Author: And Palladino

  • Showdown: ‘Promising Young Woman’ vs. ‘I Care a Lot’

    Showdown: ‘Promising Young Woman’ vs. ‘I Care a Lot’

    ‘Promising Young Woman’ and ‘I Care A Lot’

    Films anchored by female villains are still not too commonplace, even less so are ones garnering major awards. But with Promising Young Woman and I Care a Lot, we have two concurrent examples. Darkly comic yet deadly serious, each features a British lead actress combined with a British writer/director, but is set in the United States. 

    One night a week, Cassie Thomas (Carey Mulligan) goes out to a bar. Her drunken antics inevitably attract the attention of a “well-meaning” man who whisks her back to his place. Once the opportunity strikes, he’ll try having his way with her. One small problem: Cassie is not actually inebriated, and very capable of retaliation.

    I said years ago that rape-revege films were likely never going to surpass their progenitor The Virgin Spring, and I still stand fully by that assertion. That said, Promising Young Woman is a solid enough entry. Even though it isn’t as violent as some might be expecting/hoping, it has some gripping twists and turns. Mulligan has never been more commanding or unpredictable, while first-time director Emerald Fennell’s shot compositions are striking and smart. 

    A huge point against the film, though, is its terrible music selection. The original score is brilliant, but the needle drops are not. While the opening credits cover of “It’s Raining Men” isn’t all that bad, a song originally performed by BBWOC and seen as an anthem for the gay community doesn’t really have any connection to this material. Scenes that should resonate with dramatic heft are ruined by some truly awful song choices. And the instrumental version of “Toxic” is just as ear-bleedingly atrocious as the first.

    I Care a Lot, on the other hand, is very much in the vein of an episode of The Hitchhiker. Marla Grayson (Rosamund Pike) is a court-appointed guardian who has her elderly clients committed under false pretenses. From there, she bilks them dry with Fran (Eiza Gonzalez), her partner in both senses of the word. But their latest mark (Dianne Wiest), who seemed perfect on paper, has a secret that they didn’t anticipate.

    This tale would probably have been better off as something that runs just over 20 minutes as opposed to just under 120 minutes. Strangely, for going on so long, it feels very underwritten. Fran is a useless character who could’ve been cut entirely and some story developments lack internal credulity. There’s a theory that this is one of those movies where some things we see aren’t actually happening and just in the protagonist’s mind. If true, this would cover for a lot of the plot holes, but there’s really nothing in the film to corroborate that view.

    But the acting is very strong, with Alicia Witt and Peter DInklage also in the impressive cast. Wiest is rather underutilized, but gets in some moments where she can. It’s Pike, however, who is the standout. The work she does here is masterful, and if this movie can be said to be carried by anything, it’s her.


    The two films differ in the degree to which the audience is told of the character’s past. Bit by bit, viewers learn what’s driving Cassie and what led to her arrested development. With Marla, no motive is explored. The scheme is demonstrated to be effective, sure, but there’s never any explanation as to how or why she got into it (grandmommy issues?). 

    Ultimately, it is that greater attention to detail that gives Cassie’s film the edge. Both their strong and weak points, but having the better central character makes for the better experience overall. 

    Winner: Promising Young Woman

  • Showdown: ‘News of the World’ vs. ‘The Marksman’

    Showdown: ‘News of the World’ vs. ‘The Marksman’

    Tom Hanks in 'News of the World' and Liam Neeson in 'The Marksman.'
    Tom Hanks in ‘News of the World’ and Liam Neeson in ‘The Marksman.’

    Every so often, two movies that are more or less seen as being the same thing are released in close proximity to each other. We have another case of that here, even more amazing considering that hardly any movies are going to theaters at all these days. 

    In both News of the World and The Marksman, an aged former soldier meets a child that needs to be transported across the country to their only family. The two set out, but then face numerous troubles and pursuers. They do differ, though, in things like time period, the language that comprises the initial communication barrier, and general competence. 

    Captain Kidd (Tom Hanks) makes his post-Civil War living by going from town to town to deliver the, well, news of the world. During one such trek, he comes across Johanna (Helena Zengel), the sole survivor of a raid. She is a young white girl who was taken in by the Kiowa years ago after the deaths of her parents. When an army checkpoint informs him that the agent for her case won’t be available for several months, he takes the matter into his own hands and vows to get her to her aunt and uncle.

