Reviews

I don't understand why the hallmark of a good movie has to be that it's believable. Is opera believable? Is Sophocles believable? Is ballet believable. The way I see it, this film is closer to an operatic Greek Tragedy. Sure, we don't know what Walken wants to build a new hosptial in an impoverished neighborhood. It doesn't matter. Should there be exposition like, 'Guys, when I was doing time, prison taught me that stealing and killing should serve a higher purpose: to do good for society. I had a vision, get it? Case closed." King of NY is a fiction film, not a documentary. It's got a lot of style, even over the top style. But who said a movie can't be over the top? Singin' in the Rain is over the top. So is The Wizard of Oz. So is any horror film you watch. What's important is the interaction between the characters, and each scene glued together with the next scene. Even when characters are exagerrated like the goofy jive-ass walk of Lawrence Fishburne. I think it's more watchable by being outlandish. To see realistic killing and mayhem would be too disturbing and detract from the story line. Chris Walken walks around like a vampire as seen from the back with his great coat; he dances like an alien. In fact everyone in the movie has some quirk that places them half way in the world of crime and half way in the world of hell. Isn't that the way gangsters see the world: in some distorted bizarro configuration that is based on real life but not quite.

It's interesting that a film entitled Django Unchained, about a freed slave that becomes independent, has the major black character--played by Jamie Foxx--behaving fairly clueless throughout the film. Sure, you have to become socialized as a free man if you were a slave. While that may be accurate, it doesn't make for a compelling plot. In fact, I thought Jamie Foxx has this deadpan/confused demeanor through most of the film. The main character ends up being Dr. Schultz. In fact, Samuel Jackson's character is much better defined and more interesting than Foxx's. The film grows more and more gonzo as the story progresses, and approaches the level of slapstick. That's not necessarily bad, but it simply adds to the mixing of genres, which is also fine if it works, but it seemed to gimmickly to me. The salute to Italian westerns is fun, but Italians didn't have to contend with slavery as a serious issue--one that tore and still seems to tear apart the U. S. So, while the film is an interesting diversion, that's all it basically is.

I put 'The Stranger' in the top films ever made. Period! Before dismissing the hyperbole, let me give my creds.: Professional actor, film critic, playwright, screenwriter, fiction writer. I've seen equivalent of seeing 31/2 months of international film non-stop. I've seen 'The Stranger' 3 times in 2 days. Acting, mood, tone, screenplay, dialogue, tension, slow- burn, 'realistic' bizarre. A film in which the actors totally immerse themselves. Joel Edgerton & Sam Harris are supernaturally good. One criterion I use for judging a film is how difficult it is for the various creative elements to come together given the material. This story, then film, is very hard to pull off given there is a certain level of deception that must be attained in order for it to remain plausible. There are subtle moments in the film--nearly the entire film is about small, subtle interactions and laconic dialogue. This is a film that is visceral, intense, and troubling, and there is no actual violence depicted on the screen.

Errol Morris does his usual job of letting his subject reveal himself/herself by simply asking a few pointed questions. However, with Steve Bannon, it should take no more than a few minutes to determine that he is woefully unenlightened, and really has no clue as to the dynamics of American politics or its people. I wonder whether he's ever read a book about politics, society, or sociology. I do know he's a movie fan, and '12 O'Clock High, a film starring Gregory Peck, who is bracing his pilots prior to bombing missions not to expect a happy ending. In a famous line from the film--but one that is a common phrase observed by soldiers in wartime or observers of war, he tells his men not to worry about death because 'you're already dead.' Such a sentiment has been expressed in scores of books by participants in war and observers and researchers about war. It's nothing new, although Bannon seems to think it is somehow revelatory. It's surprising he was so influenced by the movie and the scene given Bannon's supposed position that you must go forward to advance your agenca 'by any means necessary,' as Malcolm X said, and many before him. The inconsistency is that Malcolm X meant it. Bannon doesn't. He worked briefly as a bureaucrat, has never been in combat, and has no clue how most Americans feel in regards to actually lay down their lives for someone like Trump. The fact is Trump's followers are not about to do something so 'revolutionary' except perhaps for a few people on the periphery. I can only think of one person pre-Trump, McVey, who ignited the bomb in Oklahoma, that committed himself to an act that would surely end in his capture, and his demise. Ironically, McVey wasn't exactly the brightest bulb, and got caught quickly. Bannon is not tough nor is he brave. If he thinks that an armed rebellion will commence with millions of Americans taking to the streets with weapons in support of Trump, he hasn't examined the situation deeply. Bannon comes off as being a right wing version of a thoughtless leftist radical. However, there are dozens of thinkers, philosophers, political scientists, historians that have studied liberal discontents and have written hundreds of books about the issue. Bannon's education is woefully lacking, and his sophistication in pitiful. I truly was shocked that his level of discourse sounded like a high school student, and with no true feasible plan to make a change. It is also highly doubtful he has ever studied revolutions in Latin America. Where there truly are threats to peace, and where rebellion does end in killing. Bannon is a perfect subject for an Errol Morris film. He reveals how unenlightened he is while at the same time, presents Morris as a lot more sophisticated in thinking about the important issues of the ruling class in America. For Bannon to consider himself to be a so-called 'populist' because he has a small inkling of what that means is doing no favors to anyone. He also seems to have no political savvy. You don't spread ideas among the general public if you don't know your audience. I haven't read his columns for Breitbart news. But why haven't people that share his view seem to lack any evidence about what they espouse. They don't use economic analyses, political explanations, historical precedence except for the most asinine claims. Why? They simply don't know much--in fact, they don't seem to know much of anything. Could you imagine comparing people in the pro-Trump movement with our 'founding fathers.' It's absurd. Bannon reveals the emperor has no clothes. The emperor is not very convincing except to those that don't read. This has nothing to do with fake news. It demonstrates a deep ignorance that may result in violent attacks by outsiders, but if you review the resumes of many of the 1/6 invaders, they don't even seem to be able to hold down jobs. Bannon is a metonymy for a disoriented, dislocated group of individuals that lack all sophistication, that threaten the public or gov't as though such threats will be helpful to their cause. They won't be. Who would risk his life or her life for people that need to get a life? This must have been Errol Morris's easiest film to make.

The cast, and of course Sam Elliot and all the other creative people that worked on this film, pulled off something extremely difficult--making a simple narrative nearly perfect: to explain, when a movie has a small cast, modest locations, and slow, deliberate performances, every second has to be just right, like a piano sonatas played before a large audience. One misspoken word, a glance, a reaction, even a step across a room, has to be just right otherwise it will seem dishonest. Combine that with a story that centers on an intense predicament, a person reflecting on a long life, regrets, failures and successes, and most of all, a tenuous future, must be honest and heartfelt. Sam Elliot stars and is also something of an assistant director. All the other performers and performances are responses to his actor's truth. If he had made a false step, others would have followed suit. And since no one did, it was right back at him for the next intense moment. If you look around the edges of the film, you might find that theme in the most unlikely places.

It would be hard to come up with anymore reasons why this film was so bad, but I do want to point out that the purported real name of the protagonist was William Tillich, and I don't think it was a coincidence that Paul Schrader selected it because it's the same last name of a famous 20th Century Christian theologian:

"The first duty of love is to listen." Paul Tillich.

The Guilty is a genre of film that goes way back. A single individual is trapped in a desperate situation, and has very little leeway regarding how to solve it. The pressure mounts because of a personal problem that he is about to face--thus making the tension operate synergistically--the immediate problem and the forthcoming one. The film is more like a one-person, long one-act play, although the use of technology, GPS, phone towers, and a California wildfire make things tenser and more complicated. Although the script is expertly constructed and Gyllenhaal hits all the right emotional notes, the film is basically an emotional roller coaster ride, which, for most people, will dissipate once the 'ride' is over. I kept wondering whether the film was a remake; it had the markings of one--perhaps because it was too well constructed. Sure enough, it is. If you want to see a similarly styled film, try The Slender Thread (1965), starring SIdney Portier, who mans a suicide prevention hotline and spends the film trying to get the caller from taking pills.

I read a short story 'The Most Dangerous Game' in high school with basically the same plot, but not sci-fi with special effects. I found the Squid Game super boring and just about every plot point was predictable. I think the average Superman comic book has more interesting twists than this overblown, stretched out story. It was a disappointment since there are a lot of Asian movies and series that have really interesting stories with characters that are more complex than video game ones. But if you like video games, there's a good chance you will like this movie, except that you have no control over the story. Now, if the producers could get the audience involved in determining the fate of the games, that could be interesting. As it is, it's hardly worth spending time writing about it (unless you're getting paid) and I"m not.

As someone with a considerable background in writing and acting, when I watch a TV series, I am very attuned to each scene, line of dialogue, shot, sequence, characterization, etc. I think PSI, in its first season, is extremely good. I'd rate seven or eight of the episodes a "10." Consider that the series is basically contrived as people who either sit around talking or interacting in small groups. There are no extravagant visual effects or sound effects or FSX to mesmerize you. The episodes do require you to remain focused on the various inter- and intrapersonal conflicts that arise between and among the characters, and even though some of the episodes address some rare or arcane psychological issues, the plots and stories are nearly always plausible and interesting. Bravo to the actor Emilo de Mello, who as Dr. Carlo subtly displays a range of emotions convincingly and honestly. The same with the rest of the regular cast.

I find Fleabag to be mildly amusing. However, if you find the first bits, especially the sex bits funny, the rest are the same. It's a one-joke show and a one-character show. I'd have preferred it as a one-woman theater piece since the other characters seem to be just variations of the main character. there's a presentational stylistic choice, in which Phoebe Waller-Bridge talks to the audience. Some people might find it funny. I found it contrived. It's a ploy used in the bob hope/bing crosby movies and the George Burns TV show. Only these latter and much older entertainments did it better. Everything Walter-Bridge does as a character is klutzy. It gets old--very fast.

I could practically see Matthew McConaughey cringe when he acted in this film because the lines were so banal, and the screenplay so derivative. I suspect it went through many rewrites. McConaughey did as well as any actor could given the script. The same may be said of the other actors, although Ryan Phillippe was particularly awful, but that may have been because his character was more terribly written than the other.

Abysmal banter that doesn't reach the level of a typical 1930s London Dance Hall act. What were these two performers thinking? I already forgot every joke in their revue.

A fairly entertaining fairy/human, oppressed/oppressor, social commentary, murder mystery with intermittent clever dialogue--visually appealing costuming, makeup, art direction, props, with good diction as to be expected from a British production.

Sadly, this series has progressively diminished in quality. I thought the acting, directing, and scripts for season three were written out of desperation. I'm sure the cast and crew aren't too upset. Some good paychecks all around.

There were so many small problems in this film, they coalesced into one big problem: namely that the movie was not really a creative whole. Mistakes include the casting: Forest Whitaker is too old to play an army colonel. Jeremy Renner, a terrific actor, has his talents largely wasted in a vacuously written character (not much he could do about that). Lots of leaps in logic. It seemed the director wanted to get the film over with after the first half. It just didn't seem to go anywhere. Another issue is that to really understand the 'message' of the film, you need to know something about linguistics. I've studied linguistics and there is a reference made to the 'Whorf Hypothesis' often called the 'Whorf-Sapir hypothesis,' which, if you're not acquanted with it, will probably make you lose sight of the theme or not have the 'insight' about the theme. I won't mention the concept here. It's not that complicated, but if you read up on it, it should help fill in at least some of the holes in the script. In addition, and this isn't a spoiler since it is mentioned in the first 15 minutes of the film, a sizeable number of alien spacecraft land on Earth simultaneously. This trope has been done to death in horror/sci-fi films and on TV, so to make a good film with this premise is all that more difficult.

I'd bet that if a commensurate TV series like Merli (Merlin) was in a more familiar European language or an American TV series, it would be a huge hit. It is in Catalan, a language spoken by about 10,000,000 people, most in Barcelona and its surrounding area. The concept is ingenious, but there are lots of ingenious concepts. What makes this a great show is that the realization of the concept is wonderful. Don't take my word for it. The series has already been optioned in the U.S., France, and other countries. A non-conforming high school philosophy teacher (philosophy in high school?) brings classroom learning to life, but also becomes a central agent of change in the lives of his students, their parents, and the other teachers. Life changing is not always positive. Merli is not a do-gooder. He is clever, deceptive, even desperate at times, but he knows who he is, and knows how the world works. The entire cast is terrific. The scripts are so smoothly written that the actors seems to just ease into the action. There is rarely a wrong note in the series. It's nothing like American TV shows about high school students that portray them as brats or goof balls or stereotypes. It's available with English subtitles. If you know a Romance language, you will probably catch some of the dialogue. Catalan seems a mix of Spanish, French and Italian. I am waiting for season two to be available. I binge watched the first season in four days.