Dreamcatcher

Something to note about Stephen King is that while I've really come to love a lot of his books and just the way he tells stories, I have started to notice that a lot of his work, especially his lesser known works, seem to repeat a lot of the same aspects and tropes he's used in the past. Sometimes it doesn't matter and can contribute to a larger universe. I find it really interesting when his stories interconnect and he makes reference to places like Derry, Maine from IT, or characters have psychic abilities that might be connected to the same Shining ability that Danny has in The Shining. 

So in that sense, there are some aspects of Dreamcatcher that I find interesting. If you're a fan of Stephen King's mythology and story telling, you might find some enjoyment in this film. But that only can get you so far and eventually you have to recognize how horrible this film is. 

Dreamcatcher follows the story of four friends Henry, Jonesy, Pete, and Beaver (played by Thomas

Jane, Damien Lewis, Timothy Olyphant, and Jason Lee respectively). Each one of them have psychic abilities and the four of them gather in a cabin in the woods every year to reminisce of the old times they used to have as kids.

This particular year though, they find themselves in the middle of an alien invasion as aliens that burrow inside a person and explode out their butt start to stalk them. The four friends must survive the onslaught of "shit weasels", the military quarantine led by a ruthless, ridiculous eye browed Morgan Freeman, and sort of using their psychic abilities to save their skin...

And that's about it. That's not a joke... this movie is about aliens that explode out of people's asses and Stephen King thought we'd take it seriously. The problem first and foremost is the fact that the premise is impossible to take seriously. It sounds more like a plot of a parody horror film or a B movie, not a high budget Stephen King novel directed by the guy who brought us The Empire Strikes Back.

The second biggest problem is that this movie is full of actors who I think have proven themselves to do a good job, or at least have done it since this movie but just give either horrible or just lackluster performances in this movie.

The two big names I can think of are from Morgan Freeman and Damien Lewis. Now to be fair to Freeman, he's not a very well written character from the get go.

At the beginning of the film, they set him up as this hardened military general whose dialogue probably wasn't updated from the book at all. He calls people "Bucko" and just has some of the worst lines that I'm sure Freeman had the ability to make work, but it doesn't really seem like he's invested in this film at all so it's kind of moot. He's a good example of a character that I'm sure might have worked in the book. But when adapted to film, the character probably is true to the description in the book but that makes him only come off as cartoon-y and silly.

And then there's Damien Lewis.

 I'm a little bit disappointed with Damien Lewis. I've been watching him in Homeland recently and he's really good. But I think there was definitely some development of his abilities between 2003 and 2011. His character Jonesy starts out as probably the most interesting of the four and remains that way despite being posessed by the alien, but for some reason this meant that Lewis needed to have some kind of split personality complex between his American character, and a British accent alien that took over his bodily functions. So while he might be the most interesting character and probably the best part of the movie, he's still very disappointing in the way he's written and his performance.

The other actors really struggle to keep me invested both in their performance and the way they're written. None of these characters have very interesting pasts or backgrounds and there's not really an internal struggle that gets resolved by the end of the movie.

The character of Henry for some reason thinks about killing himself at the beginning of the movie and it's only really mentioned one other time. The other motivations for the other characters are either very week or nonexistent, and therefore I don't really care when some of them get axed off.

If I didn't care about Jason Lee's character, and I don't care about Thomas Jane's character or Damien Lewis's character, why should I care when one of their friends die?

Are there interesting parts about the movie? Yes. There's a part of this movie centered on the fact that Damien Lewis's character stores all his memories in a "memory warehouse". There is some cerebral elements of the movie that are really interesting but I think that is attributed to King's imagination more than the execution of the movie. Like I said, the whole aspect of Stephen King's universe being utilized for a new setting and conflict is entertaining. The idea of four friends having psychic abilities is somewhat interesting and in better hands could have been really interesting. An alien invasion where the aliens attack you in a very intrusive and personal way I think would be difficult but could potentially be made into something interesting. But all the potential is lost when the movie just wants to be a poor slasher monster movie.

The movie does another Stephen King trope where they show flashbacks of these kids in a small town with bullies who are psychopaths instead of realistic bullies.

I'm not so worried that this just seems like a repeat of other Stephen King works like Stand By Me or IT, it's more that these younger characters are boring. Maybe they developed them more in the book, but for the movie they just come off as weak stereotypes of other stronger child groups like Stand By Me. There is a weak connection to their experiences as kids to the present day, especially with their mentally challenged friend Duditz (who as an adult is played by Donnie Wahlberg), but overall these scenes are way too long and could have been cut down. They could have also been extended to make a more interesting story, but without any kind of development or even base for the characters internal struggles in the present, they continue to follow a trend of just being boring.

I really wanted to give this movie a fair shake. I have seen some very critical reviews of the movie but I wanted to go in and see if there was something redeemable about it. Unfortunately, I was very underwhelmed and the movie became entertaining not because there were good parts, but because it was entertaining taking note of all the things it gets wrong.

I think Stephen King is getting a little bit of a revival these days because the good adaptations have built on the mythos that King has established. IT, 11/22/63, and Castle Rock (I think, I haven't watched it yet) seem to take the great parts of their lore and update it to today's standards, not keeping it locked in the past to stay true to King's books.

Furthermore, shows like Stranger Things harken back to the good parts of Stephen Kings work and leave out the bad parts like Dreamcatcher.

But I do have to give King some credit. He has the ability to just write and throw whatever he can at the wall. Writing a story about aliens that burrow out your butts wouldn't be a subject that any normal writer could handle, but King is the only one I can think of who I would trust to do something like that.

The movie is not great, but I still do have to applaud King for creative ideas... even if not all of them are classics.

But those are my thoughts on Dreamcatcher. 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 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!

Disenchantment (First 10 Episodes)

So I'll be upfront, I am not an avid watcher of The Simpsons or Futurama. I've casually watched episodes here and there when they're on TV but I just didn't have the connection with those shows as other people clearly have. However, I do know and respect the name Matt Groening, so when it was announced that he was coming out with a new animated show on Netflix, I was ready to be floored. I think a lot of people were and I think that's Disenchantment's first mistake. I think the hype for the show was too high and people came in with expectations that were too high to actually meet. There are a lot of issues with Disenchantment that I will get into, but that's the first one by far.

Disenchantment takes place in a medieval fantasy world, mostly in the kingdom of Dreamland. It centers on three characters, Princess Tiabeenie or Bean (voiced by Abbi Jacobson), an oblivious elf by the obvious name of Elfo (voiced by Nat Faxon), and a devious spirit named Luci who has committed to be Bean's personal demon (voiced by Eric Andre).

The three of them come together to get into misguided adventures as Bean is an alcoholic misfit who doesn't want to conform to the expectations of being a princess, put on her by her father, King Zog (voiced by John DiMaggio). King Zog wants to extract the magical elf blood from Elfo to create the Elixir of Life and that is a continuing plot throughout the first ten episodes.

I should mention that Netflix only released the first ten episodes of the twenty that were ordered. I'm not sure if that means that the first ten episodes are season 1 and the next ten are season 2, who knows. Doesn't really matter.

The thing I want to figure out is what exactly makes this show so lackluster for me. As I mentioned before, I'm not an avid watcher of the Simpsons or Futurama. I like to thing I got the understanding for those shows and knew what made them funny but one possibility is that I just didn't understand that humor and I'm just missing what makes this show funny. What I think is more likely is that I did watch enough and I'm just comparing this show (perhaps unfairly) to The Simpsons and Futurama setting the expectations too high.

I won't say there are no funny bits in Disenchantment, but I thought about it quite a bit a couple hours after I finished the last episode and the main take away from my viewing experience is, I really have no idea what the whole show is really about. I really couldn't remember a huge take away I'm supposed to take from those 10 episodes.

Bean is neither particularly funny or memorable, she's just a drunk and is a screw up, constantly achieving only disapproval from her father who is an obnoxious screw up who's only interested in keeping power. I can really only remember one or two lines or moments from both of these characters that got a chuckle out of me. And their family dynamic is pretty lackluster as well. They go a little too hard on the fact that Bean doesn't care about what her father thinks so it doesn't even really make sense when they try to create some semblance of touching moments between them.

The show also really doesn't know how to create a meaningful serious moments. One of the few things I did retain from the season was the last few episodes where they delve a little bit into the tragedy these two are dealing with. But neither one of them are serious enough for me to really appreciate their tragedy and how it relates to their relationship. On top of that, I don't care enough about either one of them to appreciate how the tragedy affected individually, so a lot of it is lost, especially when they throw in a joke before it gets too serious.

And then you have Elfo and Luci. And I will give the show some credit, these two are probably the best part of the show. Elfo is an elf who leaves his world to come to the human world and he's so uneducated about what reality is like that there were a couple of moments where his stupidity was really funny.

And then you've got Luci who is a vaguely powerful demon who's sole purpose is to be the devil on Bean's shoulder telling her to do the wrong thing. He's almost always apathetic to what's going on and always acts in his own self interest that there are some parts where his character can be kind of funny.

However, both characters have flaws that prevent them from being really interesting and really funny.

In the case of Luci, his character design is so simple that there's not a whole lot of physical humor to come out of him. Almost all of the humor comes from Eric Andre. Andre is a funny guy, but I don't think he's given a strong enough script to really make Luci that interesting or extremely funny. On another note, Luci is so apathetic at times that he becomes more of a heel on the plot. While his apathy is funny at times, just as often its just annoying. Moreover, his character isn't always consistent because he's sometimes forced to disregard that apathy, especially the more a "friendship" develops between the three.

And then there's Elfo. Now I think Elfo's problem is more that he's not the main character. He plays second fiddle to Bean who is not nearly as interesting or funny. Elfo grew up in Elf land and is essentially the ignorant fish out of water. In the first episode he comes across a battle and inadvertently causes a lot of death and avoids his own demise out of sure luck and coincidence. This was a funny scene.

But as the show goes on, Elfo just feels like an out of place character and is almost too stupid for the plot.

But most importantly, the show has a very inconsistent tone on whether or not these characters are really searching for anything. Sometimes they seem very content with just drinking and hanging out. And if every adventure was them just falling into it or them reluctantly going into it, I would be fine with that. But then they throw in episodes where it seems like they're pointing to an underlying desire that they never really seem to have.

All three of the main characters (and the supporting cast) all feel like unique characters you might find around the town of Springfield, but they all lack a sense of centrality or underlying conflict.

The other aspect that felt odd about this show was that there were only 10 episodes. And maybe this is a personal preconceived notion but when a show only has 10 episodes, I feel like each episode needs to feel important. I liken those really good ten episodes animated series to ones like Rick and Morty or Bojack Horseman. Each episode feels special, and each episode has something to say.

Disenchantment felt like each episode was just another episodic outing. The stakes never feel really high and the characters feel like they return to status quo by the end of the episode. Which would be feel more natural if this was a season of 24 episodes, but when its only 10 episodes, it feels like it was intending to say more than it actually did.

The truth is, I can't honestly remember much of anything about the past ten episodes I watched. The episodes felt so inconsequential for the most part and overall the show just didn't have the same impact I've come to expect from other animated shows I've been watching recently, especially from Netflix.

Comparing this show to something like Bojack Horseman is impossible because there just seems to be a lot more work put into the writing of an episode of Bojack Horseman than Disenchantment.

To be fair, Bojack is trying to achieve a different goal, but the point still stands that whether its a drama with comedy sprinkled in like Bojack, or an episodic Simpsons-lite misadventure of the week like Disenchantment, Bojack accomplished its goal and then some with how refined the humor can be at times. Disenchantment misses the mark and stumbles when it tries to add drama to something that it doesn't feel compatible with.

Is Disenchantment the worst show out there? No, but it's not a high bar when you say something is not the worst thing I've ever seen. It has its moments where I was entertained. It pulled out some funny voice actors from time to time and if you're a bigger fan of animation, you'll probably recognize and appreciate the voice acting more than I did. One of the only voices I really recognized was Matt Berry from the IT Crowd and he and his Noel Fieldings were criminally underutilized.

I think the thing that bummed me out the most was that I wanted Disenchantment to be good. I think a lot of the disappointment it garnered from Matt Groening fans was that it wasn't an instant classic like The Simpsons or Futurama. For Netflix viewers like me, the disappointment might have been that it wasn't Bojack Horseman. But I think the biggest disappointment was that I just wasn't that entertained by it and it didn't leave much of an impact. I don't need it to be a drama disguised as an animated comedy like Bojack, I just wanted some entertainment and I can't say that happened with Disenchantment. Ultimately the show was at best okay, and at worst boring.

But that's my opinions only. What did you think? Did you like Disenchantment? Do you think it reached the potential of The Simpsons or Futurama? Do you think its been fairly critiqued? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as 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.

Thanks for reading.

Game Night

So in another chapter in my recent redbox escapades, I decided it would be a good idea to delve into a comedy that came out this year instead of the drama movies I've been renting recently. Game Night was on the top of that list and was a film that I have been interested in seeing since the first time I saw the trailer. I have friends that I like to go and do game nights with so the premise was familiar and fun for me. On top of that, I heard pretty good things about the movie when it came out so I thought I'd check it out for myself.

Game Night follows the story of Max and Annie (played by Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams). They are a married couple that loves playing board games with their friends and they get very competitive. In this particular episode of their lives, Max's brother Brooks (played by Kyle Chandler) is in town. Brooks invites Max, Annie, and the rest of their game night friends to his expensive house and poses to them the most immersive game night of their lives. It involves someone being kidnapped and the other players need to investigate the disappearance and figure out who took them. But when Brooks is actually taken by criminals, the movie plays with the audience making them wonder what is the game and what isn't.

At least it tries to.

Listen, the movie isn't perfect. But it is a lot of fun.

The movie mainly follows Max and Annie as they, and everyone else, believes that it's a game, and then realize that it's not, and they're just regular people caught up in criminal activity with gun play, car chases, and other twists and turns.

The other friends have their own little side stories which I'll talk about, but it's mainly about Max and Annie, especially how they're thinking about having a kid and struggling to do so.

There are a lot of really funny moments but then there are some moments that really aren't that funny so it's a little bit of a mixed bag at times. I had a lot of moments where I was laughing really hard, and other moments where I was rolling my eyes and telling the movie to keep it moving. There are some jokes that really stick and some that don't as much. There are times where this movie feels like a generic R-Rated comedy and then there are times where it doesn't and it feels pretty unique. Overall, it's probably one of the better made generic R-Rated comedies, but it still feels pretty generic at times.

A great example is Jesse Plemmon's (or Budget Matt Damon) character.

Now don't get me wrong, I really like Jesse Plemmons. I've pretty much liked every movie or TV show he's appeared in. I think he's a really good actor. But this role really didn't work for him. His whole gag is that he's this humorless dude who wants to be apart of their game night but they think he's weird (which he is). But the thing is, this could have been a one off gag, but they just keep it going with him and they bank A LOT on this character. A lot more than I expected when I first saw him. It's one of the examples of how this movie didn't stick its landings all the time. Oddly enough after saying that he's budget Matt Damon, I think his character would have been a lot funnier had it been Matt Damon... I don't know, maybe not...

Another example is in the other friends. The movie is mainly about Max and Annie, but every once in a while the movie takes a detour to follow the friends they do these game nights with. There are moments of their side stories that are funny but for the most part they really go no where. Lamorne Morris plays a guy who figures out his wife slept with a celebrity and he spends the entire evening wondering who this celebrity is. And it really fizzles out in the end.

Billy Magnusson plays their really stupid friend who brings a woman from work who is a lot smarter than him. In both situations where are a couple of moments or jokes that land but for the most part I was just hoping they'd get back to Bateman and McAdams because they really hold the movie down performance-wise.

These two as well as Kyle Chandler really hold the movie down well. I think their relationship is fun and they have some witty banter throughout the film that I thought was pretty funny.

I don't know if I totally buy them being married. Maybe it's the age difference as Bateman is ten years older than McAdams. But hey at least, it's not as weird as Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway from Get Smart. It works fine in a little bit better than mediocre generic Rated R comedy, but for some reason I feel like their dynamic would have worked better if they had been siblings instead of a couple.

While some of the B storylines aren't as strong, I do think this movie has a pretty solid cast. You've got Bateman, McAdams, Morris, Magnusson, Chandler, Plemmons, but then you have a couple of cameos that I won't spoil, but it was a lot of fun seeing some of these cameos.

The other thing that puts this movie over the line of generic is the cinematography surprisingly enough. I've said ti before that I don't really have much experience with cinematography and I can't really say what's good and what's not, but I've watched enough movies to know when something is unique when I see it. There were some pretty good shots throughout the film and they were a lot better than some generic comedy. Does it make it a great film? No, but it does make it better than okay.

I had a lot of fun with Game Night. I laughed pretty hard at some funny moments, rolled my eyes at some not as funny moments, but overall it was a good time. I think it was worth a rental, but more likely I'd wait until its on some kind of streaming service and just watch it for free. For sure check it out, but you don't really need to spend a lot of money to watch it.

But what did you think? Did you like Game Night? Do you have a Game Night with your friends? What games do you usually play? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts and requests for future movies I should review on Twitter @MovieSymposium. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Chappaquiddick

This movie is problematic in my opinion. On one hand it is an interesting story about American political dynasties that the Kennedys definitely were. I'll talk more about it in the body of this review, but it is an interesting story that asks the questions of if the ends justify the means, what does legacy mean, and where does truth lie in a political world? All very good questions that I will address in the review. But on the other hand, this movie becomes problematic when you consider that while it's almost been 10 years since Ted Kennedy passed away, he still has family that is alive and the question of respect for those involved is still relevant. But furthermore, the Kennedy family isn't a huge factor of American politics the way it used to be. If this movie was trying to portray a message about the political dynasty dynamic of the Kennedy family, it kind of loses its sting as a lot of people (especially younger people) barely recognize the name Ted Kennedy or know what happened at Chappaquiddick. So this movie had to have had some problematic production and timing on when to release the film during a time that was relevant and respectful at the same time. This movie probably would have been more powerful in the 90s or early 2000s when more people remembered the situation, but would that have respected the rights of those involved? Again, problematic.

I'm not going to make this review about the political edge of this movie and I can't speak to the accuracy of the film either. While I'm probably more aware of the Chappaquiddick situation then most people my age, I can't speak to what is accurate and I'm not about to go down a road of examining the political "sides" of this movie. I've noticed that a lot of conservative voices love this film and a lot of liberal voices don't like it. I don't want delve into those reasons too much in this review. I'm going to treat this movie almost as though it is not based on true events as best as I can. And in reality, it's not as hard as this disclaimer is making it out to be.

Chappaquiddick takes place in 1969 just as the United States is about to put a man on the moon. The Kennedy family is still reeling from the decade of assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy in '63 and '68 respectively as well as the recent tragic sudden death of Joe Jr in a plane crash. But at the same time it's seeing the rise of Ted Kennedy (played by Jason Clarke). Ted is idealistic and primed for a bright future in politics utilizing the Kennedy name. While he lives in the shadow of great men like Robert and John, there is a sense in the movie that he could be a great man and could one day be President.

Before I go on, I need to say that Jason Clarke was a perfect choice for this role and a combination of his acting and the writing (as well as some real life family dynamics), makes the character of Ted Kennedy fascinating for this particular story. While JFK and RFK are not in the film, they hold a presence over Ted and he has a constant struggle to live up to the legacy that is the Kennedy name as the only living Kennedy son of Joseph (played by Bruce Dern). This dynamic is brilliant and carries through the entire movie, I'll talk about it more in a little bit.

During a party in Chappaquiddick, on what seems like the eve of Ted's political career about to sky rocket towards him running for President, Ted gets into a car accident with a secretary named Mary Jo Kopechne (played by Kate Mara) who Ted was trying to bring onto his campaign team.

The accident ends Ted surviving but Mary Jo drowning in the car. This is the motivating event as the rest of the film is the aftermath, cover up, and all the political intrigue in between of this accident and the impact it has on the political career of Ted Kennedy, all in a span of about a week.

The fascinating thing about the film is how it builds. The accident happens and there is the initial reactions. There is the initial shock you share with Ted as well as his friends and colleagues (played by Ed Helms and Jim Gaffigan). But then it escalates. Ted and his team try to deal with it in a way that is truthful but also saves face. Then there's a larger group of people who have been working to save the Kennedy public image for years who come in to not only hide the truth, but make it work in the favor of Ted in the long run.

It all works to paint a picture (a probably very accurate picture) of how expansive the Kennedy political dynasty was. I could really liken the way they're portrayed in this film similar to the mob like in The Godfather. The interesting part of the story, and the real heart of it is Ted in the center of it all. While he has this shady organization around him, he's not really a bad guy. He wants to do the right thing and at multiple points in the movie he tries. However, he still finds himself torn between what is right and preserving the legacy of his family as well as his political future. It's almost a little comical how poorly they portray Joseph Kennedy, but while he's the Don Corleone of the family, Ted is no Michael, at least in a lot of parts of the film. Ted rides a line through the entire film between Michael Corleone, to Kay Corleone, to having a couple of moments of straight up Fredo Corleone throughout this film and they address it pretty bluntly. It's that line he rides that brings the most intrigue to the film and makes the story really compelling.

And I think that's the thing that makes this movie problematic for me. On face value, if I was an alien who came to earth not knowing anything about United States history, I'd more than likely see this film and see it as a fascinating story about a man trying to be a good person and live up to the legacy of his family but realizing that those two things don't always work together. That would be fine. It's almost Shakespearean.

And maybe that was the point of this story, maybe this wasn't supposed to be commenting on current events or be a prop for either political side, but I get the feeling that regardless of the filmmakers intention, this film has and will be used for political purposes to bash the Kennedy family and point towards different political points. And on the other side, opponents to the film won't be able to see Shakespearean quality of story telling in the film because they'll see it as an attack on political ideals.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe this movie hasn't had the intense reactions I think it has, but even though there are a lot of young people that the historical basis of the film won't resonate with, this film still ruffled some feathers with some people.

The good thing is, it makes it easier to point out when the movie is just telling an intriguing story, and when it's trying to comment on our current political system.

There are a lot of moments where the movie is pointing out current tensions and problems in the political environment and those moments come off as cheesy and odd. There's a point where one of the other secretaries (played by Olivia Thirlby) makes an ends justify the means argument and how the Kennedy name is good for America. There's cheesy lines that criticize the choices he makes as well and those were the low points.

But more often than not, there were some honest moments of character development and questions of morality that really shined in this movie. I won't give away what happens in case you don't want to know, but the scene in the picture above where Ed Helms and Jason Clarke are talking near the end of the film is a solid moment with themes of morality and real character interaction that I loved.

So the truth is you get a little bit of both.

Overall, I would really recommend Chappaquiddick, I would just put in the disclaimer that you shouldn't read too much into it. I think my caution on this movie isn't so much about the movie itself but the blanks that partisan people let it fill. See this as a movie and nothing else, not a biopic, not "Based on a True Story", just a movie. Don't read too much into the accuracy or the commentary it has on our current political climate because you're not gonna get any real answers.

Instead see this as a cautionary tale and a morality lesson about legacy. Look at the themes of movie instead as almost an alternate version of the telling of The Godfather and I think you'll really enjoy the film.

You'll get some great acting from Jason Clarke, Kate Mara, Ed Helms, Jim Gaffigan, Clancy Brown, and Bruce Dern. While it's not exactly the fastest moving movie of all time, it does handle a pretty small incident in a really intriguing way and building the tension and political intrigue a lot.

But those are my thoughts on Chappaquiddick. 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!

Red Sparrow

Red Sparrow is a great example of how my movie watching habits have changed over the past few years. Back in the day when I was in college and not sporting a full time job, I would have gone to see Red Sparrow in the theaters because the trailer looked really good. I probably would have made it a point to go out and see the movie probably on day one or at least the weekend it came out. Instead I let it pass and got it on Redbox and now I'm here reminiscing on a time where I had a lot more free time to go to the movie theater more often... that was a good time....

Red Sparrow follows the story of Dominika Egorova (played by Jennifer Lawrence. She is a famous ballerina until a career ending accident. She needs to take care of her ailing mother but can not longer do that due to her injury. It is at that time when she is approached by her uncle, a ranking member in the Russian intelligence service (played by Matthias Schoenaerts) and he gives her the opportunity to take care of her mother by joining the Russian intelligence services and becoming a Red Sparrow, an agent who utilizes sex and seduction to gather information on foreign targets.

Dominika attends a school for Red Sparrows and learns the trade in a brutal and raw fashion. Something to note is that this movie is pretty graphic and rate R for a reason. I don't think it ever becomes too gratuitous personally, but you might. It's a spy thriller based around agents that use seduction, be prepared for a lot of violence, some torture, and some sex/nudity.

 On the other side of things, you have Nate Nash (played by Joel Edgerton), a CIA officer running informants in Moscow. He is run out of Russia when his informant is almost revealed and the Russia intelligence services are looking to find out who that mole is the entire movie.

Nash and Dominika's path's cross when she is assigned to use her skills to seduce him and figure out who the mole is. The two develop an uneasy relationship and the movie's intention at least is to make you question who Dominika's loyalties actually lie.

Now before I talk about the things that I like about this movie, I do have to talk about a huge glaring issue I had with this film and that is this question of where her loyalties lie because it's never really a huge mystery. I think there is inklings that it could be in question but it's pretty obvious. Now I don't think that breaks the movie, I still thoroughly enjoyed this film and partly because it didn't match what I was expecting it to be, and therefore unpredictable. But by being unpredictable based on the trailer, the movie became pretty predictable. It's a weird predictability cycle. The other issue comes when the movie becomes a little muddled in what its trying to accomplish.

The movie has a lot of side plots that don't add a whole lot and again, it kind of builds into this illusion they tried to set up where you don't really know what Dominika is going to, but it does get a little washed out in what could be a stellar spy thriller.

The unfortunate part is that the plot of this movie can be deduced from the trailer. But I will say it wasn't the ending I expected it to be. I thought they were going to pull an Ex Machina and put a lot of the emphasis on how in the end it's really the game she's playing with everyone else while they think they're using her to play their games. I thought that instead of there being a definite side that Dominika is on in the end, she would come out doing what's best for herself and tossing aside perceived relationships in order for her to come out with the best outcome for her in the end. It wasn't really like that.

That being said, while it doesn't have the best conclusion I think it could have, I still really, REALLY liked this movie.

This movie just highlights what people already know, that Jennifer Lawrence is a force of nature when it comes to acting and she's only getting better the farther into her career she goes. While her Russian accent is occasionally spotty, Red Sparrow gives us a look into a woman trying to come out from under a system that utilizes and abuses her and her body for their own personal gain. Contrary to some beliefs that this is just the Black Widow origin story we've been looking for, Lawrence is not some martial arts master in the movie, she gets her ass beat a couple times. But she's able to use her wits and manipulative abilities to get what she wants and beat others psychologically. She gives a really good performance in a role that is raw.

And I really liked Joel Edgerton in this movie. Furthermore, I liked Lawrence and Edgerton in this movie. I think there could have been some more time to develop their relationship for a bigger payoff in the end but I do think the two of them work really well as individuals working in a profession that requires deception and manipulation.

There are some other good performances from Jeremy Irons, Charlotte Rampling, and some other actors you might recognize from shows like Game of Thrones, House of Cards, and others, but the focus is mostly on Lawrence and Edgerton and they had me engaged the entire time.

And I think that's the most important thing with a movie like this. Given some time, I do recognize that this movie is not perfect or going to be competitive for any kind of awards later this year, but I was engrossed in the film from start to finish and any issues that I thought of after the fact didn't really affect me during my viewing.

Personally, I actually kind of like movies like this. No movie is going to be perfect and anybody can find the faults in a film if they're looking for it. The whole point of this blog is to point out those flaws and decide if the movie is good or not. But sometimes I forget to look at the bottom line question: was I entertained by this movie and would I recommend it to other movie goers? In the case of Red Sparrow, the answer is unequivocally yes. I think the performances, director direction, and execution of the story does override the writing and messy plot. I think it's a solid spy thriller and worth at the very least checking out on Redbox.

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

Thank you for reading!

Get Smart

I think I remember this movie being a bigger deal than it actually was. Back in 2008, I guess I thought that this movie was hilarious and would only get better with time. That was well before I became so cynical and probably over-analyze every work of art I come across when it comes to movies. That being said, this movie is actually pretty cringy and did not have the legs I thought it would have.

No, I haven't seen a single episode of the old TV show Get Smart and I have no idea if the movie is at all true to the source material or even provides a good homage to the TV. Again, this was 2008 right at the beginning of studios believing that if something exists, it obviously needs to be remade for the current day. And I think this show might have been more popular than I'm probably giving it credit for but I can't say I remember a whole lot of people who were overly pumped back in 2008 for this movie to be remaking their favorite TV show.

Get Smart follows the story of Max Smart (played by Steve Carell). He's an analyst for a secret spy organization called Control. Controls mission is to combat the evil forces of a terrorist organization called Chaos. Max is the typical loser that Steve Carell was playing back in the early 2000s where he's socially awkward and clumsy. Also he used to be fat... that's a point they really want to drive home throughout the entire movie. Instead of having Steve Carell in a fat suit throughout the entire movie which would have been really funny, they show him a couple times and then keep reminding us that he was fat.

 Remember, this was the 2000's and studios really wanted Steve Carell to be the next Will Ferrell with comedy up until 2010(ish) where he started doing more serious work and got really good at it.

But Max has the drive to become an agent and even though he may not be as smooth as his idol Agent 23 (played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson), he's still very intelligent and is very capable. Of course he struggles to make that goal and is teased by other agents (played by David Koechner and Terry Crews).

Well one day, Control is attacked and the identities of the other agents are exposed so it becomes impossible to send the typical agents out. So the Chief of Control (played by Alan Arkin) sends Max out with one of the top agents, Agent 99 (played by Anne Hathaway) to stop Chaos from carrying out a terrorist plot.

The entire movie is a buddy cop movie between socially awkward Steve Carell and overly sexualized and smooth Anne Hathaway that awkwardly buds into a romance, accompanied by spy action and comedic tones.

The truth is, this movie is pretty rough and has not aged well. The weird thing is that this movie has been done a billion times over before and has been done since a lot better in fact.

The Melissa McCarthy movie Spy does this plot A LOT better so if you're not really looking for a long explanation and analysis of this movie, the TL;DR of this all is that you should choose Spy over this movie because Spy did it better. I wrote my review of Spy back in 2016 and it has been a while since I've seen that movie so maybe that review doesn't totally match up with what I'm saying about it now but in 2018, I can say that Spy is a better movie than Get Smart.

But why doesn't Get Smart work?

I think the biggest thing is that while this Steve Carell character, that we've seen multiple times before and since, was maybe funny back in 2008 but isn't today. This is the same awkward Evan Baxter character from Bruce Almighty that works well as a side kick or supporting character but not as the main one. The point is that he's awkward but ultimately a kind hearted person.

The unfortunate result is that this is a watered down version of Michael Scott from The Office (remember, this was prime in the 2000s) but unless you have that foundation that the Office built, that character can be seen as a moron and often times an asshole.

The other important misstep from the get go is the awkward chemistry between Anne Hathaway and Steve Carell. I remember being weirded out 10 years ago about 45 year old Carell having a romantic relationship with 25 year old Anne Hathaway and 10 years ago that relationship is still really weird. And that's not to say Carell can't have a romantic interest. In a movie like Crazy, Stupid, Love or The 40 Year Old Virgin, the relationships Carell builds are A) not with women 20 years his junior, and B) are built on mutual trust and interests. Hathaway spends half the movie just being annoyed with Max. And I would understand if they had built up the mutual trust and had these two just be co workers, but they really shift the character of Agent 99 rather than creating a relationship based off their separate identities like movie relationships should be. They find a weird commonality on how he used to be fat and she had a different, still beautiful face.

And again, boy do they sexualize Anne Hathaway in this movie.

The weird thing is that there are a lot of aspects of this movie that could have made it funnier. It's got Alan Arkin, it's got The Rock, it's got Terry Crews, it's got that fat dude from Borat. I should be able to talk more about what those guys bring to the story but the truth is, its not a whole lot.

They REALLY double down on that weird relationship between Carell and Hathaway and I know that's all I've been talking about the entire movie but that's really all they focus on.

For example, since the agents are at risk of being exposed, they have to stay at the office and do analyst work. There's a lot they could have done there. They could have used Terry Crews, David Koechner, and The Rock more for comedic works that I know they can do. Instead they have a weird dance scene that stops the movie in its tracks so Steve Carell can dance with a fat chick...

One of the comments I made in the Spy review is that that movie was basically rated R Get Smart. This movie kind of wants to play it both ways where its campy and silly enough that people could show their kids this movie and they would enjoy themselves, but its also trying to capitalize on the audience that enjoyed movies like Anchorman. They even have some of the same cast in Carell and David Koechner to get that same feel. The result is a really odd comedy that doesn't really work and doesn't have the energy you get from Anchorman or the movies this one is trying to recreate.

It really is a testament on how big names, especially in comedy, don't always make a movie good. Very rarely do you get an actor who, no matter the quality of the script can always give a good performance or make someone laugh. This isn't necessarily a dig on Steve Carell as I still think he's a funny guy, it just shows how he, like a lot of actors, need a good script in order to fully unlock their potential and Get Smart did not do that.

And I think the fact that Spy worked and this movie didn't is evidence that just because you adapt something, doesn't mean its going to be good or meaningful. Spy wasn't based on any preexisting property, it was just Melissa McCarthy doing something in order to make us laugh. And while Spy is no master piece, Get Smart really isn't that good because it depended too much on remaking something while not putting enough effort into making a good movie.

This movie is on Netflix so at least you're not paying anything extra if you want to see it, but there are better movies out there. You can skip this one.

But what do you think? What do you think of Get Smart? How does it hold up? Hasn't the actors involved really grown since this movie? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts and requests for other movies I should review on Twitter @MovieSymposium. You can also follow me and get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks, I'll see you next time!

A Wrinkle in Time

So I never read A Wrinkle In Time, but the minute I saw the trailer, I was pretty interested. I know A Wrinkle in Time more by reputation and even though everything is being turned into a movie, I have no problem with that. For every bad The Hobbit, we get a Lord of the Rings and I know there will be bad adaptations but I'm always open for writers and directors to try and put great works of art into movie form... I just don't really know if this was the best way to do it.

A Wrinkle in Time follows the story of Meg (played by Storm Reid). She is a young girl who for the past four years has been working through the disappearance of her father (played by Chris Pine). She acts out, she's getting bullied, Meg is not having a good time at school. She has a loving mother (played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who side note was really under utilized for this film) and a gifted younger brother by the name of Charles Wallace (played by Deric McCabe).

And something I will say to start off with is that the set up for this movie both has some really good things and some kind of boring things. It's a good set up of most of the characters, especially Meg. It creates the conflict that she needs to overcome, being bullied and dealing with the loss of her father. And it introduces the Misses (played by Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, and Oprah Winfery.

But at the same time, the movie does a pretty mediocre job at contextualizing these kids and making them feel realistic. Now part of that is inherent in the plot. Charles Wallace is a weird kid, that's just how he's written. But then they introduce another kid by the name of Calvin (played by Levi Miller) and not only is he thrown into the plot very randomly, he never really feels like a real kid to me. Storm Reid gives a really good performance as Meg and I'm looking forward to seeing her work in the future, but whether its the kids other kids bullying her for essentially having a dead parent, or the adults (teachers, etc) who are telling her to basically get over that dead parent, it just feels weird. I know bullying exists and kids can be cruel, but do kids really make fun of other kids because their parents are dead? That seemed overly cruel just for the sake of being hyperbolic.

And then we're introduced to the Misses, and they enter the other dimensions and things get kind of trippy and odd. However, I never feel like the worlds they go into are ever properly explained or explored to the way they really could be. I'm still not totally sure what Oprah Winfrey is and if they're really powerful beings why they depend so much on the actions of a little girl.

And Meg, while she has some moments of wonderment or confusion, never really gets to the level of confusion or wonderment that I in the audience am at so it's hard to connect with where I'm supposed to be through the main character.

But regardless, the Misses set up the plot. They know that Meg's father traveled through space to get to the other dimensions and he's in trouble. They take Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin with them to find him and save him from a dark power called The It.

Pretty straight forward plot. There's a goal, the characters need to band together to achieve that goal.

What follows is a really cerebral road trip movie through a much of really unexplained but nonetheless fantastical worlds, and trippy journeying. All towards the plot goal of finding the father, but it also is a personal journey for Meg to discover her self worth and love who she is.

And before I say anything else, I shouldn't need to put this disclaimer, but that is a good thing! My critique of this movie is not about the message of loving ones self and being a good person towards others. It's more the methods by which they navigate the plot and that message.

From what I can ascertain from what I've heard about the book and the story displayed through this movie is that that abstract and cerebral style is exactly the point. This is a really out of the box story with abstract ideas. There is nothing wrong with that. I think we should be encouraging different narrative styles. But the one thing I think Ava Duvernay could have done better with this movie is capture that same cerebralness but ground the movie a little more for the audience to grasp it easier. That's what happens with adaptation, it needs to be interpreted differently to fit a visual medium so it can be digested easier and provide a better experience.

And the truth is nobody is going to be truly happy with adaptation. Whatever you change is going to make the purists of the book angry and whatever you keep the same isn't going to 100% tangible for people who haven't read the book. But that shouldn't be the purpose of the movie, to please the fans or the new comers, it should be to just make a good film.

Quick run down of the things I liked about the film. Like I said, I liked Storm Reid in this role. I think she's a good actress. I like Chris Pine, especially moments where he interacts with Storm Reid and they're talking about the metaphysics of the whole thing. While it's confusing as hell, it's kind of fun, though never really mentioned again. I think while the Misses were confusing in their purpose, it seems like Winfrey, Kaling and Witherspoon had fun with the roles. The movie is visually intriguing.

Quick run down of things I didn't really like. The little kid was annoying. The kid played by Levi Miller was kind of weird. Michael Pena was under utilized in this movie. Zach Galifinakis...

Is A Wrinkle in Time a bad movie? No. I think there are things that some people will be able to pull from it. It does have a good message for young kids about accepting who you are and being the good you see in the world. There's a lot of diversity in it providing an example for women and people of color, all good things. But I also don't think it's some kind of hidden master piece that the patriarchy or the cynics are trying to hide with poor reviews and criticism.

I went into this movie knowing that it wasn't well received by critics or by the box office and I went in with low expectations. I won't say the result was better than I expected, I just don't think the movie was horrible but I also don't think it was that great. It was fine.

Overall, I think A Wrinkle in Time is a great looking movie that tried to promote a good message but gets pulled back in quality due to a pretty aimless plot and poorly developed relationships that get overshadowed by the spectacle that is the visuals and cerebral nature of the movie.

But what did you think. I tried to limit as much reference to the book as I could in this review because I haven't read it but how does it compare to the movie? Is it a good adaptation? Is the book as much of a trip as the movie? What do you think worked and what could have been done differently? 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, see you next time!