This film is already dead in the water as far as box office is concerned. What is not yet dead are the criticisms of the movie. People have had the long knives out for this film and are taking delight in killing it with negative opinions. Well here is a surprise for all of you, I actually quite enjoyed the film and don't find it a failure at all.
"Joker" 2019 was a divisive film as well, but it had enough enthusiasm to generate big box office and awards. Joaquin Phoenix gave a great performance and he has followed up with another solid take on Arthur Fleck, AKA Joker. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice it but it is "Joker" not The Joker. The lack of the definite article is not a mistake. The character is being distinguished by the absence of the article, in spite of all the trappings that put the film in the Batman Universe. Harvey Dent may be the prosecutor in this case, but he is not "Two Face" and the Thomas Wayne Character in the first film does not resemble the saintly benefactor of Gotham City that fathered Bruce. I have seen some online chat that Todd Phillips has betrayed his creation with this film, mostly because of it's denouncement. I think if you look closely, you will see that there is a line of thought that would transition this into a more recognizable pattern, but it will never be explored because of the failure of this film.
The musical elements are fine, I thought the mix of fantasy and reality allowed the songs to work in creating a mood or environment for the characters. Lady Gaga's Lee Quinzel is a hint of Harley Quinn, but again, distant enough that the fans of the DC Comics may be able to distinguish the characters. Her story line is a little less clear than it needs to be, and in the climax of the film her whiplashed loyalties seem confusing. Still, she sings well and looks good on screen. It was enough to keep me interested for a couple of hours.
I don't want to over praise the film, it is not something I was passionate about. (as evidenced by this nearly two week old look at the film). I merely wanted to assure those who had an interest in seeing it that it is not the disaster that so many are claiming. There are many parts to it, particularly in the Arkham sequences, that are dramatically compelling. The trial sequence is a bit of a failure, but it does have some bright spots.
"Joker: Folie à Deux" had enough in it to entertain me, but not enough to make me think about it for long (which the original did). It is an inventive swing and a long fly ball that results in the end of the game. There, you get a baseball metaphor to satisfy your sports craving World Series fans.
Francis Ford Coppola has created his dream project, and I'm afraid for many people it will be a nightmare. Megalopolis is an ambitious film that is nearly incoherent in its first half, wait let me take out that modifier and say in a very clear way that it is incoherent in its first half. That's one of the reasons that I was hating this movie for the first hour. Unless you were up on your Marcus Aurelius and your history of the Roman Empire, you will be lost on a regular basis. But even if you've recently read extensively about those subjects, you will still be lost because Coppola does not have a narrative structure in that part of the film. It consists of characters being introduced with long passages of dialogue that sometimes mimic the words of a Roman senator or those of a Shakespearean character. For what reason we don't really know, and Coppola isn't going to tell us. All of this is happening while we are being Bedazzled by visuals that are original and startling in their conception, but are not clear in function. Meanwhile there appears to be I'm going on in the time space continuum that is not clear at all. So welcome to the film.
Having said this about the movie, I do want to adjust my opinion a little bit as we get to the second hour, where there appears to be a little bit more narrative structure. And I do mean just a little bit more. It was however enough for me latch onto the film and begin to find more redeeming elements to it than just the visuals. Coppola appears to be trying to say something about consumerism, ambition, corporate capitalism, and the traditional corruption of democratic societies. Exactly trying to say about all of these things though remains ambiguous. He has big things on his mind, but we have to Wade through his mind to figure out what it all is about, and it's a jungle in there.
As usual I'm going to forgo trying to recap the whole story for you, there are plenty of other sites online that will attempt to do that for you. I'm just going to give you my general impressions and a little bit of advice about whether or not to see the movie. I will tell you, that I hugely anticipated the film since it's Premier back in Cannes in May. The word at the time was not hopeful, with many critics suggesting that the film was a complete mess, although visually stunning. That seemed enough for me to feel that the movie might have something for me that closes out copula's career with something Worthy. I insisted on viewing this movie in an IMAX theater so I could get the visual impression that the director clearly wanted us to have. I think that was a good choice on my part. However as I watched the film, I was getting more and more depressed. Art needs to speak to you at some level, and without a narrative or characters that I cared about, this film was not reaching me. Even as an abstract piece of art it was problematic.
