CLOSE
Tags Posts tagged with "Movie Review"

Movie Review

by -
0 1426
Lucy Hale, Austin Stowell and Michael Peña in a scene from the film. Photo by Christopher Moss/Columbia Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Few who lived through the late-seventies to mid-eighties could avoid an awareness of the two cultural − and, ultimately, cult − monoliths that dominated Saturday night television: The Love Boat (nine seasons; 1977 to 1987) and Fantasy Island (seven seasons; 1977 to 1984). Both were introduced in TV movies, played on ABC, and boasted a parade of guest stars, ranging in both level of celebrity and talent.

Each episode of Fantasy Island, the darker of the pair, featured two to three separate stories. The island’s visitors all came away wiser if a bit bruised from the experience. The theme, week after week, was clearly “careful what your wish for.”

Entering the realm of iconography was the spritely Hervé Villechaize as Tattoo, and his cry of “The plane! The plane!” This was complimented by Ricardo Montalbán, suavely raising a glass with his, “My dear guests, I am Mr. Roarke, your host. Welcome to Fantasy Island.”

Portia Doubleday and Lucy Hale i a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Directed by Jeff Wadlow (with a script by Wadlow, Chris Roach and Jillian Jacobs), Fantasy Island has reached the big screen as Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island albeit a decidedly different incarnation. Blumhouse Productions gave us the cutting and insightful satire Get Out, but it also is responsible for more common fare such as Truth or Dare, Happy Death Day 2U, and others. Fantasy Island clearly falls into the latter category.

A group of disparate people believe they have won a contest and are brought to a remote island where they are each told they will received the fantasy of their choice. Gwen Olsen (Maggie Q) needs to undo what she thinks was the worst choice of her life: rejection of a marriage proposal. Former policeman Patrick Sullivan (Austin Stowell) aspires to be a soldier; his wish is wrapped up in a need to connect with his father who died saving men in his platoon. Stepbrothers and “bros” J.D. (Ryan Hansen) and Brax (Jimmy O. Yang) want to “have it all.” Finally, Melanie Cole (Lucy Hale) desires revenge on her childhood bully (played by Portia Doubleday).

They are told at the outset by the not-so-mysterious Mr. Roarke (Michal Peña) that they must see their fantasies through to the end. The machine grinds to life.

All of this might − might − have worked had the film aimed for a modicum of subtlety. The idea of wishes always being a doubled-edged sword is not new but has great potential. Sadly, it is surprising to think that the rather kitsch television series was ultimately more sophisticated.  

From the first moments of the film, “THIS IS A HORROR MOVIE” is not so much telegraphed as it is ballistically launched. Generically ominous music, a ghoulish staff that lopes and hovers like refugees from a Halloween walk-through, and images of snakes everywhere (a nod toward the invasion of the Garden of Eden? a sale on serpent knickknacks?), there is no possibility of anything other than waiting for the limp scares. How much more interesting it would have been to let the fantasies emerge and grow before changing into nightmares. For such a dark movie, it is almost completely lacking in tension; even the jump-outs and the mild gore seem lacking in any commitment to frighten.

Instead, the movie immediately devolves into the characters running around the island, hiding and escaping and then being caught … and then hiding and escaping and then being caught. What eventually comes to the forefront is a convoluted mythology of how the island works. It is both simple and overly complicated, dampened by a lot of dripping black blood.  

It is not until late in the film that all the strands come together for a very nice “aha” moment of how the characters are actually connected. It is here that the story takes a brief up-tick with an extra twist before once again watching the characters hide and get caught and escape. For just a few clever moments, there is a glimmer of hope before it all slides back down into the mire of its own lore, winding toward a very anti-climactic dénouement. There is one humorous nod to the series in the last moments of the film but it was one of the very few shout-outs and seems a bit misplaced. 

With the move toward constant reboots, the real fear is what will come next? Joanie Loves Chachi Loves Satan? Facts of Life: Tootie’s Revenge? One can only hide in the jungle for so long.

Rated PG-13, Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island is now playing in local theaters

by -
0 2025
George Mackay as Lance Cpl. Schofield in a scene from the film Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

By Daniel Dunaief

The film “1917” is a good news, bad news movie experience.

In a race against time, World War I soldiers Lance Cpl. Blake (played by Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Cpl. Schofield (George MacKay) maneuver through dangerous, German-controlled territory to stop an attack by the British that is destined to fail.

The good news for the Universal Pictures movie, which was written by Krysty Wilson-Cairns and Sam Mendes, is that it is a tour de force in direction and cinematography. Audiences track the movements of Schofield and Blake, who has a vested interest in completing a mission that will also likely save his brother, so closely that they feel as if they are on the battlefield. The soldiers trudge through mud, hunch low to avoid incoming bullets, and wade through icy cold water during their difficult mission.

The relatively unknown actors do an incredible job as everymen, portraying the soldiers asked to do the impossible with resources often limited to their survival instincts and their reliance on each other.

Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

Directed by Mendes, the movie includes a few heart-stopping moments, as audience members in a packed theater hold their breaths along with the actors to avoid giving away their position to the unseen but omnipresent enemy.

Even the scenes that don’t involve bullets and combat have a gritty feel. The camera moves through cramped trenches, where the spaces narrow in some areas to places where barely two people can fit shoulder to shoulder.

The film succeeds in portraying so many elements of the horrors of the battlefield. The enormous responsibility of saving 1,600 men weighs heavily on the two soldiers. The film immerses the audience completely in the time period, the action and the goal.

The bad news is that the script is noticeably thin. We don’t know much about either character and, apart from the set up lines uttered by Colin Firth as Gen. Erinmore and Benedict Cumberbatch as Col. Mackenzie, the script isn’t nearly as memorable as the visuals.

Indeed, apart from compelling music, which includes an original score from Thomas Newman that was nominated for an Oscar, the movie could easily have been a silent film with a few subtitles sprinkled between the visuals.

As a movie watching experience, “1917” is immersive and compelling, but its visuals show a better story than its thin script.

Moving from one horrifying and dangerous scene to another, we feel as if we’re running alongside strangers we would like to succeed, if only to reach their important destination and save other troops for whom we have almost as much information as the two lance corporals.

Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

At times, the R-rated movie has overtones with other war films, like “Gallipoli,” a Mel Gibson film with a far superior script, and even with “Saving Private Ryan,” the Steven Spielberg directed epic with Tom Hanks.

In many scenes in “1917,” the effort, amid raining bullets and bombs that fall everywhere, make it seem impossible to survive. Some of the bullet and bomb dodging strains credibility.

The film also includes a quietly touching scene between Schofield and a random French woman, who is caring for an infant. The dialog, however, doesn’t make much sense, though, as she speaks only French and he speaks English, and yet they seem to understand each other.

Looking past the shortcomings of “1917,” the film offers an engaging visual experience, even if we don’t become invested in the characters whose singular mission forms the action and scenery-driven plot.

Winner of 3 Academy Awards (Best Cinematography, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visiual Effects), “1917” is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 1908
A scene from 'Gretel and Hansel'. Photo courtesy of Orion Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

It is no secret that fairy tales inhabit a frightening universe. They are supernatural worlds of violence and betrayal where no one is safe. Often told as warnings to children — don’t stray from the path, don’t talk to strangers, etc. — they are rife with brutality. No story is truer to this dictum than Hansel and Gretel, which deals with famine, child abandonment, forced incarceration and cannibalism.  

Alice Krige is the cannibalistic witch Holda in the latest version of the Grimm fairy tale. (Patrick Redmond/Orion Pictures via AP)

Fairy tales are an almost limitless source for darker viewpoints. Some are lurid or graphic; others rely more on what is unseen or, even better, what is within ourselves. Modern retellings of these stories have been seen in the thriller genre: in the Company of Wolves (Little Red Riding Hood), The Lure (The Little Mermaid), Snow White: A Tale of Terror, The Curse of Sleeping Beauty, Cadaverella as well as multiple anthologies.  

Added to this list of tales of terror comes Gretel and Hansel. The creators of this film must have misheard, and, instead of a horror movie, they have created a horrible movie.

The plot draws only skeletally from the original source (may the Brothers Grimm rest uneasily if not fully in peace). Instead, it creates its own mythology about power and sacrifice. There might even be a message of female empowerment, but even this is muddled in a mess of ideas and images. The concept is there but the result lacks the depth to induce the fear and dread that underlies the story. While trying very hard to be “eerie,” the film falls into its own predictability and quickly feels repetitive. 

There is plenty of dialogue in the movie; we know this because the characters are speaking (lots of) words. Most of them are meant to have deep meanings and allegorical value. But there is such a struggle with the quasi-stylized dialogue that it sounds like sayings from demonic fortune cookies or Hallmark cards from hell.

A scene from ‘Gretel and Hansel’. Photo courtesy of Orion Pictures

In addition, the film is stuffed with murky symbols to complement the art house lighting. The characters use the (lots of) words to talk about the (lots of) symbols. Unfortunately, even with many (many) words, these many (many) symbols create a wearying and eventually exhausting experience.

Not wishing to name names, the film’s threadbare screenplay is directed with a heavy hand and a pace leaden to the point where it seems like the action is going backward. The two lead actors clearly do their best: both Sophia Lillis (as a mature Gretel, coming to terms with her own powers) and Alice Krige (as the witch with a backstory) are as engaging as the film ever gets. But it is not enough to justify the pretentiousness. The climax — long in coming — is violent but lacks the catharsis of the original story.  

Ultimately, it all feels dishonest. The film’s self-awareness becomes self-indulgent. It is a failure of style over substance. When compared with Gretel and Hansel, the Swarovski commercial that preceded the film had a greater claim to a cohesive and rewarding narrative.  

While I did buy popcorn, I must confess that I snuck in a can of Diet Coke. Maybe sitting through this film was my punishment. And, perhaps, like with the original fairy tale, I have learned a lesson. In the future, I will stay out of these woods.

Rated PG-13, Gretel and Hansel is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 961
Parasite is the first South Korean movie to receive Oscar nominations for best picture and best international film.

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Parasite is a portrait of the unexpected. In both the film and its worldwide reception, it is an undefinable work that both crosses and defies genre. It is also extraordinary cinema. Like JoJo Rabbit, it defies expectation and Parasite joins this film as one of the two best of the year. This South Korean hit lingers long after the fadeout.

The story seems deceptively simple. The Kim family lives in a squalid basement apartment, barely scraping by on menial jobs. Even in this they don’t succeed: witness an excruciating scene when they are called to task for their inability to properly fold pizza boxes. It is clear that they have gone from job-to-job with little success and diminishing prospects. Cramped into narrow, filthy rooms, they literally crawl the walls like insects, trying to steal a Wi-Fi signal.

The son (affable Choi Woo Shik) is given the opportunity to tutor an affluent high school student (innocent Jung Ji-so). His sister (wily Park So-dam) forges his degree. When he enters the Park home, his wide-eyed awe is palpable. The house was constructed by a renowned architect and is more museum than home. Bright, modern and spacious, it whispers untold wealth — a stark contrast with the infested living conditions faced by the Kims.

In taking in this wholly foreign world, it dawns on the son that this is an opportunity: He will bring his family in to work for the wealthy Park family. This turning point sets the Kims on a moral downward spiral. From down-and-outers to grifters, they sacrifice what few principles they could afford.

One-by-one, the Kims integrate themselves into the Park household. First, the sister is engaged as the son’s art therapist; she then manipulates the firing of the chauffeur (Park Geun-rok) so that her father (Song Kang-ho, effectively soulful) can take that position. 

The final piece is the removal of the faithful housekeeper (earnest Lee Jung-eun) in a particularly nasty scheme involving an allergy to peaches. (Prior to this, we are treated to a delightfully cheeky scene in which they rehearse the possible dialogue that would arise during the ousting of the loyal servant.) The mother (blowsy Chang Hyae-jin) becomes the housekeeper, completing the quartet’s presence in the house. 

Part of the con is that the Parks are unaware that all of these new employees are related.

From here, the action twists and turns, rises and sinks (like the films labyrinth of staircases) as the Kim family makes themselves indispensable. However, one of the film’s tenures is that making plans is a dangerous thing. What ensues is a host of situations involving a secret bunker, Morse code, a garden party from hell, a rainstorm that becomes a vile deluge and a range of other complications that are both darkly comic and horrifying. From fanciful swindle to shocking violence, the wake of destruction is both surprising and inevitable.

Much of the film is a dissection of class and socioeconomic status where “money is the iron that smooths the wrinkles.” The smell of poverty clings to the Kim family, brought into focus against the almost sterile cleanliness of the Park house. Whether it is greed, frustration, privation or a combination of all of them, the Kims’ actions lead to their own dissolution. However, underneath there is a fierce love that connects them and, through all of their reprehensible behavior, it is clear that they care for each other. Yes, these are awful people doing terrible things, but — unlike in the disappointing Uncut Gems — there is a genuine and oddly believable core to this disturbing adventure.

The film is flawlessly directed by Bong Jon-ho, with a constantly shifting pace that never loses its relentless tension. The screenplay (by Jon-ho, along with Han Jin-won) is articulate, smart and outrageously wicked; Hong Kyung-pyo’s desaturated cinematography is the perfect compliment.

In a film of exceptional performances, there are several standouts. Park So-dam as the Kim daughter shows a vulnerability under her insidiousness. Cho Yeo-jeong, as the beautiful Park matriarch, is in turn simply welcoming and willfully callous; her planning of her son’s impromptu birthday party is a study in selfishness. Lee Jung-eun as the fired housekeeper manages to find a range from subservient to almost borderline insane.

A brutal dark comedy? A dysfunctional family drama played out as a heart-pounding thriller? A violent depiction of economic inequality? Parasite is all of these and more. And most of all, Parasite is a modern masterpiece. 

Rated R for language, some violence and sexual content, Parasite is now playing in local theaters.

Photos courtesy of Neon

 

by -
0 1694
Stampeding ostriches on a pecking mission are part of the next level in the game of Jumanji. Photo from SONY Pictures

By Heidi Sutton

Riding on the coattails of the 2017 box office hit Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, director Jake Kasdan has reassembled the original cast for an equally exciting sequel, Jumanji: The Next Level. Since opening mid-December, the action-packed film has dominated the box office, raking in over $700 million worldwide. 

Awkwafina joins the cast of Jumanji in The Next Level. Photo courtesy of SONY Pictures

Based on Chris Van Allsburg’s 1981 children’s book, “Jumanji,” the story first appeared on the big screen in 1995. Starring Robin Williams, it centered around a creepy board game that summoned forth dangerous jungle creatures each time the dice was thrown.

Kasdan’s successful 2017 reboot featured four high school students — Spencer (Alex Wolff), Bethany (Madison Iseman), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain) and Martha (Morgan Turner) — who come across the video game version of Jumanji while serving detention together. 

When each teenager picks an alias to start the game, they are teleported to the world of Jumanji and become the actual avatars they had chosen. Spencer becomes archaeologist Dr. Xander “Smolder” Bravestone (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson), Bethany is cartographer Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black), Fridge turns into zoologist Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart) and Martha is transformed into martial arts expert Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). 

With only three lifelines each, evident as black stripes on their wrist, the gang is tasked with a series of challenges in order to “win” the game. Only after successfully retrieving the Jaguar’s Eye from an evil villain, with a little help from avatar Jefferson “Seaplane” McDonough (Nick Jonas), aka Alex Vreeke (Colin Hanks) who had been stuck in the game for 20 years, do they earn safe passage home. 

In The Next Level, the four teenagers, now in college, make plans to meet up at a local cafe for Christmas break. 

Danny Glover and Danny DeVito join the cast of Jumanji in The Next Level.

When Spencer fails to show up for the reunion, his friends go to his house looking for him. To their dismay, they discover the infamous video game, broken but still functional, in the basement and realize their friend has gone back to Jumanji. They decide to go rescue him but things take a funny turn. While Fridge and Martha reenter the digital world, Bethany is bypassed by the game and Spencer’s Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and Eddie’s former best friend Milo (Danny Glover) are unwittingly sucked in as well.

In a hilarious body swapping twist, Danny DeVito’s character initially finds himself in the Rock’s muscular 6-foot 5-inch body while Danny Glover’s character is now a zoologist in Kevin Hart’s body. Martha once again takes the form of Ruby Roundhouse but Fridge is now Jack Black’s map reader. 

Bethany joins the group later on in a nonhuman form and Jonas’ Jefferson “Seaplane” McDonough also makes a reappearance. As the story unfolds, the cast switch avatars several times more by swimming in magic water, and we are introduced to a new character, a cat burgler named Ming Fleetfoot (rapper Awkwafina).

From left, Nick Jonas, Jack Black, Karen Gillan, Dwayne Johnson, Awkwafina and Kevin Hart star in the third installment of the Jumanji franchise.
Photo courtesy of SONY Pictures

As the game is now at the next level, the stakes have also been elevated. Jumanji is suffering from a massive drought. To leave the game, the group, in addition to finding Spencer, must recover the Falcon’s Heart — a magical necklace stolen by warlord Jurgen the Brutal — which can end the drought if brought before sunlight and uttering Jumanji. Like before, each avatar has three lifelines with the addition of new skills (Ruby Roundhouse is now a nunchuck expert) and weaknesses (Prof. Oberon can now add heat, sun and sand to his growing list). 

The special effects are top notch. In addition to an exciting rope bridge scene in the jungle with vicious mandrills, the game’s map has now expanded to include the desert and dunes where the avatars are chased by prehistoric-looking ostriches and to Jurgen’s castle on an icy mountaintop where they face perilous cliffs and an unfriendly host.

As far as laughs go, The Next Level just might outdo its predecessor. Blain’s character Fridge finds much to complain about being in his new avatar, Prof. Oberon, which he finds even worse than when he was stuck as “Mouse,” whose weaknesses include cake. “At least I was still black,” he groans. 

Hart and Johnson’s characters are even funnier as perennially confused grandpas stuck in younger bodies. Johnson’s Danny DeVito impersonation with a New Jersey accent has hilarious results, especially when attempting to “smolder,” while Hart is tasked with capturing Glover’s slower speech, and his avatar ends up revealing key facts of the game too slowly to be of any use.

The clever script, filled with action, adventure and lots of comedy coupled with an outstanding cast and terrific soundtrack, is a winning formula. The final scene hints at a “Jumanji 4” — can’t wait! Running time is two hours. 

Rated PG-13 for adventure action, suggestive content and some language, Jumanji: The Next Level is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 142
Adam Sandler stars in Uncut Gems. Photo courtesy of A24 Films

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Howard Ratner (Adam Sandler) is a dealer in New York’s Diamond District. A gambling addict and a liar, he is a loser of the first order. He is desperately in search of a big score to get him out of debt, particularly the $100,000 owed to loan shark Arno. Uncut Gems follows his attempt to sell a valuable black opal, embedded in a piece of rock — the titular item. Directed by Josh and Benny Safdie (who cowrote the screenplay with Ronald Bronstein), it is a peripatetic two-and-a-quarter hours of violence and vulgarity that loses its novelty about 20 minutes in. 

The plot complication involves Boston Celtic Kevin Garnett (playing himself but not) who becomes convinced that the opal will bring him good luck. Ratner lends it to Garnett with the possibility of enticing him to purchase it for over one million dollars. 

The rest of the film follows Ratner trying to retrieve the opal and dodging the goons who are trying to recover the money that he owes. In the midst of this, Ratner’s life implodes as he deals with his soon-to-be ex-wife, his mistress and a range of other shady business dealings along with his attempts to bet on Garnett’s upcoming games.  

The action is in constant motion and certainly creates relentless tension. However, relentless friction without variety can soon become its own kind of monotony. At about the hour mark, it is clear that this jerky roller-coaster ride is going to yield very few surprises. Even the constant beatings and humiliations begin to take on a predictability.  

There is one rather engaging scene and the only one that truly catches a breath: a dysfunctional Passover seder with Ratner’s in-laws. It is both humorous and vaguely horrifying to see him sit down to a family dinner with a man who had him roughed-up hours earlier. Toward the end of the film, there is also an intriguing exchange between Ratner and Garnett about the dubious origin of the opal that calls into question the overall morality (think “blood diamonds”); this pause gives voice to something the movie nods to throughout. Written and presented deftly, it never feels preachy.  

The cast is uniformly strong, with Sandler delivering a dimensional and painful performance. He manages to project Ratner’s combination of chutzpah and defeat, often simultaneously. Julia Fox is believable as the conflicted party girl who loves Ratner certainly more than he deserves. Idina Menzel is wryly effective as the long-suffering wife who truly and rightly loathes her husband. 

Eric Bogosian is one of those actors who can convey a great deal with very little effort and is spot-on as Ratner’s brother-in-law, the loan shark who has no use for him; in one of the final scenes, with barely a shift, Bogosian’s face is a study of realizations. Judd Hirsch, as Ratner’s father-in-law, eschews his usual curmudgeon and gives the man a surprisingly light touch. Garnett is particularly good in this skewed take on celebrity that never crosses into self-parody; it is one of the better performances given by someone whose roots are not in acting.

However, all of these excellent performances don’t justify the whole as it is hard to invest in any of these people. It is possible to make terrible people engaging or, at the very least, intriguing. Unfortunately, the frenzied action of the film never allows for this. In the long run, Uncut Gems doesn’t deliver the goods.

by -
0 1503
From left, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Saoirse Ronan and Eliza Scanlen star as the March sisters in the latest adaptation of Little Women. Photo courtesy of SONY Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Louisa May Alcott’s semi-autobiographical novel Little Women was published in two volumes between 1868 and 1869. It told of the four March daughters: pretty Meg, tomboy Jo, delicate Beth and willful Amy. The book follows them from childhood to womanhood and was both a critical and commercial success. It spawned two sequels: Little Men and Jo’s Boys.

Over the years, there have been multiple screen and television versions and even a Broadway musical. Notable films have included the 1933 George Cukor version starring Katherine Hepburn as Jo; the 1949 one with June Allyson and Elizabeth Taylor; and the most popular, the 1994 version featuring Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst and Claire Danes. Best of all is the 2018 Masterpiece/BBC co-production that manages to find the balance between its original source and a contemporary audience.

Saoirse Ronan as Jo and Timothée Chalamet as Laurie in a scene from the film.

The newest incarnation is written and directed by Greta Gerwig, best-known for her breakout with 2017’s Lady Bird. There is a distinctly modern feel to the adaptation, and this is unmistakably intentional. The more progressive pieces in the story are emphasized, and it highlights the daughters’ independence. Certain departures from the original story shift some of the motivations and subsequent reactions, but, overall, the film is very true onto itself. It even manages to provide two endings that are able to live side-by-side so that Jo does not lose her individuality.  

Little Women is not necessarily long on plot. Instead, it is really a series of events that reveal character. At its heart, it is about a family dealing with the world. Even though it is set during the Civil War, this cataclysmic event stays on the periphery. It is the day-to-day world of the March family: financial challenges, separations, illness, marriage, career. It is the detail with which these struggles and triumphs are told that make the tapestry.

Undoubtedly, it requires a gifted cast, and this one does not disappoint. The quartet at the center all fair well. Emma Watson makes for a dimensional Meg, whose mild vanity does not overwhelm her good intentions. Eliza Scanlen as Beth is appropriately winsome without resorting to the usual caricatures of shyness and fragility. 

Timothée Chalamet and Florence Pugh play Laurie and Amy in ‘Little Women.’

At the center of any Little Women is Jo, a wonderfully complicated character, whose dream of being a writer drives much of the narrative. Saoirse Ronan is dynamic in her passions and vulnerable in her confusions. She holds center and keeps the story and the family together. But it is Florence Pugh as selfish Amy who finds a true arc and is the only one of the four to succeed in playing the character’s age range and subsequent growth; it is an unusual and artful performance.

Laura Dern’s Marmee is appropriately kind and matriarchal if the most modern of the players. Timothée Chalamet presents a more human Laurie, who, thwarted in his love for Jo, sinks into visible dissipation; it is a bold choice on Gerwig’s part, but it pays off in the resolution.  

Meryl Streep’s Aunt March lacks a true imperiousness; part of this is that the brittle and icy center has been softened with some odd choices that are so antithetical to Alcott’s vision, it makes her too knowing and less of an antagonist to both overcome and win over.  

Laura Dern, Meryl Streep and Florence Pugh in a scene from the film.

In smaller roles, Bob Odenkirk seems lost as the father while Tracy Letts, as Jo’s first editor, Mr. Dashwood, hits all of the right notes. Chris Cooper, as neighbor and later friend Mr. Laurence, never quite gets to underlying pain. James Norton’s John Brooke, Laurie’s tutor and eventually Meg’s husband, has been reduced to a cipher, which is a shame given his importance. 

The same could be said of Louis Garrel’s Professor Bhaer, Jo’s New York suitor: there just isn’t enough of him to make an impression. Jayne Houdyshell, as the family housekeeper, Hannah, manages to make the most of her scenes and avoids stereotype as best she can.

One element that has always been a challenge in adapting Little Women is the progression of the sisters from pre-/early teens to twenties. Most have not solved this problem, and this manifestation suffers worse than the previous versions. This is because of the film’s one major flaw: Gerwig chose to eschew a linear structure, instead shifting back-and-forth over about a 10-year period. With one very powerful exception, nothing is gained by this lack of chronology. Many of the shifts are clumsy, and the viewers must regroup to figure out where they were left in the previous time line. For those not well-versed with the story, it would probably make for a confusing and occasionally frustrating experience.

However, putting this aside, the final result is still worthwhile. There is an honest emotional core, and it is hard not to invest into this fresh new foray into the March family. While this might not be the definitive Little Women, it is certainly one for our time. Rated PG, Little Women is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 182
Above, from left, Rumpleteazer (Naoimh Morgan), Victoria (Francesca Hayward) and Mungojerrie (Danny Collins) in a scene from Cats. Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

In 1939, T.S. Eliot published a slender volume of poetry: Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats. Fast-forward just over 40 years and Andrew Lloyd Weber’s megahit Cats premiered in the West End, where it played for 8,949 performances, becoming the longest-running West End musical, a record it held until 2006. The Broadway production opened in 1982 and ran for 7,845 performances; it is now the fourth longest-running Broadway show. Cats went on to be seen internationally, playing in dozens of countries and languages.  

In 1998, a direct-to-video production was shot at London’s Adelphi Theatre. While significant cuts were made and it was played on a new set, it gives a sense of the stage production. 

Cats has always been a divisive musical, dividing into two distinct camps: It has its champions and its detractors, with few in the middle ground.

Judi Dench as Old Deuteronomy in a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

The current offering of Cats many lives is the film directed by Tom Hooper with a screenplay by Hooper and Lee Hall. This means that Hooper is doubly responsible for what is on the screen. And while Hooper’s work has included the John Adams miniseries, The King’s Speech and The Danish Girl, Hooper also gave us the clumsy, bloated and wholly unsatisfying 2012 Les Misérables.

The plot of Cats — such as it is — tells of the Jellicle Ball, an annual gathering of cats where one is granted the chance to go the Heavyside Layer and rewarded with a new life. Here, it is told through the eyes of Victoria, an abandoned kitten. All of this is just a structure in which to introduce a range of cats who each pitch their right to be granted this wish, their individuality displayed through a series of musical turns. Throughout, the candidates are thwarted by the mysterious Macavity, whose nefarious plan is made clear fairly early on.

The film opens strongly with one of the best numbers from the show,“Jellicle Cats.” It manages to provide cinematic spectacle without losing its musical theater roots. Ultimately, it was when Hooper allows Broadway to come through, the movie finds its limited success. When the cast dances, there are moments of real celebration. Unfortunately, after the first 10 minutes or so, he decided to not trust the material, and the film becomes choppy, disconnected and feels overlong. There is an unnecessary slapstick, singing rats and dancing cockroaches. These elements are neither whimsical nor clever and enhance neither story nor spectacle.

The film boasts a number of high profile names. Rebel Wilson as Jennnyanydots and James Cordern as Bustopher Jones are ill-served by aggressively abrasive choices — novelty songs that are stripped of their charm and turned grotesque. Idris Elba fairs decently as the ominous Macavity, and Taylor Swift, as his henchperson, Bombalurina, is not given much to do but her one decently executed number. 

Judi Dench, as feline matriarch Old Deuteronomy, and Ian McKellen, as Gus the Theatre Cat, are channeling everything they’ve done for the past five decades and come out best. Jennifer Hudson, as the downtrodden Grizabella, is too overwrought and loses the sympathetic core of “Memory.” Newcomer Francesca Hayward functions nicely as Victoria the catalyst for the action (no pun intended). 

What is most surprising is that the voices in general are pleasant but not strong, which is an odd choice for an almost sung-through film. (The less said about the dialogue that has been shoe-horned in, the better.)

However, the biggest problem — and it is insurmountable — is the overall visual of the film. The characters have been strangely CGI-ed, and they come across neither as humans or cats but as some Island of Dr. Moreau hybrids. There is an unfinished quality to the faces, as if they are poking their heads through a Coney Island cut-out. The bodies are clearly feline but some are clothed and some are not, sending a bizarre and uncomfortable mixed message.

There is no commitment to what the audience is supposed to be seeing and the result is disturbing. Why the creators did not take a page from the stage production is a mystery for at least then they could have found an aesthetically pleasing or least unifying design.

There has been discussion of a Cats film since the musical first became popular. Given the nature of the source, it is a challenging one. And while the play will continue to prowl stages across the world, the film will surely be a strange and unpleasant footnote in the history of movie musicals.

Rated PG, Cats is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 1136

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Security guard Richard Jewell was working the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, at Centennial Olympic Park. On July 27, he spotted a backpack underneath a bench and called in the suspicious package. One of three pipe bombs in the bag went off, causing two deaths and hundreds of injuries. But it was Jewell’s quick thinking that saved thousands of lives. Immediately, Jewell was thrust into the spotlight. These accolades were short-lived as he went from hero to suspect. On July 30, 1996, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution identified Richard Jewell as the FBI’s prime suspect. What ensued was a nightmare for Jewell, an innocent man.

The film Richard Jewell is based on Marie Brenner’s February 1997 Vanity Fair article “American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell” and the book The Suspect: An Olympic Bombing, the FBI, the Media, and Richard Jewell, the Man Caught in the Middle (2019), by Kent Alexander and Kevin Salwen. Directed by Clint Eastwood, with a screenplay by Billy Ray, the film is a scathing indictment of the FBI and the media.

Paul Walter Hause in a scene from ‘Richard Jewell’. Photo courtesy of Warner Bros.

The movie opens with a brief prologue setting up Jewell as a college rent-a-cop. Jewell is a sad-sack of a man with the sole ambition of working in law enforcement, who has a hard time finding the line between spirit and letter. In many ways, this desire adds to his later persecution.

The film then jumps to the day before the bombing and follows Jewell through that horrifying event. What follows is his brief shining moments and then the relentless pursuit by government and media.

Jewell engages a lawyer whom he knew years before, a maverick named Watson Bryant. Bryant takes over the case and attempts to control Jewell’s statements to the FBI but is constantly checking Jewell’s desire to be seen as one of them. There are many statements about Jewell fitting a particular profile. These are revealed to be skewed − ungrounded in select and selected facts. Eventually, the FBI is not able to make its case, and he is exonerated, but the damage is done.

It is a dark story that takes its time. With the exception of the bombing itself, the film focuses on one man’s victimization by a system he doesn’t fully understand. There are multiple scenes of interrogation and violation of his privacy. There is not a great deal of action, but the driving force is the knowledge that he is innocent.

Richard Jewell contains three truly excellent performances. The always strong Sam Rockwell is engaging as the wry lawyer, finding variety and nuance in every look and sigh as he marvels with exasperation at his client’s naivete. Kathy Bates finds dimension as Jewell’s mother, Bobi. In what could play into every stereotype, she mines the role for both love and frustration with her son. 

At the center of the film is Paul Walter Hauser as Richard Jewell. A large, lumbering figure, he exudes a desperation that reflects his own need to be accepted by a world that has very little use for him. It is a heart-breaking performance, and Hauser presents a fully realized man. Rather than a caricature of a gun-owning mama’s boy, Hauser’s Jewell is a man who loves his mother and whose only goal in life is to protect.

Jon Hamm, as the stone-faced FBI agent Tom Shaw, does little but alternate between grimacing and glowering. Olivia Wilde is given the unenviable job of portraying the reporter from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Kathy Scruggs, who first wrote about Jewell being a person of interest. The film has garnered controversy over its portrayal of Scruggs, who is shown offering sex to Shaw in exchange for information. This is an entirely fictious creation with no grounding in fact.  The real-life Scruggs was a fascinating person, of great depth, and is given short shrift.  

This is not the only place where the film has taken liberties with swaths of the truth. If the Vanity Fair source is to be trusted, there are perhaps too many pieces that have been fictionalized for narrative purposes. In a film that is calling into question the power of the press, one must then ask if it is not equally as dangerous to present a flawed reflection of an historical event.

Ultimately, Richard Jewell is a film with a trio of great performances and strong, simmering storytelling. And, in its own way, it is a cautionary reminder of the power and responsibility of government and media.  

by -
0 222
Photo from Sony Pictures Entertainment

By Jeffrey Sanzel

There is no greater American icon than Fred Rogers — the Mr. Rogers of “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.” Generations of children have grown up under the tutelage of the man whose sole quest was to let children be children. His soft-spoken and often simple wisdom has been explored, dissected and parodied for decades. But, ultimately, his pure and honest humanity has shown through.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is inspired by Tom Junod’s 1998 Esquire article “Can You Say … Hero?” Director Marielle Heller and screenwriters Micah Fizterman-Blue and Noah Harpster have chosen the source as a jumping-off place to create the fictional story of an emotionally lost and damaged journalist whose life is altered by profiling the beloved television host.

The film is in no way a biopic of Rogers. If one is seeking an account of Fred Rogers, then the heartfelt 2018 Won’t You Be My Neighbor? documentary explores Rogers with a wealth of archival clips and interviews. It is as both straightforward and as complicated as the man himself and an indispensable contribution to his legacy.

Photo from Sony Pictures Entertainment

Instead, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood draws upon Rogers’ ethos and how it affected and continues to influence the world for good.

Matthew Rhys plays journalist Lloyd Vogel, whose closet full of demons has disconnected him from the world. The story focuses on the dysfunctional relationship with his estranged father (a dimensional Chris Cooper) who walked out on him and his sister when their mother was dying. 

Vogel struggles to communicate with his frustrated wife (the always terrific Susan Kelechi Watson), to face his life as a new father, and to deal with the world in general. At first, he is resistant to the ministrations of Rogers, but gradually, he realizes the power of embracing Rogers’ philosophies. The film is Vogel’s arc, with Rogers a catalyst for change.

Rhys manages the transition from depressed and detached to self-aware and almost reborn with a slow, methodical intensity. It is an unsurprising performance but one in which we can invest. While the resolution is inevitable, his pain is palpable and his growing awareness authentic. 

The surrounding actors are strong and Heller has brought out subtle and absorbing work from the entire company, including Christine Lahti (Ellen, Vogel’s Esquire editor), Enrico Colantoni (Bill Isler, the president of Family Communications), Maryann Plunkett (Joanne Rogers, Fred’s wife), Tammy Blanchard (Lorraine, Vogel’s sister), and Jessica Hecht (Lila Vogel, Vogel’s dying mother). The entire ensemble is fully present, bringing nuance to the action.

However, the heart of the film is Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers. There is no actor more suited to don the sweater than Hanks, and he does not disappoint. Eschewing imitation, Hanks evokes the soul of the man, making sure that his Rogers is not a hagiography. We see joy, pain, introspection and a man who struggles but never ceases to search for peace and understanding in a difficult world.  

And while his screen time does not rival Rhys’, Hanks dominates each moment with an open presence that makes him unique among even the greatest movie actors. Whether engaging with his public, watching a playback of a scene he has just shot or voicing the Neighborhood puppets, he is riveting. A scene that focuses on a moment of silence in a Chinese restaurant is as wondrous as a subway car breaking out into the show’s theme song. It is all reflected in Hanks’ understated yet overwhelming portrayal.  

The takeaway from A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is that we must face life’s trials and that we can grow from these challenges. It is a message — and a film — of which Fred Rogers would approve.

Prev1...141516...19Next Page 15 of 19
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©