Twisters

Posted on August 20, 2024 by Mark DuPré

Twisters

Bottom line: Twisters is the perfect movie to see in the theater if you want to just kick back and let it take you on its ride, OR it’s the perfect movie to wait to see until it hits the streaming services. Having seen it in the theater, I would vote for the latter.

Twisters has been a hit, though not the monster hit that some are declaring. (The budget was huge, and the film has made the requisite “break-even” amount of about twice that budget.) I thought it would be the perfect summer date movie with my wife. And we both thought it was “fine,” though my wife’s first comment was that it wasn’t as good as it could have been—a quick take that is as accurate as anything else I’ve read or heard.

The original Twister was a big hit back in the day (1996), and while I always thought of it as just a fine, fun ride. Later, I came to see that while it wasn’t any kind of great film, it used film language in an intelligent way, and I used several scenes in my film class for years. I was aware that the new film was being presented as a kind of “stand-alone re-do,” but was interested in seeing how they were going to deal with the background of a big hit: were there going to be a lot of inside references, would they repeat some of the storyline elements, would some of the strengths of the original find their way into the new one?

Well, yes and no. Apparently some of the clothing choices of the main actress carry echoes of Helen Hunt’s outfits in the original (TBH, who cares?). There is also a kind of love story that is bumpy, and full of ups and downs, but with very different treatments. There is a charismatic leading man, though that role is treated quite differently in the new film, and the film takes its time in telling us who that leading man actually is. And there are tornados—lots of them.

The opening is great, and as powerful as this kind of film gets. Great action, high stakes, and unexpected and even shocking events. Then the credits come in, and the film never regains the heights of its first few minutes.

Twisters has proven to be a good choice for those looking for a decent action/disaster pic, but that doesn’t make it a good film, or one that will ultimately take its place right alongside the original. It tries—God knows it tries—but while the elements of this cinematic soup seem tasty, they never gel into a consistent whole.

Daisy Edgar-Jones as Kate, in Twisters directed by Lee Isaac Chung.

Example: the lead female is the very talented Daisy Edgar-Jones (Where the Crawdads Sing, “Under the Banner of Heaven”), but her character eventually becomes LESS defined as the film progresses. She is presented as strong and smart (like Helen Hunt’s character) and has a traumatic experience in her past with a tornado (like Helen Hunt’s character). But when her not-that-terrible challenging moment comes to her, and everything is at stake (spoiler alert), this strong and capable woman whiffs it at the most important moment. Unlike the original, there is a kind of very ill-defined “love” triangle that teases in a couple of unsatisfactory directions, unlike the Bill Paxton-Helen Hunt electric give and take of the original.

The other lead is the “it” boy of the moment, Glen Powell, playing the most Powell-y character yet. Powell (the dreadful Anyone But You, and the good but greatly flawed Hit Man) digs  energetically into playing a cocky guy from the moment he explodes on the screen, which comes later in the film than you might imagine, and which then recalibrates everything that came before. Powell is a good actor whose range is at yet unexplored, but he certainly knows how to burn up a screen, and Edgar-Jones’s character Kate is simply no match for him. As noted on a recent podcast, the two actors have chemistry, but their characters strangely don’t. (Spoiler alert again: This is where the “they don’t kiss” thing comes from—a good decision.)

Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Hamilton) is a good actor, and I can’t decide if he is just miscast here or slotted into a thankless role that has him spouting dialogue that he must have had to swallow hard to say. My guess at the moment is both, and while he is assured of a successful career, this film won’t be one of the highlights.

As in the original, the “going back home even when it’s difficult” plotline is repeated here. Fortunately the wonderful Maura Tierney is Kate’s mother, which rescues the scenes from any sense of it being a scene that just had to be included to echo the original.

One huge difference between the two films is the role of the tornado. The new film’s take on that phenomenon separates it from Twister, and ultimately weakens the film. In the original, the storms went from being scientific endeavors to being in the center of both the main relationship and a monster from Helen Hunt’s character’s past that had to be faced head-on and triumphed over. In other words, the twisters were contained and allowed to be wild and crazy occurrences but also metaphors and emotionally/romantically profound experiences.

Twisters tries to make all that happen again, but director Lee Isaac Chung (Minari—yes, that Minari!) and, I assume, the four contributing writers, continually pull away from the main characters to display the devastating destructive power of tornados, and the human and economic toll they take on communities. This pulls the central action events away from our leads and any meaning or resonances that they might have had there. Since we are told repeatedly that the weather events in the film are unprecedented, the film veers toward a climate change statement without ever stating those two words. For those who want a socio-political statement, it deliberately falls short on. For those wanting a more thorough and meaningful connection between the tornadoes and the complex lives of the main character, the film simply fails.

The one delightful surprise of the film is the appearance of “Downton Abbey” actor Harry Hadden-Paton (he played Lady Edith’s eventual husband) as a “what are you doing in this film?” British report who provides blessed comic relief while still holding onto his character. It makes no sense for his character to be in the film, and the film is all the better for it.

Of course the special effects have developed greatly in the last quarter century, and the spectacle is essential to the enjoyment of the film. But ironically, the phenomenological effects of the storms have little effect on the internal lives of the character. Ultimately, it was a fun ride with some enjoyable actors, and it all fell out of my brain just a few hours afterward.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

From Prohibiting to Demanding: The Newest Unnecessary and Anti-Art Regulations from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Posted on July 24, 2024 by Mark DuPré

Most folks with even a cursory knowledge of American film history knows about the Hays Code. In brief: the Hays Code was implemented by the film industry in the early 1930s primarily to avoid government censorship and to attempt to rehabilitate the film industry image after a series of scandals. The guidelines were (nota bene) prohibitions; it was a list of things that should be avoided for a film to be exhibited.

Most film-goers roll our eyes now at how ridiculous the proscriptions seem to us now. The general rule was no profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions rape. More specifically, the code forbade:

  1. Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
  2. Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
  3. The illegal traffic in drugs;
  4. Any inference of sex perversion;
  5. White slavery;
  6. Miscegenation;
  7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases
  8. Scenes of actual childbirth—in fact or in silhouette;
  9. Children’s sex organs;
  10. Ridicule of the clergy;
  11. Willful offense to any nation, race or creed;

First instituted (by not seriously applied) in 1930, it was finally enforced in 1934 after a series of films and events, including the original Scarface, Baby Face, Freaks, and the films of the irrepressible Mae West. (This interim is known as the pre-Code era, and its film are fascinating. But that’s another story….). Film scholars are of varying opinions about its effects; some decry the limitations it imposed, while others have applauded the creative work that the restrictions forced upon the filmmakers.

