tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17937509642142209042023-06-20T05:37:51.020-07:00Guttman's GarageAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.comBlogger181125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-30050139032056753732018-01-15T16:38:00.003-08:002018-01-15T16:38:26.720-08:00Movie: The Shape of Water
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>The Shape of Water</i>: a Guillermo del Toro
film. As with most del Toro films, you will either hate the film or
be pleasantly astonished. As a del Toro fan, this fantastical love
story truly impressed me. My outline fails to provide an adequate
description of what occurs during this 123-minute film, but this is due to my
limitations and not to what del Toro, the co-author and director, has created.
The story takes place in Baltimore 1962. The racism<span style="color: #1f497d;">, </span>sexism and class imbalance that existed in 1962
is clearly presented. Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins), the protagonist, is
a mute janitor working at a high security federal government facility. Her
co-worker, friend and sign language interpreter is Zelda (Octavia
Spencer). The facility is deeply involved in the Space
Race. Colonel Strickland (Michael Shannon), the facility’s head of
security, brings to the facility a humanoid amphibious creature (Doug Jones)
that he captured in the Amazon River. The intention is to study the
creature in the hopes of expediting man’s ability to travel in
space. The Russians are aware of the creature and have planted a spy
at the facility, Dr. Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg). The fifth
major character in this film, is Giles (Richard Jenkins), Elisa’s neighbor, a
recovering alcoholic who loves watching 1930’s dance movies. Over
time, Elisa and the creature form a close bond and a uniquely interesting story
develops. With the help of Zelda and Dr. Hoffstetler, Elisa develops a
plan to save the creature from the agency’s exploitive<span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span>and killing clutches. The antagonist, Colonel Strickland, is
portrayed as a violent misogynist, and the few shots of his home life show
stiflingly idyllic scenes reminiscent of <i>Father Knows Best</i>; the film is
laced with references to old movies and TV shows. Despite the fact that
some of the characters are one dimensional stereotypes, this movie really
works. You come to sincerely care for the creature, and the love
story between the creature and Elisa feels genuine. Hawkins’ performance
is a significant reason why this film succeeds. There are a small
number of directors whose work I always try to see; Guillermo del Toro is
definitely on this short list. Despite the rather odd storyline,
experiencing <i>The Shape of Water</i> was a real pleasure.<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>I highly recommend this movie.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-58933833831810040442018-01-06T13:32:00.002-08:002018-01-06T13:32:17.320-08:00Movie: Darkest Hour
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Darkest Hour</i>: a Winston Churchill movie.
2017 was a year for Churchill, both directly (the excellent “Churchill &
Orwell: The Fight for Freedom” written by Thomas E. Ricks) and indirectly (<i>Dunkirk</i>).
<i>Darkest Hour</i> opens in May 1940. The outlook for Great Britain is
bleak. The Germans are overrunning France and the devastating invasion of
Belgium and the Netherlands are close at hand. Neville Chamberlain’s
“peace in our time” program has failed, and despite the ruling Conservative
Party’s distrust and fear him, Churchill becomes Prime
Minister. This 125-minute film focuses on the myriad crises facing
Britain and Churchill, including the Conservative Party’s obstinate inability
to comprehend that one cannot make a deal with Hitler. The story, written
by Anthony McCarten and directed by Joe Wright, is limited to the first few
weeks of Churchill’s reign as Prime Minister. The film lays out
Churchill’s many foibles - his self-doubts, his drinking and acerbic behavior –
as well as his intense intellect and deep compassionate for those whom he
loved. Gary Oldman as Churchill gives an Oscar worthy performance
and “Darkest Hour” is worth seeing just to marvel at Oldman’s
presentation. The talent in this film is not limited to
Oldman. Ben Mendelsohn is excellent as King George, who is portrayed
very differently from the character we met in <i>The King’s Speech</i>.
Stephen Dillane as Viscount Halifax and Ronald Pickup as Chamberlain are
outstanding. Although her screen time is limited, Kristin Scott Thomas as
Clementine Churchill, is superb, as is Lilly James as Elizabeth Layton,
Churchill’s secretary. Of particular note is the subway scene
towards the end of the film showing Churchill interacting with average British
citizens. Contrary to the impression that might be given from the
trailers, <i>Darkest Hour</i> is much more than just Churchill’s
speeches. I highly recommend this superbly acted film, which offers
a stunning contrast to the politics of America 2018.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-58667618547179607612017-10-28T18:49:00.002-07:002017-10-28T18:49:34.201-07:00Movie: Victoria and Abdul
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Victoria and Abdul</i>: a movie “based upon real
events . . . mostly” states the film’s opening text. Victoria is Queen
Victoria of England (Judi Dench) and Abdul is Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal), a Muslim
Indian. The story takes place between 1887 and 1901 during the last years
of the Queen’s life. Judi Dench as Queen Victoria is the reason to
see this film. She offers another remarkable
performance. The story begins with the arrival of Abdul, one of two
Indians sent to the royal household to present the Queen with a ceremonial coin
commemorating her Diamond Jubilee. Abdul is instructed not to make
eye contact with the Queen but he does. The Queen takes note of his good
looks and fine bearing, and a close mother/son relationship
develops. The opening scenes are presented with a light comedic
touch, but you soon begin to wonder how much of the story is real as the
relationship develops. Abdul becomes the Queen’s <i>munshi</i>
(teacher) as she learns Urdu and reads the Quran. Abdul is portrayed
as the person who provides the Queen with new vigor during the final years of
her life. The Queen’s staff, the political crowd that surrounds her
and her son Edward VII/Bertie (Eddie Izzard), are quite displeased about the
Queen’s interaction with Abdul. The film’s presentation of Queen
Victoria as having a progressive perspective on race and cultural relationships
is not consistent with my understanding of the historical record. The
screenplay by Lee Hall makes a point of showing the racism that dominated
Victorian society. When Abdul’s wife and mother-in-law arrive at
court wearing burqas, the antagonism towards Indians escalates. Although
the film directed by Stephen Frears never adopts a sanctimonious tone during
its 112 minute span, its level of playfulness decreases. I suspect the
degree to which you like the film will depend upon your reaction to Abdul and
whether you find his relationship with Queen Victoria believable.
Personally, I couldn’t shake off the “mostly” qualifier in the opening
text. Nevertheless, Judi Dench is on screen for a significant part of the
film and so long as she is present, this film is one worth seeing.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-36813529674998223522017-10-14T17:46:00.002-07:002017-10-14T17:46:11.346-07:00Movie: Marshall
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Marshall</i>: a courtroom drama based on a real
case. The year is 1941. The place is Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The lead lawyer is Thurgood Marshall. The movie is about the
criminal trial against Joseph Spell (Sterling K. Brown), a chauffeur/butler
employed by Eleanor Strubing (Kate Hudson), a wealthy white woman, whom Spell
is accused of having raped and thrown off a bridge. Chadwick Boseman, who
is making a career playing famous Black men (Jackie Robinson, James Brown), is
outstanding as a young Marshall. The excellent script by Michael and
Jacob Koskoff draws its courtroom scenes from newspaper accounts as no trial
transcript exists. The Spell case was reported in the mainstream press,
including the <i>New York Times</i>. It was a major case for the NAACP
because, unlike most of Marshall’s cases, this one took place in the North.
