My Picks for the Ten Best Movies of 2019 Version 1.0

Still a lot of 2019 releases to see but this list represents my initial choices for the 10 best films of 2019. This has been a disappointing film year.

10. Richard Jewell
9. Jojo Rabbit
8. Apollo 11
7. Toy Story 4
6. Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice
5. Mike Wallace is Here
4. Booksmart
3. The Two Popes
2. Little Women
1. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood

My Choices for the 10 Best Movies of 2018 Version 2.0

10. Vice
9. The Mule
8. Won't You Be My Neighbor
7. Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse
6. Crazy Rich Asians
5. BlacKkKlansman
4. The Favorite
3. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
2. First Reformed
1. Roma

Richard Jewell (2019)

When I first started to see previews for the new movie 'Richard Jewell' I was excited, curious of course to know more about one the most famously wrongly accused people of my life time, but mainly because I have been a fan of director Clint Eastwood's late in life cycle of making films based on true stories of recent decades ('Sully', 'The Mule'). The backlash over the films portal of Kathy Scruggs an Atlanta newspaper reporter who played a prominent role in the veritable witch hunt that Mr. Jewell was subjected to, dampened my enthusiasm some. Ms. Scruggs is dead and therefore not in a position to defend her self and Olivia Wilde plays her as a pretty miserable excuse for a human being, this may well be unfair to her. However that aside I thought 'Richard Jewell' was a pretty solid movie.

For those who may be unfamiliar or who have forgotten Jewell was a security guard at the Centennial Park venue at the 1996 Summer Olympic games in Atlanta Georgia. It was Jewell who first pegged an abandoned backpack as a "suspicious package" and alerted authorities. Ultimately the backpack proved to contain three pipe bombs, and Richard's discovery of this likely saved many lives (ultimately over 100 people were injured and one to two killed, depending on the source). Hailed initially as a hero Jewell quickly became the prime suspect, the FBI was looking at him as a likely 'hero bomber' someone who plants a bomb in order to stop it and thus become a hero (there is precedent for this, apparently something similar happened at the L.A. games in 84'). Scruggs broke that story, and the film implies got said dirt in exchange for sexual favors with an FBI agent. Jewell's life was needlessly turned upside down and the real bomber Eric Rudolph wouldn't be apprehended until 2003.

In some ways this story is really the stuff of "The TV movie" though that genera as brought to us by the "the networks" has largely gone away since 1996 when this movie is set. By giving Jewell's tale a big screen treatment, with high production values and solid actors, Eastwood has given the man the redemption tale he deserved (sadly Jewell passed away in 2007 at the age of 44). Jewell was a Baptist and a gun loving, portly white southern man, and he is now the hero of a major motion picture, that just doesn't happen, and that is why this is so great, this is a story we don't often get and well told to boot. Paul Walter Hauser is fantastic as Jewell, he becomes the man and radiates an odd endearing charisma playing someone who seemed to be very awkward. Kathy Bates gets a sold part as Jewell's devoted mother, with whom he was living at the time of the bombing. Jon Hamm plays FBI agent Tom Shaw, who I think may be a composite, his square jaw casting is almost too obvious, but works none the less. Sam Rockwell gave my favorite performance of the piece as Watson Bryant, Jewell's friend and lawyer whose trust in his client is heartening, and whose efforts in his service inspiring.

Though one could read the film, especially in light of the current political climate as an us vs. them story of the media vs. downtrodden white America, I would recommend taking it as what at its heart it appears to be, a redemption story. Richard Jewell was a hero,  a man who wanted to be one and for whom unlike most of us, time, circumstance, and talent combined to allow him to be. He went through hell for doing the right thing, yet in the end you know he'd do it again in a heartbeat. It's a story the bears telling. ***1/2

Little Women (2019)

'Little Women' was not a story I knew, I mean beyond some basics, New England, 4 March sisters, father's off serving in the Civil War. Having now seen this I can appreciate why it is considered a classic, and why people keep returning to it, why it keeps being remade as a film. This new version is Greta Gerwig's follow up project to the movie that made her a name director, the Oscar nominated 'Lady Bird' from 2017. Gerwig plays with the story structure some, I understand the novel is very lineal, here you toggle back and forth between two story periods, one during the civil war and one several years after, it took me a little bit to catch on to when the switches were happening, but you can mostly tell by way of context, peoples haircuts ect. Some would call Gerwig's a feminist take, but if you have a problem with that term don't let it throw you, I think most would agree that women's options were rather unfairly limited in the mid 19th Century America, that is the principle social critique in film.

This movie is really enjoyable, it can win you over, the man sitting next to me in the theater clearly did not chose this film, his wife did, but by the end he seemed to be into it. If I had to sum up a description of the film in one word I'd say "warm". The source material, Louisa May Alcott's novel is over 150 years old but this felt fresh, and refreshing un-cynical, though with some knowing contemporary touches. The movie is very well cast, good supporting roles for the likes of Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep. Laura Dern plays the mom, Timothee Chalamet the principle love interest. Though this is based on a classically American novel none of the four "little women" are American, instead portrayed by two English women (Emma Watson and Florence Pugh), an Irishwoman (Saoirse Ronan as the lead character, Jo) and an Australian (Eliza Scanlen, the only principle performer in the film whose work I was not previously familiar with). Everybody does an excellent job, this cast really clicks.

 I don't want to focus much on details of the plot because I really enjoyed going into things with a minimal knowledge of what was going to happen, suffice it to say its about the trails of growing up and young adult hood, a period piece yes but also universal. I understand Gerwig (who adapted as well as directed this piece) did several fairly significant changes to the original text, and I find now to my surprise I kind of want to read this book, this book written for 19th century girls. Surprisingly affecting, one of the real film going pleasures of this year. I can highly recommend, even if you don't think this is going to be your kind of thing you may be surprised. ****

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Sofia Coppola's first film may in fact be her best, not that many of her other films aren't really good, even great, but the style comes out fully formed in this first one and subsequent films of hers have been variations on the same theme, namely stylized melancholy with a strong soundtrack. Based on the 1993 debut novel of the same name by the later Pulitzer Prize winner Jeffrey Eugenides, 'The Virgin Suicides' tells that story of 5 suburban Michigan sisters in 1974 and how over the course of around eights months, each of them commits suicide. So obviously this isn't a light hearted film, it's beautifully sad, and not an endorsement of their actions, which I kind of took it to be when I first heard of it 20 years ago, a glamorizing.

The death of the youngest girl, 13 year old Cecilia, well that probably couldn't have been stopped, she probably couldn't have been helped she was quite disturbed, but the others, well those largely grew out of the ways principally the mother (Kathleen Turner) responded to the first death. Yet neither she nor the father (James Woods, you forgot how good of an actor he is) were bad people, and the girls, though Lux (Kirstin Dunst) was particularly prone to be wild, weren't bad girls. The mystery of why the tragedy happened is at the heart of the film and is never really answered, because how could a mystery of this sort be answered.

The film is presented as the reminiscence of local boys from the neighborhood, who even 25 years later continue to be obsessively puzzled about how those beautiful neighbors came to their ultimate fate. I was supper impressed with 'The Virgin Suicides' I know and like Ms. Coppola's work but this far exceeded my expectations, quite a powerful movie. Not that stylized really for the most of it, though the coda at the end really is and it took me awhile to decide that that last sequence really works. Highly recommended, to the right audience. ****

The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming (1966)

I really wanted to like this movie more then I ended up liking it. This is the only movie, to my memory, that my dad specifically mentioned his dad taking him and his siblings to see in the theater. As a result of knowing that I've long had a presumably greater then average curiosity about the film, I simply hadn't gotten around to seeing it. Directed by the versatile Norman Jewison from the novel 'The Off-Islanders' by Nathaniel Benchley, who was the son of noted humorist Robert Benchley and the father of 'Jaws' scribe Peter Benchley. It is the story of a Russian sub that accidently runs aground on a small Massachusetts island, they send a small team onto the island to secure a boat to tow the sub out to see, but in process of doing so set off a panic among the islands inhabitants. So this is a satire of both the cold war and small towns. The principal players being the Russian first officer, and the husband and wife of the first family he and his team come across, played respectively by Alan Arkin, Carl Reiner, and Eva Marie Saint, all of whom remarkably are still alive more then 50 years after this film came out.

The movie has its moments, and I certainly admire the 'ecumenical sprit' of the thing, the Russian's aren't depicted as bad people and the Americans are depicted as prone to overreaction. I thought the movie too often slow, and the dryer moments of humor worked better then the more slapstick bits. The ending is hokey but effective, though a bit of a turn on a dim and wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny were this a film that would require that. A feel good gentle ribbing of a movie, a lesser 'It's Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' that really resonated at the time, making more then $21 million on a $4 million budget. **1/2 

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

'Zombieland: Double Tap' is the excessively delayed sequel to the 2009 hit 'Zombieland' which its self was a lesser 'Shaun of the Dead'. They simply waited far to long for this one (the film even jokingly acknowledges this in Jesse Eisenberg's opening narration). Zombies just aren't 'hot' anymore, and I'm not just talking about their body temperature (rim shot). The whole thing felt rather pointless to me, the returning central cast are all fine, and I even liked the additional characters they introduced, all of which I think benefited by limiting their screen times. For a comedy I seldom if ever laughed, and their were longish boring stretches. If you see it though make sure to stick around for the mid credits sequence, which is probably the best thing in the movie. Provided its very self aware I would still be up for a 'Zombieland 3' in 2029, a middle aged Eisenberg and Stone shooting up the undead could have an ironic charm. **

A Madea Family Christmas (2013)

The novelty of these are starting to wear off for me. In 'A Madea Family Christmas' Madea loses her holiday retail job because she is so rude to customers and travels to Alabama to spend Christmas with some extended family. Plot points include unmet familial expectations, inter-racial relations, the local school  experiencing a budget shortfall on account of a new dam, and two farmers both wanting to grow corn next year. If you've ever wanted to see Tyler Perry and Larry the Cable Guy trade crummy jokes, this movie is for you. *1/2

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)

Having now seen J. J. Abrams ending for the 3rd Star Wars trilogy I can't help but think I'd have preferred to see how Rian Johnson would have wrapped things up. Though flawed Johnson's 'The Last Jedi' at least knew how to take risks, Abrams plays things much safer and the few times it appeared as though their might be real unexpected consequences in 'The Rise of Skywalker' he backed off. This is a crowded, often pandering movie, that far too often felt rushed. Not there are not good things in it, I really liked seeing our trio of lead characters spend some much needed time together, Adam Driver remains the strongest of the younger performers in franchise, I liked one supporting players decently set up character flip, Keri Russell's voice, and the snowy planet Kijimi whose German occupied Europe vibe I thought a nice touch.

