Drive-Away Dolls (2024)

 

You would think that a film from one of the Coen brothers would draw a lot more attention and interest from the film community than this slightly misbegotten exercise in excess has received. I didn't hate the movie but I was surprised at how over the top some of the things were in the film, and that the director's choices were also obviously designed to provoke and be distinctive, without being particularly creative. Ethan Cohen has created another crime drama about off-center characters, and crimes gone bad. From the makers of Fargo and No Country for Old Men, this is natural except that the comedic elements are created to accentuate the odd instead of using those odd elements to highlight small parts of the story. The result is an over full collection of vulgarities, violence, and elegant dialogue that would work a lot better if it was used more sparingly.

I had originally planned for this to be a film that we covered on the Lambcast. Unfortunately not a single one of the podcasters or bloggers of our 2,000 members signed up to talk about it. This should have been a signal to me that there was something not quite right about the project. I read after deciding to cancel the podcast, that the original title of the project was Drive-Away Dykes. The change in title was probably designed to avoid putting off people who didn't care to have that element of sexuality front and center in their crime story. However, a title change doesn't change the script, and we still get lots of lesbian love, phallic foreplay, and some of the most vulgar and descriptive language that you can imagine. While there are moments of nudity in the film the vast majority of those things that sexualize the film are in the dialogue. And they are not sexy but rather obnoxiously provocative.

I'm not sure that this is a film that will be embraced by the LGBTQ+ community, because the stereotypes in the film seem to be at odds with what would be a more inclusive approach. There is a caricature of a lesbian relationship that seems particularly offensive, and there are sexually based sequences that seem to cater to offensive stereotypes about lesbians. I am also dubious about the desirability of flexible phalluses as the love toys preferred by committed gay women. For a movie about the empowerment of lesbians, the perspective it takes seems to be one of amusement rather than real agency.

Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Vishwanathan, are the two leads and each of them has some pretty effective moments in the film. Qualley was familiar to me from “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, where she played Pussycat, the hippie girl that gets Brad Pitt's character up to the Spahn Ranch where the Manson family is living. Vishwanathan, was very appealing 3 years ago and a fill my liked quite well, “The Broken Hearts Gallery”. In this film she plays a more innocent character to her partner’s Wild Child. The story involves a mis-matched pair of women who take a road trip and inadvertently have in their possession what at first seems like a McGuffin. Later the secret does in fact get revealed. You might think it was drugs, because of the violence involved and obtaining the suitcase with the soon to be revealed contents, but unlike the mystery of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction, we finally see what the contents are, and it's another one of the crude jokes that the film is based on.

The girls are pursued by a team of inept criminals, similar to the pair in Fargo, or Pulp Fiction. Their dialogue is also frequently over the top, with just enough wit to make it interesting but not enough to allow it to be compared to some of those sparkling sequences in those other films. When we discover what the whole Enterprise is about, it makes even less sense, because most of this could be dismissed without anybody having to be murdered or any money exchanged. A simple denial would be more than sufficient to eliminate the risk that the ultimate antagonist seems to feel exists. We have no providence for the relics, except some perv collectors. The movie has a couple of prominent actors in secondary roles that might almost count as a cameo. Pedro Pascal shows up at the start of the movie, and then a part of him continues to be a present in the film. He was perfectly fine but I'm not sure why director Cohen thought that it was necessary to have such a well-known actor in the part. Conversely when Matt Damon shows up near the end of the film, we understand his casting because the film needs someone with some charisma, to become the antagonist that the movie needs at this point. Once again though, his motivation seems to be highly exaggerated. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it is a legitimate strategy for public relations. It just doesn't seem to have been considered.

I probably already given away more than I should have about the film. There are three or four transition sequences that feature psychedelic visuals and remind me of a Saul Bass James Bond title sequence. They don't make much sense, until the end, and even then they don't really do much to make the film interesting, they mostly just make it weird.  

There are plenty of films that go over the top as a stylistic choice to try and make the movie interesting to a specific audience. I enjoyed the movie “Shoot ‘em Up”, from more than a decade ago, but by the time it was finished I was bored by the excess. This film provides excess on a different subject, and I was bored by it in the first 20 minutes. There is some clever stuff here, and I think you will laugh a few times, but I also think you'll shake your head and say " I've seen this before”. There's nothing new to see here, it's recycled and overdone. You'll forget about it almost immediately, which is not something I've said about many Cohen Brothers films before. Perhaps Ethan needs his brother Joel, to rein in the more preposterous elements of the movie, and make it feel less like a cartoon and more like a satire of crime dramas. That is really what it wants to be. You can safely skip this, but if you watch it at home later, maybe you should send your parents to bed before it starts, trust me it's a little awkward.

Dune Part 2 (2024)

 

Completing one of the great film projects of my lifetime, Director Denis Villeneuve delivers a terrific part two to the "Dune" stories he began three years ago. Actually it was four years ago, we got delayed a year by Covid, and this film was delayed by six months due to the actor's strike. Maybe those were not bad omens but rather good luck charms. My original review of the first film was positive, but muted by some less than favorable comparison to the David Lynch version. As a film, "Dune Part One" is more successful, but less vibrant than I had hoped. 

The biggest reservation I had about the first film, was the surface level storytelling of the Harkonnen adversaries. That flaw has been redeemed substantially by the story choices made with this film. To begin, Baron Harkonnen, played by Stellan Skarsgård, is more than a floating figure in the background. We finally begin to see the long game he is playing. The murderous political life of Geidi Prime is revealed, and when he indulgences in his vices, we get a significantly greater reason to have distaste for this fearsome antagonist. The complexity of the Harkonnen plot is extended when Feyd-Rautha's character appears on screen. Feyd is the figure actually being groomed to take over Arrakis and maybe a lot more. That he is the Baron's nephew does not eliminate the subterfuge that takes place in the family, and is an additional plot that the Baron ids cooking. I might be a little critical of how vociferously he is cheered by the crowd, especially when we see his murderous behavior towards his servants, but the culture seems to be a martial one , so maybe the actions are viewed in the same way the Spartans of ancient Greece might view their own behavior toward the weak. 

Back on Dune, Paul and Jessica are finding their way into the Freman culture, which is frankly also brutal, but without being cruel. The Fremen are more fatalistic and many of them are fervent believers in the narrative that has been set out over thousands of years by the Bene Gesserit sisterhood. Fanaticism is very dangerous when mixed with messianic expectations. The fact that Paul's genetic background is leading to fulfillment of both Freman Prophecies and Bene Gesserit genetic manipulation, is probably an unexpected consequence of Jessica's disobedience in providing a son to the late Duke Leto.  I liked the slow way that the prophetic arrival of a messiah is being introduced to the native population of Dune. It is much clearer in this version of the story that the Bene Gesserit have nurtured this mythology with the intention of using it. One of the differences in the film version and the original text, is the way that Chani is depicted in the context of this prophesy. She is something of a heretic by rejecting the story, and she turns the religious drive behind it, into a suspect of political proportions. It is her contention that adhering to the religious fundamentalism is what has held the Fremen down. The awkwardness of that attitude however is revealed as it is the prophecy that finally liberates the forces of the Freman as an army capable of being lead by the outsider Muad'Dib. It is also a little strange that she can accept Paul's prescience, but reject the description of that very thing in the stories of her people. 

The slow take on the prophesy is not limited to Jessica and the Freman. Paul does his best to resist the call of becoming the Kwisatz Haderach. He has visions of the devastation his ascension to power will result in. Having followed his story, we want to see justice for House Atreides and revenge on the Emperor and especially the Harkonnen. It is clear that the Harkonnen are evil, and that at the very least the Emperor is a Machiavellian ruler with no moral compass except power. The problem is that it looks like Paul will fall into the same patterns, and do so for the sake of Fremen Paradise. In the end, Paul is not the hero of the story, he is an instrument of chaos, the likes of which will change the universe, the question is, will it be for the better? The sequence where Paul takes the Water of Life, is dramatically well played, but it is the moment when he confronts the Fremen Cavalcade that his threat becomes realized. It is both awe inspiring and frightening, a fact that he recognizes with his own words in the script. Screenwriters Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts have adapted Frank Herbert's novel in a more expansive way than was done with the David Lynch version. Having twice as much time, they still trimmed elements that are not essential for this story. The timeline in this film is different, and the easiest illustration of that is Jessica's pregnancy and the fact that Alia only appears in a flash forward for a brief few seconds. 

When it comes to the technical aspects of the film, I found nothing deficient. The sequence when Paul conquers the Sandworm is one of the most impressive scenes in a science fiction movie. The sense of realism is overwhelming, with the sound design of the moment a big part of that.  The scope of the visual, combined with the enveloping sound, lets the audience experience the ride, almost as a participant rather than just an observer. The power of the worms also comes up in the conclusive battle as they crash though the shield walls and mountains of Arrakeen. The story, for those of you unfamiliar, will not be spoiled here, but suffice it to say, we get a clear sense of what desert power is.  

There are still many production touches that I prefer in David Lynch's vision of the story, but the choices that Director Villeneuve makes are completely appropriate for his. I think the desert environments, the tents and Sietches of the Fremen, are vastly superior to what we have had before. The black and white palate of Giedi Prime is startling, but when we enter the halls of the palace, the slight color pops make it all much more intriguing, and there is a sense that the culture reflects the supposed black sun of their system. 

It is easy for me to predict that this will be one of the top films of the year, since it is unlikely that anything comparable is likely to be released any time soon. 

Ricky Stanicky

 

I'm not sure if this movie will be getting a regular theatrical release. It is from Amazon and they are streaming it next wee, so it seems dubious. That's too bad, because one of the joys of a good comedy is bathing in the laughter of the audience surrounding you, and believe me, this film will have lots of laughter to go around. 

If you watch the trailer, you will get the premise, but I know some of my on-line friends have gone trailer free, so for them, here is a brief synopsis. Three friends have invented another friend, that they have used as an excuse for thirty plus years. "Ricky Stanicki" is the kid who brought the fireworks to the wedding, threw the cat in the pool, or conveniently, as they got older, scheduled something opposite a family event they would really like to avoid. They have kept an elaborate "bible" of Ricky's illnesses, rehabs and assorted other excuses, and their families believe Ricky is a real person.. Of course with a comedy, there are exigencies that require over the top solutions, and the guys back themselves into a situation where they have to produce the famous friend.

For years John Cena has been known as a wrester who has taken up acting, but I think it is fair to say now that he is an actor who has taken to comedy. His boisterous persona and physical characteristics have been exploited for laughs in films like, "Blockers",  "Suicide Squad" and "Argylle". This may be his masterpiece. As Rock Hard Rod, an off color singing impersonator, Cena is hysterical as the desperate and sad entertainer in a dive bar/casino in Atlantic City. He encounters the three friends and they decide to hire him to be their unseen friend. Cena was just getting started at being funny, for the rest of the movie, he sells it all. 

Peter Farrelly, along with his brother Bobby, made some of the greatest comedies of the 1990s. In the last few years he has made some more serious films, like the Academy Ward winning "Green Book", and the under appreciated "The Greatest Beer Run Ever". This time he is back in his sweet spot, gross out comedy, and we should be glad to welcome him back to that arena. He is working here with Zac Efron, who was the star of "Beer Run" and recently played a wrestler himself in "The Iron Claw". To top off the top knot cast, William H. Macy has a supporting role as a clueless executive who has some awkward hand gestures. 

If you enjoyed films like "There's Something about Mary" and "The Hangover", you will certainly relate to this project. It is irreverent and heartfelt at the end. Exactly the kind of stuff that those who remember will appreciate. 

Kotch (1971 For Movie Rob's Genre Grandeur Series)

 GG (Feb) chosen by Richard of Kirkham A Movie A Day! GG (Genre Grandeur) is a series Rob started a few years back where each month a different blogger chooses a genre for everyone to write a review of their favorite film (s) of the particular genre. (There is no limit or restrictions on the number of reviews)

A 1971 picture that contains a nomination for best actor, by one of the big stars of the sixties and seventies, that has largely been forgotten, despite the fact that is the lone directorial effort of another oscar-winning actor. Kotch features a sentimental story about an aged man, coping with the complications of being a burden to his family, while he is still relatively active, cogent, and financially independent. It also contains a sweet story about an unwed mother who's only 15 and is trying to navigate her pregnancy.

I saw this movie when it came out in 1971, and I remembered it slightly. The details of the story are hard to hold on to because nothing too dramatic happens in the course of events. This is really a character piece and that's the thing that's easy to remember here because Walter Matthau is a character in every role he plays but in particular in this one, where he is cast 30 years senior to his actual age. In fact he was only 5 years older than the actor who was portraying his son. Mathau had been in three successful sex comedies in the preceding 3 years, and was probably thought of as a comedian with the leading man's charisma if not looks. 20 years down the road he would be playing this same part at his own age and making a big success of that as well. If you want to you can kind of think of this as a prequel to “Grumpy Old Men”.

Joe Kotcher is a 73 year old man currently living with his son Gerald, daughter-in-law Wilma, and their toddler child Duncan,in a nice suburban house in Southern California. Kotch does not have dementia, there is no disease on the horizon, and he does not pose a threat to anyone except those who jump to the worst kinds of conclusions about what an old man is doing at a park. However, anyone who has lived with a person, who has personality quirks that may be bothersome, knows that it can be stressful. His daughter-in-law, is maybe wound a little too tight, but of course Joe Kotcher is an avuncular guy who is free with information, opinions, and advice. Those things may not always be welcome and sometimes seem like a bombardment of information that's unnecessary. Imagine a child who is telling you about their day, and tells you the name of every child that they sat with at lunch, and what they had to eat. It's not a bad thing but it's an unnecessary thing for the listener, it seems to be a needed function for the old man, he has to talk,and Kotch is a talker. He keeps a running commentary on all sorts of things, he has a vast knowledge of arcane information he's happy to drop into every conversation. That's the kind of thing that is driving a wedge into this family. Walter Matthau plays Kotch as a genial old man not as a curmudgeon, but sometimes you can just be too genial.

The son Gerald, is played by veteran television actor Charles Aidman, who anybody who has seen 70s television, will recognize from some program that they have watched. Aidman is great casting because he has the same hangdog face as his costar. Gerald is a sympathetic son and he is a little bit dominated by his wife who is struggling under the pressure of having her father-in-law live with them. At one point they have the delicate moment when the father and the son have to confront the possibility that Joe is going to relocate to a retirement community. The daughter-in-law is not a monster, she sees how tough this is for her husband and his father. She is the one in fact who sheds tears at the thought that this has become necessary by the way, she is played by the director’s wife). But like “Harry and Tonto”, which will arrive in a couple of years, old people can be a lot more resilient than their children want to think. Kotch has no intention of giving up living the life that he wants just to make his children feel secure.

At one point the old man feels a little bit like an informer because he has to share with his son the fact that the babysitter, while not being negligent, was distracted by having sex on the living room couch during an evening supposedly taking care of the grandson. When he shares this information we think he might simply be acting out of the feeling that he is being nudged out of his child care responsibilities by this young interloper. There's a nice moment done in a flashback, which reveals that Joe and his late wife Vera, faced some of the same issues that the babysitter did. The location for their assignations was An old Hudson, instead of his parents' living room couch. Erica, the babysitter, subsequently becomes an important character in the story. After Kotch has spent a little time away from his family traveling, he returns home to discover that the babysitter has been pushed out of school, sent to San Bernardino, because she became pregnant. We learned that her much older brother is her guardian, and there is a brief moment of sadness when we discover the story behind her orphan status. Koch is not going to take this lying down, he feels that he might have betrayed the girl and pushed her on this path because he told his son that the babysitter had misbehaved. He decides that he's going to help her as best he can.

The film meanders along, giving us a few incidents about how these two, the pregnant teen and the slightly distracted older man, form a dependent relationship and care for each other over the course of her pregnancy. Nothing too dramatic happens, they go out to eat, or they fix meals at home, where they spend time sitting in the living room working on some hobbies that are a little strange but charming. As the end of her term comes, she is faced with some important decisions about her future. And without telling her what to do, Kotch has a huge impact on the decisions that she makes.

This is the only film that Academy award-winning actor Jack Lemmon directed. He got an Oscar nominated performance out of his close friend and frequent co-star Walter Matthau, and efficiently tells the story without an excessive amount of sentimentality, but with just the right amount of humor to keep us going. This time period looks grand in the film, and you might think that Palm Springs would be a reasonable place to move to. Maybe the one big flaw in the story is the location, because even in 1971, Palm Springs was overpriced and maybe not a wise choice for a retiree and an unemployed pregnant girl.

The film received three other Academy Award nominations, so it was widely respected and even though it didn't win any of those Awards it seems to have gathered enough Goodwill to make it a multiple nominee. I bet if you ask anybody who the nominees for best actor were in 1971 people would only be able to name the winner, Gene Hackman, and maybe one other nominee and not this one. This for the most part is a forgotten film. Kotch is largely done in a style that is not typical anymore. It's not fast paced, it doesn't have surprise plot twists, and the characters are all generally good people without there being a villain in the scene. It's a nice story, about the struggles of a couple of nice people, who find a way to make the world work for them. That seems enough to recommend it.

Land of Bad

 

I'm getting to this almost a week after I saw the film, sorry. I've been under the weather for a few days and just not in the mood to think much about blogging. There's nothing particularly special about this film, it's also getting such a limited release that it will probably be out of theaters after the first week, which was when I saw it. That's too bad, because this is a pretty successful action film for those who are looking for some combat activity to get them through an afternoon.

The setup for the film is pretty simple: a Commando team is being sent to a remote island in the Philippines, in order to retrieve a human asset for the CIA. The thing that makes this an intriguing film is the detail that is added by the use of high altitude drones that contain not only sophisticated Communications equipment, but also a substantial amount of weaponry. Most of the time the Drone in this particular scenario was being used to assist the team on the ground with surveillance of the site that they are about to engage in. There are however some dramatic uses of the weapon at appropriate times to create diversions or potentially rescue members of the team. The way the Drone communication is integrated into the mission is the thing that was new to me. An operator flying the Drone at a location in the States, is communicating information to the team on the ground about enemy activity and potential locations for the asset. It looks like it's a pretty sophisticated set up and I don't doubt that the film is reasonably accurate in presenting how the basics work. Of course for drama purposes, they're always going to be complications and distractions and anybody who is dependent upon this technology would be frustrated with the behavior of some of the team at the Drone base.

Liam Hemsworth is the odd man out on the team, he is basically the Communications tech and not the warrior that the other people on the team are. He is of course a trained soldier so he has the basic ability to handle himself, but obviously the Special Operations group is used to having their own people there and that throws in a few wrinkles. Hemsworth is perfectly fine in the action hero mode, he performs admirably, makes some basic mistakes, and redeems himself a number of times on the mission. So it's easy for us to have him as a rooting interest.

I'll probably get in trouble with some people for the way I'm about to describe the next actor in this film, he's the biggest movie star in the world, …by weight. Russell Crowe at one time was a lean mean fighting machine, but in the last several years his waist has expanded much like my own, so that now when he appears on screen, it's much like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a little bit lumbering. The guy can still act his ass off, and he's great as the Drone operator, although even sitting in a chair behind a console I would assume the Air Force has some physical fitness requirements that they are going to be imposing on their officers. Russell Crowe still has great screen charisma, and He commands the screen even if it doesn't require him to do any tumbling, running, or hand to hand combat.

There are really no big themes or messages in the film. At one point the villain wants to suggest that hiding behind a drone is a cowardly way of engaging in combat, but when that comes from a guy who decapitates a helpless woman and wants to do the same for a child, he pretty much loses all credibility. Alan Rickman made a film not too long before his death, that featured a more nuanced View of drone Warfare called “Eye in the Sky”, if you're looking for a message, that would be the film to seek out. If you're looking for shootouts, dramatic firefights, explosions, tense torture scenes, and a few people surviving a lot longer than you might expect, then this is a film that you should probably look for. Good guys taking out the bad guys in modern combat situations is what this whole thing is about. Of course it's going to be a lot harder to find unless you have your own Drone to assist you.

Dune 1984 Revisit and Comparison

 

Here is a brief video comparison of some of the visual styles of the David Lynch film in contrast to the Denis Villeneuve version. 

Madam Web

 

The amount of hate this movie is receiving is hard to understate. I have seen reviews that suggest this movie will be able to be the measure of bad films for the next 15 years. People have even suggested that a root canal is more entertaining. I haven't seen this level of disdain for a movie since Morbius opened a couple of years ago.

It will certainly not be my position that this is a good movie, but the notion that this is going to be the worst film in the last 20 years and for the next 10 seems to be hyperbole of the worst sort. Madame Web certainly has flaws, and will not be well thought of over time, but I found it perfectly watchable, and kind of interesting in how long it took to set up the character at the heart of the story.

This is a superhero movie about a hero that you've never heard of, with a villain who basically is evil Spider-Man. The idea of this Hero's superpower is kind of a strange one, it's a psychic ability to see a short distance into the future. And when I say a short distance it seems like it's probably less than just a couple of minutes. It’s a little bit like the Omega 13 device from “Galaxy Quest”. Does it allow you to change the future? Maybe. The other problem with the film, in addition to the fact that you have an obscure hero, is that it seems to be setting up another Trio of Heroes, that is going to be another girl Power Team, and that just seems a little trite.

Dakota Johnson is the star of the film, and if you are not a fan of hers then you probably are not going to care much for this movie because she is in 90% of the scenes. I think she's been fine in a number of films, and there is a certain quality that she has on screen that makes her appealing. That does not mean however that she is ready to carry a whole movie on her own. That is pretty much what's required in order to get this movie off the ground, and an interesting screen presence is not necessarily sufficient to keep us intrigued.

There are two or three lapses in logic that make plot holes large enough to drive an 18-wheeler through. Maybe that is the cause of so much of the dissension about this film. It's hard for me to know though because most of the reviews that I've seen, from fans online and from professional critics, all spend their time looking for the greatest put-downs they can come up with, rather than explaining what the faults of the film are. An evaluation without any context or explanation just seems like an exercise in stringing together adjectives and adverbs. I much prefer an analysis that tells me why a person thinks the things that they do.

So the reservations I have, concern the cliche tropes of this movie, and some of the logical lapses that occur because of the superpowers involved. Just to give you an example near the climax of the film, the villain is smacked down by an ambulance, essentially falling from a building, and that's not enough to kill him. A few minutes later however, a much less significant object is more effective, for no reason that we can discern.

The three girls who are being set up to be a superpower team in the future, are as annoying as all heck. They do exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing, and most of the time they simply end up screaming and running. They need to be a little bit more interesting, and they need to have a little more agency in the film. The villain doesn't seem to have very much motivation either, except for nightmares, and of course we're getting a Time Loop story where the nightmares might very well be created by his reaction to the nightmares. There is such a thing as a circle of life, but circular reasoning never convinced anybody except those who are exceptionally undemanding. His acquisition of the powers that make him a supervillain seems to be pretty artificial, and apparently there's a curse, but all that gets explained in exposition that wasn't written very well. The time setting of the film is largely done for the purpose of limiting the influence of Technology. That way it is just the one tool, stolen by the villain, that's going to be important in the story.  Everything else can just happen the way it did before people had easy internet connection and access to mobile phones.

Again I'm not saying it's a great film, in fact I'm saying it's a poor film, it's just not the wretched pile of crap that so many other people are saying it is. You shouldn't be embarrassed by going to see it, but you won't remember it for long, and you'll have a better time with the popcorn then with the story.