Weird: The Al Yankovic Story (2022) ****

If you are tired of celebrity biopics that bend the truth in various small ways, exaggerating aspects of their subjects' lives or compressing their history to make a better film, then this un-exaggerated, completely true biopic is the movie for you! “Weird: The Al Yankovic” story is the definitive history of everyone's favorite accordion-player. The film takes us from a young Al getting his first accordion, a move that obviously led to great popularity among his peers, especially the girls, through his meteoric rise to eclipse the success of such acts as The Beatles, to his steamy love affair with Madonna. The film covers his dark period struggling with alcoholism, as well as his transition from parody songs to the all-original works he is best known for, like “Eat It” and “Amish Paradise.”

“Weird” is directed by esteemed documentary filmmaker Eric Appel, who has a long list of documentaries and feature films under his belt, and has served as a mentor for Ken Burns. The movie started out as a 2010 Funny-or-Die trailer by Appel, and it took 12 years to make the full biopic due to all the extensive research and fact-checking. Also, they had to wait for Daniel Radcliffe to become muscular enough to portray Weird Al. With Evan Rachel Wood as Madonna, and numerous celebrity cameos, Appel has created a film that fully captures Yankovic's profound effect on the music business and his widespread esteem. Comparisons to other classic musician biopics like “The Doors,” “Amadeus,” and “Walk the Line” are inevitable, but I think a closer comparison would be the thinly-veiled biopic of publisher William Randolph Hearst from 1941. I'm talking about a little movie called “Citizen Kane.”

4 stars out of 5

Barbarian (2022) ***

 

The horror genre has, perhaps, some of the greatest variation in quality to be found in film. Most horror flicks are trash, made for rapid consumption by teens. They feature poor writing, poor acting, and they try to make up for their faults with gore, nudity, and jump scares. At the other end of the spectrum are those rare horror films that are so great they transcend genre, films like "Deliverance" and "The Shining." In the middle are films that are reasonably serviceable, providing some genuine scares without making you embarrassed to watch. “Barbarian,” the creation of writer/director Zach Cregger, falls in this middle group.

“Barbarian” is good enough, and the twists are scary enough, that I don't want to ruin any of the surprises. Of the plot, I'll just say what all the sites say, which is that a young woman (Georgina Campbell) finds her Air-B&B already occupied by a man (Bill Skarsgard), and then discovers that the house holds some horrifying secrets.

Zach Cregger (“The Whitest Kids U' Know) is mostly known for an extensive, if undistinguished, TV acting career. “Barbarian” is his first solo film project, and he shows some promise as a director. He displays a deft hand at maintaining an exhausting level of tension, then relieving it for a while, before cranking it right back up. He coaxes excellent performances out of his stars, including Justin Long. He gets some great work out of his cinematographer, showing just enough in the darkness to be truly frightening, and then making the burned-out neighborhoods of Detroit look almost as scary in broad daylight.

As a writer, Cregger is less inspired. The plot of “Barbarian” requires too many dumb, unrealistic decisions on the part of the characters. I'm talking about your typical, horror-movie, going-down-to-the-basement kinds of decisions. (In a bad movie, there would be no story without these actions, which no person in their right mind would do in real life. With better writing, circumstances force the characters into a bad situation despite their making reasonable choices along the way.)

“Barbarian” was inspired by The Gift of Fear, a non-fiction book that encourages women to trust their instincts to avoid dangerous situations with men. This is ultimately a story about men using women to feed their appetites, and it flips the script on that theme in some clever ways. Someone will probably write a graduate thesis on how this film shows men what it would be like to have someone force their base urges on you. The movie may take the man-bashing too far, but you mostly won't notice. This being a horror movie, it all just blends into the expected level of violence and abuse. It's a good example of how you can use genre fiction to send a message that would be heavy-handed and preachy in a straight drama.

“Barbarian” is not particularly well-written, and it relies more than it should on jump-scares, but it's a serviceable film that is sometimes funny and definitely scary. It is not on par with some of the best modern horror films, like "Parasite" or "It Follows," but if you want an adrenaline rush, this will get the job done.

3 stars out of 5

Force Majeure (2014) **

 

What is it that makes a man a man? What do our instinctive reactions to danger say about who we really are? How can a relationship survive a betrayal? These are the questions explored in “Force Majeure,” written and directed by Swedish filmmaker Ruben Ostlund.

Tomas (Johannes Kuhnke) and his family are skiing in the Alps. When an avalanche narrowly misses them, Tomas runs to save his own skin, leaving his wife, Ebba (Lis Loven Kongsli) to protect the children. The event eats at everyone involved, and they have to work out their feelings about it over the rest of the vacation.

I really wanted to like “Force Majeure.” It's an excellent concept, and Lis Loven Kongsli does some great acting. The movie also features Kristofer Hivju, who played Tormund Giantsbane on “Game of Thrones.” Unfortunately, the thing is just a drag. Tomas is too unlikable a character to identify with, so it's very hard to root for his transformation. The film does feature some humor, as when a girl approaches Tomas and Mats (Kristofer Hivju) at an outdoor bar to tell them that her friend said they are the hottest guys there, only to return a minute later to say that she had it wrong; her friend was pointing at two other guys. There are a lot of scenes here that had real potential, such as Ebba's conversation with a woman who is in an open marriage, or Mats's all-night fight with his girlfriend. The problem is that all the scenes drag on much longer than necessary, and many of them don't really propel the story. Even the ending seemed out of place, like a completely separate story tacked onto the end, not illuminating, much less resolving, the story.

2 stars out of 5

Fisherman's Friends (2019) ***

 

If the name of this film seems familiar, it's because it is the name of a cough drop, and also a Cornish singing group. Fisherman's Friends is a group of fisherman from Cornwall, England who sing traditional sea-shanties. They were an unlikely sensation back in 2010, when their album debuted and posted a Top 10 hit in the U.K. The story of how they got “discovered” by a BBC Radio presenter is the stuff of legend, and this film tells a hugely fictionalized version of the tale.

In the film, Danny (Daniel Mays), a music agent, is on a bachelor party weekend with some mates from work, in a small, Cornish, fishing village. The callow city-slickers are bored in the quaint, little town, but when they hear an a cappella singing performance from a group of local fisherman, Danny's boss orders him to sign the group. The order is a joke, but Danny takes it seriously, signing the group and wooing the daughter (Tuppence Middleton) of the group's craggy-faced leader (James Purefoy). Along the way, Danny learns to appreciate the small village, and their small-town ways make him a better person.

Like semaphore signals across the water, every plot point in “Fisherman's Friends” is visible from miles away. Despite being based on a true story, it looks as if almost the entire film is fictional, and yet there is nothing original here. Fortunately, the singing is enjoyable, and the cast was charming enough to mostly keep me engaged through the 2-hour film. Character actor David Hayman is particularly good, and you cannot look away from James Purefoy's wind-carved face. (Someday scientists will invent a microscope powerful enough to distinguish between James Purefoy and Tom Jane. Until then, I'll have to read the credits.)

For a film of such limited aspirations, “Fisherman's Friends” is slightly longer than it should be, but it's a fun, charming, little bit of entertainment, and if you have run out of ideas for what to do with a drunken sailor, this is the film for you!

3 stars out of 5

Parasite (2019) ****1/2

 

This is one that everyone was talking about in 2019, but I never got around to watching. I have no excuse for missing it. The film won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, then went on to sweep the 2020 Oscars, winning Best Foreign Language Film, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and becoming the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture. Fortunately, it came back around to streaming, just in time for spooky season, and I'm sure glad it did! “Parasite” is a riveting, creepy, violent exploration of class and economic desperation.

The Kim family live hand to mouth in a grubby, basement apartment. The son, Ki-Woo gets a job tutoring the daughter of a wealthy family, and he sets out to get employment for the rest of his family. Soon, the entire Kim clan have cleverly installed themselves in good jobs with the Park family. They are feeling pretty pleased with themselves, but they learn that they aren't the only ones who have secrets.

You really want to watch this without any more spoilers than that. The film's twists and turns are too delicious to ruin them. It's a story about class, economics, and, ultimately, desperation. The Kims, obviously, are desperate for a lift into the middle class. The Parks, however, are desperate in their own way. They are well-off, but not so rich that they could not slide back down the social ladder. Thus, they hire a tutor to help their daughter excel in school and an art therapist for the younger son, about whom Mrs. Park is very concerned. Who is the “parasite” of the title? It's up for debate. One of the great strengths of the film is its nuance. It does not hit you over the head (a-la “Squid Game”) with a preachy message about economic inequality, nor does it provide simple heroes and villains. Writer-director Bong Joon-ho (“Snowpiercer”) intended the title to be a double-entendre. Like parasites, the Kims insinuate themselves into the home, the body, of the Park family. The Parks, meanwhile, cannot even use their own dishwasher, and they could be said to feed off the cheap labor of people like the Kims.

Bong Joon-ho supposedly got the idea for “Parasite” from his early days working as a tutor. He started out writing the story as a play years ago, and it eventually evolved into this. If my description makes the movie sound at all like a downer, rest assured it is actually quite funny, and a joy to watch. Bong has crafted a perfectly-balanced, dark dramedy that well-deserves all its accolades and, even a couple years later, is a must-watch!

4.5 stars out of 5

Don't Worry Darling (2022) **

 

The movie everyone is talking about this year is not great. It's not even very good. “Don't Worry Darling” is a mix of a hackneyed plot, some excellent acting, some poor acting, and a lot of controversy. (Also, the title is missing a comma.)

Florence Pugh plays Alice, a 50's housewife living what seems to be an idyllic life with her husband, Jack (Harry Styles). Jack works on a secretive project run by the charismatic Frank (Chris Pine). All the men on the project live in a desert subdivision with their families, and they aren't allowed to tell anyone, including their wives, what it is they are working on. Florence isn't bothered by the secrecy. She keeps a clean house, hangs out at the country club, and loves her husband. Events transpire, however, to make her believe there is something off about their community.

It's a fine story setup, but the script is unoriginal and full of holes. Director Olivia Wilde also throws in a lot of lame, artistic flourishes, with irises dilating and chorus girls kicking their legs in a circle. These do have the effect of distracting you from the nonsensical plot twists, so that while watching the movie, I was mainly annoyed by the out-of-place, artistic crap. Later, I started thinking about all the elements of the story that didn't make sense. So, basically, “Don't Worry Darling” is annoying to watch and annoying to think about afterwards.

The saving grace of the film is Florence Pugh, who is an outstanding actress and almost manages to pull this movie off. She is also a stone fox; you cannot take your eyes off her. The only other actor worth his salt in this movie is Chris Pine. The scenes between him and Florence Pugh sizzle. Harry Styles, on the other hand, is a good singer but not much of an actor, and Olivia Wilde doesn't make any great acting accomplishments here, either.

Far more interesting than the film itself is all the hubbub surrounding its making. The role of Jack was originally slated for Shia LaBoeuf, who has had his share of controversy, but is a decent actor. At some point, he left the cast. Olivia Wilde claimed she had fired him for being too combative, but LaBoeuf claimed he had quit, and he later produced a recorded call with Wilde in which she does seem to be begging him to stay on the film. Wilde also reportedly clashed with Florence Pugh on-set, and Pugh was notably absent from the promotion of the film, including its premiere. The truth of all these claims is known only to the people involved, but it does seem to me that Olivia Wilde is building a reputation for herself as being prickly and entitled. (I recall her expressing irritation a few years ago that people were referring to her movie “Booksmart” as a 'female “Superbad.”' Newsflash: They are practically the same movie. One of the main “Booksmart” characters is even the sister of Jonah Hill, from “Superbad.”)

All of this is really just gossip, but it at least adds some interest to a movie that cannot really stand on its on merits. The sad thing is that there is a decent, Stepford-wives-esque movie in there, somewhere. Dakota Johnson was attached at one point to play Frank's wife, and with her and Shia LaBoeuf in the cast along with Pugh and Pine, and with some tweaks to the script (including a shorter run-time), this could have been a decent movie.

I had somehow got it into my head that this was Olivia Wilde's directing debut, but of course it isn't. As mentioned above, she directed 2019's “Booksmart,” which, aside from being a female version of “Superbad,” was a reasonably-entertaining teen comedy. So, what's her excuse for this indulgent mess?

2 stars out of 5

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) *

 

--Spoiler Alert --

This contains spoilers for the first film in the Hellraiser series. The film will also spoil your dinner.

Based on the novella “The Hellbound Heart,” by Clive Barker, who also screen-wrote and directed, 1987's “Hellraiser” was visually interesting, but narratively under-cooked. It plays today like a soft-filtered piece of 80's camp, with bad acting and an intriguing premise that deteriorates into a hot mess of an ending. Whatever else you can say about the film, it at least offered something original.

The story involves a magic puzzle box. A world traveler and hedonist named Frank Cotton has been told that the box is the key to otherworldly pleasures, but solving it unleashes demons called Cenobites, who rip Frank apart and drag his soul into another dimension. Some time later, Frank is accidentally partly-resurrected. His former lover, Julia, who is still obsessed with him, helps with his revival by sacrificing a series of men to him, ultimately including her husband, Larry, who is Frank's brother. Larry's daughter, Kirsty, finds Frank's puzzle box and solves it, summoning the Cenobites, whom Kirsty convinces to take the escaped Frank's soul instead of her own.

“Hellbound: Hellraiser II” picks up where the first film left off. Kirsty finds herself in a mental hospital where the head psychiatrist, coincidentally, is a student of the occult. He has his own collection of puzzle boxes and esoteric literature regarding the Cenobites. Hearing Kirsty's story, he sets out to resurrect Julia. Driven more by an insatiable curiosity than carnal desires, he then seeks to summon the Cenobites.

As I said, the first film wasn't great, but it at least offered concepts and visuals that were unique. “Hellraiser II” attempts to further the story of the Cenobites a little bit, but it does not take us very far. Basically it just recycles everything from the first film, and with the novelty gone, we are just left with non-stop gore. The movie is, ultimately, a combination of body horror and cosmic horror, but it's rather thin gruel. The film relies on a numbing barrage of nightmarish images of the sort that a disturbed middle-schooler with unsupervised internet access might draw in their notebooks.

The “Hellraiser” movies remind me a bit of the “Phantasm” franchise. Both involve a unique vision, a hand-sized MacGuffin, and terrible writing, and neither, at the end of the day, is really worth your time.

1 star out of 5

The Shining (1980) *****

Stephen King's 1977 novel The Shining is among his best, and the film adaptation is, for my money, THE best adaptation of a King novel, ever. Stanley Kubrick is a famous director, but not a particularly prolific one. I was surprised to find that his IMDB.com entry for films he has directed only contains 13 feature films, over a 46-year career. The story goes that Kubrick passed on the chance to direct “The Exorcist,” which, of course, went on to become a financial success and one the greatest horror films ever. Smarting from that mistake, Kubrick was eager to do his own horror movie. After separating the wheat from the chaff, he finally settled on “The Shining.”

It's a tale of a family falling apart. Jack Torrance takes a job as the winter caretaker of a mountain resort, the Overlook Hotel. He and his family will be snowed in and stuck there for the winter, but that is just fine with Jack. A recovering alcoholic, he hopes to restart his life and get back to his writing. 5-year-old Danny gets glimpses of the future, which have told him to be afraid of the Overlook, while his mom, Wendy, is just trying to hold the family together. As winter sets in at the hotel, Danny begins seeing horrifying visions, while Jack is losing his mind.

Stephen King has created a lot of monsters over the years, and most of them are human. He explores the supernatural, but central to most of his stories is the idea that the greatest evil in this world lives in the human heart. Even in stories like “It,” where there is clearly a supernatural being, they usually recruit human helpers, who are only too easy to enlist in evil deeds. This is never more true than in “The Shining.” As Danny sees ghosts, and Jack becomes increasingly irritable, we are left wondering if they are under a supernatural influence, or if we are simply seeing the horror of mental illness.

It almost feels silly to try to list the virtues of “The Shining.” The film is visually arresting, including beautiful views of the snow-covered Rockies, the hotel's hedge maze, and, of course, the hotel itself. The interior is a character in itself, including some very snazzy-looking carpet. An example of the outstanding cinematography occurs in the notorious room 237. We have been led to expect there will be someone (or something) there. As Jack approaches the bathroom, we can see that the translucent shower curtain is partly drawn, and there is just the hint (or is there?) of a shape behind that curtain. While your eyes are feasting on all this, the film's score keeps you on the edge of your seat, without resorting to the use of jump scares.

I would hold that the performances are excellent, although there has always been debate on that topic. Stephen King was not pleased with the casting of Jack Nicholson. The Jack Torrance of the novel is an ordinary person with a drinking problem and a little bit of a temper. His impending psychosis is a very gradual and shocking process. With Jack Nicholson's manic persona, we are just waiting for Jack Torrance to start going nuts. It's a memorable performance, and I think a good one, but I can see why King wanted someone more restrained, like Martin Sheen.

I was not bullish on Shelley Duvall the first time I saw the film. She spends a lot of time screaming in terror, and I found her character weak and annoying. Also, her lank hair and sexless clothing make her hard to look at. (The Wendy of the novel is a stronger and more attractive character.) On a second viewing, however, I feel I judged the actress and the character too harshly. Wendy is a sweet girl just trying to keep her family happy. In the end, the fact that she keeps fighting to protect Danny despite being absolutely scared out of her mind should be viewed as a sign of strength.

Other casting choices are less controversial. Scatman Crothers is so charming you just want to take him home! He plays the hotel chef, who explains to Danny that his ability to see the future is called “the shine,” and warns Danny away from room 237. As for Danny, child actor Danny Lloyd is stellar. Oddly enough, he did not go on to have much of an acting career, but his performance in “The Shining” could not be improved upon.

There are lots of movies that run well over 2 hours, and most of them, even the good ones, could stand to be about 30 minutes shorter. Not “The Shining.” Stanley Kubrick makes good use of every minute, building the dread and the horror slowly. This is after all, a story of a regular guy losing his mind, and it just isn't believable if it happens all at once. Most horror films are in a rush to get to the nasty stuff, like a porno where the bored housewife answers the door for the UPS guy, and next thing you know, everybody is naked. “The Shining” is not in a rush. It wines you and dines you and introduces you to its parents, so when the horror comes, you are good and ready for it. If the film feels long at all, it is not because of excess scenes, but because of the exhausting level of dread and slowly-building horror. You can simply feel the stress hormones pumping while you are sitting on your couch, but then, that's what horror movies are for!

5 stars out of 5

Doctor Sleep (2019) ****

 

“Doctor Sleep” is a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's 1980 horror classic, “The Shining.” Both films are based on Stephen King novels, also separated by decades. (King published The Shining in 1977, and Doctor Sleep in 2013.) I would strongly urge a person to watch “The Shining” before reading this review or watching “Doctor Sleep.” Both this film and the next paragraphs will contain spoilers for the first film, which is a masterpiece, and you don't want to spoil it!

You may recall that the first film introduced us to 5-year-old Danny Torrance, whose psychic abilities made him see horrifying visions at the haunted Overlook Hotel and helped him survive his psychotic, alcoholic father (Jack Nicholson). Those psychic powers were described as “the shine” by Overlook chef Dick Hallorann (originally played by Scatman Crothers, and now by Carl Lumbly). In “Doctor Sleep,” we find that, unsurprisingly, Danny (Ewan Mcgregor) is scarred by the experience, and he is haunted by ghosts from the Overlook. Even with help from Hallorann's ghost, Danny grows into a broken, alcoholic man. He finally joins AA, gets his life together, and finds meaning as a hospice worker. His psychic abilities help him comfort the dying patients, who nickname him Dr. Sleep.

Meanwhile, Danny becomes aware of a coven of fellow psychics who have learned to extend their lives to near-immortality by hunting and feeding on the “shine” from people like himself. Calling themselves the True Knot, these psychic vampires are led by Sally the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson, from “Dune”). They set their sights on a gifted, young girl (Kyliegh Curran), and Danny must overcome his fears and marshal all of his shine to help her.

Screenwriter and director Mike Flanagan found himself in the position of making a movie based on a novel, but which was expected to be a sequel to a film that differed significantly from the first novel. Stephen King famously disapproved of Kubrick's “The Shining” adaptation, and while I think King's complaints were overblown, the plot differences from the novel were significant enough to create challenges with this sequel. Flanagan managed to thread the needle by maintaining continuity with the Kubrick film while reaching back to the source material to revive some of those King elements that were lost the first time around. He did so well enough to satisfy King himself, who said of the film, “Everything that I ever disliked about the Kubrick version of 'The Shining' is redeemed for me here.”

Stephen King's opinions notwithstanding, Kubrick's “The Shining” is a masterpiece, and “Doctor Sleep” does not quite rise to that level. It's a damn good movie, though, and among the best film adaptations of King novels. Like “The Shining,” it runs long, about 2 ½ hours, but it doesn't feel long. The cast is excellent, especially the gorgeous Rebecca Ferguson, who simply dominates the screen every time she appears. The pacing of the narrative rarely drags, with just a few scenes that felt extraneous, and if the film runs long, it is because there is a lot of story here. In truth, I wouldn't have minded even a bit more information about the True Knot. They may be evil, but they are an intriguing group of near-immortals who, as Sally the Hat says, have “seen empires rise and fall.” I guess that's incentive to read the book!

4 stars out of 5

Thief (1981) ***1/2

 

Director Michael Mann is known for many films, including 1986's “Manhunter” (The first Hannibal Lector film), 1995's “Heat”, and 2004's “Collateral.” You may notice a trend there towards films about criminals. Mann also made movies like “The Last of the Mohicans,” but for the most part, there is a crime motif in his filmography. It makes sense, then, that his first feature film is titled, simply, “Thief.”

Based on the book The Home Invaders: Confessions of a Cat Burglar, “Thief” tells the story of Frank (James Caan), a safecracker. Frank is a bit of a loner, having spent 12 years of his life in prison, but he is trying to make a relationship work with Jessie (Tuesday Weld) while secretly pulling heists and working to get his friend (Willie Nelson) out of prison. Ultimately, Frank's efforts to leave the world of crime put him on the wrong side of a crime boss (Robert Prosky).

Despite weak supporting performances by Tuesday Weld and Willie Nelson, “Thief” manages to be a gripping and stylish neo-noir. The electronic score by Tangerine Dream pairs well with Michael Mann's signature nighttime cinematography, using literal shadow to underscore the darkness of his story. The heist scenes are technically fascinating, as Mann consulted real criminals on how to evade security systems and crack safes. James Caan is cool and contained as Frank, a man who has been taught by his trade and by years of incarceration to keep everything he feels locked inside. He succeeds perhaps too well, as Frank's isolation lends the story a bleakness that will put off some viewers. In the end, the tale feels a bit hollow, as Frank's motivations are locked away in a safe that even Michael Mann cannot crack.

3.5 stars out of 5

Clerks II (2006)

Kevin Smith isn’t the only one who had a lot riding on “Clerks II.” For all of us thirty-somethings who fell in love with the black-and-white genius of “Clerks” back in 1994, the stakes were just as high. I won’t say that we anticipated this with the same level of breathlessness that met “Star Wars: Episode I,” but the concerns were the same. After all these years, would Smith give us something worthy of “Clerks,” or would “Clerks II” just sully our enjoyment of the original? 

 It’s an extremely fair question given Smith’s inconsistent post-Clerks filmography, including his last film, 2004’s truly foul-smelling “Jersey Girl.” Indeed, while I have enjoyed several of Smith’s films, none of them has fully lived up to the promise of “Clerks,” in which Smith seemed poised to join that interesting fraternity of modern film-makers (including Richard Linklater and Whit Stillman) who understand that conversations are not something that fills the spaces between action in our lives, conversations usually are the action in our lives. 

Finally, twelve years later, “Clerks II” lives up to that promise. This sequel finds our heroes in pretty much the same life situation they were in in “Clerks.” Now in their 30’s, Dante (Brian O’Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson) are still clerks, now in a fast-food restaurant. Randal is still porn-obsessed and caustic as hell. Dante is still the more sensitive of the pair, and once again inexplicably has two attractive women after him. Appropriately, the stakes are higher this time around for the 12-years-older Dante, who finds himself torn between moving to Florida and a better job with his fiancé or sticking around Jersey to paint the toenails of his hot boss Becky (Rosario Dawson). Meanwhile, Jay and his hetero-life-mate Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith) are still hanging around outside, making deals and busting moves. Kevin Smith standbys Ben Affleck and Jason Lee drop in for quick cameos, and comedienne Wanda Sykes delivers the goods in a hilarious scene about racial slurs. The film is full of bizarre characters and hilarious, foul-mouthed arguments about everything from “Lord of the Rings” to the appropriateness of mixing and matching body parts during sex. Unfortunately, Silent Bob’s “Berserker”-singing, Russian cousin is nowhere to be seen, but at least there is a live, donkey-sex show. 

My pleasure in watching “Clerks II” was lessened not at all by Kevin Smith’s considerably higher budget on this film, roughly $5 million, compared to about $28K for “Clerks.” True, “Clerks II” lacks that black-and-white, film-school feel of the first film, and the jokes and characters aren’t quite as fresh this time around, but overall I feel like “Clerks II” is everything I could have asked for in a “Clerks” sequel. I recommend multiple viewings of both films. 

5 stars.

Addendum 10/6/22 - I just re-watched it, and while it does hold up fairly well to a repeat viewing, I would say that I over-rated it back in '06. I was so excited back then for a return of the "Clerks" characters that I had stars in my eyes, and I gave the movie 5 of them. Rating it now, I would go 3 or 4 stars. 

In other news, "Clerks III" just came out!

No Time To Die (2021) ***1/2

 

Daniel Craig is clearly the best actor to have played James Bond; this is objective fact. His rugged, no-nonsense approach to the character makes for a more believable 007 than the antics of his glib, overly-handsome predecessors. That's not to say that Craig's movies are always the best of the series. As good as his Bond is, his villains have generally not been as memorable as, say Gert Frobe's Goldfinger.

The five films that make up the Craig Cycle (2006's “Casino Royale,” 2008's “Quantum of Solace,” 2012's “Skyfall,” 2015's “Spectre,” and 2021's “No Time to Die”) are worth considering as a group, now that the cycle is complete. They have an internally-consistent narrative thread that is not directly connected to any of the previous Bond productions. Actually, I'm not certain, but I think that all the Bond films made before Daniel Craig more or less maintain their own continuity. The actor would change, but the assumption was that we were moving forward with the same James Bond over the years. With Craig, screenwriters Neil Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis (“Crash”) started over with the Bond story, borrowing from Ian Fleming's first novel (Casino Royale) and depicting Bond first becoming a 00 agent. As we move through the films, Bond encounters a variety of villains, beds a variety of women, and ultimately finds that most of the baddies he has been fighting were part of a criminal organization called Spectre, working under the direction of one Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

“No Time to Die” picks up where “Spectre” left off. Having captured Blofeld, Bond retires and runs off with Madeleine (Lea Seydoux). Without giving too much away, Bond does not stay retired. He winds up doing his usual globe-trotting routine in pursuit of a shadowy figure named Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek). We also get more insight into Madeleine's past, and Bond gets a shot at having a family.

Paul Haggis dropped out after a couple of Craig Cycle films, but Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have been writers on all 5 films, collaborating with a handful of co-writers and four different directors, while the Bond franchise changed hands from one production company to another, and MGM went through a bankruptcy. For 15 years, they, along with Daniel Craig, have been the constants running through the Bond universe. To the extent that such a collaborative, big-tent franchise can be considered the work of any one creator, Purvis and Wade should perhaps be considered the authors of the Craig Cycle. With “No Time to Die,” they give us something the Bond series has never had before: a resolution.

Is it satisfying? Pretty much, although at 2 hours, 46 minutes, the film sometimes failed to keep my attention. It's as if everyone was so reluctant to end the story that they just kept on packing in additional plot twists and action sequences, many of which are highly unnecessary. Meanwhile, they forgot to give the villain a believable motivation or even any memorable lines. Bond films live and die by their villains, and Lyutsifer Safin is regrettably forgettable, not nearly as compelling as Javier Bardem's Silva (from “Skyfall”) or even Christoph Waltz's Blofeld. In the villain department, the series goes out with a whimper instead of a bang. It is the boldest film in the franchise, however, in the scope of its storytelling, and Craig is as good as ever. I wish they had tightened up the narrative to a more manageable length, but nonetheless, Purvis and Wade have given Daniel Craig something that none of the other Bond actors have had: an ending that makes it feel like the whole process meant something.

3.5 stars out of 5

Masculin Feminin (1966) ***

 

Jean-Luc Godard just died, and while I was actually more surprised than anything to learn that he had still been alive all this time, his death provides an opportunity to watch one of his films and reflect on his film legacy. We had already seen his first film, "Breathless" as well as "Pierrot le Fou," so we decided to check out “Masculin Feminin,” a story of male/female relations.

We meet Paul, a self-serious socialist who divides his time between hanging out with his union activist buddy, Robert, and pursuing a beautiful singer named Madeleine (played by Ye-Ye pop singer Chantal Goya). Paul does not display a lot of charm, but he eventually insinuates himself into Madeleine's life, and the two become a couple. Paul and Robert run around Paris with Madeleine and her two attractive roommates, having long conversations and occasionally dancing, protesting the Vietnam War, and witnessing jarring acts of random violence.

If you look back to the first guy who mixed up some materials to invent paint and smeared it on a cave wall, his work probably isn't all that compelling, out of context. His innovation was not so much his drawing of a hand or an antelope, but the development of new tools that would lead future artists to greatness. I feel the same way about Godard and his fellow New Wave auteurs. The Godard films I have seen are not necessarily great in themselves. They are largely a series of sketches, lacking in story, plot, and sympathetic characters. He seems to thrive on disjointed stories about bored, emotionally-stunted men and the beautiful, pert-titted women who love them, and it is only the latter of these that make his films watchable at all. Godard allows his black-and-white camera to linger lovingly on the faces of his charming, young actresses, some of whom cannot really act. The rest is just experimentation with what you can do on film when you throw out all the rules. This rule-breaking made the world safe for followers like Arthur Penn ("Bonnie and Clyde") and Quentin Tarantino (“Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs”).

So, what if you aren't a cinephile or an aspiring filmmaker? Should you watch “Masculin Feminin”? I would say, take a step back first and watch some of the films listed above, as well as movies like Jim Jarmusch's "Down By Law" and Richard Linklater's “Before Sunrise.” Check out some of Whit Stillman's movies, like "The Last Days of Disco". If you find yourself starting to dig movies with long tracking shots, handheld camera work, and jump cuts, and which allow the characters to have long, naturalistic conversations, THEN maybe you will want to go back and watch a movie like “Masculin Feminin” to appreciate how it all got started.

3 stars out of 5

Full Metal Jacket (1987) *****

 

When it comes to war movies, there is none more iconic than “Full Metal Jacket.” Released one year after “Top Gun,” Stanley Kubrick's naturalistic, Vietnam War masterpiece is something of an anti-”Top Gun.” Where “Top Gun” was a celebration of the glories of military service, which measurably boosted recruiting, “Full Metal Jacket” was all about the inhumanity and futility of the war machine. I don't think anyone signed up for the military because they watched “Full Metal Jacket!”

The film is really 2 movies rolled into 1. The first part of the film is a novella about the cruelty of military basic training. We meet Joker (Matthew Modine), a smart-aleck recruit whose sense of humor immediately earns him the ire of drill sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). Hartman winds up warming to Joker, who is competent, forthright, and “has got guts.” He puts Joker in charge of training up Pvt. Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio), an overweight, mildly retarded, sweet-natured recruit who cannot seem to stop screwing up.

Hartman has become the standard by which movie drill sergeants are measured. As depicted by the brilliant R. Lee Ermey, he is loud, overbearing, brutal, and bullying. Part of what makes “Full Metal Jacket” great is that it allows Hartman to be something more than a complete villain, however. This is depicted in the grudging respect he grants Joker, and in his attempts to encourage Pyle when he starts to get himself together. He believes it is necessary to be hard on his recruits, because they will need toughness and discipline to survive in the war zone to which they are destined. The problem is that he has only one way to interact with them. He breaks them down as a bully, then grants them the reward of approval when they show improvement. That works for many, but not all. Hartman is part and emblem of a Procrustean military machine that takes young men of various talents and sensibilities and forces them all to fit into the same mold. Anyone who cannot fit the mold is sacrificed un-caringly.

The second, longer portion of the movie is set in Vietnam, where we find Joker assigned as a military journalist for “Stars-and-Stripes.” There, he finds a demoralized American military whose soldiers have no idea what they are fighting for and cannot tell their “allies” from their enemies. He sees a Vietnamese population that is simply tired of war, and which sees the Americans more as occupiers than as saviors. He is not able to write about any of this. Joker is told that they publish two types of stories in “Stars-and-Stripes”: tales of battlefield heroics, and heartwarming stories about soldiers winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people.

Out in the field, Joker is embedded with a platoon and sees firsthand what the war is like, with the outgunned Vietcong relying more on sniper fire and booby-traps than on frontal assaults. In this brutal, mystifying war, Joker finds, survival relies less on the kind of discipline and toughness he learned in basic training, and more on dumb luck. It's a disheartening struggle, where doing the right thing seems impossible.

“Full Metal Jacket” is, in one sense, just one in a line of naturalistic, cynical Vietnam War movies, preceded by films like 1986's “Platoon” and 1979's “Apocalypse Now.” “Full Metal Jacket,” however, is distinguished by its performances and its wit. We see the stories through the eyes of Joker, whose perceptive sense of humor makes the scenes imminently memorable and quotable. Then there's R. Lee Ermey's drill sergeant, who became the standard mold for movie drill sergeants the way Robert Romero's “Night of the Living Dead” monsters became the standard for zombies. Combined with memorable performances from Vincent D'Onofrio, Adam Baldwin (from “Firefly”), and Dorian Harewood, it adds up to an unforgettable and imminently re-watchable war film. As Joker and his buddies march into the sunset, singing the Mickey Mouse Club song, we are left with a message that would be familiar to Voltaire's Candide or to Shakespeare's Hamlet: No one has been saved; nothing has been learned; and the best you can do is try to take care of those close to you.

5 stars out of 5

An American Werewolf in London (1981) ***

 

David Naughton and Griffin Dunne play David and Jack, a couple of American buddies hiking across the north of England. They are expecting cold weather and bland food, but the werewolf takes them by surprise. Jack is killed, and David is wounded in the attack. Waking in a London hospital, David is haunted by visions of his dead friend, warning him that the next full moon will turn him into a werewolf. Despite being comforted by a beautiful nurse (Jenny Agutter), David continues having the visions, and he anticipates the coming full moon with horror. Not TOO much horror, though. “An American Werewolf in London” is a horror-comedy that leans more to the comedy side.

Beloved writer/director John Landis has a massive filmography, including classic comedies like “Trading Places” and “Coming to America.” When he came up with the idea for a werewolf horror-comedy back in 1969, however, he wasn't known for anything. He would have to wait more than a decade, after making a name for himself with “National Lampoon's Animal House” and “The Blues Brothers,” before getting to make his werewolf movie.

The film is best known for its makeup effects, for which makeup artist Rick Baker won an Oscar. It's remarkable how good these effects look now, 40 years later, and to think that Baker did all of that without the aide of CGI. It's appropriate that the film is known for its makeup, because once you get below the surface, there really isn't a lot to it. The story itself is very straightforward, and the film doesn't really invest much into character development. One reason I didn't find the movie scary is that we never get to care enough about any of the characters to be very afraid for them. On the comedy side, the humor is more wry and understated. Some of it is very clever, but when I think of John Landis, I think of the outlandish, physical humor of John Belushi or the barbershop scenes in “Coming to America.” His movies tend to have memorable scenes of hilarity, and “An American Werewolf in London” really does not have that. If anything, the comedy here sometimes sits uneasily next to the attempts at horror, as when Zombie Jack repeatedly exhorts David to commit suicide. When I think about what I will remember from this film, it always comes back to the visuals: Jenny Agutter's beauty, Zombie Jack's progressively decomposed corpse, and, of course, those transformation scenes. “An American Werewolf in London” is a feast for the eyes, even if your brain goes hungry.

