Taxi Driver

So it feels weird to review a movie that in many circles is considered one of the greatest films of all time. On one hand, if I gush about this movie too much I'm just saying things that have been said about a billion times before. If I rag on this movie, it feels like I didn't understand it or don't understand good movies. It's kind of a lose-lose. But whatever, I'm on a Scorsese/De Niro kick, let's talk about Taxi Driver.

Taxi Driver is the story of Travis Bickle (played by Robert De Niro), a lonely Marine Veteran who has insomnia and needs a job so he takes on work as a taxi driver in 1970's New York.

The whole movie is a slow decent into madness as Travis is rejected by a woman named Betsy (played by Cybill Shepherd) he asks out who works for a political campaign. His depression and insomniac thoughts begin to turn violent as he sees just how shitty 1970's New York, and more seriously the world is.

Along the way, he sees a child prostitute (played by a very young Jodie Foster) and she plays an important role that really doesn't feel totally fleshed out until the end, but I won't ruin it for you. Oh and Harvey Keitel is in the movie as a real creepy dude, which makes me think that Harvey Keitel had to be the chillest guy in the world because I feel like this isn't the only role I've seen him in where he's a creep.

Now I feel like I have to mention something because I feel like I'm going to hit some of the same notes I was talking about with The King of Comedy. Essentially, that and Taxi Driver are very similar movies but with a different approach. The King of Comedy tells the story of a lonely guy trying to pull himself out of his misery through the lens of a psychological dark comedy. Taxi Driver is a lonely guy trying to pull himself out of his misery through the lens of a psychological neo-noir thriller. I find it interesting that one is considered one of the greatest movies of all time whereas the other I only heard of because it was the inspiration for a Joker movie coming out this weekend.

But the point I want to make is that film takes on different meaning depending on when it is viewed. Some meanings stand the test of time, others don't hold up but take on different meanings later on.

In 1976, this movie could have been an analysis on 1970's New York, vigilantism, or violence in America's cities. In 2019, this movie could be seen as an incel's wet dream, or a commentary on race and gun violence.

I'm not saying this or The King of Comedy are bad movies, in fact just the opposite. They're films that were controversial and relevant in the time they were released as well as today and they can be interpreted in multiple different ways.

I don't believe that Scorsese was intending this to be glorifying violence, vigilantism, the same way I don't think he was intending to glorify kidnapping Jerry Lewis in The King of Comedy. The problem I can see with this is that because this movie is so iconic, because people know the line, "You talking to me?" so well, that it is misinterpreted by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. And this isn't really a line Scorsese is afraid of crossing to this day. The Wolf of Wallstreet seems to glorify the lifestyle of Jordan Belfort without any real say on whether or not that's right or not, Taxi Driver gives a bittersweet ending that is really up to interpretation. This is both a good thing and a bad thing in my opinion.

I just want to put that out there before people say that I don't understand what Scorsese was intending because the truth is, interpretation changes.

I think the thing that sets this movie apart is just the excellent performance of Robert De Niro matched with Scorsese's direction and Paul Schrader's writing.

 This trio takes a character like Travis Bickle, a guy who on paper is not someone you'd really want to be around and today would probably be on some watch list, and you somewhat root for him.

He's deranged and you are uncomfortable, unsure of what he's going to do the entire movie. While I found parts of the movie to drag a tad, I recognize that there is a lot of tensions being built. Furthermore, its easy to see the improvised dialogue as choppy and hard to follow, but it makes for some really realistic exchanges, especially the one between Travis and Peter Boyle's character, Wizard, as one where its obvious Travis is looking for a route out, but nobody really has an out for him.

It's an unsettling ride that keeps you engaged, even when the movie feels like its slowing down and it takes a while to get to why this is all happening.

One thing that I will note is that the movie doesn't really write the strongest, or competent female characters. Cybill Shepherd starts out as a pretty interesting character but then she disappears for about half the film and there is an inclining that she is the muse for Bickle's derrangement.

Furthermore, Jodie Foster gives just a dynamite performance, that is super uncomfortable at moments, but they kind of put her off to the side until she's necessary to the plot.

At the end of the day, this is more an inner monologue of Travis Bickle's psyche, but I think it might be assisted by some better written side characters. It doesn't have to be the women, but there's so much time spent on Travis being weird while he's driving a cab that I almost missed why he suddenly wants to gun down the politician that Shepherd's character works, and even now I'm not totally clear on when he turns that corner.

Overall, I think Taxi Driver is such an iconic movie for a reason. De Niro gives a great performance, the directing and writing is superb, and interpretations of the film remain relevant to this day. Performances and writing for characters outside of De Niro's are pretty one dimensional but they're not really the focus of the film.

In today's day and age, its a problematic movie, but it was a problematic movie in 1976 and I don't believe that it's intending to glorify violence or vigilantism, but that doesn't make it any less problematic.

But that's Scorsese, and I have to say, I'm really enjoying this kick that I'm on.

But when was the last time you saw Taxi Driver? Does it hold up today in your mind? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks for reading!

The Good Place (Season 1)

So it wasn't until my second attempt at watching The Good Place I actually finished the first season and got a full picture of what a lot of people were raving about. And as usual... I have thoughts.

The Good Place mainly follows the story of Eleanor Shellstrop (played by Kristen Bell). Eleanor wakes up one day and is told by a Ted Danson looking guy that she has died. Ted Danson's character, an angel-like* (they make it clear that this is not exactly heaven in any traditional religious manner) character named Michael tells Eleanor that she lived a good life and is in "The Good Place", AKA a heaven like universe after her death.

He leads Eleanor around paradise and introduces her to a cast of character, most importantly her apparent "soul mate", a scholar of ethics by the name of Chidi (played by William Jackson Harper). Overall, Eleanor seems to have it made. But there is one problem.

Eleanor discovers very quickly that the Eleanor Shellstrop Michael and everyone else in The Good Place believes Eleanor to be, is not her. She seems to have been brought to The Good Place by mistake.

She confides in Chidi and the majority of the season is her trying to learn how to be "good" in order to earn her place in heaven and not be sent to "The Bad Place".

And there's a lot to talk about with this show that I will get to, but I do have to point out one glaring issue that I've noticed since the beginning of watching this show and it's Kristen Bell.

I think its because of Bell's personality just in general as being a bubbly, almost Disney Princess in real life persona, but I don't buy that she's this horrible person they make her out to be.

In fact the show has to constantly point back to times she was mean to people in order to remind us she's a bad person, and even those flashbacks are undercut when they dive into her backstory and explain why she's the way she is.

Now clearly, I am still watching the show so it's not like this is a huge show ruining issue. But it is something I did keep on thinking about and it was kind of hard to remember especially as she continues to have these lessons on being a good person and (spoilers) they work.

That issue aside, the cast for this show is really good and what's more, it's small.

Sure there are guest stars and recurring characters. But mainly, the story centers on Eleanor, Chidi, their neighbor condescending neighbor Tahani (played by Jameela Jamil), and her soul mate, a Budhist monk named Jianyu (played by Manny Jacinto) who has taken a vow of silence. Ted Danson's character Michael plays a big roll and he is accompanied by an all knowing program with the purpose of serving the humans in the Good Place, Janet (played by D'Arcy Carden).

The show really dives into each character really well that by the end, you know these characters and its kind of refreshing to not have a huge cast you have to keep track of. The show centers heavily on these six but tries to kind of trick you into thinking there are more with some really great cameos and performances from supporting characters.

And the show is funny... most of the time.

Michael Schur, who did a lot of work on Parks and Rec, Co-created The Office and Brooklyn 99 created this one and the humor is really good. They really play around with the philosophical and religious comedy baked right into the plot and the scene to the right had to have been one of my favorite when a cosmic being like Michael puts on a hoodie and melts down because he can't figure out what's wrong with his utopia. That's great.

But then there's the cheap laughs that even as I'm watching season 2, they're still banking on. Like the fact that people can't swear in the Good Place, so instead of the F word they say Fork. This is a reoccurring joke that has only gotten stupider every time they use it.

Also, some characters are played off as real dumb and that's their entire character. It's like Chris Hemsworth's character from the new Ghost Busters, eventually stupid just isn't as funny as it was the first 40 times you used that trope.

But for the most part, the humor works because it's building off of the unique world and themes being utilized in the show and that's really where the show shines.

I think any comedy writer can write jokes about god, about the afterlife, etc. But the way in which this show sticks is just the heart behind it and each of the characters.

For the most part, and I'm holding back because I don't want to get into spoilers, the show creates a pretty great connection to all the characters from Eleanor, to Michael (Kristen Bell and Ted Danson really do sell this show above the others), to the other characters.

I will say in the first season there are some uneven episodes. There are episodes that feel like filler to hold down the fort until you get to the bigger episodes that start answering the show's questions, but I think the big thing that saves this show from being just another NBC comedy is the fact that season 1 (and 2) are only 13, 30 minute episodes. The story gets to the point, it keeps you interested, and it easily could've been the opposite.

The Good Place recognizes that the public's attention spans have gotten shorter so we would have lost interest if this had gone for 22 episodes and she's just meandering around The Good Place for no reason. With the shorter season, the show clips along great that there are very few episodes that feel like filler, the character I didn't like as much get less time to get on my nerves, and I just enjoy the show more.

I do think there are elements of The Good Place that feel gimmicky. The first few episodes of this season feel like it was made for a prime time slot and that's usually not my cup of tea. But, by the end of the season I jumped right into season 2 because it feels like the show is a lot smarter than your average run of the mill sitcom.

And now that I'm in it, I have a bittersweet feeling to the fact that the fourth season airing currently will be the last season. I don't know if it got cancelled or if Michael Schur felt the story properly ends at the end of the fourth season (and I'm not going to figure out in lieu of spoilers) but I really hope its the latter.

While this show is a concept that could go on for quite a while, its refreshing to see a show be concise and know exactly what story it wants to tell. And especially as you come to the end of the first season, you know that this is a concise story, not one that needs to go on forever.

