entertainment

Kong: Skull Island and Samurai Jack Review – Cinemaholics

On an all-new Cinemaholics, Will Ashton and I review Kong: Skull Island, the second entry in Legendary’s “MonsterVerse” after 2014’s Godzilla, and Samurai Jack Season 5, the Adult Swim short series that will finally wrap up one of the greatest animated shows in a lifetime. We also take a look at some other shows and a comedy special later in the episode.

YOU TELL US: Does Kong: Skull Island deserve to be #1 at the box office over Logan? Comment below or email us, cinemaholicspodcast [at] gmail.com. You might just hear your email read next week…

Go on…Kong: Skull Island and Samurai Jack Review – Cinemaholics

‘Split’ Is Weirdly Slow And Infuriating Schlock, Even For Shyamalan

split

M. Night Shyamalan is typically a director of methodical, inhumane dialogue and stuttering set pieces, but his best films also center around wild premises that pay off in narratively satisfying fashion. It’s unnerving to watch his last film, The Visit, unravel in its final act, but unlike that startling return to form, Split suffers from pretentious, overbearing writing that wishes it deserved James McAvoy’s brilliant method acting.

Like Visit, Split is mostly a dark comedy, only its central figures are nowhere near as a relational or intriguing when the jokes and twists start flying.  Anya Taylor-Joy (last year’s The Witch) plays Casey, a repressed teenager whose main direction is to stare wide-eyed at the camera as the audience waits for suitable harmonics or dramatic tension to build up (it rarely does).

Like many details in this film, Casey is the anti-10 Cloverfield Lane — that movie was a room horror with an ideal sense of location, characters who exhibit entertaining and thoughtful behavior, and a story that actually treats the audience as careful thinkers. Split has exactly none of this, though both films do have the same type of “Oh, so that’s what this movie is” type of ending, only at least 10 Cloverfield Lane had the decency to end on a set piece instead of a ham-fisted teaser.

Casey and a few other teenagers of little consequence are abducted by a man with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), a type of split personality brought on by trauma. The film treats this as some narrative flourish, but Barry/Dennis/Patricia/Hedwig and others played by James McAvoy (his second film where he plays a character with multiple personalities) are quite unsurprising and telegraphed in their actions throughout. Only three “personalities” take up much of the story, and they mostly consist of these characters repeating the same scenes over and over again, but with slightly different context.

Dennis is a neat freak, Patricia is calulcating, and Hedwig is naive. What should have taken a handful of story beats to establish is repeated ad nasuem as the audience predicts every step of this slog, consistently wishing for explanations to character decisions and what this movie even is when they should be appreciating the stylistic horror groove Split musters.

split

At the very least, Shyamalan employs one of his best tricks, a commitment to B-horror that matches every movement of his camera, wielded gracefully by Michael Gioulakis (the cinematographer for the far superior It Follows). He has a real sense of what he wants Split to communicate in its movement, framing, and set design. For that, Split is still basically watchable, and there is at least one well-executed scare that earns its place.

If only the writing and directing of Split would allow this film to be what it truly wants to be: a B-movie  horror that expands on an interesting premise in goofy, yet creepy ways. But it’s the way the film butchers its interpretation of DID and mental health in general that falls so flat it actually becomes offensive in its absurdity, building up Casey as an intersecting example of trauma in her own right, but not in any way that reasonably connects with the film’s core messages or how it culminates in the finale. I’m sure it sounded quite compelling in Shyamalan’s own head, but his pretension is that the substance is at all meaningful or contributory to what people who actually suffer from these mental health problems go through, and the way he punctuates all of this is disastrously played for laughs.

All that said, I can easily see how some fans of Shyamalan’s work might have a bit of fun with this film, overall. It’s nowhere near as a terrible as Happening or After Earth, but it’s likely a notch below The Village and Signs. It has confidence and a full commitment from McAvoy, who acts his heart out in  a performance that manages to be both unsettling and memorable, which is far more than what Split demands from him.

Grade: C

Extra Credits:

  • Shyamalan has admitted that shooting Split was the hardest in his career. Which makes sense considering its also his longest film yet.
  • Joaquin Phoenix nearly landed the main role, but he bowed out due to scheduling problems.
  • You’ll notice from the opening credits that this is another collaboration between Shyamalan and Jason Blum. And it likely won’t be the last.
  • Three words: Shyamalan Cinematic Universe. Three more words: Don’t you dare.

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni

Review: ‘The Accountant’ Is More Than Just ‘Jason Bourne’ With Autism

accountant

And weirdly enough, The Accountant (starring Ben Affleck) is moderately better than the actual Jason Bourne movie that came out this year.  

From the outset, this somewhat flat-looking action thriller from Gavin O’Connor isn’t done any favors by its own marketing and conception. Because the idea seems to be positioning Affleck as some sort of CIA killing machine who happens to be an accountant for some reason and happens to have mild personality disorders. But in reality, the script is ideally more personal, even transcendent at times compared to previous attempts to recreate autism in an actor who doesn’t have it.

Affleck plays Christian Wolff, a mild-mannered CPA who cooks the books for the most dangerous criminals in the world. Frequent flashbacks show the progress Wolff has made over the years to conquer the negative effects of his high-functioning autism, while still channeling the positives. In this case, he’s driven to finish absolutely everything, no matter the puzzle or challenge, which is why he’s as capable as he is physically and mentally.

If the movie allowed itself to simply focus on just this aspect of the movie, throwing in a new challenge for Wolff as he has to uncover a mysterious accounting error for a large robotics company (and befriending wide-eyed Dana, played by Anna Kendrick, who breathes much-needed life into Affleck’s onscreen presence), then The Accountant could be something great and easy to recommend. But instead, the film opts to throw in various other storylines and pointless mysteries in order to further flesh the world out, possibly for franchising purposes. It’s essentially the wrong version of John Wick, which set up a massive world beneath the text that viewers want more of, which is why that movie is rightfully getting a sequel.

accountant

The odd thing is that The Accountant certainly puts the work in. J.K. Simmons and Cynthia Addai-Robinson play Treasury agents in search of Wolff, but little comes of that development except to put off emotional payments for another time. There’s no fluidity, though, to how they link back to the main plot despite some interesting stakes-raising and the very fact that both actors are incredibly believable in their roles. The same goes for Jon Bernthal as the angsty, sarcastic hit man who regularly appears to add more shock value to the script by Bill Dubuque (The Judge).

To put it more simply, The Accountant is messy and disorganized, despite having a semblance of a compelling plot worth its own movie. Many of the surprises saved for the third act are predictable by the end of the first, and some mysteries end up being far less potent than what audiences will come up with themselves. At the very least, the action is graciously shot by a focused O’Connor, who employs an even style that makes viewers uncomfortable at exactly the right moments, getting them inside Wolff’s head whenever possible to allow some gleaning from his low points.

It’s just too bad the film never allows time for viewers to really understand Wolff’s actions, not just the background for them. Using flashbacks to explain his various character relationships and “powers” is great, but the evolution of Wolff as a person is never fully explored, at the expense of making him harder and harder to care about as the film jumps around to other characters. And if a movie really wants people to buy that Affleck is a math genius and an unstoppable warrior, then it needs to commit to making the case.

Grade: C+

Extra Credits:

  • Jeffrey Tambor is also in this for some reason, so don’t blink.
  • The Batman and DC Comics nods are all over this one. Simmons, of course, is set to play Commissioner Gordon. We see issues of Action Comics here and there. Wolff himself uses money and brawn to fight crime, essentially. He recites the Solomon Grundy rhyme to calm himself, which is a villain from the DC comics. You might recognize Addai-Robinson from Arrow, in which she plays Amanda Waller.
  • My favorite story from production comes from Anna Kendrick, whose mother is a real accountant and had to explain the math to her daughter after reading the script.
  • Oh, and John Lithgow is in this.

    Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

    Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni

 

Review: ‘The Magnificent Seven’ Is Enjoyably Average

magnificent seven

In 1960, The Magnificent Seven came about under the direction of John Sturges to limited acclaim. Critics didn’t love it because Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai (of which Magnificent is adapted from but with a Western spin) was still a near-perfect film fresh on everyone’s minds. In the decades since, critics have grown to appreciate Magnificent Seven more due to the cascading success of the film’s actors, and it’s hard to deny the sheer entertainment value to be had in the first 2/3rds of that film.

As someone removed from that era entirely, I found the 1960 adaptation to be a forgettable shadow of Seven Samurai — but I’ve always been interested in the idea of updating the original concept with heavier themes, better visuals, and other details it could rightfully borrow from Kurosawa’s work.

Yes, Magnificent Seven has had sequels and even a TV show since its mid-century release, but we now have a modern remake in the fashion of 2010’s True Grit. The only difference, though, is that Grit managed to be a remake with a purpose. By comparison, the 2016 Magnificent Seven is more akin to a video game made from the movie. There’s more violence, the characters’ stories are tossed aside for manufactured movie moments, and there’s little reason to watch this one outside of seeing a fast-paced action Western. If that’s what you want out of Magnificent Seven because you have some sort of sketched idea of what the original (and the original before that) had to offer, then you’ll probably walk away satisfied.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Equalizer), this new take on Magnificent focuses on Rose Creek, an American frontier town under siege by a robber baron aptly named Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), who mostly mumbles vain platitudes about how capitalism justifies his boring villainy. This is a strange departure from the small Mexico town victimized by bandits in the 1960 version, made more confusing by the fact that this change to Rose Creek holds little meaning outside of a desire to keep things American, which has all sorts of troubling implications if you think about it too long.

magnificent seven

To ward off Bogue’s militia, newly-widowed Emma Cullen (played by Haley Bennett) seeks out the help of Sam Chisholm (Denzel Washington), a warrant officer from Kansas who in turn recruits six other mercenaries from around the area. They include wise-talking and gunslinging Joshua Faraday (Chris Pratt as Star Lord in the West, essentially),  a confederate sharpshooter (Ethan Hawke), his knife-throwing Chinese “manservant” Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), frontier survivalist Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio), a gruff Mexcian outlaw Chisholm was previously in pursuit of (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), and a Comanche archer named Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). 

A significant amount of time in Magnificent Seven is spent fleshing out character skill-sets more than anything else, like why any of the mercenaries are willing to put their lives on the line for strangers. The film tries to posit this as some sort of “Eff it” mentality that might be mixed in with a soft decency that doesn’t come across in any performance, especially with Faraday, who seems to change his temperament based on the position of the sun. Chisholm is the closest to having any real sense of intention in the script, and there could have been real opportunity to make his growing affection for the rest of the cast convincing. But unfortunately, Washington brings almost zero nuance or heart to the role, and the entire ensemble suffers for it.

There are flaws aplenty in the film’s basic narrative structure and script that prevent Magnificent Seven from ever having an affecting impact. But at the very least, it competently accomplishes what it set out to do. The half hour or so of nonstop gun-toting action is thrilling to watch, and you might care enough about some of the characters involved (if not the one-note villain) to share some of their tension as the odds grow ever against their favor. But once the dust settles, you’ll start to wonder what the point of all this endless violence really was as the film rushes to the finish line with as little effort as possible. There’s no reflection on much of anything important that the film accidentally managed to say.

Grade: C+

Extra Credits:

  • I love Matt Bomer, and there is no reason for him to be in this movie (for about four minutes).
  • The late James Horner composed the film’s score (which is fantastic), and it’s also his last composition.
  • Believe it or not (and I checked), this is the first western Denzel Washington has starred in. What a waste.
  • So…Chris Pratt. Honestly, I think the actor was underserved here, same as Washington. The film would have been saved if the script had gotten their chemistry right, but there’s nothing to see here.
  • Review in four words? “The quintessential RedBox movie.”

    Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

    Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni

Second Opinion: ‘Sing Street’ Proves Not all Crowd-Pleasers Are Created Equal

sing street

As of September, my favorite movie of 2016 is John Carney’s Sing Street, a musical throwback set during the 80s boom in the U.K. Consider this my (late) review, perhaps made better by the fact that I’ve had months to process Sing Street and even revisit it.

For that reason, this is a Second Opinion, in the sense that I’m also forced to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Sing Street against the critic community at large. And it’s not quite so clear where critics landed with this film.

At first glance, you’d think Sing Street is the indie darling of the year, maybe because of its high score on Rotten Tomatoes or if you’ve heard me gush about the film on Now Conspiring. But that’s not to say the film hasn’t received some tepid responses as well, with many critics both praising the film and undercutting it with the “low” side of positive scores.

From what I can tell, the main reason is because Sing Street commits a “sin” in the eyes of a lot of serious film critics: it’s a crowd-pleaser.

sing street

You’ve heard the term, but let’s be more specific. The idea of a movie being a crowd-pleaser is an underhanded compliment, meant to criticize the film for using familiar tropes to elicit a specific reaction from the audience. It’s also used to note a film that is essentially boring in its formula and afraid of taking risks. Relevant crowd-pleasers include the likes of Marvel superhero movies, nostalgic franchise sequels, and even Oscar-bait — those Fall films that seemed designed to do nothing more than win awards.

So yes, it’s pretty accurate to call Sing Street a crowd-pleaser, perhaps to an even heavier degree because the film it draws so much heart from is John Carney’s previous film, Once (we’ll just skip Begin Again for obvious reasons if you’ve seen it).

Yet Sing Street also makes the case for why some crowd-pleasers are far superior to others. At the end of the film, I did find myself realizing how loud Carney’s voice was throughout, and the heart of the movie couldn’t be clearer. It’s a film you discuss and analyze for its craft in filmmaking and how it made you feel. Lesser crowd-pleasers suffer from only having the latter.

sing street

Let’s talk about how the film is set up. Set in Dublin, the movie centers around the life and journey of Conor (played by Ferdia Walsh-Peelo), a shy teenager who slowly cultivates a passion for music while attempting to win the heart of an older, beautiful girl (Raphina, played by Lucy Boynton). He starts a band in order to impress her, but the film splinters his motivations in a lot of surprising ways. Conor wants to break free of the rules of his claustrophobic prep school, suffer through his parents’ divorce, live up to his brother’s dreams, find success with his band…oh, and get the girl.

There’s real beauty in how simple the film appears, but it’s anything but straightforward. The film starts with a jumble of problems coming Conor’s way as he has to adjust to a new life at Synge Street, which is packed with bullies and a disturbing menace of a headmaster. But the moment he sees the girl, all those problems get thrown aside completely — a perfect capturing of what it’s like to fall in “love.”

That would be fine enough if the film didn’t also execute the rest of its content so fluidly and with so much endearing music (the soundtrack is sure to make an impression). There’s no crystallizing moment or raw talent in Conor that suggests movie magic. He starts like most other musicians and creatives: by ripping people off.

sing street

Eamon (Conor’s first recruit for the band, played by Mark McKenna) is the true prodigy, able to play multiple instruments and come up with the majority of the actual music. Conor’s brother (Brendan, played by Jack Reynor) mentors him on which music is worth mimicking, paving the way for Conor to gradually work his way to becoming a real musician. Even songwriting, Conor’s only apparent gift he’s discovered for himself, is only made possible because of, you guessed it, the girl.

Watching this creative process unfold as a love story is one of the most unique and charming experiences I’ve been entertained by in years. It’s a standout script with standout music and performances that makes it a crowd-pleaser for all of the right reasons, not the wrong ones. That’s not to say the film is perfect, and I could list several problems I have with the film, but at this point, they’re perfunctory and removed from what makes the film a keeper.

I think what makes Sing Street somewhat better than everything else I’ve seen this year has a lot to do with two reasons: for one thing, it transcends its genres (the comedy and romance never overshadow the darkness and melodrama). Second, the movie tackles a feeling that only movies can truly provide. And that’s creative spectacle unrestrained by a director’s heart.

Grade: A

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni

Review: ‘Sully’ Is a Weirdly Good, and Original, Exploration of Heroism

sully

Some movies are “based on a true story,” but it would be limiting to slot Sully, the latest film from Clint Eastwood, into such a broad, somewhat uninteresting category. When audiences go to see a biopic, or something similar, there’s a yearning for perspective, either through the eyes of the man or woman in question, or the people said person may have affected over the course of their own dynamic stories.

Sully is very much a film that twists and reshapes the idea of perspective, making it one of the more satisfying films of 2016, period. In a strange way, this tale about Chesley Sullenberger’s (Tom Hanks) famous, heroic landing on the Hudson river in 2009 is actually a cleverly flawed movie. The opening act is littered with directional exposition, slow moments, and rehearsed dialogue. There are even a few dream sequences that dance around the alarm bells of savvy moviegoers.

But then the movie pivots toward something quite brilliant and even surprising, paying off the idea of decency and duty in men, women, and society as a whole. This stealth message is both obvious and subtle at the same time, a tricky maneuver of filmmaking that parallels nicely with the water landing itself.

sully

The script, by Todd Komarnicki (Elf), is mostly nonlinear, taking its time to lead the audience into what happened on January 15th, and more importantly, why. The narrative starts days later as Sullenberger (Sully) struggles with the reality of his sudden fame, especially when government officials begin to question his heroic decision making. It’s more probable, they explain, that Sully needlessly put the passengers and crews’ lives in danger, perhaps because of hidden demons he might be hiding. As the film unfolds, including the white-knuckling scenes depicting the actual event, sharp payoffs are presented to make sense of what came before it, or in this case, after.

Essentially, it’s a more focused gambit movie than last year’s Steve Jobs, and certainly a more substantial piece of entertainment than Hanks’ last travel/disaster film, Captain Phillips. Even American Sniper, a competent film, was missing the sort of skillful impact that could be had, especially through its less polished visuals.

Sully ultimately rises above those films in a number of ways, but mainly one that deserves the most attention. The jumpy and even repetitive narrative serves a specific purpose, all to the goal of letting the audience better understand a compelling yet uncomplicated man who seemingly doesn’t want to be considered compelling. Consider it a flaw if you must, but only an actor with the relaxed charm of Tom Hanks could make something that should be dull so gripping and easy to latch onto.

sully

He’s supported by a humble performance from Aaron Eckhart as Jeff Skiles, the co-pilot who continues to support Sully long after the plane has landed. But aside from Eckhart and most of the event’s participants, the supporting cast comes across less effortless, perhaps because their performances are being consistently measured against Hanks and Eckhart at their best.

The best way to understand, and perhaps appreciate, Sully is to understand that much of what you see is a simulation. Some of it is meant to be imperfect and a little rough around the edges, in order to lend credibility to the people who actually had to live through what you’re seeing on the big screen.

Some of the flaws that come through this style of filmmaking are actually easy to forgive because the message is sent in such a clear way — that of how decency can sometimes be a very unchallenging thing, despite how torturous it can be to accept or believe it. It’s not often enough a story like that makes it to the big screen, fictional or otherwise.

Grade: A

Extra Credits:

  • Stick around after the film to see shots of the actual Hudson landing, its aftermath, and actual video of the passengers and Sullenberger made for the film.
  • Clint Eastwood hasn’t made a movie this good since Gran Torino. Maybe even Million Dollar Baby.
  • Yes, this is the second time Tom Hanks has played a “captain” involved in a famous, true-life event in 2009.  It’s also the second time he’s played an aviator from real life (Jim Lovell from Apollo 13).
  • I forgot to mention how brief the film is. At just 96 minutes, it’s Eastwood’s shortest movie yet, and thankfully so. I wouldn’t take out a minute or add much else.
  • Apparently, Eastwood is a fan of easter eggs. You can see references to two of his other movies when Sully is jogging through Times Square.

    Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

    Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni

We’re Still Suffering From How Bad ‘High School Musical’ Was

high school musical

For many, High School Musical was the first real signal of a true shift in Disney Channel programming. By 2006, the once plucky, experimental network had found more success in streamlined sitcoms like That’s So Raven and Suite Life of Zack and Cody than they had ever found with previous shows. This, of course paved the way for a persistent, familiar formula seen in almost all subsequent Disney Channel features, even to this day.

You might find this formula to be a good thing. Perhaps you enjoy the shows currently broadcasted on that channel, or you might be neutral at best. I’m not going to try to change your mind, but suffice to say that the numerous people who have a distaste for what the channel has become are both wrong and right.

Disney Channel shows have always been great for their time. If you look back at some of their supposedly best projects, you’ll find that they haven’t aged well at all and are actually a lot worse than you remember. Time does that sort of thing. But what I’m arguing is that even in 2006, Disney’s first smash hit movie was a terribly harmful film, and for many reasons.

Put more simply, High School Musical was and probably still is the worst thing ever produced by the Disney Channel. Not in terms of quality and production value, but certainly when it comes to how the Disney Channel Original Movie impacted the countless people who’ve watched it over the last 10 years. How it shaped its fans, for example.

high school musical

This is hard to argue, for sure, because on its surface, High School Musical doesn’t seem all that bad, right? The names of the songs say it all: Start something new! Get your head in the game! We’re all in this together.

Yet the titles of each song send a different message in the subtext. And watching the movie as a whole, you’ll start to see that a specific, alarming set of beliefs are being pushed onto these characters. Let’s back up and recap the film.

The movie begins by introducing us to Troy Bolton (played by Zac Efron) and Gabriella Montez (played by Vanessa Hudgens) just as they’re getting introduced to each other during holiday break. They have a song number meet-cute before going their separate ways, only to meet again at the start of a new semester because it miraculously turns out that Gabriella is now attending the same high school as Troy…even though they met by coincidence somewhere else.

If this sounds at all familiar, that’s because High School Musical was originally meant to be a remake/sequel of Grease in the late 90s, featuring the children of the original movie’s characters. I’m not joking. They couldn’t get the rights figured out, so Disney Channel ultimately decided to turn the script into one of their original movies made for television, with “High School Musical” as the working title. Apparently, they couldn’t come up with something better to name the darn thing, and the rest is history.

high school musical

Anyway, Troy and Gabriella both realize that they belong to different cliques: Troy is the basketball jock and Gabriella is the math nerd. But their bond through music becomes a quasi-reimagining of Romeo and Juliet, where their respective social circles clash over the future of these star-crossed lovers. Well, not really. The romance between Troy and Gabriella is persistently muted, with them often changing the subject to music instead of their own “relationship.”

That’s not necessarily a bad thing — in fact, it’s probably for the best — because it allows for more interesting drama between Troy and Gabriella, who have a decent amount of chemistry together to make the “we’re friends but want to be more” thing work fine. What really poisons this film is the introduction of the titular musical.

Troy and Gabriella decide to try out for the school musical. More specifically, the lead roles. The problem is that the school already has built-in performers who’ve starred in every production. And naturally, they’re the villains of this movie. Sharpay (played by Ashley Tisdale) and Ryan (played by Lucas Grabeel) are exceptionally talented, and for good reason. They’ve trained for years and actually want to turn their passion for theater into a career someday.

But it turns out that Troy and Gabriella, who barely even want to be in the musical and have no acting experience, are both selected for callbacks. Even though they were late to the audition in the first place, by the way. It’s a decision that rightfully upsets Sharpay and Ryan, who have no conceivable idea why outsiders have skipped them over for what is essentially their most critical time to stand out in the industry. All because they can sing about as well as Sharpay and Ryan. And even that is arguable.

high school musical

The real reason Troy and Gabriella are selected is because of their chemistry when no one is watching. They’re late for their audition, so the drama teacher exerts her one moment of clarity by telling them they don’t deserve a role when they can’t respect the rules. Later, she listens in on them practicing a song and decides that earns them a callback. You know, despite the fact that neither of them performed when the pressure was on, which is what they’ll actually have to prove they can handle when on stage for real.

Their casting has nothing to do with how technically proficient they are at singing and acting. The worst thing about this is that neither character purports to have any interest whatsoever in theater beyond the attention ascribed to it. Allegedly, it’s because they simply love to sing, but that’s nonsense within the context of the film. Instead of having to work for the roles and pay their dues, the barely proficient are rewarded with what they really want: popularity.

And that is why High School Musical is actually harmful. The movie positions Sharpay and Ryan as sore losers without any real sympathy. Sharpay in particular goes to cartoonishly evil lengths to prevent the protagonists from even getting to their callbacks, just to ensure that the audience doesn’t root for her by mistake. This is a character who is supposed to be good at acting, yet the only skill she seems to have is concocting evil plans to make the audience hate her.

high school musical

The movie tries to say something about how you can be more than your designated clique, which is a great message, but the execution misses the mark completely. Sharpay and Ryan claim to be more upset over the fact that someone has entered the “theater clique,” rather than the more obvious pandering that’s going on with the drama teacher. And the students obsess over kids hanging out with other kids who are different, which is hardly a problem in any school. Yes, there are cliques, but there’s no widespread panic when a jock tries out for a musical or dates a girl with good grades.

And when the film finally tries to resolve the conflict between Sharpay/Ryan and Troy/Gabrielle, it comes down to Sharpay having a rapid change of heart that is shoehorned into the final scene. Sharpay never apologizes. Gabriella never apologizes. The film never tries to lend credence to why she acted so harshly in the first place. It just ends. Is it no wonder Sharpay essentially “resets” her attitude toward them with each subsequent movie, even fawning over Troy during the first sequel?

The ending song says “we’re all in this together to make our dreams come true.” OK, but only Troy and Gabriella’s dreams, which have only been a thing for a few weeks. The movie tells its viewers that a select group of people can and should be the best at everything, even when they’re actually not. The protagonists win everything. A superior movie could explore actual consequences for when teenagers stretch themselves thin and create anxiety for themselves, but not High School Musical. You’re guaranteed a victory just for trying. Even though Troy and Gabriella barely deserved to be understudies, they get to be the stars, win their championships, and smugly dance it off in the very end.

high school musical

The actual dialogue between Troy and Gabriella in the ending scene:

Gabriella: “Congratulations, Wildcat!”

Troy: “What about your team?!”

Gabriella: “We won, too!” 

This is why High School Musical was successful. It wasn’t just the manufactured-to-be-catchy song numbers. It definitely wasn’t the real message of the movie. It was how the movie made its viewers feel, and wrongly at that. The movie convinced many young children who aren’t in high school that simply trying without working earns them the same rewards as the people who actually have legitimate dreams and work hard for them.

For Troy and Gabriella, singing is a hobby, maybe, but nothing they’re at all serious about. The movie positions their plight above the characters who actually have dreams to turn music into a lifestyle (the ones who truly need these roles to get into the right schools), and the script demands them to be manipulative and evil in order to trick viewers into rooting for the privileged brats. It also clamors that high school is a mystical place where a select group of kids are so good at everything, their only real problems are choosing which thing they’re going to be best at.

In this movie, they choose everything. And the whole school worships them for it.

high school musical

There is a way to turn these concepts into a good movie. There’s room for an honest exploration of how the quick ascent of the privileged few can create sharp enemies. And there’s even a good story behind the idea of popular kids getting more popular, paralleling nicely with the concept of the rich getting richer. Shame on us for ever expecting something so useful, I suppose.

I wish I could ignore High School Musical and simply let it be. People like it, and I never have. But there’s something truly exploitative and lasting about what it tries to tell its audience in a way that’s simply ugly and perverse. It’s also allowed Disney Channel to get away with similar storytelling in other shows over the years, resulting in a channel that is currently so embedded in watered-down celebrity-obsessed pop culture, the children who watch it stand little chance of getting by unscathed.

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni