Wild Rose

There are dozens of movies about aspiring singers and bands that are worthy for you to see. Some are set in a different time, many in a different place but most of them that work, have a heart. Earlier this year, we got a biopic of Elton John and it is terrific, I think however, from an emotional perspective at least, it has been surpassed by this Scottish tale of a woman who feels that she is in the wrong place but the right voice. I worry when I see superlatives being bandied about in the trailers, because they can set your expectation up for disappointment. No need to worry here, Jessie Buckley is all that has been advertised and I hope she is singing the Oscar nominated song on the Academy Awards, right before she picks up her own award.

For forty years, I have asked students to share something about themselves in the first week of class. Overwhelmingly, one of the personal tidbits that gets dropped is their love for some kind of music. If I were to paraphrase a sentence that I heard nearly a half dozen times every semester it would be..."I like all kinds of music...except country". Now there are plenty of students who did love country music, but I always found it fascinating how many try to distance themselves from an art form that seems so accessible to me. Maybe they subscribe to the stereotypes of the old songs, and don't want to be seen as morose or too conventional. This is the sort of film that ought to convince them to see and listen to the world a bit differently. Country music as it is portrayed here is not dull, and it certainly applies to a youth culture as much if not more than an older generation.

Two films jumped into my head as I was watching this, "The Commitments" and "Sing Street". Both featured music but very different kinds of music. Each story has a different theme, friendship, love, responsibility. Despite these difference, you may notice the story beats are very similar. After we are introduced to the characters, they reveal how talented they are, they overcome initial obstacles, they fail at the next obstacle, but ultimately redeem themselves with the promise of a future obstacle that they will be well equipped to manage. All stories will have some of these types of cliches, it's unavoidable in fictional storytelling, these are the dramatic turns that make us follow the events. A movie succeeds when it makes these cliches feel real and presents them in a dramatically fulfilling manner. "Wild Rose" manages to do this just fine.

Rose as played by Jessie Buckley, is a headstrong woman who has great talent and ambition but has also made some bad decisions and lacks a sense of responsibility. She needs to grow up. The question concerns how she will manage to do that. Can she be the person she needs to be for her family, and still be the person she wants to be for herself? That is a question that all of us have to answer and it does not always turn out well. We can see that Rose wants to do right, but she does not know how to. She has the raw talent to succeed but lacks the discipline to make things work out the way she wants. Along the way she has a couple of allies and she doesn't realize how much they want her to do the right things as well. Sophie Okenedo is a sympathetic employer who is moved by the music and the passion that Rose shares. Julie Walters is the Mother who wants her daughter to grow up and be the person she is capable of being, but she is tired of being an enabler for the bad choices her daughter is making.

The music is amazing in this film. Of course there are a variety of country standards and some obscure songs that pre-date the film, but there are a number of original songs written for the film, and all of the ones performed by Rose in the film were recorded by Jessie Buckley who has an amazing voice.


This will be on my end of the year list. Three chords and the truth.

Spider Man: Far From Home

In the post Avengers, "Infinity War" world, the superheros are going to be faced with threats that will have to be inventive, compelling and for the moment, short term. I don't really know how you build a long term storyline without the universal destruction suggested by Thanos and that story is now history. The approach that the caretakers of the Marvel Universe are taking, seems to be the right one. They are taking time building stories around the remaining heroes and allowing them to be at the center of their own tales. Here and there will be connections to the large universe of super heroes, but for the moment they will bask in the spotlight alone. "Spider Man: Far From Home" does exactly this. Peter Parker and his complicated relationships are the main thrust of the story.

The after effects of the "snap" are briefly discussed as the plot unfolds, but there is virtually no impact of the five year gap between the Earth's non blipped residents and those who blipped back. Two or three visual jokes that also make no sense but are fun anyway, help set a more light hearted tone for the film. Moving the action to Europe helps the movie feel fresher than had it remained in the States and there are some more opportunities for cross cultural humor as well. Even with the shadow of the Infinity War hanging over the planet, life seems to go on. With just a few tips of the hat to Iron Man, Spider Man takes the lead and reluctantly seems to be the lynch pin character for future interwoven multi-universe situations.

The enigmatic "Mysterio", shows up to battle elemental monsters that have supposedly destroyed the Earth of his dimension and now threaten our own home world. Nick Fury wants Spider Man to step up and lead when it comes to handling new threats and Tony Stark has left a mini version of Ultron, with the acronym E.D.I.T.H., to help out. Once again, Stark's ingenious is the source of  conflict in the MCU. Peter has to choose what kind of life or leadership role he is going to follow, and of course it will not be an easy choice or one without complications. "Mysterio" is portrayed by the always enjoyable Jake Gyllenhaal, himself a one-time candidate for the Spider Man role. Frankly, you will be aware that a twist is coming from the start of the story, how could you not expect it after so many previous experiences. When it arrives, there is a three minute or so narrative sequence that tries to make sense of it all. There are a dozen dangling strings from other MCU films that are tied together to create the new threat. I think the retcon that happened in "Spider Man: Homecoming" was a lot clearer and made more sense. If you look at this one too closely, it may not hold up as well. Especially since the villain acknowledges that Nick Fury is the most paranoid man on the planet.

The narrative here reminds me of the Happy Potter film "The Half Blood Prince". So much of the background is taken up by the romantic lives of our protagonists that it may sometimes feel like a different movie. There are however a sufficient number of tie ins to the technology and plot to make those "romance" points still relevant to the main story. MJ and Ned are both at risk down the line and it works to make the threat to them more meaningful when the ominous agenda of the villain reveals itself. I do think that the bifurcated nature of the antagonist is a bit problematic, and the self awareness of his own delusional role in the Stark legacy means that he needs to be a pretty good actor. The film is a little meta when it is disclosed how we are all being fooled. maybe all the technicians who create these movies need to have a bit of glory but this was a weird way of showing us behind the curtain.

That curtain however is still pretty dazzling as the action sequences and special effects continue to show that people are working at the top levels to make these movies as believable as they can.  I also loved the attempt to divert attention from Spider Man by inventing a pseudonym for the character and then referring back to it in several spots, hilarious. The idea of Happy and May makes me giggle a bit and hope for the best for both of them. Happy gets more to do in this film than any of the previous MCU films his character has appeared in, and May, re-imagined as a younger but still mature woman, finally pays off. Good for Jon Favreau and Marissa Tomei. If you stick around for the credit sequences that have become a hallmark of these movies, you will get a long awaited cameo that is a great surprise. There is also a reveal that makes the meta theme of illusion even more meta. I'm not sure it was necessary, but it does tie in to some other MCU plotlines and its is a lot of fun. More than half the audience at out screening had already left when these two bits came up, and I don't understand how people can do that, knowing that there are some punch lines or gut punches coming.

Saying that "Spider Man: Far From Home " is not top self MCU in no way is meant to diminish the entertainment value of the film. You should enjoy yourself immensely. It is simply a fact that with so many variations of these characters and the number of movies they have appeared in, we inevitably will make comparisons. Tom Holland continues to work as a youthful Peter Parker even as he grows older playing the character, maybe he was in a real blip event. The other high school kids provide some humorous diversions, and I thought the teachers were quite funny but I can see some slap stick that may put others off. The first half of the film feels like it is exactly what it turns out to be, but the second half makes that pay off. 

Men In Black International

I did not have high hopes for this film, the trailers did not seem very interesting and the concept feels a little old. I happened to be in Austin this weekend and I wanted to see a movie in one of the Alamo Drafthouse Theaters and this was the one that was starting at the right time so it ended up being selected simply because of lucky timing. As it turned out it was very entertaining and there is nothing the makers of the film should hang their heads about. I think the lack of success is mostly franchise fatigue and an abundance of similar products in the marketplace.

Chris Hemsworth is still trying to break out as a star outside of the MCU, and you can see why he might choose a part like this. Although I liked him very much in some of the other films he has made, his charisma is still stuck in the God of Thunder role he has owned for a decade now. Tessa Thompson is re-matched with him and they have pretty good chemistry but neither character brings the persona the two original stars did to their parts. It seems you need more than a black suit and a lot of CGI to make this concept work.

Fortunately, there are some funny bits of dialogue and some visual gags that will keep things interesting, but it can never match the charm that the first movie had. If I were ranking however, it would certainly beat MIB 2 which had very little going for it. The concept here suggests there is a traitor in MIB. The trailer makes it seem as if the "Hive", the supposed antagonist in the story is replicating MIB agents and replacing them. That is misleading, although there is a pretty obvious character to suspect, not because of the script but because casting demands that you make use of someone of that stature in an appropriate manner.


The shift of the story to Europe is fine and it allows for a few ethnocentric jokes at the expense of Americans, the French, and the British. There is also a sequence set in North Africa and the Mediterranean, so we get a pretty good travelogue as we go through the acts in the film. There may be a little too much of the cutie pie alien in the story, but I did not find him annoying, just a little obvious as to his role function as comic relief. Rebecca Ferguson, Liam Neesen and Emma Thompson are also in the film, and they have slightly better roles. Everybody seems to have a letter code name, which would leave you to believe that there can't be more than 26 MIB agents at any given time, but that is clearly not the case. There must be some other explanation.






So MIB International is not an important movie or essential to any comic book narrative, but it is an entertaining couple of hours that is not too taxing on the brain. If you still like all the CGI transformations, gadgets and aliens, then you should have a pretty good time.

Late Night

Before I talk about the film, let me discuss a subject that has come up recently for which this movie was used as a prime example. The claim is that comedy on the big screen is dying. There was some data analytics applied and shows that comedies in the U.S. went from 25% of the Box office in 2009 to 8% last year, with only one breaking the $100 million mark. Several recent misfires at the box office have also been mentioned, including "Long Shot", POMS, and "Booksmart".  The culprit according to the articles I have read, is on-line streaming. People have warmed to the idea that comedy is for home consumption and spectacle is for the theater. "Late Night" appears to be another in a line of failures to launch at the box office. I can't dismiss the theory out of hand, but I can say that one of the reasons "Late Night" faltered is marketing. I saw no print advertising, or Television promotion for this movie and only spotty info on the web. If you want an example of how lazy the effort was to get people into a theater, look at the poster below.  Amazon Studios treated the film as one of their streaming productions that they deign to put into theaters. The new system of film releases and the rise of on-line film streaming may very well change the culture in ways we are uncertain about. This movie however is being written off and that's a pity.

This is basically "The Devil Wears Prada" set in the world of late night comedy on television rather than in the fashion industry. That film features an older actress playing a stern figure who needs an assist from some new blood. Emma Thompson plays the Meryl Streep part and Mindy Kaling gets to be Anne Hathaway. Which is fine since she wrote the usually witty screenplay herself. Thompson's character is stuck in the mud and does not seem willing to deal with it because of her difficult personality. She also has a home life that is complicated by an unwell souse and a lack of other friends and family. She tells the jokes well and conveys the gyro-scoping professional conflicts well. As the over confident and then overwhelmed neophyte writer on the comedy staff, Kaling gives herself a wide range of emotions to play but it is a little schizophrenic at times as to whether she is cock sure or cockamamie. 

All comedies will have weak moments in them and this is no exception. The trash bag and trash can jokes you can see in the trailer are indicative of some of the weaknesses. This is not a slapstick and putting those in detracts from the more clever things that are working in the film. The near incestuous elitism of the writing staff is mocked very effectively both verbally and visually. The insular nature of the room does seem to be a problem in the late night shows woes but clearly the bigger problem is the attitude of the host. We are supposed to believe that a quarter of a century into the digital age of media, and all of the comedic life of the character, Kate, the host of the show, doesn't make jokes or references to this environment. That is a big disbelief to overcome. It's easy to see the perspective of Kaling as a comedy writer struggling in the monochromatic cultural canvas she has had to work in, but even old timers like Leno and Letterman understood that comedy has to flow from the events of the real world. Twitter, You Tube and Facebook are where that world is being consumed these days. So the premise is a bit smug to start with.

It is also a little inconsistent to mock a modern comedian for the use of poop jokes as you are in the process of making them yourself. Kaling is at least brave enough to include a reasonable retort to a feminist argument made by the host toward a member of the male writing staff, even though it gets dismissed not with an argument but by resorting to being in a position of power. The power dynamic is dysfunctional not because of anyone's skin color or gender, but because of their accomplishment and that seems to undermine some of the themes that she is trying to make in the script. For a film with the goal of being subversive, it is conventional right down to the tacked on, though sublte romance in the conclusion.

If it sounds like I am being overly critical, I just want to point out those things that stood in the way of everything else that worked so well. Kaling's character is funny as heck and the situations are usually humorous and accurate. Thompson is especially good and if Meryl deserved her nomination for "Prada", then if there is justice, Emma will be getting her certificate of participation early next year as well. This is an experience that would be well served by sharing it with a theater full of strangers willing to laugh out loud. I did several times but it is hard for something to be contagious when the theater feels like an isolation ward with very few patients.

Toy Story 4

The most unasked for movie of a series becomes the most essential film of the year.

You know that when this film was announced, everybody said "whaaat? We already have the perfect conclusion to the Toy Story Series, we don't need a return visit to screw it all up." Then the teaser spots were weird, and the new main character is a plastic fork? You gotta be kidding, right? Well leave it up to Pixar to get it right in the end. They usually know what they are doing and this film might give you the confidence to even feel a Toy Story 5 could be justified.

Many of the same themes that were covered in the first films are raised here as well. All of us have a need to be needed. Maslow seems to be right in this regard, even when it comes to the toys. From early on, Woody has been the key character in the adventures of the Toys. He is a fussbudget with a need for control and a strong desire to be at the top of the toy pile heap. He is so likable that we overlook his selfishness and jealousy. In the end he seems to over come these faults for the greater good. He has been a leader mostly by example in the most recent films, although his need for control does put him in conflict with other characters from time to time. "Toy Story 4" shows us a Woody who has become less relevant than he would prefer. It's not that Bonnie, his new kid dislikes him, it's as simple as her needs are different and he becomes a side character in her play. Even so, Woody feels the drive to protect Bonnie and make sure she is happy, because that's what a toy's purpose is. Protecting Bonnie's emotional state however may not be in the best interests of anybody, including Bonnie.

Woody has become a surrogate Helicopter parent. Striving to placate Bonnie by restraining "Forky" and hovering over every little tear that Bonnie sheds, regardless of the cost to others. The theme of the "Lost" toys and what happens to them becomes a threat and a wish fulfillment simultaneously. When Woody and Forky encounter some other toys that have been rejected, we are obliged to ask ourselves some hard questions. Is it better to persevere in the face of permanent failure or should we choose a new path covered with uncertainty and the potential for happiness or disaster?  Toys choose both routes in this film and we generally see satisfying results although there is sadness in those choices.

After encountering a benevolent character who turns into an evil antagonist in the previous film, our hero Woody faces almost the reverse situation in this film. Gaby Gabby is a doll that seems malevolent from the beginning. Let's face it, her team consists of ventriloquist dummies without a voice, maybe the most terrifying thing this side of clowns. She wants something from Woody that he does not want to give up, and she uses some extreme techniques to get it. In a twist that only a group as talented as those at Pixar could achieve, we feel differently about this character toward the end of the story. She and Woody share the same need, but Woody has had more than his portion of that need while Gaby never has. There are two big emotional turns that almost certainly will moisten your eyes, and they involve a character that we have been suspicious of from the get go.

It's not a spoiler to mention that Bo Peep returns to the story and her character is a lot more essential to the plot than when she was nervously biting her lip and hoping for Woody to succeed in the first film. Although you can never free yourself from the need to be wanted, you can control the level of need and satisfy it in different ways, and that is the path that Bo offers to us and to Woody. We have already learned that the Toys have different personalities, I suppose if we dwell too long on some of the existential issues raised in these movies, we will need a lot more pot. Let's just say that the existence of a character and then it's non-existence are pretty deep concepts for a movie that is aimed at children first. Forky asks the question, "Why am I alive?" and the movie tries to make a case for the answer. Even a character as feckless as Forky, can grow in emotional needs, and so can the other toys as well.

Of the new character introduced, the most fun are Duke Kaboom, Ducky and Bunny. There is not really an arc for their stories, those characters exist to enrich the environment of the main conflict and they manage to do so in the most amusing of ways. If there is a future to the Toy Story franchise, it should be in new characters like these, invested in new problems rather than recycling old ones. That's not a knock on the current film, it's just a pragmatic suggestion.

Without undermining the close of the original trilogy of "Toy Story" films, "Toy Story 4" manages to entertain us and move us in the right ways. Once again our expectations have been subverted, thankfully is a manner that should leave most fans happy that Disney/Pixar went to this well one more time. 

Shaft (2019)

I like music and movie themes are always a favorite, but you can count on one hand the number of movie themes that can single-handedly rescue a movie from mediocrity and make you care about something that is average. Whatever residuals Lalo Schiffrin gets for Mission Impossible, he has earned ten times over for that movie series. Isaac Hayes is gone but his estate should get a big check for making these movies work as well as they do. As much credit as I want to give to the theme song however, there is one other essential component that also fills the film with the value that it has, the lead actor. In the 1970s Richard Roundtree became a star playing the part of the cool private dick who is a sex machine to all the chicks, and he swaggered through three films magnificently. I don't really know why it took 19 years to get back to the character after the 2000 version of the film, because the lead actor then and now makes the theme song real.

Samuel L. Jackson may not have matinee idol good looks like Roundtree did, but he has all the attitude and charisma needed to power a movie like this. I have seen Jackson act. In "Pulp Fiction", "Jackie Brown" and "Jungle Fever", he is a real character with quirks unique to each story, but in a lot of films he plays "Samuel L. Jackson" the poet laureate of the "F" word and the bad ass with a mouth that won't quit. "Shaft" gives him the chance to use those basic cartoon skills in a pretty standard action film, but elevate that action to something more entertaining than gunfights and car chases. Jackson makes the movie he is in fun because he is having fun being in it. This is his fourth film released this year and it's only June.

The twist in this version is that Shaft is passing the baton so to speak to his son, an MIT nerd who does data for the FBI. Jessie Usher plays J.J. Shaft as if he is a newb in the big world because he has stepped out from behind his computer screen and stepped into Harlem proper. There is a lengthy backstory about the relationship, or lack thereof, between father and son. Shaft doesn't really know his child and finding out his faults and strengths are the main beats of the story. The movie is filled with offhand putdowns and double takes as Shaft tries to connect with his long lost son. Regina hall gets a female role that is much more substantial than any other in the franchise history, although it is still mostly a side part and primarily for comedic purposes. As a helicopter Mom, who never really stopped loving the man who was her son's father, she has kept the two apart, so naturally she is aghast when they reconnect. Usher let's his wardrobe do most of the acting in the first part of the movie but as he and Jackson begin to settle into a relationship, he is much more effective.

The plot deals with the usual investigation of a death that is actually connected to illegal drug trafficking. Because the story is in a hurry to get Junior and Dad back together, it is a bit rushed, and I'll be damned if I can explain why the victim was killed in the first place, but none of that matters. What matters is that there are insults, badass behavior and some fun fight scenes. Director Tim Story does not have a track record that inspires much faith in an action film. His two Fantastic Four Movies are not very popular among the comic book geeks. I don't really know his comedies, having skipped them entirely. He does seem to understand the milieu of  urban comedy and that all works in his favor because this is the Shaft movie that is supposed to be funny. There were occasional lines in the other films that would amuse but clearly this movie deserves it's classification as a comedy on IMDB.

One final note, this movie also features Richard Roundtree in the last quarter of the film. In the
previous version he was supposedly Uncle John Shaft, and the part was a brief cameo. The producers made a wise decision to make his role more central to the story and characters and it gives us a lot more to care about and laugh at as well. "Shaft 2019" may not be the classic that the original film was, but it is an entertaining night at the theater (or in front of your TV if you are not in the U.S.), so enjoy it and don't think to hard about it. Just let the song wash over you like a warm memory of awesomeness past, and listen to Jackson go off, you should be fine.  

Aladdin (2019)

The long daggers have been out for this movie since it was announced. How dare Disney remake "Aladdin", how dare Will Smith get cast as the Genie, What the hell is Guy Richie doing as the director of this movie?  The purists were waiting with their skepticism and animus and you could here snarky comments everywhere. The same criticisms that have been made by people who hated on "Beauty and the Beast", "Alice in Wonderland" and "Dumbo".  While admittedly the last two were misfires, "Beauty and the Beast" managed to catch fire at the box office and please a lot of fans of that movie. "The Jungle Book" also managed to overcome early doubts and be a critical as well as commercial success. So the question now is which category is this film going to end up in, Disney Magic pile or Tim Burton tinkering wreck? ...I'm going to make you wait a little while longer to find out what I thought. First, I have an answer to a question that many have asked, why is Disney on a remake kick.?

Obviously it is ultimately about money.  Disney is a corporation that employs thousands, has millions of investors, and is the largest movie studio in the world right now. Before the mid eighties and after the death of founder Walt Disney, the studio suffered a long nearly fallow period as a film business. They put out family films that were cookie cutter product with a limited vision, and the new animation projects like "Robin Hood, The Rescuers and The Black Cauldron" were creatively weak. The company had relied on their seven year marketing of the vault films to keep the studio afloat. So what if "The Rescuers" under-performs, we have Pinocchio to play in the summer. When you have a golden goose in the cupboard dropping eggs every seven to ten years, you can get a little complacent. It was actually when the dreaded corporate types like Michael Eisner and Jeffery Wells participated in storming the Magic Kingdom, that such complacency was smothered. There was one other problem however, technology. The home video revolution that came about with the video tape recorder put the lid on the potential of these movies to be evergreens, at least in the theater. As the classic animated movies were released on home video, a new revenue stream was created but at the expense of the old one. The old platform would not sustain itself on product that people could own and watch at home, so new product has to fill the theatrical chute. We got live action remakes of "The Jungle Book" in 1994 and "101 Dalmatians" in 1996. These set the template for a remake, tell the same story but do so differently. The biggest worries most people have about the upcoming "Lion King" remake is that it will be a shot for shot reproduction. The trick however is to give us the familiar, while also making it unique enough to draw in an audience. Does "Aladdin" walk the tightrope? I'd say yes.

There are some important key differences between the animated film and this live-action version. Princess Jasmine is a much more assertive character in this telling of the tale. She does not just want to choose who to marry, she wants to be Sultan herself. Aladdin is a thief, but he is one that has some scruples and those are emphasized more in his relationship to Jasmine. Instead of a buffoon, the Sultan is an over protective father and is under the spell of the vizier Jaffar from early on. Jaffar's plans include an expansion of military power against neighboring countries, but the loyalty of the palace soldiers is to the Sultan. Some of this is ladled on to make the story more adult but it also makes some of the character actions more understandable. The biggest difference is the Genie himself. Robin Williams brilliant comedy riffs can't be replicated but the Genie has to have a fun and friendly relationship to the title character and those have to fit the actor who portrays him. Will Smith has been devoting the last seven years to films that don't play to his comic strengths but rather his acting skill, and he has been hit or miss. The role of Genie gives him a chance to put on the jocular persona he was known for and make it work as part of the story. Also, he can sing and he dances a little. From the early reaction to film clips, you'd have thought his CGI appearance was amateurish and either you wanted him blue or you hated the idea of him actually being blue, or both. The way it plays out in the film is perfectly fine and should satisfy the contradictory impulses of those critics.

We do get several numbers from the animated film repeated, but with enough differences to make the experience worth it. I was a little underwhelmed by the early clip of the "Prince Ali" song. On the small screen it loses it's impact and it looks a little silly. With the power of the full sized screen however, you can enjoy the expansiveness of the dance number an appreciate the more subtle CGi and concomitant use of real sets and actors in the sequence. "You Ain't Never Had a Friend Like Me" is filled with Will Smith moments rather than trying to replicate Williams version. In fact most of the songs had some nice updates on their lyrics and the comic bits from Smith and Richie are more universal than the now dated references from the 1992 film. One of the nice improvements is the way the narrator character from the animated film has been replaced and the new version integrates that character into the story.

I enjoyed the Bollywood style dancing and the gymnastics that are set throughout the film. Again, I saw several people disgruntled with the trailers but when things are seen in total they work pretty well. Guy Richie had some clever camera movements during the chase scenes and the travelogue moments are are interesting. I ended up being very pleased with the movie in spite of my own indifference. This came out three weeks ago and I was not in any hurry to see it, but now that I have, I wish I'd gone earlier, it's very entertaining and it feeds the beast.