Movie reviews, to finish out the year.
Titles Covered: Elvis, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Parenthood, Interview with the Vampire, The Witches, The Lost Boys, the Fighteners.
Elvis (****)
It’s been over 20 years since Moulin Rouge, and Baz Luhrman has finally hit gold again! And he figured out how to make musician biopics interesting!
The story of Elvis Presley is presented with Luhrman’s typical surrealism, incorporating fantastical imagery and crazy editing. This artistic choice works brilliantly, as “The King or Rock and Roll” is something of a fantastical larger-than-life figure, even 50 years after his death. Thus, the movie teaches us about his life (and seems to be accurate in this respect), while simultaneously embracing him as a mythic figure.
The narrator of the story is actually the villain: Elvis’ unscrupulous manager “Colonel Parker.” Played brilliantly by a heavily-disguised Tom Hanks, Parker gets a chance to tell his side of the story. Parker is an interesting character, and as I started to believe that he really was a bad guy, it actually made me feel a sense of regret.
Parker is also introduced as a carnival huckster, an expert in the “snow job.” He describes his business as one of cheating people while also making them feel good about it. The connection between him and Elvis is clear: the mythic figure of Elvis was something of a snow job itself. Elvis didn’t invent rock and roll. He was arguably just a handsome white guy used to sell “black” music. But he became something of a mysterious “black rainbow” in which everyone could see what they wanted. He was the good-ole Southern Boy, but also a counter-cultural rebel. He was a patriotic American who served his country, but also an enemy of the state. But who was he really? Maybe he was just a lost soul who missed his mother.
Elvis the movie is a trip. It’s probably the best musician biopic since Amadeus, and definitely has a lot to say.
Everything, Everywhere, All at Once (?)
I have no idea how to rate this movie. It’s definitely very original, and worth seeing for its creativity and interesting premise. But while I recommend the movie, I’m not sure that it’s actually good.
The plot starts off with an intriguing backstory: A woman invents a device that allows people to “jump” into alternate universes, gaining new knowledge and skills. The inventor is killed by a monster of her own making, so her husband must recruit an alternate-universe version of her to fight the villain. Our main character is said to be the “worst version” of the inventor, and thus has the most potential to absorb the abilities of her superior incarnations across the multiverse.
Everything, Everywhere gets much weirder from there. It crosses several tropes and genres, from comedy to action to cheesy hallmark movie drama. It feels like the movie is literally trying to be every movie all at once, combining bits from The Matrix, Kung Fu Hustle, Donnie Darko, 2001: The Space Odyssey, and Rick and Morty into one big crossover universe. There’s even a subplot taken straight from Ratatouille, which is also referenced as a movie in a way that suggests that all the characters are experiencing the Mandela Effect.
Is this movie a tense sci-fi thriller, a silly comedy, or a hokey morality play about LGBT acceptance? I have no idea. I’m also not sure if we’re supposed to take the villain seriously, who will be a horror villain in one scene, a serious emotional character in another, and then prance around in ridiculous costumes shouting pseudo-philosophical gibberish. There's a part of me that loves the big sci-fi ideas and poignant moments in this movie, and another part of me that hates how unfocused and exhausting it all is.
I’ll say this: most of the actors are good. Michelle Yeoh provides a grounded, sympathetic main character to anchor the constant silliness. Short Round from Indiana Jones comes back from a decades-long break from acting, and he’s great! He confidently portrays wildly different versions of his character, from nerdy clown to wise businessman to superspy. The only weak note for me was the main villain, who uses the same dour facial expression in every scene, and gets completely shown up by her chief minion (played by a nearly unrecognizable Jaime Lee Curtis).
Everything, Everywhere, All at Once should be seen, just because you’ve never seen anything quite like it. I think it would have been much better if it had stuck to the sci-fi thriller story that it started with, but it’s a memorable experience either way.
Parenthood (****)
This movie is a must-see for parents.
Parentood features an ensemble cast of excellent actors, portraying four adult siblings trying to raise their own children better than the family patriarch (Jason Robards) raised them. Their results are mixed at best.
The dysfunctional families have some diversity to them, even if they all feel Hollywood-friendly (nobody has a blue-collar job, conservative views, or any religious influence, for instance). We have a divorced single mom (Dianne Wiest), a scientist with sky-high expectations for his kids (Rick Moranis), and a completely negligent single dad with serious delusions (Tom Hulce). Meanwhile, the central family, headed by Steven Martin and Mary Steenburgen, are the most normal, even if their oldest is being recommended for special ed classes.
The movie is fairly funny, with silly situations and the appropriate amount of slapstick. In the funniest bit, Steve Martin requests a faux-cowboy for his son’s birthday party… but gets a stripper instead. The scene doesn’t go where you think; the parents wisely send the stripper away, but Martin has to throw together a cowboy costume and win over the pint-sized party guests. There’s also a number of dramatic bits. In one of the most painful scenes, divorced mom “Helen” is asked by her son if he can “live with Dad for a while.” Helen holds back her obvious hurt, and lets her son call his disinterested father. She knows that her ex will break his heart, and simply has to stand back and watch her son learn his lesson the hard way. In another painful bit, the grandfather offers Tom Hulce’s character a chance at redemption. Hulce seems interested, but quickly uses his salesman-like charm to turn the situation around. Jason Robards gives a great performance here, portraying an old man who’s coming to grips with how badly his son has betrayed him.
Parenthood is a movie that sticks. It’s a little long, and not the funniest of comedies, but it’s a very powerful and impactful dramedy, and easily one of Ron Howard’s best movies.
Halloween Movies (‘Cause I didn’t get around to talking about them before):
Interview with the Vampire (** and a half)
Anne Rice obviously found vampires very fascinating, as she wrote so many books about them. This movie did not convince me to share her fascination.
That’s not to say that Interview with the Vampire is bad. It’s just a movie that I didn’t really connect with. The production itself is very solid, with good filming, acting, and dialogue throughout. The individual lines are well-written, and there are some insightful moments here and there. Of special note is a young Kirsten Dunst as a vampire trapped in a child’s body for decades. Her deepest desire is to grow up, but she never can.
There are interesting ideas here about how vampires might feel about the morality of their actions and how they react to each other. But if the killer vampires are the protagonists, who are the antagonists? Strangely, there isn’t a single human character who poses so much as an obstacle, let alone a threat. No matter how incredibly sloppy and brazen the vampires are with their killing, they always get away with it. No detectives investigate the dozens of murders, no vengeful family members come after them, and no gangs of vampire slayers are assembled. I guess Tom Cruise is supposed to be the bad guy, but he just comes off as a pest.
Interview with the Vampire is an impressive production. And yet, at the end of the day, I’m not sure what the point of it was. Brad Pitt is a sad vampire who wants to understand the nature of his existence and the answer he finds is… nothing. Seriously, he gets no answer. He tears down a lot of mythology surrounding vampires, including any role of God, and replaces it with nothing.
That’s disappointing.
The Witches, 2020 (***)
I know I’ve seen parts of the 1990 adaptation of Roald Dahl’s “The Witches,” so I decided to check out the modern remake.
The Witches is fine, but I honestly don’t have much to say about it. It has the usual strengths and flaws of a Roald Dahl story: intriguing fantasy ideas wrapped around an unsatisfying, dark narrative. There are certainly a few great scenes, particularly when the witches first reveal themselves and attack the main kids, and later when the villains get their comeuppance. The imagery manages that fine line of scary-for-kids without being overly grotesque.
The 1990 original movie famously changed the ending of the book, allowing the protagonist (who was turned into a mouse) to resume his human form. The 2020 version opts for a darker ending, in which the main kids are cursed to be mice for the rest of their lives. That could work, but the movie doesn’t follow that dark ending all the way through, allowing us to feel the dread and sadness of their situation. Instead it cops out by having the mice kids act chipper and accepting of their fate.
The Witches is perfectly fine, but unexceptional. I have neither many complaints or grand praises of it. It works as a halloween movie for slightly older kids.
The Lost Boys (*** and a half)
This movie is a delightful bit of 80’s cheese.
Directed by the late Joel Schumacher, The Lost Boys is often credited with embracing the idea of young, sexy vampires. Nowadays, it serves a different purpose, as everything in this vampire adventure is positively dripping with 1980’s style. Everything from the music to the slang to the costumes is pure 80’s.
The plot concerns a group of vampires who are also rebellious and obnoxious 80’s teens, which is even worse! The vampires also have a group of “half-converts” who have begun the transformation, but can still be redeemed. The little brother of one of the half-converts teams up with some kiddy “slayers” to rid the town of these badly-dressed bloodsuckers. It’s Home Alone with vampires!
The result is an odd amalgamation of a movie that’s not super scary and not super funny, but somehow still pretty dang entertaining. The villains are just scary enough that you can take them seriously, and the goofy comedic bits remind you to just sit back and have fun. The plot isn’t terribly sophisticated, though I was impressed with the twist regarding the main villain, and his surprisingly relatable motivations.
The Frighteners (***)
In retrospect, it’s kind of amazing that Peter Jackson got to direct Lord of the Rings, given that he hadn’t produced a major box office hit at that point in his career. His highest-grossing movie by far was The Frighteners, which made about $30 million worldwide in 1996.
I recall being interested in this movie when I was in highschool, but never got around to seeing it. The Frighteners is a 90’s movie playing with those newfangled 90’s CGI effects, while borrowing the plot elements of earlier supernatural movies such as Ghostbusters, Ghost, and Poltergeist. The CGI spooks are present in abundance from the very beginning, making the movie very effects-heavy. The spooks are too exposed to be scary, but maybe that’s not the point. The movie is definitely more “spooky” rather than genuinely frightening.
The plot centers around a town dealing with a series of unexplained deaths, and a “psychic investigator” who’s simultaneously a conman, but also a legit medium who really can see ghosts. The main character (played by Michael J Fox) sees the ghost of a man he recently conned, and ends up helping the man’s widow and trying to figure out who the killer is.
This movie is really close to being really good, but makes just a few notable missteps. The tone shifts too rapidly, and I generally found that the serious/scary elements tended to work, and most of the humorous elements were pretty dumb. The worst “humorous” element is a weirdo FBI agent who ends up providing a “pest” antagonist that the film simply doesn’t need. I kept waiting for a twist to make the character relevant or interesting, and it never came. The second half of the story feels very drawn out, with so many action sequences in a row that I started to get exhausted by the time we finally got to the impressive finale. Pacing is not Peter Jackson’s strong suit.
Despite that, I enjoyed The Frighteners for its creative plot, well-acted leads, and engaging thrills. The final battle involves the main character revisiting the scene of a mass shooting, and it’s genuinely affecting and disturbing. Honestly, it’s probably worth seeing the movie just for the last 20 minutes.