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.
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.
This is an unusual movie designed to put us in the field with the Warriors who defend us in Dark Places. It represents the memories of the men who went through the actual event, and is designed to replicate as closely as possible the firefight that these men participated in. I don’t see an agenda or political perspective in the way this film is being presented, the men who are performing their Duty are average Americans, who are well trained, but respond like human beings in the dangerous circumstances they find themselves in.
Although there are a couple of familiar faces in the cast, this is certainly not a star driven vehicle. At least two dozen characters appear on the screen and have lines, but you could not point to a single one of them and say they were the main focus of the story. It is the event that is the star of the film. A military Advanced team, probing an enemy territory, during the Iraq occupation, discovers that they are the target of an insurgent attack. The events unfold for the most part, in real time, and the threat of death exists in every frame of the last half of the movie. There are moves that are made by the Marines in this story, which in hindsight might seem problematic, but given the outcome, and the survival of some of their comrades, we should certainly be willing to forgive some Divergence from military bureaucracy.
Even though they’re under attack, the Marines Express every confidence in the situation that they are capable of responding appropriately. They have Superior Equipment and Superior training and they also have reinforcements that will system although it will take some time. To me the astonishing thing about the events depicted in the film are the nearly heroic actions taken to save the lives of the injured Marines when an IED explodes as they are preparing to withdraw. Injuries that we saw in Saving Private Ryan, were horrifying but the story doesn’t linger over them and the agony that those soldiers went through. In this film the consequences of the injuries seems to be the main justification for telling the story. Both the injured Marines, and their teammates never really give up in spite of the pain and the fear that they must be going through. Some may have a moment’s hesitation, some are trying to cope with with shock and concussions and temporary deafness. They all however do their jobs.
I will warn you that the injuries depicted are brutal, and there are moments when the agony of the victims is hard to bear. The stalwart efforts platoon of Marines is admirable in and of itself regardless of the outcome of the battle. This is not a story where retribution is heaved upon the enemy in a dramatic moment of Revenge. The forces that are being used, often appearing to be overwhelming, are done for the purpose of saving the lives of their comrades in arms. We really have no idea what kind of damage was inflicted on the enemy at the end of the day. This is a war film that is not a drama about some narrative, rather it is a narrative about an event that took place and that these Warriors survived.
War is evil, but sometimes necessary. The Men Who engage in war are usually not evil, but simply doing their jobs, fulfilling the plans of someone else to make the world a better place. The struggle to accomplish that requires incredible fortitude. Warfare attempts to depict that fortitude and put the audience at the scene. It succeeds in its visual execution, by allowing us to see the chaos and confusion in this sort of combat operation, but also the professionalism and determination of well-trained men. Because the story is told from the perspective of the men who actually went through this, the dialogue is filled with technical terminology Battlefield jargon and a variety of military language. Nothing is done to make this film dumb enough for an audience to understand. It requires an audience that is smart enough to know that what they are seeing is something they never want to go through themselves.
Ash is a somewhat dystopian science fiction film set on another world that the human race is hoping to be able to terraform and relocate to. We get told all of that information about a quarter of the way into the story after the mystery of the horror has already begun. The way the Story begins is simple a young woman wakes up from a deep sleep and discovers that the ecosystem that she lives in is filled with dead bodies and signs of violence that she has basically no memory of.
The film is a hybrid version of Solaris, alien, and the thing. Ultimately there are about seven actors in the film but for 90% of the movie they’re only two that take up screen time. The woman named Reva, as flashbacks to some of the events, and begins to suspect that what happened might be her fault. File into her ruminations, another character shows up played by actor Aaron Paul, who clearly knows Reva, but was not at the station when whatever disaster befell it took place.
At First the movie looks fairly low budget. The sets are not much more complicated than a series of rooms that have been dolled up with some light fixtures and a few props to suggest something more futuristic. And the film is clearly something that was done on a budget. In the second half of the film though a few special effects show up that suggests that they were saving their money for a little bit more production value. A couple of models and some CGI add a little credibility to the situation. We also get a few special effects makeup sequences that are pretty good.
The main problem with the film like this is that we are dealing with an unreliable narrator, and we all know why she’s unreliable. Also, nearly everything that we see at one point become suspect, and we wonder if we are looking at something that really happened or if it is just a projection of her consciousness. In the end it does turn out to be something of a monster movie, but it’s trying to do it in a way that is different and a little bit more cerebral. I think the ambitions outstrip the ability of the script to deliver this kind of story. The movie isn’t bad, but it isn’t very compelling either and by the time we get to the end it’s easy to feel detached from what’s going on. There is also attacked on conclusion that makes no sense but his design to create a sense of irony at the end of the story.
The director of the film is also responsible for the music, I get the impression that he is a music personality who is dabbling in the film world. It’s not that he’s on talented, but he’s not experienced enough to make this film more interesting than something to be consumed and almost immediately forgotten, in spite of the film’s ambitions. I suspect that this movie was largely made for streaming purposes, and it received a token release either because of the actors involved or to placate the director. Either way it turned out, it was a reasonable Monday evening, but again I’m not going to remember this very long.
Here’s a simple premise for a film that should be able to be shot on a budget with the exception of salaries for the two main stars. We have been on a bit of a Bill Skarsgård kick for the last year or so, and this film features him in every scene, and he doesn’t have to share the screen with anybody for any 80% of the movie. He does have a co-star, Sir Anthony Hopkins, who only appears by voice for the first two acts of the film, and shows up in the last third for an extended sequence with a more direct confrontation between antagonists.
Skarsgård’s character plays a petty Thief, who’s trying to get enough money together to pay for repairs to his van. He professes a desire to stick to the straight and narrow, in a job is a delivery driver. It is clear however from the cold shoulder he gets from former acquaintances, that he is used up any Goodwill and Trust he might have had, as they all refuse to assist him. He attempts a few minor crimes before encountering I’m unlocked luxury SUV. Thinking he’s hit the jackpot he jumps in and discovers that it is an elaborate trap by frequently vandalized and victimized wealthy doctor, who is decided to take some justice individuality form by imprisoning any car thief who deems to try and Rob him again.
We have to suspend our disbelief a little bit, because the technology involved here, well it is all possible, seems very complicated to utilize intervene plot like this. We do however discover that the doctor is motivated by Deep resentment against criminals who have taken the life of his daughter, a promising college student. Scarsgard finds himself locked in the car unable to escape and subject to tortures imposed by his invisible Captor. The actor manages to convey appropriate degrees of panic, resentment, and remorse. They’re also frequent outbursts of anger that give an actor the opportunity to stretch those skills that are so often prized by directors. Although at some point we are supposed to pity the thief, there is plenty such to suggest that what he’s getting up to a certain point is not undeserved.
The high point of the film occurs when Hopkins takes remote control of the vehicle and drives it to a location that he is found. He gets in and takes physical control not just virtual control of the situation. The film does suggest some political themes, most of which have been around for at least 50 years. Echoing the problems confronted by Dirty Harry or by Paul Kersey in the death wish films, Hopkins is enraged by a system that seems to tolerate criminal Behavior, and value the rights of repeat offenders over the need for justice for victims. Up to the point where he makes clear that he’s going to take skarsgard’s life, he has a very rational philosophy. When however he oversteps his bounds, Hopkins himself becomes a similar kind of monster, and we are left with rooting for one monster or the other. Because Skarsgård’s characters daughter is still alive, it becomes apparent that that is where our sympathy is supposed to lie.
The petty tortures and monologuing provided by Hopkins are the primary reasons that this film is interesting. Most of us would try to identify with the captured Thief and figure out how to survive for the circumstances we find ourselves in. The sense of powerlessness is overwhelming at times, especially when Skarsgård is tortured by lack of water or food. But of course that powerlessness is exactly what Hopkins character felt when nothing was done in regard to the murder of his daughter, or the multiple robberies of his vehicles.
So it is a one-man show for the most part, but when Hopkins shows up in person, it is clear he is having way too much fun playing another villain and savoring the chaos he’s imposing on his victim. The climax of the film does involve a lot more action than we’ve gotten in the previous 80 minutes, so the film is a Slow Burn but with a fairly satisfying conclusion. I can recommend it as an actor’s piece, and as a mediation on the injustice of our own justice system.
In the last few years there have been a number of films that have tried to milk humor out of violence or gruesome images. Just this last month the monkey and Love Hurts tried to accomplish just that and feel completely. Those filmmakers would have done well to watch Novocaine first so that they can see how you balance the violence and humor with characters that you give a damn about. this movie works primarily because we care about the main character.
Jack Quaid appeared in the other movie that I’ve appreciated this year companion from a couple of months ago. He has a persona that comes across as somewhat innocent and open-hearted. In the previous film, his character turned out to be more devious than we anticipated. That was a nice twist. Novocaine has a Twist as well, but that twist is not really about the lead character. Novocaine himself, remains innocently optimistic and surprisingly resilient in the face of what are overwhelming odds. He has his condition working against him, is very little in the way of support, and his adversaries are ruthless.
For those of you who haven’t seen anything about the film, the character has a condition that prevents him from feeling pain. It is also prevented him from enjoying life very much. When he finally meets someone who seems to be willing to help him embrace some of the difficulties he’s facing, you can understand why he would be willing to go to the lengths that he does to help her. His new girlfriend is kidnapped during a bank robbery, and Novocaine gets involved in a series of chases, fist fights, and shootouts that most of us would have bailed out on much earlier. The earnest and obstinate Novocaine is not dissuaded by the hardships inflicted on him, largely because he is able to brush off what would be painful injuries to most of us. That does not mean he is immune to the damage being done to his body, only that he doesn’t respond to it immediately. He still needs to be bandaged up, sanitized, and eventually seen by medical professionals.
The character is not immune to the emotional reaction that some of his confrontations are going to produce. There’s a big laugh when he vomits in the moment when he realizes he is just killed an adversary. He gets frustrated by some of the silly booby traps encounters in the house of one of the people is pursuing. Emotionally he’s a little overwhelmed by the girl he is falling in love with, and a little taken aback by the reality of his online friend, who is not the imposing presence he was expecting. Jack Quaid as an actor, communicates most of these emotions on his face. Disappointment, fear, and frustration show up there when he has to engage in some physical activity that causes damage to either himself or an opponent. It is those reactions, that let the humor land, instead of just rolling off us like it does in those other movies that I mentioned.
There are a couple of twists in the story, one which we see coming, and one that was a surprise to me at least. There are a number of characters that are part of the main plot, who could use a little bit more development, but the script does give us a quick sketch of the cops who are following Novocaine, in the crooks that he himself is pursuing. After the twist is revealed, we can see some of the seeds that were planted earlier in the film, so that the change doesn’t feel completely out of nowhere. The plot is mostly a device to allow our lead character to man up and take advantage of his unique physical impediment. But there are some emotional connections that also make for your work, we get a pretty good idea why he falls in love so deeply and quickly. There’s a little bit of explanation as to why his previous virtual friend turns out to be somebody who can be reliable in real life.
In a film filled with broken bones, nails and knives and bullets doing damage to human being, it would be surprising to know the reactions that these situations provoke. These hard to look at jokes land very regularly, and provoke laughter more than they do disgust. That’s why Novocaine has been the most entertaining film I’ve seen so far this year.
This movie was released the year I started blogging. I did not cover it then, because for most of my posts in 2010, I was devoted to the Summers of the 70s project I was working on. At the end of the year however, I did post a top ten list for 2010 releases and this movie was listed there. The quality of the picture could hardly be in doubt when it is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher. Fifteen years later, and twenty years after it became the ubiquitous presence in our lives, the story of the creation of Facebook remains compelling. The technical skills of the engineers is really just a side part of the story, the real driving force is the willful personalities of the founders and the motivations they had for their project.
The complex relationships and implied legal commitments are a fascinating history in how start ups come into being and people get rich or go broke in the process. The one factor that I want to focus on for a moment is not really related to the Facebook story per se. The setting of the foundations of Facebook is the Harvard University Campus. Obviously a prestigious institution with a well deserved reputation for producing excellence. It also has another reputation that is less flattering, that of a privileged class of entitled snobs who view others as beneath their consideration. Mark Zuckerberg as portrayed in the film by Jesse Eisenberg, is a great example of this in the opening scene. He snarkly condescends to his girlfriend who is only enrolled at Boston University. You might think that this is just a personal failing of a brilliant student with social limitations that might put him on the Asperger’s spectrum, that is until you encounter all the other elitist behaviors depicted at the University. Elite clubs that engage in juvenile fraternity hazing rituals, parties filled with attractive girls from local schools who are interested in trading sexual favors for contact with the special elites at Harvard, and the entitled whining of the children of privilege when they don’t get their way. Maybe one of the reasons that some many people in this country have developed a distaste for the elites is that they have seen this movie.
Zuckerberg is a much more well known figure these days, and his time in the spotlight has probably tamed some of the quirks that are depicted in the film (real or imagined). The lawyers shown in the film are mostly despised by the character, who unwisely shows that distain in answering questions and conveying the kind of attitude that a jury in a civil case would punish like crazy. Trump got whacked by juries without ever having testified, imagine what would have happened had Zuckerberg out did the impervious Donald in front of a jury. As was made clear at the end of the film, his case was mostly damage control, and it was self inflicted.
The film structure is primarily chronological with occasional inserts of later legal proceedings to add context and weight to the things that Sorkin and Fincher chose to emphasize. Eisenberg is terrific as the pig headed genius without the social skills needed to survive outside of the virtual world he lives in. Andrew Garfield as the best friend that Zuckerberg betrays was extremely convincing. Armie hammer plays the twin Winklevoss rival is believable as two distinct individuals. Justin Timberlake steals most of the scenes he is in as the repulsive Sean Parker. who created Napster and became a parasite member of the Facebook team.
Seeing an older film in a theater reminds me of the original experience when I saw the movie the first time. It’s good to be impressed by a cinematic accomplishment in the cinema, rather than on TV.
Alamo Drafthouse is a Theater chain which is also a restaurant and a culture center. The Alamo Theaters frequently program older films, indies and foreign fare and it would be to say they don’t put in an effort to satisfy as many people as possible. This week, they celebrated the 20th anniversary of the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Phantom of the Opera”. Directed by the man who nearly killed the Batman Franchise with his color palate and costumes with nipples, Joel Schumacher. This was really a fortuitous combination, because Schumacher’s sense of style matched up well with the romantic extravagance of the Broadway musical.
This was a watch party, so unlike the strict silence policy usually in place at Alamo, the audience is encouraged to cheer, sing along, shout out quotes when they come up, and generally have a more interactive time. We had a hostess for the party who distributed masks, candles, wristbands and roses with black ribbons as we entered the theater. We were treated to trailers for other versions of this property, including Brian DePalma’s film, Clause Rains as the Phantom and even the Phantom of the Mall. Before our film started, the hostess set up the ground rules and encouraged us to respectfully interact with the film and one another. She also got two fans up to do their best operatic delivery of a line from one of the songs. They both were great. And then the movie began.
I had seen the stage musical several time before the movie had come out. The family had gone twice when the touring company was in Hollywood, so we looked forward to the movie a great deal. It was our family Christmas film in 2004 and we were all pleased with it. That has been up to now the only time I saw it in a theater. This experience justifies a little more attention as I am prone to with a theatrical experience. Of the criticisms I have heard of the film version, the most typical is that Gerard Butler was not as good a fit as many wanted. Watching him in the gritty roles he plays nowadays, it might be hard to imagine him in this romantic musical. He was not a trained singer, but he was effective enough. Christine is supposed to be a singer, the Phantom is a secret tutor. I don’t think tutor in singing would automatically be an accomplished vocalist. Also, the Phantom is supposed to have some physical deformities, so his slight imperfection works fine. Butler was young and handsome in the role and it was easy to see the appeal he had in spite of the mask.
There are some structural changes in the story that purists might object to. The chandelier crash occurs at the end of the film rather than at the end of act one. There is an extended swordfight between Raoul and the Phantom that was not in the original production. Finally, fans of the stage musical might be confused by the bookend flashback sequences, which work for a film but would have been complicated on stage.
On the plus side, the three main leads all do their own singing, only Mini Driver, who actually has trained as a singer, was dubbed. I have to give special attention to actress Emmy Rossum who plays and sings the part of Christine. She was only sixteen when the movie was being shot, and at the risk of seeming a little creepy, I think she is one of the most beautiful women I have seen in a movie. It doesn’t hurt that she is in some period lingerie that accentuates her physical beauty. When you hear her sing, the image is complete and we know why the Phantom was obsessed with her. Patrick Wilson, who plays Raoul, is also very young and he looks baby-faced compared to his subsequent film roles.
Director Schumacher did some nice work setting mood and visualizing a bigger canvas. In the opening, we see the footlights lighting up, as we transition from the sepia tone black and white bookend of the auction, to color as the first performance in the Opera house begins. You can see that moment in the trailer above if you like. The arms holing the wall sconces in the chambers leading to the Phantom’s lair are actual human arms that are gold and sway to the melody of the scene. Later, when Raoul is descending through those hallways, the look is gothic, and black grey, which suggests that the Phantom’s voice influenced Christine’s memory of the trip. This was a nice flourish that feels very much like something Schumacher would do.
If you are not a fan of Lloyd Webber’s music, you are noy going to care for this. If however, you are a romantic, and a theater geek, and a horror fan, “The Phantom of the Opera” is excellent. It is best with an audience in a theater to get the ambient sound of the music right. Lucky for me, that is the party I went to last night.
Kirkham A Movie A Day 