"Barbie;" The Review I Probably Shouldn't be Publishing but to Hell with it.

Only the least media savvy individual in the world missed the absurd conflation of the "Barbie" movie and Chris Nolan's latest film, "Oppenheimer," i.e. the biopic that isn't a biopic because he said so and 

SO THERE!!!

I must confess a lack of interest in either film when they were released into theaters but I knew I would probably see them both once they came to home media. As "luck" would have it, I saw "Barbie" first; just the other day, in fact. And since I haven't felt compelled to review a film on this blog in a long while, it should be obvious that I had a rather strong reaction to it, although not the way cheerleaders and detractors might expect.

The plot of the Greta Gerwig-directed  film can be summed up as follows: Barbie dolls and Ken dolls live in a plastic world made up of their playsets and vehicles and blissfully live out the same scenarios on a daily basis without once questioning any of it. They believe the real world is run by strong, intelligent women whose inspiration came from the very Barbie dolls that reside in this sub-reality. However, one day Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) starts having thoughts of death and a feeling of not belonging.

Wacky antics ensue as our heroine seeks help from (sigh) Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon in a surprisingly subdued, lackluster performance) whose appearance is bizarre because some psychotic little girl subjected her doll to some truly disturbing shit. Why she's the wise woman o' the mountain is never explained but that's what she is and soon our Barbie is traveling to the real world to find the little girl whose unusual play has caused her ennui. Oh, and Ryan Gosling's Ken comes along for the ride because he loves her even though she doesn't love him.

The first third of this film is rather enjoyable. Most of the jokes work and the acting, minus Gosling's bizarre timing, is very good as well. The juxtaposition of Barbie and Ken in the real world is amusing if all-too-brief, but the world they find themselves in doesn't feel all that real. In fact, it seems equally artificial to Barbie's reality. That's where the first of several missteps takes place.

The real world in "Barbie" is not the world you and I live in, it's the product of a limited imagination designed to make a sociopolitical point one could find in any first semester college student's term paper. For whatever reason, Gerwig and her co-writer Noah Baumbach decided to make an entire movie with that conceit.

Before one can utter the phrase, "Abandoned plot point," Barbie locates the girl she's looking for in record time without an ounce of dramatic tension or struggle. If it's almost as if this isn't the movie's real point...Anyway...

A plot twist worthy of a 1970s sitcom ensues once we realize the identity of the actual "little girl" and suddenly there's a car chase as Barbie evades the incredibly incompetent Mattel executives who want to put her literally back in the box for...reasons.

Let's pause here for a moment: Those execs whose jobs depend on running a successful company seem to want Barbie back in Dreamland so the toys don't change. But when they do change, the profits continue rolling in. So, why are they still chasing her? And when she does go back, why do they follow her at a snail's pace, only to show up when the plot calls for them to help resolve it in the lamest way possible? There's really only one sensible explanation: Gerwig and Baumbach are hacks.

The "why" of it all grows exponentially as more things happen as if plucked from a deceased magician's hat. Ken witnesses examples of toxic masculinity such as guy's talking to each other and riding horses so he can return to Dreamland and install a patriarchal system to replace the matriarchal one he and the other Kens have suffered under for decades. Yeah! Stick it to the...man?

Barbie experiences an epiphany in a matter of moments when she sees people smiling and a lovely elderly woman sharing a park bench with her. "These are people," she appears to think, "Real people doing real people things. How nice. How beautiful. How tragic. Well, time to go live a lie some more!" Now, if that isn't the most poignant statement on how women are often made to eke out their existences, I don't know what is. But that's too introspective for a film that wears its grievances on its sleeve, and so we're whisked away to more wacky antics and self-conscious dialogue as the dreaded third act rears its hideous countenance.

American movies often suffer from lackluster, underdeveloped third acts. Much of this comes from studio involvement and their insistence upon focus groups and sneak previews. I doubt that was what happened here though. Remember, this whole movie is designed to prove a point and what better way to do it than to reverse everything the audience saw at the beginning?

Actually, there are at least three ways that would have been better, but I'm reviewing the movie we got, not the one that exists in a parallel universe where actual thought was put into things like story and plot progression.

The result of Ken's observations of stereotypical masculinity have resulted in a very different world than the one Barbie left on her quest. But worry not, for the triumph of plastic womanhood is a mere long-winded speech nobody would every utter in real life away from retaking Dreamland and instituting an even more oppressive form of matriarchy than existed previously. 

Yay?

I often complain about horror movies lacking third acts but if this is the kind we get in other genres, maybe it's for the best. One unfunny, idiotic sight gag after another takes place as the Kens go to war over something poorly defined like their girlfriends going off with other Kens. The battle takes place using sports gear because I guess that's funny. Then a dance-off happens because I guess recycled Eighties humor is funny, too. By the time the forgettable song started, I had long ago mentally checked out. 

I realize this movie was hailed as some sort of deeply philosophical clarion call for feminism but all it really does is insult the audience's intelligence and diminish the very real issues woman face in society by espousing a simpleton's view of life. And any movie that gives us a terrible, witless catchphrases like, "I am Kenough" deserve their own special place in hell.

I'm looking at you, "Avenger's: Endgame" and , "I love you 3000."

Why "Andor" is Basically Terrible

So, imagine you invented something truly revolutionary. Picture all the people who were there when you did it, who helped and supported you and were part of it. Interesting people, I'm sure. Now imagine the person who stamped the paperwork so your patent was pending. 

That's who Andor is.

I'll admit I didn't have the highest anticipation for a "Star Wars" Disney+ series about a character whose imprint on the franchise was basically as a homicidal pile of ashes. He was meant to be an expendable Rebel whose actions aided in obtaining the Death Star plans so other people could blow it up and nobody would ever mention the names of the team he was on again; they were little more than a means to an end.

It's the most unnecessary origin story since Dumb & Dumberer. Why anyone cares about such a dull, detached character is truly baffling, as is the apparent need of screenwriter and creator of the cannon fodder character Tony Gilroy to provide a backstory to the backstory that feels like something from a very old, cheesy short story. It is even duller than Andor himself, if that's possible.

There seems to be a trend when it comes to streaming TV series to go at least two episodes without anything of note happening before rewarding the audience with some much needed, well-choregraphed action or suspense. Such was the case here where we waited an interminable amount of time and to entire episodes for something, anything, to happen to break up the monotony of the snail's pace and the constant need to world build a universe that has already been world built.

By the time the end of the fourth and once again totally eventless episode had ended, I found myself laughing at the abrupt ending.

As of this writing, I have watched four episodes of this dreadful waste of gigabytes and have no intention of continuing. It's too slow, there is only one interesting character, Stellan Skarskgard's Luthen Rael, a character who starts out like something out of a classic spaghetti western and slowly devolves into a cliché-riddled playacting chameleon. There is literally not one other character of note, including the droid.

Andor's troubles with the law after killing a guy for sitting on the ground don't make for riveting TV, nor do they make the protagonist anything less than a ruthless psychopath with a puppy dog face. He deserves to be caught and locked up if not worse. Anyone who's seen Rogue One knows he deserves even more than that because of what he does to the rebel with the bad leg. Andor is a lowlife who walks around looking innocent and pretending to be a victim. If ever there was a "hero" for the new age, it's him. 

So, to sum up we have a morally bankrupt screw-up joining a rebellion so he can one day murder an innocent man without the slightest twitch and nearly kill a young woman's father with a sniper rifle after lying to her. We also have a pace that is agonizingly slow, a soundtrack that is slumber-inducing, and not a Jedi to be seen. There are people who think the lack of Jedi is a good thing. I find that viewpoint idiotic.  

I find Andor idiotic as well. Bring on Asoka!

10 Beloved Movies I Hated & 10 Hated Movies I Loved(and Why)

 I often find myself at the crossroads of the cultural zeitgeist. It's not a place I planned to wind up, nor one I thought I existed in until the Internet and its fanboy chatter made its presence known. Until then, I assumed that most genre fans generally agreed with me and, more to the point, I agreed with them.

For instance, I thought everybody enjoyed "Attack of the Clones" as much as I did and considered it an improvement over "The Phantom Menace," which I also enjoyed. It wasn't that there weren't popular things I disliked, but most of the ones I was aware of were genre films that crossed over into mainstream popularity. It's much easier to dismiss something as idiocy when the masses embrace it, despite the opposing view regarding large amounts of people liking things. 

So, the double lesson I have learned is as follows: I am not at home with my so-called fellow geeks because I don't agree with them on things they love or things they hate. Below are two lists based on my experiences with these groups:

Movies I Hate (and why)

The Matrix- I've only seen the first one, but I found the film pretentious, derivative, poorly acted, and over the top. When the only riveting scene involves a character wanting to go back to sleep, it probably means that's what I wanted to do also.

Deadpool- To be fair, I hate the character with a purple, unbridled passion. I consider him one of those Nineties creations that damn near ruined the comic book industry. And I hate the character so much that it has made me hate the actor portraying him. He isn't funny and he isn't cool or interesting. The character either.

Jurassic Park- My mother was obsessed with Michael Crichton's novel, so of course I had to take her to see it when her health started declining. The book she had talked up resulted in what for me was the first dull special effects blockbuster ever. Flat characters, by-the-numbers "suspense," and SFX that failed to impress. I never once cared what was happening.

The Dark Knight- A friend of mine was so convinced I would consider this the greatest comic book movie of all time, his normally cheap ass paid for my ticket. He was disappointed and angry when I told him how awful I thought the whole thing was. Bale's Batman was unconvincing, Ledger's Joker was too silly to be effective, the Two-Face subplot was lacking, and the supposed "real world" approach made the entire affair feel forced and interminable.

Joker- Much has been made of Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of mental illness in this film, and on that level alone, it is something to see. Sadly, the movie itself does not justify his performance no matter how much money it made. Todd Phillips, director  of the increasingly unfunny "Hangover" films, decided to go all serious with this one. Unfortunately, he doesn't have an original idea in his head. "Joker" is four movies in one: Those movies are "Taxi Driver," "King of Comedy," "Falling Down" and "Fight Club," three of which were vastly superior.

The Hunger Games- Again, I only suffered through the first one, but that was one too many as far as I was concerned. I'm not fan of YA Lit as it is, so this one would have been a hard sell for me. Sadly, the one thing I demand from any type of drama was entirely absent from this film. I never cared about what was happening on screen. Also, the concept was well-intentioned but stretched the bounds of credibility even within its own internal logic.

It: Chapter One- Its sequel did not receive the acclaim its predecessor did, presumably because it was awful to the point of unintentional hilarity. Chapter One was awful as well, but in a not-at-all amusing way. Director Andres Muschietti turned an epic novel about childhood trauma and overcoming our fears as adults into a jump scare cliché fest replete with bad child actor performances and none of King's trademark dialogue. It's rare that I've actually been angry at the end of a movie. 

Get Out- This is the film that competed in my mind with "It" for worst movie of 2017.  It's a message movie, and that message is an important one. Sadly, the execution is absolute junk. Jordan Peele's comedy chops are well-established and I have tons of respect for him as an artist. This was not a film that worked for me. The acting was uneven, the pacing was agonizingly slow, the Big Reveal was laughable and not once did I care about anyone in the film. Worst thing that can said about a horror movie: It was boring.

Skyfall- When Pierce Brosnan was let go as James Bon 007, I was not exactly enthusiastic about the less suave and good-looking Daniel Craig taking over the role. I was also growing weary of "back to the beginning" reboots. Happily, "Casino Royale" put my fears to rest and gave us one of the best Bond films ever. But this isn't about that movie. This is about the uneven, poorly scripted disappointment that was "Skyfall," a movie that felt as if four separate teams of screenwriters all wrote portions of it without ever actually meeting. Why Roger Moore thought this was the best Bond ever made instead of "Casino Royale" is beyond me.

Godzilla 2014- I won't go into how much the character of Godzilla has meant to me since I sat in a theater at the age of five or six and watched a double feature. And while I've always questioned the Western ability to really understand kaiju eiga without defaulting to disaster movie mode, which is exactly what happened with the 1998 film, I held out hope for a superior American version. When I saw previews for the 2014 reboot, it felt as if it was over-compensating for the 1998 film's tone by taking itself too seriously and becoming a somber, listless affair. I turned out to be right. It's one of the few movies I nearly walked out on. Happily, the Monsterverse sequels have redeemed this film and made it slightly more watchable.

Movies I Love(and Why)

Thor: The Dark World- That's right, I included this one. I loved this film and its detractors don't make sense to me. There's nothing about this MCU installment that renders it inferior to the others. Is it the best film in the franchise? Of course not. But it continues Thor's and Jane's stories very well, it shows a different side of Loki, and the visuals are nothing less than stunning.

Ishtar- Much maligned at the time of its release, most of the harsh criticism seemed to focus on the then ungodly budget of $50 million. But shooting on location with two huge stars is costly. The result, however, is pure entertainment. Playing against type, Hoffman and Beatty have an incredible chemistry and the terrible songs they created for the movie are brilliant in their catchy awfulness. 

Ghost Rider- The sequel was a mess, but the first Ghost Rider is a lot of fun. Nic Cage is at his scenery chewing best, the effects mostly impress, and the bad guy works. Also, Peter Fonda plays the Devil and Sam Elliot is the Old West Ghost Rider! What more do you people want, a plot???

Star Trek Into Darkness- I'm not a Trekkie, or "Trekker" as some prefer to be called. My mother was one of the originals, however, and I have a healthy respect for the franchise. JJ Abrams' films injected a much needed electric eel enema into a stagnating franchise. Sure, this one suffers from sequel bloat and too much action, but the sets, performances and stakes are outstanding.

Jupiter Ascending- I've never been a big fan of the Wachoskis. I enjoyed some of their films and hated others. This one intrigued me because it was a throwback to the days of pulp space opera but with unique twists that felt original. It was a breath of fresh air that is only made more special by the lack of a sequel.

Cloud Atlas- Despite what I wrote about the Wachoskis in the previous section, they nailed this adaptation of what I consider one of the greatest novels of modern times. If I may channel my inner hipster for a moment, most people who disliked this movie didn't understand it. And that's okay. It's not an easily digested piece of fluff entertainment, nor is it a dime store philosophy diatribe like their more successful "The Matrix." 

Hudson Hawk- When Bruce Willis was at his hottest and it was still inconceivable that he would become a for-the-paycheck punchline, this vanity project was released to near universal disdain. Willis is clearly more in love with himself than the film at this stage in his career, and that just makes it more enjoyable. He mugs, he is still capable of being funny, and the "plot" is so far off the rails one can't help but watch to see what happens next. 

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane- I know, I know. I don't distance myself from my Andrew Dice Clay fandom back in the day. But even if I hadn't been one, the movie about "Mr. Rock 'n Roll Detective" is a fun romp through the music industry and one of the most quotable comedies of all time. Dice could actually act, as he'd already proved on the NBC series, "Crime Story," making this film that rare combination of a comedian's on-stage persona and genuine moments of gravitas.

The Village- This movie had the unique distinction of being released when it became a recreational activity to attack M. Knight Shyamalan. To be fair, he wasn't helping matters by hinging every film on a Big Reveal. He got away with it several times, so it was inevitable that he would eventually be called out on his gimmick. This was not the movie to do it, though. That movie was "The Happening." This one actually works because it immerses the audience into a world it thinks it understands only to pull the proverbial rug out from under us. 

Daredevil- While the Netflix series is vastly superior in every measurable way, that doesn't mean the movie is terrible. In fact, it's pretty damn good, especially the director's cut that restores an entire excised subplot. Ben Affleck is a comics fan and he gets this character. Read his foreword to Kevin Smith's Daredevil graphic novel if you doubt me. My only real issue was the casting of Elektra, which should have gone to someone different.

Movies I couldn't include in the "Hate" category because I've discovered many people who don't like them, too:

Avatar
The Amazing Spider-Man
Van Helsing
Titanic
Forrest Gump
The Suicide Squad

Review: "The Suicide Squad"

I've never been completely in support of Auteur Theory, but James Gunn's soft reboot/sequel "The Suicide Squad" might be the best argument against it in years. And while that particular attitude towards film has its positive outcomes in the works of Stanley Kubrik, Quentin Tarantino and Bernardo Bertolucci, Gunn ain't none of those guys.

What he is, however, is a gifted mimic who has fooled a lot of people into thinking he has a personal style. If you've seen his 2010 small budgeted takedown of the superhero genre "Super," you know what I mean. It's a good movie but it apes other directors' styles to the point of absurdity. 

People also forget that the first "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie was originally written by Nicole Perlman. Short memories aside, she was the one being praised for the screenplay when that film was released. Flash forward less than a decade and all anyone remembers is James Gunn. 

I was not among those praising Perlman's screenplay. I thought it was mediocre, dull and filled with terrible attempts at humor. Although, I wonder how much of the latter came from Gunn's work on the script. That brings us to "The Suicide Squad," a God-awful, unfunny, needlessly gory, thinly plotted pile of steaming crud from the "mind" of a man whose hackery really upsets me when I think about how he shares a name with one of my writing mentors.

The previous "Suicide Squad" film fell victim to what all DC Comics movies were dealing with in those not-so-long-ago days: Studio interference from imbeciles who had no concept of what they were doing. Thus director David Ayers, a far more gifted filmmaker than Gunn ("Training Day" alone cements that claim) saw his film sliced to ribbons. Despite this, it is still superior to Gunn's follow-up

With only four returning cast members from the first one, Gunn decides to populate his film with all the worst, stupidest DC villains in that company's history, because killing them off is funny to him. So, we get an entire opening sequence of disposable, useless idiots who die horribly so the so-called A-Team can emerge from the water to handle the mission. Who are they?

A big stupid bi-pedal shark played by a totally wasted Sylvester Stallone because Gunn can't seem to make an ensemble film without a bug dumb character that makes no sense. But this Shark is no Groot, who is at least a likable character with a soul. King Shark spends his time making idiotic comments like a slow-witted child, none of which are even remotely amusing. It's sad when the CW version of a character was vastly superior. 

Then there's Bloodsport portrayed by Idris Elba, who appears to have not gotten a good night's sleep in about eight years. He brings zero weight to this role, shuffling through like a zombie except when he's screaming "Fuck you!" over and over at his child.

Margot Robbie is back as Harley Quinn, the ubiquitous eye-candy psycho who really needs to be retired from comics for about a decade. Even she must feel this way based on her uninspired performance this time around. Her sub-plot involving a Central American dictator contains some of the worst writing and acting I have seen this side of "It: Chapter 2." 

There are newer characters as well, including John Cena as Peacemaker, a character Gunn single-handedly ruined by turning him into a joke. Cena has the comic timing of a clogged drain, and nowhere is this more evident than when he and Elba indulge in high wit by discussing eating a beach full of dicks.

This is seriously the kind of Middle School-level dumbshittery that Gunn thinks is comedy!

In addition to the three heavyhitters mentioned above, there's the character of Ratcatcher 2 portrayed by Daniella Melchior. She is, without a doubt, a terrible actor and in possession of one of the most annoying voices. Her line readings sound just like what they are: Someone without talent reading their lines. There is a scene on a bus involving her sob story and some unconvincing graphics that is, ironically, the best scene in the movie. Then I realized it was because it ripped off the bar scene in the first one!

But I saved the "best" for last" The disservice Gunn does the great actor Viola Davis and the character of Amanda Waller actually tows the line of casual racism. Gone is the cool, calculating Waller of the first film and the comics. In her place stands a stereotypical angry, hysterical black woman who doesn't seem to know what the hell she's doing and is easily manipulated by her staff and the Suicide Squad. This is the same woman who stared down Batman and told him to watch his ass?

What can I say about the supposed plot and story elements? Gunn clearly knows nothing about his missions work. He has no grasp of Third World politics. Shit, he doesn't even know the difference between a nightclub and a strip club! 

By the time the Big Reveal takes place, one any comics fan already saw coming in the first reel, all it does it serve as a reminder that this guy doesn't get DC and should stay as far away from it as possible.