Dailles and Nightlies- Beyond the Sea

       So, yeah, big global pandemic. Really distressing. Couldn't really do anything last month with the whole "country in shutdown" ordeal. Might as well look at a film by noted actor, sex predator, possible murderer Kevin Spacey. A film that he not only starred in, but he directed, produced, and co-wrote. Yes, this was his passion project, his magnum opus, his attempt to bring a unique vision to the screen. Watching this in light of Spacey's fall from grace, it becomes clear the film is little more than a vanity project by a narcissist who wants to show just how great he is and how much people love him. Oh, and also something about Bobby Darin. Maybe.

     So, the film chronicles the life of crooner Bobby Darin (Kevin Spacey, even when Darin is a young man, and yes, it's off-putting), from his childhood in the Bronx as Walden Robert Cossotto (William Ullrich, who Spacey spends a lot of time interacting with, and yes, it is incredibly creepy to watch now), encouraged by his former vaudvillian mother Polly (Brenda Blethyn), his sister Nina (Caroline Aaron) and Nina's husband Charlie (Bob Hoskins) to become a star on par with Frank Sinatra. He manages to do so in the late 50's, with the help of agent Stephen Blauner (John Goodman) , with hits like "Splish Splash" and "Mack the Knife". From there, he makes his mark on entertainment, headlining the famous Copacabana nightclub, starring in award-winning films, and romancing movie starlet Sandra Dee (Kate Bosworth). All the while, he feels his time is slowly diminishing, primarily because of a childhood disease he was not expected to survive.

     If the slimy, skeevy presence of Spacey is too much to bare, we are a character actor double punch of Bob Hoskins and John Goodman, who both manage to be the best parts of whatever scenes they're in. Hoskins especially has his usual charisma and energy popping out every time he's on screen. There's a nice sequence detailing the production of 1963's Come September in Italy, that looks far better than the rest of the film. Some of the renditions of the songs were alright.  Kate Bosworth is alright.

    Before I get into the meat of my criticisms, let me start with the fact that this movie looks terrible. Awful, cheap looking sets; a weird, distracting blue tint to the scenes that drains all the energy out of the scenes; bad production design for many of the musical sequences. It's not even so much bad as just weird. These large elaborate song sequences, set against these really cheap looking club sets and small feelings venues. Not helping is the fact that Kevin Spacey is way too old to play this role. He was 45 when he did this part. The real Bobby Darin died at age 37. Whenever he's in Darin's most iconic roles, it's jarring. He looks like a 40 year old being a teen idol, and yeah, hindsight is a big part of why this doesn't work, but he still couldn't pull off being a wide-eyed younger Darin trying to make his way through show-business. The film also has this bizarre framing device where they're filming Darin's life with Darin in the lead role, and it is so weird and confusing, and brings Spacey in proximity of that kid, and it's creepy as hell watching it. A lot of this film is just Spacey displaying his various skills, showing both light-acting, hard emotional acting, singing, dancing, impressions. Which might be forgiven for this, but in light of the revelations, comes across as the work of a massive narcissist who wants to show the world just how talented and awesome he is, and burying the fact that he's a manipulative rapist.

    I honestly don't know why I did this. We're all stuck at home, watching as governments and organization struggle with the fact that this pandemic is still ever-growing. I don't recommend watching this except maybe morbid curiosity. Spacey continues to pop up every Christmas like an anti-Santa Claus and remind us that the law hasn't caught up to him yet. Let's hope it does in the coming years. 

Dailles and Nightlies- Crash (2004)

     When Green Book won best picture at the Oscars a couple months ago, the inevitable comparison was to the Best Picture winner at the 2005 ceremony, Crash. Both were dramas revolving around racism, involving the idea that racism was simple misunderstanding and that one could redeem themself of this bigotry. Because of that, both appealed to the liberal, yet very old and white Oscar voters. There was a massive backlash to the win for both (though, in Crash's case, the backlash, in part was because it beat out favorite LGBT+ romance Brokeback Mountain), and both are prime examples of the kind of insultingly simplistic racial dramas that tend to curry favor at the Academy Awards. As I enjoyed reading the reviews and retrospectives of Crash (cultural commentator Ta-Neshi Coates called it the "Worst Film of the Decade"), I came to the realization that I've never actually seen this film. I've seen clips of it, but never the entire thing. Well, this is a whole series for movies outside of recent releases or horror films, so why not explore this, and see if it really deserves its reputation (spoiler: it does)

     So, there is not really cohesive plot to this, but rather a group of interlocking narratives involving several characters. Graham Waters (Don Cheadle) is a detective investigating a crime scene, after getting involved in a fender bender while driving with his girlfriend Ria (Jennifer Espicito) with an Asian driver, resulting in a racial scuffle (setting the tone for all the dialogue in the film). The day before, carjackers Anthony (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges) and Peter (Larenz Tate) steal the car of DA Rick Cabot (Brendan Fraser) and his wife Jean (Sandra Bullock). Director Cameron Thayer (Terrence Howard) and his wife Christine (Thandie Newton) are pulled over by officers John Ryan (Matt Dillon) and Tom Hansen (Ryan Phillippe). Shop owner Farrad (Shaun Toub) and his daughter Dorri (Bahar Soomekh) are trying to buy a gun. Each of these stories intersects and shows how people can be subject to prej... I feel disgusted just finishing that sentence.

    Good things, good things..... There are some decent performances, like Don Cheadle, Ludacris, and Brendan Fraser. It does manage to end most of the stories in a satisfactory manner, without any sort of dangling threads or plot holes. Sometimes, it gets so melodramatic, it's somewhat entertaining.

   First things first, the lighting in this film is horrible. It is often either too bright that it overwhelms the scene, or it is just dim enough that it makes the characters hard to see. The combination makes the film literally hard to watch sometimes. Sometimes, it leads to unintentional hilarity, as serious needle drop moments are staged like some bizarre parody. The big moment in this got a laugh from me. Well, both for the odd lighting which emphasized the wrong things, and how contrived the whole thing was. Which leads to my next problem: the plots in this are very contrived. Only a very specific set of circumstances can lead to the events that occur, and it really stretches disbelief, especially when this is allegedly set in a real-world setting. The way the plots intersect and weave are so absurd, it's almost comical. It's like one of those Gary Marshall holiday movies, where the varying plots are related in weird ways. Finally, of course, there is the writing and the message. Much has been written about this. How all the dialogue somehow finds its way to reveal racism, even when it makes absolutely no sense. How each character is just a vehicle and not a full character. How the characters do absolutely heinous things, but are redeemed in over-the-top ways that ultimately don't address the things they did or really tries to redeem (or even say that some people are beyond redemption). The thing I want to focus on is how... confused the message is. It's either a.) racism is just misunderstanding and can be solved by grandstanding acts, or, b.) it's institutional and possibly can't be solved. The movie ends with the big metaphoric snowstorm in LA, and with people arguing again, which seems to contradict the entire rest of the film.

    I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I can postulate it is far better than this. This was just awful. I can totally see why someone would call this the "Worst Film of the Decade", and get mad this won an Oscar (though it is a superb example of Oscar Bait). I disagree that Green Book was a worse Best Picture win than this, because, in spite of its horrid messaging and bending of the truth, Green Book is mostly competent and well made. I wouldn't recommend watching this as a good movie, but there are moments of unintentional hilarity that can be gained from watching it and how deadly serious it takes itself.

     

Dailles and Nightlies- Ishtar

    There's an old Gary Larson Far Side cartoon called "Hell's Video Store." The entire joke is that the titular store is stocked with copies of the 1987 flop Ishtar, starring Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman and directed by Elaine May. Larson later apologized for the cartoon when he actually saw the film and enjoyed it. That entire story seems to encapsulate the reputation of this film over the years. A massive critical and financial flop, it was for years lampooned as one of the worst films ever made. However, over the years, it has come to be seen as an unfairly maligned classic. Directors like Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright and Martin Scorsese have listed it as one of their favorites, and many critics have praised it to the moon. (Nathan Rabin's review for the AV Club salviates over the film the way a dog does to a large steak) And here I am, left to wonder, "This film? This mediocre tripe has invoked strong reactions from people?" I mean, yeah, that statement implies I didn't like it, but it's not the worst thing I've seen. It is just another forgettable comedy. I wish I could say that viewing it a second time might've given more insight, but it hasn't.

     Chuck Clarke (Dustin Hoffman) and Lyle Rogers (Warren Beatty) are struggling New York musicians near the end of their line. Despite their lack of talent (which the film will remind you of constantly), the two convince agent Marty Freed (Jack Weston) to book them in a hotel in Morocco. Meanwhile, in the neighboring country of Ishtar, a map is found foretelling the coming of two messengers that will cause change in the region. The map is taken by rebel Shirra (Isabelle Adjani), who runs into Clarke when he and Rogers land at their airport. Clarke gives her his passport to help her out, which forces him to remain in Ishtar, while Rogers is forced to go back to their gig. Clarke's actions gain the attention of CIA agent Jim Harrison (Charles Grodin), who is advising the Emir (Aharon Ipalé) against leftist guerillas in the region. Harrison plans to use the two hapless musicians as pawns in this struggle, but they prove hard to control.

    There's two kind of good gags in the films. Towards the middle, there's a somewhat funny gag where two CIA agents are identifying other intelligence agents. Both times, it was the only laugh I got from this film. The second is one of the songs has a funny line ("If you say you play the accordion, you can never play in a rock and roll band"). Beatty and Hoffman have decent chemistry and work well as close friends. Charles Grodin's constantly beleaguered CIA agent is kind of charming, especially at the end. The climax is fine.

     The overriding problem with this film is that it isn't funny. A lot of comedies aren't funny, but this is one of those comedies that is sort of aggressive about its unfunniness. A joke doesn't land? It just keeps repeating it, no matter the diminishing returns. There are jokes about the Cold War, the region, the ugly Americans Clarke and Rogers, but again, none of those are funny. I wish I could talk about some of those gags, but that leads into another problem: because it's unfunny pretty much throughout its runtime, it's also boring. Nothing really happens until the end. I saw the movie a few days ago, and I can't really tell you anything that happens in it. It's also very easy to get distracted during that time.

   This was apparently meant as an homage to the 40's Road to... films starring Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. I don't know how. Yeah, it's two everymen in a foreign land, but stuff happened in the Road to.. movies. Also, those were funny. If you want an actually funny, memorable homage to those films that also has Cold War themes, just watch Spies Like Us. I really don't know if you really need to see this. Maybe as a curiosity, but there really isn't much to it.

Dailies and Nightlies- Down with Love

         Two things prompted my review of this (well, three, if you count the Valentine's Day tie-in). A while ago, I was reading through the comments section of an old (meaning several year old) news article in film news, and one commentor lamented that Edgar Wright was passed over for the "director of Bring It On" (Peyton Reed) for Ant-Man (because the article was another celebrity (Simon Pegg, incidentally) whining about the decline of cinema or whatever). That comment stuck with me primarily for the way it was framed. The commentor refers to Bring It On, a film with a very specific cultural prominence as a film about cheerleading, and contrasts it with Edgar Wright, with the implication that the comparison is self-evident. According to the Googles, Bring It On has a 63% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning a decent number of people seemed to enjoy it. The implication from the comment was that Reed was wrong for the role of director of Ant-Man because he directed more feminine movies. Now, I love Edgar Wright very much (indeed, he's a favorite of mine), but it's hard to deny that he generally focuses on topics that generally appeal to the more male dominated film nerd culture. Anyway, that comment stuck with me, and prompted me to look into Peyton Reed's filmography, and found this one, which seemed to be very beloved in many circles. The second is shorter, but also involves Reed and Marvel. Reed apparently pitched Fox a 60's era Fantastic Four script, and I do like to speculate on what might've been, and the actual 60's era film that he directed seemed like a good start.

          In Camelot-era New York, the new sensation in the literary world is Barbara Novak (Rene Zellweger), who has the radical idea of having sexual relations without necessarily a romantic one. (remember, early 60's). Her shot to fame, helped by editor Vikki Heller (Sarah Paulson), prompts womanizing reporter Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) and his editor Peter McMannus (David Hyde Pierce) to do an investigation hoping to expose Novak and her liberating ways. But... complications arise, and from the title, I suppose you know where this is going.

        I'm not terribly familiar with the Rock Hudson/Doris Day comedies this was meant to pay homage to, but even I could see how intricately they recreated just a sixties film. From the long animated opening to the large elaborate sets to the very bright color scheme to the transitions and split shots, it resembles an early 60's film aesthetically to an admirably meticulous degree. Simultaneously, it still has modern innovations that work seamlessly, with the more jarring datedness of 60's films ironed out, allowing the viewer to focus more on the film itself and not any of the agedness. Aside from the aesthetic, there are a number of very good gags and jokes in here. I was laughing pretty consistently throughout the film at all the clever visual gags, subtle nods, and wordplay, which were all quite charming in their own way, and helped ease the viewer more into this world that the film created, which is helped by the actors, who fit into their 60's archetypes well. Especially David Hyde Pierce as a hapless Tony Randall sort.

       My biggest problem with the film is that the plot kind of sputters out towards the middle, and it never really recaptures its momentum afterwards. I can pinpoint this problem to when it begins to shift gears about its message, which I won't spoil, but needless to say, the attempt to balance old-fashioned and modern sensibilities ends more towards the former, and it is a bit odd that they decided to go this particular direction. Another, more minor one is that they do a gag about people doing innocuous things but sounding sexual whilst doing it. It's funny once or twice, but they do the gag several times, which was a bit tiresome, and a tad awkward (also, this is a very common joke).

      I enjoyed this feature. Granted, I couldn't fully get into it, but I had a good time watching, regardless, and if you enjoy these sorts of romantic comedies or period pieces, I recommend it. Think of it as a light-hearted predecessor to Mad Men. 

Dailles and Nightlies- Battleship

          This almost sounds like a parody, really. Now 7 years removed from it, it is sort of stunning that this film actually exists, and isn't something in the background of a Hollywood satire. A military sci-fi blockbuster based on the plotless game of Battleship. The one where you yell out a position, and it hits or misses (I'm guessing modern versions are a tie-in to the film? Haven't played it in a while) Someone actually conceived of this, and created the film with high quality effects, name actors, and military support. It is kind of astounding, and with the right combination, it might've actually worked. Unfortunately, for a concept this wonky, it is surprisingly dull and boring.

      NASA has managed to locate an exoplanet with the potential for life, and sends a signal to any potential life. But, this interesting development is sidetracked by the story of Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who, as brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard, and yes, his name really is "Stone") helpfully exposits to the audience, is an unemployed slacker celebrating his birthday at a bar, where he attempts to impress Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), by stealing a chicken burrito from a nearby convenience store. He's tased pretty badly by the police, and while he is recovering, Stone once again helpfully explains that he wants Alex to join the Navy and that Samantha is the daughter of the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet Terrance Shane (Liam Neeson). Cut to 7 years later, and Alex is now a Tactical Action Officer on the USS John Paul Jones, and is preparing to ask Admiral Shane for his daughter's hand in marriage (why this is still a thing, I'm not sure. Seems terribly antiquated). However, he is on the verge of a discharge (for some reason that's never explicitly explained as far as I could discern). Samantha, meanwhile revealed to be a physical therapist is helping a double amputee, Lt. Col Mick Canales (Gregory D. Gadson, a real life Iraq veteran and double amputee, which is very cool) recover by taking a walk in the beautiful Hawaiian wilderness.  If you're wondering where the aliens come in, well, they land during a Navy game between the RIMPAC nations, and create a force field around the Hawaiian islands. Now, after Stone is killed, Alex, along with Petty Officer Cora Raikes (Rihanna. Yes, that one) and the commander of the Jones' sister ship Yugi Nagata (Tadanobu Asano) must fight the aliens from within, while Samantha, Mick, and a SETI scientist named Cal Zapata (Hamish Linklater) try to destroy the shields.

      There are a couple things that are competent about this film. It has two kind of interesting subplots that are more interesting than the main plot. One is the aforementioned story of real life double amputee Gregory Gadson fighting off aliens, which was generally very awesome whenever we got to see it. The other involves a group of veterans actually refurbishing the USS Missouri with the main characters to fight the aliens. Both of these could've made entertaining films in and of themselves, and didn't deserve to be attached to Battleship the movie. The acting was alright, with a surprising standout being Rihanna. (I want to see her in more films, she has only been in 6 films since this one). It is mildly entertaining how they shoehorn aspects of the game into the film, like the pegs and when they try to fire on the aliens using a grid.

     It is surprising how boring this film is. Battleship the movie should be some weird, glorious mess. This is just another blockbuster, with a few tangential connections to its origin. It's not fun, it's not really that absurd. If you've seen any alien invasion film with clear support from the United States armed forces, you've seen this. I really can't say much other than that. Beyond that, it's also clear that it is trying to take elements from the then-hottest blockbusters, especially the Transformers films from Michael Bay. Director Peter Berg (known for the original Friday Night Lights, which is likely why Taylor Kitsch is in this) is clearly attempting to ape Michael Bay's style , from the panning shots to the slow motion action. However, while Bay has turned this into something of a vulgar artform using his own openly iconoclastic mannerisms, Berg's imitation makes the film look even cheaper and more mundane by comparison (though at least Berg doesn't imitate Bay's political incorrectness, in the former's defense). It really says something that I was more confused here than by the Transformers films I've seen directed by Bay. Along with failing to get Bay, Berg also uses a lot of Spielbergian music cues and especially, JJ Abrams-esque lens flares, which make the film even harder to see. I'm probably making this Frankenstein's monster combination out to be interesting, but really, the combination of these elements make the film generic, and not terribly interesting in its own right.

     It took four goddamn days to write this. Battleship the movie should not be this hard to write about, but the film is that uninteresting. I had a hard time describing the synopsis, because literally very little of note actually happens. I really don't recommend this to anyone, except maybe battleship enthusiasts with its accuracy and how it uses military strategies from what I've read, though maybe there are errors. I don't know. This was a lot tougher than I originally imagined.
        

Dailles and Nightlies- 2010: The Year We Make Contact

   2001: A Space Odyssey is my all-time favorite film. I've said this on this site multiple times, and will probably bring it up whenever it feels appropriate. I see the film at least once every year, I've read the book, I've read the sequel books, and I've read everything I could on the production of this film and its novel. So, it was a pretty good year for me when it became its 50th anniversary. With the attention given to the film due to this, I decided, with the inauguration of this new series, to spotlight its lesser known sequel. Arthur C. Clarke (co-writer of the original film, and the author of the book) wrote 2010:Odyssey Two specifically as a sequel to the film's continuity (i.e. changing Saturn in the book to Jupiter in the film). Stanley Kubrick declined directing, so Peter Hyams (known for Capricorn One and Outland) took over those duties, (having to start over with effects due to Kubrick destroying the original props), and was released to mixed critical and financial success in 1984. So, yeah, in honor of its 50th anniversary, we take a look at its underappreciated sequel.

     In 2010, 9 years after the Discovery shut down in Jupiter's orbit, Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider, taking over the role William Sylvester played in the first one) took the fall for the events, and is mostly working in the Very Large Array. He is approached by Dimitri Moiseyevitch (Dana Elcar), a representative of the Soviet space program (remember, this was made in 1984), who hopes to recruit him for a Jupiter mission they're planning with their ship  Alexei Leonov (named for the first human to conduct a spacewalk). They hope to investigate the events that lead to the shutdown of the Discovery , the malfunction of its computer HAL-9000 (Douglas Rain), and the disappearance of Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea). Most significantly, they hope to examine the large monolith the Discovery was sent to investigate (as revealed in the climax of the first film). Despite rising tensions between the US and USSR under a conservative president (who cut funding to Floyd's agency while they were planning their own Discovery Two to investigate) and an incident in Central America, Floyd agrees, and manages to get approval for him, Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), the designer of the Discovery and Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), HAL's creator, to travel with the Leonov. They find themselves with already tense relations with the crew, including Captain Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren), who is concurrently a major with the Soviet Air Force; Dr. Vladimir Rudenko (Saveliy Kramarov), the ship's doctor; and Irina Yakunina( Natasha Schneider), the ship's nutritionist. As they enter Jupiter orbit, they find strange signals coming from Jupiter's moon Europa. After prodding from Floyd, they investigate further, only for a strange light to emerge. This only harkens the strange events that may or may not explain what happened to the Discovery, Dave Bowman, and HAL-9000.

      This could've easily just been a Kubrick knock-off, a way to just imitate his style without any sort of consideration as to why that style is effective or making it work in its own way. While there are a couple Kubrick style shots and homages in the film (including an amusing one where he and Arthur C. Clarke are the US President and Soviet Premier on a Time magazine cover), Hyams largely does his own style, making it very distinct from the original and not overly reliant on it. I do like the more modern, 80's feel to the film, which, while unable to top the timeless period-ness of the original, is an interesting enough in its own right. The effects are superb, especially considering that they had to largely remake a lot of them from the originals. It keeps up with the original in those terms. It largely keeps to the events of the book (though my favorite scene in the book, where Dave Bowman is shown the floating gasbags of Jupiter, and oceanic creatures of Europa by the monolith beings, isn't in the film).

     Which probably leads me to my first problem with the film (and the book): the ending, where it is revealed the monolith beings want to create a new sun using the monoliths to create enough mass. It makes sense, given what has been stated in the plot and gives a good climax. However, it stretches belief and feels a bit odd in an otherwise realistic film. Another book-related problem was the explanation of HAL's malfunction. It is revealed that he was torn between the original mission orders and orders given to keep the Monolith secret. It feels like a disappointment given the scale of his malfunction, and felt like something else was missing from this, but the film decides to just leave it there.

      This is definitely not as good as the original, but most films in general aren't. However, I do think it is a good sequel in spite of that, and just a good standalone film, and does improve on the book by adding the Cold War tension to it. If you like the original, you'll like this, or appreciate it. Even if you don't like it, this is distinct enough from it that you might enjoy it. Definitely see 2001 first, though, if you haven't already. It is a far better film, for sure. However, this is a nice underappreciated film, and especially a study of Cold War tensions in film.   

Dailles and Nightlies- Across the Universe

        About two months ago, during a visit to Las Vegas, my Dad and I saw the Love show at the Mirage. It was a Cirque du Soleil production which utilized Beatles songs to score some impressive acrobatics and dance sequences. While I was watching the performance, I thought a bit to the use of Beatles songs in other films. Two very notable examples came to mind. One was Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band , a 1978 film using music from the titular album and Abbey Road by producer Robert Stigwood, famed for his other '70's musicals, Grease and Saturday Night Fever. That film featured several prominent artists of the 70's (Peter Frampton; Earth, Wind, and Fire; Aerosmith; the Bee Gees) performing these songs in a plot loosely based on Sgt. Pepper. The film was a critical and financial flop, and doesn't seem to be remembered fondly today. Of course, the other was the film in the title. Directed by famed stage director Julie Taymor, who is probably most famous for directing The Lion King on Broadway, and in terms of film credits, had directed an adaptation of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, this 2007 feature is not based on any particular album or song, but is a simple jukebox musical, with a plot and characters centered around the songs, as well as the 60's period that Beatlemania emerged in. The surviving members of the Beatles seemed to enjoy it. Everyone else seems ... mixed on it. It seems to be brought up as a strange failed experiment on Taymor's part. Does it deserve this reputation? I decided to start a new series separate from my current film or horror reviews, where I just talk about whatever film I want to, whether it be a fairly obscure flop or a classic for the ages, and anything in-between. It'll be infrequent, mainly to pad out months I have little to no material on, and will range from first impressions to films I've probably seen a dozen or so times. So, without further delay.

       Jude (Jim Sturgess, and yes, that name is intentional. The song is played at one point) is a young shipyard worker in Liverpool, who decides to come to America to find his birth father, an American GI from the war. He finds himself in Princeton, where he has a brief discussion with his father (Robert Clohessy), before befriending Max (Joe Anderson, and the name is another Beatles reference), a Princeton student and bohemian, who introduces him to his family, including his sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood, and yes, another reference. Look, it's clear where this is going). Lucy is saddened by her significant other being drafted to fight in Vietnam. Max decides to drop out of Princeton, and join a group of Bohemians including Sadie (Dana Fuchs), JoJo (Martin Luther McCoy), and Prudence (TV Carpio). As her boyfriend is killed in action and Max is drafted, Lucy becomes more involved with the anti-war movement, and her relationship with Jude blooms, as the 60's gradually become more radical.....

      There are a number of good renditions in her. "Let It Be", "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Blackbird", "Hey, Jude", "Come Together", and "All You Need Is Love" are all very well-done and memorable renditions, distinct from their original recordings. All the actors do a fine job of singing. The film's plot is simple, but relatively easy to follow, especially with its various characters and their storylines. It also has good, high quality production design, with little CGI, making it feel more real than your average musical. Just generally, it was never boring to watch. It always had something interesting to watch, whether it be actually good or bizarrely bad, and I was never bored by the film.

     I talked about the good renditions, but there are some.... weird ones. "Being for the Benefit of Mr.Kite", (with Eddie Izzard as some sort of ringleader), and a mash-up of the titular song and "Helter Skelter" are two examples. The former is competent and true to the spirit, but comes out of nowhere, and is incongruous with the rest of the film. The latter just doesn't work, with the two songs competing for attention. There was also "She's So Heavy", which features military trainers in Max Headroom masks, and "Revolution", where Jude literally points to a Mao portrait when he says a line. Another problem this film has is it feels too much like a cliched late 60's period piece. Like, of course the characters become involved in the counterculture, of course the lead girl becomes anti-war, of course there is a Vietnam subplot, and of course, the anti-war movement grows more radical as times goes on. It feels too cliched in regards to the period, and feels eeriely similar to Forrest Gump (which originated many of these cliches).

     I enjoyed this feature, even if parts of it didn't work for me. It's fun, looks nice, and the songs are well done. Honestly, that's all it needed to be. If you like the Beatles or like the songs of the Beatles, this will very likely appeal to you, especially with all the other little nods and references made throughout the film.

    I hoped you enjoyed this inaugural entry, I don't know when and what the next entry will be, but stay tuned to find out. I also don't know what my next review will be.