Dailles and Nightlies- Beyond the Sea

       So, yeah, big global pandemic. Really distressing. Couldn't really do anything last month with the whole "country in shutdown" ordeal. Might as well look at a film by noted actor, sex predator, possible murderer Kevin Spacey. A film that he not only starred in, but he directed, produced, and co-wrote. Yes, this was his passion project, his magnum opus, his attempt to bring a unique vision to the screen. Watching this in light of Spacey's fall from grace, it becomes clear the film is little more than a vanity project by a narcissist who wants to show just how great he is and how much people love him. Oh, and also something about Bobby Darin. Maybe.

     So, the film chronicles the life of crooner Bobby Darin (Kevin Spacey, even when Darin is a young man, and yes, it's off-putting), from his childhood in the Bronx as Walden Robert Cossotto (William Ullrich, who Spacey spends a lot of time interacting with, and yes, it is incredibly creepy to watch now), encouraged by his former vaudvillian mother Polly (Brenda Blethyn), his sister Nina (Caroline Aaron) and Nina's husband Charlie (Bob Hoskins) to become a star on par with Frank Sinatra. He manages to do so in the late 50's, with the help of agent Stephen Blauner (John Goodman) , with hits like "Splish Splash" and "Mack the Knife". From there, he makes his mark on entertainment, headlining the famous Copacabana nightclub, starring in award-winning films, and romancing movie starlet Sandra Dee (Kate Bosworth). All the while, he feels his time is slowly diminishing, primarily because of a childhood disease he was not expected to survive.

     If the slimy, skeevy presence of Spacey is too much to bare, we are a character actor double punch of Bob Hoskins and John Goodman, who both manage to be the best parts of whatever scenes they're in. Hoskins especially has his usual charisma and energy popping out every time he's on screen. There's a nice sequence detailing the production of 1963's Come September in Italy, that looks far better than the rest of the film. Some of the renditions of the songs were alright.  Kate Bosworth is alright.

    Before I get into the meat of my criticisms, let me start with the fact that this movie looks terrible. Awful, cheap looking sets; a weird, distracting blue tint to the scenes that drains all the energy out of the scenes; bad production design for many of the musical sequences. It's not even so much bad as just weird. These large elaborate song sequences, set against these really cheap looking club sets and small feelings venues. Not helping is the fact that Kevin Spacey is way too old to play this role. He was 45 when he did this part. The real Bobby Darin died at age 37. Whenever he's in Darin's most iconic roles, it's jarring. He looks like a 40 year old being a teen idol, and yeah, hindsight is a big part of why this doesn't work, but he still couldn't pull off being a wide-eyed younger Darin trying to make his way through show-business. The film also has this bizarre framing device where they're filming Darin's life with Darin in the lead role, and it is so weird and confusing, and brings Spacey in proximity of that kid, and it's creepy as hell watching it. A lot of this film is just Spacey displaying his various skills, showing both light-acting, hard emotional acting, singing, dancing, impressions. Which might be forgiven for this, but in light of the revelations, comes across as the work of a massive narcissist who wants to show the world just how talented and awesome he is, and burying the fact that he's a manipulative rapist.

    I honestly don't know why I did this. We're all stuck at home, watching as governments and organization struggle with the fact that this pandemic is still ever-growing. I don't recommend watching this except maybe morbid curiosity. Spacey continues to pop up every Christmas like an anti-Santa Claus and remind us that the law hasn't caught up to him yet. Let's hope it does in the coming years. 

Current Film Review- Bohemian Rhapsody

        The main criteria for whether I review a film or not is "Is there enough for me to say on it?" and "Is there an interesting spin to it?" There are films I strongly like or dislike, but don't really write a review, because I can't really find anything to really say about the film in detail, or say something that hasn't already been said before. In the case of this film, it has gotten notoriety ... actually for most of its production history. With the conflicts between original actor Sasha Baron Cohen and the surviving members of Queen, to the further conflicts caused by the notorious instability and unreliability of director Bryan Singer, it was not really an easy transition to the screen. Not helped by the fact that early versions of the script downplayed Freddie Mercury's bisexuality and AIDS diagnosis (I'll get into that later.) With this extremely troubled production, it really is something of a surprise that this is as banal and unremarkable as it is.

       The film follows the life of Queen frontman Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), from his origins as  Zanzibar-born Parsi immigrant Farrokh Bulsara joining a band named Smile with guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) in Imperial College (later joined by bassist John Deacon ( Joseph Mazzello), to their rise under the new name Queen, to the seminal album A Night at the Opera (or rather, just "Bohemian Rhapsody"), eventually ending at their iconic performance at Live Aid in 1985. All the while, Mercury deals with various relationships, both romantic, including Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), and Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), and professional, with the other band members dealing with his more ostentatious, volatile nature.

       The hype is true: Rami Malek is absolutely fantastic in this role. He manages to get the accent down, he gets the stage presence so perfectly, it's a tad unnerving, and manages to imbue his performance with both loud rocker style and the quiet, nervous presence Mercury was reported to have in private. The physical resemblance also helps. If there is one reason to see this film, it's for his performance alone, especially during the Live Aid segment. That segment is also probably the best scene in the film, a near perfect recreation of the event, where we actually get to focus on Malek's performance as a musician and Queen playing music ....

      Which brings me to my first problem: there isn't really a full Queen song until the end. They play some of their iconic songs, sure, but not in full or they're background music. You'd think they'd focus on the various innovative, memorable songs that are still played and remembered today, but the film basically rushes through them, going from one to the other without really exploring them or having the decency to play the whole song! Even the titular song (while its production is explored in full) isn't played in its entirety. Seriously, in a Queen biopic, you'd think they'd play more Queen in it. The point about how they rush through their discography is really emblematic of the film's central problem. It is so standard and by-the-numbers that one can predict how it'll go even with the bare bones synopsis I provided. Filmmakers ought to be screened Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story before they make music biopics, because they haven't really learned to go beyond the tropes and plot structure that film satirized very acutely. This film is very Walk Hard in how its plot is structured and how it portrays its lead figure. It doesn't help that the other band members are cyphers that just don't have personalities and largely exist to just react to Mercury's antics. John Deacon especially, who barely gets anything to do. (This might be because Brian May and Roger Taylor are producers, so the filmmakers might not have wanted to offend them). The script for this is really overcompensating for the controversy centering around it, to the point of changing the sequence of events to fit it all in. I understand the controversy around straight-washing his bisexuality (and, to the film's credit, it does explore his complicated sexuality, but since the characters aside from him aren't fleshed out, it still doesn't fully work), but, since his AIDS diagnosis came years after Live Aid and they were always planning on ending its there, it does make sense that they wouldn't really cover it except for an after epilogue text(unless they were planning on ignoring it entirely, which is pretty bad). Minor spoiler, but the film moves his diagnosis to before Live Aid, and portrays his performance as some last testament. Also, the band broke up years before and Mercury gravels to them to reunite and Live Aid is their big comeback (something that never happened, and Queen had toured regularly in the years prior.). I understand that liberties need to be taken in order to make an entertaining story, but this level of revision seems only to exist as to get another cliche "musician is too difficult, band breaks up, band makes up" moment that feels like a scene straight out of Walk Hard, and again, feels like it's overcompensating for not dealing with it in the original drafts.

    I'm a huge Queen fan, so this being as boring and cliched as it is is disappointing, given how versatile and ecletic Queen was and the massive influence they've had on music. Even if you just want to hear Queen songs, they don't play a full one until the end, and the film is two hours! Just stay home and play those songs online. Still, Rami Malek's performance is good enough that I kind of recommend it if you're interested in seeing that. However, the rest of the film is just mediocre and really doesn't deserve his performance or the great Live Aid scene towards the end.

Current Film Reviews- Billionaire Boys Club

         So, given that I did another film that was released to VOD before it was to hit theaters (November Criminals), starring Ansel Elgort, when I learned this Ansel Elgort feature was coming to online streaming before theaters, I figure I might as well do it. Though, this has a legitimate reason that it is being dumped. This was going to be released last year, but was shelved because.... Kevin Spacey plays a fairly large role in the film. I'll be upfront with this: if you feel uncomfortable watching a film with Kevin Spacey, don't watch this at all. I will not discuss his role except in the synopsis. That said, I understand a little why the distribution company Vertical Entertainment decided to ultimately release this. They couldn't really do a All the Money in the World, and have Spacey removed entirely. He plays a large role in the story, and by most accounts, they didn't have the budget to anyway. At the same time, as Vertical stated upon announcing the film's release, they didn't want the hard work of the rest of the cast and crew to go to waste.While I (as you will read) ultimately didn't care for the final product, I can understand that, since film is a collaborative process, and the other hardworking members of the cast and crew deserved the chance to see their own work on the film released, despite the actions of Spacey tainting most of it. Still, once again, Kevin Spacey is in this, and if you don't want to watch him, I recommend not watching it. Even you don't, do not watch this.

       Based on a real-life incident (as many of these films are), in 80's Beverly Hills, Dean Kearny (Taron Egerton) and Joe Hunt (Ansel Elgort), friends since their school days, have grown dissatisfied with their position in comparison to their richer friends, including Charlie Bottom (Thomas Cocquerel) and the Biltmore brothers (Jeremy Irvine and Ryan Rottman), so decide (with little explanation as to how they came to this conclusion) to do get-rich quick scheme involving gold investment. With the help of Ron Levin (Kevin Spacey), they have some minor initial success, which enables their wealthy associates to also invest. While Gold goes down, thus causing them to lose money, Hunt and Kearny decides to pretend that they were continuing to gain money, whilst using the money from previous investors to pay new investors. Whilst Levin seems to help them out at first, they find that success on these grounds is tenuous.

       A couple minor good stuff in this. Taron Egerton has a flawless American accent, and his performance is probably the best in the film, easily making him an ambiguous character whose motives and backstory are not clear. Ansel Elgort is at least trying, and he's better here than he was in November Criminals. Emma Roberts (oh, yeah, she's in here too) does fine as Elgort's love interest, though she isn't given enough to work with. Judd Nelson as Elgort's father also has some standout scenes. 


      I've made it clear before that one of my least favorite genres is the "Criminal American Dream". I should probably call it by what it is, the "Scorsese knock-off". I don't hate all movies that utilize it, nor am I inherently against the genre, but my main problem is how homogeneous these films tend to be. They all have the same style, they basically have the same characters, and basically have the same plots, beat for beat. Ultimately, you eventually can just predict the entire plot of one of these just based on how they frame the story and what the plot is about. This is like if they took the essence of these films and made another one based solely on it. Let's see it is 1.) Based on a true story, 2.) Stars one or two people dissatisfied with their lack of wealth and seek to rectify it, 3.) Features their success in some faulty, non-legal manner, 4.) Sees tensions rise, 5.) features a tragedy that ultimately precludes their decline, and 6.) set in the 80's. It even has a voice-over. That is my main problem, really. This is just another Scorsese Knock-off, atop a bunch of other Scorsese knock-offs that just aren't fresh and original anymore. Not helping is the confusing plot, which doesn't make what the characters are doing clear, so their dealings just come off confusing and convoluted (I had to look up later what had actually happened to make sense of it.)

     This really isn't worth watching. Whether Kevin Spacey was in this or not, it wouldn't be a film that would really be entertaining unless you've never seen Goodfellas, Casino, Lord of War, Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, War Dogs, or American Made. If, regardless of its unoriginality, you enjoy this genre, than maybe you'd find some entertainment in this, but it doesn't add anything to the genre, nor does anything another example hasn't already done. Just skip this, whether on VOD or when it comes out in theaters next month.

(If you're curious on the remake tag, there was technically a 1989 TV film, starring Judd Nelson in the Joe Hunt role, which is why he is here incidentally, so this is technically a remake.)
      

Current Film Reviews: American Animals

           There are two reasons I haven't done any reviews in the past two months. One is simply I was busy with finals and the like at school, and immediately after, I went on vacation. So, with all that, I couldn't really write anything. Another major factor is that I couldn't really find anything to say about certain films. I considered Deadpool as a potential candidate, but I realized that detailing the plot would involve big spoilers. I considered Upgrade, but I couldn't quite muster much material for a full review, nor did Hotel Artemis. So, given it's been two months, I'll just do a review of a film I saw a couple days ago, that I don't have much material for, and might be out of theaters at this point.

           This film is based on the real life 2004 robbery of rare books at Transylvania University in Kentucky, done in a docudrama style, with the real participants interviewed along with a dramatization of the events.  Spencer Reinhard (Barry Keoghan) and Warren Lipka (Evan Peters) decide to abandon their hum-drum lives and commit a robbery of the rare books collection at their university in Kentucky, which includes the original folios of John James Audubon's Birds of America (estimated at $12 million) as well as other rare books. After Warren secures a buyer in the Netherlands, they recruit acquaintances Chas Allen (Blake Jenner) and Eric Borsuk to help, planning an elaborate heist to extract the books and gain the money. However, they find that committing a robbery is far easier in the movies, than it is in real life.

          I thought of two films watching this: Richard Linklater's Bernie and I, Tonya. The former because of its docudrama style (though this, unlike Bernie, uses mostly the real participants in interviews), and dark themes, and I, Tonya due to its focus on unreliable narrators and uncertain events. Both work to make a very fractured narrative, and not in a bad way. It helps builds to the unstable nature of the robbery itself, and how people tend to recall minor events differently, when compared to more intense one. The film is concise, with everything inside building to some sort of theme or contributing to the plot. Everything always builds the plot, or deals with the theme. The interviews help give more insight into the minds of the characters, and helps make this event more real. Going off that, it also deconstructs heist movies, as their plans for the heist slowly go awry thanks to different factors, and their overestimation of their capacity. Thus, it goes horribly wrong during their final heist. It gets hard to watch.

     The first half drags a little. I understand that it builds up, but it sort of drops us into the action, with no real exposition, other than the interviews. It never really establishes itself in a satisfactory manner, and thus, the build-up feels off constantly. It manages to re-adjust itself once they begin to actually plan the heist, but it should probably have been a bit longer. The interview/dramatization ratio decreases towards the second half. Whilst this allows us to absorb the magnitude of their failure, I honestly would've liked some commentary on what actually happened during it.

     Like I said, not much material I could gain from this. Overall, though, this is a recommendation. It's probably out of theaters, but if it's still playing or coming on DVD or home video, I'd say seek this out for fans of Indie films or heist films or true crime. 

    Next time, I will delve into Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and something a little different.

Current Film Review: A Futile and Stupid Gesture

      About two years ago, I watched a documentary called Drunk, Stoned, Brilliant, Dead, a look into the National Lampoon magazine during its rise and height during the 60's and 70's. It was interesting, if a bit self-congratulatory, seeing how this magazine came to influence a lot of the comedy of the late 20th Century. It's influence can be seen from its lucrative film licensing to its prominent writers and editors (PJ O'Rourke, John Hughes, Al Jean and Mike Reiss of The Simpsons), to the number of its talent that would go on to help create Saturday Night Live. However, the documentary had very "greatest hits" feel, looking only at the best of it, and never its low points (aside from a brief mention of Disco Beavers from Outer Space) . My particular criticism is that doesn't explore the end of the Lampoon to any degree. It just blames it Christian conservatives, and not (based on my reading), a decreasing reader base and a consortium of businesses that simply took the brand (applying to a number of sub-par, "found on a Blockbuster shelf" films), and neglecting the magazine. Still, it was interesting and enjoyable enough that I was exciting for Netflix's biopic of Doug Kenney, the founder of the Lampoon. Though, the time in which the film gestated took a while, and there was no real release date until about a month ago. Now that I've seen it, it was enjoyable overall, but not necessarily a great or even particularly good film. Let me tell you why.

     Based on Josh Karp's biography of the same name, the film tells the true story of Douglas C. Kenney (Will Forte) from the perspective of an hypothetical older Kenney (Martin Mull), who didn't die in 1980 (That's not a spoiler. You can find that fact in about five seconds) . As a Harvard freshman from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, he befriends a fellow student, Henry Beard (Domhnall Gleeson). Together, the two become the lead editor of Harvard's humor magazine The Harvard Lampoon, and release a very successful parody of Lord of the Rings (Bored of the Rings). However, Doug finds his after-college prospects daunting, so he comes up with the idea of a nationwide version of the Harvard Lampoon. After convincing Beard to come on board, they shop around the idea of a humor magazine, until they sign a deal with publisher Matty Simmons (Matt Walsh). They assemble a team of writers and editors, including Michael O'Donoghue (Thomas Lennon), Anne Beatts (Natasha Lyonne),  Tony Hendra (Matt Lucas), and PJ O'Rourke (Nelson Franklin). While having a shaky start, the magazine becomes incredibly successful, and eventually spawns a radio show, starring such talent as Gilda Radner (Jackie Tohn), Bill Murray (Jon Daly), John Belushi (John Gemberling), and Chevy Chase (Joel McHale) (Like I said, a lot of the talent went on to work for SNL). However, in spite of his massive success, Kenney finds that his own personal vices are growing. Incapable of handling those vices and success and work only compounding them, he finds himself at odds with the people closest to him, and his own personal state is deteriorating.

      The film has a couple of good points. The main cast does well, with Forte, Gleeson, and McHale as particular stand-outs. McHale does a good impression of 70's era Chevy Chase (probably helped by the two of them working on Community together). It had some very funny moments, particularly in its metatexual nature. The older Kenney often breaks the fourth wall and discusses the events in meta sense, (and even lists the various parts of the film that weren't true at one point). There was also the interesting gambit where in place of the typical biopic looks into the protagonists deteriorating state, are a bunch of sketches reminiscent of the Lampoon's dark humor streak. Some of these work well, some less so, but it is ambitious and unexpected.  The behind-the-scenes stuff was interesting, if a bit un-detailed. The dramatic moments work well (especially how it makes Kenney's death a mystery, much how it is in real life), along with the comedic ones

    Remember how I said that this was greatest hits? Yeah, it just mostly drives through the most notable moments of Kenney's tenure at the Lampoon, but with little to no look into how they were formulated or the real production behind them. We get only a very brief mention of Bored of the Rings towards the beginning, the radio show and many of the most parodies are only glanced at, and most notably, the production of Animal House and Caddyshack are skimmed over. Key moments, and they are barely explored. None of the memorable scenes or jokes are shown. Also skimmed over were a lot of the famous faces. Aside from Chevy Chase (which is likely because of his major role), most of the other writers, editors, and actors are not given much development, and kind of disappear towards the third act. While each of the original writers are given little introductions, they end up underdeveloped. Some of the other major players (PJ O'Rourke, Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Lorne Michaels) are given little to no introduction.  A lot of the later SNL actors come off more as impressions than real performances of these people, especially John Belushi. Another big problem was that the film would vary wildly from standard biopic about famous figure and their accomplish, and a strange, surreal dark comedy. Parts from both work at times (as I said earlier), but when put together, come off haphazardly and feel a bit off as a result.

      Despite the less-than-satisfying way the film handles its subject, this was fairly enjoyable and fun for the most part. If you have a Netflix account, and are interested by what I have written, or are interested in the comedic that would influence the many comedies of the past 50 years, I recommend this. It's only an hour and a half anyway, so no real investment of time is necessary.