We now have a new set of rules, however, for the awards race starting next year. These are limited to films wanting to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. But these are not prohibitions; they are demands, and they stealthily threaten the creative process as much as the Hays Code did.

There have always been rules regarding eligibility for various Academy nominations. To be considered for a nomination, films that are not in the shorts category must be at least 40 minutes or more, and must show in a “commercial motion picture theater” at least a week in some major cities. Nothing new or unusual here.

But now, there is a new form to be filled out if you want Best Picture nomination consideration. It’s called the “Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry” form, and the Academy’s new attempts at social engineering rival, if not completely surpass, the Hays Code. There are four standards listed by the Academy, and a film must meet two of them to be considered for Best Picture. The curious can read more specifically about these standards at https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards

But here are some of the must-haves that a producer can choose from :

  • One of the lead actors or “significant supporting actors” is from an underrepresented rated racial or ethnic group.
  • At least 30% of actors not submitted for Oscar nominations must be from at least two underrepresented groups (specifically, women, a racial or ethnic group, LGBTQ+, and people with cognitive disabilities, or who are dear or hard of hearing).
  • Main storyline or theme is about one of these groups mentioned above.

Other standards are that at least two of the creative leadership and project team members (e.g., casting director, cinematographer, composer, costume designer, etc.) must be from the underrepresented groups.

Other standards include the paid apprentices/interns and those in training or crew development, and those involved in development, marketing, publicity and distribution.

For those wondering what/who constitutes the underrepresented groups, here is what the Academy lists:

• African American / Black / African and/or Caribbean descent
• East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian)
• Hispanic or Latina/e/o/x
• Indigenous Peoples (including Native American / Alaskan Native)
• Middle Eastern / North African
• Pacific Islander
• South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Indian, Nepali, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan)
• Southeast Asian (including Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mien, Singaporean, Thai, and Vietnamese)

The stated goals of the Hays Code were purported to promote traditional values and respect for the law and morality, with the hopes that the government wouldn’t come in to censor. Right needed to be seen as right, wrong as wrong, and there was no “getting away” with the breaking of the law, etc. (Again, the effects of the Code and its eventual lifting in the late 1960s, is another story.)

The new goals are ostensibly to address the Academy’s historical lack of diversity, for which the industry, and of course the entire country, is guilty. The history of the Academy in this area is deplorable, but has been representative of big business and society’s historical weaknesses. That’s an explanation, not an excuse. Officially, the rules “are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off the screen in order to better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience.”

So much for goals of audience satisfaction, good art, artistic freedom, or successful business.

Best Actor Oscar winner Richard Dreyfuss (The Goodbye Girl, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) has not always been the most sensitive of commentators, but I tend to agree with his opinion here: “[Film is] an art. No one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is. What are we risking? Are we really risking hurting people’s feelings? You can’t legislate that,” Dreyfuss said . “You have to let life be life. I’m sorry, I don’t think there is a minority or majority in the country that has to be catered to like that.”

An unnamed (because they are intelligent and want to keep working) director said the following: “It’s completely ridiculous. I’m for diversity, but to make you cast certain types of people if you want to get nominated? That makes the whole process contrived. The person who is right for the part should get the part. Why should you be limited in your choices? But it’s the world we’re in. This is crazy.”

There are so many reasons find oneself on the spectrum of suspicious to appalled. How does one enforce this? How does one define “equitable” or “underrepresented”? How does one determine proper group representation of an individual artist? How does this affect casting, or the hiring of  qualified technical personnel? It’s been stated that The Godfather and Schindler’s List may well have not qualified for a Best Picture nomination (an award they each won) if they’d had to abide by those restrictions. Without going into specifics (because I am intelligent and don’t want to deal with the blowback), we’ve already seen the shoehorning in of the underrepresented in scenes that do not flow at all with the films that they are ostensibly “a part of”. The whole set-up would be ripe for an SNL skit if they had the nerve.

We are now in a new age of cinematic tokenism. In contrast to the Academy’s stated goals, this new approach may well end up making a mockery of its stated goals and of those it purports to include. Instead of Hays Code fear that often led to confusing motivations and identities (e.g. It Happened One Night, The Letter, A Streetcar Named Desire, The Bad Seed), we are risking substituting the enforced inclusion of actors and craftspeople that may not be the best qualified, and the forced inclusion of situations and side plots that are only there to reach for a chance at Oscar glory.

It’s not the goal of inclusion and representation that I have an issue with. Sometimes the best intentions end up saddling us with mechanisms that damage us in the long run. I applaud the progress the Academy (and even the Hollywood Foreign Press!) has made in the last few years. Many changes are long overdue.

What I object to with these new demands is the new ham-fisted (or should I say “iron-handed”) approach. Just as the Hays Code ended up being seen as the outmoded and limiting factor it was, so the new rules should be seen in the same light. It’s just that they are more dangerous than the Hays Code in its ironically draconian approach to a legitimate issue that could have/should have been addressed in any other number of ways. Unlike the Hays Code, let’s hope that it doesn’t take 30+ years to for this set of rules to disintegrate.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quick Takes on Four Recent Rom-Coms: Anyone But You, The Idea of You, A Family Affair, and Hit Man

Posted on July 15, 2024 by Mark DuPré

I remember often telling my college film class students that they really didn’t know how wonderful romantic comedies could be, as we were then living in an age of wretched films in that genre. I emphasized that though it might seem positively prehistorical to them, the 1930s and early 1940s provide modern viewers with a treasure trove of rom-coms. While I enjoyed, in wildly varying degrees, some of the more “modern” rom-coms at the time, my favorites ended up being The Big Sick and Notting Hill. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, You’ve Got Mail (which of course is based on a better rom-com, 1940’s Shop Around the Corner), Crazy Rich Asians, and Palm Springs all merit a mention, I suppose, but I’m not sure the last two mentioned here will become anything like a classic.

In the last few months, I’ve noticed a new wave of rom-coms, and I got my hopes up, especially since the casts have been comprised of intelligent and talented actors. But to those who think that these films suggested a renaissance of GOOD rom-coms, the results are disappointing. Out of the four I’m addressing here, one is pretty terrible, two are nearly identical on paper, and the last is the best, but it contains a poison pill.

Going from least to best:

Anyone But You stars the new “it-boy” Glen Powell, who is something of a cross between the more mature Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey. Simply put, the movie is awful. The screenplay is unoriginal and painfully predictable, and the acting, especially on the part of Powell’s co-star Sydney Sweeney, is pretty rough.

This terrible-titled film is part of the new insurgence of R-rated comedies, which simply showcase nudity and F-bombs instead of addressing life’s and love’s issue with a modicum of maturity. (Full disclosure: I didn’t intend to see this but was visiting a relative who chose to watch it. We both regretted it). Fortunately, the name is pretty forgettable.

Bottom line: Don’t waste your time.

The next two are essentially the same film: Older Oscar-winning actress plays a character who falls into a relationship with a much younger man. The age thing aside—which is impossible to put aside when watching either film—the other complication is that one actress has the affair with a pop-rock star adored by her disapproving daughter, and the lead actress in the other film has the affair with her daughter’s much-younger boss. Neither relationship is believable, as hard as everyone tries.

The Idea of You (another dreadful and forgettable title) stars Anne Hathaway as a 40-year-old mom having a relationship with a young man half her age. Complications other than the age thing are the continued opposition of her daughter, the dark envy of apparently every young boy-band fan in the English-speaking world, and the oppressive glare of the spotlight on the two of them. The is the better of the two middle films here, but not by much. While the beginning of the relationship is a bit more plausible due to the pacing of the script and the skills of the two main actors, things descend quickly into fantasy as mom decides to go on the road with her new young love. You could drive a 14-wheeler through the gaps in logic at this point in the film. You know how it’s all going to work out, and it does, but other than watching two attractive leads do the best they can, this is not a good use of one’s time.

The other near-identical film is A Family Affair, this time a forgettable but not terrible name. It features Nicole Kidman pretending to be 50, and the young man is Zac Efron, still buff from The Iron Claw. This one kicks off the relationship with the two leads at a literally preposterous rate, with Kidman putting her head on Efron’s shoulder WAY too early, and connecting with him on a level that his character clearly doesn’t possess. Another stumbling block to connecting with the plot of the film is that Efron’s character is a total selfish jerk, and while the script wants us to believe that a more mature woman’s interest turns him into less of a jerk, it doesn’t really show that. The weight of the absurd elements that we are supposed to buy as viewers is simply too much for even these talented actors.

The only saving grace here is the wonderful Joey King (“We Were the Lucky Ones”) as the appalled daughter. She is the logical center of the film and only reason to see it.

The best of these four film, yet one with a literally fatal flaw, is the most recent Hit Man, also starring Glen Powell (Yes, the one in Twisters—he’s everywhere at the moment.) Powell is charming and smart, Adria Arjona is perfectly matched with Powell (as actors as well as their characters), and the film takes us on a journey of twists and turns that keep surprising us. Then, then…the end comes, and all the good will that we have invested into the film is supposed to carry us into the dark realities of the last few minutes.

I didn’t expect, or even want, a traditional happy/sappy ending, but the conclusion wasn’t funny to me, or even believable in the context of what has come before. Plus it’s as nihilistic and bad-taste-in-mouth as 2018’s The Favourite was to me, and I walked away morally repulsed and dismayed. The film is deft enough not to sit in its moral stench for too long, and we are supposed to carry our happy and entertaining experiences right into and onto the final scene. But I couldn’t. Yes, I get that this is based on a true story—loosely based, I imagine. I also get the whole Nietzsche thing, starting with Powell as a professor of psychology and philosophy aspect, and reaching a supposedly liberating mental and emotional place at the end.

What IS here is generally enjoyable in terms of the main actors and the trajectory of the plot. What’s NOT here is a deeper exploration of identity, a challenge to Nietzschean thought, and an imaginative ending that wrapped things up instead of blowing it up.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Quiet Place: Day One

Posted on July 7, 2024 by Mark DuPré

A Quiet Place: Day One isn’t at all what one might expect based on the first two films. It is altogether different in emphasis, tone, and degree of warmth. It’s a well-crafted and well-acted prequel to the other two films, but something of surprise, or in my case, a disappointment.

Lead actress Lupito Nyong’o (Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for 12 Years a Slave—well deserved) is at the center of the film, dominating nearly every frame. I would like to say that she is at the heart of the film, but there is little heart in the film at all. Of course, the world of film always has a place for a solid, cool, incredibly intense indie-feel film with a good budget. But when you think you might get to at least enjoy relatable characters and character interaction as in the first two films, this film feels like a letdown. Nevertheless, Nyong’o gives a powerhouse if muted performance (I’m tempted to spoil as to why, but you’ll have to see the film or read about it).

I couldn’t help thinking of Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, Shelley Duvall in The Shining, or especially Dakota Fanning in War of the Worlds, a film that seemed to keep the young actress in a prolonged state of terror. That’s pretty much what Nyong’o is asked to do, and she does it predictably well. There is a slow character ark for her that probably worked in the script, and can work mentally for the viewer, but it’s perhaps just a bit too subtle to grab the heart. It’s a demonstration of great skill, and not many actors can handle the stillness, then the terror, and then the long close-ups the film demands of her. We respect the talent of the actress, and can at least superficially buy into her predicament pre-monster-attack. But the film makes it hard to connect with her on a deeper level.

Three other characters that could have made a difference in that regard, but don’t, are the three other key male actors. Alex Wolf  (Oppenheimer, Pig) plays Reuben, and we very quickly warm to him and suspect he will be at least the one that carries our support throughout the film. (Spoiler alert) But he is taken out early in a way that robs the film of an engaging and accessible presence. Then there is the wonderfully talented (and seemingly ageless Djimon Hounsou (Best Supporting Actor nods for Blood Diamond and In America, but perhaps best known for Gladiator and Amistad.) He appeared in a role in A Quiet Place Part II, which might have suggested a greater role for him here, but his charm and charisma are limited to just a few scenes, and he is wasted here, frustratingly so, and viewers are denied exposure to someone with a great screen presence.

Lastly, there is the confusing character of Eric, played by Joseph Quinn (“Stranger Things,” “Game of Thrones”). Eric is supposed to be a lawyer obviously traumatized by the creatures’ attack on the city. But his behavior in the first half of his performance seems so hesitant, confusing, and unfocused that it is difficult to sympathize with his ill-defined plight; I can only speculate that there is the director’s choice rather than the actor’s. Unfortunately, since we don’t really know what he is working out other than general trauma, and his behavior is difficult to connect with, the film loses yet another opportunity to draw us in emotionally. Fortunately, Eric lasts long enough to add more dimensions to his character, as the film goes on, and by the end of the film, we genuinely care for him and can relate to him. But by then, it’s too little too late.

Even the now-famous Frodo the cat (played by two cats) was not computer generated as it might seem. But that only adds to the distraction away from the main characters. The “performances” pulled out of them are so unusual and real-looking that I spent most of my time wondering if they were CG. They aren’t. But if you know that going in, it’s still a distraction in that the cat becomes the center of the film, and yes, even the heart at times, and does things that take you out of the film in awe and respect.

The monsters are many and well executed; the film certainly has more jump scares than the first, and at least as many as the second film. The sound and editing are excellent as well. There are moments that the film aspires to be a horror film as directed by Denis Villeneuve (the two Dune films, Arrival and Blade Runner 2049), but not as deftly done and certainly not as emotionally satisfying as those films. Villeneuve is not the warmest of directors, but he is visually brilliant and is an excellent craftsman. This is not as well-crafted and lacks even the minimal warmth of Villeneuve’s work, much less the relatable plot line and relationships of the previous two films.

As a stand-alone film, A Quiet Place: Day One is an interesting experimental film loosely based on the events of the two other more popular film. It may signal the appearance of a future major director in Michael Sarnoski (Pig). But for now, it’s not the entry into the franchise that most of us expected, or would be expected to enjoy.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Stars Are Born: A Comparison of the Five “A Star is Born” Films

Posted on June 21, 2024 by Mark DuPré

There isn’t much of any interest in movie theaters these days, so it’s a good time to remind everyone of all the classics available to enjoy. In fact, it’s always a good time to view the classics. So here is a short review and analysis (and something of a rating) of the A Star is Born films.

Now the historians reading this will be quick to note that there are only four English language films with the A Star is Born title: 1937, 1954, 1976, and 2018. But there is actually a film that set the understructure for the story in as early as 1932.

1932

What Price Hollywood? is the story of a waitress who catches the eye of a drunken film director, who turns her into a star. The director’s career begins to take a dive while the young lady becomes an awarded performer. There is a suicide, and the star goes on to a continued successful career.

Sound familiar? There are a few major differences, especially the ultimate romance being with a third party and not the director. But other than that, the bones of the story are pretty much the same as the other four films.

Other key differences: This is a relatively new entry in the world of sound, it’s black-and-white, and it’s pre-Code, with a perhaps surprising number of elements that wouldn’t play just a few years later: some one-liners, some (relatively) skimpy wardrobe choices, unmarried pregnancies, etc. Being pre-Code, it can feel modern; being a 1932 film, it can come off as pretty creaky sometimes.

What works in its favor are the director, the writers, and the cast. The director is George Cukor in his early years. Coincidentally, Cukor was later the director of 1954’s A Star is Born (the Judy Garland one). There are a number of stylistic flourishes, like the “becoming a star” montage, that are quite cutting edge for the time. The screenwriters were listed as Adela Rogers St. Johns and Jane Murfin, who received an Oscar nomination (but no win) for Best Writing, Original Story. But the “by” credit of Gene Fowler and Rowland Brown is more accurate, with the Oscar winners providing the continuity, and not the idea or original script.

The cast is one that most folks not be that familiar with, but were big at the time. Pre-Code queen Constance Bennett (sister of Barbara Bennett and Joan Bennett) stars, and in spite of the emerging studio style of acting, she manages to be fresh and believable throughout. Lowell Sherman , who plays the director, was an actor who later made it as a director himself, and he is quite good here. Neil Hamilton (known to silent film students as one of D.W. Griffith’s actors and to more modern audiences as Police Commissioner Gordon on the Adam West “Batman” series)) made another successful entry into sound films with his performance here (though he comes off as a big stiff). Lastly, future Black stars Eddie “Rochester” Anderson and Louise Beavers were featured.

This is a more imaginative film than you might think, and of course it’s a time capsule, providing the original outline for the subsequent ASIB films. But it’s also a place capsule, setting the stage for the darker fare of Sunset Boulevard and The Bad and the Beautiful. It’s worth watching as “the original,” but also as a film on its own terms.

No rating, but for a more in-depth look at What Price Hollywood?, check out

https://wordpress.com/post/film-prof.com/878

1937

Just a few years after this film, Cukor was approached by future Gone with the Wind and Rebecca producer David O. Selznick to director the first version actually named A Star is Born. Cukor could see the VERYCLOSE similarities between the new script and What Price Hollywood?, and declined. Instead, William Wellman (The High and the Mighty, The Ox-Bow Incident), who also co-wrote the script, directed. (Ironically, and confusingly, Wellman and co-writer Robert Carson won the Oscar for Best Writing, Original Story. Good for them, but the story was anything but original.)

It’s a lush, BIG FAT early Technicolor beauty starring the first Oscar-winning actress, Janet Gaynor (Sunrise) with a career-reviving performance, and Frederic March, already successful but still ascending (The Best Years of Our Lives). Also featured are legends Adolphe Menjou, May Robson, Andy Devine, Lionel Stander, Owen Moore just a couple of years before his tragic and untimely death, and last but not least, Peggy (“Climb Every Mountain”) Wood.

It was the first all-color film to be nominated for Best Picture, and its Technicolor was far more sophisticated and muted than earlier all-color films. It’s a lovely film just to look at.

If you see What Price Hollywood? before viewing or revisiting this version, you’ll be surprised at the many “similarities” shared by the two films. It’s no wonder that RKO Pathé seriously considered suing Selznick (who in his megalomaniacal way, claimed to have originated the story), but decided against litigation.

This film is as solid a piece of Hollywood studio filmmaking (albeit in the earlier sound era) as one will find, and could easily have been the definitive version. But…

Rating (not counting What Price Hollywood?, which stands alone): Tied for second place.

1954

Cukor finally got his chance to direct a version of A Star is Born in 1954, with the first musical version starring Judy Garland and James Mason. This is Garland’s cinematic high point after The Wizard of Oz and Meet Me in St. Louis, and she was robbed, IMHO, of the Oscar because of how difficult she could be, due in equal parts to her personality and her addictions. But this is one of the great musical performances of all time, and she is outstanding, of course in the musical numbers, but also in the dramatic scenes.

Mason is also fantastic in this film, but his performance gets lost in one of the great years of male acting. In addition to Mason here, 1954 saw Humphrey Bogart’s Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, Bing Crosby in his best performance in The County Girl, and of course Marlon Brando’s towering work in On the Waterfront. These three performances may have pushed Mason’s work into the background of our collective memories, but his performance here is full of big and little delights, and deserves more attention than it’s received over the years.

In many ways, the film is almost over the top, or at least on the verge of being over-stuffed. But with Cukor at the helm, and the two lead performances, this is the A Star is Born for the ages.

Rating: First Place

1976

Really, truly, don’t bother. This is easily the weakest of the films. It’s clearly meant to be little more than a star vehicle for Barbra Streisand, and her work here is simply not her best.  Director Frank Pierson, later better known for this television work, may well have been unable to push down the Streisand “energy” into the service of the main character; we really don’t see Esther Hoffman as much as we see Superstar Streisand singing, talking, or waiting for others to finish so she can talk.

Though he claims to have been drunk most of the time, male lead Kris Kristofferson gives the strongest performance, but is consistently bulldozed by his co-star. His performance is, upon a second viewing (needed to provide the ability to focus on him rather than the lead female), complex and subtle. Unfortunately, he is quoted as saying, “Filming with Barbra Streisand is an experience which may have cured me of the movies.” Cinema’s loss.

The highlight of the film is not a performance, a scene, or a production aspect, but a song: “Evergreen,” composed by Streisand (music) and  Paul Williams (lyrics). It’s a lovely, thoughtful, gentle song sung beautifully by Streisand (who won her second Oscar for its composition), and is the one takeaway from an otherwise forgettable film.

The film is a time capsule, like its two immediate predecessors. But it’s a time most of us want to forget, and the rest of us should. It’s screamingly 1970s in the worst ways, and with an overbearing performance by an unrestrained Streisand, it’s often painful to watch.

Rating: Easily number 4 of 4.

2018

There were some surprise elements to this version starring Lada Gaga and Bradley Cooper, who also directed. No one knew how gifted a director Cooper could be, and Gaga was a revelation. This may have caused something of an overreaction at the time, but the film is still solid, and breathes a lot of life and energy to the “franchise.”

Like the 1976 version, it’s very updated, feeling very much of our time. But it’s yet quite timeless in its relationships and its demonstration of how the crash of success vs. failure can hamstring a partnership, whether personal or business. Some of the updating is, IMHO, unnecessary and distracting. But this is a major announcement of the arrival of a cinematic star and a topflight director.  

Cooper plays homage to the earlier versions of A Star is Born in ways that are fun to look for, but this is a strong, engaging film in its own right. Cooper still hasn’t quite been understood (or appreciated) by either the Academy or film critics, but if Maestro is any indication, we have a unique cinematic voice that debuted here that will eventually be viewed as the artist he obviously is.

Rating: Tied for second place.

Bottom line: If you’ve seen any version of A Star is Born, it’s a worthwhile exercise to see the versions you haven’t seen.

Of course, that excludes the ’70 version!

Posted in Film-Related Articles, Newer films, Older Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fall Guy

Posted on June 3, 2024 by Mark DuPré

The Fall Guy is the best middling but well-timed film of the year so far. Released shortly after the Oscars a couple of months ago, it benefited greatly from the all the press that Ryan Gosling received for his Oscar-nominated role as Ken in Barbie, plus all the press that also Oscar-nominated Emily Blunt received as part of the Oppenheimer wave. I don’t think it would have been half as successful if it had been released at any other time.

Not much to say here. It’s an enjoyable film to watch, and it will make an enjoyable evening when it comes to streaming services. It’s fun because of its two greatest strengths—the incredible action/stunt sequences, and the two leads. Directed by David Leitch (Bullet Train, Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw), the film is a well-deserved Valentine to stunt men. The plot may be paper-thin, but the action sequences almost make you forget that. (Spoiler alert: The reason for Gosling’s character’s withdrawal is pretty much unbelievable.)

Then there are the two leads. The good news is that each of them knows what they are doing here. Gosling leans into his Ken-mode with a suppresser on his intelligence and a slight ramping up of the wounded puppy dog. Blunt, on the other hand, comes off as beautiful as ever, but also fiercely intelligent and focused. It makes a great combo, though any realist might balk at these characters’ hopes for a long future together.

What detracts from the leads’ performances is the slight aroma of slumming. Gosling and Blunt are both clearly above this material, and are working hard to hide that. It reminded me of great opera singers who “get down” with a Broadway classic—not always the best choice. These are two excellent actors, and they tend to elevate the film. But one gets the impression sometimes that two lesser talents might have fit in better with the rest of the film.

But I quibble. There are not many films that simply want to entertain. The Fall Guy will fall out of your brain the day after you see it, but for most folks, it will generally be worth the two-hour investment.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | 1 Comment

Sandra Hüller: The Zone of Interest and Anatomy of a Fall

Posted on May 19, 2024 by Mark DuPré

The Zone of Interest and Anatomy of a Fall were two of the most celebrated foreign language films of 2023. Among many other international awards, the former won Academy Awards for Best International Feature Film and Best Sound, while the latter won Best Original Screenplay.

Both are serious, excellent dramas that are freshly cinematic in their approach and look. Both are examples of what great non-Hollywood films can be

The Zone of Interest is based on the true story of Rudolf Hüss, the SS officer and commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp. But this isn’t your usual Holocaust story; it’s neither Schindler’s List nor Life is Beautiful, and not anything in between. It’s the story of a family trying to make life work with a busy household, an oft-times confusing war in the background, and pressure on the husband to become more efficient in his duties. The only difference here is that the family lives just outside of the walls of a concentration camp with the ever-present sounds of killing permanently in the background, and the husband’s duties include discovering more effective ways of killing Jews and disposing with their remnants. The “banality of evil” has perhaps never been as strongly presented as in this film.

The dramatic tension is not in the plot per se, which what plot there is can be distilled to the question of what is going to happen if we have to move (like Meet Me in St. Louis, but way darker). The dramatic tension is between what we are watching (a so-called “normal family” living the literal shadow of a death camp), what we believe about evil, and what we know of history. There is the slight undercurrent question of how much the family, and especially the wife, know of what is happening just yards from their yard. But (spoiler alert) then there is a devasting moment when we realize that she knows exactly what is going on, and it’s chilling.

For a film to win Best Sound over the incredible soundscape in Oppenheimer, and especially a foreign film, one has to believe that the use of sound is something altogether other, which it is. One could watch the film several times and would just be scratching the surface of what the sound is doing. It’s brilliant, and haunting. The film won nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Motion Picture, in addition to the two wins already noted; it could easily have garnered a Best Cinematography nomination as well. Its use of infrared photography just adds to the presence of ghosts that lie everywhere in the film. Just see it.

Anatomy of a Fall is the other great reminder from last year that foreign films, even those with subtitles—this film is in English, French, and German—are well worth the watch. In many ways, this is a courtroom drama in the same cinematic universe as 1959’s Anatomy of a Murder, after which it is named. Also nominated for five Oscars—Best Picture, Best Director, Best Editing, and Best Actress, including its win in the Best Original Screenplay category, the film follows the case of a death from a fall—accident, suicide, or murder. Some feel that the film settles the issue, or at least suggests an explanation. In my mind, it’s more like the film Doubt, which kept the incidentals of an action—the did she/didn’t she?—in the background and swirl of questions and emotional responses in the foreground. Sandra Hüller, playing the wife, was instructed by the director to play her character is if she were innocent.

For those of us in the West who want to know for sure what happened in our TV shows and films, there is still so much that’s marvelous in the film that it’s worth spending its admittedly long 2.5 hours with it. Like its earlier namesake, the film has extraordinary performances. I am one who thinks that James Steward should have won his second Oscar for Anatomy of a Murder, and here, there are two—OK, three—performances worthy of an award.

Sandra Hüller, for those who weren’t familiar with her, is the cinematic thespian find of last year. These two performances alone should guarantee her a place in film history. It’s difficult to pay as close attention as the performance deserves in The Zone of Interest, in that the story is far broader than the story of the wife, and her stellar acting is simply of a piece with the other elements of a subtly powerful film. But in Anatomy of a Fall, Hüller is front and center, and the story is hers. And she owns every moment she’s in the frame, whether in the background cooking or yelling in frustration at her soon-to-be-dead husband. It’s easy to see why of her two great performances last year that this would be on the one Oscar-nominated. It’s full, rich, powerful, and enigmatic all at the same time.

The other great human performance is that of Milo Machado-Graner, who plays the couple’s 11-year-old son Daniel. Machado-Graner actually opens the film, but at a distance. That distance is slowly but steadily decreased until he is giving the dominant performance, and he is outstanding. Put this in your list of best child performances. Nothing I write here, though, is meant to take away from the solid work by Samuel Theis as the husband, and especially, Swann Arlaud as the lawyer.

Lastly, there has been a great deal of deserved talk over the “performance” of Messi as Snoop, the family dog. Messi has actually won several awards for his work here, my favorite being (not kidding) the Palm Dog Award at Cannes. He has his own seat at this year’s Oscar show, and if a dog can be said to give a real performance, this is the best you’ll ever see. At first, Snoop is simply the family pet in the background. But as with Daniel, he eventually becomes a major character, and every other dog performance will look phony after this.

These two films should be seen by anyone interest in modern European cinema, what sound can do, historical films, mysteries, courtroom dramas, and films with great acting, especially Hüller, and yes, even Messi. There are larger issues galore in both these films, issues of evil, self-delusion, human cruelty, the ups and downs of marital life, the question of how can come to know the truth of anything. But these issues lie gloriously under the surface in both these films, and enrich their films without suffocating them. Rare, indeed. But oh so artful.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tiger Bay (1959) and Hayley Mills

Posted on April 17, 2024 by Mark DuPré

My first celebrity crush was blonde ingenue Hayley Mills. If you are older or have seen old Disney movies, you may remember her from 1960’s Pollyanna and/or 1961’s The Parent Trap—the original one. Those were probably the first two films I ever saw her in, being of an age for kid’s movies, and Disney being a safe choice for children. But as I grew in film knowledge and thought back to my unrequited love for this young actress, I discovered that she had made a big splash the year earlier in a film called Tiger Bay, directed by J. Lee Thompson (Oscar nominee for directing The Guns of Navarone) and featuring her famous father John in a supporting role. (Note: John Mills was already a stage and screen legend at this time. Aside from a hefty list of stage successes, Mills had already starred in David Lean’s Great Expectations as Pip, and in Noel Coward’s In Which We Serve, and later went on to win a Best Supporting Actor Award for his work in Lean’s Ryan’s Daughter.)

I looked at various streaming services with no success, and even tried the library system in my region, all to no avail in terms of being able to view this mysterious film. I finally tried YouTube, not my first choice for quality films, but I was finally able to view a good version of it there.

It’s a fascinating film, both for its promises and its unusual look and feel. Its promises were its two leads: first-time actor 12-year-old Hayley and the supposed “German James Dean,” Horst Buchholz, making his debut in English-speaking films. These two are the promises, which have sadly been unfulfilled. Buchholz was in 1960’s The Magnificent Seven and later, in 1997’s Life is Beautiful. But he never achieved the level of success of his German-speaking career, and has perhaps become more famous for the roles he turned down: Sherif Ali in David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia, which made Omar Sharif an international star; the lead in A Fistful of Dollars, which made Clint Eastwood an international star; and the role of Tony in West Side Story, which would clearly have catapulted him to international stardom (and which might have resulted in a better film).

After this spectacular debut, Hayley Mills could have had one of the careers of the century. She was so natural, so unaffected in this film (especially as contrasted with many of the child actors of the time) that it seemed she could do anything. She quickly stacked up the honors: a Silver Berlin Bear Special prize for her performance in Tiger Bay, as well as a BAFTA Award for Most Promising Newcomer to Film. Then she won the last Juvenile Oscar given for her work in Pollyanna, as well as a Golden Globe for Pollyanna for Most Promising Newcomer-Female. She was also nominated for BAFTA Best Actress Awards for Pollyanna and 1962’s Whistle Down the Wind.  Lastly, she scored a hit with the song “Let’s Get Together,” which made it to number 8 on the Billboard Top 100, and which found a place in my brain that it refuses to leave. British exhibitors voted her the most popular film actress in England in 1962, when she was all of 14.

The Disney connection was a two-edged sword. It brought her world-side success, and then cramped her artistic growth. Mills also seems to have fallen into the trap of many child stars who jump into adult life too quickly, and then pay for it. In 1966, 20-year-old Mills met began a relationship with 53-year-old director Roy Boulting, whom she married in 1971—her first, his fourth out of five. Not surprisingly, this personal and professional connection set her on a less-than-successful personal and professional path, and while she had the occasional modest success, and is still acting, she never fulfilled that early promise. (They divorced in 1977).

Her partner in Tiger Bay, Buchholz, was also on the verge of becoming a major international star when he made the film. But his subsequent choices in what he would and would not take seem to have worked against a stellar career. He skillfully chews on every piece of furniture in the film, à la James Dean, and has the requisite pain in his eyes. But his acting career was soon relegated back to his native Germany, and he augmented his film work there with a successful career in dubbing.

Tiger Bay itself is something of a hybrid. It has wonderful black-and-white cinematography that beautifully matches its noir influences. But it also has early stylistic signs in its camerawork and editing that lean into both New Wave influences from France as well as the “kitchen-sink” dramas of early 1960’s British films. Those styles don’t always combine well for a modern viewer, but for film nerds/buffs/aficionados, it’s fascinating to watch. What doesn’t work at all is the music, which borrows the worst of 1940’s and ’50’s Hollywood films, reflecting and announcing insistently on matching what we see to what we are unfortunate enough to hear. It is well worth the watch, in spite of its odd features, and is a thrilling story with strong human dimensions.

Unlike River Phoenix, Heath Ledger, Brittany Murphy, Anton Yelchin, Chadwick Boseman, and James Dean himself, Ms. Mills is still with us. Just thinking of her brings up complicated feelings. She was my “first love,” she made an amazing first film, and she was able to make several more films over her lifetime. But…what could have been…? We’ll never know.

Fun last note: Hayley’s actual “debut,” like Liza Minnelli, was as a baby in a film starring one of her parents. In Hayley’s case, it was 1947’s So Well Remembered, which also featured her sister Juliet, also an accomplished actress. So when Tiger Bay was released, it was advertised as her “return” to film.

Posted in Film Reviews, Older Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scattered Thoughts on Killers of the Flower Moon

Posted on April 13, 2024 by Mark DuPré

Gladstone, De Niro and DiCaprio in Killers of the Flower Moon

What? Why are you writing about that “old” movie now? Well, yes, Killers of the Flower Moon was released way back in October 2023, and yes, it’s been nominated for a variety of awards but has won very few apart from Lily Gladstone as best actress.

But this is as good a time as any to mention why and how I write. I don’t write reviews; I write analyses. There’s nothing wrong with writing reviews, and obviously my personal thoughts are going to be included as I write. But film reviewers are up against a deadline, usually only see a movie once before having to review it, usually spend half the review recounting the plot, and finally, end up with some kind of recommendation (see it, don’t bother, see it but know what you’re getting into, etc.)

Also, this particular film is three-and-a-half hours long, and for this writer to find that window of time when he’s not already doing something more time-critical than watching and writing—and is sure that he won’t fall asleep—well, that opportunity often takes a while to present itself. So what could be more important than watching a film? Well, babysitting the cutest twin girls in the universe, counseling, keeping up with friendships, and writing a play—for starters.

Killers is old news at this point, and already has a curious history. When it was released, there was excitement about a new Martin Scorsese film starring Scorsese stalwarts Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro. It was looking like this was the front-runner for Best Picture for a while, but then it began to fade in light of the Barbenheimer silliness, and in the reality of the impressiveness of Oppenheimer. By the time the awards season was in high swing, very few awards came its way outside of Lily Gladstone’s apparent dominance in the Best Actress category. But even that ran into a speed bump by the surprise lack of a BAFTA nomination, and then the finishing touch was Emma Stone winning Best Actress for Poor Things, which only a few folks saw coming.

So here are some thoughts, more for the record than anything else:

With the 2016 Scorsese film Silence running just under three hours, and the 2019 The Irishman and 2023’s Killers of the Flower Moon both clocking in at 3.5 hours, Scorsese is clearly going for more than just box office success. In fact, all these films were money-losers, even while the exact numbers for The Irishman can never be known in the light of Netflix accounting. Scorsese seems more interested now in passion projects that reflect end-of-life concerns, be they spiritual, the painful process of mortality, or just the desire to address a nearly lost chapter in American history that’s been burning in his heart and mind. It can be a challenge to see his recent (and future) films outside of the bright light that is the director himself. But they are films that can stand on their own, albeit with some work required to pry them away from their director’s aura.

Killers is the baby that Giant and There Will Be Blood might have had, and perhaps those comparisons don’t always work in its favor. Killers is long and epic and about something important, but doesn’t always have the historical scope of the former and the forward momentum of the latter. It moves along, like The Irishman, at a pace that is not boring but neither is it engaging. Given the scope of Killers, the editing, as deft as it is, is hamstrung by having to cover too much of a story with too many characters and side plots. To make matters more challenging for the viewer,  the film seems to have leaned away from dramatic intensity in favor of nimbly moving us from one action and event to the next. There is beautiful music, some breathtaking cinematography, and some very good to excellent acting. And while the film portrays a horrifying chapter in American history, we’re never invited in to experience the horror. It’s a crime that took place over time, which can be hard to dramatically sustain when we spend so much time with individual stories. Plus having two film superstars and a superstar performance at the center of your story, it’s easy to get distracted from the big historical picture.

I still am not sure what to make of DiCaprio’s performance. He is one of our great young(ish) actors, and he can non-condescendingly play down his intelligence at the service of his characters. But his character’s relationship with his future wife is the dramatic center of the film, and his starting point and turning point are ill-defined. Casting Leo was a smart move for his acting skills and likeability, and we are obviously supposed to connect with him as he takes us on the film’s journey. But it’s hard to know who he really is and why we should like him when he and the film send us so many mixed signals.

Both DiCaprio and DeNiro wear frowns looking like upside-down U’s, and that look can border on the satiric at times. Both, and especially DeNiro, give performances that transcend the frown, but the facial expression can be much at times.

Lily Gladstone, whom I was pretty sure would win the Oscar, holds the film together with something that is between a leading and supporting performance. Her acting is deeply felt and expertly expressed, with an emphasis on the quiet inner life of the character. (A Hollywood cliché is that sometimes the film that wins awards for the best music, best editing, or best acting is actually the film with the MOST music, the MOST editing, and the MOST acting. In this light, one can see why Emma Stone won over Gladstone.) There is a softness but not a weakness to Gladstone’s performance, and that helps to give some understanding to what DiCaprio’s character is doing in this story. Perhaps if she had been the center of the plot instead of either the big historical story or what the two leading men were doing, it might have been a more powerful film.

Some events end up birthing films that don’t do the subject matter justice, e.g., Red Tails, or more recently, The Boys in the Boat. A Scorsese film with great actors, powerful music, and great cinematography ought to provide the perfect setting for a story that shouldn’t be forgotten. I’m afraid that with the length of the film combined with its ultimate lack of dramatic punch, the film doesn’t quite offer a telling commensurate with the power of its real-life story.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dune: Part Two

Posted on April 9, 2024 by Mark DuPré

Science fiction is not my thing—so hard to connect with for me. Plus, movies that have so many characters doing so many things can get confusing for me. That said, Dune: Part Two is the best mainstream film of the year so far. It’s bravura filmmaking by a master, and is the sleeker, smarter descendant of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Where to begin? The cinematography by Greig Fraser (The Batman, Zero Dark Thirty) is spectacular, reminding the viewer of both David Lean at his finest, and the best work of Peter Jackson—stunning landscape shots combined with medium shots and close-ups that are revelatory rather than simply arresting. The music is by the incredible Hans Zimmer (Oscars for Dune: Part One and  1995’s The Lion King, and nominations for Dunkirk, Interstellar, Inception, Gladiator, and Rain Man, among others). Zimmer’s work with Christopher Nolan is echoed here in the best way, as it works with all other production elements to create a Nolan-esque experience. There were moments when the music stood out, which isn’t a negative, but mostly the music is so intertwined with the cinematography, editing, and production design as to be a thread in a tapestry.

The production design is by Patrice Vermette (Oscar for his work on the previous Dune, shared with Zsuzsanna Sipos), and again, like the music, is of such a high quality as to threaten to stand apart from the whole, but doesn’t. The world-making here is so real, so engaging, that the viewer easily accepts what he sees without question.

left to right: Pugh, Chalamet, Zendaya

The acting is of such a level that, once more, it could stand apart from the film, as the acting does in The Blind Side, or The Eyes of Tammy Faye, or The Whale, but doesn’t. That could either mean that the acting is of such a mediocre quality in Dune: Part Two that it can’t stand apart, or that the acting, as good as it is, is integrated into the film as a whole, which is the case. What makes that statement such an anomaly and a cinematic triumph is that four of film’s best young actors have significant roles in the film, and three out of four of them have highly defined characters. (Future Oscar winners, IMHO) Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, Austin Butler (Elvis) and Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer, Black Widow) are all featured, with only Pugh with a minor role here that doesn’t fully demonstrate her talent. (Perhaps, like Zendaya’s Chani, she will be more strongly featured in the next film.)

Chalamet has the hardest task, and his (spoiler alert) eventual turn isn’t entirely believable, but the shift is nearly invisible beneath the surface of a great young actor digging into a great role. Zendaya proves here that she can hold a film together, as she essentially does here. Of course her role is much greater than in the first film, but it’s not just screen time that gives her the weight in this film, but her quietly fierce performance. Her character often doesn’t say much, but you know exactly what she is thinking and feeling at all times.

Austin Butler’s presence is a bit of a shock for those that know him from Elvis and the mini-series “Masters of the Air”. He’s built up that thin physique of his as much as is humanly possible, and he becomes a frightening character that widens the world being built here, and gives us as rich a villain as Freddy or Jason. For an actor looking to a long career, he couldn’t have made a better career move. Pugh’s role here is minimal, but suggests a great presence in the next iteration. Rebecca Ferguson does more standing around here than in Part One, but locks down a character that could be relegated to insignificance in the hands of a lesser actress.

Oscar winners and nominees show up all over the place. Thanos Josh Brolin brings a strength and realism to his character that keeps the film from getting lost in fantasy. Charlotte Rampling (45 Years) has a career going back to 1965, and has grown into a great actress of not only talent, but authority on the screen. Her Reverend Mother Mohiam could have been simply creepy, but far exceeds that with this performance. I’m still not sure what I think about what Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men) is doing with Stilgar’s character, but it never completely disassociates itself from the film. Christopher Walken can be a fine actor, which he is here, but his presence is a bit jolting when we shows up.  

Dave Bautista as Beast Rabban is…fine.

Director Denis Villeneuve has demonstrated a great talent over the years (Oscar nominations for co-producing Dune: Part One as well as co-writing it, and directing Arrival), one that is surprisingly short of nominations and wins. That season in his life should be over. This film is a triumph of weaving cinematic elements together into a coherent whole, and that is to Villeneuve’s credit. To pull out the performances that he does, to create the amazing world that exists here, to weave together sound and image and editing into such a comprehensive whole—this is the work of a master at his peak.

Quibbles are few: For someone like me, there are too many characters to keep track of, and I tend to give up on the story early in films like this, and just sit back and enjoy everything else. But there is so much to sit back and enjoy here. Again, the genre is not my cup of tea, but this is still the best film of the year so far.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment