Let's roll some dice, watch some movies, or generally just geek out. New posts at 6:30 pm ET but only if I have something to say. Menu at the top. gsllc@chirp.enworld.org on Mastodon and @gsllc on Twitter.
I have a lot of streaming services. This week, I shifted back to HBO Max to watch a couple of movies. First up was Richard Jewell.
First off, this was a great movie about how the FBI railroaded a hero, Richard Jewell. Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story, and the fact that this was true (more or less) makes it all the more impactful.
I don’t ever want to get political on this blog, but every so often it’s unavoidable. Being a cop is hard work, and being a good cop cuts against human nature. Only those people capable of living up to a heightened standard should become cops, and that occurs only with training. If you’re not capable of putting the public’s interest in catching the bad guys ahead of your own career goals, you aren’t living up to that standard. It’s frustrating knowing cops like that are out there, but it’s important to acknowledge and address it. It also makes for good storytelling.
But cops aren’t the only ones under the microscope in this movie. So are the rest of us.
Richard Jewell is streaming on HBO Max. As always, YMMV.
Deadline is reporting that Chris Pine will star in the next Dungeons & Dragons movie. Unsurprisingly, I have an opinion on this.
Chris Pine is a good choice. The fact that he’s even in the mix means they’re willing to spend some money. Money talks, so that could be a good sign (though not necessarily). The prior D&D movies ranged from “sucks” to “low, B-level but tolerable if you’re already a fan.” I wouldn’t say any of them are good movies. This is, at least in part, the result of spending too little, but the source material certainly isn’t the problem. There have been too many movies (e.g., Lord of the Rings) and TV shows (e.g., Game of Thrones), some award-winning, that could easily have been considered “D&D movies” to think that the source material has a significant, inherent disadvantage.
In other words, it could be good, but . . .
Mechanics
I don’t know why everyone else doesn’t like them, but I can tell you one thing that annoys me, and it doesn’t bode well for any future movies. All three of the prior movies overtly made D&D mechanics part of the dialogue.
“I’ve prepared only two teleport spells today and have already used one of them.”
Yes, we know. You’re subject to Vancian magic. Don’t beat us over the head with it.
“Cool your barbarian’s Rage.”
But she gets only three a day! She needs to make the most of it!
“I need a frost sword.” “Heroic or paragon?”
Can you imagine people having this conversation even in a world of magic?
Dialogue like this stood out to me and annoyed the hell out of me. However, if you don’t have dialogue like this, in what way is the movie a “D&D movie”?
Campaign Setting Material
First, it’s got to be about the storylines and characters. In other words, it’s got to be about the campaign settings. Despite having the second one on DVD, it’s been a while since I saw any of those movies, but I don’t remember mentions of Elminster, Anauroch, or anything that was proprietary to a D&D setting. Perhaps they were mentioned in passing and I forgot, but making them the center of story would be critical to making this a “Dungeons & Dragons movie.” Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be enough.
The Monsters
Second, it’s got to have the right monsters. At this point, dragons are trite, which is problematic because it absolutely has to have an intelligent dragon in it. Fortunately, D&D offers a hell of a lot more than dragons. How about mind flayers? No, wait. Those really belong to Lovecraft. Orcs? Tolkien. Goblins? <yawn> What about beholders?
We don’t like to talk about this scene.
Do you see the problem? If you choose an iconic monster from D&D, either other writers have beaten you to the punch, a prior D&D movie has ridiculed it, or it was “borrowed” from elsewhere, opening it to criticism (both fair and unfair). You can certainly find some untouched creatures that are proprietary to D&D — the third movie did that — but will slaadi play well in Peoria? I doubt it. Any D&D movie will have to rehabilitate whatever monsters they choose to incorporate. Xanathar, to name just one, could certainly work for me as the BBEG for a trilogy, but as the test audiences in Blade told us, most people prefer a human villain. Note well that, for this movie to be a success, it must appeal to more than its sycophantic base; non-D&D players must be interested, so “most people” have to be the focus. But I’ll leave those details to the professional filmmakers who’ll have the benefit of market research.
Plus, We Suck: We Really Aren’t Sycophantic
You always want to grab the largest audience but must start with your base. To win the hearts of as much of your base as possible, you have to throw each of the subcultures a bone. The problem with that is that far too many of us are edition warriors. If you throw 4th edition lovers a bone, it will downright offend others. It doesn’t matter how much you give them; giving any love to 4th edition will be seen as a deal-breaker to some. There’s just far too much nerd rage. Lord of the Rings doesn’t have “versions,” so if you make a good LotR movie, the material itself won’t alienate many potential viewers. I don’t know how to avoid that with D&D.
Between a fractured base and a horrible history, I’m afraid that any D&D movie will devolve into low, B-movie status, and not necessarily “so bad it’s good.” And before you say, “What do you know about it, Rob? Are you an expert?” No, but I’ve seen every effort they’ve made to date. They were all below average. I also remember having a Twitter conversation with someone (@Bartoneus, I think) while we were both watching the premiere of the third movie. He gave up on the movie about 10 minutes in, and he wasn’t alone. History suggests I’m right. By all means, prove me wrong. Clear these hurdles and make a good movie for once.
I’m still glad they’re going to try. My fingers are crossed.
Sundays are now lazy days for me. Going forward, I’m just going to re-post other people’s work or just do something silly. Today it’s extremely rare footage of the first film Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone made.
I said yesterday that I wasn’t going to go out of my way go post every day anymore, but I didn’t specifically promise to end my streak. I’ll post when I have something particular to say. So, with today’s post, it’s been 215 in as many days, and tomorrow’s ridiculousness will make me 216 for 216, but that’s probably where the streak will end.
So what inspired me? You already know, dipshit. You read the title of the post. While no movie could possibly live up to the hype this one has received, I’m finally watching Tombstone. So please, shut up.
First observation (a silly one): Sam Elliott always looked old. In this movie, he was 3 years younger than I am today, and while I wouldn’t say I have a youthful appearance, I think I look younger than he. I definitely act younger. What can I say? I’ve got issues.
Second observation: I love watching movies from an earlier decade to see a historical snapshot of where actors we at the time. Movies like this have actors on their way out, actors well-established, actors who recently got their big break, and actors that haven’t yet hit big, but our hindsight tells us they will. We also have a sprinkling of actors that were around only for that brief period before they dropped off the radar scope.
Third observation: Val Kilmer’s performance was flawless. Simply flawless. You can’t completely dislike this movie because of his performance. Nevertheless, the movie earned only two award nominations that hardly count, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s as good as any metric as to why we shouldn’t take them seriously.
Enough observations. Did I like it? Hells, yes. Plus, it’s been the source of so many damn memes. Back when I watched the Simpsons, I’d often miss the references to, for example, Dr. Strangelove until I saw that. Maybe now I’ll get some of your jokes.
I’d recommend the movie, but it’s 27 years old, and you’ve probably already seen it. Only I take 27 years or more to watch movies.
I wanted to do something stupid, so I did. I watched the Onion Movie, and it didn’t disappoint. It’s the kind of movie that you can’t review. It’s just a ridiculous mess of funny anecdotes, each serving as a segue into the next. Just when I think it’s getting old, I suddenly find myself again laughing out loud at something ridiculously funny. It’s also great to see a snapshot of Hollywood in 2008, seeing which actors were on the rise, and which were on their way out. Plus, Jed Rees has a nice skit making fun of D&D players. That’s always fun for me. The Onion Movie is showing on Starz.
If you have a stupid sense of humor, this could be your thing too. As always. YMMV.
Borat 2 inspired me to start a 30-day free trial of Amazon Prime. I’m glad it was free.
Okay, that was a bit rough, but it makes for a good tagline, so I offer no apologies. Borat 2 wasn’t bad; it just wasn’t as good as his first movie. Maybe I was expecting too much. The charm of the first movie was Borat acting crazy and watching the honest reactions of unaware citizens. Too many people recognize him, so that’s much more difficult. The movie is amusingly self-aware of that fact.
The other strength of the first movie was that Borat never learned his lesson. He started the movie screwed up and ended it that way. Not so here. In Borat 2, Borat returns to the “U S and A” but through circumstance is paired with his daughter, Tutar (Maria Bakalova). The movie makes a story out of their relationship, and that’s why I don’t think it was as good. It’s supposed to be a feel-good story, but if you focus on the story as serious, the premise is far too depressing for a comedy.
But that’s okay, as long as we get Cohen’s over-the-top comedy, right? Well, there was only one cringe-worthy moment for me, which was when Tutar speaks to the group of Women Republicans. There was also a funny moment, let’s just say, related to abortion, but it wasn’t embarrassing. It was just a misunderstanding. I can get that from any comedy. I did laugh out loud on occasion, but not enough. In fact, at one point, I walked away from the TV to put water on for pasta. I wouldn’t be able to do that while watching the first movie.
As a side note, the Giuliani thing is greatly exaggerated, probably on purpose. I suspect it was intentionally overblown in order to hype the movie. It seems to have worked.
I hope I have better luck with the Expanse, the Boys, the Man in the High Castle, and Good Omens. If there’s time, I’ll add in Jack Ryan and Bosch.
I really wanted a proper sequel for Borat. As always, YMMV.
I hate courtroom dramas. While I’m not a litigator, I can spot the nonsense when I see it, and legal dramas are always about “drama” first and “legal” last. The same is true for any industry. Some liberties were taken with the story, but based on a little research, this movie largely gets it right. And that story is frustrating. From Wikipedia:
Based on the story of the Chicago Seven, a group of eight defendants charged by the federal government with conspiracy in 1969 and 1970, inciting to riot, and other charges related to anti-Vietnam War and countercultural protests that took place in Chicago, Illinois, on the occasion of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
The trial was a mess. The judge (ironically) showed nothing but contempt for the defense. All of the charges, including the numerous contempt charges, were overturned on appeal. The Seventh Circuit ordered a new trial, which the Attorney General declined to pursue.