I'm excited to watch more of The Good Place and if you haven't seen it yet, it's on Netflix. If you can get past the first few episodes that feel very prime time sitcom-y, you're in for a show with a unique and clever premise that I'm continuing to have a blast with.

But have you seen The Good Place? What do you think? 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 reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

The King of Comedy

I find it kind of interesting in this day and age the way in which pop culture almost sustains itself through continuous pop culture. I'll be honest, the only reason I've ever heard of this movie, much less wanted to watch it, was because this movie is said to be an inspiration for the new Joker movie that is set to be released this upcoming weekend. I might talk a little more in depth about the self perpetuating pop culture that we live in and how I don't totally see that as a bad thing, but I want to talk about this movie on its merits first.

King of Comedy follows the story of a lonely, unsuccessful stand up comic by the name of Rupert Pupkin (played by Robert De Niro). Totally by luck, he is able to gain access and have a very brief conversation with his idol, a late night host by the name of Jerry Langford (played by Jerry Lewis).

In an attempt to get rid of him, Jerry tells him to submit his stand up work to his office and they'll see if they can get him on the show.

But Rupert takes this very seriously, doing everything in his power to make sure he gets his 5 minutes of fame on the Jerry Langford show, showing up at Jerry's office and homes and refusing to leave, as well as eventually kidnapping Langford and extorting the production staff to put him on the air.

Throughout the entire movie, Rupert is having these fantasies in his mind where him and Jerry are great friends and have a great working relationship as two professional comedians together.

This was my favorite part of the film. This movie came out in 1982 and it looks old in my honest opinion. But one way or another, the cuts to Rupert's fantasies work phenomenally because you're not totally sure which ones are the fantasies and which ones are reality until you see Jerry's reaction to Rupert and eventually, those fantasies start to blend with Rupert's perception of reality.

He imagines Jerry invites him out to his summer home so Rupert brings the woman he's trying to start a relationship with (played by Diahnne Abbott) to the summer home saying, "Jerry is expecting me".

It should be noted that the performances in this film are pretty darn good.

If you grew up like I did with Robert De Niro being more of a pop culture figure than knowing his body of actual work, you'd be remiss if you didn't know that there is a reason he's such a huge figure today and that he doesn't ACTUALLY need to work because he has put in so many good performances and has a pretty large range. This movie shows that range because it creates a very different character than the Italian tough guy De Niro has grown parody levels of acclaim for.

Rupert Pupkinis a loser, he's a dweeb, but he's persistent. De Niro is able to create this really interesting character and it's great to see something different than the Italian Mobster they are literally using computers to make him younger to play again in The Irishmen. It was good to go back and realize that he's more than that stereotype and remind myself why he has that place in pop culture.

The performance of Jerry Lewis was pretty good as well as Diahnne Abbott and Sandra Bernhard who plays an equally obsessed fan of Jerry Langford's

What I found most interesting about this film was the way in which it has aged. The movie is a dark comedy so its injecting comedy into a situation that usually isn't funny and sometimes is even inappropriate for humor. The part I find interesting is this movie's use of comedy and how the movie has both aged really well in the era of the internet, and how it has aged horrendously in the age of the internet.

On one hand, this movie is really funny. I think the humor in this film is paired well with really uncomfortable but well done tension, along with the obsessive performance of De Niro as Pupkin. When I realized the humor in it, the movie became a little more entertaining than perpetually uncomfortable. The uncomfortable tension is apart of why the film is enjoyable, but if it wasn't offset by the humor of Pupkin just being a doof, that constant tension would be annoying after a while.

But the humor is essential in the way in which this movie has aged perfectly and aged terribly at the same time.

The movie shows the dark underbelly of fan culture and people's love for public figures.

Obsessive fan culture has been a thing for decades. The desire to be apart of the entertainment business through any means necessary has been around for centuries.

The interesting part of this movie is the utilization of comedy in these really uncomfortable situations where a man, who really does absolutely nothing wrong except not call the cops a lot earlier is tied up and forced to have dinner with an insane Sandra Bernhard while his other captor exploits his crime to become famous.

I get it, its a black comedy. But I got the feeling, and I could be totally wrong, that more of this movie was played up for laughs than it would be today and that is both a good and a bad thing. The movie provides for a window into a time where certain topics were able to be laughed about because not as many people were affected by it and wackos like De Niro and Bernhard's character's felt like they were isolated incidents.

Now with the internet, these wackos are in almost every comment section and they're not that hard to find. And it also shows the importance of timing. Would this movie have the same impact today as it did in 1982?

Of course it is impossible to know. Even though it has been alluded that this upcoming Joker movie is going to pull inspiration from King of Comedy, I don't even know how close its going to be to the film and the difference in genre makes me suspect that despite the similarities, the tone and execution probably put these films in two different categories that its very hard to really make any hard comparison of today's impact versus the impact in 1982.

Now is it weird that there has already been so much controversy about a film that only critics and a few fans have seen and that follows the story of a comic book character, yes. But this is the world we live in.

I can't speak to Joker too much because I haven't seen it, but De Niro said upon the release of this film that perhaps it didn't do well commercially because it took on a topic people didn't really want to discuss, I assume fan culture, obsessive people going the extra dangerous step further in their pursuit of happiness, and violence.

Well we live in a world where we can't really escape that. The internet has given lonely, frustrated people a platform for their disturbed views to fester and it really is interesting watching both how this movie hits it on the head, while at the same time kind of underplays obsessive fan culture for laughs.

On a lighter note, I do think King of Comedy in today's perspective represents how we should be scratching that nostalgia itch we have these days.

Nobody is remaking King of Comedy, not because its some beloved film, but because its the opposite. I only heard of it because of this Joker movie but that is in essence how we're perpetuating this nostalgia kick. The Joker film is hopefully its own film with inspiration from King of Comedy. On top of that, I didn't realize that Family Guy has parodied this film so one of the scenes might look really familiar if you've only seen the episode where Meg kidnaps Brian because she's in love with him.

But that's the interesting way pop culture self sustains itself and I don't see either of those examples as bad. It reminds us of things that once were, more than likely taking inspiration from it, but at the end of the day making our own thing* (sometimes out of an existing comic book character).

King of Comedy made me think a lot which is good. Its pretty concise with each scene and the run time clips along which is good. The performances are very good, especially from De Niro.

I think time will really have to say whether or not its a film that is going to go down as something really memorable for me. I caught it right before it left Amazon Prime, but I think right now it feels very relevant and worth recommending other people check out if they have the opportunity. I eventually want to watch it without the context of Joker, but until then, I was engaged with the film and I'm glad I saw it, at the very least so I can have this dialogue about it.

But have you seen King of Comedy? What do you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks for reading!

Rocketman

Biopics are always difficult because there is always going to be an element of them that is bullshit. Facts are going to be extrapolated on and liberties are going to be taken in order to make a good story. I think the thing that Rocketman does well is that it almost leans into that understanding and creates a biopic that is half truth and half fantasy musical that highlights the exact thing that made someone like Elton John famous.

The TL;DR of this review is that Rocketman did a rock star biopic better than Bohemian Rhapsody last year and I don't know if we're all ready to admit it.

The framing of the film centers around Elton John (played by Taron Edgerton) going to rehab and telling his story and how he ended up at his lowest point from his childhood.

The movie follows typical musician biopic that he had a rough-ish childhood, got into music, got his break, rose in popularity but also started delving into a world of fame, alcohol, drugs, and sex.

At the end of it there's a reconciliation and the end credits give an update on what's happened with the main character's life.

The difference with Rocketman is obviously the details of Elton John's life; his partnership with Bernie Taupin (played by Jamie Bell) the lyricist he pairs up with early in his career, his overbearing and abusive manager John Reid (played by Richard Madden), but the main difference is the musical format in which the movie builds itself up in.

The movie shows the important moments in his life, but often these moments and the passage of time in between them are filled in with musical numbers from Elton John's repertoire of music.

The nice thing is, Elton John's music has and will probably continue to play pretty well with musical narratives, so a song can pop up and depending on the scenario its being used in, whether in a song and dance number, or a moment where he's actually performing or writing the song, and both moments feel diagetic and are well done. There are some scenes where he's legitimately writing a song, or he or other members of the cast in a fantastical musical number and it's a lot of fun.

I think this is a really intriguing way to tell a biopic because if you've watched enough biopics, you know that most of the time, they're BS. For example, there's a character in this movie played by Richard Madden (funny story he's played by Aiden Gillen in Bohemian Rhapsody) and he is painted as the worst kind of person when in reality, it's probably a little less black and white. While there are probably some half truths in the relationship between Elton John and John Reid, the truth behind that relationship was that it probably wasn't super abusive and they ended the romantic relationship amicably. But they paint him as a monster in this film. And while you can bring up how you might have an issue with that portrayal, the movie can say, it's a fantasy musical that is not claiming to be based in hard reality. They needed a bad guy, Richard Madden does a bang up job, the movie (a little sketchily) gets away with it.

While everyone does an awesome job, by far the shining star of this film is Taron Edgerton as Elton John. I really have only seen him in Kingsmen which I thought he was fine. But this movie stretches him a lot and he becomes Elton John. He's an awesome singer, and its an emotional performance of a complicated person.

While he's the hero and you root for him, it's pretty obvious that he's flawed. But you see the causes of those flaws and you see the journey he goes through.

I will say that on face value, the movie follows the same formula of a musican biopic that I mentioned above. So if you're looking for a new take on the musician biopic, as far as the plotline goes, you're not going to find it here. But, you will find a unique execution with the fantasy musical format and the performances.

The funny thing is, I watched this movie on a plane and I didn't realize until about half way through the film that they were editing out a lot of the swearing and the more mature parts of the story.

This brings up the obvious commentary that is going to come out of this movie, is it better than Bohemian Rhapsody and honestly, it's not even a competition. Rocketman is heads and tails better than Bohemian Rhapsody on so many levels.

First off, the film is rated R and its allowed to go deep into the drugs, sex, and alcohol lifestyle of Elton John far more than Bohemian Rhapsody could.

But the truth is, I feel like I watched the PG-13 version of this film and its still better. It's more honest, it's got better execution of the music, and it just feels more genuine than Bohemian Rhapsody did.

I am not a Bohemian Rhapsody hater either. I liked it when it first came out. I think the criticism of it, while fair, lose sight of the fact that that film is fun and tells a story of Freddie Mercury's life. Rocketman improves upon that by just taking more chances and doing something different. I have no doubt its going to do well come award season, and while time will tell which one is better remembered, I think Rocketman is just going to go down as the better film in this weird musician biopic cinematic universe they seem to be building up.

Overall, I recommend Rocketman a lot.

But what did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks for reading!

Aladdin (2019)

So this is a movie that I was split on from the very first trailer. I had a particular bias towards Aladdin when I was a kid and while I knew nothing was going to stand up to the original, I thought it'd be fun to at least see something a little bit different and get those nostalgia feels. But unfortunately, the word of mouth on this one was not good and I waited until I saw it on a plane.

And even now, I'm pretty split on it. There are elements that were done well with this movie, and at the same time, it's a movie that really won't stand the test of time in the long run, especially in comparison with the animated film.

The plot is exactly what you remember from the animated film with very little deviation. Aladdin (played by Mena Massoud) is a street rat in a fictional Middle Eastern town called Agrabah.

He falls in love with the Princess of Agrabah, Jasmine (played by Naomi Scott) but due to their social class, they are unable to be together. After a series of unfortunate events, Aladdin finds himself being used by the evil Vizer to the Sultan, Jafar (played by Marwan Kenzari) to enter the Cave of Wonders as find a magical lamp. When the deal with Jafar goes wrong, Aladdin meets the Genie (this time played by Will Smith) and he is granted 3 wishes. Aladdin uses those wishes to become Prince Ali of Ababwah and shenanigans ensue.

The one big difference is that there is a lot more emphasis in this movie on Jasmine's desire take over from her father, the Sultan (played by Navid Negabhan, the guy who played Abu Nazir from Homeland which was kind of personally distracting) and they give her a female empowerment song and while the song is... fine, the plot line is probably the best part of the movie and its a good place to start when discussing what this movie does right.

Naomi Scott as Jasmine is the best part of the movie and you know why? She's just written better! She's not a carbon copy of Jasmine from the original, she's got her own deal and she feels at least a little bit different with some of the same notes.

Yeah I don't love her new song, but if you put together the fact that Naomi Scott has a really good voice and seems to actually be putting her own take on the character, she adds so much more than almost everyone in this movie... so good on her.

And honestly, when the movie is given the opportunity to do something different, I actually found myself enjoying it. I think the movie needed to recognize that there are things that you can do in animation that just don't work in live action, but one the same note, there are things you can do with live action that can't be done in animation, and you swap those out.

Obviously its not that simple but I feel like they did it with Jasmine and they tried their best to do it with Will Smith as the Genie.

Will Smith is not bad as the Genie. Its obvious that if Robin Williams had been alive Disney would have tried to get him in this role and have him do the exact same thing he did the first time, but they recognized that Will Smith wasn't going to be able to totally recapture this. So they did this crazy idea of letting him do his own thing, and it works! ... Sorta.

At the end of the day, the Genie that Aladdin gets is just Will Smith, which writing that out is kind of funny. Overall, it works better than I think people were expecting it to and I gotta give Smith credit for taking on that role. There are moments where they are trying to have Smith do Robin Williams and those are the moments when he loses a lot of steam and interest, but when he's able to just be Will Smith and do Hitch set in Agrabah, its actually not bad.

I think it's funny that people freaked out both when they showed Will Smith without the blue makeup, then with it, and at the end of the day, the best parts of the genie are when he's not the big blue (Robin Williams) being, but when he's just Will Smith with some awesome genie powers.

I'm not totally sure why they needed to give him a love interest (played by Nasim Pedrad) and I think you brutally underutilized a very funny female comedian in that role, but that's a very small thing.

There are other things that distinguish this movie from the animated. The aesethetic, the diverse cast, the cool shots and utilization of sets were done pretty well and I can point to a couple of parts of this film that I had fun with and even found a little charming.

But when the movie is trying to BE the animated film, that's when it loses that charm. And I'm not talking about homage, I'm talking about taking the script and shots from the original and just remaking it, and unfortunately that's the most prevalent with Aladdin himself...

To be fair to Mena Massoud, he is probably the only character they ripped directly from the original animated film and just created for a live actor. He does not divert from the animated character and therefore is in direct comparison.

Again, somethings in animation just can't be recreated, so when you see Massoud have a line read or a reaction, it doesn't have the same impact as the animated character, and a lot of the time it feels cheap because its just recreating scenes without really thinking on why those shots and moments were iconic in the first place.

What's more, is the animation in this film is not very good at all and that doesn't work to Massoud's benefit because he interacts with the animated characters the most. Abu looks like garbage, the blue Genie is some uncanny valley shit, and overall it doesn't feel like they put the most money into the animation to make it look real. Again, if you're going to skimp on the CGI to make this live action remake look real, why are you making a live action remake?

And then there's Jafar...

Now I don't wanna shit on this guy too much because there's already been far too many people just trashing him.

