jojos-bizarre-reviews

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

REVIEW - andy tennant’s fools rush in

✰✰✰ - Fools Rush In (1997)

After being sick for the past week, I found great reprieve in Fools Rush In (1997). Centered around Salma Hayek’s Isabel Fuentes and Matthew Perry’s Alex Whitman, this rom-com tackles themes of fate, love, and the intricacies of melding families. The couple have a one-night stand, resulting in a surprise three months later when Isabel is pregnant. This brings the two together as they quickly get married (via a Vega chapel wedding witnessed by Elvis) and start their life as newlyweds. Quickly, the pair realizes that it’s hard to create a life together so quickly. With familial expectations and career goals breathing down their necks, Isabel and Alex struggle to make things work between them, ultimately choosing to remain together and raise their child. What sticks out about Fools Rush In is how much hope the film possesses. Romantic comedies normally provide hope, but Fools Rush In sticks with you long after the film ends. 

When watching the movie, my step sister looked over to me and noted that it feels like the Say Anything of the 90s, and I couldn’t agree more. Not only do the two have an overarching message of hope and faith in the capacity for humans to love, they are fun films with still a wholesome edge that makes the characters lovable and worth rooting for. While Hayek and Perry’s acting chops are not necessarily the best out there, their chemistry makes their sometimes laughable acting bearable and, for the most part, enjoyable. The two have such warmth together on-screen. It carries through the film, seeping into even the scenes where they’re arguing. Alex and Isabel appear like a real couple, making the audience thirst for their success as a pair. The movie doesn’t shy away from the complications of their relationship either, which is what makes them all the more believable as a couple. They have, at times, opposing goals. Yet, they believe in making things work between them. They compromise, giving up some things for their mutual happiness. Isabel and Alex are a beautiful couple to see on screen, especially because their toxic moments are checked and their loving moments are celebrated. Overall, they are one of the best rom-com couples I have seen to date.

However, if there is one thing I could critique the movie for, besides the tricky treatment of Isabel’s culture and the production value, it is the theme of fate. Fools Rush In puts Alex and Isabel at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of spirituality. In the beginning, they have a discussion about fate as Alex meets her at a payphone in a restaurant where she’s talking to her friend on how to break up with her boyfriend. He comments that it's a bit much to break up with someone over a set of “signs,” as Isabel calls them. She contests this, saying that there are signs everywhere. He disagrees, and the two are ultimately intrigued by the other’s lack of agreement. This comes back at the end, as Alex makes the decision to return to Nevada and be with Isabel. In New York, he sees three different “signs” that all serve to remind him of Isabel, resulting in him hopping on a plane to find her. I have no problems with fate; as a beginner practitioner of paganism, I am not one to scoff at the idea that there is a higher power. In fact, Isabel’s belief in fate stems from her strong religious roots. It is more so that the two conclude that their relationship is a product of fate, not a mutual love and respect for the other. It takes what was a cheesy, sweet romantic comedy from the realm of realism to unbelievability. Still, this might just be a personal issue. If you prefer your rom-coms to stay in fantasy world, this won’t be the worst thing about the film. If you’re like me and you like believability to your romantic comedies, you might find this an irksome point. Overall, though, I wouldn’t discount Fools Rush In because it has a few silly moments. As a fun flick about the drama and work that goes into a relationship born from a shot-gun wedding, Fools Rush In is perfect for all your romantic comedy needs!

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

Kajillionaire, 2020

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

Promising Young Woman (2020)

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

Before Trilogy

• Before Sunrise

• Before Sunset

• Before Midnight

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

The Birdcage (1996), dir. Mike Nichols

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

The Mitchells Vs. The Machines - 2021

Danny McBride, Maya Rudolph, Eric Andre, Abbi Jacobson, Michael Rianda, Olivia Coleman, Fred Armisen, Beck Bennett, Chrissy Teigen, John Legend, Charlyne Yi

Review: Netflix knocked this out of the park. The plot is original, and fun. It shows the struggles of a family, and what you have to sacrifice, but also what you earn when you put your family first.

The characters are amazing, and show great development over the course of the movie, the two biggest developments being in the daughter and father of the movie.

The animation style was awesome, it was a lot like Into The Spiderverse, which isn’t surprising because it was the same team. I loved all the doodles and drawings that popped up in some scenes, and made the movie feel a lot more personal to the main characters.

The humor was great, and very family friendly. I laughed very hard, one of my favorite scenes being when the mom goes crazy on the robots and just fucking wrecks all of them. They also do a good job with that token cute animal character, but not overdoing it to the point where it becomes annoying.

The Furby scene was something out of my nightmares, but was still hilarious and extremely well done.

I like that we are getting into a generation of movies that take a regular, cliche plot line and can still make something so original with it.

I laughed, I cried, I laughed while I cried, and now I have an overwhelming urge to go out and buy my cat a tuxedo.

8.7/10

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

REVIEW - janicza bravo’s zola

✰✰1/2 - Zola (2020)

TW - mentions of sexual assault and trafficking

In such a wild odyssey, you would think that Zola (2020) would live up to the string of Tweets that inspired its creation. Yet, it failed this criteria, despite being one of the most edge-of-your-seat movies I’ve ever experienced. Following Zola, a stripper and waitress, we get to experience Detroit’s expanse and the views of Tampa, Florida in an hour and thirty minutes. Upon meeting Stefani, a fellow stripper, Zola travels from her hometown to Florida to make some quick cash with Stefani, her ‘roommate,’ and her boyfriend. It’s quickly apparent that Zola has run into an eye-catching and outlandish set of characters as X, Stefani’s roommate, turns evil and her boyfriend, Derrek, is simply a bumbling puppy dog nipping at Stefani’s heels. Yet, the situation turns dark as Zola is forced into sex work, revealing Stefani to be a victim of human trafficking. 

On this premise alone, the film catches one’s eye. To its credit, Zola was certainly enjoyed on its merit alone, hence its two and a half star rating. If you can turn off your brain for 90 minutes, then I highly recommend this movie. However, I warn every weary traveler who happens to cross paths with this film! The entertainment value, while high, comes from the lack of pure direction, making this film frustrating to any viewer who sought more than a neon dreamscape. With such dark and twisted source material, the tone changes are incredibly difficult to look past, even if you’re lured in by the colors and pretty women.

For some viewers, the flaws might not even be noticeable, depending on the type of viewer you are. Tone is meant to evolve throughout a film, and for some, these changes seem to be evolutionary and unworthy of attention. Yet, Zola (2020) is handled so clumsily that the constant mix of comedy with what would otherwise be disturbing scenes makes one want to throw up. Personally, I had to leave in the middle of the film to take a break, stopping by the bathroom to seriously consider purging the mini Starbursts I had been snacking on. Perhaps this was simply a personal issue, though after talking to my fellow movie-goers, you will either not see an issue with the presentation of sex and exploitation or you will. Unfortunately, if you do see a problem with it, prepare yourself for the disgust to fill your stomach as the people around you laugh through moments that, in the real world, would be some of the most traumatic moments of a person’s life. 

For a movie about sex workers, it makes sense that sexual content needed to be discussed or alluded to. To its credit, Zola handles the sex scenes with a certain care to the artistry, style, and cinematography. However, it's incredibly disturbing and confusing to watch these scenes with jokes peppered throughout. Stefani, who is the sex worker most commonly forced to have sex with these men, is sometimes played for jokes, or her situation is infantilized. For example, in the first scene where we see Stefani work, we see the various, very white, very ugly men she has sex with. While it's comedic, it's disheartening to watch anyone, even someone as laughable as Stefani, be forced into sex work. As a victim of trafficking, Stefani is an interesting character, and I contribute the manner that the film handles her character to a large portion of the confusing messages. She's funny, a dumb blonde type, who is meant to be a caricature of the type of white woman who appropriates black culture and slang. Yet, she's the one being put into these settings, she's the one being trafficked, and she's a victim. She put Zola into this position, too, but even that can be understood once we see how her 'roommate' treats her. While Stefani is portrayed well by Riley Keough, I fail to see how her character adds to the attempted themes of the film. The same goes for the portrayal of many of the characters, especially Colman Domingo's X. He's the main antagonist, yet so much of what he says is so outlandish it made my fellow audience members laugh. Beyond this, I don't quite know what to make of him. Why is he played for laughs, donning a seemingly ridiculous accent (though questionably ethnic, adding to even more confusion when he only uses it as an intimidation tactic) and an over-the-top colored contact for one eye, when he's the villain? It's obvious that Stefani is in a dangerous situation, so why shouldn't we, the audience, be afraid of him? Why is he a laughable antagonizing force of the evils of trafficking and pimp-hood? These characters lack the focus and pointed treatment that would give them certifiable interpretations. Yes, death of the author and meaning is in the eye of the beholder. However, a great film still has a thesis, even if it's buried underneath satire and technicolor. Camp is no excuse for a lack of center and focus (If you want mindless camp, watch Rocky Horror. No one gets raped in it). Like a fifth grade essay, Zola (2020) lacked a thesis, despite having plenty of source material to make one. 

Zola (2020)'s greatest downfall is its lack of thematic focus. It attempts to do so many things, especially through its main method of camp and satire. It could've been a perfect concoction for an epic tale about the perils of sex work and the state of the industry for women, who made objects and sold without any autonomy. In the 21st century, we are overdue for a film that does more than portray the power imbalances and dangers to American sex work. At a certain point, we have to demand more than the depiction of trauma and request to see the implications and resolutions to trauma. Call me unfair, but I expected more of Zola. What could have been a revolutionary film became a confusing, yet wild romp that lacked an ending. View at your own risk!

[jojos-bizarre-reviews]

REVIEW: bo burnham’s inside

✰✰✰✰✰ - Inside (2021)

In middle school, I met my current best friend. He’s the one who introduced me to Bo Burnham, who at the time was an Internet celebrity of sorts, but I listened to everything available to me. To a middle school kid who, surprisingly, didn’t have a Tumblr account, he was revolutionary. Bo Burnham was the reason why my best friend and I became close. Perhaps that’s a lot to put on a thirty year-old man, but it seems Burnham puts a lot on himself anyways. Despite how special he made me feel, he’s made countless others feel special as they understood his thinly veiled commentary disguised as jokes. Inside is no exception, except now people have stopped laughing. They’re listening. Isn’t that beautiful? 

After consuming Inside like a hungry disciple, I took to the Internet. What were the enlightened adults saying about this piece of art? To my surprise, they mostly focused on the way Burnham’s piece reflects the pandemic and his desire to maintain an identity during this hellish year. This is all worthy of discussion, but I couldn’t help but see that the growth Burnham shows is not from the pandemic, but instead from the weird place that Burnham sits culturally. He is a traditional entertainer: countless comedy specials, guest-starring TV roles, a directorial debut, and a major role in a Best Picture-winning production. Yet, there are the lesser known productions, such as his initial postings on YouTube or that one famous Vine. Besides this, many of his other more professional roles, like Zach Stone Is Gonna Be Famous or Words, Words, Words are easier to find on the Internet than traditional television. Burnham has been terminally on the Internet for years, and what many people older than thirty-five fail to see is that Inside is the first widely-consumed piece of raw material made by someone who found Internet popularity. Many of the sketches are about or related to the Internet. Many people might write off a lot of Burnham’s jokes as critiquing over-use of the Internet, but really he is commenting on the way that everyone, including him, has fallen prey to the way that the Internet over-saturates us with information, self-importance, and self-awareness.

What makes Inside such a revolutionary and raw piece of art, not just comedy or theater, is the way that Burnham reflects on his work. The song “Comedy” displays this perfectly as he not only references the famous “#deep” piece where he mocks Kanye’s ideas of self-importance (something that I’m sure many people picked up on immediately), but also the viral performance of “Art Is Dead” he did in The Green Room. It’s not a coincidence that this is a time where Burnham is expressing his hard opinions on celebrity and visibly upset. In the performance of “Art Is Dead” shows people laughing at him after being asked the song because he’s known for talking about serious subjects under a veil of irony. Even the comedians who brought up this facet of his comedy laugh, enjoying the song for its comedic value. While this moment seems small in the grand scheme of the complexities of Inside, the reference to these two moments of his career show the depth to which Inside is influenced by his past and his present. He calls himself problematic, satirizing the fact that he’s a white guy who feels compelled to say something about things he has no right to speak about. He’s a comedian who believes he can change the world by making the world laugh, but by referencing such a poignant moment where it’s obvious no one’s listening when they’re laughing, he shows awareness to the fact that comedy isn’t going to change the world. 

Burnham asks if he should be joking at a time like this, but he acknowledges there’s nothing else he can particularly do. His references towards Internet culture, particularly YouTube and other content creation websites, show that the Internet is not a place for him. “Welcome to the Internet” discusses the over-saturation of random content on the web, making it a place for “everything all of the time.” The change he seeks, that many people including myself seeks, is not to be found on the Web. It’s shallow, providing information about everything, but perpetually contradicting itself and its opinions. Yet, his only way into the popular consciousness is through comedy and telling jokes through song. Inside is Bo Burnham asking the questions: if I sing, will you laugh or listen? Better yet, should it even be me who does the singing? 

As a self-aware white man, Burnham comments that perhaps he shouldn’t be the one to speak on greater cultural and political issues. Yet, he has the audience. The biblical imagery of the special shows that he is well aware of his pull over the various crowds he attracts, such as the perpetually online and the ones who enjoy classic comedy (ha-ha-ha). In “Problematic,” he shows himself being hung on the cross while also being a sex symbol, displaying himself working out and closeups of his body. It’s shot like a music video, undoubtedly mimcing popular music videos, but besides that, he shows himself as a consumable, yet powerful and practically immortal, figure. I don’t want to propose that Burnham sees himself as a god, but he understands himself as being a preacher in some regard, as a cultural creator. This is a theme throughout his works, with “Can’t Handle This” being a fantastic example of this. Burnham was only twenty-five at the time, but he still knew his place then, saying “I should probably just shut up and do my job” after talking about how he wants to do more than give people “the night out [they] deserve.” In the production of this song, he also utilizes biblical imagery, emphasizing that at twenty-five and thirty, Burnham feels the same: prophet-like, yet lacking in the gumption to say what needs to be said. Except, I’d like to think that Inside has the raw passion apparent behind it to give it the needed edge to finally get people to shut up and listen. 

Inside is Bo Burnham finally giving the audience something a little more close to Robert (who’s “been a little depressed”). He is finally telling us how he feels, laying himself down for the criticism he’s aware he deserves. Though, this is just one facet to the magnum opus that is Inside. I merely wanted to muse on the significance the film has in his greater career growth. 

As a former middle schooler who cried while watching “Can’t Handle This” as Burnham broke down, the anxiety taking him over as he bared his soul, I cried again as a high school graduate watching the same man with declining mental health stop trying to give us what he can’t give himself. He gave us himself, his thoughts, and for that, I’m happy Inside was made.