Friday, November 29, 2019

Movie Reaction: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood



In my mind, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (Beautiful Day, from now on) and last year's Mr. Rogers documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor are inextricably linked. If you watch one without seeing the other, then you are doing yourself a disservice. The way I see it, Won't You Be My Neighbor presents a thesis and Beautiful Day tests that thesis.

Won't You Be My Neighbor is a documentary I liked very much, although I admit that it barely stopped short of being a hagiography. Fred Rogers is the most genuinely nice person to ever be famous. I'm sure some of this was PR, but there's been over half a century (including nearly 20 years since his death) for anything bad to come out about him. It's not like he has a powerful estate, capable of holding things back. If there were skeletons in that closet, someone would've found them by now. That's what Won't You Be My Neighbor presents: Fred Rogers was the real deal. The soft-spokenness. The genuine interest in virtually everyone he met. His simple set of beliefs. It's all real.

Beautiful Day then poses the question "Can Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood exist in the real world?". The movie literally starts as an episode of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood in which Mr. Rogers (Tom Hanks) introduces the story of the movie. That story is of Esquire reporter Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who gets an assignment to write a "puff piece" about Fred Rogers for a hero issue of the magazine. Vogel is the kind of reporter who takes his job seriously, has received great acclaim for his work, but has also burned everyone he writes about so consistently, that Fred Rogers is the only person even willing to be interviewed by him. Vogel also has some unresolved issues with his father which is getting in the way of his ability to connect with his wife (This Is Us' Susan Kelechi Watson) and newborn son. Vogel goes to meet Fred Rogers in Pittsburgh and is immediately suspicious of him, as all cynical people are. Look, the movie is based on an Esquire article calls "Can You Say...Hero?" so you know what direction the movie goes in from there.

Like any good experiment though, the point isn't to go in some unexpected direction. It's to prove the thesis, and that's exactly what Beautiful Day does. It presents Fred Rogers as a real and complicated but exceptional person. Most of the work falls on Tom Hanks, who is more than up to the challenge. Because, the movie doesn't oversell the humanizing moments. Fred Rogers never unloads on an employee or complains about a stranger coming up to him on the street. Instead, Hanks makes Fred Rogers real with pauses and the way he says things. His take on Fred Rogers is a man who works intensely hard to channel his anger and frustration in productive ways. Perhaps a 30-year-old Fred Rogers would need a scene in which he stares dead-eyed at a wall by himself, struggling to contain dark thoughts. However, Beautiful Day's Fred Rogers is older and more comfortable. He has people working for him who are protective of him. Most importantly, he's regimented and knows what he needs to do to be the man he wants to be. It's pretty marvelous work by Tom Hanks. I worry that people will once again take it for granted how good he is, just because the casting choice of "America's Dad" to play Mister Rogers is so obvious.

Rogers is just a supporting character though. Vogel is the protagonist of the movie. Matthew Rhys is good in the role. I like that the movie doesn't try to turn Vogel into a true believer of Fred Rogers by the end. Rather, he seems to come to the conclusion that some people don't need to be torn down. It's a little strange to see Chris Cooper as Vogel's estranged father. I'm so used to Cooper in either sage or stern roles. "Hard-drinking, roguish father" took some getting used to. Susan Kelechi Watson is good, although I wish there was a little more going on with her character. She's not a nagging wife, but her role often comes down to asking Lloyd if he's ready to emotionally invest in their family unit.

As I mentioned, the movie is structured a bit like an episode of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Director Marielle Heller wisely doesn't overdo it. She includes the classic intro and closing. It cuts back to Mr. Rogers hosting only once or twice in the middle. It occasionally presents things like a segment in the show, such as a brief summary of how a magazine gets made. The big stylistic flourish though is that instead of establishing shots of cities or locations from stock footage, they use a giant model of Pittsburgh and New York City in the style of the model neighborhood Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Describing it sounds too cute by half, but in the movie it really work. That, mixed with music inspired by the Mr. Rogers' show give the movie a very gentle feel all-around.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood has some of the same limitations as other movies of its ilk (The End of the Tour is the immediate example that comes to mind). The character it's most interested in is one that it keeps at an arm's length. It never fully moves past the legend of Mister Rogers. To its credit, it doesn't feel like a case where his widow was shooting down more controversial takes. It maybe tries a little too hard to find a deeper meaning to the whole experience that Lloyd Vogel goes through. Mostly though, this is a sweet movie that does an excellent job evoking a specific feeling. I'm not sure where I land on the "Is Mr. Rogers a hero?" debate (if there is one), but I do believe he was a genuinely decent man. We need more stories about genuinely decent people.

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Movie Reaction: Frozen II


The Pitch: Frozen - a little magic

I love Frozen. I don't have kids, so I haven't been forced to watch it 1100 times. I don't listen to the radio, so "Let It Go" never overwhelmed me. I saw the movie on opening weekend, before any of the hype had set it. I didn't even wait that long in line to go on the Frozen ride in Walt Disney World. I'm lucky and have had nothing but positive interactions with the movie. It's not my favorite of the Disney animated movies, I guess, but that shouldn't be a mark against it, given the competition. My stance going into Frozen II was pretty much if the music was good, I got a few stupid laughs, and they didn't pad the run time, then I'd be happy.

So, success.

Frozen II builds on the mythology of the first movie by introducing a mysterious forest that's magically blocked off from Arendelle. Elsa is doing a fine job queening the land. Anna and Kristoff are looking to bring things to the next level in their relationship. Olaf and Sven are still comic relief. It's a nice starting point. Then, Elsa starts hearing a chant in the distance. After a strange occurrence forces everyone out of Arendelle, Elsa, Anna, and the team go to the magical forest hoping to fix things. I'd describe the story as a bit undercooked, but that suggests that "Elsa builds a ice castle in the mountains" from the first movie made any more sense.

Frozen II has a lot of world building and moves things to an epic scale. Some of those epic sequences, like Elsa taking on the ocean - which has been featured heavily in the trailers - are pretty impressive. Others feel like they just had a bigger budget to burn. Frozen has transitioned from plucky underdog to hulking behemoth nicely. Disney knows how to produce crowd pleasing hit movies once they know they have eyes on them.

Most of the things that endeared me to Frozen in the first place are a little worse though. The music isn't as good. Instead of the charming variety of songs in the first movie, Frozen II chases another "Let It Go" hard. There are a lot of anthems. I'm a bad judge of if any of them will hit the same way as "Let It Go". I came away from Frozen thinking "Love Is An Open Door", "For the First Time In Forever", and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" were all stronger than "Let It Go" so what do I know? I didn't care quite as much for the different character beats either. Olaf and Sven felt like they were playing the hits. Anna relied even more on the fact that Kristen Bell is naturally winsome and likable. They seemed to want Elsa to be even more of a tortured soul even though she has less to be tortured about. It's not that I thought any of this fell off drastically from the first movie. But, even a 10% drop off in the intangibles is the difference between a stone-cold classic and "another good animated Disney movie".

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Side Rant/Movie Theater LVPs (Least Valuable Patrons): OK, I don't have a single person in mind for this. It doesn't feel that long ago to me, but Frozen was 6 years ago. All those children who fell in love with the movie are tweens now. When I saw Frozen, it was new and we were all discovering it together. Frozen II belongs to the tweens now. And I forgot how awful tweens are in groups in a theater. There's performative fandom and oneupsmanship. There's always one who has to make a point to show that they are only into the movie ironically. And the phone etiquette is abhorrent (at least dim the screen, dammit) I saw the movie Friday night, and it was clear that it was the second or third time for some of these tweens. I know this, because they were already starting to quote lines out loud as they happened or point things out ahead of time.

Look, I know I sucked as a movie audience member for a lot of years too. I was a bad side commenter. I felt emboldened to be obnoxious when I was with a group of friends before the movie started. I didn't clean up my act until my early 20s, and I'm embarrassed when I think back on it now. Then again, I rarely got shushed or head-turned, I never threw things, and I never did things to be intentionally disruptive during the movie, so I'm probably being my harshest critic. Regardless, it's a tradition for the old to complain about the young. I'm just doing my civic duty by airing my grievances; on my blog, no less. I'm such a cliche.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Delayed Reaction: The Field Guide to Evil


The Pitch: Fine. If no one can agree on an idea or a language, then we'll all do our own.


A horror anthology from international filmmakers using regional folklore as an inspiration.

I like horror anthologies. This is no secret. They have all the strengths of horror with none of the drawbacks. I mean, when was the last time you watched a horror movie and thought "I'd like to know more of the deep mythology about this"? No, if you're like me, you're either looking for a good fright, a creepy atmosphere, or a nice inversion of a trope. And, even with the best intentions, horror ideas are hit or miss. It's no fun committing 90 minutes to an idea that, 40 minutes in, you know isn't going to work. An anthology introduces an idea, gets in a scare, and gets out before you have enough time to really think about it. If you don't like a story, 15 minutes later, you are done with it. That's perfect.

Needless to say, The Field Guide to Evil was an easy sell for me. I'll admit that the subtitles took me by surprise (I should really look movies up more before I start them...wait. No. That would be an awful idea). The hit rate of the stories wasn't great. None of the shorts blew me away. I don't think I have a clear favorite. Nearly all of them have some cool ideas. I liked the story of the new mother being haunted by the goat creature. The story of the two cobblers and the princess had the feel of a warped fable. I wasn't crazy about the Greek Christmas goblin story or the Appalachian mountain children.

So, remember a hundred words back when I said no one actually wants to learn deep horror mythologies? Well, that might've helped for this specific movie. Each short begins with a brief description of the lore that inspired the story. The problem is that they either gave away too much information about what was about to happen, or it left things too murky. The power of folklore is how it reflects the values and customs of a certain culture. A paragraph and a few striking visuals don't convey enough information. As a result, I spent most of each short trying to figure out if they were playing it straight or for laughs.

This is worth watching just for the number of horror ideas in it, but it's not one I intend to revisit. With some calibration, a Field Guide to Evil 2 could be pretty good.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend