Godzilla v. Kong (3/5 Stars)

 

Godzilla v. Kong is the fourth film of the so-called Monster-verse that started with the 2014 Movie Godzilla. I reviewed that original movie, gave it two stars out of five, and did not see the next two movies: Kong: Skull Island (2017) and Godzilla: King of Monsters (2019).

My 2014 review is full of snark and outrage about the amount of casual death and destruction in a PG-13 movie. This movie is not all that different from the 2014 movie, but my general attitude I believe has changed and for several reasons I enjoyed the latest movie far more.

First, the pandemic. When I saw Godzilla in 2014, a blockbuster special effects bonanza was something that seemed to come out every single week. The prospect of giant things fighting each other in a city was not particularly unique. Fast-forward to April 2021 and I had not seen something so big and dumb in more than a year. Its amazing how fresh a Godzilla v. Kong movie can be after a year bereft of mind-numbing spectacle. I am so done with this whole pandemic thing. Godzilla v. Kong, reminded me of normal life. I enjoyed it just for the sake of nostalgia

Second, I watched the movie on HBOMax with a friend on a Zoom call and we were talking through the whole thing. We made jokes about how stupid all the people were. For instance, there is this character, played by Brian Tyree Henry, who is attempting to steal official secrets (about Godzilla) from a top-secret military base. He has a podcast about his efforts in which he talks about what he just did and what he plans to do next. We had a spirited discussion about whether the movie was stupider for having a character his broadcast efforts at industrial sabotage on a podcast, or to have this stupid character somehow succeed in his industrial sabotage (along with a couple of plucky teenage detectives) because no one at the top-secret military base figures out how to stop him.

Third, I had money on this movie. The marketing materials stated, nay promised, that “One Will Fall”. So clearly, this means that either Godzilla is going to kill Kong or vice versa. Of course, the last time such a promise was made in Batman v. Superman neither died because a bigger jerk showed up in the end that the titular characters had to unite to defeat. But everyone hated that, right? The powers that be would not pull that shit again, right? Right? I put $25 dollars on Godzilla. I figured he had armor, could swim, and had a ranged attack. No way Kong survives. Well, they got me good. Neither Godzilla nor Kong die because MechaGodzilla shows up and Godzilla and Kong have to unite in order to defeat MechaGodzilla. Total bullshit. I had a lot of fun complaining about broken promises. Oops, I forgot to include a spoiler warning.

It is to this movie’s credit that it understands the basic pull of the Godzilla and King Kong franchise, which is to have big monsters fight each other in close city centers. Although there are plenty of human characters, their character development is minimal, and really is limited to getting the movie from one battle location to another. This is fine because what I really want to see is Kong punching Godzilla in the face. I don’t need any human drama distract from Kong punching Godzilla in the face. Well, I got what I wanted. Three stars.

 

Christine (4/5 Stars)

“In keeping with the WBRZ policy, complete reports of the local blood and guts, TV 30 presents what is believed to be a television first and in living colour: An attempted suicide.”

These were the last words of Christine Chubbuck, a reporter for a local news station in Saratoga, Florida, before she shot herself in the back of the head on live television in 1974. What was perhaps so intriguing about the shocking act was its professionalism. Christine, a consummate reporter, wrote down her words in news copy and used the phrase “attempted suicide” because it was the precise way to describe what was about to happen, after all the suicide attempt might very well fail. She shot herself in the back of the head because that was where the cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls the heart and lungs. Perhaps most importantly, she chose to do it on live TV in the news station. This way, the story could not be used on other stations without first mentioning the local TV station. Christine’s suicide became the station’s biggest story ever.

This movie, aptly titled “Christine” and directed by Antonio Campos is as good as any movie can get telling this particular story. Given that you know the ending, a feeling of dread settles over the entire experience and is given expression by a creepy haunting music score. But having said that, two things make the movie exceptional. The first is the screenplay by Craig Shilowich that provides context to Christine’s choice without being so presumptuous as to settle on one definitive answer for her choice. It also happens to be frequently funny with the station’s weatherman (played by Veep’s Timothy Simons) getting the most laughs. My favorite exchange has to do with the station manager (played by Tracy Letts) trying to persuade his employees to get more violent coverage. “If it bleeds, it leads,” he says and makes an argument as to how it will help ratings. “It’s just math,” he ends. “That’s not math, that’s logic.” retorts Christine.

The second is Rebecca Hall’s performance as the title character. She is present in every scene in this movie and her presence is a clear portrait of a seemingly functional person paralyzed with anti-social nerves, well-placed pride, and the subsequent paranoia. Her Christine comes across as a reporter too competent to be at a local backwater TV station but also too much of a work-a-holic to fully function as a social being. She knows she is better than her station but can’t handle her frustration at not being able to get past it or work through. And she may have too much pride to be able to do either if she wanted to. It is hinted that she once was a reporter at a bigger station, but the same nerves may have contributed to a nervous breakdown that got her fired there. Rebecca Hall’s nuances fill in all that we know and guesses at all we will never know about the person. This may be one of those movies that only gets a single Oscar Nomination, in this case a Best Actress nod for Rebecca Hall.

Christine situation is sad but our pity for her is tempered with the realization that she is as much her problem as is the world she is fighting against. Yes, the owner of the station wants more sensational storytelling and this may be exploitative news reporting, but does Christine really have to fight him tooth and nail and attack him personally over creative differences. Yes, she has a crush on the local anchor (played by Michael C. Hall) and they seemingly could make a good couple, but is it so sad that the romance never blossoms when she ends conversations and exits social gatherings prematurely. And is her reaction to these stumbling blocks, to hate herself and grow bitter at everybody else really the productive way to go about these problems. Her suicide, it seems, was the one thing she could do right when she wasn’t willing or able to do anything else correctly. And she did it right, just the way she meticulously planned it. It was memorable. It was shocking. And it said something about her and what she disliked most about her world. And in living colour.

Everything Must Go (3/5 Stars)

Nick Halsey has just been fired from his job of 16 years as vice-president of sales. It wasn’t a problem with his work. It was a problem with his drinking. There may have been an incident with a woman at a conference in Denver. It’s hard for him to explain his behavior because he can’t remember what happened. It seems though, from the way he walks and talks (one part resignation, one part vague guilt mixed in with a measure of self-loathing/pity) that he certainly believes he could have done something bad. On the way home from work he stops by the mini-mart and stocks up on PBR. He intends to drink it as quick as is comfortably possible. The house he comes home to is empty. All the locks on the doors have been changed. All of Nick’s furniture and stuff has been moved to the front lawn. On the door is a letter from his wife explaining that this is the last of these letters. Nick finds his easy chair, plops down on it, and continues drinking. His suburban neighborhood has bylaws that state a yard sale can be held for, at the most, five days. So given the front of selling his stuff, Nick has about that amount of time to hang out on his front lawn, drink some more, and decide whether he has hit rock bottom or if there is still plenty of self-destruction left to go.

“Everything Must Go” is directed by Dan Rush and based on a short story by Raymond Carver. I haven’t read any of Carver’s stuff but after seeing this movie and Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts” (itself a very good movie that compiles several of Raymond Carver’s stories), he makes my impossibly long list of books that would be so great to read some day if only it didn’t take so damn long to read books. The movie itself is very much like an elongated short story. It is contained entirely within five days, it takes place almost entirely on Nick’s front lawn, and attention is spent more on small details than big action. The ambition and budget is limited. For what it is, as they say, it is what it is, and as they also say, it does a fine job of doing what it does. There is nothing wrong with “Everything Must Go.” It’s just a small movie. If you are in the mood for that sort of thing, add a star or two to the rating up top.

Nick is played by comedian Will Ferrell in a role that is hard to believe anyone else could pull off as well. The sight of a man living on his front lawn with all his stuff is absurd and the location of this movie, being a suburb in sunny Arizona, lends the movie lots of light, which bounces off all the furniture in bright colored hues. All the lawns around him are bright green. Nick even owns a Tiki Bar and a George Foreman grill. This lends the movie a cheery tone even if its subject is so dreary. Nick isn’t getting drunk in a dark bar like Nic Cage in “Leaving Las Vegas.” He’s out in the open and fresh air. A comedian like Ferrell looks like he belongs in such a situation. And since all of this creates such an expectation of comedy, it is that much more effective as a drama when Ferrell doesn’t try to go for any jokes whatsoever. Sure there may be some witty asides to smile with (especially the talks with a bored kid played by Christopher Jordan Wallace whom Nick hires as a salesperson), but overall this movie takes alcoholism seriously. And watching a funny man that is too drunk to be funny is not funny. It’s especially sad. Even more so when one considers that the irresponsible man-boy characters that Will Ferrell usually portrays would perhaps at one point meet the same fate if they lived in the real world. It has been noted with surprise from many critics that Will Ferrell is a good actor in this movie. I agree but do not take it as a surprise. I can only assume that those critics don’t consider comedy acting as “Acting!” Watch “Old School” again and see Will Ferrell strike some of the same notes he does here. Besides being hilarious in that movie, he also realistically loses both his wife and home to drinking.

I’m sure there are a myriad of reasons why some people drink too much. Nick Hasley here seems to be doing it almost as a self-imposed punishment. A major theme of the movie involves Nick’s quest to find a reason as to why he deserves to be a happy functioning sober person. In this search, he employs the kid, a neighbor who just moved in next-door, played by Rebecca Hall, and his AA sponsor played by Michael Pena. He even goes so far as to contact a woman, played by Laura Dern, he hardly knew in high school and hasn’t spoken to in 20 years. She wrote in his yearbook that she considered him to be a diamond in the rough and suspected him to be nice even though he was a jock. So Nick, because I guess he was curious as to why someone who hardly knew him would think something like that, looks her up and shows up on her doorstep. He says he was just in the neighborhood, but come on, this is the suburbs. Nobody goes anywhere on accident there.   

And here I’m going to now pause and take my geeky liberty to talk about city planning and real estate development. If anyone living in the suburbs decides to watch this movie, please take a special interest in the scene between Will Ferrell and Laura Dern. It is the perfect example of why every house needs a porch. A grown man that just shows up on your doorstep after 20 years is inherently a weird thing. Under no circumstances should that man be let inside the house. This is something Laura Dern conveys quite explicitly in her body language. However, it is perfectly fine to talk to him on the front porch. After all, there is a possibility that he isn’t insane and you still have the ability of being able to walk inside the house and lock the door. Thus, having a porch gives one the ability to talk to strangers without sacrificing privacy or safety. It is elemental to making friends in a neighborhood. This nice conversation could not have realistically happened had Dern not had a porch. Now contrast this with the fact that Nick’s house doesn’t have a porch. In fact, even though this neighborhood is in Arizona, a place with such great weather that porches would be the most obvious things ever, none of the surrounding houses have porches. That is distressingly normal in suburbs that have been built in the last quarter century. What effect this has on the neighborhood is keenly observed in this movie. Take note that the only neighbors Nick has regular conversations with during his five day yard sale is the woman who has recently moved in across the street and the kid on the bike. In my opinion, this is completely realistic. Really, the only time one can strike up a random conversation with a suburban neighbor is the week they move in. After that it is awkward and usually an invasion of privacy. After all, you need a reason to invite yourself into somebody’s living room. Without a porch, taking the initiative to talk to people in the suburbs is more likely to be rude than friendly. The kid by the way doesn’t live in the neighborhood. His mother works there as a home nurse. She can’t afford daycare so she brings him along. He spends his days biking the desolate streets. He talks to Nick mainly out of sheer boredom. That too, I can personally attest, is completely realistic. 

Frost/Nixon (3/5 Stars) 01/23/09

Frost/Nixon is the name of a award-winning play that recreated the famous post-presidential interview of Richard Nixon and English talk show host David Frost. This movie is an adaptation of that play. So what we have is an adaptation of an adaptation. It’s weird than that this movie has an odd mockumentary vibe to it. By that I mean certain characters that witnessed the interviews interrupt the movie to speak of the events unfolding on the screen as if they already happened. It is used in the beginning and the end, but not during the middle. It’s weird because it throws the whole genre into question. Am I watching a straight up biopic, or a mockumentary of that biopic? And why isn’t it consistent?
I had the opportunity to watch some of the Frost/Nixon interview clips on YouTube before somebody was a real jerk and took them down because of a copyright. Watching those and then watching this movie I witnessed a real difference especially in the final supposedly most dramatic scenes. In the real interviews Frost seems like a perfectly capable interviewer. This is at odds with Michael Sheen’s portrayal of a complete boob. The real Richard Nixon is equally not so dramatic. In the movie the big line is “No I’m saying when the President does it, it’s not illegal.” Frank Langella milks this line for all its worth and it comes as if it some sort of Freudian slip. In the real interviews Richard Frost asks a completely different question (and a better one too) about wiretapping unsuspecting American citizens (In the movie the question is about Watergate.) It is sober and Nixon’s famous answer although still incredible seems at least somewhat thought out. This playing with the dialogue I found a little irresponsible especially when were dealing with an ex-president. Of course you may say, hey it’s just a movie. I would counter that the thing is up for a best picture nomination and people watching it will assume that the dialogue is actually verbatim. Therefore the filmmakers, Ron Howard, should have exercised a little more responsibility in keeping the record straight. I’m somewhat surprised by this because Ron Howard is usually very good at these biopic stories (Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man). Anyway it still is an entertaining film. Just give the real interviews a look while you’re at it, just to be objective.
Frank Langella just got a best actor nomination for his portrayal of Richard Nixon. Not really knowing Richard Nixon I don’t know if it is good impression. I know he doesn’t look a thing like the man. If there is a great performance in this movie it doesn’t belong to Langella though. It belongs to Sam Rockwell, who brings a real vitality to his role as one of Frost’s leading investigator of Nixon. He does a very good job of representing the nation’s outrage against Richard Nixon. I looked him up on imdb and found out that I had already seen him in several other movies. (He was that dude in ‘The Green Mile?’) This is the first time I really noticed him though and thought ‘hey I think I’ll look that guy up.’ On the other side of fence is Kevin Bacon who plays the assistant of Richard Nixon. He’s a stalwart army guy. Its kind of nice to see Bacon playing supporting bits in movies with good casts again. Maybe a couple of years of this and we will be able to play his game again. It’s been getting kind of hard since he became a headliner around 1996 and stopped doing those sort of films.

Vicky Christina Barcelona 09/20/08

The first thing we see is Vicky, Cristina, and Barcelona. They have just arrived and are taking a cab from the airport to where they are staying for the summer. An unknown narrator describes them in excruciating detail. Vicky is this sort of person, Cristina is that sort of person. I suppose Woody Allen didn't want to bring any subtlety to the introduction of his characters. He lays down the gauntlet right away. This is the way they are! They aren't like anything else! Rules, rules, rules, and no, audience, its not going to take a half hour to figure out what makes these people tick. It will be bluntly put forth in the first 30 seconds. I got the idea that the first voiceover (okay there's these two girls, one's uptight, the others a free spirit, they're, like, in Barcelona!) was the actual pitch Allen made to the producers. Then I remembered that Woody Allen is the producer, and he simply doesn't care what anyone thinks. If he wants to narrate the picture with such predestined rigidity as to the characters actions and feelings, well we're just going to have to go along with it. Have some faith I guess, we've entered his world as soon as we bought the ticket. I guess I asked for it. 
For the first two thirds of the movie, its worth it. Slowly we are seduced by intoxicating performances, Spanish guitar, and quasi-romantic language. There are no stunts, action sequences, or 'look at me, I'm directing' camerawork. In fact, the director seems absent, he leaves all of the work up to the actors. What a good idea. Anchoring the movie are Rebecca Hall as Vicky and Scarlett Johansson as Cristina. They become enamored with a Spanish modern artist played by Javier Bardem, coming fresh off of his Oscar winning turn as a serial killer. The girls hear that Javier ex-wife tried to kill him. Vicky is shocked, Cristina is intrigued. She makes eyes with him across the room and he walks over and very bluntly, asks them to join him for a weekend of wine, sightseeing, and making love. What Bardem says and how he says it makes this seem okay, its quite extraordinary. He convinces Cristina at least. Woody Allen has fun using Spanish to impose upon Javier a sense of innocence. If he was better at English, he wouldn't seem so honest and innocent. His phrases are always blunt and to the point. When speaking of art and love, his simple sayings sound deep. Long story short, he beds them both. He asks Cristina to live with him, not Vicki. Vicki is hurt. They have a conversation in Gaudi Park that sounds something like this: "Why don't you like me?" "You have a fiance" "But you slept with me?" "I don't get your point" "What do you mean you don't get it?" "I solly, no speaky English." There's a little more to it, but you get the idea.
Anyway, Cristina moves in and that's when the movie for a short time becomes something really special. Remember the ex-wife who tried to kill Javier. Well she's played by Penelope Cruz and just tried to kill herself. So, concerned, Javier invites her to stay with him. He doesn't ask Cristina to move out mind you, just decides to live with both of them. Did someone say awkward. The next couple of scenes are pure gold, especially the ones between Cruz and Bardem. Here we have two of the best Spanish actors in the business. Now watch them talk in and out of Spanish and English with great fluency, always mad at each other, and with great intensity. Two very impossible people madly in love with each other. Whew, you'd wish the rest of the movie would be about them and only them.
Unfortunately, at this point, the story reverts back to Vicki and cashes in on a storyline that I have seen in basically every single one of Allen's movies: Marital infidelity. Vicki is in a loveless marraige and wants out. There's even the line 'I love him, but I'm not in love with him.' Please kill me. Not only does this stoyline not add a damn thing, but it actually makes Vicki, who was a great character, into that annoying little archetype of an immature dolt that populates the worst of Allen's movies. I think this movie proves that it takes much more creativity to create characters that love each other than ones that are bored with each other. Maybe that's true in life too. Is it easier to be bored, than to be filled with passion? Which kind of relationship do you think would take more creativity and ingenuity? Which one, Woody Allen, would you rather watch in a movie?

The Prestige 01/10/07

:fresh: Christopher Nolan's film about dueling magicians hit it right on the spot. It is a very clean and complete film. Very beautiful, well acted, and choreagraphed editing wise to a tee. The story is an aptly told one as it is filmed in the present, the past, and the very past, with flashbacks and flashforwards that constantly shift this way and that but never seem forced and seem inseperable from the what the story is. As a constant shifting between who is ahead and who is behind, who we like and who we despise, who has the upper hand? We never know. 

Like I said before this is a very good and decent film. Not once does Nolan misstep. But it is not a great film. Perhaps this is because I saw the twists before they became apparent. (Nolan failed in tricking me with his magic but succeeded in making me enjoy the movie anyway.) I feel that he gave one too many hints as too what lay ahead. But what really made the movie anti-climatic was also one of the main points in the film. In this way I felt dissapointed but enlightened at the same time. It is what Christian Bale says at one point in the film. He refuses to give the secret of a magic trick to his wife for the bullet catching trick saying that if given the magician no longer means anything to the audience. Then at the end of the movie we are given the secret of the magic trick and then suddenly the movie no longer seems so special. And we exit the theatre with the knowledge that an obsession for simple truth and the finding of it is no match for the marvels of one's own imagination.