Category: movie

  • Dead On Arrival

    I repeatedly considered walking out of Dead of Winter, which I think is worse than most credible critics think.

    This movie, which is written by Nicholas Jacobson-Larson and Dalton Leeb and directed by Brian Kirk, is a story about a widow named Barb (Emma Thompson) who is driving in snowstorm to scatter her late husband’s ashes on the lake where they had their first date when she decides to intervene in a kidnapping. The married kidnappers (Marc Menchaca and Judy Greer) hope to extract a kidney from their hostage (Laurel Marsden), who has previously attempted suicide, and are thwarted by Barb, who eventually drags the remaining kidnapper to her, and their, watery death.

    The casting suggests aspirations for something substantial. Thompson in an interview about this movie called for more female heroes presumably of a certain age on the big screen, and suggested that female heroism is existentially essential.

    Thompson isn’t wrong. She just has the wrong project. The scenery-chewing performances make some scenes in this movie difficult to watch, but these only make a flawed script seem worse.

    Barb’s accent might be distracting, but her strength is implausible. This senior citizen can bust through a locked basement door, tumble down a flight of stairs, and exhibit no effects. Elsewhere, she fashions a needle from a fishing hook with one good arm to stich a bullet hole in her other one and later can lift a water heater or some other large appliance high enough to slip her handcuff beneath its leg.

    Her motivation is no more clear than it is for the other characters. Why would Barb for example go to this lake in the middle of a snowstorm, and not wait until it had subsided if not until the ice had thawed? Even their first date — ice fishing when she was much younger — hadn’t occurred in a snow storm.

    Barb’s actions are bewildering. For instance, she has the foresight early in the movie to write backwards on a frosted window to communicate with the young woman who has been imprisoned in the basement, which obviously makes it easier for her to read, but doesn’t think to erase it, which later reveals her presence to the kidnappers.

    Barb decides to spare one of the kidnappers, who has hypothermia after falling into the hole in the lake she cut and hid, after he agrees to drive to the police before the hospital. In response, he donates additional ammo presumably in gratitude for her risky decision or an affirmation of his intentions or both. Barb, who has realized that she needs more bullets, nonetheless fires blindly beneath a vehicle at this kidnapper’s wife, and only strikes her in the leg, which slows but doesn’t stop her.

    Instead, this kidnapper forces Barb to help her take the victim to her makeshift surgical ward atop the icy lake, which happens to be near the fishing cabin Barb had earlier erected. This kidnapper, who has earlier killed her husband after finding him driving away, seems intent upon harvesting her victim’s liver by herself after she also shoots Barb with a rifle in the chest.

    Audience members who circumnavigate these script holes eventually arrive at the final confrontation, which concludes when Barb manages to drag the kidnapper into the same hole where the kidnapper’s husband previously had fallen. We never see the victim who nearly lost her liver try to save her savior, who nonetheless manages to open the tackle tin that had previously saved her life — the bullet is buried in her husband’s ashes — and release these ashes that have been hidden beneath the top layer of lures and line.

    We’ve never learned why this victim had wanted to kill herself or worse why late in the movie she announces a newfound desire to live. We do watch her as the sole survivor discover a photo of Barb and her late husband from her fateful first date years earlier, which mercifully releases us from this cringe-worthy movie.

    Dead might be a B-movie, but that doesn’t absolve it from any and all obligations to its audience.

  • Don’t Do It

    I thought that I could follow my friend’s recommendation to ignore other critics’ opinions, and would see Doin’ It, a new classroom comedy by Sara Zandieh, Neel Patel, and Lilly Singh as a result of its trailer. Maybe I was missing stuff by using aggregated critical opinion I mused that I’d otherwise be glad to have seen.

    This movie starts with Maya’s and her mother Veena’s return to the United States from India where they relocated when Maya was a precocious teen. Maya now thirty years old hopes to launch an app and her career but soon discovers her unfamiliarity with its demographic, which she can research according to her friend Jess by becoming a substitute teacher.

    Maya is hired to teach sex-ed, which is even more uncomfortable for her because she as a virgin is less experienced than many of her students. Jess offers to help her both complete her high school bucket list and develop her sexual experience, and their efforts are aided by the another new teacher Alex, a cafeteria worker named Barbara, and even her former infatuation, which also enables Maya to reconsider her app and even finding funding.

    The predicable plot includes a Dead Poet’s Society moment around sex-positivity, which both inspires Maya’s revised app and helps her regain her job. The stock characters include the tolerant and thoughtful lover, who is both the other minority (Filipino) new hire and teaches computer science, which offers them yet another connection and a potentially productive conflict.

    Maya had expected to teach computer science, so this rivalry could have added depth to their characters but does not. This missed opportunity is consistent with Maya’s larger lack of development. At no point does she reveal anything more than superficial satisfaction with her relationships, including her friendship with the mysterious cafeteria worker who befriends Maya, audits Maya’s class, reveals her hidden wealth, and ultimate funds Maya’s new app.

    Too many of the gags, which also appear in the trailer, aren’t that amusing, which doesn’t prevent them from reappearing. For example, the vibrator from Jess is misrepresented by Maya as a handheld blender, which her mother uses for their breakfast smoothie and later another for her love-interest neighbor. Its initial shortcoming only means that subsequent scenes are bigger failures.

    This movie I believe contains a larger story but never explores it. It could have been a narrative about sexual maturation in an Indian / Indian-American home or of an older or brown or older, brown woman. It could have considered emotional and physical intimacy in a continuum of relationships, especially as people migrate, age, or even relate to aging parents.

    Such a story could have offered insights about shifting notions sexuality that could be useful to anyone. None of that though and not much else appeared on the screen, which is why I slipped out of the theater as fast as I could once the credits started to roll.

  • Roses and Thorns

    I’m not the only one who questions the success of the new Roses adaptation by Tony McNamara, but I might be more intrigued by its intention.

    This movie, which is a remake of the 1989 one by Michael J. Leeson and 1981 novel by Warren Adler, focuses on the relationship between Theo, an architect whose major project has failed, and Ivy, a chef whose return to work after this failure was more successful than either imagined.

    Theo (Benedict Cumberbatch) is struggling in his new role as primary parent, so Ivy (Olivia Coleman) returns a favor by offering to finance their dream home, which he designs and builds as a way of restoring his professional and personal reputation. Its development is inversely related to the deterioration of their marriage, which culminates in a fateful dinner party that finally reminds them after everyone has left of their shared desire to restore their relationship just before the house and presumably they are destroyed by a gas-leak explosion.

    Many are critical of this movie. The Chicago Reader for example suggests that the pacing is off and that the performances should be funnier, which seem reasonable. Nonetheless, I was intrigued by its intention, which could be a funny foray into the challenges of marriages, especially those that last many years.

    Research suggests that married couples, even unhappily married ones, are generally happier after many years (e.g., Carstensen 2011, 119-120). Anyone in one of these can attest that such longevity often requires unforeseen compromises and challenges.

    Such a reality is central to this movie, which wants to acknowledge it in a witty way. This worthwhile challenge however is ultimately more than it can manage.

    Both central characters are mutually witty, which is part of their attraction and they suggest in a counseling session could be considered repartee, or less caustic criticism and more emotional release. Also, the ending, which is different from the previous movie, more attests to the absurdity of married life.

    These and other conditions never quite coalesce in anything coherent, which is a problem. Such moments are played for laughs before any black comedy discomfort can arise. For example, the new-age-adjacent Amy (Kate McKinnon) offers her husband’s friend and client Theo a romantic road trip but when challenged merely acknowledges her desire for novelty without any intention of leaving her husband Barry (Adam Samberg).

    This mixed messaging means that the move is at most an amusing couple of hours with solid main performances and more than adequate technical elements. These unfortunately are constrained by choices from its author and its director (Jay Roach), and make it a mostly forgettable project.

    As such, it never quite does justice to its central story about a long-married couple confronting challenges. Some obviously fail while others succeed, and this difference could be compellingly considered in a movie but just would need something clearer.