30 June 2022

2022 Mid-Year Movie Review!

Well folks it's that quasi-magical time - time to add up the movies we've watched this year! But half! We keep track of everything right here, and what would be the point if we didn't get obsessive with the data? As usual, it really felt like I was doing better. But here we go.

We're at a straight 100 films so far. Now, that's well ahead of last year's 93 at the mid-point, but...I really did think I was on a better pace. I hit 200 on the dot in 2019, but the past two years have been around around 180. But the high point is still 249 from 2018. I didn't really think I was on that kind of pace, but I thought maybe closer. 100 is good for halfway, it's way more into that range.

However, I'm at 72 new films, which is waaay better than I've ever been. Pretty pumped about that.

My total streaming percentage is also 81%, which is gnarly. Again, the most I've ever been is 74% last year.

Amazon Prime4
Disney+4
HBOMax28
Netflix Streaming19
Netflix DVD12
TV2
Theater5
Paramount+4
Peacock4
Planes6
Other Streaming7
Hulu5

HBOMax continues its assault, followed by Netflix. I'm struck that everything else just kind of exists in this spot behind, with four or five films each. Other services I've jumped on include Apple+, Tubi, XUMO, Pluto, it's getting all kind of wacky. Five in theater so far, which is pretty good, and let's face it, cable TV just isn't really a thing. I wonder if I'll ever go a year without it at all? I dunno, hotel stays are really what does it for me.

1930s1
1970s5
1980s9
1990s13
2000s13
2010s22
2020s37

I really thought I was pushing the decades, but I guess not. Compared to last year's midpoint, I'm actually up on 80s, 90s, and 00s, with the same amount of 70s.

Best films so far:

Okay, let's do this in two ways, first, the ones in 2022 that I genuinely saw in 2022. I've only seen 14 films, and two of those are Jackass Forever, so let's whittle that down to ten. Nah, I actually can't do that, let's go with the Top Five for halfway, with two consolation winners:

#1RRR
#2Northman
#3Jackass Forever
#4
Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
#5
Bob's Burgers Movie
#6Ambulance
#7The Batman

Check out this list, dude. Damn I need some more female stories in my life. This is really rough. There's...a slight multiculturalism there at least? But RRR and The Northman will surely battle it out by year's end, I'd be hard pressed to think of a film that could surpass either in my head.

Best non-2022 films seen for the first time in 2022:

#1Zola (2021)
#2Red Rocket (2021)
#3The Last Duel (2021)
#4Tangerine (2015)
#5Nightmare Alley (2021)
#6The Square (2017)
#7The Mighty Quinn (1989)
#8The Elephant Man (1980)
#9Desperately Seeking Susan (1985)
#10The Sugarland Express (1974)

Yeah, let 2022 be the year that I discovered Sean Baker. Anyway, as always I'm really curious to see how my tastes and memory might shift as we reach the next six months. And jeez, as I'm looking at it, during my 52 for '22 escapade, is The Square and The Mighty Quinn the best I'm getting out of it? I mean, those movies rule, but dang. What a stupid exercise. But that's what it's about, right - just watching films even if they end up terrible just so we KNOW they're terrible.

Stay tuned, folks, much more to come - and I'm sure at some point I'll watch a 2022 film with a female protagonist.


24 June 2022

52 for '22: Ned Kelly

MovieNed Kelly (2003)
Method: Netflix DVD


The only magic trick here is how my pants disappeared so fast

Why Did I watch this?

This is another one of those old films that has been burning a hole in my queue forever. January 15th, 2010! I think I had jumped on this after we all re-appraised Heath Ledger after The Dark Knight (2008). I know, I know, that re-appraisal should have come after Brokeback Mountain (2005), but in my misguided youth I didn't see that movie for how great it was. Anyway, suddenly there was this dude who had passed away who might have been a greater actor than we all though, since we were really just stuck on 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) and A Knight's Tale (2001). I was a big fan of Brothers Grimm (2005) though, that was really my personal Ledger access point...

Anyway, Ned Kelly was praised as one great example of his rise to acting and it had always caught my eye. I also was just in Ireland that had some bits about him and was also reading about Australian history for some reason. Anyway, this is one of those films that had always jumped out at me.

What Did I know ahead of time?

Have you been following this whole series? I didn't know shit about this. I was like, Ned Kelly is Australian, right? Or is he Irish? Is he Irish-Australian? I was excited to see Orlando Bloom and Joel Edgerton pop up. Joel Edgerton is secretly in like, every bad early 2000s movies until he became a respected actor. And he's not bad in this, either. But I knew this was a Heath Ledger prestige attempt about the Ned Kelly Gang, which is some old gang that did something somewhere. I know, dear reader, I can't believe I run a film blog, either.

How Was It?

This is not a good movie. I mean...it's FINE. It largely feels flat and unmotivated, with really standard shot composition throughout and a score that sounds generic for a period biopic and doesn't really vary throughout the whole picture. Maybe I would have clued in if I knew more or was into the Legend of Ned Kelly in anyway, but for just some dude with no connection to apparently one of the most famous Australians of all time, I entered it not knowing what to expect and just watched the film teeter and stumble into its main story for about the first thirty aimless minutes, and then keep charging from there without much to explore with character depth or development. Then he dies and it just sort of ends.

I really think there could have been something cool here. Kelly was larger than life, and his final stand wearing literal homemade armour is intriguing and awesome. It's treated weirdly matter-of-fact here. With some pizzazz or stylized action, humor, or dynamic or creative camera, this could have stood out. It's tough to watch this right after RRR (2022), which also features revolutionaries unknown to me, but elevates that material into the stratosphere.

It's just boring. I'm not sure if they tried to stick too close to actual history, it seems like it. But there are a lot of characters who come in and out for long stretches, and it's tough to have anyone to latch on to. Kerry Condon and Naomi Watts are pretty thankless and could have been much more interesting Same with pretty much everyone else who isn't Heath Ledger. The cast includes the aforementioned Bloom and Edgerton, but also Geoffrey Rush, who snarls here, but is never a really pervasive threat, mostly because he enters the picture with about thirty minutes to go. We just don't really see the stakes or the set-ups and pay-offs that makes movies engaging.

But we should talk about Heath. He totally commands this movie. This dude had insane range. I was thinking more about the mid-2000s heartthrobs that he would share his films with. Bale, Gyllenhaal, Farrell, Depp, Law, Bloom, Edgerton, Clive Owen. Many of these have obviously gone on to great success, but looking back, it really does feel like Ledger was the best of them. Maybe that's in hindsight and an overexultion of the deceased, but he just feels like their king. Like he emerges as the most interesting and most dominant of all of them. I'm curious where he would have ended up these days. MCU? I know his Joker is his biggest role but that hasn't stopped others like Bale, Affleck, and Reynolds from playing multiple heroes across properties.

I always like to point out how Terry Gilliam replaced Ledger in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009) with Farrell, Depp, and Jude Law, and all three of those actors have appeared in the Fantastic Beasts franchise, with the former two also playing the same character. Maybe that's where Ledger would have ended up - Grindelwald instead of Mads Mikkelsen in the latest movie...

Anyway, he's great in Ned Kelly, he has charm (although the film doesn't let him show it off enough), masculine dominance while also chastising his brothers for not doing enough housework, and a presence that commands everyone else in the film. It's really a great showcase for him. Unfortunately it's just so boring. I feel like the low budget shines through, there aren't really a ton of dynamic action scenes, more often just talking, hiding, or posturing.

I clearly didn't enjoy this. It was fun to see Orlando Bloom, too, although he's far better when he doesn't have to act. This came out four months before Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003), which also featured Geoffrey Rush! Bloom was already known as Legolas, but it's amazing how he crushed these monster franchises and hasn't really done much since. Is he just a pretty face with an old school swashbuckler sensibility?! Ned Kelly would suggest...yes. Yes he is.

This really has a great premise and the historical figure has been subject of many films over the years. I haven't seen them, but I'm curious what a more creative and dynamic director would do with this material that's become a national symbol of Australia. I did like the repeated references to wombats.

17 June 2022

52 for '22: The Fog of War

Movie: The Fog of War (2003)
Method: Netflix DVD


That memory's gettin a bit foggy, too!


Why Did I watch this?

I finally actually looked up when I added this to my Netflix DVD queue! January 10th, 2010. I don't know the exact date I pulled the trigger on Netflix, but I do that my first ever rental was received on January 8th, 2010. So this is an old one, one of the originals I put on my queue. I have no idea what first caught my eye about this. Maybe it was a fan of Errol Morris, although I've only seen The Thin Blue Line (1988) and The Unknown Known (2013), both way after I added this to my list. Maybe it was because it won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2003? It was kind of a big deal at the time, although certainly not a mainstream blockbuster. I positively have no idea how this got on my radar, but when I came up with the idea to do this series, I knew it had to be there!

What Did I know ahead of time?

I knew it featured Robert McNamara as a talking head interview and that he was a former Secretary of Defense for the United States of America. I knew it was a long talking head interview with him, similar to The Unknown Known. And I knew it jumped into some pretty heady political ideas. And Vietnam. That was about it.

How Was It?

This was pretty good. It is surely an Errol Morris film, the classical score (Philip Glass!), the archive footage, lots of tables and data, graphics, and a relatively simple talking head set up (it was actually decently complex), that gives off an easy one-on-one intimate feeling. The film has a framing device of eleven lessons learned from McNamara (indeed that's the Borat-like much longer title of the film).

They range from things he learned in the Air Force during WWII, as brief president of the Ford Motor Company, and most notably, as Defense Secretary for both Kennedy and Johnson during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the early stages of the Vietnam War. Where he's interesting is how much he's changed since those days yet you can see where he is very much the same.

He defends his Cold War actions as just that - part of a Cold War where they were constantly terrified of nuclear annihilation and posturing against the Soviet Union. You can remarkably understand the rationale for the Vietnam War, but also acknowledge that that rationale was flawed and misguided. It's a nice way of placating the inherent War Hawk nature with a man who knows that war is hell.

There's this constant pull and tug, though. He acknowledges at one point that he should probably be considered a war criminal, and mourns the hundreds of thousands of deaths that came about because of war. But he also focuses on statistical analysis, prioritizing bombing targets, plane efficiency, and empathizing with the enemy. It's that last bit that's interesting. They were successful in empathizing with Khrushchev and avoiding nuclear war in October of 1962. They were not successful in understanding how their enemy thought in Vietnam, and it's bold for him to say outright that their independence movement had nothing to do with China or Russia. Americans failed to understand that, so they failed in the war - namely, getting involved in the first place.

You can't help reading into this a little, considering it came out in 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war. In hindsight it makes us think less of what might be the most futile of all American Wars. Who were we posturing against? Who is our enemy? No one seems to know. McNamara admits that they had faulty intelligence from the Gulf of Tonkin (tho one real attack, one not so real) that pushed the US into further war. This is all straight up Iraq stuff. He says again and again to not repeat the mistakes of the past and considering historical context, it's impossible to miss what he's getting at.

I don't know much about McNamara, I know he wasn't all that popular in his day, what with being an architect of the Vietnam War and all, but it does seem like he was alone in the room pleading for caution and President Johnson did sack him for it. However, he is also clearly covering his own ass and his own legacy. It's hard to pin him down. It really did remind me a lot of Rumsfeld in The Unknown Known. You go in wanting answers, but these dudes aren't going to just lay down everything for us. They're squirmy. McNamara straight up doesn't answer a handful of questions. You walk away a little unsatisfied, but still with tremendous insight about how these men operate and how it affected the entire century.

Morris is a reliably good director, you can tell he lets his subject become comfortable, but he never lightens up on asking the tough questions. I enjoyed this quite a bit - I'm not sure if it deserved the twelve-year wait in my queue, but very happy at the end of it! 

Related Posts with Thumbnails