Abrams however didn't seem to know what to do with the supporting players, Kelly Marie Tran's Rose getting particularly short shift. There is much in this that does not feel very well set up, including the (this is not a spoiler he is on the teaser poster) return of Emperor Palpatine, this felt like a really big cheat that knocks much of the air out of Vader's sacrifice at the end of Episode 6. Never quite as rousing as it would like to think it is, I was surprised at the paucity of audience reaction in the half full theater I saw it in. I suppose Abrams did what he could given what seems to be a barley concealed animosity towards what Johnson did with the previous film. The biggest culprit here of course is that this new trilogy was not plotted out in advance, which seems a really dumb decision given that for far too long no one seemed to know what they were setting up for as the final payoff. You'll want to go see this for completeness sake, but I found it more then a little bit of a disappointment and a real mixed bag. ***

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

Beloved American icon Tom Hanks plays beloved American icon Fred Rogers in 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.' Now if you've decided your going to make a movie about Fred Rogers the big issue is what's the story going to be? Wisely deciding not to go with life spanning bio-pick 'Beautiful Day' like Rogers himself is centered on the idea of personal relationships, it's not in a hurry, it's about changing lives through decency, empathy, and personal connection. The framing device is the writing of a 1998 Esquire Magazine cover story about Rogers, originally planned as a short piece to be included in an issue dedicated to 'heros' it grew into something much bigger when its author Tom Junod found himself profoundly affected by the time he spent with the children's television host. The real life Junod is here fictionalized as Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) and given a personal arc of reconnecting with an estranged father (Chris Cooper). Apparently the father/son reconciliation of the story while not true of Junod, is inspired by an actual familial reconnection facilitated by Rogers.

The material in the film is for the most part treated pretty straight, there are some stylistic flourishes, including a framing device of Rogers introducing and commenting upon the story as he might if it were an episode of his television program. There is also an enjoyably trippy nightmare/dream sequence where Vogal finds himself trapped on the show, included for a time as a puppet sized, rabbit eared version of himself in 'the land of make believe'. Rhys is tasked with most the movies dramatic heavy lifting, story wise, owing to the actors most famous role as Phil Jennings on the cold war themed series 'The Americans' there is an element where I was like 'don't trust him Mr. Rogers he's a Russian spy, he could kill you.' So Rhys is quite good, and the supporting cast is fine including Susan Kelechi Watson as Vogal's wife Andrea. But you really didn't come to see them, you came to see Hank's as Rogers, and I have a few things I want to say about the performance and the man.

Now a major arc in this film is Vogal trying to figure out Rogers, trying to determine with his investigative reporter prowess if this guy is for real or not, if he is what he appears to be. There is a certain enigma to Mr. Rogers, it can be hard to know just how to take him. There is this whole aura that has built up around him, like he's a Saint, and its countered out in the either with this idea that he has something to hide, including the urban legend that he was a sniper in the Korean War and heavily tattooed under his trademark sweaters. There is a moment in the film where Mrs. Rogers (Mary Plunkett) spots Vogal giving her husband one those "I don't get you" looks, and she responds with this gentle smile like she's seen that look a lot, and she never ceases to be amused with the existential  challenge her husband seems to pose for some people.

Hanks plays Rogers as a man of surprising discipline, a man who can hold in his emotions, whose like a monk. In one scene Vogal, not in the best mood, is pushing Rogers some on how difficult it must have been for his children growing up with him as this larger then life father, Hanks has this look in his eyes of "I really don't like what your telling me", but he holds back when he might want to lash out, and tries to turn it into something constructive. Rogers was in a sense a man who had to always be 'on', he was himself, I think truly, but also a stream lined version of himself a 'character' of Mr. Rogers who was too important to others to risk letting the seems and cracks show. To do anything  "out of character" he had to do them in another "character". This is talked about by his children in the documentary film from a couple years back 'Won't You Be My Neighbor' that when he had to say something 'un Mr. Rogers like' around the home he would sometimes slip into one of his puppetry voices like King Friday or Lady Elaine Fairchilde. There is a moment where Rogers is talking to Vogal with the Daniel Stripped Tiger puppet, and it's strange, more then a little off, in another story its the kind of guy who would become a serial killer, here it's channeled towards connection not away from it.

The film has been lightly criticized for downplaying Rogers religiosity, he was an ordained Presbyterian minister, but even Rogers himself downplayed that in his public persona. Though he had a life dedicated to ministry it was not a conventional one, he sought to reach out to the vulnerable child in all of us, and validate that children, to suffer the children as corny as that sounds. This captures some of that, and hints at the human man behind it that struggled successfully to do that for most of his life. Which makes 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood' as satisfying as a retelling of the parable of the Good Samaritan. ***

The Birdcage (1996)

The great Elaine May adapted the 1978 Franco-Italian film 'La Cage aux Folles' as 'The Birdcage' and her long time creative partner Mike Nichols directed it. The film stars Robin Williams and Nathan Lane as a long time South Beach gay couple who must 'play it straight' when their son brings his fiancés conservative Ohio parents to meet them, one of whom (Gene Hackman) is a Republican Senator (Dianne Wiest plays his wife). The couple at the center of this Dan Futterman and Calista Flockhart are probably the least interesting people in the movie, which also shows Christine Baranski to good effect and Hank Azaria in a role that might be offensive now, I'm not sure. In addition to a bevy of now refreshingly quaint mid 90's political references, it is hard not to divorce the film from its time, this would have been quite radical then in its mainstreaming a gay couple as the center of a major American comedy release (grossed $185.3 million on a $31 million budget). While not often laugh out loud funny, it is funny, as well as observant, empathetic, and in a strange why tonally restrained, while still very much over the top in other ways. It has a heft to it that serves it well and makes it last, this could have been an awful throw away movie in lesser hands. ***1/2

Teen Wolf (1985)

While I definitely saw parts of this movie as I kid I don't think I ever watched it all the way through. Their was a Saturday morning cartoon version that I remember watching, and I have a distinct memory of my dad watching it one night and being interrupted by someone at the door. Turned out to be two bored teenage kids in the ward who decided to just stop by and bug brother Dredge for a while. Or maybe they were home teachers? I remember watching the conversation and not understanding why they were their and being a bit annoyed they had interrupted my pops in the middle of a movie.

'Back to the Future' came out in early July of 1985 and 'Teen Wolf' in late August. The advertising for 'Teen Wolf' took advantage of the success of the earlier film and Michael J. Fox's tremendous popularity in it. However 'Teen Wolf' is no 'Back to the Future'. This movie takes a tremendous amount of time to really getting going, about the first half of the film passes before it really picks up, and its message and ending are kind of weak. It's very much an unexceptional 80's teen comedy in spirit, however what makes 'Teen Wolf' work is one brilliant conceit, once Michael J. Fox is publically reveled to be a werewolf everyone just accepts it without question. Their are almost no negative consequences to Fox's lycanthropism. That's just great, I loved that. Unlike Fox however I would have gone for the cute brunette from the get go. **1/2

The Two Popes (2019)

Brazilin director Fernando Meirelles's ('The City of God', 'The Constant Gardener') multi-lingual adaptation of New Zealander Anthony McCartens 2017 stage play 'The Pope'. 'The Two Popes' stars Anthony Hopkins as Joseph Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict XVI and Jonathan Pryce as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/ Pope Francis. Produced for Netflix but given a limited theatrical run, which is how I saw it, 'The Two Popes' consists largely of imagined conversations between the two Catholic leaders prior to the latters elevation to the chair of Saint Peter. The film nicely opens up the stage bounded material to give it the appropriate global scale, and while it is a fairly cerebral film composed mostly of two people talking, it is its own kind of spectacle, two serious people discussing serious philosophical and theological ideas in a mostly civil manner. It is more then just the standard right / left debate you might imagine given the two principal figures reputations, I came away from this film with more respect for both Popes. While titled 'The Two Popes' as the source materials title 'The Pope' suggests this is more the story of one pontiff then the other, there is a lot conveyed about the life and backstory of the current Pope, some of it in flash backs where he is played by Juan Minujín, which may not be widely known to most audiences but is certainly worth knowing. Both Hopkins and Pryce are excellent as is to be expected playing serious and passionate men, but neither without a sometimes subversive sense of humor. A joy of a film, if only there were more of its caliber, I highly recommend. ****

8 Mile (2002)

I finished up my movie watching goals for the year with '8 Mile' which featured my 12th new Oscar winning best song "Lose Yourself". Perhaps the most surprising thing for me abut '8 Mile' is that it was good, it reminded me of a cross between 'Rocky' and 'Saturday Night Fever'. Set in 1995 Detroit the film stars Marshall Mathers aka Eminem as 'B-Rabbit', the rappers only real film role this character feels as though it might be pretty analogous to him, and perhaps wisely he has limited his subsequent film appearances to cameo roles, he's good in this though, sold. 'Rabbit' is a poor white kid who dreams of being a star in the predominantly black world of rap music, he must prove himself and the film ultimately ends with "a satisfying rap battle." A wonderfully real feeling sense of urban rot to this piece. Good supporting cast highlighted by Kim Basinger as 'Rabbits' mom, and featuring a rather fetching Brittney Murphy as his love interest. There is also a far amount of later to be famous people in this movie including Michael Shannon and Anthony Mackie. Directed by Curtis Hanson at the end of what had been a very strong period for him, including the films 'L.A. Confidential' and 'Wonder Boys'. This isn't something that it would necessarily make much sense for me to like on paper, but I did. ***

The Gate (1987)

A couple of kids accidently open a portal to Hell (a "gate" if you will) in one of their backyards after workers remove an old tree. I really wanted to like this more then I did, the acting is just not that great (featuring a young Stephen Dorf), though the special effects are memorable, a lot of stop motion and forced perspective. Set in an unspecified suburbia, but filmed in Canada, a couple of things let that slip. It's a kids film I suppose, but at times a little intense. I remember seeing my mom watch part of it while I was in high school, at that time for me 'a gate to hell' was just too much for a subject of a film centered on kids. Uneven this is really a kind of Poltergeist Jr. Not my thing, but unusual enough to be worth a watch.**

And Everything is Going Fine (2010)

Documentary on the life of the late actor and monologist Spalding Gray (1941-2004). The film consists almost entirely of Mr. Gray talking, other then a few snippets from interviewers. The documentary contains no talking heads and is composed of footage from Mr. Gray's monologues, interviews, home movies, ect. You don't really even need to watch this as a movie, you can listened to it as a monologue, which is exactly what it was constructed to be. There is a lot interesting information here, I am a Spalding Gray fan and I learned new stuff I didn't know. Of particular interest is material pertaining to how Mr. Gray first came up with idea of doing monologues, and information about the June 2001 auto accident in Ireland which set in motion events leading to his January 2004 suicide. This film however is just not as good as an actual Spalding Gray monologue, and a recording of his first one "Sex and Death to Age Fourteen" recorded in 1982 is included as a special feature on the DVD. The documentary feature is directed by Steven Soderbergh. **1/2

Tyler Perry's The Family that Preys (2008)

Tyler Perry's film's are sometimes interesting for the bizarre mis-mash of genera types they contain, 'The Family that Preys' is part Christian movie, part soap opera, and part buddy road trip comedy, and while here it works probably better then it should, it still doesn't really work. There is no Madea in this one, but Perry is still that rareish filmmaker who writes prominent parts for women over 50, in this case Kathy Bates and Alfie Woodword, my mom had long wanted me to see this. *1/2

Rambo: Last Blood (2019)

Unlike the 'Rocky' movies I never really much cared for the 'Rambo' franchise, other then the first one, thought # 3 can be enjoyed ironically. 'Rambo: Last Blood' wraps things up, though it feels more out of obligation then need. This is a dark, unhappy movie, a real downer whose excessive violence is depressing, not even enjoyable in an over the top Tarantino sort of way. Not to give away too much of the plot for those who might want to see it let me just say revenge has a role in the proceedings. Though the inciting incident might be best to go in somewhat unaware I will tell you the ending involves Rambo booby-trapping a series of tunnels under his south Arizona ranch, like a far more sadistic 'Home Alone'. There are instances of violence in this movie where it ran through my head 'You know I'd never thought of that but I suppose you could do that to a human body'. Competently enough made like some other 'Rambio' films in does touch on some matters of seemingly current interest, such as the drug and human trafficking situation in Mexico, but there are better films and series about those things such as 'Sicario' and 'The Bridge'. Paz Vega is in this, she doesn't have that much to do, her's is a career that never meet its full potential, and I feel that same about this 'Rambo' movie, if they were going to give this character a farewell, I wish their had been more to it. *1/2

Get Shorty (1995)

I remember this movie doing strong business and being pretty well thought off when it first came out, watching it now, for the first time, it seems dated and oddly tame. 'The Sopranos' came after this, as did a greater vogue for satire and dry humor. This movie seems like a slightly more straight version of 'Big Trouble', it seems like a whiff of what would come later with both prestige TV and meta TV, interestingly their is now a TV series adapted from this film. Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard 'Get Shorty' is about a Miami based loan shark (John Travolta at the dawn of his career resurgence) who travels to L.A. on a job and decides to get into the movie business, as a producer not an actor. It's likable enough, I can see how it would have been somewhat fresh and semi-innovative for the middle 90's, but I don't know,  more then most well regarded films of the past I couldn't get much beyond the sense that this was more progenitor then its own independent thing. It's well done, strong cast, I particularly liked Delroy Lindo in this. I would rate it favorably, moderately impressed by it, but just didn't' grab me like I hoped it would. Danny DeVito is the 'Shorty' of the title. ***

Jojo Rabbitt (2019)

The Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4McUzXfFI

Before seeing or even really talking about 'Jojo Rabbit' I would highly recommend first watching it's trailer, it could be difficult to get much of a grasp on what this movie is without seeing some footage. While the movie is adapted from a novel by Christine Leuens called 'Caged Skies' I would be curious to know how much it actually resembles that source material, it has such an idiocentric autor vibe about it. Adapted and directed by New Zealander Taika Waititi ('What We Do in the Shadows', 'Thor: Ragnarok') it might be helpful to know that the man is part Jewish. Set in Germany in the final year or so of the second World War the story centers on 10 year old Jojo (Roman Griffin Davies, quite good) who lives alone in a small village with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson, also quite good, is this the first time she's played a mother?), his father having disappeared fighting in the war, and his older sister semi recently dead, though to my memory the movie never really explains how she died, which I thought an interesting choice. Jojo is a naïve boy, quite gung ho about the Nazi's (the film opens with a creative musical montage that likens pro Nazi enthusiasm among naïve young Germans to later Beatlemania.) but he has a sincere kind heart. Largely shunned by the other kids, with the exception of his good friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo's 'best friend' is a comic, imaginary version of Adolph Hitler (played by director Waititi).

There is a lot of broad comedy in the film, though the tone gets more reflective and even somber as it progresses, the ending even gets pretty darn melancholy. The plot development that inaugurates this shift in tone is when Jojo discovers that his mother is hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) a friend of her late daughters, in the walls of the house. The two young people enact an uneasy truce, Elsa afraid if Rosie finds out Jojo knows about her she will make her leave, and Jojo afraid that if he tells anyone he knows his mother will be arrested. This often comical though tense situation gradualy grows into a mutual understanding, and Jojo's insulated view of the world slowly grows into a more realistic and understanding one.

Waititi's instincts here are admirable, and the films anti-hate message of ridiculing the absurdities of hate is a disappointingly relevant one for the world of today. Though reasonable people can disagree as to the effectiveness, and even the appropriateness of  that tone given the subject matter. I thought for the most part the humor worked, it is sometimes laugh out loud funny, though do to the juxtaposition at the heart of the film, their are even some seemingly lighter moments were I wasn't quite comfortable. I enjoyed the good cast, including Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and Stephen Merchant, the movie has a nice look to it and a creative choice in its music. It is the heir, to various degrees of earlier Nazi mocking films like 'The Great Dictator', 'To Be or Not to Be', and even 'The Producers'.  The movie takes risks, makes you think, and is pretty sharp and depressingly current satire. Not for all tastes, but take a look at the trailer and you will know if you are up for it or not. ***1/2

Movie, Movie (1978)

'Movie Movie' is a little like 'Grindhouse' from 2007 where an effort was made to reconstruct film types of an earlier time, it's also a bit like 'American Horror Story' in telling several separate stories largely with the same 'stock company' cast playing different parts, it's also not very much like either of those things. Produced by Lew Grade, who was principally a television producer known for things like 'The Muppet Show' and the Patrick McGoohan series 'The Prisoner', 'Movie Movie' is a mini double feature tribute to the films of the early 1930's. There is an introduction by George Burns, and in the middle a fake trailer for a WWI fighter pilot film called 'Zero Hour'. On either side of 'Zero Hour' there is a "movie" the first 'Dynamite Hands' is a boxing morality play, the second 'Baxter's Beauties of 1933' a behind the set musical comedy. Both films star George C. Scott and Trish Van Devere, a real life married couple who really liked to work together at this point in their carriers. The surprisingly solid cast is supplemented with Eli Wallach, Red Buttons, Art Carney, and Barry Bostwick. As stories the two tales are pretty true to the types of films they are trying to reconstruction, in basic plot outline both would be completely believable as movies from 1933. However both films are just chock of full of bad jokes, such as a letter containing the phrase "by the time you read this I will have written it" or a character uttering the sentiment "Sometimes cruelty an be unkind." So this a cheesy film, but so were the films it is trying to, rather affectionately, send up so it works better then maybe it should. An odd curio of a film, almost entirely forgotten of, but if you're at all curious its probably worth seeing. **1/2

Sorrowful Jones (1949)

Bob Hope is a bookie who is saddled with taking care of a little girl (Mary Jane Saunders, who is everything this kind of part requires) after her father stumbles upon a scheme to fix a horse race. Lucille Ball plays the love interest, William Demarest the best friend. A remake of a Shirley Temple film, based on a Damon Runyon story, the latter aspect was played up in the adverting. Runyon having then semi recently passed. This film is adequate. ** 

The Paleface (1948)

Another film that I principally watched to mark another Oscar winning song off my list, in this case "Buttons and Bows" by Livingston and Evans. 'The Paleface' was (according to the text based special features on this old school DVD) the biggest box office hit of star Bob Hope's career. It spawned a sequel four years later 'Son of Paleface', as well as a remake starting Don Knotts, 'The Shakiest Gun in the West' which I had previously seen so their weren't a lot of surprises in this for me, though I'd say this is the better version of the story. Said story is about a bumbling frontier dentist, who is seduced into acting as cover by a female sharpshooter serving as a secret government agent to rout out gun runners to the Indians. Here the agent is played by Jane Russell, and for most viewers this movie served as their introduction to her, for while she starred in Howard Hughes notorious western 'The Outlaw' back in 1943, that movie received only spotty release at first because of censorship issues, her next movie 'Young Widow' (1946) Bombed at the box office. The next 10 years or so would be the high point of Russell's carrier, she wouldn't have much of one after that, at least not in film. 'The Paleface' is a fun movie, but very much one of its time, the Indian humor is pretty dated, at best, but Hope rings all the humor he can from his part and Russell would have been quite the novelty at the time. Likable. ***

Reign Over Me (2007)

I talked about this movie in detail on an episode of the podcast I'm on (Rob and Nate Record a Podcast) so I won't go into much detail on it here. 'Reign Over Me' is a dramady from 2007 where Adam Sandler plays Dr. Charlie Fineman a dentist who lost his family in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and as consequence went into a long, denial laden mental breakdown. By chance Fineman's collage roommate Dr. Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) runs into Charlie on the street, and by virtue of his being someone who knew him from before he had his family, the two are able to connect, and eventually help each with difficulties in their respective lives.

There is both some effective comedy and some effective drama here, and the whole thing is better then I thought it would be which left me a little frustrated, because I simply can not quite get beyond the fact that this is Adam Sandler's 9/11 widower movie and that simply shouldn't exist. Perhaps more conventional casting may have allowed this movie to work better for me, though the very fact of Sandler's being in the movie is the chief thing that makes it memorable, though Don Cheadle is quite good in this. The film has a surprisingly good supporting cast including Liv Tyler and Donald Sutherland, their is some solid stuff in it, particularly one scene of Sandler breaking down in the presence of Cheadle, however Sandler still does a variant on his 'Waterboy' voice through the whole film and I just can't get past that. There is also a subplot here involving Saffron Burrows that is a memorably odd narrative choice, why did writer director Mike Bender put that in here? Better then in it has a right to be, for the most part rather well constructed, ultimately I enjoyed it but still feel a little conflicted about that. **1/2

First Monday in October (1981)

I had wanted to see this movie for years, it had been sold to me as a romantic comedy set in the supreme court, and it kind of is only the leads don't end up together romantically (sorry spoiler, but that's not really the point of this movie). Walter Matthau plays Associate Justice Daniel Snow, an avowed liberal, something of a grump, been on the Supreme Court for decades. Snow is at first very leery of Justice Ruth Loomis (Jill Clayburgh) a conservative jurist from Orange County, California just named as the first woman appointed to the supreme court (I think an opportunity was missed by not including Jack Lemmon in a cameo as the president who nominates Loomis). The two butt heads, but learn to respect and even become fond of one another, and in the end they uncover some corporate fraud pertaining to a case the court is considering hearing.

The movie came out in 1981 the same year that Sandra Day O'Conner became the real first woman appointed to the nations highest court, that probably helped at the box office some (a more then respectable $12+ million in early 80's money). The film is based on a play of the same name from about three years earlier by the writing team of Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, best known for Inherit the Wind. First Monday in October is a solid, smart, somewhat tonally unusual film, well acted and well written, though the ending seemed a little off to me for the most part I liked it. Matthau and Clayburgh have good chemistry, and its a treat seeing them go at each other in verbal joust, the whole thing is reminiscent of a Hepburn/Tracy picture, had this been written some decades earlier those two could have stared in it together. More then a little hard to find, but it was worth waiting for. ***

The Sandpiper (1965)

I watched 'The Sandpiper' principally for two reasons, one to count towards my goal of watching 12 films this year I had not previously seen featuring Oscar winning songs (in this case the rather beautiful "The Shadow of Your Smile") , and increasing the number of 1965 theatrical releases I've seen (I determined last year that 1965 was the most under represented year in my film knowledge post the 1920's). This movie was co-written by Dalton Trumbo and stared two of the top actors of its time, the husband and wife pair of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Combine that with the Oscar winning song and I just assumed that this film was well regarded. I was in fact moderately impressed with its quality while watching it, until about the half way through mark when I paused the movie to check something online. There are so few sets and characters in the thing that it occurred to me that it may have been based on a stage play.

In checking online I found that it was not in fact based on a play, and appears to be an original composition for the screen. The movie cost $5 million to make and made more then $13.5 million at the box office. So that's a pretty big hit for the time, I assume the production cost was as high as it was principally to accommodate its stars salaries. However I also found that I was dead wrong as regards the movies general perception of quality. This movie was pretty well hated by critics at the time it came out, and subsequently seems not to have enjoyed a critical reappraisal. It's Rotten Tomato's score is an embarrassing 10%. After looking briefly at some critiques I saw online, upon resuming the film I could see it, the movie is a trite, clichéd melodrama, and in a number of ways rather ridicules.

It is the story of a free spirited artist living on The Big Sur in California (Taylor), who is forced as part of court plea deal to enroll her 9 year old son in a an episcopal boys school in Monterey. She and the boys head master, an episcopal priest (Burton) fall in love, despite their differences including her atheism (a little wild for the mid 60's) and the fact that he is married, to Eva Marie Saint no less. It's an intense love affair, but also a doomed one, life imitating art I suppose. Despite seemingly all the bad things said about the film being basically true, I still rather enjoyed this movie. Somehow it works, and that somehow it principally the chemistry between the leads. They are so good I didn't even notice had "bad" the movie was until it was pointed out to me, they really carry this picture and earn their money here. 'The Sandpiper' is a kind of 'high trash', and that's something I find myself oddly hypnotized by. One other weird thing I learned in relation to this film is that Morgan Mason, the actor who plays Taylor's son, would go on to work in the Reagan White House and marry Belinda Carlisle of The Go-Go's, that couple has been together for more then 30 years, which is better then we can say for Taylor and Burton. ***

Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990)

'Tales from the Darkside: The Movie' is a feature film adaptation of the syndicated 'Tales From the Darkside' horror anthology series that ran from 1984 to 1988. I was vaguely aware of both the series and the movie but my desire to see this film arose principally from a recent episode of the online series 'Welcome to the Basement' which both examined and riffed on the film, which is what that show does. Like the series on which 'Darkside' is based this film is an anthology, three short stories, in this case with a framing device modeled loosely on '1001 Arabian Nights'. A young boy (Matthew Lawrence) is being held prisoner and prepared for cooking by a suburban witch (Debbie Harry) and reads her stories from a 'Tales from the Darkside' book in an effort to distract her and slow down his impeding death. The stories are mostly of the darkly comic variety, none fully works, the whole movie doesn't, but its intriguing enough to be entertaining. 

Source material here is good, including Japanese folklore and stories by Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle and Stephen King. We have a tale concerning a college student reanimating an Egyptian mommy and using it for revenge, a murderous cat with seemingly magic powers, and a deal with the devil that goes more then a little skewed. The most impressive thing about the movie is its cast, including both Steve Buscemi and Julianne Moore in their film debuts, as well as Christian Slater, William Hickey, David Johansen, and James Remar. It's an odd film, but not without the merit of being mostly entertaining. It reminded me of the strange extent of the anthology revival in the 80's, we had 'Darkside', 'The New Twilight Zone', 'Amazing Stories', ' The Hitchhiker'. Watching this movie makes me want to watch more anthology work. However I'm still only giving it **.

Child's Play (1988)

Child's Play is one of those films that scared me as child even though I didn't get around to seeing it until a few weeks ago. The trailers were enough, and I have a vague memory of watching a piece about it on a TV news program where they were debating the appropriateness of a horror movie about a children's toy. I also have memories of an episode of the Twilight Zone or something about a ventriloquist dummy that comes to life, terrified me. So as a child I took the conceit of Child's Play pretty straight, it was a movie about a possessed doll and it must be terrifying. Overtime I came to realize that there was a definite tongue-in-check element to the very premise, and that element would only grow over subsequent installments on what came to be a fairly prolific franchise, iconic enough to have been recently rebooted.

The film does, a bit to my surprise, play things fairly straight, though more so towards the beginning. Brad Dourif plays Charles Lee Ray, a serial killer who with the police closing in as he hides in a toy store uses a voodoo spell (and the voodoo priest who taught that to him will come to regret it before the end of the film) meant to cast his sole into another body, but with no living body's conveniently available he takes a chance transferring his living essence into a 'Nice Guy Doll', which is kind of a riff on "My Buddy" a popular children's toy back in the 80's. Said possessed doll ends up gifted by widowed mom Karen (Catherine Hicks, Doctor Taylor from Star Trek 4) to her six year old son Andy (Alex Vincent, who is a better actor then this part really requires, which was nice). Andy and the doll, whose name is Chucky, spend a lot of time together, Andy claims he is alive and talks to him, but mom just thinks he's pretending. Well he isn't. A series of weird things happen, including the tragic "accidental" death of Andy's babysitter. A police detective played by Chris Sarandon becomes involved and by the end of the movie four or so people left alive are aware of what Chucky really was, though the evil appears to be defeated the movie was too successful and writers would find ways of bringing him back.

