The Love Bug

There are formulas that work in movies. Walt Disney was always looking for the next hit. “The Love Bug” is a family film that carries its own weight off the race track!
Title: The Love Bug
Number of times I’ve seen it: Probably a dozen
Genre: Comedy, Family, Fantasy
MPAA Rating: G
Year: 1969
Director: George A. Romero
Top Billed Cast: Dean Jones, Michele Lee, David Tomlinson
Brief Synopsis: A washed up race car driver returns with the help of a supernatural VW.

I remember the warm feeling I had seeing this in the theater around 1977. It is a 1969 release that played over and over for years in theaters, always selling plentiful tickets. Who can resist when Herbie honks his horn and saves the scene. The actors are top notch as well. It’s no wonder there were so many sequels. “Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo” is another one I enjoyed in my youth. The cliche “They don’t make them like they used to” comes to mind. I had fun watching this most recently at age 46: the same age of the movie!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Tina Fey does it again. My wife is in her thirties and would usually never suggest a war based film for us to see. Last night she requested we see this movie and she called it, “The new Tina Fey movie.” I suppose Fey is a brand now and a pretty good one at that.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016)
Cast
Tina Fey

as Kim Baker

Margot Robbie

as Tanya Vanderpoel

Martin Freeman

as Iain MacKelpie

Directed by
Glenn Ficarra
John Requa

 

Written by
Robert Carlock
Kim Barker

 

Other Info

Comedy, War
Rated R
1h 52min

Let’s be clear from the start, this movie has many flaws. The screen jumps around and has more holes that need explaining than a block of Swiss cheese. Tina Fey is brilliant however and she interprets this real life story quite well. It’s a story of a reporter who finds herself single and lacking at 40 something. As a result, she signs on to do a story among soldiers in Afghanistan.

Through the course of her “tour” she meets friends and enemies and an elected official who wants to bed her. It’s all quite hilarious. She is bamboozled by an English female reporter and it taints her happy view of the place. After getting stories on video and partying as much as a college pledge, she makes some decisions about what life is for her and it doesn’t include Afghanistan.

The jokes are typical Tina Fey: short, witty, and usually news related. It would be fun to hear the real Kim Barker and see how much they do or don’t sound alike. Tina Fey is like a military playboy, only she’s a woman. At one point she says, “You mean I almost F****d a Canadian?” Lines like this come off as a little gauche but it seems these days a film has to have a little of that to keep the viewers laughing.

In conclusion, it’s a funny film that would be a great date movie for many fans out there. The war connection is held at a distance and it’s more of a mythic journey film for a woman who is questioning her purpose. I even detected hints of “Eat, Pray, Love” in there sometimes. I recommend this as a fun, light hearted date movie.

9/10

After Hours (1985)

After Hours (1985)
R | 1h 37min | Comedy, Crime, Drama | 11 October 1985 (USA)

An ordinary word processor has the worst night of his life after he agrees to visit a girl in Soho whom he met that evening at a coffee shop.
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: Joseph Minion
Stars: Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Verna Bloom

Weird movies are a lot of fun, if you’re into them. Of course, I am quite so. This is a movie that takes a look at the idea of a guy going out with a dangerous woman instead of the traditional other way around.

This is directed by Martin Scorcese, a verified master of the film-making craft. Most recently I loved his Hugo and he’s done so many other films down through the years. In this film he really shines in his ability to revisit a place and force the audience to see it differently. It’s sort of like a recipe for an open mind. The sets and backgrounds take you into the film. When he shows you the clock, you feel like it’s way past bedtime and YOU ought to be getting home.

There is a cast of thousands here but the lead is played by Griffin Dunne. Dunne has been in many films but you remember him as the English teacher in My Girl. He’s a great actor and it’s always impressed me how much he looks like Dudley Moore.

This is a goofy film and suspense abounds. This guy is having the worst night of his life and we experience it with him. I highly recommend this quirky film, it’s an intriguing work of art that stands up now over 3 decades later.

10/10

The Greasy Strangler (2016)

The Greasy Strangler (2016)
Unrated | 1h 33min | Comedy, Horror | 7 October 2016 (USA)

Ronnie runs a Disco walking tour with his son, Brayden. When a sexy woman takes the tour, it begins a competition between father and son for her love. It also signals the arrival of an oily strangler who stalks the streets at night.
Director: Jim Hosking
Writers: Toby Harvard, Jim Hosking
Stars: Michael St. Michaels, Sky Elobar, Elizabeth De Razzo

Every thing director Jim Hosking makes is odd, but then, that’s the intent. Some directors are thought odd for simply making their movie. With Hosking, he has a history of winning British awards for being odd and yes, he does it well here.

Actors Michael St. Michaels, Sky Elobar, and Elizabeth De Razzo really own this film. Their interplay gives the film it’s ambiance and tone. The father is just a complete psycho and not be trusted. The son is a meek but probably equal oddball and the “girlfriend” is innocent definitely a top notch actress to pull this tweaked and weird role off.

You will see farts and cussing and downright disgusting images. You’ll see male frontal nudity … a lot of it. As the father and son work at their disco tour business, you’ll feel like you are part of it all. As for the overall message, I didn’t get it. For me, there should be at least something to hold onto and takeaway. Since that was absent, the weirdness has no purpose, It was like Nacho Libre but Nacho had a message: believe in yourself. This one is probably: don’t be afraid to move out when your 50+. In conclusion: this is something very different if you’re in the mood for a laugh at some really raunchy stuff.

6/10

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

I recommend you see this movie with no presuppositions. Even the few small things I mention here should be seen as simply one critic’s opinion. I wrote this review the week of its premiere in 2014. This is a uniquely remarkable film. I highly recommend it.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
R | 1h 59min | Comedy, Drama | 14 November 2014 (USA)

A washed-up actor, who once played a famous superhero, attempts to revive his career by writing and starring in a Broadway play.
Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu (as Alejandro G. Iñárritu)
Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu (as Alejandro G. Iñárritu), Nicolás Giacobone

See it with an open mind. To begin: this is not a superhero movie. I purposely did not use a mock Birdman as an image for my post. Instead I used Michael Keaton in his underwear because metaphorically, this is what you get. I feel bad for the kids that may pay to go see this expecting a gritty sort of superhero that mimics the likes of Batman. This is not a lower Batman, this is a lower person and the anatomy of his breakdown. It just so happens that in this man’s life, he played a “Birdman” in a set of sequels. It doesn’t matter to the point. Birdman is a firing of brain cells in the mind of an actor who has wasted his life living for appearances and not for reality. In his words, he “has not been present” for his life. We can all get some good lessons from this movie. It portrays men as egotistical and highly capable of getting what they want at any cost. It portrays women as victims who men fail to support time and time again. The male brain is sinister at times and women find this sad. In fact, the audience is meant to find it sad. At the bottom right of Riggan’s (character played by Michael Keaton) mirror he has a quote taped on that reads: “The thing is the thing, not what is said about the thing.” Could there be an application to social media? To “getting off the grid?” Maybe. You as a viewer decide to what degree.

There is also a dream element that has already been touched on all over the internet so I won’t get too into it. There is a lot about the brain but not in the way you might think. Some see the film as a death bed reflection, others see it as part dream and part brain firing. I do not feel that this movie was meant to be understood. It was meant to be enjoyed and talked about but never fully understood. One thing I noticed that didn’t seem real was when Riggan pulled a cocktail napkin out of his wallet, showing his daughter Sam (Emma Stome) it’s significance to the play. Raymond Carver had signed it for his while he was in a bar with his dad. I din’t know about you, but receipts in my wallet start to disintegrate after a few months. I thought it was bad writing at the time but now I see it could be part of a dream or trick of the brain at time of death. Perhaps the whole movie is that.

You keep waiting throughout the film for it to make sense but it really isn’t until you’ve seen the entirety of it that you can start to form opinions on what just happened. Hallucinations permeate the film so it’s hard to see what’s really going on. I think in the end, the psychiatrists will have the best read of this film. Go see Birdman if you want to see a creative and beautifully filmed movie. It might also appeal to you that Michael Keaton, Zach Galafinakis, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, and Emma Stone are in it. The acting drew me in like a moth to a light. It was a highly enjoyable movie experience but you have to be willing to fill in the mortar between the bricks. Once again, don’t assume it’s about a superhero. The title is extremely misleading. There is a man in a suit but he is the voice in Keaton’s head that tells him things. He isn’t real. He is, in fact, in the movie only about 10 minutes total. Ok, I’ve said enough about that. This is not a superhero film. I feel it leaves too much up to the imagination. It reminded me of the acclaimed Enemy movie that way. Perhaps the director got too close to the material and forgot the audience couldn’t get the ending. It needed to be explained more. For that reason I think a lot of people will be frustrated with this movie. I know I was. It could have said so much more about “being present” in ones life and social media and art and theater. Instead, it tries too hard to be spooky and vague and achieves it, which is also fun when you’re out at the movies. This is at the cost of a star. I give it 4/5.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

Annabelle: Creation (2017)
R | 1h 49min | Horror, Mystery, Thriller | 11 August 2017 (USA)

12 years after the tragic death of their little girl, a dollmaker and his wife welcome a nun and several girls from a shuttered orphanage into their home, where they soon become the target of the dollmaker’s possessed creation, Annabelle.
Director: David F. Sandberg
Writers: Gary Dauberman, Gary Dauberman (based on characters created by)
Stars: Anthony LaPaglia, Samara Lee, Miranda Otto

Some of you may have seen the short Light’s Out that came out a few years back. It was made by a new director named David Sandberg and he is the one who directed this film under the production leadership of James Wan. Therein lie a few troubles I see. If you are making a movie a producer hires you to do, you are slave to his vision: not yours and not the audience’s. Annabelle is a story that is very close to Wan’s heart but I felt watching it that Sandberg was probably not as into it. I felt much the same about his full length film Lights Out that came out last year. Wan put spring in his step and commissioned him to create a full length movie based on the short. Even though it was his own idea, it feels like Sandberg tried to do a “son of Insidious” or “The Conjuring.” I think Wan should have bankrolled Sandberg to create his own film, free from trappings of Wan visions. But who am I to want things?

The actors are very much standard and flat. They are not memorable in this script and anyone could have played any role. No one stands out, except the dolls that is.

The story is this: A young couple with a 9 year old daughter (or so I assume her age is) lose her when she is hit by a car. They are so distraught, they pray to “any force that can help them” to allow them to talk to their dead daughter. This is very cliche and seen in so many movies. ie; The Other Side of the Door, all zombie movies, A Dark Song, etc. Instead of having their wish fulfilled, they get the devil himself who manifests in the Annabelle doll. This is revealed through kids who come to live in the house of the couple that has been turned into an orphange. They learn the demon or devil in the doll and scarecrow is mean as hell as well as bloodthirsty. I could go on but I don’t want to.

This movie suffers from not showing enough cool scary faces and props. They flash by but I want to stop and look at them. Sandberg focused too much on multiple jump scares that don’t show anything. It’s textbook cheap thrills. It is also an awful script that tries too hard to be a prequel to existing movies. I enjoyed the film up to about the 2/3 part. Then it was just a waiting game for the credits. It reminded me of Quija 2 but Ouija 2 is MUCH better.

6/10