The Gray Man

So before I talk about the movie itself, a little bit of background on the film, exhibitors and myself. This is an expensive Netflix production, that is getting a limited theatrical release ahead of it's debut on the Netflix steaming service. The reported budget was near $200 Million and that looks like it made it to the screen. The Directing brothers Anthony and Joe Russo, who did some of the most successful MCU films, were in charge for this show. The reason that the release is limited probably has something to do with the fact that several film chains require exclusivity to theatrical for a set amount of time, and Netflix was not prepared to accept those conditions.  AMC is one of those exhibitors who will not play a movie that is going to compete with itself, at least not after the pandemic restrictions which had call most bets off. I am happy to see a film on streaming, but I much prefer the theater experience, so when given the opportunity, I took it and traveled to a nearby town to be able to see this since it was not within a ten mile radius of where I now live. With rare exceptions, this site is devoted to the cinema experience. There is too much content on streaming for me to keep up with, and I don't want to review TV. However, since Netflix make the effort to put this in theaters and I made an effort to see it in one, it will get some attention from me here.

"The Gray Man" is a spy film, which focuses on the assets that are primarily in place to kill someone. Although there may be comparisons to Mission Impossible" or the James Bond films, this is really closer to "Atomic Blonde", "The Hitman's Bodyguard", "The Accountant" or "The Eiger Sanction", which all pretend to be spy films but are really cat and mouse games between paid killers. "The Gray Man" is not a character that works in intelligence, they do not infiltrate conspiracies to bring them to an end, there is not really much suspense in the work they do. The Gray men exist in the shadows, executing directions that have been given to them rather than forging their own path. Sierra Six, Ryan Gosling's character in this film, is basically a weapon for action, not a tool of investigation. As long as you keep that in mind, you will probably be able to enjoy this film for what it is. 

The Russos have managed, along with the screenwriters and editors, to cut the story down to the minimal outline required in order to have a plot, and then filled in that skeletal structure with as much screen action as is possible, staying just this side of the nonsense that shows up in the "Fast and Furious" franchise. There are wild shootouts in crowded locations every few minutes. There are also over the top car chases on city streets between the shootouts and while they are happening. Cars don't fly between buildings or swing from one cliff to another, but people do emerge from wrecks that would kill most of us at half the speed, and they simply jump up, dust off and get in the next ride. The foot chases are sometimes tough because of the shaky cam that is used to film them, but the car chases are problematic so often because the use of frequent close ups keeps us from observing the context and knowing what the risks are.   

There are certainly joys to be had in the overkill that is employed in providing mayhem on screen. All of that is OK for an audience interested in pyrotechnics only. Any viewers who were looking for a plausible story with characters facing consequences for their choices will be disappointed. It is as if the CIA, sent it's own forces en masse to London, to collect Julien Assange or to Moscow to get Edward Snowden, and along the way they wiped out half of the security services of those countries and there were no ramifications. That's because this movie is not about anything, it is simple a diorama for moving the toy soldiers around and blowing things up. If you have seen the MCU films the Russo Brothers have directed, you will see that they are quite capable of showing interesting mayhem. They continue to be able to do that. 

Gosling is delivering an understated character as an action hero pretty well. He keeps the sardonic quips to a minimum and provides a voice that is exhausted, injured or optimistic as the situation calls for. His co-star and fellow agent Ana de Armas, is proficient physically as she was in "No Time to Die", but her character here lacks the joyful enthusiasm of that character and she is simply another action figure without much personality or purpose. That was certainly not the actress's fault, it is the screenwriting team that left her high and dry. Chris Evans plays against type in this film, as he did with his previous effort which starred  Ana de Armas, "Knives Out". The antagonist Lloyd Hansen is a psychopath with skills but no off switch. The notion that the CIA deputy director that turns him loose had any idea what was coming, undermines the credibility of the plot. Evans is not required to do much, but his hostile passive aggressiveness, combined with actual torture, will make you hope he gets what is coming to him. As usual, the gravitas of a film he appears in is provided by Billy Bob Thornton, who in the last couple of decades has become one of my favorite on screen performers. 

This film seemed to have a stink on it before it opened. I'm not sure why. It is not great but it is certainly not a terrible picture. It is an action film that goes all in on that avenue and abandons any attempt to make us care much about who gets killed except for the two leads. If you see it in a theater, you will get your entertainment value, but not much else. 

Thor: Love and Thunder

 

While there are some references to the MCU stories, this is largely a stand alone Thor film, and it has the same vibe as "Thor Ragnarok", for the obvious reason that it was directed by the same Taika Waititi who directed that film. It is in large part successful at being amusing with some fun comedic moments, but it does not quite live up to the standard set by the earlier film. "Love and Thunder" lacks some of the elements that made "Ragnarok" work. Those missing elements are critical characters from the other stories. There is no Loki or Hulk to play against, we are provided with Valkyrie and Jane Foster, two good characters but they don't stack up well in comparison. 

The Guardians do make an appearance in this film, but it is basically an extended cameo, and they are gone within the first ten minutes of the movie. That means that the main link to the Asgardians and the events of the past is Korg, voiced by Waititi himself, as a sort of storytelling narrator, injected sometimes in odd places to provide exposition, but also present for much of the action. The device has a comic effect, but it also tends to take us out of the flow of the story, which makes the movie feel a little bit like a mess. I certainly would not get rid of the character, he is too amusing to leave out of the film, but the way he is utilized emphasizes the comedy and not the narrative. 

The plot, such as it is, concerns a being who comes into possession of the NecroSword that can slay a god. The character becomes Gorr, the God Butcher, played by Christian Bale. Initially, the story seems to be about Gorr's mission of vengeance, and there is a plot device added to make the danger seem more immense, but it turns out that the ultimate goal is a means to rectify a problem, or lay waste to all the Gods at one fell swoop. The strategy for achieving the objective involves Thor's weapon Stormbreaker which has somehow assumed the power of the Bifrost bridge. To be honest, there is a pretty clear shortcut in the story that doesn't get used, and it seems like it would have been something the God of Thunder might have considered. 

A secondary plotline, and one that is actually more engaging and dramatic, involves Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her acquisition of  Mjölnir, giving her the powers of Thor. Following this story line makes it clear why Natalie Portman was willing to return to the series after having abandoned it subsequent to "The Dark World". Jane Foster is a more interesting character here and she faces a crisis that makes the decisions she choses feel more justified. The Restored  Mjölnir, Stormbreaker and Jane, all vie for Thor's attention and the comedic bits that come from that are quite clever and character based. 

There is an extended sequence in the hysterically named Omnipotent City, where Thor and his band of heroes, implore the Gods, in particular Zeus, to aid them in fighting Gorr. This scene is mostly a plot point for humor rather than necessity. Zeus is portrayed by Russel Crowe, and he assumes an accent that is both offensive and whimsically hilarious at the same time. I have already pointed out in other films, that Crowe has been slammed by middle age weight issues, but he is still a compelling persona, even if he lacks the musculature of Hemsworth's Thor [and by the way, Chris Helmsworth looks amazing in physical form.]  This is the eighth time he has played Thor, and given the credit stingers it looks like we can anticipate some more work from the current iteration of the God of Thunder. 

My reaction is positive but not with the same level of enthusiasm I had for Ragnarok. Of the four Thor Centered films (minus the Avenger movies) this ranks above "The Dark World" but below "Ragnarok "and "Thor".  I think the movie has potential to grow on me, but for the moment this is only a mild endorsement.  

Elvis

 

Based on the small sample of this household, this movie is going to be divisive. The number of musical biopics in recent years may be indicative of an aging audience as it seems time for us to look at the musical heroes of our youth. Queen and Elton John are prime examples, but The Beatles and Bruce Springsteen have also had films based on their music in the last few years. Aretha and N.W.A. also got the biopic treatment. Elvis is a different animal however, he has been gone for almost half a century, and his original fans are probably not around to make up an audience for this film. The reasons for making a film like this still exist however. Elvis is the pivotal figure in the creation of modern culture in the second half of the 20th Century and his influence still reaches us well into the 21st.  

Director Baz Luhrmann has a reputation as a film innovator. He has made six feature length films and all of them have some distinctive visual qualities and a heavy use of music. "Elvis" should be the ultimate film in his catalogue if musicals are what you are looking for. The question before us is simple, does the film live up to expectations? From my point of view the answer is mostly yes. I will have a few reservations that you will get later, but let's begin with the stuff that would justify some enthusiasm.

Elvis as a force of nature and cultural tipping point is where Luhrmann succeeds early on. Elvis did not appropriate black culture and music, he championed it. This film digs a little into those roots with a couple of effective scenes. The child version of Elvis is drawn to the gospel music of his black neighbors and that music remained with him the rest of his life. The spiritualism that possesses him is transformed into sensuality later on, in a way that Elvis himself did not at first understand. In a strong visual flashback and extended concert sequence, Luhrmann connects these two seemingly conflicting influences and shows how important they were to transforming music into a emotionally shared experience for audiences. In a longer scene, he rejects efforts to channel his singing into a safer cultural zone, and embraces his emotional roots, which happen to challenge not only a sense of sexual propriety but also racial suppression. He may have grown up in a socially segregated world, but his musical impulses ignore those divisions and his fans largely do as well. This film is not about racial justice but it is about someone who influenced attitudes about those sorts of things and he existed in that context. 

The seeming Svengali of the phenomena that was Elvis, is Colonel Tom Parker, a mysterious showman/charlatan who took over Presley's career and guided it to incredible heights, exploited it for fantastic sums of money, and abused it for his personal benefit. The movie is structured around a seeming end of life confessional/defense by Parker of his relationship with The King. I appreciated some of the details in the story around this, and the mythmaking is also enjoyable, but I have reservations about Tom Hanks performance. The accent and at times over the top sinister smiles, are a bit dubious. The one thing that is pretty clear from a story perspective is that the relationship was complicated by admiration and loathing on both sides of the equation. The most satisfying sequence for an Elvis fan is the backdrop on the 68 Comeback Special, which Elvis used to restart his relevance in the world, in direct conflict with the final sell out that Parker was trying to manufacture. The recreation of the special is one of the many spots where Luhrmann gets close to turning this into the musical it really should be. 

It is the musical/concert scenes where the director and his acting discovery Austin Butler, manage to get the electricity that Elvis could generate on screen. When Butler is performing on stage, he really does bring Elvis to life and the sequences are well shot. It would perhaps be more entertaining if more of the songs were complete rather than composites. The sad coda of "Unchained Melody" is a good example of how a more complete musical edit could make the moments more meaningful. Luhrmann however is a visualist who needs to take advantage of the technology and control that modern film making can allow. I did think that he was more subdued on this than I expected. 

The places where the film falls down a bit are the personal moments and plot threads that should be a little more front and center. Elvis's romance with Pricilla gets a little bit of time, but his marriage gets next to nothing. The presence of Lisa Marie is tertiary and exist only for a moment on screen. His well known generosity is never touched on. The Memphis Mafia is listed at one point, but their fealty to and love of Elvis does not come across or show the personalities of the guys. Also missing is Elvis's playful sense of humor. 

Overall the film was very entertaining from my point of view but my daughter found it lifeless and a big disappointment. We will be talking about this more on the podcast, so if you want, come by and listen to our differences of opinion there.  

John Carpenter's The Thing Fathom Events

 

Not an extensive post, just something to help me remember that we did this. It was Father's Day and we had it planned for several weeks. We put on our Fright Rags Tee Shirts and headed off to the afternoon screening. There was a good sized audience but the theater was not full. We got a couple comments on the shirts and everyone was in a good mood. 

The projector broke down, just as Copper is about to apply the defibrillator, and the audience moan was loud. That was the start of a key sequence and it was frustrating. Amanda became the hero and went out and notified the staff. They got it going again but it had run past the best moments. Whoever was in charge of the equipment did run it back for us but I think we missed about 70 seconds.

Something else was wrong as well. We got this notice on Facebook the next day:

Dear Fathom Fans,

Your patronage and trust are of utmost importance to us. We know you come to theaters expecting the very best experience possible and we pride ourselves on being the provider of that experience.

We are aware that the recent showing of The Thing wasn’t shown in its original aspect ratio and the disappointment it caused.  Wednesday’s scheduled event will be shown in the proper aspect ratio, so you can see the film in theaters, as it was meant to be seen.

Thank you for your patience and trust in us to bring you the very best in event cinema experiences.

https://www.fathomevents.com/.../The-Thing-40th-Anniversary

We tried booking for last night to go again, but the screening was sold out. So that's good, but I would like to have seen it without the interruption and in the right aspect ratio. Still I had a good Father's Day. 

Lightyear

 

I don't know what audience this film is ultimately directed at. The plot is a little convoluted and complex for kids to relate to, and the adults in the audience will not find it as engaging as it should be as a straight drama. There is humor but it is not of the nature that we are used to in animated fare, and the movie just seems to sit there wanting to be loved but only managing to be respected. Somewhere in the story conferences, the Pixar team missed the heart that they usually find in a film, and instead they settled for the spectacle.

Chris Evans is fine as the voice of Buzz in this Movie about the movie that inspired the kid in another movie to idolize. I do think Tim Allen would have been able to bring the funny a little more often, but the problem is the script rather than just being the actor. The plot here is almost a reimaging of Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" which was a complex, time based space travel film which also has a hard time explaining the time sequence elements that are at it's heart, but at least that was not simply rushed over. At the end of this film, an antagonist character shows up and it will be very confusing to the kids and he is not well explained to the adults.

The movie looks good, it is a nicely realized attempt to imagine a film that could stir Andy's imagination and make Buzz the competitor for his affection against Woody. Some of the images cross-over, like the space suit and the laser pointer weapon. The spaceship is a bigger stretch of imagination, but a kid can do that with the right toy. On the other hand, the Turnup ship, the new home base, and the defense shield all feel a little derivative. The robots of Zurg needed to be a bigger part of the story, there is just one element of that which makes much of an impact, the rest of the time they are barely in the background.

The heart that Pixar usually finds in the story is focused on a couple of characters that we needed to have more stakes in. Alisha Hawthorne as Buzz's best friend and commanding officer, is given an emotional story arc, but it takes place almost entirely out of Bizz's presence. The time elapse nature of the story keeps her and Buzz from being as connected as they need to be for us to really feel the loss. What Pixar was able to do in a few minutes at the start of "Up", they can't replicate in the 105 minutes that this film runs. When Sox, the mechanical cat is the hero of the story, and the key relationship Buzz has on screen, then he should be the heart tugger, and while there is a moment or two, they don't reach us the way they could.

I saw this in 3D and it made the backgrounds deeper and the foreground more interesting, but there was nothing special about it other than the 3D effect. Nothing pulls you in or startles you by coming off the screen. So the film is serviceable but not special, and that feels like a failure when we are talking about the source. For anyone else, it would be a solid hit.

Jurassic World: Dominion

 

In preparation for the latest Dinosaur extravaganza, I recently watched all the other films in this series. There is a reason that Steven Spielberg is the most celebrated director of our times and Colin Trevorrow is a journeyman with only bits of occasional inspiration. Two suspense scenes in the first two Jurassic Park films show you what a master Spielberg is. The initial T-Rex attack in Jurassic Park is one of the most tense, frightening and well directed scenes in a movie ever. In The Lost World: Jurassic Park, the attack on the trailers adds on tension in each moment that Spielberg makes work so much longer and more effectively than anyone else has managed to do. Trevorrow, for all his gifts, simply does not have the instinct that Spielberg does. His tension building scenes are too abrupt, too frequent, and sometimes over the top in a way that he can't quite pull off.  It's not meant as an insult to say he is no Spielberg, it is simply an acknowledgement that his films have not been able to work at the same level.

Jurassic World Dominion is not a failure because of the action scenes, the problem is actually the opposite, the action scenes fail because the rest of the movie cannot quite justify them, I was willing to go along with the revamped "Jurassic World" because it stemmed from a solid idea, that built on what came before it, and even though it stretched the concept a bit, it managed to work. "Fallen Kingdom" and "Dominion" don't have the right premise going for them, so the stringing together of solid action beats with bad story ideas and dumb characters, just won't cut it. I enjoyed the moments of action in the film that employed the main characters from the two sets of film groups, but the secondary characters are underwritten, somewhat unnecessary and disposed of either too soon for us to enjoy their comeuppance, or without much drama. 

These posts never give away spoilers and I try to refrain from simply recapping the film as part of the discussion, which is a good thing in this case because I'm not sure I could keep it all straight. Characters come in who start off as antagonists, then end up as allies and allies disappear after a few scenes and are never heard from again. There are genetically created murder locusts, that may threaten the world food supply, but then they may simply be a marketing tool for genetically modified crops, but then the geneticist who created them demurs and maybe we want to get rid of them. It simply depends on the scene as to which way the evil corporation is going at the moment. There is no logical consistency in the objectives of the antagonists and the heroes have mixed motives for their actions as well. There are a bunch of shady characters who are acting out of greed, but sometimes they just seem to be malevolent for the sake of being evil.

All of this is happening in a universe that is not vey well thought out. There are dinosaurs in the wild, dinosaurs nesting in urban areas, dinosaurs in nature preserves, dinosaurs in illegal breeding factories, and dinosaurs in private possession. Despite all of the potential dino death surrounding everyone, the culture moves on as if the threat does not exist, until it is in your face. Are the velociraptors creatures to be feared and potential rivals to our dominance of the planet? Or are they creatures to be pitied because they are hunted, and misunderstood?  The film makers do their best to get as many different dinosaurs into the story as they can, and sometimes they come across as teddy bears, and other times as venomous snakes from the outback. 

As dangerous as a dinosaur might be, the human characters are the ones that present the biggest menace because they all offer a moment of pontification and exposition that just might kill...your interest in what is happening. Bryce Dallas Howard, Chris Pratt, Laura Dern, Sam Neil, Jeff Goldblum, B.D. Wong, and Campbell Scott all have a moment when they provide exposition and supposed philosophical insight into the events that are happening. Remember the scene where Jeff Goldblum and Sam Neil are warning John Hammond at the dinner table in Jurassic Park? Well it feels like that happens every ten minutes in this film. It's as if TED Talks become the standard way that people communicate with one another. The most human and realistic moment comes when Ellie Stadler voices exactly what the audience is thinking after listening to a guru like Steve Jobs monologue from Dodgson. "What?"  It drew a laugh, but even such meta awareness doesn't stop it from continuing. Everyone sounds like Jeremy Rifkin or Al Gore at some point, and it just gets to be too much.

Aside from the schizophrenic story telling, cartoon characters, implausible technology and unexplained political realities, the movie was fun to watch for two and a half hours. If you want high tech thriller mixed with old school adventure, just drop down to the subterranean hyper loop of Elon Musk, I mean Lewis Dodgson, and follow Sam Neil's Dr. Grant as he plays 'Indiana Jones in the Tunnel of Dinosaurs".  Just don't get distracted by the flaming killer locusts who will distract you until it is time for the two apex predators to face off in a climax that means nothing. If you put some Raisinettes  in your popcorn, along with some Hot Tamales, you will have done a more logical job of gene splicing than this movie, and you will enjoy consuming that a lot more than the film.

Top Gun Maverick

 

The end of the movie star is inevitable, headed for extinction. Maybe so, but not Tom Cruise.

I have heard it a thousand times, the age of stars is over, and then Tom Cruise releases another film and everyone has to put an asterisk next to their statement. He may be the one star that still can open a movie, at least in the right vehicle. "American Made", "The Mummy" and "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" did not light up the box office numbers, but the Mission Impossible films still open the cash registers, and this sequel, coming in 36 years after the original and two years after it was supposed to be released, sure did the trick. This is clearly a Tom Cruise movie and he is clearly the reason that it opened so well. 

This movie has received near universal praise as an entertainment, with an audiences score on Rotten Tomatoes of 99% and a critic score of 96%, it won't be too hard to figure which direction this commentary will go.  I have no intention of bucking the trend. The Lambcast this last weekend had the one poor review of the film that I have encountered, and had I been on the show, I would have disputed some of the criticisms leveled at the film, but even from someone who was not a fan, they acknowledged that it was a handsomely mounted film that probably will entertain the masses. Count me in as one of the masses. I did not think there needed to be a sequel to the film, and when I first heard that it was in production, I thought Cruise might be getting a little desperate. Nope, this is the sequel that we needed and Cruise has his confident fingerprints all over the film. 

It was a little unnerving at first because the opening moments of the movie are lifted out of the original film. The shots of the planes on board the aircraft carrier, the tech crew who participate in the launch and recovery of the planes, even the establishing shots of the carrier, are note for note. I think the sequence is updated and new but I could be wrong. The same narrative scroll appears at the beginning of both films, so maybe it is the same footage. The motorcycle footage is new, because it is the current version of Tom Cruise on the bike, although he still looks relatively the same. It does not take too long however to get to something I know is fresh. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell is now a test pilot for the military, checking out a new supersonic plane that is about to get canceled. The main reason we get this sequence is to remind us that Maverick skirts the rules, presses the limits and still manages to land on his feet. 

From the trailer of the film, it seemed like the focus would be on the tension between Maverick and the son of his dead RIO Goose. Miles Teller plays Rooster, but it is not really the death of his father that is the source of the division between the two leads. An artificial conflict has been managed for that. Speaking of conflicts, it was not clear to me why the mission in this film had to be carried out in the way it is designed, but it was extremely clear what the goal was and how it was supposed to get done. The problem that brings Maverick back to Top Gun is a logistics course, that he has to get the best pilots in the world to master. If there is one thing that feels right in the film, it is the prep and training that the pilots have to go through. The simulated conditions feel very real even when there is not a matching physical environment. All of the pilots should be able to comprehend the strategy if they have seen Star Wars because the obstacle in front of them is the same one that the X-Wing fighters were working against. When you add on top of this, the fact that the aerial shots are largely done in camera on actual planes with real g-forces, the technical excellence of what is being done is even more impressive. 

The actors work fine in their roles. Tom carries the charisma for the film, Jennifer Connelly adds an age appropriate love interest and when she smiles, the scenes warm up immensely. Teller is a doppelganger for the previously dead Goose, but he is not front and center until the last act of the film. When we get there, his interaction with Cruise is much stronger. Most of the other pilots have only minimal character, although they did seem more distinct to me than most of the secondary characters in the original film.  Although his screen time is limited, Val Kilmer gets a chance to act again and he is used in a manner that is completely in keeping with the character he played in the original. The connection between Kilmer's Iceman and Cruise's Maverick turns out to be the most enriching story arc in the movie, both because of the two characters but also because of the two actors. Maybe it is fan service but it is the kind of fan service that fans deserve and the actors earn.

Now the plot line is the main issue that might risk criticism from the naysayers. I heard it described as an act of war and something that NATO would not approve of. A preemptive strike on a rogue nations nuclear program is not unprecedented. Israel took out Iraq's early program and the U.S., Israel and others continue attacks on the programs that the Iranians are engaged in, although those have largely been clandestine rather than overtly military attacks. The U.S. has made extensive use of drone attacks on military targets, including personnel. The U.S. government has made open military attacks on Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and others in the context of terrorism, that has long been standard U.S. practice. The movie does not give us context on the mission, it only outlines the military strategy, not the diplomatic world in which the attack took place. It is quite possible that the U.S. led action in this film was authorized by a U.N. mandate, it just never comes up as part of the story. 

The truth is, that political element is superfluous to the story we are watching. This is about how a military unit prepares for a mission and carries it out. The characters are relevant to the emotional core of the story, and the ones that matter, Maverick, Iceman, Rooster and Penny, were given enough story arc to justify our caring about what happens to them. The music pumps us, the tension moments work, and the cathartic explosions, flying stunts and character ticks give us the go ahead to have a good time. So head on out to the danger zone and enjoy the need for speed.