SAUSAGE PARTY is a good movie in the same way someone might describe McDonald's as being a satisfying meal. There are laughs, you get what you paid for, but in the end you leave feeling a bit sick for enjoying it and vow to change your eating habits before next time. I mean viewing habits. Seth Rogen's stoner homage to Disney & Pixar is surely filled with moments that will make audiences gasp and laugh, but if we are going to watch an R-rated animated film about talking food, is it bad for me to ask for better quality?
When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was unaware it was an adult-themed movie until about midway through. We see a hot dog weiner flirting with a feminine-looking bun, and I recall thinking this was a bit risque even for a kid's movie. Then came the carnage and I understood. The basic premise is that food is alive. When we purchase it at grocery stores, they know little of the horrors that are soon to come. Humans are merely gods who are here to take food into the glorious afterlife. They even have a song welcoming our arrival each morning.
It's the Fourth of July so Bun and Weiner (I forget their names, but wouldn't that only confuse you?) are excited to finally get to spend time together. They are packaged near one another, and dream of the day they are finally selected to go to the great beyond. As plot would have it, they are purchased, but by a strange twist of fate, they esape their packaging and roll away in a deadly two-cart collision. The rest of the hot dogs go home to discover the true horrors of dinnertime, while Bun and Weiner meet some friends at the store (a Jewish bagel (complete with Woody Allen's accent) and a Middle Eastern flatbread, complete with beard). Their plan is to return to packaging to be sold tomorrow.
Remember "The Interview" and the buzz that was built up prior to its Netflix release? What a disappointment the film ended up being, and in many ways this movie measures up just as well. A sort of passion project for Seth Rogen over the past 10 years, it's sad to think this is the end result. The plot is meandering and the situations these foods find themselves in uninteresting. The dialogue is a barrage of the "f" word if for no other reason than the film is rated R. There's also an extended sequence where Weiner and some other non-perishables get high (what can we expect) and an ending that is quite literally a grocery store orgy.
There are laughable parts (a piece of chewed up gum as Stephen Hawking was brilliantly done) and some unfortunate parts (the film spends a large chunk of time joking about the political and global status of Israel), not to mention a barrage of racial jokes that are at times off-putting. The movie is an admirable effort to make animated features more for adults. Apparently adults can't get enough potty humor. Watch the trailer - the funny parts are there. The rest of the movie is fluff.
OUR RATING SYSTEM
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) = The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) = The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.
John (Jo) holds a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film Studies. He currently lives in Chicago, Illinois and works as a nurse. His one true obsession in life is movies... The good, the bad, and everything in between. Other than that, he is busy caring for his cat, painting, writing, exploring Chicago, and debating on whether or not to worship Tilda Swinton as a deity. John is the master and commander and primary author of this blog.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Monday, August 22, 2016
Don't Think Twice (*****)
We meet an improv troupe called "The Commune." They are based in a small New York theater, perform nightly to a small crowd for $5 a ticket. Though they don't have much, and most work the odd job on the side, we know that this is their passion. They are best friends who stay in on weekends and dream of being cast on "Weekend Live" (an obvious play on Saturday Night Live, the ultimate goal of most comedians in their 30's). What this movie does so well is try to figure out what would happen if one of these friends actually hit it big. In a tight community of struggling actors, what would happen when it becomes apparent that not everyone is bound for stardom.
DON'T THINK TWICE is about as good of a movie as I have seen all year. It's directed by Mike Birbiglia (who also has a costarring role as an improv instructor who just can't seem to catch a break in anything besides romance) and has all the makings of a classic exploration of the human condition. Keegan-Michael Key plays Jay (you may recognize him from MadTV, and I wonder if this at all echoes his rise to fame over the past decade), the most recognizable of the troupe and one who is known to break out a Barack Obama impression when talent scouts are nearby. He is one of the group, but secretly dreams of breaking away. While the other members of Commune feel safe amongst numbers, Jay knows there is much more he is capable of.
Jay dates Samantha (Gillian Jacobs is absolutely incredible in this role), a quirky girl who is nearly the exact opposite of him. She is shy in front of large groups but performs improv with ease every night. Both her and Jay get asked to audition for Weekend Live (to the frustration of the rest of the cast) and yet on the day of her audition, she chickens out and decides that maybe it's not for her. Jay is cast on the spot following his audition. He tries to talk to her that night about what went wrong, and already we know that this relationship is doomed to fall apart.
The ensemble cast is all around remarkable. In a group of six performers, each is fleshed out and given a soul. Allison is the tiny girl who dreams of publishing a graphic novel. Lindsay comes from wealth and yet still collects unemployment checks to save her from having to find a real job. Bill is arguably the funniest of the bunch, awkward with glasses, trying to cope with the fact that his father is near death.
The fun with the movie comes from their performances on stage. Filmed handheld and constantly circling the cast, comedy seeps through the screen as though we were watching the intimate comedy routine in person. We start to understand the ins and outs of improvisation, and yet this is in no way a movie about improv in general. It's an honest, timeless human drama that simply uses live television where a classic story might have just used a knife in the back.
There is such heart in the story, in the characters, and by the end (as cliched as it may sound) it really felt as though I was beginning to know these people in and out. As Jay becomes more famous, the audiences begin taking requests for him to play some of his TV characters (though he is now cast on TV, he still returns to the Commune to help his friends and perform more casually alongside them). The rest of the cast becomes frustrated while Jay just soaks his fame up. Eventually it builds to the point where they perform a skit in which Jay has finally died and they circle his coffin, remembering him for the airhead he was. Everything they say is true, and the audience laughs and laughs. Amidst the realization of failure, maybe the movie is trying to tell us that the best thing to do is just laugh. It seems to work.
DON'T THINK TWICE is about as good of a movie as I have seen all year. It's directed by Mike Birbiglia (who also has a costarring role as an improv instructor who just can't seem to catch a break in anything besides romance) and has all the makings of a classic exploration of the human condition. Keegan-Michael Key plays Jay (you may recognize him from MadTV, and I wonder if this at all echoes his rise to fame over the past decade), the most recognizable of the troupe and one who is known to break out a Barack Obama impression when talent scouts are nearby. He is one of the group, but secretly dreams of breaking away. While the other members of Commune feel safe amongst numbers, Jay knows there is much more he is capable of.
Jay dates Samantha (Gillian Jacobs is absolutely incredible in this role), a quirky girl who is nearly the exact opposite of him. She is shy in front of large groups but performs improv with ease every night. Both her and Jay get asked to audition for Weekend Live (to the frustration of the rest of the cast) and yet on the day of her audition, she chickens out and decides that maybe it's not for her. Jay is cast on the spot following his audition. He tries to talk to her that night about what went wrong, and already we know that this relationship is doomed to fall apart.
The ensemble cast is all around remarkable. In a group of six performers, each is fleshed out and given a soul. Allison is the tiny girl who dreams of publishing a graphic novel. Lindsay comes from wealth and yet still collects unemployment checks to save her from having to find a real job. Bill is arguably the funniest of the bunch, awkward with glasses, trying to cope with the fact that his father is near death.
The fun with the movie comes from their performances on stage. Filmed handheld and constantly circling the cast, comedy seeps through the screen as though we were watching the intimate comedy routine in person. We start to understand the ins and outs of improvisation, and yet this is in no way a movie about improv in general. It's an honest, timeless human drama that simply uses live television where a classic story might have just used a knife in the back.
There is such heart in the story, in the characters, and by the end (as cliched as it may sound) it really felt as though I was beginning to know these people in and out. As Jay becomes more famous, the audiences begin taking requests for him to play some of his TV characters (though he is now cast on TV, he still returns to the Commune to help his friends and perform more casually alongside them). The rest of the cast becomes frustrated while Jay just soaks his fame up. Eventually it builds to the point where they perform a skit in which Jay has finally died and they circle his coffin, remembering him for the airhead he was. Everything they say is true, and the audience laughs and laughs. Amidst the realization of failure, maybe the movie is trying to tell us that the best thing to do is just laugh. It seems to work.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Kubo and the Two Strings (****)
KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS is the fourth film from the production company Laika, the same team that released movies like ParaNorman and Coraline. Based on that resume, one would expect Kubo to be a dark and eerie storie full of strange visuals, and you would be right in that assumption. The key difference one might find is that this is more so a story about a family. It's sad they didn't get it quite right.
There is some controversy surrounding the casting of an all-white cast to play Asian characters, but we can look past that. The story is a fairytale of sorts about a little boy who washes ashore as a baby with his mother. In her possession is little more than a shamisen (the Japanese equivalent of a banjo). Kubo grows and raises his mother (who is lost in a haze of confusion and distance) and earns his keep by using his mother's magical instrument to perform origami shows in the nearby village. He has heard stories about his now deceased father and how he was a great warrior. Like all kid heroes, he dreams of one day living up to his memory.
We learn that it was his two aunts and grandfather that ultimately killed Kubo's father (kind of heavy for a children's movie, I admit) and that in order to prevent them from killing Kubo, he must remain hidden from the sky when the sun is down. I'm sure you can guess what happens next.
The visual tapestries that weave together the story are simply remarkable, and the look of this movie will be unlike anything you have seen in quite a while. At times it became mirky whether or not I was looking at stop-motion animation or computer imagery, but the blurring of these lines worked in harmony to make a movie that would surely suffer had it been strictly one medium or the other. This is a movie that would be equally as stunning (if not more so) while watched with the volume off, allowing you to get lost in the framing of shots or the colors on screen.
The film's absolute first lines are spoken by Kubo: "If you must blink, do it now." I had hoped this was a sign of a wonderful film to come, and by all means I tried my hardest throughout the screening to drink in as much of the film as possible. What was disappointing was the rest of the movie, the aspects of characters and plot that felt both boring and cliched. Kubo finds himself alone and tasked with finding a suit of armor to defeat the final villain (you guessed it, his grandfather). He must procure a sword, a helmet, and a breastplate. Along the way, he makes friends with a beetle-man (quite literally a cursed man stuck in an in-between state) and a monkey that was once a charm Kubo kept in his pocket. Like The Wizard of Oz and all the other films like it, we know the hero must adopt some friends for his travel. The unfortunate part is that these characters just don't gel as a group and are reduced to simple comic punchlines to keep children entertained (I assume). Where the movie started out with a mature and brilliant setup, the back half of the story was simply a different, less sophisticated tone. There is also a significant twist near the end of the film that puts these two characters in a new light. The sad part is that the filmmakers didn't work to set them up properly or structure any sort of meaningful payoff. We find out this detail and simply go "what?"
Compared to other animated films this year (Finding Dory, Zootopia) I will still tip the hat to Kubo, a wholly original concept with a remarkable look. In a time when movies are nearly 100% sequels or reboots or any combination there of, Kubo is a unique movie that I know the general moviegoer will enjoy and children will find thrilling. It's not a bad movie by any means. I only wished it could have been that much better.
There is some controversy surrounding the casting of an all-white cast to play Asian characters, but we can look past that. The story is a fairytale of sorts about a little boy who washes ashore as a baby with his mother. In her possession is little more than a shamisen (the Japanese equivalent of a banjo). Kubo grows and raises his mother (who is lost in a haze of confusion and distance) and earns his keep by using his mother's magical instrument to perform origami shows in the nearby village. He has heard stories about his now deceased father and how he was a great warrior. Like all kid heroes, he dreams of one day living up to his memory.
We learn that it was his two aunts and grandfather that ultimately killed Kubo's father (kind of heavy for a children's movie, I admit) and that in order to prevent them from killing Kubo, he must remain hidden from the sky when the sun is down. I'm sure you can guess what happens next.
The visual tapestries that weave together the story are simply remarkable, and the look of this movie will be unlike anything you have seen in quite a while. At times it became mirky whether or not I was looking at stop-motion animation or computer imagery, but the blurring of these lines worked in harmony to make a movie that would surely suffer had it been strictly one medium or the other. This is a movie that would be equally as stunning (if not more so) while watched with the volume off, allowing you to get lost in the framing of shots or the colors on screen.
The film's absolute first lines are spoken by Kubo: "If you must blink, do it now." I had hoped this was a sign of a wonderful film to come, and by all means I tried my hardest throughout the screening to drink in as much of the film as possible. What was disappointing was the rest of the movie, the aspects of characters and plot that felt both boring and cliched. Kubo finds himself alone and tasked with finding a suit of armor to defeat the final villain (you guessed it, his grandfather). He must procure a sword, a helmet, and a breastplate. Along the way, he makes friends with a beetle-man (quite literally a cursed man stuck in an in-between state) and a monkey that was once a charm Kubo kept in his pocket. Like The Wizard of Oz and all the other films like it, we know the hero must adopt some friends for his travel. The unfortunate part is that these characters just don't gel as a group and are reduced to simple comic punchlines to keep children entertained (I assume). Where the movie started out with a mature and brilliant setup, the back half of the story was simply a different, less sophisticated tone. There is also a significant twist near the end of the film that puts these two characters in a new light. The sad part is that the filmmakers didn't work to set them up properly or structure any sort of meaningful payoff. We find out this detail and simply go "what?"
Compared to other animated films this year (Finding Dory, Zootopia) I will still tip the hat to Kubo, a wholly original concept with a remarkable look. In a time when movies are nearly 100% sequels or reboots or any combination there of, Kubo is a unique movie that I know the general moviegoer will enjoy and children will find thrilling. It's not a bad movie by any means. I only wished it could have been that much better.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Florence Foster Jenkins (***)
There's the old joke that goes something like this: "Pardon me, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice, practice, practice!" It would seem that the origins of this joke (who many attribute to Jack Benny) might also ring true for a woman like 'Madame Florence,' as she is affectionately called throughout the titular film. A run down New York socialite with a flair for camp, Ms. Jenkins' story is presented with heart and restrain.
Stephen Frears' film follows in the footsteps of his recent work to examine the life of a woman (remember how marvelous "The Queen" was with Helen Mirren, or "Philomena" with Judi Dench) in extraordinary circumstances. I suppose with this third film, he has made a sort of trilogy examining the place of elderly women in an ever-changing society.
It's 1944 in the midst of war, and we get to know Florence; a quiet type with a retired husband (Hugh Grant, and how marvelous he is). Together they have founded the Verdi Club, which seeks to be in the ranks of high society and serves potato salad like it's going out of style. St Clair Bayfield, her husband, supports her every will and only wants to make her happy. We realize that since Florence contracted syphilis in her youth, they don't share the same bed. In fact, they don't share the same house. St Clair sees a woman on the side, and to those who seem concerned, he explains "there is so much love to give."
Inspired by a performance while in the audience at Carnegie Hall, Florence decides to start up vocal lessons again. Hiring a meager pianist and taking lessons from no less than the greatest vocal coach in all New York, she sets out to prepare for a live show. Here's the catch: she couldn't sing to save her life. In her inner circle of friends, they praise her charm and powerful pitch. To the outsider (as the pianist soon realizes), it's all a farce.
I admired the way the film broke away the mold to reveal the softer side of a marriage that is anything but conventional. The relationship between Florence and St Clair, while at times a bit like mother and son, never feels quite like that of a marriage, but I suppose that's the way it goes. As crazy as the story is (as a true story, no less), the film is still structured in a way that becomes a bit predictable and perhaps a bit too long. Her first vocal performance on screen is one that will surely make audiences laugh, but by the time we hear "Queen of the Night" in the final performance, it's funny yes, but perhaps a bit monotonous.
Meryl Streep delivers a capable performance as the 'rough around the edges' socialite, but I think Hugh Grant is the man who steals the show. Returning to film out of a semi-retirement (who knew?), he makes a large splash on the screen as a charmer who is both mysterious and good. It's a fun role that is exciting to watch. As for the rest of the cast, it's hard to remember a single name or face. The two leads simply take over the show.
I thought the film was apt but perhaps not alongside the great work that both Frears and Streep have delivered in the past. The story is a quirky bit of historical trivia that will perhaps ignite a bit of interest to the life of Mrs Jenkins, who knows. Like the few recordings of the real woman singing that remain, maybe all we will remember is that there once was a bad singer who sold out Carnegie Hall. That's interesting enough for me.
Stephen Frears' film follows in the footsteps of his recent work to examine the life of a woman (remember how marvelous "The Queen" was with Helen Mirren, or "Philomena" with Judi Dench) in extraordinary circumstances. I suppose with this third film, he has made a sort of trilogy examining the place of elderly women in an ever-changing society.
It's 1944 in the midst of war, and we get to know Florence; a quiet type with a retired husband (Hugh Grant, and how marvelous he is). Together they have founded the Verdi Club, which seeks to be in the ranks of high society and serves potato salad like it's going out of style. St Clair Bayfield, her husband, supports her every will and only wants to make her happy. We realize that since Florence contracted syphilis in her youth, they don't share the same bed. In fact, they don't share the same house. St Clair sees a woman on the side, and to those who seem concerned, he explains "there is so much love to give."
Inspired by a performance while in the audience at Carnegie Hall, Florence decides to start up vocal lessons again. Hiring a meager pianist and taking lessons from no less than the greatest vocal coach in all New York, she sets out to prepare for a live show. Here's the catch: she couldn't sing to save her life. In her inner circle of friends, they praise her charm and powerful pitch. To the outsider (as the pianist soon realizes), it's all a farce.
I admired the way the film broke away the mold to reveal the softer side of a marriage that is anything but conventional. The relationship between Florence and St Clair, while at times a bit like mother and son, never feels quite like that of a marriage, but I suppose that's the way it goes. As crazy as the story is (as a true story, no less), the film is still structured in a way that becomes a bit predictable and perhaps a bit too long. Her first vocal performance on screen is one that will surely make audiences laugh, but by the time we hear "Queen of the Night" in the final performance, it's funny yes, but perhaps a bit monotonous.
Meryl Streep delivers a capable performance as the 'rough around the edges' socialite, but I think Hugh Grant is the man who steals the show. Returning to film out of a semi-retirement (who knew?), he makes a large splash on the screen as a charmer who is both mysterious and good. It's a fun role that is exciting to watch. As for the rest of the cast, it's hard to remember a single name or face. The two leads simply take over the show.
I thought the film was apt but perhaps not alongside the great work that both Frears and Streep have delivered in the past. The story is a quirky bit of historical trivia that will perhaps ignite a bit of interest to the life of Mrs Jenkins, who knows. Like the few recordings of the real woman singing that remain, maybe all we will remember is that there once was a bad singer who sold out Carnegie Hall. That's interesting enough for me.
Monday, August 8, 2016
The Lobster (*****)
The Lobster is about as quirky as they come; a surreal deadpan depiction of some alternate universe or perhaps our future (I'm not sure which the filmmakers were leaning towards) in which partnership is a legal requirement and to be alone is to be a lesser being. It's a story billed as dystopian, but with the complexity and sophistication that this civilization is run, perhaps our heroes who work to fight the system are merely traitors.
The opening scene depicts a woman driving down a country road and then exiting her car to calmly shoot and kill a donkey in a field. Having completed this movie, one wonders what this donkey could have possibly done done to deserve it. We learn the processes and meanings later. In the simplest description, this is a society in which people who are single (whether due to death or divorce) must refuge in a sort of resort for loners, a large hotel in which newly-single folk must meet like-minded people in order to mate and return to society. Assuming you can't find a companion within 30 days of arriving, you are turned into an animal of your choice and released into the wild, forever doomed to be mute and alone.
David is our protagonist (a deadpan Colin Farrell, he's fantastic) who enters the resort with his brother (a yappy dog, transformed by the same resort 4 years prior) after his wife leaves him for another man with glasses. He is given a single room, 4 complete suits, shoes, and instructions to never use the volleyball or tennis courts. Those are reserved for couples. He eats all 3 meals at an individual table (curious since socialization is the key to meeting others), attends stiff formal dances catered by the building managers, and regularly goes in groups to the nearby woods to hunt loners who have escaped the grounds.
The story indeed makes for one of the most unique pieces of cinema I have ever seen. The tone is that of a black comedy, and humor is found not in actions or situations, but rather the curious nature of these characters. They speak in a simple English, and there is a bleak sound to it. David speaks with a textbook-like vernacular. He never laughs, never yells, and seems content with living out his remainder as a human in relative peace.
Not only do our characters require a mate, but they also must settle down with someone of a similar trait. A fellow exile picks a woman who frequently gets nosebleeds and insists that banging his head on the table to cause a drip from his nose will make them a perfect couple. Another unsuccessfully tries to find a woman with a similar lisp to his.
One thing leads to another, and David escapes to join a band of loners in the nearby woods (the loners hunted every night). There he falls in love with a short-sighted woman (Rachel Weisz in one of her best roles). How curious that David is also short-sighted, and how deeply sad that these foresters forbid relationships as a form of rebellion to society.
Yorgos Lanthimos is the director and cowriter, Greek in descent and with a decidedly European sensibility to his film. His work, while challenging, concludes on a note that will leave some audiences confused and others amazed by the simplicity of it. Along with "Her," here is another modern film that works to dissect love and relationships in a way that we have not yet seen before. There is much to discuss about the film, and there is even more to debate. It's one of the very best films this year.
The opening scene depicts a woman driving down a country road and then exiting her car to calmly shoot and kill a donkey in a field. Having completed this movie, one wonders what this donkey could have possibly done done to deserve it. We learn the processes and meanings later. In the simplest description, this is a society in which people who are single (whether due to death or divorce) must refuge in a sort of resort for loners, a large hotel in which newly-single folk must meet like-minded people in order to mate and return to society. Assuming you can't find a companion within 30 days of arriving, you are turned into an animal of your choice and released into the wild, forever doomed to be mute and alone.
David is our protagonist (a deadpan Colin Farrell, he's fantastic) who enters the resort with his brother (a yappy dog, transformed by the same resort 4 years prior) after his wife leaves him for another man with glasses. He is given a single room, 4 complete suits, shoes, and instructions to never use the volleyball or tennis courts. Those are reserved for couples. He eats all 3 meals at an individual table (curious since socialization is the key to meeting others), attends stiff formal dances catered by the building managers, and regularly goes in groups to the nearby woods to hunt loners who have escaped the grounds.
The story indeed makes for one of the most unique pieces of cinema I have ever seen. The tone is that of a black comedy, and humor is found not in actions or situations, but rather the curious nature of these characters. They speak in a simple English, and there is a bleak sound to it. David speaks with a textbook-like vernacular. He never laughs, never yells, and seems content with living out his remainder as a human in relative peace.
Not only do our characters require a mate, but they also must settle down with someone of a similar trait. A fellow exile picks a woman who frequently gets nosebleeds and insists that banging his head on the table to cause a drip from his nose will make them a perfect couple. Another unsuccessfully tries to find a woman with a similar lisp to his.
One thing leads to another, and David escapes to join a band of loners in the nearby woods (the loners hunted every night). There he falls in love with a short-sighted woman (Rachel Weisz in one of her best roles). How curious that David is also short-sighted, and how deeply sad that these foresters forbid relationships as a form of rebellion to society.
Yorgos Lanthimos is the director and cowriter, Greek in descent and with a decidedly European sensibility to his film. His work, while challenging, concludes on a note that will leave some audiences confused and others amazed by the simplicity of it. Along with "Her," here is another modern film that works to dissect love and relationships in a way that we have not yet seen before. There is much to discuss about the film, and there is even more to debate. It's one of the very best films this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)