Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Based on “The Taliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan,” a memoir by Kim Barker, “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” follows the journey of a copy writer turned war reporter (Tina Fey).
One day Barker is called into a meeting where, because she is unmarried and without children, she is asked to cover the war in Afghanistan. Seeming hesitant, but pulled by a desire to escape her mundane life, she decides to go for it.
When Barker arrives in Afghanistan the journalists that are stationed there basically just party most of the time, which speaks volumes about the ways people may try to avoid the emotional intensity of their surroundings.
Other than that, Barker hangs out with some very calm troops, gets ballsy and captures some crazy footage, and seems to get very wrapped up in the thrill of getting a lead story. It doesn’t seem that Barker ever has any actual interest in the politics of what she is covering. Realizing that it is a comedy, this may be totally fine. But the film is an odd mix. It portrays Barker’s character as somewhat numb to the tragic reality she is immersed in, while at the same time making a joke wherever it can.
I’m not quite sure what genre “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” fits into. It gets close to drama, and it gets close to comedy but it isn’t that funny and it isn’t that touching. It leaves the impression of a dull and desensitized view of war and the challenges reporters face abroad. Perhaps the film is staying true to the memoir, but it is definitely a different approach to describing such an experience.
That being said, it’s not a bad film or a bad story. It’s interesting. It has funny moments, and it makes you want to know what will happen in the end. A few scenes even get close to developing the characters in a way that might make the audience care about them. But overall, there is really no emotional substance to the film and it leaves no big impression.
Worth a watch on Netflix, I give “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” 2.5 out of 5 stars.
One day Barker is called into a meeting where, because she is unmarried and without children, she is asked to cover the war in Afghanistan. Seeming hesitant, but pulled by a desire to escape her mundane life, she decides to go for it.
When Barker arrives in Afghanistan the journalists that are stationed there basically just party most of the time, which speaks volumes about the ways people may try to avoid the emotional intensity of their surroundings.
Other than that, Barker hangs out with some very calm troops, gets ballsy and captures some crazy footage, and seems to get very wrapped up in the thrill of getting a lead story. It doesn’t seem that Barker ever has any actual interest in the politics of what she is covering. Realizing that it is a comedy, this may be totally fine. But the film is an odd mix. It portrays Barker’s character as somewhat numb to the tragic reality she is immersed in, while at the same time making a joke wherever it can.
I’m not quite sure what genre “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” fits into. It gets close to drama, and it gets close to comedy but it isn’t that funny and it isn’t that touching. It leaves the impression of a dull and desensitized view of war and the challenges reporters face abroad. Perhaps the film is staying true to the memoir, but it is definitely a different approach to describing such an experience.
That being said, it’s not a bad film or a bad story. It’s interesting. It has funny moments, and it makes you want to know what will happen in the end. A few scenes even get close to developing the characters in a way that might make the audience care about them. But overall, there is really no emotional substance to the film and it leaves no big impression.
Worth a watch on Netflix, I give “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Saturday Night Live. The Book
Book
On October 11, 1975 at 11:30 pm, NBC viewers who tuned in to the network's new late night show saw a...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Yes Please in Books
Feb 1, 2018
I wasn't sure how to feel about this book. In some ways, I appreciated that it was more serious than some of the other "funny people" memoirs going around. I am not a huge fan of books written by silly people full of silly things that pretend to tell the story of their life. What's the point? At least Amy makes an attempt to write a memoir, chronicling bits and pieces of her life and actually detailing true thoughts and feelings about things, rather than just jokey things that have no meaning. I found myself sort of rushing through some of the silly lists and spending more time on the actual writing, though some of the funny bits were good - fake acceptance speeches and the like.
The problem is that the book jumps around a lot and never really delves too much into anything. Not wanting to cover her divorce - okay, I get that. There is a really sweet chapter on her sons, which was lovely. You get a rough chronicle of how she became a kid from New England who wound up in New York by way of Chicago. But there's not a lot of detail. I also, selfishly, wish there had been more Tina Fey.
