Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Film: Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Stars: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Kristen Wiig, Pedro Pascal, Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen

Director: Patty Jenkins

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Do you ever go a while without eating a food, not your favorite food, but a food you like?  I've been dieting for the past seven months (with a slight break this past week for the holidays), but for one of my Christmas "cheats" I really, really wanted Frosted Flakes.  I can't explain this entirely-this is not a food that I ate a lot pre-diet (I can't remember the last time I had had the cereal), and I assume some commercial got stuck in my head that I couldn't shake, but for months I just had this hankering for Frosted Flakes.  When I had them, it was so satisfying, even if, as I finished it off, I was reminded that this, while enjoyable, is not my favorite cereal.

I had a somewhat similar reaction to the opening acts of Wonder Woman 1984.  Cinematically in 2020, there has been a complete lack in high-budget blockbuster films.  Most movies from last year that would have been giant, effects-driven blockbusters at the box office were delayed (think Black Widow, Dune, and Godzilla vs. Kong), and so there was a gap that I know I've complained about a few times this year, but felt lacking.  You want what you can't have, and so while I thought the first film was middling, the idea of seeing a giant, effects-laden bonanza in Wonder Woman 1984 was much like those Frosted Flakes, a craving I didn't know I had.  And like that cereal, I left satisfied, but remembering that we can do better.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place 70 years after the events of the first film, so only Diana (Gadot) remains of the "present-day" cast-Etta Candy we catch a brief glimpse of in her old age in a photo, and of course Steve (Pine), her love interest, died in the first film.  Diana now works at a museum, where she befriends a mousy coworker named Barbara (Wiig), who finds a stone that supposedly bestows one wish upon every person that asks for it.  Assuming it to be a fake, both Diana & Barbara make specious asks of the stone, Diana to have Steve returned to her, and Barbara to be "just like Diana."  Of course, it's a movie, so this turns out to be reality-Diana has Steve come back (creating a loophole for DC to bring back Chris Pine), and Barbara becomes "just like Diana" not only confident & desirable, but also with her superhuman, godlike abilities.  They are soon joined by Max Lord (Pascal), who knows the stone is real, and wishes to become the stone, granting himself a genie-like ability to grant wishes, and uses that to start to control the wealth & power of the world.  But the stone has a curse-it takes something from the wisher-Diana's strength, Barbara's decency, and Max's humanity-and as a result this spirals into a chaotic third act as they battle against each other, with Barbara & Max wanting to keep their newfound gifts even to the chagrin of their souls, and Diana finally taking the time to let go of Steve & leave him in the past.

Let's get to the good because I was genuinely looking forward to this movie, and really wanted to like it.  The opening scene is terrific, an Olympic-style battle pitting a young Diana against more advanced warriors, and nearly winning (through cheating), but this title is taken from her by Robin Wright's Antiope who says "no true hero is born from lies."  Wonder Woman, like Superman, is a hero that values truth & morality, even when it's hard, and there's elements of that throughout this movie (comic book films love a theme), and it's a good, colorful start.  The film's best action sequence, and other than the flipping car chase scene in Tenet, probably the year's best action sequence.

The movie's decision to bring back Chris Pine in some ways felt like a copout, but the ending with Diana works better in this theme than I would have expected (and, imho, better than what others have given the film credit for), as Gadot gets an emotional goodbye that we didn't receive in the first film.  It lacks the gut-punch of the first movie, but this is a franchise, not a standalone drama, and so giving the audience closure so they can move on (and Diana can eventually have a different love interest if the writers of Wonder Woman 3 so choose) worked for me.  The more I thought about it, the more I realized that there was no way you could have sequels to this film without having a better sendoff to Pine, and this gave us that finality.

That being said, the movie does not succeed.  No action sequence in the film ever comes close to what was achieved in the opening moments, and frequently it feels like it was filmed on the cheap for certain fight scenes (like the late act between Wiig & Gadot), which it wasn't (while Midnight Sky or Mank might have been intended for the small screen, WW84 had a gigantic budget & should've been able to live up to that cash, which it doesn't).  Gal Gadot also doesn't add enough depth to her Diana-she's great at charm & kicking butt, but other than her teary goodbye to Steve, I didn't feel like we learned more about her (admittedly difficult-to-play superhero), or what she wants in life other than a man.  I hope they fix that in the third film, as a generic superhero would be such a waste for a franchise this popular.

But the worst part of the movie was the length.  Superhero films that try to squeeze in two villains almost always fail, and that's the case here.  On their own, Pascal & Wiig are doing interesting work, but they both are enough plot for one movie, and without time to breathe, their plots are totally clipped. Pascal (best in show, for my money) has his entire backstory (which involves bed-wetting for some reason?) glossed over in a series of wordless clips, and so we don't get an understanding of him for the big climax.  Barbara, Wiig's character, we get a solid setup for (and I loved the first half with her-Wiig as a villain was an inspired choice, and the kind more casting directors should take), but she gets sloppy in the back-half, with her transformation into Cheetah coming out of nowhere, and Wiig doesn't know how to ground this character once the writers try to make a her a straight-dramatic villain rather than one with some camp.  The movie is already too long, and the fact that we're still complaining about strange editing choices...this clearly would've functioned better as two movies & Warner/Jenkins were likely too far along before they realized that.  As a result, I didn't like WW84 even if I'm still intrigued enough by the franchise to give it another shot in the inevitable sequel.

Where'd You Go, Bernadette (2019)

Film: Where'd You Go, Bernadette (2019)
Stars: Cate Blanchett, Billy Crudup, Emma Nelson, Kristen Wiig, Judy Greer, Laurence Fishburne
Director: Richard Linklater
Oscar History: Though it didn't score with Oscar, Cate Blanchett did get a surprise Globes nomination for Best Actress.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

In just a couple of days, I will be announcing my Top 10 lists for 2019 (it'll be Sunday & Monday), and as a result I'm trying to get through a couple of last-minute screenings.  One of those was a movie I had every intention of seeing when it was in theaters when it was out in August, but for some reason it alluded me, despite there not being a lot of major films in theaters at the time.  The film's reviews were paltry, and the box office poor, but I see pretty much every Cate Blanchett movie, and I definitely see anything that Richard Linklater crafts together (three of his films were on my Top 10's in past years of this decade), but the film just never happened.  As I felt that Linklater's perch as one of my favorite directors of the decade required me to get this done before I completed 2019, this has become one of the last three screenings I'll do before the "end" of 2019.

(Spoilers Ahead) Based on the bestselling novel by Maria Semple, the movie is about Bernadette (Blanchett), a brilliant architect who has become increasingly antisocial & isolated in the years since her greatest triumph (an environmentally-conscious house) was destroyed by a callous neighbor.  In the years since, she's become less responsive to her husband Elgin (Crudup) and relies on her daughter Bee (Nelson) for most of her human connection.  Her world comes to a head when Bernadette's neighbor Audrey (Wiig) has her house flooded because Bernadette removes some bushes (on Audrey's request), knowing that doing so will cause a mudslide into Audrey's house.  Things get worse for her when it's revealed that she's been accidentally using an identity thief as a personal assistant, and her husband wants to send her to a mental health facility to get past her anxiety issues.  Instead, Bernadette runs away from him, stays with Audrey (and apologizes) & then goes on the trip to Antarctica that her daughter wanted them to take as a family alone, eventually discovering a project while in the southern continent to redesign a science facility, thus reigniting her passion for architecture, her family, and her life.

The movie is very different than the book, something I didn't know from reading the book, but seeking out a description of it afterward as it was hard to tell what was missing in this movie that had somehow been present in Semple's massive bestseller.  In the book, Elgin is much more of an ass (he has an affair with his assistant while Bernadette is missing), and the mystery is actually a mystery, not something we see explained pretty much the second Bernadette disappears.  This makes much more sense, as Bernadette the film is a movie with very little stakes.

Stakes, if you look at his filmography, is not Richard Linklater's forte.  Films like Before Sunrise, Boyhood, and Everybody Wants Some! are bright masterpieces, but if there are stakes they're ancillary to the plot, which is essentially just looking at characters and letting the story shape around them as you film.  This isn't obviously how they're written (they have plots-this isn't a Terrence Malick film), but his talent as a director is in finding the stories that happen in our everyday life that shape us as people, not using characters in a more traditional sense-we don't always have an understanding of what is important in this world.  Given a novel to confine himself and his writing, Linklater struggles.  The movie has occasional moments of interest (the scenes in Antarctica are the only ones where Linklater and Blanchett's uneven performance work), but this is a creative failure even if it's an intriguing one.  Every time you think you like Bernadette, he holds back, not letting us free into the world of this fascinating, complicated woman, and no amount of lovingly-framed architecture is going to change that.  This is worthwhile only if you're a Linklater or Blanchett completist, but don't expect anything more than missed opportunities.

OVP: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)

Film: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)
Stars: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Cate Blanchett, Craig Ferguson, F. Murray Abraham, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Kristen Wiig, Gerard Butler, Kit Harington
Director: Dean DeBlois
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

We complete (for the love of god, end stories animated studios!) the How to Train trilogy this year with a lot of mixed expectations on my part.  I loved the first one, thought it was spellbinding entertainment, while the second film I actively disliked, thinking the plot was manipulative & sacrificed a lot of cool story potential.  I make it a point of not seeing the sequels to movies I didn't like, but made an exception here as I had heard from my parents that this was really good, and pretty much everyone who disliked the second film agreed that this was a return-to-form.  Plus, considering the state of this year's sequel-plagued Animated Feature race, this felt like preemptively getting a movie off of the OVP.  So (hungry for a movie after a week or two away), I snuck to the cinema to judge-would this film be similar to the first film, a surprise delight, or would it fall into the critically-acclaimed (except by me) camp of the sequel?

(Spoilers Ahead) We pickup a year after the previous film's events, where Hiccup (Baruchel) has become the chief and Toothless, his sidekick dragon, is now the "alpha" basically controlling all of the other dragons with his mind.  As you might have remembered (if you clicked the above links), I hated this plot line, and was glad to see it largely back-seated in the movie, with Toothless's pursuits focusing more on gaining a romantic partner, when a beautiful "Light Fury" comes across his path.  However, romance is interrupted when a famed dragon-slayer Grimmel (Abraham) tries to kill and capture all of the dragons, including wanting to hunt the night furies to extinction.  We watch as Hiccup tries to bring his clan to the "Hidden World" a place run by dragons where they can live in peace.  As the film unfolds, we learn that while the vikings cannot live there, the dragons soon must as they will all surely die because Grimmel will inevitably be replaced with another violent man soon after his defeat, and the world isn't ready for the splendor of the dragons.

The movie is considerably grander-in-scale than its previous films, and honestly, is probably the best in the series (I haven't seen the first one in a while, but I don't remember it hitting these kinds of heights).  The animation is prettier than any mainstream studio has come up with this decade other than Coco, with majestic rides through the night sky and a symphony of dragons in the Hidden World.  I made a comment that the last film would have been better as a silent movie, and I remembered thinking that this one would totally work as a silent movie as well.  If the film ends up being a capper at the Oscars, getting a trophy as a nod to all that it's accomplished as a series over the past decade, we can at least rest assured that it will be winning while also being a splendid picture.

Thankfully it isn't silent, though, as we get some of the most meaningful plots of the series.  The environmentalism answer is clearly there, with dragons being an easy substitute for the rainforest or tigers or pandas or name your favorite climate change cause here, but it also shows the stakes in a major way.  Yes, Hiccup gets to see Toothless again over the ending (I could have done without the literal realization of the reunion, rather than just assuming it as a promise), but the dragons leave this world forever, and the world is hollow because of the greed of people like Grimmel.  That's a sort of "you can have your cake, but you can't eat it" sort of mentality that has largely been absent from modern animation, hearkening back to the era of Pinocchio or Bambi in a way.  I loved it, and think Disney should be watching its back because they haven't made a sequel this inventive in a decade despite sequels being pretty much all they're capable of making.  I'm going with 4 stars here, as the side character jokes still don't work for me and I feel everyone other than Hiccup and the plot itself are underwritten, but know that the franchise is totally redeemed in my eyes, and well done to Dreamworks for making something so special and (hopefully) ending it with such care.

Downsizing (2017)

Film: Downsizing (2017)
Stars: Matt Damon, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, Kristin Wiig
Director: Alexander Payne
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

You don't need to have a great idea to create a great movie, but it helps.  Films like Casablanca, Brokeback Mountain, Titanic, Lawrence of Arabia-these are hardly anyone stretching the noggin too hard on creating something seismic on the screen, but they are all indisputable classics because even if the idea is simple, the acting/writing/direction/general movie magic that comes from these pictures ultimately results in a truly spectacular combination, and thus a truly great movie.  But a great idea onscreen can also lead to some of the best cinema that I can remember, and some of the most inventive.  Children of Men, Melancholia, The Conformist, The Seventh Seal-these films are great concepts that are beautifully delivered, and probably riskier than the above-mentioned films because at worst Casablanca will become a boring romance if executed poorly.  Children of Men executed the wrong way becomes a ridiculous mess.  Quite frankly, it becomes Downsizing.

(Spoilers Ahead) The latest from Alexander Payne centers once again on a middle-aged man Paul (Damon) living a life that he feels beneath him, but hasn't really put in the effort to try and improve his situation.  This is also the plot of Election, Sideways, The Descendants, and Nebraska, and in all of these films the chief protagonist ends up gaining his esteem back by using a woman's vision of or dream for the world without really acknowledging he's basically taking from her, a fact Payne needs to work that out with himself at some point.  Anyway, Paul happens to be in luck, as there is now a technology that essentially changes your size, moving you toward being about five inches tall and in the process you get to live like a king, as the cost-of-living is insanely small, and you basically can retire even with just several hundred thousand dollars.  He and his wife Audrey (Wiig) decide to take this irreversible plunge, marketed initially as a way to stop the effects of climate change but mostly as an economic shortcut, but at the last minute, after Paul has already shrunk himself, Audrey pulls out and decides not to shrink herself, causing Paul to be stuck as a small man forever without his wife.

The film then follows Paul as he learns about this new world, and himself, mainly through the eyes of a lascivious playboy named Dusan (Waltz) and an overeager Vietnamese activist named Ngoc Lan (Chau) whose prosthetic leg he accidentally damages, basically becoming her surrogate leg in the process by helping her.  We learn that she lives in abject squalor even in a shrunken state, trying to keep people who can't afford to stay alive in this smaller state in a state of happiness, and continuing to fight for the world even when she's less than a foot tall (she was shrunk against her will, a side effect of this process by a dictator abusing the technology).  The film ends with a story that's been in the background of the picture (arctic methane emissions) rocketing to the forefront, as the creator of the shrunken technology realizes human beings will be extinct regardless of his shrinking actions, as the methane emissions are too great and people's willingness to change is too slow.  As a result, they go deep underground, and Paul nearly joins them before deciding that he loves Ngoc Lan and decides his role is to fight for change in a doomed world, rather than contribute to an unknown future below ground.

If that sounds like a lot of plot for one 135-minute movie, it's because it is.  Alexander Payne's movie is hardly short on good ideas.  We have the cruelty of fate with Audrey abandoning Paul and our constant need to find purpose in a life that doesn't show an obvious one (Paul only realizing his future by copying someone else seems a bit of a cop out).  There's the way that we show abject selfishness in that the only way people can be convinced to save the planet is by improving their own lot in life, or how humanity is still constantly wanting to subjugate others into the lesser, as is evidenced by how a technology that should provide more than enough for everyone still leaves a lower-income class and is dismissed by those who can't benefit from it.  There's the question over whether or not it's better to be part of something grand or stay with what you have, even if it might not be helping the long-term in favor of the short-term.  All of these are great questions, foundations for a movie.  It's a pity that Downsizing never takes the time to have an actual perspective on any of them.

This is largely Payne's script's fault, though I'll get to Damon's role in it in a second.  As soon as he's brought out a new idea he squashes it just as quickly.  Look at how we don't follow, say, Audrey's life after she abandons Paul or even see the immediate followup of major events, instead letting large time jumps gloss over the fact that the script has no idea what to do with these major life events in the short-term.  Every time a cool idea is brought forth, it is pushed to the background once again, given a short shift by either Ngoc Lan or Dusan when Paul wants to discuss, giving us little insight from Paul himself about what he thinks of all of this newness.  Payne's essential problem here is that he's world-building without actually doing anything with the movie.  This would potentially be forgivable if it was the first few episodes of a series or a movie with a planned sequel, but the ending is clearly finite, and so we're left with a lot of cool ideas where virtually nothing happened.  Contrary to popular opinion (see also Interstellar which has many of the same problems though at least attempts a plot, unlike here), this makes a bad movie, which is what Downsizing is.

The central performances don't really help save the picture.  Damon plays Paul as a blank slate, someone who seemingly has never had a concrete opinion in his life before he meets Dusan and Ngoc Lan, which kind of makes him pathetic, something that I don't think Damon's performance really gets.  These other two characters are polar opposites in their ideals, but at least they have a perspective on the world, and are quite frankly contributing something to the picture.  I can't remember the last time I saw a drama so centered around an Oscar-winner that had such little insight into him as a person, which shows that I don't think Damon really got this script or assumed his movie star status would make up for his lack of character in Paul.  It's easy to rag on Damon these days considering his foot-in-mouth public comments, but he is more than capable of giving a strong performance onscreen, even recently (he's very good in The Martian).  This, though, is the worst I can remember seeing him onscreen.

The rest of the cast doesn't save the film either.  Waltz has become insufferable with his Inglourious Basterds routine, a film that he deserved that Oscar for, but it's hard to remember that when he is so mind-numbingly smarmy in every role since.  Wiig cannot find any humanity in her admittedly unlikable character, and Payne loses interest in her when she stops being a plot point, so she doesn't have time to redeem herself (couldn't we have at least had Paul confront Audrey at the divorce proceeding so we get some sense of where her life went?).  The one actor who is getting plaudits is admittedly the best one; Chau has the showiest role, and has all of the film's best moments.  However, even she plays her character so surface-level it's hard to understand if there's much that she hides from the world, and I'll admit that sometimes it felt a little bit like Payne's script was poking fun at her cultural differences from Paul more than with her, as was evidenced by my largely white, straight, and male audience at the showing I went to laughing at lines that I don't think were supposed to be perceived as funny.  All-in-all, the fact that she's getting Oscar talk is cool (it's really a crime that Asian actors don't get better roles/attention in Hollywood), but this isn't close to one of the five best performances of the year.  It's a broad role that should have at least some specificity, and well, it doesn't.

Mother! (2017)

Film: Mother! (2017)
Stars: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I am sitting in an airport right now, desperately trying to fight off jet lag (I never got used to my new time zone, so the next three hours of my life could be rough as I’m not good at being tired, and I’m already starting to fade).  That being said, I am going to try and keep myself awake while writing film reviews, and boy-howdy is it hard to sleep when you’re thinking about something as strange, controversial, and genuinely confusing as Darren Aronofsky’s Mother!.  So, let’s give this a shot.

(Spoilers Ahead…and genuinely, avoid spoilers if you are planning on seeing this movie at any point, as the punch isn’t going to work if you don’t) The film focuses on Mother (Lawrence-all of the characters are unnamed in the picture), a beautiful young woman who is refurbishing the house she shares with her husband, creating something from nothing as he fruitlessly works to create something great from his writing (he is the Poet).  One day, a strange Man (Harris), shows up at the door, dying but clearly enamored with the work of the Poet.  He is soon joined by the Woman (Pfeiffer), his wife, who prods at Mother over why she hasn’t had children, and continually shows misguided scorn toward her.  The film unfolds with the two being intensely rude guests, breaking a stone that at the beginning of the film had transformed the house, and having sex after Mother tries to throw them out.  When one of their two sons kills the other one, an impromptu funeral unfolds, and at the end after taunting the Poet, Mother becomes pregnant and the Poet is suddenly inspired to write as a result.

This may sound a bit strange, but honestly-this is the normal part of the movie.  In the second half of the film, utter madness ensues.  While we have lost the Man and Woman, the Poet is worshiped by hordes of increasingly lecherous intruders, ripping the floor apart and destroying the house that Mother has so cared for, and eventually even killing her baby, breaking his neck and eating his remains.  The movie eventually has her burning the house to the ground, giving her love to her husband in the form of a hardened crystal similar to the beginning of the movie, and then being reincarnated as a different fair-faced young woman, seemingly doomed to repeat the same scenario over and over again.

The film is, for its many, many faults, quite ambitious.  Aronofsky is not pulling any punches here, literally having a baby die during a crowd surf and then being eaten whole by a mob of people.  The movie, at least in its first half, is a pretty clear biblical metaphor, with Adam & Eve represented in the form of Man and Woman, with their sons being Cain-and-Abel (the elder kills the younger after learning that his inheritance was to be tossed aside), and the Poet is a god of some sorts, while Mother represents the Earth prior to humanity.  The similarities here are too direct to not clearly be alluding to the Bible, though one could argue the film also has an environmental message, is an allegory for social media, or even is as direct as the destructive nature between artist/muse.  But for me, the first half feels pretty similar to a biblical story.

This means the second half fails, in my opinion, quite miserably.  The idea of reincarnation of the planet seems more at home in other religions (Hinduism or Buddhism), than a Judeo-Christian one housed in the first half of the picture.  The movie also loses all direction when there isn’t any goodness or misunderstanding in some of those who ravage the house, the planet that Mother so deeply cares for-is Aronofsky’s view of humanity so bleak that he doesn’t have room for goodness?  It doesn’t help that it’s obvious by the film’s midway point that the only thing that we can’t predict is how disgusting the imagery is willing to be (oh, and Kristin Wiig-genuinely didn’t see her cameo coming as I didn’t realize she was signed up for the film-if the religious allegory works, she seems to be some sort of opportunistic religious zealot, trying to use the Poet while caring little for his muse, perhaps like a politician who claims to be Christian but then destroys everything that his God holds dear).  Pretty much any interpretation of the first half of the picture doesn’t work with the second half-Aronofsky is trying hard for a provocative metaphor, but metaphor only works if you make it consistent.  Otherwise it’s just shocking, which is what I feel like the second half achieves.  It’s an interesting failure, but a failure narratively-speaking.

The acting, though, is at least worth recommending.  Lawrence has never done a part like this before, and it’s fascinating work even if it isn’t always successful; her movie star charisma is shelved in favor of a blank loveliness, passive to the point of frustration, and naïve to the point where the audience was laughing at certain points of the picture, but she does the trick.  It’s nowhere near her best work (still think that’s American Hustle), but it’s miles away from the boredom of Passengers, so she’s at least recovered in that regard.  Her male costars are underwhelming-Bardem in particular feels too all-over-the-place, playing a role that at once feels almost typecast for him and yet one that he doesn’t uncover much of its heart within, playing everything surface-level.  The best of the bunch, though, is Pfeiffer, who gives the film some heat where it seriously would have lacked it otherwise.  She is knowing, specific, and anchors the movie’s scarier tendencies before Aronofsky completely discards the picture you were promised in the trailers.  If the film were more accessible, I suspect we’d be hearing about a comeback fourth Oscar nomination, but I have to wonder if AMPAS voters won’t stop the film an hour in, wondering what they’re being subjected to from Aronofsky.

Those are my thoughts?  Anyone want to share theirs?  Anyone else wishing they’d seen the film that they’d been promised in the trailers, or is this bizarre jumble up-your-alley?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Ghostbusters (2016)

Film: Ghostbusters (2016)
Stars: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth
Director: Paul Feig
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The day before I went out to see Ghostbusters, I was talking to my friend Jesse and asked him what he was seeing this weekend, and he replied Ghostbusters, and I replied, "yes, I agree-I feel like it's my feminist duty to see it opening weekend" and he concurred.  Thus is the strangeness of this past year that a film that I would have seen anyway (I'll see literally any Feig/McCarthy collaboration going forward after two home runs and a ground-rule double) I felt duty-bound to attend.  Honestly, the ridiculous, sexist hype over Ghostbusters was so grand and over-the-top I genuinely wanted to shove it into the faces of all of the people (wait, let's just say it, men...and probably Scottie Nell Hughes) who had decided that recasting a movie with all women despite the fact that the original didn't need to be all men wasn't the worst idea, and that Ghostbusters isn't really a "classic" that can't be improved upon or re-imagined.  Thankfully, the film is a riot.  Like the original, it's not a fantastic, shoot-for-the-stars sort of film, but it's funny and has some game performers in it that land most of the jokes and make for an extremely watchable picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie follows Erin Gilbert (Wiig), a physics professor at Columbia University who has spent years trying to downplay her past career as a researcher of the paranormal while her childhood best friend Abby Yates (McCarthy) continues to celebrate their work together.  Through a series of comic turns-of-event, they are both fired and are eventually joined by Yates' assistant Jillian Holtzmann (McKinnon) when they discover a spirit that lives in a haunted house in Manhattan.  Eventually joined by a metro transit worker named Patty Tolan (Jones) and a ridiculously handsome assistant Kevin Beckman (Hemsworth), they form the Ghostbusters, a group that is consistently able but is constantly being overrun by political power-brokers who know that they're doing good but are covering up the paranormal to stop a mass panic from the public.  The film eventually has them battling a man who commits suicide so that he can come back as a spirit in an apocalypse of sorts that involves him possessing Chris Hemsworth (I feel like if I woke up in Chris Hemsworth body the first thing I'd do is update my Tinder profile, but that's just me), and Slimer returning to the world before we finally see a happy ending for all involved.

The film works well when it focuses on the sharp comedic skills of all of the women involved (and a surprisingly funny Hemsworth, who up until now has largely stuck to the dramatic as Thor and the Huntsman).  Wiig and McCarthy both stick largely to the role of straight women, but still have enough sharpness to land a number of sarcastic one-liners, but the physical comedy heavy-lifting falls principally on Jones and McKinnon, both more than capable after several years on SNL and in particular McKinnon stands out as a resident weirdo, someone that (were she a man) would already be pulling in 8-figures and headlining films with that kind of a skill.  Holtzmann is surely the standout character, frequently finding contortions with her face and giving us just enough both consistency and randomness to be real (at least within the Ghostbusters universe) as well as unpredictable.  I loved every second she was onscreen.

Honestly, there really wasn't anything not to enjoy here-the haters got this one wrong.  The movie itself has a very predictable plot, and perhaps a couple of the heavier scenes don't feel as earned (Erin and Abby don't really fight enough to warrant a gigantic life-saving scene where they feel like they're apologizing for their riff), but overall it's a good summer blockbuster.  Nothing too heavy, nothing that you'll feel gluttonous for having enjoyed, but just nice, clean popcorn.  It never hits the brilliant, observational heights of Bridesmaids nor the near-perfect comedic timing and laughs-per-minute of Spy (still my favorite comedy of the decade), but this fourth installment of the Feig/McCarthy series has me only asking one question: when is Round 5?

Those are my thoughts on Ghostbusters, which you've hopefully seen by now (if not, what are you waiting for?)-what are yours?  Were you a fan of the remake, and did you enjoy the cameos?  Are you hoping for a sequel (the box office has been sketchy, so that might be harder to pull of than I'd initially hoped), or is this enough?  And when is Hollywood going to give Kate McKinnon her own headlining role?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: The Martian (2015)

Film: The Martian (2015)
Stars: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Chiwetel Ejiofor
Director: Ridley Scott
Oscar History: 7 nominations (Best Picture, Actor-Matt Damon, Visual Effects, Adapted Screenplay, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

We continue on our week of reviewing the 2015 Oscar nominees with our seventh of the eight Best Picture nominees, The Martian.  Honestly, it's kind of weird to think about The Martian's trajectory throughout the entire Oscar process, because believe it or not, before Matt Damon missed at the SAG Awards and Ridley Scott randomly got shunned in Best Director, it was once the film everyone was trumpeting to win the Best Picture Oscar.  After those massive falls, despite a massive Box Office that approached $600 million, it is no longer in contention for awards that aren't of the technical variety, but with seven Oscar nominations it's still one of the biggest films of the year for February 28th.  Let's see if it earned its top spot, shall we?

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is based on the bestselling novel by Andy Weir, who is that wonderful authorial success story of a writer who put his novel out there for free after being rejected by numerous publishers, all-the-while eventually finding out that he had a bestseller on his hands and the very science-influenced novel got brought to the big-screen.  The story is of Marc Watney (Damon) and the crew of the Ares III, who are on a manned expedition in Mars in 2035, but are forced to cut short their mission when a dust storm compels them to leave the red planet early.  During the storm and the evacuation, Watney is struck by debris and the crew, led by Commander Melissa Lewis (Chastain), abandon him assuming that he has died. We find out later that he is, in fact, alive, and that he will have to find a way to travel over 3200 kilometers to the site of the Ares IV landing (four years away) while only having less than a year's worth of food.  Thanks to ingenuity and perseverance (and an incredible amount of intelligence brought down by bouts of bad luck) Watney survives the journey as his crew-mates eventually come back to rescue him.

The film comes on the heels of space dramas like Gravity and Interstellar, stories about nearby space and the impending, likely, space boom that will happen on Earth in the next couple of decades provided we don't end up in another Cold War.  However, while The Martian is a drama (don't let the Golden Globes fool you there), it doesn't follow in the nail-biting footsteps of Gravity nor the heavy-handedness of Interstellar.  The Martian is a space film with a lighter touch, and much of the film actually has a spryness that recalls something like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man more than the deep drama we expect from such a survival adventure.  Matt Damon as the film's central character is wonderful, even if he's stretching the movie star muscle a bit more than the actor's muscle, and we get to see the guy we fell in love with in the 1990's in films like The Rainmaker and Good Will Hunting and not the drabness of something like Invictus.  I also really loved the counter that the crew on the ground played against Watney, all hyper-seriousness (truly-at what point are people going to recognize the ridiculously strong winning streak that Kristen Wiig has created in the past few years-where is her Truman Show?).  While the remainder of the crew of the Ares III (which, considering Damon, Jessica Chastain, Sebastian Stan, and Kate Mara are all onboard, looks more like a Louis Vuitton ad than a spaceship roster) isn't really as interesting as one would hope, they also have their moments (which run the risk of melodrama).  Considering the big-name stars, it's actually quite stunning this film didn't score a nomination at the SAG Awards for Best Cast.

The film's light touch occasionally takes a bit of the heat out of the final third of the film as there's no question (like, say, in Gravity) that Watney will be rescued, but up until the final thirty minutes or so this is a wonderful ride.  I loved the way that the sets on Mars seemed so realistic, and the way that Watney's character found uses for everything and impelled his joy onto us as an audience when he succeeded (has a movie ever made potato-planting seem like such a rewarding endeavor?).  This is a bit of a nitpick-y complaint though, as overall this was a wonderfully-delightful styled summer blockbuster (even if it came out in October)-the kind of movie that used to win Best Picture nominations in the 1990's.  Well done to all involved.

Those are my thoughts on The Martian, a film that wears better in the old noggin that I initially thought it would upon first viewing it.  What about you-are you also intrigued by what Damon and Scott brought to the screen here, or were you hoping for something a wee bit more dramatic?  Why do you think Ridley Scott and Matt Damon came up somewhat short this awards season?  And how much do you think Andy Weir's next book will fetch from publishers after his first got so roundly rejected?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

The Skeleton Twins (2014)

Film: The Skeleton Twins (2014)
Stars: Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Luke Wilson, Ty Burrell
Director: Craig Johnson
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

In my opinion, there aren't enough movies out there about siblings, particularly ones that explore the sibling dynamic as adults.  I hate to say this in case you're an only child out there (since you likely won't quite get it), but a sibling relationship is bizarre in that you both share so many things from birth.  You are both (likely) loved by the same parents, live in the same house, go to the same schools, experience similar punishments and troubles.  You have your own language and set of experiences that only you share.  There's a weird sort of competitive nature to your relationship that always exists even if you tend to embrace it more as you get older, rather than let it dictate your relationship.  And there's a love between siblings that is bizarrely unique.  Your parents or children you love instantly, your spouses you love as a result of working toward it-your siblings you love out of a shared history, out of a realization that you will never be quite as similar to someone else in your short time on this rock (and in my case, because my sibling is awesome).

(Spoilers Ahead) This is why I was so excited to see The Skeleton Twins, the rare film this time of year that I'm not seeing because it's clearly going to be in the hunt for some end-of-the-year accolades (so many films are Oscar threats right about now that I'm positive by the end of the year I'll be going broke, and I get that feeling every Oscar season).  The movie is about Maggie (Wiig) and Milo (Hader), two siblings who haven't spoken in ten years, though we don't learn why until toward the end of the film.  The opening scene is on Milo unsuccessfully attempting suicide.  It's a pretty disturbing sequence in a film that seems extremely pre-occupied with suicide and the ramifications of it (despite the way the film has been marketed, this is not a comedy-it's a drama with comedic elements).  We learn pretty early on that both of these two siblings are haunted by suicide, as their father committed it when they were fourteen, and they had a mother who basically abandoned them.  As a result, Milo has severe esteem issues and Maggie is paranoid that she cannot be a good mother, and constantly sabotages her relationship with her standup husband Lance (Wilson) through lying and adultery.

The movie's at its best when it's exploring their relationship with each other, both the warm and the prickly.  There's a scene toward the middle of the movie where Milo invites their mother (Joanna Gleeson in a very strong cameo) over and we see the cruelty that comes from a mother who clearly didn't want anything to do with her children.  The entire scene is brilliantly acted between Gleeson and Wiig, who manages to cut her mother pretty harshly, trying to get under the skin of someone who is too uninterested in her own children to really care.  This scene is complimented later in the movie when Milo and Maggie lip synch the Starship classic "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" (random fact: this was an Oscar-nominated hit from Mannequin), showing that being with a sibling is a bit like riding a bicycle: you never forget the in jokes.

The movie's side stories aren't quite as strong, particularly Wiig's.  We see her constantly sabotaging her relationship with Lance by sneaking birth control pills and sleeping with random men, but we don't quite get why she keeps doing it when she clearly doesn't want to, particularly with the adultery.  I also didn't like the complete predictability of her finally (for good this time!) giving up her scuba instructor lover and then getting caught just when she's in the clear, which felt like a filmic cliche.

The plot behind Milo was considerably more interesting, with him seeking out a former teacher named Rich who had an affair with Milo when he was fifteen shortly after his dad died.  There's a very stunning scene later on in the film where it's painted pretty clearly that these two saw their relationship disintegrate when Maggie told the school about Rich's affair with her brother, and that Milo has a very misguided interpretation of the affair even as an adult.

The film ends in a bit of a predictable nature considering that up until then some of the directions (particularly the shocker regarding their falling out) had not been something we'd seen coming.  Maggie decides to commit suicide, and then is saved by her brother.  It's an ending that's supposed to mirror the beginning, but at that point in the plot we have moved beyond the catalyst to their reunion, and should be working on a different level of recovery.  Still, though, there's enough interesting things said about Maggie and Milo's relationship (and a strong chemistry between former SNL castmates Hader and Wiig) to make this movie a worthwhile investment.

Those were my thoughts on the film-what are yours?  Do you agree that the film had some strong points, even if it didn't always deliver on them?  What is your favorite movie about sibling relationships?  And do you like the direction that Wiig and Hader have taken their post-SNL careers?  Share in the comments!

Picking Your Bridesmaids: A Guide

When you're picking out your bridesmaids, you have so many different options-you have your best friend from childhood, your college roommate, that random female cousin who is roughly your age, and so on and so forth.  Luckily, Paul Feig's 2011 film Bridesmaids gives you something of a guide on how to handle this:

The Best Friend from Childhood

Reason to Pick Her: You've loved her your whole life, she knows what song you used to sing into your hairbrush, who your first crush was, and how to give a speech that won't offend your parents (unless she hits the Chardonnay, and then everything is going to fly).

Reason Not to Pick Her: She tends to get a little jealous of your newer friends who have a more "married life conducive attitude," and occasionally hints that you might be in a lesbian relationship with your new best friend.

Chances She'll Get Drunk at the Wedding: 100%

Chances She'll Sleep with Your Brother: She likely won't-she remembers when he used to flush your Barbies down the toilet and had massive acne.

Her Idea of a Bachelorette Party: Something low-key, likely at your favorite restaurant from when you were growing up, even though you haven't been there in ages because you remember the time you went to second base with your high school boyfriend in one of the bathrooms.

Wedding Gift She'll Be Buying: You know she'll be making a scrapbook or a wonderful music box with a picture of you two as children.

Your New Best Friend

Reason to Pick Her: You spend all of your time now with her-she's at every social event, and unlike your old best friend, your new husband is pals with her husband at well (double date night!).  Plus, she can impeccably dress for any cocktail party and you just know that everything will be exquisite.

Reason Not to Pick Her: She tends to take control of every situation, and it is your wedding, isn't it?  Then again, the Fritz Bernaise dresses do look lovely.

Chances She'll Get Drunk at the Wedding: 0% (though she may drive some of the other bridesmaids to drinking through incessant nagging and one-upsmanship).

Chances She'll Sleep With Your Brother: None-she's married to your husband's best friend, so your brother is off-the-table.

Her Idea of a Bachelorette Party: A spa weekend in Vegas, with a trip to Celine Dion and plenty of well-coordinated female bonding and $20 salads.

Wedding Gift She'll Be Buying: She'll be getting your favorite band to randomly show up at the dance...and probably still that Baccarat candlestick set you once mentioned you liked.

Your Brother's Single Sister

Reason to Pick Her: You've been getting those darted looks from your future mother-in-law, and isn't this a great peace offering?

Reason Not to Pick Her: You're not 100% certain that she likes you, that she won't do something wildly embarrassing at the ceremony, or that she won't try to sleep with an air marshall on the flight to your bachelorette party.

Chances She'll Get Drunk at the Wedding: Most definitely, but don't worry about the impact it'll have on your open bar-she'll be packing her own flask.

Chances She'll Sleep with Your Brother: 100%, and she'll probably be describing it to you in an ill-timed honeymoon voicemail.

Her Idea of a Bachelorette Party: Going on a hiking safari with nothing but some boots and your wits to guide you through.

Wedding Gift She'll Be Buying: A dozen puppies that she was certain you would want and have room for in your starter house.

That One Cousin Who is the Same Age As You

Reason to Pick Her: You have four other friends that you could pick from, so to make the peace (and get your mother off your back), you go with the only cousin that happens to be your age.

Reason Not to Pick Her: Aside from Christmas (and the Christmas that is celebrated on January 6th, not the actual Christmas), you don't really see her often, and are a little concerned that she's not the same girl who you shared a group limo with at your Prom.

Chances She'll Get Drunk at the Wedding: She'll be drunk before the wedding.

Chances She'll Sleep with Your Brother: She won't sleep with your brother (she's family, after all), but she will have an over-share with you during the groom's supper about her husband's erectile disfunction.

Her Idea of a Bachelorette Party: Male strippers, and plenty of them (also, who is hogging the Jim Beam?)

Wedding Gift She'll Be Buying: A blender (but she'll also include the Rabbit website address in the card).

Your Sweet, New Friend

Reason to Pick Her: Because she knows that you want to be a princess on your wedding day, and is set to make that happen because she clearly knows this is going to be a happily ever after.

Reason Not to Pick Her: You have a feeling that she'll react worse to the caterer forgetting the vegetarian option than you will.

Chances She'll Get Drunk at the Wedding: She won't mean to, but two glasses of champagne and she'll be dancing the Hokey Pokey on the bar (while the DJ is playing "Lady in Red").

Chances She'll Sleep with Your Brother: Slim, but she will clearly comment to everyone about how cute he is.

Her Idea of a Bachelorette Party: Dress up as your favorite princess at Disney World!!!

Wedding Gift She'll Be Buying: A heart-shaped candy dish...that you didn't register for.