Once the characters began to function in a recognizable story, which involved conspiracy, subterfuge, and betrayal, I began to feel like there was something in the movie that I could understand. I was able to reinvest in the movie at that point, I guess is that there will be a lot of people who won't get to that point. Even if someone does manage to stick it out with the film, they may not be willing to forgive the incoherent mess at the first half of the movie consists of. Apologists of Art that is abstract, and not easily consumed, will certainly find ways to recommend this film to the community of Cinema fanatics that might be tempted to view the movie. More power to them. For General moviegoers though this film is going to be, not challenging but off-putting. It is deliberately obtuse, and the characters are dense, and unlikable. Frequently actors engage in cartoonish performances, certainly encouraged by director Coppola. Shia LaBeouf and Aubrey Plaza are two of the actors who seem to be working in a completely different tone and mode than everyone else in the picture. It might even be true that their performances are the true soul of this extravagant farce that has been labeled a fable. Maybe if everyone else had gone in the same direction this movie would have been a more audience friendly success.
The passage of time May reflect well on the movie, but my readers, you were looking at this contemporaneously and so I must give you fair warning. This movie is not for everyone. In fact it's probably not for most people. As a film artifact it will be interesting to look at down the road. Has a film, playing in the movie theater, to a general audience, it's simply a mess.
I'm not exactly sure why Coppola sets this movie in an imagined Roman Empire seated in the United States and headquartered in a place like New York City. Combining the Roman Empire with us hegemony seems like a interesting mix of allegories, but it also seems completely pretentious. When Adam Driver starts delivering monologue from Hamlet at the unveiling of a pitiful Casino model from his rival the mayor of New York, I started drifting. To be or not to be it needs a better answer than what this film gives us.
The story of actor Christopher Reeve will forever be tied to the films he is most well known for. He had other accomplishments and struggles, but he was the embodiment of the character of "Superman" in spite of denying any pretentions of heroism. The tragedy that befell him strikes others and leaves them with difficult choices to make and personal challenges to face, but if a hero is someone who can inspire others to face the darkest foes, than Christopher Reeve was at least that kind of hero.
Reeve's rise to film stardom is chronicled along with the accident that made him an icon in a completely different way. This documentary tells his inspiring story through extensive film clips, home videos and media content from the day. Those materials have been woven together with heartfelt interviews of people who loved him, particularly his three children. The complicated backstory of his family is mirrored in his own families origins, but somewhere along the way, he broke the pattern of the stern, unpleasable father figure, and became the kind of man that most fathers would like to be.
We are given substantial insight into the travails of his life after the accident. Most people who were alive at the time, will remember his dramatic appearance at the Academy Awards and the mostly non-political presentation he gave at the Democratic National Convention. The makers of this film recognize how important it is to remind us of those events, but they spend much more time with the daily struggle, and the emotional toll it puts on his family. Although he was a symbol of hope, there were naysayers in the disabled community who thought his striving for recovery sent the wrong message. That controversy is one of the daily sorts of ideological conundrums that people face from those with different perspectives and ambitions. His staunch embrace of his position on his circumstances makes him another kind of hero as well, one who is heroic for staying true to his beliefs.
While the story does focus on him, it needs to be said that the film is equally concerned with his wife Dana. She passed just eighteen months after he did, from an unrelated illness, but she was his stalwart defender and inspiration for lasting as long as he did after the riding accident. Dana is also a significant part of the Foundation that they founded to promote progress in helping people with spinal cord injuries. Her fight for those folks was just as strong as his. The three children featured are not kids anymore, they are all adults, carrying on the legacy of Chris and Dana. They may have had different mothers, but it is clear that their father was what helped make the difference in each of their lives.
If you get a chance to see this in a theater, I think you will appreciate the artistry with which it was made. The movie clips of course look great, but the interviews feel warmer on the big screen and when you are speaking of his legacy, that warmth seems to be particularly important. It is probably also best to bring some tissues with you, because the emotional impact of your memory and the courage of couple, will move you.
One of the things I enjoy about social media (yes there are some things worthwhile there) is the opportunity to discover films that might otherwise have slipped under the radar. "The Babdook" was a film that never played in more than two theaters at a time on it's original release. However, the word of mouth on the film back in 2014 was that it was terrifying. Those praises made it worthy for me to seek out when it became available for home viewing. I can say that it is in fact one of the few horror films that lives up to it's hype. The set up of the story is maddening, but when the supernatural elements kick in, you are ready to believe in what follows.
Amelia is a widow with an incredibly challenging six year old son. Samuel is both very bright and enthusiastic, but he is also incredibly needy and like most children, self centered. From the beginning of the film, actress Essie Davis makes Amelia look worn out and fragile. Hers is one of the best depictions of physical and mental exhaustion I can remember seeing on screen. Samuel and his obsessions, keeps her constantly on edge, and her brittle protection of him is driving a wedge between her and almost everyone else she is connected with, even the friendly co-worker and her sister. The monster in the story is here well before the trigger mysteriously appears.
This is a psychological horror story, and at the end, there is a very valid question about where the "Babadook", the monster of the tale, comes from. It is quite possible that everything that occurs is a manifestation of Amelia's mind. The true source of her difficulties is the unresolved grief she has for her husband, who died in a car accident while driving her to the hospital to deliver Sam. The character is extremely sensitive about discussing her late husband, in part because it appears that Sam reminds her constantly about the loss. All of us have dark thoughts that creep into our heads now and then, but her character allows those thoughts to grow, in part because she is so exhausted from trying to manage Samuel. Even a temporary respite from the tension she lives under is interrupted by Sam.
There are some great uses of sound to create a aura of dread in the house that Sam and Amelia occupy. As almost every film fan knows, the less you see and the more you imagine, the greater the fear factor can be. Even when the title figure is manifested, he plays mostly in the shadows and our chances to see him are very brief and ambiguous. The horrifying foreshadowing in the book that she and Sam first discover the "Babadook", lets us know how this terrible horror will manifest itself. [Potential Spoiler: Animal Lovers Beware]. The resolution of the film comes after a harrowing third act where the norms of parent child relations are stressed to the limit. It is not so much that Amelia has let the Babadook" in, as it is that she is letting her grief out in a very destructive manner.
I literally got chills at least three times in last nights screening. There are a few well done jump scares that fit with the story and are not simply cheap moments that the director is imposing to get a rise out of us. This is writer/director Jennifer Kent's debut feature film. It is an accomplished piece of work that makes the most out of it's limited setting and small number of characters. There are some emotionally deep themes in the film, and in the end it is uplifting, but you have to absorb some disturbing moments to get to that more positive resolution.
This is a Tenth Anniversary screening, and if it is playing in your local cinema, be sure to stick around for a ten to fifteen minute conversation between Kent and Alfonso Cuarón, as they talk about the themes and the process of writing the film.
Matt Walsh is a conservative provocateur who has taken up filmmaking as a way of getting his message across. As a filmmaker his goal seems to be to create something entertaining not just a polemic on his philosophy. Of course that doesn't mean that his views will not be a part of the film, it simply means that the way he's going to present those views will be in film terms rather than in pundit form. His previous film "What is a Woman?" was available only on the Daily Wire platform, with a brief exception for a YouTube presentation to expose the film more broadly. His new film, "Am I Racist?" is being presented is a theatrical release and is available on 1500 screens around the country. This feels like a major departure for the Media Group that he is working with, and part of an overall goal to expand cultural entertainment to include conservative perspectives.
The approach that he takes in this film is similar to the one taken by Sacha Baron Cohen in his Borat films. Walsh assumes an identity, in order to interact with unsuspecting advocates of the DEI movement. When, pretending to be a fellow Traveler, he manages to get them to reveal their true thoughts and feelings about anti-racism and a variety of other ills. These are the most entertaining part of the film, because he's letting them hoist themselves on their own petard. In an early sequence he attends an anti-racism training session, ones filled with rituals and comments that are simply shown to be odd in the way the people in the seminar act and speak. He inserts himself by asking frequent questions and offering comments to provoke responses from the seminar leader. The results are contentious, cringe-worthy, and hysterical. After being recognized, he later tactics, by arranging interviews with a variety of so-called anti-racist speakers, academics, and theorists. He poses as a DEI advocate on a journey to understand how to "de-center" racism. The questions he asks, demonstrate some of the contradictions in the whole DEI premise. Those contradictions become points at which it is easy for the audience to laugh.
For me, the most uncomfortable, and the most revealing segment of the film comes when he infiltrates one of the "Race to Dinner" sessions held by two women of color who guide white women to confront their white guilt. Walsh himself is not supposed to be able to participate, since the dinners are only open to women. He manages to insert himself into one of these dinners as a server in the facility that the dinner is being held at. What he manages to get away with is audacious, and continuously uncomfortable, much like the humor you will find in one of those Borat films. My favorite moment, came when he comedically acts out as a incompetent waiter by dropping a set of dishes at a particular moment in the monologue being presented by one of the two women who host these events. There may be people who agree with what's being said at that particular moment, I however I'm not one of those people, and I thought that the interruption was particularly called for, and amusing.
Not everyone is going to enjoy this film, especially those who espouse some of the Critical Race Theory that underpins the DEI movement. The average person however will probably find this movie to be very entertaining, as well as enlightening. Maybe those folks who go through DEI training in their workplace will see this as old news, but there are plenty of people out there who have not been exposed to some of the details of these theories, and they're likely to be befuddled and offended by some of the things that are being said.
Matt Walsh is basically playing himself in this movie, with a tongue in cheek attitude as a Seeker of anti-racism excellence. Of course he is also a master troll when it comes to mocking those ideas that he sees as being contemptuous. One of the times where he steps out of character a little is a sequence where he reimagines that Jussie Smollett hoax of a few years ago. It's a funny bit, but it does take us out of the diorama that he has created for the rest of the picture.
Two sequences in the last third of the picture probably highlight the places that will be most controversial about his comedy approach. In the segment with anti-racist author Robin D'Angelo, he engages her with a series of questions that illustrates some of the convoluted thought processes that are required in order for the anti-racist ideology to function. As amusing as those contradictions might be, they end up being overshadowed by the improvised conclusion of this segment, which mocks the idea of financial reparation for past racist actions, especially slavery. D'Angelo in her desire to remain true to her position demonstrates the absurdity of that position by her actions. It will probably be the most talked about part of the movie.
The last segment consists of Walsh trying to take what he has learned about DEI and apply it by creating his own seminar on anti-racism. His ability to act in a dead pan, serious demeanor, makes most of the things that he does in the film feel satirical. In his role as DEI seminar leader, he comes across as inept because the premises of the philosophy don't hold up. The response of the trainees to his approach provide the most insightful element at this point. It demonstrates that the goal is not to bring us together but to further drive us apart.
I completely understand that this will not be everybody's cup of tea. If you find Sacha Baron Cohen to be a little bit uncomfortable, or if you find the films of Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore to be less than tolerable, you will be put off by this film. On the other hand, if you are who enjoys clever trolling, and taking down untrustworthy authority figures a peg or two, I think you'll be entertained by this movie.
Legacy sequels have been showing up on a regular basis for the last few years. From "Top Gun" to "Planet of the Apes, from "Creed" to "Furiosa", the studios have been strip mining their IP properties for topics, spinoffs, reimaging and direct story sequels. Some of these, like "Top Gun Maverick" and "Blade Runner 2049" have been quality products which do not besmirch the collective memory of their progenitors. Others, such as "Indiana Jones" and "Bill and Ted", try but just can't recapture the magic of the originals. Still others are atrocities that need to be wiped from our memories ( I'm looking at you "Independence Day Resurgence").
Now, 36 years after the original "Beetlejuice" is getting a legacy sequel, and I can tell you, it is not in the dreadful category at all. "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" is a spry resurrection of a character created almost entirely by Michael Keaton in the first film. He designed the look of the crazy bio-exorcist and improvised as much as eighty percent of the dialogue he speaks. That is pretty impressive, but it should be noted that the character of Beetlejuice appears for a total of less than fifteen minutes on screen in the 1988 film. It was however an impactful enough fifteen minutes to make the film one of the top ten hits of the year, spawn a children's cartoon show, and a Broadway version. I can't say Beetlejuice is back from the dead, because he still is dead, but he is back on the big screen in what looks to be a sizable hit for the fall.
I liked the original well enough, but it was never a staple at our house so when I was getting ready for the new film, I screened the prior movie at home. It was pretty much as I remembered. Th jokes are hit and miss, the sets are a gas, and the look of the movie is pure Tim Burton. "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" leans into those Tim Burton touches and he seems to have a little of his old swag back. The visuals from the next world are all creepy and funny simultaneously, and the outrageous living characters are just sane enough to keep the story from going off the rails.
The film takes a while to get it's footing, seeing how we are being introduced to a new main character in Astrid, the daughter of Winona Ryder's character Lydia from the first film. She is played by Jenna Ortega, who I know from "X" and the legacy "Scream" sequels. She is as disaffected as her Mother was but for different reasons. Mom has a thriving career as the host of a ghost hunting television program, since she can actually see ghosts, she is a popular paranormal investigator, but her daughter thinks she is a fraud and is embarrassed by her. Their estrangement is somewhat ended by their return to the town of Winter River by the death of Lydia's Father and Astrid's grandfather Charles. His death is presented in one of the amusing sequences that start the film rolling on it's comic momentum. After that sequence there are three or four set pieces that just worked for me and provoked a ton of laughter.
In the 1988 film, the "Banana Boat Song-Day Oh" was used for comic effect at a dinner table sequence. I was amused by it but in this film, we get a different song being mocked by the dead and acted out on possession form which worked even more effectively for me. It also makes a little more sense for the story this time. All you disco fans and lovers of 70s Rand B music, have something to look forward to as well. Surprisingly, the Halloween sequence is only moderately as funny, but it still works. Oh, and if you thought you saw the last of Sandworms when you went to catch "Dune Part 2" back in March, well, think again.
Catherine O'Hara is used much more extensively in this movie than in the original, and that is all in the good. Monica Bellucci is under utilized but still creates a plot line that meshes with the main story. I'm not sure that Willem Dafoe was needed and his part feels disconnected from the plot, but I can see how it made sense at some point. The best new addition to the cast is the love interest for Astrid, Jeremy, a boy who has a mysterious back story. Justin Theroux is the poor man's Jon Hamm, and he has some classic good looks and an not very savory way of fitting into the story. The film is a little longer than the original to accommodate all of the background issue.
Michael Keaton as the repulsive but charming Betelgeuse (more easily pronounced as Beetlejuice) is again the main feature of attraction for the film. He gets more screen time, but he never overstays those moments. Once the Juice is loose, the fun begins. I was not sure I was going to enjoy the movie, but it won me over and I am happy to recommend that you say "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" and invite this demonically witty spirit back into your movie life.
The Paramount Summer Classic Film Series finishes off with another presentation by Robert Rodriguez, of the film "What's Up Doc?" This is the same film that finished the summer series last year, and it was hosted by Rodriguez then as well. His presentation before the film continued to be interesting but it was not as elaborate as the introduction he gave last year, but it was just as enthusiastic. This is clearly a movie that he loves and is happy to share with the audience. While sitting in the theater which was packed, I listened to the sound of laughter coming from several hundred audience members, I was reminded about why seeing a movie in a theater with an audience matters. This kind of experience reminds us that we all can find something in common, and that we are human beings capable of enjoying a shared experience, even without interacting with one another. Of course since it was the closing night film, there were some special events that went along with the evening, and that did encourage us to interact with one another. Two guys we had met in the garage elevator of the parking structure across the street, were seated right behind us. There was a trivia contest going on and we teamed up with them to participate. I know I had a lot of fun, and I think they did as well. The fact that we came in second place was only mildly disappointing because we were one wrong answer off, and we'd guessed ourself out of the correct answer on one of the questions. Oh well, we still had the movie to look forward to.
At the time this movie was made Barbra Streisand and Ryan O'Neal were huge stars in Hollywood. O'Neill was coming off of "Love Story" which was the biggest Blockbuster of 1970, and Streisand was an academy award-winning actress who also had huge successes with a variety of films in the previous four or five years. Director Peter Bogdanovich was also on a hot streak. This film he made to explicitly be a screwball comedy in the mode of the great 1930s films that he loved. Rodriguez told the story about how the original script ended up being rewritten, by Buck Henry, who apparently had a pretty good idea about what makes something funny.
The movie introduces us to Madeline Kahn, who would become a comic icon for the next 20 years. Her role in this part might be thought of as thankless, because her character is such a wet blanket. But she turns out to be a wet electric blanket, shocking us with how funny she could be while playing a drudge. She gets a surprising number of laughs as the straight man in the story. Of course she is surrounded by a cast of secondary characters who are equally good at getting laughs from some of their few moments on screen. Austin Pendleton and Kenneth Mars both delight us with their ridiculous delivery of some of Buck Henry's lines. Mars uses an accent that seems like it will show up again in "Young Frankenstein" a couple years later.
The slapstick in this film centers around four identical suitcases that all have varying degrees of valuables in them. One suitcase contains nothing but rocks, but they are important rocks. One suitcase is full of secret government documents revealing a scandal. Another suitcase is loaded with jewelry that belongs to a wealthy visitor to the hotel where everyone is staying. The final suitcase simply contains the personal items of our leading lady. The pursuit of these various suitcases, and the comedy of changing hotel rooms, opening and closing doors, and hiding under beds, in closets, and on window sills, is exactly the kind of humor that you would find in one of those old movies. Here it is just multiplied.
The climax of the film is a street chase thru the city of San Francisco. O'Neal and Streisand are on a delivery bicycle, careening down the hills, crashing through a Chinatown street parade and generally causing havoc. Of course in the 1970s, there have to be car crashes, and there is an abundance of them from all the pursuing vehicles. The bit with the giant window pane is staged beautifully so that the payoff is much funnier than it would have been in someone else's hands. The rapid film style follows the same pattern as the patter in the first section of the film, with multiple points, finished off by a topper. Bogdanovich was a film scholar who understood how to read a scene.
I saw this movie years ago on television, but I had very little memory of it. I have seen it the last three times, in a theater, with a packed audience and it is such a treat. I'm sad the Summer season is over but I am grateful for all the movies I saw at the Paramount in the last three months. This cherry on the top will have me thinking about next years programming, all Fall and Winter long.
