Hospital Bed Movie Reviews

[cjlasky7]

When you're trapped in a hospital bed and hooked up to a heart monitor, you have plenty of time to watch movies on the little TV attached to your food table. I watched five(!) movies in between blood pressure measurements, blood extractions and little jaunts around the hallways with a physical therapist.

So here is my quintet of capsule reviews:

Elemental is Pixar writer/director Peter Sohn's tribute to his Korean immigrant parents; so I kinda hate to say that the whole "immigrant experience" aspect of the movie didn't hold my interest. We've seen the "daughter caught between heritage and her own path" done better in Moana; I found the Mom's old world superstitions more annoying than charming; and Ashba (the Dad) just seemed like a jerk. (I also thought the urban melting pot of Element City was a lesser version of Zootopia.)

The love story was okay, even though Wade was something of a... drip. (Sorry.) But I loved some of the visual flourishes: Wade taking Amber underwater to see the vivisteria; Wade literally starting the Wave at the stadium, and all the details in the family's shop. Not bad, but it didn't tug my heartstrings in the usual Pixar way. (All right--the father/daughter exchange of bows at end did get to me a little...)

Super Mario Brothers was a LOT better than the live-action disaster of a few decades back; animation is the perfect medium for Mario and Luigi's candy-colored video game universe and the script was just smart enough to give the various iconic characters room to stretch out and get laughs. Chris Pratt and Charlie Day were merely adequate as the brothers, but they had great backup from Seth Rogan as a peevish Donkey Kong, Fred Armisen as DK's cranky dad, Anya Taylor-Joy as a feisty Princess Peach and especially Jack Black as the lovesick supervillain. (His simple but passionate ode to PP might even get an Oscar nod!)

Even better: Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is an IP-driven movie perfectly disguised as an original fantasy adventure. If you didn't know the source material, you'd be impressed by the world building and the well-defined central characters. Not a dud performance in the bunch: Chris Pine as the world-weary thief with a heart of gold; Michelle Rodriguez as his loyal barbarian sidekick; Justice Smith as the second-rate wizard; and Hugh Grant, in yet another terrific turn as a thoroughly charming and despicable asshole. Witty yet heartfelt script, stuffed with references to the game; but really, you don't need to know D&D to enjoy this. (Needs a sequel!)

The Matrix: Resurrections isn't so much a new Matrix movie as a commentary on the Matrix phenomenon by one of its creators. (And if Lana Wachowski wants to comment on her great creation, who are we to call it "a footnote" or "derivative"?) The first part of the movie was fun meta hijinks, as video game genius Thomas Anderson (Keanu) was forced by corporate master Warner Brothers (heh) to consider programming a sequel to his best selling trilogy (guess). There was a hilarious brainstorming session at video game HQ, where truly awful sequel ideas and corporate buzzwords were thrown at an increasingly nauseous Keanu.

Once Thomas took the red pill again, though, it was pretty much standard Matrix gravity-defying, kung fu action. Jonathon Groff and Yahya Abdul-Mateen were fine as new incarnations of Agent Smith and Morpheus, and Neil Patrick Harris NPH-ed all over the place as Thomas' suspiciously reassuring therapist. But the meta stuff felt fresher to me, an attempt to give the Matrix a modern context in an age it sort of helped create. (Still...it was great seeing Carrie Anne Moss shake off her blue pill fantasy and kick ass as Trinity again.)

Finally, I think Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania got a bit of a raw deal from the critics. Is it perfect? No. But the relationships between parents and children (Hank/Janet and Hope, Scott and Cassie) were well served here and Jonathan Majors was a truly fearsome Kang. (Too bad he turned out to be a creep.) Could it have been a little less Star Wars-y? Sure. But who says these characters don't work in a more elaborate sci-fi context? Do we miss Michael Pena's Luis that much? (I don't.) Is developing the love story between Scott and Hope that important? (It's never worked for me.) So, yeah, even though this was wildly different from the first two movies, it had enough of what worked in those first two movies to be entertaining. JMO.

Comments

[shadowkat]

Agree on Dungeons and Dragons, I think you liked Quantumania slightly more than I did? And I liked Elemental slightly more than you did? Although I do agree - Elemental reminded me a lot of Zootopia, and I liked Zootopia better. Also the romance didn't work, and the family dynamics was kind of annoying? However the metaphors, art, and concept was rather cool. (ATP_OMN loved this movie to pieces by the way - he was telling me to see it in a theater last year.)

Quantumania - the character dynamics works, the villain isn't bad and works, but the special effects gave me a headache. Too busy. And kind of...slow.

But we agree on D&D, and I'm thinking maybe I should give Matrix Resurrections - a shot.

[cjlasky7]

I agree that the SFX teams on Quantumania went a little overboard (and were probably paid crap for it)--and it just wasn't necessary. I don't need to see Phantom Menace-level CGI overload; I just want to spend time with Hank, Janet, Scott, Hope and Cassie. These are great characters--focus on them, and trim everything else.

Yeah, OnM is really high on Elemental, but I'm just not feeling it.

One of the funniest parts of Matrix Resurrections is that even when Thomas turns back into Neo, he's STILL something of a dork. It's as if John Wick stood in front of the Continental, surrounded by assassins, and suddenly realized: "Holy shit, these guys are going to kill me!"

[shadowkat]

Now, I'm curious about Matrix Resurrections.

Agree on Quantumania.

I can't remember exactly what I wrote about Elemental. But I felt the same way you did more or less, it felt very derivative - and that I'd seen it done better elsewhere. What I liked about it - was the focus was on the female protagonist's vocation, and not on her romance. And she was in the typical male role - in which her father wanted her to inherit and run the business, but instead she pursued her own dream and he was able to let others do it. Usually that's a father/son tale, it was nice change of pace to make it a father/daughter one (not that it hasn't been done before and better elsewhere). But with Disney - it's nice that they are continuing the current trend of focusing more on family dynamics, than romance. Also the whole elemental metaphor for prejudice and immigration prejudices - was interesting, particularly how the water and air elements built the city in such a way that it wasn't hospitable or navigatible for earth and fire elements that came later. That was a nice touch.

[cjlasky7]

But I thought that very metaphor was probably the biggest missed opportunity of the movie.

Yes, Element City was built to support the earth, water and air elementals; and (just like immigration stories elsewhere) the fire elementals were looked on with fear and suspicion and shunted off into a ghetto.

Personal rant: now, I thought the whole movie would lead up to the true integration of the fire elementals into the life and structure of the city, a metaphor for how immigrants ultimately enrich and broaden a community. Imagine the wonders: rather than just Amber's makeshift wall and boutique glassware, an entirely new age of Element City architecture! Steampunk transportation! And rather than reopen the shop in the same ghetto where they almost drowned like rats, Mom and Dad franchise the Fireshop amd sell Amber's sculptures all over the city.

Way too big a swing for this particular story, you say? It's a cartoon. They do big leaps in cartoons all the time. Moana saved the world and turned her civilization from isolationists to global explorers. I think this bigger ending would have better realized Peter Sohn's original concept.

[shadowkat]

Except it's not what the writers and creators wanted to convey. They opted for realism as opposed to idealism in their concept. The creator wanted to convey via metaphor the world as it is, not as it should become?

He was basically stating that while Amber could leave and become a glass blower, her family and friends could not. She had the contacts and the gift to go out and do that - but it was not enough to change the world, just enough to change her life. I think that's closer to his own experience? He was able to create an animated version of his life, honoring his family's journey to the US and struggle here. And through metaphor showing how it affected them on an emotional and personal level.

This wasn't a "big picture" film - so much as a deeply personal film. It was about the struggle within a family to break with tradition and move forward, with various internal and external obstacles in their way - some could be changed, some couldn't.

I mean that may not be the picture you personally wanted, but it was the picture that the creator of the film wanted to convey.

The question I ask when critiquing art - is what was the "artist's" intent? What were they trying to do here? (They don't always know by the way, half the time - it's just something they have to create and they are channeling it.) But the other half of the time - they do. And having watched the story behind the creation? The artist/writer wanted to convey through metaphor what it was like for his family moving to the US from Korea, how it felt to be an immigrant in our country, and specifically a huge city like New York, and how everyone feels like this no matter who they are at some point.

(I'm pretty certain it was Korea - it is, I found it online. This is what they say: "Peter, as a second generation immigrant who grew up in a Korean household in the Bronx, has been hard at work on this film for over 7 years infusing it with beautiful homages to his family and own personal life. This story is so special because it marries peter sohn’s honesty and vulnerability with Pixar’s visually stunning way of telling stories. In a world where differences can separate us, this film simplifies through Elements our similarities that bring us together. We all go through some of the same things no matter what walk of life we come from. Relationships with family, finding your dream’s own voice, and discovering how connection in unexpected places can open up new doors in the heart for possibility. A story of many different types of love and the courage to fight for those loves, this film bridges the gap between people, or Elements, who yearn to find their purpose and place in this world and among their loved ones.")

So did he convey that? Because that was why he did the film. Did he communicate what he wanted to say? Did we feel that?

[cjlasky7]

All right...now you've got me thinking that I focused on the big picture (Element City) and short changed the intimate family tale.

But the plain fact is, I didn't like Ember's mom and dad that much. They were barely more than Old World cliches, and I think Sohn and the screenwriters were themselves a little too dazzled with Element City when they should have fleshed out the parents a little more.

But when it comes within range of my satellite I'm watching this movie again.

[shadowkat]

I can't say I disagree with you - on the family. However, I think the writer did base it on his own. I had the same issues with Turning Red actually.

I think the difficulty was they got caught up in the metaphors of the elements, and the Water family, and flailed on fleshing out the parents? However, there are people who loved the family dynamics and didn't find them to be cliche, so there's that. It's kind of like...well, I see the family in Everybody Loves Raymond as cliche, and couldn't stand the parents, but you love that show and don't see that at all? Which leads me to believe - that one person's cliche can be another's truth?

**

So, have you seen Killers of the Flower Moon? I'm curious to see your review of it. My professional film critic acquaintance (Glenn Kenny) loved it (but he's also biased - he loves anything by Martin Scorsese). He teaches film, and male film scholars tend to preach Coppola and Scorsese and worship at their altars. Granted both have created some excellent films, but also duds. And both are rather self-indulgent at times.

It's gotten mixed. I listened to the unabridged audio book - which was excellent, and much broader in scope, and focused more on the Osage and the FBI, then on the bad guys, and also exposed the government as a culprit and accessory. But from what I've read about the film? It kind of goes a different route, and the Osage weren't happy with the end result. Very controversial movie.

But I know you were looking forward to it - so I'm curious?

[cjlasky7]

No, I never did get to see Killers of the Flower Moon. Couldn't find the space in my schedule, I guess. (And the book is still lying on the half-wall of my living room, unread.)

I did see Poor Things just before the end of the year, though! Working on a review.

You know, if I only had 90 minutes to get to know Frank and Marie Barone, I wouldn't have liked them either. A long-rumning TV series can add shadings to even the most obnoxious characters.

[shadowkat]

Who are Frank and Marion Barone?

I'm about to watch "Killers of the Flower Moon" on Apple Plus, will let you know what I think.
The difficulty is there are no redeeming attributes to Burhart in the book. I did it on audiobook - it's a very long book and a difficult read, because what they do to the Osage is ...atrocious.

Sounds like your family has been very busy. I've only seen films on television, the last film I saw in a movie theater was with you.

[cjlasky7]

Frank and Marie were the parents on Everybody Loves Raymond.

Let me know what you think about Killers of the Flower Moon.

[shadowkat]

Right now? It's really boring. I fell asleep during it and had to rewind. Also hard to follow.

This really needed to be a mini-series. It has too many characters.

[shadowkat]

This is not a good movie. I honestly think some of the critics were stoned.

[shadowkat]

Okay, finished watching it. Wrote a review.

My advice? Skip it. Read the book instead. It's not worth your time or money. Count yourself lucky for not having the time to see it in theaters.

[atpo_onm]

So did he convey that? Because that was why he did the film. Did he communicate what he wanted to say? Did we feel that?

I did. And thanks for looking up that info on the film's creator. That and your prior comments were pretty much how I saw it, or felt it subconsciously. Haven't picked up the DVD yet, I just checked and it has apparently been released. Be delighted to see it again, I always pick up more things on the second viewing. Wanted to see it again in the theater, but the opportunity didn't come through.