Additional Thoughts: Jumanji

In my video reviews, I want to stay within the scope of that individual film.  I don't want to stray and explore its impact, its influence, what it should or should not have been, or even too much about what influenced the creation of it.

Welcome to Additional Thoughts.

I wish kids' movies today were as good as this.  Today's movies for children are madhouse ADD fests that are obligated by contract to have at least one joke every ten seconds.  It's insane.  Watch Jumanji.  Note that there aren't very many bright colors.  Note that nobody is over acting.  Note that the camera angles are normal.  Note that the music is not in your face.  I'm not sure where I'm going with this.  The point is that compared to kids' movies today, Jumanji is stoic as all get out.  Listen to the dialog between action scenes.  It's just people reacting much as you imagine they would!  No wise cracks!  There is one scene that descends a little bit into Home Alone territory (Home Alone was a BIG deal at the time), but other than that, the movie is literally played straight by the actors.

Contrast that with 2017's Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.  This was a very funny movie, but when you hold it up to the original, it's so disposable.  Jumanji is a fine glass and Welcome to the Jungle is a red plastic cup.  The original is made to last, and the sequel (quite frankly) is not.

Welcome to the Jungle is full to the brim with throwaway jokes, one-liners, and gags.  Pretty much every single one of them was funny, but every time you give a character one of those kinds of lines, you could have given them a real character moment but you didn't.  And now your movie has less replay value.  It's VERY popular these days to sacrifice replay value for gags and laughs.

Remember: heroes get remembered, but legends never die.  Follow your heart, kid.

Speaking of legends, David Alan Grier is in Jumanji, and I think he has more funny scenes than Robin Williams.  He is so funny.  But like Williams, he is perfectly tuned to where the movie needs him.  It's something you see a lot of throughout the movie.  Compared to modern movies you almost want to use the word "muted" to describe the performances . . . but you really mean they serve the story instead of a random gag.

Serving the story has become so rare that when actors do it it now seems "muted".  That about sums up the difference between Jumanji and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.  And it serves as an example of the difference between filmmaking in general then and now.  Sad.

Big Shot Critic

Additional Thoughts: Star Wars

The temptation is so strong to introduce a character as an archetype, and expand the character from there to OUTSIDE the archetype, for fear of cliché.

I would say within an individual movie, stick to the archetype.  Unless you are using the switch as a twist in your story, in which case be careful to avoid all the pitfalls that come with that, such as consistency issues.

Going from one movie to another, it is okay to demonstrate a character's growth by showing that he or she is now an entirely different kind of character.  However, don't do this just for its own sake.  It must serve the story, otherwise it's entirely meaningless.

This has been Additional Thoughts with Big Shot Critic

Midway (1976) Review

Big Shot Critic on YouTube

"Henry V" Review

Henry V

Henry V is an adaptation of the original Shakespeare play of the same name, done by the infamous adaptor of all things Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh.  After much research I have discovered his last name is pronounced "BRA-nah".

For those of you who don't know (I sure didn't), Henry V was the King of England from 1413-1422.  Smack in the middle of the Hundred Years' War, Henry led a now-legendary military campaign into France.  His most famous battle was at Agincourt.  He led his army into battle personally, and with fewer numbers than his French foes.  Some say the English were outnumbered as much as six to one.

I'm going to be honest with you.  I didn't understand anything anyone said in this movie.  It's over two hours long, and there was one line I was able to entirely decipher through words alone.  Just one.

"Bear them hence"

Every single other line of dialogue was entirely useless to me in communicating what was going on.  I had to rely on other means.

This is a good time to talk about Kenneth Branagh.  The man is a Shakespeare adaptation machine.  He hasn't stopped yet and this movie was released in 1989.  He's also an incredibly competent director.  Even though I had no idea what anybody ever said in this movie, I almost always knew what was going on.  One scene was entirely in French (without subtitles), but I understood what was happening in the scene, and what the scene was for.  I don't speak French.  That is maybe the best compliment I could give Mr. Branagh on his direction (he was nominated for Best Director for Henry V).  Through the performances, the inflections of the lines, the costumes and the settings, the body language, and also the music, I was able to not only understand the story, but also all the character and interpersonal dynamics.

The cast is loaded.  Headliners include Kenneth Branagh himself, Judi Dench, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Derek Jacobi, Brian Blessed, Ian Holm, and an early role from Christian Bale.  And Brian Blessed was born to wear the armor he wears in this movie (Henry V won the Oscar for costume design).

The version of Henry V that Branagh portrays here is basically the English version of President Whitmore from Independence Day.  He's this über inspirational leader who inspires soldier and audience member alike.  Even though I had no idea what he was talking about, his speech to his soldiers before the battle was still awe-inspiring, and for me it rivaled President Whitmore's speech from Independence Day.  I'm not kidding.  That's a lot of praise for Branagh's performance right there (he was also nominated for Best Actor for Henry V).  I freaking love the speech from Independence Day, and this one might have been better.

Even though I had no idea what the heck anyone was talking about, I still recommend Henry V for your viewing pleasure.  I'm not some cretin, it's just that Shakespeare is Shakespeare.  I use context clues to understand it when I read it, and they proved enough for watching it too.

Henry V is rated PG-13 for a bloody battle.  They aren't wrong, it is bloody.

Now a small housekeeping item.  Some exciting times are coming soon for Big Shot Critic.  So stay tuned.

      Big Shot Critic

"Genius" Review

Genius

I've decided to write another review.  I guess I had fun with the last one.  I've been trying to write more and more.  I've been reviving old projects, dusting off this old blog, and journaling extensively.  I even wrote a letter to a friend recently.  I like writing.  And when I'm feeling especially responsible, I take the chances I have to do it.

And I've been going to the library roughly once a week.  Obviously I like movies, and this is a new exercise to enjoy new movies.  I started with "A" in the DVD section.  I picked a movie I hadn't seen before, and I watched it.  The next week I brought it back, and I repeat the process with "B", and so on.  The keen reader will note that my last review was of a movie that started with "F", and this one starts with "G".

So far in this exercise I've watched Aloha, Annapolis, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Chariots of Fire, The Cat and the Canary, Down with Love, The Eagle, From Up on Poppy Hill, and Genius.  Though they all looked interesting to me, they have varied from amazing (I wrote about that last week) to truly terrible (Aloha).  In summary, just because you directed Jerry Maguire doesn't mean you have anything good left, Justin Lin has grown as a director, ensemble elderly British casts are still inexplicably entertaining, Spock's dad runs fast, not all silent films are classics, Renée Zellweger does more than squint, Rudolph Valentino deserved the star power he had, read my previous review, and read this review.

There.  You're caught up.

Genius is the true story of Maxwell Perkins.  Truly an historical footnote of a man.  Did you know that Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Thomas Wolfe were all discovered, fostered, edited, and published by the same man?  And I can honestly say he lives up to his larger-than-life legacy as a slightly interesting bit of twentieth century trivia.

I tease, but it is genuinely interesting.  And the relationship the film focuses on - between him and Wolfe - is beefy enough to fill the movie, and to entertain.  I will say outright that the casting was huge in Genius, and certainly provided most of the draw for me.  Laura Linney and Nicole Kidman are obviously good in their roles, but I came for Jude Law and Colin Firth, as Thomas Wolfe and Maxwell Perkins, respectively.  You get bonus cameos too, from Guy Pearce and Dominic West.  And if you keep a sharp eye you'll even spot Vanessa Kirby.  She is everywhere and it's starting to scare me.

A lesser screenwriter would have given in to the temptation to make Jude Law's Thomas Wolfe a manic pixie dream girl to Firth's stoic Mr. Perkins.  But John Logan is John Logan.  He makes movies, not mistakes.  As a result, the two actors paint the two characters as interesting, funny, charming, likable, very unlikable at times, and very real.  I'm sure everyone's hope in making this movie was to construct a window into what it may have really been like.  I don't think there's anyone left to say if they got it right or not, but it sure feels like a window on a real part of history.  And that's good enough for me.

Thomas Wolfe was a writer.  And he wrote a lot.  It is inspiring to me to see a part of his story.  And the other stories of the other people around him who have a love for writing.  It had a direct influence on me deciding to write this review, and I think that would make Thomas Wolfe happy.  John Logan too, but he's not dead so who cares.

Genius is rated PG-13 for some thematic elements and suggestive content.  It was written by John Logan and directed by Chuck Norris.  I'm just kidding, it was directed by Michael Grandage.

      Big Shot Critic

"From Up on Poppy Hill" Review

From Up on Poppy Hill

Hold up.  Hold up.  Just a minute.  First I will say welcome back to the Big Shot Critic blog.  It has been a few months, and we're all a little overexcited to be back.  Give it a minute.  Deep breaths.  Take it in.

Okay.  Am I going to do reviews now?  I don't know.  Am I going to return to my weekly posts?  I don't know.  I just wanted to write a review for this film, and I have a blog for that, so here it is.  Let us begin.

Watching From Up on Poppy Hill for the first time was like watching Casablanca for the first time.  It takes you to a place and a time that you are not familiar with, and makes it matter to you.  It's a very specific place and time, and the story wouldn't work anywhere (or any when) else.  In Casablanca, it was northwestern Africa in the middle of World War II.  In From Up on Poppy Hill, it's Yokohama, Japan in 1963.  And now I want to move to Yokohama in the 60's because it looks like so much fun.

The movie focuses on Umi, a high school student.  She meets a classmate named Shun, and they have feelings for each other.  How they meet is a lot of fun, and in any throwaway story it would be a gimmick to show how cool and adventurous the love interest is, but here it comes naturally from not only the story, but the historical context as well.  It's brilliant.

As we all know, two people developing feelings for each other in a movie means there must be an obstacle between them.  From Up on Poppy Hill is no different, but it's an obstacle I've never seen in a romance story before.  I won't spoil it.  And again, had this been a lesser movie that would have to be the end of my review so as to avoid spoilers.  But where other filmmakers settle for dead space, Studio Ghibli injects OODLES of texture.  Yes, that's right, oodles.  And this is where this film really stands out.

Texture in film is a tricky thing.  To be honest, it's actually an abstract idea.  It is subjective, and it manifests from calculated effort.  Take Black Panther, for example.  The texture of that movie is found in the fact that your brain accepts that Wakanda is feasible.  All that costume work, all that architecture study, all that set dressing and makeup, it's all there just so you DON'T think: "Hang on, that doesn't look like something that would really exist."

Most use texture as a sort of shield, to defend against losing the audience.  Studio Ghibli uses it more like a weapon.  It's not designed to prevent you from disbelieving.  It's designed to ensure that you do believe.  To make belief inescapable.  This is what happens when you treat texture with the same respect you give to story and character.  It's like this movie was grown, not made.  That's how natural all the texture feels.

This movie was a joy from beginning to end.  I know critics say that all the time about movies they like, but this one really was, thanks to the outstanding soundtrack that kicks off right at the start.  If you are a human being who has experienced at least one emotion before, you will enjoy this movie.

From Up on Poppy Hill is rated PG for mild thematic elements and some incidental smoking images.  It was written by Hayao Miyazaki and directed by Goro Miyazaki.  This reviewer watched it in original Japanese with English subtitles from the original Japanese cast.

      Big Shot Critic

In Theaters: June 14, 2019 (Major Life Event Catch-Up Edition!)

Dear readers . . . I got engaged!  I proposed to my girlfriend, and she said yes.  She is now my fiancée, which is very cool.  First I didn't blog because I was busy planning a proposal, and since then I haven't blogged because we've been in the early stages of planning a wedding!  But I have some time now so let's do this.

Men in Black International

The first new release in months that I actually want to see.

Men in Black International stars those two from Thor: Ragnarok.  So if you liked them in that, maybe you'll like them in this.  I can't think of a time in recent history when two co-stars were plucked from another movie so obviously as Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson have been here.  I know in the old days it happened a lot.

This movie is directed by F. Gary Gray, and that's no small thing.  He directed The Fate of the Furious, which, in my opinion, has not been bested by another movie since its release in April 2017.

I have no idea what the plot is, but it's Men in Black, so count on aliens.

Men in Black International is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action, some language and suggestive material.

Dark Phoenix (June 7th release)

I honestly believe this movie will go down in history as a case study of audience good will drying up SO quickly for a franchise.  And so thoroughly.  Interest in Days of Future Past (just two movies ago in the franchise) was huge from audiences.  Part of the blame must go to X-Men: Apocalypse, which was in fact terrible.  But Dark Phoenix is different . . . people cared about Episode III after Episode II was terrible.  People are excited about Episode IX after Episode VIII was terrible.  But Dark Phoenix?  No one cares.  No one.  I've never seen anything like it, and I've been paying attention to movies for almost twenty years.

But at least Jennifer Lawrence's star power takes another blow.  How's that for a silver lining.

No one cares what Dark Phoenix is rated.  No one cares that Dark Phoenix even exists.

The Secret Life of Pets 2 (June 7th release)

I'm skipping over this one.  It's safe to take your kids.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (May 31st release)

This is interesting.  I kinda want to see it.  I really really enjoyed the 2014 Godzilla.  Kong: Skull Island was lame, and I know they're headed for a fight.  But I liked Godzilla a lot.  Mostly because of Gareth Edwards, I think.

Anyway, there's more Godzilla and more monsters.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is rated PG-13 for sequences of monster action violence and destruction, and for some language.

      Big Shot Critic