Scream VI - Movie Review

Dir: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Starring: Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Mason Gooding, Hayden Panettiere, Jack Champion, Liana Liberato, Dermot Mulroney, and Courteney Cox

2h 3m

"What's your favorite scary movie?" It's been 26 years since the phone rang, and this question introduced Wes Craven's iconic film "Scream," a film that shifted the landscape of slasher cinema from the 80s into the 90s with an understanding of horror movie culture that both pokes fun and pays homage to the foundations of the genre. "Scream VI" takes the terror to the Big Apple. A new Ghostface looks to amend unfinished business between the latest generation of Woodsboro survivors. Directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett deliver an old-fashioned slasher flick with a welcome change of location that adds a fresh perspective and a hyper-aggressive masked killer who feels unstoppable. "Scream VI" doesn't stray far from its formulaic storytelling, which functions as a regurgitation of past ideas. Still, the few changes it does establish make it an easy and pleasing horror experience.  

The movie opens with a film professor waiting patiently for a blind date to show up at a packed bar. While providing directions and disobeying every scary movie red flag possible, the film professor comes face-to-face with Ghostface, uniquely establishing its metropolitan location and horror motivations. Woodsboro survivors Samantha (Melissa Barrera), now cautious about every single interaction, and her sister Tara (Jenna Ortega), who is trying to move away from her traumatic past, is confronted once again by the masked villain who will stop at nothing, even attacking in public places like an occupied bodega and a crowded subway car, to enact revenge. 

"Scream VI" is full of energy from its beginning moments, doing its best to subvert expectations with the introductions that have become a familiar formula for each film since Drew Barrymore answered the phone in 1996. Writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick move quickly, maintaining a frantic pace motivated by their monster. Ghostface moves intensely, jumping from dark alleyways, chasing across crowded streets, and smashing through doors. In one of the establishing set pieces early in the film, the masked killer pursues the two sisters into a crowded convenience store, wildly slashing at anyone who stands in the way. At one moment, after disarming the store owner, Ghostface picks up a loaded shotgun and uses it. Using the firearm, which rarely happens in slasher cinema, disrupts the rules of this specific subgenre just enough to make the villain feel more threatening. These small touches in design keep "Scream VI" moving at an entertaining rhythm.

The filmmakers implement some fun set pieces, a ladder stretched across two apartment buildings, and a subway stalking scene are exceptional. The tone established is aggressive. This Ghostface feels hellbent on destruction. Unfortunately, the narrative consistently needs help finding its path as it cycles through characters and attempts to construct a mystery. Characters from previous films make cameos again. Journalist, Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), is pulled into the middle of everything. Kirby Reed (Hayden Panettiere), who survived the mayhem in "Scream 4," is an FBI agent who has dedicated her life to the Ghostface murders. The script doesn't allow much time to develop the supporting characters besides running and screaming. The emotional connection between the two sisters, who are dealing with social media negativity and still working through the trauma of the brutal incident in Woodsboro, is utilized nicely in a few early scenes to convey how disconnected they are from one another and how they are dealing with the world around them. Unfortunately, the film rarely returns to these moments as it quickly turns into an extended chase scene, fleeing toward the finale. 

"Scream VI" proves that Ghostface can still be scary; here, the villain is a daunting force that enlivens the terror in ways past films haven't been able to do. A few set pieces are franchise highlights; the subway setup is old-school horror movie fun, and the brutal chase through an apartment and onto a ladder is terrifying. The film keeps close to its established formula, which unfortunately runs out of surprises, and suffers from a third act that falls flat with its big reveal. Still, these aspects don't keep the filmmaking team from trying new things. "Scream VI" doesn't have a great story but operates the genre's tools in fun and engaging ways.

Monte's Rating

3.00 out of 5.00 

---

Luther: The Fallen Sun – Movie Review

Directed by:  Jamie Payne

Written by:  Neil Cross

Starring:  Idris Elba, Cynthia Erivo, Andy Serkis, Dermot Crowley, and Lauryn Ajufo

Runtime:  122 minutes

‘Luther: The Fallen Sun’:  This sinister crime story carries a bleak two-hour forecast

Who is Luther?

He’s not Lex Luthor.  Different surname. 

Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) John Luther (Idris Elba) works for a London law enforcement division.  However, during the first 10 minutes of “Luther: The Fallen Sun”, a serial killer (Andy Serkis) digs up dirt on our lead, and the police arrest John and throw him in a maximum-security prison.   

You see, David Robey (Serkis) leaves a baffling crime scene on a local motorway, where he blackmailed a random cleaning man.  

Luther arrives and declares, “This scene is-.  It’s unusual.” 

So, Robey – fearing that John will soon follow the breadcrumbs on his odd and wicked trail – gets on his phone and says, “I want his shame,” and faster than you can say, “Lock him up,” Luther finds himself disgraced and incarcerated.  

Don’t be too concerned about spoilers because these sordid events occur before the opening credits end.  

Now, Robey has free rein to commit more atrocities in The Big Smoke.  He’s a mix of Hannibal Lecter (minus the cannibal tendencies), Jigsaw, and The Joker.  He seems to want to “watch the world burn.”  

As mentioned, Robey spends time on the phone, and he must have a fantastic unlimited talk plan.  He’s a master of technology with access to IP addresses, possesses a bloodlust to terrorize anyone he chooses, and sits on massive amounts of cash.  

That’s a nasty trifecta, and with Luther sitting in prison, no one in the local metropolitan area can corral Robey, a savage, sicko stallion.

“Luther:  The Fallen Sun” is not John Luther’s first on-screen appearance.  Elba has starred as the brilliant sleuth for years.  “Luther” (2010 – 2019) ran for 20 episodes over five seasons, and now, director Jamie Payne (who helmed Season 5) and series creator Neil Cross are focusing on a 122-minute movie. 

This critic hasn’t watched the television show, but apparently, Luther is “a man who felt entitled to take justice into his own hands.”

John Luther is a Paul Kersey or Harry Callahan type. 

However, if you’ve never watched the small-screen series, you might feel a bit behind without knowing the nuances of our lead.  

Imagine if a “Death Wish” or “Dirty Harry” TV show ran for five years, but your introduction to Kersey or Callahan was a feature film that already logged slews of cases without your knowledge. 

Still, Elba is believable in the role, one that’s physically demanding, as he dabbles in fisticuffs morning, noon, and night…and between meals too!  

Prison altercations can get ugly, but even the greenest moviegoers realize our hero will eventually escape.  On the outside, he ultimately teams up with a frenemy, Odette Raine (Cynthia Erivo).  She’s a straight-arrow police operative who’d rather never see – let alone work with – Luther again, but they both have the same goal.  

Erivo and Elba forge creative friction as Odette constantly resists her need to partner with John, but her steely ideals need to find malleable spaces for practicality’s sake.  

Naturally, their task - hopefully capturing Robey - presents daunting challenges, and audiences will need help to stomach this cruel narrative.  Payne, Cross, and Serkis almost seem to have placed bets with one another during the writing and filming processes to discover ways to deflate one’s hopes for humankind’s enlightenment.  Luther and Raine’s chief adversary bathes in a core, sinister belief to deal misery to anyone he chooses, and he – unfortunately – carries the means to execute his sociopathic desires.   

“Luther: The Fallen Sun” feels like “8MM” (1999) meets “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991), where depravity swims in pools of kerosene, and in this film, the said fuel actually emanates from a sprinkler system.  Even though Serkis presents a worthy villain, the twisted script doesn’t offer compelling turns, nor does it scribe memorable lines for Robey while he twirls his mustache.  Well, Serkis is sans facial hair and also without a banquet of “fava beans and a nice Chianti.” 

If you decide to dine on “Luther: The Fallen Sun”, it’s streaming on Netflix.  Hey, the production values are high, and Elba’s, Erivo’s, and Serkis’ performances are admirable, but make sure your television’s volume is in check.  With all the screaming and yelling and Lorne Balfe’s ominous score, the neighbors might call John Luther to investigate the commotion.

  Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

Champions - Film Review

Directed by: Bobby Farrelly

Written by: Mark Rizzo, Javier Fesser, and David Marqués

Starring: Woody Harrelson, Kaitlin Olson, Kevin Iannucci, Madison Tevlin, and Matt Cook

An underdog storyline enhanced through meaningful moments of understanding and personal growth.

Marcus (Woody Harrelson), while driving drunk and mourning the loss of his assistant coaching position, hits a police car stopped on the side of the road. Leading him to the ultimate court-ordered choice between community service coaching or incarceration time. 

Emotionally distant and ignorant of others’ hardships, Marcus begrudgingly accepts the community service. Pairing with the basketball team, Friends, created for players with intellectual disabilities. Noticing Marcus’s angst, the judge recommends that Marcus meet the team as any person would; starting with their names. 

Woody Harrelson captivates the audience with mere facial expressions as a character that isn’t particularly kind. Giving way to the expressive actresses Kaitlin Olson and Madison Tevlin, who —with their charismatic and hilarious dialogue and actions— challenge Harrelson’s character, Marcus, which creates a commentary on women’s roles and abilities in the world. These roles include challenging some of the “traditional” roles of women, like playing on gender-designated sports teams or an expectation to be married and moved out by their mid-twenties. 

In addition to the developed character roles, viewers experience coaching side-by-side with Marcus, which helps even the most non-sport-affiliated viewer to understand the goal of the sport. But with a lack of hope, Marcus makes this task difficult. After all, it is nearly impossible to coach well when you’re sitting on the sidelines staring at your phone. 

But their skills take a turn when Marcus sees the team as more than just players and as people with lives outside of the sport. With a team that is eager to learn and equally as funny, the introduction is needed for both Marcus and the audience. 

Director Bobby Farrelly visually guides the audience through the players’ lives on both a shallow level consisting of names and jobs and through a deeper level explaining their personalities and extracurricular activities. The background is narrated thoughtfully by Julio (Cheech Marin), who’s known the team throughout many basketball seasons. This helps guide viewers away from the possible misconception about people with intellectual disabilities. In this, Marcus realizes the importance of knowing about people’s lives, like Benny (James Day Keith) working at a restaurant or Johnny (Kevin Iannucci) volunteering with animals. 

As the film progresses, we meet Cosentino (Madison Tevlin), who is the motivator for Coach Marcus and the team members. Helping the audience realize how the parts of our lives that are unexpected can shape who we are today. Including Marcus’s unexpected life-goal changes that can be largely attributed to his relationship with the Friends and with women. 