This movie is rather better then I would have expected it to be. The acting is surprisingly good, the direction by veteran horror man Tom Holland is strong. The effects work, you get about half way through the film before you really see Chucky walk about and talk, its mostly hinted at before that point and I think it really works for the movie to slowly build to the revel. There are few moments of fairly legitimate peril, though the denouncement drags on too long. Kinda impressive, though like with A Nightmare on Elm Street I'm pretty confident it will be all down hill from here, quality wise with  this franchise. ***

A Nigthmare on Elm Street (1984)

Like my recent first viewing of the original John Carpenter Halloween movie from 1978, my introductory viewing of 1984's  A Nightmare on Elm Street was precipitated by a theatrical showing at a local cinema. Bot the Halloween and Elm Street franchises are ones I have long been interested in at least perusing, but they start out at very different levels of quality, with Halloween easily the superior product. Not that the original Elm Street isn't watchable, or intriguing, in fact the conceit of the killer Freddy Kruger stalking children in their dreams would have been almost strikingly original.

Things I liked about the film include that the leading cast of" teenagers" seem so young, slightly older in fact then they appear to be on screen but still convincing as actual teenagers. Especially  Heather Langenkamp as Nancy, whose not a tremendous actress but perfectly suited to this part, in fact if she had been a better actress it would not have worked as well, a certain nativity, uncertainty, and "rolling with the punches" quality was really needed here to pull this thing off. John Saxon plays Nancy's father and an investigating police officer, much as he did in the earlier horror picture Black Christmas in 1974. I liked that it appears that Saxon and Nancy's mom are separated and/or divorcing but the movie never really goes into that in much detail, such home life situations were increasingly matter of  fact for children in the 1980's. Robert Englund's role as Krueger would become iconic as well as carrier defining, and Johnny Depp, here with an "introducing" credit playing Nancy's boyfriend Glen Lantz, well it's probably the most "normal" character he ever played.

There is a scene early in the film where the character Tina is being attacked by Krueger in a dream and he's knocking her body through the air in 'real life' and its the most legitimately scary image in the film, though inspired no doubt by similar moments in the Exorcist movies. From a promising start the film gets increasingly more hokey and at times really ridicules. Much of it just don't make a lot of sense, and that's not even counting the films central conceit, if before his death Krueger has killed '20 kids' in the neighborhood  you'd think Nancy would be on some level aware of this, especially if a group of parents got together and killed him you'd be very hard pressed for some rumors not to get out. I also have to "harrumph" the films supper non committal ending, which smeared with ambiguity everything that came before. This movie is camp, but it struck a cord and cemented itself solidly in the 80's zeitgeist, though I'm sure its all down hill from here in terms of quality, this first movie at least had some originality going for it, and again is watchable at an efficient 91 minutes running time. So I'll be a little generous sand give it ***

Rocket Science (2007)

I was in policy debate in high school and while I have seen (The Great Debaters) and been aware of (Listen to Me) films about college debate I had never encountered a film before about high school debate before. That and the presence of Anna Kendrick made me curious to see Rocket Science, and while the film isn't just about debate exactly, though the parts that are were pretty accurate to what I remember from 20+ years ago, it is central to the story line, which could loosely be described as the efforts of a boy with severe stutter (Reece Thompson) to use debate as a means of getting close to a girl on whom he has a crush (Ms. Kendrick). Again that is a "loose" description of the plot because this is a film that does not want to be pigeon hold, in fact it deliberately mocks and misleads in its efforts to obscure simple answers or traditional dramatic narrative, especially those clichés and arch types we associate with "the 'high school movie.

 It is a comedy, don't get me wrong, and a smart one, I finished watching it the first time liking almost everything about it, but not quite liking it, enjoying the parts more then the whole. I am largely about structure in film, at least in the first sitting of any particular movie. This movie deliberately  misleads, telling you pretty flat out that things are going to go a certain way, and I kept waiting for them to go that way and they never did, it was frustrating but also kind of liberating. I had to watch it a second time a week or two later. The cast of odd ball characters, the quasi aimlessness of things, the stubborn refusal to conform to expectations, makes it kind of brilliant. But at the same time that aimlessness and the uncertainty of dramatic intent leave it kind of wanting as cinematic experience, structure again, it can be hard for me to get past it some times. Moore then anything though your ability to enjoy this film will depend on your tolerance for Reece Thompsons chronic stuttering, which he does well, but can be grating in its persistence. The film its self is sort of a stutter, you know there's more inside it but it has a hard time getting it all out, which is simultaneously why it works and why it doesn't. A second viewing concentrating on the 'moments' more then the 'whole' was more satisfying, but like high school itself awash in an inherent sense of frustration. ***

Dolemite (1975) & Dolemite is My Name (2019)

Recently I had the experience of seeing both the 1975 Blaxploitation flick Dolemite, and the brand new bio-pic / making of movie Dolemite is My Name at the Tower Theater in downtown Salt Lake. I had first intended to just see just the original film but after watching it and a retrospective video about it on YouTube, as well as seeing the very high rotten tomatoes score Eddie Murphy's Dolemite movie has received, I went back to the theater the next day to see that newer film. While I watched the films in chronological order as to when they were made, to better make sense I will be talking about the newer 'behind the scenes' movie before talking about the original finished product.

The Netflix produced Dolemite is My Name is being given a limited theatrical run in order to qualify for awards. The Ruddy Ray Moore (1927-2008) bio-pic is an unusually well received Eddie Murphy vehicle, at least by the standard of his 21st century work, and the star does seem to be having fun, which reportedly is often not the case on set for him anymore. Moore was the son of an Arkansas tenant farmer who left home in his teenage years in search of fame and fortune, he spent a lot of time more or less wandering, working various jobs and trying to get some kind of break in show business. After a stint in the army during the 1950's Moore eventually made his way to Los Angeles and became an assistant manager at a popular record store catering to black audiences. While working there he recorded some albums which he could hardly sell, and became a regular MC at a local club.

Though the film speeds up events some it was around 1970 that Moore first started to hear obscene stories about a character called "Dolemite" told by a local homeless man named Rico. The film indicates that these stories were circulating as a kind of urban folk tale and Moore made an amateur study of them, refinded them some and then decided to make what turned into a long series of comedy albums, and unlike his musical efforts these sold, though they the had to be kept 'behind the counter' at stores do to their obscene content and racy covers. Some of these albums even made the billboard charts and Moore had a new career as a sort low rent Richard Pryor or Red Foxx. He toured the country to some success but felt their must be an easier way to get his content to the masses, so he hit upon the idea of making his own movie.

Estimates for the final cost on Dolemite range between $90,000 and $140,000. The money came from Moore's tour earnings and royalties on his albums, essentially mortgaging his rights to those albums to the record company, and ultimately he was able to swing some loans. Moore had no experience as a film maker, and almost none of his cast had appeared in a movie before. He was able to rope semi-successful black actor D'Urville Martin (in the film played by Wesley Snipes) to appear in the movie by agreeing to give him directors credit, something D'Urville felt would help his resume though he was openly contemptuous of the film he was directing on set. The film crew was chiefly made up of UCLA film student, including the son of the great silent screen direct Josef von Sternberg.

Due to its extremely low budget there was a lot of gorilla film making involved here, shooting on locations without permits, hiring a local junkie to play a junkie on film, and shooting most of the interiors in an abandoned art deco hotel that Moore was allowed to shot and live in by the property owners on the condition that he keep squatters and druggies out of the place. The crew even stole electricity for the building by hacking local power lines.

A very rough feature to put it mildly Moore had a hard time finding a way to market and distribute the film at first, but some early self financed screenings were unexpectedly very successful, thus finally attracting a distributer. In the movie there is an earlier scene where Moore is shown calling through a list of low rent distributers and crossing off their names as they turn him down, one such distributor was Crown International Pictures, a company with something of a reputation of not paying their film makers, even they turned 'Dolimite' down, it's pretty bad as I'll get to. However once a distributor was able to find the right audience the film did tremendously well. While we lack exact figures it is estimated the film made around $10-$12 million dollars at the box office in the mid 70's. That is easily at lest 100 times what the movie cost to make. Suddenly Moore was a movie star, a nitch movie star but a movie star, who would go on to make a half dozen or so other movies of his own and appear in film and television into the early 21st century.

The film is a fun watch, crude at times because Moore was crude, his humors not really my own, in fact I simply don't understand good portions of it. 'Dolimite is My Name' is in the tradition of other 'making of a horrible movie films' such as 'Ed Wood' with' Plan Nine From Outer Space' or 'The Disaster Artiest' with 'The Room'. Both those making of movies are I think better then this, but 'Dolimite is My Name' is a very well made film, unlike its source material, and well cast, Keegan-Michael Key and Craig Robinson are also in this, amongst others. You can't help but admire Moore's persistence, and Murphy's performance. ***

'Dolemite' is bad movie, but I found that it grew on me and I got more in sync with its rhythms as it progressed. It was kind of painful at first but by the end I was kind of enjoying it, it is just ridicules. The story doesn't make much sense, no one in it can act, there are at times jarringly bad edits, the lake of budget is evident throughout, the sets are often silly, that wardens office is a joke. There are a couple of times in the film when the action basically stops so that Dolimte can delivery, for little to no reason, some of his comedy routines, which are basically spoken word poems, which are apparently bawdy but which I couldn't understand enough to say for sure.

Dolemite is a pimp and a club owner who is sent away to prison for possession of drugs and stolen furs. Those items were planted in his car as a frame job, after two years in the joint he is released to go undercover to prove his innocence, when evidence, which is never explained, apparently surfaces to indicate he is innocent of those crimes, but not enough to just release him release him, but rather to conditionally release him so that he, not the cops, can further prove said innocence. He is told only himself, his right hand woman Queen Bee, the warden, an FBI man whose identify is secret, and the governor of California, who when this was filmed in 1974 would have been Ronald Reagan, are aware of the reasons for his release. I  just don't think governor Reagan would have passed off on this plan.

Anyway once released from prison Dolemite is picked up but several of the prostitutes who work for him, Queen Bee has been maintaining the brothel in his absence. In front of prison guards he openly changes into his pimp regalia, gets in a car with the ladies and within an hour has murdered several assassins sent to get him. Having lost the club in the intern Dolemite sets about getting it back and ultimately getting revenge on Willie Green (D'Urville Martin) the man who set him up, and the mayor of Los Angeles who was also involved, and who seems to Italian but is named Daley like the mayor of Chicago. Oh and while Dolemite was in clink Queen Bee made sure his "girls" were trained in martial artists so that he could have an "all girl kung-fu army", which can be helpful to have. Had I gone into this movie not knowing that it was considered a camp classic and that Eddie Murphy was going to be in a movie about its production, I don't know what I would have thought. Despite how crazy it is the film does have some real flat spots, but ultimately is saved as a viewing experience but how strangely "off" the whole thing is. Hard to rate this, I'm gonna give it **.

A Separation (2011)

The first film I've ever scene from Iran, A Separation is a domestic drama that won the Oscar for best foreign language picture in 2012. Like the similar Oscar winning movie Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears from 1980, A Separation gives western viewers a peak into everyday life behind of the vale of a secretive regime. As with the earlier picture this movie is not hyper focused on politics, which is the lens through which western, especially American audiences tend to view the antagonistic power. Rather A Separation tells a more or less universal story through a very particular cultural context.

Simin and Nader have separated, a successful couple, she a teacher and he a banker, their relationship seems generally strong however they are at an impasse about leaving their country for a time with their 10 year old daughter Termeh. Simin feels this is an experince not to be missed (it is never spelled out but it seems she has an opportunity to teach abroad for a semester or two) but Nader is unwilling to leave his father, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, in the care of others even though the old man no longer knows who he is, nor will he let Termeh go without him. Simin's leaving the home necessities that Nader hire full time help to assist in taking care of his father, he hires a young deeply religious woman named Razieh, and something happens with her that could make the couples reparable rift into something unsalvageable.

A powerful yet simple story excellently staged and very well acted A Separation is an impressive piece of work. If I were to summarize briefly what the film is about dramatically I'd have to say "the stubbornness of male pride", which as the chief subtext of a film made in Iran is almost shockingly forth right, because "the stubbornness of male pride" seems to be the countries chief problem. I'm amazed this movie was even allowed to be made, let alone released internationally to represent that nation.

There are two moments early in the film that to me really drive home the simultaneous normalness and un-normalness of life in Iran, at least as compared to the western nations. First there is the moment where Nader is teaching his daughter a lesson about the value of money by having her pump gas into the family car and then making her go back to the teller to get change when she overpays, after which he allows her to keep the change much to her delight. It's a sweet universal moment. A short time later on Razieh's first day taking care of Naders father the old man pee's himself, so Razieh is forced to call a religious hotline to get permission just  to change the elder gentlemen's pants, so he's not in filth all day, otherwise the act would be a sin which could be punished for. This is something I would have probably never known about had I not seen this movie.

A story of resonance in its own right, wedded to the cultural strangeness of a world mostly isolated from the western experience A Seperation is something of landmark film and one I would heartily recommend. ****

The Fighting Preacher (2019)

I first became aware of Willard Bean and his wife Rebecca when reading through a church history Institute manual on my mission, until recently I think that is the only time I'd ever encountered reference to them which I did not initiate. So this is not a particularly well known story even among faithful Mormons so the fact that prolific LDS film maker T. C. Christensen decided to make them the focus of his most recent film was intriguing. Elder Bean, a former professional boxer, and his much younger wife Rebecca were called on a mission to Palmyra, New York in 1915. Though the cradle of the LDS Church the faith had abandoned upstate New York for various points west shortly after its formal establishment in 1830. With the administration (1901-1918) of the Church's sixth president Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918) concerted efforts were made to procure sites of historic importance to the faith. One of these was the Joseph Smith Sr. farm just outside of Palmyra. The Church sent Willard and his wife to maintain the farm, attempt to negotiate purchase of other sites of interest to the Church such as the 'The Hill Cumorah' and reestablish formal church congregations in the area. Originally envisioned as a 5 year assignment the Bean's would spend 24 years in the area, raising their family their, purchasing various properties for the church, and helping to establish three local branches.

The Fighting Preacher tells the Bean's story as something of a fish out of water tale. They are reverse pioneers, going backwards to go forwards, encountering locals for whom the Mormons are an embarrassing tale from their history and who are not eager to welcome the new comers. However through the power of their personalities, persistence, and good works over the decades the Bean's managed to endear themselves to the local community, despite early struggles to gain tolerance, let alone acceptance. While this must have been difficult, and the film is about these difficulties, its a pleasant watch, a good natured, lite film, where the stakes are refreshing low, it's not a matter of life and death, it's can these people make their neighbors like them, turns out they can.

The film of course simplifies and condenses things, ensuring a positive spin. We don't get an accurate number of the Bean's children for example, and their is a lot of church history name dropping, even when historically out of place. For example future Church president Gordon B. Hinckley is shown stopping by to visit the Bean's on his way back from his mission in England, something he might actually have done as returning LDS missionaries from Europe would often stop by church historic sights on their way back from Europe. However this scene is said to take place in 1921, Hinckley would have been no more then 11 years old the time, he did not get back from his mission until 1935. All that aside however I liked the film, I liked that it wasn't pushy, its message was chiefly centered around being good to ones neighbors, and that would be a hard a message not to like. Though yes its very hokey and kind of cheap, ** 1/2.

Halloween (1978)

The most iconic and influential of the "slasher films" a horror sub-genera that would come to be a dominate force in 1980's American cinema, while Halloween did not invent this kind of movie it did set the template for what was to follow. A film literacy film that had hear to for escaped me, post 1960's horror is largely an undiscovered country for me, I saw it with a friend in a revival showing at the old Tower Theater in downtown Salt Lake, an appropriately creepy venue.

The origins of Halloween as a movie might be said to begin at the 1976 Milian film festival when producer Irwin Yablans and financer Moustapha Akkad approached director John Carpenter after seeing and being impressed by his sophomore film Assault on Precinct 13. The two were interested in commissioning a film about a psychotic killer who stalkes babysitters, inspired so they said by the success of the semi-recent movie The Exorcist. Carpenter agreed on certain conditions, including full creative control and  his then girlfriend Debra Hill producing and co-writing the screenplay with him. Originally to have been tilted 'The Babysitter Murders' the name of the film was changed to 'Halloween' at the suggestion of Yablans.

Filmed in southern California in the spring of 1978 on a budget of between $300,000 and $325,000, Halloween is set in the suburban Midwest in the fall which necessitated being very selective in the locations and angels used in the film, as well as somehow procuring fall leaves, which had to be recycled throughout the movie. It is the story of Michael Myers, or rather the beginning of his story as this would ultimately turn into quite the franchise saga. Six year old Michael would violently murder his older sister on Halloween night 1963 after she had sex with her boyfriend, thus introducing the troupe of pre-marital sexual activity being punishable with death in these kind of movies.

Michael would spend the next 15 years under the care of Dr. Samuel Loomis (top billed Donald Pleasence in his best known role) who remained suspicious of his patients supposed near catatonic state and  repeatedly requested increased security to no avail. Michael escapes from the institution where he was being held on October 30th, 1978, steals a car and travels well over a hundred miles to his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois in time for the 15th anniversary of his original crime.
Hiding inside his abandoned former home he sees  local teenager Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis in her film debut, cast in part to exploit the parallels with her mother Janet Leigh's casting in Hitchcock's Psycho (1960)) who has stopped by to place a key under the floor mat, her father being a real estate agent trying to sell the old place and with perspective buyers set to stop by later that day, a plot point which now that I think about it was thereafter abandoned, serving merely as a "McGuffin" (Hitchcock again) to allow Michael to see her and become fixated on her.

Michael would stock the straight laced Laurie throughout the day, culminating in a killing spree that night while Laurie was babysitting and resulting (Spoiler!!) in the murders of her two best friends and one of their boyfriends. Dr. Loomis on the trail of Michael would arrive in time to save Laurie from a similar fate, which is not to say her character was merely some damsel in distress, she inflicted some serious damage on Michael throughout their altercations.

Halloween is not a movie in a hurry to get where it is going, it's largely a creepy mood piece with a slow build and many "Lewton bus" false scare moments. This really works for the film so that when the true horror arrives it's able to maintain itself and run on a rather intense momentum. This film has a great energy to it, not as graphic as I had anticipated but with some genuinely scary/tense moments which must have been all the more so in the 1970's when this kind of film making was new. Strong performances from the only two real names in the cast, and satisfactory ones from the supporting players. Extremely effective filmmaking this well made movie plays strong even today, I'd give it ***1/2 but owing to its historical significance its arguably a ****.

Joker (2019)

Setting opening weekend box office records for an October release director Todd Phillips stand alone Joker movie has attracted a fair amount of controversy, and while that is not entirely unwarranted it is perhaps a little overstated. Phillips, a comedy director perhaps best known for

'The Hangover Trilogy' goes pretty dark in this movie, and he definitely had a distinct vision for what he wanted it to be, a vision derived for the most part from the work of Martin Scorsese, who ironically recently let his unflattering feelings towards comic book movies be known in the press. There is a lot of Taxi Driver in Joker, as well as King of Comedy, and probably even some Raging Bull. A significant non Scorsese influence on the film would probably be Network, as the central character in this movie would certainly echo the sentiment "I'm mad as hell and I'm not goanna take it anymore."
 

Set in what appears to be an early 1980's Gotham City, a crime ridden, volatile place in the midst of a weeks long garbage strike, the community is a powder keg ready to go off. Joaquin Phoenix is Arthur Flick, a mentally unstable man working for a rent-a-clown service and living with his mother in a decaying apartment building. Arthur has dreams of being a stand up comedian, only he's not very funny and somewhat debilitated by a mental condition that produces uncontrollable fits of laughter, principally at times when he is feeling stressed or awkward, which is pretty often. He also has something of an obsession with a Johnny Carson like talk show host named Murray Franklin, who played by Robert De Niro works to reinforce all the Scorsese comparisons (though apparently at one point Alec Baldwin was slated to play the part). A video recording of Flick bombing at a comedy club named Pogo's ("Pogo" was the name that John Wayne Gacy the serial murder performed under when he worked as a children's birthday clown) results in his been invited on Franklin's show, needless to say that will not end well.

 

There is a surprising number of plot lines running through Joker leading up to a climatic confrontation on live late night TV. There are Arthurs job problems and deterring mental state, a romantic sub plot, a triple homicide that bizarrely mutates into a mass protest movement, and Billionaire Thomas Wayne's entry into the Gotham mayoral race, believing that only he can save the city. There is also a back story concerning Arthurs mothers previous employment at Wayne Manor. Crowded and homage heavy the film often gives the impression of trying too hard, of being princpily pastiche which is not to say uninteresting, the film really goes a long away towards coming together in its last half hour, and arguably has something to say, though its been said better by those it is imitating.

 

Phoenix gives a strong performance though, and the period look of the film is just great, managing to not seem overstated. Though riffing on the cinematic past it has some topical relevance to the present, including a focus on mental health and a protest movement with echoes of Occupy Wall street, but also overtones of Trumpism, with a beleaguered population so disgusted with the elites, they would seemingly put up with any crime committed by any clown provided he sticks it to them. Joker is unlike any 'comic book movie' I can think of in terms of its overt cinematic pretensions, it doesn't succeed at being anything beyond an imitation, but even as imitation it is heftier then most contemporary cinematic originals. Ironically in its character study it makes one long for a golden age before comic book movies. ***

Tiger Bay (1959)

Taking its title from the name of a rough sea side district in Cardiff, Wales Tiger Bay was the film debut of a young Hayley Mills, playing an 11 year old girl who witnesses a murder. John Mills, Hayley's father and an established actor at the time plays the police superintended looking into the death of a Polish immigrant. Said emergent was killed, semi-accidently by another immigrant played Horst Buchholz (known as "the German James Dean"). Horst is kind of a sympathetic figure, he even managers to befriend the little girl who witnessed his crime, and the character does an interesting back and forth about whether or not he is going to kill the girl, knowing if he does he will likely get away with his crime, but also liking her and not wanting to do it. The film does an excellent job of not telegraphing where its going and I was left unsure if the murder will get away with it or not until the very end of the movie. A nice find of a flick. ***

Ladies in Lavender (2004)

I had heard of Ladies in Lavender before, back when it first came out, I was even kind of interested in seeing it, but if it hadn't have been in a recent mystery DVD pack I likely would never have watched it. Which would have been a shame because this is a wonderful little movie, a small scale charmer, somewhat reminiscent of Downton Abbey. The last comparison has to do with one of the cast members, but also from the tone, pacing, and vaguely the setting. Adapted from a story by William John Locke and directed by Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on Games of Thrones) of all people, Ladies in Lavender is the tale of two 60 something Cornoish women (Judi Dench and Maggie Smith, both excellent) who find a young man washed up on the beach near their home sometime in the late 1930's. The young man (Daniel Brühl) is kind of a mystery at first, it takes them a while to even figure out what language he's speaking, but he really turns out to be something of a surprise, in a good way. The film chronicles the recovery of the young man, whose name turns out to be Andrea, and what happens to him once he's on his feet again and the effect he has on this small community, members of which include David Warner, Natascha McElhone, and Toby Jones. Charming and subtle Ladies in Lavender was a real nice surprise of a movie, I was grinning throughout. ***1/2

Downtone Abbey (2019)

I had been interested in watching the Downton Abbey TV show for some time and the coming of the Downton Abbey movie gave me an excuse to finally see it. I watched the series over the summer and really enjoyed it, it's got a neat setting, some great characters you come to really care for and is generally well written. My two big complaints about the series is a writerly over reliance on convenient inheritances, and the Crawley's seem unrealistically tolerant people for early 20th Century British aristocracy, However those are minor quibbles, I get why people love this show because I loved it to. Despite being globally popular the series pulled its own plug with season 6 and gave it's self a really nice send off. The ending was so good in fact that there didn't really seem to be a point to a movie, however much as Toy Story 4 is to Toy Story 3, here we've already got our ending and this is just the epilogue, and turns out that is nice to have as well with extra little flourishes put on some long standing plots and character arcs.

I read one review say that nothing happens in the Downton Abbey movie and that's why it's great, which I think for the most part is true, the stakes are limited and its just fun to see these characters again. However to walk around a major spoiler here there is something that happens in the Downton Abbey movie which if this had happened in any other movie it's what the whole film would have been about, while here its a third string plot, you'll know it when you see it. I can't help but wonder what seeing this movie would be like if you'd never seen the series, it would probably seem even less consequential then it already does. However if you're a fan of the series you'll probably get a lot out of the Downton Abbey movie, it's a manifestation of nostalgia for a recent series about nostalgia. One the surface this is just a *** but adjusted for emotional inflation it gets ***1/2.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968O

The Thomas Crown Affair is arguably the most boring thriller I've ever seen. Kind of a caper movie, rich guy bank robber Thomas Crown (Steve McQueen) romances insurance investigator Vicki Anderson (Fay Dunaway) sent to get him, testing both of their loyalties. A very stylish film featuring the Oscar winning song "The Windmills of Your Mind" and directed by the very capable Norman Jewison. However I found it very boring, it could not keep my full attention which is honestly kind of rare. Later remade in the late 90's staring Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo. Well made but I could hardly sit through it so I can't recommend it. *1/2

Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivins (2019)

I'd heard of Molly Ivins before but it wasn't until earlier this year that I read a book of her old newspaper columns from the early 1990's. I liked her pretty instantly, she had great literary voice, very droll, she was liberal who was also thoroughly Texan, once not unheard of (think Lyndon Johnson) but a couple of decades after LBJ's passing increasingly rare, though it seems that type may be on the upswing again. The oldest daughter of a conservative oil executive "Molly" had at an early age rechristened herself from Mary and went on to became the dreaded liberal journalist. Yet she was still very Texan, something that set her apart form the liberal media establishment of the North East, The New York Times hired her for her distinct voice and then proceeded to iron some of her more memorable phrasing from her articles, for example "like a two dollar fiddle" was re-rendered in one piece as "like an inexpensive musical instrument". So she went back to Texas and became the chief chronicler of its legislator and early liberal eye on the rising of George W. Bush, who she said she liked personally, but felt was bad for the country. The kind of person I would have liked to have known personally, and a category screwing presence we could use more of today. Ivins succumbed to cancer in 2007 at the age of 62. ***

Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice (2019)

Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice documents the decades long and remarkably varied musical career of Linda Ronstadt from the 1960's into the 21st Century. What a career she had, one remarkable for its eclecticism, from folk rock in the sixties, to straddling the rock/ country divide in the 70's, to doing Gilbert and Sullivan on Broadway, recording 'the standards', a mega selling Spanish language album, performing in concert with Emmylou Harris, Bonnie Raitt, Dolly Parton, Jackson Browne, Aaron Neville and others. Heck even The Eagles grow out of her backup band. Fairly standard form for a documentary but she's just great and this movie made me so happy so it gets an extra half star.***1/2

Hallelujah (1929)

King Vidor was a pretty powerful director in his day, even in the silent era he'd already made the The Big Parade and a number of other successful film and he had enough pull to get MGM to agree to make a musical staring an entirely black cast, in 1929! Hallelujah was really more of a drama with musical interludes, not really a musical as we think of them today, all the singing is within the logic of the story, hymns, popular deities, things the characters are really suppose to be singing, not simply a means of conveying inner dialogue. Of course the musical form as it relates to cinema was still being shaped, and while this movie bears some historical note as part of that process where it really stands out is that it was a major studio film about black people, again in 1929!

Of course the film hasn't aged particularly well, in a very early scene we are introduced to three black brother named Sears, Roebuck, and Coe, it makes you whence a little. The film has an entirely black cast, a first for an A production by a major studio, and much of the cast were not professional actors. Daniel L. Haynes plays Zeke, a good looking but simple farmer who is taken advantage of by a world wise chick named Chick (Nina Mae McKinney, really sexy, in a different world she would have been a big star). Zeke loses the proceeds from the family cotton harvest in a con for which Chick served as bait, in trying to get it back his younger brother is killed and Zeke's long, dark night of the soul results in his rebirth as an evangelist called Zekeial.

Zekeial amasses a great following, Chick shows back up, repentant but weak, the two get married and Zeke takes a job at a mill, only Chick cheats on him with her old lover and former con partner Hot Shot (William Fountaine ). The adulterers try to run off together, Zeke's pursues, a carriage accident causing Chick to die but not before she apologizes to Zeke for not staying true. Zeke then kills Hot Shot in revenge, he goes to prison but is eventually let out and returns to his extended family, forgiven once more.

An odd story, with a more morally ambiguous plot then one might expect. Much of the film plays as raciest caricature, though simultaneously this was then an at lest some what progressive picture and a millstone for black film in America. Film critic Daniel Eagen has said that its a film whose "reputation is based largely on the fact that it was made at all" and that seems a real good summation of the thing to me. I don't know how to rate this, not a good movie, but one of historical significance. I'll go with **

March of the Penguins (2005)

Iconicly narrated by Morgan Freeman this documentary on the life cycle of Emperor Penguins made boo koo bucks, $127.4 million on an $8 million budget and won a best documentary Oscar. The film fills in the gaps on the natural details from the rough outline I got from Happy Feet and Scamper the Penguin. I always thought the worse thing about being a penguin would be having to dress formally all the time, but really their lives kind of suck I don't envy them, sure they have a fun 4 or so years hunting in the sea, assuming they don't get eaten, before the matting drive takes over, but penguin lives for the most part are hard, hungry and cold. They are beautiful though, and so is this very sold documentary.

Woyzeck (1979)

For financing reasons director Werner Herzog had to start production on this film only days after wrapping on his remake of Nosferatu the Vampire. Shot in just 18 days using the same crew and star as Nosferatu actor Klaus Kinski, Woyzeck is adapted from an unfinished play by the early 19th century German dramatist Georg Buchner. Woyzeck is the story of a German solder who goes mad and starts to have apocalyptic visions after working himself sick doing odd jobs, including being the subject of an eccentric professors experiments, all in an effort to support the child he had out of wedlock and the mother. Woyzeck finally breaks when he learns that the mother of his child is cheating on him with a handsome drum major, things don't end well. Odd and eccentric as any good Herzog film should be, Woyzeck is only 82 minutes in length, which is about perfect you wouldn't want this to be much longer. It's quite good, but also slow and strange, meant for something of a limited audience. ***

Twins of Evil (1971)

Hammer horror films had a very distinct look to their color palate, it was practically a trademark and very consistent from the late 50's into the early70's, so much so that it's kind of hard to tell when an individual film was made as they all look like they could be from the late 50's. This is why there is such an out place quality and odd juxtaposition to the presence of nudity, though not much of it and chiefly breasts, in the 1971 release Twins of Evil. This film was built around 'The Collinson Twins', Maltase born beauties in their 19th year who had just been Playboys first set of identical twins to serve as playmate of the month. Their cute but they can't act great so Peter Cushing is tasked with most of the heavy lifting as the pairs uncle and new guardian after the deaths of their parents. The film is set in what appears to be late 17th or early 18th century Austria and Cushing plays a puritanical sort who is all too willing to burn young women at the stake, and it takes a long time to convince him that the local menace he's dealing with are vampires, not witches.

The films title is a little misleading as well, both twins are not evil just Frieda (Madeleine Collinson) who falls under the spell of a local vampire count, Maria (Mary Collinson) is a good girl, but dress her up in her sisters clothing while she's asleep and Cushing might just try to have her burned at the stake. A workable film and at a nice standard Hammer running time of 87 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and is just different enough to be consistently engaging, at least for a single viewing. David Warbeck and Damien Thomas are the twins non-vampire and vampire love interest respectively, and Kathleen Byron, who I quite like is also in this though she has very little to do. **1/2

Tarzan (1999)

One of my film watching goals for this year has been to a see a dozen movies I haven't seen before featuring Oscar winning songs. Disney's 1999 animated film Tarzan won an Academy Award for "You'll Be in My Heart", which is a nice, hooky but kind moving ditty. I must say I did not expect much from this film, late 90's Disney animated fair has a reputation as being a significant quality fall off vis-a-vie their early 90's brethren. You have Phil Collins doing the soundtrack, who I like but acknowledge isn't for everybody, Rosie O'Donnell doing the voice of a somewhat sexually ambiguous gorilla, and the whole idea of doing Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan of the Apes as a Disney cartoon didn't seem like a natural fit. This film started somewhat in the red for me, so I was surprised how much I liked it and that it completely won me over. This is tight little film, no fat, and everything here works, a finally balanced film of near clock work precision in its structure, not too self serious, but not too heavy on the comedy. Roger Ebert gave the film four stars. To me the movie doesn't have the level of gravities I normally associate with a four star film but its so perfectly satisfying as what it is, that it's part of an odd sub rating I call 4 star 3 star films, perfect as a satisfying self contained film experience, but not ' a great movie', beatified not sainted. This is the rare kids movie that I genuinely want to see again. ***

It Chapter 2 (2019)

When 'It' came out two years ago it was really greeted as something kind of special. First off the timing was great, 80's nostalgia was starting to pick up do in part to the success of Stranger Things, with which this movie shared a cast member (Finn Wolfhard), and also there was that thing with the creepy clowns showing up on the sides of roads at night, remember that? It was an adaptation of a significant horror novel, which already had a lot cultural cache thanks in part to Tim Curry's portal of the titular clown in a 1990 mini series. This 'It' was approaching the material in a different way by presenting events chronologically rather then the flash back heavy structure of the original novel and the TV version. 'It' was a big summer movie release starting a cast of largely unknown kids and with the relatively modest budget of $35 million dollars. It made over $700 million at the box office, it was a huge hit both finically and critically, it's sequel however is considerably more average in every way. Well every way other then making money, its already made $220 million and it came out last week.

'It Chapter 2' starts out promising enough, I especially liked how they showed many of the characters repeating the same life patterns they had started as children into adult hood, with Eddie marrying a domineering woman much like his mother, and Beverly in a manipulative relationship like the one she had with her father, and so on. The gang reunites 27 years after the events in the first film to fulfill the pledge they made to fight It should it return, the movie lost a good deal of its intensity for me shortly after the dinner sequence. The characters have to divide up to find 'talismans' from their childhoods which mostly serve as an excuse to bring the kids back again for flash back sequences, people really liked those kids they were great, so now we have a collection of 'forgotten memories' that play like deleted scenes from the previous movie. There are more jump scares and effect shots in this movie, the monsters look like CGI rendering of illustrations from those 'Scary Story' books of  my childhood, which we don't need because those just got their own movie and here they are more vaguely unsettling in an 'uncanny valley' sort of way then really scary.

I will readily compliment the film on its casting, all the adults, but especially some of the lesser known actors, really look believable as adult versions of the characters from the first movie. The performances here are good, but the whole films lacks the tension and unifying sense of unease that marked the first film. Some things in this movie just seem kind of off, especially the town of Derry, which had such as strong sense of character in the first movie, here it's seems kind of empty, both in emotional context and in the sense of where are all the people? Their doesn't seem to be any staff in that hotel, which I thought was going to be because of some 'It' mind trick, but no the empty hotel doesn't tie into anything.

As you've gathered I was disappointed in 'It Chapter 2', though not a horrible movie it felt depressingly average. It also hurts some when a major recurring gag is that Bill, who grew up to be writer, doesn't do endings well. Foreshadowing indeed. **1/2

The Hoard (2012)

This movie came form one of those mystery DVD packs I mentioned earlier. The cover art shows images of a Mongol hoard, so imagine my surprise when this turned out to be a Christian movie, kind of, a Christian move with some side boob. The story of the Orthodox Saint Alexius, a 14th Century Metropolitan (Bishop) of Moscow. Alexius restored the sight of the mother of the then reigning Kahn, or at least tradition says he did, this movie doesn't seem overly concerned with facts. Still its a story I did not know, and the film is decently enough acted and certainly well budgeted. Life under Mongol dominance is something I don't think I've ever seen depicted in film before, I haven't seen The Conqueror though I suppose that would have be on my B-movie bucket list. This was really an interesting movie, very different, not that straight forward, the eventual "miracle" is handled in a extremely subtitle manner, off screen even, and it took me a bit to figure out what had happened, at first this annoyed me, but in retrospect there is something to be said for a vaguer, round about presentation. A good amount of time is spent with the Kahn and his inner circle, I don't think you even get to Alexius until at least 20 minutes in. This Russian film was refreshingly different. ***

Sorcerer (1977)

For its first 20 to 30 minutes you wouldn't know that 1977's Sorcerer is in fact a remake of the French produced 1953 masterpiece The Wages of Fear.  Both films are about a group of desperate expatriates who take on the dangerous job of transporting volatile nitroglycerin over hundreds of kilometers of rough roads in a never named Latin American country. However the beginnings of Sorcerer wants to give you detailed backstories for our leads, something Wages of Fear doesn't bother with. So you have assassinations, terrorists attacks, bank fraud and armed robbery before our four principal characters start to interact with each other in a sweltering banana republic. Interestingly while I know much more about the characters in Sorcerer, I actually cared about the characters in Wages of Fear far more.

While this latter films does a few things arguably better then its predecessor, such as explain how the nitroglycerin is insulated against road turbulence, and the way one particular road obstacle is blown up, on the whole it is a far less interesting film, because it is a far less tense one. Now part of this is because I've seen this story before, and while its not a strict beat per beat remake even in the trucking scenes, it sticks mostly close to the original. But part of this also has to do with the way the thing was mounted. There is a sequence where they take the trucks over a bridge that is so ridiculously rickety you would never dare try to drive a truck over it because you would surely die. I mean it just looked ridicules and took me right out of the movie. On paper remaking Wages of Fear sounds like a great idea, but in practice, even with a serviceable cast (highlighted by Roy Scheider, 2 years off Jaws) and an expert like William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) helming the thing it was still just a pale imitation. Oh and 'Sorcerer' is the name of one of the trucks, so that's where the stupid title comes from. **