#Movie #Review Civil War [Stephen Abbott's Blog]

Writer/Director Alex Garland (the Beach, 1995, Ex Machina, 2014) has brought Civil War to the screen. This odd, slow and at times pretentious film is part political warning, part gore fest, but falls clearly on the side of bloody war movie, with some rather cringe-worthy scenes to remain in our memories. 

It also contains some real head scratchers. Such as in the beginning of the film, we learn that as part of several renegade regions of the USA that have launched a war against a tyrannical Federal government, California and Texas have joined in a "Western Alliance" to fight Washington D.C.  Such politically and culturally different states joining in any way is so Laugh-out-Loud ludicrous that laughing is what happened throughout the theater when the set-up was announced. 

The story is told from the perspective of three journalists,  and a young aspiring one.  Kirsten Dunst is Lee, a veteran photojournalist, who meets up with Joel (Wagner Maura) who has agreed, without her knowledge) to let a younger aspiring photographer, Jessie (Cailee Spaeney) tag along with them as they head from Pennsylvania to the war-torn Capitol in Washington to interview the president, whom Lee states likely has less than two months to survive, with the government falling soon after to armies of the Western Forces, it's implied.

The small group is rounded out by an elder journalist,  Sammy, (Stephen McKinley Henderson) whose character chimes in occasionally, but otherwise isn't given much to do. 

They make they're way southward, where they run into danger with two renegade soldiers, whose allegiance is unclear, who shoots two people they encounter on the empty highway, and one of the four is shot. 

They follow Western Forces troops on the last leg of invading D.C., as they assault and invaded the White House. There, they find and kill the President, after he spits out some not-very-memorable final words for Joel.

The film's opening scene is this unnamed US president, played by Nick Offerman, struggling to prepare for a speech that will reassure a war-weary nation that victory is near, which for the central government, is clearly not the case. And everyone but him seems to know this. This is a painful reminder, to me, anyway, that we've had several presidents now who could not string words together coherently.

The film is bleak, and is meant to be, from a suicide bombing in New York City near the beginning of the film,  where Lee meets Jessie, to senseless random shootings by the roadside and mass graves. Fuel shortages, hyperinflation, mass power outages are scattered thru the film, as background details to illustrate a failing nation. 

Is this a prophesy of future turmoil? One hopes not. It's unclear if its meant to signal a Left-leaning or Right-leaning war, but in this election year, both sides are likely to use it as a warning, if the film is remembered at all.. It's doubtful it will be a box office success, but it has made back its $50 million budget, earning 90+ million since it opened April 12. It has a 71% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and 81% critics score going for it.

If nothing else, the film is a warning to politicians and media pundits to tame their extreme,  inflammatory rhetoric, which this year has run from "the end of democracy" or "the end of America " if Trump or Biden win the White House. But the film doesn't betray a political bias either way.

#Movie #review #Dune Part 2

SPOILERS BELOW:

Director Denis Villeneuve's long-delayed (due to the Screen Actor's Guild strike), and long-awaited sequel to 2021's Dune, has already been widely praised as a masterpiece, and deservedly so. Epic, and not just for its nearly 3-hour run time, its a beautiful film, much of it being filmed in a vast desert.

The script is well written and actors Timotheé Chalamet as Paul Atreides, and Zendaya, his desert lover, Chani, return from Part 1, to fill the screen with youthful energy from the film's first moments, claiming it as their own. "Elvis" actor Austin Butler plays the nephew of Baron Harkonen, a worthy antagonist who also was well cast here, strutting with arrogance and hate on his family's dimly lit planet, where even fireworks appear black in the sky. 

Odd to see Christopher Walken as Galactic Emperor Shaddam IV, who seemed a bit sullen and detached here, but that suited his character.  Shaddam IV has watched from afar as the Atreides family became more and more powerful,  and he eventually acts by allowing their rivals on the desert planet Arrakis, the Harkonnens, to slaughter the Duke Atraides and his family, missing only the son,  Paul, who flees to the desert sands and comes to see himself as a messianic figure, and after discovering the emperor's role in his family's demise, a rival to the emperor,  himself, as Paul seemingly abandons his desert love for a strategic marriage alliance with the emperor's daughter, Irulan, played by Florence Pugh.

The films (two of three planned in a trilogy by the director) are based on books by Frank Herbert, who was a giant of the Golden Age of Science Fiction - the early 1950s thru the 1960s. His world-building skills were epic and detailed, peering thru the script here in details such as mentioning that the Atreides family had 90 "Atomics" hidden for generations in the mountains of the planet. 

The empire itself is thousands of years old, and yes,  the Herbert books influenced other works of science fiction such as Star Wars.

As one can tell, this is a lot to absorb, but seems lighter fare than the first part, which was just as long but was mostly background to the empire, the families and the Spice, which is mined from large Worm creatures that exist only on Arrakis, and somehow power or guide all spaceships in the Galaxy.

The sheer power of the story is evident mostly in its second half, as The young Atraides publicly proclaims himself Duke and leader of both his family and embraces prophesies that he will turn the planet into a green paradise.

His mother, Lady Jessica, (Rebecca Ferguson) widow of Duke Leto Atraides, has taken the position of leader of an all-female religion known as the Bene Gesserit order. She stokes talk of her son as a prophet, often to Paul's disdain and annoyance, before he, himself begins to believe his own propaganda and embraces the religious aspect of his mission.

The film needs every minute of its nearly three hours, filled with Herbert's commentary on political intrigue, rapacious corporate captitalism, religious fundamentalism, environmentalism, and more.

#Movie #Review The Beekeeper Delivers Action

 (Mild to Full Spoilers throughout)

In the Beekeeper,  directed by David Ayer and fairly tightly written by Kurt Wimmer, Jason Stratham is a literal beekeeper who is tending bee hives and making jars of honey for Phylicia. Rashad, a retired teacher from whom he has been renting a barn and has been a good friend for an unknown amount of time. 

He is also retired, but his quiet life is ripped apart when his friend is the victim of computer fraud and is tricked into giving the anonymous people on the phone all her savings and those of a charity she created and manages. Distraught, she kills herself. That's when Stratham's Adam Clay springs into action, vowing to find and punish thise responsible for the theft. 

He rather quickly finds the call center that was responsible for bilking his friend, burning it to the ground. Clearly, Clay has had some connections, and paramilitary training. We infer (but it's not explicit until an hour into the film) that he is retired from a secret government agency that watches over all levels of society.  

He doesn't stop there,  though. Beekeepers, even retired ones, are tanacious. Like bees from which his kind take their inspiration. 

But he's not alone. While he is seeking vengeance,  his friends daughter, FBI Agent Verona Parker (played by Emmy Raver-Lampman) seeks justice for her mother, and keeps Clay in line. Sonewhat.

Derek Danforth (Hunger Games actor Josh Hutcherson) is next in Clay's sights, since his family's company, Danforth Enterprises,  runs srveral call centers. We soon learn that it's a very well connected company indeed. 

Danforth is a drug-using pretty boy, protected by former CIA Director Wallace Westwyld,  played by veteran actor Jeremy Irons, who is paid by the family to keep Derek out of troustarsWhen he discovers the truth about Clay, ven he's terrified.

