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.  

The Pope's Exorcist

 

THE POPE'S EXORCIST = A

Anytime you go into a film like this, your personal beliefs, thoughts & theories have an effect on how you perceive what you are watching. I'm sure a Christian probably has preconceived concepts that I do not have as an agnostic, which would make the viewing experience much different. I for one do not hold strong convictions that would have a dramatic effect on how I would view such a film, so I was able to more or less view it strictly as a piece of art. 

And strictly as a piece of art, I found the film to be quite good. It was captivating, full of the right pace of horror & action. I found the character of Gabrielle & Russell Crowe's performance to be outstanding. I was excepting a bit more of a soul searching, questioning his faith, nearly giving up on it, rediscovering it prose, but wasn't disappointed as it dove right in to the heroic elements of the film. 

I appreciated the Batman/Robin-esque partnership between Gabrielle & Esquibel.  Stories of true friendship & selflessness are so rare nowadays.  It was refreshing to see the two have one another's backs, stop at nothing to save the child & risk their own lives to save one another. 

I also appreciated how neither character was perfect nor in a realm of false modesty. Both were open and honest of their sins & Gabrielle's encouragement for Esquibel to be vulnerable, without being critical or judgmental of him added to the strength of their duo. 

Of course a film like this will raise questions, both philosophical as well as theological. I know it did for me, & I'm sure it would for most who watch it.  

I did not find this to be preachy, religiously prolific or even a film of secret conversion. It was simply a good film that happens to deal with a religious subject.  I'd watch it again. 

 

MY BLOODY VALENTINE: D- 

This was a remake, so I can only hope that the original was much better than this utter pile of rubbish.  The only saving grace of this entire film was that it had an all star cast. It's a shame that talents like Tom Atkins & Kevin Tighe were wasted on such a nonsensical, convoluted script, but it was fun to see them on the screen nonetheless. 

So little of this film made sense. You were left wondering, "why?" "what?" "how?" "when?" & "who?" so many times throughout the film. It was written as if someone had one idea that they wanted to go with, someone else had another & then a third person came in and wanted to go a completely different direction. The director took a look at all three ideas & decided that even though they contradicted one another, all three would be implemented into the film.  

Of course like all films that fail, there are few likable characters & the more likable they are, they more likely they were to be killed off. Then of course the character you like the most, turns out to be the killer. 

What a pile of garbage.  If it wasn't for getting to see Atkins & Tighe on the screen, this would have been an F. 

M3GAN

 

M3GAN = C

Be it rather ironic that a film whose very topic deals with the consequences of unpreparedness, not thinking things through & moving forward despite plausible ramifications, when it itself suffers from the exact same problems. It's almost hypocritical in a way, as it is doubtful that this was intentional. A film's goal should be to be as perfect & flawless as possible. Yet M3GAN was every bit as flawed & foible as was Gemma in her design & implementation. 

The film suffered the same fate as our main character. A good central idea, that was put together too quickly & not thought out well enough before being launched.  The death of the dog made sense as it attacked Cady and posed a serious, immediate threat.  The death of the neighbor who could potentially cause problems made sense as well. Although the bully at the school was cliched, unnatural & so convenient to the plot that it about makes you vomit, even his death made sense. 

You know what didn't make sense though?  The death of David & the death of Kurt. I could see why M3gan wanted to eliminate Tess & Cole. That made sense. They were aware of the danger & of what she was capable of. If anything killing David & Kurt was detrimental to M3gan's plan. Neither of them were aware of the danger or what she had done. As far as they knew she was the answer to as David said, "Kicking Hasbro right in the ' ' ".    David & Kurt would have been the types to have wanted to have made more M3gans and to have consistently updated her.  Killing them not only didn't make sense, it killed the momentum of what was supposed to be a very intelligent self learning computer. 

I appreciated the usage of Bruce at the end of the film to aid Cady & Gemma's fight against M3gan, but again the fight in itself didn't make a whole lot of sense. If M3gan's core objective was to protect Cady at all costs, as the programming was said to have done, then no amount of self learning would have ever put itself ahead of its main objective. In other words M3gan wouldn't have put herself/itself ahead of the protection of Cady. Had it seen itself as a threat to Cady, it would have either stopped itself or even tried to destroy itself. It made no sense from an objective standpoint for M3gan to turn on Cady.  Not from the setup, the dialog or the structure of the story.  

I have to commend the film on the character arch of Gemma.  The shift of her starting off cold, callous & almost robotic in nature against the actual robot of M3gan seeming more empathetic & human was done quite well.  As the layers of M3gan were stripped away to reveal the inhuman bronze structure beneath, the layers of Gemma were added to reveal her humanity.  The film did well here. 

Yet overall, there was too much convenience to move the plot forward. There were too many character choices, especially from M3gan that didn't fit the narrative. The pieces didn't fit the board smoothly & were instead jammed into places where they didn't fit.   The suspense and mystique of it all is enough to keep you watching, as the action seems to make up for the obvious holes within the plot.  The good is there, but so is the bad. Hence the straight C, as fair and objective a grade as one can give it. 

Have to comment on how much the M3gan doll looked like the Olsen twins.  It was so similar it was almost freaky.  If only M3gan had said, "you got it dude" somewhere within the film. 

M3GAN  is in a nutshell THE TERMINATOR meets CHILD'S PLAY (2019) meets ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE DARK'S: THE TALE OF THE CURIOUS CAMERA.  

NOPE

 

NOPE =  B


I enjoyed this film.  Of all the Jordan Peele films I have seen thus far, this was by far the best. It was a simple, man vs nature story, that might have benefited by sticking on the paved path, rather than occasionally venturing down the unknown.  Then again without the occasional, ambiguous, cryptic scene here and their, would it really have been Jordan Peele? 

It took me a while to really understand the character of Ricky Park (Steven Yeun) and what his true purpose was to the story.  It was obvious that the Gordy scenes had a deeper meaning to the story's message, but it took me a while before it all came together.  When simplicity  interweaves with convolution, it can cause you at times to make things more difficult than they actually are.  I kept thinking that the two stories would literally come together at some point, when in fact it was pure symbolism. 

The Gordy incident didn't happen out of ignorance. Those in charge were fully aware of the risks involved but they didn't care because of the monetary gains that could be acquired through exploitation.  Hence why we see the Chimpanzee wreck havoc killing & injuring his costars , with history to repeat itself when Park & his audience are devoured by the extra-terrestrial. 

The acting was good in this film.  Daniel Kaluuya is to Peele what Johnny Depp is to Tim Burton.  I was disappointed we didn't get to see more of Keith David & I thought Brandon Perea did a fine job. Keke Palmer was rather annoying, but I'm sure that had to do more with the way the character was written than the way she portrayed her.  

What was most fascinating to me was hearing Michael Wincott speak in what I would assume is his actual speaking voice?  From Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves to The Crow to The Count of Monte Cristo  he usually accentuates and exaggerates his iconic voice.  It's been well over 30 years, but this marks the first times I think I've heard what he actually sounds like. 

No real deep thoughts on this film, although I could go into a long rant about Peele himself & how he's become a representation being judged not so much by his work, or his performance as he is the topics he deals with & the issues he tackles.  

Again, this was one of the better films of his that I have seen. 

KNOCK AT THE CABIN

 

KNOCK AT THE CABIN =  B- 


A director that has relied so heavily upon twist endings, it was only a matter of time before M Night Shyamalan finally took the direct approach. No gimmicks, no shocks, no surprises, just a straight forward, predictable plot with a predictable ending. Perhaps in essence, Shyamalan's greatest twist ever, in that one would come into this film expecting a great reveal, only to leave empty handed. 

As I felt with READY OR NOT, I do feel that practicality would have served this film better than the "this was all real" approach.  For a brief moment the film leaned towards Eric & Andrew perhaps convincing the cult of four into other beliefs.  I think that would have made for a better, more interesting film.  Andrew & Eric, as well as Wen coming together in order to manipulate & brainwash their way into defeating the others. I feel that the direct approach instead feeds into the crazy, insane conspiracies we already have way too much of on this earth.  I don't think that is a good thing. 

Yet taking my disdain for the film's overall approach & looking at it for what it is, rather than what I would have had it rather have been, I conclude that it was told well. The acting in the film was pretty good & I have to say I was thoroughly impressed with Dave Bautista.  From Terry Funk, to Roddy Piper, to Hulk Hogan and  The Rock, pro wrestlers have never been known for their dramatic abilities.  I thought he did a superb job.  I actually think he's a better actor than he was a pro wrestler & I am glad that he was given the opportunity to showcase his skills.  Kudos to Shyamalan for not automatically disqualifying him because of his physique.  Their has been progress within the theater! 

This is a "what will happen next?" mystery/suspense that really throws you for a loop by doing exactly what it says it will do, when you're instead expecting the unexpected.  In THE SIXTH SENSE we find out that Bruce Willis has actually been dead the whole time.  In THE VILLAGE we find out that what seemed to take place long ago, is actually in the present day.  In THE VISIT we find out that they really aren't their real grandparents. 

In KNOCK AT THE CABIN what we get is what we see.  

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER

 

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER - B 

In the modern era of movies it can be rather difficult to fairly assess a film that is 65 years old. To compare it to it's predecessor TITANIC released nearly 40 years later would be petty and unfair.  In many ways A NIGHT TO REMEMBER was every bit as good as TITANIC & in many ways far more historically accurate. A plot driven story, there was little focus on the characters & their backgrounds and a stronger focus on the event & the responses to it. 

Like TITANIC Bruce Ismay was made out to be at fault for the disaster but he wasn't painted anywhere near the coward. Instead they portrayed him to accurately be concerned about the passengers getting as many of them on to the lifeboats as he could.  It's very subtle, but him looking around seeing no one else & asking, "Is there not anyone else" added a strong context that was not their in the 1997 version. 

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER also laid heavily into the Californian none to afraid to call the captain & crew out for their incompetence and mistakes. 

I will say that this film took a while to get started. The first hour felt more like an historical piece or a documentary. Something you'd watch in history class with names, facts and dates.  It wasn't until the ship actually struck the ice berg that you felt a since a urgency.  That's when the film began to pick up & the action really began to start.  

Considering that special effects were still in their infancy at the time, the actual sinking of the ship was done quite well.  I appreciate an attention to detail of Officer Lightoller and the efforts he went to in saving as many passengers as he could.  

There were many brave & heroic individuals the night that Titanic went down & I feel A NIGHT TO REMEMBER showcased that quite well.  If you're a Titanic buff the way I am, this is a must see.  If anything, for the second hour especially.  

HOUSE

 

HOUSE =  C+


This was a rather odd film, yet interesting enough to hold my attention for the full run time. Normally ambiguity leaves me with a feeling of well done, satisfaction or a feeling of resentment against unanswered questions, but I'll be if I wasn't middle of the road here.  I never quite knew exactly what was going on or why, but never really needed to either. 

In many ways this film reminded me of one of my favorite horror films, Oculus.  As if House were the original rough draft & after many revisions, Oculus the final product.  Was the house truly haunted? Was Roger simply crazy?  Was this all within Roger's plot for his new novel?  If the house was haunted, was it the house that controlled Ben or was it Ben that controlled the house?  What was real? What wasn't?  Did Harold in the end realize that Roger had been telling him the truth or was that all in Roger's head too?  Did Roger really end up saving Jimmy?  So many questions that seem to have answers until you take everything into consideration.  Well it could be this, but it could also be that.  This particular happening points to this, while this other happening points to that.  

I was hoping with four sequels that maybe one of them might be more definitive as to what exactly is going on, but from what I was able to gather without viewing them yet, they are standalone films without reference to the original. 

As to other elements of the film, I found the situation with the neighbor and her son to be extraordinarily bizarre. I think this is where the "comedy" or the horror-comedy was supposed to be but I found it more disturbing than I did funny.  The special effects were down right cheesy, but was this done purposefully, tongue in cheek or was it "Ed Wood" serious? Hell, even trying to figure out the film from a production standpoint is rather ambiguous! 

The score wasn't anything too spectacular, but it was fitting. William Katt really seemed to buy into the material & the film was better as a result of his genuine performance.  George Wendt a character similar to Norm, which might explain why he went to the bar so much.  If the experience were real for his character, I think that would drive anyone to drink.  Richard Moll, a fun performance, similar to his small roll in the Highlander  series. 

This film isn't going to hold a special place in my heart, but I do feel it was worth the one time viewing I gave it. If you're into absurd horror films that care more about entertaining you than offending you, I would check this one out. 

RAISE THE TITANIC

 

RAISE THE TITANIC - C

I remember first hearing about this film when I was in high school.  It took me 20 plus years to finally get around to watching it, but I finally did.  I think two things hurt this film. First and foremost for 1980, this premise was just way too far out there. I think people today might be intrigued but 43 years ago, I think they were confused more than anything.  Honestly it is an interesting idea.  The concept of a rare element that can be used to create a forcefield or build the ultimate bomb being left aboard the Titanic is rather gripping. Add in the moral dilemma of what this could mean & suddenly you have captivating drama. However, it was told too matter of fact, with little action & absolutely no comic relief.  The pace was slow, the sense of urgency rather a snail's pace. I think people might have gone into this film thinking that it actually had something to do with the Titanic, when in reality Titanic was a mere background for a story about politics, & the lines that should or shouldn't be crossed in militaristic measures. 

That's not to say that the film didn't have its highlights.  The cast did quite well. Jason Robards as he usually is was quite good. David Selby had the most amount of energy, giving the most realistic responses. Richard Jordan seemed to be a bit more of a character that what the role called for, but still a decent performance. At times it seemed that the cast was rather bored with the material, which I'm sure transgressed to the audience. The moments of levity were few and far between, with the strongest being the white star line flag being raised once again on the Titanic. 

I also wonder if the ending didn't hurt this film as well. So much emphasis, time & money was spent to raise the Titanic off of the ocean floor, only to discover in the end that it didn't even need to be done in the first place. Then once the characters discover where the element actually is, ultimately deciding to keep it hidden. I think the overall message was one of putting humanity ahead of government, but I'm not sure if it came across that way. 

In the end I'll conclude that this average film bombed so poorly at the box office because titles can be rather misleading. I'm sure as we didn't have internet back in those days, people went to the theater expecting a Titanic film, and left vastly disappointed to discover that it wasn't.  Again, only a guess, but this is why I would think the film did not do well. 

A Man Called Otto

 

A Man Called Otto: A 

A simple story that hits upon some of the most complicated parts of life. A story of loss & yet a story of gain. I was told before going into this film that it was very sad, but I beg to differ.  It started off sad & depressing but it ended on a very high note. It's difficult to review a movie like this as just a movie because it hits on such a personal & emotional topic. A topic that we all seem to be well aware of, yet at the same time very quiet and private about. 

Rather than write this movie review right away, I instead found myself writing about the actual topic of suicide when I got home from the theater.  The film moved me to open up about a topic that is so hard to talk about with others. A topic that is so hard to be honest about. To be vulnerable about.  

Some say that a film's sole purpose is to entertain.  That a film's job isn't to move you & that it certainly isn't to get you to act.  I didn't find A Man Called Otto to be didactic or preachy.  Yet I did find it to be motivating.  I did find it to cause me to think & to cause me to act. 

The performances were good.  Tom Hanks has been and continues to be one of the greatest actors of our generation. Yet the story here is what was so compelling.  People don't just wake up one day and want to end their lives for no reason.  It's usually because of a sense of loss & furthermore a sense of no hope, nothing left to go on for. A sense that all that is left in life is pain & suffering.  

Once Otto discovered through fate or intervention that there was more to go on for, he no longer wanted things to end and that's why this film isn't a sad one.  That's why I beg to differ with those that argue that it was. 

Had he succeeded in any of his suicide attempts, he would have died a lonely, sad, bitter & depressed old man.  Instead, he died happy & at peace. That's how I walked away feeling.