Hillbilly Elegy (2020)

Hillbilly Elegy is an intensely frustrating piece of work. It's supposed to be some sort of tale of survival and family and... you know, I don't actually know. Instead it is a portrait of a lot of abuse that the film seems to want us to believe is not abuse but is just, like, family time. 

I think for me the problem here is that if you've spent any time with drug addicts in your life – or with any abuse, really – then this film will be triggering and painful. And if you haven't, then the film doesn't get you anywhere closer to understanding addictive behavior or economic hardship or the frustrations of young motherhood. 

I really loved Haley Bennett in this. And honestly Amy Adams is very good in Hillbilly Elegy, playing one of the true villains of 2020 cinema. This character is impossible to love.

I am just going to pretend that Glenn Close did not take part in this.

You can watch this on Netflix, but I wouldn't recommend that you choose to do that.

Splash (1984)

Splash was apparently a big hit in 1984.

Um... ok. This film is a live-action cartoon. No one in it behaves like a real person.

It does have three or four pretty great jokes – I really was cackling when Darryl Hannah tells Tom Hanks what her real name is in her own mermaid language – but mostly I thought this thing was pretty terrible.

After a while, even where the next joke would be became obvious.

Also this shit is insanely sexist. I guess I could be more specific about that, but, like, a mermaid falls in love with a young commitment phobe for reasons – well, she falls in love with him because the writers say she does. But this woman has basically no subjectivity of her own. Her only function is to love this dorky man, to appear naked several times, and to be the butt of various jokes.

The Shootist (1976)

I actually didn't understand this film. The Shootist concerns an ageing gunslinger who holes up in Carson City for the last week of his life as he prepares to die. But how does he prepare to die? By killing a bunch of guys who – as far as I can tell – haven't really done anything to him or anyone else. Lauren Bacall is interesting as an old woman who starts to care for the old shootist, but I don't understand why she or anyone else should have cared. I sure didn't.

Oscar Nominations 2019: Part 10 of 11

Part 1: Roma, The Favourite, Vice, A Star Is Born.
Part 2: Black Panther, BlacKkKlansman, Green Book, Bohemian Rhapsody.
Part 3: Mary Poppins Returns, First Man, Cold War.
Part 4: Can You Ever Forgive Me?, If Beale Street Could Talk, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.
Part 5: Never Look Away, Mary Queen of Scots, Isle of Dogs, The Wife.
Part 6: Detainment, Marguerite, Skin, Madre, Fauve.
Part 7: At Eternity's Gate, First Reformed, Shoplifters, Capernaum.
Part 8: Spider man: into the Spider-verse, Incredibles 2, Mirai, Ralph Breaks the Internet.
Part 9: Bao, Animal Behaviour, One Small Step, Late Afternoon, Weekends.
Part 10:

Avengers: Infinity War

1 Nomination

• Visual Effects

Director: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

Cast: Josh Brolin, Chris Hemsworth, Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Zoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Chris Pratt, Tom Holland, Bradley Cooper, Karen Gillan, Anthony Mackie, Chadwick Boseman, Sebastian Stan, Tom Hiddleston, Peter Dinklage, Danai Gurira, Benedict Wong, Pom Klementieff, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Letitia Wright, Gwyneth Paltrow, Benicio Del Toro, William Hurt, Winston Duke


There are a million people in this movie. Ok. So, honestly, I started watching this movie, got five minutes in, and realized I had no idea what was going on. In order to understand this film, one needs to have seen three movies that I had not seen – Captain America: Civil War, Thor: Ragnarok, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. I've seen tons of these Marvel movies, and had seen the most recent one – Black Panther – but apparently this was not enough. This was a behemoth of a thing. There were way too many plots, and most of the time I felt myself wondering why I was supposed to care about what the filmmakers were asking me to care about. One of the central problems with this universe is that the characters in these films all have magic powers, but it is not really clear how much power the, you know, beams of light that come out of their hands or whatever are actually worth. Is Hulk and his muscles more powerful than Captain America's shield? Why are the evil zombies who work for Thanos apparently stronger than Dr. Strange who literally has one of these infinity stones around his neck? This just doesn't work for me. Someone needs to explain to me why so many superheroes are so weak and can't defeat 2 or 3 bad guys, but that same number of people can put up a series fight against Thanos and his 4 magic stones. I don't get it. A bright spot in this movie, though, is Tom Holland. His Spider-man is really wonderful. He has tons of great lines and he delivers them brilliantly. His last scene in the film is the most heartfelt sincere moment in the entirety of this monstrosity.
Will Win: N/A
Could Win: Visual Effects
My Rating: #62 out of 70

