docmurph12

[docmurph12]

Ok. So.......

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think I was a bit unfair to CATS.

No, I am not talking about the war crime that was the film. I stand by what I said about that movie at this point, but I think I may not have given the stage show a fair shake...

I wrote a review a few months back as a doubleheader review of the '94 (I think?) recording of the stage performance and the film. I believe that I watched the film, gave it a not so great rating, then watched the stage performance and gave it a JUST passing rating and downgraded the film to an incomplete no-grade.

So lately, in the amount of time I find myself swimming in I found myself going down the rabbit hole, my particular version consisting of videos about guitar players, guitar equipment, drums, musical composition, filmmaking and review, and some oddball odds and ends. There was one point where I found myself continually finding videos on the CATS film and its comparison to the stage show. I have to admit, I think I may have been looking for some confirmation bias, because let's face it, CATS is fucking wierd regardless of the medium you choose to experience it in. It's literally a bunch of plotless very-short stories intended originally as letters but collected into a book of poems and later adapted to a stage show WITH a connected plot. The fact that this show even exists is a colossal miracle, especially given all the complicating factors in its development (thanks to 12Tone on YouTube for that knowledge). What I found though was the story of an enormous amount of creative weight lifting and shape shifting, making a show that, if CORRECTLY executed (yes I'm still looking at you CATS the movie) can have a profound effect on the viewer. There are a lot of subtleties in stage movement, songwriting, and performances that lend themselves the same way as a lot of filmmaking devices like subtle visual foreshadowing and musically thematic callbacks. Many of the performances really knock it out of the park, largely because to love something like CATS enough to actively choose to be a part of it in public, you REALLY have to love it enough to blow it the fuck away, and all of the performances I have seen, whether they were clips in YouTube videos (thanks Sideways on YouTube for a lot of these too) or the entire production I saw when I initially reviewed this, brought a personal touch, an individual interpretation to the performance, a singularly driven intensity. It is really Shakespearean that way,, at least in my experience, in that every combination of actor/director is going to have a different read of a character and are going to actually develop a character that isn't largely there in the text (thanks to Sweet Tea Shakespeare for those experiences). I can't believe I'm saying this, but there are songs I enjoyed through the show, and still remember when certain cat's names are said. I wish sometimes they would stop repeating themselves in my head but I guess thats what happens when songs get stuck there. The fact that it simply shouldn't exist appeals to the very reason I enjoy many of the things I enjoy, Batman, Nirvana, Star Wars, Broccoli and cheese. The story behind it is just as wierd and compelling as the one you are watching.

I think that is why the movie burned everyone so bad. If you were familiar with the stage show, what you were seeing was like getting an omelet made from an egg that actually managed to form a fetus inside it before it was cracked and half scrambled to make your omelet. Horrifying and wrong, and in no way appetizing or even familiar to the thing you love anymore. If you weren't previously familiar with it it was more like someone hearing you like eggs (read: musicals) and just serving you shark's eggs pods (read: CATS the movie). Sure they are eggs, but they don't make any sense on your plate, and everything that makes it an egg is gone and replaced with a thing that appears to have its own non-functioning legs and OH GOD GET IT OUT OF THIS DENNYS PLEASE STOP WITH THE JOHN CARPENTER MENU ALREADY. This is what I believe not understanding your source material actually looks like, more specifically than other examples people like to point at in modern cinema.

So in revision, I think CATS the film still gets a fail for turning in incomplete work, but if my wife were to bring up going to see CATS in a big budget production, I would still balk (come on, huge musical theatre isn't a huge thing of mine), but if she insisted it wouldn't take more than one light push to get me to go. It IS a spectacle, and it IS interesting, and I sincerely appreciate a powerful performance, which, wierd as it would be, I certainly would get.

[docmurph12]

Review time- A little different format this time. Just a hair though, I had already started watching this movie by request of my wife when she freaked out and asked me to write about it so here we go, little snapshot, then what I've seen to this point, then on to the rest of the movie.

So Only Lovers Left Alive was directed by Jim Jarmusch and was released in 2014, starring Loki, The Ancient One, Alice, Kane, Chekov, and Alfred. Sorry, I couldn't help myself, Tom Hiddleston, Tilda Swinton, Mia Wasikowska, John Hurt, Anton Yelchin, and Jeffrey Wright. Right off the top, its a killer cast, and while you never know who is going to get put in a film together, it is neat to see this unique grouping of folks together. RIP John, Anton.

Thus far and without looking up a synopsis, I have sort of been able to understand that Hiddleston (Adam), Swinton (Eve), and Hurt (Marlowe) are some sort of pacifist hippie vampires. Marlowe supplies Eve with blood, and Adam goes to "Dr. Watson" (the situation makes it obvious that isn't his name) do get blood from a hospital bank. I haven't been able to figure out who Eve is but Adam appears to be a very technically well read guitar player who keeps anonymous, but seems to have a death wish, or possibly wants to kill himself. Marlowe and Eve seem to have a long standing and well established relationship, and there seems to be a connection between Adam and Eve (well no shit). I've kept it paused here so I can follow through with writing this so at this point I will go ahead and let her rip. "Live" updates from here on out so SPOILER ALERT!! Watch for the final review notes at the end!

My timing is great here. I paused it right before Adam and Eve video call each other. They are married, and Adam seems to be sort of exhausted of the world, while Eve is enjoying herself where she is at. In fact, Adam is really struggling with his art and Eve is having a great time getting wiggity whacked out on that good blood from the French doctor. For Adam, the high he gets from the blood seems to be an attempt to escape, where for Eve it is for the exp...GODDAMN I hope that it Hiddleston playing the violin. That was fucking impressive.

Marlowe has expressed concern for Eve, and a thought that Adam might be suicidal, a thought which doesn't seem to effect Eve very much on the surface. Odd. Especially since they more than imply that they are THE Adam and Eve.

The way they present the need for blood is very interesting, like its a combination between what they need to survive and an extremely addictive drug that can ruin your life.

I love the historical references. Hiddleston and Swinton do a great job pulling off the experienced based wisdom. The tech talk on the instruments is amazing too.

Great super subtle reference to the White Stripes song Ball and Biscuit. You'll catch it if you know what I'm talking about.

Some famlial distaste/distrust. Adam really doesn't like Eve's Sister Ava. He is really pissed over some "Paris thing", something apparently Eve isn't really happy about either but is willing to move on from.

Man I half expected between Detroit actually being Jack White's home and the reference that the club scene would have featured one of his bands. But no. No Raconteurs, no White Stripes, no anything. missed opportunity, even if it would have been just a hair heavy handed.

Oh man, Ava's about to get kicked out. She busted up Adam's apartment and killed his only connection to the outside world he was trying to stay isolated from. Trashed a 1905 Gibson and a bunch of vinyl records and furniture and left an empty corpse. She sucks, and if I were a vampire trying to stay on my own, I'd just have killed her.

Vamps on the run, no food anywhere since they can't fly with blood. They arrive in Tangiers where Eve was staying before she left to be with Adam, and found Marlowe is gone. Adam isn't doing so well. When things begin to get dire for the both of them, they find Marlowe, apparently dying. There is a shortage of blood.

Well Marlowe is gone, doesn't seem to be a lot of hope for anyone.

Poetic, she finds him a lute in Tangiers that is made of the same hardwood that he was going to use to kill himself, right before it seems like they are going to die. Except....

Ok so the movie is done. I am not 100% sure how I feel about it. What I ultimately feel like I can draw from it is a centuries old observance of science and art, seen from the never ending souls of two people who are destined to live forever, tied together by their unending love and intrinsic differences that keep them hopelessly um....entangled....to use a word.

Final Verdict?

After some thought, I'll give it a solid A-. I like a lot of the commentary in the story on things they have experienced, and some of the flavor that implies that not everything is EXACTLY as it was written. The score was almost dirge-like in its dragging time and its key. A lot of what at first seems like slow motion, but might not be, lots of double exposure types of shots. I really liked the emphasis on music and Adam's involvement through the centuries (Insert "I understood that reference" meme at nearly every call back, that felt nice). While there is involvement with all the cast at multiple points throughout, this movie is largely a two character piece. Everyone else just kind of exists. It does a really nice job in highlighting how alone, out of time, and more sophisticated than everyone else they feel, and that they feel it together. Given the chance, I would probably watch this one again, should my wife want to watch it with me in the same state this time. Love you babe.

[docmurph12]

Ok review time, and I am going a little meta on this one. I finally got the opportunity to watch Tenet, so while this isn't the first time through, I am going to try to review this one live on the second watch through. Fair warning though, there may be spoilers ahead, so skip to the end if you actually intend to watch this one.

Before I get started, a description. This is a very ambitious film with a lot of physics-based talk about time. John David Washington's Protagonist gets recruited by some folks who want him to investigate a potential temporal war to end all wars and stop it.

Before we get too much farther, on to the film!!

We open at the opera!! Right away we get hit with a heavy score, lots of synthetic, definitely showcases the Chris Nolan obsession with time. This thing really drives.

Neat little challenge and password piece for immersion. Makes it a little more believable for military folks.

Nolan does a good job establishing the type of character we are looking at in the first sequence of the movie. You are dropped right into the shit as soon as the film opens up and right away we see a driven and intense man bent on both accomplishing the mission and doing the right thing.

Our first introduction to time mechanics, given with a little Inception style show AND tell exposition. Just enough to tickle your interest in the coming visual wizardry and give you a basic understanding of the world's rules.

Interestingly short intro for Pattinson's Neil. Its obvious he is hiding something, but the first time seeing this I didn't distinctly get that feeling. Great job on his part.

More practical everything from Nolan. If I didn't know he literally endo-ed a semi truck in the middle of Chicago in The Dark Knight I would have though it was visual effects but nope. All real. Beautiful.

Lots of obvious Nolan favorites acting in this one. Not a bad thing as he has a skilled eye in selecting his actors, just funny to see Michael Caine et al in yet another Nolan film.

In our introduction to Elizabeth Debicki's Kat, the first time through I got the feeling she knew more than she let on. Second time through, I don't get that. What you see is what you get here. Probably a product of being a Nolan fan, looking for and through every last detail for meaning that may not even pan out.

I like seeing Washington's precision oriented tactician balanced against Pattinson's refined artist of chaos. Great character interactions, and both are unbelievably fun to watch here.

More of this great score. Massive, awesome, and driving.

We get our first sight of how the time inversion mechanics work. You actually see a bit of this sequence in first trailer. Absolute visual magic. I absolutely need to see how this is done. The sound engineering in this was awesome too, finding a way to work not only the visual aspect of someone fighting against someone moving backwards through time but also the audible piece as well was very well thought out and beautifully executed.

Kenneth Branagh's Andrei Sator is REALLY fucking intense. Not just when we first meet him, either. Like for the whole film.

The first large scale stunt piece has me wondering what Chris Nolan pays his stunt actors. The pieces he puts to film are not only huge, but also incredibly complex and dangerous, and all done practically.

Seeing the second turnstile room was really interesting in that we see the two separate timelines interacting with each other and set up yet another rule for the film's world. Really cool to see the interaction and more shots where forward moving people and things interact with backwards moving people and things.

Now we get the second part of the earlier set piece. We get a little explanation of who the people in inverse were and what they were doing when we saw them earlier in the film.

Debicki's Kat gets a really great developmental arc in the film. Well written, and an outstanding performance to boot.

So I don't want to say too much more about the film while I'm watching it, so to avoid heavy spoilers, I'm going to culminate this one here.

So to be completely honest, I had a really hard time being objective here. If you know anything about my tastes, Chris Nolan is well known to be my favorite director. That said, this is very typical of a Nolan movie, in that it is absolutely just chock full of filmmaking professionals operating at peak efficiency, showing what it can be to work at the top of your craft. It is also typical of his work in that it definitely requires multiple views, and just when you feel like you have it, you don't. It is definitively a work of art and is entirely up to the viewer's interpretation.

This is a beautifully shot film. Excellent use of lighting and location, wonderful editing. Even though this movie bounces around the timeline pretty consistently, the pacing never feels off, and you are pretty easily able to track the action on screen. All of the characters seem to have some level of development, and where development seems absent, you have lots of motivation and empathetic writing. I'll say I'm not entirely sure where people talk about this one being TOO cerebral. You have to pay attention but they do a pretty good job of giving you everything you need to understand what is going on. You just have to be patient and take it in the way it is intended to be taken in. It is definitely not to be watched in parts. The score of the film was really good too, it drove the action along, and was totally perfectly in line with the style of the film. You really had a sense of urgency with just a touch of futurism in the music.

Final verdict? A+. I might be scoring a little subjectively here but technically speaking it is a well crafted art piece with an intense and heady plot that doesn't leave you (or at least I didn't feel it) feeling talked down to. I have already revisited this and shared it with others. I know realistically speaking this was never going to be the film that saved cinema, but timing is everything and its box office failure (If you really want to call it that, all things considered) is absolutely no indication as to the quality of this movie. Definitely sit down with a drink of your choice and a loved one or several, and take the time to enjoy a real work of art from cover to cover.

[docmurph12]

I have been super delinquent in not moving my reviews from one platform to another. Ill be dropping a BUNCH tonight. Lots to read through. Enjoy.

[docmurph12]

Ok review time! And surprise. It's a short one!!

(FULL TRANSPARENCY, I actually wrote this and put it on my Facebook almost a month and a half ago, and never posted it here, so let's call this part one of a 2 part request from my sister, the second part being my last review on Circle)

At long last, we come to Spanish thriller "The Platform", as requested by my sister. Going to do this one live, so let's get right to it! (Retrospective note, this was really hard to review because it isn't hard to follow but it is very hard to say much without giving too much away)

First, the dubbing, at least at first glance is VERY well done. Really well approximated to English.

So basic plot as I see it, our 2 protagonists live on level 47 of a pit as a part of a social experiment where they get fed by levels on a platform. The platform starts at the top and travels down to each floor for a limited amount of time before it moves down a level. You are only allowed food while the platform is at your level, and there is only whatever food that sits on the platform when it starts its trip downward, so every level down is getting the leftovers from the levels above. You arent allowed to communicate with the levels below you, and the levels above won't communicate with you because you are below. Some are there voluntarily, others imprisoned.

Ok so there's bound to be a lot of spoilers here. I might have to do a little less plot detailing.

The music plods, it's reminiscent of a clock. It kind of reminds me of the way that Nolan does the same with Zimmer's score in Dunkirk. It drives the plot and displays the monotony of daily life month to month in the hole. And it never changes.

This is very much the epitome of a European "SAW". Trapped in a prison driven by a complete inability to trust anyone or anything there and no way out but by forcing yourself to the worst means of survival imaginable.

It appears as though the "inmates" have no control month to month over what level they end up on, regardless of merit. Ups the ante on making sure you get what you can before the day is up.

There's a lot of close up shots. Really does a great job of emphasizing the feeling of isolation and claustrophobia you are supposed to have watching this.

Ok I made it to the end. This is definitely the definition of a thriller. I'll say this, it is violent, but not to the point of cartoonish gratuity. They take painstaking effort in setting up and maintaining the environment, but there are interesting discussions and messages about survival, altruism, survival, and excess.

Everyone reading this should seriously consider watching this. If nothing else it is an interesting movie, and the ending is not what you signed up for in the beginning.

Final verdict?

A-. I don't see myself revisiting this beyond one more time, but not because of anything qualitative about it. It is a very good movie and one I enjoyed. I do feel this is one you should watch with someone, and I don't see convincing many people very easily to watch this with me. I am interested to see if the excellent performances are enhanced hearing them in the original language.

Next up, another request from my sister. Circle.

[docmurph12]

Ok super late and sort of abbreviated review time.

Thanks to my sister for the recommendation on this one.

This is not live, my wife and I watched the movie like 3 weeks ago and have been super crazy busy so I haven't gotten around to writing this, but here it is!! Circle is a very small movie with a lot to say. This is NOT THE Circle, so you don't get it mixed up with the other movie. You can find this pretty easily on Netflix with a quick search, and for what its worth, its a quick watch.

The story is VERY fast paced, the basic premise is that something important and dramatic happens every 2 minutes, so for a movie with a runtime of only 86 minutes, you can imagine this moves along as a pretty violently quick tack. I am going to go ahead and put a spoiler section after the final verdict of this one so be warned and don't read too far. That said I feel for the most part the script does a good job of establishing characters and moving the story along without feeling ungrounded. At first glance and with only one viewing under my belt at this point nothing feels very.......Hollywood, to use a word. These people feel like real people rather than over dramaticized film archetypes. Theres a few stereotypical things happening here but without giving too much away, the film's characters all have surprises up their motivation sleeves, At least in my average Joe's eyes. I WILL SAY HOWEVER, that there seem to be more questions than answers at the end of this thing. Primarily, my wife and I both found ourselves asking what the central theme or question was. What is this film ultimately trying to say? More on that in the spoilers section.

This film visually feels perfectly claustrophobic. There isn't much to speak of in terms of a score, but sound still has intense and profound meaning in this film. Perfect use of the "sound v silence" concept. There is almost nothing in terms of stage direction or even scene changes. There are a ton of close-in camera shots that give a more personalized and suspenseful angle to the atmosphere of the movie. The close ups give the director/cinematographer the means to pull off a few surprises too, without sacrificing much of the feel at all. The set for the single stage in the film is pretty visually striking as well, especially considering how little there actually is. It actually feels very much like a slightly more filled in old school Shakespeare performance, not necessarily in terms of story style or dialog, moreso in set design. Very minimalistic, but very effective.

Final verdict, prior to the brief spoilers that is...

Perfect use of sound and silence, great lighting and set design, interesting story, and good performances. The only beef I have is that not much is answered by the end of the film. This definitely merits additional viewings, I feel, but I am not sure I will be doing so soon, especially given the other things I want to take in before I feel like I might need to sit through this again. Still a cool project, and I would be lying if I said we didn't enjoy it. Im going to give this one a solid mid-B, and move on to the next film. I strongly suggest looking this one up and at least giving up 87 minutes of your time to take this one in.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

SPOILERS---READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO DIVE IN BLIND (it might be worth the wait,, I strongly recommend not reading more until you have seen it)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The dude in the end made a super dubious choice in manipulating the kid and the pregnant lady so they both died, and I had some difficulty in understanding the ending. I feel like this dude has been through a few of these, and that it is also possible that, given the way this is presented, that the end scene might be either the start to either the first or the next scenario or maybe just the end of the one we see in the film. Ultimately I feel like the message we are supposed to receive is that humanity is scum and we all have problems that will push us to cutting each other's throats rather than seek out pragmatic or even altruistic ends. Unless there is no message and this is just a "what you see is what you get" type of movie, but this feels a little different than that. Without any extended research on the background of the writing or whatever, its kind of difficult to see anything else. Its really fucking bleak and after being sucked in and REALLY enjoying the first part of the film, I felt conflicted about having enjoyed it. Please, by all means, watch it, and if you do or if you already have please drop a comment here. I would love to have a public discussion on this one.

[docmurph12]

Ok review time! And surprise. It's a short one!!

At long last, we come to Spanish thriller "The Platform", as requested by my sister. Going to do this one live, so let's get right to it! (Retrospective note, this was really hard to review because it isn't hard to follow but it is very hard to say much without giving too much away)

First, the dubbing, at least at first glance is VERY well done. Really well approximated to English.

So basic plot as I see it, our 2 protagonists live on level 47 of a pit as a part of a social experiment where they get fed by levels on a platform. The platform starts at the top and travels down to each floor for a limited amount of time before it moves down a level. You are only allowed food while the platform is at your level, and there is only whatever food that sits on the platform when it starts its trip downward, so every level down is getting the leftovers from the levels above. You arent allowed to communicate with the levels below you, and the levels above won't communicate with you because you are below. Some are there voluntarily, others imprisoned.

Ok so there's bound to be a lot of spoilers here. I might have to do a little less plot detailing.

The music plods, it's reminiscent of a clock. It kind of reminds me of the way that Nolan does the same with Zimmer's score in Dunkirk. It drives the plot and displays the monotony of daily life month to month in the hole. And it never changes.

This is very much the epitome of a European "SAW". Trapped in a prison driven by a complete inability to trust anyone or anything there and no way out but by forcing yourself to the worst means of survival imaginable.

It appears as though the "inmates" have no control month to month over what level they end up on, regardless of merit. Ups the ante on making sure you get what you can before the day is up.

There's a lot of close up shots. Really does a great job of emphasizing the feeling of isolation and claustrophobia you are supposed to have watching this.

Ok I made it to the end. This is definitely the definition of a thriller. I'll say this, it is violent, but not to the point of cartoonish gratuity. They take painstaking effort in setting up and maintaining the environment, but there are interesting discussions and messages about survival, altruism, survival, and excess.

Everyone reading this should seriously consider watching this. If nothing else it is an interesting movie, and the ending is not what you signed up for in the beginning.

Final verdict?

A-. I don't see myself revisiting this beyond one more time, but not because of anything qualitative about it. It is a very good movie and one I enjoyed. I do feel this is one you should watch with someone, and I don't see convincing many people very easily to watch this with me. I am interested to see if the excellent performances are enhanced hearing them in the original language.

Next up, another request from my sister. Circle.

[docmurph12]

Ok surprise review time. I know I said the next thing I reviewed was either going to be The Platform or Circle (no The, I remembered I actually found the right one on Netflix) but I couldn't NOT do a review on "Dolomite is My Name". After all, DocMurph12 is my name and fucking up movie reviews is my game. It obviously will not be live as per usual, because I originally had no intention on doing a review of this. I am fully aware that the blaxploitation as a genre is not widely respected or particularly enjoyed but I fucking love these movies. That said, I didn't even know what I was getting into. I thought this was a sequel to the Dolomite series. It's actually a biopic, telling us the behind the scenes story of Rudy Ray Moore, and the making of the first Dolomite film.

I think the reason this hits me is because Rudy didn't have much beyond aspirations and a knowledge of his audience, and worked those aspirations nearly to death to make his first movie a success. I am currently writing and working on a project independently that I can only hope I can will into reality on the same level of success that he achieved. Rudy leans into what he was making, knowing full well that he isn't a picturesque leading man and that he isn't the most talented dude in LA. He owns what he has and what he is creating and begs, borrows, steals and negotiates to make Dolomite a reality and helped to remove a genre and even to bring it to a wider audience. Its a wonderful story and while I am sure (without doing my research) that some artistic license was taken with the story, in spite of the raunchy nature it is in fact largely wholesome. In the film Rudy is not super comfortable with filming the set scene so he seeks advice and decides to subvert the writer and director and inject some ridiculous humor into the scene. He even goes out of his way to use the talents of his friends and uses his natural talents to make some really fortunate connections.

The film is all the best parts of Black Dynamite and Pootie Tang mixed with Bowfinger and it meshes so well. The music is really fantastic and does a great job of dropping the viewer into the 70's, complementing the detail heavy clothing, scenery, and mannerisms of everyone on screen.

Eddie Murphy is in great form here. Everything he does adds depth to Rudy Ray Moore, without being distracting. Craig Robinson is fun and perfectly tuned in with the tone of the movie. I like him a lot already, but a couple things he has done (Hot Tub Time Machine, This is the End) have been a little over the top. He is perfect here. Wesley Snipes is annoyed, perfectionistic, and petty, and it plays as an unbelievably fun take of an actor being given an opportunity he never wanted. Divine Joy Randolph is perfectly cast as well as "Queen Bee" Lady Reed. Keegan-Michael Key--you know what, I could name drop the whole cast in this thing. Seriously. Everyone was fantastic. Perfectly cast, and perfectly dialed in for every part.

On the technical side, beyond the music I mean, the writing was charming, funny, witty, and really played well into everyone's parts. One could argue it might have been a little typecast but it is more difficult to argue with results. Direction, editing, and all cinematography elements were great, in the sense that nothing felt wrong or distracting, or that they could have done better. That said, for the sake of transparency, I was really bought into this movie from the jump so if I am honest I wasn't really paying as much attention to those things as I normally would. That in and of itself might speak to the quality of this film.

To bring it home, "Dolomite is My Name" is an unbelievably fun, raunched out comedy that will never get its due, per usual for comedies. It also is incredibly wholesome for what it is. In spite of its R rating and some of the content. Long story (too late again, I know) made short, I definitely will be revisiting this film again, probably multiple times.

Final Verdict--A+. Sit down and watch this thing. Open your mind up and really enjoy it. This movie doesn't make it difficult. Then for more laughs and a good time, watch "Black Dynamite" and "Pootie Tang". Because reasons. Fool.

[docmurph12]

Ok review time!! Been a while, its good to be back. Im a little behind on requests so the first is going to be one from my wife, who I think chose this because she wants to simultaneously torture me and because she doesn't like it either and wants to confirm the quality (or lack thereof). At the least I know this movie split audiences, and I know the music, while.......well enough composed is painfully simple and bland to the point of being tropey. It will be interesting enough to see how they manage to Disney-ize the world's best known racist exploitative exhibitionist. If you wanna know I'll do 5 about Barnum at the end, for the sake of historical reference.

To start, Hugh Jackman is predictably fantastic vocally. I absolutely loved him in Les Miserables and he is definitely in voice here. The interesting thing I noticed is that the music is REALLY canned, but mostly its not a bad thing. It's just really obvious they did the music in ADR style recordings after or maybe even before the fact. It is REALLY clean and sometimes is just a touch jarring that the performer's movements don't seem to appear at all audibly. It is all very well mixed though, the sound effects are not at all distracting, but also not distractably absent (Thanks CATS for making that a thing I notice now).

The movie is very well shot, this early in the film the thing thats bugging me is that they have some great shots, but they never let anything sit. There are a lot of cuts. I am obviously a fan of long shots, but you have to let the shot sit for a second. Camera movement is not a bad thing, and it adds a little continuity and relation to your characters to your visual storytelling. Watch how David Fincher tends to use a camera. Looooong cuts that precisely follow character movements. Lots of this is his specific style but man it draws you in.

Interesting introduction to Zack Efron's character. He is an awful big actor (with what im understanding will be a big part) to have been introduced with nothing more than a throwaway line about a specific rich family that hasn't been mentioned at all prior to this. Kind of removes the stakes or any level of interest in who this person even is or why Barnum wants him involved at all.

I really liked the scene transition from the bar to the circus. Well shot, interesting visual trickery, nice use of long cut shots to establish where you are supposed to be, so that when it changes incrementally it is very visually stunning and exciting.

The bearded lady has a trash application. Im surprised that made it into a big budget tent pole film. My God is that thing bad.

The whole "This is Me" "Rise up" thing really is tragic considering the people who were basically used by Barnum never were anything to him but a money making venture. They were made celebrities under Barnum but arguably never made what they deserved with him, and after the fact were still ridiculed and shamed. In fact riots were started because of Barnum's "den of evil".

Man, Zack Efron slays with his voice but he totally just bounced Zendaya's head off the ground. Holy shit.

Interesting that the one thing negative they focus on with Barnum is his inability to focus his energy on his family and the trouble it got him into.

Oh hey that's Yahya Abdul-Mateen II. Strange that its not even a bit part that he got. He's awesome. Shame they didn't use his talent to better effect. I really enjoy watching his performances. I mean the awfully bearded lady got more of a speaking role than one of the most talented actors on the cast.

Nice that some of the performances later in the film appear to be recorded live. Hugh Jackman should really have gone whole hog in performing live for the whole film. He's really very good.

The choreography in this is remarkably complex. They had to have spent a crazy amount of time in rehearsals on this, especially on the pieces in smaller spaces.

Oh man the VFX of Tom Thumb riding the elephant was REALLY bad. I wasn't sure if it was just me when I saw it earlier in the movie when he was riding the horse, but nope. Just bad.

And of course the obligatory positive quote from the famous historical main character.

Alright so the final verdict. This wasn't the atrocious train wreck I thought it was going to be. That said, there were a lot of things that left me pretty disappointed. The devil truly is in the details and there were things that had me wondering how they got through the final approval door. Bad makeup/prosthetics, good audio mixes combined with jarring combinations of live and pre/post recorded music, inconsistency in the editing room in terms of length of shots for effect, oddly throwaway introductions of main characters, bad VFX and unused talent really leave one wanting more out of this. Now the really tragic thing here is that there might be a way better film here if they grimed it up and really went for the more accurate story of PT Barnum, a little closer to "There Will Be Blood", where the tale of narcissism driven obsession of exploitation and profit takes center stage. Folks please let it be known this is just a movie. PT Barnum was not a good person. He exploited people for profit, and continued to put people on display as freaks in spite of the negative attention it brought them. THE EXHIBITION WAS KNOWN COMMONLY AS A DEN OF EVIL FOR CHRIST'S SAKE AND ALL HE DID WAS LABEL THESE PEOPLE AS FREAKS AND PUT THEM ON DISPLAY. He was only a philanthropist in the sense that for him to be so, he needed to see a profit on the back end. If you really need to know how bad things were take a second and look up the name Joice Heth. You might thank me, you probably won't. That said, I truly feel this was a wasted opportunity to tell a well written cautionary tale. Lots of good in this version of the film, but not enough to overshadow some very strange oversights.

Final Verdict?

C-. I dont see myself revisiting this. So much left on the table.

Next up? Either The Platform or Circle (I think that is the name of it). REALLY looking forward to those ones.

[docmurph12]

Review Time!

Up for today is The Lobster, 2015. I know absolutely NOTHING about this film, outside of a very strange description that didnt tell me a lot. That and it is at least at first glances, a wholly original story put to film, because someone had something interesting to say. I am going to try to be as live as possible on this one again, but it doesn't appear to be that kind of movie. Here we go!

Ok, interesting set up, the movie is built around the premise that one has to be in a relationship. He is checking in to a hotel that only allows him to he there 45 days. There is a "Most Dangerous Game" vibe here, as they are talking about a hunt.

Aaaaaand there it is. 45 days without finding a partner and you get turned into an animal. Wierd.

Oh, John C. Reilly. Not a fan. But he was alright in Chicago, and fantastic in Wreck it Ralph, so let's see how this pans out.

This has a very prolonged speed dating feel. The pressure is clearly on for these folks, and they do a good job of setting up very real consequences for failure.

Alright, more on this "hunt". They seem to happen at random, and all the singles run through the woods and try to snipe out people who ran away from the hotel. Everyone carries a tranquilizer gun. Every "loner" you tranquilize gives you an extra day to find a partner.

So the movie is very obviously supposed to examine the nature of romantic relationships. It operates on the basis that a lot of common undserstandings, or in some cases misconceptions are the opposite in this world, but that the central core of your value as a person is based on whether or not you have a romantic partner.

Oh man, the darkness. And everyone is so awkward. Everyone is lying about their character so they end up with a partner. If it doesn't work out they are assigned a child for them to try to make it around. It is all so uncomfortable. Oh and if you are caught lying to get with a partner hotel management turns you into "the animal no one wants to become". Crazy.

Ok so this took an interesting turn. It is actually illegal in this world to be single. The loners are actually breaking the law.

Alright, wow. So the overriding feeling at the end here is that seeing people interact in the way they all did throughout the course of the movie was interesting. Everyone was so matter of fact and awkward with eachother. Even when the scene called for dramatic movement or dialogue, it was all very deadpan. I think that it very much added to the world immersion Yorgos Lanthimos (director) set up. The best possible way to get your audience to buy into your world is to set up the rules early and never ever break them. I think writing the dialogue the way it was written really helps to sell the concept; Not only do you not have purpose without a romantic partner, it is illegal to be alone, and you will be corporeally punished for it (and on the other side, even the law breakers have rules of their own and violation is corporeally punishable). There is an almost desperate nature to the awkwardness of each personal interaction, even the establishment pushes sexual tension without relief in the interest of getting you to land a partner, because your life depends on having one. Even the resolution is never fully realized because nobody has more than a cursory and scientific knowledge of human nature. Very very interesting.

Technically speaking, I don't believe there is much to speak of in terms of negative aspects. The performances following the rules above were very well put together and directed. The story is interesting, original, and does a good job of explaining the world without shoveling unneccesary exposition at you. The dialogue is good in spite of its deadpan nature. Good long camera work gives you interesting feelings of intimacy in some conversation, while it becomes fast paced and nervous in others. The score was mostly unsettling, I think to provide an additional feeling of nervous desperation in the face of almost-happiness (I can't say too much more without spoiling).

Final Verdict? First you always have me right away with an original story. You have to earn it, but I'm at least willing to tune in. Second, great execution overall, I am very happy I spent the time to sit and watch. I would have no qualms going and watching again, and I might just do it to bring the wife along. A+. Good work.

[docmurph12]

Ok review time. And remember, there is no war in Ba Sing Se.

My next request comes from my very good friend. The last time he and I sat down and tried to watch this was after we cleared through every episode of the animated series this movie was based on. We didnt get through ten minutes. So this was a fun, frustrating challenge. For those noticing, yes this is a retroactive review, instead of a "live" one. Reason for this is that as a fan it would be really difficult to be as objective as possible (given I already know this thing to be really bad) if I was distracted.

So what I know going in is that Shyamalan had a couple big flops and that he picked out this series to be his resurrection, thinking going the large scale epic route would be beneficial to his career. What happened was a ruthlessly infamous flop that resulted in nearly 6 years of silence, jokes, and memes prior to "Split" bringing Shyamalan back to relevance again.

First of all, this film could literally have been directed by anyone. Looking back at my review for Aladdin, I recall saying that I was shocked to find out it was directed by Guy Richey, because all of his hallmark signatures were missing. Same story here; The Last Airbender feels like a basic level cookie cutter epic filmmaking school project. Everything that makes a Shyamalan film is gone, which is crazy because the levity that makes ATLA (the acronym I'll use for the show going forward) is gone too. I have always said that as a director your job is to take what is written (which in this case was written by Shyamalan as well) and use your style to create a visual aspect that compliments the story told by the dialogue and events. Think of this writer/director relationship like one in comics between the writer and the artist. The artist is selected because stylistically he matches what is needed for the story. Great example of a good match is Sin City (picked because of loudness of its specific style). That story doesnt get told the same way or with the same impact with different color palettes, camera work, or actor direction. The Last Airbender is missing everything that gives a person a reason to select a specific director, especially one known for work in small scale supernatural thrillers.

The writing is.....super bad. There are a couple simple tools I like to use to identify if a film has scripting issues as opposed to anything else. First, is the dialogue done in a way that feels contextually natural? Do real people talk this way or is it written like shlockey, overly dramatic stage dialogue (think the Star Wars prequel trilogy)? Second, how easy is the story to follow? Are there gaping plot holes? Is it subtle with a good surprise? Does it hit you in the face with a story shovel with a handle made of heavy handed expositional dialogue?

Lastly, how hard are the actors trying to act around your script? Is it a good film where great performances outweigh poor to middling dialogue (Batman V Superman), or is it Bloodrayne? I've said enough on that, you get the point. That said, I am not sure the actors could have been saved by a better script. The cast was very poorly selected. Insensitive at worst (though I genuinely think the brown dude that insisted on the specific and coincidentally white folk he picked probably DIDN'T have a whitewashing agenda given what he said prior to release), out of touch with the source material at best, picking the virtual unknowns that he did really didnt pan out for him. The kid cast as Aang (pronounced AAng, goddamnit, not ONG, more on that later) got the role because he looks like the character, kind of, and only had a week of acting school worth of experience prior to filming the movie. Let's just say it definitely showed.

I am not sure TOTALLY crucifying the cast is entirely fair, so let's move the witch hunt to almost everything else. There is some good though, I promise so hang in there.

I really hope the editor got sent back to school. The purpose of editing is to make a cut that not only maintains but heightens interest in what you are watching. Cutting the fat in order to get to the point while not giving the movie away. Sometimes that means giving more than a 90 minute cut (which Shyamalan has taken at least partial responsibility for in this case) in order to preserve the story. There are scenes where the continuity from one cut to the next doesnt match up. Like consecutive cuts in one scene with massive distances traveled between cuts and even in at least one case a partial or complete costume change. It's extremely jarring. Something else about cuts--generally you cut to another angle or scene because the film requires you to in order to display more information that you wouldn't get in one single long cut. Usually a film has choppy cuts in it because the scene requires an character to do something the actor can't, or because the director or editor are bad at their job. The story, or sometimes in lucky cases just one scene, suffers as a result of bad or needless cuts. This is the case here. The strange thing is there are truly WONDERFUL long cuts of fight scenes that really suck you in, but the wierd juxtaposition between great non-editing and strange and bad editing really kicks you in the head. Enough on that. On to the next.

I did NOT see this movie in 3d. I understand that the conversion was really bad, but that said what I CAN speak to is the VFX. This film, with the exception of the lighting, was pretty well put together in terms of effects. There were really only a couple issues that were glaring in terms of VFX, but by and large it wasnt awful. There are definitely newer films that look worse. In standard. I dont know about 3d.

I think the thing that makes this film more frustrating than anything is that there are things about this movie I love. They are few and far between, but I really do love them. The intro was a really neat callback to the series intro to each episode. Then the movie happens. Then, the flying bison appears!! Then more movie. Then, a scene where Aang (not Awng) uses the glider in his staff. Then more movie. Then, all the practical martial arts, then, yet more movie. It's like this the entire way. Best comparison here? Green Lantern. It's like the Shyamalan said, "Hey, I like this and need a career boost.", then proceeded to cherry pick things from a beloved series and then ham and egged a movie with a confusing plot that absolutely requires you to be super familiar with the source material. There are a lot of assumptions made by characters in the movie that made sense given background provided by the show, but make absolutely none if you are going in blind. "Those are air bending tattoos, and I think he might be the avatar, despite he fact that I havent seen him bend anything and airbenders havent even been seen in over 100 years! Before my time!" Fucking come on. Throw the newcomers here a bone man.

The long story short here is I guess in spite of the casting decisions, editing, and direction, a good script could have made at least a fun movie. This movie should not have made it past script in the form we all saw it though, and it makes one wonder how much pressure was on everyone involved (almost all of it internally applied, Shyamalan did this project almost entirely on his own volition and cast a bunch of almost unknowns with the exception of maybe Cliff Curtis, so of course they said yes) to join in and take part in this without asking questions. Its upsetting to know the original showrunners were as ostracized as they were on this thing.

I dont see myself going back. Yes there were things that made me smile a little, but the film as a whole is so overwhelmingly bad in the face of those things it is just not worth it. I AM however going to go and rewatch the series with my wife and the kids for their first time, and maybe as a result of having to sit through this war crime of a film adaptation.

Final Verdict? I give it a D-. Purely out of respect for the very small handful of things I did appreciate. Next up?? The Lobster. Really looking forward to that one.

[docmurph12]

Ok so advisory warning on part 2 of my CATS review.

I know very little about stage production compared to my self study knowledge of filmmaking. I am reviewing, in this second part, a film. Of a stage show. So I am not sure how this is going to turn out, other than I'm going to get a good look at how this is supposed to be, instead of what was delivered. I am also hoping this filter helps me clean up my final verdict on the 2019 war crime that was CATS. Buckle in, here we go!

Ok right away, the music is 100% better. I'm not being beaten over the head with dated instrumentation, and this thing is almost 20 years older than the movie. Wtf guys.

I have to say I dig some of the humor in the opening song. Like having a shoe thrown at them and everyone singing out of key as they are singing about cats being angelic vocalists singing Strauss and Handel. Shits funny to me.

So I'm noticing that this is going to be pretty much un-doable without ballet. I don't know what I was expecting, but it wasn't this. That's not to say that is a bad thing, i just wasnt expecting it to be so dependent on it. As far as the performances are concerned, so far it is a spectacle.

I have to say I hate this Rum Tum Tugger piece. The dude is like Prince with bad timing and a weak falsetto. I hate to say it but Jason Derulo might actually have done a better job.

Ok I give up. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK with the Rumpus cat? Matter of fact, that goes for this whole thing. Seriously.

God I have so many questions about camera use here. How many cuts did they have to incorporate to account for all the moving pieces? Was this done over the course of a constant single performance? How many vocal parts got done in ADR? Did they recreate this when it was done in front of an audience?

Ok I have to say, that overlay effect was definitely done in post. Still pretty cool though.

We have officially COMPLETELY jumped the shark in the end of the third act. Fucking force lightning shooting ass Mr. Mistofoles.

There is a TON of repetition in the music. If I hear the words Jellicle, Mistofoles, cat, or deuteronomy one more damn time I'm going to.....lemme get back to you I still have 20 minutes.

Oh interesting, easter egg on set. The license plate of the car on set reads TSE-1. T.S. Eliot. Neat.

This is REALLY long winded. The last 10 minutes feel like 2020.

God-Kitty really nailed that last note. Fucking righteous.

Ok so I think I have what I need for a comparison and final verdict on the film. Here we go.

I don't know why anyone thought we needed this. In any forum. On any version of Earth. I will say that I can greater appreciate some of the performances and aspects of the movie more now. For example:

Rebel Wilson really took absolutely less than nothing and made it work out. She worked seemingly outside of her realm but nailed it, at least as much as one can in this arena.

Francesca Hayward's character was kind of a nice fleshing out of a character that previously existed. I like how she had a more central role in the film. She really was a dazzling performer in her own right. I just wish it wasnt obscured by the fur suit atrocity that made a wonderful ballet performance REALLY difficult to watch at times. For that matter Idris Elba's Macavity needed the additional material they gave him and I can...appreciate what he did with it. Just keep the goddamned trench coat and porkpie hat on.

Speaking of the story, I really hate the lack of a flow that both versions of the story had. The attempt to sew the vignettes together into a more understandable story didnt really work out as intended. To second that, I think to make this work you absolutely have to go one way or the other. This has to be either a stage production or a film. It cannot be both. If they focused on making a movie instead of some fucked up hybrid of stage and screen it might have come off better.

My final thoughts? Repetitive and poorly constructed music, dated poorly in context. Poor execution in storytelling, especially when you consider it adapted a series of vignettes adapted into a stage script into a screenplay (wrapping my head around that hurts). This wasnt anything anyone needed outside of the pages of a T.S. Eliot book. The performances were alright, but can't we piece together another more effective epic or comedy or literally anything? Or here's a crazy idea, maybe something original!!!!

Final Verdict- The 1998 stage show on film was watchable at parts but it's still fucking CATS. D.

The movie? Taylor Swift was out of place, quality actors had a small rep tarnishing, music was BAD and VFX was set back probably 5 years. And its Fucking CATS. No grade for CATS. If I had to give it a grade it would be incomplete. I'm going to go brain bleach with Jay and Silent Bob Reboot before I get into my next request (Avatar the Last Airbender, for those wondering. Yes that one.)

[docmurph12]

Ok. So two parter on CATS coming up. POSSIBLY a three parter depending on how long it takes to get through background. Here we go......

So my first request review comes from my good friend. I'm not sure how this is going to go, because I'm going whole hog on this one, again in the interest of pure objectivity.

My understanding of CATS is this. It was a Broadway musical based very loosely on T.S. Eliot's "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats". My friends in and fans of the theater community have told me there isnt really an intended overriding plot. The Wikipedia page I found begs to differ, but they insisted it really is just a collection of vignettes, told through the perspective of a cat. Simple enough? I believe so. Now, I also understand this stage musical to have been adapted a number of times, largely for Broadway and for specific actors and actresses, with the noted exception of the film CATS (2019). Yes that one. Yes I intend to watch it. On purpose. But wait there is more. The 2019 film was trashed nearly universally but everyone before they finished the trailer and after the film was released and viewed. Most people said the performances were fine but visually it was recieved as, to put it simply, fucking wierd. I saw one review that said it was released unfinished, with a CD character model floating into the middle of a scene out of context and with no animation, a mess with texture rendering (apparently Ian McKellan has a scene where his fur just doesn't show. Like the texture is flat. Like it looks like it was published on a floppy disk alongside the original Doom). Not to mention the myriad questions that seem to come up in conversation about the character design choices as a whole. Jesus, how bad is this thing??

My resources tell me a BUNCH of super important contextual things about this one, most important of them being that this is SUPER META Broadway at it's best. Like this is the most Broadway that has ever Broadway'ed. This could be a good thing (one of my favorite musical pieces is fucking everything from Les Miserables), or it could be a bad thing (anyone that knows me knows that with notable exceptions I am NOT a big fan of musicals AT ALL, which is strange for me given my proclivity for weirdness, good storytelling, and music). This is going to be fun for everyone I think so strap in folks. This is going to be a wierd ride through furry land with a guy that wants nothing to do with it, lol. (SCORE, looking like 2 parts)

First I'll be looking at CATS (2019), because I am a glutton for punishment, and my wife says that the best way to get through this is to chew through the shit sandwich first, and then to get through the good stuff, so the good stuff is what sticks. I'm not sure I am going to enjoy either part, but I am open to it so here we go. I'll try to keep my writing as live as possible, per usual.

RIGHT AWAY, as I'm completing the Amazon rental purchase, this cast is fucking loaded. Taylor Swift, Jennifer Hudson. Judi Dench, Jason Derulo (wait, he acts too? Maybe his part is the worst part in this, I hate his music worse than I dislike Taylor Swift), Idris Elba, Ian McKellan, Rebel Wilson, and more. And that doesnt even include any love for people I am not familiar with that might carry some star power over from Broadway. So this thing is loaded for bear with acting heavies. That said, I really don't understand the comic appeal of Rebel Wilson. I don't think she is funny. You already lost me with Taylor Swift and Jason Derulo. All that said, this cast roster looks expensive.

Ok I am a minute and 47 seconds in and my first thought already is what the hell am I listening to? If this was originally put together in the 80s, and its either loved (ironically I guess?)or reviled, why would you stick with the same musical choices as instrumentation is concerned? I'm guessing I am going to have more on this later.

So completely inconsequential to the actual review the word jellicle as it relates to cats is totally ruined thanks to my learning of a word not in may people's vocabularies. Farticles. Thanks to my cousins for that one.

Alright, so full disclosure. I am not a fan of Rebel Wilson. I enjoy aspects of characters she plays, and she can be funny at times, but when your whole act revolves around one aspect of you (in her case it is that she is a large woman. Seriously its like every joke in all 3 Pitch Perfect movies) it says a lot about your ability to tell a story or joke. That said, it is so nice to not hear Rebel Wilson tell fat jokes. She is genuinely talented. It's hard to watch her in this cat suit (? Cat body? Cat war crime? More later), but it's interesting to see someone explore another side of their craft.

The sound design is...off. I'm not sure how else to describe it. You can LOUDLY hear body parts hitting set pieces. Footfalls, people jumping and grabbing on things. Like seriously you can hear it over the music. It sounds like someone got lazy in the mixing room, or they were trying to make it feel more like a stage production. News Flash. It doesn't make it feel like a stage production. It makes it feel like nobody in the production staff cared as much as the actors. I am beginning to suspect that ALL the money on this movie was spent on casting. And concept art.

I am genuinely confused by the choice to have only a couple cats wear clothes, and when they remove them, their fur looks exactly like the clothes they removed. I'm finding myself looking at things they did that wasted money. Money that could have been spent anywhere else to improve this thing.

All things considered, I could watch Idris Elba play the title character in Jaws, and enjoy it.

I'm pretty impressed by the entire cast's commitment to everything they picked up from their movement coaching. It is obvious that they were trying to incorporate a lot of typical feline movement and habitual aspects, even going so far as utilizing ballet movements for some of the dancing (probably because it is more "feline", to use the word again.) Nobody has really slipped yet. It's pretty impressive.

I think the thing that has me most surprised throughout is that this thing has the ability to elevate some (Rebel Wilson, Jason Derulo, Francesca Hayward, Jennifer Hudson, the VFX artists) and drag others through the dirt, (Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, Idris Elba, the VFX artist team), most times in the same scene. It's crazy how on one hand someone truly can astound you with their performance, blow you away with a wonderful rendition of a song some people know well, and on the other hand you see wonderful, well established actors really putting their asses into a performance that has no way of doing them service because there isn't anything there. For comparison, look at Ben Kingsley in Ghandi, or Lucky Number Slevin, versus his performance in Bloodrayne. It's really hard to watch these respected thespians work their asses off for something that won't ultimately pay off for them because it doesn't have the capability to.

Ok so halfway verdict here:

This was a fucking mess. Now I didnt see the original theatrical release, so I have no idea how truly barrel bottom things got here. I CAN say, that I can see the bones of what this is supposed to be buried in the mess of cat shit (see what I did there????).

The concept of the costuming is essentially what I imagine it is for the stage show, but seeing it in it's execution is.....disturbing. The movement coaching was pretty solid and worked well with the dance choreography, but in combination with the actual character design there is an implied sexuality in the feline-ness that makes you uncomfortable, but not in the thought provoking way, just in the "forced to look at naked people covered in cat fur for an hour and a half" kind of way. Like I was even kind of into Idris Elba's performance of Macavity, until he took off the hat and trench coat and now I'm just watching a naked Idris, but with cat ears and a tail. To be honest seeing this throughout the film really took you out of the immersive aspects of it. Not to mention that while lighting was ok, the actual character models pasted on the motion capture actors moved strangely, sometimes the faces were disjointed with the heads, sometimes textures looked unfinished (not as bad as I thought it would be but I know people that could do better than that on their computers at home.) Just a jarring experience visually overall.

The score was ugly and dated too. Or maybe not the score, so much as the instrumentation. Sound design was atrocious throughout, it seemed like the intent was to make it feel more like a stage production, but if that's the case, why go the route they did in terms of set design and all that? Being able to hear hollow flooring under heavy footfall, or people loudly slamming hands into bars they need to grab to catch themselves, or the piss poor choice in instrumentation, the whole thing feels like B roll for the DVD extras. You know what actually did great in updating the music for a more immersive experience? Aladdin. Check my first review out for more on that one.

So halfway verdict? I say a rough D. I dont see myself going back for this one, but I'm not unable to see the appeal. I just am sort of anticipating the 1998 Broadway production (part 2 of this review) so I can see what this is really SUPPOSED to be. Watch for part 2, coming later!

[docmurph12]

Okeydoke, review time!! As promised it isn't a Disney movie. I am really going to have a lot of fun with this one for a couple of reasons.

One, as many of you know I DEFINITELY drink the DC Comics Kool-Aid. I really enjoy this stuff and while I am definitely able to see its flaws, I have really been into what DC has been attempting in terms of building a cinematic universe, and I absolutely love that DC comic people are getting to play along and have some input instead of it being clueless Warner Brothers head shed dweebs entirely running the show. Now, they do yank the reins a bit, WB is known for being reactionary instead of just going with the plan (looking at you, Marvel Studios) but they have been allowing a bit more freedom than usual and it shows for the most part (looking at you Justice League. Thanks a lot Whedon. Asshole.) The actors have really been into the roles they recieve in the DCEU too, and seem to be doing their research and even taking on leadership roles early in their film making careers (looking at you Margot. Keep doing your thing, I love you)

Two (whew already?), this is going to be a challenge BECAUSE I am a fanboy. I'm really going to try to do my best to be objective on this one and look at the whole picture the first time around.

Three, this one has been sort of polarizing. I am really excited to be taking this one on early in my reviewing "career". My understanding on this one going in is as follows: BOP (c'mon I'm not writing it out folks) was well recieved, critically. I understand it to be largely positively reviewed, with a few perfectionists and blowhards having their say (ugh). It did NOT, however take in the bucks, but it did make a small profit. There have been a few takes on this: One, marketing wasn't great. It took a long time for them to put anything out, and when they FINALLY did it was minimal and confusing. Folks also took issue with the title, saying it was too long. WB reacted (c'mon assholes stop it already you are only proving me right) by changing the title. I dont even remember what it was changed to it was that silly and irrelevant. Two, there MAY be some genre fatigue. Marvel just finished the largest and most expansive cinematic work of all time. This was released just after an unbelievable Joker movie. The only character known by folks not already in the know is Joker's sidekick (originally) and there may not be a Joker in this film, and who would it be anyways, Leto or Phoenix? Plus all anyone wants to talk about at the time was Wonder Woman 84, and confusing news about a reboot (or something?) Batman movie and the state of the MCU. Three, this one takes us from the one shot Joker right back to the universe that Whedon and the Warners potentially destroyed (thanks assholes) with a SUPER botched cut of Justice League.

Enough context, I can't wait anymore for this. (Goddamn finally I thought he would never shut up) On with the show!!

First and most obvious. I love Margot Robbie so much. She clearly has nothing but unconditional and complete love for her character. She has clearly done her research and has the absolute best time becoming Harley. I dont care much for the trash rat aesthetic though. That seems to be something David Ayer and his design staff came up with for Suicide Squad, and everyone REALLY bit into it and I REALLY dont like it. If I HAD to say there was a redeeming factor to it it is that it helps to physically illustrate Harley's fucking nutso disorganized mess of a brain. Other than design it actually seems like everyone did their research, and had a great time, and presented deep, complex characters with solid developmental points, even with the hop around style of storytelling, which in and of itself serves as a great method of telling this story, and surprisingly never leaves you lost.

Callback cliches abound in this one. They dont exactly telegraph it in the set up but man the last 30 minutes are FULL of callbacks to things dropped into earlier parts of the film.

For a film so full of LONG shots, some of the action sequences are awfully cutty. It's really distracting and takes away from the fact that these women did so many of their own stunts and fight scenes.

I loved that this film showed a Gotham that was truly dragged through the dirt. It is violent, pulls no punches and really carries the scenery Zach Snyder set up for this shit town in BVS (I'm not typing out BOP, do you really thing I'm writing that one out?)

I like the setups at the end and the connective tissue throughout to the rest of the DCEU. Well executed without drowning you in it and sacrificing the story. I am, however SUPER disappointed in the absence of a Barbara Gordon. I held out hope there might have been a connection in spite of there not being one in the aforementioned "marketing" but there wasn't anything. It was a good team origin story but I dont much care for a Birds of Prey with no mention of Oracle or Batgirl (if you know who I'm talking about you know why it is important).

Not much in the way of an original score. I dont think the story suffers for it though. A story told by post-Joker Harley Quinn isn't necessarily served by an original score. Distortions of things that are familiar to you are a perfect way of punctuating this one. I dig it.

Not much in the way of effects of this one. Pretty lo-fi as far as medium-big budget comic book flick goes. Well executed. I think the only thing that threw me was Sionis' mask. It is supposed to be made of ebony from his father's casket. It jiggles a LOT for something made of ebony. That said I dont remember that detail being made known so I guess it is forgivable, even if it does look sort of silly in the face (lol see what I did?) of being menacing.

Overall Verdict-- I genuinely dont see the OVERALL hate for DC Comics films. I understand the occasional fuck-up, but Marvel has had missteps too, and dont get this level of hate. This should not have been as polarizing as it was. It is a fun movie. It's not horribly made, in fact quite the opposite. It's an all girl team up a la Deadpool. There was enough for fanboys of the film's, of the comics, and it was good even for those not in the know (just ask my wife, she loved it). Fuck the haters, this is a good one. I could see not only me but my wife rewatching this one.

Final Grade--Solid B+. Give me ALL the long single cut fight scenes and this is an easy A.

[docmurph12]

Review time!! Yay quarantine!!

We are starting Frozen 2 and I am beginning to feel like I only do this for Disney flicks. I promise my next one will be for something NOT mouse related. Going in I am excited and anticipating something with an unconventional but worthwhile lesson. The first movie surprised the hell out of me when it was revealed that the hero wasn't the typical Prince Charming, but the protagonist's sister. It signalled a new direction for Disney that could easily have been part of this misguided "woke" ideal but has given us wonderful stories that highlight the importance of family and building solid relationships with siblings and yourself rather than seeking love externally. I dig it. Time to start the film!!

Ok so first things first: Its going to be difficult to critique this thing in design or animation. It's a Disney animated film so of course it is done to perfection. The one thing I will say is I am impressed on closer inspection how human the characters move and emote. I am choosing to not use the word realistic because we are talking about an animated film and I don't want to confuse people, even though I am going to use the term human as it relates to anthropomorphic characters. There are very minute subtleties in facial expression and physicality that add yet another level to very well done vocal performances.

I love Josh Gadd's Olaf. He comes off like a not so silent and accidental Silent Bob. I really liked the C3PO-esque retelling of the original Frozen. I am really enjoying most of the vocal performances overall, Sterling Brown was a wonderful surprise, in that his voice performance was believable, and he very clearly was giving a physical performance the animators could use because his character's animation was on freaking point. I am not totally enamored with Elsa though. Idina Menzel is....a talented enough vocalist, but her voice doesn't match her character's appearance. It didn't match in the first one and now that I have been doing my research it REALLY doesn't now. I am going to get crucified for this one, but that coupled with the fact that her singing voice is throaty and cartoonish and doesn't really match up at all with her speaking voice the way everyone else's does tells me that was a really bad casting choice, and this may not be the medium for her. I am one of few but that's my honest assessment.

I kind of love "Lost in the Woods". Its kind of out of place but it's a fun song with a subtle and well placed Queen reference. And to top it off I now see why Sarah compares me and Bruce to Kristoff and Sven.

The closing credits song by Panic! At The Disco proves my earlier point: Brendan Urie does a better Elsa than Idina Menzel. I now stand more firm in that.

Credits finding- Of course Alan Tudyk was several people in the film, and was completely unrecognizable. Hes the goddamned Gary Oldman of voice work. What an incredible talent. For Christ's sake go fucking watch Doom Patrol, he is so much fun to watch.

Final assessment--I really liked it. When I am thinking about how good a movie is or isn't, my first thought is always going to be "Will I watch this again?" To that I say this, Yes. I will undoubtedly watch this again, but probably not because of a choice I made to do so. BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, I really liked the Meatloaf-ness of most of the soundtrack. It was a fun departure from the typical Disney Broadway style of scoring a musical cartoon film. My only real gripe is I just don't like Idina Menzel and I am not sure if it is that I don't like her or if it is that I don't like her as Elsa. I probably would have cast Lea Michele instead but for all other parts of this movie, well executed. I will say I kind of like the fact that this is sort of difficult to interpret a "moral" and am kind of just looking at a good story that isn't meant to be interpreted. It is nice to have stories that don't need interpreting to have intrinsic value. LIFE ISN'T ENGLISH CLASS PEOPLE.

Final grade-- A surprising A-. I dont see myself putting up a HUGE fight if this is on against my will.

P.s. Olaf does another C3PO type regaling at the end of the credits and it's great. Wait till the end (the musical covers are pretty good) and enjoy!

[docmurph12]

Alright so the last review was a lot of fun, so I kind of want to do another one. I dont know who is even reading these but it's a blast watching these with a critical mind rather than a fanboy one and writing a semi professional review. I think I'm going to make a hobby of this. Anyways.

So this one I was actually a lot more hopeful for than I was for Aladdin. Maybe as a result I was....let down more than I was watching Aladdin. I am actually writing this after about the first 20 minutes of the film. I'm not going to post until I'm finished with it, but I dont see a lot changing here, and you will know why in a moment, so don't hold your breath for a rollercoaster review, because it's going to be about as flat as the film was.

So going in, I knew what I signed up for at least. Sarah was a little bitter, having to rewatch the first 15 minutes again. I'm going to say this is almost a SHOT for SHOT remake. I mean FRAME FOR FRIGGING FRAME, LINE FOR LINE. Even the timing is ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. Honestly I might be just as much to blame for this as the next guy. I wear nostalgia glasses loudly and proudly. Just take a look at my living room. But the further I got into this thing the more I found myself asking "Is this truly what I wanted?" A few points before I finish this thought, because I am definitely going to lose my train of thought between the baby and the continuing movie.

-This feels like Disney wanted to go shot for shot, and only partially committed. Shots were almost copied verbatim, could have been traced in some cases, but because they were going live action.....I dont know how else to explain it but if there were an uncanny valley for animated animals it undoubtedly lives here, in the "Pridelands".

-Unfortunately the voice casting suffers a bit here too. It certainly isnt helped by the...lifeless animation (yes I know live action animals dont generally emote, but for christ's sake all things considered it's the goddamned Lion King. Come on now), but the performances are largely flat and dull. Standouts in disappointment especially pointed at the death of Mufasa, large parts of James Earl Jones' performance (mostly just because you can hear the age in his voice, where in 1994 he sounds about where he should have been age wise. There is a youthfulness in his wisdom that literally is bringing tears to my eyes thinking of the strength of that performance, compared to this one), NOT Jeremy Irons, oh sorry, Chiwetel Ejifor, and the shameless insertion of Beyonce (sorry folks, she is the Kristen Stewart of voice acting, and clearly in it just for the money as opposed to actually adding anything to the craft).

-There should not have been so much freedom allowed with the musical performances. With a couple small exceptions, The vocal performances were stale. It kind of felt like the performances were a meal and SO much was eaten up by the original performers that there just wasn't much left for the usurpers, or that they just didnt know what the hell to do with it.

-All hate aside, this film is visually stunning. I sort of hated the animal performances, or lack thereof anyways, but it is still a beautifully realized film. My favorite scene visually is 1000% where Simba is speaking with the spirit of his father, and the lightning is rolling through the clouds, outlining parts that look like a lion's head, instead of outright just being fully visible. Fucking beautiful. (By the way, we just got through the final fight between Scar and Simba. I didnt know it was possible to trace a cartoon with a computer but they did it. W......T......F......of course it has to happen as I'm complimenting it.....)

-Seth Rogan and Billy Eichner were pretty charming. The only outstanding performances in the movie from top to bottom. That said, Donald Glover was pretty good too. Speaking of exceptional performances in the face of an overall poorly performed film, my OTHER favorite part of the film was the three of them singing The Lion Sleeps and running through the oasis. Holy shit that was charming.

-Sad and kind of disappointing was the fact that the VERY little original writing, or improv, or whatever the hell it was was really good. I loved the quipping between Timon and Pumbaa, and it was REALLY good when it went a little meta. The fart joke and the piece about "Be our guest" was immediately recognized as both reverent reference and irreverent ribbing and was appreciated by both me and Sarah. Sort of shines a disappointing eye on Jon Favreau. I loved what he was able to accomplish with The Jungle Book. I realize he probably didnt do a lot of the screenwriting on either film, but with producer credits comes criticism for laziness where high quality is expected. Cmon man, I love what you do. SO DO IT ALREADY.

-I largely think this film could have been helped on a few fronts with one improvement. OR possibly changing a way the movie was put together, that is, if what I THINK happened was what actually happened. Animated films originally gave you a at minimum believable performance by capturing the physical performance of the voice actor performing ADR, and giving a rough animation estimate of that performance, since movement and expression largely impact what comes out vocally. I am not 100% sure that isn't what happened, but it FEELS like it didnt happen. If animating aspects of physical performances isnt the route, I genuinely think that having a sort of facial motion capture coupled with ACTUAL emoting could have drastically improved performances. It's interesting to see what happens when you put primarily voice actors in front of a camera, or primarily screen/stage actors in front of an ADR microphone. You can truly see the depth (or sometimes lack of) of their abilities as actors. One of my absolute favorite voice actors is Bryan Cranston, for that very reason. Unbelievable performer, in every arena. One of my least favorites is FUCKING BEYONCE. Goddamn is she a one trick pony, if that trick was simply existing. Truly a MASTER OF THAT CRAFT. That said, its 2019 (at that point), if we can give Andy Serkis EVERY tool to be successful, Disney should be able to put out a LITTLE Disney money to allow their actors to, you know, act.

Long (looooooooooooooooong) story made super short is The Lion King (2019) is more of the same, and symptomatic of a problem we created for ourselves: Shameless money grabs at nostalgia. Disney miscued like crazy at remaking a thing I didn't realize until only now how precious it was to me as a kid. Couple that with the fact that they have done SIGNIFICANTLY better doing the same thing but doing a different take, with a different, more modern and possibly more poignant message (I'm looking DIRECTLY at you, Maleficent). Honestly, as much as it KILLS the kid in me to say it, leave the sacred cows alone. Sometimes a good thing just needs to be left to be admired. Nobody ever thought they needed to improve on, say, Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, or Ridley Scott's Blade Runner with a sequel or a remake. Wait. Shit. I mean Lewis Carroll's Alice in WonderlandGODDAMNIT. I QUIT.

Verdict--4/10. Seriously please make it stop at Mulan. I really want to see that one, see it not suck, and see it STOP. And for the love of god PLEASE DONT CAST BEYONCE IN IT.

[docmurph12]

So review time.

First, for a Guy Ritchie film I'm a LITTLE disappointed in that it felt NOTHING like a Guy Ritchie film. When I look into watching a movie for a director I'm looking for that director's style in story telling. I LOVE Chris Nolan because of the scale and surprise supernatural element buried in a grounded world. I watch Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino for dialogue heavy plots that make me think, and sometimes laugh my ass off. I watch Guy Ritchie for grimy street dramas with no punches pulled and an accidental Ocean's Eleven style plot. This felt like Guy Ritchie was there in name only, and that Disney wanted to produce an A level ALMOST Bollywood style D film without a whole lot of input from Guy Ritchie himself.

Overall it was fun to watch, the wife and I went into it a little skeptical but came out of it pleasantly surprised. It was not without its problems, some glaring, but nothing game breaking where the movie overall was concerned. For example....

-The new songs had an...uncomfortably modern feel to them in a film that stubbornly stuck to almost the entire gamut of songs and dialogue from the original 1992 animated picture.

-There were serious problems with some of the CG animation, especially with a film with so much attention and money poured into it, and ESPECIALLY after the trailer with the same CG footage was torn apart. Color and lighting consistency issues, texturing, uncanny valley type stuff. If you dont know what the uncanny valley is, look it up, really interesting stuff.

-Some SUPER uncomfortable moments written into the script and it's not very clear if it was intentional or just badly written. Again kind of disappointed based on the fact that the director is known for clever, if limited at times, dialogue in his movies.

Some good stuff

-Performances were surprisingly good in spite of the sometimes iffy script. I had some shit to say about Will Smith based on the trailer but I was really impressed with him in the actual film, especially in scenes where he had to balance his Robin Williams-ness with some not so happy feelings. All around great job by the cast. Except the dude playing Jafar, for all the scenes up to the last one. He was better in the last scene.

-Renditions of the original music brought forward from the 1992 animated film were well arranged and performed. The vocals all around were good, and even Will Smith was decent even though his lack of vibrato was offputting.

Overall, I can see where folks had problems but there is such a thing as shades of grey. Not everything is ratable the way Netflix wants you to, with a thumbs up or a thumbs down. It is entirely possible to have a solid B or C grade on a film. Let's stop crucifying things because they arent perfect movies.

Final Grade- 65. Alright. Watchable. Not awful. Watching the original right after and not feeling worse about the new one. Probably not going out of my way to watch again though.