BEFORE: Well, tonight the rubber really meets the road - I've got to make some definitive decisions about which films are going to get me to the end of the year. If I had only one path that would be one thing - a list of 64 films (after tonight) in a linked chain would be great, but the problem is that I have a list of 67 films, I'm over by three. This is my own doing, I've allowed myself to add here and there, if I find a film that's on topic and also fits into the chain, like "Love, Gilda" - I stand by that choice.
The easist thing to do, of course, is to look for times that the same actor appears three times in a row, and cut out the middle film - that way the structure of the chain is maintained, and if I do that enough times, I'll end up right on schedule. So, really, this is where I want to be, just over the legal limit with enough time to fix things. I don't want to mess with the Duane Johnson chain, that's 8 films that turns into horror/fantasy films right on October 1, that's perfect timing. But outside of that, I found 6 instances where an actor or actress appears three times in a row, and I can just drop the middle film.
Ah, but which three do I drop? For a long while, I thought that I would drop THIS film with Joaquin Phoenix, in favor of saving one of the others, but after reading the plot line, it looks like this might really fit in with recent themes, so now that I'm here, I'm inclined to keep it. I'm in favor of keeping "The Equalizer 2" in the mix, also -
So, assuming everything else falls into place, and nothing else disappears from Netflix unexpectedly, now I have to lose three out of the following four films: (Not permanently, this is just for this year. Anything I don't watch know can be rolled over into 2020.)
"The Happytime Murders", "It: Chapter Two", "I Love You Daddy", "Can You Ever Forgive Me?"
My first impulse is to drop "It: Chapter Two", which will be in theaters soon. I may get a chance to watch it on an Academy screener, plus it's a safe bet that it will probably be on HBO in time for next Halloween - and it links up with other horror films that will be on my 2020 list, like "Goosebumps 2". So I can drop this one, which is probably nightmare fuel anyway, and if I'm going on vacation in October, this frees up another day.
Next, two of these films are available on iTunes, but only for purchase, and not for rental. Do I want to pay $9.99 each to see "The Happytime Murders" and "Can You Ever Forgive Me"? Not really. I kept these on the list because I do want to see both films, and I thought that by now, I could see them for $3.99 or $4.99, or they'd turn up on Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime. But so far, there's not even a date announced for when the price will drop on iTunes, so I think I'm going to put both films on hold.
That leaves the fourth film, "I Love You, Daddy", which I really put in as a placeholder - we're supposed to be boycotting Louis C.K., I know, and he even took this film off of all media, there's no DVD release or any public exhibitions planned, partially because of the film's content and partly because of the backlash from his harassment claims. But, now I'm intrigued, at the very least. I have access to this on an Academy screener, which won't cost me anything. So for the moment, this film is on the schedule for December, and the other three films are out, and my last scheduled film for 2019 will be #3,400. Problem solved, at least temporarily.
I think I'll take another look for "The Happytime Murders" in late September, though, when my Melissa McCarthy chain comes around. If it's available for rent on iTunes I'll certainly consider putting it back in. I'd rather watch that over a boycotted Louis C.K. film - but I guess we'll see. If "Happytime" is still not on any streaming services at a lower price, then I can wait until December and make a last-minute choice between "I Love You, Daddy" and "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" - that would be the safest thing to do.
And this is why it benefits me to be over-scheduled by three films - I think I've got a solid plan, but the best plan still involves making a few key choices later on.
Joaquin Phoenix carries over from "The Sisters Brothers" - and the other reason to put this film back in the chain is that it doesn't have any other actors I recognize, so putting it between two films with him is really the only way to go.
THE PLOT: A traumatized veteran, unafraid of violence, tracks down missing girls for a living. When a job spins out of control, Joe's nightmares overtake him as a conspiracy is uncovered, leading to what may be his death trip or his awakening.
AFTER: This film checks off a lot of the boxes on the list of current trends in movies that annoy the hell out of me - one is a lot of non linear time-jumping. This film is fairly flash-backy, and very enigmatic in its use of flashbacks, but at least the main story plays out properly, according to the timeline. (Umm, I think...) But the other is the use of the "unreliable narrator", most notably used in films like "The Girl on the Train" (she conveniently can't remember anything about her lost day until it becomes important to the plot...) but the convention goes way back, through films like "Jacob's Ladder", where we're seeing things from the P.O.V. of a man who might be going insane, or even experiencing a form of afterlife purgatory.
In this case, it's a bit hard to separate reality from the dark fantasies that the main character has - he has frequent thoughts of suicide, but are they just that, or is he really trying to kill himself? Are we supposed to take footage of him with a plastic bag over his head at face value, or do these shots merely imply his desire to die? And then, how does this relate to his chosen profession as a man who rescuse underage girls from child prostitution rings? Does he do this because he's broken inside, or is he broken inside because of what he does, and what he's seen? It's open for debate.
