Did Ya Ever See Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole?
https://open.spotify.com/show/3W4tMn1iaQr3hMub93gQaG
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-ya-ever-see/id1664282738
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/didyaeversee
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
Did Ya Ever See Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?
https://open.spotify.com/show/3W4tMn1iaQr3hMub93gQaG
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-ya-ever-see/id1664282738
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/didyaeversee
Portrait Of A Lady On Fire
Did Ya Ever See Portrait Of A Lady On Fire?
https://open.spotify.com/show/3W4tMn1iaQr3hMub93gQaG
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-ya-ever-see/id1664282738
Big Trouble in Little China
Did Ya Ever See Big Trouble in Little China?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-ya-ever-see/id1664282738
https://open.spotify.com/show/3W4tMn1iaQr3hMub93gQaG
Berbenheimer
Barbenheimer/News Special
https://open.spotify.com/show/3W4tMn1iaQr3hMub93gQaG
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-ya-ever-see/id1664282738
poster by Sean Longmore, commissioned by Layered Butter magazine
JFK
As mentioned in the episode I am slowing down the blog. Henceforth the blog will be limited to links to the show and the poster.
https://open.spotify.com/show/3W4tMn1iaQr3hMub93gQaG
Zack Snyder's Justice League
I spoke for so long on the episode.
Away go listen to it because I don't do it Justice and definitely wouldn't be able to do it Justice here.
Jackie
The movie Jackie is about the woman - Jackie. Jackie Kennedy, Mrs. JFK. The movie revolves around the assassination of President Kennedy and the aftermath. It gives an interesting insight on the goings on behind the White House doors in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
This movie sounds really interesting but, actually, it is pretty dull. The actual inciting incident is so famous that the movie doesn’t exactly show it until very late in the movie and when it is on screen it feels like it's there to shock the audience more than it's there for story purposes. I mean it is the most significant thing in the movie and it’s held until just before the credits. Maybe it's there to leave the movie with a big emotional hit. But to be honest more like ‘look at the carnage’ than anything else. Look I get it. Seeing your husband, the President of the United States of America, head explode is grim. It is truly horrific. But by this stage in the movie the character of Jackie is kind of annoying and comes across unpleasant.
So I didn’t really like the movie. Apparently it benefits from a second viewing. I don’t think I’ll be giving it a second go. Listen, there are things I like about it. I like that it was shot in old graining film stock, probably super 16 or something like that. I like the old archive footage that was recreated for the movie. It actually made the movie feel real. I really like that but it did not save the movie because I was watching characters I did not like.
See Natalie Portman, Academy Award winning Natalie Portman, seems to want to follow up her Black Swan win by going full hog at this. See is emoting really hard and at times she does a great job. But, at other times it feels like she is a bit ham-y. Maybe it's the accent and the Jackie impression. Or, maybe it's the fact that Jackie is putting on so many faces to save… well face, that she gets bogged down in too many layers. She was fine in the movie but there were times that I was watching some feel pain, trauma and sadness but I was feeling bored. Oh, she's sad again, oh she's super salty, oh, she's sad yet again. I did hear a director once say that the actor’s job isn't to feel the emotion but have the audience feel the emotion.
Look, there are other things in the movie, Like Bobby Kennedy and how the Kennedy children deal with the event but because the movie is on the shoulders of Natalie Portman’s Jackie that they aren't worth mentioning. I mean it is right that Portman carries the weight of the movie, she plays the titular role, but when I fail to connect with that it makes the movie little more than mediocre.
Mazes and Monsters
Mazes and Monsters sound like a knock off Dungeons and Dragons doesn't it? I mean there are always copycats of new innovations. I mean Dungeons and Dragons (the game) was pretty revolutionary in tabletop gaming. Basically no game pieces and a bunch of guidelines for the dungeon master(referee as they were called then) it was different and , to quote Cool Runnings, people are always afraid of what's different.
