Avengers Endgame (2019) Encore

 

An amazing thing happened this last weekend, a movie that came out 7 years ago was re-released into theaters and took the number one position in the box office for the weekend. You might ask yourself how that was the case, in truth it's not really that hard to understand. The film in question is “Avengers Endgame" and the re-release is part of the build up to a new MCU film that is meant to reestablish the dominance that the franchise once had. I hadn't realized when I scheduled a trip to the theater to rewatch the film that it was going to include four stingers that didn't play in the original movie and were specifically designed to promote the upcoming version “Doomsday”.

When I first posted on “Endgame" back in 2019 I was enthusiastic but I was not of the opinion that this was the best film of the MCU franchise. It is a very solid follow-up to “Infinity War”, and it has a lot of emotional beats to it which should work for the faithful comic book audience. When I originally reviewed the film I thought it was a little bit slow in it's build up. As I watch it these days, I appreciate that more deliberate approach vastly more than I did in 2019. The events of the previous film needed time to settle, and we need to absorb the impact of what ultimately gets called the blip. And that's what takes place in the first hour of the film. My reappraisal of the movie has to do with this part of the film more than any other. The emotional defeat that the Avengers are trying to live with, it creates the emotional foundation for what is to follow. If we didn't get to experience the low, then the high that we get at the end of the film would not be as meaningful. 

Obviously there's a lot of fan service built into the movie, and since I'm a fan I don't really object to that. Let me just share with you a couple of my favorite moments from the film. When Scott Lang waves at the camera at the entrance of the Avengers compound, announcing himself and trying to remind the people inside of who he is, I both laughed and smiled. I had known from the end of “Ant-Man and the Wasp" that Scott was going to play a big part in trying to restore the Galaxy after the Thanos decimation. 

Of course the moment that I most remember, and that so many people who are fans of the MCU hold in their heart, is one of the greatest shots in the whole film series. It is the point at which Captain America picks up Thor's hammer during the battle with Thanos and we all cheer because we know he is worthy. In a film loaded with shots that are designed to provoke a cheer from the faithful audience, this is probably the one that is most satisfying. Another moment from the final battle sequence which is clearly fan service for the girls, the key female superheroes line up to support Wanda as she is confronting Thanos himself. It's probably a little bit more “woke" than we need, but it is a fun shot so I'm not going to dump on it. One more moment from the final battle that deserves to be called out, is the reunion between Spider-Man and Iron Man. We know that Tony Stark  felt the weight of the loss of Peter Parker, and we get a chance to enjoy an emotional connection that we knew existed and was part of Tony’s defeat.

Probably the things that I should be speaking about the most in regard to this revisit are the “Encore” stingers. It's probably not fair to rank them in order of their emotional impact, but that's the only way I can respond to them until I see Doomsday at Christmas time. From my point of view the strongest one, which evoked the best response from the audience including me, was the appearance of Loki in the Captain America wrap up story from the original version of “Endgame”. A knock on the door and then Loki stepping through the door produced a collective gasp and laughter simultaneously.

In one of two mid credit clips, we see Bruce Banner sequestered in what looks like an underground Atomic bunker, and he is providing exposition for story elements that we are not yet aware of. I suppose it's designed to provoke questions about the upcoming film. And also let us know that some of the characters that we have loved are going to return for this next episode. I found it mildly interesting but it didn't really have any emotional impact for me, it's simply a sequence from the upcoming film that's been inserted for a reason that I cannot yet fathom.

A second mid credit clip reminds us that the Time Variance Authority is a thing, and that it will be playing a role in this story. It's not clear how big an impact the TVA will have, but what is shown to us is designed to give us a sense of the significance of Dr Doom on the universe. It's an example of raising the stakes, because after all, we've already had Thanos wipe out half of life in the universe, we need something bigger than scale to make the next episode feel important. 

Finally there's just a short image at the end of the credits, which shows a metal mask being forged in the Darkness, backlit by flames and enhanced by the sound of a pounding hammer. I'm not sure which way this is supposed to be going, but it was a nice little period at the end of the film.

I completely understand the criticism that the MCU films have had over the years. Frankly because the material is all comic book based, I don't understand why anybody would expect something different. People who have enjoyed the pulp entertainment of comic books are being given something that they can enjoy on screen, and the films have been well produced, spectacularly shot and staged. They have enough emotional beats both humorous and dramatic, to make the stories acceptable. There may be occasional retconning of some of the plot lines, but for the most part it feels to me like there was also elaborate planning. I do know that the Doomsday approach is in part a reaction to another plot line blowing up due to an actor in an earlier film getting into some trouble. The diversion to Doomsday, will probably result in creativity that we might not have gotten otherwise. I hope it all works out, regardless I was happy to see “Avengers Endgame" again.

Zodiac (2007) Revisit (2026)

 

I saw this film a year ago on the big screen at the Paramount summer classic film series,  and then as before, it impressed me with how well it worked. I've said this a number of times on my podcast and probably here on the blog, “Zodiac” is black hole film, one whose gravitational pull I can never escape. We recently had another opportunity to see it on the big screen and I think I can safely now say something that I should have said 19 years ago, this is the best movie of 2007.  I love “No Country for Old Men" like most film fans do and I respect "There Will Be Blood” even though it is not a movie I embrace. Those are the two films that people usually think of when the Year 2007 comes up, but in all honesty I've watched “Zodiac" dozens of times for a reason, it juggles so many stories clearly and in a compelling way, so that every viewing feels like it is fresh.

To begin with, For me it is obviously a bit of a Nostalgia trip. I lived through that era from 1969 till the date at the end of this film. I remember news reports on television about the Zodiac Killer and the fear engendered in the state of California which is where I lived. The opening scenes of the film have a camera moving through a Suburban neighborhood on the 4th of July. This could easily have been one of the neighborhoods that I lived in. People were celebrating on their lawns setting off fireworks going to the drive-in to get a hamburger, and although they were tumultuous times politically, from the perspective of a kid they were great times.

Listening to the Donovan song Hurdy Gurdy Man will never be the same after this movie. It always had a hunting melody and a mysterious vocal performance, but when you add in the context of what happens while the song is playing in the film, it will stay with you in a way that is rather grim.  The depiction of the murder that takes place on the 4th of July is frightening and it draws you immediately to the sense of fear that was about to enfold the entire state. Director David Fincher moves us to the city desk of the San Francisco Chronicle by following a piece of mail that is laden with doom. He also manages to weave in the character of Robert Graysmith as played by Jake Gyllenhaal, so that we understand his curiosity and begin to see the compulsion that drives him for the rest of the film.

This movie came out a year before “Iron Man" and Robert Downey Jr was still in the process of recovering his reputation and career after having had a fallow period as a result of his drug problems. His appearance in this film is completely solid and probably gave a great deal of confidence to the people making the Marvel movies that they had made the right choice in a leading man. Downey Jr is not the star of the film but he often steals scenes and is one of the three most important characters for the majority of the film. Another central performance is from another future MCU fixture Mark Ruffalo, who plays the lead Detective in San Francisco, trying to solve the Zodiac case.

This movie is a thriller, a mystery, a police procedural, a domestic drama, and an illustration of bureaucratic political nightmares. Amazingly, all of those themes get a reasonable workout in the story. I forget that this is a nearly 3-hour movie when I'm watching it, because it never feels like it is too long or that it is wasting time. Each of the characters that we follow has important things to show us about how we confront horror. We get to see the wounds that the main characters inflict on themselves as a result of their contact with the crimes of the Zodiac Killer.

Robert Graysmith wrote the book that the film is based on, so of course the conclusion is the one that his book drew and it is the one that seems most plausible in the film. Gyllenhaal shows us a character who gets lost in a puzzle that he can't seem to find the key piece for. His compulsive nature in following the case despite the fact that he's not a police officer or an investigative journalist, draws in a romantic interest and ultimately drives it away..Chloë Sevigny  plays the woman who eventually becomes his wife and she is terrific as the bystander who gets flattened by the freight train of Graysmith's Investigation.  

Robert Downey Jr's character does ultimately vanish from the film, but his presence is felt throughout the movie. The theme of the film,  that there is more than one way to lose your life to a killer, is exemplified by the journalist Paul Avery, the character Downey Jr plays. His contact and connection with the Killer becomes an excuse for him to travel down the rabbit hole of pain management, which leads to the end of his career. Similarly, Ruffalo's character of Dave Toschi,, succumbs to the frustration that every path has been a dead end, and he loses his way professionally for a period of time. And finally, cartoonist Robert Graysmith, alienates his wife and ruins his personal life, in pursuit of his need to know the truth. 

Fincher keeps the story compelling by giving us visualizations of the crimes that the Zodiac committed or claimed to have committed. The scene of the woman motorist on the road with her baby is particularly frightening. Fincher manages to show all of these events without revealing exactly who the zodiac is, and thus makes the movie continuously compelling. When the key suspect played by John Carroll Lynch,  shows up in the story, we are both fascinated and repelled by his character. They are red flags waving everywhere, but none of them seems to be the Smoking Gun which would lead us to the ultimate conclusion. While we were trying to piece everything together at the end of the film, Fincher gives us one more brilliant scene of suspense as Charles Fleisher gives us a guided tour of that rare California artifact, a basement.

The film looks fantastic, and the locations are great, as is every secondary character who shows up in the movie. We get police chiefs from different jurisdictions, who were played by very solid actors. There are two major roles filled by Philip Baker Hall and Brian Cox, who both add gravitas to the film. Anthony Edwards is probably an overlooked MVP as Ruffalo's partner for most of the investigation. Let me just say I thought everybody in this movie was terrific. There are no weak performances to be found in the 2 hours and 40 minutes of this movie on screen.

Even if you're not confident in the conclusions that the film makes about who the Zodiac was, you will be able to understand why the characters end up with the beliefs that they hold. Fincher’s selection of locales, filming techniques and lighting are all masterful. I've already said it, this film holds up over repeated viewings, and the only reason I can think that Fincher and the film were not in contention for the big awards from the Academy was because the movie open too early in the year for people to remember it, I'm not making that mistake, I'm going to remember this film for a long time, believe me, if there's another screening in a theater somewhere within 50 miles I'll probably be there.

Practical Magic 2 (2026)

 

I had hoped to do a Lamcast with my two daughters where we discussed this movie. I had chosen it as the subject of one of our weekly discussions because it was my memory that “Practical Magic” had an almost cult-like following among people of that generation, and I had hoped then my fellow Lambs who grew up in the 90s would have rushed to join in on the conversation. They did not.

As it is, it is just as well, because although the movie is doing very well at the box office, from a critical point of view it's sort of a mess. In the story they basically trashed the conclusion of the original film, and deny that a curse has been lifted, the main reason for this is to make it possible to make the two children of Sandra Bullock's character, have to endure the same situation that both Bullock and Nicole Kidman faced in the first film. Much like the ffatal flaw of “Alien 3”, where everything that had been accomplished in the second movie is erased in the first 5 minutes, completely undermining our desire to see the story followed through on, “Practical Magic 2” destroys the Goodwill that was left over from the first film.  28 years later in attempting to create a legacy sequel, the film hopes that we forgot everything that happened in the original movie.

It's not too big a surprise to recognize that this film is going to skew heavily toward female audiences of the Gen X and millennial categories. I'm glad that they are all coming out to the movies still, even if it is to see something as mediocre as “Practical Magic 2”. The movie repeats certain beats almost exactly as they were created in the first film. Apparently dancing with Margaritas in your hand and the Stevie Nicks song on the soundtrack is sufficient to get your Nostalgia feels up, and let you accept what's going on on the screen.

I did appreciate that Diane Wiest and Stockard Channing have parts in the movie, and they do a pretty good job maintaining the original characters' tone. It's pretty obvious but the emotions of the audience are being manipulated at the start of the movie and at the end of the movie with the arcs of their two characters. I guess however when your movie consists of nostalgic memories being forced into a contemporary story, you take what you can get.

Sandra Bullock is 62 years old and as far as I'm concerned she still looks great, the work that she's had done has not destroyed her face but it is somewhat apparent. Nicole Kidman is also of a certain age and she looks good too but it's a little bit more obvious that she's had work done and in contrast to the two older actresses and their willingness to appear on screen in realistic age appropriate characters, this is perhaps another thing that undermines any sense that this is a movie that cares about making sense.

Actor Lee Pace shows up about halfway through, and I thought he was very well cast and looks great on the screen . To be honest I'm only familiar with him through a couple of the Marvel movies and the remake of “The Running Man”. The idea that he might be a romantic lead had never occurred to me, but that it actually works pretty well. I haven't checked his age but he looked appropriately matched with Sandra Bullock.

The two younger actresses who play Sally's children, who have now grown up into adulthood, are both accomplished performers, who are largely wasted in the film. Maisie Williams, especially, gets left aside for the vast majority of the second and third Acts. There were probably other ways that they could have gone with this film story and then been successful at keeping the audience that they had but also expanding it. As it is, this movie will probably stall out after a couple of weeks because all those millennials have gotten used to seeing their movie fixes on streaming, and this movie really feels like a film that was made for streaming. Relatively low cost, well photographed, and full of nostalgia bits that will satisfy the original audience.

Hope (2026)

 

This is a South Korean action, science fiction, horror film that is apparently the most expensive South Korean movie ever made. I can say that it is a pretty handsome movie, and makes the locale look more appealing than I had expected. It also has quite a bit of humor in it which makes it go down a lot more easily than otherwise might have at almost 3 hours in length. What the hell is a movie like this doing running for 3 hours? It makes no sense. 

Speaking of making no sense, the second half of the movie serves up a variety of moments that can be fun to watch but will be difficult to justify from a story point of view. But I will get to that in a moment. Let me start off by talking about the thing that works best concerning the movie, and that's the first 45 minutes. As usual when there's a monster, the frightening moments all take place before we actually see the monster. In this case, although they were heavy action moments as we were getting set up, the movie does shift from a horror film to a straight action movie. And that's because the horror of the unknown is undone by the horror of the CGI that is used to create the antagonists.

