The Queen

Sometimes you need to write something even if you’re not entirely motivated to do so – fittingly, I watched The Queen for the first time tonight.

Beyond the immediate, immature jokes that ran through my head (“The Queen? Richard Simmons has a biopic? You know, asinine quips like that), I was really excited for this film that I had wanted to see for as long as it’s been out. I was finally in a place to watch it and really feel like I could appreciate what it was trying to tell the audience.

Again, the parallels between how this sounds and the way Helen Mirren portrayed a tortured figure hell-bent on maintaining her set of rules, regulations and tradition seems very close. At least to me. And while the final five minutes or so seemed sort of preachy and forced all of the gray areas to be filled with either white or black, the overall performance and pace of the entire production was well executed.

Technically speaking, the way the film took subtle attempts at humor to extenuate The Queen’s demeanor was remarkable. Mirren played Her Majesty with a quiet dignity that was questioned by her subjects throughout; the filmmakers took this chance to question that dignity (even openly mock it at times). Mirren’s Queen personified a “business as usual” establishment and a light beat down it to prove that that isn’t the only way to accomplish what you want done.

Besides the mundane humor, the music was the best thing the film had going for it. The “who-dun-it” atmosphere that it connoted was brilliant because the story really was a mystery at its heart. Whether that mystery was “why does she act/feel this way?” Or “when will she evolve with her people?” it left you wondering how it would all play out. (Which is even more of an accomplishment since you probably already knew the timeline.)

To a degree, this was one of the most ingenious biopics I have seen. Not because of what I have laid in the previous paragraphs, but because the entire movie could have actually been mistaken for a biopic about Princess Diana as opposed to a film solely about the Queen. Yes, it was done under the guise of a triumphant transformation and image/legacy-solidifying story about a woman who really wanted nothing to do with her. But the driving character in the film, the one whom everyone else reacted to, was Diana.

To that point however, perhaps it is the only way that a Diana movie could be made? When you think about it, everyone loved her unconditionally (“People’s Princess”) except the Royal Family. The Queen was the one who harbored completely legitimate feelings and resentment toward Diana for what she “gave up.” Or hell, to be more elementary about it, Diana is the woman who left her son. Not many in-laws still keep those types of people in a positive light.

By the end of the movie though, I didn’t care to learn more about Diana. I wanted another hour of the Queen.

Say your at a party and you see a pretty girl, but since she’s already talking to someone you decide to start talking to her friend because at least you know that at some point in the night the pretty girl will end up walking over. Now, you can’t talk to the friend about the pretty girl, you need to seem interested in her or else she’ll whiff your ruse. Except the more you listen, the more you want to know about her, and conversely, the less you start to care about the pretty girl. It’s become apparent that while she‘s everything you thought, the friend has so many layers that she proves to be the more interesting of the two.

Because of the atmosphere the film develops, The Queen lends itself to many comparisons. Intentionally and unintentionally. Whether it’s my inept “girl-at-a-party” scenario; the fairly calm “she-is-the-stag” scenario they highlight throughout her tortured decision-making process; or, at the end of the film, the forced “she-doesn’t-know-any-better-just-like-all-old-generations-of-government-and-society-alike” scenario that was crammed down your throat like you were an eight year-old staring at a dinner plate full of tomatoes.

I don’t really know how to finish this since I was pulled in so many different directions. Normally I would be able to concisely commit to a train of thought and deliver. However, since it was really about three movies in one, I’m not sure I yet know how to do it justice. But maybe that’s how it should be approached? Carefully. Cautiously, so as not to appear over zealous or out of touch with the message it portrayed. Another not-so-subtle comparison to its main character? Sure. But definitely an appropriate, and dignified, decision that could eventually be understood.

"Entourage," Season 7 Midterm Review

It takes a lot for a show to make its way into someone’s television date book. An appreciation and trust that what you’re going to experience is worth the time spent away from the rest of your life. For “Entourage,” that simply hasn’t been the case the last two seasons. Even though I watched them, they were so bad that I didn’t care to set the season pass reminder on my DVR this year and forgot about the opening episode. I’ve been watching with the On Demand option ever since. And boy am I glad that I have been.

You see, much like the deadbeat relative in your life, shows are given extra chances and special consideration to impress themselves upon you after they’ve fallen out of favor. Some shows, when given this chance, fail to recapture the spark that initially drew you to their glow in the first place, while others show just enough of their past self to get you going again. This season of “Entourage” has gotten back to the key elements that made it great in the first place: the trials of “making it,” credible camaraderie and, of course, gratuitous nudity and spending of millions dollars which extenuates just how much different their world is from ours. It’s all back. The show is starting to reclaim its vigor.

In fact, with each passing week’s show I’ve been more and more inclined to approach it as I had in the past – with that enthusiasm discussed earlier that we only reserve for our favorite shows. You know how when you drink too much of a certain beverage there’s that chance that you can never drink that drink again without those memories? Sometimes even the mere word (let alone the smell) is enough to induce the tickle on your uvula that forces you to the point where you plot out your exit strategy in case there’s no going back? Nobody likes those nights. And we all know shows that are the equivalent to those nights (cough, “Heroes. Cough, Jack and Cokes). Shows that were once brilliant but suddenly thought too hard, or became too lazy (or both) and killed any chance it had of survival. “Entourage” was close to being neck deep in someone else’s garbage can on a hot Saturday morning wishing it had never had the fun at all the night before because the pain wasn’t worth it the next morning… (Hmm, maybe you shouldn’t mix metaphors either?)

However, then there are those special nights where maybe you did go overboard, but you either don’t have any objection to the drink the next time, or you make yourself get over it because you know you’re gonna want to partake again. Only this time you dial it down and focus on what made the drink good in the first place. That seems to be the more likely road “Entourage” has taken. Like I said, it has rediscovered (maybe refocused) that initial playfulness that made us all excited to spend some time with it. If it keeps this up, it may even reclaim the douche bags that think it’s cool to have their theme song as their ringtone? It might be that good again. (We’ve all tried or thought about having it as a ringtone, but only those special d-bags think it’s a good long-term idea.)

This season, the idea of “making it” is different than it was before. They’re no longer no-names throwing themselves against the wall and seeing what sticks. Last season they wanted all of the characters to mature and evolve. Which is great, but I’m not sure the show’s creators initially answered the question of the story arc as to how you create conflict if your immature characters all of the sudden become powerful industry leader that have their shit figured out. The answer? Make them realize that there’s more to figure out. Only this time, since they are actually famous and in charge, there’s less time for forgiveness. They’re big time in Hollywood now and can’t get away with the same stuff. There’s Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and Blogs that are out incessantly to bring them down sometimes for no other reason than to just bring them down. There are more responsibilities when you’re on top to stay there.

The writers seemed to have figured it out, though.

They’ve made Vince a meaningful catalyst again completely connected to everyone else’s life. They are, after all, his entourage.

Vince should drive the show. And we should care about his successes and failures because they are tied to his friend’s successes and failures. But we need more to care about than whether or not he cuts his hair. Unless him cutting his hair is the beginning of his destruction. Now that’s something we wanna see play out. Remotes in hand and our comfortable spots reclaimed in hopes of welcoming back that quirky relative we always knew had it in them to be great again.

I love the dark side of Vince that’s being shown this year. I love that his care-free attitude – while often refreshing and relatable because most of us watching are hopeful in thinking that given the opportunity to make millions and hang out with our friends, we would approach it that same way – is getting him and (perhaps more importantly) the people he loves into trouble. This is the type of storytelling that drives back viewers. That makes them remember that they care about these characters. This is what connects their stories to those of us watching at home. We too can sympathize with literally or figuratively “hitting bottom.” And now we all want to see how they survive this because, in the end, they’re our entourage too.

… Of course, having them live lavishly and surrounded by insanely hot, naked women helps too.

Cool Runnings

For the first time in at least a decade it was “bobsled time.” My wife’s brothers came to visit us this week and we bumped Cool Runnings up in our Netflix queue so that they could have an opportunity to watch it. They live a fairly sheltered life, so the fact that they hadn’t seen a movie about an all black troupe of outsiders led by an abnormally hefty white male in the world of Olympic bobsledders shouldn’t be surprising.

My initial wonder in re-watching the movie was whether or not there would be subtle racism hidden in the crevasses of the story (as is the case with most outdated Disney movies)? Well, I’m sad to report (or happy to say) that no, there wasn’t. Sort of.

The movie, which takes us back to 1988 (or maybe ’86?) Jamaica, weaves a fairly formulaic tale of “little guy accomplishes big things.” Only in this instance the “little guy” is a group of bumbling caricatures donning remarkably stereotypical accents out to prove that anyone can succeed if they put their minds to it. There opponent? Several opposing bobsled teams of constructed of straight-laced caricatures also donning remarkably stereotypical accents.

Luckily for the movie (and really for filmmaking overall) the lovable losers of color had a smart, strong and capable white guy there to help out when things were down. Yes, John Candy played the role of the white dude from Avatar before Avatar was ever even thought of. (I’m pretty sure this is true even though apparently James Cameron had been thinking of the freakishly tall blue people for over a decade.) In fact, the similarities eventually lead one to believe (or at least ridiculously argue) that Cool Runnings was the inspiration for Avatar. I mean, think about it: unassuming group living in a utopia meet a nice white man that can help them in reconstructing their lives when something has gone awry. Whether that something be a pampered rich kid trips and devastates your Olympic chances, or a paraplegic “running” around as one of you comes just time for the massive, calculated invasion to which only he holds the key to saving your entire species of people. One in the same, really.

(The real fun part was reading the IMDb trivia and realizing that Disney basically massacred the true story so that there would be added layers of conflict within the move. For example, apparently countries and people were actually really nice and friendly to the Jamaican team. Not jerks, like the movie has you believe. That, however, doesn’t help to further the contrived “Us vs. Them” narrative that is so much fun for people to watch.)

After it’s all over, it really comes down to one main question: was it rewatchable? And yes, it was. It was just as goofy, simple and formulaic as I remembered. The moron with his lucky egg, the roided a-hole that doesn’t like his team, the suppressed rich kid, the over-weight has-been and the plucky go-getter captain were all once again welcomed into my family room for another trip down the slick trail, providing me with a sense of nostalgia as cool and crisp as the Canadian air they endured.

Despicable Me

Good lord. I’ve already seen this movie three times, and it’s not necessarily because I wanted to or that it's that good either. The first time, yeah, it looked cute and funny. Definitely worth a viewing. After that it was all a matter or circumstance, however.

I suppose that to my credit each time was in a different sort of setting: first was with my wife and dad on opening weekend. (Afterwards my wife startled the mood when she pronounced that she thought it was better than Toy Story 3. This is still somewhat of a sore subject around the house, and also, unfortunately for her, information others will use when mapping out her preferences for movies); second time was with my two brothers-in-law (ages ten and 13). For what it’s worth, this is the only viewing I was actually bored to watch. (On the plus side, during the car ride there, before we even stepped foot in the theater, they worked on perfecting their “Gru” voice. Needless to say this meant that afterwards they left with an arsenal of new lines to try it out on.); the last time I saw it was with my wife and her sister at the drive-in. No, none of the preconceived notions of a drive-in were a part of the night except that we sneaked in some snacks… Sick-Os.

To my wife’s credit, this was the first of a double-feature, and she redeemed herself by wanting to leave before making me sit through the new Twilight movie.

… That being the case, I’m still not sure how she could’ve left the theater thinking it was better than Toy Story 3? Enjoyed it more? Sure, I guess. But not better. I would say it’s kinda like the difference between Dr. Pepper and Diet Dr. Pepper – they say you can’t taste the difference, but true connoisseurs can without question. Yet, Despicable Me, from what I can tell, is the first movie released by Illumination Entertainment. And to that point, they seem to be on a pretty decent pace. Much more Pixar-ish than DreamWorks-y.

(Follow-up: DreamWorks animation – in this Dr. Pepper metaphor – is dangerously close to assuming store brand Dr. X status. Thank goodness for How To Train Your Dragon and the hopefully good upcoming sequel to Kung Fu Panda. That plus the fact that the Shriek series is finally being put to rest bodes well for DreamWorks’ immediate future.)

Despicable Me’s story was fine with plenty of cute, endearing moments that made you feel OK in terms of the price you paid for full admission. (Second time I’ve used the word “cute.” Let’s keep track.) And even though Illumination Entertainment copied DreamWorks animation’s playbook page where the movie has a more promising idea and trailer than the product itself, Illumination is light-years (get it?) ahead of where DreamWorks is in terms of their overall story telling and incorporation of celebrity talent.

Steve Carell did a really nice job with the main character, Gru. Gru (for those who aren’t aware) is an evil villain comfortable with his given, perceived status in the realm of “bad-guys” until it becomes apparent that his job market is quickly becoming infested with younger villains that utilize more spunk and ingenuity in their schemes. So, in an effort to stay relevant, Gru tries to pull off an enormous heist. But, of course, the twist is that while Gru makes his living executing diabolical plans, once he is introduced to the true idea of love from three unassuming, adorable girls whom he adopts, he quickly proves that he is actually a fairly nice guy under it all with a heart made of gold.

Ahh, “Full House” moment…

The best parts of the movie (besides Carell’s delivery and adoption of Gru’s persona, or the obviously cool and stylized animation) were Gru’s tic-tac-shaped minion workers. These little guys are plenty happy living out each day of their lives dedicated to supporting Gru and creating havoc amongst themselves. Sure, they had their own language (or perhaps merely a sever speech impediment), worked for minimal wage and offered themselves up for random experiments and errands, but isn’t that the job of a minion?

They also provided me with my personal favorite moment of the movie. It happens when the girls blame them for a messy room in the house. Their reaction, while it doesn’t translate well to words, is genuinely funny when taking the whole scene into consideration.

The breakout character definitely belonged to the absolutely precious young orphan girl, Agnes (Elsie Fisher). She delivers a few of the film’s most memorable lines that, because of her undeniable innocence, don’t just tug at your heart strings, they tie them together and yank until you can't take it anymore.

What will be interesting is what the company does with her character when the sequel is undoubtedly made because of the success of this movie? Let’s all just hope she doesn’t become the Jonathan Lipnicki of the animated movie world.

Lastly, and this was something that this movie did seem to share with a Pixar creation: the overwhelming feeling I got when listening to the voice work was that each person had a blast recording their lines. Every celebrity – besides maybe Will Arnett who continues to just be awesome playing carbon copies of “G.O.B” from “Arrested Development" – played a character that required some sort of range and voice manipulation instead of merely lending their original voice. Carell had the most screen time, but Kristen Wiig, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Jason Segel, and Mindy Kaling all did such a wonderful job that unless you knew going into the movie which character they were, there’s no real reason for you to have guessed they weren’t simply paid character actors. Hell, Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) played the voice of one of the minions, and even after seeing it three times, I’m still not sure which one he was.

In the end, Despicable Me is definitely its own engaging, cute (three) movie that doesn’t deserve me comparing it to TS3 because that’s not what their goal seemed to be. And since it’s only an hour and a half long, it’s at least worth seeing once. If you have kids, even better. (Especially for your own sake since it looks a lot less creepy than going into a dark theater alone for a kid’s movie.)

Mantra

Right now I have no idea or order set in mind for reviewing movies. Probably I’ll just review the ones I get from my Netflix account. Old movies. Older movies. Classics – either because they’re deemed Classics by historians, or because every time I’m asked “You wanna hear the most annoying sound in the world?” I still giggle – and even the occasional New Movie. Whenever I can afford to go see one.

My hope is to take a different look at how we review movies. More guttural reactions to what you see on screen, and less focus on what’s right or wrong technically with a movie. Or, more to the point, since there’s obviously room for the technicality to be explored, how those (my) reactions coincide with the technical aspects regarding the movie. Let’s get back to when movies could also be fun and guilty pleasures without having to mean something else on top of it. I hope to acknowledge that there’s a time and place for both.

I’m going to try and maintain a movie fan’s perspective when writing about different movies (or films, if they deserved to be classified as such) all in the hopes of drawing a straight line across genres and boundaries. Trying to remember that, good or bad, they are all movies and should be given at least that much credit. (Mostly. There are some that don’t even deserve that much credit – I’m looking at you Tyler Perry…)

That being said, I have my own biases and wont deviate from them too often in terms of what movies I will or won’t watch. But hopefully that means that what I have to say will be more honest and worth listening to in the end. Like when I tell you that the Scary Movie franchise is among the worst in the history of moving pictures. Sure, it’s not a stretch by any means. I’m not going way out on a limb for that one, but shouldn’t that account for some taste on my end in the end?