Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 123 - Joker: Folie a Deux

On this episode, Barry and I don our comic greasepaint, clown nose and big shoes and belt out some American Standards as we debate the merits of Joker: Folie a Deux, the critically and commercially panned follow up to the Oscar nominated 2019 smash hit Joker. Topics discussed include the nearly universal negative response to the film, the blessing of seeing through the fog of it all, and director Todd Phillips as prophet of doom. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 123 - Joker: Folie a Deux

Thank you for listening!!

©2024

The Rings of Power Season Two (Amazon): TV Review - One Ring to Bore Them All

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

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A truly terrible piece of television that desecrates its source material.

The Rings of Power, the billion-dollar Jeff Bezos-vanity project television series on Amazon Prime based on the footnotes from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, just finished its second season.

The first season of The Rings of Power was a cultural irritant and major disappointment…the second season is…not surprisingly…equally as bad.

I confess am not a Tolkien fan boy. Yes, I have read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, and I’ve seen the Peter Jackson LOTR movies and enjoyed them but I am not obsessed with or protective of Tolkien’s creation even though I greatly admire his craftsmanship and artistry.

Because of my admittedly thin grasp of Tolkien’s lore, I am not the type of viewer who will be deeply offended when lore is subverted or contradicted. I’m usually too uninformed to notice or to uninvested to care.

I say that only to clarify that when The Rings of Power plays fast and loose with Tolkien’s lore, and it does so quite a lot, I am willing to forgive (or forget) if the show were simply a successful dramatic endeavor that was at least minimally entertaining, never mind enlightening.

But The Rings of Power is neither entertaining nor enlightening. All it really is is embarrassing for the creatives involved and infuriating for viewers, like me, foolish enough to tune in.

The second season, which has eight episodes, follows a bevy of storylines with a diverse array of Middle-Earth’s populace. There are storylines involving Elves, Dwarves, Harfoots, Wizards, and even Orcs and Sauron himself.

Not a single one of these narratives is even remotely compelling, intriguing or dramatically potent.

The entire Numenor storyline is nauseatingly vacuous and has all the dramatic depth of a soup commercial. The palace intrigue in the Numenorian court and the family drama surrounding it is astonishingly bland.

The “Gandalf but don’t call him Gandalf!!” wizard/spaceman storyline that is the definition of dull. The Harfoot sub-plot of this storyline is a flavorless gruel.

Arondir the Elf is back and no one gives a flying fuck because that character is repulsively stupid and inane, and his travails as interesting as watching soup chill.

The entire Dwarf storyline is so gut-wrenchingly terrible that anytime those annoying little bastards were on screen I wanted to light myself on fire and jump off the roof.

The Celebrimbor and Sauron storyline is a tedious and tiresome slog that has all the gravity of a telenovela.

The acting in this show is just obscenely atrocious, no doubt accentuated by the truly amateurish and abysmal writing.

Morfyyd Clark plays famed Elf Galadriel…and this poor women has no business being on screen anywhere. Her performance is nauseatingly trite and vapid. Her snarling, girl-power take on Galadriel is, frankly, as ridiculous as it is uninspired. To be fair she isn’t aided by the egregious writing, but still, she does herself, and the character no favors with her flaccid performance.

Charles Edwards is an utterly appalling as Celebrimbor. Edwards looks like a lesbian gym teacher helping special needs kids put on a school production of As the World Turns.

Sophie Nomvete plays Disa the Dwarf and she is so bad it literally made my stomach hurt watching her. It is beyond belief that this character exists and this actress was tasked to play her.

Not a single cast member on this series has even a glimmer of magnetism, dynamism or charisma. The entire cast is not only devoid of gravitas, but is deathly allergic to it.

For a series that cost a billion dollars the question I kept asking myself was, why does everything, from the sets to the costumes to the props to the dearth of background actors, look so unconscionably cheap?

The sets look like they come from stage play put on at a public junior high school in a middle-class suburb. But it’s the paucity of background actors that gives the game away, as scenes are sparsely populated and feel amateurish because of it.

Unlike say, HBO’s Game of Thrones or The House of the Dragon, The Ring of Power looks and feels, and is written and acted like, a fantasy-themed soap opera.

Game of Thrones and The House of the Dragon were both able to find fabulous actors, mostly British, and mostly from the stage, and give them top notch scripts to work with. The results were and still are fantastic. That The Rings of Power has been unable to find the same level of acting talent at all (there’s not a single noteworthy performance in the show – not one), and write even remotely average quality scripts, has been the albatross around the neck of the series from the get go, stopping it from even being good, never mind great.

The reality is that The Rings of Power is an abomination, and a disrespectful degradation and desecration of Tolkien’s glorious work. It is so suffocatingly trite and amateurish it feels as if it were actually designed to both fail and infuriate.

The creatives behind the series, most notably showrunners J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, and to a lesser extent the cast, the directors, the writers and producers, should all be ashamed of themselves and deeply embarrassed at what they’ve produced.

If you’re a Tolkien fan you will hate this series…and rightfully so. If you aren’t a Tolkien fan but are considering checking out The Rings of Power…don’t…it is a waste of time and a deeply frustrating and grating viewing experience.

©2024

Joker: Folie a Deux - A Review: It’s a Mad, Mad World

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

My Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. But be forewarned, this is an aggressively arthouse movie that will be very unappealing to those seeking comic book entertainment.  

 Joker: Folie a Deux is director Todd Philips’ sequel to his controversial, billion-dollar blockbuster Joker (2019), and features Joaquin Phoenix reprising his iconic, Oscar-winning role as Arthur Fleck aka Joker, but this time he’s joined by Lady Gaga as his love interest Harley Quinn.

Joker was, and still is, an extraordinarily polarizing film. Back in the hyper-politicized year of 2019, Joker was instantly reviled by weak-kneed critics who labeled Phoenix’s Fleck/Joker as the “patron saint of incels”, and the film vile and potentially violence inducing because it captured the anger and resentment boiling just under the surface of America.

Despite the cavalcade of establishment media fear and loathing of Joker, the film still managed to make gobs of money and garner eleven Academy Award nominations and two wins (Best Actor and Best Original Score).

Unfortunately, no one need fear Joker: Folie a Deux becoming a blockbuster or hording trophies at the Academy Awards. Joker: Folie a Deux is going to be a certified box office bomb and is despised by critics and fans alike.

I try to quarantine myself from reviews and criticisms of a film before seeing it, but with Joker Folie a Deux it was impossible to avoid the overwhelming hate the film was receiving. Some of the most animated vitriol toward the film was coming from people who, like me, loved the original movie.

So when I strolled into an empty Sunday afternoon screening of Joker: Folie a Deux, I was mentally sharpening my knives in order to be able to properly and precisely eviscerate the shitshow I was about to watch.

But then I watched it…and maybe it was because I went in with such low expectations, but not only did I like Joker: Folie a Deux, I thought it was, in a way, much like the first film, bleak but utterly and absolutely brilliant.

The film opens with a Looney Tunes style cartoon which features Arthur Fleck and his literal and figurative shadow, Joker. This opening gives the perfect psychological backdrop for Fleck/Joker and buttresses my Jungian shadow thesis regarding Joker where Arthur Fleck is a Christ-figure and Joker is the anti-Christ/Satan figure.

The film then goes to live action and the story begins where Joker left off, with the now famous Arthur Fleck sitting in Arkham Asylum awaiting his trial for murder.

Over time the film descends into the madness of Arthur Fleck…and uses the genre of a jukebox musical as a manifestation of that madness. So as reality and fantasy blend together in Arthur’s mind, he and his friend Lee Quinzel – aka Harley Quinn, played by Lady Gaga, sing a bevy of American Standards…it’s sort of like a grotesque fever dream/nightmare version of La La Land.

But make absolutely no mistake, Joker: Folie a Deux is not, and is not meant to be, “entertaining”, not in the traditional sense, but it is most certainly enlightening and insightful, something which is exceedingly rare in cinema nowadays, most especially in Hollywood films in general, and franchise movies in particular.  

Joker: Folie a Deux is a work of art, which is a jarring and frustrating thing for viewers to experience when they head into the cinema expecting a franchise film piece of pop entertainment. This subverting of expectation, signified in the film with the recurring theme of “That’s Entertainment!”, is no doubt responsible for the film’s very poor reception among audiences and critics that have been conditioned by Marvel’s mindless money-making machine movies over the last 16 years…and to a lesser extent DC’s too, to expect a certain kind of pre-teen drivel as comic book cinema.

Joker: Folie a Deux is not that, instead it is a relentlessly bleak and brutal film. It is grungy, gruesome and glorious. It may make you angry, it may make you anxious, it may make you bored. But whatever your reaction to it is, that says infinitely more about you than about it, because this movie is a mirror held up to our insane, inane, indecent cancer of a culture and the vicious and vacuous world we all inhabit. Your reaction to Joker: Folkie a Deux, is your reaction to the madness of our broken and fallen world.

It seems obvious to me that Joker: Folie a Deux is director Todd Phillips’ giant middle-finger to the people who hated the first movie…and to those that loved it too. I never would’ve guessed that Todd Phillips of all people – the guy who made the Hangover trilogy, would be the auteur with balls the size of Hindenbergs who morphs into his main character, lights the match and watches the whole shithouse go up in flames. But here we are…and I’m glad to be here.

The animating characteristic of Joker: Folie a Deux is despair. Phillips’ Gotham is a hellscape…literally. For not only is it filled with vile, venal and loathsome creatures, but it is entirely devoid of any love. In a world devoid of love, despair rules the day because hope is replaced by delusion.

Arthur Fleck is, as a Christ figure, an open wound, a raw nerve, and it isn’t the hate of this world that affects him so greatly, but rather the complete absence of love.

Joker, on the other hand, as the devil, thrives in this hell for the exact reason that it cripples Arthur.

Many critics and hipsters hated the first Joker movie because Arthur Fleck was a white guy. This sort of shallow, identity driven thinking is all too common in our current age, and it reduces otherwise smart people into myopic fools unable to see the forest for the trees.

Arthur Fleck isn’t a symbol of white disenfrachisement…he is a symbol of the forgotten, the downtrodden, the outcast, and the loser of all colors, creeds and genders.

Arthur Fleck is the shaking, orphaned child in Gaza surviving in the rubble. He is the Palestinian prisoner gang-raped by his Israeli guards. He is the gay man thrown from a roof in Saudi Arabia. He is the teenage girl in Kabul beaten for showing her face. He is the black boy abused and neglected by an overwhelmed foster care system. He is Kelly Thomas, the mentally ill homeless man beaten to death by police in California. He is Ethan Saylor, the young man with Down’s Syndrome who died when Maryland cops kneeled on his neck in a movie theatre. Arthur Fleck is the helpless and the hopeless, the weak, the sick and the old…and critics and audiences who see him as a threat or a symbol of the oppressor simply due to the color of his skin and his gender are the ones who make this world the cruel, inhumane and uninhabitable shithole that it is.  

Joker is Arthur’s shadow…he is his vengeance and justice. Joker is the Hamas member slaughtering Israeli men, women and children at a desert rave. Joker is the Israeli soldier executing Palestinian men, women and children in cold blood. Joker is the cop killing pets in front of children. Joker is the school-shooter settling scores for social slights. Joker is the mayhem, murder and madness unleashed by those who feel fueled by righteousness.

Joker is the king of this fallen world…and Arthur Fleck is its victim.

Joaquin Phoenix is once again fantastic as Arthur and the Joker. Phoenix is a fragile yet forceful screen presence. His transformations throughout Joker: Folie a Deux are subtle and simply spectacular. I doubt Phoenix will be considered for any awards since Joker: Folie a Deux is so hated, but he is more than worthy of accolades.

Lady Gaga is an actress I have never been able to tolerate. I despised the trite and treacly A Star is Born and found her distractingly bad in House of Gucci.  But here in Joker: Folie a Deux I finally got to understand her appeal. There really is just something about her that is magnetic and undeniable, at least in this movie. I found her character arc to be somewhat poorly executed, but I thought her performance was quite good.

Brendan Gleeson plays a prison guard and is an ominous presence whenever he graces the screen, most particularly when he isn’t being menacing. Gleeson is, like Phoenix, one of the best actors on the planet, and he never fails to elevate any scene he inhabits.

And finally, Leigh Gill, who plays Gary Puddles, is fantastic in his lone scene. This scene, which features Puddles being questioned on the stand in court, is extraordinarily moving, and exquisitely captures the deeper meaning and purpose of the film.

Cinematographer Lawrence Sher, who was nominated for an Oscar for his work on Joker, once again does phenomenal work on Joker: Folie a Deux. Sher shoots the film with a distinct 1970’s grittiness and grime. He turns multiple musical numbers into uncomfortable flashbacks to Sonny and Cher episodes or other seventies type showcases and does so with a cinematic aplomb.

Hildur Guonadottir, who won an Oscar for her original score on Joker, is back on this film and once again sets the scene with an uncomfortably menacing and ominous score that drives the emotional narrative.

As for Todd Phillips, as I previously said, it’s astonishing the balls on this guy. He is basically saying “fuck you” to critics and fans alike. It’s tough to imagine him bouncing back and being allowed to do a worthwhile film after having a critical and commercial flop like this. That’s a shame though because he has proven his worth as an artist with Joker and Joker: Folie a Deux.

Phillips is a lot of things, some of them good and some of them bad, but one thing that he has been in recent years…is right.

It’s always struck me that no one (except me) seemed to notice that Joker accurately diagnosed the incandescent anger and fury that was boiling just beneath the surface of America back in 2019. I wrote about this profoundly disturbing anger prior to Joker, but Joker showed it to mainstream audiences, and elite coastal critics were so horrified by it that they blamed the film rather than the country and culture it revealed.

Joker was proven right though as less than nine months after its release that volcano of anger erupted in Joker-esque fashion with the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing riots and chaotic violence in the streets of American cities…just like in Joker.

The Joker was every BLM rioter, and every opportunistic looter and arsonist in America’s summer of rage in 2020…just like he was every flag-waving MAGA moron on January 7th, 2021, who stormed the Capitol looking to “Save Democracy”.

That Joker was correct has never been admitted by the coastal elites who hated the movie. That Joker: Folie a Deux is also correct in diagnosing the unremitting cruelty, malignant madness and incessant insanity of our culture and country will also go unnoticed by those who are too offended, or bored or angry or inhumane to care or notice.

Joker: Folie a Deux is not a polarizing film like Joker. The consensus is that it is awful to the point of being an abomination. But I am here to tell you that Joker: Folie a Deux is a brutal, ballsy and brilliant film. It is, like Oliver Stone’s manic and maniacal 1994 masterpiece Natural Born Killers, well ahead of the curve, and will only get its due when the history of this era is written and the ugly truth of our current time fully revealed.

If you have the fortitude for it, and the philosophical, political and psychological mind for it, and the ability to tolerate the arthouse in your comic book cinema, then Joker: Folie a Deux is not the steaming pile of shit that critics and audiences claim it to be, but rather a startling revelation. And like most revelations it is reviled in its own time because it tells the unvarnished and unabashedly ugly truth that no one wants to see or hear because it’s too painful to ever acknowledge.

©2024

The Wild Robot: A Review - Domo Arigato Mrs. Roboto

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

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A flawed but emotionally potent film that is deeply moving for parents and children alike. Just be aware of the movie’s less than ideal sub-text.

The Wild Robot is an animated science fiction film that follows the travails of Roz, a utilitarian robot marooned on an island inhabited by a variety of animals.

The film, written and directed by Chris Sanders and based on the wildly popular book series of the same name by Peter Brown, features Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal, Bill Nighy and Catherine O’Hara among its voice acting cast.

The Wild Robot has a lot going for it. For example, the book series it is based on is enjoyable for both children and adults, and the animation on display in the film is as good as it gets in the genre.

While the film does enough with what it has to be an enjoyable and emotionally moving experience, deep down I couldn’t help but feel that it could have been better. That’s not to say that it’s bad, because it isn’t, in fact I assume this movie will be a front runner for a Best Animated Feature Academy Award, but I still think that it could have been better than it is.

Let’s start with the positive.

The film, which I’ll do my best not to spoil for the uninitiated, centers on the love between a robot and an orphaned gosling. The relationship between Roz (the robot) and Brightbill (the gosling), is sweet and funny and ultimately realistically heartbreaking as Brightbill matures into goose adolescence.

To writer/director Chris Sanders’ credit, The Wild Robot hits all of the proper emotional beats and does so extremely effectively. Both parents and children will be emotionally moved by the film in untroubling and at times exquisite ways.

Any parents in the audience will recognize themselves in Roz and easily relate to Roz’s heartbreak – which is the natural state for any parent. And children will recognize, at a minimum sub-consciously, the yearning Brightbill has to break free of parental control and go make his way in the world, but also the sadness and sense of loss that comes with embarking on that exciting adventure.

The biggest issue I had with The Wild Robot was not the perfection or potency of its emotional journey, but rather with the rhythm and rhyme of the narrative and the morality and ethics of its sub-text.

The story of The Wild Robot works best when it is simple – namely when Roz is trying to raise, protect and teach Brightbill. But when the story expands it loses its dramatic power and becomes, dare I say it, meandering and, at times, tedious.

In addition to losing narrative momentum when the story expands, the film also loses its emotional power amidst a bevy of action sequences that feel flat and derivative.

Another minor issue I had with the film was that the voice cast was just ok. For example, Pedro Pascal, who voices the character Fink, a mischievous fox, lacked a vocal crispness and dexterity that the character required. His vocals were a bit mushy for my taste and felt off for the character.

That said, I thought Lupita Nyong’o was very good as Roz.

I saw the film with my young son and when it ended, I asked him if he liked it, which he did (as did I despite my criticism). I then asked him which he liked better, the movie or the book. Much to my shock, since he had just seen the movie and had read the book many, many months ago – and reading is not his favorite thing to do, he said he liked the book better than the movie.

The movie does change things from the book. For instance, the pivotal character from the book, Chitchat – a motormouthed squirrel, is all but disappeared from the movie and replaced in the narrative by Pinktail, a mother possum (voiced by Catherine O’Hara).

The ending of the movie is different from the book as well, and is another reason why the emotional power of the film gets diminished in its final third.

Other book to movie changes are more subtle but no doubt book readers will notice and be either mildly or majorly disappointed by them.

Ultimately, The Wild Robot tells a story of love between a parent and a child, and that is moving and meaningful no matter how that parent/child relationship begins.

But there’s also a more subtle, and some might say nefarious or malignant sub-text that fuels the final fourth of the film, and that is about acquiescing to fascistic power. The sub-text of this film is the polar opposite of the old adage that “it is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees”. The Wild Robot sub-textually endorses the notion of living on one’s knees, which is a total subversion of the hero’s journey – which has historically been a masculine tale, replacing it with the feminine instinct to placate and survive rather than to fight and die.  

So instead of teaching children to fight tyranny and authoritarianism, The Wild Robot in its cinematic form teaches them to bend the knee and keep their head down in order to scrape out a meek existence where freedom and love are momentary gifts to be stolen under an ever-watchful tyrannical eye instead of God-given rights worth fighting and dying for.

No doubt most people would roll their eyes at this interpretation of the film and claim I am reading way too much into it…but they’d be wrong. Movies (and tv and all other entertainment) are powerful propaganda tools and are used to manipulate and condition people in general, and children in particular, as to how to see their world and what to find acceptable.

The story of The Wild Robot is a benign and beautiful one…until it turns into a malignant and malicious one. That turn occurs late in the film and effectively uses the overwhelming emotion of the first three quarters as a way to bore into the collective unconscious of audiences and then drops the seed of acquiescence and impotence in the face of power.

Interestingly enough, the book is not structured in the same way as the film and it’s hero’s journey is therefore different, more traditional and therefore mythologically and archetypally more satisfying.

With all of that said, the truth is I “enjoyed” The Wild Robot because it effectively made me feel, and that’s what we want from cinema, even if it involved animated animals and robots living out the drama of life.

That the emotional strings plucked by The Wild Robot are used to promote a nefarious sub-text, is, if you are able to watch it consciously, still dismaying but somewhat less relevant.

The bottom line is that The Wild Robot is an emotionally profound movie that suffers a bit from a narrative that gets a tad meandering, but overall, I think it is still worth seeing.

Just watch it with an open heart and a watchful mind – and teach your kids to do the same thing.

©2024

Wolfs: A Review - This Star-Studded Dog Won't Hunt

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

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Nothing to see here at all.

Wolfs, starring Brad Pitt and George Clooney, is the new movie on Apple TV + that tells the tale of two New York City based lone-wolf “fixers” who are forced to work together on a complicated job.

The film, written and directed by Jon Watts – who is best known for directing the recent Spider-Man movies, describes itself as an action comedy, which is a bit of an inaccurate moniker since Wolfs is neither action-packed nor funny.

The film follows the travails of Jack (Clooney) and Nick (Pitt) as they are called to the hotel room of Margaret (Amy Ryan), who is running for District Attorney. Unfortunately for Margaret, the young man she brought back to her hotel room for a tryst has died and so she calls a secret number and a fixer is sent. Then there’s a twist and another fixer is sent and these two lone wolf fixers do not want to form a pack and work together. Comedy is supposed to ensue…but never does.

Writer/director Watts uses a lot of filmmaking techniques, like numerous quick edits on mundane events like a car backing out of a parking space, and languid camera movements, to give the impression of cinematic sophistication, but he fails at even the most rudimentary elements of storytelling.

With a convoluted story and middling direction, the movie is forced to rely upon the star power of Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Pitt and Clooney have, to varying degrees of success, previously worked together in the Ocean’s Eleven movies, and their reunion on Wolfs is meant to cash in on their status and stardom. In other words, Wolfs is our chance to hang out with two handsome, cool, movie stars for two hours – lucky us.

Unfortunately, Wolfs features zero chemistry, zero comedy and zero coherence. It is one of those movies where as you’re watching it you feel like you’re waiting for the story to actually start and it never really does.

The plot of Wolfs has all the clarity of a drunk toddler’s storytelling while playing with action figures. The rules of the world in Wolfs are random, arbitrary, confusing and ultimately annoying. Nothing makes much sense and it seems as though none of it was really meant to.

In this way Wolfs is a perfect companion piece to the previous movie Apple Films released, The Instigators, starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. Both movies are so vehemently vapid, vacant and venal as to be apocalyptic. If some poor soul were to watch these bro-fueled bombs back to back they’d be tempted to light themselves on fire in order to feel something, anything at all, and to kill the malignant stupidity that was just implanted in their brains.

The final scene of Wolfs is the one that helped me to understand how Clooney and Pitt see themselves, or at least see their pairing, and it is astonishingly delusional. I won’t give anything away except to say that this scene is meant to demonstrate that Clooney and Pitt are the modern-day Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

Let me be as clear as I can about this…Clooney and Pitt are not Newman and Redford. Not even close. They never have been and they never will be.

To be fair, Pitt has matured into a much better actor than his pretty boy beginnings would’ve hinted, and he’s become a very astute and successful producer as well. His choice in projects and his taste are admirable, but let’s not kid ourselves, he’s no Robert Redford.

Clooney is, obviously, not Paul Newman, who was one of the greatest actors and movie stars in Hollywood history. Clooney is now, and frankly always has been, a bad actor, a bad movie star and a truly terrible director.

For the last twenty-five years or so Clooney has been one of those people who populate our culture who are only famous for being famous. He’s the male equivalent of Jessica Simpson, and equally as vacuous.

It has been reported that Clooney and Pitt were paid $35 million each to star in Wolfs, which if true, is pretty amusing. Apple’s desperation to be a player in the movie business has forced them to pay exorbitant prices to talent in exchange for truly abysmal movies. Considering that Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon is the best Apple movie ever made, and is one of Scorsese’s lesser films, is an indictment of Apple, the movie business and Killers of the Flower Moon.

Wolfs spent a week in theatres before hitting Apple TV+ on Friday September 28th. It will, rightfully, languish on that atrocious, backwater of a streaming service, mercifully hidden from wider audiences. Those without Apple TV+, and those unable to navigate the incomprehensible maze that is Apple TV+ to find Wolfs, are blissfully unaware of how truly lucky they are.

In conclusion, Wolfs is a poorly conceived and poorly executed movie that is so small and inconsequential as to be instantaneously forgettable. It means nothing. It has nothing. It is nothing.

©2024

House of the Dragon (HBO) - Season Two: A TV Review - The Game of Thrones Formula Still Works

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

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A top notch, if structurally flawed, production that features some fantastic performances and even more fantastic dragons.

Season two of HBO’s prestige fantasy epic House of the Dragon, the distant prequel to Game of Thrones, came to its conclusion this past Sunday night.

I have never read any of the Game of Thrones books, and that includes George R.R. Martin’s Fire & Blood, which is the foundational text for House of the Dragon. Despite my ignorance of the source material, or maybe because of it, I have enjoyed both Game of Thrones – up until its bungled ending, and House of the Dragon.

Do I understand anything that is happening or who the characters are? No, I do not. And yet, thanks to exquisite acting, production design, costuming and special effects, I am able to overcome my ignorance and get lost in the quality work being presented.

The two most notable things about season two of House of the Dragon are lead actress Emma D’Arcy, who gives a superb performance as Queen Rhaenyra, and secondly the bevy of CGI dragons that hover over all of the festivities, both literally and figuratively.

D’Arcy masterfully imbues Rhaenyra with such a palpable and vibrant inner life that she jumps off the screen even when she is doing little or nothing on it. Rhaenyra is a maelstrom of emotions in season two, as she grieves, rages, sulks and sneers, but D’Arcy contains all of it in a tightly wound package that only reveals itself through her piercing, soulful eyes.

D'Arcy is undoubtedly the straw that stirs the dramatic drink of House of the Dragon, but the work from the rest of the cast is often equal to her brilliance.

Olivia Cooke, who plays Dowager Queen Alicent – Rhaenyra’s childhood friend turned step-mother and now rival, brings an enormous amount of dramatic depth and emotional weight to her role which in lesser hands would have been light and wispy. Alicent goes through an extended existential struggle session in season two and it is never fails to be compelling.

The same is true of Alicent’s illicit lover, Ser Criston Cole – played by Fabian Frankel, who rises through the ranks of the King’s Guard all the way to the King’s Hand in season two, but who seems to be losing the entirety of his soul and is painfully aware of it. Frankel is shockingly good as Ser Criston and watching the light in his eyes slowly but surely go out is both riveting and heartbreaking.

Matt Smith does exceptional work as King Consort Daemon (Rhaenyra’s husband/uncle) despite his storyline being among the weaker threads of the season. Lost in a sea of dreams, nightmares and visions, Smith’s Daemon is still able to radiate with a venomous fury despite his lack of action and limited interactions with actual human beings.

Other notable performances include a fantastic Matthew Needham as the conniving Master of Whisperers Lord Larys, as well as Tom Glynn-Carney and Ewan Mitchell as royal brothers Aegon and Aemond respectively, who bring vim, vigor and venom to their portrayals of persistently petulant young adult rulers.

But the biggest stars in House of the Dragon are the dragons. I couldn’t pick them out of a line-up, but they all have specific names and distinct personalities and you can’t take your eyes off them when they’re on-screen and you yearn for them to return when their off-screen.

There is one big battle involving dragons in season two and it is absolutely spectacular. Astonishingly well designed and exceedingly well executed, it was the best action sequence I’ve seen in any medium this year.

Even when dragons aren’t fighting, they are such a captivating and menacing presence that it is a perverted joy to behold. Just a shot of a dragon walking out of the dark and into the light is a breathtaking spectacle. Trust me that when a dragon is on-screen you won’t be checking your phone or doom-scrolling Twitter…oops, I mean X.

As for the downside for season two of House of the Dragon…there were a few issues.

First off, the season, which is only 8 episodes, felt like it was poorly structured and both rushed and too slow. Some characters make dramatically untenable leaps in a short period of time, while others drag on in rather dull circumstances.

For example, the entire storyline of Daemon stuck in the witchy realm of Harrenhall brings the series to a screeching halt every time they cut to it. Daemon is maybe the most captivating character in the show and yet this season’s storyline morphed him into a dour insomniac and often-times a morose dullard.

The storyline involving the “small folk” – or regular people, while an important device in the long run, is often times excruciating in practice. None of the “small folk” are the least bit interesting and the time spent with them is tedious and dramatically impotent.

As for the poor structuring of season two, it felt like the season should’ve ended with the final shot of episode seven, and episode eight should’ve been the first episode of season three. I also would’ve liked to see Aegon’s dragon-riding rampage which was only briefly referred to in the season finale. Why not show the cruel and vicious Aegon using his massive dragon to be cruel and vicious to innocent people? It would help set the stage for season three and also drive home the point that dragons are weapons of mass destruction which unleash hell on earth.

But despite a few bumps-in-the-road, I did enjoy season two of House of the Dragon because it uses top-notch British actors and actresses – usually pilfered from the stage, and puts them in exquisitely made costumes on gloriously photographed locations/sets – or as I call it, the Game of Thrones formula. Oh…and it also helps that it gives these British actors and actresses believable CGI dragons to ride around on.

House of the Dragon will never hit the heights that its famous predecessor did in terms of cultural cache, which also means it’ll never stumble into the lows either, but if you want to see some quality television – which has become scarce nowadays, it is one of the better, if not the best, show on tv at the moment – which to be fair isn’t saying much but still…I liked it.

©2024

The Boys - Season 4: TV Review - Oh, How the Mighty Have Fallen

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. This is the worst of The Boys’ seasons thus far. It is a sprawling and unfocused disappointment.

When The Boys hit tv screens in 2019 via Amazon Prime it was a glorious jolt of savage energy into the superhero genre that gave a sharp and satirical middle-finger to Marvel, the cultural behemoth of cultural behemoths at the time.

With Marvel on the mountaintop in the wake of its astonishing MCU run which culminated in 2019 with Avengers: Endgame, the superhero genre was prime for a slap in the face and The Boys delivered it exquisitely, with a solid kick in the nuts to boot.

The Boys’ evisceration of the superhero genre and corporate cultural power as well as its clear-eyed, cynical take on corrupt American politics, made it must-see tv for its first three seasons (Here is my review from season three).

But a funny thing happened while The Boys became the go-to satirical superhero tv series over the last five years, namely the superhero genre declined in popularity and relevance, and that decline was steep and rapid. Since the dizzying heights of 2019 with Avengers: Endgame and Joker, superhero films have fallen off a cliff in terms of quality and cultural relevance.

The creative energy propelling The Boys has, in conjunction with the precipitous fall of its once-lofty satirical target, lost considerable steam (and with it, relevance) in its fourth season, and the show has started to resemble the politically-correct corporate IP it so expertly lambasted in its first three seasons.

Season four once again features ‘The Boys’, a group of misfits and miscreants like Butcher, Huey, Mother’s Milk, Starlight, Frenchie and Kimiko as they try to bring down the villain Homelander and the whole corporate superhero monster Vought (a wondrous stand-in for Disney and its awful ilk)…and save the world in the process.  

Butcher is trying to save his “son” while dealing with a terminal illness. Mother’s Milk is trying to save his family. Starlight and Huey are trying to save each other and the world. And Frenchie and Kimiko are trying to save their souls.

None of this is new and frankly, none of it is very interesting anymore. Season four is less vivid and vital than the previous three seasons, and the drama, and comedy, tends to fall flat, and the characters tend to grate.

For the most part the performances all feel tired and cliched as well. Karl Urban as Butcher has been great up until now, but his work in season four seems a bit banal and predictable. The same is true of Jack Quaid and Erin Moriarty as Huey and Starlight respectively. The actors no longer seem to be embodying characters but just going through the motions.

The one exception to this is Karen Fukuhara as Kimiko. Fukuhara consistently brings a vibrancy and verve to her work as the mute superhero, and she fills her every moment on-screen with a vitality lacking in the rest of the cast.

There have been much complaints online about The Boys’ left-wing politics, but I don’t think that is the reason for season four’s failure. The reality is that The Boys has always been overtly leftist in its politics, been even in doing that it, maybe inadvertently, made fun of its own ideology.

While it’s true that the liberal politics are much more overt in season four than in previous seasons, that’s not a big deal, the real problem is that they’re so painfully vapid and trite. I mean, in season one the show savagely yet surreptitiously made the argument that 9/11 was an inside job and now in season four its reduced itself to scenes which feature torturing rich right-wing superheroes by donating their money to Black Lives Matter. That is so on-the-nose as to be embarrassing. Yikes.

The other issue is that the plot has gotten so convoluted and unwieldy as to be tiresome. The main objective of stopping Homelander and Vought has now gotten lost in a maze of odd personal tales that generate neither heat nor light.

For example, out of nowhere season four features a gay love story for the character Frenchie. That Frenchie wasn’t gay before is beside the point, but what is the point is that this storyline is superfluous at best, and egregiously tedious at worst….like when Disney added a gay character to The Eternals – they did it to check boxes, not drive drama.

Other storylines feel just as vacuous, vapid and venal. For instance, all of the stories surrounding Mother’s Milk, Starlight, Huey and even Butcher, feel redundant and devoid of the dramatic and comedic edge of earlier seasons.

I get it, things lose momentum the longer they go, but season four of the The Boys feels like a series trying to stretch things out by adding garbage filler rather than a genuine attempt to drive a story forward with energy, electricity, attitude and aplomb.

Season four ends by setting up season five, which will be the series’ finale. Unfortunately, season five is not set to arrive until 2026 and considering how much creative momentum and cultural relevance The Boys have lost between season three and four, one can only shudder to think how far season five will drop in quality and dramatic dynamism.

The bottom line is that The Boys was brilliant…until it wasn’t. And unfortunately, the bloom is off the rose and the series is now just playing out the string. Hopefully, and I really do hope this, it can right the ship and go out on top in season five with a furious finale. Considering the maddening missteps and malaise of season four, I’m not optimistic.

©2024

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 121 - The Bikeriders

On this episode, Barry and I hop aboard our Harleys and discuss The Bikeriders, the biker gang movie starring Austin Butler, Jodie Comer and Tom Hardy. Topics discussed include Barry's undying love for Austin Butler, the unsexing of Jodie Comer and the yearning for decent, mid-budget adult dramas. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 121 - The Bikeriders

Thanks for listening!

©2024

The Bikeriders: A Review - Foundational Flaws Make 'The Bikeriders' an Uneasy Rider

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT. A flawed movie that could’ve been great but ended up being just average.

The Bikeriders, starring Austin Butler, Jodie Comer and Tom Hardy, chronicles the trials and tribulations of a Chicago-area motorcycle club from its benign founding in the early 1960’s to its malignant expansion throughout the 70s.

The film, which is inspired by Danny Lyon’s photo-book of the same name and is written and directed by Jeff Nichols, opened nationwide in theatres last weekend.

The Bikeriders has a lot going for it, like an appealing aesthetic, a banger of a soundtrack and three solid, attractive actors atop the cast list. And yet, the film struggles to captivate because it is fundamentally at cross-purposes with itself.

On one hand it wants to be a gritty, Goodfellas-esque, guys being guys motorcycle movie/crime drama (in fact an early sequence in the film is an homage to Goodfellas), and then on the other hand it wants to be a rather safe, cinematically antiseptic Hollywood movie and star making vehicle.

These differing desires are never more apparent as when comparing the performance styles of the two lead actors, Austin Butler and Jodie Comer, who play Benny and Kathy, the couple at the center of the drama.

Jodie Comer is a very, very pretty woman, but she’s not nearly as pretty in The Bikeriders as the beautiful Austin Butler, whose Benny is the brooding, blue-eyed, bad boy biker with the perfectly tussled hair who is the object of everyone’s desire.

The Bikeriders is a star-maker for Butler, as his job is to show up and pose and preen his way through a role without actually doing much heavy lifting. That he can be little more than a mannequin in this movie and women will still go absolutely bananas for him and dudes will still want to be him, is a testament to his innate star potential.

In contrast, Jodie Comer plays Kathy and has been unsexed to such a staggering degree as to be astonishing considering her preternatural allure. Adding to her unsexing is the fact that she’s doing a deeply studied performance which features a spot-on, but still grating, Chicago accent, and her wardrobe seems designed to eliminate any possible feminine appeal.

In terms of acting style, Comer is doing 1970’s Meryl Streep method acting and Butler is doing an Armani photo-shoot, and the clash of styles is not only cinematically confounding but also greatly diminishes the drama.

For example, Kathy and Benny, whose attraction/relationship is the center piece of the narrative, are completely devoid of any sizzle. There is not one iota of chemistry between Butler and Comer. Adding to the frigidity is that they never kiss, not even once, in the entire film. In fact, I don’t recall seeing the two of them ever touch…and not even in a sensual or romantic way, but at all. How can you have two ridiculously gorgeous people play a couple in a movie and never once show them kiss?

Now, this wouldn’t be that big of a deal except it undermines the narrative and dramatic premise of the entire project. Benny is allegedly torn between the motorcycle club and Kathy, but he doesn’t seem all that interested in Kathy, and frankly, Kathy doesn’t seem all that interested in him, which makes the whole thing dramatically incoherent.

What Kathy and Benny need is uncontrollable, blood-pumping, frantic passion, which would give Benny a reason to keep coming back and, more importantly, Kathy a reason to do EVERY SINGLE THING SHE DOES. But it has none of that and thus the drama of the film is neutered.

To be clear, I didn’t hate The Bikeriders. In general, I dig motorcycle movies (or car movies) and the film looks good, is aesthetically pleasing and stylistically intriguing, and it has a cast of solid actors.

For instance, Tom Hardy does a good job as Johnny, the founder of the Vandals, the fictional motorcycle club at the heart of the movie. Hardy splits the difference between Comer and Butler’ acting styles by giving a half method/half Hollywood performance, and it actually works.

The collection of actors in the motorcycle club, guys like the always reliable Michael Shannon, as well as Damon Herriman, Norman Reedus and Boyd Holbrooke, all do solid supporting work and make for believable bikers.

The costumes work as well, and the cinematography by Adam Stone is pretty standard but well executed.

Ultimately, The Bikeriders is one of those movies that could have been great but which never figured out what it wanted to be and more importantly, how it wanted to be or why it wanted to be.

The film could’ve been a steamy star-vehicle with Butler and Comer being their beautiful selves and lighting up the screen with a scintillating and sexy love story.

Or it could have been a gritty crime drama, with Benny and Kathy as the Henry Hill and Karen in a Goodfellas style tale.

But instead, the film tries to be both and ends up being neither.

One can’t help but wish that director Jeff Nichols could have had a more clear, coherent and concise vision for The Bikeriders, and a more-deft artistic, dramatic and cinematic touch in order to make the most of the tantalizing story hinted at in Lyon’s compelling photo-book of the same name.

The Bikeriders could have been extraordinary, but due to a lack of narrative and dramatic clarity, it’s just ordinary. Which is disappointing, but nowadays, not all that surprising.

Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

@2024

Hit Man: A Review - Missing the Target...but Not by Too Much.

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

My Rating: 2.75 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT. A harmless bit of entertainment that is enjoyable if you go in with low expectations.

Hit Man, starring Glen Powell and directed by Richard Linklater, is a noir rom-com loosely based on the true story of Gary Johnson, a psychology and philosophy professor who worked undercover for the New Orleans police department posing as a “hit man for hire”.

The film, written by both Linklater and Powell, follows the travails of the nerdy Gary as he finds his true self by embodying the various hit man-characters he concocts in order to dupe customers and thwart murders before they happen.

Hit Man was released on Netflix on June 7th, 2024, which is how I watched it.  

I have heard Richard Linklater called the cinematic voice of Generation X, which I find to be an odd choice for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that he is just a bit too old to qualify for Generation X. As a Gen X-er myself, I have found Linklater to be, for the most part, a forgettable filmmaker. I find the vast majority of his work to be, at best…just fine. In general, I find nothing remarkable about his work at all. I don’t hate it, but I also don’t love it, and the truth is I never think about it.

The film that put Linklater (and Matthew McConaughey and Ben Affleck) on the map was Dazed and Confused (1993). I never understood the love for that movie despite having recognized my life being portrayed in it. It wasn’t a bad movie, but it also wasn’t a very good one.

I felt the same about Before Sunrise (1995), which made Ethan Hawke a movie star. Once again, I recognized myself and my generation in that movie, I just didn’t think it was particularly noteworthy or compelling cinema.

In 2014, Linklater was a favorite to win an Oscar with his coming-of-age film Boyhood, which was famously shot over a ten-year span. Critics adored the ten-year-shoot gimmick, but I found the whole enterprise to be gratingly vapid, pretentious and second-rate.

The Linklater films I have liked a lot are Waking Life (2001), an esoteric cinematic exploration of the meaning of life, and the mainstream School of Rock (2003). Waking Life was a ballsy movie to make because it was unapologetically arthouse while School of Rock was unabashedly crowd-pleasing.

Which brings us to Hit Man. Hit Man is a mainstream movie but not quite as mainstream as School of Rock…but it also has a subtle strain of the arthouse weaving through it.

The film flies as high as its star, Glen Powell, will take it…which is high but not that high. Powell, who is definitely the current “it” guy in Hollywood, and is poised to have a big Summer with his new Twister movie coming out in July, is charming and relentlessly likeable, but there is no denying that he’s a sort of a C or D level McConaughey – which isn’t exactly a compliment.

Powell’s various hit man characters are good for a few laughs in a showy “look at me” acting type of way, most notably his impression of Christian Bale from American Psycho, which is pretty great. But Powell, for as conventionally handsome as he is, is just a nice, good-looking guy…and that’s about it. He’s likeable, but he’s not very interesting. That doesn’t mean he won’t be a big movie star, it just means that he won’t be a very interesting movie star.

Powell’s co-star, Adria Arjona, who plays Gary’s love interest Madison, is certainly easy on the eyes, and she does a decent enough job in the role. But Arjona, like Powell, feels like a C or D level talent…which isn’t the worst thing in the world, but it also isn’t the best.

One can’t help but think while watching Hit Man that thirty years ago a movie like this would’ve starred George Clooney and Julia Roberts and been a massive hit…but in today’s world, it stars Glen Powell and Adria Arjona, and is streaming on Netflix and, frankly, will be forgotten almost as soon as the credits roll.

And that is the problem…Hit Man isn’t a bad movie, but it also isn’t great. It is an adequately-made, amusing-enough piece of middle-brow entertainment with some dark twists thrown in to give it some artistic credence.

The film tries to be sexy, but just isn’t steamy enough to make the grade. It tries to be funny, but never consistently hits the comedy mark. It tries to be dark and daring but doesn’t have quite cajones to be fully either.

This isn’t to say the film is bad…it really and truly isn’t. It certainly has its charms and it is entertaining enough, and to its credit it does have something to say and says it in a rather clever and covert way. It is well-constructed and professionally crafted, but ultimately this is a movie that comes and goes and that is the end of that…which is emblematic of the state of cinema and the movie business.

Unfortunately, Hit Man is, like so much of cinema today, fine but forgettable. That many critics are fawning all over it speaks less to the quality of the film than the overall diminishment in the quality of cinema (and film criticism) as a whole in recent years.

To circle back to the notion of Linklater as the cinematic voice of Generation X, I would point readers in the direction of a film that came out last year, also about a hit man, also on Netflix, titled The Killer. The Killer is darker, smarter, funnier, more masterfully made and substantially better movie than Hit Man. The Killer’s director is David Fincher, who is of the same generation as Linklater and is infinitely a better filmmaker…as are a plethora of filmmakers from a similar era, which is why Linklater being the labelled the Gen X guy is so absurd.

Regardless of Linklater’s filmmaking status, the question is…is Hit Man worth watching? My answer would be…sure…why not? It seems like a good date movie as it’s a rather harmless, safe, middle of the road movie that breezes by and never moves you one way or the other over its brisk 115-minute run time.  

So, if you do watch Hit Man, my recommendation is to go in with low-expectations…you won’t be overwhelmed, but you won’t be disappointed either.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

The Idea of You: A Review - Looking for Love (and Entertainment) in All the Wrong Places

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

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An insidiously venal piece of rom-com slop.

The Idea of You, the new Amazon movie starring Anne Hathaway and Nicholas Galitzine, is one of those insipid romantic comedies that is neither romantic nor comedic.

The film, written by Jennifer Westfeldt and Michael Showalter and directed by Showalter, tells the tale of Solene Marchand (Hathaway), a 40-year-old divorcee and single mother who owns an art gallery in Los Angeles.

Through happenstance Solene takes her teen daughter and her friends to Coachella for a music festival and there she meets and begins a love affair with Hayes, the lead singer of a popular boy band, who happens to be sixteen years her junior.

The story of The Idea of You, which apparently is based upon a book of the same name that no self-respecting human being should have ever read, is one of those divorced wine-mom wet dreams where middle-aged women can imagine themselves being so uber-desirable and hyper-successful and amazing that some high value, wealthy, famous and handsome young stud falls head over heels for them.

For an outsider like me, who is neither divorced nor a wine mom desperate for glory days gone by, this story and the character of Solene seem both fantastical and frankly pathetic. No doubt I would be run out of the mid-day chardonnay ladies book club for voicing such a misogynistic and hateful opinion.

The problems with The Idea of You go well beyond the ridiculous premise. The film bills itself as a romantic comedy yet there isn’t a single thing in it that is even remotely funny or even approaching funny.

The romance side of it is pretty lacking as well, as Hathaway and Galitzine have all the sexual chemistry of week-old dog turd roasting in the hot sun.

That Anne Hathaway is once again playing a sort of ugly duckling transformed into a princess (sexy or otherwise) is, to borrow from her favorite acting tick, eye-rolling. Yes, she has succeeded in this type of role in the past in films like The Devil Wears Prada and those Princess Diary movies, but the bloom is off the rose and it falls entirely flat in The Idea of You.

Ms. Hathaway is certainly a beautiful woman, and to pretend like she’s not or that she’s some frumpy old hag, is absurd to the point of being annoying. Even more absurd is the fact that her daughter in the film, Izzy (Ella Rubin), looks like she is Solene’s slightly younger sister.

In fact, the age difference stuff is the most-inane part of this entirely inane movie. Solene is forty but looks thirty-three, and Hayes is twenty-four and looks thirty-two, and Izzy is seventeen and looks twenty-eight. Everyone seems to be in the same suffocating age bracket and none of it makes any sense whatsoever.

Another extremely annoying part of the movie is that viewers must suffer through musical performances by Hayes and his insufferably awful boy band. Galitzine is apparently a singer in real life, so I assume he’s doing the actual singing in the movie, and I suppose it’s fine, it’s just that the songs are so god-awful atrocious as to be criminal. And that we must sit through entire renditions of these terrible songs that seem interminable throughout the film, feels like a crime against humanity.

In addition, Galitzine’s Hayes and his boy band bros are supposed to be the biggest boy band around but they are so relentlessly amateurish and such raging mediocrities, and their performances so stilted and underwhelming that it all seems even more ridiculous than the asinine premise of the movie.

The Idea of You also violates one of the rules that rarely if ever fails me, namely that if a character must run the gauntlet of a gaggle of rabid journalists/paparazzi at any time in a movie…then that movie sucks. I cannot recall a time when this rule was violated and the film was good and The Idea of You is perfect evidence of the rule’s validity.

Now, to be clear, I am not exactly the target audience for this film. But it is streaming on Amazon and that behemoth has put its considerable corporate heft behind the movie and promoting it, so it caught my eye and I gave it a watch…so you don’t have to.

What is so striking to me about The Idea of You is that this movie, its aesthetics, its tone, its story, the performances and everything about it except its star, is a Hallmark level piece of work. If this were starring Lacey Chabert and running on Lifetime, no one, myself most of all, would even know it exists or ever watch it. But because it stars Anne Hathaway and Amazon is behind it, it is thrust into the cultural spotlight and is taken seriously…or as seriously as a movie like this can be taken.

The truth is that if this movie were made fifteen years ago and starred Julia Roberts and Ryan Gosling, then it maybe, might’ve had a chance to be a big hit. But it wasn’t…and it definitely isn’t.

Anne Hathaway has her charms, but in a role like this in a film like this, they wear unconscionably thin, and Nicholas Galitzine is neither sexy enough nor interesting enough to move the needle in either direction, and so, The Idea of You ends up falling decidedly flat.

If you are looking for a mindless piece of rom-com entertainment, best avoid The Idea of You because it is either too mindless…or ironically, not mindless enough, to be of any value or worth.

The bottom line is that The Idea of You is a bad idea made into a bad movie, and rom-com lovers who seek it out will be looking for love in all the wrong places.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes: A Review - Middling Monkey Business

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

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT. This flawed film is the worst of the fantastic recent reboot franchise, but it’s decent enough for Planet of the Apes fanatics despite its very pronounced flaws.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, the fourth film in the Planet of the Apes franchise reboot (and the ninth in the overall franchise), hit theatres this past weekend and handily won the box office by raking in $129 million.

The film, written by Josh Friedman and directed by Wes Ball, is set many generations after the events of its tremendous predecessor, War for the Planet of the Apes, which dramatized Caesar, the patriarch of the intelligent apes, delivering the first generation of said apes to the promised land.

In Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, the memory of the founding father Caesar is long forgotten by many tribes of apes living in isolated enclaves. One of these tribes is an eagle collecting group of apes, among them a young chimp named Noa (Owen Teague).

Noa accidentally stumbles upon another group of apes who not only remember the history of Caesar, but exploit it for nefarious, authoritarian means. This group, led by Proximus Caesar and his henchman gorilla Sylva, go on a rampage of conquest in order to Make Planet of the Apes Great Again….and Noa and his peaceful tribe bear the brunt of their ambition.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes has Sasquatchian-sized shoes to fill considering the brilliance of its three predecessors Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and War for the Planet of the Apes, and, to be frank, it never even approaches adequately filling them. To be clear, the film isn’t bad, but it also isn’t the least bit great, and it is easily the worst of the four films in the rebooted franchise.

Planet of the Apes films, even in the original franchise of the late 1960s and early 1970s, have always been great ideas with social issues embedded deep within the sci-fi splendor.

The same is true of Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, as it explores authoritarianism, exploitation, manipulation and other social issues. But just like the flawed early 1970’s sequels, Kingdom is much better as an idea than it is in execution.

The biggest issue with Kingdom is that none of its characters are even remotely compelling. The protagonist, Noa (Owen Teague), is no Caesar. He’s a rather dull and disinteresting chimp surrounded by equally dull chimps, like his friends Soona and Anaya. It also doesn’t help that it’s very difficult to tell the chimps apart as they – excuse my chimp racism – all look alike.

The uniformity of Noa’s tribe is further hampered by the flatness of each character. None stand out and none are fully fleshed out. As a result, none of their relationships are developed to the point where they’d be meaningful, never mind captivating.

The humans don’t fare any better. Nova (Freya Allen) is a mysterious human woman who isn’t that mysterious nor interesting. We never truly understand where she comes from or what motivates her. Trevathan (William H. Macy), is a human who works with apes and his story might’ve been pretty interesting but we never get to see it so we’ll never know.

Besides the lackluster characters, the film also suffers due to a lack of narrative clarity and visual crispness. Both of these shortcomings fall in the lap of director Wes Ball. Ball’s previous films include the Maze Runner trilogy, which isn’t exactly the pinnacle of cinematic experience. Watching Ball’s Planet of the Apes movie only increases Matt Reeves standing, as he directed the stellar Dawn and War films and has now graduated to the Batman franchise.

Kingdom’s plot jumps around from a coming-of-age story to a road picture to a fight-the-power narrative, but by trying to be all of these things it ends up being none of them.

Yes, Kingdom does nicely pay homage to the original 1968 film, particularly in one section with its distinct visual style and signature music, and it also gives adequate depth to the franchise’s mythology and archetypes, like having Noa (the biblical Noah – get it?) survive a flood of monkey shit both figuratively and sort of literally. But the movie never grabs you by the throat and makes you pay attention. It never makes you care much about the characters you’re supposed to care about, and never hate the characters you’re supposed to hate.

The best character in the entire film is without question Raka (Peter Macon), a monastic Orangutan who is keeping the gospel of Caesar and his sacred sayings alive, even if it is just to himself. But even Raka is not as good as say Maurice, the stunning orangutan from the previous trilogy.

That said, Raka has far too little screen time, and would be very well served with a Disney + mini-series (as would the entirety of the Orangutan class in the Planet of the Apes universe – give us a Dr. Zaius series!!), which I would voraciously watch. But instead, he’s given short shrift and the film suffers because of it.

The same is true of Proximus Caesar (Kevin Durand), the villainous chimp leader of a powerful group of apes, and his number one general Sylva (Eka Darville), a rough and tumble lowland gorilla.

The origin story of Proximus and Sylva too would make an interesting mini-series or feature film, no doubt more compelling than the rather tepid adventures of Noa, the good-hearted country ape forced to face the big, bad world. But instead Proximus and Sylva are rather thin characters despite there being a lot of meat left on those bones.

As far as the visuals of the film go, cinematographer Gyula Pados never paints with much flair, unlike his predecessors in the reboot trilogy. The film looks fine, but in comparison to the luscious visual feast of War for the Planet of the Apes for instance, Kingdom falls flat. The same is true of the action sequences, as the fight scenes, most notably the climactic battle, are dramatically underwhelming and poorly designed.

In addition, the CGI, for some reason, looks a little bit off compared to the previous films, or maybe it was just the lack of unique and compelling characters that made the visuals seem less than. For example, there is no character in this entire film that looks as good as say Koba or Maurice from the three previous films.

Another issue is the acting. Despite it being motion-capture acting, it is still acting, and the cast of the previous three films, most notably Andy Serkis as Caesar and Toby Kebbell as Koba, showed audiences the brilliance possible while acting through technology. Nothing in this film even comes close the stellar work of the cast in the previous films.

For example, Kevin Durand gives a rather trite and predictable performance as the villain Proximus. His bluster and big voice are routine for any first-time actor trying to play the heavy.

Owen Teague as Noa never lives up to the work Serkis did as Caesar, which to be fair, is an impossible task as Andy Serkis is the Marlon Brando of motion-capture acting….but still, the drop-off is notable and uncomfortable.

Now, with all of that bitching and moaning aside…I still have to admit that I liked Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes mostly because the original Planet of the Apes movies were my favorite film franchise of all-time and the reboot trilogy has only made the franchise in total even greater as they were sensational. Kingdom definitely has massive flaws – as explained above, but on the bright side, unlike Tim Burton’s shitty 2001 Apes movie, this is a real film and is passable entertainment. While not great, it is not an embarrassment to the franchise or the rich mythology of the franchise.

If, like me, you love the Planet of the Apes in general, you’ll like this movie well enough. It isn’t anywhere near as good as the previous three films, but it isn’t catastrophically bad either. But the bottom line is…Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is a professionally made movie about talking monkeys plotting against and beating the hell out of each other…what’s not to like?

That said, one can only hope that the next Planet of the Apes film is a step up from Kingdom, or at least a step in the right direction, and this extraordinarily long-running, high-quality, fascinating franchise finds better footing moving forward.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

Shogun (Hulu): TV Review - A Leafless Branch

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

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. A beautiful but dramatically and emotionally empty series that features quality craftsmanship across the board yet never rises to become must-see.

Shogun, the highly-acclaimed ten-episode mini-series based on the James Clavell book of the same name, just finished its original run on the streaming service Hulu…and I have some thoughts.

The series, which began streaming on February 27th and concluded on April 23rd, was created by Rachel Kondo and Justin Marks and stars Hiroyuki Sanada, Anna Sawai and Cosmo Jarvis.

Shogun tells the fictional tale of John Blackthorne (Jarvis), an English sailor marooned in 1600s Japan, who must navigate the customs and culture of his new land and serve as an advisor/political pawn to Lord Taranaga (Sanada), the powerful lord of Kanto. A critical side story involves Blackthorne falling in love with his translator Lady Mariko (Sawai).

Shogun is a strange series in that I watched each episode as it rolled out weekly and yet never thought about the show for a single second when it wasn’t playing in front of me. I never once mused or anticipated about what would come in the following episode and very often entirely forgot what had happened in the episode I had just watched. For example, I watched the final episode five days ago and cannot remember much of anything from it.

In this way Shogun is like so much of tv in this bloated streaming era, in that it is eye-candy that comes and goes without the slightest impact one way or the other.

Another show I watched recently, Netflix’s Three Body Problem, was similar in that it generated lots of manufactured light, especially in terms of cultural discission, but exactly zero heat. The big difference between though Three Body Problem and Shogun though is that Three Body Problem was a thoroughly second-rate production that looked unconscionably cheap…whereas Shogun is undeniably a top-notch production that looks more expansive than it probably was.

Shogun is a beautiful production that is exquisitely shot, professionally acted, and boasts superb production design and costumes…and yet…as good as the show looks and all the pieces are near perfect, it still seems oddly forgettable, or better yet – irrelevant, as a whole.

To the show’s credit, it does believably transport you back to 1600’s Japan, and that can be enjoyable, but it never rouses enough interest in its characters to cross the threshold from interesting to emotionally or dramatically impactful.

The thing that struck me most about Shogun was that it was, much to its credit, shot and framed like a feature film. Rarely were objects of interest set center frame, which was a refreshing change since center-framing has become standard, particularly in television, in our wholly unfortunate era of Tik Tok. So often nowadays television cinematography has all the skill and artistry of a grandmother using a disposable instamatic on a family trip to Disney. Thankfully, Shogun never suffers from this lack of attention or visual care.

Also compelling are many of the performances.

Anna Sawai, in particular, is quite good as Lady Mariko, the tormented translator who must contain her emotions and control Blackthorne. I last saw Sawai in the Apple TV series Monarch, and thought she wasn’t quite yet ready for prime time, but here she is sharp and sexy…a luminous and alluring presence filled with a vivid and visceral inner life she masterfully fights to contain.

Hiroyuki Sanada too does solid work as the scheming Taranaga. Sanada is so unrelenting in his performance that it is actually surprising when Taranaga isn’t quite as smart as you believe he is.

Cosmo Jarvis as Blackthorne gives an intriguing performance, as he at once feels out of place yet also somewhat magnetic. Jarvis never quite earns the emotional arc his character takes, but to his credit he is game and never shies from the challenge or the camera.

The CGI used in Shogun is worth mentioning as well as the wide shots of Osaka are obviously fake but still impressive to behold. As are the fight sequences – with a few notable exceptions…like when Lady Mariko morphs into a girl power goddess and slays some samurai.

Despite all of the positive attributes present in Shogun, it just never grips you by the heart or throat and forces you to care. Ultimately, I didn’t actually care about any of the characters in Shogun…not really. And the usual cultural storytelling instincts we have become accustomed to are not satisfied in the story because it ends not with a compelling climax but with understated subtlety.

I have never read Clavell’s book, nor have I watched the 1980 mini-series starring Richard Chamberlain and the great Toshiro Mifune. Maybe if I had I would have more attachment to the characters and investment in the story. But I didn’t and I don’t.

At the end of the day Shogun is a beautiful but forgettable piece of television that I desperately wanted to love because of the subject matter, but never did. The series is simply something to watch to pass the time, and requires little emotional investment and negligible dramatic payoff.

I didn’t hate Shogun, not at all, but I didn’t love it either. It’s an impressive piece of television solely for the craft on display, but in my opinion is not compelling enough to be considered must-see.

I respect the craftsmanship on display in Shogun enough that my recommendation is to watch the first episode and see if it grabs you, and then proceed accordingly.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 120 - Civil War

On this episode, Barry and I charge headlong to the front lines of Alex Garland's dystopian film Civil War. Topics discussed include missed opportunities, spitting out the lukewarm, and the albatross of poorly developed characters.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 120 - Civil War

Thanks for listening!

©2024

Civil War: A Review - A Lukewarm Film for our Scorching Hot Times

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

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT. This is a mixed bag of a movie that should have, and could have, been great, but ultimately pulls its punches and ends up being just okay.

Civil War, written and directed by Alex Garland, is a new dystopian war film that follows the travails of photo-journalists as they chronicle the last stages of a modern-day American civil war.

The premise of Civil War is a provocative one – what if the cold civil war that rages in our culture and country turned hot? Unfortunately, Civil War doesn’t exactly live up to the promise of its provocative premise.

Civil War suffers because it isn’t popcorn enough to be a blockbuster, and not intellectually hefty enough to be an arthouse darling, and not quite enough of either to be award’s material.

That is not to say that the film is bad…it isn’t…but it also isn’t great. It is undeniably compelling and is cinematically very well-crafted, but it is definitely a middlebrow movie posturing like it’s high-brow.

The film follows four journalists, Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), Joel (Wagner Moura), Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and aspiring photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), as they head out of New York City in the hopes of getting to Washington, D.C. to interview the three-term President presiding over a chaotic civil war who hasn’t given an interview in fourteen months.

The country has broken into multiple factions and the government seems on the precipice of falling to the Western Forces – made up of California and Texas, all while other factions like the Florida Alliance and the New People’s Army are roaming around.

To get to D.C. the journalists must drive west to Pittsburgh, then head south to Charlottesville in the hopes of getting to D.C.. The film is essentially a road movie as the journalists navigate the treacherous journey to the failing nation’s capitol.

Much has been made about Civil War being apolitical, and I suppose that is true to a certain degree as the film never explicitly lays out the context, political or otherwise, of the civil war that now rages, but that is not the major problem with the film. No, the biggest issue with the film is that the journalists who are our protagonists are some of the least developed, and least captivating, characters you will ever stumble across.

Kirsten Dunst leads the charge as world-renowned photojournalist Lee Smith, but we know next to nothing about her and never get to know her on the journey. Yes, Smith undergoes a character arc of sorts, but it is predictable, and at its climax, trite and poorly executed. Dunst is good at giving a sort of dead-eyed, thousand-yard stare, but beyond that she fails to generate enough of anything to be able to carry to narrative load.

Wagner Moura is a decent actor but he is nearly invisible as Joel, the journalist set to ask the tough questions to the tyrannical president. Moura lacks the charisma to make his poorly written character come to life, and that he is front and center at the most critical point of the film diminishes its impact.

Cailee Spaeny plays Jessie Cullen, the young woman who wants to be like her photo-journalistic idol, Lee Smith. Spaeny does her best with what she’s given, but like her co-stars she isn’t given nearly enough, and she is not quite dynamic enough to generate interest.

Stephen McKinley Henderson plays the veteran, aging journalist Sammy, who has seen a lot and wants to see how this civil war concludes. Henderson has an innate humanity about him which jumps off the screen, and he does the best of the cast despite being limited by a poorly developed character.

The best performance in the film, and the best scene in the film, is by Jesse Plemons who plays a nameless militiaman the journalists have the unfortunate luck to come across. This scene is electrifying and Plemons absolutely crushes his role with an underplayed yet undeniable aplomb.

Another issue I had with Civil War was that the way it was constructed eliminated much of the drama. For example, early on in the story the journalists are on the road and then somehow are embedded with a rebel force, I suppose the Western Forces, but we never see the first contact between them. How did they hook up with the Western Forces? Were they in danger when they first met? How did either side know who was friendly and who was dangerous, especially in a world where the most banal of things and people are menacing? That would’ve been a great scene filled with drama – just like the scene at a gas station earlier in the movie, but it is never shown so we’ll never know. This type of thing happens throughout the film and it diminishes the drama.

Director Alex Garland cinematographer Rob Hardy shoot the film well and it is gorgeous to look at. The soundtrack is very good too and so is the editing by Jake Roberts. I would say that this is easily Garland’s second-best film, but it is miles behind from his directorial debut Ex Machina (2014), which was a mini-masterpiece. I found Garland’s two other features, Annihilation (2018) and Men (2022), to be underwhelming and poorly executed.

As for the politics of this film…well…when a movie titles itself “Civil War” and sets itself in modern-day America, the expectation of audiences is that current politics will be front and center. Civil War though never clearly sets the context for the war it dramatizes and so we don’t know the why or how or even the who of it all. This is not a crime in and of itself, but it does limit the film in terms of its appeal to more blockbuster-oriented audiences.

That said, the reality is that there is an undercurrent of present-day politics in the film, but for the most part the movie is sly enough to let the viewer project their own political pre-suppositions onto the festivities, which is a very arthouse sort of way to go about things. Liberals will see the bad guys as Republicans and conservatives will see the bad guys as Democrats…for the most part. For example, there is a reference in the film to an “Antifa massacre” but it never states whether it was Antifa being massacred or doing the massacring, which is pretty clever.

The president in the film (played by Nick Offerman) certainly seems Trumpian enough though to satiate the left and piss off the right, but it’s never too explicit and that’s probably the point.

On the other hand, the racial politics are pretty clear as the bad guys out in Middle America only like “real Americans” and kill unwhite people, and a black woman plays a pivotal role in the climax of the film and that is definitely not a coincidence.

Another thing to remember when judging the film’s politics, or lack thereof, is that this movie had a budget of $50 million – which isn’t a whole lot, yet it had to use a pretty decent amount of military equipment…helicopters, tanks, fighter jets, etc…and those things aren’t free…unless you make a deal with the Pentagon and turn over final edit and final say over the theme of your movie. It seems to me that Garland neutered the politics of his movie in order to get it made and play nice with the Department of Defense. I don’t know that for a fact but I would bet it’s true.

The political “subtlety” of the film is certainly a choice, but it clashes with the action-oriented/Hollywood climax that is meant to appeal to blockbuster audiences, and so the film, with clowns to the left of it, and jokers to the right, is stuck in the middle.

When I walked out of Civil War I admit I was a bit perplexed by the mixed bag I had just watched. I wanted the movie to be better, and thought it should have been better. Alex Garland had, a decade ago, made one of the very best, and most currently relevant films of this century when he took on the topic of Artificial Intelligence in the movie Ex Machina, and in the context of our current debate over AI, Ex Machina was eerily prescient.

But Civil War seemed less relevant than it should have been considering the political moment we find ourselves in here in the U.S. and across the globe. That’s not to say Civil War won’t seem prescient ten years from now, but right now it feels too lukewarm to be meaningful, which is a terrible shame.

To quote Jesus from the Book of Revelations 3:15-16 (what other book from the bible should you be quoting nowadays but Revelation?), “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth”.

I enjoyed the taste of Civil War as a compelling, if intellectually and often dramatically vacuous, piece of cinema. But ultimately, I’ll spit it out of my mouth because it is too lukewarm for my liking.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

3 Body Problem (Netflix): TV Review - A Sci-Fi Slog Worth Skipping

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

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A second-rate sci-fi series that is saddled with an abysmal cast.

Netflix’s new science fiction series, 3 Body Problem, follows the travails of a group of five former Oxford University physics students as they are thrust into a life-threatening mystery that has turned the world of science on its head.

The series, which premiered March 21st, is from the creators of the HBO’s Game of Thrones, D.B Weiss and David Benioff, and is based on the book The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu. The show has been getting a lot of hype since it premiered so I figured I’d check it out.

3 Body Problem opens with a scene set during the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China. It is a riveting scene that is eerily reminiscent of the scene at the finale of season one in Benioff and Weiss’s Game of Thrones where Ned Stark is charged with treason and to the shock of viewers who hadn’t read the book, publicly beheaded.

Unfortunately, 3 Body Problem’s compelling opening is the apex of the series, and everything goes downhill from there…and fast. After watching the entire eight episodes of season one I can confidently report that the hype surrounding this show is definitely much ado about absolutely nothing.

The basic premise of 3 Body Problem is that there are a number of strange deaths among the smartest scientists in the world…many die seemingly by suicide. Those investigating the deaths think that the scientists killed themselves because in recent months science, physics in particular, has been turned on its head due to bizarre anomalies found during tests and experiments.

A group of five friends who all went to Oxford together and studied physics, are hit hard by the deaths, particularly the death of one of their teachers.

And thus begins the journey to understanding what is happening and why it’s happening. This journey goes from Mao’s Cultural Revolution to modern day Oxford to the inside of a video game and goodness knows where else.

Ironically, 3 Body Problem has three main problems…the acting, the writing and the production.

Let’s start with the acting. This show boasts one of the worst casts in a major television program in recent memory. This cast, specifically Jess Hong, Jovan Adepo, Eiza Gonzalez and Alex Sharp, is so atrocious as to be an albatross around the neck of the tantalizing premise of this sci fi venture. These actors are so bad I wouldn’t be comfortable casting them in background roles in a dinner theatre production.

Hong and Gonzalez have critical roles that are the backbone of the show, and they are utterly abysmal to the point of being amateurish. Adepo and Sharp are no better but their roles are slightly less critical, and so their egregious work is less fatal to the production.

Hong, who plays Jin Cheng – a brilliant physicist tasked with figuring out the scientific mystery at the middle of the drama, is just not ready for prime time as an actress as she is totally devoid of any skill or charisma. She gives a try-hard yet wooden performance that is very difficult to tolerate even for a little bit.

Eiza Gonzalez, who plays Augie Salazar – a successful scientist/entrepreneur, is just as bad as Hong. Gonzalez is entirely incapable of creating a character or bringing any life to the one she portrays. There’s a lot of preening, but not much acting…or any good acting.

Jovan Adepo plays Saul Durand, a sort of genius libertine who eventually finds his place in the world despite not wanting it. Adepo is at best a dullard on-screen, and is so anti-magnetic as to be invisible.

There are some decent actors in the cast but in smaller roles. For instance, Liam Cunningham, a veteran of stage and screen – most notably in Game of Thrones, plays Thomas Wade, a sharp-witted and tongued spymaster. The problem with Cunningham is that whenever he is on-screen you are reminded of what professional acting looks like and it highlights how awful the rest of the cast is.

The acclaimed Jonathan Pryce is in the show too…albeit quite briefly, but he doesn’t do much and his character is never fully fleshed out. Adding to the issues with Pryce’s character is that he is often seen in flashbacks – and is roughly forty years younger or so, and is played by Ben Schnetzer. I like both Ben Schnetzer and Jonathan Pryce as actors, but they look and sound nothing alike…and this combination makes their storyline at best incompetent and at worst incoherent.

I’ve intentionally avoided getting into the details of the story of 3 Body Problem because it has twists and turns and I don’t want to spoil it for anyone. I haven’t read the book so it was all new to me, and frankly, it became less and less interesting as each episode passed. Which brings us to the second problem with the series…the writing.

The story unfolds like a supernatural murder mystery and then devolves into a really trite piece of generic sci-fi non-drama that is as dopey and dull an eight-hours of television as you’ll find.

The storytelling starts off great with the captivating scene of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China, but then it loses all steam and becomes exceedingly banal and boring.

One of the biggest issues with the writing is the dialogue, which when combined with the wooden line readings from the two-bit cast, becomes cringe-worthy to the point of hilarity.

The third and final problem with 3 Body Problem is that it looks really cheap, like some low-rent Sci-Fi channel throwaway show and not some prestige TV hopeful from the makers of Game of Thrones.

I really liked Game of Thrones…until I didn’t, but what that show had going for it was a superior cast, supreme acting, gorgeous cinematography and sublime production design…not to mention a plethora of nudity, sex and violence. 3 Body Problem has not a single one of those things.

3 Body Problem desperately needs viewers to care about its leads in order for its premise to work, but the acting is so poor that the series can never rise above its cliched writing and cheap-looking production and become even remotely compelling or worthwhile.

The entire first season seems to exist for no other reason than to set-up a second (and presumably third) season…but this is nothing but business and has zero to do with drama. The drama that the show so urgently needs is never earned and falls entirely flat.  

Weiss and Benioff famously fouled up Game of Thrones after meticulously and miraculously piecing the sprawling story together over its first six/seven seasons. It wasn’t until the final season that Game of Thrones went off the rails. 3 Body Problem saves a lot of time and falls flat on its face after about fifteen minutes, so it gets right to its failure.

The bottom line is that 3 Body Problem is an astonishingly forgettable piece of television that is not worthy of your time or attention. As I am fond of saying, I watched this so you don’t have to…and trust me…you really don’t have to.

Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

Dune: Part Two - An Arthouse Blockbuster Rises From the Desert

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

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT. If you’ve read the book, see the movie in a good theatre (emphasis on “good”). If you haven’t read the book, you should read it because it’s very good…and then watch the movie when it hits streaming.

Dune: Part Two, written and directed by Denis Villeneuve based on the classic science fiction book series by Frank Herbert, continues telling the tale of the struggle for the control of the pivotal, resource-rich planet, Arrakis, also known as Dune.

The film, which stars Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler and Florence Pugh, among many others, is the sequel to Dune (2021), a Best Picture nominee and six-time Academy Award winner.

Last Saturday I ventured out to the cineplex to see Dune: Part Two, which no doubt will be ending its theatrical run in the coming weeks having been initially released on March 1st.

I went to the 11:50 am showing because I had a very tight window in which to see the two-hour and forty-five-minute film, and that show was the only one that worked.

I went to a Regal theatre which I’d never been to before…and my experience was…dismaying.

First off, the theatre was a confusing mess that felt like it hadn’t been cleaned or refurbished in forty years.

Secondly, the ticket printer wasn’t working so I had to wait forever to get my actual ticket.

Thirdly, when I went into the screening room, it was 11:45 am – plenty of time before the film started, but unfortunately the film didn’t start at 11:50 am. No, the commercials which were already running pre-show continued at 11:50…and kept going and going and going….until 12:10 pm…and then the film still didn’t start…but the previews did. The actual movie didn’t start until 12:20, a full half hour after the listed start time.

What are we doing people? I get maybe ten minutes of previews and commercials, but thirty minutes?

And to top it all off, Regal, like nearly every cinema in America – and certainly every cinema in fly-over country where I currently reside, has a shitty, poorly maintained digital projector that is too dark, and a screen that is too small, and theatre lights that are never dimmed enough. The end result is it feels like you’re watching a movie underwater, or worse, like watching a movie at a drive-in in broad daylight because corporate theatre companies have no interest in spending money on upgrades to their venues, most notably their god-awful projectors.

So that was the context of my Dune: Part Two movie going experience…and yet, I was still able to enjoy the film to a certain degree despite having to literally imagine in my mind what each gloriously framed shot from Denis Villeneuve and cinematographer Greig Fraser actually looked like as opposed to the muddied mess I was presented at Regal.

As for the film itself, Dune: Part Two picks up exactly where its predecessor finished, and both movies combined tell the story contained in Herbert’s first book titled Dune – which chronicles Paul Atreidis struggle to survive on Dune following an invasion and the murder of his father the king, and then his attempt to avenge his father’s death and conquer the planet. A third film, titled Dune: Messiah, is allegedly being made and is to be based on the book of the same name which is the second book in Herbert’s series.

Dune: Part Two is what I would describe as an arthouse blockbuster. Villeneuve is a highly skilled auteur, and his cinematic capabilities are on full display in this film – the same ones that garnered the first Dune film a bevy of below the line Academy Awards (Cinematography, Sound, Editing Visual Effects, Production Design), but so are his weaknesses.

For example, the fight scenes, action scenes and battle scenes are a mixed bag. Some are spectacularly well-conceived and miraculously executed, while others, particularly the climactic battle and subsequent individual fight, are underwhelming and visually muddled.

Another weakness of the film, and in my opinion its greatest, is the acting of its two leads. Timothee Chalamet is a mystery to me. I don’t think he’s a very good actor, and while he is passable as Paul “Muad’Dib” Atreides in Dune: Part Two, he still isn’t very good. Chalamet is such a wispy, flimsy, charisma-free screen presence that it seems so improbable he be a messianic leader to a warrior tribe as to be ridiculous.

An even bigger problem is Zendaya. I really have no idea how Zendaya became such a massive star, but it sure as hell wasn’t because of her acting talent. Zendaya is actively awful in the role of Chani, Paul’s love interest, to a distracting degree. All she seems able to do is give a dead-eyed pout.

Both Chalamet and Zendaya are incapable of being anything on-screen other than petulant Gen-Z poseurs, and that is a terrible burden for a film which is mostly populated by a cast of rather skilled professionals, set in an imagined science fiction future.

Speaking of disastrous casting decisions, Christopher Walken plays the Emperor Shaddam IV, and is egregiously atrocious. Walken is doing Walken things and it all feels so out of place as to be cringe-worthy.

On the bright-side, there are some very noticeable performances. Austin Butler is fantastic as the ferocious Feyd-Routha, and chews the scenery with a relentless aplomb. I couldn’t help but wonder if Butler should’ve been playing Paul instead of Chalamet, although he might be too old.

Rebecca Ferguson is as solid as they come and she certainly doesn’t disappoint as Lady Jessica, Paul’s mother and a spiritual figure to the Fremen people. Ferguson is such a striking screen presence and magnetic actress it is astonishing she doesn’t work even more than she already does.

Florence Pugh, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem and Lea Seydoux all give solid supporting performances as well.

When I saw the first Dune film I was about sixty pages into the book Dune, so I knew enough to know what was happening, but not enough to really understand it.

Having now read the first three books of the Dune saga – which is phenomenal by the way, I have a much greater understanding of everything going on in the story, and that is both a blessing and a curse.

It’s a blessing because Villeneuve tells these stories in shorthand, and expects viewers to understand the references being made. Having read the books I know understand those references and it makes the movies much more enjoyable.

On the downside, Villeneuve does make some pretty substantial changes to the story (I won’t say what exactly to avoid spoilers), particularly in Dune: Part Two. I understand why changes like this are made in film adaptations of books, they’re not the same storytelling mediums so this is inevitable, but it is still jarring and makes the whole enterprise feel a bit watered-down. To be frank, the story in the book is much better than the story in the movie…but that is usually the case when it comes to adaptations.

Dune: Part Two has done very well at the box office thus far, generating $574 million on a $190 budget. If this were a Marvel movie it would be considered a disappointment…but it isn’t a Marvel movie…and that’s important.

Villeneuve’s Dune franchise is off to a very steady start and is successfully threading the needle between box office success and artistry. The first film won 6 notable Academy Awards, and this one will be contending for those same awards.

Marvel seems to be a dying entity and no genre/IP is thus far poised to take its place. Dune represents not so much a replacement for Marvel IP, but a replacement for the idea of movies that Marvel has propagated. Instead of making movies expecting a billion-dollar box office, maybe Dune sets the expectations that auteurs can venture into the land of IP and use their artistry and vision to create something new that is both respected as art but also as blockbuster entertainment (with the definition of blockbuster scaled back ) – hence my description of Dune: Part Two as arthouse blockbuster.

If Dune and this type of filmmaking is the future of blockbusters, then sign me up. Villeneuve is a highly-skilled moviemaker, and despite his flaws he never fails to make something visually compelling and dramatically interesting.

Dune: Part Two isn’t for everybody. In fact, I’d say, if you haven’t read the books then you’d probably struggle to understand what is happening a good portion of the time. That said, I’d highly recommend the books as they are fantastic…and then once you’ve read the first book check out Dune and Dune: Part Two.

My recommendation for cinephiles, those who have read the book and those who enjoyed the first film, is to go see Dune: Part Two in a good theatre.

Unfortunately for me, I will have to wait until Dune: Part Two becomes available on streaming where I can watch it in my home, without thirty minutes of commercials and with superior audio-visual equipment, before I can accurately judge and thoroughly comment on its true cinematic value.

 Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 119 - Dune: Part Two

On this episode, Barry and I don our stillsuits and head to Arrakis to discuss Denis Villeneuve's new film, Dune: Part Two, starring Timothee Chalamet and Zendaya. Topics discussed include the dismal state of modern cinemas, the weak acting of Li'l Timmy and Zendaya, and the future of sci-fi movies. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 119 - Dune: Part Two

Thanks for listening!

©2024

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 118 - Poor Things

On this episode, Barry and I head to Victorian England to discuss Yorgos Lanthimos' crazy Frankenstein-fueled, feminist sex-romp Poor Things, starring Academy Award winning Best Actress Emma Stone. Topics discussed include the astonishing brilliance of Emma Stone, the misery of miscast Mark Ruffalo, and the originality, skill and talent of Lanthimos and cinematographer Robbie Ryan. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 118 - Poor Things

Thanks for listening!!

©2024

The 10th Annual Mickey™® Awards (2023)

10th ANNUAL MICKEY™® AWARDS

Estimated Reading Time: The Mickey™® Awards are much more prestigious than the Oscars, and unlike our lesser crosstown rival, we here at The Mickeys™® do not limit acceptance speech times. There will be no classless playing off by the orchestra here…mostly because we don’t have an orchestra. Regardless… expect this awards show article to last, at a minimum, approximately 6 hours and 37 minutes.

It’s that time of year again when Hollywood and the whole world holds their breath to find out who wins the most prestigious and most glorious award in human history...THE MICKEY™® AWARD!!

The Mickeys™® are far superior to every other award imaginable…be it the Oscar, the Emmy, the Tony, the Grammy, the Pulitzer or even the Nobel. The Mickey™® is the mountaintop of not just artistic but human achievement, which is why they always take place AFTER the Oscars!

It is pretty amazing that the Mickeys™® turn ten years old this year! It’s crazy to think that means the Mickeys have been around long enough that they are now old enough to drink!!

This has been a decent year in cinema. It wasn’t a massive success like in say 2019, but it was considerably better than the last four miserable years.

There are a multitude of outstanding films eligible for a Mickey™® award this year. Actors, actresses, writers, cinematographers and directors are all sweating and squirming right now in anticipation of the Mickey™® nominations and winners. Remember, even a coveted Mickey™® nomination is a career and life changing event.

Before we get to what everyone is here for…a quick rundown of the rules and regulations of The Mickeys™®. The Mickeys™® are selected by me. I am judge, jury and executioner. The only films eligible are films I have actually seen, be it in the theatre, via screener, cable, streamer or VOD. I do not see every film because as we all know, the overwhelming majority of films are God-awful, and I am a working man so I must be pretty selective. So that means that just getting me to actually watch your movie is a tremendous accomplishment in and of itself…never mind being nominated or winning!

The Prizes!! The winners of The Mickey™® award will receive a free lunch* with me at Fatburger (*lunch is considered one "sandwich" item, one order of small fries, and one beverage….yes, your beverage can be a shake, you fat bastards). I will gladly pay for the Mickey™® winner’s meal…but know this…the sterling conversation will be entirely free of charge…and will probably not be sterling.

Now…fasten your seatbelts, gird your loins, and get ready to rumble…because IT’S TIME!!

Here are the 10th Annual Mickey™® Awards!!

POPCORN MOVIE OF THE YEAR

Godzilla Minus One – This movie crawled out of the Pacific and stomped across the globe winning hearts and minds while destroying everything in its path. Godzilla is back, baby!!

Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse – These Spider-Verse animated movies are really great stuff as they fully embrace the Spidey of everything while churning out some jaw-dropping animation.

The Killer – Fincher’s take on the assassin’s life is pure Gen X cinematic bliss. It qualifies as a popcorn film simply because it’s so deliciously amusing and so light on its feet.

And the Mickey™® goes to…GODZILLA MINUS ONE! Not just a fantastic Godzilla movie, but a really terrific movie! Welcome to the Mickeys™ Godzilla!

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Oppenheimer - Hoyte van Hoytema – Hoytema, who won a Mickey™® in 2017 for his work on Dunkirk, is one of the best in the business. His work on Oppenheimer was as good as it gets and is a testament to his outrageous skill.

The Zone of Interest – Lukasz Zal – Zal’s previous work on Ida (2014) and Cold War (2018) got him the attention of the Mickey nominating committee. This year he stunned with his precise and pristine cinematography on The Zone of Interest. An absolute masterwork in minimalism and framing.

Asteroid City – Robert Yoeman – Yoeman brought a vibrant color palette and a strict adherence to Anderson’s infatuation with straight lines to Asteroid City. As beautifully and uniquely shot a film as seen all year.

Poor Things – Robbie Ryan – A glorious and imaginative piece of work that utilizes black and white and then color with a glorious verve. Ryan is among the best cinematographers in the world and his stellar work on Poor Things is a testament to that fact.

And the Mickey™® goes to…LUKASZ ZAL – THE ZONE OF INTEREST! Zal’s visual discipline and inventiveness are what makes The Zone of Interest the powerful cinematic experience that it is.

BEST SOUND

Oppenheimer – The sound on Oppenheimer was extraordinary, and it needed to be. The sound was integral in conveying the mammoth, existential event that was being dramatized before us.

The Zone of Interest – This movie used sound to such great effect it feels like as cinematic miracle. When sound was introduced into the cinematic arts this is how it was meant to be used.

Godzilla Minus One – The earth-shaking sound on Godzilla Minus One kept the film in reality, and turned that reality into a horrifying experience…as it was meant to be.

And the Mickey™® goes to…THE ZONE OF INTEREST. As great as the sound on Oppenheimer was, the sound on The Zone of Interest was even better. Just a masterful sound design, execution and mix. This is not only the best sound of the year, but among the best sound in a film of all-time.

BEST SCORE/SOUNDTRACK

The Killer – The mod and morose pop-infused laments of The Smiths are what makes The Killer the darkly fun ride that it is. Never has a soundtrack so matched the emotional and mental theme of a film and character.

Oppenheimer – A wonderfully dark and majestic score that effortlessly mixes with the sound of the film to create a mesmerizing cinematic sensation.

The Zone of Interest – A bizarre and unnerving score makes The Zone of Interest feel like a disorienting horror movie. Just a sterling piece of work.

Killers of the Flower Moon – The late Robbie Robertson mixes and matches modern guitar driven music with Native American drums and vocals to create a swirling and scintillating soundtrack that is the best thing about Killers of the Flower Moon.

And the Mickey™® goes to…THE KILLER! This win is based on The Killer’s masterful use of the musical musings of Morrissey and The Smiths.

BEST COSTUME/HAIR/MAKEUP

The Mickey™® goes to…Poor Things – I am not exactly as fashionista, but even I appreciated the original and fascinatingly unique costumes, hair and make-up on display in Poor Things. The artisans who created these looks and perfectly executed them, are absolute masters deserving of the highest praise…and the highest praise available is a Mickey™® Award.

BEST EDITING

Oppenheimer – A truly spectacular piece of editing kept this mammoth story from flying off the rails.

The Zone of Interest – Subtle editing gave this movie a perfect pace and tone.

Anatomy of a Fall – The editing on this film was so seamless and deft as to be miraculous.

And the Mickey™® goes to…OPPENHEIMER – Editor Jennifer Lame’s work was stunning as she wrestled this sprawling, time-jumping behemoth and turned it into a smooth and easy ride.

BEST EFFECTS

Godzilla Minus One – Godzilla feels real and utterly terrifying in this film and that is thanks to the special effects geniuses who threw him together with a minimal budget.

Oppenheimer – A lot was made of the fact that Christopher Nolan used minimal special effects and mostly actual effects to make this movie. How-ever he did it, it is astonishing to behold.

No One Will Save You – This little movie made the most of it when designing and executing their movie monster aliens. It is quite incredible that a small movie like this was able to make such notable effects and utilize them so effectively.

And the Mickey™® goes to…GODZILLA MINUS ONE!! Somehow these filmmakers were able to make the best special effects of the year…and of the last few years, on a shoestring budget that would be laughable on a Hollywood blockbuster. Well done Team Godzilla!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Willem Dafoe – Poor Things – Dafoe, as always, brings his weirdness to the fore as the Dr. Frankenstein in this bizarro movie. Despite his eccentricities, Dafoe is able to find humanity in every role he touches.

Robert Downey Jr. – Oppenheimer – It’s easy to forget that Downey is more than just iron Man and amusing snark. In Oppenheimer, Downey’s restraint isn’t just necessary but notable and it creates a compelling and convincing character that subtly dominates every scene he inhabits. The line, “no, just a shoe salesman”, is delivered with such perfection as to be devastating.

Ryan Gosling – Barbie – As much as I loathed the movie Barbie, I loved Ryan Gosling as Ken. When Gosling goes for it he is an unstoppable force, and he goes for it with gusto as Ken. Good for him.

Milo Machado-Graner - Anatomy of a Fall – This kid is so good in Anatomy of Fall I forgot I was watching some kid actor. A nuanced and tormented performance that feels as real as real can be.

Charles Melton – May December – I had never heard of Christopher Melton prior to May December, but apparently, he was on some stupid teen show. Who knows? All I know is that he gives the very best performance in that film and it isn’t even close. Subtle and heartbreaking, Melton never falters.

And the Mickey™® goes to…ROBERT DOWNEY JR. – OPPENHEIMER – This was a very tight category, with Gosling and Melton tying for second place just mere percentage points behind Downey. But Downey’s work in Oppenheimer is layered, nuanced, subtle yet very powerful. A true tour de force performance that despite its wins in award shows, is often downplayed because Downey is such a Hollywood icon. The truth is he absolutely crushed this role….and now he’s got the Mickey™® award to prove his worth….as well as all that Iron Man money.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Sandra Huller – The Zone of Interest – Huller’s Nazi wife in The Zone of Interest is an absolutely stunning piece of work. Banal yet bravado, Huller imbues her housewife with a drive and fear that make her part momma bear and part Nazi supremacist. Pray she never runs for your school’s PTA board.

Penelope Cruz – Ferrari – Cruz is often overlooked (even by me) but she is a master craftswoman. Her work in Ferrari could have been throwaway stuff (like her counterpart Shailene Woodley) but in Cruz’s hands it became a well-rounded, nuanced and subtle piece of dramatic work that never fails to compel. Her scene in the cemetery is the best acting caught on screen this year.

Da’Vine Joy Randolph – The Holdovers – Ms. Randolph was a revelation as the grieving mom in The Holdovers. More impressive is the fact that she absolutely nails the Boston accent that has been butchered by so many other notable actors. A truly impressive performance.

Julianne Moore - May December – Speaking of actresses that have butchered Boston accents…Julianne Moore plays a weird lady in May December with a relentless aplomb. This is the type of role that she excels in…it’s like a cross between her work in Boogie Nights and Magnolia.

And the Mickey™® goes to…PENELOPE CRUZ - FERRARI!! I have not been able to get the scene where Cruz’s character visits her son’s grave out of my head since I’ve seen it. In the scene Cruz doesn’t say a word and yet conveys a panoply of emotions and tells a dramatically compelling and emotionally devastating tale in less than a minute of screen time. It really is incredible and a monument to her colossal talent and skill.

BEST BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR

The Mickey™® goes to….the little kid in Godzilla Minus One and the Dog in Anatomy of a Fall – Okay…I’m a grown man so I don’t really care about babies or whatever…but the little kid in Godzilla is so damn cute and is such a good actress it’s astonishing. This kid was crying on cue so well I was worried she was being abused in order to trigger it. Hopefully she wasn’t.

Speaking of great acting…I’m being serious when I say that Messi, the dog in Anatomy of a Fall, is maybe the greatest actor in a movie this year. His near-death scene is so good it had me weeping. This dog has it all…charisma, good looks and acting chops. Somebody get this dog a movie franchise!

BEST ANIMATED FILM

The Boy and the Heron – Hayao Miyazaki is among the greatest animated filmmakers of all-time. The Boy and the Heron may, or may not, be his last film, but if it is he went out with a bang. With his distinctive bizarre flair Miyazaki relays a boy’s grief and fears and his first steps on the journey to manhood. It is the work of a master craftsman and a singular genius.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse – These Spider-Verse films are as great as can be as they treat the Spider-man mythos with respect all while generating some of the most impressive animation styles imaginable. This is the second film in a trilogy and the third will be very highly anticipated.

And the Mickey™® goes to…THE BOY AND THE HERON!! Miyazaki’s work is a favorite of both mine and my son (who is also a member of the Mickeys Voting Committee) so this was a no-brainer. It is nice that a master like Miyazaki can now retire in peace if he so chooses, having won the most prestigious award in human civilization – The Mickey™®

BEST FOREIGN FILM

Godzilla Minus One – This is the movie Godzilla and Godzilla fans have been waiting decades for. It is a brilliant piece of work that is a truly great movie.

The Zone of Interest – Jonathan Glazer’s film about the banality of evil is so steady and precise that it seeps into your brain and refuses to let you forget it…which is both a blessing and a curse.

Anatomy of a Fall – Expertly made and fantastically acted, Anatomy of a Fall is the type of movie Hollywood used to make but hasn’t for like fifty years.

The Boy and the Heron – Miyazaki is the epitome of the master craftsman combined with artistic genius. There is no one better than him and there has never been anyone better than him.

And the Mickey™® goes to…THE ZONE OF INTEREST!! Not only a cinematic masterpiece but a staggeringly relevant piece of culture in a time when we are so eager to be blind to the evil and moral and ethical corruption that surrounds us to such an extent it feels as prevalent as the air we breathe.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Godzilla Minus One – The key to this script’s success is that it treats Godzilla as a real threat with real human consequences. It’s shocking how beautiful this script is.

Anatomy of a Fall – Masterfully written court room drama that keeps audiences guessing for weeks after seeing the film.

No One Will Save You – A truly original and energizing piece of work that elevated what could have been a mundane alien movie into a deeply poignant psychological story.

The Boy and the Heron – Miyazaki is in his 80s and is still exploring the wounds from his youth. Beautifully written.

The Holdovers – A vibrant and well-paced drama that never lacks for witticisms.

And the Mickey™® goes to…ANATOMY OF A FALL! As well-rounded an original script as we’ve seen in years as it refuses to indulge in easy labels and black and white thinking.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Ferrari – This adaptation was floating around for years and finally made it to the big screen. It is a nice companion piece with 2019’s Ford v Ferrari.

Oppenheimer – It’s impressive that Christopher Nolan read this book, never mind adapted it. This massive tome would be an unruly mess in most other writer/director’s hands, but Nolan tames the wild beast and creates a beautiful historical tapestry.

The Zone of Interest – Glazer apparently used the Martin Amis book of the same name as a launching off point and he creatively catapults his adaption into the stratosphere.

Poor Things – An absolutely batshit tale that is so unbelievable but feels realer than real. A solid piece of work.

American Fiction – Funny and insightful, the flawed American Fiction loses focus occasionally but it never fails to be amusing, and its premise is spot on.

And the Mickey™® goes to…OPPENHEIMER! That Christopher Nolan could make a compelling and coherent film out of the massive tome about a scientist is a testament to his extraordinary storytelling capabilities. As impressive an adaptation as we’ve seen in decades.

BEST SCENE OF THE YEAR

The Killer - Fight scene – Fassbender’s assassin engaging in hand-to-hand combat with a giant gang leader in the middle of the night is as viscerally engaging a scene as you can imagine. Great stuff.

No One Will Save You – First contact scene – This heart-pounding scene is so well executed it stayed with me for days. Just a glorious piece of quality and imaginative filmmaking.

Godzilla Minus One – Godzilla city rampage – Godzilla coming ashore and leveling a Japanese city is what you want from a Godzilla movie…and boy oh boy does this one deliver.

Poor Things – Dance scene – Nothing had me laughing harder this year than watching Emma Stone’s Bella Baxter cut the rug at some fancy French ballroom. Fantastic!

And the Mickey™® goes to…GODZILLA MINUS ONE!! This gripping scene is jaw-dropping and spellbinding.

BEST ACTRESS

Emma Stone – Poor Things – Stone’s bravura work in Poor Things is absolutely mesmerizing. Like an acting exercise on steroids, Stone’s Bella matures before our eyes and never fails to completely command your attention.

Sandra Huller – Anatomy of a Fall – As genuine and grounded a performance as you’ll see, Huller brings nuance and subtlety to new heights.

Kaitlyn Dever – No One Will Save You – An energized and unnerving performance that grabs you from the get go and never lets you go.

And the Mickey™® goes to…EMMA STONE- POOR THINGS! Emma Stone is the best actress in the world at the moment, and it isn’t even close. She now possesses a Mickey™® award proving she is an acting goddess who walks amongst us.

BEST ACTOR

Cillian Murphy – Oppenheimer – Murphy’s controlled yet frantic Oppenheimer is a masterclass in containment and a vivid inner life. A sensitive and deeply moving portrayal.

Christian Friedel – The Zone of Interest – This is an astonishing performance as it embraces the ordinary amongst the extraordinary. Subtle and skillful.

Jeffrey Wright – American Fiction – Wright is a terrific actor and his work in American Fiction is a testament to not only his likability but his acting ability.

Paul Giamatti – The Holdovers – Nobody embodies curmudgeons like Paul Giamatti, and he does some of his best curmudgeonly work in The Holdovers.

And the Mickey™® goes to…CILLIAN MURPHY – OPPENHEIMER!! The Mickey Awards have been the center of controversy since their inception for our notorious and blatant anti-Irish bias. Despite the uproar, the Mickeys™® have refused to change their stance at all…and still believe that the Irish are sub-humans and the most base and vile of creatures. That said, it is a testament to Cillian Murphy’s talent and skill that he convinced the Mickeys™® that he wasn’t just human, but the particular human that was Robert Oppenheimer. For his noble and notable work, Cillian Murphy wins the most prestigious award of all…the Mickey™®. But the Mickeys™® still consider him to be an Irish animal and no award, no matter how prestigious will ever change that.

ACTOR/ACTRESS OF THE YEAR

Sandra Huller – Anatomy of a Fall/The Zone of Interest – Sandra Huller has the highest distinction this year in that she came in second place in both the Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress categories of the Mickey™® Awards. Her work in both films is astonishing, and one can only hope she finds equally challenging and impressive roles and films in her future because when given quality material she is as good as it gets. Her 2023 was as good as a year as we’ve seen from an actress in quite some time.

BEST ENSEMBLE

Poor Things – Great cast with a few exceptions (Mark Ruffalo and Jerrod Carmichael are actively awful in the movie) is led by the inimitable Emma Stone, who brings her absolute A-game to the festivities.

The Holdovers – Paul Giamatti leads a strong ensemble that features two quality supporting turns from Da’Vine Joy Randolph and Dominic Sessa. Just a solid cast across the board.

Oppenheimer – Everywhere you turn in this movie you run into a quality actor turning in a solid performance. Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr., Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Josh Hartnett and Jason Clarke among many others. This film doesn’t work without such a notable and strong cast.

Anatomy of a Fall – A bevy of French actors and actresses…and even a dog, turn in subtle and nuanced performances in a film that never gives away the game. A very strong group.

And the Mickey™® goes to…OPPENHEIMER! This movie would crumble if it weren’t for the genius of Christopher Nolan and the cornucopia of strong actors and actresses he put together for the ensemble.

BEST DIRECTOR

Christopher Nolan – Oppenheimer – Mickey™® award winner (Dunkirk - 2017) Christopher Nolan is the best blockbuster auteur working in cinema today and he lives up to his impressive history with his stellar work on the massive cinematic achievement that is Oppenheimer. It is inconceivable that any other director could have pulled this film off as well as he did.

Jonathan Glazer – The Zone of Interest – Glazer is a bit of an odd duck of an auteur, but his vision and the execution of that vision, on The Zone of Interest is the most artistically ambitious and insightful directorial work since Alfonso Cuaron’s Roma. Just extraordinary.

Justine Triet – Anatomy of a Fall – As skilled a directorial job as any this year, Triet’s firm and steady hand kept this film from floundering and showed her to be a master craftswoman.

Yorgos Lanthimos – Poor Things – Yorgos Lanthimos is an acquired taste…but I’ve acquired it. His sense of humor and his ability to draw out superb performances from his cast while embracing the comedy and drama with an exquisite cinematic artistry, is what makes him one of the best, and most original and interesting, filmmakers of our time.

And the Mickey goes to…JONATHAN GLAZER – THE ZONE OF INTEREST! Glazer doesn’t make many movies, but when he does, they demand your attention, none more so that The Zone of Interest. That Glazer could be so artistically committed and disciplined with his approach on this film speaks to the power of his cinematic vision and his artistry. Kudos to him and congratulations on winning the most prestigious award in cinema and world history.

BEST PICTURE

10. American Fiction – A funny and sometimes insightful film that may or may not be in on the joke its telling. The film is flawed and a bit scattered, but is an amusing ride.

9. Ferrari – Hamstrung by a poor lead performance from Adam Driver, this movie still manages to be compelling thanks to director Michael Mann and supporting actress Penelope Cruz.

8. No One Will Save You – A little movie with big ideas that never fails to keep you guessing or on the edge of your seat.

7. The Killer – David Fincher goes full Fincher in this wry and culturally aware assassin’s tale which feels like a poorly camouflaged autobiography.

6. The Boy and the Heron – A Miyazaki movie through and through as it is deeply moving and also deeply weird.

5. Anatomy of a Fall – A masterfully constructed and acted courtroom drama that grabs hold of you and never lets you go…even in the days after seeing it.

4. Godzilla Minus One – Godzilla is back, baby! This movie is a truly top-notch piece of cinema.

3. Poor Things - Yorgos Lanthimos proves once again why he is among the very best filmmakers in the world, and Emma Stone proves she IS the best actress in the world. A stunningly original piece of work.

2. Oppenheimer – A massive and sprawling film that director Christopher Nolan makes feel intimate. A throw-back to Hollywood’s glory days when big movies about big ideas got made and made very well.

1.The Zone of Interest – An unnervingly banal yet artistically ambitious look at the Nazi death machine that is masterfully directed by Jonathan Glazer.

MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF THE YEAR

The Zone of Interest/Oppenheimer – These two films have much in common. For example, they both deal with the same World War II era, albeit from different sides of the divide. They also have protagonists that are employed by the state to manage their massive industrial machinery of murder.

And most notably, at least in my eyes, is that both films strictly refuse to show the fruits of their protagonist’s nefarious labor.

The Zone of Interest is set in a concentration camp but never shows Jews being murdered, and Oppenheimer is about the atomic bomb but never shows the slaughter it produced.

These two films are the most important films of the year because they dramatize and embody our own steadfast refusal to see what is right in front of our eyes…namely the insidiously evil nature of the government of the United States of America and its affiliates, and the slaughter and suffering they cause across the globe.

I can’t remember who it was, but someone once said, “isn’t it funny how the good guys win every war?” The reason that joke is funny of course is because it’s the winners of wars who write the history of those wars and they always see themselves as the good guys. To the victor’s go the spoils and the spoils in modern warfare are that you get to paint yourself as a hero…always and every time.

If Rudolf Hoss, the protagonist of The Zone of Interest, had written a book in the wake of a Nazi victory in World War II, it no doubt would’ve been about how through his brilliant management style he heroically helped save Germany and the rest of Europe. It would probably be titled “Somehow I Manage”.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara once stated in the wonderful Errol Morris documentary The Fog of War, that if the U.S. had lost World War II the entire American military command would’ve been tried and hung as war criminals for the firebombing of Tokyo.

Of course, the same would be true for Robert Oppenheimer as a result of the massacres at Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were directly the result of his scientific achievements.

The U.S. was on the winning side of the war, and so Oppenheimer faced no executioner. Rudolf Hoss, on the other hand, was on the “wrong side of history” and was tried at Nuremberg and hung for his war crimes.

To be clear, no one weeps for Hoss, the Commandant of Auschwitz, despite the fact that Hoss, like Oppenheimer, was just “following orders” and “doing his job” and “fighting for his country”, but that doesn’t make him any less culpable or morally and ethically repugnant.

Hoss and Oppenheimer were both exceedingly good at their jobs and both were deft bureaucratic infighters who could maneuver through some very tricky situations in order to get what they wanted. Both of them ultimately paid a price for their successes, Hoss was hanged and Oppenheimer hung out to dry.

Hoss was a Nazi and I think we can all agree that the Nazis were a stunningly clear embodiment of evil. But if the Nazis were so evil why were so many of them absconded from post-war Germany and brought to the U.S. via Operation Paperclip? Why did so many Nazis, like scientist Wernher von Braun, become integral parts of the U.S. power structure?

Could it be that our moral preening in the wake of WWII was just that, empty preening, and our victory, which wasn’t really ours but the Soviet Union’s, was nothing more than window dressing for the masses – the shuffling of cards in a rigged deck? Could it be the Fourth Reich is alive and well and ruling the world from some smoky backroom in D.C. or Geneva or some other monied capitol?

The Nazis, or Not-sees as my friend The Falconer calls them, did NOT-SEE the humanity of the Jews and Slavs they slaughtered on an industrial scale. But that inability to see the humanity of their enemy isn’t a Nazi thing, but a human thing, an impulse and instinct we must struggle against.

The most-clear example of this is that the ancestors of the same Jews who survived the Holocaust perpetrated upon them by the Nazis, are now perpetrating a holocaust upon Palestinians. The same dehumanization that animated the Nazi Holocaust is the same one that animates the current holocaust inflicted upon the Palestinians.

In a way, the brutal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis is the epitome of a historical tragedy because Israel was formed as a direct result of the Holocaust, and now it has become the monster from which it was birthed. It is like a child conceived in rape growing up to become a serial rapist.

That Israelis and Palestinians cannot see one another as human is no surprise considering the tormented, tortured, bloody and brutal history of that region, but that Americans refuse to see their own complicity in the dehumanization and slaughter is much more alarming and shameful.

Americans are as ill-informed, mis-informed and dis-informed as any group of people on the planet, and their ignorance and willful blindness to the U.S.’s malignant presence in not just the Middle East, but across the globe, is truly disturbing.

American’s refusal to see that they are complicit in the massacre in Gaza and the war in Ukraine, is exactly what The Zone of Interest and Oppenheimer are dramatizing, consciously or unconsciously.

The U.S. instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup in 2014, and have thwarted any and all peace attempts and encouraged Ukraine to break any peace accords or ceasefires. As a result, hundreds of thousands are dead…mostly Ukrainians. But our media and political establishment stomp their feet and screech and wail about the villainy of evil Putin and so on and so forth. You don’t have to think Putin is a hero to know that we Americans are the villains in Ukraine.

The same is true regarding the Palestinians and Israel. Israel’s occupation and long-time expansion of settlements in the West Bank, only occurs because we give them financial and military aid as well as diplomatic cover at the U.N.

The tens of thousands slaughtered in Gaza? Their blood is on our hands because if our leadership – and I use that term loosely, wanted it to stop they would simply say to Israel, “if the settlements in the West Bank aren’t torn down, and the killing in Gaza doesn’t stop now, then all U.S. aid, be it financial or military, will cease now and forever”, but that will never happen. The reason it will never happen is something you aren’t allowed to say but is true nonetheless…namely Israel does whatever it wants because it runs America, not the other way around. Joe Biden doesn’t tell Israel what to do, Israel tells Joe Biden what to do. And the same was true with Trump and will be true if Trump wins this year’s election. It doesn’t matter who the President of the United States of America is in regards to Israel because the American leadership class in its entirety is thoroughly compromised by Israeli’s over-sized lobby and massive money-machine, Israeli’s ruthless intelligence apparatus (does anyone remember Jeffrey Epstein?), and a bevy of Zionist fifth columnists throughout the U.S. government.

This is why the U.S. is so quick to slander Putin as a war criminal but would never dare to suggest that of Israel…because Netanyahu IS a war criminal, but…he’s OUR war criminal. And Americans simply accept this unending hypocrisy and moral duplicity blindly and without a second thought.

This desperate and willful blindness, be it moral, ethical or political, is what animates The Zone of Interest and Oppenheimer, and what animates the entirety of the political and media establishment, as well as the populace, in the United States of America.

The bottom line is that closing your eyes to moral atrocities doesn’t actually make you blind, it only makes you gullible and culpable…and the American people are lots of both.

Well on that very, very upbeat note….the tenth (THE TENTH!! – and God-willing not the last!) Mickey™® Awards comes to a close!! Thank you so much for continuing to read my work and for sticking with me through thick and thin. I greatly appreciate it. I hope you have a great 2024 and we’ll see you next year…AT THE MICKEYS™®!!

Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2024