I enjoy that you get the impression that Amy is a deep person with deep thoughts - and isn't even perhaps always nice. She's not afraid to tell stories that don't necessarily flatter her. You get an idea of her as multifaceted person - actress, writer, mom, etc., and not just someone who tells funny stories. There are also some good stories that feature celebrities, which you are always looking for in a celebrity memoir. Finally, there's a fun bit annotated with notes by Parcs & Rec creator Mike Schur. He and Amy talk about a holiday gift Mike gave all his family and friends containing every email, text, and phone message he received during the Red Sox's successful World Series run in 2004. I was left thinking I want to read *that* book.
Anyway, the book just felt a little flat to me, as if it was missing something. It was a little disjointed in its presentation and content. Because it jumps the line between serious and funny, you're left without a full idea of who Amy is, but yet it's not funny enough to just make you laugh and forget all the other flaws.
The problem is that the book jumps around a lot and never really delves too much into anything. Not wanting to cover her divorce - okay, I get that. There is a really sweet chapter on her sons, which was lovely. You get a rough chronicle of how she became a kid from New England who wound up in New York by way of Chicago. But there's not a lot of detail. I also, selfishly, wish there had been more Tina Fey.
I enjoy that you get the impression that Amy is a deep person with deep thoughts - and isn't even perhaps always nice. She's not afraid to tell stories that don't necessarily flatter her. You get an idea of her as multifaceted person - actress, writer, mom, etc., and not just someone who tells funny stories. There are also some good stories that feature celebrities, which you are always looking for in a celebrity memoir. Finally, there's a fun bit annotated with notes by Parcs & Rec creator Mike Schur. He and Amy talk about a holiday gift Mike gave all his family and friends containing every email, text, and phone message he received during the Red Sox's successful World Series run in 2004. I was left thinking I want to read *that* book.
Anyway, the book just felt a little flat to me, as if it was missing something. It was a little disjointed in its presentation and content. Because it jumps the line between serious and funny, you're left without a full idea of who Amy is, but yet it's not funny enough to just make you laugh and forget all the other flaws.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated This Is Where I Leave You (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is Where I Leave You focuses on Judd Altman (Jason Bateman) and his relationships with the many personalities in his family. We open the film with Judd walking in on his wife in bed with his boss. We flash forward about 3 months to find Judd feeling pretty miserable still, only to find out that his father passed away. And his father’s last wish is that his family sit Shiva (a Jewish tradition of mourning where the close relatives of the deceased sit for 7-days in the same house, as friends and family come by to offer their condolences. (There’s more to it than this, but it’s the general idea). Over the 7-days following the funeral, a rollercoaster of emotions, excitement and tragedy pass.
This film, in my opinion, is very smartly written. It has the qualities in a film that will attract men and women alike. They also create an atmosphere that most people can relate to. It’s simplistic formula really, there are enough siblings to exhibit the different personalities you can find in most families and no matter who you are, you will find someone to relate to in the cast. And, oh boy, what a cast. Judd’s siblings include Corey Stoll, Adam Driver and Tina Fey. Rounding out the close friends and family include Jane Fonda as mama Altman, Rose Byrne as Penny Moore, Connie Britton as girlfriend of Philip Altman (Driver), Timothy Olyphant as Horry, a man with brain damage who has a secret shared with one of the Altmans, and the list goes on and on (go look it up on IMdB already).
The premise is old, cliché jokes are used, and we all know how it ends. However, we don’t really know how it ends. The cast delivers so well that you can see past the recycled items to the true genius that this film is, and how great an adaptation it is from the book. While I haven’t read the book myself, I have been told it’s quite good. And if it’s half as good as this film, I’m definitely going to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for a great date movie this weekend, this is the one to see. You will not regret it, and will probably learn a little something about yourself too! This is another to add to my collection upon release.
This film, in my opinion, is very smartly written. It has the qualities in a film that will attract men and women alike. They also create an atmosphere that most people can relate to. It’s simplistic formula really, there are enough siblings to exhibit the different personalities you can find in most families and no matter who you are, you will find someone to relate to in the cast. And, oh boy, what a cast. Judd’s siblings include Corey Stoll, Adam Driver and Tina Fey. Rounding out the close friends and family include Jane Fonda as mama Altman, Rose Byrne as Penny Moore, Connie Britton as girlfriend of Philip Altman (Driver), Timothy Olyphant as Horry, a man with brain damage who has a secret shared with one of the Altmans, and the list goes on and on (go look it up on IMdB already).
The premise is old, cliché jokes are used, and we all know how it ends. However, we don’t really know how it ends. The cast delivers so well that you can see past the recycled items to the true genius that this film is, and how great an adaptation it is from the book. While I haven’t read the book myself, I have been told it’s quite good. And if it’s half as good as this film, I’m definitely going to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for a great date movie this weekend, this is the one to see. You will not regret it, and will probably learn a little something about yourself too! This is another to add to my collection upon release.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
Strong chemistry between Smith and Holland
Blue Sky Animation Studios has often been seen as the "poor little sister" in the animation game - behind Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks - and is often listed as the "Ice Age" studio. But, if you look into their filmography, you will see a solid mark of quality throughout.
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Mean Girls (2004) in Movies
Nov 22, 2020
Entertaining
Film #3 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Mean Girls
The third film on my 100 Movies Bucket List is Mean Girls, a film I’ve seen but never had any strong emotion for. Mean Girls stars Lindsay Lohan as Cady, who after living and being homeschooled in Africa for most of her life, must now enter the terrifying world of an American high school. Here she meets Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) who clue her into high school hierarchy, including introducing her to the Plastics: Regina (Rachel McAdams), Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and Gretchen (Lacey Chabert).
Mean Girls is a teenage movie that is unlike many others – instead of being dumb and crude, it’s surprisingly smart and humorous. From the opening scenes, it’s obvious that this is intelligent. It’s full of subtle jokes and remarks and some absolutely superb one liners, and these are all down to Tina Fey who has written an excellent script. And in the process appears to have some of the best lines as teacher Mrs Norbury, but do you blame her? Mean Girls manages to portray the high school hierarchy and social interactions perfectly. Whilst is is obviously catering more to American high schoolers, I doubt there are many that would watch this and not see something that they personally experienced at high school. It’s almost poking fun at the high school experience but in such a smart and enjoyable way. There are moments and lines in this that are almost verging on inappropriate, and likely wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society, but even though this was made in 2004 I don’t doubt that this impropriety is still reflective of modern day high schools.
The acting on offer here is superb. Lindsay Lohan is entirely believable as Cady and this is hugely important considering the message Mean Girls is portraying. This film is entirely about the realisation that you should be happy about you are, and that putting other people down will never achieve anything. Getting this message across is done very well, in a funny yet almost heartwarming manner although admittedly it is all rather obvious. Although at least this tries to avoid as many teenage film clichés as possible, which makes for a refreshing change.
My problem with Mean Girls is the whole bitchiness of it all that underpins the second act. I know “mean” girls were to be expected, but by the end I found myself getting very irritable with how horrible these girls were and the constant sniping at each other. This may stem from my own sometimes unpleasant experiences at high school, but teenage girls stabbing each other in the backs gets very old very quickly. Fortunately the ending does at least relieve some of the meanness and provide a surprisingly heartwarming and uplifting resolution, but I’m afraid some of the damage remains. And I must admit that seeing a smart girl play dumb and risk failing for a boy really makes my blood boil, and yes I do know it’s only a film.
Overall Mean Girls is a well done teenage film which stands out mostly because of its very smart script. It’s probably one of the best high school based films out there but it isn’t perfect, and I do question as to whether it deserves a spot on the bucket list when there are so many outstanding films that have missed out.
The third film on my 100 Movies Bucket List is Mean Girls, a film I’ve seen but never had any strong emotion for. Mean Girls stars Lindsay Lohan as Cady, who after living and being homeschooled in Africa for most of her life, must now enter the terrifying world of an American high school. Here she meets Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) who clue her into high school hierarchy, including introducing her to the Plastics: Regina (Rachel McAdams), Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and Gretchen (Lacey Chabert).
Mean Girls is a teenage movie that is unlike many others – instead of being dumb and crude, it’s surprisingly smart and humorous. From the opening scenes, it’s obvious that this is intelligent. It’s full of subtle jokes and remarks and some absolutely superb one liners, and these are all down to Tina Fey who has written an excellent script. And in the process appears to have some of the best lines as teacher Mrs Norbury, but do you blame her? Mean Girls manages to portray the high school hierarchy and social interactions perfectly. Whilst is is obviously catering more to American high schoolers, I doubt there are many that would watch this and not see something that they personally experienced at high school. It’s almost poking fun at the high school experience but in such a smart and enjoyable way. There are moments and lines in this that are almost verging on inappropriate, and likely wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society, but even though this was made in 2004 I don’t doubt that this impropriety is still reflective of modern day high schools.
The acting on offer here is superb. Lindsay Lohan is entirely believable as Cady and this is hugely important considering the message Mean Girls is portraying. This film is entirely about the realisation that you should be happy about you are, and that putting other people down will never achieve anything. Getting this message across is done very well, in a funny yet almost heartwarming manner although admittedly it is all rather obvious. Although at least this tries to avoid as many teenage film clichés as possible, which makes for a refreshing change.
My problem with Mean Girls is the whole bitchiness of it all that underpins the second act. I know “mean” girls were to be expected, but by the end I found myself getting very irritable with how horrible these girls were and the constant sniping at each other. This may stem from my own sometimes unpleasant experiences at high school, but teenage girls stabbing each other in the backs gets very old very quickly. Fortunately the ending does at least relieve some of the meanness and provide a surprisingly heartwarming and uplifting resolution, but I’m afraid some of the damage remains. And I must admit that seeing a smart girl play dumb and risk failing for a boy really makes my blood boil, and yes I do know it’s only a film.
Overall Mean Girls is a well done teenage film which stands out mostly because of its very smart script. It’s probably one of the best high school based films out there but it isn’t perfect, and I do question as to whether it deserves a spot on the bucket list when there are so many outstanding films that have missed out.
Fun observations about Graham's career (1 more)
Funny
Ideal for Graham/Gilmore Girls/Parenthood fans
Lauren Graham's first nonfiction work is a series of stories and essays covering her thoughts on her time on Gilmore Girls (both the old show and the new Netflix series), her childhood, breaking into acting, Parenthood, and more. It's told in Graham's unique, humorous voice, and it's just a fun, witty look at her life and what it was like to play Lorelai Gilmore (twice).
I've read a spate of celebrity memoirs over the years and always felt a tad let down. Of late, I've read Anna Kendrick's and Carrie Fisher's latest. I enjoyed them, but they just didn't completely fit the bill for me. (Is that the phrase? I don't know. This is why I'll never get my own memoir.) But Graham's book was really fun and a step above. I know it won't be that way for everyone. And I'm not just completely swayed by my absolute love for both Lauren and her characters (both Lorelai and Sarah Braverman), because I also love Anna Kendrick, Tina Fey, etc, and didn't adore their memoirs.
Graham's book is filled with fun observations about her work over the years, particularly on Gilmore Girls. I could have read about 100,000 more of her perceptions. Some of them are so unfathomable because they counteract the completely realistic portrayal of the characters on the show. But they are insightful and intriguing. Graham reminisces about her time on the actual show -- a lot of it reinforced by going back and watching the episodes (something she does reluctantly, as she hates watching herself on film). She admits that she doesn't remember a lot about that time without the help of watching the show. I've read a lot of reviews that her insights about that time on the show are slim, and it's true, but I still found them delightful and entertaining. Since she doesn't remember much otherwise, I'd rather have these tidbits than nothing. Plus, there's more to the book than just those memories. (Still, can we all just petition Lauren Graham to keep a diary for the rest of her life going forward?)
While reading the book, it's kind of crazy to realize how much can change in eight years -- between the end of Gilmore Girls and the start of the reunion show on Netflix. Graham points that out too, in the humorous way that only she can pull off. The layout of her book works, and I liked all the pictures she interspersed throughout. She's a strong writer, and the little life lessons at the end of each chapter do not seem too forced. We hear about her childhood, her relationship with Peter Krause, and Graham's aversion to technology. What I enjoyed is that Graham comes across as both believable and appreciative of her fame (unlike some memoirs I've read lately).
Finally, Graham kept a journal during her time on the Netflix revival of Gilmore Girls, so we get a little more insight into that show. My favorites were some of the guest characters, how she had no idea about the four words controversy all these years, and her actual thoughts on those infamous four words. Overall, sure, this book is a little light. But it still spans a lot of Graham's life and I felt like a learned a decent amount about her, considering she's such a private person (something she repeatedly mentions). She's a fun and humorous woman, and I gained some insights about all the various versions of Gilmore Girls I would have never had before. I read this book in basically one day and thoroughly loved it. This book may not have the same impact on someone who isn't a Graham/Gilmore Girls/Parenthood fan, but if you are, it's a fun, quick read.
I've read a spate of celebrity memoirs over the years and always felt a tad let down. Of late, I've read Anna Kendrick's and Carrie Fisher's latest. I enjoyed them, but they just didn't completely fit the bill for me. (Is that the phrase? I don't know. This is why I'll never get my own memoir.) But Graham's book was really fun and a step above. I know it won't be that way for everyone. And I'm not just completely swayed by my absolute love for both Lauren and her characters (both Lorelai and Sarah Braverman), because I also love Anna Kendrick, Tina Fey, etc, and didn't adore their memoirs.
Graham's book is filled with fun observations about her work over the years, particularly on Gilmore Girls. I could have read about 100,000 more of her perceptions. Some of them are so unfathomable because they counteract the completely realistic portrayal of the characters on the show. But they are insightful and intriguing. Graham reminisces about her time on the actual show -- a lot of it reinforced by going back and watching the episodes (something she does reluctantly, as she hates watching herself on film). She admits that she doesn't remember a lot about that time without the help of watching the show. I've read a lot of reviews that her insights about that time on the show are slim, and it's true, but I still found them delightful and entertaining. Since she doesn't remember much otherwise, I'd rather have these tidbits than nothing. Plus, there's more to the book than just those memories. (Still, can we all just petition Lauren Graham to keep a diary for the rest of her life going forward?)
While reading the book, it's kind of crazy to realize how much can change in eight years -- between the end of Gilmore Girls and the start of the reunion show on Netflix. Graham points that out too, in the humorous way that only she can pull off. The layout of her book works, and I liked all the pictures she interspersed throughout. She's a strong writer, and the little life lessons at the end of each chapter do not seem too forced. We hear about her childhood, her relationship with Peter Krause, and Graham's aversion to technology. What I enjoyed is that Graham comes across as both believable and appreciative of her fame (unlike some memoirs I've read lately).
Finally, Graham kept a journal during her time on the Netflix revival of Gilmore Girls, so we get a little more insight into that show. My favorites were some of the guest characters, how she had no idea about the four words controversy all these years, and her actual thoughts on those infamous four words. Overall, sure, this book is a little light. But it still spans a lot of Graham's life and I felt like a learned a decent amount about her, considering she's such a private person (something she repeatedly mentions). She's a fun and humorous woman, and I gained some insights about all the various versions of Gilmore Girls I would have never had before. I read this book in basically one day and thoroughly loved it. This book may not have the same impact on someone who isn't a Graham/Gilmore Girls/Parenthood fan, but if you are, it's a fun, quick read.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
When Disney Pixar launches a big new title it comes with a lot of expectation – there are just so many titles in the back catalogue now that will forever be considered classics. Movies that raised and re-raised the bar of what animation and family film storytelling can be at the very, very best.
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
