Tag: powers

ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING – CUTE BUT FORGETTABLE SIMON PEGG COMEDY

SHORT TAKE:
Broadly comic, but largely forgettable morality tale of what happens when a well meaning schlub gets a shot at ultimate power.

WHO SHOULD WATCH:
Mostly more MATURE audiences for: language, some nudity, and high school level sexual humor, though no sexual activity is ever seen.

LONG TAKE:
If you take Bruce Almighty, (albeit without the brilliant theological underpinnings), add a page or two from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, add a touch of The Twilight Zone’s amusing “Mr. Dingle, the Strong”, a smidgeon  of Bedazzled and package it all in Simon Pegg’s unique brand of wry humor, you get Absolutely Anything…. I don’t mean you can get “absolutely anything” as a description of the literal resulting outcome of this combination, but refer to the title of the movie: Absolutely Anything.

Despite disagreeing with much of Mr. Pegg’s philosophical opinions, I am a fan of his witty banter in his often clever film ideas (except for the occasional temper tantrum religion bashing, like Paul). Most of his repertoire, such as Shaun of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run, his tech expert Benji in the Mission Impossible films, his Scotty in the reboot “Kelvin” version of Star Trek movies, his alcoholic desperate-to-relive-his-youth Gary King in the bizarre sci fi The World’s End, his adorable voicing of Reepicheep in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and even his stint as The Editor in the Eccleston incarnation of Dr Who in “The Long Game” as well as many others, all benefited from Pegg’s gentle, self-deprecating, comic-timing master persona.

Pegg excels best when he portrays a nobody who rises to the challenge of a truly bizarre situation to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds: a fat layabout in Run Fat Boy Run, who trains for a marathon to convince the mother of his child to stay in country.A burnt out idle human parasite who pulls himself together to defend his friends from invading robot aliens in The World’s End.

In Absolutely Anything, directed by Monty Python veteran Terry Jones and written by Jones and Gavin Scott (the latter of whose resume consists mostly in kids’ versions of classic stories), Pegg’s Comic Champion once again plays out as reliably as Bruce Willis’ one-note but reliably entertaining Action Hero – nothing new or particularly surprising but an expected and fun formula, as satisfying as a tub of movie theater popcorn – nothing especially substantial to digest but delightful of which to partake.

SPOILERS

Pegg’s Neil is a well meaning, average, albeit lazy teacher who longs to be a novelist and pines unrequitedly for his next door neighbor Catherine (Kate Beckinsale).

A group of bizarrely colorful aliens voiced by the surviving members of the original Monty Python’s Flying Circus:John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin, decide it is Earth’s turn to be tested for existence-worthiness by choosing a random human to see what he will do with complete power for 30 days.

If he chooses wisely Earth will not be destroyed. If he does not perform the way they think he should ……

Mayhem quickly ensues when misspoken, imprecise and casual remarks suddenly become reality, such as his frustrated snarky wish for the extraterrestrial destruction of the unruly middle school children he is assigned to teach, or that his love-smitten friend, Ray, (Sanjeev Bhaskar from Paddington 2 and Drunk History) acquires the devotion of the girl of his dreams. Of course, at first, thinking he is going insane, he can’t decide whether he should give up drinking or take up a LOT more of it. But, it doesn’t take long for Neil to begin testing his new “gift”.

It’s a one trick pony joke stretched out to a feature length movie. The special effects are B grade, it’s filmed like an uninspired TV movie, and the music sounds like it was pulled off a shelf of standards for fluffy comedies: forgettable light background phrases, bassoons for the punchlines – nothing particularly memorable or identifiable.

It is Pegg’s comic timing and lovable putz persona, the delicious ad-libbed nature of the Python-ized aliens and the complete balmy silliness of the situation that make this movie watchable.

Disappointingly, Robin Williams, in his last film appearance, is truly wasted as the voice of Pegg’s dog, Dennis. Unlike William’s genius Genie, or his merry Mork, or his dubious Doubtfire, or most any one of dozens of other roles, Dennis is sweet but uninspired and could have been done just as well by any of a hundred other comics. William’s unique brand of quick witted brilliance was simply missing. Not that he was bad in the role but he just wasn’t – Robin Williams.

But what Absolutely Anything truly lacks is what made Bruce Almighty such a worthwhile piece of memorable cinema – the learning curve for the protagonist that wisdom comes from humility. The awareness that absolute power in the hands of the limited creatures that we are leaves us with – absolutely nothing.  That what will bring true happiness is genuine altruistic love for others of God’s Creatures, and submission to a power greater than ourselves, submission to God, who loves us infinitely … and who is a LOT more qualified to handle absolute power than we are.

Now while there IS a moral – as such – in Absolutely Anything, it is short-sighted and focused mostly on Neil’s recognition that HE isn’t really the person to wield this much ability. Sort of the way liberals portray Socialism to us – not that NO human being should have this much power over others but that it’s just the RIGHT people have not yet bludgeoned the rest of the world with it.

The “moral” espoused in Absolutely Anything is Neil’s recognition that HE is not suitable, implying that it just is not in the right mortal hands. Dennis, actually makes the decision which gets closer to the truth.

While Bruce Almighty is the far worthier choice in a comic examination of whether humans are fit for “God-like” power, if you’re just looking for a brainless, fairly harmless 85 minutes of forgettable adult silliness, you could do worse than Absolutely Anything ——— and I mean the movie, not as advice.

DEADPOOL – A MOVIE I WISH I COULD RECOMMEND

SHORT TAKE:

Airplane  meets Marvel.

WHO SHOULD SEE IT:

Unfortunately, in all good conscience, I can not recommend this movie to anyone.

LONG TAKE:

I once heard that the definition of mixed emotions was seeing your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your new car. As I happen to be a mother-in-law I’m not especially fond of that definition though I can understand the intent of demonstrating intense conflicting emotions. I think a better one for me, as an avid fan of superhero movies, is watching Deadpool and its sequel back to back.

First off, Deadpool is not for children. Do NOT take children to see Deadpool. Fritz the Cat was an obscene animated short shown at "art" houses back in the ‘70s. Deadpool is no more for children than Fritz the Cat was. Do not take children to see Deadpool. Do not take teenagers to see Deadpool. Do I make myself clear?

Airplane, which came out in 1980 took every cliche of the disasters happening in a man made construction genre (yes, that was a thing in the ‘70's and ‘80's – Poseidon Adventure, Airport, Airport ‘75, Airport-Concorde, Towering Inferno), and played them for all they were worth – singing nuns, relationship conflicts which were resolved by the disaster, sick children being transported to a hospital, bad weather, hero with traumatic backstory. It was hilarious because it was true – all the movies capitalized on these themes and variations with predictable continuity. (FYI – The ‘90's and 2000's went after natural phenomena – Twister, Dante’s Inferno, Volcano, The Core, Armaggedon).

By the same token, Deadpool does the same thing with the superhero genre: reluctant hero, tragic love story, kids in danger, time travelers, opponents joining up to fight a common enemy, strange super powers and fighting – lots and lots of fighting. Only instead of the sanitized variety, it is quite graphic. So is the language. And the sexuality. And the nudity. And the blasphemy..

Deadpool started in the comics about a mercenary who gets cancer and is given a kind of Captain America super serum which makes him unkillable. Deadpool was never meant to take itself seriously but is the Monty Python of superhero movies. Ryan Reynolds plays the title character to the hilt.

This super… person who by his own admission is no one's idea of a hero… and by his own description is a bad guy who gets paid to kill worst guys than he is, is also very funny. He’s snarky and opinionated and comments constantly TO the audience breaking the fourth wall more than Groucho Marx did. Deadpool has much to commend it. It is well-acted, cleverly written, and has many admirable themes.

On the other hand – and here I’m beginning to feel like the conflicted Jewish patriarch, Tevye, from Fiddler on the Roof – it is gratuitously gory with humans "splating" onto billboards and heads being chopped off. It is extremely sexual with but a paper thin line between some of the scenes and what used to be considered an "X" rating. It is profane in the worst way, sporting every way to insult God and the human body that the imagination can provide.

BUT…… while I was genuinely shocked at the level of sexual activity, profanity, and graphic violence in both the first Deadpool origin story and this sequel it is hard to hate a movie which is so very self-aware that even the credits include such titles as Moody Teenager, CGI Character, and Overpaid Tool. Ergo my dilemma.

Deadpool makes fun of everything, including itself, from Basic Instinct to the most recent Avengers movie of which it is almost in the same universe, both franchises being Marvel.

I always try to judge movies based upon their genre and intent so want to be fair to Deadpool, especially keeping in mind that Deadpool has never advertised itself as anything except an adult parody of superhero movies.

I cannot help but think of the Biblical parable of the two sons, one of whom is disobedient despite his initial verbal assurances and the other who says he will not do his father's will but then goes and does it anyway. Deadpool is the latter.

For example, although the sexuality in the Deadpool origin story is fairly graphic, it is between two people who are monogamous and fully intend to be married, have children, and start a family. This, frankly, is far healthier then your average James Bond movie where the sexual relationships are less visually intense but extremely casual, polygamous, and intended to be very short-term.　

I was genuinely offended by the blasphemous language, yet the actions of those same characters were often Christian – self-sacrificing, demonstrating mercy, seeking to help others to redemption, and aimed at protecting children from those who would take advantage of them, even when those children posed a danger to the heroes trying to save them, which is a whole lot more than I can say for more "acclaimed" movies like Blockers and Call Me By Your Name which tried to push pedophilia into the mainstream.

While I was offended by implications insulting to the Church – such as the headmaster at an abusive school using Bible quotes to justify his actions, or Deadpool, the character, casually comparing himself to Jesus – Deadpool, the movie, never seriously calls the existence of God or Jesus into question as movies like the Dan Brown series do. As a matter of fact, there is a moment when Deadpool is asked if there had ever been someone who was 100% altruistic and he replies "Jesus Christ". It goes by very fast and I had to have it pointed out to me, but that’s a lot more respect than movies like Dogma or Angels and Demons has for the Church.

While it is faint praise to say a movie is not terrible because of what it does not do, Deadpool also has the positive attributes of actively exercising the virtues of self-sacrifice, mercy, family, and marriage.

I can stand the violence as it's mostly cartoonish, I can even wince past most of the sexuality as it's between two consenting adults who intend not only to get married but to have children. However, what I found most offensive was the frequent verbal and referential blasphemies throughout. Sadly, this was the point at which Tevye would have had to have said, "No, there is no other hand."

So for all of its virtues, there is too much, if you’ll excuse the pun, DEAD weight on the other side of the scale for me to me give it a recommendation, even for the older crowd.

THE SHAPE OF WATER – OFFENSIVE ON SOOOO MANY LEVELS

 

SHORT TAKE:

An attempt to "update" The Little Mermaid which is buried in an agenda filled script.

WHO SHOULD GO:

Don't bother.

LONG TAKE:

Rhett Butler, in Gone With the Wind, while talking to Scarlett O’Hara after the death lists are handed out says: “I'm angry. Waste always makes me angry. And that's what all this is, sheer waste.”

And that about sums up my opinion on The Shape of Water. This movie is offensive on so many levels. There was a great idea in there but the film makers were so bent on foisting an agenda upon the audence that they lost track of it.

The premise is clever. It’s the story of Hans Christian Andersen’s Little Mermaid turned on its head. When a “Creature from the Black Lagoon” and a mute cleaning lady named Elisa,  (Sally Hawkins from Paddington Bear), fall in love, she and her friends endeavor to set him free from the facility in which he is being held.

Sounds a bit like Splash but with the genders reversed. But that’s where the similarities end. This is a humorless, angry diatribe against the human race in general and men in particular.

To start with, the only males in the movie who have any redeeming features are Elisa’s homosexual neighbor Giles, (Richard Jenkins – Jack Reacher and White House Down) and Dimitri, (Michael Stuhlbarg – A Simple Man and Dr. Strange), a Russian spy who decides to defy his own country to help Elisa – two men who are outcasts of the society in which they live.

All the other men are evil characters. Elisa’s only other friend is her co-worker, Zelda, (Octavia Spencer). Zelda’s husband, Brewster, (Martin Roach) is a lazy, unappreciative burden, does not protect his wife and betrays her at a crucial moment. Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon – 12 Strong), the scientist who captured the creature from South America is sadistic, domestically abusive, carelessly bigoted and a sexual harrasser who rots – literally – before our very eyes. Even the counterboy, not so much as given a name except for the “Pie Guy,” at the local shop is portrayed as gratuitously evil. A scene in which he gives a startled but gentle rebuff to Giles’ sudden, unexpected and unencouraged sexual advances is immediately linked to an overtly bigoted action towards a black couple who enter his diner – as though to imply if you are heterosexual you must be a bigot. Well, frankly, to my way of thinking this shows the screenwriters, Guillermo del Toro and Vanessa Taylor are both bigoted and racist – to men in general, to heterosexuals in particular and especially, but not exclusicvely, to those who are not minorities.

Minorities are not treated respectfully eiher. Zelda is a caricature of an uneducated black woman who indulges and allows herself to be taken for granted by a husband who will not even defend her when she is threatened.

Giles is also a caricature – an ineffectual, alcoholic unemployable elderly gay artist who yearns for young men and youth, pitiful and cowardly unless led by a strong woman’s presence.

The military is portrayed as heartlessly and unnecessarily cruel, disposing of people like used socks and planning to vivisect a one of a kind creature with abilities and physical attributes that can only be exploited if it is alive. This latter is especially stupid and demonstrates the knee-jerk distain and prejudiced hatred del Toro and Taylor must have for an organization which helps protect our country. I could have understood a plot which wanted to use the creature, to perhaps even put it at risk in order to duplicate its abilities – but to simply and randomly kill it to see what is inside is a juvenile finger in the face to any kind of authority figure and exposes del Toro's —isms which prevent him from writing a good script.

But of course the women are courageous movers and shakers. Zelda, for all her weakness with her husband, is a stalwart companion to Elisa. And Elisa marshalls help from her friends in a daring rescue of the sentient creature who she then hides and has an affair with in her bathtub at home. If this sounds ridiculous and somewhat grotesque – it is.

And if you take any kind of objective look it is hard to determine who is the more evil – Strickland or Elisa. Elisa is a woman who feels isolated – mute from birth, no family, abandoned by a river with gill-shaped scars on her throat, who has a — thing — for her bath water.

After making contact with the creature Elisa goes to Giles to DEMAND – not ask or entreat – his help. She explains that she wants the creature because SHE is lonely, because SHE needs him, and because the creature is alone LIKE her. She does not say she wants to rescue him because he is a sentient creature about to be needlessly killed; not because he is perhaps the last of his kind – both of which would have been far nobler arguments. And, BTW, the only one who does consider these two more valid points is Dimitri the Russian spy.

Her friends must put themselves at risk because SHE wants the creature – leaving aside the answer to the question of what she would do if she fell out of infatuation with him – bring him back to the lab or leave him on the side of the road like an unwanted puppy?

So she coerces Giles into helping him, either not considering or not caring that he could get shot (which he almost does) or put in federal penitentiary for what they are about to do. She then, during the course of this ill-conceived adventure, forces Zelda to help her too. And had Dimitri not popped up and risked his own life to help them the misadventure WOULD have ended up with them all dead or in jail. Never mind the feds would, realistically, have had enough evidence to be on their tail within days – finger prints, the random witness. Instead these same agency members are now portrayed as not only evil but bumbling and come to the conclusion the creature was snatched by 10 specially trained Russian forces instead of two cleaning ladies and a sympathetic scientist. Meanwhile, the security guard who got a good look at Giles and was injected by Dimitri is an ignored casualty. The guard's murder is shrugged off by our "heroes" and Elisa gives it no thought even though it was her fault.

Once in her apartment she puts Giles at further risk by asking him to babysit the creature, who proceeds to eat one of his cats and gash his arm. Even Elisa doesn’t object when Giles forgives the creature on the grounds it is a “wild thing” and doesn’t understand what it did. So they KNOW it is an animal – a sentient one perhaps on the intelligence level of  dolphin, but an animal. Nonetheless, Elisa continues to care for it and eventually uses it as a — tub toy, filling her entire bathroom up to the ceiling with water. This foolish action puts the movie theater above which she lives at serious threat of collapsing. Water drips into the owner’s struggling movie house and shoos away the patrons, and floods the upstairs portion of the building, likely doing serious damage to the business of the owner, a man who has been nothing but kind to her.

At the end when she and the creature escape she leaves her friends behind to explain to police and federal authorities about three dead men – the guard, Strickland, and Dimitri, as well as a conspiratorial break-in and theft of a highly valuable animal. Zelda and Giles will probably go to jail. Thanks Elisa.

Additionally there is gratuitous sexuality and nudity, plus demonstrations of sadistic violence and cruelty especially towards the captive creature. They even take a random stab at blasphemy by declaring the creature a “god” because of his healing powers.

In a horrifying lapse of judgement, for even the jaded and agenda-driven Oscar voters, this is one of the best picture nominees.

To paraphrase a joke about the assassination at Ford’s Theatre – "So, aside from the bigotry, bestiality, blasphemy, brutality, buck nakedness and… misanthrope (an almost completely alliterative list) Mrs. Lincoln, how was the movie?"

To which she could quote Rhett: "sheer waste".