(L-R) Stephen Fry, Lena Dunham, and Stefan Zbigniew Zamachowski in TREASURE. Photo Credit: Bleecker Street and FilmNation
Lena Dunham and Stephen Fry play a daughter and her Holocaust-survivor father, on a trip to his native Poland in the 1990s, in the dramedy TREASURE. The trip is the daughter’s idea, and her plan is to learn about her family history, something her father and late mother always refused to talk about. Angry and frustrated at her parents’ refusal to share anything about their past, she plans to visit sites related to dad’s family and life to learn about the family she knows nothing about. Her father has steadfastly refused to talk about it, and with the death of her mother, she figured going to their home country of Poland was the only way. Unsurprisingly, revisiting Poland is not something dad wanted to do but he goes along, pretty much uninvited, to “protect her,” as he puts it. What he is protecting her from is a little unclear.
This pair couldn’t be more different in temperament, and have a prickly relationship. The daughter, Ruth (Lena Dunham), is grim, humorless, and no-nonsense, a New York-based music journalist, a vegan with rigid habits, who doesn’t seem to enjoy travel and worries about her tight budget. Dad Edek (Stephen Fry) is a joyful, outgoing fellow, who stops to flirt with most women he meets along the way and tells everyone they meet that his daughter is rich and famous, although she is neither. He refuses to be serious, at least on the surface, and Dad does his best to distract his daughter, to delay things, waste time, and send her on the wrong track, even trick her, to keep her from her mission. He is sometimes helped by a local taxi driver (Stefan Zbigniew Zamachowski) that the pair have picked up at the airport and turned into a kind of tour guide, after dad refuses to board the train his daughter had booked for the trip.
Julia von Heinz wrote and directs this dramedy about family, memory and Poland in WWII and in post-communist 1990s. The story is emotional, and often funny. At first, the situation seems a bit forced, contrived and awkward, but as the story unfolds, the film improves and becomes more believable. Fry and Dunham soften and deepen their characters, and both father and daughter work through some issues. Zamachowski as the driver provides a mediator between battling father and daughter, and adds his own comedy touches or serves as a comic foil, while supplying information about the post-communist Poland as they travel.
Ruth is there to investigate her family’s history, not to have fun, so she goes about his trip like a woman on a mission, or working an assignment. But her trip does include some educational tours, mostly because she has so few clues from her parents, both to learn about Poland and the Holocaust. The film does note how odd it is to have such tours of sites like Auschwitz. As admirable as it is to educate people, with the aim of “never again,” it is still seems strange and unsettling to have them as tourist sites. However, Ruth is mostly there to learn about her family. She has done some research and also visits places like a family cemetery and a one-time family home. But the closer she gets to the family sites, the more smiling, fast-talking dad seems desperate to derail her search.
Both Dunham and Fry are good, with Fry especially charming and funny. Early one, some odd-couple humor feels forced, but as things go along, the film improves as Fry’s and Dunham’s characters become more relaxed. Fry’s Edek is quite a plotter but slowly becomes less a hindrance, even revealing why he has been so secretive all these years. The film touches on true-history subjects, such as giving insight on how neighbors turned on their Jewish friends and neighbors, exploiting the Nazi occupation for their own advantage. Eventually the meaning of the title is revealed, in a twist that brings father and daughter together at last.
TREASURE debuts streaming on demand on Tuesday, July 30.
In the sci-fi action extravaganza THE CREATOR, a mash-up of hero-quest movies from STAR WARS to BLADE RUNNER, the hero played by John David Washington battles a host of daunting foes and powerful weapons to save a little girl. Only she isn’t a little girl – but a human-like AI android that was built with a massive power, to neutralize any weapon humans might possess in a AI-versus-human war. Which means the human hero in this big, splashy special effects movie is helping an AI robot that looks like a child defeat humankind. Yet audiences cheer at the end of this sci-fi action adventure, seemingly unconscious of what they are cheering. What?
It’s a disturbing experience. I am not the only critic to note that THE CREATOR is pretty much a propaganda film, manipulating its audience with classic mythic hero tropes to tell a tale of AI triumphing over humanity. Sure, some will argue it’s just entertainment and close their eyes to the subtext, and even cheer at the end (as the audience I saw it with did) without thinking about what that end means. But you have to wonder who financed this opus, and what they intend by calling the androids “AI” and portraying them as harmless things, even though labeling these robots that way is both inaccurate and misleading. The false connection between harmless robots and AI is a message that will sink into the subconscious unbidden. With real-world IT industry leaders warning real-world leaders about the dangers of AI, and even the possibility of an existential threat to humankind, maybe that message and a heroic yarn about “good” AI defeating “bad” people isn’t want we need. Add in that this story casts Americans as the “bad guys” who want to get rid of AI versus a fictional nation called “New Asia” who defends AI, and it’s really stirring up the proverbial hornet’s nest.
Directed by Gareth Edwards, and written by Edwards and Chris Weitz, the story almost sounds like it was written by AI. It recycles tropes and story-lines from a plethora of sources, including familiar heroic movies and series like STAR WARS and BLADE RUNNER, as mentioned above, but also METROPOLIS, CHILDREN OF MEN, THE MANDOLORIAN, THE LAST OF US, EX MACHINA and even APOCALPSE NOW, among others. It is a messy mishmash but all that mess draws on the classic roots of all hero myths which speaks deeply to the human psyche. Throw in a child (or what looks like a child) for the hero to protect and save, and you have really powerful stuff. Except this isn’t a child – it’s an artificial bio machine with incredible power, a power that grows as it grows, and something to be used defeated humanity.
After a run of sci-fi movies like EX MACHINA, HER, THE MATRIX and THE TERMINATOR that pitted mankind against some kind of intelligent robot-like adversary, this movie turns things around to cast the humans as the villains and the machines as the good guys. And then encourages audiences to cheer that.
THE CREATOR starts out in a more conventional hero-tale way, which is what you see in the movie trailer.
In an old newsreel style prelude, we see a world where human-like robots (called sometimes call simulants but mostly called AI) are fully integrated into human society. That suddenly changes when a newly deployed military AI, intended for defense, decides people are the threat and drops a nuclear bomb on Los Angeles. Flash forward to years later, and the U.S. has outlawed AI (again, meaning the androids) and they have been nearly eliminated. The last remaining AI have taken shelter in a country called New Asia. But the American military has built a super weapon, a big airship, to defeat these last AI, and finally end the threat to mankind’s existence.
John David Washington plays Joshua, an uncover American operative embedded in the new country of New Asia trying to find a brilliant scientist who is developing a new kind of AI robot that can destroy the U.S.’s most powerful weapon in the war against AI. But a clumsy attempt at an invasion blows Joshua’s cover and, worse, separates him from his pregnant wife, Maya (Gemma Chan), a robotist, and maybe kills her.
Years later, the U.S. tries a second invasion (there is supposed to be a coalition of nations but we only see American forces), and Joshua is sent in again, under the command of Colonel Howell (Allison Janney), to find and destroy a new AI weapon with the power to destroy all human weapons.
But soon after, THE CREATOR flips the script, and makes the humans the bad guys and the androids into the good guys. We go from a movie that echoes disaster films about people defending Earth from alien or robot attack, to APOCALYPSE NOW with American soldiers from this futuristic world now threatening unarmed women and children in what looks like a village in 1960s Vietnam, even threatening to shoot a puppy. Throwing in an American versus Asia thing makes it extra unsettling, but especially given current real-world tensions. Nothing like stirring the pot.
At this point, Joshua is now in a pretty dark place personally, still mourning his lost wife and unborn child and even borderline suicidal. He takes the mission to defend humankind against the new threat but his heart isn’t in it. He’s really more interested getting back to New Asia to try to find his wife, whom is he hopes may still be alive, than in finding the weapon he is supposed to destroy, his assigned mission.
When Joshua does locate this powerful AI weapon, it turns out to be in the form of an adorable little girl. Well, not a girl but a girl-like android – a pretty clever form of “protective coloring” if you think about it. Almost as soon as Joshua sees the adorable little girl robot (Madeleine Yuna Voyles), who appears to be about the same age his own child would have been, he’s pretty much a goner. Instead of destroying the cute android as instructed, he takes along the AI he dubs Alphie, protecting and hiding her/it, maybe intending to keep others from capturing her/it and maybe intending to take her/it back to his team. Maybe.
The little girl AI is irresistibly cute and we fall under her spell as quickly as Joshua does. But this is not like EX MACHINA where the creation’s true nature is eventually revealed. Here Alphie remains sweetly charming, even as she disables any weapon aimed at her (by adopting a Buddhist prayer pose), clearing the path for her and Joshua.
That the movie’s androids are always called “AI” instead of robots or androids is significant, indicating the movie has a message about AI rather than being just an ordinary robot movie, There has to be an intention behind that. The usually-gentle human-like robots in this movie harken back to classic science fiction novels (including Isaac Asimov’s), where loyal servant robots, which had programming that prevents them from harming humans, are mistreated by people and have fight for their rights.
In the real world, AI do not have programming to prevent them from harming people – that is science fiction. These fictional androids are following fictional Asimov’s Rules of Robots – something real-world experts in the AI field say is not possible to “program” into real AI. Nor are real AI being “mistreated” (although misused may be another matter, but that is misuse is aimed at people, not AI). So the peaceful “AI” robots in this movie are something far different from actual AI that people are concerned about in the real world. Clearly the makers of this film want you to forget that detail.
So why would you want to mislead people by suggesting that real AI is or could be programmed to be harmless? It’s a question you might want to ask yourself if you choose watch this movie.
Once we get to New Asia, we hear a recurring refrain from humans there, one repeated several times in the movie, that the AI robots have “never been anything but kind to me” – unlike other people. We are clearly supposed to see the AI as better, kinder, than humans.
In fact, there is a kind of “diversity” theme here, with the AI robots presented as just another form of people. We see them as police and soldiers, but also as subsistence fisherman and even Buddhist monks.
Why robots would be monks? It makes no sense, but the whole thing is designed as a distraction from why people in the real world might be worried (and should be) about AI – and it’s not because they might replace monks.
Oddly, although you see more people than androids in New Asia when the film starts, as the film progresses we see fewer people. By it’s end, we see mostly AI, with only an occasional human if any at all. Dialog about how modern human replaced Neanderthals seems a chilling commentary on that, although the movie completely misrepresents how that happened. A character in the film states that modern humans replaced Neanderthals because people were “meaner,” but was more likely because of a more advanced culture and more creative, adaptive brains (not bigger ones). This was perhaps due to a genetic difference that gave modern humans more neurons in the frontal lobe of the brain, which would give an advantage in cognition, as recent research suggests. (Yeah, OK, I know, let’s not have real science in the science fiction.) Instead, that remark about people being mean sends the audience a message about who to root for, and it isn’t us.
Still, there are a couple of good points to this disturbing, manipulative movie, although not enough to rescue it from its mashup script or creepy message. The actors do a good job in this unfortunate film, with John David Washington playing his mournful, nearly suicidal hero well, and young Madeleine Yuna Voyles being very appealing as the child android. Alison Janney is impressive playing a relentless and ruthless American commander, who is supposed to be Washington’s despondent character Joshua’s boss although Joshua often ignores her or thwarts her in his sad, unstoppable quest for his lost wife. Washington’s performances are strong enough that one could even see how this broken man might ignore what is he is really doing to humanity, to embrace a child-like creation that makes him think of his lost child and grasp at straws to see his beloved wife again.
The other bright spot is that the movie has big-budget polish and impressive visual effects, despite a relatively modest budget (by the standards for this kind of FX movie) of $8 million, compared to other special effects adventure or superhero movies with budgets more like the annual budgets of small nations. How these film-makers did that is something that others might look into.
Still those few points are not enough to redeem this coldly manipulative propaganda film, with its chilling message for mankind. Yes, there will be audiences determined to see this sci-fi drama as mere entertainment, and resent any suggestions to the contrary. But the subtext is there, and subtext seeps into brains. Adding that East-West conflict theme is even more troubling, as this film will surely be seen by Asian audiences too, which might whip up a hostility that is good for no one.
Justin Min as Ben, Timothy Simons as Leon and Ally Maki as Miko,in SHORTCOMINGS. Photo credit: Jon Pack. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
We all have shortcomings but in SHORTCOMINGS, all the characters have them in abundance. This funny, smart, modern comedy follows the lives and misadventures of Ben Tanaka (Justin H. Min, who played Ben Hargreaves in the TV series “The Umbrella Academy” and Jimmy Woo in ANTMAN AND THE WASP), his best friend Alice Kim (comedian Sherry Cola) and his girlfriend Miko Hayashi (actress/fashion maven Ally Maki) as the San Francisco Bay area twenty-somethings navigate relationships and just real life. Based on the graphic novel of the same name by Adrian Tomine, SHORTCOMINGS is filled with laugh-out-loud humor and sharp, witty dialog in a real-life tale that also shows the variety of Asian American experience.
Based on a graphic novel of the same name by Adrian Tomine, SHORTCOMINGS is actor-turned director Randall Park’s first feature. Tomine also wrote the screen adaptation of his graphic novel for this hilarious, pointed comedy, which premiered at Sundance.
The story opens at the movies, where a feel-good wish-fulfillment Hollywood ending to an Asian American romance is on screen. The empowering happy ending sends the audience out of the theater in a glow, to the delight of the people putting on this Berkeley Asian film festival. Ben’s live-in girlfriend Miko is the assistant director of the film festival and very pleased with the film’s reaction. But wannabee film director Ben is rolling his eyes at the crowd-pleaser, complaining that there is not a single realistic character in the movie. Miko defensively pushes back, saying the film’s slick Hollywood style and positive representation of Asian Americans actually will open doors for more varied Asian American films, like Ben might make. Still, Ben continues to argue, even carrying over his negative attitude into the next days, creating a rift in their relationship.
In what may be a breakout role, Justin Min does an impressive job making Ben likable despite the character’s tendency to be argumentative, whiny and self-sabotaging while having no insight on his shortcomings in dealing with people. Further, Ben also doesn’t like change even though he is drifting through life. He calls himself a filmmaker, but really he works as the manager of an art-house movie theater, where he shows minimal interest in the theater’s success.
The couple continues to drift apart, arguing over Ben’s secret habit of searching for photos of white women, an obsession he denies. Shortly after, Miko announces she is going to accept an internship in New York. Ben immediately bad-mouths New York but doesn’t try to talk her out of it. Actually, he is worried about losing Miko, but keeps his worries to himself. When Miko leaves, she tells tells him they should take a break in their relationship. Again, Ben says nothing. But he immediately hits on Autumn (Tavi Gevinson), a pretty white woman he just hired at the theater. Then he quickly drops her to go out with another woman, again white, Sasha (Debbie Ryan) even though his friend Alice tries to warn him off her.
Ben certainly seems like a jerk at this point, and a lot of the characters tell him, again and again, that he is the problem – one time even using a reverse of that classic breakup line “it’s not you, it’s me,” letting him know that it is not the culture, it’s not prejudice, it’s him. But clueless Ben resists taking any of that to heart. With Miko in New York, the film follows Ben and Alice and their romantic misadventures. Sparkling, smart and funny dialog is one of the treats in this comedy but so are the relationship exchanges, which are so real world that you could imagine them in any relationship. The characters and situations, while played for comedy, all have a refreshing realism, with messy real-life situations and characters who are likable, complicated, contradictory and flawed all at the same time. The warts and all characters are refreshing rather than irritating because we are given insights on why they do what they do, even when their behavior is not nice and the characters themselves don’t have those insights.
While Ben is bad at revealing his feelings to his girlfriend Miko, he is more forthcoming with his best friend Alice especially while Miko is gone. Alice, a gay graduate student with a history of serial relationships, can be as insensitive as Ben, which might be part of why they get along so well. While Ben wants to hold on to the relationship he has been sabotaging, Alice’s response to relationship troubles is to run away.
Despite his missteps, Justin Min keeps Ben likable enough that we still care about him, while director Randall Park makes clear that Ben is as much the target of bad behavior as he is often the source. They are all behaving badly, and as the story develops, we see lots of shortcomings of other characters, often with Ben bearing the brunt of that, despite the verbal drumbeat of it being all Ben’s fault. In a way, it is, because his lack of insight on himself and his self-sabotage is at the heart of his troubles.
This is a very funny film but director Randall Park also aims to use humor spotlight some things about Asian Americans rarely seen on scene, like the diversity in the Asian American experience. In one particularly good sequence, Alice, afraid to reveal that she is gay to her conservative parents, persuades Ben to pose has her boyfriend to meet her parents, one Korean and the other Chinese. But she doesn’t want him reveal his Japanese heritage to her Korean grandfather, even though Ben points out that his family has been in the U.S. for several generations, because she worries about lingering prejudices from WWII. It sets up a hilarious, farcical exchange but highlights something non-Asians might not think about.
Eventually, Ben and Alice do end up in New York, partly fleeing their own messes back home, but also giving Ben a chance to find out what is going on with Miko, who has been dodging his calls. We meet Leon (Timothy Simons) and Meredith (Sonoya Mizuno), and more craziness, hilarious moments and telling insights ensue, as the film cleverly wraps things up, although not with the predictably neat Hollywood bow.
With humor that catches you off-guard until the end, delightfully smart dialog, and unexpected insights, SHORTCOMINGS has few shortcomings as a clever, insightful, real-world comedy.
Cillian Murphy is J. Robert Oppenheimer in OPPENHEIMER, written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan. Courtesy of Universal
“Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds” is the famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita that physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer spoke upon witnessing the first denotation of a nuclear device, as the world entered the new era of nuclear weapons. OPPENHEIMER is Christopher Nolan’s epic drama about Oppenheimer, his work on the Manhattan Project, and his treatment after the war. The biographical drama starts like a historical thriller and ends like a profound warning to the world, all set against the sweep of history that changed the world.
Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography “American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer” by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, Nolan’s epic film in fact opens with a reminder of that myth of the man who stole fire from the gods and was punished eternally for his deed. OPPENHEIMER explores the theoretical physicist’s life, particularly his work on the WWII race to build a nuclear bomb before the Nazi Germany, known as the Manhattan Project, and then the post-war aftermath, when Oppenheimer, haunted by the world-destructive weapon that he helped unleash on the world, sought to rein in that danger, which pitted him against a military eager to launch the Cold War arms race, making Oppenheimer a target for communist-hunting investigations.
J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) was the brilliant theoretical physicist who was selected to run the Manhattan Project, the secret U.S. project to beat Nazi Germany to building an atomic bomb. The young physicist is recruited for that job by Lt. General Leslie Groves Jr. (Matt Damon). Oppenheimer seemed an unlikely choice, the New York-born son of a wealthy Jewish family and an autodidact who read literature and poetry, spoke several languages and read the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad Gita, in the original Sanskrit, yet Oppenheimer actively seeks the job, eager to help defeat the Nazis, partly because of what was happening to Jewish people in Europe. Oppenheimer shared his family’s left-leaning political views, and even partied with some communists, but none of that was remarkable or uncommon in that time period, when Americans were still unaware of what was really happening in Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Immediately, Oppenheimer realizes the Manhattan Project has an unexpected edge over the Nazis, despite Germany’s over-a-year head start on developing a nuclear bomb. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews will drive the Germans to purge Jewish scientists from their nuclear bomb research, and Oppenheimer, having visited Europe as a student, knows many of the top physicists are Jewish or have Jewish backgrounds or links. Oppenheimer sets out to recruit as many of those Jewish refugee physicists as possible, using Hitler’s hatred against him.
And recruit them he does, including Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh), and Hans Bethe (Gustaf Skarsgard), along with Jewish-Americans Richard Feynman (Jack Quaid) and Robert Serber (Michael Angarano). Enrico Fermi (Danny Deferrari) wasn’t Jewish but his wife was, causing them to flee fascist Italy, and he joins the effort too. Although Oppenheimer knew Albert Einstein (Tom Conti), and the two were friends, he did not invite Einstein to join the project, but Einstein does appear in the film at a couple of points, and has an important part in the film’s powerful ending.
For the secret project, Oppenheimer selects a remote location in the New Mexico desert, Los Alamos, near an area he has vacationed many times, a region he loves. The desert landscape creates a perfect canvas for Nolan to build this thrilling chase for the bomb.
The impressive cast also includes Robert Downey Jr as Lewis Strauss, the non-scientist who heads the Princeton academy that includes Einstein. Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence (as in Lawrence Livermore laboratory) and David Krumholtz as Oppenheimer’s friend Isidor Rabi.. Emily Blunt plays Oppenheimer’s wife Kitty, a biologist frustrated by the era’s confining roles of wife and mother, and Florence Pugh as Oppenheimer’s troubled ex-lover, leftist psychiatrist Jean Tatlock. Many other recognizable faces appear, in a host of small roles.
Nolan’s film, perhaps his best, is a true epic and its length is epic too, at about 3 hours, but OPPENHEIMER is so engrossing and tense that one does not feel the running time. This excellent film has much to recommend it – its riveting and significant content, timely message about ethical consequences of technology, its outstanding performances from an impressive cast (particularly Cillian Murphy), its powerful and largely accurate historical storytelling, plus its visual artistry and technical achievements – to mention a few of its admirable aspects, meaning that it is hard to know where to start in describing the film. Those who know Nolan’s work will find that OPPENHEIMER is very much in his wheelhouse, perhaps the film he was always meant to make.
OPPENHEIMER is divided in two parts, which Nolan labels “Fission” and “Fusion,” for the pre-bomb and post-bomb world. The epic starts out as biography and a gripping thriller, as the young Oppenheimer ascends and the Manhattan Project races to build the first atomic bomb. Post-war, it shifts to taut drama about his fall, as the now-famous Oppenheimer is haunted with guilt over giving mankind the power to destroy the world, and seeks use his fame to limit nuclear weapons, which angers the Pentagon, eager to start the arms race, and makes him the target of a investigation in the rising tide of the Cold War and a shifting political climate. The pivot point between these two parts is the testing of the first nuclear device, Trinity, in which what had been theoretical suddenly becomes horrifying reality, prompting that famous quote from Oppenheimer.
The film jumps back and forth in time, as Nolan film’s sometimes do, and has three threads it follows. But there is no trouble following the narrative, even if the significance of a single scene might not be immediately clear, and the director aids that by presenting one of these threads is in black-and-white. Two of the thread are focused on Oppenheimer, before and after the Trinity nuclear test, while the third, in black-and-white, is centered on a Congressional hearing to confirm Lewis Strauss for a cabinet-level post. What that thread has to do with the story is not clear until later in the film, but it’s significance is powerful.
From the start, ethical and moral questions are part of the equation. Why try to create the most destructive weapon ever seen? In one scene, the physicists debate that question but one fact looms over all: Hitler’s Germany is already working on such a weapon. If they can’t be stopped, the next best thing is to get the weapon first. “I don’t know if we can be trusted to have such a weapon but I know the Nazis can’t,” Oppenheimer says in the film.
The film’s pivotal moment is the test of the first nuclear device, the Trinity test, where what had been only theoretical becomes devastatingly real, and changes the world forever. It is a heart-stopping, showstopper sequence that is the cinematic highlight as well as pivot point of the film, where the realization of the true significance of what they have done causes Oppenheimer to utter that famous quote. Nolan handles this immersive sequence with brilliance, giving the audience an unsettling feeling of being there in the moment. The lack of awareness of the danger of radiation actually poses is one reason some scenes are so harrowing to watch.
The scenes of the detonation are riveting but the film does not include footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the story is told from Oppenheimer’s view and it is not something he witnessed. Once the two bombs are created, they are whisked away, and Oppenheimer learns about their use and targets the same time and way as everyone else- on the radio. Instead, there is a sequence after the bombs are dropped, where Oppenheimer speaks to the Manhattan Project scientists and staff. As he speaks, shots of the jubilant people in the crowd sometimes slowly morph into images that suggest the bombs’ victims, a haunting, horrifying effect that reflects Oppenheimer’s inner turmoil at that world-changing moment.
Post-war, Oppenheimer finds himself suddenly famous but consumed with guilt, and tries to use that fame to press for limits on nuclear weapons, hoping the horror of the atomic bombs will put an end to all wars. But not everyone has grasped how the world has been transformed by the new technology, and Oppenheimer fails to see the shifting political landscape of the coming Cold War, making him a target.
The post-war second half adopts a deeper, more thoughtful tone, more like a courtroom drama, as it examines how Oppenheimer was treated after the war. Suddenly, Oppenheimer is world famous, and the scientist tries to use that fame to press the government of the nation he served so well to take seriously the danger of new power unleashed on the world. He wants them to grasp, as one character notes in the film, that this is not a weapon but a new reality for the world. But even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the devastating effects of ionizing radiation emerged, many do not see it. Instead, Oppenheimer’s activities, particularly his opposition to the development of a hydrogen bomb, angers the Pentagon, focused the dawning Cold War and arms race.
The film basically gets the history and science right, although it is careful not to overload the audience with the latter. However, this is important to note this is basically biography, told from the subject’s view, and not a definitive exploration of the Manhattan Project and the resulting bombings. That means that some may feel that there are things it overlooks or doesn’t cover in sufficient depth but historical completeness was never the intent of the film. As the film depicts, Oppenheimer did not pick the targets, and after the Trinity test, all control is taken out of his hands. Oppenheimer learns about the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the same way every American did, on the radio.
Much of the reason the film is so immersive and gripping is how Nolan shot the film, which is analog, on 65mm film in large-format15-perf IMAX, with ten times the resolution of standard film, and the highest resolution film ever used. This is a must-see epic that is best seen on an large IMAX screen. In 19 lucky locations around the U.S., it is also being shown in 70mm format, the best choice.
Oppenheimer’s lack of understanding of the political shift underway post-war as the Cold War dawns is illustrated in a scene where he meets President Truman (Gary Oldman). The physicist wants to take the opportunity to speak out against developing the more-powerful hydrogen bomb, but Truman isn’t open to that topic. Frustrated, Oppenheimer tells Truman he feels he has “blood on his hands” a grave error in speaking to the President who ordered the dropping of those bombs, who abruptly ends the meeting.
The scene also illustrates the way in which Oppenheimer became his own worst enemy in the post-war world he helped create, as well as the target of an angered Pentagon, a theme further expanded as Oppenheimer faced an investigation about renewing his security clearance, where questions about his pre-war left-leaning political associations, once considered inconsequential, were raised anew in the commie-hunting atmosphere. The film culminates in a powerful sequence that brings all its threads together and leaves us stunned.
OPPENHEIMER seems a sure thing for Oscar nominations, an engrossing, brilliant epic that mixes a rise-and-fall biography of a complicated genius, with tremendous ticking-clock historical thriller followed by a revealing drama about a struggle over a technology with the power to destroy the humankind, and the ethical choices around it.