The movie opens and closes with Marshall traveling by train from one town to
another to defend black men. Most of this 118 minute film focuses on
how Marshall manages to defend an individual who would otherwise not have had
any counsel. The first step in the process is finding a licensed
Connecticut attorney willing to take the case. That attorney turns about
to be a young insurance defense counsel named Sam Friedman (Joseph
Gad). A major reason why the film works is the interplay between
Friedman and Marshall. Despite the seriousness of the story, there
are some delightful comedic scenes. In the courtroom, the presiding
judge (James Cromwell) is presented as being every bit as racist as one would
expect a Southern judge to be in the 1940’s. The movie also includes
scenes showing the community’s reaction to Friedman defending a black man
accused of rape. An additional twist to this case arises from the
fact that the Judge would not allow Marshall to speak in the courtroom.
This results in an unexpected courtroom dynamic because, as it happens, this
is Friedman’s first criminal jury trial. The only scene that
does not work is when Marshall and his wife are out at a Harlem nightclub with
Langston Hughes, and particularly the short scene where Zora Hurston
appears. Showing Marshall having a life independent of his NAACP
work is a good idea but limiting it to the interaction with Hughes would have
been sufficient. This, however is a minor shortcoming. The film,
directed by Reginald Hudlin, is excellent. The characters come
across as authentic and the dynamic between Joseph Spell and Eleanor Strubing
make for a story worth telling. In these interesting times, it’s
good to be reminded while simultaneously being entertained just how overt the
racism in this country was a mere 75 years
ago. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-56888837515628485342017-09-23T16:30:00.003-07:002017-09-23T16:30:53.060-07:00Movie: Wind River
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Wind River</i>: a mystery set on the Wind River
Indian reservation in Wyoming. The movie opens with a woman running
barefoot through a bleak, snowy field at night. We then meet Corey
Lambert (Jeremy Renner), a U. S. Fish and Wildlife agent who also works as a
hunter/tracker. In his introductory scene, Lambert is lying on his belly
camouflaged in the snow. He is killing wolves that have been preying on
sheep. A bit later we see Lambert searching for a mountain lion that has
killed a neighbor’s cattle. This is when he discovers the body of an 18
year old Indian woman named Natalie (Kelsey Asbille Chow). Lambert
immediately recognizes Natalie as she was his teenage daughter’s best
friend. Natalie is the woman we saw running through the snow at the
film’s opening. We learn that three years earlier, Lambert’s
daughter had been found dead under similar circumstances. The balance of
this excellent 111 minute story involves our learning what happened to Natalie
while simultaneously glimpsing into life on an Indian reservation. Because
Natalie appears to have been murdered, the FBI is summoned to
investigate. It is the federal government which has jurisdiction over
capital crimes on Indian reservations. A rookie agent, Jane Banner
(Elizabeth Olson), is sent to Wind River from Las Vegas. She has not
been advised as to the weather and must borrow the snow gear of Lambert’s late
daughter. Lambert and Banner develop a close relationship, which is
presented without slopping over into a Hollywood romance. As the
story unfolds, cinematographer Ben Richardson offers beautiful shots of the
Wyoming winter. The cast of <i>Wind River</i> is small but includes some
very strong, honest performances. Gil Birmingham plays Natalie’s grieving
father, Martin. His screen time is relatively short but Oscar
worthy. Graham Greene as the Tribal Police Chief also offers a fine
performance. Renner is excellent, both as a grieving father and a
professional hunter. The bad guys are one dimensional but the
storyline from writer/director Taylor Sheridan remains powerful. Due to
the cinematography, this superb movie is one that should be seen on the big
screen. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-64928583968554558172017-09-12T12:42:00.001-07:002017-09-12T13:28:48.590-07:00Movie: Menashe<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><i>Menashe</i>: an engaging story about a father and
his son. The film takes place in Brooklyn. Menashe (Menashe
Lustig) is a widower whose wife died about 11 months ago. Although
the wife is frequently part of the film’s conversation, she never makes an
appearance; we’re not even shown a photo of her with one brief exception, a cell phone picture. Menashe’s son,
Rieven (Ruben Niborski), is about 11 years old. When the film opens,
Rieven is living with his uncle and his family because the Rabbi (Meyer
Schwartz) believes a child should live with a family and Menashe is not
interested in remarrying. Menashe and almost all the characters in this
film are Hasidic Jews. As such, the Rabbi’s Talmud perspective that
a good man should have “ a good wife, a good home, nice dishes” is the
governing principal that drives this 82 minute film. <i>Menashe</i>
is directed and co-written by Joshua Z. Weinstein and the film is about
Menashe’s attempts to regain custody of his son without
remarrying. There is only one date scene in the movie and I doubt it
lasted even five minutes. Scenes of females speaking total less than
5 minutes. The story is authentic; it is based upon the actor
Menashe Lustig’s own life and is about the Hasidic life style as much as it is
about Menashe and Rieven. Most of the dialogue is in Yiddish with
very readable English subtitles. Menashe is an ordinary guy working
in a supermarket, but because he is an appealing person, the film
works. If you are interested in seeing a slice of Hasidic life, you
should see this film.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-82257730698139579522017-08-12T19:39:00.005-07:002017-08-12T19:39:59.904-07:00Movie: Maudie
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Maudie</i>: a film based on the Canadian artist Maud
Lewis. The film commences during the mid-1930’s. The location
is Nova Scotia. Maud (Sally Hawkins) is in her early 30’s and lives
with her Aunt Ida (Gabrielle Rose) but wants to return to the family
home. Maud sees her brother and only sibling, Charles (Zachary
Bennett), speaking with Ida. She begins pestering Charles about returning
home. We learn from Charles’ remarks that Maud has a disability which, in
Charles’ view, renders Maud incapable of caring for herself. Charles
tells Maud he sold the family home and leaves. As the film unfolds,
we learn more details about Maud. Contrary to the impression we’re given
by Charles, Maud’s disability is physical, not mental; she has rheumatoid
arthritis. To escape from the control of Aunt Ida, Maud takes a job as a
housekeeper to a loner named Everett Lewis (Ethan Hawke). Everett
grew up in a male orphanage. He has a temper and lacks basic social
skills. With these two very different characters, director Aisling
Walsh weaves an entertaining and surprisingly romantic tale based upon the
screenplay by Sherry White. The 116- minute film works because of
the Oscar quality performances of Sally Hawkins and Ethan Hawke. From
the outset, it is obvious that Maud has grit and will somehow
prevail. Everett grows on you. Based upon very quick and
selected shots of the real Maud and Everett<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>at
the end of the film, you learn that Maud was far more handicapped than<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>she is portrayed, which makes her success as a
painter that much more remarkable. The film shows Maud painting for
the sheer pleasure it brings her. The postcard size pictures are noticed
by a summer resident from New York named Sandra (Kari Matchett). Although
the film does not offer details, we learn that Maud’s drawings are becoming
well known<span style="color: #1f497d;">, </span>presumably through Sandra<span style="color: #1f497d;">. </span>Maud’s fame explodes<span style="color: #1f497d;">. </span>Even Vice President Richard
Nixon contacts Maud by mail asking to purchase one of her
pictures. The film takes you up to the time of Maud’s death in
1970. As the film credits run, her paintings are shown. The
characters’ lives are hard but they endure. The film may treat Everett
more kindly than he actually was, but as you watch the relationship between Everett
and Maud grow, the story becomes inspirational. The opening of the
film is a bit weak, however, if you stay with it, you will be
rewarded. T</span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">his film has no special effects and can easily be enjoyed
at home with a bottle of wine. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-17620940178664819662017-07-31T18:43:00.004-07:002017-07-31T18:43:48.906-07:00Book: Churchill & Orwell by Thomas E. Ricks
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Churchill & Orwell</i>,<i> The Fight for Freedom</i>
by Thomas E. Ricks: a book I read one week prior to seeing <i>Dunkirk</i>.
