Barbie.

Review #2049: Barbie.

Cast: 

Margot Robbie (Barbie), Ryan Gosling (Ken), America Ferrera (Gloria), Kate McKinnon (Weird Barbie), Issa Rae (President Barbie), Rhea Perlman (Ruth), Will Ferrell (CEO of Mattel), Michael Cera (Allan), Ariana Greenblatt (Sasha), Helen Mirren (Narrator) Directed by Greta Gerwig (#1983 - Lady Bird)

Review: 

“My mom would check out books [Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls] from the library about parenting, and then I would read them. They’re funny and brash and confident, and then they just—stop. How is this journey the same thing that a teenage girl feels? All of a sudden, she thinks, Oh, I’m not good enough.”

I'm sure at least one of you had a childhood experience with the Barbie doll. Ruth Handler popularized the doll that was named after her daughter after seeing her play with paper dolls. Noting the limitations that come with such "one-dimensional" function, Handler obviously saw an opening for an adult-bodied doll and so she suggested it to her fellow co-founder of Mattel in Elliot Handler that led to the start of the Barbie in 1959. Actually, Handler couldn't get her idea accepted for mass production and she had let go of the idea for a time. But a family trip in Europe led to her seeing a doll called Bild Lilli that got the creative process rolling again. The doll was actually merchandise for the Lilli comic strip (as created by Reinhard Beuthien) that was being published in the German tabloid Bild. The adult-sized doll, complete with a look described by Handler as "naive and clever" when it comes to red lips and winged eyeliner, was clearly something to "take inspiration" for well, Barbie. I mention this if only because the film has a character named "Ruth". Anyway, there have been a handful of films and television based on Mattel products, such as Masters of the Universe or Max Steel, or, well, the dozens and dozens of direct-to-video Barbie films. But the road to making a live action Barbie film took over a dozen years of development that had various people attached to star or direct, so here we are with a film loaded with various Barbies and Kens that I'm sure some of you already know about (sorry folks, this childhood was dedicated to any odd little toy that came along, whether that was Lego, or heaven forbid, the Slinky). The film was written by Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, which occurred after Margot Robbie (star and co-producer) asked the former about serving as writer/director.

Oh hell, I picked the movie because I wanted to know what exactly one was going to see in a film that has Mattel near the front of the line in production companies listed (right next to Warner Bros.). What type of possible Faustian bargain with corporate overlords could possibly happen here? Given the amount of folks I saw in line for the film (with quite a few in pink), I'm sure that at least one of them will be surprised with what they see on screen, parent or not. Well, whatever you expect, you could probably throw that out the window. If the script is described as one done in "literally imaginative play", the film seems to have plenty of varying inspirations, whether that involves old Technicolor musicals such as The Red Shoes, but I'm sure folks familiar with Pinocchio will make an interesting observation. But hey, that film did not have a "Techni-Barbie" template or present two distinct moments within its first thirty minutes that detail someone asking if they think of death or stating if they have genitals. It is the kind of movie where the lead performance is basically equivalent to a person that doesn't have a voice in their head that likes to make note of just where self-discovery goes when it comes to, well, when one is Barbie and the other is "& Ken". The deal of expectations versus reality in a world that is most certainly not the same as the one that saw Barbie come onto the eyes of children everywhere is at least a useful quandary to present in a film that never really stops reminding you of, well, its title subject. This is an interesting tightrope that reminded me of another product-named film with The Lego Movie (2014), so go with me on this for a moment: a movie based a product built on imagination for children (not like all boys played with just Legos) with an ordinary (or stereotypical in this case) lead character going on an adventure built on entering the real world to deal with something that could seep into their world. Of course, that film was about creativity while this deals with finding one's identity and surely an interesting discussion about feminism that more knowledgeable people can talk about than me (coincidentally, both of those movies happen to feature Will Ferrell as a businessman). For me, the Lego movie handled its goals better, but obviously it's up to you to interpret which is which.

With all of that in mind, Robbie pulls in the best performance of the film, one that has honesty in the route of discovery that comes from going from an earnest figure of self to one wrapped in crisis that she handles gamely. It is an adventure with a handful of useful gags involving the very nature of "Barbieland", and she manages to make it work in timing without selling herself short. Of course, who better to serve the other part of the double-act than Gosling, who sells the other side of self-realized identity that starts with the most basic point of "the beach" and goes on from there with pathos and sincerity. In a world that doesn't think about "just Ken", he is more than (k)enough in presenting the conflict necessary from what might as well really be a Barbie-version of the Garden of Eden (no guesses for which sounds easier to talk about between theology and patriarchy). The rest of the cast (which includes a handful of other versions of Barbie and Ken in small bits (such as Kingsley Ben-Adir and Simu Liu as Ken #1 and #2, respectively) do fine, setting up the contrast between the two worlds and societies with useful warmth, mostly with Ferrera or the active McKinnon. Folks who are invested more into what the movie aims for (analysis or in the crosshairs of wondering what the fuss is about with Barbie being a movie brand) will find plenty to surely come back to in another viewing while others might just let it go by the wayside. For me, it is a reliably average time, and that is better than being a hollow thud or being a shocking mess, as it is instead about as goofy as it might sound under the surface. I think the 114-minute runtime is just about what I expected for a film that ultimately achieves some of its goals when it comes to entertainment for an entertaining execution in style and certain lines (who among us can resist a long-worded good-girl master plan for the climax), so there may be hope yet for one not seeing their favorite star or director not be thought of as sold their soul to the plastic machine. Would I want to see Mattel become the type of thing that inspires a hodgepodge of films based on their products like a certain cinematic universe? Absolutely not, unless they are actually worth seeing in a theater, one that can maintain some sort of imagination beyond the usual attempts shelled out already. So yes, the movie is just fine for those who are curious or already set on seeing it on the biggest screen possible. 

Of course. there exists another film that is opening the same day as this one...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lady Bird.

Review #1983: Lady Bird.

Cast: 

Saoirse Ronan (Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson), Laurie Metcalf (Marion McPherson), Tracy Letts (Larry McPherson), Lucas Hedges (Danny O'Neill), Timothée Chalamet (Kyle Scheible), Beanie Feldstein (Julie Steffans), Lois Smith (Sister Sarah Joan), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Father Leviatch), Odeya Rush (Jenna Walton), Jordan Rodrigues (Miguel McPherson), Marielle Scott (Shelly Yuhan), and Jake McDorman (Mr. Bruno) Written and Directed by Greta Gerwig.

Review: 

“I really wanted to make a movie that was a reflection on home and what does home mean, and how does leaving home define what it is for you and your love for it. I felt like it was a love letter to Sacramento, and I felt like, what better way to make a love letter than through somebody who wants to get out, and then realize that they loved it?”

Sometimes, it really does help to go home in becoming a director. Greta Gerwig was born in Sacramento, California to a nurse and a credit union worker. A self-described "intense child", she attended St. Francis High School before attending Barnard College (one of the undergraduate colleges of Columbia University) to study English and philosophy. After graduation, she wanted to be a playwright but went to acting when she did not receive admission to playwright programs. In 2006, she began an association with Joe Swanberg by appearing in a small role in one of his films. The following year, she served as co-writer and star in Hannah Takes the Stairs, which has been label a "mumblecore film" (basically an independent film with natural acting and dialogue).  Gerwig became a director with Nights and Weekends (2008), serving as co-director with Swanberg while also writing and starring in the film. Lady Bird was the first solo effort for Gerwig; she followed that film up with Little Women (2019), which she also wrote, and her next film as writer and director is slated to come out this year with Barbie.

What a joyful time we have here. It is always a welcome occasion to view a comedy-drama that clearly is meant to evoke a worthwhile memory (it is set in 2002, so seeing a cell phone not in everyone's hand is certainly a given). Gerwig invited the cast and crew to read old yearbooks, photos, journals, and the passages of Joan Didion (a Sacramento native); she has stated that the film has a "core of truth that resonates with what I know". Sure, there have been a handful of coming-of-age films in the recent era such as Boyhood (2014) and Moonlight (2016) that have touched upon the plight of growing up in a modern sense, but Lady Bird manages to strike its own chord in being a lively film full of worthwhile characters and situations that seem real that never seems to linger in artificiality. It is a period piece of a specific time and place, but it is a worthwhile piece, one that depicts the power that comes in love and turbulence in youth and trying to figure oneself out at a key age. In its love letter to Sacramento, it is also a letter that details the importance of what matters most in the realm of families and attention. The truth of the matter is that home never feels like home until you make your way out of it for the first time. This is done in a way that never teeters on the brink of sappiness, mind you. It strolls along for 94 minutes with a pace on the episodic side that shows the general qualities that come along with growth in a youth beyond general labeling. With that in mind, Ronan (an American-born Irish actress already familiar with acting as a teen) has the self-confidence necessary to make the title role wholly believable in all the facets that come in the messiness of people when coming out of their shell. She soars as a bird trying to do flight on their own strength and does so with general warmth and timing to result in an endearing performance of flailing courage. Metcalf (best known for Roseanne alongside Tony Award-winning performances on Broadway) is the perfect match in family turbulence with two determined individuals. In other words, both sides are distinctly human in their qualities and flaws, which is mainly expressed in passive-aggression practicality. Their communication (or lack thereof) is what drives the film beyond the usual dynamic between parent and sibling, probably best represented by the opening sequence: a nice moment of listening to a book-on-tape that segues right into an argument over ungratefulness versus wanting to escape the "Midwest of California" before closing by someone jumping out of a car. Accompanying the action in tender support is Letts (who also has considerable experience in the theater), who proves brilliant in his scenes opposite Ronan. Hedges and Feldstein accompany Ronan in showing the facets of the joys and pain that come with having to accept hard truths about people on the cusp of adulthood that can either range from estrangement to worthwhile reunion (Feldstein in particular is quite amusing and bright). Chalamet practically absorbs the screen with a confidence that is entirely amusing in all the ways intended in the people that the script wishes to evoke of that particular character (which is basically a hipster). There is a small contribution of worthwhile seasoned support from Smith and Henderson, and the rest of the cast contribute well to the film seeming like a memory seared into one's mind, whether that involves spiraling lies or finding some sort of calling on a Sunday. At the end of the day, I enjoyed the film in its searing honesty that is consistently endearing in its elements of comedy and drama that jumps out at you with clear timing and focus. Gerwig has stated her desire to do a spiritual successor to the film that would still be set in Sacramento, and I can safely say I look forward to the possibility of seeing it in a theater someday. That I think is a clear indicator of how a pretty good movie can leave your imagination wanting more.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: American Psycho.

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Arthur (2011).

Review #203: Arthur.

Cast
Russell Brand (Arthur Bach), Helen Mirren (Lillian Hobson), Jennifer Garner (Susan Johnson), Greta Gerwig (Naomi Quinn), Luis Guzmán (Bitterman), Nick Nolte (Burt Johnson), and Geraldine James (Vivienne Bach) Directed by Jason Winer.

Review
I am aware that this is a remake (The first being made in 1981 with Dudley Moore, who I've covered before) However I haven't seen the film, so there ya go. Anyway, Russell Brand is...I don't know how to describe him other then a mix of a off-my-meds pirate with a bit of hazes added in. But playing the role of a rich alcoholic, he just works. Brand and Mirren have some good deliveries that keep the film from just being a remake. It can stand on its own legs and not need to be collapsed by fears of being not as good. A decent film that doesn't have much against it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.