Updating a classic monster to contemporary times sometimes requires a little creativity. The Wolfman from 1940, was a Universal horror movie that featured a Sad Sack leading character slowly being turned into a murderous animal. He had a fairly warm relationship with his father, he met a girl he was interested in, and he was way laid by a werewolf and thus began his own transformation. The formula for the movie today varies this a little bit. The main protagonist is still a bit of a sad sack, but he has a great relationship with his daughter, a strange relationship with his father, and is married to a woman that he loves but is growing distant from. His transformation doesn’t wait for a full moon, and it is a slow build. We don’t have to wait for a silver bullet, we just know that there are monsters out there and that our main characters are going to be threatened.
It’s a little bit odd that I saw this movie the night after I saw Flight Risk. Both movies are essentially three character stories, mainly set in one location. A lot of horror movies benefit from the simplicity of such a setting because it forces the directors to become creative how Danger can be just about anywhere. Director Leigh Whannel, is an Old Pro at making horror films, and does a pretty good job at tightening the screws up. Wolfman is a Slow Burn is but it is generally effective.
My reservations about the film are mostly due to the casting and performances. The lead actress, Julia Garner, who was so wonderful in the TV series Ozark, is miscast in this role. She seems to be too young for the kind of character she is supposed to be portraying. She is also not as emotionally engaged in the first part of the film if she needs to be to make the second part of the film work. She does fine with the fear elements of the script, but her characters connection with her husband feels detached and Lacks energy. I did think however she had a good moment when the family picks up a neighbor as they are trying to locate instead. That may have been her best scene in the film.
The husband , played by Christopher Abbott, is also so low-key that it takes us a while to recognize anything is really a danger to him. His physical transformation is put off for quite a while, and well there are animalistic characteristics, it is mostly his physical activity rather than his appearance that makes him wolf like. There are two or three really good bits of business that illustrate this transformation without his face growing hair. I don’t want to give too much away let’s just say when he investigates a noise upstairs in the house his discovery of its source is one of the best surprises in the film. The other element of the movie that works well in showing how he is losing his Humanity and ability to relate to his family, is the 180° camera move that changes perspectives from the husband to the wife and Back Again. The filters used, and the visual effects as well as the sound editing are very clever it explaining exactly what’s going on.
There are a few jump scares, and there is quite a bit of screaming and panic as dangerous characters Chase the family around The Farmhouse and barn that are the primary locations of the film. By the way the film is set in Oregon, produced in New Zealand, and largely shot in Ireland. I’m sure this hybrid of locations is a result of financing rather than artistic choices. I did mention that there are primarily three characters in the story, but they aren’t the only ones that do play A Part. Early on, we get a sequence that sets up our main character as a young boy, and tells us of the life he led with a paranoid prepper father. I suppose it is supposed to set up the characters actions later in the film, but I found the sequence to be the most suspenseful and interesting in the movie. Too bad it’s over in the first 10 minutes.
This is not a bad film, it’s just not as good as it ought to be. The characters are sympathetic but I never felt particularly engaged by them, with the exception of the relationship between the little girl and the story and her father. It’s just too bad that most of the suspense elements of the film focus on the mother’s actions, and it simply feels like any other horror chase film where the character is being pursued they can to improvise and get away from the monster that’s chasing them. The movie sets up the idea that there is a subtext, but never delivers on that. It stays at a very surface level, which is okay for a horror film, but keeps it from being particularly distinctive.
Sometimes it seems that January is a month made for Action films that wouldn’t be released any other time of year. It feels like we need something to get our blood flowing but it doesn’t require that the blood flow to our brains. Flight Risk is a movie made for just this time of year. Most of the things that happen in the film, are not going to be happening in the real world, just the Cinematic world that we carry in our heads. There will be evil villains, nasty betrayals, and like most horror films a little Stinger at the end.
What surprises me about this movie is that the promotion for the film never mentions the name of the director. It does cite two of his previous films in the trailer, but definitely leaves the name off. It appears that someone in marketing has decided that Mel Gibson is still a toxic name in the movie industry. Whether that is true is beside the point, he is still capable of making a very effective picture. Flight Risk is what it's supposed to be, an action thriller done on a small scale with a limited cast and a high degree of tension. That's what we get.
This would be the perfect movie for a young filmmaker with no budget to put together on the Fly. It features almost only three actors, and one static location, that is really just a set and some green screens in the background. The premise of the movie is simple, a US Marshal transporting a mob accountant to testify against his Capo, find yourself on a plane piloted by a psychotic hired to assassinate the witness. That's it, three people on a plane, identities hidden and then revealed, and then a struggle for control. Also helps, that when the Marshall does get the upper hand, neither she or her Witness knows anything about flying a plane.
Mark Wahlberg is usually the hero in these kinds of movies, he's made a dozen in the last few years. Even when he's playing a criminal, he is usually the honorable type, who resists killing everybody in the crime simply because his partners think it would be efficient. In this film however, Wahlberg's character puts on an act at the start of the film, to try and convince everybody that he's just a good old boy piloting the plane for the Marshall's office. He's got the aw shucks lingo down, and the cultural indicators of someone used to living an isolated life in Alaska. Once he is revealed however, the script takes every opportunity to show us that he is truly a bad man. It's not enough that he beats the female martial into near unconsciousness, and gloats at the possibility of molesting her when they get to the destination that he has planned for them. He also has to intimidate the witness, I by strongly suggesting that he's going to torture and sexually molest him as well. Wahlberg has a gleeful expression, and a bald cap fringed with hair, to make him look like in every man with an evil streak. If we just ignore the fantastic elements of the plot, it's a very creepy concept.
The Marshall is played by actress Michelle Dockery, who it appears I have seen in some other films, but I did not recognize her at first. She is a tough feminine figure, with some doubts and the backstory to make us question her ability to successfully carry out this mission. Half the acting she does in this film, consists of talking into a satellite phone with a character or two that we never see. Having to act against invisible cast members seems like a challenge, and she meets it head on. Topher Grace plays the part of the witness, unethically challenged man who operated as an accountant for a mob boss, and has made a deal to try and save his butt from years in prison. Grace has some characteristics that have made him a very useful film performer over the years. He has a quirky Charming personality, then can quickly become grating if given full release. He has impeccable comic timing with both his voice and facial expressions. He is also completely believable, as a dweeb who is outmatched physically by most of the people around him. Although it could be said that he is cowardly, mostly it seems that he is practical.
The screenplay gives all three characters something to do in the film in a bit of a story arc. Wahlberg's character has to become more loathsome as the film goes along, Dougherty's character has to become more competent and stronger as she faces the challenges that she is presented, and Topher Grace has to become more sympathetic as the movie moves on. There are two or three physical confrontations while in the air but most of the drama takes place with the verbal by play between the three characters. The director Mel Gibson is able to keep us interested is a testament to his professionalism and competence. Any obvious tricks to the story, there are not a lot of fancy camera movements, and although the story is clearly old hat, cribbing from older films like the Arnold Schwarzenegger Eraser, it's still pretty effective.
I don't want to praise the movie too highly, it's not a classic piece of Cinema nor particularly essential. It's an effective Thriller that gives us the kind of suspense that we want, some occasional bits of humor, and a resolution that satisfies our need for justice when the bad guy is as loathsome as Wahlberg's character. The conclusion of the movie is not quite over the top, and that restraint does it some credit. So if you were looking for something to watch while you were chewing popcorn on a cold winter night or day, you could do a lot worse than Flight Risk.
The annual review of the previous year is fun to do, but it does sometimes present challenges. If I had kept data in the right software, it would have been easier to collate the information in a quick amount of time. It is not in my nature to do that, so I have to dig around and find information and create the material organically. Since I was traveling at the end of the year, this was not done until I returned home, thus the late nature of this post. It is still the first week of the new year so it is not too bad.
Ten Favorite Films of the Year
I saw fewer new films this year than I usually do. Frankly, there were many times when I went to the theater without being excited by the prospect of the film. I slept through most of “Moana 2”, and I don’t feel a need to go back and see it because it simply did not feel essential to me. “Megalopolis” felt like a huge misfire, but as it went on, it grew on me and I appreciate it more, though I still think it is not a good movie, just an interesting one. Several of the prestige pictures at the end of the year were not available to me yet, so they don’t get included on the list because I have not seen them in a theater. I saw at least three features that were streaming movies, which got token theatrical presentations so they ended up on the blog, and one of them ended up on this list.
These are not necessarily the best films I saw this last year, they are the ones I liked the best. A crummy comedy that worked and made me laugh may very well deserve a spot on my list because it achieved it’s objective more than the well crafted drama that is impressive technically, but left me cold.
#10 The Best Christmas Pageant Ever
This film was a complete surprise. I’d heard nothing about it until it was already in theaters for a week. Judy Greer holds the movie together as an average Mom, who takes on the responsibility of her small town’s Christmas Pageant. The difficult task is made harder by the inclusion of an unruly family of children who as known troublemakers, predispose everyone to expecting a disaster. The film is really about the kids, but it is Greer’s patient Mom character that grounds the shenanigans and makes this film a real Christmas movie, with actual Christmas elements to it.
It has a nostalgic feel to it, similar to the beloved “A Christmas Story”, and there are several moments of redemption that will allow favorable comparisons to Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol”. It may have too many juvenile gags in it to be seen as a serious film, but along with last years “The Holdovers”, it will be a regular part of my future Christmas Film watches.
#9 Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
I will admit that of the Mad Max films, this would be at the bottom. I will also say that the Mad Max films themselves exceed ninety percent of all action films, so being the fifth best film in the franchise is not fatal the the movies worth.
George Miller keeps enlarging the canvas on which he creates his films. The detail in the backstory of he character of Furiosa from “Fury Road” back in 2015, is amazingly detailed and interesting. There are action sequences in this film that rival any of the moments from the other film, but the use of practical effects is sometimes swamped in digital fireballs, sandstorms and fortress locations.
Nevertheless, Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth know the goal is to make their larger than life characters interesting and worth following for the run time of the film. They do that. Revenge may taste best when it is served cold, but Furiosa has a recipe for hot revenge which is excellent.
#8 Nosferatu (2024)
After hating “The Lighthouse”, I never expected a Robert Eggers film to be featured on my year end list of favorites, but “Nosferatu” has a couple of things going for it that help me make peace with Eggers style. First of all, this is a remake of a classic silent film, so the story structure is in place and fidelity to the source material restrains Eggars from his left field swing for the fences plot developments. He sticks to the story.
Second, he using his visual strengths with material that deserves the attention that it gets. The gothic nature of the unauthorized Dracula ripoff from the silent era, craves the camerawork and lighting techiques that are hallmarks of Eggers work.
When you add the quality performances and production design, you get a winner instead of an irritation.
#7 The Wild Robot
This film comes from the director who brought us the “How to Train Your Dragon” film franchise, so it was encouraging from the beginning. The juxtaposition of nature with technology is a winner, and the echo of “Wall-e” doesn’t hurt either. This is a mechanical character with a heart, and watching that heart learn how to love is as emotionally satisfying as anything you are likely to see on the screen these days.
Rendering of the natural world using digital technology seems counter-intuitive, until you see the results on the screen and marvel at how beautiful nature is as seen by a computer. When your main character is doing that very thing on screen, you can really identify with the story.
Let’s not forget that this is also incredibly funny.
#6 Hit Man
Director Richard Linklater and Actor Glenn Powell, have crafted a screenplay out of a real life scenario that was written about in the Texas Monthly 20 years ago. A nebbish college professor role plays as a hitman for a police department, in a series of sting operations that nabs potential clients in murder for hire crimes.
They add an unconventional love story and turn the situation inside out in order to get a story structure for what would otherwise be a series of incidents. Powell gets to work his acting range by playing two versions of himself and a half dozen versions of what potential contractors think a Hitman should be. This is a very funny, crime thriller which escaped Netflix long enough for a two week run.
We lucked out seeing it in Austin at a screening with the two leads and the Director doing an interview after the film.
#5 Horizon: An American Saga Chapter One
My biggest disappointment of the year was that this terrific western from Kevin Costner, did not get a release for the second part which has already been completed. The failure of the movie to catch fire at the box office resulted in the cancelation of the planned release of part two later in the summer. Regardless, the film deserves some accolades because it makes the western sojourn an historical journey worth investing in.
Costner gets to do some shootouts, Indian raids are depicted as the horror that they must have been, while at the same time showing huge sympathy for the indigenous people who are facing an invasion of immigrants with grandiose visions.