If you’re a fan of either Winston Churchill or George Orwell, I think you will
enjoy this book. It is a very readable 270 page account of
these two men. Although both made their historic marks during the 1940’s,
Churchill and Orwell never met. The book devotes a short chapter to
each man’s life prior to the 1930’s. We then pick up with Churchill being
politically ignored prior to 1939 and Orwell’s education by way of his brief
participation in the Spanish Civil War. Each man is given separate
chapters as world events leading up to WW II unfold and the subsequent fight
for freedom. The author points out the commonalities that existed in
Churchill and Orwell’s lives, notwithstanding the fact that they had completely
different upbringings. Both men were capable of looking directly at
reality; both were seekers of the facts. The chapter relating to
Orwell’s experience during the Spanish Civil War and his reaction to what
actually occurred versus Hemingway’s version, is reason enough to read this
book. The chapter about the German air blitz and the reaction of
the British people, including Orwell’s personal observations, is excellent.
There are 50 pages of notes and citations at the end of the book. A
recurring theme throughout the book is the importance of language and the fact
that words truly mattered to both men. Ricks was a journalist for the
Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal; Ricks is not an academic.
His account of two of the most famous British men of the 20<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup>
century is presented in a very engaging manner. I highly recommend
this book.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-18179456701097195092017-07-31T18:38:00.001-07:002017-07-31T18:38:13.593-07:00Movie: Dunkirk
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Dunkirk</i>: the film expertly depicts what
occurred at Dunkirk in late May 1940. The city of Dunkirk is located
on the coast of Northwestern France approximately 10 kilometers from the
Belgium border. A significant portion of the film takes place on the
beach where as many as 400,000 British and French troops were stranded as a
consequence of Germany’s successful blitzkrieg through France. Rather
than having his tank force continue their push to the sea, Hitler chose to have
his air force finish the campaign. This allowed Britain time to evacuate
approximately 300,000 men. Had Hilter chosen to continue the push
westward using his ground troops, the allied forces at Dunkirk would have been
decimated. This film by Christopher Nolan tells of the British
evacuation. At the beginning of the film, we are told that “The Mole”
(the jetty protruding into the Atlantic Ocean from the beach) lasted for
one week, “The Sea” (the military ships and civilian boats involved in the
evacuation) lasted for one day, and “The Air” (the aerial battle between
British and German planes) lasted for one hour. During the course of
its 106 minutes, the film weaves these three campaign narratives into a single
cohesive tale about the evacuation of Dunkirk. Most of the
characters remain nameless, and you never see a German soldier until the
closing scene. The aerial sequences are outstanding, starting with
the three British spitfires and their subsequent confrontations with German
fighters. Tom Hardy does a magnificent job as the lead
pilot. The British soldier who has the most on-screen time is Tommy
(Fionn Whitehead) but you learn his name only by looking at the credits at the
end of film. The major character who is clearly identified is Commander
Bolton (Kenneth Branagh), the officer in charge of the
embarkation. The evacuation was successful due to participation by
British civilian boaters who answered the call for assistance in rescuing the
Dunkirk soldiers. Of the civilian boaters, the film highlights a
father (Mark Rylance ), his son (Tom Glynn-Carney) and the son’s schoolmate
(Barry Keoghan) who happened to be at the dock when the call for help
came. Of the film’s large cast, these three characters are among the
most developed. Because the film stays tightly focused on the goal of
getting the men off the beach and back home, there is no back story for any of
the individual characters. From the opening scene, it is clear that
you are at war and war’s consequences are constantly present. The typical
scene of war room strategizing is omitted. Instead you are shown men
waiting on the beach, men struggling to across the channel, and the superb aerial
scenes. My father refused to attend war movies because he said they
never showed the horror of what was truly occurring. This film, with
its three pronged narrative, is one of the rare exceptions. <i>Dunkirk</i>
concludes with a reading of a portion of Churchill’s famous speech that rallied
the British people once the majority of the soldiers were safely back
home. Most films would have included a shot of Churchill speaking but, to
the end, Nolan remains true to his storyline. <i>Dunkirk</i> is a
film about how one saves lives in war. With its expert cinematography,
this is a film that should be seen on the big screen with full capacity audio.
The film’s musical score by Hans Zimmer also deserves praise. The
major Oscar winners are usually films released towards the end of the
year. <i>Dunkirk</i> should prove to be the exception.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-4616607343743382502017-07-09T13:26:00.003-07:002017-07-09T13:26:57.552-07:00Movie: Beatriz at Dinner
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Beatriz at Dinner</i>: an entertaining movie that
speaks to the<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>present social, economic and
lifestyle divisions within American society. Beatriz (Salma Hayek), who
was born in Mexico, is a massage therapist. In the opening scene,
she is dreaming about rowing a boat through a mangrove swamp where she
encounters a white goat on the shore. In the next scene, Beatriz is
caring for her animals, including a goat<span style="color: #1f497d;">,</span>
before going to work. Although she treats most of her clients at a
medical center, Beatriz also does house visits. One of her house
clients is Kathy (Connie Britton), a very wealthy woman with an elaborate home
in Orange County, California. During the massage session, we learn that
Beatriz and Kathy became close while Beatriz was providing massage therapy to
Kathy’s daughter to help the daughter regain her strength following cancer
treatments. We also learn that Beatriz’s neighbor killed one of her
goats simply because it was making too much noise. Upon leaving, Beatriz
learns that her car won’t start and she needs to wait for a friend to pick her
up. Kathy invites Beatriz to join her for a dinner party at the
residence. The guests are Kathy’s husband Grant (David Warshofsky),
Grant’s boss Doug Strutt (John Lithgow), Doug’s third wife Jeana (Amy
Landecker), and Alex (Jay Duplass) and his wife Shannon (Chloe Sevigny).
Alex scored a major political lobbying victory, which will produce a
substantial income<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>for Doug’s company.
The dinner is in celebration of Alex’s success. This 83 minute film
becomes truly interesting when Doug, a Trump-like entrepreneur, and Beatriz
start interacting. Doug is a multi-millionaire with a history of
legal entanglements and is often in the news. Lithgow’s performance
is excellent, and part of the reason this film works is because Lithgow’s
character is presented as a complex person with a humorous side. The
first hour has some very funny scenes, especially when Doug and Beatriz are
involved. Miguel Arteta is the film’s director and Mike White wrote
the screenplay. None of the<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>main
characters are stereotypes and the dialogue has a very entertaining edge to
it. The downside of the film is that once the issues of class,
wealth and life style are laid out via the dinner dialogue, it seems that
Arteta and White are at a loss as to what to do with the characters and how to
finish the story. As is my policy, I will not reveal the
ending. I would categorize the ending as “artsy” but it left me
feeling very unsatisfied. There are no special effects in this film,
just excellent acting. This is a film to see at home to take advantage of
the ability to rewind and re-watch the interactions between Doug and Beatriz,
two people with very different backgrounds. Except for the inadequate
and unsatisfying conclusion, <i>Beatriz at Dinner</i> has a significant level
of positive energy and is worthwhile seeing. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-53753106544447563752017-06-24T11:39:00.002-07:002017-06-24T11:39:42.472-07:00Movie: My Cousin Rachel
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>My Cousin Rachel</i>: a gothic drama based upon the
Daphne Du Maurier novel of the same name. The story takes
place in the 1830’s primarily on a estate in Cornwall. The principal
male character is Philip Ashley (Sam Claflin), who was orphaned as a child and
raised by his older cousin, Ambrose Ashley (also played by Claflin). A
key to the unfolding story is that Philip is raised without the significant
presence of any women. Following a brief foray into the characters’
background, we meet Philip as a man in his early 20’s. We learn that
he is entitled to receive his inheritance on his 25<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup>
birthday. Due to health concerns, guardian/cousin Ambrose is residing in
sunny Italy. Through Ambrose’s letters to Philip, we are introduced
to Rachel (Rachel Weisz), whom Ambrose has met in Italy, and learn that Ambrose
and Rachel have married. After the marriage occurs Ambrose’s
correspondence with regards to Rachel turns dark. Ambrose summons Philip
to Italy, however, by the time Philip arrives, Ambrose is dead. The
Italian lawyer advises Philip that Rachel has left the villa and given the
lawyer instructions to liquidate the Italian assets. Philip, in anger,
returns to Cornwall. Then Rachel arrives. The film hints
that Rachel is a “Black Widow” but, as the tale unfolds, ambiguity takes center
stage. Almost upon first sight, Philip’s anger towards Rachel melts
as he falls in love<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>with her. Rachel’s
feelings are far more complex. There are other people at Cornwall –
house and field servants - but they are clearly secondary
characters. The cinematography is outstanding and brought to mind
another British period drama, <i>Barry Lyndon</i>. The directorial
talent of Robert Michell, Weisz’s excellent performance and the spectacular
camera shots make this 106 minute film worth seeing. The degree to
which you enjoy the film will depend, I think, on your reaction to
Philip. Personally, I could not relate to him. He is an upper
class man-child of 1830’s England whose world and lifestyle is totally foreign
to present day sensibilities. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span> While
I understand that Philip is smitten by Rachel, it is hard to empathize with his
behavior. I note that my comments are shared in the context of Weisz
dominating every scene in which she appears. It is admittedly a bit
early in the year, but Weisz’s performance is definitely Oscar worthy. In
fact, both Weisz and the film’s cinematographer are deserving of
nominations. This version of <i>My Cousin Rachel</i> is a remake of
the 1952 movie starring Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton who, I
understand, played Philip with a touch of madness. I’ve not seen the 1952
film, but seeing a deeper, more complex version of Philip would have elevated
this film’s rating to four stars. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-74866954740899749042017-06-18T13:41:00.002-07:002017-06-18T13:41:13.983-07:00Movie: Megan Leavey
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Megan Leavey</i>: not your typical soldier
flick. This one is for dog lovers. The film is based upon the
actual experiences of a Marine corporal who was deployed to Iraq with a bomb
sniffing dog named Rex. At the beginning of the film, we meet Megan
(Kate Mara) and get a glimpse of what her life was like prior to joining the
Marines. She is living with her mother (Edie Falco, who is probably quite
unhappy with her one dimensional portrait) and stepfather (Will Patton, whose
scenes are brief). Once the film makes its point that pre-Marines Megan
was adrift and having problems connecting with people, the story moves forward
to boot camp. Because Megan continues to mess up, she is assigned to
kennel cleaning duty. When we first meet Rex, he is an aggressive
German Shepherd. Rex is assigned to Megan after he disables his
handler. The storyline then progresses to Iraq. The war scenes
are well done and the film remains on track as to standard war storytelling. If
you’ve seen <i>The Hurt Locker</i>, this film, directed by Gabriela
Cowperthwaite, offers a similar perspective on a very dangerous job.
However, the focus of this movie is on the developing relationship
between Rex and Megan<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>and their work
together seeking out improvised explosive devices (IED). It tracks
Megan’s efforts to have Rex retired and transferred to her care following an
incident in which Rex saves Megan’s life<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>but
Rex is also injured. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>While Megan
gets to retire, Rex is shipped to Afghanistan with a new handler. It is
the second half of this 116 minute movie that makes it worth<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>your time to see<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>this
film. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Kate Mara is excellent
throughout the film and is particularly believable in her pursuit of saving
Rex. Woven into the storyline is Megan’s relationship with a fellow
dog handler (Ramon Rodriguez). At the film’s conclusion there are
snapshots of the real Megan and Rex. An interesting side note is
that in 2011, Rex’s first handler , Marine Corps Sgt. Mike Dowling, wrote <i>Sergeant
Rex: The Unbreakable Bond Between a Marine and His Military Working Dog. </i>Throughout
the film, the primary focus remains on Megan and Rex as one of the first female
led canine IED seeking team<span style="color: #1f497d;">s</span> in Iraq.
This is a well done tear jerker<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>with a true
story happy ending.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-26367917317104766282017-06-11T14:35:00.002-07:002017-06-11T14:35:41.345-07:00Movie: Wonder Woman
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Wonder Woman</i>: the DC Comics character is
brought successfully to the big screen. For a movie based on a comic
book character to succeed, the person portraying the super hero must be
believable. In far too many of the recent comic based films, that
has simply not been the case. Gal Gadot as Diana Prince, the Wonder
Woman, is the exception. The success of the Wonder Woman character,
coupled with the directing skills of Patty Jenkins, results in an enjoyable 141
minute movie. Notwithstanding these positive comments, the film’s opening
scenes are weak; you become leery that the same tired format used by most of
the recent DC/Marvel-based character movies will be repeated. The opening
includes scenes of Diana as a child, then moves to her training as a warrior
while simultaneously telling the Amazon Greek mythology<span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span>storyline. Allan Heinberg’s story becomes more interesting upon
the crash landing of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) near Themyscira, the Amazons’
island home, and Diana showing up to save him. This opening sequences
could have shortened. By the time the real action begins it is 1917 when
Diana and Steve depart Themyscira to fight the Germans in WW I. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>From this point forward, the film is
interesting and entertaining. The Germans seem to be derived from
some campy propaganda film about “The Enemy”. However, due to a good
supporting cast and a healthy helping of “suspension of reality”, the film
keeps you entwined. Ewen Bremner as a singing Scottish sharpshooter, Said
Taghmaoui as a fixer and Eugene Brave Rock as a Native American trader are all
wonderful. These three characters play off superbly against each other
and with Steve and Diana. There are some light comedic moments
reminiscent of 1930’s film making where jokes are made about Wonder Woman’s
clothing and there having been no men in Diana’s life prior to<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>meeting Steve. Most importantly, the action
scenes work because they remain focused on the individual characters. The
Wonder Woman character is refreshing and a pleasant contrast to the male
comedic characters. She is an optimistic person with a positive viewpoint
despite the horrors of war and mankind’s bad behavior. In Gal Gadot,
we are seeing a super star. In this current political atmosphere,
this film’s outlook is refreshing. The movie offers an enjoyable
escapism and that is a definite positive.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-4183550730375521262017-05-31T12:48:00.002-07:002017-05-31T12:48:53.178-07:00Movie: Alien Covenant
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Alien: Covenant</i>: Successful sequels are the
exception. Typically, when a studio pops out a sequel, it is attempting
to cash in on prior success but usually ends up tarnishing the brand.
