The Jungle Book

Jon Favreau, 2016

IMDB

2/5

Before I ramble about all of the ways in which the Jungle Book failed to wow me, I need to point out something. I am not a non-believer in CGI-heavy film. Seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D was one of the most memorable cinematic experiences of my lifetime. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my Star Wars in terms of it's immersive world-building and how I just want to live inside of it. I didn't even have that much of a problem with the copy-and-paste army in the Battle of Five Armies.

So going into The Jungle Book, a movie in an almost entirely CGI constructed world, I went in with an open mind and with open eyes. I am a supporter of Favreau, who has really contributed some solid films in his career. Elf, the first two Iron Man films, Chef are all well-made films. But now he is taking this direction in his career that almost feels Tim Burton like by "re-imagining" classic Disney favorites. After making this film - they are of course going to continue to wring out the proverbial sponge by having Favreau direct a Jungle Book sequel. But they are also employing him to direct a live action reboot of The Lion King. Nothing is untouched these days.

I wanted this movie to be great and impactful, especially being someone that grew up with the original animated version. I sat watching and kept waiting for it to hit me. Waiting and waiting. I realized by the mid-point that it likely wasn't going to happen. For whatever reason I wasn't ever able to make an emotional connection to anything on screen. Was it the abundance of CGI? I am not sure, because the animals all look amazing. But Life of Pi had one CGI Tiger and I was totally on board with the film emotionally.

It was a delight to see veteran actors like Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley and Christopher Walken provide the voices for Baloo, Bagheera and King Louie. But it didn't elevate the movie from more than just good grabs. Shere Kahn left more to be desired in a villain. He wasn't nearly as ruthless as he should have been. He didn't have that despicable nature to him as say, Scar in the Lion King. While Neel Sethi deserves some credit for working hard in front of a green screen, he wasn't exactly the next Jacob Tremblay (Room) with his performance as Mowgli. The best sequence in the film by far is the sequence in The Monkey City with King Louie. But the climax was just underwhelming and it just didn't feel like the stakes were high enough. Like the rest of the movie, it just seemed to run through the motions without ever being too significant.

Scrooged

Richard Donner, 1988

Can I Stream it?

3/5

On paper, Scrooged seems like a pretty good idea. Create modern version of the classic Christmas Story and add Bill Murray, and infuse it with some meta elements of making a staged classic Christmas Carol television special during the updated retelling. Sprinkle in some campy zombie makeup, give Murray the obligatory 80's mullet, and of course add Bobcat Goldthwait. And although it carves out its own little niche in the Christmas genre, there isn't a lot of warm fuzziness to Scrooged. You won't really come away with it with a good feeling like you will with some of the other versions of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". Instead there's more of a prolonged icy blackness that mostly just subsides over the latter moments of the film. Perhaps its the gaudy contemporary aesthetic to the corporate atmosphere in much of the film. Murray's character does arch, but it's not a complete moral makeover like you would see in Groundhog Day. But to give him credit, he has only had a few days to gain a different perspective and not hundreds of years. In a sense it's probably because his character is just downright bitter. There's not a lot of nuance to Frank Cross the person. Instead, he's just a nasty man who by the end of the film has you convinced he has had a moment of clarity. But is it really that convincing that it will stick? In a sense it doesn't really matter. Because the journey is still entertaining, witty enough, dark enough when it needs to be, and cheery enough when it needs to be.  (with some good meta elements involved), dark enough when it needs to be, and cheery enough when it needs to be.

The Darjeeling Limited

Wes Anderson, 2007

Can I Stream It?

2/5

Three brothers unite on a train in India a year after they lost their father in an attempt to reconnect and have a bonding experience together.

Like all of Wes Anderson's work, the film is easy on the eyes. But despite it's visual perks, it doesn't have a lot going for it. Ironically even though the colorful train is bound to the steel rails, the picture feels quite aimless and all over the place. Their mission together feels quite detached, as if they are mostly on a train killing time by smoking cigarettes and drinking native concoctions that are delivered to their personal sleeper cart. The attempt at multiple story threads (on-board romance, break up grief, family animosity) doesn't really stick. It feels like Anderson really wanted to make a movie in picturesque India. He was so excited that he quickly boarded the plane with Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray and forgot half of the script at home. It's understandable, because the best attributes about the film are probably some of the many amazing shots he managed to get. Heads sticking out of the train window as it passes through the night. The group passing through a bustling marketplace. Various angles of the interior cabin with the aging colorful decor sticking to the walls. It's an Anderson piece that requires more gazing than thinking. Even though it feels like a confused film it does seem to make sense that Anderson would want a picture like this in his library. It fits in well in that respect. You can take in the set pieces with the (very underrated classic rock band) Kinks playing in the background, which at the end of the day really isn't the worst thing to endure.

Broken Flowers

Jim Jarmusch, 2005

Can I Stream It?

3/5

Bill Murray delivers one of his more subdued performances, similar in a sense to his character in Lost in Translation. But while his Bob Harris character in Lost in Translation had a more cynical sense of humor with a certain degree of energy to pursue some level of enjoyment, his Don Johnston character here is more gloomy and forsaken. He has a sheer deadpan quality to him. In the first few minutes of the film you see his weary girlfriend (Julie Delpy) walking out on him, giving you the feeling that it's one of many over the years. He goes on to sit frozen on the couch like a reclusive ghost with the lights off, like he is in a heartbroken purgatory. He would continue to do this indefinitely if it weren't for his intrusive friend / wannabe private investigator Winston (Jeffrey Wright) pressing him on details and really causing him to get up and get moving. Winston is living the opposite life as Don, with a loving wife and active children running around. When Winston gets knowledge of the letter he pushes Don to probe the possibilities. This leads Don on a wild goose chase, desperately hoping to find out which one of his several exes have given birth to his son.

You get the feeling that Don feels like he's getting a last chance for something. Perhaps be present in SOME kind of relationship. He may not have any faith in pursuing a new relationship with a woman, but who knows, maybe his oddball personality can mesh well with a young child. You don't really get any sense that he wants to change for the most part. So you continue to watch Don drag himself through his past. He is served with some smiles, some frowns. It's quite obvious that some relationships had ended much more poorly. The differences between the women are quite dramatic, it seems as if Don continued to try to connect with varying personalities without much success.

Jarmusch really creates an interesting picture here. It certainly isn't fast-paced. It moves along at Don's pace. He has grown into a tired crawl in his life. But it's a picture that doesn't bore. Bill Murray has that ability to keep you engaged with his character, no matter how detached he may be. His pursuit pulls you in and keeps you wondering to the bitter end. 

Ghostbusters II

Ivan Reitman, 1989

(REWATCHED)


4/5

The population of ghosts seem to be increasing in the Big Apple, which puts the Ghostbusters back in business. They realize that the bad vibes of the city are actually causing a pink slime to materialize below the city that in turn is energizing the reanimation of an ancient genocidal ruler from his painting in the Manhattan Museum of Art.

The sequel to the 80's cult classic holds up. It could easily make a list of "Most consistent sequels ever", because it really feels like an accurate continuation of the first film. "Movies that if they are on television, you can't turn the channel and must sit down and watch". The screenplay is superb, the script is impeccable, and the acting is great because you are really seeing Dan Akroyd, Harold Remis, Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver at the peak of their careers. Also at his peak is Rick Moranis, who has been noticeably absent from cinema since his self-imposed retirement in 1997 after becoming a single dad when his wife died of cancer. It's a masterful blend of the supernatural and comedy genres. Michael Chapman is really great behind the camera in this film as well, such as the Statue of Liberty scene. The film also gives you another serving of an 80's soundtrack that if you don't like, you are empty inside. How dare anyone criticize the effects. The proton-packs are on equally par with light-sabers, no argument. That would be one of the disappointing elements of a future remake of this franchise, which you know will come twenty years from now. They will have some cutting-edge visuals that will take away all of the grit and everything that made these films so good. The younger generation will then criticize the Ghostbusters purists as being old-timers. Ugh. Both films are an ode to the older New York City. Pre-9/11 (as you are reminded seeing the sky-scape shots of the Twin Towers), Pre-Giuliani, Post-Taxi Driver, Pre-Disneyfication of Times Square, Mid Central Park Ghost jogger. The city where the film's fictional Mayor reminds the boys that "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right". This is an American Classic. One of those films you can't wait to force your kids to watch when they get older, and they damn well better appreciate it for what it is.

Meatballs

Ivan Reitman, 1979


2/5

          Tripper (Bill Murray) is a fun-seeking camp counselor who is trying to make sure all of the kids at summer camp have a good time, including the outcasts. He tries to boost the confidence of quiet Crockett (Russ Banham), while also trying to win the various competitions against the rival Camp Mohawk.
          This is Bill Murray's first starring role and a predecessor to other successful Reitman film's Stripes, Ghostbusters & Ghostbusters II. It has the typical high jinks and quirky humor that one would come to expect from Murray, but ultimately falls flat because that's really ALL it has going for it. A good portion of the film feels unscripted, which is fine, but there's just not a whole lot there to laugh at. Most of the film feels very dated 34 years later. While Meatballs clearly influenced future Summer Camp films (Heavyweights, Wet Hot American Summer), it's guilty of not maintaining enough structure as its counterparts. It contains a lot of slapstick humor, combined with a lot of physical comedy that treads common themes (bullying the geeks, poking fun at the fat kids, awkward teen romance, social cliques). Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters and pretty much EVERY Wes Anderson film that Bill Murray has been in proves that he needs to have some framework in order to pull it all off. Seeing him dance by himself to disco music is hilarious, don't get me wrong, but not for an hour and a half. For me the more minimalist, restrained Bill Murray has always been the most effective comedically (Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore). Meatballs is trumped by the laughs in Wet Hot American Summer, likely due to the fact it's main energy source is child acting and not Michael Ian Black or Paul Rudd.
          Meatballs pops up on a lot of lists of people's favorite Summer Camp films. This is likely because there really aren't a lot of good films in that genre. That's surprising, because one would think it could be a very manageable type of film to create seeing as you don't need a big budget for set design (you can just shoot at one rural location) and all you really need is good comedic acting and a good writing staff.