An Autopsy of Bombs: The Fall Guy and Furiosa Edition

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

This year we’ve had a few notable box office bombs, the most intriguing of which are The Fall Guy and Furiosa.

Like the vast majority of people, I did not see those movies in the theatre, hence their under-performance at the box office. But now both films are available to stream and I recently checked them out to see what, if anything, I missed, and if they deserved to be ignored in the theatre.

Let’s start with The Fall Guy, which is currently available to stream on Peacock.

The Fall Guy, directed by David Leitch, was set up to be the big office blockbuster to open the summer movie season when it hit theatres on May 3rd. The film, which stars Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, had a huge marketing push pre-release, which included a witty bit of banter at the Oscars between the two stars. The film sold itself in a plethora of television ads as an old-fashioned, 1980’s style Hollywood action movie with likeable movie stars (Gosling and Blunt).

But upon release the film fell flat as nobody came out to see it. It was number one at the box office on its opening week, but with a severely subdued haul of $35 million. Not great. It went downhill from there.

It dropped to number two in its second week of release and then fell off a cliff. It ended up making a paltry $180 million in total off of its $120 million budget. In Hollywood accounting, that means it lost a ton of money. (Hollywood accounting means you roughly double the budget to account for marketing and for the theatre’s haul – and the rest goes to the studio – so The Fall Guy is about $240 million underwater)

So why did The Fall Guy fail?

The Fall Guy does have two very charming and beautiful movie stars as its leads, Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, who are, you guessed it, very charming and very beautiful. But on the downside, The Fall Guy is a movie no one wanted…and so no one went to see it. Myself included.

The movie is sort of attached to the rather forgettable B-tv series from the 80’s, The Fall Guy, which is second rate Lee Majors material, as Majors is remembered for the Six Million Dollar Man, not The Fall Guy. But The Fall Guy brand doesn’t have a built-in fan base as Gen Xers may remember the show from their childhood but don’t really give a shit about it because it wasn’t beloved, and younger audiences will have absolutely never heard of it.

Another major issue is that The Fall Guy is, frankly, a really bad movie. It features an abysmally incoherent and relentlessly stupid script, as well as stunts that are rather tepid and cinematically mundane.

As charming as Gosling and Blunt are…and they are incredibly charming…they’re not charming enough to tolerate the excruciatingly boring and stupid nonsense going on around them for the duration of this idiotic movie.

In some ways The Fall Guy is meant to be a love letter to stunt men, which I suppose is a nice thought. Stunt men are a different breed (and deserve an Oscar category)…but if you’ve ever met one you know that while their work is often interesting, they often are not.

On the bright side stunt men will always be happy to have you break a chair over their head, which is very cathartic. Truth is I’d rather break a real chair over my head than watch The Fall Guy again.

The Fall Guy’s failure is a stark reminder that wishful thinking from the C Suite of Hollywood studios doesn’t translate into audience interest. The Fall Guy had seemingly everything going for it except for the two things it actually needed, audience interest and good storytelling. Oops.

In conclusion, The Fall Guy most definitely deserved to fail, and it certainly did just that.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga on the other hand…

Furiosa is the fifth film in the Mad Max franchise and is a prequel to 2015’s fantastic Fury Road, which received ten Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, and won six Oscars.

Fury Road didn’t break box office records but it did break more than even making $380 million on a $160 million budget.

In all honesty I am not a Mad Max fanatic. The first movies came out when I was a kid and I didn’t see them in the theatre. I did see them all as a teen on VHS though, and liked most of them (I wasn’t a real fan of Beyond Thunderdome), some a great deal…but it’s not a franchise with which I ever strongly identified despite my respect for it.

When Fury Road came out in 2015 after a thirty-year absence of Mad Max material, I didn’t see in the theatre but caught it on cable…and was absolutely blown away. Fury Road is an astonishing movie and is a monument to director George Miller’s brilliance.

Despite having missed the boat on Fury Road in the theatre, when Furiosa came along I, being the moron that I am, once again didn’t venture out to theatres to see it. In my defense, my time is much more limited now than it was back in 2015 (having kids will do that), so I sort of have an excuse – but not a very good one.

Unfortunately, I was not alone in not seeing Furiosa when it hit theatres on May 24th, as the movie made a measly $172 million during its run against a $168 million budget. The film performed so poorly that it seems likely that the Mad Max franchise may have breathed its last breath. Considering that the franchise’s director, George Miller, is 79, one can assume at the very least that Miller is done making Mad Max movies…which is a shame because he is extraordinarily good at it.

But now Furiosa is streaming on Max and I’ve seen it.

I can report that missing Furiosa in the theatre was a grievous mistake.

Furiosa isn’t perfect by any means. For instance, it isn’t nearly as good as Fury Road. But…it does feature some truly imaginative and original stunt sequences that are breathtakingly spectacular.

The film also features a stoic but solid performance from Anya Taylor-Joy, who lives up to the name of Furiosa with a fire in her eyes that is undeniable.

All of the magic that make George Miller such a dynamic moviemaker are evident in Furiosa, as he shoots his action sequences with a verve and aplomb that are unequalled in our CGI addicted world. (to be fair there is some CGI in Furiosa, but nothing compared to most movies).

As for why a film as good as Furiosa failed, it is difficult to say.

The marketing for Furiosa wasn’t particularly strong, I mean it didn’t move me to go see it, so that could be a reason.

I do recall the marketing being “female driven”, and some have speculated that having a female lead, Anya Taylor-Joy, could have turned off male audiences, so that could be it. People are certainly tired of culture war bullshit in their movies – myself included, and the impression could’ve been given by Furiosa’s marketing that this was a girl power movie…which is kryptonite nowadays for male audiences. But counter to that, that certainly wasn’t the case with Fury Road, which starred Charlize Theron, so it seems to be a thin argument. Although counter to that counter, Tom hardy had a starring role in Fury Road as well, so who knows.

Another reason could be that Furiosa is a prequel and people are tired of prequels and of having to “do the homework” of having to see all the other movies just to understand what is going on in the new movie. I think Marvel definitely suffers from this and maybe Mad Max does now too.

The truth is that Furiosa’s failure is both a mystery and frustrating to me. It’s a mystery because I can’t quite pinpoint what caused it, and it’s frustrating because Mad Max is a perfect action franchise for our times and would be a great franchise for Warner Brothers to mine for film and tv projects going forward. But now with Furiosa’s failure, that won’t happen.

After having seen Furiosa, and having found it to be a very well made, extremely solid piece of action entertainment and a noteworthy bit of Mad Max franchise filmmaking, I really don’t know why people didn’t go see it and why word of mouth wasn’t better and more useful.

To end this discussion, here’s my ranking of Mad Max movies.

5. Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome – Not an awful movie but easily the worst of the Mad Max movies.

4. Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga – This movie is world’s better than Beyond Thunderdome, and is very close in the running with Mad Max and Road Warrior.

3. Mad Max – The original is a down and dirty and disturbing movie that is undeniable.

2. Mad Max: The Road Warrior – The franchise makes the leap into the big time with a gritty and explosive action extravaganza.

1. Mad Max: Fury Road – The best of the best. Truly extraordinary piece of action filmmaking.

And finally…my ratings for The Fall Guy and Furiosa.

THE FALL GUY

Streaming: Peacock

Rating: 1 out of 5 Stars

Recommendation: SKIP IT

FURIOSA

Streaming: Max

Rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars

Recommendation: SEE IT!!

Thus concludes today’s autopsy of a bomb…or bombs as the case may be.

 ©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

Academy Awards Round-Up

A few notes about last night’s Oscar ceremony.

THE GOOD

First off, I won my Oscar pool…AGAIN. I got 19 out of 23 right. This continues my winning streak to an astonishing 36 years in a row. My goal from this point forward is to go undefeated in Oscar pools until I die…unfortunately that goal is very attainable considering the clock is ticking louder and louder until check out time for me.

Emma Stone winning Best Actress over the presumed favorite Lily Gladstone was a moment that had me cheering. I have no ill will towards Lily Gladstone, but the more I saw of her performance in Killers of the Flower Moon, the less I thought of it.

I did find it grating though that she seemed to be the front runner only because she was Native American and the Academy is addicted to all things Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. I assumed she’d win for that exact reason.

I was glad to be wrong because Emma Stone’s performance in Poor Things is utterly astonishing. It is one of the best performances in film in the last 25 years, if not longer. It is all-time great.

Considering that Stone is only 35 and already has two Best Actress Oscars, and frankly, should have a Best Supporting Actress one too for her work in The Favourite, reveals her to be the greatest actress of her generation.

She is also the type of actress who will continue to work and be effective past Hollywood’s usual due date regarding beautiful women…which is refreshing and exciting. I feel blessed to be alive to witness her rise to the throne of American movies.

Another moment that had me cheering was Jonathan Glazer’s acceptance speech when his film The Zone of Interest won Best International Feature.

Here is Glazer’s speech in full. He spoke nervously, but courageously.

“All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present — not to say, “Look what they did then,” rather, “Look what we do now.” Our film shows where dehumanization leads, at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October the — [Applause.] Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist? [Applause.] Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk, the girl who glows in the film, as she did in life, chose to. I dedicate this to her memory and her resistance. Thank you.”

Glazer said what needed to be said…and I would have encouraged him to go even farther. But regardless, it took real balls to speak up in that room among many powerful Hollywood people who would despise what he had to say. Good for him.

Speaking of cheering, Ryan Gosling was runner-up to Robert Downey Jr. in the Best Supporting Actor race, but there is no doubt he won Oscar night last night…all of it.

Gosling’s performance of “I’m Just Ken”, that gloriously insidious ear worm from Barbie, was the highlight of the evening and in recent Oscar history.

Added to that, Gosling and Emily Blunt had a genuinely funny back and forth about Barbie versus Oppenheimer that was the comedic height of the night.

Gosling is going to win an Oscar (and maybe already should have) someday and a big reason why is that he charmed the pants off of the Academy last night. These people remember that sort of thing and try to reward it.

Speaking of rewards, John Mulaney, a comedian I am at best lukewarm on, presented the Oscar for Best Sound and did a stellar bit about Field of Dreams. I can almost guarantee that he is offered the hosting gig next year or the next few years.

I was pleased that Oppenheimer had a good night, and that Poor Things and even The Zone of Interest did too. Those were easily the three best movies of the year, so it is fitting they got the lions share of the awards.

I was equally pleased that The Boy and the Heron by Hayao Miyazaki won Best Animated Film, and that Godzilla Minus One won Best Effects. Miyazaki and Godzilla are my favorite Japanese imports!!

I admit I was pleasantly surprised that Barbie did not get any awards (besides best song – which wasn’t “I am Ken” oddly enough). Ryan Gosling aside, Barbie was a shitty movie. Poor Things was Barbie but smarter and better made.

I also have to admit that I was pleased that Killers of the Flower Moon did not receive a single award. I love Martin Scorsese. He is a Mount Rushmore filmmaker for me…but Killers of the Flower Moon is a mess of a movie. I’ve seen and heard people call it a “masterpiece” which is ridiculous. Anyone calling Killers of the Flower Moon a masterpiece is revealing themselves to be a fool and philistine.

Overall, the greatest thing about the show was that it started an hour early and dupes and dopes like me who live in fly over country could watch the festivities and not get to bed at some ungodly hour.

THE BAD

I have to say I just don’t get Jimmy Kimmel, and frankly never have. I know he has a late-night show, one which I’ve never seen, and used to host The Man Show, which I’ve never seen either.

Kimmel seemed to verbally stumble over his delivery of jokes all evening, which only added to the issues with the third-rate shlock he was trying to sell. I don’t care if a comedian is “offensive” or “edgy” or anything like that – in fact I prefer it…but I do care when they suck at what they do. And Kimmel sucks at what he does.

Speaking of something that sucks, the memorial segment once again was idiotic and poorly designed. The Academy fucks this thing up every year and every year it annoys me and astounds me.

This isn’t hard. Don’t have dancers and some string quartet playing IN FRONT of the screen showing the people who died because then you can’t see the names of THE PEOPLE WHO DIED. Just show a video montage with music playing over it. Problem solved. Fucking idiots.

Speaking of idiots…who thought it was a good idea to have an 83-year-old Al Pacino, giving out the Best Picture award at the end of the night?

Pacino has famously recounted the first time he went to the Oscars in the 70’s and he was stoned out of his mind and was glad he didn’t win because he didn’t think he could walk to the stage. I think the stoned Pacino from the 70s would’ve done a better job that octogenarian Pacino did last night.

Pacino looked like he was just roused from a deep sleep in a nursing home and pushed onto the stage with an envelope in his hands. I love Al Pacino, but I don’t need him doing vital work at any show, be it awards or otherwise.

Speaking of things that died, Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer presented an award and attempted a comedy routine and it was like watching bowel surgery. Good lord this was excruciatingly not funny. Melissa McCarthy is usually pretty hysterical but holy shit did this bit bomb.

And finally…I am no fashionista, but what the fuck are people thinking when they choose dresses for this show? Da’Vine Joy Randolph is a terrific actress and a very deserving Best Supporting Actress winner last night, but she is a big woman and someone thought they should put her in some stupid puffy mermaid dress that makes her look even bigger. Ariana Grande is a tiny woman but they dressed her in the most buffoonish dress imaginable…she looked like a lap dog that had been thrown in a dyer for three cycles. Anyway, I will never understand why stylists can’t figure this stuff out.

Alright, that’s all I have for my brief thoughts on the 2024 Oscars. The bottom line is this…it could have been worse.

Stay tuned as later this week the greatest awards of all…The Mickeys™ and the Slip-Me-A-Mickey™ will be happening!! See you then!!

©2024

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Ep. 116 - Oscar Nominee Barbie

Barry and I don our pink beach wear as we talk about Greta Gerwiog’s blockbuster summer hit, Barbie, which is nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Topics discussed include the potential path of Greta Gerwig’s career, Margot Robbie’s alleged snub, and the sneaky brilliance of Elf.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Ep. 116 - Oscar Nominee Barbie

Thanks for listening!

©2024

Barbie: A Review - Pink Bubblegum Bullshit

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

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Underwhelming and disappointing. If you’re desperate to see it I’d say save your money and wait until it hits a streaming service.

I had no intention of seeing Barbie, the new blockbuster about the iconic Mattel doll starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, because I didn’t HAVE to see Barbie. You see, when I worked as a cultural critic for RT I had to watch and write about a lot of stuff I wasn’t that interested in simply because other people were interested in it which meant that it was culturally relevant. Well, I no longer work for RT so I no longer have to do that.

So, when Barbie came along, I just thought, due to the film’s obvious cultural politics and the fact that the film’s writer/director is Greta Gerwig – someone whose work I’ve never thought much of, it wasn’t for me so I’d skip this new battle in the endless and tiresome culture war.

But then Barbie, due to its relentless and highly effective marketing campaign, became an undeniable phenomenon, hauling in over a billion dollars at the box office and igniting a fan frenzy not seen at cineplexes in years, so I thought maybe I should see it. And then my wife said she wanted to see it…and whatever Lola wants…Lola gets! My thinking was, if people are going so nuts for this film - then maybe it’s worth seeing.

I went to a 10:30 AM screening on a Tuesday morning. Barbie had been in theaters for over two weeks at this point and still my screening here in mundane Middle America was totally sold out. Barbie is, like the recent Taylor Swift tour, satiating a primal need among our collective feminine culture for a massive communal “event”. An example of this eventizing impulse was that the theater I attended, which admittedly is not particularly big, looked like a sea of Pepto Bismol as it was overwhelmingly packed with pink wearing middle aged women (including one wearing just a big pink t-shirt…which didn’t cover nearly enough of her nether regions as it should have!) as well as teenage and pre-pubescent girls donning a ton of pink…along with some rather unfortunate looking pink-clad teen boys imprisoned in the friend zone desperate to win favor with their girl crushes with whom they were attending the screening.

My hope in seeing Barbie was that it was good and that I’d like it – I wasn’t the least bit interested in hate watching it. I fully expected to dislike the de rigueur girl power politics – something which I find to be pitiful and pathetic, but I hoped to like the film despite its predictable politics…something which I often do (for example my review of Promising Young Woman) if for no other reason than my own personal politics are so unorthodox.

The opening scene was a perfect example of what I was hoping for…as the film opens with a glorious homage to Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, where Gerwig replaces Kubrick’s monkeys with little girls playing with baby dolls and the mysterious monolith is replaced with a towering Margot Robbie as Barbie. While I was off-put by the visual of little girls smashing babies (even if they are dolls) in reaction to their newfound Barbie evolution, I still nodded in approval at this brilliant bit of moviemaking and it filled me with great anticipation for what followed.

And then I watched the rest of the movie. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there as the film meandered aimlessly through a convoluted yet corporate cookie-cutter plot, allergic to profundity or purpose, and never even remotely approaching the genius of its opening.

In totality Barbie is an underwhelming, disappointing, cheap, shoddy, shitty, bland, boring, corporate money-grab wrapped in a vacant, vapid and vacuous feminist manifesto. In other words, Barbie is a poorly made version of exactly the thing it often pretends to belittle and/or satirize.

The film begins in Barbieland, a matriarchal utopia devoid of not only male power but babies or children….even the lone pregnant Barbie is exiled to the outskirts of girl boss heaven. The bit of the film initially set in Barbieland is ever-so-slightly amusing at first and then it gets old very, very fast. There’s a dance number in this Barbieland sequence that is supposed to be fun and funny but that is so anemic and tiresome as to be astounding. The low point is when Gerwig uses a ridiculously cliched record scratch to inject reality into the phony festivities. Yawn.

The final two-thirds of the film feature Barbie venturing to the “real world” – which is nothing like the actual real world, and the “real world” venturing in to Barbieland. All of it is sloppy but the scenes in the “real world”, in particular, are a total storytelling and cinematic shit show devoid of any redeeming cinematic qualities. The Barbie in the real-world, fish-out-of-water stuff shockingly doesn’t even muster a minimal amount of comedy.

To be fair, I did laugh out loud a few times during Barbie, all thanks to the aggressively amusing Ryan Gosling who absolutely crushes it as the desperate and dim-witted Ken. Gosling is destined to be nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his unbreakable and unshakeable performance as Barbie’s platonic boy toy.

Speaking of the Oscars, it’s 100% guaranteed that there will be a Barbie-themed musical number at this year’s Oscar ceremony. You can absolutely bet your life on that. You can also count on Mattel to turn the success of the Barbie movie into a Broadway musical…which is an eerily similar concept to the hysterically funny Marvel musical featured in the Disney Plus series Hawkeye…except Mattel won’t be making the Barbie musical ironically.

Margot Robbie is ridiculously gorgeous and perfect as Barbie but there isn’t much there, there. Robbie’s physical perfection is all she needs to play this part and when she’s asked to do more than that her acting is undercut by a really abysmal script that is chock full of cringe, freshman level women’s studies diatribes that ring hollow and feel forced making Barbie feel less human than she already is.

Besides the glorious Gosling, the other supporting performances in Barbie are shockingly devoid of life.

Who knew that both Kate McKinnon and Will Ferrell could not only be so unfunny, but so bland and so forgettable? You’d be hard pressed to find two more energized comedic actors but on Barbie they seem constrained to the point of comatose.

Somewhat surprising is that for a movie full of Barbies, there’s only one attractive one in the bunch – Margot Robbie…and she is certainly very attractive despite the sneaky and obtuse internet marketing campaign prior to the film’s release arguing that she isn’t. I have no problem with a Barbie movie featuring the vast diversity of the Barbie doll collection…which means we get a black Barbie, a fat Barbie, a wheelchair Barbie, a trans-Barbie and so on…but what befuddles me is why do all these Barbies have to be so “beauty-impaired” and visually unappealing?

The rest of the supporting cast are all interchangeable, dull and completely forgettable. Issa Rae and Simu Liu are like two sides of the same charisma-deficient coin. Neither one is remotely interesting or likeable.

Michael Cera as Allan feels like he’s in an entirely different movie…maybe because the script he has to work with is so incoherent and idiotic.

America Ferrera plays Gloria, a mom and Mattel employee, and she is utterly abysmal. She does get to have the big monologue in the movie which begins with “it’s literally impossible to be a woman…” and goes downhill from there. This monologue has middle-aged women across the nation pumping their fists in the air like gold chain and muscle shirt wearing Guidos at a Rocky movie when the Italian Stallion gets off the canvas and beats the shit out of the villain du jour. But here’s the thing…I understand the perspective behind the “it’s literally impossible to be a woman” monologue, but the fact is it isn’t “literally” impossible to be a woman…billions of women do it every minute of every day. Yes, it is no doubt difficult to be a woman due to the constant contradictions one must navigate…but you know what else is equally difficult…being a man. The obstacles and difficulties one must face and overcome as a woman are no harder than the ones men must overcome, they’re just different.

Life is hard for human beings, and for modern day feminists to claim empowerment by perpetually play the victim all while demonizing men, is pretty repugnant and frankly counterproductive.

Barbie also does what our awful culture has normalized which is to conflate masculinity with toxic masculinity, a perilous proposition since it is unquestionably masculine men that carved out a safe space in a dangerous world where women are free to make insipid and insidious films about how awful men are.

My wife, a very, very independent, powerful and, dare I say it, feminist woman, turned to me after the film and the first thing she said was that she found it to be “damaging”. As the mother of a young son, she felt the film sent a negative message to girls and woman not just about the nature of men and boys but about what it means to be a girl/woman, so much so that it depressed her and made her fear for the future. And I must say, I completely concur with her astute observations.

I’ve heard it said that Barbie is Black Panther for white women, and that is very true as Black Panther was an overhyped, shitty movie too that became super successful because seeing it was an act of cultural-political virtue signaling.

Other movies have somewhat captured the cultural political zeitgeist in the same way that Barbie has but from a different angle. For example, Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper was a terrible movie but flag waving numbskulls flocked to see and support it because it reinforced their patriotic – or rather anti-liberal, bona fides. That American Sniper was a God-awful movie regardless of its politics was irrelevant as all the flag-wavers loved it even before it started – they loved it simply because it existed…just like the pink clad buffoons are enamored by Barbie regardless of how obviously bad it is.

Sound of Freedom is another movie that is a virtue signal movie currently in theatres. Sound of Freedom is about the scourge of child trafficking and has become a cause celebre for anti-libtard right wingers and as a result has done exceedingly well at the box office – raking in over a hundred million dollars. No doubt the crossover of American Sniper fans with Sound of Freedom fans is enormous. I’ve not seen Sound of Freedom…mostly because I just assume it is poorly made…but I can plainly see that it’s a virtue signal movie just like Barbie.

Another film I thought of when watching Barbie was, ironically enough, The Passion of the Christ. Mel Gibson’s 2004 film smashed box office records for an independent film and made him something like half a billion dollars since he financed it himself. Gibson wisely marketed the film directly to churches and church groups and it became a cultural signifier among Bush loving right wingers.

The marketing of The Passion of the Christ was remarkable, as, just like Barbie, everyone was talking about it even if they hadn’t seen it. Barbie’s marketing was brilliant because it removed the film’s politics from the campaign, made it seem as if it were for adults AND kids (it’s not for kids!) and it was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t escape the Barbie marketing machine, and frankly still can’t. That the marketing campaign has succeeded in making Barbie a cultural phenomenon doesn’t diminish the fact that the movie is garbage.

Truth be told I’ve never understood the critical love for Greta Gerwig’s films. Gerwig’s 2017 film Lady Bird was so overrated as to be astonishing. Critics adored the film yet I found it to be painfully thin and embarrassingly amateurish. It seemed to me that Gerwig, much like Jordan Peele who came out with Get Out in the same year (2017), was cashing in on the angry liberal political hysteria of the post-Trump election and were being elevated due to their race and gender, not their talent. Having seen both of Gerwig’s and Peele’s films since 2017 has only reinforced my belief regarding their lack of talent and skill and the absurd critical love they’ve received.

As for Barbie, I’ve had a rather interesting perspective on the film as I’ve watched from a distance as the usual suspects on both the left and right instinctively and reflexively loved or hated the film. Having finally seen the movie I can say that people who love it, who when pressed on its numerous shortcomings all say the same thing in defense of it, namely that “it’s fun!”, are delusional dupes and dopes. On the flip side, many of the critics reflexively hating it are so stuck on its politics that they don’t even care to examine the filmmaking….which feels less delusional than just plain disingenuous.

As for me, I didn’t like Barbie for the sole reason that Barbie isn’t a good movie.  Barbie isn’t funny and it isn’t interesting. That the film pretends to be rebellious, if not revolutionary, in its messaging, but then spews out the most corporate-friendly and approved, pedantic neo-feminist pablum, wrapped in a cavalcade of visually listless, dramatically lifeless, comedically flaccid scenes, makes it feel like watching a pink-hued Human Resources film for corporate employees to learn the new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion office rules.

The bottom line is that the masses being so enamored of Barbie says considerably less about the quality of the movie than it does about the easily manipulated morons populating our world and their astonishing level of group-think and gullibility, as well as the sorry state of our society and cinema.

Unfortunately, so few people nowadays are self-aware or introspective enough to resist massive marketing campaigns like the one around Barbie, which brainwashed otherwise intelligent people into not only mindlessly devouring this odious, rancid corporate pink taco but declaring they love it. I too succumbed and took a bite of the gigantic, rancid corporate pink taco that is Barbie, but to my minimal credit I at least am not foolish enough to don an oversized pink t-shirt sans pants and shriek “yummy…how fun!”

In conclusion, it is literally impossible for me to recommend Barbie.

Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2023

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 73 - The Grey Man

On this episode, Barry and I try not to put a bullet through our gray matter as we suffer through The Grey Man, the new Russo Brothers directed Netflix action movie starring Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans. Topics discussed include awful acting, awful directing, awful writing, awful establishing shots, awful action sequences, awful Chris Evans and Netflix's awful future. On the bright side, listeners will get to hear Barry's spirit break when he learns some shocking news about the Grey Man movie universe.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 73 - The Grey Man

Thanks for listening!

©2022

The Grey Man: A Review

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

My Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Ho-Lee-Shit this $200 million movie is atrocious.

The Grey Man is the new action film directed by Marvel billion-dollar blockbuster makers the Russo Brothers (Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame) and produced by Netflix, which premiered on the streaming service on July 22nd.

The movie, which stars Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans and tells the story of an off-the-books CIA hitman gone rogue, is most notable because its production budget is $200 million, which makes it the most expensive Netflix movie ever made. And you thought gas was expensive?

Inflation must be very real because $200 million just doesn’t buy you what it used to. The reality is that it would have been a much better decision, and infinitely more entertaining, to just use an intern’s iPhone to record Netflix executives lighting a $200 million pile of cash on fire than to make the disaster area that is The Grey Man.

The plot of the film exists but I’m not sure I can bring myself to actually write it as it’s so derivative and inane. Just know that a sort of Bourne-type CIA assassin (Gosling) goes off the reservation and now the CIA, most notably bitchy bureaucrat Denny Carmichael, played by a truly awful Rege-Jean Page whose acting style consists of nothing but occasionally yelling, are out to get him.

The Grey Man is one of those movies that’s so bad that it’s astonishing, as it seems impossible for so many professionals to be so incompetent at their jobs all at once.

Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (Joe also co-wrote the script) are the most to blame for the shitshow that is The Grey Man. I cannot recall a film that was so poorly directed, as everything from the story to the dialogue to the visuals to the staging to the action sequences to the acting is abominable. In addition, the film is all over the map in terms of tone and feels like ten different movies, all bad, smashed together into one.

The action sequences, which no doubt account for the majority of the bloated budget, are so amateurish and poorly shot as to be criminal. One scene, which must have busted the bank, involves an inner-city European trolley chase and gun fight that looks like it was conceived and shot by a one-eyed man with cataracts who lives in a dumpster behind the School for the Artistically Impaired.

On top of that, the performances are so excruciatingly poor they would make Michael Bay blush.

Ryan Gosling is the star of the movie and plays Sierra 6, so named because “007 was taken”. How clever. Gosling is a charming actor and makes the most of the uneven snarki-ness, but he is not even remotely menacing as a bad-ass CIA assassin, and, thanks to the inadequacies of the Russo Brothers his action sequences are a blurred and obstructed mess.

The luminous Ana De Armas plays a laughably-not-believable tough-as-nails CIA agent working with Gosling’s 6 and then against 6 and then with 6 again. Her character makes no sense and her performance is as throwaway as the rest of the movie.

Chris Evans plays a mustachioed villain named Lloyd Hansen who looks like he just stumbled out of a low-end Provincetown hot spot named “Harvard Hunk Hole” on a steamy summer afternoon. Evans isn’t exactly Laurence Olivier…or Tommy Wiseau for that matter, and the most egregious thing about his performance in The Grey Man is that you can see that he actually thinks it’s amazing. It’s like the wind whistling through his empty skull is playing the Academy Award theme song in every scene and he gets hypnotized by it and actually believes it.

Watching Evans pout and sashay around the movie like a psychopathic Richard Simmons at a sold out Miami Beach Liza Minelli concert was the equivalent of watching the art and craft of acting get hit by an apocalyptic meteor….speaking of which, watching The Grey Man made me envious of the dinosaurs and their extinction.

Speaking of the apocalypse, poor Billy Bob Thornton is in the movie and plays some CIA type dude, and he gets the honor of speaking such sterling dialogue as “hey, she’s got a pacemaker, you asshole!” Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

To give you an indication of how little thought and time went into making this $200 million monstrosity, consider this, not once, not twice, but three times, the Russo Brothers use the same action movie trope involving a grenade to propel the story. As each instance of this idiocy occurred, I kept wondering if I was having a stroke and was suffering from fast-onset dementia. But trust me, despite wishing I was having a stroke so I could lose consciousness and escape The Grey Man, I wasn’t…it was all just the Russo Brothers not giving a shit or even trying when they made this anti-cinematic abomination.

The bottom line is, if someone told me that The Grey Man was actually a science experiment where a band of syphilitic monkeys were locked in a room and given a typewriter, a movie camera and an editing machine, as well as copious amounts of Jack Daniels and meth amphetamine, and then came out three weeks later with this movie in the can, I would’ve believed it but still thought they under-performed.

If you want tangible evidence of how poorly run Netflix is and why it is going into a nosedive, look no further than the atrocity that is The Grey Man.

I urge you to avoid this movie at all costs. You’ll hate yourself even if you just hate watch it…it’s that bad.

©2022

The Tender Bar: A Review

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

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Another in a long line of painfully pedestrian, poorly made films from director George Clooney.

It’s easy to forget now, and it feels foolish in hindsight, but there was a time, long ago, when I got excited when I saw that a movie directed by George Clooney was coming out.

Back in the early to mid-2000’s, Clooney put out two pretty intriguing movies. In 2002, Clooney’s directorial debut, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, told the fictional tale of tv game show host Chuck Barris and fantastical claims about being a CIA assassin. It was a flawed but energetic film buoyed by a strong lead performance by Sam Rockwell.

In 2005, Clooney won critical acclaim with Good Night and Good Luck, his black and white historical drama about Edward R. Murrow’s clash with anti-communist zealot Senator Joseph McCarthy. The film, which featured a strong performance by David Strathairn, was nominated for six Academy Awards, but won none.

At this point Clooney’s directorial career was bursting with promise and he seemed to be following in his fellow Hollywood lothario Warren Beatty’s formidable footsteps in being a movie star who also directed well-respected, serious films.

But then, slowly but surely, things started to go downhill and Clooney was eventually exposed as a cinematic fraud.

First there was 2008’s Leatherheads, an empty-headed comedy, which garnered a 52% critical score and a dismal 38% audience score at the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes.

Clooney rebounded a bit in 2011 with The Ides of March, a political thriller starring Clooney and Ryan Gosling that other critics liked considerably more than I did.

But then the wheels really started coming off the wagon and fast.

In 2014 Clooney churned out the World War II drama, The Monuments Men, which went over like a lead balloon with a 30% critical score and 44% audience score at Rotten Tomatoes.

This was followed by the utterly abysmal, Matt Damon starring catastrophe Suburbicon, which cratered with a 28% critical and 25% audience score.

Then last Christmas Clooney gave us the cinematic equivalent of coal in our stockings with the limp, apocalyptic sci-fi of The Midnight Sky. And while critics gave it a 50% score at Rotten Tomatoes, audiences felt the same way about it that I did, loathing it to the tune of 26%.

Which brings us to Clooney’s latest directorial offering, The Tender Bar, which premiered on Amazon on December 7.

The Tender Bar is a coming-of-age story based on the popular memoir of J.R. Moehringer, a writer and journalist who was raised by a single mother on Long Island.

I’ve not read Moehringer’s memoir but I have to say, if his life is as dull, and insipid as Clooney’s film, then I genuinely feel sorry for the guy.

The Tender Bar feels like a two-hour episode of the late 80’s sitcom The Wonder Years minus the charm.  

Like The Wonder Years, The Tender Bar tells the story of a kid growing up on Long Island, features popular music of the day, and guides viewers with an all-knowing, voice-over narration. It’s also relentlessly sentimental and little more than a nostalgia delivery system.

Clooney still has sway among fellow actors in Hollywood so the cast of The Tender Bar includes notables like Lily Rabe playing J.R.’s mother, and Ben Affleck playing his cool Uncle Charlie.

While Affleck brings his movie star, cool guy A-game, the talented and terrific Rabe is under-utilized and left with next to nothing to do.

Tye Sheridan plays J.R. as a teen and young man, and despite his best efforts, he simply lacks the charisma and magnetism to carry a film like this.

Sheridan, like the rest of the cast, also mangles his Long Island accent. As someone with a plethora of family on Long Island, I couldn’t help but notice when many of the cast slipped into Boston accents instead of Long Island ones, which may have been a function of the film shooting in the Boston area.

The screenplay for The Tender Bar is written by Oscar-winner William Monahan, and is a disjointed and derivative piece of work that jumps from one dramatically incoherent and unsatisfying sequence to the next.

For instance, there’s a love story thrown into the film about halfway in that is so absurd as to be ridiculous, but it ends up, out of nowhere, being the major motivational force driving the feckless protagonist on his tedious journey.

But the majority of blame for The Tender Bar falls on the salt and pepper head of George Clooney.

Clooney as director, once again, brings nothing interesting or imaginative to the festivities, and he fails at even the most rudimentary of filmmaking tasks. For instance, his film skips or stumbles over the most easily attainable dramatic beats, and never gathers any storytelling momentum, or clearly sets out and accomplishes any narrative or character arcs.

The end result is a movie that is a staggeringly pedestrian, dramatically inert, cinematic venture.

Considering Clooney’s previously documented precipitous decline as a director, and The Tender Bar’s current tepid 52% critical score, I think it’s time for Clooney to hang up his director’s hat and go sit in his mansion made of gold and count his billions of dollars.

The entirely forgettable, sub-mediocrity of a movie that is The Tender Bar, isn’t a spectacular failure or the Hollywood equivalent of the Hindenburg. No, The Tender Bar is just one more monument to Clooney’s directorial malfeasance and a case of his filmmaking career going out with a whimper instead of a bang. Let’s all raise a glass and toast to Clooney’s latest dismal directorial effort being his last.

 A version of this article was originally published at RT.

©2022

First Man: A Review

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

My Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. An unorthodox take on a “space movie” that I found to be ultimately satisfying and moving…but your mileage may vary.

First Man, written by Josh Singer and directed by Damien Chazelle, is the story of Neil Armstrong and his long march to the moon. The film stars Ryan Gosling as Armstrong, with supporting turns from Claire Foy, Jason Clarke and Kyle Chandler.

First Man is a film that, for good or for ill, defies expectations. One would expect a film about Neil Armstrong and NASA to be a “space” movie in the vein of the expansive The Right Stuff or Apollo 13, but First Man is not a conventional space movie but rather a painstakingly intimate movie that uses space as metaphor.

What makes Neil Armstrong such a compelling character not only in this film but in our culture, is that he was an exceedingly “normal” person. Armstrong was the everyman of the space program which turned him into a sort of empty vessel which the public could project upon whatever traits they wished. Armstrong was portrayed in the media as smart, strong, honorable, noble and patriotic, but what Chazelle does in First Man is make Armstrong less heroic and more human by showing him to be wounded.

Armstrong’s wound is so palpable and catastrophic that he must risk life and limb and travel 238,900 miles in an attempt to soothe it. Ultimately, Armstrong’s journey to the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns, isn’t a running away from his wound, but a solemn yet desperate pilgrimage to it.

The moon in First Man is not a destination or ambition but a ghost, haunting Armstrong at every turn as he tries to take one small step for man through the fog of mourning in an attempt to regain his balance and find some semblance of normalcy once again.

By flouting “space movie” expectations, First Man can be a bit frustrating, but once you accept the premise and go along the dramatic journey, it becomes a remarkably satisfying and deeply moving experience. I readily admit that my own personal life experience made the film resonate with me and that others with a different life experience may not find it so worthwhile.

Emotional pull aside, director Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land) shows a deft and skilled hand at the helm of First Man. Chazelle’s film wonderfully mirrors Armstrong the man and the character in that it is strictly compartmentalized. Armstrong walls off his emotions and contains his pain and Chazelle uses magnificent framing to express this dramatic reality.

Chazelle also pulls off shooting in very tight spaces, like in the cockpit of a space capsule, by embracing rather than shunning the claustrophobia of those places. Chazelle recreates the physically and emotionally suffocating experience of being compartmentalized to such a degree that you can’t even turn your head to look at the exit, never mind walk through it. Chazelle’s embrace of dramatic claustrophobia also pays off when the cinematic expanse of the moon is finally reached.

Ryan Gosling’s work as Neil Armstrong is spot on, as he keeps with the theme of the film by keeping Armstrong entirely contained. The pain pulsating through Gosling’s Armstrong is tangible, but he keeps it tightly controlled, never letting the wound gush, only fester. The final scene of the film beautifully illustrates Armstrong’s dilemma, he is walled off and isolated, if not quarantined, from the world, and even from his wife, and he is at a loss for words, but still has the desperate human need to connect, even if he is unable to.

The long journey of Armstrong to Lunar catharsis is so potent because it is so deftly and subtly portrayed by Gosling, who with First Man proves once again that he is more an actor than a movie star.

Claire Foy’s work as Janet, Armstrong’s wife, is equally compelling. Foy’s Janet is much more combustible than Neil, but that just means it takes more effort for her to keep herself together. Foy and Chazelle imbue Janet with a percolating dynamism through a focused intensity and a mildly floating hand-held camera that gives Janet the feel of being ever so slightly unbalanced and teetering out of control, like a satellite knocked off its orbit. Janet has a volcanic magnetism that is a testament to Foy’s making the most out of what, in lesser hands, would have been just another astronaut wife character, at best an adoring moon, but Foy’s Janet is a planet unto herself, spinning in a wilder orbit around a dying Sun.

The rest of the supporting cast, which includes Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Corey Stoll and Ciaran Hinds among many others, all do solid work in mostly underwritten roles. The supporting cast are most definitely very small pieces around the sun that is Ryan Gosling, who, along with Claire Foy, carry the emotional and dramatic weight of the picture.

First Man is really a story about alchemy through fire and ice (recurring themes throughout the film) and the psychological transformation and evolution that comes about through the alchemical Grail quest. Neil Armstrong’s connection to the cause of his existential anguish gets further and further away with every passing second, and he single-mindedly chases it through the fire of earth and its atmosphere all the way to the cold silence of the moon to catch up to it one last time.

In conclusion, First Man is not what you’d expect it to be, but it is all the better for it. I definitely recommend you spend your hard earned dollars to see it in the theatre (IMAX if possible). Director Damien Chazelle and star Ryan Gosling create a worthwhile and serious film of dramatic heft that turns the gigantic evolutionary moment of a human expedition to the moon into an intense and intimate evolutionary moment for a single man. When Neil Armstrong said it was “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”, he would’ve been more accurate to say that it was “one small step for mankind, and one giant leap for his humanity”.

©2018

Blade Runner 2049 : A Review

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

Estimated Reading Time: 6:10:21

My Rating: 3.25 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A good but not great film worth seeing in the theatre for the beautiful cinematography alone.

Blade Runner 2049, written by Hampton Fancher and directed by Denis Villeneuve, is the sequel to Ridley Scott's iconic 1982 film Blade Runner starring Harrison Ford. Blade Runner 2049 stars Ryan Gosling as K, with Ford reprising his role as Sam Deckard along with supporting turns from Robin Wright, Jared Leto and Ana de Armas.

I was very excited to see Blade Runner 2049 because I am such a tremendous fan of Ridley Scott's original Blade Runner. That film, which is required viewing in order to fully understand and appreciate Blade Runner 2049, was a thoroughly unique, neo-noir, apocalyptic take on the science fiction genre which explored what it means to be human, a god and everything in between. Blade Runner 2049 is a good, but not great, sequel to the Blade Runner. 

What makes Blade Runner 2049 worth seeing, and worth the effort of seeing in the theatre in particular, is that it is one of the most cinematically gorgeous films you will ever witness. Ryan Gosling gets top billing for the movie, but cinematographer Roger Deakins is undoubtedly the star of this film. Deakins and director Denis Villeneuve worked together on Sicario in 2015 to spectacular effect, which earned Deakins the much coveted Mickey ©® Award for Best Cinematography. 

Each of Deakins' shots in Blade Runner 2049 are like masterpieces depicted on a futuristic canvas. Deakins paints with a lush and vibrant palette that is striking to behold and alone is well worth the price of admission. His deft use of shadow and moving light is exquisite and effectively reveals the deeper sub-text of the narrative. Deakins is one of the preeminent cinematographers of his day and Blade Runner 2049 will no doubt garner him another much deserved Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography. This expected nomination will be his fourteenth nomination and thus far, as incredible as it is to believe, he has never won the award. 

Director Denis Villeneuve does admirable work on Blade Runner 2049 but he ultimately comes up short in making the most of the complex philosophy, theology and psychology that made the original film so fascinating. The running time of the film is two hours and 45 minutes, which makes it a long movie. I am one of those weird people who actually really likes long movies, but with such a long running time you would expect Villeneuve to thoroughly flesh out all of the intricacies involved in the story, instead he squanders much of his time and in the second half of the film the story loses momentum. The Blade Runner mythology is so vast and so philosophically rich that Villeneuve's cinematic meandering feels like a sin when he loses narrative specificity and falls onto the easy path of generic storytelling. 

For a film that has so much time to use it frustrates by failing to give adequate purpose and meaning to the character's on-screen actions. The story begins to fall apart in the second half of the film because things become much too neat and simple to be intriguing or believable. This is a shame and this fundamental filmmaking error can only be blamed on Villeneuve. 

To Villeneuve's credit, he does undergird the film with subtle and effective nods to Apocalypse Now (in particular in the Wallace scenes with their stark shadow and light contrast) and even A Clockwork Orange (with Las Vegas looking like a colossally overgrown Korova Milk Bar). This is the second big blockbuster sequel to pay homage to Apocalypse Now this year, with War for the Planet of the Apes being the first. This, along with the contrasting red/blue color scheme, certainly gets my attention in regards to the Isaiah/McCaffrey Wave Theory, but that is a discussion for another day.

As for the acting, Ryan Gosling does solid if unspectacular work as K. He is the driving force for the entire film and certainly has the charisma to pull it off. I have always found Gosling to be an interesting actor and he doesn't disappoint in Blade Runner 2049. What may be most appealing about Gosling in the film is his underlying and undying sense of his humanity which is palpable and serves him and the story very well. 

The supporting cast is much less impressive. Regardless of his history of box office returns, Harrison Ford has always been a rather wooden, second rate actor and he proves that once again as the older version of Rick Deckard. Ford seems so detached from his surroundings it feels like he is in a constant state of having just been woken up. 

The more surprising of bad performances in the film belongs to an actress that I absolutely think is fantastic, and that is Robin Wright. I have been a fan of Ms, Wright's work for decades, but in Blade Runner 2049 she turns in a really awful piece of work. It seems to me that Ms. Wright is stuck in the rhythm, voice and posture of her House of Cards character Claire Underwood and it terribly under serves her as Lt. Joshi. This is a common problem for actors who have success in a television show where they must play the same character for months on end, year after year. That said, I was shocked to see it happen to an actress as talented and skilled as Robin Wright, but happen it did. Her character in Blade Runner 2049 is actually very pivotal to the story, so when she fails to deliver a quality performance, the film really suffers for it.

Jared Leto, as always, does very good but strange work as the bizarre and god-like Niander Wallace. Leto is nothing if not committed to his roles, and that approach serves him well as the blind creator Wallace. Much like Woody Harrelson in War for the Planet of the Apes, there is a whiff of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now in Leto's creation, but it is entirely appropriate and always compelling.

I wish Blade Runner 2049 had been better as I ended up being mildly disappointed with it, which may have more to do with my high expectations after a 35 year wait rather than the film's failings. Blade Runner 2049 really is a decent film, but it could have and should have been much better than it was. There is true cinematic greatness lurking beneath the surface of Blade Runner 2049, but director Villeneuve fails to adequately conjure it to the surface and instead delivers a film that passes for good enough but not great. That said, I do recommend you watch the original film first and then go see Blade Runner 2049 in the theatre, if only to meditate on what it means to be human and to marinate in the spectacular genius of the visual masterpiece delivered by cinematographer Roger Deakins.

©2017

Song to Song : A Review

****THIS IS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME VERY MINOR SPOILERS (Discussion of themes and plot structure)!!!! THIS IS TECHNICALLY NOT A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!****

My Rating : 4.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation : SEE IT (with caveats).  If you are a fan of director Terrence Malick, you will enjoy this film a great deal. If your tastes are less "experimental" and more conventional, you will absolutely hate this movie, so skip it.

Song to Song, written and directed by Terrence Malick, with cinematography by three time Academy Award winner Emmanuel Lubezki, is a meditation on love, shame, sex, mercy and forgiveness set in the music scene of Austin, Texas. The film stars Rooney Mara, Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender and Natalie Portman.

For some reason, every time I go see a Malick film in the theaters, I run into some issue with my fellow moviegoers. This time around I had two white-haired biddies come into the theatre as the previews rolled and they proceeded to talk very loudly during them. Then when the film started, one of the old Crones said very loudly, "it's hot in here!!".

I turned and said to them, in as gentle a voice as possible, "excuse me ladies, would you mind not talking, that would be awesome." They said, "ok", but then proceeded to talk throughout the entire film anyway. I kept getting distracted by these two nasty hags and daydreamed of stomping their empty skulls to dust with my steel toed boots every time they felt the need to say how much they hated the film as it was playing. 

I never killed them, or even kicked them, as much as I wanted to, mostly because I assumed one or both of them were packing heat…just a hunch...but because of this irritating distraction it was difficult for me to get into the proper Malick head space to watch the film. The first third of the movie was definitely a struggle, but against all odds, Song to Song was able to win me over, and in the final two thirds was able to transport me into the mind and spirit of its genius director, no small feat with the Greek chorus of dipshits persistently chiming in behind me. 

Enigmatic filmmaker Terrence Malick's work can be an acquired taste, I readily acknowledge this fact. His recent string of films, Tree of Life, To the Wonder, Knight of Cups and this year's Song to Song, are often times describes as "experimental" films. I label them "contemplative cinema" because they are not meant to be watched like you watch a "regular" movie with a linear narrative, but is meant to be enjoyed as more of a meditative storytelling experience.

Malick speaks in a very distinct language, and if you do not understand that language, his films will not only be confusing, but will be downright frustrating and irritating. It would be like watching a foreign film without the subtitles and with sunglasses on. Hence you get people like the two morons behind me who were so out of their depth watching Song to Song they felt the need to assume everyone was equally as ill-equipped to understand what they were watching. Those old whores (again this is just a hunch, I have no definitive proof that they have or had sex for money) didn't understand Malick's language, hell, they probably thought they were going to see the animated musical Sing.

The thing to understand before going to see a Malick film is that Malick makes films that speak in a veiled, but distinctly religious and cinematic language. The trouble with this is that the people who are artistically cultured enough to understand the cinematic language, will most likely be members of the Church of the Libertine and not understand Malick's Gnostic Catholic religious language, and those with the religious understanding will not be cinematically sophisticated enough to understand the structure, style and visuals of the film. It is a dilemma, no doubt, but at this point, I do not care, as I am apparently one of a very, very tiny minority of people (and critics) for whom Malick's film's deeply resonate. I don't care how, or why that is, just that it is. I consider myself blessed because of it. If you do not "get" Malick's work, that is on you, and I beg you to keep your ignorance to yourself, because next time I might not be so reticent and go full on Hulk and smash those who ruin my sacred experience in the local art house. 

As for the film itself, cinematographer Lubezki once again does a masterful job with his floating and dancing camera that creates an otherworldly aura about the entire project. Malick's films, (and Lubezki's), are gorgeous to look at, but they also tell the deeper story of the film with visuals alone, and so it is with Song to Song. Lubezki consistently moves his camera from left to right, sometimes to observe a conversation, other times to expand the make up of the shot. The left to right camera movement is meant to symbolize the alchemical journey the lead character makes on the "left hand path" away from her center.

Regardless of what Lubezki is shooting in Song to Song, each fluid shot offers a brief glimpse at a visual masterpiece. It is like spinning your way through an art museum, the view is staggeringly beautiful, but ephemeral, quickly replaced by a new work of wonder to amaze you.

The themes that Malick examines in Song to Song are similar to the ones he explored in his Dante-esque masterpiece Knight of Cups. This time though, the main, but not exclusive, protagonist is a woman, Rooney Mara's Faye, a struggling musician in Austin, as opposed to the man at the center of Knight of Cups, played by Christian Bale, who was navigating the perils of Hollywood.

Rooney Mara does exquisitely wondrous work as Malick's muse Faye. Mara is able to fill the camera, and her scenes with a painfully yearning melancholy that is mesmerizing to watch. She seems wonderfully comfortable with her discomfort in front of Malick's camera, and that translates remarkably well to the myth at the heart of the film. Mara's face is striking, and she is able to draw the viewer in towards her even while she withdraws into her cocoon of self doubt and spiritual turmoil.

Ryan Gosling plays BV, a song writer and Faye's love interest, while Michael Fassbender is music producer Cook and Natalie Portman plays Cook's girlfriend Rhonda. They all do top-notch, and at times spectacular work in Song to Song. BV's Christ-like gentle nature and kind heart are balanced by Cook's Mephistophelean and insatiable hunger, just like Faye's melancholic yearning is balanced by Rhonda's crushing desperation. 

Cate Blanchett also has a small role but proves once again what a extraordinary actress she truly is. Blanchett is a wonder to behold in her brief screen time. She can tell an entire story with just the smallest of gestures with her hands, watch her tap the glass!! I would encourage any and all actors to closely watch Ms. Blanchett's hands in both Song to Song and in Knight of Cups to see a masterclass in subtly powerful acting.

As with many of Malick's films, most notably Knight of Cups, the theme of forgetting one's true self runs throughout. Faye has forgotten her true nature, her connection to God and her goodness. Like a Prodigal daughter she must leave home, and the Divine, and take the "left hand path" of struggle in order to return to her center out of choice, not chance. Unlike most films, Song to Song is structured as a circle, not a straight line. When Faye returns to where she began, it all seems so new that it is only vaguely familiar. The starting point is the same, but Faye is different, she sees it with new eyes.

The haunting sense of the familiar, and of a lost connection to the true self are common themes that Malick explores in many of his more recent films. Malick films are like dreams and should be watched and understood through that prism. Everything means something, but not what it appears to mean on the surface. And, as in all Malick movies, and as it is in dreams, time in Song to Song is at best fluid, and at most, non-existent.

As Faye tries to return to the Eden she left behind, she is seduced by the temptations of the "left hand path" of this world, success, fame, wealth, and power. But this is a fallen world, and Cook, like the fallen angel Satan, is the king of it. To follow the path of Cook is to embrace the momentary over the eternal, the profane over the divine. While Cook's world is deliciously tantalizing, it is most assuredly the way of spiritual death. On some level Faye knows this, but the allure of that sweet death can be both intoxicating and spellbinding. 

The message at the heart of Song to Song is one that should resonate with spiritual seekers of all kinds, that in order to return to our true selves and higher nature, we must evolve beyond our animal drives and instincts, and simplify our lives and embrace a true and honest heart inspired love (as opposed to genital inspired). Of course, that is much easier said than done, and even when one makes that choice, their more base desires will still call out to them like the Sirens singing ships into their doom on the pointy rocks of shore, but as Song to Song shows us, evolution is a process, one that is cyclical and circular. We return Home from our travels and travails, born anew, but will be called once again to the "left hand path" of our lesser urges and will have to make the journey all over again, just with new eyes.

When BV washes Faye, her sins are cleansed, her heart and soul clear, and they are both born again into a new, and more simple life. Cook will still be in Austin hunting for souls, damaged ones or ones he seeks to damage, but the key for Faye and BV is to return to the simplicity of Eden. Their journey is a return to the earth, a return to love, a return to their true and higher selves. 

Mercy and the freedom of forgiveness are the gifts Faye receives and they propel her to evolve beyond her limiting animal nature, and to sacrifice her wants for the higher purpose of her true self and love. I know this all sounds very new-agey, but it isn't, it is in many ways deeply traditionalist, just without the female subservience. The answer for Faye and BV, is a traditionalist return to a grounding on the earth, not the new age promise of life among the stars. And this may be why Malick's film has caused such a negative stir among cinephiles. The more sophisticated of viewers will probably be members of the Church of the Libertine, and therefore will not see Faye's dalliances with debauchery or moral and ethical compromises as problematic, they would see them as a form of freedom. But the reality is that freedom for Faye, and for many of us, is an illusion, and comes with a steep price, namely your soul. 

That message is anathema to American culture, one that celebrates the individual’s wants and demands instant gratification of any and all desires. As Song to Song tells us, sex is a gift, and to abuse it for any reason is a sin against oneself and the divine. That is a message that most members of the Church of the Libertine will reject out of hand, which may explain why critics are so hostile to Song to Song, as they are unconsciously repulsed by the films moral, ethical and spiritual compass.

Song to Song is a piece of art to be experienced, not a puzzle to be solved. The film, like all of Malick's recent work, not only works visually and acoustically, but viscerally. Song to Song, if you can lose yourself in it, washes over you like the cool waters of a cinematic baptism, inviting the viewer to witness the struggle and the possibility of faith and a true and transcendent love. 

If you are a lover of more mainstream fare, Song to Song is most definitely not for you…not at all. If you love Malick films, I believe you will love Song to Song. If you are somewhere in the middle, I would assume that Song to Song would be a bridge too far for you. This type of cinema, whether you call it "experimental" or "cinematic contemplation", is very challenging, and if you aren't up for the challenge, then you should stick to your comfort zone. But if you do make the ambitious trek to see Song to Song, then please just give yourself over to it. And if you hate it, keep it to yourself. Let's make a deal, I won't ruin the Fast and Furious movies for you, and you don't ruin Malick movies for me? Ok? Great!! See you at the concession stand!!

©2017

La La Land : A Review

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

Estimated Reading Time : 5 minutes and 44 seconds

My Rating : 4 out of 5 stars.

My Recommendation : SEE IT. Take the time and effort and go see it in the theatre as it is a very enjoyable film.

La La Land, written and directed by Damien Chazelle, is the story of Sebastian, a struggling jazz musician and Mia, an aspiring actress, who meet and fall in love in Los Angeles. The film stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone with supporting turns by John Legend and Rosemary DeWitt.

La La Land is one of those movies that critics and layman alike will all undoubtedly describe as "charming and delightful". A big reason why they will describe it as "charming and delightful' is because it really is "charming and delightful". As cynical as I am, and goodness knows I am very cynical when it comes to Hollywood, La La Land with its vibrantly contagious spirit, was able to break through any resistance I had to it and will most likely breakthrough with other, less jaded viewers as well.

A major factor in La La Land's charm and delightfulness are the two leads. Both Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are incredibly likable actors and they are at their most agreeable as Sebastian and Mia. For as handsome as Gosling is, and he is impossibly handsome, he is somehow able to play a somewhat abrasive, jazz-purist oddball with a remarkably grounded appeal and subtle charisma. Emma Stone gives an enchantingly strong performance as Mia, the under-employed actress and barista. Stone is able to exude an inner vivacious luminosity that gives her an undeniable magnetism and presence on screen. The fact is, both of these actors are so enjoyable together and have such electric chemistry, that you could watch them banter, flirt and perform with each other for days on end. 

The script and the direction are very well done by Damien Chazelle, who proved with his last film, the critically-acclaimed Whiplash, that he is a formidable filmmaking talent. Once again Chazelle has music in general, and jazz in particular, at the center of his story. Chazelle is really gifted at visually portraying music and musicians in a genuine and realist way, which many filmmakers fail to accomplish. Chazelle's camera becomes just another instrument in the band and another partner in the dance, making the entire film not just a musical, but a piece of musical art, a piece of dance art and piece of cinematic art all at once. Cinematographer Linus Sandgren  paints the Los Angeles of La La Land with a lush and gorgeous palette, creating a vivid and intoxicating dreamscape.

The dance numbers in La La Land are pretty remarkable in that they are almost all done in one take, which is no small feat with such complicated blocking. The thing to realize as you watch La La Land's musical numbers is that Chazelle doesn't use a static camera, like they did in say the Oscar winning musical Chicago, so not only must the choreography of the dancers and performers be perfect, but the choreography of the camera must be integrated as well.

La La Land is a staggering technical accomplishment when you take the intricacies of the musical numbers and the filmmaking process into account. It is also a truly unique and original piece of work that manages to pay homage to the classic Hollywood musicals of yesteryear yet also reinvents that genre with a new, sort of everyman, millennial day-dreamer musical. 

La La Land works on many levels. It is a tribute to Hollywood's distant and not-so distant past (there is a hidden homage to Boogie Nights in it that only the most eagle-eyed will catch) and is also an examination of the life of an artist in a world of commercialism. In addition, the film is a testament to keeping the faith and staying the path in terms of one's artistic purity. Both Sebastian and Mia have to suffer the slings and arrows of the commercial life in order to gather the courage to return to their artistic roots to find fulfillment and happiness which in turn morphs into commercial success, in other words, the Hollywood circle of life. But, as any struggling actor or musician will testify, the battle for artistic purity is never as cut and dried as the artist wishes it were. For example, Sebastian is a jazz purist, but is a demand for jazz purity the reason jazz is dying? Chazelle asks this same type of question of his audience regarding cinema while paying homage to the old Astaire musicals that purists adore, but he presents that tribute in a new, less purist and more populist, package, which is pretty brilliant. 

La La Land is a layered film that can be enjoyed on many levels. You can watch and enjoy it as a pure rom-com, or a love story, or a musical, or an homage to Hollywood or a mediation on the artists struggle, or a combination of all of these. It is tough to watch La La Land and not be overcome by its unrelentingly joyous energy. I recommend you spend your hard earned money and sparse free time by going to see La La Land in the theaters, I think you will find it worth the time and effort.

La La Land will no doubt win a boatload of awards at this years Oscars because Hollywood loves nothing more than movies about itself. I know, I know, you are shocked to hear that Hollywood is so rapaciously narcissistic, it is like hearing that Wall Street is greedy or D.C. corrupt, it can be jarring to realize...but I promise you that it really is true. Besides Hollywood rewarding movies that are about Hollywood, it also loves musicals, even the dreadful ones like Chicago, which means a good one like La La Land is going to be sitting pretty come Oscar Sunday. I assume that Gosling, Stone, Chazelle and a cinematographer Linus Sandgren along with a plethora of behind-the-scenes artists will be nominated and most likely win Oscars as well as the film getting Best Picture. While I thoroughly enjoyed the film, my award voting preferences trend toward more existential and substantial material, so I wouldn't necessarily vote the same way as the Academy. That said, I also won't complain when Hollywood rewards La La Land. There is no sense in complaining here in Hollywood, for as Jake Gittes' partner Lawrence Walsh so eloquently taught me in the film Chinatown, "Forget it, Jake. Its Chinatown." So on Oscar night, as Martin Scorsese and Silence, and Terence Malick and Knight of Cups get overlooked, I'll just keep reminding myself..."Forget it, Mick. It's La La Land."

©2017

The Big Short : A Review, a Diagnosis and a Warning

ESTIMATED READING TIME: TEN MINUTES

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!****

MY RATING: SEE IT IN THE THEATRE!

"IT AIN'T WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT GETS YOU IN TROUBLE, IT'S WHAT YOU KNOW FOR SURE THAT JUST AIN'T SO." - MARK TWAIN

The Big Short, directed by Adam Mckay and written by McKay and Charles Randolph (based on the book The Big Short by Michael Lewis), is the story of a collection of men who foresaw the financial collapse of 2007/2008 and bet big against the housing bubble and Wall Street and won.

The Big Short is a truly remarkable film, without a doubt one of the very best of the year. It takes the difficult and complex subject of finance in general, and the collapse of 2007/2008 in particular, and not only breaks it down into understandable pieces, but does so in an extremely entertaining and insightful way.

When The Big Short ended and the credits rolled, I was curious as to who directed the film. I was stunned when I saw that Adam McKay, of all people, had directed it. Prior to The Big Short,  Adam McKay was better known as Will Ferrell's director, having been at the helm for the Ferrell films Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Stepbrothers, and Anchorman 2 : The Legend Continues. In my mind, directing a singular comedic talent like Will Ferrell amounts to turning on the cameras and getting out of the way. It was previously unthinkable that a director with Adam McKay's resume would have the skill to make a film as impeccably crafted as The Big Short. McKay's direction is nothing short of masterful. McKay is able to flawlessly weave together the multiple, complicated narratives of the film, all while never losing the mesmerizing pace of the story. He shows a tremendously deft touch even with the most minor of scenes and lets the visuals tell as much of the story as the dialogue. 

There is a subtlety and specificity to McKay's direction that speaks volumes to his talent and vision. Two sequences stand out in this respect. The first is when we see a brief daytime long shot of Las Vegas with a freeway in the foreground where a homeless man urinates in the shadows of the traffic. The man, with his shopping cart filled with his possessions by his side, is barely visible in the shot, but that is the point, because those obliviously driving by him on the freeway above are blind to his plight and the one that awaits them as well.

The second shot is of a man and his family, who we meet very briefly earlier in the film, evicted from their rental home because of a landlord who gets foreclosed upon. The family now live in their van parked at a convenience store. This scene, which is visuals accompanied by a voice-over not directly connected to the action, shows a little boy running away from the family van. The shot is maybe three seconds long, but it stops your heart it is so well done. This shot cinematically conveys to the viewer absolutely everything they need to know, and all without a word. It shows how vulnerable and dangerous life is for people on the margins in America. My reaction to that brief shot was visceral…how could it not be? The shot is so quick you can only react to it on a gut level, and at that level, you instantly fear that the little boy will run into traffic. That shot connects the bigger story of The Big Short, to the human story of those devastated by the housing collapse. That little boy is in danger and it is because of the shenanigans of the big banks. These two shots/sequences are the type of small details that make all the difference in a film, and they highlight Adam McKay's exquisite direction of The Big Short.

The acting in the film is solid across the board. Ryan Gosling easily does the best work of his career as Jared Vennett, a bond salesman at Deutsche bank. He gives a funny, dynamic and charismatic performance that is the engine driving the film forward. Steve Carrell does exhaustive work playing the unlikable but ultimately compelling Michael Baum, the manager of a hedge fund whom Vennett approaches to invest against the housing market. Christian Bale gives a layered and intricate performance as Dr. Michael Burry, the eccentrically awkward mastermind who uncovers the fraud at the heart of the housing bubble. Brad Pitt brings a surprising gravity and humanity to the film as former JP Morgan trader Ben Rickert, and acts as a counterbalance to Gosling's fast talking and ego-driven Vennet. The rest of the cast is superb as well, with Hamish Linklater, Rafe Spall, Jeremy Strong, Max Greenfield and Billy Magnussen among others who all do standout work.

"TRUTH IS LIKE POETRY, AND MOST PEOPLE HATE POETRY" - OVERHEARD AT A WASHINGTON, D.C. BAR

I saw The Big Short in the theatre on the same day that I saw Spotlight. This was just by coincidence, but in hindsight it is easy to see that the movies are actually companion pieces. They have a lot in common as both The Big Short and Spotlight are flawlessly crafted films. Both pictures are superbly written, acted, directed, shot and edited. In addition both The Big Short and Spotlight explore similar themes, namely institutional blindness, perverted forms of religion, and the moral and ethical rot at the center of American life. 

"TO SEE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF ONE'S NOSE NEEDS A CONSTANT STRUGGLE." - GEORGE ORWELL

The institutional blindness on display in The Big Short runs not only through Wall Street, but also the media and Washington. When you hear talking heads on television say that no one saw the financial collapse of 2007-2008 coming, realize that this is just one more form of that blindness. Hindsight is usually 20/20, but not when you are unable to admit you were catastrophically wrong in the first place. As the great American Prophet (or is it Profit?) Dr. Phil is fond of saying, "you can't change what you don't acknowledge"…you're god-damned right about that, good doctor. Besides the characters at the center of The Big Short, there were other people who saw the collapse coming too, but they were the "wrong" people, so no one listened to them. Hell, even a clueless dope like me saw it coming. Ask my poor clients who had to listen to me ramble on and on about it day after day. Of course, most of those clients, and most of my friends, just nodded politely at my ramblings and ignored them…and lost a ton of money. I, and a very tight circle of friends, ended up being right not because we were geniuses, God and you dear reader know that isn't true, but rather because we weren't infected by the mania brought on by the lure of easy money that had gripped, and still grips, the nation. One of the glaring symptoms of this mania is that it brings with it a greed-induced frenzy that makes it, to paraphrase Orwell, 'hard to see what is right in front of your nose'.

The institutional blindness at the core of American capitalism comes from years of uncritical thinking from the people inside its foundational institutions. No one at any level of the American capitalism food chain, from University economics and finance departments, to the media to government to Wall street, dare question the basic premise of American capitalism because it has become a most-holy, sacred religion. This religion deems insatiable greed not only healthy for the economy, but a "good" and worthy attribute for everyone. This new church of American capitalism found a cinematic saint in Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone's 1987 film Wall Street, but St. Gordon was just preaching the gospel of the semi-non-fictional Saint Ronald Reagan from the early 1980's. Both St. Gordon and St. Ronnie were followed by free market saint and snake oil salesman extraordinaire, Bill Clinton in the 90's, who cleared the way for "unfettered, free-market capitalism" to take a giant shit on all of us.

"THE CAPITALIST WILL SELL YOU THE ROPE WITH WHICH YOU INTEND TO HANG HIM" - VLADIMIR LENNIN

Ask anyone with an advanced degree in economics or finance if during their long years of schooling they ever had to take a course on an alternative economic system to capitalism. The answer will be a resounding "no". That is not to say that socialism or communism or any other "ism" is better than American capitalism. But it is to say that when people are taught, or more accurately, conditioned, to NOT think critically about their economic system (or anything else for that matter), then that system stops being an economic one and starts being a religious one. Religion is based on faith and to its faithful adherents, is beyond reproach…see Spotlight as evidence of that. When something as profane as American capitalism becomes sanctified, corruption and collapse are sure to follow, just as it did with Soviet "socialism". With religion comes magical thinking, and so it is with American capitalism, which must contort reality in order to reinforce its faith based belief system. So we get deformed and distorted economic information from the powers that be because they must keep the house of cards standing at all cost. The Big Short humorously shows how while the underlying mortgages crumbled, the mortgage backed securities made up of those same bad mortgages actually went up. That is what happens in religion when reality doesn't conform to the sacred belief system, magical thinking kicks in and…MIRACLES OCCUR…up can become down, black can become white, or as those of us living in reality say…FRAUD HAPPENS. This charade of American capitalism can only last so long, as reality has a funny way of cutting through the bullshit of magical thinking and kicking you right in the nuts…just ask Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns.

"TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUPID AND ILLEGAL AND I'LL HAVE MY WIFE'S BROTHER ARRESTED" - JARED VENNET, THE BIG SHORT

See, in American capitalism, fraud is not a bug, but a feature, it is baked into the cake. Fraud and magical thinking are at the very heart of American capitalism. The fraud that runs rampant is easy to see.  We have all of the big banks rigging bids on municipal bonds and bilking every city in the nation for billions of dollars. Then we have Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, Bank of America, UBS and Citigroup and the LIBOR scandal, where they manipulated the world's interest rates and in so doing a good portion of the world's economy. Then there is the fraud on display in The Big Short where big banks defrauded their customers in order to cover their asses as the mortgage market tumbled. This doesn't even touch upon the criminality of banks laundering money for drug cartels, or rate-rigging the currency rates. 

In all of these scandals, no one was sent to prison. No one was held criminally liable. The Banks simply paid a fine, sometimes in the billions of dollars, but never had to admit to wrong doing. This is the casino-gulag business model, banks make $10 billion in fraud and only pay $1 billion in fines. That is a pretty good deal if you can get it…and the big banks know how to get it.

I had a conversation recently with an older friend, very conservative, who told me that he was "sick and tired of all the big bank bashing" because Wall Street "creates a lot jobs and a lot of wealth". I nodded politely so as to not offend his religious belief in American capitalism. The reality is that Wall Street, like Las Vegas, "creates" nothing, but they do "engineer" more gambling opportunities where the house always wins, and the concept of "the common good" never has to rear its ugly head.

"THE IGNORANT MIND, WITH ITS INFINITE AFFLICTIONS, PASSIONS AND EVILS, IS ROOTED IN THE THREE POISONS. GREED, ANGER AND DELUSION." - BODHIDHARMA

This taps into the moral and ethical rot at the center of America. Wall Street and Main Street, both infected with an insatiable greed, no longer invest, they speculate. The myopic greed and lure of easy money that has infested America makes corporations and regular people cut off their nose to spite their face, all in the name of higher short-term earnings and to the detriment of the long term, the common good and common sense. This is no way to run a company, or a country…but it's what is happening all around us. We have CEO's who mine their company for short term profits, which often times includes profit through fraud, in order to appease shareholders and get their bonuses before moving on, all the while ignoring the long term health of their business. The same is true of government, where politicians ignore the long term health of the country in favor of the short term health of their political careers and the next election. Regular Jane's and Joe's did the same thing by "flipping" houses and trying to run with the wolves on Wall Street…but found out the hard way that it is a rigged game. Now, they do the same thing in a different way by going into debt just to pay their bills month to month. This myopic approach to finance, politics and life, can only last so long before the bill comes due. Robbing Peter to pay Paul only ends up, at best, with either Peter or Paul breaking your thumbs, or at worst, with the two of them burying you in a shallow grave out in the desert.

The Church of American Capitalism and the moral and ethical rot that comes with it, has also infected American Christianity in the form of the "Prosperity Gospel". This Prosperity Gospel is the perfect symbol for the lascivious and lecherous greed, that like a cancer, has metastasized through all walks of American life and bastardized Christianity into little more than Santa Claus for adults. Turning greed into spirituality and religion is the last straw in the fall of the moral underpinnings of any nation and its people. Gordon Gekko once said, "Greed is good", but the Prosperity Gospel of the Church of American Capitalism teaches , "Greed is God".

"WHENEVER I WATCH TV AND SEE THOSE POOR STARVING KIDS ALL OVER THE WORLD, I CAN'T HELP BUT CRY. I MEAN I'D LOVE TO BE SKINNY LIKE THAT, BUT NOT WITH ALL THOSE FLIES AND DEATH AND STUFF." - MARIAH CAREY

The other religion, besides the church of American capitalism and greed, so masterfully on display in The Big Short, is the uniquely American religion of Celebrity. Director McKay wisely uses famous people to talk directly to the audience and explain complicated financial terms and processes. This has a dual effect, one, it breaks down the complex language of finance which Wall Street uses to make people think only they can do this stuff, terms like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO), Mortgage Backed Security (MBS), and Credit Default Swap (CDS), into language the layman can understand. Two, it surreptitiously tweaks the audience for being so mindless as to only pay attention when a celebrity is talking. The celebrities involved, Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez and chef Anthony Bourdain, all get the point across both on the surface level of explaining the information, but also on the subversive level of proving the audience as suckers for the famous, a.k.a. high priests and priestesses of the Church of American Celebrity. If Collateralized Debt Obligations, Mortgage Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps were explained by some dry academic, people would, as they've been trained to do, instantly tune out, but when it is done by Margot Robbie in a bubble bath…attention will most surely be paid. 

"WE FORGET THAT THE WATER CYCLE AND THE LIFE CYCLE ARE ONE." - JACQUE COUSTEAU

Speaking of bubble baths…at the end of the movie, there is an update on what the main characters are up to since their big short paid off. We are informed that Dr. Michael Burry, who closed his hedge fund right after the collapse of 2007/08, now focuses his investments on one commodity…water. This is pretty interesting because running throughout the film there is a very subtle subtext about water. If you watch the film again, pay attention when water is in a shot (like Ms. Robbie's bubble bath cameo), what characters drink it and when they drink it. There is one scene where Dr. Burry, while talking about shorting the housing market, chokes on a swig of water from a bottle, which, knowing the context of his later investing work, is very intriguing. Another scene involves a swimming pool with an unwanted reptilian guest lurking in it behind an abandoned Florida house. The house no doubt abandoned because of the "gully" (definition of a "gully" is "a water worn ravine") in the housing market. That scene is juxtaposed with a scene of a lavish swimming pool at Caesar's Palace, which is populated by investment bankers (from Goldman Sachs!!) and a woman from the SEC. Gators, bankers and feds…oh my!!! Water is the hidden secret within The Big Short, and the secret about water in today's world is that it will soon replace oil as the commodity over which we go to war.

"EVERYONE, DEEP IN THEIR HEARTS, IS WAITING FOR THE END OF THE WORLD TO COME." - HARUKI MURAKAMI

In conclusion, The Big Short is a phenomenal, must-see film, that shows us what went catastrophically wrong back in 2007/2008, and what is still wrong with our system. It is up to us to break free from the magical thinking brought on by the Church of American capitalism, and the distraction from thinking brought on by the Church of American Celebrity, and to see the truth that sits right in front of our nose…the American financial system is not only fundamentally and structurally flawed, it is irreparably broken and untenable. The house of cards is coming down whether we are ready for it or not…it isn't a matter of if…it is a matter of when. You can either prepare for the coming tsunami* or not, that is up to you…but what you cannot do this time around...is say that no one told you it was coming. 

*See what I did there? Tsunami…water? C'mon..pay attention!!!

©2016