REVIEW: “Wonder Wheel”

WONDER POSTER

Calling the results of Woody Allen’s annualized blueprint to filmmaking ‘wildly hit-or-miss’ is a colossal understatement. Each year the 82 year-old Allen pops out another quirky postmodern exercise in human reflection. When they stick their landing they can be nothing short of delightful. But when they don’t they can be tedious, uninspired and generally unpleasant to watch.

Unfortunately Allen’s latest film “Wonder Wheel” falls in the latter category. It’s set in 1950s Coney Island and puts us in with a mostly flawed and disagreeable lot of characters. The story’s centerpiece is Ginny (Kate Winslet), a clam shack waitress married to carousel operator Humpty (Jim Belushi) and with a pyromaniac son from a previous marriage. Their household is misery personified. The fragilely sober Humpty is occasionally sensitive but mostly loud and abusive. Ginny (one time an aspiring actress) hates her job, wants out of her marriage, and doesn’t mind sharing her unhappiness.

WHHEL1

To make things even more unsavory, Ginny begins having an affair with a younger man named Mickey (Justin Timberlake). He’s a Coney Island lifeguard and wannabe dramatist who also happens to be the movie’s narrator. It’s hard to figure out how the the film wants us to feel about Mickey. You could say Allen treats him as his protagonist and in some ways he’s the one character who comes out of this mess unscathed. Could it reasonably be taken as an indictment on Allen’s perspective? Me, I thought Mickey was a slime.

The one small twinkle of light is in Juno Temple’s character Carolina. She is Humpty’s estranged daughter from his first marriage who shows up after being gone for five years. Turns out her family disowned her after she ran off with a known gangster. Now she is ‘marked’ by the mob after talking to the feds and she seeks help from her father. It’s an absurd angle but Carolina is a nice break from the constant toxicity we get elsewhere. She’s actually sensible, pleasant and ambitious.

WHEEL2

You can’t help but notice Allen once again drawing from Tennessee Williams, but at times I saw it as cheaply ripping from Edward Albee’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”. It’s in Allen’s dialogue and in how he squeezes some of his characters. Take Belushi who has some impressive moments, but his dial is almost always cranked up to 10. Same for Winslet who gives it her all, but is rarely given any softer moments. As her character steadily unravels she’s hardly given room to breathe. It’s a suffocating task for a really good actress.

I have no problems with movies that focus on deeply flawed people or that put us in the company of an unlikable cast of characters. In fact I enjoy those explorations. “Wonder Wheel” has its moments where you begin to see what makes its characters tick. The problem is it doesn’t have an ounce of temperance. And despite its teases of intrigue and some good images from new Allen collaborator Vittorio Storaro, the movie never keeps its footing and becomes little more than an aimless endurance test. But there’s always next year, right? Or is there?

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2-stars

Random Thoughts – 2018 Oscar Nominations

OSCAR

Can you believe it is that time of year again? Oscar season is upon us and this morning the Academy threw out their list of this year’s nominees. As is always the case, there were a handful of big surprises, several frustrations, and some things that simply didn’t make sense. As I tend to do here are a few random thoughts about this year’s Oscar nominations.

  • Maybe Tiffany Haddish wasn’t the best choice to announce this year. Or at least give her the courtesy of a rehearsal. She mispronounced more names that she got right and seemed to have fun doing it.
  • And did you catch Andy Serkis whispering pronunciations to help her out? Ouch!
  • It’s pretty obvious the Academy is smitten with “The Shape of Water”. It earned a whopping 13 nominations. It’s far from a great movie, but it is right up the Academy’s alley.
  • “Logan” is nominated for Adapted Screenplay! I would be lying if I said I saw that coming. It’s a nice addition but the win should go to Sorkin. Whether that will happen….
  • The Original Screenplay category is ridiculous. Seeing films like “Get Out” and “Three Billboards” nominated while “Phantom Thread” is left out is nuts. Good to see Gerwig though.
  • What a strong group of contenders for Best Original Score (although I would swap “Three Billboards” with “A Ghost Story” in a heartbeat). Such a great variety: fantastical (“The Shape of Water”), pulse-pounding (“Dunkirk”), exquisite (“Phantom Thread”), and epic (“Star Wars”). I’ll be rooting for Jonny Greenwood.
  • Speaking of “Three Billboards”, the ‘snub’ that has many people talking is Martin McDonagh’s omission from the Best Director category. Personally I wouldn’t call it a snub. His film is a mess and (at least in this category) the Academy got it right.
  • Sticking with Best Director, Peele’s inclusion blows my mind. I get that the hype train for “Get Out” can’t be slowed, but for a movie with so many glaring flaws in logic (screenplay) and execution (direction) I just can’t get onboard.
  • “Lady Bird” also broke into the Best Director group. It was nice to see. I do wish Dee Rees could have joined her for “Mudbound”.
  • And with the inclusion of Gerwig and Peele that meant someone had to miss the cut. Steven Spielberg was an obvious choice and McDonagh was the surprise (for some). But that also left the door open for Paul Thomas Anderson. Bravo Academy! It would be a flawed category without him.

NOLAN

  • FINALLY! As absurd as it sounds Christopher Nolan’s directing nomination was his very first….EVER. Talk about long overdue.
  • Are Armie Hammer, Tom Hanks, and Michelle Williams really snubs? I mean really?
  • Am I the only one who still thinks of “Dick Poop” whenever these announcements are made?
  • Cheers to Netflix for making significant strides for a streaming service. “Mudbound” earned four well deserved Oscar nominations. It’s a shame one of them wasn’t for Best Picture.
  • Speaking of “Mudbound”, Rachel Morrison is the first woman in the 90-year history of the Oscars to be nominated for Best Cinematography. Let that bewildering fact sink in for a moment.
  • Meryl Streep…blah blah… Lead Actress …blah blah…. 21st nomination …blah blah. The Academy’s Streep infatuation is getting old.
  • I will say this about Streep’s ridiculous nomination for a very Streepish role, it knocks out many far more deserving actresses. Jessica Chastain (“Molly’s Game”) instantly comes to mind. Sigh.
  • Frances McDormand’s nomination for Best Actress was as predictable as her inevitable win. I’ll be rooting for Ronan.
  • James Franco gets left out of the Best Actor pack after getting nominations at the Globes and SAGs. Personally I think the field is too strong for him, but could this have more to do with the recent sexual misconduct allegations?
  • Staying with Best Actor, I hate to keep piling on “Get Out” but much like the movie Daniel Kayuula’s performance is such a mixed bag. Best Actor? No way.

MANVILLE

  • I LOVE what the Academy did with the Supporting Actress category! Allison Janney is winning everything and she’s very good in “I, Tonya”, but I would take the other four nominees ahead of her. Octavia Spencer? Yes, please. And I let out an enthusiastic roar when Manville’s name was announced! It’s about time.
  • Costume Design – It has to be “Phantom Thread”. I can’t imagine anything better. I do wish “Wonderstruck” would have snuck in but that’s the longest of longshots.
  • I enjoyed the little video introductions to the categories. Quick, interesting and a little something different.
  • Speaking of those, apparently that’s as close as “Wonder Woman” will get to an Oscar nomination. I wasn’t really expecting much, but at least one nod would have been nice. It deserved some type of recognition.
  • Good news – we will get plenty of Willem DaFoe gifs and images following his Supporting Actor nomination. Thank you Academy.
  • While on the Supporting Actor subject, I can’t help but giggle at Christopher Plummer’s inclusion. Totally worthy of a nomination, but the story behind his casting and performance is fascinating.
  • But no Idris Elba or Rob Morgan? C’mon Academy!
  • “Boss Baby”? Is it really that good or was it a bad year for animation?
  • It’s hard for me to make any kind of argument in the Foreign Language category. I’ve seen so few of them. But I do wish “First They Killed My Father” had been nominated. And “In the Fade” had been getting a lot of attention (and some big wins) yet it was left out completely. Interesting.
  • The cinematography group is really strong, but “Darkest Hour”? It was unquestionably good but among the five best of the year?
  • And Roger Deakins…his 14th nomination and he has yet to win. He deserves the consideration but I’m afraid the Academy is locked in on “The Shape of Water”.
  • So does this mean Tommy Wiseau doesn’t get an Oscar night invite?
  • Did you hear the applause for Serkis when “War for the Planet of the Apes” was announced for Visual Effects? It made me smile.
  • Almost every year a quirky narrative pops up right around nomination time. This year’s seems to be about Denzel Washington. I’ve seen several people annoyed with Denzel being nominated for his “worst performance”. That blows my mind. “Roman J. Israel, Esq” was an underseen film, but I’m behind his Best Actor nomination. Worst performance? No way.
  • Did you guys notice that Michael Stuhlbarg was in three Oscar nominated movies from last year? That’s impressive.
  • So it all seems to come down to “Three Billboards” versus “The Shape of Water”. Two films that have their own sets of problems. I would love for a dark horse to rise up and make some noise. Neither of the frontrunners seem worthy of the heralded ‘Best Picture’ title.
  • “Dunkirk” for Best Picture. It won’t win. It should win. And that’s about it.

So what did I miss? Share your thoughts on this year’s nominations below. I’d love to hear from you.

REVIEW: “Phantom Thread”

PHANTOMposter

There is a wonderful sensation I experience whenever I’m watching a movie made by a first-rate director. Take a filmmaker like Paul Thomas Anderson whose movies I’m widely mixed on. He is someone who knows his craft and has a firm grasp on how to express his vision. He possesses a clarity of concept and a keen understanding of cinematic storytelling. And even if I’m mixed on whatever movie he is making, I can tell I’m in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing. I adore that feeling.

Then you have the scintillating joy of watching a great actor at work. Someone like Daniel Day-Lewis, another true master of his craft. He and Anderson first came together for “There Will Be Blood”, a modern American classic and a masterclass on the cinematic form both in front of and behind the camera. They team up again for “Phantom Thread” which Day-Lewis has called his final film. The selfish me hopes that isn’t true, but if it is what a fabulous movie to call your last.

Anderson (once again serving as both writer and director) sets his film among the posh fashion culture of 1950s London. The centerpiece is renowned dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis) who along with his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) has built up a distinguished clientele that includes royalty, heiresses, and various other upper-crusters. Reynolds’ world revolves around his work and he has much more interest in the intricate workings of a fine garment than the rudimentary details of a social life. As with many creative minds, his obsession feeds his genius but it also emotionally isolates him from everyone other than Cyril.

Phantom1

Things take a turn when Reynolds heads to his country cottage for some much needed time away. He meets a waitress named Alma (Vicky Krieps) at a seaside cafe and is instantly captivated. Krieps is an accomplished actress from Luxembourg who conveys a sneaky beauty and subtle style befitting her character. Her Alma makes an unanticipated crack in Reynolds’ hard shell – something this “confirmed bachelor” has trouble understanding or responding to. For instance when she asks “Why are you not married?” he can only respond “I make dresses.” It’s a genuine reaction from someone whose past muses were nothing more than temporary fixtures.

Reynolds brings Alma back to London and takes her into the House of Woodcock. She quickly learns he governs his Victorian townhouse/studio with an aristocratical fervor. Seamstresses and assistants scurry about following his meticulous instructions and Alma is soon part of the machine. Only Cyril (who he affectionately calls “my old so-and-so”) seems outside of Reynolds’ rule. You could say she is his handler and at times his conscience (and Manville is just terrific). She knows what makes him tick.

The film’s trailer sells us an unlikely romance and Anderson certainly offers that. But tension mounts as Alma desires a closer relationship while Reynolds withdraws back into his shell. It’s here that the director tosses us a curveball and his movie takes an unexpected turn. The less said the better, but suffice it to say Anderson’s aim isn’t a frothy conventional love story. He injects a subtle psychological edge with pinches of black comedy and it all plays out in a gloriously beguiling stew.

Phantom2

Equally enchanting is the film’s cinematography said to be a result of a “collaborative effort” due to Anderson favorite Robert Elswit being unavailable. The subtle camera movements can be as elegant as the garments Reynolds creates. Look no further than the opening scene where we are given a visual introduction the House of Woodcock. The camera gracefully moves in tune with the sumptuous piano chords of Jonny Greenwood’s score – up a staircase, back down again all with an intoxicating harmony. There is also a steady flow of exquisitely framed shots that offer much to look at and admire while capturing the film’s shifting moods and tones. And of course Mark Bridges’ incredible costume design that should be winning every award it’s eligible for.

The deeper you get into “Phantom Thread” the more there is to absorb. Shades of Hitchcock can be seen from the more obvious “Rebecca” to the more subtle “Psycho”. There are also those rare moments of humor that come at the most unexpected moments. But at its core is a peculiar romance between a reticent yet domineering man and a woman unwilling to play her part in his game. Watching the stunning Daniel Day-Lewis lose himself in another role and an eye-opening Vicky Krieps is an absolute delight. And despite what we think we know about the three central characters, Anderson turns it all on its head.

“Phantom Thread” reveals a dialed-back Paul Thomas Anderson in top form. His writing is spellbinding. His direction is daring and confident. The look of the film is as beautiful as rare Flemish lace. The performances are sublime. Anderson left me hungry to go back and examine every frame, camera movement, and character expression. And remember that wonderful sensation I spoke of earlier? This move stirred those feelings and reminded me of why movies remain my favorite form of storytelling.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5STAR K&M

5-starss

REVIEW: “The Post”

POSTPOSTER

Steven Spielberg’s “The Post” is set in an era when the media (generally speaking) wasn’t egregiously compromised by the political pulls of the left or the right. It was a time (more often than today) when principle took precedent over ideology and the media took seriously the role of equally holding all elected officials accountable to the people. There is far less of that today, although I’m not sure Spielberg and company would agree with me.

“The Post” starts in 1965 with war analyst Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) discovering government deception concerning Vietnam policy and progress. The story bolts forward a few years with Ellsberg stealing classified documents that reveal years of misinformation by the government dating all the way back to the Truman administration. He leaks the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times who run a front page expose before having their story shut down by a court injunction.

THE POST

All of that is setup for the meat of the story which takes place in 1971, Washington D.C. Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) has inherited The Washington Post newspaper following her husband’s suicide, but serving as its publisher and president has been a tough ride. Not counting her own personal lack of confidence, she’s also forced to navigate several obstacles from insecure board members to investors uncomfortable with a woman running the company. For the bulk of the film Spielberg does a good job tapping into the current red-hot women’s issues. It’s later that he moves from effectively showing us the inequality to spelling it out for us. But more on that later.

Her go-getter editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) knows there is more to uncover so he sends his crack assistant editor Ben Bagdikian (a really good Bob Odenkirk) to track down the New York Times’ source. And when sensitive documents fall into their lap, Katharine must decide whether to let Bradlee print the story risking incarceration and the livelihood of her paper.

Spielberg deftly bounces between Katharine’s personal journey and Bradlee’s newsroom. Both are given plenty of time to unfold and develop. As you would expect, Streep is very good and completely in her element. It isn’t an extraordinary performance, but it’s work from her that we sometimes take for granted. Hanks is a different story. It’s not that he’s bad here. He feels off – as if he’s really stretching to sell us a character that Jason Robards did better (and won an Oscar for) 42 years ago.

POST1

Katharine’s stirring story and the thrilling newsroom drama come together in a tense and powerful meeting of the minds (and wills) which Spielberg unpacks to near perfection. But then something happens in the final fifteen minutes or so. In rapid succession the film begins dropping one corny, contrived ‘movie moment’ after another. Storytelling gives way to speechifying and the movie’s themes (previously explored through the story itself) are propped up by glaringly obvious scenes manufactured to the point of phoniness. And then you have Spielberg often straining to make a connection between the Nixon and Trump administration. Again, the material is there, but Spielberg sometimes feels the need to speak for it.

“The Post” does far more right than wrong. For a good three-quarters of his movie Spielberg brilliantly balanced two very different but equally enthralling stories. And for a while I was seeing it as a wonderful “All the President’s Men” companion piece. It’s just a shame the final act resorts to cheap scenes and sappy speeches that seem directly aimed at Oscar voters. But as his movie had already shown, Spielberg didn’t need all of that and the bulk of the picture is an enthralling experience.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

3-5-stars

Best of 2017: Lead Actor

LEAD actor

Once more, each year I set aside time to highlight what I think are the best performances of the past movie year. In keeping with the upcoming Oscars I have adopted their format and over the last several days I’ve shared my favorite performances for each of the four acting categories. Wrapping it up is Lead Actor. As with the others, it’s a category rich with fabulous performances. Of them all here are my five favorites

#5 – Denzel Washington (“Roman J. Israel, Esq.)

ROMAN

We’ve come to expect great performances every time Denzel Washington is on screen. But I still find myself consistently amazed by his steady stream of great work. He brings it again with the underappreciated “Roman J. Israel, Esq.” Only Denzel could bring such flavor and personality to a role like this.

#4– J.K. Simmons (“The Bachelors”)

JK

Speaking of actors who never give a bad performance. J.K. Simmons is always an asset for any movie. He confirms that notion in the underseen indie gem “The Bachelors”. Its not as big or flamboyant at his Oscar-winning turn in “Whiplash”, but his heart-wrenching portrayal of a man smothering under the weight of depression is as true as anything you’ll see from 2017.

#3– Thomas Jane (“1922”)

JANE

I’ve tossed the word “eye-opener” and “surprise” around a few times during these lists but they really fit here. Thomas Jane’s stunning portrayal seems yanked right out of early 20th century middle America. His weathered, tanned face reveals a man who works the earth, but several other touches help give this character life. It could be something as simply as a squint of his eye or a draw of his mouth. It’s seen in his handling of small town period vernacular and his distinctive enunciations. It’s mesmerizing to watch.

#2– Gary Oldman (“Darkest Hour”)

DARKEST

A good performance from Gary Oldman should surprise no one. He’s played Sid Vicious, Count Dracula, and Lee Harvey Oswald. He’s played a Russian terrorist, a corrupt congressman, and a dirty DEA agent. Of course he nails the portrayal of Winston Churchill. It’s impossible to find Oldman in the performance. He’s that committed. And after years of great work this should be his Oscar-winning turn.

#1 – Daniel Day-Lewis (“Phantom Thread”)

screen-shot-2017-10-23-at-9-03-50-am

This is hardly a lifetime achievement pick for his last performance. Instead it’s another showcase for the best actor on the planet. Sure that’s subjective, but Daniel Day-Lewis has consistently proven he is in a league all his own. In “Phantom Thread” he once again teams with Paul Thomas Anderson and the results are stunning. Much like his Daniel Plainview character in “There Will Be Blood”, Day-Lewis digs deep into his role mining every complexity and bringing them to light. It’s a stellar performance and if it is his last, what a way to end a spectacular career.

And that does it for another year. What did I get right and wrong? Let me know in the comments. Let’s do it again next year.

Best of 2017: Lead Actress

LEAD actress

Each year I set aside time to highlight what I think are the best performances of the past movie year. In keeping with the upcoming Oscars I have adopted their format and for several days I’ll be sharing my favorite performances for each of the four acting categories. Next up is the Lead Actress. It too is a category full of fabulous performances to consider. Of them all here are my five favorites

#5 – Gal Gadot (“Wonder Woman”)

GAL GADOT

I think for many people this may be an easy choice to brush off. After all this is a ‘comic book movie’ and the field is so full of incredible and deserving performances. But watching Gal Gadot not simply play a superhero but bring out so many unexpected qualities was a delight. I proudly put her on this list among the year’s best.

#4 – Saoirse Ronan (“Lady Bird”)

RONAN

It shocks me that Saoirse Ronan is only #4 on this list. It’s a testament to the sheer strength of this category. It’s certainly no knock on her. Ronan has been so good in so many films, but this may be her best performance. She is so in tune with Greta Gerwig’s writing and perception of character. Any other year she would top this list. She’s that good in “Lady Bird”.

#3 – Sally Hawkins (“Maudie”)

MAUDIE

Yep, you read that right. I’m picking her for her performance in “Maudie” over “The Shape of Water” (although the latter is yet more proof of her incredible talent). I can’t tell you how mesmerized I was by Hawkins portrayal of folk artist Maud Lewis. In a role that could easily ‘go big’, Hawkins keeps everything grounded and authentic. She’s nothing short of captivating.

#2 – Haley Lu Richardson (“Columbus”)

HALY LU

Of all the performances in 2017 it was Haley Lu Richardson in Kogonada’s “Columbus” who was the biggest revelation. She’s incredible. It’s a soulful, understated performance full of melancholy, charm and sincerity. She’s an incredibly expressive actress and we never see her overplay a scene or oversell an emotion. And there is a longing she is able to convey with the smallest effort. I adore this performance.

#1 – Jessica Chastain (“Molly’s Game”)

MOLLY'S GAME

Much like Sally Hawkins, Jessica Chastain had an incredible year. She could have easily made this list for her work in “The Zookeeper’s Wife”. But it was her spectacular performance in Aaron Sorkin’s dialogue-rich “Molly’s Game” that topped them all for me. It goes without saying that Chastain has proven herself to be one of the best actresses working today, but here she is given some meaty material and she knocks it out of the park.

So what do you think. Where did I go right and what did I miss. Please let me know in the comments section. Also, there is only one more category remaining, Lead Actor. See you then.