E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

A re-viewing, maybe for the first time since its premiere, after about forty years. So I was able to view it with something approximating fresh eyes. Seeing this most well known and iconic of films in that way created some surprises. For instance, this movie is a case study in deeply emotional storytelling; for all of its sci-fi elements, there’s very little in here that speaks to any particular technical concepts. A lot of the second half of the film is devoted to heartstring-tugging, and it achieves its goal quite effectively. Yes, I cried at the big tearjerker scene—you know the one—in the theater the first time; but I found myself teary-eyed even more so this time around, not just for that one scene but for much more of the film, and for external reasons, too (to wit: I found myself touched thinking of all that has changed, and been lost, in these past four decades.) The film’s setting is truly another time and place, one that is somewhat familiar to me though long gone now. And the minor revelation, on watching this again, was just how good the kids were in their roles. All of E.T.’s adoptive family members brought something good to the proceedings, especially the astonishingly young Drew Barrymore; I remembered her for having a few good lines, but in truth she nails a great deal of her dialogue in a way that makes the story so much better than it would have been without her. Remarkable stuff for someone only 6 years old. Henry Thomas is fine as well, in a really demanding part. There can be a few quibbles, if you want: the depiction of the government agents is somewhat cartoonish, though in fairness we didn’t quite have the sense in the eighties of the government being quite so sophisticated in its villainy. And really, the star’s second act is a deus ex machina that takes believability to its limit (though of course the whole tale requires massive suspension of disbelief). None of that diminishes the achievement—this is a true classic, one that redefined the science fiction genre in ways that still show up to this day in a regular subset of films. Almost but not quite Best of All material, but that hardly means you shouldn’t watch it again—and you certainly must watch it for a first time if you’ve never seen it before. May we all get to be kids again and feel the wonder once more. 

Elemental

Never, perhaps, has there been a movie so contrived in its concept. And that grand devotion to concept gets heavily in the way for the audience, almost to the point where the viewer is willing to give up on the thing. I say almost, because if one makes a conscientious effort to push through that superficial conceptual barrier, as well as the sense of indoctrination and being taught a lesson, you can strip things down to the story basics, which are well done and resonate with the viewer. Once you start paying attention to the characters as fundamental people, you can find the universality of the feelings and conflicts they act out, and the ham-handed metaphors for immigrants and parent-child conflict fades into the background. It helps, too, that the visuals present a certain amount of technical wonder, even in an era of an exceedingly refined state of the art in animation; you start to give credit to these characters for being real and alive and tangible, even as they are simply a highly digitized form of puppets. Distilled to its, shall we say, basic elements, this is a movie that I wanted to hate, but ultimately had to admire for its artistry and heart.

Everything Everywhere All at Once

Irresistible fun. The bedrock of this film is a tremendous sense of humor, a vibe that runs through every aspect of the story’s multidimensional view and injects laugh-out-loud moments into its exploration of how every universe is, ultimately, centered around the one person who is experiencing it. In particular, the filmmakers deliver some spot-on send ups of just about every Kung fu movie trope ever shown on screen, often with uproarious results. In contrast, the sentimental parts of the tale almost seem like a bit of a letdown when they arrive, but they are hardly unwelcome. Indeed, one wonders if all of the movie’s absurdity would even matter if there were not some emotional grounding in the end. The cast members individually and together are remarkable, handling a script that goes far out on a multitude of limbs with impressive aplomb—and doing so in two languages to boot. It’s hard to argue with the acclaim this movie received upon release. A winner in just about any universe you like.

Encanto

In certain respects, this movie is trying way too hard. But beyond that surfeit of effort, it is funny, clever and charming in a most heartfelt way. Unlike many a Disney story, this one is mostly villain-less. That’s because what really lies at the heart of the tale are the challenges of family dynamics and how those can be difficult if not impossible to overcome. That makes this story relatable to practically every viewer, even in the face of its very specific cultural foundation (which the film pushes very hard). Perhaps it is due to that cultural grounding that the animation here is an over the top riot of color and movement; the very nature of the visuals reinforces the perception that this is, despite its somewhat untraditional setting, a fairy tale that lives in a world removed from where most of us reside. The only real complaint comes from that overly energetic telling of its tale, a frenetic presentation that rarely gives the audience a pause to soak in any one character or tableau. We see that in the songs, too; while lively and catchy, they are mostly impossible to catch on first listen (and I doubt they’d be easy to follow along even with the benefit of a singalong’s subtitles). But when taking in the overall effect, you can’t help but enjoy the package as a whole—no particular miracle required.

The Emperor's New Groove

Disney does '90s Nickelodeon. Who made that decision? Giving the story lead to the violently unlikable David Spade. Who made that decision? As indicated by those two opening points, much about this piece indicates that the concept was flawed from the start. For instance, aping the style of '90s-era Nickelodeon. Huh? Disney was coming off a run of (mostly) wild successes, so why try to match the arch and ironic style of (arguably, if not objectively) one of their less successful rivals? While one must admit there are some good comedic moments to be had in this presentation, they are scattered and hardly constitute the makings of a fully enjoyable film. Most of these characters are not merely ironic but actually downright unlikable, to pretty much the same extent, whether you’re looking at the villains or the putative protagonists. In movies, that's generally not going to work out well. The zaniness scores in some scenes--the diner scene is excellence in miniature--but in other moments it comes across as contrived. The family scenes, featuring Pacha's kids, mostly drive home the point that children are odious--not a message one usually associates with the work of this company. Also, the animation here is just okay--better than I could do, for sure, but not exactly up to the standard of a studio that is legendary for such work. Lastly, while the opening song is amusing--thanks largely to Tom Jones’ efforts, and some clever lyrics--this isn’t really a musical, so there aren’t many points scored there, either. (The inevitable closing song by Sting, far from being a chart-topper, is drab and forgettable.) It would be unfair to characterize this flick as a disaster--that albatross hangs around the neck of the next film in the line--but this one’s MEOW is among the quietest in the series.

Elvis

"Colonel" Tom Parker may be the ultimate unreliable narrator. Thus, it’s an odd choice by Baz Luhrmann to hand the story in this biopic over to him. The viewer really starts to wonder, long before it is made explicit that the man was full of shit, about everything we see, both from that point in the narrative and retrospectively as well. Then again, this story seems to gloss over large portions of Presley’s rise and career, so unreliability may be baked into the whole cake. As it stands, with the movie and story we do get, there some transcendently great moments here, interspersed among what are otherwise standard biopic scenes. What this film does do most effectively is make the argument that Elvis had a certain musical genius--built heavily on borrowings, to be sure, but synthesized into a form, a presence, and an oeuvre that, perhaps, only he could have made into such a unique and wildly successful body of creative work. There was, and still isn’t, anyone like the King--and reminding us of that is this movie’s ultimate success.

Eternals

Childish fancies plus relentless, fairly cynical mandatory diversity equals a silly, mostly absurd movie. More interesting storylines immediately suggest themselves to the viewer in the first five minutes; none are realized. Instead, we get a mostly tepid end-of-the-world scenario that relies on cliches for resolution. The main issue here is the attempt to be all things to literally all people, resulting in a story the comes across as less an artistic vision and more as the notes from a committee meeting. As many boxes are checked as possible, lest someone should feel left out and accordingly take to social media with profit-killing vengeance. A sequel is clearly set up, but I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to watch it--certainly not anyone wanting to pay for it. You might just wind up eternally grateful if you skip this one.

East of Eden

I know this sounds absurd, but, I think the jury is still out on James Dean. This film, his first big role (and the only one released during his lifetime) is thus something of a referendum on his status as a movie icon. I liked the film, but it's a little weird that I walked away from it still not sure if Dean wasn't simply a product of his time, as opposed to an all-time great actor. Yes, he's good here, and he brings an interesting complexity to the role of Caleb, but one also can't help but notice how much Dean's good looks inform his performance. One wonders if he would have been quite so incandescent in the eyes of his contemporaries (and later observers) had he not been so good looking. Those looks surely went a long way towards making him iconic for that contemporaneous audience. (Notice the ahistorical, but very popular in the '50s, pompadours on Dean and costar Richard Davalos in what's supposed to be WWI era California. The producers were clearly fishing for relatability with the Eisenhower-era teens in the theaters.) All of that leaves the questions about Dean unanswered. Beyond that conundrum, this movie serves as a time capsule of early 1900s California (or at least a mid-century vision of the scene forty years before), which adds some appeal for the historically minded. And players Julie Harris and Raymond Massey provide strong work in their roles, if somewhat in the shadow of their scene-stealing co-star. All in all, this movie is a good one--I just don't know if it would be the cultural milestone it is if not for its perfect mesh of time, tale, and star.

The Equalizer 2

Sophisticated menace. That's what Denzel seems to bring so expertly to roles like this, as in the first of this duo, and Man on Fire, and Training Day (another Antoine Fuqua flick). If that's your thing--and I think a lot of movie watchers can get into that--you'll probably enjoy this outing. Certainly, there are moments of intensity that your average thriller fan will appreciate, including one or two incendiary instants largely provided by Washington's great acting skill. There are demerits: the film takes its time getting its threads to come together, and one wonders, if you pause to consider the matter, why any of this is happening at all; there seems to be little in the way of overarching theme beyond the hero's somewhat sordid past. It works, overall, but if they want to come back for a third outing, I strongly suggest they make it work better.

Evolution

How could a film with so much going for it be this stupid? A good cast--no meatheads a la Sandler or Diesel here--a good premise (with pretty good special effects) and a good director (Ivan Reitman, with one certifiable classic--Ghostbusters--on his resume)...where did it all go wrong? Well, the writing is stupid, without even an attempt to make the scientist characters anything near intelligent. (Yes, they’re supposed to be doofus junior college teachers, but then again Duchovny’s character is supposed to have a history with a more rigorous scientific background.) The humor indulges in “stupid fat guy” clichés (not something to get on my good side). And several of the characters (especially the villainous general and governor) are so cardboard cutout that they distract from the story, or the humor, or anything the film tries to achieve. No wonder this movie tanked at the box office; even the stupid multiplex crowd probably found it sub-par. Avoid it.

Ex Machina

This is a good movie...just not as good a movie as the breathless hype that surrounded it made it out to be. It does make you think, mostly about how you would react--and interact--in just such a situation. The film also makes a point of keeping things ambivalent enough that you don't really know if Oscar Isaac's inventor is a villain, or not...or, for that matter, if the AI is a villain or not, a murkiness about the subject that mirrors the real life debate on the seemingly inevitable rise of the robot world. I guess we'll find out that answer eventually, but you're not going to get it here. Still, I'd say this one's worth a look, as a change of pace if nothing else.

The Equalizer

The world is littered with action movies exactly like this one. So why is this one in particular so satisfying and enjoyable to watch? Mostly, for the performance by Denzel Washington, who lives up to his usual standards in creating a character the viewer can’t help but believe in. (Washington is remarkably expressive even when he’s doing nothing. His expressionless silences say more than the efforts of 90% of all working actors today.) There’s also an intriguing bit of subtext about the characters Washington’s McCall helps; the hero encourages these lesser lights towards a belief in themselves that is belied by the bigger currents on display in the plot of the movie. Creative and intellectual dissonance, or a purposeful contradiction the viewer is invited to consider? You’ll have to judge that for yourself; give yourself that chance by watching this movie.

Ender’s Game

I guess some folks thought this was going to be really big. For that to happen, it would have had to have been really good--and it’s not. Which isn’t to say it’s bad; the movie works on its own level, it’s entertaining and well-paced, most of what you see is visually impressive. There’s just something missing, a deficit that keeps this flick from making that jump into the stratosphere of big-time sci-fi hit. Perhaps it's too intellectual at its core; that might work in a book--this film is famously based upon a book--but a blockbuster action movie needs a little more "duh" in it. Maybe. You can still get a couple of decent hours out of watching it; it's just not "all that."

Elysium

Solid sci-fi action movie. This one bears some familial resemblance to District 9 (by the same director), in that it depicts a circumstance of massive inequality, but this time we’re the underprivileged aliens; I guess the lessons of the last few years really have hit home. I’m not sure there’s anything profound here--it’s just a good action flick with a decent story that keeps moving along, keeps the viewer engaged, and comes to a satisfying conclusion. (And no set up for a sequel, something that’s rare with today’s sci-fi films. Perhaps that approach leads to better results? Hollywood take note…)

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

What an odd, uneven, sometimes downright off-putting film. Given the story’s context (September 11 and its aftermath), it would be hard not to touch a few emotional cores with such a tale; however, that advantage is generally squandered in this movie. The difficulty comes from trying to root for a kid who not only seems to have had severe mental problems even before tragedy struck, but is also something of a consistent jerk. Given that the kid’s the center of the story, that flawed character may very well prove fatal to this film’s chances with the viewer. It’s a competently made movie, at least, so I can’t see a reason to completely condemn it--but I see little reason to recommend it, either.

Easy A

I didn't want to like this movie. Early returns showed a flick that was way too clever and full of itself; the all-too-pretty setting and characters screamed "Disney movie," and all that entails; and the device of a webcast narration looked a little too self-consciously modern and present-day. But it all turned out for the best, paying off with a very sharp, funny and ultimately charming work. This one earns its good grade.

The Expendables

Sure it's stupid. Borderline retarded in many places. Long stretches of the film sound as though someone spent many hours taping random conversations in bars at 1:30 in the morning, then transcribed the recordings into a script. And there are plenty of "what the hell is going on?" moments throughout. So why no outright HISS? Because it delivers what it promises--plenty of satisfying "blow shit up" moments, and there are just a few touches of decent direction here and there. Stallone does know how to make a movie; he just doesn't always put that knowledge to good use. In this case, as long as you don't pay for it, he probably did just enough.

Evil Dead 2

As a straightforward horror flick, this would just be another bad movie. But the genius stroke of remaking the original (a low key success in its own right, in its much more straightforward way) as a horror-comedy--with wry, almost perverse humor and a gleeful use of gore--elevates these proceedings considerably. No wonder these guys (a couple of them, at least) went on to bigger and better things.

Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room

A film about monsters, plain and simple, one that will make you angry all over again. The filmmakers provide a comprehensive review of the crime of the early century, the scumbags who perpetrated it, and the damage it did. Watch this documentary, then remember it the next time some asshole starts telling tales about the "miracle of the marketplace."

Ella Enchanted

In a nutshell, uneven. Anne Hathaway acquits herself nicely, even showing a strong singing voice, and the movie remains solid when it focuses on her Ella and the girl's unusual magical condition. But there's too much straying into bland low-romantic plot, and the warmed over 'Shrek' shenanigans don't add much to the proceedings. Worth it, if you really dig fantasy for kids.