A Reel Review: SOUL

One of the many great things about the films from Pixar Animation Studios is that from the beginning they have tailored their stories for kids and adults. When they say their stories are family films, they mean just that. Families as a whole can enjoy them; adults will never be bored and kids can learn lessons such as friendship (TOY STORY), family (THE INCREDIBLES), and their own emotions (INSIDE OUT). Their newest offering, SOUL, with director Pete Docter, takes the lessons of the afterlife explored in COCO (2017), and takes them a step further. 

 

Joe (Jamie Foxx), is a talented music teacher with life-long aspirations to become a full-time jazz pianist. On the day he gets an offer to play with a band, he has an accident which sends him to the afterlife. There, he encounters a pre-existing soul named 22 (Tina Fey), and concocts a scheme to get himself back to Earth in time for his gig. 

 

Poor Joe has a complicated path to get back to his body, lying in a hospital, in time for his opportunity of a lifetime. After avoiding going into the light of the afterlife (a stunning scene), he winds up in the Great Before, where little baby souls undergo training before they’re sent to Earth to inhabit newborn human babies. He is assigned as a mentor to 22, and plans on using her “Earth Pass”, earned when she finds her spark (the thing that makes her feel alive), to escape back to life on Earth. 

 

Joe and 22 go through a series of adventures and mis-adventures, which includes landing on Earth in bodies that neither one of them want (one of which is a cat). While the story is workable and the characters easy to feel emotion for, SOUL spends most of its time working on theories about life before and after death. The Great Before is packed with complicated rules that seem to clash; the coveted spark for young souls (pre-Earth), is at first understood by Joe to be a person’s true passion. Later we’re sort-of told that it’s really one’s enjoyment of life (or something like that). There’s a difference between your spark and your passion, and that is just as confusing for Joe as it is the audience…and most of the film revolves around that theme. 

 

Directed by Pixar veteran Pete Docter (MONSTERS INC., UP, INSIDE OUT), there is still a lot to enjoy in SOUL if it’s possible to cut through all the themes of reincarnation, existential philosophy, and the true meaning of life. Joe is a fully realized character; one who has been pursuing his dream with all of his (ahem) soul, despite the warnings of his mother (wonderfully voiced by Phylicia Rashad), who wants him to settle for a steady teaching career. Joe’s adventures hark back to classic storytelling, and his contrast with 22 keeps things moving. The animation is spectacular; the afterlife world done in eye-popping abstract art, and NYC brought to life in stunning detail. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is outstanding. Docter gets great performances out of the cast. Jamie Foxx is excellent, as is Tina Fey. Angela Bassett comes in as a famous jazz musician and towers over most of the cast. 

 

SOUL has a good story to tell and the presentation is some of the best that Pixar has ever done; the animation, characters, and concept are stimulating and beautiful. The concept is actually too good, as the conclusion of the film doesn’t quite match it. Joe finishes the film eager to live life to its fullest, which isn’t too far away from what he was trying to do in the first place. That, coupled with the unknown fate of 22, and a few unanswered questions (the soul of the cat is a tad fuzzy), makes SOUL a little frustrating. Its heavy themes will go right over kids’ heads, and adults may be challenged to explain it. There is a lot going on here, and all the themes feel like they’re competing for dominance. Just like our own souls, this one is beautiful, yet flawed. 

 

BOTTOM LINE: Rent it 

A Reel Retro Review: CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT (1945)

With no new films to review for the foreseeable future, Reel Speak will randomly review a classic film from the TCM library every week. Not just for the sake of filling time, but to hopefully introduce some overlooked and perhaps forgotten screen gems from the past to those of us who may be unfamiliar or unawares of their existence. Now comes the conclusion to this year's Holiday Series. 

 

Christmas may be over, but the decorations are still up, there’s always leftover cookies and nogg to get through, and there’s no reason to drop the Christmas spirit just because the calendar says so. There’s still plenty of time to get in some holiday movies, and one great choice is Peter Godfrey’s 1945 romantic comedy, CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT. 

 

Elizabeth (Barbara Stanwyck), is a popular food writer for a large publication, writing about her fictitious farm, husband, family, and her non-existent cooking skills. When her publisher Mr. Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet) receives a letter from the nurse of a wounded sailor, Jefferson (Dennis Morgan), he insists that she host Christmas dinner with himself and Jefferson. Now facing the possibility of scandal, Elizabeth asks her would-be-suiter John (Reginald Gardiner), to pretend to be her husband for a Christmas Eve dinner. 

 

CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT spends its time with Elizabeth trying to pull off one gigantic ruse in order to save her career. Fear is a great motivator, and she is deathly afraid that the revelation of the life she has been writing about would ruin her. This prompts her to accept John’s marriage proposal (even though she doesn’t love him), to recruit her uncle, chef Felix (S.Z. Sakall), to prepare the meals. She has a lot to juggle, including bringing in a judge to secretly perform a marriage ceremony under the noses of Yardley and Jefferson, and borrowing a baby (or two) to complete her fictious family. 

 

Romance is ultimately the core of the film, and while hilarity is going on with sneaking judges and babies around, Elizabeth and Jefferson immediately fall for each other. It’s an early courtship that is complicated by the ruse of Elizabeth being married with a family, but the feelings are so strong that Jefferson seems to have no issue with having an affair; a bit shocking, for a 1945 film. 

 

Director Peter Godfrey keeps the pacing tight, and the action, which mostly involves characters sneaking around, very funny to see. The dialogue is sharp and witty, and sometimes it’s a challenge to keep up. Godfrey gets great performances out of his cast. Barbara Stanwyck lights things up and her chemistry with Dennis Morgan leaps off the screen. The show is nearly stolen by S. Z. Sakall. 

 

As a holiday film, CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT carries a message of love and generosity, and is a fun reminder of the type of chaos that can come to any family during those holiday dinners and gatherings. Before the lights come down and the last drop of nogg is dropped, be sure to have a look at a CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT. 

 

*

 

S.K. Sakall had a career that spanned 30 years. His most memorable role came in 1942 as Carl the waiter in CASABLANCA. Barbara Stanwyck’s career spanned 60 years. She would earn an honorary Oscar in 1982 before her passing in 1990. 

A Reel Review: WONDER WOMAN 1984

For nearly a decade, the Warner Bros. produced films based on the famed characters from DC Comics have had a routine of one-step-forward, two-steps-backward. In 2017, director Patty Jenkins and actress Gal Gadot brought the franchise forward with the phenomenal WONDER WOMAN. Since then, there’s been a few stepping-sideways films, along with the 2017 disaster of JUSTICE LEAGUE which is now being annoyingly recut into a TV series. For Jenkins, Gadot, and WB, the pressure is on to pick up the DC scraps and take things forward once again. 

 

Nearly 70 years after the events of the first film, Diana/Wonder Woman (Gadot), is fighting crime while retaining her secret identity, while still mourning the loss of her love, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine). Diana encounters a mystical stone with the power to grant wishes, which falls into the hands of insecure geologist Barbara (Kristen Wiig) and eventually to Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), a struggling businessman with sights on owning all of the world’s oil…and more. 

 

Superhero films tend to ask us to suspend a lot of disbelief, because after all, we are almost always dealing with high fantasy and sci-fi. Even by those standards, WW84 pushes how much we are willing to buy into. The wishing-stone that can grant endless wishes when being touched is hokey but okay at first, but then things get complicated when Lord manages to turn himself into the stone, meaning anyone who touches him and makes a wish gets it granted. Things get further out-there when Diana wishes Steve back, which happens by way of Steve’s soul inhabiting the body of some random dude. It’s high-concept stuff, most of which isn’t explained much and just taken at face-value. There’s a lot of lazy scriptwriting happening, and characters move from place to place with not much time for explanation. 

 

And that laziness leads to many omissions that derails WW84. Diana and Steve, our supposed heroes, have no concern whatsoever for the soul of the guy that has just been obliterated in favor of Steve’s soul. And the hits just keep on coming; Diana and Steve steal a jet from the Smithsonian which apparently was kept in exhibit with plenty of fuel to make it to Cairo and back, Diana makes a big deal out of her ancient armor which is supposed to be invincible and yet gets torn apart in under two minutes, Lord seems to know more about the wishing stone than Diana or Barbara…two people who are experts in history, and the rules for having wishes granted go out the window as Lord is able to grant wishes to people from thousands of miles away. The film is packed with inaccuracies and breakage of its own rules and boundaries. 

 

Director Patty Jenkins makes a great-looking film, and some of the action-sequences are well executed. The CGI however is crap and sticks out like a sore thumb, with the effects for Barbara’s transformation into Cheetah a lowlight (think CATS all over again). Hans Zimmer’s score is excellent, but the time-setting of 1984 is worthless…as the time-period does not play into the plot at all and serves only as a set-dressing. 

 

Acting is okay. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is fantastic; does all the physical work well and hits her emotional beats perfectly. Chris Pine is passable, but Kristen Wiig just feels out of place. Pedro Pascal turns up the cheese and is basically a cartoon character. The biggest problem with his character is that he is a Trump-clone, which dates the film to this era. 

 

The finale comes by way of another CGI headache and an overly-long preachy speech by Diana to the world. The credits include a bonus scene which is sure to have fans screaming…only for us all to realize that was a cherry on top of a turd. After the near-miracle that was the first WONDER WOMAN film, this follow-up nearly feels like a parody; with bad acting, effects, and a script with more shortcuts than a barber shop. Perhaps a recut may fix things, but let’s not give them any ideas. 

 

BOTTOM LINE: Fuck it 

A Reel Review: THE GODFATHER CODA: THE DEATH OF MICHAEL CORLEONE

From STAR WARS to LORD OF THE RINGS to APOCALYPSE NOW, special-editions or director's cuts have been around for years, with most of them adding new elements for a new experience with the story. As explained by Reel Speak last month (HERE), famed director Francis Ford Coppola has released a new version of his 1990 film, THE GODFATHER PART III. Coppola, whose first two GODFATHER films are considered to be two of the greatest of all time, has given the film a new mouthful of a title; THE GODFATHER CODA: THE DEATH OF MICHAEL CORLEONE, and has re-arranged the story. 

 

The basic plot of CODA remains unchanged. Taking place years after the events of PART II, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), is haunted by his decision to order the death of his brother, and is spending his later years trying to make amends with his estranged ex-wife Kay (Diane Keaton), and children…including his grown daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola). Michael is looking to leave his criminal empire and life behind, but is pulled back in…

 

The first change made by Coppola comes in the very beginning. CODA opens with Michael meeting with the Archbishop, trying to finalize a massive deal worth $600 million to the Vatican. Gone are the opening shots of the former Corleone estate in Nevada and flashbacks to the death of his brother Fredo. The change closely mirrors the opening of the first two films, and even though it’s a cold-start that feels a little abrupt, it right away establishes the main plot…where the original cut took 40 minutes to get there. 

 

From there, the film moves into familiar territory, with the family party celebrating Michael’s new honor bestowed upon him by the Church. Michael’s bastard nephew Vincent (Andy Garcia) is introduced earlier, which helps his importance in the story. Joe Mantegna’s stupid Joey Zasa character is untouched, although the late great Eli Wallach’s character has many scenes cut. 

 

Other changes: a key scene in which Vincent, Al Neri (Richard Bright), and Connie (Talia Shire) give the order to whack Joey Zasa is now gone…and we don’t learn about who gave the order until Michael himself finds out…allowing us to learn about the hit along with him. The hospital visit with Michael’s children is cut short, along with another scene with Eli Wallach…a scene that deserves to be cut as the original version made his character’s treachery pretty obvious. Minor changes follow; a scene with Don Tommasino (Vittorio Duse) being carried from his wheelchair is gone, allowing for a quicker transition from Michael’s confession to his meeting with the future Pope. The climactic scene on the steps, in which Michael and Mary are shot, is tighter with less footage of the donkey-man assassin. 

 

The biggest change of the film comes at the end. In the original cut, Michael slumps over and dies. In CODA, the film fades with Michael sitting alone with his memories unfolding…seemingly in his own personal purgatory. And just before the credits, a new quote appears; When the Sicilians wish you Cent’anni…it means for ‘long life’…and a Sicilian never forgets. Leaving the film with Michael alive means the new title refers to his spiritual death, which gives things a better weight. A cynic may speculate that this was done to open the door for a GODFATHER IV (which, according to Garcia, was almost put into production years ago), but it still works as a better ending. 

 

THE GODFATHER PART III has a complicated legacy. It was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, and some critics at the time, including Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, ranked it as one of the best of the year. The knocks against the film was that it wasn’t as good as the first two entries, was hard to understand, and the inexperience of Sofia Coppola as an actress. For Sofia, CODA doesn’t (and can’t) fix that…although this Blogger will always maintain that Sofia wasn’t that bad. Her co-star Joe Montegna is cartoonishly awful…and he’s the one who was supposed to be the seasoned actor. 

 

The re-edit of PART III does not put it on par with its predecessors, but to be fair…nothing on Earth is as good as those two masterpieces. CODA makes the final story of Michael Corleone more accessible and easier to understand, which is a slight improvement. Unlike most director’s cuts, CODA doesn’t feature any long-lost deleted scenes and instead trims the fat; making this an attempt at addition by subtraction. The new beginning and end are the most significant changes, and even though it’s a simpler movie, there’s not a lot that has been added. New editions of films should bring us something more. 

 

BOTTOM LINE: Rent it 

A Reel Retro Review: THE LION IN WINTER (1968)

With no new films to review for the foreseeable future, Reel Speak will randomly review a classic film from the TCM library every week. Not just for the sake of filling time, but to hopefully introduce some overlooked and perhaps forgotten screen gems from the past to those of us who may be unfamiliar or unawares of their existence. In the spirit of the season, Reel Speak continues the holiday series…

When fans of cinema hear the words “lion” and “winter” during this time of year, they may think of the adaptation of THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE (2005), which has become a holiday favorite. But long before that adventure into Narnia, there was another holiday-time film using those same terms. Now comes the 1968 film by Anthony Harvey, THE LION IN WINTER. 

 

It is Christmas in the year 1183, and King Henry II (Peter O’Toole), is faced with the decision of which of his three sons will take the throne after him. Henry favors his youngest son John (Nigel Terry), while his wife and Queen Eleanor (Katharine Hepburn), favors the eldest son, Richard the Lionheart (Anthony Hopkins). Meanwhile, the middle son Geoffrey (John Castle), forms an uneasy alliance with the King of France (Timothy Dalton), to mess up everyone’s plans. 

 

Based on the play of the same name, the business of THE LION IN WINTER is to decide which of the three sons will inherit the crown once Henry is gone. Neither of the three sons are ideal, with John being a weakling, and the other two sons unfit for their cruelty. Most of the film takes place on Christmas Eve, with the members of the Royal family plotting and planning against each other. It’s a dialogue-heavy film with not a lot of action (a few sword fights here and there), and the script handles the many dodges and weaves nicely. 

 

Henry II may be king, but this is set in age before king and queens lived in pampered comfort. The castle is rough and has dirt floors, and we have a gritty, lived-in look where king’s walk through halls dodging livestock. There’s a strong sense of realism going on, giving the movie an authenticity that really works. 

 

It is clear that the film is based on a play, as almost every scene hangs out in one room and is packed with endless dialogue. The script is sharp, witty, and funny at times…and the ensemble cast does great work with it. Peter O’Toole and Katharine Hepburn are like watching thunder on the screen; one minute they are showing great affection for one another, and the next they are at each other’s throats. Anthony Hopkins is excellent, as is a very young Timothy Dalton. Nigel Terry steals the show. 

 

LION IN WINTER is set on Christmas Eve, and has a few holiday elements visible, but it would be a stretch to call this a holiday film. Still, it can remind us of some of our own family dinners which turned into a battleground, and it does feel at home for December viewing. 

 

BOTTOM LINE: See it 

 

 

*

 

Reel Facts: THE LION IN WINTER would be nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture. Katharine Hepburn would win her third Oscar for Best Actress. Nigel Terry would later play King Arthur in John Boorman’s EXCALIBUR in 1981. 

A Reel 30 and 25: EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990) and HEAT (1995)

This month marks significant anniversaries of two films that are often regarded as some of the best works of their respective directors; the 30^th anniversary of Tim Burton’s EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, and the 25^th anniversary of Michael Mann’s HEAT. 

In December of 1990, Tim Burton would release his fourth feature film, the fantasy/romance film EDWARD SCISSORHANDS. His own take on the classic Frankenstein story, ED told the story of the artificial humanoid Edward (Johnny Depp), who lived life unfinished after the untimely death of his creator (Vincent Price). Ed is taken into the home of Peg (Dianne Wiest), where Ed begins an unlikely romance with her daughter Kim (Winona Ryder). 

A strange and unusual film, ED found his roots when Burton was a teenager, who sketched a character with sharp blades for fingers…a reflection of his feelings of isolation at the time. Years later, after his name skyrocketed to the status of A-list director after his success with BATMAN (1989), Burton was able to have his ED project greenlit. Working with writer Caroline Thompson, they drew inspiration from films such as THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923), THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925), and KING KONG (1933). Burton first conceived the film as a musical, but later dropped the idea. 

Filming would take place in Florida with the rest of the cast rounded out with Anthony Michael Hall, Kathy Baker, and Alan Arkin. Famed make-up and special effects wizard Stan Winston would bring Edward’s scissorhands to life. Frequent collaborator Danny Elfman would provide the score. 

ED would be a critical and commercial hit. It would be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Makeup. Johnny Depp would be nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance. 

Five years later, Michael Mann’s crime drama HEAT arrived in theatres. The film followed a crew of high-profile thieves (Robert DeNiro, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, Danny Trejo), as they duck and run from the LAPD Major Crimes Unit (led by Al Pacino) in a tale of cops, robbers, betrayal, and family drama. 

After making his crime-drama THIEF in 1981, Mann began producing a crime show for NBC. When the project fell through, he redeveloped the series into what would become HEAT. It was based in part on the true story of criminal and ex-Alcatraz inmate Neil McCauley. Mann drew from many of McCauley’s exploits, including the hijacking of an armored car, the burglary of a diamond drill bit company, and a sit-down he had with the detective that would eventually catch him in a shoot-out…all elements that would make it into the film. 

HEAT would mark the first on-screen appearance of famed actors DeNiro and Pacino together. Although the two had appeared in THE GODFATHER PART II (1974), the nature of their roles prevented them from interacting. The rest of the stellar cast would include Diane Venora, Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd, Mykelti Williamson, Wes Studi, Ted Levine, Jon Voight, Dennis Haysbert, William Fichtner, Tom Noonan, Henry Rollins, Hank Azaria, Tone Loc, and a 13-year-old Natalie Portman. Filming would involve no soundstages and would be all be done on location. HEAT would be a box office earner and receive high praise for its direction and performances. 

*

On the surface, these two films seem like they couldn’t be more different. HEAT is a crime drama with cops and robbers blasting away at each other, while ED is a quirky fantasy mixed with a love story that can be as weird as it is sappy. But a closer look shows they have a lot in common. Both films feature a character or more who live on the fringes of society; one group by choice, and one by unhappy circumstances. But the feelings of isolation can be felt in both films, and in today’s optics are very relevant; HEAT shows individuals who are fed up with society, and ED shows the persecution of people who look different. These are themes that give both films a timeless quality. In addition, HEAT and ED feature the best work from their directors. ED is one of Burton’s most personal films, and his scenes with Ryder and Depp make the best of the classic and elemental Beauty and the Beast storyline. HEAT is now considered to be a modern classic; THE DARK KNIGHT director Christopher Nolan cites it as a major inspiration, and the film’s sit-down show-down between DeNiro and Pacino still brings the chills (today, people still visit the diner and table where the scene was shot). Due to its place-setting of Christmas, ED has a holiday feel that can make it a standard entry on a holiday watch-list, while HEAT feels at home at any time of the year. In the end, when the names of Mann and Burton are mentioned, these are the films that are recalled first. 

A Reel Retro Review: HOLIDAY AFFAIR (1949)

With no new films to review for the foreseeable future, Reel Speak will randomly review a classic film from the TCM library every week. Not just for the sake of filling time, but to hopefully introduce some overlooked and perhaps forgotten screen gems from the past to those of us who may be unfamiliar or unawares of their existence. In the spirit of the season, Reel Speak continues the holiday series…

 

Much like the food and drink that comes with it, holiday movies provide a comfort; a comfort that is often shared with someone, or more than one someone, snuggled by our side with the Christmas lights glowing. Finding that special someone in the first place can be a challenge, and that is the basis of Don Hartman’s 1949 comedy, HOLIDAY AFFAIR. 

 

Steve (Robert Mitchum), is a drifter and department store worker who suspects Connie (Janet Leigh), of comparative shopping for a rival store. They begin a courtship, which angers Connie’s potential fiancée Carl (Wendell Corey), and confuses her young son Timmy (Gordon Gebert). 

 

Based on the story Christmas Gift by John D. Weaver, HOLIDAY AFFAIR is a love triangle set during the Christmas shopping season. Connie is caught comparison-shopping by way of a toy train set, which Steve eventually buys for her son Timmy. This throws confusion into young Timmy’s life, who doesn’t know which potential suitor to his mom he should show loyalty to. It becomes a battle of gentlemen, with Steve and Carl skillfully and gently trying outsmart the other. 

 

Director Don Hartman lets a theme of gift-giving drive the story. Who we give gifts to, and why, is a question that the characters mull over for most of the film. While the love triangle dances around each other, they debate just what every gift given to them really means. It’s food for thought and adds depth to the triangle, which isn’t very complicated on paper. Hartman does a fine job in setting up things early; Connie’s status as a war-widow hangs over the film as she is still in mourning, and the giddy optimism that America was defined by in this era still saturates the movie. 

 

Acting is a treat. Robert Mitchum, in a rare break from his Old West and war films, turns on the charm and is a delight. Janet Leigh, years before she would appear in Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (1960), lights up the screen. Harry Morgan, years before TV’S M.A.S.H., comes in a police officer who has to sort through the love triangle. The show is stolen by Gordon Gebert as young Timmy, who gets a lot of lines and screen-time and has just as much work to do as the adults. 

 

The very end of HOLIDAY AFFAIR comes as no surprise to anyone who has seen a holiday film with a touch of romantic-comedy, but that’s okay as the trip to get there is so much fun. In the overcrowded library of holiday films, this is one overlooked feel-good story to share with a dear one. 

 

BOTTOM LINE: See it 

 

*

 

Reel Facts: Wendell Corey would serve as the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences from 1961 to 1963. His most memorable film role would come in 1954 in Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW, playing Lt. Doyle. 

 

 

A Reel Review: MANK

CITIZEN KANE (1941) is often regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, but it has not been without controversy. The debate of the authorship of the screenplay rages on to this day. Does the credit belong to the then-young-and-budding Hollywood legend Orson Welles, or does it belong to the talented alcoholic writer Herman J. Mankiewicz (known as Mank)? This is the territory for director David Fincher, a legend in his own way whose films often fall into the class of got-to-see-it-again. 

Mank (Gary Oldman), is hired by Orson Welles (Tom Burke), to write the screenplay for his new project; a project that would eventually make history. 

MANK’s primary storyline sees our troubled writer beginning the process of writing what would become CITIZEN KANE; a task that he starts while recovering from injuries from a car accident. He is in somewhat of a seclusion; holed-up in a house assisted only by a nurse and his typist (Lily Collins). In a brilliant move, Fincher, directing from a script written by his late father, gives MANK the same structure as KANE…as the film goes into several flashbacks, slowly but surely building its way towards the elements that would inspire Mank to pen the script. These elements include his friendship with Hollywood actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), his touchy working-relationship with studio head Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard), and newspaper publisher/politician William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance)…all people that would land in the screenplay in one form or another. 

While MANK’s primary goal is to set up the many paths that Mank would use to write KANE, the film often goes too far sideways. Much of the flashback time is spent on the 1934 gubernational race in California between socialist Upton Sinclair (played by Bill Nye the Science Guy), and Republican Frank Merriam. This time sees our characters spending ages talking (emphasis on talking) about the goddamn difference between Communism and socialism…along with other issues such as the inner-workings of the studio system, Hollywood contracts, and the formation of the writer’s guild (SAG). While these are vital pieces that Mank would work into the KANE script, the endless jabber drags the film to a halt too often. 

There is still a lot to admire in MANK, because when it isn’t stopping the story dead with bullshit, it dazzles with its presentation. It is shot, edited, and acted in the style of the 1930’s and 1940’s, and truly feels like a relic of the past. The non-linear storytelling is easy to follow, and the winks and nods to the bygone era of Hollywood are executed perfectly. The score by frequent Fincher collaborators Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is excellent. 

Also excellent is the acting. Gary Oldman is in nearly every scene and has a blast playing drunk and shows the despair Mank had operating under pressures. Lilly Collins is lovely and matches Oldman toe-toe-to-toe, and Tom Burke is perfect as the young Welles. Amanda Seyfried steals every scene she’s in. 

The burning question of who should get the credit for writing KANE doesn’t get much screen-time, for when the issue is finally brought up, the film is nearly over. It feels like a cheat and one can’t help but to wonder why we had to sit through so much political blabber. For a student of cinema MANK has a lot to love, and in broad strokes it serves as a companion piece to KANE, but its tendency to veer off-course doesn’t bring it into the got-to-see-it-again class. 

BOTTOM LINE: Rent it 

*

MANK is currently playing in the few theaters that are open, and on Netflix. 

 

A Reel Retro Review: THE BISHOP'S WIFE (1947)

With no new films to review for the foreseeable future, Reel Speak will randomly review a classic film from the TCM library every week. Not just for the sake of filling time, but to hopefully introduce some overlooked and perhaps forgotten screen gems from the past to those of us who may be unfamiliar or unawares of their existence. In the spirit of the season, now comes the holiday series…

 

In December of 1996, holiday audiences were visited by THE PREACHER’S WIFE; an Oscar-nominated, comedy-drama directed by the late great Penny Marshall and starring Denzel Washington, Whitney Houston, Courtney B. Vance, and Gregory Hines. Over the years it has become an under-appreciated holiday classic, and often overlooked is that it was a remake of the 1947 film, THE BISHOP’S WIFE. 

 

During Christmastime, Bishop Henry Brougham (David Niven), is struggling to find funding for the building of his new cathedral, which is putting stress on his marriage to Julia (Loretta Young). He is visited by the angel Dudley (Cary Grant), who uses his divine powers and wisdom to provide spiritual guidance. 

 

Based on the 1928 novel of the same name by Robert Nathan, the early goings of THE BISHOP’S WIFE finds the Bishop and his family facing many stressors. Henry is under pressure to give in to the demanding wishes of the stern widow Mrs. Hamilton (Gladys Cooper), who is providing most of the funding to the new cathedral and making ridiculous demands. The project has put distance between Henry and Julia, with his poor wife longing for the days when they were a happier couple, spending time with their young daughter. 

 

The arrival of Dudley immediately changes things for the Bishop and his family. Through his nifty miracles and irresistible charm, Dudley pushes everyone in the right direction and sets things on a better path. Henry is the only one whom Dudley reveals his true identity, which is met with skepticism. Things get further complicated when Dudley and Julia grow close, causing Henry to suspect his angel of trying to steal his wife away from him. 

 

Director Henry Koster keeps the drama light and the pacing brisk. There is a lot of fun to be had watching Dudley perform his miracles, most of which are done on-screen with animated-cartoon visual effects…which are a little dated but charming. The real special effect of the film is the script, which does great work with the characters and the situations they find themselves in. 

 

Acting is excellent. Cary Grant turns up the charm to 11, and his sincerity is so good it’s nearly annoying. David Niven is a bit of a grump for most of the film but we do feel for him. Loretta Lynn lights up the screen. 

 

Anyone who has seen the 1996 remake knows what happens to Dudley and why he needs to leave the way he does…which makes for a bittersweet ending even though all the characters have been set straight. As a holiday film, it preaches hope and resilience, and certainly loves a Christmas miracle or two. 

 

BOTTOM LINE: See it 

 

*

 

THE BISHOP’S WIFE was nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture. The film was initially a box office disappointment, as audiences thought the film was a religious picture. It was then re-marketed with a new title, CARY AND THE BISHOP’S WIFE, which increased the film’s box office take by 25 percent. 

Reel Facts & Opinions: The Top 5 Reasons DIE HARD is a Christmas Movie & The Top 5 Reasons it is not.

It’s December! Tis the season for tinsel, trees, presents and nogg. It’s a kinder, gentler time…a time for family and friends and for the little ones to dream of jolly elves. For movie fans, it’s a month full of films we watch only once a year, from any version of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, to Ralphie and his BB gun, to Clark with his cursed exterior lighting. Add all that together, and it surely is a wonderful time of year. 

 

Unfortunately, it is also a time for one of the more annoying questions among fans of the silver screen; is DIE HARD (1988) a Christmas movie? The action blockbuster, directed by John McTiernan and starring Bruce Willis as a N.Y. cop stuck in an L.A. high-rise battling terrorists, has been the source of a raging debate that seems to have no end. Why is it so debatable? Because there are fair points to be made on both sides. And with that, comes Reel Speak’s Top 5 Reasons DIE HARD is a Christmas Movie and the Top 5 it is not. 

 

 

So let’s come out to the coast….

 

 

Why it IS

 

5. It takes place on Christmas Eve

This is the obvious place to start, as Willis’ character John McClane arrives in L.A. to attend an office party on Christmas Eve. This time frame automatically gives the film the standard holiday elements; Christmas music, the familiar terms of ho ho ho and Merry Christmas, and holiday decorations. Right away, it at least looks and feels like a holiday film. 

 

 

4. It has some Christmas Music

This is a point made above, but it deserves another mention because Christmas music is an elemental part of any holiday film. DIE HARD features the contemporary hit Christmas in Hollis, along with classics such as Let it Snow and a variation of Ode to Joy which has become the un-official DIE HARD theme over the years and sequels. These music cuts give the film that holiday atmosphere. 

 

 

3. John’s wife’s name is Holly. 

A bit of a stretch, but there are no coincidences in filmmaking. 

 

 

2. It has a Christmas Theme

At its core, DIE HARD is about an out-of-place cop trying to save hostages (including his estranged wife) from a gang of terrorists. Call it revisionism if you’d like, but the film can also be described as a family man trying to get his family back for Christmas…a description that on-paper sounds like a thousand different Hallmark movies. 

 

 

1. It feels out of place watching DIE HARD at any other time of year. 

Most of us prefer to keep Christmas at Christmastime; no one wants to be singing Silent Night while laying on the beach. When we take into consideration all of the holiday elements in the film; the music, the decorations, and the familiar terms…it just feels weird watching the film during any other time but December.  

 

Why it is NOT

 

5. It was originally released in July. 

Christmas movies are released in November and December. Period. DIE HARD’s July release says that it was originally conceived as a summer blockbuster. Which it was. 

 

 

4. It’s rated R. 

This Blogger usually doesn’t like putting limits on films, but holiday movies are supposed to be for the whole family. DIE HARD is rated R for strong violence and language, drug use and nudity. Not exactly family fare. Now there is a fair argument to be made that DIE HARD is a Christmas movie for adults, but logic just says that gunplay, bloodshed, swearing, and bare breasts have no place in holiday movies. 

 

 

3. The Christmas setting is disposable. 

In every holiday film, Christmas is essential to the plot and characters. Take Christmas out of A CHRISTMAS STORY, and there is no movie. Take the holiday out of CHRISTMAS VACATION, and Clark has nothing to do. Now, take the holiday out of DIE HARD…and nothing changes. It would be the same plot with the same thing happening. The holiday setting serves as a set decoration and has nothing to do with the center of the movie. 

 

 

2. No Peace on Earth. 

Terms such as peace on Earth, goodwill towards men, and joy are vital elements of the holidays, and holiday films go out of their way to express them. DIE HARD, with its swearing and killing and punching and shooting…does no such thing. And nearly every holiday film has a strong lesson for the main character to learn and grow from. That is a glaring omission for John McClane here. 

 

 

1. Bruce Willis says it’s not. 

At the 2018 Comedy Central Roast of Bruce Willis, the star of the film, and the entire series, exclaimed to the world that DIE HARD is not a Christmas movie. It’s a goddamn Bruce Willis movie. If you want to argue with John McClane, go right ahead. 

 

*

 

The conclusion? The conclusion is there is none. The film clearly checks the boxes that meet holiday movie criteria; music, atmosphere, setting…but its rating, content, and violence just throws it off. It has feet set on both sides of the border, and this has empowered today’s cinephile’s to argue about it since everything needs to have a label slapped on it. Bruce Willis’ strong statement seems to come from the frustration of his film, often considered to be one of the greatest action films of all time, having its legacy reduced to an endless (and pointless) argument. Personally, this Blogger is so sick of the issue that I haven’t watched the film in years due to exhaustion and a tainted legacy. It deserves better than that. It’s a great action film that takes place during the holidays, and that should be enough.