Indulging in the life of the vapid

Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders in Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie. Image courtesy Fox Searchlight.

In a summer season built upon remakes, reboots and sequels, it seems oddly appropriate to unleash a film adaptation of an obscure British television franchise first released more than two decades ago and was last refreshed four years ago. Here we are though with Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie, a title that more than lives up to the ostentatious tackiness of inherent to its name, the series’ legacy, and, to its detriment, its roots as a cult television series.

The show remains somewhat notable in the United Kingdom, but it never took hold of the mainstream on our side of the pond, earning a devoted but small audience along the way. The film’s existence is to appeal to the fans who have spent a large portion of their lives following the misadventures of public relations hack Edina (Jennifer Saunders) and fashion director Patsy (Joanna Lumley), along with the constant consternation of Edina’s daughter Saffron (Julia Sawalha). Viewers less familiar with the original series will remain out of the loop, although the film is tacky enough to earn at least some level of attention for the uninitiated.

Newbies will be a bit perplexed by the movie’s aimless plotting. Absolutely Fabulous starts off with Edina’s need for social validation – model Kate Moss serves as a MacGuffin – that somehow results in Patsy dressing as a man to marry a wealthy dowager (has a movie ever featured a poor dowager?) in France. That results in a homage to Some Like It Hot, along with a necessary yet uninspired and unsatisfying happy resolution for Edina and Patsy. With so little plot to work from, Absolutely Fabulous feels much longer than it is, especially amid a third act that exists with little motivation for being so. Saunders, who also penned the script, can't quite move the film beyond its TV origins, creating a movie that feels more like three television episodes tied together than one singular film.

Then again, Absolutely Fabulous is one of those films where the plot serves less of an integral requirement than as a method of delivering what viewers want. Essentially, it doesn't matter how Patsy and Edina are getting drunk or high and making catty comments about people, it just matters that those actions are taking place in some capacity. For all of Saunders' story issues, she knows how to write for the two main characters and how to wring out the perfectly wrong one liner for herself and for Lumley. A couple of jokes stretch a skosh beyond the realm of comfortable – one involving statutory rape toward Jon Hamm and a couple of transgender cracks come to mind – but most of the things coming through those characters' mouths are aimed at mocking the Patsy and Edina, not the target of the jokes. It is a very, very thin line, but Saunders mostly stays on the right side of it.

Absolutely Fabulous is the rare adaptation to embrace its anachronistic state instead of aiming for relevance in a world that's passed it by: A multitude of its guest stars, from Moss to Dame Edna to Emma Bunton (better known as Baby Spice in the states) to Joan Collins, are known best as remnants of the past than presences of great import in the present. It's a fitting point for the two central characters, public relations hack Edina (Jennifer Saunders) and fashion director Patsy (Joanna Lumley), who indulge themselves in the shallow things in life, chasing a life of great emptiness and little redemptive value. They make for a hideous coupling in Absolutely Fabulous, so shallow and self-centered they remain utterly contemptible even in the one moment in which Saunders' Edina seeks salvation (the plea is, fittingly, undercut within a matter of seconds). Which is, of course, the joke in this film; these two people can somehow survive in industries that passed them by years ago because they're too lost in their own worlds to realize it. Patsy and Edina, like the film they star in, are empty creatures who live on tackiness and the approval of the fashion world they desperately want to embrace (and for it to embrace them). Absolutely Fabulous mocks the very emptiness the fashion industry thrives upon, yet it can't quite reject the beauty exuding from the emptiness, as if it were a moth attracted to a radiation leak. Saunders, both as a writer and as Edina, embraces the tackiness of fashion, wearing garish and often ghastly outfits as a means of joining the fraternity and hiding from the aging that spoils her character's brilliant vanity.

There's very much room in this world for film's as openly tacky and campy as Absolutely Fabulous. It's outrageously silly and knows how to serve the small but rabid audience that will pay to watch it, and it is often rather funny despite losing its moorings. This is the film Zoolander 2 should've been.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 90 minutes

Genre: Comedy 
 

Ask Away

Target audience: The people who watched the original series.

Take the whole family?: The “R” rating is a little harsh, but interest wise it probably wouldn't be of interest to most viewers younger than 17 anyway.

Theater or Netflix?: Best off waiting for the streaming release to pair it with the rest of the series.

How does the film associate with modern technology ?: Not particularly well, which is a missed opportunity for Jennifer Saunders and crew to really have some fun. It is understandable that Patsy and Edina would have some hesitation dealing with the social media, but the platforms are really too perfect for them to resist. How could these women avoid avenues to talk more about themselves?