“Champions” features growth in many of the characters —noted through the lens of Marcus as his messy life moves the scenes forward— but the underdog storyline has many heartwarming moments that make for a captivating film.

 Plot: ★★★☆☆ 3/5
Cinematography: ★★★☆☆ 3/5
Character Arc: ★★★★☆ 4/5

---

The Quiet Girl – Movie Review

Directed by:  Colm Bairead

Written by:  Colm Bairead, based on Claire Keegan’s novella

Starring:  Catherine Clinch, Carrie Crowley, Andrew Bennett, Michael Patric, and Kate Nic Chonaonaigh

Runtime:  94 minutes

The Oscar-nominated ‘The Quiet Girl’ is an emotional family story that speaks volumes.  Bring tissues.

“If you were mine, I’d never leave you in a house with strangers.” – Eibhlin (Carrie Crowley)

As director/writer Colm Bairead’s movie opens, it’s springtime in 1981, and Cait (Catherine Clinch), a bashful nine-year-old, lives in a bustling home but one without radiant, productive energy.  Cait lives with a few sisters and her parents (Michael Patric and Kate Nic Chonaonaigh).  Her mom (Chonaonaigh) is expecting a baby boy in a few months, towards the end of the summer.  However, downtrodden moods linger within these dreary walls that perch on a foundation of regrets.  

If any love exists in this remote farmhouse, it’s suffering on life support and hidden within a random crack in a forgotten closet.  Rather than boldly rise in stark opposition to her dismal surroundings, this thin, shy auburn-haired lass has absorbed nearly a decade of apathy and neglect.  Cait suffers in silence, struggles in school, and lives in fear of her father, a man who frequently gambles, drinks, and complains.  A trifecta of gloom and doom. 

Dan (Patric) never raises his voice (except, perhaps, when he loses a wager).  The man speaks softly while delivering barbs, insults, and jabs.  For some reason, he directs nearly all of them at Cait, as if she was the sole cause of his lifetime of disappointments.

However, life for Cait – suddenly - takes a positive turn.  With a houseful of mouths to feed and a baby on the way, Cait’s parents ship their “problem child” to another locale.  Eibhlin, a cousin who lives three hours away by car, and her husband Sean (Andrew Bennett) will look after Cait for the summer.  Eibhlin and Sean also run a farm, a dairy farmstead, and a relatively successful one, judging by their beautiful, warm home.  

They are an older, childless couple – in their 40s or 50s – and Eibhlin becomes instantly keen on Cait, doting on her from the get-go.  Meanwhile, Sean isn’t unkind, but he seems distant, like someone with fifty bricks strapped to his back, expending his entire daily exertion to keep his back upright for dignity’s sake.  The man could converse politely with their new houseguest, but the burden of his work prevents him from devoting more than a few words to Cait each day.  

Although, the emotional load may stem from somewhere else.  

Bairead weaves a straightforward tale – an adaptation of Claire Keegan’s 2010 88-page novella, “Foster” - of two starkly different households that directly speaks to the impact of parental love towards a child.  Specifically, “The Quiet Girl” contrasts the disconcerting damage when the aforementioned intention is missing and the blossoming wonder and joy when it endures. 

With a 94-minute runtime, Bairead and the cast don’t spend precious minutes with extraneous subplots and winding directions.  Most of the film basks on the two family properties, bastions for their respective opposing outlooks.  Admittedly, a majority of the activity occurs at Cait’s new summer home as the story eases into a hopeful transformation for the young girl, a child born into a destiny of self-doubt.  Perhaps, 10 short weeks with Eibhlin and Sean can change Cait’s fortunes, but can one season course correct years of disregard?  Especially when Sean provides a sturdy roof and food on the kitchen table but little else, at least during the first act.  

“The Quiet Girl” delivers its messages, not with lengthy exposition but with actions.  Bairead doesn’t tell us.  He shows us through simple gestures.  

For instance, Eibhlin brushes Cait’s hair with 100 strokes while counting along the way, and she takes Cait shopping for new clothes, as our interim matriarch looks tenderly towards a child who seems to have never worn original apparel in her life.  

Bairead and Crowley make Eibhlin’s kind intentions clear from the get-go.  Therefore, the story’s fulcrum pivots with Sean and Cait’s rapport, a non-existent one at first.  The question is:  Will Sean set aside his invisible bricks and turn towards this vulnerable and broken spirit?

This discreet review will not reveal this arc’s treasured details, but let’s say that the disparity between Dan (and his villainous nature) and Sean assuredly grows, as audiences may very well become captivated and constantly hope for continued moments of kind gestures, ones that may seem modest, but they are colossal movements towards repair and healing. 

Bairead and the film’s producers – including Cleona Ni Chrualaoi (who is Bairead’s wife) – made flat out brilliant casting choices.  Crowley and Bennett exude accessible charisma and sympathy as two on-screen guardians that double as guardian angels.  So much so, you’ll want to jump on a commercial flight to Ireland, stroll around their acreage, and enjoy a comforting supper topped with rhubarb pie.  Conversely, Patric and Chonaonaigh project a distressing concoction of indifference and callousness.  

The script draws clear divides between the Haves and Have Nots, however, Bairead laces the psychological and financial gulfs with irony because one couple is blessed with several children while the other longs for one.  

Cinematographer Kate McCullough will also tempt audiences to book flights to the Emerald Isle.  McCullough finds magical spots northwest of Dublin in County Meath, as towering, flourishing trees act as nature’s guides on country roads, and knotty wooden relics line walking paths that feel like we’re stepping into an ancient fable, even though Cait lives her childhood in the late 20-century.  

Here, farmers nurse calves with hand-held bottles while birds chirp, and casual hikes on lush grasslands under blue skies can last until 9:30 pm.  Meanwhile, composer Stephen Rennicks skillfully drops gentle melodies to instantly stir smiles or cause tears at just the right moments as we follow Cait on her journey to possible salvation. 

Catherine Clinch successfully carries the weight of this Oscar-nominated Best International Film on her slender shoulders.  Clinch’s Cait encompasses naivety, insecurities, and post-traumatic stress.  The movie could not work without this young actress communicating these painful feelings and letting them fall when Cait faces love and care. 

Oh, Catherine almost entirely accomplishes this feat through non-verbal cues. 

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

Creed 3 - Movie Review

Dir: Michael B. Jordon

Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Jonathan Majors, Tessa Thompson, Wood Harris, and Mila Davis-Kent

1h 56m

The tagline for "Creed 3", the latest entry for the franchise started 47 years ago with "Rocky," is "You can't run from the past." Making his feature debut and third round playing the title character Adonis Creed, Michael B. Jordan doesn't run from the iconic past. Instead, "Creed 3" acknowledges the influence of the "Rocky" saga while stepping out from the shadow of Rocky Balboa with a film that stands firmly on its established trilogy foundation. Michael B. Jordan delivers a film with energy, allowing for excellent character development with a retired Adonis Creed and a new heavyweight contender played with nuanced menace by Jonathan Majors. Adding some flashy techniques to separate the boxing fight style from past films and "Creed 3" delivers consistently for 12 rounds.

Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) has dominated the boxing world, leaving a legacy that sports enthusiasts honor while establishing a family life that no way near resembles his troubling upbringing as a youth. Creed owns a gym and mentors the current world champion while creating an outlet for up-and-coming fighters to train. Bianca (Tessa Thompson), Adonis' wife, is a successful music producer, and Amara (Mila Davis-Kent), their daughter, is tender and tough, just like her parents. When a childhood friend named Damien (Jonathan Majors), a boxing prodigy and mentor to young Adonis, is released from a lengthy prison sentence, Adonis feels compelled to help his old friend. Damien is ready to return to the ring. With nothing to lose, Damien is determined to reclaim what was taken from him at any cost, even when it means forcing Adonis out of retirement for another match.

"Creed 3" noticeably takes a decisive step to fight on its own, away from the "Rocky" franchise and without the iconic force of Sylvester Stallone to assist in any way. Aside from one mention of Rocky and a brief needle drop of the original score, "Creed 3" is its own story. And for the most part, it successfully builds an entertaining, if never too unfamiliar, arc of spectacle and emotion that lets Michael B. Jordan confidently own the character and directing responsibilities.

Jordan flexes his directing skills with the performers, specifically in scenes involving the primary supporting leads, Tessa Thompson and Jonathan Majors. Thompson may not have much to do on the page, but the actress brings a charm as a mom and confidence in scenes as a wife trying to understand the complicated trauma of her partner's past. Jonathan Majors steals the show throughout the film, playing a soft-spoken yet intimidating former friend to Adonis (who he calls "Donnie"). Majors is physically menacing both in and out of the ring; the actor consistently maintains an anxious and cautious posture, as if, at any moment, someone might attack him. As the film transitions, with Damien trading niceties for intimidations with his childhood friend, Majors' swagger turns tentative to threatening, making his villain the best of the "Creed" series.

In the ring, Jordan takes the opportunity to introduce a new style to the boxing composition. The flare with the fight scenes is inventive and action-packed, with slow-motion hits that make every punch feel like an explosion and cuts that keep the pacing frantic and unexpected for the viewer. There is even an artistic touch with the final bout in a ring shrouded in a haze of smoke and shadows intercut with flashbacks to emphasize the internal battle with the past for both fighters. It works in creating screen drama but takes away from the energetic emotion of the fight.

Michael B. Jordan proves a promising director to watch in the future. Jonathan Majors' performance is a big reason for the successful drama established for the film, and the family dynamic adds an emotional quality that makes the fight, in the end, have more significant stakes. "Creed 3" confidently moves with only a few knockdowns, establishing a film willing to fight its own match.

Monte's Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

---

Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre - Film Review

Directed by: Guy Ritchie 

Written by: Guy Ritchie, Ivan Atkinson, and Marn Davies

Starring: Jason Statham, Aubrey Plaza, Bugzy Malone, Josh Hartnett, Cary Elwes,  and Hugh Grant

A film with captivating on-screen action, but the new weapon technology could have been bolder.  

Deadly operation ➢ Check

Weapons ➢ Check 

Quirky team ➢ Check

Hollywood star ➢ …check?

