July 31, 2023

Oppenheimer (IMAX): If you listen to the hype and the social media buzz, this is the movie that was going to “save Hollywood”. Well this and Barbie! Christopher Nolan creates memorable movies, many of which I thoroughly enjoy, he is one of the directors that I seek out, like many other audience members. For me, I think that he is a clever writer and writes quality scripts. I really like that he is a proponent for using film and IMAX cameras rather than digital (like a James Cameron). This was a highly anticipated release starring a who’s who of Hollywood, notably Cillian Murphy (a Nolan staple taking the lead role), Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Florence Pugh, Kenneth Branaugh, Jason Clarke and others. Some cast members will be surprises, like those I haven’t seen in a long time like Josh Hartnett, Matthew Modine (even though Stranger Things brought him back to the screen) or David Krumholtz, who played an Elf in the Santa Claus back in 1994.

The key performance is taken on and embraced by Murphy, who has shown his ability to carry a project in his work in Peaky Blinders. His piercing blue eyes and expressive face show much of what he is thinking without the need for dialog. This is a complicated man, who has lead a life that many can’t imagine. Intellectually he was brilliant, as he knew or was friends with giants in his field at the time like Einstein. He was more than just the Manhattan Project, which was the development by the US of the atomic bomb, in a race with the Germans during WWII.

For me, I am not sure whether it was the hype, or the expectations but for me I didn’t leave this three-hour epic feeling all pumped about it. I enjoyed it. Nolan likes to jump around in time, here using the technique of having black and white footage, in addition to regular colour and then used hair colour and styling for Oppenheimer to keep the viewer mostly on track of where they are in time. Murphy sports curlier and longer hair early on as opposed to shorter greyer hair later. Without disclosing too much, there was more political intrigue in this movie than I was expecting. Then again, I didn’t know the history of Oppenheimer himself, but was more than aware of McCarthyism during the 1950s which remains a black mark on the US treatment of its own citizens. I was reminded of Imitation Game and Sully and other such movies in how people who are by all rights heroes are treated once that time has passed. One would like to think that their actions speak for their loyalties speak to their true allegiances. Emily Blunt has an impressive scene where she gets an opportunity to voice her true feelings in how her husband was being treated.

Still, I was aware of the fact that much of this movie is a drama, and that the IMAX technology is wasted for most of it. Sure, there were some sweeping aerial shots but generally you don’t need this technology for testimony at a hearing. Does it take away from it? Not at all. But for me it means that a movie like Mission Impossible should be seen more in IMAX than this one. Apparently Tom Cruise was lobbying theatres hard to have them keep the IMAX theatres for his film, but Nolan had already secured the times for this one. Nolan won out.

In the end, I turned to Alison (we went together with two of her friends) and we all agreed that we enjoyed it. It is well told, well acted with a quality script. I had expected from earlier reports of those seeing early screenings on how “powerful” it was (“like a horror” it was described) to see more footage from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In truth, for Oppenheimer once he delivered his weapons of mass destruction, he only heard about their use on the radio. It was a turning point in human civilization; the beginning of the nuclear age. Despite later conflicts, like Vietnam or even now Ukraine there has been no use of nuclear weapons. Oppenheimer himself was not convinced that this was a good thing, but it was a necessary thing. He provided the weapon, it was politicians who decided if and how those should be used. The advancement made in science to get to this point is remarkable. Oppenheimer was a master project manager, and managed time after time to get the most out of his people. Interestingly the German attitude towards Jewish people impacted their ability to win this nuclear race, because many of the top minds, like Oppenheimer, were Jewish. This is one of the movie events of the year. I would encourage everyone to watch. It’s not a movie for 17yos. or those who have no interest in history. But it is another quality edition to the catalog of films from Christopher Nolan.

John Wick 4: If you have watched the previous three chapters of this unexpected hit series, then you know exactly what you are going to get with this latest edition. Bearded Keanu Reeves will be utilizing many of the skills that he acquired in creating Neo in The Matrix, in (how do you describe it) ploughing through an endless stream of assassins intent on killing him, with him wearing nothing more than a dark suit. Yes, that suit has magical bullet proof capabilities, even though it is astounding to me that despite all the bullets and swords directed towards John Wick that none hit his hands or ankles. But I shouldn’t ask those questions. John yet again takes a beating. There are endless head shots made against the bad guys, some of whom where similatr suits to John.

Does it really matter what the plot is in this instance? Suffice it to say that John is put in a position where there is a “winner take all” proposition. In order to get there, John must overcome sizeable odds. That is an understatement in the extreme. I won’t delve too deeply into some characters, however I do have to mention one blind character who uses a cane as a weapon. But he is much more than that. But how?? If you know that he is blind, and Wick was very aware of it, isn’t it relatively easy to take him out at a distance? Apparently not.

In the end, this delivers predictably on what is expected. It was decent. I cringed at the thought of seeing yet another shooting blood bath and rampant destruction. There were a couple of twists and turns. I have to admit that I really enjoyed the scenes in Paris. Such a treat to see familiar territory. So if you’ve never seen John Wick before, this is not the place to start. For those who wish to see more, then by all means take this in and see where it goes.

July 24, 2023

Extraction: I had a couple of positive views about the 2020 Chris Hemsworth in my circle and decided to see this on Netflix. I note that there is akready Extraction 2 out as well. I will further note that I haven’t watched a lot of Chris Hemsworth movies. I certainly haven’t sought him out in the Marvel series of movies as Thor.

In this film, he plays a single ex-military mercenary who needs money and seeks out dangerous jobs in order to make a living. He carries with him some baggage which the viewer better understands as the movie carries on. The life of Tyler Rake (Hemsworth) is complex, but his motives are simple enough. Do a job, if he is sober enough, and move on. This job involves finding the son of an East Indian imprisoned drug lord, who has gone missing. The drug lord has threatened his own right hand man that if his son isn’t found straight away, that the guy’s own son would be at risk.

Rack is part of a team that is charged with obtaining the young man. Let the fun begin with all of these armed folks trying to deal with this young man. Interestingly the same men who are very careful not to be killing children, don’t seem to have any issue with killing the father of many children. In many ways this is similar to a John Wick film with the carnage of those involved. Like John Wick, Rack can seem to take a beating and still continue on. One wonders about all this effort and all these lives impacted for the sake of one child. Of course there is a tie in with Rack and his own story. Family is a big part of the underlying theme. There are plenty of action sequences, lots of shooting, chases, helicopters and the whole ball of wax. Is this worth watching? For me it was okay. Alison told me that she couldn’t stay with it and I can understand why. I cannot recommend in the same way that it was brought to my attention. I feel no need to seek out the sequel. The emotional hook that I read about wasn’t really there for me in the motivation and ultimate choices of Rack. So, as a viewer, one gets to make their own choices.

The Secretary: James Spader before his career on TV as Red Reddington in The Blacklist was known for more quirky roles. Among them included the 1989 Sex Lies Videotape with Andie McDowell. He had some less than mainstream sexual appetites, but he was a troubled soul. Other roles like Bad Influence or White Palace, have similar stories for him. So he is familiar with the territory with 2002 film on Netflix. His co-star in this movie is Maggie Gyllenhaal, who plays a young woman looking for a job. Spader plays Mr Grey who is a sole practioner lawyer. Maggie plays Lee, who lives with her mother and just wants to have some independence.

Mr Grey (no relation to Shades of Grey) is a man who seems to go through secretaries with regularity and he is looking to bring on someone new. But he is a lonely guy. He develops an attachment with his secretary, and she for him. Things unfold.

This smaller independent film shows that people, in whatever desires that they have, can find one another. They don’t have to conform with societal norms. Spader shows his own vulnerability while Gyllenhall is able to channel the woman able to better asset herself and recognize who she is and where she belongs. Lee turns that assertiveness into better understanding herself and her value. She becomes more confident, and it shows in many aspects of her life. This movie isn’t for everyone. It can be a bit slow. Not a lot happens, but then again life for most people doesn’t have car chases and gun fights. It is filled with routine, work, weekends, and everyday interactions. We meet people, I think, under the saying for “a season, a reason or a lifetime”. Certainly this can be true in romantic relationships. Sometimes it takes some time to figure just which one that someone may be for you.

July 17, 2023

Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1: Well Tom Cruise has done it one more time. Last summer it was post-pandemic sequel Top Gun Maverick. Adding to his string of watchable, exciting, blockbusters he adds for summer 2023 the seventh installment in the MI Series. It all started, remarkably, back in 1996. The core cast has been there from the beginning include Simon Pegg (as Benji), Ving Rhimes (as Luther) with other pieces that are added from one episode to the next. These are important pieces with various upper levels of the intelligence agency, like Alec Baldwin, or Jeremy Renner, and Henry Czerny who plays Kittridge. Notably for me this series regained some energy with the addition of Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa Faust. She joined in 2015 for episode 5 Rogue Nation. She played a British agent who was in a precarious position of playing both sides between The Syndicate (bad guys) and the UK and US powers that be, including the the clandestine Mission Impossible team.

In more episodes new pieces like Vanessa Kirby (as power broker Alanna) and for this one Hayley Atwell (called Grace in this movie) are added. Each play key roles and add tremendously to the watchability of the story. But let’s be real, this series is about the stunts, the settings, the car chases and technology. This episode has it all, jumping from one heart-pumping scene to another with ease. Of course many of the scenes and the timing will have a viewer role their eyes, but that is the point. This episode also adds some unexpected twists and turns when you are dealing with Artificial Intelligence. This doesn’t give away very much. The rest I won’t detail any further because this is a movie best seen without too many expectations, nor knowledge into where it is going.

After watching, I decided to re-watch the Rogue Nation episode and was surprised to see how closely the two mirrored each other in structure. But of course the basic principles do remain the same. I have to admit that from the beginning I do find the reliance of the face-peeling masks which is ultimately just silly throughout the series more than a bit far fetched. Alison tells me this was a common practice in the original TV series that was not watched by me. But all this to say, find the largest screen you can (I saw in IMAX in a packed theatre) on Tuesday and cannot recommend more highly for 2.5 hours of entertainment. Go see it. Strap in. Have some popcorn if that is your thing. I tip my cap to you Mr Cruise (at 61yo!!!) for what I am sure will line your pockets in ways that are no longer necessary given your previous success! Dead Reckoning Part 2 will be released June 28th, 2024.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3: Moving from one very successful series that adds a memorable, watchable installment we go to a series that, for me, could have stopped after a single episode. Those who read my movie reviews know that I am generally not a superhero movie fan and less a Marvel fan than I am for DC Comics. Query whether the Guardians are really superheroes to begin with? They aren’t really in a strict definition of it, but then again I am not prepared to debate the point. The original movie from 2014 was a surprise hit because it was campy, had new fresh characters and had a really good catchy soundtrack.

Of note, there is a tie in between this movie and Mission Impossible in the cast. Pom Klementieff, who plays Mantis in Guardians (pictured on the far left above) plays Paris in MI7. Also of note I saw that Karen Gillan who plays Nebula (far right pictured above) is not wearing the form fitting clothes from earlier, and earlier films like Jumanji. The online speculation is that she is in real life pregnant. The movie producers have seemed to accommodate her, to their credit.

As for the plot of this movie, we have a lot of backstory to the Bradley Cooper voiced raccoon named Rocket. It’s far more backstory for a talking raccoon that I ever needed to see. But like Rogue Nation where Benji was taken and in trouble, the Guardians stick together and try to help out their own. In some movies it is just done better than others in how it is done. For me I didn’t need to know this and I was overly engaged in it. In short, I don’t care enough about these characters. I cannot recommend seeing this, and for me it was forgotten almost as sokn as the closing credits (including the stay-to-the-end vignette with Chris Pratt addressing a question that I didn’t even consider). So while this movie seemed to come and go in the theatres without much fanfare, it has still grossed $842M worldwide and $358M domestically. Domestically this is third for the year. Behind Super Mario Bros (!!) and Spider Man cartoon. Clearly I am not the targeted audience for movies these days. Apparently, according to the ad I just saw on TV today, that this movie was certified 96% FRESH on Rotten Tomatoes. Certainly I would be part of the 4%, and I cannot imagine (nor need to) are more positive about this movie.

Next on my list of films to see in the theatre will be Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer.

Ted Lasso: I finally had access to Apple TV and have been able to see some series that I have been meaning to watch. First on the list was the popular Ted Lasso that many feel is a must see. I finished Season 1 and have the following comments. Did I like this? Sure. It is a feel-good type of series with the very likeable Jason Sudekis playing a gosh-gee-willikers southern american football coach that was hired by a British soccer team. Of course he knows nothing about British football, nor does he know anything about British customs or vernacular. He brings with him an assistant coach. He inherits a team of players, and some other employess within the organization.

Most importantly he has a female owner who is newly and most public divorced from the former owner, and she obtained the team as part of the divorce settlement. He is a cad throughout this first season, showing himself time and again in places which serve to antagonize the new owener, who Ted calls “Boss”. Early in episode one Boss admits that she brought Ted on board to fail. Her aim, like many divorced and recently hurt ex-spouses, is to hurt her former partner by destroying something that he cared about. The dynamics between the owner, the coach, the assistants and the players are what the series is about. It is done well. But is this must-see TV?

For me, this is a series that follows in a long line of movies and series like this. The TV series Coach comes immediately to mind with Craig T Nelson as the basketball coach. He had an assistant coach in much the same vein (played by Jerry Van Dyke). Other movies and series would include The Natural, Bad News Bears, The White Shadow, Hoosiers, Black Sunday etc. In each the coach has to mold a team, deal with the characters involved and the season at hand. There are challenges and plenty of sports cliches are used. The one difference with Ted the coach is that he is about team building, honesty, friendship and sportsmanship. He isn’t a win-at-all-cost kind of guy. He remains consistent despite the challenges he and his people endure. This is reflected on a personal level for him as well. I enjoy this. There are some characters that you care about, and hope that they do well. I will look forward to seeing more as Season 2 gets streamed. So far, this has been good.

July 10th, 2023

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves: Can you imagine what the pitch was for this picture? So we have a board game from the 1970s which everyone over 40yo will know some geeks who used to play this on weekends and throughout the summer, ensuring that they don’t get any sun. I note that Stranger Things have had the main players playing Dungeons and Dragons. The producers cannot blame the cast, as they have acquired the talents of some A-list actors like Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Hugh Grant, Bradley Cooper and Rege Jean Page from Bridgerton fame. So what happened? Because this is an utter mess. You would think that a movie with a title that is WAY too long, but has Dragons in it would have more dragons! The first dragon on my count shows up at 52 mins!! Huh? You also have Michelle Rodriguez singing. Yes, you read that right. Chris Pine’s singing, if it is actually his voice, will be challenging Pierce Brosnan (Mama Mia) and Russell Crowe (Les Mis) for most cringe-worthy. But this is a sidelight to the main plotline. Basically, Pine plays a smart-mouthed, charming rouge who has a daughter for whom he has been separated. His wife had passed away earlier for reasons that Pine feels responsible. Pine then meets up with other random characters who must make his tiny band which has at least a modest tie into the game (where a group of players with various skills would take on a task, they using various skills like warrior, fighting, magic, thieving etc).

There are of course bad people, seeking power and looking to gain with others losing. Enter the cad Hugh Grant who has taken care of Pine’s daughter, acting as an “uncle” while poisoning her mind about her father.

All this to say that this movie was way too long, way too convoluted, and simply silly. If you are a fan of the game, you will be disappointed, because it really doesn’t have anything to do with the game. If you like medieval fantasy, you will also be disappointed because this is non-sensical and silly. If you hope to see some good acting with stars who are capable of doing so, you will also be disappointed because there isn’t any story or writing provided that gives these performers any opportunity to show what they can do. So overall, an effort that is a head-scratcher and not really surprising to be on Netflix so close to its theatrical release. Don’t be fooled by the Top 10 viewing as listed by Netflix. I would say, take a pass.

The Black Phone: sometimes watching movies and reviewing can be pleasant, and one feels as though you are able to suggest watchable and memorable content for viewers who don’t always watch a lot of movies. The question can come up from time to time from people to me as to “what should I watch out there?” After a week like this, I am saddened that I don’t have much positive news to respond to that. In this instance, Crave is showing this thriller which is reminiscient of other movies notably Silence of the Lambs, or even Stranger Things, but not nearly as good despite the reference. The premise is one of young people disappearing with regularity from a local high school in Colorado. There has been a black van that has been rumoured to be involved, but there haven’t been any witnesses. They kids are calling him The Grabber. The intrigue begins.

Underlying this background is a young male student and his sister with just a Dad, as Mom had passed away earlier and Dad (played by creepy Jeremy Davies) is often drunk and abusive towards his children. There is a supernatural angle to this story as the younger sister has dreams that sometimes come true. Our young man, who has been friends with one of the boys who was just taken, seems to have a connection with a number of the other missing teens.

So what’s with the title? Well, without giving away too much, the old style dial phone is in a room and we are told by the bad guy “it hasn’t worked in years”. It rings and brings in another supernatural element to the story which is more than a little bit strange. Ethan Hawke is also in this movie. He is one of the more versatile actors of this age. He can play a variety of characters and this one is quite different for him. In the end, there were aspects of this that didn’t make a lot of sense, like if there was a black van involved, perhaps the police would be better able to track down a black van parked in an open garage on an ordinary suburban street. Go figure. Perhaps setting this in the late 70s with the accompanying music would explain the lack of technology used by the police. Overall, I cannot recommend, and found the end quite disappointing. I think that there has to be a better way for a young man to assert himself, and grow in character that doesn’t involve a set up like this. Oh, and if you’re wondering, if you choose to engage in this anyway, you would be pardoned in wondering why on earth the pattern of the bad guy was interrupted by the pattern he had established with this situation from before. The movie is a pass for me.

Tom Segura: Sledgehammer: I am a Tom Segura fan. I really like his humour and I think that he is hilarious. He is married to comedian Christina P who I also think is hilarious. Both have a number of specials on Netflix and Youtube. I think that Segura’s earlier work in specials like Completely Normal, Disgraceful and Ball Hog are all very funny with many laugh-out-loud moments. For me anyway, and humour is a very personal thing. I like Jim Jeffries, Jimmy Carr, Daniel Tosh, George Carlin and others who are similar,and all of whom I have seen live. I have been to Just for Laughs, and other comedy festivals.

Maybe it was me anticipating this so much, and building it up in my mind, but this special fell flat for me. There was a discussion about his two young boys, and another chat about his father, but none of them had me in stitches with his familiar delivery. I have laughed more on his more recent appearances on his wife’s podcast Your Mom’s House which can be very funny as well. So feel feel to catch it. It isn’t all that long. I do think that there are other things that he has done, or his wife, that are funnier.

July 3rd, 2023

Being Mary Tyler Moore: Crave has put out a new HBO documentary entitled Being Mary Tyler Moore. For those of us who grew up in the 1970s, it seems I was always aware of the show Mary Tyler Moore. In it, the single Mary is working for a newsroom in Minneapolis MN, as an associate producer. There is a memorable ensemble cast, with notable stars like Ed Asner, Betty White, Ted Knight, Valerie Harper and Cloris Leachman. Ed Asner plays Lou Grant. Valerie Harper plays Rhoda Morganstern. There were numerous spin offs from the original show which aired from 1970 to 1976. But this documentary is more than about this show.

Mary Tyler Moore of course was also the star of the show, The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961-1966). She was brought on as a newcomer because she had pluck and worked well with Dick. She had very good comedic timing in her previous TV work. She had been working steadily since finishing college. Born in 1936, she was 25yo when she landed the role on the very influential comedy show with Dick Van Dyke and blossomed from there.

This documentary was well done and shows the context in which made Mary a poster woman for her generation. Moving from the dutiful wife as Laura Petrie, she transitioned in the early 70s with the women’s lib movement in full swing with protests and Gloria Steinam in full force. Mary was the smart, single woman on her own in the big city without the need for a man. She dated. She worked. She had a male boss. Juggling it all. She showed all of America in her show that the balance was possible. Her personal life reflected her TV life, as she divorced her first husband, for whom she had a son, and then later married again. She was an Emmy award winning actress but also a mother and a wife. And what a full life that she led. She was nominated for an Oscar, in Ordinary People, directed by Robert Redford. She like everyone has had her challenges like losing her son long before any parent would ever want. She had divorces. She had health challenges. She died at the age of 80yo in 2017. But her impact on TV, and the body of work that she left behind made her a one of a kind.

Full Swing – a Netflix series: Talk about timing for a Netflix series. They’re first foray into the golf world just happened to be the year when there was a rival league to the PGA tour that came into existence. LIV is a rival league that was the brain child of ex-PGA player Greg Norman. He managed to get backers from controversial Saudi Arabia government. In turn, they set up a rival league and then threw around millions of dollars to star PGA players for them to switch allegiances. Some switched and others as we see, were in the middle of contemplating in doing so.

Early on players like Justin Thomas and Brooks Koepka are the focal point. You note that Koepka who had suffered from injuries and his game had tailed off (in his results). They both fly around in private jets and live in lavish properties that most ordinary watchers won’t even have a frame of reference on. All for being able to hit a little white ball better than anyone else in the world. It is a skill for which they are dearly compensated. It is difficult to have sympathy for a group of millionaires who fight over whether they should be accepting more millions from a dubious source. For me, I like the idea that the party which generates the revenue (the players), gets to keep more of the revenue. Why was it that this is the one major sport where the participants are only paid in the event IF they reach the final two days (make the cut). If they don’t, they get nothing; no flights paid for, no hotels, no health insurance, no guaranteed appearance money. Does that make sense when TV networks pay billions of dollars to the organizer of the touraments?

The more compelling story for me was with John Dahmen, who seemed to be quite accepting of the fact that he wasn’t in the upper echelons of the game. He never expected to win, especially in the majors, because he didn’t think that he was as good. Naturally on the way to the PGA tour and obtaining his card he would have won many tournaments. He is a winner. But this episode shows him as being willing to be 30th in the world. All of this background then leads to him being the third round leader at the 2022 US Open. Maybe he can be a top player. He finished 10th. What this series doesn’t show is the guy who struggles for his card, and lives out of his car driving from event to event. The LIV discussion is interesting to be sure. Phil Mickelson, Patrick Reed, Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia, Ian Poulter, Bryson Dechambeau, and then Cam Smith (Number 2 of the world) all got paid by LIV. If you are a golf fan, you get to see some behind-the-scenes views with some of the best players. You hear Rory McIlroy bad mouth Phil Mickelson. You hear Dustin Johnson feel strongly that his legacy isn’t in any way impaired because he was a Number 1 for a lot of weeks and has already won his majors. It is also interesting that post filming that in the past few weeks that Brooks Koepka has won the PGA Championship and then the PGA Tour and LIV have merged, a decision that was undertaken by PGA leadership without any discussion or direction from its loyal members. The plot thickens and Season 2 should be even more compelling as the fall out from all these things come to light from the players themselves.

June 26, 2023

Still: A Michael J Fox Movie: Canadian Michael J Fox became a household name on television in his breakout role of Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties. We learn in this engaging documentary with the star that he was nearing the end of his commitment to pursuing his dream of being an actor before that role. He had no money. He had no jobs coming in, despite having some roles when he was younger, but none of them paying very well. But then the world turned in his favour. Despite the producer Gary David Goldberg and the studio NOT wanting Fox, he went onto the stage in an Eninem moment, and slayed the crowd, convincing them with his wit and charm. He landed the job. Like winning the lottery, his life then turns around completely.

Then while filming Family Ties, he is offered the film role in Steven Speilberg’s Back to the Future of Marty McFly. It turns out that Speilberg’s first choice Eric Stolz was not working out, and Spielberg wanted to reshoot every scene that Stolz had completed. Goldberg wasn’t prepared to let Fox take a hiatus in order to film it, so instead Fox filmed both the movie AND the TV series at the same time. He admits that he felt that both roles suffered and he didn’t think that they were very good. He was wrong. His already soaring star left the galaxy, and he was one of the most bankable and successful stars. All from this small of stature young man (then 24yo) with the killer smile and likeable personality.

Life doesn’t always follow any set rules. Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that Fox has Parkinson’s disease. He first learned about it when he was 29yo in 1991. He kept working all the while movie after movie and show after show. The movies included two sequels for Back to the Future, Casualties of War and Doc Hollywood. He met and married Tracy Pollan from Family Ties, and when first diagnosed had son Sam in 1989. Twin girls arrive in 1995, and then youngest daughter in 2001. He went public with the disease in 1998. He worked on Spin City. In total he did 172 episodes of Family Ties and a further 103 episodes of Spin City.

What struck me most in this very watchable film was his gait. He struggles with walking and balance. He must fall an awful lot, and that is reflected in the physio sessions he is taking throughout the film, and the myriad of injuries and broken bones he has suffered. He is sporting a puffy left eye which is explained. The other thing that comes across loud and clear is his love and devotion to Tracy. He has a tight family, and the children rally around him. For Tracy she, I am certain, never signed up for this when she wed a mega-star. I will imagine that they have had many challenging days. But when told she said to Fox “in sickness and in health”. She is remarkable. From early on when the diagnosis was first given, Fox was hitting the bottle pretty hard and she challenged him. He has been sober since. All of this is detailed in this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed and I learned a few things about him and his family. When you know he has the Parkinson’s you can see him not moving his left arm in Spin City. But he was very good at hiding it. He keeps plugging away, while answering directing a question early on about “why make this movie now?” A Delorean won’t fix the diagnosis and he has already far surpassed the initial guidance that he could only work a few more years. Fox fights the good fight, and I hope that he can keep it up.

The Courier: Benedict Cumberbatch is telling the true cold war story dramatized of Greville Wynne as a UK business man who is asked to become a conduit between a high ranking Soviet government worker who is concerned about Nikita Kruschchev the Soviet leader. Set during the late 1950s and early 1960s the Soviets are increasing their nuclear arsenal, but want to have first strike capability with the US, as their present Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) aren’t able yet. Cuba is the answer. Rachel Brosnahan plays the American CIA agent looking to enlist the help of Wynne.

Wynne reluctantly agrees but successfully makes contact with this Soviet worker, Oleg Penkovsky. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The information that Oleg is sharing reveals details of the missiles and the locations of them within Cuba before they are capable of a launch. Soviet KGB are not easily fooled and the web around these two begins to collapse. There is plenty of intrigue and thrills. If you read ahead and cheat with a google search or two you will spoil the ending that the movie sticks to accurately. I give away nothing to say that the US and President Kennedy were able to successful stand up to the Soviets and their plans to increase their war machine. I will mention in passing that in the third act, Cumberbatch does a very credible job of matching the skills of other actors like Christian Bale and Robert DeNiro. All this to say that I like war movies, historically accurate movies, and all the intrigue surrounding those uncertain times with not much goodwill between the two main victors from the Second World War. The new Super Powers. So many resources were spent to spy on one another and prove that their system of governement/philosophy is better than the other. I enjoyed this movie with good performances. Two very brave men chose to do the right thing in their eyes and for their own good conscience, along with their young families. We across the globe and fortunate that they did.

Vengeance: After writing about two movies that I enjoyed, it is more difficult to write about one that I didn’t enjoy nor can I recommend. I know that in the past it was often more fun to read Roger Ebert when he did not like a film, rather than those that moved him positively. He was an excellent writer, and was able to fully articulate why he was annoyed that two hours (or less) or his precious time on the planet was lost to an inane movie. Now I can say that Vengeance isn’t completely inane, in the same way that Jack Frost was for Roger. But still, it seems that there are movies so intent on delivering a message or a comment on today’s society that they lose sight of trying to put together an entertaining story. It should have been apparent early on when I saw John Mayer as himself that this wasn’t going to be a notable film.

Writen, Directed and Acting is BJ Novak. You may know him from the US version of The Office. I was not, but I did recognize Boyd Holbrook from Narcos. It also has Ashton Kutcher in it. Told simply, writer and blogger Ben is told of a woman he had hooked up with in Texas who had passed away. He is asked to come to the funeral. He barely knows her. But the family thinks he was a boyfriend. He meets them, and gets to know a little more about the departed woman, who the family maintains was murdered. The official story is that she overdosed. The family wants answers. Meanwhile, Ben is looking to move ahead in his career and trying to sell a story to a publisher/newspaper editor. He is told by the editor to keep digging and writing about his findings.

Things happen. Ben finds some things out that he was not altogether surprised about, and this colours his view of the family. Other things are uncovered with a more detailed discussion which is, I suppose, a social commentary. Do we really need to hear in detail about the short sightedness of people these days, and how the trial of public opinion sways back and forth as lies are taken as truth? Or hear about a divided America and how on any issue there will always be some group taking the contrary opinion just to be contrary. Will people actually care about a young girl and which way she met her untimely end? The commentary then trumps the story, and you realize that it wasn’t all that important anyway. People just want to deliver speeches. But they aren’t adding anything to the discourse other than to hold a mirror up to it. So in summary, I can’t recommend it and don’t find it much of a commentary. I find most of the family characters are really caricatures and cliches. For me, the ending was not very satisfying, because it turned out to be much ado about nothing. A hard pass.

June 19th, 2023

The Graduate (1967): On Netflix, I noted in their Awards section that they were showing the classic 1960s movie with a young Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft. It was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress but only a win for Mike Nichols as Best Director. In the Heat of the Night won, with other nominees that included Bonnie & Clyde and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. A good year.

So why is it memorable? Why does it still remain relevant? Funnily enough I had seen bits and pieces of this over the years, including the wedding window scene with Hoffman yelling “ELAINE!!” but also the stocking clad leg of Bancroft with Hoffman in the background saying “you are trying to seduce me, Mrs Robinson”. Of course the other aspect of the film that is most memorable is the soundtrack by Simon and Garfunkel.

It’s memorable because this is an excellent acting performance for both young Hoffman, and also Bancroft. In reality, Hoffman was 30yo playing a young college graduate at age 20yo, named Benjamin and Bancroft was only 36yo, six years Hoffman’s senior. Bancroft is married to husband, with a daughter Elaine who is Benjamin’s age. Benjamin has returned to his parents home, and they are anxious to hear about what Benjamin’s plans are for next steps. They are expecting him to look towards post-graduate work or enter into his job. The men surrounding Benjamin want him to “sow his wild oats”. Through all this, Benjamin himself is confused. He doesn’t know what he wants to do. He has no plan. He is pressed by his parents, and everyone else. Then early on Mrs Robinson makes a sexual advance towards young Benjamin and gives him something to do and focus on. The relationship is purely sexual as Mrs Robinson shows no interest in talking about anything. When pressed she expresses out of the blue her determination that Benjamin stays away from her daughter Elaine. Things happen.

This was for the time the beginning of a rebellion of young people against their parents and a society that they questioned and didn’t agree with. Of course the sixties already had its fair share of challenges with the civil rights movement, the assassination of JFK, and Viet Nam war. It also had birth control and the sexual revolution. This movie became a reflection of the times, but was bold enough to put a mirror against the backdrop. Audiences cheered for the young Benjamin and his struggle to find love and purpose in his life. Watching this movie with a 2020s state of mind, raises some questions about how Benjamin acts during a trip to Berkeley, among other things. There is much drinking and smoking. The parental assistance for the young graduate is not unusual for the place with a new car. But it is unfair to judge in my view with a more modern lens. On its face, I think that Bancroft is excellent. She remains strong, in control, unflinching in her desire to please herself. We don’t know much about her marital relationship but for her it doesn’t matter. She never shows any guilt or feelings of any kind. Benjamin is the well brought up young man, who is a deer in the headlights without the life experience to handle this delicate situation. This is definitely worth a watch. It is tame by today’s standards in terms of being sexual and showing nudity. But that isn’t necessary to make the point. The key is how the players interact amongst each other as things unfold.

A Man Called Otto: This has been recently released on Crave. It is an easy vehicle for the aging but likeable Tom Hanks. A vehicle because he gets to have his one son, Truman Hanks, play a role of his Dad as a younger self. I would describe this movie as a compilation of a number of simialr movies. I see elements of Grumpy Old Men, Gran Torino and the animated Pixar movie UP. The movie certainly knows how to try and pull the heart strings and it plays them on a number of fronts. For those who get engaged you may want to have a Kleenex nearby since it can be effective. The movie opens with Otto as a man in the local hardware store and he argues with the young cashier about the cost for a length of rope. It is pennies that he squabbles over. He is protective of his gated street, and is vigilant about parking and keeping the street NOT a through street. He lives alone in the same semi house that he and his wife shared. The movie looks back into the relationship with his future wife. Of course they are delightful. Of course you want them to succeed. Life happens to them in much the same way as the old man in UP.

We learn Otto’s story over time. New neighbours move in. A young family with two young girls, a husband and a pregnant Mexican wife. Otto reluctantly assists them on occasion while the wife tries very hard to be generous, friendly and welcoming. We are introduced to other neighbours in and out of the neighborhood. As I mentioned, this movie tries very hard to bring in the emotional side. It helps with Hanks in the role as opposed to Clint Eastwood who also could play the grumpy neighbour. But Clint acts differently and provides different lessons.

Did I like this? Meh, it was okay. It wasn’t overly memorable. The performances are decent but nothing stands out. I think the young wife was the best of them. Certainly the other neighbours and their stories are not as fully told. It becomes readily apparent why some characters are brought into the equation, like the spectators at the train station (you’ll know what I am talking about when you see it). If there was a second viewing, you would note immediately why this occurred, and it would feel a little contrived. A little too cute to close out the story on other fronts. But, be that as it may, it didn’t suck. I don’t feel that I wasted my time, but I won’t rush out and recommend it with any enthusiasm. Sorry Tom, but you have done other roles better. Perhaps your son, like you did, should look to get roles on his own merit.

June 12, 2023

Love and Death: Crave through HBO Max is retelling the true story of Candy Montgomery, a small town housewife in rural Texas town, was accused of killing her friend and the wife of the man with which she had had an affair. Played by Elisabeth Olsen, this is another version of the same story that was starring Jessica Biel called Candy back in 2022. In this version Olsen is joined with fellow cast, Jesse Plemons, Patrick Fugit (from Almost Famous) and Elizabeth Marvel who was also in Mrs Davis recently. It is seven episodes so about a seven hour commitment.

This story, created by TV guy David E. Kelley from LA Law, Chicago Hope and Ally McBeal.

Without giving too much away, this 1980 case shows the characters involved, in this small religious town with the two families who knew each other very well. They went to the same church, they had the same friends, and sang in the church choir. Candy and her husband, with two young children, were not very well connected. She was bored. Her husband didn’t pay much attention to her, and would rather focus on network TV comedy shows. She noticed another choir member Allan Gore played by Jesse Plemons. She waited for Allan one night after choir to tell her of her intentions of wanting a relationship. It ensues rather clumsily, but certainly well planned. Allan’s wife, in this story is lacking in confidence and a little uncertain when her husband heads away on frequent business trips. The story continues and then gets into a court room drama with some colourful legal characters. Notable is the local lawyer, played by Tom Pelphrey, who ends up representing the accused, Candy but isn’t a criminal lawyer.

I think that those involved do a credible job of bringing forward this story. The lawyer in me had plenty of questions about the actions of the characters, more especially Candy in all that she does. Back in the day, legal defense work relied, it appeared, on lie detector tests, as well as hypnotizing the accused to better understand their defense. It flies in the face of traditional criminal defense work where you didn’t want to know whether the accused was guilty or not. But it was interesting the strategy involved, where a lot of the defense exercise was to position your client in the media (in that day on the TV and newspapers).

If you know the story or google it, you will learn what the result is. The post-script tells what happen to a number of the principal characters after it ended. Some are more surprising than others. Is it compelling TV that is something to watch? Sometimes. I like Elizabeth Olsen and think that she takes on good roles for her. I can ignore the superhero stuff, which for her is hard to do, but liked what she did in Wind River. I still marvel at the hypocrisy of these small towns and their strong religious beliefs all the while having the extra-marital affairs and justifying the killing. If you like a court room drama and are interested in real life crime, then this could be a story for you. Two separate TV stories about the fact situation would suggest that there is a demand for this story.

In and Of Itself: I rewatched this 2020 film which was the taping of a number of performances of this off-Broadway play with Derek Delgaudio.

Having re-watched it, I am still struggling to describe it accurately. It is a number of different things all packed together. It is magic, it is story telling, it is illusion, it is card tricks among other things. It is also interactive with its audience. But more importantly for me upon second view is that it has emotional impact. Both for him, but also for his audience members who he invites on stage. Random encounters that are impactful on both participant and performer. I won’t say more than that. But I think it is about being seen. It is about reflecting back how others perceive you, but why? Is that it? Is that the sum of us all? I think that there are really good obervations of people and how we interact. I recommend this highly. I saw it was available on Hulu, it was on YouTube and was on PLEX for me. If you can find it, have a viewing.

June 5th, 2023

The timing of my blog, and when I started writing reviews, which was in the 1990s has meant that there were many films which I watched an enjoyed in my earlier years that were never reviewed. From time to time I will provide a retrospective review and re-watch and do a fresh review of an older film. In this instance I saw that Netflix has some of the Monty Python films, and I decided to watch Life of Brian once again. It was a toss up between Holy Grail and Life of Brian but I decided that I really wanted to see a few scenes again. I can almost recite most of Holy Grail without seeing it, but I will return to it again. So here below is Life of Brian, a movie that I was told that my Dad left the theatre back in the day when it was released.

Monty Python Life of Brian: This classic comedy film was released back in 1979. Interestingly it has been in the news lately because John Cleese has gone on record saying that a scene in which one of the Judean People’s Front members, played by Eric Idle, wants to be a woman and have a child and be called “Loretta” from that point forward, would not be removed in this upcoming stage play. Incidentally that’s NOT the People’s Front of Judea; Splitters!!!

There is a stage adaptation coming for the parody film, and 83yo Cleese stated that despite the new world sensitivities to trans-issues and those in transition, this scene remains. When thinking about this, I have to say that there is so much more offensive material in this film which could be attacked using the 2023 sensibilities. I think that factually the Loretta scene is correct in that the male character doesn’t have a womb, and therefore cannot have a child naturally, despite the group acknowledging that Loretta can have right to fight for her right to have a child. Other sensitive topics can include the overarching parallel life ark for Brian with Jesus Christ could of course be challenged. So much humour is brought forward against people with challenges like stuttering, or lisping or other speech challenges. The entire scene with Michael Palin, who just this week turned 80yo, playing Pontious Pilot and the discussion about his friend Biggus Dickus is simply comedy gold. But scene after scene for me strikes a chord.

From the sermon on the mount scene with the people in the back getting into a fight about having a big nose. To later the stoning scene with the local women all wearing beards to attend, women weren’t allowed at stonings. To the Roman centurion who spends the time with Brian to correct his grammar, by conjugating verbs with him, for the graffiti being put all over the walls. Later the stuttering of Eric Idle in the crucifiction line. You see, this troupe of six men (John Cleese, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Graham Chapman) played most of the various roles in the movie for both men and women. They were cutting edge for their time in both TV and movies.

I am hard pressed to find another movie that I find funnier. Yes, Something About Mary also had me laughing in the theatre as loud and hard as I have ever done, but this movie and Holy Grail hold a special place in my heart. It isn’t for everyone, I will admit. Like my Dad. But this blog isn’t for everyone either, and it is my opinion about a given film. I would recommend it to anyone who is in need of a good laugh.

This bring me to the Easter Egg for this week. It’s funny that I have stumbled on two in the last two weeks. First one was in Jurassic Park when Jaws was streaming on Nedry’s computer. This one in Life of Brian happens after Brian’s Mom tells the crowd to “go away” and stop following Brian who has been a naughty boy. As she is walking through the crowd with Brian you can see this:

On the right next to John Cleese is Beatle George Harrison. He famously gathered up funds for Life of Brian when the comedy troupe couldn’t get funding. For Holy Grail bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, who liked watching the TV show and were good friends with Eric Idle, had wanted to see the movie. Harrison was approached for Life of Brian, and then was made part of the film. Fun!

Review bombing: I read an article about review bombing on CBC and I think it’s an interesting perspective of this modern world and internet connectivity that we share when it comes to entertainment. I will admit that I have not watched the live-action, remake of the The Little Mermaid, the classic 1989 animation film from Disney, which was the beginning of the resurgence of Disney back into making animated films. I use the words “live action” loosely as obviously we don’t have live action fish singing or speaking or Sebastian the crab for that matter.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/little-mermaid-review-bombing-1.6864613

The article speaks to Rotten Tomatoes and other review sites that provide a number for the viewers to decide the overall rating of a film. Since the announcement of a dark skinned Ariel, played by Halle Bailey, there has been this uproar from the same types of people who get upset that Bud Light has a spokesperson who is a transgender influencer. But as you can see, the impact can be very real. In the review world, according to the news item there have been an influx of 1-star reviews for The Little Mermaid, bringing the overall scores down, and prompting Rotten Tomatoes to adjust the scoring for those who have actually seen the film. That brings about a number of issues about reviews, their authenticity, their value and whether they can be trusted overall. Of course people can make their own decisions about whether to watch a movie or not. But critics and reviewers can have an impact, especially with the cost of attending a movie in the theatre. People want to see something that is regarded as “good”, or at least worth the money.

I am firm believer in that people should make up their own minds. Writing about it is a choice. I do this because it is an outlet for me. I also like movies and discussions about movies, TV shows and entertainment generally. I am not racially motivated, and I certainly don’t want to punish Disney or others for their choices in what they choose to fund. I have bigger problems with Disney in the troubling trend of doing cash grabs for previous animated films by making these live-action versions like with Aladdin (don’t get me started about Will Smith trying to play Robin Williams as the Genie) or Jungle Book, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Dumbo or others. They have done this with mixed success. Or talk about what they have done with the Star Wars franchise, which just makes me shudder! Oh, and by the way, there is a Snow White live action film coming for 2024! While I don’t see these movies in a theatre (my way of protest) I choose not to falsely downgrade them in my review when I eventually do see them for free somewhere.

In a world that is connected more than ever, we must also recognize and critically think about where the source of some of the negativity can come. For me, I will see what I choose, write about it, and despite being someone who does reviews, I won’t put too much weight in the views of others who I don’t know or trust. Roger Ebert you are sadly missed to be an independent film critic voice for those out there these days.

May 29th, 2023

Whitney Houston: I Want To Dance With Somebody: We lost a legendary voice this week when Tina Turner passed at the age of 83yo. She had battled a long series of illnesses including a kidney replacement. This news made me revisit the shortened life of another legendary voice, Whitney Houston. Say what you want about whether you liked her songs, there was no denying the quality of her voice. Born into a singing family, where her Aunt was Dionne Warwick and Godmother was Aretha Franklin. Sadly we all know how this ends, and we can see the steps that slowly brought this upon the pop superstar, and make no mistake that she was a superstar.

For this movie, the performance of the lead will begin and end how the audience accepts it. Naomi Ackie plays Whitney really well. According to news sources, she doesn’t do most of the singing in the movie. That was Whitney’s voice mostly. But the songs were of course well done. I imagine that the Music Director, may have done as in Amadeus, with Sir Neville Marriner at St Martin In The Fields, said I will do the music ONLY if you don’t change a single note. This must be an intimidating role for anyone to take on. Whitney Houston has a range of singing, and a story that most people know pretty well. We know about Bobbi Brown and that influence that he brought into her life. A life of excess and drugs where the money generated just seems to disappear, whether in the hands of her father or others. She battled her father according to this movie all the way to him to his grave.

Some things that were highlighted which I had no idea about included her relationship with her best friend, Robyn Crawford. I also didn’t realize that it was Kevin Costner who made the suggestion for The Bodyguard, for her to sing Dolly Parton’s “I Will Always Love You”. He made a brilliant choice as well for her to sing the acapella for the introduction of the song. Life is about choices though, and for whatever reasons that she had, Whitney made choices that weren’t always in her best interest. From smoking, to the drugs, to her relationships, it seems that being someone who isn’t your own authentic self (as you see it) tends to lead to some destructive behaviour. The world lost a great talent far too soon. Like so many before her, there was something missing, and a void that could not be filled with earthly experiences. In the end, like Jim Morrison before her she perished in a bathtub. In her system was cocaine, and she had heart disease. But add her name to artists like Prince, Tom Petty, Judy Garland, Sam Cooke, Amy Winehouse, Janis Joplin and the list goes on and on. Whitney died at age 48, on Feb 11, 2012 a night before the Grammy’s were to take place.

Did I need to see this movie? It didn’t suck. I learned a little and revisited some songs that she performed. It is a story of excess for someone with a talent who was undeniable. Maybe the candles that burn the brightest, burn out the soonest. I would like to think that Whitney could have matched Tina Turner and reached her 80s, and shared her gift for longer. There is no doubt that Tina would have also lived an extraordinary life, but one with all the trappings of fame and success. They are both missed. Their voices will carry on long after I am gone and most of us.

Succession The Final Season: The final episode was last night. I have to admit then when I began watching this episode I wasn’t sure which of the offspring of Logan Roy would survive. I regarded this series as a tragedy, and that with the King lacking a formal succession plan and their being a potential acquisition in play that we would see the true colours of the adult children, Kendall, Shiv and Roman.

So things, as expected are coming to a head. A board meeting is to take place where the fate of the empire, Daddy’s company, is going to be decided. The parties involved are gathering their respective teams for the big vote. On the one side you have those trying to keep the company in the hands of the family, and in the other the European team looking to acquire it. This has been the basis for the entire final season. Within that parameter, the fight lines have been drawn. As things proceed the respective family members talk, and argue and figure out what their plan of action is, sprearheaded by Ken. Shiv is a survivor and is planning her own strategy. Roman and Ken each have ideas that they should be the heir to the throne. As mentioned in an earlier post, bearded brother Con, is treated as Fredo and not actively involved in the activities. Things play out to a meeting of the board about the acquisition. The vote is extremely close. Then things change in a way that could be predicted but in a satisfying way.

Unlike Game of Thrones, this popular series is ending on a positive note. An appropriate ending for those involved. Parties who have been involved in other seasons, show up from time to time to impact the plot. It seems that a reliance on a family that is dysfunctional can be at best unreliable. Changes come from places that were expected for those involved. Those who the audience had thought were in a precarious position can have their fortunes changed quickly in meetings that take place throughout. “Those who would be last, can be first….and those who would be first, would be last”. Needless to say the Roy family Christmas gathering would be an interesting affair when all is said and done. I think that this has been an excellent series, well written and acted. It was profane. It had some great laughs and soundbites. In the end, I am glad that I watched it. Well worth your time.

Adding a Jurassic Park Easter Egg: One of the things about multiple viewings of the same movie is that rather than focusing on the plot and the big things happening that you can see more of the detail. For moviegoers many people call these Easter Eggs, and I just noticed one for a film that I have seen many times.

It is the scene where Dennis Nedry is sitting at his workstation and having a conversation with John Hammond about his doing the code for the Park and automating it for a small amount of money. Hammon says that “I don’t blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask for them to pay for them”. On the screen on Nedry’s screen there is a live stream of the movie Jaws taking place during one of the scenes where the shark is making its entrance to the men aboard the Orca. I just noticed this, and it was a nice shout out to Spielberg’s earlier blockbuster.