Saturday, June 25, 2022
Bitchin': The Sound and Fury of Rick James
Friday, June 24, 2022
The One and Only Dick Gregory
Thursday, June 23, 2022
Fatherhood
Year 14, Day 174 - 6/23/22 - Movie #4,178
BEFORE: The Summer Rock and Doc Block is ALMOST here, just one more narrative film and then we'll kick things off tomorrow, just in time for Friday and the weekend. This was my back-up film for "Father's Day", in case I couldn't land "The Father" on the right day, but I did. Now I could save this one for next year, but I don't want to wait that long, plus I'm not completely sure if I'll be able to link to it again. I've got the linking in my favor right now, I have the opportunity so I'm going to just take it.
Frankie Faison carries over from "Freejack".
THE PLOT: A father raises his baby girl as a single dad after the unexpected death of his wife who died one day after their daughter's birth.
AFTER: Yeah, this is a bummer of a film in many ways, it's about a man recovering from the death of his wife and trying to find the right methods of raising his young daughter, plus managing a job and a couple of friends, and eventually something akin to a social life. Hey, it's not easy, if it were then anyone could do it, right? Wait, maybe they can...
The extra wrinkle here is that Matt, the lead character, never really had a father figure, he was raised by a single mom - the explanation given is that his father had other children from other baby mamas. Fortunately, this has just made Matt extra determined to give his daughter what he didn't have. Those plans also included co-parenting with his wife, but a medical issue shortly after giving birth ruined those plans. (Not really a spoiler, the film opens with Matt's wife's funeral...)
Matt's determined to stay in Boston and keep his job, rather than move back to Wisconsin and let his mother and in-laws help raise young Maddy. I guess that's a good move? Maybe there's no right or wrong here, people are going to do what they want to do, or what they need to do, or maybe what they have to do. I don't know, I don't feel the need to have kids so I've never been in this situation. It sucks that Matt's wife died, but that's something that nobody really tells you about getting married, that there are no good ways for it to end, and it has to end at some point, if you think about it. Being the one who's left rather than the one who dies sucks too, I guess it's better than dying but it probably doesn't feel like it?
Still, the film presents more ups than downs, once Maddy is out of diapers and can carry on a conversation. Days in Boston Common, riding on the swan boats. Poker games and birthday parties, sleepovers (both the child and the adult kind) and sharing ice creams. There are dust-ups and controversies at school, but most can be easily solved by Matt just driving away quickly and ignoring the problems - until there's an accident on the playground, and Matt has chosen that same day to sleep in with his new girlfriend, and this casts doubt on whether he's ready to date again and risk taking his eye off of his daughter. But eventually the balance seems to be restored, and life's progress is made, and there's room in Matt's life for both a daughter and a girlfriend.
You can tell that Kevin Hart REALLY wanted to work in some stand-up comic-like routines, like he's got this whole breakdown of what you find in kids' diapers. New parents can probably relate, but it's all alien to me, thank God. Dealing with difficult baby car seats, strollers that are hard to fold up, there's a lot for a comedian to work with here, but this isn't really a comedy, not first and foremost, anyway. And Maddy raging against the dress-code machine at a parochial school is probably a battle that hundreds of trans and non-binary kids are waging across the country right now, best of luck to them, I guess. If a girl doesn't want to wear a skirt or a boy does, who cares? It really doesn't affect me in the slightest, so fight the powers that be, kids.
Also starring Kevin Hart (last seen in "Death at a Funeral" (2010)), Melody Hurd, Alfre Woodard (last seen in "Miss Firecracker"), Lil Rel Howery (last seen in "Judas and the Black Messiah"), DeWanda Wise (last seen in "Precious"), Anthony Carrigan (last seen in "Bill & Ted Face the Music"), Paul Reiser (last seen in "Horse Girl"), Deborah Ayorinde (last seen in "Harriet"), Teneisha Collins, Thedra Porter, Holly Gauthier-Frankel (last seen in "On the Basis of Sex"), Julie Trépanier (ditto), Ellen David (last seen in "A Walk on the Moon"), Julian Casey, Anne Day-Jones (last seen in "The Hummingbird Project"), Maria Herrera (last seen in "Bad Santa 2"), Linda Joyce Nourse (ditto), Anthony Kavanagh, Puja Uppal, Marco Ledezma, Sorachny Tan, Achilles Montes-Vamvas, Alice Tran, Rachel Mutombo.
RATING: 6 out of 10 ice cream flavors
Wednesday, June 22, 2022
Freejack
Year 14, Day 173 - 6/22/22 - Movie #4,177
BEFORE: I promise you, there's another Father's Day movie coming up tomorrow, before I kick off the Rock & Doc Block. Today's film, which has ALSO been taking up space on my DVR for nearly two whole years, is necessary to connect "The Father" with another film about fathers. This will make more sense tomorrow, I hope.
But if I'm being completely honest, I could have transitioned into documentaries yesterday, by linking from Ann-Margret, there's footage of her in at least one documentary in the chain, maybe even two. Or I could link to the documentary chain after today's film, that's an option because Mick Jagger is in this film, and I've learned that filmmakers really can't make a documentary film about rock music without archive footage of the Beatles or the Stones, usually both. What I'm saying is, I had many options for how to get INTO the doc chain, and because this year's chain turned out to be a big circle (more or less) - meaning that I accidentally organized it so the last documentary linked back to the first - I was able to pick the starting point that made me the most happy, or made more sense from an OCD organizing point of view, which is essentially the same thing. So, I made the choices that were MOST likely to put the film I wanted to watch on July 4 on July - because I could. If there are other coincidences that come along, like if anybody makes an appearance on their birthday, either as a documentary subject, an interviewed person, or just appears through the use of archive footage, I'll try to make note of that.
Anyway, I've got to get rid of this film, like "Magic" it looks terrible, so it probably is - but I recorded it, so now I have to own that. Anthony Hopkins carries over again from "Magic".
THE PLOT: Bounty hunters from the future transport a doomed race car driver to New York City in 2009, where his mind will be replaced with that of a dead billionaire.
AFTER: I'm afraid there's no way around this, the only way to do it is go through it, we must acknowledge that this film exists - it's much too late to turn back now. A film released in 1992 that sends a man into the far-flung future of 2009, where the world is terribly polluted, the ozone layer is destroyed, climate change is real and the gap between the super-rich, the billionaires, the one-percenters, is greater than ever. Millions are homeless or live in burnt-out buildings around New York City, uncontaminated food is rarely available, and most people are sick due to various toxins, drug use, radiation, overuse of plastics and of course, nuclear waste. OK, so they weren't exactly WRONG, maybe they were just off a bit on the timetable - because all of this could STILL be the way we're all headed. But let's reflect on the fact that at least 2009 wasn't as bad as people once thought it would be, and retroactively breathe a sigh of relief - it would be another decade before things got super out of control, right?
Oh, but there's new technology, some of which came into being, even if most of it didn't. Things look great for virtual reality and faked zoomed calls, which we do have now, or are just on the brink of having. But then there's mind-wiping, or implanting one person's memories and consciousness into another's body (last seen in "Swan Song") and well, that's not a thing yet. Same goes for time travel, or at least a form of it where people can reach back to a specific time and place and yank somebody into the future. Obviously, this needs to be done at the moment just before death, to minimize the chances of affecting the timestream. If you "jack" somebody who was likely to survive and have kids, then you've changed the timeline.
Right, but why do they need this race-car driver's body in the future? Well, that's where they're going to put the dying billionaire's brain, duh. I know, the next obvious question is, why can't they just use a young attractive, athletic person's body from 2009, so the billionaire can live on? Well, they do answer that, it's because all the people in 2009 are so sick, thanks to that pollution and radiation and nuclear waste - so they HAVE to reach back to a cleaner, more simpler time to get a good body. And this makes sense for about 30 seconds, until you realize that clean body with the old mind in it now has to live in 2009, so it will be polluted and sick itself in short order. And we're back to this plot not making a bit of sense, where we should be.
A 17-year jump isn't really that much time, but essentially the whole world changed during that time, population growth being what it is, and after two terms of Reagan and then one of George Bush Sr. dismantling the EPA, the FDA and the Health and Human Services Dept., you can see why the future looked bleak when viewed through 1992's eyes. Sure, we'll have lasers and people will be driving tiny, little energy-saving cars, but also the government agents will be hunting down mutants in the Forbidden Zone, which was formerly known as Brooklyn.
It was really smart casting Rene Russo as the racer's love interest, because she somehow managed to look 35 for about 20 years. I mean, she can't pass for mid-30's NOW but she had a good long run. Her character works for the mega-corporation that was involved in jacking her old dead boyfriend into the future, yet somehow, she's not aware of the plan. She's very surprised to see him again, to the point where she doesn't believe that it's him - but she knows that the time travel tech exists, so what gives? Since she knows that people are brought to the future to serve as host bodies, she naturally assumes that's not the Alex Furlong she knew, it must be someone else in his body. Still, WHY IS THIS HER GO-TO? Is it THAT hard to believe that a jacked body escaped before the procedure could be done? They even have a word for that, they're "freejackers", so why can't she wrap her brain around this?
Her company, the McCandless Corporation, runs the "spiritual switchboard", where rich people's minds are kept in storage until proper new bodies can be found. Umm, sure, is Walt Disney also kept on ice there? Alex's only hope is to figure out who all the players are in this barter-for-bodies system, and hope that they hate each other more than they hate him. Because in a world of self-driving cars, who the hell needs race car drivers any more?
NITPICK POINT: The medical techs in the future have to "revive" Alex after he's jacked into the future, which implies that he did die. But if he died, it would have been from the car crash, which was a fiery explosion - he would have been horribly burned before dying, right? But there's not a burn on him, just a few scratches. So, which is it, did he die or did he not die? Did they pull him into the future just before he died? But then, if that's the case, why did they have to revive him? It's not even a time-travel paradox, it's just a stupid situation that makes no sense, any way you try to explain it.
Also starring Emilio Estevez (last seen in "Bobby"), Mick Jagger (last seen in "I Am Divine"), Rene Russo (last seen in "Frank and Cindy"), Jonathan Banks (last seen in "Mudbound"), David Johansen (last seen in "Bad Reputation"), Amanda Plummer (last seen in "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"), Grand L. Bush (last seen in "Streets of Fire"), Frankie Faison (last seen in "In Good Company"), John Shea (last seen in "Missing"), Esai Morales (last seen in "Fast Food Nation"), Wilbur Fitzgerald (last seen in "The Best of Enemies"), J. Don Ferguson (last seen in "I Know What You Did Last Summer"), Tom Barnes, Harsh Nayyar (last seen in "Desperately Seeking Susan"), Danny De La Paz, Johnny Popwell (last seen in "Deliverance"), Myrna White, with cameos from Jerry Hall, Mike Starr (last seen in "Zeroville").
RATING: 3 out of 10 broken champagne bottles
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
Magic
Monday, June 20, 2022
The Two Popes
Sunday, June 19, 2022
The Father
Year 14, Day 170 - 6/19/22 - Movie #4,174
BEFORE: OK, last day of the Tribeca Film Festival, which means a 12-hour shift, including a pack-up and load-out, then a reset of the theater back to normal. I worked all weekend, but got off at 4 pm on Saturday, so I'd be fresh and awake for Sunday morning. But then I had to spend the rest of Saturday catching up on TV shows, or else my TV DVR is going to get filled up. Bottom line, I'm exhausted, but I'm not going to get a break until July, when the theater's closed for a month due to repairs. I know I should be looking for another part-time job to fill up my month, but honestly what seems really appealing is the notion of filing for partial unemployment for the month, and just catching up on sleep, because I'm way behind.
Olivia Colman carries over from "The Lost Daughter".
THE PLOT: A man refuses all assistance from his daughter as he ages. As he tries to make sense of his changing circumstances, he begins to doubt his loved ones, his own mind and even the fabric of his reality.
AFTER: Normally I would issue a SPOILER ALERT here, to keep people who have not seen this film from learning what happens in it - however, since I'm not really sure what, exactly, was happening here, perhaps it's not necessary. Just in case, if you haven't seen this film, and you don't want to learn what may or may not have been taking place here, then please, turn back now.
If you're still with me, this is a film that is constantly changing - certain actors appear several times, under different names, and any facts that are established in the life or the surroundings of the lead character are to be taken with a grain of salt, because they may all change later on. The goal, I believe, is to represent the mind-set of a man with dementia, because his memory has become unreliable, and thus the audience is put in a position similar to his, anything we think we know or remember from before is suspect. I see where they were going with this, however I think there's a big difference between forgetting things and mis-remembering them. One is the absence of a memory that was there before, while the other is substituting new, false information in place of what's missing, and I'm not sure that's how dementia works. Is it?
When we first see the old man, Anthony, his daughter, Anne, is visiting him in his apartment, and she's telling him that she's planning to move to Paris because she met a man, and she will visit him on weekends, but if he keeps acting up with his caregivers, then he'll need to move to a nursing home. This confuses Anthony a bit because he couldn't remember his daughter being in a relationship since her divorce from James, years ago.
The next day, Anthony encounters an unfamiliar man in his apartment, who claims that he's Paul, Anne's husband, and Anthony lives in HIS apartment, not the other way around. Nearly everything in this encounter contradicts what was learned in the previous one, and then when Paul calls Anne to resolve the situation, she shows up, but she's a different woman.
The next day, Anthony gets a new caregiver, who he says reminds him of his other daughter, Lucy, who he hasn't seen for a long time. The caregiver mentions Lucy's accident, which Anthony has no recollection of. Then Anne comes home (played by the first actress again) and has an argument with her husband (played by a second actor) and this pattern pretty much continues for the rest of the film. Anthony wakes up one time and walks down a hospital hallway, and later wakes up in a completely different bedroom, in a nursing home. His nurse is played by the second actress who played his daughter, so WTF is really going on here?
Well, there are a couple of possibilities here, but I'm probably over-complicating things. The simplest answer is that only one of these realities is genuine, and the rest are comprised of incorrect information inside Anthony's head. Perhaps his broken brain substituted his nurse's face for his daughters, or vice versa. Perhaps he can't recall whether his daughter's husband is Paul or James, and this is symbolized by the two names the character uses.
Other possibilities: A) Parts of the film are a dream, or the whole film is a dream. Many times I've dreamed about being in my parents house, or previous apartments, or living with my ex-wife, this might be very common. B) This could be a "Billy Pilgrim"-like situation, from the Kurt Vonnegut novel "Slaughterhouse Five", where Billy had become unstuck in time, and was experiencing the events of his life in a random order. How do any of us really know that one day comes after another, that we're living our lives in a linear fashion? Notice that every time Anthony finds himself in a different situation, it's right after waking up. Have you ever woken up and had to remind yourself what day, or week or year it is? C) This is just a movie showing us all these key events in Anthony's life, just not edited in a proper linear fashion. Perhaps ALL of the information depicted is correct, just at different times. or D) Perhaps Anthony has found a way to access the Multiverse, or the Anthony-Verse, and each time he wakes up, it's in the body of a different version of himself, from another dimension.
My debate is whether this format is dirty pool, a form of "cheating" at scriptwriting because it's meant to confuse us, and at the same time it takes advantage of the fact that you CAN show a constantly shifting reality in a film, dates and times and names don't HAVE to be constants, but then, the follow-up observation is, even though you CAN mess with the laws of time and space in a film, it may not necessarily mean that you SHOULD. Quite ironically, or perhaps appropriately, I was so tired while watching this that I kept falling asleep, and the effect when you fall asleep during a movie, then wake up and try to figure out what's going on and what you've missed, is (almost) exactly like what the lead character went through, each time he woke up - so I kind of got a double-dose, or an intensified effect here.
And now, let's get personal, because my father is, like the main character here (maybe?) living in a home for elderly people - my mother's the one with dementia, though, and it's not getting any easier to have a rational conversation with her. My father still seems to have his wits about him, but since they moved to the new apartment in the facility, he's been focused on taking care of her, and sometimes neglecting his own needs in favor of hers. My sister's been trying to impress upon him that he has to take care of himself first, in order to take care of her - if that means taking naps so he doesn't wear himself down, then that's what he has to do.
I've spent a lot of years trying to not become my father - who worked for decades as a truck driver and spent most of his spare time working for the Catholic Church. Since I broke my ties with the church long ago, and I avoided going into trucking myself, I basically spent a lot of years making sure I didn't turn into my father, personally or professionally. He's really the kindest, most generous man I know, however he's also been known to exhibit an appalling lack of patience followed by fits of rage, and that's the part of him that I don't want to develop in myself. But in the areas of home ownership and equipment repair, I've probably learned more from him than I'd care to admit. In the past year I've gotten back into working in movie theaters, now managing one, and I can't help but think that my job now, opening and closing the theater, is a lot like the time he's spent opening and closing a church, running the services and maintaining the building. So I've circled back to following in his footsteps, in a way, except this time, I'm kind of OK with it. This would mean that movies are basically my religion right now, and I'm kind of OK with that, too.
So, Happy Father's Day, Joe, and to all the fathers out there, of every age and every degree of mental capacity. But I'm afraid that history will remember the Academy Awards given out in 2021 for the following - in the Best Actor category, it was the most racially diverse group ever nominated, and Chadwick Boseman was expected to win posthumously, perhaps should have won, but the award went, once again, to the old white guy. It's not for me to judge whether that was right or wrong, because I've only seen three out of the five nominated performances in that category. But out of the 8 Best Picture nominees for 2020, I've now seen 6 of them, having watched this one, "Mank" and "Judas and the Black Messiah" this month. (Just "Minari" and "Sound of Metal" to go...)
Also starring Anthony Hopkins (last seen in "Spielberg"), Rufus Sewell (last seen in "Carrington"), Imogen Poots (last seen in "French Exit"), Olivia Williams (last seen in "An Education"), Mark Gatiss (last seen in "Locked Down"), Ayesha Dharker, Evie Wray (last seen in "Cruella").
RATING: 5 out of 10 false accusations