In this fast-paced action, Orson Fortune (Jason Statham) is the collected and composed lead special operations agent. Overcoming the challenge of working with new teammates, tech-wiz Sarah Fidel (Aubrey Plaza) and footman JJ Davies (Bugzy Malone), Fortune must complete this mission to save the world from dysfunction. 

Quirky and cohesive are two ways to describe the group as they utilize movie star Danny Francesco (Josh Harnett) as the ‘bait’ in an undercover mission to stop extravagant  billionaires, including Greg (Hugh Grant), from using a new technological AI weapon, nicknamed “The Handle.” But the operation never seems to go as planned when “Mike the Competition,” who -if the nickname didn’t give it away- leads the competing special operations team and constantly obscures Fortune’s plans. 

Phew! The film has a lot to cover in 1h 53m and does so in a variety of ways. In the beginning, the film places a lot of information on the viewers all at once, which can feel clustered at times, but I wouldn’t say this is uncommon for spy films that need to provide background information. Even with a lot of content, however, the execution is well-timed between scenes and there is plenty of concise repetition, like “Mike the Competition.”

Through the middle and end of the film, the informational release is more evenly paced, and of course,  includes incredible cinematography. Imagine two different scenes alternating on the big silver screen to give just the right amount of information on both topics. Including some of my favorite scenes between Sarah and Orson, as one finagles information from the web and the other smoothly breaks into a highly guarded area. Director Guy Ritchie purposefully includes transitions to give action-movie fans plenty to focus on. 

The characters, embodied through talented actors and actresses, felt consistent with the usual ‘mission impossible’ movie castings. Orson Fortune calmly leads the operation while receiving life-saving help from new partners JJ and Sarah. While Fortune possesses admirable qualities, like working easily with a completely new team, the bond between Fortune and his teammates isn’t particularly shown through actions as much as stated. 

The liveliness of the team is added through Aubrey Plaza’s well-rounded sarcasm as she acts the role of a hacker. However, as with many action films, Sarah fell into the background as a lead female character when her role doubled as the sexy, fake girlfriend who must downplay her intelligence in the presence of stuffy, rich people. Similarly, JJ conveniently aids Orson in life-threatening scenes but is on the back burner for the rest of the film.

Other characters that played the ‘bad guys’ were inconsistent in their resolve. At the slightest provocation, these characters were easily swayed from their world-changing plans. 

More nuanced roles and positions that deviate from the classic ‘lead spy,’ their ‘helpers,’ and fickle villains would better reflect and include the vast audience that is bound to see the film. 

While in consideration of the audience, the deadly new weapon technology that is part of Orson’s mission objective falls flat in our tech-heavy world. Our current understanding of ChatGPT, deep fakes, and calling for Siri/Alexa at any point has deeply influenced our forms of communication and will change our future. So, the new technological weapon in “Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre” is underwhelming given the opportunity that our current basis of technology offers. 

Plot: ★★★☆☆ 3/5

Cinematography: ★★★★☆ 4/5

Character Arc(s): ★★☆☆☆ 2/5

---

Emily – Movie Review

Directed and written by:  Frances O’Connor

Starring:  Emma Mackey, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Fionn Whitehead, Alexandra Dowling, Amelia Gething, Adrian Dunbar, and Gemma Jones

Runtime:  130 minutes

‘Emily’: Mackey rises to spectacular heights in O’Connor’s Bronte passion project   

“I’ve loved Emily Bronte probably all my life.  I guess like on a super-geeky kind of level.” – Frances O’Connor, Sept. 9, 2022, at the Toronto International Film Festival

O’Connor has starred in television and film since 1993, but she took a dramatic professional turn toward a passion project.  This English native put pen to paper and stepped behind the camera to fashion an engaging biopic of a notable countrywoman, Emily Bronte (1818 – 1848).  

Bronte authored the celebrated book “Wuthering Heights”, her only novel.

Note: this critic has not read the book, but – naturally – I saw the 1939 movie starring Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon.  

Still, I don’t claim to be a “WH” expert.

However, O’Connor is.  With “Emily”, she weaves a reverent, celebratory film to answer the question, “How did Emily write ‘Wuthering Heights’?”

No, not mechanically – via quill or pen – but the film is a fictionalized (or partially-fictionalized) account that openly presents Emily Bronte’s persona.  In a 2022 interview with Picturehouse, O’Connor says, “From the research I’ve done, we’re quite truthful to the nature of who (Emily) was as a person.” 

(For more information on separating fact and fiction in “Emily”, Becca Holland wrote a Feb. 17, 2023 Collider.com article that might be helpful for moviegoers.) 

So, who was Ms. Bronte?  

O’Connor and Emma Mackey (who plays Emily) portray her as misunderstood and rebellious.  Emily blazed her path, but under societal confines, which attempted to limit women’s opportunities through religion and traditional roles.  

Mackey, the (now) 27-year-old French thespian, studied at the University of Leeds, not far from Bronte’s birthplace, and she delivers a heroic, valiant performance.  

Mackey wholeheartedly dives into the challenging role of a woman who struggles against conventions.  In the film, Emily publicly reveals her trials through short, concentrated bursts or intrinsic reveals.  Privately, Ms. Bronte frequently divulges her feelings, especially to the two men in her life: her irresponsible but caring brother Branwell (Fionn Whitehead) and a newcomer to their village, William Weightman (Oliver Jackson-Cohen).  

Mackey is featured in nearly every scene over the 130-minute runtime, and she garners sympathy for Emily that steadily rises over everyday household boundaries, but emotions detonate when greater stakes present themselves.

The movie is mostly set at the Bronte home and adjacent grounds, and Emily lives with her dad (Adrian Dunbar), sisters Charlotte (Alexandra Dowling) and Anne (Amelia Gething), aunt (Gemma Jones), and Branwell.  

Branwell has dreams of becoming a writer when he’s not ingesting opium or alcohol.  Charlotte takes a teaching position in Belgium and only wishes for her father’s approval, while Branwell doesn’t find the capacity to match his sister’s hopes.  Meanwhile, Emily doesn’t aspire to Charlotte’s ambitions, and they develop a rivalry through passive-aggressive means and sometimes openly hostile ones.  O’Connor implies, however, that Charlotte “started it”, as siblings often claim.  

During the first act, William arrives in town.  He’s a curate for the Bronte patriarch, Patrick (Dunbar), and suddenly, William becomes a potential suitor for one of the sisters.  

Admittedly, the motion picture’s first hour moves leisurely as the film lays a foundation for Emily and her surroundings.

Domineering but not unreasonable, Patrick requires order in the spacious estate and that his children take responsibility for their actions.  Granted, Patrick pushes teaching as a profession for his daughters, but when Branwell asks Emily about her goals, she responds, “I don’t know.” 

This is a common answer for 20-somethings throughout history, no matter the century.  Without a chosen direction, Emily is a 19th-century Boomerang kid.

However, she turns to William, not necessarily for guidance but for a possible romance.  This accomplished fellow could become Emily’s first love, from their first touch of hands while Miss Bronte washes dishes in cloudy water.  

Emily’s intentions, however, aren’t murky.  Through O’Connor’s camerawork and Mackey’s dynamic articulations – with momentary, decisive looks or passionate discourse – the audience always recognizes Emily’s feelings, even if others within her confined environment aren’t reading her tea leaves.  

For instance, William delivers a sermon, and Emily intently stares up at him while attentively listening to every moment.  Well, until he declares the word “God” while speaking about the heavenly father’s presence in rainfall.  

She immediately looks downward with disappointment, and at that moment, Mackey conveys Emily’s opinions about religion.  Later, the script delivers a payoff when an assembly of the family, William, and others take a stroll in the countryside.  Emily casually mentions that rain is imminent, while William dismisses the thought.  

Soon after the exchange, the astute Miss Bronte is seen as the group’s most perceptive person, at least to the audience.  Emily may not have a relationship with God, but Mackey, O’Connor, and the cast and crew strongly relate to the material.  

Emily has experiences in the movie that tie to “Wuthering Heights” as shared emotional and practical themes emerge.  For those intimately familiar with the novel, “Emily” is probably a film that should be felt more than once.  

This critic found more cinematic treasures during a second viewing, including a stronger appreciation for the lively and lovely score that beautifully matches each pivotal scene and cheers to the five-person music department.  O’Connor also includes arthouse touches and vibes in spots that add color to a film that’s not a straightforward Jane Austen adaptation.  Meanwhile, Mackey proudly stands tall – and reaches spectacular heights - as Bronte, a woman that might feel a bit lost among 19th-century pleasantries, but this future author finds her voice. 

The opening scene presents an early glimpse of this revelation.  Emily sits by herself in a wispy Yorkshire field.  As she formulates a story idea out loud, O’Connor’s camera focuses on the young woman’s hand, gliding in the air, like she is a maestro of a literary concerto, one – of course - created on her terms. 

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Cocaine Bear - Film Review

Directed by: Elizabeth Banks

Screenplay by: Jimmy Warden

Starring: Ray Liotta, Keri Russell, Margo Martindale, Isaiah Whitlock Jr.

Based on a true story,  director Elizabeth Banks and screenplay writer Jimmy Warden meet horror and comedy fans’ expectations in “Cocaine Bear,” leaving audiences gasping, laughing and on the verge of throwing up… in a good way. 

According to AP, in 1985, a mountain bear ingested a portion of the 75 pounds of cocaine that was dumped by Andrew Carter Thornton II in the Georgia forest. In an exaggerated retelling of these events, viewers are drawn into the ‘what-ifs’ of a powerful, momma bear high on cocaine. 

Of course, viewers would not be able to experience this film without the classic lead character; a CGI bear. When not utterly incoherent from swallowing and snorting an insane amount of cocaine, the bear is featured with standard animal size and actions, rubbing against trees and moving through nature. Interestingly enough, the bear appears realistic even when given human traits, such as drawn ‘angry eyebrows’ or making snow angels on the forest floor. These humanesque qualities of the bear made for an overall laugh-out-loud experience when we realize how the bear mimics the effects of cocaine on a human. Those moments are quickly turned into a gory version of drugs making this animal uncharacteristically violent toward humans found in the forest. 

The plot thickens when humans are added into the mix. When drug dealers, led by Syd (Ray Liotta), need to retrieve the missing drugs from the forest, law enforcement, led by Bob (Isiah Whitlock Jr.) is hot on their trail. Meanwhile, ‘rowdy’ takes on a whole new meaning when three teenagers are introduced to the film. They spend their time harassing hair-trigger Ranger Liz (Margo Martindale) and getting into trouble from beginning to end of the movie. 

The character that wins her place in everyone’s heart is nurse and mother Seri (Keri Russell) as she is dragged into the woods in search of her runaway daughter Dee Dee (Brooklynn) and Dee Dee’s friend Henry (Christian Convery). While heartfelt moments are valued in the face of a cocaine-laced film, most audience members will form a connection with Henry, who doesn’t have much in terms of parental figures, and whose witty commentary sets the scene. After all, as Henry puts it, witnessing the after-effects of an addicted bear is an experience that “stays with a man forever.” 

When looking at this film head-on, while it is based on true events, all of the characters have clear wants that kept the plot moving forward. At a fair-paced 1 hour 35 minutes, and easily identifiable as an ‘R’ rated film, “Cocaine Bear” offers intriguing juxtaposition of charcter interactions, including the wild ride the bear takes us on, that keeps your eyes glued to the screen in fear of missing out. 

There’s plenty to look out for in this film, so remember kids: wear your seatbelt, stick with your mom, and stay away from cocaine bears. 

Plot: ★★★★☆ 4/5

Cinematography: ★★★★☆ 4/5

Character Arc(s): ★★★☆☆ 3/5

---

Sharper - Film Review

Directed by: Benjamin Caron 

Written by: Brian Gatewood & Alessandro Tanaka 

Starring: Justice Smith, Briana Middleton, Sebastian Stan, Julianne Moore, and John Lithgow

‘Sharper’ has a few surprising twists, but features the classic con artist drama plot.

Meet Tom (Justice Smith). A sensitive guy who spends the day reading in his bookstore. 

Oh! and his family has MONEY money. 

The majority of “Sharper” is spent shifting these funds around. The standard scheming also offers a few surprising twists from the con artists that keep the audience engaged in the film. 

From the ‘who-are-they’ question to the ‘who-done-it’ drama, “Sharper” shows how four people from different walks of life are willing to go to extremes for the things that they want. 

Each of their lives intertwines in some manner, and money seems to be involved for each of them. 

Most viewers know from real-life experience that money holds a lot of power in the world. In this motion picture, money also plays a big role. The audience is caught on a one-path mindset that money is a tool that provides. Whether money is used for persuasion or a better lifestyle, it makes its way into every nook and cranny of the film. 

It begs the question, can money have a bigger purpose in the world?

“You can’t cheat an honest man…” Max’s (Sebastian Stan) motto allows him to feel no remorse for his con man lifestyle. Especially since accumulating money is the most important part of his life. Stan’s role as a practiced con man clearly accentuated the detached and slightly unhinged characteristics of Max at the beginning of the film. 

As a foil to Max, Sandra (Briana Middleton), is easily one of the most intriguing characters to follow throughout the movie. Her background, acceptance and dissension, are distinguishable traits that allow the audience to question her actions and motivation throughout the film. 

While all of the characters are diverse, through their notable actions and levels of intelligence, the film seemed to lack a progression of thought about intelligence, skill or monetary values; which are some of the main concepts throughout the film. The plot is one-note when considering the use of money since viewers aren’t given thought-provoking revelations about the impact of its use in the world. This leaves the audience with a semi-climactic resolution that merely follows the character’s status changes. 

The cinematography throughout the film, highlighted through the introductions to Tom, Sandra, Max and Madeline (Julianne Moore), is easily digestible for the audience. Director Benjamin Caron, and writers Brian Gatewood and Alessandro Tanaka, split the film into enjoyable chunks for the viewers, piecing together the main characters at various points in their life. Then, the audience is fed information in such a manner that when the end of the film rolls around, they can easily understand the copious amounts of new content. 

Overall, “Sharper” is an intriguing watch, but leaves the audience with nothing new. 

Plot: ★★☆☆☆ 2/5

Cinematography: ★★★☆☆ 3/5

Character Arc: ★☆☆☆☆ 1/5

---

Magic Mike's Last Dance - Movie Review

Dir: Steven Soderbergh

Starring: Channing Tatum, Salma Hayek, Caitlin Gerard, and Gavin Spokes

1h 52m

At the press screening of "Magic Mike" in 2012, a group of talented male performers danced their way around a crowd of eager viewers ready to see Channing Tatum striptease. In the film's first minutes, the naked backside of Mr. Tatum appeared onscreen, and the entire theater erupted in hoots and hollers so loud that any dialogue following this scene was muffled entirely out. It didn't matter from this point whether the movie review would be negative or positive, "Magic Mike" already was a hit. 

"Magic Mike," directed by Steven Soderbergh, explored the glamorized lifestyle of an adult  entertainment performer in a South Florida nightclub as a cautionary tale and a star-turning stage for Channing Tatum. "Magic Mike XXL," directed by Gregory Jacobs, took the show on a road trip with a lighthearted buddy comedy with an unsuspecting heart. "Magic Mike's Last Dance," directed again by Soderbergh, takes place a decade later, post-Covid, as a film about second chances and chasing your passion. Is another journey with a retired male stripper necessary? Not at all. But "Magic Mike's Last Dance" has enough charming Channing, Hallmark channel romance, and seductively-charged dance choreography to keep fans of the series satisfied with one final dance. 

Mike Lane (Channing Tatum) experienced the same struggles as the rest of the world during the pandemic. After pursuing a dream and finding success as a furniture designer, the worldwide health event put Mike's passion out of business. Still living in South Florida, Mike works as a bartender-for-hire at a luxury charity event run by Maxandra "Max" Mendoza (Salma Hayek), a wealthy Londoner who is going through a marriage separation. A guest at the party recognizes Mike from his past life as a male stripper; Max finds out and coyly coaxes Mike to demonstrate his skill to her in private. Mike, initially reluctant, obliges Max's request, which awakens an opportunity that jettisons them to London for a unique creative collaboration.

"Magic Mike's Last Dance" steps away from the examination of desire and performance prevalent in the previous two films and instead emphasizes the theme of sex as art, performance for pleasure, and the blurry line between lust and love. Soderbergh, director, cinematographer, and editor under various pseudonyms, focuses on developing a love story between Mike and Max and exploring the connection between performer and patron that exists when the fantasy dissolves. 

The execution of the love story seldom finds its swoon-worthy stride, even though the chemistry between Channing Tatum and Salma Hayek evokes a complicated yet sweet relationship. As Mike and Max grow from artistic collaborators to emotionally connected soulmates, the story provides a few moments of love's influence that are amusing to watch. Whether a sexy private dance scene or a makeover montage, Hayek and Tatum's performances sizzle. Unfortunately, the good moments aren't strong enough to sell the journey of love for these two older, world-weary adults. Still, the non-too-serious approach keeps the emotions light and digestible for audiences looking for a simplistic love story.

Channing Tatum is comfortable with the role of Magic Mike. The Prince Charming quality of the character's development in this film suits the actor's endearing sensibilities. Salma Hayek is in prime form throughout the film as a newly empowered woman taking control of her choices. Hayek exudes confidence throughout the film, making the character arc far more interesting when Max loses assuredness as the emotions for Mike grow irresistible.

"Magic Mike's Last Dance" is a good romantic cinema date night option for Valentine's Day. Salma Hayek and Channing Tatum hold the film together; their onscreen connection is undeniably charming. While the film may not always evoke those timeless love story vibes, it has enough sweet sentiments and entertaining dance numbers to satisfy fans of the franchise. 

Monte's Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

---

Let It Be Morning – Movie Review

Directed by:  Eran Kolirin

Written by:  Eran Kolirin, based on Sayed Kashua’s novel

Starring:  Alex Bakri, Juna Suleiman, Salim Daw, Ehab Salami, Samer Bisharat, and Yara Elham Jarrar

Runtime:  101 minutes

‘Let It Be Morning’ offers important messages but not a lot of sunshine    

“We gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do.” – The Animals, 1965

The said lyric is exactly how Sami (Alex Bakri) feels.  Sami, his wife Mira (Juna Suleiman), and his young son are trapped in purgatory.  No, not in a religious netherworld due to past sins, but in a tangible place:  his hometown.  

While visiting this tiny, remote village to attend his brother Aziz’s (Samer Bisharat) wedding, a small band of military types blocks the one road in and out of town.  

The one road!

Unfortunately, Sami, his wife, and his son face this manned obstruction after sundown when attempting to drive home to Jerusalem.  They’re forced to turn around and head back to his parents’ house, spend the night, and hopefully, this unexpected inconvenience will subside in the morning. 

Well, come morning, it…does not. 

For an unknown swathe of time, Sami and his family are stuck in this isolated community, and no one can – definitively - circle a date on the calendar when the roadway will open again. 

Writer/director Eran Kolirin’s “Let It Be Morning” was released in 2021, and the film became Israel’s Best International Feature submission for the 2022 Academy Awards.  It didn’t land on the Oscar shortlist, but Kolirin’s movie does offer an anthropological study over its 101-minute runtime. 

This unnamed parish is primarily an Arab-populated community, one located in Israel.  So, tensions are built into the narrative.  However, the script – based on Sayed Kashua’s 2006 novel – does not delve into massive combative tactics between Jewish and Arab populaces.  Some mentions of the ever-present geo-political, religious, and cultural differences occur, and yes, the road is blocked, an obvious point of contention.  Still, the film’s messages pertain to a couple of universal aspects of human nature, whether the movie is set in Phoenix, Shanghai, Sydney, Nairobi, Buenos Aires, or Jerusalem.  

Granted, the given municipality isn’t one of the planet’s largest commerce centers.  Here, “everyone” knows Sami’s name, and the movie touches upon family conflicts, but not in a cliché-driven sense.  Disagreements are presented and explored as a matter of fact.  

Rather than showcase screaming matches and verbal outbursts – that we might expect from forced, paint-by-numbers American dramedies where extended families are cooped up in a home over the holidays (see also, “The Family Stone” (2005)) – general apathy is the “winning” emotion of the day in “Let It Be Morning”.

Living with regret is a common theme with the inhabitants and visitors in this anonymous settlement.  Will anyone break free?  Break free of their invisible chains, as songwriter/drummer Neil Peart famously called the emotional reasons for remaining in unwanted life circumstances.

In most (but certainly, not all) cases, listless tones and the characters’ general indifferences carry the production, and the motion picture’s deliberate lingering pace can create struggles for moviegoers.  Subdued and isolated discourse repeatedly transpires within quiet rooms or on empty street corners as Sami trudges through his given, forced circumstances.  Occasionally, words of wisdom resonate with him and us, especially from Sami’s mom and his childhood friend Abed (Ehab Salami), but we wade through lengthy, dreary stretches to get to these Promised Land exchanges.  

Meanwhile, sad-sack Sami carries an everyman suburban white-collar worker’s fate.  The man has it all but doesn’t appreciate his blessings, including Mira, whom he sadly neglects. 

Don’t cry over “Let It Be Morning”.  It’s not an invaluable time at the movies.  Still, the film is deliberately downtrodden as broken dreams aren’t forgotten, and disappointments forge an ever-present malaise.  Some moments of levity temporarily raise spirits, but not often enough to consider this cinematic adaptation a comedy.  

In addition to the last scene, a moment that stuck most with this critic is when Sami’s household-triad briefly steps away from the urban center, as Kolirin captures lovely rocky hills and buttes, complete with olive trees, fresh air, and the chance at new beginnings.  The scene makes one appreciate the natural beauty of the region.  Perhaps “getting out of this place” shouldn’t be a ubiquitous proclamation. 

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

Close - Film Review

Directed by: Lukas Dhont 

Written by: Lukas Dhont and Angelo Tijssens

Starring: Eden Dambrine, Gustav De Waele, Émilie  Dequenne, and Léa Drucker

‘Close’ comments on the nuance of young, pure friendship in an unforgiving world. 

Remember those exciting, and admittedly nerve-racking, first days of a new school year? 

Leo (Eden Dambrine) and Remi (Gustav De Waele) are navigating the new year as previously inseparable friends. It should be easy and effortless, but the snide comments from 13-year-olds crack the foundation of their friendship. 

The kinship and innocent connection between the young boys will make everyone grin, especially at the start of the film as they play imaginative games, run through the fields and have sleepovers while sharing late-night stories. It is apparent that Leo and Remi have built a bond over time. 

Viewers are then moved through the emotional challenges that young children experience in the presence of peer pressure. Providing brilliant commentary about the social boundaries that are developed through school and how many children must ‘toughen up’ to the harsh words and bullying of others. In some cases, when being tough isn’t worth the change, giving in to social tensions becomes a better alternative.

Dambrine then takes viewers through Leo’s life and the audience truly understands the ripple effect people’s choices and actions have on others. Émilie Dequenne, who plays Remi’s mom, Sophie, naturally shows viewers a mother’s love. The reactions from Sophie throughout the film are authentic to the precautions and actions that any mother would take for their child. 

While the film brilliantly portrays the experiences of a 13-year-old, it reminds me of why I was so eager to leave those years behind me. This film allows viewers to sympathize with the hardships of middle and high school, and will most likely leave viewers bawling in the corner. 

The cinematography by Frank van den Eeden and director Lukas Dhont throughout this film provided an almost 4-D experience for viewers. As we mainly follow Leo, who leads us through friendship, school, recess, home and sports practice, there is a slight jarring motion to the camera as it is placed at the height of a young boy. This quality makes the audience feel like they are part of the movement. 

Subtle depictions of time are found in Leo’s harvest work on his parent’s colorful flower farm. Hours and months go by as Dhont spends time with Leo, his brother, mom, and dad working in the fields. While the scenery changes, Leo’s relationships with the other kids at school also change and the length of time that has passed becomes more apparent to viewers. 

The time change and Leo’s change in actions also lead to a well-rounded character arc. Young teens learn so much about themselves and their relationships with friends and family, and throughout the film, Leo shows growth in his outlook on the world. 

Dhont leaves viewers with a final homage to life; we can look back, but we must continue taking steps forward.

Plot: ★★★☆☆ 3/5

Cinematography: ★★★☆☆ 3/5

Character Arc: ★★★★☆ 4/5

---

Knock at the Cabin - Movie Review

Dir: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring: Dave Bautista, Jonathan Groff, Ben Aldridge, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Rupert Grint, Abby Quinn, and Kristen Cui

1h 40m

Isolated cabins in the woods always spell terrible happenings in horror films. For director M. Night Shyamalan, who adapts author Paul Tremblay's thought-provoking and terrifying "Cabin at the End of the World," a cabin plays the centerpiece for a world-defining decision that a family must make to alter the apocalypse. "Knock at the Cabin" strips down the thought-provoking terror of the novel and institutes a film taut with tension and great performances. 

8-year-old Wen (Kristen Cui) is on vacation with her two dads, Andrew (Ben Aldridge) and Eric (Jonathan Groff), collecting grasshoppers for her jar in front of the cabin they are vacationing. Out of the woods comes a giant, although gentle, man named Leonard (Dave Bautista) who helps Wen collect grasshoppers, taking extra care not to scare any of the ones already trapped in the jar. Wen, who is cautious at first, quickly lets her guard down around Leonard until three more strangers arrive holding customized weapons. Wen, scared, runs back to warn her parents.

These beginning moments display Shyamalan's skill with quickly and unexpectedly shifting gears with emotion and tone but maintaining an engaging and thrilling control. The utilization of a child's curiosity to introduce the menacing presence of strangers effectively transforms the film into a home invasion scenario brimming with terror and anxiety.

Inside the house, Andrew and Eric comfortably relax as Wen runs and pleads with them to listen to the warning from Leonard. The parents appease the young girl until a sudden knock at the door interrupts the conversation. Leonard calmly asks the family to open the door so that they can have a discussion. Andrew and Eric refuse, leading Leonard and his colleagues to break into the cabin aggressively. 

Once inside the cabin, Shyamalan introduces the mystery of the narrative, a trademark of the director's style and composition within his films. The mystery surrounds a choice that the captive family must make, a choice to save the world from an apocalypse by sacrificing one of their lives. The narrative jumps from the terror inside the cabin to crucial moments from the family's life, such as the complex adoption process for Wen, an awkward encounter with Andrew's parents, and an unexpected brutal attack inside a bar. These moments display the unfair struggles that Andrew and Eric experience simply because of their lifestyle choice; the trauma of these terrible experiences fuels aggression in every moment inside the cabin. In the beginning, these cutaway moments frame an interesting backstory for the couple, providing insight into the complicated love that has brought them to the specific and brutal moment. However, as the story builds more significant stakes, as the captor's premonitions become a reality, the jumping narrative moments to the past become unbalanced. It eventually undermines some of the established tension between the characters in the house.

Part of what makes the moments in the cabin so engaging is the excellent work of the entire cast and their character compositions. Ben Aldridge, who's steadfast and aggressive resistance against the home invaders, and Jonathan Groff, who's physically affected but protective instincts focused on his daughter, mix well together throughout their journey in the film. Rupert Grint, playing far outside the type of character he usually portrays as the hateful Redmond, is intimidating and menacing in every scene. Nikki Amuka-Bird, portraying a nurse named Sabrina, is conflicted with nearly every choice she makes. A majority of the performance happens through her eyes and facial expressions. The highlight of the film, however, belongs to Dave Bautista. The professional wrestler-turned-actor gives a thoughtful performance that is rich with emotion. His character Leonard, a school teacher, has the physical stature to be the most fearsome of the group. Instead, the performance is gentle and tormented. 

"Knock at the Cabin" is the best-directed film by M. Night Shyamalan in recent memory. The exceptional cast keeps the wheels of the mystery turning even when the story runs out of ideas to employ. There are emotionally exciting places to explore concerning the apocalyptic situation and the life choice that needs a solution within the story. While the book indulges the darker, more tangled threads of human behavior, the film never delves much further than the surface emotions. 

Monte's Rating

2.50 out of 5.00

---

80 for Brady – Movie Review

Directed by:  Kyle Marvin

Starring:  Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda, Rita Moreno, Sally Field, and Tom Brady

Written by:  Emily Halpern and Sarah Haskins

Runtime:  98 minutes

’80 for Brady’:  The big-screen legends have fun.  You might too, but the film doesn’t throw it deep.   

335; 649; 7,753; 89,214; and 97.2. 

What are these numbers?  Are they significant?  

They are related, but how?  Here are two more integers that double as hints:  7 and 12.

Okay, let’s decode the numeric mystery. 

335 games, 649 touchdowns, 7,753 completions, 89,214 yards, a 97.2 quarterback rating, and 7 Super Bowl victories belong to one individual, #12 Tom Brady.

He’s the greatest quarterback in National Football League history, an organization founded in 1920, so standing tall – at 6’ 4” – on top of his profession is an iconic feat. 

He’s #1. 

On Feb. 1, 2023, and at 45 years young, Tom retired from the game, so his towering statistics will (or should) remain unchanged when he enters the NFL Hall of Fame.  

Speaking of retirement, first-time film director Kyle Marvin employed four Hollywood legends to play a group of senior citizens who love the New England Patriots and their long-time leader Tom Brady in “80 for Brady”.  

Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda, Rita Moreno, and Sally Field play a quartet of Boston-area 80-somethings who embark on a trip to cheer and celebrate their gridiron heroes.  In real life, Tomlin, Fonda, and Moreno are older than 80 years young, but Field is 76, a declaration and clarification that her character makes during this 98-minute comedy.  Actually, Betty (Field) proudly claims that she’s 75, the age that Field probably was during the filming. 

But let’s not digress with semantics. 

The bottom line is that Lou (Tomlin), Trish (Fonda), Maura (Moreno), and Betty are BFFs, and the ladies have been Brady fans for years, 16 to be exact.  They watch their favorite team and player every weekend and wear the man’s jersey, complete with shiny silver sequins. 

Well, the Pats are cruising through another great season, and as the movie opens, the Fab Four are enjoying Brady and Co. winning the AFC Championship Game.  Their team is heading to the Super Bowl.  The women attempt to secure tickets to The Big Game and eventually do! 

“80 for Brady” producers MUST HAVE negotiated with the NFL to make this film because the National Football League provides all kinds of footage from one particular Super Bowl that features the Patriots and Tom Terrific.  (For the record, Tom Terrific is the nickname for MLB Hall of Fame pitcher Tom Seaver.)

Which Super Bowl?  Which year?  Which site?  You’ll have to watch “80 for Brady” to find out, but yes, it’s a classic battle.  

Without a doubt, the NFL logo is everywhere.  NFL films offers tons of actual plays that are wildly close to the action.  No, this movie isn’t in 3D, but you almost believe that you could reach out and touch the players or be tackled by them.

Before the game begins, Lou, Trish, Maura, and Betty relish their football fantasies with the NFL Experience, a pre-game amusement park that goes on for days leading up to the on-field crescendo.  Writers Emily Halpern and Sarah Haskins fish for activities for our leads, and the happenings are tied to the NFL.  So much so, that the movie’s second act feels like a giant commercial for the aforementioned sports league as Halpern and Haskins crowbar our golden-years enthusiasts into sticky situations and glorious triumphs.  

(Admittedly, it is refreshing to see NFL logos and uniforms in a motion picture.  We’re not dealing with teal and magenta unis and constant references of fabricated team names like the Boston Tea Partiers or the Los Angeles Quakes.) 

Unfortunately, the contrived setups wreck any suspension of disbelief, or at least with this moviegoer.  The film is no longer the story of four AARP members basking in adventure.  It becomes a showcase for the actresses to participate in artificially crafted hijinks that just fills time.  From that perspective, “80 for Brady” reaches the end zone and scores 6.  

The film is light, breezy, and harmless, and hey, it’s a chance to see Tomlin, Fonda, Moreno, and Field together in one picture.  This flick is almost a reunion of “9 to 5” (1980).  Well, two-thirds, anyways.  We’re just missing Dolly Parton, but no one is complaining about Moreno and Field filling this cinematic dance card.  

The actresses seem to be enjoying themselves too, and it’s heartwarming to see, even for the most cynical critics.  

Look, Sally Field brings some hip dance moves!  

Still, the film is as cookie-cutter as you can get, and we’re not talking about the delightfully sinful Crumbl Cookies franchise.  Silly plot threads are created, frayed, and tied back together with more convenience than your local 24-hour gas station.  It’s eye-rolling stuff, as wishes for more substantial and creative ideas never materialize.  Although the script tries to interject some gravitas with health concerns, bereavement, dating outlooks, and marriage quibbles, these moments feel as throwaway as a deliberate incomplete pass out of bounds.  

Oh, do Tom Brady and other Pats have speaking lines outside of the Super Bowl B-roll?  They do, as Mr. Brady adds another IMDb credit to his name, in addition to his memorable cameo in “Ted 2” (2015).  

Tom no longer plays pro football, so he’ll have plenty of opportunities to step in front of a movie camera.  For Tomlin, Fonda, Moreno, and Field, “80 for Brady” is a rare chance for the superstars to perform together, and the film’s target audience will most likely rejoice and cheer.  

This critic isn’t included with that group of spectators.  Sigh, if only the script threw a Hail Mary or two or five, or at least threw it deep once.  

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

One Fine Morning - Film Review

Directed and written by: Mia Hansen-Løve

Starring: Léa Seydoux, Pascal Greggory, Melvil Poupaud, Camille Leban Martins and Nicole Garcia

Runtime: 112 minutes

Léa Seydoux’s heartfelt performance felt overshadowed by the all-too-familiar concepts of family strain and conflicted romance.

Sandra Kienzler (Léa Seydoux) is splitting up her life caring for her young daughter Linn (Camille Leban Martins) and mentally deteriorating father (Pascal Greggory), while rediscovering her sexual passion with lover Clément, (Melvil Poupaud) -who is splitting his attention with Sandra for his wife and son.

On top of this, Sandra works as a translator for various linguistic projects and helps her family shift her father from one care facility to the next. 

Sound like someone we know? 

Seydoux portrays the mothers, daughters and romantic partners of the world. More importantly, Seydoux shows the intricacies of juggling the messy everyday world through this combined character lens. 

The role expectations of Sandra, to be both a mother and adult daughter, create a commentary about familial structures for women. Seydoux’s character must simultaneously care for Linn and her ailing father, placing pressure on herself, which builds tension for viewers throughout the film.

Director Mia Hansen-Løve artfully connects viewers to Sandra’s life through the short, but key, dialogue exchanges throughout the movie. A day at Linn’s school wouldn’t be complete without school-shooter precaution training (every parent’s fear). Meanwhile, Sandra helps her visually impaired father to the restroom (the unexpected responsibility of adult children acting as caretakers). In the midst of the heartbreak, is Nicole Garcia’s laugh-out-loud role as Sandra’s hair-brained mother, Françoise. 

Sprinkled throughout the film, are Sandra’s interactions with her lover, Clément. Leaving viewers smiling, frowning and squinting at the screen. 

Seydoux handles these scenes with poised emotional responses, much like the women in our real lives, but this nearly two-hour film lacked a character arc. Sandra Kienzler faces familial and romantic challenges, but emotionally suppresses herself, which lands her in nearly the same place as the start of the film. 

The slow-paced movie allows viewers to experience the imbalance in Sandra’s life, but for the female audience, these are all-too-familiar concepts. 

Let’s dive into the nitty gritty of cinematography.

Often, it takes me multiple encounters with a movie to realize a mistake within a scene. But since each scene in the film highlights the various relationships in Sandra’s life, one silly ice cream scoop distracted my viewing experience. Sandra and Linn are an example of a goofy and loveable mother-daughter duo. There are only a few scenes utilized to highlight that relationship though. In one case, Linn is holding an ice cream cone, and in between the transitions when Sandra playfully asks Linn for a bite, another scoop of ice cream is added to the cone. If there wasn’t such a focus on the ice cream, I wouldn’t have noticed the change, but this distraction lessened the emphasis on their relationship.

Other transitions made throughout the film shifted the viewer’s attention from one scene to the next quickly, and at times, scenes were accompanied by music. While shifting throughout the scenes, viewers were introduced to the whirling storm of Sandra’s life within the first thirty minutes. The rest of the film further delves into those aspects, sharing the life of a lead female character. 

In “One Fine Morning,” Mia shows us the intricacy of a person whom most people wouldn’t look twice at. 

Plot: ★★☆☆☆ 2/5

Cinematography: ★★★☆☆ 3/5

Character Arc: ★☆☆☆☆ 1/5

---

Turn Every Page – The Adventures of Robert Caro and Robert Gottlieb – Movie Review

Directed by:  Lizzie Gottlieb

Starring:  Robert Caro, Robert Gottlieb, Ina Caro, Maria Tucci

Runtime:  110 minutes

‘Turn Every Page’:  This documentary is a big-screen page-turner

“50 years.  5 books.  4,888 pages.”

Robert Caro wrote five books, and Robert Gottlieb edited them, works that helped uncover the inner workings of American government, the invisible machinery to John and Jane Q. Citizen, and these legislative levers – constructed from backroom dealings and human ambition – forged massive changes to infrastructure and everyday ways of life for millions and millions of the aforementioned residents. 

Power is the throughline subject of Caro and Gottlieb’s labors of love.  By definition, the word means “the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.”  

Specifically, Caro wrote about two individuals who did just that:  New York bureaucrat Robert Moses and U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, one hardback account was about the former, and four (yes, four!) chronicled the latter.  

Caro, 87, and Gottlieb, 91, have not retired and are working together on a sixth book.  

When two titans of the literary world join forces on five landmark efforts over several decades, how do you capture their exclusive working relationship in just a 110-minute documentary?  

Don’t we need a 10-hour series?  

Well, director Lizzie Gottlieb didn’t, as she offers an absorbing look at Robert and Robert through several interviews of prominent writers, publishers, a household-name movie actor, a former late-night talk show host, and a former U.S. President.  Of course, Lizzie cast several candid interviews with The Bobs, and yes, being Gottlieb’s daughter didn’t hurt her chances.  

Editing must run in the Gottlieb family because Lizzie’s doc is a most gratifying big-screen affair that lands under two hours, and her film left this critic ready for another eight hours of insight.  Note that editors Molly Bernstein and Kristen Nutile also lent helping hands in this fulfilling mission.  

Robert and Robert, their supportive wives Ina Caro and Maria Tucci, and Lizzie dive frankly into the men’s childhoods, as both faced obstacles, ones that were, unfortunately, all too common for the time.  Ina and Maria are welcoming presences on-screen, and their relaxed, confident personas offer assurances that – during the last 60-plus and 50-plus years, respectively - love and patronage endure.  

With rock-solid foundations in their adult personal lives, the Roberts have untethered freedom for work.  This dynamic duo offers their secret to success, which entails good old-fashioned elbow grease. 

Their impressive declarations for hard work are undeniable but also exhausting to the ear, as Caro labors for years and years to pen (and pencil and type (on a typewriter)) one book.  During Caro’s storming and forming phases, Gottlieb is his champion, counselor, and ally.  However, the editing process reignites the storming period as the two battle over Gottlieb’s red pen.  Although, we don’t know if Robert actually uses that specific instrument, as they both, at one point during the movie, advocate the absolute need for a wooden pencil.  

Old school in all its glory!  

Caro’s methods for backing up his work and keeping an eccentric storage repository will give techies absolute fits, but Baby Boomers and Gen Xers will smile and nod with approval as that’s-how-we-did-it-back-in-the-day thoughts joyfully swing in our heads.  Younger generations will have questions, like when they are faced with rotary telephones and physical copies of Encyclopedia Britannica at Grandma and Grandpa’s house.  (For the record, Britannica is now online these days.  Who knew?) 

Back to the matter at hand, “Turn Every Page – The Adventures of Robert Caro and Robert Gottlieb” offers constant moments of wonderment and awe over Caro’s comprehensive, methodical steps to dig further than just about anyone to discover the truth.  It’s all quite remarkable, as he set new standards for investigative journalism.  Robert C. is a person who meticulously takes his time to gather the deepest and darkest facts.  

Gottlieb is equally as thorough – like Bill Belichick studying a Sunday afternoon scouting report – but he works swiftly.  He spent his life as a voracious reader, and Robert G. is a machine at his craft with a star-studded list of publishing credits to his name. 

This isn’t a pairing of the immovable object versus the irresistible force.  Together, The Roberts are unstoppable forces that collide, tangle, and wrestle but also partner to craft breakthrough, transformational, and previously unseen true stories that eventually rest in paper and binding.

Their goals are the same.  

They want to make the best books possible, even though they may quarrel and quibble over cutting hundreds of pages from the final result or repeatedly dispute the values of a semicolon. 

“Turn Every Page – The Adventures of Robert Caro and Robert Gottlieb” is a movie especially made for English majors, journalists, history buffs, and book lovers.  It’s also a doc tailored to anyone who hasn’t read one of Caro’s works.  

As someone who watches 200-plus new movies a year and “can never find the time” for reading, this critic – absolutely - will carve out space on the 2023 calendar to read at least one Caro/Gottlieb collaboration.  (Naturally, I’ll watch the movie again.)

It’s true…these men and this film leave page-turner impressions. 

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

The Son – Movie Review

Directed by:  Florian Zeller

Written by:  Christopher Hampton

Starring:  Hugh Jackman, Laura Dern, Vanessa Kirby, Zen McGrath, and Anthony Hopkins

Runtime:  122 minutes

‘The Son’ doesn’t stand as tall as ‘The Father’

“No love is greater than that of a father for his son.” – Dan Brown

Author and playwright Florian Zeller burst onto the cinematic scene, and the grandest worldwide stages embraced “The Father” (2020), his poignant and distressing debut feature film.  “The Father” garnered six Oscar nominations, and Anthony Hopkins and Zeller won the coveted, prized statues for Best Actor and Adapted Screenplay, respectively. 

(“The Father” was this critic’s #6 film of 2020.  Here is the movie review.)  

Zeller (along with screenwriter Christopher Hampton) adapted his 2012 play, “Le Pere”, for the silver screen, and in 2022, this modern-day renaissance man (and Hampton) customized his 2018 stage work, “Le Fils”, for the movies too. 

“The Son” stars Hugh Jackman, Laura Dern, Vanessa Kirby, and Zen McGrath, and although both films are troubling family dramas – and both feature Hopkins – they don’t appear related.

Hopkins only has one scene in Zeller’s sophomore effort, but the Welsh thespian’s appearance is a doozy.  It’s – arguably – the movie’s most crucial moment, as it frames Anthony’s (Hopkins) relationship with his son, Peter (Jackman), and instantly untethers fragments of recollections and spurs scores of thoughts about patriarchal outlooks between the generations.

The movie’s title can refer to Peter, a 40 or 50-something lawyer (and assumed partner) at Pierce and Grant LLP, but primarily, the story revolves around his relationship with his boy, Nicholas (McGrath).  Nicholas lives with Peter’s ex-wife, Kate (Dern), but she and her frustrated teen clash at her New York City apartment.  He regularly skips school, is emotionally unstable, and Nicholas recently frightened his mom.  Kate says that he stared at her with hatred.  Ultimately, the problematic teenager wants to live with his dad.  

“There must always be a struggle between a father and son, while one aims at power and the other at independence.” – Samuel Johnson

Peter welcomes Nicholas to stay at his spacious Manhattan flat, but this new arrangement crowds the posh space.  Nicholas must share his father with Peter’s 30-something wife, Beth (Kirby), and their infant son, Theo.  Most unfortunately, Nicholas doesn’t suddenly internalize the error of his ways, and this depressed, unfocused, and lazy kid transports his baggage from one parent’s abode to another.  

Now, life forces this industrious attorney – with a new career prospect in Washington D.C. – to carve a substantial slice of his limited time to devote to his disturbed boy, who sinks his tangled roots into this (previously) drama-free household.

Zeller’s “The Father” feels like a play, and most of the 93-minute runtime occurs in one location.  

Physically, “The Son” is not.  Although a majority of the movie transpires in Peter and Beth’s domicile, the camera occasionally finds our lead at the office, a D.C. meeting, a lunch with Kate, and another spot that won’t be revealed in this review.  More importantly, the film practically and emotionally traverses across the screen like just about every melodramatic family production you’ve ever seen, ones that can be found on Lifetime, OWN, or an ABC Afterschool Special that dominated the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.

“Father and son are natural enemies, and each is happier and more secure in keeping it that way.” – John Steinbeck

Various and predictable conversations between our lead and Nicholas, Kate, and Beth dominate the 122-minute runtime, where Peter attempts to find common ground, negotiate harmony in the home, strengthen his relationship with his kid, and provide a sturdy, reliable foundation for him.  However, in most cases, the familiar storylines unremarkably play out.  No, the subdued and sometimes animated pace doesn’t move glacially, but it may be accurate to compare its speed with The Big Apple’s traffic conundrums at 5 p.m. on a Wednesday...during a rainstorm…with construction delays.

Comparing Zeller’s two films might be a tad unfair, but “The Father” breaks tremendous ground with the subject of dementia by cleverly and thoughtfully presenting the ungodly affliction through the eyes of the man who suffers from it.  That’s not the case with its big-screen offspring.  Generally speaking, it feels like a procedural affair. 

Still, “The Son” is not void of some notable highlights.  

“Baseball is fathers and sons.  Football is brothers beating each other up in the backyard.” – Donald Hall

Jackman delivers an impressive performance as a dad struggling to grasp Nicholas’ chaotic feelings and calibrate appropriate responses to the “alien” stimuli.  As an audience, we can – always - clearly see Peter’s transparency of confusion, conflict, empathy, love, and exasperation, and Jackman carries the burden of communicating these disputing emotions like a Heavyweight Champion of the Modern-day Parental World.  Indeed, moviegoing parents will better appreciate Peter’s maddening responsibilities than childless adults.  The film doesn’t offer lifelines, but Zeller seems to say, “I see you, and I understand your struggles.” 

Zeller also distinctly articulates that mothers and fathers can imprint damage upon their kids, solely based on short-term and long-term reactions to a child’s or teenager’s fret, disarray, or turmoil.  

So, this cinematic experience has value, and Zeller is an important voice.  Still, “The Son” doesn’t stand as tall as “The Father.”

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

Plane - Movie Review

Directed by: Jean-Francois Richet

Written by: Charles Cumming and J.P. Davis

Starring: Gerald Butler, Mike Colter, Daniella Pineda, Yoson An, Tony Goldwyn, Paul Ben-Victor, and Joey Slotnick

Runtime: 107 minutes

‘Plane’ doesn’t soar, but this action flick hovers, entertains, and sticks the landing

“These planes are pretty much indestructible.” – Flight commander Brodie Torrance (Gerald Butler)

Oh, famous last words.

Commander Torrance will pilot Trailblazer Flight 119 – a 6-hour 30-minute flight - from Singapore to Tokyo, and he delivers the above decree with the utmost confidence to a few of his passengers while standing in the aisle. If you’ve ever experienced flying over an ocean, this fluttering thought has probably crossed your mind: “I hope this airplane is in tip-top, because there’s a whole lot of water between here and there.”

Yes, our hero’s reassuring words are appreciated, but this feature film stars Gerald Butler, so don’t expect an uneventful trip on this commercial aircraft.

Director Jean-Francois Richet (“Assault on Precinct 13” (2005), “Blood Father” (2016)) helms a disaster movie, “Plane”, but one that isn’t a catastrophe.

The primary plot fulcrums play out quite unexpectedly, but – admittedly - the second and third acts bend into familiar B action movie tropes. Still, this flick – according to Google - carries a budget of 50 million dollars, so Richet, writers Charles Cumming and J.P. Davis, Butler, and the cast and crew didn’t seem to wing this film and make it on the fly.

First of all, the movie establishes Brodie as a likable lead. He treats the flight attendants – like Bonnie (Daniella Pineda) - and his co-pilot, Samuel Dele (Yoson An) - with professional respect and personal courtesy and even lands a joke over the intercom before takeoff that garnered pleasant laughs from the movie audience and this critic during the preview screening.

Torrance and Dele also chat about their families, so we know that loved ones are waiting for them. It’s New Year’s Eve, and Brodie speaks to his college-aged daughter – who sits in Hawaii - over the phone, which immediately triggers memories of Liam Neeson’s “Taken” flicks. Will she be kidnapped while Flight 119 is in the air?

Thankfully, no.

Brodie never utters, “I will look for you. I will find you, and I will kill you once I land this plane.”

Promise!

The danger appears dramatically closer to Singapore as a law-enforcement type brings a prisoner, Louis Gaspare (Mike Colter), on board. The detainee-in-transport committed homicide 15 years ago, and Torrance has no say in the procedural matter. Gaspare – an intimidating 6’ 3” presence – sports handcuffs and sits in the back of the sparsely populated airliner. Other passengers range from an agreeable couple, a couple of coeds, and two businessmen jerks, including a whiny, entitled American (Joey Slotnick), and you know – from the get-go – that someone will slap him around a bit before the 107-minute movie ends.

Anyways, the Trailblazer flight takes off, but trouble soon arises. What kind of distress? Well, it won’t be mentioned in this review, but rest assured, this plane, the pilots, flight attendants, and passengers find themselves in a dilemma. Richet and cinematographer Brendan Galvin ramp up the tension at 30,000 feet with some compelling aerobatics, while our brand-new aviation friends stress out in cramped quarters. We don’t exactly know the passengers yet, and all moviegoers’ eyes are fixated on the triad of natural leaders: Brodie, Samuel, and Bonnie.

That’s when the theatrical surprises begin, and “Plane” feels like two different movies, which works to the film’s advantage. Then again, this action flick falls into routines, with an array of nameless villains, plenty of gunplay, and some outlandish stuff.

Still, the picture succeeds with a couple of additional key aspects. Butler and Colter’s general machismo, and their characters find bravado creativities. Butler’s Brodie pulls some nifty MacGyver moves, plus he can handle himself in a fight, which makes one wonder about his backstory. Colter’s Louis is an imposing force who dives into treacherous imagination with weapons, leading the audience into a collective gasp.

Although more campy scenes would be welcome, the movie takes itself – by and large - enormously seriously. This fact helps the thrills feel genuine, even though Richet throws some hazardous lunacy at the screen, especially during two tent-pole sequences. Although, “Plane” isn’t a “Fast & Furious” flick, as the drivers who double as secret agents (or something) – in that series - frequently wink and nod at the camera. Didn’t a car become a rocket in “F9: The Fast Saga” (2021)?

Here, the cinematic mettle is pure, like many throwback action pictures from the 1980s. That doesn’t mean that “Plane” has other issues not mentioned quite yet. For instance, Brodie’s daughter recites the sappiest confessional in recent movie memory, and the airline’s tiger team meets in a dark bunker that resembles a military-style safe house, not a corporate boardroom.

Mostly, the “bunker” minutes are a waste of time, but Tony Goldwyn delivers some lively lines as a black-ops bureaucrat whose moral compass doesn’t point north. It twists more than a Cirque du Solei performance during a tornado watch.

Maybe “Plane” is also a throwback to the 1970s, because when reading this movie’s title, “Fantasy Island” (1977-1984) was the first thought that arrived in this critic’s mind, as memories of Tattoo (Herve Villechaize) declaring, “De plane! De plane!” No, no one reprises Ricardo Montalban’s and Villechaize’s roles, but this ABC staple – that felt like a mashup of “The Love Boat” (1977-1987) meets “The Twilight Zone” (1959-1964) – was an odd and surprising series, and hey, “Plane” – as a singular film – is too.

You might not walk out of the theatre and announce, “’Plane!’ ‘Plane!’”

Still, you might proclaim, “’Plane’. It sticks the landing.”

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

A Man Called Otto – Movie Review

Directed by:  Marc Forster

Written by:  David Magee, based on Fredrik Backman’s novel

Starring:  Tom Hanks, Mariana Trevino, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Truman Hanks, Rachel Keller, Juanita Jennings, Peter Lawson Jones, Mack Bayda, and Cameron Britton

Runtime:  126 minutes

Hanks and Trevino are terrific, but ‘A Man Called Otto’ feels cliché and crowded

Otto.  

Who is Otto?  

Otto Anderson is 60-something years old and recently retired, but his employment ended forcibly.  

It wasn’t his idea.  

This retiree lives alone in a two-story patio home in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Anderson’s character is a cranky, crabby, and cantankerous combination.  

His neighbors mumble “bitter old man” or “grumpy old bastard” under their breath, and with good reason, because this Pennsylvanian harbors the classic “get off my lawn” tropes, and yes, Otto literally goes there about the grass.  This lonely solo artist is a damaged soul, but – initially - we don’t know the reasons that impaired his good graces.

However, director Marc Forster reveals Otto’s backstory – bit by bit throughout a 126-minute runtime - and offers opportunities for our lead – in the here and now - to rejoin neighborly camaraderie in a film with grand plans on a small stage.

The majority of the present-day cinematic activities occur within the shared-walls community, as Otto meets his collection of neighbors, who mostly annoy him to no end. 

He often curtly states, “Idiots!”  

“A Man Called Otto” is about one man’s - possible - healing that could shift this Gloomy Gus to an Opportune Otto.  

It’s about the hopeful, positive transformation of attitude and outlook.  Whether or not Anderson reaches the Promised Land of personal enlightenment, Forster and writer David Magee deliver an emotional reckoning in the third act.  Moviegoers who buy into Forster’s film – based on Fredrik Backman’s 2012 novel – will embrace “A Man Called Otto” and wipe away the tears while exiting the theatre.  Tears are also possible for those who do not quite approve of this 50-million-dollar production, because the movie effectively hits upon universal themes of true love, loss, grief, and friendship and holds up a mirror for the audience to repeatedly recollect their own experiences.   

So, what’s the problem?  The two-plus-hour film often feels forced and cliché.  Sometimes, it’s a bit clumsy.  “Otto” carries the grace of a snowplow (with its blade scrapping the open pavement) barreling around the Daytona International Speedway.  In other words, the film reaches its goal and the finish line, but not without predictable scrapes and frustrations.  

Again, who is Otto?  

Well, Tom Hanks plays Otto, and that’s a big plus for this American remake of the Swedish original, “A Man Called Ove” (2015), which garnered two Oscar nominations, including Best Foreign Language Film.  On a personal note, “Ove” was a bit unsatisfying for this critic due to the film’s back-and-forth narrative structure and Ove’s (Rolf Lassgard) one-step-forward-two-steps-backward patterns throughout much of the story.  

(At least for me, this version has the same wearisome features.  Although, admittedly, it’s been years since I’ve watched the original.)

Of course, Hanks is engaging here, and he’s playing off-type.  Hanks’ Otto is snippy, impatient, and rude, but – deep down - this killjoy has a lively spirit.  It’s just buried under years of aggravation.  We see Otto’s present – and all its gruff glory – but his yarn has spun a few layers over the decades.  

We see one from his past, an early 20-something Otto, played by Truman Hanks, and does that name spark interest?  

Yes, Truman is Tom’s real-life son, and the young Hanks rightfully delivers – with an innocent, selfless Richie Cunningham demeanor – Otto’s formative adult years.  

He’s delightful.  

Truman’s costar - Rachel Keller, who plays Sonya, Otto’s love interest - is equally charming.  Sonya and Young Otto share warm, sugary feels, but the recurrent flashbacks to the 1970s are a bit distracting because we go back so often.  Unfortunately, we only see two timeline versions of Otto, so the progression between them is – basically - non-existent.  It’s missing.  

The movie throws in several neighbors but doesn’t devote enough time with all of them.  Add a bad-land-owner thread, a random HIPAA violation, and a social media journalist investigation, and a lot is going on here.  Yes, there is a method to Forster and Magee’s madness, but this film adaptation seems better suited for a television series rather than a 2-hour movie.  Still, “Ove” worked for most folks, including the Academy but – again - not this critic. 

However, the best 21st-century moments are with Otto and Marisol (Mariana Trevino), a mom and wife who moves in across the street.  Marisol is THE neighborly muse who starts to pull Otto out of his sullen, grouchy funk, and Trevino is flat-out terrific as a friend we all could use!  Hey, let’s watch an 8-hour series with Otto, Marisol and her family, and a feral cat who becomes an unlikely pal for our hero.

Still, Forster and Magee grant important, meaningful, and universal messages, and Hanks and “Ove” fans will probably and rightfully hug “Otto”.  Others might need more artistic flair, nuance, or space for an additional six hours of Otto and his friends/frenemies.  

Wherever you land, that’s fine.  No judgment here.  Just being neighborly!  

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

Living – Movie Review

Directed by:  Oliver Hermanus

Written by:  Kazuo Ishiguro, based on Akira Kurosawa’s screenplay

Starring:  Bill Nighy, Aimee Lou Wood, Alex Sharp, Tom Burke, Adrian Rawlins, Hubert Burton, Oliver Chris, Michael Cochrane, Anant Varman, Richard Cunningham, and Patsy Ferran

Runtime:  97 minutes

‘Living’:  Nighy deserves a Best Actor Oscar nomination in this affecting, tender Kurosawa remake 

The year is 1953 in the UK.  

As director Oliver Hermanus’ film – a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s 1952 “Ikiru” – opens, London is alive!  

The city bustles with vitality with residents, tourists, various vehicles, and those classic AEC Routemaster red, double-decker busses traversing across the pavement while “Serenade for Strings in E” gloriously bounces in the background.  Also, Hermanus includes a title sequence that looks like the movie is straight out of the 1950s.  He and writer Kazuo Ishiguro offer a time machine to the last century for 97 mesmerizing minutes about the human condition. 

“Living” is an affecting, beautifully crafted, and meticulously shot picture that connects us with this specific time and space.  More importantly, the film resonates with the universal idea of making the most of our lives in the here and now.  Our individual realities can fly by without awareness when – one day - an ordinary mirror or windowpane exposes old age.  Bill Nighy taps us on the shoulder as we follow Mr. Williams’ (Nighy) journey in a performance that deserves a Best Actor Oscar nomination.

After the opening and a few pleasantries, the movie travels to the London County Council.

Several departments - like Parks, Education, and other familiar monikers - fill the LCC’s massive building.  Men wear sharp suits and bowler hats.  Women sport flowery-patterned dresses, and their hairdos are styled perfectly like the ladies took 2-hour trips to the salons each morning before their 8 a.m. shifts begin.  

Typewriters click and clack, and small metal bins - that sit on mahogany desks - hold stacks of paperwork.  Margaret Harris (Aimee Lou Wood) refers to the paper piles as “skyscrapers.”

While the city feels lively, work goes to die at the London County Council.  

Those aforementioned skyscrapers represent projects, needs, and reports that are literally shuffled throughout the building, as bureaucrats routinely redirect responsibility for filling these requests to rival divisions.  

At the Public Works Department, you’ll find a team of six – five men and one woman – huddled around a large bureau as they speak with cordial formalities.  The dignified, reserved leader is Mr. Williams.  His subordinates follow his example with discreet, proper conversation, as they tend to procedures.  

Mr. Williams, Mr. Middleton (Adrian Rawlins), Mr. Hart (Oliver Chris), Mr. Rusbridger (Hubert Burton), and Miss Harris (Wood) spend their working days at Public Works, and Mr. Peter Wakeling (Alex Sharp) – a young, plucky upstart – strolls in on his first day as an objective observer of this insulated operation.  The “misters” are all resigned to their weekday actualities, but Margaret wishes to leave the group for an assistant manager’s position outside the LCC.  Meanwhile, Peter attempts to fit in and make sense of it all.

It first appears that Mr. Wakeling is the film’s prime protagonist, a difference-maker for his co-workers, but the focus quickly shifts to Mr. Williams due to an appointment that breaks up the workday.  Williams leaves at “20 past 3,” and one might immediately wonder if this is the first instance that he’s ever left the office before 5 p.m.  

This offsite meeting triggers an immediate alert for Williams, one that requires self-reflection, and the story follows him home and other locales. 

Nighy – with his slim frame, narrow face, and dignified diction – offers susceptibility, regret, and fear with Mr. Williams, however, the Public Works head does reach out for salvation.  

Sometimes, Williams clearly and demonstratively communicates his feelings in silence, like when he ponders a frank discussion with his adult son. 

During other occasions, Williams opens up to two unlikely allies:  Miss Harris and Sutherland, a random stranger played by Tom Burke.  These two everyday heroes and their generosities allow the audience to listen to Mr. Williams’ confessionals, and the moments are eternally critical, so we can bond with our lead and help diagnose his next steps.  

There’s also one moment around the film’s 33rd minute that will absolutely break your heart, where Williams doesn’t sit in silence nor speak, but he shares his soul in the most unexpected way.    

Still, for the long game, he must initiate meaningful changes.  However, after 70 years of living in one way, how is Williams equipped to shift his mindset?  

Through Nighy’s engrossing portrayal of a leader’s attempt to transform his wiring, Williams may accomplish more than he could dream.  He will have to take that first step.  “Living” is a tender film presented with the utmost care through every gorgeous frame, pitch-perfect performances, and a hope that small victories make meaningful, eloquent differences.  

Indeed, London is alive. 

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---