Monday, March 20, 2017

Best Film of Every Year I've Been Alive

If you've been paying attention to film twitter over the last week or so, you'll have seen many people releasing their list of the best film from every year they've been alive. I did the same thing, but figured I'd do the same on the blog - presented without comment, other than to say, most of these are the same as on my year in review series done a few years ago, but not all.

1981 - Blow Out (Brian DePalma)
1982 - E.T. (Steven Spielberg)
1983- The King of Comedy (Martin Scorsese)
1984- Amadeus (Milos Forman)
1985 – Shoah (Claude Lanzmann)
1986 - Blue Velvet (David Lynch)
1987 - Broadcast News (James L. Brooks)
1988 - The Last Temptation of Christ (Martin Scorsese)
1989 - Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee)
1990 – GoodFellas (Martin Scorsese)
1991 – JFK (Oliver Stone)
1992 – Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood)
1993 - Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg)
1994 - Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino)
1995 – Heat (Michael Mann)
1996 – Fargo (Joel & Ethan Coen)
1997 - Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson)
1998 - The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick)
1999 – Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson)
2000 - Yi Yi (Edward Yang)
2001 - Mulholland Dr. (Dsvid Lynch)
2002 - 25th Hour (Spike Lee)
2003 - Lost In Translation (Sofia Coppola)
2004 - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry)
2005 - A History of Violence (David Cronenberg)
2006 - The Departed (Martin Scorsese)
2007 - There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)
2008 - Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman)
2009 - Inglorious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino)
2010 - The Social Network (David Fincher)
2011 - The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)
2012 - The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson)
2013 - Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel & Ethan Coen)
2014 - The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson)
2015 - Inside Out (Pete Docter)
2016 - O.J. Made in America (Ezra Edelman)

Friday, March 17, 2017

Classic Movie Review: To Sleep with Anger (1990)

To Sleep with Anger (1990)
Directed by: Charles Burnett.
Written by: Charles Burnett.
Starring: Danny Glover (Harry), Paul Butler (Gideon), DeVaughn Nixon (Sonny), Mary Alice (Suzie), Reina King (Rhonda), Cory Curtis (Skip), Richard Brooks (Babe Brother), Sherul Lee Ralph (Linda), Carl Lumbly (Junior), Vonetta McGee (Pat).
 
Charles Burnett’s debut film – Killer of Sheep (1978) is one of the great American films of the 1970s – but it took a good 30 years for it to get its due. The music rights – which Burnett didn’t bother to clear when he made the film as a student – made releasing the film impossible, so while anyone who had seen the film loved it, that number wasn’t very large until those issues were finally resolved, and the film got proper attention. It is often referred to as an American neo-realist film, and the film certainly does capture some of the same sort of feeling of the films of Vittorio De Sica or Roberto Rossellini, there is also something somewhat otherworldly about the film. Burnett’s To Sleep with Anger – his third film, made 12 years after Killer of Sheep – takes this mixture of realism with the fantastical to even greater extremes. It isn’t the perfect film that Killer of Sheep was – but it’s still fascinating – a modern day Parable set in Burnett’s Los Angeles.
 
The film is about Gideon (Paul Butler) and Suzie (Mary Alice) – transplants from the Deep South, now living in Los Angeles. They have two sons – Junior (Carl Lumbly), more mature and stable, and Babe Brother (Richard Brooks), immature and entitled – with a wife, Rhonda (Reina King), who looks down on her Southern in-laws – so much so that she stays in the car in the driveway during Sunday dinner, but not enough to not let them constantly babysit her son until late into the night. The family puts on a happy face, but there are cracks under the surface – cracks that gradually become exposed with the arrival of Harry (Danny Glover).
 
Harry is an old friend from the South – he hasn’t seen Gideon or Suzie in decades – since they left – yet when he arrives, he is greeted with open arms, and an offer to stay as long as he likes. Harry seems nice – he’s friendly, he’s quick with a story and a laugh – and everyone seems to love him. But right from the start, there is something vaguely sinister about Harry, and there are questions about him you cannot help but wonder – logistical questions about how he knew when Gideon and Suzie were, and why he decided to show up out of the blue for the first time in decades. As the movie progresses, Harry goes from genial to passive aggressive – he almost takes over the house in his seemingly friendly way, bossing people around as he clips his toenails in the middle of the living room, leads Gideon on a walk, which provides him with visions, and leads to a stroke and Gideon in a coma, and leading the weak willed Babe Brother down the path of temptation. He has many people fooled, but not Linda (Sheryl Lee Ralph) – an old girlfriend of his from those back home days, who very quickly knows Harry hasn’t changed, and shows that Harry isn’t the only one who can tell stories that make everyone uncomfortable. What Harry really is – who he represents – is never explicitly made clear, but if he isn’t Satan, he’s at least on a first name basis with him.
 
All of this leads to a climax that is straight out of the bible, and a denouement that is both abrupt and hilarious – putting a happy face on everything, although whether it’s a legitimate happy ending or just a family agreement to go back to pretending is open from debate.
 
There is much to admire about To Sleep with Anger – not least of which is the best performance of Danny Glover’s career (it even somehow fits to have Glover be younger in real life than Harry is clearly supposed to be). It’s hard to hate Harry, who seems so genial, so happy, and is never overtly threatening, even if he is also undeniably the cause of the family almost being broken apart. Other performances in the film are good as well – particularly Mary Alice, so outwardly sweet and polite, masking something stronger inside, Sheryl Lee Ralph – hilarious and tough as nails as the only one who sees through Harry from the start and Richard Brooks as the overgrown child Babe Brother – the one who actually does need to grow the hell up.
 
The film has a tricky tone that is all Burnett’s own. There are large family gatherings that have the feeling of authenticity to them – especially the large fish fry gathering, in which Harry breaks out the corn liquor. But there is also the undeniable feeling of the supernatural hanging over the whole movie – and just waiting to drop. I do think Burnett probably waits a little too long for it to drop – and the movie can be a little too repetitive leading up to the climax.
 
Still, To Sleep with Anger is rare for an American film of its time (and sadly, would still be rare for an American film of this time) in its depiction of an African American family – the roots of the past coming to haunt the present, and how the film was clearly made without a white audience in mind (there is no code switching here). Burnett should be a figure in American film on par with Spike Lee – but he’s always struggled to get his films made, and struggled to get his films seen once they have been (To Sleep with Anger is not the easiest film to track down). That really does need to change.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Movie Review: Logan

Logan **** ½ / *****
Directed by: James Mangold.
Written by: Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green.
Starring: Hugh Jackman (Logan), Patrick Stewart (Charles), Dafne Keen (Laura), Boyd Holbrook (Pierce), Stephen Merchant (Caliban), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gabriela), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Rice), Eriq La Salle (Will Munson), Elise Neal (Kathryn Munson), Quincy Fouse (Nate Munson).
 
There is a uniformity to superhero movies that I find more than a little disappointing. I’ve heard people defend the genre as saying its nothing more than the modern day Western genre – except that ignores the fact that during the heyday of the Western (the 1930s-1970s) you had artists such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood, Sam Peckinpah, Anthony Mann, and many (many) others doing all sorts of very interesting, very different things with the genre – something that unfortunately hasn’t really happened with the superhero movies of the 2000-present era. The films, unless they’re directed Christopher Nolan, feel they come off an assembly line whose main purpose is to set up the next product to come off that same assembly line– and while that assembly line often ends up making a high quality, highly entertaining product, I wish there was a more personal touch to many of the films. That’s one of the main reasons why James Mangold’s Logan is the best the genre has produced – outside the Nolan Batman films – in recent years. The film feels like the personal vision of a filmmaker – and doesn’t have to worry about sequels, prequels etc. – the next chapter as it were. The movie exists by itself – and yet benefits from all the times we’ve seen Hugh Jackman play this character before (not to mention Patrick Stewart as Professor X). The film has weight – and real stakes. The action is more brutal (perhaps too brutal to be honest) and more personal. And like the best of the genre, it’s a hell of a lot of fun.
 
The year is 2029, and mutants are all but extinct. There are a few left – like Logan aka Wolverine, and that’s because his body heals himself, making him pretty much immortal. But even he is not doing very well lately – he’s older and slower – and his wounds take much longer to heel than they once did. In short, he’s dying. He’s still better off than Professor X – who Logan keeps locked up in a huge oil tank in Mexico – under the eye of Caliban (Stephen Merchant) and drugged up to boot. Professor X has some sort of progressive brain disease – Alzheimer’s, ALS, etc. – which is dangerous in the world’s most powerful brain. Logan has a plan to get them both out of harm’s way – to set sail on a boat, and die in peace. But before he can do that, he is approached by Gabriela (Elizabeth Rodriguez) – who says her daughter, Laura (Dafne Keen) needs his help to get to North Dakota. Long story short, it turns out Laura and Logan have a lot in common – and that Laura has a team of paramilitary troops lead by Piece (Boyd Holbrook) on her trail – determined to capture and/or kill her. True to form, Logan reluctantly agrees to help – spurring a road trip for him, Laura and Professor X.
 
Director James Mangold is the right choice of director here – he has a history with the character (having directed 2013’s The Wolverine – a not bad film itself) – but more importantly being a director who would probably be directing Westerns if he could today. His 3:10 to Yuma remake – with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe – is one of the better modern, big budget Westerns – and his breakthrough film CopLand (1997) starring Sylvester Stallone, is essentially a Western itself – just one set in modern day New York. Logan unmistakably references Westerns throughout – I’ve heard it called the Unforgiven of superhero movies, and that’s not a bad descriptor. Mangold also knows action sequences – and here he outdoes himself. The action in the film is brutal and bloody and uncompromising – coming fast and furious, but expertly staged – avoiding the trap of shaky camera work and rapid fire editing so many modern directors think passes for action direction these days. The action sequences in the movie hurt – you feel it when the characters are fighting, and take their lumps.
 
The film’s greatest strength though has to be the weight of the interpersonal relationships – and how they develop. Part of that work has been done by our long connection to both Logan and Professor X – stretching back to 2000’s X-Men – now. Seeing them older, and more beaten and broken than ever before brings unexpected weight to the film. The very real bond between the two of them – contentious at times, pained is relatable. Watching Logan take care of Professor X will resonate with anyone who has had to take care of a dying parent (or seen those who have done it) – an oddly, real world problem this superhero movie goes for – and pulls off. Both Jackman and Stewart – knowing this is their last time with these characters – go for broke, and deliver two of the best performances the genre has to offer. The relationship between Logan and Laura also deepens, and becomes surprisingly emotional by the end.
 
If there was one thing I wished the film had cut back on, it’s all the swearing. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind a lot of swearing (I love Tarantino and Mamet for example), but like last year’s Deadpool, I think this film mistakes a lot of swear words (and more blood in the violence) for more maturity – something Logan would have even without that. It just struck me as the film trying too hard for something it was already doing quite well.
 
But that’s mainly a tiny complaint, of a movie I really did love. I wish more studios would give directors the freedom to do something like Logan – a superhero movie not beholden to sequels, prequels, etc. – and just went ahead a told a great story on its own terms. It’s the way you get a film this great.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Classic Movie Review: Trainspotting

Trainspotting (1996)
Directed by: Danny Boyle.
Written by: John Hodge based on the novel by Irvine Welsh.
Starring: Ewan McGregor (Renton), Ewen Bremner (Spud), Jonny Lee Miller (Sick Boy), Kevin McKidd (Tommy), Robert Carlyle (Begbie), Kelly Macdonald (Diane), Peter Mullan (Swanney), James Cosmo (Mr. Renton), Eileen Nicholas (Mrs. Renton),  Susan Vidler (Allison), Pauline Lynch (Lizzy), Shirley Henderson (Gail), Stuart McQuarrie (Gavin / US Tourist), Irvine Welsh (Mikey Forrester).
 
It can be a strange experience going back and revisiting a movie you loved as a teenager for the first time in years as an adult. Such is the case I had recently watching Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting – in preparation for the sequel out this month – a film that came out when I was 15 years old, and that I probably watched at least 5 times before I graduated from high school in 2000 – and then, I don’t think I’ve seen the film since. It’s interesting to see the film now for all these years later for several reasons. One is that while the cast was largely unknown at the time, almost all of the major roles were filled by actors, who if they didn’t become huge stars, at least became well known working actors. Another is to see, in a rawer form, the same sort of direction that Danny Boyle would refine through the years- culminating 12 years later with Slumdog Millionaire (2008) – a film that uses the same kind of tricks that Trainspotting does to try and energize the audience. The difference is that in 1996, that felt new and exciting (at least to the novice cinephile I was at the time), and by 2008, it felt like a safe choice. Finally, watching a film like Trainspotting as an adult really does let you know, rather quickly, how much you’ve aged. I remembered the film as a drug film about how fun it was to do drugs – right up until the time it isn’t fun anymore, and you need to stop or die. What surprised me on this viewing is how quickly things really do turn dark in Trainspotting – we’re barely a half hour in when Baby Dawn dies – and Renton (Ewan McGregor) removes all doubt about what an absolute shit he is – going immediately to fix himself another dose of heroin – and while he’s “thoughtful” enough to prepare one for Baby Dawn’s mother as well – he notes that, of course, she got hers after he got his. Viewing the film as an adult, I don’t see it so much as about freedom – as I did when I was a teenager – but about a group of selfish assholes. Oddly though, that doesn’t make me like the film any less.
 
There is a rawness and energy about Trainspotting from its opening sequence – when Renton, Sick Boy (Johnny Lee Miller) and Spud (Ewen Bremmer) are all running from the cops (set to Iggy Pop’s Lust for Life – one of the many great songs that made the soundtrack one of the best of the 1990s). Renton gets bumped by a car – and immediately pops back up again – but instead of running, just looks at the driver and laughs – right before he’s tackled. The movie then flashes backward, not to the beginning of Renton’s story, but just the part he chooses to begin with (whatever made him – or anyone – start heroin is never mentioned – except for poor, dumb Tommy). Renton informs us – in voiceover – that this time, he’s going to quit the junk for sure – and informs us how exactly he’s going to go ahead and do that. It works – but only for a bit. He’ll be back on it again soon, perhaps because whether he’s stoned or not, he ends up doing the same thing – hanging out with his idiot friends, drinking, going to bars, and not working. IF he’s on heroin, he’s got no sex drive – but when he’s off, and he does meet a girl (Kelly McDonald) – and goes home with her, it turns out she’s s high school student.
 
Renton drifts on and off drugs throughout the film, and as our narrator, he certainly does maintain a certain degree of our sympathy. But he isn’t wholly honest with the audience either – or perhaps, he thinks he is, and isn’t being honest with himself. Aside than Baby Dawn, the other death in the film is that of Tommy (Kevin McKidd) – and while Renton never even hints at any guilty feelings towards Tommy’s death – he clearly set it in motion not once, but twice – first by stealing the sex tape Tommy and his girlfriend made together – and whose absence causes his girlfriend to leave Tommy, and sink into depression, and second by hooking him up with heroin for the first time because of that depression. But if Renton is an asshole, we continue to like him in part because Sick Boy and especially Begbie (Robert Carlyle) – a psychopath who picks fights with any and every one – are even worse. The last third of the movie is the only part with anything resembling a real plot – as Renton, Begbie, Sick Boy and Spud – all go in on a big drug deal, although watching the film again, I was surprised by just how little this “big score” really was.
 
Trainspotting ended up becoming one of the quintessential examples of ‘90s movies – a film that became a huge cult hit on VHS, and whose posters adorned quite a few dorm rooms over the years. Like many films of that time, its debt to Scorsese is obvious – particularly GoodFellas, which had just come out 6 years earlier. But Boyle – making just his second film (following 1994’s Shallow Grave) amped up the energy even more. He is aided a great deal by his cast – especially McGregor, who seemed to be DeNiro to Boyle’s Scorsese for a while, until a falling out over The Beach (2000) led them not to work together until the upcoming T2: Trainspotting sequel. That’s a shame, because as good of an actor as McGregor is, he’s rarely been as good as he was here – he’s slimmer than normal here, angrier, with more than a little danger to him. He has the swagger necessary to pull this film off.
 
Of course, as with many things in Hollywood, what once seemed dangerous and edgy has now fully become part of the system – especially perhaps Boyle and McGregor, neither of whom you would describe that way now. But it felt that way in 1996 – and looking back at the film now, knowing where everyone would end up, I can still see that raw energy that made it so exciting to me then – even if I see the emptiness in the characters more now than I did then. There are some films that are timeless classics – beloved by all, that are universal in nature, and will remain classics long after everyone involved them – even as their initial audience – has come and gone. And then there are films that are tied to a specific time and place, and whose impact is harder to see for younger generations. I think Trainspotting is the later – and I don’t really mean that as an insult.

Movie Review: I Am Not Your Negro

I Am Not Your Negro
Directed by: Raoul Peck.
Written by: James Baldwin.
Featuring: Samuel L. Jackson.
 
Had he wanted to, director Raoul Peck could have easily made a wonderfully entertaining, more traditional documentary about the life of author James Baldwin. As glimpsed in I Am Not Your Negro, there is wonderful footage of Baldwin giving speeches, on various TV talk shows, etc. – in which Baldwin is always the smartest guy in the room, the most eloquent, the best speaker and the most persuasive. That documentary may well be very good – and hell, if someone makes it one day, I’ll gladly watch it. But that isn’t really what Peck is doing in I Am Not Your Negro – his brilliant documentary. Yes, he does use some of that more traditional footage (and whenever Baldwin speaks on screen, it is mesmerizing) – but we really do not get any biographical information on Baldwin at all. Instead, it takes his last, unfinished novel as its focus – a novel that was supposed to hinge on the murders of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King – three men Baldwin knew personally. In focusing on that novel, what I Am Not Your Negro really focuses on is Baldwin’s work – and how it relates to America, very specifically in Baldwin’s time – and by extension, today. That’s a tougher trick – and it’s what makes I Am Not Your Negro something special.
 
The film doesn’t limit itself to that one novel by Baldwin though – and that’s also smart. The narration is by Samuel L. Jackson – arguably giving his best, or at least, his least bombastic, performance in years reading lots of what Baldwin wrote. Baldwin’s observation on film are particularly nuanced and brilliant – giving us a different view of the legacies of John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Doris Day and Sidney Poitier than we usually get – and digging up some of the shameful, racist caricatures of the earliest black performers had to perform – and how all of that shapes a young, black child like Baldwin. How does he see his country – when he realizes how his country sees him? When he realizes that he isn’t John Wayne or Gary Cooper – he’s the Native Americans they slaughter? Why are men like Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte – obvious sex symbols, treated as asexual on screen – and why does Poitier always seem like he has to sacrifice himself for some white people?
 
The title of the movie really could be said to be the thesis of the film. Baldwin, believes that America will never truly move forward in terms of race relations until they deal with their past. As he says in the film – he is not a “nigger” and if white people made him one, they need to ask themselves why they did so – and if they don’t, America will never move forward. That was true when Baldwin said it – and it’s true all these years later as well. America doesn’t like to deal with their past – they don’t like to deal with their history with the Native Americans, they don’t like to deal with the legacy of slavery or Jim Crow.
 
What’s amazing about Baldwin is how – even though was he addressing his own time, his words are still relevant today – his criticisms still relevant. I don’t think Peck needed to include footage from Black Lives Matter events and Ferguson protests in the film – audiences can draw those lines themselves (for example, I don’t think there’s current footage in OJ: Made in America – but the parallels are there and unmistakable). But what Peck has done with I Am Not Your Negro is make an urgent, poetic film – a film about is about a specific writer, observing his specific time and place – and yet so much more at the same time.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Movie Review: Three

Three
Directed by: Johnnie To.   
Written by: Ho Leung Lau & Tin Shu Mak & Nai-Hoi Yau. 
Starring: Louis Koo (Chief inspector Chan), Wei Zhao (Dr. Tong Qian), Wallace Chung (Shun). 
 
At his best, Johnnie To is earns the comparison to the best action filmmakers his country, Hong Kong, has ever produced. Perhaps he hasn’t made the move to Hollywood yet – and at this point, probably never will – because his style of action filmmaking – smooth camera movements, expert choreography – is at odds with the current, favored Hollywood style of nothing but kinetic energy, rapid fire editing and shaky camera movement. His newest film, Three, isn’t one of his best – I still like the underseen Life Without Principle (2011), although you cannot go wrong with Drug War (2012) either. It almost seems like it’s a film To made as an interesting challenge to himself – can he confine himself to a single location, and still make his film thrillingly cinematic in the same way. The answer, mainly, is yes. 
 
The story takes place in a hospital. Gangster Shun (Wallace Chung) is brought into the ER with a bullet in the head – he put the bullet there himself, not because he wanted to die, but because he was about to be arrested, so he shoots himself in a such a way that they need to bring to the hospital, but which he believes will not kill him. Chan (Louis Koo), is the aging cop, who has been after Shun and his gang for a long time, and doesn’t trust his new prisoner, and wants to ensure they have eyes on him at all times. Dr. Tong (Wei Zhao) is the gifted surgeon, who in the opening we see not being successful, as someone dies on her operating table. Her boss isn’t overly thrilled with her – he thinks she has too much confidence in her abilities, and opinions – which makes her question herself a little when Shun comes in. He refuses surgery at first – he’s waiting for a rescue more than anything – although she knows without it, he’ll likely die – not right away, but soon enough.
 
The action never leaves the hospital, although To’s camera follows his characters through the corridors, and various rooms, and back out again, never resting for long. He tells you everything you need to know about his characters quickly – trusting his actors to convery a lot with body language. Like Michael Mann’s films, these character are entirely defined by their careers and actions – they aren’t given long monologues, or even dialogues, to explain themselves. Shun knows there are rules that both Tong and Chan are obligated to follow (although, he also knows that Tong is more likely to actually follow them) – and he exploits that. Chan, a man of few words, cannot really tell a doctor what to do with a patient with a bullet in their head.
 
The whole thing builds to an action climax – a grand shootout that some have compared to the opening sequence of John Woo’s Hard Boiled. That’s a grand claim, and one the film cannot live up to. Yes, it’s a great sequence in its own right, but the shootout in Hard Boiled is arguably the greatest of all time, and Three simply cannot compare.
 
As a whole, Three doesn’t add up to very much. I do think that To liked the idea of trying to take a single location, and confine himself there, to see what he could come up with visually. He finds a way to make the whole thing look interesting. The plot isn’t particularly original – we know where it’s going from the beginning is, and the characters are rather thinly drawn. But, at under 90 minutes, it’s a fun little film. No, it’s nowhere near To’s best work – but even minor To has its charms.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Movie Review: Ballerina (aka Leap)

Ballerina (aka Leap) ** / *****
Directed by: Eric Summer & Éric Warin.   
Written by: Carol Noble & Eric Summer & Laurent Zeitoun.
Starring: Elle Fanning (Félicie Milliner), Dane DeHaan (Victor), Maddie Ziegler (Camille Le Haut), Carly Rae Jepsen (Odette), Julie Khaner (Régine Le Haut), Terrence Scammell (Mérante).
 

The number of movies aimed specifically at little girls is so small, that it’s disappointing for me – as a parent of two of them – when one comes along, and just isn’t very good. That’s the case with the Canadian/France co-production Ballerina (which is apparently being released Stateside as Leap in April) – a rather thinly plotted and derivative animated film about a young, orphan girl named Felicie (voiced by Elle Fanning) was dreams of becoming a ballerina – and finally gets her chance. The film pulls out all the clichés you can imagine during its 90 minute runtime – never once surprising or challenging its audience. The film is about the level of a direct-to-DVD (or streaming) title that you throw on for the kids one rainy Saturday so they’ll shut up long enough for you to regain your sanity. While it didn’t bore my five year daughter – she also hasn’t mentioned it since – and this is a girl who still breaks into songs from Trolls or Moana or a nearly daily basis.
 
The film is set in 1880s France – where Felicie and Victor (Dane DeHaan) are orphans – and both of them want to escape their country orphanage and head to Paris – concocting a series of crazy schemes to get them out – until one of them actually works. Felicie wants to become a ballerina, and Victor wants to become an inventor – and both stumble into the beginnings of their dreams almost immediately upon arrival in France – Victor gets a job as a lowly assistant of the genius building the Eiffel tower, and Felicie discovers the premiere ballet class at the Opera house. She cannot get in of course – but does befriend the cleaner at the opera – Odette (Carly Rae Jepsen) – who harbors secrets of her own, and also works for Regine Le Haut (Julie Khaner) – a wealthy, but cruel woman, who is determined that her daughter, Camille (Maddie Ziegler) – becomes a premiere ballerina – and has bribed her daughter’s way into the class at the opera. Through a series of confusions, Felecie ends up in the class instead – posing as Camille – and with the help of Odette, shockingly, starts to do very well. Along the way, she will need to figure out her priorities, and her friendship with Victor will be tested.
 
Seriously, there are few clichés that Ballerina doesn’t trot out throughout its runtime:  The cruel rich woman out to crush the orphan. That woman’s daughter who seems cruel, but will learn the error of her ways. The wise mentor, who at first appears normal, before their tragic backstory is revealed (in this case, that backstory is literally a one line throwaway, and makes little sense). The domineering teacher who will eventually be won over. The boy in love with the lead, who views him as a friend. The new romantic interest who is really an ass. The lead first messing up their priorities before the big audition, but then getting a likely second chance. etc. The movie feels like it was written on autopilot.
 
That doesn’t have to be such a bad thing – after all, this is a movie aimed at kids, and in broad outlines, many of even the best kids movies seem like little else than a collection of clichés. Unfortunately, there’s little else to recommend the film either. The animation isn’t bad per se – but I do think you could argue that the shows on Disney Jr. (Sofia the First, Elena of Avalor, etc) all feature better animation than this movie does. The movie has a few nice dances sequences – thankfully – but other than that, the animation doesn’t really grab you. The characters are of the cookie cutter variety – defined broadly by one trait, and then put on repeat.
 
The reason we are given as to why there are more movies aimed at little boys rather than little girls has always been that girls will go see “boy” movies, but boys won’t go see “girl” movies, meaning by making a girl movie, the studio is cutting their box office in half. That’s a stupid reason (there’s no reason boys could not enjoy a good dance movie) – but it exists. I commend the makers of Ballerina for going after an underserved audience – I just wish they had put more thought into the final product.