Black Widow (3/5 Stars)

 

QANON Marvel.

What a relief. The last movie I had seen in a theater was the underwhelming Wendy in early 2020. It was good to be back and watching a popcorn blockbuster no less, Marvel’s long delayed “Black Widow” starring Scarlett Johansson as the title hero. Critics deride these movies, but having been deprived of watching them on the big screen in a dark room with a bunch of other people for so long, their pleasures are more apparent. I wanted action, funny quips, ridiculous set pieces, and just enough pathos to be interested in the characters. I got that. “Black Widow” is a mediocre Marvel movie about one of their lesser superheroes. That’s fine. Marvel understands (unlike say D.C. sometimes) that not every movie should have apocalyptic stakes. After the end of the Infinity Saga, it was a good idea to scale back the ambition and start anew. “Black Widow” does just that, ridding itself of aliens and magical superpowers, and focusing on martial arts and relatively plausible special effects. Not that a flying fortress is plausible its just more plausible than an infinity stone.

“Black Widow” holds a strange place in the pantheon of Marvel movies. It has been released after the end of the Infinity Saga but contains the origin story of a character that was first introduced in “Iron Man 2” and that has appeared multiple times, with major roles in the Captain America and Avengers films. In the last Avengers film, Endgame, the character died. The main plot of this story takes place between “Captain America: Civil War” and “Avengers: Infinity War”. After taking the time to explain all of this, I can now inform you that it doesn’t really matter. Somehow any standalone Marvel movie can exist by itself. There are references to other events in other movies but I don’t think you really need to know what they are to get what is happening immediately on screen.

Black Widow’s story may be summarized as follows. She has no biological family. She was kidnapped by the Soviet government at birth to be a part of a program that trains/brainwashes girls to become deadly assassins called Black Widows. Her first mission occurred when she was ten (give or take?) and placed in a fake family of other spies that acted as a sleeper cell in the USA. After that mission ended, the family was separated, Black Widow did a bunch of stuff, defected to the Avengers, and after betraying the USA in “Captain America: Civil War” (go Team Iron Man) headed back to eastern Europe to lie low for a bit. There she is contacted by her old “family” and pursues revenge against the man and/or organization that indoctrinated her.

Her family is made up of talented actors that make their first appearances in the Marvel universe. First is David Harbour playing Alexie aka The Red Guardian who was Natasha’s fake father. He is the Soviet version of Captain America, except the government got jealous of his abilities and imprisoned him in a gulag. Then there is Florence Pugh (graduating from great movies to blockbusters) who plays Yelena Belova. She is Natasha’s fake sister that has recently taken the antitoxin that reverses the brainwashing. Finally there is Rachel Weisz who plays Melina, Natasha’s fake mother. She is the scientist behind the brainwashing serum. In one scene they have a fake family dinner and engage in fake family fights. It’s interesting to watch.

The evil conspiracy herein deserves to be delved into a little bit. There is this secret Soviet organization that is so powerful that it has outlived the Soviet state. It kidnaps and trains girls from a young age to be martial arts assassins and employs them covertly around the world. Such girls work for shady elites that use their skills at infiltration and coercion to control foreign governments. Does this sound at all like QANON to anybody? There are distinct parallels. QANON says that the world is governed by a secretive elite that worships Satan and runs a global child-trafficking scheme. The only thing really missing here in Black Widow is the pedophilia. The absence of sex doesn’t quite make sense (and I believe Black Widow was introduced way back when with super sexual wiles) because if an evil super secret organization is going to take the time and effort to kidnap and brainwash girls exclusive to boys, why would they use them only for violence. But hey, Marvel is a Disney corporation. Otherwise the sheer ridiculousness of the evil scheme is on the same level as QANON. I wonder sometimes whether a company like Marvel should exert some more thought in how it constructs the reality and philosophical outlook of its blockbusters given just how many people around the world are bound to see its movies. Have you seen the trailer for “The Eternals”. Isn’t Marvel basically creating a new religion? Is it okay for this company to make and market nonsense to hundreds of millions of people? I think it probably is okay, by the way, I’m just asking out of curiosity.

A notable absence from “Black Widow” is any preaching about feminism. This is very welcome. It could have been done in all sorts of places, but instead of the movie “telling” us all about it, it instead just “showed” us and had enough trust that the audience would get it. This is the first time I have seen in which thirty girls in a room perform a martial arts battle royale brawl. I had fun watching it and was grateful that no-one in the movie told me that I should have fun watching it. The movie was directed by Cate Shortland who has proved handily that a woman can make a corporate work of art bereft of individual style as well as any man. She’s got a long and lucrative career ahead of her in this business.

The stupidest thing in the movie is its main set piece. There is plenty of talk in the movie about how the secret organization cannot be found and is not on any map. Turns out, people can’t find it because its a sky fortress that, I don’t know, hides behind clouds or something. It is at least nice to know that our enemies are just as capable of wasting a gigantic amount of taxpayer money on ridiculous bullshit just like the Americans did by building that flying aircraft carrier in “The Avengers”. But I am being unfair here. As it concerns the flying fortress, Marvel follows that sage movie wisdom of “Bridge on the River Kwai”: If you build it, it must be destroyed. The best action in this movie involves Black Widow’s aerial escape from an exploding sky fortress. I must admit, it was pretty cool.

The last thing to mention is Scarlett Johannson’s lawsuit against Marvel. Her deal involved her getting a portion of the box office receipts of “Black Widow”, which would have ran in theaters for many months before being released on DVDs or streaming. However, due to COVID-19 pandemic, Marvel changed the plans for the movie’s release, making it available to stream on Disney+ on the same day of its wide release in theaters. On Disney+, one can rent “Black Widow” for thirty dollars and presumably Scarlett does not get any portion that. It seems to me like she has a case and since the damages may very well be in the millions of dollars, it warranted a lawsuit. I would be very interested to hear how this one turns out.

Jojo Rabbit (4/5 Stars)

In 2006, I visited family friends in Uberach, Germany as a prelude to my study abroad in college. During my time there, I happened be introduced to this little old lady that lived in the village. After she had left the general area, for whatever reason, my hosts informed me that she had been in the Hitler Youth and after the war spent her entire life helping refugees escape from the Soviet Union. Her? Yes, that little old lady with the kind eyes had once been a Nazi. I saw “Jojo Rabbit” the new film by Taika Waititi and thought of her.

“Jojo Rabbit” is about a ten-year-old boy in the Hitler Youth. It is a club like the Boy Scouts. The boys are taken out to the woods by camp counselors where they dress in uniforms, learn survival crafts, and sleep in tents. Not like the Boy Scouts they also burn books, are taught how to handle guns and grenades and are counseled in basic cruelty. One day, Jojo is picked out of the crowd and instructed to strangle a rabbit. Poor Jojo can’t bring himself to do it and all the other boys make fun of him. Jojo runs off into the woods where his imaginary friend comforts him. His imaginary friend is Adolf Hitler or, more accurately, what a timid would-be Nazi boy would imagine Adolf Hitler to be like. Hitler here is played by the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi, and well, he is zealous but in a goofy way. He's funny.

Apparently, Taika Waititi adapted this screenplay from a novel. It is hard to believe that the novel is anything like the movie in terms of tone. I expect the novel had a boy in the Hitler Youth and that was about where the similarities end. There is just too much here that seems from the same mind as "Flight of the Conchords" and "Thor: Ragnorak". For whatever reason, Waititi thought it would be appropriate for a native of New Zealand like himself to make this movie. Good for him. We need more filmmakers with balls like that in this day and age. I especially approve of his application of white-face to play Hitler.

 “Jojo Rabbit” is as much of a comedy that a movie with this subject matter could be and still be plausibly respectful. The movie has bright colors, gorgeous weather, and colorful characters. Chewing up the scenery in supporting roles are Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and Stephen Merchant, three inspired casting choices for comic Nazis. Scarlett Johannsson plays Jojo’s mother, Rosie. Thomasin McKenzie plays the jew who is hiding in the walls of the house. Jojo’s discovery of the jew, the first one he has ever actually met, kicks off the movie’s second half.

A storytelling technique that Waititi deftly employs is to limit the information about the war. The audience basically know as much as Jojo and it is only gradually revealed that the Nazis are losing and have been losing from the start of the movie. (One of the reasons that the kids are being taught how to handle weapons has to do with Hitler’s late war plan of using children in the fighting.) The movie takes place between the lines. We understand Jojo is not evil because he is ten-years-old and barely knows what is happening around him. But what about his mother? What does she believe? Has she allowed Jojo to take part in the Hitler Youth to protect him, to protect herself, or what? What about the other Nazis? They seem to know at some point that the war is unwinnable. Their choices in the face of that situation are never boring. Because Jojo’s understanding is somewhat limited, our understanding is limited to, and in that way “Jojo Rabbit” may be very good movie to see twice.

I am amazed again at the acting chops of a child actor. Jojo is played by Roman Griff Davis. This is that kid's first major role in anything (although he does come from a family in the movie business). He couldn’t be any cuter. Almost by default is is heart-rending/warming to see a kid like that go through the Huck Finn transformation in which a good heart ultimately triumphs over the evil indoctrination. This development necessarily pits Jojo against his imaginary friend Adolf. The climatic scene is unfortunately too short, I felt, and my one disappointment.

 Taika Waititi has cemented himself in my mind as one of the more interesting storytellers around. I expect I expect I will try to see all of his work going forward and look up everything I missed in the past.

Avengers: End Game (5/5 Stars)

A victory lap is the perfect description of Avengers: Endgame. It is a good enough story on its own, but is not afraid to tack on much earned nostalgia. If Lord of the Rings: Return of the King garnered a Best Picture Oscar in part because it was the culmination of a gorgeously executed triology, I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply to Avengers: Endgame which is the perfect culmination of ten years and twenty-two movies of Marvel storytelling

Leaving off where Avengers: Infinity War and Ant-Man and the Wasp ended, half the life in the universe has been snapped out of existence by Thanos and his Inifinity Guantlet. The Avengers not snapped out of existence conveniently include the original assembly: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, The Hulk, and Hawkeye. Captain Marvel shows up almost immediately after and they all get in a spaceship and track down Thanos. Unfortunately by the time they get to him, he has already destroyed the Infinity Stones. It's over. What happened cannot be fixed.

Then the movie jumps five years. It is a ballsy move and cements a feeling of reality over the events of Avengers: Infinity War. Usually comic book movies don't have dramatically acted scenes, but this one contains a particularly good bit of acting by Robert Downey Jr, as Tony Stark/Tony Stark, who excoriates Chris Evans, Steve Rogers/Captain America, decision several movies ago in Captain America: Civil War which broke up the Avengers and made Thanos harder to stop.

There is a catch of course as there must be. It comes in the form of Ant-Man who was stuck in the quantum realm when the Snappening happened and comes back five years later. (There is an emotional scene where Paul Rudd, Scott Lang/Ant-Man, finds his name on a memorial for those who died during the Snappening and when he reunites with his daughter.) Scott shows up at the Avengers headquarters with an idea that has to do with time-travel through the quantum realm. Much exposition is needed in this movie and quite a bit of it is people explaining things to Ant-Man who hasn't been around in the last five years. Most of it is quite funny.

Alot of this is quite funny. Some characters' arcs are rather dramatic like Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow. But other characters are firmly in the camp of comic relief. Two characters that have completely hit their stride are Hulk, who is now Professor Hulk, a big, green and unangry Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo). Then there is Thor. What happened to him over the past five years is the stuff of comedic legends.

The question here isn't if Avengers: Endgame will reverse the outcome of Infinity War. We know it must simply due to sheer amount of marketable product that was snapped out of existence. The question is whether how this is accomplished is too predictable or too confusing. It isn't predictable and it generally makes sense (in a comic book science sort of way). A few times in the movie I was sitting there wondering how they were going to accomplish what they had set out to do and then how they did was quite satisfying.

Without giving away too much of the plot, the Avengers actually visit previous movies. Three in particular: The Avengers, The Dark World, and The Guardians of the Galaxy. The team splits up into groups to go back in time and retrieve what they need from those films. It is always when you have many full formed characters and then mix and match teams so people who have not really met or interacted before are doing so for the first time. Thor's interactions with the Guardians of the Galaxy is great in particular. Captain American fights himself and that is satisfying too. There is a lot of good stuff all over the place here. One particular moment, where Captain America finds himself standing alone in front of an evil army, and the moment right after, garnered cheers from the audience that I was in. I felt like cheering too. I really like these guys.

Following the example of other great culmination of movies, the last hour of Avengers: End Game has a lot of goodbyes in it. I believe the movie earned these moments. I look forward to the next twenty films.

Captain America: Civil War (4/5 Stars)

At least once a year I feel the need to point out the moral ambituity of large-scale action sequences in modern blockbusters, specifically the untold and unfelt thousands of deaths that necessarily must occur when entire cities are reduced to rubble. I had been crying in the wilderness to nobody in parituclar about this for so long that I expected that I would continue to do it indefinitely. Imagine my pleasant surprise then when Marvel’s new movie, “Captain America: Civil War” not only admits the reality of human collateral damage but makes it the focal conflict for the entire story.

It starts with a covert operation in an African country by Captain America, Black Widow, Hawk, and Scarlett Witch (new to me but apparently introduced before). A bad guy is trying to steal a biological weapon. The fight starts in a parking lot moves to an office building and finally ends in a crowded marketplace. The bad guy has a suicide bomb in which he means to kill everybody. Scarlett Witch, whose mutant power is to telekinesis, moves the bomb explosion from the marketplace to the air but miscalculates and ends up killing about fifteen people in an office building. The Avengers given that they are conducting vigilante military operations are held suspect for this outcome. A proposal is passed to give the United Nations oversight over the Avengers.

Iron Man, aka Tony Stark, feels guilty enough for this occurrence (The fifteen dead were charity workers although any fifteen dead people would have been good enough for me) to support the resolution. Captain America, coming out against democracy, believes that the resolution would stop him from taking action for or against whatever he deems himself to be important. It may be obvious whose side I am taking in this conflict. I’m with Iron Man all the way. Captain America apparently thinks he knows better than entire democratic societies. That is the sort of behavior that gives Freedom a bad name.

The amount of characters and superheroes already introduced in this umpteenth of Marvel movies makes listing all of them and the actors playing them time prohibitive, but they line up in equal numbers on each side. Thankfully Thor and The Hulk are somewhere else, as their presence would seriously tip the scale against the more destructible members of the Avengers. The action sequences are better and more entertaining than previous Marvel movies. This is because instead of relying on the spectactles getting bigger and more explosive, the superheroes fight themselves (and thus aren’t nameless pushovers) and thus humor and creativity have to be employed to make sure nobody gets embarrassed. The abandoned airport fight is especially good. Also, as I said before, no massive human collateral occurs. The result is a very enjoyable movie and my favorite Marvel movie so far.

Joining the Marvel universe for the first time is SpiderMan (the other two Sony franchises have not happened in this particular franchise) and Black Panther. Now this is a good opportunity for a compare and contrast between what is considered to be one of the most beloved characters of Marvel and what is sure to be the most boring.

Spiderman, aka Peter Parker, is a dorky teenager who lives with his Aunt May in Queens, New York. Black Panther is the handsome well-mannered prince of the aforementioned African nation. When Stan Lee created Spiderman, his stated intention was to give the character all the regular flaws a teenager generally has like immaturity, acne, and a hopeless crush on a girl. Such honesty and relatability became endearing pushing Spiderman to an upper echelons of popular superheroes. Black Panther, in contrast, seems to be a corporate marketing committee’s response to an outcry for political correctness. He stands in like Two-fer in “30 Rock” as proof that the corporation believes black people can be noble, properly educated, and not sidekicks. It is perhaps a good thing that the effort was made but the fact that they went about it in a way that crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s goes a long way in making the character generally unrelatable and almost as important, boring. He has no flaws and by the end of the movie his one conflict is resolved. I can’t imagine what will happen in the next movie that will allow the character to learn and grow in complexity. Perhaps he will join Thor battling interstellar ice monsters. Peter Parker as we all know has a long journey ahead of him since not incidentally he starts from a far humbler beginning.

(I doubt anyone else has noted this but the term ‘black panther’ refers to the militant wing of an oppressed poor minority group. Is it not culturally insensitive for a wealthy member of a ruling majority class to appropriate the moniker? Or does this not count because they are both black.)

But enough about this. I really liked the movie and would recommend it to anyone interested in seeing a blockbuster. The humor, the action, and most importantly the maturity set it apart from most others. Finally I have added the original Captain America movie to my DVD queue. For the first time I have wanted to see it and fill in that particular gap in my Marvel movie knowledge.

CHEF (5/5 Stars)

“I get to touch people’s lives with what I do and I love it and I want to share this with you.”

- El Jefe

The science of cooking has to do with the recipe: ingredients, measurements, and timing. The art of cooking has to do with feeding people: presentation, atmosphere, and love. Cooking is the most accessible form of art. Books, movies, and music can nourish the soul but one can live without it. You need to eat. Thus, every meal is an opportunity.

I loved this movie like I love good food. It is a representation of all the good things in life. The story is about Karl Kasper, a chef in a creative rut. He runs a kitchen that has not changed its menu in five years. The owner, played by Dustin Hoffman, insists against innovation. They have had no complaints and are doing well financially. If you went and saw the Rolling Stones he asks, wouldn’t you be mad if they didn’t play “Satisfaction.” Play the hits he recommends. Karl is dejected by this situation. He explains his frustrations in a way that should be instantly accessible to anyone who does art for a living. “Ahi Tuna is a huge crowd pleaser. You put Ahi Tuna on a menu and it will sell out. We all know this. But there are chefs that cook food that they believe in and that people will try because they are open to a new experience and they will end up liking it.” That sentence is a great explanation for this movie. The writer/director/star is Jon Favreau who started out in Hollywood as a writer/actor mostly known for Swingers but then became the big time blockbuster director of such hits as Elf, Iron Man, and Iron Man 2. The man can cook his Ahi Tuna. But this movie, his first writing credit in ten years, is a smaller more personal film that not so many people will see but should be a treat for anyone open to a new experience and I bet they will really like it.

First of all, Jon Favreau did a perfect job of casting by casting himself as Karl Kasper. I can’t think a better actor in this role. Favreau is my ideal notion of what a chef should look like. He’s a big guy but not too out of shape, you know the type of guy who obviously loves food but doesn’t eat terrible junk all day. And it may just be his inner director coming out, but he carries gravitas around him in the way he speaks and acts. At the same time he’s got the focus of a great artist. Just look at that guy make that grilled cheese sandwich for his son. It’s the most important thing in the world to him at that moment. 

You can also see Favreau’s connection to the bigger blockbuster world in the very efficient way the movie is edited and the also in the special effects, which do a very good job of representing the digital cloud of social networking. To be specific, there is a lot of Twitter in this movie and the effects that Favreau uses to portray are perfect. They do what they are supposed to do and nothing else. Something that doesn’t work so well because it is distracting is his Hollywood hookup that allows him to cast huge movie stars in tiny cameo roles. But notice what I just did there. I just said that Robert Downey Jr.’s cameo in this movie was the worst thing because it was distracting. Do I love this movie or what?

Things come to a breaking point with Karl Kasper at his restaurant when a prominent food critic, played by the distinguished and portly Oliver Platt, completely takes apart Karl’s lazy cooking. And here is where Karl earns super great artist points with me. He cares what the food critic says. He cares in general about what his work means to be people. Forced to cook for the critic the same menu by the owner of the restaurant, Kasper quits instead. And while witnessing the acidic live tweeting of the menu cooked by his Soux Chef, he decides to walk into the restaurant he just walked out of and lays down the ultimate criticism of criticism an artist has a right to. The subject is a Chocolate Lava Cake. The critic decries that Kasper didn’t even have the courage to undercook it. Kasper angrily explains that a Chocolate Lava Cake is not undercooked, it is cooked in such a way so the middle is molten, like Lava you Dick! What is Karl saying here? The critic does not know what he is talking about. He doesn’t even know how the art is made. You have no right to criticize what I’m doing if you don’t know how it is supposed to be done. Substitute ‘Chocolate Lava Cake’ for ‘movie’ for ‘painting’ for ‘song’ for ‘architecture’ for anything really.

At the bottom, Karl’s ex-wife, played by Sofia Vergara, hires him as a nanny for their son on her next trip to Miami. In a bistro in Little Havana that serves Cuban sandwiches the real reason for the trip becomes apparent. Sofia wants Karl to open a food truck. He gets to be his own boss. He gets to be creative. (She gets a great food truck for her event planning business.) And at this point the movie makes a pivot. Karl’s son, played by Emjay Anthony, goes along for the ride. The movie becomes not only a great movie about being a great artist but also being a great father. Karl puts his son to work in his food truck. The first thing have to do is clean the truck; the lesson being learned obviously is that doing things the correct way takes work. Love takes work. It takes standards. And it’s worth it. The best moment of the movie is when Karl’s son is about to serve a Cuban sandwich that has been burned. The kid’s reasoning is that the person who will be getting the sandwich is not paying for it. Karl takes him outside the truck and has this dialogue.

“Slow down for a second. Is this boring to you?”

“No, I like it.”

“Yeah well I love it. Everything that’s good that has happened to me in my life came because of that. I might not do everything great in my life. Okay I’m not perfect. I’m not the best husband and I’m sorry if I wasn’t the best father. But I’m good at this. And I want to share this with you. I want to teach you what I learned. I get to touch people’s lives with what I do. And it keeps me going and I love it. And I think if you give it a shot you might love it too.

“Yes, chef.”

“Now, should we have served that sandwich?”

“No, chef.”

“That’s my son. Get back in there. We got hungry people. He’s ready to cook!”

Giving kids work is important for discipline but great parenting involves teaching kids why the work they are doing is worth doing at all and to do that you have to treat your kids as if they were intelligent human beings. You have to trust them with unflinching information about the world. Traditionally, so much of parenting is merely locking your kids in a tower and hoping sensory deprivation will bide the time till they are past the age of impulsive behavior. That won’t work in the 21^st century. Kids will find out anything and everything anyway so it is up to parents to actually do work now and affirmatively teach kids correct things not merely shelter them from bad ones. Hopefully they will figure those things out before they have kids. Most don’t. In “Chef” the son is not treated like a child. The reasoning as Jon Leguizamo, our chef’s soux chef, points out, “You’re kitchen staff. Kitchen staff doesn’t have an age!” Exactly.

God I loved this movie. Try not to see it on an empty stomach and give the best cook you know a big fat kiss afterwards. 

Under The Skin (2/5 Stars)

‘Under The Skin’ the new movie by Jonathan Glazer and starring Scarlett Johannson does not suffer from any error in style but rather a lack of substance. This would be a good half hour movie but has been expanded beyond all reason to feature length.

Scarlett Johannson is an alien from a place we are not told. She is assisted on this Earth by another alien that is never introduced. He rides a motorcycle. That is the extent of his character depth. Scarlett whose character remains nameless as far as I could tell spends her time seducing Scottish men into her lair where they walk hypnotized into a vast blackness of goo (see trailer). Once there, something horrifying happens to the tune of a creepy score. What exactly happens or why the aliens want to do it remains a mystery. That would take us the midpoint of the movie and it would take as many sentences as before to explain all that happens for the rest.

The fault seems to be the writer/director Jonathan Glazer who IMDB suggests is not all that much of a writer. He is more of a director of music videos. Such a revelation makes sense given that there is almost no dialogue in the picture and the best thing happens to be the creepy score. At this point one would take pleasure in the little things. For instance, Scarlett Johannson is a beautiful woman and she is naked for many minutes here. Most of this is less of a sexual nature and more of ‘Alien curious of one’s new body’ sort of thing but that hardly matters right. The role is reminiscent of Jeff Bridges in ‘Starman.’ Of course Jeff Bridges had far more to do, whereas Johansson’s role is somewhat limited. She is better looking though.

What else can I say here? Do you like Scotland? Because that’s where the movie is set.

The title comes from the end scene and is appropriate and rightly strange and creepy. However so little goes before and for such a long time that it is not exactly a big enough payoff to make the movie worth seeing. If the movie was supposed to be about anything more than what I've written about, I must confess I did not pick up on it. 

Don Jon's Addiction (4/5 Stars)

I’ve been reading a lot of old books by old people and some new books about old people lately. Old like anything before the 20^th century old. It is a bit stunning how they articulate interpersonal relationships. Take for instance an ordinary letter between family members or between lovers. They are unabashedly incredibly romantic in language and verse. Move a little bit closer to the present day and consider a run of the mill rock and roll song from the 1950s and 1960s. They surely were not as serious as 19^th century letters but the musicians really seemed to like the person the song was about. Nowadays songs are more than likely to resemble some sort of revenge straight from the fallout of a bad breakup or yet another skirmish in an ongoing bad romance directed more toward a mass audience counting points than to the other person involved. We’ve lost something that much is for sure.

There’s probably plenty of blame to go around. For my money, I think the main difference is the far less present specter of death. Back then, people dropped like flies all the time with an astounding amount of women and children kicking the bucket from childbirth complications. Just dead people and babies everywhere. I think that’s why way they took relationships with the still living so seriously.

Compare that with today, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s writing/directing debut “Don Jon’s Addiction” is a good example, where it seems that people convinced of their ability to live long lives without any true drama are trying their best to take themselves and others as unserious as possible. This movie is now called “Don Jon” instead of the previous title “Don Jon’s Addiction” ever since the marketers got their grubby hands on it. But “Don Jon’s Addiction” is a better title. It makes it clear that this is not the raping/murdering evil lothario we’ve seen before in operas and plays. This is a modern Don Jon that unabashedly takes part in a far more benign promiscuous practice. This Don Jon likes pornography. He likes it a lot. 

Don Jon is played by the writer/director himself, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in a part that is very much against type. JGL over an already long career has proven himself adept at playing smart and cool customers (Brick, Inception, Looper). Don Jon is anything but that. The first thing you will notice is that JGL spent a bit of time in the gym for this one. He has especially bulked up around the shoulders to pull off the look of one of that guy in the club who spends his time with his buddies rating women 1-10 (a ten being a ‘dime’) and cultivating a streak of a different woman every week. Don Jon is especially adept at doing this. He looks good, has a nice pad, but most importantly acts like a complete buffoon. That last one because it is the main ingredient. One-night stands are hard things to pull off when the other person takes you seriously. JGL, the writer, seems to really get this and the movie is strongest when he pits his character up against a ‘dime’ played by Scarlett Johansson.  Both are smart people but as this is a modern relationship, the conversations consist of them taking turns trying to out stupid the other. The first date is especially a delight as it is a clever exercise in unassuming immaturity.

But do not let the characters fool you into thinking the movie itself is lightweight. “Don Jon’s Addiction,” is a movie of ideas even if its characters are not all that articulate. JGL has actual things to say about the unrealistic expectations of modern men that watch too much porn and of modern women who watch touch-feely romantic comedies, i.e. Scarlett Johansson, a grown woman, has a poster of “Titanic” in her room. It is to JGL’s credit not only that he took on an admittedly edgy subject but also that he does it in a reasonably well fashion. I had not seen this particular fight between a couple before and was not annoyed by it one bit. In this movie, I was impressed by that much.

Having said that, this is not a perfect movie, for as well as JGL captures the immaturity of modern romance, when he pivots the story towards a mature relationship with a woman, played by Julianne Moore, that Don Jon meets at night school the footing is far less sure. What was certainty in behavior turns to guesses. They are good guesses at least. For instance, the Julianne Moore character is a widow. So death will make a romance more serious, but can JGL explain why, or has he simply watched enough movies to know that the most sympathetic characters in screenwriting are widows.

More suspect is his decision to have Don Jon come from a blue collar Italian family. These scenes, involving none other than Tony Danza as a cursing football watching ball buster of a father who likes to eat spaghetti dinners in a wife beater, are played for comic relief at best. As before the inspiration seems to come less from real life than from movies that feature blue-collar Italian families. I’m thinking less “The Sopranos” and more “Saturday Night Fever.” I don’t think JGL is Italian. Of course, I don’t have a blue collar Italian family but I can say this at least; he got the Catholic Church wrong. Don Jon goes to church and confession every single week and yet at the end of the movie there is a joke with a punch line consisting of the character not knowing the local priest’s name on the other side of the screen. That’s simply not believable. It is the type of joke that would only be funny if you were not acquainted with the subject matter.

But over all, this is a good movie with enough laughs to sustain an enjoyable experience and enough technical proficiency and creativity to make the movie buff interested in what JGL could accomplish next. He was a bit uneven at times and swung for the fences a few more times than was necessary but I see plenty of potential. Anyway, it was his first time. 

The Avengers (3/5 Stars)

It’s Okay!

 I never read comic books as a kid nor did I have a ton of video games, but I did own action figures, mostly Star Wars and Legos. Action figures, unlike books and video games, do not come with their own story lines so kids had to use their imaginations in order to have fun. I do not recall any particular story of mine that is worth repeating suffice to say they all had one thing in common: continual cartoonish violence. You know the kind where you take two action figures and you harmlessly smack them against each other and make kablooie noises. I remember it fondly in that odd nostalgic way people tend to glorify the stupidity of children (or innocence, either one), but I would not insist on making a feature film out of it, which, I would argue is essentially what “The Avengers,” is: A story composed of the kind of action sequences I would have come up with when I was ten years old....and had access to several hundred million dollars.

Don’t get me wrong. “The Avengers,” is okay and I must admit I haven’t the slightest idea how they could have made it better. It seems fated to be mediocre due to the cast of characters that are included. The Avengers are composed of Iron Man/Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) a genius mechanic/billionaire who wears an indestructible suit that can fly and has plenty of machine guns and missiles. Then there is the Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (played by Scarlett Johansson) who is good at martial arts and uses pistols. Then there is Hawkeye/Clint Barton (played by Jeremy Renner) who is good at archery. Then there is The Hulk/Bruce Banner (played by Mark Ruffalo) who is a brilliant scientist who involuntary turns into an uncontrollable green monster with unlimited strength whenever he gets angry. Then there is Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) who is an immortal demi-god with an all-powerful hammer that can summon lightning storms. Finally, there is Captain America/Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans). He has a patriotic uniform and a nifty shield. It should be fairly obvious that these superheroes aren’t exactly equal. I mean Captain America may be strong, but not as strong as the Hulk, and he can’t fly like Iron Man, and he has no ability for stealth like the Black Widow, and he has no long range ability like Hawkeye, and he isn’t educated like Bruce Banner or Tony Stark. In fact, he really doesn’t know anything about the last fifty years because he was cryogenically frozen during that time. (He is otherwise their leader though.) Contrast that with Thor, who as an indestructible and immortal god should be able to beat the tar out of every other Avenger in every scenario. The presence of a superhero such as Thor also requires the story to have a super-villain with an almost equal amount of power as him. Enter his brother, the semi-god Loki and an army of mean-looking aliens with supposedly superior technology.

The movie stages two rather huge battle sequences. One takes place on a flying aircraft carrier (largest waste of taxpayer money EVER) and another in Midtown Manhattan. Besides the death of one person, it may surprise you that nobody else gets seriously hurt or dies. No superheroes, no military personnel, and no civilians end the movie with anything more than the faintest scrapes, cuts, or bruises. In fact, I would argue the greatest special effect used during the full scale destruction of a completely inhabited Manhattan is the framing of the shots in such a way that we never actually see anybody getting hurt. This sense of total unreality is what reminded me of playing with plastic toys as a kid. Nothing is real. Otherwise Tony Stark would be dead ground meat in his fancy suit after every battle he is in. And can the Hulk really survive a multitude of rockets launched point blank into his face without a single blemish occurring?

 For some reason it has become increasingly difficult for blockbusters to achieve the very reason they exist: to excite and thrill. It is not hard to have violence that is exciting. It simply must include actual danger or actual pain or the threat of actual pain. To demonstrate how little you need, take a look at the movie, “Black Swan.” In particular, the scene where the main character notices a cut near her nail cuticle, tries to fix it, and accidentally pulls off a strip of her skin. When I watched that it made me recoil. Why then would Thor knocking Iron Man 100 feet into the air with his magic hammer have little to no effect at all? Well, because it results in nothing but a dazed look. It must not have hurt. A movie with action sequences that have no effect on the characters is not exciting. It is desensitizing. Pretty soon it does not matter how big the explosions are, all I recognize is their impotence. What is more, when I do not understand how things happen, I stop caring pretty soon if they happen at all. I don’t get how Iron Man can survive all the blows he takes. I don’t understand how The Hulk can beat up a floating leviathan one thousand times his size. And will someone please tell me how the hell Scarlett Johansson can beat up burly men three times her size. She has no muscles. None.

 I suppose some of this has to do with the MPAA. There is this strange rule out there that allows PG-13 movies all the gunfire, explosions, and metropolitan destruction they want just as long as you do not see anybody getting hurt. However, if you wanted to see a man realistically cut off his own arm like James Franco does in “127 Hours” you would get an R rating. In effect, violence is morally okay just as long as you don’t show the consequences of it. Oh, will someone think of the children. They are our future. But unreal hammed up violence is not in itself bad. I’ve seen plenty of movies I loved that worked just like that. The best of director Robert Rodriguez (Sin City, Planet Terror, Machete, Desperado) excels in that sort of thing. The difference though is that these movies are fun exploitation movies that don’t give us a bunch of scenes containing impassioned speeches about the importance of it all. “The Avengers,” needs to be more uniform in its purpose. If you are going to make the action sequences ridiculous then make the characters and dialogue ridiculous, and do it the whole way through. And please no intended-to-be-taken-seriously-patriotism. This country deserves better than that. “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” was a great action movie. So, for that matter, was “Black Dynamite.” “The Avengers,” works best when it treats itself like it should: a joke. There are enough self-referential and belittling jabs that make the movie pretty funny throughout its run time. Quite a lot of these are provided by the best character, Tony Stark, played brilliantly as always by Robert Downey Jr. Mark Ruffalo, the nth incarnation of Bruce Banner, does a solid job as well. I still wish Thor’s weakness was stupidity and not arrogance (see my review of “Thor”) and I never saw Captain America’s movie so I guess I missed the part where it makes sense for our symbol against Nazism be a guy that looks like the poster child for Aryan machismo. Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner like most interesting actors continue their star rising descent into less interesting movies.

Iron Man 2 (4/5 Stars) May 29, 2010

Less funny. Better action. Just as good as the first.

I’m going to throw something out there that might be a little controversial to fanboys. Perhaps Iron Man 2 would have been better if there was no such thing as Iron Man. Imagine what this movie could have been as simply an intense rivalry between two egotistical, charming, nutty, arms manufacturing CEOs played by Robert Downey Jr. and Sam Rockwell. There would still be plenty of witty dialogue, arrogant machismo, gear-head porn, and explosions galore but less to distract from all of that like glitzy special effects sequences that involve battle suits whose functions and limits I don’t fully understand. I mentioned in my review for the first “Iron Man,” that I found Tony Stark more interesting outside of his suit than inside of it. That continues in this movie. I think the problem was that I was never sure how protective the Iron Man suit was. Would bullets actually penetrate it? How badly did it need to be hit before Stark became hurt? It seems that it could be thrown through walls and it wouldn’t affect Stark at all. I don’t know if bullets actually would hurt it. Plenty were thrown around but I don’t think a single bullet from any gun hit any target in this movie. After awhile the sound of machine guns sort of gets redundant. I don’t recall the last movie I saw when the bad guys weren’t shooting blanks. 

The movie was directed Jon Favreau and written by Justin Theroux. Both are mainly recognized as actors but do a competent job here. The inspiration in this movie has primarily to do with casting. If you want to hear me gush over Robert Downey Jr. see my previous review of “Iron Man.” I also particularly like Sam Rockwell as his business competitor, Justin Hammer. Together I suppose they could be called the Kings of Nuance. Both have this incredible ability to insert odd rhythms into their speech that can really liven up the conversation. I was very glad that the movie gave each of them plenty of lines. I can listen to these two all day long, it was just too bad that they didn’t have more than one conversation with each other. It could be said that normal people don’t talk like these two. But then again, megalomaniacal arms manufacturing CEOs aren’t normal people. One of my favorite moments in the movie is when Sam Rockwell opens his keynote speech at the Stark Expo by doing a nutty little dance up to the podium. I love that dude. 

The story has two main conflicts. One is that Tony Stark is dying. The core that is keeping him alive is also poisoning his blood. The Second is that a disgruntled Russian named Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke) believes Tony Stark’s father stole his father’s idea for the iron man suit. He is out for revenge and has a pretty cool suit for himself. There’s also a side story that involves an eye-patch wearing Samuel L. Jackson who seems to be recruiting Robert Downey Jr. for another sequel. I’m sure anyone who has read the comic books will know what that is about. I didn’t but it didn’t particularly bother me.

The laughs in Iron Man 2 do not come as early as they do in Iron Man, but after a half hour through the film they start to pick up. The makers do a good job of keeping up a screwball pace to the dialogue and the actors are eminently capable of throwing the lines back and forth. There is a particularly great scene where Tony Stark attempts to apologize to Pepper Pots for several arrogant indiscretions. Stark’s attempt reminded me of the Dude trying to explain the new shit that had come to light to the Big Lebowski. It really is perfectly delivered. 

For the reasons stated above, the best action scenes are those that don’t involve the Iron Man Suit. I particularly liked Ivan Vanko first battle with Tony Stark in which he chops his racecar in half on the Monaco speedway. More impressive though was Scarlett Johansson’s fight scene in which she beats the crap out of about ten much larger dudes. It was the first time I have seen a movie put in the effort to debunk the ‘Implausibly Tough Girl’ cliché. (For reference sake the Implausibly Tough Girl is any woman in an action movie who has the extraordinary ability to disable men twice her size simply by knowing kung fu. This hard to believe discrepancy occurs because we like our action women in a certain paradoxical way. We want them to match our standards of beauty i.e. be very thin, buxom, wear lots of makeup, etc. but also possess the ability to kick-ass. Of course someone who is very thin will also naturally be very weak. That’s why it’s implausible. Because it happens all the time makes it a cliché.) How “Iron Man 2” does this is something I advocate all the time. They show the action sequence in long enough shots so the audience can tell exactly how Scarlett does it. I’m still not sure the physics made complete sense but I did actually see it happen. In one scene she manages something related to a scissors kick to grasp Jon Favreau by the neck and throw him to the ground. I was impressed. I’m very much looking forward to what Scarlett will get to do in the next movie. As far as I remember the first movie didn’t have any hand-to-hand combat, something I will always find more entertaining than the consistently ineffective use of machine guns. For that reason I’d say the action in the second is slightly better than the first. In short, the movies are about the same caliber and are worth seeing. 

I should also mention a small part of Garry Shandling as a Senator who repeatedly fails to get Tony Stark to give over the Iron Man suit to the United States. He plays the type of hapless person you would think he would play and is consistently funny in doing so.

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. 

The Black Dahlia 11/07/06

I saw this movie a week and a day ago. That means that this review is about a week late. but guess what, I don't really care. That should tell you something about this movie right there.
This movie is a jumble of whatever about some serious graphic shit, like woman getting axed in half, washed up failures of actressing, something about a pedophile, really demented rich people, stuff like that. The plot is really confusing, so much so that when a huge twist came about I wasn't sure if I should care. Scarlett Johannson was all weepy and Josh Hartnett was like all intense but I was like what the fuck was that all about. I'll probably have to see this movie again to understand half of it but I'm not planning on doing that. I like movies that make me think, don't get me wrong. But first of all, they have to make me care. This one didn't and that's why it was more a chore than entertainment. Especially with the unneccessary gratuitous violence. I don't much like seeing woman chopped up. It bothers me even more when the movie doesn't attempt to justify it.

Match Point 01/20/06

Here's the awesome thing about Woody Allen. He really doesn't seem to care what people think. He writes his own movies. He directs his own movies. He usually stars in his own movies. He doesn't care about what people want to see. He's only interested in his vision, his art. This type of viewpoint in Mr. Allen sometimes leads to movies that noone wants to see (Allen has made a few of those). But more importantly this type of viewpoint sometimes leads to true masterpieces. Great works of art that noone but Allen could have crafted. They come out of nowhere and hit us with something we've never seen before. If Allen wasn't so isolated from popular opinion, this movie would have probably never been made. It is truly one of his great films. (I say "one of" because my god has he made a number of great films, and many very good.)
I wouldn't want to give anything away, but I will describe what I felt. My stomach was slowly twisted and turned into a series of knots. At times I felt chills up my spine. Once or twice I inhaled sharply on instinct. I never laughed (This movie is straight drama, no comedy in sight) Now since there are no "action scenes" no "car chases" or any "special effects." How did this happen: Great storytelling by Allen and good performances, especially by Scarlett Johansson. This movie is definitely one of the best this year. I have to remind myself to rent all the rest of his movies.