Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Written and Directed by John Carpenter. Starring Austin Stoker, Darwin Joston, and Laurie Zimmer.

Bottomline: Without all the backstory that I've come to expect from movies, Assault on Precinct 13 gives you a straightforward action movie but with something to chew on later.

3/4

Assault on Precinct 13, for me, has always been on that list of movies that was pretty far down the queue. I like John Carpenter. Who doesn't like The Thing or Escape from New York or Big Trouble In Little China? I know he did a bunch of other stuff but those are the first ones that come to mind.

But in the case of Assault on Precinct 13, I hadn't heard it on too many must-see lists. I think of the posters for the 2005 remake. Which, quick side note, has Ethan Hawke, John Leguizamo, and Lawrence Fishburne which sounds like a mid-2000s cast if I ever heard one. Anyway, long story short, it never really made the cut. 

I happened to turn it on cause it was a slow day at work and I thought I'd have it on in the background and, I'm glad I did.

The IMDB description reads: "A Highway Patrol Officer, two criminals and a station secretary defend a defunct Los Angeles precinct office against a siege by a bloodthirsty street gang." That's pretty much what you're going to get with this one. We're introduced to the characters efficiently - the Officer jumps into his car and gets on the radio. We quickly learn that it's his first day and that he's going to be sent to the precinct office in question. Boom. Done. It's not an extended montage or sequence. When he gets to the precinct, he is told to wait for the chief. He's got time a minute or two to get a cup of coffee and in that natural amount of time, we get a couple more solid sentences of characterization. That's all we need! We're on board with this guy and whatever comes his way.

I guess this strikes a chord with me because I recently watched Borderlands and, my goodness, is there so much backstory. You don't need it! Just have a character say a simple sentence that carries weight and we're good.

The action itself, (this is an action movie after all), is pretty solid. You've got good pacing between waves of baddies. Carpenter does a great job of making their situation feel overwhelming.

A short review but I'll leave it at that. It was good. I liked it and if you're in the mood for some good action I'd recommend it.

J Leguizamo Ethan

Laurence Fishburne John Leguizamo

Tension (1949)

Directed by John Berry. Written by Allen Rivkin (screenplay), John D. Klorer (based on the story by), John Berry(uncredited). Starring Richard Basehart, Audrey Totter, and Cyd Charisse.

Bottom line: The highlight of this movie is the introduction and the over-the-top introduction to the femme fatale everything else is alright.

2/4

Tension opens with such a fun monologue by a detective in homicide. Homicide, the detective informs us, is a fancy word for muuuurder. He continues, saying that the push and pull and romance and squeeze their suspects (he does this while pulling a rubber band) until they snap (and he appropriately snaps the rubber band) and the title card swoops in. If you're in the mood for borderline cheesy film noir, this introduction sets the stage perfectly.

We then are introduced to our protagonist. Warren Quimby (Basehart) is the manager at a 24-hour pharmacy. He's been working the 12 hour night shift five days a week for the past couple of years. He's working hard, saving for a better life for himself and his wife, Claire (Totter). Quimby is busy ringing up a customer when the soda jerk comes up to him and vocalizes concern. The soda jerk doesn't like how Mrs. Quimby mistreats Mr. Quimby. His worries fall on deaf ears. Ears deafened by love! Just as Warren orders the man back to his counter, he sees that his wife has been in the diner the whole time.

A quick aside, this pharmacy is structured like a general convenience store with a drug store in the back and the diner on the side. It's all part of the pharmacy but it's not like people are hanging out at a CVS. Alright, back to the Quimbys.

Mr. Quimby stops what he's doing and goes over to greet his wife. What comes next is by far my favorite introduction to a character that I've seen in a long time. The platinum blonde hair is flipped aside as a film noir trumpet (or saxophone) starts trilling. Mrs. Quimby scowls at her husband with her sharp, mean, eyebrows. She takes a big bite of a hamburger and, with her mouth full, orders him to get her some pills. She slouches, flips through a magazine, and flirts with the employee we met earlier (her flirting is not reciprocated mind you, the "jerk" is anything but).

So, IMDB has this as a description, "a meek pharmacist creates an alternate identity under which he plans to murder the bullying liquor salesman who has become his wife's lover." With these film noir flicks it always surprises me how little a secret the plot is. There is a minor plot twist but it's like, it's less a twist and more a slight lean.

Let's cut to the chase: would I recommend Tension. If you get the Movies! channel (I get it with our little antenna), and Tension is on, I'd watch it. It's a silly b-grade film noir that works. It's a straightforward plot so you could always be doing something else while watching this. Unfortunately, the main draw is with the plot. One of the reasons I like Film Noir is because of its roots in German Expressionism and Tension lacks those elements.

I'll have to check earlier in this blog to see if I've written about it but, as a teaser, one of the things about German Expressionism is the use of lighting and sets. Harsh contrasts and sharp angles are key features. Keep that in mind next time you see a film noir. Check out all of those harsh police interrogation lights and the shadows they create. It makes it so the dialog isn't the sole engine of the movie; the images help set the stage too. Mmm mmm mmm, just thinking about it.

Alright, thanks for reading! Do you like Film Noir? I wonder after watching this B-grade stuff will change the experience of watching A-grade films like The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep. Oh, speaking of The Big Sleep check out the fun trailer. It's so meta.

Blondie (1938)

Directed by Frank R. Strayer. Written by  Richard Flournoy (screenplay) and Chic Young (based upon the comic strip created by). Starring Penny Singleton (Blondie), Arthur Lake (Dagwood Bumstead), Larry Simms (Baby Dumbling)

Bottom line: Do you remember Kenneth from 30 Rock? Well, if you ever wondered what a full-length movie starring him would be like, check out Blondie. 1/4

I had heard of the Blondie comic strip but I never read it. I was never much of a newspaper comic strip type of guy so I was mildly surprised to see that there was a movie (or a series of movies). 

Do you recall The Land Before Time? The first one, whew, it's a classic. That scene with the mom, ugh, it's still heart-breaking. Now, the second thing I think of when I think of The Land Before Time is the array of sequels. According to Wikipedia, there are a massive thirteen sequels! If you are interested in more of that, YouTuber Jenny Nicholson made an amusing video about them. Meanwhile, Blondie comes over and says, "Hold my beer." The Blonde series has, according to Wikipedia, "28 low-budget theatrical B-features." Yes, 28. Granted, if those movies were made today, lots of them might very well be direct-to-video releases but still.

So we spend most of the time in the film following Blondie's husband, Dagwood (Lake). I'm not sure if that's the case in the comics too. In this adventure, Blondie is trying to get Dagwood to ask for a raise so they can afford new furniture. He doesn't want to ask but he also wants to get her furniture. What a pickle!

Physical comedy, mix-ups, and what not ensues. There was really only one joke that made me laugh. So it got half a point for that and then half a point because it was so fascinatingly annoying. To think, they made twenty-eight of these!

It gave me an idea for a charity event, actually. I could stream me watching all of (or at least as many as I can) straight! More to come on this to see if it's feasible.

Pass on this unless you want to see some clips on YouTube to see if Dag reminds you of Kenneth too.

Now, reader, what do you think of that idea for a charity event? Would you watch it? Leave a comment below! Thanks for reading!

Jasper Mall (2020)

Directed by Bradford Thomason and Brett Whitcomb.

Bottom line: There are hoards of YouTube channels that look at dilapidated malls (specifically) but they tend not to have the quiet, thought-out story arcs found in Jasper Mall; for a chill movie to watch, I recommend this one. 3.5/4

Malls are closing. Why go out to these massive spaces to buy something (at probably a higher cost) than just getting it online? I certainly remember going to malls; there were two malls that I went to in Pittsburgh, PA. Actually, three. There were three malls that I went to. There was (is, at the time of writing) The Galleria. It's the "fancy mall" or "rich mall" but, for a little me, a very boring mall. There was no arcade, no videogame store. They had one of those rich kid toy stores, you know, the ones with the science toys and the super high detail plastic figurines? Next, we have South Hills Village. I think this one is solidly middle class. It's got the staples; Hallmark, Disney Store, Gamespot.

Though, a quick aside, I think it might be starting to go a little downhill. How do I know? They got rid of the Taco Bell and replaced it with a generic taco place. How could you do that to me, South Hills Village? 

Lastly, we had* Century III Mall. This one has quite the YouTube footprint. It was massive and popular but, alas, is now closed. 

Anyway! This is all to say, malls were a thing. They were fun to hang out around at least for my generation so maybe there's some nostalgia going on here. Similarly, seeing old falling apart structures can be kinda fun too; that's why there are so many YouTube videos like this.

This brings us to Jasper Mall, this is a documentary that explores the mall of the same name in Jasper Alabama over the course of a year. We have a cast of characters with whom we follow too. We have a high school couple. We have a retired man who plays dominos with his friends. We have a florist who has been at the mall for twenty-five years. Finally, we have the manager/caretaker/head security/head of marketing/head janitor/tiger king (he looks like Tiger King and he used to own a private zoo). All of the people are nice and enjoyable to watch. Their back-stories aren't the deepest nor is there much character development but, for real, that's not why we're here.

One of the great things about this documentary is that it's quiet. Sometimes, when you have one that is making an argument like Blackfish, you have more of an in-your-face structure. The interviews are juxtaposed to highlight discrepancies. Jasper Mall, however, lets the images speak for themselves. At one point, the manager is talking about his hopes to galvanize the mall. The camera lingers. You have the time to soak in his facial expression: fear, worry, and yet hope. Simple but effective.

