This will be a series of posts leading up to the release of the newest James Bond film: SPECTRE.
Since I have posted mini reviews on all the films in another series that will be linked throughout this project, I thought I would do something a little bit different. I am going to post my 007 favorite things from each film in the series and provide an explanation, a picture or a link for all of them. With some films on the list, it will be gut-wrenching to have to limit my list to seven items. Other films in the series might produce a struggle for me to find seven things that I like. This mostly provides an opportunity for me to watch all of the films again (some for maybe the thirtieth time) and get jacked up for the new movie. I hope any of you reading will feel free to share your own lists or to disagree with the choices I made. Now, lets have some Double Oh fun.
001
In a long line of films that climax with an explosion that wipes out the secret lair of the villain, the destruction by nuclear reactor overload, is the first. Crab Key goes BOOM!
002
The recurring international terrorist organization, which minimized the need for the Soviets to be the bad guys in every movie, is introduced in this movie. In the books, SPECTRE was not introduced until "Thunderball", but Dr. No introduces himself as a member of that evil institution, "I'm a Member of SECTRE...Special Executive for Counter Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge,
Extortion. The four great cornerstones of power headed by the greatest
brains in the world". The portrait of Wellington Bond sees at dinner with Dr. No. was stolen in a famous case the year before the movie came out. This is a reference to the extensive criminal activities of the organization.
003
When being given his mission by M, he is chastised for his use of a Beretta and the now famous Walther PPK is introduced. Bonds boss has a great quote that will guide him for years to come:
"The OO is a license to kill not be killed."
004
Production design is a huge part of James Bond films. In the first sequence where that becomes extremely evident, the devious Dr. Dent picks up a package to help him eliminate Bond. The interview room where the disembodied voice of Dr. No chastises him and then delivers the deadly spider, is a work of visual genius that will lead Ken Adams to work with Stanley Kubrick and make six more 007 films as well.
005
The start of a half century tradition takes place in the beginning of the film. Bond introduces himself to Sylvia Trench, his gaming opponent.
006
For almost all Bond fans, the defining moment of the first James Bond adventure is the appearance of Honey Ryder in the film. Ursula Andress , steps out of the ocean in a white bikini, and every man now wants to be James Bond for the next fifty years.
Oh, so this is what being a super spy is all about, Sign me up please.
007
Warning!!! Spoiler ahead
My favorite moment from Dr. No occurs when after setting a trap for Professor Dent, Bond dispatches him with the most brutal moment by 007 in any of the movies. It finishes with a great quote.
Ridley Scott is one of the most ambitious film makers of our time, he is closing in on eighty years old, but like Clint Eastwood, he continues to prove that he still has it. This is a smart, big screen entertainment with a good mix of drama and humor and a well realized visual environment in which to play. As a consequence, this film should be a smash, coming as it does at the end of a long stretch of mediocrity in the cinema year.
A combination of "Cast Away", "Apollo Thirteen" and "Macgyver", "the Martian" tells the story of an astronaut abandoned accidentally on the surface of Mars, and the effort that he and others make to try to bring him home. It is heroic in the sense that an individual facing incredible odds, continues to strive to live, but it is equally heroic to think of the sacrifices and efforts made by a litany of others who would bend heaven and Earth to help him. The complexities of a journey to Mars are outlined in the continuing series of crises that Matt Damon's character has to face. Basic survival requires ingenuity that would challenge the wisest of us, but driven by hope and an indefatigable will to live, a smart guy manages to find ways. From a storytelling perspective it works really well. As a slice of imagined reality, it squeezes by on some convenient fictionalized story points. If "Gravity" got criticized for playing fast and loose with some aspects of physics, then this movie should end up in a jailcell right next door. The truth is that story is more important than physics when it comes to cinema, and the theme of hope trumps all.
Most of the plot that takes place on Earth and on Mars, feels real. There are political considerations and bureaucratic power issues at home that spice up the dilemma on Mars. A solid cast of actors makes the NASA organization recognizable to anyone who has worked in a large environment. Government regulations on transparency complicate the problem solving on Earth, but allow a decision to exclude the crew of the expedition vessel from some of the early events in the film. Fortunately, Matt Damon, looking like Leo in the upcoming film "The Revenant" manages to inject enough humor and personality into the story to keep us interested. The talking and planning and arguing that takes place at home plays second fiddle to the adventure on the red planet. I will say however, that it was an amusing touch to have "The Lord of the Rings" referenced while "Boromir" was sitting right at the table.
The one place where the movie does not quite fill it's potential is in the main ship and crew that left their colleague behind. They are cut out of the story for a big chunk of time and then when they are brought back into it, the answers to problems that were at least a struggle for Damon's character, get resolved a little too quickly with some of the same scientific hocus pocus that would fix a problem in "Star Trek". By the end of the film, we can live with that as well because the movie really is a little long. The visuals on the ship are fun to look at but never seem as real at those on the surface of the planet. The jokes about the music selection available suggests that in the future, we have less technology available for an app than an ipod from 2004 had. These are minor quibbles but the film is strong enough to overcome some of that.
A whole planet comes together in a way that we would hope it would with a situation like this. International cooperation might be expected but this might be a fantasy as well. If it is too fantastic to believe, it's still inspiring to fantasize about. Duct tape and the human heart can overcome almost any obstacle, and that feels true, even when the science says it is not.
It has been way too long since I have posted on the site and for regulars, I apologize but to be honest, there has not been much to excite me about the films in theaters since the middle of August. The only time I have been to the show in the last month was to take advantage of a BOGO coupon from AMC for the latest Mission Impossible film, which I Vlogged on when it came out. The drought ends now but not with a new release, rather with a screening of a fifty five year old classic from the master Alfred Hitchcock.
"Psycho" is a film that would be hard to find new things to say about, since it has been dissected and analyzed continuously for the last 55 years. I have a couple of comments to make about the film making itself but first some story telling about last nights event. TCM and Fathom have been screening classic in regular theaters for a few years now. I've seen "Double Indemnity" and "Jaws" at TCM/Fathom screenings this year alone. It's a nice way to get to see classic films on the big screen with other fans. At last nights screening though, there were some fans that I doubted had seen the movie before. A group came in that consisted of two adults and four very young ladies. I was a little surprised that the girls who seemed quite young would be seeing this film. Even though it is older, the subject matter is very mature and the movie still is pretty scary. The women had sat a few rows behind us and the girls chose seats in the last row of the theater. I decided i should ask them what brought them to see the film, so I approached what I assumed were their mothers and asked if it would be alright to speak to the girls. I proffered a business card for my blog and they saw that I was there with my wife and daughter so they appeared to feel secure in giving me permission to talk to the girls.
The first question I asked of the girls was whether or not they had seen the movie before. Three said they had never even heard of it before and the fourth said she had seen a clip or two. I asked their names and ages and even though you are not supposed to speak to a women about her age, they shared that they were 11, 11, 10 and eight. I know that when I was ten, I'd have loved to see "Psycho" but my parents would not have allowed it. It was not until I was thirteen that I started seeing anything other than the classic Universal Horror films or a late night TV run of "Godzilla". The world has changed a great deal and maybe kids are more sophisticated than they once were. I asked the girls if they liked horror movies and they all were very enthusiastic. Two of the girls had seen all of the "Scream" films, and they listed off several recent supernatural thrillers as favorites as well. I heard "The Conjuring", "Annabelle", "Paranormal Activity" and "Insidious" all being listed. One of the young ladies also mentioned that she had recently seen "The Gift" and she said that while it is not a horror film, it was very suspenseful and that was what she liked. I told them that this movie is scary and that it was a slow building suspense film and that I hoped they would enjoy it. One of them asked if it was in Black and White and when I said yes, she cooed in delight because she thought B&W films often had more tension because of the shadows and light. So, thank you Genevieve, Juliet, Athena and Eliza, I enjoyed talking with you and watching the movie with you as well. I'll tell you what they told me after the movie down below.
As for the screening, there was definitely a technical problem because the film did not start on time. A couple of folks went out to prompt the employees and when the movie did start, it was with the credits and no Ben Mankiewicz introduction. His coda comments were included at the end but that was a bit frustrating to say the least. However, the fantastic Bernard Herrmann score kicked in on the credits and almost instantaneously, I was over being miffed and absorbed in the film. Janet Leigh in her underwear is pretty exciting stuff and that's the first scene in the movie. There are always little things that you will notice on a big screen that escape your attention on video; for instance some of the billboards and highway signs on Marion's road trip are much more noticeable. My wife jabbed me with her elbow when she saw that Norman Bates was eating candy out of a bag labeled "Kandy Korn" (it is a treat that I only indulge in during October and November).
The two things about the film that I want to make special mention of both occur before the first murder. Tension has been slowly building in the movie as Marion makes the fateful decision to abscond with the bosses money and run to her lover in the middle of California, but the movie has not gotten creepy yet. When the night driving strains her and we see her car is pulled over in the morning and a Highway patrol officer stops to investigate, that is when the weird vibe arrived for me. The highway cop keeps his sunglasses on the whole time he speaks to her, and he and Marion both are shown continuously in facial closeups during their conversation. It is unsettling in just the way being pulled over by a cop might be. Hitchcock's timing and camera choices are setting us up for some similar unsettling close ups to come.
From my point of view, however bravado the shower scene in "Psycho" is, the most compelling scene in the movie takes place right before that. The conversation that Marion and Norman have as she nibbles on a cheese sandwich and he describes the world he lives in with his mother is the heart of the movie. Later on, a psychologist tries to explain events from a technical point of view, an anti-climactic expository of oedipus complex that is mostly unnecessary except as a set up of the last shot of Norman. Everything we need to know about the two characters is contained in this scene. Marion recognizes her own foolish desire to run away by listening to Norman take her words and spin them back to her. Norman reveals his fragile relationship with society, his mother and his own sanity with the small pieces of dialogue and facial tics that he shares. Janet Leigh was rightly nominated for her performance by the Academy in the supporting actor category, but how Anthony Perkins missed not only being nominated but also walking off with the top prize is another one of those great mysteries of Academy lore. This ten minutes of quiet madness mixed with tragic pathos is an amazing piece of film performance. The shock that comes from the murder will be exacerbated by these moments of human compassion the two felt during this impromptu meal. Later in the story, as the truth emerges as to who the killer is, we are even more aware how deep the "psychosis" must be to produce this effect. It would all mean nothing, and it would be as shallow as a "Friday the Thirteenth" film, if it were not for this scene.
As the cadaverous visage of Mrs. Bates deaths-head fades into the car being dragged out of the swamp, we are given that last minute to scream in horror at what we have witnessed. The nearly subliminal face transposition is a final shock to elicit a shudder from us as we make our way home, what a movie!
I saw the four girls in the lobby after the show and they all said they loved the movie. When i asked if they saw the twist coming, one of them said she did because she had seen a clip of the end of the movie but the other girls did not see it coming. One said she laughed at the reveal, I suspect because the appearance of the killer is so odd that laughter might be a good coping skill. I still have my doubts about the need for kids to be exposed to a film with themes and images like this, but the four girls seemed to hold out the promise that good film making will work for all of us. I did speak to the theater supervisor about the problem with the film and our missing the introduction, he apologized and provided a re-admit voucher to the three of us in our party. Exactly the right response for a customer, regardless of where the fault lies.
You have another chance to catch this classic on the big screen this Wednesday. Follow this link if you are interested in experiencing Alfred Hitchcock's biggest screen success as it should be seen, in a theater with other appreciative movie goers.
This will be brief because there is not much to say about the film. It is not particularly deep, the story goes exactly where you expect it to, and there was not anything outstanding in the way the film is put together. As I said to my companions afterwards, "There is a reason this is playing in August and not November". Normally, Meryl Streep would be a magnet to draw some attention for a film, but she gives one of the least effective performances I've seen her do. She is not bad, but there is nothing special about her work except that she looks like she managed to learn to play some guitar.
The elements of the film that I thought were worthy include Ricki's confrontation with the step-mother of her now adult children. Both Meryl and Audra MacDonald sold this scene with understated fury and resentment. That's about as far as any fireworks there are in the movie. Rick Springfield not only holds his own with Marvelous Meryl, but seems to be more of a real character than her weary and frayed Rock wannabe. There was also some effective lampooning of "Whole Foods" market and weddings planned by environmental citizens. Both subject provided a couple of chuckles in the film.
Kevin Kline is largely wasted as Ricki's ex husband. His character comes across as ineffectual and mostly there to make the phone call that brings Ricki back to the family she is estranged from. Mamie Gummer looks like she could be Meryl's daughter (oh wait, she is, good casting), she should have had a lot more to do in the story since her character is the principle engine that drives the premise of family reunion. She has one scene where she is a complete bitch, and then two scenes where she is silently a needy child again. Because the story is so conventional, she has nowhere to go.
The music in the film is fine. It largely plays to the older audience that the movie seems to be targeted at. There are a lot of stage performance sequences and they sound competent. Rick Springfield and the other guys are professional musicians so that makes sense. Ricki never made the big time, but you can see that she loves the music. I'm not sure why it was necessary to have everyone at the weddding climax of the film act as if she had a social disease. The awkwardness that some of the scenes create is artificial because the extras and the rest of the cast are directed to be dumbfounded by her presence and actions, and we can't tell why they would feel that way.
You can tell that there was just not as much here as there ought to be
by looking at the lazy poster. Photoshopped Meryl and a tagline that
tells you almost nothing.This is a very average movie that is not embarrassing but not something you would ever want to see a second time. I did not dislike it as much as I remained mostly indifferent to it. The screenwriter Diablo Cody did give us a couple of good lines. I liked the philosophy that it's not your kids job to love you, it's your job to love your kids. Had there been a little bit more of the family dynamic and a little bit less concert footage, the film would be better, but still not a great movie, just one that would be more worthy.
I love 1960s spy stuff. James Bond was born in the sixties, Patrick Magoohan was Danger Man, Johnny Rivers killed it with his spy themed "Secret Agent Man" and Mel Brooks spoofed it with "Get Smart". Even before I'd seen my first Bond film, I saw "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." on television. When I heard that a movie version was planned, I was relatively pleased. I know there are people who hate the idea of a classic show being adapted for movie screens. The list of failures is long: "Lost in Space", McHale's Navy", "The Flintstones". Video bins are littered with 60s shows re-imagined as big screen entertainment. The hope is that you will get an occasional "Addams Family" or "The Fugitive", the reality is you end up with "Sgt. Bilko". So, which way did it go with the latest effort to rob our childhoods to feed our adult addictions?
The movie version of "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." gets a lot of things right. It also leaves out some of the things that you treasured. In the end, it works as a stand alone concept because the only things that really remain from the show, are the concept and time period. By sticking to the time period of the original series, the Cold War years of the 1960s, the film manages to keep the tension between East and West as a background. More importantly, they get to costume the leads in stylish 60s garb. One of my favorite things about Spielberg's "Catch Me If You Can" was the way he captured the vibe of the early 60s. I have not watched a minute of "Mad Men", but I suspect this movie would do the set decoration and costuming on that series proud. Henry Cavill, who plays the Napoleon Solo character, is dressed in stylish suits in every scene. The fabrics are vivid and the cut flattering. Although they would look a bit old fashioned now, they would carry a lot of retro cache with them. Armie Hammer's Illya Kuryakin is not wearing the high turtleneck sweater that was practically a trademark of the character, but the Henley styled shirts and plain suits he does wear are perfectly appropriate. The women are the ones who get shown off to the greatest advantage with some mod evening wear from the villainess. The girl that helps the two spies out (a standard storyline from the 60s show) has some cute 60s outfits that would be snapped up in an instant by hipster thrift store shoppers.
The plot really feels like it could be taken from a lost episode of the show. An East German girl is being used by the spy network, to locate her missing father, a nuclear genius who has technology that gives it's owners great powers. A loose band of Nazi sympathizers have the Doctor captive and are using his knowledge to gain power and build bombs. Most superhero franchises start with origin stories, and this film does the same thing. It attempts to explain how Russian and American spies, begin working together. The TV show never bothered with such background, it simply presented the covert network as a functioning entity from the beginning and then focused on the case for that week. Creating a background story for the agency is the biggest add by Guy Richie and his collaborators. The problem is that it leaves out stuff that made the original series cool, at least to us old enough to remember it. The badges, secret entrance to headquarters, briefings by Mr. Waverly, and the communication gadgets are all missing from the movie. Solo is given a backstory that makes him more Alexander Monday than James Bond. Someone decided that Ilya needed psychological problems to balance out his perfect physical capabilities. The changes work for a big screen adaption but they do distance the audience that might have been drawn in to the film by their love of the series.
Some of the things that work well in this film include the opening section where the Russian spy Illya Kuryakin is chasing after the American spy Napoleon Solo. The car chase and running gun fight are worthy stunts for an opening to a spy thriller. The banter between the two spies is also one of the things that Guy Richie brings to the movie. Anyone seeing his London based crime thrillers knows that snappy dialogue and quick exchanges are trademarks of his work. Hammer does not get quite as many of these lines as Cavill does, but he does get a lot of the physical reaction shots that make a joke pay off. Alicia Vikander is in her third film of the year with this movie. I thought she was great in both "Seventh Son" and "Ex Machina" , the later of which she should always flaunt on her resume. She does not get to do a lot of action material in this movie, but she is definitely more than just the damsel in distress. Hugh Grant is in the film but very little. if there is another in the franchise I know his role will be expanded. The split screen effect used during the storming of the island fortress was an efficient way to get through what might have been a long sequence very effectively, I could do with less shaky cam in the pursuit that follows.
One mistake that I think the film makers make is that they don't use the original Jerry Goldsmith music effectively. Take a look at how the "Mission Impossible" series has managed to weave the iconic song into those films. They may owe half their box office take to Lalo Schiffrin. The U.N.C.L.E. theme is in the film but only as an exit instrumental rather than as a transition piece. It has been altered from a big horned, bass heavy theme into a nearly unrecognizable conga tune. The result was one of the least satisfying parts of the film. Overall, I enjoyed the film a lot, but there are things to fix to make it as much fun as it should have been. If Guy Richie and his writing partners want some advise for the sequel, they can reach me on channel D.
Werewolf films are plentiful but not as scary as they once were. "Twilight" seems to have turned shape shifting human/wolves into domesticated pets. 1981 however, was a landmark year for werewolf based movies. From April to August we got "Wolfen", "An American Werewolf in London" and this subversive genre bender that combined humor and horror before it' more famous counterpart was released in mid summer. "The Howling" is a low budget horror film that used humor to differentiate itself from more traditional drive-in cinema. A clever script and efficient directing and editing make this a film that everyone should see.
Last night I attended a return visit from master horror film maker Joe Dante, to the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood for another program sponsored by the American Cinematique. Just a couple of months ago we were treated to s special presentation of his two "Gremlins" films. Last night focused on one film but two film makers. Joe Dante, the director of "The Howling" and Patrick Macnee, one of the stars of the film. Mr. Macnee passed away at the end of June, and this was a fitting film to feature since it was one of his biggest roles in an American film. (The Cinematique will also be playing "This is Spinal Tap" in the near future.)
Mr. Dante shared a number of stories about Patrick Macnee, including the fact that he was a nudist, which somehow seems to fit in pretty well with the cult like atmosphere of this film. The budget for the movie was one million dollars. (That is not a mistake, that is a cheap budget for a cheaply made film). Dante revealed that his directors contract was non-union and he received no residuals for performance of the movie. He also acted as an editor and before he was paid, the film company went out of business. So although this is one of his big successes and his first big movie, he has never seen a dime of cash in relationship to it. As the audience warmed up, a number of questions were asked and most of them were pretty simple: How did you cast Dee Wallace, What was the role of Rick Baker on the Film, how did you work with Pino Donaggio? The Rick Baker question may be the most important one. Baker was scheduled to do the film and had worked on much of the special effects make-up, but he was poached by John Landis for "An American Werewolf in London" and they had a bigger budget. Rob Bottin, was a protege of Bakers and he took over and made the film himself. Robert Picardo, who played Eddie in the film, had to endure a couple of overnight make-up and set design sessions. It's hard to believe but he spent up to a dozen hours in some cases being set up for the transformation sequences.
I'll get back to some of the behind the scenes material in a minute, let's take a couple of minutes to talk about the film itself. With the first shots, we are plunged into the middle of a news story about a serial killer who has contacted a local newswoman who has agreed to meet him. The cops and the newsroom editors are on a radio link, but that's as much back up as she gets. Hollywood in those days was pretty seedy (although according to Joe Dante, it had nothing on Times Square in Manhattan in the 70s). Karen White, the Dee Wallace character, agrees to meet "Eddie" the calling killer, in a porn shop. She is to look for one of the peep show booths marked with a smiley face sticker. In a modern world where emoji are ubiquitous, that might not seem a big deal, but in 1981, it was a little subversive to use the cutesy image as the talisman of a nut job killer. That sticker showed up in three other shots in the film and nearly stamps "LOL" on the screen for us. Karen survives an attack but is suffering from PTSD and can't remember much about what happened. The TV psychologist who assisted in profiling the killer, invites her and her husband to a retreat, known as the Colony, to get some group help and recovery time. Dr. Waggner (a name that is based on the director of the original Wolf Man movie from forty years earlier) is a proponent that people be in touch with their wilder animal sides,although as played by mild mannered and dignified Patrick Macnee, you would not suspect any danger. Of course something is not right at the Colony and all kinds of hell breaks loose. This is where you will get a lot of horror movie and Werewolf based tropes being used to build suspense and then being turned with a quick visual shot or comments. At one point, another couple is watching the original "Wolf Man" on late night TV and just as the issue of how one would become a werewolf comes up, there is Maria Ouspenskayain the background explaining it. Or as a call is being made to compare investigative information, one of the people on the phone has to put down their copy of Ginsburg's "Howl". It doesn't hurt the humor at all that John Carradine, who had a fifty plus year career in Hollywood, also starred in films like The House of Frankenstein" and "The House of Dracula" so he fits in with all the Werewolf mythology like a bouquet of wolf-bane.
The real stars of the movie though are the special effects make up and the transformation scenes. A combination of prosthetics, air bladders and make up wizardry, produce some of the most authentic and frightening horror effects of the day. When you add in some of the scenes of sensuality and the medical descriptions in the morgue sequence, you get a great set up but the payoff actually lives up to it. If you watch the trailer above, you will get a splendid preview of the kinds of inventiveness dominate the last third of the picture. Like most films of this time, after a quick opening, it is a slow build to the climax, rather than a series of mini climaxes along the way. (That sentence is also fraught with sensuality).
Dante pointed out last night that there was only one "Werewolf Suit" for the film, and that the attack at the end which seems to feature a dozen werewolves is all an accomplishment of editing. Somehow they got an extra fifty thousand dollars to work on the make-up effects. The studio was so thrilled with the dailies, they would not allow the scenes to be cut down. Although it had been the plan originally to have the transformation completed in one continuous shot, that concept had to be abandoned for cost reasons. It also would have created a story problem with the victims staring at the long transformation. In fact, when a group of kids auditioning for a show on the next stage, were shown the scene, one of them asked why the lady just stood there instead of running?.
In addition to Robert Picardo, who became a favorite of Joe Dante, B-Horror icon Dick Miller appears in this film as a bookstore owner. His interaction with the investigating journalist is some of the best material in the film. Dante says that originally, Miller was not very enthusiastic because the part was so small, but now thinks of it as his own favorite performance. You can see the future gun counterman from "The Terminator" in the bookstore owner. Dante said that the store they used was originally on Hollywood Blvd. but like most things from the old days, it is long gone. He said they needed to do virtually nothing to set dress the store for the film, it was exactly as it appears in the movie.
The script was considerably reworked by fellow director John Sayles, who added all of the new age cult material to the movie. That background is one of the things that raises the Howling above several other horror films of the day, it had a perspective connected to the times and it reflected that in the plot. So, a ton of good actors, a creative make up team, a shanghaied screenwriter and a novice director, manage to put together a pretty terrific horror film. It has it's 1980s pedigree all over it, but I would say that is a medal of pride rather than a badge of shame.
The blogathon that we are participating in here, is designed to focus on films in which a courtroom battle is featured and argument is the main source of drama. I know a little bit about films, a little bit about argument and a little bit about "Inherit the Wind". I hope that such a background will reassure you that I am not troubling my own house for no purpose. My purpose is to bring attention to a fifty-five year old film that is based on an ninety year old case that will prove that in nearly a hundred years, we as a culture are still capable of being riled up by events that we see as earth shattering, but in the long run are only a small part of human progress.
If you are unfamiliar with the film, let's start with the fact that it is largely based on real events. The "Scopes Monkey Trial" may be only a hazy memory to you from your American History class, but it was nationally famous in it's time. If the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, has dominated the news in recent weeks, imagine a similar kind of focus on a local trial in 1925. In reaction to religious anxiety about Darwin's theories on evolution, in Tennessee, the Butler Act had made it a crime to teach evolution in state funded schools. Nearly a hundred years later, we have the same kind of preclusion against teaching anything that might challenge evolution. Intelligent Design as a theory is heavily criticized by academics and scientists, with similar criticisms as those of evolution from the 1920s. So in essence, the same battle is taking place with the presumptions reversed. The tide of history repeats itself.
One of the reasons that the Scopes trial drew so much attention was the confrontation between two towering figures of the early twentieth century. Clarence Darrow was a renown labor attorney who migrated to criminal and civil cases and in a hundred cases where the death penalty was at stake had lost only once. The year before he was involved in the Scopes Trial, he had defended Leopold and Loeb in one of the early "trials of the century". The two were University students who had committed a "thrill" killing of a fourteen year old boy. Two other movies have been based on that case, "Compulsion" features Orson Wells playing essentially Clarence Darrow. Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope", has no trial in it so it does not fit the criteria for this blogathon, but you should see it anyway. In the current film, two time Academy Award winner Spencer Tracy plays Henry Drummond, the character based on Darrow.
His opponent in the actual case was three time Democratic Nominee for President and former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. Imagine if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry came forward to prosecute a local case and oppose a political philosophy they abhorred. Bryan was a populist who was known as the Great Commoner and he was also a famous orator, which meant so much more in the days before mass media. He was a strong opponent of Darwinism and took his religious faith so seriously that he considered it an obligation to participate in the trial. He had spoken on the Chautauqua circuit for years, arguing that the theory of evolution was a threat to the foundations of morality and an evil force in the world. In the film, he is portrayed by two time Academy Award winning actor Fredrick March as Matthew Harrison Brady.
The events surrounding the trial in the film, based on the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (no not that one) are somewhat exaggerated, and an elaborate background of the town minister, his daughter and the high school teacher who was being prosecuted, was all invented for the film. The circus like atmosphere of the trial however was real. More than two hundred reporters covered the trial. It was big international news. A radio broadcast of the trial did appear on WGN and there were trained chimps performing on the lawn of the courthouse. The trial in Scopes was a stunt designed to challenge the law, and substitute teacher John Scopes purposefully incriminated himself to make a prosecution more likely. In the film, Bertram Cates, the teacher on trial is presented in a much more noble light, as a beacon of knowledge to high school students everywhere. Future "Bewitched" star Dick York plays Cates with sincerity more than anyone else in the film.
The play, film and coverage of the original trial by journalist H.L. Mencken are all heavily slanted against the prosecution case and against Bryan/Brady. In a battle over ideas, the story here is that the media influenced public opinion more than the arguments did.Henry Drumond (Tracy) understands the importance of the media but despises some of it's practitioners, including the character modeled on Menken,a straight dramatic role from Gene Kelly as E.K. Hornbeck.His job in the story is to ground out any nuance in the arguments of the case and help sensationalize them for the world. His cynicism at everyone else in the story actually results in him being one of the sadder characters in the story. Here is a good example of dialogue that reflects the snide attitude he has toward the locals, but it also extends to everyone else as well:
Townswoman:
You're the stranger, ain'tcha? Are you looking for a nice, clean place to stay? E. K. Hornbeck:
Madam, I had a nice clean place to stay... and I left it, to come here.
Drummond's approach to the case is to undermine the law under which Cates is being prosecuted. The problem is the judge will not allow any of the expert testimony in defense of evolution to be heard. Henry Morgan as the judge appears to be a strict constructionist who believes it is the legislature that should make the laws, not the courts. He takes the very valid position that the law is not on trial but the accused is. Social Justice warriors will find this belief old fashioned but it happens to be the correct legal interpretation. Ultimately, the importance of a single accused man is not what attracted all the attention. The supposed conflict between religion and science is the draw. Until a key moment in the trial, the prosecution had the upper hand and all the best lines and public support. The film though does go out of the way sometimes to make Brady a figure of ridicule. There is a scene where he is speaking with a bib around his neck and he appears to be picnicking at the trial, burping and wiping his greasy fingers from fried chicken on his clothes. Matthew Harrison Brady is portrayed as being out of touch and a figure from the past. His eloquence is right for a tent show revival or Chautauqua stage, but bellowing on the radio isn't going to work. He has sincere religious beliefs that are referenced during the trial and that is the mistake that he makes as a prosecutor. Drummond baits him into basing arguments from the bible and then calls on him as an expert witness on the book. In the real world this sort of thing is not likely to happen right? The prosecutor being a witness cross examined by the defense,that's ridiculous. It's also just what happened in this case. The real Clarence Darrow cross examined the real William Jennings Bryan for two hours on the seventh day of the Scopes Trial.
This is the key dramatic point for the film. The confrontation of the two political giants and the two acting giants, in a courtroom confrontation. Fireworks do ensue but inevitably the imbalance of the views comes crashing down on the scene. Drummond trips up Brady with inconsistencies in the stories of the bible. He uses the average persons presumption against paradox as a fulcrum to wedge the audience and the jurors away from their inclination to side with the Biblical text. He twists Brady's word to make it seem as if Brady is holding himself out as God's spokesmen on Earth, a self concept that would be at odds with any average man's view of another in most situations. The legal argument is largely abandoned in favor of a generic attack on fundamentalist beliefs, some of which are backed by evidence but many of which are unsupported ad hominem attacks directed at the prosecutor rather than the case. As Brady sputters to reconcile contradictions, Drummond mocks him mercilessly in front of the jury. It makes for a great dramatic sequence but a lousy piece of legal argument. In the Scopes trial, all of that interchange was stricken from the record and the jury was admonished to ignore it. In the drama of the film, one character figuratively performs a coup de grâce on his opponent.
The freedom to offer controversial points of view in a classroom is sacrosanct from the view of those with tenure. The sciences and math being two fields where not much controversy is supposed to exist, but there is plenty of controversy in science. That is part of the scientific method, to continuously test the theories and beliefs that are "settled". For a parallel to the evolutionary debate of nearly a hundred years ago, look at the climate issues discussed now. Imagine a "non-believer" challenging the settled science of climate change in a classroom today. They are very likely to be chastised and hounded ("denier") because they don't accept orthodoxy. One thing that has not evolved, is the human desire to control other people's thoughts. The difference today is that the shoe is on the other foot.
Modern audiences might find the style and performances of the actors in this film to be stilted or hammy. March's character is supposed to be that way because he comes from an old school of declamation that cherished bombast and speeches as sermons. Yet even Tracy's Drummond has moments of corn built into it and that will strike today's audiences as mannered. The humanist approach taken by Drummond is a fair one. He acknowledges that change comes at a cost. Look in the following passage:
“Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes
I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "All right,
you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.
Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.
The actual Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial
When I read arguments on line about films, especially older films, that get criticized for their effects, style, pacing or racism, I am reminded that progress costs us. Technology may allow us to see things that could not be visualized before CGI, but what happens to our sense of gravity or physics? Editing and digital video may make a story move quicker, but we lose character and suspense. An evolved mind should dismiss the thinking of the past, but you will lose the ability to enjoy the wonder of the past from their perspective.
"Inherit the Wind" reminds us that 1928 was a different time, that 1961 was equally different as well. The argument continues, what is progress and what is worth keeping? Film makers and society continue to try to answer that question, and to honest, the answers are not always satisfactory.
Having done an extensive review and historical post just last December for this movie, I will refer you to that page on "30 Years On". This film is a personal favorite of mine, a characteristic it shares with my oldest daughter Allison. We had originally planned to go together but she had some other conflict and missed out tonight. Since I'd already bought the tickets, my wife agreed to go with me and I'm happy to say she liked the film quite well.
Once upon a time I might have felt a little guilty defending this movie against it's detractors, but that hesitation is gone. This movie is much better than it's reputation and it was even better tonight than I had remembered. The image on the big screen really brings out the spectacular set design and the quality of the costuming. The music is impressive from the beginning and the work by rock veterans Toto, combined with a little added "spice" from Brian and Roger Eno and Daniel Lanois with the prophesy theme was extra special. Coming at us in full theater sized dolby stereo made it sound really impressive along with the sound design of the film which was the one category that the movie was acknowledged for by the Academy.
As I sat watching and listening to the film, I was surprised at how well the plot really did develop. I had thought before that it was somewhat clunky, relying on verbalized inner thoughts to hold things together. When I paid close attention, I think half of that dialogue could go away and the movie would still make sense and be a bit less obvious. The villains do chew some scenery, but the visualizations and their maniacal gleams, remind you how awful the Harkonnens really are. The sequence with the Baron showering in who knows what effluent and then taking sexual pleasure in the murder of a frightened young man was very David Lynch and very disturbing. The rest of the cast succeeds because they were well chosen and played their parts with a bit more subtlety. I especially appreciated Jürgen Prochnow as the doomed Duke Leto. He has some lines that end up resonating bigger themes in the story and if you listen to them, he sounds both sad and inspiring.
I can't say enough about the look of the film, it was just as amazing as I always thought it was. With the exception of some of the spacecraft shots and one or two scenes with the sandworms, these effects can stand up to scrutiny and outclass a lot of the CGI junk that gets foisted on us nowadays. One bit of collectible ephemera I neglected to share in the post on "30 Years On", was the standee for the VHS release that I snagged from the Music Plus store back in 1985. Here it is in the back patio room where it has sat since we moved in to this house 21 years ago. That's a three dimensional display with the foreground figures on one section and the background on another.
There was a fair sized crowd at the theater, "The Sherman Oaks Arclight". Since this is probably a big nostalgia piece for any of you reading, the "Arclight" in the valley is located at the site of the old Sherman Oaks Galleria. You know, the mall featured in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Valley Girl". It is now an outdoor shopping area with a few upscale stores and a few stylish eateries. For an 80's classic like "Dune", it was fun to think about as we walked from the parking structure.
Wearing my "Visit Scenic Arrakis" shirt, designed by my daughter, and sitting with my favorite person in the world.
The conceit of this movie is that Sherlock Holmes was a real person and that his life of private consulting was well known due to the writings of Dr. Watson. There are movies made about him and and tourists flock to his supposed address and he is now 93 in 1947 England. From that premise we proceed into a personal mystery that Holmes is trying to unravel before his death. He is also plagued with senility that fogs his memory, much in the manner of early stage Alzheimer's disease. The character of Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain at this point. The estate of Conan Doyle controls ten stories but any person with enough creativity can invent and publish or produce a Holmes tale. That may account for why he has been one of the most widely portrayed fictional characters in cinema. This movie is sort of a coda to his adventures and it is primarily a vehicle for the amazing Sir Ian McKellen.
Many years ago, I heard a critic (Rod Lurie) refer to these English produced character pieces as "tea on the lawn pictures". I understand completely the idea behind that description, so many films in this vain offer no action, subtle drama, and an overriding sense that the locations are the primary purpose for people watching this. Anyone hoping for McKellen to throw down like Gandalf or Magneto need not bother showing up for this film. It is languidly paced and beautifully composed and an intricate character study across a thirty year chasm in the life of the world's greatest detective. If you are willing to listen however, you will be rewarded by some clever dialogue, intricate plotting and an ultimately warm story of old age and regret. Oh, and that is not to mention a spectacular performance by a seasoned actor in a tailor made part.
Admittedly the quiet countryside and remote farm that Mr. Holmes now occupies will meet the criteria of a "tea on the lawn" movie. There are even several scenes involving the consumption of tea but they never take place out of doors so that label would be a misnomer. Holmes is trying desperately to halt his oncoming memory loss and restore enough of his powers of observation, to help him complete the true story of his last case. He is dissatisfied with the version told by Dr. Watson, and he knows that it must be wrong because there is no other logical way to explain his retirement from the practice of detective work thirty years earlier. As he tries to solve the mystery of that case, he is simultaneously working with the son of his housekeeper to preserve the apiary he keeps and discover what is causing an outbreak of deaths among the bee colony. At the start of the film it seemed unlikely that this would be an older mentor type of story but that is what it morphs into and that is when the story becomes emotionally involving. The partial details and slow reveal of the tale from original mystery from 1917 are not particularly compelling. That is because the story is dribbled out in small bits and we never get a chance to relate to anyone but Holmes as the information appears. When the plot becomes the subject of a manuscript that Holmes shares with young Roger, then we have the motivation to pay attention and appreciate the detective work.
The performance of Ian McKellen is truly excellent. It is easy to accept him as the sixtyish Holmes in the flashback parts of the story. He is in reality about half way between the two ages that he plays here. The younger version has the strong posture of an older but still vigorous man. His back is straight and his head is up. Simple make-up and hairstyle work add to the illusion of a younger man, and his manner is more forceful and articulate. As the much older 93 year old, McKellen gets the physical parts just right. He is slower in all things, his facial expressions often belie a humor that the younger version of himself would not approve of. Again the low key make up work is effective while being impalpable. This helps immensely with the drama as the sadness of lonely isolation has taken a toll on the main character. As a victim of increasing senility, his face needs to covey the kind of vacant expression of someone who is intellectually trapped inside a failing organ like the brain. Sir Ian is very persuasive in conveying that tone. It is dangerous to make early predictions about awards at the end of the year, so many other delights await us, but it is highly likely that this will be another nominated performance for him.
Young Milo Parker is an effective foil for McKellen to sharpen his performance with. As Roger, Parker conveys the kind of sharp wit and openness to tutelage that an old Sherlock Holmes would need to stir himself. He is also quite believable as the somewhat truculent child of a war widow struggling to keep her and her son's heads above water after the war. The tension that comes from having to be nursemaid to the infirm old man when that is not really what she is being paid for makes the mother character seem unpleasant, when what she really is is desperate herself. I was happy to see Laura Linney in that part. She has worked so much in television recently that her absence from the big screen has been notable. She is all wound up temper and frustration through much of the film and when she gets a chance to release those emotions it does stir the drama up in the last act. I was also impressed with the music of Carter Burwell who has collaborated with director Bill Condon on several earlier films. I wonder if it was his work that is being played on the "glass armonica" featured in the story.
"Mr. Holmes" is a slow moving but very rewarding film. It will appeal to independent cinema fans of course but it looked to me from the audience that I saw it with that it is resonating with a different group. People over the age of fifty filled the theater today (personal disclaimer, that will include me). Everyone was very receptive to the film and there was a nice round of applause at the end of the movie. This is not a common occurrence in films, much less ones that attract a geriatric audience, but it is another indicator that there may be hope for this movie at awards time. The Academy is notoriously old and this demographic is served very well by this high quality production. I don't think my appreciation for this movie is simply a counter reaction to having to endure "Minions" and "Terminator Genysis" earlier this month. I simply think this is one of the best films I've seen this year.
Last year I participated in a blogathon dedicated to Billy Wilder. My choice was "The Lost Weekend", a dated melodrama that won the Academy Award for Best picture and bestowed upon Mr. Wilder his first two Oscars after five previous nominations. Two of those nominations were for this film which is screening as part of a TCM/Fathom Event promoting the new Blu Ray release of "Double Indemnity". It was more deserving of the awards than "The Lost Weekend" but then the Academy is notorious for being just behind the curve.
This is a terrific film noir, set in Los Angeles and featuring some of the snappiest dialogue you are likely to encounter in a theater.
Barbara Stanwyck is hot in her platinum blonde hair and white sweater. It's easy to see why Walter Neff fell into her plan so easily. Like all noir vixens, she is duplicitous and irresistible. Even with the Hayes code still in force, the innuendo in this film is pretty smoking. The famous meetings at Jerry's Market as Neff and Phyllis cruise up and down the aisles of canned vegetables and boxed baby formula are still enticing and fun to watch. If you are from Southern California, it's also interesting to hear all the local references to neighborhoods and institutions. Both USC and UCLA get a nod in the film. Glendale, Santa Monica and Los Feliz are also named. I got a kick out of seeing Walter stop at a drive-in diner and get served a beer on a tray like he was at Bobs or Twoheys. There is also a musical interlude at the Hollywood Bowl.
Edward G. Robinson gets one of his best roles in this movie as the insurance investigator who can't be fooled. There are so many small pieces to his character that make him so interesting. His vest pockets are stuffed with pens and pencils and cigars in nearly every scene. He never seems to have a match and Walter is always so accommodating. I probably was emulating Clint Eastwood when I learned how to light a safety match with my thumbnail, but I could easily have fit into this time period with the way everyone lights up their cigarette or cigar with just a flick of the thumb. Robinson also talks about that "little man" in his chest that won't let him rest until he has done right by the case. He continues to absently tap his own chest as a visual reminder that there is another character located inside of him
The story of the step daughter and her boyfriend, some times distracts from the main focus but I recognize they are effective plot devices to allow the story to simmer more as it comes to a hard boil. The femme fatale and the cold hearted sap she falls in with are epitomized by the two leads in this film. Along with "the Postman Always Rings Twice", these are the essential tropes of a dark film from this period. Wilder's own "Sunset Boulevard" uses the same flashback plot structure as this movie. We know the fate of the lead character at the start of the film, we just have to have the story told back to us in a way that makes it compelling, and the first person descriptions allow some great observations. Tough talking guys who call their obsessively powerful women "Baby" and hard as flint women who hide some of their emotions behind sunglasses are just what is called for on a hot day in July.
Walter Neff:
Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't
get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?
After all the films I saw at the TCM Festival and the Fathom screenings of "Jaws" that I attended last month, these events are feeling more and more like the way I want to see older films. The slide show for the event listed five or six upcoming events that will also be bringing me back to the theater under the umbrella of TCM.
One of the things that made last years "Guardians of the Galaxy" so much fun was the tone of the story. Yes it did feature a threat to the entire universe and that is pretty heavy, but every character who was conflicted and depressed at times, usually had a sense of humor and the whole enterprise came off as fun rather than angst inducing. The big Marvel film from earlier this year "Avengers: Age of Ultron" is weighed down with sad backstory and depressing philosophy and while it was entertaining, it was also very heavy. This film and story manages to be closer to the Guardians end of the spectrum rather than the Avengers end. Even though there are Avengers tie ins, this is a lighter, more amusing take on the super hero mythos and a solid way to launch another character from the Marvel Universe.
My kids have accused me of having a man-crush on Paul Rudd. That is mostly because he stars in the greatest film of 2008, "Role Models". He is a surprising choice for a super hero movie but a very reasonable one for a comedy, and there is a lot of comedy in this film. While he is not a physical specimen like Chris Helmsworth, Rudd is in good shape and has an appealing face that is average rather than chiseled. His selection reminds me of the decision made before the first Tim Burton Batman film, to cast comedic actor Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight. The suit will do the action material just fine, it is the story that takes place around those scenes that requires the right kind of choice and this one is a hit. Rudd has a sardonic quality to his voice that matches well with the disillusioned ex-con who goes to prison for being a crusader in a hacking scheme. He is given enough background for us to sympathize with him but we also know he is capable of making a bad choice or two.
The original "Ant-Man" is Hank Pym, played by Michael Douglas. There is an early scene where the CGI budget for the film is largely spent on making Douglas his "Romancing the Stone" are once more. It is very effective and the change in appearance to more contemporary dates is almost startling. There is some exposition about how he lost his company to the apprentice that is now running things. Darren Cross (perhaps not the most subtle of name for a villain character ,-D.Cross) is a genius but has apparently given in to megalomania in part due to exposure to the processes required to develop the material that allows a man to reduce his size to that of an insect. That Pym still has contact with the company as it is reaching a critical deal point is a little hard to believe, but than it is typical of this format that the acolyte wants to impress the mentor as he passes him by. Corey Stoll is a familiar face from action films and TV shows and this is his chance to step into what would usually be the role played by Mark Strong, who was I guess, not available.
Some of the powers of "Ant-Man" are a bit strange. The ability to control ants sounds like one of the oddest super powers to come along. I'm surprised that President Obama did not have it on his list instead of being able to speak all languages. After all, ants outnumber humans substantially and if universal communication is important, you ought to start with the creature that is most prevalent on the planet (outside of termites anyway). The ant connection allows a lot of problems to be fixed in an interesting visual manner, and Scott Lang ( alias Ant-Man) manages to make a humorous connection to the creatures and even imbue one of them with enough emotional weight that what happens to one of billions of insects may actually matter to you. The speed with which he can change size and escape detection is also pretty cool. There is a technology though that seems to minimize this advantage and that makes a fight scene in the middle and end of the movie work a little better. Scott also has a couple of weapons that Hank has created for him that harness the molecular technology that powers the suit. Not much time is spent explaining them but when they are used they both create reasonable solutions to situations and amusing comedy bits as well.
Evangeline Lilly is Pym's disaffected daughter and she will have an important role to play, but right now she is not really a romantic interest for Rudd as Scott. The ex-wife and mother of Scott's daughter is played by Judy Greer, in her fourth movie of the summer season (Jurassic World, Tommorowland and Entourage) but as in those other films, she is underused ( and today just happens to be her birthday, so Happy Birthday Judy). Bobby Cannavale plays the cop/future step father to Scott's child and he doesn't get the suave role he had in "Spy" but he does get to do the comedy material pretty well. Michael Peña does comedy as well and the way he tells a story, reminds me too much of some people I know. Overall it is an interesting cast and the tone of the film is a good change of pace for these comic book films. It looks like there are some future adventures that we will not have to wait to long for, if you have not yet heard, you should sit through all of the credits.
I suppose it is faint praise to say "I didn't hate it", but that was my first impression of the new version of "The Terminator". I was highly dubious when confronted by the most recent trailer (not the one above) which gives away more plot elements than most of today's narrative revealing advertisements do. This is an attempt to make "Terminator" a continuing project without the messiness of having to deal with the narratives from previous versions of the story told in other sequels. The creators here have the right fulcrum for moving us to that point, but they use it so often, it is nearly impossible to keep track of all the variations.
On a technical level, the movie looks good. The special effects are up to snuff and there are several spots where practical effects seem to be used instead of the now dominant paintbrush of CGI. Believe me, there is plenty of CGI also, but the frequent car chases, crashes, and combat scenes are much more realistic than you would find in most computer generated effects. The opening sequences which are set in the future and feature Reese and John Connor are actually a well told story of that relationship and the events leading up to the original insertion of a Terminator into 1984. The mix of elements from the original into this current version was effective, and although Bill Paxton's punk character is recast, you would almost believe that the sequence was lifted whole cloth from the first movie. Almost immediately though the plot twists start and it is apparent that a complete revision is being undertaken.
Time travel stories are always interesting, at least they are to me, but they can be confounding. It would be helpful to have Doc Brown in the basement with a chalkboard, diagramming all the possible contingencies so that we can keep track of what is going on. Everyone who loves cinema wants a movie that is thought provoking as well as entertaining. The problem with this movie is that the thoughts provoked have nothing to do with morality, politics, society or history. Your brain will start thinking about the mechanisms of the story rather than the implications of the characters choices. Instead of pondering what choice would be the most ethical to make, or whether we as a society are surrendering too much power to the technology we use, you are left wondering "how did this timeline get started, or what happens to the future if John Conner kills his own parents, or how do we get John Conner when his parents don't seem to be getting together?" You end up thinking about the machine that is driving the plot rather than the social implications. That turns the discussion into a nerd fest rather than a philosophical imponderable. Kyle Reese says it himself in more than one scene, this story is hard to keep track of. "Pops" may come along and say it is rather simple, but that does not make it so.
Instead of lingering on plot loopholes or time travel conundrums, I want to discuss for a moment the philosophical question, is Skynet already happening? In 1984, before we had the sort of internet and dependance on technology that exist now, it was scary enough to contemplate. Today, Google and Apple know almost everything that everyone does. The NSA is mining that data, most of us operate electronically in banking, services, communication and almost every other part of our lives. The "Genisys" app in this movie is not far removed from the kind of technological innovation that is going on right now. Earlier this year, there was the spy film "Kingsmen: The Secret Service" which postulated a nefarious takeover of technology that was more cartoon like but which could be plausible because just as in this movie, it recognizes that we are all wired in to each other in some way. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a story about an A.I. experiment where the computer got a bit nasty with the the programmers. That's just the kind of thing that might make us believe that the combination of Artificial Intelligence and widespread dependence on computer technology might not be a match made in heaven. "Terminator Genisys" touches oh so briefly on this concept, but it is mostly focused on building an action plot to attach visual spectacle to.
I don't watch "Game of Thrones" so I am largely unfamiliar with the work of Emilia Clark. She is made up to resemble Linda Hamilton enough to sell the idea that she is the same character. Jai Courtney is an actor I can't quite seem to warm up to. I'm not sure he is being cast correctly but someone has decided he is the next big thing, I'm not sure he's not the next Sam Worthington. Jason Clarke is an actor that I have admired in a number of films but he seems to be directed here to play the character of John Conner a bit over the top in the opening and then a little too subdued in later sections. Arnold continues to be Arnold. I am so much happier with him as the Terminator than as Governor that a couple of awkward moments don't even register. There are some pieces of humor plugged into his part and the usual stoic mannerisms seem to be working. The explanation of his aging is acceptable and I thought the three different time periods he appeared in seemed matched appropriately.
The movie is ambitious and attempts to put all of the elements of the story we have come to know into play. Judgement Day has been shifted somehow and that is one of the unclear lines of thinking created by the multiple time line angle. We don't yet know how Terminator 2.0 gets sent to protect Sarah at age nine, it looks like this is being set up as a series of films and that will be a plot point for another entry. The movie is under-performing in the U.S. market (largely I suspect because of the lingering demand for Dinosaur mayhem). Internationally it may do well enough to justify continuing the series. I don't think anyone will become emotionally invested in the story enough to be disappointed if this is the last in the series, but I won't roll my eyes in disbelief if a new entry is eventually announced either.
If you would like a ranking as a way of assessing this opinion, I'd put the first two films on a level all their own. I prefer the original to Terminator 2 but that is mostly because I love that last sequence with the stop motion and puppetry. "Terminator Genisys" and "Terminator: Rise of the Machines" are also pretty equivalent, to each other. They are action generating plots and each has some spectacular stunt work but neither has the depth or imagination of the first two films. "Terminator Salvation" is a vague memory. I enjoyed it well enough at the time but it is six years later and I have never rewatched it since then so it must not have impressed me that much. I'd be willing to see this film again but I will never be willing to try and figure out all the time line confusion that this entry in the series introduces.
Much as happened with "Cars 2", secondary characters have been given the lead in a sequel and it craps out. What is cute for brief interludes in a complete story becomes boring as the feature attraction. There are many elements in this film that are clever and fun but the material needs to exist in a context that you can care about and there is no real point or goal for the story other than to be an engine for the next bit. I was a real fan of the original "Despicable Me" and I thought that "Despicable Me 2" lived up to the quality of the original, even if it was not quite as strong. I like the Minions but I did not like their stand alone film.
The movie starts off promisingly, with a clever delivery of the Universal Theme music as the credits start. The first ten minutes of the film are summarized very effectively by the main trailer. We are told of the origins of the Minions and their need to serve the most evil figure they can find. This was a little dicey from my point of view, it leads me to think that Minions would be in places that no one would ever be making a animated comedy about. This point needed to be worked on a little more because it creates a dark theme that is disturbingly distracting. If the Minions had some kind of attachment disorder that draws them to megalomaniacal figures, then it would not have quite the same undertone.
Once the longer history of the Minions is told, we are dropped into the situation where they are isolated and without a figure to follow. Three Minions go in search of a new evil character to follow. It turns out that the majority of the film is set in the 1960s, and there are only two reasons that this was done. First it is a prequel story to the events of the other films, but more importantly, it allows the film makers to raid the pop charts of the sixties for familiar tunes that the audience will latch onto for brief set pieces. The music is not an enhancement to the story telling, it is an attractant, a form of social pheromone designed to keep the adults engaged while the childish behaviors on screen delight the kids. I enjoyed hearing the Turtles, Box Tops, Stones, Kinks and assorted other icons of the period, but the tunes have almost nothing to do with the material going on in the story. It seems pretty shameless to me that this was just being done for obvious commercial reasons rather than making the story take flight, these interludes look like they paper over any need for narrative energy. I guess I should not really be surprised. The movie really is just a marketing tool anyway.
Minions are working for a corporate overlord who is selling toys, not really selling a movie. When "The Care Bears", and "He-Man" and "G.I. Joe" were accused of it in the 1980s in TV shows and Movies, it was not as annoying as this is. This movie is more subtle, but still just a big ad for product.
I wanted to like this movie. I still find the Minions cute and if they are used in the right way, they can be funny. This movie ran out of steam for me as soon as the main evil character appears. The senseless nature of the Minions recruitment and the stupid plot points that follow are the laziest kind of storytelling one can imagine. When Sandra Bullock's character tells the three Minions a bedtime story and makes up the plot on the spot and just uses the situation they are in at the time, she was actually doing more work than the writer of this film.
Those of you who are sick of the Minions will be gloating over this disappointment. It is going to be a leading candidate for negative lists at the end of the year. Those of us who still like the Minions will be able to move on and go back to the original two films without being wrong. In the film it is often the Minions who cause a plan to go awry, it was not the characters of the Minions who failed here, this time it was the person they served.
The recurring international terrorist organization, which minimized the need for the Soviets to be the bad guys in every movie, is introduced in this movie. In the books, SPECTRE was not introduced until "Thunderball", but Dr. No introduces himself as a member of that evil institution, "I'm a Member of SECTRE...Special Executive for Counter Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge,
Extortion. The four great cornerstones of power headed by the greatest
brains in the world". The portrait of Wellington Bond sees at dinner with Dr. No. was stolen in a famous case the year before the movie came out. This is a reference to the extensive criminal activities of the organization.