Sacha Baron Cohen was awesome. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was awesome. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II was awesome. Mark Rylance was awesome. Frank Langella was awesome.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is streaming on Netflix. There’s no reason not to watch this movie. As always, YMMV.
It’s October, so all of my streaming services are suggesting horror (or horror-adjacent). I’m not a fan of the genre, or at least not of slasher films or any film relying on stupid behavior to advance the plot. Also, while I’m more than willing to suspend disbelief, I require something … anything … to provide a basis for that suspension. I don’t get that from most horror movies.
That said, I’ve had a recent string of fairly good luck with the genre, and the 2020 reboot(?) of the Invisible Man continues that trend. It’s spooky and scary in a way that preys on my own fears. Mild spoilers ahead. I don’t need people snooping on me, and the technology at the center of this movie (currently being researched in the real world) takes that to another level. It can also be used to frame you for a crime. Also spooky. The only thing missing was the use of Deep Fake to have the main character destroyed by cancel culture. That would have been the scariest thing of all, but maybe they didn’t include it to avoid an NC-17 rating. 🙂
So, how did Dungeons & Dragons almost ruin it? It took away from, dare I say, the believability of this film even after you suspend your disbelief in the underlying technology. The technology makes you invisible. Okay, I can accept that. However, every edition of D&D has taught us (you know, the nerds) that invisibility definitely does not hide the sounds you make, and it doesn’t give you superhuman strength. The villain was far too quiet and far too strong. The technology consists of a ton of cameras. There’s no noise dampening apparent from its design, and if that’s what they were going with, they should have justified it within the script by both an association with someone well-versed in that technology and something apparent in the design. Instead, presumably for dramatic effect, they actually made the technology loud when the main character first discovers it.
But I know this is just me, so even I just let that go. Accordingly, with only a couple of exceptions, stupidity isn’t necessary to advance the plot, and there’s only one instance that I noticed where the villain (sort of) appears to be in two places at the same time. Also, once an invisible person grabs you, it becomes a grappling match, and you’re not at nearly as much of a disadvantage as a fist fight. I seem to be talking myself out of liking this movie, but I still liked it. I guess I’m just a sucker.
The misdirection about 20 minutes before the end of the movie was pretty good even though I saw it coming, and the ending was satisfying if not realistic. (C’mon. The guy’s a cop.)
There are no mid-credits or after-credits scenes. You’re welcome. As always, YMMV.
Last night was a long-overdue quarantine watch party for Venom. I’ve mentioned Venom before, but these are my viewing notes for the movie.
Side Note: The first time I saw Tom Hardy was in Star Trek: Nemesis, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. So yeah, I know, <slow-witted voice>”But Star Trek Nemesis sucks, man!”</slow-witted voice> Regardless, Hardy showed me something in that movie.
Second Side Note: The “technical difficulties” to which I refer below are just commercial breaks I can’t fast forward. Even though I’m on commercial free Hulu, I still get commercials when streaming from an established network like FX. The commercial breaks are five minutes long, and I’m trying to keep up with the other attendees at the quarantine watch party. Sort of ruined it for me.
Outside of combat, what superhero (in the movies) rides a motorcycle? I can’t think of any. Does it have to do with the fact that Venom is an anti-hero? Directors and screenwriters make these choices intentionally.
“Heights aren’t really my thing.” Foreshadowing.
It’s funny how the ambushing journalist is presented as the good guy despite us not really knowing how much of a bad guy the mark is.
“What you did got me fired.” No, what *you* did got you fired and should get you disbarred.
Killing all of those people at the market seemed unnecessary.
Due to technical difficulties, there’s a gap in my viewing here. You’re welcome.
“This is First Contact.”
No, this is.
Nice special effects on the “possession.”
Due to technical difficulties, there’s a gap in my viewing here. You’re welcome.
Now that the symbiote is inside him, Eddie is superhuman, yet he doesn’t seem to be asking himself why. I guess he’s more concerned with the bullets that are flying by his head. You’d think he’d have some time while hanging out in that tree.
I’ve been that thirsty before.
When the voices in your head say, “Do not open the door,” you … call a shrink.
Technical difficulties. Dammit. Way too many commercials.
“My legs are broken and now they’re not. What’s happening?” Has Eddie never seen an action movie before?
Awww, what a cute kid … WTF?!
Even more “technical difficulties.”
I can’t wait to see Venom face Spidey.
There’s a lot more character development in this movie than I appreciated the first time around.
Bye bye, puppy.
I really wish the villain didn’t always have the same powers as the (anti-)hero. It’s trite at this point.
Freaking technical difficulties.
This has to be the weirdest fight scene I’ve ever seen. Sure, the special effects are great, but this is just weird. But I like it.
Superhero movies have no concern for the economic damage the characters cause. 🙂
Damn, that was one hell of a Stan Lee cameo.
Tater tots? Who does Venom think he is? Napoleon Dynamite?
If I had a voice in my head, I wonder if I could suppress my instinct to reply out loud. Of course, I hope I never find out.
Play What You Want 