Why The Big Short Falls Short (in a Big Way)

(In case you missed it, I was counting down my list of the most overrated movies of the year, but I felt that this pick merited its own post. You can read the rest of the acclaimed movies that left me a bit underwhelmed here.)

So, I was lucky enough to see The Big Short before its general release, and before any reviews had been written. When the movie ended, I didn't think it was the worst film I'd ever seen, but I thought, "Well, this movie is going to be completely forgotten by the end of the year." But then it started getting really good reviews. And then it started appearing on top ten lists. And then it started getting nominated for tons of awards, and is seen as an Oscar contender for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, among other categories. As a result, to quote Jacobim Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

How fitting to quote a Will Ferrell character when talking about a film directed by Adam McKay.

I don't get it. I just don't get it. How is this film considered one of the best of the year? How is this film even considered good when it is such a mess? The response to this movie has exacerbated my own distaste for it to a considerable degree from when I first saw it (at least I can admit that I'm biased) to the point that I now really hate the movie. It is my Interstellar of this year: the movie that a lot of people seem to love, and whose appeal I simply don't comprehend.

One thing I will say is that The Big Short has a very talented cast, and they do good work here. Everyone is committed to their role. But I feel like the script didn't really allow them to be fully utilized. When actors audition for a role, they receive what's called a breakdown, which gives a rudimentary overview of what the character is like so they can prepare for the audition without reading the entire script. I mention this because I feel like everything about the performances in this film was decided from reading the breakdown. These characters never felt fully formed to me, they simply felt like character archetypes. The asocial oddball genius? That sums up Christian Bale. The grumpy asshole with a sensitive core? Steve Carell! The handsome asshole frat boy? Ryan Gosling's got you covered. Their performances are certainly consistent, but it's because they do the same thing in every scene. There's no variation. These characters never grow, and they never change. They find certain mannerisms, but these performances never extend beyond this surface level of characterization.

I will also admit that another thing The Big Short has going for it is a very important subject matter. The financial housing crisis in the early 2000's is crucial to know about, and a topic that many people--myself included--don't understand or think about as much as we probably should. And I believe that The Big Short had the best intentions, and earnestly wanted to make a movie that was accessible to a mass audience. Director Adam McKay, who co-wrote the script with Charles Randolph, probably thought, "Hey, you know what would be nuts? If we made a comedy about the housing crisis. That would be AMAZING if we pulled it off." Well, they didn't pull it off. McKay couldn't direct a comedy about the housing crisis because it's not possible to make an intelligent movie on this subject that is also funny. The two simply don't go together. Look, I love dark comedies, but the heavier subject matter and the comedy need to go hand in hand. One of my favorite films of all time, In Bruges, takes a topic you wouldn't think was comedic (two hit men who are in hiding after one of them accidentally kills an innocent child) and manages to tell a story that is both profound and hilarious. Often, the funniest moments are the darkest, with the brilliant Martin McDonagh (who wrote and directed it) understanding that the comedy and the incongruous subject matter actually enhance each other. In contrast, The Big Short feels disjointed. I didn't find it funny, but the moments that were clearly meant to be funny felt very tacked on, and felt completely different from the moments that actually talked about the housing crisis. The film never understands what tone its trying to set--is it smart, or stupid? Is it funny, or serious? Don't get me wrong, a movie can be both, but McKay is never able to find a consistent tone or weave the many threads of the movie together into a cohesive narrative.

What I'm trying to say is that the script sucks. It hides behind the gravitas of its subject matter, and again, I appreciate what it was trying to accomplish. But this is bad writing. It's lazy, it's sloppy, it's so scattered and all over the place. This script is so overwrought--it's trying so hard to educate you and to entertain you that it fails in both regards. It's the cinematic equivalent of that one teacher everyone has in high school who curses in class so that his students think he's cool (this teacher is always a dude).

"Hey guys. I'm your new English teacher, Mr. Kleinberg. But you can call me Mr. K. Now, how about for our first class, we...watch a movie! Awesome, right?! High five!"

The humor here really didn't land for me. Much like present-day episodes of Family Guy, it seemed to mistake randomness for wit. When characters break the fourth wall to make a quip, that's not funny, it's pointless and never explained. Why do some characters talk to us and some don't--what does this device add to the story? In a signature recurring bit, the film will cutaway to a celebrity cameo (Margot Robbie, Anthony Bourdain, and then Selena Gomez and her friend the uncomfortable-looking economist) who explains a complex economic idea to you. Some people apparently loved these bit, I just found them annoying. It's as if they couldn't figure out how to work these ideas into the script, so they just were like, "Fuck it, we'll put Margot Robbie in a bathtub and nobody will care that we're just going to tell you this in the most lazy way possible."

"Not to mention super-empowering to women! Hey, could you guess that we don't pass the Bechdel test?"

I think the accolades for this script comes down to what I call the Badfellas effect. See, there are lots of really well-written movies like Goodfellas (or Glengarry Glen Ross, or most things written by Aaron Sorkin) where the dialogue is really sharp and has this great rhythm to it so it has to be delivered really quickly. Those are great scripts. But because of how influential movies like Goodfellas are, there have since been numerous copycats, which think that if the actors read their dialogue really quickly, that must make it good! You don't need smart snappy dialogue, as long as you focus on the snappy part. And the problem is that people fall for it. Just because this movie wants to be Goodfellas, that doesn't make it Goodfellas. Let me ask all the fans of this movie--is there a single line that you remember from this film? Can you mention a single scene you thought was genuinely well-written? I found everything about this script's demeanor obnoxious. I thought its attempts at humor were amateur at best, and flat out insulting at worst. It detracted from what should have been a really strong and meaningful story. The film was smug and in your face, and lost any semblance of endearment that it could have garnered, which made me lost interest in it fairly quickly.

But here's the worst part of The Big Short for me: there were no stakes. Stakes are the root of all drama, but The Big Short wasn't able to derive actual stakes out of one of the most devastating economic crises of all time. The Big Short wants you to be outraged at how the corporate world and the big banks are taking advantage of us, but it completely ignores the people who were most taken advantage of. The protagonists of the movie are a) not all that likable and b) incredibly unsympathetic. For those who don't know, the main characters of this movie are fictional representations (some of them use the real peoples' names and some don't) of the few stock traders who were able to predict the financial crisis. To be clear, they didn't try to stop the financial crisis from happening (not that they would have been able to, mind you), but instead they bet money on it. In other words, when the crisis occurred, they all made lots of money because they were the only ones who predicted this had happened.

Meaning that for every single major character in this film, the financial collapse that this movie rightfully claims was a horrible thing is not only not surprising, but also not that bad of a thing. So even though we're told over and over again how devastating this was, we're not actually shown evidence, at least not evidence derived from the characters the movie is actually about. The movie itself points out this discrepancy. After making several trades, two characters played by Finn Wittrock and John Magaro (I don't remember their names) are celebrating when their mentor, played by Brad Pitt, chastises them. Pitt, who is a producer on this film, has once again cast himself in a crucial role as a person without flaws, as he did in 12 Years a Slave. He plays Ben, who the movie would have us believe is the best at math and also the only person on earth with a conscience. Anyway, Ben points out that they're celebrating the downfall of the American economy, and even though they'll be very rich, this isn't something to celebrate. They look sad. And that's the main problem with The Big Short--the consequences of this economic disaster is only demonstrated by these characters looking sad. The one who looks saddest is Steve Carell. Every time a banker says something evil, Steve Carell looks sad or gets angry. And he's sad and angry a lot. He's meant to be the moral barometer of this film. Maybe that's why he's the only character who's given any semblance of backstory. Apparently, his brother committed suicide. It's mentioned in two whole scenes and feels very shoe-horned in. Steve Carell is very sad about it.

There was another movie about the housing crisis that came out this year called 99 Homes. This film doesn't attempt to explain why the housing crisis happened, it chooses to focus on the low-income families whose lives were destroyed by it. There are several scenes of people being evicted from their homes which are emotionally devastating. The movie shows good people, real people, who are trying their best in a bad situation, and stuck with nowhere to go. They end up losing their homes, losing their lives, and losing their dignity, and are desperately looking for a way to a better life, even though there isn't one. 99 Homes doesn't feature any wall street bankers, but it does have Rick Carver (Michael Shannon), one of the best villains of the year. Rick is a real estate mogul who has found a way to rig the system to his advantage and encourages Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield), a hardworking man who Rick just evicted from his home, to work for him. Dennis is conflicted because Rick embodies everything Dennis thinks is wrong with the world. And yet, Rick's offering the only viable solution Dennis sees for a better life. By focusing on its characters, 99 Homes is an artistic embodiment of what the crisis really is about. It doesn't go into statistics, but watching it, you truly understand the situation on an emotional level. Dennis represents how good things can be corrupted. Rick represents greed and ruthlessness better than any character I've seen since Gordon Gekko. Where The Big Short tells you what happened, 99 Homes actually shows you why it's important.

But hey, in The Big Short, Steve Carell looks sad. And that's apparently Oscar-worthy.

And he's not even THAT sad.

The Big Short succeeds perfectly fine in terms of educating its audience. I think they could have done a better job explaining things, but if that it's purpose then it succeeded in that regard at the very least. Although I'm sure anyone who ignored the movie and just read the book it was based on would be far more informed. However, as a piece of art--which is why film is--it simply doesn't work. Subject matter does not a movie make. The Big Short feels absolutely phoned in, and that simply isn't good enough.

Movies That Were NOT The Best of 2015

Over the past few days, I've been discussing some of the best movies of 2015 as I counted down my picks for the 30 best films of the year, and handed out my own awards recognizing the best of the year. But, among the movies I mentioned, there were lots of titles that some might feel were noticeably absent. These movies aren't my picks for the worst films of the year by any means (well, some are) but these are movies that I see on a lot of top ten lists, or which have received a hefty amount of critical acclaim, which I very distinctly chose not to include in my discussion.

That's right, it's time for me to complain about movies that everybody else loves! Everyone loves when I do that, right?! RIGHT?!These films range from the "it was good but not great" to the "it was disappointing" to "oh man it sucked." To be clear, these aren't the worst films of the year, but they're the ones that I feel have received acclaim far more than is warranted. Most of these aren't as bad as, say, Jupiter Ascending, but everyone acknowledges that that movie was a mess (albeit a truly spectacular one). So, let's dive in and see what I think were some of the more overrated offerings of the year.


The Revenant

Let's start with a big one: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's The Revenant. This was easily one of the movies this year I was most excited for. I'm a big fan of all of Inarritu's films, especially last year's Oscar-winning Birdman. Plus, the early footage looked promising, and the all-star cast, led by Leonardo DiCaprio, made it look like there was no way this movie could be bad. And then I saw it and was decidedly underwhelmed.

I will say it's an impressive film--one that I appreciate more than I enjoy. The Revenant overwhelmingly succeeds as a piece of technical filmmaking, and I would be totally fine with Inarritu receiving a Best Director nomination for his work. Plus, it does have some moments. The already notorious scene where Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is attacked by a bear is brilliantly done. But overall, the movie was incredibly unsatisfying to me. What I've always loved about Inarritu is his ability to tell a story through focus on character. His films rarely have a singular, identifiable plot, and yet remain focused and cohesive towards a final end goal. The Revenant felt aimless. There were many beautiful scenes depicting the brutality of nature, but they did nothing to actually advance the film. Even DiCaprio's performance fell into this trap--while he is certainly committed, the role is not really written to show off his acting chops. When his character is cold, he shivers. When his character is in pain, he winces. There's not really much interpretation going on here. In fact, I felt the entirety of the talented cast was rather wasted, with the exception of Tom Hardy as John Fitzgerald, the only actor who had a chance to truly form a character. It's no coincidence that the best scene in the film involves Hardy. In the scene, Fitzgerald wants to murder the injured Glass, as he feels that keeping him alive will endanger their whole group. He tells Glass that if he wants to be put out of his misery, all he has to do is blink in agreement to show he's okay with this. When Glass doesn't blink, Fitzgerald continues to say this, until it becomes a perverse staring contest where Glass' life is on the line. It's a thrilling scene, but a sad reminder of the level of tension this lackluster film might have achieved if Inarritu had simply had a better editor.


45 Years

 
While not a huge commercial success, 45 Years has been one of the biggest critical darlings of the year, with heaps of praise being showered on stars Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay. I thought the movie was fine--both Rampling and Courtenay made my list of the best performances of the year--but I couldn't figure out why people were SO excited about this movie. Rampling and Courtenay play Kate and Geoff Mercer, who are about to celebrate their 45 anniversary with a large party. However, just a few days before their big celebration, Geoff finds out that the body a former lover of his (from before he met Kate) who had gone missing had just been found. It's a fascinating premise--a love triangle where one side of the triangle is deceased--and has some nice moments, but ultimately I found it unsatisfying. The film is far more focused on Kate--it's her story--but she's never allowed to change throughout the course of the movie. Rampling is a wonderful presence to watch but, as written, Kate is always at the same level of calm. And while at first, her suspicion and edge hiding underneath her calmer exterior is interesting, it becomes repetitive after a while. Kate never breaks, she never gets a release. That anger is never allowed to burst through, and her story never feels resolved. Many have praised the film's ambiguous ending, but I hated it. I agree it was ambiguous, but I disagree that it was an ending. This movie doesn't end, it simply stops. And unfortunately, this lack of an ending undermines the entire film--no moments are strong enough to justify having sat through it. I wanted to like 45 Years, but it really felt a bit pointless to me. 45 Years is nothingness disguising itself as subtlety.


Inside Out

 
Okay, before I go any further, I should say: I LIKED THIS MOVIE PLEASE DON'T HATE ME! Really, I did like Inside Out. After I saw it, I told people how much I liked it and encouraged others to see it. I think it has a phenomenal message, and I think it's amazing how the film is being used by child psychologists to help their patients express their feelings. It's a good movie...but I do think it has some problems and is one of Pixar's weaker efforts (which isn't anything to be ashamed of considering some of the films Pixar has produced).

Pixar's best films are truly masterpieces--I wanted Up to pull an upset and win Best Picture, and felt Toy Story 3 absolutely merited its spot as a Best Picture nominee Plus I think that Wall-E should have been a Best Picture nominee, and probably would have been had there been ten nominees instead of five that year. So, I'm not biased against it because it's a kids movie, or because it's animated. But when people say Inside Out should be a Best Picture nominee, I'm left scratching my head. Many called it a return to form for Pixar, citing how original the premise is. And, yes, the idea is great. But original ideas aren't what makes Pixar movies great. Sure, Pixar films are really creative, but the reason I think their best films are masterpieces is because of the great storytelling on display. And this is where I think Inside Out disappoints in a major way.

For one thing, as creative as the idea is, it kind of fell apart the second I stopped to think about it (which, unfortunately, I did during the movie). For the small handful who don't know the movie's premise, the film takes place inside the mind of a twelve-year-old girl named Riley, and specifically focuses on the five emotions (Anger, Disgust, Fear, and especially Joy and Sadness) residing in her brain who are responsible for controlling how she feels. Whenever anything happens, these emotions take over and press buttons and pull levers, and we see the reaction reflected in Riley. And yet Joy, over the course of the film, experiences sadness, anger, fear, and disgust. So does Sadness. And it really bothers me because, given the premise of the movie, how is this possible? Are there also little people in the heads of the emotions who are in our own heads? And would those emotions that are in the heads of the emotions that are in our heads also have emotions in their heads? I know that for the film to work at all, these emotions have to have depth to them, which is hard to do if they're stuck on one emotion all the time, but given how complex and intricate the Pixar worlds usually are, this one struck me as distractingly implausible. And I didn't think all of the characters were well-served by the script. I actually found the character of Joy, ostensibly the protagonist, to be pretty unlikable--she was selfish and mean and arrogant and petty. And while this is certainly an interesting interpretation, it didn't really work for me if we're meant to accept this character as a true embodiment of happiness. Plus, I felt that the character of Riley was lacking. This character is important: she's not only a major character, but she's the setting of the movie, and all the stakes of the film rest in our emotional investment to her. But, while I didn't dislike Riley or anything, I also found her a bit bland and didn't find myself becoming invested in her story. I actually  think that the filmmakers painted themselves into a bit of a corner here. In order to show how the emotions were affecting Riley, she's only ever allowed to experience five emotions over the course of the film, and only ever one at a time. That's not how real people operate. Riley's never allowed to show a mix of happiness and sadness, or of sadness and anger. Instead, she'll be distinctly happy, and then have to be distinctly angry or distinctly sad one second later with no transition. And this prevents her from being fully realized to me. Someone recently made an edit of all of the scenes of just Riley. A lot of people seem to love it, but for me it just highlights that Riley seems inconsistent, and her story isn't that well-constructed.

Also, I just felt a lot of the rules of the world weren't explained. While some touches were great, I didn't get why some of her Islands of Personality were collapsing, or what would happen if they all vanished--wouldn't Riley have been braindead then?

The most effective part of the story for me was Bing-Bong. This was a character who showcased what Pixar usually does so brilliantly. He was a creative character, yes, but he had genuine stakes and emotion. And, yes, I did tear up during (SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT I'M ASSUMING EVERYONE HAS ALREADY SEEN THIS MOVIE BUT STILL SPOILER ALERT) his tragic sacrifice (btw, even though he's an imaginary character, does Bing-Bong also have little people in his brain controlling his emotions? That must be the worst job in the world, to be the emotions inside the head of an imaginary friend). But you know where I didn't feel emotional? When Riley returned home and cried with her relieved parents. The storytelling that Pixar applied to a supporting character--one who actually isn't all that crucial to the plot when you think about it--was not reflected in the main story. So, I enjoyed Inside Out, and I thought it had some really great points. But is it an incredible movie? No. It's one of Pixar's weaker efforts for me, and the near universal praise for it despite these flaws seems highly overblown to me given the storytelling. I also know it's unlikely, but I'm hoping that this film miraculously loses the Best Animated Feature Oscar to Anomalisa. Seriously, if you look at these two films side by side, I think it should be obvious which is the better effort.


Cinderella

 I actually already released a review of this, albeit a joke one consisting of pretty much just the words "pretty" and "bland" over and over again. Because that's what this movie was--it was pretty and bland. It was perfectly fine, but completely forgettable, lightweight, and unnecessary. So imagine my surprise when I find out that a lot of people not only liked this movie, but LOVED this movie. And I'm rather at a loss as to why. Look, I'm not saying that this story is off limits and can never be told again, but this movie doesn't attempt to put any perspective on any aspect of the story. With the amount of money that went into making it, there really should be more offered to the audience than pretty costumes.


Son of Saul

Son of Saul has been considered the frontrunner to win Best Foreign Language Film at this year's Oscars ever since its debut at Cannes. The directorial debut of Laszlo Nemes, Son of Saul tells the story of Saul (Geza Rohrig), a Sonderkommando member who, while disposing of bodies from the gas chambers, discovers the body of a young boy who he believes to be his son. In secret, he tries to arrange for a proper Jewish burial for the young boy. Nemes keeps the camera focused on Saul's face almost the entirety of the movie, and brilliantly sets the horrifying atmosphere using primarily offscreen sounds and Saul's facial expressions. What is actually shown on screen is not as bad as the general sense of madness and horror that Nemes is able to convey. All of this is impressive, and like with The Revenant, there's a lot that I can appreciate about this film and I feel the individual achievements of both Nemes and Rohrig are strong.

But, also like The Revenant, this film was in desperate need of an editor. It's not boring by any means, but there's a lot of time that feels like padding. If this had been a short film--maybe a fifteen minute movie with the same filmmaking skill--it could have been brilliant. It's such a simple story, no more time is needed than that. But instead, we have a feature length that is about an hour too long (although at least it's less than half of The Revenant's runtime). To fill that time, Son of Saul decides to show us how brutal life in the camps was. But as I watched Son of Saul, I questioned the justification for such a demonstration of brutality. We don't exactly learn anything new--nothing presented made me rethink what life in the camps must have been like--nor does this movie make you question anything. The movie is disturbing without being profound. For such a powerful story and such an upsetting setting, nothing from Son of Saul particularly stayed with me. The violent nature of it didn't feel earned. In some ways it felt like no more than artsy torture porn, hiding behind its subject matter to feign relevance.

That being said, I know that many others found far more profundity in this movie than I did, and if this movie did make you reflect on this period of time or resonated with you emotionally, I sincerely hope my comments on this potentially volatile film don't offend. And I must say, I eagerly await first time director Nemes' next film--Son of Saul was smartly made even if I felt that it missed the mark in a big way.


Labyrinth of Lies

And now another holocaust movie. Labyrinth of Lies is Germany's official selection for the Foreign Language Film award at the Oscars (sadly my favorite film of the year, the German movie Phoenix which is also about the holocaust, was deemed ineligible for contention), and many think it is likely to get a nomination. It tells an important story, but does so in what I feel is a misguided way.

Labyrinth of Lies' hero is Johan Radmann (Alexander Fehling), a young, ambitious, and law-abiding German lawyer in post-war Germany. With the war over for more than a decade, the crimes of the concentration camps are not discussed, and mostly unknown, with many Nazi guards now living normal lives. After encouragement from a radical journalist (Andre Szymanski), Radmann decides to look into bringing charges against the guards at Auschwitz, which the more experienced attorneys at his firm think is ludicrous. But Radmann finds support from the head of his law firm, Fritz Bauer (Gert Voss), who was in the camps himself and who encourages him to pursue the case and warns him of how deeply it runs. Radmann discovers that what happened at Auschwitz was far more horrifying than anyone had realized, and eventually builds enough of a case to try the Auschwitz guards for murder. In doing so, the atrocities of the Nazis became a matter of public record, and assured that these crimes would not be forgotten, and hopefully never repeated.

As a film, it's fine. It has a nice style to it, but everything feels very generic and by-the-book. It also is not a subtle movie--its message is apparent because it's stated directly to the audience multiple times, and no matter how good that message is, it still feels preachy and heavy-handed when delivered from such a clumsy soapbox. But all of that is fine--they're flaws, but not enough to merit its inclusion in this list. Here's the worst part of Labyrinth of Lies: Radmann isn't real. This is a fictional character. And yet, his actions are all real. This trial happened, and it is one of the most important court cases in world history. But do you know who the prosecuting attorney was? Do you know which lawyer put the case together and did everything significant that Radmann does in the film? Fritz Bauer, who in the movie is demoted to being Radmann's boss. I find this decision, frankly, disgusting. Bauer is a hero--a Jewish concentration camp survivor, who against all odds, worked tirelessly to face his captors and make sure that justice was served. And even though this is a film that tells his story, even though this is a film that has him as a character, and even though this is a film that constantly speaks to the importance of his accomplishments, he is shoved to the side. And who do they put in his place? Radmann.

Look at this guy. He is the Aryan ideal. Radmann isn't Jewish, and is so absolutely the wrong face to put on such an important part of history. This year's Stonewall has rightfully been maligned for how it erased important historical figures in an offensive play to appeal to a broader audience. I see absolutely no difference between that film and how Labyrinth of Lies has replaced Bauer with Radmann. In fact, the only difference I can think of is that Stonewall was a critical flop, and deservedly so, but Labyrinth of Lies is seen as a likely Oscar nominee. And that's horrifying to me.


Macbeth

 
Okay, so this movie isn't exactly appearing on lots of top ten lists, but it was reasonably critically acclaimed. And more importantly, I hated it so much that I couldn't not include it on this list. I was so excited when this movie was announced. It's been years since we had a great Shakespeare movie (no, Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing was not great. It was fine) and I really thought this might be the one to do it. Macbeth is one of the best plays from one of the best writers of all time, and is especially ripe with potential for cinematic treatment. Plus, with a cast that includes overwhelmingly talented people like Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, and David Thewlis, there was no way this could be bad.

And then I saw the movie, and it was one of the most unpleasant movies I've ever had to sit through.

Macbeth fails as a Shakespearean adaptation, but more than that, it fails as a movie in general. What becomes apparent from the beginning is that director Justin Kurzel has absolutely no interest in Shakespeare's text. He's a more visual director, which is fine, but not when you're dealing with a Shakespearean script, where the language is kind of the point. He cares so little about the text that he's instructed his cast to whisper just about every line of theirs (except at the end when everybody shouts really loudly!) Not only is the cast forced to whisper, but they appear to have been instructed to speak at a rate of maybe 3 words per minute. It's such a slowwwwww movie. Everything about this movie is depressing, from the somber performances to the ugly aesthetic, to the all-encompassing feeling of brooding. Kurzel wants to rely on atmosphere to make his movie work, but when there's no change in that atmosphere from scene to scene, it becomes monotonous really quickly. Macbeth isn't just bad, it's actively unwatchable. It feels like you're undergoing a court-ordered sentence by sitting through it.

I feel for the actors in this movie because, again, I know how talented they are, but they've really been put in an impossible situation. It's clear that they understand what they're saying, but they've all been directed to speak in the same, dull delivery. As a result, the characters on the screen are nothing like the vibrant and iconic characters Shakespeare had initially created. There's no passion or love between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth--two characters who should be utterly devoted to them. Yet Fassbender and Cotillard are never allowed a single tender moment. Speaking of Cotillard, I was looking forward to her performance at the end of the play, when Lady Macbeth famously goes mad, because I thought she would finally be given a chance to just let loose. But even in this scene she speaks in the same rhythm and tone as everyone else has throughout the entire movie. She seems detached and distant, sure, but no more so than she has the whole film, so you are left not really understanding the extent of her madness in this moment, and her untimely death feels perplexing. But the character worst served by the film is Banquo, played by Paddy Considine. I've liked Considine in other things, but his portrayal of Banquo isn't just bad, it's entirely unmemorable. In many productions of Macbeth, Banquo is a standout character. He and Macbeth are friends, and he basically represents the good person that Macbeth was before he became corrupted. Killed early in the play, it is imperative for the emotional stakes of the play that Banquo be likable. Here, he makes absolutely no impression. The entire point of the character is lost.

More like McBlech, am I right? Yeah, I'm right.

When you're directing an adaptation of a previously written script, you are of course welcome to make changes. It is, after all, an adaptation, and a change isn't in and of itself bad. As an example, the film The Mist has a drastically different ending than the book it is based on. But the new ending is justified and consistent with what came before it, so much so that Stephen King, who wrote the book The Mist, has gone on record saying he likes the movie's ending more than the one he came up with. Kurzel has made significant changes to the text, but none of them make any sense. If you're familiar with the play, here are some changes that were made and let me know if any of these make even a little bit of sense to you.

• Malcolm walks in on Macbeth as he kills Duncan and wipes blood off his dagger, fleeing because Macbeth threatens to kill him to. Macbeth chooses not to kill Malcolm for absolutely no reason.
• Instead of hiring assassins to murder Lady Macduff and her children, Macbeth burns them at the stake in front of everybody.
• The porter--a character who would have broken up the overbearing and plodding mood of this movie--was removed entirely.
• Instead of Macduff's army using the trees of Birnam Wood as camouflage, they burn the entire forest down. For some reason. Apparently because the smoke blows towards the kingdom, that makes it fulfill the prophesy, but I fail to see how this is a better visual image than an entire forest uprooting itself.

At best, these changes--and others that Kurzel made-- are pointless and don't really add anything. But at worst, they completely alter part of what makes Macbeth so effective. Much of the story is about how everyone trusts and likes Macbeth--he's supposed to be a great guy who no one believes would commit regicide. Kurzel instead portrays Macbeth as your standard-issue tyrant. Even from the first scene, it's hard to believe he hasn't murdered MORE people. By having his crimes way out in the open, Macbeth's brutishness is on full display. He's not trying to hide his misdeeds, which makes the inner guilt he feels about covering up his crimes feel misplaced and nonsensical.

Lastly, for all the emphasis Kurzel placed on visuals, he missed multiple opportunities to capitalize on the parts of the play most ripe for cinematic potential. When Banquo's ghost appears, those who are unfamiliar with the play might find it hard to realize he's a ghost--they just sort of have Paddy Considine standing there with nothing supernatural about him. I've seen stage productions that make a more convincing ghost out of Banquo. Similarly, a film version of Macbeth has a chance to create an effective floating dagger in a way that a staged version does not. But, for some reason, Kurzel opts to have no floating dagger. Instead, he brings back a soldier from the first scene in the film (a battle scene which is not in the play) and simply has the soldier holding the dagger out to Macbeth. It's an odd disparity--I felt that the parts of this play that needed to be more traditionally handled were made far too cinematic, but the parts of this play that most lent themselves for a cinematic rendering were completely shrugged off. There were so many parts of this play that Kurzel didn't take advantage of, and I can't help but feel this might have been rooted in his clear misunderstanding of the text.

To sum up, I think that this film of Macbeth can be summed up by quoting Macbeth himself. It is a film directed by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You just got Shakespeared!

I'd initially planned to include all of my picks for the most overrated movies of the year in one post, but then I got to the final film on this list and my thoughts on it got so wordy that I felt the need to make it its own post. While I hated the Macbeth more, the amount of acclaim that this movie has received makes it my pick for the single most overrated movie of the year. And you can find out what this movie is, and read what I disliked about it so much, here.

Here's a hint: my nickname for this movie is The Big Shit.

Adventures in Cinematic Failure: Little Boy Makes Little Sense

A little over a year ago, I went to see a film called Winter's Tale, and published a review on this blog. Which is arguably the best thing I've ever written. Because as much as I love writing about good movies, it's a different variety of fun to write about bad movies. And not just any bad movie, I mean movies where something clearly went very wrong. Where you know there's no way those involved intended for the movie to turn out quite like this. It's a morbid fascination of mine, which I know many share. When I hear of a movie that's supposed to be good, my first thought is "I should see this." But if I hear of a movie that is spectacularly bad, my first thought is "I HAVE TO SEE THIS."

And then, a few months ago, I saw a trailer for a film called Little Boy. And it made me giddy. It looked so terrible, so overly saccharine and misguided, so nonsensical under the guise of whimsy, that the familiar feeling of "I HAVE TO SEE THIS" reared its ugly beautiful head. When the film was released, it was critically panned, receiving a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only 6 positive reviews registered. The critical consensus reads "Well-meaning but manipulative on a horrifically misguided scale, Little Boy is the rare faith-based film that many viewers may find legitimately offensive." It looked like my instincts were right. I couldn't help but think "This is going to be the next Winter's Tale."

I have, of course, seen the film since. Like Winter's Tale, Little Boy is nonsensical, stupid, meandering, and terribly lacking in self-awareness. But Little Boy sets itself apart by being horribly racist as well. So buckle your seatbelts because we're going to go through this movie together and it's going to be great.

This is the little boy. He is not excited.

Although before we get into the review, I will say that despite how offensive almost everything about this film is, there are a few good things about this movie. The performances, for example, are decent. Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa is genuinely good, and actors like Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson really try their best with completely useless and one-note roles. Even Kevin James is not terrible in it. He's not good, but he's not noticeably bad by any means. Although I do find it funny how much he appears on the film's promotional materials because he's hardly in the movie at all, and it's not like Kevin James is such a big get that they need to plaster his name everywhere. During the credits, it even says "with Kevin James" after everyone because apparently he's such a big deal. And his character has no reason to be in the film. He's completely superfluous. Which makes me think the following conversation must have happened.

Writer 1: Well, script's done!
Writer 2: WAIT! We just got a call. Kevin James has agreed to do the film!
Writer 1: Kevin James? THE Kevin James? No way!
Writer 2: I'm flipping out!
Writer 1: But who could he play? All the other roles are cast!
Writer 2: Well let's just write a character and put him in the film. We can't let the opportunity to add this film to Kevin James' golden resume slide!
Writer 1: Write a new role. Brilliant! And so cunning...like a fox!
Writer 2: That's what we'll call him! Fox!

This is why Kevin James' character is named Dr. Fox.

What does Paul Blart say?

But the standout is Jakob Salvati, the titular little boy who gives a performance that is actually rather engaging, and certainly very cute. I've spoken about how much of a champion I am for child actors, and with his performance he really does make a strong case for why. The film almost works because it is on his shoulders--his performance is so earnest and consistent. I hope he moves on to bigger and better things because he deserves to be in a better movie than this.

Seriously, look at this muppet!

Salvati plays Pepper Flynt Busbee. I can't decide whether I should say this sounds like a rejected Charles Dickens character, or a rejected character from the Harry Potter series, so I'll just say that it's a stupid name. I mean, really, Pepper Flynt Busbee. But because Pepper Flynt Busbee is short for his age, nobody really calls him this, they just call him Little Boy. Because the people in this movie aren't very bright.

I should mention that Salvati is not the only one who plays Pepper Flynt Busbee, because the movie also has voiceover narration from the grown-up Pepper Flynt Busbee. This narration has no business being here. He offers no particular insight, no reflection on the time. And he doesn't even serve any narrative function. His narration is pretty much to just say exactly what's happening on screen.When Pepper Flynt Busbee the younger is playing with his dad, the narrator says "We would play games." When Pepper Flynt Busbee is being taunted by bullies who call him "midget" the narrator says "The bullies would taunt me and call me midget." And having the narrator didn't make any sense. A narrator implies that things are taking place from the narrator's perspective, but there are a few scenes that Pepper Flynt Busbee could not have been aware of, so their inclusion goes completely against the fact that there's a narrator. And also the narrator isn't much of a presence. I'm not sure how many times the narrator has a monologue, because nothing about the narrator stands out in any way, but he couldn't have spoken more than four times in the entire movie. So I'm really not sure what that's about.

But the narrator is not the only unnecessary character. There's also absolutely no need for the character of Dr. Fox, played by the inestimable Kevin James. He serves no purpose, other than to measure Pepper Flynt Busbee a couple of times, and very creepily hit on Pepper Flynt Busbee's mother. He's seriously creepy, but also in a completely non-threatening way since he's not a very effective creeper and the mother never shows any interest in him. At the end she stands up to him and declines him which he's sad about but seems to get over it. It's supposed to be empowering, I think, but it's just kind of weird and forgettable. During that last scene she also says "You're a good man, Dr. Fox," but, no, he really isn't.

But let's forget about these non-characters and move onto the important people. It becomes immediately clear that this film is about a father/son relationship, which is usually my emotional Kryptonite but is so bland here that it is disastrously ineffective. The father (Michael Rapaport, in a dopey performance that is particularly subpar amidst the other competent performances) certainly loves his son, and Pepper Flynt Busbee clearly loves his father, but it's a bit worrying when he describes his father as his only friend. That's not exactly healthy. And sure enough, the two of them do lots of things that Pepper should be doing with his friends--like playing games together like cops and robbers and making blanket forts.

Michael Rapaport seriously wears this stupid expression on his face in pretty much every scene.

Pepper Flynt Busbee's mother (Emily Watson, who is too good of an actress to be in this movie) always stops these silly games, which makes Pepper Flynt Busbee pout, and makes Pepper's father give a reluctant shrug and make a face that says "What a bitch, am I right?" The movie seems to be going to great lengths to make the father likable. He's full of whimsy and energy, like a sort of manic pixie dream dad. But we don't actually know anything about him. Sure, he seems fun, but the relationship between the two of them never feels cemented. We only see them play, and never get to examine their relationship on more emotional or important moments. You know, moments where Pepper's dad actually has to act fatherly. Those are the sorts of moments that actually define the relationship between a parent and child, and are totally missing here. The attempts to establish him as a father are purely superficial. Sure, we know from the stupid narrator that Pepper looks up to his father and wants to be just like him, but that's kind of the norm for young boys and their fathers. And, honestly, the imagination games are so generic that they just don't come across as actually imaginative. Who actually pretends to be cops and robbers? Also, it's worth mentioning that in the cops and robbers situation, the two of them play the robbers. We also see imagination games where they play cowboy outlaws and pirates. So, the dad seems to be teaching his son to be a criminal.

But that's not the worst part of his fathering. There's also a scene where the two of them go to see a movie and watch one of those World War II propaganda cartoons with the incredibly offensive depictions of the Japanese. You know exactly the ones I'm talking about. The ones with the giant buck teeth and terribly offensive voices. The type of things that we watch now and cringe and just feel embarrassed. So, they watch one of those and Pepper Flynt Busbee and his dad are just enjoying the heck out of it. And I get that this film takes place during another era where these types of things were common, but it's nonetheless odd to see the protagonists of our story-- one being a small cute muppet child and the other being the person whose existence is meant to carry the entire emotional weight of this film-- reveling in the glory of old-timey racism. I couldn't believe what I was watching. But, of course, this is just the start of this film's racism against the Japanese. You have been warned, because I was really not prepared when watching the film and I wish I had been.

Outside of the racism and the generic imagination stuff, the film has no time to further develop this relationship because everything is about to change. Pepper has an older brother named London, played by David Henrie, possibly best known as Ted's future son on How I Met Your Mother. Can we talk about these names? Pepper and London? Where are these names coming from? Even more perplexing is the fact that their parents are named Emma and James, two perfectly upstanding but nonetheless common names. Unlike London and Pepper Flynt Busbee. Anyway, London discovers he has been rejected from the army because he has flat feet. And this means that his father has to go to war instead.

You may be reading that and thinking "That doesn't make sense. That's not how the draft worked." And you would be right. The draft was not like in Mulan where someone from each family had to go. But, no, because London is rejected, it is just sort of agreed that the father has to go instead. And it makes no fucking sense. Now, it may be that the father felt that someone from the family had to go to the war out of a sense of duty towards their country, but if that is what he felt, it's never stated. And even if that is what he felt, that's stupid. London tried to enlist and was rejected. The family tried. And there's no reason for the father to go to war and get killed out of some bizarre sense of unstated obligation.

But he does go and everyone is sad.

See? Sad.

Actually, I'm happy because Michael Rapaport is pretty much gone for the rest of the film now. But the saddest and strangest part of Pepper Flynt Busbee's father leaving is that everyone in the town seems to immediately assume that Pepper's dad is not going to make it back home. I get that it was a sad time and a lot of people did not come home, but give the guy a chance! Everyone's just immediately very bleak and convinced that there's no way an idiot like James Busbee is going to make it back alive. Back at home, London has taken over his father's auto-repair business, which seems to consist of London and only one other employee: a simple-minded man with one ear. This man is named Teacup because whoever wrote this seems to have pulled random names out of a dictionary. It's probably just a cruel nickname because his one ear looks like a teacup handle, but that's never explained and everyone calls him Teacup and no one says his real name. I can't imagine he likes being called Teacup. Also, what nerdy bully was like "haha you have one ear. I'm gonna call you teacup!" These are the same people who saw that Pepper Flynt Busbee was short and nicknamed him "Little Boy," so Teacup really is a reach. Anyway, Pepper asks London for some money, which I think is meant to be an allowance, and London is unhappy because the family is poor and they need to save, but ultimately gives in and gives Pepper a little bit of money. With this money, Pepper Flynt Busbee proceeds to buy a pair of cowboy boots and two tickets to see a magician named Ben Eagle.

A word on these boots: these were some boots that Pepper's father was shown looking at earlier in the film. During this scene, Pepper had asked him, "Will you buy them today, pop?!" and he says that he can't. And when Pepper Flynt Busbee does buy the boots for his father, the shopkeeper says, "Your father's been eyeing these for quite some time, hasn't he?" So, it's set up that these are some boots that Pepper's dad really wanted but could never afford, and it's very sweet that Pepper buys them as a gift for his father. But, remember, he buys them on what I can only assume is a meager allowance. And then after buying them he still has enough left over for two theater tickets. Maybe the family would be better off financially if they didn't give everything to their kid as an allowance.

Now it's time for the Ben Eagle show. Now I already said Ben Eagle is a magician, but the film would like us to believe that he's a really big deal. He doesn't just perform stage shows, he has a comic book series and a series of movies where he acts as a superhero (we see clips of these films and they are legitimately the best part of the movie). Also he has a cane with an eagle head on it. Because his last name is Eagle. Which poses the question of "Does he have that cane because his stage name is Eagle, or did he pick the stage name Eagle because he had a cane with an eagle's head on it?" Of course, it might not be a stage name at all, considering how bizarre all the names are in this movie.

Since Pepper Flynt Busbee's dad is not home yet, his brother London goes to the show with him. And this show is really weird. It starts with a movie and then halfway through it becomes a live show. Were these things that happened? Anyway, before the live show, London decides to leave the show and get drunk. It is at this point where we become aware that he's an alcoholic. The film will proceed to show us this by having him take a drink in almost every single scene that he's in for the rest of the film. As you will soon find out, London is kind of an asshole, but towards the end of the film he will become not an asshole and will magically be able to get over his alcoholism without it ever being addressed.

A flat-footed asshole

Because London leaves, he misses seeing his brother (named Pepper Flynt Busbee) get called up to participate in the show. The magician has him move a bottle with the power of his mind. At first the kids in the audience are all skeptical and start booing him and jeering at him because they are the absolute worst children in the world. But then, he does it and the crowd of kids fall into stunned silence and then burst into applause. Even though, as far as magic tricks go, this is a fairly unimpressive trick.

Now, Pepper Flynt Busbee moves that bottle by scrunching up his face and making loud groaning sounds. He will try to move other things later in the film and he always adopts this same strategy. And...I'm just going to say it. It looks like he's pooping. There's no way to say this more elegantly. He just...it looks like he's pooping. And it's uncomfortable pooping. Like, he's not having a good bowel movement. But he is DEFINITELY having a bowel movement. This observation that it looks like he's pooping is unfortunate because it makes every scene where he does this incredibly hilarious. And these are important moments in the film, but you can't take them seriously. Because he looks like he's pooping.

Pooping.

Still pooping.

Definitely pooping.

Constipation aside, Pepper Flynt Busbee becomes convinced that if he can move the bottle he can also somehow bring his dad home from the war. He is convinced of this by hearing a sermon delivered by a priest named Father Crispin who says that if you have faith the size of a mustardseed, you can move a mountain. This is an odd thing to say since nobody has ever compared anything to the size of a mustardseed. Mustardseeds are not a common product, and "the size of a mustardseed" is not a common expression. After this sermon, Father Crispin will disappear from the film and be replaced by Father Oliver, played by Tom Wilkinson. Once again, we have a totally extranneous character. there's no reason that Father Crispin had to be in the film and his one sermon easily could have just been given by Father Oliver. Regardless, after Father Crispin's sermon, Pepper Flynt Busbee steals a mustardseed from the grocery store because he's not very bright and takes things too literally. Upon seeing the mustardseed, Pepper Flynt Busbee realizes that "HEY! Mustardseeds are small! I can DEFINITELY bring my dad back!" But as he's leaving the store, he runs into a Japanese man named Hashimoto (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa). Horrified, Pepper Flynt Busbee runs from the store and finds London who is, of course, drinking in the saloon. He tells his brother that he saw a Japanese man, prompting London and a gang of other drunks led by Sam (Ted Levine) to confront Hashimoto at the grocery store and say that the Japanese are not welcome in this town. Sure enough, the grocery store owner tries to deny Hashimoto from shopping at the store. Things get heated, until Father Oliver shows up and pays for Hashimoto's groceries, diffusing the tense situation.

Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, wishing he were in a better movie.

But, again, this scene was just bizarre. It's weird seeing this little kid, who is the hero of the film, and who is otherwise portrayed as kind and wonderful, yelling racial slurs. And, again, I know this was another time and a lot of people in America were incredibly anti-Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but...this is our hero. And so just from a filmmaking standpoint, yelling racist slurs and showing hatred towards someone simply because of their ethnicity doesn't exactly make you root for the film's protagonist.

Not convinced that this scene is that bad? In the next scene, Pepper Flynt Busbee and London go to Hashimoto's house, throw rocks at it, break a window, and then attempt to set the house on fire. Literally, London tries to throw a flaming bottle of alcohol at the house. This is attempted arson. And our hero, the great Pepper Flynt Busbee, is cheering him on. London is, of course, drunk, as this was before his miraculous cure of alcoholism, and he trips and the flaming bottle only falls on Hashimoto's lawn (amazingly, the dry California grass does not burst into flames and the fire just kind of dies out). The narrator suddenly pops in and says, "I understood now why the army didn't accept people with flat feet." Now let's analyze that joke.

1) This doesn't make sense. Flat-footed people don't trip regularly. He missed because he was drunk.
2) The narrator makes this joke right after he tells the story about the time that he and his brother almost killed a guy. Hilarious! This is certainly a time for lightheartedness!!!!!!

This film is, in part, about tolerance. Of course, Pepper will eventually learn that his prejudices against the Japanese are unfounded and horrible, and he and Hashimoto will become friends. But, and I must make this point for a third time, it is incredibly disturbing seeing characters we are supposed to be rooting for behaving in such a violent and ugly way. These are not the heroes if it takes them a whole film to not be racist. And it should be noted that neither Pepper nor London apologize nor acknowledge how terrible this was. Pepper apologizes to Hashimoto, but it is not heartfelt and done for selfish reasons. He never actually makes a heartfelt apology or think back on this terrible moment. London absolutely never says anything to Hashimoto by way of an apology. What heroes.


London is sent to prison and Pepper Flynt Busbee goes to church to atone. He meets with Father Oliver and asks him about faith, asking if he can bring his father home if he has enough faith. He mentions Ben Eagle and how if Ben Eagle can do impossible things, so can he. He says "Ben Eagle can move a mountain! See?" and hands Father Oliver a Ben Eagle comic book where Ben Eagle is moving an elephant with his mind. Which...is certainly impressive but an elephant is not the same as a mountain. Father Oliver argues that God can make miraculous things happen, and will do so if Pepper can prove his faith. And the best way to prove his faith is by performing a series of tasks and if he does all of the tasks God will listen to him. These are the Works of Mercy. According to Father Oliver, Pepper must:

Feed the Hungry
Shelter the Homeless
Clothe the Naked
Visit the Sick
Visit the Imprisoned
and Bury the Dead

I looked up the Works of Mercy and you are also supposed to give water to the thirsty, but they couldn't figure out how to work it into the script so they just left that part out. But, maybe to take that one's place, Father Oliver gives him a new task, and tells him he has to become friends with Hashimoto. It's very shoehorned in there and INCREDIBLY manipulative on Father Oliver's part, but I'm all for there being less racism so go for it, Father Oliver.

Now scram, before I get rid of you like I got rid of Father Crispin.

Quick sidenote here, we later find out that Father Oliver and Hashimoto are friends. And not just friends, they're really good friends. They play poker together (with chestnuts instead of money because sure why not) and have long conversations about their differing ideologies (Hashimoto is an atheist). We know very little about Hashimoto, even though he is about to become a major character, and we never find out anything more. We never find out why he now lives in California instead of Japan. We never find out how long he has lived there; he seems to be a long-time resident but Pepper had apparently never seen him before. He's an older man and we never find out what he did with his life when he was young. We certainly don't find out where he gets groceries from since apparently he needs Tom Wilkinson to buy them for him. But the most baffling part of Hashimoto is why this Japanese atheist during World War II is best friends with a local priest. How did these guys meet? Certainly not in church. So, why do they know each other? Why? HOW? WHY IS THIS NEVER EXPLAINED?! THEY ARE A VERY ODD PAIR AND I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!!!

Anyway, Pepper Flynt Busbee tries to befriend Hashimoto. He apologizes for trying to burn down his house, but only does so because he thinks it will bring his father back. But Hashimoto isn't receptive to Pepper's olive branches because, well, this is the kid who tried to burn down his house. But Father Oliver is like "come on, just do it," and since they're besties Hashimoto changes his mind and starts to "hang out" with Pepper. And I say "hang out" because that's the phrase the movie uses. Pepper Flynt Busbee asks Hashimoto if he'd like to "hang out" and Hashimoto says "let's hang out." The modern slang feels very out of place considering the era of the film and, sure enough, Google tells me that the phrase "hang out" did not come about until 1951, a few years after this film was made. After hanging out for a while where they do things like awkwardly eat ice cream, Hashimoto agrees to help Pepper Flynt Busbee with his list. As he looks at the list, he says "Visit the sick. I can help you with that."

"Sure, I love spending time with racist kids."

We then see Hashimoto and Pepper go to a hospital and I assumed that they were there to visit a family member of Hashimoto's who was sick. But, nope. Hashimoto is just there for a checkup and Pepper wanders into a random room where he meets a guy with bandages on his face. And...that's it. There's no meaningful exchange. Pepper Flynt Busbee learns nothing from this encounter. Also, Hashimoto did not help in any way. Hashimoto had no connection to the random bandaged guy. All he did was bring him to the hospital and even if Hashimoto had not been there, I'm pretty sure that even Pepper could have figured out that if he wanted to visit the sick the hospital might be a good place to start. But, anyway, that can be crossed off the list. Oh, and Pepper had earlier visited his brother who is still in prison. It was a similarly meaningless scene that served no purpose but to establish that London is racist which, yeah, really, I never would have guessed.

But he's a WORRIED racist.

Hashimoto looks at the list and decides that Pepper Flynt Busbee should house the homeless next. And luckily, Pepper Flynt Busbee happens to know a homeless person! Who? It's Teacup! The one-eared oaf who works in the family's garage. Apparently Teacup sleeps in the garage, which Hashimoto knows somehow. I'm not sure why, since if London didn't want him to buy groceries, I doubt the family ever repaired Hashimoto's car. Anyway, Hashimoto says that Pepper should invite Teacup to move into London's old bedroom since London is in prison. Luckily, Pepper's mom (who is still a character) is okay with this so Teacup moves in. This is the only reason that Teacup was in this movie and we don't see him again.

Teacup, we hardly knew ye

Of course, not long after this, London is released from prison after Dr. Fox pays his bail in an effort to get into their mother's pants. This is the only thing relevant to the plot that Dr. Fox does, and it's really good that he waits to pay London's bail until the point that it's the most dramatically convenient. Even though, how does the law work? Because bail is for when someone is waiting to be tried. So, either London has been waiting to be tried for arson for weeks before Dr. Fox pays the bail, or London is in jail because he was found guilty, only to be released from jail because Dr. Fox paid some money. That isn't bail, that's bribery and that's illegal. Regardless, we never find out what happens to Teacup once London returns home. I imagine London goes "This is my bed, get back in the garage where you belong."

Next, Hashimoto advises Pepper Flynt Busbee on how to clothe the naked. He tells Pepper to join a knitting group that exists even though we'd never heard of them until now. We don't get to know anything about this knitting group or why they exist, since they are only there so that Pepper can fulfill this list and are not important in any other way. Pepper Flynt Busbee knits a little sweater for an unborn child. Which...I don't know, I don't count this. Fetuses can't wear clothes, so I don't know if you can really call them naked. And if they wait until the baby is born, well, he hasn't really clothed any naked people yet, has he? He might be able to in a few months, but it's weird that he's willing to just wait that length of time since he wants his father home as soon as possible. Look, I know that the film was having a tough time fitting this one in, and didn't want to include nudity in what they desperately hope will be a family film, but if you have to resort to stupid roundabout loopholes like this then your movie idea is stupid.

Things are looking up for Pepper Flynt Busbee. With this series of tiny isolated scenes that have nothing to do with the rest of the movie, Pepper has already done five of the seven things on the list. But then he is attacked by bullies! Now, the bullies have been present throughout the entire film but I haven't talked about them yet because they are just so painfully uninteresting. Child bullies are often the worst characters in movies--they tend to be reduced to just kids who are mean for no reason, and that is certainly the case here. Every child except for Pepper Flynt Busbee is portrayed as a genuine horror, who seem to pick on no one except for Pepper. Because they find "he's short!" jokes endlessly funny. These jokes about Pepper are the height of humor to them. Did you get that pun? The HEIGHT of humor? Because Pepper's so short! Did you laugh at that pun? No? Well, these kids would have. By the way, the leader of these bullies is a horrible Augustus Gloop wannabee named Freddy, who happens to be Kevin James' son in the film. So, his name is Freddy Fox which is another really stupid name.

Anyway, the bullies confront Pepper Flynt Busbee and Feddy steals Pepper's list. Pepper is distraught. "I NEED THAT!" he cries. Dude, no you don't. The list has only seven things on it, and you've already done five of them. You can probably remember the other two since you've been obsessing over this for weeks now. You should definitely know this by now.

"Let's see, it'll be easy to remember the first five since I've done those already so I'll just ignore the other two for now. Memory is hard."

But since Pepper apparently doesn't have even the most basic memory retention skills, he needs the paper back but doesn't think he can stand up to the bullies. So Hashimoto trains him in...sigh...the way of the samurai. Because he's Japanese so he knows about martial arts. Although maybe he doesn't because he doesn't actually teach Pepper anything. Instead he just tells him a story (using a pop-up picture book he just happens to have lying around) about a guy who never used to fight, but then one day managed to beat a fearsome Mongol foe that no one else could beat by shooting him with a dart lined with scorpion poison instead of attacking with a sword. Hashimoto says he did it because he had the will of a warrior and so if you have that you can do anything. But...I think he did it because of the poison. His will would have meant shit without the poison. So, remember kids, it doesn't matter how small you are, you can take down stereotypical bullies using the power of scorpion poison!

"I'll have one bottle of Will of the Warrior, please."

After learning absolutely no skills from Hashimoto (who is presented as a wise mentor but has not actually done anything helpful this entire time, but he's still the best character in the film) Pepper confronts Freddy, who taunts Pepper by pulling out the list and saying "Looking for this?" because apparently Freddy keeps the list on his person at all times. Freddy then tears the paper in half and drops it to the ground and everyone laughs and chant's Freddy's name. Now, if I were Pepper, I would have just grabbed the two halves and run away, since he now has the list he apparently needs. But instead, he hits Freddy in the face with a metal lunchbox and Freddy falls to the ground like a sack of potatoes. We never see Freddy in this film ever again so we can assume the lunchbox was laced with scorpion poison and that Freddy is now dead. And while Pepper doesn't actually make any friends from this experience, the kids seem to stop taunting him and seem to fear him. Because he killed Freddy. This is all seen as a very good and triumphant thing, and Pepper faces no consequences, so remember kids, violence is the answer.

"Hashimoto is teaching you all the valuable life lessons that I didn't have time to."

Next on Pepper's list is feed the hungry. His mother suggests that if he brings a friend over for dinner, that would count. Even though that's more his mom feeding the hungry since Pepper doesn't do shit. He invites Hashimoto and the three have a lovely meal of hot dogs, until London comes home and, after seeing Hashimoto, looks angry and then wordlessly leaves. I thought in my head "that went better than I expected" but then London returns with a gun which he points at Hashimoto's head and threatens to kill him, because he's still an asshole. Hashimoto thanks Pepper's mom for the hot dogs and leaves. It still went better than I expected.

Later, Hashimoto and Pepper are walking around town when they are confronted by London and Sam. I only mentioned Sam briefly before, so as a reminder, he's the other drunk guy and is played by Ted Levine. If you thought the bullies were caricatures, they're nothing compared to Sam. Drunk and angry, the only thing we know about him is that his son was killed during the Pearl Harbor attack, and this tragic detail is, in the filmmaker's eyes, enough to deprive Sam of a personality. His only character trait is "racist." So, London and Sam tell Hashimoto to leave town, but Pepper stands up to him. London insists that Pepper's list won't work and dares him to "move a mountain" that happens to be near the town. So his goal is to humiliate Pepper in front of the whole town. And this is one of the scenes where London comes across slightly better.

But, Pepper makes his pooping face and...an earthquake happens! And it is implied that Pepper caused it. And everyone in town is amazed!

Pepper after moving the mountain. I like London's face in this because he's clearly thinking, "HE'S A WITCH! BURN HIM!"

To be fair, what actually happened is left up in the air, and the argument is made that the earthquake might have happened regardless and it was just a coincidence. But others in town believe that it couldn't have been a coincidence and Pepper did in fact cause it with his mind. While the film leaves it open-ended, they CLEARLY want us to believe that Pepper Flynt Busbee did it. That's what they really hope we take away. It's a very one-sided argument. The town certainly believes it, so Pepper Flynt Busbee becomes a local celebrity. With his now proven powers he focuses his attentions on ending the war so his father can come home, and after finding out which direction Japan is in from Hashimoto, he makes his pooping face towards Japan and hopes something will happen.

Making poop faces in the direction of Japan works better than Pepper's initial plan, which was making the poop faces at a picture of his dad. Which was a really stupid plan.

After he does this for a while, it looks like Pepper Flynt Busbee's work pays off, as one morning everyone starts to congratulate him because "he did it!" What do they mean? Well, the war is over because an atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima and the code name of that bomb was Little Boy so clearly Pepper did it and that's a very good thing and everyone celebrates and happy music plays.

Read that again.

READ THAT AGAIN.

BECAUSE HOLY SHIT THAT HAPPENS.

I promise you I'm not making this up, this is what actually happens. Our hero causes the atomic bomb to drop on Japan and everyone cheers.

You might be feeling incredibly angry right now, so, just, look at this muppet!

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always going to be controversial. Some feel it is a stain on our nation's history, and some feel it was a necessary tactic that ultimately saved more lives than it cost. But even those who defend the use of the atomic bomb acknowledge the undeniable horror of the event which took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. And here, it is a thing to celebrate. Pepper has a huge smile on his face and everyone is going "YOU DID IT!"

Remember the critical consensus from Rotten Tomatoes? The one that included the words "horrifically misguided" and "many viewers may find legitimately offensive?" Yeah this is what they're talking about because holy shit this is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

And this isn't just a detail. This is what the film has been leading up to. And I know this because this is, of course, why the film is called Little Boy. Because up until now there has been no reason for Pepper Flynt Busbee to be so short. Sure, it has added to his cuteness and made him more of an underdog but there has been no reason, plotwise, that he had to be short. So the only reason they made him so short had to be so that everyone would call him Little Boy and then could cause the atomic bomb. Like, this is the starting point for this film.

Writer 1: So, I was thinking. You know how the bomb dropped on Hiroshima is called Little Boy?
Writer 2: Yeah.
Writer 1: Well, what if that was because a little boy caused it by, like, wishing for it because he wanted his dad to come home?
Writer 2: A boy caused it?
Writer 1: Not just any boy. A little boy. As in a literally little boy. He's short.
Writer 2: So this would remove all of the complexities of war, all of the incredible nuance that went into this tragic event in history. All of the well-documented difficulty that President Harry Truman had making this decision, which weighed on his conscience for years, we can take all of that out and make it all about this little boy! That's brilliant!
Writer 1: I know!
Writer 2: Maybe we can get Kevin James to be in it!

I hope I don't need to explain any more why this is offensive. I hope that everyone read that this happened and just immediately felt angry and sad to their very core. And we're going to move on because the movie does not end there.

Even Pepper Flynt Busbee can't believe it's still going on.

After this horribly offensive thing that has just happened, Sam and London go to Hashimoto's house and destroy most of his possessions and beat him up, leaving him to bleed to death on the floor as they flee from their crimes.

God fucking dammit.

But on the plus side, things start to look up when, as they're running away, London suddenly feels remorse and says "We can't just leave him there to die." DUDE, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?! YOU POINTED A FUCKING GUN AT HIS HEAD AND TRIED TO BURN HIS HOUSE DOWN! YOU CLEARLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT HIM! But we're supposed to like London somehow so they need to make him be not racist in this moment. And, no, there was no scene where London realizes that his anger is misguided or how much Hashimoto means to his brother. London just suddenly has a reversal of personality without any prompting which goes completely unexplained. So, mere minutes after agreeing it's a great idea to break all of Hashimoto's possessions and that it would be great to beat him up, he has a change of heart and calls an ambulance so that Hashimoto can get help. London is arrested, although is later released as Hashimoto does not press charges and says that London saved his life. Yeah, but...he also could have saved your life by not trying to kill you in the first place. Sam meanwhile gets away and Hashimoto never presses any charges against him so he learns no lessons. Hashimoto is in bad shape--he's in the hospital and doctors are trying to help him recover. Pepper realizes that on his list, the only task he has not completed is "Bury the Dead." If he wants to see his father, Hashimoto has to die and Pepper has to bury him. But Pepper does not want literally his only friend in the world to die and is probably starting to feel like this whole Catholicism thing is inherently flawed.

But as this is happening, an army guy visits Pepper's mother and tells her that her husband died in the war. So after all of this, Pepper's father dies after all. And so as he crosses off the final entry on his list, it turns out that the dead Pepper buries is his own father. Hashimoto comes to the funeral, and Pepper is glad he is there. Their friendship was genuine, not just a ploy to get his father home. Everyone is sad. But ultimately it makes a strong statement about faith and how sometimes things are outside of our control. And sometimes things seem unfair, but we still must have belief in ourselves. The nuanced ending tells us that the final goal of getting what we want sometimes has consequences and that it is more important to do good things along the way.

HAHA, I'M JUST KIDDING! Pepper's father is alive of course and the whole thing was a mixup! The dead guy is just someone who stole Pepper's dad's shoes so he had the wrong identification on!!!!! His dad lives after all! London tells his brother "you did it!" even though no he really didn't and the whole family goes to see the father. But they are warned that Pepper's dad was very hurt in the explosion and might not be the same. His head is bandaged and, sure enough, when Pepper goes up to him, his dad clearly does not recognize him. Not reacting, Pepper tries to jog his father's memory, but it doesn't work. And Pepper realizes that war does not leave someone the same. His dad had his own difficult times that he went through. But Pepper knows that his father is still there and is still happy to have him home. And the Busbee family will help the father get back on his feet, a bittersweet ending to the film that doesn't reek of sentimentality.

HAHA, I GOT YOU AGAIN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN! At first the dad doesn't recognize him, but then Pepper's like "It's me, dad" and the dad's like "Pepper!" and everyone hugs. Suddenly he's okay and everything is fine and happy and sunshine and rainbows except for all the people who have died and been hurt along the way.

with Kevin James as Dr. Fox

WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT.

This film is terrible. Terrible. I have never been in such a state of disbelief while watching a film before. Because it really is clear that they mean well. It's clear that those who made this film really did think that this was inspiring and beautiful and heartwarming. And it isn't. It's so clearly a bad idea that you would think that someone would have gone "are we sure about this?" But nobody did. It is so unbelievably misguided and so legitimately offensive I still can't believe half of the things that happen in this movie.

I struggle to really explain this film. The film critic in me wants to analyze it, and wants to really consider the message of the film--what it's saying about faith and what its earnest attempts at a statement of any kind amount to. I feel there is probably some grand metaphor between this movie and certain forms of religion. I feel like there is so much that could be said. And yet, it is impossible for me to consider this film any deeper than I already have. Because there really is nothing there. Any statements it makes are so watered down and broad that they are completely devoid of depth. On its surface, the movie is so simple and shallow that it really should be completely incapable of making any sort of impact. Except that by being so simple, it actually manages to be offensive, thus making the worst kind of impact possible. Its commentary on race relations is exactly the type of thing that racists think is not racist.

But offensiveness of message aside, it's simply a bad film. Winter's Tale is entertaining to watch because it is awful but in a goofy way. But Little Boy is really dreadful. Do not watch this movie. I suffered through it so you don't have to and I hope you are appreciate this. It has a terrible concept, a terrible script, and terrible characters. The only thing not terrible is the cast, led of course by the incomparable Kevin James.

Here's one last pooping face for the road.