Sabin,
I went to see Lightyear today and I think you nailed it in your assessment. I agree with everything you wrote. I like the film, but it has a number of problems that you presented well.
The Official Review Thread of 2022
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
I'm legitimately excited to read your thoughts after your rewatches.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
I just rewatched every Pixar film in preparation for Lightyear. I'm going to release less a ranking than a retrospective on them soon. I didn't know that such an undertaking was leading up to such a non-event. It's hard to know what to make of Lightyear. Most of Pixar's less distinguished projects can be separated into categories like Ambitious Misfires, Trifles, or Forgettable Sequels. Lightyear is sort of all of them. It should be said up front that it's hobbled right out of the gate on a conceptual level. It announces itself the movie that Andy fell in love with in 1995 that inspired him to buy a Buzz Lightyear toy. It doesn't feel like a movie released in 1995, nor does it feel like a movie a child would enjoy, nor does the Buzz Lightyear of the movie act like the Buzz Lightyear of the Toy Story movies. We're not talking about little movies here. This is a major four quadrant franchise, not just the biggest of Pixar's productions but also their most beloved, as well as the most instantly recognizable character they've produced. So, the movie just places us instantly in a weird place.
Beyond that as a movie, it's just not much to write home about. It's an oddly skimpy movie. We open on a mission that Buzz and his colleague (supervisor?) Hawthorne are going on on a desolate planet, and due to Buzz' hubris, they are stuck there indefinitely. The only way out is if they embark on some form of mission involving hyperspeed, which requires a series of trial missions that Buzz keeps going on and failing, again and again. Without delving into spoilers, the movie is about Buzz learning important lessons about how he needs to work as a team. This works, but it never really feels as successful as it should be for three major reasons: 1) it never really spends any time re-introducing us to Buzz, 2) it never really feels like he has a major problem with teamwork, and 3) the franchise is uninterested in turning Buzz into a comedic figure. I think this is my major problem and I mentioned it above. Woody may drive the Toy Story franchise but Buzz Lightyear is as incredible an idea for an animated character as any that's ever been made: a toy who thinks he's a real spaceman and acts from a place of completely unearned bravado. I have no doubt that the filmmakers were too afraid to make Buzz too much of a narcissist in 2022 but it's a real missed opportunity because we all know and love Buzz. It's unclear how much of a legend he is at this point, so it feels weirdly stranded between serialized tale and origin story. To be honest... it doesn't really feel like it's a Buzz Lightyear story.
There are two things that worked well enough. It's engaged in some surprisingly hard sci fi for a children's movie and there's just a momentum to the thing that makes it diverting enough to just sit and watch. Like, for escapism you could do worse (words I never thought I would say about a Pixar film). But most importantly, there's a robot cat named Sox. Sox owned the movie for me. He's Buzz Lightyear's robot therapy cat. He speaks in a calm, programmed human voice and has Teddy Ruxpin eyes. He's a little bit of a swiss army knife, capable of providing white noise to help you sleep but also is surprisingly useful on a space mission. I wish the film delved into how much Sox knows that he's a robot and how he feels about it, but I was pretty charmed by Sox as well as the sight of this arrogant Space Ranger carrying a cat around everywhere. But that's really it. It's not a bad film per se. It's another film that furthers the argument that action and sci-fi really has a perfect home in animation, but it's desperately hobbled by our expectations for a Lightyear movie. If it's even possible to remove our preexisting knowledge of Buzz Lightyear from this film, it's a light and forgettable film.
Beyond that as a movie, it's just not much to write home about. It's an oddly skimpy movie. We open on a mission that Buzz and his colleague (supervisor?) Hawthorne are going on on a desolate planet, and due to Buzz' hubris, they are stuck there indefinitely. The only way out is if they embark on some form of mission involving hyperspeed, which requires a series of trial missions that Buzz keeps going on and failing, again and again. Without delving into spoilers, the movie is about Buzz learning important lessons about how he needs to work as a team. This works, but it never really feels as successful as it should be for three major reasons: 1) it never really spends any time re-introducing us to Buzz, 2) it never really feels like he has a major problem with teamwork, and 3) the franchise is uninterested in turning Buzz into a comedic figure. I think this is my major problem and I mentioned it above. Woody may drive the Toy Story franchise but Buzz Lightyear is as incredible an idea for an animated character as any that's ever been made: a toy who thinks he's a real spaceman and acts from a place of completely unearned bravado. I have no doubt that the filmmakers were too afraid to make Buzz too much of a narcissist in 2022 but it's a real missed opportunity because we all know and love Buzz. It's unclear how much of a legend he is at this point, so it feels weirdly stranded between serialized tale and origin story. To be honest... it doesn't really feel like it's a Buzz Lightyear story.
There are two things that worked well enough. It's engaged in some surprisingly hard sci fi for a children's movie and there's just a momentum to the thing that makes it diverting enough to just sit and watch. Like, for escapism you could do worse (words I never thought I would say about a Pixar film). But most importantly, there's a robot cat named Sox. Sox owned the movie for me. He's Buzz Lightyear's robot therapy cat. He speaks in a calm, programmed human voice and has Teddy Ruxpin eyes. He's a little bit of a swiss army knife, capable of providing white noise to help you sleep but also is surprisingly useful on a space mission. I wish the film delved into how much Sox knows that he's a robot and how he feels about it, but I was pretty charmed by Sox as well as the sight of this arrogant Space Ranger carrying a cat around everywhere. But that's really it. It's not a bad film per se. It's another film that furthers the argument that action and sci-fi really has a perfect home in animation, but it's desperately hobbled by our expectations for a Lightyear movie. If it's even possible to remove our preexisting knowledge of Buzz Lightyear from this film, it's a light and forgettable film.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6391
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
CRIMES OF THE FUTURE
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Lea Seydoux, Kristen Stewart, Scott Speedman, Don McKellar, Welket Bungue.
Dir: David Cronenberg.
Sometime in the future, mankind has evolved to not feel pain and soon performing surgery has turned into a hobby for a lot of populace in particular a couple who does it as a performance art act. As with every cinephile, I was very excited at the notion of director David Cronenberg returning to body horror. This film has a lot of interesting ideas and is set in a world that is fascinating. But I do agree with some people that I think this concept may be better served as a limited series rather than as a standalone 100-plus minute film because there are a lot of themes and plot possibilities in this world he could unpack. So as a film, it feels like it's merely scratching the surface of its potential. That said, it's still a David Cronenberg film and that alone makes this worth seeing.
Oscar Prospects: I think Makeup & Hairstyling is a possibility.
Grade: B+
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Lea Seydoux, Kristen Stewart, Scott Speedman, Don McKellar, Welket Bungue.
Dir: David Cronenberg.
Sometime in the future, mankind has evolved to not feel pain and soon performing surgery has turned into a hobby for a lot of populace in particular a couple who does it as a performance art act. As with every cinephile, I was very excited at the notion of director David Cronenberg returning to body horror. This film has a lot of interesting ideas and is set in a world that is fascinating. But I do agree with some people that I think this concept may be better served as a limited series rather than as a standalone 100-plus minute film because there are a lot of themes and plot possibilities in this world he could unpack. So as a film, it feels like it's merely scratching the surface of its potential. That said, it's still a David Cronenberg film and that alone makes this worth seeing.
Oscar Prospects: I think Makeup & Hairstyling is a possibility.
Grade: B+
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
I actually found Hanks entertaining. It's nice to see him for once portraying such a sleazy, smarmy character.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6391
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
ELVIS
Cast: Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, Olivia DeJonge, Helen Thomson, Richard Roxburgh, Kelvin Harrison Jr., David Wenham, Luke Bracey, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Dacre Montgomery.
Dir: Baz Luhrmann.
This is the biopic of the King of Rock and Roll himself, Elvis Presley largely from the point of view of his infamous manager, Colonel Tom Parker. "Subtlety" isn't in director Baz Luhrmann's vocabulary. Knowing that and making peace with that fact coming into this film will factor in whether or not you will enjoy what Luhrmann has to offer. I must say, I enjoyed it. Yes, it doesn't say anything particularly new about Elvis. Yes, it is style over substance. Yes, Tom Hanks's performance with the makeup and the weird accent is really distracting. But despite all that, I think this is an overall enjoyable celebration of Elvis Presley's music and legacy. It also helps that Austin Butler gives a star-making performance in this. Elvis Presley is a larger than life character that's often impersonated and portrayed. He manages to make him both human and yet also understand what made him extraordinary. Not an easy acting feat to pull off. He makes this film. Yes, if you like/can tolerate Luhrmann's style, it's quite enjoyable.
Oscar Prospects: Whether or not it makes Best Picture and/or Best Actor will depend on how successful it is. Right now, I think it's got a strong chance for Production Design, Costume Design, Sound and Makeup & Hairstyling. Hopefully not Supporting Actor for Hanks.
Grade: B+
Cast: Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, Olivia DeJonge, Helen Thomson, Richard Roxburgh, Kelvin Harrison Jr., David Wenham, Luke Bracey, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Dacre Montgomery.
Dir: Baz Luhrmann.
This is the biopic of the King of Rock and Roll himself, Elvis Presley largely from the point of view of his infamous manager, Colonel Tom Parker. "Subtlety" isn't in director Baz Luhrmann's vocabulary. Knowing that and making peace with that fact coming into this film will factor in whether or not you will enjoy what Luhrmann has to offer. I must say, I enjoyed it. Yes, it doesn't say anything particularly new about Elvis. Yes, it is style over substance. Yes, Tom Hanks's performance with the makeup and the weird accent is really distracting. But despite all that, I think this is an overall enjoyable celebration of Elvis Presley's music and legacy. It also helps that Austin Butler gives a star-making performance in this. Elvis Presley is a larger than life character that's often impersonated and portrayed. He manages to make him both human and yet also understand what made him extraordinary. Not an easy acting feat to pull off. He makes this film. Yes, if you like/can tolerate Luhrmann's style, it's quite enjoyable.
Oscar Prospects: Whether or not it makes Best Picture and/or Best Actor will depend on how successful it is. Right now, I think it's got a strong chance for Production Design, Costume Design, Sound and Makeup & Hairstyling. Hopefully not Supporting Actor for Hanks.
Grade: B+
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
This is generally how I feel. Glad you enjoyed it. I neglected to mention Johnson’s performance. I think the film makes as good use of her as I’ve seen.dws1982 wrote
Good movie, worth watching. Not major, but there's a lot to like in it, and you could do a lot worse with your two hours.
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
Cha Cha Real Smooth almost dares you to dislike it based on its too-cute title, not to mention its Sundance success and Apple buying it, giving us flashbacks of CODA. The title could've been almost anything else, and honestly if this had been at Sundance 2021 and had been the movie that Apple took all the way, I would've been much more okay with it. It's good, clearly the work of a young, and in many ways not fully mature filmmaker. And based on a few interviews I've read, I think Cooper Raiff would fully own up to having room to grow. But he also reminds me of Greta Gerwig in Lady Bird in the way characters who could easily be one-dimensional blanks--the Raul Castillo character in particular--are drawn with a lot of love and care. Dakota Johnson is really excellent. Like Stewart/Pattinson and the Twilight movies, she has definitely moved beyond her career being defined by the Fifty Shades movies. You could argue she's a little young for the role here, but it doesn't matter at all. Good movie, worth watching. Not major, but there's a lot to like in it, and you could do a lot worse with your two hours.
Operation Mincemeat I squeezed in before my Netflix subscription goes dormant until the end of the year. It's a decent story (I always like stories dealing in espionage and military intelligence) that isn't told badly, although a more talented director could've probably really made something out of it. But my God it is just the ugliest movie imaginable. I don't know when or why filmmakers decided they weren't going to use multiple colors within their frames. Almost every shot is just a complete frame of under-lit blue, or gray, or beige.
Father of the Bride is a decent retread of the Father of the Bride story, in large part because it's actually not a retread of the plots of the earlier films. The general concept is still there--dad freaks out over his daughter's upcoming wedding to a wealthy guy--but much of the rest of it is it's own thing; the Miami setting is fun, and culture clash between the Cuban-Americans and Mexicans is something you don't see very often, and the cast is game.
Operation Mincemeat I squeezed in before my Netflix subscription goes dormant until the end of the year. It's a decent story (I always like stories dealing in espionage and military intelligence) that isn't told badly, although a more talented director could've probably really made something out of it. But my God it is just the ugliest movie imaginable. I don't know when or why filmmakers decided they weren't going to use multiple colors within their frames. Almost every shot is just a complete frame of under-lit blue, or gray, or beige.
Father of the Bride is a decent retread of the Father of the Bride story, in large part because it's actually not a retread of the plots of the earlier films. The general concept is still there--dad freaks out over his daughter's upcoming wedding to a wealthy guy--but much of the rest of it is it's own thing; the Miami setting is fun, and culture clash between the Cuban-Americans and Mexicans is something you don't see very often, and the cast is game.
Last edited by dws1982 on Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
If I can just make one quick correction:OscarGuy wrote
Sabin is right. Woke may not have been invented by conservatives, but it was employed first by believers in conspiracy theories saying they want to "wake up" others to the truth. But those people aren't the ones using it nowadays.
-I think there's truth to this statement, but until recently (like, the last year or two) the opposite was true. Let's not forget, there is a "woke" series called Woke on Hulu right now that is only on its second season.
I just don't think that can be done at this point. I'd rather just engage with the substance of the arguments. My thing is that this is old shit with new ammo. I remember when the Teletubbies were gay.OscarGuy wrote
I don't care why you use the term "woke." I think it's a term that should be retired. Just like cancel culture. It is utterly meaningless and for similar reasons.
"How's the despair?"
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
You know, mlrg, I AM angry. I'm tired of being constantly shit on by others who think that my push for equality is unimportant. I'm tired of being constantly demeaned because I take equality, justice, representation, and other pursuits to uplift those who are demeaned and diminished by conservative ideologies. I'm tired of people not seeing a problem with that and instead jumping on the bandwagon. I don't care why you use the term "woke." I think it's a term that should be retired. Just like cancel culture. It is utterly meaningless and for similar reasons.
Sabin is right. Woke may not have been invented by conservatives, but it was employed first by believers in conspiracy theories saying they want to "wake up" others to the truth. But those people aren't the ones using it nowadays. Context matters a lot and the context you used it in, as a denigrating phrase, suggests you agree with conservatives who use the term as people forcing "aberrant" lifestyles on them. If you don't like being lumped in with those people, don't use the phrase. It's that simple.
"Woke," like "Cancel Culture," has been co-opted by right wing bigots and used as a weapon against anyone who believes in equality and fairness. All you are doing is encouraging those people and playing into their hand.
What do fascists do? They get seemingly thoughtful people to embrace anti-democratic policies by creating an "other" to be incensed about. With Russia it's gay people. In the US, it's liberals. By buying into these two notions, you are essentially enabling fascists. Don't be like them.
Sabin is right. Woke may not have been invented by conservatives, but it was employed first by believers in conspiracy theories saying they want to "wake up" others to the truth. But those people aren't the ones using it nowadays. Context matters a lot and the context you used it in, as a denigrating phrase, suggests you agree with conservatives who use the term as people forcing "aberrant" lifestyles on them. If you don't like being lumped in with those people, don't use the phrase. It's that simple.
"Woke," like "Cancel Culture," has been co-opted by right wing bigots and used as a weapon against anyone who believes in equality and fairness. All you are doing is encouraging those people and playing into their hand.
What do fascists do? They get seemingly thoughtful people to embrace anti-democratic policies by creating an "other" to be incensed about. With Russia it's gay people. In the US, it's liberals. By buying into these two notions, you are essentially enabling fascists. Don't be like them.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
It's behind firewall. Can I have your password?Big Magilla wrote
History of the use of the word:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... on-misuse/
Now, can we get back to talking about movies and save the politics for the numerous political threads?
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19362
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
History of the use of the word:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... on-misuse/
Now, can we get back to talking about movies and save the politics for the numerous political threads?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... on-misuse/
Now, can we get back to talking about movies and save the politics for the numerous political threads?
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
I thought about wading into this but I haven't seen the movie yet. Instead, I'll just say...
-The term "woke" was not made up conservative bigots. I'm not even comfortable saying it was popularized by them.
-I think it's a stretch to say that Top Gun: Maverick isn't conservative. It's pretty uncomplicated, meat and potatoes, and believes that the U.S. Military is a force of good in the world.
-The question of whether or not LGBTQ people can exist in children's entertainment is so goddamn infuriating because it only reveals how many people see them only as sexual deviants. I do miss the days where that phrase was used instead of "woke agenda." Much easier to shrug off as crazy. Remember that One Million Moms organized a boycott against Toy Story 4 for featuring two married mothers in a crowd silently existing.
-Last week, the Texas GOP just voted to approve new language to their platform declaring among other things that homosexuality is an "abnormal lifestyle choice." This shit is scarier than anything I ever thought I'd be dealing with in my adult life save for the ravages of climate change which await us all. Oh, I know. "Maybe they wouldn't BLANK if the BLANK people didn't BLANK?" Sure.
-I also think it's just a confusing movie: https://twitter.com/thebigstevesy/statu ... 2630480899
-Seeing Lightyear this week.
-The term "woke" was not made up conservative bigots. I'm not even comfortable saying it was popularized by them.
-I think it's a stretch to say that Top Gun: Maverick isn't conservative. It's pretty uncomplicated, meat and potatoes, and believes that the U.S. Military is a force of good in the world.
-The question of whether or not LGBTQ people can exist in children's entertainment is so goddamn infuriating because it only reveals how many people see them only as sexual deviants. I do miss the days where that phrase was used instead of "woke agenda." Much easier to shrug off as crazy. Remember that One Million Moms organized a boycott against Toy Story 4 for featuring two married mothers in a crowd silently existing.
-Last week, the Texas GOP just voted to approve new language to their platform declaring among other things that homosexuality is an "abnormal lifestyle choice." This shit is scarier than anything I ever thought I'd be dealing with in my adult life save for the ravages of climate change which await us all. Oh, I know. "Maybe they wouldn't BLANK if the BLANK people didn't BLANK?" Sure.
-I also think it's just a confusing movie: https://twitter.com/thebigstevesy/statu ... 2630480899
-Seeing Lightyear this week.
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
People could very well be flocking to Top Gun: Maverick for the flight scenes without much regard to the story, regardless of issues of wokeness or anti-wokeness.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2022
So much hatred Wes. Your two posts are full of assumptions about “my” interpretation about what woke is.
This board doesn’t deserve to dive again into endless discussions about cultural “sides” but you should really invest in controlling your anger management because it certainly has driven people off.
This board doesn’t deserve to dive again into endless discussions about cultural “sides” but you should really invest in controlling your anger management because it certainly has driven people off.