Thoroughbreds

Thoroughbreds

I had heard enough good things about this movie to be interested in seeing it, along with liking Anya Taylor-Joy and Anton Yelchin. But other than that I had no idea what it was going to be about.

The premise is that Olivia Cooke is a sociopath who reconnects with her childhood best friend, played by Anya Taylor-Joy. Taylor-Joy says she doesn't like her stepdad, so Cooke says she should just kill him. The rest of the movie is their attempt to do so.

Clearly this movie wanted to be Heathers meets American Psycho (I think that's even a quote on one of the posters for the movie), a violent satire revolving around teenagers, but it's not as funny or well-written as Heathers and it doesn't have the teeth of American Psycho. The problem is the filmmaker clearly had no idea what he was trying to satirize or even what tone he wanted. The movie has no point and no direction at all. They're plotting to kill the stepdad, but he's just kind of a jerk. Not a monster. Not worth killing and going to jail over. So is it about spoiled rich kids? Kind of, but not really. It's focused mainly on the relationship between these two girls.

Cooke is a sociopath who's very honest and open about everything, whereas Taylor-Joy's character has really murky motivation and it's almost impossible to ever tell what her character wants. She seems to want Cooke to think she's capable of being emotionless too, but she also thinks Cooke is weird and doesn't want to be anything like her. Then sometimes she's mad at Cooke for not being as into the murder plot as she is, then other times she's terrified of the murder plot, and so on and so on. There needs to be a clear point of view for her character otherwise I have no idea how to feel about her. It also gives Taylor-Joy, who's proven herself to be extremely talented in The Witch and Split, absolutely nothing to do as an actress.

One of the most basic rules of filmmaking is "show don't tell." This movie is almost 100% tell. It's just these two girls talking, sometimes about murder, sometimes about horses, but always about nothing really. There are ways to make their conversations visual. Shaun of the Dead has a sequence where two guys are trying to figure out their best plan of action in the face of the zombie apocalypse, then we see their ideas play out as they describe them. Good Time has a moment like this as well, where a guy tells a story and we see it happen in flashback as he narrates. A visual device like this would be so helpful for this movie, where instead we just watch the girls blather on with sunglasses so you can't even tell what they're feeling (well, in the case of Cooke, nothing). And if there's symbolism I'm missing out on here (which could very well be the case), it doesn't matter because a film still needs to be interesting to watch regardless of symbolism.

None of the characters are likable, which I think is the point, but they're barely even characters in the first place. Cooke's a sociopath and Taylor-Joy's spoiled, that's about as deep as the movie gets. No one's likable in American Psycho either, but that movie actually has a clear subject of satirization (how the rich can get away with anything) and the characters are interesting in how awful they are. Here everyone's just moody and doesn't do anything. Anton Yelchin is the only interesting character in the entire film because he's the only one that has clear emotions and is essentially just a surrogate for the audience. The parents are just bland rich characters, nothing we haven't seen before. The dialogue sometimes attempts to be witty and fails at doing so. It simply does not have strong or even unique characters.

What little visuals there are aren't very interesting. The production design is boring, as is the cinematography. We never even see the girls' rooms, which could at least give us a hint of what they're like as people, since their dialogue isn't doing that for us.

It also has an epilogue ending that's completely unnecessary. It should've ended with the two of them bloody on the couch, with Taylor-Joy knowing that she can't be as cold and emotionless as Cooke, even after she's killed her stepdad. They end up disregarding what could've potentially been the one powerful moment of the film to have Taylor-Joy be "edgy" instead.

Maybe this movie just really rubbed me the wrong way, but I did not enjoy watching it. I don't really understand where the critical support is coming from, but I'm certainly not a part of it. It'll be a while before I come back to this one, if ever.

A Quiet Place

A Quiet Place

It took me a while to finally see this movie, but I was very excited to watch it after all of the hype during its theatrical run. I'm also a fan of John Krasinksi and Emily Blunt both together and separate, so all the more reason to be pumped.

The simple premise is a pitch within itself: a horror movie where the monster gets you if you make a sound. Great. What's even better is making it about a family, so there's built-in empathy and an interesting dynamic between these characters who aren't allowed to speak. It's also perfect for the film medium, because the storytelling has to be almost entirely visual. These elements automatically allow the movie to enter the "worth watching" category.

That being said, it never goes much deeper than that.

