infodaddy Reviews

Philomena (2013)

At the top of her game

[10/10 · 28 November 2013]

I suspect that Judi Dench has been "our" greatest female actor for a long long time. But I suspect that not until now did she have the greatness to play this role successfully. Which she does, and did.

What Ms. Dench does perhaps better than any other actor, is to become the character (not in that cloying actorish sense of "inhabiting" the character, which is really an inner thing), and to allow us to see only the character and never the acting.

If this is not the greatest female actor performance I've seen, it comes damn close. (Maybe Bette Davis in NOW VOYAGER or Charlize Theron in MONSTER.)

Oddly the American public may still know her best only for M. At least we are getting to know the wonderful Toni Collette.

What Steve Coogan, in his acting role, did so well, was to just do his job, stay out of the way, be a foil, and still be a credible character. Also, unbelievably, he was able to drive a British car from the right side and an American car from the left, without killing anyone.

The movie takes only about one hour. And then the movie begins all over again. Thus instead of the standard three-act movie, we have a six-act movie, that is three acts for each of the two movies which, like some passages in Beethoven's late quartets, meet up with each other seamlessly.

Man of Steel (2013)

Great cast, so-so story, too much visual trickery

[7/10 · 29 June 2013]

Enjoyed it of course. Not bowled over. The casting was terrific. Oddly most actors dealing with this American icon were not American. But they were well cast especially Israeli Ayelet Zurer as Lara.

The eugenics angle in Kryptonian procreation was a new idea and a bad one. While Michael Shannon was superb as General Zod, that character never appeared in the comics so seemed an artificial villain choice, and his dénouement scene, after all that excessive visual fluff, was muddy. Contrast all those Jack Kirby inspired comic book splash panel scenes with the calm practicality of the Chris Meloni character (who is still L&O's Elliot Stabler), which worked well.

Zod and Jonathan Kent tried to be philosophical about patriotism and heroism and who Clark was. But it was fake philosophy, seemed to me, or was cut short. Half-ass try I guess. "Our viewers don't want ideas they want action" may well have been the operative sensibility.

Interesting plot point that who Supe was became no secret to Lois Lane. But the closing scene she seems clearly to not know that this new reporter Clark was also the Clark she knew as the superman figure (though the Name Superman was not itself clearly marked out in the storyline). Was this a bluff in that scene or did she get Alzheimer's? That relationship and whether she knew or didn't know might be a better starting angle for the next Superman movie than more CGI bee-ess and more Krypton origins and more Luthor shenanigans. How about some real creativity.

Superman on the radio was 35. In this film he was 33. Better than 20-ish like the last two.

42 (2013)

Branch Rickey changed America

[13 April 2013]

Branch Rickey got the credit he deserves. Harold Pee Wee Reese got the credit he deserves. Eddie Stanky got the credit he deserves. Leo Durocher got the credit he deserves. Rachel Robinson (still with us) got the credit she deserves. Bobby Bragan was symbolically caught in the middle, as were many.

Brooklyn was and is a great place. I was 11 or so, a white Jewish boy.

Recreation of reality? Branch used to wear a black hat I think but not black in the movie. Jackie had a hitch in his swing that Boseman caught. Jackie ran pigeon-toed which Boseman did not catch, far as I could tell. His taunting steal-and-head-back at third base was switched to first, a dramatic loss. The Reese arm around Jackie was as an inning ended but filmed as an inning began. The "Oh doctor" Al Gionfriddo catch was I think in a World Series not a playoff game shown. I wish the Red Barber segments were from original tapes but nice try. So some artistic license. But they did not distort or misrepresent facts

The vulgar taunts were less, I expect, than what Jackie really had to deal with. I'd guess this is so that children can see the movie.

Boseman was perfect. Ford even better. And the world changed. Go see it.

Mad Men: The Doorway, Part 2 (2013) Season 6, Episode 2

Does it matter anymore?

[6/10 · 8 April 2013]

Season One was art. Then it declined, more each subsequent season.

Scenes that were meaningless. Followed by a too-soon and relentless spate of commercials. People who were meaningless. Followed by a too-soon and relentless spate of commercials. Actions that were meaningless. Followed by a too-soon and relentless spate of commercials. And no mention of the "creative revolution." Followed by a too-soon and relentless spate of commercials.

Don't know. To me it has become just a collection of scenes, blackout sketches I think they were once called.

The John Slattery character crying over the just-died bootblack's tools of the trade: that worked. It was perhaps the only honest moment in the two hours.

The Song of Lunch (2010 TV Movie)

The saddest words, it might have been

[1 April 2013]

He came close to his fantasy, a renewal. But shortly let his mind take him down a trail of various sorts of negativity. He was on that line a bit, a line where he could have been witty and upbeat and challenging, a line he crossed into torpor and, well, annoyance, and more.

Or perhaps He knew something the other reviewers here (and they are a very solid group of reviewers) did not know: That She too wanted a renewal. Though her words bely that possibility, well into the film, she touches his hand in a way that is personal and perhaps a bit erotic. Perhaps in her wonderful life with a successful author and two nondescript kids, she would like to recoup her past with He.

Perhaps He knew this, and sabotaged it. If so, Why?

The subject that screenwriters love to chat about, subtext, comes up. I thought the Mamet fiasco, PHIL SPECTOR, had the characters all delivering subtext as dialogue. Thus there was no mystery. Here, however, the subtext was given us in his unspoken words, his thoughts, as voice-over dialogue in his own head. Perambulating in his skull. It worked.

For Rickman, I find this his second most compelling work, the first being CLOSET LAND (which I saw on a Saturday night in a popular movie theater, but only me in the room for that film). Both works exploit his rich voice.

Phil Spector (2013 TV Movie)

The worst from the best

[25 March 2013]

Great talent. The best. Actors, writer, director. Awful result. The worst. Acting, writing, directing.

Even the best creative talent, even when already a mature artist, can deliver bad stuff. Happens. Happened.

Young screen writers are told to avoid, and how to avoid, "exposition." This TV movie was all exposition.

The lighting leaves most scenes murky, but murky does not substitute for mystery. Mystery, and suspense, ain't none.

It opens with an on-screen statement that, in effect, this is a free fictional invention based on the trial of Phil Spector. But closes with an on-screen statement that seems to be an actual summary of the trial outcome which is not in the film. Not sure if that's also a fictional element or reality.

Blue Bloods (2010–2024)

Episode out of sequence

[8/10 · 11 November 2012]

This ep was out of sequence. From a purely logical viewpoint, since it dealt with Halloween, it should have run the prior week, not November 11, almost two weeks after Halloween.

But even more so:

In the previous episode, Henry Reagan / Len Cariou, the grandfather, agreed with the rest of the family that it was time for him to stop driving. In this episode, Frank asked him to drive to New Jersey from New York City (probably Queens).

Other than that, maybe I missed it, at one point they are chasing a suspect who jumps off a roof several stories aboveground. They look down and he has disappeared, a possible expression of a voodoo something, as voodoo, pronounced vuh-DOO, is part of the story. Why did he disappear?

The Master (2012)

Emotion = no emotion?

[4/10 · 28 October 2012]

One adjective says it all: Creepy!

This film makes it clear how close to the surface is total insanity. Violent insanity. Creepy!

Phoenix does something quite creative, and I noted this in every scene that included him: He has his shoulders hunched forward, making him smaller, making him self protective. But also, if he were a hominid walking on all fours, his shoulders would be strained forward as if about to push off for a predatory (kill) leap to a prey. In this movie he was always, thus, about to pounce, predatory. Creepy!

The soundtrack early on has a recording by Ella Fitzgerald, so perfect it leads us falsely down the path of expecting clarity and beauty. And a Jo Stafford track near the end does the same. I was unwilling to be tricked by those, like those following the master (note: all lowercase).

Premium Rush (2012)

Excellent not great

[9/10 · 9 September 2012]

Minor spoiler about 5 paragraphs down.

It's entertainment, not art. For what it tries to be, it is perfect.

Like New York City, its main protagonists constitute a true rainbow of talent: A Jew, an African- American, a Hispanic, an Irish, and an Italian (I think the cop on the bike). How can you go wrong with such a dynamic mixture. Add in Asian. That's any street in Manhattan. Cool. And adds fun to the flick which maybe riffs on race in a positive way.

And the bike riding, Oh my. I used to ride my bike through those streets. Scary, man. But not like that. And the treatise on why bikes with no brakes are better? Pay attention.

What great travelogue for Manhattan. Of course Joe did seem to take the long way around from Columbia U to Chinatown, getting mostly there then somehow being back on the Upper West Side. And in one scene Michael Shannon is bleeding from the right side of his skull and in next cut bleeds from the left. But who's noticing!

Gordon-Levitt will, I suspect, be the next Robin. He does not lack the esthetic or athletic skills.

Shannon played a role quite similar to his Nelson van Alden, a dirty evil cop on BOARDWALK EMPIRE, yet gave us a totally different character with similar methods. But while Van Alden is evil, Forrest J. Ackerman, his character here, is merely dirty. Excellent actor to observe. Quite a tour de force. And what he does during the bleeding scene is truly artful. Pay attention.

A name his character pretended to use, Forrest J. Ackerman, must be the screenwriter's or director's subtle tribute to a big name in science fiction writing and editing, who is known to have coined the phrase, "sci-fi." I refer to real science fiction, which reflects history and technology, religion and politics, as S.F. I reserve sci-fi for trash with monsters. Asimov and Anthony, Heinlein and Herbert, wrote S.F., as was STAR TREK. Godzilla and King Kong and Jurassic etc. are sci-fi.

To Rome with Love (2012)

Can't decide

[6/10 · 6 July 2012]

Same age as Woody. From same neighborhood. Great, nah. Enjoyable, okay. But on this one, can't decide beyond that level. Being decisive and indecisive, being experienced or inexperienced, seem to be underlying themes, with subterfuges by the characters to be neither or both.

First Woody Allen movie where I found his music choices lazy, I mean, Domenico Modugno's tired "Volare" to vamp us in? Come ON, man!

Worth seeing for the outstanding performances of young actors Allison Pill 27 and Ellen Page 25 though as I recall they did zero scenes together. Ellen and Allison / Page and Pill. Love to see Woody write a 3-act story, for film, for the two to solo in, maybe add Alan Rickman as Greek chorus, as Alex Baldwin was in this one.

As to this movie, some hit-n-run philosophical points made, and Woody finally recreated his orgasmotron, at least metaphorically, which suggests he's got some slapstick left in him. Though it was not nearly as funny.

Stay tuned. 77 ain't nuthin'. Ask me. Per IMDb, his next effort is back in NooYawk to which I say, 'bout time!

Next day I had this added thought. That since these three or four (?) separate stories are not connected, perhaps they had accrued in Woody's notebook over time as individual unplaced items, and he finally found a way to incorporate them into one structure. Possible? And perfectly legit as creative process if they work in that context.