Face/Off

Face/Off

This is the greatest movie I've ever seen in my life.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Netflix (if you haven't heard of it) is a very popular streaming service that offers a wide variety of movies and TV shows. Their TV shows are mostly pretty good. Their movies are, for the most part, pretty bad. "Straight to Netflix" is the new "straight to video" when it comes to their movies, which makes sense since Netflix has to constantly produce new content to stay alive. Luckily though, Netflix has a big enough audience that established filmmakers will occasionally work with them, which is how we end up with fun, oddball movies like Bong Joon-Ho's Okja, Noah Baumbach's The Meyerwitz Stories (New and Selected), Mike Flanagan's Gerald's Game, Macon Blair's I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, Orson Welles' The Other Side of the Wind (which I still need to see), and now, The Coen Brothers' The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.

I've seen all of the Coen Brothers' movies, since they're two of my very favorite filmmakers, and for the most part they're consistently great. Their classics have earned the title a million times over, their underrated movies deserve to be put up with their classics, and even the ones that aren't so good are still unlike any other movie that's being made today. Their unique brand of surreal-yet-understated comedy, typically in the midst of horrifically brutal happenings, has earned them their place in the pantheon of great modern auteurs, and it's played up to the highest degree in this movie.

This is a western anthology film, with the framing device being a literal book that features six short stories. The first three of these stories are completely wild and bizarre, while the last three are much more grounded but still have that strange tilt that you can expect from a Coen Brothers story. They're all visually gorgeous, thanks to cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel (who also did the tragically underrated Inside Llewyn Davis), taking full advantage of every angle of the western genre.

Returning Coen players Tim Blake Nelson and Stephen Root are wonderful as always (those two specifically are more unhinged than I've ever seen them before and it's a treat to watch), and Coen newcomers are brilliant as well. Some actors in the film, like Tom Waits and Liam Neeson, are playing completely different types of characters than I've ever seen them play before, to the point of being nearly unrecognizable, which is one of my favorite Coen Brothers staples.

All of the stories have something great, or at the very least memorable, to offer. My favorite story is one with Liam Neeson and DUDLEY DURSLEY (Harry Melling), which is beautifully written and acted, and gives a brutal perspective on show business and its relationship with the public. I won't say more than that.

I'll leave the rest a surprise (and they're all surprising), because this is definitely a movie I recommend. As a whole it's tonally uneven, but that's what you get with an anthology movie. Even if you're not a fan of westerns or even the Coen Brothers, please click on this movie so that Netflix can find out how much more people like it when they present unique and interesting films like this instead of the onslaught of undercooked crap that they've been releasing recently.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Well folks, this is incredible. After only a year of doing this silly little movie blog, I've gotten to do something that I could never have imagined.

I was sitting in my humble North Hollywood apartment when I heard a sudden violent rapping on my window. I opened it up and to my utter surprise a brown and white owl burst into my room! I quickly grabbed some owl food I keep in my pantry and laid it out on my bed for the owl to enjoy. I then noticed a parcel that he kept clutched in his talons, and he must've noticed my noticing because he dropped it right in my hand a moment after I saw it.

It was a letter, addressed to "Jacob's Side of the Room." I peeled it from its seal and read it aloud to myself. It/I said: "Hello, Jacob. I hope this letter finds you well. I'm a big fan of your work and I've heard you're a fan of mine as well. I know you've read all of the Harry Potter series and are really trying to find time to read The Casual Vacancy and all the Robert Galbraith novels, but it's hard with all of the vague staring into the distance while listening to podcasts that you have to do. Since you're such a big fan, and you're on the Harry Potter-themed long-form improv team called Hogwash that plays every month in Santa Ana, CA, which I can find out more about on bestcoastimprov.com, it only seems fair that I repay you, since my putting something creative out into the world automatically means I owe something to everyone who knows that it exists. How would you like to come to my mansion in Edinburgh and have a chat? Let me know whenevsies. - J.K. Rowling"

I couldn't believe it. I've always loved Harry Potter and the fact that she knew about my amazing improv show that's only $5 and has tickets available at bestcoastimprov.com completely blew my mind. I hastily scrawled out my acceptance of her invitation on a napkin and gave it back to the owl, who was now checking out my movie collection with an overwhelming admiration in its eyes, as if to say "This must be the coolest guy in the world."

He hoo'd goodbye and, after a few anticipation-filled days, finally returned to my front door with a letter addressed to "The Couch That Jacob Sometimes Falls Asleep at for 30 Minutes While Watching a Movie But Still Reviews It Anyway." I ripped open the letter and my eyes filled with tears of pure, unbridled excitement at her response: "K. - J.K."

As soon as I had touched the letter, I felt a sudden rush, blinked, and found myself standing in J.K. Rowling's foyer. She welcomed me to her home and, after giving me a change of pants, showed me to the kitchen, where a lovely dinner was waiting for me. It was catering from a local Scottish restaurant called McDonald's. It tasted familiar, like something I have every single night at home, but the context made it all the more delicious.

Right about now is when I should let you know that I saw the film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald this past weekend, which Rowling herself wrote. It takes place in the Harry Potter universe, and even features some important Harry Potter players, including Albus Dumbledore, Nicolas Flamel, Gellert Grindelwald, Nagini, and Minerva McGonagall, who was amazingly at Hogwarts seven years before she was born.

I decided this would be the perfect opportunity to combine my world with Rowling's, to get a glimpse into her creative process and share it with you all. So here it is, dear reader, here is J.K. Rowling at the Movie Party:

JN: While you're finishing up those McNuggets, I'd love to discuss the newest Fantastic Beasts film.

JKR: (dabbing her mouth delicately) By all means.

JN: The first film is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" and this next film starts with "Fantastic Beasts", which implies the rest of the title. But after watching both of them I still don't feel like I know where to find very many fantastic beasts. Was this not meant to be an educational documentary series a la Planet Earth but for discovering magical creatures?

JKR: No, it wasn't.

JN: Great, that's actually good to hear.

JKR: Glad I could help.

JN: So, I have some questions about the movie.

JKR: Alright, let's hear them.

JN: Is Nicolas Flamel going to continue to be a part of this series? And if so, are you going to continue hiring Teddy Perkins from Atlanta to play him?

JKR: Well, he didn't die in this film, so it's safe to say he'll probably keep coming back. Although I could change my mind later and decide he's dead already.

JN: On the topic of you changing your mind, you decided to give the character Jacob his memory back in this film despite making a very conscious decision to obliviate him in the first one. Was there a reason for this?

JKR: Oh, yes. Jacob was the source of comic relief in the first film, and after my first draft of Grindelwald I realized I had completely forgotten to add humor to it, so I decided to reinsert Jacob into the film by just sort of squeezing him in there.

JN: Speaking of which, this film features the bold choice of making Jacob's girlfriend Queenie an insane rapist who emotionally manipulates and abuses him.

JKR: I don't hear a question.

JN: Oh, no, it was just a compliment.

JKR: Thank you.

JN: Of course. Moving on to my next question, why did you decide to make Ezra Miller's character, Creedence Clearwater Revival, a new Dumbledore?

JKR: Well, as you know this is a prequel series.

JN: Oh yes, I got quite a few prequel flashbacks.

JKR: Excellent. Well, when you're writing a prequel it's hard to make it interesting because the audience already knows where the story is going to eventually end up.

JN: Absolutely. That's why prequels are pointless and stupid and only exist to scam people out of their hard-earned money.

JKR: Exactly. So, in order to trick people into thinking they're watching something new and interesting, you sometimes have to make surprise additions to the story that you can hopefully tie up before the series is over.

JN: So every new character that shows up will inevitably have to die at some point, because otherwise you'll have to justify why they aren't around by the time the Harry Potter timeline starts.

JKR: They won't necessarily have to die.

JN: I think they do.

JKR: No.

JN: You have some fun moments in Grindelwald that only an eagle-eyed fan will notice. Things like the Sorcerer's Stone, Hogwarts, Dumbledore, magic, and a cameo by Professor McGonagall, despite this taking place in 1927 when you already stated she was born in 1934.

JKR: Yes, isn't that amazing?

JN: Unbelievably so. I just wanted to say that as a fan, I felt very serviced. Thank you.

JKR: You're very welcome.

JN: Walk me through how you made the decision to feature so many different plot threads. Off the top of my head I can think of ten, including: the Newt/Queenie/Tina love triangle, Creedence Clearwater Revival's journey, Grindelwald's crimes, Queenie's dealing with mindreading, Queenie and Jacob's relationship, Lovely Leta's feelings, Newt's brother doing stuff, Dumbledore working at Hogwarts, Newt's mission that Dumbledore gave him, and that suspicious guy with the hat that doesn't really go anywhere.

JKR: That's eleven.

JN: I am so sorry.

JKR: It's quite alright. As you know, I'm an author.

JN: Please don't assume I know that.

JKR: I am so sorry.

JN: It's quite alright.

JKR: I've written one other screenplay, that being the last Fantastic Beasts film, which I believe justified my needing absolutely no help in writing this one.

JN: Makes sense.

JKR: So I used by authorial instincts to have a lot going on the whole time instead of keeping it simple and streamlined like screenplays are preferred to be since they're being written for a visual medium.

JN: Yes, I loved the decision to have so many conversations at boring tables in boring rooms.

JKR: Thank you.

JN: I have some questions about the directorial decisions, but I don't suppose David Yates would be here to answer them.

Right at this moment who else but David Yates walked into the dining room, wearing a night cap and bathrobe.

DY: (yawning) Hello, Jacob. Big fan of your work.

JN: Thank you so much, David. Do you mind if I ask you some questions?

DY: Not at all.

He sat down at the table, between J.K. and I.

JN: First of all, it seems like you're living here. Could you elaborate on that?

DY: Of course. I'm hiding.

JN: Ah, yes. So I've got some questions about the visual aspects of Grindelwald.

DY: Go for it.

JN: What was the reason for replacing wizard robes with boring suits and making the color palette for this film grey and completely miserable?

DY: Well, Harry Potter was a series for children, but Fantastic Beasts is a series for adults.

JN: It's about a whimsical magic man who's studying adorable animals by keeping them as pets in a zoo in his house.

DY: Yes. So in order to match this dark and gritty tone, we decided to light the film poorly and desaturate it in editing.

JN: I noticed some issues with the cinematography, like almost never being able to tell where we are or what's going on, and having close-ups that completely cut off the actors' foreheads.

DY: I'm a bit of a purist, so I wanted to make sure the visuals were exactly as confusing as the screenplay. As for those close-ups, all of the actors in the film are very self-conscious about their foreheads, so we created what we call "frame bangs."

JN: The cast is obviously full of amazing, talented people and Johnny Depp, but I noticed the acting was very subtle, almost as if no one in the movie wanted to be in it.

DY: Yes, that was my decision. As I've said before, this series is very adult, and adults forget how to feel happiness and therefore never smile or laugh or have a brief flash of humanity on their faces.

JN: Can't argue with that. The young Hogwarts students seem to be having fun though. What was the thought behind giving them modern haircuts when this is a 1920's period piece?

DY: That was to make them look cool.

JN: It worked.

DY: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to bed.

JN: See ya.

JKR: Bye.

DY: Bye.

David Yates shuffled back to bed, leaving J.K. and I alone once again.

JN: Can I be completely honest, J.K. Rowling?

JKR: Please, call me J.K. Simmons.

JN: I'd rather not.

JKR: Go on.

JN: I really didn't like this movie. It completely misses what made Harry Potter timeless and successful. It was never about the magic or the creatures, those are just decorations. It was about the magical world, the three-dimensional characters, and the strong relationships those characters had with each other.

JKR: Look again.

JN: What?

JKR: Check your blu-ray copies of the Harry Potter movies you own.

Confused, I pulled out all of my Harry Potter blu-rays that I keep with me just in case. I walked over to J.K. Rowling's impressive home theater and popped in the first movie. I couldn't believe what happened next.

The opening sequence appeared on the screen, but it wasn't how I remembered it. The vivid colors and sense of fun were gone. The film was now grey and the actor's emotions had been digitally removed. The wands were replaced with walkie talkies, and there was a new scene with Jabba the Hut.

JN: I don't understand.

JKR: I changed it. It's better now.

JN: But I loved the original. Everyone loved the original. Why would you do this?

JKR: It's what all of the modern summer blockbuster films are doing. They're either grey and sad or they're colorful but disingenuous. I chose the first option.

JN: But Harry Potter is one of the most successful franchises of all time, why not just stop while you're ahead? You already have everything you could ever want!

JKR: It gives me control, Jacob. It's why I use Pottermore to just straight-up make stuff up about my own series despite it already being finished.

JN: Look, I'm sure Da Vinci would still want to add some extra brush strokes to the Mona Lisa, but once something is published it belongs to the public. Art is never finished, it's taken away from the artist, and it has to be that way because otherwise no one would ever share their art because it would never be quite perfect enough, and then we'd live in a world without art.

From on top of my soapbox I could see something behind J.K. Rowling: a family photo. Only her children and husband looked different now. They had all had their heads replaced with the head of beloved singer/songwriter Morrissey.

JN: Wait. Since when does every member of your family look like Morrissey?

JKR: Since I decided they did. I love Morrissey so I wanted them to look like him.

JN: But you can't do that, they're already the way they are! They can have surgery to look more like Morrissey if they want, but you're certainly not allowed to just change them against their will.

JKR: EVERYTHING IS WHAT I WANT IT TO BE!

J.K. Rowling pulled out a wand from her pocket and shot me across the room, into her TV. Every bone in my body was broken.

JN: Why...why are you doing this to me...?

JKR: I didn't like your A Matter of Life and Death review.

JN: Well, I could always see it again. Maybe I'd change my mind.

JKR: Now you're talking my language.

She helped me up, repaired my broken bones, and sent me back home through her fireplace.

I'm now in my living room, jotting down my thoughts on the other two movies I saw last week. I haven't kept in contact with J.K. Rowling, and I'm sure she's met with so many people since then she won't even remember me, which is why you shouldn't bother asking her if any of this happened.

But I'll never forget my dinner with J.K. Rowling.

Thanks for reading.

A Matter of Life and Death

A Matter of Life and Death

Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger are a brilliant pair of filmmakers from Britain who made some of the greatest and most underrated films of the 20th century (The Red Shoes being my personal favorite). A Matter of Life and Death (also known as Stairway to Heaven) is probably their most well-known movie, being the all-time favorite of both J.K. Rowling and Daniel Radcliffe (according to an interview with them I once heard).

Playing a bit like a fairy tale, the movie revolves around a British fighter pilot (played the charming and gentlemanly David Niven) who sends out a radio call as his plane is going down. He falls in love with the American radio operator (played by the infectious Kim Hunter aka Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire) that happens to pick up his call as he plummets into the ocean. Now the members of the afterlife must decide whether he's ready to join them or not, so he's sent to a sort of realm between life and death where he spends time with his American girl, as well as a few other new friends.

The first 20 minutes or so are absolutely perfect. I was ready to love this movie almost immediately, based on the writing, acting, and gorgeous visuals that look like an animated Disney film come to life. But then there's all of the standing around and talking. It felt a bit heartbreaking every time I would start to get bored by how much talking instead of doing there is in this film. Whenever they actually do things it's wonderful, whether it's stopping time or entering a new, beautiful set, but they spend so little time doing things that it nearly lulled me to sleep at a few points.

