Tom and Jerry - Why are we still doing this crap?

 

DON'T stream it on HBO Max 

    I have commented many times before on this blog that the perception of animation here in the west, and by extension Hollywood, is that it is a medium intended strictly for children, or at least Hollywood executives "idea" of children. As such, most animated entertainment (save for PIXAR and Laika) seems only permitted for production if it has recognizable intellectual property, will be super bright and colorful, have wacky slapstick, lazy writing, non-existent direction, and constantly undermine everyone's intelligence in the audience. In other words, it has to treat everyone in the audience, especially the children, as if they're stupid. 

    This is not a movie. It is a rehashed template of a seemingly endless assembly line manufacturing products that do the same thing as their predecessors. The only notable difference is getting progressively worse. 

    The story (if we can call it that) follows a young woman named Kayla (Chloë Grace Moretz). She recently moved to where every one of these awful kid's movies takes place, New York City, in search of her calling. After getting fired from her job, she goes into the prestigious Royal Crown Hotel's lobby and successfully cons a woman out of her resume to pass as her own to land a job at the resort. This happened to be unusual timing, as a wealthy celebrity couple is preparing for an extravagant wedding at the hotel and must go off without a hitch. Made all the more challenging when Jerry the Mouse decides to move in and make the resort his new home. Prompting Kayla to hire Tom the Cat to hunt the mouse down. From there, the film devolves into a series of predictable hijinks, unfunny jokes, and zero signs of things like character growth or thematic elements that might have otherwise made this ninety-minute monstrosity resemble an actual movie. 

    I hated this film after just five seconds! The moment I saw the words "A Tim Story Film" on screen, I knew immediately that I was in for nothing but pain. 

    For those who don't know or need a quick refresher, Tim Story is a Hollywood director who should really be talked about more often in discussions of one-note, occasionally mean-spirited, hack directors on par with the likes of Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams. When directing the first official Fantastic 4 movie back in 2005, this is the same man who treated actress Jessica Alba like absolute garbage. When you openly insist that your leading lady never smiles during takes because you think it makes her look less hot and demand that the screenwriters contrive excuses to have her appear in her underwear as many times as possible, you wonder how and why this man keeps getting work as a director. Then you remember how apathetic Hollywood still is towards women, and you stop wondering. 

    Please allow me to get this out of my system: Tim Story is a talentless, sexist, and boring director with no sense of individual voice or artistic integrity. This new Tom and Jerry movie is proof that Tim Story has and likely never will evolve as an artist or person. There is not a single thing this movie does right or with any kind of care. To list everything this film does wrong or terribly would take all day. So, here is a shortlist of five things that actually happen in this movie for saving everyone some time. 

5: 

This film's world is populated by animated animals and food items similar to the classic Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. It is never utilized in a clever or narratively justified manner other than to provide a weak excuse to have Tom and Jerry appear in their famous cartoon-style appearance rather than create photorealistic versions of them. Which would still not have been preferable! 

4: 

Early in the film, a cartoon dog character is introduced by barking loudly at Jerry the Mouse, prompting his owner to tug on his leash and proclaim to another character, "I'm so sorry, he's just a little animated." I can't decide if that's clever or stupid! 

3: 

Every joke in this film, not about Tom and Jerry trying to hit each other with something, is a dull variation of what I like to call "Awkward Moment Humor." Characters constantly embarrass themselves by continuously talking awkwardly, only to not realize how much they're embarrassing themselves. This kind of humor has never been funny and has become increasingly dominant in modern comedy films. It needs to stop! 

2: 

Every other frame in this movie makes it abundantly clear that it was intended for a 3D presentation by constantly having characters and/or objects flying at the screen. This has been and always will be one of the most juvenile uses of 3D. A gimmick that has rarely enhanced the theatrical experience with no modern purpose other than to increase ticket sales in China. 

1: 

Kayla, the protagonist, lies and cheats her way into a job she is not qualified for and is never punished for her actions, nor does she ever learn a valuable lesson. This gives many toxic impressions to children and results in an unsympathetic protagonist. Thereby not providing the audience with a sufficient reason to care about anything happening on screen. Not to mention, the rest of the characters are complete idiots! 

    This movie is an abomination, a mockery, and one of the greatest insults to humanity I have ever forced myself to sit through. If you have an HBO Max subscription, avoid this movie at all costs. If, however, for some reason beyond your control, you are forced to sit through this travesty, a two-drink minimum is not only recommended; it is required! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

What's in a Frame? The strange aspect ratio for The Snyder Cut

    

    Zack Snyder has become a household name in the world of divided opinions. On the one hand, he is a fascinating visual artist with a unique eye for composition and style. On the other hand, he's also aggressively masculine (the toxic kind) and incredibly one-dimensional with his narrative preferences (assuming he has any). While I am not a fan of Zack Snyder or his work other than Watchmen (mostly), I believe that he has talent and skill that is wasted in narrative filmmaking and would be better served in comic book art, which was, at one time, an artistic direction that Mr. Snyder had considered. Mainly due to his tendency to prioritize visual impact over emotional narrative investment. 

    Recently, Zack Snyder returned to the spotlight with his upcoming director's cut of the infamous Justice League film, popularly known as The Snyder Cut. Long story short, Snyder was in post-production for the film when, due to a tragic incident, he forced himself out of the director's chair and away from completing his vision. Prompting another director, Joss Whedon, to step in and completely change the film at the last minute. Resulting in a trainwreck that, while still not coherent, was still somewhat watchable and entertaining, however ironically. 

    While I intend to reserve judgment before watching this film, and I have every intention of watching it for review, there is at least one aspect of the film I believe I can contribute my own two bits about, and that is Snyder's unusual choice of aspect ratio. 

    For those who don't know or may need a quick refresher, the aspect ratio refers to the black bars on the top and bottom or left and right of the screen when watching a movie or television show. It is the proportion of the height and width of the screen used to create the image. Typically, they are identified by a set of numbers identifying the number of units a screen encompasses. For example, an old-fashioned CRT television screen has an aspect ratio of 4:3, as in 4 units wide by 3 units tall. Modern HD and 4K television screens have a native aspect ratio of 16:9, as in 16 units wide by 9 units tall. 

    Now, cinema has a few options for aspect ratios identified by a different set of numbers. For the sake of staying on topic and not getting overly technical, allow me to simplify. Some cinematic aspect ratios have bigger black bars than others. One of the less-discussed qualities of aspect ratios is their ability to enhance the story's presentation. 

    For an apropos example, consider the Amazon Original series, Homecoming. 

    This story about memory loss therapy is told in a non-linear style. The first season of the show jumps between two different periods of time, which is cleverly differentiated by two aspect ratios: The past events are depicted in a modern traditional 16:9 ratio while the present events are presented in 4:3 (roughly). This provides the audience with an easily recognizable visual queue for the two different timelines. It also creates a healthy dose of audience engagement as it causes you to wonder why there are two ratios in the first place. Without spoiling anything for those who have not yet seen it, which I highly recommend you do, the show provides a satisfactory and clever explanation. 

    When different aspect ratios are used properly, it can create a unique experience and enhance the narrative. However, when they are used poorly, they can only distract and frustrate the viewer. 

    Case in point; Transformers: The Last Knight. 

    Setting aside the numerous problems with this movie as a whole, one of its greatest issues is its misuse of multiple aspect ratios. This film was shot on at least six different digital cameras, all of which appeared to have a specific aspect ratio programmed into their framing, and they didn't bother to check or correct this in post-production. I kid you not; in at least one twenty-second scene of the movie, the aspect ratio changed with every sequential shot over a dozen times. As far as I could tell, there was no narrative or technical justification for it other than the filmmakers were too lazy to decide what ratio they wanted before they hit the record button and didn't care enough to decide on a ratio before releasing the film to theaters. If this was an experiment of some sort, it failed miserably! 

    This brings me back to today's discussion because, while I understand Zack Snyder's reason for his choice in aspect ratio for his director's cut of the film, I disagree with them and maybe find them to be just a bit unethical. 

    According to Zack Snyder himself, the reason for this artistic choice pertains to the use of a wonderful film format known as IMAX. 

    Before I venture any further, I would like to say that I love, repeat, love IMAX! Of the many ways to enjoy a full cinematic, theatrical experience, IMAX is the absolute best! It is the largest and highest quality option of celluloid film capture and presentation possible. It is, indeed, an experience. 

    Zack Snyder grew fond of the IMAX format after using it for the infamous fight scene in Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. He loved how it could capture the full frame of an image that was as tall as it was wide. And the extra amount of space within the image presents a glorious display when projected onto an IMAX screen, which is typically the size of a small building. In case you're wondering, the best IMAX screen in the Bay Area, at least in my opinion, is at the Metreon in San Francisco. 

    Now, at any other point in time, this creative choice would be much appreciated and bold. It is sporadic for an entire movie to be captured and presented in such a large format. However, given the timing of this film's release, along with its ultimate destination, I can't help but feel as though this choice is a bit misguided. 

    Because of the continued and dreaded impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has gone on for significantly longer than it otherwise might have had the powers that be at the time actually done something about it before losing half a million innocent people to the virus (sorry to be such a downer there), social events like attending movie theaters, especially ones with IMAX, is still not encouraged at this time. Yes, some of them are open and, to their credit, are trying their damndest to stay in business and practice COVID safety guidelines. Even so, it is still a dangerous and potentially lethal activity right now, and I believe it is unconscionable to encourage. And proclaiming that your movie is intended to be best viewed on the big screen when it is potentially deadly to do so is irresponsible and selfish! 

