Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom

 

Remember when you were a kid and you got a new box of crayons with dozens of colors that you hadn't had before and you wanted to use them all, whatever you were drawing next? Well that's the way James Wan has gone about making the Aquaman movies, like “they gave me a whole bunch of money so I'm going to spend it on stuff that I think looks cool”. And for the most part it does look cool, but does it make any sense? No it doesn't. That doesn't mean that you can't have some fun anyway.

This Is the End of the DCEU as we know It. None of the actors who have been playing the recurring characters for the last decade are coming back. A new team has taken over the direction of all of the comics in the DC world. And the planned sequels have been canceled. This is the final film in what was the original phase of those movies, and Aquaman was always the silliest of characters and the most outrageous of visuals and the one that seems closest to the spirit of what a comic book should be. Fortunately they cast Jason Momoa as the titular figure who we also know as Arthur Curry. His physique, his long hair and his general demeanor have been key elements to making the silliest of characters one of the most fun things in the DCEU.

This film continues a few plot lines from the previous movie and doesn't contain any guest appearances by the superheroes of the Justice League. We do get a return by Nicole Kidman as Arthur's mother, and Patrick Wilson also returns as his half brother. Yeah I don't know if people will remember why Dolph Lundgren is a king but not married to Nicole. It doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense anyway. The villain returns and has been given greater powers and is even more malevolent than before. His main motivation is now simply revenge for the death of his father, and if it takes destroying the whole world to accomplish that he doesn't care. Randall Park is also back as Dr Shin, a character that I have no memory of from the original film but again it doesn't matter. And if you can't tell what his story arc is within the first minute and a half of the movie you've never seen a movie before.

Again the world is filled with fantastical creatures, colorful vistas and technology that is far beyond that which is known currently. That's another one of those comic book inventions, where ancient civilizations were so far ahead of our modern times that we look antiquated by comparison even though they were centuries before us. I think you'll have a hard time trying to figure out why all of this technology has stood up to being at the bottom of the ocean for nearly two Millennia, but if you're spending time trying to come up with an explanation for that you're missing the point of this movie. And the point of this movie is to have some fun, pretend that the things that are happening are real, and enjoy the oversized personalities that the main characters represent.

Except for the visual images there is nothing new or innovative about the story. In fact when in doubt, the screenwriters simply steal from other films, books and myths to make up the events that are taking place. You can have a lot of fun looking for the Easter eggs that represent other films, for example the black trident might as well be the One Ring. There is literally a character that is a direct rip off of Jabba the Hutt, and he's voiced by Martin Short. Heck they even throw in a reference to the MCU, when Aquaman makes a disparaging comment about his brother and refers to him as Loki. About the one original thing that this movie produced is that at the screening we saw at an AMC theater Nicole Kidman's promo for AMC was missing. Maybe there's something about a conflict of interest in having that play in front of a film that she is starring in, but that still doesn't make any sense. It's also noticeable that Amber Heard has had her role substantially reduced, she has maybe 10 lines in the movie. Her main value is to show up with her supersonic powers just in time to help out Arthur when he is stuck.

There are battles galore, and animals that are right out of the Jurassic Park series, and a long sequence that involves running through the jungles on an island trying to escape those creatures. If it wasn't for Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, and a whole bunch of other creative people who came before him, director Wan may have nothing to work with. They even crib from Willow by having a child who is endangered by the villain's plot . Still it looks great, the colors are a lot of fun and there are some silly jokes that most of us could probably enjoy. This is not a film that anybody's going to remember 10 minutes after seeing, but you will enjoy it for the 2 hours that you're watching it. I just don't know if you'd recommend it to anybody after having done so.

Look if you like the first Aquaman you're probably going to like this one, it's cut from the same cloth. It's full of colorful visuals, outlandish characters, familiar plot points and the leads are attractive and humorous people. For my money Patrick Wilson steals the movie on a regular basis. His dry delivery with some snarky overtones is a nice compliment to Momoa's casual bravado. It's like a gumbo that has to come together just right in order for the flavors not to undermine each other. Still I think you're going to have to add some sauce to make this palatable to most people's tastes. In other words if you like this you're probably already all wet.

Ferrari

 

Director Michael Mann Returns to the big screen with a biopic about Enzo Ferrari, the founder of the sports car company. This was a film that was highly anticipated and one that I had looked forward to a great deal. I've admired some of Mann's other films a lot, including “Last of the Mohicans” and "Manhunter”, two terrific films from nearly three decades ago. But like many of the directors who have come back to the screen this year the results were decidedly mixed.

The subject matter should be fascinating for people who are excited about cars. I'm not a huge racing fan but I have appreciated several movies in recent years that featured car racing as their main subject. Both “Rush” and "Ford versus Ferrari" were entertaining films and they made my best of the Year film list. Heck I even liked “Speed Racer”. The problem I had with this film is that it is less about racing and cars than it is about Ferrari and his love life. Although there is supposed to be a duality in his commitment to his wife and his mistress which is then mirrored by his desire to be successful on the racetrack and to achieve financial stability for his company. That parallel does not sustain itself very long in the movie. The domestic drama overtakes the racing issues and shoves them off stage.

Adam Driver has been made up to look older, thinner and more Italian so that he can play Ferrari. For the most part he seems adequate in the role, although most of the time his voice is low-key and he sometimes mumbles his words. Although his accent seems reasonably accurate, as is often the case when dialect and sounds are being used to convey a language rather than the words themselves, it is sometimes difficult to understand what is being said. It might as well have been in Italian to begin with.

There is a plot line about the financial instability of the Ferrari company in the 1957 timeline in which the movie is set. That story never gets completely explained once it has been set up. The idea that winning the Big Race at the end of the film will result in sales of automobiles that will be significant enough to rescue the company from its financial cliff needs to be Illustrated for us to both understand and care. But the script and the director have decided that once they've explained it in a piece of dialogue, there is no need to elaborate further. This means that the stakes of the race don't seem as significant and important as they should be. Heck, there are no scenes in which the participants go over the cars, except after an accident.

The race scenes themselves are pretty exciting although there are times when it was difficult to understand what was going on. For example in the major race that it caps the film, there are five drivers for the Ferrari team, and they all drive the red Ferrari Color cars. It seems however that some of the Maserati cars are also red, and because the drivers are wearing helmets and goggles it is often difficult to tell which car it is we are looking at at any given moment. In fact it was not until the end of the scene that I realized that a driver who had lost his car and had to get a ride from one of the Ferrari drivers was in fact driving a Maserati rather than being a member of the Ferrari team. A point like that is very confusing when you are at the climax of a film.

It seemed to me that the whole point of the film was to highlight two spectacular crashes that occurred and were turning points in Ferrari’s story. I'm not sure that we needed to see the crashes in the spectacular detail that is provided by the film. However the one crash that occurs close to the end of the film is devastating to watch and of course that means that it is quite dramatic. Unfortunately the car crashes are the only dramatic things that seemed to happen in the story. Confirming the ugly belief that the real reason people watch these kinds of races is to see the crashes. I suspect that the real reason people will see this movie is to watch these scenes. Not a very pretty thought.

Enzo is supposed to be torn between Penelope Cruz who plays his wife and Shailene Woodley who is his mistress. Neither of them is given very much to do in the film, and we barely know their characters at all. Woodley especially is underutilized, with only a brief flashback to explain how she and Ferrari got together, and that appears to be the extent of their 12-year relationship. With Cruz it was a little bit clearer that there were elements of the marriage that were important to these characters, but that does not really get used in the story except in one scene where it is made clear that an incident in the family's past is responsible for most of the division between Ferrari and his wife. This could have been a rich vein of drama to explore, but it simply gets used as a plot point to give a short hand for why the couple's marriage is on the rocks and why the wife resents the mistress, even though she seems accepting of the infidelity.

This is a good film but it is not a great movie and the reason is that the script does little to engage us. Frankly there's so many scenes that go on far too long that I was often slightly bored. That's not something that should be happening in a movie where car racing is involved. I could recommend the film to people by saying it is a reasonable biopic about the man, but not about the legend of the car. And I think for most audiences they have very little interest in the man without also being interested in the car. So the movie is simply imbalanced.

The Boys in the Boat

 

Everybody loves an Underdog Story. When they happen to be true it makes them even more compelling. George Clooney has directed a film that takes the underdog motif and uses the 1936 Olympics as a way to engage the audience in a rooting interest. The rowing team at the University of Washington was a consistent loser to the University of California team for 20 years, but the coach at Washington found eight men who could pull together and overcome their tradition of losing to become winners. The story however does not stop with a success against a local rival. There is also the little guy against the entrenched forces, the rich and well-off against the poor and struggling, and eventually Western democracy against Nazi totalitarianism.

Clooney seems to have an affinity for historical settings, three of his best have fallen into that category. I think the film “Monuments Men” is his best work, but that's not to undermine “Good Night and Good Luck “ which was another piece set after WWII. He also did a quite good job with a football film set in the early days of the NFL. So it appears that the Depression era United States is a palette  that he feels comfortable painting from. The visualizations of the era are authentic, in fact it is a little disconcerting that the shanty town at the beginning of the film is labeled Seattle, but the year 1936 could easily be replaced with 2023. The idea that widespread homelessness accounted for much of the trauma of the 1930s is a little depressing when we look at contemporary times. Maybe we'll get lucky and some extraordinary story will grow out of these times. For now we have the story of the 1936 Washington Huskies eight-man crew.

Actor Joel Edgerton is nominally the lead, but he is supported by several actors that you will probably not recognize. The story does require that the rowers work as a team and that may be one of the reasons that there is not an individual story for everyone. For the most part we get entry into these events through the experience of a single man who is struggling to work his way through college and takes up rowing simply to be able to earn a living and pay for school. I'm not sure if the NCAA existed in this time era, but it sure looks like some of the boosters would be violating what used to be the rules of College athletics, at least before NIL.

The real main character is Joe Rantz, who is trying to get through college after having been abandoned by his family at age 14. There are others on the team who have gone through similar struggles but the focus here is really on the athletic event and the hard work that it takes for a team to truly become excellent. So except for a love story and a brief callback to the past, even Rantz's story is limited to the team. 

Edgerton as the coach is relentless in finding ways for the team to mesh. As entertainment a movie like this can't really be an instructional film on how the sport of rowing works, but we get enough detail and we see a few examples that let us know how each person's behavior and skill contributes to the team effort. In addition we get a little bit of personal story about the coach and his struggles to keep the team going in the face of limited success and budget shortfalls, and Joe Rantz  and his romantic relationship with a coed at the University. Neither of these side paths takes up much time, which is a good thing because we have at least three major competitions that provide plenty of drama.

Obviously the team manages to be successful so they can end up in Germany for the 1936 Olympics. So the outcome of some of those contests is a foregone conclusion, but director Clooney, like most people who make these films, has found a way to make those kinds of foregone conclusions entertaining and suspenseful. It helps that we got some details about how the crew develops a strategy and in particular how this group, who are actually the JV team at the University, managed to be a force to be reckoned with. I assume that it is relatively accurate when it comes to the way this event was covered by the media. I know that in contemporary times you're not going to get 100,000 people showing up for a crew race between college teams. But in 1936 the world was a different place, Sports occupied a preeminent place in the culture because there were limited entertainment alternatives, and because it was radio friendly. Maybe the radio friendly thing is the thing that draws Clooney to a story like this.

I'm not familiar enough with the story to say if all of the drama that takes place at the Olympics was in fact historically accurate, but I can say it felt authentic. The showdown at the Olympics is the major set piece of the movie, and it requires some elaborate production design, multiple teams representing different countries to be portrayed on screen, and a special guest appearance by Adolf Hitler himself.

As inspiring as it is to see other nations challenging the Third Reich on the field of sports, the emotional high point for me came earlier when the team had to find a way to finance their way to the Olympics. After having struggled to qualify it seems that only Elite schools would be able to go because they had the financial resources to do so. The University of Washington team had to find what would be a substantial sum of money in order to make the trip. It is in this section of the film that real sportsmanship is demonstrated by somebody who has only been a very tangential part of the story, and in fact would be classified as an antagonist. At least until that moment when we all choke up at the gesture that is made by someone who understands what sports is supposed to be about.

It was a little curious that the actress Hadley Robinson who appears as the romantic interest in this film, was in the film we saw last night "Anyone But You”. Congratulations to her for having two films that open in the same week. That is fairly unusual and is usually an indication that an actress is on the cusp of a breakthrough. The Romantic subplot is not overdone, but it does help give us something to focus on other than the grinding preparation of the boat and team.

I found the movie quite fulfilling, it touched me in an emotional way at a couple of points, and I learned a lot more about the eight man crew and the sport of rowing than I ever expected to know. Although the events occurred nearly a hundred years ago, I think the story still resonates because we all love underdogs, we admire sports, and in our heart we want the good guys to win.

Anyone But You

 

For some reason romantic comedies get a bad name, especially among cinephiles. I suppose the reason is that they are so formulaic and as a consequence hold very few surprises for the audience. Of course comfort food is the same way, not very challenging but something that people still enjoy. So to me, a good romantic comedy is like enjoying a familiar entree of a favorite food type. It may not be as interesting as something new, but it offers a lot of satisfactions, if done right.

The new romantic comedy “Anyone But You”  follows a large number of paths created by the films that have come before it. An attractive couple gets together, develops a relationship, but then some unexpected antagonism separates them and the rest of the film concerns whether or not they will overcome that barrier. Of course it's also necessary that the two people involved appear to despise each other when in fact they are very attracted to one another. So it is no big surprise that this is exactly what happens in the current movie. The only things that are innovative are the scenarios and the characters that come into play, in attempting  to make it a more interesting path.

In the case of this film, the couple who were initially brought together and then separated, turn out to be connected to two people who are going to connect with one another. One person is the sister of a woman who is getting married to the sister of the other person's best friend. Naturally they then must travel to a destination wedding, providing them with opportunities to show how much they dislike each other well at the same time being surrounded by romantic trappings that will bring them together. In a somewhat farcical nature, the other people in the wedding party are interested in pushing the couple together, for their own reasons.

Glen Powell and Sidney Sweeney play the attractive young people who do have a connection, but through their own faults have pushed one another away. Since it's a contemporary story, the wedding that the two are involved with will be between two women, and it will take place in Australia. This gives plenty of opportunities for outlandish behavior, and for the other characters to plot, plan, and tell stories, which will prove embarrassing but also set the stage for reconciliation. Some of the plot devices are completely ridiculous, and some don't seem to go very far. The bride's parents are interested in seeing their daughter, who is the sister of the bride, back together with the boyfriend that they have known since they were children. The ex-girlfriend of the boy in the story also shows up creating a romantic complication, along with producing a physically imposing romantic rival to offer amusing comparisons with.

I don't know Sydney Sweeney from any shows or films that I can remember, but she's as cute as a button and a nice match for Powell. Glen Powell has been in two or three movies in the last year where as a supporting character he stood out enough that he now deserves leading man status. He may be in the early Matthew McConaughey stages of his career. Hopefully whatever other romantic comedies he does will not sink to the depths of some of the movies that McConaughey made, but will stay relatively solid like this one.

It's amusing to see Dermont Mulroney and Bryan Brown as the elder Statesman in the film, when 30 years ago, they would have been the lead. They still have some of that charisma that made them charming in the 70s 80s and 90s, but they have aged out of most romantic plots and now are consigned to the Geezer role. Nothing in the story is hurt by the fact that it takes place in Australia, with its beautiful coastlines, fantastic vistas, and interesting local fauna. There's a great scene, at least from a romantic comedy point of view, that takes place with the Sydney Opera House in the background. It's an example of some of the striking views that can be found in parts of the world that haven't been used to the death for locations in movies.

There are a few good laughs in the film, and the story is not too insulting to our intelligence. The leads are attractive, some of the supporting cast is appealing and there are some funny moments that deal with a musical cue. That should be enough for a pleasant afternoon at the movies, or date night with your honey. It was the day after Christmas and I was happy to say that the theater was full, there were lines at the concession stands, and I saw lots of families and couples going to see other movies. Maybe the film business isn't doing as well as it might be hoped, but this screening at the theater that I went to gives me hope. All you need is something that's mildly entertaining, maybe a little provocative, and gives you a couple of laughs, and the audience will show up.

Wonka

 

To say I was dubious about the new Wonka film starring Timothée Chalamet would be an understatement. The original film with Gene Wilder is of course a favorite of my childhood, and even the Tim Burton version with Johnny Depp is well liked in this household. I've never been a huge fan of 

Chalamet he seems to be a little wan and a sort of the Hipster version of what's hot right now. This has led me to be skeptical of any of his films.

Chalamet was however, solid in the Dune film and I look forward to seeing the second part next year. So it was with uncertainty that I approached this movie. I tried to avoid reading reviews before I see a film for myself, but sometimes the general tone of a review can come across in a single sentence on a Facebook post or in an Instagram message. The ones that I did see in regard to this film we're a lot more promising. Most of the comments seem to suggest that the film was exactly what it was supposed to be a light frothy holiday entertainment. To my great pleasure that is an accurate assessment. Wonka was a complete delight and exactly the kind of film that a family can enjoy in the holiday season. It may not be serious, or a great piece of art, but it was a great entertainment.

Those of you who are not aware of it, let me point out that Wonka, is also a musical. The idea that there would be singing and dancing through the film raise some suspicion, but our lead is talented enough, and the songs for the most part are tuneful full of play and fit the story. I was especially impressed by the opening song and the choreography that went in putting together the dances that accompany it. As it is, the director of this film, Paul King, directed two of my favorite films from the past several years. He is responsible for putting "Paddington" and its sequel "Paddington 2" up on the big screen and both of them have a wondrous, friendly, attitude which made them completely delightful. Although there are hateful villains, and obstacles to be overcome, the optimism and positive attitudes of the lead characters of all three films make each of these movies so much easier to enjoy than other films in the family market.

Happily this film is not merely a repeat of the story that we have come to know. It is in fact it kind of prequel story so that we get a sense of what Willy Wonka was like as he started his chocolate factory. The idea presented here is that Wonka has always loved chocolate as a result of his mother's care and recipes. He has become a world Traveler by working on cargo ships traveling the seven seas and finding amazing ingredients to add to his chocolate concoctions. At the start of the story he is prepared to join the chocolate producing community in the heart of the big city and is trying to connect with his potential customers. This stacks him up against three rivals who have in essence, created a cartel to reduce competition. The three owners of the of the competing chocolate companies are clearly the villains of the piece, they have no connection to their customers and see them as somebody available to fleece rather than people that they want to please. This means that Wonka's approach will be completely different and a threat to their status.

One of the complications that Willy Wonka faces is that he has become indentured inadvertently to a cruel mistress and a thoughtless Brute. He has in essence been Shanghaied into working in a laundry, under slave-like conditions. So his approach to trying to begin a chocolate Empire also requires him to overcome these circumstances. The woman who has him in her thrall is played by Olivia Colman and she is impressively vile and funny. Wonka finds himself in the company of others who have become similarly trapped, and they form an alliance to both escape their circumstances and create a candy Utopia.

There are several nods to the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, some of which are very noticeable but a few of which are very subtle. Among the most noticeable is the design of the chocolate store which strongly resembles the main room in the original film's Chocolate Factory. Also Willy is dressed in the same kind of velvet purple set of tails that adorned Gene Wilder back in 1971. Here he also walks with a cane that is in affectation rather than a necessity. Much like the magician that he is suggested to be, the cane becomes a prop that he uses to Dazzle his customers and to establish an identity. I did notice that the start of the film does have a similar kind of setting that Paddington did. Alone in a strange city our protagonist is taken in by strangers. Of course in the Paddington stories The Strangers turn out to be a benevolent family, but here in Wonka, it is a much darker turn.

Throughout the film there are many clever characters who provide humor and something for Willie to struggle against. Much like the original film Slugworth, is presented as a competitor and a threat. In this film it is much more direct in the way the character of Slugworth is presented. There is also a police official who is bribed by the cartel to run Wonka off. He is bribed by chocolate, because he has a sweet tooth that can never be satisfied. Hysterically his character gains weight throughout the film to the point where he actually has difficulty moving, standing up, or getting out of a car. It may be a little indelicate to present a character as having a weakness that makes him fat, but it does make us laugh and the actor, Keegan-Michael Key, plays it hysterically.

Production design is another big selling point of the film. Some of the candies are whimsical, the boarding house/laundry, is grim, and the Chocolate Factory at the end we'll make everybody who is a fan of the original film happy. Also the musical score borrows heavily from the original films songs and we get a reprise of Gene Wilder's showpiece song from 1971, presented with genuine affection and respect by Chalamet.  I have no hesitation and suggesting this movie to any of my readers. You will be very happy walking out to the theater with a smile on your face, even if it is just from the cantankerous Hugh Grant playing an Oompa Loompa who has attitude and his own individuality. I think a little Hugh Grant adds in measurably to the Delight that this film creates. He is not overused, but the CGI transformation of him into the character is amusing, and contrasted with his lines and behaviors should make you laugh.

I was not expecting it, but I'm happy to say that Wonka will be going on my list of favorite films from 2023. And in the long run Timothy Charlemagne Maybe making even greater inroads in my opinion toward him. However director Paul King is in my opinion a real treasure, and I hope that he and his co-screenwriters continue to come up with enjoyable fanciful ways to entertain the audience, I appreciate it.

Maestro

 

Leonard Bernstein was one of the Towering figures in the culture of the 20th century. A conductor, a composer, an intellectual and a humanitarian he was also a man who had a conflicted emotional life and who's personal relations seem to have complicated all of his history. Director actor Bradley Cooper has attempted to create a biopic that does justice to this man, in a short 2-hour period. That he largely succeeds has to do with the tools that he used and the choices that he made. Cooper also co-wrote the script and I suspect the combination of his direction and screenwriting is largely responsible for the way this film feels different than a traditional biopic would.

One of the immediate indications that the film is going to be different is in the way it plops us down directly into the story with very little setup. Although we start with a key incident in Bernstein's life, most of the film does not attempt to highlight the key moments in his life but rather reflect the way he lived that life. Bernstein got the opportunity to conduct for the first time on a live radio broadcast very early in his career. The event made him a national figure almost immediately. Cooper stages this at the beginning of the film in a very interesting way with very limited concert footage and instead a creative setup of the situation, and then a follow-up with a press conference that seems to provide plenty of narrative explanation without forcing the issue too much.

The dialogue in this film is delivered in a rapid manner with occasional opportunities for the characters to speak over one another. This however does not feel like a cluttered Robert Altman script but rather a more natural form of conversation. Cooper's script, along with the way he has directed the actors, makes these moments feel very much like we are watching home movies of these conversations and events rather than something that is being restaged for the film. Bradley Cooper and actress Carrie Mulligan both deliver their lines at a quick pace but one that seems to reflect the characters rather than the technique of the filmmaker.

The film focuses on the marriage between Leonard Bernstein and actress Felicia Montealegre. The fact that they are focusing so much on this relationship makes it key that the actors treat the characters as people rather than merely parts that are being played. Cooper for his part does a fantastic representation of Bernstein who had well-known mannerisms, vocal patterns and an appearance. There's been some controversy about his use of a prosthetic nose to create a closer resemblance to Bernstein, but that use seems to simply be a typical dramatic tool that actors have been using for centuries. Anybody who takes umbrage at this tool seems to be looking for something to create controversy, rather than genuinely being concerned about some ethnic slur. Mulligan's character is less well known so it's hard to say that her performance is spot on, but it is easy to say that it is very effective. In many ways her role is the key one in the story since Bernstein is largely reflected in the relationship that he had with her, rather than focusing on his musical accomplishments.

In addition to the script taking a different path in order to make this biopic stand out, Cooper uses a couple of cinematic techniques that do the same thing but, I do think that they draw a little attention to themselves. The first third of the movie is in black and white. It looks beautiful and it feels appropriate for the time period, which I suspect was the point that Cooper was trying to make in the first place. The last half of the film is in color and it also looks distinctive to the time periods of the 60s and 70s, the era which makes up the majority of the period that the film covers. The other technique that looked obvious to me but I'm not quite sure what it accomplishes, is the use of a 1: 33 aspect ratio. When we are dealing with the black and white section of the film, that aspect ratio might resemble a television of the time, so I can see that in creating something that is supposed to resemble real life, the artificial box shape would actually feel more realistic to an audience that recalls that time from what they saw on television. It was not clear to me why we continued to use that aspect ratio when the film transitioned to color. We only get a widescreen presentation at the very end as the credits begin to roll.

In addition to his brilliance Bernstein was a bit of a libertine when it came to his sex life and in the later parts of his life, perhaps to the use of cocaine. This film never suggests that drugs were in any way a help or a hindrance to Bernstein's career or relationship. The sexual issues however, are in fact, the main point of conflict in the relationship between him and his wife. Felicia apparently was aware that Leonard took lovers of both sexes and well not necessarily approving, had accepted that that was part of his persona. As we watch the avuncular and outgoing Bernstein go about his daily life we can understand at least a little bit how he seemed to embrace all of his Passions with little regard to the conventions of the day. His wife seems to simply expect him to behave with some discretion, and it is divergence from that expectation that leads to the tensions that come up occasionally. Even knowing that he was not always faithful to her, Felicia seems to be Lenny's most ardent supporter. Cooper depicts the main conflict as occurring when it's possible his daughter, as a young adult, begins to hear rumors about his infidelities. In this script it appears that Leonard was not ashamed so much of the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife with other men, but rather that he is forced to lie to his daughter because of the conventions of the day and the limitations his wife has imposed on him.

In no way is the suggestion made that Leonard Bernstein had anything other than love for his wife. Rather, the way Cooper has portrayed him is simply a reflection of his ebullient personality and his unwillingness to contain his passions, both for music and for sexual satisfaction. Bernstein does not come across as somebody who is being thoughtless of his partner, but rather has someone who is so enamored of his own lifestyle that he is unaware that sometimes, even though his wife knows of his infidelities, he has hurt her. Although same sex relationships are part of his history, they occur largely off screen in the film.

There are references to Bernstein's musical accomplishments throughout the film but most of that is presented in a very offhand manner. There are only three or four moments where the music dominates the narrative. That is not to say that the music is tangential in this story, quite the opposite. We know that Bernstein is a figure far above the average composer of the 20th century. Two illustrations show us this in the film. There is a sequence of a Broadway ballet featuring three sailors in which Bernstein and Felicia ultimately participate, and which shows how his music can transport us into a different world. Most film goers will recognize that this is the source of the material for the film “On the Town”. The second major musical sequence that is a key component, both of the drama and of the character that is being portrayed, is the segment where Bernstein conducts a piece of music by Mahler in the National Cathedral. The music itself is a moment of elevation, but the portrayal of Bernstein by Cooper in this moment, is also sublime. It also marks a point in the drama where the maestro and his wife reconcile after a particularly unpleasant separation.

As I was watching the movie I was not sure if I was really enjoying it or if it was just presented in a mannered  way simulating the characters in the time period. However the longer the film went on and the more I have thought about it since I finished watching it, the greater degree of respect I have for the movie. It is growing on me even now as I'm writing these words. What I initially thought might be a solid film is turning into one of my favorite films of the year. And most of that has come the deeper I have thought about the movie and the way it has been made. 

This is a Netflix film and congratulations to them on producing something so artistic and worthy, but shame on them for having it in theaters for such a limited amount of time and continuing to pursue creating a streaming audience rather than a theatrical audience. This movie is only scheduled to be in theaters for a short period of time. Maybe the fact that it is in an aspect ratio that fits an old television will make it seem like this is an appropriate choice, but I think in the long run audiences will find it a disappointment if they experience this at home rather than in the theater with an audience and a terrific sound system. I'm not in charge of these things but if I had my way this would be a movie that would stay in theaters long enough to collect honors and awards at the end of the year and then move to home video where a wider audience will discover it, but maybe not appreciated as much.

The Iron Claw

 

I’ve got to admit that I was not particularly interested in seeing this film. However, there had been some hype about it online, and my daughter was interested, so we went ahead and booked an advance preview screening at the Alamo Drafthouse. The screening was followed by a Q&A session that was broadcast from the New York location of the screening. The director and two of the actors who played the brothers, showed up and answered some questions about making the movie.

If there is a movie out there that has less to interest me I'm not exactly sure what it would be. I was never a fan of wrestling. The generation that came immediately after me seem to be preoccupied with the gargantuan physiques of wrestlers with wild names and outrageous personas. This story is about a set of Brothers who wrestle in the early stages of the wrestling phenomena. Their hard-headed father was a wrestler in the earlier days and he created a league of wrestling in their native Texas. The story is apparently famous in wrestling circles because of the lingering tragedies that surround the family. This film Chronicles most of those tragedies in a dramatic family-centered story that emphasizes the relationship between the brothers.

To say that the story is tragic actually underplays the events that took place. If you are like me, and unfamiliar with what happened, it would be unfair of me to reveal too much. On the other hand if you are a wrestling fan, you probably already know the degree of frustration, disappointment, and overwhelming sadness that make up this Tale. The story of the brothers and the way they became champions in the wrestling world, largely depends on the drive of their father who as a legendary wrestler of a previous era created a move referred to as the Iiron Claw thus the name of the film. The father is played by actor Colt McCanally, with a fierceness and single-mindedness that is frightening. This family clearly loves one another almost unconditionally, with one major exception, they are all expected to fulfill the desires of their father for perfection, especially in the field sports.

Actor Zac Efron, who has been famous for playing more comedic parts in the last few years, is the second oldest son and the one that the story focuses on most closely. Obviously Effron took the story seriously, because he has sculpted a body that looks like it could belong to a wrestler who has single-mindedly pursued physical exceptionalism. His character, Kevin, is probably the most gifted of the brothers in the ring, but he struggles to create a persona that will draw in the kinds of Challengers that will raise him to the next level. He never seems to resent his father, even when he passed over, buy a younger brother who has had less success in the ring but who manages to create the kind of personality that succeeds in the new wrestling world.

This is a straightforward family drama, which is directed in a very traditional manner,eschewing any fancy camera tricks, editing, or special effects. The most technically complicated elements of the film come in recreating the era, in particular the “Sportatorium” that was the center of the family's wrestling conglomerate. The ranch is the homestead of the family and is also rendered in a fairly accurate manner, representing the most traditional aspects of this family. The mother in the family is played by actress Maura Tierney, and she is portrayed as slightly detached from the wrestling elements but deeply involved in her children. She does however defer both to her husband and to the brothers themselves, suggesting at one point that the problems that they are sometimes faced with have to be resolved between them and she should be left out of it.

I hope the film succeeds with the audience and that it brings some attention to both Efron and McCanally when it comes to the awards season. Both actors are first rates in their performances. Unfortunately, in spite of the drama that is presented in the film, I was largely unmoved by the story myself. This probably has more to do with my detachment from the wrestling culture than any indifference to the things that happen in this family. The stakes just seem less compelling to me because I'm on the outside. There does seem to be a genuine connection between the brothers as portrayed by the actors in the film, but the family seems somewhat self-destructive in the choices that they're all making, so my indifference is tempered a bit by my frustration at some of their behaviors.

Fans of wrestling on the other hand are likely to embrace this movie and be happy that this story is being more widely told. I don't think that the film will make any converts to the entertainment venues that feature wrestling, but I have a better understanding of why people might like this sport as a result of the film. Some of the characters that are on the periphery of the story I had heard of to some degree, for example Ric Flair and the Iron Sheik are names that are familiar cultural points even for those of us who are not wrapped up in headlocks and body slams. The story of this family, although well-known in wrestling circles, will probably move those who are not familiar with the story, but not in the same way.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

 

There are so many Christmas movies out there that it is sometimes tough to decide which ones to watch on an annual basis. In the case of National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, there was never any doubt that this film would become a perennial for us.

Some people are over Chevy Chase and that's understandable. His personal Behavior and professionalism have always been question marks. What has never been in doubt however is whether or not he is funny. That man can make us laugh over the stupidest kinds of things. If there was going to be a Three Stooges of the later half of the 20th century, Chevy Chase would clearly have been one of those Stooges. He can take a board to the face, a slip down the stairs, or a prat fall off the roof, with the best of them. Frankly I started laughing in anticipation of some of those movements before they even happened in last night's screening.

Christmas Vacation succeeds on the shoulders of its star. There are lots of other films where The Supporting Cast can make up for a week lead. This however, is a film that can only succeed if Chase is in top form. In this movie he clearly is. His smirk, his sense of dignity even in the most ridiculous circumstances, and his rants, are all enough for us to ignore any of his personal failings and just enjoy 90 minutes with Clark Griswold and his family.

This film is the second Christmas movie I've watched in the last week that was written by John Hughes. It still has a very strong sense of humor but also a warmth that separates the movie from some of the Lesser Pretenders in the Christmas movie sweepstakes. In the end we are glad that Clark accomplishes what he set out to do, in spite of his sometimes frustrating behaviors. We know that he has a good heart and that he loves his family. Sure he may daydream about the beautiful girl at the lingerie counter, but he stays true to his wife and she in turn is his biggest Defender. He's even willing to put up with Cousin Eddie in spite of his clear dislike of his uncouth relative.

Randy Quaid is brilliant in the part of the dimwitted, thin skilled, hapless husband of Ellen's cousin. The fact that he has no job, no prospects, and no plan for Christmas gifts for his children are enough to make any of us frustrated with him. Yet he still manages to be somewhat lovable and it is as good heart that leads to the solution at the end of the movie that puts us all in the right Christmas spirit. But the movie splits our sides and warms our hearts and reminds us that family is important is the real reason that we should watch this annually. Oh yeah, and the fact that Chevy Chase gets smacked in the face repeatedly by Boards when he is trapped in the Attic. I'm not sure I ever heard my late wife laugh is hard as she did every time Clark stepped on one of those loose boards. The attic staircase crashing into his face was also a gut buster.

This movie has it all for me, there's a great deal of nostalgia, there are appropriate Christmas tropes, and there is entertainment value in just about every scene. The screening we attended last night at the Alamo Drafthouse was a film party where the audience was encouraged to participate in the screening. We were given small American flags to waive during the blessing. We had glow sticks that we waved around our heads every time Clark's house lit up. We even had pine scented air fresheners to open when the family is out searching for that perfect emblem of the Christmas season, the tree. The whole audience was happy to quote along with some of their favorite lines from the movie. No one wanted to spend their holiday dead. And I don't know Margo, is uttered with the complete disdain of 150 people simultaneously. In all it was a great night. I think I had the hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby danced with Danny f****** Kaye.

Godzilla Minus One

I was a fan of Godzilla movies when I was a kid. There have been a number of us made films in the last decade that have tried to repeat the phenomena of the original Godzilla. Most of them have not been very successful, but there have been a few that have been Worthy of viewing. None of them, however, will measure up to the film “Godzilla Minus One”. This is the kind of movie that people who love Godzilla want to love. I was inspired to see this film after seeing many positive reviews from fellow bloggers. Everyone enthusiastically proclaimed this the best Godzilla film since the original in the 1950s. I can say that in my opinion those are not hyperbole but in fact an accurate representation of the film. “Godzilla Minus One” is set in a post World War II Japan and tells the story of Godzilla as if it is being told for the very first time. I won't describe the plot in great detail it is sufficient to say that a Japanese Aviator who had not been able to carry out his Kamikaze role returns to his home, which has been destroyed by the the war and he now must confront a new source of Destruction as the giant monster Godzilla begins to approach Tokyo. The fact of the matter is that most of the film is really a drama about dealing with the post-war economic situation for the Japanese. Our pilot basically adopts a woman and a child and takes on responsibility for them out of his guilt for failing during the war. There are a relatively small number of scenes that feature the actual Godzilla. Much of the film focuses on the human drama of the pilot, his adopted family, and the other veterans who are trying to figure out a way to stop the Kaiju. Most of the scenes of Destruction take place at the very beginning and in one long sequence on land. There are several action scenes where Godzilla destroys warships on the high seas. The CGI in this film is combined with some traditional man in a suit moments but the film still looks very good and the effects are convincing.

The work of the Japanese actors, who I am not going to name right now, is excellent. The lead struggles with his guilt and his anger and an unrequited love story. If you can do all of those things effectively you must be a pretty solid actor. I can recommend Godzilla - 1 to those fans of giant monsters, and to people who are interested in the characters that usually just get wiped out in these types of movies. This time we get a real story to go along with all the Mayhem. It feels like a fully formed film and not simply product, so that there is something to fill seats with during the summer. There have been over 30 of these Godzilla movies from the Japanese film industry, as well as a half dozen made by us and other National film companies. With the exception of the first Godzilla film, this is likely to be the one that is the most memorable, the most dramatic, and the one that is most deserving.

Home Alone In Concert (Revisit 2023)

 

One of my favorite concert experiences, is to see a film I love, with the score delivered by an orchestra. Earlier this year I had the chance to see "Star Wars" in Concert with the Austin Symphony Orchestra. I suspect that the music director of the symphony is a fan of composer John Williams (of course who isn't?), because this week, for the second time this year, a score featuring the music of Williams was featured accompanied by the film, in this case it was the holiday film "Home Alone". 

I was confident that I had written a post on this film before. I thought I might have seen it in a Fathom Event screening, so it would have been on my list of films I have covered. When I looked however, I found no record of having covered the movie before, so it turns out this will be a first time as well. "Home Alone" was the most successful film of 1990, and it shared end of the year financial records with "Dances with Wolves".  The Kevin Costner film ended up with all of the end of the year honors, but this John Hughes written, Christopher Columbus directed film ended up as the box office champ. So Kevin McCallister turned out to be the top Kevin of the year, at least when it came to money. The two Academy Award nominations that "Home Alone" did receive however, both went to John Williams, one for the song he wrote which Leslie Bricusse did the lyrics for, and a second for the score of the film.

Before I get to the music, a little at least about the film. Certainly, almost anyone reading this will have seen "Home Alone", it has become a Christmas Classic. It was the first 20th Century Fox film to be released to the sell through market on VHS, and became, along with E.T. the Extraterrestrial, the biggest selling video of the era. This movie has been in the heads of families for more than thirty years, and it has been parodied relentlessly as well as making a star out of Macaulay Culkin. The plot has been described by some as "Die Hard" with a kid.  Young Kevin, having been accidentally left behind by his family, defends the homestead from burglars played by Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern. Amazingly, Pesci was also in the very different role of  Tommy DeVito, a murderous Mafioso, in theaters just a few weeks before this comic role. The combination of the two may have been the reason that his performance in "Goodfellas" was the sole Academy Award win for that film. 

Director Chris Columbus was responsible for adding the character of the neighbor, suspected of being a shovel killer, Mr. Marley. The character played so effectively by Roberts Blossom, is one of the things that raises the film from a slapstick farce to a more touching human comedy. The movie features several sequences where eight year old Kevin, speaks quite wisely, but still like a kid, and most of that works pretty well. His encounters with the checkout girl at the grocery store, and the Santa finishing his shift, let us believe a lot more in the final conversation with Marley in the church. Of course there is plenty of eye poking, three stooges type humor when the home invasion starts, so you can laugh and cringe simultaneously.  

The audience for the concert was wired for this experience from the very start. There was a noticeable amount of applause and cheering for the 20th Century Fox logo at the start of the film. Maybe some of the audience was like me, nostalgic for a classic film studio that no longer exists. The theme music plays throughout the picture, but it is in the last half of the film that the music soars, in part because of the chorale music and singing that occurs around the time Marley and Kevin have their conversation. In the concert hall, this was accompanied by a 70 person chorale of high school singers who came in and sat in front of the orchestra, after an intermission, which is invented by the event and not part of the original film. 

I have said it before to others when talking about this movie, it is so much better than it has a right to be and than you remember. I took my kids to see the film when they were four and two, neither remembers the experience but I do. We went with my best friend's family, they had two children the same age as ours, and we all enjoyed the movie as best as young kids could. It became a favorite of James, my friend's son. Three years later I lost my friend to cancer and his family dropped out of our lives, but I always think of them when I see this movie. Merry Christmas, ya filthy animals.

Die Hard (Revisit 2023)

 

There is nothing like seeing a movie in a theater to remind you of why you fell in love with a film in the first place. Regardless of the number of times I have seen a film at home, the experience of a theatrical presentation contains an electricity you just won't find anywhere else. Part of the effect comes from the sound system that will be so much more fine tuned in most theaters than you can achieve at home. Another part is the size of the screen, which, despite recent tech advances, is just not going to be 60 feet wide and thirty feet high. The biggest difference however, is that you have committed yourself to an experience, disruption free, with a willingness to be engulfed by the movie in front of you. That's what happened to me last night at "Die Hard".

I knew was engaged before the movie started, because the 20th Century Fox Logo that came up was squeezed and I was immediately on edge that something was wrong and the aspect ratio of the film would be off. That tension was short lived as when the film itself started, all was right. I frequently forget the opening section where John McClane is on the airplane arriving in Los Angeles. I should recall it because it is the reason John ends up without his shoes later on in the film. This was also my only exposure outside of MTV to "Christmas in Hollis" by Run DMC, which was not in heavy rotation on the classic rock stations I listened to. 

Speaking of music, I appreciate the stereo in the theater when I hear Ode to Joy in the background of several early scenes. The crescendo of that Beethoven masterpiece at the opening of the vault is a great use of classical music in an action film. McClane is a simple guy, with modest tastes and the everyday manner he conveys in in great contrast to the ostentatious Hans Gruber. The music sends a subtle reminder of these differences. 

The re are people out there who deny that "Die Hard" is a Christmas movie. For all of you doubters, I will refer you to my previous post on the subject: here. 

The Muppet Christmas Carol (Revisit 2023) Rockin' Around the Paramount

 

No apologies, no excuses, no doubt, The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best version of the Charles Dickens story and as a result, the best Christmas movie out there. Years ago on the LAMB, we had a voting bracket that established this film as supreme over all other holiday movies, including "Die Hard". The reasons are very straightforward, Michael Caine and the Muppets.

Michael Caine is not a singer by nature, but then neither was Rex Harrison. Both of those actors can do a walk through of the songs in their respective films, and talk their way through a song with enough rhythm and inflection to fool us into thinking they sing. Harrison was acting against Audrey Hepburn who's voice ended up being dubbed. Caine is singing opposite Kermit the Frog, Gonzo the Great and a dozen other Muppet characters, so he has to work especially hard.

Because Caine plays it straight, the film works dramatically, even though there is Muppet Mayhem everywhere. The story is one of redemption, and Scrooge's encounters with the Muppet ghosts are really effective. The Ghost of Christmas Present is especially moving as he relates the situation of the Cratchetts to Scrooge, who suddenly seems to be awakening to his own indifference. The look on Caine's face when he sees his nephew revealing that the unwanted creature of the guessing game they are playing is Ebenezer Scrooge. 

Getting a chance to see this heartwarming film on the big screen again is great, that it was at my new favorite spot in my new hometown was even better. The Paramount was packed to the rafters for the show. There were some pre-show activities that we skipped because we were meeting a friend for dinner, but the atmosphere was exactly the tone you want for a holiday outing. 

If there is a third component to the success of the film, it would be the songs by composer Paul Williams. The melodious transition songs are fine but the highlight is the opening number that introduces Scrooge and gives an active part to most of the Muppets in the film.  The wordplay is delightful and sets the tone for the film. 

I was shocked to hear on the Podcast the other day, that my frequent guest, occasional substitute host, and friend, Howard, has not seen this version of A Christmas Carol. If you , like Howard, have not yet found this movie, I strongly encourage you to make an effort to watch, maybe even on Christmas Eve. The Muppet Christmas Carol can put both the Grinch and Scrooge, and maybe even Krampus, in a real Christmas spirit. The fact that this was the first Muppet Project after the death of Jim Henson, makes its quality a sweet comment of the genius of the man who created the performers in this film. God Bless us, everyone. Especially you Jim Henson.

Love Actually (Revisit 2023)

 

This film came out twenty years ago, and that was seven years before I started this blog. That means that this is the first time I have had an opportunity to include it for the main purpose of this site, which is theatrical presentation of movies. Sure, I occasionally have a special post or retrospective, but my real goal is to document my own experiences in a theater and this is the first time I have seen "Love Actually" in a theater since it's original release. 

In the twenty years that have elapsed between then and now, this movie has had a rollercoaster of a ride in the circles I travel in on-line. First it was promoted by fans as a new Christmas Classic, to be repeated annually as part of your holiday. Then there was a backlash, criticisms that it is just a rom-com, treacly at times and unworthy of much respect. Then there was a ten minute charity short in 2017, and the film's love quotient went up again. If you look at a site like Rotten Tomatoes, you will see very divergent views of the film.  Let me say right now, I actually love this film. I bathe in the warmth of the relationships , in spite of some of the contrivances. I enjoy the thought that Great Britain is a nation that is clean, quirky and tolerant of eccentricities. There are moments in the film that make me laugh out loud, and there are sentiments that bring a tear to my eye. I suppose that the film is a sort of Rorschach test for film watchers, it is capable of separating the cynics from the sentimentalist with ease.  

The opening segment of the movie sets up the optimistic tone of the stories. The scenes of actually people greeting loved ones at the airport, and the narration by Hugh Grant, lays out a thick layer of sentiment that will cover the next two hours in various ways. The fact that the stories are mostly interconnected, gives us a little bonus puzzle to work on as we suck up the warm fuzzies. There is a musical segment at a wedding and there is one at a funeral, and they both work. Brothers and sisters connect and divide in just about every storyline, and the struggle of a step father to help his child, while simultaneously grieving for his lost wife, may seem like it is laying it on a bit thick, the winsome performance of the child and the honesty of Liam Neeson, sell it for me.

It is not automatically a picture worthy of love, simply because Bill Nighy and Billy Bob Thornton are in it, but I will say that it pushes me a long way into accepting the film with that casting. Nighy's Billy Mack made the audience laugh every time he was in a scene. Billy Bob channels both the lecherous Bill Clinton and the demanding George Bush into one character. His time in the movie is brief but impactful. Although Hugh Grant belittles many of his films and disliked doing the dancing scene in this movie, he still has the charisma and comic chops to pull off what might otherwise be a impossible version of a high ranking political figure. 

To me, the romantic highlight of the film is the last section of Colin Firth's story, as he travels back to France, to locate the Portuguese woman he has fallen in love with, and speaks in broken vocabulary to her and the assembled crowd at the restaurant she works at. The hope for love, in the unlikely circumstances is one of the things that all of us are motivated by at times. The sweetness of the characters, in spite of what might be seen as incorrect these days, overcomes my bullshit detector and just makes me want to feel the way so many of the characters in this movie do at the end of the day. 

White Christmas (Revisit 2023)

 

When I was younger, I thought of the movie "White Christmas" as a clunky Hollywood story, trying to manufacture a Christmas Movie. It was ok but never a favorite. As I have gotten older, I tend to appreciate some of the finer aspects of the film and I have come to a completely different conclusion, "White Christmas" is a delight and deserves repeated visits, although maybe every other year rather than annually. 

Six years ago, I attended a sing along presentation of the film at the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. When shared with a couple thousand other fans of the film, it is so easy to overlook some of the clunky elements and instead, revel in the joy that so many sequence evoke. The story will take care of itself, the drama is not really what we come to a movie like this for anyway. We are here for the glorious dancing and singing parts, and the performers that make you long for the golden age of Hollywood.

I have always been a fan of Danny Kaye. Every time I see Bing Crosby in a movie, I also appreciate why he was the biggest star in the world at one point. These two guys are unparalleled entertainers, who knew where their lane was and filled that groove with the things we craved.

Bing smoothly croons all of his songs with such a lightness of effort that it might make you wonder if he is not just an AI creation. Of course it doesn't hurt when the songwriter was the amazing and prolific Irving Berlin. Danny Kaye does a beautiful job matching him in the duets and brings a comic liveliness  to the proceedings.

I especially liked the number "The Best Things Happen When You're Dancing". Kaye and the terrific Vera Ellen, glide across a dance set that includes a water feature and fences which allow them to twirl, leap and gracefully fall into one another's arms. The director of the film was Michael Curtiz, who directed two of my favorite films, "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood". He worked with the choreographer to stage some beautiful moments in this sequence and he clearly knew how to make the rest of the film come together as well. The film was the highest grossing film of it's year and for a decade, the highest grossing musical ever. 

With so many segments that are backstage musical moments, the movie does feel a little long, and some of those segments are completely unrelated to the story. That does not matter however, because you want to enjoy them anyway. So Danny Kaye, making fun of modern choreography, and a Vera Ellen dancing segment, or Rosemary Clooney doing a torch song solo in a nightclub, all make the movie luxurious in production, if not efficient in storytelling. 

I'll just say that I swam in the warm waters of nostalgia, smiling for two hours, and glad that there was nothing more pressing in the film than being entertained. The production is spectacular, the look of the film is beautifully colored, and the final rendition of the title song should give you the  " hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny f##king Kaye."

Dream Scenario

 

Nicolas Cage is not only a fine actor, and an interesting character, but he has also become a somewhat cultural icon in the cinema world. His quirky performances intrigue audiences, and the shift in his career to quick, often violent direct to video fare has sometimes diminished his star but not the iconic status. If anything, those plethora of forgettable action films have created an even bigger footprint for social impact by painting his career with a slightly damaged tint. With that in mind it is perhaps essential that he is the star of the new film "Dream Scenario". In some ways it reflects the trajectory of his own story. 

The central character of Paul Matthews is a perfectly nice guy, but a bit of a shlub.  He is enthusiastic when teaching his classes, but like many college professors, his enthusiasm is not enough to encourage his students. At home, he seems to have a playful relationship with his somewhat emasculating wife, but it is never as warm as a deep relationship needs to be. His teen daughters regard him with the parental distain that most teens have, although there is love and not anger there. He is an everyman without any special or exceptional gift. That is until he starts appearing in other people's dreams. At first he is merely a passive observer, much as he is in life. Yet the phenomena of his presence in so many other people's dreams, makes his everyday status disappear in a flurry of social media activity. 

At this point, the film seems to become a vehicle for criticism of our obsessions with fame. Does going "viral" have any worth? Will it give a person the power to expand their horizons? That is the existential question of the film. Paul has to confront the shortcomings in his life in some fairly brutal ways. The screenplay is not just focused on Paul, although he is the catalyst for events, it also questions our gullibility as to what this sort of fame might mean. There is a sequence, which is painful to watch, where an internet start up, struggles to spin Paul's fame into gold. The monetization of our lives is critiqued by a pitch for a soda product. 

Cage brings an overwhelming sense of being overwhelmed to the film. He is oblivious at first to the dangers the scenario entails, and when real life intrudes on the viral mania, it becomes humiliating and provokes a change in the nature of his existence in other peoples dreams. That shift produces the inevitable canceling of Paul, thus offering a further negative judgment of our social media dominated society. Cage conveys futility in a way that reminds me of that scene in Fargo, where William H. Macy is scraping off the window of his car after being frustrated by his father-in-law. Arms flapping in fury and incapable of expressing it in words. 

The film is comedic at first but it makes some dark turns that will leave you a little down at the end. Not that a film needs to be upbeat, but this one is being sold as a light comedy, and that is not what it is. This film reminded me a bit of "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" with Ben Stiller from a few years ago. There are some insightful moments that are amusing, but it goes deep and that can be a bit of a downer after the comic moments. 

Silent Night

 

I admire director John Woo and as I have confessed in the past, revenge films are my guilty pleasure. So it gives me no joy to report that the new film "Silent Night", mostly failed to satisfy me. The disappointment is not a reflection of the action scenes, which are effectively staged. Nor is the let down based on the shortage of blood and revenge deserving victims, there was plenty of both. I think the problem that I had is that the conceit was just not necessary and it limits the emotional engagement that I felt throughout the film. The conscious choice that the script and the director make, keeps drawing attention to the film making and thus distances me from the emotional catharsis I am seeking.

If you are unaware, this is a mostly dialogue free film. Except for a couple of whispered words and disembodied voices on radios and intercoms, there is no speaking. That may seem like an advantage when your lead is Joel Kinnaman, an actor who for me at least has been charm free for the last dozen years. His visual range in this movie is so narrow, that I am confused as to why I am mostly unaffected by it. He gets to play anguish and anger. Not to give anything away, but Brian Godlock, Kinnamen's character, suffers a tragic loss that drives him into an angry depression that his equally devastated wife cannot endure. His emergence from a zombie like state only occurs when he commits to a plan that he sets a date of December 24th to complete. That date is the anniversary of the tragedy, and his goal is laid out in three words on a calendar, "Kill Them All". For me, that was the emotional high point of the movie. He finally states what we all are there for, so you would think that the build up and execution of that plan would be satisfying, but it was not.

Everything Brian does to get ready is a cliché, which is fine but could use something to distinguish those moments. There is nothing that elevates these scenes above the obvious. Brian goes into physical training and all the pull up, sit up, weight lifting moments are repeats of beats that we have seen in a bunch of Rocky films and other movies in this genre. The fidelity to the trope, along with the absence of any personality other than a grim determination, left me cold. The same is true with the sequences where Brian acquires a car and a cache of weapons, that would make a prepper blush, they just lay there and do nothing. I think maybe the character has to make some sardonic comment or grim forecast, for these sequences to have the emotional punch that you get from most revenge films. 

There is a hint that the police detective, who is investigating the crime that started this whole chain reaction, is secretly in league with Brian. They appear to have crossed paths and Brian gets some information from subterfuge, but that is as far as it goes until the climax. How Brian manages to stakeout and detail the work of the gang he is after is not really explained. The struggle for answers should be a part of the revenge plot but it is mostly skimped over. The interrogation of one of the gang members includes a fight sequence that should be informing us that this task will not be easy. Of course when the action starts, it is as if John Wick is simply occupying a different environment. 

Look, I still enjoyed the movie. The car scenes were intense, the hand to hand combat was brutal, and th gunplay is full of the John Woo touches that we have come to expect. It just did not hook me the way other films of this ilk have done in the past. Instead of a masterpiece from a master, I feel like I got an experiment that was interesting but not very involving.