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