3 stars out of 5

A Quiet Place Part II (2020) ***1/2

 

Warning: Spoiler Alert! It's difficult to talk about this sequel without revealing aspects of the original “A Quiet Place”. If you haven't seen it, it's a great movie, and I highly recommend you check it out before reading this!

If ever a movie cried out for a sequel, it is 2018's “A Quiet Place.” John Krasinski's directorial debut was an excellent horror film about a family surviving in a world ravaged by deadly, seemingly-invincible beasts with hyper-acute hearing. Because of their deaf daughter, Regan (Millicent Simmonds), the Abbotts all speak sign language, a unique advantage in this horrifying new world where any sound can bring death. You may recall that they were also raising a new baby, whose cries were obviously a unique disadvantage in that world.

The sequel picks up right where the first film left off. Regan and her mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt) have just discovered a way to kill the aliens, but their home is ravaged by the creatures. Along with Regan's brother Marcus (Noah Jupe) and the new baby, the family head off in search of other survivors. They meet up with their neighbor Emmett (Cilian Murphy), and learn that many other human survivors have turned feral and dangerous.

Part II gives us a couple of gifts. First, we get a look at Day 1, when the creatures first invaded the Abbott's town, with Krasinski reprising his Lee Abbott role for the flashback. We got a sense of the invasion from Lee's news clippings in the first film, but this flashback gives us a full-on look at the creatures ravaging the small town, killing anything that makes a noise. The other gift is Cilian Murphy. We know, from “28 Days Later,” that this guy knows how to survive an apocalypse, and he shines in this film as a lone survivor who reluctantly helps the Abbotts.

Meanwhile,Millicent Simmonds has really matured as an actress. The deaf, nineteen-year-old easily matches Murphy's intensity and earns her role as the most central character in this sequel. Emily Blunt is excellent as well; she just has a little bit less to do in this film than in the first one.

My only complaints about the film are minor, and they center on Krasinski's work as writer and director. “A Quiet Place” was based on a screenplay by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, with Krasinski directing and doing some re-writes. The film was, in most ways, a riff on the same themes as “Jurassic Park” and “Aliens.” Its main innovation was its emphasis on silence. The Abbotts, and therefore the movie, were as quiet as possible, which was remarkably effective in creating tension. Woods and Beck apparently were not interested in writing a sequel, so Krasinski is wholly responsible for Part II, writing and directing. Right off the bat, he starts with the invasion on Day 1, which is as loud as any action sequence, and the movie rarely gets as quiet as the first film. The exception is a couple of brief but unsettling scenes where we hear the world as Regan hears it, meaning we hear nothing.

My other complaint is that, while Krasinski has created a very effective action film, his sequel hardly advances the “A Quiet Place” story at all. After an hour and a half, I found that I hardly knew any more about the creatures or about the fate of mankind than I did at the end of the first film. I said above that “A Quiet Place” demanded a sequel, but in truth, it would be possible, as Bryan Woods and Scott Beck did, to call it a day after the first film, to let your imagination take it from there. “A Quiet Place Part II” however, really does demand a sequel, as it develops the characters without advancing the story much at all. We need to know where these creatures come from, why (as pointed out in the first film) they don't eat their victims, and whether mankind and the Abbotts will survive.

We will have to wait a bit for all that. “A Quiet Place Part III” is slated for 2025. Meanwhile, there is talk of a spin-off film called “A Quiet Place: Day One” to be released in 2024. I'm a bit skeptical that a spin-off is warranted here, but, as good as these films are, you can bet I'll be watching!

3.5 stars out of 5

Persuasion (2022) ***

 

In the latest iteration of Jane Austin's 1817 novel, Dakota Johnson plays Anne Elliot, middle daughter of Sir Walter, a vain, feckless man whose oldest and youngest daughters mirror his shallowness and narcissism. Anne, however, has a refined character, with a gentle soul and a love for poetry. She also has a broken heart, because, eight years earlier, she let herself be persuaded to turn away the love of her life due to his inferior social station. Frederick Wentworth (Cosmo Jarvis) was a penniless sailor with no title, considered unfit for a girl of Anne's upbringing. Anne has spent the ensuing eight years wallowing in regret. Fate brings Wentworth, now a successful Navy captain, back into Anne's life, but the two are wary of each other. They circle around each other until Anne's sweet, beautiful sister-in-law takes a shine to Wentworth, and Anne comes to believe she has missed her chance again. Just as she is ready to give up on love forever, a handsome, wealthy relative (Henry Golding) sets his sights on Anne.

If it all sounds very familiar, it's the same motif as every Jane Austin story. You take a couple of reluctant lovers who are clearly meant for each other, throw in some complications, and figure out who is going to marry whom. It would be tiresome if it weren't so damn charming! This is theater director Carrie Cracknell's first film, and she spices up Jane Austen's characteristically witty dialogue with a few fun anachronisms (“They say if you're a 5 in London, you're a 10 in Bath!”) The cast is a mixed bag. Richard E. Grant (“Withnail & I”), Yolanda Kettle, and Mia McKenna-Bruce are delightfully funny as Anne's ridiculous family, classic Jane Austen characters. Henry Golding is charming as always, but he isn't given a lot to work with. Cosmo Jarvis as Wentworth is a bit wooden and boring. At the end of the day, “Persuasion” lives and dies by the performance of Dakota Johnson, and fortunately, she is up to the task of carrying the film. You cannot look away from her, and rather than using voice-over to narrate Anne's thoughts, Johnson engages the camera directly, with words and conspiring glances, a-la Phoebe Waller-Bridge, from “Fleabag.” Some reviewers found this engagement distracting, but I think it elevates an otherwise middling Jane Austen adaptation into something really fun.

One thing you have to get used to in “Persuasion” is that several traditionally white, English characters are played by actors who are black, asian, or mixed. It's confusing at first, but then you get used to the idea that, in this film, a person's skin color is not their identity. What a remarkable concept!

3 stars out of 5

Vengeance (2022) ****

Along with everything else, Covid shut down movie production for a while, which means we've been in a real drought while Hollywood catches up. We are finally getting to see some movies that got delayed by the pandemic, and “Vengeance,” written and directed by B.J. Novak (“The Office”), may be the best of the bunch!

Novak plays Ben, a stereotypical, young, callow, New Yorker. He works as a writer and spends his free time hooking up with lots of different girls, but he dreams of being a pod-caster. Ben gets a mystifying call saying that his “girlfriend” Abby has died. Apparently, one of his hook-ups took their relationship a lot more seriously than Ben did, and now she has died of an overdose. Pressured by her family, Ben flies to Texas for the funeral. There, he is told that Abby “would never take so much as an ibuprofen.” Her brother Ty (Boyd Holbrook) is convinced that she was actually murdered, and he wants Ben to help him avenge her. Suddenly, Ben has a subject for a pod-cast!

“Vengeance” could easily be just another fish-out-of-water comedy, but Novak's writing and acting really elevate this film above its genre. He gets an assist from an outstanding supporting cast. J. Smith-Cameron is quietly brilliant as Abbey's mom, while Ashton Kutcher is flamboyantly brilliant as a philosophical record producer, and Issa Rae is just adorable as Ben's editor. Boyd Holbrook, however, steals the show as Abby's brother. He is that rare actor who is charismatic, but completely disappears into his role. He is such a chameleon that it wasn't until I researched the film that I realized he plays The Corinthian in “The Sandman” series, which I had just watched.

In the end, though, it is B.J. Novak's writing that makes “Vengeance” such a great film. Everyone wants to write a story for our times, a tale that addresses our Red State/Blue State divide and reminds us of all we still have in common. Novak's script manages to do it while delivering quite a few laughs.

4 stars out of 5

The Sandman (2022, Netflix) ****

 

I was introduced to the Sandman comics in college, and quickly was drawn into Neil Gaiman's dreamworld of magic and philosophy. It seemed like the most profound thing ever at the time, although looking back, aspects of the series seem pretty sophomoric. I mean, it's a story about a family of anthropomorphic beings who personify the supposedly most basic aspects of existence: Death, Dream, Destiny, Desire, Despair, Delirium (formerly Delight), and Destruction, all basic, eternal concepts that happen to start with a “D” in the English language. (What about their cousins, Building, Bravery, Boredom, Bitchiness, and Bombasticity? Or Marriage, Mercy, Misery, Malice, and Mendacity?) Despite the essential silliness of some of his concepts, Gaiman made it work, inspired by a rich trove of worldwide mythologies blended with a deeply-perceptive brand of humanistic storytelling. There were no villains in Gaiman's stories, just people (human and otherwise), each flawed and driven by their own agendas.

Now “The Sandman” has been translated to the screen, streaming on Netflix, and it's been a long road getting here. Dream was never as famous as Batman or Superman, but “The Sandman” was, by the end of its run in 1996, a highly successful and influential comic. People have been trying since the early '90's to cash in on that and make a film or TV show, and Gaiman has been busy the last couple of decades preventing bad Sandman adaptations from seeing the light of day. There's a short story by Gaiman about a writer going to Hollywood, where everyone loves his story, and everyone has ideas about how to change it for the screen. I imagine that short story was informed by Gaiman's Sandman experiences. Fortunately, Gaiman finally found a show-runner he trusted in Allan Heinberg, along with co-writer David Goyer. The result is a bit uneven, but still thrilling for a long-time Sandman fan like myself.

Tom Sturridge plays Morpheus, the tall, thin duke of dreams, in charge of shaping our dreams so that they instruct and inspire us. A rogue nightmare called The Corinthian (Boyd Holbrook) has escaped to haunt the waking world, and Morpheus/Dream goes to collect him. Before he can, Dream is summoned and imprisoned by a mage (Charles Dance). Spoiler alert: Dream eventually escapes that trap and has to go reclaim his magical weapons, a journey that literally takes him to Hell and back.

Season 1 includes the stories from the first 2 graphic novels in the series, Preludes and Nocturnes (Issues 1-8) and The Doll's House (Issues 9-16). This may seem like a bit of trivia interesting only to people like myself, who spent the '90's buying and reading the comics as they came out, but I say it to make a point about how much story is packed in here. In just 10 episodes, they cover essentially 2 novels' worth of material, which may be why the series feels oddly-paced at times. Sometimes it feels like things are dragging, while there are times when it feels we are racing to a conclusion. Reading the comic, you had the opportunity to linger on a page, and to go back and re-read, and I think this series will benefit from some re-watching, which should be easy, since it is on Netflix.

The great news is that if you have the patience to put up with a few quirks, this series does some tremendous world-building, which lays the foundation for some terrific storytelling to come. “The Sandman,” after all is a story about stories, and how they shape us as much as we shape them. If you can hang on for a few confusing episodes, Gaiman has some amazing stories to tell us, as evidenced by the bonus episode they dropped on Netflix August 19, 2 weeks after the first 10 episodes debuted. The first part of the episode is an animated version of the comic issue “Dream of a Thousand Cats,” which is just OK. The 2^nd half, however, gets back to live-action with the story of “Calliope,” and it is outstanding! I think they actually managed to improve on the comic with this one!

If you are already a fan of The Sandman, then you will have already watched the series and made your own judgments. If you are even a fan of Neil Gaiman's many other works, like Coraline, Good Omens, or American Gods, then you should definitely watch. The series adheres strongly to Gaiman's vision. Some episodes are almost straight off the page of his comics, and where they have made changes, they respected the source. I think any Neil Gaiman fan will be happy with this series, although I will admit that it was uneven enough that I did not find it quite as good as the first season of “American Gods” or the movie “Coraline.” Now that the world-building is done, however, I have high hopes for the next season, if we are lucky enough to get one. The big question is whether someone who is completely new to Gaiman's work will like the show. You should be warned that it is unlike any other show. You have to be open to something that is weird and magical, something that will be confusing at times. This is, after all, a show about dreams!

4 stars out of 5

The Day The Music Died (2022) ***

 

If there ever was a song that is worthy of its own movie, Don McLean's 1971 classic “American Pie” is it. Inspired by the 1959 plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, the song is so much more than an elegy. It is the Great American Novel, condensed into an 8 minute song with the most sing-alongable chorus in Rock-n-Roll. Each verse is a treasure trove of artistic references and symbolism, and millions of person-hours have likely gone into parsing the lyrics in college dorm rooms across the U.S.

Currently streaming on Paramount+, the documentary “The Day The Music Died” explores the tragedy behind the song, and it attempts to plumb the secrets of the song itself. It succeeds more at that first part than the second.

We all are vaguely aware that Buddy Holly and some other musicians died in a plane crash. Quite a few musicians have died in plane crashes, however, and I knew few details of the crash that killed Holly. For example, country singer Waylon Jennings was a member of Holly's band at the time, and was supposed to be on that fateful flight. He gave his seat to Richardson, who had the flu, an act of kindness that saved Jennings's life and cost Richardson his. “The Day The Music Died” does assume that you know who these artists are, spending very little time on their music. That's fine for those who are up on early rock-n-roll, but I couldn't tell you who the Big Bopper is or name one of his hits for you, and “La Bamba” is the only song I know by Ritchie Valens. So, the film provides exquisite detail about the crash, its location in Clear Lake, Iowa, and its legacy, but you have to already know a little background about the musicians, themselves.

The documentary is hit-or-miss when it comes to exploring McLean's song. There's a lot of material here, and I learned a lot about the writing of the song, and a lot more than I cared to about McLean, himself. What I was really hoping for was a blow-by-blow of what each verse in the song means, and you only get a taste of that. McLean denies, for example, that “the king” refers to Elvis or “the Jester” to Bob Dylan, but he does not elaborate, and I'm not sure I take him at his word. Truth be told, McLean comes off as something of a pompous jerk, and he ultimately obscures more than he reveals. Likewise, interviews with artists who have covered the song, like Garth Brooks, are somewhat interesting, but they do not ultimately reveal much about the song itself.

In the end, “American Pie” may simply be too much song for any one examination. Like the Grand Canyon, it is too big to look at the whole thing and also get into the details in one sitting. “The Day The Music Died” can be forgiven for failing to completely illuminate the song in an hour and a half. For fans of the song, it is still well worth watching.

