Snap Judgment: Don't Even Think Twice About Seeing "Don't Think Twice"

Hey guys,

I've made the near-tragic decision to yet again wait until the end of a month to write a post.  Doing that on a Friday is particularly treacherous, as my brain is 87% fried.  I may actually finally break my years-long streak of imperfection in writing at least one post per month this year, though, so I will write a damn post if it kills me.  SUCH IS MY COMMITMENT.

But don't expect too much because my brain is feeling squishy.

So let's get down to it: I didn't really like "Don't Think Twice" (2016).

THAT'S RIGHT.

I SAID IT.

YOUR WACKY-YET-SOULFUL HIJINKS DON'T FOOL ME, MOVIE.

YOU'RE NOT THAT GREAT OKAY.

Allow me to explain, in our shortest-to-date Snap Judgment ever:

• Mike Birbiglia makes me gag a little bit but actually a lot.

This is both a shame and a surprise, because I used to like that guy.  He's had some great appearances on This American Life that I have genuinely enjoyed.

Unfortunately, his cinematic collaborations with TAL host Ira Glass have been disconcertingly underwhelming.  Contrary to its intention, I'm sure, "Sleepwalk With Me" (2012) is what soured me on Birbiglia.  I went into the movie completely ready to be Team Birbigs, and came out thinking he was kiiiiiiiiind of a cheating-minimalizing douchebag.

I then listened to a long-form interview with him on a podcast I enjoy as well as some of his standup and came somewhat unhappily to the realization that he's a bit of a sexist hack.  I now can't handle hearing his stupid voice without wanting to barf just a smidge.

His character definitely does not help things, as 1) his character is an embittered, petty never-has-been-y shlub who somewhat predatorially sleeps with younger women who are also his improv students and 2) I am convinced this is pure type-casting.

Gross.

• Cringe-y your dad had a horrible accident humor is NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF TERRIBLE FRIENDS.

I really love Chris Gethard, especially in his role on one of the best comedy shows currently on television.  In "Don't Think Twice," (spoilers, but can you really spoil a movie you maybe shouldn't bother seeing?) Gethard's character's dad gets in a terrible motorcycle accident and suffers severe brain damage.  Everyone goes to visit his dad in the hospital, where he feebly and effortfully tells his son "Thank you," presumably for making the trek out to visit him.

...All of the other characters then proceed to mimic that "Thank you" on the painfully long car-ride back to New York City from Philadelphia.  And it's kind of the worst, because they're kind of the worst.

• Gillian Jacobs is all about throwing around Del Close quotes about the impermanence of improv yet is a stage 5 clinger to the past.

In many ways "Community's" Gillian Jacobs is the best part of the movie.  She has some moments of sparkling humor and is generally fun to watch.  

However, her character is a living contradiction in a difficult-to-tolerate way that sums up the ham-fisted tone of the movie.  She opens and closes the movie quoting Del Close, emphasizing the emphemerality of improvisational comedy, yet clings to her very evidently dying improv troupe to the extreme detriment of her career and personal life.  It doesn't feel believably human, it just feels annoying.

• That is quite the lazy ending.

It's pretty irritating to watch all of these building conflicts only to have filmmakers yadda yadda yadda their way to an abrupt "X months later..." ending.  It really irks me.

Also (again, spoilers I guess?) there's a break-up scene that is just... no.  That just would never happen.  Please don't strain my credulity so much.

AND THEY THROW BACK TO THAT AWFUL BRAIN-DAMAGED DAD SAYING "THANK YOU" JOKE.

• Mike Birbiglia x Lazy Ending = UGH.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that that guy magically reforms just because he finally bothers to experience interest in a same-aged lady?  And are we seriously supposed to believe that said lady would put up with his extraordinarily protracted adolescence nonsense?

UGH.

So I originally gave the movie a 3.  Now, a few weeks later and clearly swimming in end-of-week grouchies, I'm further downgrading it to a 2.

Happy weekend darlings!

{Heart}

Snap Judgment: I'm Still Watching Movies Come "Hell or High Water"

Hallooo!

New job (and bonus private practice) have fully taken off since starting a few scant months ago, and things have been feeling very busy.  Given how much things have already fluctuated and shifted in my first 3.5 months, I've been trying to stay in observation mode as I watch my reactions throughout my days.  So many things are very good about work, yet I'm still struggling to balance work against my need (and increasing ability) to actually have a life outside of work.

One clear victory in that endeavor is that I've found a new go-to movie theater!  I LOVE IT SO MUCH.  Parking is only $3 and tickets are ONLY $11.  FOR GROWNUPS.  ON WEEKEND NIGHTS.

I feel like I'm getting away with highway robbery every single time.  I'm also falling into a habit of buying the most expensive things on the concession menu, because with tickets that cheap I'm concerned the place will close.  Also it seems like no one goes to movies in New City, as the theaters are sometimes oddly empty.  But then, I went to a museum yesterday, on a Saturday, and it seemed like no one was there, either.

Party Location: Clearly elsewhere
Party Invitees: Everyone but me and like five other people

It's very possible that Old City, while I miss it so very very deeply, has skewed my sense of how many people there are.  It's kind of a relief to not get elbowed out of the way while I try to look at oil paintings or independent films.

Anyway!  All my expositioning aside, I'm going to try to write a relatively brief (ha!) review of a movie I saw over the weekend.  We are over a year overdue for a snap judgment!

Tonight's film: "Hell or High Water" (2016).

Five bullet points: commence!

• "Let's talk about our backstory, shall we?!"

We're starting with my non-favorite elements of the movie.

One of my admittedly many pet peeves with movies is when dialogue serves a painfully obvious expository function.  I know the audience has to be given at least some information at the beginning of a film to have any idea what's going on, but there are subtle, artful ways of accomplishing that.  "Hell or High Water" didn't do a great job pulling that off, and instead, the timing of some of its expository information was particularly distracting.

I wouldn't qualify the following as spoilers because I don't think you can call something a "spoiler" if it occurs within the first 10 minutes of a movie, but in any case take that caveat for what it's worth as you read (or don't) the following: So at the outset of the film, you see brothers and main characters Toby Howard (played by Chris Pine) and Tanner Howard (played by Ben Foster) rob two banks in rapid succession.  They then speedily return to their family's Texan ranch, bury their getaway car to conceal it from authorities, then unwind with a few beers.

Once somewhat inebriated, Tanner begins poking around inside the family home and asking about the passing of the Howard brothers' mother as if this is the first time they've ever spoken of it.  The brothers have just commenced a plan to save their family ranch from foreclosure that clearly took a lot of strategizing and forethought.  The development of that plan was spurred by the death of their mother and the subsequent aforementioned looming foreclosure.  ...And yet we're only just now talking about mom's death?  The timing of this conversation is so distracting in its inauthenticity it's kind of stunning.

Other informational issues/plot holes (with actual potential spoilers): The brothers' plot is to steal from the bank that is foreclosing on their farm with the long-term goal of not only paying off the outstanding debt on the farm, but also putting the farm into a trust in Toby's sons' names to ensure they are broken out of the inter-generational cycle of poverty that has ensnared their family for generations.  It is a surprisingly complex and sophisticated plan.  So how the hell did two poor, presumably under-educated brothers (at least one of who has a lengthy prison record) figure out this scheme?  I don't even understand how trusts work, let alone lien transfers or how to find an attorney who is a sufficient balance of corrupt and competent to pull this plan off.  It all pushes the boundaries of reasonable credulity just a tiny bit.

Also this isn't exactly related to my overly-obvious expository beef and also spoilers (but again not really given the fact that this is a nouveau Western): one of the characters gets shot in the abdomen and is clearly not doing so hot but then I guess either gets treated or spontaneously heals because it's later totally unaddressed?  But that's a thing you can just rub some Texan farmland dirt on and walk off, right?

• Storytelling by billboard

Another somewhat ham-fisted device is the film's insistence on establishing the context for its narrative through deliberate drive-by shots of billboards proclaiming the region's financial destitution and resultant housing instability by shilling various debt relief services.

The first time they throw in one of these shots, it's like, "Oh hey I see what you did there!  You're telling me these people live in an environment of pervasive desperation and disempowerment wrought by unfeeling, insatiable, bloated, and unethical institutions that feast off the wreckage of ruined American dreams!"

The next time you're like, "...Yes, okay I get it."

Then they do it like two or three more times, and it's a little over-killy.

• Landscape as a character

Overly obvious billboard shots notwithstanding, there are gorgeous vistas of the Texan landscape peppering "Hell or High Water" that let the arid, vast landscape stretch and breathe as a very strikingly present character in the film.  Throughout the movie, Texas radiates heat, foreboding, mercilessness, strength, and imperviousness to the whims of man.  It's an at once beautiful and stark canvas on which the characters' story unfolds.

The terrain is given a voice through various secondary and tertiary characters who speak to what it means to be Texan with notes of enduring pride that are surprising and compelling especially in a story driven by humiliation and need.  At one point the Howard brothers' corrupt-yet-capable attorney recaps their plan to pay for their family's farm with money they robbed from the bank attempting to foreclose on the farm as "the most Texan thing I've ever heard" (or something along those lines).

Then, as Texas Rangers Marcus Hamilton (played by Jeff Bridges) and Alberto Parker (played by Gil Birmingham) stake out the location they suspect will host the Howard brothers' next heist later in the film, Alberto offers a different, older perspective on the history of the land that surrounds them.  By speaking to Native People's more long-standing relationship with the land, Alberto offers a needed counter-narrative to the otherwise pretty much uniformly Caucasian experience of what it is to be Texan and inhabit that land.

• Laugh lines

In its efforts to capture the Texan spirit, there are several unexpected moments of humor in "Hell or High Water."  One of my favorite scenes is when the Rangers stop for lunch in a tired-looking steak restaurant while zeroing in on the Howard brothers.  No spoilers this time, but hilarity ensues via the grouchy old lady waitress, and it's delightful.

Grouchy old lady waitresses FTW!

• Predictable, and yet

So this movie is a Western about brothers robbing banks while being actively pursued by two officers of the law.  It is obviously highly predictable that things don't go swimmingly.  And yet, when things very abruptly take a turn, I felt my heart clench as I gasped and my hands flew to my face.  It happens so fast, and even though some form of doom has been threatening from the first moments of the film, I still felt caught unawares and I still dreaded the inevitable fallout to come.

There is something so indisputably special about a film that can be very clear about precisely what it is and still surprise you.  "Hell or High Water" is full of different surprises that strike a symphony of emotional notes.  It's funny, it's beautiful, it's thrilling, it's devastating.  It has moments of melancholic sweetness and uneasy, temporary peacemakings.  Each actor melts into his or her role, aiding in transporting you directly into the heart of West Texas.  It's a really wonderful film.

Take a peak at the trailer and see if it's playing near you!

Movie score: 4.5!

{Heart}

My Mom Hated "The Lobster" and I Made Her Tell Me All About It

Greetings fellow humans!

I have a special treat in store!

I recently watched "The Lobster" (2015).  The decision to watch that film ran strongly counter to the counsel of my mom, who will henceforth be referred to as PsychoCineMom, and who hated, HATED "The Lobster."

After seeing the movie and formulating my own strong opinions, I decided to check in with PsychoCineMom to discuss.

LUCKY FOR YOU DEAR READERS, I recorded that discussion.  Below, please find, for your immense reading pleasure:

"The Lobster": A Discussion with My Mom, 

Who Hated It

Needless to say: this post contains spoilers.  Spoilers galore.  Spoilers contained herein largely concern "The Lobster," obviously, but also another of director Yorgos Lanthimos's films, "Dogtooth" (2009).  And kind of but not really "In Bruges" (2008).  As a result, this post also includes another PsychoCinematic first: a jump! (See the fancy html coding IN ACTION below!)

I know I just said that henceforth mom will be referred to as PsychoCineMom, but for shortness-of-title-in-the-interview-transcription's sake, she will henceforth be referred to as PCMom.

Because the interview was thorough, you will note that I have also included subheadings for anyone who's interested in hearing PCMom's perspectives on various "Lobster"-related topics.  Those headings include:

• PCMom Summarizes "The Lobster"
• PCMom Rates "The Lobster"
• PCMom Identifies the Only Parts of "The Lobster" She Liked
• PCMom Discusses the Aesthetics of "The Lobster"
• PCMom Discusses Her Absolute Least Favorite Part of "The Lobster"
• An Assessment the Main Character's Motivation
• I Reveal My Feelings About "The Lobster"
• I Put My Feelings About "The Lobster" In Context Given that "Dogtooth" was Worse
• I Acknowledge My Capacity to Revel in Sadistic Humor
• An Assessment of the Main Character's Character
• I Reveal My Rating of "The Lobster"
• PCMom Should Maybe Not Be Allowed to Interview Yorgos Lanthimos
• An Assessment of the Use of Animal Cruelty in Cinema
• PCMom Reassesses Her Rating

Without further ado:

Goodbye, Mr. Cunningham

Hello,

In what's been a very dramatic and often very depressing few weeks, I wanted to ensure this news item didn't miss our attention:

This weekend, Bill Cunningham, the photographer behind the New York Times's recurring "On the Street" fashion photoessay, passed away.

Friends who have been following this blog from early on may remember that I reviewed "Bill Cunningham New York" (2010), the documentary profiling Mr. Cunningham and his remarkable life and work.  (You can check out that original post here.)

Although unfortunately the film isn't currently available to live stream on Netflix (as it thankfully was when I first watched it), it's still available as a DVD rental through the service.  It's also rentable through Amazon and iTunes and may be streamable through Hulu.  If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

Thank you for your passion and dedication, Mr. Cunningham.

{Heart}

The "Legend" of the Next Chapter

Hihihi!

It's very late and I must go to bed soon.

But!

By way of (two) quick updates:

• New job is great!  New apartment is great!

The upgrade in quality of life since our move to New Home is sweeping, stunning, and instantaneous.  Husband and I actually get to see each other!  We have space!  Kittens are happy!  Work is busy but has (at least for the moment exceedingly) reasonable hours!

• A few months ago I watched a movie I wanted to write about, even briefly, because it's my impression that it is woefully underappreciated.

"Legend" (2015)!

Normally gangster movies really don't do much for me.  They perpetuate a tired and weird nostalgic bad-old-days mystique, they're predictable, they glorify psychopathy, and they try to swaddle misogyny in the bogus guise of infatuated "love" gone awry.  (Ew.  Spare me please, especially on this latter infraction.  Dragging someone into your drugs-and-violence-fueled catastrophic death spiral is not romantic.)

And yet!  For several reasons, I REALLY enjoyed this movie:

1. Telling an English version of a solidly American narrative gives the story a fun new flavor.

2. The 1960s mod aesthetic makes for fun costuming.

3. The fight scenes are genuinely bruising, badass, and very well-shot.

But the real standout reason to watch this movie is, very unfortunately, perhaps why it seems like basically no one saw it:

4. The main characters in the movies are twins, both of whom are played by Tom Hardy.

Even though I deeply love Tom Hardy, I almost avoided seeing "Legend" altogether because I was thrown by what I perceived as a possibly bizarrely terribad gimmick.  There was something about the trailers that didn't properly convey the "No guys but seriously this performance is actually great!!" that is warranted for this film.

Because it is!!  It is so great!!

The Kray brothers are well-developed characters who have independent arcs, and their arcs interact in at times surprising ways.  Of course their fraternal blood bond is (at times literally) wrestled with, with each brother representing either the siren song of a life of crime (Ronnie Kray) and the fragile hope of living "right" (Reggie Kray).  So the writing in this movie is actually pretty excellent, as evidenced by the new life breathed into an arguably pretty tired gangster trope.

But really, none of that would hit quite so hard if these characters weren't brought to life through Hardy's performance(s).  He is absolutely magnetic.  Far from being a distracting gimmick, the fact that he plays two of the film's main characters is delightful; not only do you get more Tom Hardy (yes plz), but you get to watch a very skilled actor thread the very challenging needle of having to act against himself.

So see it!

I gave the movie a 4.5.  Obvi I'm only holding out on that last .5 because Tom Hardy didn't play triplets.  #moretomhardyplease

{Heart}