Movie Reviews, before the Holiday Season Kicks Off
Titles Covered: Spider-man Far from Home, Aladdin 2019, Dumbo 2019, Alita: Battle Angel, Booksmart, Barry Lyndon, The Hustler, and Sonic the Hedgehog (trailer).
Spider-man, Far From Home (***)
Spider-man has had an interesting run in the 21st century…
After a highly successful trilogy, Sony made the infamous decision to “reboot” Spider-man in 2012. Later, Spider-man was loaned back to Marvel for 5 movies, including 2 solo Spider-man movies. Spider-man Homecoming was a teen comedy with some superhero action, and a largely successful movie. The sequel is sort of more of the same. Spider-man is once again a bumbling teenager who crashes into things and gets into awkward situations. The difference is the appearance of Mysterio, as well as the “Elementals,” which are “sorta-kinda” versions of Sandman, Hydro-man, and the like.
Jake Gyllenhaal brings a great character to the MCU in the form of Quentin Beck, reinterpreted as a “cool uncle” mentor for Peter Parker. To discuss his character more requires spoilers, but needless to say I was pleased with the more illusionary bits associated with Mysterio. There’s also fun to be had watching “Freaks and Geeks” alum Martin Starr play an oblivious teacher leading a wacky gang of kids. Peter Parker’s chemistry with Zendaya is cute and believable, and one of the better running gags involves Spider-man’s new suit being called “Night Monkey”.
And yet… I keep coming back to a simple question: Why aren’t the new live-action Spider-man movies more enthralling? I think it comes down to 3 factors. (1) The new Spider-man movies lack freshness. Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man was a welcome break from a decade-plus of superhero movies trying to be Batman. Enter the Spiderverse was a fresh take entirely. Spiderman Homecoming and Far from Home feel like more of the same from the MCU. (2) There’s a lack of dramatic weight. Even Thanos’ dramatic genocide is made into something of a punchline. (3) In the original Spiderman trilogy, Spiderman was a uniquely powerful person whose strength was only rivaled by the villains. At the same time, he was still a teenager in spandex who couldn’t pay his rent. MCU Spiderman is an average hero among dozens of super-powered individuals, and his personal issues seem petty compared to planet-destroying space battles around him. He’s basically Iron Man Jr. at this point.
Also, the plot is kind of silly, with revelations that Tony Stark made some phenomenally stupid decisions for passing on his legacy. There’s also a painfully dumb plot point about Peter Parker being caught in a compromising position.
On the whole, Spider-man Far From Home is pretty good. It’s mid-tier Marvel: plenty of fun with a good cast, but nothing deep or super-interesting.
As usual, the end-credits contain additional scenes. The first is an intriguing plot twist, and the second is dumb.
Aladdin (2019) (*** and a half)
Huh. This was a very pleasant surprise
.
2019 has been the year of Disney live-action remakes, with movies based on Dumbo, The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, Aladdin, and a sequel to the Maleficent. I’m not sure anyone really loves these remakes, but they’re intriguing enough that we’ll all go see them (or at least rent the DVD). I didn’t expect much from Aladdin aside from an OK shot-for-shot remake of the original. To my surprise, it turned out a bit better than that. Yes, the plot is still mostly the same, but changes to the story events and characters manage to keep it fresh and exciting.
Many people insist that the Genie can only be Robin Williams. I’d argue that Genie is actually the easiest character to change. Aladdin has to be a young ambitious teens-to-twenty-something athletic male rascal with a heart of gold, but the Genie can be whatever it wants to be. It doesn’t have to be a stand-up comedian with a penchant for celebrity impressions. Disney’s California theme parks had a stage version with a flamboyant, effeminate Genie. Broadway made him a rotund big-voiced Cab Calloway type. I’ve seen school productions where the Genie is a little girl. All of these interpretations work.
So yes, Will Smith does well as the Genie, using his charm and sitcom experience to drive his own interpretation of the character. Actually, most of the actors are really good, bringing heart and believability to their roles. Will Smith is cool and funny, Mena Massoud shows off his awesome dance moves as Aladdin and Naomi Scott brings a very strong singing voice to Jasmine. I even liked the soft-spoken Jafar, whose quiet fury and nuanced gas lighting is more believable than the obvious villainy of his animated counterpart. The only characters I didn’t like were the Sultan (bland) and the rival prince Anders. It’s fine that Prince Anders is Caucasian; he arrived via ship, so it made sense that he would be from far away. Unfortunately he’s not very funny and his accent is dumb.
The musical numbers are generally very strong, especially the show-stopping “Friend Like Me” and “Prince Ali.” “Prince Ali” probably gained the most in the animation-to-live-action transition, and felt like a cross between a Bollywood musical number and a Disneyland parade.
Naturally, there are things from the animated movie that we would have liked to see: Jafar summoning a giant snake, Abu wielding a sword, and Jasmine’s red outfit (*gets slapped*). Overall, though, I was really happy with this one, and rank is second among the Disney live-action remakes (behind Cinderella).
Dumbo (2019) (***)
Credit where credit is due: Dumbo has a decent approach to its source material, being neither a redundant scene-by-scene remake (Beauty and the Beast) nor a cringe-worthy subversion (Malificent). It re-creates most of the memorable scenes from the original movie, but also adds a lot of new story and character elements. The story is now set in 1919, as Colin Farrell returns home from WWI to care for his children after his wife fell victim to the Spanish Flu pandemic. He attends to a group of circus elephants, including the miraculous flying elephant Dumbo, and eventually must deal with a zealous Coney Island showman played by Michael Keaton. The period pieces work nicely and give the film a unique identity. If only the script were as good as its premise…
Frankly, there are a lot of big, obvious story problems. The first is the pacing, as the movie completes the entire story arc of the original animated movie before moving into entirely new territory. Also, the conflicts feel very contrived. It was one thing for the talking, animated elephants to tease Dumbo over his large ears. When this concept is portrayed in live-action with live actors, it doesn’t make sense. Any real circus would have advertised that it had an unusual elephant with crazy ears! The villains are silly, and frankly I think the whole plot could have been re-written to turn Michael Keaton’s character into a minor secondary villain. Danny Devito’s old-school ringmaster is a much more convincing character, and is also unscrupulous enough to create more believable conflict.
This is frustrating, because there are definitely good parts to Dumbo. The supporting cast of circus performers is fun, especially the multi-tasking strongman. There’s a great bit at the end where they all team up to rescue the elephants. Honestly, the climax should have stopped there, instead of turning into a disaster movie. The CGI animals are really cute, especially Dumbo and Timothy Mouse. The movie also nails several important scenes from the source material: the journey of Casey Jr. kicks the movie off to an excellent start, the two scenes where Dumbo must perform under pressure are tense and exhilarating, and “Baby Mine” is heartbreaking as ever. I would have liked a lot more from the Pink Elephants, I did enjoy what we got (I knew ahead of time that they only made a brief appearance). I’m not surprised the remake omits the supposedly-controversial Crows, but it would have been nice if their song was included.
On the balance, Dumbo is decent. It presents more new material than other recent remakes have, and ended up being better than I expected. Still, the story and script flaws keep me from giving it a strong recommendation.
Alita: Battle Angel (****)
Last year had a movie called Ready Player One, that was frustratingly awesome. If presented a complex and original sci-fi world with great visuals and action scenes. It was a good movie barely held back from greatness by its excessive run-time and “Broken Aesop” script. So close, Spielberg!
I feel similarly about Alita: Battle Angel. There’s a lot of awesomeness in this movie. Tons and tons of awesomeness. The world concept is cool, the character design is outstanding, and it has a lot of great moments. With a more focused script and stronger ending it would probably be my favorite movie of 2019. Again... so close!
