The Phantom Thread

January 23, 2018

phantom

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

A high-end fashion designer in 1950s London meets a girl, and things proceed from there…

I am not one to go to a movie based on an actor that happens to be in said movie. That’s something Mr. Otter often does, but I am plot-driven; I am happy when an actor I like is in a movie I want to see, but I have to be interested in the story, or I don’t bother to see it.

Except in the case of Daniel Day-Lewis. I would go see him read a laundry list, and be happy to pay my (whatever ungodly amount they’re charging for movies now) for it.

He is a Serious Honey. What’s more, he is, in my opinion, one of the very best, if not THE best, actor on the Big Screen right now…and I have heard rumors that he’s retiring after this movie. More power to him for having a life, but damn I’m going to miss him.

Even in a slow, strange, beautiful movie like this, he is riveting.

And it was slow. And beautiful. And very character-driven. And not much happened, although the end made us both sit up and say, What?…but it worked. I don’t know if I’d go see it again unless I was in desperate need for eye-candy, but it was good.

And aside from also saying that if you are interested in fashion or costume design, you will have even more reason to enjoy this movie, I will say no more. Discover it on your own, like it or hate it, Day-Lewis is definitely worth watching. As are many of the cast, but who sees them when he’s on the screen?

Thank you, Daniel. But I certainly hope I’m wrong and this is not your last movie.


The Greatest Showman

January 23, 2018

show

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

A musical about P. T. Barnum’s life.

I had seen posters for this, but didn’t know what it was about. Then I was talking to C-Dub, who said, Awesome musical with Hugh Jackman, loved it!

Hmmm, I thought, high praise indeed if C-Dub was so pleased with it…and I put it on my mental list of That Which Should Be Watched. Which, of course, is an IMMENSELY long list, off of which many things fall without my noticing, my mental being what it is.

Then, wonder of wonders, I suddenly had a free day in my schedule, and decided to spend most of it at my local ‘plex, and see three movies. Of which this was the third.

And I am happy to say that once again, C-Dub was right. This was an awesome movie.

Firstly, Hugh Jackman in a good musical.

Secondly, colors and lights and songs and dances. The songs were modern pop-style songs, but not bad, certainly fun to listen to even if I didn’t leave the theater remembering any of the tunes. The costumes are what you’d expect of a musical about the beginnings of the circus, and were great.

Now, there’s a lot of furor on the interwebs because in the movie Barnum is portrayed as basically a nice guy with a vision, maybe a wheeler-dealer, but a decent guy. In real life, Barnum was a slaveowner and pretty much did anything he could to make money, including funding minstrel shows and the like. Not really a nice man.

But you know what? this is a MOVIE. It’s not real life, nor is it presented as the truth about Barnum; in fact, it plays fast and loose with both the timeline and events of Barnum’s life. It’s a MUSICAL, guys, and NOBODY expects musicals to be historically accurate.

But thirdly, and most importantly, this version of Barnum is not only an appealing person, he is a friend to, and his show is a haven for, people who are outcasts and who are looked down on because they’re different- the circus performers and attractions. They bond and become confidant and strong together, and that is a very happy message, both in this movie and in life as it is today.

This was really fun to watch, and I left the theater smiling. You will too.

 


Coco

January 23, 2018

coco

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

A boy searches for his lost great-great-grandfather…in the Land of the Dead.

EVERYONE I talked to told me that this movie is awesome.

But it’s Disney, I said, I’m not crazy about Disney movies. They’re kinda all the same and kinda predictable.

No, said Everyone, this one is different and it’s really good.

Whatevs, I said, and rolled my eyes.

Then last Friday, it was raining and I decided to go have a multi-movie day at my local ‘plex. There were three movies about to leave town, and I had a few movie passes left from the batch that I had gotten, so I managed to work them all in…and this was second. After Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, which was awesome and funny and a hard act to follow.

But this movie totally did. Everyone was right. This was a great movie.

Yes, it’s an animated Disney movie, so you know that

  • The animation will be excellent.
  • There will be a kid doing something to repair his/her (his, in this case) family.
  • There will be a cute animal sidekick.
  • There will be a villain standing in the way, maybe a scary villain (but it’ll be Benji-peril)
  • There will be a heart-rending scene toward the end that will make me cry like a bitch whether or not I want to.
  • All will be well in the end.

And all of those things were true…but in a very very good way. This story is about a Hispanic boy whose great-great-grandfather left his ggg’mother to be a famous musician. The only picture of him has the face torn out of it, so all the kid is going on is family legend. He ends up in the Land of the Dead on Dia de los Muertos, makes a friend whom he tries to help, finds the person he’s looking for, and things go differently than he expects, but not (at the end) so badly.

And although it’s nice having a boy be the main character in a Disney movie (not unheard of, but rare) and it’s nice seeing a Hispanic community and having them and their lives and celebrations as the center of the story, the BEST thing is the animation.

This is WONDERFUL animation, even in this day and age. The real-world part is good, but when he enters the Land of the Dead, it’s breathtaking. I won’t spoil it, but be preparted to say WOW a lot. I certainly did! I don’t use the word STUNNING much anymore when it comes to special effects, but it’s appropriate here. If you can see it on the big screen do it, this is one time when it won’t be nearly as awesome on your tv.

And the flying leopard!!!

Just…go see it. It was great. Thank you, Everyone. You were right.


Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

January 23, 2018

jumanji

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

From the book by Chris Van Allsburg

Four teens end up inside a video game and must win it to escape.

Okay, I’ll admit it. I’m a librarian. And for most of my career, I’ve worked in Youth Services, aka the Children’s Room. So I read Jumanji when the book first came out, and loved it. Different, funny, beautiful black and white illustrations.

I saw the first movie, which was a pretty good take on the book, when it came out in 1995. And really liked it too (although I haven’t seen it since I started reviewing movies in 2002, so there’s no review of it on this site.) Well done, a good translation of the book to film.

And then, twenty-two years later…it’s BA-AAACK.

I saw the poster for this and rolled my eyes. Do they have to remake every single successful children’s film twenty years later? Really? I said to myself or whoever was with me.

But then I swathe trailer…and loved it. It looked like a really funny fresh new take on the story, with good people in it, and maybe even good writing.

So last week, I went to my favorite local ‘plex and saw three movies in a row, because they were all about to leave town and I had the time free. And this was the first of the day. And the trailer (for once) did not lie- I loved it.

This movie is smart, funny, sassy, well written and very tongue-in-cheek both about the situation and about video games in general. Yup, video games…the board game in the book and the movie has been changed to an old-school cartridge-run video game, and the kids who find it and play it (and are stuck in the story until they complete it) are literally transferred inside the game, rather than having the occurances of the game happen to them in their home.

And of course, when they enter the video game, they are turned into characters, two of whom are played very well by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Jack Black. The other two are good too, I just didn’t recall seeing them in anything (turns out I had seen Karen Gillan, as Nebula in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, but didn’t recognize her without a ton of makeup and costume…!)

Anyway. Even though the end is not much in doubt, this is a fast funny ride of a movie, very enjoyable, and worth your time. And I don’t want to say any more, the jokes and plot twists are too good to give away.


The Bride of Frankenstein

January 21, 2018

bride

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

Frankenstein’s Monster didn’t die in the first movie (or any of the subsequent ones) and Dr. Pretorius, who is obsessed with creating life, teams with Dr. F to create a female companion for the monster.

This movie has been a running joke for as long as I can remember…but on the other hand, I have never seen it. And when Craiggers and I were driving for nine hours to get back home, and listening to Karina Longworth’s You Must Remember This podcasts about the lives of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff (which were awesome for a car trip) we had to watch this the next evening, having seen Dracula the night before.

I had grown up with monster movies on TV, running almost continuously on the weekends. Many of them were hosted by people like Elvira or Seymour, who made fun of the (mostly awful) movies they hosted…and I mentally lumped this in with all the other Frankenstein knockoffs, of which there are many.

But Longworth said this was arguably the best, even better than the original, and talked about it at great length, so Craiggers and Mr. Otter and I cranked it up after dinner.

