"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is So 2005

This past Friday for date night my wife chose "Mr and Mrs Smith" for us to watch. I had never seen it and she hadn't seen it since she went to the theaters to watch it.

I thought the movie was fine. It was fun and the perfect popcorn movie. I didn't have to give it my full attention, but since I had never watched it, I did. But I am not here to review the movie today. Well, maybe you could call this a review. But this is more about that time in the world and movies like this.

This movie is quintessential early 21st century. There are so many things that just put me back into that time in my life while watching this movie. The movie came out in 2005. I had been out of high school for four years and had just finished up my career ready college. I was fully in as a dental lab tech and my wife and I would start dating in about a year. I was single, living at home and working. I had money to go out every weekend, and did sometimes, and I would go to the movies all the time. But "Mr and Mrs Smith" was not on my radar. I remember all the hubub surrounding this movie. It was all people could talk about. This was the movie that broke up Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt. Pitt and Angelina Jolie were a couple shortly after the movie premiered and they were soon married. But that is not even why this movie is the perfect early 2000's movie.

While watching it the other night there were things that just screamed 2005. The movie is rated PG-13, but there is an inordinate amount of violence. The two main characters are assassins and they brutally kill people left and right in this movie. But the bad guys had foreign accents and were doing bad things, so it was deemed okay. Hell, some of the kills were played for laughs. But they also never showed any blood. It was almost like watching a modern superhero movie. Most of those get away with a PG-13 rating because they do not show blood. That is exactly the same thing that happened in "Mr and Mrs Smith". The murder count is massive, but no bloodshed means no R rating. The kills were also crazy. Bad guys would get gunshots to the chest and fly 100 yards in the air to their death. Houses would blow up. People got ran over. It was wild. But that was the thing back then when making these action comedies. They would kill tons of people, but with no blood, and undercutting them with jokes, we just would turn a blind eye. I know it was only 17 years ago, but it feels like a fully different lifetime.

Then we have the acting of the two leads. They have dynamite chemistry in this movie. It does ooze off the screen, especially when they are doing the therapy scenes. But it did not blow me away like I was expecting. I thought it was going to be palpable. I assumed they would be all over one another the whole movie. I had a fully different idea of what was going on on set. Sure, they played well off one another, but it wasn't the sexiest thing I have ever watched. I have seen much better movies where the two leads have way better chemistry. Hell, I probably have seen much worse movies with better chemistry. I think of a movie like "Accepted", that is not very good, but Justin Long and Blake Lively had as much chemistry as Pitt and Jolie do in "Mr and Mrs Smith", in my opinion.

The thing that makes this movie take me back so much is the look. The way the movie looked is very early 2000's. You can see that CGI is getting better, but it is still a work in progress. The costuming is great. Jolie looks wonderful, but she wears very mom-ish clothing during the rough part of the marriage. And when she put that bondage outfit on while doing a hit, most actresses would turn that down nowadays, and rightfully so. Brad Pitt wore goofy hats, looked like a downtrodden rich golf playing dad and had a shaved head. I think he looks better with long hair, but that is neither here nor there. That was the style back then. I remember saying to my wife that Jolie was far too good looking for Pitt in this movie. She disagreed but got where I was coming from.

So while I think "Mr and Mrs Smith" is worth a watch, it is not because it is some chemistry filled good time of an action movie. I think it is fun to transform yourself back to a time when you were younger watching a silly popcorn movie. That is why you should watch this movie.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast.

Come and support Ty and the podcast on Patreon.

Follow Ty on instagram and twitter.

SeedSing is funded by a group of awesome people. Join them by donating to SeedSing.  

Guys, "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" Was Not That Great of a Movie

In an attempt to see a ton of movies that I missed while in theaters that I wanted to see, I watched "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" last night.

I do want to say, while I enjoy Quentin Tarantino for the most part, this was one movie that I wasn't rushing out the door to see. In fact, I didn't really even try to see it in the theaters. Then there was all the stuff from Bruce Lee's family, I don't think they like the way he was portrayed, and I'm a big time Bruce Lee guy, so that soured me even more. But, I saw it was on Starz the other night, and since we are all on quarantine, I figured I would record it and watch, and I did.

So, first things first, I think it is a fine movie. It isn't the usual bloody, racial epitaph flying violent movies I have come to associate with Tarantino. It is more of a love story to old time Hollywood. I also think, for the most part, the performances were solid. I loved Leonardo DiCaprio in this role. He was truly incredible, as he always is. His portrayal of an aging Western movie star was spot on. I also liked the look of the movie. It was like a neat flashback. But, outside of that, I wasn't super impressed with the movie overall.

As I said above, it is a love story to old Hollywood, and sorry mom, I know how much you like those stories, it just isn't my thing. I don't watch old westerns. I didn't watch good guys and bad guys cop shows. I am not all that in to stories from the late 60's early 70's. I am not, I don't know of it is a smart thing, or just my taste, but I'm not into movies form back then. They just aren't my thing. I mean, I love "The Godfather" parts one and two. And as you all know I love the original "Bad News Bears". But, take movies like "Easy Rider" or "Apocalypse Now" or "Annie Hall", movies people consider classics, I'm not into them. They are too long, and for me, boring. That is a personal opinion though., I'm taking nothing away from them, and their importance, hell, I get why "Citizen Kane" is so influential but I don't like that movie one bit. They're classics for a different generation I suppose. I feel like that is who Tarantino was aiming to please with "OUATIH". He wanted the boomer crowd, he wanted cinephiles like himself. That was the crowd he was going after. And that is fine, it just isn't for me.

The movie also felt very discombobulated. There was a ton of things going on, and I felt that the ending was unfulfilling. There were too many stories that didn't really connect for me. The whole first half focuses on DiCaprio and Pitt driving from lot to lot to do his crummy sitcom. The whole scene with Al Pacino at the beginning is out of nowhere, and doesn't come back until the movie is more than halfway over. Also, the Bruce Lee scene was, quite frankly, not that good. It was demeaning to Lee, and to see Pitt's character beat him up, Bruce Lee would have easily beat him in a fight. The stuff with Pitt as well, his backstory about killing his wife and getting away with it was barely even touched upon. We got one scene of them on a bat fighting, and he had some kind of weapon and we are meant to believe that is when it happened, but nothing is shown, or revealed. The Kurt Russell character felt tacked on as well. It would have been much better if he were just the narrator, for me. Also, that jump after the first hour, to 6 months later, was very jarring as I was watching. I didn't expect it, and there was a ton, too much I'd say, of information tacked on about Pitt, Pacino and DiCaprio's characters. I get it moved the story, but it could've been done better, or differently. We also saw very, very little of Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate in this movie. I like Robbie, and I thought they could have delved much deeper into her story. She barely had any lines. It was more to just show her life when she moved to LA, and how she dealt with the people around her. She could have been much more fleshed out.

I will say, the one thing I enjoyed, or thought was well done, was the ending. This movie posits a world where Charlie Manson's cronies never made it to Tate's house on the fateful night where she lost her life. Instead they end up at DiCaprio's house, and he, his wife and Pitt take care of them. I thought this was an interesting take, but I also thought they could have gone so much deeper with that as the story. I would have much rather seen the world with Sharon Tate still alive. I wonder what her career would have been like if she had lived. I feel like Tarantino could have done wonders with that story. Or, I would've liked a movie that was just about DiCaprio and Pitt's characters. Take us from their beginning to their ends. That would have been so much more fun.

I think "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" was too overstuffed and a ton of things could've been cut had Tarantino focused on one aspect of the story. But hey, this is all coming from the guy who liked "Star Wars 9", so take my opinion as you will. I just wasn't as wowed with this movie as critics and others were. DiCaprio was amazing, but that was the only true highlight for me. 

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast.

Come and support Ty and the podcast on Patreon.

Follow Ty on instagram and twitter.

SeedSing is funded by a group of awesome people. Join them by donating to SeedSing.

Ty wants to rant about the overrated Meryl Streep

The inside of every Diet Coke bottle Meryl Streep buys

With the release last week of "Ricki and the Flash", I want to take time out today to call out critics and, most importantly, Meryl Streep.

I don't get the love that's given to Meryl Streep. Sure, she's a fine actress, but all the accolades and the awards being given to get baffle me. Case and point, "Ricki and the Flash" has a rating of 59% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus being, "while the narrative is trite and predictable, Streep shines in her role as an aged rocker reuniting with her family". First of all, when I first saw the preview for this movie, I thought Funny or Die, or The Onion made a joke preview. There was no way this was a real movie. Meryl Streep is easily in her sixties and they try to make her look like she's in her forties. You look great Mrs. Streep, but you don't look like your in your forties. The preview also makes the movie look like a melodramatic piece of garbage. AKA, a typical Meryl Streep movie and role. I cannot believe critics convinced themselves to, not only see this movie, but heap praises on Streep. Put someone like Naomi Watts or Maggie Gyllenhaal, two great actresses, in this exact same role and I guarantee you, critics would have crushed the movie. But not with Streep. She or her people must have given money to the critics association with the understanding that they'd never bad mouth her. That's not fair to other actresses and actors out there. Even guys like George Clooney and Brad Pitt get bad reviews when they're in bad movies. That doesn't happen to Meryl Streep.

Not only does she get rave reviews no matter how bad the movie is, but she gets nominated, and sometimes wins Oscars for bad movies. Last year the movie "August, Osage County" was released. It got luke warm reviews. It was about a family full of people with mental problems. It was another typical melodramatic movie that wanted to be a play. In fact, I think it was originally a play. Anyway, Streep plays Julia Roberts mother that has dementia, or something like that, and she spends the movie basically yelling her lines and, as Jon Lovitz would say, ACTING. She chews so much scenery in that movie. Did she get blasted by critics like a lot of the other actors in the movie? No, in fact, she got nominated for best supporting actress. What a crock of shit. That movie is garbage and her performance is really rough to watch. I don't recommend that movie. The same thing can be said for "The Iron Lady". This is the Margaret Thatcher movie and it got slammed by critics. I think it was below 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's not good, in fact, that's pretty bad. That's "Pixels" bad. But, once again, not only did Streep get nominated for an Oscar, I think she won it that year (ed note: She did win the Oscar). So, a movie that's given such a bad review for how terrible it is, gets awarded for with an Oscar. WTF! That makes ZERO sense!

I guess, I don't, and probably never will understand the love for Streep. I haven't seen many of her movies because I'm not into melodrama, but the love for her makes no sense to me. She's a very good actress, but I'll take Maggie Gyllenhaal or Naomi Watts or Jennifer Lawrence or Octavia Spencer over Meryl Streep any day.

No question.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the co-host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He is really annoyed that everyone in his family loves Meryl Streep in Mamma Mia. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.