Vantage Point

So I watched this movie on Friday, usually when I'm watching a movie and I have a lot of free time, I will Tweet about this film and give some thoughts to it prior to my full review. I was going to do that for Vantage Point but I soon realized, given the subject matter of the movie, that probably wouldn't have been appropriate given the special events that happened on Friday. I'll leave it at that...

Vantage Point is a action thriller film that came out in 2008. I've written about the 2000's and movies that came out around that time quite a bit, especially films centering on terrorism and the changing perception we had towards movies like these as time has gone by. You can be sure, I will be discussing that in this review.

Vantage Point follows the events that take place in a matter of about 30 minutes to an hour in Spain as the President of the United States (played by William Hurt) is making an appearance in the country to promote some new anti-terrorism agreement (the circumstances he's there are pretty vague and really not that important in the full scheme of things).

The movie centers on this event and an assassination attempt on the President. The way the movie stands out though is that it goes through the events that happen in the movie from one person's perspective and then rewinds the events to show them again from the perspective of someone else.

For example, the movie starts off with Sigourney Weaver as a news producer capturing the event on the news.

Everything that happens, happens on screen in this news organization and a lot of the shock and awe is taken from the reactions that these people have watching the events from the camera lens.

After the key events happen, the movie then rewinds and follows a Secret Service Agent (played by Dennis Quaid) who is returning from an extended absence to the President's security detail. The movie goes through the events of the day through his eyes and what he experiences.

Then the movie rewinds again and picks up from another perspective, and another after that, with each one the mystery behind the assassination attempt unravels until everything is complete. The stakes are high as the President's life is on the line. The movie has a couple of interesting car chases, gunplay, and has a pretty unique premise.

Is it good? Well... not really.

It's... entertaining? I guess. Again, it has a kind of interesting concept and I think it would be fun to see other movies that have a similar way of telling the story, but there's a couple of issues within this film that really make it hard to watch, boring, or just too cheesy to be taken seriously.

The first element is the lack of a central character. I get it, the movie has a unique style with the differing perspectives and that makes it difficult to center in on one, but every character in this film is really wooden and boring.

Their entire character is usually shoved into a five minute introduction at the beginning of their perspective section in the film. The plot is so paper thin and the characters are really just place holders, overall, it's just weak.

Dennis Quaid... a part of me wants to believe that he's a good actor but its performances like this that don't really impress me. He just seems out of breath the entire time. They're trying to make Dennis Quaid Jack Bauer but it doesn't exactly work.

Forrest Whitaker is incredibly useless in this movie. He's this random American dude who has this weird fascination with filming everything he's seeing. I'm not sure why he thinks its his job to help the police. On top of that he's got this weird obsession with this random little girl he meets in the crowd and it's all together just really strange.

The President is kind of awful in this movie. I like William Hurt, but similar to Quaid, he has performances at times that are just really wooden and aren't that great. On top of that, the actions of the President are ideological BS and wouldn't be what the President would do in a situation like this. There's not a lot I can say about his character without giving some of the movie away, but some of the actions he makes in this movie are just stupid. Now I could overlook some of the actions he takes if his performance was at all good, but a crumby performance compiled on with stupid actions just makes me hate this character.

Sigourney Weaver... well she might as well have not been in this film to be honest.

The unfortunate thing about this movie is that it had a lot of people that I'm pretty sure I've seen do some good stuff. Matthew Fox plays Dennis Quaid's partner and he was in his prime with Lost still going strong when this film came out. I've seen everyone in this film do good work in other movies and yet this reduces them to just a simple action film.

It's by no means an absolutely horrible movie, but it just doesn't have much depth to it besides appealing to the people who want a good action film in a time where we felt like we needed simple stories about taking down the terrorists with some good old American kickassery.

It's fascinating watching this movie in 2017. I went and saw it when it first came out in 2008, I was intrigued by that very same simple concept of taking down the terrorists. And I think I still have that mindset from time to time (I mean I'm re-watching the first season of 24 and I still love it), but I think that mindset has evolved since.

If you think about it in context, Vantage Point came out at the end of the Bush Administration and took a perspective of terrorism that is very different to what it looks like now.

After 9/11 we had such a doomsday look at terrorism (for good reason) and it came out in the stories that were told at the time.

Terrorism used to be long drawn out plans with sophisticated plots because that was what was exciting at the time and it actualized our fears of the times. These plots would be highly lucrative with inside-me, elaborate explosions, and incredibly potent aiming to carry out huge plots like the assassination of the President, terrorists acquiring nukes, and utilizing bio weapons on American soil.

It's just interesting contrasting that with the works of fiction today in a post-Obama Presidency. Terrorism is still often on the headlines we see today and there is definitely still fear, but it has turned with the times. Today, ISIS and home grown radicalization are more common, centering on the inside men and their plots to turn the US against itself. The over the top plots seen in movies like Vantage Point are rarely ever done because they've been overused and seem unrealistic now.

I'll be interested to see the shift in fiction as the Trump Presidency begins, but for now, the mindset we live in today makes movies like Vantage Point seem a little bit dated.

Overall, I think I remember Vantage Point with fonder memories than it actually deserves.

 The concept is quite unique and probably should have been used for another film, but the subject matter within the film is just generic and trying to cash in on a time that dates the movie now instead of keeping it relevant for years to come.

