A Beautiful Day In The Neighbourhood - Cheap Thoughts

The idea of forgiving an abuser is not an easy one…yes we’re jumping right into the meat here. A Beautiful Day In The Neighbourhood wants these discussions to be had so there’s no point avoiding them. Our protagonist Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) is a journalist tasked with writing a profile on legendary children’s presenter Mr Rogers (Tom Hanks). Lloyd himself is not a fan of Mr Rogers and could be described as somewhat cynical of a person. To the film’s credit they strike a healthy balance between sceptical pessimist and open-minded friend. He’s not dismissive of Roger’s ways, though he does question both the honesty behind it and results, the film certainly falls on Rogers side, but does so by presenting us the information through Lloyds perspective, particularly due to his personal history which made him what he is today.

We’re told very early on about said history, that his father was an absent alcoholic who left them when he was young and when his mother was suffering a very painful death. Years later his father has now come back into his life in attempts to make amends. Whenever this subject matter is brought up and discussed in the presents or Mr Rogers it’s incredibly powerful, and greatly reflects the type of man he was and how he would respond to an issue like this, to treat it with the intelligence, kindness and dignity needed to actually help someone. This doesn’t just come to the film’s benefit of making it a faithful adaptation but also an intelligent film in helping not only the protagonist but the audience understand their own pain. There’s a particularly powerful sequence where the film comes to a complete halt for a whole 60 seconds to let its characters reflect, and in turn the audience. That type of quite composure is not something often found in most films, where its said its message and now it forces the audience to reflect on it while the film is still engaging them.

That being said, this is where the more difficult aspects of the film come from. Whenever anyone else tries to “help” Lloyd with his issues, its incredibly poor. Near the beginning Lloyd is packing for his sister’s wedding, and its only now when its too late to backout does his wife Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson) admit that his father Jerry (Chris Cooper) is going to be there, at said wedding his father gets drunk and the two get in a fight. Very soon after than Lloyd’s dad then ambushes him outside of his own apartment and waits out there for several days, only eventually again for Andrea to go behind Lloyd’s back and invite him up, again ambushing him, trying to force this recollection, and when Lloyd refuses to partake they treat him like he’s the bad guy. None of this is healthy or helpful, they force Lloyd into this situation, our first scene with Jerry establishes that he hasn’t changed his behaviour or fixed his issues, yet they constantly treat Lloyd like he is at fault for not giving him a chance, when it is not his responsibility to make things better.

*Minor Spoilers Ahead*

Jerry has shown no evidence that he is improved, and everyone’s treatment of Lloyd for not putting the effort in is victim blaming. An element that’s established early on is that Lloyd doesn’t drink alcohol, presumably due to his father’s history of substance abuse, and yet later on in the film after this forced catharsis is taking place, the two of them share a drink as if this is supposed to be an endearing moment? That Lloyd partaking in one of his father’s vices is a sign that their relationship is healing? This entire plot is tone deaf of the highest order, especially in a film that has such a heavy focus on smart conversations and understandings of ones own emotions and conflicts, and is able to handle these issues so incredibly well in certain scenes that it’s hard to believe these are from the same film.

Not everyone can be a Mr Rogers, and if this was some attempt to highlight him as a person not by exclusively representing his qualities but by making every other person appear emotionally inane in contrast then it did more to harm the film than help it.

-Danny

Weathing With You - Cheap Thoughts

Makoto Shinkai didn’t exactly have an easy job making this film, and I don’t necessarily mean with the production, but with audience expectations. Shinkai’s previous 2016 film Your Name stormed the anime community and became a box-office success in Japan and helped make a name for himself in Western markets and another prolific director with a beautiful style, good use of pop music and emotionally fragile protagonists. All of which is present here. In some ways this could be argued that it makes this film a disappointment, if you’ve seen plenty of Shinkai’s filmography then I’d argue there’s very little in this film to surprise you, the majority of conventions that carry out throughout his films are here so if that’s somehow something you’re tired of then this film might night impress you.

That being said it would be difficult to find someone who would find beautifully details and vibrant animation and catchy music to be a negative. If that were all there were to his films then that’d be a different subject matter, but these films are never hollow. Our protagonists Hodaka Morishima and Hina Amano are both strong yet brittle, they struggle constantly yet their connection to each other and to their supporting cast shows what they struggle for, what matters to them, empathising with these characters is never difficult. These all sound like rather basic elements and yet somehow finding them all together is somewhat rare, it’s such an obvious concoction that Shinkai makes it look as easy as it should be.

This is all there is to say about Weathering With You, it’s not reinventing the wheel, but it’s a film made with such passion behind every aspect and it works in almost every regard, the characters are identifiable in their struggles, the soundtrack is boppy, upbeat and catchy, yet above all else the animation is gorgeous, the detail in the background of every shot, the fluidity of character movements, the lighting and reflections during the rain scenes, it’s simply beautiful. A film that can be strongly recommended to the majority of audiences and it can be expected that the majority would be satisfied with their viewing.

-Danny

Bad Boys For Life - Cheap Thoughts

There’s something engrossing about the Bad Boys franchise despite the grossness of their own existence. Bad Boys was considered a dated formula in a flashy body with young hot talent trying to carry a dull script. Bad Boys II is vehemently cynical in its DNA and tries to be more violent, ostentatious and all round unlikable, but it doesn’t care. Yet somehow they made it work, granted that’s not a universally agreed statement but it’s a franchise that has its fans because it embraces those ghastly elements.

Now we have entered Bad Boys For Life when our stars and crew are past their prime and can no longer be as showboaty or aggressive as they liked in the past and we’ve entered an age where that behaviour doesn’t appeal to audiences. Naturally the film does incorporate this perspective within the text as Detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett team up with a younger and higher tech police squad and rather than pick a side on who’s method is better the film somehow comes out viewing both as effective, especially when forced to team up? Which is an unusually progressive perspective than one would expect.

Furthermore what wouldn’t have been expected is actual emotional honesty between the two characters, 17 years on from the last film this latest instalment seems much more inline with Martin Lawrence’s character of wanting to retire, live a quiet life as the two are past the days of loud fast violence. Will Smith on the other hand still trying to desperately cling to the good old days and claim he’s just as cool & relevant as he has been in the past is portrayed as ignorant and the film is rather critical of him. Whether this is meant to work as a meta-narrative or not is difficult to say, it would be rather obnoxious to claim that level of commentary is above this film but then again the film is already splitting off in several directions that was unexpected.

None of this is to say the film is ashamed of it’s origins or doesn’t fulfil the exaggerated and bombastic shoot outs and car chases fans of the franchise would want or expect, the film is chocked full of them and is sure to please hardcore fans and casual viewers alike. It’s simply more surprising and noteworthy of when then the film does play its hand at something softer and isn’t afraid to show the fragility of these characters, after all they are still two middle-aged men acting half their age. Which is not to say this is going to bring the franchise in an entirely new direction with the inevitable Bad Boys 4, but it certainly breathes a breath of fresh air in an aging franchise by blending together the old and the new to create an entertaining flick that most people will thoroughly enjoy. Unless of course you were one of those people that understandable hated the prior films for their over the top, overbearing and somewhat detestable nature, then this film probably won’t be as detestable to you as the prior ones, but certainly won’t be an enjoyable experience. For everyone else, it’s a guaranteed fun time.

-Danny

1917 – Cheap Thoughts

It’s easy for a film’s USP to be seen as a gimmick because more often than not they’re…well, gimmicky, and don’t tend to serve a greater purpose than conventional storytelling methods. 1917 is not one of those films. For anyone unaware, 1917 takes place during World War 1 as two soldiers Lance Corporals Schofield & Blake are tasked with travelling across No Man’s Land and into enemy territory in order to deliver a message to call off an attack that would result in the deaths of hundreds of soldiers.

The “gimmick” in this case being that the entire film is shot to appear as one continuous take, and as I stated it’s easy for this sort of thing to come across as just a marketing ploy to impress people with vague spectacle lacking in purpose. Instead what Director Sam Mendes and DoP Roger Deakins have achieved is a great example of consistent tension and identifiable characters. Never breaking away means there are no breaks in the action, no stylistic signals to indicate a change in tone between the character’s downtime and an action scene. As an audience member you are always on alert, that constant sense of dread present throughout the entirety of the film, very much like the main characters who serve to fulfil the secondary purpose of the style.

Never leaving the characters and experiencing this story in real time along with them strengthens the connection between character and viewer, every break, every struggle, every fight, every emotion that’s felt by them is felt by us, it’s one of the better examples of empathetic storytelling of the past several years, and it carries on all the way throughout the climax when they are just so exhausted and so desperate to achieve their goals with the clock ticking down and with Thomas Newman’s excellent score emphasising the moment you are in the heart and mind of the character, the person who has already risked everything and now nothing is going to stop them, no matter the cost.

None of this is to disregard the technical achievement that is 1917, it is incredibly impressive that this was ever pulled off, even if half the time you are distracted by trying to find the cheats, where the clever cuts are that made this all possible, and I’m sure that alone would be enough to make it impressive, but it would also be hollow. The more impressive part is that they used this technique to emphasize the characters and the drama, to put us in their point of view and combining it with a simple enough premise that this concoction of basic plot, engrossing characters and complex technique makes this film stand out as one of the better war films out there when it’s a genre stuffed to the brim with competition and filmmakers have to challenge themselves to make something that stands out.

-Danny