mattdursin.com

There’s been a lot of Captain Marvel-related stuff going on lately, with the second trailer debuting, revealing tiny bits about the plot, and getting everyone, including myself, very excited. So, with all that, I thought I’d better chime in with something, so here it is.

Captain Marvel is going to be awesome.

Oh, you wanted more. Oh, fine. Well, if you’re like me and you live for these Marvel movies, you’d be pretty excited about this one, too. I picked up this nugget on eBay recently: Ms. Marvel #2, the second issue of Carol Danvers as Ms. Marvel, the precursor to her re-branding as Captain Marvel. It was only $20 at the time, but that price is sure to go up before the release of the movie. Keep your eyes peeled.

But as I’ve said before, this is not just a Captain Marvel fan site. The plan is to write about the career of Brie Larson, and through that, write down some hopefully-funny observations about movies, in general. To that end, I give you the Mark Wahlberg film, The Gambler.

I will try to remain unbiased here, actually, because, to be perfectly honest, I don’t really like Mark Wahlberg. I obviously never met the guy, even though he keeps coming back to my state to shoot his movies, possibly because we’re the only state that will have him. He never struck me as a very good person, and I admit that this opinion largely stems from his racial assaults in the 80’s, one of them being splitting a Vietnamese kid’s head open with a stick. When he was arrested for this, when the police brought in the victim to identify him, he told them, “You don’t have to let him identify me, I’ll tell you now that’s the mother-fucker whose head I split open.” Good dude. By the way, he was charged with attempted murder, and sentenced to two years in prison, of which he served … 45 days. How’s that for our legal system? I guess being a former New Kid opens doors.

Aside from his time as a thug, Wahlberg’s range as an actor has never really impressed me. I will say that I love Boogie Nights. Not so much for him since there were about a billion people in it, but he definitely held his own. It’s been his more recent run of movies, where he pretty much only plays dirtbags from Boston, that has given me enough reason to dislike him. Patriots Day was the last straw for me. If you’re not from the Boston area, it probably doesn’t matter, but here’s the skinny; Wahlberg’s character, Officer Tommy Saunders (or, more appropriately, “Awfficah Tawmmy Sawndahs”), who is a made-up person. Just about everyone else in the movie played a real person, but Wahlberg wanted to play a cop who impossibly managed to be everywhere during the 4- day manhunt for the bombers, so they made up a character for him. Like the saga wasn’t dramatic enough, and there weren’t enough heroes combing the streets of Boston over during that time, that they had to make up a character for him to play? And the bombing was only in 2015, man. Just too soon,

Point is, I suffered through this one in my quest to see all of Brie Larson’s movies (which, ok, I still haven’t done.) I will say that it is not a bad movie, even though there’s not much to it. The gist of it is that Wahlberg plays a literature professor who is also a compulsive gambler, and he gets in trouble because he borrows money from both his mother and a loan shark (I’m not sure which is worse.) As far as I know, this movie wasn’t based on anything, and it is not a remake, and yet I feel like I’ve seen it a hundred times. It’s your basic “Male protagonist screws up his whole life and you watch to see how he gets out of it” story. We’ve all seen it a hundred times, and there’s no real twist that makes this one stand out, and yet I can’t say I hated it.

Larson plays one of his students, Amy Phillips, who ends up having a fling with him, which is really just a side plot thrown in to give this guy one more thing that he can’t do right. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, because in my screenwriting classes I was always taught to pile the horrible things on your characters to add to the drama. Still, as bad things you can heap on a character go, sleeping with your student is pretty tame. Maybe if she had reported him and sued him and he lost his job or something like that, it would have made for some more drama. But in the end, Amy is nothing more than a pawn in the loan shark storyline, as they threaten to kill her if Marky-Mark doesn’t pay up. Other than that, Amy has no real purpose. It would have been cool if she somehow helped him out of the whole mess, or helped redeem him in some way, but nope. See, it’s fine to pile bad things on your characters, but they really should somehow relate to the actual story somehow. Otherwise, it’s just an excuse to have a cute girl in your movie.

The thing that really bothered me, though, was Wahlberg’s character, Jim Bennett (Even the name sounds cliche’). Bennett is one of those movie tropes that doesn’t exist anywhere but the screen: the rock star professor. I’ve worked in a University for many years, and I’ve known some fun professors, some nice professors, some professors who can toss a few drinks back, and even some who can sing. But I’ve never met a rock star professor. Probably because he doesn’t exist!

Now, of course there have been professors that have affairs with their students, and there are probably professors who are compulsive gamblers with mommy issues, but there are very likely no Literature professors who walk around thinking that they are this cool. In fact, most of them are probably really nerdy, because they have spent hours and hours with their faces in books, earning the necessary degrees to become a college professor. You don’t see a lot of people who just sort of fall into the profession. You do see a lot of people who get into it because they like to have their summers off.

I hate to play this card again, but Jim Bennet is probably an amalgamation of different people that the screenwriters knew, and he they threw in the Lit professor bit to make him seem like a smart guy who is throwing his life away, and to give him students to talk down to. Honestly, the movie wouldn’t have been any different if he was a fry cook. Actually, it maybe would have increased the desperation, because we all know that college professor is ranked as one of the least stressful job in America (apparently it’s right behind Audiologist, which is a career I’m not familiar with, but the median salary is $75,000 a year and it’s not very stressful, so sign me up.) Anyway, for the Jim Bennett character, in addition to all the other cliches’, this movie gets The Deadpool Meme:

Maybe it’s just lazy on my part to dismiss this movie and not really delve deeper into the themes, but really, beyond Brie Larson, with all the entertainment vying for our attention, there’s really no need to watch this. But good things are coming for Ms. Larson.

Movies Since Last Post:

Just over a month to go, and I just eclipsed 150 movies with “Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond,” the Netflix doc about the making of Man on the Moon. If you don’t know much about Andy Kauffman, or about what Jim Carrey did to play him in the movie, you might not be that interested, but to me, it was really interesting. Carrey is a bit of a freak, but somehow, also strangely compelling.

I had a sobering moment last week that made me think a lot about the movie-going experience, and since this whole experiment was supposed to be about how we take in movies these days. I wanted to write about it. My friend John and I went to see Justice League, but upon arriving at the theater, we learned that the showtime we needed was the 4D Experience. For the uninitiated, that means that your seat moves, they blow air and mist at you at appropriate times depending on the action in the movie, lights flash when someone shoots a gun onscreen, and they even pump smells in for odorous scenes. Sounds like fun, right? I did wonder as we were walking in if this would actually make this movie memorable, because the trailers (not to mention almost every DC movie ever) have been rather underwhelming.

You should note above that Justice League is not listed as a movie that I have seen since my last post. After about 8 minutes of creaking seats, rushing air and flashing lights, John and I decided that this was a horrible thing to do. We got up as soon as a moment arrived where we didn’t feel like the seats would jolt us to the ground and left. Like I said about 8 minutes in, which was about 7 minutes after John turned to me and said, “I hate this.” Thankfully, we were within the half-hour window that the theater will give you a refund, so we got our $23 back and went to a bar, with not a regret in sight.

I know that movie attendance has been down in recent years, but I’m not sure that this is the answer to that problem. For one thing, even though we watched a few scenes, I can’t remember anything that happened in them. I think Batman fought some guy, and then Wonder Woman fought some guys. I wasn’t paying attention to what was happening on the screen because the chair was constantly moving and there was the sound of rushing air in my ears every few seconds. And I don’t know if anyone else in the theater was paying attention, either, because every chair movement was accompanied by the requisite “oohs” and “ahhs.” There may have actually been some dialogue in the movie, but I don’t think I heard any of it. Normally, that kind of behavior in a theater would have me enraged, but this time, it didn’t bother me because the whole experience already had me annoyed.

This kind of thing may fly for a ten minute Harry Potter ride, but for a two-hour movie, it’s just a bad idea. Maybe it’s the movie purist in me, but how is a person supposed to follow a plot when they’re being distracted by all this stuff every two seconds? I know, I know, following a plot is silly for most folks, but it’s what I do. Otherwise, why watch a movie? To be entertained? Pfft.

But this is the world we live in. Thousands and thousands of people just like being mindlessly entertained when they watch a movie. I guess our jobs and our lives are so stressful that that’s what we need to do to fill the time when we have it. There’s not inherently anything wrong with that attitude. However, that’s why Michael Bay movies not only exist but thrive in our culture. I know I’m shooting fish in a barrel here, but the guy has legitimately never made what any smart person would call a “good movie.” But the 4D experience seems like an unnecessary step beyond that. Have people become so simple-minded that we can’t just sit for a couple hours and watch a movie without all this extra razzle-dazzle? Apparently not. But as we were leaving the theater, the little old lady who took our tickets asked why we were leaving so soon, and we said we couldn’t stand the 4D experience. She then told us that the kids love it, so I guess that’s the demographic they shoot for. John replied, “Well, we’re old and grouchy.”

Of course, Justice League‘s box office would seem to indicate that no matter what they try to do to enhance the experience, it doesn’t really make a difference. It has eclipsed $300 million overseas, for a combined haul of $81 million worldwide, so “boo-hoo,” right? Still, it is way below projections, so who knows what this means for the future of the DCEU? They have a whole bunch of movies lined up starring these characters (ones that aren’t Batman and Wonder Woman), so I’m not sure who would be interested in seeing those. I probably won’t be, even in a real theater. And not to poop in their gym bag even more, but Thor: Ragnarok has been making money at a pretty steady pace, crossing $500 million overseas, and also has a score of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, as opposed to Justice League’s 41%.

I’m not really sure what it all means, except that they should just let the movie speak for itself. If it’s good enough, people will enjoy it and remember it. If you feel the need to make it into a ride, then you maybe need a few rewrites.

Of course, having said that, I did have a great movie-going experience that had some added razzle-dazzle. The big differences were that this was an older movie that I had seen many times, so the extra stuff wasn’t a distraction. The other big difference was that the razzle-dazzle was actually an orchestra. I’m referring my Halloween viewing of Nightmare Before Christmas accompanied by the Boston Pops.

This was definitely a cool new way to experience both a movie and a night at the symphony. This time, it wasn’t distracting because they were playing along with the actual movie, and they weren’t blowing mist on me when it snowed or anything. If you’re going to spice up a movie, that’s the way you do it. Instead of dumbing it down, why not add an orchestra?

Movies Since Last Post:

I’m hoping to dash this post off in at least less time than it just took me to watch Cloverfield. I mean, I know found footage movies can’t too long or else they’ll run out of ways to make it look like the person filming isn’t just being an idiot, but with a running time of 1:25, it hardly seems worth the effort. Still, monster movies are always fun on some level.

So, midway through October, and I am at 127 movies for the year. The only movie I saw at a theater in that span was Battle of the Sexes, and I feel that not going to a theater severely impacts the quality of films that I take in. Of the above films, Trainspotting 2 was better than I thought it would be, and Welcome to Me had some funny moments, and I recommend any fan of Monty Python see A Liar’s Biography, an animated doc about the life of Graham Chapman (narrated by himself, from before he died), this was a pretty “meh” crop of movies. It’s probably not kosher to say that about Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the one that started it all, but really, it doesn’t hold up.

In fact, a lot of these movies that I have always meant to see, like that one, Fatal Attraction, Crash, and V for Vendetta, have all been rather underwhelming. Part of it is definitely watching them on a small computer screen, because a lot of these movies were made before that kind of thing was even possible. Still, either I’m just getting even more cynical, or sensibilities have changed a lot since the 70’s and 80’s.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say that it’s not me for once, and that a lot of movies actually don’t hold up. It’s a reasonable statement, given how technology has evolved to a point where things that were just not possible back in the day are now possible, so visually, yeah, of course, movies made today will look better. But it’s more than that. For example, when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was made, the trend back then was long tracking shots of spaceships (like in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and a bunch of other bad sci-fi movies made back then.) Today, because we’ve seen spaceships in movies a billion times, we don’t really need those kinds of establishing shots.

Also, I would like to think that I am not a victim of the cultural “lessening of collective attention-span,” but I think it’s time to face up to the fact that that is just not true. The reality is I want a faster pace just like any grown-up kid. Maybe even more because now I feel that my time is precious.  There have definitely been many movies out of this illustrious 127 that left me saying, “Nothing really happened.” I must admit (and I could probably make a whole post about this one), that I found Blade Runner, which I finally watched to prepare for the new one, to be one of those movies. I mean, could someone tell me what happened in that movies? My initial reaction was that, other than Rutger Hauer gouging that guy’s eyes out, nothing happened. Although that was pretty awesome.

Now, you may be thinking, “Hey, jerk, didn’t you want to be a screenwriter? Are you judging these filmmakers? Because clearly they made it and you didn’t.” Indeed I did want to be a screenwriter, and indeed I am kind of judging them, and indeed, I don’t really have a leg to stand on. Still, as I said in an earlier post, movies take a lot of money and time and effort to make, so I am trying to give them their due. I realize that a lot of people may watch something like Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates and think, “Well, it was a nice escape for a couple of hours.” But unless I was actually watching that movie with Aubrey Plaza sitting next to me, sharing the most delicious popcorn in the world, there’s no way I could say that it was a pleasant diversion. In fact, if I was sitting next to her while watching that stinker, I would pull out my new favorite meme on her:

I just couldn’t resist.

The point I wanted to make was that there is definitely something to be said for sitting in a theater and experiencing a movie with other people. I know that’s not exactly blazing a trail, but it is certainly getting lost on people these days, and certainly on me after watching only 23 out of 127 movies this year in a theater. That many trips to a theater might be a lot for some, but for me, it’s just not enough.

I get that going to the movies is not always easy. It’s expensive, it’s crowded, there are too many previews, there are morons looking at their phones, but it’s still one of the best forms of entertainment we have (even in this “Golden Age of Television.”) And in this day of cord-cutting, and Netflix and Hulu going with more shows and fewer movies (and most of them really rotten), if you’re a movie guy, it’s worth it to spend the time and money to go out and experience a movie in the theater. With the morons. There, I said it.

Movies Since Last Post:

It’s been a month since my last post, and I think I have some serious ground to make up. Because of a vacation and some other family stuff, I have watched only 11 movies in that span, and didn’t watch any between August 11th and August 24th. I feel I am sort of entering the home stretch, and I am at a rather sorry 114 movies for the year. Better than my total of 20 years ago, when I had no internet to aid me, but way off my desired goal. I can probably get to 150 if I really work at it, but 200 seems unattainable at this point. I mean, I could do it if I watch a movie almost every day for the rest of the year, or actually sequester myself in my home and do nothing else, but that seems like a stupid thing to do for this silly quest (even sillier than buying every Nintendo game, in fact.) Let’s face it; are there 86 movies available to me that I actually want to watch?

How have I not used this before?

This is the problem I find myself with, in fact. When looking over the list, for every movie I find that I really enjoyed and felt enriched by, and wondered why I didn’t see it before (like Nocturnal Animals or Hell or High Water), I probably watched three that made me wonder why I wasted my time (The Boy). Or more importantly, why the people that made the film wasted their time (Magnificent Seven. Seriously, was that whole movie just an excuse for Antoine Fuqua and Denzel Washington to hang out?).

What I’ve discovered this year is that watching movies is a fun activity and a great distraction, naturally. And a movie like Wind River was something I would have seen, anyway. But forcing yourself to watch a movie to add another one to a list is not the way to go about the movie experience. It’s almost like those bars that have a mug club that you can only get into when you drink 50 different beers. It sounds like a fun little venture until you realize that a lot of the beers aren’t something you would ever drink if you had the choice. And I’m not even getting a mug at the end of the year. Maybe I’ll buy myself a movie poster or something to commemorate the occasion.

I have very often (like almost daily) found myself having some spare moments and scrolling through movie titles in the hopes of finding one that is around 90 minutes so that I can fit it in a small window of time. This is, of course, ridiculous because I can always pause it and come back to it at any time (unless it’s a rental and expires in 48 hours.) Naturally, the optimum viewing experience is to watch a movie in one sitting, and I’m sure the filmmakers are hoping that you’ll be so engrossed that you won’t want to shut it off, but let’s be honest here; out of the 114 movies I have watched this year, other than seeing them in a theater, how many times have I actually done that?

This is the psychological aspect of this experiment that I did not predict in January (well, it might have crossed my mind.) I figured I might be pressed for time, or that the opportunities to see movies themselves would dry up (I also didn’t predict that Amazon would have that many), but the fact that I would just burn out, and so soon, was something that I did not anticipate. Now, it’s not like watching a movie is hard work. All it involves is sitting there and looking at a screen. I could literally be doing it right now instead of writing this. But I wasn’t planning on changing my whole lifestyle just to see if I could watch a lot of movies a lot of different ways. I mean, I still enjoy watching baseball, and Game of Thrones, and Fargo, and sometimes crap reality TV. And I enjoy going out to dinner, and sometimes even having conversations with people. I guess I sort of have this old-school mentality that dictates when I decide to watch a movie, I am making that commitment to that movie, and if life happens and I have to pause it, so be it. But I have started that thing and I’m going to finish it, by God.

I hope, in the end, it will actually be worth something, because as I look at the list, I see a lot of movies that I will probably never think about again, will probably never come up in conversation ever, or I will barely remember, unless I actually meet Brie Larson one day. And yet I watched them because they fit into my window and they were available for streaming. I guess that’s one lesson I can take away from all this, and maybe something we can all learn from this experiment: with all these streaming services, just because a movie is there doesn’t mean you need to watch it. Or perhaps Jeff Goldblum, playing one of my favorite movie characters of all-time, said it better in Jurassic Park:

I guess I’m just saying that movies, uh, find a way.