The flashbacks also suggest that Joe was injured during military service, and also show some abuse incurred by his father when he was a child (another plot point in common with "The Sisters Brothers"). Damaged characters tend to be more sympathetic, but this is bordering on ridiculous. I mean, how would this even work? If his goal is to rescue more underage girls from sex rings, he does realize that if he succeeds in committing suicide, then he can't continue to complete his calling, right? I mean, being dead would make things very difficult, at the very least, but he doesn't seem to understand that, so is he stupid, or misguided, or just unaware?
But this movie is reaching me at an interesting time, a couple weeks after the whole Jeffrey Epstein story hit, and supposedly they've only scratched the surface when it comes to going through his secret files, so there's the chance that there could be some information released in the next couple of weeks that will put last year's #metoo and #timesup movements to shame. If we suddenly see a bunch of high-profile actors and politicians moving to countries with no extradition treaties, then we may know what to expect. If there was a secret underage-girl (or boy) sex ring that catered to the elite, what's the fallout going to be?
Still, there's so much unclear here, even for a 90-minute film that gets right to the heart of the matter, and doesn't dick around all that much, which I do appreciate. When Joe is hired by a NY State Senator to find his missing daughter, and all that he has is a Manhattan address, Joe does the minimum amount of surveillance, and then charges in armed with a hammer. I've got to call a NITPICK POINT on this one, because how does he even know what's going on there? Wouldn't it make sense to look up the address on the internet, figure out who owns the building, do a little digging or watch the place for four or five days? How does he even know that THAT girl is there? I guess maybe it's one of those things where you have to strike while the iron is hot, and time is of the essence when it comes to rescuing someone? Still, it's shoddy detective work at best.
Once he gets the girl, things really go downhill from there. Some powerful men go out of their way to track down Joe and all of his contacts, despite the efforts that he's employed over the years to distance himself from people, for their own safety. He's prepared for exactly this situation, maintained anonymity to protect the people that he cares about, so what happened to all that prep-work? And why did he let his handler maintain a ROLODEX, in this day and age? I mean, sure, it can't get hacked, but it also has ZERO security when you just keep it on top of your desk. So that's gotta be NITPICK POINT #2.
NITPICK POINT #3: There's just no way that the three-story brownstone on 31st Street has that many rooms and corridors in it - not unless somebody bought up the whole block and knocked out a few walls so that all the buildings would connect inside. There's some real movie-magic architecture here, since from the outside it looks like a small "railroad" apartment building, but inside there's at least a dozen bedrooms on the second floor. Sorry, impossible.
Joe's also been caring for his elderly mother, who often tries to "prank" him by pretending that she's dead, and not just napping. Yeah, she's a real card - but in terms of the movie's plot, this is either the laziest possible bit of foreshadowing, or some writer's idea of a gag that he forgot to get back to. I've got more issues with the mother character, but I'm going to withhold them because spoilers.
There's also a key plot point missing from the movie (I just read about it on IMDB) which would have explained a LOT, had it been included. By leaving it out, the audience has to draw its own conclusion about how the Senator's daughter ended up in the sex ring in the first place, which might be just as well, because knowing the answer to this point doesn't help at all, in fact it makes zero sense when juxtaposed against the scene of Joe getting hired for this job. Imagine a "Scooby-Doo" episode where the same guy who owned the amusement park was also the guy who dressed up like an evil clown to scare customers away - why would he work at cross purposes like that?
I think the goal here was to create a character like the Punisher or the Equalizer, someone who's damaged but still works toward dealing out justice and making things right, no matter the cost. But those guys (and Jack Reacher, John Wick, etc.) are experts, and they're GOOD at what they do. This guy, I'm not so sure his head is screwed on right. And if it isn't, then what purpose does it serve to depict him in this way? And whatever happened to Joaquin Phoenix's goal of getting out of acting? Why is he back in my countdown with three recent films? I guess the burgeoning rap career didn't go so well - oh, sure, that was a "joke" or a "mockumentary" or something. Nice try, but I'm not buying into that.
Also starring Ekaterina Samsonov, Alex Manette (last seen in "2 Days in New York"), John Doman (last seen in "Blue Valentine"), Judith Roberts (last seen in "Eraserhead"), Dante Pereira-Olson, Alessandro Nivola (A Most Violent Year"), Frank Pando (last seen in "Money Monster"), Vinicius Damasceno, Kate Easton (last seen in "Ocean's Eight"), Scott Price.
RATING: 3 out of 10 rolls of duct tape
No comments:
Post a Comment