Not that it really needs to, it can coast off that premise for the whole movie, and that's exactly what it does, but this had the potential to be a modern classic.

For one thing, the cinematography is pretty standard. It's certainly not bad, and there's even a few great images (Emily Blunt in the water with the red light reflecting off her face comes to mind) but the shot composition and camerawork aren't very memorable overall. This is an opportunity for Hitchcock-level visual storytelling, and instead it's shot in a pretty standard way.

The family is also not that particularly interesting because there's little to no drama happening between them. Modern horror films like Hereditary and The Witch do a brilliant job of having an outside force drive a family apart. This could've been a family drama/horror on par with The Shining if they had seen the advantages of going in that direction. In a way this is sort of a moot point though, because the route they chose instead is a more Spielberg-style family that loves each other and has to overcome the obstacle together, like Poltergeist or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. This direction is totally viable, but even then the family feels a little bland. There's never a moment where they laugh together (possibly because they'd die) or really connect at all. It's sort of brushed-over that the father and the daughter have a hard time communicating, and there's hardly any connection at all between the mother and her children. There's a nice moment where the father and mother dance together and share headphones (which only made me think of the same moment between Jim and Pam in The Office, especially since Jim was there again) but there needed to be a few more moments like that for me to believe them as a family.

Everyone's already gone into detail on the issues with what makes sound and what doesn't in this movie, and honestly it never really distracted me. I like how much thought they put into how they'd make sure not to make noise, and anything they oversaw I oversaw as well.

Spoilers.

The aliens aren't very creative or memorable. The plates on their face are something different, but their design is far too busy. Great sci-fi creatures like the Xenomorph or the Predator are iconic because they're simple and recognizable even through silhouette. If I saw the Quiet Place creatures in silhouette I would probably get it mistaken with the Demogorgons from Stranger Things or the aliens in Signs. The only truly distinct feature they have is their praying mantis arms, but it's not enough to save them from being forgettable.

My only real other hard issues is that the ending was dumb. It's a Spielberg/Shyamalan-esque sci-fi thriller that all of a sudden becomes an action movie in the last five seconds. Emily Blunt cocks a shotgun and they cut to credits. Seeing "Produced by Michael Bay" easily justified it for me, but it's still pretty insane that they chose to end on that note. Based on the tone that the film had set up, it would make more sense for John Krasinski to overcome the aliens and have the family drive away to wherever their next home may be. It's not as tragic and it's not exactly good, but it fits the tone better. If it's better to have a darker ending then maybe it ends with all of them hiding in a hole, just trying to out-wait the creatures. Whatever it is, it just can't end like a completely different movie.

There's plenty of things I liked about the movie though. The acting, sound design, production design, and cinematography are all very good, just not as good as they had the potential to be due to the brilliant premise. It's still got plenty of intense and emotional moments and I recommend going to see it, just know that it's maybe not as good as everyone was saying it was when it was in theaters.

Stardust

Stardust

Here's a movie that knows exactly what it is. It's cheesy and silly, but it's also full-on fantasy, with plenty of adventure and romance to go around. There's nothing particularly mind-blowing happening here, but it plays the fantasy tropes to their full tropiness.

For whatever reason I thought this was my first Neil Gaiman movie, but it turns out that Coraline is his book, he wrote the screenplay for Beowulf, and he adapted the English dialogue for Princess Mononoke. Gaiman is a bit of a nerd god, and while he does a wide variety of different genres and mediums, there seems to be a shared dose of whimsy between all of them, even when they're particularly dark. Stardust is definitely a light entry in Gaiman's canon, all fun and no sad. The dialogue is forgettable, since it's mainly expository and none of the characters have a very unique voice, but the different plots are fun to follow and watching the stories all meet and dovetail at the end like a Seinfeld episode is pretty satisfying. It's not brilliant, but it's thoroughly entertaining.

The cast is a wonderful mix of great old and new British actors and comedians. Charlie Cox, Ian McKellen, Peter O'Toole, Mark Strong, Mark Heap, David Walliams, Adam Buxton, Ricky Gervais, Sienna Miller, and Henry Cavill all show up at one point or another, and Claire Danes, Robert DeNiro, and Michelle Pfeiffer are the token American stars. No one really does any big stretches in terms of acting, they all just seem to be having a good time, and that's perfectly acceptable in a movie like this.

The sets and the costumes are all lavish, creative, and fun. The cinematography itself is fairly standard, but the production design clearly had a lot of effort put into it. From richly detailed palaces to a simple hedge, every location is at least somewhat memorable and pleasing to the eye.

Overall this is a fun, breezy movie that's great for a date night or just a fun evening with a group of fantasy fans. Think of it like a modern Princess Bride. Maybe not as memorable or funny, but just as entertaining and genuine.

Gates of Heaven

Gates of Heaven

Errol Morris is an endlessly fascinating documentary filmmaker. From bizarre town pieces like Vernon, Florida to films that actually change lives like The Thin Blue Line, Morris loves focusing on the bizarre nature of humanity above anything else.

All about pet cemeteries and the people who are connected to them, Gates of Heaven is one of Roger Ebert's top 10 favorite films of all time, and he has some very deep thoughts on it that one should definitely look up and read. This is only my first time watching it, so these are just my initial reactions. I'd love to watch it again to get more out of it than I did this first time, because after reading Ebert's thoughts I feel like I missed out on what makes this film great.

What's great about this movie (as is the case with any Morris film) is that it's done in such an objective way that it would be very easy to see people thinking this is hilarious and ridiculous or genuinely sweet and relatable. There's no feeling of judgement or taunting, though he is recording what these specific people had to say and distributing it for the public and probably knew full-well how audiences would react.

What Ebert took from this film (and why I need to watch it again a bit more carefully) are the thoughts these Northern Californians have on death. These people aren't philosophers, and some of them don't even seem completely stable, but there's a simple beauty to how they discuss mortality through these dead pets that's so honest and eye-opening it's hard not to be pulled in by what they have to say.

Whether you're watching it to laugh or to learn more about death or both, there's something that everyone can takeaway from this wonderfully strange documentary. Just be warned that the film is entirely made up of interviews, so if you don't want to hear people talk for an hour and a half then this is not for you. Otherwise, enjoy!

Annihilation

Annihilation

Starting with big-budget sci-fi screenplays like 28 Days Later... and Dredd, then making his directorial debut with the much smarter and classier Ex Machina, it feels like Annihilation is screenwriter/director Alex Garland finally getting to make what he's always wanted to make: smart, heady, adult sci-fi that's not exactly "marketable."

Going straight to Netflix for every country in the world except for the US, this film was somewhat doomed to fail in the box office because there's simply no way to properly advertise it. It's hard sci-fi with elements of drama and horror, it's based on a novel as opposed to a comic book or any other movie franchise, and the star is Natalie Portman, who (by no fault of her own) often ends up in terrible movies. It also doesn't treat it's audience like it's stupid, which has become a norm in mainstream films. It's emotions are genuine, it's symbolism is subtle, and there are no clear answers for any of its mysteries. It's great, but most people aren't gonna like it.

It's best that I don't describe any of the elements of the actual film because going in blind made this a very unique experience for me. The only thing I did know was that it was an all-female cast, but that's only because I looked at the poster and saw that was the case. They never pat themselves on the back or pander to the audience about how amazing they are for casting women in their film; they just did it. And not only is the central cast all women, they're all scientists. And not only are they all scientists, they're all actually interesting and distinct characters. What a concept.

I'm not gonna say anything else about the movie, but if you're into smart sci-fi that'll really make you think, you should check this one out.

Dirty Dancing

Dirty Dancing

Some movies become so ingrained in popular culture that it's hard for the whole thing to live up to its more iconic moments. The Seven Year Itch has that part where Marilyn Monroe's dress flies up, but literally everything else about it is terrible. The Jazz Singer famously brought sound to film, but it's also an hour and a half of Al Jolson doing blackface. Dirty Dancing famously has "Nobody puts baby in the corner" and "Time of My Life," but the rest is actually pretty surprising.

The story itself is typical. A rich girl has to learn how to dance before a big recital because the boy she's in love with is a dancer and his usual partner can't do the dance because she's getting an abortion. Oh, yeah, abortion plays a huge part in this movie. It's pretty shocking considering the film was made in the 80's and is pretty much only known as "that Patrick Swayze dance movie," but it doesn't get too graphic or depressing when dealing with the subject. It's all pretty clinical and never feels judgmental. Other than that it's the typical training sequences and falling in love and parents disapproving and someone getting caught lying and the couple having a falling out but then getting back together again, and so on and so forth. Even though it burns through a lot of cliches, it does so in a well-paced and entertaining way. I never felt bored.

A lot of the entertainment comes from the chemistry between Grey and Swayze. This is a very sexy movie, with lots of sexy dancing and sexy moments between sexy people. The dancing truly does live up to its dirty title. While Swayze is initially unlikable and Grey is initially awkward, they help each other grow into more interesting and fun characters through their tension-filled interactions. Swayze has a gruff charm and Grey an earnest likability, which makes them a very enticing onscreen couple.

There are more memorable sequences in this film besides the famous line and the famous song. In fact, it's been a week or so since I watched the movie and I still remember almost all of it. Each training scene is put in a memorable location (like on a log or on the floor), every character is distinct whether it be in an good or a bad way, and the song choices are all right on the money. When Grey enters that undoubtedly sweaty room to see everyone her age bumping and grinding to "Do You Love Me (Now That I Can Dance)" by The Contours, it's kind of a perfect moment. Same can be said for the "Lover Boy" and "Time of My Life" sequences. While the whole film takes place in one location (a recreational resort in the Catskills), they find ways to make each scene stand out in one way or another. It's impressive.

If you love dancing (especially sexy dancing) or romance (especially sexy romance), you'll have a fun sexy time watching this fun sexy movie that you won't soon fun sexy forget.

An American Tail

An American Tail

I have a vague memory of seeing this on Cartoon Network when I was very young, but I more than likely didn't finish it and had completely forgotten about it since then. So all I really knew going in was that it's an immigrant's story as told through mice, and also the "Somewhere Out There" sequence in that one episode of Community.

This is another one that I don't have a lot of thoughts on, it's just a fun journey with plenty of thrilling and intense moments that kids love because they can handle a lot more than modern studio executives think they can. Fievel is adorable and empathetic, feeling like a real curious kid that makes mistakes like any kid inevitably does. The characters he meets along the way range from being charming to annoying, but none of them are unbearable and they all serve some kind of purpose.

The visuals are incredibly impressive, especially considering this was made on half the budget of a standard Disney animated film at the time. The animation is rough but gorgeous, the backgrounds range from simple and abstract to detailed and breath-taking, and the perspective creates a larger than life quality that was unique to many of the Spielberg-produced films of the 1980's.

It's certainly not perfect. Some of the songs feel a bit rushed and there's a few too many cheesy moments (sorry), but what shines through is the genuine heart and the clear passion that went into making the project. Don Bluth is notoriously hit-and-miss as an artist, but this is the best example of his more accessible work (with Secret of NIMH being my personal favorite), and I think it was his partnership with Spielberg that helped make the whole thing possible.

Can it be too cutesy and corny? Absolutely. Do I still have "There are No Cats in America" in my head? Indeed I do. Is it worth checking out, especially for kids? Of course it is.

9 to 5

9 to 5

Nearly 40 years ago there was a movie whose plot was entirely about sexual harassment in the workplace that somehow also manages to be charming, fun, and downright zany.

I honestly don't have a whole lot to say about this one, it's all pretty straightforward. The plot is simple, and (perhaps to fill in time) there's all sorts of fun fantasy sequences and wacky hijinks (sometimes involving a dead body) throughout. The cast is clearly having a ball; comedienne Lily Tomlin and Jane "Barbarella" Fonda were both seasoned actresses by the time this movie was being made, and while Dolly Parton had never acted before, she's immediately magnetic and likable. Dabney Coleman is great as their terrible boss, and it's a lot of fun to see him play in the different genre-style fantasy sequences. It's a cute, harmless bit of wacky fun that also happens to tackle one of the most real issues that still occurs today.

For whatever reason no one's bothered to remake 9 to 5, and if any movie would benefit from an edgy, Horrible Bosses-esque remake, I feel like this is the one. There are plenty of strong modern comedic actresses that could fit these roles, and it could get a lot more detailed on what constitutes as sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as going even farther and zanier with the antics. It has every bit of potential to be terrible as it does great, but I think if there's a screenwriter that can find the right tone it could be a hit.

While it doesn't leave a huge impression, it's still a good time and I think anyone can enjoy it. Check it out if you're looking for some light fun, or if you're a solid comedic screenwriter who wants to tackle a remake of it.