Review #27: We Bought A Zoo

Release Date: December 23, 2011
Writer: Aline Brosh McKenna, Cameron Crowe (Novel by Benjamin Mee)
Director: Cameron Crowe

Logline: Set in Southern California, a father moves his young family to the countryside to renovate and re-open a struggling zoo. (Source: IMDb)
Bechdel Test: Passed all 3 tests

Review

There's a moment in the beginning of this film that my blogess sister Alyssa will agree with me is basically the start of a horror film. The young girl, Rosie, falls in love with the peacocks at the zoo they are visiting (and as the title later spoils, they buy) and begins feeding them. Daddy Damon runs up thinking his kid is lost, and sees her feeding the birds. I cringed so much. Those peacocks might peck out her eyes! Ahh!!!

This is a family movie, so that obviously did not happen. I think we have a healthy appreciation for wild animals and respect their power and privacy.

There's something that actually works about this movie, and that's acknowledging the awkward moments that happen. Unfortunately I think that's what also stops it from being a memorable film as there's no unique twist to undercut those moments. When Benjamin proudly proclaims "We are adventurers!" he gets strange looks and then immediately moves on. Taking away the cheese of making that an authentic statement gives this film a modern feel, but not going the extra mile to give a memorable response is where the film fails.

As the moody, dramatic posters will tell you, this is a more romantic view of working with animals compared to the typical madcap wacky family movie this could easily be. I can't think of another family movie that includes a monkey who doesn't throw poop or intentionally trick the main character into falling on their face. There are consequences to letting snakes out of their box, and that consequence is going around to pick up snakes, not finding one in your bed with a snake like it's a hilarious joke.

Perhaps that's the benefit and downfall of an autobiography. The past is romanticized. The protagonist is without flaw. The motivations of other people are lost. Because that's what people do. When someone is a real person, not a character, and they make an action that you don't understand, there is no going back to strengthen their characterization, that's just life. Sometimes it's nice to see that set in a movie. At other points it becomes tedious.

And now, I would like to have a one on one with Cameron Crowe. Thank you for casting Patrick Fugit again and putting a monkey on his shoulder for the entirety of the film. That boy is just adorable. It would have been nice for him to have some lines, but nbd. One other thing, if your movie is titled We Bought a Zoo don't make the audience wait 20 minutes before you buy a zoo. It's not like those 20 minutes were used to build surprise or intrigue, because we knew it was coming. Thanks buddy!  

Portrayal of Women: I like that Scarlett Johansson's character Kelly is the lead zookeeper. It's nice to see a capable intelligent woman portrayed in a movie, particularly a field that requires a healthy scientific knowledge, and a lot of manual labor. It's nice that she has a purpose in the movie beyond just being the love interest and reward. On the other hand, Kelly's younger cousin Lily has no role in the film other than to be Dylan's love interest. She shows up and makes him good again through movie magic. Besides the young child Rosie, the only other woman in the movie is Carla, who is arbitrarily vindictive and evil trying to turn people against Benjamin for literally no reason whatsoever. What an eyeroll. You win some, you lose some.

Sisterhood Moment: On opening day Kelly gives little Rosie a french braid to go with her new adorable zoo keeper uniform. What a role model.

Rating: 3 tigers and a peacock out of all the Jason Bourne movies.

IMDb - We Bought A Zoo (7.1)
Wikipedia - We Bought A Zoo
Rotten Tomatoes - We Bought A Zoo (66%)

Review #23: I Don't Know How She Does It

More like "I Don't Know How This Was Made Into A Movie" amirite???

Release Date: September 16th, 2011
Director: Douglas McGrath
Writer: Aline Brosh McKenna (Based on the novel by Allison Pearson)

Logline: There is no story here to summarize. A family-woman goes to her job. (Source: My bitterness)
Bechdel Test: Passed.


Review

I started watching this movie and within 5 minutes started debating whether I needed to keep watching it.

Fortunately for you readers I felt I owed it to woman-kind to represent a voice that says this is not acceptable as female driven cinema, let alone any cinema. Some kid with a dream of making movies, just put down their camera because this horrible film got made.

Here's a synopsis: Kate, Sarah Jessica Parker, is a married mother of 2 who works full time at an investment bank. She has to travel for her job and her famjam doesn't like it. She gets a career boost, which means working for long hours quite intimately with her boss, Pierce Brosnan. She does a good job at that, and reinforces her priority to her family. The end.

For real. There's no romantic push and pull between her husband and boss, even though there should have been. She is given a lot of grief at the beginning for being a working mom, and at the end she's still being given grief for being a working mom. She isn't a neglectful parent and learns to become a good one, she is the exact same person throughout. She isn't a frazzled mom who learns to let go of the minor issues, she is an immaculate MarthaStewart-mom who doesn't change. I don't understand the point. This is a story about a character who is supposed to be overwhelmed, but isn't, and doesn't learn to get balance anything because she makes no changes to her life.

To place blame, the writing is atrocious. There are montages every 20 minutes because there isn't enough interesting action worth watching. There is a bizarre stylistic choice to include talking heads for only two of the characters, even though this is in now way a documentary style film. What's more bizarre is that those two characters who provide much unneeded commentary are characters that otherwise wouldn't exist in the movie without those fake interviews. Busy Philipps' character Wendy is given an elaborate introduction for being the mom that SJP envies, but she's never seen or heard from again in the film. To reinforce this once again, it's not like SJP's character is overwhelmed with mommyhood, and Wendy provides a foil. She just makes strange limp jokes to the camera. I can hardly even say where there would be a beginning, middle, and ending to this, making me wonder if it even qualifies to be a film.

There's something that fundamentally bothers me about the main character of Kate. She's successful in business, and has a pleasant family, both clear goals of hers. She is beyond capable as a mother, holding a HUGE party for her kid, and making pancakes every morning. Her only insecurities are unspoken judgements from other adults, which are some combination of not important or nonexistent.

Let's assume that these insecurities are intended to be the point of the film, her fatal flaw if you will. First, it's insulting to cast the Sex and the City icon in that role. She's an actress that effortlessly MAKES working mom's insecure by her simple existence. Second, the character make's it clear that she doesn't give a damn about the judgements of others, over and over. She has baby spit-up or pancake batter on the lapel of her blazer, and proudly struts into a meeting.

So what's her flaw? There's an argument for the guilt she feels by working but that's not what this movie is about, she doesn't act on that guilt. She doesn't communicate with her husband, and doesn't ever successfully resolve issues. She harbours resentment and doesn't have any outlet for stressors, and is still stressed by the end. Kate idolizes a 1950's view of womanhood, and the only change she has made at the end of the film is that she accepts her unhappiness and decides not to change anything.

What a tremendous waste of time. If a movie is going to set up a premise like pitting working against raising kids at home, then at least have the wherewithal to make a decision about it. This film refuses to pick a side, illustrating that her push and pull at the beginning by wanting both will remain the push and pull she feels at the end by keeping both. It's absurdly condescending to present women this way.

Here's why this bothers me so much. This movie exemplifies the kind of movies that are marketed towards women. It's the quintessential modern chick flick: A model-esque super serious female lead who deals with having a job and a family, with vague romance and no substantial comedy. Every stereotype you can think of, from women hating other women, to male bosses crossing a romantic line, to hating the in-laws. It's a movie as bland as oatmeal and I'm sure there are some guys in the industry who greenlit this thinking it's what women want. What perhaps they don't realize is women have been living with the conflicting expectations society has for them for their whole lives and aren't interested in this sort of tepid presentation of opinionless hodgepodge.

Portrayal of Women: As baby-makers. As being incapable of doing the job of men. "Oh my god, what am I going to do with the kids while I wait for the baby sitter to show up?" Get out of here.

Sisterhood Moment: This movie has the warm fuzzies of a porcupine hug. I'm done.

0/5 stars

IMDb - I Don't Know How She Does It (4.8)
Wikipedia - I Don't Know How She Does It
Rotten Tomatoes - I Don't Know How She Does It (17%)