Truly great movies can leave indelible marks. It may be through an emotional connection to the story. It may be through a remarkable performance or a signature scene. But it could also be through the brilliant imagery that a film can carve into your mind. That’s what this feature is all about – highlighting great images from great movies. Today we look at a Steven Spielberg’s 80’s action classic and one of my personal all-time favorites.
Who knew back in 2001 that “The Fast and the Furious” would not only spark its own franchise but that it would spawn seven sequels (so far) and collectively make well over $5 billion (again so far). And considering how often they churn out installments did the really need to branch off into spinoff territory?
The current Hollywood model for franchises says “YES”. So that leads to the first Fast and Furious Presents film “Hobbs and Shaw”. For those of you out of the loop, Luke Hobbs (the beefy Dwayne Johnson) is a federal agent who gets the job done and leaves a trail of mass destruction in the process. Deckard Shaw (the more dapper Jason Statham) is special forces-turned-mercenary with a strong dislike for Hobbs.
What if something happened that forced these two meat-headed tough guys to put aside their differences and team up? That’s the stuff of a good spinoff, right? Well that something comes in the form of the Snowflake virus. You know the drill – a deadly virus that if released would quickly spread and wipe out the earth’s population (why do these scientists just keep inventing these things?).
Enter the movie’s wildcard (and welcomed new ingredient) Vanessa Kirby. She plays Hattie Shaw (that last name ring a bell?). She’s an MI6 agent who retrieves the virus from some meanies before running into their boss Brixton Lore (a really fun Idris Elba). He’s a cybernetic-enhanced terrorist working for the shadowy outfit Eteon. Hattie escapes by the skin of her teeth which prompts Lore to frame her for the killing of her team and theft of the virus.
Hattie goes off the grid while Hobbs and Shaw are brought in to track her down. And all three are being hunted by Lore and his high-tech band of baddies. If you’ve seen any of the more recent Fast & Furious movies you know the blueprint of this one – humongous action set pieces linked together by small segments of story. To the film’s credit, it does offer a nice slice of pathos in the final act built upon the franchise’s long-running theme of family.
One of the biggest reasons these movies have worked is because they know exactly what they are. I think “Hobbs and Shaw” may be the most self-aware F&F movie yet. It’s constantly riffing on itself and especially its two lead characters. Much of this is done through the snappy comedic chemistry between the slab of granite Johnson and the more buttoned-up Statham. Their constant witty banter pokes fun not only at their characters but also the roles these actors often play. And both guys have more than enough charm and charisma to pull it off.
But again, the testosterone-driven action and humor could have worn out its welcome if not for the movie’s ace in the hole – Vanessa Kirby. In last year’s “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” she grabbed our attention with her seductive and mysterious presence. We still get some of that, but this role gives her a lot more to do. Her character is always smarter and in many instances tougher than any of the barking alpha males she shares a screen with.
And of course there is the action, the franchise’s true bread and butter. There is no shortage of it in “Hobbs and Shaw” and it’s often as exhilarating as it is preposterous. Director David Leitch showed his action movie chops with his 2014 debut “John Wick”. Some of that style seeps its way into this film particularly in the hand-to-hand fighting. But it’s the crazy over-the-top set pieces (often involving vehicles) that are the most fun. It’s just a shame that so many of the signature action moments were given away in the trailer.
In a nutshell, “Hobbs and Shaw” is exactly what you should expect it to be – funny, violent, predictable and utterly preposterous. But if it were anything else I would have been disappointed. It’s essentially a story of two frenemies who go about things differently but who are cut from the same cloth. Now add a ton of wit, even more eye-popping action, a fun Idris Elba, and a fabulous Vanessa Kirby and you have a summer blockbuster that’s just begging to be your new guilty pleasure.
Lately we’ve seen a resurgence of interest in the works of American horror/mystery writer Shirley Jackson. Much of the thanks could go to Netflix and their popular television adaptation of Jackson’s “The Haunting of Hill House”. Now we have a feature film based on Jackson’s final novel “We Have Always Lived in the Castle”.
Stacie Passon directs and Mark Kruger writes the screenplay for what is essentially a gothic family drama and mystery thriller mash-up. Set in 1960s New England and with a healthy air of gloom and dread, the story follows two troubled but tight-knit sisters. They live on the huge estate where six years earlier a terrible family tragedy shook them and the nearby village.
Since then the Blackwood sisters mostly stay isolated within the walls of the mansion left behind by their deceased parents. Constance (Alexandra Daddario) never leaves and a cloud of speculation and rumor hangs over her. Was she responsible for horrible event that struck her family? The prattling, gossipy townsfolk certainly think so. And they let the younger sister Mary Katherine (Taissa Farmiga) know it during her weekly trips for supplies.
The villagers are a major influence on the psychology of the story. Their mean-spirited and scandalous hearsay pushes the sisters to stay in isolation, living alone with their tragedy, their secrets, and their disabled Uncle Julian (Crispen Glover). His semi-coherent ramblings are a mixture of utter nonsense and tiny nuggets of revelation – keys to understanding the mystery behind what happened six years earlier.
While far from ideal, the Blackwood girls have carved out a life for themselves in seclusion. But it’s turned on its head when out of nowhere their cousin Charles (Sebastian Stan) pays a visit. He immediately sets his eyes on Constance which puts him at odds with Mary Katherine who is willing to protect her sister at all cost.
As the story unfolds we end up with multiple layers of mystery. What is Charles’ motivations? What’s with Mary Katherine’s fascination with magic spells (even though there’s no evidence any of her spells work)? And what really happened in Blackwood Manor six years prior? Passon explores these questions by leaning into the characters and the individual strengths of her cast. She provides plenty of atmosphere, manages tone well, and keeps things moving at just the right pace. She then allows room for the performances to shine.
“We Have Always Lived in the Castle” is a well-made gothic thriller with a surprisingly rich human element. Much of that can be attributed to Jackson’s novel which was influenced by her own personal experiences. It may be a little light on the thriller side, but it does wrestle with some interesting themes and the overarching air of mystery is quite satisfying.
I’ve always been a sucker for war movies especially those with a riveting story at its core. “1917” sees Sam Mendes directing his first film since stepping away the Bond franchise. He co-writes the screenplay with Krysty Wilson-Cairns and acclaimed composer Thomas Newman provides the score. But arguably the most exciting name attached is none other than cinematographer Roger Deakins.
The film is set during World War I and follows two young soldiers who are given a harrowing mission. They must deliver a message calling off a planned attack. If they fail their task an estimated 1,600 men will lose their lives, among them is one of the soldier’s brother. The first trailer leaves a strong first impression, looking both intense and utterly thrilling.
“1917” hits theaters on Christmas day and hopefully in wide release. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.
Quentin Tarantino movies are no strangers to controversy and you could say the notorious filmmaker has courted that kind of attention throughout his career. Sometimes his provocations are potent and edgy. Other times they are rooted in ridiculous amounts of excess and overindulgence. So the fact that people are talking about his new film is no surprise.
What does surprise me is the sheer volume of outrage sparked by “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, a movie I stand by as Tarantino’s tamest, most mature, and (shockingly) most compassionate film to date. Yet the accusations are serious, troublesome, and (if true) cause for serious concern. Some have branded the film racist, misogynistic, even deeply conservative (gasp). Others have went as far as to say it condones/defends violence against women while pointing fingers at the ‘whiteness’ and ‘maleness’ not only the lead characters but also of those who defend the film (my wife loved it too, so there’s that).
These accusations are weighty enough to warrant respectful consideration especially considering Tarantino’s not-so-spotless track record. So I’m not into berating different opinions or other readings of his latest movie. But I do profoundly disagree with the majority of these particular criticisms, not because I’m a white male whose thought process is defined and controlled by those characteristics. But because I believe the movie itself offers some significantly different readings of its ‘controversies’. Here are some of them…
Sharon Tate: Complaints about Sharon Tate’s inclusion in the film were almost immediate. Many felt it was insensitive but over time the issues have evolved. Now most of the criticism is in how little dialogue Margot Robbie is given and how “pointless” Tate is to the story, both things rooted in Tarantino’s chauvinism. Actually Tate’s role is far from pointless and her sparse dialogue makes sense considering (1) This isn’t a movie about Sharon Tate and (2) Her character has a very unique (and I would argue beguiling) role to play in the film.
Not to rehash my review, but Sharon Tate is as much of a symbol as a character. In the film Tate represents innocence, goodness, and compassion. She is a constant ray of light and Tarantino shoots her with an ever-present glow. I found Robbie to be very effective in conveying these ideas. Interestingly, her vitality and optimism stands in sharp contrast to the darkening societal backdrop. And there is a looming sense of dread as history tells us where her story is heading. And about that…
The Ending: There are so many elements to Tarantino’s ending that I love. First, it’s essential to know that so many of his movies take place in alternate realities. These worlds he creates look like ours and often function like ours, but they are hardly beholden to our rules. And Tarantino has shown an affection for taking dark points in history and turning the tables. In “Django Unchained” the slave bests the slave owners. In “Inglourious Basterds” the Jewish-American militia bests Hitler and his generals.
He employs the same idea in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”. In this world the Manson family members (one male, two females) are brutally beaten and burned before ever reaching a pregnant Sharon Tate and her friends. It’s an intensely graphic sequence with a dash of absurdist comedy tossed in. Yes, it was at the hands of two men, but for me this wasn’t Tarantino flipping his nose at violence towards women. It’s an alternate take on what was in reality the savage and unrepentant slaughter of five innocent people. It’s the Tarantino twist of really bad people getting their comeuppance.
One of the sweetest things about this ending is how it attempts to distance Sharon Tate from what culture always associates her with – victimhood. In Tarantino’s timeline Tate isn’t forever connected with the Manson family. She still has a future, a career, a baby to give birth to and raise. Again, she is a symbol of hope and this film hope doesn’t die on the Manson family’s blade. And that final crane shot showing Sharon and her friends coming out to meet Rick really drives this home.
Cliff Booth: For me, Brad Pitt absolutely steals the show and I found his Cliff Booth character to be the most intriguing of all. But some see him as yet another example of the film’s misogyny. Much of that comes from a single question the movie doesn’t clearly answers – did Cliff kill his wife?
Tarantino sets his audience up to draw their own conclusions. If you buy that Cliff is a cold-blooded killer then naturally the character and how he is depicted will be problematic. But the movie doesn’t offer definitive proof. In fact, I would say it offers more reasons to believe that things aren’t so black-and-white. Does the movie exonerate him? No it doesn’t. But it doesn’t convict him either. His angle could just as easily be about Hollywood gossip, blacklisting, etc.
And think of his other actions throughout the film that would seem to clash with those of a cold, calloused murderer. He’s friendly, laid-back, and easy-going. He’s loyal to his friend, ever content, and a constant encourager. He turns down the sexual advances of an attractive minor. He cares enough to check on an elderly friend who may be in trouble at Spahn Movie Ranch. Once again, you could view it all through a misogynistic lens, but for me it’s tough to reconcile that reading with the character we get on screen.
Bruce Lee: I have to admit this one surprised me a bit. The movie has been called insensitive, disrespectful, and in some cases racist for a particularly funny scene between Cliff and Bruce Lee (remarkably played by Mike Moh). In the sequence we see a cocky Lee holding court on a studio backlot. Cliff calls him out and the two engage in a silly hand-to-hand challenge. It ends in a draw and the whole thing plays out as a big gag. But some have taken Lee’s depiction in the film seriously. Respectfully this includes his daughter Sharon.
First, it’s key to recognize that the entire scene is framed as a recollection. Sure, it’s meant to show that Cliff could hold his own with one of the greatest, but it’s still his recollection of the encounter from his point of view. Second, this isn’t the only time we see Bruce Lee in the film. There is a brief but tender moment between him and Sharon Tate that shows a side of the martial arts star dramatically different from what we see in Cliff’s memory. So it makes sense that one scene is a guy’s silly memory to the time he duked it out with Bruce Lee while the other shows a truer and more compassionate representation of who he really was.
Once again Tarantino is a filmmaker who too often provokes these types of conversations. It’s a shame because I do believe “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is a truly great film. And I’m no Tarantino apologist (as followers of this site certainly know). But his latest movie has stoked a fascinating array of interpretations. For what they’re worth, these are mine. Nothing more, nothing less. So, what say you?
It goes without saying that a new Martin Scorsese movie that brings together Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Harvey Keitel is destined to grab attention. It certainly grabbed mine when it was first announced months ago. The film is considered a passion project for Scorsese and currently sits as the most expensive movie the acclaimed filmmaker has ever made.
The first trailer has landed ahead of the film’s upcoming debut at the New York Film Festival. First impressions – it looks very much like a classic Scorsese picture and it looks like the $200 million budget went to good use. Intriguing period recreation and a stellar cast back in their comfort zones is more than enough to get me onboard.
“The Irishman” is set for a theater release but the size has yet to be clarified. Netflix owns the rights so it should be available to stream later this year. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.