    There's also the fact that this movie, however much you're looking forward to or dreading having to watch, will not only have a theatrical release but will also be made available on HBO Max, the premium streaming service that will feature all future new releases from Warner Brothers for the whole year. While most households today have a modest size television with a decent sound system, not everyone who relies on streaming services for their entertainment watches it on that device. Some of them are watching on their computer, tablet, video game console, and even their phones. Which is the worst screen for enjoying a movie, but I digress. 

    This creative decision, which would otherwise seem bold and interesting, comes off to me as the demands of a petulant child refusing to accommodate his product's present times' safety needs and ultimate destination. While I applauded Zack Snyder for wanting to do something different and hopefully encourage others to do the same, I can't help but feel a lack of good creative compromise. This may be a minor thing to focus on and discuss, but sometimes even the smallest things can have the greatest impact. It could very well be true that Zack Snyder did not intend to encourage reckless movie-going, but based on his reasoning for his creative choices and their timing, it's too difficult not to suspect. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Stay safe. 

The Three Stooges Were Never Funny

 

       As a kid, my parents introduced me to a plethora of classical comedic entertainment. Chief among them were some of the greatest comedic duos like Laural & Hardy and Abbot & Costello. Another comedic group from around that same time was a trio of goofballs known as The Three Stooges. From 1922 to 1970, these three schmucks tried to put the "slap" in slapstick. While I am glad that they provided boundless joy to some viewers, I must admit that I am not one of those fans. In my honest opinion, I have never found The Three Stooges to be at all funny. Energetic and somewhat engaging, maybe, but never funny. 

    For those of you who don't know or need a quick refresher, The Three Stooges was a comedy trio (Larry, Curly, and Mo) who would get into a series of hilarious hijinks and unfortunate situations, often resulting in one of the three idiots suffering physical punishment from each other. A smack across the head here and a poke in the eye there, typically resulting in Curly (the bald one) uttering one of his few catchphrases such as "OH, WISEGUY, EH? or "VOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOVO." In short, they were attempts at creating a live-action cartoon, complete with nonsensical physics and exaggerated violence, not unlike The Loony Toons at the time. 

    While I recognize that aspects of their humor can work when executed properly, in my opinion, The Three Stooges were never great at their execution. Here are a few reasons as to why. 

Repetition. 

    One of my issues with their humor is how needlessly and aggravatingly repetitive it all is. Every joke that the Stooges perform is a minor variation of one character getting punished by another via a violent gesture such as a punch or a slap. Granted, this was not the bulk of their humor, as they did perform bits where their comedy was more situational, such as trying to run a day spa with no prior experience or first-hand knowledge. Still, regardless of their situation, their punchlines were always the same. At least, they have been in the episodes of their material I've seen.

Their slapstick doesn't hit.

     Consider for a moment Laural & Hardy; one of the aforementioned comedy duos from earlier. In my opinion, they perfected the art of slapstick. Whenever one of them gets hurt, it's typically the result of an unforeseen accident or badly timed move. For example, in their most famous short film, The Music Box, where are heroes are tasked with hauling a boxed Piano up a massive flight of stairs, there comes a moment of excellently timed slapstick. Once they reach the top, they don't realize it just yet, because Laural doesn't notice that he's walking up a small set of steps leading into a nearby fountain. Before he steps into the water, his partner, Hardy, stops to proclaim, "I can't make it!" Only for Laural to retort with, "Don't weaker now, we've only got a couple more steps. Now both together!" Then, right on queue, Laural plunges back first into the fountain, getting completely soaked. 

    This was the kind of humor that Laural & Hardy excelled at: seemingly unintentional situations resulting in hilarious consequences. It is also the kind of comedy that The Three Stooges tried and failed to emulate! At least, in my opinion. 

     While the intrepid trio did find themselves in unintentional situations resulting in consequences, they were always the same: some variation of one person getting hit by another. Seeing someone get hit over the head by another person is, at least to me, not funny. Now, seeing someone get hit over the head by a falling object as a result of his slamming the door too hard, that's comedy! Because it's unforeseen, surprising, and maybe a little bit karmic. 

    Plus, there are numerous ways to provide a sense of variety when the slapstick results in proper accidents rather than deliberate violence. This, incidentally, brings me to my final point. 

Personality 

    Rowan Atkinson, the comedic talent behind Mr. Bean, Not The Nine'oClock News, and Black Addar, specializes in a comedic style focusing on attitude. In his own words, "It's not about doing funny things, but doing something quite simple in a funny way." Laural & Hardy, and by extension Abbot & Costello, had distinctive personalities that were both sympathetic and relatable. Sure, one of them would occasionally be a little selfish or mean-spirited, but it was always understandable and never permanent. 

    On the other hand, The Three Stooges all had one personality: that of an abusive jackass who thinks he's smarter than everyone else despite having the intelligence of a seven-year-old. 

    Now, I recognize that comedy, like all forms of the arts, is subjective and open to interpretation, and I admit that there were times when the stooges made me giggle a bit. I'm merely expressing my feelings on what I find to be funny. Anyone can fart on stage, but it's not automatically funny. Now, a guy who doesn't realize he's farting on stage, that's comedy. 

Shadow in the Cloud - Bad Shot, Soldier!

 

Rent it on Amazon, Apple TV, YouTube, and RedBox 

(Though I highly recommend you don’t)

        Shadow in the Cloud should be a whole lot better than it actually is. It stars a talented actress, it has a screenplay co-written by Max Landis, and it tries so hard to offer a feminist voice. Unfortunately, all of those otherwise talented elements and good intentions are violently overshadowed by tunnel-vision direction, repetitive & ugly dialogue, and a plot device that serves so little purpose that if it were removed from the movie entirely, practically nothing would be lost. To say this movie was disappointing would be a gross understatement. It was aggravatingly awful and unintentionally funny for all the wrong reasons. This is one plane ride I wish I never took. 

Set in WW2, the story follows a young woman named Maude (Chloe Grace Moretz), who has official orders to board an army plane with a mysterious package as part of a top-secret mission. After dealing with the aggressively sexist soldier boys, she is forced into the lower gun turret of the plane: a veritable death trap on account of their infamous flimsiness. While doing her best to deal with the overtly sexist soldiers on the plane, she notices a few enemy planes stalking them from the clouds. Despite her efforts to warn the others of a potential threat, her words are disregarded as “hysteria” and promptly ignored. It’s not until she takes action by firing at the enemy plane as it attacks returning fire that the misogynist idiots finally take her seriously. This is especially helpful since, in addition to dealing with the enemy planes, they also have to contend against a mysterious monster tearing apart the plane. Will they survive the terror at ten thousand feet? I don’t know, but I do know that Rod Serling must be rolling in his grave! 

This movie does more things wrong than it does well. While the attempted commentary about sexism in the military is appreciated, and the story's general idea is genuinely interesting, its overall execution betrays everything the movie wants to do. 

        The first issue is that over two-thirds of the film takes place inside the bottom turret, with the camera staying on Maude and her occasional P.O.V (Point Of View). This is a visual tactic normally reserved for clever character pieces working with a limited budget, i.e., films like 7500, or Buried, or a good episode of The Twilight Zone. While it is a clever idea that can create visceral entertainment when executed properly, there is no justification for its use in this story. Since the film clearly had a big enough budget for WW2 era sets & costumes, six additional cast members, and special-effects for aerial combat, plus a monster, there is no narratively sound reason, nor technical justification, for nearly two-thirds of the movie to remain in a single isolated location. There was plenty of opportunity for scenes with the other actors to cut between Maude’s isolation to create visual variety. Instead, we’re stuck with Maude trying to duke it out against a giant creature while trapped in a bubble made of metal and glass. Exciting! (he said sarcastically) 

Speaking of the monster, it is probably the most useless plot device in the entire film. It serves no purpose other than to artificially inflate the tension. This is unnecessary since there’s already a ton of tension in the story on account of, you know, the war! Not to mention, the monster is foolish. No, I don’t mean it's a dumb creature; I mean everything about it is utterly stupid! It looks like a giant Bat but doesn’t seem to have wings, as evidenced by it crawling all around the Plane like a Spider, so you think it’s an earthbound monster, only for it to suddenly reveal its wings hidden under its arms when Maude tries to force it off the plane. Prompting you to ask yourself why was it clinging to the Plane for dear life if it can fly!? It makes no sense and reeks of a massive case of writer's convenience. 

While all of the terrible aspects of this film overshadow any good graces it might have otherwise had, there were, at least, a few things about the movie I did like. 

As I mentioned earlier, Chloe Grace Moretz is a talented actress, and she carries the movie on her shoulders as well as she can, despite the terrible material she has to work with. At least a few lines of the dialogue were genuinely bad-ass, and I liked how the whole film was going for a homage to cheesy exploitation schlock from the 70s and 80s with its synthesizer music score and grainy cinematography. All of these good elements deserve to be in a better movie. 

     Shadow in the Cloud is an absolute mess! It’s filled to the brim with wrong-headed creative choices, overly repetitive scenes, and no real reason to care. Not to mention awful special-effects that show how hard they tried and failed to stretch their budget. If you want to watch a good WW2 movie with a supernatural twist, go watch Overlord instead. At least that movie provides the visceral satisfaction of watching Nazis getting their butts whipped. 

Skip this one. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.

The Professor and the Madman - Insanely Incredible

 

Stream it on Netflix 

Rent it on Amazon, YouTube, and RedBox 

        The Professor and the Madman seem like a film that is easy to dismiss. It stars two talented actors who have a history of uncomfortable beliefs and actions (to put it mildly). It was co-written by the guy who made Zardoz, and the plot centers around the early stages of the Oxford Dictionary’s creation. However, being a firm believer in separating art from the artist and out of genuine interest in seeing this film, I finally got around to watching it, and I am proud to report that I absolutely enjoyed every moment of it. This is a pleasant surprise of a film with likable characters, poetic writing, and profound performances from the cast, especially from the two leads. Make no mistake; this is a film that means business in all the best possible ways. 

Taking place in the 1870s, the story follows an aged linguistic expert named James Murray (Mel Gibson), who has been tasked with heading the first step towards creating the Oxford Dictionary: a collection of every word in the English language along with its definition, origin, and examples of its use. A massive undertaking that Murray tackles by enlisting people's aid, far and wide, by having them submit a fixed set of words based on their knowledge and experience. This catches the attention of one Dr. William Chester Minor (Sean Penn), a former army surgeon suffering from severe PTSD induced schizophrenia (undiagnosed, of course) and serving time in the insane asylum for a murder he genuinely regrets. As it turns out, Dr. Minor has an expansive knowledge of poetry and literature and offers his aid to Mr. Murray. In their collaboration, the two men become fast friends and embark on an emotional journey that will forever change their lives. 

What makes this film so surprisingly excellent is its humanity. The plot about creating the Oxford Dictionary is little more than a means of exploring the more compelling story of friendship, forgiveness, redemption, and love. Guiding the audience through its emotional roller coaster with surprisingly likable characters and dialogue that sings with elegance and poise. All of which is delivered by two high caliber actors along with an equally talented supporting cast. 

Probably my only issue with the film is aspects of Sean Penn’s performance. While he does his usual fine job, he occasionally makes vocal choices that make his dialogue too difficult to understand. It’s not a case of low audio quality or terrible sound mixing, but most likely a case of the director not wanting to tell Sean Penn that he needs to clarify his delivery. 

        The Professor and the Madman is a must-watch. It’s a beautiful and human story that will entertain and enrich your life, like any good movie worth it's salt should. Please check this one out. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Retro Review - Magic (Trigger Warning: ventriloquist dummy in the poster)

Stream it on HBO Max 

Rent it on Amazon and Apple TV 

        Recently, I decided to renew my subscription to HBO Max. It turns out that there was a whole lot more content on this little streaming service that indeed proved its money's worth. One of the many classic films available is a little character-driven thriller from 1978 titled Magic, the story of a struggling entertainer with a dangerous psychological condition. I admit it is not an entirely original concept, but it is one of the earlier versions of the classic narrative and probably one of the best. While it suffers from a few technical aspects that bothered me a bit (more on that in a moment), its overall quality and charm were enough to overshadow them. This is one classic that deserves more discussion in film school than any of the usual suspects.

The story follows a young entertainer named Corky (Anthony Hopkins), a failed magician who, in a desperate attempt to reinvent his act in the hopes of achieving regular work, turns to ventriloquism with his dummy friend named fats: a foul-mouthed smart aleck with a charming voice. Think Jeff Dunham, but actually funny. Anyway, after he gets picked up by a renowned talent agent named Ben Greene (Burgess Meredith), Corky is on his way to fame and glory. However, after being confronted with the prospect of taking a medical examination, Corky panics and goes into hiding at a remote cabin resort in the hills. Where he hopes to rekindle a lost romance with his high school crush Peggy (Ann-Margret) and confront his real enemy...himself. 

This is an actors movie. The entire presentation is driven by the performances of the whole cast. And boy, does this entire cast shine. 

Anthony Hopkins especially demonstrates his considerable talent that comes to be recognized. His energy, commitment, and talent make every second he’s on-screen simultaneously fascinating and nerve-racking. A trait that would eventually earn him an Oscar for 1992’s Silence of the Lambs. His chemistry with Ann-Margret drives the midpoint of the story as they both feed off each other's energy incredibly well. 

My favorite performance of the film has to be Burgess Meredith. Having spent most of my life recognizing him as Micky from the Rocky movies, not to mention The Penguin from the 1960’s Batman show, it was refreshing to see him in a more subtle role. I got to enjoy watching Burgess showcase his demanding presence by just standing in a doorway with a simple expression that said volumes more than any amount of dialogue ever could. 

        The music is especially noteworthy. Composed by Jerry Goldsmith, the soundtrack adds a level of atmosphere not often heard in modern movies. Goldsmith had a talent for composing soundtracks that sounded, for want of a better word, “cinematic.” You can tell you’re watching a movie of great quality when Goldsmith’s music is involved. Not to mention his use of the Accordion in certain points of the story is genuinely perfect.  

Arguably, the scariest aspect of the entire film, likely more so for some than others, is Fats The Dummy, and not just for the reasons you might think. There is a documented natural fear of ventriloquist dummies known as “automatonophobia.” It’s the fear of objects, typically dummies and wax statues, that appear to be alive, even though they are very much not. This fear is taken advantage of full-throttle throughout the film, both in front of and behind the camera. In fact, according to IMDb’s trivia page on Magic, Anthony Hopkins took the dummy home to practice with and became so terrified of the object that he called the ventriloquist who was training him and threatened to throw it out the window if he didn’t take it away immediately. 

As much as I enjoyed this film, at least one aspect of its conception bothered me; its cinematography. 

For the most part, it’s alright. The framing is good, the camera movement is well-timed and appropriately planned, and the use of different lenses for specific shots is masterful. The only part of the cinematography that occasionally bothered me was the lighting. While I am aware that lighting technique was incredibly different for the time, and shooting on celluloid film typically requires more light than you might think, there were one too many shots where I found myself asking, “where is that light coming from?” A question I never want to ask while enjoying a movie. Admittedly, this is a minor nitpick, as it did not throw me out of the experience, but it was nonetheless a minor flaw that got my attention.    

Despite my tiny misgiving with the lighting, Magic is a simple yet highly effective thriller. It’s a perfect showcase of screen acting at its finest and deserves to be showcased in film school. Check this one out. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Wolfwalkers - More of this, please!

 

Stream it on Apple TV+ 

        Wolfwalkers is the kind of animated film that reminds you of the real and universal artistic merit of animation as a medium. Its gorgeous visuals, mature storytelling, and commitment to artistic integrity make Wolfwalkers a gem to behold. Far too often, western audiences tend to believe (falsely, I might add) that animation is strictly for children. As such, the bulk of animated entertainment here in the west is relegated to wacky, colorful babysitting tools starring obnoxious and cringe-inducing yellow tic-tac’s whose only joke is proclaiming “BANANA” after a poorly timed pratfall. 

But I digress. 

Set in a remote Irish village in the 1600s, the story follows Robyn (Honor Kneafsey) and her father, Bill (Sean Bean). Bill is a Wolfhunter tasked with clearing the creatures out of the nearby woods to expand their farmland, under the order of their Lord Protector (Simon McBurney), who rules over the village with an iron fist. Robyn, eager to prove her worth as a hunter to her father, sneaks out past the village gate to find and kill some Wolves. Instead, she finds herself making friends with a wild young girl named Mebh (Eva Whittaker), who happens to be a legendary Wolfwalker: a magical person who can communicate and live with the Wolves. Not to mention turning into a Wolf while asleep. Upon sparking this new friendship and understanding of the Wolf kind, Robyn takes it upon herself to save her people, and the Wolves, by trying her best to find a peaceful solution to everyone's problems. A task easier said than done. 

This film is apparently the third of director Tomm Moore’s “Irish Folklore Trilogy.” The first two being The Secret of Kells and Song of the Sea. While Wolfwalkers may not be my favorite of the three, it is still a wonderful work of art with as much, if not more, of the charm that can be expected of this little Irish studio. 

As you likely guessed from the beginning of this review, the animation is absolutely breathtaking. Not only because of the fact that it’s traditional hand-drawn but also in its overall sense of style and presentation. The whole film feels like a storybook illustrations come to life. The film takes full advantage of its two-dimensional plane and makes it feel as real as jumping off the page. Character models and backgrounds feel tangible. 

The voice acting is especially fantastic. Comprised of a few seasoned veterans and a few new-comers, the cast succeeds in delivering an uncanny level of humanity to their animated roles. Especially the young Honor Kneafsey, who voices Robyn, the protagonist, with such energy and conviction. I believe this young lass has a bright future ahead of her, and I look forward to seeing her again in the future. 

Wolfwalkers is a must-watch. See it for its beauty, compelling story, dynamic characters; for whatever reason, please just see it. It deserves to be viewed and admired. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

The Little Things - Modern Classic

     

Stream it on HBO Max 

        Ambiguity is like a double-edged sword when applied to the narrative; it can be a valuable tool for storytelling or a desperate crutch to hide laziness. I have always believed that ambiguity works best when it is used properly and with justified reasons. A fine example is in the final shot of Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece, Inception. Today’s movie, The Little Things, serves as a modern reminder of how to use ambiguity to your advantage and why it can be such a powerful narrative ploy under the right circumstances. While the movie as a whole may not be all that groundbreaking or nuanced, its stellar cast, visceral visuals, and provocative writing elevate the film from “standard” to “intriguing enough.” This is one neo-noir worthy of the label. 

Set in California in the year 1990, before mobile phones and DNA testing were around, the story follows Deacon (Denzel Washington), a deputy in the sheriff's department, visiting downtown L.A. for an evidence pick-up & certification. While in town, he runs into Detective Jim Baxter (Rami Malek), working on an unusual murder case. As Deacon tags along, he discovers that this murder is eerily similar to one he himself was investigating a few years prior and is convinced that it is likely the same perpetrator he couldn’t catch. Deacon decides to unofficially help in the investigation, which apparently points to a clearly disturbed man named Albert (Jared Leto), who becomes their favorite suspect. Still, due to a lack of sufficient evidence, they can’t go any further into their investigation. So, the detectives decide to take matters into their own hands, which may or may not come back to bite them in the ass later down the line. 

As I suggested, this movie isn’t anything incredible, nor does it have anything that hasn’t already been done before. However, that does not detract from the fact that it is a well-made, well polished, and well-presented story. I believe that it is always possible to present a fresh-feeling spin on a classic idea. You don’t need to be original; you just need to put your own voice into it. 

Ultimately, what makes this a film worthy of your time is its commitment to classical noir ambiguity. These days, far too many movies feel as though they must have clear answers and explain every aspect of the story with no exception. However, art should sometimes reflect life, and there aren’t always clear answers in life. More often than not, we are only left with what is “most likely” rather than an “absolute.” And that’s if we’re lucky. 

        Aside from its commitment to classical narrative structure, the rest of the film boasts plenty of quality from all other areas. 

For one, the cast is remarkable. Denzel Washington especially delivers his usual commitment to his performance, further enhanced by his wonderful chemistry with Rami Malek. Jared Leto is fine, but you can’t help but notice that he’s putting too much, for want of a different word, “performance” in his performance. He’s alright, but he still hasn’t quite figured out how to be subtle just yet. 

The cinematography is also noteworthy. Photographed by John Schwartzman, a veteran of the movie industry, the lighting and use of stark colors make the film feel gritty yet sleek at the same time. Adding to the overall tone of uncertainty and grey matters. 

The Little Things may not be the most provocative murder mystery you will ever see, but it has just enough individuality and quality to become worthy of watching. It is a film that reminds us how, sometimes, not having an answer is more satisfying and provocative than having one. 

Highly recommended. Check it out. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.  

Tenet - Don’t Bother

 

    Christopher Nolan seems to be one of those artists who constantly tries too hard to appear smarter and deeper than he actually is. While he has made some genuinely great movies in the past, Batman Begins and Inception especially, he seems to have become aggressively fixated on spending more time fetishizing the days of analog rather than utilizing it in any tangible way. This kind of tunnel-vision mindset has been given its perfect personification in Mr. Nolan’s latest outing, Tenet, a film that tries too hard to be smarter and deeper than it actually is while further solidifying Mr. Nolan’s hatred for the very thing he excels at: good old-fashioned action schlock. 
    

    The story follows The Protagonist (no, really, that's what he’s called in the movie) played by John David Washington. He’s some kind of black-ops agent who gets recruited into a deeper super-secret organization specializing in investigating the unusual and preventing international disasters. Think S.H.I.E.L.D from the Marvel movies, but less fun. Anyway, The Protagonist (I swear that’s what he’s called) is asked to look into a strange phenomenon referred to as “inversion”: a mysterious and possible radioactive event that causes people and objects to appear to move backward through time. This, as it turns out, is part of a massive conspiracy involving a secret ongoing cold war, Kenneth Branagh as an evil Russian arms dealer (because, of course, he is), and some kind of incredibly cataclysmic event which may or may not destroy the entire world. So, it’s up to The Protagonist (I swear this is so stupid) to solve the mystery and save the world...I think. 
    

    If you’re confused, don’t worry, we all are. 
    

    This is one of the many problems with modern Christopher Nolan. He likes to tell stories that play with time and non-linear progression. This technique worked in his earlier films like the aforementioned Batman Begins and Inception because those stories, in particular, centered around relatable ideas and sympathetic characters. Tenet, on the other hand, has neither. 

    The ideas presented in this film are so ill-conceived and unbelievably ridiculous that it is simply too much for any person to accept. It’s yet another case of “Double Mumbo Jumbo” where the audience is expected to suspend far too much disbelief. His characters are once again relegated to robots with no personality and are forbidden from smiling for any reason. It’s like watching a group of teenagers trying too hard to look serious and adult, making their efforts uninteresting and pretentious. 
    

    Of course, one cannot discuss this film without also mentioning the horrendous sound design. Every sound effect in this film is cranked up far too high, and the attempt at a  thematic gimmick of playing the music in reverse makes the whole presentation sound like an orchestral rehearsal going horribly wrong. Not to mention the dialogue becoming far too difficult to make out. It’s like trying to have a conversation at a night club; it’s just not possible. 

    To be fair, there are a few things about this movie that I did genuinely like. John David Washington proves himself a capable actor, and I hope to see him in future better movies. The special effects creating the inverted scenes were pretty cool, and Robert Pattinson proves that he is worthy of playing Batman. 

    Apart from that, this movie is an unfortunate train wreck of terribly executed ideas, visual headaches, and pretentious arrogance. As far as I’m concerned, Christopher Nolan peaked with his masterpiece, Inception. Anything else afterward is a failed attempt to one-up himself. Mr. Nolan should just bite the bullet, make simple action schlock like he clearly wants to, and stop trying so hard to insert unnecessary pseudo-intelligent crap to make himself appear more sophisticated than he believes himself to be. 

    Skip this one. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.  

Synchronic - Audacious but Lacking

Rent it on Amazon, Google Play, Apple TV, and YouTube 

“People assume that time is a straight progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint, it’s more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly...timey wimey...stuff.” 

                                                                                                                    -Doctor Who 

               The concept of time travel has been a regular staple in the realm of science fiction. From Back to the Future, to The Terminator, all the way to Avengers: Endgame, the idea of moving freely through space and time at will has captivated people's curiosity. Unfortunately, some storytellers tend to assume that is enough to maintain audience engagement. Like Michael Bay’s fixation with explosions, some people assume that if you have enough of them, it will keep the audience hooked no matter how poorly thought out the narrative is or how bland the characters are. While today's subject, Synchronic, is not as awful or as boring as any of Michael Bay’s latest works, it does seem to think that its time travel concept is enough to detract from the lack of narrative texture and compelling characterization. There’s just enough of the two that prevent the film from being a complete waste of time, but not enough to be worthy of anything beyond a curious rental. 

 

            Taking place in Louisiana, the story follows a man named Steve (Anthony Mackie), a paramedic recently diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. He struggles to tell his best friend & partner, Dennis (Jamie Dornan), who is dealing with the disappearance of his daughter Brianna (Ally Loannides). After some strange reports of unusual deaths, Steve discovers that they are all connected to a strange drug called Synchronic: a brain-altering pill that apparently has the ability to chemically alter the very fabric of space and time for whoever ingests it, temporarily plopping them in the middle of a seemingly random time period, such as the ice age, or the sixteenth century. Brianna took one of these pills and, for reasons that are likely not scientifically sound, has been stuck somewhere in time, probably indefinitely. It now falls upon Steve to take the remaining pills and determine how and if he can bring Brianna back. 

 

            For the most part, the film is fairly solid. The cinematography is mostly pretty (albeit a bit too dark for my taste), the dialogue, when audible (more on that in a moment), is natural and flows well. The idea of playing with time as a nonlinear concept is my favorite version of the time travel narrative device. The biggest plus this film has is Anthony Mackie, one of my new favorite actors. His performance in this film showcases his real sense of range and talent as an actor. I have always believed in his ability ever since I first saw him in Captain America: The Winter Soldier (my favorite Marvel movie). I look forward to seeing Anthony Mackie in more projects, especially the upcoming Marvel show on Disney+. 

 

            Sadly, these good elements are not enough to overshadow the film's shortcomings. 

 

            As I hinted earlier, the sound mixing is atrocious. This is becoming a regular problem with many modern movies. For some reason, sound mixers seem to have forgotten the meaning of the word subtle. They keep cranking up the frequencies of background atmospheric sounds in favor of dialogue, causing the audience to crank up the volume to hear it only to be bombarded with loud noises less than five minutes later. This is becoming a pandemic in and of itself, and it seriously needs to be addressed. 

 

            However, the film's biggest problem, at least to me, is its lack of characterization. The story is heavily reliant on the relationships of the characters and their apparently sympathetic personalities. Sadly, while the characters' situations are easy to empathize with, it was not enough to keep me interested in their plight because the story failed to provide any tangible relationships between the characters. Sure, it’s heavily implied that they care for each other and have a strong bond, but it never feels like it, and there weren’t enough meaningful interactions between any of them to make me believe otherwise. The characters feel less like people and more like walking two-dimensional archetypes.

 

            Despite these issues, I still enjoyed the science fiction aspect of the story, and Anthony Mackie’s performance succeeded in making me continue giving the movie the benefit of the doubt. Sadly, despite his valiant effort, the film lacks the necessary elements to be completely engaging. I cannot recommend this movie for anything other than a curious rental. Check it out if you want, but consider yourself warned. 

 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.