Reason for the Season- Twilight Zone (2019)

    A couple years ago, I did a piece on this very blog lamenting that science fiction anthologies were not as common (relegated to season long anthologies at that time). In that piece, I mentioned that they shouldn't do another *Twilight Zone*, because there were at least two others before it. Well, they went and did it anyway, so that's why I decided to review it: to see if this lives up to any of the previous incarnations and to see how the anthology format holds up now. Just a reminder, these are more free-form, stream of consciousness than my typical reviews, and I include spoilers with abandon.  Also, I want to make this an official series, so there's a title. (Get it? Because TV series are organized into seasons and... you get it.)


    Okay, of the three version of this show, this is easily worst. I've said this for weeks as it has been released. For a long time, I regarded the 2002 version as the weakest one. Even that had some highlights and some good episodes (especially the sequel to "It's a Good Life," with Bill Mumy himself). This, however, has the weakest set of episodes so far. And it starts off fine. The Comedian episode with Kumail Nanjiani was pretty good, with a Twilight Zone-esque twist and very universal themes. It goes downhill from that almost immediately with the second episode, a very loose remake of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet called Nightmare at 30,000 Feet, which had... a podcast, I think, and Adam Scott running an airplane. Honestly, I don't remember a lot of it, and that's the problem with a lot of these. They don't really have those clincher moments that the standard Twilight Zone episodes do. Like, take the classic episode *Time Enough at Last*, of course about a dude who just wants to read, but is constantly distracted by the people in his life. At the very end, he has the time to read all the books he wants, since everyone else was wiped out by the apocalypse, but just he is about to, he breaks his glasses. That is a very iconic and very memorable moment. That is largely absent from this new incarnation, and in its place is... attempting to comment on modern social issues. Like, in the least subtle manner possible. The worst offender is "The Wunderkund", about John Cho as a political advisor who gets an 11-year old elected President. It is very clearly about Trump, and it is so painful to watch. Like, imagine all those hacky Trump jokes from like, Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher, and make them into a *Twilight Zone* episode and here's what we've got. "Not All Men" could've been interesting exploration of toxic masculinity, but doesn't really demonstrate that and has an ending that just contradicts itself. "Point of Origin" could've been as biting as an episode of the original, with a focus on the current immigration crisis. Again, though, it doesn't really explore these issues or really makes a point about them. It's just "yep. This is happening." People have defended (correctly) that the Twilight Zone from the 60's was political, but it always felt complete, and further more, held up as stories in their own right with universal themes. "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street" could be held as a commentary on McCarthyism and the Red Scare, but could be seen as a simple story about mass hysteria and the dangers of paranoia. Hell, the 2002 one had an update that was pretty good, while also commenting on the hysteria following 9/11. A lot of these, beside being unsubtle, are just not really good or memorable. Okay, there is one, and it's the best one of this season "Replay". There is a strong undercurrent about police brutality and racism, but it never feels too attached to that. Instead, it has more of an overriding theme about changing the past and trying to build a future. That makes it work a lot better, since it combines contemporary themes with more universal ideals. Aside from that, it just isn't very memorable. I've heard "Six Degrees of Freedom," was touted as a highlight, but I didn't care for it, especially the end. I can't tell you anything that happens in "A Traveler" or "Blue Scorpion". The very last episode of the season "Blurryman" is also pretty mediocre for the most part, though its message about how people ought to explore and expand art in all different directions and explore new ideas and worlds, and that something can be both good art and good entertainment was decently handled in the closing narration (the episode leading up to it was decidedly less adept at this message). That narration reminded me a lot of how Rod Serling, a long suffering TV writer who had scripts regularly censored by sponsors for their too-close-for-comfort stories, was able to use SF/Fantasy to explore contemporary themes and new ideas. (They might've also taken influence from the old Tower of Terror ride in Disney California Adventure with their TZ homages) The thing with this is that it has potentially good ideas and has a stellar cast and crew. Thus, none of it is really bad per se, but at that point, it just doesn't reach the level of being good. It's solid mediocrity, and that's probably the worst part. It just doesn't evoke an emotion within you. I'll probably never see any of these episodes again, and I've rewatched plenty of the *Twilight Zone* from all its incarnations. It is revived for a second season, and hopefully, it does get a lot better, because I do see potential in this series, if they can look at what didn't work for people and fix it, this could be a great show. Finally, Jordan Peele does a decent job as narrator. I honestly preferred Forrest Whittaker during his short stint, or even the unseen narrator from the second season of 80's series. 

Well, with that out of the way, join me in a little bit as this year sees the next Summer of Terror with the Nightmare on Elm Street series.

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.

Current Film Reviews- Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

        Back when I successfully turned my October horror reviews from short reviews done on my Facebook to full reviews here, I experimented with other sorts of review series to do. One of those was "Pokecember", where I did reviews of the Pokemon movies every December. Since they reliably come out each year with the anime, I could hypothetically do it for a while. I successfully finished off the six films before the Advanced Generation, but after Jirachi Wish Maker, it tapered off. I was in Freshman year of college, and a lot of stuff got in the way of doing another. Ultimately, I never picked it back up, but have since started other series to pick up the slack for slow months. However, with this film bringing Pokemon back into the public consciousness, I might bring it back this December, so watch out for that.

     Based on the 2018 video game of the same name (part of the multimillion dollar franchise created by Satoshi Taijiri), the film follows Tim Goodman (Justice Smith), who gave up his dreams of being a Pokemon trainer in favor of being an insurance adjuster. He is forced to go to the non-region specific Ryme City, founded by billionaire Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy) as a place where humans and Pokemon can interact peacefully, without any of that battling nonsense, when his policeman father is reported dead from a severe car accident. However, while searching his father's apartment, he finds a Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), who talks! And has his father's hat, meaning he was his father's companion. This leads to the conclusion that his father might still alive. This leads Tim and the Pikachu to become an unlikely team to investigate his death, with the help of intrepid reporter Lucy Stevens (Kathryn Newton) and her Psyduck, and eventually unravel a conspiracy involving Clifford's organization and the legendary Pokemon Mewtwo.

     I loved that the Pokemon are the right amount of realistic. They look like they exist in the real world, and their presence against living breathing humans isn't jarring. However, they still look like their game counterparts, and still have the traits of them. (The designs were apparently helped by  This sufficient level of realism really cements the respect the makers of this film have for the material. They take it seriously enough that it never becomes too camp or dumb (like some of the weaker anime movies tend to get), but it still has the right amount of fun, humor, and absurdity that the franchise has always had. The filmmakers were not embarrassed by the source material, and use its creativity and wonderful creatures to build a new story and setting to explore underappreciated parts of the franchise (like how Pokemon are integrated into human society). As a lifelong fan, I really appreciated all the little nods and references they make throughout and all the cameos that I can name, but I feel that it is still accessible to a general audience, especially the target audience of children. All that aside, this was just fun to watch. A real thrill that keeps you interested and intrigued throughout, it manages to use the standard three act hero's journey to great effect. I especially liked the twists (no spoilers), and how they are generally built up as you see the film, and makes you reconsider what you saw before. It also had one hell of an exciting climax.

    I had a massive problem with the pacing of the film. It feels like it goes too fast at parts, especially in establishing the relationship between Pikachu and Tim. They just start investigating the crime almost immediately after meeting. I wish a little bit more time had spent on their relationship, and how it grows throughout the film. Not to say there wasn't any time dedicated to this, but that there needed to be a little more time to allow it to be cemented. There are also parts that are underexplained, and feel like they are shown in cut scenes. It makes for an occasionally confusing viewing experience. I think they were hoping the viewer is intelligent to figure, but a little explanation.

    As I said, I am a big fan of Pokemon, so my opinion of this film is colored by that. Normally, the flaws that are in this would lower its reputation, but I was so enthralled by the world they create and how well they managed to make the Pokemon world feel like a real place, I choose to ignore those and just sit back for the ride. And really, when the good stuff is that good, I can easily forgive the small things. So, yeah, this is a definite recommendation for Pokemon fans. If you aren't (which is likely), I think it works well enough in its own right, but I also largely would recommend it for kids, who'll enjoy it. I should know, if this came out when I was a kid, this would've been my stuff.

  Next on the docket, I explore the reputation of Ishtar in another Dailles and Nightlies  

Coming to a Video Screen Near You- Under the Silver Lake

     Okay, I was looking forward to this one for a while, ever since I saw the trailer about two years ago, I think. I loved director David Robert Mitchell's previous feature It Follows, one of the best horror films of the last decade. It was scheduled for June, 2018 (the same day Jurassic World: Fallen Franchise was meant to come out). Perhaps because of this, it was then moved to December. And then to April. And when I remembered it was supposed to come, I found it that it had an incredibly limited release in New York and Los Angeles (damned coastal elite), and was just going straight to video. Given I've annoited myself reviewer of shit studios dump onto VOD, I decided to take a look, and see if it really deserves these delays, in the inaugural entry of my series now looking into these discards.

      Sam (Andrew Garfield) is a jobless voyeur living in Los Angeles who is obsessed with an alternative comic called Under the Silver Lake, written by Comic Fan (Patrick Fishler), which has some similarities to recent events. One day, he meets a young woman named Sarah (Riley Keough), living in his apartment complex. After they share a night of ...passion, one could call it, he wakes up to find that she and her roommates have completely vacated the premises. Sam, already a conspiracy theorist, slowly pieces together a larger conspiracy involving the murder of a millionaire (Chris Gann), a rock band, and several pieces of pop culture ephemera.

      First, the score is great. Disasterpiece (that's apparently what he's called), who did the iconic score for It Follows did the music for this, and it gives the film atmosphere. Punctuating moments, allowing the ambiance of a brightly lit scene to settle in, and just sounds great whenever it's on. I liked how parts of the conspiracy were constructed and how Sam was able to decode the messages. The Under the Silver Lake comics have nice animation that really capture the feel of an alternative horror comic like this. I like how, despite the darker undertones of the film, Los Angeles itself is shown in a bright, colorful manner that is somewhat reminiscent of films like La La Land, which is a nice contrast. After watching this, I do kind of want to visit LA again after seeing it.

      I'll say first that Andrew Garfield just wasn't the right person to play this role. I know others praise his performance, but it's just didn't click for me. I think he is too subdued. This character is supposed to be more nuts and crazed, but he is too relaxed and too stoner-y to pull it off. A couple reviewers said he was a stoner, so that might be why, but I didn't quite get the performance and it didn't click with me. The conspiracy is well-thought out, but it feels like there are little stakes in it. There's no sense of real urgency or importance to it. It feels more like an elaborate treasure hunt made for a primetime game show. When it culminates in the revelation, it a.) feels incredibly underwhelming, and b.) leaves several loose plot threads out to dangle in the wind. Maybe this was the intention, but I never got invested in this character journey. There is a lot of gratuitous nudity, sex, and butt shots, of all things, and maybe there is some They Live-commentary there, but it just felt awkward (and a bit off-putting) to watch. It is also way too long for the plot, with so many digressions and needless elements.   

     There were interesting elements to this film, and I was drawn by those. However, a lot of it just felt tedious, especially its use of pop culture brownie-point, like The Long Goodbye as written by Max Landis. I don't really think a theater experience would've enhanced this much. That said, if you are intrigued by the synopsis or the look, I'd say rent it and see what you might think of it. 

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Ranked!

      Okay, a little history lesson: In 1996, after about a decade of corporate wrangling and increasingly desperate attempts to bulk up sales in the wake of a generally declining industry, Marvel Entertainment formally declared bankruptcy. To save it, they merged with their subsidiary Toy Biz, and was able to reemerge from bankruptcy. To help do so, they sold the film rights to their stable of characters to multiple studios and co-produced the films under "Marvel Studios". This worked out well enough starting with 1998's Blade, and continuing with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and a certain unmentionable director's X-Men trilogy. However, with these successes, many others were stillborn, and the rights reverted back to Marvel. With Iron Man's rights reverting back from New Line Cinemas, they teamed up with Paramount to make Iron Man in 2007, with plans to make a film based on the premier Marvel comics superhero team The Avengers. Flash-forward today, Marvel Entertainment is now an arm of the all-powerful Disney corporation, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the biggest thing in movies right now, for good and for bad. With Endgame on the horizon, and as a lifelong Marvel fan, I figure I might as well rank these before going into Endgame. I rewatched a lot of the MCU over the past few weeks in order to prepare for this list. Mostly Phase 1 and Phase 2. Not really in order and I did skip some because I had seen them recently enough to remember what I thought of them. I'll do these like the year-end list, where I'll rank it worst to best, and have every film in there, with a short explanation as to why. This quiz here (https://sorta.app/q/1016/frosemqiantjlcugpdbkh) was very useful in helping formulate this list. So, without further ado:

