Will the BEST "Rebecca" please stand up?

 

    I know I was too young to fully understand the entire point of  Daphne du Maurier's incandescent novel, "Rebecca" the first time I read it.  But the creepy concept of an English manor ruled by the memory of its previous mistress stuck with me and in the last 40 years I've probably reread the book a dozen times.

The same can be said for Alfred Hitchcock's stellar film of the same name, released in 1940.  Starring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine.  

Thanks to Covid, and the fact that I'm a complete couch potato, I stumbled upon the Netflix 2020 remake this weekend, starring Armie Hammer and the ubiquitous Lily James.  

Now, I'm not a purist.  I believe there are some films that improve with a make over.  ("3:10 to Yuma" comes to mind, as does "Gatsby.")  That said, there are some films I believe are untouchable, and should never be remade:  Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Dr. Zhivago, films like this.  And, up until this weekend, "Rebecca" was on that list. "Rebecca" is on my top 100 list of films of all time. I'm not as glamorous as say, AFI, but I've seen a crap ton of movies, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to what I like.

Not that I'm entirely sold on the idea of a Rebecca remake.  Even after watching the new film, I'm not sure this was something that should have been done.  However, it's Covid.  Not everyone has access to the classics, but they're looking for something to watch. So let me compare the films side by side.  Grading will be based on what the NEW film improved or failed.  

Let's start with the main characters:

MAXIM

I'm absolutely on board with the new film on this.  I have said many, many times that I think Olivier is woefully overrated and if there is a weak link in Hitchcock's film, it's because no one...and I mean no one...can buy Laurence Olivier as a mysterious romantic stranger who would sweep a young girl off her feet.  Especially with the way he delivers every line as if his mouth is a machine gun and the words are bullets he's firing at...oh...Nazis.  Weirdly, I thought Olivier was in his fifties when he played this role. He was not. He was barely 32.  

Meanwhile...Armie Hammer?  Handsome, charming, can deliver a romantic line without looking like he's in pain.  Oh yeah. UPGRADE!  (And far younger looking and acting at 34.)  

MRS. DE WINTER

(Brilliant and so annoying that du Maurier didn't name her main character.)

Okay, Joan Fontaine does her level best, I'm sure, to be a young, innocent girl. At 23, she pretty much was a young innocent.  But she wanders around with her shoulders hunched like she doesn't know what a basic things are. One almost expects her to look at an omelet and say, "What's an egg?"  She's not bad as the young Mrs. DW, but she's not...well she's a little annoying. It's like, "He's your husband. would you just ask him a question already?"

Lily James is no young innocent at 31, (and is there a British project she isn't in right now?), but she handles the part of Mrs. DW in a far different way. Instead of being a shriveling creature freezing in the headlights, she's a young woman trying to actually improve herself without much help from the outside world.  (The scene where she orders breakfast in French is great.)  She doesn't let the idea of Manderly steamroll her.  She's overwhelmed, but she wants to learn, she's trying to learn, she's trying to be a better wife all the way around. She's young, but you can tell she wants to make it work.  UPGRADE.

THE MUSIC:

I'm a huge fan of movie music and I have to be honest here, I think both movies have just terrible music.  My biggest gripe about old films is that the music is very, very jarring with any kind of subtlety.  Like listening to a junior high orchestra. It's all loud. It's all fast.  But at least for the 1940 film, it fit.  Meanwhile, Rebecca 80 years later stuck some really, really random Irish vibing tune in at just the weirdest times.  Rebecca is not a comedy. But I found the music hilarious and just wrong.  DOWNGRADE.

ROMANCE

I realize acting, like everything else, has evolved over the generations.  That said, I think you can still look at a classic romantic movie and say, "Yeah, I get that romance. They've got a spark."  

I call to mind the scene edited out of the theatrical release, (but in the director's cut which  you have to see) of "Streetcar Named Desire."  It's just Marlon Brando watching Kim Hunter walk down a flight of stairs.  But good lord in the morning it is HOT!  

And then there's the kiss in "Gone with the Wind"  no, not the one where Clark Gable carries Vivien Leigh up a flight of stairs, although that's pretty good. The one I'm talking about is much earlier in the film, where Rhett's leaving Scarlett and a wagon full of weak people on the road to Tara and he's going off to war.  WHEW!

Okay, now let's look at all the steamy kissing we get in 1940's "Rebecca."  Right. There is none. Basically, Maxim and the unnamed young girl get together BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SCRIPT.  You get zero vibe (and I put this at Olivier's feet as a fail. Maxim is the LEAD in this romance, and he acts like he's about as interested in romance as he is in women's shoes.) from Maxim that he's anything other than rude, abrupt, and just annoyed with life.  And why young miss goes with him?  Well, again...IT SAYS SO IN THE SCRIPT.

Meanwhile, 2020. Now, the romance in the book is hinted at, and honestly by 2020 standards, this film is mild on the spicy meter.  (There's one shot of a couple on a boat making out naked...but it's at a distance and I'm not even sure why it's there, but whatever.) However, you do get the feeling that there's a real attraction between the two and Lily James seems heartbroken at the thought of leaving for New York and never seeing Armie Hammer or his sun kissed pecs ever again.  Hammer, for his part, is a solid romantic lead and while he's not paving any new ground with his performance here, he holds up his end of the bargain, and really does seem like a legitimate romance there in Monte Carlo. UPGRADE

MRS. VAN HOPPER

Florence Bates is brilliant as the employer from hell, Mrs. Van Hopper, but one of my personal faves, Ann Dowd, (only slightly less evil than her "Aunt Lydia" from "A Handmaid's Tale.") gets some extra screen time to take the horror to a new level.   UPGRADE.

MANDERLY

Call me old fashioned, but if a house is supposed to be a creepy, it should feel creepy and not so, oh I don't know, Downton Abby-ish.  The black and white film goes a long way to adding to that creepiness.  DOWNGRADE

THE IN-LAWS

The one tiny, tiny bit of humor in either film comes from Maxim's sister Beatrice and her bumbling husband Giles. While hilarious and just what we need in the 1940 version, 2020 guts the parts and removes the humor.  DOWNGRADE.

JACK FAVELL

George Sanders is oily and urbane and witty and you can't wait to see him on the screen again and again.  Sam Riley...well, I'm not sure what he's trying to do, but he winds up feeling like a dopey frat boy who needs some cash.  DOWNGRADE

MRS. DANVERS

Here's the real crux of the story. It really all hinges on Mrs. Danvers. Seriously, the book, the movie, all of it. She is the real center figure.  So, how did we do?

Judith Anderson is EVERYTHING that is right with the 1940 film.  She is emotionless. She is cold. She is in those creepy long dresses and her hair...well you just know she's not right with that hair.  But what really gets you is that moment...that moment she and the new Mrs. DW are looking out the window...well, you know...if I had her whispering in my ear I'd probably jump.  Her ending is perfection.

Meanwhile...Kistin Scott Thomas...sigh.  She does not rise to the level of creepy needed in this film.  She barely manages "Annoyed headmistress."  And the relationship put together in music montage form (normally I love a good music montage but not here) tries to cover for the fact that she can't get creepy enough to scare anyone.  And her final scene is, in a word, lame. Which is fitting.

DOWNGRADE

Final notes on the new movie:  Armie Hammer is great, but sleepwalking in his boxers, not great.

The actors who play Robert and Clarice look like they just came from a casting call at "American Horror Story: FreakShow."

Some of the added scenes are terrible.  Just really pointless and bad.  Not the ones where Armie Hammer is shirtless though. Those are gold.  (Much like his chest hair in the Monte Carlo sun.)

FINAL ANALYSIS:

The front half of the movie is actually better than the original.  Seriously. The ship sinks, however, the minute we get to Manderly.  The villains (Favell and Danvers) and the terrible casting of those parts, ruin the second half of the film.  (Sam Riley and Kristin Scott Thomas should be fined or have their SAG card suspended or something for a year.)  So here's what you want to do if you want the BEST Rebecca experience. 

Watch the first half of the 2020 movie. Watch the second half of the 1940 movie.

Or, you could just read the book.

From Sarah: "Midway" vs. "Pearl Harbor" a Battle of Battles.

Hello Epic War Film Fans!

Over the weekend I finally got to sit down and watch 2019's summer epic (epic fail?), "Midway."  I'm a big fan of war movies in general, but especially World War films, so I ignored (as I generally do) reviews and  box office numbers and watched the film to form my own opinion.  

While watching the movie (and I'll get to some of the finer points in a moment) I could not help but think about another film, "Pearl Harbor," and how that was another big budget war film that's been much maligned over the years.