There is a vast cast who get some terrific moments, some of which are set ups for what is coming. I really hope we will get to see those payoffs down the road.
#4 The Fall Guy
I love this movie without any apologies. It is a fantastic tribute to the stunt community and a solid argument for why there should be a Stunt category at the Academy Awards. The film is filled with the gags tha the stunt team creates and the integration of the real process into the fictional story is very clever, making what would be too in your face, something that you can be entertained by.
The stars, Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling have some of the best romantic chemistry on screen that I have seen in a long time. They are also both so funny that you will be laughing at some lines just because of who is speaking them, not because they are jokes.
It so happens that the film contains some of the best needle drops of the year, and a particularly amusing use of a Kiss song, so you probably knew I was going to love it before I told you so.
#3 Juror #2
Warner Brothers dropped this film into only 40 screens the first week of release. This is a picture from Clint Eastwood, who has been Warners most reliable film partner for forty plus years. The streaming business and the theatrical business are connected, but in a parasitic way rather than a symbiotic manner. The idea that this should first have been an HBO Max release is just disturbing to film lovers like me.
Clint takes a story, with a tenuous premise and turns it into a compelling moral Rorschach test for the audience. We have great sympathy for the conflicted character played by Nicolas Hoult, the second time on my list this year. The judicial process is supposed to render justice, but the system is not always set up to do so, and it can be subverted by any number of people who participate in the process.
If this is Eastwood’s last film, he goes out on a high note which is misplayed by his studio collaborators.
#2 Dune Part 2
As a big fan of the original book, and the 1984 film from David Lynch, I had looked forward to Denis Villeneuve completing the story with the second part of his adaptation. In 2021, the first part of his film was in the same location on my list as this part is for this last year. Consistent in quality, but maybe deeper in meaning, Dune Part 2 fulfills the promise of the first film by developing characters like Stilgar and Barron Harkonnen and then adding Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha, the rival genetic project from the Bene Gesserit.
The movie has the best scene of the year in Paul’s initial conquest of the sandworm. It is a visual stunner and the sound design of the sequence will blow you away. The advantage of Villeneuve’s approach is that sufficient time has been provided to make the ominous elements of Paul’s story clearer to the audience, Muad’dib is both hero and villain, a circumstance that makes this Science Fiction more complex than most films.
#1 Late Night with the Devil
From the first time I saw it, I knew this was a film that would be near the top of my list at the end of the year. This is a found footage style film, supposedly of a lost episode of a late night talk show from the 70s. The period recreation is excellent and the story mixes characters based on real 70s personalities with the fictional cast of the show.
David Dastmalchian stars as the host of a talk show that competes with the Olympus of “The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson”. His second tier status seems to be driving his willingness to press on with an unconventional set of incidents on a Halloween Special. The behind the scenes moments are not consistent with the format of the film, but you won’t care.
Like most horror films f the seventies, it is a slow burn in the first act and then things start to sizzle in act two. Unlike most horror films however, “Late Night with the Devil” manages to stick the landing in the third act with some truly scary moments.
This movie is not good. There is something cringy about most of the Sony films that have tried to spin off Spider-Man characters into their own films. They just feel inauthentic entirely. The “Venom” films work in part because the film makers lean into the stupidity of the premise and they get that the films are commercial junk. “Kraven” is commercial junk that takes itself seriously an is laughable as a result. The opening sequences are really good, but then we get an origin story that is so preposterous, I was laughing at it as it was being played out.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson looks great in the part, it’s just that the part is ridiculous. The child of a Russian mob figure acquires supernatural powers from a dead animal at a safari hunt with the assistance of a voodoo elixir that comes to him through a civilized girl who is visiting her grandmother’s primitive culture. If chiseled abs were enough to make a movie work, then Taylor -Johnson would have this sewn up. You also need dialogue and story for a movie to work, this film has some very stupid dialogue and some equally stupid story telling.
By the time we get to the CGI climax, I just did not care anymore. The only person who gets out of this unscathed is Russell Crowe, who plays the mob boss father with a heavy accent and a sociopath personality. It’s as if he doesn’t give a crap and just leans into the dumb mess of a film he is in. The film is set up for a sequel, but with the box office returns, I don’t expect anyone is jumping abord for another film in this series.
I have fallen behind on films that I have seen in the theater here in December, so I am going to keep this short. There was not much to talk about anyway. I will probably turn my derision toward another film that came out more recently. Aaron, wipe your feet thoroughly before you try on James Bond’s shoes. I think you might be great for that series, but you stepped in some pooh here.
Remember that TV holiday film from “Scrooged”? You know, “The Day the Reindeer Died”? Well, someone missed the sarcasm and they have attempted to make it as a theatrical film. Instead of Lee Majors as the hero, we get Dwayne Johnson. It’s probably because he lacks the irony skills for the snark required by the script, “The Rock” gets supplemented by Chris Evans. Now if they could just keep their tongue in cheek, this could be fun. Unfortunately, they can’t and it isn’t.
Casting J.K. Simmons as a fit and upbeat Santa is a great first decision. Taking him off screen for ninety percent of the movie was not. Simmons was the best thing this movie had going for it. At the start, he delivers the right kind of humor and the fresh take on Santa, that could make this work. The problem is the plot takes over, and it is essentially a straight comic book adaptation, complete with CGI villains at the climax. There are a couple of fresh points along the way, but they are so infrequent and they get sidetracked, that the fun to be had there gets lost.
As hard as it is for me to say, the weak link here is Johnson. As the loyal major domo of Santa, he is getting set for the last Christmas before he retires. You know it is not going to go well when anyone says “this is my last…” whatever, because it will either be literally true when the character dies, or the events in the story will discount the declaration of being finished completely. So no suspense her, Dwayne Johnsons character Cal, does not die. Instead, he gets to run up against a number of obstacles that he must overcome to save Santa and Christmas. Evans as Jack O’Malley, a cyber hustler who has helped the bad guys inadvertently by locating the secret North Pole location of Santa. Which makes no sense because every kid knows Santa is at the North Pole. Why does the antagonist, who also has history with Nick (that’s Santa for those who don’t get it) need Jack to locate Santa’s factory town? So that Johnson can have a wise guy sidekick to trade quips with during the action.
The movie started out with a promising set up and fun characters, but the more it gets into the actions of the plot, the less interesting it became. The one exception was a detour into Krampus world, where for most of the segment, we get back to having a good time. The mythos here was sort of interesting, and they played with it a little bit. Cal and Jack become Sam and Dean from Supernatural for a few minutes, but it doesn’t last.
The wrap up at the end attempts to return to a schmaltzy sentimentality that the film eschews for most of it’s runtime. That’s too bad because the schmaltzy stuff is really what we want in a Christmas Movie. So you can put this on the shelf with “Santa Claus: The Movie” and “Jingle All the Way”. It is a shiny bauble that someone poured a lot of money into making, but they forgot to make it charming and relevant. This years lump of coal in your stocking.
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.
The above is the trailer for “Wicked” which was released six months ago. If you don’t see any indication that this is just the opening film in a two part release, that’s because there is no indication offered here. Until a week before the release in November, I had no idea that the film would be an incomplete presentation of the Broadway phenomena. Oh, and by the way, “Part One” as it will now be referred to, is two hours and forty minutes. The play on the stage runs 2 hours forty-five minutes. So am I supposed to believe that the next film released next year will be a two and a half hour presentation of five minutes of material? This movie is as padded as could be and it is a deliberate money grab, unlike some other works in the not too distant past (“The Deathly Hallows” needed to be two films).
I have no interest in dissing all the theater kids who have worshiped and been inspired by the Broadway musical, but this was a big shrug of the shoulders for me. I have no idea why this would inspire more devotion than dozens of other Broadway presentations. I have never seen the play, so I can’t really comment on it. Maybe the stagecraft is what makes it work. Maybe the actors and dancers on stage are choregraphed in a way that brings the story to life. This film did not do any of that for me. It is pretty to look at at times, but hardly different from a number of other good looking films (most Wes Anderson movies would give this a run for the money). Of course my opinion is moot because this movie opened to huge box office and is expected to run through the holidays, becoming a cash cow for Universal Studios. Expect feature attractions at the theme parks in the next couple of years.
Reimaging the story of a film from the perspective of the villain may very well have been invented by the author of the book that the musical is based on. We have had a number of these sorts of things in the last few years, “Maleficent” comes to mind immediately. Maybe it works, but often at the expense of the original story. I can’t say exactly where this is headed, since I am unfamiliar with the play, but it sure looks like the Wizard is getting dumped on, and Dorothy will be reimagined as a selfish brat who broke the heart of poor Elphaba. I guess we will see next year (if I can bring myself to endure the story again).
As for this film, it starts off in telling the Wicked Witch of the Wests origin story, with drunken infidelity. That sure seems like a far cry from the family friendly confines of the original books. Cynthia Eviro plays the green offspring of an illicit affair (there is a hint of something here that may or may not be significant), and she sings well but has to play a bullied child who is defiant yet hurting on the inside. Ariana Grande is Galinda, a spoiled child who expects only the best treatment and has to learn some humility. At first they are rivals, then friends, and then estranged compatriots of the wizarding world (Galinda having no powers noy withstanding).
There are nearly a dozen songs, none of which is particularly memorable outside of the context of their presentation. “Popular” works because of the situation the characters are in, not because of its melody. There are some clever lyrics but most of it is narrative stuck on a tune that barely registers. “Defying Gravity” works the same way, the lyrics spell out a conundrum for the two leads, but it is only interesting because of the visualization that goes along with it. The best number, both thru musicality and visualization was “Dancing Through Life”, as it is a turning point in the relationship between the two women.
The cast dance numbers are just not very interesting as they are presented here. Director John Chu may have a good touch with humor and relationships, but the staging of the dance numbers is just not filmed in an interesting way. I enjoyed the dancing in “Anna and the Apocalypse” more than this, and that film was not nearly as intricate or expensive. Maybe it is the hip hop style of some of the background dancers that just does not appeal to me.
Story wise, the film has a lot of paths it starts down, and maybe they will pay off. If the stage play really deserved a six hour treatment though, it might have been better to do this as a limited series. Then you could go somewhere with characters like Nessarose, Boq, Pfannee and even the Wizard. This movie definitely needed more Jeff Goldblum. The Wizard is a central figure who is more opaque here than in the original film.
I am not saying it is a bad movie, I’m just saying it wasn’t for me. I can’t quite grasp the enthusiasm with which it is being embraced. I’m a film fan and a musical fan, but this feels like it is made for theater consumption only. I’m a sentimental man, but something bad has happened. What is this feeling? Complete indifference.
I’m counting this as a Cinema related event for three reasons. First it was held at the Paramount and the vast majority of events I attend there are movies. Second, the author of the book is a movie star and several of the chapters are focused on films he participated in. Finally, the discussion was moderated by film director and local Austin hero Robert Rodriguez. So it qualifies for the blog.
Although Brolin is a film actor and there are several parts of the book devoted to movie related experiences, most of the evenings talk had to do with his life off screen. His famous father is a part of the story but it appears that Josh Brolin was most heavily influenced by his headstrong Mother. She was a hard drinking, fiercely independent woman who was foolishly fearless at times. Brolin shared several stories about her and she sounds like she was a compelling figure.
Robert Rodriguez is a long time friend of Brolins, and they shared some stories about working together and almost working together. There were also a number of stories about working with Tommy Lee Jones, who is apparently an admirer of Brolins, although he did not seem to know it.
Mr. Brolin read one of the chapters of the book, and the experience introduced the style of writing he is using. The chapters are really random essays on some moments in his life. It is not really an autobiography but a place where he can share his poetry, narrative prose and reporting, all to different degrees. Rodriguez shared that he keeps a journal of moments in his day, everyday, and he was able to prompt Brolin into telling some stories by referring to his own journal. This journaling approach is what Brolin used when writing, and his ability to recall details was pretty solid. Listening to him tell about his Mother, driving them a thousand miles when he was a kid, from California to Texas, just because she had a hankering for Whataburger was fun, although when the two of them talked about the burgers they had delivered to the theatre, their shrug about the quality mirrors my feelings exactly.
I’m only halfway through the book at this point and the loose structure is interesting and it makes the book easy to pick up and put down.
I quite liked “Smile” from two years ago. It was a horror film based on a contagion, very much like another horror film I enjoyed “It Follows“. Because these are modern films and the audience is primed for on screen horror and not just psychological horror, we will see some traumatic and nasty death scenes. The violence and gore provides the opportunity for make-up professionals to indulge in their darkest nightmares and then share them with us. “Smile 2” provides plenty of those moments and carries on a somewhat suspect theme from the first film which will come up in a moment.
The conceit of this sequel is that the contagion. which finally manifested as a monster at the end of the previous film, has entered into the life of a highly visible subject, pop star Skye Riley. I did not re-watch the original film before venturing out to see this new iteration. I have some vague memories of what the rules are for the parasite to be able to infect someone. This may be important at the climax of the film, but the multiple steps and preconditions are mostly ignored here so we get immediately to the central problem. Skye, who is played by actress-singer Naomi Scott, is recovering from a car accident that physically mangled her and killed her actor boyfriend. During the film, we get flashback episodes that reveal what was going on in her life at the time of the accident. There was drug use, and a break with her longtime friend Gemma. Skye appears to be on the road to recovery when her need for painkillers that violate her sobriety, brings her into contact with someone already infected.
Horror movies can succeed for a lot of reason, and one of them is that they grip us from the beginning. Although I have always maintained that “Jaws” is not a true horror film, it did do that very thing with the opening death of Chrissie. “Smile 2” manages this feat by playing out an opening where we see how the previous film has connected the malevolent force to a new set of characters. The tense confrontation between the police officer from the first film, and a couple of drug dealers is graphic and frightening. The payoff is also gruesome, although mostly unrelated to the process of being infected. If you have not seen the first film, you might be confused as to what is going on. Even if you are, I still think you will be hooked.
Movies like this are often faulted for using jump scares to goose the audience, and sometimes that is a legitimate criticism. It is an easy way to get a rise out of the paying customers. When used effectively however, a jump scare can make the film feel so much more lively. “Smile 2” has about five of these jump scares, two of which make the film story more effective and they exist for more reasons than just a quick “boo”. The most disturbing scenes however, play out a bit more slowly. There is a truly disturbing scene where Skye is threatened in her own apartment by someone she knows to be a deranged fan. The slow reveal of those moments contain some disgusting visual references that make the scenario even more horrifying.
[Warning] I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible in my posts, but there is something that I need to mention and it may reveal more about the plot than you want to know. I will not give away anything specific but I will remind people that you cannot trust what you see being played out on the screen. The characters may sometimes be visualizing their own nightmares, and those may not be the actual events. This is a key element in the ultimate plot, and it was one of the things that is both creative and frustrating about the movie. It is close to the “Wizard of Oz” than it is to “The Sixth Sense” and it may undermine your appreciation of the film, as it did for me.
The ultimate payoff in the movie is an interesting take of the premise, and it could lead to subsequent films that will be much broader in scope that the two films we have seen so far. Writer/Director Parker Finn has found a niche with this concept, I hope that it is nurtured and creative in subsequent films, but there are dangers as well. I was not expecting to enjoy this film as much as I did, and although I am a little nonplussed at the way the plot plays out, the movie did make me smile.
There are at least two kinds of stupid movies. The first kind are those that defy logic or character or screw up a concept, and they leave you pissed off. The best example I can think of from this year is “Longlegs”, which has so much going for it and then trips over itself in trying to be unique, and it ends up offending you, or at least it did me. The other kind of stupid movie is one that is outlandishly idiotic from the get go, but is entertaining because of it’ stupidity. Lots of old school comedies with Jim Carrey fit this category. “Venom The Last Dance” fits into this second category. It is dumb, nonsensical and full of stupid dialogue, but it is entertaining enough while you are watching it that you don’t resent it.
What this movie has going for it is Tom Hardy, monologuing while pretending to be talking to the symbiotic creature inside of him, the alien “Venom”. He is basically doing an Abbot and Costello routine all by himself. Now of course it took a ton of other people, actors, production designers, VFX artists and code talkers, to make this movie, but the only thing that is memorable about it are the exchanges between Hardy’s Eddie Brock and his Symbiot Venom. There are a few laughs in the midst of CGI mayhem and convoluted plot twists, but that’s about it.
I have seen the other two Venom movies and I remember almost nothing about them. I think a couple of characters from those films pop up in this film but I am not sure. In a week I can say I have forgotten all three films completely.
