Barbie (4/5 Stars)

“There is only one thing worse in life than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

- Oscar Wilde

Barbie is a movie that is full of ideas. Don’t be distracted by all the pink, Ryan Gosling’s biceps, or Margot Robbie’s plastic smile. A definite feature of the movie is an exploration of what the doll means, to society, to consumerism, to the little girls that play with the dolls. Barbie’s baggage is as extensive as her wardrobe. And the creators, writer/director Greta Gerwig and co-writer Noah Baumbach are dealing with it head-on and with great comedic effect.

There is money to be made in taking an existing trademark and making a movie out of it. The Transformers movies are the most profitable example I guess. But, the gold standard, for me at least, is The Lego Movie, which was action packed and funny but also had a clear sense of what made playing with the toy a worthwhile experience. This was beautifully articulated in a perfect ending scene by the boy’s father (played by Will Ferrell) who had lost the original point of the toy by supergluing his perfect creations so that they could never again be taken apart. 

Barbie doesn’t have such a clear vision of what makes the toy work, but then again, Barbie is means many things to many people. The movie, with cleverness and humor, presents both sides: that Barbie is an icon of feminism, out there in the workforce doing very smart and prestigious jobs like President and Scientist. And then the other side: that Barbie is an icon of tyranny, that she has an unattainable physical beauty that depresses the young girls who play with her and make them feel terrible about themselves. Many think pieces have been penned about this. I remember seeing a Simpsons episode about it when I was very young.

What is missing from all these philosophical musings is what is closer to the actual truth. That Barbie doesn’t have much of an effect either way and for that reason it shouldn’t be controversial. However, this is the last argument the Mattel corporation would ever use in its defense. Like Hollywood’s weird obsequiousness to critics of diversity representation, they would rather be a bad guy than admit that they are unimportant. And the same goes for the big speech about society’s expectations for women in this movie. The only thing worse about society having unrealistic expectations is the awful truth: that no one really cares. The thing that makes Barbie such a hot topic is its interaction with women’s vanity. Women can complain all they want about having to do so much to keep up appearances, but so much of why they are so high in the first place is because women are competing with each other. In other words, it is women that are setting such high expectations. All one has to do from letting Barbie get one down is to be less shallow. 

I’m skipping much of the plot which for the most part doesn’t make much sense. Actually, this movie is quite good at doing just enough to keep the plot going and not worrying too much about whether it is doing enough. Sometimes, the lack of a coherent explanation forms the basis of a knowing joke. I mean, how much does it matter how one gets from Barbieland to the Santa Monica boardwalk? This movie would prove that it doesn’t matter all that much at all and makes a pretty good joke out of how illogical it is. In any event, the plot is this: Everything is perfect in Barbieland until the girl playing with Barbie in the real world starts making her doll go about doing depressing things. This provokes an existential crisis to Barbie, who then takes a trip to the real world and delves into philosophical musings about her purpose and yada yada yada. At the same time, Ken also takes a trip to the real world and, in doing so, he discovers patriarchy (power and horses) and a purpose other than beach. He brings it back to Barbieland and transforms Barbie's Dreamhouse into the Mojo Dojo Casa House (coming soon to a fraternity near you).

For most of this I was wishing Greta Gerwig had expended her considerable talents on a more personal type of movie like her first exceptional ones, Lady Bird and Little Women. I was at least comforted by the fact that she was getting paid and perhaps, like Christopher Nolan and other directors, would have more of an opportunity to make personal movies because she was a good sport that did some big budget movies as well. (In this scenario, Barbie is Greta’s Batman). That is, until I witnessed the Great Ken Beach Battle and Musical Number. That sequence won me over and is one of the best things I’ve seen in the movies in 2023. Ryan Gosling has been nominated for an Oscar for his performance in this movie. That is no mistake. The man is committed.

Overall, Barbie is a lot of fun, which is the right attitude to have towards the doll in general. I mean, come on, it’s a toy. Noone is actually asking women to look like her. Certainly not Ruth Handler, the creator of Barbie, who is portrayed here by Rhea Perlman, a very not-barbie like woman. Sometimes it’s just nice to have an excuse to wear bright pink. 

Masterminds (4/5 Stars)

To call “Masterminds” a movie “based on a true story,” streches that line about as far as it can go. Truth may have provided the basic premise: in 1997 a man named David Ghannt, an employee of the Loomis Fargo armored truck company, stole $17 million in cash from the warehouse he worked at. Everything else seems entirely made up for laughs with a blatant disregard as to whether the audience would believe it had actually happened. In fact, the movie plays like they just assumed we wouldn’t care. It was funny so I really didn’t care.

Take one scene foe example: After the robbery, the plan is for David Ghannt (played by Zach Galifinakis) to immediately run away to Mexico. To help his escape, he stuffs $20,000 in cash into his underwear to the point where it noticeably bulges out in all directions. Also he needs a disguise. So he is given a platinum blonde shoulder length wig and yellow contacts with feline pupils. It’s pretty funny but I’m quite certain the real David Ghannt didn’t try to get through airport security in that manner.

The movie was directed by Jared Hess (Napolean Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and arrives in theaters a year late due to the bankruptcy of its parent company. Its delay has two main consequences. One is that it represents a too-late starring vehicle for Zach Galifinakis whose star power has ebbed significantly from its peak in the early 2010s. He hasn’t headlined a movie since 2013. On the other hand, it catches on the upswing the growing star of Kaitlyn “Crazy Eyes” McKinnon, who in a supporting part shows off her innate ability to be funny in every frame shes in. A year ago, before Ghostbusters and Hillary Clinton’s endless campaign (McKinnon plays Clinton on “Saturday Night Live”) my reaction may have been “Who is she?” but now it is “Oh it’s her!”

The movie would have you believe David Ghannt did the heist to win the love of Kelly Campbell, a former co-employee, here played by Kristin Wiig. Who knows if that is true, but it certainly makes Ghannt look more pathetic, a good move playing to the talent of Zach Galifinakis. The brain behind the heist is a man named Steve Chambers (played by Owen Wilson). Owen Wilson proves his stock utility as reliably affable. Steve Chambers apparently had the brilliant idea to make Ghannt do all the hard work, send him to Mexico, and then pay a hit man (played by Jason Sudeikis) to kill Ghannt. That sounds like pretty dark stuff. Owen Wilson plays him like you know it’s all really sad, but we got to do this, so let’s just get it over with and remain friends with everyone who is still alive. Playing Chamber’s wife is Mary Elizabeth Ellis (the waitress from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), an actress adept at playing white trash and well suited to her role. She looks and sounds ridiculous. One of the first things Chambers and her do upon receiving their money is to get dental braces.

The only person miscast here is Jason Sudeikis. His hit man is ridiculous. For instance, upon purchasing guns, he decides to go for the 1700s musket that he has to pour gunpowder into. He’s that type of guy. The problem is Sudeikis neither looks nor acts anything like anybody actually tough. It’s too cartoonish and this character would have been better had someone like Liam Neeson or Danny Trejo been cast.

The movie, like many movies, perhaps leans too much on spectacle. Zach Galifinakis’ trip to Mexico is littered with many jokes that could be filed under the ‘funny hat’ category. It’s never not funny but also not particularly memorable either. And the climax of the story is too big to truly ground the comedy. The Chambers family in an act of profound stupidity, that is never truly mined for its great potential, throw a gigantic redneck party entitled “Neptune’s Conch” in their new McMansion. The FBI stake it out in one plotline and Zach Galifinakis in another plotline dresses like James Bond in order to infiltrate and rescue his now kidnapped love. This is one of those times when you wonder what these obviously talented people would have come up with had they not been given such a large budget to spend on gigantic spectacle. “Ghostbusters” earlier this year had the same sort of problem in its climax. The movie slipped into action movie territory upon the greased slide of easy money when it should have been reaching an emotional climax in that higher territory where the best comedy resides. In effect, the ending is weaker than the beginning or middle.

Still it’s a good movie. It tries to deliver laughs a minutes and much more often than not succeeds.

Ghostbusters (4/5 Stars)

This Ghostbusters is not a remake (in which the same characters do the same things) or a sequel (in which the same characters do different things) but a reboot. It has the same name and the same overall structure but different characters that do different things. For example, in the first Ghostbusters (1984), the crew look for office space and stumble upon an old fire station in Tribeca, New York. The place is a piece of junk in a terrible neighborhood but it is thankfully cheap enough for them. In the reboot, the new crew looks for office space and is shown the same fire station. This time they are told it costs $21,000 a month in rent.

It’s a good joke and one this movie tells many times. However, doing so reveals the weirdness of the movie. See if you can wrap your head around this. In the 2016 version of Ghostbusters, the 1984 Ghostbusters don’t exist. That in and of itself is normal for a reboot. What is weird is that the reboots wrings every callback opportunity possible out of the earlier film. Some examples: The Ghostbusters logo is “serendipitiously” created by a graffiti artist, the original cast shows up in cameos and quote the original’s catchphrases, and a giant stay puff marshamallow man is fought in the climatic scene. The movie treats these situations as if the movie knows about the original film, but the characters in the 2016 version don’t know about the original film. So there’s a disconnect between what the audience experiences and what the characters experience because the audience remembers the thing that is being called back in a scene but none of the characters in that scene remember it. Like I said, weird.

It is fun to hear all these callbacks but I would posit that it hurts this movie’s ability to be a stand-alone movie because to understand these many jokes one would need to see the original movie. A viewer who has not seen the original would probably be confused as to why the movie would make such a big deal about a callback moment when the characters themselves, by definition, can’t. To draw a contrast, take the movie “Creed.” That was a reboot too in a way. But the new character existed in the same time universe as the original so when it made callbacks it made sense for the characters to feel the weight of them. Those moments do not work in this reboot (if you take the time to think about it) and that is this Ghostbusters oddest and biggest mistake.

It’s an odd mistake because this movie probably didn’t need the callbacks and nostaligic jokes. This movie is a “Bridesmaids” reunion, a movie that will be a classic once I convince everyone. It is directed by Paul Feig and stars both Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy. Kristin Wiig continues to impress. She has been cast in this movie as the straight man (she is a scientist at Columbia trying to distance herself from a ghost book she co-wrote with Melissa so she can gain tenure) so she has not as many opportunities to be funny but that doesn’t stop her from having the movie’s funniest moment in a restaurant freaking out in front of the mayor. She should be funnier more times but this is not really her fault, as I will explain later.

Melissa McCarthy continues to be not as funny to me as she apparently is to everyone else. I would compare her to Zach Galifinakis. She rose to stardom in a very well written supporting role, which has been hard to translate into mainstream comedic stardom. What seems to happen, just like Zach, is that most of her funny moments come about not through chracter revelations but from non-sequitor asides, quite a few of which distract from the narrative flow of the movie. There is one more thing and this actually does happen to do with her gender. Melissa McCarthy is fat but won’t do fat jokes. This distinguishes her from every male of ample gut that calls himself a comedian. Her writers won’t do it also (here that is Katie Dippold and Paul Feig) and it leads to some unbelievable situations, like in “The Heat” where she is cast as the sexually vigorous and attractive one opposite to Sandra Bullock of all people. Unfortuately for our politically correct culture, fat jokes will always be funny because (obesity epidemic due to subsidized corn syrup excepted) it is fundamentally true that they reveal character (unlike say racial jokes or misogynistic jokes). And jokes that reveal character are and will always be the best ones. Melissa McCarthy’s pride ignores this to her own peril as a comedian. It is about time for her to own it and join the big boys of comedy (Rodney Dangerfield, John Candy, John Belushi, Zero Mostel, Jack Black, Jim Gaffigan, Jason Alexander, to name but a few).

The revelation in this movie is Kate McKinnon. She is hilarious. I’ve known her a little bit from Saturday Night Live (she is probably going to blow up big time impersonating Hillary Clinton this fall) but have never seen her in a movie. She reminds me of the early freewheeling zaniess of Jim Carrey in a 5’5” frame. Making her more fun is that she is in charge of the really dangerous equipment. She does a dance at one point with blowtorches. Classic McKinnon.

The fourth is Leslie Jones. She fills the Ernie Hudson role and then some. In fact she shows up earlier, has more jokes, and says more smart things (she reads lots of nonfiction and knows all sorts of things about the city) than Hudson ever did in the original. It doesn’t matter. This Ghostbusters, unlike the first, is getting shit for not giving the black woman a role as a scientist, as opposed to the (apparently undignified) job as an MTA worker. I’m not sure what Ernie Hudson was doing in the first Ghostbusters. He shows up three quarters of the way through and then doesn’t really do anything in it besides postulate about the end-of-the-world, but if he was absent from that one and Leslie Jones (who is only here because of Ernie’s presence in the first) was absent from this one, the only thing missing would be the liberal outrage.

(I’ve been trying to figure out why this sort of controversy irks me so much. I can only ascribe it to what I would consider an unfounded and pathetic sense of entitlement amongst those that are outraged (not just black people of course, I remember Mahnola Dargis of the NYTimes complaining about it too.) Its unfounded because to tell a good story, even one with paranormal elements, it helps to set it in a realistic context. I think it is fair to say that a black person in NYC in 2016 is more likely to work for the MTA than for Columbia University as a scientist. If that is a problem, it is a problem for the real world. It is not a detriment to Ghostbusters to merely reflect reality. That is to say the solution to this problem should be to fix it in the real world, not insist that a movie project falseness. Its pathetic because (and I shudder to accuse people of this) it insists that a person’s self-esteem comes from how they see other people who look like them are portrayed in movies. It should be a basic thing taught to all five-year-olds that movies should not dictate how one feels about themselves. To say Ghostbusters, of all movies, made you feel less than, well, that’s just, it’s just one of the saddest things I could possibly hear someone say.)

The largest difference between the original and the reboot has to be the extraordinary progression of digital effects in movies. The comparison is a good reminder that being able to do anything with computers does not necessarily make it better than the old cheap way. The special effects in the original were crappy but they had thought in them and quite a few of them were jokes. In the reboot, the effects are so big that it is damn near impossible for them to be comedic. There is a big action sequence at the end in which the ghosts of New York City past attack the four ghostbusters. It is notable for its lack of laughs while being great to look at. Roger Ebert made the observation that the original movie was an exception to the general rule that big special effects can wreck a comedy. He explained:

“Special effects require painstaking detail work. Comedy requires spontaneity and improvisation; or at least that’s what is should feel like, no matter how much work has gone into it…rarely has a movie this expensive provided so many quotable lines.”

The suits in charge of the reboot have, like so many recent movies, used big budget spectacle, nostalgic throwbacks, and political correctness (where are the ghost hookers of Time Square in the climatic battle? Why are they fighting pilgrims instead?) as a crutch in the place of character, creativity, and originality. The tragedy is that all the ingredients for greatness are here but they have not been given space to breathe and grow. In the meantime it’s good enough. Perhaps the sequel will do a better job at making the apocalypse work for the comedy and not the other way around. At least there should be less callbacks.