This is the sixth time the creatures from <i>Alien </i>have appeared, excluding
the two wasted films that combined the <i>Alien</i> and <i>Predator</i>
franchises. The original 1979 <i>Alien</i> was Ridley Scott’s
creation. I still remember being shocked when the creature
appeared. I don’t recall having jumped in my seat<span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span>at a movie theatre before or since. The three <i>Alien</i> films
that followed the original were not directed by Scott and lacked that unique
edge. In 2012, Scott released <i>Prometheus</i>, a prequel. If
you watched <i>Prometheus </i>and enjoyed it, you’ll find<i> Alien: Covenant </i>to
be a worthy successor. However, if you did not like the original <i>Alien</i>,
then stay away from this movie. Ridley Scott recreates that intense edge
from his original film. This is due in part to a strong performance
by the film’s female lead, Katherine Waterston. No one is going to
duplicate Sigourney Weaver’s performance in the original <i>Alien</i>, but
Waterston, as Dany Branson, is excellent. Most of the commentary on
this film has focused on Michael Fassbender’s dual-role performance as the
humanesque robots, David and Walter. While Fassbender’s performance
is superb, the film would be a failure without Waterson. During the
opening scenes of this 122 minute movie, we learn that Dany is married to
Covenant’s airship captain, Jake Branson (James Franco). Covenant is
on a journey to a remote planet. Jake is killed off very early in the
film during an unexpected neutrino storm burst that damages the
ship. Following the storm, Covenant picks up a radio transmission
from an unknown planet in the vicinity. The new captain, Christopher Oram
(Billy Crudup), decides to investigate. At this point, we meet David from
<i>Prometheus</i> and are reintroduced to the aliens. Unfortunately, to
move the storyline forward, most of the film’s characters do stupid things,
which is particularly true of the Captain Oram character. The film
makes a point of presenting Oram as a man of faith when, in actuality, faith
clearly has nothing to do with his decisions. Also, Tennessee Faris
(Danny McBride), chief pilot of the Covenant, is not an endearing character<span style="color: #1f497d;">. </span>Spock would be extremely
disappointed with the decisions<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>made by both
Faris and Oram. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>A number
of the crew are married couples and this dynamic is intended to provide a
rationale for some of the decision-making. However, in reality, the crew
would not have achieved their positions if their decisions had been so closely
bound to their emotions. The editing could have been tighter, and
some of the characters could have been endowed with a bit more
intelligence. Despite my criticisms, if Fassbender and Waterston
are cast in a seventh film in this franchise and if the film is directed by
Scott, I will buy a ticket. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Having
been hooked in 1979, I will sign up for another ride. For those of us
intrigued by Scott’s original creation, <i>Alien: Covenant</i> is a
worthy successor. Ridley Scott has kept me interested.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Steven
Guttman</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-37638015548051650632017-05-13T17:34:00.002-07:002017-05-13T17:34:40.274-07:00Movie: The Dinner
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>The Dinner</i>: a family drama. Despite its
title, this is not a film for foodies nor is it a kin to <i>My</i> <i>Dinner
with Andre</i>. This movie is for mental health professionals who are
jonesing for a challenge. Two brothers, Paul Lohman (Steve Coogan),
a former history teacher, and Stan Lohman (Richard Gere), a congressman now
running for governor, meet for dinner at an elite restaurant. The
brothers are accompanied by their wives; Paul’s wife Claire (Laura Linney), and
Stan’s young second wife Katelyn (Rebecca Hall). The performances by all
four actors are excellent. The premise of the film is that through
the vehicle of the five course formal dinner, various elements of the family
are revealed. An incident has occurred and Stan has interrupted his
campaign to meet with his brother and sister-in-law. It is clear
upon our introduction to Paul that he has issues, as noted by his running
internal dialogue. As the courses are served, someone is always getting
up and walking away. <span style="color: #1f497d;">E</span>ach course is
described by the presenters and, although each course sounds elaborate and
expensive, most due not sound appetizing. But the problem is not the food
or the overly elegant and affected service. Colored in part by my personal
biases, I believe the problem rests with the film’s director and screenwriter,
Oren Moverman. Those of you who are longtime readers know I am not a
fan of flashbacks. In this particular film, the characters are discussing
various family incidents and suddenly we are launched into a flashback.
This tactic is used far too frequently. By the time you reach the
halfway mark of this 120 minute movie, you start to question the point of this
seemingly disjointed film and wonder where it is this going; the storyline
feels to be aimlessly rambling. Up to this point, <span style="color: #1f497d;">t</span>he information has been sufficient to establish that this
story has to do with three teenage boys who are connected to the two
families. Then you are smacked with the horrendous deed that two of the
teenagers have committed. The rest of the film deals with how the
parents handle what their children have done. <u>Spoiler alert</u>:
only Stan, the politician, takes the high ground. A further <u>Spoiler
Alert</u>: because the film addresses a significant moral question, I
will be discussing the deed involving two of the boys<span style="color: #1f497d;">.
</span>What do you do when your child commits a heinous crime, in this case
firebombing a homeless person, and the police do not know the identity of the
perpetrator? Do you protect your child or do you report the
truth? Presumably, by making the crime so hideous, the viewer must also
make a choice. The film’s ending is ambiguous, including the action
taken by Paul as to Stan’s second son, an adopted African-American teenager who
did not participate in the crime but who did post the incident on-line.
Personally, I don’t know how one can truly hide such action. It is clear
that Paul’s son has psychological issues and, in light of the family’s history
of mental issues, the decision should not be difficult. Other
questions are how is it possible for the mothers be so oblivious as to what’s
going on with their children, and why? This film presents a serious
subject without any comic relief, with the possible exception of the
restaurant’s absurd pretentiousness. As noted, the acting throughout is
excellent. This film, based upon the 2009 novel by Dutch writer Herman
Koch, deserved a better script.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-82072660132940798202017-05-07T13:41:00.003-07:002017-05-07T13:41:42.576-07:00Movie: Their Finest
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Their Finest</i>: a movie within a
movie. The year is 1940 and the place is Britain’s Ministry of
Information following the British military disaster at Dunkirk. The basic
storyline of this 117-minute movie: Britain’s propaganda office needs to
create an uplifting film to boost the morale of the British people and, as it
turns out, to also encourage the United States to join Britain in the fight
against Nazi Germany. The screenplay by Gaby Chiappe is based on
Lissa Evans’ novel <i>Their Finest Hour and a Half</i>. The film is
directed by Lone Scherfig. The story opens with Catrin Cole (Gemma
Artenton) being summoned for an interview at the Ministry of Information.
She assumes the position is secretarial but, as she learns, her assignment is
to write “the slop”, a reference to women’s dialogue, for a Ministry
sponsored war propaganda film. <i>Their Finest</i> pointedly emphasizes
the extent of sexism that was present in 1940’s work environments and personal
relationships. In fact, the role of Phyl (Rachael Stirling) appears
to have been created specifically to offer a feminist viewpoint. After
being hired and following a run-in with actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy),
Catrin is assigned to research a news story about twin sisters who supposedly<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>successfully sailed their father’s boat to
Dunkirk to assist in the evacuation. It turns out that the twins’
real story was not as presented in the newspaper, nevertheless, Catrin chooses
to run with the newspaper’s version of the story and the film making
beings. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>As the tale unfolds, a
love story, which was not obvious from the introduction of the primary
characters, develops. The English cast, including Jeremy Irons, Helen
McCrory and Richard Grant, is excellent. To amplify the film’s appeal to
Americans, the Jeremy Irons character orders that a handsome American war hero
pilot character be added to the film’s story. The pilot is played by Jake
Lacey, who is excellent in his role as a person having no acting
ability. Bill Nighy offers a star performance as Ambrose Hilliard,
an elderly actor who has never grown beyond seeing himself as the young
detective who starred in pre-WW II films. The combination of an
excellent script and actors giving superb performances make for a most
enjoyable film. There is more comedy, primarily through Nighy, and
tenderness than you would have expected based on the film’s opening
scenes. The Artenton character, Catrin Cole, grows on you as do her
co-workers. <i>Their Finest</i> is an intelligent and fun film.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-81378051807226342922017-04-30T12:38:00.003-07:002017-04-30T12:38:04.395-07:00Movie: Gifted
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i><span style="color: #1f497d;">Gifted</span></i><span style="color: #1f497d;">: a family drama. At the beginning of
the film, we are introduced to Mary Adler (McKenna Grace), a seven year old
living with Frank (Chris Evans), her uncle, in Tampa. As the story
unfolds, we learn that Mary’s mother, a math genius, committed suicide and left
instructions that her brother, Frank, was to raise Mary. At the time
of Mary’s suicide, Frank was a college professor; his current profession is
boat repairman. We only know Mary’s mother through photographs and
comments by Frank and others</span>.<span style="color: #1f497d;"> Her
biological father makes a single brief appearance more than halfway through
this 101 minute film. We learn that Mary has been home schooled by Frank,
but now, over her objections, is to start attending public school. It
is during the public school sequence that we learn Mary has inherited her
mother’s gift for mathematics. Her teacher (Jenny Slate) and the
school’s principal recognize Mary’s brilliance and recommend to Frank
that Mary attend an elite private school. When Frank says no the
principal contacts Mary’s maternal grandmother (Lindsay Duncan), who also
happens to have the math genius gene. The tone of the film changes
dramatically once the grandmother comes on board. Appearing at
various times throughout the movie is Frank’s neighbor (Octavia Spencer).
The neighbor might be Frank’s landlord but, at a minimum, she is the property
manager for the bungalow complex where Frank and Mary
reside. Octavia Spencer’s character is underutilized in this film
and seeing more of Octavia and her character would have resulted in a better
film. The chemistry between Mary’s teacher and Frank does not come across
as realistic. All the actors, however, rise above Tom Flynn’s
script. This film may be Evans’ best performance. The director,
Marc Webb, presents a very enjoyable family drama. The primary key to the
success of this film is the performance of McKenna Grace as Mary and her
interactions with Frank. I also liked their one eye cat. The
grandmother character is too one dimensional. Nevertheless, this is
a pleasurable film with an excellent cast. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-82905915626869493112017-04-17T18:34:00.003-07:002017-04-17T18:34:54.220-07:00Movie: After the Storm<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em>After the Storm</em></span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">: a family
drama. This Japanese film was written and directed by Hirokazu
Koreeda. We are introduced to Ryota (Hiroshi Abe) shortly after his
father’s death and several years after the publication of his award winning
novel. The film is contemporary but its exact time frame is not
specified. Ryota is divorced and delinquent on his child support payments. Despite
his talent as a writer, Ryota works as a private detective. Like his
father, Ryota has a gambling addiction. He is also still in love
with his ex-wife, Kyoko (Yoko Maki), who has a boyfriend. Ryota’s visitation
rights with his son, Shingo (Taiyo Yoshizawa), are limited to once a
month. A significant portion of the film takes place over one long
weekend, which includes Shingo’s visit with Ryota. The other
principal characters are Ryota’s mother, Yoshiko (Kirin Kiki), and his sister,
Chinatsu (Satomi Kobayashi). When the mother is on screen, she frequently
dominates<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>the screen and provides the only
comic lines. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Chinatsu is
employed and has a daughter. She is protective of the mother and her
actions frustrate Ryota. He interprets Chinatsu’s action as taking
advantage of their mother but, in reality, it is Ryota who’s the sponge. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>As the story unfolds, we hear radio reports about
the imminent arrival of a typhoon. By the time the typhoon hits,
most of this 117-minute movie has played out. A less philosophical writer
might have dubbed the film “Before the Storm”. Hiroshi Abe’s
excellent acting carries parts of the film. This film does not offer
any major dramatic scenes; it simply focuses on the reality of human dynamics
within a family structure and how some people cope with life. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>There are no special effects.
Instead, the drama and action are subtle, but for days afterwards,
individual scenes will emerge and linger among your thoughts. Superb
acting by all the characters. Subtitled</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-50958176542349226422017-04-08T15:43:00.003-07:002017-04-08T15:43:43.878-07:00Movie: The Zookeeper's Wife
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>The Zookeeper’s Wife</i>: based upon Diane
Ackerman’s superb non-fiction book bearing the same title. I
thoroughly enjoyed the book and the film is true to the tale told in the
book. The film opens in Warsaw in 1939. It starts shortly
before Nazi Germany’s invasion of the city. The Zookeeper is Dr. Jan
Zabinski (Johan Heldenbergh) and his wife is Antonina (Jessica Chastain).
In an otherwise excellent performance, the accent adopted by Chastain is an odd
Polish/Russian blend. Although you become accustomed to her accent,
it remains a slight distraction. The opening scenes present an
overly idealistic relationship between Antonina and the Zoo’s animals, but they
serve to set the stage for the Zabinskis’ story after Warsaw is overrun by the
Nazis. During the initial invasion, the Zoo is heavily bombed and
many of the animals are lost. We are introduced to Hitler’s
zoologist, Dr. Lutz Heck (Daniel Bruhl)<span style="color: #1f497d;">, </span>initially
at a pre-invasion cocktail party. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span> Dr.
Heck<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>is central to the storyline.
Unwittingly, he becomes the key in the Zabinskis’ scheme to rescue Jews from
the Warsaw Ghetto: Dr. Heck’s approval is needed to keep the Zoo
operating. To maintain a viable escape route, the Zabinskis offer Dr.
Heck the Zoo’s facilities to use as a hog farm to provide meat for the Nazi
soldiers; to feed the hogs, garbage from the Warsaw Ghetto is needed.
