Nothing else to say
Even over a century after it’s release, F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu is still considered by many (including me) as the best of all vampire movies.
Although a basic rip off of Dracula (Bram Stoker’s widow vowed to have all the copies destroyed and almost succeeded), it is a stark reminder that being a vampire seems appealing (mainly famous a while ago in the Twilight franchise, from what I heard), but that, in the long run, it can….well, suck.
After the memorably disappointing Moana 2, it seemed like the end of the line for animated films in 2024. While the leader of the pack was clearly The Wild Robot, there was not much else apart from the admirable Inside Out 2 and the humorously bizarre Memoirs of a Snail (it may be hard for me to listen to John Denver for some time now.)
Then, as can only be described as a tsunami, entered Flow.
“DISCOVER WHAT HAPPENED IN OZ BEFORE DOROTHY DROPPED IN!”
So said the radio ad as I sat in my room as a High Schooler, when I first heard of the musical “Wicked.” My first reaction as a theater kid was genuine: “This sounds like one of the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.” Not long after, in the band room at school, our teacher mentioned we would be performing the music of Wicked, and everyone burst into applause…including me (peer pressure is a powerful thing). A little over a year or so later, I finally saw the show on stage, and was a life long fan of what would be come possibly the biggest musical to hit the 21st century (at least until Lin Manuel Miranda came around).
I had finally trusted my instincts, closed my eyes, and took the leap.
Call it a theory, but I am becoming more and more convinced that World War Two has been used as a backdrop for movies more than any other event in human history (perhaps because it occurred right around when movies really become a cultural phenomenon, not to mention the fact that Nazis never fail to make effective villains).
There have been so many of these movies that I have a timeline in my head (similar to the ones you would find about the MCU online) where certain stories (fictional or not) are being played, be it Dunkirk (2017), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Casablanca (1942), Grave of the Fireflies (1988), The King’s Speech (2010), Empire of the Sun (1987), Come and See (1985), JoJo Rabbit (2019), or Inglorious Basterds (2009) (the latter two being in an alternative universe). That does not even account for films about the Holocaust (which I would argue is a separate event).
There has always been a special place in my heart for Forrest Gump.
It was always that “gateway” movie for me when I realized that movies are more than just kids entertainment (Disney or otherwise): they could also be for grown ups. While many a cynic may have dismissed it at the time (and in the following years), it’s straightforward charm has not diminished on all of us. That makes it all the more clear why marketers are pushing the new movie Here as one by the stars, director, and writers of the 1994 classic.
Regretfully, that is where the similarities end, as Here strives for the cinematic magic, and misses the mark by a fair amount. The idea of how this movie would be presented would have totally sounded like a wonderful idea at the pitch meeting. Based off of a graphic novel of the same name by Richard McGuire, the film is basically one long take from the corner of a living room (or where it would be in moments when we are in the past before the house was built).
Like many a Robert Zemeckis film, it is impressive on a technical level (each scene is interlocked with these blocks on screen connecting the different scenes/time periods). Also like many of his films, it stars Tom Hanks, playing Richard Young. He is married to Margaret (Robin Wright), who he has been with since High School.
The film decides to jump back and forth in time to other families, including time spent with the inventor of the lazy boy chair (David Fynn), a romantic pair of indigenous people (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum), a modern day African American family with a teenage son, and the times of Benjamin Franklin himself along with his family. And that is just to name a few of them.
I have no problem with a movie having multiple story lines and characters to follow, yet one of my main issues with the film is that each segment is on screen for no more than a few minutes, each one ending just before we are able to have any connection to the characters. It also does not help when the stories are not in any specific order, jumping both forward in time and backward in time as well.
As I mentioned before, it is impressive at a technical level, but not entirely. This is another film that uses AI to de age certain characters (mainly Hanks and Wright), yet it runs into the same problem seen in movies like Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) and The Irishman (2019). While they look younger, they don’t always move as a young person (there are also times when Hanks clearly does not sound young at all when he is supposed to.) The same cannot be said for Paul Bettany as Hanks’ father. Bettany is a good actor of course, but he barely seems to age at all in this film (both physically and in his voice).
Parents, aside from swearing (one F bomb), minor sexual content (no nudity), and thematic elements, there is nothing else to watch out for. Middle Schoolers and up would be fine (if it appeals to them).
Robert Zemeckis is indeed a very talented filmmaker, but his movies since winning Oscars for Forrest Gump three decades ago have not been able to match his earlier work. Since Gump, the only movies of his I’ve actually liked (that I have seen) are Contact (1997), Cast Away (2000), The Polar Express (2004), and Flight (2012). Again, good movies, but since Flight, he has not done much to be proud of (while I have not seen Allied (2016) or Welcome to Marwen (2018), I have heard not the best of reports about them). Mainly, I think I am still recovering from his abomination that was the 2022 Disney Live Action remake of Pinocchio.
I have nothing at all against movies that take place in a single location (who could dislike movies like Rear Window or 12 Angry Men?), but not when the idea of staying in one location (no matter how it is filmed) is the main selling point. I remember in the intro of his first Great Movies book, Roger Ebert talked about the masterful Japenese director, Yasujiro Ozu (who very seldomly moved his camera). Ebert mentioned about how, when a movie lover gets to Ozu (as all eventually do, he says), then one learns that cinema is not about moving, but about when to move.
By the time Here learns this, it is too late.
Overall:
⭐⭐
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Just as Conclave, the new film by Edward Berger (who most recently did the 2022 remake of All Quiet on the Western Front) began, a random thought occurred to me: Ralph Fiennes has not received a knighthood.
Being American, I confess proudly I have no idea how that system works, but he surely belongs in the conversation of the greatest British thespians of the last few decades (it is astounding to me that he only has two Oscar nominations). Like most of the actors in Conclave, he is not one of the best known of movie stars, but he surely is known for capital A Acting.
In what I believe was my sophomore year of High School, I was at a Marching Band practice when, after telling a joke of some kind, one of my directors stated he could see me hosting SNL in fifteen years (that was about twenty years ago, but oh well). What I did not mention was, at the time, I honestly was not sure what Saturday Night Live was.
Obviously, I caught up, and would spend time looking up past sketches deemed essential viewing (some I am still discovering). I admit I am not an expert on the history of Television, but one shouldn’t need to be if asked what other show is responsible for the career successes of its talents (both in front of the camera and behind it.)
A simple argument could be made that the best thing about 2019’s Joker was that it finally gave an Oscar to Joaquin Phoenix.
While making over three million at the domestic box office surely helped (and just over a billion worldwide), that did become a bad thing, as it mean a sequel would be made. In a time when many a sequel can shine (and even out do it’s predecessor), Joker: Folie à Deux simply baffles us with its choices. Quelle pagaille (what a mess).
While the film has an unexpected surprise in how it opens (which I almost missed thanks to lousy traffic), we see the film starts two years after the events of the first film. Fleck (Phoenix) has been in Arkham Asylum (which has some of the crappiest security in any movie I can think of) as he awaits his trial of the murders he committed, while being subjected to more torment by the guards (the main one played by Brendon Gleeson). One day, due to good behavior, he gets to be a part of a musical therapy type group in the minimal security wing, where he meets Harleen “Lee” Quinzel (Lady Gaga), who is instantly obsessed with Joker (but not Arthur Fleck).
When the film is not at the Asylum, it is in the court house, as Fleck is being prosecuted by a young (pre Two Face) Harvey Dent (Harry Lawtey), who is seeking the death penalty. The only person who seems to actually care for Fleck (not Joker, but Fleck) is his lawyer, played by the ever uber talented Catherine Keener. She has faith Fleck can be found innocent, provided he does not revert to the Joker (which is the mission for Quinzel).
There are many swings that director (and co writer) Todd Phillips takes with this film, most notably to make it a musical. That choice for being a concept of the film would make it all the more reason why they would pick someone like Lady Gaga to play the love interest. That said, they don’t give Gaga the chance to truly bust out her truly unique pipes (Phoenix is obviously the lesser singer, but he gets by).
Most of the song choices are ones I am personally a fan of (you can’t go wrong with songs by Sinatra, Stevie Wonder, and The Bee Gees, to name just a few), but none of the songs sung in the film (including the original ones) had me eager to find them on Spotify. As for the visual results of the numbers, you can tell that they were shot a specific way, but they lack any form of entertainment value.
I won’t get into the plot choices made, since it will go into spoiler territory. What I will say is they simply do not land at all: They result in nothing more than a loud, blunt thud.
Parents, the film’s content is the same as the first film (with one quick sex scene, though no nudity). If you did not let them see the first film, don’t let them see this one.
The true greatness of the first film was how we saw the slow decline of Arthur Fleck (mainly due to the talent of Phoenix). That film had Todd Philips drawing some obvious inspirations from Scorsese’s Taxi Driver (1976) and The King of Comedy (1982). For the sequel, I’ve not the faintest idea what inspired it, other than to make money.
When I saw this at my local theater, I left to see that actress Kate McKinnon was outside preparing to do a book signing for her new children’s book; The Millicent Quibb School of Etiquette for Young Ladies of Mad Science.
That was easily the more interesting and memorable part.
Overall:
⭐⭐
Rating: 1.5 out of 5.
“I’m sure I have missed a whole bunch of opportunities and I am going to miss others, but I caught a lot of them too. In the end it’s about how many I catch, not how many I lose.”
This quote from Francis Ford Coppola is from the film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, a film by his late wife, Eleanor, of just over sixty years (!). If he were an MLB hitter, Coppola would be a slugger hitter. He never would be one interested in just getting on base: He is swinging for the fences…at the back of the stadium.
I really wish I was taking notes during this movie.
Questions were abuzz in my mind during Uglies, one of the newest films on Netflix these days. That is not a good thing in this case.
Nothing else to say