Showing posts with label theres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theres. Show all posts

Monday, 5 August 2019

‘Dora and the Lost City of Gold’ Review: A Perfectly Pleasant If Unremarkable Family Adventure

Dora and the Lost City of Gold Review

At first blush, a feature film based on the Nick Jr. cartoon Dora the Explorer seems like a non-starter. The show, designed to help preschoolers grasp Spanish-language terms for English phrases, doesn’t scream out for the cinematic treatment, and definitely not the live-action feature treatment. Yet such a film now exists: Dora and the Lost City of Gold both manages to broadly acknowledge its inspiration while cutting its own path as a tween-friendly version of Indiana Jones. It’s a surprisingly funny blend of fish-out-of-water comedy and adventure, even if the familiarity is hard to ignore.

Outside of a brief prologue, the Dora we spend time with is no little kid — she’s a 16-year old who’s being unhappily uprooted from her home in the jungle by her loving parents (Eva Longoria and Michael Pena), who go off on a journey of their own as they encourage Dora to explore what it’s like to be an average high-schooler in Los Angeles. Dora’s expertise in the jungles of South America, though, leave her ill-equipped to handle the vagaries of high school. Her ebullient spirit is at odds with the dismissive nature of the average high-schooler, as represented by her cousin Diego (Jeff Wahlberg). However, she, Diego, and two other high-schoolers are soon abducted while on a field trip, forced by a series of treasure hunters to find a mythical city of gold…the same one her parents are searching for.

The signs of an unexpectedly goofy movie are present before you even meet Dora — after the studio logo, there’s a pre-title card warning that the film we’re about to see is mostly accurate, except for the implication that foxes like to swipe things. (Perhaps the strangest, most off-kilter casting choice here is a loopy-sounding Benicio del Toro as the sneaky Swiper.) Director James Bobin and co-writer Nicholas Stoller collaborated on the two Muppet movies of the 2010s, and a similar sense of wry charm is present through Dora and the Lost City of Gold. The film mostly sidesteps the way the TV series looks or sounds, but there are a couple of goofy, fourth-wall-breaking gags where Dora asks us to repeat certain phrases to no avail. And Dora’s struggles in the big city to balance her own jungle-driven savvy with, for example, the fact that no other high-schooler would bring a flare with them to class make for a good amount of humor.

Once the four kids are stuck in the jungle, they’re paired with the rubbery-faced Eugenio Derbez, as Alejandro, a linguistics professor with ties to Dora’s folks. Derbez’s shtick varies between seeming mildly funny and mildly exhausting; the few times he gets to do all the heavy lifting, the comedy feels a bit forced. (There’s one specific gag involving quicksand that, depending on your mileage, may make you laugh your head off, or may make you wish that the scene would just end.) As in the rest of the film, the charm largely lies with the younger actors. 

As the teenage Dora, Isabela Moner is the right mix of winning and a bit weird. Though the script (co-written by Stoller and Matthew Robinson) leads Dora to a predictable place of accepting herself for who she is even as she gains friends, Moner makes the journey feel less rote than unique. Wahlberg — who is Mark’s nephew — is a nice foil for Moner, as the teenage Diego can’t decide if he’s charmed or perpetually embarrassed by his enthusiastic cousin.

The fun of Dora and the Lost City of Gold lies in the journey, not the destination. Once the eponymous mysterious location is discovered, because of course it is, the film becomes a most remarkable riff on the Indiana Jones franchise. The phrase “most remarkable” here is meant to imply that Dora becomes either a loving homage or a straight-up rip-off of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (Since both The Last Crusade and The Lost City of Gold were released by Paramount Pictures, I suppose we’ll stick with homage.) Fans of the third film in the Harrison Ford-led franchise will recognize…well, a lot of its climax here, down to similar punchlines even if the bad guys don’t meet deliciously nasty fates.

Dora and the Lost City of Gold is charming enough, even as its conclusion smacks of overfamiliarity. A live-action/CGI mix inspired by a preschool animated show doesn’t seem like the kind of movie that would even be remotely tolerable. Yet a winning lead performance, coupled with a slightly cheeky and anarchic storytelling style, are enough to withstand plotting that owes an unpayable debt to the most famous movie adventurer of the modern age. Dora and the Lost City of Gold has no right being as charming and fun as it is, but there’s nothing wrong with a pleasant surprise in the dog days of summer.

/Film Rating: 6 out of 10

Cool Posts From Around the Web:

Sunday, 4 August 2019

You Should Be Buying DVDs Instead Of Relying On Netflix

My personal collectionPhoto: Spencer Platt (Getty Images)

When you’re a kid, it’s perfectly fine to partake in an array of bizarre or grotesque behaviors. Whether you’ve decided to chop your own hair off, get married to a stuffed animal, or just to scribble nonsense all over the walls, you are set—this is the only time in your life when adults might even mistake those behaviors for being cute, even if they come at the expense of damaging the home you’ll inhabit for the early part of your life.

My toddler quirks didn’t tend towards property damage, but there was a time when I slept with VHS tapes. Not like in my bed, but in the years before I knew how to spell my own name I’d set my precious videos where books are supposed to go on the bedside table. There’s a story about my parents swiping the Toy Story tape out of its box while I was asleep, and me waking up late by toddler standards to discover it missing, then walking downstairs and finding them watching the movie. Physical media is important to me, and I believe it should never die.

I don’t have most of those VHS tapes anymore because they gave way to DVDs and Blu-rays, which may in turn give way to 4K technology. But for the moment, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which I get rid of any of my discs or stop expanding my collection, even as physical media’s death rattle echoes louder. This is both because streaming culture sucks far worse than most of us would like to admit, and because DVDs are cooler than anyone remembers.

We’ve all found ourselves on either side of this sort of bleak interaction: “Have you seen Paddington 2?” “No, I’m waiting until it comes to Netflix.” “Sick.” (The first Paddington is currently streaming on Netflix, so get to it, you psycho.) Given that everything seems free or close to free, I can’t blame the impulse to wait everything out. With movies and TV shows coming and going from streaming services so often that there’s a cottage industry for “what’s new to/leaving Netflix” posts in the online content biz, your favorites are almost guaranteed to disappear at some point. And that’s not to mention Netflix’s piss-poor selection of films made before 1970—someday we’ll be as far removed from 1997 as we are from 1967, and Face/Off won’t be streaming.

Advertisement

My advice to you is this: just buy the movies you want to watch.

There’s really no good reason why DVD ownership isn’t in vogue in the same way that owning records is. (Maybe your dipshit college freshman roommate who insisted on calling them “films” and chronologically shelved his Criterion Collection ruined it for the rest of us?) On a practical level, DVDs are much easier to box up and move than vinyl, and you can even get one of those big leather-bound CD cases if the boxes are too much.

Advertisement

Streaming may seem more convenient, but that perspective vastly overlooks the benefits of DVDs: the boxes are fun as hell to open, and the gaudy menu screens can serve as a backdrop to some nervous, third-date post-movie makeout sessions. And there are bonus features! Commentary! I’m not saying anyone has time to explore every making-of featurette, but yes, I would like to hear a maybe-hammered Ben Affleck mercilessly roast his own movie, while watching said movie.

The best part might be that you don’t have to scroll through endless screens of middling content for something to watch if you already own, say, 50 of your favorites. You just walk over and put your selection into your DVD or Blu-ray player. (If you don’t have one of those, they now cost like $40.)

Advertisement

Streaming’s main appeal is convenience, but there’s nothing great about relying on Netflix to determine what movies you could and should watch on a given night. As streaming services shift further and further toward original content—Netflix intends to release somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 original creations this year—it’s a safe bet that they’ll feel less invested in the 30 Rocks and Godfathers of their catalogue.

There is something stable about physical media—not just because it can be held in your hands, but because your copy belongs to you. A streaming platform needs to churn and grow and add and add again, sometimes you just need to watch a movie that you like, and that’s much easier to do when it’s right there in your home. Just don’t let your rowdy kid smear peanut butter on the disc tray.

A Non-Fanboy's Spoiler-Laden And Mostly Cranky Review Of Avengers: Endgame

Your browser does not support HTML5 video tag.Click here to view original GIFGIF: YouTube

Avengers: Endgame is not a movie. Here is where some poor Ringer writer with Bill Simmons looming over their shoulder like Dennis Quaid in that The Intruder trailer would write “it is a Cultural Event” or “it is the End Of An Era” or “it is the high water mark of brand synergy in the IP marketplace” or some such. No. What Avengers: Endgame is is the awkward and over-serious series finale of a long-running television sitcom. It was not made to tell an interesting story of its own, or to expand meaningfully on the themes established in the earlier episodes, or even to reiterate those themes in thoughtful or fun or inventive new ways. To the extent that Avengers: Endgame even has an artistic purpose—to grant that it exists to do more than just soak up another couple billion dollars for Disney—its purpose is to get these actors onto the next phases of their respective careers, and in a way that is gratifying for people who especially give a shit about their Marvel characters.

