Friday, January 26, 2024

Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

Scott Nye started his review by saying, “If there are two types of films more erroneously convinced of their own hipness than the young adult franchise and a new Tim Burton film, I can’t think of them.” Yet “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children,” released in 2016, covered though it may be with the trimmings of both, comes out as a truly eccentric film. From the beginning, a real cut from the familiarly “ominous” fantasy film credits sequence to the simple suburban beaches of Florida, Burton looks deep to balance expectations, not quite energized but far from his previous attempt (Alice in Wonderland) or desperation (Big Eyes). This is even before the casting of Samuel L. Jackson eating everyone’s eyeballs.

Despite Eva Green’s exciting presence at the front of its advertising, the film focuses instead on a completely boring Asa Butterfield as Jake, a bored eccentric teenager who starts to believe his grandfather’s, played by Terence Stamp, fantastic stories of a youth spent with supernaturally-gifted children might be true. Maybe it was the giant monster who just showed up at Grandpa’s house that sold it. Nobody believes him, but he convinces his dad (Chris O’Dowd) to take him to the house in Wales where these children – and their guardian, Miss Peregrine (Green) – are said to have lived, and may yet still.

Jake finds that he can still visit the house, the children, and the guardian, by way of a time loop that takes him back to the 1940s. the war was just starting, and the house was on the night of destruction. The children and Miss Peregrine know this. She has the power to move time back, which she’s done every night at 9:00 for decades. Wait any longer and a bomb will destroy their home. Move permanently into the present, into Jake's time, and their age will catch up with them. They’ve been living inside of a day for over seventy years. They never age. They never leave. They’re trapped and yet saved.

Nye noted, “The film’s more formulaic latter half – a threat, a kidnapping, a mission, a battle – depends on the pure strangeness of its particulars, but this first half is genuinely lovely. Burton doesn’t make the house into a saccharine gloss on 1940s nostalgia. He trusts the nature of the story will bring all the sentiment he needs, and focuses instead on the routine the house goes through. There’s a squirrel that will fall each day, a call that must be answered with a mix of reverence and nonchalance. Burton enjoys their play, especially the way their “peculiarities” embolden them.” One girl must be secured to the ground or she’ll float away. One boy is invisible. Another girl has great strength. Another boy is filled with bees. They’re not exactly the X-Men, but their talents extend far enough beyond the normal to reflect the curiosity of escape. Moreover, the house becomes reflective of the respect many young people feel towards their grandparents, and their secret desire to have lived in such a time.

Burton and screenwriter Jane Goldman (best known for co-writing “X-Men: First Class”), adapted Ransom Riggs’ novel, thankfully avoiding idealizing the war, the worst possible traps. Nye said, “Each night when the bombers fly overhead, they’re a genuine, titanic threat, and there’s no magnificent army to save them should Miss Peregrine fail to reset the clock.” The kids are not so powerful to survive or deflect such a weapon. This avoidance eventually takes the form of pure fantasy, including reanimated skeletons fighting a half-dozen monsters, at this point you’re either having fun with the eccentricities or are too bored to care, but the war forever shows as a catastrophe. There’s no suggestion that the children might be able to save the world, even by inevitably defeating the fantastical threat in front of them (in the form of an ever-exaggerated Samuel L. Jackson). They can do a little, and that’s enough.

Nye noted, “Jackson is hardly alone in his over-emphatic performance style, and it’s right that Eva Green should be given a suitably flamboyant nemesis. While the film unfortunately pushes her towards the background as the plot gets moving, she makes as powerful an impression as ever in the first half, her arched eyebrow alone contrasting nicely with her panic when any matter escape her ability to master it.” The other kids don’t charge much better than Butterfield, sadly. Burton doesn’t seem able to inspire their imaginations past a type of proper English diction to communicate the plot and their role in it.

Nye mentioned, “Burton has been trying to overcome his decreasing facility with actors for the better part of the past decade by increasing his focus on everything surrounding them, and this is the first time it’s truly paid off. Maybe it’s the new collaboration with production designer Gavin Bocquet after three straight runs with Rick Heinrichs. Bocquet’s sets have a sort of efficiency to them that disregards much of the “Tim Burton filter” that has been placed over those more recent films. The absence of that familiar “look” (which does crop up in two truly horrific re-animating scenes I will not spoil) emphasizes Burton’s perspective through the camera, reminding us that the iconic power of Edward Scissorhands came as much from how Burton framed his suburban neighborhood as what color the houses were painted.” While we’ve had no shortage of Tim Burton films over the years, this is the first in some time that’s felt as distinct.

My sister had recommended this movie to me, so I checked this out a few years ago. I didn’t mind it at all, but thought it was a nice film. Check it out on Disney+ because I think people will enjoy it just fine. I don’t see anything in here that is bad, besides the fact that this film may be a copy or rip-off of the X-Men, but it’s not atrocious. If you didn’t like the previous Tim Burton films before, check this out and you’ll like it.

Alright, everyone, we have reached the end of “Samuel L. Jackson Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed this month and decided to check out the films I recommended. Sorry for posting this late as I ended up falling asleep some time after I came home from work.

Why, is next month February? Do you know what that means? I’m going to be doing the next “Black History Movie Month.” Stay tuned next month to see what I will review.

Friday, January 19, 2024

Turbo

Matt Fowler started his review by saying, “There's nothing overtly wrong with Dreamworks Animation's slick (from snail slime) new summer kid-pleaser, but for a movie about a speed-obsessed snail who - just go with it - enters the Indy 500, it sure does sit there. It's easy, formulaic and light on laughs. But, for those dragged to see it by children, it won't make you want to rub salt in your eyes. So it's a faint fail or a faint pass, depending on your resilience.”

Ryan Reynolds voices Theo (aka “Turbo”) a snail strangely determined to be as fast as a NASCAR racer. As if you could hear from a pitch meeting, “Wouldn’t it be funny if a snail wanted to be fast? Because they’re so slow!” Paul Giamatti voices Turbo’s “Isn’t the life we have just fine?” brother, Chet, who mostly yells lines like “It’s not natural!” and “That’s not what Mother Nature had in mind!” as Turbo a lot that you come to realize, after 10 minutes, that the villain in this film is reality. After endless arguing between a grouch and an unnatural dreamer, you begin to resent both sides of the argument.

Fowler admitted, “In fact, and this is where I'll lose some of you (but it's where my mind goes when I'm bored during a kids' movie), there's a struggling LGBT undercurrent to the whole story. Especially when it comes to how much Turbo wants to desperately change who he is as a creature entirely. And, subsequently, how much he's told that he's wrong for wanting to be something different. You get relentlessly beaten about the head by both sides of the fence so much that after a while you have to clear the cobwebs and remember that you're watching a stunt-casted cartoon flick.”

However, none of that works against the movie as such. That’s what most of these animated films have come to be. Someone wants the impossible and then they get it because, as predicted, happy endings and all of that. All they have to do for their part is never stop wanting it.

What drags “Turbo,” released in 2013, down is how we’ve just seen so much of it before. Fowler noted, “It's got some Madagascar in it (director David Soren helmed the Madagascar TV specials), some Toy Story (bad seed kid who loves to squash snails gets tables turned on him) and a lot of Cars - complete with its own version of customer-starved Radiator Springs, here a Van Nuys strip mall called Starlight Plaza. So it's a Franken-feature through and through.”

Fowler continued, “Turbo, after becoming a hazard to his own garden community, heads out into the San Fernando Valley one night and accidentally gets shellacked in a street racer's nitrous oxide, giving him super-snail speedster abilities.” From there, he and Chet, both disliked, find a new home with some novelty racing snails (sure) in a garage next to a struggling taco stand run by brothers Tito and Angelo, voiced by Michael Peña and Luis Guzmán. As we find out, Tito is also a dreamer and it’s his underdog thinking that takes Turbo, along with fellow plaza shop owners, voiced by Michelle Rodriguez, Ken Jeong, and Richard Jenkins, to Indianapolis to race in the big leagues.

From there the story plays out as predictably as possible, leaving little room for surprise or inspiration. Samuel L. Jackson, Snoop Dogg, and Maya Rudolph play members of Turbo’s rag-tag daredevil snail team as the movie tries its hardest to convince you that a super-powered snail is somehow the underdog in a racing sport, even though he’s already so much superior just by being a supernatural “thing that should not be.” A chemical has enhanced his abilities.

This is another animated movie that I saw late at night with my sister and one of my younger cousins, and we enjoyed it. This is a nice movie, even though this is another by-the-book animated film that we have seen repeatedly. Still, I think it was enjoyable. Check it out because I think everyone will have a good time watching it.

Next week, we will be finishing “Samuel L. Jackson Month” with a movie that my sister recommended I watch.

Friday, January 12, 2024

Snakes on a Plane

The title “Snakes on a Plane” tells you everything you need to know. If you went into this 2006 thriller thinking it would be anything other than a crazy and strange B-movie thriller, you have no one to blame but yourself. Whether or not you find it entertaining is another question, but don’t expect anything reflective. This is silly escapism throughout.

Keith Garlington noted in his review, ““Snakes on a Plane” gained an enthusiastic internet fanbase well before the movie even hit theaters. Story goes that David Dalessandro, a college administrator at the time, wrote the script which taps into two common fears – snakes and flying. After the title began circulating online a big web following developed giving rise to all sorts of fan fiction, parodies, and art.”

The movie starts in Hawaii where a Red Bull-drinking dirt biker named Sean (Nathan Phillips) witnesses a brutal murder at the hands of powerful crime boss Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson). With a contract on him, Sean is rescued by FBI Agent Neville Flynn, played by Samuel L Jackson, and convinced to fly back to Los Angeles to testify against Kim in federal court.

As a diversion a private government plane is used as a decoy while Agent Flynn and Sean take a commercial airliner, taking the first-class section much to the irritation of the flight attendants and some passengers. Wouldn’t you know it, Eddie Kim has eyes everywhere and makes a plan to disrupt their flight, not by messing with the mechanics or planting a bomb. Garlington said, “No, instead he smuggles hundreds of deadly snakes into the cargo bay and rigs a pheromone to be unleashed once the plane hits 30,000 feet sending them into a lethal frenzy. I’m not making this up.”

Garlington continued, “Before the flight takes off we get one of those tried-and-true survival movie sequences – a scene briefly introducing an array of characters (in this case passengers) many of whom will amount to nothing more than snake fodder. We get a rap mogul/germaphobe, a single mother and her baby, a low-rent Paris Hilton clone, a jerky businessman, and so on. They all are pretty paper-thin but there are a couple you can’t help but root for (or in some cases against).”

Once the high-altitude mayhem starts you can see the movie trying to one-up itself on how insane it can get. Believe it or not, that’s the film’s one big strength. Garlington said, “I admit, I laughed quite a bit.” We get ridiculous lines like “Well that’s good news, snakes on crack.” Also, so many CGI snake kills that are almost as silly as the vacuous victims. Garlington said, “I’m sure all of this sounds like a slam but it’s actually what keeps the movie in the air.”

Garlington said, “So as a thriller/comedy/horror/survival mashup “Snakes on a Plane” squeaks by simply because it unashamedly embraces its cheesiness and absurdity.” That doesn’t make it a good movie, but it does make it entertaining. Sometimes that’s all you’re looking for.

As everyone already knows, this film is famous for the line, “I have had it with these MF snakes on this MF plane!” I saw this over at a cousin’s house late at night and I was laughing at how ridiculous it was. But that’s what makes it a lot of fun. If you want, check this film out. Just embrace how silly of a film this is and you’ll have a fun time. I don’t recommend this film a lot, but I will leave it up to the viewers to decide if they want to see it.

Tomorrow I will be looking at an animated movie I saw late at night with my cousins in “Samuel L Jackson Month.” Sorry for the late posting. I took a nap because I was so tired from work.

Friday, January 5, 2024

S.W.A.T.

Happy New Year my online blog readers. With the start of another leap year, I had difficulty trying to decide what I was going to make the first month of the year to be a weekly review of. Then I decided that I would review films of an actor I have mentioned many times before and have not reviewed a few of his films, the great Samuel L Jackson. Let’s start this month off with a movie of his that I saw in the theaters, “S.W.A.T.,” released in 2003.

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “Half an hour into watching "S.W.A.T.," I realized the movie offered pleasures that action movies hardly ever allow themselves anymore: 1. The characters had dialogue and occupied a real plot, which involved their motivations and personalities.”

2. The action scenes were more or less believable. The cops didn’t do anything that a real cop might not almost be able to do if he were in extremely good training.

Ebert said, “I started taking notes along these lines, and here are a few of my jottings: When a cop shoots at a robber in a hostage situation, the hostage is wounded. The chief punishes two hot shots with demotions, instead of pulling their badges and guns and kicking them off the force. When the bad guy steals a cop car, we expect a chase, but he backs up and crashes it within a block. When the chase leads down to the Los Angeles subway system, the cops approach a stopped train, board it, and look for their quarry. Astonishingly, there is not a fight scene atop a speeding train.” In a S.W.A.T. team training scene, the trainees are running toward a target while shooting, and somebody asks, “No rolls?” the veteran cop in charge replies: “They only roll in John Woo movies – not in real life.” That’s the point with “S.W.A.T.” Ebert said, “This isn't a John Woo movie, or "Bad Boys 2," or any of the other countless movies with wall-to-wall action and cardboard characters. It isn't exactly real life, either, and I have to admit some of the stunts and action scenes are a shade unlikely, but the movie's ambition is essentially to be the same kind of police movie they used to make before special effects upstaged human beings.”

The result is one of the best cop thrillers since “Training Day.” Samuel L. Jackson and Colin Farrell act together, playing the famous roles of veteran cop and young impulsive cop. Michelle Rodriguez and James Todd Smith (better known as Ladies Love Cool James – LL Cool J), both effective actors, give depth to the S.W.A.T. team. Also, Oliver Martinez is the smirking playboy weapons dealer who offers a $100 million reward to anyone who frees him from custody.

The film starts with a hostage situation gone wrong. A S.W.A.T. team member, played by Brian Gamble, disobeys orders, enters a bank, and hurts a hostage. He and his partner Jim Street, played by Farrell, are offered demotions. Street accepts. His partner leaves the force. However, Street, a talented officer and a great one, is seen by the legendary veteran Hondo Harrelson, played by Jackson, and chosen for his selected top S.W.A.T. team.

Ebert credited, “One of the pleasures of the movie is the training sequence, where Jackson leads his team through physical and mental maneuvers. Many recent action movies have no training scenes because, frankly, you can't train to do their impossible stunts -- you need an animator to do them for you.”

A routine traffic bust leads to the unexpected arrest of Alex, played by Oliver Martinez, an internationally wanted criminal. Alex offers the $100 million reward on television, the cops think there will be a lot of escape geniuses hoping to collect the reward, and it’s up to Hondo and his team to safely escort the prisoner to a federal penitentiary.

As you might have guessed, it does not go as planned. Ebert said, “I'm not arguing that the last 45 minutes of the movie are, strictly speaking, likely or even plausible, but nothing violates the laws of physics, and you can kind of see how stuff like that might sort of happen, if you get my drift.”

“S.W.A.T.” is a well-made police thriller, that’s it. No Academy Awards. However, at a time when so many action films were mindless on the eyes, ears, and brain, it works as superior film work. The director, Clark Johnson, is a veteran of TV both as an actor and director, and gives a well-made film that trusts its story and actors. Ebert ended his review by saying, “What a pleasure, after a summer of movies that merely wanted to make my head explode.”

I know this was released during the summer when people saw a lot of movies, but I missed out on a lot because I wasn’t old enough to see them or I didn’t see the other movies that were part of a franchise. This one my sister and I saw with two of our cousins. I forget why, but I don’t think it was because I was saying I wanted to go, but I thought of going anyway. I enjoyed it and thought it was a good cop film, especially when they overplayed the S.W.A.T. theme repeatedly when they didn’t have any other songs for the soundtrack. This is currently streaming in AMC+, so if you have that, you can check it out there. I say check it out and judge for yourself how you think of it, but I enjoyed it. Granted, I haven’t seen it since I saw it in theaters, but I still remember enjoying it.

Look out next week when I talk about a movie that has been talked about a lot and has one line that is quoted a lot in “Samuel L. Jackson Month.”