Delayed Reaction: Porky's

Premise: A bunch of high school "boys" have a series of sex-based adventures in Florida in the 1950s.

 

I'd say it's hard for me to find a movie I've seen that has aged as poorly as Porky's. However, to age poorly, the contents of a movie have to be seen positively at the time only to be reevaluated negatively later. Blackface is a great example of this. I think there was the idea of "respectful blackface" not even that long ago, but in the modern lens, it's never OK. Trans representation is another example to look to. Felicity Huffman got an Oscar nomination for Transamerica 15 years ago that was well-intentioned but would be roasted if done today. Porky's, on the other hand, is a movie plenty of people found objectionable when it was released. And I don't mean pearl-clutching "Greatest generation" types scared of sex on screen. I mean, Porky's is casually racist and anti-Semitic with a low view of women. This was all part of the critical assessment at the time. I don't have the time or research to explain why Porky's became such a huge hit - making over $300 million, adjusted for inflation. It launched the raunchy comedy era of 80s films that not coincidentally coincided with the slasher era of horror. Perhaps the X-rated movie successes of the 70s eventually reminded audiences that they would like to see nudity for no reason in movies, and a lot of people cashed in on that while not putting much thought into the screenplay, direction, or acting.

 

I tried to meet this movie on its level. I love other movies that aren't exactly progressive. Superbad is an all-time favorite of mine, for example. On paper, not much about Porky's is worse than Animal House, which I like. What lost me more than anything about Porky's is that it isn't that clever. The scene I keep thinking of is actually the one after the famous shower scene. Coach Balbricker is in the principal's office with the boys and principal, explaining that she wants to do a penis lineup to identify the culprit. The whole scene is everyone laughing the whole time at Balbriker until the principal finally breaks and laughs too. Now, my question is, in 1982, was this a scene that audiences were also busting a gut watching? The bet of the movie seems to be that the penis grab scene is so hilarious that it needs another entire scene to recover from. I don't think it was THAT funny. Of course, the 2021 part of my brain is thinking about how that was assault on Balbricker's part and a full-on sex crime by the boys. And there's the lizard part of my brain that is annoyed that Pee Wee ruined a good thing by revealing them.

 

I found this movie deeply unpleasant to watch. I'm trying to not say that in a moralizing way. I loved Good Boys which is super sophomoric. I'm no more mature than this movie. I just found the characters unlikable. There was a complete lack of stakes. The screenplay is disjointed in a bad way. It's hard to find much to appreciate about this movie when Fast Times at Ridgemont High came out the same year, was just as sex-crazed, and did everything better.

 

Verdict: Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Hitman's Bodyguard

Premise: A hitman who is giving testimony against a crime boss is a assigned a professional rival as his bodyguard.

 

This Reaction exists in limbo. I watched this movie in preparation for its sequel. Yet, as always, I'm several weeks ahead of my posts for the blog as a measure to make sure I always have content waiting, even when I take a break from watching new stuff. So, that means I'm be posting this well after my Reaction to the sequel, which will no doubt reference opinions I express here, despite them not being available yet. I suppose I could just jump this post to the front of my queue to post. But then I'd have to rewrite this paragraph.

 

This is one of those movies I remember as a bigger hit than it was. It only made $75 million at the box office, but it came out in the August doldrums, where it was the top movie for 3 weekends. It is the kind of mid-budget movie for grownups that every podcast I listen to complains about the studios not making anymore. I really never had much desire to see it though.

 

This is the kind of movie that you've seen even before you watch a second of it. I know the Samuel L. Jackson persona. I know the Ryan Reynolds persona. I see the title. I know the movie. Jackson and Reynolds are fun in the roles you expect them to play. The MVP is Salma Hayek, who is having a ton of fun swearing and being a badass. In the context of this franchise, I could not be more excited by her moving to more of a lead role in the sequel. Nothing else made an impression in the movie. Owning its R-rating was smart. I like that there's a fake out ending of sorts. It's a decently amusing movie even though it's not particularly funny. You 100% already know if you'll like the movie or when you are in the mood for it. I'd certainly rather watch a The Spy Who Dumped Me though.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Jungle Cruise

Formula: The African Queen ^ Pirates of the Caribbean:The Curse of the Black Pearl

 

I do my best to be transparent and own up to my blind spots. I know I can't be purely objective about the movies I see. Nothing bothers me more than reading a review where it's clear that the person just doesn't like that kind of movie. It happens all the time with horror. If you think that slasher movies are dumb, then all you will see is the flaws, even when watching an effective slasher movie. On the other end of the spectrum though, I know when a movie is overly catered to me, I'll forgive a lot of issues. I love Disney Parks. I love the Jungle Cruise ride. The Curse of the Black Pearl is a top 10 movie all time for me, so I reject the notion that just because the inspiration for a movie is a crass brand play, the resulting movie can't be good. I also think Emily Blunt is flawless and Dwayne Johnson is a limitless source of charisma. In other words, Jungle Cruise would have to really mess things up for me give it an unfavorable assessment.

 

That said, it's not like I'm incapable of thrashing a bad movie based on a Disney ride. It's true that the first Pirates movie and Tomorrowland are among my favorite movies. However, I also recognize that The Haunted Mansion is a muddled disaster, The Country Bears completely misses the mark, and all the subsequent Pirates sequels have failed to capture the magic of the original. I'm an easy mark who will eat up every callback and easter egg, but I still want a fun, functional movie.

 

Thankfully, Jungle Cruise is a fun, functional movie. Dwayne Johnson plays a failing jungle skipper on the Amazon, who is hired by Dr. Lily Houghton (Emily Blunt) and her foppish brother, MacGregor (Jack Whitehall) to go deep into the jungle in search of the mythical Tears of the Moon (i.e., the tree of life). They are pursued by Prince Joachim (Jesse Plemons), a German aristocrat who wants to use the Tears to win the war. Oh yeah, it is set in 1916 during WWI. Of course, there's a curse as well that goes back to the explorer Aguirre's expedition down the Amazon. The movie is very much Disney trying to do The Curse of the Black Pearl again in a slightly different venue. And frankly, I'm here for it.

 

It's hard to be against this cast, although the movie does coast on their charisma a lot. Dwayne Johnson doesn't disappear into roles, and it really does look like he's playing dress up in his skipper outfit. His character, Frank, doesn't need to be a tank. Johnson makes it work, but I get the sense that if he wasn't involved in the development of the movie, he wouldn't've been the pick for the role. Emily Blunt's character is thin to the point that her main personality trait is that she wears pants, but again, it's Emily Blunt. I'll watch Emily Blunt be generally agreeable in just about anything. I like Jesse Plemons being a silly psychopath, even though his master plan was devised by the South Park underpants gnomes*. Jack Whitehall actually does get some shading that I appreciated. He's an upper crust dandy, but there's some real thought put into why he on this journey that he clearly doesn't want to be on. That said, I fully expect a round of exhausting Twitter discourse about him that I'm not looking forward to. Aguirre and the cursed conquistadors are non-characters. They do look cool.

 

*Step 1: Steal the Tears of the Moon. Step 2: <Shrug>. Step 3: Win the war for Germany!

 

This is a useful movie to explain what makes The Curse of the Black Pearl so great. Jungle Cruise has all the same action and visual effects. What it's missing is the character notes and details around the margins. There's no Jack Sparrow-sized disruptor. The world isn't as populated with Cottons or Norringtons. The cursed villains are completely anonymous. Oh, and the Pirates score is the forgotten MVP of that movie. I really didn't care for the Jungle Cruise music. None of that is getting stuck in my head.

 

Jungle Cruise is a pretty perfect "2nd choice movie". In the future, no one will ever suggest watching Jungle Cruise. They'll say they want to watch Pirates of the Caribbean but realize they watched those pretty recently. So instead, they'll watch Jungle Cruise, which scratch the same itch but not quite as well. And yes, this is just another excuse for me to talk about how much I love the first Pirates movie.

 

Jungle Cruise is an enjoyable movie. It does right by the ride by including all the trademark "dad jokes". I appreciated all the callbacks to the parks. While I don't need 5 more Jungle Cruise movies, I am excited by the hinting at S.E.A. references* (or maybe I just chose to see them in there). It's hard for me to see how anyone going into Jungle Cruise with an open mind would have a bad time watching it. Similarly, if you already look at this as creatively bankrupt Disney scraping the bottom of the idea well, then please don't see this. No one needs that negative energy for something as lightweight as this. Personally, I'm just glad to have another movie for my "I really want to go back to Disney World" rotation.

 

*S.E.A. or the Society of Explorers and Adventurers is a fictional organization that ties together several Disney attractions. There's a very loose mythology to it, but it serves as an easy way to connect numerous rides that are otherwise unrelated. In terms of a cinematic universe, it's a simple way to connect anything from Big Thunder Mountain Railroad to Hong Kong's Mystic Manor as stories while still maintaining a consistent cast. I don't need a Disney Ride Cinematic Universe, but if one is inevitable, this would be a great way to do it.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

 

Delayed Reaction: Swing Time

Premise: A dancer with a gambling habit falls for a dance instructor he meets in New York while trying to earn enough money for his fiancé’s father to approve his wedding.

 

This movie is a roller coaster. The plot is strained, even for the Astaire and Rogers pairing, which was built on convoluted storylines. It has some incredible song and dance numbers though. "The Way You Look Tonight", "A Fine Romance", and "Never Gonna Dance" are all incredible and beautiful. Yet, there's also "Bojangles of Harlem". Thankfully, HBO Max gives a little warning about that scene. Look, I'm willing to accept the historical context of blackface scenes, but that doesn't make them less distracting to watch. I'm sure the dancing in that was great, however my only memories of that are thinking "Surely there was a better way to do this" and doing the math in my head about how OK this blackface would've been in 1936*. It's interesting to me that Swing Time is often considered the best of the Rogers/Astaire pairings. Yes, it has some of the best song and dance numbers, but there are several other movies they did that are almost as good and don't have to worry about a blackface routine.

 

*There were protests over The Birth of a Nation screening at the White House in the 1910s. Al Jolson's The Jazz Singer was less than a decade before this. But if it was really "OK" in 1936, why isn't it in more movies? The first black winner of an Oscar was only three years later. Then again, it wasn't for a very progressive role. Song of the South was still a decade away...Yeah, I'm not getting to the bottom of this any time soon.

 

This is definitely not my favorite screwball plot of their movies. I can easily wrap my brain around a mistaken identity. This one is way more convoluted. It has to do a lot of work to make Astaire not come off badly. I think the question is whether I appreciate consistency or individual highs more. This has some of the best moments of the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers partnership that I've seen, but the stuff in between I don't care as much for. And I'd call the "Bojangles of Harlem" scene a significant low because of how much context work I have to do to find anything to appreciate about it. Not my favorite of their movies, but I'm pretty convinced that they can't make a bad movie at this point.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Stillwater

Formula: Prisoners + Conviction + About a Boy

 

This is a beast of a movie to talk about, because no matter how I describe it, it's going to sound like a different kind of movie than it is. You see, Stillwater is about Bill (Matt Damon). He's a blue-collar father from Oklahoma who loves red meat and football. He goes to visit his daughter in Marseilles, France. Hold on, stop what you're thinking. It's not a fish out of water movie. His daughter, Allison (Abigail Breslin), is in jail for killing her Arabic French girlfriend in college. It was an infamous trial and Allison has already served half of her 10-year sentence. She hears about a new lead on her case and wants her lawyer to pursue it to prove her innocence. When her lawyer says it's too late for that, Bill decides to start looking for the real killer himself. Hold on again. It's not a movie about Bill traversing the Marseilles criminal underworld to get justice for his daughter. She actually kind of hates him and he messes things up. While in France though, he meets a theater actress, Virginie (Camille Cottin), with a young daughter, Maya (Lolou Siauvand). Virginie ends up helping Bill with his investigation. Eventually, Bill stays in France and rents Virginie's extra room. He immediately bonds with Maya and falls for Virginie. But wait, this isn't a movie about Bill getting a second chance to be a father the right way.

 

At this point, you are probably wondering, "Then what the hell is this movie about?" and that's what's tough about this movie. It's all those things above at different points without ever committing to any of them. And it's other stuff too. I could generously say the movie has a lot on its mind or I could less generously call it unfocused. It does need all 2h19m of its runtime, because it covers so much. Ultimately, I was much more interested in the adopted family unit stuff with Virginie and Maya than the murder investigation. His attempts to find the real murderer go in some dark and extreme directions that strained plausibility. Bill is a little too reformed by the time the movie starts, so Allison's anger at him doesn't feel that justified. For example, they saw he wasn't around much while she was growing up, but this whole movie is about how he can't get himself to leave France until she's free. I believe he really was an absent father, but all I ever see is him being around and her being angry at him. The movie has some show vs. tell balance problems like that.

 

The heart of the movie is Bill's relationship with Maya. Lilou Siauvaud is a top tier "cute kid in a movie" although I think she's helped by the fact that she mainly speaks French. It's hard to really judge line delivery when I'm auto-filling the inflection when I read subtitles. All she has to do is be generally adorable following Bill around. Matt Damon is really sweet with the kid. I love these kinds of unlikely bonds in movies. They don't hit too hard on the idea that this is some kind of do-over for Bill after things went so wrong with Allison, but the way that the movie plays out uses that well toward the end.

 

One thing I'm a little annoyed by with the movie is how much it's getting called a red state or Trump movie. Bill does have a thick Oklahoma accent. He's very religious and prays earnestly. He carries himself conservatively. The movie never really challenges a presumably liberal target audience to like a MAGA person though. Bill lacks the red hat or any of the traditional talking points. He never seems that phased by having a lesbian daughter. He never actually expresses any negative or pointed opinions about Mexicans/illegal immigrants. He pleads ignorance rather than opposition to liberal stances on things. He loves to point out that he's not smart enough to understand things rather than dismiss their value. He mentions that he owns two guns back home, but since he's hanging out in a foreign country, his gun-positive opinions are more abstract than present. I found almost nothing challenging about rooting for Bill. The people who are surprised by this seem to be saying, "I never knew a Christian with a southern accent who eats meat could be likable". It's weirdly telling. That's a criticism of how people are watching the movie though, not of the content of the movie. The movie actually fleshes Bill out into a well-rounded character.

 

Director Tom McCarthy along with his co-writers shoot really high with Stillwater. It's a movie that balances numerous narratives, themes, and discussions all at once. Unfortunately, this is a movie with a slim margin for error. Missing the mark even a little results in a movie that feels unfocused and a little empty. Sadly, Stillwater misses the mark, although not by a lot. The performances are pretty wonderful. There are several standout moments of tension, sadness, and catharsis throughout the movie. A lot more of it works than doesn't. A lot of it is ill-fitting though, like they couldn't decide what movie they were actually trying to make.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

 

Delayed Reaction: Two Night Stand

Premise: After a one-night stand, two relative strangers are trapped in the guy's apartment by a blizzard.

 

It's good to know that I won't fall hard for all RomCom premises. I have some kind of quality control. Two Night Stand has the feel of a movie that began with the title. It probably didn't actually. I assume some marketing guy very proudly came up with "Two Night Stand" after it was bought at the Tribeca film festival with the title "The Long Weekend" or "Snowed In"*. But it plays like the title came first. Two attractive people have a one-night stand and end up stuck together for a weekend. Kind of like the movie Weekend except not by choice.

 

*It turns out, none of that is true.

 

Miles Teller and Lio Tipton aren't my top choice as a RomCom pairing. I like Teller, but he generally needs a softening agent. He needs a Shailene Woodley or he needs to be put in a larger cast like That Awkward Moment. Lio Tipton, for all their charm, is not that scene partner. Lio has worked best in supporting roles. Pair the two together and you just have two people who don't look comfortable. Both characters kind of suck, and without other people to play off most of the time, I can't even get a "these two are great together because no one else will have them" vibe. And it's super hard to me to swallow the ending. Teller gets Tipton arrested and Tipton is supposed to come around on it that night and find him charming for it? This movie doesn't earn that kind of narrative leap.

 

There are little things I like about the movie. I appreciate it going for the R-rating with the swearing. I enjoy the news on in the background constantly being about the weatherman stressing how cataclysmic the blizzard is. And did I see this right? At the beginning, when Tipton accidentally sets off Teller's alarm and Teller gets up to see if there's an intruder, is that a souvenir sized bat? I think it was, and if so, nice touch. If not, then Teller is a larger human than I thought.

 

Two Night Stand is a perfectly harmless movie. There's nothing about it that was infuriating. It doesn't do anything unforgiveable. It's just not a great pairing for a premise that absolutely needs the leads to work. These two need a world of people to play off so I can level-set their personalities better.

 

Side Note: I've seen way more of Mile Teller's filmography than I realized. The only movies I haven't seen of his are Footloose, Bleed For This, and Thank You For Your Service. He isn't one of my favorites, but is that a small enough list for me to go for it to say that I'm caught up? Also, why hasn't he had a movie since 2017? That's a really long time for someone so young without a trophy shelf.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Snake Eye: G.I. Joe Origins

Formula: (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra * X-Men Origins: Wolverine) / X-Men

 

I get it. Hasbro came out with a Transformers movie in 2007 that made tons of money and launched a franchise that raked in billions more at the box office. I assume the renewed interest in the toys because of the movies earned them just as much if not more in sales. And, when it comes to name recognition, it doesn’t get much bigger than G.I. Joe in the U.S. It’s synonymous with a certain kind of boy’s toys that has historically sold great. If I'm working for Hasbro, I too would be convinced that G.I. Joe is a property with potential to be a cash cow. They've had a hard time cracking the code though. G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, failed to match its budget or make stars of anyone (We forget that some of the success of Transformers was the announcement of Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox as box office draws). Channing Tatum hadn't broken out yet and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was unrecognizable. G.I. Joe isn't that global of a brand either, which explains the 50/50 split between domestic and worldwide box office receipts for it*. G.I. Joe: Retaliation didn't fare any better despite bringing in the Rock and Bruce Willis. It did have a more traditional domestic to international box office split though. They put the franchise on ice for the better part of a decade and are attempting it again now with Snake Eyes.

 

*For context, a standard hit in the modern era makes 30-35% of its box office domestically and 65-70% internationally.

 

I think Snake Eyes is a smart attempt at a reboot. It's an origin story, so there's not as much need to be studied in the mytholo-Joe. They slashed the budget to well under $100 million to lower expectations. Henry Golding is a rising star. His surrounding cast has decent international appeal which probably helped keep the budget down too.

 

The movie is about the origin of the character Snake Eyes. I don't know much about G.I. Joe. The product went dormant right as I was getting into action figures. I just know Snake Eyes is the cool ninja guy. In this, Snake Eyes (Golding) sees his father killed as a child. He grows up to be a skilled fighter and drifter. When a crime boss, Kenta (Takehiro Hira) offers to find the man who killed his father, he agrees to infiltrate a mystical ninja family by befriending the heir, Tommy (Andrew Koji). He's supposed to steal a precious powerful stone that the family protects and must pass several tests to prove himself as one of them, even though the head of security (Haruka Abe) doesn't trust him. There's really no way to describe the story in a way that doesn't sound a little silly. I don't know how closely it sticks to actual Joe mythology, but it's a lot to take in. Luckily, all the beats are similar to dozens of moves I've seen before, so it's virtually impossible to not follow what's going on. The movie isn't subtle about its hopes to use this as a launching point for sequels and a larger cinematic universe. Samara Weaving and Ursula Corbero both show up as Scarlett and Baroness respectively, who I assume are well known characters in the G.I. Joe lore. They don't really fit in this, which is otherwise a straight-forward martial arts action movie, but they are fun enough that I'd like to see more. Weaving fits the Black Widow mold nicely.

 

The action is overall well done. They cast a lot of people around Golding who look like they know what they are doing. I was especially pleased to see Iko Uwais show up as one of his teachers. There's a nice variety of sword fights and chases. I didn't leave this movie with a large investment in what happens next, but I'd happily watch more like it. Sort of a PG-13 Mortal Kombat.

 

In general, I've been a fan of Henry Golding. He's well-used as a "trophy husband" in Crazy Rich Asians and A Simple Favor. He's a nice romantic lead in Last Christmas. He even fits as a kingpin-type in The Gentlemen. What I can't buy him as is skuzzy or limber. He's a pretty, chiseled man. It's hard to find a way to put him on screen and make me think "he's lived a hard life". It's similar to how I had trouble with Angelina Jolie as a rural firefighter in Those Who Wish Me Dead. Henry Golding never looks like he's skipped a bath. I could see it once he gets a few more lines on his face. He could have a great third act in Liam Nesson roles. Not yet though. He also doesn't carry himself like a ninja. I don't feel like he has a black belt in anything or has studied fight choreography for years. I could see him as one of the more soldier-y characters like Flint or Roadblock perhaps. He's a sturdy man with broad soldiers. He doesn't look light on his feet and doesn't look natural in these fight scenes. Like, his helmet somehow looks like is slenderer than his head. I'm not against Henry Golding getting some starry action movie roles. I think he can build more of a movie-star persona in time. He just felt really wrong for this. And, let me remind you, this is not coming from someone with a preconceived notion of who Snake Eyes is historically. This is entirely an assessment from the movie itself.

 

While I wouldn't mind more movies in this current attempt at a cinematic universe, I'm convinced at this point that G.I. Joe is too niche to ever be the next Transformers at the box office. It's hard for robots that turn into things to ever feel dated, however colorful American soldiers doesn't have as much appeal now. There are only so many ways to preset G.I. Joe, which is why there hasn't been a huge toy line for them since the 80s heyday. Snake Eyes does the best it can to make people care, but I think it's proof that the interest is limited and the premise of the universe can't expand out very far.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Dark Places

Premise: A woman who witnessed an infamous murder as a young girl has to relive that trauma when she becomes involved with a group of true crime obsessives.

 

This is another film from the "OMG. This cast!" portion of my movie watchlist. No one has ever heard of this movie, yet it has Charlize Theron, Christina Hendricks, Nicholas Hoult, Chloe Grace Moretz, Corey Stoll, Tye Sheridan, Sean Bridgers, and Drea de Matteo. The only thing I can point to to explain why it got such a great cast is that it's adapted from a Gillian Flynn novel and this came after Gone Girl.

 

The movie itself is very forgettable, but it is interesting how weirdly ahead of the curve it was at every step. The story of the movie is more than a little inspired by the story of the West Memphis Three. I'd be stunned if Flynn hadn't watched Paradise Lost before writing the novel. While the story of the West Memphis Three was well-known before her book came out in 2009, it wasn't until the three men were released from prison a couple years later that the story really came together. They were released in 2011: the same year that the third Paradise Lost movie came out and got an Oscar nomination. Another doc, West of Memphis came out the next year with a dramatization coming in 2014. Flynn was ahead of all this attention. I wonder if the book would've been a bigger hit had it dropped in the middle of all this, around 2011. Then there's the Serial aspect of it. This movie was made right before the first season of Serial became a massive hit and set off the true crime boom that we're still in. Much of what's in Dark Places addresses this exact obsession, well before the rest of the movie industry was ready to comment on it. People didn't even know they were looking for a response to Serial when Dark Places came out. Oddly, the movie would've felt more of the moment had it come out a year later. Finally, this is an A24 release from right before they knew how to weaponize their brand. A24 was only 2 years old at the time of this release. It made a name for itself quickly, but 2015 was the year that it really established itself with the Oscar successes of Ex Machina, Amy, and Room. Dark Places ended up getting burned that year as a VOD release. Even a year later though, A24's reputation could've gotten this movie - starring an Oscar winner - some better attention. Then again, part of A24's brand is knowing what to bury.

 

Because, this movie is pretty bad. A lot of the thriller elements belong more in the late 90s. The time-hopping story feels needlessly convoluted so it can keep up the mystery. Most of the "based in truth" observations only have Law & Order level detail and insight. Everything with the true crime group feels like a writer's interpretation of it based on reading a New Yorker piece about it; not from genuine experience. I spent most of this movie just wishing I'd decided to rewatch Paradise Lost instead. Not an unwatchable movie by any means. It has some mild thrills. I do wish it could've been cut down by about 20 minutes for an even 90.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Babe: Pig in the City

Premise: Babe finds himself lost in The City.

 

There's an ongoing debate about how much of Babe is George Miller's and how much is Chris Noonan's. Seeing Pig in the City crystalizes my opinion a lot. The way I see it, Noonan could've been any of a dozen directors. Babe needed a journeyman director filter. It needed someone to hear all of Miller's crazy ideas and say "Well, that's obviously too insane, but we can do this much". It's sort of like having a great writer with a proficient editor. Both important skill sets, but very different. The reason why most brilliant things don't find popular success is because they scare the shit out of the average person. Noonan softened the edges of Babe enough to make it a success.

 

Then comes Babe: Pig in the City. George Miller does direct this movie, and it is fully nuts. Like, just an insane movie. But, kind of great too. Miller is excellent at sequels because he's bored by the idea "make it the same, but more". His idea for sequels is "let's do this instead". So, Pig in the City drops virtually everything from the first movie in the first couple minutes. It's contrives a way for Babe to get lost in the City instead his the Hoggetts' farm.

 

And it is very intentionally The City, not a city. Miller and Co. design this amalgamation of all cities, which is brilliant and unhinged. Miller is best known for the Mad Max movies, which are post-apocalyptic. The iconic look of those movies seems to be based on the principle "in a world where society has collapsed, how can people still be excessive?" That's how you get suped up cars and suped up people. Pig in the City turns that same eye to the modern world. In a world with everything, how can the world be more excessive?

 

I prefer the simplicity of the first movie more. The farm setting gave them fewer things to play with and the movie breezes by. Pig in the City is nearly the identical length, but it feels longer. The chapters of the story take bigger swings and the number and type of characters is overwhelming. It's a fun departure. I love that George Miller is crazy enough to try it. It's even got that Gremlins 2 quality, where because it's a less coherent movie, I want to watch it again more  so I can soak in everything going on.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Morning Glory

Premise: The new Executive Producer for a struggling morning show works to turn its ratings around.

 

This is a peak "Isn't Rachel McAdams delightful?" movie. When I think about Morning Glory, I'm reminded of that period when McAdams as a star of light RomComs was being shoved down our collective throats. I worried that her career would be wasted on these generic, empty calorie movies that weren't even that successful anymore. The funny thing is...that's a misconception. From day 1, McAdams has been in a variety of movies and never really had a RomCom phase. Look at her breakout set of 5 movies in 2004-05.

• Mean Girls (as a mean girl)
• The Notebook (romantic lead)
• Red Eye (thriller lead)
• Wedding Crashers (love interest)
• The Family Stone (a delightfully bitchy role)

With the understanding that female roles in Hollywood aren't that varied, she really doesn't set a single mold early on. Her career works in a sort of repeating pattern of those opening 5 movies. Every 5 roles, she includes a lighter RomCom, a dramatic Romance, a thriller, a franchise, and a pricklier woman. Like, 2009-2011:

• State of Play (thriller)
• The Time Traveler’s Wife (dramatic romance)
• Sherlock Holmes (franchise)
• Morning Glory (lighter RomCom)
• Midnight in Paris (wet blanket).

That said, she has gone a little heavy on the romances, which are some of her best roles (cough - About Time - cough), so it's easy to see how it feels like McAdams had more of an "adorkable" phase than she really did.

 

Honestly, Morning Glory is more representative of the flailing identity of the light, charming comedy genre in 2010. By then, the RomCom as a successful draw was falling apart. Reese Witherspoon was getting stuck with the astoundingly forgettable How Do You Know - the emptiest title you'll ever find - and the RomCom last gasp, This Means War*, a couple years later. Morning Glory is a pivot, similar to the Katherine Heigl movie strategy, that moves the Romance part of the genre to the background. It keeps the RomCom tone but is more of a workplace comedy. This is an odd era I'd love to break down more sometime.

 

*To be clear, I like This Means War, but it absolutely represents a lack of direction for the genre.

 

So yeah, Morning Glory feels like one of a dozen similar Rachel McAdams movies even though it's actually the only one of them. I liked it a lot more than I think I would've in 2010. This movie is incredibly easy to digest. It has RomCom royalty in Diane Keaton in a game-for-anything supporting role. This is another chapter in the book of baffling Harrison Ford roles. For an actor who is such a curmudgeon, I'd love to know what about this script made him say "yes" when he surely turned down dozens of similar roles. Anyway, he brings that prickliness to the role as a bit of meta-casting. Jeff Goldblum is similarly surprising casting for a different reason. He has a small role that doesn't asking him to be very odd. So why cast him? Patrick Wilson gets a nice-reverse Bechdel Test role. Sure, it's nice when Wilson is leading movies. He's a great actor. But he's also good if you need a boy-toy in a B-plot in a movie.

 

Really, the movie is all about Rachel McAdams though. It's a role that exists for the Rachel McAdams-s of the world. She's a delight throughout the movie. I like how much of her story arc is about not being ashamed of how much she likes what she does. She's a workaholic who is devoted to make morning show TV. Sure, she has to be reminded to get a little work-life balance, but she's not ashamed that this is what she's good at and that she likes doing it. The movie addresses that in a nice way.

 

I don't think the movie does a great job determining if her changes to the show are a good thing. Like, is the ethos of the movie really "the war between news and entertainment ended a long time ago: entertainment won resoundingly"? There's unexamined cynicism in that. I'm choosing not to read too much into it though. This is a lightweight Rachel McAdams delivery system that stays under 2 hours. That's a plus in my book.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend