Tagged: Movies

I’m Terrified of Top Gun 3 and Heat 2

For the record, while my feeds are abuzz with Heat 2 casting news and resultant excitement, I am terrified. The reason I am terrified is that nothing in Heat says “sequel”. And the entire point of Heat is to capture at the premier level the modern “Cops and Robbers” game.

The world has changed and while a new “cops and robbers” game is surely possible, it cannot have any ties to a previous game. Like, “Nerd alert! Johnny Law here wants to use the rules from last game!” Also, Mann used the whole “bank’s money” line from Heat in Public Enemies already. A third delivery will make him truly a contender for “one trick pony”. Add to this that Blackhat and Ferrari, while adored by yours truly—especially Blackhat—were panned or ignored by general audiences. This means the train has left the station. Michael Mann’s star (he is my favorite direct and it does not pain me to say this) has fallen.

The path Mann should now follow is to become a film critic who harshly condemns every attempt at film (most are terrible these days) until he irritates the right director into producing something great and classic.

Re: TG3, I cannot say I have ever finished a movie thinking “I cannot wait for the sequel” more than Top Gun. Similarly, I cannot say that anyone I ever heard talk about TG:Maverick after the credits rolled said, “I cannot wait for the sequel.” The entire success of Maverick was “satisfaction of audience’s hyper-specific needs.” There is no chance of accomplishing the same feat again as our needs are met. We are fat and happy. As Papa once told me, the Ghanans, upon completion of a feast, lovingly rub their bellies and ponder, “Why did I get married?”

To both movies, I say, “No, no, no. Thank you but no thank you. Please take it away. I am full.”

“Low IQ”, Review of “House of Dynamite, by ZDT Chick

Who can forget Hurt Locker? And I have commented elsewhere that Zero Dark Thirty is genuinely remarkable. It’s not a secret that I generally despise movies made by streamers, but for these two portfolio-ck reasons, I held out hope that House of Dynamite would be excellent.

To be sure, it passes the time. That’s the main requirement I have for movies these days. And it succeeds in passing the time divertingly. I’m actually surprised how late it got without me noticing.

But in the time that passed between when the project started to the time it was released, we have seen a tremendous shift in the decisiveness of American leadership at the top. So the whole movie feels less than excellent.

There is a fairly viral video of candidate Trump, and his team at the time, watching the DNC Harris speech together, wherein we got to see an intimate portrait of these people at work. If you haven’t watched it, here’s a link to one dude’s clip of it.

The overall point is, politics aside, the man running the show is decisive. Sure, TACO is a real criticism on some level, but it’s difficult to measure because it is reasonable that many TACO events are only TACO-narrative-feeders if the timeline is the incorrect length. Not to mention, TACO is more about matching talk to walk, not walk as opposed to stay still. Or “paralysis by analysis” as some pilots would say.

For this movie review’s point, which is inescapably a review of the concept of reacting to a nuclear attack on America, President Trump and his team—again, regardless of the politics—will be decisive and with a speed that impresses even “high functioning” people. This belief was actually comforting during the film.

In short, while Bigelow’s movie intends on illustrating that Earth truly is a house of dynamite—the description is not merely a metaphor—it fails. This is because the leaders—metaphorical fathers?—in the film are portrayed as “indecisive and low IQ”. (Except the interrogator guy from ZDT. He gets my vote for who should be in charge.)

Put another way, could someone please make a movie based on the exact same scenario, but show how it would play out when decisive leaders are in charge? That version would be far more interesting to see. And it would naturally offer an actual answer to the still-compelling question, “Do we live in a house of dynamite?”

Rapid Fire Movie Reviews, The Order, 65, 28 Weeks Later

The Order with Jude Law, on Hulu, is pretty fantastic. But turn it off before you start seeing the black screen “wrap up facts”. Trust me.

65, with the new Star Wars bad guy, is not about only him on a violent planet. I hate when they mess up the previews. I’m talking from the opening scene you‘re struck by the fact that the movie is not what the previews made it out to be. On the whole, the very idea of people marooned on killer, dinosaur infested planet Earth while the dinosaur-killing asteroid is visibly on its way is kinda a cool story. Add in some language barrier stuff and other family interest moments and it really isn’t a bad sci-fi flick. Just very poorly marketed.

28 Weeks Later is old, but it is still fantastic. The best part—and now I am really looking forward to the newest one—is the speed which the virus infects the new zombie. It is nearly instantaneous. This got me thinking though.

Is the novel speed concept an analogy for the times we live in? I’m not saying the writers intentionally meant to make an analogy. I mean more like in the sense that it was inescapable. Like how 80s movies had muscular military men instead of breathy and broken women saving the day.

I am talking about politics and education.

We seem to be living in a time when everyone makes up their mind instantly, and then attacks incessantly. And no one ever changes their mind.

TDS strikes and BOOM! You won’t talk to your parents.

MAGA hits and BAM! No more chatting with your brother.

Follow me?

Compare this rage virus zombie tale to, say, any movie which portrays leprosy, or other old and slow moving diseases and what is the difference? The time period. No rapid rage virus zombie conversions in the dark ages or period pieces. And no slow leper death scenes in air conditioned rooms with laptops and Twinkies.

Just something for your consideration as the winter and family meals approach.

In the end, there are three lessons to be learned from these movies.

Number 1. Do not read The Turner Diaries.

Number 2. Do not become a pilot if the reason you are doing so is to save your daughter’s life.

Number 3. Do not make out with your long lost wife whom you thought you saw die from a zombie attack—at least not until the military doctors clear her.

Super?man, A Review of Superman by James Gunn

[SPOILERS] Shortly before the final action sequence, I had the thought, “Well, I can tell my folks that they don’t need to see this.” I think this thought came through because I had previously sent them the trailer, accompanied by some of my excitement and the thought that someone had made a superhero movie which they could enjoy in the classic sense.

My question-mark-bedecked title is not questioning whether the movie is in fact a Superman movie, but mean to indicate my questioning why Mr. Gunn thought it would be a good idea to make Superman hated and weak for so much of the movie.

I liked the “Superman lost his first fight” opening. Plenty of places to take that etc. But shortly thereafter, and for most of the rest of the movie, Superman lost and was weak and hated by mankind. It lasted for far too much of the run time. I wanted to see Superman, not not-Superman. Get me?

I want really difficult achievements being accomplished with ease. I want some seemingly morally challenging situations resolved by doing the obviously right thing. I want some scenes where he is completely absorbed in fighting one bad guy who wants to hurt general earthlings and then another bad guy appears out of nowhere holding Lois or Martha or John (Jimmy and Perry are also available), and Superman triumphs over both bad guys all while saving all strangers and friends/family alike by a tremendous act of sheer will, that again, confirms what we all already knew was the absolutely right decision.

For me, Superman’s actual unique power is his inhuman consistency in doing (all) the right thing(s) in the ethical dilemmas mankind’s best minds have developed to date. I know that this isn’t always the case in the comics. But I also know that you agree with me.

And the simple fact is this movie, while drawing out some unforeseen and difficult to achieve emotional responses from me (it was touching), did not inspire me, did not give me hope.

So, Mom and Dad, you’re better off with whatever memory you have of Superman—which is sad.

To end on a positive note, Kansas and the Kansans were great. The actor cast as the dad is one of my favorites, though I only really know him from The Legend of 1900. But that is enough for me and now with this and that, I am especially a fan.

A “Perfect 10” Day

There’s scene in the infamous Nick Cage film “Con Air” where a someone reads a letter from his kid which includes childlike exuberance at all the synchronicity that is unfolding. Something like, “Today is my birthday. Today is my dad’s birthday. Today is the day my dad gets out of jail. Etc etc.”

Heartwarming stuff.

Today, I feel exactly like that kid. It’s going to be a great day!

