Love and Friendship (2016) ****

Based on a little-known, Jane Austen Novella called “Lady Susan,” “Love and Friendship” represents director Whit Stillman's re-imagining of a comic tale of a classic scoundrel. Lady Susan Vernon (Kate Beckinsale) is conniving, manipulative, and a notorious flirt, yet despite her notoriety, people still manage to get taken in by her charms. It's a good thing. She is a penniless widow with nothing but her looks and charm to depend on. She sets out to arrange a good marriage for her daughter, and perhaps for herself as well, although she finds it difficult to give up her sexual dalliances.

Lady Susan is a horrible person, yet she constantly has people in her orbit, defending her indefensible deeds. It seems to be a part of human nature to be attracted to a truly, un-self-consciously amoral person. Susan sometimes lies, but for the most part, her atrocities are right there in the open, and she practically dares people to call her on them. She reminds me of the two atrocious characters, Valmont and Merteuil from “Dangerous Liaisons.”

I never would have selected this movie on my own, but my wife dragged me to it, and good for her! This thing is a hoot! Whit Stillman, known for his talky, funny send-ups of modern, high society types is the perfect person to adapt Jane Austen. Beckinsale was born to play Lady Susan, who is similar in many ways to the harpy she played in "The Last Days of Disco," an earlier Stillman film. You have to give this movie about 10 or 15 minutes to get used to the period language and figure out who all the characters are, but once the story gets going, it is hilarious. The screen really lights up when Tom Bennett shows up as the silly, borderline-retarded Sir James Martin.

I hesitate to use the F-word, but there is something feminist about Lady Susan. As deplorable as she is, her notoriety is based largely on the fact that, in 1790's England, she is a woman. Were she a man, she would use her intelligence to make a fortune, and she would be able to engage in her sexual dalliances as a sideline, with little or no judgment from society. As a woman in that time, however, the only way for her to survive is to find a new husband. As for her sexual peccadilloes, 18th-century England has trouble even conceiving of a woman with such appetites. As the doltish Lord Martin points out, “If a man strays, he's just following his biology. Such behavior from a woman, though, is impossible to imagine.”

4 stars out of 5

Ghostbusters (2016) ***1/2

You cannot discuss the new “Ghostbusters” without making comparisons to the original, 1984 film, so let's just get something out of the way: The original “Ghostbusters” was not perfect. Like every other kid, I liked it when it came out, but when I re-watched it years later, I found it formulaic and lazy. (See my review of the original here.) These guys on the internet complaining that the new movie, with its female ghostbusters, is tarnishing the legacy of a classic movie are giving the original way more credit than it deserves. Bottom line, I think the new version, by Paul Feig (“Bridesmaids”), is better.

Kristen Wiig plays Erin, a physics professor trying to gain tenure and completely leave behind her past as an investigator of the paranormal. That past comes back to haunt her when her old ghost-hunting partner, Abby (Melissa McCarthy) re-releases their book on ghosts. Laughed out of her professorship, Erin has no choice but to join up with Abby and her assistant Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). The timing is perfect, however, as ghost sightings in NYC are on the rise. A sociopathic janitor (Neil Casey) is summoning ghosts and planning to unleash “the 4^th Cataclysm.” With ghost-catching devices invented by Holtzmann, and with their new friend Patty (Leslie Jones), the Ghostbusters set out to prevent the Apocalypse.

It's the same basic story outline as the original, but Paul Feig and his stars really make it their own. There are four ghostbusters, as in the original, but they are not simply analogues of the original characters. It's a new set of human beings, and Feig actually takes the time to develop these characters, which the first movie did not do. Wiig and McCarthy are comic geniuses, and both get to shine here, albeit not like they did in “Bridesmaids.” Kate McKinnon is funny, and gorgeous in a butch sort of way, but she perhaps overplays her badassness a bit. I never got the feeling that she was fully inhabiting her role. For my money, the star of the movie is Leslie Jones, who plays Patty. She could have easily played Patty as a straightforward sassy-black-friend, but she has so much screen presence that she lends the character more heft, if not depth.

