Tag: review

Movie: Call of the Wild (2020)

computer-generated dog

Call of the WildI’ve never read Jack London’s Call of the Wild. As far as I can remember, I’ve not seen any movie or television adaptations.

What drew me to the nearby Madison Theatre a few days before everything went into lockdown were two things: Harrison Ford’s presence and the $5 ticket price all day on Tuesdays.

An overly large pooch, a St. Bernard/Scotch Collie mix, seemed to have the run of a California home. Then he was dognapped and shipped north to Alaska.

He was purchased as part of a sled dog team operated by Perrault (Omar Sy) and Françoise (Cara Gee). Eventually, he crosses paths, for the third time, with John Thornton (Ford). Thornton protects Buck against the cruel Hal (Dan Stevens), who had stolen and beaten Buck.

Thornton and Buck go on an expedition further north practically to the Arctic Circle. In this environment, the once pampered Buck gets in touch with his primitive roots when interacting with a pack of wolves. The story was OK.

NOt a real dog

I was more curious whether I would buy the computer-generated dog in Call of the Wild as real. The answer is, “Sometimes.” The technique was less effective in the early narrative. Or maybe the storyline was just too goofy. But in his relationship with Perrault and Françoise, and later with Thornton, “he” usually resonated as a dog more believably.

I credit the fact that those performers were interacting with actor/stuntman Terry Notary, who modeled all of Buck’s actions. Those actors all expressed admiration for Notary’s work, giving them someone credible and emotive to perform with, rather than a blue screen.

There was a small audience for the 1 p.m. show. I ordered a burger, slightly overpriced but good.

It took SO long for the Madison Theatre to reopen. I hope it can withstand the current disruption. Good news is that it’s still selling food, pickup/delivery only. I’m inclined to order from them when I can.

Movie review: Just Mercy (2019)

tangle of conspiracy and political machination

Just Mercy
Michael B. Jordan, Bryan Stevenson, Jamie Foxx
Before Just Mercy was a major motion picture, it was a book by Bryan Stevenson. The young Harvard-trained lawyer from Delaware “founded the Equal Justice Initiative, a legal practice dedicated to defending those most desperate and in need: the poor, the wrongly condemned, and women and children trapped in the farthest reaches of our criminal justice system.”

I have not yet read the book. But my wife has, and she feels that the movie treatment is a fair representation of the narrative. “One of his first cases was that of Walter McMillian (Jaime Foxx in the movie), a young man who was sentenced to die for a notorious murder” of an 18-year-old white female “he insisted he didn’t commit.”

“The case drew Bryan into a tangle of conspiracy, political machination, and legal brinksmanship—and transformed his understanding of mercy and justice forever.” There was a great deal of evidence proving McMillian’s innocence. “The only testimony against him came from a criminal with a motive to lie.”

That story was the basis of the movie. Stevenson (Michael B. Jordan) meets with Eva Ansley (Brie Larson), a local white activist, and he starts the EJI. Seemingly simple acts such as getting office space, is a challenge.

Anger?

I found Just Mercy to be a compelling story about fighting injustice in a dangerous situation. It’s interesting that 99% of the Rotten Tomatoes audience found it compelling but only 84% of the critics. Most of the latter use terms such as: “There’s too little anger and dirt and fear in this story.” Another: “calibrated… with an eye to not offending White viewers with anything remotely resembling Black anger.”

These people have totally missed the point. The black folks are angry, but generally resigned to an unjust system that requires an unnecessary strip search. Or the fear of death when Driving While Black. A courtroom protest, shown in the trailer, will land you in jail. When the deck is so stacked against you, anger tends to be modulated.

A.O. Scott writes in the New York Times: “Just Mercy is saved from being an earnest, inert courtroom drama when it spends time on death row, where it is opened up and given depth by two strong, subtle performances, from Foxx and Rob Morgan.”

I was moved by Just Mercy. It wasn’t a showy cinematic experience. But it told an important story well.

Movie review: Marriage Story

ScarJo with two acting noms

Marriage StoryThe movie Marriage Story was included in the Vanity Fair article Divorce Stories: Why the Oscars Love Miserable Couples. I realized how true the observation was. And I’m one of those folks who had been attracted to these.

Ordinary People (1980), Kramer v. Kramer (1979), the early oeuvre of Woody Allen. These are among the films I related to heavily at the time.

The beginning of Marriage Story was quite lovely. Charlie (Adam Driver), a theater director, and Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) are putting together lists. They are to write down the traits they like in each other. Alas, this is in anticipation of their inevitable divorce.

Still, they both agree to try to work out the arrangement without dragging lawyers into the mix. They want to protect their son Henry (Azhy Robertson) from too much drama.

Yet the arrangement becomes a transcontinental affair. Charlie has a theater gig in Manhattan. Nicole, whose family is from SoCal, has an acting gig in LA.

Send lawyers…

So Nicole gets a fiercely strong attorney, Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern, NOTHING like Marmie in Little Women). Charlie is forced to respond, with the avuncular Bert Spitz (Alan Alda). High-powered lawyer Jay Marotta (Ray Liotta) may not be available.

Charlie and Henry are visited by a social worker, which was difficult. Charlie, back in NYC, sings to his cast. There is a rather emotionally brutal scene between the principals; THAT was exhausting. At the end, do they find the balance they sought?

