Change Your Image
Voyage2-2
Reviews
First Man (2018)
Understated with some elements missing from the recipe
This movie was very polarizing, judging from the reviews, both here and on the outside. The reasons are both simple and complicated. Criticism of the movie has become well known. And, it is true, there is no actual scene of planting of the American flag on the lunar surface. The overall tone of the movie, to be fair, is a very understated feel of this American achievement. For the political Left, very, very little social change was displayed in the movie, of the turbulent 60's, with only one brief TV scene of the escalating Vietnam War. But, it could be argued, none of these things were the focus. Rather, our race to the moon and the personal story of Neil Armstrong. Accepting that, these criticisms were well, well overdone. It was a good movie, but fell short of great.
It lacks the emotional and patriotic surge of the failed mission of Apollo 13 (1995), the uplifting cheering moments and humor of The Martian (2015). The cinematography bothered many, it was OK for me. The director's style was a put off to others, it has a feel like Whiplash (2014), in a strange way to me. But, one area I really fault the film was a poor script. Scriptwriter Josh Singer was praised for his work in 'The Post' (Ok by me) and 'Spotlight' (fantastic in my view), so he was capable enough. But, if this was to quietly celebrate the engineers rather than male bravado, where were the science discussions, dialogue and characters ? Sure, vehicles which blew up or failed were reasons it took us a decade to get up there, but give me some of the why. This would have also been a good time to develop characters with the principal players and for some humor. Even in earnest movies, this lacked almost all sense of anything but a very occasional chuckle.
Ryan Gosling under acted and understated Armstrong to the extent it might be seen as the opposite reciprocal to say, what some critics said of Al Pacino's 'over acting' intensity of the 70's and 80's. It fell flat and uncomfortable for some. Corey Stoll's Buzz Aldrin was flippant and unlikable, how true to form it was, I don't know. Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong took a progressively uptight and disagreeable tone. In the last third of the movie pushed it to a bit anti-climatic. Perhaps a wink to modern feminist bravado.
The movie lacks good scoring, both original and period music (outside a radical 60's song, 'Whity going to the moon'). No 'interludes' to walk you through events/ideas and time. While this is a certain style of movie making, the disadvantage is you don't get the economy of storytelling quickly and the movie tends to drag.
It's sad, but the unfounded harsh criticism this movie brought will give those who've never seen it, an impression it is tainted with more anti-American flavor, which Hollywood has cranked out in the previous decade. It is not. It's also not escapist entertainment, which is why it drew the over 40 crowd...not the target of most movie makers and theaters. However, it may not bring the praise from such generations on the high end, who remember the events first hand. This was more than just going out to bring home the milk, 'matter of fact,' which is what younger generations might be left thinking.
It is all together fitting that Neil Armstrong belonged to the so-called 'Silent Generation' (circa 1925-early 1940's). NASA was founded by GI Generation folk (1900-1925), heros of WWII becoming civil left brain leaning problem solving engineers. It was Armstrong and his peers who humanized the Moon Landing ('...giant leap for Mankind'). Much could be said about the social changes back on Earth. Not so much 1960's college students, but Silent Generational leaders such at Dr. King (together with Armstrong, considered great heros of their generation).
The Million Dollar Duck (1971)
Acquired minor appreciation needed
It is fashionable to rag and bash this movie. The points are understood. Take 1930's cornball humor, mix in the physical comedy of the Stooges and Keystone Cops, with the backdrop of a story from Antiquity, the goose who laid the golden eggs. Place it in modernity, being more the generic mid 20th Century with a lawyer and US Treasury folks. It's 1971, but the movie appears to ignore the changing outside world. The 'far out dudes' Wadlo boys give a wink to the Hippy Era, but not much else. It's small town California, a point which is made deliberately, which ironically harkens back to then President Nixon's growing up. Gold and small towns, one only can imagine if any super seniors from rural America ever saw this at the time. Gold was no giver to prosperity in their eyes, Williams Jennings Bryan and 'free silver' were all the rage.
The movie suffers from terrible timing. A huge shift in taste was sweeping the country, as this is more in tune with the rural sitcoms of the late 60's, recently purged, and less with the new 'dramadies' of 'All in the Family' and 'MASH.' If you remember 'Get Smart,' you might forgive some of the 'cheese' here. The silly chase scene at the end, who does that in a movie ? Hummm, 'The French Connection' (picture of the year in 1971) ? This wasn't a hip time to be a young kid, I'm of the X'er generation. It wasn't like the late 50's/early 60's (Boomers) or the 90's (Millennials), time periods hailed for Disney creativity.
If you're reading this, you probably have some appreciation for the humanities...some history and motifs of literature. Let's look at this differently. First, the characters. Sandy Duncan as the flighty housewife sends the critics into orbit. 'All in the Family' used this characterization as satire, here and even in 1971, it's uncomfortable. Let's say that's just a misunderstood bit of humor and exaggeration. For wide acceptance...a miss, ok. Joe Flynn checks in with his staple uptight bureaucrat as the Treasury agent. Dean Jones, the 'everyman' father and family man. An image he would work with on other more successful Disney films. Tony Roberts launched his film career as his slippery lawyer, works well for even modern audiences. The rest of the cast is rounded out with some longtime Hollywood figures, mostly of the past.
Some imagery and motifs. Mrs. Dooley gets a phone call from the bank one morning, because she's 'overdrawn' on her checking account. A crusty old 'banker' threatens to call her husband. Charlie the duck...offers a deposit. At the teller window, a balding middle aged guy with a three piece suit. Not too far fetched for small town banking in the late 60's, circa 1970. Not that unlike the experience of their parents in the 40's. Those old guys probably cut the Dooley's mortgage years ago. Fast forward thirty years later ? ATM's, online banking, mortgages cut from online services, tellers 20-something ladies with a blouse from Target and if you ask an officer at the bank too many questions besides hours and building address, they'll reach for the phone and call the 1-800 number. Later in the film, with the Feds ponder keeping the golden Charlie a secret, the first foreigner on the montage is French, notorious in the era for collecting US gold to settle trade debts. When the Dooleys and Fred arrange chase, the call Katie gets is on...a RED phone. Later, when the Feds are caught up in a traffic accident and announce to the crowd they're with the government, one patron says, 'Government ! No wonder you got everything all loused up !' A cynicism more fitting to the late 70's rather than on the heels of the 'go/go 60s'
Lastly the gold politics. We're in small town California here. Although McKinley's 'gold bugs' won California against Bryan 'free silver,' in 1896, gold was of the New York bankers and big city industrialists. Worker bees and farmers chose inflation supported 'free silver.' But, in 1971, the gold standard was on its deathbed. Mr. Nixon, who 'appears' in the movie, would take us off the gold standard entirely within a few years. So, own all the gold you want, as we go total fiat currency, a world none of the creators really lived through. The yellow sports car would never go for 7,995 dollars again.
The Founder (2016)
A 'sellout' moment you could only wish for
An enjoyable and entertaining movie, and a little slice of life. BASED on a true story. BASED on a true story, not a documentary. And many documentaries today are following a certain bias narrative anyway.
Reading a lot of these reviews, I'm shocked at the ignorance to business so many have, perhaps emotional artists who see the World and Life through that prism. Reality is quite different. I want to zip to 1961, the scene where the two brothers are sitting across the table from Ray Kroc. The movie gives you the impression, of two simpleton brothers are 'accepting surrender' before the evil Ray Kroc. At the end of the scene, Maurice is holding a check for 1.34 million dollars. This is 1961 ! Do you know how few people held a check for that much money, written out to them ? CPI puts that at today's worth somewhere near 10 million a piece. For the uninformed, this is called payday, if you own a business, this is the day you hope and pray for, somebody big comes in and buys you out. Not real emotional and touchy feely, but a reality many in such situation would hope for. I laughed out loud, when in the following restroom scene with Dick, and the little 'pity party' comes out, and Kroc says, 'So, you don't have a check for 1.34 million dollars in your pocket ?' Wonder if Dick took the tears to the bank ? Another perspective. Using the rule of 72, and Dick lived until the late 90's, let's assume four doubles on a million dollars in 1961. That would bring us to 16 million for the last decade of his life, invested passively, totally liquid, and knowing the go/go 60's market, the Bear and Bull markets of the 70's and 80's. Even accounting for inflation, not a bad little nest egg for the World (of yet another Bull market to come) of then, 1991. As to the remaining 300k or so...the average income for a FAMILY in 1960 was just shy of 8,000 in New York and Boston, much more expensive then than San Bernardino was then. That goes into 300k 37 times. True, inflation would have eaten into that, still not overcome by short term interest income and probably wouldn't have sustained a 1961 standard of living to 1991, but it was one heck of a supplement for living expenses. As the old one million was slugging it out in the marketplace, passively. The 300k alone, was a far greater a windfall than most surviving families got from term life insurance policies designed to sustained survivors of the era.
The one percent royalties promise is of legend. There's no hard proof this was ever made, the brothers never spoke of it. I presume they had attorneys to do this deal as well (sure, maybe not as heavy guns as Mr. Kroc), but it's a story floated by one of the nephews. How true, no telling, but, it does make a good story, so put it in the film. It would NOT make a good story if McDonald's failed six years later, as the brothers were investing and reaping the rewards of their windfall checks.
Was Ray a likable guy ? No. Was he an idealist ? Absolutely not. 'Do it for America,' who didn't chuckle when he spouted trite lines as such ? But, Ray saw something the brothers could never see, he had a talent they lacked. Did Ray amass a level of wealth that dwarfed the brothers, sure. Besides his talent, skill and yes, 'persistence' he also didn't have the luxury of 'passive income,' or 'liquid' wealth. He had risk exposure the brothers would never had, costs he couldn't control. The brothers could always be a phone call away from having hundred dollar bills pile in their living room in five days (old settlement clearing house rules). The real lesson here is great things, ideas and empires are not self creating, they take blood/sweat and some tears. 'Greed' has been a nice tidy way of taring all we think we don't like about this kind of construction. But, greed doesn't create. It takes talent, persistence and yes, ambition. I don't think the latter points we should vilify. The Satin and 'Little Guys' narrative really needs to be put into real life perspective.
The movie talent is first rate. Playing real life people in subtle manner, not over the top. Keaton is aces, right down to his Chicago accent, Arrr-right. Nick Offerman, mild 'everyman' works brilliantly here. Keep waiting for them to cast him in some movie about TR Roosevelt before he gets too old. John Carroll Lynch, again showing his range, from Zodiac suspect, to Walt's barber to Drew Carey's cross-dressing brother. The dialogue with the three is priceless. Dialog has its moments, mixed in with silence and slow music periods. Wasn't crazy about the greasy 'land attorney' who later worked for Kroc, how true to life he was, donno, but he came off slimy to me. Not a fan of the show 'The Office,' myself. In a sea of disaster, action Super Hero/Super Villain and dystopian stories, this is a fresh alternative.
As with any period piece or doing any kind of make believe, the real World sometimes intrudes. The scene of the original McDonald's is very lush with vegetation more like Georgia than San Bernardino. When Mac's in the hospital, the room number signs are clearly modern, not of the late 50's early 60's period. At the closing table, when the brothers sell out, there's a red modern fire alarm behind Keaton. When Ray at the end of the movie, is working on his speech for Governor Reagan, and he walks away, you can hear the hollow sound of a movie set, not the solid sound of a permanent house/structure.
The Odd Couple (2015)
The Good, Bad and Ugly
At this writing, the show has been canceled by CBS. It's possible, technically, it could be picked up by another network, cable or entity (being video delivery today is quite vast). But most likely, you got ahold of old videos, privately made or released by some syndicator, and so we're talking about a show that 'used to be on.' I was interested in this show more to see a Matthew Perry, in another comedic transformation. It tackled the familiar. The adaptation, in some ways, was impressive. This original storyline is fifty years old and was updated to modern familiarities. Oscar doesn't write sports for a newspaper, but runs/hosts a satellite radio sports show. Cell phones and social media are all around, and he still bets on sports, with a live ticker in his living room. Check out the 1968 movie version and see how they've made the transformation.
However, some things were lost. The comedy then, 1968, was more subtle and allowed time to develop and pop; today, we have machine gun delivered jokes. That's a bad one, wait...another one is loaded in the barrel. In this way, this modern show fits contemporary TV humor, which I'm not a fan of. This show didn't capture the middle age blues as well as Matthau and Lemmon did in '68. Perry's Oscar was more akin to college frat boy who never grew up than the one we knew from past lives. Lennon's Felix captures the neurotic and fussiness we're familiar with, but it competes with other modern fictional characters which are familiar; Dr. Niles Crane (Frasier) or Dr. Sheldon Cooper (Big Bang Theory).
The show didn't give time to allow the principals to really develop, to where we knew them well enough, to add to the comedic recipe. If we really know and empathize with the character, we can survive through bad writing or even poor comedic timing...for a time. All three, of course, hit it out of the park, this show rarely, if ever did that. Towards the end, and last season, Lennon's Felix was a standout, and his girlfriend, paying the cute/lovable girlfriend, helped add to the show. It might have been better to have started this off at the beginning, during the introductory phase of the show. Perry's Oscar never developed on his own, and ran the risk of turning Charlie Harper bunking with Dr. Sheldon Cooper.
The show suffered from general bad writing, poor development and uneven performances, not necessarily because of the talent. Out of total control of the creators was the network, which only ordered 12/13 episodes a season, changed the time slot and crammed each season over a couple of months. For viewership to develop, takes consistency, even in today's fragmented world, we are still creatures of habit. Sure, we can tell the Tivo to record ever episode of a show, but some program for the week and the casual viewer can quickly lose track of what day/time a show is on and can't find it on the grid. The first season of this show had more viewers than the first two seasons of the Big Bang Theory.
Lastly, art is subjective and timing is critical. There are no absolutes. This show appears to be in the morgue, at least for it's 'first run.' Remember, 'Friends' was never a big hit with high brow critics, which found it to be too cutzie. But, it won the support of viewers, and survived for that reason on the network for ten years. Even if the writing wasn't always spot on, the characters and their relationship with the audience carried the day. Bob Newhart, took a standup act in the 60's, of a deadpan expression, mellow guy and turned it into a character type who survived two shows, in different backdrops over two decades on TV. 'Mama's Family' was sketch comedy on 'The Carol Burnett Show' and went on to become a national sitcom for six years, two with NBC, four with 'first run syndication,' (where today's TV talk/game shows come from). Not to mention 'Mama's Family' was a great template for future 'senior stars' of the later 'Golden Girls.' Mr. Perry's current floundering, from his stardom on 'Friends' is not new, nor is the last chapter written. Jason Bateman, was a child star who crashed in the 80's while his sister shined on the hit show 'Family Ties.' But, he came back and is quite busy over the last 15 years. Some Perry fans, knowingly or otherwise, want their Chandler Bing back, either consciously or subconsciously. Whether or not to resurrect Mr. Bing, or something similar, remains to be seen. But, much of the recipe is also timing. With better network support and better organization, this show could have survived and gained viewers. Never a 'breakout hit,' but enough viewers could have warmed to it, not to mention attracting viewers looking for something a little more understated over the 'edgy humor' today's critics are hyper about.
The Other Man (2008)
Good Attempt
I often wonder what of film makers' true goals of a project. Michael Bay bangs out blockbusters that don't put him on the cocktail party 'A list' but rather residence in the best neighborhoods. Then there are films which are produced for the elite; the anti Hollywood crowd and to be shown to film students. 'The American' with George Clooney, comes to mind, which in a sparsely populated theater I saw people walk out. Sometimes these films 'fail' because they are cheered by too large a crowd of critics, opening the gates for a mass audience...and all that 'riff raff.' Subtlety is great, it is refreshing to see some of this style from 70's films make a comeback. Would 'Taxi Driver' be as welcomed by today's generation of movie goers ? But, if 'The Other Man' was hoping or trying for such a benchmark, it failed miserably.
Yet, if it was honest art, to tell a story a little differently, 'A' for effort. 'The Other Man' stars the 'A-List' talent, and the right kind, lower profile stars one doesn't read about everyday. Liam Neeson (Peter) and Laura Linney (Lisa) are a couple living in Britain. He, working for a software company, she shoe designer. Lisa dies and soon after, Peter discovers an affair she had, and sets out to 'find him.' To round out this little trio, Antonio Banderas (Ralph) is the lover. That's all you need to follow along, but Lisa's death is far more intuitive than clear. I wasn't sure until somewhere near the middle, that she was actually dead, not just 'unavailable.' Once this is made absolutely clear, flashbacks to her illness are paraded by, to fill in the back story. Linney's part is small, but enough moments are shown to see what she CAN do, in case you weren't sure, and for her to show clips when a guest on TV shows. The film essentially orbits around Peter and Ralph.
The writing is weak, carefully sidestepping cliché (although Banderas does ramble on like the 'Latin Lover') although not offering anything extra in return. Subtly is great, but some punch is called for to round it out. We saw Neeson in 'Schindler's List,' but his Oskar character was complicated and paradoxical. The script for 'List' was given punch by Aaron Sorkin, whose more recent works include 'Moneyball' and 'Charlie Wilson's War.' As we saw, sometimes words are not needed, just the right looks and 'moments' will carry the day. But, other times, words ARE needed and punchy dialogue appreciated. Additionally, some opportunities were missed, such as Ralph's strange amazement with turtles, demonstrating his character had more potential than as a 'European lover,' mono dimension.
I gave the picture five stars because it's not an awful film, it's just so poor from what it COULD have been. My appetite's now been sweetened to explore again, 'Unfaithful.' Not universally praised, but hardly upstaged by this updated version of the genre.