Studios continue to look for reasons to put pop music into movies. The obvious motivator is that those songs provide a presold audience for the film. Many films nowadays are simply an excuse to raid the catalogue available to them through their corporate ownership. I am not tracking down all the tunes used in this film to see if they are part of Universal's acquisitions, but it would not surprise me. The first film in this series came out five years ago and clearly did well enough to justify another dip into the waters.
The story is set up as if the audience will remember all the characters from the previous film, which may be a safe bet for kids and their parents who have replayed this incessantly over the last five years but that was not me. I saw "Sing" when it originally arrived in theaters and I have not revisited it since. It took a few moments for me to remember or understand who was who in this menagerie of singing pigs, gorillas, dogs, cats and elephants. Musical performances remind us a little bit of what happened in the first movie, but that history is mostly irrelevant now.
Like Kermit the Frog in "Muppets Take Manhattan" , Buster Moon wants to take his successful local theater production to the big time, a thinly veiled, animated version of Las Vegas. Cirque de Sol has nothing to worry about, because the staging of this extravaganza is even over the top for Vegas. So, the movie is a tale of the little guys trying to prove themselves in the big time while fighting minor tyrants, nepotism, and a reluctant former star who has sunk into his own sorrow so deeply that he has abandoned the music that once brought him to life.
There is no point in getting too technical about the story qualities. It is a simple structure designed to hang musical sequence on and it largely works. The look of the film is top notch with crisp character design and elaborate set production. The actors largely sing themselves [it helps when you just hire singers to do the voice work, but some of the actors who are not recording artists are solid as well]. When there are emotional moments in the film, it is usually a result of the song rather than the drama. There are plenty of funny bits with odd chases and crazy characters going wild, and those will amuse the little children in the audience.
It is the fact that it is a children's film that I want to finish on. The music and setting help keep this from being cloying, but it is still clearly designed to entertain families with small children. As the credits were rolling and the music was playing out, I saw several little girls, dancing in the aisles in this sold out theater. I was happy about two things: first, a movie theater was full, that is good news, second, the kids dancing reminded me of a couple of parents who took their kids to the movies thirty years ago and could not restrain them from dancing at the front of the theater when a movie was over. How could a movie that accomplish this be something to complain about?
A few months ago, I was a guest on "The Popcorn Auteur" podcast, and we discussed director Matthew Vaughn. While we all agreed that his style and visual flare are distinctive enough to call him an auteur, not every one of his films was a hit with the hosts. I on the other hand, can safely say I have not been let down by a Matthew Vaughn film yet, and that winning streak continues with this third entry into the "Kingsman" cinema universe. On the Sunday podcast, my colleague James Wilson was not particularly forthcoming with his dislike of the film, maybe to spare my feelings, but I was not worried because I have faith in Vaughn and this time he did something else that pleased me, he surprised me.
"The King's Man" does have some of the outlandish action scenes that Vaughn is noted for, we will discuss those in a moment. Although ostensibly the genesis of the Kingsmen franchise, this film has several elements that are clearly different from the other films. To begin with, it focuses on a real conflict, not something invented by the authors. Vaugh and his collaborators do graft on a subplot that suggests that WWI was the result of manipulation by a secret cabal, much like SPECTRE, but masterminded by a shadowy figure referred to by acolytes as "The Shepard". Historic figures like Mata Hari and Rasputin are then crossbred with the group to accomplish the machinations of the organization and bring the powers of Russia, Germany and Great Britain into conflict with one another. This retconning of history is fun because actual historical incidents and events are mixed with the fantasy of the film to create an interesting story. I hope that young people don't fall for the idea that Woodrow Wilson was blackmailed as a reason for delaying U.S. entry into the war, that would be too easy an excuse for his behaviors.
Another way that the film feels different is the war context itself. The fight wit Rasputin is entertaining nonsense, but the realities of the battlefield in WWI make this film sometimes feel like an outtake from "1917" and that switch in tone is maybe the hardest element of the film to reconcile. As a drama segment it works well on it's own but it does feel like a betrayal of the fun the film is trying to have with the outlandish premise that they have created. Tarantino was able to get away with this because the whole plot of "Inglorious Basterds" was at odds with reality. I will say with a slight warning of a **spoiler**, there is a plot twist that is wholly consistent with the first movie and it changes the direction of the story in a striking moment.
The fight sequences are the things that distinguish Vaughn's films from others of his ilk. They are manically choregraphed and filmed in creative ways. The perspective in the battle with Rasputin for instance, changes on the moment of contact and then momentum. The fighters look like ballet dancers twisting in the air but with sudden changes in orientation that alter their strategic advantage moment to moment. In the sword fight at the climax of the film. the villain is revealed and a battle with our main hero takes place. There is an amazing shot of the crossed swords that is technically complicated and extremely beautiful, it lasts just a second but it also reflects the care that goes in to composing the fight scenes in a Vaughn film.
Ralph Fiennes as Lord Orlando Oxford, adds dignity to the whole enterprise while also showing how he might have been a good choice for Bond back when Daniel Craig took over. His aristocratic air may have handicapped him in that choice but works perfectly in this context. Rhys Ifans plays Rasputin in a role that is really an extended cameo rather than a starring part, but he takes full advantage of the weird combination of mystic and barbarian, to outlandish effect. He has a couple of moments with Fiennes that are truly odd and hilarious at the same time. I am sure that his fighting skills are a combination of stunt work and CGI, but he nevertheless is the face of the character and one of the memorable things about the film. Daniel Brühl appears in a standard villain role as a parallel to Rasputin only in Germany. He is poised to come back if ever there is a continuation of the story as suggested by a mid-closing credits scene. Gemma Arterton, Djimon Hounsou, Matthew Goode and Charles Dance all do their parts to fill out the cast of the Kingsmen Service in one fashion or another. Tom Hollander gets to play multiple parts and that is fun for reasons that you will see when you watch the film.
I suppose I can understand why some are not enthusiastic about the film. It is highly stylized and the tonal changes are often not very smooth. On the other hand, the clever twisting of history to tie into the conceit of the story is just delicious and you get the signature action scenes that Vaughn is noted for, so I feel no need to apologize for my opinion, it was a great time at the movies.
I don't want to say I was disappointed in this movie, because I am not, but I will say that my expectations were so high that it was unlikely to be satisfied with whatever ended up being on screen, and that became my reality. The first time I saw the trailer, I was wondering if Director Paul Thomas Anderson was doing an Inception number on my head. The schools, the clothes the haircuts and the attitudes were right out of my memory. I didn't live in the valley but at one time I had a girlfriend who did. The next girlfriend I had, (who I eventually married) did not live in the Valley, but the character of Alana reminded me so much of her at times I had to remind myself that Encino was not my stomping grounds. I was set to love this film, and I only liked it a lot.
The strengths of the movie are largely the result of Anderson being able to evoke the period so well. The houses and production design are easy tipoffs as to the era. Gary, the male lead, is a young actor, aging out of kids parts and moving into other enterprise because he is basically a go-getter. Not yet 16, he has drive, self confidence, and just enough money from his career up to that point that he can invest in the next thing, be it arcades, waterbeds or Alana. Alana Haim, plays a twenty five year old woman who has not grown up and who has not had her ambitions in life stirred up yet. A decade older than Gary, she nonetheless becomes the object of his fixation, and frankly, he intrigues her enough despite their age difference, that she mostly ignores that decade. The characters are the heart of the film, they complement one another very well. She grounds Gary's ambitions and helps channel his boundless energy. She also provides an outlet for his maturity that would not be satisficed by a relationship with kids his own age. Alana get inspired by Gary. She can see possibilities that she either ignored before or was blind to. Even though she is older, Gary offers her a maturity that she has not had in her family life or profession, such as it is.
It is the random episodic nature of the events in the film that make it feel a little pointless at times. There is never a driving force that moves the characters through their lives and ultimately toward one another as more than friends. It may be an accurate depiction of how we really develop as people, but it is nit a satisfying story telling tool. Gary goes through several business opportunities and Alana pushes him away and clings to him simultaneously. Their brushes with random celebrities are interesting but do nothing to advance the story. I have seen "boogie Nights" and "Magnolia", so I am familiar with Anderson's style [Boogie Nights is one of my favorite films], but there is an energy in those films that propels the characters though to the resolution. The incidents here just feel random and they never develop much momentum, only the characters do that.
Some criticism has been made of the age difference and the notion that if the genders were reversed it would certainly be seen as inappropriate. First of all, most of the film does not involve a direct romance between the characters. They are friends but they do develop longings that would go past mere friendship. Second, it is the younger character who has a more mature attitude about life. Alana is sympathetic but she need someone to give her a push to get her life started. This is almost a gender reversal of "Manhattan" , and I know the Woody Allen reference might undermine my argument, but the film does not. The younger character can see things that the older character can't. This is a story about how two people fill one another's needs in ways that are not romantic, and how that ultimately leads to romance.
Telling a story set in Southern California seems to necessitate the inclusion of show business personalities. I am not sure why we get thinly veiled characterizations of Lucille Ball and William Holden, but Jon Peters and Joel Wachs are both portrayed as themselves. The person who steals the movie entirely is Bradley Cooper, who plays the narcissistic film producer Jon Peters. The few minutes he is on screen give the movie the electricity it needed in several other spots. Cooper shows us a manic, sex addict, social climber who demands perfection from everyone except himself. Aside from the young leads, who are making starring debuts, this is the performance that the movie will be remembered for.
"Licorice Pizza" is a film with all the components of a great movie but somehow manages to only be very good. I suspect it will grow on me as it matures in my memory and I experience it again. I can't say that anyone praising this as the best film of the year is wrong, I can only say I don't see ot that way at the moment.
I've been a big fan of the original "Nightmare Alley" from 1947 since I was a kid. The denouncement of that film is one of the great gut punches in movies. The lead character in that film is a charming heel, but he never seemed outright evil, rather just an opportunist. The Guillermo del Toro version makes Stanton Carlisle a much more malevolent figure and that makes the remakes payoff feel even more potent. The 47 version danced around the edge of crime but was not really a murder mystery. This updated version makes death a key component for all the characters, not just the pitiful mentalist who disappears pretty early in the story.
The film is a slow burn that picks up speed rapidly in the last act. The set up of Carlisle and his assistant Molly is nice and completely believable. I like the fact that Molly takes things slowly and recognizes the dangers that Stanton is taking as he moves his mentalist act into "spook show" territory. The film may not resonate as much with contemporary audiences because the nature of technology and the media have rendered us cynical about all sorts of things, and we might wonder how anyone could be taken in by Carlisle's tricks. Although it seems that it is still true that Nigerian Princes requesting money still seem to get a response somewhere on the internet. The main reason I think this sort of thing can continue is that we are all like Stanton, we figure we are smarter than the other guy so no one can fool us.
The two stories remain faithful up to a point, and then there is a break. I have not read the original novel so it is not clear to me if this is del Toro's addition or inclusion, but the character of Ezra Grindle played by Richard Jenkins is startlingly ominous, backed as he is by the thug-like but devoted presence of Holt McCallany as his strong right hand. This is not just a mark for the long con, but a potential land mine of a personality that could easily destroy the things Stanton and Molly have accomplished. Cate Blanchett is the seductive and treacherous psychologist who is both manipulated by and manipulating Stanton Carlisle. Her character presents another perspective on the need to be the smartest person in every room, and that motivation conflicts with Carlisle pretty effectively. It was not quite clear to me how she managed to create a chink in Stanton's armor, but there is a reason that the mentalist should not be drinking.
The best thing this film has going for it is the production design. I may bot have been a big fan of "The Shape of Water", but I can't deny that it was an amazing looking movie. The carnival that is at the center of the opening act is almost as creepy as Willem Dafoe's character. The wagons and tents and the advertising flys all reek of authenticity and aging utility. The nightclub that Stanton and Molly appear in, is the epitome of the art deco entertainment venues that make me wish I could have lived in that era. Dr. Ritter's office has the wood inlay walls that scream power and success and there are little pieces of art, furniture and simple background that will draw you in like a magnet. There is a momentary shot of the Spidergirl attraction, and I like the fact that I was personally involved in building a few of those for carnivals and circus use back in the 1970s.
The film is also populated with some great actors who are doing the kind of work that we expect of them. Toni Collette is sexy but diffident as she ages, David Strathairn is terrific as the pickled former mentalist with the secret Stanton longs for and the wisdom that Carlisle ignores. Roony Mara is earnest as heck as Molly. Mary Steenburgen has two scenes, the first is sympathetic desperation and the second is bone chilling mania, she was great. I would strongly recommend the film as long as you are aware that atmosphere take priority over action in the story. It will be playing in Black and White next month, I plan on going back for that version as well.
I've been waiting for Steven Spielberg to do a full fledged musical since I saw the opening of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" back in 1984. I think his sensibility and eye are right for musical sequences and that he could stage some pretty energetic numbers and make them look engaging and not static, well it turns out I was right. I'm not sure why he chose this material, but once he committed to it I think he did a solid job justifying a new version of the award winning classic. I think I still prefer the Robert Wise version of the movie, mostly because everything was fresh but Spielberg found some ways to fill out the story, rearrange to songs and change some of the characters delivering the songs, in a way that is satisfying.
The screenplay by Tony Kushner, with whom Spielberg collaborated on with "Munich" and "Lincoln", adds some details to the backgrounds of our characters to flesh them out. Riff has a story that is spelled out rather than implied as it was before, Bernardo has been transformed into a professional boxer, and Tony is provided with some background that adds resonance to his character that maybe wasn't there before. In some ways, the transition for Bernardo's character is the most problematic, because he seems less sympathetic as a professional fighter, engaging in a street fight. The character of Chino is also built up and it provides some additional pathos to the final outcome of the plot.
In moving around the order of the songs and changing the characters who perform them, Spielberg and Kushner help the character of Tony in one case and weaken him in the second. The decision to give the "Cool" number to Tony and Riff, works well giving Ansel Elgort and Mike Faist, an additional chance to show the gap between them, even as friends, and to make a stronger impact on the audience. While I appreciate the desire to include Rita Moreno more in the story, giving her the "Somewhere" moment robs Tony and Maria of a poignant moment that would make their tragedy more emotional at the end.
So what else has changed? Well, the fight scenes are more brutal from the get go. Baby John doesn't just get beat up, he is mutilated by a piercing of his ear done with a nail. Bernardo and Tony fight and the punches Bernardo lands when Tony is trying to hold his temper and let things chill, are hard and to the face as well as the gut. You can almost feel them and they look more realistic than most fight scenes, even those you might see in a boxing film. Both groups of opponents are struggling with the idea of losing their territory, not to each other but to the progress of NYC itself. That fuels a bit of the anger so that it does not feel entirely based in ethnic hatred.
Some people have complained that Spielberg has reimagined the story as a "woke" parable on immigration. There has also been some defensiveness on the part of traditionalists that all the Spanish dialogue in not subtitled. The immigration issue is not any more prevalent than it was in 1961, so that seems foolish to jump on. The Spanish issue is a non issue since almost all those important lines are repeated bak in some form in English, and even a non-Spanish speaker like me could understand most of what is said by context, tone and the few words of Spanish that I know. Maybe the strongest argument against calling this film "woke" is that Officer Krupke, goes from being an overt racist in the 1961 film, to a fairly sympathetic character in this one. Lieutenant Schrank is also not taking sides in the conflict, but seems more interested in avoiding kids being killed.
Two great visual moments that clearly show that Spielberg was thinking about how the movie could look different yet still be familiar, come in the Gang confrontation and in the "America" number. The long shadows approaching each other from opposite directions in the salt warehouse, builds the confrontation moment nicely and being shot from above makes it feel more ominous. The girls dancing down the street in the daylight, pursued by the boys, instead of remaining on the rooftop at night, keeps the excitement and cleverness of Sondheim's lyrics, but transposes it to a setting that feels even more joyful.
The bad news here is that the film has flamed out. It did not live up to expectations at the box office, and the critical hype , while strong, seems unlikely to sustain it for long in the onslaught of so many other films at the end of the year. I think it will mirror another great film that hid similar reviews and expectations but did no business. In 1983, "The Right Stuff" arrived with a thud at the box office. Oscar Nominations gave it a slight boost during awards season, but in the long run, it was passed by too often by too many people. I see the same pattern emerging here. I hope I am wrong and some holiday time results in more people seeing this worthy remake of a great musical.
This weekend, we will be doing a Lookback Episode on the Spider-Man Films, which means in the last week, I have watched nine Spider-Man movies. That's a lot to take in, but it sure helped in watching the latest film, "No Way Home" because I was fresh on the storylines, the characters and especially the villains. We are entering a "Multiverse" here and I don't think it is a spoiler to say that there will be crossover elements in this film. You have seen Doc Ock in the trailer, and you know that Alfred Molina was in one of the Sony, Sam Rami Spider-Man movies, so clearly, all bets are off when it comes to who might show up. I have managed to avoid any spoilers myself before seeing the movie and I certainly don't plan on screwing it up for anyone else.
The animated "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" got to these ideas first, but it set up a groundwork that allows everything this movie does to work more efficiently than might have otherwise been possible. The basic concept is easier to understand, and the device by which characters cross universe's is explained a little more in this movie than in the animated film, and it also fits in with the other stories that the MCU has been telling, so that's a plus. What it ends up meaning is that several plotlines and characters get an upgrade in this movie and the film repairs some of the weaknesses in the other films. Maybe we will never get goth Toby dancing down the street out of our heads, but there is other business to attend to and this film tries to take care of that business. As far as I was concerned, it succeeds.
Tom Holland's Spider-Man has largely been a creature nurtured by Ironman and the Avengers. This means that the villains he has faced are connected to the MCU Infinity War thread up to this point. He has had the aid of the Avengers or SHIELD remnants but this time, it looks like he is on his own, until he connects with Dr. Strange. For a bright kid, Peter Parker sometimes jumps to some weak conclusions on little more than a hunch. He turns to the magic of Dr. Strange, thinking maybe he can reverse time to the point were no one had discovered he was :Spider-Man". An improvised plan goes unsurprisingly wrong, and Peter/Spidey has to clean it up before it gets incontrollable. That's the set up, suffice it to say every solution has it's unintended consequences which produce more problems to deal with. While all of this is going on, Peter, his best friend Ned and his new love MJ, are also struggling with non-super criminal difficulties, like getting into college or having a little privacy. The two teen characters help keep the movie grounded to the situation that Peter finds himself in, and it also provides for some humor. The laughs and the gasps are the things this movie has going for it the most.
Holland's fresh faced enthusiasm was always a good counter part to Tony Stark's detached cynicism. The by play between their viewpoints is extend a bit with the Dr. Strange connection, but Holland manages to inject plenty of life into the other relationships in the film, particularly with the antagonists. Spider-Man has plenty of quips and there is a good deal of millennial ignorance to fuel it. The surprises that show up are where most of the audience will get sucked into rooting for the web slinger. The collection of enemies that Peter has to wade through is ultimately matched by the allies he has, some of whom stand in his way like moral warning signs that he simply can't see. This Sider-Man has to learn some of the lessons his predecessors learned, and it is entertaining to watch the likes of Aunt May, Happy and others, try to impart them. The plot allows this film to do some credibility repair on the sometimes maligned "Amazing Spider-Man" films, and even the widely criticized but still successful "Spider-Man 3". Character threads get handled that had been left dangling, and the tonal quirks that plagued those earlier films are gently mocked and put into perspective.
As usual, the action scenes are top notch in the film, and the technology does a better job than in has in the past of convincing us we are not watching a cartoon, even though we most certainly are in most of those action sequences. The Lambcast Episode is full of spoilers, so if you want to delve into my thoughts on this a bit more, go there. Here we remain spoiler free so I simply can't talk about all of the great moments in the film. When you see it, as it looks like everybody will, you will know more of what I am talking about.
If the person who assembled the trailer above, was responsible for editing the movie, this would be a more positive evaluation. The trailer emphasizes the key ideas in the film, but does so more efficiently than the actual film does. So the trailer is more fun to watch and it moves with a sense of purpose, building to a withheld climax. The film, tells the story more completely, but it lingers over material that is not essential to the plot and the dynamics of the characters are a bit inconsistent. Director Ridley Scott seems to be aiming for an epic, when what he has is a melodrama with some goofy and off-putting characters.
The star of the show is Lady Gaga, portraying Patrizia Reggiani, a young woman who meets Maurizio Gucci, heir to a portion of the family business, and subsequently marries and manipulates him to become the head of the company, at the expense of other members of his family. She is not quite Lady Macbeth, but her ambitions are what fuels the narrative in the film, and her abilities to push in the right direction using her romantic relationship with Maurizio are the means by which she accomplishes her goal. Lady Gaga has established some creds as an actress and she acquits herself well in a role that she is properly cast in. She is youthful, sexy in a non conventional way and ambitious as hell, just as the character in the film she plays. Criticism of the accent is beside the point, the film is not looking for authenticity, the verisimilitude is provided by her smirk, eyes, and body. The dialogue occasionally contributes but the Italian Accented English is simply typical of films of this ilk.
The cast of the film is impressive. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons have a great scene together and the two aging lions play it more subtly than you might think. Irons is Rodolfo Gucci, father of Maurizio, and brother of Pacino's Aldo Gucci. Rodolfo Gucci is ill and aging in the film and Irons looks like he is going through the process himself, I hope it is mostly acting and makeup that accounts for his condition in the movie. His best scene is with Jared Leto, who plays his nephew Paolo Gucci. Both father and Uncle have distain for Paolo, for reasons that are comically depicted here. The verbal takedown of Paolo by Rodolfo is the most fun scene in the movie, and oddly it generates some sympathy for the craven Paolo who is the butt end of nearly every comic moment on the film. Leto is flamboyant in the part and unrecognizable in the make up and costuming he has been given. Obviously he has been portrayed this way as a counterpoint to the taciturn Maurizio, who is brought to life by current hot actor of the moment Adam Driver. The son of Aldo Gucci, Driver plays his character almost as somnambulant in the early part of the film, and he only exhibits occasional moments of personality when he is with Patrizia. The character is a key element in the events that takes place but Driver is so passive in the first two thirds of the movie that when his character eventually tries to switch off his wife, it comes as something of a head turner, how did he become that character all of a sudden?
Similar turns in the characters are found in other places in the script as well. Aldo goes from doting to controlling on Maurizio, Paolo goes from sniveling to conniving to repentant, and not with much explanation. Gaga's character has the clearest path that explains the turn she makes, although to get there, she has to develop a relationship with a oddball psychic played by Selma Hayek. The climax of the film depends on the third act working, and there were some shortcuts taken that probably needed some explanation. The sudden appearance of a romantic rival, and the absence of any story concerning the developing love affair, makes the transition to the third act very jolting. This was another opportunity to take the satiric route suggested by the trailer, instead of the epic path the film tries to follow. Scott and writers Becky Johnston, Roberto Bentivegna and book author Sara Gay Forden, insist on playing it straight when a mocking sarcastic tone would have helped make the movie come alive.
The film looks marvelous with expensive locales and lush furnishings and artwork distributed throughout the interiors. The timeline for the story is suggested by title cards but there seem to be gaps in time that can cause confusion. The soundtrack of contemporary music used to set scenes or make transitions is fitting for the times although not necessary accurate as to when the music was released. That is a minor criticism, but those of us who lived through the era will probably be the only ones who notice it, and no one will or should care. Although based on real people, the film plays like a soap opera but does not quite embrace the high camp that can make a movie like this entertaining. This is the second Best Ridley Scott Movie of the year, but it is the one that is more successful. Sometimes it is the material rather than it's execution that matters.
Boy do I wish it was early June and the summer lay before us with it's promise of long days and movie nights. This would be a destination film through June, July and August, it just feels like the perfect launch to a vacation season littered with fun films that everyone can enjoy. By the way, the film makers knew this themselves, the town in the story is Summerville. The pandemic has robbed us of that context, but that's okay because we have another way to view this achievement. We are in the holiday season, Thanksgiving is upon us and Christmas will be not too far behind. The family gathers for the traditional dinner and then the kids want to go out and the adults want to go with them. Where can you all enjoy yourselves together? The answer is gathered in front of a big screen in your local theater taking in this welcome return to form for the "Ghostbusters" franchise.
"Ghostbusters Afterlife" is a true sequel rather than a reboot like the 2016 misfire. The events of the first two films are referenced and some of the characters that populated those two films, return for this episode. I have heard some criticism that the movie is just nostalgia product to inject in the veins of 80s junkies. If you are a fan of those 80s films, you will certainly experience a rush of emotions and warmth because of your connection to those two films, but that is not all there is to this movie and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the entertainment value presented by this movie.
McKenna Grace plays Phoebe, the granddaughter of one of the original Ghostbusters, who along with her Mother and brother, are digging through what looks like the wreck that Egon Spengler's life had become. We don't really know why Egon was not part of daughter Carrie Coon's life, but we know he was involved in something in this out of the way farm community and the dilapidated house that his family has inherited. Without saying too much, let me tell you there is a direct connection between the first film and this one. The plot is connected to the Ghostbusters greatest success and there is a chance to experience some of the same problems Peter,Ray, Egon and Winston faced but in a new context with some fun new characters but also great callbacks. The recently crowned "Sexiest Man Alive", Paul Rudd is a star of the film, but he is not the lead. Young Miss Grace is and she shoulders that responsibility exceptionally well. Phoebe is a smart girl, who is a little awkward because her interests are so deep in science. She is not a target of derision in the story, this is simply her character. She makes a friend in the new town, a kid who calls himself "Podcast" because he has a podcast. Logan Kim as the fearless, dry witted precocious Podcast has all the best lines and will delight you with his off the cuff reporting style.
As you would expect, the technical elements of the film are top notch with a very nice integration of practical camera effects along with the CGI that makes up most of the effects in films these days. The movie is full of visual call backs to the first films, the sort of thing that is refereed to as "fan service" but in this case it is entertaining on it's own as well as providing a nostalgia bump for the aforementioned addicts. The original music cues from Elmer Bernstein are used appropriately and we have to wait for the jubilant Ray Parker Jr. Theme song, but the wait is worth the while. Marketing for this movie will have been complicated by it's delay, the supply chain was ready two years ago but now things are a mess. That's too bad because I really want a Slurpee cup with the characters on the side and I wish I was dropping tiny Stay Puft marshmallow men in my hot chocolate this Christmas.
There are a few story points that are not satisfactorily dealt with. The splinter between the original Ghostbusters is hard to swallow plot device, and the connection between lost Harold Ramis' Egon and his daughter should be explained somehow, but when the resolution comes, and the new and old generation of scientists get together to fight the supernatural threats, you won't care much about those stumbling points. Director Jason Reitman, the son of the original director Ivan Reitman, seems to care deeply about these characters and their legacy and he has done them proud. Don't be afraid of no ghosts, go and enjoy a great piece of popular entertainment that will also remind you of how terrific it used to be to have a summer movie you could return to again and again.
Do you remember what it is that you loved about movies? Why you crave them, and savoir them and remember them for most of your life? This is one of those films that answers those questions. It takes us to another time, it plops us down in another place, and it tells a story that we didn't know but feels so real that it could be a memory rather than a film. Kenneth Branagh has brought us that movie, and those of you who have forgotten over the years, what he is capable of should get ready to embrace the past and recognize his talent again. This is a film that will remind you that Branagh is a writer/director of enormous ability. That he has not cast himself in the film is not a reflection on the difficulty of wearing three hats on the set, but rather an acknowledgement that the talent you need should fit the story you are telling, and he knows that.
Some critics use the phrase crowd pleaser" as a pejorative, as if the audience is irrelevant to the art. There is a school of thought that embraces this kind of view and makes ambiguous, dense and unpleasant films the sort of film that deserves praise. There are times when we want to be challenged like that, but we also go to the movies to be entertained, enlightened, and have our emotions manipulated in a way that we feel grateful for. "Belfast" is that kind of picture, one that embraces the people who see it rather than sneering at them. This is a film that you walk out of feeling thankful for having seen, rather than angry about what you have seen.
Set in 1969, as the troubles in Northern Ireland are bubbling up, Belfast tells the story of a family struggling to live life in the way most of us would like life to be lived. We want neighbors who know us and help out in tough times, we want our families to be safe from bullies of all sorts, we want to enjoy the pleasures of family life that have been built by our parents, and we don't resent the others in the neighborhood who worship differently than us or come from backgrounds dissimilar to our own. The family in this story defiantly lives the life they want in the face of political upheaval and violence. The young boy at the center of the story loves his parents and is discovering that the world does not necessarily work the way it should. There are many dramatic moments in the film that will challenge the protagonists, but in the end, it is family that trumps all and that is a good moral for a story, (as long as we are talking about a family like this).
Caitríona Balfe, Judi Dench, Jamie Dornan, Ciarán Hinds, and newcomer Jude Hill are terrific as the members of the family striving to cope with the turmoil caused by the political upheaval, economic times and personal transitions they all must face. I think Hill's Buddy is a completely believable little boy and his relationship with his grandparents is the sentimental heart of the film. Hinds has been great in a lot of movies but his part here is more elaborate and complete then anything I have seen him in before and it is a great performance because of the connection he creates with Buddy. Dornan creates a much more interesting character here than in the Fifty Shades franchise he starred in. Caitríona Balfe plays the intransigent Ma, who loves her neighborhood almost as much as she loves her family, and is loathe to leave it when opportunities for security present themselves. She could have been unsympathetic but instead the part is written in a way to make her resistance feel honorable rather than pig headed.
The film is filled with great emotional moments, that are often reflected in the movies and TV shows that the two boys in the family share. The father is almost like Will Kane from "High Noon" or Jimmy Stewart from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". Buddy is motivated to be better by the prodding of his mother, the crush he has on the Catholic girl in his class, and the science fiction shows he watches on TV. If this is indeed a semi-autobiographic film, Branagh gives us some good hints as to the sorts of influences he was subjected to as a child, and they turn out to be pretty good.
If you hear any discouraging words about this film, I hope you will ignore them. It may not be perfect from the perspective a a cinema snob, but it is exactly what a mature audience with a desire to be entertained should be looking for. Don't let any of those looking down on a middle brow film, stop you from taking in a great picture that will do wonders for both your heart and your love of movies.
So this is the third film in Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so far, they are batting .333. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings was terrific, Black Widow was so-so, and this is warmed over leftovers from a meal that I don't remember ordering. It's not that it's a bad film, it just feels like the DC Universe has rubbed off on the MCU, and that the goal of creating interconnected stories has become more important than telling a compelling story. There are ten new characters that are being put on the plate in front of us and we are supposed to care immediately? I don't think so. This is a distinct group of superheroes, true, but unlike the X-Men, where we got a similar character dump, there is not as much popular history to ease us in, and the characters start fighting amongst themselves before we have much of an idea of how they fit into the whole picture of MCU films.
The Eternals seem to fit into the same category of human development as the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Their appearance seems to arrive to prompt civilization in ways that will make the planet and its inhabitants more useful to the universe. Early on however, there is an indicator of a hidden agenda, and after an hour or so of trying to get us familiar with these characters, we are let in on their true purpose and one can legitimately wonder where this idea came from. Part of the plot focuses on the creation of Celestials, who are certainly different creatures as illustrated by "Ego" from "Guardians of the Galaxy V.2" . The brief history we are given here is designed to hide some of the surprises that are instore for the film, but they end up becoming confusing and seem inconsistent with prior knowledge and even things brought up for the first time in this story.
The Ten new characters are supposed to fight Deviants, who are depicted as mindless animals early on but for some reason develop an ethos later in the film that legitimately, provokes some philosophical conversation. That conundrum though is quickly overtaken by a sudden change of heart by the leader of the Earthbound Eternals, Salma Hayek's Ajak. I say it is a sudden turn despite the fact it takes place over a 7000 year period, because in the context of what we learn about the Eternals origins, that is a blink of an eye. For a group of heroes, who supposedly think of themselves as a family, I would say they are a dysfunctional family. There are resentments, jealousy, and apparent psychological trauma in this group. The only time they seem to cooperate is when a Deviant is in the immediate vicinity. The big threat of the story therefore ends up coming primarily from the group itself, rather than an outside force. We seem to have jumped right into "Civil War" without the preceding dozen films that it took for The Avengers to get to. Richard Madden and Gemma Chan as Ikaris and Sersi, are a couple who end up on opposite sides of the dilemma, and it seems completely real that they have broken up as a couple, although there is no hint that this was the reason.
Clearly the intent of the film makers was to create a team of heroes that is as inclusive as possible. There is a great degree of diversity among the Eternals, but some of it is a little confusing given what we ultimately learn about their origins. There are some interesting ideas in the story that will not get the attention they deserve because there are so many characters. The character of Sprite is eternally pre pubescent, but 7,000 years of life have given her feelings that are not resolvable given her physical development. The emotional choice that she makes seems to be natural, but like everyone else in the story it doesn't last long. Kumail Nanjiani is a hoot as Kingo, but when the climax comes, he is no where to be found. I enjoyed Ma Dong-seok as Gilgamesh, the keeper of the nearly mad Thena played by Angelina Jolie. Their relationship is more touching and believable than any of the others in the film, and that is another problem, Jolie is under utilized and the character of Gilgamesh is not on screen for most of the second half of the film. Brian Tyree Henry as Phastos is supposed to have the sarcastic wit in the film, but it feels way more labored than his work in Godzilla v. Kong, and that is saying something. The Ikea joke falls flat and that was supposed to be the big punchline that they used in the trailer.
There is a mid-credit scene and a scene after the credits, so the MCU fans will have plenty to speculate on, but they have nothing to do with what we saw and they raise some questions about the relationships we have seen in earlier MCU films. Maybe this will be an extension of themes covered in the comic books, but it is an example of overload in the film. I'm writing this a couple of days after seeing the movie and my memory of the events is already fading. This is a movie intended to launch the new characters in the MCU but it does not do it in a way that is very inspiring. I love the series of films and I want them to grow, but somewhere along the way, the spectacle overwhelmed the characters and stories and that is a problem. Maybe it's just me, my favorite MCU films have been Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and Ant-Man, which were all stand alone stories, so the team up concept takes some time getting used to. James Gunn managed to pull it off with Guardians but director Chloé Zhao, seems like she may have bitten off too big a chunk to have the same result.
As I said, I did not dislike the movie, I just didn't like it very much. Like all things, maybe it will grow on me, but for now that's where I stand.
A nostalgia soaked horror film from director Edgar Wright is just what we need for this Halloween Weekend, but does it satisfy? My companion for this film was invested in the first two thirds of the movie so much that it rivaled other films of Wright's for praise, but,there is a turn and a series of actions that happen in the film that stopped her embrace of the film in mid-hug and resulted in a display of invective that I marveled at for a hour. While I did not have the same negative reaction, I did feel the film fall from greatness to mediocrity in the third act. Regardless of it's ultimate faults, there is still much to recommend for this interesting addition to Wright's filmography.
I avoid as much as possible, simply recapping the story in these posts, but sometimes you need a little context and this is one of those times. Thomasin McKenzie plays Eloise, a slightly off center girl from a countryside community, who longs to become a fashion designer. Ellie is the kind of kid who is willing to go out in public in clothes she has designed, but she has yet to develop the thick skin needed to deflect the catty comments of schoolmates, who in a two faced manner praise her bravery, but secretly despise her and are jealous of the attention she will generate. Her mother also was interested in the industry but took her life ten years earlier, and Ellie has visions of her Mom on a regular basis. Eloise soaks herself in 60s nostalgia, because that's the style her Mother and Grandmother knew so well. Peter and Gordon, Dusty Springfield and Petula Clark ring in her head as she moves to London to attend a college of fashion design. When her wold collides with the hipster bitch she is roommates with, she decides to take a flat in a nearby neighborhood and suddenly the distance between the world she lives in and the era of her dreams begins to diminish. New visions of a girl not unlike herself, striving to make it into the pop world as a singer in 1965, fill Eloise's nights and she gets caught up in another life in a different era, with outcomes much more grim than she is prepared to face.
The 1960s settings are nicely staged with appropriate production details. I especially liked the giant "Thunderball" Poster on the cinema, as well as the stylish women's fashions of the time. The two nightclubs that Eloise sees in her visions are also startlingly beautiful in a retro way. The most beautiful thing she encounters however is Sandie, the girl aspiring to be a singer who is a near doppelganger for Eloise and who is played by Ana Taylor-Joy. Wright uses some marvelous camera tricks and clever choreography to meld the two girls from fifty years apart into one character that we see at a time, although both are present. This is a horror story in the long run, and the events in the 1960s should be enough to make us pull back in terror at what can become of a girl trying to make it in a world filled with sharks dressed as men. The first part of Sandie's story is plenty horrifying without having to elaborate too much with blood and viscera. Like all horror stories these days, there has to be a twist and this is where things start to go off the rails a bit.
Eloise's obsession is turning dangerous and she has difficulty separating her visions from her real life. There is a character set up to tie the two eras together in the real world, and naturally, this is one of the places where Wright has to cheat a bit to get in the surprise that he has in store for us. If you are turned off by characters in horror stories doing illogical things and making unsubstantiated assumptions, then you will start to feel the resentment that I referred to in the opening of this piece. Somewhere out there, a young adult woman would ask some questions that all of us could see might be relevant, not Ellie. She pursues an investigation but she ignores a key term in her search that is sitting right in front of her. The explanation that her nightmarish visions begin to follow her is the best cover that can explain why she acts the way she does, but that seems inadequate and it ignores a lot of options that she had available to her. After successfully creating a real world heroine in Eloise, who can perceive a threat from an otherwise chipper cab driver, you want to scream at her for not looking more closely at the red herring in front of her and the obvious connection to the past that she occupies every night.
At this point, the movie turns into a conventional piece of cinema horror trickery, which uses the distractions of another historical era to misdirect us while the heavy footed plot twist plays out. If you can ignore those irritating moments of character stupidity, then the follow through will be satisfying enough. I for the most part went along with it because I want the magic trick to work. The fact that I noticed the trick movement did not rob me of all the pleasure I'd already had from the film, but those missteps will bother a lot of people more than me. McKenzie and Taylor-Joy are both excellent. They create a real sense of the enthusiasms for a bygone time and watching them revel in the fashion, dance and music of the era is a pleasure. Diana Rigg makes her final screen appearance in this film in a role that is more substantial than you might have expected. The film also features Terrance Stamp who has been menacing and charming and revolting in movies for sixty years now. Stamp gets to show his persona with just a few scenes and some great close ups on his face. Wright gets the most out of the camera and lighting when he is looking at Stamp's character. It is too bad that this effort gets wasted as a plot device rather than an essential plot component.
Edgar Wright has a number of films to his credit that I have loved. His sense of humor is terrific and he has an editors eye as a director, he is capable of creating a scene in our mind that works because he knows how long the shot should last and where to cut it and what kinds of transitions to make. As a storyteller, he has taken some sharp left turns over the years that work, but maybe that is because of the genre he was working in. The tone shift and plot twist in "Last Night in Soho" don't hold together as well as the work he has done before. I would still recommend the movie, but if you get whiplash from third act character actions, don't say I did not warn you.
No one will be surprised to discover that the latest film from Wes Anderson is odd. In fact the very definition of quirky in the dictionary uses Wes Anderson as an example to clarify for us what quirky is. The idiosyncratic film maker is back with a movie that relies less on plot than on visual storytelling. That is not to say that there is not also dialogue, because that is equally as important to the visual, but also equally less relevant to the plot. A Wes Anderson film is an immersive cinema experience, but your tolerance of odd will be in direct proportion for your acceptance of this movie.
Unlike his previous two films, "Isle of Dogs" and "The Grand Budapest Hotel", this film goes out of it's way to ignore plot and embrace instead the compelling nature of language and art to make us want to follow what is going on. The outcome of any of the stories being told here is superfluous to the enjoyment we are to experience from hearing and seeing them. When writing a review of a film, I am always careful to avoid spoilers, that is completely unnecessary here because the plots are mostly meaningless and they meander around the odd characters and locales without really taking us anywhere.
This film is a set of anthologies that are held together by a conceit that is appropriate for the form of stories we are seeing. We are being presented with a tribute to writers who might have been elegant in their language and story construction, but who were mostly consumed for the pleasure of the way they write rather than the importance of the subjects that they wrote about. If you are the kind of person who picks up the New Yorker, to explore unusual slants on culture, or you read Bon Appetite, for the pleasure of preparation and the challenge of imagining taste through only words, then this movie will probably reach you. With an obituary and a brief travel prelude, to set up how everything here is connected, we move to three different stories focusing on art, politics and cooking.
The actors are all employing a deadpan, dry, style of delivery which is typical of an Anderson film. A smile would be a justification to re-shoot the scene. If an actual human emotion appears, it would undermine the atmosphere of the production and frustrate the director. He does want us to laugh, but only in regards to the absurdity of the characters of the situation, not because we are invested in anyone. We need to take pleasure in the intricate production design, or the clever Rube Goldberg physical elements. Viewers can be stimulated by the color palate or the editing or the miniatures that make up so much of the scenery, but you should not care about a single character in this story, what you should do is listen to them talk. While many of the things they say are absurd, it is the way that they say them that is amusing. Adjectives abound and sentences turn on themselves, but always with a degree of attention to grammar that draws attention to itself. You could easily enjoy just listening to the snappy dialogue, delivered in a sardonic tone, and forgo the visuals. Conversely, you could watch this film unfold with just a musical score and be equally entertained. This is a film where content is unnecessary, style is what you want.
I can't be more direct than to say this, if you do not care for Wes Anderson style films, this may be the most obnoxious film you encounter this year, it is the most like his films of any of his films I have seen. (I think he could use that last phrase in one of his movies). You will not be won over by this film. If you like the style of his movies, well that is all that this film has going for it. I'm not sure there are many who will want to explain why the plot doesn't matter, they will be too caught up with the trees to pay any attention to the forest.
I looked it up to see how it came out, Ridley Scott has directed 26 feature films, including some classics that are award worthy, and some that have been left on the curb to be disposed of. I have seen 18 of those films, so I am pretty familiar with his work, and frankly I am a fan. This movie came up and I had not heard anything about it in the production process. He has a second film that is coming in a couple of weeks that will no doubt get a lot of awards potential due to the cast. "The Last Duel" ought to have the same sort of cache because it's cast is nothing to sneeze at, but I think because this is a Twentieth Century Films release, which means it was one of a handful of movies the Disney Company acquired when it bought 20th Century Fox, it feels like it is an unwanted child. Little P.R., no Oscar talk and it is disappearing from theaters rapidly (look for it on Disney + any time now.
As it turns out, this film does not stack up to Scott's best work, but it is not down at the bottom with "Exodus: Gods and Kings", or "the Counselor", neither of which I have bothered with since I never saw a single recommendation for either. "The Last Duel" is a very well made film, it looks great, it contains some great action sequences, and the story is intriguing. The problems with the film have mostly to do with pacing and story structure, which may be partially the fault of two of the films stars since they co-wrote the script. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon have collaborated with Nicole Holofcener to bring this story, based on a book which is based on an historical incident, to the screen. Like a medieval "Rashomon", "the Last Duel" gives us different perspectives on the same event, each one favoring the person at the center of that section. So one of the problems is that we are seeing the events again, already knowing large amounts of information that are not going to change. The smaller changes, in tone and character probably needed to be emphasized in shorter segments because the length of each of these chapters is tedious. The film runs two and a half hours and unfortunately, that run time is noticeable.
Maybe this was an attempt by Affleck and Damon to answer critics who wondered how they could have worked with Harvey Weinstein and not noticed his reprehensible behavior. As a #MeToo story, Jodie Comer plays a woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted, but in a society that treats marriage as an economic contract and the wife as property, her needs in this situation seem to be the least important. Sir Jean de Carrouges (Damon), has plenty of reasons to have animosity toward his former friend and warrior, Jacques Le Gris, played by Adam Driver. While not the most sympathetic of husbands, he engages in a strategy to clear his wife of fabricating the story and also exacting revenge on his opponent. Driver's character on the other hand is supposedly shown in the most favorable light in his segment of the film, and Le Gris, still comes off as a cad, deserving of the dirtying of his name that he objects to. Marguerite de Carrouges (Comer) is trapped as a pawn for the most part in a misogynistic society that treats women as suspect simply for being women. The questions that get asked in the inquiry are humiliating and the "science" accepted at that time makes the process even worse for her. There is also a clear stigmatization of women as sexual beings, despite their sexuality being critical to the purpose of marriage which was to prove heirs. In a nod to some of the hypocrisy we see in the #MeToo movement of today, women are just as capable as men of bending events to their prejudices. Marguerite cannot even count on her best friend.
All of the soap opera and segments of battle and political intrigue that took place in the first two hours is largely there to set up the climatic title moment. Scott is in his element here, having made "Gladiator" as well as "Robin Hood" and "Kingdom of Heaven", he knows his way around brutal one on one combat. Damon and Driver go at each other both mounted and unmounted . There are staves, axes, swords, daggers, gauntlets and assorted blood sweat and tears in the arena. All the while, we are reminded of the stakes because they are sitting right there, waiting to burn under the woman in question if the combat goes the wrong way for her. This actual historical event is the last recorded case of trial by combat to determine who is the just party. Since I did no background research before seeing the film, and I did not know the outcome, that probably added to the impact the combat sequence had on me.
So I suspect this film will soon be forgotten, but it does have some strong elements to recommend it. Affleck plays a conniving count who uses political power to protect his prized friendships, Damon builds more action hero cred with his battle scenes, Driver gets to be tall, dark, and handsome, but Jodie Comer is the one who emerges with the most credibility after our two and a half hours spent on this arcane event.
Alright, I've waited a long time for this film. The expectations were high, the talent is there, the source is impeccable but the task is daunting. So the question is, did Denis Villeneuve manage to overcome the obstacles to making "Dune" into a cogent film that will be embraced by the public. The short answer is "yes, sort of". but the more accurate answer is that there continues to be a density to the story that anyone would have difficulty cutting through without having to change elements of the story in some way. All movies made from books will reflect the sensibilities of the writers, the producers and ultimately the director. That means that this can correctly be described as Villeneuve's Dune. It certainly contains enough of the Frank Herbert source material to keep fans of the landmark book and serial novels happy.
The movie is two and a half hours long, and I have seen it twice. The podcast today spent more than an hour dissecting it. I have had multiple conversations with my daughter about the film, and I reread the novel a week ago. I also spent two and a half hours with the 1984 version form David Lynch. This commentary then comes from the perspective of someone who deeply cares about the source material and the films made from them. Denis Villeneuve has crafted a handsome, completely credible and mostly entertaining version of this story. Because the film is only the first part of the original Dune Book, I will have to withhold some judgements about the story elements that deal with the antagonists in the saga. Although the Harkonnen are represented on screen, their presence is minimal at the moment, and that is a bit of a letdown.
One advantage that the new film takes advantage of is the character development. Paul and Duke Leto are given more time to show their relationship in this film. The extra time on Caladan, the Atreides' home planet will help put in contrast the stark environment on Arrakis. Caladan is lush with forests, meadows and lakes and oceans that indicate a thriving ecosphere. The Atreides have had it easy and they will be going into an environment dramatically at odds with their previous existence. The Duke tries to explain to Paul what desert power will be, but we can't know until we are steeped in it, what all it will include. The relationship between Paul and his mother, the Lady Jessica, played by Rebecca Ferguson, is also deeper here, providing a glimpse at how she is attempting to immerse him in the Bene Gesserit traditions and skills. At times, Timothée Chalamet as Paul looks like a lost emo kid, wandering across the hillsides in his black priests jacket. The few times he comes out of the dark introspection are when he meets with his mentor/stand-in older brother figure Duncan Idaho, played by Jason Momoa. The actor has a charismatic persona that helps us shortcut our way into his relationship with Paul. There is an added sequence with Momoa and Sharon Duncan-Brewster as Dr. Keynes, that improves the story and does these two characters a bit more justice than they receive in the book or earlier film.
One of the problems with adapting the book to film is that there are so many competing interests and political entanglements, that it would be easy to miss important components. David Lynch tried to cram this information into narration, internal thoughts and the equivalent of early Google searches. The script by Villeneuve and cowriters Jon Spaihts and Eric Roth, doesn't bother to worry about most of that. The story flows pretty smoothly as a result, but a lot of the rich detail that makes the book so intriguing is lost. There is just enough of the Bene Gesserit story to explain why Paul is unique and potentially the most significant result of their breeding program. The complex connection between the Harkonnen and Atreides clans is not detailed. Paul's visions are inserted regularly but they are inconsistent and the reasons for that inconsistency are not really explained by the film, although readers of the book will understand. Thufir Hawat is treated as a cuddly teddy bear rather than the master of assassins, Dr. Yueh's imperial conditioning is not explained, nor is the manner of that conditioning being broken. The importance of his role as the traitor is minimized as a result, making the conspiracy a lot less interesting. I did think there were some good hints at the poet in the warrior Gurney Halleck, played by Josh Brolin. Some of these characters disappear from this film, but they should be a part of the second film when it arrives. It does make it hard to evaluate this as a stand alone film because of those threads that are dangling.
The greatest improvement from the 84 film, is the use of the Fremen culure, especially in the sequence where Paul and Jessica are discovered in the deep desert after their escape from Arrakeen. This is basically the climax of the film, although we did just have a complete invasion of the planet by hostile forces. Paul's acceptance into the sietch led by Stilgar is an important step on his ascension to power. If you know the book, you know how Paul hesitates not merely because killing is new to him, but he foresees each act of violence on his part as cementing the path to a bloody jihad that he is trying to avoid. I was not sure that the film clarifies this as much as might be needed by audiences unfamiliar with the book.
I've already made some passing comparisons to the David Lynch film, so inevitably there are more. On the favorable side of the ledger, the ornithopters in this version are more interesting and certainly more dynamic. They also more closely resemble the craft described by Herbert's prose. While CGI can often ruin our engagement with a film, when it is used correctly, it enhances the visions we see. The sandworms of Arrakis are much more believable in this new edition of the story than the mechanical miniatures used back in 84. There was only one brief image of a sandworm being ridden in the film, but it looks like this will far outpace to somewhat clunky techniques that were requires thirty-seven years ago. Even though it looks less realistic, I still prefer the animated shield work of the 84 film to the digital distortion of the new version. It just looks more interesting, even if it seems less realistic. The costumes and production design from the older film, also seem stronger to me, maybe because the colors pop and the detail is rich. Villeneuve has created utilitarian props and sets to present the characters in, Lynch's vision is soaked in the mythology of each of the settings. Giedi Prime, the Harkonnen home planet is dark and fuzzy in Villeneuve's film, Lynch's industrial sensibility was so well matched with this location in his film that it is indelible and far superior. Little things like the box the Reverend Mother uses to test Paul, are more ornate and interesting in the 84 film.
It is certainly a matter of style and taste so with the minimalist leanings of contemporary design, Villeneuve's choices are probably fine. I simply like a broader color palate to look at. While the design of the Bene Gesserit gowns was not stupendous in 84, the 2021 outfits look like they come from dead nurses in a hospital from 1883.
We have lots of things to look at that are superior in the new film, but let's not dismiss the unusual and intriguing from the Lynch Film. Of course the two movies are great ways to see the difference a director can make in a film. The aesthetics in particular matter with these two directors. The action sequences in the current version of the film are more coherent and visually spectacular so that is another selling point to the new version.
To complete the current review, I will update this post with a link to the podcast when it is completed. For now let me say I am happy with the new version of Dune. I don't think it cracks the nut entirely on the intricate internal thoughts from the book, but it does streamline the story and make it very accessible to the audience. Every time one of the IMAX shots arrived, I was reminded of the work that David Lean did in "Lawrence of Arabia". The film looks amazing in the macro sense but loses a little in the intimate scenes. We will be getting more of some of the characters in the second part so I will wait until then to expand on Stilgar and Chani.
By all means, see this on the big screen. Save an HBO Max viewing for your fourth or fith time seeing the film. You will be glad you paid to go to a theater.
Just finishing up one of the screenings I did this last week with a very brief recap of "The Silence of the Lambs". This was a 30th Anniversary screening of one of the most widely acclaimed films to ever win the Academy Award. The movie is virtually perfect in every respect. The story is set up dramatically, introducing us to all the characters in an interesting way. The horror aspect of Buffalo Bill is awful but when you layer on the sense of dread that comes with the introduction of Hannibal Lecter, the tension is almost unbearable.
Director Johnathan Demme managed to make the flashbacks to Clarice's childhood relevant, and the screenplay allows her to tell the story that accounts for the title instead of trying to put it on screen. The dynamic between Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins in their scenes is mesmerizing. Even though that is where the meat of the drama is, there are so many other scenes and characters that keep us in the story when those two are not front and center. Lecter and Dr. Chilton are opposites in personality, and the actors manage to make a loathsome killer fell less awful than the unctuous "turnkey" that Chilton doesn't want to be labeled as.
Someday I will do a post on the career performances of one of the great actors who has never been celebrated for his craft in the manner that he deserves. Scott Glenn as Jack Crawford makes the academic, older mentor fell real, when just a year before he was a dynamic, take charge sub commander in the"Hunt for Red October". He was always a strong third leg on a tripod of performances, but he seems to be outshined by the other posts that make up the tripods of his films. Ted Levine will forever be remembered for the brave performance that he gave which made us fear the tranformation that Buffalo Bill was attempting.
I did a post on the music from this movie a few years ago and I just need to add that it keeps all the moments in the film engaging. The escape sequence in particular but the very quiet ending of the film works so much more effectively because of the subdued tones of Howard Shore.
Simply trying to acknowledge that I saw the film for probably the thirtieth time, but once again on the big screen. Thank you TCM and Fathom.
Any of you who have visited this site in the past probably have a pretty good idea of how I feel about the James Bond Franchise. If you are new let me summarize, 007 is my favorite fictional character and I have a passion for these movies. The break between "Spectre" and "No Time to Die" was supposed to be five years, much too long in my opinion for we addicts. Then along came the pandemic, MGM and Eon pulled the film off the schedule, wisely seeing that the venues for films were being closed in many places. The movie got pushed back to October, then to the following April again, and then to a second October. It has now been 18 months since the originally scheduled opening of the film. I have been impatient and frustrated with each delay and now that it is finally available, I have issues.
I will preface my comments with an acknowledgement that there is not a 007 film I would not watch again in a heartbeat (except the 1967 parody Casino Royale), and that includes this new entry, the 25th in the official canon of Bond films (excluding "Never Say Never Again"), so take what I say to you now with that perspective in mind. I am disappointed.
When the decision was made to follow up Daniel Craig's first outing with a direct sequel, I was Ok with that. "Quantum of Solace" has flaws, and my reaction was muted. "Skyfall" on the other hand changed all that into a bundle of enthusiasm that I still feel nine years and two more films later. Although there were references to earlier Craig films, "Skyfall" felt like a stand alone 007 film and it worked incredibly well, providing a fresh story but also providing a good deal of fan service. In 2015, "Spectre" stepped back into making the Craig films into an extended narrative, and that was one of my initial reservations about the film. As time went by and I saw it more often, my attitude changed and I think it got right what "Quantum" was trying to do in keeping a story line in place. "No Time to Die" is an attempt to wrap all of this up but it trips over some of the traditional tropes of the Bond series. I much prefer the closeout that "Spectre" presented to us than the package we got this week.
Looking at just this movie now, instead of worrying about the five film story arc of Craig's run as Bond, the first strength that it presents is the mash up of two pre-title sequences. The callback to Madeleine Swann as a child, ties in nicely with a story she told in an earlier film. It is visualized very effectively and uses an overhead perspective in an interesting way that accentuates that what we are seeing is a memory. When Bond and Madeleine travel together on a pilgrimage to a grave, we get a nice travelogue, followed by a terrific action sequence and then the titles. So far so good. The Billie Eilish performed song is substantially improved with the title sequence behind it. That said, it is still not a dynamic song for the film to build it's themes around. The best music cues in the rest of the film come from earlier Bond films, including "Casino Royale" but most noticeably, "On Her Majesties Secret Service". The title sequence begins some of the fan service call backs that we can expect from Craig's swan song. Polka dots and silhouettes appear in the background, bringing the spirt of Saul Bass for a visit to a James Bond film.
Now we get to the first main issue that weakens the film for me, the recruitment of 007 for this mission by Felix Leiter in an off the books C.I.A. plot, that somehow runs afoul of MI-6. I will try to explain this without spoilers, but the mess that Bond is going to try to clean up, is a result of his own former service's mistakes. In another tip to older Bond films, one group is playing another group against two other groups. In "From Russia with Love" the Soviet agency SMERSH is being played by SPECTRE against the British. Here, the Brits are being played against SPECTRE, who are being shined by a new unidentified group, and the C.I.A. is an accidental tool for pulling it off. How can this be? Well simple, "M" suddenly loses the moral convictions that guided him in the last film and the intelligence he had shown since "Skyfall". Ralph Fiennes was one of the strengths of the two previous Bond films and now his character Mallory, is a liability. This shortcut to plot development also requires that Felix Leiter, as played by Jeffrey Wright, loses about twenty percent of his IQ. Maybe the idea here was to tear everything down and start anew, but it feels like a fast way to get another plot going without developing the villain any more than you did in the first five minutes of the film.
Second major flaw in the film is, as is way too true in all sorts of films, the Villain. Rami Malek is fine for what he is asked to do, the failure is not in the performance it is in the writing. Safin appears as a character in the first scenes of the film. His performance there is wordless and we get right up to a key moment when there is a jump cut to a point many years later. We never learn how he got from point A to point B, to become a nemesis of Spectre and a threat to the whole population of the world. When we get to the monologuing in the third act, there is a lot of yammering in low key soft voiced menace, but there is no motivation whatsoever. There is no plan, or financial gain or philosophy behind his actions. The idea that the weapon can be isolated to killing only particular people was undermined by the fact that if they have DNA alleles in common, which would be a family connection, then the nanobot virus jumps. Six degrees of separation people, the world is connected genetically and there will be leaping. No explanation is offered as to who is supposed to be spared or why or how. This is a completely random plan, that is supposed to be targeted, but no targeting explanation is offered and they undermine their plan with this flaw in the DNA process that they are using for only an emotional plot point.
The third thread of problems is the relationship between Madeleine and James. I can believe in their love, and that James has overcome his emotional complications with Vesper, but it gets wiped out by an inference that while reasonable, could also be dispelled with some investigation. His willingness to severe a commitment like this on his conclusion without looking into it further is out of character. Her acceptance of it and then inclusion into MI-6's interrogation of Blofeld is after the fact odd (although it was a leap I was willing to take for the purpose of suspending disbelief). That she is being manipulated as a tool of Safin is shown, but not really explained. There is a good scene between her and Safin in her office, they interact in an interesting way, but it does not make her motivation clear. The incident between them a quarter of a century earlier is supposed to be the explanation, but it really does not explain anything. Bond and Madeleine rekindle their romance after he discovers a secret she has, and that makes a little sense, but this same plot device was widely criticized in a 2006 comic book movie, and I can see a similar response here. I don't have an issue with it, except that it is being used as a manipulation of the characters to justify the conclusion of the film.
Final acts are difficult, and the final act of this film, and the fact that this film itself is a final act in the story arc, makes it even more so. The resolution that they chose, undermines the emotional set up that was created to make a dramatic point. Safin has manipulated the DNA of the characters so that they can never be together physically again. That would also preclude a relationship with the secret character that has changed Bond's perspective. Fine, that is a emotional gut punch that would make Bond have to suffer, but the solution that the writers came up with was to eliminate that immediately through a much more certain outcome. It was unnecessary, and if you are looking to finish with an emotional slap to the face, the DNA imposed separation would have stronger resonance.
There are other points that are bothersome as well, but little things can be overlooked when everything else is working. Obviously, things were not working for me so a couple of things I might have let slide by, jumped out at me instead. How the greatest asset that British Intelligence has, manages to get the most sophisticated bionic technology in history, planted in his eye socket while he is under their control is beyond me. I guess "Q" had the weekend off when that surgery was arranged. As much as I like what they have done with Ben Whishaw's version of "Q", he seems to miss some opportunities to stop problems or to explain how a problem could be stopped. Case in point, the EMP watch that 007 uses in going after the island fortress of Safin. If it can blow out an electronic eye, would it not do the same to the electronic ear that Bond is wearing? Story consistency is an issue in a lot of places.
There are a lot of things I liked in the film, I just wanted to get my reservations out of the way first. Ana de Armas and Lashanna Lynch are welcome to any future Bond films, although with the rebooting that will be required, I'm not sure how they will manage to do this. Paloma, the CIA?, contractor was a hoot in the Cuban sequence, and her action creds were established in a definitive and funny way. Nomi, the new designate for the prime number, was bad ass although she needed to do a little more as part of the insertion team at the end. M will need agents like her to cover for his future mistakes if they plan on keeping that character in his current mode. The chase scene though the Norwegian forest was very effective, I liked the subtle way Bond adjusts his choices given his passengers. I also thought the by play between Bond and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld worked well, that was a solid scene even if in the end it had little to do with what is happening in the story.
Okay. I am off to see it a second time right now. When I get back, if I have more thoughts I will add them here.
Addendum/Second Screening
Well it was a good decision to go back for a second time, because my opinion of the film substantially improved. I'm not sure if my attitude was different because expectations were altered, or if some of the choices they made were clearer in hindsight.
For instance, it is a lot clearer now why Madeleine cooperates with Safin's plan for Blofeld when she and James meet up at the prison. Blofeld's dialogue also makes more sense in hindsight, although how he obtained his information is still unclear.
M's motivations are a bit more focused when you see what is going on, although it is still very clear that his character's ethical standards have shifted entirely away from the point of view that he had in the previous film.
There are several characters I did not mention earlier that ought to get a quick note here. Logan Ash, the State Department CIA wannabe, is such a trope in the Bond Universe, it would have been more fun to go the opposite direction with him. As it is, the part contains no surprises and the only creative element to him, his fanboy admiration for Bond, doesn't get as much use as it should.
Speaking of not getting much use, Naomi Harris returns as Moneypenny, but she mostly sits in the office like in the old days. It would have made sense to give her some of the tasks that Q got shoved his way, and then her contribution would be more meaningful.
Primo, who Bond dubs Cyclops, is your standard henchmen with a quirk. In line with Odd Job and Jaws, he has a physical distinction that is a minor part of the plot. I do think that the electronic eye gets used for comic relief more than anything else, and that also feels like a slightly missed opportunity. The link between him and Blofeld could have made it a stronger place to provide exposition, instead of making us try to figure out what is going on. Oh, there is another plothole here as well since he escapes the attack on Spectre in Cuba for no clear reason at all. As a member of Spectre and Blofeld's prime surrogate as a walking Zoom call, you would think that Safin and Obruchev's hijacking of the plan to eliminate Bond would have targeted him especially. Speaking of comic relief and exposition, the ping pong acquisition of scientist Valdo Obruchev, worked for the most part. His secondary villain status reminded me substantially of Boris Grishenko from "Goldeneye". The Russian accent probably accounts for that because the Frank Oz look alike they have in the part certainly appears different.
These insights are a little random right now. I continue to try to avoid spoilers, so I will discuss some of the plot elements that will make this film controversial among 007 fans, in a post down the road. I at first thought the pacing seemed flat and that the direction by Cary Joji Fukunaga was off. There is probably too much quick point and shoot in the finale, James Bond should not be John Wick. On the other hand, the locations are beautifully shown, and it seems like they went a long way to allow Safin to get Bond's toothbrush. Let me leave off by saying after my first viewing, I felt let down. Going a second time, probably for the reasons I mentioned, resulted in an encouraging shift in perspective. I still have reservations but ...
