Movies I Want Everyone to See: Westworld (1973)

This is another entry in the Pre-Star Wars inventory of great science fiction movies of the early 1970s. While the story moves forward in some slightly clunky ways, and there are some premises that defy logic in order to get to the climax, the crux of the concept is exciting and fun. The even more important point is how significant the movie is to future films in the genre. It continues to reverberate even today and makes a visit to this retro futuristic amusement park a necessity for anyone who loves the action and adventure of films from Spielberg and Cameron.


The premise is simple and enticing for anyone with a sense of adventure and a lot of cash. For a $1000 a day, adults can play in a fantasy world called Delos. The park has three distinct themes, Roman World, Medieval World and Westworld. Visitors are fitted out for cosplay and given the opportunity to indulge the pleasures of the times they have chosen. This would include the orgies of Rome, the loose serving wenches of a castle and the prairie angels that  serviced the weary cowpokes with a poke at the end of the trail. In addition there will be gladiatorial contests, sword duels and shootouts on the dusty streets of a western town.


Richard Benjamin and James Brolin are Peter Martin and John Blane, two affluent businessmen on a vacation designed to get Benjamin's character over a recent nasty divorce.  John has visited Westworld before and Brolin plays the opening sections of the film as an experienced visitor amused at his friends enthusiasm and his other various trip anxieties. Peter is the naive, gee whiz neophyte who wants to enjoy all the parks amenities but is a little concerned about potential embarrassment and danger. Delos is able to provide such adult fantasy play by loading it's parks with the latest technology, lifelike robots that are fully functional in all the important ways. The promise is that the fantasy is 100% safe. Famous last words.

Michael Crichton, the writer/director of Westworld, was a well known novelist making his directorial debut. He had written other highly entertaining films before this, including the Science Fiction technology thriller "The Andromeda Strain". His milieu was technology and many of his well known books feature stories of technology going wrong; "Sphere", "The Terminal Man","Congo". The most successful movie made from one of his stories is "Jurassic Park" about an amusement park where science is not able to control it's attractions. Basically, "Jurassic Park" is "Westworld" with dinosaurs.  Everybody probably remembers that great line from Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcom, "Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists". It was actually the second time such a concept was used by him. Reportedly, Crichton was inspired to write "Westworld" after a visit to Disneyland where he was impressed by the animatronics in "Pirates of the Caribbean".

The movie would be a voyeuristic dud if they had stuck to the simple premise of the park. In order to create suspense and thrills, the rules of the park will breakdown as the technology does. As a result, that which is supposed to be a naughty rich man's fantasy turns into his nightmare. The explanation for how things start to go wrong sounds suspiciously like a computer virus; which at that point had not really been thought of. So Crichton's  work is oddly prescient, although his film language was a little bit crude. In the early part of his career, the film stories often feel a bit clumsy as they try to bring to life a great idea. "Coma" and "Looker" are two other examples of this failing. They each have solid premises but hit some bumps along the way. If you thought it was weirdly convenient that all the technicians  were off the island in "Jurassic Park", you will notice how it is even more awkward the way  the employees at Delos are handled in the story.



Peter and John engage in the fantasy play that they paid for. The have a bar fight, spend the night with the ladies of the bordello where they are staying, they even get to do a jailbreak. On multiple occasions they face down the gunslinger character that is their nemesis. The first of those events comes in a traditional barroom standoff. It makes perfect sense. The second confrontation is more visually interesting but it is largely unexplained. The point is that Brolin and Benjamin begin to take their conflicts and the outcomes for granted. There are however some warning signs that foreshadow their danger. In a parallel story set in the Medieval section of the park, a lecherous   customer also sees some faults in the system. His animatronic paramour actually rejects him which goes against all the fantasy he is paying for. When Mel Brooks said "it's good to be the king" he had apparently not visited Delos Medieval World before.

It takes an hour of the near ninety minute running time to get to the real drama of the story. As everything is being set up we get a backstage view of the technology and some of the problems that the administrators faced. Like John Hammond twenty years later, they are convinced that they can manage their dream despite the overwhelming technology challenges they face.  This is another place where the story telling has to rely on less than smooth technique from the first time director. The guys in lab coats talk out problems instead of visualizing them. The futuristic aspects of the park come down to long hallways filled with inadequate lighting. There are only a couple of moments where we see the robots in their true form as they are being repaired. These moments are handled well on a limited budget but they feel somewhat stilted.

Westworld is a simple story that is told in a basic, sometimes crude manner. It was successful enough to have a sequel, "Futureworld" where the plot is more intricate and the acting and motivation a lot more polished. So if the film is not a masterpiece of cinema technique, why is it a film I want you to see? Well I have already mentioned the story line is the crib sheet for the more successful "Jurassic Park". There is however a second feature that portends future science fiction lexicon; the unstoppable killing machine. It can't be argued with, it can't be bargained with and it will not stop until you are dead. Yul Bryner plays a variation of his "Magnificent Seven" character here. The foreboding shootist with few words all dressed in black.



As our city slickers once again confront the tin target set up for them to take down, the outcome changes. This is when the movie basically becomes "The Terminator" for the last twenty minutes. Just as Sarah Conner learned, a robot is never finished when you want it to be, our hero struggles repeatedly to finish off and outwit the mechanical man pursuing him. Eleven years before Arnold Schwarzenegger donned the black leather, unholstered his weapon, and chased down his prey, Crichton had his mechanical harbinger of doom do the same thing in almost exactly the same manner. When you watch the machine like swagger of the gunfighter, it is easy to see the future Terminator walking relentlessly toward us. There is an early computerized point of view shot from the gunfighter that consists of heat signatures and fuzzy pixels. Both of these ideas will be used in future films featuring robots or aliens tracking down their targets.

You should find it easy to ignore the plot loopholes on park safety and the scarcity of assistance toward the end because you will identify with the customers. They came for a good time and they are getting so much more than they bargained for. This film will find ways to give you your monies worth even when it frustrates you with amateur film mistakes. The story concept and the vision of the wild west as a robot will echo forward to better films that are all well loved by the movie audience, but those films owe a huge debt to Westworld.



Richard Kirkham is a lifelong movie enthusiast from Southern California. While embracing all genres of film making, he is especially moved to write about and share his memories of movies from his formative years, the glorious 1970s. His personal blog, featuring current film reviews as well as his Summers of the 1970s movie project, can be found at Kirkham A Movie A Day.

Cold Pursuit

I'm more that two weeks late on this post. Life has gotten in the way of many of my pursuits these days, so it is appropriate that this is the film who's trail I have let grow cold. If I need to be kept warm in the winter months, I need to see Liam Neeson kill people who deserve to die. It warms my heart to see rough justice since we so often miss true justice in real life.

The set up of the film is not complicated. Neeson's son is murdered by being given an overdose of heroin. The authorities think he was just another drug user who didn't know his limits. Neeson's character's wife thinks they didn't know their son at all. It is only as he is about to end his own pain that he discovers what really happened and begins to seek retribution on those responsible. Nels Coxman is not an ex assassin, a CIA agent, or a well trained bodyguard. He is a snowplow driver. His approach is not sophisticated, and the fights are not highly choreographed. He is however methodical and intelligent. Nels simply works his way up the food chain, and fresh fish fall into his lap.

At a certain point in the movie, the deaths start piling up as a consequence of his actions rather than his deliberate execution of offenders. Because his motive is not understood, and the bad guys have no idea why these things are happening, they make assumptions based on their vocation which leads to huge complications. This reminded me a great deal of the 70s films "The Stone Killer" and "The Seven Ups". Gangland crooks mistake their real enemy and start eating their own.

The nice part about this is that just about every crook who we see get his, earns the death that comes to him. The most effective part of the story other than Neeson is the characterization of the low lives. As each one does something horrible, we just get to start anticipating, "OK, you are next". The film is based on a Norwegian film "In Order of Disappearance". In the credits, the character names and actors are all listed and the  names vanish in reverse order in listing. It was a clever capstone to the running tally that we have been given during the film.

Laura Dern appears as Nels wife, but she also vanishes from the movie after barely making it into a couple of scenes. The criminals are all the focus in the film. They all have colorful nick names and while the actors are not household names, they add enough personality to make the movie feel worth a watch. William Forsythe shows up as Nels mob connected estranged brother. He provide a little exposition and a satisfying moment with the main villain, but he has only a little to do with the story.

A woman walked out at the end of the movie proclaiming this was the worst movie she's ever seen, [clearly she has not seen "Vice"]. I did not think it was a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I was entertained...and it kept me warm.

Vice

“I can’t wait to see the new Fast & Furious movie. It’s going to be so lit.”

February Blues

This has never been a great month for new releases but there are several films I would like to have seen but simply did not have time to get to. I hope that you have been visiting with the podcast that I co-host, because that has been where most of my movie activity has been in the last few weeks.

As a birthday gift, I was able to choose the films to be considered for MOTM on the Lambcast. The Community selected Tombstone, so I hosted that show and you can catch up with it here:



We then embarked on an ambitious year long journey to cover all of the "official" James Bond films before the release next year of "Bond 25". Loyal readers know of my obsession with 007 and you can hear it being indulged, along with proof that obsession can be genetic here:





Frankly, I was so underwhelmed by the Academy Awards nominations this year, that for the first time ever since it began, we skipped out on the Best Picture Showcase. I did however provide some discussion on the awards on the Lambcast Oscar Prediction show. It's sell by date is rapidly approaching so if you want to hear before the results are announced, you better hurry.




Finally, I was the featured guest on the sister podcast on the Lamb, Acting School 101. Our subject for February {The Subjects celebrate a birthday in the month that they are discussed} was Laura Dern. My friend MovieRob hosts the show and we had a nice time talking about this fine actress, in a relatively short show [At least in comparison to the Lambcast].





This should bring you up to speed with the rather lazy month's work. There will be an upcoming podcast on the "How to Train Your Dragon" Franchise coming later this week. I will be hosting and I will put it up so i have one more entry in February at least.

How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

Fans of this franchise have nothing to fear from this new film. Although Third episodes are notoriously underwhelming, The "Dragon" franchise has managed to avoid a blunder as they head to the finish line. "The Hidden World" is as well made as it's predecessors, with the expert talents of Dreamworks Animation team and the director Dean Deblios. The look of these films is consistently amazing, with inventive characters and habitats all colored and detailed like nobody'd business.  The Hidden World of the title turns out to be a relatively minor setting in the bigger picture, but the sequence in which it is featured will be a highlight roll for people's home theaters because it looks spectacular.

The heart of these movies have always been about the relationship of the two main characters and how they have reflected each other in the passage of time. Here is the line from the first movie that defines the theme of these stories. "I looked at him...and I saw myself." From the moment that Hiccup acknowledges this, the pair not only bond but they mature together. Toothless and Hiccup both have to move forward with their destinies in this story, each one committing to a bigger role as the leader of their individual group.. There is also the romantic component which requires them to decide on a future that will include a partner.

The two sequences that will have the audience continuing to be pleased with the looks of the films include a flying courtship sequence between Toothless and the newly introduced "Light Fury". Their trek across a nighttime sky and the use of lightning effects is very beautiful. The second moment is the discovery of the title location. The Hidden World provides a chance for the artists making these movies to show off their color palate and indulge in some creative art design as well. The florescent and neon colors found here will seem familiar to anyone who once had a blacklight poster on their walls. 

Maybe the one drawback to the story is the fact that for a second film in a row, the Dragons and people of Berk are threatened by a dragon hunter with the goal of controlling all of the dragons. It ends up hitting some of the same beats as the second film did, with only some variation in character of the villain, a marvelously Teutonic F. Murray Abraham, and his technique and personal goals. I like the fact that the characters are aging in the film. They don't exactly change their personalities but physically the kids are more mature and the humor stems more from awkward social interaction than physical slapstick (although there is plenty of that still). The parallel stories of Hiccup and Toothless also allow their female counter-parts to have more influence on the story. They may not pass a Bechdel test but they both play major roles in how the story develops.

There is a bit of retconning so as to keep Gerad Butler as Stoic the Vast in the story through flashbacks. It works but it helps if you have not watched the first film immediately before seeing this one. Jay Baruchel continues to be the unlikely voice casting hero of the film. His milquetoast manner of speech and vocal inflections ,that sound adolescent,  are just right for the fledgling leader that Hiccup has to become.  I did find it interesting how fearlessly the movie features the character of Tuffnut when the voice actor from the first two films has been eased out of the role for a variety of reasons. It was not a big deal but I did notice that it had happened.

While I am not sure that a trilogy in this series was necessary, i certainly enjoyed it. It leaves off at a spot that seems to end the need for further films, but it does not foreclose that option entirely. "How to Train Your Dragon The Hidden World" is a satisfying trip to the animated world of dragons and vikings. I think we can dispense with additional dips into the storyline and still feel solid about how complete all of it turned out to be.

The Kid Who Would Be King

Back in the 1990s, I saw dozens of kids movies because I had kids that were just that age.  "That Darn Cat", "The Mighty Ducks", "Three Ninjas", "Casper", "Matilda", "The Indian in the Cupboard"..., the list seems endless. Many of them were fine films, especially for a kids audience, but I have never felt a need to revisit them after my own kids grew up. It may be true that nostalgia will only carry you so far. There were however films from my own childhood that I can still watch as an adult and treasure despite the fact that they were kids movies. "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", "Swiss Family Robinson", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", Mysterious Island" hold up pretty well. I think that "The Kid Who Would be King" fits better into my list of childhood style films than those of my children.

This is a retelling of the Arthur Legend and it puts the concept of Excalibur and the Lady of the Lake into modern times in Great Britain. A schoolboy named Alex discovers that he is able to draw the sword from the stone and is going to be called upon to save the country from the evil witch Morgana who has been trapped in an underworld since banished there by the original King Arthur. The story does have to come up with a couple of contrivances to allow the threat to exist without the whole world being aware of it, but once that is explained, the idea that a 12 year old and other kids in the middle school will be a new set of knights, is not that outrageous. This is a wish fulfillment type of movie and instead of being a super hero, the kids get to role play the part of chivalrous defenders of the realm.

When I first saw the title and the poster, I thought it looked a little cheesy, even for a kids movie, but it turns out that it really is well done. The writer-director of this movie is Joe Cornish, who contributed to screenplays for "Ant-Man" and "The Adventures of Tintin" as well as his own picture. the excellent "Attack the Block".  In fact, this concept is not too far astray from the premise of this movie, so it is a natural fit for his way of thinking about young people. This is maybe a little more sanitized, but it is a younger audience that it is seeking. The four principles are new to me, but they nicely fit into the stereotypes that the film counts on us seeing as a shortcut to character development.

Merlin does age backwards. In his older version he appears as Patrick Stewart in just a few scenes. Usually, the young Merlin is on hand and he is played by a David Tennant doppelganger who provides guidance and exposition for the younger leads. There is a little inconsistency concerning the rules under which Merlin can operate during the day, but most people won't notice that, instead they will be amused by the comic bits that this gawky teen finds himself in. Alex, the lead, is played by Louis Ashbourne Serkis, who happens to be the son of actor/director Andy Serkis of Marvel/Lord of the Rings fame and actress Loraine Ashbourne, a well known performer from British television. The kid actually looks like a real kid and not just a pretty face to put in the lead spot. Bedders, his chum is played by a newcomer who seems to be channeling the sidekick character from the recent Spider-Man movies, a graft that works pretty well.

There is just enough derring do and scary special effects for the family audience this movie is seeking. Like cream rising to the top, I suspect this will be a winner down the road even if it does get pushed aside this year by other family fare. The opening comic illustrations are excellent, the spirit of the movie and it's ultimate theme are admirable, and the youngsters are game. This is a charming family film that I can recommend to parents to take their children to. I took mine, shes 30 and she enjoyed it too. 

Stan & Ollie

Sometimes it is just nice to sit and watch a film that can entertain you without any explosions, car chases, political satire or smug irony. "Stan & Ollie" is the sort of picture that adults used to be able to see at a movie theater. Most films of this sort get shuttled off to a streaming service where older audiences can enjoy them without having to mix with the youthful riff raff. Fortunately, some film makers are still interested in providing a theatrical experience and some older audiences are still interested in venturing out of the house on a Friday night.

This is basically a biopic about one of the great comedy duos of the Twentieth Century. I do worry a little about the next generation having no context for films however, when the young lady taking my popcorn order asked me what I was going to see and I told her, she asked "What's it about?"  Of course my students probably think the same think when I ask who or what is Post Malone? So the problem does flow both directions, but I don't work at a radio station or record store, she is working in a movie theater. I guess since she is not at the ticket counter, the only product she needs to worry about are the Sour Patch Kids.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there. This movie focuses on a period of time where Laurel and Hardy were past their prime. It opens with a flashback to 1937 when at their height, they are involved with a contract dispute at RKO. Fifteen years later, they have returned to Great Britain to do a theater tour of their bits live on stage. It seems as if this is primarily to set the stage for a film project being put together but it has a whole set of events surrounding it to make it worth investigating. Unlike "The Sunshine Boys", this is not about two old timers who hate each other getting back together out of necessity. The two have had their differences but are still deeply connected to each other and have many warm memories and patterns that they play out. There will be a boiling point over some old issues, but that is not the main focus of the story, it is about how these two men complement one another and value their professional relationship.

If you need another reason to be irritated at the Academy Awards, take note that the excellent script, production design, make-up and performances were all ignored in this years list of nominees. I have nothing against Willem DaFoe, and I have not seen the movie for which he has been nominated, but if he gave a better performance than John C. Reilly or Steve Coogan, then he should be the favorite, and I know he is not. These two actors have embodied the real life characters so well that the physical transformations that come with hair and make-up are almost unnecessary. The genteel mannerisms, the quiet voiced frustrations of real life, seem to be legitimate extensions of the more exaggerated screen presence of the two. The two actors also play out scenes from Laurel and Hardy's repertoire with sincerity and aplomb.  The two leads are matched by actresses playing their wives who are equally excellent, although we have a harder time confirming veracity because we know those characters less. Shirley Henderson, who most of you will recognize as Moaning Myrtle, plays Ollie's wife Lucille. She is as loving and engaged with her husband as a woman can be. Nina Arianda is Stan's wife Ida, a domineering and aggrandizing presence in the life of the comedy duo. 

At the end of the film, you can feel your heart being warmed as everything resolves itself in a manner that reasserts the love that these two have for each other. It also feed our desire to see the two as true friends rather than just business partners forced into a relationship of convenience. The movie does not move mountains or dazzle us with technique. Rather, the film allows the actors to communicate as their characters, and we get to feel like we are there. After seeing the film, you will almost certainly want to bath in the waters of the nearly 200 hundred features and shorts that the two did together. That is reason enough to love the film. 

They Shall Not Grow Old

A hundred years from now, people will not have to guess what we were like, or how we lived or what thoughts we might have. Our technology and culture is resulting in the most documented, photographed/filmed generation in human history. For good or ill, our lives will be available in a format that ten decades from now will be understood and easily accessible. Go backwards a hundred years and the exact opposite is true. We have grainy pictures, incomplete sound and you have to go to an historical archive to even see that world, at least until now. Peter Jackson, of "Lord of the Rings" fame, has scoured through the 100 hours of film footage that the Imperial War Museum has, and put it together to make a fascinating look at the experience of soldiers on the Western Front of "The Great War".

His collaborators have meticulously re-timed the footage to create a smooth flow of film that was usually hand-cranked at different speeds. Computers have been employed to correct lighting, remove scratches and debris and generally make an experience feel as if it was recorded with contemporary technology. Voice actors from appropriate parts of the British Isles give voice to words silently spoken in the film clips from the war, by using lip reading technology and extensive notes of official publications. Sound effects are recreated using traditional Foley techniques and authentic equipment from the era. It is as if a film crew from 2018 was able to step back into 1918 and get a brief glimpse into the world of those serving in the trenches.

That world is both inspiring and horrifying. The actual voices of WW I vets, from oral history recordings done when they were in their seventies, are played over scenes and create a narrative that is pretty basic but just right for the footage we are seeing. Boys who were 15 and 16, lied about their ages to volunteer. Everyone was enthusiastic in supporting the war effort of their nation. During the film, they are not shy about describing some terrible conditions and nightmare inducing experiences. All war is hell, but this particular version of hell involved circumstances that were brutal. The insects, the vermin and the stench practically crawls off the screen to make us all glad that we did not have to do this ourselves. It also should make us stand in awe of the men who did.

Jackson has not attempted to cover all the fronts in the war. So navel conflict, the air war, the home front and the role of women, doctors, and politicians is excluded. This is about the front line. The men who slept in trenches , while standing up or crawling into a mudhole between duty assignments are the focus of this documentary. The story is told somewhat chronologically, staring with recruitment and training efforts and ending with unemployment at the wars conclusion. This was a Fathom Event, so it was a one day set of screenings. If you find this wonderful piece of history somewhere, be sure to watch, it will devastate you and inspire you simultaneously.

My Family Contribution to the Great War

Glass

I'm afraid I feel compelled to start my comments here with a bad joke. My opinion on this film is not as clear as a pane of...oh, you know.  There was a lot that I liked about the concept, set up and visualizations here, but there are plot holes, trails not followed and an ending that is frustratingly opaque. "Glass" should be better than it is, but in many ways I don't think it can. M. Night Shyamalan has created a set up for his super hero epic, but stops short of committing to the characters he created to continue his mythologizing of comic books. I suspect a lot of people will be pissed off at this.

I was a fan of "Unbreakable" when it arrived 19 years ago. The notion that a sequel might be coming was appealing but not essential to me. I pretty much got the point of that story and it felt complete. After pitting out with some films that are reviled by film fans, Shyamalan seemed to redeem himself with an effective thriller with "Split" two years ago. In a surprise, as the film was wrapping, it is revealed that this story was taking place in the same world as "Unbreakable" and it set up this sequel with just a little bit of effort. The problem he now faced is making that set up pay off.

To begin with, the return of Bruce Willis in a film by Shyamalan is promising. A couple of hours before going to see this, I watched the "Death Wish" remake from last year. Willis seemed to be sleepwalking through that part, but here he feels more invested and his grizzled beard and careworn face match the super hero character in the shadows that he is representing.  The opening section of this film re-establishes his David Dunn as "The Overseer" a mysterious vigilante who punishes lawbreakers and tries to protect those in jeopardy. David works in conjunction with his son, who has become the guy in the headset to his father's avenger. I think a stand alone story of David's life as this character would have worked pretty well a decade ago. It would also give us a chance to see how important the discovery of a real superhero would be to a community. Alas, we only get the most effective scenes in this movie, the stalking of the neighborhood in search of "the Horde", and the rescue of four potential victims of "the Beast". Having the grown actor who played David's son Joe in "Unbreakable" return to be his partner works well and gives a sense of continuity to a story with a nineteen year gap.

James McAvoy repeats his impressive trick of channeling multiple personalities through the one body that we know exists. There is a little bit more of a carnival trick to the performance in this film with the rapidity with which he must change characters. It's almost like a voice over actor, doing all of the characters they voice, in a conversation. It is amazing, but it does feel a bit like a trained seal act. One of the drawbacks of the script is that we never really get to understand this character because it changes so often, Just as we start to get a sense of motivation, the personality switches and it becomes cloudy as to why things are happening. "the Beast" becomes a coherent character at one point, rather than just the monster that all the others were in fear of. If this is the dominant personality and it took complete control, maybe our interest level would be a bit higher.

This is a very talky picture. While in the first section of the movie, there are a couple of action scenes, the second act is all slow burn set up with Samuel Jackson's Mr. Glass playing a somnambulist villain, lying in wait to spring his plan. Shyamalan is honest enough to leave a trail of bread crumbs so that the twists of the escape and subsequent confrontation are justified, but there in lies the problem.  Having been so meticulous with laying that groundwork, he turns right around and violates that trust with another pivotal character. The fourth lead in this story turns out to be a critical element of the climax of the film, but that is not set up at all. What appears on the surface to be a passive agenda of discovery turns out to be the main plot of the film and it just doesn't work well.

As I dance around spoilers and sharing reveals, it is a little difficult to ignore some plot holes that might foreshadow the twist. The psychiatric institution that the characters all occupy, is the least populated facility you can imagine. The security for supposedly dangerous individuals is nearly non-existent. Maybe that will all be explained away by the films's advocates as a deliberate act in the twist, but it just looks like it is slapdash storytelling to me. For a guy who has spent 19 years in prison heavily sedated, Mr. Glass has programming skills that are just a little too neat. Finally, be careful here, this may be TMI: the idea that an on-line video will spark a shift in paradigms, rather than ten thousand deconstructions is simply not realistic.

Unlike in his previous work, where the twist endings have been earned [whether you liked them or not], the ending here feels like a cheat. It also includes a downer moment that will deflate fans of super hero movies and stories. I can't say that the idea that the three films in this series are all an origin story doesn't make sense. From a comic book perspective it probably does. I just doubt that there will be any subsequent use of that idea, because the audience is not likely to make an investment in something that is shoveled on them in the last ten minutes of a six plus hour journey they have taken. I suppose though that this is where the ultimate controversy will rest. My enthusiasm however  is mostly exhausted.  

"It's Strictly Personal": A Book Review

I started my movie version of the blog in 2010. I was interested in films from my years growing up as a teenager during the 1970s.  The project was originally intended to run the length of that summer and then I would be done with it, but movies have a way of steering your life in directions that you can't always anticipate. I was over fifty years old when I started working on the project, and I was not particularly adept at using the social media that was available. As I became more familiar with what I was doing, I discovered of course that I was not the only person who had opinions about movies, and that included films from my preferred time line. I started searching for other bloggers who, like me, were not only interested in reviewing a movie but also cared about the context of the times and the personal history that they had with the movies they loved. I had searched a few movie blogs for sites similar to mine, but I struggled to locate the right mixture. Everybody had opinions about movies, and many had opinions about old movies, but where were the ones who wanted to share more than just their opinions but a little something about themselves?

Two sites came to my attention in 2011. One was recommended to me by a blogger who for a time posted on a daily basis and seemed to have a very committed community following him. He sent me to "It Rains...You Get Wet"  written by a guy here in Southern California who was once a theater projectionist. We have connected many times since then in the real rather than the virtual world, and he has become a friend that I look forward to meeting at screenings here in the Southland on a regular basis.

The second site I discovered on my own, simply by scrolling through movie sites listed on the Blogger Platform. Unlike my colleague from So.Cal. , this guy was ten years younger than me, and he lived on the other side of the country. He was reviewing films in his own library, going through them alphabetically. That seemed like a fun approach so I started reading some of his reviews and lo and behold, they were not simply reviews but often microcosms of his life and movie going experiences. This was very close to what I did originally and still attempt to do from time to time. I have been a loyal reader of "My Movies, My Words" since early 2011. The author of this site is Eric Friedman, and he has taken his concept one step further and produced a book, based on the same principle but organized with a very specific theme in mind. My copy arrived two days ago, even though I ordered it the minute it was available last week. I feel a little proprietary toward the book, having interacted with Eric for so many years and sharing stories about movies we loved and experience we had in common.  I was a little jealous of others who were able to read it before me, but now that I have caught up with them, I can safely say that I have joined the club of satisfied customers.

Eric is usually my favorite read each week when he posts another one of his reviews. He is opinionated, intelligent and passionate about what he likes in a film. I have not always agreed with him on his perspectives on some movies, but he always makes a reasonable argument for what he believes. He also shares some information about his history with a film, and that is what his new book, "It's Strictly Personal" does in depth. It is an autobiography of a man you have not met and almost certainly never heard of before, but it is a story that all film fanatics share. Starting as an eight year old and moving up to the point at which he turns 16, Eric tells the story of how movies reflect his life history. This is something that all of us movie bloggers could do if we took the time to work it out. We all have that first film going experience in our memories. We can recall the scenes that frightened us as children or made us laugh out loud. My guess is most of you can remember a movie that you did not understand as a child, which later became a beloved touchstone of your life. That is the story Eric is telling here.

The book is written as if we are having a long conversation with an old friend, and he is filling us in on his life and the movies we share in common. He is honest in his description of a somewhat dysfunctional family life growing up, but he is not maudlin about how things turn out, they simply reflect the personal history that recalls as the movies play out like the soundtrack to his life.  He is well spoken of many of the critical elements of film making, but like me, and I suspect most of you, he is a well informed hobbyist rather than a scholar. The other thing he is, is a good writer. He has a direct way of expressing his views but he also includes the details that make each story interesting. Although he has done some historical research to make sure his dates are accurate, he relies on his vivid memories to tell these stories.

A a Generation X kid, his encounters with films often include the frustrating but essential background of having to see a film for the first time on television. His parents were not like the permissive generation that would allow a child of eight to see "Jaws" [that of course would be a fault my generation would be guilty of. mea culpa] It's fun to live through his frustration of wanting to be part of the cultural zeitgeist when your parents don't approve of horror movies and you lived through the age of "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th".

Also, Eric having grown up in the NYC area, we get a bit of history concerning movie theaters of the suburbs and those in the city itself. HBO is an heroic figure in Eric's life and the stories related to sleepovers with a friend and watching in a more permissive household, will certainly seem familiar to others of that generation. Reading about how a kid changes from a naive child to a more engaged adolescent may seem like a strange journey to you, until you realize we have all made the same journey. The delight of this book is that the author has put words to paper so we can take that journey together again. You may not have the same inventory of films in your memory bank that Eric shares, but those of us who do love movies, have similar stories that his experiences will help us to evoke.

Social Media may sometimes be a pox on the world. Twitter is filled with trolls who want to shame, virtue signal or generally act like the smart ass kid in the back row. Blogs allow the most wretched of people and ideas to be available to anyone unfortunate enough to trip over them. Despite those drawbacks, social media also allows us to connect with others who we would never have met otherwise. I have several virtual friends that I know because of our shared love of movies. I am happy to say that Eric Friedman is one of them. After having read his book, I feel like we are closer friends than I am with some of my childhood buddies, simply because we speak the same language, ...AND THERE WERE MOVIES!

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse

I had originally dismissed this as a piece of television animation that was getting a theatrical release to boost interest in DVD sales and streaming. Well that turned out to be wrong. After hearing a number of my colleagues on "The Lamb" rave about it, and seeing a half dozen really positive reviews (which I scanned rather than reading), I became a lot more motivated. I can now see why there is a lot of enthusiasm, and while I am not inclined to say it was the best film of the year as some of the hyperbole had it, I can say it was excellent.

The story does take a while to set up and you have to be patient with it. Not only do most of us know the origin story, but when the various dimensions start crossing paths, we get it partially recapped, although with slight variations each time. The main focus in this telling is on Miles Morales, a kid from Brooklyn who is starting at a charter school where he stays in a dorm during the school week. This story is immediately different because Miles has a loving Mother and Father present in his life. He is not alienated from them but he does have some of the usual adolescent angst that comes from trying to be your own person but also needing your family. Miles is gifted but more in the arts than the sciences, and his radiated spider bite is not a result of his involvement with a science project but rather, a graffiti experience he undertakes with his uncle in the subways of N.Y..

The look of the film is interesting because it contains a variety of painting styles, animation techniques and comic book themes. There are multiple panels being used at once and the progression thru the story is sometimes abbreviated by that style. This really is a hip hop version of a Spider-man story, complete with street art and music to lead us through our hero's tale. The backgrounds are textured with the kind of pixelation that you would see in an old school comic book or maybe video game. In the traditional Spider-man films, whether from Sony or from Marvel/Disney, the character does look like a cartoon in a real world setting at times. This movie makes all the world look like a drawing so you stop noticing how different the animation is in the action scenes. I had a slight problem because the image sometimes looked blurry to me, as if it was created for 3-D and I was not wearing my special glasses. I assume this was an intentional choice rather than an exhibitor error. It was the main fault I had with the way the movie looked.

The story is self aware, making slight insider references to the other films in the Spider-man universe. There is also a version of the character that looks like a Warner Brothers cartoon, and a Porky Pig reference is made. Multiple villain appear and they seem to be altered to some degree by the intersection of the dimensions as well. Dr. Octopus for instance will probably surprise you a bit. The Kingpin is the main antagonist and we are given just enough information to understand his motivations for the actions he takes and his desire for what he sees as revenge. Some new villains (or at least I assume they are new, I'm not a reader of the comics) also appear in the story, and there is a twist that comes but it is signposted well before it arrives so it is easier to swallow.

We end up with six different versions of Spider-man, aiding one another in trying to stop the scheme while also dealing with the possibility that they will glitch our of existence.  My favorite was Noir Spider-man, who looks like Darkman but even better, is voiced by Nicholas Cage. The mash up of styles for the different heroes is not as jarring as you might expect and in the end it all works pretty well. Some storlines could be a bit more complete but as a comic book film, "Into the Spider-verse" achieves its purpose. I was entertained and enjoyed expolring different variations on the same theme. Plus there is a really fun shot taken at Sam Rami's "Spider-man 3". That should give the comic book geeks something to look forward to as well. If you stick to the end of the credits, you will also get a nice nostalgia moment for old timers like me. 

2018 Film Year in the Rear View Mirror

The YouTube Friendly version of the Top 10

55 New Films this year, here is a video inventory for you.





20 Posts Covering Older Films, Special Events and Assorted others.

5 Movies I Want Everyone to See

I have been restoring posts that were originally published on Fogs Movie Reviews back in 2013. Fogs closed his site so the material I wrote has to be re-listed. I've been doing it piecemeal, so here are the links for the five entries I updated this year.

Podcasting

I was a very active member of the LAMB community this last year. [Large Association of Movie Blogs for you neophytes], and I started off the last year with the Movie Of The Month Podcast I championed, Ishtar. You can listen here:

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/lambcast/episodes/2018-01-11T14_54_50-08_00

After being on at least seven other of the LAMBCast episodes, Jay, the Shepard of the LAMB, decided that he might as well just automatically fill a weekly spot and give himself the chance to take an occasional episode off, by naming me as Official Co-Host of the LAMBCast. Since assuming my position in June, I have co-hosted 20 episodes with Jay, and flown solo on another half dozen. 

In addition, My daughter Amanda, joined the LAMB this year and was a participant on three of those podcasts, including hosting the December MOTM, a Christmas themed show on the film "Meet Me In St. Louis" which she championed to victory. You can listen here:

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/lambcast/episodes/2018-12-04T16_14_11-08_00

Three of the shows we did in the last year were Draft Shows, where the participants draft a slate of films in a genre or category and then the community votes for what they think was the best slate. Frankly, having lost on Lambardy a year earlier, I was determined to do as well as I could on these competitions. Thanks to friends, readers and enlightened members of the LAMB community, I went three for three. I won the Spielberg Draft,

The Modern Animation Draft 

and the 1960s Draft. 

Jay would like to attribute my victories to superior campaigning, and that might be the case, but if you look at the lists, I think you will see that the results are due to superior selections. 

I also had a wonderful time talking with Todd, the host of the Forgotten Filmcast, about a Strother Martin film "The Brotherhood of Satan"

Click to find a link to the podcast

2018 Big Screen Re-visits

Between Fathom, The TCM Film Festival and The American Cinematique, here are the films I revisited on the big screen from years past.

Favorite Movie Related Posts

This is post in praise of Physical Media.


This was a special Screening of a film starring a Radio God and Podcaster, Mark Thompson of the Mark and Brian Show.


A Live Musical Performance of Jaws, with the Family



A Pop up Laserdisc Sale, and boy did we make out.


The L.A. Philharmonic does Kubrick

Not So Great

A few films that are guaranteed to be disappointing. Sometimes my review was more positive than my real feelings for the films.

10 Great Moments in 2018 Films

The Traditional Top 10 for 2018

So I enjoyed a lot of films this year but I would not say I was knocked out by many. In some years I could pick out a dozen films that will be on my long term watch list. This year, there were maybe five or six. Certainly there were plenty I enjoyed but I would not classify them as classics.

This is the traditional top ten list for 2018. As usual, I am not making a completely aesthetic judgement, my list is always most strongly influenced by my subjective reaction to a film. These are the movies that moved me, or stood out in my memory.  

The Favourite

I am new to the films of director Yorgos Lanthimos, who has been highly praised for a number of his earlier films. I don't know how representative of his style this movie is, but I can say there are certain things in this movie that seems to be unique to the movie and were clearly director's choices. Most of those flourishes are at the base of my reservations about the film, so I may be hesitant to sample his other work. Between the praise and Award talk about this movie, and the highly entertaining trailer, I was expecting something a little more light and maybe traditional. There is a core to this story that I think would make a fine film in another director's hands, but in Lanthimos grip, the movie becomes a bit "arty" and pretentious.

Deserving of high praise, regardless of what I thought of the rest of the movie are the three lead actresses. Rachel Weisz, Emma Stone, but especially Olivia Colman, deliver effective performances. Stone manages to run the table from naive, open innocent to secretive and manipulative with just a little bit of alteration in her demeanor. Weisz is coiled danger and iron will from the start of the movie and even as she becomes more sympathetic, her persona does not change. Colman as Queen Anne, gets the widest range of emotions to depict from the screenplay and she manages to make us sympathize with a needy, neurotic and selfish woman who is clearly beset by emotional damage from earlier in her life. At times she is charming but can instantly turn cruel and dogmatic. Her emulation of physical pain but also physical pleasure is marvelous. Even when she is costumed and standing or being wheeled around, most of the acting work is in her facial expressions. That is an incredible accomplishment when you see how the movie is shot from low angles and wide images.

So I mentioned that I have a couple of issues with the director choices. Let me begin with one of the most obvious ones, the fish eye camera work. In many of the scenes set in the Queens bedroom or study, the initial view is a distorted image that inflates the center, reduces the edges and keeps most of the image from being focused. This is an unnecessary choice that draws attention to the film directing rather than the story. It is an indulgence that took me out of the events occurring every time it came up. A second issue with the film and the director is the use of Chapter cards to organize the story into discrete parts. Some of this may be in the script, so Lanthimos may not be entirely responsible, but they basically serve no purpose. If, like in "Pulp Fiction" the chapter stops helped organize the time sequence of the story, or if the captions emphasized a theme for a sequence, then they may have been a use for them. Sadly, this was not the case. Words and sentences from each sequence are randomly chose for the transition slides and they mean NOTHING! They neither highlight or make comment on the events we are seeing, they are simply plugged into a random spot to break up a narrative. Something that is certainly a directors choice is the use of fonts and spacing on those transition slides. Once again, it is a choice that draws attention to the director rather than the scene. Like a cinematic e.e. cummings, Lanthimos screws around with the visual image of the lettering, to make it distinctive, but also harder to read. cummings may have had a reason for his predilection, but I cannot fathom what the director was trying to accomplish here.

The movie is also filled with crass sexual references and visualizations. Certainly the script by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara takes the inferences from the notes of the Real Lady Sarah to heart. The story includes completely superfluous moments of Abigail manually satisfying her husband on their wedding night and Lord Harly delivering salty descriptions of women and participating in a homoerotic game of dodge-ball featuring a nude man and fruit. Given the instability of the Queen and the sexual references, I was thinking that this film felt a lot like "The Madness of King George" with porn.

Dramatically, there is a solid story to be told about how favoritism is sought, manipulated and influential in the royal court. It may be that the court had sexual intrigue and back stabbing, but all of that is presented as the surface level of interaction here, rather than a secret and subliminal process. When the words come right out of the Queen's mouth "I like the way she puts her tongue in me", you know that this is not a subtle form of palace intrigue. The views of men about women in the time might be backwards and reprehensible, but the film makers reinforce those ideas with the way women are depicted here. Instead of a story about female authority and power in an era dominated by male chauvinism,  "The Favourite" focuses on the very things that men might believe about women, their pettiness and emotional cruelty to one another. Those are the things that seem to be at the base of political instability, at least according to this movie. The Pyrrhic victory of one woman is a lesson in the futility of women being in charge. It is emotionally successful as a epitaph, but it is an impolitic message to convey to a contemporary audience.
  

Bumblebee

I enjoyed the first of the "Transformers" movies, it was loud and full of explosions and destruction, but all that got a little tiresome as the sequels came. Since I was not a child in the 1980s, I barely knew what the Transformers were and probably missed the relationship that younger audiences had with the original cartoons. Still, it is a series based on a toy line, and that seems like the biggest product placement you can have. I assume it has been working, at least up to the last film which was apparently a bust and abysmal.

"Bumblebee" may not draw in the big bucks that the first three films managed, but it will go a long way to restoring some sense of purpose to the concept. This film still has big effects and robots bashing each other, but not nearly as much and the purpose is not to gawk at all the Metropolitan destruction on screen. The battles here are smaller, easier to follow for a number of reasons, and they are mostly connected to the story.

Hailee Steinfeld plays Charlie, an alienated teen (is there any other kind in the movies?), who discovers that the VW Beetle she owns, is not really a Bug, but rather an Apoidea. We see how the robot from another world got here and we know it's mission, but because of combat, it's memory has largely been lost and Charlie and Bumblebee have to figure out was is going on as the story unfolds. The thing that this film seems to get right is the relationship that Charlie and Bee develop together. It takes it's time evolving and there are bumps along the way, but by the end of the film, you can almost believe the tears that will be shed by these characters.

As usual, there is a subplot involving a secret organization of the military, tracking the presence of the robots on Earth. This film is set in 1987, so in essence it is a prequel/reboot of the original films, and thus humans can be deceived by Decepticons, even though we know that is what they call themselves. The smaller scale of the story allows for more coherent visualization of the battles. They are all almost one on one without having to shift angles and focus to close ups every 5 seconds. It made for a more relaxing but still exciting film. Jon Cena has the thankless role of the xenophobic military officer who needs to be enlightened. He is perfectly fine but he does seem like a stand in for Josh Duhamel or Mark Wahlberg.

To say that this is the best "Transformers" movie might be a little bold, but it is clearly more engaging than any of the sequels have been so it has that going for it. The 80s vibe is heavy so all the kids who really did love the cartoons should be happy and there is a good chance that a whole bunch of new wave acts will see a spike in their Spotify numbers in the next month or so. It is entertaining but not essential, go at your own level of desire to see this character, because that's it's real selling point. 

Anna and the Apocalypse

We have a new entry into the Best Christmas film ever category. Oh all right, maybe not, but when there is a competition for the most fun to be had in a Christmas movie, "Anna and the Apocalypse" will be there on the top shelf. This is a silly little mash up of "High School Musical" with "Shaun of the Dead" and the result is a delightful ninety seven minutes that will make you tap your toes and laugh out loud. The songs are sappy and although they don't consistently blend with the theme, they each have a winning charm to them that makes them worth listening to.

Just before the Christmas break at school, somewhere in Scotland, Anna and her father, the school custodian, have a set to over her plans at the end of her senior year. Anna and her best friend John, who is trapped in the friend zone, navigate the school's social castes and administrative politics as everyone is preparing for the big holiday extravaganza. Steph, the lonely American lesbian has been abandoned by her parents for a Mexican Holiday and her ex is not interested in spending time with her. Chris the nascent film director is deeply in love with singing star of the Christmas pageant Lisa, and she so desperately loves him back that they will inevitably break out into song about it. Also on hand for the proceedings is Anna's ex, Nick, the alpha bully of the cafeteria and about as deep as you expect. Throw in the self important, soon to be promoted headmaster at the school and your major cast is complete. All of these characters will get a spotlight moment or two in both song and plot development.

The Zombie horror is minimal and the Zombie humor is concentrated. There are three or four great visual jokes that land and a few that evoke nothing more than a chuckle. What makes this movie a success is the use of the musical aesthetic to keep us engaged. The songs and lyrics help lighten the mood, or entertain us for a couple of minutes, but they don't plow the story ahead.  They are often stand alone moments that draw attention to the musical device, but they are so well staged and performed that you don't really mind.  My favorite actually has the least to do with the Zombie Apocalypse and is mostly centered around a school pageant with lyrics that would make any adult a little uncomfortable when it is being sung by a teenager. Marli Siu provides the vocals and plays Lisa. Here is a sample for you.



I'd be perfectly happy if this was in the field with "Shallow" for the Academy Award.

This movie is a trifle filled with sweet treats for those with an off center sense of humor. If you think that the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" is a bad movie that has only the cult following to credit any worth to, then this film is not really for you. If you are a fan of Brian DePalma's underrated gem "The Phantom of the Paradise", you will most certainly appreciate the tunes and staging that make this story sing. And , if like me, you think "Gremlins"and "Krampus" are a nice antidote to over indulging in sentiment (which by the way I am all in favor of), then "Anna and the Apocalypse" is something you should seek out.

I'd hope that this would be a breakout success and become a perennial favorite at Christmas. Maybe TNT could run it 24 hours straight the day before Christmas. Unfortunately, the reality is there is no such thing as a Hollywood Ending. Which by the way, the movie already proves.

The Mule

The man is 88 years old and still working hard to make good films. I skipped the first of his 2018 movies, the poorly reviewed "15:17 to Paris". I was initially interested in seeing it, but the reviews were so bad that even the idea of the actual heroes playing themselves was not enough to induce me. This film does not any gimmick to it, it simply has the one essential plus that could over power any doubts; Clint is acting in the movie. In addition to directing, which has been his main focus for the last decade, he has come out of semi-retirement as on on-screen presence to deliver a performance to potentially cap off his amazing career.

It's unlikely that he will receive Awards attention, he will be stereotyped as playing a character that he is, an old man. That character can also be seen as not to distinct from Walt in "Grand Torino", a man who today's generation would see as a racist because of the generation he grew up in. He is also likely to be ignored because he has crossed some lines that politically are Hollywood landmines. Regardless of whether he gets some professional accolades, I'm willing to give him some personal ones. For most of his career, he has played steel willed characters with a streak of sardonic humor. He keeps the humor for this part but adds some personal weaknesses and doubts. A lot like his character in "Million Dollar Baby", Earl, the ninety year old drug mule in this film, struggles to connect with family and sees the most selfish impulses as the easiest ones to choose. His stubbornness is the real reason the title describes him. Earl has always done things his own way, and the fact that it might inconvenience his cartel employers is one lesson he has trouble learning.

The fun and personable aspects of Earl's character are shown in the early scenes of his horticulturalist success, and later in the film as he parties with the drug lords. Clint manages to make a flinty old man a subject of amusement and charm. At the same time, we see that he recognizes some of his faults. There is an opening scene where he should be reminded of his own daughter's wedding, and he brushes it off without a second thought. Towards the end of the film, we get to see that he can't do that anymore. He sincerely wants to be there for his mostly ignored family. The facial expressions on his phone call with his granddaughter are contained looks that are appropriate for the character and the film. When Clint plays against Diane Wiest as his former wife, you can see the frustration she feels, but the aura of sadness and realization and defensiveness that Earl feels is palatable.  There is a slightly manufactured scene where Earl comes across his counterpart, a younger version of himself, someone who is driven to succeed but may be doing so at the expense of his family. As he offers advice, the voice contains the weariness that should tell the younger man that this is a man with the kind of experience to learn from.

Although this is a family drama, the crime elements are barely in second place. We care about this head strong, recklessly casual nonagenarian. He jokes with the guys he is taking the drugs from, and we laugh as he struggles to figure out texting, or makes ethnically insensitive jokes with the wrong guys. You will almost certainly smile when Dean Martin is crooning and the gang is all a part of it, but when the timetable is upset or the actions of a uptight handler threaten Earl, you will feel tension and that is exactly the kind of thing that a director like Eastwood knows. He plays a old man, in over his depth, who is trying to get by on the same charm that works with his VA buddies and his friends, but we know that that is not the audience he is playing to, and disaster is on the horizon.

The cast is thick with talent, Bradley Cooper, Michael Pena, Lawrence Fishburne and Andy Garcia are all in small but valuable roles. Diane Wiest has only a few scenes but she shows again that she is one of the most talented character actors working. She is twenty years younger than Clint but you will not sense that difference in their performances. The cast that plays the drug cartel drones is chosen for their looks but they also are capable. Eastwood has picked an interesting story, put together an involving drama, and turned in a effective performance and he has done it as he himself is approaching Earl's age. We should all be so talented and full of ambition. 

Aquaman

Frankly, this movie is ridiculous. The premise of the Aquaman is one of the loopiest comic book concepts that was ever created. There is something fishy about the whole idea. (Yeah, prepare yourself for a lot of bad puns her). Despite the silliness of the whole thing, it turns out to be pretty entertaining. If ever there were bad movies that won me over by sheer will power, than "Aquaman" can be added to the list. This is a mash up of concepts that should not work together but somehow manage to overcome the complete incompatibility of those ideas to make something that is hypnotically watchable, regardless of how inconsistent it is.

First of all, this movie is cheesy.  In addition to the bad puns, you are going to get a whole lot of metaphor in this review.  Like the soft, cheddar flavored goop that covers your nachos, this movie drips warm flavor over the saltiness of the sea. It is a fairy tale to begin with. The title character actually narrates the opening and closing of the story and it involves a peasant and a royal, finding love and trying to overcome the obstacles they face. There is a return to the glowing sunrise that gives the film a "magic hour" look, which reflects like the crusty topping off of your baked Mac and Cheese recipe. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out who the actress was that plays Aquaman's mother. I thought to myself, where did they find this Nicole Kidman look alike? Then it turns out it was Nicole Kidman, I had no idea she was in this movie. Her scaly costume must have thrown me off. Also, I did not know she was so Gouda at martial arts. Some of the action takes place in Atlantis, which looks a lot like the castle in "The Little Mermaid", but also the more CGI heavy scenes in "The Lord of the Rings" films. Oh, and just to emphasize the fairy tale connection a little more, the romantic interest in the film is given the same red hair as Ariel.

The second genre that is sprinkled on top of this souffle, is a Sci Fi quest story. A little bit like "the Hero's Journey" in most of these films, there are a series of steps the hero must follow to reveal his true nature. The grated Parmesan covering this concerns an attempt to unravel some clues which will reveal the sacred Macguffin at the end. If you thought the National Treasure movies were laying on the Provolone a little thick, than get ready for a panini  of ginormous proportions. For a movie set in the ocean, the characters end up on land, in the air and the middle of the desert for some very odd reasons. When the bottle has a secret code engraved on the bottom, which will only make sense in the hands of a statue that the characters find in a provincial Sicilian village, you know that fish oil is ripening and the cheese mold is finally curdling sufficiently to make you stop worrying about any consistency in tone.

A third genre that gets heaped onto this, like a slice of blue cheese that you don't really need but over powers all the other flavors, is a war film with a Kaiju thrown in. There are elaborate effects creating different under water kingdoms which will battle one another at the climax of the film. Some of the characters look like elves from the Lord of the Rings in elaborate capes flowing in the ocean currents. Other creatures are orc like fiddler crabs with one enlarged claw and an exoskeleton covered in barnacles. They are approaching each other like Calvary battalions on seahorses and sharks. This is the most comic book type image you can fathom. On the page, these panels would stand out as illustrations of over stuffed imagination, but in the movie, which is already filled with a bunch of preposterous images, they simple seem to be the natural conclusion to someones gumbo recipe.

Aquaman is a comic book character, but from the D.C. Universe not Marvel. That does not stop the creators of this movie from flavoring the pot with some melted mozzarella on top of the French Onion. There is a revenge story with a pirate who steals technology for the Loki-like Prince who is Aquaman's half brother. This character gets suited up like Iron Man or Ant-Man, and has crazy powers that he uses to try to kill our heroes. I think you will laugh out loud at the endomorphic head that the "Black Mantis" wears during the combat in the middle of the story. The top heavy look is another choice that makes this film a continuing bag full of Doritos.

The base that holds all of this mixed metaphor together is Jason Momoa. Having been introduced in earlier D.C. stories, he gets to be the lead here and he has the charisma to carry it off. Somewhere I read that this movie is basically "Wet Thor", and that comparison is apt, especially to the first of the Thor Marvel movies. Both characters are masculine parodies, full of self confidence and blundering humor. They are battling against siblings who are plotting to take over a kingdom and launch a war. At one point they are outcast and seemingly disgraced. Thor has to regain the power to wield his hammer and Aquaman, cleverly named "Arthur" in a brie moment, has to pull the sword from the stone, no wait, I'm sorry, he has to recover the trident from the ossified king. Whether we are dealing with Arthurian legend or Norse mythology, it doesn't really matter.  It is all nonsense but it is like a curated plate of cheese with enough crackers and wine, you will not notice how much it all seems to clash.