Marriage Story was written by Noah Baumbach. He wrote and directed The Squid and the Whale (2005), which also touched on the themes of divorce and children. I haven’t seen it since I first viewed it at the time. But I recall enjoying it far more than Marriage Story. He also penned the screenplay to The Fantastic Mr. Fox. So he can write about happy families.

This was a very well-written, -paced, and -acted movie. The nominations for Johansson, Driver and especially Dern are warranted. I don’t imagine me seeing Marriage Story again, though.

Review: Jack Kirby’s Dingbat Love

looking for Ebony

Dingbat LoveHaving read an advanced copy (PDF) of Jack Kirby’s Dingbat Love, I now understand the title. It’s a bit of a portmanteau. I fear, though, tha the casual reader will misunderstand it as just romance comics featuring not very bright people.

As Steve Sherman, one of Kirby’s assistants in the 1970s notes in one of the text pieces, “Dingbat” is what Archie Bunker called his wife Edith on the TV show All in the Family. But Jack had named the “kid gang” he drew and wrote the Dingbats of Danger Street. They had a few issues in the mid-1970s, but I somehow missed them.

And I did read Kirby in this period: New Gods, Kamandi, and OMAC among them, even though I was primarily a Marvel fan then. Dingbats is an entertaining read, especially when inked by Mike Royer and D. Bruce Berry, and colored especially for the book.

All you need is…

The “Love” angle in the title is represented by True-Life Divorce, an abandoned newsstand magazine. Also stories from Soul Love, a romance book inked by Vince Colletta and Tony DeZuniga finally sees the light of day. The dialogue was occasionally clunky, but the stories were surprisingly good. The Kirby women, for the most part, were realistically zaftig.

The discussion of WHY these items were not published at the time is nearly as entertaining as the strips. Editor John Morrow examines the era, while Jerry Boyd analyzes Soul Love. Kirby assistant Mark Evanier explains going to several stores looking for Ebony magazines. Kirby wanted them as references for faces of black people, but they were hard to find in Thousand Oaks, CA.

Still, as Morrow noted, “What was unprecedented was Kirby’s inclusion of black heroes in his Marvel Comics series in the 1960s. In 1963, Gabe Jones debuted as a black member of Nick Fury’s Howling Commandos in Sgt. Fury #1. But the one that really broke down barriers was the Black Panther, first appearing in Fantastic Four #52 (1966).”

It’s odd. After Kirby’s tumultuous departure from Marvel c 1970, one might think that DC would be inclined to let the King do what he would like. That would be an erroneous assumption. As Evanier noted: “We’re talking here about Jack Kirby, the man whose rejects were more interesting than what most creators got accepted.”

You may order the book Dingbat Love, a 176-page FULL-COLOR HARDCOVER, from your local comic book store – I hope – or through Two Morrows. They’re the same folks who put out Kirby & Lee: Stuf’ Said!

Movie review: 1917 (Mendes)

My first film at the new Madison Theatre

The movie 1917 was the first film my wife and I saw at the newly refurbished Madison Theatre. It’s only three blocks from our house. We walked there on a rainy Saturday afternoon in January.

When we entered the room, there were some animated short films already running. One was the 2015 offering Ear Fear. They were followed by previews of three movies, including The Turning, which was playing on another of the Madison’s four screens.

In April 1917, two British soldiers – Dean-Charles Chapman as Blake and George MacKay as Schofield – are “sent to deliver an urgent message to an isolated regiment. If the message is not received in time, the regiment will walk into a trap and be massacred.” Blake has a brother at that imperiled regiment.

As one spoiler-laced review notes, “When done well, [the long take] immerses the audience in the scene. If the action is literally unfolding all around the camera, it’s easy to convince viewers that they, too, are in the thick of it. It’s a gimmick, to be sure, but Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins make it work for 1917.”

I agree with that assessment. It may have the best chance of the nine films nominated for Best Picture to take home the Oscar. Yet about 10% of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave it a thumbs down.

Sentimentality?

What’s the general complaint? Often that the film is style over substance. Richard Brody’s review in the New Yorker is informative.

“The character’s death would have been as wrenching for viewers if the soldier’s appearance remained unaltered and he merely fell limp. Instead, the director, Sam Mendes, chose to render the moment picturesque—to adorn it with an anecdotal detail of the sort that might have cropped up in a war story, a tale told at years’ remove…”

I suppose there is something to this criticism. Interestingly, Mendes gives credit to his grandfather for telling these stories. Yet it is the sentimentality that makes the penultimate scene feel so touching.

“‘1917’ is a film of patriotic bombast and heroic duty, The script is filled with melodramatic coincidences that grossly trivialize the life-and-death action by reducing it to sentiment.” There are coincidences, to be sure. They did not take away from our appreciation of the film. But 1917, in the end, was less gruesome than those horror film trailers.

The Madison Theatre has table service. I was wary that this would be distracting, but it was not, in large part because the seats and tables alternate.

Even the waitstaff aiding people to our right was not that distracting. It’s hardly as bad as the chuckleheads talking in front of us when we saw Richard Jewell at the Spectrum about a month earlier.

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial