Third Row Center: 42 and a bit about “issue” films.

The first question that is raised for me in this drama surrounding the true life story of Jackie Robinson is, was Douglas Adams a fan of Jackie Robinson?  Yes, it’s the geek question, only raised by someone who has spent most of his life NOT as a baseball fan.   Still, I do love a good baseball movie, possibly even more than ever watching the game itself.  I love Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, For The Love Of The Game to name a few and there is a certain appeal to the “romance” offered by baseball.  The smell of the grass, the crack of a bat, the sound of a ball hitting a glove.

The way I am going to review the movie is that I heard the “Bald Bryan” review of 42 on Adam Carolla’s podcast, and of course I could easily dismiss it because of his love of Transformers 2, but I loved Back To The Future 2 so we all have our albatrosses.  Should my love of flying cars be a total crack at my credibility? So I thought that the best way to go over what I thought of 42 is to refute his review of 42.

I disagree with Bald Bryan’s review of the movie which was on the Brad Wyman episode of the Adam Carolla podcast on April 15th.  He said that the movie was a nightmare, that it was pandering, insulting, and one of the 3/4 worst films he had ever seen.  

I can agree that it was pandering.  In a movie like this that deals with the subject of racism there is bound to be some pandering.  In fact, I would argue that I challenge him to find a movie concerning a social or political issue and not find some pandering.  One of the hallmarks of an issue movie is creating “outrage” over something whether it be human trafficking, racism, or corporate exploitation of natural resources. There is bound to be sequences, and there were in 42, that are there to tug on heart strings and to breed outrage, but something that we should feel outrage concerning, racism.

Along with pandering is being insulting, in that we the audience don’t need everything spelled out for us, we can read between the lines about the problem of racism.  And there were some moments in the film that almost seemed a caricature of the racism prevalent during Jackie Robinson’s time.  Still, I have seen worse evidence of racism that outclasses those depicted in the movie.

But to say this movie was the worst three or four worst movies he has ever seen seems stretching it.  What kind of sheltered life has Bald Bryan lived that this is the truth?  Well, unless he is like me and only saw one Twilight movie, and only part of a Tyler Perry movie.  Still, I have seen many Adam Sandler movies, and I saw that Blake Edwards John Ritter movie back in the eighties...not to mention Pluto Nash.

It was eluded to that there was some white-washing (no pun intended) of the story, but I went into the movie expecting that.  After all, this is Baseball we are talking about, not some walk in the dark world of no hold’s barred MMA style combat.  Baseball has a reputation of being a wholesome American pastime, so people are shocked that there is “whitewashing” here?  In fact, in a baseball movie, I welcome “whitewashing.”  I really wanted a movie that gives me an opportunity to think the best of America, even as I know that this nostalgia is only half of the story.

Bald Bryan also asserts that there was a political element to the overwhelming positive reviews of this movie, and while there is a political element, I still enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed the interplay between Harrison Ford (Branch Rickey) who was the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and newcomer Chadwick Boseman (Jackie Robinson) who was to be the first African American to enter Major League baseball.  I thought there was real power in their teamwork in bringing African Americans to baseball and that they would make it happen not through harsh words, but letting Robinson’s athletic abilities speak volumes.  And I loved the movie depicted their fight against the adversity of thinking (or lack thereof) during that time.

Another thing is that Bald Bryant went into the movie thinking it wasn’t going to be any good.  My question is then, why even go even if you cite examples where you didn’t think you were going to like a movie before but changed your mind from seeing it.  I am sure there are thousands of things he actually did want to do.  And I know there are times I go into a movie not really liking it.  But Bald Bryan also didn’t sit through Spring Breakers, which I did sit through, which I assure him was a lot worse than this movie was.

There is a certain relish at times to writing about how bad something is, and even more so because so many disagree.  Especially when it is an “issue” movie.   Especially a movie that involves an element of pandering, and to some degree, insulting the audience.

Another problem with the movie bald Bryan had is that the movie Jackie Robinson and the real Jackie Robinson did not sound the same.  But I bet many people (despite Bald Bryant’s assertion) did not know how the real Jackie Robinson sounded like.  Just as I also heard that the real Abe Lincoln actually had an annoying grating voice, different than the one portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis.  Still, I did not throw up a red flag.  It sounds to me that Bald Bryan was looking for reasons not to like the movie.

And there were problems Bald Bryan had with technically insignificant events in the game of baseball itself, like running down a runner.  He wondered why the audience were “laughing” during this part of the movie forgetting that the racism and assertions that black people should not be in baseball were what preceded this part of the movie.  The reason why it was funny is they were getting schooled.  They even created “drama” around the event and it was an appropriate venue to laugh.

So, are people idiots for reacting in a way that was the intention of the movie makers?  Maybe.  But he already listed those reasons that the movie makers were pandering and being insulting to an audience that may or may not believe it was being insulted.  Or maybe the audience actually thought the situation that was staged and created was actually funny.

It made me think of another movie that dealt with racial tension.  The movie was Boyz in the Hood There is one part where Lawrence Fishburne tells some gang members that the issue of race can’t be addressed until black on black crime issue is addressed.  Later on on the movie, one black gang member kills another and the audience erupts in cheers and clapping, completely missing the sad commentary.  But were the other people in the audience idiots?  

These movies that deal with issues like “racism” are bound to have their moments of pandering.  But the movie 42 also speaks of the triumph over, if not evil, then at least ignorance.

But it sounds to me like in closing that Bald Bryan had more problems with the people in the theater (something I can empathize with) rather than the movie itself.

Third Row Center: Oblivion

This week, Oblivion, Starring Tom Cruise was released directed by the writer of Tron Legacy, Joseph Krosinski.  When I heard this news made the release a little less encouraging.  Don’t get me wrong, I loved how Tron Legacy looked, I just didn’t think it lived up to the potential that the original Tron had promised.

Tom Cruise plays Jack, a technician responsible for drone maintenance on the planet earth until they have removed its resources for transfer to the planet Titan.  He and his assistant Victoria, played by Andrea Riseborough, monitor their sector of the earth to make sure the earth is secure from any alien activity.  

Earth is in upheaval since a war with aliens known as “the scavengers.” and although Earth won the war, they have to leave earth.  But Jack is plagued by dreams of the earth that was, though his memory was wiped 5 years ago to ensure the security of “the mission.”

There are some early indications that all is not well for Jack. For one thing, he loves his planet earth even though the mission is eventually to leave it and there seems to be enough of it left to love that leaving it is a bad decision.  When he is “on his own time” he has a retreat that basks in what is left of earth.  He has books that he has kept, wears vintage clothing, and listens to vinyl records.  We also get the feeling we aren’t being given the whole story.

There is also a  big moment is when a spacecraft drops to earth that has Julia in it, a woman from his dreams (played by Olga Kurylenko.  Here he finds himself protecting this survivor from drones attacking it, which seems odd since the drones are here to protect humanity.  He is also ordered “not” to intervene, which makes us see that there are dueling protocols that these drones possess.

Morgan Freeman plays the cryptic Beech who at one point is the head of a gang that captures Jack and is enigmatic about their role on an earth that is supposedly uninhabited by humanity.

The special effects of this movie are great, the premise is engaging.  I also enjoyed the music and the overall “feel” of the movie. And the revelations that take place keep you interested throughout the movie because, nothing is what it seems.  I will say this though, for all that this movie offers, I wish there would have been a better ending.  At one point even at the ending there is a familiar looking visage that sent chills up my spine and got me thinking about another science fiction movie made in the late seventies.

Still, I would recommend seeing Oblivion if you hunger for good science fiction, it does deliver.

Third Row Center: Ginger and Rosa

Went to see Ginger and Rosa, another movie that takes place in post WW2 but this time it is set in England written and directed by Sally Potter.  Ginger (Elle Fanning) and Rosa (Alice Englert) are lifelong teenage friends in the cold war era England.  Ginger is going to be a poet, but also has strong feelings about the nuclear bomb whereas Rosa is more romantic and seeking true love.  And I am struggling with asking the question, why should I care?  And not long after I am asking, is everyone in this movie an idiot?

There is a lot of trouble in this dysfunctional drama that uses rationalization as easily as Natalie (Christina Hendricks) picks up a brush and begins to paint again in the wake of hers and her husband Roland’s (Alessandro Nivola) separation.  The runaway roles for me were the more peripheral actors in the form of Oliver Platt (Mark Too) Timothy Spall (Mark) and Annette Benning (Bella) who play friends of this family who are also anti- nuke activists, yet at the same time provide perspective for their familial upheaval.

Throughout the movie, to hammer the “no nukes” sentiment home, there are a number of broadcasts that paint a pall over this “coming of age” tale. Of Ginger and Rosa.  most of the time I simply shook my head and couldn’t believe that people could behave so badly all around.  Rosa for being duped into a bad relationship, and Ginger for trying to make it seem like nothing has gone wrong,while clearly broadcasting that she is breaking.

The movie is painful to watch, and all scenes of any solace also contain this restless tension that things aren’t right, and that boundaries are being crossed that shouldn’t be.  Some rules are there for a reason, that is, not shattering the ones around you.

As most independent movies, this one does not give a satisfying ending.  More or less, there is pain, and it seems, there may not even be any redemption from it.  This is not a date movie, unless you relationship is on the rocks, in which case, go see this movie, as it might give you hope that things could be worse.

Third Row Center: The Host

I broke my “No Meyer Crap” ban on anything Stephanie Meyer because I loved the look of the Host from the trailer and thought that maybe they would have adapted the book to make it more palatable.  But before I start my review on this movie, if you want to see a better movie about alien infestation, try Stephen King’s Dreamcatcher, and for a good read, try the book of the same name.

The Host premise is pretty easy to describe.  It’s like invasion of the body snatchers, but a bit kinder and gentler if not just as coercive.  Alien beings come to earth and they are placed in a human host through the slit of the nape of the neck.  The aliens are travelers and their purpose seems to be to create peace on earth where there was once war.  It’s kind of a post demolition man type of utopia where there is no capitalism, there are no wars or famine, and people do not live way beyond their means.  It’s a John Lennon utopia only in this case we become prisoners of our own bodies.

But it is also a world without emotion, similar to the way the pod people live in the aforementioned Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  As a result, any uninfected human is on the run. Melanie (Saoirse Ronan) an uninfected human is on the run with her brother Jamie (Chandler Cantebury) and her lover when she is caught and she becomes a host to an entity later known as Wanda.

Most of the movie is the “inner” interaction between Wanda, the alien, and Melanie, the human trying to reassert her control of her own body.

The question that people who are not invaded ask is can the person who once was the controller of the body that is infested, does that person live on.  The answer is an unequivocal yes.  The person is crying out to be heard and at times takes control of the body now controlled by an alien entity.

What Stephanie Meyer movie could be complete without a lame love triangle?  Will she end up with the one guy whose name I don’t remember who Melanie is in love with, or the other one I don’t remember who Wanda is in love with.  And what great times would exist if the symbiote was then put into a male body after being removed from Melanie’s body?

Diane Kruger plays the seeker who is after Melanie/Wanda with the hope of eradicating Melanie from the Host body altogether.  And for an emotionless alien, she seems ambitious about tracking down Melanie/Wanda.

One thing for sure about the aliens, they have an affinity for chrome which reflects the vessels they travel in, perhaps it makes them feel safe to be encased in reflective surfaces?

This movie is okay, but mediocre at best.  Invasion of the Body Snatchers is much better as is the other one I mentioned, Dreamcatcher.

Third Row Center: Evil Dead (Some Spoilers)

Calling the Evil Dead the Scariest movie ever is akin to calling Independence Day the next Star Wars.  Sorry, but it’s just not true.  I would argue it’s empirically not true unless you equate “gross out gore” with “scary” then you may be right.   If you were looking for a gore-fest, this is the place! But my first problem with this Evil Dead, directed by Fede Alvarez, is the assertion that it is “the scariest movie ever.”  

Some may argue that this is a “joke” but why would they do the night vision scenes of the audience reaction in the theater unless they were seriously trying to market it as such?  Maybe it’s an April Fool’s joke that somehow they followed through on until they had reached a point of no return. Because I can think of a number of movies “scarier” than Evil Dead.  The Shining, Misery, The Exorcist, even the Sixth Sense to name a few.

My second problem with Evil Dead is the premise that all this occurs because of an “evil book.”  Apparently reading a mantra draws a demon, and that demon then possesses one and then feeds on the souls of others. Also included in the “Evil Book” is a means for also eradicating the demon.

If such a book did exist, why leave it out?  At the end of the preface, we see the demon being cleansed by fire.  Then what?  The strange motley crew of acolytes who defeat the demon hang cats from barbwire, wrap the evil book in parchment and barbwire, and LEAVE IT OUT!  Why leave it for others to find?  You would think job one for the disciples focussed on the destruction of the demon would be to make sure the “evil book” was hidden in such a way that it would not be easily found, if not destroyed.

Secondly, why would anyone trust what is written in an “evil book” as a means or solution to conjuring a demon?  I would hold it to be suspect of having a conflict of interest.  In fact, I would think that any means of eradicating a demon in the “Evil Book” would actually aggravate the problem.  

What I did like about the movie is that there is an actual premise for staying at the cabin in the woods. Too many horror movies ignore this logical fact. The reason is that there is an intervention/detox for the sister Mia played by Jane Levy who has tried to kick drugs after a number of overdoses, and this time her friends hope to make it stick.  

Of course, because there is such downtime in the woods, the friends explore what the smell is in the cabin (dead cats dangling for barbwire) and find the Evil Book left out on the table, prominently featured by being packaged in a “do not open” kind of wrapping.

Eric(Lou Taylor Pucci) starts to read the book and this is where the already depressing detox intervention takes a dark turn.  But is Mia freaked out because she is delusional from the drugs, or possessed by a demon?  By the time the kids learn the truth and try to flee, the “river road” is flooded by rain and they are stuck.  Still, I probably would have been more prone to become driftwood in the river’s currents than to be at the behest of a vengeful demon.

There are some novel death and dismemberment/maiming scenes throughout the movie involving rusty nails, tools, and various other means of getting maximum gore bang for the buck.  And the movie does turn to an interesting ending, but still it’s not enough to slog through the gore-fest that is Evil Dead.

Other people tell me that I have to be a fan of the original to really appreciate it, but that seems to be more of a copout than anything else.