The story behind the fall of Fox News mogul Roger Ailes amid accusations of sexual harassment seems perfect for the modern day big screen. But in such a ridiculously polarized and toxic political climate could they tell this story in a way that did justice to the facts and more importantly the women who risked their careers telling their stories? After watching the new trailer for “Bombshell” I still don’t know the answer to that.

The trailer’s cringy and glaringly on-the-nose opening instantly brings into question whether this is going to be an eye-opening expose or a heavy-handed political hit piece. Sure, that kind of garb will always have its apologists, but I’m more interested in the women (played by the compelling trio of Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie, and Charlize Theron) and their fight to expose workplace sexual harassment. Thankfully we get hints of that later in the trailer. So if they keep the nonsense out and stick with the true story this could be really good. Needless to say I’m a little skeptical.

“Bombshell” hits theaters December 20th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or giving it a pass.

SPOILER WARNING: If you haven’t seen “Joker” be warned.

“Joker” has been out in wide release for a week and it remains an intensely hot topic. From moviegoers to Academy voters, “Joker” has provoked strong conversations and reactions have included everything from vitriol to the highest praise. Unfortunately misguided “controversies” of all shapes and sizes have popped up leading some people to talk more about them than this outstanding film.

The loudest of the “controversies” is the one claiming “Joker” celebrates, condones, encourages, inspires or at the very least gives a pass to the violence it depicts. This either comes from a strict and literal reading of the film or a negligence when it comes to examining the movie as a whole and wrestling with the themes it puts out there. Plainly put, “Joker” in no way promotes, champions, or excuses the violence it shows. Quite the opposite actually. It may be unsettling and difficult to digest. It may be too much for some audiences (which is understandable and respectable). But those things do not equal a pro-violence stance.

I’m convinced that much of this is drawn from the film’s ending and the different ways people have read it. Without question the way you interpret the ending of “Joker” can have a huge impact on how see the movie as a whole. For me there are several compelling ways of reading it (interestingly none of them condones or inspires violence). Here are three interpretations that I not only find highly plausible, but also critical to understanding what “Joker” is going for.

Reading 1 – This is the probably the most comic-booky reading but there is credibility to it. There have been several iterations of the Joker’s gang of henchman in the comics, the animated series, even the Batman films. At the end of “Joker” the battered Clown Prince is lifted up by a raucous crowd of violent protesters all donning clown masks. They place him on the hood of a car where he stands up like a messianic figure to their rapturous applause.

It makes sense to say this adoring group surrounding him is the first manifestation of Joker’s notorious gang. Everything about them fits the bill. It’s also important to note that Joker’s gang was never made up of fine upstanding individuals. They were thugs, murderers, the criminally insane, etc. So it goes without saying that these kinds of individuals lifting Joker up as their hero doesn’t mean the movie is doing the same thing. So in this reading Arthur is gone, Joker has taken over, and his gang of dangerous goons are ready to follow.

Reading 2 – Many have viewed the movie as heralding Joker as a hero, not just to the aforementioned miscreants who would become members of his gang, but to the disenfranchised and downtrodden of Gotham City. But does the hero interpretation really hold up? Toss aside the Joker Gang reading completely and look at it through a more psychological lens. Joker is no hero. Yes our sympathies are with him early on, but he crosses line after line on his road to villainy. In a nutshell our sympathies can only go so far and the idea of someone worshiping Joker should be terrifying and repulsive.

That is a very reasonable way of looking at the scene where Joker stands on the car bathing in the cheers of his idolizers. The movie doesn’t join in on the celebration. It paints a frighteningly grim picture of human depravity, one much different than the vile apathy of the rich elite, but just as heinous. This is how I initially viewed that scene – as an effective image of absolute moral decay and how far a society can spiral. And along with that comes a wickedly clever way in which the film makes our responses to it either indict or exonerate us.

Reading 3 – This one may be the most fun to consider and it’s the interpretation that lately I’ve been leaning towards the most. Simply put, what if it’s all in Arthur’s head? What if the entire movie is Arthur telling his story to the psychiatrist we see in the final scene? We already know the entire movie is told from his point-of-view and he has proven to be an unreliable narrator. Over the course of the film we learn that some of what we see didn’t actually happen. This makes questioning the validity of certain story beats completely fair game.

This also answers any potential questions (whether fair or not) that the movie venerates Joker. If Arthur grows to see himself as a hero and an inspiration, it makes sense that the movie would show it and it would be part of his storytelling. In his mind he is a leader and the one who inspired the uprising. Interestingly, you could say he’s even wrong there. Early in the film Thomas Wayne refers to protesters as “clowns”. That statement is what triggered the clown mask protests. Arthur’s subway killings happen to intersect with it, not cause it. It’s yet another delusion born out of his growing desire to be noticed.

So we’re back to the conversation with the psychiatrist where Arthur references a handful of things including a specific joke he’s certain the doctor wouldn’t get. It comes across as a perfect ending to a story he would believably be telling. It’s not a seamless theory but it makes sense of the sometimes hazy storytelling.

These are just three of the many ideas floating out there in the wild. What do you think of “Joker” and is intriguing ending. Hit the comments section below and tell me how you read this provocative movie.

And to read my proper review hit the link below. https://keithandthemovies.com/2019/10/06/review-joker-2019/

Last week I had the pleasure of appearing on Tavern Talk to chat about “Joker”. The show is from Initial Reaction and the idea is that the host Phillip and his guest watches the newest release of the week and then immediately share their raw first impressions. We had a ton of fun.

Check it out below and let me know what you think.

The story of security guard Richard Jewell is as fascinating as it is troubling. Director Clint Eastwood’s new film simply titled “Richard Jewell” chronicles his life following the Centennial Olympic Park bombing of 1996. Jewell discovered the bomb and quickly began clearing people out of the area saving many lives. But some were quick to brand him the bomber and the media ran with the story, vilifying Jewell despite having unreliable information and sources.

Character actor Paul Walter Hauser plays Richard Jewell and he is surrounded by a wealth of talent including Sam Rockwell, Olivia Wylde, Kathy Bates, and John Hamm. The first trailer seems to indicate that the film will be digging deeper into those surrounding Jewell – the media, the government, his devoted attorney, his loving mother. It’s compelling stuff. Let’s see if Eastwood can bring it all together.

“Richard Jewell” opens December 13th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

When DC Films released the stink bomb that was “Suicide Squad” there wasn’t much to like. The lone bright spot was Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn and that’s no exaggeration. It seems DC was paying attention. The new trailer has dropped for “Birds of Prey” and guess who gets the bulk of the attention?

“Birds of Prey” is based on the DC Comics all female superhero team. Interestingly I don’t think the team ever included Harley Quinn. But Judging by the trailer she’s clearly the film’s focus and she even finds her name in the subtitle “and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn”. Hopefully she doesn’t dominate the entire movie because there are some really great characters in the group and it would be a shame to see them wasted.

“Birds of Prey” is set to release February 7, 2020. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

The new trailer for “Motherless Brooklyn” starts off a little shaky but quickly won me over with its period setting and classic noir flavor. The film is adaptation of a 1999 Jonathan Lethem novel and is written by, directed by, and starring Edward Norton. It’s a cool looking crime thriller with some really interesting names attached to it.

Out of the gate I was drawn to the casting of Gugu Mbatha-Raw, a seriously talented but painfully underused actress. It also features the always good Willem Dafoe and even Bruce Willis. But Norton is the lead playing a detective with Tourette syndrome looking for the person who killed his friend and mentor. The potential is there for something really good.

“Motherless Brooklyn” is set to hit theaters November 1st. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.