levybob Reviews

Ripley (2024)

Not for Everyone. But Absolutely For Me.

[8/10 · 16 April 2024]

Steven Zaillian's episodic 'Ripley' is not for everyone. It is slow. The lack of action, the dialogue's empty spaces .... this particularly the case in the series' first two episodes. Certainly two hours is not required to introduce the story's setup; a seemingly corrupt young man is sent to Europe in order to persuade another - wealthy - young man to return to The States.

But with Episode #3 the story takes a dramatic, homicidal, turn. And from that turn it matters little that the pace remains slower than ideal. The stakes, in each ensuing episode, are raised and raised again. The viewer comes to care about the characters (be they villain or victim) and so we wait (patiently if possible) to learn the fate of them in each episode. As situations grow more complex, more perilous, our imaginations take over (at least mine did), and start to create our own story; 'This is what I think is gonna happen / This is who's gonna die'.

The cinematography (black and white) is stirring; a perfect match for the piece's dark and foreboding mood. Where Minghella's cinematic version of this story (Jude Law and Matt Damon) was set in a brilliantly colored Venice, Zaillian's version show's us Italy's underside, darker side; a choice so perfect as to astonish. In both Episodes #3 and #5 the camera brings us nose to nose with the action; again a wise choice. The film does not shirk from its desire to leave us gasping for air.

Andrew Scott as Tom Ripley is perfectly quirky, nerdy, unlikeable, and snake-like. A brilliant choice. Quite the opposite of Matt Damon's charmer, this Ripley is a student of the never-back-down; no matter how close he is to the edge of failure, his brain erects a path forward.

Dakota Fanning as Marge Sherwood, the young woman in distress is, I guess, OK. In fact I didn't like the character, her innocent young writer abroad. There was a too-willingness to 'buy' explanations that made me doubt her intelligence or motives. A sense of superiority, late in the film, that I liked even less. How much of this is a result of her performance rather than script / direction, I cannot say.

But worthy of note are Elliot Sumner as Freddie Miles, a sensuous if over-the-top nemissis of Tom Ripley's. Then Maurizio Lombardi as Rome Italy's Inspector Ravini; as funny and fascinating a portrayal of a policeman as you will ever see; particularly his insistence of pronouncing 'Freddie Miles' as 'Freddie MeeLess'. Bokeem Woodbine's appearance in Episodes #1 and #8 adds a frame to the story. His Private Detective is as pitch-perfect a portrayal of a tough but not-as-smart-as-he-seems New Yorker as you can find.

Again, Ripley is not everyone's cup o'tea. And if you give up on it, it's not as though it's the greatest loss you'll ever suffer.

But nevertheless, a loss it definitely is.

Fargo (2014–2024)

Season 5: Here are the Reasons to Watch

[8/10 · 4 April 2024]

'Fargo' Season 5 is very good. The season's plot, however, is far less complex, less rich, less compelling, than that of earlier seasons. For some, that might be good. For others (like me), a bit more complexity might bring texture, a sense of fullness.

In any case, here is a synopsis. A bad man abuses his wife. She runs off, marries another man, and successfully hides. The bad man wants her back, discovers where she is hiding, and tries his 'darndest' to 'bring her home'. That's it. We get ten episodes of his best efforts, and those of other people to stop him.

But here's why you should watch this all the way to its very end.

1. Jon Hamm as the 'bad guy', Sheriff Roy Tillman. Hamm is fabulous as the villain. He makes you want to tear his eyes out. His self-righteous, God-spouting sheriff is in part terrifying, in part so-over-the-top that you cannot help but - dare I say it? - laugh. I have never seen Jon Hamm in a role that I didn't enjoy. And this, though surprising, is no exception.

2. Juno Temple as 'the wife' brings a perfect blend of petite vulnerability and don't-mess-with-me physical toughness to her role. Her Minnesota twang might be a tad too much, but I'm going to forgive her that. Somehow it made me smile during her family scenes, and then worry about her during those scenes in which she is pursued and captured.

3. Jennifer Jason Leigh as the wife's wealthy 'mother-in-law' is equally terrific. A perfect counterpoint to Temple's innocence, here is the black widow spider, if that spider had all the money and political connections in the stater of Minnesota. Her voice is a snarl. Her mouth curves upward at its corners when she speaks. She is the perfect foe. And for some, the perfect friend.

4. The final half of the final episode. Some might disagree, some might say, Should'a been cut out. In truth my jury is still out. But here's what I will say. Writer / Director Noah Hawley takes a chance that few if any others would take. And to that, to him, I say, Good for you.

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

Don't Say You Weren't Warned

[1/10 · 1 April 2024]

Don't Say You Weren't Warned. 'Late Night with the Devil' is atrocious. Even for a 'bad' film, it's atrocious. From its premise to its production, it is simply awful. And, in case you're wondering, No, you will not be scared; not even once.

The premise: A Late Night TV Show in the 1970s, competing with Johnny Carson, devotes its broadcast to the supernatural. One of its guests is a young woman who alleges to be possessed by the devil. And, well, you can guess the rest.

Here's what does not work:

1. Nothing about the show's appearance seems real. It is actors (bad ones) pretending to be TV personalities which, by itself, isn't a crime. What is a crime is how badly they do it.

2. During commercial breaks we are taken backstage. These segments are inexplicably in black and white and seem even less 'real' and more scripted than the segments of live TV. No one will believe this dialogue could be spoken between people off-stage or on.

3. We somehow are privy to the hallucinations suffered by the film's characters. We get inside their brains as if it were us who are hallucinating.

4. A show like this would never be in competition with Johnny Carson. The host is stiff and completely unfunny.

5. You can see where this film is going the moment the 'possessed' young woman steps on-stage. And you'll be correct.

6. If you saw 'The Exorcist', you saw how this subject can best be rendered. This is as far from that as the Sun is from The Earth.

Ok. Now it's up to you.

Doom (2005)

Early Duane 'The Rock' Johnson. More important, early Rosamund Pike.

[3/10 · 21 March 2024]

'Doom' is awful. But that is something you must already know.

Even so, here's a reason to see it. Rosamund Pike. She is laughably beautiful in this mess of a gore-infested movie. While the entire film seems to have been shot in the dark (so much so that we cannot tell what is going on), Ms. Pike is almost always, and fortunately, cast in the softest of bright lights. She is the scientist twin sister to an intergalactic warrior, a scientist visited by those warriors because the word is out that some mutant killers are running rampant on her planet.

The Rock (Duane Johnson) plays the leader of the Warriors and he is as awful as awful can be in his role. He is - and yes this is a cliche - wooden. There is not one second of humanity in his performance.

As for Rosamund Pike .... I mean, what more can I say?

Damsel (2024)

Wow. Bad Stuff

[2/10 · 16 March 2024]

'Damsel' is bad stuff.

It's a fairy tale turned on its head: the poor girl marries the handsome prince and it's then that her troubles begin. Which by itself isn't a bad premise. Imagine if this were a comedy during which the new princess is confronted by her husband's crazy family; so crazy that in the end she decides to return to her poverty in the proverbial pumpkin.

Alas, this isn't intended to be funny. Instead, we've got a dragon that speaks human language and, equally important, understands it as well. We've got an underground cavern which as though by miracle turns into a sky-high precipice. An evil queen. A weak-kneed prince. A guy in a bad toupee and a crown who I assume is the king but does not have a single word of dialogue. We've got important plot points that are, for no good reason, withheld from the viewer.

On the plus side: The dragon flies real nice.

Milly Bobby Brown is our heroine 'princess' and I guess she's OK in the role, though I doubt this film is going to do her any good. I have a hunch that there hasn't been a lot of film offers coming her way and so when this one did, she took it. Which does not explain Robin Wright accepting the role as evil queen, or Ray Winstone as the princess' scheming father. These are established talents. They have reputations. Both of which are now sullied. Finally, Angela Bassett as a good-hearted step-mother (as opposed to the tried-and-true evil step-mother); she's fine. I guess.

Confession: I watched the entire silly thing.

Confession #2: And I'm absolutely ashamed of myself.

Tokyo Vice (2022– )

Season One Viewers ..... Be Careful

[3/10 · 12 March 2024]

Director Michael Mann's 'Tokyo Vice' Season One encompasses eight one hour episodes which lead nowhere. 'Nowhere' as in, There is no resolution to any of the series' plot lines (and there are plenty). So know that you are signing on to a long road, some sixteen episodes (through Season Two), and who can say if anything will be resolved even then.

If that isn't bad enough, there is this. Find me one person to root for in this series. The characters do one stupid thing after another; they go places they shouldn't, borrow money from people they shouldn't, walk alone when they shouldn't, sleep with people they shouldn't. If some of them don't survive, well, they only have themselves to blame.

Oh, if that isn't bad enough, there is this. The improbability of plot. We have Ansel Elgort as a novice American journalist in Japan who just happens to become adversarially involved with that country's version of The Mafia: The Yakuza. Now we want to root for this young American crusader, but how can we? He is either extremely naive (he is not) or intellectually challenged; he goes at the Yakuza tough-guys as though he were John Wick (he isn't remotely close). And yes, I know, that if he doesn't take action we have no movie, but I argue that, in this case, that'd be a whole lot better. I cannot tell you how many times in its eight episodes, I shook my head and asked myself, Why? Why am I watching this?

And the answer; I wanted to find out how it ends. Which it didn't. And if you think I'm a bit p.o.'d about that, you're right.

This is bad.

Dune: Part Two (2024)

I was disappointed

[7/10 · 6 March 2024]

A summary of my 2021 DUNE PART 1 Review: The reason to see this is its looks. It is - I apologize - a feast for the eyes. Plot-wise we've got warring intergalactic families fighting over the rights to the universe's most important mineral: 'Spice'. We have a good son with a mysterious mother, we've got evil villains (Harkonnens), and a rebel army (Fremen) with pet worms standing guard. Even so, better to lower your expectations. The giant worms ain't that much. The bald villains are too easy confused with one another. David Bautista is the one recognized villain, but he's weak in his role. The film is somber, morbid, heavy; not a light moment throughout its long running time.

DUNE PART 2 is better. First, the plot is more compelling. The reasons for events in Part 1 are explained here. There is a love angle between the good son Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) and a young Fremen woman Chani (Zendaya) which relieves the solemnity. In fact the very presence of Zendaya's character lifts the film mightily; she is without question someone to care about.

Javier Bardem is great as the leader of The Fremen. Josh Brolin is rousing as Chalamet's protector. Austin Butler as the psychopathic next-in-line for the throne receives an A+ for creepiness (a compliment). Christopher Walken is wasted as the Emperor who is, no pun, wasting away. Why he was chosen for this role beats me. Florence Pugh as his daughter is simply 'there'. Her character is a sometimes narrator; the 'sometimes' element simply confusing. Overall there is an aura of self-importance about Dune 2, as though the viewer will take away an important lesson. But again, the heaviness, the weight of the characters' unhappiness, overpowers the 'good' that might be derived.

In Part 2 many of these characters have secrets, as well as secret motives, though I, for one, was never quite sure about whose motives (with the exception of Chani's) were worth rooting for. The special effects here were disappointing; the worms were an improvement over Part 1, though seriously, I wanted to see more of them; ascertain how large they are, see them compared to other large structures. But no. I was never enthusiastic about the interstellar spacecraft; they appear more like a deck of playing cards than a speedy conveyance.

Bottom line: Part 2 is a good film. However, I'd be perfectly fine if there were no Part 3.

Crimson Peak (2015)

If gore is your thing .....

[7/10 · 29 February 2024]

Guillermo del Toro's 'Crimson Peak' is filled with gore. Blood, innards, bodily fluids. When I say 'a lot' I mean .... A LOT. And so if that kind of stuff isn't up your alley I'd say, 'Take a Pass' on the film. I mean it's not as though you'll be missing a classic.

I was very much reminded of Hitchcock's 'Rebecca' and 'Suspicion' in that this is the story of an innocent and naive woman (Edith played by Mia Wasikowska) who marries into a situation straight out of hell. Her husband (played by Tom Hiddleston) is a good-for-nothing gold-digger of a man. So obvious is he that every character - with the exception of his bride - can see or at least sense that upon meeting him. Making matters worse is his sister (Jessica Chastain) who surely has more than sisterly designs on her handsome brother. And finally, making matters worse still, there is that our naive bride is quickly shuffled out of the USA and brought by the siblings to a crumbling mansion in England.

And if you think that mansion might just have .... ghosts, well ... so does Edith. But this is merely the beginning, the balance of the film describing Edith's fate.

About the gore. Let me say this. There is so much, and the actions giving rise to that gore are so pronounced, so sharp, so clear, I could not help but laugh. As though Del Toro himself was mocking the traditional blood-soaked thriller. Of course I could very well be wrong here. And if so, it wouldn't be the first time.

Perfect Days (2023)

This Film Really Works

[8/10 · 29 February 2024]

'Perfect Days' works and works well. This despite a 'plot' that promises to be dull as gray on gray. The chief character is a man who cleans Tokyo's toilets day after day after day. And we, the viewers, are taken along with him on each and every one of those days. On some days, incidents occur that break up the monotony of these repeated journeys. On other days, nothing. Our hero's weekends are only slightly more interesting. And even here, each Saturday and Sunday is lived out precisely the same as those that preceded them. And likely those that will follow.

So then, Why does this film work? I don't know for certain, but it here are some possible answers.

1. The toilet cleaner played to perfection by Koji Yakusho is extremely likable. Though he says little, we somehow see his heart and we know that it is a large one. There is a grace to his actions. A kindness in his eyes. In his gestures. We care about him and wish him the best. And so we watch and weigh his every repetitive move. Without growing bored.

2. Director Wim Wenders is wise enough to move the film at a changing pace. The repetitive days are shown in increasingly abbreviated fashion. The days of random and interesting incidents result in a distinct slowing down. A good thing, as it gives us a wider window into the makeup of our protagonist.

3. The film's takeaway. There is much to consider following the film's final credits. The film's later scenes delve deeper into the 'who' and the 'why' of our 'hero'. Some of us might instantly react with an, 'Ah hah'. Others might require some time to mull it over. Still others might miss it entirely, and for what it's worth, they might well be right. The 'Ah hah'; it was mine. The person with whom I saw it had no such reaction. But liked the film every bit as much.

I strongly recommend 'Perfect Days'.

Suspicion (1941)

On SECOND viewing, it's actually better

[8/10 · 28 February 2024]

(Suspicion is available in a restored version on TCM (as of February 2024))

Hitchcock's 'Suspicion' was his second 'woman marries a strange man' film in as many years. 1940's 'Rebecca' was the first. Joan Fontaine is the marrying woman in both films, in Suspicion the husband is played by the enormously charismatic Cary Grant. It is a tighter, shorter, more compelling film than Rebecca. That said, I have to admit to never being much of a fan of the story. Particularly, its ending.

But no longer. I am not going to give away one single thing here. But having watched the film again recently (February 2024) and for the first time in some thirty years, I now think the ending is ... fine. Appropriate. Very much so. It leaves a door open. For all those who think otherwise (and there are plenty of them out there) I recommend screening it again. And when you do, think this: Is Hitchcock having his way with us?

Joan Fontaine is quite good as the sometimes suspicious wife. That she is only sometimes suspicious is the fault of the plot, not Ms. Fontaine. Nigel Bruce (soon to be Sherlock's Doctor Watson) adds life to every scene he is in. But the film belongs to Grant, and he certainly succeeds at playing an out-for-a-good-time fella' who might or might not have a very dark side to him. The cinematography is excellent, brilliantly lit scenes of the British countryside as well as its foreboding seaside cliffs.

So. Not the best of Hitchcock. But definitely good enough.

Rebecca (1940)

Why? Mr. Hitchcock. Why?

[3/10 · 27 February 2024]

(This film has been restored and, as of Feb. 2024, is available on TCM On Demand)

'Rebecca' is not good Hitchcock. From the novel by Daphne DuMaurier it is a tale told slowly and dreamily, when it ought to be crisp and biting. Joan Fontaine is quite good as our heroine who, for some reason, falls head over heels for the depressed and narcissistic widowed British millionaire played in over-the-top fashion by Lawrence Olivier. What befalls her after they wed makes up most of the story.

The story, like many theatrical pieces, is presented in Three Acts.

In Act One the couple meet cutely in Provence, Southern France. There is a comedic flavor to this part of the film, entirely at odds with the rest. I'm not sure if the film might not have been better off without this 'prelude' to the real action of Acts Two and Three.

In Two, the new bride returns to England with her husband only to find herself overwhelmed by the size of his estate and by its house-mistress (Judith Anderson). Here the film slows to a snail's pace. The one saving grace, the appearance of George Sanders as a slimy evil-doer who had some sort of relationship with Olivier's now dead wife. But overall the acting is over-wrought, especially that of Ms. Anderson, a house-keeper so evil, so clearly deranged, no one would keep her in their employ. Act Two is by far the longest chapter, and least entertaining.

As Act Three opens we discover a secret. And it is that secret which will serve as the catalyst for what drives the rest of the film. It introduces what little suspense the film has to offer. Which, if like me you are a fan of Hitchcock, should tell you all you need to know. Little suspense? From Hitchcock? Ok. I'll pass.

But I didn't. Whatever the reason this was the one Hitchcock I'd never seen even once (I've seen the rest many times, even the silent era's), and so I stayed with it all the way to its disturbingly awkward final scene.

That done, I finished my drink, went up to bed, and resolved never to sit through a bad film again. Or, until the next time.

True Detective (2014– )

True Detective: Night Country

[5/10 · 26 February 2024]

'Night Country' is Season Four of 'True Detective'. It is six episodes in length. And though that might not seem excessive, believe me, it is. Though most reviewers have awarded this season high grades, for me it missed, and by quite a lot. Here are the Pro(s) and Con(s).

On the Pro side:

1. The series is brilliantly filmed. As the story takes place during North Alaska's winter (its shortest and darkest days) the film takes on a black and white tonal quality that serves to increase the tension of the plot. Death stalks the darkness. There are moments of true cinematic genius. And if the way that a picture looks is most important to you, I strongly recommend this series.

2. Jodie Foster's performance is phenomenal. One moment hard-bitten and seemingly cruel, the next loving and vulnerable, you cannot take your eyes from her. Her role as police chief of the small Alaskan town pits her against the male-monopolized state bureaucracy; the State Police attempting to gloss over a series of murders.

On the other hand:

1. This is a 'Who Done It'. And as a who-done-it the guilty party must play an important role during the entire telling of the story. For example, if 'The Butler Did It', we cannot first meet the butler in the story's final scene, or be surprised at the very existence of a butler. And while the True Detective 'Who' is not as badly scripted as that, it's close. Too close to be satisfying.

2. The Who-Done-It's 'Done it' is a murder. More than one. And for a murder to be committed there ought to be 'good' reason. And here is the plot's greatest weakness. The viewer is asked to believe in an altruistic / financial situation that is frankly impossible to buy into. There is dirty business going on in that small Alaska town, dirty business resulting in murder. Unfortunately (for me) I bought none of it. Without spoiling it, I have to say that I actually laughed when that business was finally described. It made me instantly think, 'Oh no. No way.'

So then, that's it. Some good stuff here. Some bad.

If you've got six hours to kill you can give it a go.

Or not.

Origin (2023)

Very Good. Not great. But very good.

[8/10 · 15 February 2024]

Ann DuVarney's 'Origins' is the story about the writing of a book. The book itself - 'Caste ... by Isabel Wilkersen' - proposes a theory regarding societal inequities. It is social-class, caste and not race, that dictates who among us is looked upon well, versus those are who deprived of respect and those goodies that go along with it. Now you may agree or disagree with that theory but either way you will find the film an enriching experience. It will leave you to think, to consider possibilities, to perhaps alter your perceptions about today's people and events.

Aujaune Ellis-Taylor is wonderful as the African American author who sets out to determine the accuracy of the class theory. At first her character is hard to convince to take on the task. Events follow, one of which goes a long way in convincing her to begin the hard work. John Bernthal, ordinarily playing hard-bitten characters, is highly likable as the inter-racial, wise and supportive husband.

The film follows the author on her quest to gather information on the subject. She travels. Germany, India, the Southern States. And as she travels she learns. And as she hears tales of injustice, those events are presented to us as short-subjects: The ovens at Auschwitz, an Indian Dalit (lowest class) member neck-high in feces, a conversation with modern-day Germans. There are scenes, instants, that are hard to take. I did find myself looking away from the screen a time or three. But no so difficult as to reduce the value of the film.

If I have a complaint about the film it's this. The events surrounding the author's travels are not nearly as interesting as the information she gathers (the historical scenes / short-subjects we see). There are conversations between the author and family and friends which - though they do shed light on the subject, the theory - could have been accomplished more economically. As in, they go on too long.

In any case do not let anything I've said keep you from experiencing 'Origin'. It's well worth your time.

Brief Encounter (1945)

What More Can be Said .....

[10/10 · 5 February 2024]

(The film has been restored and is currently (Feb. 2024) being presented on HBO/Max. I can think of few better ways to spend 90 minutes.)

What can be said about 'Brief Encounter' that hasn't already been said? It is a classic and is a classic for a reason; it is wonderfully simple. It raises the question: Can people, happily married to others, fall in love with one another? And then the question: And if so, what should or can they do about it? Is the passion of fresh love worth abandoning a love that has weathered many years?

This is early David Lean. It is, relative to the director's later films, a small film, personal. It is masterfully directed, much of it taking place in a small English railroad station; one of the lovers (Leslie Howard) going in one direction, the other (a sublime Celia Johnson) awaiting a train in the opposite direction.

A sub-plot, a sub-theme, concerns itself with the way feelings of love, feelings of passion, are expressed by different classes. The staff at the rail station flirt and argue and flirt some more, always out in the open, always with a chuckle, always with a robust thrill. As opposed to our would-be lovers whose shame and embarrassment haunts them even when no one around them takes notice.

A film to treasure.

The Zone of Interest (2023)

Wanted: More Clarity. Less Cinematic Attention-Calling.

[6/10 · 5 February 2024]

Jonathon Glazer's 'Zone of Interest' needs two things.

1. More Clarity.

2. Less Cinematic Self-Indulgence. Less calling attention to the fact that what we are watching is, indeed, a film.

And I'll tell you why. The subject is too important by far for there to be as much lack of clarity as there is regarding the film's major plot points. Yes, there are times when it's fine for a film-maker to leave it up to the viewer to decide 'yes' or 'no', 'bad' or 'good'. But here we have an example of too much going on throughout the length of the movie that leaves us with a big '?' above our heads.

The story is this. Adjacent to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp there are homes for officers and their families. The camp's Commandant has a wife who adores her life there. And so when her husband is ordered to transfer to another, less attractive camp (can you imagine?) she insists on staying. Her husband may go, but not her. This sets the table for the events that follow.

There are scenes in an animated-like black and white that seem to do nothing for the story. One in particular during which a makeup compact is discovered in the forest. Add to this the a sub-plot regarding a real woman's makeup compact which at first viewing does nothing, but may, in fact, be a major plot point. Or ... not. How these events tie together might be discerned by the genius-viewer, but for most this is one of many examples of the film's trying to be more cute than clear. There are long stretches where the screen is blank; Why? Dunno. There is a terrible horn that blares from time to time; Why? Dunno. Are you getting the idea? I do hope so.

I suppose it would be impossible to not recommend the film. Those scenes that are more easily understood are certainly worth the time. And, in fairness, they do take up much of the running time.

So, sure, go ahead. See it. As they say, 'Couldn't hurt'.

The Gift (VI) (2015)

You Think You Know Where It's Going. But You Don't.

[8/10 · 2 February 2024]

Joel Edgerton's 'The Gift' begins like a film we've all seen before. A handsome couple stalked by a strange and possibly homicidal man or woman; in the case of 'The Gift' a man out of the husband's past. We've seen this scenario in 'Bad Cop' movies, in 'Baby Sitter' movies, in 'Crazed Neighbors' movies. In many of these the stalker is obsessed; obsessed with the beautiful wife, the handsome husband. There is a pet who is placed in peril. There is a grand finale where the stalker gets his or her come-uppance.

Though 'The Gift' begins as such a film, before long we come to have doubts that it will continue down that path. And that, make no mistake, is a good thing. A very good thing. And precisely why the film was as highly rated (by me and others) as it is. There are left and right turns you will not see coming. But when they do, it will be all the more satisfying.

Joel Edgerton does a masterful job as the film's director and co-star: he is the stalker. Rebecca Hall is perfect, absolutely perfect, as the beautiful wife who has suffered in her past. Jason Bateman as the husband of the couple is superb; he epitomizes the young and successful husband; a take-no-prisoners kind of guy, a man who has come a long way and is destined to go even further in the future.

See this film.

Premium Rush (2012)

What a Ride.

[10/10 · 31 January 2024]

'Premium Rush' is great at being what it intends to be. A thrilling ride through Manhattan traffic with a good guy bike messenger (Joseph Gordon Levitt) being chased by a crazed, gambling-obsessed cop (a supremely over-the-top Michael Shannon). That some of the scenes suffer from incredulity, that others show a bit too much computer graphics, will not detract from your enjoyment. Here's ninety minutes of excitement. And that's good. Yes?

A Chinese-American woman needs to get a 'ticket' from uptown Manhattan to downtown's Chinatown. The ticket represents the fact that she paid a bunch of money in order to get her son safe passage from China to The U. S. The ticket must reach Chinatown by 7:00 PM because half-way around the world, at that same moment, a ship is leaving China with or without the little boy. If the ship's crew is notified that the ticket arrived, the boy will sail.

But there is the crazed cop who believes that with the ticket he'll receive cash enough to get out of gambling debt and continue going on with his addiction. Does this make real sense? Actually no. But it's his reason for chasing the ticket and the messenger carrying it to Chinatown. And that's reason enough. Add to this a NYC Cop on a bike who's chasing our hero. Add to that a fellow bike messenger, jealous of our hero, and who somehow comes into possession of the ticket. An add to that a female bike messenger in love with our hero, who chases everyone else who's chasing our hero.

We've got yellow cabs. Cop cars. A bike race through Central Park ...... Jeez, I'm outta breath.

I loved it. But I'm a sucker for NYC movies. Which this definitely is.

All of Us Strangers (2023)

What's Going on Here? I mean, Really.

[3/10 · 31 January 2024]

What's going on in 'All of Us Strangers'? Perhaps you, the reader, know. Because I certainly don't. How little do I know? As soon as I arrived home from viewing the film I Google'd the film's 'explanations' and read a couple. And I swear it, no two explanations were the same. Which says, Don't feel bad if, after you see it, your opinion differs from that of everyone else in the theatre, or in your home. Because your opinion .... hey, it's as good as anyone's.

Our hero (Andrew Scott) lives in a London high-rise building; a building seemingly empty but for him. Until one night he discovers another man at his front door, a man (Paul Mescal) who comes on to him in the first few seconds. Following this two things happen. (1) They begin a passionate physical affair. And (2) the Andrew Scott character visits his childhood home only to discover that his long-dead parents (Claire Foye and Jamie Pell) are not dead at all. Or ... are they? Well ghosts or real the two seem sort of happy to see their son, but not overjoyed. Nor are they supportive of him 'coming out' to them as a gay man. Which would be a dramatic turn if we knew whether they are actually, physically ... present. Which I guess they're not. Which means, What? And important to say here, these are NOT spoilers; I can be, and likely am, completely incorrect in my assessment. In fact the more I think about the film the more my opinion changes. Which might be what the filmmaker wanted. Or ... not.

But I'm sorry. Despite good pacing, intimate cinematography, characters we care about (without knowing anything about them), there are simply too many Question-Marks here. I need to plant my feet on something solid, no matter for how short a time. But I couldn't. And I didn't.

And because of that, I say, Not for me.

But if you're up for it, and I believe that many are, go right ahead.

The Teachers' Lounge (2023)

Brilliant. Absolutely. A Must-See.

[10/10 · 20 January 2024]

'The Teachers' Lounge' is a brilliant piece of film-making. A German film with English subtitles, it has all the suspense and mystery, all the character-types one could want (and more than you might expect). It has a hero we can root for (a young teacher played by the sensational Leone Benesch). It has a cast of children so adept at their profession you will not see even one as acting at all. While on the surface the film is about a middle-school in Germany, the questions the film raises could just as easily be attributed to any society; to a community , a corporation, a country.

When the film opens there is already a problem. There are incidents of theft in the school and the teachers and administration are divided about how the situation can best be dealt with. There are student suspects, teacher suspects, administration suspects. There are those who would give the guilty party(ies) a second chance and those who are committed to 'zero tolerance'. There is an investigation that, to some, is going terribly wrong, while others support its aggressive nature.

And then ..... and then there is another theft, the ramifications of which send the entire school into a downward spiral from which it seems no one will or can recover. Or survive. There are questions of privacy, questions of 'freedom of speech / the press', issues relating to economic class-structure, presumed versus proven guilt, and on we go. I found that I could see something of myself in various characters at various points of the film; and not always characters in agreement with one another.

The film's ninety minute length is a testimonial to its film-maker Ilker Catak; so much fit into a small time period, and fit in as expertly as it is.

See this film.

The Boys in the Boat (2023)

A "FEEL GOOD' FILM THAT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD.

[6/10 · 18 January 2024]

'The Boys in the Boat' is a pretty good film. Not great. But an enjoyable watch. Directed by George Clooney and starring Joel Edgerton as a square-jawed rowing coach, it is a kind of film we've all seen before. The film during which an underdog chess player, or dancer, or football team, or baseball team, a painter, a tailor, a loser-at-love, perseveres and overcomes all odds on their path to success. Here it's the members of the Eight-Man Crew; our heroes from the University of Washington making it all the way to the 1936 Olympics (in Nazi Berlin) in search of gold.

The film is chock-full of impossible to believe feel good moments; the boy meets girl, the boy jumps out the window of the girl's dorm room, the bad man who turns out to be not bad at all, the father figure who saves the day for the 'fatherless' boy, the last minute problems somehow overcome, and on and on. And I cannot say that I didn't wince with every corny moment because I truly did. But the film's action scenes are so well produced and directed that I found myself forgiving its many overly sentimental moments.

You, however, might not. And I would understand if you said, 'Enough, I'm outta here'. And it's likely that many did.

But not I. I stayed. Much to my surprise.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

It's a Prequel to 'Alien'. That Explains A Lot.

[5/10 · 14 January 2024]

Confession. I did not realize that Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus' was a prequel to his 'Alien'. I saw the film twice and did not realize it. I do not know what that says about me (probably a lot, perhaps too much) but the truth's the truth. I did not know. And it was only 'today', 24 hours after that second viewing, that I put the pieces together.

A crew is sent to a distant planetary moon in order to see whether it can be colonized. For certain members of the crew there is another - more important - objective, to identify whether the long ago inhabitants of this moon were somehow the 'creators' of Earth's civilization. And, if so, might those creators still be alive and present on this moon. And if so, could they answer questions about the origins of life.

The crew's objectives are, in fact, met. But something else inhabits this moon, and it was here that I grew confused. Our old friend 'Alien' is there as well. And only now that I understand the relationship of this film to the Alien-Franchise does the creature's presence make sense. I kept thinking, 'Huh'? Where are we? When are we? And I think it was that confusion that distracted me as the story unfolded.

We've got a fine Edris Elba as the ship's captain. A great performance by Michael Fassbender as a robot about whom we come to care a great deal. Naomi Rapace is a heroine who wears increasingly less as the film moves on. Not so for Charlize Theron as the corporate representative to the mission; her goal to monetize the results of the expedition.

As I said I might've liked 'Prometheus' more if I'd known what I now know. But the good news is that, Should you choose to see it, you already know.

So, no excuses.

American Fiction (2023)

Disappointed

[4/10 · 14 January 2024]

I was disappointed in Cord Jefferson's 'American Fiction'. And let me quickly get this out of the way; it's possible that my expectations were too high. There was so much buzz about this film during the past month I doubt anything could have lived up to my anticipation. And if that's the case: I'm sorry.

What disappointed me? One, the film's lack of energy; there was, for me, a sort of shuffling through the story as opposed to the characters' taking big broad steps. Then Two, I was surprised at how much of a (dysfunctional) family story this was , as opposed to a story more edgy in a more universal way. And Three, the main character - a novelist - has to learn something about himself over the course of the film, but I'm not convinced that he does. And if he does, I wonder how long it'll last. Worse still, we are told what he will learn early in the film; a Jimmy Walker Scotch Liquor metaphor.

In order to pay his mother's mounting medical bills our black novelist 'Monk' Ellison (Jeffrey Wright) writes a trashy black-exploitation story under a pseudonym. When the book becomes a tremendous success (monetarily) he is faced with owning-up to the fact that he wrote it, or somehow keeping it undercover. First, the fact that he can keep it secret is handled in a most awkward way; something about his being a felon on the run. But more important, this problem puts him at odds with his new girlfriend (a radiant Erika Alexander), his brother (Sterling K. Brown) and mother (Leslie Uggams), other novelists, his agent and publishers, film-makers, but most of all, with himself.

There is a scene early on where two employees of a Publishing House ooh and ahh to Monk about his wonderful (trashy) book. The scene is fantastic. Crisp and clear in its racism, in its total lack of sincerity, in their willingness to sell out for the sake of big bucks. And I wish there were many more scenes like this one. Scenes with the back and forth pacing that proved both edgy and hilarious. There were a couple of such encounters; but too few by far.

Instead we get family problems. A gay brother. A mother with dementia. A sister's early death. A lying and cheating father. None of which, by the way, would be any different were the characters not black. No, what we have is a family of doctors (2) and one novelist. And I'm not altogether certain about whether I'm supposed to like them and, if so, root for their problems to be solved.

But, fact is, it is that lack of (my) caring that kept me at arm's length with 'American Fiction'.

Saltburn (2023)

I enjoyed it. Why? you ask. I just did.

[6/10 · 10 January 2024]

I enjoyed Emerald Fennell's 'Saltburn'. I can't say why exactly but I stayed with it up to its utterly bizarre final scene. Though now that I've said that, the final scene was actually very much in keeping with the rest of the film: strange. Very.

I had the feeling I'd seen a film like Saltburn before. A tale of a stranger entering a household, 'seducing' each member of the family, and gradually taking the family over. In fact, I did. It was Terrance Stamp in Passolini's 'Teorema' who serves the role of the seductive outsider who wins over a bourgeois family. In 'Six Degrees of Separation' it is Will Smith in a similar setting. And there were others. Babysitter films whose names escape me.

But here it is Barry Keoghan's Oliver Quick who, as a seemingly quiet, friendless, ordinary young man at Oxford, comes to spend his summer at the castle of a new wealthy friend (Felix, played by Jacob Elordi). Once we arrive at the castle the action picks up, with each family member (Rosamund Pike as the mother, Richard E. Grant as father, and various others) falling under Oliver Quick's spell.

Now none of these characters is the least bit likable. And we are never absolutely sure of whether Oliver Quick is weaving his web intentionally or not. And, if he is, is the family's lack of warmth or caring worthy of our sympathies? These issues may well cause the viewer to give up, to leave before the film's attempt at resolution. But I stayed with it. I stayed with it in spite of my feelings of distance from the film's storyline.

I was, I guess, curious to find out. Simple as that. How will this turn out?

And find out, I did.

At least I think so.

Manhunter (1986)

A Fine Hannibal Lecter Film. Also, the FIRST Hannibal Lecter Film.

[8/10 · 29 December 2023]

'Manhunter' is a fine film. Director Michael Mann did a great job at making this, the initial Hannibal Lecter film, both terrifying and creepy. The fact that three Lecter films came later (including the Award Winning Silence of the Lambs) does not take away from this film's brilliance. Other Lecter films - 'Hannibal' and 'Red Dragon' - do not measure up to this 'Manhunter'.

The later three films feature / star Anthony Hopkins in the 'lead' role as, in fact, Hopkins' Lecter is at each film's center. Not so with 'Manhunter'. Here Lecter (Brian Cox) is in prison and in a few scant scenes agrees to assist FBI Agent Will Graham (William Peterson) in capturing a serial killer. And for me, that serial killer (Tom Noonan) is far creepier than any villain in the later trilogy. He is tall and gangly and reminds one of a giant insect. His head is oddly shaped; a jaw that seems to announce that he is capable of biting one's head off. And while the killer has many victims, there is none more vulnerable than his blind co-worker (Joan Allen); the killer's movements around her still unsuspecting body are agonizingly horrific.

Peterson is fine as FBI Agent Graham. His character is a tortured soul as the film opens and only grows more-so as it moves on. Without spoiling the film's final scenes, Director Mann has you holding your breath in fear for the blind would-be-victim.

See this film.

The Iron Claw (2023)

DYSFUNCTION. THY NAME IS VON ERICH

[7/10 · 28 December 2023]

The Iron Claw describes a most dysfunctional family. In truth it is, in many ways a story we've seen and heard before. The father who bullies the whole of his family and who, as a result, sees that family come apart at the seams. In fact, much of this family dies. And in the case of two of its members, die by their own hands.

What makes this telling unique is that the family is involved in Professional Wrestling. It is the family of Fritz Von Erich, an arch heel during his wrestling days, a successful wrestling promoter during the time that this story takes place. He promises his sons that each will one day be the Wrestling World Champion, and in doing so, he sets each of three of his sons against each other. There is a fourth son, altogether different from his older three brothers, and if there is a tragic victim in this story it is him, Michael Von Erich. It is musician Michael's fate to be burdened by a physical standard that he can never begin to attain.

The story is told in the Point Of View of the 'oldest' of the sons: Kevin Von Erich (Zac Efron). And to a large degree the story is his. He is likable and well-put-together. His weakness lies in his inability to verbally promote himself, this weakness assuring him of not being the father's favorite. His meeting and suitoring of his to-be-wife Pam (Lilly James) is one of the film's strongest moments. It is an American Love Story at its best. Their love for one another is real as real can be and, more important, flies in the face of the his family's histrionics.

As father Fritz, Holt McCallany is superb. You hate him as much as wrestling crowds once despised his heel character; a post WWII Nazi Officer. As the boys' helpless mother, too cowed by religion and by her husband to do anything to help them, Maura Tierney is frustratingly wonderful (a compliment).

If the film falls short it is in its pacing. The film's first hour or so concerns the brothers' climb to fame, and it is during that climb that we should have been given more of a clue as to the their emotional problems. As we watch it is only Michael, the musician, for whom we have reason for concern. And so as the family unravels in its second hour we are unprepared for the extent that this family is doomed. We didn't know how bad 'bad' actually was.

The wrestling sequences are A+. That these are actors and not pro-wrestlers (yes, I know Pro-Wrasslin' is acting) is amazing. The matches are short but for their given time they are as good as you can see on weekly TV. The depictions of wrestlers Ric Flair, The Fabulous Freebirds, Bruiser Brody, and Gino Hernandez are close to spot-on. That said, as we all know that Pro-Wrestling's outcomes are pre-planned, I found that the characters' joy or anguish about the matches' results to be strange. As a wrestling fan, I had to keep myself from laughing at their reactions at winning or losing.

This is easily the best Pro-Wrestling film ever made. It is also a far better film than I expected. Also far better than its awful title would have you believe. It is an American Tragedy told in a surprising way, in a surprising environment.

A film worth seeing. Particularly if you enjoy Pro-Wrestling. Or are even remotely curious.