Timothée Chalamet is an actor who has made a big splash in the last few years, appearing in art house films like "Call Me By Your Name" and blockbusters like "Dune" and "Wonka". I can't say he has always been an appealing character on screen because some of his roles have required him to be a bit of a heel, but I can say he plays the biggest jerk I have seen in several years in the new film "Marty Supreme". He is not an uninteresting character, but no one should ever trust him and don't expect to have a happy experience if you encounter him in your life.
I have not seen and of the previous films made by the Safdie Brothers, but I recognize their style from the trailers and the reviews that I have read. Josh Safdie is on his own here, but I have no doubt that what I am seeing is emblematic of their style. It is frenetic, fast paced, and a combination of dread and humor. Believe it or not, this is not a film about drug dealers, jewel thieves or for the most part, other underworld characters. This is a film about ping pong, set in the early 1950s, with a sense of style that many will embrace but some may hold at arms length.
Count me in the later category. I did not dislike the film, but it is not really something for me. The lead character makes endless mistakes that other pay for, and he is indifferent to the consequences for the most part, even when the consequences effect him. Most of the time however he is a narcissist of limited human emotions. You can admire his single minded pursuit of excellence in his chosen field, but you will probably be embarrassed by his behavior. Much like John McEnroe in 1980s tennis, his skills as an athlete are matched only by his arrogance.
The storytelling consists of personal disaster porn. Every choice Marty Mauser makes, professionally or personally, leads to some crisis that escalates out of hand and requires the next choice to try and address it. Of course, that choice then results in it's own complications. The film is two and a half hours long, and I don't think I could count the number of sudden shifts occur in the story. Bathtubs create havoc, gas stations explode, dogs get lost and found, and the people involved are rarely benevolent. Gwyneth Paltrow shows up as a former movie star who gets involved with Marty, and disaster strikes her as well. Marty's friends lose cars, money, and get physically attacked because of his recklessness. Oh, and there are some great table tennis matches along the way.
Chalamet is excellent in the film, and if you care about awards season, I suspect he may take some of the prises home with him this year. Of course you would not want to share in his characters exploits, because you'd spend all your time trying to escape the consequences of his pig headed arrogance. The final scene tries to redeem the character, but I did not believe it for a minute. Lots of people will love the film, I am glad I saw it, but it is not my vibe.
For 45 years it has been my practice to see a movie on the Christmas holiday. There have been plenty of stinkers, a number of films that were excellent but not really appropriate for the season, and several films encapsulated exactly what I was looking for for the holiday. Hooray, we have one of those films to talk about this year. Song sung Blue is an audience-pleasing, old-fashioned, music filled heart Tugger but I think the vast majority of the public will be happy to embrace it.
This film is apparently based on a documentary feature, so it is for the most part a true story, although there certainly have been liberties taken in developing it as a drama. The premise seems a little outlandish, but the longer I live in this world the more I discover that there are subcultures to which I am not privy, which thrive and run deep. So I suppose it should not surprise me that music impersonators have a sizable audience and their own sets of rules. However even if you are not part of that audience, you can enjoy this film because you know the songs and they are presented with great sincerity.
Mike Sardina is a somewhat successful impersonator, who is dissatisfied with doing short bits of other singers, and dreams of finding an act that will allow him to interpret something meaningful at least to him. When he encounters Claire, another impersonator, and she suggests a performer that he might be inspired by, well it is the start of a romance and a new show for both of them. Mike always builds himself as” Lightning”, and he dubs Claire “
Thunder” and together they construct a Neil Diamond interpretation and tribute show.
There's a lot of fun to be had as the two of them struggle to get things right, and convince hesitant Casino owners, restaurant venues, and other entertainment outlets to give them the chance to show the world what Neil Diamond means. Hugh Jackman is Mike, and his performance is highlighted by and strengthened through the songs that he lends his voice to. We all know that Hugh Jackman can sing, he's been a Broadway musical performer, and he has sung in cinematic musicals a couple of times, including an Academy Award nomination for “Les Miserables”. I think it might be a bigger surprise to discover that Kate Hudson, who plays Claire, has just as effective a voice as Jackman. In many ways her story is the more compelling one as part of this endeavor. Frankly Kate Hudson steals the movie.
Naysayers may simply think that this is a karaoke Musical, and not worthy of much attention. I however am not snobby about being entertained, and if someone can sing well and present the songs in an entertaining way, I'm going to be satisfied. When you add on to that a very nice romance story, and a couple of tragic story arcs, you get a film that might be a little melodramatic, but that doesn't make it worthless. Maybe it is just another Underdog Story, but it's about underdogs in a different culture, and one that happens to be very interesting.
That the movie is bittersweet is not a drawback but rather a reflection of the old fashioned nature of Storytelling, which director Craig Brewer seems to be adept at. This is a movie that is made for adults, and it has some slightly mature moments, but it is not bawdy in a way teens would be inappropriate to include in the audience. This may not be a four quadrant Breakout but there are a couple of quadrants that will embrace this movie with open arms, and I happen to be in one of them.
You are also likely to be singing along with several of the songs, because after all the Neil Diamond catalog is pretty well known. Even those songs that are going to be less familiar will be appealing because of the way they are presented by the stars of this movie. It is not an Earth shaking cinematic accomplishment, it just does what we used to want from the movies, emotional satisfaction and entertainment. This is probably going to go on my list of the better films of 2025.
Let me Begin by stating that I have nothing but admiration for James Cameron and his technical accomplishments with the Avatar films. From the very first film back in 2009 up through this most recent film, Cameron has been pushing the outside of the envelope reaching for greater and greater cinematic experiences to make movie going worthwhile. As far as I'm concerned an Avatar movie deserves to be on the biggest screen that you can find with the best sound system available and ideally in 3D. That's because the Craftsman Behind These films are at the Apex of their talent.
I have to admit however that the Avatar films don't hold my interest as far as storytelling is concerned. They are interesting enough while I'm watching them, and create enough suspense to engage me for the three hours or so, that they take up. On the other hand I have never felt the need to rewatch the films in any setting other than a theater. Unlike a film series like the Lord of the Rings, these stories do not feel essential. They are entertainments rather than universals. As a consequence I don't find myself invested in waiting for the next movie to come out. It took more than a dozen years for the first sequel to show up, and I was fine with that. It's only taken about 4 years for this second sequel to show, and to be honest I wasn't even sure I was interested in seeing it. I'm glad I did because I enjoyed the spectacle, I just can't seem to warm up to any of the characters or care much about what happens to the cultures being presented here. I'm not sure if that is a storytelling fault or simply result of the genre that is being developed, although I am strongly anticipating the third film Dune franchise.
Fire and Ash, continues the story of the navi and the metamorphized Jake Sully. I mostly don't remember how it is that this human became a navi, and the fact that antagonist characters do the same thing is also somehow outside my frame of reference. And once again I don't really care. The film is mostly a series of chases and battles fought in the lustly designed environments that have been created on the planet of Pandora. The jungles and oceans of that world are visually stimulating and filled with creatures and Flora that are spectacular to behold especially in 3D. Is one of my friends jokes the planet deserves to be in 3D because the characters are barely 2D.
Like the previous versions of the film series, fire and Ash feels like it comes to a stopping point, and then adds another 40 minutes. You are going to get your money's worth no matter how unnecessary it is for the films to be as long as they are. Because of the plot line repeats itself so often in the same movie there's not a lot of suspense about the story only about how the incidents that occur in the story are going to be resolved. From my point of view that's not a great way to stay engaged with characters or long-term story arc,
One thing that I am grateful for in this new addition is the presence of antagonists who are not merely human exploiters but are instead, Renegade Navi who don't really subscribe to the same Planet mysticism as the residents we've already met. I'm not quite sure why they can reject the authority of the planet, because they have the same ethernet port hanging off of them that our Heroes do. There is a little bit of mumbo jumbo about how this tribe was abandoned by the great mother, but we don't really know what took place, and why the fault should have been laid in the center of the planet. They do however have some cool new designs including a headdress that probably is a form of cultural appropriation that Cameron and manages to get away with.
A smart person will never bet against James Cameron when it comes to box office success. This movie appears to be doing as well as the previous sequel and although there has been some talk of pausing the planned 4th and fifth films, can't see that happening. I was a little surprised that the lamb community was not interested in a show on this particular film, which might have left me believing that there was going to be a serious drop off in interest. It certainly isn't the case with the General Cinema audience, so maybe it's just a function of the time of year.
As I've already said, the film is worth seeing if you are seeing it in a theater on a big screen with the purpose of enjoying a mass entertainment. If you're looking for anything else however there are plenty of superior options. As most of you who've read these posts before probably know, I almost always want a movie to succeed, even those that let me down occasionally. Avatar fire and Ash is entertaining enough, but outside of the technical craft and look of the film, I think it's flatlined.
A general rule of thumb is that remakes are never as good as the original film. That is certainly true of a great number of films, for instance as much as I love the 1978 and 2005 versions of King Kong, They don't really hold a candle to the original 1933 film. Of course there is always the exception which proves the rule. "Little Women" seems to be that consistent exception. Although Katherine Hepburn may have been the perfect Jo, the two most recent versions of the film from 1994 and from 2019, film makers have found ways to make this story better and better told than the earliest editions.
In fact I'm of the opinion that the most recent version from Greta Gerwig in 2019 is the best version of Little Women. Saoirse Ronan is Practically Perfect as Jo, and Florence Pugh as Amy is just as good. This version of the film pays particular attention to the relationship between Amy and Jo, and the characters are much more vivid and real as a result. Like real sisters, these two fight, make up, fight some more and still love each other deeply. The few moments of regret that Jo feels late in the film for rejecting Laurie, are made all the deeper by our knowledge that Amy has replaced her affections.
Jo's time in New York is one of the things that distinguishes this version from earlier editions. The gritty City in the middle of the 19th century is brought to life by great production design, and by the attitudes of the men around her as Jo tries to launch a career as a writer. The future love interest for Jo, is not so much a dashing foreigner as he is an honest critic and solid companion. Her initial rejection of him comes from a vanity that she herself would be mortified to discover exists. The reconciliation that occurs is more believable because of the way that Gerwig has time shifted the story around. She is emphasizing emotional points rather than chronological points. The only criticism I have is that it is sometimes dependent on out observation of Jo's hair, to be able to place the sequence of events in an order that works.
This film was featured as part of the Paramount Holiday Movie Season, and although it is not strictly a Christmas film, it passes the smell test the same way that "Meet Me in St. Louis" does. There is a key Christmas segment and the family connections all seem to be reflective of the spirit of the holiday, regardless of the season. There is gift giving throughout the year, and warm memories are present in the nostalgia of the sun as well as the snow covered lands around the March house.
I suppose every generation deserves a chance to make a story their own. Maybe years from now, another screenwriter/director will imagine a way to tell this story in a way that is meaningful to children just being born now or in the near future. The foundations have been laid by the original story, I'm just glad when the contractor knows when to make some design changes.
We lost Val Kilmer this last year, and that is certainly a tragedy. He is best remembered by most as Iceman from the Top Gun films, and he was Doc Holliday in the best performance of his career in Tombstone. It is unfortunate that his role in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” is sometimes overlooked . Gay Perry, the private detective, is one of the great sarcastic narrators in film noir. When you add Robert Downey Jr and his sardonic delivery to the narration, you have what should qualify as a classic.
Shane Black is created two of the best Neo noir films of the century. “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” along with “The Nice Guys", is the perfect mix of mystery, thriller, and comedy. There's a seemingly convoluted plot that is the basis of the mystery in this film . If you get to the end of the movie and you are still confused, don't worry about it. The real joy in the film is just watching the characters be smart asses in the face of danger and their own stupidity.
The dialogue for this movie is pinnacle Shane Black. He should probably only write for action movies, and film noir. Although his version of the Predator does undermine his action credentials a little bit. Still,l this movie gives him enough excess status that he can burn a little bit of it on some failed outings. Downey Jr plays Harry Lockhart, a loser and small-time crook who somehow gets caught up in the film business and is being mentored on how to be a private eye by Perry Von Schrieke, Kilmer's character. When real murders start to happen, Harry insists on trying to solve them and tries to muscle Gay Perry into helping him. The by play between the two of them consists of some of the wittiest back and forth you will see on the screen since the days of the screwball comedies of Preston Sturgis.
Well not a parody in the pure sense of the word, “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” certainly plays on the tropes of the traditional film noir. A detached detective, a femme fatale, and enough tough guy suspects to fill an arena for a fight to the death. We frequently get those fights as well. The deadpan delivery of the two stars, along with the outrageous plot points and coincidences, keep this film intriguing and lively.
One of the best illustrations of the biting and sarcastic dialogue comes when Perry in the fit of frustration asks Harry if he knows what he'll find when he looks up the word idiot in the dictionary. Harry gives a smart-ass answer which would have been the end of it in the lesser film, but Gay Perry puts a button on the joke and dialogue rises to a new level.
Michelle Monaghan is also quite good in the film as the not quite good girl that Harry has always been in love with. She is both funny and sexy simultaneously. She is also pretty resilient in spite of her flighty character traits. As usual it's not too hard to figure out the mystery, when a pretty substantial character actor is introduced early in the film, and then remains on the periphery during the exposition. Let's just say that you will know who the bad guy is the minute he appears on screen. Again that isn't really important, since the plot is mainly designed to put Harry and Perry in awkward situations and allow them to quip their way out.
It's a little hard to believe that this film is 20 years old, and they're only a couple of pieces of technology that give that away. Otherwise this movie remains as fresh as it was in 2005, and although I don't think it quite qualifies as a Christmas film, it does its best to try.
I don't understand why people continue to argue whether or not this is a Christmas film. The studios, movie theaters, and audiences, all make it a staple in Revival presentations during the holiday season. Die Hard is absolutely a Christmas movie.
There is plenty of content on this site which already reviews and comments upon the film. As usual a big screen presentation is one of the things that makes the annual viewing of this so special. The Paramount Theater here in Austin clearly recognizes that this is a Christmas movie because they scheduled it as part of their holiday programming. So when you put together our favorite action film with our favorite movie theater at our favorite time of year, do you really expect any negative commentary?
Let's just say that once again John McClane saves Christmas, gets his wife back, and makes Hans Gruber into a falling advent calendar that everyone should have on their Shelf at home. Ho ho ho, oh now I have a machine gun too.
When Kill Bill volume 1 and volume 2 came out in 2003 and 2004, we were pretty much Blown Away by the audacity Of The two movies. We knew that they were originally planned as one film but the practical circumstances dictated that they be divided into two parts. I have always felt that the cliffhanger at the end of Kill Bill volume 1 was a perfect way to keep us engaged and excited about the second film which was arriving just a few months later.
It was just last September that we saw both volume one and volume two on the big screen, hosted by Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino's pal and frequent collaborator. He did great introductions for both films, and reminded us that it was his band that did the music for the second film. This seemed perfectly appropriate since much of the movie takes place in Texas and Mexico. We had heard that Tarantino was going to release this new version of Kill Bill, but we decided that we would probably see it again despite having just experienced it at the Paramount Theater.
Thank goodness we did come back, because Tarantino is edited the two films together seamlessly, and added a few bits and pieces here and there to make the movie feel fresh, in spite of the fact that we just seen it two months before. Someplace else can tell you about all of the changes that have been made. The extended anime sequence of Oren's background is probably the most noticeable part of the film that has been enhanced. There may also have been a couple of shots in the House of Blue leaves fight that were not there before. Noticeably missing was the dialogue that David Carradine provided at the end of Kill Bill volume one, they provided the cliffhanger. Since the movie just continues the information about the bride's daughter still being alive has been reserved for much later in the film then what it was previously.
Tarantino includes a couple of touches the throwback to the 1970s era that he so loves, as do I. Veteran moviegoers will know to sit through the credits to make sure they've seen everything that will be part of the film. Everybody else in the theater left before the final segment played out on the screen, but we were still there to see it. It's an additional chapter done in an anime style using storyboard techniques that were probably used in the original film, for a segment that was eliminated. It was completely unnecessary but it was a lot of fun and we were certainly glad that we stayed to the very end.
Most of the rest of the story Remains the Same, and you could look at my notes from our September screening if you want to know more about what I thought of the films. It is also bittersweet that we lost Michael Madsen earlier this year, his Bud, is a key transition to the second segments of the movie. He will always be Mr. blonde in my head, but Bud is a great character that he brought to life for these films.
One of my online friends fervently hopes that the whole bloody affair is never released on home video, so it will always be a theatrical experience. I share that sentiment entirely, but I live in the real world and unfortunately this kind of screening maybe two infrequent to forgo a release to streaming or physical media. Believe me, if this version of the film does make it to physical media, I will be purchasing it.
If you're anything like me , you're a sucker for a good revenge movie. 2 years ago I fell in love with a Finnish film where the star never speaks in the movie, does outrageous things that are not physically possible, and kills Nazis for 90 minutes. In other words it was a movie that was designed for people like me, and I hope for people like you.
When I heard that there was going to be a Sisu 2, I was immediately excited. More ridiculous violence and a stoic hero that we can admire for his fortitude, creativity, and relentlessness. This time he gets to kill Commies for the most part, although there is one Nazi who is directing things. Does that make any sense? Of course not. These movies are not meant to make sense, they are meant to entertain, and the road to Revenge is quite entertaining, although it can never achieve the delightful surprise that its predecessor was.
The setup for the film is simple: Our hero , Having been displaced by Soviet takeover of Finnish territory, returns to the home where his wife and child were murdered. His goal, To tear it down and transport it to the new territory in Finland where he is now exiled to. The Soviet High command has determined that a Finnish Commando who has become a legendary hero is a threat to their status, so they release the Nazi commandant responsible for his family's death, to deal with him in a manner that reflects their barbaric nature .
The Nazi war criminal , freed by the communists to do their dirty work is played by actor. Stephen Lang. This is familiar territory for Lang, As he has played villains in countless films, including the Avatar movies and Tombstone. Our returning hero is played by the same actor from the first film whose stoic countenance continues to be admirable, and ambiguous. Some of the action requires submersion underwater, acceleration through the air, and reckless speeds on highways that have been deteriorated by War conditions. All of which provides background for our hero to defend himself against the Relentless attacks of a plethora of Russian soldiers being directed by a Nazi war criminal. Like I said it doesn't make a lot of sense but it is a lot of fun.
Sequels inevitably involve stepping up the special effects and amping up the action. Fortunately “SISU The Road to Revenge" does not skimp on the brutality. The Battalion of men who are eliminated at some point in this movie are dispatched with guns, knives, bombs, flames and we get to see most of it. So be prepared for a brutal good time, one that is satisfying although not quite as joyful as the first film. And rest assured the dog lives.
My immediate reaction to this film was to put it in the context of the award competing films for the year. It is of course a simple hyperbole to say that if "One Battle After Another" wins the Best picture award over this movie, I will burn Hollywood to the ground. This movie is so much more thoughtful, artful and well performed that it should be in it's own category, to which the Paul Thomas Anderson movie is never given admission. I already said I did not care for that other movie in my review back in September, this film gives me another chance to diss that movie by making the unfavorable comparison.
Enough though of the movie I did not care for, let me sing the praises of this movie which I admire immensely. "Hamnet" tells us a two love stories and does so through a tragedy. Much like a Shakespearean work, the touching personal story of love is filtered through an event of tragic proportions. The screenplay divides the progress of the story into distinct acts, but they are not labeled that way in the film. Director Chloé Zhao, uses a simple black screen to transition from one segment to another, a technique that may seem alien to hyperkinetic films of this era, but one that keeps the focus on the characters and the story and not on the visual style of the director. There are plenty of other opportunities for Zhao to leave an impression elsewhere.
The first third of the film slowly introduces us to the two characters that form the center of the story. Paul Mescal plays William Shakespeare, who will one day be recognized as one of the most influential geniuses in history. The other is Agnes Hathaway, historically referred to as Anne and pronounced in the film as Annis. In a performance that defies the concept of mere acting, Jesse Buckley inhabits this fierce woman, a healer from a woodsman background, who oozes supernatural maternal abilities and a romantic essence that far exceeds mere physical beauty. I have been a fan of this actress since I saw her in "Wild Rose", and although I have not cared much for some of the subsequent films she has appeared in, my qualms were never about her work. Here, she elevates the brilliant screenplay with a earthy personality and a strength of character that will live in you memory for a long time. That's right, the spouse of the greatest playwright in history, is the character you will care the most about. That is not to diminish the performance of Mescal, who is also excellent, but to recognize that the character and the actress in this film are the core of the story.
The love story between these two characters takes up the opening segments of the film. The second love story is the adoration that they have for their children and the love that the children have for them and one another. In spite of Will's need to be in London for his profession, he maintains a strong relationship with the family he has left at home. That regular separation however becomes a keystone moment i the story when personal tragedy strikes. Will and Agnes are estranged by the bitterness that follows and the recrimination she bestows on him for his inability to be with them always. It is the hurtful expression of that failing that motivates the most well known and prolific plays, the tragedy of "Hamlet".
As usual, I don't want to give too much away, but the two main characters have different coping mechanisms when facing death. Agnes has a naturalistic view of the afterlife that is not based in religion per say but in the folklore that she subscribes to. There is a beautiful scene where the family commemorates the passing of her beloved hawk, a pet she has cared for over many years. That approach fails her when faced with an even larger loss. It is Shakespeare who finds a way for the two of them to remember their cherished loved one, in a way that keeps the promise that Agnes made to him.
The story plays out slowly, with character details taking up more time than plot incidents. This is a film that is the antithesis of action films these days, but also comedies and dramas. We have to understand the people in the story for the events to have their full weight. The methodical buildup of family relations, the measured pace of the life they lead, and the lingering moments of beauty in the film are not things that you will encounter very often in contemporary movies. Much to the detriment of the movie going experience.
For more about this film, watch for this weeks episode of the LAMBcast.
I barely remembered the original "Zootopia" film from 2016. That is nine years ago, a long time for a sequel, and for a group of kids, forever. Imagine you saw this when you were eight, and loved it. Now imagine you are seventeen and a new edition is coming out. Do you think kids in their late teens are going to relate to the movie the same way they did nearly a decade earlier? I doubt it. So how is this going to work? It's simple, Make the film completely independent of what happened in the first movie, and that's what Disney has done.
The original film had pretentions of social relevance, using animals as allegories for human prejudice. If there were a Disney film that you could point to with a social justice agenda, "Zootopia" would be it. In "Zootopia 2" however, almost all of that intersectional thought has been put into one minor basket, and the film is now replete with animal puns, takeoffs on memes and references to other movies, almost all of which provoke a chuckle without an inkling of Social Justice. This is a buddy cop movie with fur.
The original characters of Judy the rabbit and Nick the fox, are back, and now they are partners in the police department of Zootopia. They are treated as rookies and the accomplishments they made in the first film are memory holed by the other cops so that the new partners can be belittled, and shunted to the side on important police actions. Judy of course is never going to be side lined and Nick is never going to be perturbed by anything. They are the usual mis match of Type A and Gen Z. A new plot crops up and of course, the duo are destined to get involved. It feels surprisingly like a Lethal Weapon film, only without the bloody violence. A ton of secondary characters weave in and out of the story, providing comic relief and plot points along the way. The fact that the new Mayor is the opposite of a mare, is a joke that will probably be missed, but with Patrick Warburton supplying the voice of the equine executive, who cares? he almost steals every scene he is in with his mane.
The convoluted plot is really just an excuse to run our heroes through a series of fun chases through the different parts of Zootopia, so that we can get in jokes about as many species as possible. The aversion to reptiles is as close as the movie comes to making any social comment, and the snake images are fun when we get to the climate control McGuffin that powers the plot. Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman are holding onto the original character voices and doing as much as a voice actor can to bring life to the animated critters.
The movie is good looking, and the music is fun, but if does feel long for a film directed at kids. There is actually more stuff that the adults will appreciate. My very young grand niece and nephew were a little antsy halfway through the film, but their Mom and Dad seemed to be engaged. It is a solid film, but I don't expect to remember it any better tahn the first film, regardless of how much money it makes.
The sense of relief I will have when this review gets posted is hard to explain. I have been as many as seven films behind in my goal to post on all my theatrical experiences. In addition to the number of films, there is the time delay from when I saw the movie to when a post finally went up, three weeks has been the longest I have ever fallen behind but now I am past that. This movie I saw two nights ago, and it will complete my most recent backlog of posts.
"The Running Man" was originally adapted for Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the 1980s. It was a pretty cheesy film, even for the times, but on a recent revisit, I thought it was much better than I remembered. The costumed killers that pursue Ben Richards were laughable, but they were fun. The themes of media manipulation and totalitarian control were however very nicely presented, and at least in the former, very prescient. This new version trods the same path, but with less wit and more complications than the original version had. It is however, still a lot of fun.
I have been a fan of Edgar Wright as a director for a while, the "Cornetto Trilogy" is a go to whenever I want to be entertained. I was disappointed when he walked away from "Ant-Man", but I can still see the influence that he had on that film. I am a little surprised to say that the new version of the "Running Man" while certainly quite good, does not feel particularly like a Wright film. There are some particularly good stunt sequences in the film, but I did not find them as manically amusing as the chases in "Baby Driver" or the combat in "Scott Pilgrim". They felt for the most part as if they could have been created by any of the talented action directors that churn out so many other films. My sense of heightened enjoyment was muted as a result.
Of the advantages that Wright's film has over it's predecessor, I would say the acting and the effects are the things that make this movie something you should see. I think Glen Powell is a solid actor, but his part here is too straight for the humor I was hoping for. Colman Domingo however leans into his role as the Network Host who can hype up an audience, bend the truth to stir emotions, and take what he is given and turn it into ratings. It was clear he was enjoying the part. The same can also be said for the most part for Josh Brolin, who as the network head with all the power, is venal, manipulative and gleeful while being so. Powell is not a weak link, his role is just not as strong during the chase sequences as it was in the first act of the film.
The scale of the chase is vastly broader in this version of the story, and that helps quite a bit in making the film feel fresh. The special effects and video surveillance elements of the story are even stronger. While it does go over the top in the plane sequence in the third act, it was easy to believe a lot of the process of the chase in the main part of the film. The vehicles, weapons and media all project a near future that is believable. The A.I. part of the story is to me, the most frightening element of the themes. Someone else can manipulate your persona with some technological wizardry. Unfortunately, that sort of technology is mostly available now and it is easily accessible. I see posts on Facebook that look like they could be Network Promos from this film. Reality is the victim in both the fiction of this story and in the contemporary world.
Because it lacks the outlandish characters of the 1980s film, this movie does not stand out from a bunch of other sci fi action films that have proliferated in the past couple of years. They are fine, but lack enough uniqueness to make them essential. This film is solid but you will find lots of films in the same milieu without even looking hard.
I have been behind on my posts for a variety of reasons, and the major one is that I have often been wrapped up in the LAMBcast Podcast that I host. I record and edit the podcast but I also try to produce an illustrated version for YouTube. It takes a lot of time to do that, so in an effort to catch up on my promise to cover everything I see in a theater, I am simply going to share the Illustrated Podcast for "Predator Badlands" here. The short version for those unwilling to listen or watch is that I liked the film quite well.
This was a film I had almost no expectations for, after hearing nearly nothing about it. There was a paid trailer in a pre show movie presentation at another film, and that was the first time I was aware of it's existence. The world has changed in massive ways when the presence of two Academy Award winning actors, in the same film, working with one another in most of the critical scenes, is not something the media is writing about, publicity is not building up, and the stars are not being showcased in countless venues. I am happy to say however, that I made the trek to the theater to see this, and I was very impressed with the screenplay and performances.
To begin with, the trials at Nuremberg are put into a different context than one might assume. Justice Robert Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court is a key figure in creating a framework for holding these trials in the first place. International rules of conduct did not exist, leaving a void when it came to justifying the punishments that the Nazi regime so clearly deserved. Michael Shannon gives us an intellectual legal scholar who is quiet, moral, and in some ways just over his head. Shannon gives Jackson dignity but also shows his willingness to manipulate the circumstances to fit his frame of reference. He is portrayed as a character who strives for justice, but gets stranded by the limitations his side created. The best moments of Shannon's performance are in his cross examination of Hermann Goring. His confident expression and attitude evaporate as he is flummoxed by Goring on the stand. While he is largely successful in confronting the number two Nazi, there is just enough ambiguity in the evidence to allow Goring to weasel his way out of accepting responsibility, and the look of defeat that Shannon puts on Jacksons face, is just at the right level. Richard Grant gets to save the day and the face of Jackson by following up with relevant questions that show Goring's duplicity. The relief on Shannon's face is discernable.
Rami Malek plays the psychologist Douglas Kelly, who is assigned to evaluate the prisoners and try to ensure their participation in the process by keeping them from killing themselves. He is able to convey earnestness and subterfuge very effectively on his angular face. The doctor is creating a friendly relationship with the most loathsome man on the planet, in order to protect the allies' integrity in the process. While he never seems to fall into the trap of sympathizing with the monster, he does avoid becoming the monster himself by treating his patient as a human being, a tough accomplishment. Dr. Kelly has some mixed motives because this opportunity might give him a chance to write a book which could secure a legacy in the field of psychology. Malek's role is the volatile part in the screenplay. He rants at the mistakes he sees the command making, he jousts with his patient both seriously and playfully, and he succumbs to emotions when dealing with Goring's family.
When I say the elephant in the room is Russel Crowe's performance as Hermann Goring, I could understand why someone would think I was fat shaming him. I have joked on my podcast a few times, that Crowe as a movie star makes my own visage much easier to accept. He looks like me not like Maximus or Jim Braddock. The fact that Goring was corpulent is a part of the story, as his health is a plot point. Crowe manages to suggest some vigor still in spite of playing the obese Reichsmarschall. Goring was described by Kelly as a narcissist, which was certainly true, and Crowe portrays him as an extremely confident and self assured antagonist. He is not leaning into a preening cock of the walk display of superiority, but rather an intellectual skilled at gamesmanship, who is potentially going to sew doubt in the validity of the premise of the trials in the first place. There is never any doubt he would be executed, but what it would mean, depends on him being revealed as the indifferent monster he was. Crowe gives his best performance in a decade, showing us a man who has convinced himself that he has done no wrong, in spite of being responsible for the murder of millions.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the solid work of Leo Woodall who plays the Sargent who is translator and ultimately confidant to Dr. Kelly. Justice Jackson's words give us the legal grounds for what transpired, but Sgt. Triest, as a Jewish German refugee, in the U.S. Army, provides the moral foundation that the audience will relate to. His quiet fury and desire for vengeance on one of the accused in particular, certainly seems justified, and his temperate decision at the end of the story, speaks volumes about the quality of the American's engaged in this precedent setting trial.
This was a thoroughly engaging film, with some intellectual heft and some fantastic performances. In earlier times, it would easily have been an awards contender and be named as one of the best films of the year. The standards by which movies are judged has shifted in the last few years, and it is likely that because the targets of this morality play are so easily already identified, the weight of it's value will be diminished. That is too bad. I however, am not compelled to adhere to a "correct" thinking standard, I I will just say, this is an excellent film, and your time spent with it will be worth twice that of some of the current awards contenders.
The vast majority of people who will be watching Guillermo del Toro's "Frankenstein" on Netflix, which is the company that produced the film. They will certainly enjoy the film and there is a lot to admire about the movie. I had the pleasure of seeing the film in the environment that it should be experienced in, a movie theater. Netflix was wise enough to play the film for cinema goers for a couple of weeks before reverting back to being exclusively on their streaming service.
I have a great deal of respect for del Toro, and in fact I have seen all of his theatrical films. We did a directors lookback on the LAMBcast a few years ago and I made the effort to see everything so we could cover it completely on the show.[Episode #502 October 25, 2019] Unfortunately, it is an episode lost from when we changed over the podcast storage. (Jay mat have it somewhere).
Regardless, I can say as a result of that episode that I know del Toro's work pretty well, and I have opinions that are not always inline with others. "The Shape of Water" is not a film I feel fondly of, in spite of it being his Academy Award winner. It was sanctimonious without earning the righteousness, because the artificial construct of the society was so labored it did not feel real. "Frankenstein" on the other hand, regardless of the CGI environment that it inhabits, feels realistic the whole way thru. It starts with a terrific horror action sequence that sets up the bifurcated story that de Toro has in mind. Victor Frankenstein is examined from his childhood to adult mad scientist. We can see the seeds of his mania from the relationship he had with a doting mother and mercurial father. The arrival of a younger brother that is unlike him in most ways, does not set up a rivalry, but rather a sibling connection that sometimes feels tender and at other times exploitive.
The first part of the film gives us Victor's story, including the information about discovering his scientific breakthroughs. We also get a good bit of the professional world that rejects him, even though his knowledge far outstrips their own. The animated corpse that he uses in his demonstration is one of the many visual frights/delights that the film offers. Oscar Isaac is solid as the frustrated scientist. His initial disappointment with the creation is a little hard to understand, except it is clear he has very little patience. Christoph Waltz shows up as the uncle of his brother's fiancé, and he has the resources to help Victor, and a hidden agenda. As usual, he improves the movie with his presence.
Most people are going to remember the creature as embodied by Jacob Elordi. His range covers the pathetic innocence at first awareness, and then the disappointment that comes from knowing that he is different. Finally, and most compellingly, there is the rage that drives him to seek vengeance on the creator who abandoned him. The turn of the creature from mindless brute to thoughtful avenging angel is well developed and usually ignored in most of the monster movies that the creature has been featured in.
Mia Goth continues to be one of the great, underappreciated actresses of this era. She plays the fiancé of Victor's brother, and becomes an attractive nuisance to Victor. It is clear that the two of them could easily fall into a relationship that would be damning to both of them, and it is her moral center, as contrasted to Victor's nihilism, that forms the ethical spine of the story. She is both temptress and redeemer, but more for the creature than Victor.
The movie is gorgeous on every level, even the things in the world of the time, that are ugly, are spectacular to look at. This handsome production makes elaborate use of CGI sets and backgrounds, but it comes closer to reality than most of the out of focus backgrounds we get in most CGI heavy films. It looked particularly good on the big screen. The streaming service will be most peoples default viewing, and I can honestly say, you will regret that you didn't get to see this in a theater. This is one of my favorite films this year.
There is plenty of "Evil Dead" content on this site if you look around. The original film was one of those movies that terrified me at the prospect of seeing originally. Once I crossed the threshold however, I have not been able to resist the "Deadites" and any time one of these films comes up at a theater, I make the effort to go.
As part of the "Panic at the Paramount" Halloween Programming, we got a chance to see the original film presented with a live performance of the accompanying score. This presentation is apparently touring because my friend Aaron Neuwirth saw it in Los Angeles a week before we got it here in Austin. The score is performed by an ensemble of musicians rather than a full orchestra, but they are all quite good and there were no spots where I thought the sound was empty.
The band members are enthusiastic and the leader of the group encouraged the audience to get into the swing of things with cheers, screams and hooting or hollering as called for. It seems like the audience can fire up the performance with an engaged response to what they are listening to. This was a lot of fun and if it comes to your neck of the woods, (see what I did there?) you should definitely make the trek out to see and hear it.
As hard as it is for me to believe, I do not have a post on the original John Carpenter Halloween from 1978. I have seen this movie almost every year for twenty years at least, and I guess I never had the chance to go back and see it on the big screen until now. It seems like there must have been a Fathom Event Screening, but I looked on the site here and found nothing. So thank you Paramount Theater for giving me this opportunity.
Although not the first "slasher" horror film, that title must belong to "Psycho", John Carpenter's Halloween defined the genre in the late 70s and for the last fifty years has been the template for all the subsequent slasher films around. Obviously, the title "Halloween" helps make this a perennial, something it most certainly not have achieved under the original title "The Babysitter Murders". So much care was taken to set up the characters who are being stalked, it is different that almost all the subsequent films which make the victims into nearly nameless notches on the knife, axe, chainsaw of the killers in later films. The three main girls are introduced and each gets some moments to be a real teenager, before they become the target. Laurie, Annie and Lynda are average girls, with love lives that vary from the raucous to the non-existent. In the end it is Laurie, the virginal Jamie Leigh Curtis who survives and is remembered, but Annie had a well developed suspense scene in the film that is just as effective as the climax moments, at drawing a scared response from the audience.
Donald Pleasance is a little crazed as Dr. Loomis, although from what he knows, it is perfectly understandable. His sense of urgency does carry the pacing of the film in some of the spots where the killer is not on screen or actively pursuing he girls. I was a little nonplussed at the reaction of some of the audience at the screening. They seemed unable to adjust their post modern sensibilities to the late seventies context. They have seen scream too many times to know that the reason that meta narrative exists at all is that the original films took place. I felt a little like Randy at the party, I know the rules and why they existed in 1978, but no one else seemed to care. They did still appreciate the film, but I could not understand why they laughed at some of the moments in the film that are frightening or serious.
Anyway, I found the movie to be continuously compelling, and well shot, utilizing locations in Southern California that I grew up in as Haddonfield, Illinois. Michael Myers becomes an iconic masked killer and there is a long line of slashers that followed in his wake.
Director Robert Rodriguez was presenting the film with a surprise second feature, which was only revealed at the screening. It turned out he was planning a Carpenter double feature, by including Carpenter's next Theatrical Feature "The Fog"
I saw "The Fog" in it's original release and I have always liked the movie. It is a ghost story, told as a ghost tory with malevolent forces returning to wreak vengeance on the descendants of those who wronged them.
I like the fact that not everyone who gets murdered by the ghosts, deserves their fate. After all, furious spirits from beyond the grave are not always reasonable. This film puts Jamie Leigh Curtis in the story, but she is not really the star. If there is a featured performer it is the then wife of the director, Adrienne Barbeau. She plays the evening DJ at the local radio station and her studio is at a high point in the seaside community, so she can see the dangerous fog coming off the ocean, and she directs people to flee when it is clear that the fog contains the ghosts that have returned for their justice.
Jamie Leigh's Mom, Janet Leigh, is also in the picture, a nice bit of stunt casting but not one that was essential. Carpenter made running from the weather much more thrilling than Shyamalan did in "The Happening". It is a lot scarier to have the fog manifest as dead sailors bent on killing, than leaves blowing in the wind.
I can's say it all makes sense, but I like the fact that Tom Atkins gets played as a sex symbol and John Houseman tells a scary story to kids on the beach. All in all it was a ton of fun.
The "Panic! at the Paramount" series this year has featured several special presentations that required an additional admission fee past our membership subscription. That has been perfectly reasonable given the quality of the programming. This presentation of the John Landis classic, featured a Q and A after the movie with the film's star David Naughton, who turned out to be quite the raconteur. He told us a number of funny stories about the production and working with the special effects make-up of Rick Baker
This is another of the great 1980s horror films that initiated the practice of mixing humor in with the frights. Landis was the right guy to do this having a great background in comedy, having made both "Animal House" and "the Blues Brothers". This film came out the summer I was working as a delivery driver for a photo supply company in Los Angeles. One of the places I delivered to, printed movie posters, and I just could not manage to snag one for this movie from the stacks of them I had to walk by when making a delivery to the printing company.
Jack and David are two college students, traveling through Europe on a summer excursion. They end up in a remote part of England, walking through a rural area, that is populated by a community living with a secret that casts fear over them. They are not particularly friendly natives and the boys are sent packing into the dark with a warning to stick to the road and stay off the moors. The humor had already started with the kibbitzing between the two young men, but it get more intensely humorous when they realize they have wandered off the road and they hear a howling animal near them. The tone shifts suddenly, and a horrifying bloody attack ensues. That is the pattern for the rest of the movie. A moment of levity is suddenly dashed by some horror, or a moment of terror becomes a joke in the hands of the actors and director.
Rick Baker famously won the first Academy Award for the new make-up category, for the combination of prosthetics, puppetry and hair and make-up moments. The scene where David's hand extends as it becomes a paw was shot one time. Landis called cut and print and was ready to go to the next shot, but Baker had spent months getting the effect ready and was not prepared to be done so quickly. As Naughton told it, Landis looked at Baker and asked, "Does it do something else" and the flummoxed make up master had to say no, and Landis simply said, "Let's move on then."
The use of pop tunes that evoked the moon was another early innovation. Tons of movies use "needle drops" these days, but in 1981, most films relied on original music for their cues. I can't say that "America Werewolf in London" was the first to use them, but it is the earliest film I can remember that used previous record hits for the distinct purpose of highlighting a scene in the movie. Other films may have used popular songs as background, but this movie was using them as punchlines and energy points.
It might be fair to classify the movie as a romance as well as a horror-comedy. The lovely Jenny Agutter plays the nurse who takes a special interest in David after he is discharged from the hospital. Their love affair is a touching counter-point to the horror story that David is living through. His friend Jack makes frequent appearances in the film, after his character has died, and there are great visual jokes that go along with some gruesome imagery. This is another example of how gallows humor is injected into the story.
I have heard it said that the 1980s were the golden age of horror films. I think that may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but having experienced "Re-Animator", Fright Night", "The Fog" and this movie, all in the last month, I might be convinced.
Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of it's release, is one of my favorite horror films from the 1980s, "Fright Night". This suburban take on vampire lore has all the elements that made the 80s horror films so much fun. There is nudity, blood, great practical effects, and a sense of humor that fit the times so well. It also has a couple of iconic performances from veteran actors, who are utilized perfectly in this film. This is one of the great ones for you horror fans, so sit back and read while I gush about how great this movie is.
Charlie Brewster is a high school kid, navigating his hormones, struggling with his grades and hung up on a lot of the geeky things that any horror movie fan might care for. He lives with his mother in a nice suburb in an older two story house. His bedroom happens to face the vacant house next door, and as you can imagine, he starts noticing things there that are disturbing. Like a lot of kids in the 70s and 80s, he is a fan of a late night movie show that features horror films, many of them from the 1950s. This fact plays a part because his girlfriend thinks that he is conflating what he sees on the TV with what is happening next door, the arrival of a vampire.
The mundane neighborhood feels like the perfect place for a vampire to hang out, and this vampire is the exquisitely disguised Jerry Dandridge. He looks like a night club lothario, speaks as if he is a cultured antiques dealer and he has an interesting cover that explains some of his activities. Well before it became a cable TV phenomena, Jerry and his familiar Billy Cole, flip houses. So there is always material coming in and out, and the windows might be covered for lighting reasons. They do however fail to cover the upstairs bedroom windows, and that is where Charlie witnesses one of Jerry's meals being consumed.
How does a normal kid, convince anyone to listen to him when he cries vampire. The murders in the town point to Jerry from Charlie's perspective, and when he goes to the police and tries to get them involved, suddenly Jerry is as aware of Charlie as Charlie is aware of him. The battle of wills and the vampire strategies make up the bulk of the plot, aided by two terrific secondary characters. Charlie has a oddball friend, nicknamed "Evil Ed" who provides Charlie with advice about resisting a vampire. Ed is played by Stephen Geoffreys, who was born to play a young Jack Nicolson, if ever they needed an actor for a flashback sequence. His gleeful laugh and haughty distain for Charlie's story make the plot more interesting.
The character of horror nerd Ed is not the only source of assistance that Charlie seeks out, and this is where the best element in the film comes in to play. Charlie contacts Peter Vincent, the washed up horror movie actor, who hosts the local "Fright Night" movie show. Vincent is played by the late Roddy McDowall. McDowall had more than 250 acting credits to his name, including the Academy Award winning "How Green Was My Valley" and "Lassie Come Home" as well as four of the five original "Planet of the Apes" movies. This was the juiciest part he ever had, a craven coward when faced with a real vampire, his fearless vampire hunter from the movies is exposed. McDowall hams up the actor part of the script, but also delivers some real pathos to the character. Peter is forced to become what he has only pretended to be in the past. Watching him grow a spine when faced with the consequences of his lack of faith, is one of the great moments of acting in the film. I will continue to insist that he should have been recognized with supporting actor awards for this movie, but of course horror films get overlooked all the time by prestige organizations.
Opposite Peter Vincent is our vampire, played by Chris Sarandon. A vampire named "Jerry" is just the kind of twist that is needed to make the genre fresh for the era. Sarandon follows the script impeccably, presenting Jerry as innocuous at times, and threatening in other moments. He has the slick confidence that a would be Don Juan would portray to the world, all the time he casually munches on an apple , he really is licking his lips with his piercing eyes. He moves casually up and down the stairs and laughs off the challenges of the humans trying to end him. He has tender scenes with both Amy and Ed, suggesting a deeper emotional core than just the need to feed. His performance is the equal of his counterpart, and one of the most memorable vampires in movies you are likely to meet.
Finally, I need to say something about the effects and make-up. This is a movie that was made at the height of practical effects, before CGI rendered real on camera props and make-up less important. When Jerry transforms into his vampire shape, it is repulsive and frightening. There is a jump scare moment with a transformed Evil Ed, that is heart wrenching in spite of the plot point he was engaged in. The transformation of Amy is one of the most startling horror images I can remember from that decade. All of those moments will make you long for the artists of that era, and resent the coders that have taken over their roles. I highly recommend this film to everyone.
Here is another of the best films of the year, that I am getting to, way past the time I saw it. "Good Boy" is a horror film with a relatively brief running time, but it will deliver the suspense, shocks and dread that you crave with these kinds of movies, and it will give you a real hero to root for in Indy" the terrific star of the movie, and the title character. In case you still don't know, "Indy" is a dog and the film story is told through his point of view. Dog lovers should be entranced with this film and relieved but a bit sad at the resolution. I don't want to give any spoilers, but be assured, you will be ok as an animal lover when this is all done.
Our lead actor, is the pet of the director, and has not been trained as an actor. "Indy" is reacting to the elements of the story, but the actor Indy is sometimes just being a dog, who is being closely watched by his human companion, so that editing and normal dog behavior can be crafted into s scary story that features a dog. I am all for the praise that the dog is receiving for his performance, but the talk of an Academy Award nomination should probably belong to the editing team as much as our canine leading man.
The movie is a haunted house type story, although there are moments of possession and human perfidity. Todd is the human featured in the film, but we barely see his face in any of the shots. At first I believed the character was a recovering drug addict, but as the movie goes on, it becomes apparent that Todd is suffering from cancer, and it is effecting his personality and behaviors. There is as a result some ambiguity as to whether some of the events are supernatural or merely the ramification of Todd's declining health. Indy knows there is something wrong, and he is loyal to a fault. Any dog owner who has instantly regretted snapping at their dog in a moment of stress, knows how wonderful it is that our pets can forget a momentary detour from our usual path.
Indy wants to do the right thing, but as a dog, he can't understand some of the things he sees, and that we see through his eyes. There are moments of horror that reflect some violence, but the movie is really about the horror of losing touch with your humanity. There are a couple of good jump scares, and there really is a supernatural element to the movie, but while dread is the feeling that envelops the story, it is really just sadness that forms the climax.
The lack of dialogue and exposition will be challenging to some viewers, but anyone who has loved a dog will want to stay invested in Indy's journey. The hair on the back of your neck will stand up a couple of times, and there may seem to be jeopardy to the dog, but in the end this is the story of a good boy, who struggles in his animal brain, to make sense of the world he finds himself in with his human companion. This movie is a triumph and deserves the accolades it is receiving.
The fact that it has taken me more than three weeks to post on this film, should not in any way be seen as a fault in the movie. From my perspective, this is one of the best films I have seen this year and it has a strong chance of making my end of the year list. I have simply been busy and lackadaisical in following through on my promise to post on everything I see in a theater. This movie might not be on any screen near you, but it should be available for streaming soon and it will be worthy your money to do so.
"Roofman" is based on the true story of a burglar/robber, who despite being a criminal and threatening people, seems to also have been a person with a good heart and brain. The fact that we can sympathize with the character, in spite of his criminal activity is a combination of the real person the story is based on, and the script/performance supplied by the movie. Everyone likes an underdog, and the character of Jeff, played by Channing Tatum, gives us that underdog in a very appealing package. He is a family man, struggling with the inability to hold a job that would take care of his family. He is smart enough to figure out a low risk criminal career, but of course gets caught. He is also smart enough to figure out a way to escape, but he has not figured out what to do once he has, He is all tactics without strategy.
Tatum has grown into a very appealing actor and this role is probably his career best performance so far. He hits the right notes of desperation in the opening act, as Jeff falls into a life of crime. His victims, who are not the ones financially responsible, all seem to feel he was a decent guy, in spite of being held up. He is polite, apologetic, and considerate of the employees that he encounters. In he second act of the film, he meets and bonds with a woman, who is unaware of his status as a fugitive, and she sees his good qualities and falls in love with that guy. Kirsten Dunst plays the friendly employee of the Toy R Us store that Jeff is hiding out in, and her sincerity and open nature are infectious. I personally think this is a career best performance as well. Dunst and Tatum have great on screen chemistry, which makes the outlandish but true story attractive to us as viewers.
There are a few parts of the movie plot that seem to be manufactured to get the characters into a coherent story. Jeff is hiding out for six months because he has to wait on his fixer buddy to get back from an overseas job. He also has to commit another crime, to be able to pay for the escape plan he is getting from this mysterious compatriot. That one last job brings together the two lives he has been leading, which is of course the climax of the film, so maybe it feels a little inevitable. What I did like is the fidelity of the story to the real events. They don't manufacture a resolution to make us happy, they just spin the outcome to make it feel less sad.
The film is sold as a comedy, and while there are comedic moments, that is not really an accurate description of the movie. This is a romantic drama with a real life criminal background, which is doomed from the start. The fact that it is ultimately a downer is overcome by the bright relationship between the two leads. Peter Dinklage provides an antagonist that diverts us from the fact that Jeff is the criminal. Dinklage can do both the comedic and the a-hole parts well and he does both of those in this film. My friend Howard and I talked about this film for a special episode of the LAMBcast, when that gets posted, I will share the podcast here with you so you can listen if interested.
I will tell you up front, especially if you are new to this site, I love musicals. The form is not as popular as it once was, but the ones that manage to make it to the screen are usually going to get some attention from me, even if I have reservations about the subject or director. Hell, if Ari Aster or Robert Eggers did a musical, I'd bother to see it. Fortunately, I don't have those reservations about this particular film. I generally trust Bill Condon as a director and, although I never read the original novel, I am a big fan of the 1985 film that was based on it. William Hurt won the Academy Award for his performance as Luis Molina, and the film played the story straight as a political drama, with tragic outcomes.
When the story was converted to a Broadway Musical, I was frankly confused. I could not quite imagine how this bleak story of two prisoners in a South American hellhole, would work as fodder for tourists visiting New York City. Even with the fantasy sequences extended, it seemed like a longshot at best. I never saw the musical version, which was quite successful, until now. It works really well as a film, and I would be interested in seeing a stage production so I could compare the way they transition between the two worlds presented in the story.
There will be some comparisons here to the 1985 film, since that is my original experience. I actually purchased a Laser Disc copy in the last year because I did not own it in any other form, and the cover art is really nice. I rewatched the film and confirmed my impression from 1985, this was one of the best films of the year. So now it comes time to see the musical version in a screen format, and I have to say I was nicely impressed. The tone is a little old fashioned, but that's ok, so am I.
There are three things that are important to talk about here, the music sequences, the original story premise and the performances. The thing that I liked the most about the musical sequences is that they remind me of the dance numbers and songs from the 30s and 40s era films that inspired them. The camerawork is not ostentatious, it is just clever enough to give us some interesting views of the action taking place. For the most part, the scenes are shown in full screen shots with very limited edits. I'm not an expert, but I would be willing to believe that some of them were done in single takes from start to finish 9if not, then a nod to the editors who made it appear seamless). The settings are often elaborate in the way a musical from bygone times would be. There are extravagant costumes, interesting backgrounds, and colors that pop every time we go to the musical fantasies. Unlike some contemporary music, you could actually follow a melody in most of the songs. This was not a Sondheim tonal fest, but a throwback to films like "Cabaret" or "Chicago". I wasn't humming the tunes as I left the theater, but I could if I listened to them a little more.
Bill Condon has stayed true to the political story, but there is one significant change. Molina, the persecuted homosexual that is cellmates with Valentin, the political prisoner, is revealed much earlier in the story as an informer for the warden. That limited my ability to build the requisite sympathy for the character for a lot longer time than in the 1985 film. The prison sequences are fairly grueling, and I was happy there there was no dance number to accompany the food poisoning diarrhea scene. The story is also set more clearly in the Argentina of the 1970s. The timing of events in Argentina are closely tied to the ending of the musical, where they were not as important in the 85 film.
A Crappy Poster Does Not Help
There are several changes in the story of the old film that Molina is recounting from his memory. Those allow the fantasy character played by Jennifer Lopez, much more of a role than Sonia Braga got. Lopez continues to be beautiful on screen and her singing performance is very good, with eight or so songs to perform, including the climax title song. She has the most impressive of the musical elements in the film. Her two costars, get something that the two stars of the 1985 movie don't get, they have dual roles not only as the prisoners but as characters in the fantasy of the movie "Kiss of the Spider Woman" as Molina is telling it. Diego Luna has the heavier role in the musical sequences as the romantic interest of the star Ingrid Luna (Lopez). Tonatiuh, the actor playing Molina, has the stronger role in the prison scenes. Both of the men are quite good in the jail set scenes. Tonatiuh plays Molina with less obvious femininity than Hurt did, and the more subdued reading of the character might be better for the story, but it will probably not sustain the attention that Hurt's performance did. This may be a case where the authentic casting works against the need for the audience to suspend it's disbelief.
So, the movie is old fashioned, put together professionally, does right by it's socially important political story and the music scenes all work. So why is this film going nowhere fast with audiences? I guess it is just a different world. This movie could have been platform released thirty years ago, starting in prestige locations and then getting a wider release as interest grew. That is not the world we live in anymore, and the success of the movie suffers for it. If you can find it on the big screen, go for it, but my guess is that it will be PPV this week and streaming on a service next month. Too bad, because it would bring back some old fashioned glamour to a movie going experience.
