youhitmetal17times_everyday Days 1-65 (2023-2024) Review

The first frame of most installments.

This piece of media can’t be truly appreciated with any kind of discussion beforehand. Just watch it first.

While my interests in media have been mostly relegated to material which exists in a long lasting and understood way, films that get preserved on reels and presented like they always have or books dedicated to text which contains all you need about the art and its message, there are fascinating and difficult to define alternative ways of telling and hosting stories that can be moving and complex in its own way, even offering an experience more or less unique to it. While it’s questionable if youhitmetal17times_everyday hopes to say anything, its nature of delivery as a series of videos you can choose to scroll through in a row, skip through, or read the comments of is unlike much before. I watched most of these multiple months in the project, with people hyping up the series and the experience of watching it in the comments. For just over a month, the same video was uploaded each day, which is a common thing to happen on Instagram, where the series is posted. Despite this repetition, the experience wasn’t nearly as boring due to how short the first video is and the comments. Instagram even sometimes makes a comment visible automatically. The comments that were at the top of the feed were the more amusing or insightful, reflecting the various thoughts a newbie will think. Is it just going to be one video forever? Is everyone else getting bored at the same point? I treat the comments as part of the experience due to their nature being predictable, probably with the creator of the series, Adrian Gray, aware ahead of time of what the comments would be like and how that would affect newcomers.

As you go through the same segment over and over, possibly without knowledge it will ever change, a numbing effect occurs, with it seeming increasingly ridiculous that one would keep watching these. You then overcome significant relief when the story finally changes. After the first change there’s typically a formula of the same video just a few times, then a new swap. While it makes sense to stay true to the concept of repetition, these lose the impact of the initial cycle due to not happening enough to be mind numbing or little enough to not just get annoying. A solution would be hard to find for this due to the nature of the story. To stay true to the origins of the series and themes of being trapped, It does make me hope that the tale ends with something open-ended enough to seem like there’s more coming, then it just repeats over and over again.

Everything we see is a bit off and surreal. As an example, we mostly just get protagonist Mikaeli’s perspective and are asked to relate to him by him having very relatable and typical goals, so any short without him is automatically especially off-putting. That off-putting world is seemingly the “real one”, with Mikaeli in a fake one. This reversal parallels modern life to some, those who relate more to the internet than the real world. Another element of strangeness is that the simplicity of the protagonist and his wants essentially tricks us into rooting for him despite him not having much character or personality. He’s often given little quips that make him memorable. This is not uncommon in media, with us relating to real game show contestants for similar reasons. The notable example is Mikaeli’s “Fair enough” comment. If one just sees the first video once, you might not think much of that, though that line becomes catchy and telling about the character simply by it being emphasized and repeated. Even on a base level, it’s funny that that line always seems to come up.

SPOILERS

Meta-textuallty, we are essentially being put in the time loop by watching all of these, feeling the struggle of Mikaeli to a degree. You can also laugh at the fact that unlike Mikaeli, we don’t have to. We probably do it out of some arbitrary sense of “completeness” or for the extremely minimal differences there sometimes are to two otherwise identical shorts. The sense of being part of an event and being supported by others creates enough fun and enjoyment to watch what is on paper boring and unmarketable. That in itself becomes part of the joy of it all, that it is so different and random. It would be difficult to replicate this experience on film.

Taking the narrative at face value, some of the segments are less interesting than others, basically being set up that has comparatively less humor. The main appeal story-wise is seeing what happens to Mikaeli. The Fair Enough song is the prime example of how potent the comedy can be, while also sticking to the themes. It seems that this series is about being trapped in a cheesy tv show, which would have things like musical numbers. Its music and comedy are both much more clever than you’d expect, with this sense that reality is bending to conform to weird television ideas. By comparison, it’s less realistic to have you from the future show up, though such a concept was still funny. Hopefully that’s resolved, as it hasn’t yet been addressed.

OVERVIEW

Due to the modern medium of a social media app, this may be a commentary on the cyclical nature of quick content, which often falls into numbing patterns. It is important to keep videos short for attention spans, and have a hook. The fact the footage is based on 1980s television draws comparison between both types of mass entertainment. Both game shows and social media videos are criticized as filler for the mind. This series at least seems to treat this particular show as especially formulaic and inane. Whether or not that is connected to Instagram or is given more of a point and payoff remains to be seen.

Watching these day after day might bring with it a vastly different experience to binging. The numbing effect is probably more apparent with the binging, being more invasive on the mind. Unlike with traditional movies, those viewing methods make for two separate feelings from youhitmetal17times_everyday. As such, it’s a wonderful gander into what it’s like to be the type of person that watches things like this with some possibly accidental meta-commentary to boot. It’s a decent watch, even if you end up skipping around, though trust that if you do you’re missing something.

Miracle on 34th Street (1947) Review – Santa Claus Almost Destroys Society

Brass Monkey!

Miracle on 34th Street has such a sense of brevity and good humor that it is believable why it is a holiday classic, while also being extremely clever and layered in its messaging. This is all tied together with very solid performances. In the same way the film characters ask each other if Santa is or could be real, the actors never let into the absurdity of this, often taking it seriously. Doris Walker, played by Maureen O’Hara, tries to be pragmatic and open to all sides, while hard leaning to her view on child rearing that you should not lie by saying Santa is real. The film politely and confidently mocks her for whenever she insists on removing the sense of imagination kids have. Her and her daughter Susan, played by Natalie Wood to my surprise, in turn come off a little cold. Still, they aren’t treated as completely wrong.

John Payne as Fred Gailey acts not unlike a child and is rewarded for it. He has a strong sense of loyalty for Santa. Many characters in the movie talk about being honorable or moral, only to crumble when it’s more convenient for them to do something else. Fred is important as he is the one who doesn’t break to others. While no one in the movie is less than stellar, they simply do not compare to the big bundle of joy that is Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle. It isn’t explained why anyone believes he is Santa, but the inferred reason is that he is so positive and joyful that everyone can’t help but feel uplifted. He even resonates to the audience in how wholesome and unphased he is through various trials and tribulations. This effect is damaged by a brief section of the film, but he is always positive and constructive otherwise. He and others don’t forget to add some comedy, like when he analyzes psychologist Granville Sawyer or demonstrates to Doris his mental and physical health. Both are also necessary scenes to the plot, with the film avoiding elements that only serve to be filler.

There are two major themes at play. One is pushing to do the right thing vs. profit. There is an interesting symbiosis between the two. Everyone being initially too business minded is shown to hurt everyone, like when Macy’s intends to always pressure customers into buying their own products, even if they simply don’t have what they want. Kris’ desire to always do the right thing both benefits the company and people, though he went against the store’s rules in doing so. Once everyone knows and likes Kris to the point he’s part of the business, people start compromising their own values to protect him, instead of doing so to shut him down. Either option of doing the right thing or profit comes with risks.

While the picture clearly says what is right is to accept Kris, it is still in the best interest of Macy’s and the parents to make sure whoever is going to be interacting with their children is safe. Requiring such inspections, even when gratuitous, do serve to make sure it’s harder for nasty people to get through. Still, sometimes taking a chance or breaking the rules works, like when Doris needs a new Santa at the last minute, so asks Kris to play the part. Imagine if Kris was some drunkard that did something obscene on the float? Such rule breaking would not be looked on so positively, even when it at other times is celebrated.

The other theme is pragmatism vs. following what would be better off true. Just looking at Doris, she comes off as a bit vicious and cold in her business-minded world. If everyone did act like her, as they somewhat do in the court scenes, society would to a degree be more hostile and less enjoyable. Belief in Santa certainly does give children joy, though the movie sadly doesn’t comment on whether or not it’s a good thing for them to believe. Kris frees some people from their colder way of thinking by being so nice, but this is in a sense manipulation. No one wants to be a bad guy by shooting him down or they really accept him due to not wanting to accept someone so nice is really such an issue. Doris in turn struggles with thinking he could be threatening and delusional vs. how positive of an influence he is on her daughter and everybody else. It also is often difficult to be so astute as to be always doing the logical thing. Doris was letting her daughter hangout with Fred when he very well could have been bad. At the very least, he and Doris have conflict from disagreeing on what is best for Susan.

The film looks very cozy and Christmas-y, just determined to become a classic. Things like the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade become cinematic in how grand and busy it is, with Kris sitting atop one float like a God among men. While the movie never drops playing as a straight drama that happens to be about something ridiculous, there are a few opportunities for jokes. “But if you do, remember this: you can count on getting just two votes, your own and that district attorney’s out there.” “The District Attorney’s a Republican.” There’s also, “That baseball player sure looks like a giant to me.” “Sometimes people grow very large, but that’s abnormal.” “I’ll bet your mother told you that, too.” Finally, “Sometimes I wish I married a butcher or a plumber.” “My dear, if I lose this hearing, you may very well get your wish.”

SPOILERS

It is bizarre Santa would get so angry at Sawyer and even assault him. It does betray much of what the story is going for. Seeing as Sawyer was so accusatory to Kris, what if he felt so offended by Kris that he injured himself and claimed Kris did it? Or he witnessed Kris do something with his cane that was perfectly fine, but he saw it from such an angle that it looked bad? It’s in turn really weird seeing Kris briefly give up. Was he going to stay in the hospital forever and just let Christmas go because of such a minor matter? Fred cheers him up with some pretty obvious logic that he should’ve come to on his own. Only now, Kris has basically forced Fred to get in the heat of things to help him out. Even ignoring how this contradicts my interpretation of this movie, logically shouldn’t Kris hitting Sawyer prove Sawyer right? This does go to show the stupidity of trusting in anyone that they will do no wrong. Legally declaring Santa false at the trial, which was partially the fault of Kris, is said would have drastically negative outcomes for society.

The reason Kris gets out of his legal situation is because Fred advocated for him at great personal cost, which introduced to many people’s minds that Santa could be real. At that point, Santa’s existence is decided more over money and branding. Certain people admit to not believing Santa can be real in private, but then go out in public and at least say they aren’t sure. Children are used to manipulate those that don’t want to accept that they have lied about his existence, which does go to show how strange it is that we live in a society that would be dishonest about such a thing. Just like in real life, the public needs something that could pass as “proof”. Once they get it, they just jump on accepting this wild concept with bizarre implications instead of being more critical. In fact, the reason the trial became more about proving or disproving Santa is because Fred’s claim about doing so made for a great headline.

Kris is right that it’s better for Susan to be less serious and more about the absurdities of life, like pretending to be a monkey, as that is what makes life worth living. Susan is right that it’s better to have something useful like a house than toys. In being hard to convince of the validity of Kris’ claim of being Santa Claus, Kris is in turn more persistent in trying to prove her right and thus arranges for Susan and Doris to get the house the former wants. If they already were believers, he might not have seen the need. She and her mother aren’t any perfectly logical beings however.

At the end, Doris tells her impressionable child about believing in faith. Even if it is true that some concepts are so complicated that sense probably can’t reach them, so you only get there through faith, that still can often lead to trouble. We don’t see Doris do much transitioning from thinking Santa is definitely not real to thinking he is, which goes to show how people trust in emotions and concepts over facts, just like how she originally trusted strongly that Kris should be the parade Santa because of desperation. This even gets turned around on the audience as Kris never offers proof of being Santa Claus. We essentially have to take his word for it, which is arguably the point of the film.

OVERVIEW

This film wears the cloak of the courtroom dramas of the time. A commonality is for whatever we’re seeing to become a much bigger deal than originally hoped as. Miracle on 34th Street uses this convention to make a thoughtful and funny story about the strange places the human mentality can take us. As stated in the movie, sane people can end up in wards and crazy people can remain free. No matter what can be interpreted, the picture never forgets to be jolly and lighthearted, with Gwenn and the script exuding an infectious joy in how all the problems are very nice and the villains easily swayed. Regardless, the message of the ending is that anyone, even those that think out of the box or follow authority or try to do the right thing even when it can cost their livelihoods can do something insane under the right circumstances.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) Review

How many dalmatians are in this movie again?

Interestingly, One Hundred and One Dalmatians never drops a lighthearted tone, but still maintains its very morbid stakes. From the get go, the film goes for a quaint and funny style. It doesn’t deny itself flavorings of the 60s, Britain, and “charmingly offbeat and unrealistic”. Many shots look like a still painting, where pans are achieved with the image just moving across the screen. The characters also have a slight lack of fluidity, though this all adds to a surreal effect that matches the dialogue and narrative. Initially, the spirits of our leads are consistently high, with an arguably unnecessary part of the story serving to establish this world.