Thor: The Dark World

The only one of these that was legitimately bad in its own right. Confusing, dimly light, way too serious, with some glimmers to a better film here and there (most notably Thor and Loki making their escape). It was the only time watching that I didn't at least have some good time watching. Worse, a few days out from seeing it, I barely remember what happens in it.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

You may recall I put this at the very bottom of one of my first year-end lists. It is easily the weakest film that isn't necessarily bad. A few things save it: James Spader as Ultron, Andy Serkis as Klaw, the opening fight scene, the second half of the climax. However, its main problem is the action scenes, which aren't well-shot, and feel too long to have any actual impact.

The Incredible Hulk

There appear to be three films being made here. One is "Jerry Bruckheimer does The Fugitive". The second is a Michael Crichton SF thriller. The other is a monster movie with the Hulk. The one-third that has the Hulk is pretty good, but it is bogged down by the other two-thirds. I heard Ed Norton rewrote the script heavily, so that might account for this problem.

Thor

For a while, I knew I didn't care for this film in comparison to the others, but I couldn't quite put my finger as to why. After rewatching, I think that I feel disappointed that the film is not more over-the-top. It feels too reverent and constrained, and Marvel's Thor was always larger-than-life. I suppose it comes down to: it took itself too seriously.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Decent. Decent action, decent character moments, decent story. It is basically a good film, and I enjoy it. That said, with better Spider-Man movies (Spider-Man 2, Into the Spiderverse)  it pales in comparison to those. I think I was kind at the time because it was a good palette cleanser for the obscenely bad Amazing Spider-Man 2,  and it eschewed being another origin story. Again, I like this film, but it was weaker on the rewatch

Iron Man 3

It was an interesting turn they took with Iron Man's signature villain (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it), and just as a Shane Black movie, it's pretty good. It has his signatures: a sprawling conspiracy involving a well-known industry, a little kid who helps the hero, Christmas. It's not one of his best, but if you like his films, it'll satisfy even non-Marvel fans.

Captain Marvel

It was a good decision to actually lean into some feminist themes (however surface level it may have been), as opposed to merely having a female protagonist and just leaving it there. It helps elevate to more than another origin story. It also had decent enough action to back it up, and the reinvention of the Skrulls was a superb twist that worked very well for comic fans.

Iron Man 2

I was a big defender of this one for many years, but it was a while since I had seen it, and yeah, it hasn't really stood the test of time. It's still fun, and it does do a different story than the first, but a lot of the story feels half-baked and underutilized, and the climax was just too bombastic without any sort of motivation or understanding.

Ant-Man

This is generally a lot of fun. A good sort of superhero heist film, with tons of witty dialogue, character banter and pop culture references to really engage an audience, along with some excellent visuals taking advantage of its size changing hero. Makes sense, given Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, and Adam McKay all wrote the film. Yeah, apparently it's considered one of the weaker films, but it is a lot of fun for me (even if its villain was a bit boring.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Also a lot of fun, but director James Gunn manages to imbue it with a very personal touch. Focusing on the characters and how these misfits and outcasts slowly grow to become a family, with some dark moments and some great action. It is sort of amazing how well the balance of emotion, action, and comedy really work out to make this entertaining. And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the soundtrack, which I still listen to frequently.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Even more fun, even more visuals, even more comedy. A good sequel always takes what works about the first, and ups the ante, and with this films extensive exploration of the Quatum Realm, and Ant-Man becoming Giant Man, it really ups that ante. It also fixed the biggest problem of the first one, by having an interesting villain (but a bland secondary one)

Doctor Strange 

You might recall I put this in the "okay" category the year it came out. I think I was just affected by the negative buzz of it being yet another origin story. Now with some distance, it is an origin story, but it is very well done, with the character actually growing into the role and having to actually let go of his own ego. Also, I don't think I gave the truly impressive visuals or the inventive use of magic in the plot the due it deserved. So, call this a repentance for my previous evaluation.

Iron Man

This was actually a favorite of mine for many years, and I've seen it a dozen times. It holds up well after 12 years. There are flaws and indications of its age (most notably the Bush era focus on terrorism and the glamor of Tony's life, and the start of Marvel's obsession with making a villain a dark reflection of the hero), but its well-crafted plot and ingenous scheme of incorporating comic storytelling to the silver screen deserves a lot of credit.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Taking more influence from 70's political thrillers and Steve Englehart's run of the character during that same period, this manages to take the character of Cap and deal with his commitment to freedom in a world that increasingly and slowly chips away at that freedom, as well as him having to fight a very personal threat. With more intense, up close action and a bzyantine conspiracy that completely derails the MCU as previously known, this was the first that really helped mature the franchise beyond the standard superhero film.

Thor: Ragnarok

Much has been said about the political subtext of the film being about the legacy of colonialism, much of which can be attributed to the half-Maori director Taika Waititi. However, I want to give props to the film for capturing the look of the Marvel Cosmic, and with that, finally getting Thor right as a bombastic hero, and adding some humor into the film. Combined with an excellent supporting cast, and it makes for a good film viewing experience.

Captain America: Civil War

Really more of an Avengers centerpiece, this features a strong, dense story that never collapses or feels too complicated or confusing. The slowly rift between Cap and Iron Man just grows and festers with each scene before it climaxes in a dark, brutal finale that is very hard to get out of mind. It was a good gut punch of a film and had enough seriousness without going over-the-top with (*cough* Batman v. Superman *cough*)

Captain America: The First Avenger

This was the highlight of the Phase 1, hands down. Joe Johnston's affection for the media and culture 1930's and 40's (used to great effect in his other Disney produced superhero film The Rocketeer) give the film a sense of both nostalgic, and modern sensibilities.  The gloss and charm of the style help give the story and the character of Cap more reverence and urgency, especially in dealing with a threat that even surpasses the Nazis. This was the kind of film that really does justice to the character. (Given the 40's serials actually produced during the war got his identity completely wrong, that's really saying something)


Avengers Infinity War

This is how a big crossover event should be done. Enough time is given to each character, there is a lot interplay between them, and there is enough action and character to move the plot along. It manages to balance out the more fantastic and the more mundane elements from each film, and has comic book fun without becoming pure camp or pure edge. What really makes this good is Thanos, who manages to be both a cruel, but fundementally human villain who is given life by Josh Brolin's performance.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. II

I'll just reiterate the points I made in this film's entry in my 2017 list. It is both a fun film with tons of well-done action, comedy, and visual that all work very well in their own right in making it feel like a Bronze Age Marvel story, but what really makes this extraordinary is how it manages to also be about the often complicated, contradictory nature of family and the nature of the relationships that tend to arise from that. It is sometimes a bit hard to watch because of that. And it easily has the best ending of any of these. I always tear up when I see it.

Black Panther

I think the theme of these last few entries is balance. Black Panther has a couple of minor flaws, sure, but what makes it the sort of film that can be nominated for an Academy Award is how it manages to be both a great superhero movie with great action and effects and have a strong sociopolitical streak, with themes of racism, colonialism, and isolationism being explored and utilized in the plot with powerful moments that stick with you for a long time. Neither side ever overwhelms the other; in fact, they compliment each other. It is the kind of superhero movie for people who don't like the genre.

The Avengers

Whilst not having any sort of political message or theme, this is easily the best of this cycle for just doing what sets out to do in the best possible manner. It manages to bring together these characters, develop them, have them interact, and have some really excellent character, before going into the action moments, where they could have some impact. It is sort of a perfect blockbuster in that sense. A pure action-adventure story that never forgets what it is, but tries to be what it is to the best of its ability. It really is sort of a modern classic.

-----------------------------

So, that's my rankings. You may think this is building up to an Endgame review. Well, maybe, but that will be hard to do, given that spoilers are a big thing going around and that there will be more than enough reviews going around that I won't have anything to say that someone else hasn't already.

So, join me in a few days, as I look at a much hyped auteur indie feature from indie darling corporation (often to the point of outright worship) A24, that was dumped onto VOD this week, Under the Silver Lake. 

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.