Honest ImpressionsThoughts on Contemporary Cinema
|
Michael Moore’s ideological crusade in this movie was to point out everything the United States is doing “wrong” by showing how well a random smattering of countries are doing by contrast. Moore travels to Italy, France, Tunisia, Slovenia, Portugal, and others, claiming to invade them in order to “take the things we need from them.” He juxtaposes narration lauding the US with footage disproving the validity of these compliments, such as of police brutality, poverty, dilapidated infrastructure, and discrimination. The movie had a lot of potential, but both its structure and its messages were disappointing. Frankly, Americans whining about how insecure they are about being American is becoming overdone and irritating.
This documentary felt more like a list than a movie. The countries Moore chose and the order in which he visited them seemed random, neither building on nor relating to each other. The escapades themselves were organically funny, relying more on people’s reactions to Moore than to Moore himself, which saved this critic from becoming especially impatient as the movie progressed. A generally comedic tone gave way to the movie’s more serious roots when Moore eventually visited the Berlin Wall and reminisced with an old friend about when the wall fell, but then the film seemed to return to its previous light-hearted, didactic nature and I found myself wondering where Moore was going with all of this. While his actual journey around the world might have been directionless, his film should not have been. However, my biggest qualm with this movie is the extent to which Americans are demonized. Self-hating Americans and American-hating foreigners, hear me out: The United States is not perfect, but neither is any other country. Indeed, there are strategies that the US should at least consider adopting to combat its domestic problems, but the countries Moore advertises are also imperfect. In addition, it is not so easy for the United States to adopt some of the policies Moore praises because this is a large, populated country and consequently policies that work in smaller countries might be logistically inappropriate here. Many Americans also oppose certain policies, and whether the policy works or not, it cannot and should not be installed in a country whose majority is against it. Moore speaks here as if the United States is the only country with lacking educational funding, racial tensions, and violent crime. America is not perfect, but it is likely not populated with hordes of apathetic sadists. Moore brags about other countries’ successes in social movements (i.e., women’s rights, racial equality, and students’ rights) as if people in other countries succeeded because they simply tried harder. His narration erroneously implies that protesters in America eventually shrugged and surrendered to the status quo due to fear, laziness, ignorance, and lack of leadership. Obstacles for social movements differ country by country, and it was pathetically self-hating on the part of Moore to dismiss Americans in such a way. Moore’s theme that the United States should claim other countries’ ideas as its own was clever, as was the quip that America typically steals from others and then claims the stolen item as American. However, he also roundly dismissed Americans and claimed that the United States was founded on quasi-utopian ideals that are now embodied better by foreign countries. Each of these proclamations ignorantly lacks political, historical, and ideological nuance. Listing everything America does wrong doesn’t make Moore artistic or edgy, and it certainly doesn’t aid a country that needs real solutions rather than self-hating sensationalist journalism. Where to Invade Next? If you must, invade this country. Solve problems here instead of comparing us to everyone else. Grade: C-
0 Comments
I don’t know what people were expecting from this movie. A lot of the critiques I’ve heard stating that the movie was too awkward, immature, or under-developed put me under the impression that some expected some operatic epic. I was under no impression that Zoolander No. 2 would be any less immature or random (and I say that with great affection) than the first and you shouldn’t be, either. This sequel is certainly not the first movie, and doesn’t have the same novelty as the first did, but it also doesn’t pretend to do those things. Zoolander No. 2 is what I hoped it would be: a continuation of the first movie’s storyline, with new challenges for the main characters and acknowledgement of the time that has passed since we last encountered Derek Zoolander, Hansel, and Mugatu.
I’m still relieved that Ben Stiller retained the original cast—even Christine Taylor, whose character (Matilda Jeffries) is dead in the sequel. The additions that are included in Zoolander No. 2, most notably Kristin Wiig and Penelope Cruz, were hysterical but not perfect fits. Wiig’s big laugh was her nearly incomprehensible accent/speech impediment, but it wavered. The joke was inconsistent because at times she would lose the accent, and that came off as an irritating lack of focus. Cruz's character, Valencia, took herself too seriously. Cruz herself acted well, but her character did not have any of the awkward quirks that Zoolander characters typically have. Even Matilda Jeffries was laughable in the first film. Simply put, Valencia was too perfect of a character for the Zoolander movies. She was too suave, too smart, too sexy--her only "flaw" was that her breasts were too large for her to be a runway model. Cruz pulled that joke off well, but it wasn't self-deprecating enough for her character to fit in with the rest of the ensemble. Otherwise, the humor in this movie was well done. Zoolander No. 2 took buzzwords from popular culture and adapted them to the slapstick sense of humor characterizing the first film. Characters mentioned "farm-to-table" wifi, repurposed human waste, intentionally tasteless tattoos, and hashtags. The film mocks not only fashion, but everything that contemporary society has become (even though the hashtag joke is over-done at this point). I especially enjoyed the ongoing ridicule of the contemporary habit of dismissing everything as uncool or mainstream, even if they like it. Of course, Zoolander No. 2 also spends a substantial amount of time poking fun at the fashion industry, but it does so in a different way than the first movie did. Zoolander No. 2 adjusts its quips to fit in with the current state of fashion, pointing out the fickleness of the industry in the process. The movie suggests that the fashion industry is killing itself, and at the end brings in some of the most famous modern fashion designers and mocks them to their faces. Zoolander No. 2 is a fun movie. There are enough references to the first movie (i.e., the orgy scene) to please fans, but this sequel does not pretend to be the first movie. Expect some great laughs and plenty of satire about popular culture, but don't take it too seriously. It's Zoolander, not Casablanca. Grade: B 10. Black MassI know a lot of people didn't like this movie, and that it was especially contentious in Boston, but I enjoyed Black Mass. It truly struck me as Johnny Depp's comeback role after a lot of bad press on his acting, and I also thought it was an interesting new way of filming gangster movies. 9. LegendTom Hardy’s performance in this film as both Kray brothers was incredible. His physicality, comedic timing, and nuances in speech were striking. The movie itself is also well-filmed and undeniably emotional—ranging from hysterical to rage-inducing to tear-jerking. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a hell of a gangster movie. 8. The Big ShortThe Big Short is difficult to watch if you or anyone you know was negatively affected by the financial crisis in the late 2000s (so nearly everyone). However, it is important that this movie was made. Most people don’t know or understand what caused the economy to collapse, and this movie exposes the truth without preaching or being too sentimental. The main characters balance each other out and are written in such a way that no one seems too obnoxious or too righteous, and there are no distinct good or bad guys. The contentious topic is helpfully explained by a smattering of stars featured specifically for this purpose (i.e., Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez), which also lightens the mood. This movie is entertaining, educational, and perhaps most importantly a warning. 7. CarolCarol (based on Patricia Highsmith's The Price of Salt) was a poignant, beautifully filmed depiction of two women's love for one another when all odds and circumstances were working against them. All the actors, especially Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, did a phenomenal job portraying the difficulty (if not impossibility) of resolving their respective conflicts. The film was also dream-like, like a half-faded memory of a forbidden 1950s romance. 6. Mr. HolmesMr. Holmes is a movie that will linger in your consciousness long after you’ve finished it. At once heartbreaking and heartwarming, it is a new take on the sarcastic Sherlock Holmes of popular lore. We’re all familiar with the Holmes that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about (who was catapulted back into popular culture through Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films and CBS’s Elementary)—but what happened when Sherlock became old and disillusioned? What happens when Sherlock has to face the fact that his cynical intellect can have disastrous consequences? Mr. Holmes is a worthwhile meditation on age, memory, and family. 5. Inside OutInside Out is first and foremost an intelligent movie. It takes one of the most emotionally difficult stages in a child's life and makes sense of it, including visual and verbal references to how the brain actually works. Some of my favorite parts of Inside Out are the sequences that run during the credits, when minor characters' inner psyches are also delved into. The movie discourages the idea that one should feel strange for being depressed or insecure, and these end sequences really drive that home. It was a smart, well-made movie with an essential message for people of all ages. 4. Ex Machina2015 was a quite a year for Alicia Vikander. I love this movie’s subversion of traditional themes and complete reversal of so many narrative expectations. The film is delightfully ominous, due in part to masterful auditory editing. Ex Machina’s sound design is so memorable that I can still recall the chilling sound of the robots’ rustling machinery. 3. The Hateful EightThe Hateful Eight embodies many reasons I love film. The cinematography is stunning, with jump cuts, long shots, tracking shots, and close ups juxtaposed together in a way that attracts attention without being too jarring. The dialogue is witty, daring, and just what we need in a culture paranoid about political incorrectness. It sheds light on historical tensions without shying away from their ugliness, and that quality is what gives The Hateful Eight its ability to effectively spread a message of racial tolerance. It could not have done this if Tarantino had used kinder language. The acting was also believable; you could really feel how cold that blizzard was. Tarantino veterans Kurt Russell, Samuel L Jackson, and Tim Roth performed well, as expected, but Jennifer Jason Leigh and Channing Tatum’s performances stood out to me. It was refreshing to see Leigh so uninhibited, and I always enjoy the opportunity to see Tatum show off his acting chops rather than his abs. I could go on about this movie, but that would need its own article. 2. The Man from U.N.C.L.E..This movie is so much fun. Directed by Guy Ritchie, a notoriously witty filmmaker, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an homage to the 1960s television show of the same name. Movies based on television shows tend to be hit or miss, and thankfully this was a hit. Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, and Henry Cavill deliver their lines and manifest physicality in such a funny way, without losing any of the suaveness expected from spy movies. 1. TrumboJay Roach’s Trumbo was everything an audience could ask for—it was funny, moving, based on a true story, and fun. It educates people about a time not too long ago when free speech was stifled by mass paranoia-turned-hysteria, teaching a lesson that many would do well to learn today. Trumbo sheds light on a phenomenon that will amuse, surprise, and grip audiences, and perhaps most importantly piss them off. I’d recommend this film to anyone and everyone.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a film that can’t decide what it wants to be. As a fan of both Pride and Prejudice and of zombie movies, I was looking forward to it. The trailer is enticing and the movie even starts with a play on Jane Austen’s opening line in the novel, leading me to hope that the film would be a depiction of the 19th century story with zombies entwined cleverly with the existing plot.
This was not the case. The narration at the beginning of the film tried to tie the zombies into history, which was interesting but didactic (it was also ironic that the zombie virus came to Europe from the Americas, when historically the Europeans were the ones who spread disease to the area—but I digress). The movie’s writing was overly-exhibitionist in its attempts to be consistent with Austen’s original characters. They address each other by full name even when situationally inappropriate and explain relationships in too much detail, so nearly every action and relationship in the movie felt contrived. Other characters appear so out-of-the-blue that viewers who have not read the book(s) will undoubtedly be lost. In short, this movie did everything that writers are not supposed to do There were some scenes and lines that were taken directly from the novel(s), but they were taken out of context. Essential character traits were also drastically changed to suit the film. For instance, Elizabeth Bennet (Lily James) throws a tantrum after Mr. Darcy (Sam Riley) rejects her, which never happened in Austen’s book and derails Elizabeth’s independent, cynical personality. The zombie aspect of the movie was not as gripping as I’d hoped. The undead were inconsistent—some fast (like in 28 Days Later), some slow (like in Night of the Living Dead), and some just like the living. The zombies were also neither scary nor funny. Some scenes would have fit in a horror movie, but most inspired pity for the zombies. In addition, the zombies at first seem capable of passing as normal people, then others were deranged, some cruel, some unintelligent, and some kind. These qualities can work on their own, but it seems as if director Burr Steers could not make up his mind. I still can’t decide if Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was meant to be funny or not. The original was always intended as comedic, but many of the novel’s funny scenes are left out. In any screen adaptation of literature, scenes must be cut. But the choice in scenes was bizarre. Mr. Collins’ (played by Matt Smith) proposal to Elizabeth, for example, was funnier in the original book. Jokes also missed their marks: Mr. Darcy’s declaration of “Darcy, Colonel Darcy” was an over-played Hollywood trope that’s rarely funny anymore, and was especially irrelevant in this context. The ending also struck me as ridiculously idealistic (absent of zombies despite supposedly taking place during a zombie apocalypse) and lacking any indication of satire. It was uncomfortably out-of-place. Finally, there was great focus on the sexual spectacle of women fighting zombies. If this had been a consistent theme in the cinematography, it would have some artistic merit. Yet the camera didn’t call enough attention to it for it to be thematically exhibitionist while the sexual attention was not subtle enough to go unnoticed. Lily James’ breasts seemed to occupy center-screen more often than her face. Here, sexual focus came off as a thinly-veiled, artless attempt to use the actresses’ physical appeal as marketing for the movie. It seems as if Director Burr Steers ambitiously took on a lot of great things at once (i.e., Pride and Prejudice, zombie movies, comedy). This gave him many areas in which he could have excelled—but Pride and Prejudice and Zombies fell short of expectations in each of these areas. It had none of Jane Austen’s wit, zombie films’ horror, or satire’s comedic timing. Even the period film aspect of the movie was unsatisfactory: note that Mr. Darcy imitated James Bond in addition to mysteriously donning a leather jacket for most of the movie. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was entertaining enough, but I do not advise buying a ticket for this movie. Grade: D- |
Gabrielle UlubayWriter, artist, filmmaker. Archives
August 2017
Categories |