Movies (1131)
‘Beavis and Butt-Head Do the Universe’ rules, heh heh
Written by Allen Adams
I’m on the record as considering myself a teenaged boy at heart in many ways. Even as I careen through middle age, I remain enamored of the lowbrow humor that tickled my fancy during my high school days. And I maintain real affection for the cultural content that delivered said lowbrow humor to me back then.
So you can imagine my delight upon learning that Beavis and Butt-Head were coming back.
Filmmaker/animator Mike Judge has created some wonderful work over the years – long-running animated series like “King of the Hill” and weirdly funny (and occasionally shockingly predictive) films like “Office Space” and “Idiocracy.” But as far as I’m concerned, nothing tops “Beavis and Butt-Head.”
The animated show – an MTV staple back when that actually meant something – featuring two moronic metalheads alternating between commenting on music videos and getting up to idiotic nonsense was exactly the kind of hilarious stupidity that teenaged me wanted. Call me unsophisticated if you like, but I was there for it.
And I am here for “Beavis and Butt-Head Do the Universe.”
This latest iteration of the two giggling idiots – now streaming on Paramount+ – sees them brought into the modern world, unleashing their own brand of oblivious selfishness and primal desire onto a society far different than the one they never really understood in the first place. Dudes like these two were already on the verge of anachronistic in their heyday – how could they possibly be translated into our current place?
Time travel, of course!
Sometimes, a project just sounds questionable on its face. You hear the pitch and, for whatever reason, you’re left wondering just who gave this idea the go-ahead. It sounds ridiculous, yet scores of decision-makers said yes.
In this case, those yeses led to “Lightyear.”
Did we really need an origin story for Buzz Lightyear from “Toy Story”? Specifically, an origin story for the character on whom the toy was based? It all seems so silly. That being said, this IS Pixar we’re talking about – this is not an outfit that is known for misfires. They’ve got a couple of hiccups on their resume, but for the most part, the work they do is generally both critically and commercially successful.
So a high floor is standard for Pixar. But just what kind of ceiling are we talking about? Again, this is weirdly high-concept – “Lightyear” is ostensibly young Andy’s favorite movie, the one that served as the inspiration for the toy Buzz Lightyear – so it’s obviously a bit more overtly meta than what we usually get from the studio. But the big question remains: Is it good?
And the answer is yes. It is good. Quite good, actually.
What we get from “Lightyear” is a legitimately solid space adventure, one with a compelling story, some good jokes and a few surprises. It’s a good-looking movie, of course (we’d expect nothing less from Pixar), and it has plenty of heart (ditto). It’s a bit more grown-up than the studio’s regular fare, but certainly suitable for all audiences. And as always, be prepared for an instance or two of emotional impact.
Adventure, excitement, humor and pathos – you know … Pixar.
It has never been easier to create. It used to be that access to the necessary tools to make movies was out of reach to most, but now, technological advances have largely democratized that access. However, just because you can make something doesn’t mean you have the means to ensure it is seen. If anything, this new level of access just means that there’s a whole lot more noise from which you have to separate the signal of quality work.
On the other hand, there’s someone like Cooper Raiff, who seems to have basically sprung forth fully formed as a filmmaker. He’s still young, but hey – when you’re in your mid-20s and have already crushed Sundance twice, you’re doing something right.
Raiff’s latest triumph is “Cha Cha Real Smooth,” currently available for streaming on Apple TV+; the streamer bought the distribution rights for the film out of Sundance (where it won the Audience Award) for $15 million. Raiff wrote and directed and, oh yeah, stars in the film, the story of an aimless recent college graduate whose side hustle hyping up bar mitzvahs leads him into some unconventional relationships.
Equal parts sweet and sharp, it’s a well-crafted portrait of a young man trying to figure out just what it is he wants from the world even as he struggles. He’s adrift and looking for some kind, any kind of connection. It is funny and poignant, radiant with goofball energy and offbeat sincerity, a compelling look at what happens next when you don’t know what happens next.
Look, dinosaurs are cool. We can all agree on that. Movies about dinosaurs, however … that’s a bit more complicated.
Back in 1993, “Jurassic Park” completely altered the cinematic landscape, showing a generation of moviegoers what was possible. Now, some three decades later, the fifth sequel to that film – third in the legacyquel “Jurassic World” trilogy – shows us that over time, magic always fades … even if the magic is dinosaur-shaped.
“Jurassic World Dominion” is … fine. Perhaps a little less than fine. Colin Trevorrow is back behind the camera, directing from a script (such as it is) he co-wrote with Emily Carmichael. It is a big effects-laden movie that isn’t all that concerned with character development or narrative cohesion, instead opting to throw a bunch of locations and dinosaurs at the wall, mix in some nostalgia casting and call it a day.
The plot – such as it is – is both overstuffed and riddled with holes; don’t worry if there are stretches where you’re not sure what is happening or why – it seems as though perhaps the filmmakers were in the same boat. Still, it’s better than the previous installment. Largely because it would have to have actively tried to be worse, but hey – better is better.
And again – dinosaurs. There are a LOT of dinosaurs. Just an absolute s—t-ton of dinosaurs, which is always going to be pretty cool, regardless of the comprehensibility of the story that surrounds them. So even if the movie as a whole isn’t good (and it isn’t, not really), it doesn’t matter, because it definitely delivers on the dinosaurs, and hey – if you’re not down for various flavors of dino-action, then what are we even doing here?
While things have certainly gotten better in recent years, there’s still a relative dearth in LGTBQ+ representation in films in general and romantic comedies in particular. Sure, a bit of that could be chalked up to the downtick in rom-coms in general, but still – there are laughs to be mined from all forms of love.
So it’s nice to see when a film comes along that gets it right, offering a humorous look at a different kind of love story – one that proves representative of not only same-sex relationships, but also of Asian-Americans as well.
“Fire Island” – currently streaming on Hulu – is just such a film. Directed by Andrew Ahn from a screenplay by Joel Kim Booster (who also stars), it’s the story of a group of friends who head to the iconic gay party locale Fire Island for their annual week-long sojourn and the connections they make while there, both with others and among themselves.
Inspired by Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” – and you better believe Ms. Austen’s influences are ALL OVER this thing in the best ways – it is a delightful story of friendship and love, one that alternates between coarseness and charm, equal parts salty and sweet.
There’s no disputing that the proliferation of streaming services has led to a serious uptick in the quantity of movie offerings. However, it is also tough to argue that the quality of those offerings has kept pace. That isn’t to say that all streaming originals are bad – far from it – but the truth is that “more” has not meant “better.”
Netflix is the most responsible for this content churn, releasing multiple new films on a weekly basis. And while a handful of those movies go on to be celebrated critical successes, the vast majority are disposable at best and outright bad at worst.
The new film “Interceptor” leans more toward the latter category than the former. Directed by Matthew Reilly from a script he co-wrote with Stuart Beattie, it is a small-cast military thriller that unfortunately falls short on the delivery of thrills. There’s a bit of a throwback vibe to the proceedings – if you haunted video stores in the late 1980s, you probably saw quite a few movies that bore a lot of similarities to this one – but those whispers of the past never get to the point of actually being fun.
Instead, we’re given a generic point-to-point action movie, one whose plot mechanics make less and less sense as we proceed and whose action sequences – ostensibly the reason we’re here in the first place – prove to be largely bland and uninteresting.
‘Top Gun: Maverick’ flies even higher than the original
Written by Allen Adams
It’s no surprise that, in a cinematic landscape increasingly defined by IP-driven franchises, studios reach farther back into the past to mine content. Where once it seemed as if an idea was past its prime in a matter of months, these days, it’s not uncommon to get sequels that come a decade or more after their predecessors.
But what if a sequel arrived nearly four decades after the film that came before? Could a movie coming that much later possibly have anything like the impact of the original? It seems unlikely, but hey – when you introduce Tom Cruise into the equation, anything is possible.
The long-anticipated “Top Gun: Maverick” has finally arrived in movie theaters, more than three years after its initially-scheduled release and some 37 years after the release of “Top Gun.” It is a movie that seemed fated to fall short, based on a flawed-but-beloved jingoistic action classic and delayed multiple years due to circumstances both planned (extensive reshoots) and unplanned (COVID shutdowns). We’ve been waiting so long – how could it meet the inevitably-inflated expectations?
Reader, not only does it meet those expectations – it exceeds them. This movie is better than the one that inspired it, and not by a little. It is superior in terms of action, of emotional investment, of performance … just the better film, across the board.
I’m as surprised as you are.
