Foster on Film » Page 20

Ghostbusters: If it is a success, we’re screwed. If it is a failure, we’re screwed.

Jul 122016

July 12, 2016

ghostbusterslogo So, the first Ghostbusters Reboot reviews are in, and they are…odd. Mostly I’ve seen five stars reviews and zero star ones. This is either the best or worst movie ever. I find both unlikely, and while I’m betting it is closer to the bottom than the top, I suspect even in genre films, it will be sitting on top of many worse films—after all, this is the year of Batman v Superman. It is hard to take any of these extreme reviews seriously and I suspect more than the quality of the film is in play.

The problem with Ghostbusters is that no matter what happens, the results will be bad. That’s because films affect other films. The success or failure of any big budget films is often more important for what it does to other films than for its own quality. One film can crush a career, kill a studio, star a trend, or kill an idea for years to come. Everyone remember Michael Myers? He was on top of the Hollywood pile. Then The Love Guru came along. Notice multiple studios spending tons of time, effort and money to create shared universes? That’s The Avengers effect. After The Road Warrior we had a decade of wild men in the desert flicks. Alien was followed by over a hundred bug in a bottle films. The music in Pirates of the Caribbean has meant since then that no amount of bombast is too much. Harry Potter split its final movie, and we got extra Twilight and extra Hunger Games films. Batman Begins gave us a pair of depressing Superman movies, and the Fantastic 4, along with other depressing superhero flicks. Let’s not even think about the sludge pit The Blair Witch Project left in its wake. And that’s a minor rundown.

Hollywood is as filled with prejudices as any place else, but the main one is money. Hollywood likes it. And they learn lessons very quickly on how not to lose it and what’s the best way to make more, and those lessons are always of the form “do that thing that made money and don’t do that thing that lost money.”

Which brings me back to Ghostbusters, something that could only cause harm. It’s just about out, and those reviews leave it up in the air what will happen. But lets look at the extremes.

If Ghostbusters fails, then MRAs will claim victory. They are already working on hiding good reviews on Redit. There is no time when MRAs claiming victory is a good thing. Culturally, that’s a mess. But sticking with film, that will make money-men less likely than they already are to invest in female-led movies. Any movement in the direction of actual female representation in film that has been happening (and it hasn’t been much), will be slowed even more, and if another flop comes along, we could see years of before anyone starts moving in the right direction again.

On the other hand, what if it is a success? Well, then things are bad as well. Many original ideas never make it to the screen because the money men won’t take a chance when they could instead fund a reboot or a sequel. It’s a painful ride through cinema history to see how many times a director will explain that the reason he made the crap movie he made was because no one would back his real project. And with the huge sums going to big films now, this is getting worse. For quite a few years, reboots and sequels meant money, so that’s what we got. But lately we’ve gotten a string of big budget sequel and reboot flops or underperformers: Alice Through the Looking Glass, Zoolander 2, Independence Day: Resurgence, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, The Divergent Series: Allegiant, The Huntsman: Winter’s War. And this is having an effect. The talk in Hollywood is they may have overplayed the sequel and reboot hand—with things like the MCU being a special case. There has been serious movement as money began looking for the next big thing. But it’s only started, and one success—one success that has everyone’s eyes on it, could kill that, and stick us back in the muck. And few films have more eyes on it than Ghostbusters. So, even if it is a great film (and my guess is…no), it will be an artistic disaster if Ghostbusters is a success.

There’s also the issue of a success meaning that Melissa McCarthy’s career will grow, instead of implode—the second being my choice as she is spectacularly unfunny, but that’s a minor issue.

Will the reverse positive effects come into play as well? That is, will its success lead to greater representation for women and will its failure put a nail in sequels and reboots? I doubt it. It may have a minor inpact in those areas, but only very minor. My guess is the only women who will show up more in movies if this is a success are Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. And if it fails, the train is already on the tracks to pull back on sequel/reboots, thanks to Alice and the others just keeping it on track. Ghostbusters could derail it, but probably add little fuel.

Think that a movie can’t have that much effect? Well, we’ll see when we get Kristen Wiig in Scarface and Justin Bieber in Full Metal Jacket. Now if you don’t worry about film as art, but only as entertainment like a rollercoaster, then how much Ghostbusters is going to screw up artistry and representation may not mean much to you. But then I’m not sure why you are paying attention. But for those of us that do care about film as art, this is, unfortunately, a big deal. Ghostbusters is far from the only film that could screw things up—I’ve already spoken a good deal about BvS and the failure of The Neon Demon is in no one’s best interest—but it is the film of the moment.

Thoughts

Morgan (2016)

Jul 062016

There’s been an “accident” at a secret, isolated lab. They’ve been developing a new form of artificial human, one with emotions. Its name is Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy), and this five-year-old that looks eighteen just stabbed one of its keepers (Jennifer Jason Leigh) in the eye. The corporate office has sent Lee (Kate Mara), a risk assessment specialist, to make a report and do whatever is necessary. The lead scientist (Michelle Yeoh), who is somehow connected to the vaguely reported “Helsinki tragedy,” looks at the situation coldly, but the rest of the scientific team, particularly Dr. Ziegler (Toby Jones) and Amy (Rose Leslie), have grown very attached to Morgan and are worried that she’ll (as they use the female pronoun) be destroyed. The crew has reason to worry, and even more reason when the AI psychologist (Paul Giamatti) shows up to test Morgan, as he appears less sympathetic than Lee. And with his evaluation, things start going very wrong.

Morgan is the latest in a string of first-step-artificial-intelligence films, following 2015’s Ex Machina. The comparison doesn’t do Morgan any favors as it is very similar to Ex Machina for it’s first half, giving one a sense of over-familiarity with ideas that should feel new and exciting. The second half breaks away from that mold, but that hurt the film at the box office as those who wanted an Ex Machina clone were disappointed. I find this the superior film, because neither is as smart as it thinks it is, and when I have digested the ideas early on, Morgan still has something to offer in a little mystery and a lot of violence.

It certainly offered a lot with the cast. Kate Mara and Anya Taylor-Joy are pitch perfect as the dueling leads. There is the proper amount of strange in Taylor-Joy’s performance to accept her as an AI. Both actresses made me want to know more about their characters. And the rest of the cast is amazing for a semi-low budget film. An ensemble including Paul Giamatti, Michelle Yeoh, Rose Leslie, Toby Jones, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Brian Cox is going to grab my attention. These are some of the best actors working.

Morgan starts off as a mystery: Why did the AI attack the scientist? We have a second mystery in just what Lee is really there to do. While these play out nicely in terms of tone and pace, they just aren’t that mysterious. The only reason you won’t guess the answer to the first is that it is so much less than it should have been. As for the second, it’s so obvious that I find myself twisting my sentences not to give it away here. Without something clever in the plot to augment the “What does it mean to be human?” question that all these recent films have been bounding around without any special insight, Morgan ends up feeling rather ordinary.

However, there is one added layer. I mentioned that there is a string of films you could compare this one to, but the one you should is Blade Runner. It plays out as a prequel to Blade Runner. Morgan is a new type of synthetic human, meant to replace an earlier version. Her difference comes from more developed emotions, and one can see why a company would scale back on that idea after the events at the lab. The psychiatrist’s test is not delivered as you would for a human, but rather like a the Voight-Kampff test, meant to upset the AI and get a response. There’s more, but then we’d be into spoilers.

But am I making too much of the two film’s similarities? I don’t think so. Morgan is produced by Scott Free, Ridley Scott’s production company (the Ridley Scott who directed Blade Runner). It was directed by Luke Scott, Ridley’s son, who has spent much of his career working on his father’s films. Is it likely they didn’t notice the similarities? Yeah… No. Considering Scott is now keen to connect his films (if you’re not obsessed with Easter eggs, you may have missed that Prometheus put Blade Runner and Alien in the same universe), I believe it is safe to take Morgan as the first step to Roy. And yes, that does make this film a little bit cooler.

Cyberpunk, Reviews, Robots Tagged with: Three & 1/2 Reels

Moana (2016)

Jul 052016

Moana (Auli’i Cravalho), yet another Disney self-doubting teen needing to become who she really is, is chosen by the sea to find the demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson) who long ago stole the heart of a goddess and cursed the world. Together they must return the heart, but first they have to whine a lot and dwell on how they just aren’t good enough.

Apparently setting the story in ancient Polynesia was all the originally the folks at Disney thought they could afford, so the rest is constructed from previous films, and in every way it is less. They sing generic pop-lite, and I wished for the worst song from Aladdin. Moana argues with the overly controlling father, and I wished for King Triton’s fit in The Little Mermaid. It’s all been done, and done better.

The characters are simple and overly familiar. Moana is particularly annoying. Yes, she’s a teenage girl. Yes, her parents want her to be one way and she wants to be another but she isn’t certain of herself. Yes. Got it. Got it ten films ago. I said everything is less, but that’s not true; there’s a lot more whining. And she’s joined by Maui who is over a thousand freaking years old, but still whines and still must find himself. I learned to hate the two of them. Is there a reason why they have to dwell on their own shortcoming in the middle of a storm, or a battle? Shouldn’t they be busy…sailing or fighting. It gets old.

The computer animation is fine, but nothing special, which is the case with anything that isn’t aggravating. There’s no good to make up for the bad, just a lot of mediocre. I’d give it a One Reel-skip it rating, but the last quarter picks up enough that Moana is OK to catch on TV for free, as long as you don’t pay too much attention.

Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

Jul 032016

In mythical Japan, a powerful enchantress escaped from the evil Moon King (Ralph Fiennes) with her one-eyed baby, but at the cost of her warrior husband’s life. Years later, young Kubo (Art Parkinson) takes care of her, earning a few coins by telling stories in the village, accompanied by his magical origami. With his mother getting sicker, he joins in the village’s lantern ceremony of remembrance, trying to speak to his father’s spirit, and there he is seen by the Moon King and his mother’s evil sisters (Rooney Mara) who’ve come for his other eye. Escaping, Kubo sets out on a quest to find his father’s armor, helped by a mystical monkey (Charlize Theron) and an amnesiac, samurai beetle (Mathew McConaughey).

Kubo and the Two Strings is an amalgamation of things you don’t see. It is a smart animated film not just for kids, that doesn’t fall into cheap slapstick but tells a mythic tale of gods and heroes. It is deep in Japanese lore, bringing us Westerners into another culture without falling into the traps of being either respectful or disrespectful. It is stop-motion animation—incredible stop-motion animation that includes the largest puppet every made at over sixteen feet—that is utterly flawless. It is emotional without being saccharine. And it is certainly one of the best films of the year.

Laika studio is the current premier stop-motion animation company, having previously created Coraline (2009), ParaNorman (2012) and The BoxTrolls (2014). Kubo is a step up and they weren’t being slouches before. Their work is so good that I fear that they won’t get the credit they deserve from many viewers who won’t believe this is stop-motion work. Technically, nothing is close.

But the animation skills on display are only a small part of what makes this film special. The characters are funny without being silly, cleaver enough to avoid the painful moments plaguing so many modern actions films, and not the slipshod clichés common in animated fare. The story is epic and accessible, with a few surprises and always supporting its multiple themes. While it has a good deal to say on the value of life, death, and family, I was taken by its somewhat meta philosophy on storytelling.

Kubo’s only flaw is that, in wanting to make its message (the family and life one) clear to viewers of all ages, it is occasionally too clear. Writers and directors often underestimate children. A bit of subtlety and some words left unspoken would have placed this in the realm of the masterpieces of animation.

Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: Four Reels

Godzilla Resurgence [Shin Godzilla] (2016)

Jun 102016

In a rebooted universe where Godzilla has never existed before, an unknown disaster occurs in the bay and the Japanese government springs into action to talk, and meet, and make sure that protocol is followed. When the disaster turns out to be a giant mutating monster, the government immediately talks some more, and meets some more, and follows more protocol. When the monster mutates into Godzilla, it is time for more talking. Meanwhile, the new generation of Japanese are tossing off the old ways, and working together to defeat Godzilla.

Reviewing a Godzilla film is a lot like reviewing porn; for most people it doesn’t matter if it is good, only if it is the type of thing they like. How you feel about Godzilla Resurgence says more about you than it does about the film. So it has been since the second Godzilla film in 1955.

I separate the first film (Gojira) as it is a masterpiece and unlike most of what followed. It is rich with theme, filled with complex characters, shot beautifully with top notch acting, and it shares the pain of the only people in the world who have experienced a nuclear bomb. After that, there was less (sometimes no) concern for characterization and little for sense. The twenty-nine Japanese films are mainly monster-mashups. If you like monster-mashups, then you are sometimes happy with these, sometimes not.

However, that doesn’t mean the themes went away. No Godzilla film expressed its meaning with the skill and nuance of that first film, but half of the films have something to say and say it loudly. Environmentalism pops up often (including in Mothea vs. Godzilla, Godzilla vs. Hedorah, Godzilla vs. Biollante), as does the problems with corporate power (including King Kong vs. Godzilla, M v G again). There are Godzilla films on guilt and honoring the dead (Giant Monsters All-Out Attack) and bullying (Son of Godzilla, Godzilla’s Revenge), but politics is the most prevalent topic. Normally it is international and military politics, and those enter in this time too, but Godzilla Resurgence is about internal Japanese politics and bureaucracy. It is also about nationalism, which it supports, so if you looking for a satire of government with an uncomfortable nationalistic streak, then you’ve found your film.

If you want giant monster action, you are out of luck. Godzilla is only in the film for a few minutes. He does a couple stomp throughs, one big flame and laser attack (yes, now he shoots lasers, not only from his mouth, but from his tail and spines) and that’s it. I didn’t time it but I’d guess ten minutes of screen time is about right. The special effects, what there are of them, are better than they’ve ever been in a Toho Godzilla film by a good margin, but they are still a decade behind what we have become used to. Don’t expected to be awed by the big beasty although if you like the suit-mation/puppetry atheistic, you should be pleased.

We spend our time watching an inefficient government do nothing. We see a meeting which is followed by everyone walking to another meeting which is followed by everyone walking back for another meeting. As action, this is a failure. As sharp commentary, it is pretty good. For the first twenty minutes, it is hard to pick out anyone. We just watch rooms full of old men doing their best not to make decisions and not to lose face. The politicians are more concerned with what department is in charge than they are in solving the problem of a huge monster killing everyone. The funniest bits are with the military attacks, when every command gets filtered through five to ten people, taking precious time. The U.S. takes a few barbs as well, being depicted as overbearing and self-serving, but at least it gets things done.

This is a Godzilla film where Godzilla doesn’t matter. The script could be easily rewritten to remove him, slipping in any large disaster. The focus is on how old Japan and young Japan respond to a problem. And that’s where the nationalistic point comes in. Japan is great, great in its purity and determination, and that greatness is on display in its millennials as they toss out the old and make the country the “scrappy” fighter it once was. The point is made with no subtlety as the government meetings are filled with bowing and proper speech whereas when the youths get together it is pointed out that anyone can speak at any time and they all need to share their information.

A film of this nature needs some clearly drawn characters and unfortunately Godzilla Resurgence has none. The only character to receive any development is the American diplomat of Japanese decent (comically played by an actress who has only the barest skills with English). The rest of the characters are blank slates. They are their jobs. There is no emotion because these people have no personalities, no outside concerns, no families, and no traits. That makes it impossible to care about any of them. With no emotional investment and little monster mayhem, it is all down to the satire. Unfortunately, once we get the point (and you’ll get the point—there’s no ignoring it) there isn’t anything else to entertain or enlighten us viewers, yet and the film keeps going.

So on that porn scale, if you like clear political commentary and a bit of nationalism presented in a leisurely fashion you are in for a good ride. For me, it was worth my time though I am not drawn to see it again.

Featured Review, Foreign Language, Godzilla, Reviews Tagged with: Two & 1/2 Reels

Midnight Special (2016)

Jun 062016

Alton (Jaden Lieberher), a super-powered kid who can’t control his powers, has been kidnapped from a cult by his father Roy Tomlin (Michael Shannon) and his friend Lucas (Joel Edgerton). They take a very, very slow drive through very dark, nowhere roads while pursued by the cult that thinks the child is their salvation and by the government that knows he’s gotten secret information. Along the way they pick up Alton’s mother (Kirsten Dunst) so they can talk really slowly to someone else.

What if you wanted to remake Starman, but without the romance and far slower? Or if you wanted to redo Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but do it without the sense of wonder and at half speed? Then you’d make Midnight Special, a science fiction film that doesn’t know anything about science fiction, but is hung up on tense, unhappy people expressing their tenseness and unhappiness as haltingly as possible. Why take thirty seconds to speak a line when you could do it in a minute? Why move when you can stand? Why speak at all when you can stare? And why light a scene when you can shoot in natural darkness. I cannot recall a film where I could see less.

Michael Shannon tones down his scenery-chewing from Man of Steel, but keeps the glum disposition. He’s always in slow burn mode. I’m beginning to think he lacks the muscles that allow smiling. Has he ever laughed? For two hours he embodies a man with a bad case of constipation.

A pre-Star Wars Adam Driver puts in the least intense performance, which makes him a breath of fresh air. I didn’t hate him, I just wasn’t interested. Everyone else, I hated.

When we come to the moment of revelation and wonder, it is given to us slowly with no excitement. It’s as if I went to a rival meeting and it took them fifteen minutes to say “Jesus is good” and no one was all that happy about it. And why not? This is like a confused revival meeting, worshiping 70s & 80s science fiction films without understanding them.

It picks up at the end, but it is far too late. And in finally explaining things, it is clear that the entire film has been a cheat. If you are going to cheat, at least make it fun.

Aliens, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Memorial Day List: Best War Films

May 292016

May 29, 2016

So, with the number of bad war films I’ve complained about in the last few days, in honor of Memorial Day, I’ve made a list of must see ones. These are my favorite war films (with the caveats that I’ve stuck with real wars, wars that include guns, and ones where the war is front and center, not a setting for other drama, thus I’m leaving out things like Casablanca, The African Queen, Beau Geste, and The Sea Hawk).

#11 The Dirty Dozen (1967)

The first of multiple “fun” war films on this list, The Dirty Dozen is all about shooting the bad guys and gleeful nastiness. Lee Marvin leads a band of mid-level stars in a big shoot-‘em-up that feels like playing army.

Lists, Thoughts

The Lobster (2015/6)

May 072016

In what might be the future, David (a chunked up Colin Farrell) arrives at the hotel for single people. He has 45 days to find a partner, or he will be turned into the animal of his choice: a lobster. The one rule is that one must have a commonality with one’s proposed partner, which could be absolutely anything, a requirement that is not only forced upon the people, but one which they all believe in. There he meets John (Ben Whishaw), who self-identifies as a man with a limp and so hopes to find a woman who limps, and Bob (John C. Reilly), who lisps. In the wood nearby live the solitary people, including the Short-Sighted Woman (Rachel Weisz), who are hunted by the hotel guests. Though outcasts, their lives are just as controlled as those in the hotel by their leader (Lea Seydoux) who has cruel punishments for anyone who flirts.

The Lobster is the oddest picture of the year, or of the last five years. It is Logan’s Run via Monty Python. It’s closest kin are the works of Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and Terry Gilliam (Brazil, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen). It is theater of the absurd, a mix of dark comedy, science fiction, and tragedy where metaphors run wild and satire is king. At times it is upsetting and at other times I laughed. It is certainly unsettling.

The satire is aimed at relationships and social expectations. But don’t expect this to be a Disnefied manifesto on being your own person and finding yourself. If there is anything worse than external controls and the lies inherent in relationships, it is the internal limitations we set and the lies we tell ourselves when alone.

Ferrell gained forty pounds for the role, giving up movie-star looks for that of an everyday man. Pudgy and hesitant, he seems to define a single person not at home in his own skin. Weisz, on the other hand, seems to be growing more attractive over time, but with her stony delivery, still fits.

The Lobster has the indie-drama look, which works, though an overly colorful, faux-Technicolor look would have worked better. But director and co-writer Yorgos Lanthimos (Dogtooth) wanted to strip away emotion and energy. Everything appears muted. The peculiar characters share one trait: they seem acutely uncomfortable at all times. Coupled or solitary, everyone speaks in an uneasy deadpan that you might expect from an extreme introvert forced to give a speech.

The downside with the indie drama look—with an emotion and energy low world—is that you have to be right on point at all times. There needs to be something interesting to engage our intellects or startle us at every moment. Otherwise, it gets dull. The Lobster succeeds in this for the first half, but later, it begins to drag. While still in its strange world, the story become predictable. Without something to invoke a bit of passion, the film needed to leap from strangeness to strangeness as we are never engaged with David. At a minute short of two hours, it should have lost fifteen minutes, or given us more time in the hotel as there was a lot more that could have been done there. The Lobster is interesting and innovative, but as it isn’t exciting, it could have been a touch more thoughtful.

The Lobster started its festival run in 2015 but was not released generally till 2016.

Dystopia, Reviews, Science Fiction Tagged with: Three Reels

The Worst of Marvel

May 062016

May 6, 2016

Marvel is on a roll, with the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) being both wildly successful and consistently good. But Marvel has had its share of artistic failings, always when someone else’s hands were in the pie. So, to celebrate the release of Civil War, I’m going to dwell for a moment on the worst Marvel, costumed, superhero films.

The failures tend to be of two types: campy kid’s stuff or self-important whining. In a few cases, the films manage both simultaneously, going way over the top with silly super-villain dogs or dance routines while keeping to a self-important tone. Those can be the worst. If you are going to fail, choose the camp kid’s route. At least there can be some fun there.

I stuck with theatrical releases for this list, thus ignoring the direct-to-video, TV, and never released flicks like Captain America (1990), The Fantastic Four: The Movie (1994), Generation X (1996), and any of those Bill Bixby Hulk TV movies. Those are on a different level, more primitive in every aspect of production, but more fun if you happen to have friends over and a lot of beer. Yes, they are all horrible, but it’s a different form of horrible.

In making this list, I intended for each film to take its own place, but similar films kept tying or ending up next to each other. So in the end, I grouped some together: 12 films in 7 slots.

If you’ve avoided any of these, good for you. Keep up the good work. All of them are embarrassments.

#7 Spider-Man (2002)/Spider-Man 2 (2004)/Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Raimi’s Spider-Man films still fit together not only by being terrible, but by being the same damn film. It’s a common mistake of sequels to cling close to the original, but my God this is ridiculous. Which of the three films is this: A hopeless miscast and sleepy Tobey Maguire stars uncharismatically as Peter Parker, a 27 plus-year-old teenager who can’t deal emotionally with his powers, moons over Mary Jane who he dumps, and fights an enemy who coincidently is personally known to him and gained his powers in a “science” accident? Yeah.

All three mix super-serious pretention with camp. But there are fun games to be had. You could argue over who is the worst actor between Tobey Maguire, Kristen Dunst, and James Franco. Or you could search for the exact moment when Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons, Alfred Molina, and Topher Grace forgot it was a live action film and just started playing animated characters. Or you can rattle off other ways to kill off Uncle Ben, because, wow, that guy needed to die.

Lists, Thoughts

The Great Wall (2016)

May 052016

Super mercenary William (Matt Damon) and his sidekick Tovar (Pedro Pascal) are looking to steal black powder from the mysterious Orient, ending up instead in the custody of the Order, a group of colorfully-armored warriors that man the Great Wall, defending against an endless number of semi-intelligent monsters. Commander Lin (Tian Jing) wants to kill the Westerners to keep their monster-fighting secret, but Strategist Wang (Andy Lau) thinks their history of killing a monster and William’s freakish skill with a bow make them an asset. While fighting the hordes of creatures, William and Tovar team up with Ballard (Willem Dafoe), another black powder-seeking mercenary, to plan an escape.

The costumes are spectacular—absolutely beautiful. Rows and rows of blue and red Technicolor armor and flowing robes. Without even knowing the competition I can say The Great Wall should win the Academy Award for costume design. And add to that the Oscar for art design. The Great Wall (the physical wall in the movie, not the movie itself) is magnificent. Every room, every hall, every walkway is a beautiful fantasy. Armored, female, acrobat warriors leaping from elaborate scaffoldings while defended by thousands of scarlet archers is a thing to cherish. That is cinematic artistry and director Yimou Zhang (Hero, House of Flying Daggers) throws his heart into each gorgeous group shot. Well, his heart had to be somewhere; it wasn’t with the story.

Yes, this is a sumptuous film, but it’s all background beauty. The monsters are reasonable CGI creations and the idea of a siege by supernatural forces on The Great Wall with secret warriors on the defense is fine. The whole White savior thing is not.

OK, The Great Wall gets a pass on racism due to it being a Chinese production… Well, not really. This is an American production from Legendary Entertainment, with a Chinese company signing on to co-produce. It does have a Chinese director (second choice after a White guy turned it down) but the writers—6 of them? Really?–and producers are all Hollywood folks. But for simplicity’s sake, I’ll give it a pass on racism because the same choice pulled this film down artistically. The problem with having a White savior isn’t just a social issue, it’s that it is boring. Really, really boring. The savior is, by nature, disconnected with his surroundings. He could be used as a portal character is some instances but that is unnecessary here. The story should be about Commander Lin, Wang, and an inexperienced soldier just finding his courage as they defend against forces that could crush their civilization. But we don’t get that story. We don’t get to know two of those three and Lin ends up dwelling not on how she feels about what is happening but how she feels about some dude who happened to show up. There’s no time to tell us what the monsters are or make us feel what is truly at stake. Instead we spend time with William.

William knows nothing about China. He doesn’t know the monsters. He doesn’t know what they are so we never learn. He doesn’t have any connection to the civilization under attack, so we have no connection (except it is very pretty). We follow the outsider and his story, and as is often the case with White saviors, he doesn’t have much of a story. He’s the cold mercenary who turns caring when he sees something to believe in, or so we are told. We are told how cruel he was, not shown it and his heroics are just what he does so we don’t witness any deep character development nor are we made to feel anything. William’s just a generic White savior doing what White saviors have done so many times before for no real reason and with only cursorily explanation for his abilities: He’s better at doing the things the Chinese having been doing for years just because he is. The whole “escape with the black powder” subplot is a snooze.

It is telling that William, Tovar, and Ballard could be plucked out of the film without harming it. It simply isn’t their story. Get rid of them and give me an extra half hour of Lin and Wang and the young soldier and we could have a great fantasy film.

So, if you don’t want to blame racism, then go with callow Hollywood commercialism. The producers figured a White Matt Damon would sell tickets where an all Chinese cast would not, so he got shoehorned into a movie where he doesn’t belong.

That doesn’t make this a terrible film, just a missed opportunity. The action is exciting and everything looks so good that the movie is watchable. And Damon is amiable enough. It just should have been so much more.

Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

The BFG (2016)

May 052016

Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) is a lonely, insomniac orphan. Awake far too late for a little girl, she spies a giant (Mark Rylance) roaming the streets. He, in return, sees her, and kidnaps her so she can’t tell anyone, taking her back to Giantland. Quickly it is revealed that he is a kindly giant who delivers dreams, surrounded by nine much larger, cruel and stupid child-eating giants.

The BFG was a surprise failure. With Steven Spielberg at the helm, a script based on a book by Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), and the very latest and greatest in motion capture effects, it was a license to print money. Or not. Poor marketing and bad timing (the film had been in the planning stages for years) were mainly to blame, though children shrugged through screenings and parents found more to admire than enjoy. The BFG is at times wondrous, but just as often infuriating, and the whole is lacking.

The BFG could and should have been a clever family film, but it is instead a children’s movie, in the worst sense of the term. Everything is simple and blatant. Quips and loud music replace earned emotion, and bright flashy colors are meant to distract the short-attention-span viewer. Plot doesn’t pop up till the last third and substantial time is set aside for a reoccurring flatulence joke. Its messages that “bullying is mean” and “stand up to bullies”—right out of the 1950s—are delivered with all the subtlety of a tuba blast with your face in the bell.

Children deserve better. Families deserve a different movie.

There’s no question The BFG is a superb technical achievement. In a normal year I’d say it was a shoo-in for an FX award for its motion capture CGI work. But this is the year of the “live action” Jungle Book and the return of Governor Tarkin, which makes it a year too late. Still, the work is excellent, and the dream-catching scene is particularly fetching. But it is all to no purpose. We’re shown Giantland purely because it is nice to look at. With no story kicking in until the final moments, it’s all just pretty lights.

Ruby Barnhill is cute and spunky enough, but her Sophie is aimless and annoying. Ignoring danger and suicidal leaps to get attention are not adorable. Some “smart” to go with the spunky would have helped. The giant is nicely constructed and Rylance’s voice work is solid, but he isn’t engaging and is a side-kick in search of a protagonist who never arrives.

There is some nice concepts surrounding dreams that could have been the core of a better film. But those nice concepts, instead of helping, just point out where the film didn’t go and how it failed.

Perhaps someone should have informed the filmmakers that since the children’s book was written, “BFG” has picked up a meaning: Big Fucking Gun. But blindness to the last twenty years could explain the whole movie.

Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Here We Go Again — Welcome to the Vox Awards

Apr 262016

April 26, 2016

Year two of the Puppy Mess (year 4 if you want to count from the beginning, but there was still some honor to the award for the first two years) and it looks worse than last year. Why worse? Because there’s a lot of squirming and heming and excuses to just go with it. Surrender is in the air. “Oh, but some of Vox’s choices are OK.” They weren’t the fans’ choices, but hey, “Vox chose OK for us so why should we be unhappy?”

Let’s take a look at how the Pups affected things. What is noticable is that it is the Rabid Pups who dominated. The Sads are a distant second. And fandom is dead last.

Here are the nominees. Red=Rabid Pup. Yellow=Sad Pup (Yellow * means the Sads were supporting that Rabid pick). Blue=Fandom.

BEST NOVEL

Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut’s Windlass by Jim Butcher*
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
Seveneves: A Novel by Neal Stephenson*
Uprooted by Naomi Novik

BEST NOVELLA

Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
The Builders by Daniel Polansky*
Penric’s Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold*
Perfect State by Brandon Sanderson*
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds*

BEST NOVELETTE

“And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead” by Brooke Bolander*
“Flashpoint: Titan” by CHEAH Kai Wai
“Folding Beijing” by Hao Jingfang, trans. Ken Liu*
“Obits” by Stephen King*
“What Price Humanity?” by David VanDyke

BEST SHORT STORY

“Asymmetrical Warfare” by S. R. Algernon*
The Commuter by Thomas A. Mays
“If You Were an Award, My Love” by Juan Tabo and S. Harris
“Seven Kill Tiger” by Charles Shao
Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle

BEST RELATED WORK

Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe, 1951 to 1986 by Marc Aramini
“The First Draft of My Appendix N Book” by Jeffro Johnson*
“Safe Space as Rape Room” by Daniel Eness*
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Policeby Vox Day
“The Story of Moira Greyland” by Moira Greyland

BEST GRAPHIC STORY

The Divine written by Boaz Lavie, art by Asaf Hanuka and Tomer Hanuka
Erin Dies Alone written by Grey Carter, art by Cory Rydell
Full Frontal Nerdity by Aaron Williams
Invisible Republic Vol 1written by Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman, art by Gabriel Hardman*
The Sandman: Overturewritten by Neil Gaiman, art by J.H. Williams III

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION – LONG FORM

Avengers: Age of Ultron*
Ex Machina
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian*
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION – SHORT FORM

Doctor Who
Grimm
Jessica Jones
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic*
Supernatural

BEST EDITOR – SHORT FORM

John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
Jerry Pournelle*
Sheila Williams

BEST EDITOR – LONG FORM

Vox Day
Sheila E. Gilbert
Liz Gorinsky
Jim Minz
Toni Weisskopf*

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST

Lars Braad Andersen
Larry Elmore*
Abigail Larson*
Michal Karcz
Larry Rostant

BEST SEMIPROZINE

Beneath Ceaseless Skie
Daily Science Fiction
Sci Phi Journal*
Strange Horizons
Uncanny Magazine

BEST FANZINE

Black Gate
Castalia House Blog
File 770*
Superversive SF*
Tangent Online*

BEST FANCAST

8-4 Play
Cane and Rinse
HelloGreedo*
The Rageaholic
Tales to Terrify

BEST FAN WRITER

Douglas Ernst
Mike Glyer
Morgan Holmes
Jeffro Johnson
Shamus Young

BEST FAN ARTIST

Matthew Callahan*
disse86
Kukuruyo
Christian Quinot
Steve Stiles

CAMPBELL AWARD

Pierce Brown
Sebastien de Castell*
Brian Niemeier*
Andy Weir*
Alyssa Wong
So there it is. You, the regular fans, made nine choices. That’s it. The rest were hand picked by Vox or the Sads. Might you (the plural you) have chosen some of those same works/people? You might have. But you didn’t. Vox chose them. And the Pups chose the rest Y’all (going Southern for clarity) did not. Y’all chose nine and that is all. Sure you can go with the “Well, I would have…” Yes, but you didn’t. Vox did. So if you are happy with Vox handing your choices, then go ahead and just somehow say it’s all OK.

And that’s what I’m already seeing. And it started last year. George and John and Mary, much as I like them, were wrong. They went with the “Oh, just vote for the best of what’s there and it will work out.” No, that wasn’t the thing to do and it didn’t work out. This year even the Sads didn’t do that well, though they did better than fandom. Vox did. The 2016 Hugos are NOT the Hugo Awards. They are The Vox-hugo. They will celebrate the best in what Vox likes. If you go along with it, you are not voting for the Hugo winner. You will be voting for the Vox-hugo winner.

There are no Hugo awards for 2016.

Thoughts

1 2 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 131 132