Tag Archives: bill murray

Retro Review : “Tootsie”

by

18

TOOTSIE POSTER

I was 11 years-old in 1982. During that year the main movie conversation revolved around Steven Spielberg’s intensely popular “E.T.”. A bit surprising, the second biggest movie of 1982 was “Tootsie”. Now this was prior to the advent of the PG-13 rating so my parents took me with them to see “Tootsie”. I don’t remember a single thought or impression left in my young mind, but after watching it several years later and again just recently, it is a lot easier to appreciate what “Tootsie” is going for.

I mentioned its huge box office office appeal, but “Tootsie” was generally praised by critics as well. It would go on to be nominated for a whopping 10 Academy Awards (interestingly, it would only win one – Jessica Lange, Supporting Actress). That’s a pretty big success especially for a film that went through a number of delays, director changes, and recastings.

Tootsie1

Dustin Hoffman is the face we most associate with “Tootsie” and rightfully so, but one of the most important creative geniuses behind the film’s success was Sydney Pollack. He directed, co-produced, and gave a superb supporting performance. The script was finalized by a collective effort which featured Larry Gelbart, Murray Schisgal, and uncredited assistance from Hoffman favorite Barry Levinson and comedy great Elaine May.

But when talking about “Tootsie” you inescapably come back to Hoffman and his absurd but deeply committed two-sided performance. He plays Michael Dorsey, a talented but insufferable actor who has burned every bridge in the New York and Hollywood acting community. No one will hire him which stresses his relationship with his agent George Fields (Pollack). After months of no work and to prove his agent wrong, Michael auditions for a part in the daytime soap opera “Southwest General”. Here’s the catch – the part is for a woman.

Tootsie2

Michael dresses up and creates the persona of Dorothy Michaels in hopes of winning the part and earning $8,000 to help finance the play of his best friend (Bill Murray). Dorothy not only wins the part but she becomes a soap opera sensation. Dabney Coleman is so good as the smug, sexist director who Dorothy constantly butts heads with. Lange plays a co-star who Michael quickly falls for, but she only knows him as Dorothy which makes for some obvious complications.

Dorothy’s popularity makes it impossible for Michael to cleanly end his charade. But at the same time Dorothy brings about some needed self-reflection. This is the heart of the story, but “Tootsie” is still a comedy. Along the the way we get all sorts of comical, pinpoint jabs at sexism particularly in show business. There is also some hilarious satire aimed at popular Soaps particularly “General Hospital”. It also gives us quirky but revealing observations on relationships. “Tootsie” is a funny movie, but its sense of humor is anchored in its surprising intelligence.

Tootsie3

Hoffman is key. He gives 100% commitment despite the absurdity and without it the entire film would fall. He never winks at the camera. He never mugs. But the supporting cast is just as good. I mentioned Lange, Pollack, Coleman, and Murray. All are perfect fits. But I also loved George Gaynes as an air-headed veteran actor and Teri Garr is a lot of fun playing the manic and fragile Sandy. We also get good work from Charles Durning and Geena Davis in her motion picture debut.

“Tootsie” has held up surprisingly well in the 34 years since it was released. It was a tricky thing to pull off. It could have easily misfired and resulted in just another wacky comedy. But there are brains behind the film which allow it to be funny and provocative in its observations on gender roles and women’s equality. “Tootsie” manages it all very well without being too silly or too heavy-handed.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “St. Vincent”

by

21

VINCENT POSTER

Bill Murray is an interesting actor who has had an interesting career. It has been a long career marked by numerous successes in lead, supporting, or even cameo roles. Perhaps the most intriguing thing about Bill Murray is that most of the time he plays a variation of the same type of character. Sometimes he amps it up as high as it will go, other times he dials it down to subtle levels. Either way we often get some of the same characteristics in a Bill Murray character and it has served him well since his peculiar feature film debut all the way back in 1975.

His latest effort teams him up with writer and director Theodore Melfi. The movie is “St. Vincent”, a comedy/drama that plays with that familiar Murray onscreen personality yet offers the actor an opportunity to flex his dramatic muscles. Murray doesn’t disappoint. As you can probably guess, he plays a man named Vincent. He’s a Vietnam War veteran living in Brooklyn who seeks refuge from his misery in all the wrong places – alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling just to name a few. Vincent is right in Murray’s comfort zone. He is sarcastic and snarky and the humor we get from him is dry and subtly self-deprecating.

VINCENT1

Melfi’s film starts by clearly defining Vincent’s miserable circumstances. It also exposes us to Vincent’s numerous unpleasantries. It doesn’t take long for us to originate our opinions of this man. He’s rude, cranky, frequently drunk, dishonest, and shameless. His finances are a mess, he is in deep with racehorse bookies, and his self-destructive habits are wearing on his health. These problems are accentuated but also confronted when a recently divorced mother (Melissa McCarthy) and her young son Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher) move in next door. But at the same time we eventually see that there is more to Vincent than the gruff, jagged exterior.

“St. Vincent” is all about the characters and each has their own distinct personal problems to navigate. The central relationship is between Vincent and Oliver. From the very first moment they meet the direction of the film becomes obvious. As I watched I kept thinking of a darker, edgier, subtler “Uncle Buck” minus the family dynamic. But while things are pretty predictable that doesn’t mean the movie isn’t without value. The relationships evolve at a deliberate pace which actually works in the story’s favor. But perhaps the biggest surprise came in the movie’s final act. The melodrama is ratcheted up and I knew my emotions were being set up. Yet despite that I found myself responding to it even though it felt a bit manipulative.

VINCENT2

Bill Murray is such a natural performer at this stage in his career and he delivers a strong performance filled with more layers than you might initially think. Young Liberher is fine although it is a pretty standard performance for that type of child’s role. One of the big surprises was McCarthy. It’s not that she was great or groundbreaking. Instead I was just pleased to see a performance from her that I didn’t mind sitting through. We also get Naomi Watts as a Russian dancer and “woman of the night”. She is solid as always although I think her character is easily the most flimsy and uneven.

Again, if you know this is a Bill Murray comedy you have an idea of what you’re going to get. But “St. Vincent” allows for enough nuances to let Murray extend himself beyond what we often see him do. This isn’t a film that breaks any new ground but it does tell a good story although a fairly predictable one. You won’t find a single surprise and there are moments where the movie could have dove into some unfamiliar waters. But at the same time it does offer a handful of intriguing characters whose lives draw us in for better or for worse. That’s something many movies never accomplish.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Grand Budapest Hotel”

by

32

Budapest Poster

When Wes Anderson releases a movie it’s almost like an event for me. I’m such a fan of his work and I enjoy each visit I make to his unique and eccentric world. Finally his latest film “The Grand Budapest Hotel” made its way to my area. After a grueling wait the film finally cured my impatience but did it meet my ridiculously high expectations? I’ve come to expect so much from Anderson’s movies and my lofty expectations seem almost unfair. And perhaps those same expectations contributed to my somewhat cold and indifferent reaction to this film.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” features so many signature trademarks of other Wes Anderson films. We get the quirky period design, an assortment of offbeat characters, a host of stylistic visual flourishes, and a level of expected absurdity. All of those things are present here and they all work to the film’s advantage. These are some of the fingerprints I want to see all over a Wes Anderson movie. But there were other signatures that injects his movies with their own personality and vibrancy that I found missing in this film.

Budapest3

The story is told in a fractured style but the vast majority of it takes place within a fictitious Eastern European country during 1932. We are introduced to Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of The Grand Budapest Hotel during its glory days of luxury and prominence. Gustave is meticulous in his running of the hotel and his love for extravagance is only outdone by his adoration for strong cologne and for his elderly clientele. The story becomes a murder mystery after one of his close acquaintances Madame D (Tilda Swinton) is found dead and Gustave becomes the key suspect. It also becomes a heist film and of course a comedy.

The film is also loaded with a massive number of side characters. Some are like Fiennes and new to Wes Anderson’s world while others are old faithful stalwarts who find their way into nearly every one of his movies. Toni Revolori plays a young lobby boy named Zero who becomes Gustave’s protégé and faithful sidekick. Adrien Brody plays Dmitri, the son of the murdered Madame D. Willem Dafoe plays a grunting snaggletoothed hitman. I could go on and on listing small characters who service the story (some better than others). They are all sprinkled onto stylistic canvases that include an alpine village, a prison, and of course The Grand Budapest itself. There is truly an artistry to the entire visual presentation and all of that worked for me.

But what was it about the film that at first held me at arm’s length? Why didn’t I have the same wonderful experience as I usually have with Wes Anderson pictures during a first viewing? First off I just didn’t find it as funny as I had hoped. Certainly there were moments where I laughed but as a whole the dry humor wasn’t that effective. Even the crowd I watched with had their giggles held to a minimum. This film was also coarse and crasser than most of Anderson’s other pictures. Much of it is played for laughs but I found it to be distracting and it felt as though Anderson, normally known for his creative freedom, was really stretching.

Budapest2

Another missing component for me was the deeper emotional thread that every Anderson film has had. For example in “The Royal Tenenbaums” you have the destructive results that a father’s behavior has had on his family. In “The Darjeeling Limited” you have three separated brothers each carrying the baggage of their father’s death. “Moonrise Kingdom” features two kids with no stable adult presence in their lives. They find their refuge by running away together. The same thing applies to “Rushmore” and “The Fantastic Mr. Fox”. Anderson has always had a knack for presenting a deeper and more piercing subject and effectively surrounding it with humor. Every sense of that is vague and almost absent from this entire film. He does tinker with a few themes via the impending war that lingers in the background, the desires for the nostalgic “better days”, etc. But none of these stood out to me at all.

This is the first screenplay that Anderson has written by himself. Does that play into the things I found lacking? I don’t know, perhaps. Anderson is also often accused of going overboard with his eccentric style. I’ve never found any merit to that accusation but this is the first film where there just might be. Could that be linked to Anderson’s solo screenplay? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is that there were parts of this film that really worked and after a second viewing I definitely began to appreciate the film more. At first “The Grand Budapest Hotel” didn’t fully work for me. It definitely comes more into focus the more times you see it.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Royal Tenenbaums”

by

20

ROYAL POSTER

Filmmaker Wes Anderson has always loved making movies that deal with family, family dynamics, and family struggles. They often focus on flawed relationships between brothers, children and their parents, or in the case of the 2001 film “The Royal Tenenbaums” an entire family. This was Anderson’s third movie and the first to incorporate one of his big and unique ensemble casts. It’s also the first film of his to fully utilize his peculiar comedic and visual style. You’ll notice it from the opening frame all the way to the end credits.

The story is about the Tenenbaum family. Royal (Gene Hackman) and Etheline (Anjelica Huston) Tenenbaum had three children who were geniuses at a young age. Chas was a business and financial wizard even before high school. Margot was their adopted daughter who was also a young playwright. Richie was a child tennis prodigy and aspiring artist. Eccentricities aside, the three Tenenbaum children had excelled beyond measure in their particular passions. But all of their promise of future success was dashed upon hearing the news that Royal and Etheline were separating.

Royal1

The film then bolts ahead several years. The kids have all faced their share of disappointment and heartache. Chas (Ben Stiller) lost his wife in a plane crash and is now obsessed with the safety of his two young sons. Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) is unhappily married to a neurologist and author (Bill Murray) and she spends six hours a day locked in the bathroom. Richie (Luke Wilson) shocked the world by retiring from tennis at the age of 26 after a meltdown during an important match. Etheline is a successful archaeologist who is being courted by her accountant Henry (Danny Glover). Royal on the other hand hasn’t spoken with this family in several years. He’s lost his law practice and has just been thrown out of the hotel he has lived in for years. To top it off he has found out that he is dying and he decides that it’s time to make amends with his family.

A variety of circumstances brings the Tenenbaum family back together under one roof. All sorts of complicated and strained family dynamics surface. None of the family is happy to see Royal other than Richie who was always the object of his father’s favoritism. Chas hates his father. Margot and Richie have a tension that also involves childhood friend Eli (Owen Wilson). Etheline and Royal have friction particularly over Henry. I could go on and on but you get the point. This is a highly dysfunctional family that was damaged when Royal first left and is now in chaos since he has returned.

ROYAL2

On the surface nothing about what I have described sounds funny does it? But remember, this is a Wes Anderson film. Sprinkled in between the various disagreements and peculiarities are the signature bits of dry and often absurd humor that he brings to his pictures. It’s often times seen in a bit of dialogue or some quirky visual flair. Sometimes Anderson slips his humor into the backdrop or in a particular prop or detail. Little quirks like the matching bushy hair and Adidas jumpsuits that Chas and his sons wear. The reappearing beat up cabs from Gypsy Taxi. Every small line from family friend and servant Pagoda (Kumar Pallana). There are so many bits of Anderson flavor and you’ll probably find something new with each viewing.

But as usual, Anderson mixes his humor with a darker side of the story. Royal is truly a despicable man and father. You can’t help but laugh at some of his antics. On the flipside, his character and the consequences of his actions are much darker realities. The film touches on several other gloomier themes such as depression, alienation, suicide, and drug abuse. And then of course there is the aforementioned examination of family. The film takes a look at numerous facets of family life and difficulties which I believe gives the story more weight. As funny as “The Royal Tenenbaums” is, there are layers upon layers of thematic inflections.

Royal3

And a brief word about the performances. Gene Hackman is fantastic which shouldn’t come as a surprise. He dives right into the role, hamming it up and pulling it back when required. He was a bit reluctant to take the role at first but he is a perfect fit. Everyone else also falls perfectly onto Wes Anderson’s canvas. Whether it’s his reliable favorites such as Murray and the Wilsons, or others such as Paltrow, Glover and Stiller, the characters are a key component to the film and the casting of each role is spot on. Even Alec Baldwin pops up as the unseen narrator.

As you can expect there is an overload of visual style in this picture. If you aren’t keen on Anderson’s odd period style setting and unique camera quirks then you may have a hard time embracing this film. Personally I love the looks of his work. “The Royal Tenenbaums” is a little slow out of the gate but it doesn’t take long before it hits its stride. Things do tidy up a tad too much at the end, but the final scene is priceless and it leaves the movie on just the right note. I couldn’t help but laugh and think to myself that Wes Anderson had done it again.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Darjeeling Limited”

by

42

DARJEELING POSTER

I’m a huge Wes Anderson fan so whenever he makes a film I take notice. But oddly enough his 2007 comedy/drama “The Darjeeling Limited” is one I still needed to see. In true Anderson style “The Darjeeling Limited” has a quirky sense of humor and it dabbles in several of the filmmaker’s familiar themes. It also features some of Anderson’s acting staples including his old college buddy Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody, and Bill Murray. And while some people consider this some of Anderson’s lesser work, I think it’s a movie that captures what I like about his films while carving out its own unique path.

In this offbeat concoction the opening scene is important. In India a businessman (Murray) tries unsuccessfully to catch his train as it departs the station. While he fails another man, encumbered by heavy luggage, just manages to board the train as it heads down the tracks. This short sequence is a microcosm of the entire film. It’s strange, funny, well shot, and filled with meaning.

DAJEELING1

The man who made the train is Peter (Brody). He is onboard the Darjeeling Limited passenger train to meet his two brothers, the controlling and downright anal Francis (Wilson) and the brokenhearted and obsessive Jack (Schwartzman). The three haven’t seen each other since their father’s funeral and Francis sets up the reunion in hopes of bringing them closer together. The train trip across India is framed as being a spiritual awakening of sorts but Francis may have something else as his motivation.

The movie pulls many laughs from these odd personalities, but that shouldn’t come as any surprise. Wes Anderson’s wacky cinematic worlds routinely feature idiosyncratic people with an assortment of troubles and in various states of despair and melancholy. His humor can be a bit prickly. By that I mean it isn’t easy for some viewers to cozy up to. Personally I love his unique brand and we get plenty of it in this film. But there is also a strong dramatic thread that runs throughout the film and really shows itself in the last act. This mix of well executed comedy and heartfelt, meaningful drama is what drives the picture.

Considering the amounts of dry kooky humor, it may surprise some people to find this much heart. But Anderson has always had a knack for that. He’s always dealing with family troubles as well as feelings of isolation and despondency. We certainly get that in this film. There is symbolism scattered throughout the film that deals on more emotional levels once they are realized. For example, take the aforementioned luggage. Anderson takes something simple like luggage, weaves it throughout the narrative, and uses it to make one of the movie’s more effective points. These treats are clever and satisfying.

Darjeeling2

I also must give credit to Wilson, Brody, and Shwartzman. These guys work so well within Anderson’s narrative style which probably explains why he keeps going back to them. The three offer great subtlety in their humor and watching them play off each other is a lot of fun. But they also dial it back when the story calls for it which is vital. Theres some good supporting work from Amara Karan as a train stewardess, Wallace Wolodarsky as Francis’ “assistant, and Waris Ahluwalia as the Darjeeling’s chief steward. Bill Murray has a brief but fun role and Anjelica Huston has a small yet important appearance. There are also some nice cameos from Natalie Portman (remember Hotel Chevalier?) and Irrfan Khan.

“The Darjeeling Limited” is soaked with Wes Anderson’s style. Whether it’s the humor and storytelling or his visual methods which include panning cameras, use of colors, or his particular use of music. There are a few lulls that the film experiences particularly in the second half. They never last long but they are noticeable and maybe they do keep this from being some of Anderson’s best work. Regardless I’m still a big fan of this film. I laughed a lot and I really responded to the emotional tugs we get later on. In the end it’s yet another example of why I love Wes Anderson movies.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Monuments Men”

by

36

MONUMENTS poster

Inspired by an incredible true story and armed with a wonderful ensemble cast, “The Monuments Men” has all the ingredients to be a sure thing. The talent behind the film starts with George Clooney who co-writes, stars, and takes another turn at directing. Clooney has directed some fantastic movies but “Leatherheads” and “The Ides of March” showed us that he’s far from infallible. But I was excited once I saw “The Monuments Men” on the horizon and it quickly became one of my most eagerly anticipated films. Pretty high expectations, right?

I first heard the story of “The Monuments Men” from author Robert Edsel. He was doing an interview and talking about his new book which told the true story of Allied soldiers who sought out and saved important works of art from Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2. It’s incredible stuff and once I heard about a film adaptation I was hooked. Clooney’s picture is loosely based on the actual events which feeds the movie’s strengths but also its weaknesses. So far people have pounced on the film expecting more from it or wanting something entirely different. Personally I thought “The Monuments Men” was fantastic.

Monuments2While watching the film my very first feelings were nostalgic. “The Monuments Men” is a throwback to the old ensemble war pictures but with its own unique twist. I immediately began thinking of movies like “The Green Berets”, “The Guns of Navarone”, and “The Dirty Dozen”. Even the end credits hearken back to those older pictures. My father loved these films and growing up I was able to watch them and learn to appreciate them. I think Clooney gets that and he knows what he’s doing. I give him a ton of credit for recapturing the vibes and nuances of those past genre pieces.

But the big difference between this film and the older ones can be found in the characters. This team isn’t comprised of hardened frontline soldiers. These are common men who possess particular skills needed to complete this unique mission. They are museum curators, art historians, and architects. They are older men who are more comfortable with Picassos and Monets than machine guns and hand grenades. Their mission brings them in as the war in Europe is ending. But even though they slip around the battlefields and combat, eventually the elements of the war effects them. They are at times joking and playful – it’s what you could expect from these types of characters. But they are no longer curating museums, designing skyscrapers, or painting. They are in the war and they constantly come across sober reminders of that.

Monuments1

I love this entire dynamic which diverts the movie from a common action-oriented path. There really isn’t much action at all which hurts the film in some people’s estimation. Personally I don’t think the story calls for much action. Instead it focuses on the mother of all treasure hunts through an assortment of beautiful European locales. But their mission isn’t easy. There are still wartime tensions, a greedy Russian army, and the Nazis who are under direct orders from Hitler to destroy everything. The seven who make up The Monuments Men split up and spread out across Europe hunting clues, fleeing danger, and tracking down as much stolen art as they can.

Clooney’s film has plenty of shifts in tone. The movie sometimes feels easygoing and lighthearted only to be dark and somber a few scenes later. Some have taken issue with this saying the humor feels out of place. I completely disagree because I found the humor to be measured and conscientious. The humor was there but it felt light. There were never any attempts at big laugh-out-loud moments which would have really been jarring.

And then there is the cast. I love watching good actors act and we certainly get to do that. Clooney plays the team leader and he’s joined by Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Jean Dujardin, John Goodman, Bob Balaban, and Hugh Bonneville. Everyone of them gives fine performances and there is some unique chemistry that develops. Cate Blanchett is also excellent playing someone based on the fascinating real Rose Valland. All of these characters are given their moments to shine and we are given small bits of information about them along the way. Unfortunately it’s not enough to fully develop the characters – only to make us want to know more about them. That was a little disappointing although a movie like this could get bogged down with layers upon layers of backstory.

monuments3

Phedon Papamichael (who also did brilliant work in 2013’s “Nebraska”) offers up some fine cinematography and the war-torn set designs look amazing. Alexandre Desplat’s score adds to the film’s old-school flavor that Clooney is obviously shooting for. The performances, the nostalgia, the clever balance of the script, the uniqueness of the story. Everything I’ve mentioned comes together in a film that I found satisfying but many others clearly didn’t. What has caused the strong backlash to this film? Was it the lack of action, the deliberate pacing, the scattered storytelling? These things are certainly present but for me they made it a better film and they help steer it away from the conventional movie we could have gotten.

As a lover of art and World War II history, the story of “The Monuments Men” connected with me from the start. As a lover of the fun ensemble war pictures that were all but gone by the end of the 1960s, Clooney’s vision and approach hits the target. To say I’m bewildered by the negative reception to this film is an understatement. I don’t quite know what to make of it. But movies are a funny thing and they certainly effect people differently. For me this was a real treat – a movie that doesn’t pander to conventionalism, moves at its own pace, and treats its subject with respect. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s certainly not a bad film either and I for one loved it.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS