directed by Bong Joon Ho
written by Bong Joon Ho and Jin Won Han
Five years ago, I was introduced to the work of Bong Joon Ho through his English-language dystopian thriller Snowpiercer, which starred Avengers' Chris Evans in a decidedly different role from his turn as Captain America. I loved it, and even though I didn't get to watch his Netflix-produced follow-up, Okja, I considered myself a fan of Bong Joon Ho's work.
It would have been a shame, therefore, to miss his almost universally-acclaimed new film, Parasite, but I almost did, were it not for the fact that our local distributor saw fit to re-release it in view of all of the awards buzz it's been getting since crushing all opposition at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, including Quentin Tarantino's grossly overrated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, composed of the father Kim Ki-Taek (frequent Bong Joon Ho collaborator Song Kang Ho), mother Kim Chung Sook (Hye-Jin Jang), son Kim Ki-Woo (Choi Woo Shik) and daughter Kim Ki-Jung (So-Dam Park), all of whom live on the edge of poverty in what is known as a "semi basement" taking odd jobs and barely having enough money to make ends meet. When Ki-Woo's friend drops in, though, with an opportunity to tutor Park Da Hye (Ji-so Jung), the daughter of telecommunications magnate Park Dong-ik (Sun Kyun-Lee), things start looking up. As Ki-Woo starts his new job, he meets Dong-ik's wife Park Yeon-kyo (Yeo-jeong Jo) and is introduced to the family and world of opulence they inhabit, where he finds himself facing a world of possibility.
It's honestly hard to go into great detail about what makes this film so compelling without spoiling plot points; as Bong himself has said on talk shows, it's a movie best enjoyed "cold" or without any clue as to what takes place in it. That said, in broad strokes, I can definitely say that Bong's storytelling is even sharper here than it was in the tour de force that was Snowpiercer. The scripting is deliberate; almost every choice the characters make defines what happens next, and even though I felt there was one distinctly false note in the script, a moment in which the film felt plot-driven rather than character-driven as it had been up until that point, it was utterly entrancing to watch Bong weave his web.
Even in Snowpiercer I was struck by Bong's ability to extract the very best from his actors, and it is again the case here, especially with his muse Song Kang Ho as the family patriarch. His pathos as a middle-aged man who has spent pretty much his entire life in the same place informs the storytelling, juxtaposed clearly against the one-percenter smugness that Sun Kyun-Lee puts on display as Park Dong-ik. A recurring theme here is smell, and it's fascinating to see how the chasm between socio-economic classes is most effectively emphasized through something as basic as human senses. The other actors obviously play significant parts in how this story turns out but it's these two performances that give the film its center of gravity, and the movie is certainly all the better for it.
With Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker now in theaters, Parasite is probably gone again from all but the most esoteric screens, but I sincerely hope that when Oscar buzz starts in a few weeks, this film is remembered, as one that should not only stand alongside blatant Oscar-bait like Tarantino's pointless, fetishistic love letter to 1960s Hollywood, but head and shoulders above it.
9/10
Friday, December 20, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
"If It Ain't Broke...": A Review of Jumanji: The Next Level
directed by Jake Kasdan
written by Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kasdan
About two years ago, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the action-comedy Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle or the sequel to the 1995 hit film starring Robin Williams, to which it bore only the remotest resemblance. Having loathed the older film in just about every respect, I gave that sequel, a relatively mediocre film, a pretty high grade all things considered, noting just how drastically it had improved on its predecessor. Audiences thought so, too, and the film very nearly grossed a billion dollars at the worldwide box office.
Two years later, I have sat through the obligatory sequel, and while I rolled my eyes a bit at the flimsy pretext for having the characters revisit this world, I will acknowledge that the filmmakers did a decent job following up, especially since they experimented a bit more with the original "body swapping" premise.
As anyone who's seen a trailer for this movie will know, Spencer (Alex Wolff), who spent majority of the last movie in the world of the video game Jumanji as Dwayne Johnson's perfect human specimen Smolder Bravestone, having gone off to college in New York, away from his friends, is miserable and lonely once again. Apparently the last time he truly felt alive was as Bravestone, and so, as he bunks with his visiting grandfather Eddie (Danny DeVito) Spencer hatches a plan to get back into the world of the game, which he has salvaged from the dumpster in which he and his friends put it and the end of the last movie, right after taking a baseball bat to it. When Spencer's friends Martha (Morgan Turner), Fridge (Ser'Darius Blaine) and Bethany (Madison Iseman) finally meet up at a local diner and Spencer doesn't show up, they deduce that something is up with him and go to his house, where they find his grandfather Eddie, who is the middle of an argument with his estranged friend and business partner Milo (Danny Glover) and discover that Spencer has gone back into Jumanji. Being the friends that they are, Martha, Fridge and Bethany decide to go in after him, but things do not at all turn out the way they expected. Of course, there's a quest to recover some artifact from some horrible-looking bad guy (Rory McCann), but the protagonists don't quite enter the game the same way they did last time.
Though the movie has been out for some time, and is about to lose a whole lot of screens to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, and even though a lot of plot points were already spoiled in the trailers, I'll still leave some of the plot under wraps as there is some fun in discovering the movie. Suffice it to say that the original sequel's central joke about being bodily displaced is still very much front and center, and makes for some reasonably funny jokes, especially since Kasdan and his writers aren't afraid to mix things up a little bit. Some new elements are introduced, including a new video game character named Ming, played by comedienne Awkwafina and the visual effects are improved a bit, but plotwise, the film basically retreads the first sequel almost beat for beat. There's a nice bit of story between Eddie and Milo, but out of an apparent fear of bogging down the action with sentimentality the filmmakers don't really develop it a whole lot, opting to keep the film sprinting along to its inevitable and predictable conclusion.
I found the first sequel to be quite remarkable for having reinvented the wheel, improving on the first film to a degree I hadn't even imagined possible, but this film just basically plays it safe and gives audiences what the filmmakers think they want. It's hard to argue with 900++ million at the global box office, after all. It's a pleasant enough distraction, but they won't be getting any "most improved franchise" accolades from me this time around. Not that this'll stop Sony from laughing all the way to the bank.
6.5/10
written by Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kasdan
About two years ago, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the action-comedy Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle or the sequel to the 1995 hit film starring Robin Williams, to which it bore only the remotest resemblance. Having loathed the older film in just about every respect, I gave that sequel, a relatively mediocre film, a pretty high grade all things considered, noting just how drastically it had improved on its predecessor. Audiences thought so, too, and the film very nearly grossed a billion dollars at the worldwide box office.
Two years later, I have sat through the obligatory sequel, and while I rolled my eyes a bit at the flimsy pretext for having the characters revisit this world, I will acknowledge that the filmmakers did a decent job following up, especially since they experimented a bit more with the original "body swapping" premise.
As anyone who's seen a trailer for this movie will know, Spencer (Alex Wolff), who spent majority of the last movie in the world of the video game Jumanji as Dwayne Johnson's perfect human specimen Smolder Bravestone, having gone off to college in New York, away from his friends, is miserable and lonely once again. Apparently the last time he truly felt alive was as Bravestone, and so, as he bunks with his visiting grandfather Eddie (Danny DeVito) Spencer hatches a plan to get back into the world of the game, which he has salvaged from the dumpster in which he and his friends put it and the end of the last movie, right after taking a baseball bat to it. When Spencer's friends Martha (Morgan Turner), Fridge (Ser'Darius Blaine) and Bethany (Madison Iseman) finally meet up at a local diner and Spencer doesn't show up, they deduce that something is up with him and go to his house, where they find his grandfather Eddie, who is the middle of an argument with his estranged friend and business partner Milo (Danny Glover) and discover that Spencer has gone back into Jumanji. Being the friends that they are, Martha, Fridge and Bethany decide to go in after him, but things do not at all turn out the way they expected. Of course, there's a quest to recover some artifact from some horrible-looking bad guy (Rory McCann), but the protagonists don't quite enter the game the same way they did last time.
Though the movie has been out for some time, and is about to lose a whole lot of screens to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, and even though a lot of plot points were already spoiled in the trailers, I'll still leave some of the plot under wraps as there is some fun in discovering the movie. Suffice it to say that the original sequel's central joke about being bodily displaced is still very much front and center, and makes for some reasonably funny jokes, especially since Kasdan and his writers aren't afraid to mix things up a little bit. Some new elements are introduced, including a new video game character named Ming, played by comedienne Awkwafina and the visual effects are improved a bit, but plotwise, the film basically retreads the first sequel almost beat for beat. There's a nice bit of story between Eddie and Milo, but out of an apparent fear of bogging down the action with sentimentality the filmmakers don't really develop it a whole lot, opting to keep the film sprinting along to its inevitable and predictable conclusion.
I found the first sequel to be quite remarkable for having reinvented the wheel, improving on the first film to a degree I hadn't even imagined possible, but this film just basically plays it safe and gives audiences what the filmmakers think they want. It's hard to argue with 900++ million at the global box office, after all. It's a pleasant enough distraction, but they won't be getting any "most improved franchise" accolades from me this time around. Not that this'll stop Sony from laughing all the way to the bank.
6.5/10
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
A Whodunit for Trump's America: A Review of Knives Out
written and directed by Rian Johnson
How does one follow up the most divisive Star Wars movie ever made? Apparently by eschewing film franchises altogether and instead revisiting a virtually forgotten but nonetheless engaging film genre: the murder mystery, albeit with a slightly modern twist. Thus has Rian Johnson made his return to the big screen, with Knives Out, an ambitious, engrossing film that can't completely avoid some cliches of the genre, but still manages to entertain considerably.
The film begins in the manor of mystery novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), with Thrombey's housekeeper Fran (Edi Patterson) going upstairs to serve him breakfast, only to find him dead, with his throat slit. After his funeral, an investigation into the death, initially believed to be a suicide, begins, fronted by police investigator Elliott (Lakeith Stanfield), abetted by state trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) and quietly observed by private investigator Blanc (Daniel Craig). Given the considerable fortune Thrombey has left behind, just about all of his surviving family members are suspects, starting with his daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), their son Ransom (Chris Evans), her brother Walt (Michael Shannon), and her sister-in-law Joni (Toni Colette). All of them have something or other to gain from Harlan's demise. Another key player in the sordid saga is Thrombey's caregiver Marta (Ana de Armas), a registered nurse originally hailing from a Latin American country nobody in the Thrombey family seems to remember, who has her own dark secret. The question on everyone's mind, then, is who killed Harlan Thrombey?
It's hard to navigate through a review of a murder mystery movie without risking spoiling plot points by mentioning even the most casual details, so I'll keep this short.
I've never been a big fan of whodunits, though I have seen enough of them and read enough Sherlock Holmes books to know that the genre has been around long enough for several tropes to form, and to Johnson's credit he dodges most of them. Even when he doesn't, though he renders his narrative with such flourish that it's still hard to fault him. Freed from the constraints of franchise filmmaking, Johnson presents a taut narrative into which his advocacy is quite skillfully woven. The film is less a murder mystery, in a sense, and more a fable about entitlement and bigotry. Conversations like real world politics may have been too much for Star Wars fans to bear, but they belong right at home here, and the film doesn't suffer for it one bit.
Although discussing the story is pretty much off-limits, I would like to share how I felt about the acting, which is really front and center here. It was hugely entertaining to see veteran actors like Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson just chew up the screen, just as it was a lot of fun to see stars of franchise films like Daniel Craig and Chris Evans in such a vastly different film from the visual spectacles that basically made them famous. Craig, one of the central characters, goes for broke with his Southern drawl in a role that is decidedly NOT James Bond, while Evans, who has significantly less screen time, retools his cocky Johnny Storm routine from the Fantastic Four movies, and quite effectively so. Christopher Plummer is always a delight to watch, though he doesn't particularly flex any acting muscles here, while Toni Collette, as his widowed daughter-in-law Joni basically just annoys, though given that this was how her character was written, I suppose that's mission accomplished. Ana de Armas, whom I found quite beguiling as Ryan Gosling's digital waifu in Blade Runner 2049 acquits herself well, though I'll admit I liked her better in Denis Villeneuve's 2017 sci-fi sequel. For me, though, the real standout was one-time General Zod Michael Shannon, who trades in his superpowers for a cane and manages a voice that's an least an octave higher than his normal one, and basically transforms himself into the weaselly Walt. The rest of the cast, including Lakeith Stanfield, who made his short role as a lobotomized vessel for a geriatric white person's brain in Get Out quite memorable, round out the film nicely with solid, if not necessarily splashy performances.
Knives Out is a genuinely good time at the movies, and it's gratifying to see it succeed at the box-office as cannily-timed adult counter-programming to the gargantuan family movie Frozen II. With its characters, twists and turns and emotional roller coaster, it's a movie that deserves both the accolades and the returns it's currently getting, even as it adds to the growing list of films that continue to prove that Martin Scorsese is full of shit for asserting that franchise films are killing "real" cinema.
8.5/10
How does one follow up the most divisive Star Wars movie ever made? Apparently by eschewing film franchises altogether and instead revisiting a virtually forgotten but nonetheless engaging film genre: the murder mystery, albeit with a slightly modern twist. Thus has Rian Johnson made his return to the big screen, with Knives Out, an ambitious, engrossing film that can't completely avoid some cliches of the genre, but still manages to entertain considerably.
The film begins in the manor of mystery novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), with Thrombey's housekeeper Fran (Edi Patterson) going upstairs to serve him breakfast, only to find him dead, with his throat slit. After his funeral, an investigation into the death, initially believed to be a suicide, begins, fronted by police investigator Elliott (Lakeith Stanfield), abetted by state trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) and quietly observed by private investigator Blanc (Daniel Craig). Given the considerable fortune Thrombey has left behind, just about all of his surviving family members are suspects, starting with his daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), their son Ransom (Chris Evans), her brother Walt (Michael Shannon), and her sister-in-law Joni (Toni Colette). All of them have something or other to gain from Harlan's demise. Another key player in the sordid saga is Thrombey's caregiver Marta (Ana de Armas), a registered nurse originally hailing from a Latin American country nobody in the Thrombey family seems to remember, who has her own dark secret. The question on everyone's mind, then, is who killed Harlan Thrombey?
It's hard to navigate through a review of a murder mystery movie without risking spoiling plot points by mentioning even the most casual details, so I'll keep this short.
I've never been a big fan of whodunits, though I have seen enough of them and read enough Sherlock Holmes books to know that the genre has been around long enough for several tropes to form, and to Johnson's credit he dodges most of them. Even when he doesn't, though he renders his narrative with such flourish that it's still hard to fault him. Freed from the constraints of franchise filmmaking, Johnson presents a taut narrative into which his advocacy is quite skillfully woven. The film is less a murder mystery, in a sense, and more a fable about entitlement and bigotry. Conversations like real world politics may have been too much for Star Wars fans to bear, but they belong right at home here, and the film doesn't suffer for it one bit.
Although discussing the story is pretty much off-limits, I would like to share how I felt about the acting, which is really front and center here. It was hugely entertaining to see veteran actors like Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson just chew up the screen, just as it was a lot of fun to see stars of franchise films like Daniel Craig and Chris Evans in such a vastly different film from the visual spectacles that basically made them famous. Craig, one of the central characters, goes for broke with his Southern drawl in a role that is decidedly NOT James Bond, while Evans, who has significantly less screen time, retools his cocky Johnny Storm routine from the Fantastic Four movies, and quite effectively so. Christopher Plummer is always a delight to watch, though he doesn't particularly flex any acting muscles here, while Toni Collette, as his widowed daughter-in-law Joni basically just annoys, though given that this was how her character was written, I suppose that's mission accomplished. Ana de Armas, whom I found quite beguiling as Ryan Gosling's digital waifu in Blade Runner 2049 acquits herself well, though I'll admit I liked her better in Denis Villeneuve's 2017 sci-fi sequel. For me, though, the real standout was one-time General Zod Michael Shannon, who trades in his superpowers for a cane and manages a voice that's an least an octave higher than his normal one, and basically transforms himself into the weaselly Walt. The rest of the cast, including Lakeith Stanfield, who made his short role as a lobotomized vessel for a geriatric white person's brain in Get Out quite memorable, round out the film nicely with solid, if not necessarily splashy performances.
Knives Out is a genuinely good time at the movies, and it's gratifying to see it succeed at the box-office as cannily-timed adult counter-programming to the gargantuan family movie Frozen II. With its characters, twists and turns and emotional roller coaster, it's a movie that deserves both the accolades and the returns it's currently getting, even as it adds to the growing list of films that continue to prove that Martin Scorsese is full of shit for asserting that franchise films are killing "real" cinema.
8.5/10
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
The Parent Trap: A Review of Frozen II (Mild Spoilers)
directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck
written by Marc Smith, Bob Lopez, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Lee and Buck
When Walt Disney Animation Studios released Frozen back in 2013 it was truly a breath of fresh air, with its dazzling animation and its empowering storytelling, punctuated by the song that eventual became an anthem for girl power all around the world, "Let It Go." It demolished the age-old trope (the propagation of which Disney actually abetted for some time) that a princess needed a man to somehow validate her existence in the world and inspired little girls everywhere. With over a billion dollars in the bank, a sequel was all but assured, and the only surprise is that it's taken Disney over six years for to make it.
As much as I'd like to say that the sequel followed through on the winning magic of the first film, I really...can't.
First, let's get the story out of the way.
In a flashback (which is, itself a frequent trope used to justify a sequel), young princesses Elsa (Mattea Conforti) and Anna (Hadley Gannaway) listen to a bedtime story from their father King Agnarr (Alfred Molina) who tells them of an enchanted forest far to the north of Arendelle one which he visited in his boyhood alongside his father King Runeard (Jeremy Sisto) when they presented the people of the north, the (sigh) Northuldra tribe with the gift of a great dam. A conflict broke out for no apparent reason, and Agnarr was whisked away by an unknown savior back to Arendelle, where he was crowned king, with his father having been lost in the conflict, and with the spirits of the forest now barring entry to it.
Years later, Queen Elsa (Adela Daz--err--Idina Menzel) starts hearing a voice that calls her from what she is sure is the forest up north, and grows restless. It's been a few years since she was crowned queen and came to terms with her powers, and things are looking well for her and her sister Anna (Kristen Bell) whose beau, Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) is working up the courage to propose marriage to her, and their enchanted snowman friend Olaf (Josh Gad) who, as before, is just happy to be alive. After Elsa tries her best to shut the voice out, but when mysterious magic causes things in Arendelle to go terribly awry, from the lamplights flickering out to the very ground starts shaking uncontrollably, Elsa realizes there is a connection between what is happening and what she is hearing, and she sets out immediately, with Anna, Olaf, Kristoff (and his reindeer Sven) in tow, to learn the truth behind these mysterious events.
Okay, I will now flirt with spoilers.
From the time that Disney Animation was revitalized back in 2010 with Tangled, almost all of its releases have had a very specific plot structure, dating back to 2012's Wreck-It-Ralph, which regularly involves a twist regarding the villain of the story. Of all the times it's been done, in my opinion it only really worked in 2016's Zootopia. Without going into specifics, Disney employs the same technique again here, and it makes for really clunky storytelling. The thing is, movies can survive clumsy twists (e.g. Iron Man) when they have something else going for them, but given that this film has basically no meaningful character development at all, and is essentially just plot-driven, it's hard to not notice how badly structured the story is, and how it telegraphs its intentions far, far too early. The whole problem with mystery-box storytelling is that it has to hit hard with its payoff, and when the payoff is as predictable as it was here, the entire point of the mystery set up is defeated. It irks even more that it took Disney SIX YEARS to get this movie off the ground, and this was apparently the very best their brain trust could come up with.
I get that this movie is for kids, but to cite Disney's very own work, so was Zootopia, and that worked on a number of levels, particularly in terms of the lead characters' personal journeys. The writing here, in contrast, feels woefully cut-and-paste. The difference between a film like this and Zootopia is not unlike the difference between a thoroughly thought-out Marvel pic like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and copy-paste efforts like Doctor Strange, which basically rehashed Iron Man's plot. In short, the "it wasn't made for you" argument is just plain lazy; parents are the ones who have to pay for their kids' tickets, so we're within our rights to expect a plot that isn't completely by-the-numbers. Unfortunately, in their slavish adherence to their new "twist" formula, Disney couldn't be bothered to give us that.
Fortunately, though, as compensation for the lackluster writing, they gave us Gen-Xers a catchy soundtrack, particularly a show-stopping, 80s-inspired love ballad right smack in the middle of the second act called "Lost in the Woods" sung by Jonathan Groff's Kristoff which evokes Queen, Air Supply and Peter Cetera all at the same time. It kind of upended the entire tone of the movie at that point, but I pretty much didn't care; it was disarming and charming and hilarious all at the same time. But the song ended, and I still hadn't forgotten that the story was simply not well-written.
Of course, for additional incentive there's the animation, which is basically beyond reproach at this point. Since getting their shot in the arm when John Lasseter and Ed Catmull took over Disney Animation years ago Disney has basically gone from strength to strength, pretty much matching Pixar in terms of craft, and standing pretty much head and shoulders above anyone else. So it's never in issue that the picture looks absolutely gorgeous.
Of course, whatever I may think of it, the movie is currently fulfilling its purpose of making a ton of money, so another sequel is a foregone conclusion at this point. I just hope that next time they put as much thought into writing their story as they do into their animation and their writing of 80's-inspired songs.
6/10
written by Marc Smith, Bob Lopez, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Lee and Buck
When Walt Disney Animation Studios released Frozen back in 2013 it was truly a breath of fresh air, with its dazzling animation and its empowering storytelling, punctuated by the song that eventual became an anthem for girl power all around the world, "Let It Go." It demolished the age-old trope (the propagation of which Disney actually abetted for some time) that a princess needed a man to somehow validate her existence in the world and inspired little girls everywhere. With over a billion dollars in the bank, a sequel was all but assured, and the only surprise is that it's taken Disney over six years for to make it.
As much as I'd like to say that the sequel followed through on the winning magic of the first film, I really...can't.
First, let's get the story out of the way.
In a flashback (which is, itself a frequent trope used to justify a sequel), young princesses Elsa (Mattea Conforti) and Anna (Hadley Gannaway) listen to a bedtime story from their father King Agnarr (Alfred Molina) who tells them of an enchanted forest far to the north of Arendelle one which he visited in his boyhood alongside his father King Runeard (Jeremy Sisto) when they presented the people of the north, the (sigh) Northuldra tribe with the gift of a great dam. A conflict broke out for no apparent reason, and Agnarr was whisked away by an unknown savior back to Arendelle, where he was crowned king, with his father having been lost in the conflict, and with the spirits of the forest now barring entry to it.
Years later, Queen Elsa (Adela Daz--err--Idina Menzel) starts hearing a voice that calls her from what she is sure is the forest up north, and grows restless. It's been a few years since she was crowned queen and came to terms with her powers, and things are looking well for her and her sister Anna (Kristen Bell) whose beau, Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) is working up the courage to propose marriage to her, and their enchanted snowman friend Olaf (Josh Gad) who, as before, is just happy to be alive. After Elsa tries her best to shut the voice out, but when mysterious magic causes things in Arendelle to go terribly awry, from the lamplights flickering out to the very ground starts shaking uncontrollably, Elsa realizes there is a connection between what is happening and what she is hearing, and she sets out immediately, with Anna, Olaf, Kristoff (and his reindeer Sven) in tow, to learn the truth behind these mysterious events.
Okay, I will now flirt with spoilers.
From the time that Disney Animation was revitalized back in 2010 with Tangled, almost all of its releases have had a very specific plot structure, dating back to 2012's Wreck-It-Ralph, which regularly involves a twist regarding the villain of the story. Of all the times it's been done, in my opinion it only really worked in 2016's Zootopia. Without going into specifics, Disney employs the same technique again here, and it makes for really clunky storytelling. The thing is, movies can survive clumsy twists (e.g. Iron Man) when they have something else going for them, but given that this film has basically no meaningful character development at all, and is essentially just plot-driven, it's hard to not notice how badly structured the story is, and how it telegraphs its intentions far, far too early. The whole problem with mystery-box storytelling is that it has to hit hard with its payoff, and when the payoff is as predictable as it was here, the entire point of the mystery set up is defeated. It irks even more that it took Disney SIX YEARS to get this movie off the ground, and this was apparently the very best their brain trust could come up with.
I get that this movie is for kids, but to cite Disney's very own work, so was Zootopia, and that worked on a number of levels, particularly in terms of the lead characters' personal journeys. The writing here, in contrast, feels woefully cut-and-paste. The difference between a film like this and Zootopia is not unlike the difference between a thoroughly thought-out Marvel pic like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and copy-paste efforts like Doctor Strange, which basically rehashed Iron Man's plot. In short, the "it wasn't made for you" argument is just plain lazy; parents are the ones who have to pay for their kids' tickets, so we're within our rights to expect a plot that isn't completely by-the-numbers. Unfortunately, in their slavish adherence to their new "twist" formula, Disney couldn't be bothered to give us that.
Fortunately, though, as compensation for the lackluster writing, they gave us Gen-Xers a catchy soundtrack, particularly a show-stopping, 80s-inspired love ballad right smack in the middle of the second act called "Lost in the Woods" sung by Jonathan Groff's Kristoff which evokes Queen, Air Supply and Peter Cetera all at the same time. It kind of upended the entire tone of the movie at that point, but I pretty much didn't care; it was disarming and charming and hilarious all at the same time. But the song ended, and I still hadn't forgotten that the story was simply not well-written.
Of course, for additional incentive there's the animation, which is basically beyond reproach at this point. Since getting their shot in the arm when John Lasseter and Ed Catmull took over Disney Animation years ago Disney has basically gone from strength to strength, pretty much matching Pixar in terms of craft, and standing pretty much head and shoulders above anyone else. So it's never in issue that the picture looks absolutely gorgeous.
Of course, whatever I may think of it, the movie is currently fulfilling its purpose of making a ton of money, so another sequel is a foregone conclusion at this point. I just hope that next time they put as much thought into writing their story as they do into their animation and their writing of 80's-inspired songs.
6/10
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
(SPOILER ALERT) Martin Scorsese is Full of Sh*t, and Both the Success of "Ford v. Ferrari" and the Failure of Various Franchises at the Box Office Prove It (SPOILERS FOR FORD V FERRARI)
I basically thought I'd already said my piece on the whole "what constitutes real cinema" debate kicked off by Martin Scorsese about two months back when he took a cheap shot at the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As much of a fanboy as I admittedly am, I really had no interest in joining that particular fray because, well, one: there are other things to do, two: nobody's exactly paying me to launch some spirited online defense and, three: with 22 billion in the bank, a brace of Oscars and an arguably bright future ahead, Marvel certainly doesn't need anyone to stand up for them.
The thing is, it irks me that Scorsese has used this initial comment for some pretty shameless self-promotion in the weeks that have followed, basically rehashing it over and over again, and even launching a faux "advocacy" against the supposed "death of cinema," claiming that movie theaters should "rebel" against showing Marvel films. In short, while I was never particularly bothered about what ol' Marty thought of Marvel movies, it started to get on my nerves that, outwardly at least, he was appearing to launch some kind of campaign against them.
I had to admit, though, that given the glut of franchise films in the marketplace in 2019 alone, though, it was hard to argue with the impression that they really were muscling other non-franchise, risk-laden properties out of silver screen real estate. Had people forgotten what it was like to consume movies that aren't just part of some mass-marketed product line?
Then, two weeks after burgeoning franchise launcher Joker dominated the box-office, Maleficient: Mistress of Evil, a perfunctory sequel to 2014's surprise hit Maleficent opened to surprisingly limp numbers at the U.S. box office. It was enough to get the movie to number one, but not enough to even bring the film to half the opening weekend of the original. The movie now stands to finish its global box-office run with less than two-thirds of the surprisingly muscular box office of its predecessor. So basically, a significant portion of the first film's audience rejected the filmmakers' attempts to get a franchise going.
Things didn't end there; weeks later, Paramount attempted to launch Terminator: Dark Fate, its second reboot of the once-popular Terminator film franchise, following the disastrous Terminator: Genisys back in 2015, this time managing to attach James Cameron's name to the project as one of its screenwriters and producers. This was a sequel/reboot that next to nobody asked for, and the numbers reflected this reality as the film's #1 debut was overshadowed by the paltry amount it took in (USD29 million) next to its gargantuan budget (USD185 million). Audiences had now said "no" to two franchises in a row.
A week later, Doctor Sleep, a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's 1980 adaptation of a Stephen King novel, The Shining, tanked at the box office in spite of decent tracking, showing that goodwill from the cult status of The Shining wasn't going to be enough to sell a new movie. Another franchise lost, this time to Midway, a World War II movie by disaster-porn meister Roland Emmerich. That's three in a row.
But the best was yet to come.
Last weekend, Ford v Ferrari, a new film based on the remarkable true story of the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans and the events leading up to it, opened against a reboot of Charlie's Angels, a franchise last seen in theaters way back in 2003, which, if I'm honest, absolutely nobody was asking for. Ford v Ferrari was tracking to do well thanks to the combined star power of proven box-office draw Matt Damon and former Batman Christian Bale, and was predicted to open well above Charlie's Angels. What happened? FvF ended up exceeding expectations, grossing USD31.5 million versus 20+ million predictions, while CA made USD8.8 milion versus predictions of USD13 million.
-SPOILER ALERT-
Ford v Ferrari, it should be pointed out, is not a typical underdog story in that it's not about the hero winning in the end or even about a "Rocky" finish in which the hero loses the fight but "wins" the crowd. The hero, Ken Miles DOESN'T actually win the 24 Hours of Le Mans despite being the best driver of the race, nor does he lose to Ferrari and get a standing ovation. Rather, what happens is that, on Henry Ford II's orders, he slows down his race-leading car so that the three Ford GT40s can come home in a dead heat and make a sensational photo op for the company. Unfortunately, by doing so he has exposed himself to a technicality that means that the driver who started farther back from him then wins the race as he has driven a longer distance. It's one of the most farcical endings to a race in motorsport history, and full kudos to James Mangold and his crew for not sugarcoating it in any way. And THEN, in a cruel twist which also reflects what really happened, scarcely a month after NOT winning at Le Mans and while he is busy at work developing next year's car, Miles crashes and dies. Holy cow. Having read about this race in a book, I knew these things were going to happen, but seeing them unfold on the big screen I was struck at the filmmakers' courage and candor. They may have fudged some of the details but they were truly honest when it really counted, and in doing so they delivered a gut-punch of an ending that is decidedly NOT franchise-friendly.
And yet, for all of that, audiences embraced this movie unequivocally, and continue to do so.
-END SPOILER ALERT-
That audiences have ignored several franchises in a row and have embraced a good, old-fashioned, emotionally authentic yarn about underdogs that doesn't feel in any way engineered or market-tested basically debunks Scorsese's assertion that franchise pics will gobble up the marketplace. Ford v Ferrari got made, didn't it? It got a wide release, didn't it? And perhaps most notably, it was CHAMPIONED, at festivals and in general marketing efforts, by the very studio whom Scorsese accuses of inundating the marketplace with "amusement park rides."
In short, there is no truth to the assertion that Marvel movies are "killing cinema" because several franchises in a row have JUST tanked, and audiences have JUST embraced a very genuine example of old-school filmmaking.
The bottom line is that audiences can embrace both a Marvel movie like Avengers: Endgame and a smaller, more intimate movie like Ford v Ferrari because both of them speak to them on a primal emotional level. They can reject franchise entries like Charlie's Angels, Terminator: Dark Fate and Maleficent 2 because those feel, by contrast, like by-the-numbers products injected with catchy marketing hooks and "updated" sensibilities. Scorsese can make claims about emotional connections all he wants, but I'm willing to bet nobody was hospitalized from crying uncontrollably after the death of a character in one of his movies, even the popular ones.
What people don't realize about Scorsese's assertions is that he isn't just insulting Marvel; he's insulting the audience that likes to watch their movies, basically claiming that we wouldn't know "cinema" if it hit us on the head, and that it's up to auteurs like him to save us from all of this commercialized claptrap.
Well, sorry to break it to you, Marty, but we DO know good movies when we see them, and we AREN'T just numb consumers who'll eat up anything the monolithic franchise-generating Hollywood throws at us.
If you couldn't get money for YOUR overblown passion project, maybe it's less a problem of Marvel movies and more about the fact that your last movie lost a bundle of money for the studio who bet on it, and that this new one, had it received a traditional theatrical release, probably would have done the same.
In short, if audiences can embrace a film like Ford v Ferrari, which by even your standard is definitely a sterling example of "cinema" but not YOUR work, then maybe you're the problem.
The thing is, it irks me that Scorsese has used this initial comment for some pretty shameless self-promotion in the weeks that have followed, basically rehashing it over and over again, and even launching a faux "advocacy" against the supposed "death of cinema," claiming that movie theaters should "rebel" against showing Marvel films. In short, while I was never particularly bothered about what ol' Marty thought of Marvel movies, it started to get on my nerves that, outwardly at least, he was appearing to launch some kind of campaign against them.
I had to admit, though, that given the glut of franchise films in the marketplace in 2019 alone, though, it was hard to argue with the impression that they really were muscling other non-franchise, risk-laden properties out of silver screen real estate. Had people forgotten what it was like to consume movies that aren't just part of some mass-marketed product line?
Then, two weeks after burgeoning franchise launcher Joker dominated the box-office, Maleficient: Mistress of Evil, a perfunctory sequel to 2014's surprise hit Maleficent opened to surprisingly limp numbers at the U.S. box office. It was enough to get the movie to number one, but not enough to even bring the film to half the opening weekend of the original. The movie now stands to finish its global box-office run with less than two-thirds of the surprisingly muscular box office of its predecessor. So basically, a significant portion of the first film's audience rejected the filmmakers' attempts to get a franchise going.
Things didn't end there; weeks later, Paramount attempted to launch Terminator: Dark Fate, its second reboot of the once-popular Terminator film franchise, following the disastrous Terminator: Genisys back in 2015, this time managing to attach James Cameron's name to the project as one of its screenwriters and producers. This was a sequel/reboot that next to nobody asked for, and the numbers reflected this reality as the film's #1 debut was overshadowed by the paltry amount it took in (USD29 million) next to its gargantuan budget (USD185 million). Audiences had now said "no" to two franchises in a row.
A week later, Doctor Sleep, a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's 1980 adaptation of a Stephen King novel, The Shining, tanked at the box office in spite of decent tracking, showing that goodwill from the cult status of The Shining wasn't going to be enough to sell a new movie. Another franchise lost, this time to Midway, a World War II movie by disaster-porn meister Roland Emmerich. That's three in a row.
But the best was yet to come.
Last weekend, Ford v Ferrari, a new film based on the remarkable true story of the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans and the events leading up to it, opened against a reboot of Charlie's Angels, a franchise last seen in theaters way back in 2003, which, if I'm honest, absolutely nobody was asking for. Ford v Ferrari was tracking to do well thanks to the combined star power of proven box-office draw Matt Damon and former Batman Christian Bale, and was predicted to open well above Charlie's Angels. What happened? FvF ended up exceeding expectations, grossing USD31.5 million versus 20+ million predictions, while CA made USD8.8 milion versus predictions of USD13 million.
-SPOILER ALERT-
Ford v Ferrari, it should be pointed out, is not a typical underdog story in that it's not about the hero winning in the end or even about a "Rocky" finish in which the hero loses the fight but "wins" the crowd. The hero, Ken Miles DOESN'T actually win the 24 Hours of Le Mans despite being the best driver of the race, nor does he lose to Ferrari and get a standing ovation. Rather, what happens is that, on Henry Ford II's orders, he slows down his race-leading car so that the three Ford GT40s can come home in a dead heat and make a sensational photo op for the company. Unfortunately, by doing so he has exposed himself to a technicality that means that the driver who started farther back from him then wins the race as he has driven a longer distance. It's one of the most farcical endings to a race in motorsport history, and full kudos to James Mangold and his crew for not sugarcoating it in any way. And THEN, in a cruel twist which also reflects what really happened, scarcely a month after NOT winning at Le Mans and while he is busy at work developing next year's car, Miles crashes and dies. Holy cow. Having read about this race in a book, I knew these things were going to happen, but seeing them unfold on the big screen I was struck at the filmmakers' courage and candor. They may have fudged some of the details but they were truly honest when it really counted, and in doing so they delivered a gut-punch of an ending that is decidedly NOT franchise-friendly.
And yet, for all of that, audiences embraced this movie unequivocally, and continue to do so.
-END SPOILER ALERT-
That audiences have ignored several franchises in a row and have embraced a good, old-fashioned, emotionally authentic yarn about underdogs that doesn't feel in any way engineered or market-tested basically debunks Scorsese's assertion that franchise pics will gobble up the marketplace. Ford v Ferrari got made, didn't it? It got a wide release, didn't it? And perhaps most notably, it was CHAMPIONED, at festivals and in general marketing efforts, by the very studio whom Scorsese accuses of inundating the marketplace with "amusement park rides."
In short, there is no truth to the assertion that Marvel movies are "killing cinema" because several franchises in a row have JUST tanked, and audiences have JUST embraced a very genuine example of old-school filmmaking.
The bottom line is that audiences can embrace both a Marvel movie like Avengers: Endgame and a smaller, more intimate movie like Ford v Ferrari because both of them speak to them on a primal emotional level. They can reject franchise entries like Charlie's Angels, Terminator: Dark Fate and Maleficent 2 because those feel, by contrast, like by-the-numbers products injected with catchy marketing hooks and "updated" sensibilities. Scorsese can make claims about emotional connections all he wants, but I'm willing to bet nobody was hospitalized from crying uncontrollably after the death of a character in one of his movies, even the popular ones.
What people don't realize about Scorsese's assertions is that he isn't just insulting Marvel; he's insulting the audience that likes to watch their movies, basically claiming that we wouldn't know "cinema" if it hit us on the head, and that it's up to auteurs like him to save us from all of this commercialized claptrap.
Well, sorry to break it to you, Marty, but we DO know good movies when we see them, and we AREN'T just numb consumers who'll eat up anything the monolithic franchise-generating Hollywood throws at us.
If you couldn't get money for YOUR overblown passion project, maybe it's less a problem of Marvel movies and more about the fact that your last movie lost a bundle of money for the studio who bet on it, and that this new one, had it received a traditional theatrical release, probably would have done the same.
In short, if audiences can embrace a film like Ford v Ferrari, which by even your standard is definitely a sterling example of "cinema" but not YOUR work, then maybe you're the problem.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Chasing Perfection: A Review of Ford v Ferrari
directed by James Mangold
written by Jez Butterworth, John Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller
After what feels like an eternity in development hell for those of us following this film, Ford v Ferrari finally hits theaters worldwide this weekend, and boy, does it hit hard.
The film begins with race car driver Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) winning the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans in an Aston Martin, only to be told in the very next scene during a doctor's visit that he can no longer race because of a serious heart condition. He then turns his attention to designing and selling cars in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) grandson of the late, great Henry Ford, is having trouble selling his stodgy old cars to the baby boomers now coming of age with lots of cash to spend. One of his junior execs, the energetic Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) comes up with a bold idea: make the name of Ford synonymous with international motorsport glory by buying up the company of Italian racing legend Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone) who has apparently expressed interest in selling it. Ford greenlights the idea, and Iacocca makes the trip to Ferrari's factory headquarters in Modena, Italy, only to be shot down in spectacular fashion when Enzo turns down the offer, having used Ford's offer to purchase to leverage a higher price from Italian automaker Fiat, who had also been looking to purchase Ferrari's company.
