Reviews...

1. Wonder Woman 1984

This was a major disappointment, and I don't think it worked on multiple levels. While the first film was admittedly flawed in spots, it did work overall and is among the better superhero flicks I've seen. But this one..meh. Kind of the comparison between Superman and Superman II, to be honest.

I could see what the filmmakers overall intent was - or what they were aiming for, but felt it was poorly achieved. And the theme heavy-handed. (I liked the theme - I just felt it was executed and delivered poorly.) This was partly due to poor casting choices in the supporting roles, specifically the villains, and the overall plot.

Gadot and her character aren't quite solid and/or charismatic enough to hold the film on her own - as evidenced by the first film - where she had plenty of support. You know there's a problem - when the best parts of the film are either in the Amazon with Robin Wright and young Diana, or after Chris Pine pops up.

The plot - oh dear, while thematically well-intentioned, was cheesy even for the superhero genre. (It kind of took comic book-y a touch too far, which may well have worked in 1980s but not so much now. Also the 1980s bits barely register. And Diana is in desperate need of a good side-kick or a less tragic romantic love interest. I was kind of disappointed with what they chose to do with Dr. Barbara Minerva (the geologist), Kristen Wigg's character. Because she could have been a good counter-balance to Diana. In the first film - we had that - a group of people who kind of counter-acted the "Goddess" - who is aloof, and counter-acted Steve. In this film, we don't have that - and it is a problem. Most superhero films have that going for them in either the Kents, Miss Potts, Jarvis, Jimmy, Gordon, Alfred or even Lois Lane. Wonder Woman tries with Steve Trevor - but it worked better in Wonder Woman than it does in the sequel. In the sequel it feels a bit awkward and you kind of know that Steve has one foot out of the door throughout.)

I should probably mention the plot in a bit more detail?

( spoilers )

Overall? C-, and be happy you didn't see it in the theater. I saw it on TV, for free. I don't recommend paying for it.


2. Soul - by Pixar on Disney Plus.

This was a pleasant surprise. I'd read it was good - its made a lot of critics best lists. But seeing is believing - and I agree with critics who've stated that when Pixar is good - it's really frigging good.

I was blown away by this film. It's so innovative. And it's plot while simple in structure - works so well, and feels so new. In addition, it's cast is either African-American or heavenly bodies that are definitely not of human form or structure. It gets props for the most innovative construction of the after-life, I've seen. It's not exactly an after-life - it's more a before life. We never see the great beyond. There is no hell.
No threat of hell. Just new and old souls.

It blew me away. I mean it was so creative and different. Also, it's philosophical without bogging you down with it - actually playfully so. The characters are interesting and well-developed. The main character has multiple layers. And while his goals are seemingly simple, they are relatable and layered as well.

He also goes on a definite journey.

Soul, an animated film, basically does everything Wonder Woman did wrong, right - granted they are apples and tangerines, but still.

Plot? ( Read more... )

One of the best films I've seen this year (not that I've seen that many).

The voices include: Jamie Fox, Tina Fey, Wes Studi, Phyllicia Rashad...and others.

I kind of went into it blind, not sure if that affected how I saw it or not.

Overall rating - A++

Day #283 - Boxing Day

Didn't do a lot - it was cold, and I slept poorly. (Note to self - sliced sirlon steak, broccoli and cauliflower digest horribly. )

Watched television, slept in, put away boxes, took old dishes to the basement, took a brief walk, the usual...

It's cold. We went from the sixties to the low thirties in less than 24 hours. My left knee has been bugging me a bit - but I put that down to digestive issues. Anyhow after walking the space of two blocks, my back and legs told me - this was more than enough, and we could walk when it was warmer on Sunday and Monday, thank you very much.

Oh picture of ...breakfast on new plates...
( Read more... )

I could do a take-out food order, but always dicey with dietary restrictions.

Also feed and watered my plants - four sprouted out six in the aerogarden. But hey, I got four!

( Read more... )

Television?

Been watching "The Great Pottery Show-Down on HBO Max" and started watching "Bridgerton" on Netflix (nice and silly and fluffy - kind of a bawdy Jane Austen). Much needed during a pandemic.

News? I'm kind of avoiding it. I can't do anything about it. Just wait for it to play out. When I think about it - I kind of want to personally smack a few folks upside the head. Better not too. I don't think anything will get better until the new regime gets in - January 21, and we won't see positive changes until March or April.

I almost forgot to add - there's some interesting up and coming Netflix series..

* Lupin (based on the story of the French Thief hunting justice for his father), which the Monkey Punch series was also based, but has no association whatsoever with the Japenese Magna Cartoon.

* Netflix is doing a ten episode long live action version of Cowboy Bebop
[I need to watch the original - I've only seen the anime theaterical film.]

* And a documentary entitle of all things..The History of Swear Words.

* And the film adaptation of historical non-fiction book The Professor and the Madman starring Mel Gibson and Scean Penn of all people

I still need to check out George Clooney's The Midnight Sky (but it looks bleak and I don't want bleak at the moment), and Tell Us About It.

Ah, streaming...you are tempting me to give up broadcast cable completely.

Reviews..

1. Saw the first episode of "Bridgerton" - which is exactly as advertised. A fluffy Alternate Universe Regency Romance - where racial tensions don't exist and aren't insular to the class divide. Classicism and genderism/sexism and homophobia is evident, just not so much racism. Which is an interesting tactic. It kind of shifts the focus more directly onto sexism and classicism in a way.

It wasn't jarring because I was prepared for it - and had gone into it with decision to hand-wave all anachronisms. Also, it probably helps that I'm not an expert on British history, British aristocracy or anything associated with it. I know very little, and have forgotten even more. It's not something that has stuck in my brain - and I've not really studied it since well...the 1980s. For example? I didn't know zippers didn't exist back then. Also I have no clue which era this is supposed to exist in - I'm guessing Regency or early 1800s. But I don't know when the Regency period was in British history. (Folks? British history is kind of irrelevant to my life and I'm guessing to the majority of the audience watching it. It's target audience isn't the historians in the crowd but the historical romance readers.)

That's sort of a round about way of stating that it may be jarring to you? D

Anyhow, the production is excellent, and they've cast the leads well. The Duke of Hastings is hot, and comes across as a charismatic rakish leading man of a romance novel - almost as if he stepped out of one. He'd have worked beautifully in Duran's Lord of Shadows. And Phoebe looks the picture of a romantic heroine - except usually they have bigger bosums in these books. She's a tad on the thin side - also back then - the bigger the breasts, the more appealing, they wore corsets to lift the breasts and cinch the waists. But it's kind of hard to cast with that in mind, so I hand-waved it.

Also there's good banter in the first episode, and the dialogue moves the story along at a lively pace, and is rapid fire in some places. And, we have the excellent Polly Walker in a character role, along with a few other British character actors - who I've seen before.

It's much prettier and livilier than Austen, and more than a touch sexier. We have male and female nudity, in particular male - actually more male nudity - and a very definitive female gaze - which is in keeping with the genre. The genre is written for women - and it has explicit sex scenes, and graphic male nudity. The male anatomy in a romance novel is often described in detail, along with the act. Jane Austen and Hallmark - the historical romance is not. [Also keep in mind, it's on Netflix not BBC or PBS or broadcast networks - so swearing, dirty talk, nudity and sex scenes are permitted. And it was apparently all filmed prior to 2020...so no pandemic issues were involved.]

Overall a good start - I'll continue watching. I'm even intrigued enough to try the books.

2. Let Them All Talk - directed by Steven Soderburgh, staring Meryl Streep, Candice Bergen, Dianne Wiest, and Lucas Hedges.

This was filmed on the Queen Mary 2 during the fall of 2019. (So it's kind of odd - to watch?) In addition it has Soderburg's yellow light filter, where everything has a kind of orange/yellowish hue - which is true of most of his movies? I notice it because it annoys me. It makes me feel like the film has been aged or something.)

Actors love Soderburgh for much the same reason that they love Robert Altman, he leaves them alone. Basically what he does is hand them the script, tells them to figure out the characters, and then play it out. The script is almost an outline, and the rest is improve, with the actors coming up with their own lines. The view is this is more organic and realistic. In addition - he doesn't employ extras, instead he films with non-actors or actual crew members, passengers, etc.

It's hyper-realism with a yellow filter over the hand-held camera lens, sometimes a blue filter.

The difficulty with this style of filmmaking is that the dialogue is often kind of jilted, and awkward. If not cringe-inducing. Actors aren't writers, and they are being asked to just to talk to each other in character (easier said than done.) The actors talk awkwardly around each other. There's a lot of pregnant pauses, or "Uh's", clearing of throats, and awkward muttering. And the emotion is muted. You have a lot of meandering conversations that go seemingly nowhere or about nothing. Lots of airy quotes and pretentious musings by Meryl Streep's character, who is an accomplished literary writer.

It's why I find Robert Altman's films for the most part difficult to watch.
Some actors are rather good at it. Candice Bergen is a natural. She's the only one who doesn't speak awkwardly, is direct, blunt, and every time she's on screen - I'm riveted. I actually kept watching because of her. Streep needs a director and a writer, or she gets flighty. She's not really a method actress - like Bergen. Nor is Dianne Wiest, who also got flighty. And Lucas Hedges gave me a headache.

The best thing in this movie is Candice Bergen. ( spoilers )

The film is bittersweet. But I felt it's overall themes were better accomplished by the far simpler and more joyful fare of "Soul".

Overall rating? B