Clones, Cats, and Other Thoughts

Nov 09, 2020 17:34

Titles Covered: Clone Wars, Cats, The Invisible Man, Sonic the Hedgehog, Knives Out, Bombshell, Birds of Prey and the Blah Blah Blah, Onward, and Scarface.



Clone Wars, The Final Season (****)
I’ve made no secret about my dislike for Disney’s Star Wars movies. I thought The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were decent movies on their own, but severely misguided continuations of a beloved series that already had a perfectly good continuation. The other three Disney Star Wars movies aren’t even good.

Then there’s The Clone Wars, a long-running TV show that covers the events between Episodes II and III. The movie that preceded the series is pretty bad, but the actual show turned out to be a pleasant surprise. Sure, it has a lot of filler episodes, but in the context of a TV show aimed at older kids, a dumb episode now and then can be forgiven.

If you’d rather not spend the time on 100+ episodes, and would like to see just the essential episodes, this is a pretty good list. I’d also add a few more great episodes: The Blue Shadow Virus (S1, E17-18), The Deserter (S2, E10), The Young Boba Fett Saga (S2,  E20-22), The Umbara Campaign (S4, E7-10), the first 5 episodes of Season 5 (if nothing else, so you can see who Forrest Whitaker’s character in Rogue One was supposed to be), and the Curious Tale of the Malfunctioning Order 66 Chip (S6, E1-4).

And that leads us to Season 7, which came out 12 years and 2 streaming services after the original series debuted on the Cartoon Network in 2008.

Season 7 is split into 3 arcs, each 4 episodes long. The first is “The Bad Batch,” a story about a group of special clones with genetically-engineered powers. These are pretty good episodes, and they’re also definitely geared more for children than adult fans. As an adult, I liked it alright, but thought that the switch from regular expendable clone soldiers (who die all the time in the show) to unique marketable characters (who can’t die) took away a lot of tension, along with the realistic war feel. That said, these are well-made episodes, even if they felt a bit like something out of G.I. Joe.

Next is “The Martez Sisters,” which continues the story of Anakin Skywalker’s apprentice, Ahsoka Tano. Basically, Tano falls in with some minor-league criminals and ends up simultaneously helping them and trying to convince them to do the right thing. These episodes have much better character work, and the dynamic between Asoka and the 2 sisters is played well. However, the arc doesn’t really connect well to the rest of the Star Wars series, and very little seems to have been accomplished by the end of it.

Finally, we get “The Siege of Mandalore.” This is why Season 7 exists. The first 8 episodes are good enough, but don’t explain why Dave Filoni would bother to bring the show back on Disney+ after a multi-year hiatus. The Siege of Mandalore is the story that actually needed to be told. This arc explores an interesting idea: how does the revived half-cyborg Darth Maul (an ex-Sith) react to the overthrow of the Galactic Republic, an event he knew would happen, but can no longer benefit from? Essentially, he becomes the Prophet of Doom. This proves to be a fantastic angle, and Maul’s terrified proclamation when he realizes that he’s lost is one of the most bone-chilling moments in the series.

Besides giving an end to Maul’s story arc, “The Siege of Mandalore” provides an ending for Ahsoka, Captain Rex, and the Clone Troopers as a whole. The story raises questions about the moral responsibility the clones have for Order 66, and ends with one of the most haunting images in the Star Wars saga. On top of that, this arc also has some of the best music, some of the most creative action scenes (the jetpack sky battle is a real highlight), and even redeems Rogue One slightly by taking one of its memorable lines and giving it weight.

If you’ve been following the series this long, finish up with Season 7. If you just want the essentials, skip to Episode 8 (to get the lead-in to the Siege of Mandalore), and be prepared for the best Star Wars story that we’ve gotten since the Disney take-over.



The Island of Dr. Moreau, the Musical (** and a half)
Also known as "Cats"

Like many people, I was very put off by the trailers for Cats, which featured bizarre human-cat hybrids in surreal settings. Kathyrn and I made fun of the trailer relentlessly. I decided we had to see the movie. After all, we’d been talking about it so much, we should actually watch the thing. And so, we settled in, ready for the abomination that is Cats.

And then…

The opening number kinda blew me away. It was visually interesting, musically flawless, and well-choreographed. I was confused. Hold on a second… is Cats actually good?

No, not quite. Parts of the movie are great, but as a whole it’s a mixed bag. The plot is thin and nonsensical, so at some point I started getting bored of the endless songs without narrative purpose.

The sorry excuse for a plot is that the “Jellicle” cats engage in an annual singing competition in order to be reincarnated. Why do these cats want to be reincarnated now, instead of living out their lives? I don’t know. The reasons given are incredibly petty. If the Jellicles can do this every year, why not just give the prize to the oldest cat? Maybe the joke is on me, and the story isn’t supposed to make any sense, but if I’m going to ride along for a feature-length movie, I’d like to understand the characters on some level.

And that’s the problem: I don’t understand these characters. They’re not humans, and they’re not cats. They’re some sort of weird Star Trek creature with cat ears, human hands, and totally alien motivations. The closest thing we get to a relatable character arc is Mestoffeles, a shy cat with a crush on the newcomer. Everyone else just barges in to sing a weird song that comes and goes with no consequence. Silly lines like “So first your memory I’ll jog, and say a cat is not a dog” are fine in a children’s poetry book. When Judy Dench stares into your soul and reads the same line as the “profound” epilogue to an epic musical, it’s just dumb.

But man… some of these songs are absolutely killer! The orchestrations and vocals are amazing! Every actor fits their character really well! And the dancing is really good too! Besides the opening number, I really loved the tap-dancing railway cat, the two hell-raising cats, and even Taylor Swift’s femme fatale act.

So… Cats isn’t good, but I really don’t think it’s one of the worst movies of 2019. It’s worth watching for the bizarre spectacle and the legit-good musical numbers.



The Invisible Man 2020 (****)

Hey “woke” screenwriters… You want to know how to touch on modern-day issues without detracting from your story? Take a few lessons from The Invisible Man.

Yes, the film is about gaslighting, a woman forced to carry a child against her will, and an abused woman who nobody believes. But all of these aspects fit in neatly with a scary story about an invisible psychopath who stalks and kills people. Nothing feels preachy or contrived. If anything, the gaslighting angle enhances the story, because it adds a new layer of mystery. As Emily Moss looks off into empty space and talks softly about her invisible tormentor, she comes off as legitimately crazy. This makes the movie scarier, and we realize that no sane person who believe us if we were stalked by such a menace. On that note, I also approve of the deliberate choice to show very little of the villain or his relationship to the main character. We sort of have to take the main character’s word when she claims that he is villainous.

That’s one of many reasons why The Invisible Man is such a good movie: it has current day relevance, but the themes are complex, and the plot fully functions as just a scary movie about a stalker who can turn invisible. This isn’t Frozen 2, in which the stupid aspects of the story have to be rationalized by the message.

And boy oh boy is this movie scary! The sound mixing and cinematography really add to the effect, as we constantly hear or feel the invisible man’s presence without needing to see him. The movie hits us right away with a tense and nail-biting opening scene (when the main character escapes her abuser), and then slowly builds up tension as the invisible man’s attacks get more and more flagrant, and increasingly violent.

Problems? Well, there’s definitely a few plot holes and loose threads that don’t get explained. If you subscribe to the “CinemaSins” approach to movie enjoyment, this might not be the movie for you. There’s a fight scene in a psychiatric hospital that is amazing as a visceral and frightening action scene, but also requires some suspension of disbelief (as in Hollow Man, invisibility seems to come with super-strength and resilience). That said, I will accept an occasional explanation of “such and such happens because it makes the movie more exciting.”

A few plot issues aside, The Invisible Man is a great low-budget horror movie which carries similar themes as the classic Rosemary’s Baby. It works as a scary horror movie and an insightful psychological thriller, regardless of how you feel about the possible political undertones.



Sonic the Hedgehog (** and a half)

I was recently reminded of Martin Scorsese’s award-winning but unsuccessful movie Hugo. Critics loved Hugo, though the most honest assessment came from the New York Post: “Maybe it isn’t a great idea to wait till you’re nearly 70 to make your first kid movie.” Indeed, Hugo is slow-paced, has little action or comedy, and has almost nothing to appeal to children. Kids weren’t interested, because Scorsese didn’t give them what they wanted. Instead, Hugo’s entire existence was based around telling kids what they should want.

What does Hugo have to do with Sonic the Hedgehog? Well, the director of Sonic the Hedgehog actually swallowed his pride and gave people what they wanted. When the Internet booed the first trailer for Sonic the Hedgehog, he changed the movie. He didn’t blame “trolls.” He didn’t dismiss the audience. He actually pushed back the release date and changed the movie. When the second trailer released, showing a more attractive main character and a more enjoyable tone, the audience was willing to show up. It didn’t even matter if the movie was good or not. The fact that someone actually tried to make it better was all we needed.

Good or bad, Sonic the Hedgehog may end up being an important movie.

Beyond that, I actually don’t have too much to say about the movie itself. It’s OK. It’s a pretty standard PG adventure film. On the plus side, the early scenes of the movie do well to establish Sonic’s isolation and personal frustration. I liked Ben Schwartz as the voice of Sonic, and mostly enjoyed Jim Carrey as an arrogant mad scientist (his dancing scene is surprisingly inspired, and the tie-in to drone technology made sense). However, the action scenes don’t have much tension, since Sonic’s abilities are inconsistent and often make him completely untouchable. I also would have liked to see a lot more of Sonic’s homeworld. Fantasy characters can do cool stuff in their own worlds… you don’t need to bring them to earth! Didn’t we learn anything from Masters of the Universe?

The standard for videogame movies is pretty low, so Sonic the Hedgehog gets a pass. If it weren’t related to a videogame I like, I probably wouldn’t care one way or another. But since it is a pretty good adaptation of the videogame, I’m glad I saw it. It’s much better than trash like Doom or Bloodrayne, and a few notches below Mortal Kombat and Prince of Persia. And hey, props to the director (and studio) for taking criticism like a champ.



Knives Out (*** and a half)
Rian Johnson is a difficult writer-director to evaluate. His stories are pretty ridiculous, but they also have good acting and intriguing ideas. Knives Out is an illustration of both.

Knives Out is a colorful and convoluted murder mystery with a diverse array of characters and likeable actors. A wealthy crime novelist (Christopher Plummer) turns up dead, so his many family members are interviewed by the police and a private “consulting detective” (Daniel Craig channeling Sherlock Holmes with a Southern accent). The characters are all very distinct and memorable without necessarily channeling narrow archetypes. I wouldn’t call it a “deep” cast of characters, but it’s definitely an interesting one that mostly avoids defaulting on clichés.

Of course, these characters are ultimately pieces in a mystery, and many of them are red herrings. The mystery is clever, intricate, and creative. It’s also pretty silly. In the end, Daniel Craig magically pieces together an incredibly convoluted plot with very few clues. This is disappointing, especially for a movie coming out several years after Sherlock showed how far-fetched deductions could be made to look plausible. In fact, the plot itself involves a few other characters reaching amazing conclusions and enacting complicated schemes that seem well above their ability. This doesn’t kill the movie at all, but makes it less clever than it appears.

Then… there’s the politics. Every angry fanboy theory about political overtones in The Last Jedi might have been confirmed. The racial conflicts and immigration issues highlighted by the main plot at least mesh well with the story, so I didn’t mind that much. However, the movie also goes out of its way to explicitly discuss modern politics in scenes that don’t ask for it, which immediately dates the movie. The worst example might be the “right wing troll” who does nothing in the story except get called a right wing troll by other characters. That’s not a real character; that’s a cardboard cutout for the author surrogates to yell at.

On the whole, Knives Out is pretty good. It’s a highly enjoyable murder mystery with some fun twists and a great cast. I don’t think it’s quite a great movie, but I still recommend watching it.



Bombshell (*** and a half)
Wait… a movie criticizing Fox News manages to be more less politically obnoxious than Rian Johnson’s murder mystery?

Bombshell tells the story of Roger Ailles, the now-deceased head of Fox News who had a long history of sexual harassment. The narrator of the story is Megyn Kelly, a former Fox anchor known for her testy exchanges with Donald Trump. While Fox News is used as a backdrop, the actual story is about how powerful men abuse women. There have been similar scandals across the political aisle, including Hollywood producers, news anchors, and even Youtubers. Surprisingly, Bombshell ends up being one of the more balanced dramas I’ve seen on the subject.

“It’s a visual medium” says Roger as he makes wannabe starlets of Fox News hike up their short skirts and twirl around. He’s right. TV programming has been highly sexual for as long as I can remember. While it’s easy to hate an old creep like Roger, there is plenty of blame to go around. The film raises questions about the responsibility of the potential whistleblowers, as well as those who use their sex appeal to get ahead. Is it wrong for women to show off their bodies to get on TV, or only wrong for men to ask for it? Bombshell doesn’t really take a stance on those difficult questions, but at least does leave the door open.

The acting in Bombshell is spot-on, as is the makeup. While watching, I didn’t see the famous actors as “themselves” at all; they fully embodied their characters. Hell, you could probably have shown me clips of the movie in a different context and convinced me that they were of the real people at Fox News. Charlize Theron is especially convincing as Megyn Kelly. Are we sure that Theron isn’t secretly a T-1000?

Regardless of whether you love or hate Fox News, Bombshell is an entertaining story. It’s bit of a “small” story that never hits the emotional highs of the best movies, but it’s definitely a good one.



Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn  (* and a half)

Wow, what a long and stupid title! It really only needs that second part. “The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn,” more accurately describes the story and also gives you a better idea of the movie’s feel. If “The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn“ sounds like it’s trying too hard to be funny, and just comes off oddly pretentious…  that’s basically the movie!

If asked to describe this movie in a word, that word is “dumb.” The jokes are dumb, the fight scenes are (mostly) dumb, the characters are dumb, and the plot is dumb. It’s dumb, dumb, and more dumb.

I can appreciate a dumb movie that’s also fun, but the characters don’t provide much entertainment. I hate Margot Robbie’s interpretation of Harley Quinn. I feel like this is partially my fault, since I’m one of those nerds who loved Batman: The Animated Series and wanted a live-action Harley Quinn. She was tolerable in Suicide Squad, but in this movie, she looks and acts like an obnoxiously drunk sorority girl. She’s not funny, not scary, and not intriguing. And then there’s her eventual teammates: Cassandra Cain (badly acted), Black Canary (dull), and Montoyo (dull, and too old and stiff for the required action scenes). The only decent member of the Birds of Prey is Huntress, who is barely in the movie. But at least she has a decent backstory and moves well in the fight scenes.

Oh yeah, and the early signature fight scene involves Harley Quinn taking out an entire police station like the Terminator, while armed with a single-shot confetti cannon. Dumb!

I guess this is supposed to be funny, but the movie is trying too hard. The soundtrack is overplayed, the narration and overlays are excessive, and the nonlinear storytelling is inconsistent and confusing. The production qualities are also pretty inconsistent. The camera-work is actually pretty good, but the editing is a mixed bag, while the costumes and sets leave something to be desired.

The only aspect worth watching in Birds of Prey are the villains. Ewan McGregor chews all the scenery with his ridiculous character, and I actually enjoyed Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina) as a serious villain. I kind of wish the bad guys had won, so they could fight better heroes in the sequel.



Onward (****)

Pixar has 2 box office flops in their history. The first is The Good Dinosaur, a movie that’s not as much fun to hate as the Cars franchise, but is probably their worst film. The second is Onward, which suffered from unenthusiastic reviews and being released right before the world fell apart.

Onward definitely has its problems. Compared to other Pixar movies, the world creation is not very good. The world is sort of a modern-day fairytale environment in which elves and centaurs lives side by side. There’s a lot of visual gags relating to this theme, but the logic of this world is pretty sloppy, and it doesn’t really matter to the main characters’ journey. The two main boys could just as easily be humans in the Harry Potter universe, since the movie never explores what it means to be an elf in this world.

Despite the misguided premise, however, Onward is surprisingly great. It’s a touching, insightful, and exciting journey between 2 brothers dealing with the death of their father. Damn it Pixar, why must you always make us cry!

The story concerns 2 brothers who have lost their dad. The dad left behind a magical staff that enables them to bring him back for a day. When the spell doesn’t quite work, the two boys head out on a quest to get a magical gem. The quest is preposterous, and yet strangely compelling. Could magical relics be hidden right under our nose, and hinted at by the old stories? That’s a cool idea. More to the point, the crazy quest fits well with the two personalities of the main characters: it’s silly enough for Tom Holland to doubt it, but inspiring enough to justify Chris Pratt’s enthusiasm.

I won’t describe more of the plot, because I think the rest of the movie is best experienced without expectations. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised by the fun obstacles that the brothers encountered, as well as the ultimate “point” of their journey. Without spoiling anything, I’ll just say that the 3rd act of the story is fan-freaking-tastic, and really brought the movie home for me.

Onward deserves a chance. It starts off “just OK”, but gets better and better in the second half. Give it a shot on Disney Plus.



Scarface (1932) and other classic gangster movies (****)

Most moviefans in my generation are familiar with Scarface, Brian Depalma’s 1980’s cult-classic gangster flick starring Al Pacino. The 1980’s Scarface was actually a remake of an older pre-Code gangster movie with the same title, which in turn was based on a novel that fictionalized the exploits of gangster Al Capone. So now you know!

The original Scarface, directed by the legendary Howard Hawks, was once called “the most censored movie of all time.” Despite launching before the Hays Code, there was considerable concern about the violence of the movie, moral ambiguity, and the use of criminal protagonists. Many critics felt that Scarface glorified criminals, and made police officers look incompetent and corrupt.

This is very odd to me. Compared to the Scarface remake (and Tarantino/Scorsese crime pictures), the 1932 Scarface is practically a sermon pushing traditional morality. Tony Camonte is clearly an evil person from the beginning, he has no redeeming moments, and he’s ultimately revealed as a pathetic coward. Compare that to his 1980’s counterpart, Tony Montana, who curiously proclaims his own honesty, gives lectures on how we’re all just as bad as he is, and goes down in a blaze of glory.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m not a fan of the 80’s Scarface. The original is much, much better. It has better structure, it’s more engaging, it’s deeper, and it tells the same story in about half the time.

The original Scarface also has a quasi-incestuous tension that highlight’s Tony’s psychological instability. Interestingly, Tony shows little interest in his actual love interest, at one point smashing a grapefruit in her face. Or wait… Never mind, that was Public Enemy! Or was it? Crap! Which was the one where Frankenstein got killed in the bowling alley? OK, that was Scarface! I think… Which one had the rival gang ambushing with tommy guns, and the antihero keeps his crime a sorta-secret from his mother, but then dies at the end? Both of them? Damn, no wonder I keep getting these movies confused!

So anyway, let’s talk a bit about Public Enemy. In this mobster movie, James Cagney is a cold-blooded mobster who’s been interested in crime since he was a kid. Towards the beginning of the movie, he ends up killing 4 people while robbing a train, and cleverly avoids the electric chair by confessing to a different crime in another state. That’s the first of many plot twists.

Hold on… that’s White Heat, a different black-and-white gangster movie with James Cagney. I think? Is this the one where the other gangsters betrayed him? But that also happened in Scarface and Public Enemy. This is getting really confusing. All these movies are bleeding together. Maybe someone should dress their gangsters in something besides suits and fedoras.

I’m not quite sure which movie I’m reviewing at this point, but they were all pretty good… especially White Heat. I think I’ve learned that classic film noir gangster movies that have a moral pulse and a reasonable run-time are WAY better than all those overly-long modern movies about how cool it is to be a murdering criminal.
Previous post Next post
Up