If my memory serves me, I gave Blackfish a 4/4 because it really got me pumped up. Jasper Mall was a very pleasant, thoughtful meander through the mall but it didn't get me pumped up so I'm not going to give it a perfect score. It was something that you could very easily have on in the background (though you'd miss some of the really good shots). I'd also have appreciated a bit of a post-script; I wanted to learn what happened to the manager guy...

Although, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe that's kinda the idea. He might still be at the mall working as he has been to save it. The mall is still there, a shadow of its former self, but it remains. Nothing really changes at the mall, it just slowly fades. So maybe we can imagine the manager in a similar state. Oh, I like it. Alright, I'll bump up the score a little more.

So, in summary, with the quiet and well-thought-out cinematography alongside an interesting subject matter, I would recommend Jasper Mall.

What do you think, Reader? When was the last time you went to a mall? Thanks for reading!

Let's Make It Legal (1951)

Directed by Richard Sale. Written by F. Hugh Herbert (screenplay), I.A.L. Diamond (screenplay), Mortimer Braus (based on a story by)

Starring  Claudette Colbert (Miriam Halsworth), Macdonald Carey (Hugh Halsworth), Zachary Scott (Victor Macfarland).

Bottom line: Let's Make It Legal is a perfectly good movie to watch if it is 2:30, and you're trying to feed an infant, and it's on TV.

1.5/4

It was about 2/2:30 in the morning, and my infant son started to stir. He was hungry. It seems he eats well when people are talking or there is background noise so I flipped on the TV to find 1951's Let's Make It Legal.

I'll be honest with you, I didn't watch the entirety cause I was busy getting bottles and formula ready but, I don't think I really missed anything. Let that give you an indication of what type of movie it is. 

But, that said, let me piece together what I can parse. Mariam and her husband Hugh are getting a divorce. At the same time, an old flame of Miriam comes to town - a financer named Victor. Cue farcical comedy!

Something that surprised me about this movie is the subject matter, given it's a movie from the '50's. Heck, I didn't realize that divorce was like a thing then let alone showing it in movies. Everything else in the movie is pretty standard: the acting is good, the pacing is good, the cinematography is nothing special. 

It's an amusing, light little romp. If you are doing something and can't pay 100% attention to Let's Make It Legal, that's a-ok. I, for example, went into the kitchen to get a fresh bottle during a seemingly benign argument between Miriam and Hugh and, when I came back, the movie was over!

Did it spoil the movie? No. When I looked up the ending on Wikipedia, did it surprise me? No. I'm sure you can guess what happened.

So, in summary, I would recommend Let's Make It Legal if it's on. I don't think I would actively seek it out but, if you're flipping through the stations and you are dithering between a rerun of Star Trek and Let's Make It Legal, I'd go with the latter.

Oh, one more thing, Marylin Monroe plays a minor role in this movie. I guess I'm used to seeing her in major roles. When I saw her, I thought, huh, they totally cast that woman cause she looks like Marylin Monroe. She plays a woman who wants to marry Victor because he is rich, so, you know, a standard role.   

Thanks for reading! Do you know of any other movies that you'd recommend to have on in the background? Not because you've seen them a million times but because they are just that light? Let me know in the comments.

Alright, now, mind yourself of spoilers - I've just got one point.

I couldn't help but laugh when reading the Wikipedia summary. So we've got this whole movie with Miriam falling for Victor and hating Hugh. It turns out that twenty years prior, the last time she saw Victor, the two men played a game of craps, Hugh won. Charming, right? Naturally, Miriam is furious, especially cause it was Hugh's idea (the gambling addict, mind you) to play. According to Wikipedia:

Back home Miriam explains to Hugh that she was so angry because Victor told her that twenty years ago Hugh won her hand in a game of craps. Hugh admits this, and still has those two dice with him. He asks her to throw. It turns out the dice were loaded; they always throw three and four. Hugh admits he cheated because the stake was so high. Miriam is pleased with this explanation and they reconcile.

I couldn't but laugh; "This pleases me! Let us get married again." Oh, how simple things can be!

I suppose there is something to be said that a movie that I sleepily, half-watched got me to read about it and now write about it. Well done, Let's Make It Legal.

Pulling John (2009)

Directors: Vassiliki Khonsari, Sevan Matossian

Stars: John Brzenk, Alexy Voevoda, Travis Bagent

Bottom line: Pulling John actually got me emotionally invested in the world arm-wrestling final from 2008 so, for, about an hour-long documentary, I'd say thumbs up.

3.5/4

Now, I don't know about you but my arm-wrestling experience is, one, losing. Two, Over the Top (1987). Three, late-night espn; you know, when they just finished up the world lumberjack competition, and then they switch over the arm wrestling (either that or darts).

I don't know how Pulling John came on my radar but I have had it bookmarked for literally years. I'm glad I finally made time to watch it.

Pulling John opens with a montage outlining John Brzenk's rocket-propelled entry and subsequent domination of the world arm-wrestling competitive scene. It's fast-paced, it had interested clips; it was a great way to open the movie. But John is only part of the story. 

We have a trio of competitors. Brzenk, naturally, and two up-and-comers: Alexy Voevoda (from Russia), Travis Bagent (from West Virginia).  I was going to say from US but, man, this guy is from West Virginia. It makes me think of that scene from Edge of Tomorrow.

We jump at appropriate paces between the three stories and they are really nicely set up stories too. Brzenk has been the world's greatest arm-wrestler for the past twenty years but he's getting older. Does he have the chops to continue to compete as he once did or should he retire on top? 

Alexy Voevoda is competing for the pride of his country. He comes from a family of arm wrestlers and continues the tradition. He has crushed all the competition in Russia and wants to extend that to the rest of the world. Ultimately, he hopes to defeat the one and only Brzenk.

Back in the states, we follow Bagent who also comes from a family of arm wrestlers. He, like Voevoda, wants to defeat Brzenk and reign as the world champion arm wrestler. 

Now that we have our cast, let me touch on the rules of competitive arm wrestling, well, one part of it. We have three weight classes; Medium, Heavy Weight, and Super Heavy Weight. Cause we can't have big strong guys being "light" so "light" is just Medium. Ok, guys.... 

Now, the weight classes all compete until they have the winners. The winners of those classes then compete. Doesn't that sound weird? Brzenk's class, for example, is the 210lbs class. Bagent, on the other hand, is almost 300lbs. They have to compete with one another to crown the world champion. It's essentially the final boss from Mike Tyson's Punch-Out.

What's even crazier though, when you think about it, Brzenk has absolutely destroyed everyone for the past twenty years. Brzenk is essentially David fighting a never-ending stream of Goliaths but he's playing the same game as Goliath!

I'd recommend Pulling John. It's not the most polished documentary; it's no Somm or Blackfish but it's still a lot of fun. It has a steady pace and it really builds up the characters. And I say "characters" because each of the people in the movie, competitors, and spectators, are so unique it felt like an anime or a videogame. I loved it.

If you are looking for a light, fun documentary, I'd point you to Pulling John.

Thanks for reading! Let me know, in the comments, your thoughts on arm-wrestling!

The Witches (2020)

Director: Robert Zemeckis. Writers: Robert Zemeckis (screenplay by), Kenya Barris (screenplay by). Stars: Anne Hathaway, Octavia Spencer, Stanley Tucci.

Bottom line: With its thin plot and Anne Hathaway's rough character, I don't think I would recommend The Witches but the music had its moments.

1.5/4

Witches, the movie explains via Chris Rock narration (really it's frame narrative but it serves the same purpose), hate children. The goal of a witch is to squish children. Thus begins a story of a boy's experience with a witch.

For the bottom line, I was torn between the above and "Meh, I say, meh." There were some pleasant notes but The Witches had a couple glaring issues for me. Even for a kids' movie, the plot was pretty thin. Surely there are some examples of kids' movies with some complexity. I mean, at one point Hero Boy (Jahzir Bruno) is dropped into a dangerous situation and says, "You know [after this happened] I haven't been afraid of things anymore." I'm watching the movie again as I'm writing this and I don't think they establish that fear was his issue. He was sad because his parents were killed in a car crash but not fearful. And they didn't talk about his newfound courage either after that. It felt like it was justification for action situations in which no 8-year old could be expected to function.

Now, plot aside, Bruno's performance was perfectly good. Child actors can be iffy sometimes but he played it well. Octavia Spencer's performance as Grandma was awesome. She's is a wonderfully positive character and she is tough and supportive of Hero Boy. Heck, give me a coming of age tale with the two of them and I'd be happy. I love Stanley Tucci and it's a shame that his role in The Witches was so small. Anne Hathaway's performance as the Grand High Witch (the character as a whole too), well, squished the movie. 

We learn pretty early on that the Grand High Witch is serious business; she was hatched in an egg somewhere in like Norway - queue Hathaway's ever-changing accent. She cycles between an unintelligible growl to German to the Swedish Chef. It seems like they substituted a character for CGI to make her look like a witch, which (ha), was actually a little creepy for a kids' movie. 

The introduction of the film (witches = bad) is really the extent of witch character development. Where do they get their powers? What powers do they have? Where do they come from? Why is witch magic bad but voodoo ok? Aside from the few positive performances, there were other positive notes.  

Music was pleasant at times. As the little mice were running along, the music complemented the cute little scurrying. The graphics were also pretty fancy. A major portion of the movie was centered on CGI talking mice a la Stuart Little. If ever there was a movie to date me and my point of reference... Maybe it could be like The Chipmunks but I'm not sure because I never saw that one. Anyway, fancy graphics.

So, overall, The Witches was meh. There are some pleasant enough parts but they don't do enough to carry the movie. If you're out of Halloween movies to watch but need to see something this week, maybe, but you won't be missing out if you don't see it. I wonder how it compares to the original 1990 version. My wife and I saw part of that late at night at a hotel and we've never gone back to it.

Alright, from here on out mind yourself of some spoilers so if you happen to see The Witches already, read on!

Let's start off with a big one, the choice to not turn Hero Boy back into a boy. Hero Boy and his friends are turned into mice and they go to the grandma for help. She opens up her travel voodoo pack to try to "reverse engineer" the curse in a hotel, mind you. She isn't able to and that's that? So then they go and decide not to find another witch and get them to reverse engineer it but to turn all the witches into rats. Alright, fine, but why did they have to add the note about him having a significantly shorter lifespan? That part never occurred to me. Along with that, do we not see his friends at the end because they died of old age? That feels depressing.

On another note, I sat in on a virtual seminar about Diversity in Videogames. A couple of the speakers said that growing up, they watched Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel. They enjoyed the shows but never saw the main characters that looked like them. So with that in mind, it's cool that The Witches had a Black protagonist and family. The movie is set in the '60s in Alabama so, to be honest, I was a little worried about if they would come across any racism. They didn't which was probably a good thing for a kids' movie but that isn't to say that race wasn't a part of the movie. There were a couple things that stuck out to me; first, they decided to go to this fancy hotel because "only rich white folks go there" so they'd be safe from witches who only prey on the poor. Second, when they get to the hotel, all of the staff are Black and one expresses a brief surprise that Grandma is arriving to stay at the hotel.

Alright, that's all I've got to say about The Witches. Have you seen this movie or the original? What did you think of either?

Thanks for reading! 

Edit: As a side note, I tried installing Grammarly to help me, well, with my grammar. It has a new (to me) feature that predicts tone. It says the post is disapproving!

The Witches of Eastwick (1987)

Director: George Miller

Writers: John Updike (novel), Michael Cristofer (screenplay)

Stars: Jack Nicholson, Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer 

Bottom line: IMDB says The Witches of Eastwick is a fantasy/comedy. Did I learn anything, heartily laugh and will I watch it again? Nah. Am I upset by seeing it? Nope, it's on a bunch of Halloween movie lists although I wouldn't put it high up on mine. 

2/5

Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer are very close friends and all single. Cher is an artist. Susan Sarandon is a tightly wound music teacher and musician. Michelle Pfeiffer is a single mother of 7 daughters. They have a weekly hangout together where they have drinks and whatnot. 

They are venting about men, specifically, what's in their dream guy. Lo and behold that guy appears in town the next day. Coincidence I think not! But is he everything the women wanted or is he slightly more diabolic?

So, like I said in the bottom line, IMDB says this is a fantasy/comedy. There's magic and all that so, there ya go, fantasy. Now, the comedy part is a little trickier. There are some parts that I did one of those sharp exhalations from my nose. Not quite a snort or a laugh but something of a humph. Are we supposed to take Nicholson's rants about how terrible women are as the comedy monologues of the film? I'm not so sure. It feels dated.

Acting wise, it's ok. The three women have a great chemistry and they work well together. I'd say their relationship and dynamic was the highlight of the movie. Jack Nicholson was a bit weaker. He felt like this was closer to his role as The Joker in Batman. My wife suggested, and I agree, that it was borderline Jim Carrey in enthusiasm and over-the-top antics. Take that for what you will...

In terms of direction, George Miller sounded familiar, he's the guy behind the Mad Max movies. There were some shots that made me think of Wes Anderson in their structure so I'd be curious to see if there were any Miller calling cards through his other films.

The music is done by John Williams which I found surprising, it didn't totally sound like him. John Williams, if you aren't familiar, has done like everything. Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- wait, I'm sorry, he has a separate page for just his discography, that's what I'm reading -- to see what he's done. Just check it out. You've probably heard his stuff and didn't realize it. He did Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Jaws. When I went to the University of Pittsburgh, there was a film class devoted just to his musical scores. In some of his major works (like the aforementioned ones), he has a really distinct style. The Witches of Eastwick, however, sounds different. It's neat to hear something that isn't clearly John Williams that I'm used it.

Overall, there were some pleasant points to The Witches of Eastwick and there were meh points. I liked the dynamic between the three Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer so they made it more enjoyable than it if we were just left with Jack Nicholson. This is a movie that appears in a bunch of Halloween movie lists but I haven't been drawn to watch it before. I'm glad I finally saw it but it was partially because we were out of ideas for Halloween movies; we're saving the big ones like Hocus Pocus for closer to All Hallows Eve. That said, would I recommend it? Probably not. There are better ways to spend two hours.

Now, one thing that I'd like to add before I end this post but mind yourself of ever so mild spoilers for this next part. I was afraid when Nicholson seduced Cher and then Susan Sarandon that we'd have a jealously subplot going on. I was relieved that they didn't do that and I was surprised that they nonchalantly went into like a polyamorous relationship. I can't think of another movie that does that (at least that I've seen). Maybe Y Tu Mama Tambien? Nah, like a portion of that movie is them dealing with jealousy.

Similarly, when the women were fighting about their potential magical powers, their fight didn't last too long. We didn't have to slog through like a 20 minute reconciliation sequence. It was like, Pfeiffer's in trouble, boom we're together again.

Sheesh it's been a while since my last post but, I hope you enjoyed! What's on your Halloween movie queue? I'll have to look through my previous posts; I'm sure I did a round of Halloween movies already. Maybe I'll fill in the gaps in the coming weeks.

Thanks for reading!

Kubo and the Two Strings

Directed by Travis Knight. Written by Marc Haimes (screenplay), Chris Butler (screenplay), Shannon Tindle (story) and Marc Haimes (story). Starring Charlize Theron (Monkey), Art Parkinson (Kubo), Ralph Fiennes (Moon King), and Matthew McConaughey (Beetle).

Bottom line: Kubo, you have master animators, why do you have to cover it all up with CGI. I’m not against CGI and Claymation, but what could’ve been a beautiful experience turned into a mediocre computer animated movie.

2.5/4

Kubo and the Two Strings opens to a raging ocean and some establishing shots of a woman performing some magic. After a beautiful scene, we cut to some years later. The woman, who is nigh comatose, is being taken care of by her twelve or thirteen years old son, Kubo. We watch as Kubo wakes up and makes breakfast before walking from their cave dwelling to the nearby town. Kubo provides for the family by telling stories. In one of the best scenes in the movie, he pulls out origami paper and his samisen (the same one that his mother held), and begins telling a thrilling story that captures the imagination of the town. When he plays and speak, the paper floats into the air and folds itself becoming a spider, a chicken, and a brave samurai. In the interest of the review, Yada yada yada, Kubo and his magical friends (a Monkey, and a Beetle) have to go on a magical journey to get three magical items to stop the villainous Moon King.

Kubo and the Two Strings was made by the same people as Coraline (wonderful!) and The Boxtrolls (terribly disappointing!). Kubo falls into the same trap as The Boxtrolls; they put too much CGI on top of the beautiful miniatures. What’s the point of the stop motion if I can’t tell what it is? In fact, a coworker of mine thought it was a CGI movie.

The thing about claymation and stop motion animation is that there is something unique about the texture. It’s a good thing to see that they are models. You never lose sight of the fact that what you are watching is a construct so it’s like you are being told a story (rather than have the fantasy that you are being transported to another world). There is a behind the scenes sequence during the credits; it shows the animators working on a large model. The film speeds up and the monster comes to life and interacts with the artists. It really gives an indication of the scale of the movie that would’ve otherwise been lost. There are other super cool behind the scenes clips on YouTube. One explains that these Eyeball creatures were made out of lights and thin metal (to create a really cool effect) and the motion was mapped to the rolling of a bowling ball. But, I ask, what’s the point? It feels kinda weird to ask but, what’s the point of going through all this work when the CGI flattens all of the absurdly detailed models. Another side effect of having so much CGI, is that there are jarring moments when the puppetry becomes the focal point of a scene.

In the case of Kubo, all of the animation is super smooth until you get to this old woman. Her really exaggerated facial expressions are jarring because one second she has squinting eyes and the next instant her mouth and eyes are totally open. The transition between the two looked like something of a blur. It didn’t feel like it fit with the rest of the movie. And, speaking of the feel of the movie, I wasn’t getting a good sense of space.

Let’s compare Kubo to Coraline. If you’ve never seen Coraline, it’s set in and around a pink mansion. In each of the scenes and in each of the rooms, you really get a sense of the world. The rooms are distinct enough that they stand on their own but they form a cohesive world and experience. In Kubo, we start off pretty good. We see his cave-home and how it connects to the village. Before too long, we cut to a snowstorm in “the badlands.” All we can see is white snow blowing about. We don’t know where we are in relation to the village nor do we even get the sense that it’s cold. Then we’re transported to a cavern, and then a forest, and then the “endless lake”? Sure they show transitions between the settings to connect them (aside from the initial cut to the badlands) but the sense of cohesion is missing.

