Remember that TV holiday film from "Scrooged"? You know, "The Day the Reindeer Died"? Well, someone missed the sarcasm and they have attempted to make it as a theatrical film. Instead of Lee Majors as the hero, we get Dwayne Johnson. It's probably because he lacks the irony skills for the snark required by the script, "The Rock" gets supplemented by Chris Evans. Now if they could just keep their tongue in cheek, this could be fun. Unfortunately, they can't and it isn't.
Casting J.K. Simmons as a fit and upbeat Santa is a great first decision. Taking him off screen for ninety percent of the movie was not. Simmons was the best thing this movie had going for it. At the start, he delivers the right kind of humor and the fresh take on Santa, that could make this work. The problem is the plot takes over, and it is essentially a straight comic book adaptation, complete with CGI villains at the climax. There are a couple of fresh points along the way, but they are so infrequent and they get sidetracked, that the fun to be had there gets lost.
As hard as it is for me to say, the weak link here is Johnson. As the loyal major domo of Santa, he is getting set for the last Christmas before he retires. You know it is not going to go well when anyone says "this is my last..." whatever, because it will either be literally true when the character dies, or the events in the story will discount the declaration of being finished completely. So no suspense her, Dwayne Johnsons character Cal, does not die. Instead, he gets to run up against a number of obstacles that he must overcome to save Santa and Christmas. Evans as Jack O'Malley, a cyber hustler who has helped the bad guys inadvertently by locating the secret North Pole location of Santa. Which makes no sense because every kid knows Santa is at the North Pole. Why does the antagonist, who also has history with Nick (that's Santa for those who don't get it) need Jack to locate Santa's factory town? So that Johnson can have a wise guy sidekick to trade quips with during the action.
The movie started out with a promising set up and fun characters, but the more it gets into the actions of the plot, the less interesting it became. The one exception was a detour into Krampus world, where for most of the segment, we get back to having a good time. The mythos here was sort of interesting, and they played with it a little bit. Cal and Jack become Sam and Dean from Supernatural for a few minutes, but it doesn't last.
The wrap up at the end attempts to return to a schmaltzy sentimentality that the film eschews for most of it's runtime. That's too bad because the schmaltzy stuff is really what we want in a Christmas Movie. So you can put this on the shelf with "Santa Claus: The Movie" and "Jingle All the Way". It is a shiny bauble that someone poured a lot of money into making, but they forgot to make it charming and relevant. This years lump of coal in your stocking.
I had never heard of this film or seen a trailer for it until I saw a report that mentioned it was doing surprisingly well at the box office. On Social Media, there were a couple of posts when I checked that said it was a pretty solid outing. The thing that convinced me to go however, was the realization that it starred Judy Greer. She has never been the main feature in a film I have seen, but she has always been a presence that elevated whatever I was looking at. I actually know her voice work best because she has been a character on my favorite animated tv show for a decade. She is one of those second tier performers who do their job, and make a project better, but usually don't get the credit for doing so. It is the character actors dilemma.
She however can get complete credit for this movie, which feels like it might be out of a lot of people's comfort zone, because of religious themes, but it is really just about good values and not a Sunday school lesson. She plays Grace, a stay at home Mom from the seventies, who is raising a couple of good kids, but she is not on the inside of the good society in the small town that she lives in. She does the best she can but feels judged by snooty other members of the community. It is only when an accident takes out the grand dame of the church Christmas festivities, that Grace takes a chance and steps up to direct the local Christmas Pageant. Greer has a lovely, face but she is not striking. Her voice is distinctive but not particularly authoritative. Having played mothers in both the MCU and Jurassic World films, she is no stranger to a part like this, but those films never gave her the chance to be at the center of activities.
So the story is one of redemption, which is typical for a holiday film. Grace wants to redeem herself as a competent member of the congregation and community, but she is not the only one who needs to be redeemed. Her kids, and in fact the whole small town, are terrorized by an unruly family of children, the Herdman clan is notorious. There are six kids and they all are incorrigible, but are they unredeemable? The town ladies are also so snobbish and self centered , that they need to be given a chance at redemption as well. Even Grace's kids, have some faults that maybe being confronted with a major problem could help them address.
The set up of the conundrum is well executed in the first section of the film. There are plenty of comic moments as we see the frustrations of Grace's children in dealing with the Herdmans. The six Herdmen kids are given small moments to shine in their horribleness, and the oldest of the clan, Imogene, seems to be a hard case, and in control of every situation when confronted by an adult. The struggle between Grace and Imogene is the lynchpin of the movie, as a desperate and well meaning Mom, tries to find a way to be a good neighbor, and a competent adult in the face of chaos.
Abundant humor is found in the story, and surprisingly, the comedic voice of Judy Greer is less responsible for the laughs than the heartfelt sentiment of the movie. The film being set in an earlier time and a small place in the world, makes the Christmas elements feel more connected to the events and a lot more intimate. Greer carries scenes without overshadowing the performances of the kids. Beatrice Schneider as Imogene and Molly Belle Wright as Beth, Grace's daughter, are the real leads of the film. Greer's performance stakes the kids story into something more tangible than the usual kids film. Schneider is impressive in conveying the hardscrabble but emotionally vulnerable Imogene, and Wright has just the degree of childhood innocence to pull off the realization that she needs to for the whole moral of the story to work.
Set at Christmas and steeped in church going traditions and the Christmas story, you might expect that a film like this from a faith based production group would be about proselytizing. The moral sentiments are accessible to anyone and do not require that you have a spiritual reawakening to appreciate them. "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever" reminds me of the nostalgia of "A Christmas Story" but it adds a little moral message and a broader platform to the process. I won't say it is likely to be played for 24 hours straight on TV at future Christmas Seasons, but I can say it will be viewed on a regular basis at Christmas time in this house.
The above is the trailer for "Wicked" which was released six months ago. If you don't see any indication that this is just the opening film in a two part release, that's because there is no indication offered here. Until a week before the release in November, I had no idea that the film would be an incomplete presentation of the Broadway phenomena. Oh, and by the way, "Part One" as it will now be referred to, is two hours and forty minutes. The play on the stage runs 2 hours forty-five minutes. So am I supposed to believe that the next film released next year will be a two and a half hour presentation of five minutes of material? This movie is as padded as could be and it is a deliberate money grab, unlike some other works in the not too distant past ("The Deathly Hallows" needed to be two films).
I have no interest in dissing all the theater kids who have worshiped and been inspired by the Broadway musical, but this was a big shrug of the shoulders for me. I have no idea why this would inspire more devotion than dozens of other Broadway presentations. I have never seen the play, so I can't really comment on it. Maybe the stagecraft is what makes it work. Maybe the actors and dancers on stage are choregraphed in a way that brings the story to life. This film did not do any of that for me. It is pretty to look at at times, but hardly different from a number of other good looking films (most Wes Anderson movies would give this a run for the money). Of course my opinion is moot because this movie opened to huge box office and is expected to run through the holidays, becoming a cash cow for Universal Studios. Expect feature attractions at the theme parks in the next couple of years.
Reimaging the story of a film from the perspective of the villain may very well have been invented by the author of the book that the musical is based on. We have had a number of these sorts of things in the last few years, "Maleficent" comes to mind immediately. Maybe it works, but often at the expense of the original story. I can't say exactly where this is headed, since I am unfamiliar with the play, but it sure looks like the Wizard is getting dumped on, and Dorothy will be reimagined as a selfish brat who broke the heart of poor Elphaba. I guess we will see next year (if I can bring myself to endure the story again).
As for this film, it starts off in telling the Wicked Witch of the Wests origin story, with drunken infidelity. That sure seems like a far cry from the family friendly confines of the original books. Cynthia Eviro plays the green offspring of an illicit affair (there is a hint of something here that may or may not be significant), and she sings well but has to play a bullied child who is defiant yet hurting on the inside. Ariana Grande is Galinda, a spoiled child who expects only the best treatment and has to learn some humility. At first they are rivals, then friends, and then estranged compatriots of the wizarding world (Galinda having no powers noy withstanding).
There are nearly a dozen songs, none of which is particularly memorable outside of the context of their presentation. "Popular" works because of the situation the characters are in, not because of its melody. There are some clever lyrics but most of it is narrative stuck on a tune that barely registers. "Defying Gravity" works the same way, the lyrics spell out a conundrum for the two leads, but it is only interesting because of the visualization that goes along with it. The best number, both thru musicality and visualization was "Dancing Through Life", as it is a turning point in the relationship between the two women.
The cast dance numbers are just not very interesting as they are presented here. Director John Chu may have a good touch with humor and relationships, but the staging of the dance numbers is just not filmed in an interesting way. I enjoyed the dancing in "Anna and the Apocalypse" more than this, and that film was not nearly as intricate or expensive. Maybe it is the hip hop style of some of the background dancers that just does not appeal to me.
Story wise, the film has a lot of paths it starts down, and maybe they will pay off. If the stage play really deserved a six hour treatment though, it might have been better to do this as a limited series. Then you could go somewhere with characters like Nessarose, Boq, Pfannee and even the Wizard. This movie definitely needed more Jeff Goldblum. The Wizard is a central figure who is more opaque here than in the original film.
I am not saying it is a bad movie, I'm just saying it wasn't for me. I can't quite grasp the enthusiasm with which it is being embraced. I'm a film fan and a musical fan, but this feels like it is made for theater consumption only. I'm a sentimental man, but something bad has happened. What is this feeling? Complete indifference.
A sequel to "Gladiator", the Best Picture winner from 2000, was considered almost immediately, although frankly there was absolutely no need for it. The story of General Maximus, a Spaniard in charge of Rome's Northern Army, turned slave and then Gladiator/Rebel/Avenger, was complete in the Russell Crowe film. Director Ridley Scott, did not receive the award that year for directing, and has subsequently failed to be honored for that skill ever since. Maybe it is the indignity of having the film you were responsible for be so revered and awarded, while you have to bask in the glow from the sidelines, that makes someone want to go back to the same well again. Scott's talents are still there, but I doubt that "Gladiator II" will be raking in the laurels like it's predecessor. It is a strong action film with some marvelously assembled scenes, but as a drama, it feels like an unsatisfying second helping.
One of the biggest reasons that "GII" isn't up to snuff is that it lacks the charisma element that made the first film so memorable. Actors Paul Mescal, who plays the now adult Lucious, and Pedro Pascal, who plays a General supposedly mentored by Maximus, are insufficient replacements for Crowe. Maximus was a force of nature in pursuit of his vengeance. Mescal seems to be simply riding the wave of the vengeance theme rather than driving it. Pascal is a nearly superfluous character. He has a terrific arena scene, but outside of the combat sequences at the start of the film and his Coliseum moment, his character barely resonates. Connie Nielson returns to the story as Lucilla, the mother of Lucious, ex-lover of Maximus and wife of Pascal's General Acacius. In the twenty years since Maximus died in defeating Commodus, Rome has been static. The popular revolution never appeared and it seems that the backlash forced Lucilla to send her son into exile, in fear of twin Emperors Geta and Caracalla. Rome is still dominated by an elite, the populous is sated by games in the arena, and war drains the resources of the empire more than the conquests they acquire.
So we get two heroes to replace Maximus, and two Emperors to replace Commodus, and it is still not enough to electrify the story line. That's where Denzel Washington comes in. He is Macrinus, a wealth citizen, providing men and weapons to the battles in the Coliseum, but also plotting to gain power while staying close to the two megalomaniac Emperors. He does his best to replace Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed simultaneously. He needs to do that because the story beats of the two films are essentially the same. There is an opening battle, three subsequent arena confrontations, and a climactic confrontation at the end. The weakness is the thread that holds those pieces together. We know almost nothing of the political environment in which the story takes place. The twin rulers are mostly cartoon characters. Macinus, is a cypher, deliberately vague on what he hopes to accomplish and why.
The strength of the film is in the action sequences themselves. Mescal is solid in the first arena combat scene where he is pitted along with fellow captives against a troop of baboons. When he finally gets to the Coliseum, he fights a rhinoceros riding cowboy of a gladiator. It may have some historical validity but it looks like a scene from a Ray Harryhausen film. The tigers in the first film were a threat, the rhino feels like a prop. There is a spectacular water battle in a flooded arena floor, that jacks up the danger by adding sharks. That was maybe the most improbable moment in the film, although it looked great and offered a little bit of fun. Acacius and Lucilla are featured in an additional sequence set in the Coliseum, and that segment of the film looks great but is emotionally less than it needs to be because we have had so little development of the two in this film up to that moment.
There is a final combat sequence and it is staged well, although it looks like it was spontaneous in some parts, the shots clearly indicate that it was well planned and not improvisational. Whereas in the original film, we have anticipated the final showdown between the two leads, and really want that moment of catharsis that comes when the villain gets what is coming to them, this story line feels perfunctory and is never driven by the passions of the two combatants. Lucious and Macrinas are in conflict as a result of circumstances, rather than the machinations of a revenge plot.
As usual, the effects work is strong and the editing of the film is spectacular. "Gladiator II" is a good looking action film that strains for the level of the first film but falls short. The action set pieces can't quite overcome the story weaknesses, which require some retconning to pull off and a big gob of suspension of disbelief to make it all work. Sometimes the leftovers can make an enjoyable meal, but they can' repeat that first plate of food experience.
I'm counting this as a Cinema related event for three reasons. First it was held at the Paramount and the vast majority of events I attend there are movies. Second, the author of the book is a movie star and several of the chapters are focused on films he participated in. Finally, the discussion was moderated by film director and local Austin hero Robert Rodriguez. So it qualifies for the blog.
Although Brolin is a film actor and there are several parts of the book devoted to movie related experiences, most of the evenings talk had to do with his life off screen. His famous father is a part of the story but it appears that Josh Brolin was most heavily influenced by his headstrong Mother. She was a hard drinking, fiercely independent woman who was foolishly fearless at times. Brolin shared several stories about her and she sounds like she was a compelling figure.
Robert Rodriguez is a long time friend of Brolins, and they shared some stories about working together and almost working together. There were also a number of stories about working with Tommy Lee Jones, who is apparently an admirer of Brolins, although he did not seem to know it.
Mr. Brolin read one of the chapters of the book, and the experience introduced the style of writing he is using. The chapters are really random essays on some moments in his life. It is not really an autobiography but a place where he can share his poetry, narrative prose and reporting, all to different degrees. Rodriguez shared that he keeps a journal of moments in his day, everyday, and he was able to prompt Brolin into telling some stories by referring to his own journal. This journaling approach is what Brolin used when writing, and his ability to recall details was pretty solid. Listening to him tell about his Mother, driving them a thousand miles when he was a kid, from California to Texas, just because she had a hankering for Whataburger was fun, although when the two of them talked about the burgers they had delivered to the theatre, their shrug about the quality mirrors my feelings exactly.
I'm only halfway through the book at this point and the loose structure is interesting and it makes the book easy to pick up and put down.
I quite liked "Smile" from two years ago. It was a horror film based on a contagion, very much like another horror film I enjoyed "It Follows". Because these are modern films and the audience is primed for on screen horror and not just psychological horror, we will see some traumatic and nasty death scenes. The violence and gore provides the opportunity for make-up professionals to indulge in their darkest nightmares and then share them with us. "Smile 2" provides plenty of those moments and carries on a somewhat suspect theme from the first film which will come up in a moment.
The conceit of this sequel is that the contagion. which finally manifested as a monster at the end of the previous film, has entered into the life of a highly visible subject, pop star Skye Riley. I did not re-watch the original film before venturing out to see this new iteration. I have some vague memories of what the rules are for the parasite to be able to infect someone. This may be important at the climax of the film, but the multiple steps and preconditions are mostly ignored here so we get immediately to the central problem. Skye, who is played by actress-singer Naomi Scott, is recovering from a car accident that physically mangled her and killed her actor boyfriend. During the film, we get flashback episodes that reveal what was going on in her life at the time of the accident. There was drug use, and a break with her longtime friend Gemma. Skye appears to be on the road to recovery when her need for painkillers that violate her sobriety, brings her into contact with someone already infected.
Horror movies can succeed for a lot of reason, and one of them is that they grip us from the beginning. Although I have always maintained that "Jaws" is not a true horror film, it did do that very thing with the opening death of Chrissie. "Smile 2" manages this feat by playing out an opening where we see how the previous film has connected the malevolent force to a new set of characters. The tense confrontation between the police officer from the first film, and a couple of drug dealers is graphic and frightening. The payoff is also gruesome, although mostly unrelated to the process of being infected. If you have not seen the first film, you might be confused as to what is going on. Even if you are, I still think you will be hooked.
Movies like this are often faulted for using jump scares to goose the audience, and sometimes that is a legitimate criticism. It is an easy way to get a rise out of the paying customers. When used effectively however, a jump scare can make the film feel so much more lively. "Smile 2" has about five of these jump scares, two of which make the film story more effective and they exist for more reasons than just a quick "boo". The most disturbing scenes however, play out a bit more slowly. There is a truly disturbing scene where Skye is threatened in her own apartment by someone she knows to be a deranged fan. The slow reveal of those moments contain some disgusting visual references that make the scenario even more horrifying.
[Warning] I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible in my posts, but there is something that I need to mention and it may reveal more about the plot than you want to know. I will not give away anything specific but I will remind people that you cannot trust what you see being played out on the screen. The characters may sometimes be visualizing their own nightmares, and those may not be the actual events. This is a key element in the ultimate plot, and it was one of the things that is both creative and frustrating about the movie. It is close to the "Wizard of Oz" than it is to "The Sixth Sense" and it may undermine your appreciation of the film, as it did for me.
The ultimate payoff in the movie is an interesting take of the premise, and it could lead to subsequent films that will be much broader in scope that the two films we have seen so far. Writer/Director Parker Finn has found a niche with this concept, I hope that it is nurtured and creative in subsequent films, but there are dangers as well. I was not expecting to enjoy this film as much as I did, and although I am a little nonplussed at the way the plot plays out, the movie did make me smile.
Suffering from the flaws of many horror films these days, "Heretic" still manages to be a fascinating variation on the premise. This is in large part due to the casting of Hugh Grant as the antagonist and the charming performances of the two lead actresses, Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East. This is basically a three person set piece, but the setting is an elaborately designed house with a subterranean structure that will add to the mystery and sense of dread that pervades the first half of the movie. The deceptively inviting bait includes the charming Mr. Reed, played by Grant, who at first seems the most innocuous of potential threats.
Thatcher and East play two Mormon missionaries, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes, out for the day on their bicycles, looking to spread their faith. The opening section includes the uncomfortable cold calls and interactions with locals on the street. Sister Paxton, has no new converts and seems to be losing confidence, especially after she is humiliated by some teen girls that she had approached in a friendly manner. Sister Barnes is a little more pragmatic, and maybe weary of proselytizing, but both she and Sister Paxton seem committed to their beliefs, even as they discuss some world challenging truths around them. They are not just doing cold calls however, they have a list of homes that have indicated an interest in their faith, and one of those is the house off the beaten path of Mr. Reed. Set in an idyllic property, off the road, boarding a forested area, the Reed house looks friendly enough and when the mature, somewhat distracted Hugh Grant, answers the door in his patterned old style cardigan, the girls are nonplussed at his invitation to converse in the house. When they learn that his wife is supposedly baking in the kitchen, they accept the invite with very little trepidation.
This is all set up for the most interesting part of the film. Mr. Reed confronts the girls with a series of questions and challenging statements about faith and their beliefs in particular. As the purported wife does not appear, there is hesitation by the young women about proceeding. The dawning realization that they have been trapped in the house forces them to continue the facade of their visit. The carefully crafted politeness of the girls runs into the mildly rude but intellectual challenges of Mr. Reed. Grant is perfectly cast for this section of the film, he is clear in his beliefs but expresses them with the stuttering pace that he has been well known for in his other roles. He treats the girls like students in his own introduction to theology lecture, and paints a nasty image of organized religions based on their similar origin myths. His attempts to sow doubt in the girls seems plotted to force them to make a choice, which is ultimately meaningless in his eventual plans. His whole spiel is really just a cruel twist of a mental knife in the minds of the victims he is trying to create.
The living room and then the study of the Reed house, are decorated to invite confidence in the visitors, but as they move deeper into the house, the production design makes the floorplan more ominous. Once the girls pass the threshold into the basement structure, the film becomes a much more traditional film. Although there are a few twists thrown in to tie the escape section to the theological discussion in the early part of the film, those plot points make little sense. My friend Lisa Leaheey has said you can't judge a horror film by it's ending. If she is correct, we should disregard the last act of this movie, because it feels like an overworked attempt to vindicate what came earlier with a tradition horror element. I will say that I had an interpretation of the final resolution that was different from others, so maybe there is something here that is a little more challenging.
Because it is shooting high and tries to do something different, and it has three excellent performances, I am going to recommend the film. If you want a more complete and intelligent exit to the movie, you will be a little disappointed. I often find that I like movies in spite of their flaws and this would be one of those. I compared it to a film from two years ago, "Barbarian". A terrific opening is squandered by conventional horror tropes in the second and third acts. "Heretic" is not quite as egregious in it's failures, so in contrast it is the better film. I also think the difference is enough to recommend it.
[I have included the video of the podcast from the LAMBcast, which featured this film, in case you want to hear and see more.]
