Current Film Reviews- Let It Snow

Alright, I got nothing for November, anxiety has wreaked havoc on my life, and the month's almost over, so I need something to make sure I follow through on my personal promise to release something each month. *Looks on Netflix*. Oh, hey, they finally made that film based on that book John Green co-wrote. Alright, some backstory. I first heard about this around the time The Fault in Our Stars came out, and I became intrigued by John Green and the particular genre he worked in. This project was in development, and I thought I would see it in 2015, when I read it. Well, it's four years later, and I've stopped caring, and as far as I can discern, no one has noticed that this came out, so.... screw it. I got nothing else to write about.

    Based on the novel of the same name co-written by Maureen Johnson, John Green, and Lauren Myracle, the film follows several plot threads that weave and intersect with each other at various points. You have the story of Julie Reyes (Isabelle Merced), who meets the pop star Stuart Bale (Shameik Moore), and shares a fairly good experience with him, despite her own problems at home. There's Dorrie (Liv Hewson), a waitress who's nervous because Kerry (Anna Akana), who she has a burgeoning relationship with, seems not to be interested when she and her group of cheerleaders head into the restaurant Dorrie works at. There's Dorrie's friends Addie (Odeya Rush), who is concerned that her boyfriend Jeb (Mason Gooding) is cheating on her (not to mention her bizarre encounters with a woman who wears tin foil (Joan Cusack) and Tobin (Mitchell Hope, and apparently not Charlie Heaton), who has to deal with his feelings for the Duke (Kiernan Shipka) who is close to JP (Matthew Noszka). Finally, there's Tobin's friend Keon (Jacob Batalon, who seems to specialize in playing wacky best friends), who wants to throw a party but gets into roadblocks along the way.

   The acting is pretty good around the board. They do well to serve the material that they are given, and imbue it with strong emotion and empathy. It really helps invest us in these characters and their various plights, whether serious or wacky. The stories are well done for the most part, and despite somewhat odd premises, manage to resolve themselves without any feeling rushed or undervalued as a result. It is also pretty funny in some parts, with some nice bits and dialogue that feels realistic for teenager to say, while still managing to be pretty funny. It probably helped that Kay Cannon, who directed the superb comedy Blockers last year, helped write the script. I did like the sense of being completely overwhelmed by snow, being from Colorado and having to deal with that every year.

   Because of the intersecting structure of the story, it can be hard to follow what is happening to whom. Sometimes, I'd mix up stories or get confused when something happened because it pertained to a different storyline that happened a while ago. I feel like a film like this shouldn't be that hard to follow, but I was constantly rewinding to see context, and I was still confused. It's also fairly slow, with a lot of padding that sometimes stops the film cold, and are just ... confusing. This is only an hour and a half, but the padding really makes it feel longer.

    I'm not the target audience for this film, but I'm close enough to that audience that I can say that I probably would've adored this film when I was in that age group. It's the kind of warm teen romantic comedies that I was always sort of a sucker for (I enjoyed the two John Green novels I've read). I can imagine that the audience this is aimed at will likely enjoy it, since it seems very congruent with the way they actually act. Again, not the target audience, so don't know that for certain. As for me at this time, it was good. Not great, not even really that good, but good. Nice little film to watch on a lazy day or celebrate Christmas. So, yeah, if you want to watch something like that and you have a Netflix account, this wouldn't be a bad choice.   

Current Film Review- Long Shot

     I have two stories about this movie. One was that when I read about it a few months ago, it was called Flarsky (in reference to Seth Rogen's character). Long Shot is frankly a better title. Anyway, I watched this film after a class on Monday. I went to the bathroom in the other building, and saw they were having a free screening on campus in 13 minutes. Given I had nothing else to do, I went to watch it. What did I think?

       Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) is a journalist at an online outlet known for his progressive stances and aggressive demeanor. However, when right-wing mogul Parker Whembley (Andy Serkis) buys out his employer, Flarsky angrily quits. His pal Lance (O'Shea Jackson Jr. Ice-T's son, btw) decides to take him to a high class party where Boyz II Men are playing. Also at this party is US Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), who is running for president on a specific environmental agenda. Flarsky has a particular connection to Field, as the latter was Flarsky's babysitter, and there was an awkward incident between the two (watch the film, I won't describe it). Field, against the advice of her staffer Maggie Millikin (June Diane Raphael) decides to hire Flarsky as a speechwriter for her campaign. So begins a gradual journey as the two navigate politics and romance.

      The thing that most stood out to me was the chemistry between Theron and Rogen. The two manage to be both convincing and charming as the main couple in this romantic comedy, and their relationship and how it develops helps really anchor this film. Along with the main two leads, the side performances are also enjoyable, particularly Serkis, Raphael, Bob Odenkirk (possibly playing himself as President of the US), and Ravi Patel as Field's other staffer. I do like there is something of an actual political message in this film, as opposed to just using politics as basically a hook. There is a recurring conflict in the film between Flarsky uncompromising idealism and Field's more pragmatic politicking, and it does play into the romantic comedy plot of the film. Finally, I appreciate that this film had a style and flair to it. A lot of comedies today rely heavily on improvising (a lot of Seth Rogen films, too), and not having a more stylized look or feel to them. I appreciated that there was a style to this. Finally, it's funny. I laughed pretty consistently throughout the film, and I laughed hard at the jokes.

      This follows the beats of a romantic comedy pretty dogmatically. It is really easy to see where the plot is going and how the journeys will lead. This isn't too much of a problem, but maybe a little bit more of a surprise might've helped keep the film more interesting and provocative, which is what they are likely aiming for. The ending was a bit too neat, and simultaneously with not much actual resolution. A bit more of a tie-up with the other characters might've worked.

     I enjoyed this movie. I laughed consistently. That makes it a general recommendation in my book. If you like comedies or political comedies, this is one of the better examples of it, and it uses politics as a sub-message than just a setting for a romantic comedy. That said, it's probably one I won't revisit in the future, so bare in mind that it is mostly just entertainment. 

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.