This is due to the fact that I am about to finish the last 70 odd pages of the 10th Volume of the 10 Volume Gateway to the Great Books series! And today’s date is the 13th, which is 3 plus…10! And right now we’re in the…10th hour of the day! And the authors of the day all once were 10 years old!

On The Highly Placed Women Of Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning

The only criticism I dared mention to my group after the movie (it was midnight and we were tired) was, “I think they went a bit overboard on the ‘women as leaders’ part. I mean the President, the aircraft carrier boss, the president’s close friend/cabinet member, both Osprey pilots, and even a Navy SEAL with the biceps of a 15 year old boy. It was a bit much.”

For this blog, forget the twin aspects of whether women should be in those roles and whether women ever would be in all those roles together. Instead, consider the following.

Before AI, Hollywood didn’t make movies with that many women in leadership roles.

In other words, the rise of Hollywood’s portrayal and seeming belief that it is important and necessary to portray women in leadership roles if we want women to actually be accepted as leaders across the board, but especially in areas that are traditionally male dominated, has come about at precisely the same time that AI is “taking over”.

Coincidence?

Irrelevant?

Boring to consider?

Or maybe there is fruit in the consideration of just how this pairing happened and its meaning—especially if men invented AI.

Just thoughts.

“Bare All” vs. “For All”, A Joint Review of The Return by Uberto Pasolini and Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning by Christopher McQuarrie

I have always longed to be absolutely open-minded when it came to art. At an early age I was aware there were art critics who could find and explain beauty and power and relevance in art that I generally found unappealing. “What do they see?” was my question. This was followed closely by, “Will I ever see it?”

Ralph Fiennes has a full frontal nude shot in Mr. Pasolini’s telling of “The Odyssey.” I really want to understand why. My guess and how I understood it was it provides fodder for reviews like this one. He gave me the line, “Like Ralph Fiennes’ bold nude scene, Pasolini’s film presents Homer’s epic as nakedly as ever. It’s a ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ retelling.”

Then I would add, “Unfortunately, whatever he was aiming for, it hits more like a Cliff’s Notes summary of the definitive epic than a masterful adaptation. The poem is more than the naked delivery of facts because beauty, power, and relevance demand more.”

Tom Cruise, on the other hand—while still baring much epidermis—does not bare all in Mr. McQuarrie’s latest and final(?) Mission Impossible installment. Why not? There are probably many reasons. Surely near the top is his desire to make a movie which will entertain every living human on Planet Earth, now and forevermore.

We all already knew China was important to him (ref: Taiwan flag removal on leather jacket in TG2). He released this one in Tokyo, I gather. So there’s that. But we’d be fooling ourselves if we thought only in terms of round eye and slant eye. He wants all of us.

For me, there is a blandness that necessarily accompanies this approach to universal art. It is best captured by how jokes, to be funny, must remain particular. “A priest, a nun, and a monk walk into a bar” works. “One religious man, one religious woman, another variation of a religious man walk into a workspace” does not work.

So when art is made, for me, the same applies. There is a requirement for creating something that ensures there is some level of audience guaranteed to understand it, but if you worry too much about this and try to be certain that everyone will understand and not be offended etc, then you lose the point.

To this I will add and conclude that what TC and McQ made is beyond this attempt at universality. They aimed so high and are such capable men that they achieved something truly remarkable. I mean that I believe they fulfilled their goal. It’s not a perfect movie. But it is a movie that every living human being on Planet Earth will enjoy, now and forevermore.

“Decide”, A Review of Mothers’ Instinct by Benoit Delhomme

If you’ve somehow hesitated on this one, rest assured that it is worth watching. It isn’t perfect. But compared to all the other trash that is being proffered as “movies” these days, it is a return to the classic definition. (You don’t even want to know what my co-workers were about to watch when I came to the rescue.)

The tone was perfectly subdued, precisely unpronounced. No one holds your hand and points out what to notice. You either get it (and are disturbed in the titillating manner you found appealing) or you probably are bored and never really wanted to watch it.

As far as the leading ladies, Hathaway performs her role better than Chastain. But she also has the easier task.

The best part of the film is how the immediate fallout from the boy’s death is so natural. By way of comparison, consider the tragic mid-air. People’s reactions have centered on personal responsibility (pilot error) vs. systemic failure (FAA/ATC). And that debate is crazy to me. It’s actually why I choose to fly. I have ultimate authority for the safety of the flight. Not many jobs offer that.

As a recap, the helicopter pilot said, “Traffic in sight.” And then we all learned that he did not have the traffic in sight.

In this movie, the tragic death is more purely accidental. The trick, or hinge, to it is that one mother happened to see it coming but couldn’t get there in time, and the other mother should have been watching. But, different than the pilot, the boy never said, “I know I might die if I am wrong, but I am not wrong.”

I say all this to bring to the forefront that the post-tragedy questions “how to respond” and “how to interpret with and deal with others’ responses” are totally distinct from the mid-air’s “how to prevent this from ever happening again” question.

Moreover, the truly fascinating aspect of the plot is how powerfully the story debunks utopian notions of how good life could become if only. Life is great, people. But death is a part of life.

Death is a part of life. You don’t want life to be worse because of death. So talk about it. Think about it. Prepare for it. As a topic, death should be no different than meals or clothes or relationships.

Ultimately, I want to say this. If you feel death approaching, say, at the hands of an unstable woman, flee! It’s best not to hesitate on that one.

Pumbaa’s Error

“Oh. I always thought they were balls of gas burning billions of miles away.”

How does Disney create the idea that Simba’s animism (the stars are spirits of the dead) is the right astronomical view?

Timon and Pumbaa laugh his notion off, and yet every movie watcher walks out of the theater happy that Simba believed his dad and the subsequent delusional interpretation of one bright night’s dynamic weather.

It all starts with Pumbaa’s error.

Imagine with me if the writer had an ounce of astronomy training.

****

Pumbaa: Hey, Timon, ever wonder what those sparkly dots are up there?

Timon: Pumbaa, I don’t wonder; I know.

Pumbaa: Oh. What are they?

Timon: They’re fireflies. Fireflies that, uh… got stuck up on that big bluish-black thing.

Pumbaa: Oh, gee. I always thought, when their light was analyzed with prisms, they were determined to be ever-changing balls of the very same elements that make up our world, acting, in fact, under the same forces and for the same reasons which carry both the sound of my voice to you but not much farther and the heat of this desert sand to our feet but not up our legs—but were like really far away and surrounded by LOTS of empty space.

****

Can you even imagine the ludicrous family tradition of past kings looking down following such a silly guess by the warthog?

No, no you cannot.

It’s not merely a killjoy, either. Plenty of ways to make the movie still work. Mufasa can talk about how his tribe had overcome great difficulties and that it took ridding themselves of envy and sabotage—and learning from whoever had something obviously better to contribute. And then Simba can simply remember this confirmable truth after a rebellious and disastrous few years of life with the poor—I mean—the wild animals.

It’s Like Movie Stars Complaining About Discrimination

As I keep reading essays and books essentially on “the definition of science”, I can’t help asking, “Where does the conflict with religion come in?” I can readily admit that I feel the conflict, but after spending any time in contemplation on the supposed conflict, I resolve everything to, “It’s comparing apples and oranges”. The only conflict is between bad religion and bad science. The real deal of either each stands alone and never the twain shall meet.

This new thought (in the post’s title ⤴️) about the conflict occurred to me just now.

So let me get this straight. The authors of all the mainstream science textbooks that are endlessly promoted and in use (or their conclusions are—which is the same) by all major educational institutions, these authors uniformly decry religion as, in general, something that holds humans back. Or that it stunts the development of knowledge and civilization etc.

Yeah. Okay. I believe you. Just like I believe the claims of millionaire celebrities that they’re victims of discrimination.

Gimme a break.