When the waste is transported from the Ghetto to the Zoo, escaping Jews are
hidden in the garbage.<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Later,
the Zookeeper obtains additional access to the Ghetto resulting in additional
Jews leaving the Ghetto. The film does an excellent job of showing
how these two schemes operated and Antonina’s involvement in the process. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>A total of 300 Jews were able to leave the
Ghetto and only 2 were subsequently found by the Nazis. Dr. Zabinski also
becomes very involved in the fight against the Nazis but his story is not the
focal point. The focus of this 126 minute film is the Zookeeper’s wife,
Antonina. The screenplay is written by Angela Workman and the director is
Niki Caro. They keep the film’s focus on showing how two individuals
worked to save lives and use Hitler’s zoologist to illustrate the idiocy and
sickness of Nazi ideology. I think most of you are fully aware of
the Holocaust and do not need further<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>film
education on the horrors inflicted by Hitler. I make this comment
because after writing the first draft of this commentary, I read a number of
reviews which attacked the film for being too light on depicting what was
occurring outside the gates of the Zoo. I don’t think this film is
light on the Holocaust nor do I think it reflects a particularly feminist
perspective of the Holocaust. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Rather,
the film and the book depict the righteous acts of two individuals by keeping
the focus on these individuals, particularly the wife. The book is superb
and this film is worth seeing.<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span> Jan
and Antonina were amazing people and this film gives them the just praise they
deserve. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-64459665375224862732017-03-07T14:49:00.002-08:002017-03-07T14:49:20.246-08:00Movie: A United Kingdom
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>A United Kingdom</i>: the tale of a true
romance. This story begins in 1948. The Prince and future king
of Bechuanaland, current day Botswana, is studying in London. The
Prince, Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo), meets a British office worker, Ruth
Williams (Rosamund Pike), at a dance sponsored by the Church of
England. They learn they have a mutual love of jazz and, from this
initial conversation, their relationship grows into a romance and then into a
marriage. Placed against the backdrop of the late 1940’s/ 1950’s, the
political consequences of this interracial marriage are significant.
There is an initial divisiveness within the Botswana tribal community to
the interracial marriage. South Africa is implementing apartheid. The
law in neighboring Botswana is the equivalent of America’s Jim Crow
laws. Although the initial story is about Seretse and Ruth’s
courtship, the majority of this 111 minute film reaches far
beyond. It addresses the British government’s aggressive attempts to
undo the marriage and, when that fails, to evict Seretse from
Botswana. It also shows the segregation that the people of Botswana
were subjected to in their own country by outsiders. The film is not
kind to the British colonial system or to Winston Churchill. The
performance by David Oyelowo, presently one of film’s finest actors, is reason
enough to see <i>A United Kingdom</i>. Rosamund Pike also gives a
strong performance. The British colonialists are somewhat one
dimensional, especially Tom Felton, but given the history of the region, the
performances may be accurate. Guy Hibbert’s screenplay involves and
holds you as it moves beyond an interracial love story. The
source material is <i>Colour Bar </i>by Susan Williams. The film is
directed by Amma Asante, who also directed <i>Belle</i>, another film with an
interracial relationship at its core. At the film’s closing, we see
photos of the actual Seretse and Ruth. We learn that they prevailed and
that Seretse became President when Botswana won its independence in 1966.
As a footnote, Botswana has prospered as an independent country and the current
president is Seretse and Ruth’s son. This movie is both enjoyable
and a learning experience.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-19544219503756543842017-02-28T15:41:00.002-08:002017-02-28T15:42:10.093-08:00Movie: I Am Not Your Negro<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><i>I Am Not Your Negro</i>: words by James Baldwin and
narration by Samuel Jackson. James Baldwin passed away on December
1, 1987. This documentary film, directed by Raoul Peck, is proof
that Baldwin’s writings are as valid and insightful today as when they were
first penned. At the time of his death, Baldwin had started a
manuscript bearing the working title <i>Remember This House</i>. His
premise for the book was telling of his interactions with Medgar Evers,
Martin Luther King and Malcom X. Peck’s film goes beyond these three
individuals and their assassinations; it presents a deeply meaningful
exploration of racism in the United States. Part of the brilliance
of this 95 minute film, in addition to its wide ranging sound track, is its
scene selection from the past through the present, including reactions to Black
Lives Matter. <i>I Am Not Your Negro</i> may be the best documentary
on the subject of race in the United States. Using Baldwin’s
commentary on race relations in America, the film viscerally presents the
dialogue that both Clinton and Obama, in their very different styles, tried to begin
in this country. The film is organized around thoughts and concepts
rather than chronology, and Peck keeps you involved, in part, because you don’t
know where he’s going next. The film was deservingly nominated for
Best Documentary Feature. While <i>OJ: Made in America </i>won the
Oscar and <i>13</i> was a strong competitor, my vote remains with <i>I Am Not
Your Negro</i>. <i>OJ </i>tells the race story by focusing on an uniquely
athletic individual who, as an adult, seemed more comfortable among Whites than
Blacks. <i>13</i>’s focus was on an undeniably important issue, prisons
and prisoners. In his film, Peck gives you the full race relations
picture without requiring you to invest multiple hours of viewing time as with
the <i>OJ</i> documentary<i>.</i> I don’t know many folks who would watch
<i>OJ</i> a second time due partly to its length. However, with Baldwin’s
dialogue and a run time of less than 2 hours, I think Peck’s film will be
viewed more than just once. Peck draws on a wide range of Baldwin’s
writings, particularly <i>The Devil Finds Work</i>, a 1976 publication
dealing with Baldwin’s Hollywood experience and “white innocence” as to the
history of discrimination and racial violence. Both this film and
the excellent PBS documentary on Maya Angelou effectively use the scene from
“The Dick Cavett Show” wherein Baldwin reacts to Yale professor, Paul Weiss,
who scolds Baldwin for dwelling too much on race. The Cavett scene,
however, is the exception; Baldwin probably appears more in the Angelou
documentary than in the film by Peck. It is the strength of Samuel L.
Jackson’s voice speaking Baldwin’s words together with a candid visual
presentation that gives this film its awesome power. I will close my
comments with a Baldwin quote: “I can’t be a pessimist because I’m
alive. I’m forced to be an optimist.” Peck’s film is true to James
Baldwin’s spirit. Once in a great while, a film appears that I wish every
American would go see. This is one of those rare films.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-33073072676436336652017-02-21T15:13:00.002-08:002017-02-21T15:13:06.824-08:00Movie: Toni Erdmann
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Toni Erdmann</i>: a German comedy. This
may be the first time I’ve ever written the words “German” and “comedy” in
consecutive order. This film, written and directed by Maren Ade, has been
nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Language film category. When I
read that Jack Nicholson had signed a contract to do an American version of the
film, my curiosity was peaked. The role of Toni Erdmann would be an
ideal exit character for Nicholson. <i>Toni Erdmann</i> opens with a
FedEx delivery of a package to Winfried Conradi (Peter Simonischek). The
person answering the door tells the FedEx person that the package is for his
brother who was recently released from prison for bomb making. The
person walks away from the door shouting for Winfried then reappears in a
different costume with more bomb jokes. We learn that Winfried is a
divorced music teacher with a propensity for pranks. A bit later, we meet
Winfried’s adult daughter, Ines (Sandra Huller), a businesswoman consumed by
her career. There is a palpable tension between Ines and her
father. Ines is a business consultant and is currently on assignment
in Bucharest. Winfried unexpectedly appears at Ines’ workplace; Ines
unexpectedly invites Winfried to join her for a reception at the American
Embassy. She tells her father that if she is speaking with a
gentleman named Henneberg, he is not to intervene. Henneberg is the
CEO of the company with whom Ines’ wants to secure a consulting contract.
For Winfried, of course, Ines’ warning is like honey to a bear and Winfried
promptly strolls into the conversation remarking that he has hired a
replacement daughter because Ines is too busy to spend any time with him.
<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Following is a scene where Winfried is
leaving his daughter’s apartment to return home to Germany. We then
learn a bit more about Ines and her work and, a few days later, we see Ines
with two female friends at a bar. This is when Toni Erdmann appears<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>and presents himself to Ines<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>and her friends. <span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span> A bizarre conversation among the four ensues followed by a series
of events and interactions among Ines, Toni and various third parties.
One could never have predicted some of the scenes that occur during this
162 minute movie. It becomes clear that Winfried has adopted the Toni
Erdmann character to help his daughter learn to enjoy life. Toni is
not merely a prankster, and amidst the comedic routines, important issues
concerning familial relationships are addressed. Some of the scenes
go on a bit too long and the film could have been more tightly edited.
The film works due, in large part, to the strength of Simonischek’s
performance. You can clearly see Jack Nicholson as Toni, which is
not to diminish Simonischek’s performance. This is the film’s second
week in Honolulu and, unless it wins the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film,
I suspect it will be gone for good after this week. I am looking forward
to Maren Ade’s next movie. Her Toni Erdmann character is truly unique and
makes you wonder what’s up next from this very talented writer/director.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-47197916825507296212017-02-13T14:49:00.000-08:002017-02-13T15:32:32.598-08:00Movie: The Salesman<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"><em>The Salesman</em></span><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">: Iran’s Oscar
submission for Best Foreign Language film. This is writer/director
Asghar Farhadi’s most recent creation, and the story that is told cannot be
predicted based upon the opening scenes. The film begins with what
appears to be an earthquake. The male lead, Emad (Shahab Hosseini), is
awakened by his neighbors yelling to abandon the building. We learn
that Emad is married to Rana (Taraneh Alidoosti). The building is
rendered uninhabitable due to the sustained damage. Emad is a<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>high school teacher. Emad and Tana are also
actors and are in rehearsal for Arthur Miller’s <i>Death of a Salesman</i>
where Emad plays Willy Loman and Rana plays Willy’s wife, Linda. As the
film unfolds, the play begins its commercial run. Short clips from
the play are shown throughout the film’s 125 minutes. Because this
is an Iranian movie, you may seek political connections between the film and
the very American <i>Death of a Salesman</i>. However, from what I
could surmise, this film appears to be Farhadi’s attempt to show the
universality of the story he is presenting, which becomes particularly evident
in Linda’s final soliloquy following Willy’s death. In the course of
things, an individual connected with the theater tells Emad and Rana of an
apartment<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>he owns and available for
rent. We learn the former tenant, who we never see, is a
prostitute. The story<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Farhardi
is presenting and resulting in numerous awards is revealed more than a third of
the way into the film after Rana has been badly beaten<span style="color: #1f497d;">,
</span>off-screen. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span> Everyone
surmises the perpetrator is a former customer of the prostitute.
Notwithstanding the extent of the beating the police are never called,
which is presumably one of Farhadi’s political commentaries. Being
an Iranian movie and not an American one, the film does not morph into a police
drama. Rather, it is a tale about family relationships, male chauvinism
and the isolation of women in traditional Muslim society. Farhadi
won Best Original Screenplay at Cannes. Hosseini won Cannes’ Best Actor
award; frankly I was more impressed with Alidoosti’s performance. I
have not seen all the nominees for Best Foreign Film but, at a minimum, <i>The
Salesman</i> is a strong candidate. Subtitles and there is a lot of dialogue. </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-48619846338292239202017-02-03T10:48:00.001-08:002017-02-03T10:48:41.004-08:00Movie: Julieta
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Julieta</i>: a Pedro Almodovar
film. This film was submitted to the<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Oscar
Academy as Spain’s entry in the Best Foreign Film category. Although
it did not reach the Final Five, this drama about life and death is deserving
of your attention. The film opens with a middle-aged Julieta (Emma
Suarez) packing up her Madrid apartment and moving to Portugal. We then
see Julieta walking through town and happening upon a close friend of her
daughter from many years ago. We learn that Julieta hasn’t seen or
heard from her daughter in a long time. <span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Julieta
learns that her daughter has three children. We flashback to Julieta as a
25 year old (Adriana Ugarte) traveling on a train - - - the two actresses who
play Julieta look amazingly similar. An older gentleman sits across
from Julieta and tries to begin a conversation but she feels uncomfortable and
abandons her seat. She walks to the dining car where she meets Xoan
(Daniel Grao), a young fisherman. Xoan becomes Julieta’s lover and
eventually her husband. Off-screen, the older gentleman commits
suicide. Julieta and Xoan have a lovely daughter who is played by
Priscilla Delgado when young and by Blanca Pares when 18 years
old. At 18, the daughter goes off to a retreat and then disappears
from Julieta’s life. During the course of this 96-minute film, the
action moves between middle aged Julieta wondering what happened to her
daughter and the events which resulted in the daughter’s departure from
Julieta’s life. Julieta is a complex individual whose
relationships with the significant people in her life bear comparison to her
profession, the teaching and the translation of Greek tragedies. The
complexities of love, life and death are all presented in a sequence with<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>her father and arguably<span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span>Julieta<span style="color: #1f497d;">’</span>s life has a similarity
to that of her father. This film is consistent with many of
Almodovar’s prior films, which feature strong and complex women. For
anyone who has admired Almodovar’s work, this film is a must see. If you
are not yet familiar with his work, <i>Julieta</i> is an excellent
introduction. The film is in Spanish and therefore subtitled.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1793750964214220904.post-89371985482039477212017-01-21T18:03:00.003-08:002017-01-21T18:03:21.151-08:00Movie: Elle
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i>Elle</i>: France’s 2016 Academy Awards entry for
Best Foreign Language film. A <i>tour de force</i> performance by
Isabelle Huppert<span style="color: #1f497d;">,</span> who plays Michele Leblanc,
the “elle” in the film’s title. Michele is a divorced businesswoman
who owns a video game company. The game currently being developed is
violent. Brief scenes of violence appear throughout the film, some of
which involve an intermix of human comedy as well as scenes of short sexual
violence. The sexuality that runs through the storyline results in<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>a film that is clearly not of American
origin. The opening scene is a swift rape viewed from the
perspective of Michele’s cat. This 130-minute subtitled film is
based upon the novel <i>Oh . . .</i> by Philippe Djian. Paul
Verhoeven directed the film and David Birke wrote the screenplay.
Violence penetrates Michele’s life from the outset. Her father is in
prison because, when Michele was 9 years old, he went on a one day killing
spree in their neighborhood. Michele was home when her father returned
from his rampage. We learn about her background as the main story
unfolds. Most of the people with whom Michele interacts are presented as
foolish beings. She remains friends with her ex-husband , Richard
(Charles Berling); the marriage we learn ended over a single violent
episode. Some of the lighter moments in the film occur between
Richard and his much younger girlfriend. The relationship between Vincent
(Jonas Bloquet), Michele’s adult son, and his pregnant girlfriend, Josie (Alice
Isaaz), is filled with conflict and flows from Josie’s odd
behavior. Even the events that occur involving Michele’s rapist
(Laurent Lafitte) are bizarre. Michele’s one real friend is her business
partner, Anna (Anne Consigny)<span style="color: #1f497d;">. </span>Nonetheless,
Michele has an affair with Anna’s husband Robert (Christian Berkel), who is
also tagged as a fool. While the film partially explains Michele, it
never provides a viable explanation for the rapist’s behavior. There
is one more character who deserves comment: Michele’s mother played by Judith
Magre. The mother’s scenes are short but when she is on camera, her
performance matches that of Huppert’s. Verhoeven, at 78, has created
a riveting film. The acting throughout is excellent. Michele’s
character and behavior are very unique but Huppert’s talent renders her
believable. Huppert’s performance is reason enough to see this film.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13312233560444701104noreply@blogger.com0