Clay continues rampaging, attacking a Boston call center and getting info about Derek's involvement.  He's undeterred, spelling out what's to come.  

But Parker, also on the trail, has alerted higher ups, including the Deputy FBI Director, who gives her the resources she needs, and meets with the President (Jemma Redgrave) who happens to be Derek's mother.

No more details, because it's about the end when you realize who she is and what may come.  But there are a couple of surprises and it looks like as sequel and actual Beekeeper franchise might be set up by the ending. Let's hope so.

Violent? Yes, in parts. Some flaws? Very few. Big actors doing great acting? Definitely.  See it if you enjoyed Stratham in the Transporter film, see this.  

#Movie #Review #I.S.S.: A Good, Not Great, Space Drama

I.S.S. is the best movie about the International Space Station of 2024. And the only one. So far. Obviously. 

That's not to say I didn't enjoy much of it. Many didn't, tho. It has only a 43% audiencer"fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes (As usual, 63% of critics were more forgiving and gave it a "fresh" rating)  Gravity (2012) is a tighter adventure story, big namestars, and a better script. 

This film is directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, whose documentary film Blackfish exposed and embarrassed Sea World's treatment of whales in captivity, got a 99% fresh rating by critics on the famous "Rotten" site.  Clearly, she does better with documentaries.

The film starts with a few on-screen paragraphs and establishing shots of the station itself, floating on the edge of space for over 20 years, inhabited in this film by American astronauts and Russian Cosmonauts. It's frequently had some from other nations as well, and it might have been better to have add a mix of Canadians, Germans and Japanese, as in real life. But maybe not. It would complicate what follows. 

The action opens with two new astronauts arriving at the station, joining three Russians and one American already on board.

 This, too is routine in real life. 

The new arrivals are greeted warmly by them, and the new astronaut (an American woman, one of two women and three Americans of a six-person crew) is shown the ropes of living on the station. Again, it looks and sounds authentic, based on video we've seen of the real thing.

The backgrounds the crew are maybe too fleshed out by the movie's half point, but despite some weak writing, the FX are really good for an allegedly low-budget film. Anyone who has seen pictures of the views from the actual ISS will recognize this accuracy, instantly. Weightlessness and the cramped quarters are also portrayed well throughout the film. 

Soon, despite assurances from veterans of the ISS that politics don't intrude on the station,  ostensibly devoted to science, both sides get messages that hostilities have broken out on Earth (verified by an American seeing what at first look like "volcanoes" out a station window. An American doing a spacewalk tells colleagues not to look out the windows on the ẁar- ravaged planet below.

Both sides are told in internet texts by their two governments to "Take control of the station. By any means necessary." Shortly afterwards,  communication is lost with earth, and power flickers.

The rest of the film is predictable, as a mini war erupts in space on the station. First with acts of sabotage, then murder, occurring. To the director's credit, it's not clear which, if any, of the six crew will survive, especially as the station begins to fall out of space - something all space agencies are planning to let happen in the next decade anyway, since it is cramped and outdated. 

In the meantime, it requires periodic  adjustments to keep it orbiting, 250 miles above the earth. For a while, it's uncertain if it will get one. Why it's important to "take control" of it, and what use it would have, remains unclear. A subplot of a crewman doing important, relevant research for a post-WWIII earth is a rare unbelievable note. 

It is good to know much of this science background before going to the theater, since I bet most Americans forgot we had a station and that we mostly share it with Russia.

The film ends showing which of the crew survive, but not going into "what's next" for the future of the crew, the ISS, or the earth itself, but following a clear nuclear exchange and bloodshed on the station itself, the future looks dim, indeed. 

All the crew dying or the station's destruction would have been a poignant ending. But it ends ambiguously.

Rated R for violence and some language. See it in the theater soon.  It will likely go to streaming quickly.

#Movie #Review #Babylon is Plotless, Vulgar and Long

Director Damien Chazelle brings to the screen a three-hour and nine minute film depicting a pivotal and interesting time in movie history: the difficult transition from silent films to "talkies." 

The problem is that, despite a star studded cast, the film puts vulgar sensationalism above all else, including a complete lack of plot structure and emotional resonance. In what is clearly meant to be both a love letter and expose of 1920s Hollywood instead comes across as a vulgar, plotless jumble of scenes that don't fit together very well.

Brad Pitt is the fitional Jack Conrad, a wildly successful silent film actor whose career is in rapid decline. He takes a young Mexican man, Manny Torres, played well by Diego Calva, under his wing, and he moves quickly into the film industry, which is in its infancy in the early 1920s.

Conrad and Torres first meet at a wild, debauched Hollywood party in the mid 1920s. There, they both meet Nellie La Roy, played by Margot Robbie, who is a wanna-be actress who crashes the party and also quickly crashes into the movie industry. 

The party sets the tone for the film, featuring sexual debauchery and drug use. I always notice incongruities in period pieces, and the entire crowd at the party wiggling freestyle, like it's 2020, seemed completely out of place. Even the music seems like 1940s jazz, not music from the 1920s. Not once did a character dance the Charleston or the foxtrot. Instead Robbie's character performed over-sexualized dances that wouldn't be seen on dance floors for another 60 or 70 years. 

Later, when she miraculously is inserted into a movie set, she is told to dance, and does the same thing, causing one of the male actors in the scene to have an erection in full view of the director.

I had to stop myself at that point and think about the time period of the film, and she may be on more solid ground than I first realized, because this was before the Motion Picture Production code came into effect in 1934. 

Late 1920s films were quite a bit more sexualized and violent than later time periods, and the movie industry, fearing government regulation was on the way, implemented a voluntary code of conduct that govern the film industry into the late 1960s.

None of this, of course, is explained in this film, but it does touch on the terrible working conditions for extras, the rauchous parties (though it's hard to believe that what the director portrays here actually occurred) and the racism of early Hollywood faced by minorites. Though a Hispanic man, an Asian woman, and a black man seem to have easily entered the Hollywood system in this film. Perhaps too easily.

A good chunk of the film attempts to tell the story of the difficult transition from silent films to films with sound. Some actors, like Conrad and La Roy (whose thick New Jersey accent pegs her as "low class") don't make the transition. 

Jean Smart plays a savvy Hollywood gossip reporter who breaks the news to Conrad that his career is ending. Her soliloquy about Hollywood and the fact that those existing on film will live forever is one of the high points of the film. and succeeds in1 giving it some heart. 

But such high points have to compete with the raunchy humor of an elephant pooping on a man's head, Robbie's character barfing on a man's expensive rug, and a man being urinated on during the opening party scene. 

A scene in which Conrad and a colleague are ushed into an underground club of sorts by a gangster played by Tobey Maguire, features a would-be actor biting a rat in half could have been easily cut.

Because the director is trying to tell 10 stories at once, we hear about Sidney, a black jazz musician played by Jovan Adepo, whom Torres put in a movie of his own, but is quickly alienated by Hollywood when he, a somewhat light-skinned man, is told to put on black face in order to blend in with the other black musicians. This, like several other tales here, is only briefly mentioned as if they are SNL sketches.

Another character that flies into the film and quickly out again without much exposition is Lady Fay Zhu, played by Li Jun Li, a dialogue card designer for the silent films, who also checks the 2020s diversity box as a sultry lesbian caberet singer.

Chazelle wraps up this epically long film with a bizarre and oddly hurried ending that attempts to show the demise of the actors after Hollywood's transition to talkies. 

No spoilers here, but there are a few tragic ends in the film, just as there were tragedies in old Hollywood. 

The entirely predictable death of an actor, the death of a movie extra at the hands of another extra wielding actual weapons during a battle scene, an actor who overdoses at the opening party, and a sound technician on an early sound stage are all quickly touched on but aren't significant to the plot, because there basically is no plot here, to speak of.

The entire film could have been shortened by 45 minutes and still been understood, especially if the director had narrowed his focus to a single plot. Instead, he was so enamored with shocking his audience that he forgot to include one.

#Movie #Review #ViolentNight Is Cartoonishly Violent Fun

A few weeks ago now, I saw Violent Night, a rather cartoonishly violent Christmas themed movie by director Tommy Wirkola.

It tells the unlikely tale of an elite team of mercenaries who break into a family compound on Christmas Eve, taking the wealthy family hostage inside. However, they aren't prepared for a surprise visitor: Santa Claus is on the grounds, and he's about to whip out the naughty list on the bad guys.

• David Harbour plays a respectable and oddly believable Santa, who says he has been in the role of the jolly old elf apparently since the time of the Vikings, when he wielded a hammer, not a bag of toys. And he has a long memory when it comes to violence.
• Actor/comedian John Leguizamo portays Scrooge, the leader of a violent gang attacking a wealthy family on Christmas Eve. And he does it with credibility. This film really is violent,  but it's not nasty. 
• Beverly D'Angelo is well cast as Gertrude Lightstone, the family's matriarch, whom her children and grandchildren are desperate to impress, because they believe their inheritance relies on it. And it does. 

She is rude and mean to staff and family alike, and early on, we are not impressed with her attitude towards others. So when her basement vault is threatened by the invaders, who clearly have had an insider feeding them information, we are not sympathetic to her. Nor are we meant to have any sympathy for this wealthy family.

But her son's little girl, who believes in Santa, is very frightened by what's going on in the house on Christmas Eve, is a sympathetic character, and her hope that her two separated parents reunite as a couple after Christmas seems  delightfully naive, but offers a hopeful note. 

It should be mentioned, however that the "Violent" in "Violent Night" is not inaccurate, and this is not a film for little children, although clearly scenes battling the intruders were inspired by the '90s film Home Alone, and characters reference the film by name. The violence is all very over the top and cartoonish. But also some of it is quite graphic.

Once Santa and the little girl get together, they hatch a plan to attack the bad guys, who are confronted by Santa and are informed that they are, and have in the past, been on the "naughty list."

This leads to the interesting conclusion that the bad guys all come to believe that this is actually Santa Claus. But somehow, they don't turn over a new leaf with this epiphany.

This is overall and interesting little movie, but is not quite a replacement for It's A Wonderful Life. It's got violent, fantasy, and sweet elements,  not quite sure which kind of film this is,  but it all kind of works.

#Movie #Review #TriangleOfSadness

SOME SPOILERS

A film named "Triangle of Sadness" sounds like it would be a dreary affair, but it's often uproariously funny, thought provoking, and sometimes even gross and sickening. That's a lot for one movie, but director Ruben Ōstlund, delivers all of this in what's more like a three-act play, telling three distinct stories.

The first act consists of a couple, both runway models, Yaya, played by Charlbi Dean Kriek and Carl, played by Harris Dickinson, who are on a dinner date.  Kriek was a South African model who died before the film's release. She was 32. The cause of her death was not released. Dickinson is a 26-year-old English actor. 

I mention thier ages because neither one of them is "old" or even middle aged. And they are not wearing makeup in the film to make them look old.

But in a flashback, we see that Dickinson's character's career is in a downward spiral. He is told, foolishly, it seems, that he needs Botox in the space above his nose between his eyes, the supposed "triangle of sadness" because it's a bit wrinkly. 

While his career is already waning, her's is on the rise, and at dinner, there is an extended discussion over who will pick up the tab.The fact that her career is going well, and his is not, plays into the discussion, suggesting that she should probably pick up the tab. But, she reminds him that he promised he would pick up the tab "the next time" at a previous dinner date. 

If it sounds tedious, the director does not makes it quite engaging. One critic even suggested that the entire film should have been focused on their relationship. And, while both of them are featured in all three acts of the film, it moves along to other topics.

The next act consists of a cruise on a multi-million dollar yacht, populated by multi-millionaires, investors, and the two models we met in the first act. Yaya wanted to go on the cruise to pose as an influencer on social media, and build her credibility as one. He apparently went along as arm candy and to snap photos.

The interactions between the yacht's upper deck crew and the passengers are both interesting and thought-provoking. The director is clearly making a statement about wealth, power, and the service class. We do get glimpses of the lower deck crew, who are never allowed on upper decks and likely do not get a cut of the huge tips that the upper deck crew gets from passengers.

Some of the wealthy are portrayed positively, such as when a passenger insists that a crew member take a dip with her in the pool as her equal. When the egalitarian captain of the vessel (a Marxist, we learn later, played by a scruffy Woody Harrelson) hears of the passenger's request, he makes it mandatory that all upper deck crew members take the day off and jump in the pool.

The Captain's decision to hold the big dinner of the cruise the same day a huge storm is known to be headed their way proves to be a bad one when passengers are thrown to and fro on the boat, and become sick on the slimy dishes that are on the menu that evening. The scenes of passengers getting sick in the dining room, the hallways, and on the toilet, are both disgusting and humorous. Mostly disgusting, though.

The storm seems to bring out the inner Marxist of the drunk Captain, who, along with a former East European passenger who has since become a strong capitalist, take to the intercom system of the now sinking ship to have a hilarious debate about Marxism and read quotes from Marx and leading Capitalists.

The storm results in the ship being destroyed with only a few survivors reaching shore on an apparently deserted island, where the third and final act "The Island," takes place. The handful of survivors find their leader in the head of the janitorial staff on the yacht, a strong middle-aged woman, Abigail, played by Filipina actress Dolly de Leon. 

Abigail became the undisputed leader of the group because, she argues, she alone can hunt, fish, and start the fires needed to cook fish and other wildlife she catches, although Carl and a German millionaire passenger kill a wild donkey later on. Carl and Yaya have both survived, and Carl quickly takes Abigail as as an unlikely lover, joining her in the evenings in a large lifeboat that resembles a dumpster.

When Abigail goes on a walk across the island in search of water and other supplies, she finds something that ends the film. She takes Yaya with her, at the latter's insistence, and she plots to kill Yaya and take her out of contention, because she seems jealous of the relationship that Abigail and Carl have developed on the island.

The ending is ambiguous and is bound to be controversial, but what they find on the other side of the island is truly interesting, and changes their predicament, entirely.

Triangle of Sadness had its world premiere at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival on May 5, where it received an eight-minute standing ovation and won the prestigious Palme d'Or "Gold Palm."

#Movie #Review: #Elvis

Elvis (2022) stars Austin Butler in the leading role of Presley, Oscar winner Tom Hanks as his mysterious, scheming manager, Colonel Tom Parker, and Australian actress Olivia DeJonge as wife Priscilla Presley. 

The film follows his rise to fame in the mid 1950s to his tragic end in 1977, but largely focuses on the tense and often explosive and complicated relationship between the king of rock 'n roll and his manager.

Told ostensibly from Parker's point of view in old age, the film by director Baz Luhrmann paints Parker as the villain, following the narrative of several books written about him since his death in 1997, exposing his financial abuse of the rock star - sadly, only the first of many such stories in the entertainment  industry.

The film makes quick work of the childhood of Elvis, shorthanding his twin influences of black jazz and religion by showing the boy eavesdropping on a carnival tent and then running to a Pentecostal religious revival tent, all on the same day on the same fairgrounds.

He's shown in later scenes as an adult hanging with well-known jazz musicians, including B.B.King, a major influence on his music.

Parker is portrayed as a carnival dweller who hears of Elvis's singing talents before he even knows he is a white singer, and not an African-American as he sounded to many.  Parker is shown witnessing the hypnotic effect Elvis had on women in his audience, even very early on in his performing career.

Which makes it curious that he would later demand that Elvis stop wiggling his hips during performances, ostensibly under blackmail from those who knew his sordid past (he had illegally emigrated to the United States from the Netherlands at the age of 20.) Hanks affects a Dutch accent throughout the film, in an Oscar-worthy performance by the veteran actor, who should get a best supporting actor nomination.

The entire "New Elvis" portion of the film is the least plausible. It seems to me that a promoter like Parker would surely understand what was causing the women to scream and shout and not try to squelch that magic, despite the real societal objections to the entertainer's hip gyrations, objections that were certainly historical.

The costumes and sets are lavish here, and costumes by Prada for both Elvis and Priscilla Presley add to the colorful atmosphere of the mid- '50s through the 1970s, including his somewhat tasteless and brash Vegas years.

Those Vegas years are among the most heart-wrenching of the entire film, because it's painfully aware to viewers where his career and life are headed. It is here where Parker looks the worst, selling out Elvis for unlimited poker chips to a casino.

The director's use of a few minutes of actual footage of Elvis at the end of his career and a historical verbal tribute from Pres. Jimmy Carter upon the star's death were moving, unexpected, and unique in film history.

Both Butler (who had a minor role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) and Hanks both deserve Oscars for their performances, with Butler channeling the King's accent and mannerisms and even recreating Elvis's songs beautifully and Hanks performing his role as the shady Parker in a "fat suit" throughout the film (Butler only showing prosthetic-induced weight gain for a scene portraying the superstar's last performance in Vegas, just before his death.)

This film is well worth seeing in theaters, where the full impact of the music and costumes can be felt.

#Movie Review: Doctor Strange and The Multiverse of Madness Is A Horror Film!

(CONTAINS SPOILERS)

Benedict Cumberbatch returns as Dr. Stephen Strange in Marvel’s “Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness,’ the long-awaited sequel to 2016’s “Dr. Strange.”

Strange is visited by a young woman, America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) and a version of himself, both from another universe, being chased by a demon. Strange’s double dies, but the young woman tells him there is chaos in the multiverse and she is being hunted.

He is not entirely surprised by this, because he has seen her in his dreams, and he (and Marvel audiences) knew of the Multiverse concept from the previous Spider-Man film, in which Strange tampered with time and space to make everyone forget Spider-Man’s identity, thus unleashing the chaos.

America can travel in the Multiverse (with limited control, however) which makes for a great plot device, but it’s not used as much as it could be, with them only travelling to one major alternate universe – one in which Strange has died. Much more could have been done and more fun could have been had with the concept. This is shown by the alternate Earth’s crosswalk lights and alternatives to the Avengers (there called “The Illuminati”) – including a surprise member or two from other franchises.

Instead of more of these fun surprises, though, things turn dark as they both battle Wanda Maximoff, who has become The Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen, reprising the role from Wandavision) whom Strange hoped would team up with them. 

She declined, because she has her own reasons to travel into the multiverse and tamper with it. While her reasons are pure, her use of dark magic is ultimately destructive.

Before they go into the other universe, the two have to battle an interdimensional octopus, a demon who is out to get America. An unintentionally funny part of this fight scene is the unnamed Extra shown running past Strange with a briefcase. Due to an editing error, he runs past Strange six or seven times, each time looking back at the monster as papers fall out of his briefcase. 

Benedict Wong plays Wong, the Sorcerer Supreme in our universe, whose character plays a pivotal role in the fight later in the film, and Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Karl Mordo, the Sorcerer Supreme in the alternate universe, who may or may not be an ally.

As the plot unfolds, Strange finds a way to confront Maximoff in another alternate universe but does so in a rather gruesome way that has... consequences. 

The film has some serious horror elements at times and this may be far too scary for young children.

While there are some missed opportunities here to explore the multiverse in a fun and more complete way (last year's Spider-Man: No Way Home explored the concept better, as did 2018's animated Into The Spiderverse) I'm sure the concept will be explored in future Marvel films, and this is definitely a watchable installment of the MCU. But be warned of its intense horror elements, which will turn off some viewers and is likely too intense for the youngest Marvel fans.

Note that there are two post credit scenes, one at the extreme end of all the credits that is quite funny but not a preview of coming attractions.

#Movie #Review "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once"

The filmmaking duo Daniel "Dan" Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, collectively known as "Daniels,” have brought a unique film to the screen, “Everything, Everywhere, All at Once.”

To use the words “unique” and film in the same sentence these days seems almost impossible, since Hollywood loves to imitate rather than innovate. 

But this is no derivative sequel, it’s utterly unique and different. 

The elements it brings together, however, aren’t. In the same month that Marvel brought “Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness” to the screens, and previously a cartoon version of Spider-Man, the concept of a multiverse has had some high-profile exposure to the public. 

The concept here shares some elements with those other films. Through an unknown force,  people are able to travel to other universes, created by choices they made in the past. Each path, every choice, creates a new universe. In this film, the lead character, Evelyn Wang (played by Michelle Yeoh) must rise to the challenge and defeat a super being (inhabiting her daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu) who has a secret that those in another universe fear. 

That other universe contacts Evelyn, who with her husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan - who played "Short Round" in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom") owns a laundromat, and is in trouble with the IRS. They contact her through a psychic link with her husband, who informs her that she can contact other universes to acquire skills (like martial arts) that will help her in her fight. 

The cast is rounded out by 93-year-old James Hong as Gong Gong, Evelyn’s father, who famously played Hannibal Chew, the eyeball-creating geneticist in Blade Runner and voiced Chi-Fu in "Mulan," and a stunning performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Deirdre Beaubeirdra, the long-suffering IRS agent who transform into a vicious kung fu fighter - after hilarious interactions with Evelyn as she audits her messy laundry business records.

Despite its sci-fi elements, the film has some strong fantasy sequences, especially when the secret that Joy is working on is revealed. It’s very reminiscent of “Hitchhiker’s Guide To the Galaxy” in many respects, and if you enjoy absurdist humor (Joy’s bagel, the "talking rocks" universe, the multiple uses of Deirdre’s awards, and “Raccaccoonie”) you’ll love those parts of the film.

But it also strives to be more profound than all this. Hoping to transcend it’s sillier elements, it seeks, in the end, to make a serious statement about life and relationships.

I’m not sure its succeeds in that but it’s a very fun ride to take, and the effects in this admittedly low budget film (compared to Marvel’s films, anyway) are well done, and some are “practical effects,” done without green screens or computers, with only a handful of people.

The film clearly wants to be an international sensation. Parts of the early scenes are in Chinese, with English subtitles. Clearly, the Nearly all-Asian cast will play well in China – a significant market for films today – but some elements, like Joy’s girlfriend Becky, the raunchy sexual humor, and the history of Evelyn’s father rejecting her, in part because she’s female, will go against the grain of traditional Chinese values. 

Still, this is well worth seeing in the theaters. 

#Movie #Review Death On The Nile (2022): Death In The Theaters?

Based on the 1937 novel by Agatha Christie, “Death on the Nile,” the latest film directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh as the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, takes viewers on a murder mystery tour down the Nile River in Egypt (which started out as a wedding party.) And if you think this is an Oscar-worthy film, just because of the lush CGI scenery, the chatty dialogue, or chic costumes, you’d be in serious DENile. 

This film clearly has Oscar pretentions. Too bad it has so many flaws. The aforementioned CGI pyramids and river do their best to distract from them, but they exist. But let’s start with the cast, itself. 

The leads, Armie Hammer as Simon Doyle and Gal Gadot as wife Linnet Ridgeway, play newlyweds who have invited friends on a cruise down the Nile in 1937. The two are seemingly happy, but Simon’s spurned lover, Jacqueline de Bellefort (played by Emma Mackey) has threateningly followed the group every step of the way and is now on the ship with them.

Poirot is asked by the couple to watch out for their safety.

The complicated back story of the couple and de Bellefort, told first in a jazzy night club years earlier where Simon first fell for Linnet, and a rather unnecessary flashback to World War One in which we learn why the good detective has such an outlandishly large moustache (to hide a war wound.) take up time and don’t pay off very well for the audience.

Other flaws include anachronisms and outlandish dialogue throughout the two hour and seven-minute film (which seems longer.) 

Anachronisms (things that don’t belong in the time period) abound. Climbing on the pyramids while flying a kite, Tom Bateman’s character Bouc, who appeared as the character in the much more commercially successful Branagh film “Murder on the Orient Express,” jokingly, but clearly, alludes to the famous line in the film Casablanca (“Of all the gin joints in all the world...”) when he notices Poirot watching below. But that’s a 1942 film, not yet released, since this film is set in 1937. 

The guitarist in the jazz club’s band is playing a Gibson hollow body electric guitar. Gibson didn't make hollow body electric guitar until 1958. (Not to mention the music, which seems later than 1937, but could have dated from that era.)

The dancing in the jazz club was NOT of the era, however. Miley Cyrus could have learned her twerking skills from what Simon and Jacqueline do on the dance floor. 

Another: Helium-filled balloons fly from the exterior of the ship, but inside, the balloons fall from the ceiling, apparently air-filled. 

And so on.

The dialogue is at times wooden and at other times ludicrous. One hilarious example is when Gal Gadot’s Linnet welcomes the guests to the ship, she exclaims, in an overly exaggerated and even campy tone, “We have the Karnak [the ship’s name] all to ourselves, a chef, and enough champagne to fill Nile!” She then exaggeratingly tosses the contents of her glass overboard into the river, as if to illustrate the point. 

To make things worse, she pronounces “champagne” as "SHIMPaine" unlike any American like her character would ever do. 

The scene has been the subject of ridicule in reviews and the video clip has become a meme on social media. Various media are panning her acting as evidence of her being a “terrible actress” a label she’s been carrying around since 2020’s Wonder Woman: 1984) One charitable Twitter user called her a "fascinatingly bad actor." And who can ever forget the “Imagine” YouTube video Gadot put together during the pandemic, which received endless ridicule? 

All of this is not great for the film's eventual box office take.

Poirot/Branagh himself has some ludicrous, overly dramatic lines, as well, among them being, “The crime is murder. The murderer is one of you. I have investigated many crimes, but this has altered the shape of my soul. I am detective Hercule Poirot, and I will deliver your killer.” Okay, then.

Speaking of not great, the film’s other star, Armie Hammer, has for months been mired in controversy, accused of raping and assaulting women and making strange comments to them implying he is a cannibal. The film was delayed for 18 months due to the pandemic, and he has not been part of a tour to promote the film’s release, but a weak $12 million opening weekend may be partly due to his involvement. 

The film has other elements, which are neither negative nor positive, but are transparently designed to get the film qualified for Oscar nominations. Namely, the inclusion of the black jazz performer (Letitia Wright) and her mother, who are portrayed UBER sympathetically (as wholly expected for a 21st Century film) and two other women who are, in the film (but NOT in Agatha Christie’s original book) exposed by the crafty detective as lesbian lovers. Such tokenism – sorry, "inclusion” - is required of ALL films to qualify for a nomination, however silly and anachronistic it may be in a film taking place in 1930s Egypt. 

That said, it’s neither here nor there to me, and doesn’t help or hurt the film, though it does distract from the slow boiling plot, which doesn’t start getting interesting until well past the half point, one hour in.

(It should be noted that Wright has faced controversy, too, for posting a YouTube video questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines - as has Brand - and allegedly making transphobic comments, two things that get you “cancelled” in liberal Hollywood these days.)

A barely recognizable Russell Brand (who puts in a good performance) also appears here, but you might not care about his character.

The murder itself (or series of them) is a true mystery and is resolved cleverly by Poirot. The murderer and accomplice get their just desserts in the end, but a less dramatic ending for them both would have worked just as well, as it did in the book.

While flawed, Death on the Nile is watchable, and tolerable. Wait to stream it, though. It will likely be online very soon.

#Movie #Review: Spider-Man: No Way Home Has Surprises, And A Caring Heart

Great visuals, good villains an okay plot and one, big (if expected) plot twist make Spider-Man: No Way Home the hit of the winter. It drew record pandemic-era crowds to theaters, and took in almost a billion dollars in box office, which is quite amazing.

(SPOILERS BELOW)

Tom Holland does an excellent job as the latest incarnation of Spider-Man in this latest film, which follows his outing as Peter Parker to the world. 

Struggling with the burden of everyone knowing his secret identity, however, is too much emotional baggage for him to bear, and he asks fellow Avenger Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to cast a spell that lets everyone in the world forget that Spider-Man is Peter Parker (with the exception of his closest friends) something that was maliciously revealed about Parker at the end of the previous Spider-Man film, Far From Home (2019.)

The spell actually works too well, drawing in not only several villains from multiple universes, but (and here is the big spoiler, that was ruined by several studio leaks) two previous Spider-Man actors, Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire. 

Together, the three Spider-Men tackle the villains in a climactic scene at the Statue of Liberty in New York City. But in a vain attempt to repair the rift in space-time, Doctor Strange is forced to cast a spell that makes even Spider-Man's friends, including his high school girlfriend, played convincingly by the 25-year-old actress Zendaya, forget that Spider-Man is actually Parker.

The post credit scene indicates that Doctor Strange will be continuing his battle against the torn-apart multiverse, which was ruptured by his hasty spell-casting on behalf of Spidey.

The film carries with it a lot of surprises and clever dialogue, as can be expected from a Marvel film. The three actors playing Spider-Man are given a lot of this clever dialogue, and seeing them together is an incredible treat.

The audience cheered when the two actors come through a portal summoned by Strange's magic (but temporarily wielded by Parker's friend, Ned - played by Jacob Batalon.)

Holland doesn't take the easy way out, though, instead insisting on helping the villains create a better life for themselves before being sent back through the portal into their own universes, curing  them of the ills that torment them.

Spider-Man's caring heart for these otherwise irredeemable villains is an incredible message of selflessness playing out on screens.

The only criticism that could be leveled against No Way Home is that perhaps there were too many villains claiming the action. Marvel films are often incredibly crowded to begin with. 

One could mention the disappointing recent Eternals film, which was a bit of a muddled effort because it tried to introduce nine superheroes in one film, with two more in the post-credit scenes.

But no one left the theater upset by this Spider-Man movie. Instead, fans are likely eagerly awaiting what comes next. Strange's adventure is just beginning, and rumor has it that Tobey Maguire may return as Spider-Man from the other universe to perhaps assist Tom Holland once again. I can't wait to see what's next!

#Movie #Review #TheEternals: A Flawed, Muddled Effort [Stephen Abbott's blog]

In Marvel's The Eternals, ancient alien beings who have been living on Earth in secret for thousands of years come out of the shadows to reunite against mankind's most ancient enemy, the Deviants.

In what sounds like a perfect setup for a Marvel film, it is ultimately ruined by a muddled plot, sloppy dialogue, and far too many characters to keep track of, or care for.

The film starts out as a fairly good origin story for nine eternal beings who come to Earth around 5000 BC to protect humanity from the Deviants, porcupine-like creatures that are hell-bent on destroying humanity in its infancy.

They accomplish this initial goal early on, but the characters are shown remaining on guard duty for humanity throughout history, often with the story jumping back and forth in time to the present day, then back to the 1500s, and earlier, which quickly got confusing with nine characters involved.

While much has been made of the "politically correct" nature of the film, in part because it features characters (and actors) of several different nationalities, and includes both a deaf and gay characters for the first time in Marvel history (as far as we know)  we have to remember that this film, like all films today, are not only produced, but also shown, worldwide, and will likely make more money in China and Europe than in the US.

Indeed, the film was directed by Chinese-born Chloé Zhao, the first time for her as a director in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it will probably be her last.

(That said, the film has been banned in certain Arab countries because of the gay character, which features a minor, and brief, gay kiss between him and his husband that the directors would not cut from the film. Political Correctness is a double-edged sword in many parts of the world.)

Richard Madden plays Ikaris, who's who is prone to fly like Superman and even shoot lasers out of his eyes like Superman. Basically, he's Superman.

Adding some real star power to the film is Salma Hayek as Ajak who is ostensibly the leader of the group, and whose Secret knowledge of the mission they are undertaking on Earth is one of the true surprises of the film

Also, Angelina Jolie plays Athena, whom ancient peoples actually believe is the goddess of the same name. Jolene's character is haunted by a demon-like presence that makes her dangerous to the other eternals. While an interesting plot point, it kind of makes her character unreliable and sidelines her. 

With someone of that caliber playing a character in your film, you don't want something like this happening to her, making her basically a bit player.

Barry Keoghan is Druig, who is a sympathetic character, in that he wishes humanity would stop fighting one another. He wants to use his massive psychic abilities to control people's minds to make that instantly happen, worldwide, but is stopped by Ajak, who insists that they not interfere with humanity's progress.

Don Lee is Gilgamesh, who is a fearsome fighter, but seems to just rely on his brute strength here rather than any superpower.

All of these characters have something good to do, but as the film progresses, it is revealed that their mission is less than altruistic towards humanity. This moral ambiguity makes them less than heroes, which doesn't bode well for any sequel.

But the major problem with the film remains the characters' development. With nine new characters to introduce, there was always going to be a problem getting to know them all in an in-depth way, so that we cared about their mission and about them, personally. When main characters die here - and they do - many viewers are more likely to say, "Oh, well" rather than express shock.

The teenage-like chatter between some of the Eternals, akin to "Does he like me or not?" is childish and tedious, even if it's an on-again-off-again romance over 500 years and not over science class in a high School romance film.

Not content with this blizzard of characters in the film itself, the standard MCU post credits scenes (yes, there are two of them!) introduce three new characters to the Universe, although one of them appeared in the film posing as a human companion of one of the Eternals, hiding their superhero identity. 

A final twist in the end of the movie, in which three of the Eternals are abducted and taken somewhere off Earth, is meant to be dramatic, but is literally post-climactic, and it leaves audience members not really caring, even though it is likely the setup for an anticipated sequel.

It's doubtful such a sequel wilsl happen. Early Rotten Tomatoes numbers were terrible (now standing at 47% critics, 80% audience. 2017's Thor: Ragnarok was 93%/87% by comparison)

Fans of the comic book upon which this film was based are said to be unhappy with how the director interpreted the characters, some of which are said to bear little resemblance to the Eternals comic book series, and took liberties with the characters' traits.

Issues have been raised by the short character in the post-credit scene, but this is most evident in the Druig character, which in the comic books was portrayed as sadistic and evil, working undercover for the Soviet KGB as a torturer. In the film, as noted above, he sought universal peace.

Verdict: See this at a cheap matinee or when it streams.

#Movie #Review #CryMacho

In 1978, Mike Milo, a onetime rodeo star and washed-up horse breeder (Clint Eastwood)  takes a job from an ex-boss (country singer Dwight Yoakam) to bring the man's young son (Eduardo Minett) home and away from his alcoholic mother (Fernanda Urrejola) who doesn't care much for the boy, other than as a bargaining chip with his father.

Eastwood's character is given the mother's address in Mexico City, and she gives him extremely good instructions on where the boy could be found - in an illegal cock fighting arena - but later she seems upset that he found him.

Crossing rural Mexico on their back way to Texas, the unlikely pair, who often clash, faces a challenging journey, during which the world-weary horseman teaches the boy what it means to be a good man.

Along the way, Eastwood's character finds an unlikely partner in a much younger woman, Marta (Natalia Travern) who runs the cafe in the kind of dusty village Clint Eastwood that always showed up in westerns of old. Marta is a widow who runs the cafe and cares for her three young granddaughters.

I enjoyed the movie on a certain level, but the plot was very slow, and so was 91-year-old Clint, who didn't walk, so much as shuffled, throughout the film, which at times was painful to watch.

His voice was quiet and rapsy, which made it hard to hear his lines sometimes. For his age, he did a serviceable job, but clearly it was a stunt double in that ring with a wild horse he tamed. 

In retrospect, Eastwood, who produced, directed, and starred in the film, should have passed off the acting duties to a younger man in his 60s. I don't want to say he acted poorly in the film, but it wasn't up to his usual high standards.

The boy actor, Minett, has a great future in acting, and so does the rooster, who saved the day and steals the scene more than once!

Fernanda Urrejola, the rather deliciously evil mother here, is starring in the Netflix series Narcos, and acts in both Chile and Mexico.

I tentatively recommend the film, which is based on a 1975 novel of the same name by Richard Nash (who co-wrote the film's screenplay) because of the sweet story, but go into it knowing that something is lacking up on the screen.

#Movie #Review #Cruella

(Spoilers included!)

Disney's Cruella open to mixed reviews in late May, 2021, but it is well worth seeing and works as an Origin Story for this dastardly Disney character.

We first see her as Estella, a young girl who is born with her trademark black and white hair. From the beginning, she is a difficult child for her widowed mother, who puts her in a boarding school, where she is warned to be Estella, not a "Cruella."

She does not heed the advice, and gets in fights and causes other problems which results in her being expelled.

After her mother's death at the hands of a mysterious person living in a grand mansion, Estella ends up in 1970s London.

She quickly falls in with two young boys who earn their way in life as pickpockets and thieves. The two 12-year-old actors do an admirable job playing the Dickensian characters.

She stays with the young scamps over 10 years, and they become her surrogate family. But she wishes and hopes for more than the petty theft that keeps them alive, knowing that she has a great skill: designing clothing. One day, she's instantly hired by a designer, but is just put to work, Cinderella-like, scrubbing floors and toilets.

Frustrated, and in a drunken stupor (in a Disney film!) one evening after work, she re-does the front window of the fashion house's department store.

When the Baroness, who runs the fashion line "House of Liberty" (played by Emma Thompson) sees the dramatic window display the next day, she instantly hires Estella.

The relationship between the two Emma's is strained from the beginning. If anyone has seen The Devil Wears Prada, they will recognize the dynamic as one very similar to that between Anne Hathaway's Andrea and Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly. But the difference here is that unlike Miranda Priestly, the Baroness has a grudging admiration for Estella's talent as a designer from the start. 

But the tide turns when Estella realizes that the Baroness is responsible for her mother's death, and later learns who she actually is.

Surprisingly perhaps, for a Disney film, there is amazing depth of character here in the two leads.

The baroness character is the villain in the piece, rather than Cruella, who comes across as conflicted and sympathetic.

This is a big change from previous incarnations of the character by Disney. In the 1961 animated film 101 Dalmatians, she is portrayed as evil incarnate, hell bent on turning dogs into a coat. 

The live-action film of the same name in 1996, starring Glenn Close, stayed true to the storyline of a maniacal woman who wanted to turn the dogs into coats. That film, unlike this recent one, was deliberately over the top in its character portrayals, basically making it a live-action cartoon. An interesting bit of trivia is that Glenn Close was an executive producer of Cruella, as was Emma Stone.

But this film, which should be seen more as a reboot than a sequel or prequel to the previous Disney efforts, has the lead character explicitly telling another character that she did not turn the Baroness's three Dalmatians into coats, despite wearing a suspiciously dotted coat during one of her fashion events.  In fact, the character loves dogs in this film, and even has one as a pet.

She chalked it up to a malicious rumor when asked about it, one no doubt she was promoting herself in order to boost her image as a ruthless designer.

That kind of sophisticated thought coming from a character in a Disney film isn't really expected. But because she actually didn't kill the dogs, or even attempt it, we are allowed to sympathize with her plight as an orphan who has been wronged.

No doubt adhering to new Oscar rules, the film includes a diverse cast, including Kirby Howell-Baptiste, as a starry eyed reporter who knew Estelle as a child, and John McCrae, who plays an effeminate second-hand clothing store owner who befriends Estelle, and later helps her when she becomes Cruella.

The film is a veritable linen closet of film tropes from the past. As mentioned above, the almost obvious nod to The Devil Wears Prada, but since this is an origin story of an orphan whose parent has been killed, one could also say Batman can be found here as well. And like Batman, and other superheroes, Cruella struggles internally here with hatred for her foe, a hatred that she knows is changing her.

Cruella is therefore a Scarlett O'Hara figure, who latches onto people and does what she needs to do to survive. Because she has not crossed the line and actually murdered her opponent, or the dogs, she can remain sympathetic to audiences.

I have to mention the wonderful soundtrack to this film, which takes place in the 1970s. One film reviewer noted, "A punk song in a Disney film! Punk is dead!" 

Artists included Queen, Supertramp, The Doors, Ike and Tina Turner, Blondie and The Clash. Actor John McCrae recorded a cover of The Stooge's raucous 1969 song, "I Want to be Your Dog," for the film's soundtrack.

Expect at least one sequel, which is already in development.

#BurntOrangeHeresy #Movie #Review: A Surprising Thriller [Stephen Abbott's blog]

The Burnt Orange Heresy was released in early March, 2020, just as the world (including movie theaters) was shutting down. 

I recently saw it in a second-tier theater on their first day open since the lockdown, with and an enforced 25% occupancy rule which was hardly needed, since I was literally the only one in the theater. 

I was greeted at the door with a girl wearing a face mask squirting my hands with sanitizer. The entire building suffered a brief power failure during the previews. Such was the weirdness of that world.

The film suffered from none of THAT weirdness, but it was spooky and ethereal, nonetheless.

Mick Jagger (yes, THAT one) plays Joseph Cassidy, a wealthy art collector who recruits cynical, bitter, pill-popping art critic James Figueras, played by Danish actor/musician Claes Bang, to come to his palatial estate on Lake Como in Italy to perform an enviable task - to interview a hermit-like, elderly artist, Jerome Debney (played with class by Donald Sutherland) a reclusive painter who hasn't been seen much in recent decades. For that matter, nor has Sutherland, himself. He has another task for him, as well, which he performs at first with reluctance, then with efficiency.

Bang brings his latest fling, Duluth school teacher Bernice Hollis (Paris-born Australian actress Elizabeth Debicki) with him to the Cassidy estate, and she first charms the millionaire and then the artist. 

Conversations between the characters about art and its value are rich and meaningful, with the exquisite background of the Italian countryside providing a lavish visual backdrop for the excellent script. 

Talks between the critic and his lover, and his lover and the elder artist, may seem to drag a bit, but it all adds to an understanding of what is going on, and gives significance to what's about to happen.

The story is adapted from a 1971 novel by Charles Willeford, an American mystery writer who originally set the story in Florida's Everglades. The story as adapted here seems pastoral and calm until the final act, when it turns into a thriller, with characters seeming to act of out character. But are they, really, acting so oddly, or was it, in hindsight, inevitable? 

The opening scene shows Figueras giving a lecture to tourists demonstrating his belief that all art is a lie, and is built on lies. He later tells his new lover that she really doesn't know him. 

That's truly an understatement, as both the critic and the millionaire collector have ulterior motives that, when revealed, have dire consequences. The ending is positively Poe-like in its overtones.

See this when the theaters open up again, or rent and stream it. It's beautifully filmed, acted and scripted. 

Note that this is a film for mature adults (it's rated R) with adult themes and sex scenes. The kids won't know who Jagger or Sutherland are, anyway, so leave them home.

#FirstReformed #Movie #Review: Gloomy Film With #Environmental, #Theological Subtexts [Stephen Abbott's blog]

A review of "First Reformed," by Stephen Abbott

MILD SPOILERS - BUT NOT AS MANY AS ARE IN THE TRAILER!

Director Paul Schrader (who wrote the screenplays for “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” and “Last Temptation of Christ”) writes and directs “First Reformed,” the melancholy tale of Rev. Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke) who lives an almost solitary life in a dying church in upstate New York. As he deals with great personal loss, and a loss of faith, his anguish bursts forth into ever-deepening despair.

While the film is already being discussed as an Oscar contender, and it has well-known stars - Cedric “the Entertainer” as a fundamentalist megachurch minister, Amanda Seyfried (“Mamma Mia”, “Veronica Mars,” “Big Love”) and Michael Gaston (“The Mentalist,” “Mad Men”) - it looks more like the Indie film it really is, with a lot of “mood-setting” and scenes that appear ad-libbed, but sadly, probably weren’t.

The long opening foreshadows Toller’s despair, featuring credits in an old-fashioned font, a long shot of the white wood-clad “First Reformed Church,” and overcast skies filled with snow seemingly about to burst forth from the clouds.

The mood, and the script, is assisted by Schrader’s Calvinist upbringing, and as a clergyman in the Reformed church in the film, Pastor Toller would be well acquainted with the dour view of human nature I think plays a part in his unraveling.

The story opens in the church, where Hawke’s Toller is going through the motions. The nearly-dead church is a 250-year-old relic about to be “re-consecrated” in a ceremony run by the building’s owners, a large fundamentalist megachurch down the street run by Cedric (Pastor Jeffers) who has brought Toller in to manage the church after Toller, a former military chaplain, suffered a tragedy and a divorce that’s sent him on a downward spiral of despair.

Toller has begun to write a year-long diary, a “form of prayer” he narrates for us throughout the film. This helps us focus on his mindset, and Schrader was right to include it, at the risk of accusations that he is plagiarizing earlier films using the same trope, because it's effective here.

The sparsely-attended, broken down Dutch Reformed Church – owned by, and serving as an appendage of, the megachurch down the road - serves as a painful and true-to-life reminder of many mainline churches that can’t keep their doors open due to dwindling membersship.  Again, Schrader nails this, because he likely lived it, first-hand, and I believe there’s no way this portrayal is accidental.

That even Toller can no longer bring himself to pray to God, and is losing faith in his bleak theology, is painfully portrayed in every frame of the film. It’s a crisis of faith in slow motion.

Toller offers to visit the fiancé of a parishioner who’s worried about her partner’s state of mind. The woman, Mary, is pregnant by the man, Michael (thank God, the character is not named Joseph!) before they have been married, but presumably after consummation.

Mary is disturbed by Michael’s growing environmental extremism. They meet, and Michael tells Toller of his obsession with the future of the planet, which he believes is doomed due to mankind’s destruction of the environment, a view encouraged when he looks up gloomy stats on websites and is reinforced by the photos of starving polar bears on the wall. He admits coyly to pressuring Mary to have an abortion, because he fears bringing a child into such a world.

Toller unconvincingly (and we know this, because of later events) encourages Michael not to give up on humanity, though his narration betrays his inner torment.

We see that Toller is the one convinced, however – rather quickly –  to take up Michael’s cause. And, after Michael is out of the picture (I’ll hide much of what’s to come from this point on) he toys with doing so in a rather radical way.

I’ll add here that as a mainline preacher, he would likely have already shared much of Michael’s environmental worldview, though it’s portrayed here as a new revelation, with Toller poring over conspiracy theory websites and papers, featuring ever more dire discoveries.

But scary rhetoric about a bleak future can backfire badly, and the film, perhaps unintentionally, shows that fear-based, alarmists tactics can lead to paranoia and extremism, rather than hope. Clearly, not what Schrader had in mind.

If there’s a religious subtext in the film, unintentional or not, it’s that mainline Christianity has, in some cases, substituted environmental activism in place of its negative theological worldview. In a real Reformed church, Michael would have been invited by Toller to teach a class or lead a church-wide protest march. But that would likely have saved Michael, and perhaps even have helped redeem Toller – an ending too positive for this film’s protagonist, and its theme.

Instead, the film’s third act is its most bleak, and most soul-crushing. The pace noticeably quickens, as Toller’s life unravels before our eyes, and his religious doubt turns to clarity in his new mission.

A fantasy "flying" scene at this point takes all reality out of the film, however, and reminds us that, “Yes, this is an Indie film.” It's a shame Schrader did this, just because he could. It adds little, and sacrifices much.

An all-too-convenient villain appears, which gives Toller the idea to perhaps become a martyr to his new environmental cause. But at the last minute, his plan changes, and in anguish, he graphically, pathetically, wraps himself in a mere symbol of martyrdom.

The film could have ended several different ways, and the ending Schrader chose is extremely hard to watch. He would have been forgiven for ending it with a fulfilled mission for Toller, perhaps with him first calling away the person he wished to save.

Or, if he had chosen to be heavy-handed, he could have had Toller resign, and announce that he’d spend the rest of his days fighting pollution. Instead, the “Sopranos-like” ending leaves audiences adrift, though the film really may have ended 30 seconds before it actually did.

My theory is that the "cup" did not pass from him, and the very last moments are a dream sequence. You’ll see what I mean.

#OurBrandIsCrisis #Movie #Review: Great Fun & Insight Into Political Consulting

(This contains *minor* SPOILERS, even though I was careful)

Well, I just saw "Our Brand Is Crisis" (how could I not see it, it's about political consulting, which is what I do!) and it was as good and as bad as I thought it would be. Good, because it does indeed show how political campaigns are run, for the most part, but bad because it has a stupid, but predictable, ending, and a Left-leaning bias throughout - which I guessed correctly was coming and simply chose to discount in my judgment of the film.

The film is based on, and takes its name directly from, a 2005 documentary about the 2002 election in Bolivia, in which a former president won the election with the help of an American firm led by legendary consultant James Carville. Billy Bob Thornton in the film resembles Carville in appearance, but here works for the opposition candidate.

Sandra Bullock starts off the film having left the profession of political consulting because of a bad event we learn about later. Personal scumbag Billy Bob Thornton - who plays one in the film, too – is her capable adversary. Both are running presidential campaigns in Bolivia.

Here's what rings true: the professional rivalries between consultants (who, nonetheless can be civil to one another) the scenes of actual campaigning, the strategies, families being divided by politics, the stress of campaigns, the fun people have during them anyway, the candidate who doesn't listen to his consultants, the backroom intrigue, and the dirty tricks.

What's silly is the whining about money in politics (in the intro only, don’t worry) and the fact that someone who’s been in the business doesn't seems to know that people are mean or that politicians do, in fact, lie.

Some of Bullock's lines are hilarious. How she pulls one over on the Thornton character before a big debate is brilliant. How she pulls back and listens in the beginning (though admittedly, she was ill) is exactly how one SHOULD start off a campaign before crafting and announcing a strategy. And the need to sometimes change strategies in mid-campaign is also well illustrated here.

The scene where the two candidate's buses happen to be on the same road, leading to a hilarious "backside" joke, is just the kind of stunt campaigns pull on each other, and there are several "dirty tricks" shown as well that are MORE than plausible.

Bullock’s character, "Calamity Jane," shouldn't be as surprised and alienated by the process as is depicted here, given her long history in the profession. But in films about political consulting – like the excellent 1986 Richard Gere/Denzel Washington film "Power" which this resembles in many ways, and which I highly recommend – sermonizing about how bad things can get and what's wrong with politics and managing campaigns is typical, and expected. 

But still, they manage to get a lot right, and it’s nicely entertaining even if you aren't a political consultant, so I recommend it.