Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog, page 4

On My Shelf: Eraserhead (1977) (And an Extended Twin Peaks Rant)

So, in preparation for watching the last few episodes of Twin Peaks: The Return (aka Season 3)... We decided to do some other David Lynch viewing, and watched the movie Eraserhead.


First off, I'd like to say that I have avoided watching this movie (despite owning it) for a couple years, based on one of my relatives telling me that it was "kind of a downer." I tend not to enjoy downers (who is in the mood to get purposefully depressed? Not me!) so I put it off. After watching it, though, I was like, "Was that a downer? I can't actually tell."


The Plot: A sad, desperate man in an ugly world full of ugly sounds finds out he has impregnated his girlfriend (who has since given birth to something "they aren't sure is a baby"). He passively marries her at her parents' behest, and takes her and the "baby" home. (The "baby" is a mass of bandages with a head like a fetal calf). Initially, he escapes into a fantasy world (where a woman with massive papier-mache cheeks who lives inside his radiator sings to him) and is happy, but immediately things take a turn for the worse and the "baby" is disgusting and weird -- and then some stuff happens and it's really unclear what's going on. (Okay. When I say the ending is unclear, I'm not saying I didn't get what happened -- I'm saying I didn't get whether or not what happened was in our main character's mind or in reality -- or whether there is any distinction in this movie between the two.) ...The end?
Why does she have giant papier-mache cheeks? Who knows?By the way -- that description I gave above, vague as it is, is wholly open to interpretation. It's very unclear in this movie how many of the things in it actually happen and how many of them are just inside our protagonist's head. (And that's why I state that I'm not clear on whether this movie is a downer or not. If you take things a certain way - totally! If you take things another way -- it's not a downer at all.) The one thing that is certain is that David Lynch doesn't like living in the city, because he portrays it as a disgusting, dirty place full of constant horrible, metallic sounds.

Oh, and it's full of weird, upsetting people, too.It's very hard to apply traditional cinematic rules to this movie. Well, some of them, anyway -- mainly "storytelling" rules. From a traditional filmmaking perspective, I can say that this movie is that it's a well-made movie that clearly a painstaking amount of effort went into.

This scene just might give you an idea what you canexpect from this movie.
I can also say that your average Joe in the street (you know, the same Joe who poured all that money into Michael Bay's Transformers movies) probably isn't going to enjoy this film. That's not a criticism of Joe; he likes what he likes, and that's his prerogative -- but I can tell you, Eraserhead will probably not be an enjoyable experience for him.

I can also say, from one perspective, that I enjoyed watching it (because it was clever, strange, original and memorable, beautifully shot and full of truly remarkable, evocative sound design) and I can say from another perspective that I did not enjoy watching it (because it was also at times disgusting, unsettling, and painful).

So.... Do I like this movie?

Yes and no.

Do I recommend this movie?
Yes.... and no.

In truth, it's probably a bad time for me to be reviewing this movie. Having just finished Twin Peaks: The Return (aka Season 3)... I'm kind of upset at David Lynch stuff right now. I can't tell you why I'm upset at him (without spoiling the ending of the show for you)... SUFFICE IT TO SAY, I'm upset with him for some of the same reasons folks were mad at him over Fire Walk With Me.

My face, when people say, "The end of Twin Peaks was so artistic!
It was exactly what I wanted!"(...In that, since Season Two of Twin Peaks ended with a cliffhanger, people were hoping that Fire Walk With Me would continue the story and give them some closure. Turns out, Fire Walk with Me was a prequel that only explained things that had already been thoroughly explained on the show already... so, in other words...
Fans, left -- David Lynch, right.Well, The Return isn't a prequel, but, anybody hoping for closure -- that maybe, just maybe, the wound could finally be sewn closed and heal up -- is not only going to have to sit through a bunch of interminable waits in the emergency room, but have the dressing ripped off the wound, and have that followed by several half-hearted attempts at sewing it shut followed by tearing it open a bit wider and the doctor inviting random children to spit into it and jam sawdust in it.)

Does that metaphor make sense? It probably got too complicated. What I'm trying to say is that many parts of The Return were really good and really enjoyable -- but many parts of it also felt like they were edited with no sense of timing or pacing, and there was enough pointless fluff (I mean, stuff that literally did nothing and went nowhere) in the show to make you scream; especially in the middle of the run, and especially in the final episode.

Plus, I now have to endure a lot of extremely pretentious people talking about how "great" and "artistic" it was -- and how anybody who was left unsatisfied better go back to their precious Michael Bay Transformers movies for something a little bit more their speed.

I'm not going to say the new season didn't have its moments, but depending on how it is interpreted, the final episode either leaves us with a very interesting question -- or basically just renders everything else we just watched a moot point. If we're going to get a season four, that's one thing, but David Lynch did already give us the extremely unsatisfactory Fire Walk With Me as a terminal chapter to the show, so this might just be it. In which case --

Fans, left -- David Lynch, right. In case you can't quite tell,
he first delivers a stone-cold stunner, then flips us off.... But, oh, Eraserhead. Yeah, that thing.

I will say, after watching Eraserhead, some parts of Twin Peaks: The Return that had previously been kind of inexplicable actually do feel like scenes from Eraserhead. (EPISODE EIGHT. When you have seen both Eraserhead and episode 8, you will know what I mean).


Like Eraserhead, episode 8 was in black and white, and had a lot of very weird imagery.
However, unlike episode eight of Twin Peaks: The Return, Eraserhead comparatively
moves along pretty well and has a clear narrative structure. As I mentioned, right now my opinion of everything David Lynch is colored by my annoyance with that very final episode of Twin Peaks. Maybe, over the coming days, things will change, as I read interpretations of the final episode and the series as a whole and people point out things that I missed... but not right now.

And I guess, for "film literacy" reasons alone you should probably watch Eraserhead -- and appreciate all the many things it did right. Not to mention the fact that this movie is 40 years old now, made in the 70's, but could be a brand-new movie in its timeless weirdness and sheer filmmaking quality. So, watch Eraserhead if you can handle really, really weird movies, and want to get a bunch of oblique pop-culture references that have been made in the ensuing years. (But, it's probably not going to be the casual movie-watcher's cup of tea.)

(And, if, like me, you're kind of upset with David Lynch right now, maybe you should give it some time before you watch this...)

RECOMMENDED(With Reservations).

TWO Much TV! Summertime Viewing Summary (On and Off My Shelf) PART II

As I said in the previous post... we watched a lot of TV this Summer, so my movie-viewing was slacking a bit. Here's more of what we watched when we weren't watching movies...


Twin Peaks: The Return (aka Season Three)
On the off-chance that you're not familiar with the original Twin Peaks, and not wanting to spoil anything for you, I won't go much into this here (although I could probably write a whole post, or two, or three, about this topic). At my writing this, we are two episodes from finishing the run... and I have extremely mixed feelings about the show.


First of all -- my mixed feelings are not about the performances, or the actors, or cinematography, or anything like that. (That's all been good, even when it's not; clearly, even actors who are bad at acting were chosen with care specifically due to their bad acting skills...) The first four episodes of the show were solid; solid enough to get us excited and get us to buy a subscription to Showtime in order to watch it. But then, the middle episodes were a constant back-and-forth, up-and-down experience (with some really good episodes and some really, really bad, waste-of-time episodes)... it was so drawn out that it was painful, and I was honestly dreading watching it each week. And now, three episodes to the ending, I can say confidently that the last couple episodes have been good, but now it feels terribly rushed. Finally we're getting to see things involving our favorite characters from Twin Peaks. Finally a Very Important Character has come back. But at this point, I do have to say my overall feeling is that the bulk of the show has editing and pacing issues. And as Mr. Hall put it, "It's like all this other stuff in the series [i.e. the 16 episodes leading up to this point] was just set-up for a two-hour Twin Peaks reunion show."

UPDATE: I have now watched the last two episodes of Twin Peaks. The second-to-last was quite enjoyable. The final episode proves that either a) they are planning a fourth season, or b) David Lynch despises and disdains his fans. I'm really leaning towards the latter. If he's not planning on a fourth season, I'm really unsure, now, whether I want to recommend this show.

Recommended... WITH BIG RESERVATIONS (about pacing and editing and content. And ONLY recommended for fans of the original series. People who try to hop into this season with both feet without having seen the original show will absolutely unable to follow what's happening.)
↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔
Fargo - Season 2
Initially, I actually liked Fargo Season 2 a bit better than Season 1. It makes the interesting choice of going back in time about twenty-something years, to the 70's, and dealing with some of the same people (or their parents) and many of the situations that set up season one.


There were more characters that were actual likeable people, and the scenario was intriguing. I liked the acting; I really enjoyed getting to see Kirsten Dunst again, as an insane housewife (after basically not seeing her at all between this and Spider-Man 3); I enjoyed Ted Danson as an elderly sheriff; and I really enjoyed Jean Smart's performance as a grim, Germanic matriarch. However, ultimately I felt the show suffered from the same major flaw as season one -- too many unlikeable characters, and the ending was anticlimactic. I don't know if I really care to see Season 3 at this point (in spite of the fact of an intriguing Ewan McGregor dual-role) because both season one and season two were let-downs for me!

Recommended... WITH STRONG RESERVATIONS. (Most of the show was very enjoyable but the ending was a wet fish!)
⇹⇹⇹⇹⇹⇹
Lovejoy - Season 2
The second season of Lovejoy is an improvement on the first (as far as tone and consistency) -- but drops off a lot in storytelling. Every episode we've watched, so far, as been a variation on "Lovejoy helps poor old people". Granted, it's nice to see the nice side of Lovejoy -- but it's also fun to see his ruthless, crooked side, and I don't feel there has been enough of that.


The weird thing, though, about the difference between season one and season two is that the first season took place in the mid 1980's -- and the second season doesn't pick up again until the nineties. There's a weird change in tone there. I still really like the character and the setting, though, so I'm not quite sure what to say about this. Ultimately, I probably just need to finish this season before passing judgement on it.

NO RECOMMENDATION EITHER WAY. THE JURY IS OUT.



⇹⇹⇹⇹⇹⇹

Danger 5 - Season 2
Danger 5's second season is a weird, funny departure from the first season; as I previously mentioned, the first season is a pastiche of WWII movies, foreign movies, and 1960's spy/action shows. Well, the second season takes place in the 1980's: after winning WWII, the Danger 5 team disbanded and went their separate ways, only to get together again after a team member is assassinated by the newly-returned-to-life Adolph Hitler.


This season looks, feels and sounds different than the first season. After the first episode I wasn't quite having it -- it got so outlandishly silly at some points that it passed the point I was willing to accept the silliness. (And it's got to be pretty darn silly for me to reach that point.) I believe my precise words to Mr. Hall afterwards were, "Eh... I don't know if I like this or not..." However, we gave it a chance, and after that, the show got really funny. (Favorite episode: "Johnny Hitler" -- Hitler is masquerading as an American high school student in order to steal the prom queen. That episode was a parody of high school movies and 1980's high school horror movies... it turned out really, really funny.)

One thing that kind of put me off the show, though, was that, in many cases, the personalities of our main characters had shifted slightly between this and season one. I liked the main character, Tucker, much better in season one; in season one he was straight-laced and masculine in an old-fashioned way -- in season two, he was whiny and feminized (although that might say more about the 1960's vs. the 1980's than it does about the writing of the show, in a certain sense). And a couple characters I really enjoyed in season one (Pierre and Claire) really don't return... although they do. In a sense. (It's complicated.)

In the end, I liked the look of season one more, I liked the feel of season one more... but season two just might have been a more consistent, better-made, and funnier season.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED... (If you like Monty Python and South Park and Mystery Science Theater 3000 and that sort of thing.)

On My Shelf: Multiplicity (1996)

Once in awhile, I get an urge to watch this movie -- because Michael Keaton is a good actor.


And that's basically the only reason. (Multiplicity isn't very good).

PLOT: Michael Keaton is a building contractor whose life is stretched to its limits. His boss wants him at work all the time -- and his wife wants him at home all the time -- and he has no time for himself. He's at the breaking point... until a scientist at a building he is working on offers him a unique opportunity that will help him get done all the things he needs to get done... he offers to make him a clone of himself. An adult clone who will have all of his memories and knowledge, and can help him get things done.  ... And this works out as well as you would expect in a comedy film.



This is one of a number of Harold Ramis-directed movies that I always forget is a Harold Ramis movie -- but it kind of makes sense if you think of his other films, like Groundhog Day and Bedazzled. It's very much in the same vein; guy with personality problems has supernatural intervention and learns to be a better person. It's A Christmas Carol, again and again, without the Christmas. That's it, in a nutshell.

And like Bedazzled.... this movie isn't as good a movie as Groundhog Day.

Moral Problems
I think one of the basic (and unanswered) problems of the film is that the premise is just a bit on the morally disturbing side. Our "hero" creates clones of himself  -- essentially to be his slaves. They're not robots; they're full human beings with thoughts and desires and needs (not to mention all his memories, thoughts and wishes -- including memories of being married to a woman and having children with her) but are treated like possessions. This particular aspect is glossed-over and ignored for the sake of the plot.

And (the cruelest part of all) as far as these clones are concerned, inside their heads, they are him. They have been separated from their families and forced to live as outcasts. (This is a comedy movie, of course, so -- like I said -- this particular aspect is pretty much glossed over.)

I guess it wouldn't have been a very fun comedy
if the clones stood up for their human rights or just sat around crying all the time.Movie Problems
Aside from the all the moral issues aside... there are some basic movie structure problems with the film. A big one being, it's kind of hard to like Michael Keaton.

Now, don't get me wrong. I LIKE MICHAEL KEATON. I like Michael Keaton in movies I don't even want to watch. But the character he plays in this film comes across as unlikeable. And his wife isn't extremely likeable herself -- she's a cliche movie wife who flips out/obsesses over really minor things. Ultimately, both characters are very self-centered, and it's hard to be sympathetic to either one.


Another problem is that as when the first clone arrives, our hero starts acting less like a real human being. He gets more stilted and stagey -- probably a directorial choice to help clarify the difference between the two identical characters. This solves the problem of differentiating them -- and creates a new one, that our hero instantly is even less likeable and less human. Also, the first clone is just a bit more rough-around-the-edges version of our original Michael Keaton (who just comes across as a selfish jerk anyway) which means, you don't really like the clone, either.

Flowing from that, it really feels like the movie doesn't get going, or get really funny, until the second clone arrives (which is about half-way through the movie). The second clone is the "sensitive" (aka anal retentive and effeminate) one; he provides a nice counterpoint to the first two, because he has a substantially different personality. That's when the movie finally starts being funny, and that's quite a ways in.
I'm not even going to address the third clone,
as he was clearly just written for comic relief.(Also...this might just a problem for me, but...  **Spoiler: it turns out the reason the wife is ultimately upset is that he keeps promising to fix up their house and failing to do so. This is revealed at the end of the movie, after a brief mention at the beginning of the movie that their water heater is broken and he's too tired to fix it. The big problem with this, to me, is that a) his not fixing it was really a reasonable thing at the time, he was exhausted; and b) they aren't living in a ramshackle shack -- they were just living in a neat, eclectic-looking older house. When he finally goes to fix it up, I was like -- "Wait, what? Their house needed fixing? Why?" -- and he turns a neat eclectic-looking older house into a very generic-looking 1990's house. It could be that this is only a problem retrospectively -- i.e. who wants a house that generic and 90's-looking? -- or, like I said, that this is just a problem for me, since I happen to like neat, older houses.)

The Movie's Saving Grace
The real saving grace of this movie is just one thing -- the performances by Michael Keaton. Honestly, he does a fabulous job of creating four distinct personalities. But it's not as obvious until the second clone comes along; the first clone is different from the original Michael Keaton, but in a more subtle way to begin with (probably to avoid tipping the hand too early about the direction the plot is going to go). Everything about the four forms of him are distinct and different -- their tones of voice, the way they move, the way they facially react to things -- it's just a treat to watch him.


 As Clone 1, he's rugged and abrasive; as Clone 2, he's mincing and delicate; and as Clone 3, he clearly has developmental impairments -- right down to the way he acts when getting rained on, or walks up a staircase. And as the original character, he has elements of all of them -- and yet is a distinctly different, more whole character. It's amazing.


(I will say, as a side-note, that there are two points I spotted when the special effects look a little crappy -- and that would be during two, short scenes where all four versions of him are in the shot at the same time. You can see a bit of a blue-screen edge around a couple of them and it's not quite perfect. But, all and all, they did a surprisingly good job -- and Michael Keaton did a pretty good job of acting in scenes playing multiple characters.)

In Summary...
I have seen worse movies. But I've also seen better movies. So, if you happen to be a die-hard Michael Keaton fan, or just really, really want to see a good performance by an actor, I do recommend this movie. If you want to see a movie that's every bit as good as Groundhog Day... ummmm.... look, just watch Groundhog Day. Or A Christmas Carol. The unaddressed moral issues in this movie leave kind of a sour taste, and the ultimate wrap-up feels kind of hastily-written-in (like, "We've got to have some kind of a big finisher for this story! What can we do to show that he's finally reformed himself...?" "Oh, just have him fix up the house." "The house? Was it broken or something?" "Look, just write in a line earlier about how he's too tired to fix up the water heater -- that's all the foreshadowing we need, that ought to do it.") But I have to stress again that I really, really enjoy watching Michael Keaton's performance in this movie, so in the end it's...

RECOMMENDED(with a lot of reservations, and in a very luke-warm fashion)

On My Shelf: The Goonies (1985)

It's incredibly hard for me to view this movie critically. I loved this movie as a kid -- and my parents loved it, too, so I saw it many, many times. However, for your enjoyment, on this viewing of our copy I strove to look at the film without rose-colored-glasses.



This is one case where I probably don't need to describe the plot of the film, because -- if you're old enough to be reading film criticism blogs -- you've probably seen it. But for the handful who haven't...

Plot: Mikey Walsh is sad; his whole neighborhood is about to be foreclosed on and turned into a country club. He and his neighborhood friends (who call themselves "the Goonies") are about to be scattered to the four winds. That is, until Mikey comes across an actual pirate treasure map in his attic -- and he decides this is his chance to get some "rich stuff" and save the day. They literally go underground following the map and encounter real-life criminals, emotional setbacks, booby traps and all nature of peril as they attempt to track down the treasure of the pirate One-Eyed Willy.


Exceptions to the Rule
I think I can state without equivocation that this is one of the rare films that succeeds in having truly likeable and talented child stars.

They look kind of scared, here, but they're fun - really!They're all cute, they're all funny, they're charming, they have good timing, they have good chemistry with each other -- and, in truth, I feel like they are surprisingly believable for the scenarios they find themselves in. Other films (notably The Monster Squad) have attempted to get together as awesome a group of kids and have failed miserably.

For the record, this movie sucks. It's trying to be The Goonies
and fails REALLY HARD.I'd like to call out, in particular, the little boy who played "Chunk" (aka Jeff Cohen). That kid had comic timing, a physical comedy sense -- could convincingly cry and be terrified -- and still be believable as just a regular "kid". (He was also one of those kids who kept his head on his shoulders when the entertainment industry decided he was no longer cute and quit casting him in things -- didn't screw up his life with drugs and whatnot -- and is now a successful entertainment lawyer. My heart is so happy for him.)
Chunk -- American hero. Nit-Picky Issues with the Set-Up
When I was a kid, I never questioned the set-up for this movie. As a kid, you know that adults get mortgages and whatnot, and owe money to banks, and might (occasionally) lose their houses because money is tight. That's a kid's understanding of the situation.

As an adult, I have to ask myself -- how, exactly, are all of the Goonies' parents defaulting on their mortgages at the same time? And why, and how, is Mikey's dad empowered to sign off on the forfeiture of all their houses at the end of the film?

This aspect of the film seems like the part most specifically aimed at children, because kids don't need more details on this situation to make sense of it. It's only as a grown-up that you're like, "Hang on a second... what is this arrangement, again? Does Mr. Walsh own the entire neighborhood, and has somehow gotten behind on payments?"

So, wait, he runs the museum AND owns everyone's houses? How does this work?Another thing you don't question as a kid is that all the pirate booby-traps that the kids encounter would still be functioning if they had been there since the 1600's -- that the ropes wouldn't have rotted away, and the chains rusted into nothingness. However, I'm not going to gripe about that, because it seems like that particular point is something only jerks would gripe about (like the people who complain about the fact that you can hear the explosions in Star Wars because SCIENCE says you wouldn't be able to hear an explosion in space). Allowing that the booby-traps somehow still work should not impair your enjoyment of the movie.

(*SPOILER*) And yet another thing you don't question as a kid is whether or not there are actually enough valuable jewels in Mikey's marble bag to pay everyone's mortgages off. For a kid, JEWELS IS JEWELS. They're worth MILLIONS. And over-thinking this particular point can only harm your enjoyment of the film, so let's just leave it at that.(*end spoiler*)

Minor Nit-Picks
I never really understood this moment:


"Mouth" (aka Corey Feldman) doesn't really have much of a character in this movie. He is the sarcastic kid, and that's about it -- he's sarcastic. The end. (This isn't a complaint. He's great as "sarcastic kid" -- perfectly fulfills the role. When you've got an ensemble cast, not everybody needs an extensive backstory). So I don't really understand why his character has this one, particular, grandstand moment. It seems like there needs to be something setting up why the "wishing well" was so significant for Mouth, but no - it isn't there.


The Story as a Whole
This is an odd movie. Why do I say that? First of all, because it's honestly a bit light on plot -- the summary I gave above is basically all there is, and other than that, it's a comedy and character piece.

Also, it's tonally all over the place. It goes back and forth between kid comedy scenarios and realistic crime adventure. I mean, we have a story about a group of kids searching for pirate treasure -- against the backdrop of three escaped criminals who are actively murdering people while keeping a disabled relative chained in the basement.

Not to mention that the dialogue (including the dialogue of the children) is absolutely chock full of obscenity -- which is a weird choice for something that is basically a children's movie.

Hooray for horrific child endangerment! And then we have straight-out-of-a-Road-Runner-cartoon moments, like Data saving himself from falling onto spikes with his invention of wacky fake teeth on a spring (aka "Pinches of Power")...


Attempting to watch the film without rose-colored glasses, I have to ask myself -- why was this included? Why is there an utterly unrealistic, unbelievable, cartoonish element to this movie? Did someone involved with this movie just go, "This movie is for kids. Things don't have to make sense and it doesn't have to be realistic."

...Well, maybe that actually did happen. I don't know.

But does that make it a terrible movie? ...Well, no, not really -- not unless you have a "strict, unrelenting realism" requirement for films you watch. It's still an entertaining movie, full of funny dialogue and (shockingly) charming child lead actors.

So, do I recommend it?


Yes, of course I do. I couldn't not. But if you're an adult watching it for the first time ever, please let me know what you think of it, and whether any of the elements I described actually are  insurmountable problems for you. (Personally, I would doubt it, but I would really like to know if it's a thing.)


RECOMMENDED(While acknowledging childhood rose-colored glasses)

Too Much TV! Summertime Viewing Summary (On and Off My Shelf) PART I

The summertime is a weird time for movie-watching for me. Fall and Winter -- the longer, darker evenings makes those "movie watching" evenings for me. Summertime? When it's light out until 9:00 o'clock at night, you just don't feel like settling in for the evening with a couple of movies at 5:00 PM. (At least, that's how I feel).


So, summertime is time for catching up on TV (30-minute episodes we can watch during dinner, and then devote the rest of the sunny daytime hours to productive activities) and we've done that this summer aplenty.

FARGO - Season 1
This series is based on the Coen Brothers movie of the same name. It's violent and full of people behaving weirdly and horribly to each other... but not, I might say, with the same flair as they do in an actual Coen Brothers movie. It did not feel as believable or real as a Coen Brothers film.


Fargo, the movie, is exquisite in its weirdness and tone -- and when people do horrible things, it's mainly just funny. It might be one of my favorite movies. Whereas, the first few episodes of Fargo (the TV series) are kind of painful and disgusting to watch. It comes close to achieving the feeling a a Coen Brothers piece, but winds up feeling more like a parody (or, even, I daresay, a rip-off) than anything else. I will say -- there were some good performances in this show. Billy Bob Thornton did a really, really good job as "evil guy" -- and Martin Freeman entirely redeemed himself from my poor estimation of his skills based on The Hobbit. Allison Tolman played the lead female, and she was likeable -- and Tom Hanks' son, Colin, is one of the lead guys, and he was quite charming. (If disconcerting, because I kept feeling distracted by how much he does -- and doesn't -- look like Tom Hanks...) By the end of the series, I was somewhat invested in the main characters (and seeing how the anti-main character gets his comeuppance) but then, I was actually kind of let-down by the ending of the show. It was actually a weak, anti-climactic ending. (I really wanted to like this show because of how much I like the movie, but I just don't think I'll have a desire to watch it again.)

Not Recommended (Unless You Really, Really Like Swearing, Gore and People Being Awful to Each Other and Want to See More That Happened in a Less Engrossing Version of the World the Movie Took Place In).

LOVEJOY - Season 1 We've been hearing about the mid-eighties British mystery series Lovejoy (starring Ian McShane) for some time, and finally decided to give it a go; Lovejoy is a (marginally crooked) antiques-dealer who also (sometimes) solves crimes.


Season one doesn't quite seem to know what it is -- is it an action-packed adventure show, or a cute, cozy mystery show about antiques? Most of the plots make it seem more like action-mystery -- the music makes it sound like a cute, cozy mystery, so in that first season seems a bit weird and uneven. But Ian McShane was quite enjoyable as Lovejoy, so I'd recommend it if you like mysteries. And antiques. And British stuff.

RECOMMENDED (with reservations about tone, pacing and British stuff).
STRANGER THINGS - Season 1 (First Three Episodes)
Okay, I admit it, I only got about three episodes into the show, because it just wasn't doing it for me.


Oh, I liked the basic premise -- and I was glad that it wasn't as over the top about references to E.T. and other pop-culture things as everybody said it was -- but, honestly, by the end of episode 3, I just wasn't hooked. The main characters felt like paler versions of the kids on Freaks and Geeks, and I hadn't found a character that I liked or cared about enough to go on watching the show, so I quit.

NOT RECOMMENDED (But I did only watch the first three episodes. Maybe it got really good after that.)


DANGER 5 - Season 1 Perhaps you've heard about a fake trailer that went around quite a bit in the early 2000's -- for a fake movie called Italian Spiderman. (Here's the trailer...)

... If you've seen Italian movies from the 60's (which, coincidentally, I have), this is really funny. And so we were rather excited when we discovered that at least part of the team behind Italian Spiderman formed a new company and actually created a TV series along the same lines for Australian TV called Danger 5. We tracked down a DVD of the first season and watched it. Here's the trailer for it...

So, the same sort of thing. It's a WWII spy-team story that takes place in the 1960's (yes, I know that WWII wasn't in the 1960's, but that's just one of the many things that don't matter in the telling of this story), and does an excellent job of  capturing the look of both spy TV of that era, movies of that era and foreign films of that era -- while also getting weirdly surreal and goofy (e.g. talking dogs and dinosaur Nazis, grotesque violence and rude implications). I would say, on a whole, that it's not quite as funny as you would think, but when it is funny it's extremely funny, so it's worth a watch. (If you like that sort of thing).

RECOMMENDED... if you like that sort of thing. And can tolerate the parts between the jokes, and quite a bit of "inappropriate" humor.

MORE TO COME IN PART II

Off-My-Shelf: Phenomena (1985)

Okay, to make up to Labyrinth fans for last week's review where I unfavorably compared it to Time Bandits....Here's Phenomena! Which makes Labyrinth look like a really coherent, well-constructed film!




I saw a trailer for this movie a couple weeks ago, and thought it looked pretty interesting -- and then we went to a party at Mr. and Mrs. Austin's house last week and were surprised to find that this was the scheduled viewing. Quite a lucky coincidence, really.

Okay, there's nowhere to start with Phenomena except for trying to describe the plot:

Jennifer Connelly is the daughter of a famous person. She is sent to attend this weird school in Italy for unclear reasons. Outside the school, some weird murders take place. Jennifer Connelly has a weird relationship with insects. Then she sleepwalks and meets Donald Pleasance, who is kindly and has a pet monkey, but also says weird, suggestive things. Some more stuff happens. Then, there's a big, weird ending.


It's actually an interesting-looking trailer.
Many, Many Problems, and So Much Weirdness
Did my description of this movie sound a bit weird, unclear and disjointed? That would be a good summary of the film -- weird, unclear and disjointed.

The movie starts out well (for a slasher/horror type movie) -- with somebody being attacked and their head falling off. But then we move on to Jennifer Connelly arriving at this Italian school and being nice to a bee, and it's really unclear where things are going to go.

Then, we cut to Donald Pleasance watching maggots squirm around on (was is presumably) the head that fell off that person at the beginning of the film. And it's really unclear how these things are going to relate to each other, if at all. Did I mention Jennifer Connelly sleepwalks in this film? It also only loosely figures into the plot, and I have no idea how it relates to her weird relationship with bugs (which is that bugs really like her. I mean really like her).

The movie is also apparently called "Creepers" in some circles.
And for the record, the bugs never eat her face like in this poster.
Not even slightly.I had several questions during this movie:

1) Why do bugs like Jennifer Connelly so much? (Answer: There is no answer.)

2) Why does Jennifer Connelly sleepwalk, and what does it have to do with anything? (Answer: There is no answer. Outside the "storytelling" aspect, that sleepwalking gives her a reason to go out and bump into Donald Pleasence.)

3) Who is the murderer, and what does this have to do with any of the other stuff? (Answer: It is explained.... but it's really out of left-field).

Ultimately, this movie feels like somebody threw a bunch of story elements into a hat, then let their pet monkey choose a random selection out of the hat (and throw in some of his own story suggestions, like, "More yummy maggots, please,") and filmed the result.
Which would actually explain why the monkey figures
importantly into the plot.None of the things that happened in this movie flowed logically into each other.

It seems like a major characteristic of really bad movies is that people in them do things that no one in real life would do. This movie had that characteristic. Also, parts of this movie seemed to be ripping off certain famous American horror movies, specifically, Friday the 13th and Firestarter. In the "making of" after the movie, the Italian filmmaker claimed that the American movies were ripping him off, which seems unlikely, since this movie came out in 1985, and Friday the 13th and Firestarter happened in in 1980 and 1984, respectively.

Things That This Movie Had Going For It

All of that said -- the movie wasn't entirely without merit. First, it had a good cast. Jennifer Connelly was fine as the lead girl, and Donald Pleasence was very Donald Pleasence-y in his role as "Old Doctor Exposition". Second, it was a nice-looking movie (even the disgusting-looking parts were nicely choreographed, in that sense). Third, if you're a fan of gory horror films, it had some truly horrific gore and goo scenes -- and more than the average number of scenes of people's heads falling off. Fourth, it had a monkey! That figured importantly into the plot! Fifth, it had an unexpectedly rockin' soundtrack (although it was used in a very odd way; for instance, there's a quiet scene of Jennifer Connelly slowly following a firefly into the darkness of the night...


...and instead of having something like an eerie, Danny Elfman-esque orchestral piece backing the scene, it's got an Italian rock band called Goblin blasting some pretty metal chords. It's just a really weird contrast.)

Do I Recommend This Movie?

Ah.... well, yes, but with four important reservations. The first reservation is, don't accidentally mix it up with that crappy 1990's John Travolta movie, Phenomenon -- because that would be a bad, boring and overly sentimental experience for everyone involved. (Don't watch Michael either). The other three reservations are as follows:

1) YOU MUST LIKE CHEESY 1980'S HORROR MOVIES.
2) YOU MUST LIKE CHEESY FOREIGN MOVIES.
3) It would help if you like Jennifer Connelly, and aren't too turned off at the idea of watching her make herself throw up. (Personally, watching people throw up isn't my cup of tea, but in spite of there being an overly long scene of this, it didn't wholly turn me off the film).

If you answered yes to the majority of those conditions, then, yes, by all means, please watch Phenomena. It's a disjointed mess, but entertainingly cheese-tastic.


RECOMMENDED(with vastly cheese-filled reservations)

On My Shelf: Time Bandits (1981)

So, we went over to Gary's house and watched our own copy of Time Bandits.



Plot
Kevin is a British boy with a love of history and fantasy -- and two profoundly boring parents who are only interested in kitchen appliances. Kevin gets surprised one night when a knight in full battle regalia jumps out of his bedroom cabinet, storms around his room and vanishes. The following night, six eccentrically dressed little people come out of his cabinet and wind up dragging him along on an adventure through time. Using a map that catalogs all the time holes in the universe, they travel to different eras -- ostensibly to commit robberies (hence the "bandits" part of the title) -- while simultaneously being chased by the Supreme Being and the personification of Evil....

Everything That's Good
For you movie buffs, three of the little people in this movie have direct connections to Star Wars. (Including Kenny Baker, aka R2-D2). And in standard-height actors there are appearances by John Cleese, Ian Holm, Shelley Duvall, Michael Palin, Katherine Helmond, David Warner and Sean Connery. 

If adventure has a name -- it must be Sean Connery, right?

The Music is good. The acting is good. The comedy is good (if, as I said, a hair on the dark side). And the sets and cinematography are beautiful. They did an amazing job of designing the look of the film and setting the tone.

I don't know how many people I've tried to loan Time Bandits to, only to have them say they didn't get all the way through it. And if that's the case.... I think you're really missing out. I would argue that this is a better children's fantasy movie than either Neverending Story or The Labyrinth. 


"Why, I oughta...!!"...Which is to say, it's got a more consistent plot, consistent dialogue, consistent characterization, in addition to having beautiful sets, costume and character design. (I know, I know, Labyrinth fans are getting all upset with me right now... Look, I understand the appeal of The Labyrinth. It is a nice-looking movie. David Bowie is very entertaining to watch. And I understand why young girls were [are] crazy about that movie). But if I'm going to compare Time Bandits to another movie, Labyrinth makes the most sense, because it was also a children's fantasy film written by a Monty Python alum (this film was written by Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam, and also directed by Terry Gilliam). And if you're going to compare Labyrinth to this -- I have to say, I think Time Bandits comes out on top.

Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam,
AKA, "The Nice One" and "The Weird One".One more comparison: Remember how, in The Labyrinth, people always talk about how clever it is that you can spot clues to the rest of the movie in the toys in Sarah's bedroom at the beginning?

See? There's a thing that looks like her dress, and a thing that looks like
the labyrinth, and the dog thing. Oh, and there's the book they ostensibly
stole the plot of the movie from, up in the upper right corner.Well, make note of some of the things in Kevin's bedroom at the beginning of this film; the whole rest of the movie is laid out there in his toys and pictures.


And this movie came three years before The Labyrinth (so, yeah. Coincidence? I think not).

I will say, in comparison, that Time Bandits has significantly fewer catchy musical numbers and exactly zero bulge-exposing rock stars. So, there's that, Labyrinth fans.

Humor
To understand a bit of this movie, you probably need to have a background in Monty Python, and their particular brand of humor. I literally grew up watching Flying Circus and the Python movies, so I never questioned the humor in this movie... until trying to share this with other people, who tend to be like, "This movie is weird."
This is a scene in the movie. But don't worry -- those aren't people we know.

Yes, it does have kind of a sick, dark comedy at times -- not so sick or dark to be inappropriate for kids to watch; kind of a junior-level sickness and darkness.
The film is just amazing looking, okay?Another reason, though, that you would want to be familiar with Monty Python before you watch this is that Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam are said to have structured the characters of "the Time Bandits" themselves (the six little people) on the real-life personalities of the Pythons. Some of them even bear superficial physical resemblances to their counterparts (if you start trying to figure out who's who, it's pretty easy). Ultimately, it's really an interesting look at how they viewed each other and themselves.

David Warner as "Evil"
For me, one of the most enjoyable elements of this movie is David Warner as "Evil" (aka the Devil). He's convincingly sinister and he's hilarious. (And his costume is beautiful, although I suppose I can't give him personal credit for that; all he's said about the costume in interviews is that it was extremely heavy). Seriously, though, it's worth watching the whole movie just for his performance.


So... What Throws Most People Off?
It's very hard for me to look at this movie critically, because I grew up watching it, and it's up there with The Goonies for movies that I have trouble viewing as an adult and not slipping back into all the thoughts and feelings I had about it as a kid.

Luckily, we actually managed to get a friend (Gary) to watch this movie all the way through recently, and he gave me his insights.

1. He didn't get the humor (at first).
2. He couldn't figure out where it was going (at first).
3. He had trouble understanding the British accents (at first).

Okay, I'll give it to you -- it's a bit of an oddly structured movie. It's hard to tell where it's going for the first half hour or so. It might be a little uneven -- as far as going from a highly "heightened" atmosphere, full of cartoonish people, to realistic scenes where people act like actual normal people. Also, the film is profoundly British in tone; if you're not familiar with British pacing and attitudes, you might be a little thrown.

And if you're not used to listening to British accents -- you might have to let your ears adjust before you can understand what some people are saying. And from a technical standpoint -- I think there may actually be a problem with the DVD we have as far as the sound goes. The music was much louder than the dialogue at certain points (and at certain other points the sound would drop out), so we had to keep messing with the volume -- and it did, at times, interfere with understanding the dialogue. Even for me, and I know a lot of the dialogue by heart. (And I don't recall that being an issue on the VHS copy we had when I was a kid, so it may have been that particular DVD transfer -- or just the particular peculiarities of the sound system on the TV that we were watching it on).
However, it must be said -- once Gary had gotten through the first half hour, the movie evened-out for him, and he even seemed to be enjoying it. I will say that one particular bit of the ending surprised him a little bit -- but since I can't discuss that here without spoiling it for you, I'll just say, I would be glad to discuss possible theories with you after you've watched the whole thing.

In Summary
I was going to put a link here to the trailer for Time Bandits,
but then I watched it and remembered how bad the trailer is. DON'T
WATCH THE TRAILER. It's really bad. And it spoils things in the film....YOU SHOULD WATCH THE WHOLE THING. I'm serious. You need to watch the whole thing and then tell me what you think about it. If you don't like Time Bandits after watching it the whole way through -- would you please explain to me why? (I'm not saying that threateningly; I legitimately would like other people to explain to me in detail why this movie doesn't work for them, because I just plain don't get how one could not like this movie.)

Obviously, I'm going to recommend this movie. It's fun, entertaining, and appropriate for all ages. (Oh, it might scare little, little kids -- the same sort of kids who might be frightened by The Wizard of Oz -- but I can state that, having seen it as a child, it never frightened me at all.)

RECOMMENDED

Off My Shelf: I'm For the Hippopotamus (1979)

I've previously discussed the movies Aladdin and Why Did You Pick On Me?  -- foreign-produced movies starring the late, great Italian actor, Bud Spencer. Movies so absurd and stupid and (in cases) poorly made, that they are fun to watch.

This movie features Bud Spencer, and it's absurd and stupid. But it's not quite fun to watch. 


Let me give you the plot, as described on Amazon. (Grammatical errors are all theirs, incidentally...)
"In Africa, many years ago, Slim and Tom don't like it when a German tyrant, starts selling all of the African wildlife to Canadian Zoos! Slim and Tom must teach this guy a lesson by beating the hell out of him and his gang, left and right!"
But that version of the plot makes it make too much sense.
Here is the plot as ascertained by watching it:
At some unclear point in "olden days", Bud Spencer and the skinny guy are brothers (?) who live in a small town in rural Africa. Bud Spencer tries to make a living giving safari tours to foreign tourists. His skinny brother is some sort of con man who makes things difficult for Bud for no clear reason (like shooting out the tires on his vehicle when he tries to do his tours). Meanwhile, a retired American boxer (the "German tyrant" from above?) pulls eminent domain on some African natives. Then the boxer invites the brothers to dinner, where they seem ill-at-ease and eat as if they don't know how food works.  He's got like five steaks on his plate! And there
are napkins on his shoulders! It's so comedy!Then the brothers release all the wildlife this guy has penned up. Then they go to a casino to make some money. Then they get arrested for some reason. Then they escape from prison. Then they release some more wildlife. Then they go on a boat, and they release some wildlife that is about to be shipped to Canada, and -- accompanied by majestic music -- we see lots of zebras run off a boat. Then the brothers steal the boat and ride away. The End.
"Majestic." Characters As I mentioned, the main characters are Bud Spencer and his "brother" as played by Terrence Hill. I don't understand their relationship, I don't understand anything about them. Except that Bud Spencer wears a pink pacifier around his neck "because mama wanted a little girl" -- and Terrence Hill's character is really good at Three Card Monte. Those are things that I understand. Everything else makes no sense. I especially don't understand why the "German Tyrant" (aka retired American boxer?) is pulling eminent domain on the African village, or why he's stealing wildlife to sell to (specifically) Canadian zoos.  "Brothers." Or, cousins. It's kind of unclear. They apparently had
Dads who were brothers... but just one Mom? An African lady?
I didn't think about it too hard, because I doubt the scriptwriter did either. Structure and Content I was initially trying to figure out if there was some sub-text to this movie, like a pro-animals, anti-hunting thing, or even an "anti-European expansionism" thing... but... no. I think that would be reading entirely too much into it. One of two lengthy arm-wrestling scenes in this movie.
There are too many points where it seems like they are just wasting time. Not one, but two lengthy arm-wrestling scenes? Not one, but two lengthy three-card monte scenes? Lengthy discussions between characters that go nowhere and lead to nothing? And aren't funny?

This "movie" plays out more like you would expect if someone had taken twenty episodes of a TV show and tried to condense them down into a two-hour film. It's episodic and extremely nonsensical. I suppose, in theory, that (since this was one of many films featuring Terrence Hill and Bud Spencer) it was meant to be in the tradition of an Abbott and Costello film or a Road  picture. You know, "In this episode, they're in the Navy! And they're smuggling a boatload of watermelons until they get shipwrecked on this island and NOW the big chief is making them BOTH marry his daughter -- but then the mad scientist's rocket goes off and they're blasted to Mars where they find gold!"

...In other words, it seems to be from a tradition of, "a series of films where the plot can be surreal or goofy or nonsensical." But there's a big difference between "nonsensical" and "incoherent."

Of course, even that would be acceptable IF THE MOVIE WAS JUST FUNNY, but there are really just a few moments where it's even mildly humorous. 
Ultimately... This movie... isn't very good. I can't even recommend it as a "good bad movie" because it's kind of hard to follow. It had its moments, and it wouldn't be a horrendous movie to pop in if you wanted to distract small children for an hour and had absolutely nothing better to show them, but, no, you don't need to watch this movie.

NOT RECOMMENDED

Off My Shelf: War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

So, we went to see War for the Planet of the Apes on Thursday night last week.



This might have been our most hotly anticipated film of 2017. Mr. Hall is a huge fan of the original series and has really enjoyed the first two of the rebooted modern series. To recap the previous re-boot movies:

1. In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, James Franco is a young doctor who is attempting to cure Alzheimer's. Instead, he accidentally makes smart apes and kills everyone in the world.

It happens.2. In Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (which was just a bit too similar a title to "Rise" for my tastes) it has now been several years since the human world fell, and the talking apes are living happily in the woods. But the few people who are left are mad at them because they think the Apes caused the Ape Flu instead of James Franco. Plus, there are apes who are mad at humans for "fill in the blank" reasons. With everybody mad at everyone else, this plays out as you would think it would.


So that brings us to today.

The Plot:
The apes are still living in the woods, and their new antagonist is Woody Harrelson, who doesn't like Apes for more or less the same reasons as the last antagonist in the last movie. The apes have hatched a plan to go find some place without humans beyond the desert -- but, in the meantime, Caesar (our lead ape) decides to go and take care of his own personal human problem (aka Woody Harrelson).

Things I Liked... That Were Also Things I Didn't Like

1. New Character - Bad Ape.
Bad Ape is a fun new character -- a talking ape who basically survived independently from all the other apes and speaks human quite fluently. He wears clothes, and (oddly, since he was the most eloquent of the apes) he was the most convincingly ape-like of them, so he was my favorite.


However, he's a bit of a let-down as well, because you would think, from the time they spend setting him up, that he (as a unique character) is going to figure importantly into the story.

...But, no such luck. Bad Ape is comic relief only. (So, I guess, that's something I didn't like.)

2. New Plot Device - Mutation.
So, the thing the humans are freaking out about now is that the Ape Flu thing has apparently mutated into a new form; instead of killing people, it just destroys the speech centers of the brain -- rendering them mute. Thus solving one of the major problems of the original movies -- i.e. yes, yes, I can see Apes evolving or whatever until they know how to speak, but humans just "forgetting" how to speak? Highly unlikely. So, I really liked that this solved that problem of the original films, in a way that the original films didn't bother to do. (Really, although I enjoy the original films, they have their issues as far as setting up how the whole ape/human thing worked out.)

Actually, if you want to get real technical, it's kind of unclear what the new mutation does; Woody Harrelson implies that the infection destroys the brain to the point that the person is "nothing more than an animal" -- however, as we see from people infected, they still have rational thought. They just can't speak. And they can apparently still learn sign language.

(Not to be all, "That's not how science works!" on a sci-fi movie... but that's not, scientifically, how it should work. If the part of the brain that produces speech is damaged to the point that a person cannot speak [a condition known as aphasia which can happen to people who have had strokes] typically, they are unable to speak sign language, either.


The brain simply cannot remember how to produce speech, period. Since one of the characters in the film who had the condition afterwards learns sign language, it would seem to indicate it's not aphasia they experienced. Which means, more explanation was necessary. Was the condition just a really bad sore throat? The info was not forthcoming.)

So, I guess, I liked this in theory, but not in execution.

3. It Felt More (in spots) Like a Planet of the Apes Movie.
A minor issue I had with the previous two reboot films was that they felt utterly unconnected to the original series. This one had some clear visual references and the music was much more of an homage to the original series. I liked that very much.



Then again, BOO ON THAT, because that's probably the cheapest way to get people to like something (we see this sort of thing in the new Star Wars films continually. Want people to like it? Throw in some classic imagery! Darth Vader! Light sabers! Millennium Falcon! People will recognize it and they will get excited!)... So, in some ways I also didn't like this specific aspect. (Not to mention, some of the homage moments were just kind of dumb... for instance, the little girl in this movie is named "Nova" -- like the adult woman in the original film! And Caesar's little son is named... Cornelius! Which would mean that the events of the original movie take place.... what... twenty years from the present day? Either that, or we have to assume that the original films have nothing to do with these.)

4. CGI
Okay, although I'm not generally a fan of CGI, the CGI of the apes was near flawless. It was beautiful. There were only a couple brief moments where it looked kind of weird, in an "unfinished" kind of way. (Particularly, there was a moment when they were riding horseback in the snow where it looked kind of... bumpy. But other than that, it was pretty darn close to perfect.)

This just looks, acts, and moves like a real ape. My mind literally cannot believe
it's CGI. The Problems
Granted, we went into this movie with pretty high expectations.... but we still wound up feeling somewhat let down. Not greatly let-down, not offended, not angry -- but still let down.


1. Not enough difference. 
There is a huge difference between the first movie and the second movie. The first movie takes place in "nowadays" -- and the second movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic future, where the apes are still living in a somewhat primitive society, but really quite advanced compared to where they were previously.

I figured, based on the difference between the first two films, this would be quite a while later, Caesar would possibly be an old ape, and ape society would have considerably advanced. They might all be speaking and wearing clothes now.

No such luck. This movie takes place maybe two three years after the first one. And outside having gained Woody Harrelson as a bad guy, not a whole lot has changed. This movie might as well have picked up two minutes after the last one.

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your ape.Not to mention -- Woody Harrelson's character's motivation was not greatly different from Gary Oldman's character's motivation in the first one. They were both crazy despots intent on eliminating the apes for extremely personal (and crazy) reasons. Honestly, this time around, I might not have even gone the "crazy despot" route because in the last movie it played out. They should have just been battling a ragtag team of humans who were trying to blow them up with an atomic bomb or something like that  -- just something significantly different from the second movie.

2. Not enough war.
It's called War for the Planet of the Apes... but, honestly, the second movie had much more human/ape war than this one did. If anything, this wound up being more of an "escape" movie (in the sense that The Great Escape is an "escape" movie) or simply a "concentration camp" movie, than a war movie. The second movie should have been titled War For the Planet of the Apes -- and this one should have been called "Dawn".

Believe it or not, I can't find a single picture to indicate that there
was an episode of Hogan's Heroes where there were shenanigans
with an ape. I have to think there was one and I'm just not finding it.3. Not enough plot.
Honestly, it was a bit skimpy on plot. The plot as I laid out above is basically it -- with very few additions.

The trailer makes it look like the human girl they befriend is going to become a major thing, but no -- she's just a very minor plot point to facilitate another situation (that, honestly, you could see from a mile out).

This movie was also far more addicted to weird, sentimental moments than the previous two films. For instance, there is an "apes in love" scene, which plays out something like this.... (If it doesn't queue up properly, go to 1:24:16).

There are a couple minor surprises in the film.... but, really, just about everything that happens was pretty much anticipatable, and the ending was just kind of an ending -- none of the big shocks or startling moments that you saw in the original Planet of the Apes series.


4. Not really enough acting.
The humans in this movie were fine...But I was less enthused about the apes.

I was less impressed with Andy Serkis' acting in this than I was in previous films. They made a point several times about how his character, Caesar, is "practically human" -- but it came across more like Andy Serkis just being tired of acting like an ape.

Pictured: A man who would like to get recognized in the streets
when he's out of makeup just once in his life.For the other apes -- the lot of them were so darn stoic that it was hard to care about them. Honestly, after the last movie when a lot of the apes seemed to be learning how to verbalize audibly, I was a little let-down that they were all still doing sign-language for the most part. (Why, when Caesar speaks audibly most of the time, is everybody else still doing sign language? The fact that only Caesar spoke most of the time lent more to the notion that Andy Serkis is just tired of doing this and couldn't be bothered to learn the sign language again...)

The only ape whose acting I was really impressed with was "Bad Ape" -- who managed to convey both ape-like behavior and a human level of intelligence. So, kudos, Bad Ape.

Bad Ape! Ultimately....

It just wasn't a spectacular finale. It wasn't terrible, it just wasn't spectacular and didn't "wow" me.

I think this movie would have been helped a lot by having the film take place later -- like, twenty, thirty years after the last movie, and have ape society a bit more evolved. And there should have been a more extravagant ending, especially if this is going to be the last one in the series.

"...A biiiig explosion!"Granted, they probably didn't want to go the dire, dark routes that the original movies went, which were all gloom and doom, and people blowing themselves up because they're just too innately evil to live.

Those original films were quite pessimistic regarding human nature, and indeed the future of humanity (almost to the point of humorousness). So, while we didn't necessarily need that -- a scene in this where humans prove that they are too evil to live -- this went in the opposite direction and got a bit syrupy for my tastes.

Should you see it if you liked the other two movies, or the original series? Sure. But don't expect your socks to be knocked off.

RECOMMENDED(for the most part. In a kind of semi-lukewarm fashion.)

Off My Shelf: Spiderman: Homecoming (2017)

So, we went to see Spiderman: Homecoming.


There were about EIGHT TRAILERS before this movie, all for films in the "meh" to "terrible-looking" range. ...But, I suppose I can't hold that against Spider-Man.

Although there are plenty of other things I can hold against this movie. (Spoilers in pink!)

The Plot
The Vulture (Michael Keaton) was working professionally, salvaging alien tech from other Avengers dust-ups -- but then the government comes in and removes him from his gig, so he goes rogue and starts collecting stuff on his own. Meanwhile, Peter Parker was (in a different film) recruited by Tony Stark to help with Avengers stuff. But, in the intervening months, he hasn't really asked him to do anything, and he's been just kind of rolling around Queens, waiting for Avengers stuff to turn up -- stopping bike thieves and giving old ladies directions, etc. Peter Parker does not-very-interesting teen stuff while being surrounded by an extremely diverse group of very annoying people. Eventually, the end of the movie happens. The end.


Did I make this movie sound like nothing happens in it? Well, that's kind of a thing. This movie is fundamentally extremely boring.

Things that it did right
Okay, I can't give the movie a zero, because it did get a couple things right. Namely...

1. The characterization of Spider-Man! He's a charming, selfless teenager -- who also happens to be really smart and good at science. He's basically just like Spider-Man is supposed to be.

2. Casting Michael Keaton as "The Vulture". He was fun, even though he didn't have enough to do, and wasn't given a character arc.

Because who doesn't want to see Michael Keaton in wings?...And that's it.

Everything else
The story was essentially ruined by three major things -- lack of content, annoying characters, and the involvement of Tony Stark and the Avengers (which is strongly related to the "lack of content" problem).

LACK OF CONTENT AND TONY STARK

This is the main problem with this movie. In 95% of this movie, nothing important is happening, and the main thing that makes Spider-Man into Spider-Man was not addressed. All Spider-Man cares about in this film, ultimately, is being an Avenger, and spends the whole film waiting on a call from Tony Stark -- to the point where it's downright obnoxious. Outside that -- Spider-Man wastes a hell of a lot of time talking to himself, doing nothing. Worse, still, is the amount of time that he spends talking to the suit that Tony Stark built for him (which made it all feel a bit like "Iron Man - Junior!")

This is not what I wanted out of a Spider-Man movie.Yeah, yeah, he learns a little lesson about "just being himself" in the end -- but, so what? Is that the iconic lesson that Spider-Man learns? No, of course not!

Is Spider-Man, in any incarnation, solely defined by his relationship to Tony Stark? No, he's pretty much defined by his relationship to his family -- specifically, his dear, deceased Uncle Ben, who is NOT MENTIONED IN THIS FILM. (Remember that Batman movie where they ignore the fact that Batman was essentially "created" by the death of Bruce Wayne's parents, and instead focus on how he was shaped by this job promotion that he wanted to get? No, because it never happened. It would be dumb. Yet the Spider-Man version of that was the main thrust of this movie.) It would be one thing if Spider-Man had kind of been using Tony as a "Uncle Ben substitute"... but it wasn't even that, since Uncle Ben was never referenced.

To me, it's a very odd choice to depend upon previous, "different franchise" Spider-Man movies to set up your character's emotional backstory, and simultaneously pretend said movies don't exist.

It's okay, Tobey. I feel your pain.
Spider-Man doesn't encounter the villain, the Vulture, until what seems like about half-way through the film. And after that, it doesn't get going again until about fifteen minutes before it's over. And even then, it doesn't get going that good. It's going, it's doing something, and then it's done -- and you're left with a sour taste in your mouth thanks to the rank involvement of....

THE ANNOYING SIDE-CHARACTERS.
Almost every character who wasn't Spider-Man or Michael Keaton was hideously annoying.

* Aunt May: I wholly forgot, until this movie started, they filled the role of Aunt May (seen previously, in the Captain America movie that introduced Spider-Man) with MARISA TOMEI. Might I remind you that THIS is what Aunt May HAS ALWAYS looked like:


But that, in this movie, THIS is what Aunt May looks like (and, no, I'm not kidding):


I am FURIOUS about this. You don't claim, Producer Amy Pascal, to be some kind of champion of the cause of women and then fill the ONE ROLE you have in your movie for a elderly woman with a YOUNG-LOOKING, FIT, HOT WOMAN who looks barely older than Peter Parker. This is a pointless "change for the sake of change" that does nothing to further any part of the story. Did a single plot element revolve around Aunt May being a younger woman? NO! In fact, many things about the story would work better if Aunt May were a feeble old woman. For one thing, there wouldn't be a creepy, Bates Motel  vibe every time the two of them hug.

(**Spoiler**) Also, I just wanted to say.... at the end of the movie, Peter accidentally reveals to Aunt May that he's Spider-Man, further cementing the "Iron Man, Jr.!" vibe. It was obnoxious. That is all. (*End Spoiler*)

* Tony Stark: Part of the problem I've always had with Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies is that he's presented as if he's a charming, witty rogue -- but to me he just comes across as a snarky jerk. In this movie, he's presented as a snarky jerk who half of the time doesn't know what he's talking about. Why am I supposed to like him again, or care about his relationship with Peter?

"Well, I say things fast and I don't listen to people when they answer me.
That makes me charming, right?"
* Liz, Spider-Man's Love Interest: She's benign and extremely bland -- and she's not Mary Jane Watson or Gwen Stacy for a very cheap plot reason.

* Spider-Man's Best Friend Ned, AKA "annoying comic relief": So, Peter Parker has a best friend, an off-brand teenage Nick Frost who talks constantly and provides nothing important to the film. (Why do you need a comic-relief side-kick when your main character's gimmick is that he's very flippant and tells jokes all the time?) He's horribly annoying and entirely too much of the film is taken up in "humorous" conversations between him and Peter. (Please note the quotation marks around "humorous". In this case they indicate heavy sarcasm on my part.)

On the left, "Ned Leeds". According to the comics, Ned Leeds is
someone Peter knew later in life, who then on to become the hobgoblin.
Did I mention, "needless change for the sake of change"?* Flash Thompson: I would never present myself as a major expert on Spider-Man comics. But I know enough about them to know that "Flash" Thompson is the meat-head, jock, bully-type who makes Peter Parker's school life difficult. This is what he looks like:

"Me take your lunch-money!"He is just a cliche, 1950's school bully. Dumb, cruel, popular, and physically intimidating. However, in this film, he is played by a kid not dissimilar to Paul Reubens:


THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Why would you cast a diminutive, sylph-like boy as the intimidating school bully? Not to mention, his character doesn't seem to be dumb (he's on the smart-kids science team), he's not a popular jock, and his two contributions to cruelty are to a) refer to Peter Parker as "Penis Parker", and b) to imply that Peter doesn't really know Spider-Man, which (under the circumstances) would be a pretty reasonable assumption. So, basically, all he does that justifies the term "bully" is to come up with a grade-school level jibe that is used twice.

So, virtually NONE of the things that make up Flash Thompson's personality per the comics are applicable to this guy. The casting is nonsensical and goes against everything human beings intuitively knows about how human relationships work (i.e. big man scares small man. Is that that hard to understand? It creates a nice tension, then, when Peter gains his spider-strength and realizes he could pulverize Flash if he wanted to -- but he doesn't. For many reasons.)

(Also... and this may be a controversial statement, but I think this is some wholly unnecessary color-blind casting [why on earth would you make sure the bully is played by a person of color? What message does that send?] In fact, the extreme amount of color-blind casting in this movie would almost make somebody think that the film's producer felt like she had something to atone for...)

*Michelle:  Michelle is one of Peter's "friends" on the smart-kids-science-team. Michelle is a sullen, slouchy, wholly self-absorbed, self-righteous, conceited jerk who constantly insults people while simultaneously doing heavy-handed virtue-signalling. In other words, she is absolutely insufferable.

Who wouldn't want to hang around with someone who constantly
has this expression on her face?(*Spoiler*) At the end of the film, Michelle is appointed leader of the smart kid team, and announces that her nickname is M.J. Which would have made me barf if I hadn't already seen it coming about ten minutes into the movie. So, lamest plot twist ever, this utterly horrible person is revealed to be Spider-Man's future wife, M.J. Watson. (Why does he fall in love with her, again?)

(UPDATE: Strangely, almost immediately, the Producers have redacted the MJ thing, claiming that it's just a cute, funny twist for her to have the same initials as Mary Jane "Future Mrs. Spider-Man" Watson, and that she is not Peter's future wife. They claim that she is just a stand-alone character named "Michelle J. Something" who has nothing to do with the comic books. If that was a true plan on their part, it would be nonsensical -- but I highly doubt it's true. With any luck, it's just that they realized what a horrible mistake it would be if this truly obnoxious, unnattractive character were the love of Peter Parker's life. So, with any luck, the MJ thing will not, in the end, be a thing) (**End Spoiler**)

Ultimately....
More than anything else... This movie just plain bored me. There wasn't enough happening in it to hold my attention -- and outside Spider-Man himself and Michael Keaton, I didn't care about anyone in it. It might have been better than the execrable Andrew Garfield Spider-Man movies, but was nowhere as fun, enjoyable (nor even as faithful to the comics) as the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies.
I know, Tobey. It's okay. I forgive you for Spider-Man 3.So.... If you really really like Spider-Man, you might go and see this movie... if you don't mind being bored, and occasionally annoyed. If you like your movies on the "entertaining" side (I know, what a novel concept, right?)... Just re-watch the Tobey Maguire films.

NOT RECOMMENDED(boring)