Solo: a Star Wars Story

1 Nomination

• Visual Effects

Director: Ron Howard

Cast: Alden Ehrenreich, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Paul Bettany, Joonas Suotamo, Donald Glover, Thandie Newton, Linda Hunt, Erin Kellyman

I honestly thought this was cute. I love Alden Ehrenreich, and he's great here. There is not too much to complain about with this. It's honestly identical to the rest of these Star Wars movies, and I don't think I have any objection to this. No one liked this movie, apparently? Or maybe that's just, like, crazy Star Wars fans (whom I do not understand). I think everyone's dislike for this film, though, is really just because Solo foolishly was released in summer instead of in December, which is when Star Wars films are usually released. Audiences just weren't ready for a summer Star Wars picture.
Will Win: N/A
Could Win: N/A
My Rating: #41 out of 70

Ready Player One

1 Nomination

• Visual Effects

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Ben Mendelsohn, Lena Waithe, Mark Rylance, T.J, Miller, Simon Pegg, Philip Zhao, Win Morisaki, Hannah John-Kamen, Ralph Ineson, Susan Lynch

Oh jeez. Well, I want to say that I still love Tye Sheridan, but this movie is really, really bad. The script is just terrible. I think Lena Waithe is also pretty awful here. Her performance is strangely flat, and all of her scenes have a lot of trouble. But mostly it's just the writing. The visual effects look cool, but the world-building kind of sucks (I expect that's better in the book...?), and I was super bored.

Will Win: N/A
Could Win: N/A
My Rating: #65 out of 70

Christopher Robin

1 Nomination

• Visual Effects

Director: Marc Forster

Cast: Ewan McGregor, Hayley Atwell, Bronte Carmichael, Marg Gatiss, Oliver Ford Davies, Jim Cummings, Brad Garrett, Nick Mohammed, Peter Capaldi, Toby Jones, Sophie Okonedo, Sara Sheen

I mean, honestly. Why does this film exist? In case you're wondering, the moral of the story is that you shouldn't lose sight of the magical being that you are when you are a child. Adulthood isn't all its cracked up to be, and your relationship with your imaginary friend is actually much more important than your life as a grown up. Adulting is hard, this movie seems to say, and who can argue with such a statement? The ham-fisted clunker of a lesson here is that the "important things in life" are actually family, fun, and a childhood sense of wonder. And you shouldn't become a stodgy old person who only cares about "success" and "work". No one needs to learn this lesson, so I can't imagine why anyone thought this dumb film was a good idea. I will say that I really love the voice of Pooh. There's something about it that is comforting and sweet. Not sweet enough for me to enjoy this stupid film, but sweet nonetheless.
Will Win: N/A
Could Win: N/A
My Rating: #61 out of 70

Han Solo Jr.

Solo was cute. I think it was maybe a little too cute. And Solo is way more of a dependent film than Rogue One was. I'm sure there were tons of references in this movie to the first trilogy, but I don't know those films well enough to get the in-joking. Still, Alden Ehrenreich remains a dynamic performer, and there were some very exciting setpieces in this movie. (That train sequence was amazing!) I liked a lot of it.

Car-races, Oscar-races, and the Problems of the Bio-pic

Jordan and I saw Ron Howard's Rush yesterday.

I had heard chatter about Daniel Brühl's performance making an appearance in the Supporting Actor category, and so I figured I'd check it out. Also, I really do like Chris Hemsworth. I am a fan of Thor (haven't seen #2 yet), and I liked him in Snow White and the Huntsman.

I do sort of have to admit that I find it difficult to keep Chris Hemsworth, Charlie Hunnam, and Garrett Hedlund differentiated in my mind. I mean, I know they are different people, but I have trouble.

This is the German Poster.
(The most interesting version.)

Rush is based on a true story: the real-life rivalry between Formula One drivers Niki Lauda and James Hunt. You can read the plot of the film on Lauda's Wikipedia page, which is surprisingly extensive. True stories are difficult to film, of course – writers feel as though they need to stick to the truth as much as possible, and yet they also feel that they need to make a kind of sense of things. The truth, of course, rarely makes sense, and so biopics so often have obvious explanations to the very difficult problems of life (Ray is an excellent example of this) or attempt to find meaning in events that have no meaning.

And so Rush is exciting whenever it is interested in car-racing. When, instead, it is interested in sentiment, it lags (and lags a lot). James Hunt, for example, is married in the movie for about five minutes total. The film uses his wife only as a marker of Hunt's own life: when he's doing well, the couple is happy; when he's doing badly, they fight. If this is rather sexist, it is even more notable for being boring. One-dimensional characters are not interesting no matter what their genders are.

The rivalry between the two men is an interesting one, but Howard jumps back and forth between their perspectives. Do we root for Hunt? Do we root for Lauda? I rooted for both at various times (I think this was the goal), but the constant narrative switching was very frustrating. Howard also continually announces when we are in history in extremely clunky ways. January 1976, we read on a sign just moments before a news announcer tells the camera And here we are in January 1976. Thanks. We get it. At one point Jordan leaned over and whispered to me: I think that shot of ice melting on the tire was supposed to tell us it's hot in Brasil in the Summer. Yeah. I bet it is.

I don't think much of Brühl's Oscar chances, either. He is an excellent actor (Inglourious Basterds, Good Bye, Lenin!), but Rush doesn't have much going for it except for the cars, and Brühl spends most of the movie irritating everyone in sight, even if he is eventually a rather likable character. So, I won't be holding my breath, but he may eke out a nomination after all.

If you're thinking of seeing the movie, though, go ahead and skip it. This is for fans of Formula One racing only.

A Dialogue on the Butler

I've been having trouble articulating how I felt about The Butler. I enjoyed some of it, but was mostly frustrated with its oddities. So I asked my friend Carlos to have a conversation with me about the movie, in the hopes that I would be able to get clearer about how I felt about the movie.

Aaron: I've been calling Lee Daniels' movies "messy" for a while, and I know he hasn't made that many (Shadowboxer, Precious, The Paperboy), but that is really what stands out to me about this picture and the others. The tone of the The Butler is constantly shifting. There is a disjointedness about the movie. The characters don't feel somehow "themselves", as though they change who they are from scene to scene. This was especially true for Yaya Alafia (Carol) and Cuba Gooding Jr. (Carter). Now, it may be that good acting saves most of thee characters – makes them feel more the same from scene to scene – but that certainly is not the case with Carol and Carter. The film obviously shifts tone wildly, too.

Carlos: Lee Daniels does a few things really, really well. And the one thing that I think he does consistently is pull out transformative performances from his actors. He does this through what seems to be a highly counter-intuitive method of intentional miscasting. Mo'Nique in Precious. Everybody in The Paperboy. And Oprah in this (who turns out to be the shining star of this movie, but never in a million years would she have been on my cast list). But Nelsan Ellis as Martin Luther King was cast perfectly. No argument there.

Mr. Gooding as Carter

Aaron: The other thing is that this is really a kind of Forrest Gump romp through USAmerican history, and so the movie is necessarily sort of shallow.

Carlos: I think most of the problems in Lee Daniels's The Butler (do I have to call it that?) stem from the script. I think, at the heart of it, there is a strong story about race and America's rocky relationship with change. It's also hard to deny that it comes at a time where race and civil liberties are at the forefront of many Americans' minds, and that lends the film a lot of power that it may not have had otherwise. That being said, I agree completely with your Forrest Gump analogy. I had the chance to read an earlier draft of the script before the movie was made and I'll say that the same problems that existed in the script existed on screen. So there's your lesson for the day, aspiring screenwriters: you can't just fix your problems in production. More than anything for me it was his over-reliance on voice-over and jarring transitions between time periods that sunk the movie for me. But the picaresque approach to the story really only gave you a shallow view into the racial politics of the star-studded presidential menagerie, often boiling down their racial politics to a single scene. I actually found the son's journey much more interesting than the butler's. But maybe that was the point.

Aaron: It wasn't the point. The film focuses on the father's half of the father-son relationship. And I think that was sort of the problem – David Oyelowo's character was just more interesting. He plays it beautifully, I thought. Totally boyish and then grown and fascinating. I did want to note one scene that looked really great: the dinner sequence in the White House contrasted with the lunch-counter violence. That was a great juxtaposition. And if I thought his character disjointed, I should also say that I loved Cuba Gooding, Jr. in this. He is a confident performer, and I understand that he is constantly asked to play silly clown characters, but I know guys like him. I felt like I knew Carter, and Gooding approaches a guy like that without judgment (unlike an actor like Terrence Howard).

Mr. Oyelowo as The Butler's Son

Carlos: It also looked cheap.  Did it look cheap to you? 

Aaron: It did look cheap! Why did we both think that? Was that because we saw so little of the White House? 

Carlos: I didn't mind not seeing the White House. It was the lighting. Everything had this fuzzy, soft look and I think it was there because Daniels needed to cover up for the fact that whenever possible he was trying not to use age makeup (I sourced this from a couple of interviews) and the age makeup they did use looked terrible. You would think with a 30-million-dollar budget they could make it look spectacular, but that's what you get when you hire every A- to B+ list actor to fill out your presidential pool.

Ms. Fonda & Mr. Rickman as the Reagans

Aaron: As relates to this casting question, I feel strange about it. This is a sort of Hollywood thing, right? This anticipation we get to have and the pleasure we receive from playing Guess which famous movie star will be playing each president and first lady? It draws away from the film as a document of a historical period and makes everything seem slightly more, well, fake, while at the same time it is totally fun to see Alan Rickman and Jane Fonda play the Reagans.

Carlos: It was gimmicky, and it often took me out of the movie, but it was exactly as you say. Totally fun to see Rickman and Fonda as the Reagans. But I think these choices go back to Daniels' reliance on camp. Which isn't a bad thing. It's just a thing. And it doesn't always work well with the tone of his movies. The Butler becomes more of a spectacle when you have this star-studded cast filling out minor roles. This is a bit of a double-edged sword.  On one hand, it's distracting. You're wondering if Cusack's nose is Nixonian enough, or if LBJ is indeed Liev Schreiber or someone else, or about just how much the right wing is incensed by Jane Fonda playing the wife of the second coming of Christ. But maybe that's the trick? Because you're being distracted by this spectacle but it pulls your focus away from the holes in the script momentarily.

Aaron: I love that you said that this celebrity-sighting thing is actually about camp. Of course you are correct! I hadn't really thought of that, but you are absolutely right. It's just that the film doesn't really want to be campy. Or that the camp sensibility is married in an uncomfortable way to the kind of sentimental narrative for which people like Zemeckis or Ron Howard are known. The two ways of storytelling really conflict quite strongly, and though I enjoyed the campy parts, they made me feel uneasy because I never quite dropped into the sentimental sections of the film. 

Carlos: Speaking of cheap. Can we talk about the ending? 

Aaron: Haha. Do you mean the way that The Butler behaves as though every single issue for which black people have fought in the U.S. is automatically solved by the election of a black president? It is a curious project of forgetting in a film that would appear to have been all about actively remembering precisely those struggles. I do, of course, agree with the sections with MLK where he talks about black domestics, etc. I think that kind of analysis is helpful and super-smart. But the film wants to be about the United States presidents' struggles with racism, and in the end the film pays more attention to the changes of conscience those white men have than it does to either the black domestic at the film's center or the angry black revolutionary who is his foil. 

Carlos: I think you hit the nail on the head. Remember, this was written by a white guy, Danny Strong (of Game Change and Recount fame), and while Lee Daniels really did his best to punch up "the black experience", it only felt genuine in the scenes taking place in the home. I'm looking at you, get-that-cheap-trifling-bitch-outta-my-house scene. But as it stands, the rest of the movie was like watching 15-minute snippets of Lincoln. You know the president has already made up his mind, things are shitty and need to change, and that there is an entrenched force of racists that refuses to budge. And maybe it's just the cultural lens that I'm viewing the film through, but I did want to see more about what shaped the various presidents' views on race. Instead I got a direct set up "problem" and pay off "how they fixed the problem". It got kinda monotonous. (I actually did a double feature with this and The Grandmaster and they had a lot of similar structural problems, except The Grandmaster was shot beautifully and it had punching, so it was more engaging.)

My biggest issue with the ending – and it was the same issue that I had with the script – was that it needlessly politicized a story that should have been for all of us. Now it's for less than half of us. While I understand the importance of button-ending the movie with the election of Barack Obama to reinforce the "see how far we've come" theme, it irked me. Not that I give a shit what the right wing thinks, but this film could have been (and I am being generous using "could") a great cultural touchstone that turned the mirror back on us to ask us how far we've come, but persists in telling us that we still have a long way to go. 

Aaron: I think the ending does precisely the opposite. Maybe this is my inner black panther speaking, but when we think of having a black president as the end of anything, I feel like it tells us that racial oppression is basically over. Seen in this light, the struggles that the film describes feel, by the end of the movie, as though they have actually ended in real life. I am surprised you saw the film in the opposite way. 

Carlos: I guess I was unclear. What was delivered is exactly what you say. But I wanted the ending to acknowledge that this struggle clearly isn't over yet. The ending, as is, feels like the "white guilt" version. I know that Daniels had to do a heavy amount of cuts right at the end, so I wonder what may be lost in the digital trash bin.

Queen O knockin' it out of the park

Aaron: In any case, the film is uneven at best. I think if it's worth seeing it's for the game of spot-the-celebrity and for Oprah Winfrey, who is her own epic version of spot-the celebrity. She is fabulous in The Butler, but it is also impossible to forget that she is Oprah: she's one of the most well-known women in the world. As it happens, she is also a great actress, and it is fun simply to watch that. 

Carlos: Agreed. Uneven, but ultimately worth seeing if not for the fact that we don't get many big theatrical releases that even attempt to discuss race in any sort of meaningful way. And yes, Oprah was and is the #1 reason to see it. For the camp spectacle of seeing Queen O dressed down and lookin' rough, as much as for her spectacular performance.

Oscar Nominees: Part Two

CINDERELLA MAN

3 Nominations: Best Supporting Actor, Best Film Editing, Best Makeup
Russell Crowe's excellent performance was overlooked this year, and though everyone talked up this obvious Oscar-baiter as in the running for Best Picture, no one seemed to actually like the film. I did, but I understand everyone's ho-hum attitude. It's like Seabiscuit all over again. And we all regret that little mistake.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Supporting Actor
My Rating: #33 out of 81 films

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

3 Nominations: Best Sound Recording, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup
It didn't feel like a Jesus-movie to me, but everyone else saw it as such, or maybe it was just all of that right-wing noise about it being a Jesus-movie. At any rate, Jesus usually doesn't fare well with the Academy. Plus, comparisons with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy were inevitable and the writing and the scale of the thing just don't compare.
Will Win: Makeup
Could Win: Visual Effects
My Rating: #28 out of 81 films

WAR OF THE WORLDS

3 Nominations: Best Sound Recording, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects
I liked this picture (at least more than I liked Munich and a good deal more than other Spielberg pictures as well. At its heart, though, it's a B-movie, chock full of aliens, crowd scenes and lasers.
Will Win: Visual Effects
Could Win: Sound Editing
My Rating: #48 out of 81 films

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

2 Nominations: Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay
Cronenberg is definitely not the Academy's cup of tea. But they still really liked this film. I mean, a screenplay nomination is a big deal, and that William Hurt performance was really short and short is not usually up the Academy's alley, either. Still, there are lots of snubs here. Director and Actress among them.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #6 out of 81 films

HUSTLE & FLOW

2 Nominations: Best Actor, Best Original Song
I think everyone is surprised by this film's popularity, and then they see the film and they understand why. It's formulaic and Hollywood, but boasts some excellent performances and a couple of great songs. Most importantly: to the Academy it's not a gritty, hand-held kind of a thing. It's clean and pretty looking and, like I said, has a lot going for it.
Will Win: Song
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #41 out of 81 films

SYRIANA

2 Nominations:Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screenplay
Ah the Clooney. He is everywhere. This movie is a rough go. It looks more intelligent than it is, but it's alarmingly political and really exciting, if defeatist. Seriously,I thought The Constant Gardener was more upbeat, if that gives you any idea how depressing this film is.
Will Win: Supporting Actor
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #23 out of 81 films

NORTH COUNTRY

2 Nominations: Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress
No one liked this film and these nominations are just an example of the group-think mentality that is pervasive during awards season (and other seasons as well). Don't get me wrong, they think for themselves some of the time, but the Oscars (and maybe this is something that needs its own blog entry) so often wind up being, like any election, a contest between people that the Academy is settling for--not too outlandish, often formulaic, a lot of "give us more of what we already know." The problem with this is that more deserving artists are often overlooked because their work pushes the boundaries.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #69 out of 81 films

MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS

2 Nominations: Best Actress, Best Costume Design
This movie should've been the favorite of all of the old people in the Academy. It came out a little late to really make a splash, and that's purely the fault of its studio. To get the elderly on board you have to come out much earlier than December 25th. Anyway, it's a light, if overly long, little piece.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #16 out of 81 films

TRANSAMERICA

2 Nominations: Best Actress, Best Original Song
This movie sucks. I hated it and I'm sorry that it got any nominations at all (apologies to Dolly Parton and her song.) Kevin Zegers is cute, but I hated the film and I hated the lead performance--hell, all the performances. This subject matter has been covered much better before and I was truly sorry to see this film get the attention it did.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Song
My Rating: #78 out of 81 films