3 stars out of 5

Happy Gilmore (1996) *

 

Netflix has dumped a trove of Adam Sandler films onto its server, with “dump” being the operative word. I've never been a fan of the Sandler oeuvre. His films don't offend me with their violence or foulness; I just don't find them funny. And yet, in the midst of his dumpster fire of a filmography, there is 1998's “The Wedding Singer,” a goofy, funny comedy-with-a-heart. I love that movie so much that I keep giving Sandler a chance. I somehow got the impression that “Happy Gilmore” might be a classic comedy, more along the lines of “The Wedding Singer” than “The Waterboy,” so I gave it a chance. It did not take me long to regret it.

Sandler plays the title character, a frustrated hockey player with fighting skills and a mean slap shot, who can't skate worth a damn. Finding an old set of golf clubs gives Happy a new opportunity in life, as it turns out he can drive a golf ball 400 yards. His swing is unorthodox, and he cannot putt, but that drive might win him enough money to save his grandmother's house.

Does it? I don't know, because I turned this piece of crap off after about 20 minutes. “Happy Gilmore” is boring and stupid. The film lacks the wit to even be so dumb that it's funny. It is just dumb!

1 star out of 5

The Worst Person in the World (2021) ****

 

The latest from Norwegian director Joachim Trier (distant relative of Lars Von Trier) is a romantic black-comedy, coming-of-age-tale about a young woman. It's the third film in what Trier describes as his “Oslo Trilogy,” coming after 2006's “Reprise” and 2011's “Oslo, August 31^st.” I have not seen the first 2 films, but my understanding is that other than being set in Oslo, Norway, they have no connection to each other or to “The Worst Person in the World.” Three movies over 15 years, which all happen to be set in a writer/director's home city, does not seem like much of a trilogy to me. It would be like calling Woody Allen's oeuvre his “New York Trilogy.” Fortunately, “The Worst Person in the World” is thoughtful and engrossing enough to make me forgive that ridiculousness.

We meet Julie (Renate Reinsve) in her early twenties, trying to figure out what to study in college. The film then takes us through her next decade, as she loves and loses and tries to figure out who she is. It could be pretty thin gruel for a whole movie, but the combination of Trier's thoughtful script and Renate Reinsve's charm make this a delightful film that reminds me of 2001's “Amelie.” At the start of the film, I thought that Reinsve looked like the Norwegian Dakota Johnson, but by the end, her magnetic face and charming manner had me thinking that Dakota Johnson may just be the American Renate Reinsve.

Julie is not, of course, the worst person in the world, but the film is named for the fact that she often feels like she is. That's a feeling most of us can identify with, and the thing is, if you are wondering if you are the worst person in the world, you probably aren't. I don't imagine Hitler spent a lot of time worrying about whether he was a bad person. Julie muddles through her 20's, making mistakes and searching for herself, and for 2 hours, Joachim Trier makes her seem like the most interesting person in the world.

4 stars out of 5

Local Hero (1983) ****

 

In this small, but satisfying film, Peter Riegert plays “Mac” McIntire, an ambitious, successful oil company executive. Mac is sent to Scotland to negotiate the purchase of an entire fishing village, to be turned into an oil refinery. His off-kilter boss, Mr. Happer (Burt Lancaster), an amateur astronomer, gives him a secondary assignment, which is to “watch the northern skies” for a comet that Happer can name after himself.

With these marching papers, Mac descends on the village of Ferness, accompanied by Danny Oldsen (Peter Capaldi), a member of the company's U.K. team. Mac and Danny explore the town and beach, meeting a variety of colorful, small-town types. Danny falls in love, while Mac begins to wonder if there is something more to life than his Porsche, his corner office, and his swell, Houston apartment.

“Local Hero” is one of those little movies that knows exactly what it is about. Produced by David Puttnam (“Chariots of Fire”), the film is written and directed by a guy named Bill Forsyth. Forsyth is not particularly famous, but he really gets the tone right in this wistful, wryly funny, character-driven film. “Local Hero” is a forgotten gem from back when they made movies for grown-ups, and it is well worth a watch.

4 stars out of 5

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) ****

 

In a sense, we are lucky we didn't get a “Top Gun” sequel in 1988. The 1986 action flick about Navy fighter pilots was such a hit, and Tom Cruise such a star afterwards, that it's quite surprising that producer Jerry Bruckheimer didn't cash in with a followup 2 years, or 5 years, or even 10 years later. As it went, serious talks about a sequel didn't begin until around 2010, and the the suicide of ”Top Gun” director Tony Scott (“True Romance”) slowed plans even further. All of these delays gave Tom Cruise a chance to mature into a 59-year-old actor who could play an older, sightly grizzled, slightly wiser version of Pete “Maverick” Mitchell who is way more interesting than the cocky fly-boy from 1986.

We find Maverick working as a test pilot and still bucking authority. All these years later, he is still known as an outstanding pilot with an attitude problem, and it is only his friendship with Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer) that has kept him from being booted from the Navy. Iceman's newest assignment for Maverick is to return to the Top Gun Academy and prepare a group of young, hotshot pilots to fly a dangerous, covert mission. Mav rekindles an old flame (Jennifer Connelly), annoys his commanding officers, and shows that he still has the Right Stuff.

To judge “Top Gun: Maverick” based on the usual criteria, like plot, acting, and dialogue, probably misses the point. Like the first “Top Gun,” this film is about two things: fast-paced, jet-fighter action and Tom Cruise's charm, and the film aces both of those. Rather than relying on CGI, Bruckheimer and company used real jet-fighters and real aerial photography, and it shows. The action here feels much more visceral than what you will find in the latest CGI, comic-book movie. This is just pure, high-octane entertainment! Some of the plot points are completely ridiculous, and there is a lot of hackneyed dialogue, but it doesn't matter when a movie looks this good, and when it feels so good to be back in the air with Maverick.

Cruise may be a complete nut in his personal life, but he relentlessly makes good movies. (Check out “Edge of Tomorrow” and “Oblivion” if you haven't, already.) In this case, he gets an assist from an excellent supporting cast, including the promising actors Monica Barbaro and Glen Powell. Both have mostly done TV work and small movies before this, and both have serious star potential. Jennifer Connelly, of course, lights up the screen every time she appears. 

 

(L. Maverick's jacket from 1986. R. Maverick's jacket in the 2019 trailer)

Now, about that Taiwanese flag. In the original “Top Gun,” Maverick had a patch on the back of his bomber jacket that included the flags of Japan and Taiwan. Back in 1988, no one in Hollywood was worried about angering Chinese censors, and I'm sure no one thought much about those patches then. Nowadays, everyone from Disney to the NBA is watching what they say to avoid angering the Chinese Communist Party, which controls access to a 1.5 billion-person market. Thus, when the trailer for “Top Gun: Maverick” first aired in 2019, sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the Japanese and Taiwanese flags on Mav's jacket had been changed. Needless to say, Paramount Pictures took some heat for that, and they wound up putting the original flags back in. There are two lessons here. One is that Western values can still win out over Communist censorship, but only if we raise enough of a squawk about it. Left to their own devices, media companies are going to self-censor and pander to the authoritarians, doing anything they can to get access to a lucrative market. The other lesson is that, with the digital tools now available, any image can be changed or faked at any time. We have to be skeptical of everything we see now, whether we are watching political videos on Facebook or watching Tom Cruise go mach 2 with his hair on fire.

4 stars out of 5