I was a big fan of the original "28 Days Later" from 2002, and I also appreciated the sequel "28 Weeks Later" as well. I expected a "28 Months" movie fifteen years ago but it never materialized. So instead, almost 28 years after the original (really only 23) we get a legacy sequel which tries to restore the franchise to life, which is an odd thing considering that many people consider it a zombie film. Regardless of how it is classified, the new film stays relatively true to the preceding movies, with a couple of variations that are bootstrapped in to make the story feel more substantial and original.
An idyllic community has been established on a coastal island, which is only accessible on a bridge that is only accessible during low tide. While there is a threat of infection from the mainland, that possibility is remote. The bigger issues facing the community are limited resources, lost knowledge and in one case, the absence of medical facilities that might be life saving. The community has become a cult of rituals, meant to perpetuate the group and prepare youngsters who were born into this cloistered society, how to deal with the world they live in. The first act of the film is a father-son bonding ritual which involves confronting the outside world, killing some of it, and surviving the terrors that exist on the mainland. Spike, a twelve year old who trusts his father and adores his mother, gets confronted with a confounding situation when his expedition reveals things about his Dad and the world that his mend is not ready to handle.
If there is a weakness in the story, it is not in the action or characters but rather in the short sighted thinking of a kid. His motives are pure but his method is nuts and he should know that. The story becomes a quest for help that lays past the sections of the map that in the old days would be labeled "Here there be dragons". Spike is resourceful, but there are a couple of convenient moments that solve problems that he would have been unable to manage on his own. There is a good deal of tension in this middle section, as the threat of rage-infected humans looms around every corner. he action is intense, and the escapes are narrow, and the complications are interesting.
The third act is mystical and disturbing, and it is almost a polemic on euthanasia. Ralph Fiennes appears as the most interesting character in the story, and his narrative, while a little preachy, does give us some issues to think about. The conclusion of the movie will throw you off, but I understand that if you live in Great Britain, it will make a lot more sense. There are apparently two sequels coming so Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who plays the dad, will probably be back after disappearing from act two and most of act three. Jodie Comer will be missing for an obvious reason, but that should not surprise anyone who makes it into the movie for twenty minutes. By the way, the opening, which is a revisit to the onset of the zombie apocalypse, is smashing. Those sequences in these kinds of films usually are.
Although listed as part of the Summer Classic Film Series, this screening of "When Harry Met Sally" was a combined event with author Katherine Center and one of the city’s most famous couples, Jared and Genevieve Padalecki. As such it required a separate admission from our Premier Passes. We spent an interesting hour as the couple interviewed the author about her summer romance novels and her latest product.
The conversation was filled with warm jokes and shared romantic experiences. It was billed as an evening of romance and I guess you could say that for the fans of the authors work, it was a success. Amanda has the book and when she is done with it I will attempt to read it as well. What really brought me to the event however was the chance to return to one of the perfect Romantic Comedies of the 1980s, and a pairing of actors that was magical.
When I wrote about the film as part of my TCMFF coverage a few years ago, I mentioned that it was the movie that I took my wife to see for our anniversary that year. When we watched the clips of the old married couples, which were dispersed throughout the film, we laughed and imagined the stories we would be telling when we were that age. We made it to 38 years together, but we didn't get a chance to tell the stories like those couples in the film. I will do a little of that here. Unlike Harry and Sally, we met in High School, not at the end of college. Our senior year was full of rivalry flirtations since she went to a different school than I did. Although Harry initially hits on Sally, he is not smitten with her and they part ways. Dee and I went differently, although I was hesitant at first, the more time we spent together, the greater the attraction for both of us. I never mocked her food selections at a restaurant, she was not used to eating out and we split a lot of meals.
The kibitzing between Harry and Sally however, was something we shared with the characters. Both of us were smart-alecks and had fun teasing each other or ragging on others under our breath. Harry has twisted philosophical comments through out the film, and Sally has incisive insights into men and women that reflect Harry's behaviors. They are a great match although they resist the pull of romance for most of the film. We never did that part, we dove full in. Billy Crystal has a deflective way of commenting on everything, and that style of humor turns out to be perfect for the tone of the film. Meg Ryan was at the height of her "cute" stage and she played the insecurity of Sally perfectly. Bruno Kirby and Carrie Fisher practically steal the movie as their best friends who find love in each others arms and wonder what Harry and Sally are doing with all the dance.
Nora Ephron was the queen of the smart romantic comedy and her screenplay here is marvelously witty and not overly sentimental, in spite of the old couples inclusion. Director Rob Reiner was in the middle of one of the greatest runs of fil ms by a director ever, with "The Princess Bride' right behind him, and "Misery" and "A Few Good Men" coming up next. The synergy of the actors and creatives make you want to order whatever they were all having for lunch.
We all hope that Harry and Sally will be our story, where we fall in love with our best friend and find long term happiness. I don't mean to brag, but that is exactly what I did. What a lucky guy.
Let's face it, if Sean Connery is in a movie, I want to see it. Sunday we did two Sean Connery films. Highlander" and "The Untouchables". That is a very satisfying Father's Day. 12 years ago we did a different double feature of Sean Connery films, "Goldfinger" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. If you would enjoy a little piece of history, below is a vlog post I did for that event.
We went to see the film again this week, almost exactly a year after our last big screen viewing, which you can read about here: Last Crusade 2024.
I don't have a lot of new things to say, I have written about the film many times before, but as I promise in the header, "If I Saw it in a Theater, you will read about it here."
The chemistry between Connery and Harrison Ford is incredible, It's too bad they did not get a chance to work together again, because I could imagine an action film like "The Hunt for Red October" with a cerebral thriller featuring these two great actors. I love the scene between them on the airship where Indy is reminiscing about their strained relationship and Dr. Jones Senior takes him to task for leaving just as he got interesting. The flummoxed look on Harrison Ford's face and the defiant tone in Connery's voice made for a humorous but also personal moment in the film.
Connery also got to ham it up with Denholm Elliot in several scenes and leave us with a much better impression of his character than the stern and cold father that Indy remembers. When in doubt, ALWAYS see "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", and always see it on a big screen.
I saw this film with my wife when it first came out and we enjoyed it but frankly, I did not think it was a great film. It is a popcorn picture that looks a little cheaper than it should. They must have spent most of the budget on Sean Connery for his brief time in the story. I enjoyed Christopher Lambert in "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" two years before. He was okay in this film, but it was clear that he was going to get by on physical charisma in his career and not acting chops. Clancy Brown on the other hand, understood the assignment and went full on nuts. He mugs and hams it up, just the way his character should.
Sean Connery, shows up for the second act and plays the part of a mentor to Lambert's Conner MacLeod. Much ridicule has been made over the years of his being cast as an Arab, from Spain, with a Scottish Accent. However, it may not be inconceivable that in the 1200 years he was alive, he picked up some traits from all the places that he's lived. Also, if that is the credibility stretcher for you, you have not been paying attention.
The best element of the movie is the notion that immortality takes it's greatest toll on those that we love and must leave as they die. MacLeod suffers from his loss obviously, but the strain on his Scottish wife was pretty well drawn in the film. Another character from the 20th Century illustrates it as well. I don't want to give the movie too much credit, it is still a cheesy piece of pop fantasy, but it is completely watchable and I enjoyed the revisit.
Local Director and friend of the Paramount, Robert Rodriguez, hosted and scheduled this program. He does a nice job talking about the films and the film makers that he had connections with. He shared his story about this movie in the conversation you can listen to below.
The second film in our double feature is the terrific Brian DePalma movie, "The Untouchables". It is impossible to imagine a better Sean Connery part (with the exception of the film I will be writing about next). Connery plays a put upon beat cop, who has resisted temptation and played straight with the law instead of getting into bed with mobsters. He becomes a mentor to the enthusiastic but as yet untested Elliot Ness, a Treasury agent, in pursuit of Al Capone.
The relationship between Ness and Jimmy Malone (Connery) is funny, fatherly and frustrating at times. Jimmy needs to trust Ness and Ness takes some getting used to because of some tentative characteristics. The team gets substantially enhanced by Andy Garcia as a rookie cop, with deadly shooting skills, who gets drafted into their unit. Garcia is fine in the action scenes but doesn't have as much to say in the rest of the plot. Charles Martin Smith however, as Treasury Accountant and agent Oscar Wallace, is a delight in bringing a spark to the team because of his distinctive background. He is the square peg that they find a way to fit in.
The bad guys are pretty vivid with Robert DeNiro hamming it up as Capone. Billy Drago is a chilling Frank Nitti and his comeuppance is one of the great satisfactions of the film. DeNiro's scene with a baseball bat in his hand is his big moment on screen. The scene is directed with the usual style of Brian DePalma, it is elegant, and suddenly violent in an ugly way. The two big set pieces of the film are the border raid and the train station shootout. Both of these are strongly enhanced by my favorite Ennio Morricone score.
I have seen this movie dozens of times, and probably a half dozen times on the big screen. My first viewing was at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood when the movie opened in 1987, it remains another hallmark moment in my Dome history. I am glad I can now pair it with a screening at the beautiful Paramount Theater in Austin.
Frankly, there may not be a more charming film in existence than "Babe". The story of an orphan pig who tries to find his place in the hierarchy of the farm is just too sweet not to love. It charmed the hell out of us back in 1995 when my kids were seven and nine. I took the youngest with me to this screening, she is now thirty-seven and she still loves it. (She will deny it, but I suspect it played a big part in her aversion to pork).
This film won the Academy Awards for effects the year it came out, over the shots of a space launch and rescue mission in "Apollo 13". That win should be an indicator as to how animation and CGI were soon to dominate the film landscape. This was also the same year as "Toy Story" so you can feel the earthquake and aftershocks with those two movies.
James Cromwell received a big boost to his career after this, and we were very sad that we missed him at the TCM Film Festival, talking about this movie, back in April. We did get to see it on the big screen through the "Paramount Summer Classic Film Series" and although it was promoted as a kids matinee, there were plenty of adults there to share in the pleasure of our talking pig hero "Babe". The relationship between Farmer Hoggett and his pig is a complicated one with a couple of grim moments, but Cromwell makes a joyous human who learns to trust his instincts and his porker buddy.
The Greek Chorus of Mice that introduce the various chapters of the story, are still amusing 30 years later, and when the lead sheepdog, swallows his pride to get help for "Babe" from the sheep, we get a few life lessons as well. I do think having a duck do the rooster's duties would be a lot of fun here at the house.
This movie was such a change up from the shark serial killer movie of the previous evening. Maybe all double features should work this was as a one-two punch, start with something hard hitting and then finish with something heartwarming. Two good days at the movies.
It was fifty years ago, this month, that "Jaws" the greatest film of the last eighty years, first dropped into our collective culture. Ever since that day, film makers have been striving to recapture the essence of the film. Some have stuck to the basic horror narrative, using the sharks as a monster to hook us into watching. A few films (especially TV movies) have tried to parody shark films into action comedies with varying degrees of success. Only occasionally, has a shark film created a aura that was reminiscent of the classic, "The Shallows" being the most recent example I can think of. This new film, "Dangerous Animals" tries a different approach and succeeds in getting the tension right, and the horror appropriate. It is not anything close to the quality of film that "Jaws" is, but it has some things going for it that make it my favorite film of the year so far.
If you watch the trailer, you will understand the premise very quickly. We have a serial killer whose method of murder is feeding his live victims to ravenous sharks while the victim is still alive. This is potentially a gruesome horror film that could be classified as exploitation, except for the fact that director, Sean Byrne, has learned his Spielberg lessons well. Instead of extended scenes of sharks dismembering the poor subjects of the killers plans, we see just enough to be terrified, but not enough to be revolted. There is blood in the violence, but it is not the over the top fountains of a horror film like "The Monkey". If ever a horror movie could claim to be in gory good taste, this one is probably it.
The big advantage that this movie has over other exploitation films is that it has two dynamic characters that are really interesting. The main character is Hassie Harrison, as Zephyr, an itinerant American, surfing the coast of Australia. She is emotionally damaged, we can see that, but she is not unreachable as her one night stand with a friendly local explores. She is also not a mere damsel in distress. She is smart, resilient, and relentless in trying to fight back against the antagonist. Zephyr is not simply going to resign herself to a fate that she becomes an eyewitness to, she is going to struggle in any way possible to keep living. She may not be the easiest character to love, but she is clearly one that we are happy to root for, time and time again.
One of the faults of some thrillers is the good luck that the victims sometimes run into, which allow them to escape and give us unearned hope. This movie turns that trope on it's head. It is the killer who ends up with all the good luck on his side as he repeatedly thwarts Zephyr in her escape plans. Jai Courtney is Tucker, the deranged serial killer who can mask his evil with an avuncular round of "Baby Shark" one moment, and then a knife in the throat the next. I have seen in in half a dozen other movies over the last few years and he always seemed to me to be a guy who was just missing it. An actor who would have occasional moments but never enough to be memorable. He was bland as you could get. This film however, gives him a part that is screaming for some charisma, and he delivers. Courtney has the glint in his eye of a maniac, and the physical form of a damaged brute. It is impossible to take your eyes off him when he is on screen and that says something because his counterpart is attractive as heck and in a bathing suit for most of the film.
The script allows us to believe a few things that are unbelievable. The brief fling that Zephyr has with local Moses, becomes for him an obsession, only in a good way. The fact that Moses and Zephyr are surfers and they are connected by a particular beachfront spot, becomes a key point in building up a chance that Tucker could somehow be derailed. Zephyr knows what is coming because she also meets Heather, a fellow pawn in Tucker's twisted game. If there is any heart in the film outside of the truncated love story, it is in the few minutes that Heather and Zephyr share as they await their fate.
Sharks are in the film, but first time screenwriter Nick Lepard and director Byrne, seem to know that the fish are the least dangerous animals in the food chain of this thriller. Their role is kept to a supporting part, which makes them all the more effective when they do come into play. For some reason, this film is not getting many screens or much publicity, which is really unfortunate because, like the mother of all shark films, it is really not a horror film as much as it is a thriller. I know it is produced in partnership with Shudder, which is a horror outlet, but you are selling the movie short if you keep it in that box. This is a great twist on the great white, and in spite of the fact that it is being promoted as from the producers of the excretable "Longlegs" you should seek it out.
[Just a clip from the film, because the official Trailer gives away too much]
I want to be careful not to classify this as an Indian film because I believe it comes from Pakistani filmmakers. Still it is set in London, so it is in English and takes place for the most part in a western environment. This movie caught me completely off guard, I really had no idea what it was about, I just know that Amanda and I had talked about seeing it a year or two ago and we never got around to it.
The fact that it was playing at the Paramount for the Summer Classic Movie Series was just serendipity. As it turns out the movie is largely a martial arts fantasy featuring two sisters of Pakistani heritage, struggling to find their place in the world, and not getting much assistance from anybody else. I was a little worried at first that I would not be able to distinguish the two actresses because they have similar appearances, but that thought disappeared after just a couple of minutes. Both actresses are young and quite lively and lovely.
Although it is a martial arts film it did remind me a little bit of “Bend It Like Beckham", where a girl who is an outsider because of her heritage, struggles with friendships with her Western counterparts.” Polite Society” however goes over the top in creating what is almost a James Bond type of Adventure, based on some strange motivations that when they are revealed are quite hysterical. The performances at first are deliberately exaggerated, but the writers and the director clearly have an affinity for the characters, in particular our lead actress Priya Kansara. She plays Ria, a high school student who wants to be a stunt woman, that's her goal in life and nobody seems to feel like she's really thinking very practically. Ria does get reluctant support from her sister Lena played by Ritu Arya, but her sister has her own problems.
There's a lot of cross-cultural humor, particularly in regard to the courtship of the older sister and a handsome biomedical researcher from a wealthy family. The passions of the younger sister can simply not be contained and they spill over in a lot of hilarious ways. Frequently her frustration is manifested by her attempts to engage in some of the acrobatic martial arts practice by her stunt woman idol.
There's plenty of music in the film, a mix of Rock and more traditional Eastern Tunes. There are needle drops for everybody. There's also some clever camera work and the cinematography which does a nice job conveying different locations and moods. The music and cinematography are hilariously used to create a mood around the potential villain of the piece. If you see the film you'll know what I'm talking about. It's the filmmaking style that creates a caricature of the preening and domineering woman who may be a threat.
There's also a dance number, that I know is not a Bollywood Style, but the mood that it sets is very similar to those that you might have seen in a movie Made in India, although the music and the dance are certainly not repetitive of those Indian styles.
The story takes a couple of interesting turns, and just when you're set to believe that we're looking at some woman's fantasy and overreaction, her paranoia is revealed to be justified. The conflict between creating Trust with her family, after the way she has been behaving, creates a lot of the humor in the last part of the film. Ultimately however the movie is familial friendly.
I laughed on a regular basis, prizes that came with this creative variation of a romantic comedy mashed up with a James Bond Thriller. “The gods whispered to the warrior, 'You will not withstand the fury.' The warrior whispers back, 'I am the fury!' Have fun.
Monday Night we returned to our summer house, the Paramount Theater in Austin Texas, to enjoy a 35mm screening of "Sunset Blvd", from writer/director Billy Wilder. This poison pen love letter to Hollywood is suspenseful and reflective of the cutthroat nature of the film business. The industry has changed a lot since 1950, but some things remain the same. Writers are neglected by audiences as part of the film making process, in spite of the fact they are essential. Older stars are abandoned with indifferent cruelty, after all, who wants to see the elderly in a romantic clinch? And finally, the grasping secondary people will sell off their self respect to make it in the world.
Norma Desmond is a rich but washed up silent movie star, who clings to a dream of being relevant and being adored by an audience. Gloria Swanson does a magnificent job of conveying her delusional self image while also grasping at the desperate attempts she makes at holding onto the dream. William Holden is cynical and callous enough as the down on his luck screenwriter, who allows himself to be snagged like a fly in Norma's web. He is not guilt free, but we can empathize with every character in the movie, and he is our main protagonist.
The black and white photography, the dark themes and a femme fatale all qualify "Sunset Blvd" as a Noir film. The floating body of the protagonist at the start of the film does the same in spades. The behind the scenes views of Hollywood in the golden age also make this film, unlike any other movie of the era. The below the line talent hangs out at Schwab's drugstore, they part like normal people on New Years Eve and they are malleable to circumstances like everyone else. Betty Schaffer may be an innocent run over by the system in pursuit of stepping up in class, but she was also willing to abandon her love interest for a more promising prospect, at least until she found out who he really was.
When my daughter was still in school at USC with a minor in film, we took in a screening of "Sunset Blvd" at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood. Just to show her how steeped in film the whole town was and is, I drove straight up the street that we turned out of the parking garage on, and drove four blocks up to Joe Gillis apartment. It is still there, exactly where he said it was in the opening of the film. That is a pleasant memory of Hollywood, "Sunset Blvd" reminds us all, that the fantasy comes at a price.
We missed the opening weekend of the Summer Classic Film Series because of our trip to NYC to see four shows (The Outsiders, Othello, Stranger Things, and Death Becomes Her), but we are back this week with a vengeance, seeing films three nights in a row. That might help explain why things are a little behind on the blog right now.
Sunday we saw "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bomb". This is one of my favorite Kubrick films but it was the first time I watched it in a theater with an audience and boy does it still work. People were laughing at all the little bits of satire and at the preposterous characters in the film. I did notice this time that about halfway through the film, the character of the President changes dramatically. This was mostly in aid of the comedy rather than fidelity to the story, otherwise I have no quibbles.
Here is an extended look at the film that Amanda and I did a few years ago.
There are plenty of posts about the movie Jaws on this site, and I'm going to be writing more in the near future because I'm seeing the film again at least twice this summer. So I'm going to digress a little bit on this post and just talk about the experience rather than the movie itself.
The screening was at the Alamo Drafthouse at the Mueller location on the east side of Austin . We have been to this theater several times before and frankly it's not our favorite. It requires that we park in a structure that requires us to login and pay in an online app. We do get validation for the time we're at the theater, so it's not the fact that we have to pay that is the problem, it's just the technical process that is a little annoying.
The theater is located about 30 miles from our house, and we left a good hour and a half early because we want to be at the theater well before the movie starts to take in the pre-show videos and trailers that Alamo curates for us. Also we usually order dinner so we want to get there so that our meal arrives before the movie actually starts. All of those plans went to hell when we got on the highway and the rain started coming down. We had a torrential downpour of biblical proportions, and it was complicated by high winds and hailstones that were usually golf ball sized but sometimes even bigger. I had to slow down on the drive, put on my hazard lights and struggled to see the cars in front of me on the road. We finally got a break in the rain and we got to the parking garage just in time for an even stronger deluge of hail, and rain that was mostly blowing sideways. We stood in the parking garage for about 15 minutes waiting for a break. When the hail stopped we made a run for it but we're careful not to run on the ice because it would have been easy to slip and fall. However that care meant that we were in the rain long enough to be completely soaked when we got into the theater.
The theater complex has individual bathrooms that are gender neutral and then sinks outside of the toilets that are available for everybody to use. They didn't have the hand blowers that would have been helpful in drying off our clothes before we went into the theater. I had to run a couple of paper towels through my hair to dry it enough to feel like I wasn't still swimming in the ocean.
This was a movie party, and as you've probably seen before the movie parties at Alamo include some props. We got a shark fin foam hat, we got a bath bomb in the shape of the Orca, and we got a small inflatable life preserver with a simulated bite taken out of it, maybe I can use it to float a drink in the pool. I also participated in a game before the show where two people competed for the prize shark head popcorn bucket. Unfortunately for me, the game consisted of a contest to draw on a chalkboard a shark. I need a ruler and a compass to draw a straight line or a circle, so I knew I wasn't going to be winning right from the beginning. I had fun anyway.
As usual the movie was great, and as I said before I'll write about it again a couple times this summer. I can say that when I'm looking for details that I didn't always pay attention to in my previous 137 screenings, I noticed that the kids on the beach at the start of the film did in fact have some crab legs that they were gnawing on.
Although I didn't win the shark head bucket, the hostess for the show did say that it was available for purchase at the concession or concierge stand. So when the movie was done we thought we would be able to finally get this prized addition to our popcorn bucket collection. Imagine our frustration however when the concierge station was closed and we looked at the buckets that were sitting across the counter on a Shelf and we're unable to purchase one. Another frustrating experience on this excursion.
2 days later we did make a trip down to the Lakeline Alamo, and Amanda dashed in in the hopes that she would be able to get one of those popcorn buckets. Lo and behold we scored.
For more than a decade now people have been making films that attempt to just string together long action sequences to make a movie that is definitively 100% active. Usually there's a brief set up followed by a long string of action set pieces, combat sequences, and a variety of gunplay. This formula works as long as the events make sense, and the actors are well cast. “Fight or Flight” does a pretty good job of these things and it makes the wise decision to cast Josh Hartnett in the lead role.
Harnett was at one time the next big thing, but he never quite crossed over as a success in a big movie. He has had a good career, but he's also had a bit of a Renaissance in the last couple of years. He was in last year's “Trap”, and he's had a couple of supporting roles in movies that have made good use of the screen presence that he offers. This movie fits him like a glove. It requires him to be a little bit older, appear on screen in a sort of a scuzzy form, and at the same time allow him to be a badass. It works.
There's also something about planes in the air in the last couple of years. Earlier this year we had the Mel Gibson and Mark Wahlberg thriller” Flight Risk". This took place in a small plane, whereas” Fight or Flight" takes place on a regular airliner. That means there is enough room to run around, occasionally hide out, and sometimes dispatch the bad guys in a bathroom or luggage compartment. Hartnett plays a former federal agent who is getting a chance to get back in the game and his controller, a former love interest, is manipulating him remotely. .
Of course there is a plot twist and the original goal of the mission gets somewhat inverted. Hartnett’s character ends up with a couple of unusual allies, which allows for a lot more martial arts action, including some of the wild variety of acrobatics that people have come to expect in modern martial arts sequences. Does any of it make any sense? The answer is no, but you won't care because you'll have a good time watching all of the Mayhem. Look, we get a pleasant lead, and a couple of fun turns in the storyline, for an action picture that is usually sufficient.
Don't stay home on Friday night to watch this on a streaming service, you should still go out and do something fun. However you'll be happy to watch this on a night when you shouldn't be compelled to socialize and you just want to veg in front of the TV.
Next week on the LAMBcast we're going to have a Tom Cruise draft. This makes perfect sense because essentially Tom Cruise is the last of the movie stars. There's not anybody close to Tom Cruise when it comes to opening a movie. He hasn't been able to make everything he's in a success, but his batting average is pretty damn High, and with the final Mission Impossible film on the schedule, Tom puts in his all as he usually does to give us some thrills.
Let me start out by saying that although I like this film quite well it does have a couple of significant problems. First of all it is almost 3 hours long and that seems excessive for what is mostly an action film. A second problem might be the thing that makes this feel long, the first hour of the film is filled with exposition narrative that is clunky and struggles to connect the events of the previous films into a single storyline. I'm all for fan service especially when it comes to the final film in a series, but only a couple of the things that they attempt, work very well.
The most logical extension that they have found for these films is suggesting that the MacGuffin from the third “Mission Impossible", is in fact The Entity, the AI Boogeyman that arrived in episode 7 “Dead Reckoning”. In the earlier film it was referred to as the Rabbit's Foot, and we never got to know what it was all about. The idea that it is some sort of blueprint for creating the AI that everybody is worried about here in the last film is a minor stretch, but one that works pretty well.
The connection between this film and its predecessor however is not as smooth. Many of the things that happened in the previous film are vaguely referred to, but none of it seems to be strongly connected to the events of this film. The exception being the location of the submarine that contains the original algorithm of The Entity. The way this problem was approached in the last film is completely different from the way it is approached in this film. That doesn't mean that it couldn't work, it just didn't.
The stakes in the film are, as always, a little elevated. It seems that Ethan Hunt has to save the world repeatedly like some comic book superhero instead of dealing with a more manageable problem that could offer us some thrills with a believable set of consequences. To be honest it's unlikely that any film of this ilk is going to have the audacity to let the world end. If that conclusion is off the table then given what has come before, “Mission Impossible Final Reckoning” feels like it is just a structure that exists, not to build suspense but to hang the set pieces on. At least those set pieces are really good.
I have no doubt that a number of other reviews will mention the two big sequences in the movie. I'm not clever enough or alert enough today to try to find something deeper so I will just repeat what should be obvious to anybody who's heard of this movie, the submarine sequence with it’s underwater photography is ambitious, and, come on the bi- plane sequence terrific. Along the way we get to see Ethan Hunt run, get punched, do a lot of punching of his own and give us a couple of fakeouts. The plan is outlined in its broadest sense. We usually get a description of what's supposed to happen, and then it happens .Of course there are always one or two complications along the way, but the complications that take place in this movie have less to do with the details of each individual problem and everything to do with just trying to move the pieces around on the board so we stay interested.
The IMF needs to be a little bit more engaged with Ethan to make us care about what's going on. In this story they seem mostly reactive and taking their time just to be sure that Ethan will be able to do what he wants to do. The only one of the team that really gets the opportunity to feel like a part of the story is Luther, the character played by Ving Rhames. Even then, the resolution of his storyline feels a little manufactured.
I will mention that one of the things that was different about this movie is where we saw it. We had traveled to New York for the holiday weekend to catch several Broadway Productions. We got there early enough on Friday that we could fit in a movie, so we got a chance to use our AMC “A list” membership and see a film right in Manhattan. The theaters are built vertically rather than horizontally, which makes getting in and out of them feel a lot more like a puzzle. You have to go up a level or down a level to find an exit or the bathroom. So it was an experience as much as it was a Mission Impossible movie.
Cruise is great and I'm glad that he continues to do his own stunts and care about the way the movie looks. His partner Christopher McQuarrie, directed and co-wrote the screenplay, and he was a lot more effective managing the filmmaking then he was getting the story ideas right. The movie looks great but doesn't always make a great deal of sense.
In the 30-year history of the franchise there have been some highs and lows. The first and third films are my favorite but both “Rogue Nation” and “Ghost Protocol” are excellent. I wish I could say the final films, which are direct sequels to each other, topped it off with the best, but they actually fit in the lower half of the eight films. At least they're better than MI- 2.
Have we set our final farewell to Ethan Hunt? It's hard to say. Tom Cruise is 62 years old, although he looks like he's much younger than that, and it appears that he is quite capable of continuing the action beats necessary for a movie like this to work. I just get the impression that the story lines have gotten a little tired and that there's a struggle to find something worthy to make as the subject of the film, and I'm not sure that's what is really important. It seems to me that the characters and the incidents are the things that make these movies work.
I've said it before, including a mention on the LAMBcastt, there must be something about us that is just wrong for enjoying these movies. The main reason that somebody goes to see a “Final Destination" film is to watch people die in elaborate convoluted accidents. The fascination with this sort of thing is easy to understand, since everybody does some rubbernecking when they pass that accident on the highway, or watches videos online where people get hurt doing stupid things. I suppose we can excuse this behavior in regard to the movie because we know it's an elaborate fiction, and that there is some malevolent force behind it. Still, when you hear people cheering for some gruesome moment in one of these Rube Goldberg execution methods, it does make you question Humanity.
A month ago on the podcast, we covered the entire “Final Destination” franchise. The people on that show all enjoyed it so much that they volunteered to come back and talk about the new installment, which arrives here 14 years after the last Edition. “Bloodline”s has a couple of twists on the formula which helps make it feel fresh and worth investigating. The biggest innovation is that the original disaster is in fact completely avoided, which leaves a whole lot of deaths unaccounted for in the Grim Reaper’s Ledger book. The storytelling gets a little convoluted and the explanation of how death is just catching up with everybody at this point is awkward. Almost 30 years after he was denied all those earlier deaths he is finally getting around to the main family involved. Those of you who have seen the previous Final Destination films know that there is an order in which the deaths are supposed to occur, and we get a trick here that shows how that has been pushed back for several decades. As you know however, the bill is going to come due.
One of the things that makes “Bloodlines" work is that we get some characters that we do in fact care about. The hero of the original disaster turns out to be the linchpin for this story, and once that plug is pulled we return to the inevitable line of disasters. Interestingly enough though, there are a couple more turns which create some humor in the story and a lot more suspense. Many of these come at the expense of audience expectations from previous entries in the series. Sudden bus deaths are narrowly avoided, and a complex series of events that is reminiscent of two elaborate scenes in the earlier films, turns out to be a red herring.
If you take the time to listen to the podcast that I'm going to post here, you'll hear everybody ranking their favorite deaths. Once again, our entertainment values are pretty morbid, but they are also satisfied with a well plotted story, some pretty effective character work, and a lot of fan service that turns out to work pretty well.
As horror films, these movies undermine the suspense and thrills a little bit, because we know eventually everyone is in fact going to die. The only questions we have concern how they're going to die and whether or not it will be entertaining enough to wait around for. This film is just about 2 hours and that's 30 minutes longer than most of the other entries. I never found my attention lagging, but I did wonder sometimes if in an attempting to create some dread, the filmmakers stepped on their own jokes. For example a character that's been holding off death for decades is holed up in a cabin that is surrounded by a yard full of things that would be happy to kill her. It feels like the exact opposite of what the character would probably choose. If you want an example of this you can go back to Final Destination 2 and see how Clear Rivers tried to do the same thing.
Minor quibbles aside, this film was a blast and it was exactly what I was looking for. What it says about me that I enjoyed it so much is not clear, but I suspect that most of you who love horror films will find plenty to justify spending your money and your time on “Final Destination Bloodlines”.
Well I'm happy this film is doing so well with the box office, and encouraged by the willingness of people to invest in a story that is not based on some other IP, I don't want to be blind to the flaws of the movie simply because it succeeds so well and in most aspects. Let me start with the positive things and then move on to a couple of the main criticisms that I have of Ryan Cooglers's "Sinners".
The film takes great effort to set a time and place where there is automatically discomfort in the normal settings that the principles find themselves in. A pair of twin black brothers have returned home to their southern roots after having ripped off the mobs in Chicago, well into the Great Depression. The hometown they have returned to, seems calm on the surface, and supposedly the Klan is no longer in operation, but that doesn't mean that it's roots are not still near to the surface. The brothers are attempting to create a social club that caters to the local black population, in particular to their taste in music dancing and other frivolities. Most of the social tension that you get at this point is set up for atmosphere, but later on director/writer Coogler, tries to use it as a plot point to finish off the film and that doesn't quite work.
Anybody who chooses to see this will know that it's a horror film, but it does take a while for the horror elements to develop. There is some early mumbo jumbo about hoodoos brought from the African Homeland, and maybe some of the Caribbean influence as well. All of that is really in aid of developing a secondary character who will provide some exposition later in the film. The ability to recognize vampires doesn't really require all of that, but the film goes through the motions anyway.
The characters in the film do the most to create an atmosphere of dread without any particular source. Michael B, Jordan plays the brothers as a pair of menacing hoodlums who recognize their own depravity, but proceed to live life as if they are the ones who are in the right. Their younger cousin, a musician with dreams of blues mastery, gets mixed up in their plan to create a juke joint that will bring in big dollars and hopefully provide him some fame. The brothers are not interested in him becoming a regular part of the entertainment. They seem to sense that this is a one-off opportunity, it's going to have some negative consequences, and they appear to be trying to avoid trapping him into their own lifestyle. That's about as close as being noble that the two hoodlum Brothers get.
It takes an hour or so for the supernatural element to enter the story, and when it does it's pretty creepy. The rapidly multiplying population of monsters sets the stage for a siege segment that is the main action sequence of the film. Viewers steeped in Vampire lore will understand some of the rules that are being followed, but there are also some things that don't make a lot of sense.
This is where some of the flaws of the film come in. The rules of the world that they have created seem a little ambiguous. Why becoming a vampire turns you into a virtuoso musician, singer, or dancer is not clear. Characters who are turned seem to maintain the personas of their earlier selves, but never for long and it's not clear what's driving them. Also for a group of characters who are so intelligent as to give a philosophical justification for their actions, they don't seem to have planned for the arrival of dawn. Which for vampires is a pretty short-sighted fault.
The best things about the film are the musical sequences which integrate Blues roots into the plot line. In fact it might even be acceptable to call this film a musical based on the number of scenes where the primary emphasis is on a performance. The scenes of the cousin playing guitar in the car, or performing in the Juke Joint, are excellent. The scenes of the vampires trying to use music is a way of enticing themselves into the Juke Joint are also quite good. Apparently being dead can turn you into quite the Irish dancer, I'll have to keep that in mind for future reference.
Well the film is superior in a number of ways, it does suffer from some of the typical faults of horror movies. The main characters have to make stupid mistakes, someone has to violate the rules, and there will be choices that will make you scratch your head. As usual I try not to give away any spoilers in these posts, but a little of what I'm about to share with you might hint in that direction so proceed in reading with a little caution.
Ryan Coogler cannot find an exit for the movie. He creates a scenario which allows for a satisfying murder of dozens of violent racists, but it has nothing to do with the main plot of the film and it feels tacked on. Even when it's finished, he is still not done. There's a final twist in the film which is designed to give us one more musical interlude, and a take which seems to suggest that giving in to being a vampire isn't necessarily all that bad. The movie should have ended 20 minutes before it did. And regardless of how good the song is or how satisfying an extended sequence of cathartic violence might be, it's got nothing to do with the main story and it feels like padding. Coogler needed his editor to twist his arm a little bit and say "let's stop here".
So the production quality on the film is great, the actors do a terrific job, and the horror story works pretty well even with some of the flaws. It all gets diluted by Coogler's attempt to turn the film into a social commentary. Something that was not needed in order for the film to be worthwhile.
A whole series of disparate events come to a violent conclusion and dozens of bad guys are killed. That's about as much of a plot summary as you need for a movie like this. Action films can work well with a minimal backstory, and sometimes they work well when the plot gets convoluted. This is one of the latter. A sequel to "The Accountant" from almost a decade ago, it finds Ben Affleck as an autistic but functioning human being with extraordinary financial skills. In the first film he was a savant and an extraordinary killer. He's not really an assassin anymore, but his old skills have not left him and he calls on them along with his estranged brother by John Bernthal, to wreak havoc on a trafficking organization.
If you want the audience to really hate the bad guys, you give them the worst kind of criminal activity to be involved in. In this case it is human trafficking, primarily of illegal immigrant women into prostitution. I don't think it's a spoiler to discover that one of the ways the organizations controls the women, is by imprisoning their children. We don't see it on the screen, but there is little doubt that an economic stream involving the children will eventually be in their future as well. It is by a strange series of coincidences, that the head of the FBI Financial crimes unit gets involved in a case that connects the trafficking group with an assassin.
Of course to fight against assassins, it helps to have a couple of Assassins on your side. That's where Affleck and Bernthal come into play. The FBI chief gets a little squeamish working with killers who don't have the same restrictions of legal Authority on them. Still they end up approaching the case from different directions, and ultimately connecting a dangerous assassin, to the crime ring. There is a bit of a twist in this plot development, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense, but they do try to explain it.
Affleck's character lives in an Airstream trailer, and connects with his financial Empire through a mysterious computer center, filled with children who, like himself, have some Savant abilities. It's been almost 30 years now that filmmakers have been trying to make computer hacking interesting on screen. Programmers, typing in code onto a computer screen, has to be inter-cut with a lot of other activity to make it watchable. The "Accountant 2", does these hacking scenes as well as anybody else has.
Although you would not want to know either Affleck or Bernthal's characters in real life, they make a fascinating pair in the movies. Occasionally questions come up concerning morality, but they're never really answered. There is usually some joke that gets them out of a moral quandary. This was a very effective action piece, with a story that was mysterious enough to keep you intrigued for the 90 minutes that the movie runs. Then we get a shootout, multiple deaths of bad guys, and a couple of closing lines suggesting that we'll be back with this crew again.
We were scheduled to see this film on Thursday night at the usual preview screenings that now are really just the opening day of the film. However, as members of the Paramount Theater family we were invited to a free screening the night before that, so we felt a little special and we made the Trek down to the State Theater for the film. It was a packed audience and everybody was very enthusiastic, now let me tell you whether or not they should be,
The MCU has been in the doldrums for a few films now. It seems for every "Guardians of the Galaxy" success or "Deadpool" crossover, there is an "Eternals" or "Quantumania", ready to drag the franchise down. The powers that be, have been struggling to get the gravy train back on track, and with this film it looks like they hit the switch for the right set of rails. "Thunderbolts*", soon to be retitled, is a very satisfying team up of secondary characters, some heroic, some villainous, who come together as a group in order to face down the next existential crisis facing the planet. Yet before they deal with that crisis, they have to deal with a different existential crisis, their own sense of self-worth and levels of depression.
Florence Pugh's character, Yelena, is a skilled Black Ops agent, with pretty much the same skill set as her sister, the deceased Black Widow. What satisfying thing can you do with those skills? Unfortunately it seems they've been put to use by the current director of the CIA for some not very pleasant tasks. Yelena is giving in to a malaise that she may not be able to draw herself out of. The fact that she is not the only one who is suffering from an apparent rut in an unsatisfying field is the premise for the film. I enjoy light-hearted super hero movies but I know they can't all be fun times beating the bad guys. To make the stories real, there is usually some human drama involved. This movie creates a parallel structure of the opening half, with its mentally ill protagonists, and in the second half, turns that depression into the literal big bad of the film.
I've said it before, I am not deeply invested in comic books. It's been about 55 years since I spent any time looking at those colorful pages in a magazine format. There have been thousands of stories, and hundreds of heroes and villains have come and gone in that time period. I understand that there will be characters that I'm not familiar with and that's okay. As long as they are explained adequately in the film I'm looking at at the moment, I can enjoy the movie and appreciate the way the character seems to work. There are two characters in this in this film, which comic book fans seem to be quite wound up about, Taskmaster and the Sentry. Both of them appear in this film but with vastly different story arcs. I can't begin to debate the merits of how the characters are used in comparison to the way they originated in the comic books, I have no knowledge in this area. I can say that I felt one of these characters was ill-used in this story and the other is being set up for more important plot lines in the future.
Florence Pugh continues to impress with her talents on the screen. She portrays a convincing badass with a serious demeanor who is conflicted over the direction of her life. In contrast, David Harbor, who plays her father the Red Guardian, is equally living a less than satisfied life, but his attitude toward it is completely different. His avuncular and upbeat personality provides the movie with some humor and light moments as the main characters face their existential nightmares. The film also features John Walker, who for a short period of time was the new Captain America. He is portrayed by Wyatt Russell, and his take on the character is funny while also being a little problematic. Of course the drama of the film stems from the fact that all of the characters are problematic.
The story combines the usual tropes of the MCU hero team-ups. Each misfit gets a brief introduction, they engage in a competition/fight among themselves, and then they learn who the real enemy is and have to decide if they are able to take on that individual. Does that sound like Guardians of the Galaxy or The Avengers? There's a reason for that, it's because these films with a group of Heroes follow very familiar storytelling points.
The combat scenes in this film are pretty solid. There's a fight in an underground vault that is decisively designed to eliminate the heroes. It's choreographed very carefully and the flying knives, speeding bullets, and Flying Kicks all last about the right amount of time. I never felt like anything in this movie was padding, although there are several sequences which seem to suggest the exact opposite.
A pivotal new character, Bob, starts off as a naive confused patient, but ends up a somewhat deranged and honest hero and villain. It's another part of the mental health theme of this movie. It may be pressing good taste a little bit to have a deranged meth addict in a chicken costume attacking people for laughs, but in the long run it is a sad commentary on the lives that some people lead, returning us to that theme of disappointment, despair, and depression.
I can't say that this was the best MCU film, or even a top tier episode. I can say I enjoyed it enough to go back for the Thursday night screening that we had originally planned on and repeat the experience for a second evening in a row. I was entertained by the film and satisfied that the keepers of the franchise are starting to right the boat. As usual there are mid credit and end credit sequences as part of the exit titles. One of them is just a final joke and the other is a tie-in to the future of the franchise. Both of them are worth sitting through the credits for. Oh, and we get an official redubbing of the film title.
It feels a little like sundowner syndrome when we arrive at the fourth day of the film festival. Everyone has had a wonderful time for 3 days but we all know that it's about to be over with, even though there are wonderful things still scheduled for the afternoon. Our fourth day at the film festival was really pretty simple, we had two films that we were going to see both of them were pretty long, and then we had the closing night film.
2001 A Space Odyssey
Amanda and I made the decision to split up for the first film of the day, she had never seen "Oklahoma" before and was anxious to catch it on the big screen. And as I've said in other posts, although I love my daughter she has disappointed me in her lack of appreciation for "2001 A Space Odyssey", that's the film I decided that I would go to see. I was especially interested in seeing 2001 again on the big screen, because the guest of the day was going to be the star of the film Keir Dullea. The festival programmers seem to be doing their best to get to important guests while they are still around. Mr Dullea, is maybe the 5th or 6th guest that I saw this weekend who is in their late 80s. All of us are due to leave this Mortal coil at some point, and I'm glad that so many of these guests chose to spend some time with us while they still could.
2001 on the big screen, at the Egyptian, is something I've done several times before. And once again seeing the movie in a theater with a rapt audience is thrilling. We were given the whole effect, including Overture, intermission, and exit music. They have also made sure to make these presentations authentic in another way, they closed the curtains and then open them again when it's time for the feature. To me, the sense of excitement as the curtains part and the credits begin to roll, is one of the things that makes me most love the movies. They should be an event, not just content.
The conversation with Keir Dullea, was quite interesting, including stories about how he was cast and about his working with Stanley Kubrick on the set. His wife accompanied him onto the stage to help keep him focused on particular questions. He was by no means senile, but he would wander off track occasionally or miss the meaning of the question and she assisted him quite ably without necessarily suggesting that there was anything wrong. Especially appreciated the prompt that she had at the end when she reminded him that he wanted to talk about a piece of dialogue that got cut from the film, but for which he had spent a great deal of time trying to memorize, and still has it in his head.
I did an audio recording several parts of the conversation, and I'm going to try to include them here.
"2001", along with "Jaws" is on my list of 10 favorite films of all time. So this is a pretty good weekend for me.
Apocalypse Now
When I met up with my daughter after her screening, we were queuing up to get numbers for this 1979 Francis Ford Coppola classic. She had been quite enamored of "Oklahoma", and I hate that I missed sitting through it with her, because I quite like the film. I really enjoyed her embrace of the songs and the story and the joy that she seemed to be having. I was a little worried that this next film would destroy some of the cheerfulness that surrounded the mornings experience for her. After all Apocalypse Now is not a happy film.
I'm not sure how she managed to get to her age without being exposed to this film more. She told me she's only seen a few clips and doesn't really know much about the movie. So that made our decision to see "Apocalypse Now", here at the film festival, really an appropriate one. The guest for this presentation was director Antoine Fuqua who has directed a ton of action films that I have loved over the last 20 years. He had nothing to do with the production of "Apocalypse Now", it just happens that it's his favorite film and inspired him to become a director and make movies that feature kind of grit and action that Coppola provided. His commentary on the film was mostly that of an enamored fan, which is not really a bad thing. It was certainly encouraging to hear his enthusiasm for the movie, as we tried to gird ourselves for the experience.
I mentioned that in the 2001 screening, the festival was trying to create an authentic experience included the ritual with the curtains. For this screening, the authenticity was enhanced by the distribution of a booklet, that contain the credits for the film. Back in 1979, the premier screening of this movie it Cannes, was done without any credits appearing on the screen, but rather in a Nifty little pocketbook with pictures. That item was reproduced and provided to all of us who attended this Sunday afternoon screening of a decidedly depressing War film.
There are variations of "Apocalypse Now" that have become quite popular in the last few years, but this presentation was the original theatrical cut. That's the only version of the film that I know. I've seen the film occasionally over the years, and I have bounced back and forth between disliking it and embracing it. Whenever I think of the distaste I might have had for the movie, it probably reflects the negativity that is such a huge part of the story.
This time I was happy to embrace the film, and I was glad that Amanda was suitably impressed with it as well. Now if only I could get her to respond to 2001 the same way maybe I wouldn't feel like such a failure as a father.
Heat
The closing night film for the festival was Heat, in the TCL IMAX theater. We had originally planned on watching the silent version of Beau Jeste in the Egyptian Theater. When actor Al Pacino was added to the discussion of "Heat", we changed our minds and decided we could not miss out on the opportunity to hear one of the great actors of the 20th century talk about this movie.
The original guest was Michael Mann the director of the film, and Pacino joining him made the discussion feel a lot more complete. In fact even though there were questions, the situation felt more like a conversation with two old friends on the couch rather than an interview. Each of them remembered some things slightly differently, and they occasionally made the effort to correct a misstatement or a difference in memory.
Now I do have a confession to make, we chose not to stay for the screening of the film after the conversation. We had watched Heat last year and Amanda was not up for repeating it. It is a long film, and if we had stayed we wouldn't have gotten home until midnight at least. So we stayed for the conversation between Pacino and director Michael Mann, and then we made our way out of the theater is quietly as possible so that we can return to the Southern California house and my daughter and her husband are living in. We got to have dinner with them instead of sending down in the diner with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.
