The Prestige

2005’s “The Prestige”, directed by Christopher Nolan.

Starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansen, Piper Perabo, Andy Serkis, David Bowie, and Rebecca Hall.

Nominated for an Academy Award in Best Cinematography (Wally Pfister) and Best Achievement in Art Direction (Nathan Crowley and Julie Ochipinti).

Are you watching closely? The Prestige asks many questions, and it’s tale about a couple of professionals who develop a blood feud has answers that lead to more questions. A meditation on obsession, once we know what we lust to understand, can we ever be satisfied? And should we even know?

Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman feature, as 2 entertainers in London at the end of the 19^th century. Their act is managed by Michael Caine, who builds machines for the performers to trick the audiences into believing what they’re seeing. Jackman is the populist performer who is always looking for a quick way to increase his fame, while Bale is the purist who is always trying to find new ways to innovate his craft, at the risk of alienating others. After a performance in front of a packed house goes fatally wrong, the 2 develop a rivalry that gets ugly fast. Jealousy, subterfuge, lies, murder, all are possible as they both attempt to perform the ultimate act.

Here, Caine plays the realist, impervious to claims of magic. He insists men are magicians and not wizards- therefore they must fool audiences with misdirection. Hall and Johanssen both play their parts in further clarifying and muddying the waters of their men’s lives, but with so much being what it isn’t, it’s a fool’s errand.
Nolan himself uses copious misdirection to obscure what it is we’re watching, combined with his technical perfection. Through his now reliable style featuring plenty of ominous musical score, men’s wear, water, and dream logic, we flash back and forth through time, with characters reading aloud each other’s journals, identifying what we think we know, and forgetting what is in plan sight as we continue to probe. “Prestige” is also a period piece, about the turn of century in how mankind was evolving from magical thinking to more scientific based theorem, capturing the paranoia of technology overtaking society with it’s threats of sea changes. Indeed, “Prestige”’s most illuminating characters aren’t the 2 protagonists- it’s the engineers, who create the devices to help sell the machine of illusion to willing audiences. As one character warns, nothing good can come from obsession. But then, when the credits roll, we know what the movie was really about. Nolan is the magician, and we the gleeful crowd, gasping for more. How did he do that?

5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

This is 40

2012’s “This is 40”, written and directed by Judd Apatow.

Starring Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Jason Segal, Robert Smigel, Chris O’ Dowd, Lena Dunham, Michael Ian Black, Megan Fox, John Lithgow, and Melissa McCarthy.

Set during the time that they both turn 40, married couple Rudd and Mann find themselves at a crossroads. While struggling to raise their at times challenging adolescent and teenage daughters, they have their own maturation process to attend to while trying to hold their lives together. Mann owns a clothing store, while Rudd runs a record label. With employees pilfering from the bottom line at the store, while the record label struggles with it’s latest album release, money is tight. Being members of the so called “sandwich generation”, Rudd also has to support his witty deadbeat father (Brooks), who just decided to have more children with his partner. In contrast, Mann’s father (Lithgow, nicely restrained) is rarely around, with him never meeting his grandchildren. Rudd and Mann oscillate between trying to meet their own individual needs, their relationship needs, and raising their own children, while juggling extended family responsibilities. Turning 40 may not be everything it’s cracked up to be- assuming that it’s desirable in the first place.

Anyone who’s ever been interrupted mid oral sex by their own bickering and screaming children will be able to relate to the comedic stylings of “40”. As we watch a couple that has been together a long time, we see their relationship dynamic, and the way they will argue in circles about their argument styles, the way only a couple that’s been together a long time can do. At times they earn our sympathy, and other times we wonder if we should savour their successes (and also question their budgeting skills). While “40” is a little nepotistic (Apatow’s wife and 2 children are featured here), the characters are greatly portrayed, particularly Albert Brooks’ deadbeat father (again stealing the show after 2011’s “Drive”). While Apatow is able to suss out great performances from his cast (save the hysterical teenager), the movie can drift somewhat aimlessly at times in the margins, a common Apatow issue (as well as a textbook example of why you should never have dialogue based around faddishly popular television shows). But the aimlessness is also “40”’s strength- as life often meanders and rambles into the nonsensical and the wonderfully random. And of course, the mundane and confrontational. As the California based multiple birthday party (for the couple born in the same year, one turning 40, the other claiming just 38…) winds down, we see the fireworks are just beginning for the newly middle aged couple.

