Da 5 Bloods

So I don't usually do reviews for documentaries, at least not yet. But I felt it was relevant (and really wanted to note) that I watched the 10 part docuseries by Ken Burns on the Vietnam War prior to watching this movie. I highly recommend that movie in order to get a really in depth look into the Vietnam War, and you'll also understand some of the historical references they make in this film.

Da 5 Bloods follows the story of a group of Vietnam veterans returning to Vietnam in the present day to search for the remains of their fallen squad leader (played by Chadwick Boseman).

But the group is also going to recover a trove of gold they had buried during their time there.

The group is made up of four older black men. There's Otis, the medic (played by Clarke Peters), Paul, a harsh conservative man with pretty bad PTSD (played by Delroy Lindo), and Eddie and Melvin (played by Norm Lewis and Isiah Witlock Jr respectively) honestly they're a little harder to describe. Along with them is also Paul's son David (played by Jonathan Majors) who has a troubled relationship with his father.

Along the way they meet a slew of characters including a woman who Otis fathered a child with back during Vietnam (played by Le Y Lan), the fixer they are looking to move the gold through (played by Jean Russo), as well as a group of young people in Vietnam removing mines from the jungle.

The story is driven by the relationship between the core cast and them not only processing what happened to them in Vietnam in relation with the treatment of people of color not only in and during Vietnam, but in America and since Vietnam. Most notably, Delroy Lindo delivers a dynamite performance as an unreliably intense member of the group. He had the closest relationship with their squad leader and wants his remains to be found, but there's also an aspect throughout the group of "gold sickness" that... sort of works...

The first thing to know about this movie is that it follows the same stylistic choices you might see in other Spike Lee films.In fact some of the same effects and camera manipulation that was used in BlackkkKlansman is used in Da 5 Bloods. But there's other things worth mentioning that are kind of interesting. The movie jumps back and forth (honestly kind of infrequently) between the present and the time the men had in Vietnam. But instead of deaging the men or recasting them as younger people, you instead see a bunch of old guys running around the jungle with Chadwick Boseman. Or late in the film there's a scene where Delroy Lindo talks straight to camera in a really awesome soliloquy.

Overall the stylistic choices a bit of a mixed bag. The sound track contributes, creating this seemingly epic backdrop for a really interesting story. At the same time, some of the stylistic choices lead to gaps in the story. There's actually a part where one of the characters is captured off screen after having a really touching moment and I had to rewind to make sure I didn't miss anything. I didn't, it was just a little disjointed at times and I'm not sure if all of it was stylistic.

Which is odd because the movie is probably about a half hour too long. Prior to watching it, I heard someone say pretty succinctly that Da 5 Bloods felt like Netflix gave Spike Lee a blank check to make a movie and Lee wrote and shot everything off his first draft. And I would agree with that.

The whole story seems overly fleshed out in some areas like the character of Paul and his relationship with David, or the group's remembrance of their fallen squad leader, which was really good, while also feeling too thin on other areas like Eddie and Melvin's characters, or the random deminers they find, or the dynamics of Jean Russo's organization, or the build up of the "gold sickness".

At a certain point in the movie, somebody warns Otis that gold makes people go crazy, and it puts it in the mind of the audience that these guys are going to get greedy over the gold, but it doesn't really build very well. Yeah they have disagreements about people's shares, but the "money is the root of all evil" discussion happens very randomly and kind of out of no where. Maybe I was too used to the reasonableness I saw in Longshot earlier yesterday, but the "gold sickness" felt very unnecessary, especially when they inject other forces to create barriers for these guys to get home with no problem.

The movie is also kind of hamstringed by Spike Lee throwing in unorganic history lesson tidbits seemingly out of nowhere. For a lot of the movie the dialogue is really organic and while some of the main characters aren't as fleshed out as others, the chemistry between these guys is really good. Then all of a sudden a character out of nowhere will add a piece of black history really out of nowhere accompanied by historical pictures and facts thrown on screen. Maybe it's because I just watched the Ken Burns documentary and knew a lot of the facts they throw up on screen, but it feels very exposition-y for being facts that don't fully contribute to the story of these guys directly. I remember Lee doing that in BlackkKlansman but I also remember it feeling a lot more organic, while this felt disjointed with what is a really unique and intriguing story.

I've said it a couple of times, the performances in this movie are really good but Delroy Lindo stands out immensely. Again, the "gold sickness" was odd, but I felt with Lindo's character, it was more than that and he was definitely the character who was most developed.

Jonathan Majors also stood out. I'm glad he's continuing to get work, especially after what I saw from him in The Last Black Man in San Francisco.

Overall, I think the things that really carry this movie is the story. Four black Vets going back to Vietnam to recover their fallen brother's remains and gold is a really unique and harrowing story. I think I just wish there had been a couple of refinements. It's Spike Lee so you have to expect some current political commentary but while BlackkKlansman seemed to be a direct response to Charlottesville, this movie was likely in the can before it could be directly targetted as a response to the killing of George Floyd. And I think the broad message of black empowerment that Lee has in his films would have worked, especially considering the unique historical backdrop of this story, but the references to Trump, BLM, and other current events felt more scattershot and unrefined in this movie.

Overall, I liked Da 5 Bloods. It never felt too long, it just felt unrefined both on run time and use of style. I really enjoyed the characters, I just would have liked to learn more about the ones surrounding Delroy Lindo and Jonathan Majors. The story and the performances carry this movie through a lot of my critiques and if you're looking for something pretty unique as well as want to learn some history (and don't want to spend a long time watching 10 hour and a half long episodes of Ken Burn's Vietnam War docuseries) I do recommend Da 5 Bloods.

But those are my thoughts on Da 5 Bloods. 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 future 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!

Longshot

We live in a pretty politically divisive time. So political romantic comedies are an interesting genre that has to be done with a lot of care or else it'll just fall flat. In the case of Longshot, it was kind of a mixed bag of formulaic romantic comedy tropes, mixed with some unique writing and storytelling, both of which both works and doesn't work.

Longshot follows the story of Fred Flarsky (played by Seth Rogen) a journalist who quits his job after the website he writes for is acquired by a big corporate conglomerate owned by a man named Parker Wembley (played very well by Andy Serkis that I didn't recognize him until half way through the movie and only when he was in a very well lit room).

On the other side of the movie, you have Secretary of State Charolette Fields (played by Charlize Theron), a rising star embarking on a run for President when the current President (played by Bob Odenkirk) reveals that he's not running for a second term.

As per usual in these romantic comedies, through a comedy of errors they run across one another and realize that they know each other from childhood. Fields hires Flarsky as a speech writer and as they get to know each other more and more, they begin an unlikely friendship that blossoms into an even unlikelier romantic relationship.

While the movie follows some of the same formulas of any generic romantic comedy, there were two things that really kept me engaged in this movie.

The first is the surprising chemistry between Rogen and Theron. Just like in real life, Theron is portrayed in this movie as this elegant goddess-like figure and rightfully juxtaposed to Rogen who is not an elegant figure on so many levels. And yet this relationship ends up working really well because not only do they vibe well together, they take the time to really build up the relationship. They don't fall right into the sack with one another, there's a pretty good montage of the two getting to know one another. It might not be as long of a period within the movie than I thought, but their transition from aquaintances to lovers is very smooth.

The other thing that works is that while there are a lot of formualic moments in this movie, the movie refuses to take on the annoying tropes you'd expect from a romantic comedy where the relationship needs to be kept secret.

Alexander Skarsgard plays the Prime Minister of Canada and is a pretty thinly veiled analogy to current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The media in the movie speculate that Skarsgard and Theron's characters are romantically invovled and in a paint by numbers script, he'd either be an anatagonist or someone that Rogen's character is jealous of.

But instead, the movie barely has an antagonist at all and everyone acts almost too reasonable for there to be a real conflict at a certain point. The movie trucks along pretty well without a real "villain" until the last third where Serkis's character is developed as a minor foil to the relationship.

The third act of the movie is really where the quality goes down a little bit. It's not horrible, but it does highlight the far fetched nature of the movie as a whole. And to be fair, I don't know a single romantic comedy that doesn't have the third act falling out routine. The thing I appreciate about this film is the reasonableness of everyone and understanding the reality that they live in, but at the same time in order for their to be a happy ending you kind of have to suspend any kind of disbelief that even the movie sort of sets up.

My one double edged critique of this film is the criminal underutilization of O'Shea Jackson Jr and frankly the supporting characters in general.

Jackson is a great example because he basically steals every scene he's in. I get that you need to focus these movies on the two leads, but Jackson, June Diane Raphael, and Andy Serkis were all phenomenal actors who were just under utilized in this film. I haven't seen Straight Outta Compton, but one big take away that I heard about it was that Jackson was phenomenal in it. This might not be the introduction that highlights his talents as much as it could, but he is exemplary of the fantastic cast this movie has, even if its not utilized to the greatest extent.

Longshot reminds me that I don't watch movies to find the perfect film but instead just to be entertained, examine the different kinds of films, and in a sense find some escapism.

The dialogue in the film can be pretty on the nose both in its character development and political "commentary" but this movie is by no means a hugely political movie. The political nature of the movie serves more as a backdrop for a pretty serviceable romantic comedy. If you're looking for an overly smart political movie, you're probably not going to find it here.

Charlize Theron is not only a goddess living among us, she's really funny, especially paired up with Seth Rogen. The movie made me laugh despite being pretty predictable, and every once in a while you need a feel good film.

So while Longshot is by no means a perfect movie, I'd say it's definitely worth checking out if you have the opportunity. It bucks some of the conventions of normal romantic comedies, and gives us pretty great performances from everyone involved.

But those are my thoughts on Longshot. 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!

Another DC Rant (Keaton Batman Returns)

So I know I'm a week or so late on this news. It registered with me when the news was all over social media, but I didn't really have the time to sit down and think about it last week. On top of that, there are some other things regarding the DCEU that are worth taking about.

In case you're unaware, there are reports out there that Michael Keaton will be reappearing as Batman in future DC projects, starting in Andy Muschetti's The Flash with an in theory release date of July 2022. Moving forward from that movie, Keaton will be the "in-universe" Batman of the DCEU, the first two Burton Batman movies will be canon in the , and Batfleck will be an odd memory reserved for a weird pocket universe of the Snyder films (and the Synder cut, which I'll talk about later).

It's worth talking about the current state of the DC cinematic universe or the lack of one.

It feels like decades ago, but Justice League and the films leading up to it (Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad, and Wonder Woman) had the intnetion of building a DC cinematic universe similar to the likes of the MCU. Justice League was supposed to be the jumping off point for shared movies and my guess, with the intention of building Darkseid up as the big Thanos-like badie of the universe.

But Justice League ended up being a mess that reshuffled a lot of the slotted films happening, or at least changed the trajectory it seemed like the film was going. On top of that, casting issues came up with Ben Affleck going from directing his own Batman standalone to essentially quitting the role, and DC having a weird falling out with Henry Cavil that put any future outings for him as the Man of Steel in question. But something weird happened after Justice League.

DC had a trio of movies that came out that were actually well received: Aquaman, Shazam, and Joker. Add onto that a sense of excitement for the upcoming sequel to Wonder Woman, the future of DC movies looked confusingly optimistic. Any plans for a follow up to Justice League were put on the back burner and the emphasis was instead put on standalone films that didn't have any call backs to the Snyder led films. Aquaman in his solo film is quite different than the one in Justice League, Shazam makes mention of Superman, but in a way that keeps it vague if it's Henry Cavill or not. And it's very clear that Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is its own thing that will likely never connect to the larger DCEU films. Two major changes occurred, the production schedule was reduced where there was only one live action DC film from 2018 onward, and the connections were really loose to a larger cinematic universe.

Even the Harley Quinn movie seemed to be in its own little world with no real connections to Jared Leto or the previous movies pre-Justice League.

The Keaton news is the first inkling of a shared universe since 2017 and I'm skeptically fascinated.

The Flash has been in production hell for quite a bit of time with consistently changing directors. I am continuing to be skeptical because there were some stories about Ezra Miller gettting into a pretty violent altercation in April so I think there are still a lot of production hurdles to jump through, on top of the background issues with COVID-19.

But, if you get through all of that, bringing Keaton in feels like a smart choice to breath some life into DC having a cinematic universe. Michael Keaton remains a fan favorite Batman to this day and it's not the fact he's not an award winning and critically recognized actor is gonna hurt a franchise. The reports claim that he'll be a sort of mentor/Nick Fury type of character so his role will be a supporting one and probably not very difficult for him to pull off, especially if WB is paying him enough.

And the truth is, there's a lot of opportunities with this move. While I personally liked Ben Affleck's Batman, I think you remove a controversial actor from your universe considerations, especially if it seems like he doesn't want to be involved anymore. You create an actual older Batman to serve as a mentor figure for other characters (like Batgirl allegedly), and you kind of let Batman take a break (sort of) by having him take on that secondary role. Also there's talk about multiverses, Batman Beyond, and throughout it all Keaton is the anchor.

I guess I just feel like I need to hear more.

For as much as I like Michael Keaton I would hope at a certain point the creative heads took a step back and asked, is this the best way we can tell an overarching story? Is there a plan for an overarching story or is it a way to keep things relevant?

I also wonder if this story is going to remain relevant and interesting all the way up to the supposed release in 2022.

A lot is going to happen between now and then. Robert Pattinson is heading his own Batman that I guess is going to be its own separate thing, but what if we really like it? What if Ezra Miller has to get recasted? What if we really like something in The Suicide Squad? There's also reports that Henry Cavill is going to have a role in future DC films as Superman again, what if they get their act together there and the need for Keaton doesn't feel as relevant? I have no doubt that Keaton will fall back into the role of Batman like a glove, but what if the Flash movie sucks because of how long its been in production hell?

Like I said, I'm skeptically optimistic. A part of this feels a little ploy-ish but has the potential to be something really great... if they do it right... I'm not getting too excited because DC's attempts at a shared universe have been rough to say the least and it doesn't matter how good Keaton is, if the thought, creativity, and of course just patience in general isn't put into the creation of this universe, it could fall apart really quickly.

There's a couple of other notes on recent DC news I wanted to talk about and how they connect to this news.

Apparently Henry Cavill is still playing Superman and will likely show up in future DC projects. There's not a whole lot here that I haven't already said. Someone needs to take on a Superman sequel and do it right. I don't wanna hear that people aren't into Superman right now, people need some freaking hope right now and there's nothing more hopeful than Superman. Give him a sequel where he's facing Brainiac or someone, I don't care, just do it.

I'm really late to this party, but apparently the Snyder cut is being released on HBO Max in 2021.

I have mixed feelings on this because on one hand, it's kind of a big deal. It's not like the Director's Cut of Batman v Superman where they add a couple of scenes here and there, there is apparently a whole slew of scenes that were cut out of the original cut of Justice League that will be produced to create close to a four hour long film.

There's still uncertainty on how it will be produced on HBO Max, where it will be released as a 4 hour cut or if it will be released episodically like the way that Netflix released the Director's cut of The Hateful Eight.

But on the other side of things, I have to do a pretty big eye roll at this whole endevour. This would never have happened if there wasn't a huge movement on social media for years calling for the release of the Snyder Cut of Justice League. I am by no means saying that the original cut is very good, but there is no indication that this version is going to be any better. Now I know that there is a sect on the internet who believe that Zack Snyder can do no wrong, that Batman v Superman is a perfect movie, and that Snyder deserves satisfaction for a movie that was stolen from him.

But I'm here to tell you that this four hour long movie could be really terrible. I have no qualms with WB releasing it. They have nothing to lose at this point because you better believe no matter how skeptical I am of this film, I am still going to see it. You're going to see a surge in HBO Max subscription the month that this comes out. They clearly see the financial benefit, especially in the middle of COVID to start work on producing this cut to something that is presentable. But regardless of the incentive, that doesn't mean it's going to be good.

The other element of this that ties it all into this whole look at the DC Cinematic Universe is that this could be one of those things that changes the playing field before The Flash film is supposed to be a launching point for some semblance of a shared universe.

Let's give the Snyder cut some credit that in my opinion has no reasonable evidence to support, let's say its good. Let's say this was really a cover up by WB to inhibit a master vision by Zack Snyder and everyone loses their mind over the Snyder Cut. What do you do then?

Do you continue the route you're headed with this Keaton driven universe? They already seem to be creating pocket universes with multiple Batmans so is there another one where Zack Snyder comes back and creates a dark and gritty universe that looks like the Injustice Universe and that coincides with the main universe?

And to give that possibility some credit, I might just be looking at this with MCU tinted glasses. Marvel is going to start delving into the multiverse here soon so why can't DC? Why does there have to be a main timeline and not multiple? Audiences are not dumb, it's not like we can't figure out that the Robert Pattinson Batman is different than the Keaton one. It would be kind of cool to have multiple universes that we get to check in on like an Injustice timeline where Superman is evil.

My concern would be the dilution of central character's developments that we see multiple times if they're appearing in multiple universes and experiencing different things. I think there is general consensus that we like Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa playing Wonder Woman and Aquaman respectively. Multiple timelines and universes stunts us from seeing that development across their sequels not only because we're checking in on different versions, but it fills up the production schedule that those movies are farther apart.

In my opinion, the reason that Justice League failed and the DCEU was stalled so much was because they put less emphasis on the characters that make up their pantheon of heroes and instead relied on your love of the character as a concept. They relied on that love the concept to bum rush their cinematic universe and get to their big team up movie to compete with Marvel without putting in the time to get to know anybody in that team.

Even the TV shows on the CW seem to understand that you can't get to these massive team up moments without doing years of set up. I don't think it's about tone, it's about development. Phase 1 of the MCU was four solo films that had very minimal cross over elements before jumping into their first big team up movie. The one that tried to do more crossovers with unknown characters (even relatively at the time small characters) like Nick Fury and Black Widow in Iron Man 2, led to one of the worst films of Phase 1 (arguably in the entire MCU).

The DCEU started with Man of Steel, which I think was a good start for character development with Superman, but then was followed by two team up movies and was only book ended by the other good film in their "phase 1" in Wonder Woman. Why? Because Man of Steel and Wonder Woman took time to get to know their characters and set up interesting development moving forward rather than doing the equivilent of taking your Batman and Superman toys and bashing them together like a 5 year old.

Now to give the guys at DC some credit, they have been doing more solo centric films and plan to continue that trend for the foreseeable future. Hell, even Birds of Prey for all its issues, was better than Suicide Squad because it focused more on Harley Quinn than the team dynamic of Suicide Squad. There is no plan for Justice League 2 any time soon.

The overall is that the Keaton news shows some revived interest in creating a shared universe, and considering the slate of films coming out in the future, the multiple universes that may or may not connect, and he fact that there is clearly an interest in these films, I just want DC to reapproach this with a new perspective rather than competing with Marvel.

We find ourselves in a post-Endgame world where the franchise/shared universe hype has died down a little bit and where others like Fox Studios X-men and the Dark Universe failed to reach that same kind of success that Marvel perfected, DC, while in a diminished capacity, probably still sees an opportunity to capitalize on the idea of Batman showing up in a Flash movie. And I would like to see this. While I have my issues with the Snyder swing at a DC shared universe, I still love the idea of these crossover movies, especially with DC characters who I prefer over Marvel.

I just want it to be done right, and I'm willing to wait to make sure they do it correctly.

But those are my thoughts on the recent DC news that came out in the last month or so. What are your thoughts? Where should DC head with their movies? Is it time to revitalize the DC cinematic shared universe? Comment and Discuss below! You can also share your thoughts with me on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films, TV shows, or topics I should cover 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!

Atlanta (Season 1 and 2)

This is a show I've wanted to check out for quite a bit of time. I'm a huge Donald Glover fan, I've heard fantastic things about this show, and in the time that I've been lazy and not watching it, almost everyone involved with this show have gone on to do really great things on top of this show. I won't lie and say that current events haven't affected my drive to watch this show and I hope this review doesn't seem exploitive of a moment because that is not the intention. I just think it's better late than never to watch this show, especially after watching the first and second season.

On a side note, I dove right into Season 2 immediately after I finished Season 1 so I didn't see the point in dividing it up because it has felt like a long season rather than two. Now I'll talk about the two halves of that long season but that's the reason why I decided to combine the two season's reviews.

Atlanta follows the story of Ernest "Earn" Marks (played by Donald Glover) a Princeton drop out who is homeless and ultimately just trying to make ends meet while still trying to find what he wants in his life. He sometimes lives with his sort of girlfriend and the mother of his daughter named Vanessa (played by Zazie Beetz.)

His cousin Alfred (played by Brian Tyree Henry) has begun a pretty underground rapping career under the moniker of Paper Boi. In the first episode Earn sees an opportunity to start a career in music management and offers to be Alfred's manager. Lakeith Stanfield plays Alfred's eccentric friend Darius and he's hilarious.

It doesn't feel totally honest saying that the whole plot of the show is Earn maneuvering through the music management world with his cousin. While there are episodes that focus on that, the majority of the show is just Earn, Alfred, Vanessa, and Darius maneuvering through life in ways that are sometimes comedic and sometimes very serious.

It's very hard to really explain what Atlanta is. I would say a lot of the show is Earn and his friends walking through life as black people and their experience. There are episodes dedicated to Earn and Vanessa's relationship or one of the characters going through a normal day. A whole episode in the second season about Alfred getting a haircut.

Especially the first season, I remember watching and thinking that while I don't usually just watch shows about people's lives, I became invested in Earn's story and kept watching not only because the show can be really funny, but because I care about the characters.

And then there's episodes that come out of no where that make you stop for a second and think, what was that and why isn't that the whole show? The comedy goes from average every day scenarios to really funny satirical commentary or almost horror-like and barely funny at all. If you get far enough to know what Teddy Perkins is, you'll thank me later.

Atlanta distinguishes itself by having an all black writing staff and because of that the stories and themes focus a lot on the experience of being a black person in America. There's themes within the episodes, ways that the characters interact with one another, scenarios that they find themselves into that aren't portrayed as genuinely in mainstream shows.

Part of the fun of the show for me came with reading continuous stories about Donald Glover's writing process and what inspires him and the other writers.

I would say it takes a few episodes to really get the real vibe around Atlanta and what kind of show it is. In the first two episodes you think it will be a linear story about Ern as he's trying to be Alfred's manager. But the timeline of the show is very loose, the episodes could seemingly be watched in any order, and it's more about the people rather than the overarching story.

The show is very accessible once you get that understanding, but again, it's kind of hard to explain exactly what the show is because it manages to cover so much ground.

Oddly enough, for how unique Atlanta is, it does kind of fall into the category of other FX shows (What We Do in The Shadows is another example of this) I've seen where on face value, it's not a show I would automatically watch but end up really enjoying when I finally get into it.

The performances are fantastic. I think the thing that does carry you through to the moment where you at least think you've figured this show out (which I'm not totally sure I have) is the characters, the performances, and the writing.

The show is super funny, very reflective, and just a lot different than most shows. I think because it's difficult to explain it gets overlooked by a lot of people but if you have the opportunity, I would say this is a perfect time to check out Atlanta.

But have you seen Atlanta? What do you think? What's your favorite episodes? 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 that 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 Wrong Missy

I will give Netflix some credit, they sure know how to make trailers. When I saw the premise for this film, I thought, Oh that's just a generic romantic comedy that I know how it's gonna end and it's probably not gonna be good. But the trailer won over not only me, but some friends and family that I didn't really expect to be won over by this film. Eventually I gave it a try.

The Wrong Missy follows the story of David Spade... I mean Tim Morris (played pretty generically by David Spade, if you've seen a David Spade performance, you've seen this one). He is middle management at a banking company and he is competing for a promotion with another manager by the name of Jess (played by Jackie Sandler).

He also recently experienced a serious break up when his fiance (played by Sarah Clarke) cheated on him. In an attempt to get back on the horse, he goes on a blind date that goes horribly with a woman by the name of Missy (played by Lauren Lapkus). Missy is obnoxious, she carries around a bowie knife, she does voices, she clearly has a drinking problem, and Tim rightly decides that this is not going to work out.

Three months later, right before a big corporate retreat to Hawaii, he meets a woman who is incredibly out of his league by the name of Melissa (played by Molly Sims). The two hit it off but she needs to catch a flight. She tells him that she'll give him her contact information.

Tim decides to make a bold move and invites Melissa to the corporate retreat, but accidentally invites Missy.

And shenanigans ensue. A romantic comedy unfolds with Tim dealing with this obnoxious woman he mistakenly invited while still trying to get the promotion at work.

What I wrote is essentially the first 15 minutes of the film. That seems like a lot but they blow past it actually pretty skillfully in the movie. For a lot of reasons, this film shouldn't work in the first fifteen minutes but for some reason it does. It is clear that the "right" Missy is out of Tim's league, and yet they do share some funny chemistry that works better than I think the film expected. The "wrong" Missy is obnoxious in a way that could be irritating but again, for the purpose for the set up, it's done really well in the set up.

And the character of Missy for the first part of the film is actually done pretty well to be an obnoxious, over the top person that nobody wants to be around. She's done almost too well.

If you've watched an romantic comedy, you can probably guess that there's a sweet underbelly to her obnoxious fascade and there's a certain turn in the movie where David Spade falls in love with her.

But that turn is horribly done in this film. Just horribly... horribly done.

Also, the way the set up was established, it built up Molly Sims character really well as someone that Tim could connect with that it doesn't make sense why he decides to fall for Missy.

The comedy in the film is pretty typical to a Happy Madison produced film. The situations are pretty over the top, Rob Schneider is in it for no reason other than to keep him employed, and at a certain point its not going to be charming anymore.

That's what happened in this film. It started off pretty grounded and started to escalate. It's raunchy but again, it started off pretty well... until about half way through the film where Missy is hypnotizing Tim's boss into thinking that he's his nana and he should give him a promotion. And that's supposed to be the charming turn where Tim decides that he likes Missy. It's all very confusing.

A couple other sides notes, everyone does a pretty good job in this film regardless of the way the movie is written. Like I said David Spade plays the same straight man character he's played for decades, Lauren Lapkus is pretty off puttingly funny almost to a fault. Sarah Clarke didn't need to be in this film. And Nick Swardsdon plays the best friend character and is criminally underutilized. There's a whole side thing where he works in HR and is screening all David Spade's emails and texts and that's actually pretty funny.

Overall, there's a lot of ways this movie could have gone. The premise is pretty decent and builds for some pretty funny comedy. But when the movie takes the typical turns, it loses a lot of steam. There's also a very unique tonal dissonance in the film where certain things are supposed to be played off as romantic, or funny, or charming, and instead they come off as weird because the character of Missy continues to be a psycho.

I think a lot of the credit goes to Lauren Lapkus in this film because she did her character almost too well. The result is a movie that starts off strong, but peeters out near the end because the characters seemed to break out of the conventional cookie cutter mold of this romantic comedy story. It does not stick the landing.

But those are my thoughts on The Wrong Missy. I have been watching a lot of TV as well as some documentaries in case any of you were wondering why its been so sparse recently. I'm hoping to get to more reviews here soon so be patient if you're still out there. In the mean time you can let me know what you thought of this film by commenting and discussing 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, I will get to them post haste. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Howl's Moving Castle

So I'm going to give a huge disclaimer with this film. This is the first Hayao Miyazaki film I've ever watched. I was never exposed to films like this as a kid and up until now, I hadn't had an avenue where I could easily watch them. I always heard people mention them and I know there's a following. So much that when I got HBO Max and films like this one, my interest had already been peaked and it was immediately on my list. I don't know if Moving Castle is the right film to start off with if I'm a newbie to Miyazaki, but here we go!

Howl's Moving Castle is an animated fantasy film centered on a young woman named Sophie (I watched the English dub so she was voiced by Emily Mortimer). She is a hat maker in a small town in a country at war. At the start of the film, she encounters a wizard by the name of Howl (voiced by Christian Bale). This encounter sets the plot in motion as a witch called The Witch of the Waste (voiced by Lauren Bacall) casts a spell on Sophie turning her into an old woman (voiced by Jean Simmons). Part of the curse is that she can't tell anybody what happened to her. So she leaves the comforts of her home to find a way to lift the curse and encounters the Wizard Howl's moving castle, a structure of buildings on top of each other moving throughout the countryside, powered by a fire demon named Calcifer (voiced by Billy Crystal).

Sophie takes on the position of cleaning woman in the castle and a friendship/family begins with herself, Howl, Calcifer, Howl's apprentice Markl (voiced by Josh Hutcherson), and other unique characters that they eventually meet including a bouncing scarecrow Sophie calls Turniphead.

And honestly, a lot happens in this film. The basic plot is that Sophie is trying to lift the curse as she gets to know Howl and the people living in the castle. But there's also a war going on in the country with vague sides, and influences throughout the conflict that tie directly to Howl's own demons and curses (There were some influences from the War in Iraq that Miyazaki pulled into his writing of the script so that's seen heavily in the way the story is executed).

Again, as a newbie to Miyazaki's movies, I wanna figure out what the draw is and I have to say the best parts in my opinionwere the utilization of the castle and the magic in the world. On face value, the castle is actually kind of ugly and while uniquely designed, doesn't really give the impression of the imaginative abilities it has. But once you're in it, you can see the really imaginative ideas that were implemented in this story.

I also like the world that is created. A lot of it is kept vague, especially the sides in the wars and I imagine some of that is on purpose to promote that pacifist theme of the film, but it was something I do wish they would have explored a little bit more because it had me on the hook for a lot of the film.

I think where the film falters for me is that it tries to do so much in one film that sometimes certain story elements just get glazed over or resolved in super weird ways.

For example, the starting premise of the movie is that Sophie is cursed by the Witch of the Waste and she's gotta find a way to lift that curse. Okay, simple premise.

But without giving too much away, at a certain point lifting that curse is barely a thing anymore and its not totally clear how we transitioned into a massive war with super vague sides, and a love story that feels super rushed. There's no point where the curse is on and then its off, and I could see it being connected to Sophie's self image, but I never felt like we got to know Sophie that much before the curse occurred.

I do wonder if some of it has to do with the translation and this is one of those areas where I am super ignorant to what I could be missing, but all of that isn't even getting into how confusing of a character Howl is as well as the relationship that forms between him and Sophie and other characters in the movie.

I mean at first he's a smooth confidence blonde mysterious guy grabbing women off the street but everyone thinks he eats women's hearts or something. Then he's this cowardly emo kid who turns into a weird green goo once, then he's a bird man who loses that emo streak half way through the film.

And the romance is really rushed. I get it, it's 2004 and you've got two attractive looking characters on screen, no duh they're gonna be the love interests, but it feels very rushed, especially while I'm waiting for plot points at the start of the movie like Sophie figuring out how to lift her curse still haven't been resolved.

I have no issue with putting an anti-war message in your movie, but finish your plate first before you start digging into seconds. Because of this, the movie kind of meanders at times and it isn't really clear what the end goal, especially since the characters kind of seem to forget the end goes they started with.

The second half of the movie is where things really start to spiral out of control for me and I was looking at the clock saying, how're they going to wrap this up in 12 minutes?

Overall, I think I can get some of the appeal of this film in that it is visually nice to look at and there are some really interesting and imaginative ideas that go into the world this takes place in.

I can understand if someone grew up with these films or enjoy them for the visuals and calming music and visuals.

 The magic and concepts are good, but the characters and story is kind of all over the place. Again, I'm coming at this from a very new perspective so I don't know if this movie even represents Miazaki films that well and I'd love to hear some other perspectives on it. The overall is that the film didn't do a whole lot for me. I'm definitely going to check out other Miyazaki films so I won't let this be my end all of his movies.

But those were my thoughts on Howl's Moving Castle. What did you think? As a newbie to all of this, is there something I'm missing? Tell me your thoughts 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!

True Lies

There are a couple of Arnold Schwartzenegger movies that are often considered to be "the classics". These usually include Terminator Judgement Day, Total Recall, Predator, Commando, and of course, Jingle All the Way. And sometimes, True Lies is included in that.

Now I was never really exposed to Schwartzenegger films as a kid, partly because they were a little before my time, and my parents just didn't have the fandom of Schwartzenegger that I think others did. So now I'm in my twenties and I need to catch up. And like most of the films that I never saw, I come out of True Lies saying, WTF was that?

True Lies follows the story of international American spy Harry Tasker (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger). He works for a fictional spy agency called Omega Sector and is tracking an Islamic terrorist group before they obtain a nuclear weapon (all pre-911, True Lies was ahead of its time).

At the same time, Tasker is balancing his work with his family life as his wife Helen (played by Jaime Lee Curtis) and his daughter Dana (played by Eliza Duska) don't know the truth about what he does for a living.

The movie is essentially James Cameron's take at a James Bond movie with Schwarzenegger as the one man army spy. I guess it fell right in line with the one-man army video game-like movies I've been watching today like Extraction, but True Lies was... unique to say the least.

My biggest problem with this film is that there is a definite tonal disconnect. If you think James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger, 90's action, you don't think of international spy Harry Tasker abusing the national security apparatus to spy on his wife who he believes is having an affair with Bill Paxton, but somehow that ended up being the film.

I get that Schwarzenegger had a range where he was involved in comedies like this, but this movie never really decides whether it wants me to take the movie seriously or not.

And I get it, the movie doesn't have to fully be one or the other. It didn't need to be Commando and it didn't need to be Austin Powers. But the movie has hints of both in it and I'm torn on how I really feel about that at the end of day.

It's impressive that I was both laughing and thinking how bad ass it was that Schwarzenegger was chasing down terrorists on a horse and both he and the terrorists take their mode of transportation up an elevator.

I might not just understand 90's action comedies the way I do 80's action comedies. Die Hard is an action movie but it definitely has comedy peppered in so you don't lose the entertaining tempo and the likability of John Mclane. Macgruber is comedy but has over the top action to spoof the action movies its satirizing. True Lies is right down the middle and I'm still not totally sure if I love it or think it's ridiculous.

I mean the great Charlton Heston has an amazing eye patch in this movie and it's played almost 100% seriously!

The movie also takes a pretty big detour about a half hour in. We spend the first half hour or so focusing on Tasker's job as a spy. Then suddenly for at least an hour, its just Tasker pulling spy hijinxs on his wife when he thinks she's having an affair. The main plot is put entirely on hold while Schwarzenegger abuses the national security apparatus and then we're expected to pick it up where it left off like Tasker hadn't spent the last hour just screwing with his wife with the power of the intelligence services of the United States.

True Lies is incredible because its just a time capsule of a time where Arnold Schwarzenegger could do whatever he wanted, James Cameron wasn't obsessed with submarines or blue aliens, and Middle Eastern terrorists were stereotypes that while still not used in a very correct way, had a very different connotation when they were used as the bad guys.

If it means anything, True Lies is the best Pierce Brosnan James Bond film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and if you haven't checked it out, go into it with no expectations and just buckle in for the ride. I haven't even noted half of the crazy stuff that goes on in this movie, but it's definitely a Schwarzenegger classic for a reason.

But those are my thoughts on True Lies. What did you think? How does this movie hold up almost thirty years later? 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 reviews as well as random ramblings and attempts at jokes on social media.

Thanks for reading!