Alita contains tremendous amounts of backstory regarding a war with Mars and floating utopian cities that depend on the planet surface to supply food. Most of that serves as context for a story about a good cyborg fighting bad cyborgs who steal human body parts (an interesting consequence of man-machine interfaces) and are acting on instruction from Edward Norton (A ha! I knew he was up to no good!). Oh, but there’s also a subplot about Alita being a sports star. And she has a love story. And her father figure is a cyborg-hunter whose ex-wife works for the bad guy. Or did she? Geez, maybe I shouldn’t wait a few weeks before writing up these reviews. Alita’s plot is kind of hard to keep straight!
Despite the unfocused plotting, I really enjoyed Alita’s world creation, characters, and brutal action scenes. Alita presents a fresh and innovative sci-fi setting, avoiding the usual comparisons to Star Wars, Blade Runner, and other well-established franchises. All of the characters have interesting visual designs (especially Ed Skrein’s character) and the actors are well-cast. I’ve never been a fan of Christoph Waltz, but Alita Battle Angel is one of his better performances, and one that doesn’t seem to rely on his odd accent.
Alita: Battle Angel is really entertaining and provides a lot of unique visuals. It doesn't fufill its amazing potential, but comes close enough to be very satisfying.
Booksmart (***)
Hmm… I’m kinda torn on this one.
Yes, Booksmart is funny. Really funny. Probably the funniest teen comedy to come along in a while. The premise revolves around “booksmart” girls who are approaching graduation, believing that all their hard work and good behavior is about to pay off. While they are admitted to prestigious colleges, they find out that the “slacker” kids also got into big-name schools. This causes over-achiever “Molly” to freak out, and she drags her BFF along for a wild night as they try to crash the trendiest party in town.
This is a great premise, and one that actually rings kind of true. The social divisions of high school and the realization that the “bad” kids might not get their comeuppance is a great source of comedy and character drama. The situations that follow are also pretty inventive. The plot of the movie actually feels a bit like a classical odyssey, but with different high school stereotypes standing in for the various monsters and encounters.
On the other hand, I can’t shake the feeling that Booksmart is a gigantic step backwards from thoughtful teen movies like Lady Bird, Edge of Seventeen, Eighth Grade, and Perks of Being a Wallflower. The film was off to a great start by revealing that Molly’s enemies were also college-bound, which could have led to a deeper exploration of their characters and a realization that FOMO is irrational because the cool kids actually aren’t having more fun than you. Instead, the supporting cast turn into cliché party animals for the rest of the movie. Meanwhile, the (mostly bad) soundtrack is WAY overplayed, and every single character swears up a storm. Seriously, why do these “smart” girls talk like uncultured dumbasses?
So… I’m not sure. The characters and situations are hilarious, but the dialogue could have been a LOT better and the direction is mediocre. On the balance, Booksmart is great for what it tries to be, but I would have liked it more if it actually tried to be smart.
Barry Lyndon (****)
“Even I forget what this is a reference to!”-Simpsons Comicbook Guy
As the story goes, Stanley Kubrick really wanted to make a period piece set in Europe and thought about making a Napoleon biopic. Eventually, he pivoted to adapting a novel called “The Luck of Barry Lyndon,” the story of an Irish rogue and his misadventures across continental Europe during the reign of King George III.
Barry Lyndon is a very beautiful movie, with many landscapes and outstanding cinematography. Kubrick achieved a very natural look for it, using natural sunlight and candlelight whenever possible. This is important because the movie is more focused on the world rather than specific characters. Barry himself is the only consistent character, as a long series of enemies, love interests, allies, wars, and countries float by him. It’s a very strange odyssey. You never quite know what to hope for, but it’s interesting seeing where things will go.
Oddly enough, the main problem with this 3-hour epic is the main character. Barry is a terrible person, and he’s not quite interesting or tragic enough to work as an anti-hero. He might have worked better as the protagonist of a sillier and more fanciful story. As the serious protagonist of an oh-so-serious Stanley Kubrick historical epic, lead actor Ryan O’Neil doesn’t quite seem to know what to do with this character.