That isn’t to say I though the movie would be bad – I didn’t. And I was definitely someone who came of age at the right time to have real affection for the original “Top Gun,” flaws and all. So I was poised to have a good time with this one. It’s just that I assumed that’s all it would be – an engaging-enough exercise in nostalgia that would be enjoyable in the moment but otherwise shoulder-shruggy.
Instead, what I got was far better than that, an exercise in top-tier action filmmaking that blends practical stunt work with CGI as well as anything we’ve seen before. Sure, some of the issues that marred the original are still here – the unabashed military self-celebration foremost among them – but thanks to a strong ensemble and a Tom Cruise capital-MS Movie Star performance, “TG:M” still manages to find an emotional resonance, exploring what it means to realize the obsolescence that comes with age and the difficulties that come with seeing change looming, even if it hasn’t yet arrived.
‘Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers’ a surprisingly fun animated meta-adventure
Written by Allen Adams
It’s no secret that I love it when things get meta.
I’m a huge fan of self-reference, particularly when that awareness is used as an entry point to satirize and/or deconstruct. I dig it in books, I dig it in TV shows, I dig it in movies.
Take the new movie “Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers,” currently streaming on Disney+. Now, I was a touch older than the intended audience for the original TV show and its Disney Afternoon cohort, but I also had a younger sister, which gave me all the excuse I needed to watch. And watch I did.
So when I heard that we were going to get a movie – one directed by Akiva Schaffer and starring John Mulaney and Andy Samberg, no less – I was intrigued. Particularly when it became clear that this was intended as much for adult fans of the original as for today’s younger audiences, using the characters of the show as a jumping off point for a meta comedy about the rigors of fame and the entertainment-industrial complex.
Seriously – what’s not to like?
Good horror movies find ways to scare you. Great horror movies dig into why you’re scared. And the very best horror movies use well-executed scares and the thoughtfully-explored reasons behind them to comment on larger ideas and issues.
Misogyny and its impact are often found front and center in horror movies. From the very beginning, horror has displayed an awareness of the underlying societal struggle of women, though not always in a positive way – many films, particularly early on, exploited and weaponized the perceived cultural shortcomings of women, taking unsavory advantage of the power imbalance. That said, we have seen a more nuanced approach from some genre filmmakers as the years have passed. Not across the board, mind you – there are still plenty of reductive, regressive creators out there – but it’s better now than it was.
That brings me to “Men,” the new film from writer/director Alex Garland. The genre auteur has crafted a stunning and unsettling piece, one that burrows into the misogyny – both external and internal – with which women are too often confronted, all set against a deceptively idyllic backdrop whose bleakness can only be seen (at least at first) lurking in the shadows. Physical shadows, yes … but also shadows of the psyche.
Garland’s propensity for idiosyncratic and intense visuals is in full effect, counterbalancing the pastoral countryside with a lurid sinisterness lurking just beneath the surface. Rich and vivid and visceral, “Men” has a look that matches the conflicted chaos that lies at the heart of its unconventional narrative.
Stephen King is having a … well, what exactly? It’s hard to call it a moment when it feels like we’ve been watching a steady stream of adaptations of his work for years now. And you can’t really call it a Renaissance or a comeback, if only because his popularity never really waned in any real way.
Anyway – whatever it is, he sure is having it.
The latest adaptation (or re-adaptation) is “Firestarter,” based on King’s 1980 novel. This new film – directed by Keith Thomas from a screenplay by Scott Teems – is the second cinematic adaptation of the work, following the 1984 version that, among other things, helped catapult young Drew Barrymore into superstardom. With Jason Blum’s Blumhouse productions on board, you might expect a leap forward in quality; they do have a knack for solid horror offerings.
Unfortunately, this new version instead fails to capture the spirit of the source material, leaving the viewer with a film that – ironically – lacks heat. There’s a flatness to the proceedings that undercuts the possibilities inherent to King’s work; parts of the film feel rushed and/or unfinished, with those cohesion-lacking moments impacting the rest of the film.
It’s not a BAD film – I’d argue that it’s better than the 1984 version, though that might be damning it with faint praise – but neither is it a particularly good one. Instead, we get something that feels disposable and unnecessary; if you’re not going to try and do anything new, why bother with a remake at all?
Correction: if you’re not going to try and do anything AT ALL, why bother?
Advertisements
The Maine Edge. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. Terms & Conditions.
Website CMS and Development by Links Online Marketing, LLC, Bangor Maine