How do I start this? Well, I'm 43 years old and Star Wars is 42. I've seen in documentaries that the first Star Wars movie began shooting footage in Tunisia in March of 1976, which is the month and year I was born. So, I grew up in the age of Star Wars fandom, and I'm one of those adults who so passionately links the original trilogy somehow to a pure nostalgic happiness. Memories of standing in line waiting to get into the theater to see these movies is as precious to me as any of my childhood. Due to my age, I saw the original in a rerelease in the early 80's, but I absolutely remember seeing The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi at the Jackson MetroCenter Cinema 4 when they were released. I remember going home and swinging my baseball bat around pretending it was a lightsaber. I remember Luke with his lightsaber being my favorite parts of those movies, and I felt as though it was the most exciting thing to see as a kid. I recognize I'm just one of several billion who have felt that way over the years. People have a personal attachment to Star Wars that transcends these beyond being "just movies". It's probably unhealthy to an extent, but for people of my generation they are so much more than movies. They are part of the fabric of who we are.
Thus, when The Phantom Menace came out in 1999 and the prequel trilogy kicked off, fan fervor was rampant. I, with my friends, stood in line through the night and into the morning on the day tickets went on sale to make sure we could see it opening day. By the time the prequel trilogy ended, people were largely disappointed that Lucas couldn't recreate the full feelings of the original trilogy and everyone seemed to have a better idea of what could have been done. If Star Wars were any normal experience, it would have meant that starting another trilogy even a decade later would have been out of the question. Being that this is Star Wars, though, when Disney purchased Lucasfilm and announced they'd begin a sequel trilogy, the fan fervor immediately heated up again. By the time The Force Awakens opened in late 2015, everyone seemed to have forgiven any problems they had with the prequels and were just ready to dive back into the world of the Skywalker family and see what was in store. And yet again, even though there was a mixed reception to The Force Awakens, it proved the power of our fascination with The Force and that need to return to this science fiction realm that provides so many of us with such a strong feeling of comfort. It was like going home again.
Now, we come to the end of the sequel trilogy with The Rise of Skywalker. I'll try to remain spoiler free. It's widely promoted that this is both the ending to the new trilogy and also to the Skywalker storyline overall. It's also widely known that The Last Jedi became very divisive and some fans liked the direction that the storyline took, while others very vocally didn't. We also know that J.J. Abrams directed The Force Awakens, then reigns were handed to Rian Johnson for The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker was supposed to be directed by the guy who made Jurassic World but they ended up bringing Abrams back. Having all that backstory influences the way you watch The Rise of Skywalker and ultimately will be a big factor in how this trilogy is viewed and rewatched over time.
I enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker as an individual film. It's witty, fast paced, fun, action-packed, and as full of emotional moments and scenery as any Star Wars film should be. I am of the camp who was glad that Abrams was back. The Last Jedi felt like a detour to me. It slowed down and spun the story into interesting, but different directions. The Rise of Skywalker is criticized for a lot online, and I understand the criticisms, but I didn't enjoy the movie any less for them. What I will say is that looking back on the sequel trilogy as a whole, I really wish Abrams had steered the entire ship and either directed all three or been a consistent driving force in all three. As it stands, it's eternally going to feel uneven.
So, here's more that I can say. Daisy Ridley was awesome. I mean awesome. She owned the role in a confident manner that reflected her understanding of the character and her growth as an actress. Adam Driver is his usual intense self as Kylo Ren. When the script calls for subtle emotion, he can deliver with the best. John Boyega and Oscar Issac are so pleasant together as Finn and Poe - something The Last Jedi strayed from. It's so fun to see them play off of one another again as was started in The Force Awakens. All the actors were on point. They brought humor and fun to the film. I've read that they all were happy Abrams was back, and I felt it showed.
The effects are the usual top notch standard. There's pretty much nothing that can't be displayed on screen with visual effects anymore, and Star Wars always makes good use of technology. As I mentioned earlier, the pace is fast and fun, which I think benefits a Star Wars movie. Between the bouts of heavy emotion, we are used to quippy dialogue, lots of fast tracking shots with actors running and firing laser canons, new uniforms on the Stormtroopers, and cool gadgets used in fun and interesting ways. You get all that here. The movie remembers to entertain and be fun.
The Rise of Skywalker, on its own, succeeds in a lot of ways to me. It's the kind of Star Wars movie that I want to see. Unfortunately though, the legacy of this sequel trilogy will once again be one of disappointment, for a variety of viewpoints and reasons. We were, as a culture, disappointed in the prequels. We will be, as a culture, disappointed in the sequels. What I keep thinking about though is if in 10 years they announce an Episode X, would we lose our minds in anticipation and hope for that perfect trilogy ahead? OF COURSE WE WOULD!
The beauty and joy of Star Wars lies in that answer.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Marriage Story
To align with the film's his & her trailers, my wife and I are reviewing Marriage Story together. Jason's comments are prefaced with HIM and Sarah's are prefaced with HER.
HIM: Anticipation around our house has been high for this film for several reasons. We both love the director's debut, Kicking and Screaming (1995). It's eternally a Top 5 personal favorite for me. We both love Adam Driver and, especially, Scarlett Johansson. The idea of seeing how Kylo Ren and Black Widow would handle this emotional movie would have been enough to ensure we would be watching it. On top of all of this, the topic of marriage and divorce is such a relatable one that it becomes easily a must-see event.
HER: Anyone who follows me on social media knows I love Scarlett. I first noticed her in Ghost World. Then she made Lost in Translation with family favorite Bill Murray, and I became a forever fan. Add in Adam Driver and director Noah Baumbach, and Marriage Story quickly rose to the top of my list. Not surprisingly, the awards are already stacking up for the film and its cast and crew.
HIM: About the story. The story is about Charlie (Driver) and Nicole (Johansson) who are married with an 8 year old son. They live in New York and have a working relationship together in the theater. The movie does a terrific job of drawing you into their lives and painting a picture of who these people are. I won't offer more detail than that on their background, except to say one of the brilliant aspects of the script and the direction is in how the story is told and how you are filled in. From there, you are with them on their journey through separation and the process of filing for divorce. It's uniquely sweet, humorous, tragic, dire, wonderful, and nightmarish in all the ways life can be, and certainly in the ways a marriage falling apart can be.
HER: So I absolutely loved the separate trailers and how they gave you a snapshot of Charlie & Nicole's characters through the other's words. The movie begins like that but with extended descriptions. It's a fabulous way to introduce the characters and the love that they have for each other before the pain train arrives.
HIM: About the director. Noah Baumbach has made a mature film. Mature in both subject matter and presentation. As much as I adore Kicking and Screaming, I'd pick Marriage Story as his masterpiece. All of his writing and directing skills are peaking with this movie. It's obviously a very personal film for him, and it brings out the best in his abilities. The dialogue is dense and memorable. The speeches and scenes are realistic and feel lived in. He injects humor in light ways that provide the viewer with much needed levity at times. For Baumbach, it's nothing short of a triumphant work of art and skill.
HER: I frequently read about movies online. I check IMDB probably once a day and always after I finish a film. An interesting tidbit about Noah Baumbach's direction and writing is that he did not want any improvisation in the big fight scene. Every word, every hesitation is in his script. I find that fascinating because it all feels so in the moment as it unfolds. There is also a heavy theater aspect to the way the scenes are set up and how the actors move throughout. While watching, Jason and I agreed it felt very much a like play, which is what Baumbach intended.
HIM: About the actors. Driver and Johansson are equally at their best. I've never entirely understood why people are so enthralled with Driver. I tend to find him almost emotionless. In this film, he breaks beyond that barrier in wonderful and poignant ways. Johansson has long been an actor who can show strength with believability, but in this film she becomes a woman finding her strength. It's a journey she handles with great accuracy and honest emotion. This feels like a movie that probably wore them both down. It's likely that every day was a tough day at work.
HER: I haven't seen much of Driver's work besides Star Wars and a couple indie films. He has an understated leading man quality that is really becoming apparent this year. Much of this movie is about Charlie's journey through the divorce process. Where Nicole was unhappy in the marriage, he is unhappy in the divorce. She flourishes while he flounders. Driver's downward spiral is masterful. Johansson, to me, is so subtle in her performances that sometimes people dismiss her. This role really showcases her talent. The monologue scene where Nicole tells Laura Dern's attorney character the story of her marriage is heartbreaking. My favorite quote of Nicole's: "I never really came alive for myself. I was only feeding his aliveness."
HIM: Final thoughts. At the end of the film, my wife and I dried our eyes and hugged for a long time. The movie is beautiful and brutal. It's not an overstatement for me to say this will likely be my favorite film of the year. This movie was everything I thought it could be and more. It's gut wrenching but worth every moment. One day, I'll brace myself and watch it again. It's a masterpiece. Plain and simple.
HER: I have not experienced divorce. My parents were married for 41 years before my dad's death. Jason and I have been married for 16 years. And yet, I was with these characters completely. I honestly never took a side. I did see moments where one was at fault or handled a situation badly. But I love that there is never really a villain, other than the divorce process itself. Not even the lawyers who are just doing the best for their clients. A major point of this story is that even though Nicole and Charlie want to divorce as simply and amicably as possible, the process tears them apart. It's tragic, touching, and even funny at times. Kudos to all.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
The Irishman
Early on in The Irishman the film introduces you to Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) and Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro). Pesci hasn't starred in a major motion picture since The Good Shepherd in 2006. And before that his last big film was 1998's Lethal Weapon 4. So, it's been a long while since we've seen him. I didn't expect to be so pleased when he first came into frame, once again in material rooted in the world of the Mafia. After all, other than Home Alone, the image of Pesci that always comes to mind when I hear his name is from Goodfellas as Tommy, a wild and often uncontrollable powder keg. In The Irishman, he plays Bufalino as a cool, calm, and collected navigator of organized crime. He's a guy who treats the Mafia world as one with traditions that need to be passed down and respected. Pesci turns out to be fantastic even when he's not called upon to overact. His performance really stood out to me.