The action is mediocre, the acting is hokey, even from a group of performers that have released good films, overall, it's a movie you can probably skip.

If you're interested in seeing a movie in a totally different format, you should probably check out Roshamon, but if you can't find that, I guess Vantage Point has enough unique points to get your gears running, but overall it's pretty boring.

But those are my thoughts on Vantage Point. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. One thing I'll give the movie credit for is a pretty good soundtrack. It's your pretty generic action espionage thriller music but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. Enjoy!

Westworld (Season 1)

Back in October, I, like many people, watched the premiere of Westworld on HBO and was immediately intrigued by the creativity, the suspense, and the overall scope of the show. I knew from the first episode that this was a show that I was going to enjoy. A lot of the time, when I find a show or a movie that I'm pretty confident I'm going to end up enjoying, I hold off on watching it because I want to savor it in the right mindset or the right amount of time where I can just binge watch it all with minimal interruptions. Westworld is a perfect example of such a show.

But obviously, I have gotten to the point where I decided to watch it. And these are my thoughts.

Westworld centers on a park where people can come and experience life in the Old West. It allows for guests of the park to basically have free roam of this world populated by human life-like robots who are programmed to serve the will of the park guests.

Guests can follow the path of the White Hat and go on scripted narratives where they go bring bandits to justice, fight warring Native American tribes, and save damsels.

Or they can go the route of the black hat... and just kill every robot (or host) you see, screw (or rape) any prostitute in sight, and join the bandits who pillage this entire world. There isn't an orientation or really any rules given to the guests at the park, the hosts are there to serve them and are programmed to never hurt a human.

Now I have to be pretty careful what I say in this review because watching this show is a bit of an experience and it's a really fun ride. It's the kind of show that you'll probably want to binge watch and since that's how I did it, I recommend it.

But the show also messes with your mind a good amount because it peace meals out the things it reveals to you little by little leading up to a really powerful finale where it all comes together it gets you pumped for Season 2.

But I will say, there is A LOT going in this season.

TV shows with large ensemble casts are not a new thing. They've been doing those kinds of shows where there are a lot of characters with a lot of backstories, their own motivations, and goals that you have to keep track of for a long time. The problem with Westworld is that not only do they have all these characters, but they have some really deep ideas that you're supposed to be keeping track of, and some of it, at least for me, gets a little bit lost in all the different stories, especially with the way these stories are told.

So each host has a narrative. You've got Dolores (played by Evan Rachel Wood), the cute damsel. You've got Maeve (played by Thandie Newton) who is the Madam of the whorehouse in the main town. You've got Teddy (played by James Marsden) who has the exact same storyline as James Marsden always has where he can never quite get the girl and he's always being beaten out by somebody else. Let's be honest, it just sucks to be James Marsden in anything. You've also got a bunch of other hosts who the show does a really good job at creating a duality for. From the very beginning, you know that they're programmed to feel, to act, to behave in a certain way and yet you eventually start to feel for them, even if they're their programming and you really start to question what is programmed and what isn't.

But then you've got the characters in the real world or the human characters.

Anthony Hopkins plays Robert Ford, the founder of the park and the creator of the first hosts.

Before I go on, I have to say, this is a chillingly great performance from Anthony Hopkins. I mean, what do you expect he's Anthony Hopkins, but I originally thought he was just going to be the kindly old founder like John Hammond from Jurassic Park, and that's how he's portrayed in the beginning. But as the show goes on you figure more and more about him and I could never really decide how I felt about this character. Every time he was on screen it was incredibly entertaining and I had no idea what he was going to do next or what his next move was.

The rest of the cast was pretty good too.

Jeffery Wright plays Bernard Lowe, the head of the behavior division where he designs and maintains the behavior of the hosts. He's got a really interesting backstory and it really shows off the wide range of Jeffery Wright. He may have been one of my favorite characters throughout.

He's accompanied by Shannon Woodword who plays a behaviorist under Bernard and she's just one of the really well casted characters who work as the overseers of this world as they monitor the park and the activity of the hosts.

Sidse Babett Knudsen plays Theresea Cullen, the director of operations, and Simon Quarterman plays a writer for the park.

All these characters, and more tie into how the park runs and there's a lot going on from their motivations, their influence from higher influences like executive boards, and personal relationships.

And then you have the people who attend the park.

Jimmi Simpson plays William who is taken to Westworld by his future brother in-law Logan (played by Ben Barnes) and the two have their own experiences and encounters that make them actually some of the most interesting characters in the show.

These two were actually a bit of a surprise. I don't dislike Ben Barnes as an actor, I just can't say I've seen him in anything incredibly good. Maybe it was just the recent bad taste of Seventh Son that made me worried about these two when I first started but I didn't think they were going to be one of the stronger parts. And Jimmi Simpson... what a turn. I only knew Simpson from his role in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where he was...

This...

He was the biggest surprise probably of the entire show because I really enjoyed his character. It shows a really great range of character because I absolutely hate Simpson in Always Sunny but I really liked him in this show. 

Now I think that these two are helped a little bit by the fact that this entire show is just well written and it keeps your engaged. These two don't even have the best written story in the show and I was still intrigued. 

But of course, I think my favorite character of them all was Ed Harris as The Man in Black. 

This is a situation where I really can't say anything more about this character because I don't want anything given away about him. Almost everything about this character worked and Ed Harris just nailed it throughout. I really hope they bring him back for Season 2 because this was just a character I enjoyed throughout. Like Ford, I wasn't sure if I was enjoying just despising this character like a good villain, or if I actually was starting to like him. 

Now those were all the big characters introduced in the first two-ish episodes and there's still a lot to discuss about them and a lot to discover and it's done incredibly well. 

However, that still is A LOT of characters. Put on top of all of those characters the fact that the story doesn't really give you a great sense of time when it comes to the narratives, the fact that hosts are questioning their reality and there are artfully shot glitches, as well as the fact that you've got corporate agendas and personal grudges, all thrown into 10 episodes where they're jumping back and forth from each story to story making you question what is real, what has stakes, and what doesn't, yeah the show is a little convoluted. 

I think a lot of it is done well. I feel like this show might be fun to watch a second time because you can start catching onto things that you may have missed before. However, it is convoluted at times and while the pacing is really good (you'll breeze through the 10 episodes) it's not hard to get confused with all the characters, motives, agendas, and realities in this show. 

I've talked about some of the performances from this show and not all of them are even the ones that stood out the most. Thandie Newton kills it in this show, Evan Rachel Wood shows a range that I never saw before from her. Tessa Thompson gives a really great performance. The list goes on.

I think the most fun part about this show is the twists and turns you'll find yourself in. My friend pestered me about watching this show because he wanted so badly to talk about it and he told me, you won't guess the ending and that is true.

I used to date a girl who was really good at guessing the endings of movies and it drove me nuts because she was never surprised. Well Westworld would surprise her.

Westworld piecemeals information to you bit by bit. Now I personally don't have an issue with this as my mind was pretty blown with every reveal. But it kind of takes the fun out of trying to predict what is going to happen in the show because there's a very good chance you don't have all the information to make an informed prediction, even if you think you do.

And speaking of mind F-ing... this show will do it.

Much of the show is written by Jonathan Nolan and I'm pretty sure mind blowing writing is part of the Nolan DNA and I want some...

Is the show perfect? No.

I'm still reeling a little bit from all the reveals and twists from the last few episodes because, yes, they are good.

The show also sets up perfectly for a lot of possibilities to happen in the next season. There's a lot of fun ideas, great characters, and mysteries to delve into with a second season.

The big problem I have with this show is that it's gaining a lot of it's popularity by the moments where it blows your mind and reveals a twist that you weren't expecting. Again, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, especially if the twists are good. But a show that builds its success on tricking the audience eventually isn't able to wow the audience the way they did in the first season, the best example of this is Lost.

Lost made a show that went for 7 seasons and eventually the big shock of the cliff hangers and twists got a little bit old and without proper support from the rest of the show, it fell apart.

Now Westworld has some great writers and I thoroughly enjoyed the season, I'm just a little bit worried about the future of the show based on the precedent that was set by this one.

I hope my fears are baseless, but we'll have to see in Season 2.

Overall, Westworld is a fun ride. You'll be hooked from the first episode and the acting, action, and twists will keep you engaged till the last second. Is Westworld a prequel to Terminator, Blade Runner, or the Matrix, probably, but for now I recommend you check out this really well done show out of HBO.

But what did you think? Did you enjoy Westworld? How does it stalk up against other HBO shows like Game of Thrones? Comment and Discuss below! I also want to hear theories, I'm all caught up, let's talk Westworld. You can also send me your thoughts and conspiracies on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me your requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Something I didn't mention enough is the music. It's really, really good. Here's an Acapella of the opening theme. Enjoy!

La La Land

So I think in comparison, this might have been the best thing to juxtapose my weekend of A Series of Unfortunate Events. While the show is not nearly as dire as it's marketed to be, you couldn't ask for a more tonal shift after watching La La Land and I think it's exactly what I needed.

It's about that time where movies start being nominated for the Oscars. Lots of buzz goes around a number of films and you would think that I would be reviewing them prior to the Oscars actually happening so I can get an actual idea of what should win in my opinion... In reality, I usually wait till the show comes and goes, Winners are announced, then I eventually get to those films later in the year when my opinion really doesn't matter at all.

But La La Land was a little bit different. I had heard about La La Land when it first came out and while I figured, due to the time it came out, it was probably going to be in the conversation for the Oscars. What I didn't know is that it was going to explode so big in the early conversations. And then I saw the opening to the Golden Globes and I enjoyed it a helluva lot. I thought, at the very least, I should check it out just for the sake that the music has been an ear worm for the past week.

La La Land is set in present day Los Angeles and follows the story of all the young people that go to the City of Angels in order to follow their dreams of being a movie star, a musician, or a performer. The opening is probably my favorite song in the show and it doesn't even center on the main characters. It's just all the people moving out West to follow their dreams of being on the big screen.

But the movie centers on two young people who have been in Los Angeles for a while now. You've got Mia (played by Emma Stone) a struggling actress who serves coffee on the Warner Bros lot in between auditions. Then you've got Sebastian (played by Ryan Gosling) a struggling Jazz musician who wants to eventually open up his own Jazz club.

The two have been in Los Angeles for a while and you can see from the start that the wonder and the gungho attitude that everyone singing in the first opening number has kind of worn off on them. The only thing holding them there is their dreams of being an actress and opening a Jazz club respectively.

The two eventually meet and while their first encounter is not the friendliest, they eventually fall in love and start a relationship.

And yeah... this is a really great relationship. From the very beginning you know that these two are going to end up together but the movie gives you just enough slack that you enjoy the eventuality of it.

Maybe it helps that these two have been romantically connected in movies before (I think this is their third or fourth time being romantic leads) but they really do have romantic chemistry that works for them throughout the film. They become interested in the other one's interests and they're supportive of one another.

The entire story is balancing the love these two have for one another and the dream of making it in Hollywood and how sometimes those two things don't really blend as well as you want it to.

All of this is supplemented by a very upbeat, jazz infused musical with plenty of allusions and lifts

from the classical movie musicals. You've got Singing in the Rain allusions, Fred Estaire dance numbers, and a lot of references to movie musicals I have not seen but have now become interested in checking out.

This movie has so much to say, about Hollywood, about love, about classic movie musicals, and about Jazz, and it's all said very beautifully and shot in just the most spectacular way. Even if you're not familiar with a lot of movie musicals from the classic era, like me, you still might catch onto some popular references, and even if you don't, it's still a beautifully shot film and the classic moments are some that you can still appreciate.

I'm finding it more and more difficult to claim ignorance when it comes to cinematography because the more movies I watch, it's just become something that I notice and I start to recognize shots and methods. There are a lot of really cool continuous shots in this movie that are done spectacularly and that on top of the choreography that clearly was meticulously rehearsed, it's just a film that is very easy on the eyes.

Like I said, the music is a bit of an earworm and you're definitely going to be whistling it on your way out. And the part that I loved about the film was the clear love for Jazz throughout it. There's a great scene where Sebastian is explaining jazz to Mia and while I've heard an explanation like that before, that just made it even more potent. The movie even acknowledges that Jazz is a bit of a dying breed and I hope that people seeing this can have a renewed love for Jazz because the music in this is so good!

Now the one issue I have with the music is that there are songs that are supposed to have specific meanings to these characters so when they show up later in the film, they're supposed to have a bigger impact and be a call back to an earlier scene. I had a little bit of difficulty recalling which song I was supposed to be having an emotional connection to and I got them a little bit mixed up. It's not a huge issue, the songs are still good, but I think the last scene, the one that had at least one person in the audience sniffling, lost a little bit of the emotional impact because I had forgotten the song I was supposed to be connecting to and what scene it was calling back to. Because of this the emotional impact of the scene, while still there, might have been a little lost on me.

There was only one other issue I had with the film. It's not a huge issue and it didn't take away from the performances or the emotional impact of the story, but it was something that was kind of in the back of my mind for a lot of it.

The problems these two have, while legitimate, are pretty privileged issues. Like apart of the conflict you find in this film is the difference between performing what you want to perform and performing to make a living, and they don't always mix. I have friends who have gone out to Hollywood to try and make it and they understand that part of it is just taking whatever you can get and hopefully getting to the point where you're doing what you love. The alternative to that is just going off and performing whatever is in your heart and to hell with what other people think.

It's a poignant message but it's a dilemma that not everyone has the luxury of choosing between. These two never really have the issue of running out of money or sacrificing their art for the basic necessities and in a way that might take away from the impact of the entire scenario.

For example, they have support systems to fall back on, they can always go back home or find support with others and that's not always the case.

Does it ruin the film? Absolutely not.

The film is called La La Land not only because it's a colloquial name for Los Angeles, but because this is set in a world that's not exactly supposed to be reality. I mean they not only break out into song, but they break out into choreographed dance numbers which if you aren't totally engrossed in the film, you might be wondering if the entire world just dropped what they were doing to perform in a dance number, or if there are normal people wondering if these two are just insane.

But the point of the musical is to live in a sort of La La Land and if you're able to take your mind to that reality, the movie really pays off. Gosling and Stone give a really great performance and the entire movie is basically centered around them so they have to be bringing it, and they do.

La La Land is just a good time. I find it hard to find anybody who is not going to come out of the theater with a smile on their face. I don't know what the Oscar contest is going to look like and I'm not sure if this film is really good enough to be a Best Picture winner, but having only seen this film, I wouldn't mind it. I had a fun time with La La Land and it's a well made movie.

But what do you think? Did you like La La Land? How do you think it's going to compete with other films that have come out this year? Could it win an Oscar? Let me know your thoughts, Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I would be remiss if I didn't give you the link to the Cracked After Hours commentary on musicals but just to give you a taste of the kind of music that is in this movie, here's the first song, probably my favorite. Enjoy!

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I actually really regret watching this movie before I finished my review for the TV series...

I really don't remember watching this movie as a kid back in 2004 but I'm also pretty certain that I saw it in theaters. But I also thought while I was watching the Netflix series that I remember this movie being contained to just the first book and therefore I was confused how the Netflix show worked having almost mini movies of each book when this one didn't. And then I watched the film again today and I was very, very wrong.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events follows the story of 3 children by the name of The Baudelaire's who are orphaned when their parents perish in a fire. The three children are Violet (played by Emily Browning) who likes to invent things, Klaus (played by Liam Aiken) who likes to read books, and their baby sister Sunny (played by Kara and Shelby Hoffman) who likes to bite things.

