Thank you for being my 3.5 readers. What have you 3.5 readers been reading lately?
Thank you for being my 3.5 readers. What have you 3.5 readers been reading lately?
Grab your baseball bats, 3.5 puddins.
It’s time for a review of Harley Freakin’ Quinn.
At the outset, I have to say this show is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Some thoughts on why that is, in no particular order:
#1 – It’s a Gotham based, DC character infused show, that’s for adults and when I say it’s for adults, I mean, it’s for adults. It’s weird. Watch with the sound down for a minute and you might be lulled into thinking it’s a kids show. I mean, superheroes are for kids, right? But no…there’s swearing and sex and uber violence like very serious graphic violence. You don’t want to let your kids watch this. I know, Batman and Co. are for kids, right? Nope, not this show, which brings us to…
#2 – It’s a parody of the DC Universe and the comic book genre. It focuses on Harley (Kaley Cuoco) and in season one, we see Gotham’s top she-clown break up with The Joker (ala Birds of Prey) and come out from Mr. J’s shadow, fighting to be thought of as a supervillain who stands on her own evil merits and not as the Clown Prince of Crime’s sidekick. Along the way, DC’s long laundry list of main characters (heroes and villains) are trotted out and poked fun of…but the best jokes are reserved for the lesser knowns, the goofy characters you’ve unlikely ever heard of before, or maybe heard of once in passing.
Examples? Harley’s BFF Poison Ivy dates Kite Man, and that’s his power. He has a kite that pops out of the back of his suit so he can fly around. Pretty useless character, right? You’d think so until you meet such lackluster Batman opponents as Calendar Man, Condiment Man, and so on.
Overall, the writers had a fun time pointing out the silliness of the comic book world and yet…
#3 – The plots are well laid out and surprisingly riveting. In season 1, we see Harley recruit a crew of lesser knowns like Dr. Psycho, King Shark and Clayface to take on Gotham’s worst villains and fight her way up to the top of the food chain. In season 2, Gotham lies in ruins and Harley and Friends team up with Commissioner Gordon, Bat Girl and yes, even Batman to prevent the city from meeting its doom. This leads me to…
#4 – It saddens me what DC decided to do with its theatrically released movies. Here, in this cartoon, the writers set out to parody DC and comic book culture and yet, created a more coherent plot than the DC films did. As you watch, bread crumbs are laid out and they lead to something. There’s a laundry list of characters yet they all get their time to shine. Slowly but surely, the writers introduce you to their silly versions of these characters and then build up their silly version of Gotham. Watching actually pays off and you don’t leave feeling like you were jerked around. Ultimately, that’s all the fans wanted from the DC movies.
#5 – At first, I did wonder whether maybe an adult version of the DC universe was something worth making. After all, aren’t these characters for kids? Shouldn’t adults grow up and put away childish things? Drop the F bombs, cut out the uber violence and naughtyness and create something the whole family can enjoy? But then again, that leads me to…
#6 – This is the hands down funniest thing I’ve seen on TV in awhile. Somehow, it walks a fine line between keeping the wokesters happy and delivering jokes that push PC boundaries. For more of what I’m talking about, see Poison Ivy’s takedown of the Condiment King with the help of her sidekick, Frank the Plant (JB Smoove stealing the show as a man eating Venus fly trap). “Change of plans, sauce fucker.”
FINAL THOUGHTS: In the end, all we fans ever wanted is for writers to build a world. Yes, the DC characters reside in a world that we know ad nauseum, so no, we don’t need to see young Bruce Wayne’s parents get shot by a mugger outside the theater for the 1,000 time. We don’t need to see Superman’s baby sized space ship crash in a cornfield behind the Kents’ house for the 1,000th time either. With new TV shows and movies comes new versions of old characters and all we ask is to be introduced to your new versions, get to know them, then let things build. Comedy writers did that here and one day DC might figure out how to make a cinematic universe that the whole family can enjoy.
STATUS: Shelf-worthy. Bonus points for Kaley Cuoco who I think is great in everything she does and is underutilized by Hollywood. See this show on HBO Max.
Hey 3.5 readers.
Your old pal BQB here.
You know what is the worst? Paying for stuff.
You know what is the best? Getting free stuff.
My book = free stuff.
So, you should get a free copy.
All this weekend it is free.
Ugh. I wish this woman would get out of my window and off of my TV screen already.
Hollywood, what’s going on?
BQB here with a review of another stinker.
My 3.5 readers are aware I rarely give out the terrible “not shelf worthy” rating because as much as a movie might suck, it usually has some redeeming value and high, in the end, any movie that has been made is 100 percent better than the movie I didn’t make but some movies have little value and some are better off not made. The two films I watched the past weekend, Wrath of Man and The Woman in the Window, fit the bill.
BTW, this is a movie meant for people who have seen this film and the film it is based on, the classic Rear Window with Jimmy Stewart. If you haven’t seen either, look away, for SPOILERS ABOUND.
This isn’t a reboot of Rear Window but more of an homage. Rear Window is as close to perfect as a film can get and even by modern standards, the set design (which includes the construction of a whole host of apartments for the recovering Stewart to peep into) is fascinating.
Stewart’s character is a peeper but he has some redemptive qualities. He’s a famous photographer, laid up with a broken leg courtesy of a shoot gone wrong on his latest globetrotting adventure. He’s an older, gray haired man in this, but young Grace Kelly digs him because this was the time when Hollywood was like, “Yeah, young chicks like successful famous old dudes with money” whereas today they’d take like a 70 year old actor and slap hair dye on his plugs and try to make it look some young babe isn’t repulsed by him.
Sorry, I’m getting off on a tangent. Bottomline, Stewart while practicing his photography spies some odd doings with his neighbor that don’t quite up and the crux of the film is whether or not a heinous crime has been committed or if Stewart is just engaging in gossip and speculation over a lot of nothing.
I’m not sure why anyone would try to make a Diet Coke version of this film (I’m not sure why Universal (Hitchcock;s old stomping ground) didn’t sue either. It be like me making a movie about a farm boy turned space pilot who blows up the Bleth Blar and calling it Blar Blores but whatever.
The movie seems to go out of its way to set itself apart from Rear Window and maybe this is where it messes up. Here we have Amy Adams as child psychologist Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who, for reasons to be revealed later, is afraid to leave her house.
Anna spends her days watching old movies and peeping on her neighbors across the street. On one fateful night, she sees her neighbor’s wife, played by Julianne Moore get stabbed, cries “J’accuse!” at the husband, an evil Gary Oldham, only for the cops to be all like, hey pipe down crazy lady because the dude’s wife is here and alive – enter Jennifer Jason Leigh as the woman claiming to be the real wife who is A OK sans stabby wounds.
Look, I’m not a detective. I never went to the police academy or anything but I’m pretty sure even the most inept cop, upon hearing a neighbor say “I saw my neighbor’s wife get stabbed” wouldn’t stop at “but hey the wife is here.” You might, you know (SPOILER) ask around to see if there are any past wives, girlfriends, other women in the man’s life that the neighbor might have confused for a wife and find out if any of them are missing?
But ok. Sometimes movies require us to suspend disbelief.
SPOILER ALERT – the neighbor’s mentally ill son did it and I don’t know, I thought Hollywood was done with demonizing the mentally ill? While the big slasher flicks of long ago would feature a killer who went nutsy cuckoo, I’ve noticed slasher flicks in recent years usually have the slasher motivated by greed, money or what have you – i.e they’re sane and they are purposely killing to enrich themselves.
And hey, look, sometimes there might be a position where a cuckoo bird (sorry, is that PC? I’m old so I don’t know) flies off the handle and though it is sad that they experienced emotional trauma that turned them into a wack-a-doodle, sometimes it is either the main character or the goofball and you can’t blame the main character for defending themselves now and then we can all sit around and think about what tragic actions happened to make the killer a killer and how to keep them happening in the future so people get the help they need and don’t become killers.
Wow that was a long run on sentence.
Ultimately, the film is about a woman who is a child psychologist who spends half the film touting her child psychology credentials and then ends with a child psychologist throwing a teenager to his death through a skylight.
I don’t know. I mean, look, I know I’m not the most PC person in the world but even I thought like, hey, either have her use her child psychology skills to talk the kid into dropping the weapon and turning himself in so he can get the help he needs, or just make the bad guy Oldham and that it was all about money or whatever.
And then the movie just has threads that are pulled and never sewn back together. Like for awhile it looks like Oldham is the killer because in the last city he lived in, his assistant fell to her death back at his old job and he tranferred to a job in a new city after that. Suspicious…maybe this guy has a habit of killing the women in his life. It is never answered if that was an accident or a killing.
Plus Oldham is arrested in the end and it is never fully explained why. One might assume he helped the son cover up the murder and that’s a terrible thing to do so ok, book him…but if he didn’t know the son did it…I don’t know. They could have expanded and explained what exactly happened there.
STATUS: Not shelf-worthy and I worry maybe COVID is really causing Hollywood to make a lot of stinkers. Plus, I worry about movie quality if movie theaters go bust because a lot of these streaming films are crap now.
File under: when a movie looks good and turns out to be bad.
BQB here with a review of Wrath of Man.
I love Jason Statham. Really. I’ve been hooked since his Transporter films.
I like Guy Ritchie though sometimes he is hit – Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and sometimes he is miss (King Arthur.)
With 2019’s The Gentlemen showing Guy Ritchie still had “it” and reuniting with Statham (also in LSTB), I thought this movie would be the bomb dot com but instead it’s the fizzle fo shizzle.
Why? It’s entirely too complicated, and unnecessarily so.
A good mystery can be fun…and oftentimes, when the mystery is too mysterious, I’ll suspend disbelief and nod and say to myself, “Yeah, I can’t really expend the mental energy needed to figure out if what everyone is doing/saying really does add up to X character being the culprit but I’ll smile and nod because overall this movie was fun.”
Just didn’t happen here.
Weird because the premise is cool and ironically, this is the most boring movie about armored car heists I have ever seen. Like, the bullets are flying and the bombs are exploding and I’m yawning because holy moly who cares.
Strangely, the premise is interesting. Fortico Security has had many of its armored trucks robbed as of late. Amidst this turmoil, Statham’s “Mr. H” is hired as a new security guard. The first ten-twenty minutes are a lot of exposition, presented badly, way too much telling and not enough showing, almost like one of those video games where your main character meets their BFF NPC who gives them a tour of the new digs and introduces you to everyone. Lame.
It starts to look like it might redeem itself when Mr. H’s truck is robbed and he displays some pretty badass skills against the robbers, kicking their butts easily and leaving everyone wondering how a poorly paid security guard can fight like a karate expert.
This is the grand question of the film and you watch and watch and watch as threads are pulled but never quite sewn back together. I waited for an explanation, weeding through possiblities like maybe he’s an undercover cop, maybe he’s a rival bad guy, maybe this, maybe that.
I never got the answer and ultimately had to google it to find out it’s in the middle of the film in a flashback that didn’t really seem like a flashback. It was a rather poorly placed flashback that seemed like part of the present if you ask me.
STATUS: Not shelf-worthy, a rating I rarely give but it truly did suck – which is surprising because it includes a director I like, a main star I like, as well as a cast I like, full of big names – Josh Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Jeffrey Donovan and so on. But hey, pizza is good and orange juice is good but mixing two good things doesn’t always mean the result will be good.
I wonder if maybe this is, to my knowledge and I could be wrong, Ritchie’s first film set in America. Maybe all his dialogue sounds better coming out of Brits but I don’t think so. His dialogue is usually more stylish than this. And while he is from that Tarantino-esque 1990s school of directors who like to put the end in the middle and the beginning at the end and the middle after breakfast, it was just too much complication without enough payoff.