Watch this as well?: Probably the best version of what Absolutely Fabulous aims to be is 1996's The Birdcage. That film is off the walls campy with very good performances from Robin Williams, Nathan Lane, Gene Hackman and one terrific performance by Hank Azaria.

They ain't afraid of no ghosts

Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters. Image courtesy Columbia Pictures.

Before diving too deep into this review, I have to state for full disclosure that I worked on Ghostbusters as an extra when it filmed in Boston. I'm actually visible on screen during two shots at a concert if you keep your eyes open, and I was paid to work on it. I'm opting to review this though because I feel I can separate my involvement during filmmaking from any critical thoughts I have about the film itself. Also, any bias I have for the film is rooted heavily in childhood adoration for the movies, cartoons, toys and everything else Ghostbusters related. The only reason I signed up was an affinity for the franchise. In the end, it's nostalgia that shifted my view of the new Ghostbusters toward favorable, despite a few glaring flaws the film doesn’t recover from. It's not my longing reflections into the past that fuels the positivity; it's for the girls in the audience who really, really need role models like the four women who fight against the afterlife and a society in which its simpler to describe women as crazy than correct. I have a number of great memories tied to this franchise not just related to watching it, and it's nice to know that a lot of kids will have their own in the coming decades.

Still, this is not a particularly excellent film. Paul Feig's reboot, which stars Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon as the eponymous ghoul fighters, has one enormous flaw that filters down to create smaller problems that result in an unexpectedly rough Ghostbusters experience. The central issue is a product that clearly shot to be longer than the shade less than two hours it ended up being, but was edited down to a more digestible run time. Whoever edited this film had to eliminate a substantial amount of material, but the film wasn't cleanly put back together after the hacking and slashing ended. It leads to a number of uncomfortable segues, truncated exchanges, far too fast cameos, scenes that sometimes end on off beats and jokes that fall flat.

What would have been the central character arc of the film, a reunion between Wiig's disgraced scientist Erin Gilbert and her former best friend Abby Yates (played by McCarthy), is brought up and then put on stasis until it is magically brought up again as a motivating factor at the end. The relationship is not captured as overly tense, nor do the two ever have a true reconciliation over what was a friendship ruined; even the rift between them is never explained at length. Ghostbusters has a habit of making things pop up and then go away for a spell before cropping up again. The crew's dimwitted secretary (played by Chris Hemsworth) shifts from bored and unqualified to answer phones to super eager to be a Ghostbuster without ever expressing a desire to become one earlier. Even the film's villain (Neil Casey) drifts in and out, his intents explained through exposition and mutterings by the character himself. There is enough underlying plot and story to indicate Feig and fellow writer Katie Dippold had something deeper planned out for this project; they just seemed to run out of the time they needed to make it come to fruition.

But just enough success creeps out between the off moments to make Ghostbusters a perfectly serviceable summer flick. The film's commentary about the additional hurdles women face when venturing into uncharted fields is valid and underrepresented in cinema. Feig has also done the Lord's work in unleashing the wonderful insanity that is McKinnon upon theater goers. She shines as off-kilter and very flirty (at least toward Wiig) scientist Jillian Holtzmann, who conveys much through a sly glance and a subtle line reading that registers just enough before fleeting through the mind. Jones, as former MTA agent Patty Tolan, sneaks in a few laughs as well from her character's perpetual incredulous reactions to the phantasmagoric events around her. (Wiig and McCarthy seem to have the most difficult time with the material.)

It is a little unfair to Ghostbusters or any film to say it needs to exist despite being a sometimes funny but very flawed film, but it kind of is necessary. The little girls with the proton packs in the theater falling in love with the Ghostbusters (they adored Holtzmann) deserve positive characters to emulate like I did as a kid. Even if the reboot isn't necessary, a film featuring four comediennes playing scientists whilst fighting against the sexism they face daily is a hugely important thing to have. Besides, this movie isn't any worse than Ghostbusters II.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 116 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People who enjoyed the original and young girls searching for role models.

Take the whole family?: Some of the ghosts get a little freaky looking, but it is mostly harmless for kids ages 8 and up.

Theater or Netflix?: As long as its a matinee, theater is an acceptable alternative.

Who is your favorite Ghostbuster?: Bill Murray's Dr. Peter Venkman is far and away the best Ghostbuster; a charming rogue who always has the perfect comeback. Reality has taught me I can never be Venkman – I'm probably more of a Ray Stantz – but it doesn't hurt to dream.

Watch this as well?: Definitely the original Ghostbusters, which Murray absolutely steals. One of the animated shows that came about from it, The Real Ghostbusters, has several entertaining and interesting episodes, although most of those came before Dave Coulier replaced Lorenzo Music as Venkman.

The Secret Life of Pets is surprisingly mundane

Gidget, voiced by Jenny Slate, is pictured in a scene from The Secret Life of Pets. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

The Secret Life of Pets marks the sixth film animation studio Illumination has spawned and it follows in the footstep of at least four of those (excluding the miserable Hop.) Like its predecessors, The Secret Life of Pets is a serviceable enough film with a few flashing moments of intrigue overwhelmed by mediocrity and profit hawking. It's the kind of film that references the studio's most popular franchise, Despicable Me, twice in less than an hour and a half. That followed a short film preceding the feature itself starring the company's breakout characters, the Minions.

Illumination knows exactly where it's bread is buttered and how to appeal to a wide consumer base. Making a movie with any true artistic statement, however, seems to be a little outside of its wheelhouse.

There's nothing overly wrong with The Secret Life of Pets. It's a cute enough idea with a few moments that capture the premise's adorableness aptly – most notably an end sequence set to Bill Withers' wonderful Lovely Day – and nice voice work from Jenny Slate, Lake Bell, Dana Carvey and a few glorious seconds of a menacing Al Brooks. Some of the jokes land well enough, most notably when the writers get a little macabre with their humor. It's a well designed film, in as much as the design is to appease kids without actually challenging them in any meaningful way.

Disney, Pixar and even (sometimes) DreamWorks have offered fair directed at children that has more depth, nuance and aesthetic pleasures than anything Illumination has cobbled together. And despite the animated format and the main appeal to a youth audience, viewers can and should expect better than the less than stellar tricks the film uses to tell its story. The Secret Life of Pets takes the proverbial easy way out from the very first frame that shows exterior photos of famous New York City landmarks set to Taylor Swift's Welcome to New York. A vehicular chase scene involving Brooklyn is scored to the Beastie Boys' No Sleep Till Brooklyn, whilst a fantasy sequence about friendship is coupled with Queen's You're My Best Friend. It's as if the multitude of filmmakers – the movie has two directors and three writers credited – are afraid of relying on audience a modicum of audience intuition.

Illumination is a fearful studio, happy to offend in trivial, kid friendly ways (this film has a fair amount of jokes about pooping and peeing) but not in a fashion that is daring or risky. The studio, and The Secret Life of Pets by default, is uninterested in being interesting, using the most generic building material possible to construct a nondescript house in the middle of suburbia. Nothing is memorable about this film except how unmemorable it is, a beige stain on a grey carpet.

The metaphor serves as a description of the film’s overall messiness. The Secret Life of Pets covers at least three subplots: one an Odd Couple lite story between main dog Max (Louis C.K.) and new arrival Duke (Eric Stonestreet); one a rescue mission led by Slate's love-struck Gidget; and one a revenge tale centered on an annoying rabbit voiced by Kevin Hart) in less than 90 minutes. Attempting to cover so much in such little time grants little to no proper development of any of those three plots. The writers even shoehorned a pair of fantasy sequences in to fill time in a movie where a lack of time is a major flaw.

Then there's the animation that, like Minions, The Lorax, and Hop before it, is never bad like Norm of the North, but is perpetually uninspired. That's vital for an animated film to create a world for the audience to get lost in, or at least replace the reality it eschews. Films like Zootopia and even the otherwise disappointing Finding Dory excel at fleshing out their fictional universes; The Secret Life of Pets has bothersome character designs and humans who always appear dopey in some capacity.

The Secret Life of Pets is a success because it isn't built for excellence. The film will sell toys and apparel, promote impending Illumination products (like more Despicable Me films) and keep kids relatively quiet for a spell in the summer. Pet owners will be somewhat charmed by the premise and the snuggle sequence at the end, although adults will more than likely leave a little unimpressed with the totality of the experience. That still counts as a success for Illumination; after all, it's nearly impossible to fail when the standards are this low.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 90 minutes

Genre: Animated 
 

Ask Away

Target audience: Families too bored to do anything else this summer.

Take the whole family?: A fair amount of scatological humor might make this a bit inappropriate for some families, but the overall tone is light enough to avoid being too problematic.

Theater or Netflix?: Take the kids to the matinee if you need to get them outside the house this summer.

How is the Minion short?: Pretty uninspiring. The short, Mower Minions, has a gaggle of the little yellow things attempt to do lawn work for money. It's pretty much the same general shenanigans the Babel Fish infected walking Twinkies have engaged in/earned the studio much profit from in the last couple of years. Like the film preceding it, it's not bad, but it isn't particularly clever either.

Watch this instead?: The other movie to come out this year featuring anthropomorphic creatures, Zootopia, is leagues better than this. You could also search around for the old clam shell covered VHS version of 101 Dalmatians and put that back in the VCR.

BFG an empty beauty

Ruby Barnhill stars in The BFG. Image courtesy Disney.

There used to be a time when Steven Spielberg inspired dreams both fantastic and nightmarish. It really wasn’t that long ago in relative time, but just far enough away to settle into nostalgia, with the fears and joys of movies like E. T. and Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark resonating within memories. It only makes sense for Spielberg to take on a project featuring a literal dream maker and taking place through the lens of a precocious, lonely girl, and it’s doubly disappointing a man like Spielberg can miss as wildly and beautifully as he does with The BFG.

Roald Dahl’s seminal childhood tale is a marvelous book with fantastical elements anchored by a friendship between two very unlikely beings – the eponymous giant and whip smart orphan Sophie – making for a brilliant playground for a good filmmaker, let alone a legendary one like Spielberg. Except Spielberg and writer Melissa Mathison shift their focus away from the elements that make the book so great and get lost in the aesthetic wonderment instead. They stripped away the film's heart to make the body look prettier, resulting in an often gorgeous but ultimately empty and rather cowardly picture.

There are a few notable issues that ultimately sink the film, yet the one that ties them together is the filmmakers trying too hard to appease to the youth demographic the book was already written for.

The logic makes a sort of sense, especially given how the book places its protagonist (played by Ruby Barnhill in the film) into constant peril when she's surrounded by creatures bent on eating her. It's a wicked dark premise in the book, a gaggle of giants waltzing around the world nabbing children from their homes to gobble them up (except for people from Greece), with only one decent soul (Mark Rylance is motion captured to play the friendly giant) around to protect her. The BFG is a nightmare inducing book with the scariness of the world deepening the bond between the lonely giant and the lonely and miserable little girl.

Spielberg and Mathison ditch the fright though, referencing the other giants' ferocity in passing and skimping over the book's darker bits and general nastiness. So much of the horror is stripped away and sanitized the film is far too safe to evoke honest emotional connection between BFG (excellently captured by Rylance), Sophie and the viewers. It's insulting in a way to try to protect children from a little nastiness. They can handle a little fear and some intensity along as there's a parent or two around to remind them things will be OK. And Dahl was an expert on never taking things too far; bad things only really occur to the wicked or vile characters in his work, so good and decent children like Sophie and Charlie Bucket and James and George never received a harsh comeuppance. Sadly Spielberg and Mathison remove much of the peril and insert dangerous levels of cuteness to the mix, including a few fart jokes bandied about, a rather silly secondary story about a replacement family for Sophie and an overall failed attempt to make The BFG a nauseatingly British experience. Even the most aesthetically wondrous moments – the most notable being a sequence at a dream tree – come across as sweet diversions rather than interesting plot points.

These little diversions into the saccharine rob The BFG of a clean narrative, or at least one that is more linear than episodic. Viewers never really learn an adequate amount about the other giants (poor Jemaine Clement and Bill Hader, the two lead giants, get precious little time to shine), about Sophie's orphanage experience, and even about the relationship between the BFG and Sophie. A vital theme of this film is skimped over so Spielberg can go toy around with motion capture technology for almost two hours at the audience's expense. Spielberg’s created a beautiful world yet fails to fill it in with depth and heart. Sadly, I find The BFG more interesting as an interpretation of Spielberg's and Mathison's perception of the book than an actual movie. That they see so much lightness in a film clouded by darkness is an impressive show of optimism but a rather dishonest read of the book’s message and intention. Spielberg mentioned in a featurette prior to the film that the technology to make this a film wasn't available when the book came out in 1982; perhaps 2016 Spielberg is no longer capable of making a film as dark and nasty as The BFG is meant to be.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 117 minutes

Genre: Fantasy

Ask Away

Target audience: People like me who grew up reading Roald Dahl and Steven Spielberg fans.

Take the whole family?: Most of the dark stuff is discussed and never shown, so this is pretty safe and tame for the kiddos.

Theater or Netflix?: If you see it, theater is probably the best bet just for the visuals. Don’t pay the extra costs for the 3D option though.

How beholden should the movie be to the book?: Not completely given the impossibilities of perfectly encapsulating a book in two hours or so, but there should be something resembling a baseline for it. The main issue is when the alterations from book to film make for a lesser film, which is the case more often than not in The BFG.

Watch this as well?: Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory is the most beloved adaptation of Dahl's work and comes relatively close to capturing the original's tone, although The Witches is the best of them all at capturing Dahl's nastiness. Matilda, James and the Giant Peach and Fantastic Mr. Fox are very much worth watching as well, as is a film Dahl wrote himself, the surprisingly creepy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.