This movie was completely different than I expected, even after hearing the podcast description. The beginning of the story, where Mary and Percy Shelley and Lord “I’m So Cool” Byron are talking and Mary tells them ‘the REST of the story’, is cheesy, and of course they have to recap the original and show how the monster survived by hiding in the basement. But after that, it gets very good.

The look of it is very modern, and in fact, even though the frame story is set in the very early 1800s, the story itself is in late Victorian times, which is a little weird. The sets are big and angular and blocky, almost modernist, and not what one expects from a mad scientist’s castle.

Karloff, in the continuing role of the Monster, is now much more sympathetic. He is befriended by a hermit, and learns to speak a few words; this calm period ends when they are discovered by huntsmen who attack the Monster, who runs away and is found by Dr. Pretorius, who convinces him to kidnap Dr. F’s new bride; the only way Dr. F can get her back is by helping Dr. P create new life, a woman to keep the Monster company, which does not work out well at all.

There are some interesting things about this movie…firstly, Elsa Lanchester as a thin beautiful woman, playing both Mary Shelley and the Bride…not the impression I have of her from later films, nor the mental image I had for this movie.

Secondly, Dr. P’s examples of being able to ‘create life’ are shown to be these weird creepy little people in jars who are playing roles- the lecherous king, the clergyman, the beautiful woman- and trying to get out of the jars to interact with each other. Very strange.

The other thing I didn’t realize is that Mel Brooks’ brilliant movie, Young Frankenstein, is more a parody of this than the original Frankenstein; there are many scenes and characters (like Madeleine Kahn, Chloris Leachman’s character, the policeman, and the hermit) that are instantly recognizable. Interesting.

The ending was not what I expected…stark and abrupt, although it had been foreshadowed, and of course the Universal checklist* of what horror movies must include does not make a happy ending for the monster a possibility. And Elsa Lanchester! I had only seen parodies of her character, including Madeleine Kahn’s amazingly funny performance…seeing the real thing was scary and kind of sad. And it was such a short (although powerful) scene to have become so legendary.

This was worth watching; we mocked frame story and the ‘tiny people in bottles’ scene, it was silly, but the rest of the movie was actually a good psychological thriller, and both Karloff and Lanchester really give us characters to identify with.

If, like me, you have not yet seen this classic, you owe it to yourself to give it a try.

*From Scare ’em to Death- then Cash In by Richard Hubler,
Saturday Evening Post, May 23, 1942 (seven years after Bride of Frankenstein)

…More than most Hollywood productions, tbe horror film bas a set formula. George Waggner, an easy-going, slow-apoken ex-Philadelphian, is entrusted with the production of most of Universal’s chillers—which means moat of those in the industry. He says they must have specific characteristics:

  1. They must be once-upon-a-time tales. In one film, executives insisted upon having the word “legend” in the preface stand out in boldface.
  2. They must he believable in characterization. A scientific premise, such as the building of a monster, may seem phony, but never the character or motives of Doctor Frankenstein.
  3. They must have unusual technical effects. One of the best was the operating table ascending into the lightning, a sequence ao good in the original Frankenstein that it was repeated in the latest.
  4. Besides the major monster, there must be a secondary character of weird appearance, such as Igor, the brokennecked mentor of Frankenstein.
  5. They must confess right off that the show is a horror film. In the first Frankenstein picture an interlocutor appeared to tell the audience to brace itself.
  6. They must include a pish-tush character to express the normal skepticism of the audience. This sacrilegious fellow must he later confounded, as was stout fellow Ralph Bellamy in the latest horror productions.
  7. They must be based on some pseudoscientific premise.

To this potpourri of rules, Waggner claims to have added his own ingredient, modern psychology. He tries to make the hero not only horrible but likable, to work up audience sympathy. “My horror films have to be tragic and inevitable,” says Waggner. “Just like a Greek play.”

 

 


Dracula (1931)

January 21, 2018

dracula

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

From the novel of the same name by Bram Stoker. If you haven’t read it, for goodness sakes do it, it’s great.

An ancient vampire moves to England and makes a play for beautiful Mina. Can her fiancé stop him?

Craiggers and I were driving for nine hours together, and we had been together all weekend. We had been staying up too late and we were tired and talked out. I know he likes horror movies. I have this podcast series, I said, and I haven’t listened to it yet…want to try it?

And he did.

The series is Karina Longworth’s excellent and eclectic take on Hollywood’s first hundred years, called You Must Remember This. She has done many excellent serial podcasts, and the one I just happened to have on my ancient iPod Classic was a six-part series about Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, which we greatly enjoyed.

And that night, we had to watch this…I’m sure I saw it when I was a kid; it was always on TV, and my mom had seen it in the movie theater when she was six, when it was new. She said she sat in the front row with her older brothers, and when the closeup came of Dracula about to bite Mina’s neck, she went scampering to her parents in the back of the theater.

But I really couldn’t remember actually sitting, watching it and paying attention to it. And after hearing the podcast, I wanted to, as did Craiggers.

This was really really good. I love Tod Browning’s work, and had read about this from the other end in a bio of Browning; he was originally going to cast superstar Lon Chaney for the part, but Chaney died…this might have made him a better Dracula if it hadn’t seriously impacted his acting ability…! So Lugosi was hired to play the role, and did it to a T. He is suave, creepy and very Transylvanian. The closeups of his eyes, with a strip of light across them, are awesome, as is his whole presence.

Renfield, the lawyer who helped Dracula sell his castle (and imagine buying that!) and who is Dracula’s creepy minion, is great as well, chewing scenery with the best of them with his mad passion for eating gross insects, and Mina is ethereal and beautiful and not as passive as one might have thought.

Bela Lugosi was 48 at the time this was made, and this was literally the high point of his life…it seems like the rest of his career was an attempt to recapture the glory he had in 1931 for about 9 months, until Frankenstein (starring Boris Karloff) was released, eclipsing his star. Such is fame.

But all in all, an excellent movie, both as a film and as a piece of cinematographic and literary history. If you haven’t seen it, watch it (after you read the book, of course!) You will thank the Otter.


The Brothers Karamazov

January 9, 2018

kara

Internet Movie Database          Movie Reviews

From the novel of the same name by Dostoyevsky.

Ivan is in love with Katya is in love with Dmitri is in love with Grushenka who is sleeping with the brothers’ father Fyodor while brother Alexi the priest tries to make peace and everyone despises Smerdyakov, Fyodor’s smarmy illegitimate son.

No kidding. I thought it was going to be yet another Russian political the-government-is-evil-let’s-have-a-revolution kind of thing…but no. It’s a big ol’ thundering family drama, full of anger, tears, forgiveness and lots of people ending up unhappy (because Russian).

Ottersis, Mr. Otter and I wanted to see this…not only is it the last movie we had chosen and not seenfor the New Year’s Day Moviefest 2018 (theme: Hollywood’s take on other countries) but also Ottersis and I are in complete agreement on the hotness of Yul Brynner, which is awesome. In fact, I am now promoting him to Serious Honey. You’re welcome, Yul.

So this takes place in the 1870s in Russia, and everyone is fighting over money and sex, and it’s actually really good. Although it clocks in at 2 1/2 hours, it moves really well, and what developed in the last half hour surpised me, if not everyone (Mr. Otter says he read the book but doesn’t remember it that well.)

And the cast list is a 50s roll call of good actors: Brynner, Lee J Cobb, Harry Towne, Claire Bloom, Richard Basehart, and (we were all surprised to see) William Shatner playing the priest brother. And he was actually good, and SO young!

But the best was Serious Honey Maria Schell, sister of Maximilian Schell, as Gruschenka. She was so good when she was onscreen you couldn’t look away from her- beautiful, a good actress, a worthy foil to Yul and his high horse, which he kept getting on…she was just amazing. I looked at the list of her credits, and as I thought, I’ve never seen her in anything except (and I didn’t remember this) a forgettable part in the first Superman movie from 1978.

Anyway. This was really worth watching- lots of drama, tension, pretty good writing and good plotting. Guess I’m going to have to read the book now…