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