Indy’s back, in a new chapter that is a throw-back to that original Steven Spielberg RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK that hooked us to begin with. While Harrison Ford returns as archaeologist/adventurer Indiana Jones, along with a bunch of other Spielberg characters from the first one (along with some new ones), and this is the final film in the series and a farewell to Ford as the character, Spielberg does not direct INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY. Fear not, director James Mangold (FERRARI VS FORD) seamlessly captures the Spielberg vibe. You’d never know if you didn’t look at the credits. Plus, the story is still by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman, with a screenplay by co-written by Mangold, Jez Butterworth, David Koepp and John-Henry Butterworth.
James Mangold may be less well known that Spielberg but he has a string of excellent films to his credit, including LOGAN, the 310 TO YUMA remake, and GIRL, INTERRUPTED. While the original RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was gangbusters, a film that hearkened back to 1940s adventure films, the Indiana Jones sequels that followed were more a mixed bag, with some better than others. This final Indiana Jones movie recaptures some of the original’s magic.
INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY is a wonderful farewell to the role for Harrison Ford, who is no longer the young thing he was in the 1981 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Unlike other Indy sequels, this one acknowledges that passage of time, and even makes it work for the story. The film opens with a fabulous flashback sequence, that takes us back to the early days, battling Nazis who are looting archaeological treasures.
Harrison Ford plays the part as the young Indy thanks to some impressive visual sampling, motion-capture and other special effects. The result is so effective, it is thrilling, even awe-inspiring, and worth the price of admission alone.
Actually, Harrison Ford, young or old, alone is worth the price of admission; he is that good . Going back to the ’40s lets this Indiana Jones movie do something that is always a mark of a good one in the series – have Indy punch Nazis. Having Harrison Ford play the part, instead of a younger actor playing Ford playing the part, is part of the fun, thanks to modern movie magic.
Late in WWII, Indiana Jones, disguised in a Nazi uniform, and his fellow archaeologist Basil Shaw (Toby Jones) infiltrate a Nazi operation that is smuggling art and archaeological treasures back to the Reich. The Nazi in charge of this operation is looking for a certain item rumored to have mystical powers but a young Nazi scientist Dr. Voller (Mads Mikkelsen, also de-aged) alerts him to an object with more impressive power, the Archimedes Dial (inspired by, and resembling, a real-life archaeological treasure, the Antikythera mechanism). Fights and a thrilling chase onboard a racing train ensues, as Indy and the Nazi scientist struggle for control of the object.
After the flashback, the story moves to 1969, where an older Indy (Ford) is jolted out of bed – in just his boxer shorts – by a blast of rock music and a parade celebrating the moon landing just outside the window of his little big-city apartment. We see Harrison Ford, in all his craggy glory, as the older Indy, long past his adventuring days and actually getting ready to retire from his job as professor of archaeology But the wrench in the works for that plan, is his long-lost god-daughter Helena (Phoebe Waller-Bridge), the child of his buddy in the adventure we just saw, who turns up seeking a lost archaeological treasure she believes Indy has. But there is a hitch because that same Nazi scientist (Mikkelsen again), now working for NASA and hiding his past, is after it too. And of course, he’s still secretly a Nazi.
Echoing the original, this young woman draws a reluctant Indy into the adventure, in this case by stealing the object. We also get brief appearances by old friends, like John Rhys-Davies as Sallah, and a whole lot of fast-paced adventuring fun.
The MacGuffin that both the Nazis and Indy are chasing, the Archimedes Dial, looks a lot like the real-world Antikythera device, but the ancient device in the movie is not only in working order but has the power to find fissures in time. Or could, if they had both halves.
Pursuit of this object sparks a chase across continents and plenty of thrilling action and adventures (including punching Nazis), with call-backs to scenes from the original. The abundant chases and fight scenes are breathless and exciting, with danger mixed with touches of humor. We also get a car chase in Tangiers, in tuk tuks, those tiny three-wheeler vehicles that are small enough to navigate the narrow, twisting lanes, which is great fun.
While many fans of the original will delight in this throw-back film, built to wrap up the Indiana Jones story while providing that nice farewell to the role for Harrison Ford, INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY is also a bit of a love-it-or-hate-it film because it departs from the basic premise of what might happen in a 1940s adventure movie, by introducing a bit of sci-fi. No details, to avoid spoilers, but sci-fi haters won’t be happy.
To be honest, the plot does run a bit out-of-control late in the film. Some extra suspension of disbelief is required, but no more so than needed for the typical MISSION IMPOSSIBLE gravity- and physics-optional CGI stunt fest.
While some of this plot is a stretch, a little forgiveness is warranted, as INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY does right by the characters and by the spirit of the Indiana Jones series. It ties up everything nicely, in a touching, reasonable and satisfying bow. Why ask for more?
INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY opens in theaters on Friday, June 30.
Sebastian Maniscalco as Sebastian and Robert De Niro as Salvo in About My Father. Photo Credit: Dan Anderson. Courtesy of Lionsgate
Comedian Sebastian Maniscalco plays a man named Sebastian Maniscalco while Robert De Niro plays his father Salvo, in the comedy ABOUT MY FATHER. Maniscalco and De Niro as father and son are the major delight in this otherwise mildly funny, warm-hearted comedy. It is a comedy about family but not really a family comedy as there are bits of adult humor.
Dad Salvo (De Niro) is a hairstylist (don’t call him a barber!) from a long line of hardworking, hard-scrabble, stoop-postured, Sicilian scowlers, but Salvo left Sicily to immigrate to America to give his son a better life. However, his second-generation Italian-American son has fallen for someone who is not a fellow Italian-American – an artist named Ellie (Leslie Bibb) whose immigrants ancestors came over a little earlier – on the Mayflower. When Sebastian is invited to her family’s big 4th of July weekend celebration at her parents’ posh estate, Salvo, a widower who served in the U.S. military, objects to being left alone on a holiday that means so much to him. But soon-to-be fiancee Ellie has the solution: invite Dad too – which sends Sebastian into a panic at the thought of his opinionated grumbler father coming along for a weekend where Sebastian hopes to impress Ellie’s family. Actually dad Salvo is cool to the idea after first too, not wanting to spend an uncomfortable weekend with the idle rich he disapproves of. But when son Sebastian tells him he intends to propose to Ellie and asks his father for the treasured family ring as her engagement ring, Salvo decides he has come along and determine if her rich family measures up to his standards, which include hard-work, penny-pinching and family-first values.
You get the idea. Father and son are at odds in a fish-out-of-water comedy about working-family guys in the land of the country club. But rather than jokes built around working class Italian Americans or immigrants trying to impress the posh family, ABOUT MY FATHER turns the tables on that old premise of a meet-the-family comedy, and instead pokes fun at the foibles of the very rich. It is still humor built on stereotypes but now it is stereotypes about the pampered, clueless rich who are the target. The comic situation pits father against son and vice versa, with Maniscalco’s character hoping to use the weekend to charm and fit in with his future in-laws, while De Niro sizes up their worthiness to join his family, while grumbles his way through it and disdaining what he considers unacceptable behavior, like ordering off a menu with no prices and keeping peacocks as pets.
Yeah, pretty silly, but there is a little fun in inverting the script for this kind of meet-the-family comedy. Sebastian’s artist girlfriend is more down-to-earth than her family but her quirky, moneyed relatives provide plenty of fodder for comedy, mostly built on familiar stereotypes. Kim Cattrall plays her mom, Tigger McAuthur Collins (yes, Tigger, as in the Winnie the Pooh stories), who is a U.S. Senator. Tigger is just as energetic her namesake but she is also strong-willed, exacting powerhouse. Dad Bill Collins, from an old money family, is a more easy-going personality, but he is also a successful businessman who inherited control of his family’s large, storied luxury hotel chain, which is the big-dog competitor to the rising-star boutique hotel that Sebastian owns and runs. Ellie’s two brothers are their own kinds of messes – Lucky (Anders Holm) is a big-ego screw-up in preppy attire who works for his father, while Doug (Brett Dier) is a sensitive soul dressed in organic fabrics who greets the guests by playing singing bowls and who is generally ignored. Oddly, there is no family member named Tom Collins. How did they miss that one?
Maniscalco and De Niro together are the major highlight and reason to see this light little comedy. As stubborn father and wheedling son, they are a delight together and sometimes even hilarious. De Niro gets to scowl all he wants while Maniscalco does his comedy routine while bouncing off walls in frustration. The supporting cast do well, with Kim Cattrall a stand-out as the blue-blooded, imperious, control-freak Tigger, followed closely by David Rasche as husband Bill who smooths over the ruffled feathers.
Sebastian Maniscalco co-wrote the script and it draws on his stand-up humor enough that it should please fans. The turnabout script is kind of fun, and there are some laughs in there with jokes about loud striped shirts, men in pastel pants, country clubs and peacocks, and jokes aimed at the rich and powerful. But there are also some rather cringe-worthy comedy bits, like one about lost swim trunks, that go on too long.
Otherwise, the humor is light, the plot slight, with a nice little message about the importance of family. This comedy is more mildly funny than laugh out loud but Maniscalco and De Niro are appealing together.
ABOUT MY FATHER opens Friday, May 26, in theaters.
Jonathan Rhys Meyer (top) in the crime action thriller MERCY. Courtesy of Paramount
There isn’t much mercy in MERCY but there is a lot of action and stunt in this crime thriller set in a hospital, starring Leah Gibson (Jessica Jones), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Vikings) and Jon Voight (Coming Home).
Leah Gibson plays a surgeon at Mercy hospital, a former military doctor in the Afghanistan War, who finds herself caught in difficult spot when the wounded son of an Irish mafia leader (Jon Voight) is brought to her hospital, and the Irish mafia seize control of the hospital. As the mafia head and his hot-headed son (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) battle FBI agents guarding the wounded man, the doctor finds herself, and her young son, caught in the crossfire, forcing her to call upon her battlefield past.
There is a DIE HARD vibe to MERCY but a little TAKEN too, as this ex-military doctor has a “special set of skills” besides in the operating room, skills these criminals aren’t expecting. That is no spoiler, since the film gives away that history early on.
And that is part of MERCY’s problem. While the action thriller has a talented supporting cast in bad guys Jon Voight and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and the delight of a strong female action protagonist in Leah Gibson, the script gives away too much too soon. Director Tony Dean Smith does not help by doing little to build suspense, although the potential is there. Still, there are plenty of thrilling martial arts action scenes featuring Gibson, who trained as a dancer and really has some moves, but early on we get a flashback to Afghanistan that lets us know this hard-working female doctor is more than a widowed mother hoping to take a day off to spend with her young son on his birthday. After further flashbacks tells us she is a decorated sharpshooter too, we are not surprised she is a crack shot, although the bad guys are pretty taken aback by that discovery. Time and again, the script tips us off to the good doctor’s other skills before we get to see them in action.
But the real point of MERCY is the action. And the action sequences are good, with some thrilling martial arts work in the hospital corridors and stairwells. The action is kicked off with a nice, thrilling shoot-out car chase. An array of criminal henchmen are there to be picked off as this action-er unspools, and an internal divide in the Irish mafia gang, with a sibling conflict that dad Jon Voight is unaware of, gives dad and son Rhys Meyers different goals, adds to the tension.
Jon Voight and Jonathan Rhys Meyer do their best to breath life into their underwritten bad guy characters. A lot of that burden falls on Rhys Meyer, in his larger role playing the loose-cannon son that his father Voight is always trying to rein in. Rhys Meyer’s character is violent and slightly crazy and his motivations don’t always completely make sense, but the actor does well menacing hostages in the hospital and the doctor, while directing his loyal gang of odd-character criminals in a hunt for the wounded brother.
MERCY delivers a series of action confrontations as Voight and Rhys Meyers separately hunt the wounded brother, while the doctor, other staff and FBI try to hide him, a cat-and-mouse game that whittles down the participants on both sides.
If you are just looking for fast and bloody action thriller, with clear good guy – bad guy lines and a kick-ass female hero, MERCY will fit that bill, as long as you aren’t looking also for plot surprises or character depth, or much mercy. But this thriller with a female doctor with a military background as a protagonist had potential to be a more suspenseful film, with a script that had taken a different approach to the idea. As is, it largely wastes the talents of Jonathan Rhys Meyer and Jon Voight in a script that just mechanically moves from one fight scene to the next without the suspense and character depth it could have had.
MERCY opens Friday, May 19, in select theaters and on digital, and will be available On Demand on June 2.
Thomas Haden Church in ACIDMAN. Courtesy of Brainstorm Media
Thomas Haden Church gives a striking performance as a reclusive eccentric who is tentatively reconnecting with his grown daughter, in the character-drive indie drama ACIDMAN. After a breakout role in SIDEWAYS and a career of well-drawn character parts in a host of films, it is nice to see Thomas Haden Church get a leading part, albeit in a small indie film like ACIDMAN, in a performance that may be his career best.
“Acidman,” graffiti painted in large orange letters on the side of a trailer deep in the woods, is the sight that greets Maggie (Dianna Agron) when she arrives looking for her father Lloyd (Thomas Haden Church). It is the nickname that local teens have given the solitary, oddball Lloyd, who is the object of rumors and their pranks, like defacing his trailer. Maggie has driven a long way to her father’s remote home to visit her father, whom she has not seen for some time, but while it is clear her visit is a surprise, as her father Lloyd greets her with a mix of warmth and awkwardness, as if she visits from time to time, and clears a space for her to stay in his cluttered spare room. In fact, she has not seen him since he abandoned the family when she was a teen. They are not estranged so much as just unknowns to each other at this point. While the two are awkward with each other, there is an underlying sense of curiosity and a wish to connect.
When Lloyd tries to quietly leave on an errand in the middle of the night with his dog Migo, Maggie insists on coming along. Lloyd’s errand is to a roadside vantage point where he searches for three red lights that appear nightly, lights that he believes are UFOs, aliens visiting the planet, and trying to communicate with him. Maggie takes in this information without blinking, which we later learn is because this has been a long-standing obsession of her father, an one-time brilliant engineer who left that behind to live alone in the woods.
Director/co-writer Alex Lehmann’s ACIDMAN explores this daughter trying to reconnect, in fits and starts,with her father after years apart. Alex Lehmann’s previous films include the Pete Davidson comedy MEET CUTE but also a documentary dealing with autism, ASPERGER’S ARE US, and it is clear he knows how to skillfully handle Lloyd’s unusual nature, although it is never clear if it is autism or illness at work. The hesitant steps of the daughter trying to connect with her eccentric father unfold in a natural way, in a gentle drama that is at times rambling but almost always touching and sometimes funny. While local teens show up to harass the reclusive Lloyd at times, he also demonstrates that he is not antisocial so much as in survival mode against a world he finds overwhelming, when he introduces his daughter to a friend in town, a single mother who is the owner of the local diner, played well by Sameerah Luqmaan-Harris, whom tells Maggie of her father’s kindness to her. While it is mostly Maggie who wants to re-establish the relationship, Lloyd also wants to help his daughter with whatever is troubling her, as something clearly is. But Lloyd’s way of doing that recalls her childhood, going fishing or bringing out a sock puppet to talk to her, as if she is still a little girl, scenes that are both sweet and strange.
The focus of this film is more on character and interactions between father and daughter than plot, which is thin. However, sharp dialog often tinged with humor reveals Lloyd’s intelligence and Maggie’s own hidden fears and conflicts, and an unpressured pace allow things to develop in their own way. Lovely photography by John Matysiak, who also shot the indie Western OLD HENRY featuring Tim , adds to the warm ambiance and the appeal of this two-hander.
But mostly the focus is on the actors. Sporting a scruffy beard and a shy demeanor, Church crafts a character unlike any we have seen him as before. He is a solitary man who is intriguing, vulnerable and touching, mixing a gentle charm, even sweetness, with a distance and elusiveness, in a man who might be autistic or mentally ill. While Church’s Lloyd seems limited in his ability to connect with people, we still sense he wants, in his own way, to reach out to his daughter. Thomas Haden Church’s character draws us in with his vulnerability, despite Lloyd’s mysterious nature. Periodically, flashes of deep insights surface from this unusual person. While Church seems to effortlessly create a distinctive character that draws us in, Dianna Agron does not quite match Church’s skillfulness. Her character remains more opaque, offering us less of a way into her inner life or her motivations for seeking out her father after all these years. Agron is at her best when her Maggie is gently dealing with her father’s obsessions, never directly confronting him or challenging him about possible mental illness, which she senses would cause him to shut down, but showing warmth and concern. We get bits of the father-daughter backstory in flashbacks but not every question is answered.
That fact, along with the film’s thin plotting and relaxed pace, might discourage some viewers but for those with patience for this well-crafted character study, the drama has its rewards. With it’s strong performance by Thomas Haden Church and its sensitive exploration of reclusiveness, potential mental illness and family, ACIDMAN has much to offer for the patient, thoughtful viewer.
ACIDMAN opens Friday, March 31, in theaters and on video on demand.
The 2023 Oscars will be handed out on March 12, 2023, honoring Hollywood’s picks for the best films of the past year with all the glitz and glam we expect. In keeping with another annual tradition, that of trying to predict the Oscar winners, here are our predictions for what/who will win, should win, and for some categories, who/what should have been nominated but was not. Rather than cover all categories, these predictions will focus on just some top ones.
Best Picture – 301 features were eligible for Academy Awards.
The nominees are:
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, Malte Grunert, Producer
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER, James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN, Graham Broadbent, Pete Czernin and Martin McDonagh, Producers
ELVIS, Baz Luhrmann, Catherine Martin, Gail Berman, Patrick McCormick and Schuyler Weiss, Producers
EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert and Jonathan Wang, Producers
THE FABELMANS, Kristie Macosko Krieger, Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner, Producers
TÁR, Todd Field, Alexandra Milchan and Scott Lambert, Producers
TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Tom Cruise, Christopher McQuarrie, David Ellison and Jerry Bruckheimer, Producers
TRIANGLE OF SADNESS, Erik Hemmendorff and Philippe Bober, Producers
WOMEN TALKING, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner and Frances McDormand, Producers
Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg at the Oscar Nominee Luncheon held in the International Ballroom at the Beverly Hilton on Monday, February 13, 2023. The 95th Oscars will air on Sunday, March 12, 2023 live on ABC.
Cate:
Will win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert and Jonathan Wang, Producers
Should win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert and Jonathan Wang, Producers
Michelle:
Will win: TOP GUN: MAVERICK – Hollywood is grateful to Tom Cruise right now – even Steven Spielberg thanked Cruise at The Oscars Nominee Luncheon
Should win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Jim:
Will win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
Should win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
Should have been nominated: THE WOMAN KING, SHE SAID and TILL
95th Oscars® nominees Daniel Kwan, Jamie Lee Curtis and Daniel Scheinert arrive at the Oscar Nominee Luncheon held in the International Ballroom at the Beverly Hilton on Monday, February 13, 2023. The 95th Oscars will air on Sunday, March 12, 2023 live on ABC.
Best Director
The nominees are:
Martin McDonagh (THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN)
Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert (EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE)
Steven Spielberg (THE FABELMANS)
Todd Field (TÁR)
Ruben Östlund (TRIANGLE OF SADNESS)
Cate
Will win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert
Should win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert
Michelle:
Will win: Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert
Should win: Martin McDonagh
Jim:
Will win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
Should win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
Should have been nominated: Gina Prince-Bythewood (THE WOMAN KING) and Chinonye Chukwu (TILL): Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK)
BARDO, FALSE CHRONICLE OF A HANDFUL OF TRUTHS, Darius Khondji
ELVIS, Mandy Walker
EMPIRE OF LIGHT, Roger Deakins
TÁR, Florian Hoffmeister
Cate:
Will win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, James Friend
Should win: BARDO, FALSE CHRONICLE OF A HANDFUL OF TRUTHS, Darius Khondji
Michelle:
Will win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Should win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Jim:
Will win: ELVIS
Should win: ELVIS
Should have been nominated: TILL and THE WOMAN KING; THE BATMAN from cinematographer Greig Fraser and Claudio Miranda, the director of photography of Paramount’s TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Best Documentary Feature Film
The nominees are:
ALL THAT BREATHES, Shaunak Sen, Aman Mann and Teddy Leifer
ALL THE BEAUTY AND THE BLOODSHED, Laura Poitras, Howard Gertler, John Lyons, Nan Goldin and Yoni Golijov
FIRE OF LOVE, Sara Dosa, Shane Boris and Ina Fichman
A HOUSE MADE OF SPLINTERS, Simon Lereng Wilmont and Monica Hellström
NAVALNY, Daniel Roher, Odessa Rae, Diane Becker, Melanie Miller and Shane Boris
Cate:
Will win: ALL THE BEAUTY AND THE BLOODSHED, Laura Poitras, Howard Gertler, John Lyons, Nan Goldin and Yoni Golijov
Should win: NAVALNY, Daniel Roher, Odessa Rae, Diane Becker, Melanie Miller and Shane Boris
Michelle:
Will win: NAVALNY
Should win: NAVALNY
Jim:
Will win: ALL THE BEAUTY AND THE BLOODSHED
Should win: FIRE OF LOVE
Should have been nominated: GOOD NIGHT OPPY, SIDNEY
Tom Cruise plays Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell in Top Gun: Maverick from Paramount Pictures, Skydance and Jerry Bruckheimer Films.
Best Film Editing
The nominees are:
THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN, Mikkel E.G. Nielsen
ELVIS, Matt Villa and Jonathan Redmond
EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Paul Rogers
TÁR, Monika Willi
TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Eddie Hamilton
Cate:
Will win: TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Eddie Hamilton
Should win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE, Paul Rogers
Michelle:
Will win: TOP GUN: MAVERICK
Should win: TOP GUN: MAVERICK
Jim:
Will win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
Should win: EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
Should have been nominated: WOMEN TALKING, Christopher Donaldson & Roslyn Kalloo
Best International Feature Film
The nominees are:
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Germany)
ARGENTINA, 1985 (Argentina)
CLOSE (Belgium)
EO (Poland)
THE QUIET GIRL (Ireland)
Cate:
Will win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Germany)
Should win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Germany)
Michelle:
Will win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Should win: THE QUIET GIRL
Jim:
Will win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Should win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Should have been nominated: RRR
Catherine Clinch as Cait in THE QUIET GIRL. Courtesy of Super
Best Production Design
The nominees are:
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, Production Design: Christian M. Goldbeck; Set Decoration: Ernestine Hipper
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER, Production Design: Dylan Cole and Ben Procter; Set Decoration: Vanessa Cole
BABYLON, Production Design: Florencia Martin; Set Decoration: Anthony Carlino
ELVIS, Production Design: Catherine Martin and Karen Murphy; Set Decoration: Bev Dunn
THE FABELMANS, Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Karen O’Hara
Cate:
Will win: ELVIS
Should win: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
Michelle:
Will win: ELVIS
Should win: ELVIS
Jim:
Will win: ELVIS
Should win: ELVIS
Should have been nominated: THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN & EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
(L to R) Kevin Iannucci as Johnathan, Kaitlin Olson as Alex, James Day Keith as Benny, Madison Tevlin as Cosentino, Cheech Marin as Julio, and Woody Harrelson as Marcus in director Bobby Farrelly’s CHAMPIONS, a Focus Features release. Credit : Shauna Townley/Focus Features
Woody Harrelson stars as a former pro basketball coach court-ordered to coach a Special Olympics team with intellectual disabilities, in director Bobby Farrelly’s CHAMPIONS. With such a premise, one might worry the film could go one of two ways: offensive or cloyingly sentimental. Bobby Farrelly brings enough signature Farrelly brothers humor to CHAMPIONS to make it a funny, if slightly raunchy, comedy and while it avoids the first issue, it does lean to the sentimental although it dodges the cloying part. The result is a more entertaining film than one might expect, largely due to the appealing cast of actors with disabilities, although it generally hits all the expected sports movie beats. It’s not THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY but this warm film is more enjoyable than the premise might suggest.
Coach Marcus Marakovich (Harrelson) is a jerk, in both his personal and professional life, We first meet him being rude to a woman the morning after a Tinder hook-up and he follows that clueless, arrogant behavior by challenging his boss, Coach Phil Perretti (Ernie Hudson) on the court where he is assistant coach. Marcus is a coach in the NBA but just barely – an assistant for a minor-league team in Des Moines, Iowa, having been demoted from the big teams as his once-promising career stalled due to his bad behavior. Phil is Marcus’s friend from way back but Marcus’ defiant attitude leaves him little choice. Fired from his job, Marcus arrogantly blusters and drinks heavily, getting behind the wheel of his car and colliding with a cop car. The crash brings him before a judge, who offers Marcus community service, coaching a Special Olympics basketball team made up of players with intellectual challenges.
A deadpan Cheech Marin plays Julio, the manager of the program to which Marcus is sentenced for 90 days. Marcus is his usual jerk self as he walks into the gym to meet his team but he is briefly hopeful when he spots a team mate, Darius (Joshua Felder),
with some real skills. But the young Black man takes one look at the new coach, says “nope” and leaves, which the team tells him means he won’t play for him (we learn why later).
The team members all have their signature quirks, like a player, Showtime (Bradley Edens), who only wants to try for baskets by throwing the ball with his back to the basket, throws he always misses. The actually disabled actors in the roles bring more personality, pointed humor, and fun to the sports films than one expects or usually sees, which gives the film a refreshing feel. A couple of standouts are Madison Tevlin as Cosentino, the sole female teammate, who sassily puts everyone in their place, and Kevin Iannucci as Johnny, an animal-loving, shower-avoiding teammate who is a kind of leader for the team as well as the brother of Alex (Kaitlin Olson), who plays the love interest role for coach.
Harrelson does a nice job but he is greatly aided by Olson, who brings a refreshing sharp humor to her love interest role. The two have great comic chemistry together and the romance works as well. There is a nicely played scene when Harrelson meets Johnny’s sister and is shocked to realize she is that earlier Tinder date. Cheech Marin’s cool, slightly wry demeanor as the program director is a nice balance to Harrelson’s loud self-importance, with Marin quietly taking Harrelson’s character down a notch every time.
The film is actually a remake of a Spanish one, Campeones, (and yes, it is a basketball team in the original, not a soccer team). While this version retains the original comedy’s table-turning by the teammates on the coach, it softens some humor that might seem to make fun of disabilities in that 2018 Spanish film, although both film have the same inclusion and understanding goal. Bobby Farrelly directed THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and several others with his brother Peter Farrelly but the two have directed separate projects in recent years, Peter directing the Oscar-winning GREEN BOOK but also THE GREATEST BEER RUN, which was not the greatest film by any measure.
While this little sports comedy, with a positive message and image-positive portrayal of disabilities, this is no THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, it is likable, funny, and heart-warming without being overly sentimental. This sweet, funny film is something families with a member with intellectual disabilities might particularly enjoy, for the way the cast handle things and their confidence. It also would have been a good film for younger audiences, but bad language and too frank sexual situations undermines that.