The movie's weaknesses are the weaknesses of every action-comedy. The film is so busy packing in jokes, sight gags, and scenes of mayhem that the plot suffers. I would say the ghostbusting team comes together a bit too conveniently. Sometimes the ladies flap their gums when they should be firing their proton guns. Speaking of those proton guns, sometimes they work on the ghosts, and sometimes they don't, depending on what is most convenient for the plot. That's just lazy writing. Chris Hemsworth is sometimes funny as the ghostbusters' dim-witted, pretty-boy receptionist, but I never felt like they got the tone quite right for his character, which is also the feeling I got from McKinnon's Holtzmann. Still, the original “Ghostbusters” had all of these weaknesses and more.

The one thing that the original movie did better than the reboot is the mythology. All that stuff about Sumerian destruction gods and the Keymaster and Gatekeeper from the original film was actually kind of cool. This reboot really isn't all that interested in the supernatural, and barely manages to throw in a little bit about ley lines and vortices.

One thing “Ghostbusters” is NOT, regardless of what trolls on the internet are saying, is sexist or racist. I never felt, as a white man, that I was being attacked. What I did feel was joy at seeing a summer movie that is actually funny and fun. “Ghostbusters” isn't going to change your life, and it isn't another “Bridesmaids,” but it's definitely worth the price of admission.

3.5 stars out of 5

Look Who's Back (Er Ist Wieder Da, 2015, German) ****

A couple of years ago, if you had told me that what the world needed was a satirical movie about Adolph Hitler traveling through time to show up in 2014 Germany, I would have said you were nuts. In the light of the present day, I would say this film couldn't be more timely.

Hitler (Oliver Masucci) wakes up in a 2014 Berlin park completely disoriented after an apparently successful time-travel escape from his WWII bunker. People he encounters assume he is an actor, and they laugh and take pictures with him. He finds refuge in a news stand, where he starts to get his wits about him and embark on “the first step...gathering information.” Reading the news, he realizes that the world is perfectly ripe for him to make a comeback, what with economic troubles, unemployment, and immigration issues. A freelance documentarian discovers him and drives him around Germany, filming while Hitler chats up everyday Germans, commiserating with their troubles. He finds deep currents of disaffection with politicians and especially with immigrants. Once he gets on TV, his audience grows exponentially. People assume he is a comedian doing a Hitler act, but his message strikes a nerve nonetheless.

“Er Ist Wieder Da” is based on the best-selling, comedic novel of the same name, but the movie does something the book could not. Borrowing a page from the movie “Borat,” the director films real Germans talking with Hitler, expressing their resentment of immigrants in shockingly candid vignettes. Of course, not everyone is ready to board the Hitler-train. Several of these unwitting movie stars do themselves and their country credit by confronting his ideas. Nonetheless, it's disturbing to see so many Germans openly express support for a man who looks like Hitler, presents himself as Hitler, and promotes Hitler's racist, nationalist ideology. As Hitler says towards the end of the film, “I never presented myself as anything else.”

This is a refreshing, often hilarious cautionary tale, even if it feels a bit long at almost two hours. Star Oliver Masucci absolutely makes the film. He plays Hitler with a riveting intensity and charisma. He demonstrates how any idea, no matter how bad, can be appealing if it is expressed with absolute certainty and confidence. As Yeats said, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

4 stars out of 5

Ant-Man (2015) ***

The title of this installment in the Marvel universe almost seems like a joke to me, like, “We've got Batman, Spiderman, and every other kind of “Man” there is. What's left? How about 'Ant Man'?” But Ant Man has been around for a while, dating back to 1962. The original Ant-Man was scientist Hank Pym, who invented the suit that allowed him to shrink to the size of an ant and communicate with ants. This 2015 film, part of the Avengers Universe, shows Dr. Pym passing the suit to ex-con cat burglar Scott Lang (Paul Rudd.) Pym has kept the Pym Particle, which is the secret to his shrinking ability, under wraps for decades. Now his old protege, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) has cracked the code, developing a shrinking suit that he calls the Yellow Jacket. Cross is marketing the Yellow Jacket as a weapon, and Pym recruits Scott to steal the new suit and destroy the research data behind it. Pym is reluctantly aided by his daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lily), who feels that she should really be the one wearing the ant suit.

“Ant Man” is, in some ways, one of the better of the Marvel Comics movies, but it also feels the least substantial. Iron-Man Tony Stark is a recovering alcoholic who invents powerful weapons and struggles to make sure they don't wind up being used for evil. Captain America Steve Rogers is a man severed from his own era, trying to dutifully serve his country, but ever on guard against authoritarianism. Ant Man Scott Lang, though, is just an unemployed ex-con who wants to get to see his daughter. The movie doesn't expend much energy convincing us that this sad sack would accept Pym's mission or that Pym would select him in the first place.

If the heroes are a bit under-developed in these movies, you can usually count on the villain to be memorable, but Corey Stoll's Cross is like a cardboard cutout of a villain. Evangeline Lily isn't much better in her black bob and wafer-thin emotional armor.

Fortunately, what a movie lacks in depth, it can make up in humor and charm, and Paul Rudd has both in abundance. It's simply impossible not to like him in a film. He gets an assist from a funny supporting cast, including Bobby Canavale as his ex-wife's new man. Michael Douglas and his iron jaw are also excellent, providing just enough gravitas to hold the film together.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what “Ant Man” is supposed to be about, but the movie provides enough laughs and action to make up for its lack of plot. Now that the character is established, I hope Paul Rudd will get to do something more interesting with him in a future movie.

3 stars out of 5

It Follows (2014) ****

After a couple of dates, Jay (Maika Monroe) has a back-seat hookup with a new acquaintance. She figures the date is going pretty well, until Hugh tells her the bad news. Their tryst has passed on to her the curse of a demon that will follow her until either she passes it on by having sex with someone else, or it gets its hands on her. The opening sequence of the film shows us what can happen when this thing catches up to someone, and believe me, it means business. The worst part is that you can never really be rid of this thing, because if it kills someone, then it just goes back after the person who passed it to that person, working its way back down the line. Relentless is the word that comes to mind.

I don't really watch many horror movies anymore. It's a generally accepted rule that horror films are made for teenagers, who are fascinated by exploring the possibility of their own mortality, partly because they don't fully believe in their own mortality yet. A grown person has plenty of genuinely scary things to worry about, with no need to stare into the celluloid abyss. “It Follows,” however, is not just a good horror movie, it is a good movie, period. The acting is excellent, and the characters' actions are believable, even if they don't always do the smartest thing at a given time. The writing is good enough that their actions make sense in terms of who they are and the nightmare in which they are trapped. The camera work in this film is beautifully framed as well, with some absolutely stunning shots. The film also creates a sense of timelessness by having the characters dress in vintage clothing and using cars from various eras. Even the seasons seem unstable, creating a nightmarish sense of disorientation. This movie is going to age well, and I suspect it will show up in some film school lectures.

When done properly, horror movies can teach us a lot about ourselves by making us examine what we fear. Is it fear of the “other”, or fear that the people we love aren't who we think they are. Maybe it's the fear that our sins will catch up to us. The demon in “It Follows” represents an unavoidable doom that is always coming for us, basically a stand-in for death. The characters can delay that doom by having sex with someone, but they know that it is still out there, potentially working its way back to them. Besides being a metaphor for mortality, “It” is, of course, a pretty obvious stand-in for sexually-transmitted disease, particularly the AIDS epidemic, which is interesting, because people who are today the age of these characters don't know much about the AIDS epidemic. Those who lived through that epidemic will recognize the sense of fear surrounding sex, and the necessary paranoia about one's sexual partner and their past partners created in this film.

It's a standard horror film trope to equate sex with death, but “It Follows” makes the connection much more explicit. In doing so, writer/director David Robert Mitchell has created a delightfully original tale that belongs in the cannon of great films like John Carpenter's “The Thing.” From the horrifying opening sequence, the movie creates an overpowering sense of dread with its thrumming score and the sense that “it” may appear at any moment, moving slowly but malevolently. “It Follows” is definitely one to check out, as long as you can handle a few nightmares.

4 stars out of 5

Battle Royale (2000, Japanese) **

A group of teenage school kids are put on an island, given weapons, and instructed to kill each other off. Collars around their neck will explode in three days unless only one of them is left alive, so they cannot simply join together and refuse to fight. At certain points in the day, various parts of the island become danger zones that will make the collars explode, so the kids have to constantly move around. Only young love can help them survive. The ensuing bloodshed is promoted as entertainment to the Japanese populace.

If this movie sounds like a Japanese rip-off of “The Hunger Games,” be aware that the first “Hunger Games” novel came out in 2008, while the “Battle Royale”novel was written in 1996, with the movie released in 2000. If anything, the accusations of plagiarism should be going in the other direction, as the stories are remarkably similar. Whoever came up with the idea, the “Hunger Games” movie is a much better film. “Battle Royale” is full of nonsensical plot points and a distinctly Japanese style of acting that involves over-acting alternating with staring blankly. I suppose the movie has a certain culty charm, if you are into that sort of thing.

The paradox of movies like this is that even as we in the audience judge the sick society that creates entertainment out of kids murdering each other, we are also watching the killings, reveling in the action as our chosen players kill off the other characters. The director tricks us into cheering on the very violence that we condemn. While we're talking about exploitation, you can't help but notice that all the young actresses in this film wear short, little schoolgirl skirts.  So it isn't a complete loss.

2 stars out of 5

Grandma (2015) ***

Don't be thrown off by the title of this movie or by its twee-sounding Netflix description. “Grandma” is actually pretty decent.

Lily Tomlin plays Elle, once a famous poet, now sort of coasting. On the day that Elle breaks up with her latest girlfriend (Judy Greer), Elle's granddaughter Sage (Julia Garner) shows up needing quick cash for an abortion. Elle doesn't have the cash, so the two start hitting up old friends and lovers, and Sage winds up learning a lot about her grandma.

That may not sound like much fun, but trust me that the excellent cast makes this little, film-festival-type movie work. Julia Garner, the curly-haired blond who plays Kimberly on “The Americans,” has a real career ahead of her. Judy Greer shows once again that she is one of the best character-actors working today. Sam Elliot is excellent as Elle's ex-husband. Lily Tomlin is wonderful, playing Elle with the perfect amount of frankness and occasional ferocity. Her strange-looking face is impossible to look away from, and at the age of 76, she still moves like a 20-year-old.

One thing that limits this film's audience is its very distinct cultural viewpoint. This is a movie about a lesbian helping her granddaughter get an abortion. People who are passionately opposed to anything in that sentence will probably want to give “Grandma” a skip.

“Grandma” is fair to all its characters, exposing each person's flaws, but giving each one's story a fair shake. The movie is really about Elle, though. Widowed by the death of her longtime lover, Violet, Elle is facing the fact that she is growing old alone. She has her moments of bitterness, but mostly she faces this with grace and stoicism. Elle is not defined by any of the labels that could be applied to her: not just a “writer,” not just a “lesbian,” and definitely not just a “grandma.”

3 stars out of 5

Warriors (1979) ***

“The Warriors” is the story of nine members of the Warriors, a gang from Coney Island, who travel to a huge gang parlay in Harlem. There, a charismatic gang leader named Cyrus preaches that all the gangs should unite and rule the streets. He is an attractive character, and his words find some appreciative ears, but he is assassinated, gunned down while making his appeal. No one apparently sees who fired the fatal shot, and Luther (David Patrick Kelly), the guilty party, randomly chooses the Warriors to pin it on. In the chaos that ensues, everyone pretty much accepts the Warriors' guilt, and they beat down and likely kill the Warriors' leader, Cleon. The other eight Warriors escape and spend the rest of the night running from one rival gang's territory to the next, racing to get back to Coney Island before the other gangs hunt them down.

The novel from which the movie is adapted is based loosely on the ancient Greek story “Anabasis,” the tale of 10,000 Greek mercenaries who had to fight their way back home from Persia. Like those Greek soldiers, the Warriors have to fight their way back to the sea.

During a lull in the violence, the Warriors discuss the merits of the fallen Cyrus's plan, and the difficulty in turning it into reality. “It's all out there for the taking. You just gotta figure out what's worth stealing.” When a group of well-off, young people boards the train, the Warriors see that what those kids have is what is worth stealing, that carefree life, but it's something beyond their grasp.

When one of the rich kids drops a corsage, Swan picks it up and gives it to Mercy, saying, “I just hate to see something go to waste.” You get the feeling he is talking about her, not the flowers, but the story itself is a lament to the waste of all these capable youths, who are going to waste as well.

The thing about this 1970s cult classic, like all cult classics really, is that you can't take it too seriously. The movie is sometimes so cheesy it's painful, but you have to view the film more like a comic book. The action is cartoonish, the characters are barely developed, they make stupid decisions, and the movie glorifies street gangs in a way that led to violent confrontations during it's 1979 theatrical run. Still, with its depiction of bare-armed tough-guys roaming the gritty streets of 1970's New York City, the film has a certain gumption that justifies its cult status.

3 stars out of 5

Black Hawk Down (2001) **

I don't really have much patience for political correctness, and I'm not one who sees racism everywhere. It means something, then, when I say that “Black Hawk Down” may be the most racist movie I have ever seen. The movie is decently-filmed, frenetic war-porn, but the constant barrage of menacing, black faces charging at the white protagonists eventually takes on the feel of a video game for white supremacists.

“Black Hawk Down” is based on America's adventures in Somalia, in 1993. As clan warlords tore Somalia apart, American troops joined a multinational force of “peacekeepers.” During an operation to capture a some high-ranking militia leaders, everything went to shit, and American troops encountered more resistance than expected. Two helicopters were shot down, and the efforts to rescue those crews extended the short mission into a vicious overnight battle. The mission succeeded in its objectives, but 18 American soldiers died, with 73 wounded. At the time, this was America's bloodiest battle since Vietnam.

That we considered this a major defeat is a testament to our arrogance, considering that Somali casualties ran in the thousands. During this operation, American soldiers drove right into the middle of an enemy stronghold to take their leaders captive. The idea that we could do this without taking some casualties is pure hubris. Does “Black Hawk Down” do anything to correct that hubris? Not really. The movie simply revels in the violence, celebrating the individual heroism of the American soldiers, while treating the hateful, unexplained enemy as faceless avatars to be slaughtered. I have no problem with the film acknowledging each American death, but meanwhile,Somalis are being killed by the hundreds. I was curious why, after seeing their comrades mowed down by superior firepower, those Somalis kept charging in to kill and be killed. Instead of exploring their motivations, the movie gives us the captured arms dealer Atto (George Harris) another menacing black man, who smugly smokes cigars in American detention while lecturing General Garrison (Sam Shepard) that “This is our war, not yours.”

I don't call this movie racist simply because it depicts a black enemy. I also find it amazing that in this large, ensemble cast, there is only one black soldier (Gabriel Casseus), and his role is a minor one. The U.S army is 20-30% black, and yet out of the 20-or-so soldier characters whose faces we see more than once in this film, only one is black, and his is barely a speaking role. To quote everyone on social media, “I'm just sayin'.”

Even though we won the Battle of Mogadishu, it killed America's appetite for intervention in Somalia. Bill Clinton pulled our troops out of the country afterward, leaving it to chaos. It simply became clear that there was no way for us to win there. The only thing Somalis wanted to do more than kill each other was kill outsiders. There was an important lesson there about the limits of military power, but “Black Hawk Down” skips right over any opportunity to explore that lesson.

Technically, “Black Hawk Down” is awesome. Director Ridley Scott captures the chaos of battle, and keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time. He also honors the sacrifices of some very brave American soldiers. It's a shame he didn't do it with a better, more thoughtful film.

2 stars out of 5

Carol (2015) ***

I'm a bit behind on watching my Oscar-nominated movies this year, so I was psyched when the DVD for “Carol” became available on Netflix. You may have heard of this one. It's the quiet, period piece about a forbidden, lesbian love affair, starring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara. Some of you are already tuning out at this point, and I can't blame you. These movies can be tedious. I'll just jump ahead and tell you what you mainly want to know, which is “Is there any girl-on-girl action?” The answer is yes, but it takes them ages to get around to it.

For those interested in the actual plot of the movie, it centers around Carol (Blanchett), a rich, bored, 1950's woman in an unhappy marriage. Her husband loves her, but her history of “close” friendships with women is driving them to divorce. When Carol meets Therese (Mara) in a department store, the chemistry is immediate. Soon the two are hanging out as friends, and then Carol invites Therese on a vacation. Having just met Carol a couple of weeks before, you might think Therese would decline, and spend the holiday with her fiance, but she just packs a bag and heads out for what she probably figures will be some “Thelma and Louise”-style adventure. I wish it had turned out that way! Carol is actually packing a gun, so you figure maybe they will end up robbing a bank or something, but nothing like that happens. We just get to watch Carol being depressed and conflicted, because her husband is using her lesbian affairs as ammunition in their custody battle. She does make herself feel better by finally (FINALLY!) going to bed with Therese, but that's as wild as their trip gets.

I'm making the movie sound worse than it is. The performances are actually quite good, and the movie is filmed beautifully. It just feels very inert to me, this little time capsule about intolerance and closeted life in the 1950's. If you are into this kind of movie, then I don't think you will regret watching “Carol,” but it isn't a movie I can imagine watching again.

3 stars out of 5