On the balance, Barry Lyndon is a highly compelling movie, and one that actually kept my attention for all three hours. The tense dueling scenes are very engaging, and I was excited for most of the movie, even as I was eager for the main character to finally get his comeuppance.
The Hustler (**)
Booooooooring!
Ugh. Some classics hold up, and some just don’t. The Hustler is one that doesn’t.
The story is that Paul Newman is a hotshot pool player who makes lots of money by gambling. He plays against a guy named “Minnesota Fats” and they play pool for a million years. At least, that’s how long it feels. In the story, they’re supposed to be playing for many hours straight, which starts to stretch plausibility. Are people really still engaged and betting on this pool marathon? BTW, how do all of these gamblers have so much money, given that the only people who play them are other gamblers?
There’s also a love interest who meets a tragic end and a badguy played by George C. Scott. The pieces are all there for an interesting drama, but it had to be about people who play pool for hours on end. I enjoy a good game of pool now and then, but it isn't that much fun to watch on screen.
Sonic the Hedgehog (preview)
Paramount: Here is our trailer for Sonic the Hedgehog.
Everyone: Boo! Sonic’s design is horrifying! Your movie looks bad and you should feel bad!
(6 months later)
Paramount: We’ve heard your complaints and completely re-worked the CGI on Sonic. Also, here’s a trailer that actually explains his motivations and has a few decent jokes.
Everyone: Wait… what?!
Paramount: Oh, and we’ve also got the Green Hill Zone, better music, and action scenes that actually look decent.
Everyone: You listened to our complaints?
Paramount: Well… yeah.
Everyone: Are you sure you don’t want to insult your target audience and blame Russian trollbots for all the criticism?
Paramount: Let me level with you… Stalwart franchises like Terminator and X-men are bombing left and right because movie fans don’t like what they see and stopped caring. We can’t go down that road if we actually want to make any money.
Everyone: I guess that makes sense. We’re just not used to this…
Spider-man, Far From Home (***)
Spider-man has had an interesting run in the 21st century…
After a highly successful trilogy, Sony made the infamous decision to “reboot” Spider-man in 2012. Later, Spider-man was loaned back to Marvel for 5 movies, including 2 solo Spider-man movies. Spider-man Homecoming was a teen comedy with some superhero action, and a largely successful movie. The sequel is sort of more of the same. Spider-man is once again a bumbling teenager who crashes into things and gets into awkward situations. The difference is the appearance of Mysterio, as well as the “Elementals,” which are “sorta-kinda” versions of Sandman, Hydro-man, and the like.
Jake Gyllenhaal brings a great character to the MCU in the form of Quentin Beck, reinterpreted as a “cool uncle” mentor for Peter Parker. To discuss his character more requires spoilers, but needless to say I was pleased with the more illusionary bits associated with Mysterio. There’s also fun to be had watching “Freaks and Geeks” alum Martin Starr play an oblivious teacher leading a wacky gang of kids. Peter Parker’s chemistry with Zendaya is cute and believable, and one of the better running gags involves Spider-man’s new suit being called “Night Monkey”.
And yet… I keep coming back to a simple question: Why aren’t the new live-action Spider-man movies more enthralling? I think it comes down to 3 factors. (1) The new Spider-man movies lack freshness. Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man was a welcome break from a decade-plus of superhero movies trying to be Batman. Enter the Spiderverse was a fresh take entirely. Spiderman Homecoming and Far from Home feel like more of the same from the MCU. (2) There’s a lack of dramatic weight. Even Thanos’ dramatic genocide is made into something of a punchline. (3) In the original Spiderman trilogy, Spiderman was a uniquely powerful person whose strength was only rivaled by the villains. At the same time, he was still a teenager in spandex who couldn’t pay his rent. MCU Spiderman is an average hero among dozens of super-powered individuals, and his personal issues seem petty compared to planet-destroying space battles around him. He’s basically Iron Man Jr. at this point.
Also, the plot is kind of silly, with revelations that Tony Stark made some phenomenally stupid decisions for passing on his legacy. There’s also a painfully dumb plot point about Peter Parker being caught in a compromising position.
On the whole, Spider-man Far From Home is pretty good. It’s mid-tier Marvel: plenty of fun with a good cast, but nothing deep or super-interesting.
As usual, the end-credits contain additional scenes. The first is an intriguing plot twist, and the second is dumb.
Aladdin (2019) (*** and a half)
Huh. This was a very pleasant surprise
.
2019 has been the year of Disney live-action remakes, with movies based on Dumbo, The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, Aladdin, and a sequel to the Maleficent. I’m not sure anyone really loves these remakes, but they’re intriguing enough that we’ll all go see them (or at least rent the DVD). I didn’t expect much from Aladdin aside from an OK shot-for-shot remake of the original. To my surprise, it turned out a bit better than that. Yes, the plot is still mostly the same, but changes to the story events and characters manage to keep it fresh and exciting.
Many people insist that the Genie can only be Robin Williams. I’d argue that Genie is actually the easiest character to change. Aladdin has to be a young ambitious teens-to-twenty-something athletic male rascal with a heart of gold, but the Genie can be whatever it wants to be. It doesn’t have to be a stand-up comedian with a penchant for celebrity impressions. Disney’s California theme parks had a stage version with a flamboyant, effeminate Genie. Broadway made him a rotund big-voiced Cab Calloway type. I’ve seen school productions where the Genie is a little girl. All of these interpretations work.
So yes, Will Smith does well as the Genie, using his charm and sitcom experience to drive his own interpretation of the character. Actually, most of the actors are really good, bringing heart and believability to their roles. Will Smith is cool and funny, Mena Massoud shows off his awesome dance moves as Aladdin and Naomi Scott brings a very strong singing voice to Jasmine. I even liked the soft-spoken Jafar, whose quiet fury and nuanced gas lighting is more believable than the obvious villainy of his animated counterpart. The only characters I didn’t like were the Sultan (bland) and the rival prince Anders. It’s fine that Prince Anders is Caucasian; he arrived via ship, so it made sense that he would be from far away. Unfortunately he’s not very funny and his accent is dumb.
The musical numbers are generally very strong, especially the show-stopping “Friend Like Me” and “Prince Ali.” “Prince Ali” probably gained the most in the animation-to-live-action transition, and felt like a cross between a Bollywood musical number and a Disneyland parade.
Naturally, there are things from the animated movie that we would have liked to see: Jafar summoning a giant snake, Abu wielding a sword, and Jasmine’s red outfit (*gets slapped*). Overall, though, I was really happy with this one, and rank is second among the Disney live-action remakes (behind Cinderella).
Dumbo (2019) (***)
Credit where credit is due: Dumbo has a decent approach to its source material, being neither a redundant scene-by-scene remake (Beauty and the Beast) nor a cringe-worthy subversion (Malificent). It re-creates most of the memorable scenes from the original movie, but also adds a lot of new story and character elements. The story is now set in 1919, as Colin Farrell returns home from WWI to care for his children after his wife fell victim to the Spanish Flu pandemic. He attends to a group of circus elephants, including the miraculous flying elephant Dumbo, and eventually must deal with a zealous Coney Island showman played by Michael Keaton. The period pieces work nicely and give the film a unique identity. If only the script were as good as its premise…
Frankly, there are a lot of big, obvious story problems. The first is the pacing, as the movie completes the entire story arc of the original animated movie before moving into entirely new territory. Also, the conflicts feel very contrived. It was one thing for the talking, animated elephants to tease Dumbo over his large ears. When this concept is portrayed in live-action with live actors, it doesn’t make sense. Any real circus would have advertised that it had an unusual elephant with crazy ears! The villains are silly, and frankly I think the whole plot could have been re-written to turn Michael Keaton’s character into a minor secondary villain. Danny Devito’s old-school ringmaster is a much more convincing character, and is also unscrupulous enough to create more believable conflict.
This is frustrating, because there are definitely good parts to Dumbo. The supporting cast of circus performers is fun, especially the multi-tasking strongman. There’s a great bit at the end where they all team up to rescue the elephants. Honestly, the climax should have stopped there, instead of turning into a disaster movie. The CGI animals are really cute, especially Dumbo and Timothy Mouse. The movie also nails several important scenes from the source material: the journey of Casey Jr. kicks the movie off to an excellent start, the two scenes where Dumbo must perform under pressure are tense and exhilarating, and “Baby Mine” is heartbreaking as ever. I would have liked a lot more from the Pink Elephants, I did enjoy what we got (I knew ahead of time that they only made a brief appearance). I’m not surprised the remake omits the supposedly-controversial Crows, but it would have been nice if their song was included.
On the balance, Dumbo is decent. It presents more new material than other recent remakes have, and ended up being better than I expected. Still, the story and script flaws keep me from giving it a strong recommendation.
Alita: Battle Angel (****)
Last year had a movie called Ready Player One, that was frustratingly awesome. If presented a complex and original sci-fi world with great visuals and action scenes. It was a good movie barely held back from greatness by its excessive run-time and “Broken Aesop” script. So close, Spielberg!
I feel similarly about Alita: Battle Angel. There’s a lot of awesomeness in this movie. Tons and tons of awesomeness. The world concept is cool, the character design is outstanding, and it has a lot of great moments. With a more focused script and stronger ending it would probably be my favorite movie of 2019. Again... so close!
Alita contains tremendous amounts of backstory regarding a war with Mars and floating utopian cities that depend on the planet surface to supply food. Most of that serves as context for a story about a good cyborg fighting bad cyborgs who steal human body parts (an interesting consequence of man-machine interfaces) and are acting on instruction from Edward Norton (A ha! I knew he was up to no good!). Oh, but there’s also a subplot about Alita being a sports star. And she has a love story. And her father figure is a cyborg-hunter whose ex-wife works for the bad guy. Or did she? Geez, maybe I shouldn’t wait a few weeks before writing up these reviews. Alita’s plot is kind of hard to keep straight!
Despite the unfocused plotting, I really enjoyed Alita’s world creation, characters, and brutal action scenes. Alita presents a fresh and innovative sci-fi setting, avoiding the usual comparisons to Star Wars, Blade Runner, and other well-established franchises. All of the characters have interesting visual designs (especially Ed Skrein’s character) and the actors are well-cast. I’ve never been a fan of Christoph Waltz, but Alita Battle Angel is one of his better performances, and one that doesn’t seem to rely on his odd accent.
Alita: Battle Angel is really entertaining and provides a lot of unique visuals. It doesn't fufill its amazing potential, but comes close enough to be very satisfying.
Booksmart (***)
Hmm… I’m kinda torn on this one.
Yes, Booksmart is funny. Really funny. Probably the funniest teen comedy to come along in a while. The premise revolves around “booksmart” girls who are approaching graduation, believing that all their hard work and good behavior is about to pay off. While they are admitted to prestigious colleges, they find out that the “slacker” kids also got into big-name schools. This causes over-achiever “Molly” to freak out, and she drags her BFF along for a wild night as they try to crash the trendiest party in town.
This is a great premise, and one that actually rings kind of true. The social divisions of high school and the realization that the “bad” kids might not get their comeuppance is a great source of comedy and character drama. The situations that follow are also pretty inventive. The plot of the movie actually feels a bit like a classical odyssey, but with different high school stereotypes standing in for the various monsters and encounters.
On the other hand, I can’t shake the feeling that Booksmart is a gigantic step backwards from thoughtful teen movies like Lady Bird, Edge of Seventeen, Eighth Grade, and Perks of Being a Wallflower. The film was off to a great start by revealing that Molly’s enemies were also college-bound, which could have led to a deeper exploration of their characters and a realization that FOMO is irrational because the cool kids actually aren’t having more fun than you. Instead, the supporting cast turn into cliché party animals for the rest of the movie. Meanwhile, the (mostly bad) soundtrack is WAY overplayed, and every single character swears up a storm. Seriously, why do these “smart” girls talk like uncultured dumbasses?
So… I’m not sure. The characters and situations are hilarious, but the dialogue could have been a LOT better and the direction is mediocre. On the balance, Booksmart is great for what it tries to be, but I would have liked it more if it actually tried to be smart.
Barry Lyndon (****)
“Even I forget what this is a reference to!”-Simpsons Comicbook Guy
As the story goes, Stanley Kubrick really wanted to make a period piece set in Europe and thought about making a Napoleon biopic. Eventually, he pivoted to adapting a novel called “The Luck of Barry Lyndon,” the story of an Irish rogue and his misadventures across continental Europe during the reign of King George III.
Barry Lyndon is a very beautiful movie, with many landscapes and outstanding cinematography. Kubrick achieved a very natural look for it, using natural sunlight and candlelight whenever possible. This is important because the movie is more focused on the world rather than specific characters. Barry himself is the only consistent character, as a long series of enemies, love interests, allies, wars, and countries float by him. It’s a very strange odyssey. You never quite know what to hope for, but it’s interesting seeing where things will go.
Oddly enough, the main problem with this 3-hour epic is the main character. Barry is a terrible person, and he’s not quite interesting or tragic enough to work as an anti-hero. He might have worked better as the protagonist of a sillier and more fanciful story. As the serious protagonist of an oh-so-serious Stanley Kubrick historical epic, lead actor Ryan O’Neil doesn’t quite seem to know what to do with this character.
On the balance, Barry Lyndon is a highly compelling movie, and one that actually kept my attention for all three hours. The tense dueling scenes are very engaging, and I was excited for most of the movie, even as I was eager for the main character to finally get his comeuppance.
The Hustler (**)
Booooooooring!
Ugh. Some classics hold up, and some just don’t. The Hustler is one that doesn’t.
The story is that Paul Newman is a hotshot pool player who makes lots of money by gambling. He plays against a guy named “Minnesota Fats” and they play pool for a million years. At least, that’s how long it feels. In the story, they’re supposed to be playing for many hours straight, which starts to stretch plausibility. Are people really still engaged and betting on this pool marathon? BTW, how do all of these gamblers have so much money, given that the only people who play them are other gamblers?
There’s also a love interest who meets a tragic end and a badguy played by George C. Scott. The pieces are all there for an interesting drama, but it had to be about people who play pool for hours on end. I enjoy a good game of pool now and then, but it isn't that much fun to watch on screen.
Sonic the Hedgehog (preview)
Paramount: Here is our trailer for Sonic the Hedgehog.
Everyone: Boo! Sonic’s design is horrifying! Your movie looks bad and you should feel bad!
(6 months later)
Paramount: We’ve heard your complaints and completely re-worked the CGI on Sonic. Also, here’s a trailer that actually explains his motivations and has a few decent jokes.
Everyone: Wait… what?!
Paramount: Oh, and we’ve also got the Green Hill Zone, better music, and action scenes that actually look decent.
Everyone: You listened to our complaints?
Paramount: Well… yeah.
Everyone: Are you sure you don’t want to insult your target audience and blame Russian trollbots for all the criticism?
Paramount: Let me level with you… Stalwart franchises like Terminator and X-men are bombing left and right because movie fans don’t like what they see and stopped caring. We can’t go down that road if we actually want to make any money.
Everyone: I guess that makes sense. We’re just not used to this…