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.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Review #2015: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Cast: 

Shameik Moore (Miles Morales / Spider-Man), Hailee Steinfeld (Gwen Stacy / Spider-Woman), Brian Tyree Henry (Jefferson Davis), Luna Lauren Vélez (Rio Morales), Jake Johnson (Peter B. Parker / Spider-Man), Jason Schwartzman (Dr. Jonathan Ohnn / The Spot), Issa Rae (Jessica Drew / Spider-Woman), Karan Soni (Pavitr Prabhakar / Spider-Man India), Daniel Kaluuya (Hobart "Hobie" Brown / Spider-Punk), Oscar Isaac (Miguel O'Hara / Spider-Man 2099), Shea Whigham (George Stacy), Greta Lee (Lyla), Mahershala Ali (Aaron Davis), Andy Samberg (Ben Reilly / Scarlet Spider), and Amandla Stenberg (Margo Kess / Spider-Byte) Directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson.

Review: 

You know, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse grew on me. I mean, it was a pretty good movie when I first saw it in the winter of December 2018, but the fact that it became the type of movie I found myself wanting to watch it as some sort of annual tradition makes it especially apparent in how entertaining it was. It was an entertaining animated comic book movie that felt vibrant and different from not only animated adventures but also Spider-Man films in general. It did do references when it came to citing the various incarnations of the character (such as say, a cartoon parody with Spider-Ham or ones based in 1930s noir or anime) without losing what really mattered in the end: anyone can wear the mask. Undeniably, a sequel was going to happen. My surprise (aside from it winning the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, because hey, when do comic book movies win awards?) was that not only would it take five years for a sequel to come out but that there would also in fact be another Spider-Verse film after that (of course, don't take my word for it, since I also thought Halloween (2018) would be a one-off, and then they proceeded to make two ridiculously mediocre back-to-back sequels). The film was written by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham (Lord co-wrote the first film while also serving as co-producer on both Spider-Verse films with Miller), and it is the fact that they wrote such an expanding story that necessitated a third Spider-Verse film which will be called, wait for it, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse.

Irrational or not, a sequel has to overcome the thought that nags in my head all the time: how does the film go in the various aspects that matter beyond originality? One thing is for sure is that the film is about the same level of enjoyment as I hoped to have in a pretty good sequel, one that has to balance the double-edged sword of being a sequel and also basically being half of a two-parter. There are a handful of Spider-Verses visited here, each meant to look like a different artist drew them, which goes to show that one can make scope in a comic book film without clouding it in similar shades of CG. I think being just a notch below the sequel territory of films like The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is a compliment. It presents a new step in the arc of trying to maintain oneself after making the step from having a suit and actually being able to use it: just what does it mean to be a hero, especially when it means to be Spider-Man? Power this, responsibility that, but how does one handle a situation you may not be able to solve regardless of how prepared you are? The film is a visual treat in the manner you would expect from filmmakers and animators that clearly want you to pay attention to what is on screen and what strikes out from the various locations and also the various characters, particularly with Spider-Punk. The film has its share of humor to go along with the growing chemistry between the two leads as played by Moore and Steinfeld and the set-up to bring each of these Spider-folks together and how one exactly sees a cliffhanger coming in a film series that says that anything is seemingly possible. In that sense, it makes a suitable adventure for 140 minutes that shows the benefits of animation (which, you know, is just as much a form of film as live-action) that ironically shows up yet another earlier Spider-Man film made by a certain cinematic universe (which actually tried to do their own "multiverse" film) that liked to do their own "easter eggs". The action (when seen among the various locations) is vibrant and interesting to follow without seeming blurred in staging or in overwrought timing, which is par for the course for what you hope animated films (or films in general) would do. 

Moore (as the fourth theatrical Spider-Man, remember) has proven well in this title role, with his charm always managing to come through even when balancing the lingering doubts that still arise from, well, you know, and the doubts ahead. His scenes with his on-screen family in Velez and Henry feel just as interesting as ever in establishing the differences that matter between parent and child (particularly with Velez in a scene where she tries to understand just what is going on with her son as he tries to grow up and maybe tell her something important). Steinfeld proves just as worthy in her own type of wavering confidence, wrapped up in trying to make her own choice in what is most important in terms of saying vs. doing. Among the new folks is folks played by Rae and Soni (each are fine) with the stick out being the one with firm punk elements (no labels) in Kaluuya, who is actually pretty entertaining. Issac (now with a starring role after being shown briefly in the end-credit scene of the last film) makes for a quality balance among the spider-folk in the art of logistical force, which given the amount of screentime could certainly be thought of as just as adversarial as Schwartzman, who does hold his own in the sudden shifts from would-be villain relief to creepy threat. The confrontation sequence between Moore and a "Spider-Society" in what really matters when handling what seems like fait accompli is especially important to understanding the film at its heart, if you think about it. Of course, Johnson does return from the earlier film as well, having emerged from the cocoon of mentor-in-theory to parenthood, which does lend itself to a few amusing moments. As a whole, I think the first film is probably a bit better, maybe because it managed to endure quite well in my head over the years, but the second film will likely have its own worthy place in viewing without trouble. Of course, sticking the other part of the cliffhanger next year would certainly help, since nobody likes to be left hanging without a net. It is a vibrant and effective sequel that makes all the right moves in what you would expect from an animated film or a sequel in general that has plenty of spectacle and heart to make one curious for what could be next.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.