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:

• 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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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.