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Live.Die.Repeat.

2014's "Live. Die. Repeat." (formerly known as “Edge of Tomorrow”), directed by Doug Liman.

Starring Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson, Noah Taylor, Charlotte Riley, Franz Drameh, Kick Gurry, Tony Way, and Jonas Armstrong.

What is it about?

We meet Cruise, an American Major in the military, promoting mankind's latest defence, a type of super soldier exo-suit, in the planet's war against alien invaders. Cruise is summoned to London, where his rank is stripped by general Brendan Gleeson, and he is sent to the one place where he never thought that he would be: fighting in the siege of a beach in the pivotal battle against the aliens. The battle is more like a slaughter, with the aliens knowing that the humans are coming, and superior in every way. Cruise, unfamiliar with the fighting suits that he has been endlessly promoting, does predictably poorly in the field. However, immediately after dying, he wakes up roughly 24 hours earlier, back at the base. Baffled, Cruise continues to end up on the beach, dying in the same battle every day. He eventually connects with Emily Blunt, “The Angel of Verdonne”. Blunt came to prominence in a previous battle with the aliens, and we discover that it was because she had the same condition Cruise has- where she re-lived the same 24 hours repeatedly, and shared a connection with the aliens. Because of this alien connection, Cruise starts to have visions, leaving him, Blunt, and a Doctor (Noah Taylor) to decipher how to defeat the aliens. Problematically, we learn that the aliens can see into Cruise too, and the race for survival of the species is on.

Why is it worth seeing?

Hollywood blockbusters can feel awfully tedious at times. Unoriginal, recycled pabulum that will be forgotten quickly, a “Groundhog Day” scenario designed to dominate weekend openings before quickly disappearing. Except, "LDR" IS "Groundhog Day", with a healthy dose of "Saving Private Ryan" and a smidgeon of "Aliens".

Based off of the Japanese novel, “All You Need Is Kill”, by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, “LDR” is a refreshing mix of comedy and action. Those who don’t care for Cruise could get a lot out of a viewing here: we get to watch him die many times, his female-like screams calling out, before re-spawning again for more. And everyone else? This is comedic gold. As Cruise begins to develop feelings for the hyper efficient Blunt, he is unable to act on them, as every time he sees her, it’s for the first time again.

Introducing some tension, as we watch the characters master their environments and propel further into the story, it becomes exciting to wonder when the characters will have done something that they have not done before (sample dialogue for a sequel: “Have we died yet?”). While “LDR” doesn’t hit the same existential heights that 1993’s “Groundhog Day” does (few can), it’s fresh science fiction themes are a shock to the system of action films, making it entertaining as heck. “LDR” is probably the most video game-like film that isn’t based on a video game, since 2010’s “Scott Pilgrim Vs the World”. It’s ironic it would take a film about a character stuck in a time loop, reliving the same day over and over, to point out how stale a lot of other films can be.

 Rating: 4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

1989’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, written and directed by Woody Allen.

Starring Martin Landau, Claire Bloom, Angelica Huston, Woody Allen, Joanna Gleason, Alan Alda, Mia Farrow, Sam Waterson, and Jerry Orbach.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor (Landau), Best Director (Allen), and Best Original Screenplay (Allen).

A multiple couple drama, we open with Martin Landau’s character, a married (to Claire Bloom), successful medical professional who gets a visit from his long term mistress (a great Angelica Huston) who insists that if he’s not going to leave Bloom for her, that she will tell what has been going on between them for over a decade. Landau struggles with coming to terms with his consequences. While mired in neurotic self denial, he uncharacteristically seeks the advice of a rabbi, and he must make a choice to repent or dig a deeper hole for himself. We’re also shown Woody Allen, here married to Joanna Gleason and unemployed as a documentary filmmaker. Gleason is desperate for the naïve and self righteous Allen to find gainful employment, so she gets her successful producer brother (an obnoxious Alan Alda) to offer Allen a job as his biographer. While filming Alda’s ridiculous routine, Allen runs into a producer (Mia Farrow, Allen’s one time actual girlfriend), and falls for her. The rest of the film focuses on the men’s reactions, solutions, and subsequent consequences that will haunt them moving forwards.

