Madea's Family Reunion

Madea's Family Reunion (2006)

--Written, Directed, and Produced by Tyler Perry

Sorry I haven't posted in a longgggg time. I've seen a lot of movies but I don't know when I'm going to find the time to review them anytime soon. Maybe I'll get some done today?

Anyway, I've been watching a lot of Tyler Perry movies lately. For those that might not know, Perry is the first (hopefully not the last!) African American to own their own studio. He got started doing theater and is currently (mostly) converting his plays into films. This isn't the first one I've seen, and it would probably make more sense to do some that came before this one first since they kind of feed into one another, but I just saw this one, so it's gettin' done to-day!

The first thing you need to know about this film is that it is nottttttt at all like some of the previews! The previews usually feature the character Madea who is more about physical slapstick comedy, which can make people think that that is what this film is all about, when it's actually about sexual violence and Madea plays a small role, as does that actual literal family reunion, it's more about three women reuniting as a family--or trying to--or not actually do that... it's about a lot of things. So the main characters are three women (and Madea)--two sisters and the mother. One of the sisters is being pushed by her mother to marry a very rich man even though he beats her. The other is trying to overcome her past experiences with relationships (and rape) while falling in love with a new guy. And the mother is just kind of horrible. She's basically portrayed as the catalyst for all of the negative in her daughters' lives. She knows her daughter is getting beat, but forces her into the relationship anyway, and she just outright rejects the other daughter because she blames her father (versus her other daughter's father) for abandoning her. And yeah, there is a family reunion! And guess who's in their family? Maya Angelou (she's awesome, seriously). Madea is a character who is both accepting and very abusive. She opens her home up to anyone in need, in this film that includes a 13-yr-old in foster care and one of the sisters and her two kids. But she is also very physical violent, which is complemented with her brother's sexual and verbal abuse (her brother lives with her two, both of them are played by Perry).

Ughg it's so complicated I don't even know where to begin. Perry's films are really complicated, especially because it's really awesome that he is a black man who employs other black people in his films and who is in control of the portrayal of other black people, instead of how films in hollywood are usually written/directed/produced/acted/employing white people and our views of people of color are all channeled through this hollywood version of color. That said, I also have to say that Perry is very into masculinity, "traditional" gender roles, heterosexism, and negatively stereotyping women. It's beautiful that he has created this voice for African-American-ness in film, but it's horrible that he then uses this voice to try to (sometimes very violent) control men and women's behavior.

Violence in his films is a real problem for me. I like that he isn't afraid to say that violence against women is a real problem. I don't like that he seems to be saying that violence is an appropriate and sometimes necessary response. Case one: Madea beats the 13 yr-old a couple of times to get her what she wants her to do. One time after she didn't go to school, Madea bends her over and swats her with I think a belt. And... eventually she does what Madea wants and is "reformed". Apparently Perry is saying that it's okay to beat your children because that is how you teach them valuable life lessons. I'm sorry, but no child deserves to be physically violated. How I usually look at it is that children cannot pick which family they end up in (in the sense that they are born to parents, adopted, bought, acquired, however you want to say, they don't really get to decide where they end up), so how is it fair that some children will end up with parents who are not physically abusive (e.g. don't spank and such) while some with inadvertently end up with parents who think that physical abuse in an appropriate response to transgressions? It's not fair and no one, NO ONE, deserves to be physically abused. The other cases will be discussed in other film reviews, but you should know that all Perry's films include some sort of violence that is "justified" within the reality of the film.

Okay, now to stereotyping of women/masculinity of men. Tyler Perry is very into making men into the monolithic patriarchic figures that jives well with how white men also like to be portrayed. The Perry man is the head of the family, the woman's savior, the breadwinner, the rock, etc. The women are consistently broken in some way (especially in this film), and there are usually dichotomies between the woman as whore (who is irredeemable in most of his films, and apparently it's okay to verbally abuse these women) and the celibate Christian woman--who is the ideal. Does this sound familiar to anyone? It's only the basic tenants of white heterosexual patriarchy and it is deeply ingrained in American society. Thanks for helping (white people) to shame black people into submitting to these ideals too. He also seems to believe that women are very jealous of other women and are consistently fighting with other women (which is a general stereotype in our society). There are some exceptions to this in various films, in this one the two sisters have a bond and there are bonds between older women (who are nostalgic for "the way things were"). This bond between sisters doesn't exist in all of his films though. Sometimes he'll show a tight-knit group of female friends, but they are still juxtaposed with the "whore" characters that are in "their man's" life ("Why Did I Get Married?"). Anyway, he likes grouping women into two categories and then letting his "good" characters bash the "whore" character/s.

Okay, those are my main issues with Perry's films (that I can think of anyway). But... I still find them enjoyable? Is that weird? Maybe it's because I don't have to sit and say "hey, why are all of these people white?" or maybe it's because they at least address physical sexual emotional violence. Or maybe it's because they try and blend comedy and drama (this film is crazzzy emotional, trust me, but Madea serves as comic relief, though in this film she's also pretty insightful). Or maybe I just like them, cause we can't always point to reasons for liking certain film right? Anyway, I enjoy the complexity of his films and I hope that someday he'll get over some of his issues about positive violence (this isn't it, ya'll) and hating on women, and I hope that his films pave the way for greater interest in films by African Americans.

For this film in particular, I couldn't help thinking that it might have been better were it done by a woman. Especially the emotionally and revealing scene between the three core female family members. I thought, whoa, this is intense, but, wait, how much better would it be if it were done from a woman's perspective? If you ever watch this one, maybe you'll think about that too.

There are a lot of other things I just realized I could talk about too, but, honestly, this review is getting kind of long, so I'm going to stop it here. And just add, once again, that Maya Angelou is beautiful. She reads a poem at one point in the film (another thing I liked about this one is that there was a lot of poetry in it and I thought that that was really interesting and thematically enriching) and it is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard in my life. Truly. Worth it just to see her. She isn't just a poet in this film (and technically I don't think she's meant to play herself) she's also a member of the family and is pretty cool. Anyway, go watch it if you want to. It's probably not the best Perry film to watch first, since this one is kind of a sequel to "Dairy of a Mad Black Woman," but I thought this one was better than that one, so.

Bongwater

Bongwater (1997)

--Richard Sears

I think Luke Wilson is hot, okay? Don't judge!

This film is about a guy who sells pot. And then some chick moves in with him and wants to exploit him for his art. And then she introduces him to someone who can do that, but she gets jealous that that person and the guy might be hooking up. So then she hooks up with some musician who she moves to New York with, but he's psycho and then she hooks up with some homeless guy, but then she's unhappy and still likes the drug dealer guy who has been hooking up with that chick who she thought he was hooking up with and also maybe some other chick who they are both friends with? If that sounds either like it doesn't make any sense or it's really stupid and weird, ummm, it's both.

Actually I feel asleep twice during this film. The first time I went back and made sure to rewatch the part I missed, the second time I just kinda let it go because it had gotten so stupid that I didn't care. This film from the beginning does not make any sense. I swear to god the plot is whack. IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. I don't get how this chick just brings her friend who is overdosing into this guys house and then they become "roommates"? Or was that part where the chick is overdosing a joke and they actually really knew each other? And how long does she stay with him before she decides to exploit him for his art? Like five minutes? And yeah, if that plot summary made her sound crazy, well that's how she was in the film

And the chick who plays that chick could not act. Or maybe she can and was trying to portray the character as a liar who was faking her emotions and relationships? I don't know. To me, it seemed like the beginning of the film was really poorly acted. And the whole film was just stupid.
The only somewhat okayish almost characters are they two gay friends of the drug dealer (who apparently are only known as gay from like the second half of the film, it was like "surprise, we're a couple" except we were supposed to know that they were always a couple). And yeah, one of them is Andy Dick, and he's actually kind of okay in this film. I mean, why not?

But yeah, it's dumb, don't watch it. Thanks. Oh wait, Jack Black is in it too, I think he came in about the second time I started to fall asleep. So good for him?

The Women

The Women (2008)

--Diane English

So this was a pretty bad film. I don't know why other people gave it bad reviews since my criticisms all have to do with the portrayal of women, which most people (especially most male film critics [and most are male]) probably don't really care about or think about or who actually believe.


So let's start with the plot. There's a group of really rich upper class women (which sort of goes unsaid but also is blatantly obvious) and one of them has a husband who is cheating on her. The others find out and then she finds out and they all run around trying to deal with it. I think that's the plot, nothing really happens, it's more about friendship and bonding and "coming into your own" and all that crap.

Okay, now with the various and multiple reasons why I didn't like this film.

• The brief treatment of one of the character's apparent homosexuality. Jada Pinkett Smith's character has a girlfriend at the beginning of the film. I actually really liked her in the film and even her character, but she was really really muted. Also one of her so-called friends made somewhat disparaging remarks about her sexuality, which Pinkett Smith somewhat replied to, but not in a way to really deny them. It was an odd moment where I was hoping she was going to say "I'm a lesbian. I love women. I was born that way. Deal with it," but she didn't really say that? It was awkward and her sexuality really wasn't referenced after that. And her character just kinda hangs around and shows up in various scenes but isn't really allowed to add too much.
• The same things happens with Debra Messing's character a little bit. You get one scene with the chaos of her having kids and a short scene where she gives birth, but other than those really small parts, she also just kinda hangs around. Her character I didn't really mind either and I think she should have had a bigger role.
• Hair and Clothes. Once again, women are defined by their hairstyles and their clothes and their personalities also have to be reflected in hair/clothes. This is most evident in Meg Ryan's character (who the movie is mostly about) who starts off with "messy" hair (that to me really looks like someone spent 2 hours on it) and sort of loose, baggy, comfortable clothes. After she goes through her transition to caring/thinking more about herself, she has sleek, long straightened hair (which also looks like it takes hours to do) and more stylish business-women clothes. It just so tired. Women HAVE TO WEAR their hair and their clothes to reflect their unique (yet incredibly similar) personality. This can be seen in all of the other characters too, but mostly with Meg Ryan's. Now, I'm not really trying to say that this is all that unrealistic. We (men/women) are taught to dress our personalities and such, but it's rarely this complete and rarely this stereotypical and that sort of leads me into my next point...
• I have never met anyone like any of these women. It's called "the women" therefore suggesting that it is reflecting some sort of general overall encompassing realities of female experience. Yeah, there is one, twoish people of color in this film. And all the rest are white women. The main characters are all rich. They all shop at Saks (what is this place? it just looks like some hellish department store to me?). The fact that one of the main characters has two white servants who do everything (well one of them does, the other kind of just is there) is really weird. Ummm, white servants, really? Is that how it goes? Let's do an informal poll of all the uber-rich people with servants and see how many of them have an American white woman and a Danish white woman serving them. There is maybe one character who has a nanny who is a person of color, but she shows up for one second and I couldn't really tell and I really don't think they wanted to enter that into the narrative, so... Anyway, I don't know any of these women. They don't reflect any of my life experience. I don't go to salon's to get a manicure or get my hair straightened or whatever. And I'm not really even sure what Saks is. So thanks for making "the women" once again into the upper-class white women and the heavily muted almost homosexual rich woman of color.
• Yeah, this is already a really long post so I'm not even going to go further into how every single character was just a dumb stereotype.
• Bette Midler's character was random and dumb. They would have cut the scene out (because it was stupid) if it had been someone they weren't using to lure more of an audience.
  

What I liked about the film:

• Jada Pinkett Smith! And to a less degree Debra Messing
• Men are not in this film. I really enjoy that (especially given that there have been films where there are no women). I think that there should be more sans-men films, but I'm sad that this one wasn't any good because the films that didn't have any women are classics (12 Angry Men is what I'm thinking about, but most of the "classic films" generally have strong male leads and stereotyped/weak female leads--you may disagree, I have my own system of thought about this).
• The talk with the ten year old about women in magazines being unrealistic and stuff like that. It was sort of a good talk for awhile and I'm glad they brought it up, since Pinkett Smith's character is dating a model, Meg Ryan's character designs clothes (which get shown on runways) and that other chick (hahah, I'm not sure who she is) works for a fashion (?) magazine.

There's another part I really didn't like that I didn't put with the above because I wanted to mention something I liked first. I really didn't like the gendering of Meg Ryan's character's daughter. It was disgusting. The "girl" was sucked into the middle of some sexist "cat fight" between Meg Ryan and her husband's "mistress" and how is she going to think about relationships later in life? They force her to be part of their relationship "games" where both of them are trying to hurt one another over some stupid asshole. They just fucked up that "girl's" whole thinking about relationships. Not only are they heavily heavily gendering her, but they are also normatizing her to repeat their weird upper-class power-play bullshit. It's really gross.

Okay, this review is really long, right? Sorry, but it's a movie that can inspire a lot of criticism from me. And I have more! But I won't burden ya'll with them. Hehe. This film did make me want to kind of see the 30's film, just because I have no idea how it would have translated back then. I just can't imagine that 30's film from seeing this version. So I might have to get on that. I can probably safely assert that there were no people of color as the main characters (but really, are there any in this one? It's mostly about the relationships between two white women) and probably no one was homosexual, and if they were than it would be negative. But I really doubt that that is in there.

The Witches

The Witches (1990)

--Nicolas Roeg

So, this is what I got stuck with for halloween, instead of "Hocus Pocus". Actually it was the day after halloween, but that was okay.

Ummm, this may have been the worst film I've ever seen. It's about a group of witches who sometimes eat/kill/something children and they have a conference at a hotel to talk about how to turn all the children in London (I'm pretty sure it's London) into mice. So there's this kid who's parents maybe were killed or something and he's living with his grandma who is familiar with these witches. His grandma has to take a break for health reasons, so they end up at the same hotel as this conference and the kid ends up in the same room with the witches. Then he and this other kid get turned into mice and the escape the witches who are trying to kill them. They run to the kid's grandma and form a plan to turn all of the witches into mice by putting their mice-transformation serum into some food that they will be eating.

Yeah, I don't know what it is about this film. Maybe it was the grotesqueness of the costumes of the witches. This film is rated PG, but that scene was really scary. I can imagine a small child freaking out over the witches tearing off their skin and mutating into monsters. I think after that scene the movie just died for me. I just didn't like it, thought it was gross, obviously I already came in knowing about the usual stereotypical portrayal of witches but I'm able to overlook that most films and just accept that they are portrayed as ugly evil creatures.

I'm also just not interested in a story about a mouse-child-thing running around with his grandmother doing crap. That just sounds like a film that I would never want to watch. It may have been better for me had the kid not spent the majority of the film as a mouse, I don't really enjoy those kinds of films most of the time. Now if he were turned into a nice little kitty... I still wouldn't want to watch over and hour of that crap.

This film wasn't for me. If you like stereotypical satan-worshipping witches, grandmother/grandson plots, and kids getting turned into mice, then you'll like this. I really thought the movie was going to go in a different direction, the first part of the film was definitely interesting. The grandmother's story about the kid that she knew that had been taken by witches and then ended up in a family portrait where her family could watch her age and then die like a regular human, really intrigued me and I wanted to know more. But after they went to the hotel, the plot went to crap. I didn't like it at all. It was both grotesque and horrific and too childish all at the same time. And the ending was really random. I didn't see it going that way at all. For awhile I was convinced that the grandmother was going to turn out to be a witch, which might have redeemed the film somewhat for me, but instead she was apparently just a normal woman, oh well.

Anyway, I don't recommend this film. I personally thought it was really horrible, but then again sometimes I like really stupid films that are objectively pretty crappy. Maybe this was a genious film and I just didn't get it. But hey, it was available to be rented on halloween (the only halloween-related film, not tv, available for rent at that time so maybe I'm not the only one?).

Hocus Pocus

Hocus Pocus (1993)

--Kenny Ortega

Pretty much every year I try to rent a Halloween-themed movie from netflix and pretty much every year hundreds, thousands, whatever, a lot of other people have the same idea and I can never get anything close to what I want. Obviously, this is one of the ones that is always! at somebody else's house and not mine. Instead I got stuck with "The Witches," I'm not sure if I reviewed that one yet, but if I haven't then I will after this one. Anyway, this is the first one on my list of movies that I would like to watch on Halloween. But since I can never get it, I decided just to rent it anyway on a non-halloween occasion so I could see it again.

Ya'll have seen this one right. An unbeliever (Omri Katz, who like dropped out of the celebrity universe after this!), his little sister, and a girl he likes go to on old house on halloween night that was apparently the home of three notorious witches from back in the day, the Sanderson sisters (Bette Midler, SJ Parker, Kathy Najimy). He lights a candle and they come back to life. A magical talking kitty (so cute!) tells him to steal their magical book and that forces the sisters to chase them around all night trying to kill them and get the book back. Yes, fun times.

I liked it. I will always like it. I'm fated to always think of this as the best--the absolute best!--halloween film ever made (that isn't a horror film and I don't include old b&w Dracula and Frankenstein and all that as horror films, I mean slasher horror films where most/many of the characters are brutally, obsessively hunted down and murdered by someone/something that just won't die). Next halloween, this film will still be at the top of my queue, in hope that I am the lucky one who gets picked (that is as long as I get to see Mister Lonely in the next nine months).

What a beautiful film. It's just someone immortalized in my childhood memory. And another example of how disney used to actually make worthwhile films. It's sweet, it's funny, it's moderately scary at times or at least suspenseful, it's sexy (hey, why not?). Can you believe that disney actually allowed a character dressed as madonna (pointy bra and all) and a character who is pretty much almost a nymphomaniac into one of their films? Oh, old disney, what happened? Why did you change? Why why why? If disney came out with a film like this now, I guarantee you it would not be PG and it would never play on the disney channel and there would be a huge controversy over SJP's character. Oh well.

Watch it. Now. So good. I don't really even have anything to say about it, other than I'm sure I will watch it again someday.

Wish Upon a Star

Wish Upon a Star (1996)

--Blair Treu

This is an old disney movie (back when disney channel was kinda good sometimes) that I just had to watch again. Thank you netflix for helping me to relive my childhood through film and tv, I really appreciate it.

The film is one of those "Freaky Friday" movies. Two sisters are in high school. One is older, "prettier," popular, and wants to go to a certain college but doesn't really have the grades to do so (played by Katherine Heigl). The other is younger, very smart, admires her older sisters popularity and is into grunge. One night they both see a shooting star and make a wish that they could be the other sister. Then they wake up in each other's body the next morning. At first they are more concerned with mitigating the damage that this could potentially cause and then they try to all-out ruin the other's reputation, which pretty fun times. The younger sister in her older sister's body has to deal with running for winter dance queen, dealing with creepy superficial friends, and a boyfriend that her friends are pressuring her to dumb. The older sister in her younger sister's body has to deal with a science test, a science fair project (about turning bio waste--like old fruits and veggies--into energy), and being pretty unpopular. Yeah, obviously this is disney and I don't want to give anything away, but... they work it out and learn from each other. It's beautiful really.

Like "The Craft," this is another one of those films that when I go back and watch now I can sort of see how impacted by it I was. Especially through the beginning of the film, it was literally like looking back on my past dreams and wishes and fears, it was really interesting. I just connected with this film and these characters so much when I was younger, which is kinda scary I guess, but it's nice that I got to watch it again. Also, the whole vibe of this film seems very mid-nineties, from the hair, make-up, and dress of the characters to the way that they talk, "smell much?" Ohhh, early Buffy years, how I miss thee.

The music in this film is horrible! Seriously, except for one song that the band at the dance played, it's really hard to listen to. I think it's supposed to reflect the older sister's taste in music. I'm not really sure what to call it. Just lame rock music I guess? And I'm actually aging as I say this, all of the instruments just sort of blend together in a cacophony of rockishness. I didn't like it so much.

Also, the actress who played the younger sister did really well. Even though she looked more what would correspond to someone unpopular and grungy, etc, she totally acted better as the catty (meow), slightly arrogant, older sister. I'm sort of sad that she's pretty much only big in horror films now (especially compared to where Heigl is now), I think she could do better, but maybe she's happy with that, so I'll be happy for her happiness. Ahh, I just read on imdb that she dated Omri Katz back in the day. The dude from "Eerie, Indiana" and "Hocus Pocus" (that I'm about to review!). Awesome. Best couple ever? So sad they aren't together now. Haha.

That's it. Kinda cute film. Much better than the crap being made today (don't I always say that though?), especially with the dumbing down of disney (no, that alliteration wasn't planned! it just came out so naturally, thank you). So, if like me you saw this back in the day, it's definitely worth another look.

Standard Operating Procedure

Standard Operating Procedure (2008)

--Errol Morris

Documentary.

Okay, I'm a fan of Errol Morris, which I think I've made clear from my other reviews, but I really don't know whether I understand why he even made this film after "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib." I can kind of in a perfectionist sense, but at the same time this film retreads much of what had already been said, probably because they interviewed a lot of the same people. I'm not sure which one is better though, Morris' film is much more in-depth, they go through and explain the situations behind the pictures in detail, which "Ghosts" didn't do. Also, this film interviews one of the people in charge of getting confessions that I don't think the other film interviewed and I'm not sure but I don't think "Ghosts" got an interview with Lynndie England (but maybe they did and I've just forgotten, but I really don't think so). Lynndie England was the one who gave the thumbs up in all of her photos, so obviously she was an integral part of what happened.

But what I usually like about Morris' films, didn't work for me in this one. His films are heavilyyyyyyyy stylized (which is why "The Thin Blue Line," which some people think is the best documentary ever [including me? sometimes...] was barred from oscar contention when it came out) and he does lots of things with flashback scenes. Somehow those flashback scenes just didn't seem right in this film, maybe it's because they already had so many images from when it happened in the thousands of pictures that were taken of many of the incidents. All I could think about when watching those scenes was how they faked torturing people and how they got people to put themselves into those positions (the flashbacks were all really abstract, so there were no full-on recreations of any scenes).

The interview with one of the guys who was actually in charge of extracting confessions was one of the good parts of the film. He seemed like a sane, rational guy who made it known that he didn't believe that torture could attain useful confessions and that they didn't get anyyyyyyy intel from any of the people tortured at Abu Ghraib. Also, Morris interviewed the guy (or one of the guys?) who had been in charge of figuring out where the photographs came from and what they were of exactly and making a timeline of events. He explained how they decided what was a criminal act and what was "standard operating procedure." At one point he actually went through some of the photographs and said which fell into which category. It was appalling to see what was considered "standard operating procedure." Mostly it was stripping prisoners, putting underwear on their heads, putting them in "mild" (what is that though?) stress positions. There was also this one photograph that was taken of a man who they had told to stand on a box with electrodes attached to his hands and if he got off he'd be electrocuted, but in reality they just attached random wires or something and he wouldn't have literally been electrocuted. That was considered "standard operating procedure." Niceeeeee, America! Seriously, after watching this how can anyone argue "why" we get attacked?

So yeah, this film was okay. Stylized but interesting. See this and "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" and compare for yourself!