The proper story is about how the one hundred and one doggies will escape doom, but the beginning covers the romance of Roger Radcliffe, played by Ben Wright, that is barely even in the film once the stakes increase. His characterization is very flat, with him not much of a character. He is colored by a few moments. A favorite is when he offers the soaking wet Anita, played by Lisa Davis, a handkerchief, not realizing that he and thus the handkerchief are also wet. The other highlight is when he lays lyrics about Cruella de Vil on the melody he just wrote, singing about her like he personally knows and despises her, despite him only knowing of her that she’s a little rude. None of this really matters and it leaves you to wonder how Rog thought of as many lines as he did, but of course all of the movie has cute humor like this. There are many such flourishes to the narrative that do little more than get laughs, but are nice. Lisa also isn’t much of a character.

The film commits to being about either the scenery, the tone, or the story. As an example, the opening wastes no time pushing along to the point where the two lead dalmatians have puppies. Afterwards, two very expressive characters “Jasper and Horace Baddun” push their way into the story, with Roger’s maid making absolute sure you comprehend the gravity of the situation to the plot. Martha Wentworth acts her heart out with the music matching her. This scene only manages laughs instead of genuine dread. Afterwards, the heat is on. We don’t get inside anyone’s head. In fact, the scenes of all the various animals working together removes much individuality or personality to them. They are solely about this mission. One even says he’ll bark all night if need be. The effect of this is removing a sense of watching a real story, but the adventure being so exciting makes up for that. It takes the impotence off the characterization and puts it onto the action.

There are a few seeming exceptions to this, like when Rod Taylor as Pongo narrates the beginning of the movie. We see his wit and perspective, such as in considering Roger to be his pet. He also successfully pushes Roger wherever he feels is best. This dynamic and relative focus doesn’t last long. In fact, even Betty Lou Gerson as Cruella de Vil, who is often characterized as campy and manic, doesn’t ever have fun or not be all about serving her role in the story. She is simply extremely hotheaded and quick to yell. Cruella barely does anything when you’d expect her to stop to be memorable. Jasper and Horace at least go for laughs. People seemingly have projected more onto her, especially because her design is very distinct and her voice like that of someone like Bette Davis. Davis and Cruella would have a similar fanbase of film students and drag queens.

The best three roles here have got to be Sergeant Tibbs, the Captain, and the Colonel. The three have a humorous dynamic and back-and-forth, with various little gestures and novelties given to each, which does finally offer at least a bit of realism. You do have to extend your disbelief to accept that all these dogs will dedicate themselves to sending the message of the dognapped puppies, but those three cover how that would actually work. They carry honest souls and this natural aversion to the horrors they witness. You can tell by their expressions and actions that they feel like that if they fail then a real tragedy will have occurred. They take their role pretty seriously, though humorous things still happen. Their banter and even distinct appearances color them. The fact this is a dog, cat, and horse instead of all being dogs suggests they’ve somehow come to form a really unique and charming bond. They’re beyond any sense of tribalism.

We get a wonderfully lengthy and detailed look at how the events play out. The fun of the movie is in seeing what little issues the characters will be written into and how they’ll get out. Along the way are many quick jokes that serve as texture. This includes the dognapping apparently making the paper; Cruella’s pen exploding on Roger, giving him spots; some of the puppies unable to understand why they’d be asked to get dirty; and an apparent dog tv show and commercial, as if some human tv producers are out there feeling a need to give airtime to a show for dogs and also sell products to them. The threats are not particularly serious, but are very entertaining. There is arguably a logical explanation, the reason why issues befall Jasper and Horace is because of how idiotic they are, so it makes sense they would struggle to do anything meaningful. The movie commits to and pulls laughs from how silly they are, so their stupidity never feels convenient.

OVERVIEW

One Hundred and One Dalmatians is a tonally consistent and solid blend of adventure and comedy. It plays best as a warm and quirky Christmas tale that never takes itself too straight, though note it does a little just to get you invested. You’re taken to a strange new world where a large group is nice to each other and works together for free. Not a world I know!

Just thought I’d add in that Roger and Anita not caring about their place getting covered in dirt is hilarious.

Scavenger Hunt (1979) Review

A lobby card for the film

Is Scavenger Hunt stupid? Yes. Is it particularly good? No.

No matter how you feel about Scavenger Hunt, you can’t accuse it of false advertising. It is very much a scavenger hunt and very 70s, just look at the hair and clothes. One of my favorite tropes of the era is when the main concept of the story is really dumb, so there’s some equally dumb explanation to try to justify the plot. This isn’t the first nor best example of “a rich person dies and just feels like making the main characters go on some absurd quest”, but it does get brownie points for the rich person being played by the great Vincent Price! There’s in fact many, many quality and funny actors here, who do at worst a serviceable job. For the record, the best usage of that trope has got to be from It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. As a story, it’s very standard and a bit cliché, which is not a big issue.

A lot of famous actors appear here ready to flex a certain novelty. Most play a very simple role, but that is in keeping with this movie being more about an adventure than any sort of drama. Some highlights include Scatman Crothers singing “Ain’t She Sweet”, the line “A killer soufflé!”, the line “Acupuncture”, and many others. At one point, the police are called on one group and someone asks the cop to not arrest them just yet for the sake of sportsmanship. Tony Randall as Henry Motley is one of the best written and performed characters, with him walking away with some heart in his attempt to treat this as a sort of bonding experience with his kids. He is often out of his depth and it’s fun to see his small failures and successes. One of my favorite scenes is between the wimpish Randall and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the latter making a then uncommon film appearance. Arnold, despite playing someone very friendly, obviously dominates over Randall and has this big smirk on his face, like he’s having so much fun. Especially with how the scene ends, it’s quite zany. I’m a bit of an Arnold apologist in general, but he doesn’t provide any kind of great performance here, to put it mildly.

Other favorites are Richard Mulligan as Marvin Dummitz, whose dimwitted nature compliments Crothers, with the two forming a duo. Roddy McDowall and Cleavon Little among others play servants of Price’s character. They’re clearly having fun with these very animated roles, like they’re all trying to be wackier than the other. The actual leads are a pretty standard cut “Young guys and a girl that dress and act how the youth of the time did”. As such, they’re comparatively uninteresting and suffer in comparison to the bigger actors around them. They get enough focus to still be watchable and relatable. Wisely, the movie gives at least a little attention to everyone, so you could conceive of any character being someone’s favorite and who they’d want to win. It is very satisfying to just see what happens and guess who the victor will be. None of the leads are particularly bad.

SPOILERS

Most of the teams are reasonably moralistic and good natured, but instead of focusing purely on their conflict, one group is essentially picked to be the antagonists. Cloris Leachman as Mildred Carruthers, Richard Benjamin as Stuart Selsome, and Richard Masur as Georgie Carruthers are all humorously slimy. “Let me tell you your fortune… you don’t get any fortune!” The movie knows not to take their threat seriously. They are in some ways unrealistic in their villainy, such as by cheating, which adds to the “lowbrow” tone that’s been the sort of thing critics will rip apart.

To combat them with a bold sheen of wholesomeness is the fact all the other teams join forces at the end to beat them, like these three random characters are supposed to be laughed at as we celebrate their loss. The movie near the end moves all its chips from ensemble adventure to threat vs the noble, like we’re eating trope soup. The other teams gave all their items to one group with no intention of receiving anything for themselves. It’s like they just felt Mildred and co just needed to be defeated. Of course, it ends up coming down to our heroes only winning because they had a few extra seconds and a technicality to boot!

OVERVIEW

If I could change one thing, I’d make it longer so there could be more entertainment going on as well as more development of the story. Some characters don’t get very much focus. Films like this beg for creativity. It offers a mixed bag of sometimes being more interesting and others more plain. For this reason, and due to Scavenger Hunt’s inability to take anything seriously or be more than a genre comedy of the time, critics were not too nice to it.

The type of humor, reminiscent of other films of its time, might seem old fashioned to some and more importantly less biting or witty, going for a more “common denominator” tone. That can still be very funny and appealing, but maybe it’s a bit too easy? A lot of the story, such as how it’s resolved, could’ve been done in a far more clever manner. The film certainly isn’t any hard classic or essential, but it’s a lot of fun and won’t disappoint for completionists of the various stars involved. It is a shame it didn’t dare to be more, like if it went to Mad World levels of insanity and madness that make that earlier film such a riot.

Christmas in Connecticut (1945) Review

Barbara Stanwyck as Elizabeth Lane (Not Sloan!)

Christmas in Connecticut is a very charming and funny holiday film. Many wacky and bizarre things happen, with them generally being taken with a light heart. To epitomize this, John Sloan, played by Reginald Gardiner, finds the scheming of some other characters idiotic and doesn’t want to be involved, but is ultimately compelled to. It’s like the holiday spirit and comedic tone are forcing poor John into doing what the story needs, as if Christmas is this great force where magic happens. The basic concept of Barbara Stanwyck as Elizabeth Lane having to put on a fake life for the sake of pleasing her coworkers is a good hook and the movie delivers. Stanwyck is very likable, as usual. Stanwyck plays her humor-enhanced lines straight, letting the dialogue get the laughs. Her focus is on her believable character that doesn’t want to do something like interrupt or hurt anyone, but at the same time doesn’t want to lose personal things like her job or a new coat. When she does find something more stimulating and interesting, she lights up and is ready to take the world by storm.

There are a number of feminist themes at the heart of the story, which mostly revolve around Elizabeth. When she feels she has control, she takes it and enjoys it, often being fed up with those who in her eyes are not letting her just live. At around the one hour mark, she seems willing to do something she shouldn’t simply because it is finally giving her fulfillment. This is also in line with her character as this whole time she is pretending to be what is expected of a woman and considered to be the ideal, but she’s only doing it for money. A great performance of Stanwyck is when she yells about how tired she is of everything, which eventually gets to a good joke as a bonus. Arguably this “feminist” view is contradicted by her still just wanting love, but to counter that, most people want love and she doesn’t let her desire for such a thing get in the way of her job or independence. She in fact doesn’t seem to ever mind her job or wish she could be a housewife instead. Also, while she isn’t married, she claims to be, but still uses her own last name, which would suggest that in the lie she tells others she didn’t want to change it.

The other cast members essentially fill the role of giving non-comedic deliveries of comedic situations, which get laughs. Una O’Connor as Norah and to a lesser extent S.Z. Sakall as Felix Bassenak add a more wacky touch, seeming generally more animated than the others. Neither serve a crucial role, but work to steal the odd scene. Dennis Morgan as Jefferson Jones is one of the flatter, but also more important characters. He’s at his best in the beginning when he acts like this goofy guy that just wants some tasty food. The sight gag of him eating a well presented meal in a nice outfit on a raft in the middle of the water is hilarious. Another great shot is the romantic scene of two characters on a horse and carriage talking about their feelings, being surrounded by the pretty snow. The strong emotions of the characters have been just below the surface, so it doesn’t feel jarring when they finally come out, especially because the two now have privacy. The dialogue is very sweet and heartfelt. The scenes around this one are also funny.

SPOILERS

When Elizabeth first falls for Jefferson, she has a giant grin on her face and is about ready to abandon her facade for the sake of how good he makes her feel. Seeing as she probably thinks this will pass, she doesn’t go through with anything, such as a kiss. The scene gives us a nice chance to see Elizabeth be a little naughty, entertaining the possibility of being with this man. Another one of the most powerful scenes is at the end when Elizabeth is pleased to be arrested, as she will be with Jefferson and thus her marriage with John will be again put off, as if doing a social taboo can have the potential to free someone. Now that she knows she loves and wants to be with Jefferson, she lacks much of a care in the world, not even maintaining her lies when they fall apart as they to her have lost their value. This also represents her removing the mold expected of her, to be a wife and a mother in an overly idyllic scene. Even though she seems upset about losing her job, she is quick to move on to her next opportunity, not going to let things get her down. Beyond Elizabeth is Jefferson’s nurse and brief fiancée who similarly just “goes for what she wants” and doesn’t much worry about social judgment.

One issue, that also contradicts this theme, is Jefferson creepily forcing kisses on Elizabeth when she doesn’t want them. He predictably never gets in trouble for this. When Elizabeth learns that he is no longer engaged, they can in her eyes be together, which does go along with Elizabeth trying to be ethical, but also going for what she wants if there’s no reason not to have it. If you removed the lack of consent, Elizabeth going and kissing Jefferson at the end would be a great climactic moment that shows our lead finally getting what she was after. Morgan does still turn in a very good performance here, having this light in his eyes, like he is ravenous to be with Elizabeth. It’s a shame his energy here couldn’t have been used for a moment like when he finds out he doesn’t have to marry the nurse instead of on non-consensual gestures.

OVERVIEW

Ignoring any greater meaning, Christmas in Connecticut is consistently witty and well performed, with warm visuals and a sharp pace keeping the boat afloat and the 100-minute runtime feeling much shorter.

Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) Review

Is this a Wes Anderson movie?

Everything Everywhere All At Once is, true to its word, everything. Much has been read into this film in terms of commentary on the world and general themes. I must think that at some point a movie will come out and be hailed as a complex masterpiece, only for the filmmakers to at some time admit it really meant nothing and just hit the expected beats of a narrative, with far more being read into it. (I’m sorry, Duck Soup, I still love you.) At its heart, Everything seems to be firing for a simple idea of family and togetherness. Especially around the ending, it was reminiscent of a thousand other movies that were solely about “Let’s just love each other.” It’s hard to know what to think of this, whether it’s a beautifully simple resolution or anticlimactic after the very busy and complicated film it’s a part of.

To put it simply, this movie is stimulating. To be less nice, overstimulating. The film often leans into extremely fast montages that don’t always convey necessary information. One example is when we see someone “verse jump” over and over to explain where they’re getting a certain ability from. That, just like quite a lot of the story, is blinding novelty and entertainment value. You can tell some involved love old action and Kung-Fu movies, especially Chinese ones, and wanted to include fights that evoked them, while implementing elements like absurdist humor. However, something like the dildo fight or better yet a man jumping pants-less in slow motion intending to land sitting on a trophy shaped like a butt plug feel designed to only be attention grabbing, especially to a gen-z audience.

For better and for worse, the film does appeal heavily on a multitude of levels, like as a light popcorn flick, something where any little element can be looked at as commentary on several-hundred year old philosophical concepts, or anywhere in between. It might even be designed to be a bit confusing for someone on their first viewing, in hopes of repeat ones. Based on the strong focus for comedy and spectacle, it can feel like there is little to say, especially when it gets to the point of someone just yelling to be kind, instead of that particular message being discovered or earned. However, some messages are discovered or learned. Another issue is the pace, where the film can rev up to a hundred, then stops before starting again. The pessimistic view of this is to say it is edited essentially like a music video to just appeal to perceived short attention spans. No matter what the intention is, the impression is that certain elements that are built up don’t matter, as after the intensity of them being laid on, everything cools down for the next big idea.

All of the cast have a very good understanding of their manic roles. The hardest would probably be the lead Evelyn Quan Wang, played by Michelle Yeoh. She is initially an every woman before quickly having to get with the program. You can argue Evelyn should have had more time to figure it out, but there is a serviceable explanation for that. Her feelings are not delved into deeply, other than her main goal of trying to save everyone. Ke Huy Quan as Waymond Wang grounds the film into more emotional territory, with him often giving some realism to the tale, which is ironic as he is the first sign of chaos.

Stephanie Hsu as Joy Wang gives the best performance, bringing a consistent nihilism and desire to find support. Her face often has a look of fatigue on it. Due to the youthful energy of the story, she might work due to being the youngest cast member and thus having the most ability to relate. My favorite performance is Jamie Lee Curtis as Deirdre Beaubeirdre, who brings a dry wit and inherent absurdism due to how out of place she looks and how much fun you can tell Curtis is having. She’s easy to love. The supporting cast are consistently wonderfully charming and entertaining, but arguably serve as filler.

SPOILERS

Based on how quickly Evelyn was to embrace the multiverse, even to the point of punching Deirdre and possibly considering killing her daughter, you could imagine the movie would end in a twist that no supernatural events occurred and the lead is just off her rocker. It’s at least surprising her family isn’t more critical or concerned about her behavior. This idea of coming off as nutty about something is an old trope the filmmakers might have enjoyed. Based on the ending, where everyone seems fine, was there any need or point to Evelyn punching Deirdre? What about all the destruction at the IRS or the marital tensions between Evelyn and Waymond? Same with Evelyn apparently stabbing Waymond.

The heart of the story are the discussions between Evelyn and Joy’s alter ego Jobu Tupaki. They discuss their opposing views on the world, showcasing the nature and thought process of Jobu, ultimately proving she’s misunderstood. So much information about Jobu being portrayed by her just telling Evelyn is rather boring, though the expressive and symbolic visuals help in making up for that. Later, we are thankfully shown Evelyn overcoming Jobu’s strength and nihilism through the visuals. The best example of this is when they’re rocks, which is beautifully and creepily simple. Same can be said for when Evelyn adopts googly eyes on her as a rock and Jobu in turn rolls off a cliff.

Whether or not the reconciliation of Evelyn and Joy is earned is up for debate. It is too easy, with Evelyn merely saying to Joy she wants to be with her, which could have already been figured. This does summarize the main issue of the style of the movie not being able to sustain its substance.

OVERVIEW

Everything Everywhere All At Once is a very good spectacle, benefitting from how rich and colorful it looks. It’s an extremely lovable and watchable work that will probably serve to influence many people that see it. While some say that a thing that tries to appeal to everyone appeals to no one, this might be the exception that proves the rule. Though it can come off a little disjointed, the constant stimulus that also gives a lot of food for thought to those looking for it works in the film’s favor. However, due to its limitations and how “2022” it feels, there is the concern of the movie soon going out of date, with down the line a new story essentially filling this role of delivering some very typical messages in the flavor of the time, such as not demonizing your children. The lack of subtlety could be seen as positive or in vogue, but grow stale later. The picture still deserves and probably will have some legacy going forth. Also, I was genuinely rooting for Raccacoonie and its owner. I’d also like to have hot dog fingers and play the piano with my feet with Jamie Lee.

How to Steal a Million (1966) Review

Another of Audrey’s wonderful, memorable, and comical outfits

How to Steal a Million wins by being very charming and funny. The cast carry their material with a light heart and embracement of the absurdities. Some tropes of the era are present, like the chic leading lady with really attention-grabbing fashion, serious subject matter has a really relaxed tone, and the romance. Especially with the latter, these tropes are cleverly used to actually play into the main story and serve the most important purpose of the film, to get laughs. Audrey Hepburn as Nicole Bonnet has well fleshed out desires and objectives, which make for interesting developments when she has to compromise her values. Hepburn’s minor changes in body language paints a full picture of a character.

Peter O’Toole as Simon Dermott follows many more archetypes. He projects a light charm and class that feels rehearsed and too perfect, but you can’t look away due to how much personality is in his character. When he does things like throw the boomerang around, you want to see what he’ll do next, with the gears in his head clearly turning, just like with Nicole. The other two prominent characters are the weaselly Eli Wallach as Davis Leland and the big eyed and overconfident Hugh Griffith as Charles Bonnet. Neither are as developed as the leads, but are no less entertaining. You can imagine Griffith making a career off of his unique facial hair and eyes. Wallach is amusing in his determination with such ridiculous dialogue.

The story does take a little while to get going. A lot of time is killed establishing the premise and the characters. The highlight of the narrative is the main plan of the leads. While there is some value in the setup, especially in emphasizing the development of Nicole, it could’ve been heavily trimmed down. Nicole is also often looked at in a purely sexual context. While she fortunately has more to her, a few men will do something like plant a kiss on her or remark on her beauty, as if that’s all she’s worth. Once we’re at the height of the story, it is somewhat predictable, but not too much. In trying to think out what would happen next, I got some stuff wrong. The fact I even cared to do that shows the movie got me hooked!

SPOILERS

The heist the leads go on is not as absurd or implausible as one might imagine, with lots of novelties to make it interesting. Simon uses a magnet to move a key across a wall and eventually over a corner. He finds a clever way to unlock the door he’s stuck in from the inside. Things don’t ever really go wrong for him or Nicole, though they easily could’ve. When he is throwing his boomerang around, what if he hit something he didn’t mean to? What if after the alarms went off, one or more guards were told to remain in view of the sculpture? At one point, trouble is hinted at with Nicole leaving the closet she was in to just watch Simon. Nothing wrong comes of that, unlike what you’d expect. Not that it needs to, as it demonstrates Nicole starting to enjoy what she’s doing. Nothing particularly not going as planned is not an issue, as the adventure is in itself so well paced and creative.

The movie spoils what could have been a great twist by revealing early on that Simon isn’t actually a thief. At the end when he reveals it to Nicole would’ve made for a good shocker. Nicole’s response to this is nice and silly, adding to the hyper and fun tone. Challenging Nicole’s image as a nice girl, she seems to really enjoy the escapade and implies she would want to do something like it again. This arguably goes in contrast with her strong desire to not get in heat early on, but this is not an impossible turn and does work as a bit of absurdism. Similarly ridiculous is that Simon goes through so much just out of love for Nicole, which could be seen as an accidental parody of old Hollywood romances often being based on wild situations. The ending is similarly ridiculous, with Davis ending up with what he wanted. A highlight is when he’s afraid to even say a word to Nicole after being told to avoid her. He acts like a fool. Him ending up with the engagement ring he gave Nicole is humorous, though it is confusing how it got there, instead of Nicole or Simon retrieving it beforehand.

Another missed opportunity is not seeing how the leads escaped when the police showed up. You’d think that area would be heavily monitored. Our heroes in turn appear out of place, especially if they look like they’re carrying a reasonably big sculpture. Also, an explanation of why they couldn’t just walk out the front door immediately after stealing the sculpture would’ve been ideal.

OVERVIEW

How to Steal a Million supplies the laughs to be a solid film, though some filler and no strong theme would detract to those who want a story to make an effort to be as tight as possible.

Red Dwarf S03E06 The Last Day // Series 3 (1989) Review Part 6

A frame from the episode

Context for those unfamiliar with Red Dwarf (Spoilers for S01E01 of the show)

Dave Lister, played by Craig Charles, is the last man alive. He’s living in the mining ship “Red Dwarf” with a hologram of his dead roommate, Rimmer, played by Chris Barrie; a member of a species of evolved cats, “The Cat”, played by Danny John-Jules; a computer on the ship, Holly, played by Hattie Hayridge as of series three; and also as of series three, a robot, Kryten, played by Robert Llewellyn. Rimmer died due to a radiation leak that killed everyone on “Red Dwarf”, except for Lister and non-humans.

“The Last Day” is the first episode to really focus on Llewellyn’s Kryten. Whether or not one counts “Kryten” as a Kryten-focused episode is a matter of debate. Regardless, Llewellyn pulls in a much better performance here than previously, giving reason to his “robotic” and narrow minded behavior. He does a good job of keeping the character’s inhuman qualities, while giving him some emotions and feelings. This episode also shows everyone as not only a team, but tolerant of that dynamic. Kryten doesn’t ever seem to understand the bond living beings can have for each other. That being said, he genuinely seems to like the others to a degree. Apparently androids are not supposed to enjoy their work, but Kryten often seems to. According to this episode, Kryten doesn’t, but wants to get in “Silicon Heaven” when he dies.

My personal theory was someone at some point reprogrammed Kryten to actually like chores, though it was imperfect, with the dislike of it sometimes coming out. Regardless, him genuinely liking that, and how that might contrast with what the others want and feel about it, is more interesting as it’s generally different than a real person. Even if a person likes chores, imagine doing them often everyday and with little else to do? It’s also arguable that him taking the load off things by doing chores and being another character to interact with has leveled tensions, so he brings in a contrasting personality.

Lister does get some development, as well. Namely, a big part of the “Kryten” episode is that Lister doesn’t seem to like that he’s treated as just a servant. That comes up again here, with him not wanting Kryten to always make him breakfast. However, for the most part he is content with treating him like that, though you can tell Lister often views Kryten as a real friend. For better or for worse, this inconsistency and use of Kryten makes Lister less likable. No one here is supposed to be, so that’s fair enough. It’s a shame that this dulls the clashing personalities of Lister and Rimmer, as Rimmer has been fine using Kryten as just a servant. At least have someone point out how Lister has changed. On another note, we learn more of Lister’s past, being abandoned by his parents as a baby. Ideally, this could’ve come up in an episode more about this. “Marooned” would’ve been a great place for this development.

The Cat is weirdly unselfish. An arguable reason why is he enjoys feeling the team support and the attention that yields him. Lister in particular likes Cat. He’s even excited to give something to Kryten. A possible explanation is he knows he would probably be able to get it back from Kryten later. Rimmer is weirdly absent from this episode. He does take a little opportunity to try and assert dominance over a character, but Chris Barrie overall isn’t in his normal scene stealing mode.

The episode takes a while to get going, with the setup being a bit dry. It even takes some time to introduce Rimmer and longer for the Cat. The party with everyone discussing their feelings and trying to give Kryten a good time works as character development, showing their comradery, and also as comedy. A favorite is Kryten getting drunk and falling off his chair. Surprised that didn’t rile up the studio audience, like how the smeg ups can. That scene had me dying. The positive momentum continues with Gordon Kennedy as Hudzen, who is intimidating while also getting laughs.

I’m glad this was the last episode of the series. We’re maximizing the time with Kryten, thus increasing the impact of his leaving. The fact that at this point he was only in one series makes it believable he was only a one off and could’ve actually left here.

SPOILERS

This episode is more true to one of the original ideas of the show than most, that the world of the show is incredibly cruel. Holly, as an example, seems to be aware there is more to life than what they do, but is confined to how they are, not even having a body. Kryten and the other service droid suffer trying to fulfill orders, apparently in a misguided attempt to get into Silicone Heaven, which may not even be real. For everyone else, they have more of a natural drive to live which is often challenged in violent ways.

Defeating the purpose of a service droid, Hudzen almost killed everyone. Sure, he was insane, but you would think the developers would want to avoid that. Apparently Lister is a target due to being “barely human”. What does that even mean? If Lister is the only human still alive, why would the machines be sold to humans specifically? Just sell the product to who or whatever. It’d be like if products were made today specifically for dinosaurs. Before things get violent, Rimmer gets out of the way. I had wondered why, though this actually makes sense considering he still has human emotions and thus would have that trigger instinct to avoid getting hurt.

In the next episode, Kryten is being taught how to lie. If that had been before this episode, the lie here would work much better. Kryten at one point makes a joke that involves saying something not true. While the whole bit is quite good, it should’ve been saved for later.

SERIES OVERVIEW

Series three tightens the dynamic of the characters and changes the formula a bit. It focuses more on crazy and foreign entities come to trip everyone up, with Lister, Rimmer, The Cat, and Kryten tackling four corners of a comedy troupe. The tradeoff of this is that Holly and to a lesser extent The Cat are underutilized. Still, both are not only still funny, but get some very good material.

Character drama was pretty central to the first two series, but now it’s more muted and the focus is on action. The one episode that is very character focused, mostly featuring Lister and Rimmer talking, needs an incident to cause that situation. In the early series, they did that just because. Both tones work well. What probably would’ve been for the best story wise is if you’d get a mix of both. Maybe one episode is pure action, then the next pure drama, sometimes with the comedy at the front, sometimes a bit more subdued.

In terms of those characters, they feel quite different when being little more than a certain “funny role”. They feel less like real people and are thus less relatable, though it’s hard to deny the humor that comes from that. This also goes against Rimmer’s consistent desire to be taken seriously. Here he lays on just being a funny and stern guy. In fact, all the characters change up their personalities for the sake of what the story needs of them. Two notable examples are how Kryten goes through a whole arc in his series two appearance, seeming ready and able to be his own individual that can do things like insult someone, but he was then basically reset to how he was and is now essentially going on the same journey, but much slower. When he said in “The Last Day” that he is finally having fun, my mind just went to him riding a motorcycle around the universe last series. Servicing the arc are the generally funny scenes of him being subservient to others. He is underplayed usually, which is for the best as Llewellyn’s acting leaves something to be desired.

The other example is how The Cat sometimes doesn’t seem to care about anyone and other times does. The reason might be that Cat has value in being part of the “Red Dwarf Posse” and likes that feeling. He also seems to respect his crewmates more. A broader case is how mainly in this episode, the Dwarfers are being needlessly confrontational. While that goes with their general energy and spirit, it goes against their selfish desires. They sometimes get into danger when it’s not necessary and sometimes even to help another. While the first two series work better as narratives, especially one that develops from one episode to the next, series three beats them out solely by being funnier and doing nothing else superiorly. Even the weaker installments have some good stuff, so there aren’t even bad episodes. Still, the dull periods are definitely there.

Rank from weakest to best: “The Last Day”, “Backwards”, “Marooned”, “Bodyswap”, “Timeslides”, “Polymorph”.

She’s the Man (2006) Review

Amanda Bynes as Viola Hastings

She’s the Man is a pretty outdated and amusing for it drag comedy. Despite being (loosely) based on a Shakespeare play, which was based on the common crossdressing convention, the movie understandably goes for the 2000s teen crowd. It’s frankly barely even based on the aforementioned play. The storyline is also pretty formulaic, though there’s a few small twists. This is fine if the actors can carry the dialogue and scenes, making the story work. Amanda Bynes as Viola Hastings consistently has an awkwardness to her, like she is going through the motions. Apparently, Bynes didn’t like having to play a male, but that isn’t channeled anywhere useful, like by utilizing that to make Viola seem uncomfortable. A lot of the time, Viola doesn’t seem uncomfortable with inherently presenting male. It’s also way too hard to buy her as not someone in disguise or looking like the person she’s pretending to be, her brother Sebastian.

Channing Tatum as Duke Orsino initially comes off as a generic brand jock, though later shows some more intrigue, mainly from being insecure. One highlight is how he doesn’t like that someone seems to be graphically talking about women a lot, a la in a dehumanizing way. While Tatum is fine, he doesn’t distinguish himself enough from this character type. David Cross as the wonderfully named “Horatio Gold” steals the show, as Cross usually does with ease. He’s not as sharp in children’s media as he is in adult’s, but he’s still a lot of fun, especially relative to everything else here. He doesn’t take all this very seriously.

There’s many contrivances, like Sebastian conveniently going to London for a time period, which doesn’t make sense how he’d get away with it. Many of these concern pure comedy moments of it seeming Viola might get caught as a girl, only to find a work around. Whether or not these are “funny” is up to viewer discretion. The movie as a whole wouldn’t work if people pointed out that Viola and Sebastian obviously look nothing alike.

It was nice to see Viola not willing to put up with her boyfriend being rude to her. That later leads to Viola’s mom seemingly being attracted to Viola’s ex-boyfriend, a high school student. Viola being a tomboy doesn’t serve much of a purpose. Maybe it could fuel Viola thinking everything will go swimmingly as Sebastian, only to realize she doesn’t like a lot of elements of masculinity? Kissing booths are so creepy. Are they real things?

One of my favorite tropes in female-as-male crossdressing films is when a girl falls for the main character, typically because they seem different than other men, which appears accidentally gay. The complicated and changing romantic dynamics of certain people being interested in others, sometimes one person publicly and another privately, is quite funny and a clever way to get laughs and more importantly forward the plot.

SPOILERS

Viola imagining herself playing soccer in a long poofy dress is effective out of context, showing someone who feels so out of their element, but seeing as Viola is fine with being a girl, this doesn’t make much sense. What would work better would be to have her present as male in an environment where she would normally be presenting as female. Apparently this dream is something a lot of real trans men can relate to.

Viola’s male friends and peers look pretty fake when all it takes to get them, including Viola’s ultimate love interest, to like her is by having some women speak highly of her in public. They later show more layers and realism. It seems Viola was initially dismissed for being a small man, but everyone, especially Duke, came to really respect her because of that moment. A smaller moment of a minor character showing interest in an “unattractive” woman suggests the movie is criticizing strict views of what an attractive straight man should want.

Something that’d be nice to see more often is when a man falls for a woman dressed as a man, we see him be into her as a man. In these mainstream films where that would be too racy, the best we get is the man seeming uncomfortable with the situation. Here, Duke generally is just very awkward coming off as emotional or vulnerable. The subtext of Duke being uncomfortable with crushing on a “man” is almost bursting to the surface, but is barely subdued.

It’s a little bizarre the real Sebastian wouldn’t acknowledge how weird it is he’s being treated like he’s been there a while or say or do anything that would expose he hasn’t been there. It is of course absurd seeing a principle out a student in the middle of a big game, especially with the student proving as much by showing their nude body, but fortunately this isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. It’s funny that Viola would say she likes Duke before revealing she’s a girl. It doesn’t make sense Viola would be allowed to compete, considering girls aren’t supposed to play. Viola’s ex complaining about losing is fun.

Viola and Duke talking later does show some grayness to both characters that adds a little spice to this story. Duke is upset about all that Viola has done and he’s right. Viola did manipulate him, mainly in her attempts to get him to date her as she was acting as Sebastian. She was also dishonest in general. Duke says he misses his roommate. Viola says he is still here, then touches her heart. Duke then says things will be easier if she is a girl full-time. This seems just made for people to read subtext into. My favorite part is Duke’s last comment implied he would be accepting and open to Viola presenting as a male and that he may think she did this because she likes expressing herself as a man sometimes.

OVERVIEW

Beyond those looking for a light comedy of the era, She’s the Man does feature some novel and almost certainly accidental trans allegories, like being uncomfortable with others seeing your body or going through hijinks to prevent certain people from knowing a certain identity. There is also a good feminist message about not prejudging women as bad at sports.

Tangerine (2015) Review

A frame from the film

Tangerine on the surface functions as a tried and true comedy about brassy ladies who are seldom willing to not be big personalities, though is more notable and memorable for its subjects. Kitana Kiki Rodriguez as Sin-Dee Rella and Mya Taylor as Alexandra turn in quality dramatic performances when need be. They do seem like real people at points, though in ways they can conversely fill the archetype of loud and boisterous paired with more quiet and subdued. They make the film, especially when they’re funny. Still, the comic sequences don’t play into the larger story. Particularly scenes that are just trying to get laughs could be removed.

The movie looks a little strange, mainly in the color, due to being shot on an iPhone. If it wanted a “street look”, there probably was a better option, as the film just looks a little flat. Movies like Bamboozled had a more interesting and complimentary aesthetic. Sean Baker’s directing however is very strong, creating a dynamic look that helps distract from the cheapness of the other factors.

Sin-Dee does have a few moments of over animation which take her out of relatability. She is also sometimes very unlikable. Her violent behavior towards one character is somewhat played for laughs, when it really is horrific. Obviously, someone can have valid feelings and an electric personality, while being abusive, but the movie not showing her as in the wrong is objectionable. Especially because seeing as she was doing this to a prostitute, it could be implied this is considered okay, as prostitutes are depicted as  “used to it” or “mattering less”.

SPOILERS

Mickey O’Hagan as Dinah is numb and unflinching to all that happens to her, seemingly because it’s all happened so much. This is sadly barely touched on and doesn’t fit well with the more comedic scenes. Dinah never gets very much focus. A unifier between her, the two leads, and Razmik is that all four are working more or less throughout the film and are worse for wear by the end. Sex is also a big focal point of the issue here. Sin-Dee, Dinah, and Alexandra get in conflict with each other because of someone having sex with someone else. Those three women seemingly got into those situations by just doing their job or what’s expected of them. By contrast, Razmik is mainly responsible for his own downfall. It seems he left his family’s holiday dinner as he wanted to give head to a hooker, which feels like a contrivance to get him in trouble. When Razmik does so to Alexandra, we focus on him doing it for a long time, perhaps to let us take in as much as possible what this act would be like.

Us seeing Sin-Dee without a wig, then Alexandra giving her hers is a powerful moment due to it showing the two in a vulnerable position, taking off a projection of femininity. Them opening up like this is seemingly what could cause their friendship to improve, though it’s questionable if they’re even in a different place than at the start. It seems Alexandra knew it was wrong beforehand to sleep with Sin-Dee’s boyfriend and now she still knows that. Sin-Dee arguably only changes if she will take to heart her friend doing this, but she didn’t learn anything else, like from dating pimps, abusing another prostitute, or making life harder for a random client. She possibly doesn’t even learn anything about Alexandra, due to the ending implying they’ll makeup.

OVERVIEW

Due to the fluid nature of the structure, especially with certain prominent characters being out of the picture other than for certain moments, there seems to be little point to the narrative itself. What does Sin-Dee’s behavior accomplish for her or the other characters? Not much, we just see her and others deal with her, then move on with no or little growth. The point is clearly to see a real human struggle not often focused on, the life of a black transgender prostitute. It’s not some big tragedy or significant embrace of any of those factors, but just letting us see these events play out.

Thus, if Tangerine was made in a society without racism, transphobia, or objections to sex work, it would not be exceptional. It’d seem like a pointless movie about some misadventures, with the most interesting part being a handful of good performances. Seeing as we don’t live in that world, the movie is very much worth seeing, though there are other similar movies that have more to say and also are better stories. The Watermelon Woman is one favorite.