The Baudelaire Orphans are quickly sent away to live with a new guardian. They are taken by a banker by the name of Mr. Poe (played by Timothy Spall) and brought to their closest (closest as in relative distance) living relative, Count Olaf (played by Jim Carrey).

And this is the part that makes me really regret watching this after I watched the TV show.

Good lord is Jim Carrey creepy in this role.

If you read my review of the TV series, you'll know that I actually have very little recollection of this film and the only thing I really remembered prior to re-watching it was how closely Jim Carrey resembled Count Olaf from the book. And he does for sure! That's actually one of the plus's of this movie that they did stick to the style of the artwork from the books. Besides the fact that Klaus doesn't wear glasses... not sure why they skipped that, the sets, the costumes, and Jim Carrey, all look like the artwork seen in the books.

However... Jim Carrey is really phoning in this role.

The structure of the movie is a lot different than the structure of the show because contrary to what I thought, this movie doesn't stay on one book, it took the first three books and smashed them together into one narrative that doesn't make a lot of sense.

On top of that, the funny parts of Count Olaf is that he has a bunch of disguises that he does to fool the adults but the children of course see right through.

With the first three books being smashed into one movie you get to see more characters for Jim Carrey to play and every single choice made is wrong. I don't want to compare to the TV show, I want this movie to be judged on it's own merits, but when Neil Patrick Harris does the role, he has a very different costume on, he's doing funny things with his voice, and his dialogue and actions are funny.

Carrey just changes his voice and costume, which is not enough. All his characters just sound like The Grinch and his dialogue really isn't funny... like at all.

He has these long winded jokes that just keep going on... and on... and on... and on... and they don't get any funnier as the show goes on. I mean he is Jim Carrey so there are a couple of lines he delivers that got a cheap chuckle out of me, but overall it was just a weird performance. This was 4 years after How The Grinch Stole Christmas and it's obvious that Carrey was still being sucked dry of all the movement and voice humor that he exhibited in that film.

The thing that the TV show did right was they made the show Neil Patrick Harris's show and allowed him to do a lot of funny things with the character. This show just seems like it's billing Carrey by the hour and they want to focus more on the children. And this movie suffers the same way the show does.

These children are as dull as rocks.

Now I get it, the story is called A Series of Unfortunate Events. The whole joke is that these kids have just a miserable childhood and this isn't supposed to be funny... but it is. But I actually really felt bad for these kids and not in a way that humor comes out of pain. These kids either look bored or just melancholy the entire time and there is no uplifting aspects about them. They aren't funny, they aren't even likeable, they just kind of stare and do the things that they're known for. Violet's only character trait is that she's into inventing things. Klaus's only thing is that he likes to read. The closest thing to a character trait was Sunny and she didn't get nearly as many funny lines as they gave her in the series.

On top of all of that, because this movie is three stories smashed into one, we don't get enough time to really get to know these children because they're being thrown from one place to another and we barely get any time for them to form any relationships with anybody or for us to form a relationship with them.

But on top of all that!

Jim Carrey's lack of humor in this movie just comes off as creepy and diabolical.

While Neil Patrick Harris does play Count Olaf as diabolical, he's also incredibly dense and he's the kind of villain that you love to hate.

Again, a lot of it is based off the physical and vocal humor provided by Jim Carrey, but when he's not given a script with funny lines, he instead just flounders with strange choices of voices. And while he does the diabolical elements of Count Olaf well, without those light hearted and humor moments included in the script, he just comes off as a creepy diabolical uncle who is preying on a 14 year old girl, not just for her fortune... but for other things.

And yeah, I could make the joke about that's not that far off for Jim Carrey...

I'll just leave this here...

Now I do have to make mention that the set of the movie, while pretty washed out and very reminiscent of a Tim Burton movie, but not the good kind, they are pretty stylized in a unique way. But because they're so washed out, because there is no life to them, it feeds into the rest of the atmosphere of the film where it seems to be taking itself WAY too seriously.

Again, I regret watching this after watching the Netflix series because I can't help but compare the two and while both are adventure films centered around the Baudelaire orphans, the movie takes itself way too seriously and is trying to make itself more like Harry Potter when this isn't Harry Potter. Harry Potter works because it's an adventure film that has magical elements settled into it to keep it light hearted and whimsical.

There is nothing whimsical about this film and it felt way too much like a Hot Topic Customer's wetdream as opposed to a fun adventure.

This criticism actually applies to the books because from what I remember of them and just how those stories are structured in general, there are a lot of flaws and not so great narratives within it. The narratives are pretty elementary because the books were directed at a younger reading audience.

Like I said, the story takes itself way too seriously with how silly and over the top Daniel Handler (the real author of the book using the pen name Lemony Snicket) intended it to be. I don't know if he really intended for the story to be as self aware as the Netflix show is, but for some reason it just worked better.

Speaking of Lemony Snicket. He is played by Jude Law in this film and the movie shows him in a shaded silhouette the entire time, he still provides the narration for the story. This ties into the just overall tone of the movie because Snicket narrates this story like it's a fairy tale and the unique and creative writing of Daniel Handler just feels out of place when its read with Jude Law's smooth voice.

I think if this movie had taken it's time a little bit more and focused an entire movie on just one book instead of combining three and rushing from plot to plot, this might have actually worked. A lot of Carrey's work is improvised and while I don't think it totally worked, if they had just focused on one story and not been rushing Carrey out the door to the next scene, I don't think it would have been that horrible of movie.

I mean they've got the talent. The kids were up and coming stars at the time, they got Jim Carrey and Bill Connelly in some fun roles. I thought it was interesting that Catherine O'Hara played a role in this movie and ended up playing a role in the Netflix series as well...

And holy crap they got Meryl Streep for this film? Wow... Way to go Dreamworks.

There's a lot of good things going for this film but it's just executed in a weird way that doesn't fit the tone of the story.

And I've said it a couple times but I really regret watching this after the series.

As you've probably noticed already, I enjoyed the series a lot more than I enjoyed the movie and I spent the entire review basically comparing the two when that's not exactly fair.

But more than that, I did mention that there are a couple of things that do work for this film and those parts are amplified by the bad parts and suddenly I am getting the two confused.

I almost feel like I want to go back and watch the series again to get the bad taste of the movie out of my mouth because I really didn't enjoy this film.

This movie was a minor success back in 2004 and there were hopes to adapt the following books but it took too much time to get a green light as the children outgrew the role. And I'm really glad that it happened that way.

Barry Sonnenfeld was going to direct this film but ended up dropping out and became an Executive Producer on it. As it turns out, he ended up directing the Netflix series and it's actually kind of interesting seeing how things could have been in that film.

But now we have, from what I can gather, a pretty successful Netflix series and we can just forget about the weird creepy antics of Jim Carrey and this movie that had a lot of potential but ultimately fell flat.

But those are my thoughts on Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. I think I may be all ASUE'd out at this point as this story has basically taken up my entire weekend. But I want to know your thoughts. What did you prefer? The movie or the Netflix show? What did you take issue with? I want to know because I'm sure there's a side of this from people who have read the book and can give me a better concept of what I missed. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me you requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and review coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Minor spoiler (not a whole lot though), this is the last song at the end of the Netflix Season 1 and it gives a good culminating atmosphere check for the entire season. I'm actually really looking forward to the second season, but for now, Enjoy!

A Series of Unfortunate Events (Season 1)

So the first book in the series, A Series of Unfortunate Events came out in 1999, two years after the Harry Potter books started. Now I would say that ASUE (that's how I'm going to abbreviate it or else this is going to be a really long review if I have to spell it out every time) was trying to ride off the success of Harry Potter, and in part that is true with the creative creatures and orphan characters. In a way A Series of Unfortunate Events reminded me of what the Harry Potter books had been like if Harry had just stayed at the Dursleys and never gone to Hogwarts. But I will give ASUE some credit because while it might have been going towards the same audience as Harry Potter, it's not like it was totally ripping off Harry Potter like Young Adult novels in the future like Divergent and The Maze Runner would try and rip off The Hunger Games.

I read the first book back in Elementary school and it really wasn't my style of book. I didn't think it was awful I just wasn't really interested in it. I never read any more of the series after that and for a long time it kind of left my mind. Even when there was a movie starring Jim Carrey, I saw it but didn't really think much of it, in fact I barely remember it. That apathy towards the series really continued when I heard they were doing a TV series on Netflix. I perhaps became a little bit interested when I heard that Neil Patrick Harris was playing Count Olaf but nothing about it really sparked my interest. Well I turned on Netflix this weekend and of course I see A Series of Unfortunate Events is now available and I thought, "Why not? I like Neil Patrick Harris".

From that point on, the show only continued to impress me, so much that I finished it in a matter of two days and only because I had made plans on Friday night. If I hadn't, I probably would have finished it in one day. There are a lot of things to discuss so let's begin.

A Series of Unfortunate Events follows the story of three children by the name of Violet (played by Malina Weissman), Claus (played by Louis Heynes), and Sunny (played by in a weird creepy CGI manner by Presley Smith) Baudelaire. The Baudelaire children are defined by their interests mostly. Violet is into inventing things and has a mind for the machines and the way things work. Claus is a bookworm and very intelligent. And Sunny likes to bite things. I'll talk more about the children in a little bit but in the beginning their mansion burns down and they are told that their parents perished in the fire.

They are left with a huge fortune from their parents but they cannot access that fortune until Violet becomes 18. Because of this they are set to be put under the care of a guardian and the bank overseeing their case, especially by an inefficient banker by the name of Mr. Poe (played by K. Todd Freeman), they are put in the care of an actor by the name of Count Olaf (played by Neil Patrick Harris).

And oh boy did Harris have fun with this role!

Count Olaf is a greedy failing actor who from the very get go is trying to get his hands on the Baudelaire's fortune by any means necessary. As the story goes on, Count Olaf needs to hide his identity and he has a vast collection of costumes that he wears. And while it's very obvious that it is Count Olaf under all the costumes, that just becomes funnier when you're watching it with the children who also are the only ones who can see through an obvious costume. Like I said, Harris is having fun with this role because he's changing characters and just hamming it up the entire time.

The overall premise of the entire story is these three children trying to outwit and survive against the evil plots of Count Olaf and keep his hands away from their fortune. The season spans over multiple creative Tim Burton-esc locations (but in my opinion more creative than Tim Burton has been for a long time) and introduced the children to a whole cast of characters, some of them acquaintances and colleges of their parents. As the entire show goes on the children discover more and more information about their parent's true identities and the connection that they actually have to Count Olaf.

All the while the show is being narrated by the book's author, Lemony Snicket (played by Patrick Warburton). Snicket is both an all knowing narrator as well as a mysterious participant in the events of the show and it's done absolutely perfectly.

The entire story has a mystery behind it and the activities and organizations that the Baudelaire's parents and respective guardians were apart of and the presence of Lemony Snicket just keeps on pointing out the mystery and I was actually very interested in finding out the backstory here. It goes beyond just the plight of the children and it makes me very excited for the next season.

But Snicket also ties into the stylistic choices being made by the show and the overall feel. What I do remember of the books is that they always start with a warning to the reader, or in this case the audience, this is a sad tale, there's no happy endings here, and if you're looking for that, your best plan of action is to close the book or turn off the TV. The series does a really great job at setting a balance of creating a sorrowful and dire environment while pointing out the humorousness of that statement. Because things are so dire, it does make it funny.

The show can be very self aware at times and while it's dire situations, the environment and sets are all really creative and almost Dr. Seuss-like to create a very whimsical environment.

The first thing I thought of when I first saw this show was it had a flavor of both Dr. Seuss and a Roald Dahl story and it's obvious everyone had fun with this show despite how dark and dire the situation is supposed to be.

While I never read the whole series, I very quickly picked up on the format of the show and I found it very interesting how they did it. Every two episodes tells the story set in one book. For example: the first two episodes are called, The Bad Beginning Part 1 and 2, named for the title of the first book. I found it intriguing that they basically devoted two hours or the same run time of a movie to one book and it worked perfect. It also kind of makes me wonder how this series didn't work as a film franchise, but we'll get to that when I review the movie.

Because they are mini movies of each book set in a series, the episodes are very digestable. While the series was very short with 8 episodes, I felt like even if they had added two more episodes or one more book, I still would have blown through this season in the same short time that I did.

The one problem with this format however is that every story has a very similar formula. The children are sent off to a new location with a new quirky guardian and Count Olaf appears in a new quirky costume that of course nobody can recognize him in. Some adventures ensue, but in the end Count Olaf's plot is foiled.

I don't think that's any kind of spoiler but that was the one issue I had was that after the second set of episodes, I thought things got a little bit repetitive.

The season has a number of pretty good guest stars and good actors to play a lot of the fun roles in the show. Joan Cusack, Aasif Mandvi, Catherine O'Hara, Will Arnett, and Colbie Smulders have a lot of fun parts throughout.

The other problem I had with it is that the show really picks up when Neil Patrick Harris is on screen. But the majority of the show focuses on these children and they are... okay.

These kids are not bad. Especially since I started writing this review I have gone back and watched the 2004 movie and in comparison they're leaps and bounds better than those kids, but that doesn't really help the fact that the pacing of the show slows down quite a bit when it's just focusing on the kids doing some problem solving or when the show is helped by the antics of Harris.

I think Malina Weissman and Louis Hynes are decent but they're still child actors. They're going to have pretty wooden moments and it's hard to really nail a role like this because in comparison with Harris's performance, they seem pretty milk toast at times and boring. I guess that's one downside of the show is that Harris really outshines the kids who the show is actually supposed to be about.

On top of that, I could never be sure when that baby was CGI and when it wasn't and the effects on that baby were really not that well done. It was a little creepy at times.

I do have to realize though that while I enjoyed this series, it wasn't made totally for me. And this does turn the performances of the children into a kind of plus when you're looking at the big picture.

While the children are a little bit dull, they are good protagonists for a quality family friendly show that A Series of Unfortunate Events is. Netflix has made their profit from producing shows that are entirely aimed at adults and have done a good job at it because they don't have as many rules they need to follow. That means they can show more adult things and there are less restrictions. This has been great for adults but Netflix has had a pretty lacking family programming.

And you might say that Fuller House is a good programming, but let's just be honest with ourselves, Fuller House is garbage.

A Series of Unfortunate Events is a quirky adventure that feels more family friendly and on top of it all, it's written very, very well. Whether it's the jokes of Neil Patrick Harris, or just these kids going on an adventure, it's something that everyone is going to enjoy no matter your age.

When I read the books, there was something about the artwork and just the style of the book that didn't appeal to me because it didn't seem to be directing it at me. It seemed more like the kind of books someone who was really into Tim Burton and Hot Topic would read. But the series opens up that accessibility and I feel like anybody could watch this and have a good time just because of the decent performance by the children, the humor throughout, and the overall style.

Now I do have to talk about Neil Patrick Harris just a little bit more because let's be honest, this is his show.

Now while I was pretty apathetic to the 2004 movie, I did think that at the very least, Jim Carey looked the role of Count Olaf better than I thought Neil Patrick Harris did in the initial photos and trailers I saw of the show. I'm not talking about the performance of Carey... I'll get to that in another review, but based on looks, Carey I think pulled off the look of Count Olaf and what you would expect when you originally saw it.

But after watching the first season of the show, I of course fell under the spell of NPH as he is both diabolical but also just charming and the most entertaining. He had a wide range of impressions and performances that made his character dynamic, interesting, and overall hilarious.

And of course, this wouldn't be a Neil Patrick Harris show if he wasn't singing at times. While Harri's smooth and upbeat voice doesn't always match with how I imagine Count Olaf would sound like, when Neil Patrick Harris sings, it's just charming and you really kind of forget any issues you have.

Overall, A Series of Unfortunate Events is a really fun show and I definitely recommend checking it out. Like I said it's pretty short because I would imagine that they wanted more episodes in later seasons, but that also makes it incredibly digestable and fun. Neil Patrick Harris of course shines in the role of Count Olaf and the entire show has a sort of whimsical nature of it that is very attainable for many audiences.

I'm looking forward to the next season and how they're going to continue this story. I definitely recommend checking A Series of Unfortunate Events out on Netflix.

But what did you think? Have you checked out A Series of Unfortunate Events? Who do you prefer Neil Patrick Harris or Jim Carrey in the role of Count Olaf? Let me know your thoughts and Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films or TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and review coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. In case you didn't pick it up, the next thing I'm going to be reviewing is the 2004 film... and man is there a lot to unpack with that movie... Here's the trailer. Enjoy!

Barry

So with the President having only 8 days in office until...

The Darkest Timeline begins

I thought it would be appropriate to watch a movie about said President in honor of his last days. And for those complaining that I'm politically biased, when a movie comes out in 2020 of Trump's early days where he questions his place in a world where he doesn't quite fit in with either the black community or the white community, I will definitely review it. 

Barry was a confusing film when I first saw that it was on Netflix because I really didn't get a sense of what it was supposed to be about. There was another movie that was a love story between Barrack and Michelle set in their early years of their marriage called Southside With You that came out in 2016 that made perfect sense, but Barry didn't seem to focus on that or anything recognizable in Obama's past. It just seemed to be about President Obama in his early years when people called him Barry. 

So as the movie started, I guessed that the movie was going to be about him in college making a turn towards a career in politics... but that wasn't what this movie was about either. 

Barry is set in 1981 when Barry Obama (played by Devon Terrell) comes to New York as he starts his

undergraduate at Columbia. From the beginning, Barry seems to be interested in a lot of normal things. He's an excellent student interested in philosophy and American society. He plays basketball. He dates women in that go to his school, most namely a young white woman by the name of Charlotte (played by Anya Taylor-Joy) from his political science class.

This movie mainly observed Barrack Obama as a college student in the 1980s. And you may be thinking to yourself that that sounds really boring but it actually is a very intriguing character study.

As the audience of course we start the movie seeing this kid as the future President of the United States and I think you expect more of his beginnings. You expect overt acts of racism that show a persecuted life of the young Barry Obama who would eventually rise above those trials.

And while race is a huge issue of this story, it's not the story of racism in America that you initially think it's going to be. He is definitely exposed to racism, but this story is more about the fact that Barry is half white and half black and he's trying to find the place he truly belongs in this world.

If you've read my reviews of Fruitvale Station and Crash, you'll know that I made a little bit of a comparison in those two films with their commentary on race. Both films had a very poignant point to make about racism in America but one had a heavy handed approach and the other was more subtle. Well I thought that Barry was going to have that heavy handed approach based on the first scene where he's profiled by campus police because he's black. But that part actually does come back in a really effective message. That scene and the rest of the movie is tied together really well to show the inner conflict that Barry goes through in this film and all of it together isn't played off as a future President going through a racist world, it's more the everyday dealings of a black man in New York. This character just so happens to become the President and I guess that's a good way to market the movie, but in reality, this could have been about any half white half black kid during the 1980s and it still would have been an interesting story.

The movie mainly watches Barry explore both sides of the coin that is him. He hangs out with his girlfriend and her family who are affluent white people, a society that Barry didn't experience when he was growing up and he's seen as an anomaly and he doesn't feel like he fits in. But then he goes to Harlem and hangs out with his black friends in "the hood" and he doesn't totally feel like he fits in there as well.

The movie as a whole is pretty subdued but at the same time it's really well acted and you really do care about the internal struggle he's going through and you're trying to figure out what's going his head.

Like the rest of the movie, Devon Terrell plays a very subdued young Obama. He's not trying to do an impression of him but more trying to give his own interpretation while still giving respect to a living man. The funny aspects of the film are actually when it's a little bit self aware. Like there's a part where his girlfriend asks him if he doesn't believe in change. Yeah it's a little bit cheesy and a cheap nudge to the audience but I felt like it worked in the context of the scene and gave some humor to a pretty internal and subdued movie. Another example is the impression his friend Saleem makes of him. That's actually where the voice of Obama is given a fun little nudge of mockery and it actually works pretty well.

Overall, Barry is a very small story about a young man trying to find his identity. I couldn't tell you how much of it is true but it's such a small part of the long accomplished life of Obama that it doesn't really matter, especially for how personal of a story this is.

Is it going to win any awards? Probably not. While it is a pretty nuanced look at race that also tells a personal drama of Barrack Obama, it's not overly complex. It reminds me of Fruitvale Station where it's a very personal story with a pretty poignant message and it's done well. There are times when it kind of drags, but if a story can give me a different perspective of a man who has run our country for the past 8 years, I enjoyed it for what it was. If you have an hour and a half or so and want a small but good drama, Barry is a pretty good personal story.

But those are my thoughts on Barry. What did you think? Should I be checking out Southside With You? Which one do you prefer? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I try to keep this blog as apolitical as I can, but putting all positions and beliefs aside, I am willing to put money on the idea that we will not hear a more professional, powerful, and Presidential speech than this one for at least another four years. Enjoy!