Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: FEEL THE BEAT (Netflix)

Instead of my typically 3 to 5 boring paragraph review for FEEL THE BEAT, or what it should’ve been called, “Not Another Competition Movie,” that just debuted on Netflix a couple of weeks ago, I am going to just do a checklist of all Competition & Dance movie cliches and see how many boxes it checks. Per IMDB, Feel The Beat stars Disney’s The Descendants Sofia Carson and describes the film as: “After failing to find success on Broadway, April returns to her hometown and reluctantly is recruited to train a misfit group of young dancers for a big competition.” That’s really all you need to know, you can probably just fish all the cliches out of the one sentence can’t you? Okay, let’s just dive right in shall we?

Protagonist fails in his/her career and she ends up trying to train a bunch of misfits (child, teen, or adult) in what she was good at to get back into his/her career
Protagonist wants to quit training these misfits at the beginning, but eventually the misfits get better and they all grow an everlasting bond
Protagonist has an ‘ex’ that they either left or had a bad break-up with before this career took off, where they spend the whole movie flirting and finally hook up near the end
After forming a bond with the misfits, the opportunity arises, MID COMPETITION MIND YOU, to get back into the protagonist’s career, and at first he/she takes the job, but that bond that they established earlier makes he/she have a chance of heart
But if you are a really oooey-gooey competition/dance movie, even though you leave the new job to go back to your group of misfits, somehow you still keep that job while still being a teacher to them in the end. Basically, you have your cake and eat it too.
One of the misfits the protagonist is trying to train is related to the old/new love interest
You have a bumbling moron of a assistant teacher, most likely a mom or dad that is a few tacos short of a combination plate.
At the beginning of the competition, where the protagonist’s group of misfits still suck ass and embarass themselves in the first leg of the contest, a technicality or a disqualification from another team will send you to the next round regardless of how terrible the group is
The competition sequences combined with the music are the only decent parts in the movie.
The Protagonist only has one supporting parent left, either by a tragic death or one of them was an asshole and left them both early in life. (this one parent left is barely in the film).
EXTRA #11: The Protagonists lose their career at the beginning because they have a mishap in a giant city like New York with the person that evaluates them not minutes later. (In this movie’s case, Sofia Carson steals the cab of the Broadway dance director that ends up running into her on the stage just minutes later. Out of HOW GOD DAMN BIG NEW YORK IS, THE ODDS OF THAT ARE NEAR FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE).

Alright, I think that’s enough. So how many of those boxes does Feel The Beat give a check mark to out of those ten? EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE. It’s kind of funny actually, that Eurovision Contest movie I just reviewed a couple of days ago, this checks off a lot of those cliched boxes as well. There’s a but coming, and here it is: this movie isn’t for someone like me, especially if it is straight to VOD/Netflix. I enjoy the occasional Pitch Perfect every now and then, but a movie like that manages to reinvent the genre just a tad rather than completely sticking to the rule book. Either that or the dialogue and chemistry of the lead and/or group makes up for its misgivings. Feel The Beat is a straight to video Netflix film with a small ass budget. It doesn’t have time to do new shit or reinvent anything. This completely sticks to the rule book and doesn’t change a thing about the genre. It has been on Netflix’s top ten most watched programs the past couple of weeks now, which is why I ended up checking it out (I hadn’t even heard of it until I saw it on the list). Sofia Carson also can’t act. Her transformation is completely unbelievable here, and the dialogue doesn’t help her in the slightest. The ragtag group of kids, save for the one that is related to Carson’s ex-boyfriend, are pretty unmemorable. The ex-boyfriend is also too Tom Cruisey Smiley McSmileson, it was so God damn annoying. This whole movie is annoying, unmemorable and very, very cheesy. However, if you are a sucker for that ooey-gooey feel good shit right now, or these movies are usually your jam, especially in these butt fucking unbearable times, I feel ya if you end up liking the beat.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: SEBERG (Amazon Prime)

In the manner of which Chandler says sarcastic comments on the television show Friends: “Could this movie BE any more boring?” SEBERG is super duper boring and it shouldn’t have been with the amount of content the filmmakers could’ve pulled from real life young starlet Jean Seberg’s crazy fast life that tragically ended when she was 40. But no, the movie focuses too much on only 3 years of it, and saves the most interesting aspects to happen either off screen or saved for dumb title cards right before it cuts to end credits. And it’s a shame, because Kristen Stewart gives a hell of a performance, arguably her best yet. And it’s even more of a shame considering that Kristen Stewart is acting like she finally wants to be there in the spotlight of Hollywood’s most prestige actors/actresses, she’s just picking the wrong films to try and have a resurgence in her career. After all, she’s had to apologize for the Twilight Saga multiple times the past several years. The real problem with the movie is that it tells and not shows. The movie jumps in time a little too much and we are told, through just a couple of sentences of dialogue, what has happened to her, and as a audience we are supposed to pick up and imagine those pieces to try and catch up to the present time of where these people are at. Yeah, never ever do that in your movie. Ever.

Always try and show, especially if you have the ability to. And they very much had the ability. This is an Amazon Prime original film, and it is also gorgeously shot, showing the glitz and glamour of Seberg’s home life, with decadent giant houses filled with nice looking amenities. They had to have had the budget or could’ve asked for more, to film these certain scenes we are just told that happened (I don’t want to give these scenes away as they are spoilers to Ms. Seberg’s life, but if you looked her up on Wikipedia and then watched the movie, you’d know what I’m talking about). But no, we are just told, which to me as a film critic, is very frustrating and always almost unforgivable save if you have a low budget and can’t do much, like Amazon Prime’s other recent original movie: The Vast Of Night. I’m reviewing this film because like Just Mercy and Portrait Of A Lady On Fire, the release date is kind of blurry between late 2019 and 2020. Couldn’t not find one theater to see it in when it was out, and then just dumped on Amazon Prime mid May. Well, there is a reason for the random dump, the film isn’t that great. The film is directed by Benedict Andrews, who I’m not familiar with, but when looking at his history, he is mostly a stage play director, which makes total sense, as the whole movie feels like it could be a stage play.

IMDB.com describes Seberg as: “Inspired by real events in the life of French New Wave icon Jean Seberg, the late 1960s, Hoover’s FBI targeted her because of her political and romantic involvement with civil rights activist Hakim Jamal.” To elaborate further on IMDB.com’s description. Hakim Jamal was part of the Black Panther movement, which the FBI was deeply scared and paranoid would commit an act of domestic terrorism on white people at the time. The film has the paranoia down pat, and the FBI infiltrating her life is a little interesting, but other than that, it is a snooze fest, consisting of decent performances that are wasted on nothing to do. Anthony Mackie and Zazie Beetz are in this too, playing Hakim and his wife respectively, but Hakim and Seberg’s affair is kind of glossed over with two small throwaway scenes of Beetz telling Stewart/Seberg to back off. There is also a side B plot involving one of the FBI agents, played by Unbroken’s Jack O’ Connell, who actually begins to have sympathy for Seberg’s plight, unfortunately it feels like that sympathy is rushed and just shoved into the ending climax confrontation between him and Seberg. They should’ve just made a biography on her whole life, her rise and fall from fame, and made it a bit longer. This movie only clocks in at a little under an hr and 40 minutes, but it all feels really superficial. If that makes any sense to you. Reading up on her, her life was anything but superficial, and it’s a shame that this boring product is what we got from it.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: 7500 (Amazon Prime)

Ryan Reynolds in a box. Colin Ferrell in a phone booth. And now Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a cockpit. That’s Buried, Phone Booth, and now 7500. What do these three movies have in common? Almost their entire run times take place in these little claustrophobic places and all three leading men are in some sort of predicament to get out of them. And while 7500, which debuted exclusively on Amazon Prime a couple of weeks ago, is probably my least favorite of the three, it is still a very effective little thriller, although some of the choices the screenwriters make are questionable. At first these “advance the plot” choices seem to be very realistic and bold, but then they have characters make really stupid decisions in order to make the movie longer. This movie is about 92 minutes, and 10 could’ve easily been cut out of it. I know that many filmmakers with short films try to get to that solid and tight common 90 minute mark, but if you don’t have the material, you don’t have the material. There is one choice that Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character makes in the movie that will have you screaming your head off, shouting “why, why didn’t you do that?” over and over again. I can answer that question for all of us, it was strictly to extend the run time unnecessarily.

Per IMDB.com, it describes 7500 as: “When terrorists try to seize control of a Berlin-Paris flight, a soft-spoken young American co-pilot struggles to save the lives of the passengers and crew while forging a surprising connection with one of the hijackers.” A lot of the film is eerily realistic. The way the hijackers try to take over the plane is genius, especially in a world where it is near impossible to get guns, knives, or any other kind of weapon aboard a plane. A lot of the decisions they make and then the decisions that Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes in the process of these 90 minutes are hauntingly brilliant, except for one. Basically, without giving anything away, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has a chance to kill one of the hijackers while he is knocked out, but instead just straps him into the dead head passenger seat. And it’s not really straps in more than it is buckling him up…where if JGL pays attention to the controls to try and find a way to land the plane safely, and then the terrorist wakes up…see what I’m getting at? Should’ve just killed that fucker. I would’ve. Other than that one really frustrating decision (I can think of plenty of ways to have advanced the plot to where it was without doing that), the rest of the movie is very solid.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt acts his ass off, and gives us one of his best performances ever. The film also takes some necessary risks. No character is safe in this, which is something I appreciated as well. The camera shots, angles, what have you, make the entire journey feel really claustrophobic to not just the characters, but to you on your couch at home. This isn’t a Hollywood-ized cockpit, where there is more room than necessary. They filmed inside a real cockpit, which as you know, doesn’t really have that much room. They way director Patrick Vollrath captured everything without cutting anything out of the frame at important times in the movie is unbelievable. Really good work on all sides. If I had one more complaint, is that I didn’t really care for Joseph Gordon-Levitt forging a surprising connection with one of the hijackers. If anything felt out of place in that movie, it was that and the dumb decision he made not to kill one of them early on. The acting when they were forging that connection seemed realistic and true enough, but I don’t know if I could see that happening in the situation that played out, seemed a little too convenient for me, but then again, that just could be me. Anyway, for a solid 92 minute film that mostly takes place in one location, it is a very tight and realistic thriller, just expect one or two moments of forced turbulence to take you off course for a couple of unneeded extra minutes.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: IRRESISTIBLE

How can Jon Stewart, one of the masters of political satire, with his long stint on The Daily Show at Comedy Central, write and direct such a mediocre film such as IRRESISTIBLE? It’s almost unforgivable. And while I never saw his first movie, Rosewater, more of a political drama than anything else, that debuted to lukewarm reviews in theaters several years ago…after seeing this, I don’t know if I want to take my chances. Like I mentioned in my previous review, My Spy, this is another film that was supposed to hit theaters late May, but is now instead a $19.99 48 hr rental on most streaming platforms. I initially was going to actually pay the $19.99 out of my own pocket (the only one I have rented at that hefty of a price tag was for The King Of Staten Island, and that was fortunately worth every penny). But then the reviews started to come out in advance of its 6/26 debut, and I decided to hold back. Thank Christ I did, as that Friday I entered several contests to win free rental codes to watch it, and I actually won three of those contests (don’t ask about/for the other two, already gave them to cinephile friends like myself). Do I recommend spending $19.99 to even those most die hard political activists that desperately want to check this out? Absolutely fucking not. The only thing I would recommend is watching the last 10 to 15 minutes of this film when it eventually comes on Netflix or something else. The late act twist and end credits is clearly what Jon Stewart was trying to write a whole fictional movie around, when instead he should’ve just made what would’ve been a much more interesting, and much more to say voice wise, documentary.

Jon Stewart would make an excellent documentary filmmaker. His fictional writing needs a shit load more work. Irresistable is very, very, very, very boring. Save for the last 10 to 15 minutes and end credits, this product is a total misfire. You know the saying “more bark than bite”? Here, there is absolutely no bite, and the bark is more like silent whimpers that you can only hear if your ear is right up to the canine’s snout. This movie is too on the nose with its political satire, jokes and insights. Everything that the film is trying to say, whether it’s how much money is wasted on political campaigns to how to manipulate the voters and the system, is just “no duh” logic here. The jokes aren’t witty, the dialogue isn’t witty, it just presents to you the facts that we already kind of know to be true, accompanied by lame punch lines that repeatedly ask the obvious question, “do…do you get it?” Yes, we fucking get it, and we knew all of this before hand Mr. Stewart. You had great insight whenever you were on The Daily Show, so why did you decide to write and direct a political satire with absolutely nothing new to say? Especially this election year, 2020, where you could’ve just made a documentary that represents the here and now on current candidates running in the fall? Why did we get a film that was just plain boring and unfunny? Mr. Stewart, if you ever read this, and you probably never will, let me give you some advice: do not write a fictional story around your “neat” plot twist that you came up with and did some real research on. You are only asking for trouble when any screenwriter/director does this. A plot twist not a movie make.

Per IMDB.com, Irresistible involves” “A Democratic strategist that helps a retired veteran run for mayor in a small, conservative Midwest town.” However, when the 2004 film Welcome To Mooseport (Gene Hackman’s last film that co-starred fucking Ray Romano when he hadn’t had his career resurgence yet with The Big Sick) is better than this garbage, and that film was a least somewhat enjoyable garbage, you know you have a problem. The only thing redeemable about this movie is the final twist that the movie was built from, the end credits, and Rose Bryne stealing every scene she is in, but what else is new with that? She’s not even in the movie enough for it to make a bit of a difference. Steve Carell and Chris Cooper, veterans of comedy and drama, don’t help matters much by completely being on autopilot the entire time. And that doesn’t make any sense with the former, as Carell and Stewart are best buddies from their time on The Daily Show. Surely Carell could’ve acted more like he wanted to be there. The main problem with this film is that, when you are supposed to be a comedy, and you barely elicited even a chuckle the entire hour and 40 minute run time, you are no longer a comedy, you are an absolute bore.

I’m serious though when I think Jon Stewart could make a powerful documentary. In the closing credits to this film, Jon Stewart briefly interviews a person that was in politics, and they discuss whether the twist in Jon Stewart’s film could actually happen. Sorry, not giving away that twist here. But what this real life person reveals, in just a few short sentences, was more shocking and more interesting than the entire film that came before it. And the info given to us wasn’t fictional, it didn’t have dolly shots or any interesting angles, it was just a camera on a guy, with a simple question being asked to them: “Can this happen?” And it was great. If Jon Stewart could take that, make it into a 90 to 120 minute political documentary, but have it deal with issues that are more relevant and interesting to what we are going through currently, he could honestly be the next Michael Moore. But with a more legitimate and less biased approach and voice. He could literally make a difference in the world with what he has to say. He did it with The Daily Show, what is stopping him now? I’ll tell you exactly what: a half-assed fictional satire story that will put you to sleep…one that nobody asked for or needed. Resist seeing this movie at all costs…maybe someday Stewart can give us something more powerful where we’ll end up not being able to help ourselves and listen.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: MY SPY (Amazon Prime)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDyet another movie that didn’t get to premiere in theaters because of the asshole known as COVID-19. Without me dragging this review into extreme boredom by re-stating my theory in detail of why these studios are choosing to release these films straight to streaming instead of just waiting for theaters to reopen back up, I’ll just sum it up in 4 words: They aren’t any good. And that theory has been proven time and time again, except for one exception: The King Of Staten Island. I heard Trolls: World Tour sucked, I’m told that You Should Have Left sucked, the grapevine has told me that The High Note with Dakota Johnson wasn’t that great, I thought Scoob! was a massive disappointment, I thought The Lovebirds was mediocre, and I’m about to review another $19.99 premium rental after this that wasn’t very good, have I covered everything thus far? Now here we are at MY SPY, that instead of waiting for theaters to re open, was just dumped this past weekend on Amazon Prime. And unfortunately, it adds onto the pile of new premium VOD releases that haven’t been any good. But this review is going to come with a very special disclaimer: this film was never meant for me (Trolls: World Tour probably wasn’t either to be fair). But then that raises the question…who is this film really for?

The reason I ask that question is that this movie is rated PG-13 and has a pretty hefty amount of explosions, people getting shot and killed, stabbed, accidental knife throw injuries, and it even has a very shoddy looking CGI decapitated head flying across a screen. Yet, the movie is basically a love child of Cop And A Half & Kindergarten Cop (both superior to this, IMO), with enough goofy innocent shenanigans & banter between Bautista and child actress Chloe Coleman to make it a little less harmful than the two movies I just mentioned. So what, in my opinion only of course, is the age ranges of this movie? Now remember, before I answer that question, any movie that you put out on the market, the age range needs to expand more than a 10 year period. With My Spy, I’d say the age of enjoyment would only be from ages 6 to 10, and be only really appropriate with its PG-13 rating from ages 8 to 10. 10 years and older, will think that this film is silly and stupid, unless you are a teenager or an adult with a child like heart of gold. So when you do the math, that is only a 4 year range of enjoyment, with a 2 year range of appropriateness. Needless to say, that is not a very marketable movie for Hollywood studios. Because as I watched this with very minor enjoyment at a couple of scenes, I had trouble seeing this film make any sort of money whatsoever if it had debuted in theaters. Hence, I guess that’s why it was ultimately released on Amazon Prime.

But there were plenty of scenes while watching this where they could’ve cut some of the violence to get that coveted PG rating I think they were going for. There was unnecessary language at parts that could’ve been cut out. They didn’t need the decapitation gag for sure. And some of the deaths could’ve happened off screen. Due to the nature of the plot per IMDB.com, it really shouldn’t have been as violent as it was: “A hardened CIA operative finds himself at the mercy of a precocious 9-year-old girl, having been sent undercover to surveil her family.” That sounds like a goofy family friendly fun. Well it is goofy, a little too much for believability sake sometimes, but it isn’t that family friendly. Well, it is and it isn’t, you all with families will be the ultimate judge. I’m just reviewing the movie based on what I thought of it alone: it was a cheesy, cliched filled, nothing you haven’t seen before in a movie like this, dumb, one time-watch. It had a couple of moments of chuckled originality, but isn’t that great in terms of quality by any means. Dave Bautista at least looks like he wanted to be there, this is the most tolerable I’ve ever been in regards to the performance of Ken Jeong, Kristen Schaal is still playing her annoying character from The Last Man On Earth, and kid actor Chloe Coleman steals all of the scenes she is in.

The film is directed okay, although a lot of the action scenes are very CGI sketchy and kind of bland in terms of location shooting and choreography. This needed to be directed by an action director that can also do a bit of comedy, of which Peter Segal is the latter but not the former. He’s directed only two of, what you would call, “action pictures.” The Naked Gun 3 and Get Smart, both of which weren’t very good. I’d say this is on par with those. An okay effort, but mainly fruitless. There is a lot more of you out there that will totally disagree with me on this, and that is okay, like I said, this movie wasn’t made for me. I was just bored on a Saturday afternoon and I figured, okay, if I watch this with my wife in the room, this would’ve been like paying $20 on a night out at the theater, but it is now for free since it went straight to streaming. That’s what this film will ultimately be known for to me, that it saved me $20. Will I revisit it after a little time has passed and when Grayson is a little older? Maybe between those ages I talked about above. It also depends on his taste at the time. But will I ever seek this movie out again for pure enjoyment? Absolutely fucking not. Look on the bright side, at least it was better than Dave Bautista’s last film, which was a little R rated comedy called Stuber. How a PG-13 kids film was better than that garbage, I will never know. I spy, with my little eye, a film that will be forgotten in a few months time.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: EUROVISION SONG CONTEST – THE STORY OF FIRE SAGA (NETFLIX)

If someone were to put a needle in my arm, filled with COVID-19, and say to me, “you have to review EUROVISION SONG CONTEST: THE STORY OF FIRE SAGA in only one sentence or we are going to expose you to this virus,” well, the current me would say, “go ahead, make my day.” But if I were in a better mood I’d confess, “The movie is only worth watching once because of Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens alone, Will Ferrell is awful in it, and the second half is better than the first.” I think they’d allow me a run on sentence, don’t you agree? I think that sentence describes the film excellently. If Rachel McAdams weren’t in it and if she just wasn’t just so damn charming as hell, this whole movie would’ve been another Will Ferrell clusterfuck. Because he is annoyingly awful in it. Like you want to choke him to death just so he’ll shut the fuck up kind of awful. This is another one of his long title comedies, and he used to be able to get away with just yelling random shit that made absolutely no sense. That was only acceptable (and sometimes hilariously funny) more than a decade ago. It no longer works. And while the film has a pretty solid 2nd half (we get some good random jokes that are paid off well from the beginning), the first half is so boring, awful, and goes nowhere to the point that I just can’t quite recommend it. That is, unless you are a die hard Rachel McAdams fan, which I certainly am. So do I or don’t I? Depends on my mood.

Per IMDB.com, Eurovision Song Contest is described as: “When aspiring musicians Lars and Sigrit are given the opportunity to represent their country at the world’s biggest song competition, they finally have a chance to prove that any dream worth having is a dream worth fighting for.” Will Ferrell is Lars and Rachel McAdams are Sigrit, and while Ms. McAdams plays the part convincingly, charmingly, and acts like she wants to be there, Will Ferrell is…too much there. If that makes any sense. Compared to McAdams, his Iceland accent is abysmal, and while her facial expressions convey well to the written word of her character, Ferrell seems to put on a new face every couple of seconds, throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. But nothing does, and this ultimately makes his character a non-character. Just a lame impression you put on at cocktail parties, trying to get a laugh out of a drunken moment between friends, and nothing more. But here, the audience is stone cold sober, and we couldn’t care less. Dan Stevens plays a rival musician from Russia, and he, along with Ms. McAdams, steals every scene that he is in, the movie just needed a better lead. And a better co-writer. Will Ferrell co wrote this with an individual named Andrew Steele. I have a feeling that Ferrell only got a screenplay writing credit because of his improv. Andrew Steele probably wrote the only decent parts of the story. He should’ve given the script to a better comedian instead of Ferrell, you probably just pointed at different parts of the script and said, “I think I’ll just yell and scream something insignificant here.”

The first half is not funny at all, except for a boat explosion, and the movie only gets by because of Rachel McAdams and the believable charming innocence of her character. She literally lifts up the movie on her shoulders. Had she not been in it, I would’ve probably turned it off at minute 20. That’s another complaint, at a little over too hours, the movie is way too long. Could’ve been a much more solid 95 minutes. When you watch it, notice how things that should happen at the start of the 3rd act happen when there is still an hour left of the film, only half way through. The film has very odd pacing issues and it drags in moments that should’ve been entirely cut out of the film. The music & songs, written by Demi Lovato’s (she has a fun little cameo in the movie) song writer, are actually quite good and they keep parts of the movie, that would’ve just dragged everything even further, somewhat afloat. It’s the second half that picks up steam when it actually gets to the heart of the contest, the semi-finals and finals, with cool performances from what I can only guess are real contestants that have actually performed at the real Eurovision Contests in years past and present. Combine those interesting moments with some God damn hilarious elf and ghosts jokes and you’ll probably find yourself chuckling if not laughing out loud a few times toward the end. If only the first half had matched the pacing and wit of the climax.

The film is directed by David Dobkin, director of Wedding Crashers, his first comedy since 2011’s The Change Up (a guilty pleasure for me, it’s that Ryan Reynolds/Jason Bateman hard R-Rated body switch movie). While everything seemed to me to be just a point and shoot affair, I liked that there was a lot of location shooting in Iceland and possibly at the place where the real Eurovision Song Contest was held. While there was definitely some green screen effects whenever the characters were on boats, the exterior shots of the gorgeous landscapes of Iceland and showing that the actors were actually there was a nice little touch. If you go into this expecting something akin to classics of Will Ferrell’s past such as Anchorman 1 or Talladega Nights or even something like Wedding Crashers, you will come out very disappointed. The film is rated PG-13 and it isn’t really even a hard PG-13, not to say that a harder rating would’ve automatically made this film much better, but I really would’ve liked to see this movie go to darker, raunchier, and funnier places than it ended up going. And Will Ferrell needs to fucking tone it down a bit. You can tell he’s getting desperate for laughs, but in his desperation he is tripping over his own feet. If he keeps this up any longer, he is going to end up flat on his face, no longer able to get up, and his career will end up being an awful dumpster fire saga.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: ARTEMIS FOWL (Disney+)

Wow… after this & Cats…Judi Dench really needs to fire her agent. Let’s make one thing absolutely clear before I start this review. I have not read one page of any of the ARTEMIS FOWL young adult series. So this review is going to be based solely on if it did or didn’t work for me as a film. Also, originally my wife was going to write a review and the title to it was already set to ‘Diane’s Delightful Movie Reviews’ until I just changed it. Unlike me, she has read all the Artemis Fowl books and when the end credits rolled, she told me just to write one of my reviews and just tell people what she thought. She didn’t want to write hers because, “It would take too long. My review would just list the ways that the book differs from the film, and it would be one long endless complaint.” Eh, I kind of lied just there. That was paraphrasing. What actually came out of her mouth was, “It was meh, I don’t want to write the review anymore.” And then she explained to me how they were different. Well, after watching the movie and after hearing all the differences between the two, I do actually want to go and read all the books, but that statement doesn’t bode well for the movie. While I didn’t hate it as much as critics or lovers of the novel did, it did not work for me as a film, to say the least. It really was just, “meh.” And that is ultimately disappointing, because there are some elements in the film that hint of a world full of magical and interesting possibilities. But that’s just what they are, hints. No execution of actual magic whatsoever.

Doing a tiny bit of research, this movie was supposed to come out theatrically last August, as it was filmed back in 2018. But then in May of 2019, it was delayed to May 29th, 2020, without any reasoning behind the move other than marketing for the film was not ready besides a very generic teaser poster. Then on April 3rd, 2020, the film was delayed yet again, because of…you guessed it, fucking COVID-19. It didn’t have a release date after that for a little bit, but then Disney announced that it was just going to dump the film on their streaming service Disney+ instead of just delaying it theatrically any further. Which wasn’t a good sign for the quality of the film at all. According to Vulture.com: “Disney moving the film straight to streaming was viewed as “”the death knell for Artemis as a film franchise”” by industry insiders, because “the platform’s subscription revenues are incapable of generating a return on investment that would justify the movie’s $125 million price tag.” Combine that with everything else sent to PVOD because of the pandemic, save for The Wretched and The King of Staten Island, have all been mediocre at best, I knew that when pressing the play button on the movie late yesterday evening, that I probably wasn’t going to like the film. I was correct, but the bar was set so low that I probably didn’t hate it as much as you book lovers think I probably should have. But don’t twist my words, the movie is not good.

Per IMDB.com and Rotten Tomatoes.com, the movie is “Based on the first two books in author Eoin Colfer wildly popular children’s fantasy series, Walt Disney Studios’ Artemis Fowl tells the story of adolescent criminal genius Artemis, who captures a vicious fairy, and attempts to harness her magical powers in a bid to rescue his family.” See how even that description is kind of vague? That is how thin the plot is. Most of the movie, I didn’t know what the fuck what going on until I paused it a couple of times and my wife Diane explained it to me. After the explanation, it was still a very thin plot to me, the description above is a little deceiving, with only hints of giant world building that the movie neglects to expand upon. Add to all that an extra helping of no character development and awful acting by the title character who played Artemis and…Judi Dench. The plot is, in a ho-hum nutshell, finding a MacGuffin Fairy Skeleton Key to find Artemis Fowl’s kidnapped father, played by Colin Farrell, obviously there for just a paycheck. Was the overarching villain named Opal is way underdeveloped and hidden in shadows so they could’ve hired a more famous person to portray her in later movies? Not the best idea. Just because it worked in Harry Potter, doesn’t mean that it’s going to work here. The only character to have some kind of development, even being razor thin itself, is Mulch Diggums, played surprisingly not annoyingly by Josh Gad, who is the only actor in this that looks like they want to be there.

Judi Dench is awful in this. When she shows up on screen, her voice is gravelly and nasally, she looks bored and also like she doesn’t have a clue what was going on. Same with the audience. In fact, I probably didn’t place all the pieces together until about an hour into the film, and by then, with only a half hour left, the movie climaxes on just one action set piece that took place inside a house, that wasn’t interesting in the least. Half of it was swinging back and forth on a chandelier with quick cuts and a CGI Troll villain, whose design was so fake and embarrassing it made Steppenwolf from Justice League face palm himself. This whole world was underdeveloped. You cannot take a novel, even at a shorter 280 pages, and condense it into only a 95 minutes film. But the fact that it is supposed to be an adaptation of the first two novels is even more head scratching. What is also confusing is that the CGI and visuals, with the exception of the awful looking troll, are actually a little striking. I liked the look of the underground lair of the fairies and the look of most of the technology, especially the Time Freeze device. There is something magical here, its just really difficult to see what that is, unless I eventually pick up the novel. But after I read that, I have a feeling I’m going to truly despise this film. And for some reason, I don’t blame Kenneth Branaugh, who has directed some truly great looking pictures such as Marvel’s Thor and one of Disney’s few, great, live action remakes, Cinderella. He has an eye for the camera, and some of his shots are steady and gorgeous to look at. If he had a tighter script that was a faithful adaptation of the novel with more flair, world building, and character development…a film that actually took its time to introduce the viewer, especially non fans, to this fantastical environment, there could’ve been something Harry Potter level great here.

But alas, just like the two Percy Jackson movies, this fails on all levels. Both movies have the same faults of not adapting the material to the best of their abilities. And the studios and scripts are to blame. Artemis Fowl’s script, was co-written by a guy used to doing just stage plays and the other guy wrote…fucking Johnny English Reborn and fucking…Mr. Beans Holiday. Yeah, you need veterans in Hollywood that know their shit, in fact, Disney, why the fuck didn’t you just get Harry Potter’s Steve Kloves??? I’m sure he had time in his schedule to give you something solid. But instead, you get a hazy, blurry, jumbled mess of a world that was supposed to introduce fairies, trolls, & other mythical beings in a cool twist on the espionage adventure film. To me, just basing this film on its own merits, taking that it was a novel first out of the equation, everything we got was just a giant fucking misfire. Nothing was interesting, nothing was exciting, I didn’t understand most of it, everything was boring. Just a few little hints here and there of potential. Potential that was ignored to just put a mediocre product out on the market. How does this happen? Why wasn’t more care brought to this property? Just like author Rick Riordan came out and said that he hates the Percy Jackson films, I bet you author Eion Colfer eventually does the same thing. Maybe Disney will extend the chance they are giving to Riordan to come up with his own mini series, that adapts the source material faithfully and with more flair. I bet you that ends up happening if the Percy Jackson Disney+ series is a success both commercially and critically. But for right now, this film is what it is: an adaptation that will put casual movie goers and critics like me into a confused sleep, and one that will most likely put fans of the novels into a foul…foul mood.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: THE KING OF STATEN ISLAND

So this is my first $19.99 Video On Demand rental! And to be real, on THE KING OF STATEN ISLAND, it was totally worth it! Not because a bunch of people are watching it and I’m getting paid back a little, but because it is more than a decent movie. Don’t worry, it’s not the ‘king’ of 2020 so far, that still goes to Onward, but its close. And I’ve heard people saying that if you don’t like Pete Davidson that you won’t like this movie. That’s not true at all. Pete Davidson doesn’t entirely play himself in this movie, on SNL you can tell he’s much more sarcastic, down to Earth, and much more depressing. Here, he has a character arc, and he pulls it off realistically. Granted, if you don’t like Pete Davidson’s face you might not like this movie, although they do make fun of it (won’t spoil the great line), but if its just his personality stopping you from watching this, get over it. The movie is more than just him. Especially if you are a fan of the comedian, the great, Bill Burr. The King of Staten Island isn’t Judd Apatow’s best movie, that still goes to Knocked Up and 40 Year Old Virgin, but it’s right under those, and it is his most mature. This movie is more of a drama with some funny bits thrown in than it is a complete straight stoner comedy. Also, while Apatow’s other movies are light, bright & look comedic, Apatow used a different cinematographer this time, and the tone felt more down to Earth and gritty. After this, Judd Apatow can consider himself this generations John Hughes, a great comedic director but now mastering the little dramatic parts of it all. In other words, this is his Breakfast Club.

Per IMDB, The King of Staten Island is about a 24 year old named “Scott and he has been a case of arrested development since his firefighter dad died. He spends his days smoking weed and dreaming of being a tattoo artist until events force him to grapple with his grief and take his first steps forward in life.” And while the film might be too long at 2 hrs and 15 minutes (most Judd Apatow films are because he just can’t bring himself to make a deleted scene a deleted scene) and while I could’ve maybe chopped enough to make it an even 2 hrs, I didn’t really feel it. Most of the scenes were necessary for Scott’s arc. And I loved that they kept the whole story down to Earth. I wonder if at any point in writing the film that they put him getting into some kind of big nightly/weekly improv show gig (SNL). I’m glad they didn’t. It felt more realistic and it probably wouldn’t have fit so well with the rest of the story. That aspect of his real life would’ve been too fantastical and the character might have come out of it not learning anything and not expecting any consequences since life is handing him opportunities on a platter. I’m also thankful for not having an Ariana Grande like character in it as well. Instead, his love interest in the film, played by Bel Powley, actually already has life ambitions, loves her city and wants to make it better, even though her Brooklyn accent is like nails on a chalkboard (but I feel like it was supposed to be for laughs for the character). Marisa Tomei is also in it as his mom, and even though she just recently came out saying that she regrets playing all these mom characters because she doesn’t want to get typecast, she is good in this, even though she only has a small handful of scenes.

The real MVP, other than Davidson not quite being his 100% self, is comedian Bill Burr. He steals every scene he is in and I didn’t see him as ‘Bill Burr’ in this. It was quite the transformation. If you don’t like Davidson, and you love him, I would take the plunge and watch this anyway just for him alone. He’s that good. With the film being so long, and the plot a little thin, other than being another coming of age and maturing tale, it might take you a bit to see what the overarching film is about. But once it finally clicks, about half way in, you can see how the movie is narrative wise perfectly structured, even at its massive length. And the second half of the movie is much much better than the first half. So if you start it and it feels a little slow, don’t worry, it picks up not even a 1/4th of the way in. All in all, I just really enjoyed it. I enjoy most of Judd Apatow’s films though, with the exception of Funny People. That movie didn’t get the drama and comedy tone right and kind of made Seth Rogen’s character just a “background character” halfway through that film. That was that movie’s biggest flaw. If this movie has a flaw, it’s just its length and not much else. The film looks more gritty, mature, and life like than Judd Apatow’s previous comedic efforts. This all just points to one thing: Pete Davidson is this generation’s Adam Sandler. Davidson is great in roles that are tailor made for him (but his range is still quite small), but I pray to God that he doesn’t sign a deal with Netflix and starts to do really stupid shit. But his next film is The Suicide Squad with James Gunn, so I have a feeling that he knows how to avoid that fork in the road and not become the ‘king’ of Netflix Comedic Trash.

My ranking of Judd Apatow (director) movies:

Knocked Up
The 40 Year Old Virgin
The King of Staten Island
Trainwreck
This Is 40
Funny People

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: DA 5 BLOODS (Netflix)

If there is one certainty that DA 5 BLOODS proves, released today on Netflix, is that Blackkklansman wasn’t just a one hit minor resurgence in writer/director Spike Lee’s career. It is now a confirmed solid resurgence. I’ve seen a majority of Spike Lee movies, and as unfortunate as it is to say this, he is more miss than hit. This movie though, now ranks among his best, which includes Blackkklansman, Malcolm X, 25th Hour, Inside Man, and of course his masterpiece, Do The Right Thing. While the releases of Netflix’s The Last Days of American Crime and the final season of 13 Reasons Why couldn’t be more ill timed because of the police brutality and racism protests, Da 5 Bloods couldn’t be more perfectly timed. It has something to say throughout the whole film while also being an emotional action-heavy drama little adventure thriller. While the film has some heavy handed (but pretty spot on) things to say about Trump and racism in general, and also shows how masterful the Black Lives Matter movement is, it managed to not constantly ask you “do you get it?”. Yes, there may be a little too much real footage of black & war in general history at the beginning and ends of the film (it doubles down on what Blackkklansman had), but ultimately it is necessary set up that compliments and strengthens the character piece at the heart of the story. The movie is also very long, at 2 hrs and 35 minutes, but unlike The Last Days Of American Crime, that length is earned, never felt, and the film never lags, no filler. This film is sure to come back into the minds of audiences come award season, whether that definitely happens this year/early next year remains to be seen, but whenever it does, it will be nominated for a handful of Oscars, all deserved.

Per IMDB.com, Da 5 Bloods is about “four African-American vets who battle the forces of man and nature when they return to Vietnam seeking the remains of their fallen Squad Leader and the gold fortune he helped them hide.” The film has a little of everything in it; action, drama, the horrors of war, a little adventure thrown in there, some blaxploitation cinema that Spike Lee is known for. It’s a solidly made film, and it is a bit surprising that it works so well narrative wise because this film has four screenwriters (usually anymore than 2 is a bit worrisome). I was a little worried when the film started to have the same beats that Triple Frontier had, Netflix’s film released last year about U.S. Delta Force soldiers doing a heist of riches in South America. But my fears were completely wiped out, as it quickly goes in another direction, with some twists I saw coming, but mostly others that caught me a bit by surprise. Spike Lee isn’t known for being an action director, especially when his most action packed film is unfortunately considered the remake of Oldboy, which Spike Lee just copied shot for shot (he even disproved of that final product, opting to have the marketing read A Spike Lee Film other than his usual and creative A Spike Lee Joint). But here, the action is his own, focused, steady, no shaky cam, framing the camera just right so we don’t miss a second of it. Thankfully he doesn’t go all Michael Bay on us and the action is quick, doesn’t over stay its welcome, is realistic, and is quickly contained. But after watching this, if he wanted to ever do just a straight up action film, I would easily put it on my most anticipated list for whatever year it comes out.

The acting is all great here, with Chadwick Boseman, Black Panther, showing up in a very minor role (all in flashback) playing the soldier that was killed in ‘Nam and the other four trying to get his remains. But if there is an MVP in acting, one that will probably get a nomination come Oscar time, it is going to be the great Delroy Lindo. Delroy Lindo has played a bunch of supporting roles, I know him as early as playing the villain in Get Shorty, but here, he is the lead. His character has PTSD, which plays a central role in the narrative, and even though Lindo has been great even in the shittiest of film, here, Lindo fires on all cylinders. He has a couple of fantastic monologues and he steals every scene he is in. Spike Lee is the film’s overall MVP. His work behind the camera here is near perfect, as he uses different aspect ratios at the different points of time in the story to his advantage. He doesn’t even do de-aging (except for one two second photograph) of any of the actors. When flashbacks occur, its the actors at their current age, and it works so much better than if they had digitally altered them. If I had any complaints, is that yes, I was a bit overwhelmed like other critics are, at the length of real black history and other war moments footage in the film. Remember that footage of Charleston a couple of years ago, where a car ran over a bunch of protesters and killed one of them? Spike Lee used that to end Blackkklansman. Well, double down on that kind of footage here to drive the narrative’s multiple messages home. I did say above that ultimately they were necessary set ups to the narrative, but it was a little too much this time. Scale back just a little next time Mr. Lee. Save those for a documentary, you would probably knock it out of the park with one of those. Also, I didn’t like how the 4 men found the treasure and remains of their leader so fast. It felt like someone else could’ve found it wayyyyyyyy before then. That’s just minor nitpicking though. Overall, this is a very good film. Spike Lee deserves all the praise he is getting for it and I liked it as much as Blackkklansman if not a little more so. Here, he has crafted an emotional coming of late age drama with fantastic character pieces, action set pieces, and messages that are especially relevant to these times, heck, this very month.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE

Kind of like why I did my review of Just Mercy, PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE came out in theaters early February, right before the pandemic hit. Normally I only do reviews of new stuff that comes out the year it comes out to form best of and worst of lists. Technically, Portrait is a 2019 film because it was eligible for the Academy Awards because it came out in NY and LA in December. It didn’t receive any nominations, and so I skipped it in theaters and just recently watched it on Hulu. And again, since it’s release date is blurry combined with content released in 2020 to review running out and COVID-19, I thought I would just count it as 2020 film. But just like there were reasons for Just Mercy to not quite make it on my best of list so far, heck this wouldn’t have made it on my 2019 one either, Portrait OF A Lady On Fire just missed the mark because of the movie not ending one scene earlier, what they did with the beginning, and a plot element that seemed to be taken straight from Dirty Dancing, the same plot element that didn’t make me care for that film all that much either (I’ll tell you exactly what it is later). Other than that, it is a beautiful and sweet film about love between two women in France in the late 18th century.

It the story of a forbidden affair between an aristocrat and a painter commissioned to paint her portrait. The last dude was fed up with the aristocrat woman because she wouldn’t ever pose for him so he couldn’t get her face right. The reason why this portrait needs to be done is because when it is finished her mother is sending her to Milan to get married. And you know…the woman doesn’t want to get married. Also, she’s suffering from depression because her sister killed herself by jumping off a cliff not too long ago. So they hire this other woman painter and they tell the aristocrat that she is there to go on walks with her and console her. The painter though is trying to just look at her face to do a portrait, until she isn’t, and she listens to the aristocrat, and you know, falls in love with her. The love story is tastefully done. Yes, there is nudity and some kissing, but there aren’t any full on gratuitous sex scenes, which kind of makes their love for each other earned in a way. Not like what the movie Blue Is The Warmest Color does. If you’ve ever seen THAT movie…then yeah, don’t worry, it is nothing like that. The movie is in French with English subtitles, and clocks in at an even 2 hours, but this is one period piece that actually kept my interest because of the acting, the pace of the story, and the beautiful cinematography of the sea side French landscapes.

The only real problems I had with the movie was the very beginning, a certain plot element that could’ve been completely cut out, and the ending should’ve ended one scene earlier. I can’t really reveal why it should’ve ended one scene earlier, other than to say that if you ever watch this movie, you’ll know why the scene right before the last one was more perfect than when it really decided to cut to black. The very beginning of the movie was a problem for me because I can’t stand it when movies start in the present day, and then go back in time to lead to the present. It voids a lot of mystery of where the characters might end up. And while I was wrong about the fate of one of the characters, there was no guessing about the other one, because it reveals that’s she’s alive and well right at the beginning of the film. And the frustrating thing about it is that scene could’ve played at the end and still had the same effect, maybe even more so, on the audiences emotions than where it plays at the beginning. Lastly, there is a B plot of the two women helping a young house maid get an abortion of a kid she doesn’t want. And if you’ve seen Dirty Dancing, you’ll know that was a plot thread too. That plot thread is the main reason I can’t stand Dancing, here it is done a little more tastefully, but I felt like it could’ve been cut out or re written to give more screen time to our two lead protagonists. But the movie is solid as is. If you like international feature films, I highly recommend a viewing, as it is a gorgeous movie to look at, as well as it has a decent love story of yore. I don’t know the director or any of the actresses from anything else, so I will save you a history lesson, and just say that all involved did a great job. You could watch much worse things on Hulu right now…like Shirley! This one is more on fire than that one for sure.