A whole series of disparate events come to a violent conclusion and dozens of bad guys are killed. That’s about as much of a plot summary as you need for a movie like this. Action films can work well with a minimal backstory, and sometimes they work well when the plot gets convoluted. This is one of the latter. A sequel to “The Accountant” from almost a decade ago, it finds Ben Affleck as an autistic but functioning human being with extraordinary financial skills. In the first film he was a savant and an extraordinary killer. He’s not really an assassin anymore, but his old skills have not left him and he calls on them along with his estranged brother by John Bernthal, to wreak havoc on a trafficking organization.
If you want the audience to really hate the bad guys, you give them the worst kind of criminal activity to be involved in. In this case it is human trafficking, primarily of illegal immigrant women into prostitution. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to discover that one of the ways the organizations controls the women, is by imprisoning their children. We don’t see it on the screen, but there is little doubt that an economic stream involving the children will eventually be in their future as well. It is by a strange series of coincidences, that the head of the FBI Financial crimes unit gets involved in a case that connects the trafficking group with an assassin.
Of course to fight against assassins, it helps to have a couple of Assassins on your side. That’s where Affleck and Bernthal come into play. The FBI chief gets a little squeamish working with killers who don’t have the same restrictions of legal Authority on them. Still they end up approaching the case from different directions, and ultimately connecting a dangerous assassin, to the crime ring. There is a bit of a twist in this plot development, I’m not sure it makes a whole lot of sense, but they do try to explain it.
Affleck’s character lives in an Airstream trailer, and connects with his financial Empire through a mysterious computer center, filled with children who, like himself, have some Savant abilities. It’s been almost 30 years now that filmmakers have been trying to make computer hacking interesting on screen. Programmers, typing in code onto a computer screen, has to be inter-cut with a lot of other activity to make it watchable. The “Accountant 2”, does these hacking scenes as well as anybody else has.
Although you would not want to know either Affleck or Bernthal’s characters in real life, they make a fascinating pair in the movies. Occasionally questions come up concerning morality, but they’re never really answered. There is usually some joke that gets them out of a moral quandary. This was a very effective action piece, with a story that was mysterious enough to keep you intrigued for the 90 minutes that the movie runs. Then we get a shootout, multiple deaths of bad guys, and a couple of closing lines suggesting that we’ll be back with this crew again.
It feels a little like sundowner syndrome when we arrive at the fourth day of the film festival. Everyone has had a wonderful time for 3 days but we all know that it’s about to be over with, even though there are wonderful things still scheduled for the afternoon. Our fourth day at the film festival was really pretty simple, we had two films that we were going to see both of them were pretty long, and then we had the closing night film.
2001 A Space Odyssey
Amanda and I made the decision to split up for the first film of the day, she had never seen “Oklahoma” before and was anxious to catch it on the big screen. And as I’ve said in other posts, although I love my daughter she has disappointed me in her lack of appreciation for “2001 A Space Odyssey”, that’s the film I decided that I would go to see. I was especially interested in seeing 2001 again on the big screen, because the guest of the day was going to be the star of the film Keir Dullea. The festival programmers seem to be doing their best to get to important guests while they are still around. Mr Dullea, is maybe the 5th or 6th guest that I saw this weekend who is in their late 80s. All of us are due to leave this Mortal coil at some point, and I’m glad that so many of these guests chose to spend some time with us while they still could.
2001 on the big screen, at the Egyptian, is something I’ve done several times before. And once again seeing the movie in a theater with a rapt audience is thrilling. We were given the whole effect, including Overture, intermission, and exit music. They have also made sure to make these presentations authentic in another way, they closed the curtains and then open them again when it’s time for the feature. To me, the sense of excitement as the curtains part and the credits begin to roll, is one of the things that makes me most love the movies. They should be an event, not just content.
The conversation with Keir Dullea, was quite interesting, including stories about how he was cast and about his working with Stanley Kubrick on the set. His wife accompanied him onto the stage to help keep him focused on particular questions. He was by no means senile, but he would wander off track occasionally or miss the meaning of the question and she assisted him quite ably without necessarily suggesting that there was anything wrong. Especially appreciated the prompt that she had at the end when she reminded him that he wanted to talk about a piece of dialogue that got cut from the film, but for which he had spent a great deal of time trying to memorize, and still has it in his head.
I did an audio recording several parts of the conversation, and I’m going to try to include them here.
“2001”, along with “Jaws” is on my list of 10 favorite films of all time. So this is a pretty good weekend for me.
Apocalypse Now
When I met up with my daughter after her screening, we were queuing up to get numbers for this 1979 Francis Ford Coppola classic. She had been quite enamored of “Oklahoma”, and I hate that I missed sitting through it with her, because I quite like the film. I really enjoyed her embrace of the songs and the story and the joy that she seemed to be having. I was a little worried that this next film would destroy some of the cheerfulness that surrounded the mornings experience for her. After all Apocalypse Now is not a happy film.
