‘Finch’: Not Exactly Best in Show

Zhoukou
Finch wants desperately to be a good boy.

It learned all the movies it wanted to be. Rain Man; 2001: A Space Odyssey; E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. It had a beloved breed in Tom Hanks, who established his canine flick bonafides with Turner and Hooch. He won a couple Oscars, too.

But Finch ultimately is a good argument for why the MPAA needs its ratings system fixed. Because while it is rated PG-13, Finch is not a movie for audiences 13 and older. I’d say 16 and under.

How else to describe Apple’s latest film? It feels like Castaway met Wall-E and they went off to raise My Dog Skip — without the originality of any. Finch decaffeinates and sanitizes so many crucial scenes you’d think Disney made it (right down to physical comedy that’s just plain Goofy).

Hanks reprises the deserted-island role he made so memorable in Castaway. This time, the universe wants his character dead by solar flare, which has already wiped out most of the planet. Rightfully concerned that his irradiated days are numbered, Finch builds a robot to care for his dog.

While those plot details might be trickled out in an adult drama. Finch vomits forth those irresistible plot points almost by the first half hour. From poster to trailer to opening scene, Finch wears its cliches proudly and telegraphs its messages as clearly as Morse, which is almost a charm in itself.

Because there’s no hating Finch. I wept during it, but almost furiously so: It’s like a rescue shelter commercial set to Sarah McLachlan: Either don’t watch or get a tissue, because your heartstrings are going to be mercilessly plucked.

And it’s hard not to watch anything Tom Hanks does, even when it’s just him, a CGI robot and a rescue dog named Seamus, a terrier mix who looks a lot like my rescue mix. I was ready to love Finch. I wanted to love Finch.

But then Finch started misbehaving. For starters, Seamus plays a dog named Goodyear. Goodyear? The film gives some contrivance for Goodyear’s name, but come on: At least know a good dog name. You know, one that a dog would recognize and wouldn’t sound like product placement. Say, Seamus.

And for the robot, Jeff (again, ??). The movie quickly establishes that Jeff has only 72% of the information about the world that our hero, Finch (Hanks), meant to upload. A sudden dust and radiation storm cut the upload short, propelling our band into a wacky road trip.

There are many details to follow in the movie, but it’s all downhill from premise.

Or maybe not. Perhaps Apple, Disney and all major studios trying to stay in business view movies not for their teenager-and-older subject matter, but for their teenage-and-older consumer matter.

Because the movie ratings system is a grim numbers game, as the Motion Picture Association of America has confused its ratings as a seal of approval from the film industry — or a specific movie.

Your movie have smoking in it? PG rating. More than two “fucks?” You got yourself an R rating, buster. Showing pubis, or, worse, showing it in a sexual context? You’re flirting with an X rating — a death rating outside a particular demographic.

So why don’t we in the media get out of that absurd system? Can we not tell audiences who the movie is for, in terms of subject matter, instead of using Hollywood’s definition of age-appropriate viewing, which is a consumer-based metric?

Because Finch is a fine family film, full of fine lessons about friendship, family and the meaning of consciousness.

I just expected it in an adult film.

The Death of the Plot Twist


Spoiler alerts have become to movies what the Surgeon General’s warning became to smoking: a perfunctory caution before ill-advised behavior.

Remember plot twists in movies? The stunning revelations in films such as Psycho, The Crying Game and The Sixth Sense? Good times.

And getting rarer. When was the last time you were surprised by a movie’s plot?

Studios are trying to maintain the mystery: In the ad frenzy promoting Daniel Craig’s final film as James Bond, No Time To Die, trailers exclaimed (and still do) “You won’t believe the ending!”

Perhaps. Unless you read the Wikipedia entry for the movie. It spelled out the ending in detail — on the movie’s opening weekend.

This is the new rule, not the exception, in Hollywood’s click-bait reality. Movie reviews and plot secrets air on social media the day a movie opens, if not before. Some YouTube movie critiques are ad-libbed on cell phones outside the theater that just aired the film.

And it’s not only the ending. The Eternals, Disney’s latest comic-book entry, led all moves this weekend with a respectable $70 million in the U.S. — only in theaters.

But for those who enjoy Marvel’s trademark end-credits for their cameos and plot clues, bad news: Wikipedia listed that as well. Twice, actually: Eternals had a mid-end-credit scene, too. Both were duly described.

This poses a conundrum for an industry that must tease a film without giving away away too much. Studios are already laboring to sell kids on the theatrical experience itself, no small task in a pandemic. That job becomes tougher without intrigue.

So what fate, the movie twist? Already, fans are calling on fellow cinephiles to be more discreet.

Studios are asking reviewers sign agreements that they will not write on social media about a movie before their reviews. And more film reviews and analyses can be found on YouTube with a “NO SPOILERS” guarantee.

But for now, it’s up to the viewer to provide the suspension of disbelief. And surprise.

2021 World Series: Cheaters vs. Racists

When did sports become about who you hated more than about who you loved?

My guess is around the time of my childhood. While free agency was introduced to the NFL in the 1940’s, it wasn’t until the 1970’s and 80’s that it reached the MLB and NBA and turned baseball and basketball from local sport to national commerce. Allegiances were born of pocket strings over player strengths, commercial appeal over competitive zeal, Name, Likeness & Image over Wins, Losses & Ties.

In short, Villainy over Heroism.

Not that villainy ruins sport. One of the great pursuits in pro football is an undefeated season, capped with a Super Bowl win. The Perfect Season has happened only once, with the 1972 Miami Dolphins. And watching the enormously wealthy (and politically conservative) New England Patriots lose that bid in the 2012 Super Bowl was to witness one of the greatest upsets in NFL history.

But that is exception, not rule. Most sports today — particularly in a pandemic — hold all the drama of an eBay auction.

So what to make of this year’s World Series, between the Atlanta Braves and the Houston Astros? At best, we have an ugly option: Root for racists or cheaters.

The cheating has been well-established. In 2017, the Astros were found by Major League Baseball to have stolen signs from opposing pitchers and catchers with the team’s centerfield camera, tarnishing their World Series win. Some opposing players have accused them of swiping again to get into this championship, though baseball has provided no evidence of further swindling.

The Braves are a trickier question. Atlanta has long been home to the “Tomahawk Chop,” where fans cheer a guttural war cry while flexing elbows in a chopping motion.

“The tomahawk chop chant will be all over your television screens this week with crowds perpetuating the worst forms of cultural appropriation,” The Toronto Star opined.

The paper is not far off, though I don’t think fans are trying to appropriate anything. They’re trying simply to offend. Where once the cheer was to support a team and mascot, now it supports a political view and mascot.

Like anti-vaxxers and the mask-and-science defiant, the hawkers’ purpose is not to make a statement other than ‘No.’ No to common causes, No to greater goods, No to the browning of America. It is hard to hear the chants out of Georgia and NOT hear the not-so-faint faint echoes of Trumpism in the stands.

It would seem a fool’s folly. Name a single American issue that voters are less liberal on than they were 50 years ago. Name a single business in America not tasked with becoming more diverse. Name a time in the last half century when science got it wrong.

Other than the voting booth, that is.

And those days are numbered: There is no stopping the browning and liberalization of advanced civilizations, only feeble gestures of protest, like cheating and passive aggressive moaning, which is all the Tomahawk Chop really is.

Can we pull for a double disqualification?