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.

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 2010.

Review #233: 2010.

Cast
Roy Scheider (Heywood Floyd), John Lithgow (Dr. Walter Curnow), Helen Mirren (Tanya Kirbuk), Bob Balaban (Dr. Chandra), Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman), and Douglas Rain (HAL 9000) Directed by Peter Hyams.

Review
It has been a while since I have discussed 2001: A Space Odyssey. So let me give a little discussion here. It's one of those films to describe it a few words: Grand. Special. Thought-provoking. Epic in scale. Effects-galore. Classic. As for 2010, what would the be the words to describe it? I'll say that later, but anyway, the film is an adaptation of the novel 2010: Odyssey Two, which was a continuation of the movie (It's weird saying this...) The performances are alright, conveying well. Dullea and Rain return, 16 years after 2001 to reprise their performances here, which works out well. While it isn't as thought provoking as 2001, it does has enough flares of thrill and skill (and strangely recounting the events of the first one) to make you watch it on its own without much stigma. Now then, what would I describe this film in a few words? Decent-looking. Some interest. Decent. 1984 (literally). And there we go.

Overall, I give it 8 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.