Mazes and Monsters is a TV movie based on the book by Rona Jaffe about a bunch of college students who play a D&D style game. The book had home clout back in the day because of the Satanic Panic surrounding Dungeons and Dragons. What is the “Satanic Panic” I hear you say? Well according to the fountain of internet information, Wikipedia “The Satanic panic is a moral panic consisting of over 12,000 unsubstantiated cases of Satanic ritual abuse (SRA, sometimes known as ritual abuse, ritualistic abuse, organized abuse, or sadistic ritual abuse) starting in the United States in the 1980s” A bunch got attributed to a fantasy RPG. I mean think about it… Geek culture was held in basements and behind closed doors by the social outcasts, the nerds, the geeks. It was uncool and people were suspicious of a bunch of kids playing a game where you roll dice, cast spells and fight demons. The USA has always had an unusual relationship with religion so hearing the kids downstairs summoning a lich priest demi-demon would raise a few eyebrows. So of course D&D got a target on its back, so much so that game co-creator, Gary Gyax, went on TV to tell people it's just a game of make-believe.
Anyway… This movie takes that idea and runs with it. I mean there are real cases regarding suicide and disappearances, and this movies says what if a player lost their mind to the game and started to believe that they are the character they are playing. In this case, a fresh faced Tom Hanks is that player. Yep, in what may be his first starring role, two time Academy Award winner Tom Hanks plays Mazes and Monster and starts to believe he is his character.
See… Hanks has changed college to finally graduate but has got sucked back into the world of Mazes and Monsters (M&M? No, that's the chocolate). So he plays and one of the other players decides to go further with it.
Seemingly out of nowhere Jay-Jay, who wears an assortment of different hats (i was actually disappointed when he wore the same hat twice or didn’t wear one at all), decides he is going to attempt suicide in the local caves. However, on a reconnoitre of the caves he realises it is the perfect place to host a game of Mazes and Monsters. So he does and every one dresses up as their character for a real life game. It's more LARP (Live Action Role Playing than Role Playing Game). But this triggers something for Hanks who sees a rubber suited minotaur. Hanks officially loses his mind to his character and goes on a mission to complete the game, ending up on top of the World Trade Centre New York.
Look, the movie is not a good movie. I switched off a bit here and there. It becomes a hunt for a missing person and not a very good one at that. Hanks isn't the powerhouse he would later become and it is a TV movie after all.
So, Mazes and Monsters… it has an interesting idea attached but didn't have the execution to be a good movie (TV in the 80s people). Not great like.
Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
Roll for initiative…
Dungeons & Dragons is so hot right now. I mean it's cool to be a nerd now. Or maybe I should say cool people are coming out of the nerd closet. It’s finally happened people, all the social walls are falling. I think it must have started with the Berlin Wall coming down.
I mean they tried it to make DnD cool before, but the last time I watched a Dungeons and Dragons movie in the cinema it was not good. But the year 2000 was an awkward time and we are 23 years removed. Empires have risen and fallen in this time and Stranger Things made the Dungeons and the Dragons popular. I am even in a group with work colleagues.
So they decided to have another go at it. Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves came out and, well it's fun. It's a classic popcorn movie. It's silly at times and has lots going on. I reckon that when I rewatch it it will probably suffer here and there but for the most part, it's good. Movie on, brain out job done.
Now the movie has a plot. Chris Pine is a bard who is looking to reclaim his daughter and to do so he gets a rag tag group of DnD PCs (that player characters) together for this quest. There are your generic fantasy classes, although no dwarf, and they get involved in a bunch of different set pieces along their way. Some are actually really cool, like the heist on the road to Neverwinter. And this is my biggest compliment of the movie… It feels like a game of Dungeons and Dragons. There are parts when I thunk, oh, he rolled low there, and big set ups that get ruined by one of the characters being stupid. Very DnD.
It is legit enjoyable. There’s never enough time for logical thinking to come into play, which is good because there is plenty of Dungeons and Dragons universe lore I know nothing about, like; What are those cat people, why can she turn into a bear that has the face of an owl, what is an owlbear? It doesn't matter because there is a fat dragon, a fun heist, a hilarious Bradley Cooper cameo (that just hit me in the right place) and really, who cares?
Now then, I am from sunny Northern Ireland which just happens to be the place where they filmed a lot of the movie. This may have won me over a bit more. Seeing places I’ve been in a Hollywood blockbuster (probably right?) was cool. Oh look there Carrick Castle! I mentioned in the podcast episode a story of some of my family bumping into one of the stars, check that out.
I hope Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves does spin off into other things, a TV show is the perfect format for DnD. It would give it the feel of a game session and this could actually bring more people to the game (Wizards of the Coast/Warner Bros. Discover call me or email the podcast dyespodcast@gmail.com). Or they could just get Joe Manganellio on it.
Stalker
Seventies Soviet era science fiction. It sounds amazing. What sci-fi movies did the Russians make during the Cold War when the Americans are pumping out Star Wars? I mean it is either going to be incredible or terrible. I’m sure there are some real stinkers but this is not one of them.
I came across Stalker when Cursed Movies did an episode surrounding it. By the way, Cursed Movies is an excellent documentary series that is very interesting and well worth checking out. But Stalker… the episode covers how the production was riddled with difficulties. The film did not develop correctly, the locations had to change and years later every one but one crew member died early. According to the documentary the new locations were ripping in industrial waste. Look check out the episode, it's great, and it exposes you to new movies you may never have seen or even heard of.
So Stalker is directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. He was being compared to Denis Villeneuve, so you know I had to check out his stuff. I started with Stalker and The Mirror and was not disappointed. His movies are more thought pieces. It asks you questions and does not provide the answers, just like all good science fiction (although The Mirror isn’t really sci-fi, or is it?).
So the movie revolves around two characters, the Writer and the Professor, who are looking to go into the Zone. To get to the Zone they hire a Stalker, a professional guide for the Zone. See the Zone is a prohibited area. Something happened there that has caused the area to be abandoned, maybe it was aliens, or a nuclear disaster (like Chernobyl, which happened a few years later). But rumour has there is a room in a house within the Zone that can grant you your heart's desires. One wish. And here is one of the questions Stalker asks, what would your one wish be? The Professor wants to win a Nobel Prize, but the Room grants you what is your core desire and not what you want or even think you want.
The movie follows the dilemma of the characters. Should they go in and get what they truly desire even if it's not what they want or should they continue on without that. What if it backfires? The Stalker has never been in because he knows this has happened. This inner look on human nature is excellent to see in a movie. I love it when a movie goes beyond itself. Makes you feel and think.
Now, Stalker is a long movie with not a lot happening. After the party sneaks by the guards entering the zone the rest of the film is slow. Really slow. I like movies that are slow for a purpose. I think because it is subtitled it grabs your focus more because you can’t glance away when there is character dialogue because you can't understand what they say. It builds an atmosphere with long shots and prolonged science, only hearing the elements of the surroundings. More “Art House” movies do this and when you get bombarded with Disney/Marvel/Star Wars mediocrity the change of scenery is welcome.
Draft Day
Cleveland is now on the clock.
The NFL Draft has the potential to be a life changing day for a number of young men leaving college hoping to make it in professional sport. The movie, I don't think, is life changing. Maybe it did change someone's life. It didn't change mine, although I do enjoy this movie.
Look, this movie is a middle of the road, good time film. It’s not special, but it has things I like. I like the NFL, I like the Cleveland Browns, I like the behind the scenes process of selecting players. The first movie I ever gave 10/10 or 5 stars was a documentary about motorcycle racing so if it's a movie about something I like it will always do well.
The movie follows Kevin Costner as the General Manager of the Cleveland Browns and the twists and turns of the NFL Draft. Now the time line is condensed massively for the movie (understandable). He is offered trades to move up the draft to select a highly touted Quarterback that could change the team. The only thing is Costner isn’t sure about his character. Now this is something that teams would have nailed down weeks in advance. Condensed timeline sure. Okay. So Sonny Weaver Jr (Costner) makes a big trade that he does but doesn't really want to do.
Anyway, we meet the players, agents, coaches and other draft prospects along the way. Oh, and we also meet Jennifer Garner’s character, Allie. She is the romantic interest of the movie. She just so happens to be pregnant with Kevin Costner’s baby and is the salary cap manager. Hilariously, her managing the salary cap is not her primary characteristic. There is only one or two lines where she is questioned regarding this. In fact she says that moving from the 7th pick to the first could work but would need a bit of juggling to sort. However at the end of the movie the team now has the 1st overall pick and the 7th, so how does your salary cap look now?
I like this movie. There are plenty of fun cameos and loads of ‘that-guys’ (you know there's that guy from that thing). There are some ridiculous things going on, I didn't even mention the wacky scene transitions, but it all gets a pass because the payoff is earned. It might have taken the scenic route to get there but it got there nonetheless.
Under Seige
Gonna take my pies outta the oven?
Die Hard on a boat. What more do you want? Well not quite Die Hard, Die Hard is one of the best structured movies ever. This is like when the dumb thug copies the smart kids homework but can't really spell. It's all there but it's not as good as the original.
Under Siege is still a good movie. It's super enjoyable and doesn't take itself too seriously. Steven Seagal does though Somehow he is a producer on this.
Nevertheless (!) the movie surrounds the decommissioning of the USS Missouri and it being taken over by a group of terrorists. These terrorists ‘sneak’ onto the warship by disguising themselves as a surprise party for the Commander. They kill a bunch of the sailors and quickly take over the Missouri. See it turns out that when the US Navy retires a boat they travel to the retirement home with nuclear missiles. Maybe that was its retirement package? Either Way one thing I like about this movie is it doesn’t hang about. We get our hero, villains and action kicking off quickly. The 100 minute movie of the 90s was a thing of beauty. In, out, no faffing about. Lovely.
So our John McClaine this time is none other than Steven Seagal, Casey Ryback, an ex-marine and the ship's cook. Our Hans Gruber is Tommy Lee Jones and at times Gary Busey. That's three bananas actors in this. Somehow Steven Seagal acts like a normal human, one made of wood, but normal for his standards. I mean Tommy Lee Jones, Academy Award Winner Tommy Lee Jones, challenges a diet version of his Two-Face from Batman Forever in this movie. Half the time he is a cool calculated villain and the other half… complete nut job. And for reasons unknown to science, Gary Busey is similar. Just the scene where he drags up for the party is bonkers. I suppose this right around the heyday of these actors, yes Jones did have a long career but he probably peaked in the 90s. He got his Oscar then. And Busey, well Point Break is only the year before. Now look at him.
Anyway there are some things I do want to say about this motion picture…
Casey Ryback is cool, he’s kinda funny and his fighting scenes are good. Seagal, then, clearly could do some serious movies and that knife fight at the end is rad (yeah rad). I don’t know if its Seagal's lack of acting ability but his lack of emotion makes him enjoyable too watch. All action and business no nonsense.
But look, this movie is famous for one scene and I suppose you have to cover it when discussing Under Siege. There is only one female character with dialogue in multiple scenes. That is Erika Elenia’s Miss July ‘89, Jordan Tate. Yep, they cast an actual Playboy model turned actor to be the actor playing the playboy model. It could actually be brilliant casting. She tries her best in this movie but ultimately is only there as comic relief and to emerge from the cake. Legend has it that video rental stores had to order more and more VHS copies of Under Siege because the tapes wore out with people rewinding to he topless scene. Watching the movie again I found her character the strangest. Brought on a warship full of men to basically strip but instead he takes too many sickness tables and lives (can’t think of another to put this) inside a cake only to pop out when Casey is chasing the ship. She stayed there, presumably asleep, through a gun fight and mutiny and after all that comes around when the cake is pushed across the room. I guess it didn’t have to make sense, it's a 90s action movie that needed a naked lady. We lived in simpler times.
Regardless of whether the characters worked or the plot holds up to scrutiny… the movie is a fun time. Silly, enjoyable action.
Threads
Threads. Probably the grimmest movie I've seen (although Requiem for a Dream is right up there).
Threads is a movie about the consequences of a nuclear war. Made in 1984 during the cold war, Treads is set in the English city of Sheffield. Everyone is going about their northern working class lives whilst an international situation is kicking off in Iran. While we follow Jimmy and Ruth, two young people in love and just getting by in the 80s, the tension between the USA and Soviet Union is rising. It's mostly in the background with nobody really taking any notice but throughout the first half of the movie it starts to become more significant to the viewer and the characters. But look, our Ruth is pregnant and our Jimmy is going to marry her and the soon to be three will struggle to get by but they’ll be together, look they've even bought a flat to fix up and live in.
However the movie cuts between our average joe characters and some local government officials. They seem to be preparing for something, assembling key personnel and making arrangements for the possibility of a war. But that’ll hardly happen, the guys down the pub don’t think so.
Here's the thing… it does. A nuclear bomb is dropped over the North Sea. We read a text dump of information on screen like a computer printer out (an 80s computer print out too). This is one of the best things about this movie, it lacks any razzle dazzle. The matter of factness of text dumps on screen is chilling. The scenes of the aftermath are truly grim. So, yeah the bomb gets dropped and we see the panic of people fleeing the streets, diving under cars, doing anything to stay protected from the blast. Some people stare in disbelief, others race to see their loved ones, others panic and cry. The fact that these are all, average everyday people makes it more intense. Shortly after we get more information in on screen text. NATOs defenses are destroyed… 3000 megatons are dropped on the UK. This goes from crazy to total carnage in a matter of seconds. This sequence is outstanding. We see people freaking out, scream and the image flashes into a negative with short sharp shots of destruction; buildings collapsing, cars crashing and people burning.
Our Jimmy doesn't make another appearance in the movie, probably a casualty of the nuclear war. We just never find out his fate. So we follow Ruth, now struggling with her family she leaves the family home and enters the destruction. Text dump. Nuclear fallout can cause serious issues for unborn children. She’s pregnant… This is grim. So she walks out and we get shots of burning buildings, charred remains of her neighbors (lovely) and, what is truly the most intense scene of the movie, a woman. She looks old, covered in soot, ash and allsorts of dirt. She is holding a burnt dead baby, man this movie is truly grim, and she is looking straight down the camera lens. The whites of her eyes are piercing through the grime and dirt of the rest of her. This shot, guys, this freaking shot.
So the movie progresses by doing time jumps. We see a hospital open and floods of people pouring in to get medical help. It’s gross. Green and black sludge drip down the steps as blood and pus ooze out of the sick and injured.
This movie is not pleasant.
But we follow Ruth who gives birth to a child, on her own in a barn. Thankfully the baby is okay. This may be the only bit of levity in this part of the movie. We get another time jump ten or thirteen years later. We see gray people on gray ground with a gray sky working the land and Ruth collapses and dies. She looks about 50 but in reality she is probably 30ish. But her daughter doesn’t react how a child normally would in this situation. The impact of nuclear war has had more impact than just the physical damage.
And the movie ends.
A horrific tale told well. How the BBC released this I have no idea.
Avatar The Way of Water
After 14 years the blue people are back!
Fourteen years is a long time to wait for a sequel to any movie, let alone the most successful movie in the history of cinema. I know James Cameron waited years until the technology was right to make the first movie and it seemed to pay off. People loved that movie (especially internationally). I’ll be honest… I saw it once in the cinema and thought it was good. Nothing special but a well made movie that wasn’t bad. I still don't know how it became the most successful movie ever. The memes at the time called it Pocahontas in space, but to be fair, movies are generally the same 7 or so stories. I think this time it was just so obviously Pocahontas with blue people.
Anyway, the new one. Much like the first is a technical and graphical masterpiece. It is also a simple movie with a simple plot and big action. The water is outstanding. I did forget that the movie is basically an animated film at times. There are a couple of real life human people thrown every now and again. I did think they looked a bit Spy Kids 3-ish. They stood out a bit as “added after the fact” and weren't as seamless as the rest of the movie but they're so infrequent that it didn't really matter.
Here’s the thing… It worked last time. I don't think the movie worked this time. In fact I actually disliked the movie. A first for a James Cameron movie (yes including Piranha II: The Spawning). Avatar 2 is basically The Abyss without the interesting bits and with a not overly thought through revenge story tacked on.
To be honest that was the thing that had the most potential. See, the baddie from the first movie is back from the dead as a Na’vi Avatar and is hunting Jake Sully and his family for revenge. That sounds awesome. Why a massive colonial corporation who is looking to mine the planet’s resources and bleed it dry would allow this - I have no clue. Don’t think about it too much… look at the water - ooh- isn't it great?
And here lies the problem with this movie. It does things that are interesting then leaves them for like 60 or 70 minutes and comes back to be all 2look, remember this?” then another 40 minutes of alien sea life. Here's an example.. There is a human child known as Spider. I say human he looks like a 20 year old rugby player who could bench a double decker bus, but anyway. He gets captured by the bad blue people and within 5 minutes seems to be on their side. Well he helps them get the flying dinosaur birds and how to speak the language but by the end of the movie Jake Sully is like, “Spider I'll save you” - “Oh thanks Jake Sully them there baddies are bad”, all after he leads them right to Jake Sully. I mean it made no sense to fight against the baddies, then to help the baddies, then to fight against them again, then save the main baddie. like, really? Did the character forget about his morals as much as the movie forgot about his character?
Anyway… Most of the movie surrounds Jake Sully and girl Na’vi from the first movie’s kids. They’re hardly in the movie. Jake Sully does some narration and fights in the big action set piece at the end and their mother shows up when some anger or worry is needed in a scene. She does nothing in this movie but get upset or annoyed, that is all. And the kids keep doing the same thing. Be told not to do something, end up doing and getting in trouble, being told not to do it again, the cycle repeats.
But look at the pretty water.
I mean there's a bunch of examples I throw out but really the movie is a showcase for amazing computer effects. It won Best Visual Effects at the Academy Awards, how it was nominated for Best Picture i have no clue.
Ambulance
Alright, get ready for a wild ride. Bayhem is back, baby! This film has everything you could want in an action movie - high-speed car chases, explosive shootouts, and a heart-pumping plot that will keep you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.
The movie centres around two brothers, played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, who hatch a plan to rob an armoured truck. But when things go awry and they hijack an ambulance to make their escape, they find themselves caught up in a dangerous game of cat and mouse with the police.
Right from the opening scene, Ambulance grabs your attention and doesn't let go. Once it starts, it never stops. The action is intense and visceral, with adrenaline-fueled car chases and heart-stopping shootouts that will have you holding your breath. But what really sets this movie apart is the chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Abdul-Mateen II. I love me some Gyllenhaal. He just seems to go hard at it in his roles and it looks like he is having a great time making movies, especially this one.
The film's pacing is also spot-on, with just enough downtime between the action sequences to allow the characters to develop and the story to unfold. And speaking of the story, it's a rollercoaster of twists and turns that will keep you guessing until the very end.
The movie is funny, there's plenty of humour and levity to balance out the intense action. Listen to the episode and hear all about Christopher Cross’s “Sailing” moment. It's these little moments of humour that make the characters feel more human and relatable, and help to offset the tension and danger of their situation.
Of course, no action movie would be complete without a standout performance from the lead actors, and Gyllenhaal and Abdul-Mateen II do not disappoint. Together, they make for a compelling duo that you can't help but root for.
The supporting cast is also fantastic. Eiza González delivers a standout performance as a paramedic who is trying to keep the police officer in the back of the Ambulance alive. High steaks you can really buy into.
