Bringing Up Baby (1938)

I have a very clear memory of watching this as a child. I absolutely loved it, and not just because I had a giant crush on Cary Grant. "Bringing Up Baby" made me laugh until I cried. There's something about being a child and letting such silliness take over your whole body, fully embracing the hilarity to where your belly aches. In many ways, screwball comedies such as this one are best viewed by a younger audience, an audience who isn't yet jaded by reality and responsibility - and even more importantly an audience not yet aware of what they should and shouldn't like.

Cary Grant plays David Huxley, a young paleontologist soon to be wed. He has painstakingly been preparing a full brontosaurus skeleton and is awaiting the final bone to make it complete. The day before his wedding, he meets Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn), a free-spirited troublemaker who manages to entangle David into series of embarrassing incidents many of which involve a leopard named Baby. The slapstick comedy combines the perfect mix of hilarious elements as the eccentric characters seek a large sum of money, fumble over dangerous animals, steal cars, get in car accidents, gain and lose precious dinosaur bones, and all on the eve and day of a wedding.

Despite the hilarity of the situations the two leads find themselves in, it is a little painful to watch. There's a large amount of deliberate miscommunication and sabotage that leads to fully grown men coming out of the shower to don a frilly bath robe ("because I just went GAY all of a sudden!") - or worse, throwing rocks at important people. However, unlike other films of the same era, director Howard Hawks manages to make this succinct and cohesive. It doesn't have a dull moment or misstep. I find that many movies in the '30s and '40s tend to belabor plot points and spend too long in slow, uneventful conversation. "Bringing Up Baby" does no such thing.

Cary Grant exudes youth and age all at once with a dashingly handsome demeanor, school-boy giddiness, but an almost geriatric anxiety. His frantic shouts of "I'll be with you in a minute Mr. Peabody!" while whisked away on the sides of a car, or while escorting Susan Vance and her ripped dress out of the ballroom are delivered with comical exasperation. He commits with his entire body to his comedy with hilarious acrobatics in bursts of mania as well as blundering dialogue. He seems born for this role.

“Now it isn't that I don't like you, Susan, because, after all, in moments of quiet, I'm strangely drawn toward you, but—well, there haven't been any quiet moments.”

I have never been a big fan of Katharine Hepburn (I'm still not), and yet she and Cary Grant play off each other very well. The comedic timing and snappy dialogue is timeless. Katharine Hepburn has a voice that I famously despise, but still hearing her psycho-analyze David for "following her around and fighting with her" makes me crack a small smile. And, you know, annoying voice aside, Katharine Hepburn's wardrobe is killer.

"Bringing Up Baby" has spawned many grandchildren over the last 80 years of film-making. "What's Up Doc?" is an almost direct remake starring Barbra Streisand, Ryan O'Neal, and Madeline Kahn. It might be a stretch to call it a superior film (though I personally enjoy it more). But Baby's influence reaches far beyond to other silly comedies such as 1991's "The Freshman" (featuring a komodo dragon) or 2009's "The Hangover" (featuring 4 men and a tiger). Its influence on comedy is palpable - though none can quite compare to Hawks' masterful frantic, overlapping dialogue and sense of frantic hysteria. It's hard to believe that it wasn't a hit upon its release. Hawks, of course, went on to win an honorary Academy Award in 1974 for his creative efforts in the American film industry.

There are many hilarious moments, but maybe none more than Susan and David harmonizing "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" to a whining Baby stuck on a rooftop with confused onlooking homeowners. This is a small moment that captures the loud and vivacious hilarity of a pioneer comedy. 8/10

Other Notes:

Directed by Howard Hawks

Ranked #97 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films in 1998 and #88 in 2007

Eighth Grade (2018)

I remember Jr. High School. I remember how I used to dress with my flare jeans, flip flops, Aeropostale shirts, puka shell necklaces, no makeup and a low ponytail. I played soccer and basketball. I had friends, but I wasn't popular. I wasn't bullied, but I wasn't the epitome of hot like I sometimes wished I were. I pretended like I was confident, like no one's opinion mattered. Most of the time, it didn't. I did my own thing. But there were those moments, alone in my room, when I would look at myself in the mirror and see everything that I wasn't.

Middle-school student Kayla is on the brink of finishing eighth grade and entering high school. She has her own YouTube channel where she gives out sincere advice to growing kids trying to find their place in the world. She is labeled as the "most quiet" girl in her grade and aims to change people's perception of her by making more friends and becoming more confident.

"Eighth Grade" is one of the most painful movies I've ever watched because I could wholeheartedly relate to it. Literally middle and jr. high school is the worst. It's so hard to feel misunderstood and to not understand the world either. It's hard to have a changing body at the same time as your other peers have changing bodies. It's hard to have an excess of hormones and not know what to do with them. It's hard to not have money to dress cute or to have acne or to be quiet. It's hard not to know the right words to say to make a friend. It's just hard.

Writer/Director Bo Burnham, a YouTube star turned filmmaker, has managed to make this film incredibly accessible by bringing his gritty, DIY feel to the screen. Every shot of the school, Kayla's house, or the mall feels so completely ordinary that he could be filming my own life for all I know. But where he truly proves himself is in the way he has the characters interact one with another. The way how Kayla stutters over her words to an intimidating peer in one scene and mouths off to her father in the next is so completely real - complete with a poor father's faltering "what did I do?" face and hesitant laugh to desperately try to remind his daughter that he's on her side. Each scene's vibe perfectly matches the relationship the characters have with one another.

Of course, every single scene is excruciatingly designed to strike painful empathy in the audience. Elsie Fisher plays the young, reticent middle-schooler whose performance is absolutely remarkable. Seeing her private life - her videos to remind herself of who she wants to be and her lists of "how to be more confident" - and her public life of painful dialogue and obvious sincere desire to have just one friend is so spot on the nose. Every other minute I was shaking my head exclaiming "oh, honey."

"You can't be brave without being scared," Kayla says in one of her YouTube videos. Fisher brings a perfectly painful subtlety to the growing pains we watch on screen. Her performance is a revelation. I don't think I have ever felt so seen. 9/10

Iron Man (2008)

Having seen this on many occasions, "Iron Man" holds a soft spot in my heart. It's still, in many ways, the standard to which I hold all other superhero movies in terms of humor, action, plot, believable (ha) conflict between hero and villain, and fun. Marvel is at its best when the films don't take themselves ~too seriously. What's the point of a billionaire building himself a race-car-colored suit that can fly and shoot people if it's not going to be fun?

I did not grow up knowing Marvel characters. Though their names were household, I knew nothing about their stories. While the Spider-Man and X-Men movies sparked an interest, it was really the MCU that reeled me, and many others, into the universe. Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" is the first film released from the MCU and this begs the question: where would Marvel be without such a knockout first film? It's the perfect springboard to the MCU's grand scheme of creating more than just a few superhero movies - but an entire universe of intertwining stories. Had it even launched with "The Incredible Hulk" (released just a month later) then I don't think audiences would be as captivated.

But "Iron Man" was special. It brought a trendy spark to a genre that can so often feel monosyllabic. Of course, this is all due to Robert Downey Jr., whose career came back from the literal dead with his knockout portrayal of billionaire philanthropist Tony Stark. He brings a charisma to the role that is charming, egotistical, self-deprecating, and funny. Not only that, but he is a character you can root for. When Tony Stark emerged from that cave as Iron Man, a born-again man, and saw his outlook change you wanted him to succeed for the good of his own soul, but also for the good of the world. Because while Iron Man is a superhero who can fly in a shiny red suit, more importantly he is a superhero with money and influence.

Watching this film ten years after its release, I am still impressed at the fun technology introduced. Society is, quite frankly, still catching up to the ideal smart technology that Stark Enterprises possesses. If only Siri and Alexa were as intuitive as Jarvis. It is also a refreshing change to see the rich playboy have brains. We watch him learn in the film about the scope of his influence and a little better how to run a business and please investors, but we don't have to watch him learn what he's capable of. He already knows he's smart.

"Iron Man" is also successful in large part to its supporting cast. Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow are all great. It's a shame Howard couldn't come back for more. I still rank Obadiah in my top five favorite MCU villains. He has a menacing yet familiar swagger in this friend to foe villain story. When Pepper is hurriedly trying to figure out Obadiah's secret off his computer, Obadiah startles her in the act of theft. The tension created in that scene from Jeff Bridges' manner of speaking and slow paces to where she is sitting is masterful. Jeff Bridges brings an intimacy to the villain - a quality that is sparse from many subsequent MCU villains.

The cherry on the top is, of course, the infamous ending where Tony Stark reveals that he is, indeed, Iron Man in a press conference. It doesn't seem fitting to call it a twist, but still this remarkably un-cliche moment is also the perfect launching pad to the future of the Avengers. It ~almost brings some realism to bring it that close to home - so close that the film's citizens could read about it in a newspaper. It's brilliant. 9/10

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

It's very strange to watch "The Incredible Hulk" in a post-Avengers world where Mark Ruffalo is our friendly neighborhood green monster. I always liked this movie, though. It was far superior to Eric Bana's "Hulk." Even if it doesn't fit nicely into the consistency of the other MCU films, it stands alone decent enough. I do, however, find it unfortunate for the Hulk franchise that there are so many competing faces for the role that make it difficult for fans to keep track of. 

It doesn't help, either, that this story starts in the middle of his origin story. It depends on audiences to pay close attention to the opening credits if they want to know how Hulk came to be. 

Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is living in Brazil seeking a cure to his ~unique condition (results from a gamma test gone wrong… he now turns into a giant green monster when his blood pressure gets too high). General Ross (William Hurt) is searching for him, believing him to be government property. Aaaaand so that he can create this super army. The best moments in the movie all involve the mysterious “Mr. Blue” (Nelson) though the CGI is also top-notch. Hulk is not my fav compared to most other super heroes out there (it’s not easy being green) but I thought this adaptation and a smaller green dude created life and emotion behind the monstrosity.  Norton was a perfect fit and gave a good performance.  6/10

On heroes and villains

It all started with a certain prequel trilogy for everyone’s beloved Star Wars. I was young, I was 9 when Phantom Menace was released. My opinion of the prequel trilogy wasn’t solidified until Attack of the Clones because even an 11-year-old could see right through that romance. It’s one thing to make some bad movies - we’ve all seen Transformers or Pirates of the Caribbean 3. But this was a much more grievous (haha) sin. Because George Lucas - someone who gave us STAR WARS, one of the greatest works of fiction to grace this good earth - was the one ruining it all. That’s why it was hurtful: it was a betrayal.

(I’m not even going to mention the new Star Wars movies, I don’t feel like crying right now and that’s a different story entirely).

Then followed Peter Jackson. He adapted a universally beloved book series and (arguably) even improved upon it. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is so close to perfect. I don’t care how many endings Return of the King has, I still sob through that whole movie. You can fight me on this: LOTR is LYFE. But Peter Jackson didn't stop there. Then came The Hobbit movies. And for some reason, Jackson had the brilliant idea to adapt another universally loved book into not one, not two, but THREE MOVIES? Tell me how this makes sense.

Both of these fine gentlemen perhaps should have heeded Uncle Ben's cheesy saying "with great power comes great responsibility." Because when you create something like Star Wars or bring the world of Middle Earth to the big screen it becomes something much bigger than you. You are then tied to an important responsibility to your fans.

Throughout all of this, I always thought I would be safe with my other love: Harry Potter. I truly, truly thought that JK Rowling was going to be better.

I recently saw the new "Wizarding World" film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. I did not hate it. But I definitely didn't love it, either. Mostly because it got me feeling sad. Sad at what is becoming of my beloved Harry Potter series.

Harry Potter is a brilliant, masterfully crafted, meticulously thought out book series. Part of its universal appeal is how deep you have to look for plot holes and inconsistencies. It is clear that this was JK Rowling’s baby and she raised it with care. And we loved her for it.

I have not been impressed with these Fantastic Beasts movies so far. Here are the reasons why, and obviously spoilers lie ahead.

From the woman who brought us the perfect book series, I sincerely thought sloppiness was never going to be an adjective I’d use to describe a work of hers. But these movies - particularly the latest installment, feel half-assed. They feel like a last-ditch effort to make more money with superfluous click-baity plot twists and name-drops.

Sadly, this day has been building over the period of a few years. A Pottermore post here, a tweet there and JK Rowling is slowly piecing her doom together one mistake at a time. I first started feeling apprehensive about her mental clarity when she announced that she thought Hermione should have ended up with Harry. I will not fight this take right now (it is wrong) but I then based my Advanced English class research paper on the very topic of an author’s responsibility to stick to canon and not contradict rules that were previously established. Yes, I was that student. Sure, she may have announced Dumbledore’s homosexuality in a lame attempt to prove she was woke for the LGBTQ+ community, but at the very least it did not contradict anything previously established about Dumbledore’s character. She spent 7 books building up sexual tension for Hermione and Ron, she can’t go back and say that it was wrong.

So far, the Fantastic Beasts movies have not gone so far as to give Princess Leia magical fly-through-space force powers, but dammit she is getting dangerously close. Did she really think her fans wouldn’t be acutely aware of the established birthdate for Professor McGonagall? She is very clearly not a contemporary of Dumbledore’s young dashing Jude Law days. Like? Is she trying to pull a fast one on us? I heard that and half-choked on my Dr. Pepper in the theater it perplexed me so. The Crimes of Grindelwald are full of small things like this that forcibly remove me from the world I want to be immersed in and question everything I ever learned about the Wizarding World.

Special effects matter more than established magical rules? It’s a small thing, but it still seems like a sacrifice to make and break magical rules of magic by not using wands or creating magic without incantations, or needing every magical encounter to be bigger and better than the previous instance. Newt’s detective charm - while a very cool concept - seems like something a little beyond him. Almost 100% of the mysteries introduced in the Harry Potter series could have been solved with such a charm.

Newt Scamander is actually more than just a zoologist? He’s involved in a big magical war? Something tells me that when JK Rowling came up with the book title for Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them back in Sorcerer’s Stone she didn’t also think that Oh! This author is also a key player in the war against Grindelwald! Someday I will make a five-movie series about Newt Scamander and how he was much more than a zoologist! 9/10 fans would have preferred a movie that was actually about Newt Scamander and his magical adventures with magical creatures. Is that not enough of a plot for you?

Nagini is actually a Korean performer with a blood curse? Interesting, I don’t hate it, but don’t you pretend that you had this planned all along and not that you’re just throwing in some diversity to appease your world-wide audience. We all know how desperate to prove how liberal you are. But I’d bet money that this was not a “secret you’ve been hiding for 20 years.”

Dumbledore is a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher now? What ever happened to Transfiguration? Sure, maybe there’s a reason for the transition, but it seems like such a small thing that would have been easy to stick to?

We can apparate to Hogwarts school grounds now?

Last but not least Dumbledore has a brother?
Literally of all the characters to choose to throw in a lineage surprise, why tf would you choose Albus Dumbledore. His family history was written out pretty clearly in Deathly Hallows. There’s no wiggle room, here. Dumbledore’s father died in Azkaban, and his mom died when he was 17 or so. Credence is about 20 years younger so something doesn’t add up.

You can go onto any other article about this to see the various fan theories. The three that make the most sense are 1) Credence is, in fact, not a Dumbledore, but the “brother” is Ariana’s obscurius who has found a new host in Credence. This doesn’t explain the name Grindelwald bestowed of Aurelius Dumbledore, but it’s a theory. 2) Aurelius is a half brother of Albus’s and Percival Dumbledore did not, in fact, die in Azkaban but escaped unbeknownst to Albus. Also unlikely and doesn’t explain why this fact would not be mentioned in the obituary. 3) Grindelwald is lying to get Credence to go against Dumbledore since Grindelwald cannot himself. I tend to lean more to this theory (I also am banking on Kylo Ren lying to Rey about her heritage) but this theory does not explain why the Phoenix would come to Credence if he were not a true Dumbledore.

Either way this bombshell just made me feel extremely frustrated. Yes, maybe Rowling has it all figured out and it will be explained adequately in a subsequent movie. But because this idea currently makes no sense to the established canon, we literally have nothing to do but wait. And that’s where I felt frustrated. It’s just clickbait. And Harry Potter was never clickbait.

There were some parts of the movie that I truly loved. Leta Lestrange’s story was well done yet it felt rushed and that was disappointing. That 15-minute segment at Hogwarts was brilliant and I loved feeling like I was going home. Jude Law was a good choice for Dumbledore and Johnny Depp, however much I may hate him, did fine. Perhaps Rowling just isn’t cut out to be a screenwriter: many of these ideas would have benefited from a novel format.

Nevertheless, I feel sad. It is very difficult to interpret making a five-movie franchise from 1 “textbook” and 1 famous battle against an evil wizard as anything more than a money grab. Especially when the first Fantastic Beasts movie felt so much more contained. These additional 4 movies seem to be nothing more than milking its fans for all they’re worth.

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight