Deep Blue Sea

 

The best Shark film not directed by Steven Spielberg, came out 25 years ago and was directed by Renny Harlan. “Deep Blue Sea” is a disaster film with sharks or maybe it's a Shark film with a disaster, either way it is hugely entertaining and accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to, entertaining us while giving us jump scares, characters that we can enjoy, and an opportunity to see sharks rip people apart.

No one is going to mistake it for great art, but it is easily great entertainment. Those of you not familiar, the story involves a laboratory set in the ocean in order to analyze the brains of sharks that are being manipulated in order to produce enzymes that would be useful in reversing brain damage or dementia. Of course genetic manipulation is supposed to be prohibited in this world, but you know there wouldn't be much of a story if the scientists didn't act like most scientists do. They are Headstrong and full of themselves so they don't need to listen to what anybody else thinks.

This movie has so many moving parts that you could easily do a podcast on it just one chapter at a time and fill up a Year's worth of material. I wonder if anyone has thought of doing that? Sometimes the confluence of our film interests and others' maniacal love of a particular film will cross paths. I invite you to visit Deep Blue Sea: The Podcast, but before you do that ,you can pay attention to a few of the comments but I have to make here.

“Deep Blue Sea” came out in a Time when CGI technology was just beginning to give filmmakers the ability to visualize things on screen that had not been seen before. For the most part the technology was up to Snuff for this film. There will however be occasions when maybe the technology is a little obvious on the screen and that can be disconcerting for a moment. The filmmakers in this case however also had life-size models that they could use in the laboratory scenes and there's some animation of those models that helps pull off some of the technical mumbo jumbo that goes on in the setup. Once the story really starts we get mostly CGI sharks.

Thomas Jane is the action star at the center of the film, as a Shark wrangler. Yeah you might ask what a shark Wrangler does, but you probably won't get a better explanation from anyone else than the film gives us. He basically makes sure that the sharks in the film get put into the laboratory lift when it's time for their examinations. Apparently it's also his job to go out and hunt down the sharks should they happen to get out of their pens. Which is of course the start of the film, where Jane's character Carter shows up just in time to rescue young couples on a catamaran in the middle of the ocean. Later in the film we also discovered that he is supremely confident about being able to move through the water when the sharks are free, at least until he discovers that they have started hunting in packs. Then his confidence seems to be shaken, don't be surprised however when it is restored in the final scenes of the movie.

The film takes the “Earthquake” disaster film and “The Towering Inferno" and puts them together on the ocean and then throws in some sharks. The Aquatic station suffers from a massive hurricane that disables a number of its systems. Once there is an injury on the station which requires a Medevac helicopter to pick up the injured party, we also are going to get a crash that is going to light things on fire and do even more damage. So inevitably the survivors who are trapped on one level have to figure out a way to get to another level while avoiding sharks and being fried. Along the way you know that some of them are not going to make it, and of course that's what you were hoping for all along.

Sharks with Genetically Enhanced brains just sounds dangerous, without even having to see what they are capable of doing. When we do learn that they can swim backwards, that they hunt in packs now, and that they can read the plans and Technical layout of a water-based research Institution, and have figured out how to herd human beings through the debris so that they can take advantage of what the humans can do, suddenly it seems like developing opposing thumbs isn't really all that important to evolution.

The sharks in this film are not simply eating, they are malevolent and intentional in the attacks they make on the humans in the story. At least the writers didn't try to give the sharks dialogue in the story, that might be a bridge too far. What's not a bridge too far however are the quips, problems, and personal disputes that make up the rest of the film. If you've never seen “Deep Blue Sea", I don't want to spoil it for you, but there is a very famous jump scare that occurs just at the point that it should. It also looks plenty frightening.

In addition to Thomas Jane, we get Saffron Burrows, LL Cool J, and assorted other performers who will struggle to get to the surface. Actor Stellan Skarsgård takes a jump on all of the violent action, and is part of the most memorable moment in the film other than that jump scare I mentioned. He really has very few lines, but he still manages to convey intellectual weight, because after all he smokes a cigarette in a laboratory environment, what can be more confidently certain than that behavior? Michael Rapaport is also in the film as an engineer who knows the station inside and out so he is in essence the Google resource that gets used for most of the film when our survivors are trying to get from point A to point B.

The Jurassic Park movies laid the groundwork for large animals ripping people apart on screen and leaving the pieces to be dealt with by others. The sharks treat at least two victims as if they are wishbones at the Thanksgiving dinner. And even when it is a solo shark that's chomping down on one of our forlorn Heroes, that shark makes an effort to insure that the body ends up not just chewed up but divided. There is a lot of CGI viscera in this movie, and we can all be thankful for that.

As with most horror films, some of the human beings have to make stupid choices in order for the events to take place. It's not just the stupid people that suffer, smart guys, confident women, and street smart chefs are all subject to being eaten or at least gnawed on a little bit. Oh, and don't get too attached to the parrot.

I've seen this film at least a dozen, and I've been a guest on the “Deep Blue Sea” podcast, but going out to see the movie the other night may be the most memorable experience, because we had to brave sub freezing weather to get to the theater. Maybe the rest of the world is used to doing that, but this transplant from Southern California does not like when the temperature is in single digits. This was one of those times we're ordering the popcorn not just to satisfy a desire to eat something but also a desire to have something warm in my hands while watching the movie. Still, it was worth it.

The Beekeeper

 

I love it when a movie does exactly what it's supposed to do for you. Some films have a very simple objective, to entertain you in the genre that they're made in with the talent that is brought to bear. I can't say that every Jason Statham film I've seen has been satisfactory, but the majority of them fall into that category, and with “The Beekeeper", the average is going to go way up, because this film is exactly what it sets out to be.

As usual Jason Statham is wreaking revenge on individuals who strongly deserve to be punished. There is virtually no attempt to add humor to the story, or to make it dramatically deep, at least not past the requisite set up. Statham plays a man who has retired to take up beekeeping in its literal form, after serving in a Secret Agency where he was referred to as a Beekeeper, primarily to protect the hive when things go wrong. It's an agency so Secret that even the director of the CIA has little information about it, and that turns out to be a big part of the story.

Maybe someday Jason Statham will be recognized as an actor with Incredible thespian skills, but until that day he should definitely be recognized for his action star persona and credentials. Statham is a one-man Wrecking Crew, much like Bruce Lee in those early kung fu movies where he would take on an army of opponents and single-handedly crush them all, Statham does the same thing.  He usually uses his martial arts skills, he certainly does not limit himself to hand to hand combat. He is perfectly willing and able to engage in Small Arms combat, sabotage, booby traps, and assorted other violence to get his way. In this film Statham plays Adam Clay, which may or may not be his real name but it doesn't matter, what does matter is that he was a beekeeper. The beekeepers are warriors that make the SEAL Teams,  the Army Rangers, and assorted CIA Black Ops look like sissies by comparison. They strike fear into the hearts of even the most hardened assassins, and the antagonists in this film have crossed paths with maybe the most dangerous of the beekeepers. You know this is not going to end well for them.

It might be good to think of Adam Clay as The Terminator, because he is an Unstoppable Force that can't be bargained with,  that will never stop and absolutely will reach its goal. Fortunately for us, in this film, the Terminator is the good guy, and we can applaud the way he knocks down the pins that the bad guys represent to this bowling ball of a human being. Basically he hits a strike every time and the pins fall with mechanical precision in interesting ways each and every scene. John Wick would do most of this work with his gun, Adam clay does most of his with his fists, feet , elbows, and head. And when those don't work he'll find a gun or a flamethrower or some other handy tool that he can use to kick some more ass.

If the film needs any weight, it gets it from Phillicia Rashad in the opening section as an older woman who has offered Clay some assistance in his transition to actually taking care of beehives instead of international intrigue. When she is the victim of cybercrime, the perpetrators have crossed the wrong path and Statham is on them relentlessly. It doesn't hurt that three of the villains are so smarmy that you want to kick their ass yourself. And when they finally get their individual comeuppance, let's just say, it's the kind of satisfaction that people like me, who treat “Taken” as high art, are going to be applauding.

Jeremy Irons also lends some credibility to the film as the former CIA director who is tangentially connected to the Enterprise that ripped off Adam Clay's friend. He also knows what's coming, and half the fun of the movie is watching people who think they understand what they're getting into discovering that they are in way over their head. When Statham shows up at a call center with two gas cans and he tells everybody that he's going to burn the place down, you can bet that it's going to seem incredulous at first as if it can be laughed off. But when he proceeds to do it we're going to smile and think, hell yeah that's the way to handle a Consumer complaint.

This movie is not going to receive any awards for its dramatic integrity, but if the Academy finally caves and creates an award for stunts, then there's a good chance a film like this would get some appreciation. When these sorts of films are providing the backbone for keeping movie theaters in operation and for acting as tent poles for the rest of the theatrical releases by the major Studios, then it seems it would be an appropriate time to maybe have a category at the Academy Awards for face punching, ass kicking, straight shooting, and generally amazing creative fight sequences.

Mean Girls (2024)

 

The film Mean Girls came out 20 years ago and was a big success. It has become a touchstone for that generation and continues to be a film many look back on fondly. A Broadway musical was made from the film and has apparently done well enough over the years to justify a film version, which is what we got this month.

Before this week I think I may have seen the original film twice. Once when it came out and once when it was released on home video almost 20 years ago. I revisited the movie the night before last, in anticipation of the new film. It continued to be very entertaining and maybe the high point of Lindsay Lohan's career in front of the camera. It wasn't too much longer after this that Lohan seemed to go off the rails and have difficulty in her life and her film choices went severely downhill. Still the movie is warmly remembered, but it's not that old, so the question then becomes is a new version really necessary? The one thing that the new production has going for it are the songs that are being transferred from the Broadway show. If they were not a part of the film then I would say that this whole Enterprise was superfluous. However the songs are here and they make the movie entertaining enough and distinct enough to give it a mild recommendation.

I don't want to say anything negative about the young lady who takes on the role that Lindsay Lohan had. She sings quite well and her performance is sturdy. Angourie Rice was in “The Nice Guy” a few years ago and she was great, but when comparing the two Mean Girls ,films which was easy for me to do having seen them back to back on subsequent nights, it's clear that Lindsay Lohan had some kind of charisma that made her much more effective on screen. It's not so much that she was a better actress, it's that her personality and her facial expressions feel more in tune with the material. The current film suffers a little bit because of this lead role. The strongest performance in the film comes from the actress  Reneé Rapp,who plays Regina George, the queen bee of the Mean Girls. She has a terrific voice and sells the songs that she's doing very effectively. In the last part of the film she also successfully transitions from a villainous character to a more sympathetic comic one. When looking at the film, I think it will be judged by each of the musical sequences that make up the 90 minutes of the movie. Regina George has two of the best numbers, and as a consequence Cady, fades into the background a little bit more than she should.

The director of the film has made several cinematic choices that work pretty well in bringing the Broadway play to the big screen. There are for example, several points where we get a selfie shot video from the phones of the stars of the film. That justifies a little bit more of the musical sequences. I never felt however that there was a knockout sequence in any of the musical numbers. There are some effective lyrics, and some funny moments, but the choreography seems relatively tame for a film that is spoofing High School and is spoofing the high school spoof that it is based on. “Anna and the Apocalypse”, a film that probably had 1/10 of the budget, was much more creative and integrated the student body into the big numbers, making it feel like the film really was a musical come to life. In this film the musical sequences seem staged and occasionally perfunctory rather than essential to the tone of the film.

Most of the new film follows very closely the structure of the original. Most of the lines are repeated and there's not really an essential need for updating the dialogue, with a couple of exceptions. The story of Cady being a transplant from Africa, is largely extraneous to the events that happened in the film, unlike in the first film where her unfamiliarity with the culture explains some of the things that her character does. In this film the African background merely allows for some of the musical sequences to play around with animal motifs and references to more primitive social structures. It's all well and good and definitely some fun, but it misses the point that was being made in the original film.

Some minor changes have been made to the characters in the film. The most noticeable one may be that there is now a romantic relationship between the teacher played by Tina Fey and the principal played by Tim Meadows. That was missing from the earlier film, and it allows for some slightly different humor than some of the things that took place 20 years ago. Although I'm not sure that the humor was more fun.

As I said the only thing that really justifies this film are the songs, and they are acceptable but not particularly strong. If the sequences where the songs were being presented were more elaborate, perhaps along the lines of the “Barbie” movie, then I might find this film to be more successful. As it is, it is entertaining enough and if I run across the movie in a few years I will probably stop down and watch for a while, but it doesn't feel like I will be putting this film in myself to watch on a regular basis. And that to me is one of the ways that you can mark a really good film.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

 

I'm starting off 2024 with a challenging proposition, seeing all three of The Lord of the Rings films in one setting. I've done it before, in fact twice. But as I get older it does seem to be a little bit more of a challenge to both stay awake and not have my ass hurt at the end of the day. This is going to be a lot of fun regardless of whether I fall asleep or have a sore butt tomorrow.

These films are impressive regardless of the atmosphere that you watch them in, but when they're presented on the big screen they do take on a special quality. And nowadays it's most likely that you will see the extended Editions which is indeed what this was. Whenever people ask me which of the three films is my favorite I do answer, but I want to remind people that it's really just one film broken into three parts. I have a special affinity for the first of the films “The Fellowship of the Ring”. I like the setup in Hobbiton, I like the brief references to Bilbo's backstory, and I like the introduction of Gandalf as if he is just a traveling performer that the locals both love and fear. Of course the New Zealand surroundings make all of us wish that we could live in the Shire. It is a truly beautiful composition that includes Hobbit holes, quaint Pony Corrals, and a lively Inn where Rosie Cotton serves the drinks.

The Fellowship also has my favorite sequence in the films, the journey through Moria. Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog is one of the iconic moments in all of the films, and I love seeing it played out on the big screen in all of its Glory. I've written about all three of these films in the past, so I'm not going to cover them again in great detail, or note where changes to the stories are  made in bringing them to the screen. The performances continue to be outstanding, and each time I see Sean Astin's version of Samwise Gamgee I am impressed and wonder how it is that he was not given some sort of award for his performance.

One of the things that I noticed in the special editions is that the title caption comes up in a different spot than in the original theatrical versions, and with Fellowship, I really do think that the original theatrical caption of the main title was Superior. That however may be the only thing that is superior because all of the additions and changes that are made in the special edition really do seem to strengthen the storytelling and build character more effectively. Like most fans of the original books I do miss having Tom Bombadil in the story, but I can completely understand why that would have been a complication that made the movie less efficient.

So many people like “The Two Towers" as their favorite of the films, including my own daughter. I do think that “The Two Towers" is a very good film, and it introduces my favorite character in the stories, King Theoden. Bernard Hill is the embodiment of the character I always saw in my head when I read the books as a kid. The transformation from the possessed version of the king to the restored Theoden is a very solid piece of CGI Magic that works to convince us that evil is in fact in control in Rohan. I also like that Eowyn is depicted both as a Fearless Warrior who must hide her participation in battles, but also as an incompetent cook whose food is not really edible. The films do have small pieces of humor like that which make the movies even more ingratiating. “The Two Towers” is also the film where the character of Gollum appears in his more complete form, and Andy Serkis delivers a great CGI enhanced performance, sometimes against other actors, but in very effective scenes, against himself.

The spectacular combat that dominates “The Return of the King”, is of course deserving of the accolades that it received at the time of its release. It still holds up on screen as one of the most elaborate uses of visual technology, integrated with actors performances. Just as in Fellowship, “Return of the King” has a great moment when Eowyn confronts the witch King and reveals that she is no man. The extended Editions also contain the creepy sequence where the Mouth of Sauron appears on screen and delivers a bone chilling threat to our heroes. In trying to induce a moment of despair, it is Aragorn's optimism and refusal to accept that Frodo is dead that is the Turning of the tide. Of course the speech that Aragorn gives men of the West is also a moment that will raise the hair on the back of your neck and make you glad that you were watching this movie one more time.

We came well prepared for the event, with sandwiches and scones, which would have to substitute for lembus bread, and we also had clotted cream, butter and jam to add to the scones. We tossed in a piece of chocolate, and we had a blanket that we could lay under if we got tired. It was a long day and I did take a break at one point to come home and feed the dogs, while Amanda stayed in the theater. There were intermissions between the features but they were not clearly marked as to how long they would be. For the third film we went ahead and got our usual popcorn and soda to finish off the day, because after all, we were in that theater for 13 hours watching the three films, and we deserved some movie treats. I don't know if I will ever be able to do the trilogy again on the big screen, but I do know if I get the chance I might be willing to attempt it, these films are that good.

End of the Year Wrap Up

It's that time, when we look back at the last year and consider our accomplishments and our failures. Everyone has high and low points that make up their lives, and some of us feel the necessity of sharing that information with others. This blog is focused on movies, so you won't read about car troubles, health issues, tax problems or insurance frustrations. There are other venues for that. Here, we talk about movies and the experiences in our lives that surround our movie going. As a blogger/podcaster , it is easy for me to inventory some of these things that I do each year, because there is a record of them. 

So, here we go.

Top Ten Films of the year. Look for the video for this at the end of this post.

10. Godzilla Minus One

I would never have thought I'd have a Godzilla movie on a "Best Of" List, but here it is. It narrowly beat out "Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse", and it may have done so because of recency bias. This was a great Kaiju film that shows all those "Transformer/Pacific Rim/Monarch based Godzilla" films, how this should be done. Give us characters we care about before you start killing them of making them just plot devices for the destruction of the big monster. This is a film from Japan, with all Japanese actors and I had to read subtitles, but it was still more engaging to me than "Godzilla vs. Kong". 

The special effects seem to combine the traditional man in a suit wit some CGI to make Godzilla come to life. There are a couple of scenes of mass destruction, which mix the actors with the CGI work pretty effectively. There is a nice sense of Japanese  redemption after the war, and there is no real finger-pointing about the atomic weapons, making this a non-political but still philosophical story.

9.  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

There seems to be a lull in the love of comic book movies. The DCEU has never taken off the way it might be expected to, but even the vaunted MCU has petered out. "Ant-Man and the WASP :Quantumania" fell flat, and "The Marvels" was a huge financial flop, and did not do much better critically. Fortunately we got this final entry in the Guardians franchise, wrapping up loose story lines, but more importantly exploring the origins of our favorite misanthropic marsupial. 

Although the soundtrack selections are not as familiar as the other entries, there are still several awesome needle drops. The set pieces in the movie are inventive, but the passageway battle leading to the conclusion is the best. "No Sleep til Brooklyn" was a great choice and I am not a Beastie Boys fan. 

The film also contains the most emotionally wrenching scene in all of the MCU. Make sure you have Kleenex handy.

8. SISU

 This is a second non-English language film on my list. It is a simple story of retribution and revenge against Nazis, so there is no equivocation about who the bad guys are. This film contains some of the most over the top violence on screen this year, which is precisely why it ended up on my list. It is always satisfying to see the injustices of the evil, being corrected in the most direct way possible.

Our hero is hardly heroic, he has no dialogue until the very final moment of the movie. Still, he made us laugh a few times at his determination and brutality. If all of Finland had been like him, the Nazis might have decided to skip the rest of the war and go home and hide. 

The score for the film is almost as brutal and is a nice counterpunch to the laughs that some of the violence provokes.   I may not be a good person, I loved this too much.

7.  Sound of Freedom

The brutality of "SISU" is imaginary, the story in this film is equally brutal, but it hits home in a completely different way, one that will not make you laugh, and certainly not comfortable. This movie sat on a shelf for three years because the studio was timid. The producers bought back the rights, released it in an innovative way, and hit paydirt financially but also artistically. 

Let me warn you, the opening scenes of the movie will make you sick, especially if you are a parent. Nightmares begin this way and the truly terrible truth is that these stories are real. Jim Caviezel looked so different to me, that I did not realize he was the star until halfway through the film.  That may also be a function of the suspense that this movie manages to build as well. The final segment may have been invented for the movie, but it plays very realistically and will tighten your sphincter. 

6. Maestro

Netflix does not always make it's films available to theaters. One of the reasons that the AMC Best Picture Showcase has vanished is that the theater chain won't play a film that was not offered to it for screening. This year, Netflix did make the film available to exhibitors, for one week. 

That is a ridiculous window for fans who want to see a movie, and I was fortunate that I had a local theater that made the effort to get the movie, otherwise it would not have been included on my list. Bradley Cooper, co-wrote, directed and stars in this unusual biopic about a towering cultural figure of the 20th Century.

This is not a greatest hits, by the numbers story. I focuses more on the relationship of Leonard Bernstein to his wife than on his compositions and conducting. Carey Mulligan is fantastic as Felicia Montealegre, the actress married to bi-sexual Bernstein.

5.  Wonka

I did not have high hopes for this film. I did not think that we needed another version of Roald Dahl's famous chocolate maker. I was wrong. This was exactly what we needed at this holiday season. A well made, beautiful story that families can enjoy together.

Add on top of everything else, it is a musical, and the songs are great. There is not a show stopper that you will be whistling on your way out of the theater, but the songs are tuneful, utilitarian for the story, and you can actually understand the amusing lyrics.

The other thing that is great about the movie is that it respects the 1971 Gene Wilder film, while still being it's own movie. There are subtle nods to the production design of that fifty year old movie and to the performance of it's star. 

Oh yeah, we also get the cranky Hugh Grant as a cranky Oompa Loompa. 

4. Air

This is a movie about a shoe. 

Okay, it's really a movie about how the Nike Company became the biggest firm in shoe business, by nabbing Michael Jordan at the start of his career. It's about how the shoe came about, how it was marketed and how consumer demands are both met and created by clever people in the industries that they work in. 

Matt Damon, Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck portray the key men behind the scenes at the biggest marketing coup since Evian filled a plastic bottle with water. Viola Davis shows up as the iron-willed mother of the future superstar, and we can see where he gets his determination from

3.  The Holdovers

The grown ups are still here, and they are still making quality films that are not aimed at teen aged boys. Alexander Payne bounces back from the underwhelming "Downsizing" to score with another entry into the private schools boarding genre. Dead Poets Society", The Emperor's Club" and ""Scent of a Woman" have a companion, and it features the formidable Paul Giamatti. 

Mr. Hunham is not warm and fuzzy like Robin William's Mr. Keating. He is prickly, demanding and he smells bad. Da'vine Joy Randolph  provides a little warmth, and she is likely to win the supporting actress Academy Award, but in the end, the movie reflects the times, sometimes bitter and cynical. 

This will be a Christmas movie to add to your annual viewing pleasure, and it will add pleasure to your annual holiday viewing. 

2. Oppenheimer

The good half of last summers Barbenheimer phenomenon. This is another biopic, but it is not just about Robert Oppenheimer, but also about his progeny, the atomic age. It is a WWII movie without combat, a spy film without spies, and a heroic scientist who ends up being treated like anything but a hero.

Christopher Nolan should be polishing up his speaking skills, he will be giving a multitude of acceptance speeches this winter as he collects award for writing, producing and directing this film. 

Cillian Murphy is hypnotic as the title character and will give Bradley Cooper and Paul Giamatti all they can handle in competition for acting honors.

This is a film that justifies the existence of the more high end theaters out there, with IMAX/XD/70MM. The sound design on it's own might be enough to justify seeing the movie

1. Guy Ritchie's The Covenant 

Originally called "The Interpreter", the film's title was changed to "The Covenant", and then because there is a 2006 film with that title, the director's name was added to the title. Regardless, it is certainly a change of pace from the kinds of films Ritchie is known for. He had another film out in March, and both of them were largely ignored. The fate of "Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre" was deserved, but the neglect of this film is unfathomable. 

This is a gritty war film, set in Afghanistan, and reflects the shameful way we treated many of our allies in that conflict. This is based on a real story, one that is harrowing for both of the individuals at it's center. It is also a great piece of suspenseful film making, that kept my body tense for two hours. 

The performances by Jake Gyllenhaal and Dar Salim will go unrecognized by Awards groups but they will be remembered by you.  

Film Breakdown

I saw 120 films in theaters this year, what is truly amazing to me is how they divided up.

I was perfectly divided between new films and those that were revisits. As a fairly recent transplant to the Austin Area, I needed to find a supplier of classic films, living in Southern California made finding screenings easy. Fortunately, I found a dealer for my addiction pretty quickly. In addition to the Fathom Events at the chain theaters, Alamo Drafthouse provided some excellent opportunities to see older films on the big screen. All of that however was dwarfed by my new favorite place, The Paramount Theater in downtown Austin. 

In fact, we were at the Paramount so often, that Erin, from their outreach program, reached out to us to interview and included us in the latest fundraising e-mail update.

 

I can hardly wait for the 50th Summer Season at the Paramount this coming Summer.

Throwback Thursday Project

My plan had been to post weekly on this project, but I was at so many movies during the week, I fell behind by October. The 1975 project will continue for the next few months, bit here is a piece of data for the films I did cover.

There were six 1975 films that I had not seen before, including an obscure Robert Shaw film that I had to buy on VHS thru ebay to be able to own it. Also, the same year he won the Academy Award for Cuckoo's Nest, Jack Nicolson appeared in the hard to locate "The Passenger".

The Lambcast Podcast

I'm the host of the LAMBcast, the official podcast of the Large Association of Movie Blogs (The LAMB). Each week we have guests on the show who talk about movie related subjects. Of the fifty shows we did this year, I hosted forty six, and guest hosts covered the rest. The shows broke down like this:

Obviously we had twelve Movies of the Month, but we also averaged one new movie each month. There are several theme shows that included doing lists like :Off the Beaten Path, Roll Your Own Top 5, and Blindspot Alley. We had two draft shows, including a very fun 1980s Fantasy Film Draft. If you have not listened, you can find the shows on most of the services, i-tunes, Spotify etc. The easiest is Podamatic.  

YouTube Channel

Starting last April, I also began posting the Lambcast on YouTube. Instead of five talking heads, each show features images from the movies we are talking about and some connective illustrations as well. 

 

It is a time consuming process, but I am picking up some tech skills as I try to make the content as interesting as I can.

Top Ten Favorite Films 2023  The Video

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom

 

Remember when you were a kid and you got a new box of crayons with dozens of colors that you hadn't had before and you wanted to use them all, whatever you were drawing next? Well that's the way James Wan has gone about making the Aquaman movies, like “they gave me a whole bunch of money so I'm going to spend it on stuff that I think looks cool”. And for the most part it does look cool, but does it make any sense? No it doesn't. That doesn't mean that you can't have some fun anyway.

This Is the End of the DCEU as we know It. None of the actors who have been playing the recurring characters for the last decade are coming back. A new team has taken over the direction of all of the comics in the DC world. And the planned sequels have been canceled. This is the final film in what was the original phase of those movies, and Aquaman was always the silliest of characters and the most outrageous of visuals and the one that seems closest to the spirit of what a comic book should be. Fortunately they cast Jason Momoa as the titular figure who we also know as Arthur Curry. His physique, his long hair and his general demeanor have been key elements to making the silliest of characters one of the most fun things in the DCEU.

This film continues a few plot lines from the previous movie and doesn't contain any guest appearances by the superheroes of the Justice League. We do get a return by Nicole Kidman as Arthur's mother, and Patrick Wilson also returns as his half brother. Yeah I don't know if people will remember why Dolph Lundgren is a king but not married to Nicole. It doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense anyway. The villain returns and has been given greater powers and is even more malevolent than before. His main motivation is now simply revenge for the death of his father, and if it takes destroying the whole world to accomplish that he doesn't care. Randall Park is also back as Dr Shin, a character that I have no memory of from the original film but again it doesn't matter. And if you can't tell what his story arc is within the first minute and a half of the movie you've never seen a movie before.

Again the world is filled with fantastical creatures, colorful vistas and technology that is far beyond that which is known currently. That's another one of those comic book inventions, where ancient civilizations were so far ahead of our modern times that we look antiquated by comparison even though they were centuries before us. I think you'll have a hard time trying to figure out why all of this technology has stood up to being at the bottom of the ocean for nearly two Millennia, but if you're spending time trying to come up with an explanation for that you're missing the point of this movie. And the point of this movie is to have some fun, pretend that the things that are happening are real, and enjoy the oversized personalities that the main characters represent.

Except for the visual images there is nothing new or innovative about the story. In fact when in doubt, the screenwriters simply steal from other films, books and myths to make up the events that are taking place. You can have a lot of fun looking for the Easter eggs that represent other films, for example the black trident might as well be the One Ring. There is literally a character that is a direct rip off of Jabba the Hutt, and he's voiced by Martin Short. Heck they even throw in a reference to the MCU, when Aquaman makes a disparaging comment about his brother and refers to him as Loki. About the one original thing that this movie produced is that at the screening we saw at an AMC theater Nicole Kidman's promo for AMC was missing. Maybe there's something about a conflict of interest in having that play in front of a film that she is starring in, but that still doesn't make any sense. It's also noticeable that Amber Heard has had her role substantially reduced, she has maybe 10 lines in the movie. Her main value is to show up with her supersonic powers just in time to help out Arthur when he is stuck.

There are battles galore, and animals that are right out of the Jurassic Park series, and a long sequence that involves running through the jungles on an island trying to escape those creatures. If it wasn't for Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, and a whole bunch of other creative people who came before him, director Wan may have nothing to work with. They even crib from Willow by having a child who is endangered by the villain's plot . Still it looks great, the colors are a lot of fun and there are some silly jokes that most of us could probably enjoy. This is not a film that anybody's going to remember 10 minutes after seeing, but you will enjoy it for the 2 hours that you're watching it. I just don't know if you'd recommend it to anybody after having done so.

Look if you like the first Aquaman you're probably going to like this one, it's cut from the same cloth. It's full of colorful visuals, outlandish characters, familiar plot points and the leads are attractive and humorous people. For my money Patrick Wilson steals the movie on a regular basis. His dry delivery with some snarky overtones is a nice compliment to Momoa's casual bravado. It's like a gumbo that has to come together just right in order for the flavors not to undermine each other. Still I think you're going to have to add some sauce to make this palatable to most people's tastes. In other words if you like this you're probably already all wet.

Ferrari

 

Director Michael Mann Returns to the big screen with a biopic about Enzo Ferrari, the founder of the sports car company. This was a film that was highly anticipated and one that I had looked forward to a great deal. I've admired some of Mann's other films a lot, including “Last of the Mohicans” and "Manhunter”, two terrific films from nearly three decades ago. But like many of the directors who have come back to the screen this year the results were decidedly mixed.

The subject matter should be fascinating for people who are excited about cars. I'm not a huge racing fan but I have appreciated several movies in recent years that featured car racing as their main subject. Both “Rush” and "Ford versus Ferrari" were entertaining films and they made my best of the Year film list. Heck I even liked “Speed Racer”. The problem I had with this film is that it is less about racing and cars than it is about Ferrari and his love life. Although there is supposed to be a duality in his commitment to his wife and his mistress which is then mirrored by his desire to be successful on the racetrack and to achieve financial stability for his company. That parallel does not sustain itself very long in the movie. The domestic drama overtakes the racing issues and shoves them off stage.

Adam Driver has been made up to look older, thinner and more Italian so that he can play Ferrari. For the most part he seems adequate in the role, although most of the time his voice is low-key and he sometimes mumbles his words. Although his accent seems reasonably accurate, as is often the case when dialect and sounds are being used to convey a language rather than the words themselves, it is sometimes difficult to understand what is being said. It might as well have been in Italian to begin with.

There is a plot line about the financial instability of the Ferrari company in the 1957 timeline in which the movie is set. That story never gets completely explained once it has been set up. The idea that winning the Big Race at the end of the film will result in sales of automobiles that will be significant enough to rescue the company from its financial cliff needs to be Illustrated for us to both understand and care. But the script and the director have decided that once they've explained it in a piece of dialogue, there is no need to elaborate further. This means that the stakes of the race don't seem as significant and important as they should be. Heck, there are no scenes in which the participants go over the cars, except after an accident.

The race scenes themselves are pretty exciting although there are times when it was difficult to understand what was going on. For example in the major race that it caps the film, there are five drivers for the Ferrari team, and they all drive the red Ferrari Color cars. It seems however that some of the Maserati cars are also red, and because the drivers are wearing helmets and goggles it is often difficult to tell which car it is we are looking at at any given moment. In fact it was not until the end of the scene that I realized that a driver who had lost his car and had to get a ride from one of the Ferrari drivers was in fact driving a Maserati rather than being a member of the Ferrari team. A point like that is very confusing when you are at the climax of a film.

It seemed to me that the whole point of the film was to highlight two spectacular crashes that occurred and were turning points in Ferrari’s story. I'm not sure that we needed to see the crashes in the spectacular detail that is provided by the film. However the one crash that occurs close to the end of the film is devastating to watch and of course that means that it is quite dramatic. Unfortunately the car crashes are the only dramatic things that seemed to happen in the story. Confirming the ugly belief that the real reason people watch these kinds of races is to see the crashes. I suspect that the real reason people will see this movie is to watch these scenes. Not a very pretty thought.

Enzo is supposed to be torn between Penelope Cruz who plays his wife and Shailene Woodley who is his mistress. Neither of them is given very much to do in the film, and we barely know their characters at all. Woodley especially is underutilized, with only a brief flashback to explain how she and Ferrari got together, and that appears to be the extent of their 12-year relationship. With Cruz it was a little bit clearer that there were elements of the marriage that were important to these characters, but that does not really get used in the story except in one scene where it is made clear that an incident in the family's past is responsible for most of the division between Ferrari and his wife. This could have been a rich vein of drama to explore, but it simply gets used as a plot point to give a short hand for why the couple's marriage is on the rocks and why the wife resents the mistress, even though she seems accepting of the infidelity.

This is a good film but it is not a great movie and the reason is that the script does little to engage us. Frankly there's so many scenes that go on far too long that I was often slightly bored. That's not something that should be happening in a movie where car racing is involved. I could recommend the film to people by saying it is a reasonable biopic about the man, but not about the legend of the car. And I think for most audiences they have very little interest in the man without also being interested in the car. So the movie is simply imbalanced.