Bek and Char Review: Jason Bourne

Movie Review: Jason Bourne

Char: Before venturing solo to the movies last night, Bek and I had a conversation that went something like this:

Char: I’m thinking of seeing Bourne.

Bek: It got 57%. Star Trek got 83%.

Char: I know. But I like seeing Matt Damon hurting people.

Bek: I already saw it. Two hours I won’t get back … I mean … enjoy ….

… Later…

Char: So, I wasn’t expecting much. And that’s what I got. Jason Bourne is the latest outing in the Bourne franchise, directed by someone called Greengrass (who also directed the second and third Bourne films). It’s got Matt Damon (which we have to say since the last one had JRen), Julia Stiles (for a little while), Tommy Lee Jones and a woman who suspiciously resembles the evil pharaoh from Stargate.

Char: Apart from this new character, all the actors look suitably aged, which I like. It’s nice seeing the wrinkles on screen, even if they don’t extend past Matt Damon’s chin …

… except where it means Tommy Lee Jones as the Director is channelling the emperor from Star Wars.

Char: I thought it was a lazy film outing. The first half is flat and dull. There’s a cool chase scene, but I smelt the whiff of the second Bourne film and thought, they’re going to kill Nicky. I know they are. AND THEY DO. Now, Nicky’s character is one of the most enigmatic in the whole franchise.

Bek: Humph. Like the latest James Bond movie, they cast aside the age-appropriate awesome actress in favour of someone young with thighs like a baby giraffes neck.

Char: Uh, YEAH. I’ve always been curious about Nicki – she has some skills, and yet we never get really anything about her. AND NOW SHE’S DEAD. And because they never allowed any romantic tension to develop between her and Bourne (except for that throwaway line in one of the earlier ones) her death really means little. She’s a device to bring Bourne back. AGAIN.

Bek: She got Refrigerated, man. Classic dick move.

Char: Yeah. Ho hum. Yawn. Even the intriguing power woman character of Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander) couldn’t quite save that.

Bek: Argh. Intriguing? Are you kidding me? The only thing intriguing about her was the question of someone who was supposed to be so smart, why is she wearing a giant 90s banana hair clip? TELL ME WHY.

Char: Oh yes. That fracking banana clip. I did spend a while wondering if they put it in just to give her a ‘thing’. You know, to stand in place of a personality. She was a pretty unreadable book. But, in the desert landscape that it was, I did find it intriguing that a young woman character is swinging with the big power dicks, and is shady, and you’re never sure whether she believes what she says or is just playing anyone.

Bek: I. Did. Not. Like. Her. At. All. Banana.

Char: But, enough of that. Where the film really got interesting is right around the half-way point where the ‘Asset’ (Vincent Cassel) starts going rogue, opening up a splinter in the CIA.

Bek: I lost interest when it became apparent he wasn’t taking his shirt off.

Char: Touché. It wasn’t until then that we really had a villain, and could open up the full throttle on hating Tommy Lee. But it’s all really haphazard and half-finished. The thread with the social network Deep Dream security bizzo is just kinda hanging out there awkwardly at the edges like a nutscape**. Why is Bourne bare knuckle fighting? Does he need money? DID MATT DAMON NEED MONEY?

**(look it up if you have to; NSFW)

Bek: I’ve got money for Matt *waves five dollar bill*

Char: Even Heather Lee, who is the most interesting character with the constant questioning of whose side she’s on—

Bek: ARGH BANANA CLIP WHOT IS THAT SH*T?

Char: —ends up getting a pat ending.

Bek: I felt no emotional beats in this movie. Bourne discovers the real reason why his father was killed, but I don’t know enough about their relationship to care.

Char: Yeah, Bourne’s face is just a mask of I’m-dead-inside. I mean, even Daniel Craig’s Bond managed a kind of crazy-eye emoting in Casino Royale. Then there’s the stupid, stupid dialogue (“There’s a phone in the room. I can use it to delete the files”)—

Bek: Because accessing Black Ops files remotely is totally believable.

Char: —the convenient airbags (the Asset’s car crashes in the first chase, deploying said bags, but Bourne’s car goes through a demolition derby in Vegas with none in sight).

The one really interesting thing is that Bourne comes to his full arc, recognising that if he truly regrets the things he’s done, he can’t kill Tommy Lee. So Heather Lee does it—

Bek: BANANA CLIP KILLER

Char: —And then they kinda ruin that insight by having him kill the Asset with his bare hands. WHAT?

Bek: And you just can’t kill that magnificent French man!!

Char: Mmmmm. He’s definitely got some of that grey fox going on. Anyway, despite the appeal of Bourne hurting people, the film ended up so, so dissatisfying. Maybe because Bourne has become such a bleak and tragic character. I think the second Bourne was so powerful because it dared emotional investment – Bourne had had a shot at normality and it had been snatched away. Now there’s nothing. He’s still got his wiles, but honestly, the man’s deserved that to mean something. This movie needed a big adrenaline needle of emotion and investment. Clear!

Bek: BANANA CLIP

Char: 4 Rippling-Older-Man-Torsos out of 10

Bek: 1 Vengeful-Julia-Stiles out of 10

Bek and Char review: Deadpool

MOVIE REVIEW: DEADPOOL

Bek: Directed by Tim Miller in his directing debut, Deadpool stars Ryan Reynolds as the red-clad anti-hero, Morena Baccarin as the love interest and Ed Skrein as the villain.

The plot goes something like this: after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, former Special Forces-turned-mercenary, Wade Wilson (Reynolds) undergoes experimental treatment by the nasty Francis (Skrein). By the end of it, Wade is kind of immortal, but also hideously deformed and takes on the alter ego, Deadpool. The rest of the movie is Wade hunting Francis, so he can get his pretty-boy good looks back and return to his true love.

So, I didn’t mind this movie. It was a thousand miles better than Deadpool’s first appearance in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which left me wanting to gouge my own eyes out with my slushy straw.

Char: Wait, are we talking about that scene where Deadpool had his swords implanted a la Wolverine, and the London tube map on his skin, and then he fights Wolverine? That scene? (Comment courtesy of YouTube, because that whole movie escaped any of my long-term memory).

Bek: I was talking about that. Reluctantly. Okay, so Deadpool had a killer opening sequence and cool action shots. There’s a ton of violence in it, but it’s got an R rating, so it’s to be expected. The fourth-wall breaking worked well and the constant dick-and-balls humour even made me smirk a few times.

Char: To be honest, I think the R rating is for the sexual content and the fact the violence is highly gratuitous.

Bek: Did I mention the hefty helpings of fart-level humour?

Char: You did. And I like dirty jokes, though coming from a Mouth sometimes gets tiresome. At least Mr Reynolds does an excellent job of invoking that.

Bek: As much as I like violent movies though, this one didn’t quite resonate with me. I was entertained, but not blown away, and was interested to understand why. The best I can figure out, it was missing an ingredient. There is emotion in this film, but it only had one note. I feel like I’ve seen this movie before, along with the obligatory Stan Lee cameo. The confusing thing is, I enjoy simple movies! I loved John Wick, which was as simple as you can get. Bad guy kills ex-assassin’s puppy, gifted to him by his dying wife. Violence ensues.

Char: I too enjoyed the opening sequence of Deadpool, but that was about it. I sat there, munching my pick n mix while the fanboys around me laughed hysterically. My cack-o-meter never cracked a smile. I too thought about it long and hard afterwards. I mean, come on! I like swearing! I like action! Why the hell don’t I like you, Deadpool? And here’s the thing. I was engaged at exactly two moments in the entire film: 1) At the start, when Wade Wilson is roughing up the stalking pizza delivery boy, because he supposedly has a “soft spot” for the stalked teen, and 2) during the time with evil Francis, where he’s bucking up the other guy, using his Merc-with-a-mouth powers for good. The rest, I did not give a shit. Why? Because he’s a selfish, vain prick whose on a vengeance rampage because he don’t look pretty no more. I don’t care about THAT story. I mean, I believed the whole sequence with his girlfriend, and why he leaves, and all that. But this ain’t even a revenge-for-the-girl story. It’s a revenge-for-my-face story.

Bek: Right. At least with John Wick, there was an underlying complexity of his grief for his wife. I actually had this same issue with The Bourne Legacy, starring Jeremy Renner. I mean, his motivation for the whole movie is him getting his drugs to make him smart. I mean, really?

Char: Exactly. I remember having this conversation – Matt Damon is a highly intelligent, highly trained lethal killer on the run = sexy. No one can take that from him. Jeremy Renner is a dumb guy who needs his pills on the run = nope. No one wants to identify with the hero who’s only smart because of something he has to keep taking (as opposed to say Captain America who is stuck with his awesome). I think with superheroes, even the anti-heroes, you need to be able to aspire to something about them. Deadpool is the kinda guy who’s got a group round him at a party, and you realise after laughing at how funny and clever he is, that he’s actually just a jerk you want to avoid. Plenty of anti-heroes work really well. This one just doesn’t for me.

Also, the scene at the end of the credits is Deadpool replicating the scene from the end of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Yeah, I spoilered it for you. It’s not worth it.

Bek: How dare you! Anyway, Chuck Wendig posted a short blog/tweet about simplicity and elegance in storytelling, which you can read here. He mentions when writing, it’s key to have a simple, but engaging motivation to create a great story.

Char: That Chuck Wendig thing is great, by the way. Simple is right. It works for Deadpool in terms of simplicity. It’s just his motivation is shitty – or not engaging enough. You know what would have worked better? Deadpool wants vengeance on Francis because it actually destroys his relationship, which is the only thing that made him a better person (choose your reason – Vanessa can’t stomach his change, it makes him impotent, it sets off her allergies, whatever – but I think it needs something concrete, not imagined. That’s what this is – a movie about vengeance over the imagined end of the relationship. LAME.).

Bek: Poor Ryan Reynolds. I’ll bet he’s weeping in his piles of cash.

Char: Wasn’t he also Green Lantern?

Bek: *shudders*

Bek’s Grade: 6 blood-soaked bodies out of 10

Char’s Grade: 5 shots in the arse out of 10

Bek & Char Review: Spectre

MOVIE REVIEW: SPECTRE

Bek: Directed by Sam Mendes, this latest Bond venture stars Ralph Fiennes (M), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Monica Bellucci (random hot widow), Ben Whishaw (Q) and Naomie Harris (Moneypenny). Oh, and that guy. Whats-his-name.

In Spectre, a naked Bond fights a sexy octopus. Wait…my bad, that’s the open sequence, which is full of erotic tentacle love.

Char: Yeah, it was a bit disturbing, even by Bond standards. All that ink flying around was highly suggestive. I’ll add that I’m usually extremely impatient in Bond opening titles. I dislike the old-school thing of crediting everyone while we listen to some eurovision-level forgettable song and watch a stylised sequence that ends with Bond awkwardly shooting me from the hip. But I’m interrupting the context information. Keep going Bek.

Bek: As with all other Bond movies, Spectre is told in the usual detective story framework, where our manly-man’s-man hero goes rogue to chase a bad guy intent on taking over the world. Along the way: Bond has a helicopter fight, gets in car chases, flies to exotic locations and makes lame dad jokes.

Char: Ok, so I realised watching this film that I just about never follow the plot of any Bond film. To me, it’s like pow-biff-wham-explosion!! sexy times … oh, Bond’s in that city now, okay: pow-biff-wham! more sexy, now something’s being explained I think I—pow! biff! kaboooom!!! roll credits. So, the fact I sort of followed this one says that it might have been a little slow. Or maybe they’ve just gotten better providing flashbacks so that I can remember the small but important bits of banter that I miss that explains why Bond is suddenly in some frozen lake place when he was just in bloody Rome.

Bek: For Bond, this is all possible.

Char: All this and more, apparently. Because a few things bothered me in the logic … like, when Bond takes the DB10. And Q gives him 48 hours. It takes 18 hours minimum to drive to Rome (yes, I googled in the cinema. You can’t hate me. I was in the back row and I stood up for some people who came in to find other people had nicked their seats) … so, like, is that what he supposedly did? Drove 18 hours straight, then arrived fresh as a blue-eyed daisy to do his suave butt kicking? Hmmm.

Bek: I don’t think Bond and logic mix much.

Char: What? Actually you might be right. But I think this one was worse than the earlier ones. Anyway, this is also a film of women-you’ve-seen-in-other-movies, like that chick from Matrix Reloaded. And the one from Midnight in Paris. And the romance is possibly the laziest ever. I mean, so I thought that the Bond-Vesper love thing in Casino Royale was pretty well done. I believed it, much more than I believed it in the original Ian Fleming story. Now, in this flick, there’s one line to explain why Dr-French-accent is Bond’s perfect girl – because she’s the daughter of a spy, possibly the only one who can understand him. Ummm, yeah, OR MAYBE SHE’LL JUST HATE HIS GUTS BECAUSE OF THAT. It was lazy. Lee Child romance lazy.

Bek: Hey! I like Lee Child’s romance! (Jack Reacher, call me). I didn’t mind the love interest angle so much, but found issue with a distinct lack of sexual tension between Madeleine Swan and Bond. Unlike Monica Bellucci’s character, who sizzled onscreen. And was age appropriate. Why not cast her as the main babe? That, I would have liked to see.

Char: Good point. But isn’t that a thing with Bond? There’s always disposable girl before forever (read: for the next 5 mins) girl? There was that evil dude’s wife that Bond got with in Casino Royale, you know, the one riding the stallion down the beach (love a horsey metaphor).

Bek: The villain’s lair, naturally, is of course in a meteor crater and it is here that he wants to drill into Bond’s brain, because he has daddy issues. Or something like that. I found there was a lot less emoting in this movie than the past Daniel Craig ventures, and I kind of missed that. But it’s slick, with a healthy dose of nostalgia for the old Bond movies (white kitty, car ejector seats, etc, etc).

Char: You say nostalgia … I say it got a bit Austin Powers. I know Powers is parodying Bond, but when the parody has been out for years, it’s weird when you do the old thing in the new movies. The cat. The family connection. The evil-German-woman-in-the-evil-organisation thing. And yes, I definitely liked the more vulnerable Bond of Casino Royale. It was fresh, and I didn’t see enough of Bond being challenged with real stakes in this outing. He seems a bit too immune to what’s going on, a bit too lucky. I’ll freely admit I like blond men, and make them a slightly surly quasi-military type like Bond, I’m in. Just give me a reason to think he actually is a man, and not a robot (I draw the line at robots). Remember the torture scene from Casino Royale? See what I mean?

Bek: When the Bad Guy scratched Bond’s balls? Yeah. I mean, I don’t have any, and I still winced.

Char: Exactly. I mean, what kind of evil organisation is this?

Bek’s Grade: 7 Sexy Octopuses out of 10

Char’s Grade: 6 Evil Frauleins out of 10

---

 

For more from Bek, check out her books here.

For more from Char, check out her books here.

Bek and Char Review: Terminator – All of Them

REVIEW: GUIDE TO THE TERMINATOR FRANCHISE

THE TERMINATOR (1984)

Bek: One of the greatest romantic movies of all time. Directed by James Cameron and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn, this is a love story co-starring a killer robot (Schwarzenegger). I had a huge crush on the hero of this movie, Kyle Reese (Biehn) when I was a teenager. I mean, how can you not fall for a hero who has the line: “I came across time for you.” I mean *sniff* there’s all the feels right there.

Bek: An original concept with the pace is fast and furious, the story compelling. And even better, because the movie is done mostly through Sarah Connor’s point of view, you go on the journey with her and feel involved in the story.

Char: Yes. I also loved Kyle Reese. He’s the ultimate tragic hero – selfless, tough, ruthlessly on mission, but undeniably and vulnerably human – and it’s easy to believe he’s from a starving and desperate future time. For a number of years, I’d turn it off before Sarah finds he’s died at the end, because it was too sad. I loved all the subtle depth in the romance that interweaves with the time paradox – the photo of Sarah that he carries for a time was given to him by John (his son, which Kyle doesn’t know) and it’s the same photo that gets taken of Sarah right at the end when she’s thinking of Kyle. I’ve always also been kinda bummed that it’s Sarah’s actions that ultimately kill him. *blubbers quietly in a corner*

Char: *sucks emotions back in* BUT! beyond that, the story is tight, the killer robot villain is an excellent example of “if your enemy isn’t stronger than you, there’s not much of a story”. Kyle even says, at the moment Sarah believes him and asks if he can stop it, “I don’t know. With these weapons? I don’t know.” Still gives me chills. Also, full points for the gritty 80s feel, complete with synth music, shaggy mullet cuts, tie dye, and Bill Paxton playing a punk at the start.

Bek’s Grade: 10 killer robots out of 10
Char’s Grade: 10 uzi 9mms out of 10

TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY (1991)

Bek: The blockbuster sequel that made Schwarzenegger’s career. Directed by James Cameron again, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong. This is the first movie I saw in the cinemas and it make a huge impact on me and my desire to tell stories.

Char: Yeah, I remember my friend’s dad taking us to see it at the drive-in, and it was the first movie I’d seen there. I would have been 11, maybe? Ahem. Anyway …

Bek: The Terminator is sent back to save young John Connor (that little snot, Furlong) from Liquid Assassin-Terminator. Meanwhile, Sarah Connor has been locked up for being crazy fit. I mean, just crazy. The Terminator and Little Snot rescue her, Liquid Man tries to kill them all.

Bek: What I thought was so great about this movie was how Sarah Connor was such a huge role: she’s strong, flawed, tormented and dynamite on-screen. She’s the type of complex female character I feel is missing in many modern action films, though recently we’ve seen a small surge in interesting women characters who can hold their own.

Char: Totally. Her transformation from the soft, vulnerable Sarah of T1 into the warrior mother of T2 (which Kyle describes to her in T1) is really believable. And the depths of her conversion often lead her to do somewhat desperate and stupid things, which actually undermine her objectives, and therein is the complexity. Plus, I spent years wanting to be able to do chin-ups like that.

Bek: There’s also heaps of repeat imagery from the first film, but with a massive budget for impact. Unfortunately, lacked Kyle Reese factor.

Char: Yes, it’s a different kind of movie. It’s a survival film, not a love story. Kyle actually does appear in the director’s cut (which actually is kinda nice, because it marks the transition from Sarah being a moth bashing herself on the inside of the prison walls to focusing her determination into clever, cunning, escaping Sarah – that sequence is one of the best pressure convergences I’ve seen in film) but otherwise, it’s about how Sarah deals with a huge responsibility, that she never wanted, all on her own.

That aside, it’s totally iconic (even with the corny lines), pushed visual effects of the time to new places, and again had a villain so much stronger than the heroes. Also launched Edward Furlong’s descent into the former-child-star-wasteland, which is a shame because of all the castings of John Connor, he’s the one I believe the most.

Bek’s Grade: 10 Sarah Connor chin-ups out of 10

Char’s Grade: 10 screechy Axl Rose theme songs out of 10

TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003)

Bek: Third instalment. This time directed by Jonathan Mostow (Breakdown, U-571). This movie is set 10 years from where the last Terminator left off. Staring Claire Danes and some weedy kid, Arnold Schwarzenegger and some chick playing a new sparkly Terminator. In this movie, a new lady Terminator shows up to kill a grown up John Connor and … zzzz…..

Char: This movie can eff-off, quite frankly. They made so many mistakes. Claire Danes and the some-guy are terrible castings, they didn’t have Sarah Connor (she’s this franchise’s version of Ellen Ripley, so WTF? – her “death” wasn’t even canon), and they decided to make the villain a woman just because, it seems, we hadn’t done that yet.

Bek: The only thing I remember clearly about this movie, is when the Liquid Terminator Lady is pulled over by cops and she makes her boobs big to get away without paying a ticket. Lame. Worse than lame, this movie bored me to tears. And if there’s one thing guaranteed to upset cinema ushers, it’s weeping patrons.

Char: That’s what I remember, too, and that her “amazing weapon” (arm-rocket-thingie) gets disabled early. Double lame. She’s basically a hybrid of the original terminator and the liquid metal terminator – in being both, she is lesser than either. Awful villain. Boring movie. I was disappointed they didn’t all die at the end.

Bek’s Grade: 1.3 Bored Beks out of 10

Char’s Grade: 1 Judgement Day out of 10 deserved

TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009)

Bek: Set in the year 2018, this is the fourth instalment and I don’t care who directed it. Follows the adult John Connor (played by Christian Bale) in the future as mankind’s salvation and … oh, sorry, I dozed off again there ….

Okay. This was a horrible movie. Two men and robots. No cool female characters for me to relate to, no brains, no plot. This movie was frustrating and it bored my pants off. And if there’s one more thing guaranteed to upset cinema ushers, it’s pantless patrons.

Char: Agreed. My anticipation of seeing a movie set in the post-Judgement Day future (which was always so enticing when shown in snippets in T1) made it even worse. Wasn’t Sam Worthington in it, too? How did that happen? Connor is also completely uninspiring – go find the guy who played Connor in the opening sequence of T2 and cast that guy. Bale is too soft! They’re all too soft!

I’m actually going to be heretical and say I didn’t mind the kid cast as a young Kyle Reese – I thought they’d managed a good likeness. But the script was horrible, like they wrote one draft and decided to film it. I succumbed to angry muttering in this film, which would have been angry yelling in my lounge room.

Bek’s Grade: 1.1 Pantless Beks out of 10

Char’s Grade: 1 compound super-profanity out of 10

TERMINATOR GENISYS (2015)

Bek: Fifth instalment of the franchise. Directed by Alan Taylor, and starring Emilia Clarke (From Game of Thrones – Khaleesi!), Jason Clarke, Jai Courtney and You-know-who (Schwarzenegger, for those who don’t). This movie is about Kyle Reese going back in time to save Sarah Connor. But everything is different now (I’m still not sure why) and instead of Sarah being a waitress in need of rescuing, she’s a gun-toting warrior woman.

I watched the first half through squinty eyes. Really, I say? That’s John Connor now? That’s Sarah Connor? Really?

Bek: Anyway, the movie has a super complicated plot with pithy techie explanations that I suspect would give the more science-savvy Char a rage stroke. Fortunately, about half way, I decided to just go with it and by the time credits rolled, I didn’t mind how everything was put together.

Char: I must admit I’m still anticipating my rage-stroke. Due to a combination of baby sleeping cycles and the unfriendly session times at my local, I’m yet to see this one. But that won’t prevent me passing limited judgement on a few things. Firstly, WTF is Jai Courtney doing as Kyle Reese? Did the humans discover some secret stash of protein powder and human growth hormone in the future? You’re supposed to be a desperate, starving freedom fighter, dude!

Bek: I also think this movie might have done better if they’d kept one very big spoiler out of the trailers, which I won’t reveal for those who are still going to see. But I mean, talk about giving a big twist away. Either way, it’s a reasonably good addition to the Terminator franchise.

Char: And I don’t mind the likeness of the Sarah Connor, but she’s awfully pixie looking. But those things aside, the trailer did look kind of interesting, and I’ve heard from die-hard fans of the series that they didn’t hate it. That sounds like at least a draw.

Bek’s Grade: 6 Mother of Dragons out of 10
Char’s Grade: [Witholding Judgement Day].

Bek and Char Review: Magic Mike XXL

REVIEW: MAGIC MIKE XXL

Char: So MMXXL was a bit like my first manuscript – weird, uneven, and in need of a good edit. But! It was also a shiny diamond amongst all those rough dialogue scenes, and like the first one, weirdly (dare I say) feminist. I don’t know if I should say such things.

Bek: There sure are a lot of interesting reviews out there, pointing out the feminist angle and that’s kind of amazing for a film about a group of men. Directed by Gregory Jacobs, this is basically a road movie starring male entertainers who like to talk about their issues (entrepreneurial frustrations) and are secure in their sexuality (drag-queen vogue-off!). Now, I’ve read a lot about the feminist angle of this movie, which is all very interesting. But something else struck me: the movie is totally body positive. The bigger sized women weren’t being laughed at. Some were used as pommel-horses, sure, but so were the regular sized women and hey, who wouldn’t bend over for Channing Tatum. Um… you know what I mean.

Char: Good point. It was all about the ladies, really, and feeling sexy because you know what you like, not because you’re size whatever.

Bek: Yeah. Curvy chicks rule. Because we all know the health dangers associated with thigh gaps: they’re bad for your balance and your pussy gets cold.

Char: And let’s face it, what I want is Joe Man-I-Mean-Hello! who asks about my fantasy, which is clearly watching him S&M strip-tease to NIN’s Closer. Well-read, sir!

Bek: I’d say this movie is a cure for anyone who saw the Entourage movie. Or Mel Gibson in What Women Want. In Magic Mike XXL, the men discuss how women just want to be listened to, how they deserve to have the bedroom light on when their husband makes love to them. The men call the women in this movie ‘queens’ and ‘goddesses’. And there is sweet, sweet poetry.

Char: Yeah, though that was the bit I think should have been on the editing room floor. Waaay off track at that point.

Bek: And then there was Joe Manganiello humping a fridge of bottled water to make a bored cashier smile.

Char: True. All is forgiven then. Andie McDowell would certainly agree with me, after all, she gets the Joe. Another random road-trip scene that oddly worked.

Bek: I mean, sure, the narrative was a little loose, but I had to cross my legs a few times as I laughed and laughed. This movie treated people of different shapes, sizes and colour as they should be, like regular people, and not a punch line because they look a little different from the Hollywood norm.

Char: And when they’re high on Molly (I had to look it up – basically ecstasy, I think) and behaving like teenagers? I totally bought it. And having said all those positive things about the portrayal of women, I did like how Tates and gang were given additional dimensions. They’re not just strippers, ladies, they’re real people, too. Tates gets a history, and that tiny bit with Tarzan? The glimpse of vulnerability? That was—okay, wait, stop. It’s not going to win an Oscar, but you get the point.

Char: Overall, it feels like a respectful sequel, and I’d go so far as to say it’s a truly ensemble cast – Channing isn’t the only thing going on. They neatly cut out Tates’ fiancé and McConaughey’s characters from the first movie in practically one-liners at the start (code: there’s no movie if Tates is a douche, and we can’t afford McConaughey).

Bek: I thought Jada Pinkett’s character kind of filled the ‘over-the-top’, dangerous, wicked (-ly awesome) shoes that McConaughey left behind. Even though she wasn’t really playing the villain, just someone not to be trifled with (girl crush alert!).

Char: Yes! I spent a long time trying to work out what her job was, but, whatever, I want her house! Also, while we’re on the sets, I have to say that Tates’ workshop is very dimly lit at the start. How he gets any work done in there at night, I don’t know. But full credit for the bench grinding. Get it? Get it?

Bek: Cue music.

Bek’s Grade: 9 pommel-horses out of 10

Char’s Grade: 9 self-empowering strip routines out of 10

Bek and Char Review: Chris Pratt…errr…Jurassic World

REVIEW: JURASSIC WORLD

Bek: Directed by Colin Trevorrow (who?), Jurassic World stars Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, snotty kids and a Franken-saurus. I had heaps of fun watching this, even with the wobbly elements. For example, I found the ‘up-tight’ character of Claire boring, along with the clichéd suggestion she just needs a romp with Owen to work the kinks out (call me). I felt this subplot either needed more beef, or dropped altogether (see “Mad Max: Fury Road” for plot with male and female characters not hooking up but still being awesome *GASP*). I also wondered what the movie would have looked like if the gender roles had been reversed.

Char: Right, so Joss Whedon sorta asked the same question in a tweet, and you know, it’s Joss (all HAIL JOSS). So a gender reversal would be a stuffy dude with a military haircut heartlessly protects “assets” (which now I’m writing it here, sort of feels dirty) while a free-spirited yet brilliant safari lady bonds with the raptors? I think they did that with the T-rex in “The Lost World”. Or it could be the pitch line for some kinky erotica (makes mental note).

Bek: Someone already went there. It wasn’t pretty.

Char: Ah-hem. What we should really be talking about is what type of motorbike said role-reversed lady would ride, as Owen bad-ass Pratt rides a Triumph Scrambler (helloo, product placement). Actually she’d probably have saddles on the raptors. Now, there’s an image. I see the 1980s soft porn jungle flick Sheena, but with dinos. Someone please stop me.

Bek: No, no. I can see it now…

Bek: It was very interesting to note the film’s marketing featured Pratt’s character, but turns out this is Claire’s story. But because of the Ice Princess routine, I found it hard to care. You saw her in a different light, didn’t you?

Char: Yeah, so … Claire has a busy, demanding job. She’s basically the embodiment of the corporate goddess (plus I like Bryce Dallas Howard – she’s the chick from the M.Night Shyamalan movie that everyone hates but me). Then, she gets the nephews in free as VIPs and the parents are still down her neck? What gives. Why are the kids’ parents so keen to paste the guilt on Claire? She’s their AUNT. It was the kind of plot I expected from the classic divorced parent trope. You know, Jim Carey runs Jurassic World, and that chick from ER is like, dude, you never see your son. I don’t care how critical your job is you’re taking him THIS WEEKEND. Then, hijinks ensue. It’s one of the reasons I wonder if the script was originally for a male character, and they changed it up and had to bandaid over it. It honestly bothered me the whole movie.

Also, if the kids have passes to save them lining up for anything, then why are they lining up for the giant hamster balls? But let us not venture into the land of inconsistencies. There’s tall grass down there, and worse things than raptors.

Bek: Damn you, movie logic! And no one runs in HEELS. I’ll only accept ONE woman in the world able to do this.

Char: Ah, Scully. Yeah, that bothered me too. But then, Chris Pratt! Also, there was a bit of the funny in this movie. It was actually hilarious. People laughed at the jokes in the cinema. And not the pained kind you get in an Adam Sandler flick. Some competent person wrote those jokes. And did you spot the dude fleeing with two frozen margaritas? That’s classy.

Bek: Yes! And I loved the cynical Jake Johnson character in the Jurassic World control room, with his collection of toy dinosaurs. I wish he had featured more in the movie. He’s the meta voice of reason, and when he tries to hook up with his co-worker before his great sacrifice, her reaction is priceless.

Char: Ah, yes, that dude. He was responsible for a few funnies, including the old Jurassic Park t-shirt purchased from ebay. He reminded me of the character Wash, from Firefly. I even expected him to play with his toy dinos. He didn’t. But the evil dude from CSI did sweep them aside dramatically. That’s called a metaphor, kids.

Bek: And there was a blink or you’ll miss it shot of the Goldblum’s Jurassic Park character’s book on his desk, in one of the many nods to previous movies. I blinked and missed it, but in my defense, Pratt was onscreen. The internet assures me it was there.

Char: Yeah, that was nicely done. And I really enjoyed the vision of the park actually open. Seemed totally right. I’m curious too … so Jeff Goldblum was in Jurassic 1 and 2. Sam Neill was in Jurassic 1 and 3. Neither of them are in this movie. If you were going to cast them, who would they play in this film?

Bek: Maybe Sam Neill could play an absent minded engineer who’s got a bad feeling about this or is only one day away from retirement before becoming a dino-entree. My husband (a rabid fan of all Jurassics) has informed me you can never have too much Goldblum, in any shape or form.

Char: Gah! Looking away! But honestly, I had every reason to dislike this – I’ve never really liked the others (because I’m precious about the mucking they did with the novels, sniff). But this entertained me. It was weird and wibbly with all these subplots hanging off all over the place (divorcing parents! flying lessons! teenage girlfriends!), and it took a leaf out of George RR in topping characters at unexpected moments. But I say a hearty, well done big faceless studio, this one’s a keeper.

Bek: Agreed. Even with Pratt’s shirt firmly buttoned up all through movie (sad face). I will have to be content with a strange Chris Pratt Boot Scoot.

Bek’s Grade: 7 Goldblum Nipples out of 10
Char’s Grade: There’s an image I’m not losing … 9 Triumph Scramblers out of 10

 

Bek and Char Review: Magic Mike

We’re so excited to bring you a new, semi-regular movie review series from the amazing pens of Rebekah Turner and Charlotte Nash!

REVIEW: MAGIC MIKE

Bek: In celebration of “Magic Mike XXL” coming out soon, my writing buddy, Charlotte Nash (Char), and I thought we’d get all nostalgic and review the now hailed classic (by us) “Magic Mike”. Directed by Steven Soderbergh (Out of Sight, Ocean’s Eleven, Contagion), this movie is supposed to be based on Channing Tatum’s early years as a male stripper. For real! I even researched and the evidence is presented below:

Bek: This photo makes me feel creepy.

Char: Must have missed his face with than tanning spray.

Bek: The movie also stars Matthew McConaughey, Joe Manganiello, a penis pump, and a cast of bronzed dudes, waxed within an inch of their lives.

Now, I personally think this movie is about Channing Tatum’s character taking what is essentially the heroine’s journey, which is more internal, and about discovering the courage to save yourself. Tatum’s character has to journey inwards to evolve and grow, as opposed to having fight some external baddie, like the hero’s journey.

Char: It’s definitely a story of discovering how your current place in the world is limiting you – at the end, he’s essentially the same person, but he sees the world around him differently. But you know … I must have some kind of naked-man amnesia. I’ve been recommending this movie to anything that moves for the last two years, so I enthusiastically chugged it a second time. And then it was like I looked at the carton and found the milk expired a month ago. I think I remember more frivolity and less grit. Perhaps shouldn’t have watched it in the daylight. But! The Tates is certainly an atypical male lead, especially for Hollywood. In fact, I think he has to do all that stage humping just to remind us he’s a man.

Bek: And what a man, what a man, what a mighty fine man. Might I add, his love interest has a rampant case of Resting Bitch Face.

Char: She absolutely does. She’s also the moralising mum-character.

Bek: Total kill-joy. Though, if I found out my little brother was stripping, my facial muscles might seize up as well. For the record, my husband watched it and thought Channing was a douche-bag.

Char: He’s a Nice Guy™ in a sparkly mankini.

Bek: I know! Poor Tates. All that serious manscaping would be hard, but he makes the sacrifice. And, as I pointed out to husband: he’s a sensitive douche-bag. He’s also a roofer, a baker and candle-stick maker. Or something. But he really, REALLY just wants to make crappy furniture from things that wash up on the beach. Or something.

Char: And he’s funny – there’s actually quite a bit of snarky wit in the dialogue. Probably the most underplayed upside of the film, besides the disturbing vision of McConaughey bum-grinding on The Kid’s arse.

Bek: I cringed watching that scene. McConaughey’s character is so manipulative and slimy.

Char: I’m most impressed that Tates’ character reflects all these things traditionally foisted on the female character – he’s the one who the girl is funny about calling back, he keeps the plastic protectors on his car, he’s a softy with the kid, and oh yeah, in the last scene he JUST WANTS TO TALK.

Bek: I did find the ending very anticlimactic.

Char: And if this was a hero’s journey, Matt bum-grindy McConaughey would be doing something unspeakably e-vil with the club, and Tates would have to fight him. Being the heroine’s journey, McConaughey is more a soft villain, because in the inward journey, the real antagonist is the whole world the heroine (Tates) is in, and the way she (he) allows it to limit her (him).

Bek: Agreed. Soft or hard, McConaughey is totally the villain. I mean, I’m no cactus expert, but I know a prick when I see one.

Char: And somehow despite the snow-storm of currency leaking from Tates g-string every night, he still needs a loan. Or thinks he does. I assume he realises this is stoopid after the final credits and just buys the damn workshop with all his cash.

Bek: That’s a lot of sweaty one dollar bills.

Char: But with XXL coming out, I’m left with one big question – how the **** do you make a sequel without invalidating that whole arc?

Bek: I know! I know! It’s a sequel, so sequel rules apply. Such as: you may not survive the movie if you have sex. Wait. That’s horror. Maybe: one last score before retirement?

Char: That’s really the only place they can go. Or Tates’ has a long-lost brother who needs money – lots of money or the mob will kill him. That leaves the way open for Nicolas Cage to appear in flasher pants. Please tell me that’s what they did.

Bek: I am so there.

Bek’s Grade: 8 Sweaty G-Strings out of 10

Char’s Grade: Ew, Bek. 8 inches of sexy policeman baton out of 10