Change Your Image
Tamara_Nartichti
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
South Park: Joining the Panderverse (2023)
They've Still Got It
It's honestly amazing how Trey and Matt managed to stay consistently brilliant throughout close to THREE DECADES. We just have to be grateful they still have love for their most famous creation, other artists usually have two-three projects in them per interest, probably spanning over 3-5 years. Compare that to almost thirty that these two are happy to spend in their 2D Universe made in a 3D software (if they are still using Maya) lol Incredible. Some seasons were weaker than others, but when you think they are done, they come back and hit you with something like this.
Unexpected. Jaw-dropping. Pushing the boundaries. As always.
I didn't think they'd come for Kathleen the way they did, to be honest. I also don't know if she deserved this criticism, to be the only one to blame for all things wrong, but they addressed that notion in a meta way, as usual, through Randy, making sure to tell us that they understand blaming one person for everything is just as stupid as always, and they simply use the hyperbole for a more concise and focused message.
Full disclosure: I'm neither pro-pandering, nor am I a 4chan troll calling Kathleen the c-word lol, but I don't like the constant and incessant drive to be changing the identities of the characters. Snow White was the first book I read (it was a Disney illustrated book, I was six), it had a special place in my heart, I used to carry that book around with me everywhere I went for months. I never thought the princess was "beautiful", I thought she was kinda fat, but in my brain she was forever that image: blue eyes, black hair, porcelain-white skin. So, to me personally, that's what Snow White is, I don't mind someone taking the character and doing whatever with it, I just hope it will also be okay to make a Snow White live action film with an actress who looked exactly like the drawing from the 30s. That's all.
"This is supposed to be Cartman" This line alone is worth a thousand letters that could be written from enraged fans of desecrated originals. Hilarious. Pointed. And to the point.
The guys were always fearless, but this time... I don't know, they outdone themselves. They said all the things that needed to be said about the current state of pop culture in general and Disney specifically.
I hope the takeaway won't be "Let's replace Kathleen with a diverse executive", although that'd be something.
It's amazing how resilient Bob Iger is, though, they've been trying to get rid of him for years, despite his stellar track record. He's just like a cockroach, keeps coming back. It was a bit... different to see Trey make him out to be the hero of the industry. You can't take South Park too seriously, but still, that aspect was a tad eyerolling. I still remember him cancelling Ellen (the 90s sitcom) and saying that the ratings were low and it was about "her being gay in every episode" in a negative way. That line alone could make him the hero of the 4chan types, though.
Fables and allegory aside, this special stands on its own: it's true to the characters and the South Park universe, the story is dynamic and engaging, the truths are unexpected and hard-hitting, I wish it was a full-length feature, I just didn't want it to end.
One piece of advice I'd have for Trey and Matt is put a birthing person in it and make her same-gender attracted, maybe. And Autistic. Would be nice.
Bros (2022)
Well, It's Pretty Bad.
This was marketed as the first gay rom com produced by a major studio and I was there for it. It was a long time coming, can't believe it took this long, but finally, it was here. The film started off okay, but the problems became obvious early on - um, is this our protagonist? Are we stuck with this person, really??? First off, don't want to sound mean, but I'm gonna: I was expecting younger characters. The love interest looks terrific, of course, but when you hear "rom com", you don't exactly picture 40-somethings. However, this isn't even a part of my criticism, it's just something that stuck out at first, but wasn't an issue.
The biggest issue, however, is manifested in its loud-mouthed, over-bearing, unpleasant and insecure lead. My god. I understand indulgence, I do, but, as a writer/actor, don't you realize that your over-indulgence in one project may result in you having trouble getting your next project off the ground? Put some breaks on your self-obsession, just a bit, please. I honestly can't remember a more annoying character in recent years, he would maybe work as a friend who is always whining and bitching about stuff and never gets laid, that would be realistic and more tolerable, since 'the friend' usually gets limited screentime, not enough for you to start wishing for his violent death anyway, but when that whining friend is your lead, that's a problem.
His whole demeanor and neurotic outbursts could POSSIBLY fly if he was a twink with washboard abs, MAYBE, but when you're a grown man, not ugly, but not particularly attractive, - no one would entertain your presence. Actually, I take it back, even a hot twink couldn't pull it off - nothing can cancel out that ugly personality our lead brought to the table, nothing. Nobody would be tolerating this weirdo in real life, unless their jobs depended on it, that kind of person just sucks all the air out of the room, and people don't generally enjoy feeling suffocated.
The second-biggest issue of this film is the story. Our loud mouth starts off by trashing other films about gay relationships, Brokeback Mountain in particular, saying how straight people are trying to push their hetero-normative views on gays. I felt personally attacked lol Given that Brokeback Mountain was based on a short story written by a woman, and as a straight female myself, I had to concede - we do love to fantasize about "the gayz" like that, sowwy. However, it was a teachable moment, and I was ready to learn: "Okay, yes, that was our way, but I'm all ready for you to tell Your stories Your way. Bring it on!" At this point, I was still hopeful this was going somewhere. It wasn't.
The usual structure of a rom com is: reluctant leads - come together - have quirky moments with each bonding - have a thing go wrong and break up - come together at the end. Looking at this you might think that's exactly what Bros did, and I'd agree. They indeed created those little clusters of scenes to fit the formula, the problem is - they are not organically or logically connected to each other at all, they are literally just a bunch of scenes stuck together.
I'd say it was more or less organic while the bonding was happening, however, our love interest made it clear right away he wasn't looking for a relationship, while our insecure and desperate lead was pretending like he's the same way. So, up to the point of the big WRONG and a break-up, it was not even clear how the hot guy felt about the loud mouth, or why he was tolerating him, at all. They break up, next thing we know the hot guy now wants the loud mouth back. What? HOW? Why? It felt like there was 10 minutes of the film missing. It goes from the hot guy treating the loud mouth as a charity case to - not being able to tolerate him anymore and leaving him to - wanting him back because... reasons?
I know when I describe it like that, you can bring up endless examples of straight rom coms where characters behave illogically or want to get back together out of nowhere. The difference here is that we were not shown any evolution in the hot guy at all, not even a hint of "maybe, I want a relationship now...?" He actually showed more emotion towards his high school crush, maybe that should've been the story.
It made me laugh twice, so can't say I regret watching it, but I wish better gay rom coms came along. Unfortunately, this flop might scare studios now and if some really good one was in development, it's gonna get shelved. It's annoying, because obviously the creators of this film wanted to open the doors for the next projects, instead, they probably set the whole subgenre back.
It's a shame, because I think this flopped because it was a bad film, not because it was a gay rom com. Blaming homophobia isn't helpful, either - you can't shame investors into financing your movie, but you can certainly try, I guess.
Ozark: Sugarwood (2017)
Quite A WILD Ride (part 1/6)
DISCLAIMER: this review cross-references various episodes from different seasons, SPOILERS for the entire show are possible.
Table of Contents:
Cinematography
Storytelling and Direction
Production Design
Costume Department
Characters
Dialogue
Story
Acting
Factual Accuracy
Cinematography
The importance of the visual presentation cannot be understated, TV is a visual medium, after all, so not surprising, and in that aspect of production this show is a winner. It's just beautifully shot, you like returning to this environment over and over again: from the majestic serene landscapes to ambitious city skyline, the view is absolutely stunning. I don't know for sure, but it seemed like the majority of interior scenes was shot on location, none of them feel like a set, they seem like real spaces. It's especially difficult to get a good clean shot in a real house, the set is much more accommodating in that regard: you can remove the walls and move the ceilings to capture both wide and medium shots with no restraints, in a real house a cinematographer has a much tougher job fitting the director's vision into frame. However, thanks to the unprecedented rate of technological progress these days, the digital cameras are getting smaller and smaller, very soon we'll be getting Arri Alexa quality from GoPro-size cameras. So, yeah, it's easier to get decent shots even in smaller spaces than it was ten years ago, but still, it's a demanding job, and it was done impeccably here. I also noticed many people complaining about the bluish tint, - to each their own, because to me the color grading fit the tone of the show like a glove. To summarize: the show was a visual feast from start to finish, an absolute delight to immerse yourself in.
8/10
Storytelling and Direction.
Appreciation of this aspect is usually dependent on one's personal perception and processing set-up of their mind, - different people prefer different kind of way to open the story: some people respond well to a slow build-up consisting mostly of visual sequences, e.g., - "Prometheus" (2012), while others prefer to jump right in to dialogue, think "Reservoir Dogs" (1992). Actually, these examples just hurt my point, because they both have the absolute perfection of an opening, done impeccably, masterfully, even though they are diametrically opposite of each other. So, I guess, despite making this generalized statement about different styles appealing to different people, something done by a true master would have an almost universal appeal. The long wide pan shots of waterfalls and volcano land were just as immersive and attention-grabbing as coffee cups and miscellaneous china sounds with Mr. Brown going in on Madonna before we can even see the first shot of the film.
When it comes to "Ozark" ... well, its opening didn't do it for me. I tried watching it first about a year ago because I saw all the hype about it on the internet (I think I saw it trending in the "most popular" section on imdb), I turned it off within the first twenty seconds, the stretched-out shots of the environment I feel no connection to yet just didn't do it for me, - the entitlement to my attention just pissed me off. Don't assume you deserve my attention by simply existing, do something to justify my keeping my eyeballs on you.
I decided to give it another go after watching "Law and Order: SVU's" finale (A Final Call at Forlini's Bar). I was utterly impressed by Jordana Spiro's performance: we're not treated to such a nuanced and raw portrayal of a victim on this show too often: she felt real in every sense of the word, she was sometimes sympathetic, sometimes annoying, at times reprehensible, but ultimately, that's what people are, and especially, domestic violence victims; they are not a one-note trembling little things, - they are faulty, damaged, sometimes destroyed beyond recovery human beings. Jordana Spiro's performance really stuck with me, so I looked her up to see what else she's done and "Ozark" was on the list. That was it, I had to watch it then. To overcome my initial rejection reaction, I skipped through the half of the first episode and landed somewhere in the middle of Del Rio interrogation, - it proved to be a wise choice, since that scene did a better job of pulling me into the story. I don't think I felt the urge to fast-forward any sections of the show ever again, and the storytelling significantly improved throughout the first season, in my opinion.
Another SPOILER warning, just because I personally hate spoilers, this is one of very significant ones, the kind that teases your mind and gives you an "oh, I did not expect that" tingle, it illustrates the power of good storytelling, so I can't NOT mention it. Agent Petty is a gay man who tries to get close to Ruth's uncle Russ, he pretends to be in need of some local fishing guide and offers to pay for the services. During their FIRST encounter he casually drops the info about his sexual orientation, which was confusing as heck to me, why would he drop the information he KNEW would alienate his mark? Could be bad writing, whatever. The very next time they are alone together, when you're just thankful the local ignoramus is at least willing to overlook Petty's orientation, Petty just straight up sexually assaults the man with an unsolicited kiss. I was kind of fuming lol: I'm a bit old-fashioned and very sensitive to the portrayal of gay people in the media, - there are enough negative stereotypes going around that are used to justify hate crimes against LGBT people, the last thing the world needs is validation of some dangerous stereotypes on film. However, everything is hunky-dory and Russ turns out to be a closeted gay man who decides to give in to Petty's courtship. I still was disapproving of Petty's approach and this plotline's perceived implications: what, gay people have a fool-proof gaydar and Petty just "knew" who Russ was, just like that? To my surprise the story unfolded in the most satisfying manner possible: Petty WASN'T knowingly courting a straight man, NOR did he have a gaydar, he looked into Russ's file and saw his criminal history with a male prostitute, so Petty knew Russ was in a closet from the start. Ohhh. THAT'S how you tell a story, keeping the viewer on the edge of the seat guessing, fuming, - genuinely, one of the best-told subplots in the series.
Their relationship was my favorite, too - both are pretty physical dudes, each in his own way: one is your manly man type, the other is a military/martial arts man, their dynamic worked and chemistry between the characters was palpable. Even their sex scenes were enjoyable and added to the development of the characters, and sex scenes are a tricky thing to make watchable, gay or straight, -just a difficult thing to make palatable in general, takes real talent, from everyone: director, editor, cinematographer and of course, actors. All of these people have to magically come to such synchronicity and harmony that the product of their work doesn't make the audience cringe. I was rooting for them to ride into the sunset, would love a spin-off of them just going about their fishing business. Russ DID deserve better.
Speaking of my issues with the story, I find this plot device of threatening Marty with violence against the preacher's wife questionable, it's basically: the mean bad people threaten violence against the wife of some OTHER MAN, not his wife, some other dude's wife, ok? Why would that be an adequate motivation for him? Marty has been already established like a person of not good character in their eyes, what made them think it was ever an effective leverage? Because he gave them 700K once before? Maybe that's the amount he was willing to part with to cut his losses on the church project and move on? That's ultimately what ended up happening. A lot of the dealings with both the Snells and the mob were a total incomprehensible mess, but still, it failed to ruin the show for me: as long as the story is told in a dynamic entertaining way and it's being carried by charismatic actors, small things like logic, common sense, factual accuracy, etc. Become insignificant.
All in all, - a rocky start combined with an occasional gem of a sequence, a pleasant surprise here and there on top of the above average level throughout the majority of the show, I give it 7/10 overall.
Production Design
Production design is one of the most important aspects of a TV-show, sometimes more important in a TV-show than even in a movie, simply because of the running time, sort of like a brief stay versus a long-term lease. That's how I feel about it - I'm staying in all those locations with the characters, it must be pleasant to the eye, and I'm just glad we got to stay at the only interesting work of architecture in the show, the moment I saw it I knew it would be our new home: no way would they show us this eccentric design in the middle of all the conformity, and take it away. A lot of the action takes place in that house, so I was pretty happy and willing to give it a pass on all other locations, even though... the Byrdes' house and that mansion they rented for Helen were the only pretty locations in the show, even the hacienda, being all that massive and all, lacked structural harmony needed for beauty.
Also... the Langmore trailers, and nope, don't give me "it's a freaking trailer, what do you want?!" excuse, it's not about marble counter tops and fountains, it's about harmony and color scheme and items that tie the whole thing together, and you CAN do it with a trailer - Budd's trailer in Kill Bill is spectacular: feels real, messy, lived-in, but perfectly coordinated all at the same time. I'll take the Snells' house...
The Watcher (2022)
The Last Episode Ruins It
It hooked me right away - a house with a mystery trope is my weakness, can't get enough of it, so I was reveling in the story, enjoying every second of it for a total of seven episodes until it all came to a... disappointing and unsatisfying halt. Felt like it hasn't ended, just stopped at one point.
It turns out it was based on true events and the real life Watcher has never been identified, either. That information kind of explained the bizarre "ending", - you are constrained by the reality after all, can't just make up a neat ending out of thin air, but then I looked up the real story. Excuse me? You can make up blood cult allegations, previous owner's devastated families, mentally challenged neighbors with no boundaries, family annihilators, tunnel people and cunning realtors, but you can't just stick with one of the stories and make it "THE explanation"?!
Nah. Either stick with reality, or make some satisfying BS up. You can't just make some BS up while at the same time keeping it vague and unresolved under the guise of "it's true story, bro!".
The acting was superb, it is Naomi Watts, after all. I'd love to see her in a lot more mystery thrillers like this one (with a satisfying ending, though), she has a talent for them, you can never have enough.
The look of the series was also one of the winning components of production - the kitchen counter tops were butchered, though, agree with Pearl there.
Jennifer Coolidge stole every scene she was in, as always, marvelous woman, would love more of her, and less of the annoying teen drama.
The kids were barely tolerable, the girl carried out a life ruination attack on her father and we don't see any effects of it? Their house would've been buried under hate mail and egged at the very least, yet, the story just moves on like nothing happened. The only more or less realistic outcome was that the father was beaten and demoralized to the point of now being okay with a 19 year old romancing his 16 year old daughter (who he first said was "NOT even 16 yet", within a week she probably had a birthday, not sure). The said 19 year old also sent an illegally obtained bedroom activity recording to the father's boss and then gets no blow-back for that whatsoever, just some "apology" from the VICTIMIZED father?
The show treats this as if we're supposed to take the kid's side in this, for some reason, instead of making it impossible for him to work in security systems anymore - who wouldn't want a super great deal on their video cam set-up with a small caveat that the security guy might install hidden cameras in your bedroom to make sure you're not a self-stalker or something. No one can resist that deal, I'm sure.
It's also a nice change of pace to see people discuss their financial trouble, in shows like this people always seem to have unlimited resources and never have to think of budgeting their needs or limiting their spending in any way whatsoever, almost like they live on a fountain of money instead of taking on debt, like most real people. However, their seemingly soul-crushing financial situation just magically resolves itself - turns out Naomi Watts clay pots really took off. Wow, that's exactly how it happens, it's like watching real life! They might as well have written that she won a lottery, that's how ridiculous of a tacked on solution that was.
Despite all the issues with realism and unresolved mystery tropes, it was enough of an escapist fun to make me binge it all in one sitting, so can't judge it too harshly - a letdown of an ending shouldn't ruin the whole show. The first several episodes were a 9, the last one was a 4, so the rating of 5 overall is an acceptable compromise.
Speak No Evil (2022)
The Most Relatable Thriller
Wow. The boiling frog effect is real, - all the small things that seem off just keep piling up, but when you try to voice them and speak up, you look so dumb and bratty. You keep telling yourself that it's all your fault, you are not very good with people, but accept the challenge and prove to YOURSELF that you can do it! Do what exactly? Be nice and sociable. Why? Well, coz everybody else is, you're the only weirdo left in the world, but prove that it's by choice, and you COULD act normal if you wanted to. Lol Congrats, now you're boiling and there's no turning back. In my case it was just loss of time and attention on top of a ton of aggravation, in this film the cost ended up a bit higher, as it should've been - art is nothing if not exaggeration, it blows every concept up to make it easier to see from bird view.
I know people often complain about dumb characters in horror films, but honestly, nobody acts rational and logical in a straightforward thinking way a hundred percent of the time, nobody. The idea that people do that leads to victim-blaming in real-world tragedies. However, some other reviewers noted, I too thought the parents would have fought harder, but then take into account their mental, emotional and physical exhaustion by that point, and you realize, - yeah, I can see that.
Humans are emotional and weak, their physical and mental readiness to fight varies even throughout one day: at some point you're full of energy and ready to move mountains, at some other: you can barely walk and ready to die lol Add an extreme situation into the mix and you don't know how you'll act, impossible to predict.
Returning to our Danish couple, I hate to say it, but I saw myself in them. They're so tolerant and understanding that they become easy pray to gaslighting and manipulation, allowing Evil to take their turf, bit by bit. Now shameful confession and TOTAL SPOILERS: I didn't think it would end the way it did until the rocks started flying and I saw their bloodied corpses lol
Even up until the point of them crying like pathetic little bitches I was waiting any second for the Dutch couple to go "It's just a prank, bro!" Yeah, I thought it would be some pedestrian double whammy about how they need to learn the value of life, stop whining about boring dinners and environment. It wasn't. It would be interesting if it was about that: learn to say "NO" and recognize that if you FEEL like someone is disrespecting you, they're not "different", they just disrespect and despise you, probably plan on kidnapping your children, too. LOL That's hard, though. I'm talking big looking at pixels, but next hint of social confrontation and I'll fold like wet toilet paper. Maybe. Maybe not.
The film works as a metaphor, but as a film it was a bit too boring, especially Italy stuff, I fast forwarded to them receiving invitation. Music was misplaced IMO.
The Dutch couple works as a couple of psychos who like to get new kids all the time. It's implied they kill them off every time, initially when the Danish guy finds all those photos in the shed I thought the couple might be selling the children. One of the photos was Abel, I guess, but they all looked so much alike, didn't have enough identifiers for me distinguish anything other than a boy/girl. The way they play with their victims first also tracks: some predators like to play with their food, it's part of the thrill. I also assume not every hunt is success - some couples flee and never return for their plush toy. Lucky ones. Yeah, another thing that hits home: I get attached to things, too. Is bad. :)
Overall, it was an interesting experience, definitely kept me guessing the whole time. Acting was superb: whatever issues I had with pacing, all was made up for with acting. Great job, guys!
Another possibility I was considering was that this would be a total farce and nothing would've happened at all, the Danes would go home and the Dutch couple would really be just harmless weirdos. This would be lame. Gotta say, the ending they ended up with was okay, however, the one they scrapped, with multiple killings, would also be thrilling. The cult angle could've taken this film onto a different path, but the metaphor would have still worked.
Pig (2021)
Surrealist Little Fable
None of the characters feel like real people and that's alright: atmosphere and raw emotion more than make up for the lack of human presence, providing captivating and immersive experience. I have to clarify that the lack of "human" characters does not always mean lack of human nature, and the latter is presented in abundance here. It is by no means a deep all-encompassing dive into human condition, but it's a drive-by of it of sorts, and in this day and age, that's enough to earn some praise from me. Vacuous spectacle fatigue worked in this film's favor and I thoroughly enjoyed myself watching it.
Absurdist twists and turns into the city's underbelly along with psychedelic confrontational monologues were most welcome. No joke, the underground fight establishment and the restaurant encounter parts specifically made me feel like I'm WATCHING a surrealist painting come to life.
Everybody was talking about the impending doom of superhero movie fatigue in the early 2010s, it's been a decade and Marvel movies are still among the few films that actually turn a profit, congrats on that - it's always good for a movie that keeps studios afloat to exist rather than not exist. However, there are very few movies that are able to hold my attention, maybe it's part of the ageing process, maybe it's the accessibility-value curve - the more access you have to a thing the less value you put on the thing. In the time of VHS rentals it was unthinkable for me to NOT finish a movie I rented (it happened only once, and I was in shock myself lol), because that was it: you picked it, you paid for it, you brought it home, this is it: it's either this or nothing, so I'd always choose "this", even if it was not too interesting; now, with streaming - it's so easy to pick it, to start watching it, then abandon it and go look for another one, that I celebrate and thank any movie that manages to hold my attention throughout its whole runtime.
I used to rate only the films that I saw from start to finish, sometimes giving them one or two stars if I didn't like them, but for the past couple of years I reserve anything below three stars for those that I couldn't bear to sit through, no film that managed to be interesting enough for me to see it in its entirety deserves anything below a three.
Returning to "Pig" again, it's impossible to judge it in a vacuum, it exists in the world full of interchangeable action figures going through the motions, so in that context "Pig" wins, it's a breath of fresh air in the middle of that visually loud, over-saturated (both literally and metaphorically) vomit of a spectacle that always has the world ending stakes that ends up numbing you to the whole audio-visual sequence entirely. In a different world "Pig" wouldn't have earned a review from Me, but in this one it deserves it.
Nicholas Cage carries most of it, which is surprising - throughout the years I always heard people refer to him as a good actor, never felt the same way personally, but this film made me reconsider. He can internalize the character and their experience, the way you see it if you have your actor not doing or saying anything, yet you still see the CHARACTER, that's how you know your actor did it. Cage did it. There is a lot of silence and not-doing in this film and never once do you lose connection to this pig guy.
I never even knocked Cage for doing bad films, not many people realize that in most cases those films wouldn't have been made at all, if it wasn't for Cage. Same story with many former A-list actors doing "bad" films: it's not like a "we have the money, now we need some has-been to headline this", it's usually "this has-been agreed to be in this, now we can start asking around for money", that's star power. So, the conversation about "oh, how this former A-lister takes hundreds of thousands on the production that pays maybe a couple hundred dollars to this boom mic guy!?!" is dumb since if it wasn't for the A-lister, the boom mic guy wouldn't have this gig at all. Keep that in mind next time you see Cage is a bad film: Cage is the reason any of these people even get ANY money, and that is the greatest good you can do for someone: pay their bills (provide an avenue for the person to pay them, to be precise).
So, never hated the guy, but seeing him applying the aforementioned star power to a small production of a "good" film made me respect him.
The negatives: the ending and the casting of the buyer guy, - he just didn't work for me. It's hard to go head-to-head with Cage, maybe the young chap would've been fine if he didn't have to share screen with an acting heavyweight, but can't expect this film to be able to find a star actor for every role. The ending did spoil the experience a bit while not completely ruining it. As long as the film was going the experience was consistently entertaining, the storytelling remained engaging without any major dips, but once we arrived at the end, it was a let-down. I don't have any suggestions as to what I would've done differently, though, this is someone else's story and that's how they decided to conclude it, no major issues there, just personal preference.
The fact that I didn't see any of the characters as people per se might have helped ease dissatisfaction with the ending. Since they were not people, but emotions feeling each other out and experiencing themselves for a short period of time (about an hour and a half), there was nothing particularly enraging about the way it just stopped happening and the credits rolled in.
AJ and the Queen (2020)
"Come out of your shell, RuPaul!" Might Be Easier Said Than Done
On Drag Race RuPaul keeps telling the queens to "come out" of their shell that will help them shine on the runway and in challenges, especially acting challenges, however, when it comes to it, he has a trouble doing it himself. I love him as a producer and the host, he's amazing as a judge, BUT... I don't think he's a good actor.
RuPaul always seemed like a brilliant actor to me because of how rounded and vibrant his drag persona is and how engaging and fun he is at all of his TV appearances and interviews, but once I saw him in a scripted show, I got some doubts. The first time I saw him in someone else's production was that Grace and Frankie episode. He was trying, really trying, so I commend him for that, but his attempt at being fancy and aloof fell flat for me. I wrote it off on the account of him being nervous and not having enough time to think his character through, so that explained his hiding the Self deep within while putting the body saying lines in the forefront. When he is giving advice on his show, when he's giving critiques, he is 100% fully present, his Self is there, not just his body, with acting, unfortunately, he fails to pull off the same presence.
Every single person can tell good acting from bad acting, but ask them to put into words what exactly constitutes "bad" or "good" and they are at a loss for words. (It's interesting what is that experience like for someone on the Autistic spectrum: are all actors equally bad or equally good to them, I wonder.) I'm trying to rationalize the ethereal, dissect that which does not have a physical form, - and that is always a losing battle, but I'll try. Watching a bad actor act is like talking to someone with a communication challenge (either temporary or permanent), say, someone hurt their vocal cords and now they have to write what they want to say (either on paper or on their phone). The person taking their order at a café will be patient and polite trying to understand them, they'll have to be more aware of their interaction than they are with the customers who can speak. The experience will split the attention between the method of communication and the information conveyed, when with a speaking customer the experience runs seamlessly, where you don't feel like you had to stop and start, you feel like you're doing it on the fly.
I find the experience of watching a bad actor somewhat similar to this: your attention goes to the method of communication, taking you out of the movie for a bit, and you have to be patient and polite, waiting for this person to convey the information, so you could go back in and move on. I hate to say it, but this was Ru. His attention was constantly split between what he was saying and how he was looking and sounding while saying it, the feeling his Self was giving was numbed down fear of messing up. Numbing your senses out of fear of getting nervous on stage is a straight path to failing as an actor.
I don't even know if this was the director's fault, to be honest. Maybe a different director could help him cook up a better performance, but everyone was afraid of him because it's pretty much his show? This brings me to the next point, - the script. Ru's lines in the first episode were overbearing and killing any momentum, he was just talking too much without interacting really with anyone he was directing his talking at. Good story, but poor dialogue. This is the downside of getting as big and powerful as he got - everyone is afraid to help, because they think you don't need it.
Even with all that, I just love RuPaul and enjoyed some of the show, but I stopped at the diner scene of the second episode. The kid character was just obnoxiously rude with no redeemable qualities whatsoever, I just didn't want to keep watching Ru getting verbal and emotional abuse for no reason. Ironically, the acting on the child's part was great, which is a rare phenomenon - most child actors can't act, not this one, this one was superb, if it wasn't for the horrendous character...
Some might say "well, that child pretty much grew up on the street and had to get hardened by life". Sure, but such a kid who is also relatively smart (and we do in fact see AJ to be pretty smart, not mentally challenged in the slightest) would behave really tame with someone who's doing them a favor, the kid might be plotting a way to rob this good Samaritan, but wouldn't be trying to be difficult on purpose every single step of the way. The AJ character we got behaves like a spoiled brat who treats Ru like his nanny that his rich parents brought from some poor country - the brat knows that the nanny has to put up with their abysmal behavior no matter what, so they take advantage of it - that's the feel of their interpersonal dynamic.
So, I don't know if I go back to the show, maybe if I'm in the mood and once that AJ abuse fades from memory, maybe then I'll finish it, because I really love watching RuPaul in pretty much everything he does. I adore him for giving drag queens a platform and throwing gigs their way, like with this show - he gave jobs to a lot of "his" girls, and that's the best GOOD you can really do for someone.
Sickens me when people whine about how he doesn't like to chit-chat with every contestant off-screen, how he likes his personal space intact and doesn't say "hello" to every single person, etc. Etc. Still, the biggest display of support is giving someone a job or a feature, and he does it, sometimes to his own detriment, like with his traditional "write your own verse to be in my song" challenge. That awful thing hurts the song every time. I wish he had more solo music videos, because all of these team music videos are a cluttered mess. The idea is to share the shine between three - four queens, the reality is the shine dissipates and nobody has it.
In conclusion, I wish this hiccup doesn't stop RuPaul Charles from more scripted show endeavors, despite some challenges with his acting, he's still a charismatic enough person to carry a show or a movie, and the biggest problem for me was the script (both the dialogue and AJ's character). I truly believe with a different writing team RuPaul will shine in a scripted production as he does in reality TV.
Father of the Year (2018)
Happy Madison Knows Their Audience
Happy Madison knows what brand consistency is.There is something about this productions company, there is something about Adam Sandler. No matter how many Jack and Jills he'll make, he'll always be that guy that made The Waterboy, The Wedding Singer, Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore and Anger Management. Nobody can take that away from him.
And I always check for Happy Madison films, I know what I'm going to get. I am going to get a stupid self-aware joyful taste of childhood with a couple of genuine laughs. Sometimes they are a bit too heavy on the stupid (Jack and Jill), but sometimes, even in recent years, they are just the right amount of all the components and I have to say, Father of the Year is one of those winners.
It is silly good-spirited little comedy that gave me a lot more laughs than I expected to get. I can't say that it is the best comedy I have seen in about six or seven years, but it definitely gave me most laughs than any comedy in about six or seven years.
WATCH THIS. You won't regret it. On the Adam Sandler scale from The Wedding Singer (10) to Jack and Jill (1), I'd say this film is about a solid 6. Overall, I gave it the rating of 8, because I enjoyed it, it really had that Happy Madison of the 90s feel, but played a lot safer, of course. I wish they played it wild and like they had no care in the world, like in the 90s, would've been even better. I wish it was a series.
Vysotskiy. Spasibo, chto zhivoy (2011)
Not Bad, Not Really a Waste of Time
No, not at all. It's a well made film, but still a disappointment in many ways. Cinematography and scenery were magnificent, but the story was not only awful or vague, it was a bad choice, I'd say. If there was a TV-series about Visotskiy, this movie would be a good episode, CERTAINLY not the pilot one, as a feature it fails.
Basically, it looks into a couple of days of a troubled artist. Granted, some important things happened during those days, but to choose that as the story for the movie about Visotskiy? Not a smart move. A great artist is shown as some junkie, who is *bravely* handling his ODs and detox issues. That was the idea, at least, but in fact, it could have been any regular junkie's indifference, any regular junkie's need for a shot, absolutely common lack of responsibility. They might have as well called the movie Some Junkie's Hard OD.
This is not what I expected from this movie. They didn't show him as an artist at all, his early years, any speculations about the reasons for his inner pain that is clearly felt in his songs or any of artistic confrontations with colleagues during his years in theater and cinema. That's what I was interested in. Apparently all that mattered to the creators of this film was two days of Visotskiy's life. Important days, I agree, but still just two days as opposed to lifetime of fruitful work.
As a fan of his music I was also disappointed by the soundtrack. Those few songs of his that made it into the movie were not his best, were not even close to my favorites or favorites of any other fan that I know. Why those few irrelevant and, frankly, weak songs while he has loads of powerful things, real bombs, real hits? I have no answer.
Still, the movie was not bad at all. Camera work and acting was flawless. Comedic relief tolerable, at times even brilliant.
I hope to see a real movie about Vladimir Visotskiy some day.