Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog

This blog has moved to WordPress!

Check it out!

https://everymovieonmyshelf.wordpress.com/

Off My Shelf: Oculus (2013)

First of all, I guess I have to start by saying that I was shocked when I discovered this movie came out five years ago.



Plot: Several years ago, something awful scary happened to a small family -- and only the daughter and son of the family lived to tell the tale. The son is finally getting out of the asylum, so he and the daughter have twenty-four hours to spend with the catalyst of their horror; a creepy old mirror. Can they defeat the mirror's evil before it drives them both insane?

I thought that the movie Oculus came out last year, and I'd been meaning to watch it since then because people kept saying it was pretty good. (However, I was also under the impression that people in this movie got poked in the eye with pieces of glass, which somewhat discouraged me from seeing it -- I'm not a huge fan of "body horror", as I feel like the discomfort you feel from gruesome things happening to people's bodies isn't quite the same as actual horror-horror. However, the impression that it was mainly body horror (like the thought that this movie came out last year) turned out to be wrong. So! Not to spoil anything, but, like I said, nobody gets poked in the eye in this movie.

(Not pictured in this film).That said, it's not a terrible movie, and probably better than a good portion of the modern horror movies I've seen by an appreciable margin -- which doesn't make it very good, as a good portion of modern horror movies I've seen are straight-up garbage.

Why It Wasn't Entirely Garbage
It wasn't terrible because it had decent acting, and for the first half of the movie, I was relatively interested. Basically, there are two simultaneous stories going on here; one, the re-telling of the fateful time in the past where the family dissolved around this evil mirror; and two, present-day siblings trying to unravel its secrets and defeat it. This was a fun way to tell the story and I appreciated the good acting. There were even some scary moments... at the beginning.

This doesn't happen in the movie.
Why It Wasn't That Great, Either
Okay, the problem here is that -- while it had decent acting, decent effects, and chose a decent structure for relaying the story -- there was never any doubt about what was happening.

"The mirror is making us do scary stuff!" "I totally know that. Why don't we just leave? ...Oh wait, because then there wouldn't be a movie. Never mind."Half the story is watching what played out in the past play out again.... but we already KNOW what happened in the past; there were no enormous revelations to be had. I guess there was kind of a twist in the end as we found out one detail about the past that had previously been withheld, but it didn't substantially change anything -- so it might as well not have happened.

This ALSO does not happen in the movie.Meanwhile, the "present day" story playing out also holds very few surprises. The big question is, "Is the mirror really evil, or are they just crazy?" -- well, it's pretty well explained in the first ten minutes that YES, IT IS AN EVIL MIRROR. There are no bones about it. Again, there's a minor twist in the end -- but the twist just confirms that, yes, the mirror is evil.

There is a scene where someone bites a lightbulb by mistake. It is a lot more underwhelming than you would think and actually doesn't make a lot of sense within the scenario of the film.If there had every been any doubts about that (like, perhaps, if the brother had consistently, throughout the film maintained that the sister was crazy and that he didn't believe in the evil of the mirror anymore) it would have been a bigger switcharoo when the end of the film confirms that the mirror is evil and doing bad stuff. But no -- as I said about ten minutes into the movie the brother is like pretty much convinced -- which makes the confirmation at the end of the film that the mirror is evil a moot point. The ending acts as though it's some kind of major ironic twist (like the end of certain Twilight Zone episodes...)

Hint: Watch the episode Time Enough at Last... That is an ironic twist ending of the variety they were trying for - the type that just gives you an awful feeling in the pit of your stomach. ...But throughout the whole movie they are confirming that the mirror is evil and does bad stuff to people. "The mirror did it!" a person cries at the end... and we're like, "Yeah, I know the mirror did it. ...Wait, that's your ending? THAT'S IT?" The overall feeling they wanted to leave you with was, "Wow! Wasn't THAT ironic? I feel so bad now." but instead I was left with was, "Why did I just watch this movie?"

From the very beginning we already knew the mirror was evil and doing bad stuff, so, um... yeah. Less than halfway through the movie, the tension is pretty much nullified, and everything else that happens feels a bit bloated and filler-y and tension-less. This is probably the biggest thing wrong with the movie -- and that's a pretty big deal in a movie which is all about tension.

Two Things
Afterwards we discussed the movie, and Mr. Hall pointed out the story would have been better if had been cut down to the length of a Twilight Zone episode... and our host observed that the film was actually originally based on a short film. That makes perfect sense, as the movie felt as though it really only had enough material for a half-hour, and that potentially the ending would have been more effective if there had only been half-an-hour of build-up. I'm curioius to see the short film now, to see if our suspicions are confirmed.

The second, and most puzzling thing, is that this movie was produced by WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) films.

Yes, THAT "WWE".I don't know why. I looked for cameos by wrestlers, but they weren't to be had. I guess the folks in charge just liked the script? Or maybe they were pressured to do it by outside sources.

[image error]
Ultimately...
As I said, I have seen worse modern horror movies. (*cough* The Conjuring *cough*). At least I spent a little while feeling scared (when the things the mirror did were still mysterious and I thought people might get poked in the eye) and it had nice production values and looked nice.

But in the end, it was bloated to a length that could not maintain the tension the story needed -- and the ending was a non-event. I didn't wind up liking the good parts enough to give it a solid recommendation, and I just wasn't wrapped up in the characters enough to care about what happened to them, so all I'm left with to say about this movie is...

MOSTLY NO.

Off My Shelf: Rampage (2018)

Along with most of the other people in the world this past weekend, we decided to see the movie Rampage. I had my doubts; I’ve been let down by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s taste in acting jobs before.  (Not by his acting, per se - just by the movies themselves).



Plot: The Rock works with gorillas — specifically, a very rare albino gorilla named George — and The Rock doesn’t like people. Meanwhile, several canisters of dangerous experimental chemicals crash on the earth from a destroyed space station — one infecting a wolf, one infecting a gator, and the third infecting George. George begins to grow at an alarming rate and become uncharacteristically aggressive — meanwhile, a lady scientist shows up at the zoo where the Rock works claiming she knows how to fix George. Then the government steps in. Can The Rock and his lady friend fix George before he goes ON A RAMPAGE? (Spoilers: clearly not).

As I said — as much as one likes The Rock (I mean, who doesn’t?) I’ve been let down by Mr. Johnson’s taste in film scripts before. I have seldom been as ANGRY upon finishing a movie as after slogging my way through the embarrassing pile of colorful garbage that was Journey 2 . (Granted, The Rock himself wasn’t really the problem with that movie. The problem was THE TERRIBLE SCRIPT, THE STUPID COMEDY and THE HIDEOUSLY UNLIKEABLE MAIN CHARACTERS).
Read my review of it! So much hatred!
That said… Rampage began rather more encouragingly -- and just took off from there.
THE ROCK
Do I even need to touch on The Rock's performance? I've never really seen The Rock give a bad performance in a film. I suppose I should comment on characterization, which I've occasionally felt was a little troubling in Rock movies (namely; it's not so much a matter of "Is the Rock doing a good job?" as much as "Was The Rock well-cast in this movie?") I have seen a previous "no" answer to that question (cough **Journey 2** cough) and I was a little worried at the beginning of this movie for that precise reason. For "a grizzled veteran who has learned to hate people" -- The Rock's character is a remarkably pleasant and cordial person -- he just doesn't feel like hanging out with people. So I think that aspect of his character could have used some fleshing out from a writing perspective -- maybe, he could have been a bit ruder and colder to people in the beginning. You know, something besides just not wanting to hang out after work. Heck, I don't want to hang out with people after work... but mainly just because I'm tired and just want to go home and lay face down on my couch, not because I'm struggling to process man's inhumanity to man.

Does this look like a guy who wants to hang out after work?Aside from that... as I said, I was worrying a bit about The Rock at the beginning of this movie, precisely because he was such a pleasant and polite supposed-misanthrope. I was concerned this was going to be an experience like Journey 2 where he's positively ineffectual (and not in a fun way) -- in other words, a total misuse of the fact that THE ROCK is in your movie. You don't play The Rock as a beta-male... unless that's the joke. Luckily, in this case, my fears were unfounded -- as soon the ape-filled plane starts crashing, things start moving along as they should, Rock-wise. And the end is EXACTLY what you want out of an action film featuring The Rock. 
(That said, I did spend a little while at the beginning of this movie wondering what it would have been like if, instead of The Rock, it had featured a 1980's-era Arnold Schwarzenegger. The answer is, of course, amazing.)

Arnold doesn't want to hang out after work either.Other Characters
The heroine is fine. She's an attractive actress and delivers her dialogue convincingly. My main complaint would be with the way her character is written: namely, the fact that although they set her up as a love-interest, she is not a love interest. There is no love interest in this movie. Now, I'm not saying this scenario is completely without precedent or even that it's necessarily a bad thing in an action movie (I mean, there isn't necessarily a love interest in the movie Terminator 2, because they got that out of the way in the first movie. There isn't necessarily a love-interest in Predator -- because it's about being hunted by a predator. And there certainly isn't a love-interest in Alien, because that movie has weird feelings about relationships.)

Shielding from shrapnel is the closest thing we get to a romantic scene.But it just seems strange in this movie because they clearly set up a romance, and then don't deliver. They don't even hug at the end. (There is a joke about whether or not they are in a relationship, and it's ultimately neutral). This appears to be a new Hollywood trend, declining to have a love interest in the film -- probably to show that the woman is strong and independent and "doesn't need a man" and "isn't just the guy's reward for saving the day" and (fill-in-the-blank with whatever fashionable and topical). But the characters in this film have every "Hollywood" reason to fall for each other and they don't --  and it feels awkward. If this sort of thing keeps up in movies, eventually this is going to backfire on Hollywood. People don't go to movies for whatever happens to be politically correct at the moment (well, I'm sure a small subset of people does, but it definitely can't be a fun experience) -- they go to movies for escapism. They want to see things they don't experience in their normal lives, like explosions, giant gorillas, and new romances. Even if that romance is only suggested in the film, it's nice for it to be there.

Okay, enough about that. The villains are one-dimensional baddies with on-the-nose dialogue -- which is actually FINE. Where, in another movie, they would have been a problem -- I really enjoyed how comically over-the-top evil they were. In fact, I feel like I could have used even goofier, one-dimensional stuff (takes one back to 90's era action films) -- but there is a limit on how much of that works in a movie and when it passes that point and starts to get grating, so maybe it's okay that they kept that sort of thing to a minimum.

Oh, and that guy with the baseball bat from The Walking Dead was in this. He had slightly more dimension than the villains, and was fine. THAT guy. (I don't know what his name is. I don't watch The Walking Dead.)Problems

The very first review of this movie I read almost discouraged me from seeing the film — it claimed that the film was “no fun”. I would strongly debate that claim. Granted, there was one little dull patch in the middle of the film (a few moments of downtime after the exciting plane crash sequence) — and, maybe, just maybe, it seemed a little “serious” in spots. On the opposite end of the scale, there were a couple comic-relief characters at the beginning of the film who got old fast — but they also got GONE fast, so that was a relief. And, frankly, I spent a little while, in the beginning, wondering if The Rock was going to be completely squandered in this film; it would seem like a horrible waste to have someone built like The Rock never fight anyone. HE DOES, eventually, and it is well worth the wait.

Going into this movie knowing that it’s about big monsters smashing buildings helps a lot. I mean, don’t go into this film expecting high-quality cinema. THAT SAID, I didn’t have a lot of problems with this movie. In fact, I would wager to say that Rampage was one of the more enjoyable films I’ve seen in the theater in the past couple of years. This pretty much the definition of a good popcorn film — a light, entertaining movie with lots of thrills and spills, and no deep philosophical message. I was engaged, I cared about the characters, I wanted the heroes to succeed, there were high stakes, and I was worried about the outcome. Therefore, it is already better than certain other new movies I've seen this year (*cough cough*).

Ultimately...

Rampage was a fun movie to watch, and probably one of the better video game movie adaptations I've seen. The CGI was pretty flawless, the story was engaging, and the characters were enjoyable. Plenty of good action and goofy, one-dimensional fun moments. (Some people complained that there actually weren't enough one-dimensional goofy moments, and while I can see where they were coming from, I think a movie entirely composed of "on the nose dialogue" would probably have gotten old real quick). It's not without its faults, but none of them outweighed the overall fun of the film. If you want a fun action movie to watch this summer... check out Rampage! I recommend it!

Status:RECOMMENDED

On My Shelf: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)

I didn't grow up watching this movie... which probably informs a lot of the way I feel about it. Which is both a good and bad thing.


Plot: Charlie, a poor and honest boy, desperately loves chocolate -- but he doesn't get to eat it very much, on account of being extremely poor. Luckily, Willy Wonka (owner of the greatest chocolate factory ever) decides to launch a contest: five golden tickets (guaranteeing a lifetime supply of chocolate and a tour of his fabulous factory) are going to be randomly distributed in five chocolate bars. Slowly, the tickets are discovered (by horrible, horrible children); can Charlie beat the odds to find one of the tickets and win the prize? (And if he does -- will he survive the nightmarish factory tour that follows?)

Performances, Design, Music
The performances, design, and music in this movie are all pretty solid. The songs are nice and memorable, the performances are good (more on that below) and the design is appropriately inventive for a "wacky, creative inventor" type situation. That said...

Book vs. Movie
I just (this past weekend) read the book that this film is based upon. Supposedly, author Road Dahl hated this film, and I was curious to see how and why that might have been.


Well, to my mind the film was actually pretty faithful to the basic structure and premise of the book -- right down to using the dialogue straight-up, as-written. It followed the same basic path of setting up what a good kid Charlie is, and what bad kids the other four kids are... I mean, ultimately the book is a big morality tale about why you shouldn't be a terribly behaved child -- and that is wholly intact in the film.

But there were a few differences between the movie and the book.

Most of the differences are niggly little things... In the book, Charlie has two parents (a Mom and a Dad) ...not just a Mom. (Granted, Dad doesn't do much  in the book, so cutting him was probably just a film cost-saving measure). In the book, Grandpa Joe was 90-something years old -- and, clearly, the Grandpa Joe in this movie is more like 55. In the book, there are a few parts of the factory that they stop at which they don't stop at in the movie (and vice versa). In the book, the only songs are sung in the factory -- not the pre-factory songs from the movie, where Mom sings to "Cheer up, Charlie", Grandpa Joe sings about "his" golden ticket -- or the Candy Man with his self-congratulatory song. And Charlie's one act of civil disobedience -- drinking the "Fizzy Lifting Drink" -- isn't in the book.

The main, big difference would be Willy Wonka himself: Gene Wilder.


In the book, Willy Wonka is described as being a jolly jokester -- a happy, enthusiastic man with a short-attention span, constantly darting around "like a squirrel". He's basically an ADHD kid at heart and frequently doesn't follow the rules of reality -- because he isn't quite bound reality, just by his imagination. He lives in an Alice-in-Wonderland factory of his own design... and he loves it!

Gene Wilder, on the other hand, plays Willy Wonka like a frightening serial killer -- and/or a man about one frazzled hair away from a serious mental and emotional breakdown.


PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying this is a bad thing! As a matter of fact, I get a huge kick out of Gene Wilder's performance. It's like watching a Christopher Walken performance -- so inappropriate to any given situation, and therefore extremely fun an dattention-grabbing. You're constantly like, "What will he do next? Are we friends, or is he going to murder my family? Are we friends AND he's going to murder my family?"

Happy? Sad? Mentally peeling off your skin?Gene Wilder (apparently) decided that the reason Willy Wonka isn't bound by the rules of reality is that he's profoundly damaged. That's fine! If there's one thing you can't accuse Gene Wilder of in this film, it's "not being committed to the performance". He owns this performance of an internally broken, insane Willy Wonka, and we all love him for it.

That said, was it faithful to the book?



Well, that's a complicated answer. Having read Gene Wilder's autobiography (which I don't recommend, by the way, but that's a whole other review...) I feel that he strove to get a handle on the character and was faithful to that interpretation. Which doesn't necessarily mean it was faithful to the author's intention. Having read the Roald Dah's book now, I would actually not say that Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka was much like the Willy Wonka in the book, with the exception of saying a lot of the same things. On top of being insane, Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka seems somewhat melancholic, which simply didn't seem to be part of the equation where the book was concerned. In the end, then -- no, Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka is not a particularly faithful interpretation of the character. It might be faithful to what Gene Wilder extrapolated as an actor (and as a 1970's person, well versed with the psychoanalyst's couch and loopy 1960's emotion-based acting methods), but on a strict reading of the book, I really don't think that extrapolation was wholly accurate.

Other Notes...
I'm a little lukewarm on the character of Charlie in this film.

He always seems to have this expression on his face.Granted, he's the book's eponymous main character -- but, like in the book, once he gets to the factory he simply doesn't have much to do, other than "not behave badly". After finding the golden ticket, he's just an observer. The film (perhaps to combat this issue with the book) added a scene where Charlie breaks Mr. Wonka's rules and drinks "Fizzy Lifting Drink" (and almost gets ground up in a giant fan as a consequence). I can see why they did this -- it was to give Charlie SOMETHING TO DO, so that you don't forget that Charlie exists. That said, why was their solution to "Charlie needs something to do" to give him inexplicable disobedient behavior? (Especially when the whole story is about punishing children who act in a disobedient fashion?) Was it because all the other kids had a weakness of some kind, and it simply seemed balanced for Charlie to have a weakness, too? Or was it just lazy, sloppy writing that wasn't concerned about what was truthful for the characters or the author's intention?


WELL, the problem with going that route, of course, is that the screenplay was by ROALD DAHL, the author of the book. So I can't exactly say this scene wasn't the author's intention... but I also can't say that just because he wrote the screenplay that he had final say on what wound up in the film, so maybe he didn't even write this segment. So who knows? All I can say is that it didn't really work, but it happened, so... just try to ignore it, or something.

A Special Note on Grandpa Joe...
A lot of people don't like Charlie's Grandpa Joe in this movie (and when I say "a lot", type in "I hate Grandpa Joe" on Google sometime).



Makes sense. The way he's portrayed, he's a wholly healthy and able man who has lain in bed for twenty years, allowing Charlie's mother to work and slave for him, evidently out of sheer laziness. He finally hops out of bed because he claims Charlie's success with the golden ticket for himself -- and is personally responsible for the one bad thing in the film that Charlie does. I don't know if he came across as a jerk accidentally or on purpose -- but it happened, and people HATE GRANDPA JOE.

Does this hurt the movie? Well... yes and no. Yes, if the intention really was for us to like Grandpa Joe (and it does seem to be the intention). No, because it just kind of adds to the weird, unexpected, fractured quality of the film that makes it entertaining. So... let's all hate Grandpa Joe!

The Ending (SPOILERS)
***.... So, in the end, Charlie wins! After a somewhat inexplicable test of his character, Charlie is told that he wins the factory (which makes more sense in the book, because Willy Wonka admits in the book that he's actually quite old and needs someone to take over when he goes -- as opposed to Gene Wilder, who looks to be in his early thirties in this film, and his claim that he "can't go on forever" seems unecessarily dire and frightening) ...And then the movie ABRUPTLY ENDS. I was hoping, after reading the book, to drag this movie over the coals for just shutting down the story (probably for cost reasons)... only to discover that's basically what happens in the book, as well. So, I guess it's just kind of an unsatisfactory ending in general, because the author was intending to pick up immediately with a sequel (which he did, in book form - Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, which picks up exactly where the book left off - but this has, thusfar, not made it to film form.)***

Looks exciting... guess I have to read more BOOKS to find out what happens in it...Ultimately...
I like this movie. In intention it seems relatively faithful to the book, which is good. I like Gene Wilder's performance, even though it's as weird as all-get-out. I like the music and the set design (even though the chocolate river doesn't really And if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend watching it, as there's a ton of pop-culture references to it. But is it weird? Yes. Does it straight-up work as a movie? Hmm. If you're an adult, I would say this movie is an acquired taste. But it may be worth acquiring.


MOSTLY RECOMMENDED(Acquired Taste)

On My Shelf: Speed Racer (2008)

I was one of the handful of people who saw this movie in the theaters when it came out, as I hadn't yet become completely disillusioned by the movie industry and more or less went to see any movie that looked vaguely interesting (based on the principle that most of the movies I was going to see would be good. Oh, for those halcyon days!)



Plot: It's the future, where car racing is the most important sport in the world. Ten years ago, the eponymous Racer family's eldest son, Rex, tragically died amidst allegations of crookedness. Now, the younger brother, Speed, is old enough (and extremely talented enough) to take up his older brother's mantle as a race car driver. After an off-brand Tim Curry attempts to buy out the Racer family's business and (when rebuffed) plunges it into turmoil, Speed has to clear the family name and the reputation of the racing business by helping Inspector Detector take on the evil mega-corporation -- and by winning races, of course.

The Story
There's nothing wrong with the story of this movie, per se. In theory, it's a pretty simplistic, child-like plot (which makes sense, being based on a children's cartoon) but it's nothing an adult needs to feel embarrassed about watching. I should say, rather than calling it "simplistically" plotted, that it's clearly plotted. The film makes sense throughout -- with one minor exception. There is a point when Speed Racer takes part in a police-led plot to help another racer win a race (to encourage that racer to turn state's evidence on the crime bosses) -- and throughout that part, I'm thinking, "This doesn't make sense. It seems like this guy is buffaloing our heroes just so he can win this race." AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS. Which makes our heroes seem a little dumb because I don't know why that would never cross their minds. But outside of that particular instance, the story is pleasantly easy to understand without being so self-explanatory that there aren't any surprises. The "evil, Mega-Corporation" theme is a little tired nowadays, but it's okay for the purposes of the story.  It straddles the fence at becoming a general "big corporations are bad" kind of thing, but doesn't become an over-the-top "down-with-capitalism" kind of thing (thank goodness).

You can tell he's evil because he's British and likes to wear purple.
Visuals and Computer Effects
For a movie that is at least 75% green screens... the actors do an excellent job of performing in settings that don't really exist, looking at things that aren't really there. Also, the CGI is used artistically (like what was attempted in films like 300 and Sin City) -- to the general advantage of the film, rather than its detriment. What I'm attempting to get across is that they use it in such a way that things are supposed to look fake -- cartoonishly fake -- on purpose, to achieve an over-the-top, accentuated reality effect (unlike the way CGI is typically used in movies, where things are supposed to look real and instead look fake by accident).

For instance - when child Speed Racer first sees his future love interest,
the lights behind her are suddenly heart-shaped. It's cute!
This movie is an OVER-THE-TOP-COLOR AND MOVEMENT EXPLOSION. It's a feast for the eyes, but it might, potentially, be a bit too colorful -- so colorful that when they have a rare "dark" scene, you suddenly have a sense of relief wash over you and you aren't sure why.

"THANK HEAVENS!" cry your eyes.
But I really do have to credit the Wachowski Brothers (the guys behind this film, and the creators of the movie The Matrix) for painting a set of amazing visual pictures in this movie. It looks like a living cartoon, in the best possible way that could be interpreted.

Performances
This movie was well-cast and well-acted -- the characterization being just-fleshed-out enough that you don't feel like you're watching a one-dimensional cartoon character, but simple enough that you pretty much get the point about who everybody is without thinking about it too deeply. The one character that I can't really handle is Speed's younger brother, Spritle, whose presence is, for the most part, extremely grating. "I'M THE COMIC RELIEF CHARACTER! BWAAAAAP!"


I'm not really blaming the kid actor -- he did a fine job with what he was given. And considering what he was given was the charge of bringing this character from the cartoon to the big screen...



...It really was fine. I think the problem is just that Spritle (in general) is an extremely annoying character. Luckily, there is just little enough of him that it didn't substantially harm the movie. It just grates at a few key moments.

The Adaptation
One thing I really have to give the Wachowskis credit for is that they didn't take any element from the cartoon and go, "That part is too dumb to include in the movie." To use a small example -- the detective's name is "Inspector Detector". This is something that I could see a Hollywood adaptation going, "Okay, the lead character's name is Speed Racer and that's dumb enough -- but we're not having the detective called 'Inspector Detector'. Change his name to something less dumb!" No, they went ahead with every silly element from the cartoon and kept it "as-is" for the film. And that's fine! 

He even flings his arm around like he does on the cartoon.Honestly, in an adaptation of a cartoon, I would rather have them respect the source material (silly as it is) than have a subtle attitude of actually hating the source material (which I sense in most comic book movie adaptations. "I have to have Black Panther in a stupid black suit because I'm contractually obligated to have him look like his character from the comics -- but the contract didn't include the villains so I'm having The Claw just look like a regular person and I'm spelling his name Klaue and killing him off after five minutes because I HATE COMIC BOOKS AND COMIC CHARACTERS ARE STUPID!"). Whether or not you think the original Speed Racer cartoon *merits* respect is a whole other question -- but the Wachowskis definitely respect it.
The Main Problems
Although I have largely positive things to say about this movie -- it must be noted, the film was outlandishly expensive and completely bombed at the box-office. The reasons for this are two-fold:

1) Although it was technologically a good time to make a Speed Racer movie, I'm not sure it was the time in the sense of "fan demand" for a Speed Racer movie. If they were banking on billions of Speed Racer fans coming out of the woodwork to support the production -- it didn't happen. I have a suspicion they were totally banking on nostalgia to sell this movie -- but the original American fans of Speed Racer were children in the late 60's, early 1970's. The time to appeal to them would have been the mid to late eighties, when they were in their twenties and thirties (i.e. young adults with money to spend and beginning to have kids of their own) -- not in 2008, when they were in their 40's and 50's, and concerned with their jobs and paying off mortgages and their kids' graduation from high school and getting ready for the stock market to crash.

These guys, for some reason, didn't drop everything to rush out to see this movie.Too much time had passed and film execs simply couldn't bank on nostalgia -- they needed to work a whole lot harder on building a new audience instead -- and they simply didn't do it. All they did was throw it out there -- "Here's your Speed Racer movie!" and the world went, "... Um, why?" and went on with their lives.

2)  Possibly the biggest actual problem with this movie is that it's TWO AND A HALF HOURS LONG. When the main thrust of your movie is a simple plot about fast cars and bright colors -- YOU SIMPLY DON'T NEED THAT LONG TO TELL YOUR STORY IN. They could have greatly tightened up the film (I'm going to bet they could have cut out at least thirty minutes, if not forty, without harming the plot) and it would have been a better, more digestible film because of it.

Did we NEED Speed to remember every single crucial line from the movie during the home stretch at the end of the race?
No. Maybe just one or two crucial lines.And that's where the fact that they respected the source material begins to be a bad thing rather than a good thing -- because they loved it so much, they couldn't cut anything out. This isn't The Ten Commandments, folks -- we simply don't need two and a half hours for this story. It fiercely needed shortening.

Ultimately...
I like this movie. It's one of the better live-action adaptations of a cartoon that I've seen... if not one of the best. I think it's a fine movie and would have no problem showing it to small or even medium-sized children -- or adult-type people looking for bright, colorful, light entertainment. That said... the person I show it to will probably get distracted about half-way through and go do something else, because it's a major time investment for a piece of light entertainment, and I really have to fault the filmmakers for that. That said, this movie's heinous reputation is really not merited, and I think you should give it a shot. Just, maybe over a couple nights, rather than just one.

RECOMMENDED(With Reservations)

On My Shelf: The Cocoanuts (1929)

The Cocoanuts (sic) is a musical comedy... of sorts.




Plot: A guy (Groucho Marx) runs a failing hotel in Florida ("The Hotel de Cocoanut" [sic]) with his sidekick (Zeppo Marx). A young couple hangs around there -- and the girl's mother (Margaret Dumond) doesn't want the couple to be together because she thinks girls deciding for themselves who they should date is too "modern". There also is a crooked couple hanging about who are determined to steal Margaret Dumond's jewels. Then, two hobos show up (Chico and Harpo Marx) who want to steal everything in sight and cause general mischief but are basically good fellows. All of these stories come crashing together in a "plot" which is, for the most part, zany musical-comedy nonsense.

It's probably worth saying -- I really love The Marx Brothers, and their Paramount movies are my favorites. But The Cocoanuts doesn't really feel like one of those films for me; it was their first official* film, and "talkies" were extremely new at that point (in fact, movies were still kind of new at that point), so The Cocoanuts is... odd.

Things!"Odd" as in, "doesn't seem to flow the way movies are supposed to flow". "Odd" as in, "feels like a stage show that somebody just set up a camera and filmed" (because it essentially is). "Odd" as in... kind of feels like it takes place in another world.



I suppose you could say that it basically does take place in another world -- the prelapsarian world of the roaring twenties, before WWII and the Great Depression. The movie will be 90 years old next year, after all. But "another world" simply isn't even going far enough; The Cocoanuts feels like it takes place in another dimension. People move and speak strangely. People have odd expressions on their faces. They say bizarre things in odd, flat tones. The pacing is completely off; the musical numbers range from the sickly-sweet to the bizarrely non sequitur and weird; the attitudes are positively quaint; and the film (even this "remastered" edition) drifts in and out of focus, giving the picture, for a good part, a cloudy, dreamlike quality.

Did I mention that the main direction for the actors seemed to be "stand in a straight line and try not to move"?Not to mention that, for fans of the Marx Brothers, this film includes troublingly little Marx Brothers, focusing a great deal on the sub-plots of the supporting cast -- the star-crossed lovers, the rich old dowager, and the criminal couple who want to steal the gems. Not to mention placing extreme emphasis on the music as opposed to the comedy. Chico and Harpo themselves (i.e. half the team) don't show up until THIRTY MINUTES into this 93-minute film. Zeppo is barely present, and Groucho doesn't give his most staggeringly funny performance; his dialogue, although officially zany, seems both overly-rehearsed and under-prepared (probably due to the fact that he had been doing this show on stage for quite some time at the point they filmed this -- and I seem to recall that while this movie was being filmed, they were simultaneously performing a new show on stage, which can't have helped matters as far as "line remembering" goes). The shortcomings of the main cast might be forgivable if the supporting cast was great, but, ahem, let's just say these would be "local television commercial quality" performances (if such a thing had existed in those days).

At times the film is as action-packed as... this photo.When I was a child, I watched this movie and went, "It's not like the other Marx Brothers movies I've seen," and essentially dismissed it from my world until ... Well, I have to admit it, until this year when I got the set of newly remastered Paramount BluRays and decided I'd better watch it, just to make sure it worked, and to see what "remastered" meant with regards to this famously poor-quality film.

To my surprise... I rather enjoyed it, in an odd kind of way.



The film still has a lot of issues (the in-and-out-of-focus issue being just one of many that even computer magic couldn't fix). But in the end, the film's poor technical quality (and odd balance, and odd performances, and odd music, and odd EVERYTHING) just adds to the extremely ethereal feeling of watching it. That "feeling like you're watching something in another dimension" feeling is unexpectedly appealing. The musical numbers (Irving Berlin!) are pleasing and innocent. There are moments of touching sweetness.


And, of course, during the rare moments that the Marx Brothers are on camera, they are fun to watch -- and, for the Marx fan, definitely worth checking out, although they don't constitute the bulk of the film.

How quaint is this movie? The cast waves goodbye to us at the end. Ultimately...
This film is worth checking out -- not only because it's now reached "historical" status, but because it's pleasant to watch. Don't expect it to feel as mad-cap (and quick-paced) as one of their later movies, like Horse Feathers -- in fact, I would encourage you to go into it in a somewhat meditative frame of mind, and mentally prepared for long stretches of weird quietness with no present Marx brothers.  SPECIAL NOTE: I would strongly discourage people who haven't seen any Marx brothers movies from considering this as if it was a representative sample of the Marx Brother films. If you want to know what Marx Brothers movies are generally like, check out Monkey Business. The Cocoanuts is its own thing -- deserving of a place on the shelf -- but, like the archaic spelling of its title, something of a unique experience in this day and age, and worth having a look at.

RECOMMENDED(Somewhat Acquired Taste)
* As it turns out, the Marx Brothers did, in fact, make a movie prior to The Cocoanuts: the silent, and now-lost-to-time, Humor Risk (which, if the play on the word humoresque is any indication of the comedy therein... maybe it's okay that it vanished off the face of the earth about a hundred years ago.)

Off My Shelf: Mortal Kombat (1995)

As everybody knows, the history of basing movies on popular video games has yielded a rich crop of delightful, quality films.

Or not.



Plot: Several people with fighting skills (a guy who wants revenge for the death of his brother; a lady who is also a secret agent of some kind; and a famous movie star) are invited to fight in a big tournament somewhere in Asia. The bad guys hopes they will lose so he can eat their souls (like you do). Terrible 90's era CGI monsters also fight. The good guys hope they will win. The end.

It goes without saying that there have been very, very few good movies based on video games. Something about the content either just doesn't translate well to the big screen -- or perhaps the people making them are just so ashamed to be making a movie based on a children's video game that they feel compelled to turn the content into something it was never meant to be (see: Super Mario Brothers: The Movie. The filmmakers decided that the cute, colorful video game about a little man who bounces around on mushrooms should be re-imagined as Blade Runner. Needless to say... a lot of little kids were not only disappointed, but really, really confused.)

So, of course, Hollywood thought it would be a great idea to base a movie on the game "Mortal Combat" -- a game which is random people competing in a martial arts competition. The movie could easily have played out exactly like Van Damme's movie Blood Sports (about a bunch of random people who are called to fight in a big martial arts competition somewhere in Asia) -- or the Bruce Lee movie, Enter the Dragon (about a bunch of random people who fight in a big martial arts competition somewhere in Asia). And, I suppose, in a way it does play out like those movies... just, with dumb, 90's era jokes and with extremely poor actors in the lead roles.

The Main Problem
The main problem with this movie, as you might have gathered from my comments above, was the actors. Basically, it was a nice looking movie, and it seemed like most of their funds and attention were put into the design of the sets, which were creative and colorful.

But THOSE ACTORS.

I hate to personally insult the performance that an actor gives, as there are so many factors that can contribute to a poor performance... But THEY WERE ALL TERRIBLE. Okay, of our main characters...


They were all just plain cheesy-bad. They came across as low-quality television actors. Granted, the dialogue they had to say was, for the most part, low-quality television-style dialogue. But I want to reserve special abuse for the man in the top row... actor Christopher Lambert... because he has been in real movies and one could have expected slightly better of him.


He's been okay in other things -- for instance, the movie version of Highlander -- but in this, as "Raiden, God of Thunder" he's inexplicably doing a consistently terrible impression of Splinter.


When you're casting a European type to play an Asian-type character, there are probably going to be some issues of some nature. But PLEASE DON'T EXACERBATE THOSE ISSUES by a) not giving your lead character any Asian makeup whatsoever (in other words, he just looks like a big ol' European squarehead) and then having your lead character do a weird, stilted, stagey Asian accent. It just didn't work and it elevated this movie from mediocre-bad to head-slapping-bad.

The Rest of the Film
That said... I'm not going to tell you not to watch this movie. Oh, like I said -- lots of questionable choices were made -- but it actually moves along pretty well. As I said, the set designer seemed to put a lot of effort into their job, so (if nothing else) it's very colorful and interesting to look at. AND, might I add, they put real effort into animatronics and puppetry! You have to respect that kind of effort in an age where CGI had already taken such a strong foothold.

Not computer effects!
THAT SAID, they also had awful-looking early CGI. It is utterly shameful.

An actual thing in this movie.
The plot is super dumb, and (as repeatedly mentioned) the acting is just plain bad -- add that to decent production values and interesting things to look at, plus BAD things to look at and questionable effects -- and these things combine making it pleasantly silly to watch.

Ultimately
This is not, by any means, a great movie. Do not watch this expecting quality filmmaking, good performances, or a plot you can shake a stick at. (Shaking anything at this movie is not recommended). That said, if you're in the mood to riff on a crappy film -- which isn't entirely terrible to look at, and moves along well enough, but has enough puzzling creative choices to keep you guessing -- this is probably a good choice! The one thing I can't speak to is whether or not fans of the game Mortal Kombat would enjoy this film, as I've never actually played it myself. That said, Mr. Hall has played it, and he says that (considering the source) the film sincerely attempted to do a faithful adaptation of the game.

RECOMMENDED(With Reservations)

Off My Shelf: Black Panther (2018)

I hate to break this to you, especially since it seems like the whole world disagrees with me… but Black Panther just wasn’t very good.






Plot: There is a hidden, super-advanced civilization in Africa, ruled by superhero King Black Panther! He has just taken over being King after his dad died — and his first action after assuming the throne is going after some guy (Andy Serkis) who apparently stole some of the magic metal from the kingdom. Eye-paining vagueness ensues.
Visuals
I have a major visual complaint with a lot of of this movie. They put a blue wash over this film (a blue wash which was not included in the trailers, I might add) which washed out the color and made it murky and ugly. I mean, literally, I could not see what was happening during fight scenes because it was so muddy. It’s hard to get wrapped up in the doings of your black-suited hero if you literally can’t see him because he blends into the scenery.

How Michael B. Jordan's uniform looked in the movie. How Michael B. Jordan's uniform COULD HAVE LOOKED if the color in the film hadn't been a washed-out mess.
It was the exact problem in the movie I just talked about, The Lost World — a vague, murky mess with vague dinosaur shapes in it. A good portion of this movie is a vague, murky mess with super hero shapes in it. The parts that take place in daylight are easier to make out — but the blue wash over everything makes the movie pretty visually unappealing. Watching this movie literally made my eyes hurt.


The Story
So, our hero takes his team to go and capture some guy (aka Andy Serkis) because reasons. Then Martin Freeman gets injured so, rather than one member of the team taking him back to the magic kingdom for medical assistance, the ENTIRE TEAM TAKES HIM HOME, rather than the rest of the heroes pursuing the villain (as would make the most sense).

  Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis looking thrilled about their roles.Then, it turns out that our hero’s Dad did something pretty inexplicably unkind in his past — giving Michael B. Jordan (the other villain) a pretty justifiable reason for being a villain — which undercuts the heroism of our main characters, and undercuts you wanting him to be defeated, even though his character is really just a big dumb thug. The movie attempts to be socially-just and political in parts, but didn’t even get a theme going in that area — the overall “moral” of the film was confused at best, throwing in a few social-justice buzzwords and ultimately not achieving a point. In other words, the plot was just as murky and muddy as the visuals of the film. Very disappointing. I have no idea why this movie is getting such rave reviews, other than people are afraid to say that they don’t like it for fear of being called racists.

The Black Panther
One of the biggest problems with this movie is that the T’Challa (our hero, aka Black Panther, aka actor Chadwick Boseman) simply isn’t interesting. He comes across as benign and excruciatingly dull, even when he’s upset and flipping around and fighting people with his high-tech panther suit.

This is pretty much the expression on his face through the whole movie.

I’m not sure whether to blame the actor or the script — maybe both? I would say it was the script — because he doesn’t have a lot of interesting things to say or do, and his emotional angst at certain points comes across as manufactured and nonsensical — but the actor himself simply doesn’t exude the kind of magnetism that makes you want to watch him. You take an actor like Hugh Jackman, or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and you put them in a dull movie with only boring things to say, and if you by some misfortune find yourself compelled to watch that dull movie — your eyes are going to be glued to The Rock or Hugh Jackman the whole time, because whether or not the movie is good, The Rock and Hugh Jackman are interesting to watch. When I suffered through the hot, boring mess that was Journey 2 — I hated the lines The Rock had, I hated his character, I was embarrassed to see him being forced to ride giant bees — but I enjoyed seeing The Rock. Whenever he was on screen, I was watching him.

However, whether it was the poor script or poor Chadwick, the effect is the same — whenever he was on the screen, it was snore-time. (In point of fact, I wasn’t actually sleeping — but I did spend most of the film holding my head because the horrible, washed-out color scheme was giving me a severe headache).


Other Characters
The other characters in this film weren’t much better. We had Forrest Whittaker who has apparently started a career as “venerable and boring old man who gets killed off after five minutes” (much like the character he played in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story who got killed off after five minutes). We had a love interest who wasn’t very interesting. We had a younger sister of the hero who was also a GENIUS SCIENTIST AND SUPER SASSY (in other words, annoying). We had Martin Freeman… and I’m not sure why. He was kind of the “wimpy, comic-relief” character — except he wasn’t wimpy and wasn’t all that comic. What purpose did his character serve, really? (Other than being a cheap plot device at one point, because he got injured on their behalf and they decided they all had to transport him to safety rather than ONE OF THEM transporting him to safety and the rest of them accomplishing their goal…) But seriously, he could have been completely cut out of the movie, someone else could have got injured, and it might have been a better, more concise film. (Maybe the production company was just scared that white people wouldn't watch a movie with African American protagonists. Film studios have a history of not giving the viewing public very much credit.)

Funnily enough, these pictures embody my feelings while watching this movie, especially the guy in the top middle.
We had “strong, royal guard woman” who might have been the most interesting character in the movie because she a) was brave, b) had the strength of her convictions, and c) had actual internal conflict that made sense… but, alas, she was only a minor supporting character, and not enough to save the movie. We had Michael B. Jordan (a young actor I quite like and look forward to seeing in more films) playing a villain who was more of a jerk than anything else. We also had a villain played by Andy Serkis — who was startlingly buff in this movie, but that’s about it. (I was disappointed in him. I thought he was going to be the main villain, and then for reasons I won’t explain he disappears about half-way through, and that’s it. Could have been any random thug. An actor with an expressive face like him was absolutely wasted in this movie.) In fact, that’s what I have to say about all the actors in this movie, Michael B. Jordan, Forrest Whitaker and Martin Freeman included — they were wasted.


A Note on Costumes
Andy Serkis played a villain from the comics. He LOOKED NOTHING LIKE THE CHARACTER FROM THE COMICS THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYING …
Left, his look from the comics. Right, his look in the movie.

…Which isn’t Andy Serkis’ fault, but is the fault of the filmmakers.  Even Black Panther himself spent astonishingly little time ACTUALLY WEARING HIS COSTUME. This serves as further evidence that these filmmakers, even though they may have accepted the fact that they have to make superhero movies, SECRETLY HATE THAT THEY ARE MAKING SUPER HERO MOVIES (and hate to have the hero and villain in their actual costumes because in their eyes it looks so “silly and unrealistic!”).


Ultimately…
I was going to say that at least this movie had an “interesting, promising premise” — but it really didn’t. The idea of a hidden, super-advanced civilization with a superhero for a king is more of a situation than a premise — only skin deep. Once the situation was set up, they didn’t have anywhere to go with it. It more or less succeeded in being a movie, as it more or less had a beginning, a middle and an end — but ultimately it was extraordinarily dull, lazily plotted, filled with all manner of film cliches, and literally painful to look at.

Obviously, this film is...

NOT RECOMMENDED

On My Shelf: The Lost World - Jurassic Park (1997)

One could debate a lot about the respective merits of the film Jurassic Park. It’s widely considered a classic, but upon observation, some things might be slightly lacking.  Don't get upset: it's just a possibility.
But with The Lost World, you really don’t have to look that hard. 

  Plot: It’s been a few years since Jurassic Park had its major PR disaster. John Hammond inexplicably wants to send a team of people to his second Jurassic Park island to protect the dinosaurs that are inexplicably still surviving there. He inexplicably tricks Ian Malcolm into going by sending his paleontologist girlfriend ahead of him. Ian inexplicably, accidentally(and highly negligently) brings his daughter on this EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND POINTLESS MISSION TO DO NOTHING. Then later they go home and a T-Rex escapes and roams around California, and it, too, is kind of pointless and inexplicable. 
Nothing But Trouble This movie is so full of problems, it’s hard to know where to start. Can I say that this movie has anything going for it?... I suppose it has dinosaurs in it. That’s about it. 

Pictured: Dinosaurs. But even they aren't very appealing looking.
Plot Mess The plot is hideously messy — and I don’t mean that in a “dinosaurs tearing people apart” sense, but in a “this movie didn’t seem to understand how plots work” sense.  The reason people return to the island feels very feeble — you just can’t get it out of your mind that “just figuring out why the dinosaurs haven’t died despite being bred to be lysine deficient” ISN’T A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO SEND A TEAM OF PEOPLE IN HARM’S WAY. Makes millionaire John Hammond seem like kind of a thoughtless jackass who learned nothing from his experiences in the first film.  There are people in this movie.
...They mostly don't look like actors.
For another thing, the movie feels like it’s over about halfway through — when our heroes escape plunging over a cliff — but it just keeps going. That’s when OTHER people arrive on the island and we’re treated to another inexplicably large and extremely unattractive group of people — none of whom feel like real characters, and none of whom we like or care about. They spend a lot of time milling around and playing with dinosaurs.  
There’s a segment in this part that really captures the ultimate problem with the movie. We’re treated to that one guy from Fargo being attacked by the new star dinos for this film — the “compy”. Well, he’s attacked by a group of them and scares them away. Then he walks ten feet further away — and they chase him down and kill him. It’s a really long and strange segment, because a) we don’t know who this guy is. B) We don’t care that he’s being attacked by dinosaurs. C) I guess we’re supposed to see this as some kind of ironic justice because he was mean to one of the little compies earlier, but it was such an insignificant moment between unimportant, dull characters — who even remembers? So the scene just comes across as (as I said) long and strange, and oddly mean, like Steven Spielberg was really enjoying seeing this character killed in a horrible way. This isn’t Dennis Nedry from the first movie (a slimy jerk who put everyone in harm’s way so that he could make a quick buck) — this is JUST SOME GUY. Why are we reveling in his torment? 

He came from nowhere and went to nothing, and was really ugly, boring and unappealing in the meantime. AND THAT IS THIS MOVIE IN A NUTSHELL. 

Pictured: Compies attacking a small child. In later editions of
the film, they have all been changed into cell phones.
Okay, to get back to the overall plot — the movie feels like it ends AGAIN 2/3rds of the way through when our heroes (and antagonists) finally escape the Jurassic island to make their way back to the mainland — and YET THE MOVIE GOES ON. That’s when we get to the reason the movie was made — getting to see a dinosaur rampage through a modern city. (Well, I guess, if you want to be technical, the real reason that this movie was made was that Jurassic Park made a billion trillion dollars and so a sequel was rushed out as hastily as humanly possible. Which always means you’re going to get a quality product, right?) The dinosaur rampages… and then is pretty easily defeated (if you call “getting to go home scot-free” a defeat).  
Characters The very first problem with this movie is that Ian Malcolm is the protagonist. Don’t get me wrong — I enjoy him in the first movie. But the problem is, his character is only strong enough to be exposition/comic relief — like he was in the first movie. The very first shot of him in this film, he’s yawning (Spielberg tried to pull an Alfred Hitchcock and cut from a woman screaming to Ian Malcolm yawning. I’m sure this moment had good intentions, but it comes across as a very lame visual joke. Regardless…) this sets the tone for the entire film — inappropriate and boring. Ian Malcolm, after coming across as very smart, attractive (in a heavy-handed, sleazy kind of way) and cool in the first film, in this film looks as though he hasn’t slept in a week and has nothing fun or interesting to say. The only thing I can say in his defense in this movie is that he apparently drives a nice car and apparently has no issues with miscegenation. And the weirdest part of all is, after they leave the island 2/3rds of the way through the film, it’s hard to think what else he does in the movie besides delivering a couple smug one-ups near the end of the film. It’s like the movie forgot he was the lead character. 
 In fact, nobody in this movie really feels like the lead character — it feels like a film full of supporting characters with no clear focus on the lead. 
They seemed at one point to be setting up some kind of conflict between Ian Malcolm and his daughter… which develops into big fat nada. They seem to be setting up some kind of conflict between Ian and his unlikeable girlfriend (her being unlikeable is also a large problem, since she’s the female protagonist) — and this also develops into precisely zilch. They seem to be setting up some kind of character arc for John Hammond’s son/stepson/son-in-law (I don’t know which he was and don’t remember his name — the British guy who looks like Bob Balaban, okay?) — and, although it seems to pay off at one point, he also ultimately learns no lessons and (outside of being eaten by a dinosaur) ends the movie pretty much where he started.  
Vince Vaughn is in this movie. I don’t know why, because he doesn’t do a whole lot, and disappears 2/3rds of the way through the film. 
Only one person in the team feels like an actual character — a big game hunter with an extreme facial bone structure — who is also the only person with an arc. 2/3rds of the way through the movie, he discovers he’s “had enough death” or something like that, and goes home. (In other words, he was a character with a clear goal that he set out to achieve — but, in the course of the story, he realized that while he could achieve it, he had no desire to do so. In other words, the story advanced for this character). AND HE, THE ONLY CHARACTER WITH AN ARC, IS NEVER SEEN AGAIN AFTER THAT POINT IN THE STORY. 

Visuals
I'd also like to take the chance to just say -- the visuals in this movie are ALSO extremely unappealing. When I think back to the colors this movie evokes in my memory -- all I have in my mind is a dark, muddy mess. 

Maybe this movie would be better if I just closed my eyes?
Actually, I'd probably get the best results if I plugged up my
ears as well.Ultimately...This is a bad movie. Tonally it's a mess, character-wise it's a mess, and story-wise -- it's a mess. It's even visually unattractive. It comes across as a badly-thought-out cash-grab that Speilberg purposefully made ugly and terrible because he didn't want to be doing a sequel. I'm sure you've already guessed it, but my final pronouncement is...
NOT RECOMMENDED

On My Shelf: Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

There are a handful of movies that I like to watch in that period of the year after Christmas, when it’s still winter — and this is one of them.



Plot: Jeremiah Johnson, a man who we know little to nothing about, goes up into the mountains in the 1800’s to become a “mountain man” (i.e. to trap fur, and live off the land). He’s not very good at it initially, but learns lessons from other mountain men and picks up some friends and family. Then he runs afoul of an Indian tribe, and THAT’S WHEN THINGS BEGIN TO SERIOUSLY GO WRONG.

This was not the first time I’ve watched the film Jeremiah Johnson. In fact, I’ve seen the film numerous times… but I want to say that the last time I watched it, I was a pre-teen, so we’re talking somewhere in the region of twenty to thirty years since the last time I saw it. THUS, I’d say it’s fair to say that I was seeing this film with new eyes. As a kid, I found the movie rather depressing — and, it must be said, largely missed the point and all the subtext. So, although we picked up a copy of it a couple years back, I’ve been avoiding watching it, because I generally don’t like to be depressed. But, I only have a small group of proper “winter but not Christmas” movies, so it seemed like a good time to revisit this film and see if my childhood assessment of it still stood.

So, let’s just get it right out there — in spite of the fact that it has content I would normally consider “too depressing to enjoy”, this movie is exceptionally good.

Story and Tone
What’s the movie about? Well, it’s about Jeremiah Johnson, the historical figure (obviously) — but in a large sense, it’s a story about survival. A man pushed to the utter limits, physically and emotionally, and living on, regardless. It’s so sad, so terrible, so tragic, so painful — and yet, ultimately, kind of uplifting in a “triumph of human stubbornness”, “determination to survive” kind of way. Jeremiah Johnson (in the film) was pushed to the edge — and yet, he lived.


Mr. Hall says I should talk about the “violence” in the movie. Yes, there is a lot of violence in the film, but it’s not gratuitous “violence for the sake of violence”; in a way, it’s often very understated, which makes it all the more shocking and horrifying. The tone of the film is expertly crafted.

Performance
Robert Redford is so good. He’s convincing as the young, inept version of Jeremiah Johnson who first arrives in the snowy woods in the mountains — and he’s convincing as the older, beaten-down Jeremiah Johnson, pushed to the limits of his endurance — and yet, still alive, never giving up. He gives a great performance, as well as a stunningly detailed performance — Robert Redford is riding horses, he’s messing with (real) dead animals, and all in the snow (REAL SNOW; no coconut flakes for him. The film looks like it was utterly grueling to film).
 

Of course, all the other actors in this movie (of which there are only a handful; basically, is a tour-de-force of Robert Redford) give great performances, too. I can’t point at a single actor in this movie who seemed mis-cast or didn’t seem to be giving it their all.

Music
The music is… um. Well, let’s just say that it’s the one part of the movie that feels like it’s from the era that the movie came from. Oh, it’s not terrible — it’s fine — and it doesn’t hurt the film. After the initial song, I didn’t even notice it. But as soon as I heard the opening song, I was like, "Oh, so this movie is from the 70's, eh?"

 "The Ballad of Jeremiah Johnson"
Not that there is a lot of music in this movie — and other than the handful of songs, the soundtrack is nature and silence. The silence is appropriate, as this movie is about raw, painful reality; the reality of being out in the snow, in the cold, trying desperately to start a fire so that you don’t DIE. Because if you fail to start a fire, you will die. But you might die anyway because you failed to catch a fish to eat. And then you will probably die anyway because snow just fell on your fire and put it out. Did I mention you are going to die?

SPOILERS and Historical Context
Some hideously horrifying stuff happens in this movie, but — for the history buffs amongst you — I will spoil one thing: the actual historical Jeremiah Johnson was known as “Liver-Eating” Johnson due to his (reported) penchant for eating his enemies’ livers, and this does not happen in the movie. (His enemies [Native Americans of the “Crow” persuasion] believed that they needed their livers intact in order to successfully achieve the after-life, so there was a “method to his madness”, as they say. FYI, he wasn’t just eating Crow livers to be a jerk, and it wasn’t that he disliked Native Americans as a whole (quite the opposite); there was a matter of the Crow tribe murdering his family over some perceived slight that launched the whole debacle. Now, the family murdering does happen in the movie — as does the war between Jeremiah Johnson and the entire Crow tribe — but no liver-eating.
The historical man. Somehow... the name suits him.So, I suppose I could complain that the movie, therefore, is historically inaccurate. But I’m not going to complain. I do realize that movies have to abbreviate material (especially when their material is a person’s entire life) in order to tell a story within the length of a normal film. And as far as leaving out the “liver-eating” detail… I would suggest this was probably a good call on their part; Jeremiah Johnson comes off as more heroic and determined, and less insane and disgusting, as a result.

Ultimately
Well, my summing-up here shouldn’t come as any surprise based on the rest of the review… I think this movie is well-acted, looks great, feels great, and (despite featuring a rather 70’s-sounding theme song and not going as gruesome as the movie could have gone)… feels more realistic than many “realistic” movies that I’ve seen. It’s also disturbing — and, whether you like it or not, it will stick with you, and you’ll might just have a bit more respect for the determination of the people who settled the West.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED