The Pitch: Well, the first movie did better than we dreamed it would, so let's make another. This time, with...uh...a baby.
Despite all the crap that people say about Adam Sandler's movies these days, which I also say, there is one thing I like a lot. He has "his guys". He has this group of friends that he can always get to work with him who he has a rapport with and knows how to use. Creatively, it's led him to a dead end in recent years, but I still like it in theory. It's becoming a more popular notion these days. Judd Apatow and co. have been doing it for nearly as long as Sandler, sticking with a core group. The assorted anthology TV series have taken to employing repertory players for the seasons. You can't teach that kind of familiarity.
Now, being animated, there's not quite as much value to this for the Hotel Transylvania movies. But, if I'm looking for a way to come into the movies favorably, that's how I do it. And, they got Mel Brooks, so how can I complain? I found it funny how similar this felt to Addams Family Values. It's comically spooky. It added a baby. There's even a summer camp with outmatched camp counselors. I watched this right after seeing Paddington and it's interesting how both have messages about how to treat the "others" in society. HT2 also has some major issues with Millenials, but what movie or TV show these days doesn't. We're basically in "Joe Friday lectures hippies" territory (but that happens with every generation).
This is where I could finally start talking about the movie more specifically. However, I don't want to. That's the nice things about the Delayed Reaction: I never set any rules for them. See it if you want. I didn't get much out of it. I'm still on the hunt for that great comedy movie that I think Adam Sandler still has in him.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: I couldn't figure out how to make Paddington into a movie, then I saw Up...
That certainly was charming. In fact, it's going to be quite difficult to not use "charming" in every sentence talking about Paddington. When this film came out in 2015, I remember dismissing it as a forgettable British import, released in the US to make a few bucks in the middle of a quiet winter season. Aardaman Animations has had a poor effect on me when it come to British family films. It turns out that Paddinton is an entirely pleasant film. It's quieter than most of what Dreamworks or even Pixar does while still being just as whimsical. The only thing I can say against it is how clearly it was written for young audiences, but that's only a bad thing if that wasn't the intent. As a 20-something, sans kid, I enjoyed it well enough. I like how very British the cast is (Ben Wishaw, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Jim Broadbent, and Pete Capaldi - Nicole Kidman is Australian, but that's close enough because I'm not about to be against Nicole Kidman in a movie). I also liked thinking of this as what Up would've been had Charles F. Muntz never returned to South America.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: What's bigger than blowing up the White House? Blowing up London.
I'm of two minds about London Has Fallen.
On one hand, all the bad press it received is fair. It's "terror-sploitation" and xenophobic. It's just an excuse to have a large scale shoot 'em up with a lot of explosions. The effects aren't great (A poor man's Rolland Emmerich movie). The cast is far better than what the story needs and none of them rise above the material. Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart, and Morgan Freeman all have histories of giving up on movies if they are allowed to.
On the other hand, it was very easy to ignore this movie. Had I been stuck in a theater watching this, it would've been awful. From home, I could do whatever on my computer, look over to my TV screen occasionally to make sure London was still blowing up, and go back to look at cat gifs without feeling like I was missing anything.
One thing that bothered me more than it should is the R-rating. I don't like the MPAA or their rating system. The studios are stuck abiding to these arbitrary standards though and maneuvering accordingly. Normally, this means stupid things like the "One fuck rule"* or a film going through multiple edits until it can get down to PG-13, where it's likely to make more money. London Has Fallen appears to be taking the opposite strategy. This is easily a PG-13 movie. There's no nudity [that I remember]. The violence is fairly anonymous (mostly guys in suits and body armor getting shot) without a focus on being bloody. However, for some reason, they decided to say "fuck" a lot. And each time they said "fuck", my first thought was "someone's trying to get an R-rating." It's like they wanted to sit at the "big boy table" but didn't know how.
*Say "fuck" once: PG-13. Say "fuck" twice: R. I've also heard about a
"one boob rule" which is how Titanic got PG-13. I haven't confirmed that
one though.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: A man tracks down his doppelganger and may have a mental breakdown along the way.
I think I'm a Dennis Villeneuve fan. I wasn't trying to be. I just keep seeing his movies. Prisoners was interesting and had an ending that still unsettles me. Sicario looked slick as hell. Arrival bounced around in my head for a while too. It looks like Enemy is going to be another one I can't easily forget. That's because I don't get it. I kind of do, but not really. It's a weird movie about the subconscious. Are the two Jake Gyllenhaals the same person? Just one person? Are they both extensions of the same man's personality? Which one is real? I have so many questions and I don't think there's a clear answer to any of them. It's not quite the mind bend that Mulholland Drive was. It wasn't far off from it. Regardless, Jake Gyllenhaal was very good in both parts. He does nervous and on-edge as well as anyone. I liked Melanie Laurent and Sarah Gadon, although I can't remember which one played which role (I think that was kind of the point). It's a fun movie, and the end had me saying "what the fuck?" out loud even though no one was around me.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: Do you know what's almost as profitable as a popular app? A successful animated movie.
I was going to get to it eventually. Might as well be now. This movie has taken a lot of grief (by me among others) for being a lazy studio franchise attempt. I mean, the one thing capable of getting a bigger eye roll than "video game adaptation" is "mobile app adaptation". And that's fair. There's not an actual story to Angry Birds, the game*. Sony is selling this on the name "Angry Birds" because they are too scared to invest any money on something that isn't guaranteed a fan base. I look at it like this though: If there's a good idea for a movie and you have to tie it into some sort of I.P., do it. At least the story gets told that way. That's not the case for Angry Birds though. It's just a forgettable attempt to apply a story to the game. It kind of fits. It's transparently reverse-engineered to end of with birds flinging themselves at a tower. There's no way to pretend that that is where the story took them naturally. The voice cast is...fine, I suppose. Most of the cast is interchangeable. Like, Red could be Bill Hader just as easily as Jason Suidekis. Still, it's an impressive collection of actors who I wouldn't mind seeing together in a live-action project.
I was simply too indifferent to this movie to dislike it. There's some fun Dreamworks-style wordplay that goes right over children's heads and makes adults chuckle. It's energetic and boisterous enough to entertain children too. There's much worst animated films out there.
*I've never played the game, but I assume that's true.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: Let's take the opening of Sunset Blvd. and make it into a movie about people who spend way too much time swimming.
But seriously, way too much time swimming. I think Willa Holland spends 80% of the time in that same, barely-there bathing su--ohhhhh, that's right. Now I remember why I started this.
This film tries to be a sort of L.A. Noir about a love triangle and deception. It probably was about that on many levels, but I kept tuning out. Specifically, the dialogue was way too obvious. When lines sound like they would've worked in The Room, that's a bad sign. And not the "good" parts of The Room. They'd fit in the boring scenes that you forget about in The Room. The scenes with Alex Russell calling one of his parents were especially brutal. I could keep going, but I wouldn't be adding any value to the conversation (not that I have up to this point). It was a very forgettable movie that failed to keep my attention to the point that I don't remember it well enough to reflect on it. Don't watch this, even if Willa Holland is in a swimsuit for 80% of the movie.
...
Like, the same swimsuit over what I think was a significant number of days. How often was she washing that thing? Why didn't she have more than one? I don't think a lot of money went into this film. Or thought.
Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend
Formula: My Best Friend's Wedding / Wedding Crashers
Sometimes, with these Reactions, I get an idea in my head that I can't shake, even if it isn't quite right for the movie. It's a few words or a concept that I have to include somehow. In the case of Table 19, it's the idea of precision vs. accuracy. The two words are often confused because they have similar meanings. Understanding the difference is very important though. Something can be precise without being accurate, meaning that it consistently hits a certain mark but not the target it was aiming at. That sums Table 19 up pretty well: It's precise, not accurate.
Before I get into that, I should introduce the movie. Since it snuck into 800 screens this weekend without a lot of fan fare, I don't think many people are aware of it. It's about a wedding. Table 19 is the very last table at the reception, where all the people are put who received pity invites. It's the reject table. Eloise (Anna Kendrick) was the maid of honor for the wedding until her boyfriend (Wyatt Russell), the bride's brother, broke up with her abruptly. She's joined at table 19 by a married couple (Lisa Kudrow and Craig Robinson) who are low-level business associates of the bride's father, a cousin (Stephen Merchant) who was recently let out of prison, a former nanny (June Squibb) of the bride, and...ok, I'll be honest, I completely forgot the last guy's (Tony Revolori) connection to the bride and groom. He's an awkward kid though. So that's the movie: a band of misfits bond at their table during an exceptionally long wedding reception.
Ok, back to the original discussion. The reason I want to call this movie 'precise' is because it's very exacting. This script is filled with clever callbacks and twists. From Chekhov's wedding cake to Lisa Kudrow being dressed like the help staff, there's a lot of the kind of detail work that I eat up. These are the things that someone adds to a solid script to push it over the edge to make it great. The reason I don't call the movie 'accurate' is because the core of the movie doesn't work. This group becomes a surrogate family far too quickly and without reason. And, if I don't buy how much the group has bonded, then all of their heart-to-hearts (there are many) play as insincere. The reason for Kendrick and Russell's breakup is not good enough (and makes Russell too inexcusably villainous to come back from). There's a lot of talk about Eloise being a train wreck who ruins everything around her, and the example of this during the wedding isn't 1) enough her fault or 2) all that bad. There's too much story to this movie and it doesn't move at an aggressive enough pace to fit it all. It's quite surprising that a script from the Duplass brothers, who are normally quite reliable, would be this undercooked. It's like they tried to fix the larger story points that didn't work by surrounding them with a lot of smaller points that do work.
I saw this movie for the cast. I could tell, even in the trailer that it was going to have some plotting issues. However, if the cast interaction was good, I was convinced that that could salvage all other ills. Anna Kendrick is charming as always. Because she's in this, it was an inevitability that I would see it. Whether I'd wait until I could rent it was the only question. I was surprised how disinterested the movie was in her as the lead. More often, the story would rather follow what the rest of the group is up to. She's stuck playing the straight women, and she's proven by now that she can do more than that. Neither Kudrow nor Robinson were playing to their strengths. They are a bickering couple but without the sniping humor you would hope for. Squibb is asked to be the emotional center of the film, which she is capable of, and if the character dynamics hadn't been so rushed, she could've been that. Merchant and Revolori were both cartoons, but kept being forced to ground their performances. I can see this mix of characters working if the story was better constructed.
Table 19 has the cast and attention to detail of a great movie. However, the larger story points and execution don't match up with those parts. It will still work for a lot of people because there's certain things that always work, context free: a big emotional gesture, sage advice from an elderly person, or a troubled couple finding a way to reconnect. Overall, it just left me wanting something a lot more polished.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
Formula: The Wolverine + Children of Men + (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome / Mad Max)
Thank god for Deadpool's success. That movie was a game changer. Fox has spent over a decade trying to master the superhero formula. X-Men began the Marvel craze, but it was Spider-Man a couple years later that really blew up. For the first three films, X-Men and Spider-Man's arcs coincided (good first, great second, bad third), however Spider-Man beat it every step of the way at the box office. Then Iron Man came out, eclipsing Fox's Origins attempts (It didn't help that X-Men Origins: Wolverine sucked). Ever since then, Fox has been scrambling to make Frankenstein's monster versions of a big tent movie, trying both a full reboot and time-travel. While Deadpool was somewhat an afterthought for the studio when it was made, it represented the first bold move that Fox had taken with their Marvel properties since making the first movie in 2000 in a market that appeared to be poisoned by Batman & Robin. And Deadpool broke big. Real big. Fox can insist the plan for Logan all along was to give it a hard R rating, but they announced that far too quickly after Deadpool broke box office records for me to believe they weren't wavering up to that point.
So, thanks to Deadpool's success, Logan gets to be yet another big swing for what is now the most interesting studio in the superhero business. While Disney is busy building their MCU with increasingly formulaic films (which, don't get me wrong, I still enjoy a great deal), Fox is exploring what else audiences can enjoy in a superhero film.
As I've been building toward saying, Logan is not your typical Marvel movie. It still has mutants and - like the other Wolverine movies - a clunkily inserted villain in the third act. That's about where similarities stop though. The movie drops in decades in the future; even a while past whenever Days of Future Past took place. The X-Men are long gone. New mutants aren't being born anymore. Logan (Hugh Jackman) is in hiding with Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in Mexico near El Paso. He's working as a limo driver to save enough money to buy a boat to get away on. Xavier's mind is falling apart and it's dangerous to keep him anywhere near other people. Logan isn't doing great either. He's drinking hard and isn't healing as quickly as he used to. The two are pulled out of hiding when a woman with a special little girl (Dafne Keen) comes seeking their help. They reluctantly head to one of the Dakotas to deliver the girl to her rendezvous point while being chased by a private army.
Some of the differences from previous X-Men movies are easy to point out. There's a lot more swearing, which is more fitting with Logan's personality. This is the first time that the brutality of Logan's powers is on full display. Metal blades coming from your knuckles are quite messy and the film doesn't shy away from that. That alone gives the film more gravity than any other installment of franchise: the violence is more real. Other differences are less obvious. There's a lot more regret this time around. Even with Charles. The film is sort of a western-noir, with overt references to Shane to boot. This shouldn't be a surprise when you consider director James Mangold's other films. 3:10 to Yuma is the obvious comparison, but even Copland and Walk the Line make sense tracking his filmography. This has an even looser plot than Mangold's The Wolverine and with a far less clunky third act.
This is Hugh Jackman's final time playing Wolverine, and it's a fitting farewell. Jackman is still a physical specimen, but he has aged in the last 17 years and isn't so spy these days. An Old Man Logan story is appropriate. Patrick Stewart hasn't had this much to do as Charles Xavier before. This is the first time when the character has needed an actor of his talent. I've heard a couple people throw out his name early for next year's Oscar discussion. I wouldn't disagree with that except to say that it is unlikely to happen (See: John Goodman in 10 Cloverfield Lane). Dafne Keen handles herself well for how much is asked of her. Stephan Merchant has a sympathetic role as one of Logan and Charles' allies. The villains are all forgettable, as are most of the X-Men villains not called Magneto.
I think what is most telling about Logan is that if you told me that it started as an original screenplay and was adapted to include mutants, I'd believe you. Similar to Deadpool, I'm more impressed with Logan than I am in love with it. It's a fine movie - definitely the best of this accidental Wolverine trilogy. It's not perfect, but it is such a refreshing change of pace that I can't help but gush about it. If this really is the last time we see Hugh Jackman in the role that made him famous, then he couldn't ask for a better way to go.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: Let's just see what Patton was up to during WWII.
George C. Scott playing General Patton is one of those perfect casting decisions that Hollywood gets every so often. He's just perfect for the role. The opening scene I've seen spoofed dozens of times and it still works just as well within the context of the film. I was impressed with a lot of the warfare scenes. While not Saving Private Ryan, it was better than I expected from a movie released in 1970.
As good as Scott is playing Patton, the character of Patton still rang a little false. The character was built like the screenplay came from an unauthorized biography of Patton in many places. However, it's a great character evolution throughout and ends in a good place. Early on, I think it leans too heavily on Patton as an enigma. Thematically, it's probably for the best.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: Let's make a documentary about those people with small roles in Star Wars who show up to the conventions to sign stuff.
It's crazy to think sometimes about how popular Star Wars is. There are people who make a lot of money signing memorabilia for a movie (A New Hope) that they were cut out of or can only be seen in the background of a scene or two. That's a fanatical popularity.
Elstree 1976 isn't about all that much. It's a collection of interviews with people who were in the Original Trilogy in one form or another. For some people, it's a reflection on a career that never amounted to as much as they'd hoped. For others, it's just something they are so proud to have been a part of. That aspect is fairly dull, to be honest. Loose recollections of something from 40 years ago that has already been well documented.
What interested me was when they got to the subject of who should and shouldn't be signing things at the different conventions. There's the differing camps who each have their own opinions. For them, it's not about fandom. It's about money and who should be allowed to profit on it. Most people were pretty cagey about it. I wish they would've pushed harder on it. Even still, you can tell some people are very irritated about it.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
