THE WHALE

 

THE WHALE =  A- 

This was a very good, thought provoking and emotionally taxing film. Phenomenal script, well directed, with raw, honest performances from the actors.  Brendan Fraser was brilliant and believable as Charlie. He deserved the recognition and praise that he received, but he wasn't alone in achieving it.  Like a star quarterback who takes all the glory in making the passes, calling the plays, and leading his team, Fraser was only as good as were his running backs, wide receivers and offensive line.  The whole cast did an outstanding job, keeping this film rooted in realism and keeping one another grounded. 

What made me fall in love with this film most was its fearlessness in being ruthlessly candid. We felt for Charlie but also recognized his flaws. We hurt right along with him but realized much of his situation was self-inflicted.  He had come to terms with the wrongs he had committed in betraying his wife and abandoning his daughter, yet he still stuck to a forgiveness of his offenses, or more so a pass because he had fallen in love.  This leads me to a Hollywood trope that I must touch on.  Hollywood has many films where an act of betrayal is deemed permissible if the perpetrator fell in love. Here in The Whale, Charlie is at least held accountable for his actions. There are consequences.  I appreciate that. Often in films a wife cheats on a husband or a husband leaves his wife and kids, and Hollywood gives us the impression that these actions are ok, as long as they fell in love with another.  I feel compelled to point this out as it is not rare, rather common for many films within the last 20 years to depict this belief. 

Moving on, what kept this film fresh and interesting was its deep, in depth look at human intentions.  Charlie often meant good, but he often failed to see how he was hurting others.  He knew enough to at least look at his daughter's feelings, but he didn't seem nearly as concerned with Liz's.  Liz was the sister of his lover, she hurt as much from Allen's death as did Charlie, but Charlie didn't seem to take that into consideration until Liz made it painfully obvious.  Then Charlie thought he was doing the right thing but leaving the $120,000 to his daughter, but failed to see how hurtful and insulting it was to not leave anything to Liz, who herself had given so much of herself to Charlie.  I've seen these type of situations play out in real life.  Someone not family will take care of a person, help the person out and be there for the person.  Then the person dies.  Family is left with the estate, and the person continues to struggle.  I would have empathized with Liz had she turned and walked away forever. I could have understood that. I feel it would have been justified.  Not that I feel she should have felt she deserved the full $120,000, but she deserved more than the $0 she received.  The fact that she remained, continuing to care for him, revealed the true compassion of her character. 

Which leads to the daughter, Ellie, a mixed bag of emotions. It was difficult to tell exactly who she was and exactly where she stood. Her mom saw her as emotionless and sociopathic, even deeming her as evil. It was obvious through scenes with her father and with Thomas, that she did have feelings, but still it was difficult to decipher her intentions.  Did she really want to help Thomas? Was it her intention to get him accepted back into his family and be welcomed back to Waterloo? Or was she hoping to embarrass and expose him?  It simply backfired on her and had the opposite reaction?  Sadie Sink played the character very well and very ambiguously to keep one guessing. 

Thomas's character I found most intriguing. Having gone to college with such types, its often hard to separate the true intentions of someone, against what can often be excruciatingly hurtful results. It was fascinating to see him suffer within his own wallow, yet be so oblivious to it as he continued to think that his pushing the gospel onto Charlie was right.  It was difficult to dislike Thomas, because he was not malicious, he was sincere. Yet his actions were harmful, which cannot be ignored. We're a complicated species, and difficult to figure out.  Difficult to label.  Difficult to categorize.  The Whale depicted this beautifully. 

I could continue to analyze the film and the characters even more.  Much more.  However, this review is already long enough as it is.  I do need to explain why the A- instead of an A though. 

As well written, honest and raw as this film was, I must dock a few points because there were times when the writing played it safe and conventional.  I appreciated the times when risks were taken so much, that it made the times when cheap, overused tropes stick out like a sore thumb.  This took away from what was otherwise a fairly flawless film.  

BEYOND THE LAW

 

BEYOND THE LAW =  C

I first became aware of this film probably 20 years ago or more.  I've simply never seen it anywhere to buy or rent.  So when it came up on one of the streaming services, I decided to check it out.  The film was a mixture of strengths and weaknesses.  I think where the film went wrong was in not making Charlie Sheen's character of Daniel/Sid, interesting or likable.  That's not to say that he didn't have redeemable qualities.  He was much more of an anti-hero, than he was a hero though.  There was as much to dislike about the character as there was to like about him.  Every time he did something that made you want to empathize with him, and start to reason with him, he'd turn around and do something to make you dislike him again. It was an interesting character study, one that I feel could have been done better. 

It's also interesting to go back and watch something from nearly 32 years ago.  Charlie Sheen would have been about 28 years old when this film came out. Probably 26 or 27 when it was filmed.  It's amazing to see how much he's grown and improved as an actor over the years. While his performance was by no means bad here, it wasn't going to win him any awards either.  There were kinks in the armor, and it'd be fun to see him tackle such a project now, as he's had three decades to perfect his craft. 

I think what really saved this film was Michael Madsen's performance as Blood. Madsen was born to play such characters.   While the film kept a very serious tone throughout, with no moments of comic relief or levity, Madsen added something to keep it from becoming too monotonous.   As to the other performances, I didn't think there was enough given screen time to make much of an opinion.  Especially that of Linda Foriento.  She simply seemed to be there in order to give Sid a love interest, with little substance. 

Not something I'd go back to again.  While the film had some good parts, it dragged in others.  

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE

 

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE = A 

Funnier, more intriguing, and more interesting than the original.  I really enjoyed this film.  With that said, I do have a couple of complaints. Or perhaps better stated, I feel there a few things that the film could have done better.  I'll get those out of the way. 

First and foremost, I feel there was way too much focus on the Charles Deetz character.  Jeffery Jones wasn't even in the film, and while his character's death was essential to the plot, the attention he otherwise received was inconsequential. Furthermore it slowed the pace of the film down.  The character of Jeremy Frazier was much more interesting and evoking yet received far less screen time.  His comeuppance was still satisfying, yet if he were given more character development and buildup for us as an audience to truly hate him, it would have been all the more rewarding.  The film lollygagged around with the setup and then rushed through the payoff.   I also felt the film could have ended as easily with their final victory.  The dream sequence at the end added nothing to the film and if anything took away from how good the ending could have been had the credits rolled minutes earlier. 

Enough with the negative, onto the positive. 

Winona Ryder did an excellent job of encompassing the character she played over 30 years ago.  It's not always easy for actors to get back into roles they have defamiliarized from for so long, but it is as if she never left.  I couldn't believe how young she still looks, despite being 52 years old.  I'll same the same for Michael Keaton, who walked right into the shoes of Betelgeuse as if he had never taken them off.  Props to the makeup department for making the 73 year old look so good for his age.  Which not to go off on a tangent, but this point must be made... Michael Keaton at 73, Catherine O'Hara at 70 and Willem Dafoe at 70, all nailed their roles.  I hear so often the excuse of, "We could never see another sequel because so and so is too old" and they're often talking about actors 10 to 15 years younger.  As if we could never see " " because this actor is, Heaven fobid, 57 years old!  Give me a break.  Keaton is 73, and he did Betelgeuse every bit as well as he did when he was 36.  

The point of adding new characters to a film franchise is to enrich the franchise and add something good to it.  I feel all the new characters helped to do this. Jenna Ortega as Astrid Deetz fit into her place like a perfect puzzle piece.  Large enough to be noticed and appreciated, yet not trying to take up more space than she needed to.  As said before, I really liked the Jeremy character, wish the conniving psychopath would have been given more time in the story, but Arthur Conti did enough to make me wanna break his nose. So, job well done. 

As always, feel as if I could say more and as if I should say more, but over all really enjoyed this flick. 

There for a while I had avoided going to the theater.  Saw a handful of films I was either not impressed with at all, or at most, felt lackluster about.   Ashley talked me into giving a film a chance again, so we went and saw DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE.  I was thoroughly impressed.  So when she suggested BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE, I figured why not?    

The movies have won me over again.  Here's to hopefully keeping me around for a while. 

 

DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE = A 


Fun, engaging, and kept you entertained throughout, DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE was a film that kept hardcore comic book lovers and the casual movie goers happy alike. Usually, sequels focus in one of two directions.  Either keep in mind that it is a sequel, that requires linkage and continuity, in other words, you watched the parts before it for a reason.  Or, treat it like a totally new film, that is as fun and entertaining to a newcomer, even if they had never seen the previous films as a prerequisite.  DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE somehow or another managed to do both.  Having seen part one and part two, the characters and their back stories matched previous installments, but had someone came into this unaware and oblivious, they would not have felt totally left in the dark.  An extremely difficult thing to pull off, yet executed near flawlessly. 

Like a good meal that mixes all the ingredients, not too little, not too much, DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE had the right mixture of action, comedy and drama.  A great fight sequence, followed by a moment of levity, to a side-splitting gag.  Wolverine's speech about his fallen comrades was enough to bring you to tears, as Deadpool moments later dried them up with a well-timed joke.  

Some comic book films require you to be a hardcore comic book fan, obsessed and fixated upon the material.  DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE isn't one of them.  Yet if you are a hardcore, obsessed and fixated comic book fan, you're still going to enjoy this film anyway.  It had a little bit of everything for everyone, and it was amazing how well Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman worked together.   The filmmakers had to know that Reynolds was constantly going to try and upstage Jackman, and they tackled this obstacle by brilliantly writing it into the script.   I've enjoyed all the DEADPOOL movies, but this one really hit the nail on the head.  

KING KONG (2005)

 

C

It's funny.  In my nearly 39 years of life, I've seen a lot of documentaries & a lot of commentary surrounding KING KONG, but I had yet to ever sit down and watch one of the films.  I searched around the streaming services that Ashley and I have a couple of days ago, and was able to find the 2005 version. 

As to the film itself, it seemed to me that they took a 60 page script and stretched it out over a three hour film.  The first act was well developed. The scenes were well set up, the characters properly introduced and their relationships to one another realistic and transparent.  It gave the illusion that this wasn't going to be a mindless collage of senseless action.  Jack Black and especially Adrian Brody gave standout performances, with an exceptionally strong showing out of Naomi Watts.  Settled comfortably into the first hour of the film, it was like, "Hey, there's gonna be a story here too."  

That all went out the window the very moment act two began. The final two hours were nothing but a special effects team on a mission to show off and top every great moment of action, with something more spectacular than what you had seen two minutes prior.  To those who simply want to watch a bunch of cool stuff on a screen without a reason as to why it is happening, it was about as packed as it was going to get. 

Therefore I give the film a C.  If it had continued to have a strong story and the characters had more sensibility within their choices, I would have given in a better grade.  I mean what I say when I comment that it seemed like the script was around 60 pages and they got 180 minutes out of it. 

Moving on, I found myself doing some research on King Kong. I was fascinated as to how in the world someone would come up with the concept of a giant gorilla terrorizing a city back in the 1930's.  It's quite interesting to learn how it all came about.  It's difficult to believe, as educated as we are today, but at one time, not all that long ago, not much was known about gorillas. Their true size and nature was unknown to the general population. They were thought to be much larger and far more vicious than what they actually were. Rumors went around that Gorillas would steal women and children away from villages, to do various things with them.  Rape and eating, not out of the question.  It's asinine to think that anyone would picture a gorilla doing such a thing today.  A relatively gentle creature, a herbivore to top it off. Yet this was 91 years ago, people didn't know. 

It should also be noted that we had only recently discovered the island of Komodo and the famous Dragons that live there.  The scene where Kong fights the Tyrannosaurus Rex, was originally supposed to be a fight with a Komodo.  It should also be noted that in KING KONG (1933), people are attacked by a Brontosaurus.  Which is exceptionally humorous, considering our understanding of a Brontosaurus is that it was a herbivore, relatively non-violent.  It most certainly wouldn't eat people. 

JOKER

 JOKER

A

There are so few brilliant films, written, directed and acted in such a magnificent manor, that when one comes along, it can be challenging to praise all of the areas in which it deserves credit. A lot of writers & directors have issues in which they feel so strongly about expressing, that one can often get wrapped up in their passion, rather than the issue at hand. JOKER was told in such a beautiful way that while the subject of mental illness was apparent, it never got in the way of a good story or a good performance.

Joaquin Phoenix gave such a standout performance that even though you knew other actors were in this film, it was difficult to notice them. His presence demanded undivided attention. His action, a sole focus. Not only was a rapport built with him as an audience member in terms of empathy, but it was border telekinetically. Through his command of energy, you felt his pain, his anguish and his insanity.

Parts of this film were hard to sit through. Disturbing. Not because of their grotesque nature, but because of their uncomfortable familiarity. Arthur was a manifestation of the depression, the hurt, the confusion and the disappointment that so many of us feel.

I found this version of the character to by sympathetic to a point. Not the born psychopath that so many have dreamt up the Joker to be, but instead a man who kept fighting the urges that finally got the best of him. The Joker in so many other renditions has been one who killed out of the joy of killing. Purely evil. This Joker was one of vengeance. Even within his own psyche, as off centered as it was, justified & fair within the rules of his own mind.

In BATMAN 1989, Jack Nicholson's Joker kills his right hand man, Bob The Goon, out of pure frustration. That is something Joaquin Phoenix's Joker would have never done. The three men on the subway, an act of pure vengeance. His other murders, his mom, Randall & Murray, reactions to betrayal. It's clear that he doesn't kill just to kill. His actions are motivated and as he put it quite clearly, within his own demented philosophy, deserved.

He let Gary go, even thanking him for being genuine and sincere to him. He had to know Gary would expose him and lead the police to him, but he let him go anyway. Then seeing the fear in a young Bruce Wayne's eyes (which I felt was the best scene of the whole film) he let Alfred go as an act of solace.

I could go on and on about the character & how brilliant it was written & brought to life by Phoenix but at this point I'm just rambling.

Moving on....

The only part of the film I didn't like was Thomas Wayne's portrayal. I understand that the film had a narrative and in order to achieve the objective, it was felt that Wayne needed to be an overbearing, political charlatan who only played nice in front of the camera. I guess I've always liked the humanitarian, philanthropist that Thomas Wayne has been displayed as in so many other renditions. This one just didn't appeal to me & I'm not sold that he had to be written in such a callous way in order to get across the agenda. I think a misunderstanding, a misconstrued meeting could have achieved the same effect. Something along the lines to still drive Arthur over the edge, while still keeping the integrity of the Thomas Wayne character in tact. They obviously felt different.

I do appreciate how the Joker & Joe Chill finally came together as one involving the Waynes deaths though. I know a lot of BATMAN fans were vastly disappointed when the Joker in the 1989 film ended up being the one to kill young Bruce's parents. I appreciate how this film took the two seemingly isolated incidents and spliced them together. I thought that was very clever.

I feel like saying more about this film. I feel like I probably didn't do a good enough job of writing this review. Seems I'm always busy. Always tired and never have enough energy or thought to write these properly anymore. Upon a well rested day, I discover vocabulary within my consciousness that I didn't realize I knew. Upon sleep deprivation, I have to check to make sure I spelled my own name correctly.

Damn good movie. Just wish it didn't resonate with me as much as it does. I'm not homicidal, nor do I appreciate anyone being enough of an ass to think for a moment that I would be. However, minus that, I relate to Arthur and empathize with him far more than I would like to.

That and I don't smoke. Which was my other gripe of the film. Guy seemed like he could run Boston Marathons without getting winded & yet all he ever did was sit around and smoke.

MAGIC

 

MAGIC 

B

I really wish that Jaret Morlan was still on Facebook. He once asked me years ago if I had ever seen a film with a weak screenplay, but such strong performances, that I couldn't help but still give the film a positive review. At the time I couldn't think of anything. Now, I have an answer and that answer is Magic. 

I don't know if I would necessarily refer to the script as weak. It's more along the lines of a script of this mediocrity didn't deserve to have the A list ensemble of talent that it did. It was more like a good B film, that should be treated like a good B film, but somehow or another acquired some of the greatest thespians of our time. It'd be one thing for a film of this nature to have had one A list name, but this film had a ton! Anthony Hopkins, Ann Margret, Burgess Meredith & who I personally feel is the most underrated actor of all time David Ogden Stiers. It truly was a miracle that it was somehow able to attract this much talent. 

Had the film had less known actors, actors that more or less matched the material, it probably wouldn't have come off as good. I'm almost positive that with the exact same story & exact same direction, I probably could have dropped it to at least a B- if not a C+.  That's very uncommon for me, as usually a film's story, to me is the central focus of how I grade the film. It's so rare for anything, be it the acting, the directing, or anything else to be so good that it trumps the story.  Be this the exception. 

As to the story it was rather intriguing & suspenseful, but as you expected it to grow stronger, it actually grew weaker. You start off wondering if Corky is insane or if the dummy may be real to then feeling sorry for the mentally unstable Corky. Towards the end of the film you're waiting for it to be over, as it throws a final twist your way that is nothing short of laughable. 

Again, not a great film as far as story is concerned, but some really strong performances. Although it would be 13 years before Hopkins took the role of Hannibal Lector in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS you can see the beginnings of the character in his performance as Corky.