Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Late on a Saturday night. I was just looking for some mindless entertainment…and boy did I find it. I don’t know if this flick was meant to be in 3D, but Angelina Jolie’s character certainly was: 3D x 2, to be precise. Lara’s enhanced physique is so prevalent throughout the show that it is almost like a running—and occasionally bouncing and bobbing—joke, which is ironic since one of the key missing elements of this movie is actual humor, as in humor that is a) intentional and b) something you would actually laugh at. Further conceptual follies are found in the story’s half-assed attempts at being vaguely scientific, via some humbug about a planetary alignment, not to mention various other plot missteps. Even the raw action sequences come across as bland and not particularly inventive (a real black mark considering this film was made contemporaneously with the Matrix trilogy). If I had to point to some good aspects of this work, I suppose I could say that Jolie’s performance is decent, and she gets acceptable support from a pre-Bond Daniel Craig, plus the story does provide a bare minimum of entertainment despite its many flaws. Still, you can’t be too generous towards a dunce work like this one. Instead of pulling things out of a tomb, a better idea would probably be to bury this flick in one, and leave it there for a bad long time. 

Labyrinth

The immediate impression you get watching this movie: this same material would have been a different flick—and probably a better one, or at least more polished—in the hands of the contemporary master Steven Spielberg. As it is, we get Jim Henson's film, and, no disrespect to him and his unique and special creative vision, the limitations of the puppet approach do come through here. This is not to say that we’re left with a bad movie here, just that there is an undercurrent throughout these proceedings that suggests that this could have been something much more than it ultimately is. As this film is now largely forgotten, the implication is that that is not just my own reaction. Setting aside what might have been, we do get a mildly entertaining movie with many arresting visuals, and even a few well-developed puppet characters, the latter of which hold their own against the two principals, David Bowie (who was clearly having tons of fun playing the goblin king Jareth) and a teen-aged and ravishingly beautiful Jennifer Connelly as the heroine Sarah, who is occasionally feckless but ultimately proves worthy of the viewer’s admiration. Not that that’s a surprise; this is, after all, a fairy tale, and not one of those Grimm stories where someone dies a wretched death. It all works out in the end, both in the plot and for this movie as a solid if not spectacular work of fantasy entertainment. It just would have been interesting to see what a different filmmaker might have done with this material. 

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim

Oh, so that’s why I never got into anime. The plain truth is, with animation, no matter how pretty are the pictures you draw, at the end of the process the characters are simply cartoon characters. That’s fine for certain types of stories, but for others the animation treatment trivializes the project. So it is here. This telling of the Tolkien substory simply lacks the gravitas that Peter Jackson’s original trilogy brought in spades. This should hardly have come as any surprise, as earlier animated versions of the main LOTR story had the same problem, and were largely confined to the memory hole until the iconic live-action movies came along and revitalized interest in the old man’s masterwork. So this deck of drawings was stacked against itself from the start, regardless of the visual innovations brought by the Japanese masters of the form. On its own terms, this flick plays it relatively straight—there aren’t too many of the physical absurdities typical of anime, especially as regards to the fight scenes—which is a good thing, and tells a tale that contains a solid amount of interest, even if it is at best tangential to the main story of Middle-Earth. (Not that the script doesn’t make at least token [Tolkien?] efforts to tie this piece into the overall story thread.) One major plus is the depiction of the main (and made-up for this movie) character of Hera, not just as a story persona but also because she is presented as a smokin’ hot redhead (those anime artists definitely know their way around drawing females). Still, this script is otherwise fairly true to its source material, so a fan can’t complain too much. As noted, there was once a time when the idea of a major movie release based on LOTR would have been absurd, so best not to look a gift Hobbit in the mouth. (Sorry, no actual Hobbits here, though one young character of the Rohirrim tries to fill that void.) Maybe future efforts will learn from this piece’s flaws and offer an improved effort. Or maybe they can just stick to live-action productions, since those are the true, proven winners. That, then, really would be something worth blowing your horn about.

Luck

The big problem here: the viewer can never quite shake off the feeling that he's watching a knockoff Pixar piece. It’s a through line that conveys a sense that every detail of this work is just a little off. For instance, it’s a tiny bit weird that a movie that rather consciously adopts certain touches of very modern life—not just cell phones and other tech, but even certain characters displaying the execrable habit of wearing excessive numbers of earrings—also uses a forty-plus-year-old song as its key piece of soundtrack. Yeah, I get that it fits lyrically, but still. And many of the characters (trinketed and otherwise) are just a little bit off in their depicted forms; you have to believe that the artists on the Disney side of the street would have gotten them just right, down to the tiniest character-defining details. And, perhaps most crucially, the story seems to be a little too complicated; there are too many machinations to work through to get the audience to follow along with the plot; too many actions require too much explanation. So the whole production gives off something of a secondhand vibe throughout, like the merchandise you get cheap at the discount store rather than the name brands at your usual market. Add to all that the fact that casting is not a strength here—no one among the principals gives a standout performance—and it’s really only the prominence of a cat in the story that lifts the thing even up to MEOW status (and that character actually shows very little in the way of catness; his felinity is mostly a plot convenience). Overall, I suppose this is an object lesson that the animation genre, despite being highly developed and mass produced for decades now, still is not so easy to get fully right. Maybe you can have on your side the luck of having a major studio or tech company to back your project...but you’d better bring an awful lot of skill to the show, too. Don’t just rely on fortune, in all that word's meanings.

Luca

First astonishing fact about this film: the main character’s parents aren’t dead. Second...well, there really isn’t anything else astonishing about this flick. It’s cute, reasonably entertaining—my attention did not wander at any point in its running time—visually impressive (though that hardly counts at this point, so refined is the state of the art) and at least a little bit heart-tugging. I doubt this one will ever enter into anyone’s pantheon—the somewhat similar Coco is substantially more memorable—but watching this work can hardly be considered a waste of time. And if you take it as an oblique homage to Italian cinema in general, then that adds a further dimension of pleasure to the experience. Like many a visit to the shore, this is enjoyable but ultimately ephemeral.

Lightyear

Far and away the best thing about this movie? The cat. And that’s not me saying that as a well-known lover of cats—the Sox character is the source of the most original and inventive thinking in this story, plus his interactions with Buzz form the most enjoyable relationship in the movie. Conversely, Buzz’s relations with most of the other characters range from bland at best to outright annoying at worst. (The incompetence angle, a defining trait with certain characters, is taken way too far—it's something that is not all that tolerable, particularly in today’s crapified world, where profound incompetence is a regular, maddening feature.) Other aspects: the visual experience is exactly the technical marvel you would expect from a Pixar film at this point. The voice performances are okay; nothing grating, and there’s little in the way of Familiar Voice Syndrome. (Chris Evans serves as Lightyear’s voice, and even he sounds somewhat unfamiliar here. He may have been trying, and failing, to imitate Tim Allen.) And, somewhat oddly for a Disney-Pixar joint, this movie is mercifully free of cloying musical numbers. So how does this rate overall? This is a fair to middling flick—not bad, definitely entertaining in large stretches, though not really close to what its franchise predecessors achieved. Somewhat appropriately, I guess, this is a light work of film entertainment, one that flies a bit but hardly reaches orbit. That’s where the studio stands these days.

Lilo & Stitch

A remarkable mixture of charm, absurdity -- almost to the point of surrealism -- and comedy, including a more than a few laugh-out-loud moments. Oddly, for a Disney movie, this outing obviously owes a lot to the work of Dr. Seuss; some of the alien characters owe much in their morphology to Seuss drawings, though that applies less to Stitch, the titular visitor. His human partner, Lilo, immediately earns the viewer’s warmth and admiration, displaying an unusual ability from her earliest on screen acts to combine sweetness and stubbornness -- often outright obnoxiousness -- in a way that packs a punch without ever making her unlikable. It’s a great balancing act upon which much of the movie’s success pivots. Stitch himself is not quite so lovable; the character is largely a blank at first, then comes across as a jerk -- and a destructive one at that, and more than just in the physical sense -- before finally, and somewhat astonishingly, achieving a transformation that makes the audience really care about whether or not it all works out. The supporting characters are a mixed bag; the humans are nicely developed and likable, while the aliens besides Stitch are somewhat one-note, a bit shallow in development, and oddly prone to shifting from good guy to bad without much justification. (It is worth giving a nod to the “blending in” efforts of the two principle aliens hunting the fugitive Stitch, which provide some of the best comedic visuals of the whole piece.) Finally, it’s a pleasure to mention that both the Hawaiian setting and the main (human) characters’ ethnic background are used to excellent effect here -- and, mercifully, because this film was made before woke madness took over the world, that is accomplished without everything turning into a vehicle for identitarian preaching. Lilo, Nani, and David just are who they are, and are not called upon to be standard bearers for anything else. That’s probably why most of this movie is so enjoyable. I’m sorry I missed this when it was new, and I’m so glad I had the chance to give it a look now. One of the best efforts of the “second tier” of the canon, and very much worth the viewer's time.

The Lion King

A re-view review. Animation: gorgeous, with an intense focus on naturalistic appearance (except during some sequences, particularly musical numbers, where something more stylized is more appropriate). Story: it’s Hamlet, for crying out loud. Can’t hardly complain there. Script: clever and funny when it wants to be, elegant and beautiful when it needs to be. Songs: among the best and most memorable in the entire canon. Characters: a set of possibly the best defined characters in all of the studio’s output. Put it all together and it’s no wonder this flick made a billion dollars (and probably continues, through various form, to fill the Disney vaults with lucre). There’s just a sliver of difference in how this particular viewer reacts to this film versus the previous two in the studio's sequence--probably just some personal quirk that leaves me preferring the others as just slightly better. It is certainly not any argument about the objective quality of this work that has me slotting it at number three of the bunch. Regardless, this is a worthy member of the triumvirate--a set of three films, released in sequence, that represent one of the most astounding achievements in the history of movies. They don’t make ‘em like this any more, nor did they make anything close to this before BATB rolled around and Aladdin opened up the whole new world. There is a reason--three of them, actually--why Disney came to rule the cinematic circle of life, and it’s apparent when you watch this movie. The PURR is almost loud enough to be a roar.

Lady and the Tramp

The movie starts out so cloying and insipid that a viewer of any sophistication has to wonder how it can ever be redeemed. Fortunately, the story picks up steam once the mutts are on the move, and the proceedings are brought to a satisfying—albeit still somewhat insipid—conclusion. The most striking thing about this movie may be its setting, not in place—an unidentified but seemingly American city—but in time. This film from the '50s is set sometime around the turn of the century, roughly 1900 by the visual clues—meaning its setting and milieu was archaic and out of date even when it was released, let alone today. Still, this piece provides enough entertainment to qualify as an overall success, even for the cat lovers among us.

The Lost City

It’s usually not a great sign when your movie’s putative comic-relief character is relentlessly not funny. It is also contraindicated when the film’s actual funniest character disappears less than halfway through the story. So are we looking at a disaster here? Thankfully, no. This updated take on Romancing the Stone mostly works, not as a laugh riot but as a gently amusing tale presented via likable actors--Tatum and Bullock have good chemistry despite an obvious age difference--and strong visuals. Most of what takes place along this storyline is profoundly obvious, but breaking new ground is hardly the point here. If you’re willing to be indulgent, you’ll get a couple of entertaining hours out of this flick.

The Last Duel

One is tempted to suggest that this movie gets hoisted on its own petard. It presents one story told from three different perspectives, with the heavy hint that only one version is the "truth." But...by presenting the notion of unreliable perspectives, the filmmakers suggest--perhaps unintentionally--that ALL the versions of the tale contain untruths. An intelligent analysis must recognize that the woman’s story isn’t automatically true just because she’s a woman. Only by way of a an uncritical acceptance can those watching take at face value the notion that only one of these accounts is factually accurate and honest. That conundrum diminishes the impact of the work as a whole, despite its fine performances and meticulous presentation of the period. (Director Ridley Scott is an old hand at putting spare-no-expense visuals on the screen.) This is hardly a bad film, for sure, but one can’t help but think that, perhaps, this could have been a more forceful work without indulging in the narrative puzzle-making.

The Little Mermaid

Time is rarely kind. What was once considered great tends to suffer for growing old. So it seems with this work. It may have wowed audiences back in 1989, but watching this flick today, one is struck by how pedestrian the presentation seems. Partly that’s a product of the technical, computer-generated wizardry that has become so ubiquitous these days in animation; partly, though, it feels like this movie was celebrated due to low expectations. It is perhaps a measure of how far Disney had fallen that, at that point, a film that by today's standard comes across as little more than a Saturday morning cartoon could serve as the revitalization and foundation of a media empire. Strange things do happen, and fairy tales do come true, in a sense. I guess this one proves it.

Let Him Go

This is the sort of movie that a young person cannot watch, or at least cannot watch and really hope to understand. You need the perspective of passing years and advanced life stations in your personal background to really see the stakes in this story. The movie's strong side is its presentation, particularly in its early scenes; the film tells its story with clarity and economy, utilizing good visual and aural details and avoiding  clutter to create a sense of time, place, and sensibility. The leads represent another strength; Diane Lane is both the film's emotional core--showing both determination and vulnerability in equal and equally important measures--and driving force (and she remains quite attractive, even playing someone's grandmother), while Kevin Costner brings his longstanding status as a symbol of fundamental decency to a role that, ultimately, might make the viewer wonder a bit about the real worth of such a character trait. The weakness of this film is almost existential in nature, specifically: what exactly about this story is supposed to make it appealing (or at least appealing enough that moviegoers will want to watch it)? There is an individual--or at least a familial--tragedy in the through lines of this tale...but how much impact can it have on the larger picture of life? The inherent warning about the dangers of this society's redneck subculture remains pertinent--a little too pertinent, in fact--but that's not exactly the sort of thing that gets audiences engrossed, other than with a certain contempt or revulsion. Honestly, if not for the star power of the leads, I doubt very many viewers would wish to bother with what is, ultimately, a dreary and somewhat depressing story. It's not bad, but it's probably a bit too heavy for most to take. Give it a shot if you're really into deep drama, but just know going in that you're not likely to walk away feeling good about things.

The Long Kiss Goodnight

In some ways, this may be the stupidest movie I’ve ever watched. It takes its premise from an idea—the bump on the head that both gives and relieves amnesia—that is so idiotic that even sitcoms have largely turned away from it these days (and, indeed, in the mid-'90s when this film was made). Most of the dialogue is just blandly unremarkable, but at certain points it goes deeply south into true stupidity. And yet, there are enough positive elements here—mostly in the screen presence of the two leads, Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson—that it can’t be chalked up as a total loss. They’re watchable, in contrast with a cast of villains so generic that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that not one of them ever made another movie again. Many of the action sequences work all right, too, and that goes a long way towards papering over the weaknesses. Then again, the film seems to chicken out at the end, when what would be the obvious ending pairing in any other circumstance—meaning, not cross-racial—does not come about at the closing. That’s a weird note considering all that goes before it. Ultimately, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this movie to anyone, but if you watch it and decide you like it I won’t bother to argue with you, either. Totally your call.

The Little Things

This movie does make an observation: cops are, themselves, a bit of a mystery. I said it was a observation--not necessarily a good observation...nor does that make for a good movie. Indeed, this whole exercise, rather than good, is mostly a run of the mill murder mystery, the kind that has been done many times before, and done better before--even in the eyes of those of us who are not particularly entertained by the thought of people being brutally murdered. The putative selling point here comes in the form of a lineu of heavy hitters among the principal cast, but only Jared Leto really does anything special with his role--and even his creepiness is contrived in the service of the needs of the story, rather than showing a true organic character. Rami Malek is just a waver between brooding and tense throughout the proceedings, while Denzel Washington mostly just plays it tired. There's little that's profound in the story's ultimate twist, no matter how much this flick wants you to believe there is. Ultimately, "little thing" is a descriptor that is all too accurate.

LBJ

Everyone is the hero of his own story. Hence, it should come as no surprise that Lyndon Johnson comes out looking good--metaphorically speaking--in a movie titled LBJ. Was the workhorse Texas politician exactly as he is portrayed in this biopic? It's hard to say. The scenes depicted seem to jibe with the historical record, so far as it's known. (Anyone with even the slightest interest in and/or knowledge of the period represented by the movie has encountered these scenes in a different context.) The titular character is aided immensely by Woody Harrelson's spot-on portrayal. Perhaps the strongest takeaway from this flick is the sense that, when an awful and chaotic moment came for the nation, the USA was lucky that a thoroughly accomplished political animal like Johnson was in place to pull things together and, as he says to Congress in the story's climax, keep things moving forward. Overall, the film is boilerplate presidential biography, but that one big takeaway maybe makes it all worthwhile.

Lady Bird

This may be the most superfluous review on this site, possibly even of all time, since this flick was just about the most talked-about movie released in a long time. Most of what you heard is true: it's an immensely enjoyable viewing experience. In the hands of a less intelligent filmmaker, our heroine would have been a more standard coming-of-age movie teen, which is to say, a shrieking harridan who is thus unsympathetic and off-putting. Not so here; our girl has bad moments, but never loses the audience's sympathy. In retrospect, there are minor elements that might ring false for the viewer, but only if one examines a little too closely. Otherwise there's a lot of truth in this story, and that's why so many people responded so well to it. Be one of those people.

Logan

And some people have the balls to criticize those DC movies as bleak! I found it very hard to figure out what to make of this flick. Is it good? Sorta. Does it hold the interest? Sure--you can't have that much mayhem on screen without holding the eyeballs for a good chunk of the while. (A couple of scenes seem to come right off the Fury Road, which is either derivative or an homage--can't tell.) But I find myself pondering more what it says in the macro than the micro. Is it truly a denouement, or just another franchise fake-out? Is it saying something about the general hopelessness of all human endeavors, normal or mutant? Is it just saying, "Damn, this franchise sure has gotten old." It could be all of that, or none of it. Or probably some but not others. Any way, it's a bit of a tough nut to crack--and thus, perhaps, deserves props for trying something else rather than just going with tried and true. I guess you can say, "It is what it is," and that's pretty much it.

La La Land

My first, immediate impression upon watching this movie: if all the most popular kids in your high school got together and made a movie--a movie celebrating the most popular kids in your high school--it would look a lot like this. Later in the show, my impression...was pretty much the same thing. Admittedly, these would be fairly talented popular people making this movie, particularly the ones doing the art direction; this film always looks good, from start to finish. But it's just a little hard to believe Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as strugglers, especially long-term strugglers; they--he in particular--are just too pretty to make convincing losers. Yeah, that's right: if you strip away all the bright and sunny, or even the drama, this really is a story about losers who only eventually become winners. It's all a little hard to digest. Especially all the people that happy about being stuck in traffic. But there's entertainment here; certainly some good songs and music. It's just not the work of genius it was made out to be.

Licence to Kill

A reaffirmation: Dalton was doomed from the start. After watching this movie, one wonders what a third Timothy Dalton-James Bond movie would have been like. Hell, this one barely feels like a Bond movie: again the tone is grim; there isn’t even the traditional Cold War context to the story (this one is all about Bond’s personal vendetta against a Latin American drug dealer); and, most baffling of all, the production values took a steep nose dive for some reason. Watching this movie feels a lot more like tuning in to a TV movie rather than a big screen outing in filmdom’s most durable franchise. This film seems cheap, unimaginative, and joyless. Whatever one thinks of Dalton as Bond, all of these problems couldn’t have been all his fault. However it happened, bringing in fresh blood--for both the outlook and the character--was a dire necessity by this point.