"Everything is as it should be."

                                                                                  - Benjamin Purcell Morris

 

 

© all material on this website is written by Michael McCaffrey, is copyrighted, and may not be republished without consent

Follow me on Twitter: Michael McCaffrey @MPMActingCo

TWIB Notes: Kirk, Kimmel and the Kommissars of Speech

This Week in Bullshit - TWIB NOTES

TWIB Notes this week is chock full of hot topics, but the main theme is freedom of speech. So…let’s get to it.

CHARLIE KIRK

Charlie Kirk, the Republican firebrand made famous for his on-site debates with college liberals, was assassinated on September 10, 2025 on the campus of Utah Valley University.

At the time of his killing Kirk was doing his thing…debating in public with less-than-intellectually-stellar liberals enraged by his political philosophy and their inability to navigate his debating style.

As someone who tries to spend as little time on social media as possible Charlie Kirk was not exactly someone I spent much time thinking about prior to his death.

I had seen a bunch of videos of him and he struck me as a talented political matador who would get coddled liberal fools into a frenzy by waving a red cape in front of them and then effortlessly dance around them as they furiously charged at him.

Watching Charlie Kirk get shot in the neck on video was a deeply unsettling thing. Watching many seemingly normal, regular liberal people react to Kirk’s death with unabashed glee was even more unsettling.

Look, I get that people were offended by the things Charlie Kirk said and believed…despite the fact that what he said and believed did not offend me…but what I don’t get is why people would cheer some dude who is not even in power, is not a politician, and controls next to nothing, getting killed in public.

The reaction to Kirk’s death, from lots of regular people and from the media, was disgusting. People cheering his slaughter are not just vile – but deeply sick. Why can’t we just disagree with someone politically and let that be enough? Do we really need to hurt them? To kill them? To spill blood? Good Lord.

The media response was even more ridiculous. I never watch cable news…the last time I did was when Trump was shot in the ear during the campaign, but watching CNN after Kirk’s assassination was a jaw-dropping experience.

The entirety of the coverage I watched on CNN was concern not over political violence and the killing of Kirk, but of the danger of how right-wingers responded. You would’ve thought that right-wingers being pissed that one of their own got gunned down were a major threat to civilization. When you contrast this with the “mostly peaceful protests” coverage of the George Floyd riots then you see how absurd and inane and totally tone-deaf it all is.

As for the actual assassination of Kirk I have a few thoughts…first off…I don’t know what happened…who shot what and from where and for what reason…but I do know this…the official story is, without question, absolute horseshit.

They’ve already come up with a new “magic bullet” theory and have exalted Charlie Kirk into a super-Saint with bones of steel that cannot let bullets pass through them and allowed him to save others while being killed himself…just absurd. The big question is - how does a guy get shot with a high-powered rifle and not have an exit wound? What the fuck is that all about?

Then there’s the indictment, which if you read it is riddled with inaccuracies and fallacies. And then there’s the unbelievable bullshit that is the text exchange from the alleged shooter to his alleged trans lover/roommate that feels like a fabrication from start to finish. And then there’s the “video coverage” where we see the alleged gunman but never with a gun and never in the place he was said to have done the shooting.

The bottom line regarding this assassination is that conspiracy theories will flourish around it (they already have) but they will only obfuscate the truth – which is most likely a very nasty conspiracy all its own.

Whatever comes out of this fucking pathetic and ridiculous FBI in the coming weeks and months, do yourself a favor and don’t believe a word of it.

JIMMY KIMMEL

Back in July I wrote a TWIB Notes column that touched upon the cancellation of the Stephen Colbert Late Night show at CBS and finished my discussion of that topic with the prediction “Colbert is not the last to get the boot…in fact, he’s only the first. Fallon, Meyers and Kimmel are dead men walking…and I have to say that unlike their comedy, that is something that makes me laugh.”

Well, well, well.

Jimmy Kimmel was suspended by ABC after saying that right-wingers were doing everything they can to make it seem like Charlie Kirk’s killer wasn’t one of them….or something to that effect.

Kimmel has always been a mystery to me. I never once saw The Man Show, and have never once during its entire 22-year run watched a single episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live.

The few times I’ve seen Kimmel, liked when he hosts an awards show, I have found him to be aggressively unfunny. He is not only devoid of comic ability but he’s also blessed with the charisma of a fly on week old shit.

The left has been more horrified by the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel than they were by the killing of Charlie Kirk…which to be honest is the funniest Jimmy Kimmel related thing to ever happen.

Right-wingers, ever true to their values (wink-wink), are ecstatic over Kimmel’s suspension and hope it is a permanent firing.

The reality is that Kimmel is not, and never has been, a free speech warrior. He, like many liberals, is only interested in his speech being free, and those that disagree with him being silenced.

Right-wingers who were so outraged by woke cancel culture during the Biden years, have spent their first year back in power going full on right-wing woke and cancelling anyone and anything that is even remotely anti-Zionist. By the way…Democrats have not done a single thing to stop the Republican jihad against anti-Zionists, they have in fact, encouraged it.

Kimmel, of course, would never say a bad word about his paymasters so Israel is not a topic he would ever discuss…so there’s a good chance he gets his gig back after a hiatus (his suspension was lifted a few hours after this article was originally published).

But the truth is this…regardless of politics or anything like that, late night talk shows are going away. None of them make money and none of them are worth the cost. All of their ratings are in the toilet and none of them hold any cultural cache anymore.

The other day I happened to watch an old clip of Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal having a half hour long cat fight on The Dick Cavett show some fifty-odd years ago.

The level of intellect, eloquence and the depth of that discussion was staggering compared to the toxically empty calories currently being fed to the public on cable news and late-night talk shows. Seeing American intellectuals like Vidal and Mailer go at each other was invigorating and depressing…invigorating because they were such sharp minds, and depressing because not only do we not have those types of debates anymore – we don’t even have intellectuals anymore.

Ultimately, whether Kimmel stays or goes is utterly irrelevant….which brings us to…

THE KOMMISSARS OF SPEECH

What makes the Kimmel case so interesting is that the allegation is that the government, at the behest of Trump himself, pressured ABC to suspend/cancel Kimmel. That action is, obviously, in direct violation of the First Amendment which guarantees the right to freedom of speech – and is remarkably similar to what the Biden administration did with social media companies in trying to silence dissent and debate over Covid policies and vaccines. Hmmmm.

But here’s the rub in the free speech debate…the debate over free speech is long over and free speech has most certainly lost.

For years we have been reduced to free speech debates in this country amounting to little more than “free speech for me but not for thee!”. So we get liberals wanting to cancel people who say things they don’t like, or in the case of Covid – people who don’t get vaccinated, and then we get right-wingers (notice I don’t call them conservatives because they conserve nothing but their own hypocrisy) doing the exact same thing – trying to ban flag burning, anti-Zionism, protests etc.

The truth is that freedom of speech was killed long ago. This past year we had a big furor because Trump was pissed at 60 Minutes and Paramount caved to the pressure in order to get a merger approved. But since we are so historically illiterate in this country no one seemed to remember this drama played out before with very similar results…back in the 1990’s when 60 Minutes refused to air a story that was highly critical of Big Tobacco for fear of lawsuits and loss of ad revenue. They made an excellent movie about that incident called The Insider…you should go watch it if you’ve never seen it – Michael Mann directed it and it stars Al Pacino and Russell Crowe.

60 Minutes has, for the last quarter century at least, but nothing but an intel community and military industrial complex mouthpiece that spews the most vacant and vapid of propaganda imaginable…it has been co-opted and is now a nefarious and insidious media machine that routinely deceives and divides.

Remember when the liberal New York Times were used as a propaganda weapon by the Bush administration in deceiving the populace regarding the threat from Iraq? I do.

I also remember when the liberal New York Times held a story about the Bush administration’s illegal surveillance of Americans for over a year until after Bush’s re-election. I also remember when the liberal New York Times refused to use the word torture and instead used the word “enhanced interrogation” at the behest of the Bush administration. I remember those things…but I am apparently in the minority.

Back in my day liberals dedicated to the value of free speech were rightly horrified when Big Tobacco silenced 60 Minutes, and when the Bush administration set-up “free speech zones” for protestors…the name of which more than implies that there are places in America where free speech is not allowed, and used Judith Miller as a pro-war propagandist.

But many of these same liberals were as silent as the grave while Saint Obama used the Espionage Act more times than every other president combined to prosecute whistleblowers and reporters.

These same liberals stayed silent when, under Obama, Edward Snowden was forced from his country after revealing the illegal surveillance state we all lived under. And were just as silent when, under Obama and Biden, Julian Assange was imprisoned for the crime of revealing the war crimes of the American government.

Freedom of speech was long a lynchpin of the liberal movement, but because many liberals who love freedom of speech stayed silent when Obama gutted our right to it, they then were conditioned to more easily sell out their values and ideals regarding speech in favor of genuflecting to the woke mob when it rose to prominence. Quickly over the span of less than a decade - freedom of speech was gone and in its place was the banner of being against “hate speech” – literally and figuratively. Liberal disdain for freedom of speech disintegrated so quickly and thoroughly that even the ACLU has disavowed it in purpose and practice.  

“Hate speech” (which is ironic considering it can be interpreted as meaning to hate – speech) became the favorite talking point of liberals everywhere…and I warned that labelling things hate speech, and wanting to ban hate speech, would lead to the destruction of free speech – but liberals didn’t care that they, as I told them, would eventually be hoisted on their own petard…or as I called it – foisted on their own retard!

Right-wingers have long made no bones about their desire to curb freedom of speech, but then freaked out when woke liberals wanted to curb right-wing speech.

And so, the cycle will continue on and on forever until some douchebag centrist (maybe Pete Buttigieg!!) comes along and Obama-style makes a compromise that in order to clamp down on hate speech and political violence we will do away with freedom of speech altogether. It’ll be just like the healthcare debate where a public option is never discussed and the big business republican option is the only option – thanks Obama!

To tie this up in a very messy bow, woke liberals have made the argument that hate speech is violence, and when speech is violence then it is logical to use actual physical violence to silence it…and thus we get Charlie Kirk not just being murdered, but his killing being celebrated.

I have long written on this subject (and will link some of those articles below), most notably about the argument from liberals in the wake of Trump’s first election about the efficacy of “punching Nazis”. Of course, the problems with punching Nazis are numerous…like who gets to decide who is a Nazi? And what if someone decides you’re a Nazi? And are Nazi’s allowed to defend themselves…and more so…can Nazi’s – like liberals punching – proactively defend themselves? And finally…punching people you label Nazis will only escalate into ultimately shooting people you label Nazis – people like Charlie Kirk.

Speech is not and never will be violence…violence is violence…and the only people who claim speech is violence are the ones who haven’t been punched in the face.

The bottom line is this, current free speech debate is a farce because both the left and the right have long ago sold out their ideals regarding speech and instead have used their power to silence their enemies.

The war for freedom of speech, and frankly the war for any of our “freedoms” is long over…and we all lost. The aristocratic oligarchy and intelligence and military industrial complex and globalist corporatocracy have won and now keep us as slaves in what is essentially an open-air surveillance state prison.

So fuck Jimmy Kimmel, and fuck 60 Minutes, and fuck the mainstream media and fuck social media and fuck our politicians and fuck the myopic fools who bought into the two-party system and all of its homicidal lies.

And fuck all of us while we’re at it…because we are just as much to blame for this disaster as anybody.

Charlie Kirk is dead and Jimmy Kimmel is out of a job…and the cold hard reality is that there are going to be many more who face a similar fate….and don’t kid yourself…there’s nothing we can do about it.

Links-

Weird Scenes Inside the Gold Mine

Caesar Americanus

The Tragedy of Charlottesville

Punching Nazis

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 100 Part Two - Popular Streaming Platform Recommendations

On the conclusion of our 100th episode celebration, Barry and I finish up our streaming service  film/tv recommendations. Topics discussed include the wonders of the Criterion Channel, the god-awful shit that is Peacock, and how HBO Max was better before it became Max. Oh...and a flock of geese gets slaughtered on air for no apparent reason. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 100 Part Two

Thanks for listening!

©2023

House of Gucci: A Review

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. This star-studded, dramatically incoherent, big-budget soap opera isn’t so bad it’s good, it’s just really bad.

It is somewhat ironic that this Thanksgiving iconic director Ridley Scott has bestowed upon audiences an absolute turkey of a movie filled with an inexcusable and excessive amount of ham.

The turkey of a movie of which I speak is the remarkably ridiculous House of Gucci, and the ham is supplied by the cavalcade of over-acting movie stars among its cast, including Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Jared Leto, and Salma Hayek.

House of Gucci, which is currently only available in theatres, attempts to tell the based-on-a-true-story of the Gucci family fashion empire in the 1980’s into the 1990’s, particularly the courtship, then tumultuous marriage, between the heir to the Gucci throne, Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver), and Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga), a sexy and sassy daughter of a blue-collar trucking business impresario.

Maurizio’s family has mixed reactions to his marriage with the ever-ambitious and insistent Patrizia. Maurizio’s father, Rodolfo (Jeremy Irons), sees her as a social climber to be shunned. Rodolfo’s brother and business partner Aldo, sees Patrizia as a potential opportunity to gain more control over the family business by pulling Maurizio away from his father and over to him.  

House of Gucci starts off as somewhat of a misplaced love story, but then devolves into a sprawling and scattershot piece of corporate palace intrigue and capitalism porn.

The characters wear highly fashionable, gorgeous clothes, drive ludicrously fantastic cars and live in astonishingly lavish homes and high-rise apartments.

But all of this ostentatious display of wealth and beauty doesn’t give the characters any depth or dimension, nor does it conjure any genuine drama or aid in making the story coherent.

All it really does is make House of Gucci a very well-budgeted, high-end, melodramatic soap-opera.

I suppose the argument could be made that the vapid, vacuous and venal characters in the movie are meant to represent the fact that the decade featured in the film, the 1980’s, was the height of vapidity, vacuousness and venality, but I think that gives the film too much credit.

The movie doesn’t feel in on the joke of its empty campiness because it too frequently vacillates in tone from feverish fun to strenuous seriousness.

The most asinine irritating thing about the movie though is the obscene and absurd amount of over-acting in which the cast indulges.

Al Pacino and Jared Leto, the Ali and Frazier of over-acting, pull absolutely no punches in House of Gucci. These two bulls in the acting China shop chew more scenery than the pampered Gucci cows in bucolic Italian towns who provide the leather for over-priced handbags.

Leto, who is unrecognizable as the dim-witted Paolo Gucci – son of Aldo and cousin to Maurizio, is particularly awful, as his over-bearing Italian caricature makes Don Novello’s comic SNL character Father Guido Sarducci look like Marcello Mastroianni in La Dolce Vita.

Not to be outdone, Jeremy Irons brings his ham-fisted ‘A-game’ to keep up with his inane co-stars in this unbridled ham-fest. Irons is so completely committed to caricature his eyes look like Gucci sunglasses even on the rare occasions he isn’t wearing them.

But the queen of over-acting in House of Gucci is unquestionably Lady Gaga, who brings enough ham to the festivities to feed the world for the foreseeable future. Watching the thirsty Gaga, sporting a bizarre Transylvanian accent for some reason, pout and preen through a multitude of hair and costume changes like a cheap tart at a red-light street, but never once resemble an actual human being, is astonishing to behold.

Adam Driver avoids the over-acting bug, but he is terribly miscast in the film all the same, just like he was miscast in Scott’s The Last Duel. Driver, who looks like one of Dr. Frankenstein’s early discarded attempts, seems perpetually miscast to me, but maybe he isn’t miscast, maybe he’s just a bad actor.

Director Ridley Scott is one of the great filmmakers of his generation whose body of work includes such phenomenal films as Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Blackhawk Down and Matchstick Men.

In comparison, House of Gucci feels like a very cheap Ridley Scott knock-off you could get from a street corner vendor for next to nothing.

Scott is now 83 years-old and the fact that House of Gucci is the second film he’s released this year along with The Last Duel, is utterly astonishing. It’s also unfortunate. Hopefully he’s able to make a few more quality films, like the flawed The Last Duel, in his golden years in order to get the rancid taste of House of Gucci out of movie-goers mouths.

I know you’re supposed to leave them laughing, but in the case of House of Gucci – which is sure to be a massive flop at the box office, it would feel like audiences are laughing at Ridley Scott and not with him as he nears the exit of his career, and that would be a tragedy for such a brilliant artist.

About an hour and a half into the two hour and thirty-seven-minute House of Gucci, in one of those rare moments where a film unintentionally tells the truth about itself, Adam Driver’s Maurizio sternly says to Lady Gaga’s Patrizia, “You’re humiliating yourself!”

My reaction to that dialogue was to nod and say aloud to myself in the very empty theatre where I saw the film, “I concur”. Everyone involved with this movie is humiliating themselves, myself included for having seen it.

 A version of this article was originally published at RT.

©2021

The Irishman: A Review

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT.

The Irishman, written by Steve Zaillian (based on the book I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt) and directed by Martin Scorsese, is the alleged true story of Frank “The Irishman” Sheeran, a truck driver out of Philadelphia who becomes a trusted member of the Italian mafia. The film stars Robert DeNiro as Sheeran, with supporting turns from Al Pacino and Joe Pesci.

Martin Scorsese is one of the true masters of American cinema, and so when he releases a new film cinephiles take notice. Scorsese’s newest project, The Irishman, is a Netflix film, which means it will have a very limited release in theatres in November before it settles in for the long haul on the streaming service at the end of the month.

Being the obnoxious purist that I am, I wanted to catch The Irishman in theatres so I decided to see the first show at 10:45 on Tuesday morning. I assumed the theatre would be just how I like it…sparsely populated. I mean who, besides a loser like me, goes to a movie on a Tuesday morning? Well…apparently there are a lot of losers in Los Angeles. I was stunned to see that my screening of The Irishman was jam-packed and nearly sold out, with only the first two rows of the theatre with empty seats. The film is supposedly only playing in two theatres here in Los Angeles, and luckily for me one of the two is my regular hang out. My screening was bursting with an interesting cross-section of people, from hipsters to the elderly to elderly hipsters.

What surprised me the most about such a large crowd was that the film runs three hours and thirty minutes, which makes it a prime candidate to watch in the comfort of your home where you can hit the pause button to take bathroom breaks and not miss any of the action. Such is the draw of Scorsese that audiences would put their bladders to the test and shell out money to see a film they could essentially see for free with unlimited bathroom breaks just a few weeks from now.

The Irishman is not so much a genre defining film as it is a genre closing film. Like Clint Eastwood’s eloquent tombstone on the grave of the western, Unforgiven, Scorsese gives us the mob movie that makes mob movies dramatically obsolete with The Irishman. Both Unforgiven and The Irishman burst the archetype and myth that animate them and replace it with the awkward, unwieldy and soul-crushing reality of the consequences of that myth.

Unlike its energetic and exuberant predecessor Goodfellas,The Irishman is a melancholy meditation, a profound existential prayer whispered into the abyss. Scorsese’s makeshift mob trilogy, which began with Goodfellas and continued with Casino, finds its weighty final chapter with the contemplative epic The Irishman, and reveals an introspective auteur coming to grips with mortality. The Irishman is a film obsessed with mortality, as death looms over every scene like an ominous storm cloud containing the relentlessly inevitable deluge of both physical and spiritual destruction and disintegration.

In Goodfellas and Casino, Scorsese sees the mob world as morally corrupt, but does so through a nostalgic lens…these guys may be bad but they are “good guys”, good-fellas. In The Irishman, as physical action turns to spiritual consequences, nostalgia is replaced with a plaintive reflection, so profound as to be akin to a sacramental confession.

The performances in The Irishman magnificently give life to Scorsese’s artistic contemplation, with Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci doing some of their very best work, and easily the best work of the last three decades of their careers.

DeNiro, with the assistance of a “de-aging” special effects technology, plays Frank Sheeran from his young adulthood into old age. DeNiro has not been this engaged, this sharp or this magnetic for a quarter of a century. DeNiro and Scorsese give Frank time and space, with which he is able to be still and contemplate his choices both in the moment and in hindsight. DeNiro sublimely fills these moments with a consequential aching, and his character with an acutely unconscious wound that gives Sheeran a complexity and profundity he is unable to grasp. DeNiro is now 76 and this performance may very well be his last hurrah as an actor, and it is a fitting monument to his colossal talent and extraordinary career.

Al Pacino has a supporting role and is absolutely fantastic. Caustically funny and desperately combustible, Pacino’s character (I won’t tell you his name so as not to spoil it) is a force of nature. Pacino imbues his character with a compulsion for control and a pulsating pride that make a toxic combination and undeniably dynamic viewing.

Joe Pesci is sublimely superb as the restrained and deliberate mob boss, Russ Buffalino. Pesci made his name playing frantically unhinged characters, but in The Irishman he shows off his mastery of craft. Pesci’s Buffalino is quiet and still, and yet because he fills his stillness and silence with an undeniable intentionality, he radiates an unnerving power. Pesci rightfully won the Best Supporting Actor for his work in Goodfellas, but his performance in The Irishman, while not as showy, is even better, as it is as layered and complex a piece of acting as you’ll find.

The de-aging technology used on DeNiro, Pacino and Pesci can be a little disorienting at first, and it takes some getting used to, but after the first few minutes you never even think of it. The one thing that is sort of odd about it is that the technology only de-ages their faces and not their bodies. So when a young and fresh faced DeNiro is beating the crap out of a guy on a sidewalk, he moves like a 76 year old man…like he is underwater…which is very strange to see.

The Irishman is epic is scope and scale, and it covers some 40 or 50 years of time. As previously stated, the film has a run time of three hours and thirty minutes, and I can tell you that the film is so engrossing and captivating, that not once during that three hours and thirty minutes did I mentally or physically check out. The same was true of the other people in my screening as bathroom breaks were minimal and phone checking was non-existent…which is extremely rare nowadays.

The long running time is a good sign because it means that this is Scorsese’s film, untouched by the filthy hands of studio execs or money people. Piece of Shit Hall of Famer Harvey Weinstein once famously demanded that Scorsese cut 45 minutes off of Gangs of New York and the film was immensely harmed by those cuts. The same is true of Silence, which Paramount demanded be cut for time, and also seriously suffered because of it. When studios meddle they always and every time fuck it up, this is why Netflix matters, because unlike other studios they don’t meddle and they don’t chase the short-end money of box office bravado, they let artists be artists.

Netflix is important too because without them The Irishman never gets made. The other studios passed on the film and its hefty price tag of $160 million, and so Netflix was the studio of last resort. Scorsese would no doubt prefer to have a long theatrical run with his film, but I bet he is quite pleased he made the trade-off of reduced theatrical run in exchange for Netflix letting him make the movie he wanted to make. Just more proof that the studios and theatres are fucked…they have no vision and no balls…and they will deservedly go down in flames.

The real question regarding The Irishman is not whether you should see it, you obviously should as it is one of the very best films of the year, but where you should see it. For cinephiles, I do recommend you make the effort to see it in the theatre, as it is beautifully shot by Rodrigo Prieto, Scorsese’s cinematographer on The Wolf of Wall Street and Silence, with a subdued color palette, exquisite framing and deliriously gorgeous but subtle cameras movement. The film is also expertly edited by Thelma Schoonmakert who seamlessly keeps the film’s dramatic pacing on target while also allowing it to breathe. But for regular folks who are not as concerned about those things as I am…I think they can avoid the theatrical gauntlet and wait until The Irishman hits Netflix at the end of November and watch the movie at their leisure with the pause button at the ready when nature calls.

The Irishman is a powerful film that is the very best work of the second half of Scorsese’s career. While it is difficult to predict what the always erratic Academy Awards will do, I think it is a safe bet to say that The Irishman will at least garner a plethora of nominations. I think it will be nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (both Pesci and Pacino), Best Cinematography (Rodrigo Prieto), and Best Editing (Thelma Schoonmaker). In my opinion the film is certainly worthy of all of those awards…but there are other worthy films this year too, so we will see.

In conclusion, I have not revealed much about The Irishman’s plot or characters because I knew little about them when I saw the film and thought that enhanced my viewing experience. I have a lot of thoughts on the movie, its politics (oh boy do I have thoughts!!), its sub-text and its symbolism, but I will hold off on sharing those thoughts for now because they are potential spoilers. Once I have seen the film again and it is running on Netflix, I’ll write more in depth about it.

The bottom line regarding The Irishman is this…it is a phenomenal film well worth the time commitment to see. If you have the time and the bladder control, see it in a theatre, if not wait until you can watch it at home come November 27. Regardless of when or where you see it, see it, and enjoy one of the greatest film makers of all time as he wrestles with his legacy and his mortality.

©2019

Al Pacino : Top 5 Performances

 

On Tuesday of this past week (the 25th of April), the great Al Pacino celebrated his 77th birthday. Happy belated birthday, Al.

A reader, the Minnesota Kid, sent me a story about Pacino that showed him galavanting on a beach somewhere on his birthday with a bikini clad vixen forty years his junior. Apparently Pacino has fully embraced the lecherous old man stage of his life…good for him. 

Since I missed Pacino's actual birthday, I thought I'd share with you, my gentle readers, my opinion on his five best performances of his career. Pacino is one of the all-time greats. His run of success in the 1970's was staggering from an actor's point of view. I greatly admire Pacino, he is an old-school, Actors Studio kind of actor. His commitment to craft and his dedication to his life's calling knows no bounds. I recommend any aspiring actors to watch Pacino at his best and notice what he does with his hands in particular. Pacino is great at telling a story and creating a character with his hands. 

Sadly, Pacino has become a bit of a punch line in the latter part of his career with some derivative work that borders on self parody, but that shouldn't over shadow the stellar work he churned out in his wondrous earlier years. 

So sit back, relax, and enjoy my list of Pacino's best performances!!

5. GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS

Pacino had a hell of a year in 1992, winning his first and only Best Actor Oscar for his work in Scent of a Woman, and being nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in Glengarry Glen Ross. Pacino's work in Scent of a Woman is much too showy for my liking. The whiff of performance hangs in the air during even scene he chews his way through. In contrast, Pacino's work as salesman extraordinaire Ricky Roma in Glengarry Glen Ross is a subtle masterpiece. Pacino wraps Roma in the blustery confidence of the hustling salesman, you can smell the cologne that encases him. Pacino alters his center of gravity with Roma, making him a somewhat top-heavy, chest-out type of character, who, like a predator, is always scanning the horizon for the weakest animal to separate from the herd. Pacino did not win an Oscar for his work as Ricky Roma, but he really should have

 

4. SERPICO

In 1972, '73, '74 and '75, Al Pacino was at the height of his creative powers. His work as truth-telling cop Frank Serpico in the 1973, Sidney Lumet directed film Serpico, is a testament to the creative roll Pacino was on back then. Serpico is a complicated character with a sense of honor, duty and loyalty, but he must grapple with whom or what he is loyal…is it to his fellow cops, or to the truth? Serpico chooses the truth, and it nearly costs him everything. Pacino once again uses his body to convey the heavy weight that bears down on Frank Serpico. As the film rolls on Serpico becomes more and more compressed in a permanent slouch, the cross of Truth he is bearing weighing down on him. Pacino was nominated, but did not win, the Best Actor Oscar for Serpico, but he was certainly worthy of that award

 

3. DOG DAY AFTERNOON

1975's Dog Day Afternoon paired Paicno with director Sidney Lumet once again to spectacular results. Pacino plays Sonny, a "gay" man who attempts to rob a bank in Brooklyn in the early 70's. Pacino's Sonny is as complex and complicated a character imaginable. Watching the pressure of the situation bear down on Sonny is a remarkable character study. Once again, Pacino uses his physicality to bring Sonny to life, he puts his center of gravity lower on his body, in his pelvic region, and lets that lead the way. Pacino's Sonny is desperate for validation, love and escape. He feeds off of the acceptance of others, whether they be his hostages in the bank or the crowd that gathers outside to egg him on. Watching Sonny chant "Attica, Attica, Attica!!" to the assembled crowd is one of the great iconic moments in cinema history.  (clip)

 

2. DONNIE BRASCO

1997's Donnie Brasco is one of Pacino's most underrated performances. Pacino is nothing short of brilliant as the down on his luck gangster Lefty Ruggiero. Pacino imbues Lefty with palpable desperation that seeps out of his every pore. This is, in many ways, Pacino's most profound and intimate performance of his remarkable career. Scandalously, Pacino was not nominated for an Oscar for his staggering display of genius in Donnie Brasco

 

1. THE GODFATHER I & II

It is impossible to overstate the masterpiece that is Al Pacino's work in the first two Godfather movies. Michael Corleone is one of the all-time, iconic film characters in cinematic history. That doesn't happen without the masterful work of Al Pacino. Pacino's transformation from the "good" son to the stone cold killer to the Don himself, is staggering. Pacino gives Michael a vivid and pulsating inner life that he occasionally let's pop out into the world, in explosive moments of rage at his wife Kay or his brother Tom. But even more chilling is when Michael focuses all of that power and force into a calm, collected glare. Pacino's brilliance is in making Michael Corleone a container for all of our darker ambitions while never making him into an obvious monster. Pacino's work as Michael Corleone isn't just his greatest performance, it is one of the greatest performances of all time

 

Happy belated birthday, Al!! I tip my cap to you for your lifetime of transcendent work!! Keep on frolicking until you can frolic no more!!

©2017

A Most Violent Year : A Review

****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER REVIEW!!****

A Most Violent Year, written and directed by J.C. Chandor, is a story of corruption amidst the home heating oil business in and around New York City in 1981, one of the most violent years in the city's history. The protagonists for the film are Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac), an immigrant who has lived the American dream and built up a home heating oil company, and his wife Anna (Jessica Chastain), whose father sold Abel the home heating business he now owns, and who also had some shady organized crime connections.

Due to the great talents involved in the making of this film, with J.C. Chandor directing and Jessica Chastain and Oscar Isaac starring, I was really looking forward to seeing A Most Violent Year. Unfortunately, I was mightily disappointed once I saw it. The main problem with this film is not the acting, or the directing, but rather with the story itself. It is so devoid of any dramatic tension or interest that it feels like the film is perpetually just on the precipice of a dramatic breakthrough or an inciting incident, but that breakthrough or incident never occurs. So we are left just watching things unfold but with no real attachment to the characters or events. The film is dramatically vacant.

