Once

What Sarah said:

Once is a bittersweet romantic story between two musicians in Dublin. I really like that it feels genuine and has an unambitious story with music that gives me the shivers. There is not much else to say than this is a simply wonderful film that I thoroughly enjoyed. You need to watch it too.

Mike’s verdict:

Nothing bad happens in this movie.

Such a blunt declaration in a review would normally be decried as spoiling some mystery or diffusing tension before it can build – but in this case nothing is spoiled. Once is fantastic because nothing bad happens, and the audience deserves to know it ahead of time.

At its base, the film is an uncomplicated story about two people whose lives have intersected at precisely the right time for them to help each. It’s Ireland’s Lost in Translation.

A nameless man is approached on the street by a nameless woman, and they connect through music. Their relationship is neither Hallmark’s immediate-love, nor Hollywood’s immediate-hate/eventual-love. Instead their connection grows with an organic realism that exposes the subtleness of life. The characters are flawed, sometimes unsure of themselves, and ultimately make decisions they regret. But they are also self-reflective and forgiving. At times they over-react, but still manage to refrain from digging in behind their own stubbornness. They are individually complicated, and yet they recognize that everyone else is too. They come across as actual people rather than the symbolic archetypes that films often portray.

The film is truly engaging from start to finish, with a consistently unpredictable plot that acts as an opportunity to observe as the two lead characters learn about each other and realize their own motivations. And it is made all the more enjoyable by the backdrop of a tremendously moving soundtrack. The music is integral to the plot and has a presence that pulls the film close to the line of “musical”, but without upstaging the characters themselves. The story is not an excuse to showcase the music, rather the music is a narrative tool that helps progress the story.

There is also a delightful band of secondary characters who are clearly not the focus of the story but are important nonetheless; and all have the kind of depth that suggests additional stories to learn about, if only we had more time. An origin story for the ragtag backing band, or 24 hours with the unwitting music producer could make engaging films in their own right.

The whole supporting cast is refreshingly positive – plenty of stories would makes use of the father, the mother, the bros next door, and certainly the estranged husband, to add melodrama. But Once is free from the hurt and sadness that often characterizes compelling storytelling, and flatly rejects the tradition of devising increasingly complex ways to depict human trauma. Nobody is unrealistically insecure, everybody is encouraging, everyone is good in the way we all want people to be good.

But who expects a dramatic film in which nothing bad happens? I wish that someone had told me ahead of time that nothing bad was going to happen, because I am clearly too pessimistic to accept that a film can tell a compelling story without resorting to trauma for the characters. I spent the entire movie in anxious anticipation of the bad thing I was sure was about to happen. Bad things always happen when people are having a nice time.

But Once doesn’t need to invent tension just to get its point across – it simply presents situations. And if the viewer’s own expectations build unnecessary tension, then so be it. This is just nice movie about normally complicated people living normally complicated lives.

And it’s wonderful.

Nothing bad happens.

Just enjoy the story.

9.5/10

Sione’s Wedding

What Sarah said:

It’s been a while since I last watched this but from what I can remember it’s entertaining and funny. Not a complex story to follow along with but it’s told from a NZ/Samoan point of view which adds to its charm. I want to watch it again, so you will have to watch it with me. It is such an iconic New Zealand movie and I wonder how much of the humour and charm is appreciated by non-kiwis or does too much of it need explanation.

Mike’s verdict:

Sione’s Wedding is complete nonsense. It’s not deep. It’s not complex. It’s not even believable – there cannot possibly be real people who act like the four main characters, and the supporting roles are somehow even less realistic. The situations are contrived, the personal interactions are implausible, and the narrative is confusing. The plot certainly includes plenty of surprises, but only because there is no way for a reasonable audience to anticipate nonsense.

The film is an extension of the traditional buddy comedy film, with four buddies instead of two, and at times it’s difficult to keep track of why everyone is upset with everyone else. It feels as if the writers tried to make a feature-length film based on a four-minute improve skit, and only realized the trouble they were in after they had already taken their investors’ money. That said, they must not have needed much of a budget considering the simplicity of the sets – the most realistic aspect of the film is how plain everything looks. The characters are all bonkers, but they seem to exist in the real world.

Unfortunately, much of this criticism is likely due to my two-degrees of cultural separation. This is not a movie intended for North American audiences at all; so much of it is specific to the Samoan cultural experience as it exists in New Zealand (probably?). Even following the dialog was difficult given the accents and the fact that Kiwis use words that don’t exist anywhere else.

It’s likely unfair of me to try to align the film with Hollywood from my outsider point-of-view, but since that is what I do… Sione’s Wedding is a little bit Dumb and Dumber, a little bit Step-Brothers, and probably some Planes, Trains and Automobiles too. And why not? Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell, Leslie Nielsen, and countless others have made entire careers out of nonsense.

The film is a silly and entertaining way to spent an hour and 30 minutes. Maybe it is meant to be more than that, but it’s certainly not less.

7/10

Bend it Like Beckham

What Sarah said:

I really liked this. A funny, feel good movie that isn’t deep or complex. The music stands out as a lasting memory that I have of this movie. Yes the story is predicable and not new but it’s done well. Even though I’m not a fan of Keira Knightley and especially of her character in this I still really enjoyed it.

(After re-watching this film, Sarah rescinded the entire recommendation which had been based on recollections of a past self. But I had to watch it, so it’s getting reviewed anyway.)

Mike’s verdict:

Bend It Like Beckham is so much the stereotypical coming of age story, that it is basically every possible coming of age story all at once. In less than two hours, the film attempts to incorporate:

• middle-class “hardship”,
• “wasted” physical talent,
• jealousy,
• strict immigrant parents,
• a clueless soccer-mom,
• an ineffectual father,
• ruining a sibling’s wedding and then saving it,
• unreasonable cultural expectations,
• unreasonable gender expectations,
• blatant homophobia,
• blatant sexism,
• blatant racism,
• depression,
• embarrassment about physical deformity,
• an unhealthy obsession with a celebrity,
• an inappropriate relationship with a coach, and
• declining university education to follow “the dream”… in California.

There are some real issues in that list; issues that real people face everyday. And, for certain, in life those issues often do become intertwined. But life isn’t a story told in two hours. Life has nuance, surprises and – crucially – unexpected consequences. Bend It Like Beckham has none of that.

One could argue that the film is merely attempting to highlight the existence of issues faced by young adults as they try to find their place in the world. Unfortunately, Bend It Like Beckham brings nothing of value to the actual discussion of those issues. Instead they are all treated as trite clichés – sprinkled like colourful confections on a social commentary cupcake. The film expects its audience to recognize the characters’ struggles, feel some sympathy, and then walk away happy to have had a sweet treat.

But the happy ending is probably the most infuriating aspect. Since none of the issues are ever properly developed, it would be extremely generous to suggest that they are “resolved”. Yet, in the end the audience is still left with the notion that everything has magically worked out. The central conflict of this film is that a young woman with an immense talent, that has gone completely unnoticed by her family, is being unfairly held back from the fairy-tale life she could have. Once that singular issue is solved – when her parents finally see how well she can kick a soccer ball – all other concerns are set aside. The underlying lesson is that society has a lot of problems, but you can ignore them if you have a special talent for something that other people care about; especially if that talent lets you physically escape to another country.

The film would have been better if Jess had just enjoyed soccer as a past-time but wasn’t particularly good at it. The plot would be essentially the same, but with a depressing ending that would more accurately reflect the life of someone facing so many social barriers. At least that would have left the audience with something to think about.

0/10

In Bruges

What Sarah said:

Feel like something fun? After a job gone wrong Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) is sent off to Bruges to await instructions. The comedy plays with the inner struggles of the characters. This is getting my recommendation because I enjoy the interactions between the characters and the moments that make you laugh.

Mike’s verdict:

This film is not the light-hearted action-comedy that Sarah’s recommendation led me to believe it would be. It’s heavy. Really, heavy.

To be fair, it is entertaining. There are definitely funny moments, the writing is genuinely clever, Colin Farrell is precisely the goofy anti-hero that he always is, and the basic story is compelling. Yes, I was entertained.

But the characters, their motivations, their rationalizations, their actions – all of it is so dark. By the end of the final scene I had had quite enough of In Bruges‘ style of comedy. And I am not sure that I actually want to have been entertained by it.

This level of darkness requires a certain degree of mental preparation to properly consume. The kind of mental-readiness that isn’t expected (or appropriate) for a quiet Sunday afternoon viewing.

7/10

The Truman Show

What Sarah said:

I don’t like this movie but I think there are themes revolving around determinism that would spark an interesting discussion that we could spend many hours on the balcony with several beers discussing.

Mike’s verdict:

Sarah was right, in so far as this film was able to spark discussion. Unfortunately, the steady decline into winter greatly hampered the hours available for sitting on the balcony – though thankfully not the availability of beer.

She was also right that the discussion, at least initially, revolved around determinism. I went into The Truman Show knowing the basic premise – a man, living in a completely isolated world, is unaware that his entire existence is controlled for the sake of others’ entertainment – so it was not a far leap to the question of free will. However, I quickly found myself drawn away from my favourite (and, quite frankly, the correct) way of explaining the universe. Determinism isn’t the concern here. Truman has no less of a free will than you do.

Superficially, it appears as if Truman’s life is being inordinately controlled; everything he does is guided by the unseen force of the program producers solely for the benefit of others. As observers from the outside we are aware of the cameras, and the actors, and the container. We recognize that Truman is being manipulated; that everyone involved in his tiny universe wants, first and foremost, to keep the illusion alive, and secondly, to provide an entertaining program for the viewers. And of course his life is entirely devoid of privacy – everything he does is known, to everyone.

Yet Truman still has as much free will as you or I. His innate ability to make decisions, to choose his responses to life situations, is no different than that of the audience. Without question, the options available to him in most situations are severely limited and, worse, he is completely unaware of those limitations. But in terms of his actual ability to make decisions, he is no more suppressed than anyone else on Earth.  In fact, within the cinematic universe The Truman Show only works as entertainment because he has free will. His personal agency is a necessary condition for the audience to enjoy watching him.

If we take a step back (okay, maybe take two or three steps back) to look at ‘real’ life side-by-side with Truman’s mini-world, the differences are really only a matter of scale: Truman was raised to believe that there was no need to leave the town he’d always lived in; that his life would be comfortable and fulfilling there; that ‘other’ places would be unnecessarily dangerous or just generally not as nice to live in.  Millions of people around the world have lived, and will continue to live, with exactly this belief. 

Truman’s world had strangers going about their own lives, briefly interacting with him in seemingly arbitrary but not inconsequential ways. It also included people with whom he developed relationships, directly affecting the decisions he made.  In real life, we have these same influences – the woman who cuts you off in the store parking lot, the man your mother insists you go on a date with. 

Truman had his decision-making ability limited by outside forces, guiding him to move about his world in ways that were not necessarily of benefit to himself, but of benefit to the larger system in which he existed.  We all stop at stop signs, we all wait patiently in queues, and we all exchange our labour for easily accountable and pocketable credits. 

We have all had our decision-making ability suppressed for the benefit of a larger system. Most of us call that system “society” and we like to think our participation is voluntary; that it comes from a conscious decision to enter into the “social contract”.  But this is a convenient lie.  In truth, individuals do not choose to enter the contract; there is no “opt out” clause for society.  Vast systems of progress that have been developing for thousands of years narrowly focus the effective influence we have over our own lives, while paradoxically ensuring that we have a certain amount of influence over the lives of others.

To be fair, individuals in a society derive some benefits in return – usually in the form of security for the necessities of life.  But Truman also receives these benefits; it is crucial for the show producers to ensure that he remains healthy.  And just like Truman the amount of effective influence we retain as part of the social contract is minimal, especially compared to what we are required to give up. (Whether or not the control we relinquish is truly worth the security we receive in exchange is a question for another time.)

The point of this film is not to make the viewer imagine how they would feel if it turned out that their whole life were controlled for the benefit of others.  It is, in fact, to highlight that all our lives are controlled for the benefit of others.  For Truman, the control is very focused – he has everyone’s attention.  In our ‘real’ world, control is instead spread across a boundless system of individuals who are mostly unable or unwilling to work together. We’re manipulated just like Truman, the difference is that there is no single puppet master – for us, it is the death of agency by a thousand influencers. 

But the most important aspect of our situation is that the manipulations we suffer are universal. The conditions of the social contract are meant to affect everyone more or less equally. We can blissfully ignore our society of micro-manipulations because they don’t single anyone out.  That is not the case for Truman.  What really, truly upsets us about The Truman Show is not the question of free will, nor even the question of privacy – it is the terrifying notion of being the only one who isn’t in on the joke. Truman’s life is just as mundane as yours; it wouldn’t be worth watching if he consented to being watched. The audience is entertained because he doesn’t know that he is entertainment.  He is being treated differently. 

We all want to be recognized as special. We do not want to be treated as different. 

There’s an interesting sub-theme that I found to be fairly subtle and is never directly address by the film itself, but could make for a whole other line of discussion: the audience… do they have free will?  Do the individuals who are drawn obsessively to spend every minute watching Truman go about his mundane tasks actually have any of their own personal agency?  Truman lived in an idyllic ocean-side town with friends and neighbours. He lived decades of this life with relative contentment; only questioning his existence when the mechanisms of the illusion began to fail.  On the other hand, his audience is comprised of individuals who are clearly so engrossed in Truman’s life that they neglect their own. They are so enveloped by obsession that they cannot bear to be away from their view screens. Whose agency is really being suppress by The Truman Show?  Is it the man who has been given an overwhelmingly ideal life, or the mindless hordes who cannot bear to miss any of it?

8/10

Spirited Away

What Sarah said:

I really like the beautiful animation and brilliant storytelling. It is very much the style of Hayao Miyazaki. This was one of the first of his films that I watched and was taken in by the imaginative and fantastical story of Chihiro, a girl who wanders into a world of gods, witches and spirits.

Mike’s verdict:

I was very confused during the first part of this film. Japanese animation is not something I regularly watch and I purposely avoid learning anything ahead of time about movies I plan to review. This, combined with the generically animated faces and the fact that I was watching the version with English voice actors, made the beginning of the narrative very misleading.

What I thought I was seeing, was a comically cliché American family, with a (possibly adopted?) daughter, as they were moving to a new town. I don’t know anything about what families are actually like in Japan, but the over-grown and over-bearing father, submissive mother and bratty child came across so much as the standard caricature of the American family that I was initially annoyed by the lack of exposition. Why is this American businessman moving his family to middle-of-no-where Japan? Why does their daughter have a Japanese name? Am I going to be forced to endure these annoying characters for the whole film? Everything about the characters seemed American – their interactions with each other, the way the father was driving, the lack of concern the parents had for their daughter, and especially the way the parents reacted to finding free food. None of the family interactions in this film conform to the image that I have come to expect of Japanese families. Like I said, I don’t know anything about what it’s like to be in a Japanese family, but this is definitely not how they are normally portrayed in films.

Of course, eventually I realized none of that mattered – the entire beginning of the film is just setting up a way for Chihiro to find herself in a fantastical land. The setup is flimsy and confusing, but it’s also mostly irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film is very hard for me to review. Fantasy is always hard to judge, and animated fantasy is even more so. Is the animation good? I suppose so? It’s not a style that I find compelling – I very much prefer more detail and dimension. But that’s doesn’t mean it’s bad. Is the plot interesting? Maybe? It’s like a child’s dream, rambling along without any real direction. But that’s often how fantasy works when the only constraint is what can be drawn and the storyteller wants to put in as many strange elements as possible. Is there an over-all message conveyed? Not really. I could probably stretch to suggest that a spoiled child learned the value of labour, but I don’t think Miyazaki actually intended that.

I can’t say that I found this film particularly interesting – it doesn’t speak to me. But of course it doesn’t. This is a story for the 10 year old girl who is unhappy with some aspect of her ten year old life. It’s for the girl that needs an escape from the unreasonable adults controlling her existence; an imaginary place she can get lost in – one that isn’t perfect, but is somewhere she can be in control as the hero.

6/10

Hugo

What Sarah said:

This is a visually stunning film and ideally watched in 3D. Hugo lives inside the walls of a train station in Paris in the 1930s. His father leaves him a mysterious automaton that, when fixed, can write. I think it’s a family movie that feels artistic and there is an attention to detail that I appreciate.

Mike’s verdict:

I have quite a list of coming soon reviews and generally choose the order of films to watch randomly, or at least without too much intention.  In this case, I chose Hugo because after the disappointment of the The Artist I wanted something light and enjoyable; and 3D children’s movies generally fit that description.  In fact, until the opening scene, I had been under the mistaken impression that I was about to watch an animated film; presumably because of the over-saturated poster image.  I don’t watch movie trailers so I knew nothing of the plot and I was genuinely surprised to discover the obvious connection to The Artist. Thankfully, Hugo was a much more enjoyable film.

To start with, it really is visually stunning.  I made the effort to see this film in 3D; the home set-up pales in comparison to what would have been quite an experience if I’d been able to view it in a proper theatre but I think it was worth the effort.  The universe that Martin Scorsese has created is engrossing, and the added dimension greatly contributes to a feeling of being inside that universe.  All of the detail provided in the set designs was fantastic. Every corner in each scene was given attention, making it really feel like a world – there were no empty spaces and no background – everything was alive and meant to be looked at.

I also really appreciated the characters, who felt both real and like caricatures at the same time.  Certainly this has a great deal to do with the choice of actors like Sir Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen. They allow the over-saturation to extended past the movie poster, through the 3D set, right into the characters’ personalities.  Everyone seems like so much.  The story is fantasy, so believability isn’t really an issue, and the plot isn’t nearly as easy to predict as it initially seems.  The film did feel a little long, but considering that Scorsese directed it, it’s actually very reasonable.

My only real criticism concerns the plot revelation of why Georges Méliès abandoned film-making so drastically.  His portrayal and the lead-up to the revelation intimated that something terrible must have caused him to turn away from his passion, but when everything is explained in the end his anger seems like an over-reaction.  The story could have suggested that, as a film-maker at the start of the Great War, he would have been requested to document the fighting. By the end of the war, having witnessed so much, it would have been far more believable for him to walk away from the camera forever.  Instead, the writers let him simply be disappointed by a lack of attention – a plausibly human reaction, but not a very satisfying one.  Granted, my revisions would be somewhat less appropriate for a children’s movie – I’m simply not the audience this film was intended for.

Overall, an enjoyable watch that kept me engaged until the end.

7.5/10

 

 

The Artist

What Sarah said:

Charming, witty, moving and beautiful The Artist follows a film star in the 1920s who develops a relationship with a young dancer. I think that everything in this is well executed, it comes across as a very charismatic film. One very memorable standout is the performance by Uggie. The chemistry between all the characters is spot on. The artistry of this makes it a standout film in my opinion.

Mike’s verdict:

I want to like this film.  I like the idea of it.  I like the look of it.  I even like the choice of actors and I think that they portray their characters very well. (Yes, especially Uggie.)  There is indeed some charm in a film that can be boiled down to only the necessities. So much of every day life is non-verbal and implied by actions, but telling a story this way is surely harder than one would expect. The successful elimination of an entire storytelling vector (in this case audible dialog) can be freeing for the audience, since there is less to focus on in any given scene.  The energy that would normally go into attention for the missing vector can be focused elsewhere; perhaps on visuals or even non-dialog audio like the score.  Used correctly, this effect can draw the audience into a film in ways that are unfamiliar and ultimately contribute to a greater sense of connectedness. The audience will forget that something is missing, because that aspect is in fact not missing – it’s just not present.

Unfortunately, this film actually fails to accomplish the goal of telling a story without dialog. First, a significant portion of the story is told through dialog that is entirely present, but just not audible.  Many of John Goodman‘s lines are spoken, but with the audience required to lip-read. This would be acceptable if those lines were superfluous; one or two words at a time, spoken in obvious reaction, anger, surprise, dismay, etc. But that is not the case.  His character is central to the development of the plot, and many of those developments can only be understood by reading his lips. This makes it impossible for the audience to forget that the audio is missing – every time his character speaks I am reminded that part of my normal sensory input has been disabled. It’s irritating.

But even more irritating is the fact that the film actually uses dialog intertitles (the printed text edited into or between scenes), but does so randomly, without any obvious consideration for whether or not the audience actually needs clarification at a given point.  Not only are these additional reminders to the audience that their senses have been deliberately disabled, they are also used too infrequently given how often one is required to lip-read and at the same time used too frequently when lip-reading would have actually been just as effective.

Even worse, the intertiles that are provide are in French, despite the fact that all other written text in the film (such as visible newspapers) are written in English, and the dialog that needs to be read from silent lips is also entirely in English.  Yes, I understand that this has been marketed as a “French” film, but it’s not – literally everything about this film is English accept for the awkwardly timed intertiles.  The assumption that the audience must be able to read written French and English lips was aggravating and it caused me notable frustration throughout the viewing.  I spent a significant portion of the film trying to sort out what was actually happening.

Which brings me to my next complaint – the story.  Quite simply, it makes absolutely no sense that a production company would suddenly abandon their biggest star just because they are making a switch to ‘talkies’.  The entire world of film audiences would have been demanding to finally hear the voice of their hero George Valentin. It makes even less sense that Valentin would resist working on ‘talkies’ right to the point of bankruptcy. At minimum he could have continued to accept non-speaking roles just to pay the bills.  Without some kind of conflict films would be nothing more than a string of uninteresting scenes, but conflict has to make sense.  This film’s conflict is just too contrived.  I simply cannot accept that the characters would have made the choices that are depicted.

Obviously, I’m not a fan of this film.  But they always say that criticism is worthless without suggestions for improvement, and I do in fact have some suggestions. First, eliminate the requirement for lip-reading and intertitles entirely by rewriting the scenes that rely on them.  This will likely add a lot off camp to the scenes, but that would be more in line with the time-period anyway.  Second, change the plot to one where all the same events occur, but are in fact being orchestrated deliberately by Peppy Miller who is a mentally ill stalker bent on ruining Valentin’s life so that he is forced to be with her.  The film already has the necessary components to make this work – it just needs some tweaking to the non-verbal dialog.

4/10

 

The Runaways

What Sarah said:

You should watch The Runaways for the feel, look and sound of punk in the ’70s. It’s a biopic with a bit of a coming of age feel, and focuses on the relationship between singer Cherie Currie and guitarist/vocalist Joan Jett during the creation of the all girl punk band The Runaways.

Mike’s verdict:

I wasn’t very familiar with The Runaways before watching this film.  I was definitely aware of Cherry Bomb in the same half-remembered way that I know a lot of songs from the 1900s.  For those who don’t remember, back in the day exposure to music was primarily through radio – a medium that made identifying artists and song titles a bit of a crap-shoot. You had to be lucky, or really interested, to hear the song and the DJ announce it’s details. It probably doesn’t help that I also would have been paying attention about 25 years after the band was actually in rotation. Either way, as it turns out I am familiar with a few of the their songs – I just didn’t realize they were connected.

Of course, I’m a lot more familiar with Joan Jett’s music. I’m sure that has a lot to do with the fact that her career continued long after The Runaways‘, and it doesn’t hurt that she stamped her name on her next band…

In any case, I have no real emotional attachment to the music that might skew how I feel about the film.  Still, I did have some expectations about how it would go.  Dirty clubs, unseemly characters, angry girls, drugs, tour bus foolishness, at least one slimy band manager, and obviously punk rock music.  And in a lot of ways, that does sum-up the basic plot of the film.

But as much as the film is superficially about the band’s development, it actually does have a lot more to say about the relationship between Jett and Currie.  At least it implies there is a lot to say about their relationship. In fact, it sort of implies a lot about a lot. Somehow I get the feeling that a true director’s cut would be a Scorsese-length epic.  Time passes almost too quickly, even for the whirlwind pace of the music industry, and a number of scenes felt like there was supposed to be more.  Hannah Marks‘s Tammy, for instance, is left as an awkward side character but could very easily have been used as a proper dramatic device.  I also believe that some issues that were skipped over entirely would have been addressed directly if this film had been made in 2020 rather than 2010.

Even so, I did enjoy the feel of the film. I don’t have any memories to rely on, but the depiction of 1975-76 feels faithful.  The locations, the clothes, the sounds; all work very well. And say what you want about Bella Swan, but Kristen Stewart was an entirely believable Joan Jett. Dakota Fanning was also quite believable – almost too believable considering she would have been roughly the same age as the character she was depicting.

All of that to say, The Runaways is a good film and I enjoyed watching it.  However, there is another aspect that should not be overlooked: namely, the fact that it has provided an excuse to get (re)acquainted with the band members and where there lives have gone since the band disintegrated.

There isn’t too much surprising to say about Jett. She’s in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Currie continued her music career (despite what the film suggests) with a certain amount of success, particularly once she started performing with her sister.  She also stared in a number of films, including Foxes with Jodie Foster.  But most interestingly, she is now a chainsaw carving artist – she even has a very GeoCities-esque website that showcases her art! Yup, chainsaw art.

Sandy West, the drummer and only member other than Jett to remain with the band for their entire run, died in 2006 at the young age of 47… from lung cancer brought on by a lifetime of very punk-rock smoking.

Micki Steele, one of only three original members (with Jett and West), left the band before they were even picked up by Mercury Records. But in the ’80s she changed directions entirely, joining The Bangles!

Lita Ford had a fairly unremarkable solo career, but she did record a duet with Ozzy Osbourne.

Finally, Jackie Fox, who at 15 turned down early acceptance to study math at UCLA in order the join the band, went on to study linguistics and get a law degree from Harvard after she left the band. In addition to working as an attorney now, she also spends her time on game shows like Jeopardy!.  And most interestingly, she is the only member of the band who refused to give her permission to be depicted in the film. The producers had to invent the fictitious bass player Robin, played by Alia Shawkat.

Sometimes it’s really worth looking passed the film.

8/10

Space Jam

What Sarah said:

A classic from the ’90s that I remember enjoying more than once, most likely because of the music, the characters, the crazy plot and all round fun time. Some iconic rap lyrics and a cast full of all your favourite Looney Tunes characters, NBA stars and Bill Murray playing a high stakes basketball game, what’s not to like? At least that’s what my memories of it are.

Mike’s verdict:

This took ages to review because despite, being a ’90s classic, it’s simply not interesting.  It sort of ebbs and flows between silly and cringe-worthy, as so many children’s movies do, but not in any interesting ways.  I’ll admit that it is definitely fun to see basketball players being used so blatantly as marketing tools; Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Larry Johnson, Shawn Bradley (did I miss anyone?) are surprisingly terrible actors considering they are playing themselves. That said, the ‘toon actors are all on point – somehow Bugs and the gang just never seems to get any older…

I do appreciate the obvious irreverence for the fourth wall though – making a movie designed solely to explain what Jordan was doing during his fake retirement hiatus from the NBA is pretty clever. And any movie that suddenly busts-out Bill Murray to save the day will always get bonus points from me. I’m also giving another few bonus points because, inexplicably, Warner Bros. still maintaining the original Space Jam website in all its ’90s glory!

5/10

 

 

Across the Universe

What Sarah said:

I’m a bit hesitant about this one because I know that you aren’t a fan of the Beatles and this movie relies heavily on the music. Interestingly it doesn’t have much in the way of a script, instead relying more on the lyrics of the songs to move the plot along. Sometimes it feels like it struggles using this method but overall I think it makes for an interesting and enjoyable watch. I’m really interested to hear what you think.

Mike’s verdict:

There’s a reason I went more than a decade without watching Across the Universe; the Beatles.  I have never understood the fanatical devotion that people still feel toward the band, and their music has never held any real meaning for me directly.

Of course, I can certainly appreciate the context in which they developed a following.  Millions of mostly young people, dissatisfied with the lives of their parents, were searching for any way to be a part of the burgeoning counter-culture.  They found the new sound easily digestible, comforting and rebellious – the three most important aspects of teen music in any time period.  But being a rebel at the forefront of an already snow-balling cultural shift is easy, particularly when you stand to make a lot of money for a lot of people. The Beatles, for all the talk of counter-culture and rebellion, were actually quite palatable even to the parents that shook their heads and lamented the death of ‘proper’ music. Sure, the band members had the floppy hair, but they also wore suits.  Their music didn’t sound like anything people had heard to that point, but the lyrics were sentimental and mostly inoffensive.  The Beatles were exactly the right sound and look, at exactly the time it was needed – and they managed to ride the wave. Fine.

But that doesn’t explain why people still swoon over any mention of them today.  Nor does it explain why the Beatles have managed to build such devotion from people who missed their hay-day.  It’s as if kids of the 60s never managed to out-grow their bubble-gum pop phase, and the reverence has managed to be passed down like fancy cookware.  Music should tell a story, and certainly the Beatles understood that. Unfortunately, their lyrics tell stories the way your grandfather does; half-asleep on the couch, fighting to remember the point he’s trying to make, distracted by a myriad of experiences that his failing memory can’t arrange in order.  You listen intently hoping for some insightful advice about life, but at the end you’re left wondering if you missed something.

And that’s sort of how I feel about Across the Universe: a plainly ordinary film about romance on the back-drop of the Vietnam war.   The 60s had a lot going on and the film tries to check all the nostalgia boxes it can cram in.  To be fair, it succeeds in hitting most of the right notes, but it doesn’t manage to make them sound like music. The plot is scattered and none of the main characters are given the space to properly develop. The saddest part is that without the sudden and random bursts of Beatles songs, the film probably wouldn’t be notable at all.

Across the Universe isn’t a terrible movie. It’s light, entertaining and nothing to take too seriously; just like the band who inspired it.

5.5/10

The History Boys

What Sarah said:

History boys is the film adaptation of the play of the same name, set in the early 80s following a group of boys attempting to get into Oxbridge. I think it’s got plenty of wit, dry humour and a pretty good soundtrack. There are a few stand out performances in the cast and with the exception of a few moments that definitely feel like they have come straight from the theater, the adaptation to film has been done fairly well.

Mike’s verdict:

At its core, this story is a commentary on education – specifically, the methods used to teach the classic arts: history, literature, and philosophy.  It presents a sort of trichotomy that juxtaposes classical general studies against traditional history as narrative and modern speculative history; giving the viewer a literal representation for each in the form of three very different teachers. But it’s an unusual setup. While most stories of this sort start with a base of students who are reluctant at best (if not totally obstinate), the titular history boys are engaged, intelligent and outright excited about their studies.  This is not the school movie trope about teachers struggling to get through to students. Moreover, the traditional teaching methods embodied by Mrs. Lintott and Hector appear to have been quite effective – they have elevated eight boys to the top of the class after all.  Yet, despite this, the school’s headmaster parachutes in the younger Irwin to work with the boys when he recognizes (or imagines) a disconnect between how his school teaches and the expectations of Oxbridge entrance examiners.  This makes the main conflict of story more about how the teachers interact with each other than how they interact with the students.

It’s an interesting shift on the classic school boy story.  Unfortunately, there are some aspects of the film that just don’t work well.

First, in order to bolster drama beyond just teachers disagreeing, an out-of-place sub-narrative is introduced that involves too many of the characters given how small the cast is.  It may be that some of the connective tissue holding this sub-narrative together was lost due to editing, or maybe it wasn’t meant to be a sub-narrative at all. But either way, it doesn’t fit well with the rest of the film.

I also found Rudge‘s character confounding. At the beginning of the film there is no indication that he is any less intelligent than his classmates; nor is he portrayed as any less hopeful of being accepted to one of the elite schools. Yet as the boys prepare for entrance interviews, his lack of knowledge, obvious contempt for the Oxbridge elite, and assumption that he could get by on sports alone, are revealed so suddenly that it is hard to reconcile his inclusion in the group at all.  The boy who hopes to play golf rather than answer interview questions somehow managed to earn one of the highest grades in his school’s history?  Perhaps there is something lost in translation from play to film, but even the final outcome of his own story is very disappointing.

Finally, the soundtrack is interesting, but wasn’t used as well as it could have been. There is a disconnect between the music used for scenes inside the school, which admittedly seems appropriate for a boy’s grammar school, and the music used for scenes outside the school, which includes New Order, The Smiths, The Clash, Echo & The Bunnymen, and The Cure. I enjoyed all of the music, but there wasn’t enough of a bridge between the two scene types.

This film comes across as very obviously adapted from the stage. Everything from the dialog delivery, scene structure and story progression feel like theatre. And it doesn’t quite work.  Stage productions are disjointed between scenes, but that is a necessary consequence of how theatre stages work – it’s not a feature.  Films have the opportunity to smooth stories out, to make them flow. The History Boys just doesn’t flow well.

Nevertheless, the film is intellectually interesting and entertaining.  The teaching scenes are such a flurry of quotes and dry, wit interpretations that they stand out above the film’s limitations, and the out of school music was fun even if it did seem under-utilized.

7/10