I’m not sure how she managed to get to her age without being exposed to this film more. She told me she’s only seen a few clips and doesn’t really know much about the movie. So that made our decision to see “Apocalypse Now”, here at the film festival, really an appropriate one. The guest for this presentation was director Antoine Fuqua who has directed a ton of action films that I have loved over the last 20 years. He had nothing to do with the production of “Apocalypse Now”, it just happens that it’s his favorite film and inspired him to become a director and make movies that feature kind of grit and action that Coppola provided. His commentary on the film was mostly that of an enamored fan, which is not really a bad thing. It was certainly encouraging to hear his enthusiasm for the movie, as we tried to gird ourselves for the experience.
I mentioned that in the 2001 screening, the festival was trying to create an authentic experience included the ritual with the curtains. For this screening, the authenticity was enhanced by the distribution of a booklet, that contain the credits for the film. Back in 1979, the premier screening of this movie it Cannes, was done without any credits appearing on the screen, but rather in a Nifty little pocketbook with pictures. That item was reproduced and provided to all of us who attended this Sunday afternoon screening of a decidedly depressing War film.
There are variations of “Apocalypse Now” that have become quite popular in the last few years, but this presentation was the original theatrical cut. That’s the only version of the film that I know. I’ve seen the film occasionally over the years, and I have bounced back and forth between disliking it and embracing it. Whenever I think of the distaste I might have had for the movie, it probably reflects the negativity that is such a huge part of the story.
This time I was happy to embrace the film, and I was glad that Amanda was suitably impressed with it as well. Now if only I could get her to respond to 2001 the same way maybe I wouldn’t feel like such a failure as a father.
Heat
The closing night film for the festival was Heat, in the TCL IMAX theater. We had originally planned on watching the silent version of Beau Jeste in the Egyptian Theater. When actor Al Pacino was added to the discussion of “Heat”, we changed our minds and decided we could not miss out on the opportunity to hear one of the great actors of the 20th century talk about this movie.
The original guest was Michael Mann the director of the film, and Pacino joining him made the discussion feel a lot more complete. In fact even though there were questions, the situation felt more like a conversation with two old friends on the couch rather than an interview. Each of them remembered some things slightly differently, and they occasionally made the effort to correct a misstatement or a difference in memory.
Now I do have a confession to make, we chose not to stay for the screening of the film after the conversation. We had watched Heat last year and Amanda was not up for repeating it. It is a long film, and if we had stayed we wouldn’t have gotten home until midnight at least. So we stayed for the conversation between Pacino and director Michael Mann, and then we made our way out of the theater is quietly as possible so that we can return to the Southern California house and my daughter and her husband are living in. We got to have dinner with them instead of sending down in the diner with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.
For me personally I’m not sure the Day Two of the film festival could have started off any better. The first movie we were scheduled to see was a James Bond film, celebrating it’s 60th anniversary. It’s hard to believe that the James Bond films are almost as old as I am. I’ve been a lifelong fan of 007 and is a child of the 60s it’s easy for me to be nostalgic for one of the most significant cultural films of that decade. “Thunderball’ was a commercial earthquake that signaled the significance of action films, spy films, and general popular culture.
The 4th of the 007 films, “Thunderball” did everything bigger and more spectacularly than any film up to that time. The history of the film’s origin is well known, Fleming developed the original story with a couple of other writers for a TV series that never went anywhere. Authorship claims were resolved by agreeing to allow one of the claimants a producer credit on this film. Regardless of what happened behind the scenes what happens on the screen is over the top, beginning with the use of a jetpack to escape from the bad guys in the pre-title sequence. The slogan for the film was “He3re Comes the Biggest Bond of All.”.
Maybe the most thrilling moment I felt at the whole festival was when the titles for “Thunderball” came up and we got those great Maurice Binder titles with Tom Jones belting out the song on the big screen. This is a restoration of the film, and frankly I thought it looked great before. This is the movie where all of the tropes from Austin Powers originated. There are sharks however, they don’t have any lasers on them. The spectacular underwater battle that takes place at the climax of the film still could use a little trimming, but it didn’t seem nearly as long to me today as it has in the past. Probably because I’m watching it on the big screen.
The guest for this morning’s presentation was actress Luciana Paluzzi, who played the SPECTRE assassin Fiona Volpe. She was 27 when the film was made which makes her 87 today. She still looks terrific and she was sharp as a tack with a great sense of humor. She talked about her long friendship with director Terrence Young, who made three of the first four James Bond films. In fact director Young gave her away at her wedding to her husband to whom she is still married. It was fun to listen to her share stories of being on the set with Sean Connery, and shooting the various scenes that she was in. I’m glad we got this opportunity well we still have some surviving members of the cast to talk about the film. Thank you TCM.
Because of the length of the film, and the fact that the talk took place after the movie, we were too late to queue up for either the films that we were planning on filling in the rest of our morning with. So we missed babe and The Time Machine. We did take a little break over in the lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel, before making our way back to the big house for “The Fabulous Baker Boys”.
The Fabulous Baker Boys
Michelle Pfeiffer was the guest for this presentation, and moments before the movie and the discussion she had participated in the traditional handprint and footprint in concrete in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater. I hadn’t seen this film since it came out in 1989, but I remember being impressed with it and thinking it deserved some of the accolades that it received. Most especially Miss Pfeiffer’s performance being nominated by the Academy. I do remember it was a bit of a surprise that she didn’t win.
The story is a small one, focusing on the relationship between two brothers who have a piano lounge act that is moderately successful. The older brother played by actor Beau Bridges, is engaged and cheerful during their performances, and he takes the lead in trying to keep their act financially lucrative. The younger brother is played by Jeff Bridges, his real life brother, a piece of terrific casting. Jeff Bridges character is the more talented musician, who is resentful of his occupation and the playlist which the brothers usually perform. When they run into trouble keeping the act booked, they decide to hire a girl singer to join the show, enter Michelle Pfeiffer who plays Susie Diamond, an escort with a nice voice, who wants to make the transition legitimate performances.
There are basically two love stories in the film, the one between the brothers which is strained by sibling rivalry, and different views of what they ought to be doing. And of course the younger brother who is always been a philanderer begins a romantic relationship with Susie, which we can see is not going to end well for either of them. Susie Diamond is a hard case, but her heart is not as buried in concrete as is the younger Baker brother. All three leads are excellent, and they make the drama of the film feel quite real.
It is not a news flash to anyone, but Michelle Pfeiffer is a stunningly beautiful woman. She is the same age I am and clearly looks a hell of a lot better than I do. She was friendly and Charming, and she tried to answer the questions what’s that Ben Mankiewicz tossed at her. Sometimes the questions were a little awkward, and her answers would end up being more ambiguous than you might expect, but she was doing her best. This was also the first time I’ve noticed in the decade that I’ve been attending the festival, that the Stars security team was present on the sides of the platform where the guests in the host were seated. I’m sure security has been there for many presentations, but miss Pfeiffer security team had one individual standing on each side of the platform. That was a little surprising but completely understandable.
Misery
Our third film of the day, was also at the TCL IMAX theater, generally known as Grauman’s Chinese, and talk about a contrast in the way the actors are portrayed in the two movies, Michelle Pfeiffer is luminous beauty is now contrasted to the harsh persona and visage of Kathy Bates in “Misery”.
“Misery” is a Stephen King story translated to the screen by Rob Reiner, who did the same thing for another king story in the film “Stand By Me”. This is a drama that is actually a horror movie, and when you see how it plays out I don’t think there’s any doubt that it is a Fright Fest.
Kathy Bates won the Academy Award in 1990 as the character Annie Wilkes, a deranged fan of the romance novels that feature a character named misery. Author of those books from a car accident in the blizzard, and cares for him in her home. But of course talking about going from the frying pan Into the Fire, the danger to the author seems to get greater and greater the longer he stays in her care. For the most part the film features two actors, the aforementioned Kathy Bates, but also the great James Caan, who plays the injured author. It takes nothing away from Kathy Bates performance to point out that Caan is terrific in the more physical performance. His character does not have the emotional range that Bates did, but he has to do a lot more torturous crawling, climbing, and sweating. The two of them together were really good.
I’ll briefly mention the late Richard Farnsworth also, who plays the local sheriff, trying to figure out what happened to the missing author. Farnsworth was always a welcome presence in movies, and when I mentioned to my daughter that he was in a G-rated film from David Lynch she practically fell out of her chair.
The screening emphasizes for me once again how important the theatrical experience is. The theater full of people responded to the events taking place on screen with screams, laughs, and nervous tittering at times. You could hear that the audience was reacting to the movie exactly how the storytellers had intended. And it must have been very gratifying to the two guests to hear the way the audience responded to their work.
The guests for this film were the director Rob Reiner and the lead actress herself Kathy Bates. They talked about the process of rehearsing the picture, and they noted that James Caan had a different style of acting then Bates did. Rainer talked about how he had tried to manage their different styles in the film and use that as a way to reflect the characters that the two were playing. There were a few tidbits of information that came out about the screenplay that I thought were particularly interesting. It was written by the great William Goldman, the Reiner added several pieces to the film as they went along, including the dinner sequence which includes a great suspense sequence, and a twist that had the audience moaning with frustration.