Another issue with this film, is that putting 'violent' in the title is so decidedly inaccurate that A Most Violent Year can now be considered one of the most misleading film titles of all time, right alongside The Never Ending Story. The film sets itself up and creates expectations with a title like that. The expectations for viewers are that this is going to be a film about the grittier, darker and nastier aspects of life in the home heating oil business in New York. That expectation is never met, not even in the sense of having Abel avoid the inferno of violence that blazes around him. There isn't really any violence at all, at least not of substance, not to or from Abel or anyone else. There isn't even the true threat of violence, only the possibility of an unspoken threat of a threat of violence.  I am certainly not someone who needs violence and brutality in a film to like it, but what I do need is some drama to drive the story, and violence as a dramatic vehicle was desperately needed here.

In terms of moral decisions and dramatic tension, at the end of the day, Abel is corrupt enough to use illegal money that Anna stole in order to continue his business, but not corrupt enough to use violence. That isn't exactly the most powerful of dramatic choices for a film, nor is it very insightful or informative in terms of giving the film a distinct perspective. This film feels like it is shot just out of range of a much more interesting and better film…like a Goodfellas for example. The film will inevitably, and unfavorably, be compared with Goodfellas. Goodfellas is set in the same time period, has a similar theme, style and relationships, but with a much more interesting story, and oddly enough, is inhabited by more believable people.  A Most Violent Year has compelling actors, and potentially compelling characters, but those characters aren't put into any situations that are remotely compelling.

In terms of the acting, Jessica Chastain is as good an actress as there is on the planet, and her work here is engaging and as always, of high quality, so much so that you ache for the film to be more about her than anyone else. Chastain brings with her a luminosity that radiates through her every moment on screen, as well as a vivid yet subtle skill and craft. The character of Anna seems to be the only character in the entire film who has any 'balls' whatsoever, whether she has to kill a deer or take care of business, she brings a very specific point of view, and makes sure the job gets done. Chastain's Anna is a driving and powerful force to be reckoned with, much like the actress herself and her substantial gifts.  

Oscar Isaac as Abel, doesn't fair quite as well as his co-star. I think one of the major problems with Isaac's performance is not with his obvious talent, but with the script itself. The character of Abel is sort of sold to us as being like Michael Corleone before he gets involved in the family business in The Godfather (Abel even wears a long camel hair coat reminiscent of the one Michael Corleone wears in The Godfather ). But that sort of internal conflict needs a big moment in order for a transformation to take place. A Most Violent Year lacks that dramatic transformation of Abel, he never chooses what life he will live. In order for a true dramatic transformation to occur, the stakes for Abel need to be much higher. It should have been very clear, either choose violence and maintain your business, family and standing in the world, or choose to be a good man and lose everything you worked so hard to get, including your wife and kids. That choice is never clearly proposed in the film and so we get middle of the road choices and lukewarm storytelling. The other thing that The Godfather's Michael Corleone had going for him was that Al Pacino was playing him. Oscar Isaac is a fine actor, but he is not even in the ballpark of an all-time great like Al Pacino. My one thought about Oscar Isaac as an actor, is that I think he isn't quite ready to carry a film like this just yet. That is not to say that he won't be able to at some point, just that he isn't able to do that now. He lacks a certain charisma and power on screen that a role like this demands. He, unlike Chastain (and Pacino), does not have an incandescent inferno raging within him that illuminates his being. He is certainly a very talented guy, no question, but he has an absence of gravitas, which is what a role like Abel so desperately needs. I have no doubt he has many great performances ahead of him, but this is one that was more considerable than he was able to manage at this point in his career. 

In conclusion, A Most Violent Year is a major disappointment, especially considering how much I loved J.C. Chandor's previous two films, All is Lost and and Margin Call. Obviously, I am a huge fan of Chastain's work and thought Isaac was very good in Inside Llewyn Davis. Sadly, in A Most Violent Year, these tremendously gifted pieces didn't come together to make a great, or even good film. With all of that said though, I would classify this film as a noble failure. Noble in that it attempts to be a serious and thoughtful drama, something that is in short supply in cinema these days, and a failure because it needed a much more compelling story and script to take full advantage of the ample talents brought together to make this film.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , THE IMITATION GAME , AMERICAN SNIPER , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .