Movie Reaction: F9: The Fast Saga

Formula: The Fate of the Furious ^ The Fast and the Furious

 

The Fast and Furious saga is about as "critic-proof" as it gets. It's a franchise with a dizzying mythology, no patience for plausibility, mostly second-tier stars, and more concern with being globally marketable than matching domestic tastes. The franchise made that fateful pivot with the fourth movie and, ever since, the sensibility of the movies has been "get on for the ride or get out of the way". In other words, it's hard to say anything thoughtful of value about the movie. I'm going to try though.

 

Let's try a new approach. Does this movie offer what I bought my ticket for? It's got globetrotting. I counted at least 7 location cards in the movie all over the world. It features all the characters I've come to expect, including a few glorified cameos that reward long-term memory of the franchise. The action is big. They literally go to space, which is often the sign that a franchise has run out of ideas. Armored cars flip. They use a broken bridge as a sort of slingshot for a car. There's a scene where they attempt to drive too fast for a minefield. Perhaps the biggest star of the movie is magnets, which director Justin Lin, returning for the first time since F6, falls in love with. Basically, if you are going to see a Fast and Furious movie, F9 has everything you signed up for.

 

I can try to describe the plot, although it's pretty nonsensical and pretty involved for someone who has only seen each movie once. So, Dominic (Vin Diesel) has a brother, Jakob (John Cena), who happens to be the world's premiere assassin/driver/thief. Don't worry about why they never mentioned him before. Anyway, Jakob steals something that would destroy the world or something and the Furious crew are called in to stop him. Charlize Theron's Cipher is still around, making trouble. There are a lot of flashbacks in the film to Dom and Jakob's early days before they had a falling out. I don't know that I needed that backstory, but someone might care about it.

 

You can assume every character who is still alive and one we thought was dead is back. The only notable absence is The Rock*, I assume due to clashing egos with Diesel. Anyway, John Cena steps in for what I'm sure will be a similar multi-film role. I do worry that we're reaching critical mass for star power in the movies though. The Rock and Jason Statham are missing. Paul Walker died several movies ago. They didn't retain Gal Gadot to use her Wonder Woman fame. How many people in this cast would be anything without this franchise right now? Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris don't have anything else going on. Same with Jordana Brewster and Sung Kang. Nathalie Emmanuel could certainly turn into a bigger star at some point, I suppose. Vin Diesel does voice a Marvel character, but the main reason he isn't playing villains and character roles now is these movies. I like John Cena a surprising amount, but he's still a poor-man's Dwayne Johnson at the box office. Honestly, the only two people who would be in about the same place anyway are Michelle Rodriguez, who pops up in a lot of places, and Charlize Theron who is really doing this franchise a favor by hamming it up here rather than virtually any other franchise.

 

*He has graduated to Dwayne Johnson at this point, but let's face it. When he's in these movies, he's The Rock.

 

Along the star power lines, this is the first time I remember the franchise feeling old. Perhaps it's all the flashbacks reminding me how long ago the first movie was. Maybe it's seeing Lil Bow Wow showing up in his mid-30s. Rather than bringing in new blood, this movie brings back a lot of old characters. It seems clear to me that this movie is more about winding the series down than seeing how it could continue.

 

I can't say this featured any of my favorite action sequences in the series. The train in Fast Five and the plane in F6 are still my favorites. The physics in F9 get just a little too crazy for me. The same bridge is used for 2 different gravity defying escapes. The armored truck stuff is cool. I like the idea of the magnets, but that was mostly used as a chaos agent. I rarely had a sense of where the pull or source of the magnetism was coming from. Sometimes the magnets were in the side of the cars. Other times, it's like they transferred the magnetism to the car following them.

 

F9 is a perfectly fine entry in the franchise. It raises some questions about the long-term viability of it, which is reasonable for a series 9-movies deep. As the unofficial return of blockbuster films, I don't think it was worth the wait, but I doubt anything would've been.

 

Side Thought: A running gag in this movie is Roman thinking that he might be invincible. I really don't know how I feel about this. It's funny and a nice acknowledgment that the filmmakers are aware of how insane all this is. However, doesn't it fundamentally change the stakes of the series? I mean, Brian is still alive in the series. Han just came back. Death is not the end in the franchise and characters are aware that they are getting away with things that no human should. The illusion of stakes is what keeps action movies honest. The idea that they have to explain how a character survives forces the filmmakers to think through how an action sequence will work. If there's the understanding that every bullet will miss, the car will always roll onto its tires, and the heroic sacrifice will always be bailed out, then what's stopping the filmmakers from giving into their critics and really be about blowing things up haphazardly?

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Far from the Maddening Crowd

Premise: After inheriting a fortune, a woman with an independent streak chooses between the affections of three men in drastically different situations.

 

Apparently, Far from the Maddening Crowd is a classic book with several film adaptations. That makes a lot of sense. I probably could've guessed that from watching the movie even if I didn't know that. It plays like an often-adapted book. The independent female lead is a good indicator. Books like Vanity Fair, Little Women, and Pride & Prejudice are among the most commonly adapted books because of female leads that feel more modern. It's a lot easier to do pull from a story like that than to rewrite a Daisy Miller to sound like she has autonomy and isn't suffering as a result of it. There's also the fact that this movie plays like it's checking off events. The beginning of the film rushes through Bathsheba (Carey Mulligan) and Gabriel's (Matthias Schoenaerts) change in fortunes. I came away from that part knowing that those two would be a romantic pair because I know how movies work, not because the story shows enough to convince me. The movie repeatedly struggles to keep up with the pace of the story. The introduction and development of Bathsheba's other two suitors (Michael Sheen, Tom Sturridge) barely have time to breath before moving to the next beat.

 

Carey Mulligan is quite good, even if I don't think the movie knows how to handle her character. It spends a lot of time developing her as a very independent woman. She turns down multiple proposals of marriage. She gets dirty in the farm. Then it does a poor job of explaining why she would marry Tom Sturridge's army Sargent. There's basically one scene of him showing off his sword to her, then they are suddenly married. Perhaps the movie goes too far early on presenting her through a modern lens.

 

Matthias Schoenaerts is a nice off-brand Alexander Skarsgaard. Michael Sheen successfully drops his natural charm and slickness for his role. Juno Temple plays a very Juno Temple role, further solidifying herself as a glam, British Taryn Manning. It's even got Jessica Barden popping up before I'd recognize her in anything.

 

Far from the Maddening Crowd is probably best suited as a mini-series. The story has many distinct chapters. It covers a decently long amount of time. Just about all the relationships in the movie needed fleshing out. It rushes through events at an almost comical pace. Like, I know the death of Schoenaerts' flock of sheep is supposed to be devastating, but the abruptness of the dog herding them off a cliff was a little funny. And someone needs to explain this church mix-up to me. So, Juno Temple goes to the wrong church by mistake...and they're done? Why was she not able to explain the confusion to him? I get that they didn't have phones back then, but the town isn't that large. I think director Thomas Vinterberg does what he can to make the adaptation work. There's just too much to cover, and the beats aren't that suited for a film.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Gay Divorcee

Premise: A woman trying to get a divorce from her estranged husband gets her lawyer to set up the appearance that she's having an affair, but she goes on to actually fall for the lawyer's performer best friend.

 

OK. This is a screwball comedy, so it's best to just roll with the plot. The story doesn't make a ton of sense. It's built on repeated and avoidable misunderstandings. It's best to just go along with it and enjoy the pitter patter of the dialogue. This film has the added confusion of divorce being seen much differently then. I still don't understand how the appearance of Ginger Rogers having an affair is legally her best option for a divorce. Whatever. It's a fun movie with some enjoyable confusion.

 

I'm surprised to admit that this is my first Astaire and Rogers movie. You'd think that 4000 movies in, another one would've popped up. Alas, no, and I'm finally rectifying that. It was everything it was billed to be. Rogers and Astaire have great chemistry. They are electric in the song and dance numbers, both together and by themselves. I was happy to get lost in the "Continental" sequence toward the end of the film. I really get what people love about these old Hollywood musicals. Impressive staging. Large scale. Easy rhythm. I like newer song and dance movies too, but they're often much more aggressive. These are just lovely. I'm sure to track down more of these Astaire and Rogers movies.

 

It is quite hilarious to look into how hard this perfectly harmless movie had to work to get around the Hays Code. They couldn't call it the Gay Divorce, because they didn't want to suggest that divorces could be happy. Yet, they were OK with The Gay Divorcee because they determined that a divorcee could reasonably be in a situation where they experienced joy. As much as I'm annoyed by the MPAA and all their inconsistencies and double-standards, at least we don't have to put up with this bullshit.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: WarGames

Premise: A teen accidentally activates an advanced government A.I. that causes the U.S. to think it's in a nuclear was with Russia.

 

I miss having the USSR. Sure, the constant fear of the Cold War must've sucked. For 30 years, it sounds like the two world superpowers had their hands over the nuclear war buttons waiting for the other side to flinch. But it sure made for nice cinema. For decades we always had a villain ready for any movie. I mean, the Rocky franchise was almost dead before someone had the brilliant idea "what if he fought a Russian?" We don't have that anymore. Russia isn't a superpower anymore. At best, they are a disgraced ex that we have a long history with. China has the superpower credentials, but we've hitched our wagons to each other too much to make them villains. Besides, the Chinese box office is too lucrative to go after them. If we tried remaking WarGames today, we don't have a good enemy. Sure, they could use North Korea, but that's not a fair fight.

 

Speaking of missing the old days, it's crazy that a film like WarGames got multiple Oscar nominations. Big awards too. Sure, it got a Sound nomination, but it also got Cinematography and Screenplay. Even Chris Nolan movies struggle to get that. Like, could you imagine Distrurbia getting Academy Award nominations? * What a world.

 

*Yes, I realize that referencing a 14-year-old thriller as a recent example is showing my age, but it's the first one that came to mind.

 

The movie is quite good. It's got a young Matthew Broderick, as good as ever. In hindsight it's odd that his post-80s career hasn't been that big. He's worked consistently, but doesn't it feel like he was working toward a couple Oscar nominations by now? Perhaps that 1987 car crash really made him reevaluate things or working on Broadway just brings him more joy. Regardless, he's the perfect protagonist for this. Handsome but believably nerdy. It was cool to see Ally Sheedy as a cool girl in this. I associate her so strongly with her Breakfast Club character, that I forget that she just as easily could've been the Molly Ringwald of that movie. This is a fine Dabney Coleman role. According to IMDB, he was only in 14 feature films in the 1980s, but doesn't it feel more like he was in 50? He's all over that decade.

 

It's nice to have this movie as a reminder that the internet didn't just spring up with AOL. Most of what Broderick is doing on the computer makes some sense. It's all much more text based and analog, but it definitely seems like the screenwriter knew some things about computers at the time. I was expecting to roll my eyes a lot more. Instead, this is arguably less silly than The Net a decade later.

 

If nothing else, WarGames is a perfect time capsule for 1983. It's hard to imagine the movie existing in any other time or having the same impact.

 

Side Thought: What was going on with the corn on the cob scene with the parents? First, the dad butters the corn by lathering a slice of bread and rolling the corn on that? Is that a thing people do? That grossed other people out, right? Why did they bother showing that? Then, we find out that the corn is raw. The mom says it like a punchline. Was that a trend of the time: raw corn? The whole scene, I felt like I was missing something. Why would they leave that scene in? I was so confused.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Age of Adaline

Premise: Blake Lively is a woman who stopped aging in the early 20th century and opens herself up to love again in the modern day.

 

Hold on. This wasn't based on a book?! That is the most surprising thing I've heard in a while. Everything about this movie plays like it was a novel from the same person who wrote The Time-Traveler’s Wife. The narration at the begin and end is totally the move of a book adaptation that doesn't know how else to sneak in some exposition. In fact, I'm still not convinced that this is an original screenplay. Until you can physically show me that no book exists, I refuse to believe that this isn't an adaptation of a New York Times best seller. I mean, even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was based on a short story. A.I. Artificial Intelligence was as least partly inspired by a short story. Bicentennial Man was a novel too.

 

I am going to need a minute to get over this shock. Given the number of movies I've already referenced, The Age of Adaline is a very familiar story, even if I can't read it in my local library. It taps into the fear and loneliness of seeing all your loved ones die. I think every screenwriter is required by law to write at least a draft of a story like this once both of their parents have died. So, I didn't watch this movie expecting to be wowed by how clever the premise was. In fact, I audibly groaned when it got around to the "science" of how Adaline got her long life. What would make this movie a success or failure were the performances and how well it captured Adaline's loneliness.

 

Blake Lively is really good in this movie. I've always liked Blake Lively in the sense that she's an attractive actress who shows up in movies I like. I think it's time for a reevaluation of her though. Is she building to something bigger? I hear she carries the thriller The Shallows. She's perfectly used in A Simple Favor. In The Age of Adaline, I believed she was a 100-year-old woman in a Blake Lively skinsuit. She carries herself like someone living out of time, even though she's still just a scared woman making the best of her situation. She has good chemistry with Michiel Huisman, who, I guess Hollywood just gave up on turning into a leading man now. I enjoy the oddness of Harrison Ford showing up. I don't understand how that man picks roles. And I need to give a quick shout out to Anthony Ingruber who does a spooky good young Harrison Ford impression in a few scenes.

 

I appreciate how the movie flips midway through. I would've been fine with the movie that it was in the first hour: Adaline opens herself up emotionally to Huisman's Ellis and struggles with her secret. Upending it in the second half with the discovery that she used to love his father when he was younger was great. Ford really plays that shock well. I think the movie could've done a little more with the oddness of the situation, and I even would've liked to spend some more time with a "younger" Adaline and Ford's character. It's a nice wrinkle though. I'm kind of sad the trailer gave it away.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: A Rainy Day New York

Premise: A college couple spend a rainy day in the city on separate adventures.

 

I truly believe that if Woody Allen spent twice the time on each movie and had half the overall output then he'd have several of my favorite movies all time. I love his humor and ability to get great performances out of actors and especially actresses. I love the idea of so many of his movies. My complaint every time is that too often, I feel like I'm watching a first draft. I see the great idea of a Purple Rose of Cairo or a Midnight in Paris, but he doesn't find the way to turn it from ok to great. It's the most frustrating thing about him as a filmmaker.

 

A Rainy Day New York isn't a great movie. I think Timothee Chalamet is an absolutely horrendous Allen protagonist. It's no secret that most Allen leads are stand ins for Allen himself. He has Chalamet saying things that couldn't sound less natural coming out of his mouth. Chalamet even has an Allen affect to how he talks. He simply can't play neurotic. At least, not Allen's brand of neurotic. That almost single-handedly tanks the movie. Elle Fanning as the other part of the couple is much better. In a world where Allen's past actions and allegations weren't getting him canceled, I'd be curious to see several years of Fanning as his latest muse. She has the comedy chops, varied resume, and easy charm of his best lead actresses. Yet, this is a Woody Allen movie with a 19-year-old actress in it, so naturally, it is filled with men twice her age falling in love with her. Remind me again how any of us were surprised about Soon-Yi.

 

I really do see the outline of a movie I could fall in love with though. Few filmmakers shoot New York City as well as Woody Allen. I really like the idea of the dual narratives with Chalamet and Fanning. I enjoy movies that are a collection of small adventures like this. It's fun to meander with the characters and see what familiar actor will show up next for 5 minutes at a time.

 

I wanted to hate this movie a lot more than I did. I'm ready for Woody Allen to pack it up. He's in his 80s. His heart doesn't seem to be in his movies anymore. His public comeuppance is long overdue. This looks like it's going to be the last great Woody Allen cast in a movie. I feel like every person in this movie went on to donate their salary to a sexual abuse charity, so I was curious what the film itself would be. It has too many problems for me to like it, but I repeatedly ran into moments that I wished were in a better movie.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard

 Formula: The Hitman's Bodyguard + His Wife

 

I never felt the need to see The Hitman's Bodyguard when it originally came out in 2017. I got the idea. Samuel L. Jackson was a cocky chaos agent. Ryan Reynolds was a flustered control freak. They'd bicker for 90 minutes then eventually see each other's value in a combative way. I finally did see the movie in preparation for this, and my suspicions were confirmed. I like Reynolds and Jackson and their respective shticks, but there is a "generated in a random movie premise generator" feel to the movie. The X-factor was Salma Hayek who has a blast swearing and being a badass. So, I absolutely have to credit the sequel for moving her to a co-lead role. It didn't change my mind about the franchise though.

 

I'm already pretty fuzzy about the story of this movie. Former triple-A certified bodyguard Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) gets pulled out of semi-retirement by Sonia Kincaid (Salma Hayek) to save her husband - international hitman Darius (Samuel L. Jackson). They end up pulled into an Interpol operation to stop some Greek criminal mastermind played by Antonio Banderas from disrupting the data grid for the entire EU. The details don't matter. What you need to know is that Michael and Darius are working together again, trading snipes and causing a comical level of mayhem with the help of Sonia this time. Thus, the title.

 

It's hard to go after the movie too hard, because it's consistent with the humor and execution of the first movie. Reynolds is very happy to be the butt of the joke. Commenting on ridiculous situations is one of his comedic strengths; up there with responding seriously as though he doesn't understand what's funny about a comic situation. He's able to do all of that in this movie. Jackson and Hayek have just as much fun playing feral forces of nature. Darius like seeing the polite structures of the world fail. Sonia literally doesn't register that anything she does could be seen as wrong. I'm digging Salma Hayek's career in her 50s. She gives even fewer fucks than ever.

 

While there are some funny jokes scattered throughout the movie, I mostly wasn't a fan. It was all a little too silly. The jokes undercut all the stakes. It's the movie equivalent of that guy who won't stop cracking jokes while you are trying to have a serious conversation with him. It's a bummer I didn't like the movie more, because I'd like to see how much further they can take the titles of these movies. The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard's Chauffer? The Hitman's Wife's Son's Bodyguard? The Hitman's Wife's Handler's Bodyguard? I badly want this franchise to get 8 movies deep, just so I can see how insane the title will be. I normally fault movies written for a title, but this is an exception I'm happy to make.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway

Formula: (Peter Rabbit - Daisy Ridley) * Josie & The Pussycats * Ocean's 11

 

Let me state the obvious and say that the Peter Rabbit movies are in no way targeted toward me. I'm a bottom tier demographic they are targeting. These are children's movies with children’s jokes and children's complexity. When it comes to ways to get me into a movie theater though, casting Rose Byrne and Domhnall Gleason is a great start. Byrne is probably my biggest celebrity crush and Gleason is my reigning favorite actor*. In addition to them, there's a stacked voice cast including Margot Robbie, Elizabeth Debicki, and Hayley Atwell. It is disappointing to see Daisy Ridley replaced with Aimee Horne. Not devastating though. David Oyelowo hams it up in a human role too. From casting alone, Peter Rabbit remains the champagne of children's movies.

 

*Again, I should clarify that "favorite" doesn't mean that I think he's the best. It's more about presence and ability to pick projects I like.

 

The story is a somewhat meta take on the franchise. Peter (James Corden) and the other animals have mostly made peace with Tom McGregor (Gleason) who is happily married to Bea (Byrne). They run a shop in town now. Bea has self-published the Peter Rabbit book which has interest from a major publisher in the form of executive Nigel Basil-Jones (Oyelowo). He immediately starts suggesting changes to the book series. Most notably, he wants to market Peter as "The Bad Seed", which Peter takes personally. As a result, Peter gets involved with some, well, bad seeds in town. They set up a heist for a local farmers market. Will Peter see the error of his ways before it's too late? Will Bea and Tom resist the allure of publishing riches at the expense of artistic integrity? You'll have to watch the movie to know, but yes. Yes to all of that. This is a kid’s movie. They aren't reinventing the wheel here.

 

The movie has a lot of the over-the-top humor of the first movie. Several more CGI Domhnall Gleasons get very hurt. Peter makes numerous self-aware quips. Cotton-Tail discovers jelly-beans. It's all very silly and stupid in an intentional way. The children at my screening found it all very funny. This doesn't have the overwhelming goodness of a Paddington, which is a shame. Then again, I'm not convinced that kids actually like the Paddington movies. I get the sense that adults like them and actually like watching them with their kids. Peter Rabbit 2 is much more a kid’s movie that adults will put up with.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Ladykillers

Premise: A wily Southern "professor" assembles a crew to rob a vault from an old woman's basement until things go wrong.

 

It's hard to overpraise the Coens. They are among the most idiosyncratic filmmakers out there. Their dark humor makes all of their films recognizable with each other, but there's surprising variety in the type of movies they make. There are about a dozen correct answers to what their best film is. One that tops almost no one's list though is The Ladykillers. In fact, I'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't call it their worst. It's the third in a trio of films that most people choose to forget in the early 200s. 2001's The Man Who Wasn't There is the only film of theirs I haven't seen, mostly because I always forget about it. 2003's Intolerable Cruelty is the only Coen film the people forget is a Coen film. Then came The Ladykillers: this O. Henry story by way of Ocean's Eleven and O Brother, Where Art Thou? I sometimes wonder what the Coens' reputation would be now if they didn't correct course with their next film: the Best Picture-winning There Will Be Blood.

It's a bummer that this is the worst Coen Brothers movie. I love the idea of Tom Hanks and the Coens working together. You'd think that Hanks has a perfect screen presence for the Coens. He can be silly and serious. He'll chew scenery if you need him to and he can even have chemistry with a volleyball. I'd love to see them work together again, because he is doing something interesting in The Ladykillers. He's just in a movie that doesn't work.

 

I'm having the hardest time putting my finger on what doesn't work about the movie. That's the problem with idiosyncratic things. It's hard to find comparisons, and what works in one instance may not in another. Half of the Coens' movies could be accused of trying too hard to be funny. Hail Caesar! or Burn After Reading are very straightforward about when and how they are trying to be funny. They've often relied on deus ex machina plot development. The calibration of The Ladykillers is just off. It tries a little too hard to be funny. The plot is just a little too contrived. And it probably doesn't help that it brings in a lot of non-regular Coen players who aren't used to their rhythms.

 

I'm reminded a bit of George Clooney's Suburbicon, which used a Coen Brother's screenplay. That movie is also recognizably a Coens story. That one even uses some Coen actors. The movie is awful though, because everything is off. I got the sense that there was a reason why the Coens never opted to actually develop that script into a movie. They hadn't cracked the formula. I think it's telling that after The Ladykillers (their 4th film in 5 years), it was three years before No Country for Old Men came out. It feels like they paused to reset.

 

There's some Woody Allen in the Coen Brothers. I think they could easily have the same output as Allen who had a stretch from 1982 to 2017 where he directed 37 films without skipping a year. I imagine the Coens also have a giant pile of drafts sitting around. They've often made films in consecutive years. Some of their best films even. Where they differ from Woody Allen though is that Allen pushes through barely complete or thin scripts into films, anxious to move to the next project. The Coens seem to recognize when they need to take a step back and either take a break or spend a little longer on a project.

 

To get back to my original point though, the only reason to watch The Ladykillers is to be a Coen Brothers completist. I suppose it's also a nice contrast to appreciate when the elements all work in their better films. I suppose the movie is watchable. It's got some decent comedy in a couple places. It's still a Coen Brothers movie. They didn't magically forget how to direct a movie for this. It's just glaring compared to their other movies.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Police Story 3: Super Cop

Premise: China needs the best Hong Kong police officer for a special mission. Enter Jackie Chan.

 

Is there some kind of 20-movie Blu-ray set with all the Cop Story, Project A, Drunken Master, and selected other movies that I could buy? I'll pay up to $200. It would be a good value as far as I can tell. I'm really enjoying this slow catch up I'm doing of Jackie Chan movies. I'm so angry that for years, my only exposure to Jackie Chan was his American movies. And I even like a lot of those, honestly. Rush Hour and the Shanghai movies are a lot of fun. They don't compare to the Cop Story movies though. Maybe on a basic level they are similar, but the stunts and silliness work so much better in Cop Story.

 

By Supercop, it's clear that Chan's officer "Kevin" Chan Ka-Kui is John McClane. He might've started as a patrol officer stumbling into bigger events, but now he's the well-known Supercop. The movie jumps right into it and never looks back. More movies that aren't about the writing need to embrace this. Do the bad setup stuff quickly. That part of the story is getting a failing grade regardless. Might as well make it really clunky and really fast.

 

Mostly, this movie is Jackie Chan and Michelle Yeoh being awesome in fights that are both ambitious and complex. That's exactly what I want. The addition of Yeoh is welcome. The series was already a buddy cop movie only with one cop.

 

Cop Story 2 was a slight disappointment due to how much it toned down the mayhem of the first movie. Supercop still lacks the mayhem, but it replaces it with ambition. There are more explosions and virtually everything with the helicopter and the train is a stunning display of practical effects and stunt coordination.

 

I'm having so much fun tracking down a new Jackie Chan movie every month or so. The only question now is if I keep up with the Police Story movies next or move to some other franchises.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: An Education

Premise: A high school girl with big ambitions in 1960s London gets caught up in a romance with a much older man.

 

I think a decade is about my limit for really remembering movies. Anything longer than that since I last saw even a movie I like, and it really dims in my mind. So, I was happy to rewatch this. I originally saw this movie shortly after it came out. I mainly saw it at the time for this Carey Mulligan woman who was getting all the nominations that year. I remembered being very impressed by her but little else.

 

Upon rewatch, I liked this even more than I remembered. Carey Mulligan is delightful. This actually would pair pretty well with Promising Young Woman, now that I think of it. Two sides of a similar coin. What I forgot is that Alfred Molina and Rosamund Pike are absolute hoots throughout the movie. It's got Emma Thompson and Sally Hawkins showing up for nearly cameo roles. Peter Sarsgaard plays his specialty: a sleazebag who appears charming. It's hard to find a weak link in this cast, even though Mulligan is rightfully the stand out star.

 

What works so well about the movie is how it knows the audience is watching this with dread but ignores that for so long. In a slightly different context, Jenny (Mulligan) and David's (Sarsgaard) relationship would make for a great RomCom. He's charming. She's witty. He's free-spirited. She's serious about her future. I watch this wanting to find the way that this doesn't end awfully. But, for each sweet moment, there are a dozen flashing red warning signs. This is a deeply uncomfortable movie pretending to be a sweet movie. Again, similar to the facades in Promising Young Woman. Man, I'm really talking myself into this double-feature...

 

The movie does end a bit abruptly and with a whimper. I think that's partly by design. It's in the title. This is only meant to be a lesson for Jenny, not a catastrophe. It's nice that she comes out alright rather than receiving the Daisy Miller treatment.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Mars Needs Moms

Premise: A boy stowaways on a spaceship after Martians stole his mom.

 

If you asked me to describe the biggest box office bombs, my first instinct would be to say they are attempts at franchises that studios overinvested in that fully fell apart. Disney alone has John Carter, The Long Ranger, and my beloved Tomorrowland toward the top of the list* that all fit the description. There are also movies that make you wonder why the star or director were ever given that much money like Cutthroat Island, Battleship, or The Adventures of Pluto Nash. A little further down the list, there are the last gasps of franchises like Terminator: Dark Fate and Dark Phoenix. The movies that aren't that discussed are the animated movies. Many of the biggest financial failures in cinema are animated films that tried technology (normally motion-capture) that ballooned the cost and audiences weren't ready for. Remember Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Sears, Titan A.E., Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and A Christmas Carol (the Zemeckis one)? Those are all among the very worst bombs ever. So is Mars Needs Moms.

 

*For all the talk of Disney dominating the box office these days, they still make a number of large and pricy gambles on movies.

 

I remember Mars Needs Moms almost like a fever dream. I saw exactly one trailer for it. It looked bad. I figured it was one of those cheap Disney Toon movies they were releasing to game the Oscars nominations*. In my mind, this was confirmed when I didn't hear about the movie again for a long time. There must've been some delays in its release that even the Wikipedia page doesn't care to mention. By the time it was released in 2011, it was dead on arrival and one of the biggest flops in history.

 

*The Oscars only give 5 nominations for Animated Feature if a certain number of animated movies are released that year, so Disney does what they can to inflate those numbers by releasing some straight-to-DVD movies to theaters for a couple weeks first to make them eligible.

 

Simply put, this movie is bad. The animation looks weird. Director Simon Wells is a disciple of producer Robert Zemeckis and is just as enamored with this motion capture technology. The uncanny valley is real in this movie. I'm not sure why Disney put so much money into this. It's not like Zemeckis' mo-cap movies had done well before this. The Polar Express only made profit through yearly re-releases that creeped out a new set of children each year. Everything else lost big though. Why would Disney expect differently without Zemeckis even directing it?

 

I doubt this movie would've succeeded even with traditional animation. The premise is really strained and insulting to basically everyone. So, the idea is that the men in Martian society are oafs who the women kick out to the slums of the planet. The female Martians that rule society though don't know how to take care of their children. So, they abduct mothers from Earth and suck out their parenting acumen to load into nannybots, killing the mother. Ignoring how incredibly grim that is, how did no one making this movie realize the myriad ways this movie would be misinterpreted? It suggests fathers are insignificant. It implies that mothers who work are the villains. It seems to be saying that the correct way to raise a child is full time care by a parent or nanny. Was this based on a book written in the '50s? That's smart. Make a movie attacking fathers, working parents, and anyone who can't afford full-time care for their kid. I don't think that was the intent of the movie, but that's certainly how it reads.

 

And, let's not forget that the movie just isn't very good. Like, it's not very funny. They mo-capped Seth Green for the lead performance then didn't even use his voice, despite using him in the blooper reel. I know I should've turned this part of my brain off, but none of the logic about Mars made sense. All humans need are helmets, I guess. No need to shield the rest of the body, and losing the helmet is just like being underwater for a little while. Once you get a helmet back on, you can breathe again. Sure, that makes sense.

 

This is rightfully a box office disaster that Disney should and does hide from.

 

Verdict: Strongly Don't Recommend