I quite liked "Smile" from two years ago. It was a horror film based on a contagion, very much like another horror film I enjoyed "It Follows". Because these are modern films and the audience is primed for on screen horror and not just psychological horror, we will see some traumatic and nasty death scenes. The violence and gore provides the opportunity for make-up professionals to indulge in their darkest nightmares and then share them with us. "Smile 2" provides plenty of those moments and carries on a somewhat suspect theme from the first film which will come up in a moment.
The conceit of this sequel is that the contagion. which finally manifested as a monster at the end of the previous film, has entered into the life of a highly visible subject, pop star Skye Riley. I did not re-watch the original film before venturing out to see this new iteration. I have some vague memories of what the rules are for the parasite to be able to infect someone. This may be important at the climax of the film, but the multiple steps and preconditions are mostly ignored here so we get immediately to the central problem. Skye, who is played by actress-singer Naomi Scott, is recovering from a car accident that physically mangled her and killed her actor boyfriend. During the film, we get flashback episodes that reveal what was going on in her life at the time of the accident. There was drug use, and a break with her longtime friend Gemma. Skye appears to be on the road to recovery when her need for painkillers that violate her sobriety, brings her into contact with someone already infected.
Horror movies can succeed for a lot of reason, and one of them is that they grip us from the beginning. Although I have always maintained that "Jaws" is not a true horror film, it did do that very thing with the opening death of Chrissie. "Smile 2" manages this feat by playing out an opening where we see how the previous film has connected the malevolent force to a new set of characters. The tense confrontation between the police officer from the first film, and a couple of drug dealers is graphic and frightening. The payoff is also gruesome, although mostly unrelated to the process of being infected. If you have not seen the first film, you might be confused as to what is going on. Even if you are, I still think you will be hooked.
Movies like this are often faulted for using jump scares to goose the audience, and sometimes that is a legitimate criticism. It is an easy way to get a rise out of the paying customers. When used effectively however, a jump scare can make the film feel so much more lively. "Smile 2" has about five of these jump scares, two of which make the film story more effective and they exist for more reasons than just a quick "boo". The most disturbing scenes however, play out a bit more slowly. There is a truly disturbing scene where Skye is threatened in her own apartment by someone she knows to be a deranged fan. The slow reveal of those moments contain some disgusting visual references that make the scenario even more horrifying.
[Warning] I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible in my posts, but there is something that I need to mention and it may reveal more about the plot than you want to know. I will not give away anything specific but I will remind people that you cannot trust what you see being played out on the screen. The characters may sometimes be visualizing their own nightmares, and those may not be the actual events. This is a key element in the ultimate plot, and it was one of the things that is both creative and frustrating about the movie. It is close to the "Wizard of Oz" than it is to "The Sixth Sense" and it may undermine your appreciation of the film, as it did for me.
The ultimate payoff in the movie is an interesting take of the premise, and it could lead to subsequent films that will be much broader in scope that the two films we have seen so far. Writer/Director Parker Finn has found a niche with this concept, I hope that it is nurtured and creative in subsequent films, but there are dangers as well. I was not expecting to enjoy this film as much as I did, and although I am a little nonplussed at the way the plot plays out, the movie did make me smile.
Suffering from the flaws of many horror films these days, "Heretic" still manages to be a fascinating variation on the premise. This is in large part due to the casting of Hugh Grant as the antagonist and the charming performances of the two lead actresses, Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East. This is basically a three person set piece, but the setting is an elaborately designed house with a subterranean structure that will add to the mystery and sense of dread that pervades the first half of the movie. The deceptively inviting bait includes the charming Mr. Reed, played by Grant, who at first seems the most innocuous of potential threats.
Thatcher and East play two Mormon missionaries, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes, out for the day on their bicycles, looking to spread their faith. The opening section includes the uncomfortable cold calls and interactions with locals on the street. Sister Paxton, has no new converts and seems to be losing confidence, especially after she is humiliated by some teen girls that she had approached in a friendly manner. Sister Barnes is a little more pragmatic, and maybe weary of proselytizing, but both she and Sister Paxton seem committed to their beliefs, even as they discuss some world challenging truths around them. They are not just doing cold calls however, they have a list of homes that have indicated an interest in their faith, and one of those is the house off the beaten path of Mr. Reed. Set in an idyllic property, off the road, boarding a forested area, the Reed house looks friendly enough and when the mature, somewhat distracted Hugh Grant, answers the door in his patterned old style cardigan, the girls are nonplussed at his invitation to converse in the house. When they learn that his wife is supposedly baking in the kitchen, they accept the invite with very little trepidation.
This is all set up for the most interesting part of the film. Mr. Reed confronts the girls with a series of questions and challenging statements about faith and their beliefs in particular. As the purported wife does not appear, there is hesitation by the young women about proceeding. The dawning realization that they have been trapped in the house forces them to continue the facade of their visit. The carefully crafted politeness of the girls runs into the mildly rude but intellectual challenges of Mr. Reed. Grant is perfectly cast for this section of the film, he is clear in his beliefs but expresses them with the stuttering pace that he has been well known for in his other roles. He treats the girls like students in his own introduction to theology lecture, and paints a nasty image of organized religions based on their similar origin myths. His attempts to sow doubt in the girls seems plotted to force them to make a choice, which is ultimately meaningless in his eventual plans. His whole spiel is really just a cruel twist of a mental knife in the minds of the victims he is trying to create.
The living room and then the study of the Reed house, are decorated to invite confidence in the visitors, but as they move deeper into the house, the production design makes the floorplan more ominous. Once the girls pass the threshold into the basement structure, the film becomes a much more traditional film. Although there are a few twists thrown in to tie the escape section to the theological discussion in the early part of the film, those plot points make little sense. My friend Lisa Leaheey has said you can't judge a horror film by it's ending. If she is correct, we should disregard the last act of this movie, because it feels like an overworked attempt to vindicate what came earlier with a tradition horror element. I will say that I had an interpretation of the final resolution that was different from others, so maybe there is something here that is a little more challenging.
Because it is shooting high and tries to do something different, and it has three excellent performances, I am going to recommend the film. If you want a more complete and intelligent exit to the movie, you will be a little disappointed. I often find that I like movies in spite of their flaws and this would be one of those. I compared it to a film from two years ago, "Barbarian". A terrific opening is squandered by conventional horror tropes in the second and third acts. "Heretic" is not quite as egregious in it's failures, so in contrast it is the better film. I also think the difference is enough to recommend it.
[I have included the video of the podcast from the LAMBcast, which featured this film, in case you want to hear and see more.]
There are at least two kinds of stupid movies. The first kind are those that defy logic or character or screw up a concept, and they leave you pissed off. The best example I can think of from this year is "Longlegs", which has so much going for it and then trips over itself in trying to be unique, and it ends up offending you, or at least it did me. The other kind of stupid movie is one that is outlandishly idiotic from the get go, but is entertaining because of it' stupidity. Lots of old school comedies with Jim Carrey fit this category. "Venom The Last Dance" fits into this second category. It is dumb, nonsensical and full of stupid dialogue, but it is entertaining enough while you are watching it that you don't resent it.
What this movie has going for it is Tom Hardy, monologuing while pretending to be talking to the symbiotic creature inside of him, the alien "Venom". He is basically doing an Abbot and Costello routine all by himself. Now of course it took a ton of other people, actors, production designers, VFX artists and code talkers, to make this movie, but the only thing that is memorable about it are the exchanges between Hardy's Eddie Brock and his Symbiot Venom. There are a few laughs in the midst of CGI mayhem and convoluted plot twists, but that's about it.
I have seen the other two Venom movies and I remember almost nothing about them. I think a couple of characters from those films pop up in this film but I am not sure. In a week I can say I have forgotten all three films completely.
I have always had a soft spot for animated films. Maybe as a Boomer, I was strongly influenced by the ubiquitous Looney Tunes and Hanna-Barbara product that I was exposed to. When I looked back on my top ten lists from the fifteen years I have been writing on this blog, I saw animated films on a regular basis. There were years when I had as many as three animated films in my top ten, and one year, an animated movie was my favorite of the year. This has not been the case in the last couple of years. I'm not sure if I just missed great films, or if the animated movies I did see, were not hitting with the same impact.
The director of "The Wild Robot" is Chris Sanders, who made one of those films that may top a decade list of animated movies, "How to Train Your Dragon". This heritage gave me a lot of hope, and along with the images I'd seen from the film, I had pretty high expectations. For the most part those expectations are met. This film manages to find a warm beating heart in a mechanical device, without the presence of any human characters. It does rely on anthropomorphic animals, but most animated films do that so it is not really a criticism. "Roz" is a robot, improperly delivered to a wilderness island, and she attempts to fulfill her programming by accomplishing an assigned task and then returning to the manufacturer. The technical difficulty of getting a signal to be returned is a slight artifice that allows for some drama in the third act, but it is in the task programming that the story really takes place.
With a robot as your main character, you might expect to be detached emotionally from the story, but as we have seen with "Wall-E" and the Star Wars films, robots develop when they interact with others, and Roz get to interact with the wildlife which inhabits the island. The two characters that are most important to our robot are "Fink" a fox that is initially an antagonist, but ultimately becomes a confidant and mentor/friend to Roz. If there is one reservation I have about the film, it is with the lack of resolution to "Fink's" fox coat. The otters and geese in the film have authentic detail, but throughout much of the film, Fink looks like a cartoon from an inexpensive kids cartoon. I know sanders can do better because his previous feature was "Call of the Wild" in which a CGI dog was the star and was very convincing. The visual criticism aside, the rapport between Roz, voiced by Lupita Nyong'o and Fink, played by Pedro Pascal, is really very effective. The third leg to the emotional tripod of the film, is a gosling that Roz assumes responsibility for, that Roz names "Brightbill". The A plot centers around the three of them, trying to get Brightbill ready for migration off the island.
The B storyline involves the other wildlife on the island. The animals are at first frightened of Roz, and downright hostile at times. The racoons do their best to dismantle Roz, and the bear on the island would happily assist them. The most amusing character in the film is the possum mother, "Pinktail" who sees that Roz is not really a threat and begins to help Roz have a purpose. Catherine O'Hara voices the wise and not overly maternal Pinktail. Her interactions with the brood that clings to her are hysterical and will keep you chuckling for the whole film. Other animals in the story include the Bear I have already mentioned, and a wise older goose who is willing to take Brightbill under his wing for the migration. Bill Nighy gets some moments of warmth voicing this sage fowl named "Longneck".
In the third act of the film, the C plot becomes the main plot. Returning Roz to the manufacturer feels like a tacked on threat that is exaggerated to create a sense of jeopardy. Another robot becomes the antagonist and we get a replay of the battle at the end of "Return of the Jedi". It is visually superb but feels a little inconsistent with the rest of the story. The situation however allows Roz to reemerge as the hero of the film, assisted by the other legs of the tripod. It is a satisfying sequence, even if it belongs to a different story.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Wild Robot". It is strong enough to make an end of the year list, but it does not reach the heights of Sanders "How to Train Your Dragon".
It would not be possible to write about this movie without the context in which I saw it. The world has changed so much in the last ten years, many of those changes are subtle and may go unnoticed by some people. I however, have noticed. I notice that theaters are often empty when new films are playing, that films which have some serious issue to discuss get ignored off of the screens that they manage to play on when they do get a release. I have noticed that it is a disparaging phrase to say "Your Dad will like it." In the last couple of years, there have been a few films I was lucky to catch in a theater, which almost certainly would have earned that back handed compliment, films like "The Covenant", "The Greatest Beer Run Ever" and "Fly Me to the Moon". These were films aimed at an mature audience, and they were lucky to get any screen time in a theater. While they are of varying quality, they deserved the time I was willing to give them, and they earned a lot more respect than some films which have been huge box office successes, but which are barely real stories or movies. Whenever I have written about them, I have made an effort to give them serious thought (even when they don't deserve it, I'm looking at you "Barbie"). When I see a movie like "Juror #2" being dismissed as "Your Dad's new favorite movie", it frustrates me. Even when those are complimentary due to the old fashioned quality of a film, it sends a message to potential viewers that there is something here that is not for them.
Warner Brothers has made it clear that they feel the same way about this film. It is not for you. The have given it the most token of releases. It is on thirty-five screens around the country. As far as I can tell, in the state of Texas, where I live, it is on one screen in Dallas. Texas with thirty plus million residents, the second most populous state in the country, has one theater showing "Juror #2", the latest film from cinema treasure Clint Eastwood. I saw some spin on one entertainment site suggesting that this was a limited release because the film would only open in the single digits and that Warner Brothers did not want Eastwood to be embarrassed by a flop. If you believe that, let me tell you about the golden opportunity to invest in property in California City. Also I have a bridge you might like to buy in the New York area.
I had to drive two hundred miles one way to see the movie in a theater opening weekend. That is three hours on the Interstate from Austin to Dallas. After the movie, I had the same three hour trip back. I can't say I would always make a trip like that to see a Clint Eastwood project, after all I skipped "J. Edgar", "Hereafter" and "15:17 to Paris" completely. Yet the disrespect that Warner Brothers has shown one of their most productive and creative collaborators was so offensive to me, I felt compelled to make the effort. Oh, and I am glad I did.
"Juror #2" is a thoughtful story about responsibility and justice. Nicolas Hoult stars as Justin Kemp, a man who has turned his life around and found sobriety, but who has been tested by brutal circumstances. He is committed to doing the right thing, but is faced with another test and it is one that has severe consequences for others. As we follow his story, we can easily identify with his dilemma. He knows the truth in a criminal case that he is serving on a jury for, but revealing that truth would be devastating to him personally but also to the two people who will be depending on him in the future. What is the right thing to do, where does justice come in? Justin is also not the only one wrestling with these issues.
Maybe people will see this as an old fashioned movie because it feels like an update of "12 Angry Men". Courtroom dramas lack the fireworks of an action film or comic book movie, but they offer drama that can be completely compelling if told properly, and Eastwood and his team are doing that here. Screenwriter Johnathan Abrams, has constructed a plausible if unlikely scenario, for our central characters to confront. What is even more plausible is the dynamic in the jury room. We don't get the same kind of character detail for most of the jurors that we did in "12 Angry Men", but we do get enough of their attitudes and opinions to understand the arguments that will ensue. Marcus and Yolonda are the two jurors that resist the direction that Justin tries to lead the jury in. They challenge his rationale for hesitating to quickly render a guilty verdict. We know that Justin is motivated both by seeing justice done and self preservation, but his strategies are exactly the temperate thinking that one would hope a jury would engage in before deciding a man's fate.
There are complications in the process however, and Harold, played by J.K. Simmons , is both an ally to Justin's cause and a threat to him. So another set of ethical questions get raised in the story. I said earlier, that Justin and the jurors are not the only ones wrestling with these questions. Both the prosecutor and the public defender have serious moral conflicts that they face. The prosecutor is played by Toni Collette, who in an interesting side note, played Hoult's mother twenty years ago in the film "About a Boy". Faith Killebrew is being tested in a manner similar to that of Justin. One of the eternal issues in our justice system is the conflict over winning a case versus doing the right thing. Prosecutor Faith begins to doubt the validity of her own case. I try to avoid spoilers in these posts, so I will not provide any more details here, but let it be said that the resolution of the film does not leave anyone looking like a moral giant.
Finally I want to take note of the performances. Nicolas Hoult has to hold the film together as a good man conflicted by a bad situation. We can see anguish underneath some of the choices that Justin is making in the film. There is also palpable fear registering as he confronts one of his fellow jurors over the decision they must make. Toni Collette starts the film with a slight Southern accent, the film is set in Georgia after all, but I don't think she was as committed to it in the later parts of the film. Outside of the accent issue however, her performance is strong, registering doubt and resignation at the right moments. Chris Messina plays public defender Eric Resnick, who convinces us that he is convinced of his clients innocence. He has a light touch with the guilt trips that he imposes on Collette's character, which seems to reflect the professional relationship the two of them were likely to have.
This movie forces us to think on moral issues surrounding the way the justice system works. As most of us are aware, it is often an ugly process that emphasizes technical fidelity to the rules rather than finding a just result. The current internet outrage over the State of New York, seizing a squirrel and a racoon and destroying them, is an example of the same kinds of power issues this film presents. Regardless of who wins, everyone who wrestles with a pig ends up covered in muck. It's too bad that Warner Brothers decides that they wanted to tussle with film fans. So far Clint has stayed out of the marketing muck, and has stuck to drawing us a picture of the imperfections in all of us.
A year ago we went to a performance of the Austin Symphony Orchestra performing the score for the original "Star Wars" with the film being presented on the screen above the orchestra. I've attended several concerts using this approach including screenings of "The Godfather" and "Jaws". As long as the movie is compelling, it is hard to go wrong. Another thing that makes it hard to go wrong is performing the music of film maestro John Williams. "The Empire Strikes Back" is the original sequel to the continuing Star Wars franchise and it is especially vibrant when it comes to the music.
The heroes themes in the original film are the motifs that make that film so memorable. "The Empire Strikes Back" does not exactly subvert the importance of heroes, but it does make the theme of the main villain the most iconic piece of music from the film series next to the main theme. "The Imperial March" that accompanies Darth Vader through most of this film is found in commercials, at football games and being hummed by kids and adults, the same way the theme from "Jaws" is. It is an easily identifiable music riff which indicates the presence of the bad guys or something ominous happening.
Live music always makes the score feel more rich and full. Watching the violin bows sawing up and down or hearing the horns strike that right note are thrilling experiences. Even when you might be transfixed by the screen, an orchestra cannot be ignored when it is right there with you. The Austin Symphony is full and accomplished at playing these scores. The arrangements seem to give the individual instruments enough room to shine even in an ensemble performance.
I suspect that we will be getting "The Return of the Jedi" next year in the pop series that we subscribe to. That would be perfectly fine to me. However, instead of moving on to the prequel Star Wars Movies after that, I think a change up by covering Indiana Jones would be completely rad.
I fell behind this week, had six films to catch up with. After writing about two of them, I thought it was time for a change of pace. I went to a Friday Double Feature and a Sunday Double feature at the Paramount Theater here in Austin Texas. The programming had some horror themes, I especially liked the idea of "the fun ones". So here is my video commentary on the four films.
Friday Nights they'll be Dressed to Kill, down at the Paramount.
The drinks will flow and the blood will spill.
These two were horror adjacent films but still fit the "fun" description. Looking forward to a NYC trip next year to catch the musical stage version of
"Death Becomes Her". If it doesn't open with "Songbird" I will be befuddled.
This is one of those films that I hope I’ll be able to draft tomorrow on my Lancaster show. We are having a draft of horror films made and released prior to 1973. Rosemary’s Baby from 1968 not only fulfills the requirement okay in the appropriate time, but also being a truly creepy horror film, and one that is extremely well made. It was produced surprisingly, by William Castle, who was Notorious for making the budget gimmick horror films, like The Tingler, 13 Ghosts, and the House on Haunted Hill. He snapped up the rights to make the movie, by buying a book for adaptation before anyone else could get to it. Unfortunately for him, he spent all of his money buying the rights, and had none left to make the movie, which forced him to seek financing, and resulted in a studio-based film, and the studio insisted on hiring their own director. Roman Polanski is notorious nowadays, but at the time he was one of the hot directors in Europe, and this is a movie that put him in the top ranks.
The film is a very literal story about the birth of Satan’s child. You can struggle to look for metaphor or allegory here, but when it comes to the main plot line, Satan rapes a young woman and she is forced to carry out a pregnancy it is going to result in the birth of what is likely to be the Antichrist. This movie came out 5 years before The Exorcist, and 8 years before The Omen. It has very few horror effects, there is one death on screen, and a couple that are implied which take place off screen. The makeup in the film is not full of Prosthetics and goo with blood, there’s only a hint of the devil’s actual appearance with some close-ups on demonic eyes. Most of the makeup involves showing star Mia Farrow as becoming somewhat emaciated in the early stages of her pregnancy. Instead of glowing like a pregnant woman would she seems to be disappearing, pound by pound.
Mia Farrow gives on heroic performance as Rosemary, loving wife of a struggling New York actor, who is befriended by some oddballs in the somewhat sketchy apartment building she and her husband have taken up Residence in. Early acquaintance, when Rosemary has met in the laundry room basement, ends up dead and that is the most gruesome scene in the film. The young woman was staying with the older couple who lives next door to Rosemary and her husband. And it seemed that they were helping her recover from a sordid life of drug use and promiscuity. We never really learn why she died, but it is strongly suggested that the appearance of Rosemary suddenly was a opportunity that was a lot more promising for the coven of witches that occupy the building. Yes that’s right, I said witches.
The older couple next door, take up a particular interest in Rosemary and her husband, and begin to insert themselves into the young couples lives. To some degree Rosemary is happy to have some company, but she does seem to recognize that her husband is taken an unhealthy interest in their neighbors life story. He frequently spends time with the older couple, well Rosemary tries to maintain some distance. Rosemary’s husband is played by the great John Cassavetes, and at times he is a solicitous husband, but at other times he’s an insensitive prick. He and rosemary seem sexually compatible and happy, but he struggles with career uncertainty, and the fear that comes from where your next job is going to be coming from. Things get a little desperate when he loses a part in a play that could have brought him some much-needed attention. Like Cassavetes himself, the actor resents having to work for money, particularly in television commercials. His luck suddenly changes when tragedy strikes the actor who had been cast in the role that he was up for, and the part defaults to him.
This is all my way up set up, because this is really a character based film more than a plot based movie. Rosemary is driven to preserve her marriage in the face of the economic uncertainty that the two of them are confronted by. She also is in the process of nesting, and the desire for a child feels very natural at this point in their relationship. Once it is discovered that Rosemary is pregnant, the old couple next door begins to offer assistance. Ruth Gordon is an eccentric woman who has what appear to be friendly intentions, and some odd cooking skills. Her husband insists that Rosemary see the obstetrician that he is friends with. So the story focuses on this vulnerable young woman, being prayed upon with affection by her husband and Neighbors, and she doesn’t realize how much she is being manipulated. The doctor she sees is played by Ralph Bellamy, and he seems the picture of a wise and comforting older doctor, full of credibility. He needs all of that credibility because he keeps dismissing the problems the Rosemary is facing in her pregnancy. It’s hard for us to imagine the pregnant woman will allow her health to deteriorate the way it did in the early stages of the pregnancy, without seeking some substantial Medical advice. The assurances of her doctor only carry weight because of his reputation. It takes the intervention of some of her younger friends to convince her that she needs to see the original doctor she visited with in order to get a second opinion. Conveniently at that point the negative symptoms she’s experiencing cease, and it seems that the doctor was right all along, which reinforces The credibility he had originally.
The whole movie is about atmosphere, and the old apartment building that’s a couple moves into is full of it before we even meet the characters that fill it up. There’s a long sense of dread in the last third of the film, but they’re also some comical moments with the witches coven struggling to deal with playing nursemaid to hell spawn. Mia farrow’s expression when she finally gets a chance to see her baby is one that is perfectly horrifying, and ultimately maternal which is the real horrific twist in the film. Roman Polanski Maybe a horrible human being but he was a hell of a director, and as noted in another film, this movie made him the biggest director in the world at the time.
This film is already dead in the water as far as box office is concerned. What is not yet dead are the criticisms of the movie. People have had the long knives out for this film and are taking delight in killing it with negative opinions. Well here is a surprise for all of you, I actually quite enjoyed the film and don't find it a failure at all.
"Joker" 2019 was a divisive film as well, but it had enough enthusiasm to generate big box office and awards. Joaquin Phoenix gave a great performance and he has followed up with another solid take on Arthur Fleck, AKA Joker. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice it but it is "Joker" not The Joker. The lack of the definite article is not a mistake. The character is being distinguished by the absence of the article, in spite of all the trappings that put the film in the Batman Universe. Harvey Dent may be the prosecutor in this case, but he is not "Two Face" and the Thomas Wayne Character in the first film does not resemble the saintly benefactor of Gotham City that fathered Bruce. I have seen some online chat that Todd Phillips has betrayed his creation with this film, mostly because of it's denouncement. I think if you look closely, you will see that there is a line of thought that would transition this into a more recognizable pattern, but it will never be explored because of the failure of this film.
The musical elements are fine, I thought the mix of fantasy and reality allowed the songs to work in creating a mood or environment for the characters. Lady Gaga's Lee Quinzel is a hint of Harley Quinn, but again, distant enough that the fans of the DC Comics may be able to distinguish the characters. Her story line is a little less clear than it needs to be, and in the climax of the film her whiplashed loyalties seem confusing. Still, she sings well and looks good on screen. It was enough to keep me interested for a couple of hours.
I don't want to over praise the film, it is not something I was passionate about. (as evidenced by this nearly two week old look at the film). I merely wanted to assure those who had an interest in seeing it that it is not the disaster that so many are claiming. There are many parts to it, particularly in the Arkham sequences, that are dramatically compelling. The trial sequence is a bit of a failure, but it does have some bright spots.
"Joker: Folie à Deux" had enough in it to entertain me, but not enough to make me think about it for long (which the original did). It is an inventive swing and a long fly ball that results in the end of the game. There, you get a baseball metaphor to satisfy your sports craving World Series fans.
Francis Ford Coppola has created his dream project, and I'm afraid for many people it will be a nightmare. Megalopolis is an ambitious film that is nearly incoherent in its first half, wait let me take out that modifier and say in a very clear way that it is incoherent in its first half. That's one of the reasons that I was hating this movie for the first hour. Unless you were up on your Marcus Aurelius and your history of the Roman Empire, you will be lost on a regular basis. But even if you've recently read extensively about those subjects, you will still be lost because Coppola does not have a narrative structure in that part of the film. It consists of characters being introduced with long passages of dialogue that sometimes mimic the words of a Roman senator or those of a Shakespearean character. For what reason we don't really know, and Coppola isn't going to tell us. All of this is happening while we are being Bedazzled by visuals that are original and startling in their conception, but are not clear in function. Meanwhile there appears to be I'm going on in the time space continuum that is not clear at all. So welcome to the film.
Having said this about the movie, I do want to adjust my opinion a little bit as we get to the second hour, where there appears to be a little bit more narrative structure. And I do mean just a little bit more. It was however enough for me latch onto the film and begin to find more redeeming elements to it than just the visuals. Coppola appears to be trying to say something about consumerism, ambition, corporate capitalism, and the traditional corruption of democratic societies. Exactly trying to say about all of these things though remains ambiguous. He has big things on his mind, but we have to Wade through his mind to figure out what it all is about, and it's a jungle in there.
As usual I'm going to forgo trying to recap the whole story for you, there are plenty of other sites online that will attempt to do that for you. I'm just going to give you my general impressions and a little bit of advice about whether or not to see the movie. I will tell you, that I hugely anticipated the film since it's Premier back in Cannes in May. The word at the time was not hopeful, with many critics suggesting that the film was a complete mess, although visually stunning. That seemed enough for me to feel that the movie might have something for me that closes out copula's career with something Worthy. I insisted on viewing this movie in an IMAX theater so I could get the visual impression that the director clearly wanted us to have. I think that was a good choice on my part. However as I watched the film, I was getting more and more depressed. Art needs to speak to you at some level, and without a narrative or characters that I cared about, this film was not reaching me. Even as an abstract piece of art it was problematic.
Once the characters began to function in a recognizable story, which involved conspiracy, subterfuge, and betrayal, I began to feel like there was something in the movie that I could understand. I was able to reinvest in the movie at that point, I guess is that there will be a lot of people who won't get to that point. Even if someone does manage to stick it out with the film, they may not be willing to forgive the incoherent mess at the first half of the movie consists of. Apologists of Art that is abstract, and not easily consumed, will certainly find ways to recommend this film to the community of Cinema fanatics that might be tempted to view the movie. More power to them. For General moviegoers though this film is going to be, not challenging but off-putting. It is deliberately obtuse, and the characters are dense, and unlikable. Frequently actors engage in cartoonish performances, certainly encouraged by director Coppola. Shia LaBeouf and Aubrey Plaza are two of the actors who seem to be working in a completely different tone and mode than everyone else in the picture. It might even be true that their performances are the true soul of this extravagant farce that has been labeled a fable. Maybe if everyone else had gone in the same direction this movie would have been a more audience friendly success.
The passage of time May reflect well on the movie, but my readers, you were looking at this contemporaneously and so I must give you fair warning. This movie is not for everyone. In fact it's probably not for most people. As a film artifact it will be interesting to look at down the road. Has a film, playing in the movie theater, to a general audience, it's simply a mess.
I'm not exactly sure why Coppola sets this movie in an imagined Roman Empire seated in the United States and headquartered in a place like New York City. Combining the Roman Empire with us hegemony seems like a interesting mix of allegories, but it also seems completely pretentious. When Adam Driver starts delivering monologue from Hamlet at the unveiling of a pitiful Casino model from his rival the mayor of New York, I started drifting. To be or not to be it needs a better answer than what this film gives us.
The story of actor Christopher Reeve will forever be tied to the films he is most well known for. He had other accomplishments and struggles, but he was the embodiment of the character of "Superman" in spite of denying any pretentions of heroism. The tragedy that befell him strikes others and leaves them with difficult choices to make and personal challenges to face, but if a hero is someone who can inspire others to face the darkest foes, than Christopher Reeve was at least that kind of hero.
Reeve's rise to film stardom is chronicled along with the accident that made him an icon in a completely different way. This documentary tells his inspiring story through extensive film clips, home videos and media content from the day. Those materials have been woven together with heartfelt interviews of people who loved him, particularly his three children. The complicated backstory of his family is mirrored in his own families origins, but somewhere along the way, he broke the pattern of the stern, unpleasable father figure, and became the kind of man that most fathers would like to be.
We are given substantial insight into the travails of his life after the accident. Most people who were alive at the time, will remember his dramatic appearance at the Academy Awards and the mostly non-political presentation he gave at the Democratic National Convention. The makers of this film recognize how important it is to remind us of those events, but they spend much more time with the daily struggle, and the emotional toll it puts on his family. Although he was a symbol of hope, there were naysayers in the disabled community who thought his striving for recovery sent the wrong message. That controversy is one of the daily sorts of ideological conundrums that people face from those with different perspectives and ambitions. His staunch embrace of his position on his circumstances makes him another kind of hero as well, one who is heroic for staying true to his beliefs.
While the story does focus on him, it needs to be said that the film is equally concerned with his wife Dana. She passed just eighteen months after he did, from an unrelated illness, but she was his stalwart defender and inspiration for lasting as long as he did after the riding accident. Dana is also a significant part of the Foundation that they founded to promote progress in helping people with spinal cord injuries. Her fight for those folks was just as strong as his. The three children featured are not kids anymore, they are all adults, carrying on the legacy of Chris and Dana. They may have had different mothers, but it is clear that their father was what helped make the difference in each of their lives.
If you get a chance to see this in a theater, I think you will appreciate the artistry with which it was made. The movie clips of course look great, but the interviews feel warmer on the big screen and when you are speaking of his legacy, that warmth seems to be particularly important. It is probably also best to bring some tissues with you, because the emotional impact of your memory and the courage of couple, will move you.
One of the things I enjoy about social media (yes there are some things worthwhile there) is the opportunity to discover films that might otherwise have slipped under the radar. "The Babdook" was a film that never played in more than two theaters at a time on it's original release. However, the word of mouth on the film back in 2014 was that it was terrifying. Those praises made it worthy for me to seek out when it became available for home viewing. I can say that it is in fact one of the few horror films that lives up to it's hype. The set up of the story is maddening, but when the supernatural elements kick in, you are ready to believe in what follows.
Amelia is a widow with an incredibly challenging six year old son. Samuel is both very bright and enthusiastic, but he is also incredibly needy and like most children, self centered. From the beginning of the film, actress Essie Davis makes Amelia look worn out and fragile. Hers is one of the best depictions of physical and mental exhaustion I can remember seeing on screen. Samuel and his obsessions, keeps her constantly on edge, and her brittle protection of him is driving a wedge between her and almost everyone else she is connected with, even the friendly co-worker and her sister. The monster in the story is here well before the trigger mysteriously appears.
This is a psychological horror story, and at the end, there is a very valid question about where the "Babadook", the monster of the tale, comes from. It is quite possible that everything that occurs is a manifestation of Amelia's mind. The true source of her difficulties is the unresolved grief she has for her husband, who died in a car accident while driving her to the hospital to deliver Sam. The character is extremely sensitive about discussing her late husband, in part because it appears that Sam reminds her constantly about the loss. All of us have dark thoughts that creep into our heads now and then, but her character allows those thoughts to grow, in part because she is so exhausted from trying to manage Samuel. Even a temporary respite from the tension she lives under is interrupted by Sam.
There are some great uses of sound to create a aura of dread in the house that Sam and Amelia occupy. As almost every film fan knows, the less you see and the more you imagine, the greater the fear factor can be. Even when the title figure is manifested, he plays mostly in the shadows and our chances to see him are very brief and ambiguous. The horrifying foreshadowing in the book that she and Sam first discover the "Babadook", lets us know how this terrible horror will manifest itself. [Potential Spoiler: Animal Lovers Beware]. The resolution of the film comes after a harrowing third act where the norms of parent child relations are stressed to the limit. It is not so much that Amelia has let the Babadook" in, as it is that she is letting her grief out in a very destructive manner.
I literally got chills at least three times in last nights screening. There are a few well done jump scares that fit with the story and are not simply cheap moments that the director is imposing to get a rise out of us. This is writer/director Jennifer Kent's debut feature film. It is an accomplished piece of work that makes the most out of it's limited setting and small number of characters. There are some emotionally deep themes in the film, and in the end it is uplifting, but you have to absorb some disturbing moments to get to that more positive resolution.
This is a Tenth Anniversary screening, and if it is playing in your local cinema, be sure to stick around for a ten to fifteen minute conversation between Kent and Alfonso Cuarón, as they talk about the themes and the process of writing the film.
Matt Walsh is a conservative provocateur who has taken up filmmaking as a way of getting his message across. As a filmmaker his goal seems to be to create something entertaining not just a polemic on his philosophy. Of course that doesn't mean that his views will not be a part of the film, it simply means that the way he's going to present those views will be in film terms rather than in pundit form. His previous film "What is a Woman?" was available only on the Daily Wire platform, with a brief exception for a YouTube presentation to expose the film more broadly. His new film, "Am I Racist?" is being presented is a theatrical release and is available on 1500 screens around the country. This feels like a major departure for the Media Group that he is working with, and part of an overall goal to expand cultural entertainment to include conservative perspectives.
The approach that he takes in this film is similar to the one taken by Sacha Baron Cohen in his Borat films. Walsh assumes an identity, in order to interact with unsuspecting advocates of the DEI movement. When, pretending to be a fellow Traveler, he manages to get them to reveal their true thoughts and feelings about anti-racism and a variety of other ills. These are the most entertaining part of the film, because he's letting them hoist themselves on their own petard. In an early sequence he attends an anti-racism training session, ones filled with rituals and comments that are simply shown to be odd in the way the people in the seminar act and speak. He inserts himself by asking frequent questions and offering comments to provoke responses from the seminar leader. The results are contentious, cringe-worthy, and hysterical. After being recognized, he later tactics, by arranging interviews with a variety of so-called anti-racist speakers, academics, and theorists. He poses as a DEI advocate on a journey to understand how to "de-center" racism. The questions he asks, demonstrate some of the contradictions in the whole DEI premise. Those contradictions become points at which it is easy for the audience to laugh.
For me, the most uncomfortable, and the most revealing segment of the film comes when he infiltrates one of the "Race to Dinner" sessions held by two women of color who guide white women to confront their white guilt. Walsh himself is not supposed to be able to participate, since the dinners are only open to women. He manages to insert himself into one of these dinners as a server in the facility that the dinner is being held at. What he manages to get away with is audacious, and continuously uncomfortable, much like the humor you will find in one of those Borat films. My favorite moment, came when he comedically acts out as a incompetent waiter by dropping a set of dishes at a particular moment in the monologue being presented by one of the two women who host these events. There may be people who agree with what's being said at that particular moment, I however I'm not one of those people, and I thought that the interruption was particularly called for, and amusing.
Not everyone is going to enjoy this film, especially those who espouse some of the Critical Race Theory that underpins the DEI movement. The average person however will probably find this movie to be very entertaining, as well as enlightening. Maybe those folks who go through DEI training in their workplace will see this as old news, but there are plenty of people out there who have not been exposed to some of the details of these theories, and they're likely to be befuddled and offended by some of the things that are being said.
Matt Walsh is basically playing himself in this movie, with a tongue in cheek attitude as a Seeker of anti-racism excellence. Of course he is also a master troll when it comes to mocking those ideas that he sees as being contemptuous. One of the times where he steps out of character a little is a sequence where he reimagines that Jussie Smollett hoax of a few years ago. It's a funny bit, but it does take us out of the diorama that he has created for the rest of the picture.
Two sequences in the last third of the picture probably highlight the places that will be most controversial about his comedy approach. In the segment with anti-racist author Robin D'Angelo, he engages her with a series of questions that illustrates some of the convoluted thought processes that are required in order for the anti-racist ideology to function. As amusing as those contradictions might be, they end up being overshadowed by the improvised conclusion of this segment, which mocks the idea of financial reparation for past racist actions, especially slavery. D'Angelo in her desire to remain true to her position demonstrates the absurdity of that position by her actions. It will probably be the most talked about part of the movie.
The last segment consists of Walsh trying to take what he has learned about DEI and apply it by creating his own seminar on anti-racism. His ability to act in a dead pan, serious demeanor, makes most of the things that he does in the film feel satirical. In his role as DEI seminar leader, he comes across as inept because the premises of the philosophy don't hold up. The response of the trainees to his approach provide the most insightful element at this point. It demonstrates that the goal is not to bring us together but to further drive us apart.
I completely understand that this will not be everybody's cup of tea. If you find Sacha Baron Cohen to be a little bit uncomfortable, or if you find the films of Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore to be less than tolerable, you will be put off by this film. On the other hand, if you are who enjoys clever trolling, and taking down untrustworthy authority figures a peg or two, I think you'll be entertained by this movie.
Legacy sequels have been showing up on a regular basis for the last few years. From "Top Gun" to "Planet of the Apes, from "Creed" to "Furiosa", the studios have been strip mining their IP properties for topics, spinoffs, reimaging and direct story sequels. Some of these, like "Top Gun Maverick" and "Blade Runner 2049" have been quality products which do not besmirch the collective memory of their progenitors. Others, such as "Indiana Jones" and "Bill and Ted", try but just can't recapture the magic of the originals. Still others are atrocities that need to be wiped from our memories ( I'm looking at you "Independence Day Resurgence").
Now, 36 years after the original "Beetlejuice" is getting a legacy sequel, and I can tell you, it is not in the dreadful category at all. "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" is a spry resurrection of a character created almost entirely by Michael Keaton in the first film. He designed the look of the crazy bio-exorcist and improvised as much as eighty percent of the dialogue he speaks. That is pretty impressive, but it should be noted that the character of Beetlejuice appears for a total of less than fifteen minutes on screen in the 1988 film. It was however an impactful enough fifteen minutes to make the film one of the top ten hits of the year, spawn a children's cartoon show, and a Broadway version. I can't say Beetlejuice is back from the dead, because he still is dead, but he is back on the big screen in what looks to be a sizable hit for the fall.
I liked the original well enough, but it was never a staple at our house so when I was getting ready for the new film, I screened the prior movie at home. It was pretty much as I remembered. Th jokes are hit and miss, the sets are a gas, and the look of the movie is pure Tim Burton. "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" leans into those Tim Burton touches and he seems to have a little of his old swag back. The visuals from the next world are all creepy and funny simultaneously, and the outrageous living characters are just sane enough to keep the story from going off the rails.
The film takes a while to get it's footing, seeing how we are being introduced to a new main character in Astrid, the daughter of Winona Ryder's character Lydia from the first film. She is played by Jenna Ortega, who I know from "X" and the legacy "Scream" sequels. She is as disaffected as her Mother was but for different reasons. Mom has a thriving career as the host of a ghost hunting television program, since she can actually see ghosts, she is a popular paranormal investigator, but her daughter thinks she is a fraud and is embarrassed by her. Their estrangement is somewhat ended by their return to the town of Winter River by the death of Lydia's Father and Astrid's grandfather Charles. His death is presented in one of the amusing sequences that start the film rolling on it's comic momentum. After that sequence there are three or four set pieces that just worked for me and provoked a ton of laughter.
In the 1988 film, the "Banana Boat Song-Day Oh" was used for comic effect at a dinner table sequence. I was amused by it but in this film, we get a different song being mocked by the dead and acted out on possession form which worked even more effectively for me. It also makes a little more sense for the story this time. All you disco fans and lovers of 70s Rand B music, have something to look forward to as well. Surprisingly, the Halloween sequence is only moderately as funny, but it still works. Oh, and if you thought you saw the last of Sandworms when you went to catch "Dune Part 2" back in March, well, think again.
Catherine O'Hara is used much more extensively in this movie than in the original, and that is all in the good. Monica Bellucci is under utilized but still creates a plot line that meshes with the main story. I'm not sure that Willem Dafoe was needed and his part feels disconnected from the plot, but I can see how it made sense at some point. The best new addition to the cast is the love interest for Astrid, Jeremy, a boy who has a mysterious back story. Justin Theroux is the poor man's Jon Hamm, and he has some classic good looks and an not very savory way of fitting into the story. The film is a little longer than the original to accommodate all of the background issue.
Michael Keaton as the repulsive but charming Betelgeuse (more easily pronounced as Beetlejuice) is again the main feature of attraction for the film. He gets more screen time, but he never overstays those moments. Once the Juice is loose, the fun begins. I was not sure I was going to enjoy the movie, but it won me over and I am happy to recommend that you say "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" and invite this demonically witty spirit back into your movie life.
The Paramount Summer Classic Film Series finishes off with another presentation by Robert Rodriguez, of the film "What's Up Doc?" This is the same film that finished the summer series last year, and it was hosted by Rodriguez then as well. His presentation before the film continued to be interesting but it was not as elaborate as the introduction he gave last year, but it was just as enthusiastic. This is clearly a movie that he loves and is happy to share with the audience. While sitting in the theater which was packed, I listened to the sound of laughter coming from several hundred audience members, I was reminded about why seeing a movie in a theater with an audience matters. This kind of experience reminds us that we all can find something in common, and that we are human beings capable of enjoying a shared experience, even without interacting with one another. Of course since it was the closing night film, there were some special events that went along with the evening, and that did encourage us to interact with one another. Two guys we had met in the garage elevator of the parking structure across the street, were seated right behind us. There was a trivia contest going on and we teamed up with them to participate. I know I had a lot of fun, and I think they did as well. The fact that we came in second place was only mildly disappointing because we were one wrong answer off, and we'd guessed ourself out of the correct answer on one of the questions. Oh well, we still had the movie to look forward to.
At the time this movie was made Barbra Streisand and Ryan O'Neal were huge stars in Hollywood. O'Neill was coming off of "Love Story" which was the biggest Blockbuster of 1970, and Streisand was an academy award-winning actress who also had huge successes with a variety of films in the previous four or five years. Director Peter Bogdanovich was also on a hot streak. This film he made to explicitly be a screwball comedy in the mode of the great 1930s films that he loved. Rodriguez told the story about how the original script ended up being rewritten, by Buck Henry, who apparently had a pretty good idea about what makes something funny.
The movie introduces us to Madeline Kahn, who would become a comic icon for the next 20 years. Her role in this part might be thought of as thankless, because her character is such a wet blanket. But she turns out to be a wet electric blanket, shocking us with how funny she could be while playing a drudge. She gets a surprising number of laughs as the straight man in the story. Of course she is surrounded by a cast of secondary characters who are equally good at getting laughs from some of their few moments on screen. Austin Pendleton and Kenneth Mars both delight us with their ridiculous delivery of some of Buck Henry's lines. Mars uses an accent that seems like it will show up again in "Young Frankenstein" a couple years later.
The slapstick in this film centers around four identical suitcases that all have varying degrees of valuables in them. One suitcase contains nothing but rocks, but they are important rocks. One suitcase is full of secret government documents revealing a scandal. Another suitcase is loaded with jewelry that belongs to a wealthy visitor to the hotel where everyone is staying. The final suitcase simply contains the personal items of our leading lady. The pursuit of these various suitcases, and the comedy of changing hotel rooms, opening and closing doors, and hiding under beds, in closets, and on window sills, is exactly the kind of humor that you would find in one of those old movies. Here it is just multiplied.
The climax of the film is a street chase thru the city of San Francisco. O'Neal and Streisand are on a delivery bicycle, careening down the hills, crashing through a Chinatown street parade and generally causing havoc. Of course in the 1970s, there have to be car crashes, and there is an abundance of them from all the pursuing vehicles. The bit with the giant window pane is staged beautifully so that the payoff is much funnier than it would have been in someone else's hands. The rapid film style follows the same pattern as the patter in the first section of the film, with multiple points, finished off by a topper. Bogdanovich was a film scholar who understood how to read a scene.
I saw this movie years ago on television, but I had very little memory of it. I have seen it the last three times, in a theater, with a packed audience and it is such a treat. I'm sad the Summer season is over but I am grateful for all the movies I saw at the Paramount in the last three months. This cherry on the top will have me thinking about next years programming, all Fall and Winter long.
Let me Begin by telling you how excited I was to see this movie. When it showed up in the schedule for the summer series, I wrote it down in pen on a calendar, and put it in all of my electronic calendars, with a heavy emphasis on the date. I was not going to let anything else interfere with my ability to see this on the big screen. Since 1984 I have loved this film, for a whole variety of emotional issues. There is of course the nostalgia factor, because 1984 was not only one of the great years of film, it was my greatest year of films. I saw more films that year that have influenced me and made me want to go see another movie, than I have ever seen in any subsequent year. A second reason that I was so anxious to see the film, is that the music of the band in the movie, is mostly attributable to the late Jim Steinman, a writer and composer of epic rock arias. I've been a fan of his style of music since the original Meatloaf album "Bat Out of Hell". Finally one other reason that I was so anxious for this screening was that it was to be a 70 mm presentation at my favorite theater here in Texas. So that's how anxious I was to see the movie. Now I had bought tickets for a concert that was scheduled 2 weeks before. That show got postponed... to this date. I basically had to choose, and I chose this film.
It's not that the story is so fantastic, or that the performers are so compelling, since everybody is talking about the "vibes" in the world today, I will honestly say this is a vibe movie. The film is loaded with the kind of imagery that movie fans love. There is a combination of wet streets and neon lights, there are shadowy alleyways and gleaming diners, and everybody in the film is dressed in a way it is stylish as hell. And some of those styles look like they came right out of hell. This is a movie that thrives on its looks. The opening of the movie is a flash cut concert video which feature that driving propulsive song from the damsel in distress in this story. As she's singing in a near hypnotic state, we see the ominous motorcycle gang arriving in their town, entering the auditorium, and lurking in the shadows waiting for their moment. When Willem Dafoe is backlit and we can't see his face but only the ominous silhouette, we know danger is coming. When the light finally hits his face and reveals a demonic expression, we know that danger has truly arrived. This is the kind of visual artifice that director Walter Hill uses to tell his story throughout the film. The hero Tom Cody, arrives alone ss the sole rider on an elevated, train. Later in the movie, The Sorrells, a singing group who gets hijacked by the rescue team, perform an acapella song on a dimly lit bus. Hill knows how to take the environment and make it a character in the story, that happens repeatedly in this movie. There are two different bars, a diner, an auditorium, and a street, that are all important characters in the narrative. The fact that these sets sometimes outshine some of the actors is a deliberate choice to emphasize style. And boy is this movie stylish.
Most of the background characters in the film, dress as if it's 1955. They do it up with pizzazz. Bill Paxton plays a feckless character named Clyde, but regardless of whether he is a wimp or a stronger than expected person, he knows how to dress and put his hair up in a pompadour that would do any Elvis fan proud. This is a little ironic considering that last night I saw him dressed down as a punk with spiked hair in "The Terminator". His character could have been the same person, but just dressed differently. The costume of Willem Dafoe in the last half of the movie always gets a laugh, but as the movie goes on, it feels more and more ominous. Who needs a high-waisted vinyl set of waders? What the hell was he doing at Torchy's that required such an outfit? We never figure that out, but we do know that his character might very well have just been described as Satan.
The film also features actors Rick Moranis and Amy Madigan as members of the rescue team. Madigan is great, as a soldier out of the army and looking for any kind of work that might fit with her skill set. She plays a tough character, with a no-nonsense attitude, but she never is going to be a threat to the relationship between the two separated lovers at the heart of the story. She might be a better match in temperament with Tom Cody, but is she makes clear he is not her type. The coded implication that she has a different sexual identity is not particularly subtle and probably fulfills a few too many stereotypes. Speaking of stereotypes, poor Rick Moranis is trapped as the belligerent buffoonish and nebish manager of the kidnapped singer that everybody is trying to free. He's also supposed to be something of a romantic rival to Tom Cody. That is just laughable on its face. He does what he can with a thankless role, but it is grating every time we have to listen to him b**** about something. If this film has a flaw, is the amount of time granted to his character Billy Fish.
If this were a straight action film, the fight near the end between Cody and his nemesis Raven, using sledgehammers, would be the climax of the movie. As I've already said though, the narrative here is less important than the emotions and the style. So it is the final song performed in front of a large audience as Cody makes his farewell from the scene, that is really the centerpiece of the last Act. "Tonight is What it Means to be Young", turned into the tagline for the movie, and it is a perfect summary of the attitude the film is taking. We see nobody in the film who looks like they're over the age of 30, or under the age of 20. This is a rock and roll fable designed to specifically stimulate the emotions of people in this age group. I'm happy to say that although I'm 30 years over that demographic, I still feel the way I did when I saw this movie in 1984 and I was in the prime age that it was shooting for. Once again I'll just say I love this movie and the vibe that it exudes. I'd watch it again tonight, because it makes me feel young.
I said it earlier this summer when I had the chance to see "Terminator 2" at the Paramount, frankly "Terminator" from 1984 was always my favorite of the films in the series. T2 has some great special effects and an exciting story, but the origin of The Terminator and the creativity required by a limited budget, make this version that I prefer. This was a terrific piece of entertainment from that great year 1984, and it fits in perfectly with its use of rear screen projection, stop motion, and puppetry. In addition there is some fantastic makeup work that goes along with the other effects to create a truly terrifying concept.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was just beginning to become the movie star that would ultimately dominate for the next 20 years. This was his second major role in a clearly commercial enterprise. After "Conan the Barbarian" two years earlier, it would have been easy to find himself stuck in fantasy films with muscular guys wearing furs, because that was all the rage in this period. Remember, he also made the sequel to Conan which came out earlier in this year, and the very next year he did "Red Sonja", so between those three films typecasting was about to become a problem for him. "The Terminator" showed that he was capable of more, even if it was as a robotic killer from the future.
Sometimes there's just a confluence of events that allows great things to grow from them. The connection between James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of those great connections. That connection started with this film. I'm still hoping for "True Lies 2". However, watching the movie I was reminded about how many great moments there are which do not feature Arnold. There are secondary characters that people sometimes forget. Paul Winfield and Lance Henriksen are terrific as a pair of put upon cops, following up on a spree killing where the victims share a name. Henriksen's character just can't stop talking and making comments that feels slightly inappropriate at the end of a conversation. Winfield's captain looks at him askew, and seems to suggest "shut up!" with just a glance. Winfield is particularly sympathetic as he comforts Sarah Connor when she first arrives at the police station. We can almost believe that everything's going to be okay. Of course we know at this point that the police are in way over their heads. Sarah has to rediscover that, and the shootout at the police station is a forerunner of so many contemporary shootout sequences that we see in today's films. John Wick and Jason Statham clearly have been influenced by these scenes.
Michael Biehn is maybe the great underrated aspect of this movie. Clearly Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton are pivotal characters as the film series develops. It is the role of Kyle Reese, the soldier from the future, who arrives to protect Sarah Connor, that sets the standard for badass heroes and plot twists. Reese is just a man, fighting an unstoppable machine, but constantly finding ways to slow it down, and get the best of it. He and Sarah could have easily disappeared, but it is a human error on the part of the pursued victim, that allows the pursuer to track them down. Reese never loses his cool, and even as he's dying, he plays the badass. You can also clearly believe that he fell in love with the reputation and the Polaroid picture of Sarah Connor from the past. The fact that he becomes the father of the man who was his Commander is just one of those nice twists that come with time traveling stories and a creative like James Cameron.
There were a load of people at the screening at Alamo when we went. Many of them look like they had been in a theater 40 years ago when the movie first opened. Like me, they were experiencing a bit of nostalgia, but also the excitement that comes from seeing something that is really well made, and sells itself based on the innovative ideas and the creative shortcuts that the filmmakers took advantage of. As most of us know, these films will never stop playing, even if franchise follow-ups stop being produced. The best way to say it, is to simply the paraphrase, "this will be back".