    There are actually quite a few directors for whom teaming up with Hanks is something to look forward to (Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Nora Ephron, Robert Zemeckis) and now perhaps we can add Paul Greengrass to that list. The work from the two of them here is spot-on and Zengel makes a tremendous impression keeping pace with them. Also in the cast are greats like Mare Winningham, Elizabeth Marvel, and Ray McKinnon, who don’t stick around much but are great to see nonetheless. There are some deviations from the novel, and while they aren’t too egregious, greater fidelity would have been preferred. Still, the story is very compelling.

    The Marksman is set in the present day. Jim Hanson (Liam Neeson; yes, that’s seriously the character’s name) is an ex-marine living along the Arizona-Mexico border. One day, as he just so happens to be at a fence, a mother (Teresa Ruiz) and son (Joe Perez) being hunted by a cartel make it under. The gang arrives and a shootout leaves the woman as well as the leader’s (Juan Pablo Raba) brother dead. Learning that the boy has family in Chicago, Jim decides to get him there while avoiding the wrathful cartel.

    As one can see, the concept is more or less the same as News, but problems aplenty beset this movie. There are numerous plot holes and dumb character decisions on both sides. Katheryn Winnick is utterly wasted in a side role where she does not get to demonstrate her combat prowess. The villains are scummy stereotypes that further Hollywood fearmongering while the kid is just annoying. And the whole thing ends on several notes that are entirely unearned.

    But more to the point, the relationship between the protector and protected never feels like anything greater. Even with a deceased wife mentioned in the character’s backstory, the viewer does not get the impression that he sees the boy as more than an assignment. Contrast this with News, where the protagonist does come to view his charge as a surrogate daughter. There are times when he is given offers to relinquish the duty at great benefit to himself, but he declines at great risk. Marksman doesn’t have that, and can’t because the cartel wants him just as dead for killing the leader’s brother.

    In this duel, it’s really no contest.  There’s one that delivers and another that’s wildly off-target.

    Winner: News of the World

  • The force is tepid with ‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker’

    The force is tepid with ‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker’

    Ian McDiarmid and Daisy Ridley in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

    “Slip to the darkside and cross that line.” – Eddie and the Cruisers

    In my past evaluations of the Star Wars films, I was very generous in doling out high praise. I was so enthralled with the imagination on display and wrenching moments that it took a long time, if ever, for me to see the flaws. With The Rise of Skywalker, however, the blinders have come off.

    The “final” entry to the main saga (pfft, like we haven’t heard that one before), Rise comes to us as the franchise may have just reached oversaturation. “Less is more” is perhaps a lesson this film could have used.

    The Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) lives! We’re finally clued in that he’s been shaping things from behind the scenes this whole time, but now wants his presence known. He meets with Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and officially gives him the order to kill Rey (Daisy Ridley). Meanwhile, the Rebels under command of Leia (Carrie Fisher) make their plans to strike but first need to locate the Sith homeworld where the Emperor is hiding out. So Rey, Finn (John Boyega), Poe (Oscar Isaac), Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), and BB-8 set out to find the big bad to end things once and for all.

    Even setting aside how its predecessor was received, this has been a very troubled production and lead-up. In addition to one of the primary actors dying before shooting even began, it’s been noted for the departure (firing?) of original director Colin Trevorrow and rumors circulating about behind the scenes disagreements. So yes, what we’re left with is a mess that does not come together in any cohesive or meaningful manner. While walking back some of The Last Jedi could please that film’s enemies, what was used to do that, in one way or another, is unlikely to be to their satisfaction.

    Chris Terrio has got to be one of the worst screenwriters working in major film today. This in no way feels like the natural progression of events that The Force Awakens was building towards. And no, that middle film cannot possibly be a scapegoat here, as this one tries its best to pretend it never existed. While that non-JJ Abrams entry has been fodder for hours upon hours of video analyses taking the writing to task, Rise has plenty more issues which should at least double those numbers.

    Yet in spite of all these detractions, I did derive some enjoyment from it. At the very least, it delivers on a purely visceral level. Space battles, lightsaber fights, chases, stealthy moments, exploring new(ish) environments…the basic elements one expects from this series are here. As terrible as the writing is, the main event reveal knocked me right on my hindquarters. Plus, it’s nice to see Billy Dee Williams finally reprise Lando in the flesh. 

    The Rise of Skywalker can be a fun time, but that’s really all it is. If you’re hoping for an all-time sci-fi great, this is not the film you’re looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

  • ‘Birds of Prey’ flies low

    ‘Birds of Prey’ flies low

    Margot Robbie in Birds of Prey

    “The clown may be the source of mirth, but – who shall make the clown laugh?” – Angela Carter

    I owe the makers of Joker a big apology. Yes, they did screw a lot up, but at least that film’s Gotham City felt like one. What we see of this setting in Birds of Prey (and the extremely stupid subtitle I didn’t bother to learn) is just so obviously Los Angeles with no attempt whatsoever to give it any sort of distinctiveness. That sentiment, as it turns out, permeates the whole to a greater degree. 

    Joker sidekick Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) has had enough of the mistreatment from her puddin’ and breaks away from him. This, however, has the unintended effect of giving her enemies cause to go after her. Chief among them is the gangster Black Mask (Ewan McGregor), who is also after her to retrieve a diamond stolen by Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco), the young pickpocket that Harley has taken in. Also factoring in are his henchwoman Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), vigilante Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and Detective Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), who will eventually find themselves having to ally with the other two.

    Essentially a cartoon in live action, Birds of Prey’s most obvious comparison is Deadpool, which also features a manic antihero talking directly to the audience. But Birds copies so many of its signature elements to a suspicious degree. Lives with an elderly person? Check. The story about trying to save a kid, complete with a jailhouse fight? Check. Love for Mexican food? Check. 

    More troublesome, though, is how it repeats some of its predecessor Suicide Squad‘s worst habits. It is overly stylized, throwing crazy font words up on the screen every few minutes. Also returning is the penchant for repeating stuff the audience has already seen and licensed soundtrack where most song choices are far too on the nose. The slowed-down cover version of a famous song makes an appearance too (in this case, “Hit Me with Your Best Shot”). I cannot comprehend why studios have convinced themselves that viewers want these (they are in practically every other trailer). Let me be blunt: we don’t. These are awful and never any good. Enough already. 

    But the real issue, like Joker before it, is that it has little to do with its title characters. Anyone familiar with this property knows that the Birds of Prey team originates with Barbara Gordon, who wants to continue fighting crime even after her paralysis. Barbara does not appear in this movie (her father the Commissioner is strangely never mentioned either), and handing her act of bringing the team together over to the associate of the man who paralyzed her is a really bad look.

    Unfortunately, this is not the film’s only instance of disability erasure. This movie’s Cain is a mouthy teen that does get a funny line or two, but that is completely contrary to who she is in the comics. This character is supposed to be mute. As in does not talk. Someone with a brain that lacks the capability for speech and has to struggle with that plus the life of a junior assassin is (at least) a million times more interesting than what we get here.

    Though, really, if your part isn’t the one played by Robbie, you got shafted. McGregor is deliciously hammy and would have been right at home in the Burton-Schumacher era, but I would’ve been more interested in seeing the serious version of this character. Smollett-Bell is highly miscast while Winstead is barely present and Perez could have been cut entirely without issue. But who we do have and plenty of is Harley. Robbie is a lot better here than she was in her previous outing, committing to the role with great zeal.

    There’s a much better version of what this is trying to be out there right now. It’s an actual cartoon starring Harley Quinn called, well, Harley Quinn. As for the flesh and bone version, it’s now up to James Gunn to put her in something worthy.

  • ‘Little Women’ lands big

    ‘Little Women’ lands big

    Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, and Florence Pugh in Little Women

    “Sisters function as safety nets in a chaotic world simply by being there for each other.” – Carol Saline

    Little Women is one property I have not had much exposure to. Prior to the 2019 film, my only experience with it was The March Sisters at Christmas. This version is certainly superior to that, and indeed better than Greta Gerwig’s previous directorial efforts.

    Jo (Saoirse Ronan) is one of four daughters close in age. She is younger than Meg (Emma Watson) but older than Beth (Eliza Scanlen) and Amy (Florence Pugh). Each has her own interests and goals, which for the central figure of Jo is to read and write, eventually as a profession. 

    Switching back and forth between time periods of a seven-year gap – during the Civil War and after it – we see how they get by with their mother (Laura Dern). They live next to a wealthy boy (Timothée Chalamet) and his grandfather (Chris Cooper), who become quite close with the family. Then there’s the wealthy Aunt March (Meryl Streep), who makes visits here and there to berate their less than lavish conditions.

    Also unlike past versions, the two younger girls are played by the same actresses in both time periods. This makes it a bit unclear whether the characters are meant to be aged up from the book or we really are supposed to see them as tweenagers. Because if it’s the latter, nope, not buying it. Amy has more dimension to her, coming across as greater than the bratty twerp that the character has a reputation of being. Going a long way towards achieving this is the performance from Pugh, who’s definitely the breakout actor in the bunch.

    From what I can gather, the non-linear storytelling is wholly unique to this version. Due to the lack of multiple actors for the different ages, it can be a little confusing until you realize that it’s going on. For viewers familiar with the typical story layout, the rearrangement provides an interesting time in trying to predict where the pieces will fit. Despite the shake up, the story does not seem to be robbed of any thematic resonance nor anything appear conspicuously misplaced.

    However, there’s a bizarre meta-narrative to it all. What’s described above are actually part of a fictional story from a framing scenario where Ronan is alternately pitching to a publisher (Tracy Letts) and working on it. I suppose that it’s meant to echo the trials that Louisa May Alcott went through to get her book out there, it’s just kind of unnecessary. Also, there are really strange bits where a character will speak in voiceover, then be shown talking directly to the camera. These doesn’t occur too frequently, but whenever they do, they’re really jarring and disruptive.

    I’m not sure that this iteration will necessarily replace anyone’s favorite version for those who already have them, but Little Women 2019 is a worthy addition to the legacy. Now on to checking out the 2018 version, and then the 2017 one, then…

  • ‘Bombshell’ is fake news

    ‘Bombshell’ is fake news

    Charlize Theron and Nicole Kidman in Bombshell

    “I believe in only two things completely: the first amendment, and boobs.” – Clay Travis

    Those words were actually spoken on CNN, but Bombshell posits that many over at its competitor Fox News share the sentiment. While a valiant effort in bringing these issues to attention, it’s not nearly as hard-hitting as it could have been.

    It starts at the point in time when Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) publicly questions then-candidate Donald Trump about his past remarks on women (though for whatever reason, his actual response is not shown). Facing huge viewer backlash as a result, she has to try to walk things back as much as she can so that the network might stay in the frontrunner’s good graces. It might already be too late though, as the public perception of her has changed drastically.

    Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is running a show of her own, but promotes somewhat left-leaning views and has had enough of her co-workers’ sexist behaviors. She is working with lawyers (Robin Weigert and Stephen Root) to bring a lawsuit against the network, though they aren’t ready to proceed just yet. Keeping her head down, she gets by as well as she can, yet senses trouble ahead.

    Kayla (Margot Robbie) was formerly a staffer for Carlson before jumping ahead to Bill O’Reilly (Kevin Dorff). But she has even higher ambitions and before long catches the eye of network boss Roger Ailes (John Lithgow). The lecherous old slob is willing to give her the chance to pitch herself, as long as he gets something in return.

    Never heard of Kayla? There’s a good reason for that: she doesn’t exist. That headline wasn’t just being cute, the film really does feature actual fake news. Well okay, she’s a “composite character” meant to reflect the experiences of past employees. But still, they left themselves wide open for that one.

    It’s also just too silly at times. The fourth wall breaks and interior monologues really dilute the seriousness to the tone, as does shoving in notable actors for two-second appearances as other figures of the channel. Trying to digest what’s going on turns into a game of “Is that who I think it is?”

    Nevertheless, when it’s on point, it is effective. The three protagonist actresses are phenomenal; Theron and Kidman (though more so the former) pull off impressive embodiments of these known personalities, while Robbie portraying an opportunist who gets in way over her head is better here than how she’s done it before. It’s from her later scenes that the pathos of this character come through.

    While an excellent job was done getting Theron to resemble Kelly, it only makes the other parts where the actors weren’t made up as well or just do not look it more blatant. This film’s Rudy Giuliani (Richard Kind) could maybe be passable on Saturday Night Live, but here, especially when footage of the real Giuliani is also shown, it does not fly. Lithgow is nowhere near the finely textured turn by Russell Crowe in The Loudest Voice. Malcolm McDowell fits Rupert Murdoch quite well (he did already basically play this part on Law & Order: Criminal Intent), though he’s really only there at the very end.

    In trying its hand at the kind of thing Dick Wolf has been doing for 30 years, Bombshell is far from the optimal way for this material to be tackled. A greater degree of seriousness and closer adherence to the truth would really have helped this examination go more than prosthetics deep.

  • ‘Joker’ is no laughing matter

    ‘Joker’ is no laughing matter

    Robert De Niro and Joaquin Phoenix in Joker

    “When the heroes go off stage, the clowns come on.” – Heinrich Heine

    Just like how comic books eventually developed lines for their more popular villains, the movies have caught up to do the same. We’ve had films for characters who started as adversaries but quickly became and are better known as heroes like The Punisher and Deadpool, but now we’ve moved onto the unrepentant monsters. First Venom, and here Joker.

    Set in Gotham City during the 1980s (for some reason), this film is (as it’s been touted in the press) a King of Comedy knockoff that mixes in attributes from the works of Paul Schrader. However, it does not measure up to those, nor even to the likes of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer or Roman.

    Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a middle-aged professional clown and aspiring comic who has a condition that causes him to burst out laughing at random moments. Caring for his invalid mother (Frances Conroy), he spends his nights with her watching a talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro) and wishing he could one day be a guest. But things take an unfortunate turn when he loses his job and government-assistance programs which, combined with fed up with constant harassment from random fellow citizens, precipitates a violent lashing out.

    If you follow Batman anything, you’ve immediately sussed out the problem: this isn’t the Joker. The man depicted here has as much to do with Bob Kane’s creation as the character Matthew Modine played in Full Metal Jacket. A basic point of the Joker is that he’s supposed to be a mysterious figure with no fixed origin. The closest one was of course The Killing Joke, but even there it was made clear that the flashbacks were coming from an unreliable narrator. What’s here is more or less a total invention of the screenwriters and really should have been made independently of this IP.

    It’s that connection to the material that ruins the proceedings. Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen) and even Alfred (Douglas Hodge) are characterized horribly, presented as cruel jerks of the highest order. And then there’s the ending, which has a truly terrible retcon (one that hopefully will not stick) to a major story event that did not even need to be depicted here in the first place.

    While the consideration for the treatment of mental illness is admirable, it can get muddied. He spirals downwards as the film goes on, but it’s not clear how much of that is due to stopping medication and how much would have happened anyway. Plus the direct allusions to John Wayne Gacy and Bernard Goetz are there more as memberberries than to make any significant statement.

    If there is a strong point in the movie’s favor, it’s the acting. Phoenix certainly rises to the occasion. He’s no Mark Hamill, but it’s hard to compare when they are playing what might as well be entirely different people. De Niro is quite funny whenever he makes his intermittent appearances. The production design is effective as well, getting across the proper mood and atmosphere.

    Up next will be Mr. J’s sidekick Harley Quinn striking out on her own to lead Birds of Prey. Let’s hope those behind it actually know the material that they’re working with.

  • ‘Frozen II’ stays cool

    ‘Frozen II’ stays cool

    Elsa in Frozen II

    “I never want to know a day that’s over 40°. I’d rather have it 30, 20, 10, 5 and let it freeze.” – Snow Miser

    What happens after the ever after? Frozen II takes a much better stab at answering that than Disney’s direct to video line of sequels ever did.

    While not topping the first – which, given how shocking and revolutionary it was, was probably never a possibility – this entry is a solid continuation of the tale. The splendid animation is only the tip of this iceberg.

    We return to the kingdom of Arendelle in 19th century Norway some years from the end of the last movie (if you don’t remember what happened there, don’t worry, there’s a few recaps throughout). Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) – she of the ice powers where whatever she’ll touch turns to snow in her clutch – is handling things smoothly and lives with sister Anna (Kristen Bell), Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), Sven the reindeer, and Olaf the snowman (Josh Gad).  

    But Elsa soon discovers that she has developed a psychic link to a supernatural entity, one that is calling her forward for some unknown purpose. She sets out with her castlemates to get to the bottom of the mystery. During the course of the investigation, they wind up in a land that was magically sealed off from the rest of the world and encounter two feuding factions that have a connection to the kingdom’s history.

    While it would have been easy to retread the original by having some other misunderstanding between the sisters cause conflict and essentially reset the character development back to square one, this movie builds off of the lessons they learned and advances their states. Both are taken in new directions that show sides to them that weren’t explored before. There’s also one heck of an “all is lost” moment that ranks up with some of the best there are.

    That said, the script is dodgy in places. A number of lines do not at all fit the time period and/or tone (“Papa, that was epic!”), coming across as absurd. There’s a big reveal about the sisters that might have sounded good on paper, but in application just leads to a huge can of worms. Also, where the characters end up might not be to everyone’s liking, but who knows what Frozen III will do?

    Now the songs. They do the job very well in conveying what they need to. No, nothing as surprisingly effective as “Let It Go” or “For the First Time in Forever” is here. To be fair though, the first had a couple forgettable numbers that these are improvements over. As always, the singing is terrific.

    Frozen II is for anyone who just wants to chill out. I wouldn’t brave a raging blizzard to get there, but it’s nevertheless a worthwhile view for Disney fans and families. 

  • ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ is no Family portrait

    ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ is no Family portrait

    Lena Dunham, Margaret Qualley, and Brad Pitt in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

    “You expected Charles Manson at the very least, didn’t ya?” – Randall Flagg

    July 26 of 2019 brought us the latest film from a very interesting auteur. This self-taught professional has a vast knowledge of foreign and exploitation films that serves him well in providing homages and commentary. It’s funny, thrilling, and well-acted, one of his strongest efforts yet. Brad Jones really did do a great job with Another Cinema Snob Movie. Oh right, a new Quentin Tarantino movie also came out.

    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I am unhappy to report, is a letdown. Treating its subject matter in a very ill-conceived manner, it represents how a diverted focus can mar so much potential for greatness.

    It’s 1969 and Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an actor sliding into irrelevance. He keeps employed in western TV shows here and there, but he’s not seen as the leading man material he once was. His stunt double and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is finding his own employment difficulties. After a while, they’ll need to consider their options in how to best move forward to reinvigorate their careers.

    On a parallel track is Rick’s neighbor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). Yes, that Sharon Tate. Which means Charles Manson (Damon Herriman) and the Manson Family are around too. Cliff runs into them when picking up Kathryn Lutesinger (Margaret Qualley) and giving her a ride back to the ranch. Things don’t go quite so smoothly there, giving the cult a new target.

    As has come to be expected of him, Tarantino has assembled a very impressive cast that can rival any Avengers lineup. In addition to those mentioned, there’s Kurt Russell, Lena Dunham, Damian Lewis, Dakota Fanning, Michael Madsen, Al Pacino, Bruce Dern (subbing in for Burt Reynolds, who died before he could film his part) and Luke Perry (who died not long after filming; does this movie have a curse or something?). There’s certainly more to be on the lookout for, and they’re all wonderful to watch in action.

    Had this movie been entirely about Rick and Cliff, it could have been great. The two men succeed in their parts and play off each other superbly. How it handles showbusiness in this era is also interesting, presenting a (b-)side of pictures that rarely gets explored on this level. The attention to detail in the recreations is fabulous. But to the film’s detriment, that isn’t the only story being told here.

    The treatment of the Manson stuff truly does ruin things. Tate and the Family really should have been dropped entirely, or at least replaced with fictional analogues. It’s going to be hard to discuss this without verging on spoilers, but to say that what happens in the movie wasn’t what happened in reality is a colossal understatement. 

    Robbie is fine as Tate, but overqualified for the role. A lookalike actress who does reenactments on ID channel shows would’ve done just as well. Same goes for the Family, though they actually do consist of a couple actors who have impersonated their parts before. 

    The events of the ending are where things really go off the rails. What happens there does use these figures, but ultimately they specifically are entirely irrelevant and should have just been replaced with invented stand-ins. But as is, it’s not a thoughtful presentation of the matter. In fact, it can be read as downright insulting to the victims of the Tate-LaBianca murders and probably does as much a disservice to the events as The Haunting of Sharon Tate did. Not only that, but it completely invalidates earlier scenes that were meant to be poignant. All impact those parts were supposed to have is promptly stripped away and renders them as utterly pointless.

    Then there’s the depiction of Bruce Lee (Mike Moh), which also should never have been included. In this film, he’s an absolute jerk who then gets into a fight with Cliff who handles him with ease. I can somewhat understand wanting to demonstrate Cliff’s military training, but why couldn’t this have been done with a fictional character? There has to be a better way to build him up without tearing down someone who means so much to so many.

    Lastly, places where the writer/director gets in his own way stick out quite a bit. There’s a part when Rick is shooting with a child actress (Julia Butters) where he, ignoring the script, places her in danger. However, she was prepared for it and thus Rick is vindicated (never mind that there was no way for him to know that). This really feels like an awkward defense from Tarantino on the Uma Thurman situation. And the displays of his rather infamous fetishes are just shamelessly blatant (though we see DiCaprio’s soles probably as much as the ladies’, so I suppose equal opportunity is some progress).

    A proper examination into one of the most horrific crimes in recent history Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is not. Whatever real-world tragedy Tarantino decides to exploit next (9/11?), he ought to exercise some better judgment.

  • ‘The Addams Family’ snaps back

    ‘The Addams Family’ snaps back

    Gomez and Morticia in The Addams Family

    “If human beings had genuine courage, they’d wear their costumes every day of the year, not just on Halloween.” – Douglas Coupland

    Time to once more put your middle finger and thumb together and press them into each other twice. The Addams Family has returned, this go-round in computer-animated form with designs hewing closer to the original comic illustrations. While the movie overall isn’t the best movie or show made from the material, it certainly rates as better than some of the lesser efforts. 

    Gomez (Osacr Isaac) and Morticia Addams (Charlize Theron) have just wed, but a crazed mob is after them. Fleeing to New Jersey (the birthplace of Charles Addams himself, specifically the town Westfield), they settle into an abandoned haunted asylum and make it their home. Thirteen years later, they’re still there along with daughter Wednesday (Chloe Grace Moretz), son Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard), Uncle Fester (Nick Kroll), butler Lurch (Conrad Vernon, also one of the film’s directors), and Thing.

    But the town below has since come to life. Margaux Needler (Allison Janney), the star of a popular home renovations TV program, has taken it upon herself to spruce everything up. Where the Addamses are concerned, she wants them to comply with her standards, or else. 

    Aimed at a considerably younger audience than any of the live action offerings (though perhaps on par with the past animated shows), Addams Family 2019 probably plays best to that crowd. Some of the messaging is a bit too on the nose for the adults watching, but children unfamiliar with, say, the word “Assimilation” (what the town is called) may not notice. Then again, there’s even a catchy conformity song in the vein of “Everything is Awesome,” so perhaps some will find a need for greater subtlety.

    The story foci also skew towards kids. Gomez and Morticia’s romancing is downplayed a little (or rather, mainly gotten out of the way during the opening) so that their attentions here are towards their children. Pugsley, a character that felt neglected in the live action films, gets a key subplot about preparing for his Mazurka (the Addams version of a bar mitzvah). Meanwhile, Wednesday befriends Margaux’s daughter (Elsie Fisher) and each begins to rub off a little on the other. Both go more or less as expected, though that the message in the end is not so much “everyone is different” as it is “everyone has skeletons in the closet” is a tad refreshing.

    However, older viewers can still appreciate the gothic aesthetics and solid work from the voice cast. Some are so well-matched that one would’ve thought this movie were a live action one. There’s also a slew of Easter eggs and nods that aren’t incredibly intrusive or distracting. Moreoever, there are completely new additions to the Addams menagerie like Ichabod the living tree and Wednesday’s pet octopus Socrates (although in the past Pugsley had one named Aristotle) that fit right in.

    Creepy, kooky, mysterious, spooky, and altogether ooky, The Addams Family may well do for the children of today what previous incarnations did for kids in those eras. It also stands a good chance of becoming a seasonal favorite like the Hotel Transylvanias some years down the line. This is one property that won’t be heading to the grave any time soon.