Call Me By Your Name

This film is getting a lot of praise for the performances of the two leads, Armie Hammer and Timothée Chalamet. It is a love story between an older man and a 17 year old boy, but Kevin Spacey is nowhere to be found. The pace of this film is leisurely to say the least. The story is set in Northern Italy during the summertime so there is plenty of lovely scenery to surround the two attractive leads as they engage in a protracted dance of "love that dare not speak it's name".  The nature of the romance is about the only reason I can think that the movie is set in 1983, except for the ubiquitous presence of the Psychedelic Furs.

The story meanders through a whole lot of plot points that end up going no where. Elio, the boy, gets nosebleeds. Don't worry, there is no terminal illness coming, it is simply an incident that has no bearing on the characters and their relationships, but it does allow the movie to add two minutes to it's running time. There is also a seemingly competing romantic interest for each of the young men. One is more developed than the other, but again, neither has much to do with the central relationship.

Michael Stuhlbarg and Amira Casar are Elio's parents. They are erudite, sensitive and well educated. They are the kind of family that sits together in the afternoon, and has Mom read out loud 16th Century literature, which she is translating from German for them, and which also happens to pose the exact philosophical question facing Elio at this moment. Should the Knight reveal his affection for a forbidden love?  This screenplay is too precious for it's own good. Near the end of the film, Professor Perlman has a long talk with his son, which reflects his deep understanding of romance, human experience and poetry. The words sound like they were composed with great care but they are delivered as if they are random thoughts that a warm hearted parent can trickle off the tongue at a moments notice.

In addition to the slow pace of the movie, and the erotic theme, there are two or three other clues to show you that this is the indie darling of the moment. There are at least seven company credits at the start of the movie, which are of course referenced then in the title. Three sections have the obligatory cruise through the countryside accompanied by an indie alternative pop tune that is slow and meditative. If you thought that Rooney Mara eating pie in "A Ghost Story" was the weirdest food moment you would get in films this year, well be prepared to be surprised by Chalamet and his peach.

The actors are fine. Armie Hammer is appropriately casually arrogant in the way a young American must be. He flexes and poses in all the right ways to get the girls in the story hot, and of course it has the same effect on the lead. Elio is an artist, musician and intellectual with a brooding demeanor that suddenly warms up in a much too unclear manner. Staring out the window and  saying nothing is visual but it does not reveal the inner needs of the young man. Some of the events that take place are more useful at doing so, but they are often randomly distributed and the movie never seems to develop and dramatic urgency until the last ten minutes. It was a interesting story, that was told in a loose manner. A few good performances can't overcome the issues with the screenplay however.

Darkest Hour

Viscount Halifax: "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."

With all due deference to screenwriter Anthony McCarten, who has crafted a solid narrative around the early days of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, much of the success of this film must go to another writer. That author is the central character of this film and perhaps the most important historical figure of the last century. The high points of this film all center around addresses that he made to Parliament,  the Nation, or to an inner circle of confidants and political rivals. As a Speech instructor, it is understandable then how I can be moved and consequently passionate about this movie.  

There is something in the air this last year because this period of time has been the subject of several films over the last twelve months. "Dunkirk", "Their Finest", and "Churchill" have all been released in 2017. While I have not seen the later, the other two are strongly related to the events depicted in this film. One of my colleague on-line, a British citizen, schooled me in the attitudes toward patriotism in Great Britain. He suggests that it is acceptable to be proud of the history and heritage but not to draw attention to it as we Americans are wont to do. I can appreciate the cultural norm of humility, but being an American I do not feel bound by it. Great Britain stood up to one of the greatest evils in the history of the world, and for a time stood alone. The wherewithal to do so was inspired substantially by their wartime leader, a man that every free person should be willing to acknowledge. Churchill was far from perfect, he had a history of failures and his views on some subjects would be viewed very dimly by most people today. He was however, the right man at the right time and place.

Speaking of the right man, actor Gary Oldman, who has been a favorite of mine since the days of "Sid and Nancy", rightly deserves the talk he is getting about winning an Academy Award. This is a intricate portrayal of a complex character, who was fiercely convinced of his correctness but was also cognizant of the circumstances he found himself in. Certainly the make-up artists that transformed his visage into Churchill will deserve a share of the credit, but the lion's share goes to Oldman. He is able to summon doubt and conviction almost simultaneously in some scenes.If you have ever listened to Churchill's wartime speeches, you will hear the grumbling and muttering and dry delivery. Oldman manages to duplicate the manner of those speeches but imbue them with enough theatricality to make them compelling to watch in a feature film. He stays true to Churchill's demeanor but adds a spark of charisma to the settings.

Director Joe Wright has made very good films in the past (Atonement/Pride and Prejudice), but he has also stumbled at times (The Soloist/Pan). He makes several choices here that I think work well for the focus of the film. Although the subject is war, the depiction of the war is cinematically visualized without dwelling on the combat. A series of overhead shots, usually accompanied by an airplane swipe across the screen, gives us a bird's eye view of the events that are taking place on the ground without turning the movie into a combat film.   In a similar fashion, Churchill is shown at times as an isolated figure in a sea of hostility by lighting and again the use of an overhead shot.

The contributions of the screen writer probably include the frequently uncomfortable conversations that Churchill had with the King. Certainly, the inspiring ride on the underground is an imagined event that helps the Character know the mind of the British people more forcefully. My memories of my British Public Address graduate seminar, helped give me a little context to the Parliamentary process, but I think anyone would be able to fathom what is going on and what it all means by simply following the cues that McCarten has laid out for us. It may be an old school concept to give us a running slide of calendar days but it works well in building some urgency, even though there is little action in the story. The film makers have managed to put together a very watchable narrative that is not driven by great events but rather by great oratorical moments. I may sometimes be blinded by my own sense of righteousness concerning the events of World War II. I like history and I admire the figures who made a difference in the world, regardless of revisionist social norms. Let's hope that enough young people get exposed to this story before they start reading about this in school. I don't think movies should be our main source of knowledge about history, but like Spielberg's "Lincoln", "Darkest Hour" manages to make an historical figure the giant that he truly deserves to be. 

The Greatest Showman

I'm of the opinion that Hugh Jackman should do a musical on an annual basis and that it ought to be released at Christmas time. Those pieces just fit together. Everyone has their own Christmas traditions, one of ours has been a visit to a movie theater on Christmas Day.  If you are interested, here is a link to my Letterboxd List of Christmas Movies.As it turns out, there is a Hugh Jackman musical and a Zac Efron musical on the list as well. Even for a subject as grim as Les Misérables, the fact that it is a musical makes it feel more holiday appropriate.

This film is an original musical, supposedly based on the life of P.T. Barnum. Barnum did have a Museum of Oddities, and was married to a woman named charity, and did tour the singer Jenny Lind as an attraction after discovering her in Europe. Everything else is made up out of whole cloth. For dramatic purposes, the screen writers and director have gone the old school Hollywood fashion and tacked pieces of Barnum's history onto a story that they want to tell which has little to do with the biographical subject. That's OK, but Barnum had a very interesting life and was a significant public figure of the American scene in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, a hip hop musical probably needs some romantic stories to hang onto and a little social justice subtext seems to fit with the personality of the film.

First time director Michael Gracey, shows his roots as a visual effects guy, as he shoots segments of the background in slow motion and has the main figures operating at live speed. There are so many beautiful moments that it sometimes feels like a visit to the eye candy store and maybe we over indulge a little. Still, the modern dance numbers and elaborate aerial ballet look fantastic and when combined with the show stopping mood of each segment, it does feel like a series of crescendos. The dances are staged in clever ways when the ensemble is performing, you can see the contemporary influences easily. When the story focuses on a single performer at a time, the mood is a little more traditional although the songs never are.

Jackman and Efron are joined by several performers who stand out. Zendaya is an actress/dancer who was recently seen in "Spider Man Homecoming". She actually performs the acrobatics in the film and as the love interest and face of victimization from racism in the last century, she makes a solid impression. Keala Settle is a singer with some stage experience, but her voice and demeanor as the bearded lady in Barnum's show, belie any masculinity and show the toughness that a woman and a so-called freak would need to have. Michelle Williams is always solid and her part here was enhanced with some singing and dancing that seems to extend her range even more. Rebecca Ferguson plays the song bird Jenny Linn, and although her singing voice is dubbed, her performance on stage will make you a believer as it did the audiences in the film.

So the movie looks amazing, the music is inspiring, the story is mostly nonsense but the heart of the film is what matters. Hugh Jackman for years has wanted to do a film featuring P.T. Barnum as a character. He seems to have put his heart into this movie and it shows. Modern Audiences would certainly flock to this if it were a stage show and was performed on Broadway. Movie audiences on the other hand are more fickle and less likely to embrace this until it has an established reputation. Expect this to be a widely loved cult film among cinema fans in about five years. As for me, although it is apocryphal that P.T. Barnum said "there is a sucker born every minute", I'm with the newspaper man from "The Man who Shot Liberty Vallance", "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." I'm a sucker for musicals and show business stories, so I can say I loved this piece of catnip and I hope you will go out and see it.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

I hear people in the blogging community complaining about this film as if it is besmirching a classic film to do another version. Get off it people. The 1995 version was a perfectly acceptable piece of family entertainment for it's time. It featured elaborate early CGI and Robin Williams. There is a warm family story buried in the action adventure plot and all the good guys win and the villains are vanquished. Guess what, that is exactly the same scenario of this film, just take out Robin Williams and insert Dwayne Johnson, and you have the same outcome.

This concept is updated to reflect more modern sensibilities, so the board game is a computer game, and a transgendered Jack Black makes penis jokes, but none that can't keep the movie it's PG-13 rating. Basically the "Breakfast Club" travels to a different dimension and in addition to playing the game, they try to resolve social problems that they have in their "real" life as well. There are no big surprises here. Nothing shows up that you could not anticipate, but it is all carried off in an entertaining manner with a lot of humor and good old fashioned adventure story.

Two things that did standout a bit, and add a little something to the mix. The film is very self-aware when it comes to the sexual stereotyping that exists in a video game. It plays with that a little but not enough to be a polemic on the subject. I also appreciated that the teachers and Principal of the High School that the kids all attend, are not comic book figures for ridicule. They all have reasonable demands that they are making of their students and they are really trying to help the kids, even if the kids can't see it.

The cast here is all game for the film. "The Rock" continues to be a reliable presence in almost all films he appears in, even the bad ones. In this movie he gently mocks himself as a character but also plays the hero role well. Jack Black is hit or miss these days and a little goes a long way. I think he was well used as the avatar of the most self centered girl in the school, he is the complete visual opposite but manages to convey her personality in his performance. Maybe Karen Gillian works in the movie because she has done the video-game thing herself in earlier work. I have only known her from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" but she is apparently a Dr. Who video game fixture. This is a second pairing of Kevin Hart with Johnson, I think they should go ahead and repeat the tag line for "Central Intelligence" for this film. It would work.

So the movie will not win over any converts, but those with an open mind will find some entertainment. If you and your family end up in a theater seeing this, you won't hate yourselves but you won't get much more than some entertainment out of it. That seems like a perfectly acceptable objective, and it is a perfectly acceptable film.

White Christmas : Sing A Long at Disney Concert Hall

We are always looking to do something that feels special around the holiday season. This year we have had a plethora of films with Christmas themes available to us on the big screen. After having watched more contemporary fare like  "Die Hard" and "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", it seems appropriate that we finish our pre-Christmas Cinema experiences with a classic. This screening was scheduled at the beautiful Disney Concert Hall, where just a few of weeks ago we saw "West Side Story" with a full orchestra. I was a little disappointed that there was no scheduled musical accompaniment. There was however a foreground banner with the lyrics to each song printed as the film rolled. So 2200 people were encouraged to sing along with the Irving Berlin songs.

Whenever I read reviews of "White Christmas" they seem to dismiss it as being a clunky piece of Hollywood schmaltz that is overlong and getting by on the reputation of the titular tune. I can't really say that those assessments are inaccurate. The story does feel pieced together primarily to allow for some production numbers. The movie does go on for two hours, which seems a little long for a light piece of fluff. There are however more songs than the Christmas classic here. All of them are delivered with vim and vigor and they remind you of some of the reasons that old Hollywood was referred to as the Dream Factory.

The opening sequence set on the front in World War II, is a combination of cabaret entertainment from the era, with a war story setting. Two performers who have been put together by circumstances are trying to entertain the troops on Christmas eve before a major action. The troops need this morale booster, and the outgoing CO is willing to let them have a few moments, while the new guy thinks the whole shebang should be stopped immediately. It's easy for us to see that the crusty but sentimental General, is the justifiable figure of respect in this unit. Now whether anything that follows makes any sense, it will depend on our willingness to grant him that status. 

Bing Crosby was probably the biggest entertainer in the world for the preceding decade.  An actor with an Academy Award, he was also the artist that most influenced the way people consumed their music starting in the 30s. Danny Kaye was a Borscht Belt performer who transitioned from two reelers and Broadway review shows to movie star. Originally this film was to be a rematch of Crosby and Fred Astaire from "Holiday Inn". Astaire bowed out, Donald O'Conner was unavailable so the second role fell to Kaye who added a lot of his personality and rapid style delivery to the film. Rosemary Clooney and Vera Ellen are a sister act that the two Broadway Show producers get involved with and then it all comes back to the General at an Inn in Vermont.

The songs are glorious but definitely old fashioned. The acts that break up what story line there is are the kinds of review performances that were once popular but are largely missing from more modern entertainment. Danny Kaye gets to dance an athletic sequence with Vera Ellen that was clearly choreographed for Fred Astaire. Later in the film he does another dance sequence which actually mocks the choreography of dancing. Bing does a little dancing, a lot of crooning and between the four characters there are plenty of laughs that get bogged down a bit by a subplot that could clearly have inspired a decade of "Threes Company".

The sets and costumes make a great impression, especially with the way the brilliant Technicolor photography pops off the screen. By the close, as the cast is singing the title tune in a winter wonderland, you will appreciate why Clark Griswold compares his holiday plans to this film. I hope you all have the " hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny f##king Kaye."

Coco

I'm ashamed to say I waited to see this film until now. "Coco" opened a month ago and I wanted to see it but I was not in a rush. Usually a Pixar film would be a top priority, an opening weekend must. Something about the film put me off. I just didn't feel the same urgency I usually feel about these movies. I ultimately skipped "The Good Dinosaur" a couple of years ago for the same reason. Boy am I glad I didn't repeat that decision this time. "Coco" is a spectacular film and will certainly be among my favorites of the year.

It might have been the Dia de Muertos subject matter. Although the animation looked spectacular for The Book of Life" a couple of years ago, I have still never seen it. The controversy over the inclusion of the "Frozen" short may also have played a part in keeping me away. Well, there was no 25 minute Olaf short in front of the show we went to, and that is good because it keeps all the focus on this really terrific film.

The idea of the Land of the Dead being a place that could be visited by a living person is a little disturbing. And as Miguel, our hero stays longer, he begins to resemble "Jack" from "An American Werewolf in London", Maybe not that gruesome but in spirit at least. Creepy stuff for a kids film but the cultural roots of the story rescue it from being morbid and actually turn the setting and theme into a sentimental piece that people of a variety of cultures can appreciate. The skeleton images that are associated with Dia de Muertos, are not really designed to be frightening but rather a depiction of what an afterlife might resemble. The main characters in the story turn out to be relatives of Miguel who now reside in the land of the dead and are key to his accomplishing his goal of playing music.

There is a lot of humor in the film, much of it based on the displacement of skulls, bones and assorted body parts. There is also some appropriately themed Mexican style music composed by Michael Giacchino (who is not a Mexican but was assisted by musicians who do know the music) that sets a tone that is mysterious but also culturally familiar. People seeing this movie will have a much greater understanding of some of the Mexican traditions that they may only have a passing knowledge of to begin with.

Although there are twists in the story that you can see coming, and the structure is familiar to anyone who has seen a Pixar movie in the last twenty years, the film still manages to be surprising. It is also sentimental and very moving. Parents might want to be warned that there is a subplot that deals with murder, and that may be hard for the young ones to work around. The vividy realized world and the rules under which it operates however are creative as heck and you may be stunned by how beautiful the film can be at times.

Especially memorable is the role that an elderly woman plays in the story. While this might be reminiscent of last year's "Moana", the way it plays out is very different and it does offer children something to value. All of us live on because we are remembered. Heck, that's one of the reasons I started writing this blog, so my kids and grand-kids (if I ever have any) will be able to know me better. This movie is hanging around the box office long enough for all of us to be able to remember it. The theme song is special and ties into the principle behind the movie especially well. I suspect that the tune written by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, will be recalled by the Academy Members as well. I really loved this movie and I hope to see it again and maybe write some more about it's ideas, but for now I just want people to know how I feel.

Die Hard: The Nakatomi Christmas Party Edition

So it's Christmas time in Southern California, which means Santa Ana Winds, Wildfires and "Die Hard". We were accidentally invited to the Corporate Christmas party for the Nakatomi Corporation last night. The event took place at the beautiful Theater at the Ace Hotel. We had been to this venue back in the Spring for a Radiotopia event featuring "The West Wing Weekly". Last night however was a different thing entirely, a screening of that perennial holiday classic "Die Hard".

The event was part of KPCC's Screen Week Film series. Most of the attendees were listeners to that public radio show found here in the Southland. The radio host Larry Mantle, presented a discussion after the film with two critics who appear regularly on the KPCC show.  It was a light hearted salute to the film where the two women who clearly had not seen the film in it's original run , praised it as a perfect action/popcorn feature. One woman is a critic at Variety, and she had some insights on how the movie had originally been received by critics in 1988. The second woman was a writer at Rogerebert.com, and she told some background stories about the films development. I wish I'd written their names down one was Amy and the other I think was Christine. I looked for data on-line but I could not find it listed in the program notes.

The Theater at the Ace Hotel was formerly the United Artists Theater in Downtown Los Angeles. It was built in 1927 and it features a huge orchestra level floorplan and two balcony ares. It seats 1600 people and last night it was close to capacity. If you have never seen Die Hard with an audience, you are missing something. Maybe this crowd was hyped up because it's Christmas time and they are mostly subscribers to the station, but they were definitely a receptive audience.

We whooped it up when Hans arrived, when Karl is killed, when John jumps off the building, and we laughed loudly at every L.A. cliche you can spot in the film. Argyle got a huge share of laughs and every bad guy death seemed to get a cheer from the audience. Al Powell practically got an ovation in the last scene.

I was on a podcast just two weeks ago where we rhapsodized about the film for nearly an hour and a half. If you like, the link is HERE.

Two of the guests on the podcast,

@almostgingr  and

@LifeVsFilm

were Brits who were not familiar with the Run DMC Christmas hit, "Christmas in Hollis" so for them I have included the following music video, which by the way was featured in the pre-show entertainment for the Shane Black event last Sunday. 

I've seen Die Hard so many times it is hard to count, but last nights experience was one of the best. The theater was beautiful, it was packed and the sound combined with the big screen accomplishes exacly what you want, an immersive experience.

Just as promised, it will blow you thru the back wall of the theater.



Merry Christmas to all and to all "Die Hard". 

 

 

Lawrence of Arabia 70mm Print Screening at Egyptian Theater

If it seems like an annual tradition to see a Lawrence of Arabia post here on the KAMAD site, well I think you are pretty perceptive. This is a film, much like "Jaws" which we will go out of our way to see on the big screen, and it so happens that Southern California audiences are hungry for Lawrence on a regular basis.

Last night we had the premier of a new 70mm print, created from a restored negative, that has been in the works since 2009. Grover Crisp was introduced by the chief programming guru of the American Cinematique.  He was in charge of the restoration for the 50th Anniversary restoration that arrived in 2012. He talked about how they knew it would be a long process so they actually started three years ahead of time. They created a negative print to keep in the archives, while the digital materials were distributed for the anniversary edition. They ended up having many requests for a print version to use in repertoire screenings, and he said they created six. The North American print is now in the possession of the Cinematique and will be available regularly. Our screening was the first time this print was run for an audience in North America.

Mr. Crisp gave us a brief but detailed explanation of the process that was used to create this print. There were technical elements that are beyond my ability to explain, and to some degree even understand. The visual demonstration of the defects created by the cracks in the emulsion on the original negative prints was effective at showing why the work needed to be done.  Seeing the scenes back to back and side by side shows how extensive and impressive the work done by the experts was. Thank goodness someone can still do these things and that people want to make sure they get done.

For a video blog on a previous Lawrence screening, you can click HERE .

The last blog post on a Lawrence screening is HERE. 

The link to the Lawrence-a-palooza post is HERE.

The print was magnificent and the crowd was equally appreciative. There were three young guys sitting behind us who were clearly film fans from the conversation I overheard. I asked them and they told me this was the first time they were seeing the movie. I told them they were really lucky to get the experience in this format, and that I was jealous because the first time experience with a film like this is always terrific. Even though this is the sixth time I've seen the movie in the last few years on the big screen, my face still hurts from smiling for three and a half hours. 

 Film fans may be distracted by "Star Wars" this week and next, but if you are in the Southern California area, you owe yourself a trip to Hollywood for these special screenings. Tonight and Sunday are still available to you this weekend, and there are three nights next week when you can do this as well. Here's a link th help you get there: American Cinematique. 

If you do make one of these shows, please come back and let me know what you thought. 

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

It's hard to be dispassionate and analytical about a subject that you have been passionate about for forty years. Star Wars has been a cultural phenomena for that long now, and even casual fans can get carried away by the enthusiasm of anticipation and nostalgia. This film manages to hit most of the right buttons for the cosplay crowd, while still being accessible to everyone else. I suspect it will require a couple more viewings to be a bit more objective, but even now I can see a few things that are weaknesses from my view. They are not particularly significant to my enjoyment of the film, but they were more noticeable to me than the flaws of the last two Star Wars movie. "The Last Jedi" is a good story, surrounded by an ambitious production, with a couple of cinematic weaknesses that keep it from the perfection that so many are hyping now.

First, the good stuff. Just about every sequence with Mark Hamill works and gives him an opportunity to bring a character we have loved for a long time, some new dimensions. The callow schoolboy of the original trilogy has become a wizened figure of melancholy, but one with a great sense of humor. There are several light moments in the film that provoke a laugh, Hamill provides most of these, even though he is a character fraught with regret. Writer/Director Rian Johnson has given Luke an arc that is redemptive, cynical and blind all at the same time. Since I refuse to simply tell you the story, I'll let you find out for yourselves, but the payoff at the conclusion of Luke's story is emotionally satisfying to all of we fans who watched the original film in 1977. This is the best kind of torch passing you will see outside of the Olympic Relay.

It's been a year now since our Princess left us, but the character lives on in this film. Carrie Fisher has a significant role in this movie and she finishes her career with a strong presence in the film. Leia is haunted by the events from the last film in the trilogy, but she is needed more than ever by the Rebellion. There is no doubt that "the Force" lives in her, even though she is not a Jedi. Largely missing from the second act, her storyline through the rest of the film works well at keeping us connected to the reason that the "First Order" cares about a relatively small rebel force.

Many people, including myself, thought that "The Force Awakens" borrowed heavily from "A New Hope". There were plenty of call backs but also it seemed that the story beats mimicked the original film to a fault. It has been widely suspected that this movie would end up doing something similar with "The Empire Strikes Back".  There are several points that echo or repeat ideas from that film. They are mostly moments though, rather than plot threads. The parallel between Luke now and Yoda on Dagobah is clear but superficial. The temptation of Rey by Ben is very much in the vein of Luke and Darth Vader in "Empire". These similarities felt like strengths to me rather than weak imitations. It is as if the pattern of the struggle between the light and dark sides of the Force are destined to repeat themselves.

Of the characters introduced in "The Force Awakens", the ones who come off the best in this film are the principles in the main plot, Kilo Ren (Ben) and Rey. Adam Driver is being used in this film the way Christian Hayden should have been used in the two prequel films. His emotional arc is more subtle and less random than the earlier character. The behaviors that he was mocked for in the last film are not eliminated here but they are exploited to tell a story and create some motivation on his part. Getting rid of the mask will be one of the things that allows this film to be much more mature in bringing this character to the next film and the climax of his story.

Rey also gets a solid few pieces of character development, and much like Luke in the original trilogy, she is the center of the story without having to carry the whole film and plot on her back. Daisy Ridley can't have quite the impact she did as a new character in the last episode but she grows and fights and makes choices that all work because she commits as an actor to the character. Her best moments include a series of interactions with Luke, a moment of uncertainty in a cave, and the culmination of her interaction with Ben. Everything else in the film is context for the relationship that is being formed with these two.

OK, now to some of the things that hold this movie back from it's potential. The other characters introduced in the last episode do not fare as well in these events. Oscar Issac as Poe Dameron, is not the mix of Han and Luke that we want him to be. The character comes off as a weak version of Maverick from "Top Gun". Head strong and unwilling to listen to those higher in the chain of command, he needs more charm to be able to pull this off. His character is underwritten and feels the most cardboard of the leads in the film. Jon Boyega's Finn is marginally better, with more to do and a new character to play off. The problem is that the main sequence he is featured in was the weakest part of the film. The casino plot on a new planet, Canto Bright, feels the most like the prequel films. Elaborate set design, background scenes filled with CGI creations to amuse us, and a completely unnecessary chase on new creatures that we are introduced to, simply for the opportunity to have them in the film. The rushed and tacked on inclusion of Maz from the last film also makes this story thread feel like an accessory rather than something endemic to the plot.

There are some treats that come along with the story, which help compensate for some of the excess. The opening battle sequence is excellent as is the fight at the climax of the film. The material where Snoke confronts Rey and Ben is also a welcome surprise and turn of events. As I have already said, the Luke Skywalker payoff was maybe the most satisfying thing about the movie and the reveal and reactions to it were well played by all involved. This is officially the longest film in the Star Wars franchise, and it did not need to be. I was never bored but I was sometimes overwhelmed by having to keep track of so many events taking place simultaneously.

"The Last Jedi" can work as a stand alone feature but it does set up future events for subsequent films. The film looks terrific and there are plenty of action scenes to keep us involved, but only the plot with Luke and Rey and Ben feels like it is relevant to the story that is being told. I wish it had ended on a note that builds anticipation and discussion for the next film, but this movie feels complete. Clearly there are characters that have to be resolved, but It is unlikely to create the kinds of discussions that took place after either "Empire" or "The Force Awakens.". 

Lambcast Rian Johnson Epidode

I may have to move in with Jay. KAMAD back on the Lambcast.

Lady Bird

The characters portrayed in this film go to Catholic Schools and wear uniforms reflecting that status. Inspired by that vision and setting, I am prepared to make a confession. "Bless me internet for I have sinned. I am not a Catholic so it has been my whole life since my last confession,...I did not love this film."  Unlike Marion McPherson, I like Lady Bird rather than love her. After hearing so many podcast raves and seeing the 100% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (which finally dropped today to 99%), maybe I was expecting too much. Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly fine movie and it has some excellent qualities to share with us, but it is not a "perfect" film, although I can say it is an accurate and honest one.

One of the guys on the "In Session Film" podcast, said his only complaint was that "hella tight" sounded too early for 2003. He apparently is unaware that the term "hella" has been around the NorCal area since the early seventies and there was a No Doubt song that featured the phrase the year before. To me it sounded completely authentic to time and place. The one thing only that felt inauthentic was a sex scene where the girl keeps her bra on. I understand and respect the right of the film makers to present their story in a manner that is non-lascivious.  This is not an 80s teen comedy after all, but Saoirse Ronan is not Janet Leigh in the opening scene of "Psycho" released in 1960. The idea that a teen Lothario would be passive enough to ignore this undergarment is just ludicrous. Find a more modest angle, or use a bedsheet, which is a lot more probable, and that scene would still work without a topless shot.

I'm really not trying to pick at the film, that was just one minor example of the slight imperfections that people might overlook because they love so much of the rest of the film. Who can blame them? There is a lot to love about this movie. The actors are all pitch perfect.  Saoirse Ronan is deadpan funny in so many scenes that we ought to be laughing a lot. I did, but not as much or as deeply as I expected. Humor is subjective at times, and the contentious nature of her relationship with her mother Marion, while amusing, was also painfully expressed, which did not always deepen the laugh but soured it. The timing of the two actresses, Ronan and Laurie Metcalf, cannot be faulted. They are fine, it is the occasional bitter dialogue that sounds honest but hit my ear just a little too often as trying too hard. The same was true in a scene where "Lady Bird" confronts her best friend when being given the silent treatment. They both throw verbal jabs that are funny, but just a bit too perfectly set up.

Maybe the reason I am not quite as responsive to this is that I have lived this story to a large degree. Maybe I was off a year, but I have a daughter who longed to be going to school in NYC. She had a boyfriend who turned out to be something different than she had hoped. She worked as a barista to make cash so she could pay her own way. She was definitely smart but had work habits that held her back and she found friends late in her high school career in theater. The love/hate relationship was maybe more with her father than her mother, so the crisp dialogue in this film might just be too on the nose.

My favorite scene in the film involves Lady Bird's sudden realization that she doesn't want to fit in with her new friends. She wants to go to the prom. That was certainly the opposite of my child, who would never have bent her behavior to curry favor with a group of people she wanted to be "in" with, with only two exceptions, picking up cigarettes and automatically taking a position designed to irritate one or the other of her parents. Lady Bird has to come to realize that abandoning her friend Julie, played with a heart breaking degree of honesty by Beanie Feldstein,  was a big mistake, and it is one of several transformative moments in the movie. Lucas Hedges gets a second opportunity within just a couple of weeks to make a mark on the film business. His part here is deeper and more significant than his role as the neglected surviving sibling in "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri", and the tenderness between Ronan and he is wonderful despite the bitterness that accompanies it.

Writer/Director Greta Gerwig has fashioned a very effective coming of age story. There are plot elements that you can see coming, and the lines are sometimes to dead on, but it is a great script and film. It is however, just another coming of age story. The performances, elevate the movie quite a bit but the heaping of praise on everything about the movie burdens the experience rather than sharpening it.  There is nothing to not like about the film but that doesn't make me love it. To take advantage of one of the most derided quotes in movie history, "Love means never having to say you"re sorry". My guess is that it is apparent how I feel. Sorry.

Shane Black and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang/The Long Kiss Goodnight

This is designed to make all the bloggers out there jealous. An evening with two Shane Black films and Shane Black himself. Since it is the Christmas Season, it only seems appropriate that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is the main feature here. If you haven't had enough of the question whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie, get ready for the encore with this sour seasoned greeting. It is a delicious mixture of violence, comedy and tragedy, all told around the Christmas Holiday. It will certainly not be everyone's favorite pudding, but it will make a lot of people laugh at the holiday season and remember why they hate the holidays.

I love seeing films at the Egyptian and the American Cinematique has created some great programming for the month of December, including a new 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia which a certain youngest child and I will most certainly be taking in during the upcoming break. Tonight however is all about the marvelous Robert Downey Jr./Val Kilmer action comedy. Written and directed by Shane Black. 

From the beginning, I was reminded that I love this movie for it's idiosyncrasies. The titles are animated with shadow graphics and in a flash back sequence we see young Harry (The RDJ character) in his magician mode. The second character in this sequence who plays a major role later in the film is a little girl who grows up to be Harmony (the Michelle Monaghan character). That we pass the next twenty years in a few brief seconds is one of the marvels of how movies can be told.

The accidental nature of Harry's arrival in Hollywood and the guilt that trials him sets up the rest of the plot. This is a plot that is pretty complicated and may at times leave some gaps that are never completely filled. The Choice by Black to keep moving forward without lingering too much over the dangling threads is one of the things that keeps the film from getting bogged down in logical consistency at the expense of narrative drive.   When "Gay Perry" is introduced and becomes a foil for Harry for the rest of the film, we get a buddy comedy layered on top of a modern noir. Val Kilmer may not have had as good a role as this in the last fifteen years, and he was great. 

The big question that film fans have concerns what is Black's thing about Christmas. Most of his films are set around the holiday and make explicit references to it. As he explained, "''it's like falling asleep in the back seat of the car with your father driving and singing a tune as the lights flash past your window. It is a feeling of childhood security knowing your Dad is taking care of you. When you get to L/A. The Christmas references are different, a broken figure of a saint or lighting that looks slightly out of place, but it's still Christmas. It's a culturally shared experience." He credits "Three Days of the Condor" with inspiring the Christmas motif in his films. 

Black was modest and honest in describing his freshman directorial effort. He was happy to give credit to improvements in the dialogue to actors who improvised during rehearsal. He also noted that some of the photographic effects were a result of accident rather than planning. He uses the term "running and gunning" as the description of their filming schedule. One person asked if he had plans to film any other movies with different holidays and he joked about his time bomb race against the clock set during Breast Cancer Awareness week. There was also a question about the design of the story being a reverse "Chinatown" where the incest angle is different and not what you think it is going to be. "Every assumption you make is wrong and at the end you are faced with an old man bedridden that you beat on."

The second film on the program was "The Long Kiss Goodnight" and he frankly admitted that he wrote it alone in part as a way of coping with some depression. He was complimentary about director Renny Harlin but admitted there were some things that he would change about the film, which is one of the reasons he wanted to direct himself.



He strongly advised us to stick around for the second feature, which only about a third of the audience did, but we were rewarded with a great over the top serving of 90s action film that featured Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson. He debunked the notion that the plot has any 9/11 foreshadowing, as he put it, "it's just a movie."

Both films were on 35mm but Black's parting comment was that 35mm bows in the middle and is fuzzy, so he is happy with digital projection.

Christmas Movie of the Month Lambcast: Die Hard

KAMAD gets in the Holiday spirit with several other Lambs to discuss the greatest of Christmas Films.

Movies I Want Everyone to See: Get Shorty

Review by Richard Kirkham  Originally Published in the Fall of 2014

This summer has been a cruel one for fans of "Get Shorty".  In June, James Gandolfini who played Bear the enforcer for Bo the Drug Dealer/wanna be movie producer, passed away at a relatively young 51. Last month, Dennis Farina who played Ray "Bones" Barboni left us at 69. This last week, Elmore Leonard the novelist and screenwriter responsible for the story and characters in the first place, left us at age 87. I'm not suggesting there is a curse or anything, but if this film does not get included before anyone else from the cast dies, I will feel terrible. "Get Shorty" is a star vehicle, and it featured John Travolta in a great part immediately after his comeback role in "Pulp Fiction". In spite of the obvious star driven nature of the film, there is a great ensemble cast that adds to the quality of the movie and makes it something I think everyone will be glad to have seen.

For movie fans, this is a film that should give them a warm feeling in their dreams. This is a gangster movie about gangsters who want to make a gangster movie. There are dozens of colorful characters both in the crime world and in Hollywood as the story gets told. The crime stuff may be accurate, someone with a better sense of that can judge for us, but the movie end of the story cuts incredibly close to the bone that is the film making process. Last year in the movie "Argo", John Goodman's character summed it up this way:

John Chambers: [after hearing of the plan to get the hostages out] So you want to come to Hollywood, act like a big shot...
Tony Mendez: Yeah.
John Chambers: ...without actually doing anything?
Tony Mendez: Yeah.
John Chambers: [smiles] You'll fit right in!

That is the plot of this movie. Everyone thinks they can be in the movie business and they are right. Yet being in the movie business does not always mean making a movie, sometimes it is about talking about making a movie. Our lead character Chili Palmer, played by John Travolta is good at talking.

Look At Me

Chili is a loan shark from Miami, who ends up in Hollywood while running down a customer who has tried to outsmart the mob. He is not a thug but he is not a pushover by any stretch of the imagination. Chili is the kind of guy who is usually too smart for everyone else in the room. He is also a movie fan and like many other fans of film, he thinks he can do better than the people who are currently making it in "Tinseltown". The plot involves him trying to find financing and a star for the movie he has in his head. That's right, the movie in his head. There is a screenplay for another movie that is pivotal to the plot, but most of what we see on the screen is the movie that Chili sees turning into his own film. It's a movie about a loan shark who comes to Hollywood in pursuit of a bad debt. He is making up the movie out of his life story as he is living it. That is a pretty awesome way of creating a screen story, if only all of us could lead an interesting enough life to do that, we would be able to get rid of all the remakes and sequels that come out of the film world today.

Travolta is a walking advertisement of "cool" in this film. He dresses in a sharp manner that doesn't seem ostentatious, he looks great in sunglasses and finally, he may be able to set the anti-smoking cause back by ten years. When he lights up and stares down an adversary, it is a moment everyone in the business will want to emulate. Travolta was at the top of his game in the moment this film was made. He was natural, charismatic and he had an everyman touch despite the fact that it was clear he was not everyone. Warren Beatty was apparently offered the role, and from the looks department and the cool factor you can understand why he seemed a good fit, but Travolta has a sense of humor in his eye that makes the part work, and when he drops the veneer of friendliness he feels dangerous in a way that I think Beatty would not have been able to match.

In addition to Chili Palmer, there are a dozen other characters that flicker around the flame of Hollywood success. Delroy Lindo, a charismatic presence himself, plays Bo the drug dealer. Bo wants into the business of movies and sees an opportunity to leverage himself in because a director owes him a large sum of cash. Another debt that Chili is trying to recover is owed by that director and Chili manages to insert himself into the process of making movies ( or more accurately movie deals) by trying to extricate the director from his entanglement with the drug dealer. Bo has a partner and an enforcer. The enforcer is a giant of a man who was once a stunt guy in the movie business. "Bear" is played by the late James Gandolfini as a menacing but ultimately ineffective threat. Muscle alone will not be sufficient to put Chili Palmer out of the deal. This is the first time I remember Gandolfini from a movie role. He had a sweet disposition for a thug and his wardrobe was California casual to the max. The big beard and long pony tail he came equipped with was authentic for the times, I know because I saw it in the mirror every day in the 1990s.

Every comedy has to have a fool somewhere, otherwise everyone would just act in their best interests and reason would dominate rather than laughter. "Get Shorty" has the biggest self deluded fool in Hollywood; low budget exploitation director/producer Harry Zimm. Harry wants to play with the big boys but we know he doesn't have what it takes from the beginning. Harry owes a Vegas casino, he owes a drug dealer, he has a script he can't quite get control over and a girlfriend who is way too smart for him. Casting gives this movie another secret weapon, Gene Hackman.  Pound for pound, movie for movie, I would put Hackman up against any other actor of any time, but he was not always thought of as a comedian. That makes no sense in light of the Superman movies where he was the antagonist and the comic relief at the same time. His three minutes in "Young Frankenstein" may be the highlight of one of the greatest comedies ever made.  He turned down the part originally because he did not usually do comedies. Zimm is a funny character not because he makes jokes but because he is a parody of the movie business itself. Hackman just had to play a character who was so clueless and yet so certain that he could really be a Hollywood figure. He nailed it.


One of his funniest lines comes when he can't even speak because of a beating that he took. Crawling out of the hospital to make it to a lunch with the potential star of his breakthrough quality picture, Chili and Karen, Harry's girlfriend, wonder what the hell he is doing at the lunch meeting at "The Ivy" in his condition. Harry can only croak out the phrase "My project" through  his jaws that have been wired shut. That is a true sense of commitment from a producer protecting his interests.

So far our focus has been on the Hollywood element, let's not neglect the gangster part of the story. Bo and his partners have problems of their own, a South American drug lord has come in search of money and a lost nephew. The FBI is watching money that has been stored in an airport locker, and Bo tries to trick Chili into exposing himself to get at the cash. Harry's big mistake in addition to not listening to Chili earlier and getting more deeply involved with Bo, is that he thinks he can big shot his way around the mob. Harry makes the mistake of trying to go it alone and contacts Chili's gangland connection in Miami, hoping to shake loose some cash for his film. Enter Ray "Bones", played with the usual gusto by Dennis Farina. Farina played gangsters in dozens of projects (he also played cops pretty well being a former Chicago cop himself). Farina had a poetic way of delivering a line with complete disdain and superiority. His conversations with just about everyone in this film suggest a barely contained rage at how idiotic he thought everyone else was. From the start of the film, he was the east Coast version of Harry Zimm, too big for his britches and not able to really stand toe to toe with Chili despite his elevated position of power. The scene where he and Harry meet is a high point of comedy in the movie. It is violent and abusive in the way that modern gangster films are wont to be. It is also hysterical.

Rene Russo is Karen, a b-movie scream queen, and Harry's girlfriend. It doesn't take long for Chili and Karen to connect because they are the two most intelligent characters in the movie. Whenever Chili is confounded by some stupidity in Hollywood, Karen is right there to to interpret for him. Russo is completely believable as a working actress who should know better and has greater ambition than originally seems. As the ex-wife of movie star Martin Weir, she connects Chili and Harry to some real power in Hollywood, a major star. Danny Devito seems like an odd candidate for the role but he channels his friend Jack Nicholson and creates an actor who is serious about his work but indifferent to how it effects others. In the film "The Player" Tim Robbins' character orders a different kind of fashionable water at every meeting, and then he never drinks. Martin Weir special orders food and then never takes a bite. It is one of the irritating ways that the pecking order in Hollywood might be measured.

In the background of the story are several other perfectly cast characters. David Paymer does nervous and combative at the same time. Bette Midler, who was unbilled in the film, does sexy and smart ass. Miguel Sandoval has made a living playing drug lords and government officials. Here he is menacing as he discusses taking in the Universal Tour and then maybe murdering some of the other characters in the movie. There is a long line of character actors who all bring this movie some realism and personality.

The director Barry Sonnenfield should get a lot of credit for making the movie play so well. There are great tracking shots that don't call attention to themselves but make the movie feel even more movie like. The look of all the locations is also important. Martin Weir's arrival for lunch at "The Ivy" is staged like a red carpet moment for an every day Hollywood activity. Harry's office looks rundown, over stuffed and heavenly to a movie fan who would love to have those kinds of film mementos on the walls and bookshelves. Bo's house in the Hollywood Hills is both pretentious and strangely attractive.

The real hero of the movie though is the creator of all of these characters, the late Elmore Leonard. His book is really the script for the movie. Scott Frank is credited with the screenplay and he and Leonard shared the same relationship on another project "Out of Sight" a couple of years later. Leonard's plotting and dialogue keep us involved. The actors bring the characters to life and it all comes off as a good natured poke in the eye to the movie business that is responsible for putting this out in the first place. In light of all the recent passings, it is a good time to embrace the quality of this film and remember how much a talented cast of professionals can do to entertain us. "Get Shorty" may have been a star vehicle for John Travolta, but it was a project that showed us that real stars are found in every well cast part.

Richard Kirkham is a lifelong movie enthusiast from Southern California. While embracing all genres of film making, he is especially moved to write about and share his memories of movies from his formative years, the glorious 1970s. His personal blog, featuring current film reviews as well as his Summers of the 1970s movie project, can be found at Kirkham A Movie A Day.