Neither movie is a complete waste of your time.  What's funny is the biggest issue for both films is time. One is far too long, one is far too short.

But here's what I'm thinking:

Pearl Harbor (2001)   IMDB Metacritic score: 44  Viewer score: 6.2

"Pearl Harbor" is an epic film following two best friends from their rough childhood right up to the edge of World War II.  The two friends fall for the same woman and face a personal battle of their own.  Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale lead a wildly attractive cast of fictional characters through this romantic story, ultimately set against the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The run time on this film is over 3 hours and, while I'm not against long movies, this one is far too long.  The movie suffers from a major identity crisis, which is why it's so long.  Either it's a romantic movie or it's a war movie. I'm sorry, but you can't do justice to either subject if you try to meld them.  There's so much character development, they almost forget to add the Pearl Harbor part into Pearl Harbor. Had the bombing of Pearl been the climax...then maybe, even with all of it's ridiculous fictional action, the movie might be better respected. But then, for reasons I can't fathom...possibly because director Michael Bay suddenly remembered he was directing a war picture, the entire tone of the film changes to epic war with Doolittle's Raid.  But then the action grinds to a halt and we're back to romance...love triangles...pregnancies...ugh.  

Basically, don't call this a World War II movie and then give me two hours of a fictionalized romantic drama with a handful of moments of glorious action.  Trim the film in one direction or the other.  (I should note, that all of my criticisms for this film are exactly the elements I praise in the film "Titanic."  So what's the difference?  Well, Kate Winselt and Leo DiCapprio are super talented actors.  Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, and Josh Hartnett are....not.  And I will die on that hill.)

So, the movie is too long, it doesn't focus enough on the titular topic, and it gets mired in too much focus on fiction. And also the actors are just...terrible.

Then we have:

Midway (2019)  IMDB Metracritic score: 47  Viewer score: 6.7

"Midway" is a war epic covering events in the Pacific from the end of diplomatic relations with Japan to the bombing of Pearl to Doolittle's Raid and finally ending with the unlikely victory over tiny Midway Island.  Patrick Wilson and Dennis Quaid lead a huge cast of less-than-household named actors. Not only is there no love triangle...the very lovely Mandy Moore (who would have done a far better job on "Pearl Harbor" than Kate Becknisale) has virtually the only female uttered lines in all 2 hours and 38 minutes of the movie...and for as little screen time as she gets, I'm mildly shocked her entire role didn't end up on the cutting room floor.

"Midway" is a very earnest film.  You can feel director Roland Emmerich sweating as he yells, "That's now how it really went!" into a megaphone over and over.   And, as Hollywood goes, this movie goes a long way to getting the big picture stuff right.  (There's a laundry list of goofs on IMDB if you're interested.)  That's not the problem with "Midway." The problem with "Midway," as I see it, is twofold:

1)  It needs more time.  

To cover that much American/World history, not in calendar time, but in pure volume of activity, and to do it right, "Midway" should have been a miniseries.  There's so much there and in under 3 hours of run time, something must suffer. Unfortunately for the viewer, because so many big battles are crammed into a short time, you lose the feel of the intensity of time build up. Much of the tension simply isn't there because the plot points hop from Pearl to Doolittle to Midway, and you barely understand that there's time or prep or anything in between. In short, much of "Midway" feels like one very long....very long....dog fight.

2)  Sure, the characters are real...they still have to be developed.

When doing a war picture with many moving parts, it is wise to remember that everyone's going to be dressed the same so you need to give the viewer some kind of cue as to who is talking.  Also, moviemakers, you cannot assume that anyone knows who people in history are. The sad fact is that so much history is NOT being taught anymore.  We're too busy learning how to send naked pictures of ourselves to each other by phone...and then be incensed when those pictures wind up on the internet, that we don't learn any history.  So, yes, Admiral Nimitz was a giant in World War II.  You still need to develop that character for your viewer so that the viewer doesn't just think of him as "the guy Woody Harrelson played."  And again, this takes time.  Now, smaller parts need less time to develop which is why the only character I felt an emotional connection to was played by Nick Jonas (yes, that Nick Jonas).  His character...Bruno Gaido...gets about six minutes of screen time and yet he's given enough dialogue and he does enough that his little bitty part shines beyond anything anyone else did in the film.  (Well, except for Brennan Brown, who plays the code breaker Rochfort...but he's described as wearing fuzzy slippers and the first time we see him, he's got a bathroom on over his uniform...you don't forget a thing like that.  Which is my point...when everyone looks the same, you have to somehow make them stand apart from each other.)

Yes, the characters were all based on real people, which means they had to do the stuff the real people did.  Which limits a writer and director.  You can't just have them first guns at zeros flying over head because it looks cool  (ahem, Pearl Harbor) and you can't just have them flying the planes sideways because it looks cool (again, ahem) when you are trying to make a film based on actual events, you have to depict those actual events.    Quite possibly the best example of how to do this would be 1993's "Gettysburg" which takes the time and uses a number of different techniques to differentiate the characters and keep the story from becoming far too muddled. And that was a three battle movie as well.

All of this, all of the issues that plagued "Midway" and kept it from being a magnificent piece of filmmaking are easily fixed...just give the film makers more time. Not more money...more time. The same cast would have THRIVED in a limited series, or hey, make it a four hour film, so what?  

So which one is a better picture of these two?

If you want flash and dazzle sub par acting, and questionable historical content, but lots of big names and flashy romance and soft filters "Pearl Harbor" is your film.   If you want something in touch with what really happened, even if you have to watch it a couple times to figure out who is who, "Midway" is the one for you.

"Midway" is on my permanent shelf.  "Pearl  Harbor" is going back to the DVD resale shop.

From Sarah: A "Horrifying" Weekend!

Hello all!

One this past Memorial Day weekend, I took some time (because my arthritis in my feet forced me on the couch, not that I made much of a fight...) to step outside my comfort zone and watch some horror films from different eras.  Digging deep in a couple cases into what my Amazon Prime membership had to offer, I saw a few things that caught my eye enough to watch from start to finish.  Here's what I found:

Fall of the House of Usher (1948)

I'm a HUGE Edgar Allen Poe fan and I am well acquainted with the Vincent Price version of this particular story. I was not, however, aware (because I'm only now just digging into the deepest recesses of old films, thanks to my many streaming service subscriptions) that there were other, earlier film adaptations of Poe's story about familial insanity.

If you keep IMDB.com handy while watching movies, (which I do) you'll find that the trivia for this particular version is telling. No actor other than Gwen Watford (for whom this was a film debut) made another movie after this one.  Let's think about that.  NO ONE ELSE MADE ANOTHER MOVIE after this one.  Was this going to be the finest work of film EVER? Did the actors finish this one and say, "I simply cannot do any better than this...this is the height of art."

Ummmm, no.

I'm not going to say the film was bad. And I do give them points for having the nerve to attempt to convey that Daddy Usher was into some pretty heavy bondage and sadism in his personal life. That's pretty out there, given the times. However, I have to mention that much of the dialogue was tossed in post production (ponder that) and that film opens...not on a dying mansion, but in a reading room of an exclusive upper crust men's club where dusty old white guys are sitting around talking about books and one of them decides to grab a copy of Poe's completed works and read from it to prove Poe's work is superior to any others.

Well, Poe's work is superior, but this film is not.  Unless you are really into films with zero production value, maybe leave this one alone.

Asylum (1972)

If you've read any of my reviews, you know I believe there is a film DEAD ZONE between 1969 and 1980 where the vast majority of films made are simply unwatchable either because the editing or filming technique is bad or the acting is just awful.

"Asylum" has many great pieces. The opening music is great, the set up for the plot is really, really good. A young psychiatrist goes to a mental asylum to interview for a job. As part of the interview he must meet each of the patients and, after completing his interviews, tell the doctor in charge which of the patients was the now insane head doctor of the asylum, If he gets it right he gets the job.

GREAT set up.  What follows are four separate stories from each of the patients...and this is where the film falls apart. Not in the stories themselves, but in the quality of the filming. Seriously...this was done in 1972. Granted, it's a British film, and their sense of horror/special effects is different, and I'm they weren't working with Hollywood money.  Still, there are moments, especially in the first story, where the effects are so beyond ridiculous, you wind up laughing at the campiness.

That said, with everything "Asylum" had going against it from the outset, I stuck with it and find some moments of real entertainment and an over all sense of time well spent at the end.  This is a very, very, very British film, and the ending is indicative of the bigger problems I find in films in the dead zone.  But, overall, this is a worthy 88 minutes.

Dr. Sleep (2019)

When this movie was first announced both my daughter and I were excited for it. She is a hard core horror film fan, and I love Stephen King's genius novel about a writer completely losing his crap in an empty hotel.  Unlike most of the movie going public, I do not worship at the alter of Stanley Kubrick, so I prefer the 1997 mini series adaptation of the book to the 1980 classic film. All that said, We were excited to see this movie.

Which we watched yesterday.

Friends, I'll be honest. I haven't read the book. But I have read the trivia comments and this film, Dr. Sleep, is a sequel to the Kubrick film...not necessarily the book. And, being a sequel to the film, means, director/screenwriter Mike Flannigan took up some of the film techniques used in the 1980 classic.  Unfortunately, he used the bad elements instead of the good ones.

The movie is too long by about 45 minutes and if you ask my daughter or me, we can tell you exactly what to cut.  We did not need the long intro to the bad characters or the reminder footage using a fake Danny and fake Wendy. Basically, the first half hour is not needed, it's confusing, and, if you've seen the Kubrick film, (and why are you watching Dr. Sleep if you haven't?) then you don't need the bits with fake Danny.  The first half hour drags the film down.  Ewan McGregor and young Kyleigh Curran play well off of each other and Rebecca Ferguson is plausible as a villain.  Once we get to the meat of the plot, the movie starts rolling along nicely, but then Flannigan remembers he's writing a sequel, so once again we get dragged along in a direction that is not necessary and wind up with an ending that is befuddling at best.  This film could have been great, there are many great pieces to it. But it feels way too much like the pieces from two puzzles shuffled together in one box.

If you're a hardcore horror fan, there are some thrills and chills, but really, this is too much of a first draft mess to really bother.

From Sarah: "Love Affair" or "An Affair to Remember," a classic movie battle.

Hello everyone!

With COVID-19 limiting just about everyone's entertainment options, I have, it should surprise no one, delved deeply into the lower layers of my streaming services' offerings.  Which is how I ran across the Irene  Dunne/Charles Boyer 1939 movie: Love Affair.

"Love Affair," as some of you may know, is the ORIGINAL film version of "An Affair to Remember," which popped up, with the same director, in 1957 starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr.  (And it was the second version made ultra famous in the Nora Ephron masterpiece (Sleepless in Seattle.")

I'm like almost everyone else, I'm sure. I've see "Affair to Remember" several times. And yes, I've cried.

But the 1939 Dunne/Boyer version?  Ummmm, nope, never seen it.

Until this weekend.

So, side by side, how do these two movies compare?  Which one is better?

First of all, the movies have the same director. Which means the pacing, the angles, the basic overall aesthetic is the same. The same. Basically, it's the same movie with different faces.

Except it isn't.

Watching these two movies is the best (and possibly only) chance we movie lovers have to say, "well, if this actor had that part, the movie would have been better," and really get to see if that works. All things being equal, who's better: Boyer or Grant?  Dunne or Kerr?

Because Boyer is French, like really French, he might be a little tiny bit hampered for American audiences with his accent.  And, let's face it, he's not as good looking as Cary Grant. But for those of us who know Cary Grant's work as a comedic actor, it's a little challenging to take him seriously in that final scene.  Which, by the way, Boyer SLAYS.

So...the male lead...complete toss up.

Which brings us to the ladies.  Irene Dunne and Deborah Kerr.  Both are lovely, snarky, and hold up well against their male counterparts. Here's the one difference:  Deborah Kerr didn't sing the songs her character sings in the movie. Irene Dunne did.  BUT...I really didn't love Irene Dunne's singing (I'm not a fan of soprano solos...it's a personal thing.) so that sort of evens out.

Which means...the female lead...toss up.

Since both movies are the same scene for scene and the director is the same, I really found only one other element in the movies I could compare, and it's a tough one:  The orphan choir.

Really, Sarah?  You're judging singing orphans?

Yep, I am.

And the winner is...An Affair to Remember.  Why?  Because their orphan choir sounds like kids.  As opposed to Love Affair which literally has a trio of grammar school girls singing like they're all 20 year old Broadway stars.  And the choir of kids toward the end also sounds pretty much like a college group.  I mean, you're going to try and sell me the idea that those rag tag kindergartners can sing base?  Really?

That said, movie lovers, comedy lovers, romance lovers, you cannot go wrong with either film. I'm not saying you're going to have the same reaction Rosie O'Donnell and Meg Ryan had in "Sleepless in Seattle."  But if you've got a rainy day on your hands and you need something charming and sweet to watch...either of these movie will fit the bill.

Movie Review by Linda!: The Battle of the Sexes (2017)

 "The Battle of the Sexes," starring Emma Stone and Steve Carell, is about the epic tennis showdown between Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs back in 1973. Thank you to my trivia team for recommending this film. It is fascinating, has a great cast, and in my humble opinion deserved more award nominations than it received. (Only two Golden Globe nods to Stone and Carell, which they both lost.) 4.5/5 stars.

Movie Review by Linda: March of the Penguins (2004)

                                                  
This Oscar-winning documentary from 2004, "March of the Penguins," focuses on the Empire penguins in Antarctica, and their long treks to and from the breeding grounds. I learned a lot about the Empire penguin, mainly that I hope to never be reincarnated as one. LOL. The adults, both male and female, have a tough life.  This really is not a "feel good" film, although there are some cute and endearing moments. Stay for the end credits to see how close the filmmakers could get to the penguins. That's fun to watch. 4.5 stars.

Moms, Wine Drinkers, Movie Lovers...WELCOME!

Welcome to the NEW blog for Moms, wine drinkers, and movie lovers!  

After publishing four volumes of movie reviews (with our very unique, wine infused take) my friend and fellow author, Linda Schmalz, and I decided to not only offer our books for those of you who are looking for movie perspectives such as our, but also our NEW reviews right here, for all to see!

WELCOME, Moms, WELCOME, Wine Drinkers, and WELCOME Movie lovers!

If you're familiar with our books (which your can purchase here: in book or digital form on Amazon) then  you know we don't just review the big flicks, the block busters, and the main stream offerings. We are open to films of all genres.  With all the streaming services available now, there are literally millions of films out there to watch and believe me, we've watched some funky, weird stuff, and we have opinions about it all!

I should also warn you, Linda and I rarely agree on movies.  So...if you see a review from one of us, check in again later...there will most likely be a rebuttal!

All of our movie reviews are based on the number of glasses of wine we need to get through it.  One wine glass is an excellent movie.  Five glasses is probably a movie you should avoid.

And hey, readers, if you have a movie you'd like us to review, don't be shy!  You can reach us here in the comments section of this blog or reach out to my facebook page.  Right now, thanks to Covid-19, we have a lot of time on our hands!

Sit back, relax, pour yourself a glass of vino and check in with us to see what we think of YOUR favorite films!

Who's going to win Best Picture and why it won't be "Parasite." (But it should.)

Hello everyone!

I realize I'm an author, not a screenplay writer or director, but I'm obsessed with movies, especially this time of year. That's right!  It's OSCAR time!

This year I've managed to see every single Best Picture nominee. Not easy for a girl who lives in suburban fly over land where many of the more artsy movies have a theater run of about five minutes.  But yes, I've managed to see them all, and here's how I rank them, 9-1, in order of least deserving the win to most deserving.


9.  The Irishman

Bad movie. Bad cast.  Bad idea.

One wouldn't think I was talking about a movie starting De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and directed by Scorcese, right?  Well, here we are.  They got the band back together and instead of using younger actors to represent the characters in their younger years (ala "the Two Popes") these Hollywood giants decided to use technology to "young up" the senior citizen cast.  Terrible idea.  I thought the addition of a Jimmy Hoffa angle might give us some fresh material, but no. This is just a geriatric version of "The Godfather" or "Goodfellas" and honestly, at over 3 hours, it's not worth it. Thank goodness it was streaming on Netflix. At least I didn't have the guilt of paying full price at the box office for this dog.

8. Little Women

One of my favorite books growing up, "Little Women 2019" has been touted as a modern, feminist remake.  One question:  Did we need that?  Did anyone ask for it?  The gold standard of movie adaptation for Louisa May Alcott's already fairly feminist gold star novel is the 1990 Winona Ryder/Christian Bale version. While 2019 is nice and everyone does a good job, it feels like Hollywood just wanted a  movie with an all woman cast and director wedged into the awards so no one would ding the Academy for always looking at movies starring white guys.  It's a nice movie...but it's unnecessary.

7.  A Marriage Story

Again, I did enjoy watching this movie about a perfectly reasonable, friendly married couple try to divorce without acrimony and failing, thanks to their well meaning friends and lawyers.  Adam Driver is wonderful here. Scarlett Johansson does NOT deserve a best actress nom, but what can you do?  It's not that this movie was released on Netflix that somehow cheapens it, quite the opposite.  I think had this been released a couple years ago, it might be a stronger entry, but not this year.


6. Joker

The more I think about this movie, the more angry I get.  As with movie based on popular comic book icons, liberties are allowed. They are, after all, fictional characters. The thing is, this 2019 Joker is not a genius villain. He's a victim.  He's a victim who doesn't even take part in the one crime he's almost universally credited for: The murder of Batman's parents.  He's an onlooker.  Also, Bruce Wayne's parents, again, universally considered philanthropists prior to this film, are the villains in a very millennial "eat the rich" reconstructing of comic history.  While the film is compelling as a movie and the performances are strong within the construct of the movie, I feel this is irresponsible film making.

5. Ford Vs. Ferrari

Yes, I am a sucker for a biopic, I've never made any bones about that.  And I love Christian Bale. But when I heard about this car movie with a horrible title, it was a hard pass for me.  Had it not been nominated for Best Picture I probably still would not have seen it.  I'm glad I did, ultimately, because the performances are strong, and the movie is entertaining.  Best Picture?  Maybe some other year, maybe not.  Matt Damon and Christian Bale do well together, and yes, the car races are fun to watch.  Not a bad date movie, but not Best Picture. But, hey, I was wrong about "Green Book," from last year, so what do I know?

And now we come to the top four movies of the year, and I take a break here because the distance between these four movies and the previous nominees is huge.  This year they could have nominated more films, they could have nominated fewer. These four would still be in the top four.

4.  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Gun play loving director Quentin Tarantino takes a bit of a break from his typical all out gore fest and gives us something of a fairy tale. Pairing movie marquee giants Brad Pitt and Leonardo di Caprio, and dropping them into Hollywood during the reign of the Manson Family and the Sharon Tate murder would be only two of many pieces of genius in this film. There are no bit parts here, everyone shines in one way or another.  Margo Robbi brings a sweetness not normally found in a Tarantino picture.  At over 3 hours, it is a long film, and yes, it might just take you to the very end to understand what the heck is going on. But the entertainment value along the way is well worth the ride. This is a level of film making maturity we haven't seen from Tarantino before.

3.  1917

Again, yes, I'm a sucker for big war movies, and lately  I've been watching everything I can about World War I, so this was perfect timing for this film.  Basically using two unknown British actors (several cameos by film fan favorites like Colin Firth and Mark Strong), director Sam Mendes brings his grandfather's stories to life with brilliant scene sets, cinematography, and acting.  At certain points the scene is so bright, so beautiful, it's almost too much.  There isn't a dull, boring moment along the way because every minute brings its own tension and/or relief.  This is one that will be in the permanent collection.

2.  JoJo Rabbit

When I first saw the trailer for this movie I said two words, "Hard pass."  Had this not been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, I would never have seen it.  Seriously, a movie where Hitler is a kid's best friend?  And it's a comedy?  What's the about?  Well, yes, "JoJo" is just about the weirdest concept for a movie ever.  And yet, this one works so well, so brilliantly, I was shocked.  Seeing World War II Germany through the eyes of a young boy on the verge of joining the Hitler Youth, we witness how Hitler's indoctrination of the young worked. Yet, we are also shown how, in the word of Whitney Houston, "Children are our future."  The movie is dark, super dark, but somehow the humor, even the stuff involving Hitler, is funny enough to make us feel like there's hope in this world. How good is this film?  I truly, deeply, and honestly believe Scarlett Johannsen should win her Best Supporting Actress award for this. And if you've been reading my reviews and blog long enough you know how I feel about Scar-Jo. Definitely adding this one to the collection.

1. Parasite  

Let's see a Korean film about the socio-economic differences between rich and poor.  Sounds like a knee slapper.  Let's run out and see that!

But seriously.  "Parasite" is the best film that came out this year and it absolutely, positively, without a doubt win Best Picture. The movie transcends language and culture barriers, and gives us a hard, honest look at how the clash between the classes is NOT always the fault of the rich, it can be a two way street.  Loaded with dark humor and just enough Korean history to make you feel smarter once you've seen it, this is the most astounding film I've seen in a long time.  It's stuck with me over the last week since I've seen it.  It didn't matter that I had to read the film. It didn't matter that I didn't know any of the actors.  The humanity each actor brought to their character is universal.

And now, here's what I think will happen on Sunday when the Best Picture award is handed out.

"Parasite" will not win. It will win for Best Foreign film, just like it did for the Golden Globes.  I don't think the Academy is going to award a film that so strongly pictures the ruling class as not only intolerant, but also really, really stupid.  It absolutely should be Best Picture, but it won't be.

"JoJo Rabbit," which I think should also win, will not. It's just too weird of a film. Scar-Jo will get her best supporting, but it won't get Best Picture.  Which is a shame, because I haven't seen anything this creative in a long time.

The real fight will be between "1917" and "Once Upon a Time".  They split Best Picture Awards at the Globes, but this is the Oscars. They don't separate comedies from dramas.  Maybe they should. Both are relatively safe choices in terms of being controversial.  I think "1917" has the ultimate edge because, well, it just does, and it should.  BUT, Hollywood is known for awarding movies about itself to itself (I'm looking at you, "Birdman" you hopeless steaming pile of grossness.) so that may put "Once Upon a Time" in front.

If I had to pick, and since this is my blog, I'm making myself pick, I'm going to go with "1917 as Best Picture.  There you go.

A Tale of Two Movies: "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" and "1917"

Hello everyone!

It's that time of year again, that frantic time when movie lovers everywhere scramble to watch the movies nominated for Best Picture (recently, movies that would likely go unnoticed if it weren't for an Oscar nomination.  And...and some cases...still unnoticed because, hey, they're not good.  I'm looking at you, "Moonlight" and "Shape of Water.")

The Oscars, perhaps more than any other awards show, brings out the movie critic in all of us.  The only difference between me and, let's say, a casual reader of this blog (which would be pretty much the globe since I seem to be a very casual contributor to the blog) is that my writing partner and I have actually published our movie reviews in books.  (Look in the margin for links to our collections or just click here.)  Based on that, I feel I can review the two movies that will most likely take the Best Picture award this year.

This year, the two movies that stand out to me so far are the two that won the two Best Picture awards at the Globes:  "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" and "1917."  As luck would have it, I've seen them both recently and I see great parallels and differences within the two films.

Both are masterclasses in storytelling.  For me this is key because if the storytelling is no good, what's the point? Then you're just watching a Star Wars film after Disney got its hands on the franchise.  (If I'm found dead in a ditch somewhere, it's because henchmen from Disney have killed me.)  Both are based loosely on true events.  "1917" is based on stories Director Sam Mendes' grandfather's stories of his service in World War I.  "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is written around the Sharon Tate murder in Hollywood in summer 1969.

Grounded in real events and with master writers and storytellers at the helm, both movies give viewers everything and anything they can hope for in a film. This is real, deeply moving, well thought out, movie making at its finest.

Each film has something that separates it from the other.

"1917" is an unbelievable study in cinematography. Much has been made about the "one shot" method of shooting, but for me, there was a moment in the film, a night shot, that was so transcendentally beautiful, it was no longer a movie, it was life.  For a film that spends the better part of two hours moving the viewer through mud and muck and barbed wire and dead bodies, this moment was as unexpected as it was glorious and for me, that puts it over the top in the Best Picture category.  Also, Mendes does it with a largely unknown cast.  (Tell me, did Colin Firth even get paid for his part?  I mean, I've swallowed pills that took a longer time to get down my throat than he was on screen.)

"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is a long movie. Tarantino takes his time telling this story and somehow, even though we feel like we've seen this all before, he slowly, patiently, carefully gives us something we've never seen before and didn't expect, and he's got an A list cast around him that understands the vision. He avoids the violence that pervades his previous films (although he doesn't cut it out entirely) but this is a seductive film. You don't realize you're being drawn into anything surprising until the very end.  That's when I stood up and yelled, "What did I just see?" (fortunately I was at home.)

I've seen my fair share of movies.  I've seen most people's fair share of movies.  I am telling you, it takes a lot to surprise me when it comes to films.  And these two did it.  I'm giving both 5 stars. Both will be in my permanent collection.  But I give the edge to "1917" on Oscar night.