Joker

A friend of mine told me this movie was awful. He was wrong. It would have to improve to be awful. Before I saw this a herd of people told me it was great or it was hot garbage but ALL of these "reviews" did not prepare me for what this movie is.

It's boring.

I kept hearing about all the "horrific violence" and while there is violence? It is pretty run of the mill by movie standards (Dead Pool anyone?).  Every character who meets their end in this movie? You know it is coming the moment you see them and you should be able, in all  but one case, to guess the MANNER of that death. For all the talk of how over the top it is? This movie's main failing is that it DOESN'T get anywhere near the "top", let alone go over it. I wonder if stuff wound up on the cutting room floor.

Then there is the rancid ideology. The rich are bad  and indifferent and the poor are violent marauders (there are rioters carrying "Resist" signs). Also? Bruce Wayne's dad is now a dick. If this wasn't enough? The film tosses in some "this film is about access to mental health" crap.  As if this movie really has something to stay. Id respect it more if it was all bloody mayhem with less whining.  Therd are, however, lots of shout outs that will make wanna-be school shooters feel warm and fuzzy.

And stop telling me the acting is great. Joaquin Phoenix giggles and struts through this dull witted, lunk headed movie. How anyone found this half.assed cross between Death Wish, The King of Comedy and a comic book origin story to be interesting is a mystery for our times.

I've hated  movies before and changed my mind. I am not betting on it here.

Ford vs Ferrari

Personally I care more about someone else's toe jam than any kind of car racing. And yet, somehow, I was interested in this movie from start to finish and there is a LOT of car racing going on here.

Christian Bale delivers his usual stellar performance and Matt Damon is supremely likeable (even if his accent changes here and there). The interaction between Bale's character and his son are brief  but supremely memorable. It is a long movie but I never noticed the time. Ford Vs. Ferrari keeps the plot fairly simple but manages to give us enough detail that friends who ARE racing nerds also liked the film.

And they make everyone at Ford, especially Henry Ford II, look like assholes.

Jojo Rabbit

When you make a black comedy about Hitler Youth, it had better be funny and it had better be dark, not cute.

I didn't laugh once in this movie. I didn't even chuckle.

"Aren't those little Nazis A-DORRRRABLE!!" is simply not something anyone should ever think. Somehow, the film manages to not seem offensive. It is well put together and the actors do a great job making this thing palatable. What the point someone thought this was making is terrifying though. If you make a Nazi gay is he then sympathetic? Is a chubby child hauling a tank killer into battle cute? Fun? Ironic? Because it happened and the ending wasn't happy.

This movie should have ended with all the kinds blown to bits by a Russian tank. Then I would have had some respect because it would have woken the audience up.

I have no interest in a Hitler Youth feel good  movie where the protagonist's imaginary friend is Adolph Hitler. I have no use for making Nazi Germany seem quaint.

A movie like this should make you uneasy but it doesn't.

The Irishman

I tried to watch this three times. I'm sick of the style. I'm sick of the actors in roles that seem super familiar. I'm sick of the subject matter.

I might have gotten through it in the theater.

Fucking Netflix.

Marriage Story

I did get through Marriage Story.

I  had a lot of hope after the beginning and this is a good  movie. It paces a situation spiraling out of control withngreat skill. But the "crazy Los Angeles" stuff was sort of forced or at least it seemed like I'd seen it in half a dozen movies (or in every movie) about Los Angeles. Not bad, just familiar. Likewise the New York theater stuff.

But whenever it gets away from pouring that stuff on and into the characters it sucks you in. You get the characters even if you may not like them (personally if I met any of them Id say "I have to go to the restroom" and they'd never see me again). But that isn't a KNOCK, it illustrates that they really succeeded at creating these characters.

I kept thinking "Woody Allen" but not in the usual way we think of him these days. I also don't mean his older, funny movies. I mean the mean, ugly ones  (although there is humor in this to be sure but it is super dark). 

It seems to work best when fewer characters are on screen. I wrote "on the stage" initially which may be Freudian. Is it stagey or is it that it starts of in New York with a theater company?

I keep circling over this movie like a vulture trying to make out its meal. Is this an old tire? Or a dead dog (from a vulture's perspective the latter is preferable). It is an uncomfortable movie and it is really good at being that.

I stopped writing more because it gave things away but let's just say after this movie I felt like I'd gone through an ugly divorce.

Parasite

The best thing about this movie for me was that I saw it in a theater full of people who had not seen (I'm guessing) any films directed or written by Bong Joon Ho or any Korean movies in general.

This film is pretty funny....until it suddenly is not funny at all. Hearing the audience fail to make the transition with the movie was fascinating.

But enough amateur psychology.

This is a movie that really looks at the relationship between rich and poor.  While it is specific to Korean the examination crosses cultural boundaries. The acting is outstanding, the pacing is perfect and the film is a marvel of cinematography.

You laugh at something, then later, when the implications become clear? You are ashamed of yourself. The film paints an oddly sympathetic portrait of all the characters, even the rather disreputable main characters and it BEGS you to try and decide who is (or are) the parasites.

Little Women

I really want to find a glaring flaw in this movie but I cannot. Like most of the male gender I really didn't want to see this movie. I've seen two previous adaptations and while they didn't make me want to poke my eyes out? I wasn't itching to relive them

The casting is so perfect here, the acting so touching and the pacing so well thought out that when I walked out of the theater I thought "I would go see this again tomorrow."

Saoirse Ronan never seems to be acting in any of her movies. I forget her and only see her character and she is joined in that here especially by Timothée Chalamet and Florence Pugh. The film is funny, sad, romantic and perfectly put together.

Sure you know who will wind up with whom out of the gate but that is almost comforting. I honestly kept thinking of all the shitty romcoms of the past 20 years and how they should up their game in the next 20 years be forgetting "When Harry Met Sally" and stealing from this. They won't succeed but the product would improve.

Men, I know that you might not like the title but go. Bring a date, she will realize how sensitive you are whe she sees you getting teary eyed.

1917

Two soldiers are sent out to warn a commander that he is leading 1500 men to their certain deaths.

And OFF they go.

You do not need much more plot than that in this movie that uses camera work and especially exceptionally long shots to follow the characters on this fast paced journey. There is something mythical about it, almost like some ancient Greek story. They interact with various characters briefly as time flies past.

Some actors here make an impression with  barely five minutes of screen time. It isn't all about the camera. The film also does nothing to glamorize war which is the failing of the vast majority of war movies.

No sane person would want to be in this movie.

This isn't Dunkirk, which looked at individuals from almost on high, on a grand, sweeping scale. This is all down in the muck and is a memorable film.

Once Upon a Time in America

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Quentin Tarantino's latest "this should have happened THIS WAY" movies that rewrite history with fictional characters.

I wish this was real.

Brad Pitt is the handsomest character actor in film history. That really seems to be what he does best, not leading man roles. Someone mentioned this to me and I went back through his movies and damned if it isn't true (not that he doesn't have fine lead roles, he just excels at the supporting ones). I honestly think us film fans do not give him the credit he deserves because he is so damned good looking.

He should win the Oscar.

Leonardo di Caprio is solid as are all the smaller performances but the other standout, aside from Pitt, is Margot Robbie. She exudes sweetness and humanity as Sharon Tate. And really to move from this role to that of a violent cartoon character that will shortly take up a lot of her career speaks to her range. Her performance, low key though it is, is a marvel.

Tarantino makes movies that are unmistakable, that are impossible to rip off of copy (although folks sure try). This does  not mean every single effort is GOOD.  But they are always aiming high. You just feel as an audience member, that the people making the movie CARED. It wasn;t just a paycheck.

First of all this may contain "spoilers" so if that freaks you out stop here.

Florida Project is a film that rings  true. Not because I have some insight into people living on the economic edge of society  in a beat up hotel but because it reminds me of Florida. I recall, as middle class little kids in the 70s, before video games and cable television, before parents micromanaging their kid's lives, what kids did are what the kids DO in this movie. Kids create a world, they share, the do stupid things, they destroy stuff.

That is what ALL kids do. These kids opt for their only option for entertainment, their minds and the world that surrounds them. We see a lot of this from their perspective. You can imagine the Orlando-area tourist traps re-imagined via the minds of small kids.

This is a slice of life from a world we don't want to know about or that we immediately judge. I could almost SMELL the judgement coming up from the theater where I saw it (full of well-off old white people who no doubt read about the movie in the New Yorker). There is drinking, there is weed, there is prostitution, there are predators but this film never dwells on the ugly nor shows it in any prurient way. We infer it. Good for director, Sean Baker, for this take in a film environment that favors the graphic. We don't always need that.

The film doesn't romanticize any of this but instead opts to show the people here are humans with real hearts and who care but also live in a reality where you move on from your friends when that friendship endangers your children. A place where kids look after themselves or rely on a broader definition of family for protection (a hotel manager, for instance).

There is a hint of magic via the children's perspective but the realism here is far from magical. I wish this would be more than a movie. It COULD be a call to action. It won't be but it should be.The entire time I watched this film I kept thinking of the evils of capitalism--as all the aged rich white people around me (yeah, that is who they were, I saw this in the North Chicago burbs) harumphed and giggled. Some thought the ending, child's fantasy, was HILARIOUS and laughed aloud. These were grey people in their 60s. One old couple sat there waiting through the credits because there might be "something after"....I was like "Yeah, fucking Loki and Thor show up and save the day!"

Mercifully, my son saw this film in Miami and said when the film ended there? The reaction at the end was stunned silence, not laughter. Perhaps, in Florida, there is more of an understanding what the intervention of DCF really means. It usually isn't anything good in that state.

The acting in this film is so good you feel like you are watching people in their real lives. Willem Defoe could easily be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Bria Vinaite and child actress, Brooklynn Prince would not be out of place as nominees either (I would leave it to the Academy to determine the category).

There is a whiff of both Moonlight and Beast of the Southern Wild in this movie--not necessarily because of any content but due to its originality. I haven't written a word on films for years and this movie made me begin again.

The Rover is the feel-good film of the summer. Be sure to take your tween daughters, who've just discovered the Twilight series to see it.

O.k. that isn't even remotely true but it would be hilarious if someone actually did that. The Rover is a dark film about people losing their humanity. It features the always excellent Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson traveling through a blasted hellscape.

The film is a simple one.  There has been some sort of collapse--political, environmental, economic and Australia is now in a lawless, everyone-for-themselves mode.  A group of men steal a car from Pearce's Eric and he aims to pursue them. One of the men's brother's, Pattinson's Rey, has been left behind, injured. The de-humanized, almost monstrous Eric, take him to track down the car.

But this movie isn't about cars, or vengeance. It shows characters who have, in varying degrees lost hope, lost purpose but who, in some cases, are at "peace" with this ("peace" is an odd word to use in any description of this film).

The film is interesting in that the protagonist, Eric, is probably the worst person in the film. He kills without conscience, even if his words, on one occasion hint at some residual morality. Others cling to some vague sort of community--be it the community of a brothel or a "convenience store" where customers are held at the point of a shotgun while making a "purchase."

Many of the characters go through the motions of their former lives--they sell things for money that is now valueless. They perform duties no one cares about and that are also pointless. They go through the motions.

It seems that the only one who understands is Eric who is a man drained of anything human. He is indifferent to his own well-being. Asked, at one point, about why he thinks another character won't just shoot him down, he replies that he doesn't think that. His life means nothing to him. It is a chilling and laconic performance by Pearce.

Pattinson is a simple minded young man whose nature is gentle. Before he even appears on screen you know he isn't made for this dark world. He lacks the cruelty and indifference to stay alive. He tells the indifferent Eric stories about his growing up. When questioned; "why are you telling me this?" He replies "Everything doesn't have to be about something."

This is a sentiment no one else in this movie could possibly share.

Pattinson gets less respect than deserved. What young actor WOULDN'T take the Twilight role? This movie goes a long, long way toward him getting respect for his acting chops. He more than holds his own with Pearce and that is no easy task.

The dreary plot and disturbing performances are matched by blasted landscapes and abandoned housing, by dead-eyed characters and a feeling of utter pointlessness.

The Rover is not a fun movie but it is a rare film with a point and perspective on humanity. Because, by the film's end, even if there is no revelatory return to humanity for Eric, you see that there is something left in him. Of course, when you see this? The movie, in the next shot practically, snatches it away to highlight the pointlessness of this world and then UNDERLINE it.

The Signal is a bit of a surprise. In previews it looks like a run of the mill summer sci-fi film. What it is instead, is a bit of a throw back to old school sci-fi horror of years past.  It is even a bit of a mystery film.

There is very little reliance on special effects in the movie and it keeps a certain amount of suspense throughout (first you think one thing is going on, then another and then back to the first). Yet it is well written and the end result isn't from left field--the clues are throughout.

The film sports a real "up and coming" cast; Brenton Thwaites (also in Maleficent), Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel) and Beau Knapp (Super 8). All of them take the roles given and run with them.  The film has a lot of set up before you get to the sci-fi. In some movies this is a recipe for disaster but here it works and most of the reason it works is the three young actors.

The group is traveling cross country and, incidentally, being taunted by a computer hacker. Do they go to chase down the hacker? Or leave it be? Pretty easy to guess that in any film.

This is a "small" film. I use that term a great deal and sometimes it isn't clear what I mean. Usually I mean it is a film that is small in scope, often with a limited budget and focusing on a more personal sort of story. The Signal isn't about the world being blown up. It is the story of three people. And what makes it good Sci-Fi is that WHO these people are is explored in some depth before anything really happens to them.

You know who they are and sort of care about them. If the movie has tons of action and lots of explosions? Knowing about and caring about doesn't matter nearly as much (just ask Tom Cruise). When the movie is slower paced and more of a mystery? Caring and knowing, on some level, matter.

Is the movie perfect? No. It has some warts but it has its own universe, its own consistent logic and it is evenly paced.  Some may not like the set up taking so long? But without that the rest of the film would suffer. Be ready for a deliberately paced film? And you will enjoy The Signal.

Let us get this out of the way first off; 22 Jump Street ISN'T funnier than 21 Jump Street. This isn't a knock on the new film. A movie can be pretty damned funny and not be as funny as the first film.

This one uses running gags about the nature of sequels and the real life identities of the cast. They also bring back the drug hallucination sequences from the first movie with pretty hilarious results. It all works but it is just a little less of a surprise than the first movie. When we all walked into the theater for 21 Jump Street we did not know what to expect.

Here we know the formula. But, to the credit of the filmmakers they take this fact and make it part of the film. The film rolls its own eyes at the inevitability of a sequel to a financially successful film.

22, like the first film, is a movie that is best seen unspoiled by knowing what happens. These are jokes that are best told only once. This is a film full of gags--not personal stories, not character development. It is like a series of skits and if you've avoided seeing any of these? You will like the movie more.

One of the funniest segments of the film is during the closing credits. Another? Honestly it wasn't as funny as it should have been because I saw it in the previews.  When is Hollywood going to stop with the "every single joke is in the previews" crap?

This is a funny film--as noted--and you won't be bored at any point in it. But there really shouldn't be a 23 Jump Street.

Edge of Tomorrow doesn't suck. Generally speaking these days that is pretty high praise for a Tom Cruise vehicle (especially a Sci-Fi film starring Cruise and not directed by Steven Speilberg).  There are lots of awful Cruise films and a slew of mediocre ones over the past decade and half.  But this film really, genuinely, isn't bad.

In fact, for the first 3/4 of the film it is actually pretty engaging. It takes the tired premise of "you must relive the same day over and over until you get it right" premise and adds some new twists, some humor and keeps the action moving along. It handles the necessary repetition well. In the first hour or so of the film they never really give you a chance to think. This isn't a film where thinking helps. That sounds damning but it isn'; good action films take you out or reality and turn off your brain for the ride. That is a compliment for an action film and Edge of tomorrow manages it, for awhile.

There is  a point in the film where something changes in Cruise's character (being vague here to avoid spoilers) and the film slows after that. It even seems a little slapdash. The denouement is also about as Hollywood as you can get. It might be best to leave ten minutes before the film ends. But anyone who walks into this film expecting a "non-Hollywood" ending probably doesn't go to the movies often and, therefore, won't notice. It mostly works and for big budget sci-fi that is a rarity.

One minor note--if you have an English actor who cannot do an American accent? Don't make them try. Even in a small character it is distracting.

Most of the actors in the film, however, handle it all professionally. No one wows you. No one is really given a chance--not even co-star, Emily Blunt. Blunt is fine but there doesn't seem to be much chemistry here. Who is responsible for missing chemistry? Actors? Directors? Casting? It could be all of the above and others as well but who is responsible doesn't much matter to an audience.

One of the problems Cruise faces as an actor is that he isn't versatile. Lots of decent actors are not versatile but when they become big stars? You see THEM and not their character. It isn't their fault necessarily. Some actors who have never been accused of being fine thespians have overcome this (Clint Eastwood springs to mind). Other, better actors, have lazily fallen into this trap (Johnny Depp springs to mind). Cruise can't really help it. He has a limited range and he is a big star. You see "Tom Cruise" on the screen and it is a tough thing for him to overcome. 

And while this is true here? Cruise manages better than usual. He CAN do it--War of the Worlds showed he could be a sort of frightened "everyman." Maybe it isn't all on the actor but on his directors? I have often wondered if Cruise is better with directors who are "bigger" than him in Hollywood.

But psychoanalyzing Cruise for the purpose of damning or praising him isn't terribly productive. Maybe he and his agent just pick weak scripts. Which is why a film like Edge of Tomorrow may scare off audiences. They remember Oblivion and other failures (and even some near misses) and just don't head out to the theater.

Here he has managed a decent performance in a decent, if not terribly memorable film. If his co-stars had more opportunities it might have improved the movie but it is worth a look if your expectations are not too high.

How good is the new Jon Favreau movie Chef? It made me, a vegetarian from pretty much my entire adult life (20+ years), feel like eating meat. It also made me want to immediately move back to Miami or at least get some tostones.

I recently wrote that if Charlie Chaplin were still alive he'd be making movies like Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel. Favreau is what Woody Allen would be doing if he were still alive (ok, he's alive and making good movies but at this point I feel a little "icky" going to see them).

Somehow Favreau shoots meat in a way to make it appealing even to me--and that is no small feat. The film isn't all about "food porn" though; it is a movie about relationships, being true to yourself/your dreams and, as an aside, the power of the internet. More than that, it is a funny film--occasionally bordering on hilarious.

The story is about a chef working for a restaurant with a hidebound menu, a menu that elicits a bad review from a food blogger, sparks a twitter flame war and, ultimately costs the chef, Carl Casper (Favreau) his job. But this loss is the launching point for the film and his character's journey of self exploration.

Chef is full of appearances by actors who appear only briefly--Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Oliver Platt and Scarlett Johansson. All of these fit seamlessly into the movie. So often when films toss in cameos they stick out like sore thumbs but not here--they have a purpose, they move the story forward. Favreau, John Leguizama, Emjay Anthony, Bobby Cannavale and Sofia Vergara get more screen time and do all turn in creditable performances (Cannavale was also in Allen's Blue Jasmine....HMMMMMM).

As noted the comedy is about relationships, specifically that between Casper and his son, Percy (Anthony). Casper doesn't start out as a BAD father, he is just preoccupied with his work and doesn't take into account the little things that alienate kids. He disappoints his son without even realizing it. It is a small, subtle, serious note in an otherwise lighthearted film.

As noted Favreau's films are a slice of life a la Woody Allen.  But unlike Allen the characters here, even though they are sometimes from a wealthy background, seem like humans you could have a conversation with (or a beer).  A funny, touching comedy without a poop joke is a rare thing these days and is to be cherished as well. Plus? A great soundtrack.

Go see Chef.  It is one of those films you will like more and more as you think about it.  I am already wondering what Favreau's next film will be.