Wonder Woman 1984.

Review #2191: Wonder Woman 1984.

Cast: 

Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Kristen Wiig (Barbara Minerva / Cheetah), Pedro Pascal (Maxwell "Max Lord" Lorenzano), Robin Wright (Antiope), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), Amr Waked (Emir Said Bin Abydos), Natasha Rothwell (Carol), Ravi Patel (Babajide), and Oliver Cotton (Simon Stagg) Directed by Patty Jenkins (#942 - Wonder Woman)

Review: 

Admittedly, there were quite a few films that fell by the wayside in 2020. This was released on Christmas Day in a mix of theaters and streaming because, well, certain studios really suck at releasing movies (as done by Warner Bros, The Suicide Squad had the same thing happen to it the following year). But I guess I was just not up for this particular film or maybe I am just very picky, because how many of you would even guess that there have been eight movies based on DC characters in this decade? This is the sequel to Wonder Woman (2017), which as one asserts, was a character originally created by writer William Moulton Marston and illustrator H. G. Peter. Patty Jenkins returned to direct this sequel along with writing the story with Geoff Johns to go with their screenplay that was written alongside Dave Callaham (each were different from the last film, which had Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg, and Jason Fuchs). Any chance for a third film were dead and buried in 2023 with the impending idea to explode the DC film glob (as one might call it) into a new and different form. Or something.  You know, the first film was pretty decent from the one time I saw it...nearly eight years ago. It was a period piece movie, but it generally made for a useful movie when it came to actually showing what could be done with a character like Wonder Woman for a solo movie beyond just being in team-up movies.

Confusingly, Wonder Woman 1984, makes me see a collision of mush. One only has a litany of questions to ask: 

• Why the hell is this movie 151 minutes? 
• What was the need for a character who already wished to have the power (and sex appeal) of Diana Prince to then want to become an apex predator? 
• How does one wish to "become the stone" and not have it immediately end with them being a rock? What exactly are the consequences for a guy who uses a satellite system to try and suck people's lifeforce from wishes only to see it undone? 
• Was their really a need to bring back Steve Trevor but have it be so everybody other than Diana just sees him as some random guy? 
• How exactly does Diana work at the Smithsonian Museum - does she just fake wear a wig every few years so people don't get suspicious about how she never ages? (as opposed to the show, which amusingly has her wear glasses when working in the office)
• Would the entire world be so nice as to receive a wish only to renounce it because someone told them about how it might be bad? 
• Okay, sure, one only manage to turn a coffee cup and a jet invisible (in like, the span of years), but one conversation with Steve can have her learn to fly with that lasso too?

The answers to these questions are: oh hell, some movies really don't know when to start and end (well, and that doing a Quantum Leap swap without (beloved) Dean Stockwell and Scott Bakula seems like a bad idea). My brain felt dumber watching this movie, which seems like it wants to be entertainment on the level of an 80s movie with an adversary influenced by real-life conmen like Bernie Madoff to go with movie kinds of conmen in '78 Lex Luthor. Somehow, it just doesn't gel well. Jenkins apparently wanted to make a film set in 1984 because of its mark as "the height of Western civilization and society", but I really don't think the film did anything with its setting or goal beyond unintentionally honoring 1980s comics sequels Superman III and Superman IV. Hell, for a movie about people who go around wishing for things that could be harmful (wishing a lady wanting the Irish to get deported to have a heart attack to, well, any other probable wish made around a certain geographic area in 1984), it sure seems tame on not actually showing anyone suffer the possibility of consequences. Pascal's character basically absconds away with his son having totally learned the futility of focusing his time on wishes broadcasting on TV instead of his son (totally - wait, if you renounce your wish to be the stone, where did it go?). 

The strange thing about the movie is that it feels so empty in characters: imagine a superhero movie where you can count the ones to focus all attention on (people who deliver exposition or serve only for a flashback [Wright and Nielsen] don't count) on one hand. Bringing Pine around to basically cheapen what was already kind of an odd decision to kill him off in the first film (your milage may vary) ends up just seeming hollow in the long run, because it pretty much just results in the same kind of ending as before in making that fateful choice that isn't as striking. The problem is that without him, Gadot seems to lack that edge in making a true interesting hero beyond "fish out of water", particularly when it comes to (no, really) that little lecture across satellite at the end. It isn't so much bad acting as it is just one that seems off-key. Besides, it is Wiig (first choice Emma Stone declined) who ends up with less to work with, unless you count the attempt at showing a diminishing sense of humanity in the nerd-turned-meathead as anything other than just passive. Comedians can make interesting villains, but this is certainly not one of those times, particularly with a climax that mishandles both her and Gadot. Pascal ends up as the highlight of the film because, well, one really can just play an interesting conman if they set their mind to it, but it only makes you wish there was a better way to get things going than to have the clash of a wishmaster and someone having to remember not the folly of lies but instead to remember why one has sacrifices in the first place among humans. In the long run, it is a muddled mess of a movie, one placed in the exact moment one would feel tired in not needing to see these kinds of movies every single year without the utmost need for being there in the first place. The first film was interesting if not muddled in an okay climax and a dubious idea for being set in the far-away past, this one stumbles out of the gate and never rises to the occasion, which is a real shame.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

MacGruber.

Review #1680: MacGruber.

Cast: 

Will Forte (MacGruber), Kristen Wiig (Vicki Gloria St. Elmo), Ryan Phillippe (Lieutenant Dixon Piper), Val Kilmer (Dieter Von Cunth), Maya Rudolph (Casey Janine Fitzpatrick), Powers Boothe (Colonel Jim Faith), Timothy V. Murphy (Constantine Bach), Chris Jericho (Frank Korver), and Montel Vontavious Porter (Vernon Freedom) Directed by Jorma Taccone.

Review: 

"What you see with this movie is exactly what we wanted to do. It's the three of us having a bunch of fun writing it, then having fun making it with a bunch of our friends—old friends and new friends. I think that fun comes across when you watch it. It's rare that you get that kind of creative freedom."

I suppose there really should be a line that prefaces any review of a movie based on a sketch from Saturday Night Live, because really there is one easy statement to make: the level of humor to expect from a film like this depends on just what era of the show you grew up watching (so if you stop watching and come back to it like five or ten years later, you get to say that it wasn't as funny as the era you grew up with). Technically this is a bit unfair, because I did like The Blues Brothers (1980) and the Wayne's World (1992-93) movies. But one probably wouldn't be surprised to see that this was the first one of these SNL films to be released in theaters since The Ladies Man (2000) and it is currently the last one, although it is only now that the idea to develop MacGruber into television is happening. But you probably need some detail before we get into the quality of the movie, so what is exactly MacGruber? Well, believe it or not, I do remember this series of sketches, because even ten year old kids like me need something to do on Saturday nights. The series of sketches ran on-and-off for three years as a parody of the television series MacGyver (1985-1992), where the parody character (after a song extolling the talents of said character that can get stuck in your head) would try to escape a dangerous situation with little time remaining in a control room with some sort of random material while he is plagued by some sort of internal issue (such as say...growing bald or his grandmother) before the bomb explodes. The star of the actual show (Richard Dean Anderson) even made an appearance, for which child-me would have been pretty surprised by (insert reference to Stargate SG1 here). For what its worth, the only other recurring short I remember from the time was something involving cats with lasers, so one wonders where the time has gone. At any rate, the idea for MacGruber came from Jorma Taccone, who had joined SNL in 2005 that was known for his work in the comedy troupe The Lonely Island, which would create numerous digital shorts for the series until 2014 (the next film that Taccone would direct featured the troupe with Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping in 2016). He pitched the original idea to Forte and John Solomon for a month before finally convincing them to conceive a series of brief films (as opposed to one sketch). SNL creator Lorne Michaels eventually suggested that they should develop a script for a film (if one can do a commercial with Pepsi and make it stick, truly a movie isn't too far off). Taccone, Solomon, and Forte would set out to make a movie that looked like an action movie (in the vein of stuff like Die Hard and First Blood) while honing to a cheap budget ($10 million, with less than 1/50th of it being used for special effects) while shooting it in the course of a month.

So yes, one can credit the filmmakers for having the freedom to do what they wanted with a comic relief lead that has to balance the line between insanely flawed and likeable enough to see all the way through for 91 minutes. The film was a flop, but it has certainly developed a small cult following in the decade since its release (one notable fan: Christopher Nolan). Take this anyway you wish: It might be the Freddy Got Fingered of its decade, where it just isn't my kind of thing, but I can at least understand the appeal for it despite finding it below quality. In other words, you can misunderstand all you want, but it can't hide the fact that it isn't even as clever in trying to have fun with the action genre as Last Action Hero (1993). Honestly, there isn't anything here that is remotely interesting when it comes to its supposed unpredictability or its attempts at balancing strait-laced folks like Kilmer and Boothe (the highlights of the movie) with the wackos in Forte and Wiig that seems more useful in less does on television. I think it is the brief time one spent with the sketches that made them more effective than what happens when you try to extend something that should have stayed at a minute. But hey, someone might think of it as akin to those parody movies like Airplane! (1980), or maybe an offshoot of other attempts at making fun of action movies like Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993, which I should probably re-watch at some point), or maybe even Big Trouble in Little China (1986), although I should mention that each actually have a real third act. Or maybe it will touch those who are familiar with an insecure lead in action with Archer, although that is funny for its own reasons. For me, the main joke doesn't stick at any point long enough to keep my interest, one that drags itself in the guise of edge with the depth of a shallow pool. One knows Forte can be funny, because one doesn't stay on a series for a decade without having some staying power, but here it just seems like a fun time for Forte and little else for those who think the character needs to take a trip to the trimmers. One can only tolerate insecurity for so long before a stick of celery gets involved, so this little game of buildup and humiliation rides on the viewer's patience for it. Wiig is used for a bit of singing and doing disguises that has the energy of a hit-or-miss gag, which is up to your preferences (meh is the only word I can find). Phillippe plays the straight man to this trio, one that has to put some sort of gravitas to the stuff around him, which hits with the power of a defective broomstick. It is Kilmer that actually shines over these folks, mostly because his dry delivery seems more prescient for what one could see in an overblown action movie in actually seeming funny for what is needed that might have deserved even more time on screen. Boothe plays it as one might see in a cheap 80s movie, which is collected but worth your time. There is a group of wrestlers used for a cameo that goes exactly the way you might see coming a minute before it happens in the gag, which is rather disappointing. Look, if you find it to be a funny movie, all power to you. But it begs for a polish in its lead presence, racked with gags that are very hit or miss that makes it quite niche and cliché at the same time. The only thing that offends me more is something unbearably bland, one that is only for a particular audience that probably likes some of the stuff I prefer when it comes to jokes that land that clearly could have been said in less than a thousand words that could have been said in seven: It just isn't my kind of comedy.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

mother!

Review #1580: mother!

cast: 
Jennifer Lawrence (mother), Javier Bardem (Him), Ed Harris (man), Michelle Pfeiffer (woman), Domhnall Gleeson (oldest son), Brian Gleeson (younger brother), Kristen Wiig (herald), Jovan Adepo (cupbearer), Stephen McHattie (zealot), Amanda Warren (healer), Laurence Leboeuf (maiden), and Emily Hampshire (fool) Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi)

review: 
“The idea with all my films is to entertain, to give audiences a journey they haven’t had before. But I want to do it with a subject that makes me passionate. What’s the point if you’re not doing that?”

Sometimes you can just track an interesting path of a director in their first film and see how it goes to the latest one - enter Darren Aronofsky. The New York native had an interest in the outdoors and show business as a youth, and it continued with his studies at Harvard University, where he studied social anthropology and filmmaking. Inspired by directors such as Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee, he made his first movie with the senior thesis Supermarket Sweep (1991). His first feature film came with the release of Pi (1998), an ultra-cheap dark classic thriller. His next film in Requiem for a Dream (2000) was just as well received while noted for its intensity. The Fountain (2006) was not easily received (although it has a following), but The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010) both received considerable notice (particularly for its lead stars in each film) while Noah (2014) was his biggest film in budget/success.

Angry about the world with its environmental state and as a whole enough to strike inspiration, Aronofsky reportedly wrote the script to the film in five days, and inspirations have been argued that range from Rosemary's Baby (1968) to The Exterminating Angel (1962). The easiest word to describe this film would be "esoteric", really. Get it? A film about mother (Earth)? Drawing a story based on the Bible (there is one character name capitalized, after all)? And it is still a cloying, divisive, ridiculous mess? The real surprise is in how much you want to know before seeing it - the answer would be none, because hearing an endless supply of "you just don't get it!" vs. "I don't get it, because X" would likely cause a great headache for all involved. It certainly won't help anyone wanting a film pegged under one genre, since "psychological horror" doesn't really seem to cut it. I mean, hey a husband-and-wife living in a country house wrapped with writer's block and intimacy problems suddenly have a couple of strangers turn up sounds fine. Is it blasphemy? Is it pretentious? Is it something else? It can fall under either or all of these three categories, depending on the patience and the point of view of the person watching it. To me, I thought it was incredibly silly, a monumentally weird movie that seems more like therapy for Aronofsky than anything else. It might as well have taken place on the stage (with...some modification to its gruesome scene at the end) with how it plays to the rafters of allegory, allegory, and allegory. Lawrence (having become an actress as a teenager and one with prominence years later) does fine with what she is given, balancing that fine line between emotional vulnerability and being stuck like a statue to ham-fisted metaphor. No one is really confused in their acting, although Bardem sure comes close here. Truthfully, one would hope to see more of Harris and Pfeiffer, each being equally amusing in pushy fervor that begs for more time to spend with loopy interlopers. 

Is it a challenging movie different from the usual fare released in mainstream theaters? Sure, but so was Zardoz (1974), and all one remembers from that film is Sean Connery in a nappy. Why stop there with the reference to that film? After all, both films try to meander through a certain type of philosophy from its director while subjecting their lead to some sort of memorable outfit/character (which in the case of Lawrence is a bunch of heavy stuff amidst statuesque acting all around) that involve some sort of supreme being (one being a rock and the other being...take a guess) while taking a hard swerve for its climax with some sort of revelation (in this case, a literal mad-house). Whether one believes in God or not, it is sure to be a strange one to evaluate, although truthfully I wish I could show this to a religious friend of mine, if only to see if they would get mad at it for my amusement. In that sense, it is equally appropriate to give this film the same rating as I did years prior to that film, because neither are particularly great pieces of work, but they sure are memorable in all of their ridiculousness. I applaud Aronofsky for continuing his vision of filmmaking with passion, and the commitment to have his actors participate in some weird pretentiousness, despite the overriding result of said camp. It will prove a welcome curiosity for those that favor Aronofsky and his films for what they attempt to do in story, while proving an irritant for those not in line with its ultimate goals.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sausage Party.

Review #830: Sausage Party.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Frank), Kristen Wiig (Brenda Bunson), Jonah Hill (Carl), Bill Hader (Firewater), Michael Cera (Barry), James Franco (the Druggie), Danny McBride (Honey Mustard), Craig Robinson (Mr. Grits), Paul Rudd (Darren), Nick Kroll (Douche), David Krumholtz (Kareem Abdul Lavash), Edward Norton (Sammy Bagel Jr), and Salma Hayek (Teresa del Taco) Directed by Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon (#162 - Shrek 2 and #651 - Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted)

Review
Not to understate this too much, but this isn't a movie for everyone (hence the R rating, a first for a CGI animated film - by the MPAA, anyway), especially not for kids, obviously. It's definitely a different kind of animated movie, and I'm sure there's even plans (or new inspiration) to do more of these kind of films. As ridiculous as this movie was, it at least was an adequate in terms of quality and length (88 minutes). There is a semblance of plot in this movie, with regards to the food and a "Great Beyond" outside the store, amidst a bunch of easy jokes that are either funny for some, or just stupid. For me, it was a bit of both, but it works on such an absurd level of ridiculousness that fit fine enough. The opening minutes feature a song, no less, with about as much absurdities as one would expect (let's not forget about the song by a meat loaf). Here's how I would put this movie: I laughed numerous times, with barely an ounce of shame to that laugh.

The ending to the movie is certainly a strange one, and to explain it would sound downright weird. But it works on an absurd level of lunacy for me, even if it's not really exceptional at animation, but it certainly works better that if it had been in live action. Rogen is a well enough lead, and anybody who's seen him in a film before will know what they think about the movie. Wiig is also decent, and the supporting cast is pretty quirky enough, with Krumholtz and Norton having some interesting chemistry with each other, and Kroll being a fair enough villain. Hader is also a fine highlight. Animated movies are somewhat thought of as a kid's market, so the idea of one for adults isn't too terrible, considering the amount of ones made for the lowest common denominator. They both pander, but this one has some sort of goal in its potty mouth. It has its moments of entertainment, It's exactly what you expect, so take it for what it's worth. It also might be better with a friend or two, so you can comprehend the weird crudeness for yourself. I can't recommend it for everyone, but anybody looking for a quick time of something a bit different might like it. They might also look at their food a bit differently afterwards, however.
Okay, if you scroll over this text, here's the climax: The food murder people in the store and have sex.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Martian.

Review #739: The Martian.

Cast
Matt Damon (Mark Watney), Jessica Chastain (Melissa Lewis), Kristen Wiig (Annie Montrose), Jeff Daniels (Teddy Sanders), Michael Peña (Rick Martinez), Kate Mara (Beth Johanssen), Sean Bean (Mitch Henderson), Sebastian Stan (Chris Beck), Aksel Hennie (Alex Vogel), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Vincent Kapoor), Donald Glover (Rich Purnell), Benedict Wong (Bruce Ng), and Mackenzie Davis (Mindy Park) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner and #530 - Alien)

Review
This is the 13th movie from the local movie theater, and what better way to cap the lucky number with a science-fiction movie? Quite well, I'd say. Talk about a fun movie. Without getting much in the way, I recommend seeing it. Why? Because it's a tremendous way to spend two hours in an adventure that manages to be more than the sum of its parts, while also managing to treat its audience with respect. The movie (based off the novel of the same name by Andy Weir) is not about the isolation of a man trapped in a planet all on his own as one would guess, but about how he adapts with his personality also playing a factor. Damon can be funny, but his main performance is excellent because you believe that this man is trying and doing everything to stay alive. The movie never wavers, balancing the scenes on Earth and the scenes with Damon on Mars nicely. The rest of the cast is also excellent, managing to be convincing while also likable. Chastain makes an effort to resemble a Commander, acting with grace and authority that never comes off as fake sounding. Her crew are also pretty good, especially in the last half, where it really is fun to see them all come up with a plan. Daniels, Wiig & Ejiofor also do a good job, having some quick chemistry. Lastly, Glover (though not in the movie much) is memorable and a good kind of quirky that adds a little more charm to the movie, while also being helpful, so that's another plus. It's certainly an interesting movie to listen with regards to science, and it's always nice to remind me about the Mars Pathfinder and make me want to know a little more about hexadecimals. The effects and sets are wonderful, never looking fake at all, as we instead are gazing at the beauty of it all. Mars is certainly an interesting planet to think (and watch) about, and that's why it matters when we discover something new, or about any planet, really. Yes, we live on Earth, but that doesn't mean we should shun ourselves of hearing about attempts to discover something new or learn new things, while keeping an open mind. Enjoy the movie, and enjoy every day on this planet.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Review #693: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Ron Burgundy), Steve Carell (Brick Tamland), Paul Rudd (Brian Fantana), David Koechner (Champ Kind), Christina Applegate (Veronica Corningstone), Dylan Baker (Freddie Shapp), Meagan Good (Linda Jackson), James Marsden (Jack Lime), Kristen Wiig (Chani Lastnamé), and Judah Nelson (Walter Burgundy) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy)

Review
Admittedly, nine years is a weird gap between films, especially for a comedy. But hey, nobody's perfect. But was is it worth it? I guess so. It's not a disappointment but in terms of fun, the first wins out. It is a likable movie, and it does flow well with itself, which are all nice little strengths, though again it nearly suffers from comparisons to the first. The movie doesn't really have much of a flaw to it, though the cameos at the end of the movie, while somewhat entertaining, almost seem too indulgent. The movie seems to be a little more injected with drama and while it is admirable to have, it's not really helping the movie all that much. It is fun to see the cast once again, and I guess it wouldn't be awful if a third movie was made. So all in all, take the movie for what it is and consider the fact this isn't a bad way to spend your time, so that's that.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: How to Train Your Dragon.

Review #294: How to Train Your Dragon.

Cast
Jay Baruchel (Hiccup Haddock), Gerard Butler (Stoick the Vast), America Ferrera (Astrid), Craig Ferguson (Gobber the Belch), Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Fishlegs), Jonah Hill (Snotlout), T.J. Miller (Tuffnut), Kristen Wiig (Ruffnut), and David Tennant (Spitelout) Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois.

Review
This is the 14th Dreamworks Animation film (which I will not list as that will probably be too annoying to do for the people who want to just read the review) that I've reviewed, and they have ranged from fun stuff to...near unsatisfying (okay one reference: Shark Tale). But is this any good? Not to spoil anything, but...Yea. The story at times is imaginative (based off a novel of the same name by Cressida Cowell), which gives this film a edge that some of the Dreamworks films don't have. The acting's good, especially by Butler and Ferguson (though largely due to how much fun he has with the role). But what I find the most fun is the dragons and how they visually look, especially Toothless. The characters are decent, even having some funny dialogue at times. The action is entertaining, and combined with exceptional directing make for an excellent film. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Despicable Me.

Review #241: Despicable Me.

Cast
Steve Carell (Gru), Jason Segel (Vector Perkins), Miranda Cosgrove (Margo), Russell Brand (Dr. Nefario), Kristen Wiig (Ms. Hattie), Dana Gaier (Edith), Will Arnett (Mr. Perkins), Elsie Fisher (Agnes), Pierre Coffin (Tim, Bob, Mark, Phil, and Stuart), and Julie Andrews (Marlena) Directed by Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud.

Review
It's fitting to review this film, it really is. Why? Before watching ParaNorman yesterday, I saw some trailers for some films (Such as Hotel Transylvania and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey), but one trailer I saw was one for Despicable Me 2. It looked interesting given I hadn't watched the first one. Until today...Life's a weird thing (I'd say Irony but the word probably doesn't work here) And guess what? This film is interesting and does deserve a sequel. There I said it. The animation is alright (With this being from a new studio, Illumination Entertainment) Carell and the rest of the cast do a good job, with some fun moments. While it isn't in the ballpark of Pixar, it still holds its ground, working out well. Now then, what's next to be reviewed....What? Oh boy. This is gonna be one of those films...Countdown to 250: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.