If you are not someone who especially gives a shit about these Marvel characters, there’s a very good chance you will find this deeply annoying. If, for example, you are someone who has enjoyed the various Avengers movies well enough, for their cool action and quippy dialogue and generally unserious tone, but without investing a whole lot of emotional bandwidth in the question of whether Robert Downey Jr.’s stint as Iron Man is brought to a close with proper reverence, there’s a strong likelihood that you will spend the first two-thirds of Endgame surprisingly fidgety and bored, if not genuinely bewildered by how much this damn movie expects you to care about whether a crudely constructed immortal alien god who expresses anger by shooting lightning from his eyeballs finds emotional closure with a minor character from a movie you half-remember watching like eight years ago. Or the sloppy redemption arc of a guy whose entire moral decline is articulated in one deeply cheesy six-minute ninja fight sequence in Endgame’s endless first-third where-are-they-now phase.

The emphasis on Doing Right By These Tentpole Characters is so overwhelming that for long stretches of the movie it obliterates the conflict that has ostensibly motivated their actions in the plot. When Rocket and Thor find themselves off on a quest that is of absolute importance to the team’s long-shot hope of saving literally half of all living things in the universe, Thor’s angst over his career and lifestyle choices not only diverts his half of their effort, but is given the vast majority of screen time. We get plenty of Thor’s heavy-handed and cliché-laden reconciliation with a cameo performer, while Rocket literally scampers around desperately in a few throwaway cut scenes, actually fighting to save trillions of lives. The only way to interpret this, as a viewer who cares much more about the plot of the movie than about whether Thor will like Take The Mantle Of King Of New Asgard after the movie is over, is as proof that the plot is just a noisy excuse for the filmmakers to establish as much of what comes after it as possible.

That’s just one example. Here’s another: Tony Stark and Captain America go on a similar quest, with the same stakes—succeed or accept the absolute finality of Thanos’s Snap. It’s seemingly a risky gig, too, involving taking a potentially one-way trip to a secured facility to steal top secret shit guarded by armed badge-wearing types. At one point the duo’s attire and demeanor draw suspicion, and some of those armed badge-wearing types are mobilized. Cool! Surely this will raise the stakes—surely now we will get a sense of just how huge and daring and likely doomed this quest is for our long-suffering heroes! And we get the shot of Captain America coming one way through a narrow corridor while some of those armed types head toward him. Uh oh! How will our heroes escape this one?? I’ll tell you how: Captain America ducks into an unlocked office, whereupon those of us who are a little distracted by the quest to bring back to life actual trillions of beings are disappointed to learn that the whole potential conflict with the armed guards of a top secret facility was just a way for the story to force Captain America into that exact office at that exact moment, in order to confront some of his personal baggage. The MacGuffins he and Stark are after aren’t even there to move the plot; they’re there to give Captain America a boner.

Advertisement

And even the eventual undoing of the Snap itself—listen, motherfucker, if you thought they weren’t going to reverse the Snap, I’m afraid you’re just too stupid to watch movies, let alone read about them—is positioned by the story arc as ultimately about prolonging the resolution of the question of which of two central Avengers characters will survive the movie. This is a narrative trap of Marvel’s own making: under no circumstances were the Avengers not going to reverse the Snap; under no circumstances were they going to lose to Thanos. The only thing left to learn is under what specific circumstances they’d reverse the Snap and win. There’s a ghoulish God-view angle to this, though, because inevitably some part of what we are watching is not the development of a plot, but the sensitive extrication of actors and a studio from a project. As much as you may tell yourself that you’re watching to learn what will happen to these characters—or even just to enjoy the thrill of watching them do the only thing they can do, which is win—it’s impossible to ignore the knowledge that some number of these characters must have their stories closed, as a practical matter.

At one point in Endgame Thanos describes himself as “inevitable,” and it’s a little queasy, because as much as he is the author of his own genocidal designs, he is also an axe in the hands of the filmmakers, who simply have no choice but to kill some of these fuckers. By about the 120-minute mark of Endgame, if not far earlier, if not whole actual months ago, you have fully transitioned from wondering which Avengers will be killed by Thanos to wondering which will be killed by Disney. If you are not the sort of person who has invested disproportionate personal emotional significance in the fate of Gun Lady or Arrow Fella (for example) there’s a good chance this grim game of musical chairs will resolve itself in your brain into an uncomfortable and removed analysis of shit like genre conventions, if not brand fatigue and the dreaded IP. So when Gun Lady and Arrow Fella are faced with a terrible do-or-die choice, and the scene quickly evolves into an explicit test of which one can survive, you never quite escape the feeling that the cruelty that has forced them to this moment is less cosmic and more corporate, an artificial Sophie’s Choice being foisted upon the filmmakers, by the filmmakers, with the emotional weight sort of presumptuously passed along to you, the viewer.

Advertisement

The Avengers franchise is only the one-millionth story to run into the problem of how to produce an inevitable outcome in a way that feels compelling and urgent. What makes it a television sitcom, though, is the inevitable outcome they’re stuck producing is external to the plot, and is the retirement of a franchise that is ending for reasons that are arbitrary to the world of the story. There is no storytelling reason whatsoever that the MCU can’t conjure up the next big scary villain and throw these same superheroes in his or her path, in the same way that there’s no particular storytelling reason why the gang from Friends couldn’t continue snarkily hating each other at a coffee shop for another 100 episodes. The MCU movies are episodic, duh, because what makes comic book superheroes superheroes is their supernatural ability to return things to their prior condition in a certain number of pages. Their adventures on the page will quite literally never end, because there will always be someone to draw a new one, and anyway once you’ve gotten readers to accept things like reincarnation and the multiverse, you have permanently foreclosed on the possibility of retiring a character. Ending their adventures will always be a decision; in the movies, those decisions likelier than not have to do with this or that actor aging out of the damn role. Now that Spiderman has made the leap to the multiverse and animation, you can forget about worrying ever again how his stories will end.

So, like, Sauron was never gonna win in Lord of the Rings, but also Samwise Gamgee was never gonna be spun up into like the grim and gritty story of an essentially immortal vigilante Hobbit gardener in order to wring out another few years of summer blockbusters. Peter Jackson never had to devote any of his movies to convincing viewers that the individual arcs inside his movies were actually, really, sincerely coming to a close, and then do the demeaning servicey shit of making LOTR fanboys and fangirls accept that very arbitrary decision without too much moaning. There’s no rule or convention or standard of kindness that says the makers of Endgame couldn’t have made an even vaguely self-contained sci-fi action movie, ended it the way all the other movies ended—with things returning more or less to normal—and then just said “we are now done telling the stories of those characters.” Frankly, that would’ve ruled! Instead they buckled under the wholly self-imposed pressure to like Do Right By Undies Man And Mech Genius In This Hour Of Their Retirement, and the result is a movie where so much of the important and permanent stuff that happens has the impossible-seeming quality of feeling both arbitrary and also inevitable. There are no surprises. Only children and the least savvy viewers will not spot the either-or choices the filmmakers have dug their way into a mile away.

Advertisement

With the actual plot thus encumbered, Endgame devolves fairly early on into a greatest hits reel, and the weight given to some of the character resolutions in the final third is goofy to the point of being unbearable, the kind of shit that could only deserve all its heavy-handedness if you consider Chris Evans as Captain America to be an important part of your childhood. If you’re just a person who thought the Avengers movies were fun and had cool punching and unpretentious dialogue, you may find yourself wishing they’d ended it with all the main characters going to jail. The Avengers movies have never before given me the urge to shake adult human beings and angrily remind them that these are comic book characters, until Endgame. That’s a talking raccoon. That’s a green space alien. That guy shoots lightning. That guy shrinks. Settle down.

Sunday, 29 July 2018

Is the Summer of Sequels Bad for Movies?

The man with the most consistent track record to conquer the 2018 box office doesn’t work for Marvel, and he doesn’t make Star Wars movies. He isn’t shepherding the DC universe, and he’s never animated for Pixar. He doesn’t scare with dinosaurs, and he’s not toting precious IP. He has, however, created three critically acclaimed TV shows, won three Emmys, and helmed three consecutive installments of one of the most dependable franchises in movies today. His name is Genndy Tartakovsky. Heard of him?

Tartakovsky is the mastermind behind Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation, Hotel Transylvania 2, and the original recipe, 2012’s Hotel Transylvania. Every three years, Tartakovsky makes a Hotel Transylvania movie, and every three years it makes north of $300 million around the world. Tartakovsky is no hack: he’s the creator of the beloved animated series Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars. But he is a successful opportunist. The Hotel Transylvania series is a triumph of old-word studio movie success blended with new-school strategy. It’s the last remnant of Adam Sandler’s once unbreakable bond with Sony, his full-time home for decades before he decamped to make live-action movies for Netflix. But it’s also an expertly and cynically engineered animated kids’ series with only the minimum amount of creativity needed to elevate it beyond straight-to–Cartoon Network fare.

Hotel Transylvania 3 topped the Rock’s Skyscraper in a head-to-head week of release showdown at the beginning of the month, and is still reeling in viewers. This weekend, it came in fourth, with more than $12 million in receipts. Within weeks, it will be among the 10 biggest releases in the U.S. this year. And when that happens, it will be the ninth of the 10 that is a sequel. This weekend, eight of the 10 highest-grossing releases were sequels, too. The other two—Teen Titans Go! To the Movies and Skyscraper—essentially act in the same capacity, as updates on the ongoing DC Comics team’s adventures and Dwayne Johnson’s continuing efforts to defeat inanimate objects. (Many of the eight are comprised of delirious word salads dressed in colons and em dashes, among them Mamma Mia 2: Here We Go Again!, Mission: Impossible — Fallout, and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.) This is unprecedented territory in the history of the box office. During this time period last year, just four of the top 10 were sequels, and two of those—Spider-Man: Homecoming and Wonder Woman—were not directly preceded by a connecting installment to their story. In fact, sequels have never been this necessary to the stability and growth of theatrical movies, which are experiencing an extraordinary 8.3 percent bump in gross. These are heady times for the business. But it’s a perilous game being played.

The evident collapse of MoviePass paired with the sustained success of lesser-light franchises signals a bizarre trend. Let’s look at three: Hotel Transylvania (the third edition has made nearly $120 million in the U.S. in just shy of three weeks), The Equalizer (the sequel crawling to match the $100 million gross of the original), and Sicario (the unexpected follow-up Day of the Soldado has made a respectable $49 million, more than the first). All three of those franchises (I guess that’s what we call them?) were developed and released by Sony. All three originals were surprise hits. All of their follow-ups operate in the same style as their predecessors, but they’re fundamentally linked via the continuity drug that houses like Marvel have laced through their movies. Return business is everything. In Hotel Transylvania 3, Sandler’s Count Dracula gets into some horror high jinks. The Equalizer 2 is just another movie that features Denzel Washington killing bad guys. In Day of the Soldado, drug lords are viciously murdered. There are no Easter eggs or post-credits sequences. There’s no fan community shitposting theories about the creators’ betrayal of the mythology. There’s no high-level critical engagement of these movies. There’s not even all that much external communication in the wider world. But people are seeing them. They are the fabric of the box office. How long can this last?

It’s too early to tell. One of the more discrete and clever lessons of the booming era of comic book movies is to simply make more movies like the ones that people just went to go see. Kevin Feige’s gambit of a long-running, unbreakable chain of moviegoing content strikes fear in the heart of every other movie executive. But it’s aspirational, too. Some of this summer’s sequel oddity is a decade-long master plan finally being aped around town. Some of it is smash-and-grab easy money. Some of it is studios like Paramount, which has been running behind Disney, Sony, and Warner Bros. in recent years, focusing distinctly on what works. After Fallout—a well-received, well-liked six-quel—its biggest release this year will be Bumblebee, a spinoff from the Transformers universe. Disney’s two big hitters are Ralph Breaks the Internet and Mary Poppins Returns. Aquaman and those Fantastic Beasts and Creed II and The Nun and Venom and Goosebumps 2 and The Girl in the Spider’s Web are still to come, too.

We’ve seen all this before, but we’re seeing it again because we keep telling studios it’s what we want. And maybe we do. I saw Fallout for a second time this weekend. For my birthday. Is this a sickness or the cure? More likely, it’s the comfort of distraction. It’s unknowable if this dam will break. In the meantime, we’re getting awfully well-acquainted with the rising water.