings is going to be necessary to recognize and appreciate the minute details of this film. As it is, there is a clear-to-see mismatch between what Eggers wanted, and what the studio wanted, and ultimately we got a film not blockbuster entertaining enough for the masses, but not niche art house enough for Eggers devotees.

Anyways, ultimate verdict: If you loved the Green Knight, you will love this film.

If you are a history buff of this particular era, you will fan boy/fan girl squee all over this film. It has received extremely high praise from archeologists and experts.

If you unironically love Fight Club, you will miss the point, but love the film and recommend all your bros see it, too.

Everyone else, give it a pass.

Human Resources (2022–2023)

Gross

[3/10 · 18 March 2022]

What could have been a fascinating, complex concept (mothers unable to love their children and our internal battle) ruins itself with unpleasant, gratitous filth and deeply dislikable characters. Emmy, the main character and a "love bug" in charge of enabling her human to feel that emotion, is the character equivalent of a pile of wet, disintegrating, toilet paper in a public bathroom. You just want her to be far away from you and not touch anything.

Cyrano (2021)

Awkwardly made

[4/10 · 27 February 2022]

While visually stunning, it can't get over the clunkiness.

For one, it is a musical. None of the previews warn of this, so the first random burst of song accompanied by bizarre interpretive dancing was unexpected and unwelcome. The modern and dissonant music doesn't fit, isn't well done, and wasn't a delightful surprise, but rather a "please stop."

The musical numbers begin to actively work against their own film when Christian, who is supposed to be the inept, mealy-mouthed, and tongue-tied love interest in desperate need of Cyrano's expertise... is the significantly better singer of the pair. Making it seem like Cyrano should be the one asking for vocal tips, and leave the sincere, if unflowery, Christian alone.

Then there is the mismatch of the 52 year old Dinklage pining after a woman who looks half is age, which leant an odd, paternal creepiness to their chemistry. Like he was the long time family friend/ uncle who now fancies himself in love with the (now-legal) girl he saw grow up. Bleck. Suspension of belief will not allow us to buy that these are similar-aged "childhood friends", like the script says. While an excellent and beautifully nuanced actor in this, Dinklage plays Cyrano as extraordinarily confident and bold. With Cyrano's crushing insecurity and signature self doubt missing, he just becomes creepier for the lack of apparent reason for his playing ventriloquist puppet master and meddling with a young girl's love life.

Finally: The very premise of Cyrano doesn't go well with modern audiences. When this happens, we either need to fully embrace and emerge ourselves in the historical origin, or update it to suit modern tastes. Cyrano fails to do either. It keeps its original, historical premise of Catfishing a woman into marriage and then the life of a nun with flowery poetry modern viewers don't see the appeal of, while continuously pulling us out of the past with the terrible, modern music.

What a waste of gorgeous costumes and glorious sets.

It feels like the fraternal twin of that terrible Russel Crowe "Les Mis".

Belle (2021)

Dangerous messages and frustrating ending

[5/10 · 5 February 2022]

So, my 8-12 year old nieces would go absolutely rabid for this film. It would become their immediate favorite. It is everything a preteen wanting to be seen desires. I can just see them trying to dress up and sing like the main girl. They would be obsessed. The film is stunningly gorgeous, heartfelt, and the music is beautiful. I am listening to the songs right now.

But, I am never, ever telling them this movie exists. Because there are some parts which are not only misguided, but actively dangerous.

The message that our main character, an underage, highschool girl who managed to become a global, viral sensation, must dox herself in front of literal millions of insane internet fans in order to gain someone's trust? NOPE. That is so dangerous. I was just agog. That is horrible. Do not tell young, underage children to dox themselves on the internet! The "be your true self!" message does not apply in that situation!

There were some other messed up plot points that were seriously dangerous, like the GROWN ADULTS sending the young teen girl to confront a violent, grown man and stranger they just witnessed beat his kids on live stream ALONE? Wtf?? You're just going to put her on the train by herself, really? The ending is quite the let down. I have no idea how she "helped" at all, we don't see her doing anything helpful. Viewers get the sinking feeling she's going to wind up exactly like all of the other so-unhelpful-they-made-things-worse people the Beast complains about. My main thought after the climactic confrontation scene was "you know he's just going to beat them worse than he ever has before, possibly to death, once you leave, right? Because you made him feel small, and he'll take that out on them." I can imagine some well meaning kid trying to do something like that and either getting harmed, or causing the person they intended to help serious harm.

I guess we can imagine she called the police and used her internet fame millions to buy them a house far from their abusive father, but we don't see any of it, and it looks like she went and came back in a couple of hours with zero follow up.

Disappointing, frustrating, and I would be reluctant to have a young person watch this without planning a serious conversation about internet safety and keeping domestic violence victims safe, which feels like a lot of work for two hours of entertainment.

Encanto (2021)

Charming but muddled focus

[6/10 · 26 November 2021]

Pros: Visually stunning. Just, absolutely gorgeous. Charming, endearing characters, who manage to be unique and still work together well. And not a single dud amongst the songs, which are all catchy ear worms. Appealing to both the kids, and to adults, so you won't be suffering if you take the young people in your life to watch it.

Cons: It touches on far too many big problems without picking one focus, or resolving any of them adequately.

It cannot decide if it wants to talk about:

--The responsibility which comes with power, and balancing obligation to others with healthy boundaries and avoiding being taken advantage of without becoming jaded.

--Being the odd one out in a family, to the point where you are excluded, a second class citizen, or even a touch disliked, by the head of your family who blatantly favors others over you.

--Having a skill or talent which is actively bad for you and being forced into a niche role by expectations and ability. Allowing yourself to enjoy something you aren't good at, and separating your 'job' from your 'hobbies'.

--Failing to achieve expected life benchmarks, and dealing with the consequences of that in your life. Maribel could have easily been a stand in for all the Millennials and below who have failed to get a degree/ buy a house/ get married/ have kids/ etc. And are trapped in perpetual limbo state, straddling childhood and adulthood in their own lives and their family's eyes (she still sleeps in the friggin nursery, for crissakes)

--Mental health, stress, and anxiety. Dealing with them in yourself, and supporting a family member who is struggling.

--Losing your identity, or a major part of what you thought was your identity, and figuring out how to be ok and find yourself again after.

--Family fighting or disagreeing, but still remaining family.

--Being ok with being different. The costs of being special. The costs of being ordinary.

As you can see, all of those are absolutely huge topics. While a film intended for a grown up audience could be allowed (if it's done well enough) to bring up and leave unresolved many of those things just for the sake of thinking about them, a children's movie needs to pick one or two and fully stick with it. Encanto doesn't want to say that yes, sometime you have to be sacrificed for the benefit of others, yes, it actually sucks not to be special, yes, sometimes family and fate plays favorites and it's not going to be you, and yes, sometimes things cannot be fixed or ever go back to the way it was. It wants to keep all of it's options open, and so it fails to make any choices and suffers for it.

I will also say that it felt overly long (likely due to the lack of focus) and the 6 year old I took to see it was bored, wiggly, and itching to leave by the end. He played with his seat's up/down leg rest button more than he paid attention, and didn't rave about it or pester me with questions about favorite powers/ songs/ characters after it ended like he normally would.

The Last Duel (2021)

A rape movie that is, oddly, not about rape at all

[7/10 · 8 November 2021]

First off: the sets and costuming are every medieval history buffs dream (they use rivet mail, not chain mail!). And the seemingly odd choice to cast Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in historical roles weirdly works. It makes the people in the film feel very normal, like history was filled with the regular people you interact with in your everyday modern life, rather than super serious and grave Historical Figures.

That out of the way: the film is shown in a tryptic style, with events shown from three different view points. Each person experiences and interprets the same events in a slightly different manner, making the viewer wonder about the nature of Truth.

A good example of this is a reconciliation at a party, where the two men make up, the wife offers a kiss of peace, and someone throws out an inspirational one liner about the king. Each man remembers saying the inspiring line themselves, while the wife recalls the party host saying it, and the nature of the kiss changes from neutral to "she wants me" to "he wants me" depending on who is recounting the moment.

These minor differences cause the viewer to ponder and question just what exactly is the nature of Truth.

Now, the movie takes the interesting choice of making it very obvious that the rape happened. Le Gris and Margerite both recall the sex, so it 100% happened. Le Gris may have thought Margerite was being playful, but rape is one of those things where only one person has to view it as rape for it to unquestionably be rape, so if Margerite experienced it as rape, then it was.

I believe this is the movie's downfall. The more obvious choice to take would have been if Le Gris and Margarite's accounts were completely different, as they were in the historical accounts of the trial, leaving the truth as a mystery left up to the audience to decide. Le Gris's main defense was that he had witnesses placing him 50 miles away and the the round trip would have been impossible to accomplish on horseback within the time frame, and that Carrouges forced his wife to fake testimony for financial gain, since he stood to receive most of Le Gris's property if he won the duel. This is left out, and there is no doubt the sex happened.

But by making us certain the rape happened, suddenly, the film is not about the rape at all. That ceases to be it's focus. Rather, now it's about how all three humans are unable to see the entirety of The Truth, and instead have their own versions and experiences of it. And what is The Truth, really? The average of the shared experiences, or something we can get close to viewing, but never fulling see?

The rape may have happened, but now we must doubt the other things Margerite experienced. (Failure to do so would sexistly suggest that women have the sole power of perceiving the reality of things)

Is her husband really as boorish and harsh as she shows? From his point of view, he is doting, indulgent, and cherishes her. Is absolutely everyone constantly bothering her over her lack of a baby? Or does it just seem that way because Margerite is overly occupied with it? Is she really the adored, benevolent, and skilled steward of her husband's lands, or is she fooling herself? The wives of the powerful men running her trial sneak her concerned, knowing looks, are these real or imagined? There's a scene where she tells a stable master to go against her husband's instructions--is the man really as grateful to her and in acknowledgement of her good judgement as we see...or is this Margerite's imaginings, and really the servant resents her putting him in this position and he's appeasing her? Margerite views her post-duel husband as going on a triumphant parade through the crowds, happily stealing the lime light for himself. But, he just received a near-fatal wound to the inner thigh, surely he can't be enjoying that horse ride.

It's a very subtle thing the director is wanting us to think about, which I don't think any viewers go into the movie to contemplate. They are watching for medieval violence and a bit of voyeurism, not contemplating the reality of perception. Sometimes, the obvious choice isn't the wrong one, and this movie likely would have been more popular and successful if it had made the more conventional choice of a did-he-or-didn't-he film which could have sparked viewer debate and discussion.

Miss Meadows (2014)

Good, could have been better

[5/10 · 31 May 2021]

The concept of a Mary Poppins perfect psycho vigilante is an excellent and entertaining one, with the juxtaposition of brutal killings and lacy socks over innocent tap shoes throwing each in high contrast.

But, Katie Holmes fails to deliver the charm to make us believe she is widely adored. We know we're supposed to like her, in all of her retro manic pixie dream girl glory, but mainly find her harsh and annoying as she speaks in rhyme and pretends to be about 14. Her sweetly darling costar does an excellent job of pretending to adore her, regardless, but we can't help but wonder why? When she seems more insane than quirky, and about as charming as a middle school girl who's decided to be a Loli in the most irritating way possible.

While still watchable, satisfying, entertaining, and interesting, one can't help but wonder if a different lead might have elevated this from a lucky odd bottom shelf find, to top drawer cult classic.

Soul (2020)

Pretty, but no "Inside Out" or "Coco"

[5/10 · 1 January 2021]

On a technical and visual level, Soul is an amazing achievement. The amount of detail they used to make the scenes, and the artistic choices are spot on gorgeous.

But, the dislikable characters and muddled storytelling at the most crucial parts left me detached and cold to the movie as a whole.

Spoiler time: In the Great Before, where all unborn souls come from, each soul is required to find their own "Spark" before they can be born. A Spark is simply the desire to live and be alive. This Spark can be ignited by anything, from food, to music, to witnessing someone else's life. However, this is not the soul's "purpose", nor does it set their course in life. Rather, what inspires it does not matter, simply the will to live and experience more means a soul is ready. If you think this is a smidge confusing and complicated, it is, and it really isn't stated clearly in the film.

Enter Joe, our deeply dislikable and depressing main character. Joe has lived a pathetic life and is now dead. Jazz-obsessed to the point of putting off his family and colleagues, at 50 ish something years old, Joe is an unhappy, part time band teacher, who still relies on his mother (whom he lies to) to pay his bills while chasing after bit gigs to make his 'big break'. Imagine "Mr. Holland" at his most annoying, and you'll have Joe.

Any good he's done has been inadvertently accomplished, as he resents time away from his jazz fame obsession, and any joys he's experienced accidentally stumbled upon. Not a single family or friend realizes he's died.

Anyways, our plot is born because dead Joe misunderstands what a Spark is from the start, because he doesn't want to face that his life has been somewhat pointless. Like basically all of us viewers, he misinterprets these "Sparks" as a person's reason for existence, assigned before birth, rather than simply the spark of life. His MUST be jazz.

Joe desperately wishes to believe that the reason and purpose for his birth is to play jazz. It would make the rest of his meh, mostly empty life have meaning if his purpose was "jazz" and he spent his minutes in pursuit of it. He uses this to justify avoiding accepting death, and stealing an unborn soul's one chance at living (our other main character, "22," who's quirkiness falls closer to irritating than charming half the time), all in order to go to one more crappy gig.

Joe reminds me of those fat girls who desperately cling to the fantasy that, if only they lost weight, the rest of the their life and personality would magically transform, only to discover they're still the unhappy, meh them, but in a smaller body, and they Can't. Handle. It.

The film's major weakness is that it needs to get Joe from realizing he does NOT have a purpose in life and reason for being born (the purpose of life was simply to live, which he didn't do much of, and that even ordinary lives are worthwhile if they are lived fully), accepting it and being ok with how his life went, and moving on into death, and the film can't do it. It doesn't have the time or tools. SO, it uses plot magic to jump Joe from the start of sort of, kind of, half-realizing music wasn't the point of being alive, to the end they want and we're left wondering how that happened.

"22" is the more interesting character: an unborn soul who's been around since literally the dawn of human kind and still hasn't found the Spark to live. The best parts of the film are watching 22 find things worth living for (while Joe neurotically tries to rush 22 along and ignore it all). However, the bloat from Joe means 22's quest is secondary, and somewhat shoved in, and they do not adequately manage to convey what an ancient, but still young, soul with thousands of years of observation, but who still doesn't want to live, might be like. They settled on "irritating preteen know it all" and it doesn't quite hit the right note.

"Soul" is unable to balance and interweave these two opposite storylines, 22's journey to finding the Spark and desire to be born into life, and Joe's acceptance of his death, so we're left with a brackish mess, lumps of different colored play doh's hastily smooshed into shape for the ending, which (tries to) pander to the audience.

All of these may seem like complicated, deeply philosophical themes for a movie, and they are. Soul does a poor job of simplifying these complex concepts clearly. It also lifts beloved bits from Inside Out, pasting near direct copies into the film.

This film is directed at adults, and will bore small children to whining. Many adults will likewise be bored, find it difficult to follow, or dislike the characters.

It has many cute and charming *individual* moments to enjoy, but ultimately, it is not the next "Inside Out" and I imagine it will quickly fade to the back of the Pixar library.

A Christmas Carol (2019)

Not for fans of the classic

[6/10 · 29 December 2020]

Now, there's dark and gritty, and then there's this. It's like the makers of Bloodborne decided to try to make a version of A Christmas Carol. Ebenezer is transformed from grumpy penny pincher in need of some holiday spirit to a literally evil person. He has been involved in, and responsible for, *multiple* incidents of mass death, and enjoys psychologically torturing characters with messed up mind games. It strains credulity that Christmas Cheer and The Power of LoveTM can absolve someone like this. But it's just so pretty and his back story is so dark and twisty, and it's just, so, *different*.

To put it succinctly, this is A Christmas Carol for those who dislike A Christmas Carol and would prefer never seeing A Christmas Carol again.

Think of all the teens, dads, and just regular Christmas grumps forced to watch the exhausting parade of Christmas Carol versions by their chipper, Christmas-fanatic relatives, and you'll find the audience for this one. They will like it BECAUSE the classic story is twisted and darkened until it's basically unrecognizable, and for the mature shock value, while the Christmas cheer fans will utterly loath it and want their feel-good family classic back.

It's strong points are that it is visually gorgeous, well acted, and very different.

It's weaknesses are it's pacing, (which is really, truly bad), the unsatisfying ending, and the fact that it isn't A Christmas Carol, but keeps half heartedly trying to be, when it really would have worked better as an original piece.

Bridgerton (2020– )

It's a Harlequin Novel

[5/10 · 29 December 2020]

It's a Harlequin Novel. It's a Harlequin Novel. It has a big budget and some trendy/edgy choices that try to hide it, but in it's soul, IT'S A HARLEQUIN NOVEL.

K, now you know EXACTLY what to expect, plot, writing, romance, and character-wise.

They stuck some modern day glittery gunk on it to make it more appealing to a younger audience, who might be in denial about liking the same historical-romance-novel guilty pleasure as the 40+ crowd, and to make it seem like more than it is.

Expect things like garish, modern fabrics in the costumes, explicit and plentiful sex scenes, and harp versions of Ariana Grande songs playing at the balls. And the diversity cast everyone is gushing over is tailor-made to distract the 15-25 crowd who would otherwise quibble about the traditional, patriarchal romances (I'm not buying it. If they were doing true Hamilton casting rules, WTH are the Asians? Where are the Hispanics? Either have an actually diverse cast, like in "the Personal History of David Copperfield", or stick with a historically accurate one)

You'll either find the modern touches fun, or deeply grating on your soul (if "A Knight's Tale" bothered the bejeesus out of you, avoid this. If you thought "Reign" level costuming and historical accuracy wonderful, you'll be fine) I somewhat feel a more accurate setting would let one appreciate the full junk-food romance of this better, since it would remove the posturing and trying to be edgy and relevant, and let it be what it is, a Harlequin Novel.

As for book series accuracy, I'd say it's about as close to the books as the "Ella Enchanted" film is to its source material (which is to say, not really, and set in a different world. Book fans, you have been warned.)

I wouldn't watch this with other people. It's the screen version of that-time-of-the-month chocolate: intended to be consumed solo, shamefacedly, and voraciously once others are out of the room.