The last point I’d like to make about Kubo is that I was disappointed by the general lack of music, or at least the role of music wasn’t what I was looking forward to. I mean, it’s called Kubo and the Two Strings, like two strings of a samisen (the music instrument that he plays). From the looks of the trailer, I thought he was going to be doing all sorts of magic with it. His instrument would be his magic wand, if you will. But, that wasn’t quite the case. He plays his samisen but it isn’t required to do magic. Some of my favorite parts of the movie focused on him playing but they were few and far between.

Overall, if you want to watch a really good stop-motion movie watch Coraline. If you’ve seen Coraline before, go watch it again. There were sequences in Kubo that that I really enjoyed but they didn’t stave off the disappointment I felt from the overuse of CGI, the lack of a sense of space, and the lack of music. If you are a big fan of stop motion animation, maybe I’d say give it a go (at a matinee at most) if for no other reason than see how it compares to Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas. But then again, if you’re that big a fan of stop motion animation, you’ve probably already seen Kubo.

Thanks for reading! What are your thoughts on stop motion animation? For the longest time, I didn’t like it but I’m seriously warming up to it.

Clue

Written and Directed by Jonathan Lynn. Also written by John Landis (story). Starring Eileen Brennan (Mrs. Peacock), Tim Curry (Wadsworth), Christopher Lloyd (Professor Plum), and Madeline Kahn (Mrs. White).

Bottom line: Clue is one of the best movies based on a board game...

2.5/4

For those who have not had the pleasure of playing the board game Clue, let me give a brief overview. A body was found in a mansion. The players have to explore the mansion, picking up clues along the way, and determine the identity of the murderer (Professor Plum, Colonel Mustard, Mrs. White, etc.), the murder weapon (gun, knife, candlestick, etc.) and where the murder took place (library, study, kitchen, etc.).

We open to a dark night, as a car approaches a mansion. A butler named Wadsworth (Curry) steps out of the car and throws some bones to two large guard dogs. He starts to head inside but then stops, slowly looks down towards his shoe and then to the dogs with irritation. He stepped in dog poop. That’s comedy gold, am-I-right? Now, we slowly but surely meet the rest of the cast who are given aliases to protect their identity. Wadsworth had summoned the group together to confront Mr. Body, who had been blackmailing each of the characters. Mr. Body responds by giving each character a weapon (the same ones from the game) and states that unless someone kills Wadsworth, their secrets will be exposed. Someone is murdered and the characters have to find out who did it, where and with what. The movie is a perfectly adequate adaptation of the elements of the game.

Normally, I’m not the biggest fan of silly humor and Clue is pretty darn silly. Like having Wadsworth step in dog poop and then having each of the characters smell the air and check their shoes when he is around. But, for some reason, I don’t mind it here. That is, I don’t mind it as much as I normally would. Maybe I give it some slack because it’s based off of a board game. It doesn’t take itself too seriously like some board game-based movies- I’m lookin’ at you, Battleship. Maybe it fills my goofy comedy quota. In any case, because of the type of humor (even though I let it slide) Clue is one of those movies that I can only really see once every couple years.

I do find some of the 80’s centered jokes amusing though. At some point, someone says, “It’s Hoover on the phone for you.”

“Why would the FBI director be on your phone?”

“He’s on everyone else’s, why should mine be any different?”

Zing! Now, I don’t really know anything about Hoover but I get the idea and it’s kinda funny. You know, as far as it goes.

One of the neat parts about the movie is that when it appeared, one of three endings was played at the theaters. When you watch it now, at the end of the movie, comes a card that reads, “That’s how it could’ve happened. But how about this?” That gives a good indication of the light tone of the movie.

Overall, I’d recommend Clue if you’re in the mood for something silly. I kinda put it in the same family as Austin Powers and I’m sure just about everyone has seen Austin Powers a dozen times. So, if you want that sort of experience but something a little new, check out Clue. Oh and it has Tim Curry and Christopher Lloyd which is pretty cool, you know?

Suicide Squad

Written and directed by David Ayer. Starring Will Smith (Deadshot), Jared Leto (Joker), Margo Robbie (Harley Quinn).

Bottom line: Suicide Squad was mediocre at best but more so disappointing because of its potential but, at the same time, it doesn’t quite deserve all the hate it is getting.

1.5/4

In the superhero world which has Batman and Superman, what if we were able to convince supervillains - like Joker’s girlfriend, Harley Quinn (Robbie) and the world’s top assassin Deadshot (Smith) - to fight for good? That’s the premise of Suicide Squad. It sounds like fun. Who doesn’t love a good group of anti-heroes? And can you get any better than comic book anti-heroes? Unfortunately, terrible writing and poor decisions spell doom for this potentially fun superhero flick.

The movie opens to the music of The Animals’ “House of the Rising Sun”. We see an intimidating high security prison so, I suppose, we’re to assume that there are some pretty mean characters being housed here. We meet our first inmate, Deadshot (Smith), and watch his interaction with a sadistic guard. Aside from the fact that Deadshot is in a prison, we aren’t really given any reason why he’s a villain. Never mind the fact that this is Will Smith we’re talking about. When is he really ever a bad guy? A Bad Boy, maybe, but not a bad guy.

We then cut over to meet Harley Quinn (Robbie). Grace’s rendition of “You Don’t Own Me” plays as we see Quinn lounging about her cell that sits in the middle of a heavily guarded room. The same sadistic guard approaches her and flirts with the supervillain. The bars on her cell are electrified, throwing her to her back into a daze. We cut to a flashback of the guards (led by the sadistic one) force feeding the crying Quinn and even taking a selfie with her while she is bound. Again, we might have some association with Harley Quinn (being the significant other to the Clown Prince of Crime) but we don’t know that she’s a villain. We continue to meet other people but you get the idea…

The Suicide Squad, as we learn, is the brainchild of a stone cold military woman. She opens a binder labeled “Top Secret” and proceeds to introduce each member. Each of the what, 5 or 6 people, have a several minute expository clip. It begins with a still shot of a given character which has their name and some interesting facts about them. It’s a tired method of introducing characters and, man, does it take up a lot of time. We’re like 20 minutes into the movie it feels like and we haven’t even assembled the team! It’s almost like we sat through a promotional short film for the actual movie. I’d kinda prefer if that were the case because we might be able to have a better movie in a year or two.

The most painful part about Suicide Squad, and I mentioned this in the bottom-line, is that there was so much potential. Leaving the theatre, I kinda wanted to go and see it again because, maybe, it would be different. That’s a sign of a healthy relationship, am I right? Save yourself the time and money and pass on Suicide Squad at least in terms of a theater visit. I’d recommend watching one of the Avengers movies if you want a comic book action movie, or maybe Dark Knight if you want a darker comic book movie with a lot of action. Now I’ve got a few bones to pick so mind yourself of spoilers.

There are so many things about Suicide Squad (both big and small) that don’t work. One thing, as I mentioned, is the team introductory montage. It’s unnecessarily drawn out and it bogs down the rest of the movie. Now, at one point, the story’s main villain attacks (I’ll keep it vague to protect against spoilers). The main military guy who leads the squad knows what happened. Eventually, Will Smith confronts him and says, “You know what happened. Tell us.” So the military guy proceeds to tell them (and us) what happened. Meanwhile, we watch it happen again. We saw it the first time...you know, like, when it happened. Why are you wasting precious minutes actually recycling footage? I mean, sure, there’s that film making adage “show don’t tell” but, guys, I don’t think this is what it means.

Even down to the main plot of the movie - so and so is trying to destroy the world - feels tired. You’re doing something wrong if “the world is going to end” feels dull. Just because they live in a world with Batman and Superman, doesn’t mean that there are different fish to fry (not bigger but different). The lame plot is, perhaps, just an indication or symptom of Suicide Squad’s biggest offender: the writing.

The actors do a fine job with what they’re given but they aren’t given much. The character development is nigh non-existent. We only get a few moments where we see the potential of Harley’s character. We see glimpses of her relationship with the Joker (Leto) and her feelings but they don’t go anywhere.

In the case of Deadshot, just having bits of dialog to show that he loves his daughter isn’t character development. He’s the highest paid assassin in the world (and along with that, I’d be surprised if he only killed “bad guys” but the movie doesn’t get into that) and he was captured because his daughter didn’t want him to kill his captor. Did his capture get him to reflect on his life choices? Hardly (or if it did, I wasn’t feelin’ it).

Even El Diablo (Hernandez) had some potential. Back-story-wise, he lost control of his fiery temper (literally) and killed his family. He vowed never to use his powers again. Sweet. I’m always down to see a continuous objector. So, the suicide squad is running through the city, killing bad guys and Deadshot keeps pushing until Diablo goes into a rage. His hands ignite and shoot fire, killing like two-dozen people. Deadshot half apologizes for his antagonism saying, “All [Diablo] needed was a little push”. Disappointed! He’s this big objector for perfectly reasonable reasons but he forgets all of that because he was provoked? I would’ve loved to see El Diablo go without fighting the entire movie or facing the quandary of fighting to save his friends or even dying. “Giving him a little push” feels like a copout.

Whew, I think this gets Suicide Squad out of my system. I’ve been toying with this review for the past week or two. I wasn’t quite sure how much or how little to say. In any case, pass on this and see a good movie. But, if you have seen Suicide Squad, what did you think of it? Have you read any of the comics? I’d be interested in hearing about how closely they followed the comics. Thanks for reading!