Great characters and writing bring “Lady Bird” to life
by Dedra Cordle
As someone who was navigating the latter portion of the teenage years in the early 2000s, I was both repelled by and drawn to “Lady Bird,” a film that offered a look into the life of a female high school student during this time.
It is always a little weird to see the years where you ‘came of age,’ so to speak, brought back to life for a current theatrical feature or television show (fortunately, this era has largely been ignored thus far) so it was with great fear and anticipating that I went to see this film.
My overall impression is that “Lady Bird” deserves the accolades it has been receiving. It has heart, wit, charm and it is filled with universal elements that transcend the time in which it takes place and the gender of its protagonist. However, I found “Lady Bird” to be very uncomfortable at points, but that has more to do with watching similar things you have worn, said and done reflected right back at you. It was a bit too on-the-nose for my comfort, but that does not negate the cinematic experience of the film.
Set in 2002, the story in “Lady Bird” revolves around Christine McPherson (Saoirse Ronan), a high school senior who wants nothing more than to leave her hometown of Sacramento. Her current plans to fly the coop involve her collegiate years spent on the East Coast, but reality in the form of the voice of her mother Marion (a wonderful Laurie Metcalf) bring her back down to Earth with casual reminders of less than stellar grades and less than expendable income. Regardless, Christine, or Lady Bird as she has named herself, pushes forward with this post-graduation goal.
While much of her free time is spent dreaming of a better, more exciting life thousands of miles away, she is stuck in the real world that is complete with family financial strains, school challenges, the pains of first-love, social strife and the push and pull of the mother-daughter relationship.
Some of the criticism directed at “Lady Bird” has been aimed at its lack of plot and admittedly there is little to be found. However, some movies can overcome that lack and this movie is a fine example of it. Smartly, writer and director Greta Gerwig never tries to shoehorn drama in there for plot’s sake and lets this film unfold like the unapologetic slice-of-life that is it. Sometimes, watching this film feels like you are looking through a photo album of someone’s life; there are moments that are similar, moments that are not, but it leaves you with a warm nostalgic for who this person was and who they could be. And it might even leave you with some embarrassment for them as well.
Another criticism directed toward “Lady Bird” is aimed at its protagonist. She has been called bratty and self-absorbed to the point of “ruining the movie,” but I found that criticism to be a load of bull. We are not all pleasant during moments of our lives and we are not all selfless throughout our lives. To ask that film or television characters, namely women, to be so is doing a disservice to everyone. Yes, Lady Bird can be bratty and self-absorbed, but she is also strong-willed, challenging, loving and a (sometimes) great friend and daughter. And the thing that sets this movie apart from many others of its kind is that Gerwig and Ronan allow some of the ugliness of Lady Bird’s attitude to shine though for the betterment of the film. It makes it much more realistic.
While I found this movie difficult to get through at times from a possibly too relatable standpoint, “Lady Bird” is terrific film filled with great characters, actor portrayals and strong writing and I think most cinephiles will enjoy it regardless of their age or gender. Grade: A-
“The Hitman’s Bodyguard” entertaining, but dumb
by Dedra Cordle
“The Hitman’s Bodyguard” threads the thin line between being a dumb movie and an enjoyably dumb movie.
Taken on its premise – the title alone gives it away – it doesn’t hold much promise. Yet, this is a rare bare bones film that is able to tip toe around the cliff of sheer stupidity due in part to the commitment from its actors. Each performer knows they are in a dumb movie and they all seem to have a good time rolling with it.
Said dumb movie begins with the introduction of Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), a “AAA-rated private protection agent” who takes immense pride at his reputation of keeping his clients alive. It has afforded him a life of fancy, but all of that changes when a well-known client is killed right under his nose.
Suffering from the after effects of that moment, he scales back on all of his previous responsibilities of protection famed clients for the sake of his sanity (and what is left of his ego).
After a long stretch of protecting mid-level bankers and paranoid patrons, Michael is thrust back into the high stress of his former life when he is tasked with protecting an infamous hitman named Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson).
Since they have roamed in the Venn diagram of the assassination world, the two immediately hit it off. And by that I mean that physically fight each other. After the fisticuffs subside, Michael refuses the request. In turn, Darius refuses his presence. But when Michael learns that Darius is the key to putting away a suspected war criminal (Gary Oldman), he casts aside old grudges to protect the life of his new client. After all, it may be the only thing that will get his “AAA” rating back.
The script for “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” has been making the rounds at the movie studios for years, but it originally had a different tone. When it was first pitched to executives, it was meant to be a serious film, but it underwent serious changes once it fell into the hands of Reynolds and Jackson. Though the elements of the original mess are still floating throughout the final product, both actors manage to transform this film into something that resemble entertainment. They have a comedic and antagonistic chemistry that is undeniable and their presence gives this film just enough of a boost to render it an enjoyably dumb flick that is worth watching sometime. Grade: C
A global meltdown of a movie
by Dedra Cordle
I thought I was prepared for the ridiculousness of “Geostorm.” I was wrong.
Opening with an ominous voiceover about the state of the world, the film is set in the unrealistic near future where the masses actually care about fighting extreme climate change.
Eighteen countries, led by the United States and China, have pooled their financial resources and formed a coalition of the brightest scientific minds to create a system of satellites, lovingly referred to as Dutch Boy, to break up natural disasters before they can occur.
Thus far, the project has been an overwhelming success, but Congress is unhappy with its lead architect, Jake Lawson (Gerard Butler), for reasons unexplained and has ordered him to testify before a committee meeting.
During the hearing, Jake berates the panel for taking credit for the entire project and accuses them of trying to create problems so they can keep control of Dutch Boy. (The initial terms of the project stated the US would control the operations and then hand it over to the international community after a few years.)
Naturally, his accusations (though likely true), do not go over well and he is stripped of his galactically important job on the International Climate Space Station. To create a deeper sense of family drama – the ominous voiceover at the beginning is revealed to be Jake’s daughter – the reigns are handed over to his younger brother Max (Jim Sturgess) because they believe he will toe their line.
Three years pass after Jake’s firing and it seems the transition of Dutch Boy has been smooth and the system is still working as designed. Gone are the hundred-year floods ever two years and vanquished are drought and famine across the globe. But that sense of comfort in the system is disrupted when a United Nations envoy stumbles across a village of frozen Afghan villagers.
Thinking it just a malfunction in one of the satellites, the US government decides not to tell the international community about the problem until it is solved. This goes just about as well as one might think.
Shortly thereafter, odd weather events begin popping up with greater frequency. Wanting to get to the bottom of this, they bring Jake back into the fold as he is the “only person in the world who can solve this problem.” He soon uncovers that the malfunction in the system was sabotage and the saboteurs plan to unleash a rare series of extreme weather events known as a ‘geostorm’ onto the earth. Of course, it’s up to Jake to solve this problem too.
If you have or had any plans to see this movie, I think it’s important that you know is it very dumb. I have an affinity for these types of movies, so I knew it would meet a certain level of stupid and yet I was still taken aback by the powerful amount of dumbness within this movie.
It seems to have begun with the approval of the script, which is about as deep as a dried mud pit, and just piled on with the addition of a majority of actors who didn’t know they were in a campy movie (Sturgess is the worst offender) and followed that up with a budget of $120 million for uninspired special effects. Seriously, I’ve seen better visuals on a SyFy original and in no way would they be stupid enough to fork over $120 million for any of their stuff.
But however dull and insipid “Geostorm” is – and trust me, it is – I didn’t entirely hate it, so there’s that. There is just something about these crap effect disaster movies with somewhat earnest actors that try their best (and fail) to embrace the cheese that gets to me and brings a smile to my face.
“Geostorm” is not a great movie, nor is it a good movie, or even a decent one, but if you can embrace the ridiculousness I think one might have a somewhat OK time watching it in the future, but preferably free of charge. Grade: D