Perhaps it would be different if I could see the movie in the theater, where the distractions of home are nowhere to be found and I'm forced to hang onto the many, many words of dialogue there are in the film, but regardless of that there's still the bizarre final half hour. There is a large trial in the afterlife to see whether or not David Niven should be allowed to live or die, and the lawyer who's against him is an American Revolutionary general who hates the British. This leads to a half-hour debate between America and England that's justified in the context of both the story and the political climate of the time, but is still clearly a huge digression from what the movie is supposed to be about. It's also worth noting that Niven isn't the one defending himself in court, it's a completely different character who's doing it for him, so not only is it 30 minutes away from the story, it's 30 minutes without either of the two romantic leading characters. It's well-intended and well-written, but it could've 100% been cut, along with about half the dialogue that's in the movie.

Again, maybe I just need to see it in the theater, but it started to feel like a task having to watch actors stand in a room and talk each other for long periods of time in the visual medium of film. The production design, costumes, and cinematography are all immaculate and I'm glad I own the movie for those elements, and the acting and writing is very good as well, it just leans too heavily onto one aspect of storytelling when it could've been brilliantly using all of them. It's still a very good movie, and maybe I'll watch again soon and like it better, but for now I just can't get over its static nature.

I'm Gonna Git You Sucka

I'm Gonna Git You Sucka

In 1988, before Scary Movie, before In Living Color, I'm Gonna Git You Sucka was the first ever Wayans Brothers' project. A parody of 1970's blacksploitation films, their signature love of Zucker Brother-esque broad humor is apparent from right out of the gate.

It's clear that this is the first Wayans movie, as there's a lot of pacing issues and the majority of the jokes don't land. I don't exactly consider any of the Scary Movie movies to be comedic masterpieces, but at least they all have consistent gags that are hit-and-miss, but they move so quickly from gag to gag that there's no lingering on a bad joke. In this movie there's lots of time to linger on bad jokes, and it feels very awkward to watch. Considering they're going for something like Airplane!, you'd think they'd've taken note of how fast that movie moves, and adjusted their script accordingly. But instead they'll do a visual gag and then cut back to it several times in case you didn't catch it the first time. It never works.

In comedy, the performance is key, as that's where the golden rule of timing comes in. Unfortunately for this movie, none of the performances are particularly funny. Keenen Ivory Wayans is not a strong enough comedic presence to be the lead, which is a bummer considering how hard he must've had to work simultaneously acting, writing, and directing. Perhaps if he had found someone else to be the lead, he would've been able to focus more on the movie as a whole and improve it, but instead he gives an eager but ineffective performance. He's not alone though. Honestly, the only couple of laughs I experienced during the movie were from visual gags, none of the actors in the movie made me laugh at all. Everyone seems sort of tired, not wanting to commit to their characters or elevate the scenes in any way. The Wayans would have to wait until In Living Color to find those incredible comedic performers that they needed.

I'm pretty sure I've only seen one blacksploitation film (The Mack, which is a ton of fun), so it could very well be that there were a lot of gags and references that completely went over my head. And the movie wasn't miserable to watch by any means, I just barely laughed. One gag that made me laugh very hard involves Isaac Hayes gearing up to fight the bad guys, the YouTube clip of which I'll leave right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhe58xORWG0

While it's not a bad movie as a whole, it's a pretty weak comedy. If you're a comedy writer, it's a good example of bad pacing for a comedy movie. If you're not a comedy writer, just watch In Living Color instead. It's much better.

Top Gun

Top Gun

This was so dumb. I loved every second of it.

It baffles me that this was the highest grossing film of 1986 and continues to have a deadly genuine following to this day, because the entire movie reads as hilarious to me. The repressed homosexual overtones have been talked about to death, but they're undeniable and so, so funny in the context of straight men enjoying it in the deeply homophobic time that was the 1980s. It's like a Trojan Horse if the guys were just hanging out outside of the horse and the only reason they were let in is because the castle guards were in deep denial.

This is technically considered an action movie, but there's little to no action. There's dogfighting scenes with real jets, but these scenes are shot in such a confusing way that there's no way to get excited by them. There are shots of guys in the cockpits, and then b-roll footage of jets that looks unrelated to what they're talking about. All of the Star Wars movies were out at this point, so Tony Scott should've known how to make an aerial action scene exciting. It doesn't help that the characters aren't worth caring about at all, but it's really the boring way that the action scenes are shot that keeps me from enjoying them.

There's an unconvincing romance between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis, which is to be expected in a big cheesy 80s movie, but they have a famous love scene that rings as pretty gross to me. They're against a blue backdrop and we only see their silhouettes, which is a perfectly fine artistic choice for the scene, but then they start to kiss. It's almost like they're two aliens replicating what they think making out is, which is just rubbing their tongues together. It's entirely them licking each other's faces and never kissing at all whatsoever. It's pretty disgusting.

Other things that made me laugh include: the awful men singing loudly and terribly at Kelly McGillis, Meg Ryan somehow having the smaller female role, volleyball, a commander that loudly demands butts, and, my personal favorite, Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards clearly only knowing the first line of "Great Balls of Fire" and just singing that part over and over.

If you love Top Gun you're more than welcome to it. I think I might love it too. Albeit very ironically.

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

I'm here with another basic movie I've never seen, and as is the case with many of the movies on said list, it's a kid's movie. I grew up almost exclusively watching animated Disney films, so I wasn't very big on live-action fare, which is why, for example, I didn't see Home Alone until I was 22. I remember seeing Honey, I Shrunk the Audience at Disneyland as a kid, but apparently I never required the context of the original movie to enjoy that. It took being up at 1 in the morning bored with friends last week to finally choose to watch this film.

I watched the Roger Rabbit short Tummy Troubles on YouTube the day after I saw Honey, I Shrunk the Kids to get the full experience (since it was the original short that would play before the movie), and that's a super fun cartoon that I recommend watching regardless of whether or not you see Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, because it's much better.

I didn't hate Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, but I'm definitely far too late to the party. For one thing, none of the characters are very strong or interesting. The kids are all typical stock kid characters, the parents are typical busy-but-still-concerned parents (even Rick Moranis is surprisingly normal and grounded, despite being an inventor in an 80s movie), and the neighbors are a typical parental couple where the mom thinks the dad's too harsh and the dad's too harsh.

Once the kids get small, which thank goodness happens pretty quickly, the sets and special effects are all fun. The big blades of grass, the creepy ant that I somehow ended up getting attached to, and the giant bowl of cereal are all exactly the kinds of things that this movie should be doing and it does them well. The production design is easily the strongest element.

That's really all the thoughts I have, other than according to the movie RICK MORANIS WEIGHS AS MUCH AS A SMALL TV.

Sorry. I'm so sorry. It's just that, in the movie, Rick Moranis needs to hover over his backyard so he can search for his kids without stepping on them, so he makes what's essentially a giant scale, where he's attached by a rope to one side and something that's the same weight as him is attached by rope to the other side. So naturally he'd need to find something that's over 100 pounds (I'd rather not guess Moranis' actual weight), but instead he's balanced by what looks like an average-sized TV from the 80s. A TV that can't be more than maybe 50 pounds. And it balances him out perfectly. So, therefore, according to the science that the movie is putting in front of the viewer, RICK MORANIS WEIGHS AS MUCH AS A SMALL TV.

It's an insane detail that I can't seem to find discussion about anywhere on the internet. How has nobody caught this and talked about it? It's right there on the screen. HIS CHARACTER WEIGHS 50 POUNDS AT MOST.

Pictured: Not my imagination.

It's so baffling, and it's something that will haunt my thoughts until the day I die.

The movie was fine. The short before it is better. And Rick Moranis weighs as much as a small TV.

That's all.