Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Sex and the City (movie)

Once I finished the six seasons of Sex and the City proper, I figured I’d re-watch the first movie that followed in 2008 because I had a (wrong) impression that it completed the characters’ stories.

er-sexandthecitymovieSex and the City (the movie)

Category: Movies

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A continuation of the show made in 2008 to the great excitement (and then disappointment) of fans, it tells the further story of the four friends but mostly of Carrie’s failed attempt at marrying Big. However, it mostly serves as a thinly-veiled vehicle for product placement.

How I found it:
I watched this movie soon after it came out and while I didn’t love it, I didn’t pay attention to how bad it actually was.

Summary judgment:
Wow. I don’t so much mind the flat story and the bad jokes but the world view I found downright offensive.

Best things about it:
The clothes have gotten so extravagant as to become a form of art and I like the visual part of the whole thing (except for Parker’s general look).

Worst things about it:
I guess to me the worst part, and the most surprising one, was the body shaming the women subject one another to. They criticize one another over weight-gain and body hair, not the kind of supportive friendship the show sold us on, and not the kind of message I’m comfortable with from a franchise masquarading as “feminist.”
On a more general level, the writing fails hard. Everything drags as if they needed to fill the space between advertisements (for Starbucks, for Mercedes-Benz, for all the fashion brands) and didn’t quite know how. Carrie’s marriage drama feels so contrived you just want to tell her to get a hold of herself: throughout the entire movie when we’re supposed to feel sorry for her I kept wanting to shake her because yes, the whole thing was her fault and didn’t merit all the hysterics.

Other pluses:
✤ Carrie’s potential apartment is pretty, I guess, and the library where her wedding doesn’t happen looks great, too.
✤ Charlotte’s mutts. Yes, scraping the bottom here.

Other minuses:
✤ I always found it surprising how Miranda is one-sidedly villified over her anger with Steve, who cheated on her. I feel she has every right to be angry and the film never acknowledges that. In what world is Big’s transgression worse?
✤ Ugh, the terrible jokes. It’s like somebody belatedly remembered the “comedy” part in the romantic comedy and added the funniest thing of all, diarrhea.
✤ Yes, Samantha’s sex object of a neighbor looks good but this kind of reversed-male gaze (I’m not sure if it’s called female gaze in a case like this, when it’s objectifying a man) made me really uncomfortable.

How it enriched my life:
It didn’t. The whole thing should’ve ended with the show. This is such a clear, unneccessary money grab.

Fun fact:
Apparently even Cynthia Nixon doesn’t like the “happy ending” of the movie? It’s an internet fact though so don’t hold me to it.

Follow-up:
I’m never watching it again. Also, guys, I did see the second movie back when it came out but it was so abysmal that even this movie seems okay by comparison so I’m not re-watching or reviewing it.

Recommended for:
Completionist fans of the show who don’t mind having their good opinion sullied. Also, people who don’t know the show but like really empty, mediocre romantic comedies without much humor or romance.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

Next time: The Dud Avocado

Advertisements
Standard
Show Case

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Sex and the City (show)

Sex and the City was one of the more exciting shows of my high school years. I would wait for it on Saturday evenings (I wasn’t all that popular, in case you were misinformed) and feel somewhat naughty for watching it. But the show is going on twenty now and watching it today feels different.

er-sexandthecityshowSex and the City (the show)

Category: TV shows

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
One of the most iconic TV shows before people talked of any golden eras in TV, tells the story of Carrie Bradshaw, her three best girl friends and their quest for love and sex that lasted six seasons (and two terrible movies that barely count).

How I found it:
I watched two or three seasons on TV, though not quite regularly, and then I systematically re-watched everything a couple of years ago. This time now was my more or less third watch.

Summary judgment:
This time didn’t impress me as much as the previous ones. In fact, parts of it left me bored.

Best things about it:
Twenty years ago, in its own way, the show was fairly revolutionary in its portrayal of a certain kind of relationships: both their psychological and physiological aspect. At least back then, it felt honest and surprisingly open.
The writing is often very smart and funny, with clever juxtapositions of different storylines and surprising conclusions to them.

Worst things about it:
I would say seasons one and six because I enjoyed them the least. But from a more general point of view, if you don’t buy this show for what it is, you will be irritated by so many things: its outdated approach to homosexuality, the vacuity of the characters and their ridiculous economic conditions, their occasional cruelty and forced problems. Bergman this ain’t.

Other pluses:
✤ Some of the clothes and, to a lesser extent, some interiors are lovely to look at for the sheer aesthetic pleasure.
✤ The many things Miranda says.
✤ The characters (arguably except for Carrie) all develop and grow, which is one justification for six seasons of a show like this.

Other minuses:
✤ I once read somewhere that the show owed its success to Parker’s likability but I mostly find her childish and irritating, particularly in the moments when she’s trying for endearing. I don’t expect you to remember but there’s a scene in which she talks about Aidan’s “nook”, which perfectly embodies everything I dislike about her.
✤ In the first season or two the show is still looking for its style, with the mockumentary street interviews and too many random characters. It grows better when it gains the courage to drop these crutches.

How it enriched my life:
Now it hasn’t particularly. But the first time I watched it I was in high school and I learned stuff from the show (often very theoretical stuff but isn’t most knowledge, particularly in high school?). The second time I really admired the writing and got quite interested in all the long-term stories.

Fun fact:
Not a single one of Carrie’s relationships was halfway functional. But I always liked Charlotte and Harry. Theirs was a fun story.

Follow-up:
I did watch the movie. We’ll talk about it. I might get back to the show some time but I need to forget most of the stories because this time it bothered me how much I remembered what was going to happen.

Recommended for:
Single ladies. Fans of the early 2000s culture. People in love with New York or, I guess, Sarah Jessica Parker.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Let’s whine about the movie

Standard
Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Landline

I will often watch a smaller dramedy with a bit of an indie whiff, enticed by a trailer and a premise. I will most often also end up disappointed.

er-landlineLandline

Category: Movies

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A 2017 dramedy about a family in some crisis (a cheating crisis). It takes place in 1995 and Jenny Slate stars, which was all I needed to know to watch it.

How I found it:
The classic way: an IMDb trailer.

Summary judgment:
It’s painless (which I’m not sure it was supposed to be).

Best things about it:
As expected, Jenny Slate. I fell in love with her as Mona Lisa on Parks and Recreation and I watched her in Obvious Child (which I’m still not sure what I think of). She’s irresistibly likable, no matter what a silly or even repulsive role she plays, with impeccable comedic timing. But I liked most of the other actors, with a particular shout-out to Edie Falco as the mother, who does very little but keeps it human and likable.

Worst things about it:
It feels like a very lightweight story. Sometimes I felt unsure why I was watching it (which, admittedly, is my frequent reaction to indie comedies).

Other pluses:
✤ I liked the music, particularly the Angel Olsen song. It would be my instinct to choose around-1995 songs but – side fact – not long ago I had to create a 1997-themed playlist and most of that music really sucked. So I get it.
✤ As always, I’m a sucker for depictions of family love.

Other minuses:
✤ I’m not sure why the movie is taking place in 1995 at all. That might be some local color I don’t get but nothing (except for the landline phones) marks it as a particularly 1990s movie and it would work among a more hipsterish family.
✤ I didn’t connect with Ali. Her rambling rebellion irritated me.

How it enriched my life:
I enjoyed it well enough. That’s about it.

Fun fact:
I completely didn’t recognize Jay Duplass as Ben. Weird, after all the Mindy Project episodes I saw him in. I didn’t even have that I’m-sure-I-know-this-actor-from-somewhere feeling.

Follow-up:
I’ll be there for Jenny Slate.

Recommended for:
People who like low-key, slice-of-life family stories, especially involving a strong sisterly bond and some wacky moments.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Next time: Three Princes

Standard
Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Heathers

It’s the 80’s/90’s nostalgia wave and I am willing to oblige.

er-heathersHeathers (1989)

Category: Movies

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A 1989 dark comedy / high school satire or something like that. Three Heathers and a Veronica rule a school but Veronica, played by a really young Winona Ryder, doesn’t find it as exciting as she hoped. So when she meets a charming psychopath, played by a really young Christian Slater, she joins him on a killing spree. This, however, she doesn’t find that exciting either.

How I found it:
Now that people are remaking the movie as a TV show I remembered its existence. I once saw a part of this movie on TV but I didn’t know what I was getting into and the tone of the movie put me off immediately. I decided to give it another go now that I knew what to expect.

Summary judgment:
I don’t think I’m the ideal audience for this movie and I find it really hard to judge.

Best things about it:
It’s stylish, with all the main characters and even, alright, Slater, looking great. The visual side of the movie makes it clear how it works more like a film version of a comic than a portrayal of an actual school clique.
They created a whole dialect for this movie. People say of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that Whedon wrote a teen slang that is completely invented but sounds realistic and I think Heathers‘ writers tried to do it first. The dialogs don’t really sound natural but they are full of quotable gems, “f*ck me gently with a chainsaw,” being the most memorable.

Worst things about it:
I had a problem with the tone of the movie. Of course, it’s fairly obvious what it is going for but at least now, thirty years later, it feels particularly tone-deaf. Everything is drawn with such thick lines and you can’t really care for any of the characters. It really does feel like an adaptation of some nihilistic cartoon stripe, which would be fine, but then sometimes it goes for those analyses of the condition of (then) modern teenagers and of how high school reflects society, which sound false. I’d rather have a consistent collection of cartoonish sketches.

Other pluses:
✤ I liked the joke with mineral water.
✤ The color-coding of the girls, while obvious, always earns a plus in my book.
✤ I like the emancipated (and smoked) Winona Ryder in the end. But I still have a hard time understanding her character.

Other minuses:
✤ The last part with the bombing. And boy, did this film grow old when you think of it. It’s hard to imagine a modern teen movie, even a satirical one, using the same motifs (which makes it half-interesting how they’re going to pull off the remake).
✤ I really disliked Christian Slater in this role. And “Greetings and saluuutaations” earns the movie another minus in my book.

How it enriched my life:
I discovered a source of some quotes I sometimes come across. And if I were the kind of person to send people animated gifs in emails as emotional comments, I would find a ton in this movie.

Fun fact:
I can totally see myself saying “How very” for a while now. My husband will just have to deal ’cause that’s how I roll.

Follow-up:
I’m not coming back to this one and unless I read very interesting things about the re-make, I doubt I will be watching it either.

Recommended for:
People with a very serious case of 1980’s/90’s nostalgia or curiosity who don’t mind superficiality in their portrayal of social ills. Or fans of 80’s fashion, maybe.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Next time: Riverdale

Standard
Show Case

Wildly Enthusiastic Review: The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

re-themarvelousmrsmaiselThe Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (season 1)

Category: TV shows

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A show created by Amy Sherman-Palladino of Gilmore Girls, except this one is about something specific. It takes place in New York of the 1950s. Midge Maisel, a beautiful, rich young wife, faces a crisis in her personal life and responds by becoming a stand-up comedienne – as one does.

How I found it:
Vulture was ecstatic about the show and the premise sounded interesting so I decided to check it out.

Summary judgment:
It is pure delight.

Best things about it:
Gilmore Girls is one of my ironing shows whose main advantage is its number of seasons and that you don’t need to pay attention to it. But Mrs. Maisel is nothing like that: it has focus, purpose and a very specific vision which shows in its direction, colors and even music. It is a joyful show which doesn’t rely solely on cuteness. And Rachel Brosnahan’s portrayal of the main character adds to the overall delight of the show: you just want to have her charm and chutzpah (and her figure).

Worst things about it:
I guess I connected with Suzie the least. I understand her role in the show but she feels to me the most like a Gilmore transplant and sometimes the relationship between her and Midge is ordained rather than earned.

Other pluses:
✤ I loved Abe played by Tony Shaloub. In this show about strong women he does hold his own and I find his vector lecture (or its conclusion) the funniest scene in the entire season.
✤ The visuals! This fairy-tale, music-hall New York is a place you want to be immediately transported to.
✤ You can hear how much attention the creators paid to the selection of music and it really pays off. The music defines the mood of many scenes so perfectly.
✤ This version of Lenny Bruce is quite a charmer.
✤ While Joel sometimes plays the villain of the story, I appreciate that he remains gray and Midge’s love for him is understandable. Too often the viewer can’t feel anything for the cheating husband and the drama of divorce doesn’t hold up.

Other minuses:
✤ Some, not many, scenes ran a little too long and had me waiting impatiently for the next, more exciting act, particularly if they included Imogene.
✤ I guess making Midge (or her parents) rich can be seen as a cop-out (it’s weird how much she doesn’t have to worry about money and can uphold the lifestyle even after the separation) but it allows to focus on different problems so I didn’t really mind.
✤ Main minus: I wish there were more episodes!

How it enriched my life:
It made me laugh and I learned about stand-up comedy (not a subject I ever felt overly interested in) and it even made me feel Christmas atmosphere for a while.

Fun fact:
Apparently Amy Sherman-Palladino said she wanted to make a show about a woman in the 1950s who didn’t hate her life and that might be the best description of the show and of what makes it so attractive (and also an explanation of why many shows today don’t work for me at all).

Follow-up:
It was one of the occasions when after finishing the show I wished there was more. So I’m definitely up for season two.

Recommended for:
Fans of period pieces, 1950s New York, the history of stand-up comedy and smart shows with a girlish side.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Next time: The Glass Castle (the book)

Standard
Show Case

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: The Good Place

It took me a while to see the show despite the impressive people involved in its production but I’m now up to date and we can talk (with spoilers! if you don’t know the big twist and don’t want to, please don’t read on)

er-thegoodplace1The Good Place (season 1)

Category: TV shows

Find it on: Amazon

What it is:
It’s like that Sartre play No Exit, except bubbly, funny and colorful. (And this was a spoiler, of course.) A bunch of people end up in the afterlife, which turns out to be very different from what they expected, but against all odds they manage to evolve and build relationships. It’s created by Michael Shur, of Parks and Recreation fame, and Kristen Bell stars as Eleanor, a truly awful person who learns to be not necessarily good, more like human.

How I found it:
I saw a trailer before it started and I really didn’t like it. I thought the jokes simplistic and couldn’t imagine how they would keep up the premise in any interesting way at all.

Summary judgment:
It surprised me! While it’s not as funny as Parks and Rec, it’s funny enough but, most of all, the ongoing arc turns out really interesting.

Best things about it:
It’s a smart show, with little ongoing jokes and meaningful background details. It’s got a consistent visual style that is pleasant to watch with the bright colors and the theatrical artifice. The actors are great and make you slowly learn to like the characters. But most of all, while it has a lot of funny ideas, it also manages to get you invested in the long-term story.

Worst things about it:
You really need to wait through the first two episodes or so to become invested in the characters because Eleonor is truly awful at first and impossible to root for. Luckily, the episodes are short and the whole thing quite breezy so in no time you find yourself excited about the developments.

Other pluses:
✤ It doesn’t fall flat on its not-that-exciting premise and finds new things to do with it. In this it differs from most “Status Quo Is God” sitcoms.
✤ It has so many quotable lines though I will need to re-watch it to cite anything specific.
✤ I enjoyed Adam Scott’s appearance so much, especially because he was so different from Ben. I hope to see more Parks and Rec alumni in the future.

Other minuses:
✤ Sometimes the philosophical part is a bit clunky, especially when the shows is trying (?) to teach the viewers about the studies of morality. But that didn’t really bother me, to be honest.
✤ Not all the characters work for me equally well. I’m not a fan of Jason’s because the idiot trope is one I don’t generally care for.

How it enriched my life:
It was fun to watch and made me think more than I ever did about the concept of frozen yoghurt.

Fun fact:
I knew the big twist that happens in the end of the season from the very beginning but it still didn’t affect my pleasure in watching. In fact, it mattered very little to know about “the bad place” and it might’ve made the whole thing less flat.

Follow-up:
I will watch season two with my husband, who got interested in the show after looking over my shoulder for a while and scoffing that I’m wasting time. And then we’ll probably re-watch the first season that he partly missed.

Recommended for:
People who still miss Veronica Mars and/or Parks and Recreation. People who like their eschatological ruminations kept light.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Loving Vincent, maybe

Standard
Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

er-scottpilgrimScott Pilgrim vs. the World

Category: Movies

Find it on: Amazon

What it is:
Based on a comic, this cult adaptation tells a story of a Canadian slacker Scott Pilgrim, who falls in love with mysterious Ramona Flowers and to win her heart has to battle her seven evil exes. The story uses a very characteristic visual language, calling back to arcade games and comics, and the whole thing looks like a love child of a blockbuster and an indie movie.

How I found it:
I sort of knew it existed but heard of it anew on one of the podcasts I follow and when our pop-culture-savvy friend A confirmed it was okay, we tried it.

Summary judgment:
This is a surprising little gem, unlike most things I ever watched.

Best things about it:
The visual choices make the movie quite original – and they both look good and add a whole layer to the humor of the movie. Little things like the pee bar and coins and big things like ingenious scene transitions more than make up for the banality of the story.

Worst things about it:
I have some problems with the representation of women. It’s not tragic but could use tweaking here and there.

Other pluses:
✤ Great cast full of big names playing small roles.
✤ Did I mention the visuals? Because it’s hard to stress them enough. One rarely finds such a consistent, fun, striking vision in a movie. I’m not usually one to prize looks over the story but here I am.
✤ So many quotable lines! I like Short answer: being vegan just makes you better than most people.
✤ I know I’m harping on the story a little bit because it’s so… insignificant, I guess, but it’s still enjoyable.

Other minuses:
If someone told me they found the movie unbearably trite and empty, I would certainly see where they came from. It wasn’t my experience of it though.

How it enriched my life:
Like so few movies do, it restored a bit of my faith in the modern cinematography. Apparently, it can still be fresh, even working within popular, colorful aesthetics.

Fun fact:
So Toronto doesn’t necessarily look all that exciting in this movie (kind of the point, I know) but it’s still very much on my shortlist of places I want to visit some time.

Follow-up:
I’m sure I will re-watch it more than once. I’ve also started reading the comics since then so stay tuned if it’s something you’re interested in.

Recommended for:
Geeks and geek-wannabes (there are those?). Gamers. Neo-punkrockers. Comic readers. People who seek originality in the movie industry.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Lost in Austen

Standard