The American President
Our fourth feature of the day, was also playing in the main house, so after leaving the theater, queuing up to wait for the next screening, we return to exactly the same position we were in for the previous two films to watch “The American President”. This is a film that was a precursor to the television series The West Wing, one of our favorites. The film was written by Aaron Sorkin, and once again it was directed by Rob Reiner. Frankly Reiner had a run from 1985 to 1995 that is pretty amazing in terms of quality. He made the following films: “The Sure Thing”, “Stand By Me”, “The Princess Bride”, “A Few Good Men”, and “The American President”. That’s a murderer’s row of great films from that decade.
We’ve seen the film dozens of times, it has been a go-to in the house ever since it came out. The story of widowed president who attempts to start dating again while a resident in the White House. There are of course a lot of political machinations, and the hysteria over guns and climate change is exactly the same 30 years ago as it is today. Regardless of whether those issues matter, the story is really about how personalities influence the political process. Everybody is faced with some ethical dilemmas in the story, but of course the good guys get the best speeches, thanks to Aaron Sorkin.
Screenwriter Sorkin and director Reiner where the guests for the presentation, and they talked about the Genesis of the film, and the way it transformed itself to some degree. Originally scheduled to Star Robert Redford, and be merely about the romance and comedy of a president trying to date, the film turned into something a little more weighty and probably better balanced when Sorkin and Reiner decided to inject some political elements to the film. Redford wasn’t interested in doing a political film, he’d already done that. So enter Michael Douglas and the rest is as they say history.
Ambitiously we had hoped to see Rocky Horror at a midnight screening, but are better judgment sent us home after this film and we didn’t attempt to do the time warp late into the evening. I would have enjoyed seeing Barry Bostwick is the guest, but after hearing that the screening went off half an hour late I was very grateful that we made the decision to stop at four films for the day.
During the break we went over to the TCM Lounge and found this on display.
In the 7 years since he won the Academy Award for best actor Rami Malek is struggled to create a strong on-screen identity as a lead. His biggest part since Bohemian Rhapsody was as the antagonist in the last James Bond film no time to die. He’s made a couple of other films since then all of which are perfectly but none of reached the level of Excellence that I’m sure he hoped for and that his fans would like to see him rise to. This new entry into the Spy genre is an attempt to leverage himself back into serious movies, and I suspect potentially create a franchise.
If you’ve seen the trailers for this film you know that there is a Revenge plot at work here, is Malik’s CIA techno wizard seeks the people responsible for the murder of his wife. It should come as no surprise that is a spy film there’s also a conspiracy element to the movie, and it’s not as simple as it appears to be at first. I’m not sure the CIA has ever been depicted as the straight Heroes in any film where they were a featured part. Usually the CIA is engaged in some subterfuge or illegal activity that they’re trying to hide from the world but especially from their Congressional overseers. Even the mission impossible films have relied on internal cabals to generate plot points for the movies.
The idea of a techno geek going after hardened terrorists is an interesting idea but it does require that we swallow a big dose of reality suspension. Malik is effective in showing the Brilliance of his character as he tracks down using his technical tools, the terrorist team that took out his wife. We immediately become suspicious however when his CIA handlers attempt to muzzle and Corral him. It doesn’t take long to understand why. Their rationalizations are perfectly reasonable, but it is also clear that they are not too concerned with the collateral damage that is being wrecked upon the world. Malik’s character is not naive but he is bureaucratically pure up to a point. And then of course we get the traditional rogue agent.
For the most part this is a Slow Burn through the first half, with maybe one solid scene that builds some suspense and excitement. However halfway through his list of miscreants to eliminate the Mallet character picks up some collaborators, and the action gets more intense. The political intrigue is given cover by suggesting that these operations are occurring outside of the normal chain of command. They would certainly need to because many of the operations and Malik discovers are both illegal and deadly including to our allies.
Like most Revenge pictures we take the greatest satisfaction in those moments when our protagonist deals out Justice to the evildoers in some creative way. Our CIA operative sometimes seems hesitant to carry out the executions he himself is designed. Usually his hesitancy seems to be in Pursuit of additional information about the Spy gang. Regardless, the first two deaths that he creates are interesting, and there is a Twist or two along the way. We get a few red herrings along the way, but after a certain point we suspect that Rami’s character really is smarter than everybody else. Laurence Fishburne plays both an ally and an antagonist, and the one thing that feels wrong with this movie is the cheat that comes at the end. On the other hand John Bernthal was not in the movie Enough to generate the kind of support yet that a sequel would demand. He does however get a very good narrative sequence.
This is a pretty intelligent spy film, it relies on the old trope of an agent operating outside of official channels, and fighting those channels at the same time. It’s not quite as clever as black bag earlier this year, but it does sit up there near the top of my list of well-designed spy films, and for the year so far this one fits near the top of the list one of my favorite films. It’s still early but I would recommend the amateur to anybody who’s a fan of either Remy Malik or the Espionage genre.
For a period of time in the 1970s, film directors were given free reign to create some of the most personal and well acted films to ever come out of Hollywood. In an era that was filled with personalities like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and the young Steven Spielberg, maybe the director who got a foothold on the zeitgeist of the era the best, was Peter bogdanovich. Has a director he had a string of successes from 1971 to 1975 that are incredibly impressive. The first of those truly great films is this 1971 requiem for bygone era.
The Last Picture Show is known for the huge cast of future stars that made appearances in the film. Jeff Bridges, Timothy Bottoms, Randy Quaid, Cybil Shepherd, Eileen Brennan, and Ellen Burstyn are all getting ready to have huge careers in the next two decades. The film also gives parts to older veterans Cinema, or give it a chance with the Fantastic script to write a little silver in the sky and help us remember what film dialogue is all about. Cloris Leachman and Ben Johnson want Academy Awards for supporting actor and actress, and they did it on the strength of a script that treated them like real people, who deserve dignity even in the most undignified circumstances.
I’m not sure I can think of a film that has sadness more clearly as its theme Than The Last Picture Show. The social relations between the members of the senior class, or sometimes harsh and thoughtless, and at other times heartbreaking. Cybil Shepard plays Jacy, the headstrong popular girl, who uses sex to gain status and learns that she is simply repeating the mistakes of the past. In the wake of her Reckless Behavior she leaves two best friends who become estranged, one because he is a rejected lover, and the other because he rejected his one opportunity of love in this small town.
Everything in this movie screams of being depressing. The diner is shabby and the waitress who works there, although wise and surprisingly friendly, is also beat down by her existence. The pool hall is the social center of the town, and it is a dust filled ramshackle Hangout for men too old to do much and for boys too young to be doing anything. Ben Johnson plays the older man with enough gravitas to actually earn the respect of the youngsters. Although life is dealt him a pretty crappy hand he is not embittered by his fate, simply nostalgic for the good things that have long passed him by. Sam the lion is a character that we can all admire and he gets a sequence where he narrates part of his life in such an eloquent way that Johnson brings him to life and earns the accolades that were heaped upon him that year. And of course there’s not a happy ending when it comes to Sam.
Ruth Popper is a woman who is aware that the best parts of her life are long in the past, and for whom every day is a struggle against depression and potential Health catastrophes. When she becomes the unlikely lover of one of the two young men who are close friends, it feels dangerous, absurd, and also the most hopeful thing in the movie. And of course it also doesn’t end well either. Cloris Leachman, clenches her hands, walks with the faltering step, and dry cries through many of her scenes. Her performance is one of physicality, where she conveys a world weariness Beyond her years, and a rejuvenation it is unexpected when she discovers what she thinks is a new love. The conclusion of this film includes the death of a much younger character, and it turns out that that is not the saddest thing in the story. The way in which this will Lonely woman, is mistreated and embittered his heart-wrenching. What is also sad is that even after standing up for herself, she has enough Humanity to offer a drop of console, despite it not being earned.
The town is full of people who will never leave and as a result will likely bleed on Happy lives, or their people who are anxious to get out, but afraid to because they know they’ll never be able to come back to things the way they were. The closing of the movie theater in a small town like this maybe the saddest symbol of filmgoer like me is likely to see. The black and white photography in this film makes everything feel dusty and forlorn, but it also makes the people look either incredibly beautiful or sadly unpleasant. I guess that’s the way the world is, or more precisely… Was.
We got a chance to see this fun little horror film, a little early, as it was being presented in a promotional screening that included streaming Q&A from two of the Stars who also happen to be the writers and directors of the film. Finn Wolfhard and Billy Bryk, are our young actors who have come up with a script and somehow got the green light to make the movie. Wolfhard would be familiar to most of you as Mike from “Stranger Things”. The youngsters have been watching their ’80s horror movies and they have a pretty good grasp of the tropes that they want to take advantage of in their little concoction.
The movie is set at a summer camp, had a remote location, with the camp counselors arriving early in preparation for this season’s Camp session. One of the counselors is returning for the 6th time as a counselor, at the age of 24 is a little old be working this as a summer job, but it appears to be his dream, and he loves what he’s doing. The character is Jason, as if that is not a tribute to earlier horror films, and he is a nebbish but sincere guy who just wants to have the best summer ever. The younger counselors, come from a slightly different generation, and they have a hard time understanding Jason and his enthusiasm for outdoor activities.
The film is a comedy, but it takes the murders fairly seriously. The only time one of the deaths has a cartoon quality to it is in the opening scene, when a guitar is used as a grizzly marker for murder. Other than that tuneful moment, the deaths themselves, even as they pile up, are treated as real murders and not as the punchline to an elaborate joke where the death of a teenager is supposed to be laughed at. So the film is very much in keeping with the tone of the early Friday the 13th or Halloween movies.
Most of the humor occurs when the counselors panic about how to respond to all of the death, and they false the accused Jason of being the murderer. They’re attempted solution to the problem offers lots of opportunities for us to laugh at the callousness and the cluelessness of this new generation of campers. The two step brothers, who also happen to be the writers and directors of the film, also offer us a lot of humorous moments as they bicker like siblings might, over little things such as who gets to sit in the front seat of the car. They did a pretty good job letting us know something about the characters in the film, so that we care a bit about the outcome. There are one or two small Clues as to who is responsible for the killings, those come early on and if you are not paying attention it would be easy to miss them and have to wait for the reveal when it shows up. I’m perfectly willing to say that I miss them the first time around, but I appreciate it that the screenwriters made an effort to give us a chance to honestly solve the puzzle before they do.
In addition to the humor, the main draw of the film will be the Practical effects that are used to present the deaths. There is solid work done by the makeup team, but they don’t go overboard and try to make things so gross that we are reacting to just the physical image more than the concept of what’s been done to these poor kids. The character of Jason is also a rich source of humor in the film, since he wants to be at the camp at all, and eventually wants to take on the role of hero, in spite of being accused by and tied up by the other counselors.
Maybe it takes a while to get things started after we had those initial kills, but I just thought that that was good storytelling. I have no objection to a slow burn as long as it pays off, and I think hell of a summer paid off pretty well. It’s a solid first part of the Apple for the two aspiring filmmakers, and it should satisfy people who have a love for horror movies rooted in the 1980s.
How some films become cult classics is beyond me. It’s obvious that a film like “Rocky Horror Picture Show” was picked up by fans because of the obvious opportunities to participate in the fun. I never understood why “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension” wasn’t a hit in the first place, but it makes perfect sense that it is revered now because it’s concept and execution are finally recognized. There however is little reason to believe that “My Bloody Valentine” from 1981 will ever be seen as a hidden gem. The remake from a dozen years ago was far superior in every way. How does that happen?
This Canadian film as little going for it, except the title. The production values on the movie are not great, the script is at times preposterous, and frankly the acting is atrocious. I know they were working on a small budget, and the actors are relatively inexperienced, but it never seems like they got a second take to fix things in their original line deliveries. Sometimes the presentation is so wooden you think the movie is a parody of horror slashers. It’s not a parody, it’s simply not a very good. Maybe the final song and the demented fade out account for whatever credence the film has.
This criticism should be seen as a reason not to see the film. I still enjoyed being in the theaters the other night, sort of experiencing a nostalgic rush of ’80s Horror. As long as you don’t mind a horror movie that is not particularly frightening, and is not very titillating, then you can enjoy this film. The main thing that it has going for it is that preposterous concept. A crazed miner, rescued from a cave in after surviving by cannibalizing other coworkers while awaiting rescue, became a spree killer. Now 20 years later, it seems that the spree killer has returned, provoked by the Valentine’s Day celebrations which ignored the lead up to the disaster two decades earlier. The pickaxe that is used to kill some of the victims is a good concept but it’s not visualized in a very interesting way. Which is why the movie fails to satisfy fans of gore. The kills are relatively tame, and most of them lack of jump scare to pull them off.
I can see what this movie wants to be, and I can also see where it misses the mark on a regular basis. The 2009 3D version at least had the good sense to include an eyeball impaled on the end of the pickaxe, in a 3-d effect. That’s a movie that knows what it’s supposed to be doing. So for nostalgia and for setting up the concept, “My Bloody Valentine” is adequate, the problem is it never gets to be insane until the last moment when the crazed killer is finally revealed and runs off screaming curses and a vow to kill again. That’s sort of the delivery which could have made this a lot more entertaining.
[The above trailer is the teaser that does not reveal too much. Avoid the second trailer entirely]
I’ve been looking forward to this film for a couple of months now, based on an early trailer which suggested it was a horror film involving a toxic relationship. I didn’t want to know too much about it, and that first trailer made me anticipate the film without giving anything away. Sadly, the night before we were supposed to see this movie we went to another film and there was a new trailer for “Companion”, and it gave away a major plot point. I am a little pissed. Overall I enjoyed this film very much but I know I would have enjoyed it much more if that twist had not been revealed to me less than 24 hours before I first saw the movie.
“Companion”, is in fact a type of horror film but it is also a social commentary, a science fiction story, and a dark comedy. Writing about this without giving away the plot twists is going to be complicated. I want people to go into this movie knowing less than I did so they’ll enjoy it more than I did. Let me just say, that there is indeed a toxic relationship in this film, but it is quite a bit different than any that you’ve seen in other movies. I’m not even going to mention some of the films I would compare it to because that would spoil some of the surprise. The plot takes us in several different directions, and those shifts in direction are result of actions that happen in the film that feel completely earned.
Self Generated Poster because the official poster gives away too much as well
The young actress who appears in this film, Sophie Thatcher, was also in the movie “Heretic” which I saw near the end of last year. She has a quality to her voice and mannerisms that come across as sincere and innocent, while at the same time being able to convey a steely resolve. I thought she was excellent in both films. Her co-star in this film is Jack Quaid, who I know mostly from the Prime video series “The Boys”. He also has an innocent quality, and a geeky charm, that is used quite deceptively in this story. Some of the turns that take place are surprising enough, but they are more surprising in the way that our characters have been set up.
This is something like a cabin in the woods scenario, where a group of friends is spending the weekend in an isolated location and bad things start to happen. Unlike a horror film though, the bad things happen because of deliberate choices made by our characters. Technology also plays a role in the story, and I was on edge from the very beginning when our main couple is riding in a car is completely autonomous. I see those types of vehicles here in Downtown Austin whenever I’m going to the Paramount Theater, and I actually saw one picking up a couple at Lawry’s when I was in LA at Christmas time. It’s going to be a long time before I am ever comfortable enough to step into a vehicle that is being driven by a computer rather than a human being. My reticence about embracing technology that can do these kinds of things is part of the reason that I’m willing to call this a horror film.
This will probably be the final film I see in January, and interestingly enough everyone I’ve posted on this year I have seen in a single week. It’s still early, but I’m happy to say “Companion” has been my favorite film of January. Go see it, but close your eyes and plug your ears if the trailer comes on at another film before you do.
It was 2018 when the original film opened early in the year and gave us a testosterone fueled, action-packed, two hours20 minute Excursion into a brutal crime group and the equally brutal cops that were after them. Gerard Butler has made a career in the last 20 years playing flinty, grizzly, misanthropes in various careers. In this film his Lieutenant in a Major Crimes unit of the LA Sheriff’s Department he is out of his jurisdiction when he goes to Europe in pursuit of a lead for the criminal that got away at the end of the last film.
Maybe it would have helped if I had gone back and watched the original film again, so I can make a little more sense out of the opening scenes in this movie. Butler’s character, known as Big Nick, is following a lead in the robbery of the Federal Reserve, which the Federal Reserve denies even happened. I was confused about what this was all about, but I didn’t worry too much about it since this film is really not something to take seriously but rather to be digested as a puzzle exercise. O’Shea Jackson plays the bartender who it turned out, was the mastermind in the previous crime. He returns as the planner for a diamond heist in Amsterdam. that has drawn the attention of Big Nick. So, there is a connection between the two films, and Nick’s primary goal seems to be to make sure that the last time when he was one upped, that he gets even.
Unlike the previous film, Pantera is not filled with action sequences and shootouts. Those scenes occur primarily at the end of the film. Most of the time we are watching the machinations of three different groups who are going to come into conflict with each other over a new robbery. The collection of criminals who are planning the new diamond heist, the law enforcement personnel, who may or may not be aware of what is going on, and a third party of mafiosi’s who have been accidentally robbed by the first group, and now want their goods back. It is the confluence of the individuals in the in these groups that makes up the vast majority of the picture. There is intrigue, and the threat of violence, not a whole lot of action.
While the previous film was also a heist movie, most of it centered around the pissing contest between Big Nick and his adversary. I don’t remember the heist as being particularly clever. In this film on the other hand, The heist is shown in meticulous detail, we get some idea of the planning that is involved, but as usual some things are left out so that we can discover them while watching the actual crime take place. When it comes to the robbery, for a change I appreciate the fact that the security personnel were not doofuses that the crime gang was taking advantage of. They were professionals that the criminals had to work around. Big Nick has inserted himself into the crime group giving the impression that he is fed up with being on the right side of the law and is looking to make some money. During the course of the film we get several red herrings that lead us to believe either he is still working with the cops, or he is deceiving them in order to work with the criminals. Like I said this movie is full of betrayals and complex relationships.
The high point of the film is in fact the heist, which is as it should be. It has a good deal of suspense, and a couple of humorous moments, as we see that robbers have made good plans but also have improvised so that they can deal with the competence of the security people. As usual as part of the events that take place during the robbery, there are complications that make the plans have to be changed. In a movie of course the getaway car, the communications, and the equipment, all get a chance to play a part. There is a high-speed chase that occurs after the crime, but it is basically another set of criminals, who are trying to hijack the original heist. How it all gets resolved is one of those things that only happens in the movies, but we appreciate the plot development because it is paying off on something that was set up earlier.
You don’t need to have seen the previous film to appreciate what’s going on here, but I suspect that the movie will not appeal to anybody who hasn’t already seen that first movie. If you like Gerard Butler in gruff mode then you should be satisfied with this film. O’Shea Jackson does have a nice screen presence, but it seems odd that he and at least two of the other co-conspirators seem to be a little on the hefty side. When the plot is being executed, it’s hard to believe that a couple of these guys can do some of the physical things that are required of them.
If you like this movie, then you can look forward to the next installment which is set up by a plot twist that occurs in the last 5 minutes of the film. There are some character points that help make it make sense, but in the real world of course it would never happen. This however is a movie, and we want to enjoy the creativity of the screenwriter who is finding interesting ways to manipulate these characters. The film is a slow burn with almost an hour and a half before the major crime takes place. If you’re looking for an action film with energetic sequences every 5 minutes that display incredible stunt work or EFX then you are probably in the wrong movie. This plays like one of those 1970s crime films where you get a lot of atmosphere, by-play between the characters, and complications set up during the lead into the crime. You want the payoff to all of those things to be satisfying, and as far as I was concerned in “Den of Thieves Pantera” they were.
I had never heard of this film or seen a trailer for it until I saw a report that mentioned it was doing surprisingly well at the box office. On Social Media, there were a couple of posts when I checked that said it was a pretty solid outing. The thing that convinced me to go however, was the realization that it starred Judy Greer. She has never been the main feature in a film I have seen, but she has always been a presence that elevated whatever I was looking at. I actually know her voice work best because she has been a character on my favorite animated tv show for a decade. She is one of those second tier performers who do their job, and make a project better, but usually don’t get the credit for doing so. It is the character actors dilemma.
She however can get complete credit for this movie, which feels like it might be out of a lot of people’s comfort zone, because of religious themes, but it is really just about good values and not a Sunday school lesson. She plays Grace, a stay at home Mom from the seventies, who is raising a couple of good kids, but she is not on the inside of the good society in the small town that she lives in. She does the best she can but feels judged by snooty other members of the community. It is only when an accident takes out the grand dame of the church Christmas festivities, that Grace takes a chance and steps up to direct the local Christmas Pageant. Greer has a lovely, face but she is not striking. Her voice is distinctive but not particularly authoritative. Having played mothers in both the MCU and Jurassic World films, she is no stranger to a part like this, but those films never gave her the chance to be at the center of activities.
So the story is one of redemption, which is typical for a holiday film. Grace wants to redeem herself as a competent member of the congregation and community, but she is not the only one who needs to be redeemed. Her kids, and in fact the whole small town, are terrorized by an unruly family of children, the Herdman clan is notorious. There are six kids and they all are incorrigible, but are they unredeemable? The town ladies are also so snobbish and self centered , that they need to be given a chance at redemption as well. Even Grace’s kids, have some faults that maybe being confronted with a major problem could help them address.
The set up of the conundrum is well executed in the first section of the film. There are plenty of comic moments as we see the frustrations of Grace’s children in dealing with the Herdmans. The six Herdmen kids are given small moments to shine in their horribleness, and the oldest of the clan, Imogene, seems to be a hard case, and in control of every situation when confronted by an adult. The struggle between Grace and Imogene is the lynchpin of the movie, as a desperate and well meaning Mom, tries to find a way to be a good neighbor, and a competent adult in the face of chaos.
Abundant humor is found in the story, and surprisingly, the comedic voice of Judy Greer is less responsible for the laughs than the heartfelt sentiment of the movie. The film being set in an earlier time and a small place in the world, makes the Christmas elements feel more connected to the events and a lot more intimate. Greer carries scenes without overshadowing the performances of the kids. Beatrice Schneider as Imogene and Molly Belle Wright as Beth, Grace’s daughter, are the real leads of the film. Greer’s performance stakes the kids story into something more tangible than the usual kids film. Schneider is impressive in conveying the hardscrabble but emotionally vulnerable Imogene, and Wright has just the degree of childhood innocence to pull off the realization that she needs to for the whole moral of the story to work.
Set at Christmas and steeped in church going traditions and the Christmas story, you might expect that a film like this from a faith based production group would be about proselytizing. The moral sentiments are accessible to anyone and do not require that you have a spiritual reawakening to appreciate them. “The Best Christmas Pageant Ever” reminds me of the nostalgia of “A Christmas Story” but it adds a little moral message and a broader platform to the process. I won’t say it is likely to be played for 24 hours straight on TV at future Christmas Seasons, but I can say it will be viewed on a regular basis at Christmas time in this house.
Kirkham A Movie A Day 