My description of the plot is very brief. The police chief of a small South Korean fishing Village, is confronted by destruction that seems to suggest a massive monster is loose and at first he assumes it is a bear or a tiger. The size of the damage created in the wake of the monsters movement through the village tells us that this is no Earth-like mammal but rather something of enormous size and Power, and as we ultimately discover it originates someplace else in the universe. Yes it is an alien movie, I don't think that's the biggest spoiler. 

The thing that spoils the movie is not the reveal of the origin of the monster, but rather it is the abandoning of the mystery around the monster and what it looks like and what it is after. The story is a little confusing, because it turns out that there may be two different alien species that are involved. At least that's the way it seemed to me when we get a more extensive look and a set of alien creatures that are not in the village but rather are in the nearby Woods. They look distinctly different from the creature that created all the havoc in the village and at the conclusion of the film there's reason to believe that more than one set of visitors is present.

I think the movie is supposed to also play as a comedy, there are simply too many ridiculous things that happen in the story to take it seriously all of the time. One of the characters is tossed about, slapped and squashed in so many ways that it's impossible to believe that he survived. Like the Energizer Bunny however, he keeps showing up and fighting on. Improbably he starts out as a somewhat unsavory character, but morphs through sheer survival into a heroic figure.

The Village police chief is a reluctant hero, and sometimes he is a little feckless, but that doesn't mean that he is unsympathetic. I don't have a huge amount of experience with Korean filmmaking , but I have noticed there's a tendency to have some slapstick moments and annoyingly over the top characters appear in awkward situations. The chief runs into several locals, and some members of his own Department, that are laughably annoying. His character however is required to be annoying without the humor, and that makes the story frustrating at times because if anyone would  listen to somebody, maybe we would get to the point a little quicker.

There are two extremely long Chase scenes that take place in the film. In the First Act you have the excellent one, which follows the police officer in Pursuit of the monster as it smashes through the village with impunity, and kills dozens residents in the process. We see the Mayhem from his perspective as the monster stays just out of his view, around corners, below the horizon or on the other side of a wall. There's some horrifying visual images which also provoke some laughter because they are so over the top. This is a pretty gruesome film. Once the target of the monster, the police chase reverses itself, and continues on for another long sequence.  These scenes are shot with great clarity and occasionally with lenses that make the edges of the film feel like they're bending in scope, which influences  the way the audience is watching the action. In the last Act of the film there's an equally long Chase and the police chief is again involved, but here it doesn't feel original or is interesting because they repeat the same moment a dozen times. The monster chasing them gets close, they shoot something at it or it misses a turn and it falls back a little but then we repeat the process. It got a little redundant.

Consider this a spoiler warning, which I usually try to avoid but which I think is essential in talking about this movie and letting you decide whether or not you want to see it. In the last 15 minutes, the focus changes and the aliens begin to be our protagonists as opposed to our antagonists. It feels like a completely different movie has started, and there is not really a very clear transition to it. My guess is that this film is supposed to be the first in a series of movies portraying what is essentially an alien invasion. The trouble is we don't quite know why they're here, and we certainly don't know why there are more than one of them, including crashing spaceships. It's as if we're repeating the mystery of the second set of aliens but they're not recognizing and showing them. I don't think you can do that trick twice and get away with it. 

I was not unhappy that I saw the movie, but I was surprised how long it ran. Both of the chase sequences I mentioned could have been cut in half in the film would be just fine. Just be glad that we're not in charge of deciding whether to make the second film a sequel to this movie. I don't have a strong desire to see what happens next, and if you're going to end on a cliffhanger that really feels like something that you want to do, make us care. This movie seems to think that by putting words in the mouths of the aliens we will change our perspective and want to see it resolved. I think they're wrong. 

Jetty Maguire (1996) Re-visit

 

How I almost completely forgot that I saw this movie at the State Theater this summer is beyond me. It was actually a very pleasant screening and my memories of the movie were validated by how much I enjoyed it and admired the writing. There are times when Tom Cruise comes in for heavy criticism, but this movie was an example of one of the few times that people seem pretty confident that he had done a good job and deserved some recognition for it.

The story of a sports agent who grows a conscience and tries to find a way to make his life work within the confines of those guidelines is a surprising one. Cutthroat operations around him and the competition he gets from his former colleagues it's easy to despair and feel that people are only out for a buck and will stab each other in the back regardless of what they say. Of course it should have raised a red flag, when the number one draft pick prospect agrees to be represented by Jerry but his father refuses to offer a written statement of such an agreement. Fortunately it's not our agent character who breaks his word, and it's an example of one of the things that forces Jerry to confront his own unwillingness to commit fully.

Renee Zellweger practically steals the movie as the assistant who has a heart of gold and is willing to give it to Jerry both personally and professionally. The fact that Jerry is unable at first to recognize that he has in fact fallen in love is one of the most frustrating things in the story. The thing that makes it so satisfying at the end is that Jerry's realization comes before he has made the crucial decision to end his marriage. He really did commit to the relationship because of his love of the little boy and the feeling that it gave him, but the more he struggled to succeed with his lone client, the more he begins to recognize how a commitment such as he is made professionally really is comparable to the one that he has in his personal life. When people give romantic comedies a bad name, I think all you have to do is throw this movie down on the table and challenge their presumptions. 

The reconciliation scene is often mocked because of the two great lines that make it work so well. * you complete me" is one of the best expressions of love that I've heard in a screenplay.. The only reason people can continue to joke about it, is because it is a true statement of love which stands up to any mocking they might try. The follow-up from Dorothy's character is also parodied, " you had me at hello", is the release of a pressure valve in Dorothy and Jerry's relationship that makes us feel great. It's another one of those lines that Cameron Crowe deserved all the credit for and earned the award he did not get. (He had to wait until “Almost Famous”).

Cuba Gooding Jr. steals whatever movie Renee Zellweger didn't get, with his egotistical self-centered receiver, who also learns that commitment goes two ways. He always had it at the personal level, but not so much at the professional level. After all, the key line that everybody remembers from the movie, is" show me the money", and it takes a moment on the field connecting with the crowd to make him realize that he needs a commitment to the audience as well as his family. This movie may seem light on the outside but then on the inside it's pretty deep. I'm not sure you can ever go wrong recommending “Jerry Maguire" to anybody..

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Star Trek Anniversary

 

Since I have clearly been on a nostalgic kick, traveling back to my hometown in Alhambra and visiting my houses in South Pasadena and El Sereno as well, it is an interesting coincidence that this is the 60th anniversary of the premiere of Star Trek the television series. Star Trek was one of the first TV shows I saw in color after we got a color TV and connected it to the antenna on the roof. My brothers and I had watched TV upstairs in our house on Kendall Avenue on an old black and white, and I remember my dad struggling with one of his friends, I think it was Lou Lancaster, putting up a new antenna on the roof and trying to get the color TV to have clear reception.

Although I know I saw an episode or two in our house on Kendall it wasn't until the show went into syndication and we had moved to Alhambra that I became a regular viewer of the TV series. It played in the afternoons after I got home from school and we watched it right before dinner time. I was excited when I heard but they were going to make a new series and then they turned it into a movie instead with the success of Star Wars. 

For a lot of years people believed that the best Star Trek movies were the ones that were even numbered. In spite of the success of the first film, it's often criticized for how slow paced it is. I however have always thought it was great but it is true that the second film “The Wrath of Khan" really captured the spirit of Trek effectively. Apparently the first six films were played in local theaters last weekend, and I just happened to find a chance to see “Star Trek III:The Search for Spock”. I've said it before, as far as I'm concerned this is an excellent film in the series and does little to say that the odd numbered films are weaker than the even numbered ones. This also has the advantage of coming out in 1984 , perhaps the greatest year of movies in my lifetime.

In spite of his absence on screen for 90% of the movie Spock continues to be a central character in the story. This movie gave Dr McCoy a chance to have a bigger role and explore the depth of his friendship with Mr Spock. Maybe there is a slight disadvantage in having to replace Kirstie Alley in the role of Lt. Saavik, but that character was not as clearly prevalent in this film. There is also a melancholy which hangs over the movie because the character of David, who is Captain Kirk's son, disappears from the storyline in a dramatic fashion. Also, the Enterprise itself is destroyed, so maybe the bummer of losing the captain's son and ship in the same movie is what gives many people a negative vision of this film.

While there are several dramatic and tragic points in the film there are also a few quite humorous moments. The other main characters in The Star Trek story all get a minute or two to shine. I love the moment when Mr Scott smirks as the Excelsior fails to even get out of the space dock to pursue the Enterprise when the crew hijacks it. If we were to make a list for the villain characters played by Christopher Lloyd in the 1980s, Commander Kruge would certainly be somewhere near the top. His dispassionate murder of David, and his feigned language of Honor make his character memorably loathsome.

The visual effects are very effective although they don’t stand up against some of the more advanced images in the Star Wars saga, they certainly did the job. The Practical effects on the Genesis planet are rendered very effectively. The battle between Kirk and Kruge, which takes place when the planet is destroying itself, looks terrific as they Teeter on the edge of a cliff, and part of the edifice is breaking off. 

Because the screening was connected to the 60th anniversary of the TV show, it was accompanied by an episode of the show which had a connection to the events of this story. “Amok Time" was the episode where we visited Spock's home planet of Vulcan, and circumstances led to a battle between Kirk and Spock. I suspected it was the fact that we had returned to Vulcan in Star Trek 3 that led to this being the episode which was featured. It looked terrific on the big screen too.

There were maybe two dozen people in the theater with me for a Sunday afternoon screening of A 42-year-old film. I happened on the screening by accident, so I was a little surprised at how many people showed up. But I was also quite happy to know that my childhood Heroes continued to live long and prosper on the Silver Screen.

Cars (2006) 20th Anniversary Screening

 

For some reason among the fans of Pixar, “Cars” appears to be a project that is widely dismissed. It may be because the movie was so successful at marketing toys that it was not taken seriously as a drama or a comedy. I frankly love the movie and my daughter Amanda marks it as her favorite Pixar film. So there, take that internet!

This revisit was a pleasant experience because I got a chance to go with my niece and her family and they all enjoyed the experience immensely , in large part because we were seeing it at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood. This venue is Disney's premiere theatrical location where all of their films get a special launch or in this case return visit. I have a little video to include to show you how cool the display is when they show a movie at the El Capitan.

I know that “Cars” creeps out some people because the idea of a car being alive is just alien to them, and let's face it if you think about it too hard there are some weird things that would be required. Fortunately for me I never think about it that hard, I just go with the flow and enjoy the experience that I'm watching. The song soundtrack is a blast, featuring a combination of soft rock and country music that works perfectly for the aesthetic of a Southwestern town being confronted by the NASCAR aesthetic.

It's so fitting that Paul Newman voices the veteran Hudson automobile which we discover late in the film was a champion from a bygone era. Newman of course was known as a racing enthusiast, and at this point in his life his voice conveyed not only confidence but an authority of age which worked perfectly for the character. I know there are people who are put off by the laid-back Surfer / stoner quality of Owen Wilson's persona, but I have always found him quite entertaining, and in the role of Lightning McQueen he seems to have found a niche that fits him quite well.

Maybe the reason that I appreciate the film so much is that I remember traveling with my family on Route 66 when we would go back to Battle Creek each year in the Summers. I think we did four or five trips in the early 60s before the interstates wiped out the old Route 66 Mother Road. Frankly for me, the magic hour is that Twilight moment in the summer when the sun has gone down but it is still light outside and the sky is a combination of Orange, purple and pink. In the desert of the Southwest it is phenomenally beautiful. This film takes advantage of the desert locale in the evening lighting. When the neon lights went on at the start of the third Act I was just delighted.

I can recognize  “Cars 2” is an abomination. It gives us too much of a secondary character and misses the spirit of the first film. It may also be that people resent the fact that “Cars” got two sequels and even though the third one restored the quality of the film story, there are other pics that people might have liked to have seen a sequel to First.

The look of the film, The Music, and the voice cast are enough to sell me when I was glad to revisit the movie in such a spectacular location.

Amadeus (1984) Hollywood Bowl

 

I had a special experience last week. I had a chance to see my favorite movie of the 1980s, which is also my seventh favorite movie of all time, on screen accompanied by a live Orchestra, and it just so happens that the movie is about classical composers and orchestral music. Isn't that perfect? The movie of course is “Amadeus”, the mystery / thriller / musical about the rivalry between Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Austrian Court composer Antonio Salieri.

As an extra bonus , the presentation was at my favorite place in Southern California, the Hollywood Bowl. This outdoor venue was my destination for a recent trip to Southern California. I made it to two shows at the bowl, as well as getting to celebrate my daughter's 40th birthday.  The Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra accompanied the film along with a choir which sang sections of choral music presented in the film. And of course they were all consummate professionals who did an outstanding job.

The film version of this play has significant advantages over the stage presentation. The way the music can be visualized is more elaborate and creative, and the music can be edited into the film in a way which allows it to add more life and make the story more vivid. When it plays out on the scale that it does in the movie this is incredibly rich and memorable.

The greatest strengths of the film however are the two central performances. Tom Hulce, as Mozart, is delightful and frustrating simultaneously. Headstrong and egocentric, and a bit of an infant, Mozart can't see his own best interests, and continuously trips himself up with the Austrian musical hierarchy. Regardless, it is clear that he is a superior musician and composer to any of his contemporaries, he's just not a better man.

Salieri could be the better man, but his professional jealousy prevents him from finding a place in the musical hierarchy that is satisfying. F. Murray Abraham, is one of the greatest performances of the last half century, as a conniving rival who seems to be the only person of his era who recognizes that Mozart is not only talented but on a completely different level musically than anybody else. Salieri’s frustration at being able to recognize genius but not replicate it is conveyed by Abraham throughout the film, and his performance in the end is ultimately heartbreaking in spite of his uncharitable behavior.

Let me happily recommend you to a post I wrote a dozen years ago when I was covering the year 1984 on a different project. You will find a much more complete description of my thoughts about this film there. Meanwhile you can appreciate a couple of moments from the bowl experience, cuz I celebrated with my daughter and connected with one of my friends from the Lambcast.

The Dog Stars (2026)

 

I'm not sure why a Ridley Scott film, featuring some terrific action sequences, isn't hitting with audiences or why it's being released in late August. Theatrical presentation is a little uncertain these days, which is too bad because I think this film hits on most of the points that it's trying to make and many people would find it entertaining if they took the time to seek it out instead of seeing Spider-Man for the fourth or fifth time.

Maybe the reason the film isn't working for audiences is that it is repeating a dystopian future that seems less likely now than it did a few years ago. The world is still a screwed up place, but it doesn't seem as likely that we're going to get wiped out by a plague or nuclear war or chemical accident, which for all kinds of reasons seemed possible a decade ago. 

Jacob Elordi is the star of this film and he's good at quiet and mournful,  he still manages to to convey a sense of decency in spite of his PTSD. I am going to warn you right now Jasper, his canine companion, does not make it out of the First Act. That's probably a spoiler but it's a spoiler that people who are sensitive to these things probably should be aware of. Although I'm never a fan of seeing an animal being sacrificed in a story like this, it is better that it comes early in the film, so that the dread does not hang over the entire Enterprise.

Anybody unfamiliar with the three act structure that is often found in films is not going to have any trouble picking it out in this particular movie. The location literally changes twice, giving us a series of events in three different locations with occasional flashbacks to our original launching point. Josh Brolin is the co-star in the first third, and he basically plays the grumpy Josh Brolin version of himself, which seemed completely acceptable to me. Guy Pearce is in the second act along with Margaret Qualley, as a father and daughter trying to survive on their own in a completely different environment.  Elordi's ability to move from place to place because he has a plane and is a pilot, is what makes this dystopian movie a little more unique. 

The third section of the film reminded me a lot of the second half of “A Boy and his Dog” from 1975. As usual the point of the movie here is to show the different ways that people try to cope with disaster. Some become predators, some become isolates, and others try to remain as normal as possible. I thought there was enough creativity in the story to justify one more of these dystopian nightmares. It looks however from the reviews and box office returns that I am one of the isolates.

There are two or three very exciting sequences in the movie, and a couple of very satisfying outcomes to conflicts. There is however some sacrifice that comes along with this, which is only natural in a movie of this type. I did think there was a little bit of a cheat at one point, but in the long run I felt better about that and if it had played out the way I expected it to. This movie is not going to win any awards, and it won't take a place on the top shelf of all these kinds of films, but it's at least as good a movie as the Will Smith version of “I Am Legend”. If you wait to see it at home it won't destroy the experience for you, but I kind of like the idea of extending summer with a movie like this.

Coyote vs. Acme (2026)

 

As usual, I'm late to this because I've been so busy.  I have however done a podcast on it so I will include that at the end so that my comments here don't feel too brief.

“Coyote vs. Acme” is a completely delightful mixture of live action and animation, it's not as elaborate as “Who Framed Roger Rabbit "and I frankly can't compare it to the Looney Tunes Space Jam movies because I've never seen them. Not being a basketball fan I didn't care much about Michael Jordan against Daffy and Bugs.  I am however interested in a good argument and the idea of litigation by Wile E. Coyote against the Acme company was very intriguing.

We talked a bit on the show about why this film almost got canned for tax purposes, the people in charge of Warner Brothers don't seem to know what the hell they're doing. Maybe that's why they are ripe for acquisition by Paramount. Anyway this film was extremely well made and I frankly tell you, it was funny. I mean I really laughed quite a bit during the movie. Being an old school Looney Tunes guy, it fit my expectations perfectly.

There's a nice twist about halfway through the story, which helps maintain the consistency of our Title Character, and I appreciated that. I also appreciated the way they used all the other Looney Tunes characters by not treating them as if they are movie stars but rather they are just characters in the story. Even Bugs and Daffy, who do appear in the movie, are just secondary characters and not celebrities at all. For the most part the film avoids being too politically correct, all though Speedy Gonzales never gets an on-screen credit and Pepe Le Pew does get labeled as if he was being judged by 2020 standards . It doesn't matter because there was a good joke there.

Being a bit behind gives this film an opportunity for me to look at its box office returns. I think it is doing extremely well given the expectations and it demonstrates why sometimes the bean counters in the tax department should not be making the decisions about what films ultimately get distribution. I suspect the Batgirl film would have done perfectly fine, so it's disappointing that it didn't get a chance to escape the way this movie did. 

If you want to know more of my thoughts and what I appreciated in the film, take a listen to or watch the podcast. By the way, I was not alone in my appreciation. We had pretty much a unanimous opinion that this movie rocks.

The End of Oak Street (2026)

 

It's great when we get to the end of summer and there are still movies coming out that treat the summer as if it is an endless opportunity for fun. “The End of Oak Street” is one of those movies that makes August bearable in spite of the heat ( which by the way in Texas has been 103°) , and the pending gloom of fall, and for those who care, a return to school.

I am a big fan of a previous film from David Robert Mitchell ( although I'm not sure you should trust somebody who has three first names), "It Follows ".  That film would truly classify as a horror movie, I'm not so sure however if “The End of Oak Street” fits that category. In many ways it is a horror film because it is a Creature Feature and humans are being hunted by monsters in the story. However because the monsters in this story are dinosaurs, I may be inclined to call this an adventure story rather than a horror movie. This is a distinction I plan on talking about with my friends on the LAMBcast later this week.

There have probably been other people who have said it, but from my perspective this is the best sequel in the Jurassic Park series, since Jurassic World.  Technically of course it's not a Jurassic Park story at all, but its roots are clearly grounded in the same kind of Summer adventure and thrills that those movies have mined successfully for the last 30 years. This one sort of reverses the scenario, and instead of visiting a park with Dinosaurs, the Dinosaurs show up in your backyard.

Eventually we do get a discussion of how this whole thing happened, but that's the least interesting part of the film. What works best is the family dynamic, of two parents and two teen children struggling to survive in a clearly hostile environment, one in which many of their neighbors do not survive. The dinosaurs in this movie represent a wide variety of species, and many of them seem to have very aggressive tendencies, which I suppose is exactly what you want if you're creating a summer thriller.

Ewan McGregor and Anne Hathaway star as the parents, who are of course struggling with adult issues in the 1980s setting in which the film takes place. Hathaway is fully invested in the film and she is the focal point for the dramatic arc of the story. There are all sorts of moments that add a bit of humor to dire circumstances, but expect some gruesome deaths and PG-13 violence.  Some people will have an issue with the resolution, but don’t think too hard about it all. Just sit back and enjoy a fun family thriller with enough bite to keep it real. 

Lady Snowblood (1973) Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

How I missed "Lady Snowblood" when it originally played back in the seventies is beyond me. It is the kind of exploitation film from the Far East that I would have loved. It's a Revenge story with a female protagonist and it involves martial arts and sword play, the nature of which inspired Quentin Tarantino when he made “Kill Bill”. I did finally catch up with the film on home video through a Criterion Edition that I bought at one of their annual sales. So I didn't go into this last evening screening completely blind.

The idea that makes this film work,  is that the woman in question was born into revenge.  She is supposedly a demi-demon incarnation of her mother's desire for Vengeance.  It takes a series of flashbacks to see how she got prepared during the  twenty years after being born and her mom dying.  Meanwhile we get to see her in action a bit before we go through the exposition. 

Copious amounts of stage blood are used in the film as katana swords are the weapon of choice for most people in the film.  Heads and hands get separated from the body on a regular basis,  and gushers occur as they do in these sorts of movies.  There seems to have been a whole subculture of criminal organizations in Japan at the time. Rival gangs rat each other out, fight for power, and generally get to the center of the Revenge plot in a variety of ways. 

Sometimes the storytelling in films like this is a little incomplete. It's not quite clear what the motivation of the first gang leader is, when helping Lady Snowblood track down her victims. It's also not quite clear how the sensationalist writer who starts publishing stories about this quest for vengeance, ends up being in an alliance with our heroine.  And maybe there's even a romance there, but again that remains relatively abstract.

The truth is that we don't really care about much of that stuff. What we want to see is Lady Snowblood go off on criminals who stand in her way, but we especially want to see the ones who destroyed her family be punished. We do get all of those things, along with a mournful song starting and ending the film. So you can sit back rest assured, that there will be bloodletting and revenge. There might even be a moment or two of contemplation but don't take it too seriously because there's a geyser of blood coming.

Hero (2002) Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 I had owned this movie on Blu-ray for a dozen years before I finally watched it for an episode of the Lamb cast just a couple of years ago.  It is filled with the names of martial artists who have been acting in Asian films for 20 plus years, and with whom I only had passing familiarity. Many of my friends in the LAMB community would know all of these names in the films they've been in without thinking hard about it. So I'm coming in on this film underprepared. I will cautiously refrain from trying to be too familiar with their previous work, because after all, I'm not.

There are a few martial arts movies that I've seen over the years, three or four Bruce Lee films, Jackie Chan has been a regular, and the gloriously beautiful “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon”. In no way would I diminish the work in these previous movies, but for scale and the frequency of combat, "Hero" seems to be the “Gone with the Wind” of martial arts films. It is epic and has a cast of thousands, and the leads are the biggest stars in martial arts movies in their generation. Looking at the film from a purely cinematic perspective , it can be a little overwhelming. The scale and grandeur of some of the sequences, comes pretty close to those things that we appreciate in films like the “Lord of the Rings”, or “The Odyssey”.. 

If I have any reservation about recommending this movie, it comes from the fact that it is clearly also a piece of propaganda about China's place in the world. The philosophy of the Chinese Communist Party that there is one China. Not too subtle a threat to Taiwan, and to the rest of the Pacific area, that China is an expansionist bully, that sees its mission as being righteous. Although the film appears to have the central character called Nameless, as its hero, the real heroes from the story's point of view are those who enabled the king to achieve his goal.

There are a dozen different fight sequences in the movie that could be the highlight in any other film. The battle between Nameless and Sky, at the Temple of chess, is choreographed furiously, with thrusts, strikes, and close escapes chilling in wide Master shots and  an occasional close up. It is filmed the way these kinds of movies should be done, giving us time to see the actors performing the martial arts in the context of the complete battle rather than just isolated close-ups with their hands or feet. The rain effects and the water dripping into containers around the temple add beautiful elements to the conflict, although I don't know that they signify anything of critical importance. Many of the same things can be said about the fight between Flying Snow and Moon. Their fight takes place in the daytime in a forest filled with Golden Leaves that swirl around them as the long sleeves of their clothes spin in the Wind and accentuate the fluid movements of their swords. 

Those are only two of the fight sequences that occur in the film and they may not even be the best ones. They are however the most visually stunning ones and therefore the easiest for me to remember. At first it appears that Nameless, in telling his tale To The King, is presenting the story in flashback, but in reality he is sharing a narrative that is designed with an ulterior purpose. And we are going to see the same story told more accurately from a different perspective. What looked originally like it was going to be a straightforward tale of martial arts combat,  becomes an entangled conspiracy between the combatants, and the surrounding environments, including surprisingly enough, a strong influence from calligraphy.

This was a double feature in the Paramount classic film series for this summer. I'm going to include a link to the podcast episode for you, if you'd like to hear us talk about this in more detail.

Whiplash (2014) Re-Visit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

Back in 2014 I declared this the best film of that year. There hasn't been anything to change my mind since, and after watching it again on the big screen, I might easily think it's the best film not only of that year but of the last 10 years. At its core is the most confounding character you were likely to see on screen. Terence Fletcher is simultaneously a monster and an icon that we might admire. His demand for excellence is truly admirable but his means of achieving it are horrific.

Those of you not familiar with the story, let me briefly explain that it involves a student at the most prestigious musical Institution in the country, pursuing excellence in his instrument. Miles Teller plays the striving young man, and he encounters a teacher that pushes him to reach the excellence that he aspires to. All is not well however, because the path to excellence according to both of these people involves sacrificing the human decency that the rest of us take for granted.

JK Simmons won the Academy Award for supporting actor for this year, in what is probably the most deserved bestowing of the award in the last 20 years. His portrayal of Fletcher, as a precision driven taskmaster, is incredibly absorbing. At times he wears the mask of civility, and seems to genuinely be invested in the music culture. Yet when he stands up to his lectern to take over directing his musical ensemble, he's the personification of the most controlling, ill-tempered, unpleasant boss that anyone has ever had. The drill sergeant in “Full Metal Jacket" could take a few lessons from Terrance Fletcher in breaking down a young protege.

Writer/director Damien Chazelle, creates a story that crackles like a thriller, in spite of the fact that it has all of the accoutrements of a classroom drama. There is tension in 80% of the film that Fletcher appears on screen, and in about 50% of the time that he is not there. Aspiring Jazz drummer Andrew Neiman, is incredibly talented, but don't tell him that, because that would lead him to be satisfied with mediocrity. The recurring story about Charlie Parker having a cymbal thrown at his head, becomes the blueprint for how Fletcher is trying to teach his students. “Good job”, is a filthy phrase in his vocabulary. “Not my tempo”, is the cattle prod that he uses on Teller's Niemann. 

Both these personalities have something wrong with them. They both are addicted to the concept that suffering beyond human capacity both by yourself and by others , is the only way to achieve greatness. Neither of them has the kind of humility that will allow for a satisfying social life. And in the end, the film actually seems to be endorsing the terrorist method of instruction that Fletcher inflicts and Neiman endures. I'm sure there are plenty of successful artists, who have struggled to overcome adversity and achieve great things, without becoming insufferable a-holes. The problem is, their stories are never going to be as compelling as this one is.

The Brink of War (2026)

 

If there were a way to create a hybrid version of this film with the biographic presentation from a couple of years ago starring Dennis Quaid as Ronald Reagan, we'd have a complete winner. Even though that is not possible, I'd still say we have a pretty solid film in “The Brink of War”. Jeff Daniels is just good enough not to kill the movie, and that means something given that Hollywood has tried for years to use Reagan as the butt of a joke,

What this Angel Studios film does is give a story of Ronald Reagan in the style used in  Steven Spielberg's version of “Lincoln”. Instead of a comprehensive look at the life of one of our great leaders, it focuses on a specific time and event, one which helped change the world because of the man that Ronald Reagan was. There's been plenty of retconning of Reagan's story in the last 30 years, but “The Brink of War" does a good job sticking to the history, and minimizing the politics of these events.

The meeting between Reagan and Michael Gorbachev, in 1986, was viewed at the time as a failure because it did not produce an arms control agreement. In the end though, the meeting appears to have been significant, not the least of which was because the Soviet leaders recognized that the Soviet policies of the era were not really working. The eventual collapse of the Soviet Union is a direct result of the Kremlin recognizing that the Soviets did not have the resources  to fight back in the face of American economic power and the will power of the 40th President to keep to his course of action. 

Most of the movie consists of a recreation of the meetings between the two leaders. Reagan is shown to be engaged, thoughtful and with the sense of humor that he was known for. His disarming persona contrasts with the more formal Gorbachev, and Daniels, while not inhabiting the President, does a solid job conveying his real earthiness and desire for peace. The segments featuring Mrs. Gorbachev and Nancy Reagan, who were not together at all during the event, provide us with some appropriate humor as well. 

JK Simmons is another Hero of the Day, playing Secretary of State George Schultz, the patrician old school elitist, who recognizes the wisdom of playing it according to Reagan's plan. Simmons becomes the level headed narrator that we needed. This film is a reminder that grown ups once thought out their policies and worked to accomplish them. They did not just dream big, they dared to try.

Ice Cream Man (2026)

 I'd say this movie was a disappointment but I didn't really have high expectations for it in the first place so it's hard to reach that conclusion. Basically this is a rip off of the concept from "Weapons" ,  and not a very good one at that. The idea of creepy kids being used to take retribution is a cross between a “Nightmare on Elm Street” and the film from last year where Amy Madigan played the part of an ice cream man, sorry I mean witch.

This film is told from the perspective of the young protagonist, a lactose intolerant lad who has been bullied by classmates and even a little bit by his friends,  but in the end, he stands up the firmest against the evil that is encroaching on his small town. The story doesn't make much sense until we get a data dump in exposition from a local priest about 2/3 of the way through the movie. And if by any chance you're suspicious of the priest and what he has to say, you will not be at all surprised at the twist that comes near the end.

This is an Eli Roth film, so no one's expecting much subtlety. When the vicious killings occur, there's not really a lot of cutting away, we're going to see heads separated from bodies, faces smashed to smithereens, and dismemberment galore . Once in a while we get a sly joke inserted into the mayhem, unfortunately they don't always land. I can say however, that there was one bit that landed for me. There is a very funny scene which is basically a takeoff on the playground scene from Alfred Hitchcock's the birds. It builds in a form that mimics Hitchcock's style of shooting in that scene, and the juxtaposition of antagonists is what makes it work.

The Ice Cream man depicted in the film never really talks. And in spite of the horrible things that occur, there is even a slight effort to make his character somewhat sympathetic. That doesn't work, for the obvious reasons that innocent people are harmed in the process and that in the absence of any words of contrition from the victims, the Ice Cream man just continues to smile maliciously.

So the movie plays like the gore version of The Pied Piper of Hamlin, with indiscriminate victims, and innocent children turned into murderers. Ho hum. I guess I should have known when I saw that Osgood Perkins was a producer on the film. Let's just say he's gone zero for three with me, and I'm someone who appreciated that Eli Roth was directing this film,

Thief (1981) Re-visit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

It felt a little like I was going to a James Caan Film Festival this last weekend, since he appeared in both the Saturday night and Sunday night films. His part in “Bottle Rocket" was barely more than a cameo, but he is clearly the star of Michael Mann's “Thief", the Sunday night experience and one of the best performances of Caan's career. I saw this film when it was originally in theaters back in 1981. I think I may have seen it one more time on cable sometime in the late 80s. 

For a film that I hadn't seen in more than 30 years and saw only a couple of times before that I remembered quite a bit. I also misremembered a few things, it seemed to me that Willie Nelson had a bigger part in the movie, but that was not true. He had two very brief scenes. Nevertheless the crime component is the main element of the movie and that I did remember. 

Caan plays a master Thief who's used to operating on his own, but in a bid to rush his exit from the criminal world, he agrees to pull a job for a syndicate, and of course that leads to trouble. The movie is drenched in atmosphere, lit with the blues and blacks that characterize a lot of Michael Mann films. Once in a while there are splashes of color like the neon that would become emblematic of Miami Vice, but it was all a lot more subdued in this particular film. A layer of dread also hangs over the enterprise, created by the haunting music score from Tangerine Dream. It suggests constant suspense and danger, even when people are just sitting in a diner arguing over coffee. 

The central premise is that our Master Thief, Frank, is so autonomous that no one can control him. I find it frankly easy to believe that he might be the same character played by Robert De Niro in Michael Mann's Heat 15 years later. Frank stands up to a brutal beating by corrupt cops who want a slice of the action, and he cleverly beats them at their own game so that he can carry out the main crime. As in most heist films, for some reason the audience usually identifies with the criminal, we want them to succeed and not be caught. It's great when a plan plays out the way it's supposed to, and no one gets hurt.

Of course if no one got hurt in the plan, and it was perfect, there wouldn't be any drama in the story. That's where the boss of the crime syndicate comes into play. Robert Protsky, plays a avuncular, seemingly reasonable gangster, who makes big promises, and comes through on some of them, but breaks the one rule that Frank sees as a red line. 

The conclusion of the film is really a test of Frank's Independence. His willingness to fight back against the intrusion on his autonomy, is the main focus of the third act. Once again we may want Frank to succeed, but we're not going to see him as a very good person, because of the sacrifices he's willing to make in order to stay his own self. I don't think however it could have gone any other way and felt authentic.

Bottle Rocket (1996) Re-Visit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

Over the years I've become a fan of Wes Anderson films, “Bottle Rocket" was his first film, but it was not the first one that I saw. I'm pretty sure that “Rushmore” was my Gateway into Wiss Anderson filmography. It was after that film that I went and rented "Bottle Rocket” and watched it at home. I had virtually no memory of seeing it other than the memory of going to Blockbuster, putting it in the VCR,  and being done with it later and thinking that was a nice bit of nothing.

30 years later I'm pretty much in the same place. “Bottle Rocket” is a shaggy dog story, with the two brothers Owen and Luke Wilson playing off of one another as dimbulb characters whose lofty goal is to become master thieves. Or maybe that's just the goal of Dignan, the delusional character played by Owen Wilson in full stoner mode. For some reason he's the character who hasn't been in a mental institution but clearly should have been. Anthony is the friend who has been self-committed for a time, played by Luke Wilson, as a character who's only guile is fooling his friend and indulging his delusions. Otherwise he's a pretty stand-up fellow.

The ridiculous 75-year plan to become Master criminals and live a life of ease is Dignan's fantasy. It is however clear from the very beginning that these two guys, along with their friend Bob, are too inept to be successful as criminals. At best they would be small timers forever at worst they might get killed pulling off a job that would hardly be worth it. What pleasure is found in the movie is in seeing Anthony trying to make a connection with the maid at the hotel that they're staying at, in spite of his inability to speak a language she understands. 

The sincerity of this Romance is put as a backdrop to Dignan's plan to connect with Mr Henry, his former boss at Landscaping Company, who also happens to be a low-level criminal. If crime were all in the planning, then Dignan and Anthony would be at the top of the game. For them the problem is that crime is really in the execution, and they are frankly not capable of executing anything more complicated than opening a can of beer.

The story here is not deep, we kind of want the best for these idiots, but we also recognize that they deserve to go to jail for the activities that they are engaged in. At the same time we want Anthony and Inez to work it out. I did think there was one clever twist along the way concerning their plot, but it's not one that benefits them at all. Mr Henry is the one who's capable of planning and executing a crime, not these three dimwits. 

The offbeat humor and the thickness of the main characters are the traits that mark this as a Wes Anderson film. He will continue to mine these tropes for all of his future movies, but he will add a plot and additional characters to make those a little bit more absorbing. Meanwhile “Bottle Rocket” is a pleasant enough couple of hours, that you won't mind having spent some time watching. You may however have trouble remembering why I was so pleasant.

Reservoir Dogs (1992) Re-Visit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

My daughter and I are already in the middle of a rewatch of Quentin Tarantino's filmography. The fact that “Reservoir Dogs" was playing at the summer classic film series is just pure coincidence, but a happy one, because I haven't been able to see this film on the big screen since the first time I saw it at the Colorado theater in Pasadena in 1992.

This story is going to repeat itself on my page chronicling some movie visits with my late wife. I've been trying to do that sequentially, so this is a little out of order. This was Tarantino's first film, and I had read about it in one of the national magazines and the splash that it was making at Sundance. I was anxious to see it and I brought my wife with me, and neither of us had any idea of what we were getting into. The film is pretty brutal, and the language is coarse, but for the most part that did not seem to be bothering her. Until the scene where Michael Madsen, while dancing to Steelers Wheels , cuts the ear off of a cop that he is torturing. It's at that point that my wife leaned over to me and said in my ear “you owe me big time".  She was apparently a little miffed that I had exposed her to something so savage.

Anyway the rest of the movie is almost as savage, the fact that Tim Roth spends the majority of his performance laying on his back screaming and moaning from a gunshot wound is only part of it. The characters, famously named after colors, which was inspired by “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three”, are all reprobates, that may have a gift for gab, but with whom you wouldn't really want to be involved in a conversation. 

Speaking of conversations, it's hard for me to believe that I actually showed the opening diner scene with  criminals sitting around the breakfast table arguing about tipping, in my argumentation classes. The vocabulary they use and the graphic way in which they describe their opinions, was not my focus, but rather the way they tried to parry one another's points, and refute the claims being presented, while talking about an opinion that they differed on. I'm pretty sure that if I was showing this in my classes today, I wouldn't be retired, I'd be unemployed.

Although there are a few scenes set outdoors, and a few other locations, this movie is the perfect scenario for a first-time screenwriter /director who has a limited budget. It's almost like a piece set in a single scene, because so much of what is going on occurs in the warehouse, and everything else is just a flashback. This was our first opportunity to fully absorb the way Tarantino's characters spoke. For the most part they are articulate, forceful, and vulgar. Actors exchanging his dialogue is nearly hypnotic, and this will be a trademark of all of Tarantino's subsequent movies.

The pop soundtrack is another giveaway of future Tarantino trademarks. Heavy on '70s film references, and the soul and pop songs of the era, it makes the squeamish elements more tolerable for those of us who know the tunes. The theater was packed, and everybody seemed to appreciate it when Mr Pink rubs his thumb and index finger together, playing the world's smallest violin for all the waitresses in the world.

Fargo (1996) Re-Visit Paramount Suimmer Classic Film Series

 

Like a lot of film fans, if you ask me on any given day what my favorite movie is from a given director or actor, my opinion is likely to be influenced by the most recent film I've seen of theirs. For me I don't think that's the case with the Coen brothers. I really enjoy and love most of their films, but “Fargo” has always been my favorite. It features one of the greatest characters that they ever created in Marge Gunderson, the police chief of Brainerd, MN,  who heroically pursues malfeasance in her community. Frances McDormand has been a fixture in the Academy Awards process ever since Mississippi Burning, but this is the film that cemented her as the leading actress of our era.

“Fargo” starts off with a lie, one that most people don't even realize has been passed off on them. An opening card says that the movie is based on true events. No it is not. The mischief that is created by this line is continued in the ongoing Fargo TV series which uses the same conceit, and tagline about how only the names have been changed in respect to the dead and to protect the living. Joel and Ethan Cohen created a mythos with that line which works to make the film that follows more epic than it really is

Francis McDormand is not the only outstanding performance in the film. There are two other actors whose contributions to Fargo make it one of the great dark comedies of all time, while simultaneously being a grim crime story. William H Macy plays Jerry Lundergaard, the hapless car salesman who has taken out a loan against the inventory on his Father-In-Laws car lot, in order to invest in a piece of property he thinks is going to turn a tidy profit down the road. Of course the problem is he needs more money than he can get, and his solution is to kidnap his own wife and to ransom her using his father-in-law’s money.  Macy presents a guileless persona in  Jerry, he's a character so conniving and reprehensible, while at the same time being a simpleton and a pushover. You get a good example of his feckless success in the scene where he passively aggressively bullies a customer into paying for an undercoat for the new car he is buying. We get a chance to see how capable Jerry is of lying while still trying to look like a powerless fool. The fact that he is a powerless fool doesn't hurt.

The third Ace in this hand is Steve Buscemi's Carl Shoalwalter, a professional criminal nearly as feckless as Jerry is. His frustration with his lot in life builds up to a crescendo of violence rather than a shrug of powerlessness. Buscemi is smarmy and  belligerent, dangerously so when he confronts his own partner. No one in the story is reliable, but we can count on Buscemi to always make the worst choice possible and act as if he is the victim instead of the victimizer. Along with Mr Pink, his character and “Reservoir Dogs”, ShowWalter, establishes Buscemi as the weaseliest character actor of the 90s.

Just like Tarantino does, the Coen's turned violence into grim humor, but unlike Tarantino, whose joke usually depends on the visual explosion of a handgun in someone's face, the Coen’s make the situation the source of the humor. The violence is just the consequence of a particular situation. We don't need to see Buscemi shoot the face off of an innocent ticket clerk in a parking structure, his frustration has already been set up, all we need is to see the consequence.

Chief Gunderson, has a couple of great scenes where her real sincerity is contrasted with the deceptiveness of the people she's interacting with. Her kindness in regard to a former classmate, who clearly has emotional problems, and seems incapable of telling the truth, makes us see Marge as the decent woman she is in a tough job. In the two times she confronts the duplicitous Jerry Lundergaard, she is authoritative and polite up to the point, where Lundergaard's rudeness demands that she step up. Her voiceless confrontation with Peter Stormare's character, as he is disposing of his partner in the wood chipper, shows that she is also fearless, under that veneer of Minnesota nice. 

Even though the film plays out as a tragedy, with several senseless deaths, which occur under uncomfortably amusing circumstances, there's still some hope. As Marge and her adoring husband lay in bed contemplating the future and their soon to be born child, we get a sense that the normal people in the world still have a chance. That's about as hopeful as it gets.