Blade Runner 2049

October 12, 2017

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

Bears some relationship to Philip K. Dick’s novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? But not much…

This otter is old enough to have seen the original Blade Runner in the theater. Yes, some people walking on this earth are actually that old. And what was released in the theater had a truly awful ending, which was rectified when DVDs were invented and we all went out and bought the Director’s Cut (which is the one to watch, kids, just sayin’).

And in fact, I have not seen it since I started this blog on January 1, 2002, so it has indeed been a while, although I think Mr. Otter watched it while I did something else and I saw the best bits over again.

Anyway. So Blade Runner is a very old classic movie, justly famous, well written, good actors, blah blah blah. Amazing.

And…now there’s a sequel.

So first: this review contains

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Mr. Otter and I had a rare afternoon together with nothing planned. We had heard many conflicting things about this movie, about half good and half bad. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a score in the 80s, though, which is usually a good sign. So we went to our local Emporium du Movies to see it.

And…hm. I liked the look of it, not quite as low-rent and filthy as the original, but they had a ton more money, and this time they had computers (the original Blade Runner was one of the last analog-effects movies that wasn’t purposely made without computers). The light, scenery, sets, everything was visually stunning.

The actors were good- Ryan Gosling, although he had an emotional range that went all the way from A to about D, was good in a part where he didn’t know stuff and was trying to find out. Robin Wright was great, I didn’t even recognize her, although I did recognize David Bautista. And of course there was someone else I recognized…but we’ll get to that.

And I am not at all a prudish Otter, but they sure threw in as many naked women as they possibly could. No men, just women. Hmpf. Although the scene where he started to have sex with both the prostitute and his computer lady was REALLY good.

The music was PORTENTOUS. Mostly I didn’t notice it, which is good (it’s always a bad sign when you notice the background music in a movie) but every now and then, it would get VERY MEANINGFUL to let us know that SOMETHING WAS HAPPENING. Especially toward the end of the movie.

I thought the first couple of hours (oh yes, this movie was TWO HOURS AND FORTY FIVE MINUTES LONG, this was one of the problems) was pretty good- the plot was good, everything was fine…then, when the scene moved to what I think was the remnant of  Las Vegas…it all went south.

It got PRETENTIOUS. And MEANINGFUL. And DEEP. And…just took itself WAAAY too seriously.

And Harrison Ford, reprising yet another famous role. I’m waiting for him to drive by in a souped up race car, 90 years old and trying to find the guy he’s supposed to be racing…that’s pretty much the only iconic role of his that he hasn’t done again lately…

Why couldn’t they just write a good sequel-ish script, make a good story and leave it at that? Why does this have to be a direct Harrison-Ford-involving, rewriting-the-original, spawning-yet-another-franchise kind of thing?

The two things they did right was that A) Gosling WASN’T the child of the replicants, and the reveal was very good, nice foreshadowing without giving it away; and B) the dog didn’t die. Because that’s always a deal-killer Chez Otter.

But seriously? This was WAAAAY overblown. And also, even though it was nice to see a movie that took some time with scenes and characters and all that, this needed an hour cut out of it. And I would volunteer pretty much the whole last hour for the chop, as well as the long loving pans over the computer-generated apocalyptic landscape. That was at least half an hour of movie time.

Yes, you probably need to see it if you loved the first movie. Enjoy it for what it is and don’t expect too much, and more importantly don’t be surprised when the third (of course there’s going to be a sequel, that was obvious) shows up.

But I won’t be in the theater with you, I’m done with this. I’m going home and watching the original over again.

 


My Favorite Spy

April 8, 2017

spy

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

A silly farce where things are lost and found, people are mistaken, and hijinks ensue.

It was December. We were making plans for our yearly New Year’s Day Videofest, and I had a list of movies starring Hedy Lamarr, because that was our theme for this year. Mr. Otter and I discussed possible movies, taking into account what was available on Netflix, at our local libraries, and things we could either buy cheaply or rent cheaply from Amazon. This movie streamed for free, and Mr. Otter said, Oh, I saw that when it was new, it was HILARIOUS. Great, I said, we don’t have any comedies, let’s go with that.

And we did. It was #6, after everyone else (Ottersis, mostly) had left, and we started watching it. And after a bit, Mr. Otter said, um.

Um? I said, something wrong?

Well, said Mr. Otter rather sheepishly, this isn’t the movie I was thinking of. I just remembered that the hilarious spy movie that I mixed up with this one was called Comrade X. I’ve never seen this one.

Um, I said…

But it was there and we watched it. Silly lightweight farce. Lamarr and Bob Hope were individually good but didn’t have much chemistry. The plot was heavy on slapstick and light on plot. It was okay but not great.

Um.


The Strange Woman

April 8, 2017

strangewoman

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

From the novel of the same name by Ben Williams.

A beautiful woman from out of town marries a wealthy merchant in 1820s New England…but also seduces his son and factory foreman. Things do not go well.

The New Year’s Day videofest was in session, and this year’s theme was Hedy Lamarr. This was our fifth movie, and it was okay, but there were parts that really made us roll our eyes.

Hedy was beautiful and believeable as the manipulative, self-centered girl who is trying to escape a life of poverty by marrying rich, but (not being satisfied with the quiet life she’s chosen) is looking for more on the side.

But some of the plot twists were just so ridiculous…like the scene from when she’s a kid, and pushes a boy who can’t swim into the river, and doesn’t rescue him til adults come by to see her do it…of course this boy is the son of the rich merchant she marries, and then she seduces him. That’s the kind of thing that had us saying, Nah! very loudly at the screen.

It wasn’t bad, just really unbelieveable in places…I don’t know if this was a faithful rendering of the novel, but the movie was only so-so.


Tortilla Flat

March 18, 2017

tortilla

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

Based on the book Tortilla Flat by John Steinbeck

A group of happy-go-lucky guys in a small town on the California coast way back when there were sardine fisheries and everyone spoke with some kind of fake accent.

It was the New Year’s Day Videofest, and the theme this year was Hedy Lamarr. This was the first movie, and we were looking forward to it because not only was Ms. Lamarr in it, but also Spencer Tracy, several other good bit players, and it was adapted from a Steinbeck novel which Mr. Otter loved as a kid (Although I have read a lot of Steinbeck and enjoyed it, I have never read this one.)

And…it was pretty bad. Hedy was good, and extremely beautiful. John Garfield (as a Mexican-American…!) was cute and had a decent role, although he didn’t seem too bright, since he kept letting Tracy’s crew take advantage of him.

But oh my god, Spencer Tracy and his pack of layabouts (including Akim Tamiroff and Sheldon Leonard) were SO FREAKIN’ ANNOYING! Lazy assholes taking advantage of everyone, and Tracy’s character was so manipulative we were yelling at the TV by the end. The crap this pack of losers got away with, and the stunts they pulled, and their justifications for lying, stealing, arson and drinking, were just teeth-grindingly awful, especially as they were supposed to be happy-go-lucky older Mexican-Americans as well. But even for the time (1942) when this was made, they were just freakin’ annoying.

The only older guy in the town we really liked was Frank Morgan as the Dog-guy. He and his dogs were great. And John Garfield was cute and nice, if gormless. And Hedy was beautiful.

Otherwise? meh.


Passengers

March 18, 2017

passengers

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

Two passengers on a space ship bound for a colony world wake up 90 years early. Shenanigans!

And that is all I’ll say without warning you that there are BIG HONKIN’ SPOILERS coming. Because there is no way to convey my annoyance at this movie without telling you all about it.

So if you want to see it first, go ahead. I’ll wait.

<slow passage of time>

Done? Okay, let’s go…

Okay. How much am I annoyed at this movie? Let me count the ways…

  1. So there are these colony ships that take people in hibernation to other planets. Why are there restaurants and shopping malls on these ships if nobody is supposed to be awake? This makes no sense, and is a waste of space and money, even on a ‘luxury’ ship.
  2. We’ll give the movie the unlikely premise that one and only one pod (at this point) will fail in such a way that the occupant (Chris Pratt) wakes up and is fine…but is awake and alone on a ship that is supposed to travel for 90 years and there is no way for him to be sent back to sleep. Why is all this stuff (see #1) running? Even if there are restaurants and shopping malls and bars and gyms that can be available for (maybe) the beginning and end of the voyage (and again, why? wouldn’t the colonists be asleep at takeoff?) why don’t they all shut down as soon as everyone is asleep? There are no caretakers awake, remember. It’s all automated.
  3. Ditto Michael Sheen, playing the amusing robotic bartender (and it tells you a lot about this movie that the robot bartender is the most sympathetic character…)
  4. I can actually see Pratt being lonely and desperate enough to wake Jennifer Lawrence…but why is there no emergency way to get to or wake the CREW??? You’d think they’d put that in the computer from the beginning: by the way, if any passengers do somehow wake up, wake the captain IMMEDIATELY!!…but no.
  5. So he wakes up Jennifer Lawrence and doesn’t admit to doing it, just tells her they were two random awakenings…of course, this is the crux of the movie, and they start to address it then get sidetracked by explosions and fixing the ship and all, and they NEVER really deal with the fact that because he has done this, he’s doomed someone else and changed her life irrevocably. And this is the heart of the movie. And they (aside from her being mad at him then ending up forgiving him) really don’t go into the awfulness of it.
  6. Really? The ONLY OTHER person whose pod malfunctions just happens to be a crew member who can figure out what’s what, give them a wristband that lets them access all the ship functions, then conveniently dies of internal damage from his damaged sleep pod? Talk about (literal) Deus ex Machina! (and it’s Laurence Fishburne, so Deus indeed!) Why doesn’t Chris Pratt have the same damage? Or (as far as they know) any of the other pods? Why doesn’t ANYONE ELSE ON THE DAMN SHIP wake up, except Chris and the ONE GUY who can save them and the whole shipload of people? Because reasons. This is bad writing and it had me rolling my eyes.
  7. So they find out what’s wrong with the ship, and have to fix it, in the course of which Pratt goes to CERTAIN DEATH, the connotation being that he deserves it for what he did to Jennifer Lawrence (who, by the way, was EXTREMELY CUTE in this movie. Just sayin’). I was okay with that, except…<facepalm> he DOESN’T DIE. Almost, but she saves him. And forgives him. And they will live their lives out on this (now fixed) ship and never see the planet they’re emigrating to. But that’s okay,  they love each other. Cue music.
  8. Because the asteroids that damaged the ship (and the damage was getting progressively worse, and of course A) they figured out how to fix it by talking to Fishburne and B) it’s something only a human could do, not the ship itself, and the ship had no robots built in to fix it, just bartenders) not only didn’t damage it enough to not be fixable, or catastrophic at the time of damage (in which case there would have been no movie) but also didn’t knock it off its course or anything either…
  9. I would have liked this a whole lot better if he had died, and then she had faced the same problem he did, and seen her psychological reaction and what she would do as a consequence. That could actually have made this a good movie. But no, they took the easy, ‘happy’ way out.
  10. This was a movie with a lot of pretty scenes where the viewer was not supposed to think too much…which (again) would have been fine if the whole movie plot had not been based on a moral choice and the repercussions of that choice, but then sidestepped any real discussion of those ramifications.

Seriously disappointing, even with the amusing robot bartender and good eye-candy like Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence.


The Accountant

January 29, 2017

accountant
Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

Ben Affleck plays an autistic-spectrum accountant, who, for various reasons, is not only the best accountant ever, but also can out-fight anyone and shoot a rifle extremely far and accurately. He lives a quiet life but is actually the accountant for various bad guys around the world, and the treasury department is trying to track him down.

Mr. Otter and I decided not to be at home for the little trick-or-treaters, and decamped to the movie theater instead, and this is one of the movies we saw.

This was watchable, but had a lot of problems. Firstly, Ben Affleck, who I think is actually a good actor, did a good job playing an autistic person-but since that means having a flat, un-outgoing personality and no real verbal skills, it meant that the character was not very interesting to watch…and he’s on screen for almost the whole time.

Secondly, there were HUGE coincidences and unexplained plot points that made no sense. I won’t go into them, one of them is the big reveal of the movie, but seriously, both Mr. Otter and I said, no way! Just…no way could that ever have happened.

John Lithgow was good, and it was nice to see him, but it was not much of a part.

And…no, this one really isn’t worth a long review. Good actors, some good action sequences, mediocre writing. Skip it.


The Magnificent Seven (2016)

January 26, 2017

seven

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

A remake of the 1960 western of the same name, which was itself based on Kurosawa’s movie The Seven Samurai. People in a small town hire seven down-and-out gunslingers to protect them from the bad guys.

So here’s what’s different:

  1. It’s not a Mexican town, it’s an American Southwest mining town, and the evil industrialist mine owner is trying to make people work harder so he can make a ton o’ money. I’m not sure how killing the workers is supposed to achieve this, but whatevs…
  2. Instead of an average Joe (or Jose, since the original was set in Mexico) being the town spokesman, a beautiful girl whose husband has been killed in the reign of terror (hired thugs shoot up the meeting in the church, then burn it down, ordering people to leave the bodies there as an example) goes on her own and hires some guys.
  3. She runs into Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt, up to hijinks as a bounty hunter and gambler, and when she shows them some money and mentions the bad guy’s name, they’re all about helping her. And they find a bunch of other guys they know who can help.
  4. For a town girl, she sure does well at spending something like a week in the saddle doing hard riding…and they all seem to find their friends (in hiding) pretty well too.
  5. The seven are carefully multicultural and inclusive. The original group o’ white guys included Charles Bronson pretending to be Mexican, and Russo-Japanese Yul Brynner pretending to be just another guy, but the rest were Euro-types. The new set include Denzel, a Korean actor playing ‘generic Asian’, an ACTUAL Mexican guy playing a Mexican (must be a first for Hollywood) and, of course, a Native American. Plus three white guys.
  6. There is very little explanation of who these guys are, why they would be willing to do this, or what their connection is with Denzel.
  7. The Comanche (who, btw, is played by an actor who at least has some Native ancestry…Alaskan, but at least authentic…) of course runs into his arch enemy during the final battle and they fight. Because like women in a battle, who must be shown fighting each other, Native Americans must also be shown to fight each other instead of whatever target shows itself. Sigh.
  8. Don’t even get me started on the final battle, which was full of eye-rolling stuff like Gatling guns that accurately shoot single bullets over distance.
  9. And…of course they rescue the town, fulfill their various destinites, and (those who are left alive) ride out victorious.

I kind of liked this as I was watching it, but my brain kept saying, but…what about this? No, that’s not right…but this other thing? no, that doesn’t work either.

Even with the star power hired to attract viewers, this is a letdown. Pass on it and watch the original again instead, you’ll be glad you did.