I feel bad for science fiction. It, like fantasy, seems like it could be proliferating in our omnibus of media, but, in reality, when it comes to the movie, again, like fantasy, there's really only a smidgen of films that are TRUE science fiction.
Star Wars, believe it or not, is not. It's a space opera or fantasy.
Not that it matters.
Star Trek fits the bill frequently, but the movies are hit or miss, and tend to have a crapload of television reruns to satisfy our science fiction movie tastes. Fantasy? Lord of the Rings? That's the only active fantasy title out of a Disney movie that I can really think of. Oh, don't get me wrong, there's a few gazillion titles, but in my movie-phile brain, why can't I think of them off the top of my tiny head? Because they didn't make that much of a mark on me or the public?
I will admit, however, one title does pop up-the Fifth Element, by Frenchman Luc Besson.
Yeh, there we go.
As soon as I start to see that, other titles pop into my noggin. Aliens. The Fly. (I tend not to count the superhero genre, since they tend to go fast and loose with the science items).
So, yeah, it took a bit of work to get to that point.
Thank Fate for Monsieur Besson.
Leave it to the French to bring us more science fiction, I mean, really. These are the guys who brought us Jules Verne and every wonderful thing after that! But science fiction is rare, as itself as a genre. It tends to be absorbed into other genres, like fantasy or high adventure. Rarely, however, do it seem to live the life it proposes. Even a dystopian nightmare isn't truly science fiction-it's a setting.
But where the science takes center stage? Rare.
What's also rare? A movie that isn't a franchise. Or, at least, not yet.
Which brings us to Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.
Valerian is a French comic book and Luc grew up with it. Imagine a hard-boiled military man who works for Alpha, a spacestation with a few million inhabitants. Here's the deal that's bound to piss off the uncreative-millions of those inhabitants are from different alien races. All in harmony. All adapting to their specific needs on this huge city, living a life with others they may or may not get along with.
See? Fiction, for sure. No wall being threatened here.
The point being, the who premise is inviting. Of course, our military man, played by Dane DeHaan and his counterpart (I dare not say sidekick, for, I noticed, even if he gets the top billing, her character is truly the protagonist) Laureline, investigate a kidnapping after obtaining a McGuffin.
On a sidenote, this is Laureline's film. She is played by Cara Delavigne and is a sight to behold. She is slick, to the point, and fascinating.
That's what I mean. Were this an Amercian title, I don't know if we'd see the same kind of well-rounded female character with so much of the film relying on her.
The film starts off with a delicious bang, with the prerequisite bickering of the two leads, keeping their dialogue moving forward. They head to intercept said McGuffin at a setting that can only exist in science fiction. A multidimensional "Great Market" where people use virtual reality to make deals. The sequence is creative, exciting, and, since people are in at least two different dimensions, science fiction-y.
But Valerian himself is the weak link here. He needs a certain confidence that this performer, who every time I've seen is engaging and excellent, seems uncomfortable and unauthoritative. His limp portrayal is strangely lacking, as if he doesn't want to be there. He doesn't bark commands, he merely suggests them. I want to see more from this young man. Just not here.
The fact is, this is a foreign film. It meets all the notes of the French aesthetic, while meeting all the requirements of solid plotting that American films excel at. Also part of that aesthetic?
This film is lush. We have five different biomes of existences and each and every denizen is given full digital renderings in eye-popping colors.
It's glorious. So, even when the film wanes in the second act as characters prep for the finale, you don't mind as much. Laureline is kidnapped and Valerian has to do some old school sleuthing and subterfuge to obtain a "Glam-Pod," played by R and B singer Rihanna.
I can't review her. I fucking love her and her music. Cause if I did review her part I'd have to point out, well, the camera loves her, she looks awesome, but, ah, she can't act at all. She doesn't have that strength. Even when she is digitally removed from the movie (she is, after all, a shapeshifting jello GlamPod), she doesn't have the presence to hold the character to the audience. Unfortunate.
I should not have said that. Because I want you to like this wonderful movie. It's really good.
So good, that I noticed a trend. People who like French films are find with the title. People who liked Lucy, also from Luc, they liked this movie. And if you liked the Fifth Element? You'll be fine.
I guess, when you think about it, we grow accustomed to many things. Like, the fact that pink eye is part of growing up, that older brothers are homicidal, and that Hollywood, when given too much cash, forgets about art-and wants to make more cash.
We've talked about it here before. How show business will not give the creative types too much control if there's a potential to make money. The formula is there and they have a great many second and third houses to be concerned about.
And there's successes, truly. I mean, look at my own last review. I love Spiderman: Homecoming. But it's a sequel/reboot, shared studio to create more cash out of the cash chow.
But it's also a good, fun, movie that works.
Is this comfortable enough for you?
We're comfortable about that. We've grown accustomed to this comfortable situation. I've lost hope on the summer movie release titles-having dissolved into a series of sequels of stories I'm following. Good sequels, well-made sequels.
This is what a surprise looks like. Sorta like this Baby Driver movie.
Then there's a shocker. An upstart. I'm reminded of my loft Oscar goals. I like to see, at least, all of the Best Picture nominations. For, every once and a while, you'll stumble across a title that completely and utterly blows your socks off. This year? It was Lion. I was sobbing at the end of this wonderful picture. At the end of Chocolat? We ran out for ice cream to discuss the power of sweets. A total surprise.
Another delicious surprise.
Not only that? Big budgeted surprises. Titles made from experienced people making good choices for a complete and engaging film.
Baby Driver falls into this. Now, if you watched the trailer, you'd think it's a comedy, and, certainly, it is light on it's feet, but not because of humor-but because the film is dancing. Without actually dancing.
Baby Driver is a film created by the English writer and director Edgar Wright, a filmmaker I've been impressed with before. Most noteably, he's the wit behind Simon Pegg's vehicles, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and At World's End. All three movies are labeled BritComs, but there's something else hanging onto each one. Each had a measured heft to them. I would almost call them horror comedies, but there's a line in each film where the thematic elements about the depth of violence, or the will to go on in a bleak situation, rise and overtake each picture. But the change is so subtle, you won't note the mood switch until after the movie's over. That's skill. That's entertaining us until you pull out the heavy guns.
With those successes, Mr. Wright went ahead and old the Hollywood execs his newest title, Baby Driver. In it, an incredibly handsome, hard-of-hearing, youth, played by Ansel Elgort, is biding time with a crime lord until he can get out of the business of being a getaway driver. The youth's hearing is taken into account throughout the entire movie, and every scene has a beat to it, a dance, if you will, with every point and movement falling to something within the soundtrack. Of course, as far as tropes go, we know that the last act of someone's life is never any good, and those about to retire will always get roped into something they probably should not be doing. In this case? One last crime of his crime boss, Kevin Spacey. Mr. Wright not only attracts Spacey, but also rounds out the movie with Jon Hamm, Jamie Foxx, and Jon Bernthal. Top notch performers that bring a strong script alive. Yes, even though we can pretty much make the calls on this tale we've seen before-they are brought to life so smoothly in such deft hands, there's a feeling that this is new, different.
I'm furious that these titles are still in play. I mean, really...
Car chases, like the fluff of the Fast and the Furious franchise, here are real. No special effects, no CGI. No tanks, subs, or anything. If you know your cinematic history, look to movies like Bullitt, with Steve McQueen, or the Smokey and the Bandit, with Burt Reynolds. Masculine pieces, to be sure, but I found that was sidestepped without becoming stereotypically, by sticking to the story and the characters. Everyone has a goal, this is crime after all, and they're going to get what they want. Now, for all my floral language of this subject, the film is violent. We're dealing with crime and their aftermath. Secondly, the youthful lead, very much the "baby-face" of the title, is, well, youthful. I think his lack of performance ability was emphasized because you had such powerhouse performers like Kevin Spacey and Jamie Foxx intimidating everyone. Ansel has the look, to be sure, but my ability to engage him on a much more personal level was not present. With time, however, if he continues to find movie jobs like this one.
And, yeah, he's also wonderfully good looking.
There is that.
Now these car chases? Awesome and make up all three acts of the film. They are very much on the level, filmed at eye level, so they are engaging and exciting. Lotsa smoke, lotsa torn rubber. The script makes a point of having the characters talk about the cars' needs and how car selection takes places.
Music, however, has to be mentioned. Hearing and sound are profoundly part of the protagonist's story arc and the film really does a good job painting the screen with an audiotory palette. Songs are selected for the kind of crime and need for pacing and speed. We listen to, and it gives the film for us brought up in the 80s with MTV, that we are almost watching a satisfying music video. It gives each chase and interaction a newness and a perspective that the audience may have already experienced, and, with that, I commend the film's novel approach.
I am bias, too, I love crime movies. So this works on several levels. Go and enjoy. Tell us what you think!
Another summer. A time when the blockbusters and tent poles were erected and hurled at us with such advertising abandon, you prayed that seeing the movie would make the commercials stop. Alas, like last year, the studios are releasing so many big event movies, the market is saturated. We benefit, as an audience, because the formula for success has become so ingrained, that, in the end, even bad movies are, well, kinda okay. No one tries anything new.
So, yeah, it's been a bit of a pause since the last review. What's there to really notice. I've been going to the beach and catching up with family. You know, those other summer options.
We treated ourselves to Spiderman: Homecoming, however, this week and I can't help thinking I should be saying SOMETHING. Yes, I'm comic book geek. Yes, this whole genre of film, the superhero film is something that was basically created to keep me ordering popcorn. I am okay with this.
I can see every plot twist and turn and, yeah, it's like wearing a decent pair of shoes.
Now, understand that, back in 2000, it wasn't like that. Back when Spiderman came out with Tobey McQuire, I was impressed with the X-Men. A movie that was, well, like reading a really good book. It had plot twists, numerous characters and raised our expectations. Marvel sought to expand it's empire, so it sold the rights piecemeal, and gave a decent serving of it's most popular character, Spiderman, over to Sony. And 2002 it came together in the first Spiderman actioner, with Tobey McQuire. It was old school, using a single villain, and made a fairly decent, almost a thriller, movie. The imagery was shadowy, the themes heavy.
My criticism was that, while an excellent movie-Peter Parker, the actual Spiderman, should be dealing with teenager-y things. He should be a schmoe. While expertly crafted, the film did not showcase the young men that I met in the everyday world of my profession. No awkwardness. Plot mistakes were the only mistakes. The pressure of hiding from your parents.
One of the things that gets the LGBT community in league with supers? Such similar things. A secret, two-faced life in their youth. I didn't see that in the first three movies. It got better when they relaunched the title with the Amazing Spiderman, with having a younger actor, but he, too, did not play out the fabricated reality of a high school student living two timelines. Good movies, yes. I'm reminded that Einstein Bros bagels are not real bagels. They're good, yes, but not kosher. Not true bagels. Flip that over to Spiderman's movies. Good stuff, actually, But a bit far from the source materials.
Then Disney bought Marvel. Since Sony had the rights, they pretty much had to let Sony/Columbia pictures pull their own weight with the title-but did request a picture deal for Civil War and this title, Spiderman: Homecoming. Sony's name still got sloshed onto the opening credits and can earn the cash-but Disney keeps their intellectual property adorned properly and can use him again and again-with scripts they author and approve.
Which brings us to this picture.
It's good, like really good. Like, there were three specific moments when I was actually surprised and did not see this coming. Me. The Old Codger of Movies. I mean, I like to think that I've seen every single superhero movie on the big screen. And there were still moments where I was not sure where the storyline would go.
In this one? They did go back to the beginnings and just pluck a small villain that is not as popular. Better, they cast the Vulture with Michael Keaton. Now something should be said about Mr. Keaton. He's is experiencing a third act in his professional career and I freeking love him and the public should, too. Why? Because he is good looking enough that the camera is kind to him-he could play just about every one, but his demeanor is that of the Everyman, someone both you and I would know and trust. This is at play here, because I found with his portrayal of the Vulture, there's something very approachable about him. There's a sympathy for this devil. He is tired of the millionaires like Iron Man/Stark getting rich and popular, when all he wants to do is put food on the table. He reminded me of Ian McKellan's Magneto, a man who survived the internment camps of Nazi Germany-a bitter, angry man with damn good reason to be so. I believe Ian; I believed Michael.
Which is why I think this actor is going to be getting more recognition in the years to come. He did not get an Oscar nod for Spotlight last year, but, because of him as the center protagonist, I trusted the path the narrative took. He was the heart of the piece and because of his soft voice and relaxed manner, the sticky subject manner of the film was easier to approach. That's not something simple to do across a movie screen. And here he is again, making a villain that is also sympathetic. Yes, he will kill, but, as you will see, it's because it's his family that is linked to the events.
And you need to see this. I consider it one of the better movies in the superhero genre.
Because, finally, if you've read any of the Spiderman titles, this is what you see. The stage actor Tom Holland is finally close enough in age and stature, I can see him in an actual high school. He did not just stammer and act uncomfortable. A decent script captures the angst of the high school experience and then, even though it isn't resolved, layers a second story over it, about a boy who has super powers and notices something profound going on. He's nice, not a tough guy, massively approachable and that, given Keaton's nemesis and a series of engaging action scenes makes for a tight motion picture.
My issue? It's so good, there's going to be a sequel, and given youth-sometimes such storylines are difficult to maintain. The audience grows up. The kid onscreen does not. And the sequel becomes a bit of a mash.
But? If they stick to their guns? Maybe it'll pull through. I hope so. A perfect storm has formed over this little teen-now-spider and I'd like to see more of it.
My poor husOtter. He tried, when we first started dating all those moons ago, to see what made me tick. I found paperback copies of Frankenstein and Dracula scattered under his coffee table and end table, all the pages shortly dog-ear-ed. He'd apologize, and admit, eventually, that I would have to see my horror movies alone. He'd ride the Haunted Mansion, but a walk-through house was too much.
Horror, as it seems, is a very personal and distinct experience. We all have those things that scare us to immobility; we also have those things we allow. My mother? She LOVED Hitchcock movies. When I would come home from the video store in high school on a Saturday night, they were all that was left that the rabble did not wish to see. She and I would watch bevies of those thrillers. Bring home Friday the 13th? Halloween? No. But Fatal Attraction was a standout. She had what was safe scary, what she could digest. And that which was unacceptable.
Even I do. I believe, for my tastes, that horror should be a personal experience. Regardless of the body count, the settings should be dark, intimate, alone, and isolated. There's a sense of impending doom, a sense that there's a chance we will not get out alive.
My checkbook, for many years, was the Universal monsters. Yeap. All those classic baddies. Drac. Frank. Creature from the Black Lagoon. I LOVED them. I played Dungeons & Dragons as a player-character, but when it came to Dungeon Mastering? We played, "Chill." The horror role-playing game. In it, my friends took part in a secret society bent on removing evil and monsters and specters from the Earth.
I love it.
But, because I write it? I should be able to look at it with a decent discerning eye. I, for one, was actually okay with the recent announcement of Dark Universe from the execs from Universal. They've always had the lid on big screen movies, surely, but also they have been able to keep all of the top famous monsters in the game. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf-all are pretty much public domain, but every few years, they crank out another clunker to keep an eye on the IP. With Dark Universe? They were hoping to do what Disney has done with Marvel. What is that, like, 17 titles that are some how interwoven?
Follow the example, too. Keep lite, keep it moving, have simple and direct logic, let the story carry itself.
The first title out of the gate?
The Mummy.
Now, this is a difficult one to beat. See, they re-made it, in glorious 1930's caper format, back in the later 90s and it was a terrific tribute to the older horror movies. I'm sure you saw it. It was fun. During the depression, the exotic was fearsome, so it made sense that a monster would come from overseas. The remake held to that. It had pyramids and secret codes and growing menace. There were jumps and screams, and, yes, everyone looked like they were having fun. That remake? That was a good movie. It was even scary in parts. I mean, they took the girl! She could die!
Now? They bring it back. There was that hope that maybe it was good. I like the idea of Dark Universe, but, hey, I read comic book serials, so I'm kosher with it with crossover after crossover. Let's do this, right?
But this? I'm not sure, totally, what happened. The acting? Good. The set pieces? Strong. Music's there, special effects? Bright and easy.
The fault? Story.
Again, look at me, I'm going for the writing thing again. You can't have everything perfect and have a shit tale to tell.
In the first thirty minutes, we subjected to three different flashbacks. Flashbacks that are brought up, again, 30 minutes later, adding no additional information. The story concerns two military men who branch out (how, exactly does that happen-the term court martial comes to mind. Even the CO says, "why do I let you get away with this AGAIN..." Again?????) and go fortune hunting. They get themselves in a quagmire and call in a drone strike (okay, how does that happen?), and unearth the evil within. An Egyptian princess, punished to mummification forever, her soul stuck between the Worlds.
The soldier?
Tom Cruise.
Now? Hold for a second. That name conjured up an image in your head of him. Probably running and yelling. His last seven titles have used this technique. Running. Yelling. Taking command. Running. Yelling. I am still stymied on how this dude is so famous. Yes. He is talented. But with replaying roles over and over again, the shine is wearing off.
And in this tale, he's no different. In fact, the script just makes him argue everything. They make it sound like all he wants is money, so when the tale gives him it, he suddenly grows a moral code.
And, and, and....I'm whining. I think I'm hurt. I wanted this movie to be better.
Even a better Tom Cruise movie.
An archaeologist, only we can't say that, because you'll think Indiana Jones, shows up (in the middle of a war zone....with GREAT hair and a perfect forehead) and they had a one night stand. He stole her notes to find this tomb. Wait. So, he goes out. Meets a nice girl. In downtown, where? Bahgdad? I didn't know they had reopened the singles cafe again. Not only that, they have their meet-and-greet, and he rummages through her stuff, stealing a detailed map. In the digital age.
Doesn't the military have a purpose overseas? I guess it's to support Tom Cruise.
Played by Annabelle Wallis, she's not a good Tom Cruise woman character, either. I have consistently noticed, especially in the Mission: Impossible Cruise vehicles, women are afforded great roles by him and his studios. Here? She just stands there and acts surprised. Yes, she even becomes a victim. Three different times.
But, you know, Tom is there to save her. And others!
Russell Crowe plays Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, THAT one) and seems to be the only one having fun with the role. Not a normal character of tradition horror, his storyline is brief and entertaining-but ultimately, just a review and clarification of the plot put forth. Seems they've set this princess loose and she's undead, a mummy. She cannot move on to the heaven, hell, or whatever. Her immortality is to give her a chance to find the perfect male, a specimen that the god of death can inhabit.
Now, you know, of course, who that is going to be, right?
Those that die? Have to die in honor of the plot. There are brief sparks of horror tropes of zombies. But we've seen that. We have a huge attack on London. Not private scary moments in alleyways. Not jolting moments. AN ENTIRE CITY. And yet, no one is freaking out.
So much for intimate, I suppose. I don't care for the characters, outside of Jekyll and the Mummy, herself. So they could all die, and I'd be okay.
Not a single sense of peril.
And that's not horror. That's not scary. In fact, one character, dies, comes back as some kind of monitor or something, but none of the others do.
Such threads lead to a very poor opening for something that is supposed to be part of a franchise.
Is the movie good? Maybe. Not as a horror movie. As Mission: Impossible Lite, perhaps. When your story crashes from the get-go, there's not much else to go on.
If at all, Universal to look to what works well in franchises that have stayed the course. Bond films are consistently engaging and trying new things, with mixed results, but arcing segments. Disney? They have this to a cash cow. They just tell the director they should kowtow the producer and the story and keep everything slight. Warner Bros has recently learned this with mediocre hits of Watchmen and Batman/Dark Knight. They tried to keep that artsy-fartsy feel, but, as soon as they let the story unfold, you have a hit, like Wonder Woman. It can be done.
If they want it to.
See, like here, we have the Invisible Man coming up with Johnny Depp. Perfect. A series of murders without a single suspect on camera. Link the homicide. Media picks up the lurid tale and the lead detective is attacked, but escapes with the help of Dr. Jekyll's society. Seems they are looking for the same phantom. An Invisible Man. Someone the Feds would LOVE to get their hands on. Tight corners. Seemingly a ghost in old homes, hidden from view, where people wouldn't look for scientist hiding and making more of his mysterious elixir.
It can be done. But keep the tone focused. Scare us. Don't make it big. Keep it small.
When Caitlyn Jenner came out, I congratulated her. Same with Michael Sam. And, every time, people responded positively. It is a good thing. I was once that gay kid who wondered if there were others. I couldn't see them in media, I had no idea. And that loneliness was lethal. Truly, lethal. I just needed a reason to know that I was not going to be a fat, ugly kid, a pariah forever, and I might as well end it now. It's not like my family could help (I would later learn that they would, but that's not what we're looking at, here). So, even if I didn't have a direct relationship with the famous, if they could do it, if they could voice their experiences and I could see the parallels, I had hope.
What was it my buddy, Harvey Milk said," You gotta give them hope." With each famous individual coming out, hope grew. With ever gay cinema character, hope grew. With every recognition that didn't end up in death, hope grew.
In a world where white straight male privilege is becoming more and more obvious and the Old Guard is so resistant to that change, now, more than anything, visibility, especially in a universe with instant access, is becoming even more and more dire. I don't know how many of my friends, good people, smart people, made comments when I would congratulate another person coming out, would say things, like, "aren't we beyond this? We don't need to acknowledge that any more."
Yes, we are. We are beyond this.
'Cause I have smart friends.
But the world? That's a very different place. People, as a whole, are a much larger mixed bag of responses. They aren't so forgiving. They know racism is bad. Sexism is bad. But they have not, for whatever reason, accepted that things like feminism and civil equality are good. Racism still profoundly, exists. Sexism and homophobia STILL exist, even with so much evidence otherwise. I cannot figure it out.
So I turn back to the kids of today. They need to see equality.
Movies, as a whole, do try, I do believe that. From the "Oscars so white," Hollywood realized they needed to address their approach. Do they succeed? Not always. But there was an attempt, as the reddit users might say.
But the movie theaters still aim for those white male film goers, never really realizing that, well, if you make a good movie, it doesn't matter the demographic, really. Look at Titanic. If ever there was an example of women making the cinematic decision making process, there you go.
And yet? No other Titanic like movies. There were some clones-but all of them kinda sucked.
I'm also struck by the movie Brokeback Mountain, one of those rare titles that was both critically acclaimed AND made a crapton of dough. When the husOtter and I went to see it that Saturday night, the movie was PACKED. Not only that, it was packed with....cowboys. Now, I'm not joshing you with the Village People cowboys. It was evident as we stood there by the concessions, these men and women were from the Front Range, no more than thirty minutes from the theater on the outskirts of town. Their demeanor? Decidedly rural. But they watched the movie in silence. No catcalls. No shudders about the content. In fact, they spoke up about the realities of the film, we noticed, about rustling and getting herds converged. See? You can never really count on the demographic. All people go see all movies. That's why we need more good movies; that's why we need to cross all lines.
Please note: I am no innocent. I did, just now, possibly stereotype a group of people with my expectation. That is what's wrong. We ALL need to work on this. Yes, even me.
Which brings us to this weekend's blockbuster. Wonder Woman. Important in the comic book world but, also, important in the representation of women in a society that likes Superman and Batman, both literally and figuratively. I cannot really report on her comic book heritage, as it wasn't a title I frequented. But, strangely, I understood her in the pantheon of heroes that make our common culture. She was every bit in the equal of Superman and Batman. In fact, she was one to bare her face to the world, not a secretive creature like Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent.
It's interesting in that I bring up Superman. As I watched this movie, I was transported to that time I saw Christopher Reeve fly back in the 70s. Upon repeated viewings of that original titel, the movie is mostly good, holding up against time. But, as a child, my heart soared as much as the man in the red cape.
There's something of that childhood joyfulness here, too. The story is pure, novel for many, and has an ethereal quality. There's a sense of hope, played by Gal Gadot's Princess Diana. She carries with her a specific weight and, given the potent and clear choices made by Patty Jenkins, it's evident on the screen. We have ethnic characters that aren't stereotypes. A Native American is a strange shaman type, he even gets along with the other characters and not regulated to the side. We have violence that comes with guilt by the protagonist when she commits them, her heartbreak that when she saves the day, the fighting does continue. The only nudity is male (take THAT! white boys! See? Didn't like it, did you?) All the tropes dissolve completely under our audience's eyes, and in that, comes a welcome picture. There are action sequences, and yes, there is violence, but that's something to be said about bringing a new shine to old proceedings.
Now, I am lucky. In high school, I was addicted to Hong Kong Action Cinema, of which, women play a frequent strong role in many martial arts films. I mean, Michelle Yeoh, anyone? So, to some extent, this is what I was expecting. Ass-kicking with the usual aplomb.
We get that.
But we also get an origin story, much like Krypton, a home island named Themyscaria, instead of planet, and someone bred to be a hero-to the point that she cannot seem to be happy without action. This is an usual trait. I see it with Captain America too. Someone who cannot find themselves unless they are actively doing something. Wonder Woman smiles during the action progression. This is-unique. She's is fulfilling her destiny, as the tale unfolds, as she is supposed to be given the role of "god-killer." In this sense, the god in question is Ares, the Greek purveyor of war.
In fact, in this entire parable, her final duel with the super villain actually falls a bit short of the story that went beforehand. I'm used to big battle scenes, heck, if they are evenly matched, it should take forever. But, the excellent writing gives us two powerful individuals who have no way of giving to the other side, so we get a series of blasts that seemingly come out of no where.
It doesn't work.
But, by that point, we don't really care.
With 95% of the movie rolling along at a decent clip, such missteps are dissolved quickly in light of what went before.
In that way, I'm recommending the tale. It is epic, exciting, and has enough visual bluster that it is worthwhile on the big screen. In fact, it even goes on to prove something I have noticed that the Marvel Universe has already done. It doesn't seek to be an art film. It allows the characters and actions take their lives as their own and goes with it. There's no attempt of dark, gritty style; but, instead, a sense of purpose and journey.
Welcome Wonder Woman. Can you go kick some more butt for us, please?
Theme parks look like money makers. The crowds, the merchandise, the people willing to pay big bucks to wait in line more than actually doing anything like seeing attractions. They really can cash it in. Since you pay one, always raising, price, you can't wheel and deal and budget. One lump sum into the pockets of various shareholders. Movie makers? On the other hand? Simple. You can rotate your property to digital home services for those who aren't willing to shell out the movie tickets, and maybe make some kind of profit. The theater? That doesn't have to be rebuilt, you just install another movie. And you can play it a few times a day to earn your cash.
Disney, always looking for another way to sell their wares (these people can get the lint out of your pockets, so don't say you weren't warned-and don't worry, I drank the Kool-Aid too, every single fucking time), elected to rebrand their famed attractions at the turn of the century. Taking a page from their own rulebook from back in the 80's, where they found actors and actresses who weren't bringing in the contracts, casting them in quick movies under a new banner, Touchstone pictures, and sending them back out in the wild; elected to take their theme park intellectual properties and make motion pictures. Most were, well, bland. The Haunted Mansion, a popular attraction at every park, has amazing special effects that happen 'live' (for lack of a better term) before your very eyes; Hollywood movies have already done that, so they would have to rely on a story to keep such a film afloat.
It sank. Even with Eddie Murphy, it wasn't very funny. Was it for kids? Was it for adults? Who knows. Disney didn't. But they made it.
They also cobbled together a Country Bears tale which was amusing, but, again, it came off as a Chuck E. Cheese presentation without much creativity. Or country music.
The third creation? Based on one of the last creation from Mr. Disney himself? Pirates of the Caribbean. Here's something. They tried something totally new. They rode the ride out there in Anaheim a few gazillion times and it shows. They came out with a creative tale of cursed treasure, pirates that can't die but want to live again, a love story, cannon-fire, and huge set pieces that came to explosive entertainment on the screen that summer of 2003. The music soared. And a supporting character, played with delicious aplomb by Johnny Depp, stole the show while still chewing the scenery. As Captain Jack Sparrow, technically a minor character who pushes the protagonists into play, he threw his skill into the performance and it was truly incredible. You couldn't wait to see his humorous asides and when he was off screen, you wanted him to come back.
And Johnny did what all good looking and exceptional actors do. He tried to make himself as unloveable as possible. He was drunk, his dreads were visibly aromatic. Yet, his swagger, guy-liner, and demeanor was so saucily three-dimensional, the theater's houses were packed.
Obviously, so much fun could not be contained. The sequels followed.
They were abhorrent messes in plotting, moving Depp's character to the front, a convulsion of too many high paid performers trying to angle their way into a storyline, and were a mess.
But Depp brought us back. We lined up, bought tickets and the movies made Disney more money.
To the point where that fixed asset over at Disney World and Disneyland practically cried to have him shoehorned into the ride because the guests were wondering why he wasn't there. He never was. The movie was based off of the ride, not the other way around.
And Depp, it has been known, loves the character. He'll show up at schools and childrens' hospitals across the world. This, folks, is the glory of fame. To do for others in a way none of us can ever imagine. I have some friends who volunteer cosplay at many of these places and they say it's beauty personified. Depp is no slouch. He loves the character enough to do it again and again for the kiddoes.
So it came as no surprise he'd show up again in a fourth film a few years ago.
But understand, he's a minor character. He's so popular, however, they moved him to the front, as protagonist. It didn't gel, when you watch, regardless of the presence of Depp, Penelope Cruz, and Ian McShane as Blackbeard (with that wonderful purr of a villain's voice).
And tickets were sold.
Heck, even I went.
I am, apparently part of the problem. Unlike Spielberg, content to leave his wonderful ET without a sequel to flog the beast to death for a steady paycheck, Disney brushed off ole Jack Sparrow again for a fifth installment.
And, yes, I found myself going...again. Oy. What was I thinking?
There's a reason, beyond Disney's original Treasure Island all those moons ago, that the pirate as a character hasn't taken off as a genre. Here? In Florida? Sure, there's a crapton of Pirate Fair this and Pirate Week that. But, really, the stereotype of the eyepatched, peglegged vile vagabond is truly not been brought up again and again like superheroes or cowboys.
Disney, with this one title, has made an entire genre.
And then keeps making movies. I was thinking I like Sparrow, I like the way Depp plays Sparrow-but, eventually, soda pop does lose it's savory fizz.
It is the story. The last movie was the least complicated of the bunch. Find the Fountain of Youth (it's supposedly here in Florida, on a sidenote. There's a lot of old people down here continuously looking for it and are really crabby about it). Here? Will Turner's son is looking to free his father from the Curse of the Flying Dutchmen, a ghost ship he was imprisoned in during film three. A young lady, going to be executed for practicing science, is some how obsessed with stars and shipping that she gets pulled into Jack's strangely low orbit. A new sea worth villain played with amazing special effects (again) by Javier Bardem as a Spaniard who cannot die until he destroys all the pirates he can find. And, because Jack, like some kind of magical tanned sea sprite, has links to every-single-character. The story folds in on itself here, there, again, here, over there and, after a while, the audience becomes exhausted in trying to figure out motive or purpose. This causes the images to become just that, images. The meaning is lost, and we begin to not even care about anyone.
Not even hottie Johnny Depp, doing his best to not be hot in any kind of pirate way.
(There is Brenton Thwaites in the Henry Turner role, giving Depp a run of his money in the film good looks department-but here's the thing, he's doing the Anakin bit. Too much whining and soft voiced arguing. At least Depp has presence and experience)
The film is seriously flawed, and, even though the cast is trying as hard as they can, there's just no true inner pacing that keeps it roaring forward. Swashbuckling, it seems, has a shelf-life. Maybe, just maybe, Sparrow should keep to being awesome in his own way-making people feel awesome.
As for Depp, he is a massively underrated actor. His good looks do get in the way, and his own tastes in titles he picks are not always the most popular. That's awesome. I just can't help feeling he is just a few steps away from an Oscar. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. He was incredible, even without the ability to sing, in Sweeney Todd. Hilarious in both Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Black Mass. I liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when the world didn't, and he was excellent. Did I say underrated? Maybe that's not the correct word. He's more of an artist than the popular masses can accept. Only Sparrow seems to be the one they accept him as. That's unfortunate.
Because it means there might be more of these complicated Pirate movies.
Folks, just go on the ride. It's much more linear.
First the Handmaid's Tale. A novel approach to, well, a novel-it went ahead and made me think of critiquing something in a different manner.
Such a brave new world, with such people in it.
Now? This.
As you know, I'm kinda into my Disney crap. This blog is not a location for such elaboration, but more of an intro as to where I'm going with this. I was afforded an opportunity this weekend, on Mother's Day, to be exact, to see Disney World's latest "land" over at their Animal Kingdom. This land? This specific locale is based on the famed Avatar and it's setting, the off-planet moon of Pandora. This new land located in the area that used to be housing Camp Minnie-Mickey, a completely failed attempt to fill space that was going to be holding the "legendary beasts" section of the park. They already had real animals. They had extinct animals over in Dinoland. This was going to be the corner of the park that housed dragons and mythical beasts, you know, animals that Never Were. But, Disney, seeing they were already making money, used the excuse that Harry Potter was claimed over at Universal and would be giving similar experiences, just threw some old Lion King parade floats into a warehouse, hired acrobats and dancers (much easier to replace when they break down) and called it a land.
Quick! Duck! One of the sights that was replaced at Pandora.
And there, it languished. The land was fun to see a show in air-conditioning and sell a shitload of character photos, something they must be making a mint over, because they keep offering it.
This show has been moved to the Africa section of the park-and is still going strong.
But now they decided to do something.
Okay, before I continue, lemme say, there's going to be spoilers, keep that in mind. I'm not going to hold back, here, so, read at your own bloody peril, okay?
But, see, that Harry Potter land, or, now, lands over at Universal? They took business.
It seems people want to see dragons, especially, in droves. And it hurt Disney. It hurt Disney so much that their much ballyhoo'd New Fantasyland didn't even cause a blip on the radar. Disney has ruled this area for so long, they were kicked and shocked that people would cancel two or three days at their Magic Kingdoms to head up the road to see Harry.
Shh, do you think the tourists would notice if we clone a ride from Cali? Nah, what do they know, they're tourists!
Couple that with a looming 50th anniversary that raked in the dough over in California (I would know, I was there), they had to make a decision. They need some major work. Hollywood Studios is getting Star Wars Land and Toy Story Land. EPCOT is looking at, at least, two rumored new countries.
And Animal Kingdom had this space, that's for sure. It's a great little park. I mean that. I say, 'little' as a nicety. It is physically the largest of the theme parks, with huge spaces for the animals to truly roam. But the park access is actually a bit of a slice of it. Massively forested, it holds a change from the rest of the parks, a feel that is truly unique. It doesn't have the dreams that Magic Kingdom does or the amount of intellectual properties therein; it doesn't have the allure of Hollywood majesty and dreaming that is housed over in Hollywood Studios. EPCOT truly holds it's own and is very similar to Animal Kingdom. In fact, my husOtter adores the place.
Animal Kingdom was built on a spirit of discovery, but, unlike the technology vision of EPCOT, here, there are trails that lead to small paddocks holding this animal or that. Storylines, the bread-and-butter of many Disney attractions, are unique. There is a gorilla enclosure made to look like an animal survey team; a private tiger reserve for a mildly Indian kingship is another location.
But there's no Tomorrowland here, folks.
No look to the future of animals and conservation. No intrusion of a possible Utopian future, like you can see over at Magic Kingdom or EPCOT.
That was their angle. Forget the dragons, how about a planet where conservation was also what they were looking into.
Enter: Avatar.
I'm not going to lie to y'all. I thought the movie sucked so bad, I could replace my Hoover on the living room carpet. It was devoid of life or originality. The themes were so simple and bold colored, a neon sign would pale in comparison. Characters were written from the back of a Pop Tart box. You can predict every moment in the film. Avatar was the creation of James Cameron, a filmmaker this film critic has mixed emotions about. The dude cranks out money makers for some reason. But, there are some truly great moments, early in his career. Terminator is it's own world and a terrific cross genre horror sci-fi. Aliens bests the movie it is a sequel to. True Lies is wonderfully creative, playing to the strengths of all the performers. But, like Micheal Bay, Cameron's ego takes over and the set pieces take over and, eventually, distract from the original tale. Titanic cuts zero new ground-but everyone loved it and it became the highest grossing film of all time. And, see, this is why I have mixed emotions about him. He, truly, brings the grand scale of the tragedy to detailed life.
And he made Avatar. A movie that earned even more money than Titanic. He made to be on the big screen, with beautiful 3-D. It's gorgeous. But the story is so bland, I was torn between liking it and wondering why I spent extra money on seeing it in Imax. The story is about a race of aliens, called the Na'vi, that are at harmony with their planet's, Pandora's, environment. Twelve feet tall and blue felines, humans cannot walk amoungst them, since the air is lethal. So 'avatars' are created and humans can control them and fit into their small band and society. But there's still a male dominated society, there's still sexual politics, there're still... us. It was evident that Mr. Cameron did not, at the very least, research indigenous peoples in any manner. Love magically spawns between two people that cannot be more dissimilar and, yes, his ego shines right through the flat motion picture. It was more like a ride at Disney World than an actual movie. Filmed in Imax, as mentioned, and 3-D, the images included us in the tale, pulled us in on a level like never before.
So that's a Na'vi. They look like thin people and just as angry.
We had bizarre alien animals floating around our heads, the lights flew out of the screen and into our laps. A digital acid trip.
Which brings us to this review.
There are no Avatar conventions. No one chooses to be a native Na'vi when they cosplay. They don't study the fictional language, like Klingon.
Yes, I'm making broad generalizations. But, truly, think about it and it's place in pop culture.
If you squint, really hard, you might see a Na'vi. Maybe?
I was surprised when they selected the intellectual property at all. A popular (well, if you look at the cash flow) movie (not critically, me included), licensed it (it is Fox) and just went with it.
Here's the thing.
It works, if only for a bit.
Even with my hardened distaste for the movie, Disney did something with it that even Mr. Cameron couldn't. They made it more interesting. It's much more interesting than the movie, that's for sure. Every optical illusion the movie created? Ever moment of CGI digital amazement?
Created in real time. That jaw dropping concept is right there. See, the planet/moon/whatever, Pandora has lower gravity than Earth. Chunks of the ground float in space.
And they do here, too. In real time. Real plants blend with bleching, glowing mushrooms, and moving roots. Tree stumps echo music when you bounce them like a drum. There's a true sense of place.
One of those fabricated plants that does...stuff.
We were given a 3 hour time slice, but really, I noticed we left early.
Because it is, physically very small. It's vertical, reaching to the sky, but it doesn't spread out. The Imagineers have pathways, this way and that, and photographers everywhere, encouraging further photos, but it's small, like Mickey's Birthdayland or their current Circusland back by the train station in Fantasyland.
What brief tale there is, Alpha Centauri Expeditions (ACE) are offering guests eco-tourism to the small moon. Of course, it's a six month stint in a sleep pod, but that part might have been dropped.
It's so small they built only two attractions, one on top of another. The first plays like an introduction to the imagination behind it, called the Na'vi River Journey. The queue is beautiful, a tent like structure, with wicker folk art that looks like smoke and fire. From the tent? Puft. You are in a cave and it's night. No transition, like on Pirates of the Caribbean. It's a bit jarring. What is also jarring? This is beautiful. That's it. I've heard several complaints, not completely unwarranted, about this. There's no tale to be told, just creative lighting and movement. Strangely, I'm okay with it. I noticed video screens cleverly located throughout the ride, so more story could be added, I suppose, after the sequels finally open. There is a fifth generation audioanimatronic on the ride, but in today's day and age, I don't think everyone really appreciates it. She moves and sings and has a huge range of motion, to the point you begin to wonder if she'll say your name gleaned from your Magic Band ticket. But the lack of a story? Pirates didn't have one when it opened, It's a Small World really doesn't either. I'm okay with it. What is also nice? The boats are only two rows. There's a feeling that this is private and I noticed people speaking in hushed tones.
Someone took time to make this wicker art in the queue at River Journey. And it's beautiful.
The other attraction? The Flights of Passage. At first, like a delicious bottle of Coke, hit me and it was a sugar rush. It's a Soarin' kind of exhibit, a huge screen that flies you out and over the native terrain. It does break some new ground. It's more of a motorcycle seat this time around, not the usual movie seats. There's a small camera, so you can hyperlink to your avatar before riding on one of the dragon-like 'banshees' from the movie. With the new physical placement of the guest, they have added more tactile components. Now you can feel the breathing and heartbeat of the animal you are mounted on, along with the usual tilts and leans. Plus, like Back to the Future and the Simpsons over at Universal, you are broken up into teams of 8 for each experience. That means it feels more like a personal experience, not one that you are sharing with a few hundred sweaty strangers. Lastly, they didn't go the route of some any other attractions, where 'something goes wrong' and the ride's conflict increases. Instead, like the River Journey, you are just flying through some breathtaking visuals. It was evident, here, too, that the images were digitally projected. That means they can replace the film probably with more elements from the sequel.
More wicker art, this one a flying beast, called a Banshee, heralding the start of the queue.
It also shows a confidence. They are going out on a Disney limb here. I admire that and that sways my opinion more positive than negative. They expanded their culinary talents with creative food that are truly creature comforts presented imaginatively-like Japanese bowls of noodles or Chinese "bao" called pods. Drinks dotted with fruit flavored tapioca balls. A creative 'rookery' where you buy the banshee from earlier in baby (puppet) form and have it perch on your shoulder. You can even get a 3-D printed avatar action figure of, well, yourself.
Bao? Bao.
So, yes, massive creativity.
But we still left early.
And, like that can of Coke, I noticed my sugar rush ran flat the closer I got to the parking lot. The scope is there, but why? There's a sense that this is temporary, that there's more to come. And that leaves a bit of something. The potential is there, yes, but I kept wanting more. I heard that there's even more fun at night, with light up pavement and the flora moving. Maybe? Will that make it?
I don't think it's worth of a solitary trip, however. I don't think this is a game changer, something that will lengthen a person's day at the half-day park. I do think it is a wonderful addition and it is impressive. I'm also curious to see what else they will achieve with further updates.