Humiliated, Ford comes up with a different plan: he dispatches Iacocca to assemble a team of the best automotive engineers in the world so that he can build a car to beat Ferrari at the single most important motorsport event in the world: the 24 Hours of Le Mans, a race which Ferrari's cars have won for the last five years. This directive brings Iacocca to Shelby's doorstep, but Shelby will only agree if he gets to bring his team on board, including his irascible driver and mechanic Ken Miles (Christian Bale) a World War II vet who is not only a wizard behind the wheel but has an uncanny knack for understanding what makes a car go even faster. Miles is at first averse to the idea of working for a corporate slug like Ford, but with his LA garage being locked up by the Internal Revenue Service and a family in the form of wife Mollie (Catriona Balfe) and son Peter (Noah Jupe) to take care of, Miles accepts Shelby's offer. Unfortunately, as they begin their quest to build Ford's world-beating car, Shelby, Miles and crew are beset by the Ford's right-hand man, the slimy Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas) whose main goal is to sell more cars. Unfortunately for Shelby and company, Miles doesn't quite fit into Beebe's image of a "Ford Man," i.e., a driver who can sell cars. Thus the true battle of the film begins: Shelby and his small crew of artisans find themselves in a pitched battle against the consummate capitalist Beebe and his own assembled crew for the right to bring glory to the Ford name.
I was drawn to this story upon reading A.J. Baime's thoroughly engrossing book "Go Like Hell," which narrated the events of this movie, albeit rather more expansively, and I was really looking forward to seeing this made into a movie. Though Ford v Ferrari is not based on Baime's narration of the events, and even though Mangold and his writers have excised a few key players from these events, like Ferrari driver John Surtees, they've preserved what really matters about this truly incredible story and, despite some inevitable creative flourishes, have crafted something that honors the legacy of everyone involved, especially the previously unheralded Ken Miles.
Damon and Bale are in top form as these two motorsport icons. While the latter is perhaps rightfully getting a bit more attention for his portrayal of the fiery ex-tank commander-turned race driver Ken Miles, in equal parts because of his steely performance and his somewhat shocking weight loss, Damon's turn is no less impressive given that it's a far more subtle role. He not only conveys Shelby's ability to navigate both the world of the corporate mogul and the pure racer, but also captures the barely-expressed but nonetheless visible anguish of a racer who has been forced out of the sport by events beyond his control. As he would take his pills for his heart condition I could almost feel him groaning.
It's together, though, that Damon and Bale truly deliver dynamite performances. Their onscreen chemistry is sensational, and really put me right in the moment, helping me feel the pressure that their real life counterparts must have felt knowing that they had a very tall order to deliver against considerable odds. Bale also has a great onscreen rapports with Catriona Balfe as Mollie, a strong and supportive wife who manages to elevate her somewhat minor role, and with Noah Jupe as Peter, whose hero worship of his father is tempered only by his wide-eyed fear that every time Ken climbs into a race car may be his last, but it's Miles' onscreen relationship with Carroll Shelby that defines this film.
Though Damon and Bale carry the film, the rest of the supporting cast make their presence felt as well. Letts shines as Henry Ford II, or "the Deuce" as he was popularly known in automotive circles, a mogul struggling to emerge from the long shadow cast by his late, pioneering grandfather, whose ruthlessness as a businessman is matched only by his personal insecurity and his pettiness. I'd argue that Ford was the biggest casualty of the inevitable trimming that the screenwriters had to do to cram this story into its surprisingly brisk two-and-a-half hour running time, as Baime's book expounded quite a bit on what was going on in his head, but Letts definitely makes the most out of the role and then some. I wouldn't be surprised if his name comes up when award nominations are announced in a few months' time. Bernthal turns in a nicely-nuanced performance as Iacocca, another eventual automotive icon in his own right, but who, back in those days, was just a suit with ambitions of being a rebel just like Shelby and Miles, ambitions that he unfortunately had to keep in check to please his boss. As his colleague Leo Beebe, whose sole ambition is to please his boss, Josh Lucas goes quite broad with the oiliness, and I might be inclined to critique him for it, but he's so effective as what is effectively the film's bad guy that it's hard to begrudge him his approach. There were other actors in smaller parts who left quite a nice impression on me as well, like Ray McKinnon as Shelby's crew chief Phil Remington, and even Remo Girone in his brief turn as the legendary Enzo Ferrari.
While Mangold smartly focuses on the human element of this story, when the action hits the racetrack he also definitely delivers the goods as well. Personally, I have seen a fair number of racing movies, both in theaters and on home video, including classics like John Frankenheimer's Grand Prix, adrenaline rushes like Tony Scott's Days of Thunder and Ron Howard's Rush and even parodies like Adam McKay's Talladega Nights: the Ballad of Ricky Bobby, and I have to say, as far as recreating thrilling racing sequences goes, Ford v Ferrari is right up there with the best of them. According to the filmmakers, the use of computer-generated imagery was kept to a minimum, which means a lot of the high-octane sequences were as close to the real thing as it can get. The film teases the on-track action early on with snippets of Shelby's win at the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans and, a little later a gripping race at Willow Springs which Miles wins by the skin of his teeth. Apparently one of the film's few embellishments was that several of the victories Miles claimed in his career were nowhere near as close as the movie made them out to be, i.e. he won them by (ahem) miles. This was perhaps one of the movie's foibles; several of the otherwise gripping races were decided by late lunges or last-lap gasps by Miles, an occurrence that most racing fans can attest is not all that common in one's entire racing career, let alone in one season. Ron Howard's Rush was a little more faithful to history in this respect. Still, given the fantastic cinematography and choreographed driving at work, and the overall panache with which the on-track action was presented, it's really hard to hold this bit of creative license against the filmmakers. And as someone who pored over Baimes' book and Youtube videos on the subject, I can attest that the extraordinary ending is quite accurately depicted. As a fan of film soundtracks I also greatly appreciated Marco Beltrami's and Buck Sanders' jazzy, dynamic, era-appropriate soundtrack.
This movie is a must-see for gearheads, sports fans and fans of underdog stories in general. Anyone not familiar with the events depicted should steer clear of Wikipedia or other internet articles talking about them to maximize their enjoyment. I may have known exactly what was going to happen, but I still had a marvelous time.
9.5/10
written by Jez Butterworth, John Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller
After what feels like an eternity in development hell for those of us following this film, Ford v Ferrari finally hits theaters worldwide this weekend, and boy, does it hit hard.
The film begins with race car driver Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) winning the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans in an Aston Martin, only to be told in the very next scene during a doctor's visit that he can no longer race because of a serious heart condition. He then turns his attention to designing and selling cars in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) grandson of the late, great Henry Ford, is having trouble selling his stodgy old cars to the baby boomers now coming of age with lots of cash to spend. One of his junior execs, the energetic Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) comes up with a bold idea: make the name of Ford synonymous with international motorsport glory by buying up the company of Italian racing legend Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone) who has apparently expressed interest in selling it. Ford greenlights the idea, and Iacocca makes the trip to Ferrari's factory headquarters in Modena, Italy, only to be shot down in spectacular fashion when Enzo turns down the offer, having used Ford's offer to purchase to leverage a higher price from Italian automaker Fiat, who had also been looking to purchase Ferrari's company.
Humiliated, Ford comes up with a different plan: he dispatches Iacocca to assemble a team of the best automotive engineers in the world so that he can build a car to beat Ferrari at the single most important motorsport event in the world: the 24 Hours of Le Mans, a race which Ferrari's cars have won for the last five years. This directive brings Iacocca to Shelby's doorstep, but Shelby will only agree if he gets to bring his team on board, including his irascible driver and mechanic Ken Miles (Christian Bale) a World War II vet who is not only a wizard behind the wheel but has an uncanny knack for understanding what makes a car go even faster. Miles is at first averse to the idea of working for a corporate slug like Ford, but with his LA garage being locked up by the Internal Revenue Service and a family in the form of wife Mollie (Catriona Balfe) and son Peter (Noah Jupe) to take care of, Miles accepts Shelby's offer. Unfortunately, as they begin their quest to build Ford's world-beating car, Shelby, Miles and crew are beset by the Ford's right-hand man, the slimy Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas) whose main goal is to sell more cars. Unfortunately for Shelby and company, Miles doesn't quite fit into Beebe's image of a "Ford Man," i.e., a driver who can sell cars. Thus the true battle of the film begins: Shelby and his small crew of artisans find themselves in a pitched battle against the consummate capitalist Beebe and his own assembled crew for the right to bring glory to the Ford name.
I was drawn to this story upon reading A.J. Baime's thoroughly engrossing book "Go Like Hell," which narrated the events of this movie, albeit rather more expansively, and I was really looking forward to seeing this made into a movie. Though Ford v Ferrari is not based on Baime's narration of the events, and even though Mangold and his writers have excised a few key players from these events, like Ferrari driver John Surtees, they've preserved what really matters about this truly incredible story and, despite some inevitable creative flourishes, have crafted something that honors the legacy of everyone involved, especially the previously unheralded Ken Miles.
Damon and Bale are in top form as these two motorsport icons. While the latter is perhaps rightfully getting a bit more attention for his portrayal of the fiery ex-tank commander-turned race driver Ken Miles, in equal parts because of his steely performance and his somewhat shocking weight loss, Damon's turn is no less impressive given that it's a far more subtle role. He not only conveys Shelby's ability to navigate both the world of the corporate mogul and the pure racer, but also captures the barely-expressed but nonetheless visible anguish of a racer who has been forced out of the sport by events beyond his control. As he would take his pills for his heart condition I could almost feel him groaning.
It's together, though, that Damon and Bale truly deliver dynamite performances. Their onscreen chemistry is sensational, and really put me right in the moment, helping me feel the pressure that their real life counterparts must have felt knowing that they had a very tall order to deliver against considerable odds. Bale also has a great onscreen rapports with Catriona Balfe as Mollie, a strong and supportive wife who manages to elevate her somewhat minor role, and with Noah Jupe as Peter, whose hero worship of his father is tempered only by his wide-eyed fear that every time Ken climbs into a race car may be his last, but it's Miles' onscreen relationship with Carroll Shelby that defines this film.
Though Damon and Bale carry the film, the rest of the supporting cast make their presence felt as well. Letts shines as Henry Ford II, or "the Deuce" as he was popularly known in automotive circles, a mogul struggling to emerge from the long shadow cast by his late, pioneering grandfather, whose ruthlessness as a businessman is matched only by his personal insecurity and his pettiness. I'd argue that Ford was the biggest casualty of the inevitable trimming that the screenwriters had to do to cram this story into its surprisingly brisk two-and-a-half hour running time, as Baime's book expounded quite a bit on what was going on in his head, but Letts definitely makes the most out of the role and then some. I wouldn't be surprised if his name comes up when award nominations are announced in a few months' time. Bernthal turns in a nicely-nuanced performance as Iacocca, another eventual automotive icon in his own right, but who, back in those days, was just a suit with ambitions of being a rebel just like Shelby and Miles, ambitions that he unfortunately had to keep in check to please his boss. As his colleague Leo Beebe, whose sole ambition is to please his boss, Josh Lucas goes quite broad with the oiliness, and I might be inclined to critique him for it, but he's so effective as what is effectively the film's bad guy that it's hard to begrudge him his approach. There were other actors in smaller parts who left quite a nice impression on me as well, like Ray McKinnon as Shelby's crew chief Phil Remington, and even Remo Girone in his brief turn as the legendary Enzo Ferrari.
While Mangold smartly focuses on the human element of this story, when the action hits the racetrack he also definitely delivers the goods as well. Personally, I have seen a fair number of racing movies, both in theaters and on home video, including classics like John Frankenheimer's Grand Prix, adrenaline rushes like Tony Scott's Days of Thunder and Ron Howard's Rush and even parodies like Adam McKay's Talladega Nights: the Ballad of Ricky Bobby, and I have to say, as far as recreating thrilling racing sequences goes, Ford v Ferrari is right up there with the best of them. According to the filmmakers, the use of computer-generated imagery was kept to a minimum, which means a lot of the high-octane sequences were as close to the real thing as it can get. The film teases the on-track action early on with snippets of Shelby's win at the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans and, a little later a gripping race at Willow Springs which Miles wins by the skin of his teeth. Apparently one of the film's few embellishments was that several of the victories Miles claimed in his career were nowhere near as close as the movie made them out to be, i.e. he won them by (ahem) miles. This was perhaps one of the movie's foibles; several of the otherwise gripping races were decided by late lunges or last-lap gasps by Miles, an occurrence that most racing fans can attest is not all that common in one's entire racing career, let alone in one season. Ron Howard's Rush was a little more faithful to history in this respect. Still, given the fantastic cinematography and choreographed driving at work, and the overall panache with which the on-track action was presented, it's really hard to hold this bit of creative license against the filmmakers. And as someone who pored over Baimes' book and Youtube videos on the subject, I can attest that the extraordinary ending is quite accurately depicted. As a fan of film soundtracks I also greatly appreciated Marco Beltrami's and Buck Sanders' jazzy, dynamic, era-appropriate soundtrack.
This movie is a must-see for gearheads, sports fans and fans of underdog stories in general. Anyone not familiar with the events depicted should steer clear of Wikipedia or other internet articles talking about them to maximize their enjoyment. I may have known exactly what was going to happen, but I still had a marvelous time.
9.5/10
Saturday, November 9, 2019
The Acting Dead
So, according to a story that first ran in The Hollywood Reporter, actor James Dean, who died in a car crash in 1955 after making only three films, will be resurrected digitally by a new film company in order to star in a new feature film, one set in the Vietnam War, which began a full ten years after his death.
This is apparently legal, given that the fledgling filmmakers have already approached Dean's estate and secured its permission, most likely with a big wad of cash. That said, however, there is something distinctly repugnant about these people's declaration that they have "cast James Dean" in a role when it won't be James Dean actually playing the role, but rather a digital avatar bearing his likeness. It won't be James Dean reciting lines, or emoting, or doing pretty much anything onscreen, but rather a combination of computer-generated imagery, possibly someone in a motion-capture suit and a voice actor. So, however lawful this planned project it may be, it feels all kinds of wrong.
The sad part is that Hollywood has only itself to blame for creating an atmosphere in which people could even begin to think that this was okay. They've been resurrecting dead recording artists to star alongside living ones in commercials since the 1990s. Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire and Nat King Cole have all done television commercials well after their death, and in feature films the line was crossed quite some time ago when Laurence Olivier appeared in 2004's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, a movie filmed approximately 14 years after his death. Disney basically sealed the deal when they grafted the late Peter Cushing's digital face onto a double in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story three years ago.
But Olivier's appearance, while off-putting, amounted to little more than a cameo in a movie that almost no one saw, a bit of an oddity designed to show off how digital technology could pay homage to the pulpy movies of old, and Cushing's "reprising" his role as Grand Moff Tarkin, while arguably even more off-putting, served a greater narrative purpose.
In the great scheme, this planned film with its digital star would probably be ignored were it not for the gimmick of casting someone who's been dead for over sixty-four years. In fact, even with the press it's been getting over the last couple of days, there's still no guarantee it'll be any more than a blip at the box office. James Dean has been dead for so long that only the oldest of baby boomers would even remember watching him in any original theatrical release. He's only relevant to film buffs and hipsters, which means this movie, even with this gimmick, is far from a sure sell. One might argue that the filmmakers aren't even doing this to make an easy buck considering that most moviegoing audiences these days don't even know who James Dean was. Maybe they're sincere "Deanphiles," motivated by a sincere albeit misguided desire to do him some form of homage. The scary thing, however, is the gates this movie, even if it's only moderately successful, could kick wide open.
The people representing Dean's estate already offered a somewhat chilling preview of what the success of this movie could portend, as they basically referred to their entire portfolio of dead actors and actresses whose likenesses could be plundered for future films. And surely, the big boys like Disney and Warner Brothers are now paying attention to how this will play out as well, even if the stars of their movies are voicing their disagreement. Disney, for one thing, has already borrowed a dead actor's face.
Considering how amoral the likes of Hollywood producers are, I could see them justifying this practice in a heartbeat. Why bother looking for Daniel Craig's replacement as James Bond when you could just pay Sean Connery for his likeness, or Roger Moore's estate for his? Why wrangle out contracts with Henry Cavill when you could just put "Christopher Reeve," the actor best remembered by most people in the role, in all future Superman movies? Why put up with Joaquin Phoenix's eccentricities when you could have Heath Ledger "play" the Joker forever? And then there's the question of how the folks at Marvel, who doubtlessly have terrabytes of digital footage of Avengers stars like Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth and many more, may use this data in the future, when Kevin Feige has retired and been replaced by an exec who's less interested in telling stories and more keen on cashing in on nostalgia. The possibilities for exploitation and really terrible creative decisions are quite numerous.
Frankly, I don't really care if things like this mean that actors can no longer demand eight-figure salaries. One of the reasons I love superhero movies apart from the fact that they bring to life the comics I grew up with is that they effectively killed the superstar system that was so en vogue in the 80s and 90s, where films were star-driven rather than story-driven and during which we got some pretty shlocky stuff. But I do sympathize with the struggling actors and actresses who won't be able to get decent work because some asshole in a suit would rather pay some long dead actor's estate than help a living one put food on the table. It's dehumanizing, if I'm honest, and justifying this practice by saying crap like "the family approves" doesn't really help matters any. I'm sure the relatives of James Dean, many of whom have probably never even met him, are thrilled to get a big bag of cash that they didn't lift a finger to earn beyond signing on the dotted line. In short, their motives are somewhat suspect as well.
As a moviegoer, though, I'd have to say, again, that this utter dehumanizing of movie performances is something that could doom cinema in a way that Martin Scorsese, in his anti-Marvel rants, never imagined possible. One reason I have loved movies since childhood, whether these are live-action or animated, is the fact that, however fantastical many of the movies I enjoy may be, there is still a very human element in all of them. Whatever the snobs may say, even these movies convey emotional truths that are at the very core of our humanity, even through the art of make-believe.
But there is a world of difference between the humanity conveyed by a character in an animated film like Coco and the inhuman monstrosity that James Dean's prospective grave robbers will soon unleash upon whoever pays to see their movie. One is the work of loving creators who work from scratch to craft something authentic, while the other is distinctly inauthentic, with its purveyors appropriating something they didn't create in the hope of evoking emotions in the audience that the likeness of the living person might have done had he been alive. Of course, to even attempt to compare the digital avatar to an actual, human actor, which is something the sorry excuses for filmmakers have attempted to do, isn't something that anyone with even a vague sense of human decency should do.
This is one of those times in which we, as the audience, have infinitely more power than the high-powered Hollywood producers and their ilk. Whether it's a stunt being pulled by some two-bit, unknown filmmakers like these guys, or whether it's the big players like Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony or anyone else trying to sell us movies with resurrected stars, we have to reject this affront to storytelling. The art of movies is part of what makes us human, and there is quite honestly nothing human about what could follow if this becomes, to paraphrase Elijah Wood, "a thing."
This is apparently legal, given that the fledgling filmmakers have already approached Dean's estate and secured its permission, most likely with a big wad of cash. That said, however, there is something distinctly repugnant about these people's declaration that they have "cast James Dean" in a role when it won't be James Dean actually playing the role, but rather a digital avatar bearing his likeness. It won't be James Dean reciting lines, or emoting, or doing pretty much anything onscreen, but rather a combination of computer-generated imagery, possibly someone in a motion-capture suit and a voice actor. So, however lawful this planned project it may be, it feels all kinds of wrong.
The sad part is that Hollywood has only itself to blame for creating an atmosphere in which people could even begin to think that this was okay. They've been resurrecting dead recording artists to star alongside living ones in commercials since the 1990s. Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire and Nat King Cole have all done television commercials well after their death, and in feature films the line was crossed quite some time ago when Laurence Olivier appeared in 2004's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, a movie filmed approximately 14 years after his death. Disney basically sealed the deal when they grafted the late Peter Cushing's digital face onto a double in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story three years ago.
But Olivier's appearance, while off-putting, amounted to little more than a cameo in a movie that almost no one saw, a bit of an oddity designed to show off how digital technology could pay homage to the pulpy movies of old, and Cushing's "reprising" his role as Grand Moff Tarkin, while arguably even more off-putting, served a greater narrative purpose.
In the great scheme, this planned film with its digital star would probably be ignored were it not for the gimmick of casting someone who's been dead for over sixty-four years. In fact, even with the press it's been getting over the last couple of days, there's still no guarantee it'll be any more than a blip at the box office. James Dean has been dead for so long that only the oldest of baby boomers would even remember watching him in any original theatrical release. He's only relevant to film buffs and hipsters, which means this movie, even with this gimmick, is far from a sure sell. One might argue that the filmmakers aren't even doing this to make an easy buck considering that most moviegoing audiences these days don't even know who James Dean was. Maybe they're sincere "Deanphiles," motivated by a sincere albeit misguided desire to do him some form of homage. The scary thing, however, is the gates this movie, even if it's only moderately successful, could kick wide open.
The people representing Dean's estate already offered a somewhat chilling preview of what the success of this movie could portend, as they basically referred to their entire portfolio of dead actors and actresses whose likenesses could be plundered for future films. And surely, the big boys like Disney and Warner Brothers are now paying attention to how this will play out as well, even if the stars of their movies are voicing their disagreement. Disney, for one thing, has already borrowed a dead actor's face.
Considering how amoral the likes of Hollywood producers are, I could see them justifying this practice in a heartbeat. Why bother looking for Daniel Craig's replacement as James Bond when you could just pay Sean Connery for his likeness, or Roger Moore's estate for his? Why wrangle out contracts with Henry Cavill when you could just put "Christopher Reeve," the actor best remembered by most people in the role, in all future Superman movies? Why put up with Joaquin Phoenix's eccentricities when you could have Heath Ledger "play" the Joker forever? And then there's the question of how the folks at Marvel, who doubtlessly have terrabytes of digital footage of Avengers stars like Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth and many more, may use this data in the future, when Kevin Feige has retired and been replaced by an exec who's less interested in telling stories and more keen on cashing in on nostalgia. The possibilities for exploitation and really terrible creative decisions are quite numerous.
Frankly, I don't really care if things like this mean that actors can no longer demand eight-figure salaries. One of the reasons I love superhero movies apart from the fact that they bring to life the comics I grew up with is that they effectively killed the superstar system that was so en vogue in the 80s and 90s, where films were star-driven rather than story-driven and during which we got some pretty shlocky stuff. But I do sympathize with the struggling actors and actresses who won't be able to get decent work because some asshole in a suit would rather pay some long dead actor's estate than help a living one put food on the table. It's dehumanizing, if I'm honest, and justifying this practice by saying crap like "the family approves" doesn't really help matters any. I'm sure the relatives of James Dean, many of whom have probably never even met him, are thrilled to get a big bag of cash that they didn't lift a finger to earn beyond signing on the dotted line. In short, their motives are somewhat suspect as well.
As a moviegoer, though, I'd have to say, again, that this utter dehumanizing of movie performances is something that could doom cinema in a way that Martin Scorsese, in his anti-Marvel rants, never imagined possible. One reason I have loved movies since childhood, whether these are live-action or animated, is the fact that, however fantastical many of the movies I enjoy may be, there is still a very human element in all of them. Whatever the snobs may say, even these movies convey emotional truths that are at the very core of our humanity, even through the art of make-believe.
But there is a world of difference between the humanity conveyed by a character in an animated film like Coco and the inhuman monstrosity that James Dean's prospective grave robbers will soon unleash upon whoever pays to see their movie. One is the work of loving creators who work from scratch to craft something authentic, while the other is distinctly inauthentic, with its purveyors appropriating something they didn't create in the hope of evoking emotions in the audience that the likeness of the living person might have done had he been alive. Of course, to even attempt to compare the digital avatar to an actual, human actor, which is something the sorry excuses for filmmakers have attempted to do, isn't something that anyone with even a vague sense of human decency should do.
This is one of those times in which we, as the audience, have infinitely more power than the high-powered Hollywood producers and their ilk. Whether it's a stunt being pulled by some two-bit, unknown filmmakers like these guys, or whether it's the big players like Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony or anyone else trying to sell us movies with resurrected stars, we have to reject this affront to storytelling. The art of movies is part of what makes us human, and there is quite honestly nothing human about what could follow if this becomes, to paraphrase Elijah Wood, "a thing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)