Some of it is unwarranted... but a lot of it is.

This was just a weird casting. This Jafar is muted, he's kind of boring, and while I think I can see where they wanted to go with him, he just feels like a casting they'd do for Once Upon a Time, not a big budget film.

To give some credit, I do like how they delved a little into his backstory to make him more relateable with Aladdin and how he built himself up from nothing. Furthermore, it's not far to compare him to the animated film... but if you're going to try and recreate this iconic villain, you gotta either create a fully different character and let Marwan Kenzari do something different with it, or you need to cast someone who can pull off that over the top nature that came from the original. And that's pretty much the theme for the entire film.

I think there are a couple of elements about this film that could have made it a really good adaptation and lends itself to a live action film. But I honestly think thinking about this movie has bummed me out this week because it really demonstrates where we're at in the pop culture zeitgeist.

There's a good movie hidden in this film. This could have been a send up to Bollywood, or an updated take on the '92 classic with the focus on Jasmine or just something different that set it apart. And if those things were done correctly, it could be a movie that will be remembered. 

But as it stands, it just feels like a cash grab that we're all buying into. Disney has no incentive to create new material because these are cash conglomerates. 

I do think there were a lot of moments in this movie that I liked and I don't think its the most god awful thing out there, but its just overshadowed by corporate mandates to recreate that nostalgic feeling we got when we were kids. So much that when they do do something different like a

Bollywood dance number at the end, combined with the cheap animation, the sub-par acting, and additional song that sounds more like high school musical then Aladdin, it just kind of seems cheap and a high budget Disney Channel movie rather than a real film that Disney wants to last in their halls of accomplishments.

The funny thing is, I see this happening with the rest of Disney's projects. Aside from Spider-man (which was a Sony Project) we haven't had any Endgame films and I'm worried that Marvel is just going to go into auto pilot and put out schlock because they know we're going to see familiar, nostalgia warming things. And now that Kevin Fiege's off to make a Star War, are we going to go into that nostalgia pandering with future Star Wars film. Say what you will about The Last Jedi, but at least it was something different, at least it was Ryan Johnson trying to put some freaking art into the corporate world we live in.

I gotta end this review.

Overall, Aladdin is okay. It's not good, it's not god awful, there are parts about it that are actually pretty good while others that aren't great but I just feel tired after thinking about it too much so I'm done.

What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks for reading.

Maniac

Maniac is a great example of the current state of streaming services like Netflix, both the good and the bad side. On one hand, we live in a world where a show like this would probably never be green lit into a movie or a full ongoing series just due to the fact that it both is too obscure of an idea and it just doesn't need to be stretched out. It's a self contained story and its really great that we live in a world where obscure stories like this can be told where they probably wouldn't be told otherwise.

The other side of it though is that despite the fact that A-List actors like Emma Stone, Jonah Hill, and Sally Field signed onto this project, I can't think of one person who has seen this show and I don't see that as a sustainable model for Netflix to follow.

 Maniac follows the story of two troubled people, Owen Milgrim (played by Jonah Hill), a schizophrenic black sheep who is struggling with figuring out what is real and what isn't, and Annie Landsberg (played by Emma Stone), a broke recluse dealing with a tragic loss.

These two find themselves signing up to be subjects in an experimental drug program run by three scientists (played by Rome Kanda, Sonoya Mizuno, and Justin Theroux) who are recording their results through a highly advanced and sentient computer (voiced by Sally Field).

The base story takes place in a retro-futuristic New York city (essentially what the 80's thought the 2000's were going to be) while the drug that the subjects take, take them to a number of different realities, driving home a sense of reality versus fiction in the story.

And overall, I'm glad I checked this one out.

 The number one appeal to me with this show was just how strange it is. It is so cerebral and plays with the idea of reality that it's a fun trip.

It plays a lot with the conception of what is real, what is reality, what is in your head, and how do others connect with that reality. The show is already pretty heady so this isn't so much a critique, but I actually would have liked them to go further if they could have.

About half way through, I couldn't help but relate it to Inception, but with psychotropic drugs instead of dreams. And I am all for that.

One thing I will say is that the show does have a bit of a tone problem at times.

Like on one hand, I appreciate it because it sets the show apart from something like Inception, but at the same time, the show's genre on Wikipedia is Science Fiction, Dark Comedy, Comedy-Drama, and Psychological Drama. That is a lot of genres all wrapped together and while it works sometimes, there are other times that I'm not totally sure what I'm supposed to be thinking or feeling because a similar moment was played up for laughs while the other moment isn't.

That being said, Emma Stone and Jonah Hill prove once again that they're really solid actors who have long surpassed the teenage drama where they first came together in Superbad. In tandem with that balancing of tone, both of these two were able to make me laugh but also give me the feels with Emma Stone bringing me on the verge of tears.

I think Stone probably has the better written character and through the majority of it I understood her a little more because her development as a character is just more clear but, but as I came to the end, I really came to appreciate Jonah Hill a lot more and I feel as though if I watched it again, there would be more appreciation for both characters. Again, I think Jonah Hill's character could have been written better, but the schizophrenic nature made for an interesting character, especially near the end where you understand the show and characters a little more.

Aside from the two stars, the rest of the cast is pretty great. I really started to enjoy Justin Theroux after watching him in The Leftovers, but I'm realizing that he's been a working actor for a while and I'm really just realizing it now.

Sonoya Mizuno was a fun unique character that I enjoyed throughout the entire show, as well as the other test subjects.

Sally Field doesn't really show up in person until about half way through the show but she just seemed to be having a blast with the show.

The show also does something that I always enjoy where they take actors and put them in multiple roles during the different fantasies or realities experienced throughout the drug trial.

If I had to note any ways the show could improve, it would be the tonal issues, but also just the pacing. It's a limited series so its structured like a long multiple hour movie, but I felt like there were things that were drawn out a little bit longer than they needed to. The first few episodes are a little slow and if you're not into it by the 3rd or 4th episode, you're probably not gonna like the rest of it. I think the reason I liked Stone's character more was due to the fact that she was just more lively in the real world where Jonah Hill's character is highly medicated and very monotone when he's simply his own character. To be fair it made it better when he was able to branch out with more interesting characters in the fantasies but it did slow things down, especially in the first episode.

My one other issue with the show were elements of the world. I know I said I like the unique world this is set in, but I will say that it seems like there are certain things or elements of the world that maybe are trying to make a point about a highly capitalistic retro-futuristic world, but instead just seem to be put there for the hell of it, to make the aesthetic of the show seem weird.

In the second episode, Annie goes to meet up with her drug dealer and he's playing chess with a mechanical purple koala. That is never explained. I'm not knocking the show for not explaining why there's a mechanical koala, it's just a weird way of setting up your environment with little to no explanation or reason. The example of the mechanical koala could just be to world build and flesh out the ways in which this world is different, but there's not really a reason besides just having a unique world for why this show is set in that.

It's hard to explain and maybe I'm fixating on that mechanical koala too much, but for how unique the world is, having walking ad readers, proxy friends and spouses as professions, and hibernation pods, there's not a lot of explanation for them or real application to the story. But at the same time I don't mind world creating so I don't really know where I stand on this to be honest.

 Overall, Maniac is a unique experience that is hard to really explain fully. You have to get used to the world, the concepts, the cerebralness of it, and for me that took a few episodes. It might not hook you in the first or second episode. But I think after looking at it of the sum of its whole, I'm really glad I can point to a sort of sleeper show on Netflix that feels very original and unique in a world of reboots, remakes, and building off of existing IP.

I think Maniac is a really interesting look into what makes a prestige television show and what doesn't, as well as a look into Netflix's unique approach to their streaming service and their brand.

Maniac is not going to go down as a staple limited series of Netflix's catalog and I doubt a lot of people are going to look back on that catalog even 10 years from now and say, "Oh, remember watching Maniac?". So again, it shows that dual nature of Netflix programming.

The old standard used to be HBO, with their catalog that was, and arguably still is "prestige" shows. Shows like The Wire, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, The Newsroom, etc gave HBO a level of clout making them the precursor to the streaming world we live in today.

I think Netflix read the tea leaves correctly when they decided to pour a bunch of money into original content and knew that they couldn't lease shows like The Office forever. So they decided to make a bunch of original content and make it so audiences would subscribe in order to get specific to Netflix content.

And I think that specific content been has slowly developed with shows like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, the Marvel TV shows, and of course Stranger Things.

The problem is, a lot of their successful shows have since ended. House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, and the Marvel shows all ended. Netflix is now known for The Crown, Mindhunter, and Stranger Things, but I don't think the first two have as wide of appeal while Stranger Things is at risk of jumping the shark.

What's more is that there is SO MUCH content and expect their critical and popular acclaim shows to gain a huge following after one season, and if that first or second season don't land, they realize that it's too expensive to keep the show going.

It's a strange strategy because while they're pushing niche and unique concepts like Maniac, they're hoping that one of these multitude of niche shows gets a huge audience to sustain the streaming service and create its exclusivity, and I don't really see that happening.

I like that Netflix has a platform for these unique original shows, but I just don't see it as sustainable, especially if they only last a season or two.

This of course becomes more and more relevant as popular existing content like The Office gets spread off to the five winds of companies trying to build their own streaming service, and the huge white elephant of Disney starting Disney + that has the potential to dramatically change the atmosphere of streaming services and I'm not totally sure its for the best.

My point? I like the show Maniac. It's not perfect, its not going to be the next Stranger Things or touchstone series of Netflix, but I'm glad they have a platform to do so. I just don't know how sustainable that platform will be when they lose the comfort food of The Office, and Friends, and can't get enough original content that reaches a wide audience.

But let me know if I'm not the only one who has seen this series! What did you think of Maniac? Comment and Discuss below! You can send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as any 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 reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood

I've never been a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino.

I recognize that he is a good director, he has a deep love for cinema, and he has enough clout that at one point or another, I'm probably going to check out his films. But there are only one or two of his films that I truly enjoy, he's an arrogant asshole in real life (at least in almost every interview I've seen of him), and overall, it's not a matter of him not being good, his films just aren't my preference. So when he says that he's retiring after his 10th film and there's a lot of speculation what that film might be, I kind of shrug. First off, I don't totally believe he'll just be done, but even if he is, while I understand the cultural significance as he had had an impact on the way movies are made, I don't feel like I'll be super bummed out. But again, its more personal preference rather than objective criticism.

But when a friend of mine invited me to go see it, I thought why not and settled in for Tarantino's 9th feature length film.

There are a couple of branches to the story set forth in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but the main plot centers on a television actor by the name of Rick Dalton (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) at the end of the 1960s and his stunt double and good friend, Cliff Booth (played by Brad Pitt).

Dalton finds himself at a point in his acting career where he's not being picked as the leading man as much as he used to be and he spends the entire movie trying to reconcile that fact and figure out a way to get back on top. Meanwhile, Cliff Booth is his blue collar stuntman who has a run in with the Manson family at a critical point in history relevant to Rick Dalton's neighbor, Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie).

So I thought the plot for this movie was pretty vague before I saw it and honestly, thinking about it now, it's still a little vague. I understand if people have some trouble actually explaining what this movie is all about because it is a little scattered. However, it's an organized scattered plot that I enjoyed for the most part.

The beef of this story is these guys dealing with getting into their twilight years and watching them reconcile that fact. I think some people thought this movie was going to be really focused on the Manson Family and the murder of Sharon Tate... and its really not.

Is the stuff with Dalton and Boothe bad? Quite the contrary. These two aren't just really good actors, they're also super funny together. They're probably the highlight of the movie and why I think I enjoyed my time in the movie.

But the majority of the movie is just watching Dalton the set of a movie while Boothe is kind of just meandering around being a badass. Sure Sharon Tate is in the movie, but she doesn't really do anything.

Without getting into spoilers, the movie does touch on the Manson family and the events of August 8th, 1969.

Those scenes are fun. There's a little suspense that kept me interested. The Manson family is a fascinating part of 1960s and 70s history so its not surprising that people thought this was going to be Tarantino's take on those events the same way he's tackled stuff like World War 2 and slavery in the South.

But this isn't that movie. It's a fun character piece for DiCaprio and Pitt and those guys have a blast doing it. But you might be left wanting more if you came for the Manson and Sharon Tate story lines.

There's a really great scene at the end, but I worry that people might get caught up in how awesome that scene is and not really acknowledge the fact that this movie certainly did not need to be 2 hours and 40 minutes.

I suppose the other fun part about the film was the high level actors playing the big stars and icons of the time. There are tons of cameos and fun roles to go around whether they are big or small in the grand scheme of the movie.

The movie also has a lot of really great scenes where they are romanticizing the films of the time frame and inserting Rick Dalton into that pop culture zeitgeist. It's funny, it's nostalgic, its a fun little period piece.

But I'm not gonna kid anybody and say this is some kind of masterpiece film. It's been called "a love letter" to the time period and age of film but it just kind of feels like a Hollywood self congratulations at times saying, "Aren't we great?" and I gotta say, it's movies like this that give some credence to people who believe that the entertainment business in Hollywood is just up its own ass and really disconnected from reality.

But that's not really relevant to this movie honestly. There is a lot to love about this film.

It's funny, it's got great performances all around from DiCaprio, to Pacino, to Luke Perry's final performance, to even Maya Hawke (Robin from Stranger Things) in a very small role. It's a fun time. I think I just wish that Tarantino had had a little more fun with it honestly.

If you're going to create this "fairy tale tribute" set in a very specific period of time that doesn't really

have a firm sense of historical accuracy, why not double down on it?

Use the incredibly talented Margot Robbie a lot more than just a bunch of scenes where she's dancing to music or fulfilling Tarantino's weird foot fetish (it's weirdly prevalent in this film by the way). Actually use Sharon Tate in a more constructive way towards the plot.

You have Mike Moh playing Bruce Lee in a way that, while some people saw it as controversial, is a fun take on a person. Why not make him more integral to the plot instead of a cute little cameo where he gets in a fight with Brad Pitt?

Overall, it's a fine movie, it just could have been more and as a result, not really anything I'd spend money to go see again. Maybe if its on a streaming service in the future, I might check it out again. But at the end of the day, it's probably not Tarantino's best film.

I find it interesting that this movie made a lot of money. While its for sure an entertaining movie, I think the main reason that is the case is because Tarantino himself is a brand these days. His movies are more akin to Marvel movies rather than an artistic style in the sense that I think a lot of people saw this film because it was the "next Tarantino film". Not to say that he's not a director that people can enjoy for his work, but I feel as though he's become more of a zeitgeist figure and I think that's where my criticism comes of this movie. It's less a work of art like his previous films, and instead just an installment of the Tarantino canon. I'll give him credit, most directors don't reach that status, but it does not automatically make a film good.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fine movie. I enjoyed it. I'll leave any other interpretation up to you if you decide to go see it, but I think its made enough money, you could probably wait for a streaming service or rental at this point.

But those are my thoughts on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. What did you think of the film? Where does it rank in the Tarantino filmography? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as 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.

Thanks for reading!