Of course, it's not just the actors who make this movie great - the action sequences are also top-notch. Director Michael Bay is known for his high-octane, explosive action scenes, and he does not disappoint here. The car chases are particularly impressive, with the camera racing alongside the vehicles as they careen through the streets (drone shoots everywhere). And the shootouts are just as thrilling, with bullets flying and explosions rocking the screen. It's Bay back to his best.
Look, Michael Bay loves America and he is excellent at making police, military and in this instance first responders (I think that's how the Americans like to call the emergency services) look incredible.
This movie is a classic, remove your brain-and-enjoy type of movie. It didn't get enough love when it first came out. So here is some of my love for it now.
Adaptation
Adaptation. This is a wild one. I think you need a degree in mutlistradated extra-space science or something to describe it. Look, I'll try it…
Adaptation follows the screenwriting struggles of Charlie Kaufman as he tries to adapt “The Orchid Thief”, a real book about flowers into a screenplay. As he delves further in the book and the life of its author, Kaufman becomes more and more obsessed with both and the lines of reality and fiction become blurred. The movie follows him trying to write the book as a movie which then becomes the movie we are watching. It is unbelievably meta and four wall breaking as it is basically autobiographical but also flips to fiction when it feels like it? See it turns out that some things are factual and some things are not but which is which. I didn't really know while watching it until the last act when things really went wild. I found it so difficult to put into words that I asked an AI to do it for me. This is what it spat out…
“The movie Adaptation (2002) is a wild ride through the mind of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman as he struggles to adapt a book into a screenplay. Charlie, played by Nicolas Cage, is tasked with adapting a book about orchids, but finds himself completely blocked and unable to come up with a good story.
As Charlie tries to figure out how to approach the project, he becomes obsessed with the book's author, Susan Orlean (played by Meryl Streep), and starts to imagine himself as a character in her book. Meanwhile, Charlie's twin brother, Donald (also played by Nicolas Cage), decides to become a screenwriter as well and comes up with a ridiculous thriller screenplay.
As Charlie's mental state deteriorates, he becomes increasingly erratic and unpredictable. He starts seeing visions of his brother, who seems to be more successful than him in every way. Meanwhile, Susan Orlean's story takes a bizarre turn as she becomes involved with a drug dealer named John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper) who is obsessed with finding a rare orchid.
As the movie builds to a climax, the lines between reality and fiction become increasingly blurred. Charlie, Donald, Susan, and John all find themselves caught up in a crazy, surreal adventure that defies explanation. In the end, the only thing that is clear is that Adaptation is a one-of-a-kind movie that defies easy categorization.”
Not bad Artificial Intelligence, just don’t become Skynet and build T-800s.
So here's the thing about this movie. It's tricksy. It opens with real behind the scenes footage of real movie Being John Malkovich. Which so happens to Director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufmans’ previous movie together. There are a couple of shots where the real John Cusack appears and is about to start shooting the real movie Being John Malkovich. Meanwhile Charlie Kaufman struggles with his writer's block and talks with his not real brother Donald, who is really credited as co-screenwriter with Charlie Kaufman. The line of reality is baffling. Still I went along for the ride and had a good time.
Once I got over the existential crisis of what is reality in this movie I found it very enjoyable. I really like the struggles of Charlie as he couldn’t make the book work as a movie. I loved the cast. Their performances were great across the board, and got a bunch of award accolades. I like how they dealt with the strange and ridiculous situations they found themselves in. I like that the movie made fun of itself, like when Brain Cox (a screenwriting lecturer) calls out the laziness of using voice over to interrupt Charlie's voice over. These are well written jokes that tickle the (tiny) intellectual part of my movie loving soul.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie. It's smarter than most films, smarter than me and is something completely different. Reading the IMDb trivia is a must after watching and it gives a whole other level of “wait, what?” moments.
The Whale
Hot off the heels of mother! I checked out Darren Aronofsky’s latest motion picture, The Whale.
Now, it is heavy, no pun intended. Last time out I talked/wrote/blogcasted about how Araonofsky doesn’t make the most complex choices in his movies and I like that. My simpleton brain enjoys being pointed in the rough direction. And guest what people? He’s only gone and done it again. Aronofsky has made a movie circulating around emotion and leans hard on that. I realised the emotional beats were coming just by the score. Oh, the music is playing, the dialogue is starting to reach its emotional peak. I still got suckered in by it. Especially at the end.
So a big deal (still not a pun) has been made around Brendan Fraser’s performance. He had a standing ovation at Cannes he won a Critics Choice Award and a Golden Globe for it and he was nominated for an Academy Award. I felt early on that he was doing a good job but, was it really worth the accolades? Welp. This changed in the third act. He was great in it. Now I do think that the writing was the significant element and not the delivery. It's easy for a good actor to make good writing great. Was he better than the part? I think the movie limits me in thinking that he was not better than the part. The obvious emotional manipulation(?) could take away from the performance a bit. Maybe. I think it's tough. Fraser still did his best ever work.
Either way the movie is about the characters and they are written very well. Brendan Fraser plays Charlie, an overweight recluse who tries to reconnect with his daughter, Ellie, played by Sadie Sink. I’ve only seen Sadie Sink in Stranger Things and felt he was just one of the ensemble in that show. Here I got to see that she is actually a talented actor. Her diabolical daughter role had me tricked a number of times as she tricked and manipulated Thomas in the movie. I thought she was going to have the redeeming character arc and she kind of did, but not in a clean cut type of way, but more of an ugly almost accidental type of way. She tries to take down Thomas but the opposite occurs.
Early in the movie Charlie meets Thomas, a Christian missionary who actually saves Charlie from a heart attack right at the start of the movie. This is where Aronofsky gets to explore his love of religious themes. He loves a discussion of religion and there are plenty to get into here.
The movie does revolve around Charlie and his apartment. Characters like Thomas and Ellie come and go. His friend Liz, played by Hong Chau, comes and goes dishing out tough love and showing her love for Charlie. Hong Chau does an excellent performance in this part showing disappointment and real distress when he won't get help even though he is able.
The only other characters are Mary, played by Samantha Morton, who is Ellie’s mother and only has one scene in the movie that kind of serves as the breaking point for Charlie. He is such a nice and loving person that he only sees the best in others and will neglect himself to that end. And the last character is actually my favourite… The pizza delivery man Dan. He is off screen the entire movie and only interacts through a closed door. But he shows real concern for Charlie . I think he, somehow, understands Charlie's struggle and like Liz is worried. We only see him once when Charlie comes out to collect his pizzas.
There is a discussion about whether or not this movie is fat shaming. Now there are clear and deliberate acts of fat shaming from the likes of Ellie but as a whole I don’t think the movie is trying to do that. I think The Whale is similar to Aronofsky’s other movie about addiction, Requiem For A Dream, especially the Ellen Burstyn story. The movie does a lot of good things to show how Charlie is trying to fill an emptiness in his life regarding loved ones.
Now the title, The Whale. It's easy to think that this is part of the fat shaming but I think it's different than that. See, throughout the movie Charlie calms his heart rate by reading an essay about Moby Dick. In the olden times books had multiple titles and when Herman Melville released it as “Moby Dick or The Whale”. The essay is an interesting take on the book but i think the parallel of Captain Ahab and Charlie is the interesting thing. See i think the movie is called The Whale because, like Ahab, Charlie has his white whale. In his case, I think, it is his view of himself. He sees everyone else’s qualities and good aspects. He even sees them in his daughter who is, her mother says, evil. But he does not see them in himself. At the emotional peak he says “I need to know that I have done one thing right in my life!” This is his white whale and like Ahab it does eventually take his life.
This movie is a good exploration of themes like family, love and the human condition. It is very well written and acted. The gloomily lit set reflects the solemn nature of the movie. It's a rough watch but ultimately it is a good watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)