There's a lot to The Irishman that is quickly becoming the stuff of legend:
There's a lot to The Irishman that is quickly becoming the stuff of legend:
- Scorsese finally makes another Mafia movie
- Pesci comes out of retirement for the film - after being asked over 50 times to do so
- The movie puts Scorsese, DeNiro, Pesci, & Pacino together for the first time
- Gasp! It's a Netflix release and not playing at the local cineplex!
- It supposedly cost over $150 million to make
- It's almost 3.5 hours long
- And Scorsese said something about Marvel movies not being cinema...blah...blah...blah
So, this movie is nothing if not bold.
As for the story, it's the account of Frank Sheeran, a mob associate of Jimmy Hoffa's. The movie is from Frank's perspective and jumps around in time tracking the characters through the bulk of their entire adult lives. A lot of the production cost went into visual effects to age the characters properly. The effects mostly work, minus a few glaring shots of DeNiro early on that weren't very convincing. We're about 45 minutes or more into the movie before we meet Jimmy Hoffa, played by Al Pacino. You'll hear a lot about this being Pacino's best role in years, and I most certainly agree. He's alive in this one like I haven't seen him recently. Scenes where his Hoffa throws long, impassioned fits reminded me of Pacino in his 90's surge of Scent of a Woman and the masterful Heat. I can still hear is detective in Heat screaming "GIVE ME ALL YA GOT!!!!" That's the kind of Pacino we get to see again.
To be clear, Pesci and Pacino are the reasons I liked this movie. It's well done all around, but they stole the show for me. I felt the lack when they weren't onscreen.
DeNiro is solid as usual, but I think Sheeran was perhaps the least interesting character onscreen. Which is odd because it's essentially Sheeran's movie. He makes a lot of amoral choices and they didn't always add up to me. I kept wondering why the guy is really doing some of the things he does. Why he's ok with it all. Part of my problem here is probably the sheer depth of story that the movie goes into. It's one of those films where you really have to remember names from conversations and who talks crap about who. It's overwhelming at times with details like that. In the end, I think it contributed to my lack of understanding because I lost track of who Frank was even talking about every now and then.
Now, about Scorsese. Something about this world of gangsters and organized crime brings out the best in him. The film takes on an energy, at times, that is reminiscent of GoodFellas (which I consider to be his masterpiece). The Irishman is not, to me, on the same level as GoodFellas, but it's a great movie to watch if you like the Scorsese movie mold of the early 90's. And, possibly because of the freedom brought on by Netflix, he's able to slow down and draw out the story. By the end, you feel like you've really seen a fully fleshed out story that takes its time closing.
When the movie was over, I'll admit it was bittersweet. How many more films like this will we get? Since the actors and director aren't getting any younger, it's highly likely this could be a last blast of sorts. So, I'm going to appreciate it for what it is. It's not GoodFellas, but it's artistry in the same vein and at a different level, from a more contemplative version of Scorsese. It was simply a thrill to see DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino in the same frame...while knowing all along that somewhere off camera Scorsese was calling the shots. When a movie has all that, it gets nothing but respect from me.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood
I have such great memories of watching Quentin Tarantino movies. The memory that stands the tallest in my recollection is being 18 years old and going to see Pulp Fiction for the first time. Of course, I didn't realize what would happen after that in the landscape of movies, but I absolutely remember knowing I'd just watched something that felt incredibly unique and was 100% entertaining throughout. At that time, in 1994, I was floored by how vital and alive the movie felt. The dialogue was so sharp, many of the actors were playing against type, and the movie had the audacity to jump time without pandering to the audience. It was the kind of movie that you immediately wanted to rewatch to put the pieces all together. Then Hollywood tried to replicate it time and again throughout the remainder of the 1990's and beyond. In some ways, Tarantino himself has spent the remainder of his career trying to replicate the lightning bolt surge that was Pulp Fiction.
As with many of the great directors, Tarantino movies are laced throughout with signatures. Be it the narrative structure, the framing of shots, the extended scenes of conversational dialogue, the eventual hyper-violence, or the tight shots of bare-feet, within a few minutes of any Tarantino movie you know you are unmistakably watching a Tarantino movie. Once Upon A Time continues that tradition and, after the western-focused The Hateful Eight, is somewhat of a return to "standard" Tarantino fare - if there is such a thing.
Set in 1969 the story centers on DiCaprio's Rick Dalton. Rick is somewhat a has-been actor whose had brief accomplishments in TV and movies during the 50's and early 60's, but he's on his way out of the limelight. His career has seen much better days. You get the impression that he's never lived up to his own expectations. Rick spends a lot of his time with his primary stunt double, Cliff Booth, played by the incomparable Brad Pitt. To watch DiCaprio and Pitt side-by-side riffing off of one another is a fun time at the movies. For my generation, the combination of Tarantino, Pitt, and DiCaprio is such an intriguing set up. We know both actors have worked with Tarantino before, but not in the same movie. So, for a certain group of people, the movie is a must see just based on who's involved.
Without giving much away that the trailers don't already explain, Rick and Cliff live within close proximity to Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. The movie takes place prior to the Manson murders and, while this isn't a Manson family movie, it does explore some of the history of the family and that fateful, very horrible event. Sharon Tate is played by Margot Robbie and her performance is a bright spot in the movie. Robbie and Tarantino clearly want viewers to understand and appreciate Sharon in a bit of an homage to her brief career.
As for DiCaprio, he's simply terrific as Rick. He makes you feel bad for this guy, and his performance has moments of hilarity. Pitt is Pitt. He's reliable, always cool, and acts with an effortless charisma. He's one of those actors that holds the screen so unbelievably well that it makes me wonder how many people like him are out there that never ventured into acting. It's hard to imagine movies without Brad Pitt. He'll always be one of my favorites to watch.
This movie has a lot going for it. The recreation of 1969 Hollywood and LA is immersive and impressive. The cars, the buildings, the signage, the tunes on the radio, the clothing, it's all fantastic to view. The late 60's had so much turbulence, not unlike today's times, and it remains a fascinating modern timeframe to me. So, the setting of this film in that era made it all the more interesting to me.
I enjoyed the movie. I'd watch it again. However, I don't think it stands very tall, ultimately, in the Tarantino canon. This being the 9th film from Quentin, I'd rank it behind Kill Bill Vol 1 & 2, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Bastards. Those are my favorites. It's above Django Unchained, Jackie Brown and The Hateful Eight. So it's my #6 in the Tarantino-verse. That seems low, but the margin of preference across those first 6 is slim. And you read that right - the Kill Bill's are, in mine and my wife's view, his collective masterpiece.
As with many of the great directors, Tarantino movies are laced throughout with signatures. Be it the narrative structure, the framing of shots, the extended scenes of conversational dialogue, the eventual hyper-violence, or the tight shots of bare-feet, within a few minutes of any Tarantino movie you know you are unmistakably watching a Tarantino movie. Once Upon A Time continues that tradition and, after the western-focused The Hateful Eight, is somewhat of a return to "standard" Tarantino fare - if there is such a thing.
Set in 1969 the story centers on DiCaprio's Rick Dalton. Rick is somewhat a has-been actor whose had brief accomplishments in TV and movies during the 50's and early 60's, but he's on his way out of the limelight. His career has seen much better days. You get the impression that he's never lived up to his own expectations. Rick spends a lot of his time with his primary stunt double, Cliff Booth, played by the incomparable Brad Pitt. To watch DiCaprio and Pitt side-by-side riffing off of one another is a fun time at the movies. For my generation, the combination of Tarantino, Pitt, and DiCaprio is such an intriguing set up. We know both actors have worked with Tarantino before, but not in the same movie. So, for a certain group of people, the movie is a must see just based on who's involved.
Without giving much away that the trailers don't already explain, Rick and Cliff live within close proximity to Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. The movie takes place prior to the Manson murders and, while this isn't a Manson family movie, it does explore some of the history of the family and that fateful, very horrible event. Sharon Tate is played by Margot Robbie and her performance is a bright spot in the movie. Robbie and Tarantino clearly want viewers to understand and appreciate Sharon in a bit of an homage to her brief career.
As for DiCaprio, he's simply terrific as Rick. He makes you feel bad for this guy, and his performance has moments of hilarity. Pitt is Pitt. He's reliable, always cool, and acts with an effortless charisma. He's one of those actors that holds the screen so unbelievably well that it makes me wonder how many people like him are out there that never ventured into acting. It's hard to imagine movies without Brad Pitt. He'll always be one of my favorites to watch.
This movie has a lot going for it. The recreation of 1969 Hollywood and LA is immersive and impressive. The cars, the buildings, the signage, the tunes on the radio, the clothing, it's all fantastic to view. The late 60's had so much turbulence, not unlike today's times, and it remains a fascinating modern timeframe to me. So, the setting of this film in that era made it all the more interesting to me.
I enjoyed the movie. I'd watch it again. However, I don't think it stands very tall, ultimately, in the Tarantino canon. This being the 9th film from Quentin, I'd rank it behind Kill Bill Vol 1 & 2, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Bastards. Those are my favorites. It's above Django Unchained, Jackie Brown and The Hateful Eight. So it's my #6 in the Tarantino-verse. That seems low, but the margin of preference across those first 6 is slim. And you read that right - the Kill Bill's are, in mine and my wife's view, his collective masterpiece.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
The Peanut Butter Falcon
The Peanut Butter Falcon is such a strange name for a movie that it almost feels like a gimmick. Ok, you got me. Guess I need to watch the movie to find out why it's called that?
The root of the name is explained in the movie, and it's not particularly revelatory, but I won't give it away. What I will say is this is a small, independent film that works it's Southern charm to great effect. It's so immersed in Southern gothic mood that as I watched it I constantly kept thinking of it as a "feel good" cousin to Sling Blade. This is one of the sweetest movies I've seen in a while, and it doesn't feel put-upon, it really resonates with heart and the value of simple kindness throughout.
The movie was filmed in Georgia and set in the Georgia/Florida landscape. This is a story of people who are going through hard times. It starts off with Shia LaBeouf's character, Tyler, crabbing in a small boat in swampy water, only to find out quickly that he's stealing the catch from other dock workers. The weight of limited opportunity and economic despair is immediately defined in the first few scenes of the movie.
This is also the story of the value in just respecting one another, and learning how to get by in a world that constantly throws challenges your way. Resilience in the face of despair is a big theme running through the story. It's not giving anything away to say it's deliberately influenced by the story of Tom Sawyer. Tom Sawyer is essentially Zack, a young man with Down syndrome who's being mishandled by the local government (he's placed in a retirement home for lack of care options). Zack dreams of meeting the wrestler that he idolizes and taking a training class from him. His mission in life is to break out of the facility and find the school. Dakota Johnson plays the aide who cares for Zack and Bruce Dern puts in a brief but fun performance as one of the folks in the retirement home who wants to help Zack out on his mission.
Zack eventually comes across Tyler, and that's where the movie really takes off. If it hadn't been for Shia's performance, I think this ends up being just a quaint little movie that's good for one viewing but probably doesn't resonate beyond that. Shia is incredibly good in this movie. As an actor, much has been made about his personal problems over the past few years. This movie makes you wake up and remember how much promise he showed, even as a goofy high-energy kid in the Transformer films. Shia's performance as Tyler is fully realized. In a fair world, he'd be a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination. He makes you completely believe and understand this character. He holds the screen in quiet moments. He delivers lines that make you smile more than once. When he's onscreen, the movie takes on a different joy. He's superb.
So, in summary, this movie is effective, its got heart and sweetness to spare, and it stands out thanks to Shia's authentic and delightful portrayal of a Huckleberry Finn who takes Zack under his wing and on a journey that they both really need.
The root of the name is explained in the movie, and it's not particularly revelatory, but I won't give it away. What I will say is this is a small, independent film that works it's Southern charm to great effect. It's so immersed in Southern gothic mood that as I watched it I constantly kept thinking of it as a "feel good" cousin to Sling Blade. This is one of the sweetest movies I've seen in a while, and it doesn't feel put-upon, it really resonates with heart and the value of simple kindness throughout.
The movie was filmed in Georgia and set in the Georgia/Florida landscape. This is a story of people who are going through hard times. It starts off with Shia LaBeouf's character, Tyler, crabbing in a small boat in swampy water, only to find out quickly that he's stealing the catch from other dock workers. The weight of limited opportunity and economic despair is immediately defined in the first few scenes of the movie.
This is also the story of the value in just respecting one another, and learning how to get by in a world that constantly throws challenges your way. Resilience in the face of despair is a big theme running through the story. It's not giving anything away to say it's deliberately influenced by the story of Tom Sawyer. Tom Sawyer is essentially Zack, a young man with Down syndrome who's being mishandled by the local government (he's placed in a retirement home for lack of care options). Zack dreams of meeting the wrestler that he idolizes and taking a training class from him. His mission in life is to break out of the facility and find the school. Dakota Johnson plays the aide who cares for Zack and Bruce Dern puts in a brief but fun performance as one of the folks in the retirement home who wants to help Zack out on his mission.
Zack eventually comes across Tyler, and that's where the movie really takes off. If it hadn't been for Shia's performance, I think this ends up being just a quaint little movie that's good for one viewing but probably doesn't resonate beyond that. Shia is incredibly good in this movie. As an actor, much has been made about his personal problems over the past few years. This movie makes you wake up and remember how much promise he showed, even as a goofy high-energy kid in the Transformer films. Shia's performance as Tyler is fully realized. In a fair world, he'd be a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination. He makes you completely believe and understand this character. He holds the screen in quiet moments. He delivers lines that make you smile more than once. When he's onscreen, the movie takes on a different joy. He's superb.
So, in summary, this movie is effective, its got heart and sweetness to spare, and it stands out thanks to Shia's authentic and delightful portrayal of a Huckleberry Finn who takes Zack under his wing and on a journey that they both really need.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Ford v Ferrari
There's a certain thrill to watching great actors work together and play off of one another. It can sometimes feel like you're watching a competition. While watching some movies, I've asked myself which person's performance am I more convinced by and which performance would I rate higher. This is, of course, a silly thing to do, but a fun luxury and part of the whole treat of the movies. Everyone gets to be a judge and a critic. It's especially fun when two people are cast in roles they've clearly decided to go all in for. I found this to be the case with Matt Damon and Christian Bale in Ford v Ferrari.
Christian Bale plays Ken Miles. Ken's a down-on-his-luck live wire who doesn't seem to find it possible to filter his thoughts. He's a car guy - a smart mechanic, an even smarter driver, and he loves to race. Bale is an obvious choice for the role and he, again, lost a significant amount of weight to play Miles. At a certain point in the movie, I realized how good his performance was because it snuck up on me. I was watching Ken Miles, or the Ken Miles that Bale wanted me to see. True to his past roles, Bale puts in a really terrific performance. As an actor, he's probably been at his peak for a while, but it really shows in this one.
Matt Damon plays Carroll Shelby. If I have to tell you who Shelby was, then you need to look up a 1967 Shelby Mustang right now. In my humble opinion, the guy designed the prettiest car that will ever be made. Damon takes this legend and makes him an every-man who's just a little smarter and bolder than the rest of us. In his own right, Damon put in one of his finest performances ever. He makes Shelby someone you want to meet, want to learn from, and want to root for. He shows you the mix of frustration and admiration that Shelby probably had for Miles when they worked together. Together, Bale and Damon make Miles and Shelby two sides of the same coin. They are both strong individuals, intelligent car enthusiasts, and have enough of a rebel edge that they'd never be the corporate types that control big business. The movie would have you believe that Miles was simply Shelby without the ability to control his emotions, and vice versa.
The movie tells the story of the competition between Ford Motor Company and Ferrari as Ford attempts to win out at the 1966 24 hours of LeMans race. The drama erupts from both highlighting the contentious relationship that Miles and Shelby had with the Ford executives and how dangerous the races were to compete in. The race scenes are as exciting as they come, and on the big screen they were roaring and felt real. The production is top notch, which makes the whole thing a bit of an anomaly in today's movie theaters. The whole production felt like a throwback to another era of moviemaking. It could have been made in 1999, 2009 or 2019. It feels odd in 2019 simply because it's just not the kind of movie that gets made much anymore. It's clearly a high budget movie, but instead of special CG effects, it gets by on human drama and what looks like very real cars on the screen. I'm sure there was some digital trickery somewhere, but it was unnoticeable.
A really great movie can sometimes be pure entertainment while also offering you something to think about in yourself. That's how I'd sum this one up. It is outstanding, old school, Hollywood entertainment with top caliber talent that made me excited about life. We get to be here. We get to drive cars, sometimes very cool cars. We get to compete, and sometimes we get to win, but mostly we get to lose. We get to fight back and keep going when we do lose. We get to have small moments to ourselves and with the people we love. It's all in this movie. In celebrating the competition between Ford and Ferrari that took place in 1966, and the people who were involved, the movie becomes a celebration of life itself. Whether it was meant to be that or not, I'm not sure, but that's what I found. It was thrilling.
Friday, November 1, 2019
The King (2019)
The King is one of the best "Netflix" movies I've seen yet. Most "Netflix" movies feel like the equivalent of "straight to DVD" movies. At first, saying something was a "straight to Netflix" movie shared that same derogatory meaning as "straight to DVD". "Straight to DVD" was basically the dumping ground for movies that weren't good enough to warrant a theatrical release, but some nice coin could be made by sending them straight to Blockbuster. But Netflix is taking it beyond the "dumping ground" status. They want to be credible. They want to challenge the major studios (and they are). They have a completely different business model and enough subscribers to compete with major studios in spending. A year ago, they were changing things. Now, they HAVE changed things. Like it or not, the "Netflix" model is here to stay. And it's being replicated across the streaming landscape so fast that the whole TV and movie business is literally changing in real time right before our eyes. It's not a slow crawl, it's a sprint.
Now about The King. Timothee Chalamet stars as Prince Hal in 15th century England, who would become Henry V. This guy is a grade A actor. He's got screen presence to spare. He's one of those actors who elevates the material he's working with. In fact, the same can be said for the entire primary cast. Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Lily-Rose Depp, Robert Pattinson, and Sean Harris (the creepy villian from the last two Mission Impossible movies) all give terrifically fitting performances. The movie is a slow burn and often feels like a stage play, so it lives almost completely on the strength of the performances.
The story follows Prince Hal's reluctant transition into the role of King of England. It's essentially a simple, "heavy is the head that wears the crown" tale about how isolating and terrible the life of a monarch can be. It's also a period piece that reminded me of how long humans have been being terrible to one another. Can it be that 600 years ago people really lived this way? Life had almost no discernible joy.
At 2 hrs 20 minutes, it's a long movie, but the performances fill the space. Pattinson's evil, snarky French Prince is especially entertaining. And more than once I felt real compassion towards Hal and his struggles. Which is a testament to Chalamet's performance.
All this is to say that I wouldn't qualify The King in the "straight to DVD" category. It's not a "just a Netflix" movie. It's a quality film with quality actors doing a bang up job. It's also just one of many recent examples of how the movie business isn't changing...it's already changed.
Now about The King. Timothee Chalamet stars as Prince Hal in 15th century England, who would become Henry V. This guy is a grade A actor. He's got screen presence to spare. He's one of those actors who elevates the material he's working with. In fact, the same can be said for the entire primary cast. Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Lily-Rose Depp, Robert Pattinson, and Sean Harris (the creepy villian from the last two Mission Impossible movies) all give terrifically fitting performances. The movie is a slow burn and often feels like a stage play, so it lives almost completely on the strength of the performances.
The story follows Prince Hal's reluctant transition into the role of King of England. It's essentially a simple, "heavy is the head that wears the crown" tale about how isolating and terrible the life of a monarch can be. It's also a period piece that reminded me of how long humans have been being terrible to one another. Can it be that 600 years ago people really lived this way? Life had almost no discernible joy.
At 2 hrs 20 minutes, it's a long movie, but the performances fill the space. Pattinson's evil, snarky French Prince is especially entertaining. And more than once I felt real compassion towards Hal and his struggles. Which is a testament to Chalamet's performance.
All this is to say that I wouldn't qualify The King in the "straight to DVD" category. It's not a "just a Netflix" movie. It's a quality film with quality actors doing a bang up job. It's also just one of many recent examples of how the movie business isn't changing...it's already changed.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
Imagine it's the year 2001 and you've just seen the fantastic Point Break rip off The Fast and The Furious. Now imagine someone says the movie will spawn 7 sequels plus a spin off starring The Rock and that British dude from Snatch.
I guess sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Allow me to speak my truth: I loved The Fast and The Furious. Cars, Vin, Paul Walker doing his best Keanu impersonation...it all just worked. That's, of course, why it became so popular in the summer of '01 and only grew in popularity as it went on to take advantage of the then peaking DVD release patterns of the early 2000's.
It became apparent a sequel was not just inevitable, but wanted. So we got a John Singleton Fast & Furious movie. Hello to Tyrese - welcome addition to the fold. Goodbye (for now) to Vin - unwelcome departure.
To sum up the rest of the journey: Tokyo Drift - I thought it was the nail in the coffin of the franchise, as did everyone. Huge surprise in 2009 - they brought back the original cast! That movie (Fast & Furious, no "the") was average at best. It led to Fast 5 - which is arguably the franchise high point. Fast 6 wasn't as good. Furious 7 was sad (a very poignant good bye to Paul Walker that holds up). Fate of the Furious was just awful. The worst one in my opinion. Over the top action needs to be fun or it's worthless. This one is just worthless.
So now we get Hobbs and Shaw. It's about what you would expect. I mean, I fell asleep during a couple of parts, so I missed a few things, but it has some entertaining moments. The Rock is an entertaining guy - but his shtick is about 3 movies past it's prime for me. Statham is cool and doesn't seem to age much - so that's neat.
Seriously though, it's a big, showy summer movie made to be loud and proud and to look good on the biggest screen available. Sometimes that's enough for a fun evening (or afternoon matinee).
I think this franchise is at it's best when it's focusing on the family of friends, and not necessarily in saving the world mode (which is still hilarious to think). I mean, they were hoodlums that were stealing electronics in the first movie - now they save the world? How did we get here?
It's best not to think about it. If you want to see Hobbs & Shaw, that's awesome. I sure did. And I'll line up for Fast 9. But I'm really hoping they start to turn this ship around with a slightly more down to earth take - wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?!
I guess sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Allow me to speak my truth: I loved The Fast and The Furious. Cars, Vin, Paul Walker doing his best Keanu impersonation...it all just worked. That's, of course, why it became so popular in the summer of '01 and only grew in popularity as it went on to take advantage of the then peaking DVD release patterns of the early 2000's.
It became apparent a sequel was not just inevitable, but wanted. So we got a John Singleton Fast & Furious movie. Hello to Tyrese - welcome addition to the fold. Goodbye (for now) to Vin - unwelcome departure.
To sum up the rest of the journey: Tokyo Drift - I thought it was the nail in the coffin of the franchise, as did everyone. Huge surprise in 2009 - they brought back the original cast! That movie (Fast & Furious, no "the") was average at best. It led to Fast 5 - which is arguably the franchise high point. Fast 6 wasn't as good. Furious 7 was sad (a very poignant good bye to Paul Walker that holds up). Fate of the Furious was just awful. The worst one in my opinion. Over the top action needs to be fun or it's worthless. This one is just worthless.
So now we get Hobbs and Shaw. It's about what you would expect. I mean, I fell asleep during a couple of parts, so I missed a few things, but it has some entertaining moments. The Rock is an entertaining guy - but his shtick is about 3 movies past it's prime for me. Statham is cool and doesn't seem to age much - so that's neat.
Seriously though, it's a big, showy summer movie made to be loud and proud and to look good on the biggest screen available. Sometimes that's enough for a fun evening (or afternoon matinee).
I think this franchise is at it's best when it's focusing on the family of friends, and not necessarily in saving the world mode (which is still hilarious to think). I mean, they were hoodlums that were stealing electronics in the first movie - now they save the world? How did we get here?
It's best not to think about it. If you want to see Hobbs & Shaw, that's awesome. I sure did. And I'll line up for Fast 9. But I'm really hoping they start to turn this ship around with a slightly more down to earth take - wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?!
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Joker (2019)
Movies were the first love of my life. As long as I can remember, I've been fascinated by the thrill of watching a good movie. There's an energy I'm left with. A longing to repeat that experience.
Having been born in 1976, I grew up in an age where quality cinema was defined as Spielberg, Coppola, DePalma (sometimes), and Scorsese. Especially Scorsese. What Spielberg did for mass entertainment, Scorsese did for cinema as high art. Growing up, I knew Scorsese was one of the best, if not THE best, filmmaker you could find. Whether focused on New York, the Mob, or deep Religious views, his films have always demanded and deserved attention.
So, I was excited by the prospect of Joker for several reasons.
1. Todd Phillips was very open about wanting to model the film off of the gritty Scorsese classics such as King of Comedy and Taxi Driver.
2. Taxi Driver was released the year I was born. So the fact that it's relevant today is specifically interesting to me, and a bit concerning considering that this alignment with tone for Joker essentially says "history repeats itself", which is a running theme in a lot of ways today.
3. Joaquin Phoenix would be the perfect actor to put a fresh and different spin on the classic Joker character. In films from Gladiator to the recent You Were Never Really Here, he's been particularly great in roles where characters are taken to their breaking point and beyond. He has eyes and a stare that hold the screen.
4. The character of Joker is always interesting. He's becoming less a character and more a cautionary tale. What does a person behave like when they are truly not bound by any rules but their own? Joker has become a multi-faceted exploration of this concept.
5. If they are modeling classic Scorsese, how bad can it be?
Well, it's not bad at all. In fact, it ranks as one of the best films of the year for me. This movie is not for children. This is not a comic book, superhero movie. This is an exploration of mental illness in our society and culture. It's tough to watch, yet impossible not to appreciate the performance by Phoenix. I completely understand the mixed reviews the film is receiving. It's a very, intentionally, polarizing look into what might drive a person to make the choices this character inevitably makes. I didn't feel the intent was to create sympathy for this devil, but to explain how plausible it is for evil to cultivate as a result of ongoing abuse, years of trauma, and lack of care. I was close to tears several times in the movie. It's a dark and somber film.
To address the controversy swarming around the movie, it's just my opinion, but I did not see this as a film that glorifies the character and his choices. Much like Taxi Driver did in 1976, this puts a lens on uncomfortable aspects of modern day life, our modern class system, and the fear we now live with in normal situations and crowds. It boiled down to a simple moral lesson to me "treat others as you would want to be treated".
At the end, I felt less like I'd seen a movie about the classic Batman character Joker, and more like I'd watched a modern day cautionary tale. Similar to Seven (a personal favorite of mine), this is a reminder that the world is not a fine place...but worth fighting for.
The music and sound was crucial to the film, and it was very well done. The acting was superb. The direction was admirably restrained. I left the theatre wanting to watch it again immediately, primarily to see Joaquin's transfixing performance one more time. It was a rush.
Having been born in 1976, I grew up in an age where quality cinema was defined as Spielberg, Coppola, DePalma (sometimes), and Scorsese. Especially Scorsese. What Spielberg did for mass entertainment, Scorsese did for cinema as high art. Growing up, I knew Scorsese was one of the best, if not THE best, filmmaker you could find. Whether focused on New York, the Mob, or deep Religious views, his films have always demanded and deserved attention.
So, I was excited by the prospect of Joker for several reasons.
1. Todd Phillips was very open about wanting to model the film off of the gritty Scorsese classics such as King of Comedy and Taxi Driver.
2. Taxi Driver was released the year I was born. So the fact that it's relevant today is specifically interesting to me, and a bit concerning considering that this alignment with tone for Joker essentially says "history repeats itself", which is a running theme in a lot of ways today.
3. Joaquin Phoenix would be the perfect actor to put a fresh and different spin on the classic Joker character. In films from Gladiator to the recent You Were Never Really Here, he's been particularly great in roles where characters are taken to their breaking point and beyond. He has eyes and a stare that hold the screen.
4. The character of Joker is always interesting. He's becoming less a character and more a cautionary tale. What does a person behave like when they are truly not bound by any rules but their own? Joker has become a multi-faceted exploration of this concept.
5. If they are modeling classic Scorsese, how bad can it be?
Well, it's not bad at all. In fact, it ranks as one of the best films of the year for me. This movie is not for children. This is not a comic book, superhero movie. This is an exploration of mental illness in our society and culture. It's tough to watch, yet impossible not to appreciate the performance by Phoenix. I completely understand the mixed reviews the film is receiving. It's a very, intentionally, polarizing look into what might drive a person to make the choices this character inevitably makes. I didn't feel the intent was to create sympathy for this devil, but to explain how plausible it is for evil to cultivate as a result of ongoing abuse, years of trauma, and lack of care. I was close to tears several times in the movie. It's a dark and somber film.
To address the controversy swarming around the movie, it's just my opinion, but I did not see this as a film that glorifies the character and his choices. Much like Taxi Driver did in 1976, this puts a lens on uncomfortable aspects of modern day life, our modern class system, and the fear we now live with in normal situations and crowds. It boiled down to a simple moral lesson to me "treat others as you would want to be treated".
At the end, I felt less like I'd seen a movie about the classic Batman character Joker, and more like I'd watched a modern day cautionary tale. Similar to Seven (a personal favorite of mine), this is a reminder that the world is not a fine place...but worth fighting for.
The music and sound was crucial to the film, and it was very well done. The acting was superb. The direction was admirably restrained. I left the theatre wanting to watch it again immediately, primarily to see Joaquin's transfixing performance one more time. It was a rush.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)