After watching Allen create work for well over 5 decades, there is an unnerving and strong belief running through a great deal of his work: that “the heart wants what it wants.” Indeed, when not making comedies, a disturbing amount of Allen’s films are about the telltale heart and how couples are not only destined to be unhappy together, but that being unfaithful is more of an expectation than an exception. Considering that at the time of “Crimes”’ making, Allen was twice divorced, and dating his co-star Mia Farrow, until a few years later the mid 50’s Allen was caught by Farrow having an affair with Farrow’s maybe 20 year old adopted daughter (Soon-Yi Previn). It’s those real life facts that make watching Allen try to cozy up to Farrow more than just a little off putting. Combine that with the fact that I’ve always enjoyed Allen’s films where he stays behind the camera and typewriter, firmly off of the screen, far more than the rest of his canon. His entrenched nebbish presence, can make things get uncomfortable fast. Beyond the discomfort, Allen’s script starts out a little heavy on the clumsy exposition, but it does suck you in as you watch the couples and their respective dramas tangle. In a move of inspiration, the not connected stories do come to a head, and we see that conscience is a subjective term. Possible to be interpreted from a religious perspective, we see there may be karma and guilt to consider as you go about the act of being alive and loving others, even if it means cowardly committing heinous crimes. Allen does show some lovely flashback work here, some of the prettiest work he’s ever done. Notwithstanding Allen, the cast is great as well. Best of all, Allen has an open ended ending, with the groundwork laid out for us to imagine what these poor lovers end up doing with themselves while the jazz plays on the background. It’s easy to see why Allen is so renowned as a creator, and easier to see why he’s infamous for his personal life choices- it’s in the middle where trouble happens.

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Shakes the Clown

1991’s “Shakes the Clown”, written and directed by Bobcat Goldthwait.

Starring Bobcat Goldthwait, Julie Brown, Tom Kenny, Blake Clark, Adam Sandler, Paul Dooley, Kathy Griffin, and Robin Williams.

In Andrew Dice Clay’s 1990 live comedy album, “The Day that Laughter Died”, Clay informs the crowd, “Tonight is not about comedy.” Goldthwait echoes this notion, in his black comedy, “Shakes”. Here, Goldthwait creates the fictional world of Palukaville, NY, where clowns (and clown tailors) form the majority of the population. Like any human based social setting, there are various classes of clowns: children’s party, rodeo, and even the lowly mimes. They all exist in a seedy world where they entertain people by day, and hang out at bars such as The Twisted Balloon, still in clown face and outfits. We meet Shakes (Goldthwait), who entertains children by day for his surrogate father’s clown company, and drinks all day and night. He and his buddies (Adam Sandler and Blake Clark) are enraged when the local children’s TV program hires their nemesis, Binky (an amazing Tom Kenny) instead of them. Binky and his minions aren’t satisfied with his television victory, as he lusts after Shakes’ bowler girlfriend, Judy (Julie Brown). They murder Shakes’ surrogate father, and frame it on some rodeo clowns that they traffic cocaine with. Shakes and his crew have to both get to the bottom of the frame job, and save Judy from Binky, all while fighting to address his alcoholism.

As anybody who is alive knows instinctively, along with generous assistance from Stephen King: clowns are not funny nor entertaining. They’re not here either. Degenerate, unpleasant, desperate; these are the protagonists Goldthwait presents us with. He creates a bizarre world, with deadpan bleak humour and throwaway characters scattered throughout. It’s a testament to the demented originality of Goldthwait that not a single joke told here is funny, while the stilted dialogue is often hilarious (“Wait a minute- you clowns are on dope!”). His Shakes character struggles to survive in a downbeat world, but takes a deep breath before going out and entertaining the kids- perhaps an attempt to satirize his experiences in the stand up world. “Shakes”’ box office results (ballpark of 1/10 of a million $) ensured Goldthwait wouldn’t direct another theatrical film until 2006, but it gained new life as a cult favourite on video and sets a baseline for the auteur who doesn’t seem happy unless making other people uncomfortable with his true to life satire. The commendable bizarro world setting and satirical vibe go far, but Goldthwait typically struggles to create fully fleshed out arcs, with hilariously strange premises, but a lack of realistic resolution. Still, in the spirit of clowning around, “Shakes” memorably breaks all the rules.

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Rachel Getting Married

2008’s “Rachel Getting Married”, directed by Jonathan Demme.

Starring Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin, Tunde Adebimpe, Anna Deavere Smith, Debra Winger, Victoria Haynes, Mather Zickel.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress (Hathaway).

To many, weddings are a special time, to celebrate the union of 2 people and consummate their love. They’re also the perfect way to cram a bunch of people into a building together and have them work through the sheer ugliness that can be family dynamics. Paced over the course of a weekend, we see Hathaway getting released on a weekend pass from an addictions centre, and going to her childhood home where Hathaway’s sister (De Witt) is getting married. Packed full of family members and friends, we witness the various parts of a wedding weekend as Hathaway and her family weave through their web of chaotic enmeshment. Rampantly self absorbed while chain smoking, Hathaway cranks up the asshole factor- perfectly befitting the movie’s title: we’re here for Rachel, but it’s a major inconvenience to our protagonist Hathaway’s recovery program. But thanks to Hathaway’s great work, we also feel for her, freshly discharged from treatment and struggling with her addiction and various triggers, uncomfortable in her own skin. We learn about the horrific events that lead up to her going to treatment, and see that the family doesn’t know if it can give anymore to support her while trying to mend their own wounds from her actions.

Demme’s handheld approach is the perfect tool for giving us the at times clumsy feeling that we’re a member of this very loving but conflict filled group, celebrating an amazingly ethnic wedding with a backyard feeling of intimacy. Helping his cause is clever editing that keeps us from feeling the lulls of reality so present when people are public speaking, and increasing the feeling of anything goes spontaneity. Jenny Lumet’s script is perfect in it’s authentic portrayal of a family- equally jam packed with awkward silences and explosions. We watch parents, siblings, and best friends who want to help, participate, and love, but whom can be shoved aside and raged against, disconnected from the impossibly complex principles of a recovering addict. DeWitt and Irwin are particularly fantastic here, as the bride sister and father of both respectively, with DeWitt constantly trying to steal the spotlight back for her wedding weekend, and Irwin being unbelievable in his honesty, sincerity, and constant gustatory offerings. There’s also some great characters in the periphery, so essential to every wedding: the weirdo uncle type who makes conjugal sex comments, the brother-in-law clad in military uniform that looks like he’s never fired a weapon in his life, the mute guy in a fedora… So many movies regarding weddings feel unrealistic and forced, which is why “Rachel” is such a treat: it cuts a lot more than cake, and it’s heartwarming intimacy is worth an RSVP.

4.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

2017’s “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, directed by Guy Ritchie.

Starring Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Djimon Hounsou, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Aiden Gillen, Michael McElhatton, and Neil Maskell.

As a boy, I fondly remember reading about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Lead by the benevolent wizard Merlin, they had multitudes of adventures when they weren’t defending their home of Camelot. Exploring ideas of magic, valour, and romance, adventurous conquest was never that far away from the table’s members.
Warner Brothers saw the opportunity for a franchise, and has taken the opener of the novels, “The Sword in the Stone” as inspiration, while hiring Guy Ritchie as director. Ritchie wastes little time in showing us the circumstances that lead to Camelot being under siege. The King (Eric Bana), fights and defeats an evil wizard, besting the opposing army. However, Bana’s brother (Jude Law), makes a deal with the devil, and has it defeat Bana to steal the crown. However, Bana’s son escapes to grow up on the streets, raised by prostitutes. He matures into Charlie Hunnam, a leader of thieves, who is eventually aided in his quest by a witch (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey). Things change when Hunnam claims his Excalibur, and Law finds a more than worthy adversary for the kingdom of Camelot, with an army of believers to boot.

Here, the decision to hire the ultra hip Ritchie as a director appears baffling. Ritchie struggles with the unoriginal epic battle scenes, creating chaotic confusion that’s at times difficult to understand, and resembles fare already done better in “Lord of the Rings” and “Matrix:Reloaded”’s burly brawls. Worse, are Ritchie’s other contributions, such as opening credits that play out like a sitcom’s opener, and an overly dramatic flashback sequence about a character’s day that plays like an outtake of 2000’s “Snatch” in the days of Camelot- it just doesn’t work. Other than Hunnam, the characters depicted here are disposable- a serious problem for a potential franchise opener. Astrid Bergès-Frisbey’s witch character appears as humbled at her magical ways as others are supposed to be, and it sucks to watch Bana slum here.  The most dynamic and interesting father/son story isn’t from Bana and Hunnam- it’s from the Neil Maskell character and his son, who steals the show with a tension generating scene of high stakes, while not getting any of the credit. Fortunately, “Arthur” wasn’t just critically hated, it also failed to earn back it’s budget, making the future of the franchise cloudy. Probably would take a wizard to foresee any sequels for the once and maybe not future king?

2/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Wonder Woman

 2017’s “Wonder Woman”, directed by Patty Jenkins.
Starring Gal Godot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Connie Nelson, Danny Huston, David Thewlis, and Elena Anaya.

First introduced to the world in the atrocious “Batman Vs. Superman”, we see Godot on her home planet as a child, aspiring to be like the rest of the all female Amazons, training as fierce and disciplined warriors. We learn through a lovely flashback that in the past Zeus and Ares fought each other, and although Zues was gravely injured, he defeated Ares who retreated. In the event that Ares was to return, Zeus left a god killer weapon on the island, who grew to be Princess Diana, portrayed by Godot. She is groomed for combat by Wright and Nelson, with them not telling her complete history and how she came to be. Growing into an adult, she one day witnesses a plane, mistakenly coming through a portal of some kind into her planet and into the ocean water. She saves a drowning man’s life, who turns out to be Chris Pine. Unfortunately, Pine is followed by WWI Germans, who decide that allies are highly overrated. However, the Germans have yet to learn that the planet is dominated by warrior goddesses, who show the men that pants are optional for gender superiority. After a quick victory, it is determined that Ares, the god of war, has influenced the Germans to act the way they do, and Godot travels back with Pine and his group of eccentric soldiers to stop Aries (Huston) and his chemical engineer (Anaya), and end WWI. Along the way, we get plenty of fish out of water sequences from Godot, learning humans’ ways in the 1910’s, as she begins to believe in herself and her considerable powers, and witness plenty of female bad assery in a genre usually reserved exclusively for the men.

“WW” is meant to be the origin chapter to one of the key figures of DC’s “Justice League” series, it’s answer to Marvel’s “The Avengers”. Regardless of the sex in both character and female director, “WW” is a fine opener, that shows both how lacking in personality Thor’s home world is, and how badly DC has underperformed in the comic book adaptation craze (notwithstanding the Christopher Nolan’s directed Batman trilogy). “WW” does something fascinating here, in flipping the damsel in distress trope- here, Pine’s character constantly finds himself in over his head, with his Amazonian visitor needing to repeatedly bail him out of tough scrapes. Meanwhile, Pine’s character is no shrinking violet, he’s just not some kind of god created super weapon that has bracelets of steel, an invincible shield, a lasso of truth, and a special sword designed to smite Ares. In creating an action-adventure comic adaptation, Jenkins swings for the fences, and shows us that Kathryn Bigelow isn’t the only female director capable of smash mouth action. But she also has some nice tension between the Pine and Godot characters, as she knows she can kick his ass and comes from a man less society, but still finds herself attracted to Pine’s rascal ingenuity and face. As well, fascinatingly enough, we witness Godot initially start out taking a page out of Batman’s handbook, being non lethal on her fellow combatants, but as the god of war enters her consciousness, she becomes more Charles Bronson-esque than she would care to. “WW” is so fresh in it’s approach to feminist equality that it’s almost easy to ignore the trappings of cinematic spandex and armour, with it’s ending surrendering to the formula of a climatic showdown with plenty of beams of light shooting out everywhere. This is one woman who is full of wonder, and it’s about time DC showed up to the party.

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

The Mummy (2017)

2017’s “The Mummy”, directed by Alex Kurtzman.

Starring Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, Jake Johnson, and Courtney B. Vance.

Some may remember 1999’s “The Mummy”, the Brandon Fraser vehicle that featured hilariously bad CGI effects and some desert adventure fun. In an attempt to jump on the multiverse bandwagon, Universal hired Tom Cruise and revived the Mummy series to start the alleged “Dark Universe” series, meaning that assuming the nearly $400 million in gross was enough, we can strap in for plenty more alleged thrills and chills.

We start off in Mesopotamia (Iraq) where the freewheeling jerk Cruise and his partner (Jake Johnson, not Katie Holmes) do something for the army- we’re not sure what, but their superior (Vance) who wears army camouflages, confirms employment when he yells at them for starting a casual firefight with the locals. We also meet Annabelle Wallis, whom we believe is a casual girlfriend/ archaeologist. We have this confirmed when she interrupts Vance’s lecture to lecture Cruise about his commitment issues, and later when she informs the audience that she is an archaeologist. The inconvenient firefight that the insular Americans cause has it’s silver linings: a massive crater in the landscape caused by an unrealistic air strike. An ancient tomb is discovered, and is air lifted for transport away. However, the Mummy (Boutella) has other plans, and in no time, Johnson and Cruise end up with dramatically different perspectives in life and death, as they fight against the ravenous Boutella and her zombie-like minions. Dr. Jekyll (Crowe) shows up to help here, but he has his difficulties when his other half shows up.

Similar to the superior 2014’s “Live.Die.Repeat.", in that it’s a lot of fun watching our favourite Scientologist Cruise get beaten up here. He endures more than 1 vehicle crash, and gets assaulted by pretty much everything on the planet by the time the credits roll. It remains remarkable the shape that Cruise keeps his body in at his age, a type of special effect that’s better than CGI. Focusing on Cruise’s physical prowess is a great way to ignore the fact that it appears Cruise’s career may be in jeopardy. Cruise used to actually act in movies, and has been fantastic in many. But he appears to be on a track where we can now rely solely on Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher, and now the Mummy franchises where we can watch him look great, add to the minutes of sprinting footage that exist of him on the internet, and perform spectacular stunts (and in an interesting trend, be ambivalent towards women). That’s all fine and good, however, I wouldn’t mind more work such as 1989’s “Born on the Fourth of July” or 1999’s “Magnolia”, or even 2008’s “Tropic Thunder”, where Cruise really stretched himself to avoid dead weight such as 1994’s “Interview with the Vampire”. Regardless of my predictions for dear Tom, a better question to ask is: how many people does it take to write this screenplay? If you answered 6, you know that’s too many, and it comes across. Featuring dialogue that is the antithesis to any decent adventure film, it is overly wordy and is constantly explaining to us what is going on. Featuring not a clue on how relationships, organizations, or even humans work, it’s a relief when a dream/fantasy sequence is shown sans dialogue. Hopefully when the next monster is introduced, it won’t feel so embalmed.

1.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Death to Smoochy

2002’s "Death to Smoochy", directed by Danny Devito.

Starring Robin Williams, Edward Norton, John Stewart, Catherine Keener, Pam Ferris, Danny Woodburn, and Michael Rispoli.

In the wickedly satirical “Death to Smoochy”, we’re introduced to modern day world, where Williams is a children’s entertainer, appearing on a successful children’s show. Morally compromised and generally unpleasant, he is arrested by the FBI for taking bribes from overeager parents paying to have their children on his show. Starless, the corporate network needs a face to sell children’s lunch boxes, and they demand someone who isn’t into alcoholism and bribery. We see the hopelessly naïve Norton, who sings folk songs for addicts at a recovery centre, get approached by manager Keener to star in his own show. Norton eats it up like a gluten free hot dog bun, but struggles with how the network wants him to be a corporate pitchman for various unhealthy products. He gets an agent (Devito), who helps him develop an ego so necessary in the world of show business. But there are various pressures competing against Norton, from Williams, obsessed with getting revenge against the man he feels took his job, from Devito, who tires of Norton’s idealistic ways and may be working with the corrupt local charity, and from an opioid afflicted hitman, who may sober up long enough to take Norton out.

It takes a lot of talent to make a movie as strange, comical, and commercially and critically unsuccessful as “DtS”. It both offers the perspective of a black satire and a children’s fantasy, as Norton’s character is not acting when he dons the purple suit and sings to children. His obliviousness to the greed and misanthropic behaviours of the very cynical world depicted here make his attitude all the more jarring. Devito keeps things strange, with his bizarre camera angles, bright colours, and goofy send ups of the corporate world and charities that could double as the mafia. I’m also entranced by Robin Williams’ work in his less successful movies (like in Fathers' Day), as his hyper spastic routines take on a desperate and deranged air, potentially showing us a glimpse of the man who would end up taking his own life. Finally, the movie also has a few musical moments, where characters perform flips and fly through the air. Flawed everywhere but in it’s originality, the foul mouthed “DtS” is hilariously in a league of it’s own.

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

2003’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”, directed by Peter Jackson.

 

Starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom,  John Ryhs-Davies, Andy Serkis, Liv Tyler, Sean Astin, Hugo Weaving, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Bernard Hill, Brad Dourif, Karl Urban, Miranda Otto, David Wenham, John Noble, and Cate Blanchett.

Winner of an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director (Jackson), Best Adapted Screenplay (Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson), Best Film Editing (Jamie Selkirk), Best Art Direction (Grant Major, Dan Hennah, Alan Lee), Best Costumes (Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor), Best Make Up (Richard Taylor and Peter King), Best Music (Howard Shore), Best Song (Fran Walsh, Howard Shore, Annie Lennox), Best Sound (Chrisopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges, and Hammond Peek), Best Visual Effects (Jim Rygiel, Randall William Cook, Joe Letteri, and Alex Funke).

You could make the argument that when “Fellowship of the Ring” came out, that it had modest expectations. Lesser so, for “The Two Towers”. But Hollywood knew it had something special by the time “The Return of the King” was released. This is the chapter Jackson had been building towards- and he did not disappoint. The scale of the already epic Helm’s Deep battle (from “The Two Towers”) is magnified here, in the Minas Tiruth battle. But it only parallels the stakes involved as Frodo’s quest to destroy the ring increases in difficulty. We’ve been following his quest, and the Fellowship’s efforts to protect him, while battling Sauron’s murderer’s row of villains.

We start off with a gentle opening, with 2 men fishing- that becomes anything but. We meet Smeagol (Gollum’s original human form), and see him discovering Sauron’s ring. We very quickly see the corrosive effects of the ring upon the bearer’s soul, and we come up to speed on how Smeagol becomes the creature, Gollum. We then come to present day, with Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Theoden, Merry, and Pippin arriving at the now vanquished wizard Sarumon’s lair of Isenguard. With the formerly great wizard now in defeat, they are able to predict that Sauron’s next move will be to attack the kingdom of Gondor’s greatest city, Minas Tirith. With mankind set to become extinct should the city fall, it comes upon the group to mount a defence against Sauron’s forces- whom are lead by the orc general, Gothmog. While the action gears up, we meet the current king of Gondor, King Denethor (Boromir and Phoromir’s father), who is vain and in poor mental health. In an attempt to gain responsibility, Merry agrees to serve the king, while Gandalf sets off on preparing the city for siege. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli set off to find reinforcements, who may or may not be sympathetic to the group’s cause, and may or may not be alive. Finally, the reluctant trio of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum continue their contentious journey towards Mordor. With their food supplies scant, their energies sapped, and the road treacherous, it’s a wonder they haven’t killed each other yet, as Frodo starts to become as obsessive towards the ring as Gollum, whom constantly schemes and conspires to return it to his grasp. There’s no telling where Gollum will send the hobbits, but most of him wants it not to be Mount Dune, where his “precious” will be lost forever. It’s fair to say that things aren’t looking good for the heroes to start things off.

With “Fellowship”’s ideas and characters introduced, and “Towers”’ further deepening and enriching of them, “Return”’s goal is to take the baton, finish off the story, and make you remember it’s face. There are so many journeys brought to their end here. Eowyn and Pippin’s journeys to become a warriors despite how society sees them. Merry’s journey to embrace service to others. Legolas and Gimli’s humorous journey to become friends despite being of different races. Aragorn’s journey to believe in himself and embrace destiny. Gandalf’s journey to elite wizard status, and a general to all. Gollum’s journey of conflict. Finally, Frodo’s journey from innocent and naïve homebody, to world travelled and experienced conflict resolution participant. It is a great story, and a remarkable adaptation. Readers conscious of my style will note that I often refer to actor’s names instead of their characters- I do this because I’ve always believed that it’s better to understand it’s an actor and not just a character on the screen, with obvious iconic exceptions (Darth Vader, or David Prowse with James Earl Jones?). But the “LOTR” series is so richly portrayed, and it’s character growth so propulsive, that it’s hard to distinguish the actors from the characters they portray.

It’s telling, that after “Return of the King” earned all 11 Oscars that it was nominated for, “LOTR” still feels somewhat underrated. It’s because New Line Cinema had taken a chance on a growing but still obscure filmmaker (yes he had done Hollywood fare such as 1994’s "Heavenly Creatures" and 1995’s "The Frighteners", but also the hilariously campy “Bad Taste” and “Dead Alive”, as well as the ridiculous “Meet the Feebles”). Jackson was able to take his considerable filmmaking prowess to communicate his passion and ambition onto the screen to produce an all time great classic adaptation on material previously thought un-filmable. “Return” (and the series for that matter) isn’t perfect- it was disappointing to watch a great wizard play whack a mole with the orc army, instead of using his staff to produce the powerful force-like invisible propulsions he battled Sarumon with in “Fellowship”. And “Return” overstays it’s welcome. It’s 3 hours and 21 minutes aren’t just numerically intimidating- they feel long (I haven’t even mentioned that there are extended versions available- that’s for when somebody pays me to watch and review them). But when the credits roll on the series, you know you have seen something special. Nine years later, there could have been worry of oversaturation when Jackson would come aboard to create “The Hobbit” trilogy- but it’s bloated and rushed mediocrity only serves to reinforce “LOTR”’s superiority. No amount of time in between, nor future releases, can take away from this timeless cinematic achievement.

4.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Don't Think Twice

2016’s “Don’t Think Twice”, written and directed by Mike Birbiglia.

Starring Keegan-Michael Key, Gillian Jacobs, Mike Birbiglia, Kate Micucci, Tami Sagher, and Chris Gethard.

Making it in the world of improvisational sketch comedy is akin to playing a major role on a championship winning sports team. Only a few basis points of a percentage will ever truly make it. For every Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, SCTV, Kids in the Hall, Mr. Show with Bob and David, and Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! you have the multitudes of performers who never made it, banished to the unknown world of the non-entertainment of others. “DTT” is about both of those groups.

We meet a improvisational troupe, comprised of various personalities. Some are very outgoing and smooth, while others are more introverted and genuine, but they all share a love for the stage and making others laugh. For all intensive purposes, they are a family, with some of them dating each other. Their theatre where they perform their improv is a type of farm team, referred to here as “a breeding ground” for the show, Weekend Live (the show’s thin reference to “Saturday Night Live”). Indeed, the show’s characters speak in reverent tones about previous cast members and other entourage who have been lucky enough to land jobs at Weekend. When the movie starts, everything with the group is relatively fine, with some of them needing to work at second jobs to actually support themselves and their modest lifestyles, while they work towards their dreams of being promoted to the big show. Eventually, Keegan-Michael Key’s character is able to audition and be successful at getting a job at Weekend. His partner, Gillian Jacobs, shrinks from the moment, and has to deal with changed expectations as a result. The change in the group’s dynamic is the focus for the rest of the movie.

First time director Birbiglia does well in presenting the world of improv comedy, and more so with the group’s dynamics once certain people start becoming more successful than others. As they say, you want your friends to be successful- but not too successful. The group clearly cares for each other, but the real world implications of cast members leaving for more famous pastures in entertainment land strains on them. Audiences, initially a part of the show, become barriers to actually performing when all they want is the former cast member who is now (more) famous. Entitlement, jealousy, guilt, fear, all start to intrude on the other feelings of happiness and collaboration in the group. While Key does his best to stay professionally helpful and personally connected to the group, he feels the strains of both his detached and vague boss (an even more thinly veiled reference to corporate weirdo Lorne Michaels), and being unable to operate in the same world that he used to. Jacobs exemplifies this disconnect even better, as she processes the effects of not having the ambition to want to leave the “entry level” world that she has spent so long trying to get out of. While the ending is a tad too neat, Birbiglia juggles the group’s dynamics well, never reinventing the wheel, while never making us doubt the reasons the group performs- they love the spotlight, and often gladly do it for “exposure”.

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.