Dog

 

Channing Tatum has become a reliable presence in films and with this release he takes another step in his ascent to an essential Hollywood Player, he co-directs the film with his frequent producing partner Reid Carolin. Together they have crafted an affecting story of two wounded warriors who find a way to help each other through the battlefield scars that are holding them in misery. This is a military story with a dog, and that was enough to get me into the theater, but what can Tatum manage to do to make me happy that I showed up?

If you have visited this site before, tou may see that I have a fondness for films featuring dogs.  This however is a bit different because the dog that is featured is not a lovable mutt or a friendly golden retriever, Lulu is a Belgian Malinois, trained as a military dog working with Army Rangers in middle eastern conflicts. The dog has been wounded ant traumatized, most recently by the death of her handler. She is on edge and dangerous, and sensitive to a variety of triggers. Tatum plays Jackson Briggs, a fellow platoon member of the deceased, who is himself trying to return to service after head trauma suffered in war has put him on disability leave. Lulu is an animal, so doesn't bother trying to hide her PTSD, but Briggs is all kinds of a mess and in denial that any real problem exists.

So this is a road picture, with the dog and soldier driving along the West coast to arrive at the funeral for their comrade in arms, and ultimately, Lulu will be assessed and likely put down because of the condition she is in. So it is no surprise that the film is really about how these two damaged creatures begin a healing process that is needed but was not being actively sought. The incidents along the road demonstrate that both of these warriors have skills that remain functional, but that they are also ill equipped to deal with their troubles on their own. Two sequences, one on a pot farm in Oregon and another in a hotel in San Francisco, give us some drama and a little humor. Each character dances around the other, setting off problems and adventures but ultimately bringing them closer to healing. 

Three different dogs are credited for the Lulu performance, and they do a good job showing her fierce personality, but also giving us glimpses of the companion and partner that she must have been to the deceased soldier. Between destructive moments, and fearful incidents, Lulu also shows us an animal who is well trained, capable of friendliness if approached correctly and even providing some lovable glances, in spite of her teeth being bared. Tatum is a natural as a soldier without portfolio, who is struggling with his place in the world. He exudes confidence but secretly is in turmoil and incapable of getting past some traumas. He is great with the comedic bits in the film, but he carries the drama also. 

At just over a hundred minutes, the film is paced well and it doesn't linger over the story it is telling. The screenplay, by Carolin and Brett Rodriguez, who has been a crew member on some of the films Tatum and Carolin made together, does a good job of showing rather than telling us the story of these two soldiers. Maybe the best example of this are two nearly wordless sequences when Briggs tries to connect with family. We get the dog's point of view, instead of a dialogue filled confrontation, and it helps keep the story focused on Briggs and Lulu. This film has been a success and that gives me hope because if a mid-level drama like this can pull in an audience, there may be hope for other films that are not Comic Book Spectacles. 

 

Studio 666 (2022)

 

So Foo Fighters+Horror+Comedy = Good?

I wish I could say that the formula above, which popped into my head the minute I saw the trailer, was true. Unfortunately, hopes and dreams are not always fulfilled by Hollywood or our heroes. There was fun to be had here, but not enough to recommend to anyone who is not a fan of Foo Fighters or schlock horror. In spite of the big swings the film tales, it just does not connect with the two genres it is reaching for.

There are plenty of films that mine the link between Rock and Roll and "Evil", I remember seeing a film back in the 1980s called "Trick or Treat", it had brief appearances by Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons. That film was more of a straight horror film and it took the subject seriously, with a little bit of irony. "Studio 666" starts off with a few good rock and roll  clichés being sent up, but those drop off more quickly than is wise. The horror stuff starts but because the humor has been laid down and there is a lot of quick bits designed to show it is really a horror film, all of that gets undermined very quickly.

Much like "Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein", the horror elements of this film get undermined by the slapstick tone of the comedy. It also does not help that the band members are not really actors. They are playing exaggerated versions of themselves but the self parody wears thin and there is not any real tension as the movie goes on. Director BJ McDonnell, is a camera operator  who has worked on a ton of films, including a variety of horror films, but his strengths are not really in story telling. He is hitting the notes but it feels like a piano student who is playing a piece for the first time for their teacher. Everything is technically correct, but none of it connects. The movie is just flat. Maybe it would work as a sketch but as a full length film, it leaves a lot to be desired. 

Everyone goes all in on the death scenes, with lots of blood and body parts to go around. The gore never seems real however, because it is undercut by the silly situations. "Evil Dead 2" made the comedy and horror work together, here they work against one another, and it shows. I'm not a huge Foo Fighters fan, but I would have appreciated some of their songs in the film, and basically, there are two riffs of their material and that's it. There is an uncredited part played by John Carpenter, and the theme song for the titles, feels like composter Carpenter contributed, to get that 80s feel in the credit sequence. 

I don't regret going to see this and even paying for the privilege. I just wish I could be more enthusiastic about it. The movie is too long, the jokes are inconsistent, and the stars all feel like they are just having a lark, which is what they are doing, but it doesn't seem like the audience was as important to them as they would have been in a concert. Dave Grohl, continues to be a guy I admire, and he is the one Foo that seems to be putting in some effort, but it is not enough. 

Foo Fighters+Horror+Comedy = Mediocre at Best.

The Batman

 

I have seen several comments in social media over the past few months, which question the need for a new Batman movie. That is a little understandable since the character has been trotted out a dozen times or more in the last thirty years and the D.C. Extended Universe has not made the best use of the character possible. That last bit has been rendered obsolete by the latest film which does in fact make "The Batman" a relevant character and which manages to give him something a lot more interesting to do than battle interdimensional beings from outer space. Instead of trying to fit Batman into a super hero story modelled after the MCU Infinity war, director Matt Reeves and co-writer Peter Craig have set him in what may be the most realistic version of Gotham City we have seen in the movies and given him a task that doesn't require technology from the future. 

It seems that every iteration of the caped crusader in the last couple of decades has gotten grimmer and grimmer, and this is the current end point. The Batman is facing a job that makes him the equivalent of Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman in the movie "Se7en", he must track down a serial killer who has a hidden motive and a set of elaborate clues that he leaves behind. This story goes to some bad places, and it might be appropriate to nickname our hero "The Darker Knight". The killings are gruesome, the clues are also pretty forbidding. We are spared seeing some of the crimes, but we do see enough to be put off by the actions of the villain, even though some of the victims seem deserving of some kind of retribution. The killer is known as The Riddler because he leaves clues that are language puzzles, for the Batman to figure out. For two thirds of the film, the character is only seen in a get up designed to limit any forensic clues and to hide his face. There is a vocal performance but it may be enhanced through audio technology. When actor Paul Dano finally appears on screen as the character, he sparks up the movie considerably, having been built up so well in the first couple of acts, his mild mannered dementia is plenty creepy even though he is not a physical threat to the hero. 

This story is set relatively early in the career of "The Batman", and we don't get the usual origin story, we are simply dropped into the set up as if these activities have been going on for a while. Lt. Gordon has a tentative working relationship with the masked vigilante, and that connection is resented by most of the cops but the authority of Gordon allows Batman into crime scenes where he is both forensic investigator and  profiler. This film could aptly ne subtitled "C.S.I. Gotham". The puzzles are sometimes answered quickly by our title character but just as often, he and Gordon struggle to come up with solutions and they follow a macabre path to the next clue to try and bring them closer to the killer. Gordon is played by Jeffery Wright, who is making a career out of playing second fiddle to the main characters in films (see James Bond and The Hunger Games). His low key persona and low modulated voice are good counterparts to the title character. "The Batman" is played by Robert Pattinson, who seems to have shed the "Twilight" baggage and is building a very credible resume of films, including "Tenet" from two years ago. Usually, the actor cast in this role gets his best moments as Bruce Wayne, but this is the least Bruce Wayne heavy Batman film I have seen. Wayne is a secondary character and The Batman is front and center for the key events in the movie. The Wayne Family plays a more prominent role in the film than Bruce himself does. 

Gotham is a dark place with lots of evil around every corner, but much like the Nolan Trilogy of films, the city looks fairly normal, except for the fact that no one turns on a light and it rains almost continuously. The thing that is disturbing is how much the corruption, feckless law enforcement, and gang related violence shown in the movie, mirrors the cities like Chicago. It is taken as a given that the politicians are craven tools of special interests, in this case the mob. Two characters that are known to officials, including the police, but for which no one seems able to do anything about are Carmine Falcone and his underboss known as The Penguin. It is an open secret that they run the city and why The Batman and Gordon should be surprised at who all turns up as a victim of the Riddler is unclear. The targets are pretty well marked. The Riddler is starting at the top of the Official List and working his way down. What is a surprise is how easily one of the victims fall prey to the serial killer when he should know that his role in the crime world is connected to the first two victims. The part of the Penguin was secondary, but it was significant enough to draw Colin Farrell to it, even though he is unrecognizable in costume and make-up. As a lynchpin to the story he does have a very solid sequence that includes our introduction to the new version of the Batmobile. 

The movie looks great when seen on a big screen, I am less confident that it will translate to home viewing, unless home audiences are willing to change the settings on their televisions in some dramatic ways to see what the hell is going on on screen. For a nearly three hour movie, there are not as many action set pieces as you might expect, although there are plenty of hand to hand fistfights where Batman punches the crap out of dozens of opponents. It's not quite at John Wick levels of preposterousness. Pattinson's Batman has a temper and he definitely takes it out on the bad guys. When he punches someone in the face, he is not doing so indifferently, he means to punish them, without necessarily killing them. There are no real light moments in the film, but the presence of "Catwoman" Zoë Kravitz, does give us some quiet moments with a hint of romance. Her character is like Farrell, a keystone for the story but not a main character. Wright and Pattinson are the dynamic duo in this film and Dano is the formidable opponent. There is a hidden villain who shines in the few scenes he gets and that is John Turturrow's Falcone. Be aware that there is a surprise plot turn in the last half hour of the film, That storyline is only partially set up and it feels a little tacked on, although is is explained in a very effective way.

Some people have gone so far as to say this is the best Batman film ever, and have even called it a masterpiece. I can't go quite that far but it is top tier and on a par with the Nolan trilogy, but be warned, the seriousness of the plot up until that final turn, will remind you more of "The Silence of the Lambs" than any previous Batman film. Not a lot of humor, but some good characters effectively realized and a main plot that is driven more by detective work  than the action man with the marvelous toys. 

Uncharted

 

This is a week late, not because I was lacking enthusiasm for the film, but because I have been so busy this week, I really haven't had a chance to sit down and put it in writing. This film is based on a video game I have never heard of, much less played. The structure does feel a bit like we are leveling up at each juncture to where we get the next amount of action and reward, and that is fine. It also feels like a puzzle film, where there is a mystery to solve at the next sequence and that also makes it feel a bit episodic. That being said, it was a totally enjoyable experience and one that gives me a little hope for the near future of movie theaters.

I would still like it if people would go to adult dramas and comedies in a theater, but for the moment I will settle for an action film with big set pieces, well known stars and fun special effects. The theater owners will be glad that this movie showed up in February, so that there was a reason for them to remain open. This is a big dumb event film that fulfills your need for fun without insulting your intelligence. If characters are a bit too standard and the quest is overdone, that doesn't matter because the actors and the tech people seem to be putting their all into making it work for you. So maybe it does recycle "National Treasure", "Indiana Jones" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" , those are all fun pictures and the bits of each that show up in this screenplay are supplemented by some nice work from the actors.

Tom Holland is the poster boy of the cinema world these days. After starring in the biggest blockbuster success since the pandemic started, he shows up here and does what a movie star is supposed to do, brings some charisma to the events of the story. He is joined by the older more veteran version of himself, Mark Walberg, who has passed the stage of young lead to now take on the role of mentor, although still an active and well defined mentor as these stories will demand. 

Director Ruben Fleiser has made some films that I enjoyed, (Zombieland and Zombieland Double Tap), some that should have worked but didn't (Gangster Squad) and one huge financial success that is mocked by aficionados of the source material (Venom).  I think the action groove is where he fits best, but it is apparent to me that the scripts he is working with and the way he is shooting things, character development is not his strong suit. The flashback sequence at the start of the film is about as close as you get to something reflecting real character arcs, but what can you expect from a movie based on a video game?

This is a perfect movie for a weekend afternoon with the family, or maybe date night, followed by pizza or burgers at a local joint that you know well. You will have a good time, a pleasant memory of the experience, but you may not remember much of the story or even the action scenes. I did like that the female lead is not simply a love interest but a character in the film who adds some drama to the proceedings and reminds us that everyone can be a little good as well as being a little bad. 

Nostalgia Movie Weekend

 

There is no greater tribute to the quality of a film than the fact that it resonates with audiences many years after it was first shown to them. The Screening of "The Godfather" that I attended on Friday, is basically a commercial for the 4K transfer and Blu-ray that is being released next month. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the film and it continues to be among the finest movies ever made, if not in fact the best film ever made. Our screening was packed. That's right, a fifty year old film, that is available on multiple platforms and formats, is still able to draw an audience to a movie theater and that is the miracle of this movie. 

Five years ago, at a similar screening, I offered thoughts on the film that mentioned two scenes that again stood out. I will let you go back to that post for those details, instead let me offer two other moments to focus on for this screening. The very first scene with Brando is spellbinding. He speaks in a passive voice and he is not really focused on the supplicant who wants him to do murder, he is fondling a cat. Famously, this was not scripted but was a result of the stray animal being on the set and Brando improvising. It fits in perfectly with the persona of Don Corleone, who is only half listening to the undertaker seeking vengeance, but is also confident enough to hide his thoughts in this playful moment. 

Later, when he is taking the meeting with Sollozzo, he looks like a mildly interested man who wants the meeting to be done with but is polite enough to be slightly more attentive. When he moves over to speak to Sollozzo more intimately, he dusts off his conversation partner's knee in a familiar fatherly gesture, even at the moment he is turning down the proposal. It is clear that Vito Corleone has a personal charisma that is not loud and overpowering but rather soft and subdued. The only time we hear him raise his voice is when he is mocking Johnny Fontaine, his Godson, and most of that volume is exaggerated for their relationship, not real anger. This is a man who knows how to influence people and woo them to his patronage. That it fails him with the "Turk" is just a catalyst for the story. 

Once again, anyone who has not seen this film on the Big Screen is missing a marvelous chance to be absorbed into one of the greatest films of all time.

The very next night, we also traveled back to a critically acclaimed Best Picture winner, that I have loved since I first saw it when I was nine or ten. 

Just as the Godfather experience I wrote about above had a five year precursor screening, it has been five years since we had the same sort of performance for "West Side Story". This was not your typical screening but rather a presentation of the film with a live orchestral accompaniment. Back in 2017, we saw the film with the Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. Having relocated to the Austin area almost 18 months ago,  it was taking me a while to get back to live Orchestra performances. Two weeks ago we saw the Austin Ballet Company perform "A Midsummer Nights Dream" it was a lot of fun but the orchestra was in a pit and the focus was on the dance.  Last night the stage was filled with a hundred plus musicians and a large screen above them for the movie to play on. 

I found the Austin Symphony Orchestra to be a powerful  ensemble who played excellently. There was not a dominant section that stood out because all the instruments were solid and the scoring matched the design of the film. I was happy to be listening to live concert music and it simply doubled the pleasure that it was with a great movie.

Again, I will refer you to the earlier post for a complete discussion of the film, but for this post I do want to take time to talk about a couple of things. All props to Rita Moreno and George Chakiris who deserved their awards back in 1961, but it is frequently overlooked as to how effective Natalie Wood was in the role of Maria. It is true that she did not do her own singing and she was not of Puerto Rican heritage, but she looks wonderful on screen. Woods dances elegantly in several of the numbers that require her to be light on her feet, and her visual performance in close ups is completely in keeping with the character.

Live Music, a classic film musical, and the recent Spielberg remake to stoke interest was enough to get me out for this. 

Blacklight

 

In one of the few instances I can think of, I went to this movie knowing nothing about it except that Liam Neeson was the star. I literally had heard nothing about it and it was only a passing listing on a theater web page that brought me to the movie. The trailer above I had never seen before writing this post, after seeing the film. When I posted it, there were 195,750 views, which does not shout out "Success!" or "Box Office!" in today's social media environment. That was OK because it is Winter and Liam Neeson is in a movie, so someone is going to do some killing. I am an admitted fan. I somehow missed his last two action films, "The Ice Road" and The Marksman", but I usually queue up immediately for one of these Winter Action Thrillers. This time I must admit I was disappointed.

This movie is so conventional, it feels like a Netflix retread of an eighties conspiracy film, not a seventies one, which would probably be worthwhile, but more like something drained of inventiveness but slick enough to look interesting for a few minutes. It turns out it never gets as interesting as you hoped it would be. The plot is so simple as to be a trope in and of itself, a government agency is killing citizens it thinks are a risk to the country. This time it is not the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. of some made up intelligence group, it's the F.B.I. and they have their own rogue operatives. It turns out Neeson's Travis Block isn't in on the program, he's not actually an agent. He works off the books, backing up agents who are in deep cover and need assistance. It's not clear if the whistle blower agent is his partner, which does not make much sense since Travis is not an agent, or if he is just a close friend. Either way, should he be stopped or praised for coming forward with his story?

No one should be advocating the assassination of someone you disagree with, but the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plot device is probably going to amuse some people and outrage others. The idea that what she is doing is actually accomplishing something in the movie is silly, and whoever thought getting rid of her was a good idea is an idiot. Which brings us to the first of the two stupidest characters I have seen in a movie in a while. Aidan Quinn is the F.B.I. Director without a ounce of common sense. If you see this movie, see if you can pick out the three times he screws up in his decision making. There is one plot point where he almost goes BOO! and then runs away from the complication. It is the laziest writing I have watched in a theatrical movie in a long time. This could be one of those Bruce Willis Video films that requires no sophistication at all.

The "journalist" in this film is even more stupid. She seems to have no idea that you need evidence, sources and additional corroboration to make a charge in a news publication. Her editor seems to understand that, but he is even more stupid by publishing her work without verification under his own by-line. The truth is, this may unfortunately reflect the state of modern journalism, we are a long way from Woodward and Bernstein. 

There is a personal story about Travis having OCD and paranoia, so much so that it drives his daughter away from him and creates a potential problem with his granddaughter. You would think that the threat to the family would be a major element of the film, giving Neeson license to unleash his well known special skills. That turns out to mostly be a red herring. He does not go after the bad guys so much as he runs away from them and outwits them a couple of times. Mostly this is an excuse for chases, none of which are very good, although the idea of a garbage truck being used as a vehicle for local destruction is fun. 

I did not hate this film, I simply did not respect it and there are soo many better Neeson Action films, why waste your time? 

Death on the Nile (2022)

So the reboot of Agatha Christie stories by Kenneth Branagh continues with this elegant film that is being released almost two years later than planned.  Murder on the Orient Express was reasonably successful adult mystery film a couple of years ago, so a follow-up seemed likely.  The character of Hercule Poirot is a natural for a film series and the detective does not disappoint in this entry. 

The film opens with a flashback scene that shows us young Poirot in WWI, already observant of the details surrounding him. Although we also get an origin story of his mustache,  it's really about his detective skills and the sadness that will follow him the rest of his career.  It is certainly not relevant the story but it adds character to our lead and makes the main story more interesting. This is one of the things that marks this as an improvement on the previous film, all the characters are going to be introduced slowly enough for us to have a sense of what is going on and who is who. The fact that they are not on the Nile in the first fifteen minutes does not detract from the story but rather adds to it.

The cast is elaborate and international, and they are all reasonably good. Gal Godot looks great but the scenes she appears in during the trailer had me worried about her performance. As it turns out, the over the top delivery in those clips is not typical and she is really much more solid. These films seem to have a curse on them to some degree, because one of the lead actors has gotten into a public relations nightmare. Johnny Depp is still trying to crawl out of the hole that lead many to boycott seeing him in "Murder", Armie Hammer now takes a turn at being the public figure with a dark cloud hanging over him and bringing it to the theater with him. His character is the most cliched in the film, so that undermines a little bit of the suspense. His best moments are a dance sequence with Emma Mackey who plays the fiancé that his character ditches for Godot. Their erotic dance suggests a relationship that is pretty powerful and may leave some suspense on the table as a result.

Frankly, the main attraction here is the look of the film. As elegant as "Murder" was, this doubles down on that. Once we get to Egypt, we have fantastic vistas, a romantic river (filled with crocodiles) and a boat to die for. The ship that the whole cast ends up on may be a CGI invention is some shots, but it is carried off well, and the actual sets that are the staterooms, dining room and main hall of the boat are all decorated lavishly with period colors, art work and deco designs. The clothes and the food will make you wish that you were taking the trip with this crew of suspects.

The main weakness of the film is the convoluted process by which the murders are carried out. It follows the same design as the 1978 version, so I assume that Christie is responsible for those plot points since they are identical for the most part. When we get to the solution, it feels a little bit like one of the three endings of the comedy "Clue" , where there is a lot of running around, actions that rush by, and the detective taking it all for granted that he has it correct. The side plot of the blues singer and her niece is a little spliced in, but it ends up working anyway.

All in all it is a very entertaining film and one of the most gorgeous pieces of cinematography you are likely to see this year. The score from Christopher Gunning is lush and evocative, and I thought it was superior in fitting the film than the work that was done in the 2017 "Murder". This is an adult film with a little mystery, a lot of drama and some great scenery. Why wouldn't you have a good time?