Happy Accidents

[3.5 stars]

One of the joys of this film is that it plays directly into the need for love to matter. Yes, I’ve already admitted I’m a hopeless romantic, so that is going to play well for me. Also, it has a great deal of sadly accurate fun with NYC dating and living.

Marissa Tomei (Spider-Man: Homecoming) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Emerald City) make the unlikeliest of pairs, but they make it work. You believe in the ineffable attraction and the unbridled passion that drives the two of them together, even if you don’t understand it. Both players have complicated histories and manage that rough hulled vulnerability that they are known for.

There are some great supporting roles as well. Holland Taylor (D.E.B.S.) does something just a bit different for her typical characters. And Nadia Dajani gets to do a bit more than here typical TV supporting roles. But, as Tomei’s mother, it was Tovah Feldshuh who really got to make an impact, with very little screen time; she is a wonderful study in restraint.

Writer/director Brad Anderson (The Call) is no stranger to the odd. His previous Next Stop Wonderland and The Machinist each have elements you can see him developing further with this offering. While Anderson spends most of his time on TV projects, his screen projects always seem to hit a decent mark. He loves his characters, which saves them, or at least redeems them in some way, for us regardless of their circumstances.

Happy Accidents is one of those curl-up-on-the-couch films with someone to enjoy the ride and message. It isn’t a simple and easy romance, but it has its impact and some good performances from actors earlier in their careers. It also gives you a chance to see a new and different facet of Anderson’s work.

Happy Accidents

The Curiosity of Chance

[3 stars]

Up front, you watch this film for what it does right rather than worrying about what it doesn’t quite nail. The reason is that when it gets it right, it really gets it right, so I was willing to cut it a break.

Chance is a bit St. Trinian’s, a bit Sing Street , and a bit of Ferris Bueller thrown in for good measure, not to mention a bevy of Belgian drag queens. It has heart and humor and, with some teeth grinding exceptions, tries to avoid the obvious.

Tad Hilgenbrink (Disaster Movie) leads the movie with a sense of confidence, strength, and fearlessness. He is out, proud, and a vulnerable teenager all at once. His charisma drives the story. Along with sidekicks Brett Chukerman and Aldevina Da Silva, the three tackle high school and the school bully together-ish. As his father, Chris Mulkey also adds a nice and unexpected layer. Well, not entirely unexpected, but nicely executed. 

For an early film, writer/director Russell P. Marleau manages to pull off a difficult balancing act. He gets the emotional core of the story he wants to tell and entertains us while he delivers it. Unfortunately, the presentation is just a tad off. Transposing the tale to Europe fails (and doesn’t even really feel believable–it just doesn’t feels like Europe at all). The humor is often either too broad or not big enough. The pacing isn’t tight enough to pull off the absurdities but it is just as often too tight on the triumphs. 

As I said, you watch this for what it does right, and it really does a lot right. You’ll recognize the characters from your life and you’ll sympathize with the plights and fears. It is a credit to the actors and, when he did nail it, the director that it succeeds despite tripping over its own feet. I honestly rather enjoyed it enough to ignore the flaws to recommend it (I’m even ignoring the silly title that doesn’t quite work either).

The Curiosity of Chance

The Orville vs. Star Trek: Discovery

Star Trek is a cultural institution, pretty much world-wide. Now, after a multiple year gap of all things Trek on the small and large screens, we are suddenly being handed two very different options in what has grown from a property to a genre in itself.

The Orville, brainchild of Seth McFarlane (Ted, Million Ways to Die in the West, Family Guy), takes the formula we’ve known for decades and gives it a hard look with both a jaundiced eye and a big hug. It is neither fish nor fowl, approaching the world it has created as satire, but tackling real storylines at the same time.

If I had any doubts about whether Orville could find its footing, its third episode, “About a Girl,” proved they were serious about their television mission. Bringing Brannon Braga, main helmer (and some think destroyer) of Trek since Next Generation, on to direct indicated that as well. The melding of the two men’s sensibilities brings an uncomfortable detente to the series, but one that somehow works. It allows us to laugh at the absurd seriousness of the situations and still enjoy and invest in them.

Discovery, on the other hand, takes a different approach. When it was original conceived with Bryan Fuller (Hannibal, American Gods, Pushing Daisies, WonderfallsDead Like Me) at the helm, I was excited (despite the CBS All Access plan). Fuller had the potential to bring a level of dark reality to a franchise he had written for in the past, but which had drifted to become a bit too mainstream, too predictable, and without a  lot of teeth.

But somewhere along the development process, Fuller exited and the studio took over. Honestly, I’ve not dug into the what and whys, I just didn’t care enough. When Fuller left I was pretty sure the series would devolve back into its rut. Fuller likes living on a knife edge of sensibility. He has created, wrote, and run some of the best television out there, all of which got cancelled before their time but which became instant cult favorites. And Hannibal may even be resurrected.

Discovery is burdened by the very fabric in inhabits. 50+ years of history drape and inform it. But what has always made Trek work wasn’t the stories, it was the characters. Discovery doesn’t really have that chemistry at its outset. I don’t see or feel it either from the main individuals (except for the blue guy) or between these people who have supposedly served together for years. The first double-episode should have felt solid and shocking. Instead it had me in a wait-and-see sensibility.

To be fair, not all shows can be hits out of the gate. But I am more impressed with The Orville for feeling like it has its act together with no history to back it than I am with Discovery, who has a known property and a solid universe to build from. Discovery, especially because of its subscription wall, has to hit it out of the park to keep me around. I don’t see that happening at the moment… and I have suffered through every other Trek series to the bitter end on both principle and doggedness. We’ll see if my sense of completeness insists on my attendance going forward.

The Orville 

Summer Hours (L’heure d’été)

[3 stars]

Olivier Assayas (Clouds of Sils Maria) wrote and directed this  deceptively simple, and highly awarded, story about family several years back. I say “deceptively” because there are layers to this story that are unavoidable, even if they aren’t Assayas’s main focus.

On the surface we have Edith Scob (Holy Motors) as the matriarch of a modern, dispersed family admitting and dealing with her mortality. The frank recognition of her family’s real trajectories and the “residue of the past” in the form of her house and art collection, is both honest and saddening. What she really thinks of the realities is part of what we want to know and part of what at least one of her children, Charles Berling (Elle), must contend with. Also, as the oldest, he must balance his sib’s reactions and desires. Juliet Binoche (Ghost in the Shell) and Jérémie Renier (In Bruges) balance him nicely, hinting at a deep history and long-standing disagreements that they’ve all somehow managed to balance in order to keep their relationships.

But on a deeper level, and sometimes a bit too spelled out, is the deconstruction of the collection from its human surrounds. We watch art become isolated and are forced to question the value of possessions and its meaning, absent people around it. This is true for the collection as well as the family house. While the interactions and story are certainly engaging, it was this aspect of the tale that I found most intriguing, though I wish it had been a bit subtler in the dialogue.

But Assayas wanted to focus on a different story. He was taken more with the generational aspect of life. How do things, ideas, and memories get handed down from the elders to the children. What form does that take and how does it happen? Basically, how does familial history get formed and preserved, and should it or does it need to. He explores this in various ways and to unequal effect. But the story pulls you along far enough before it simply drops you to consider life on your own. Beautifully filmed and nicely acted, it is an interlude worth the time.

Summer Hours

Vincent Has No Scales (Vincent n’a pas d’écailles)

[3 stars]

If you needed any indication of how broad the response to superhero overload is, Vincent is your answer; a quiet French indie, which shows that this trend is spreading worldwide.

Writer, director, and star Thomas Salvador takes advantage of this sensibility (and others, like The Tick) to create an ordinary man with extraordinary abilities and very little intention or need to use them in traditional ways. His adventures are a bit mundane, but also oddly sweet with Vimala Pons (Elle). It is, at heart, a simple love story; we all have secrets. That Salvador could wear all those production hats and still pull this film off in a credible way is impressive.

Deadpool signaled the mainstream embrace of the counter-superhero (as opposed to anti(super)hero, because I think it is more about story telling than good vs evil). And I expect the super hero backlash will continue to build, which isn’t a bad thing. Marvel will continue to ride the wave better than most because they never took themselves too seriously (unlike DC). But this shift in thinking is opening the possibility for more inventive and smaller stories like Vincent. For an evening of romantic 30charm and silly comedy that borders on farce at times, this will suit.

Product Details

Short Term 12

[3 stars]

Did you miss this movie when it came out? As emotionally challenging as it is, I wish I hadn’t. Writer/director Destin Daniel Cretton pours his heart and soul into creating a clear-eyed look into the kids and support staff of the foster system, group homes in particular. The home is a forced collection of odd and broken characters helping one another survive amidst hopelessness. It is people forcing past their own pain to help others. It is inspirational and depressing all at once, though ultimately positive. 

Brie Larson (Free Fire) and John Gallagher (10 Cloverfield Lane) form the core story. Through them we get the needed lensing and reflection on the stories and situations in the group home where they work. They are dedicated and patient as only a fellow ‘inmate’ can be. Their stories become part of the bigger whole.  Alongside these two, Kaitlyn Dever (Men, Women, Children) brings her considerable chops. As catalyst, she manages to both stand out in her own plot without overwhelming the rest of the story.

Seeing this four years after its release did have one odd impact. Rami Malek (Mr Robot) has a small and, frankly, uninteresting part in the film. However, due to his current celebrity, I kept expecting so much more from his character, which speaks to his presence on screen more than his efforts in this film.

Make time for this movie if you did miss it. It is well constructed, written, and acted, but it is just a bit too real and intense. I don’t need to revisit it voluntarily, but it was definitely a trip worth making once. I’m looking forward now to seeing Cretton’s latest release, The Glass Castle, which includes some of this movie’s cast.

Short Term 12

Oh, Hello

[2 stars]

When you are the target audience for a bit of satirical comedy and it leaves you nonplussed, it isn’t a great sign.  Oh, Hello is an ironic poison pen letter to New York theatre. Or, if not poison pen, certainly with more than a little bit of ire and frustration. And I do say this as their target audience, based on the subject matter (NYC living and the theater/entertainment world).

Honestly, I just found it mean-spirited and relatively uninspired in its message. With the exception of a couple cameos, it wasn’t even all that funny. Nick Kroll (Sing) and John Mulaney (Documentary Now!) are only marginally decent at playing older men, not that they are intended to be realistic. But the script is just, well, boring. It takes a half hour for the setup to complete so that the jokes can start paying off. But they don’t continue. There are side stories and sophomoric silliness and absurdities and a ton of inside jokes that would leave most people scratching their heads.

I’m sure there is an audience for this; it isn’t entirely unenjoyable. As part of my Netflix subscription it was favorably priced for its value, but I am glad I didn’t spend Broadway prices (or anything in addition) to see it.

Against the Law

[3 stars]

It is sometimes hard to remember how much the world has changed in the last 60 years. Despite recent setbacks, in general the world and humanity have matured as the distance and time between global points has diminished, and become more accepting of those around them. The sense of “otherness” is becoming common place rather than exotic. To survive, we have realized that we must embrace those around us rather than fight or feeling threatened. Hey, I did say “in general.”

But back as recently as the 1950’s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world, punishable by prison. Peter Wildeblood, a London journalist in that era, was caught up in the hypocrisy of his time and was part of the infamous Lord Montagu of Beaulieu trial.  Alongside Alan Turing, one of the other notable attacks on so-called inverts at the time.

Wildeblood, in this portrayal, is given life by Daniel Mays (Byzantium). He is the story, though he has some nice support from those around him. And, inter-cut into the movie are interviews with men from the era who recount their experiences and reactions. It is an interesting counterpoint but it does make the rest feel a bit more clinical than emotional, despite a rousing conclusion to the film as it comes into the present.

After prison, Wildeblood fought in the only way he knew how, by writing about his life, the trial, and declaring himself to the world and, specifically, to the Wolfenden committee. The committee ultimately declared “homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence.”

While this seemingly groundbreaking report was delivered on 4 Sept, 1957, it would be almost 10 years before the laws in Britain would begin to change. On 27 July, 1967, homosexuality between consenting adults of 21 years or older was decriminalized. And it wouldn’t be until 1994 that the law was brought into full parity with non-homosexual relationships and the age of consent dropped to age 16.  There is a wonderful overview of of non-conforming individuals in a series of monologues produced by Mark Gatiss (Denial) also in this film, called “queers.” which I highly recommend; writer Writer Brian Fillis (An Englishman in New York ) also wrote one of the monologues in queers.

Against the Law is an effective, if not entirely a solid film. Its intention is to educate and remind. On those counts it does admirably. And Mays provides a sympathetic focus, though a somewhat stunted arc as a character due to the structure. Still, I can recommend this based on his performance and the impact of the included interviews.

Product Details

The Hero

[3 stars]

Sam Elliot (Grandma) is a fixture of the last many (many) decades, probably much to his joy and chagrin. There is more than a little of him in this quiet rumination that uses film and celebrity as metaphors for life. And he is, as always, a quiet force on screen in that commanding way and with his signature deep, rumbling voice.

While this is very much a movie centered on a man, there are two notable female performances. Laura Prepon (The Girl on the Train) actually manages to steal scenes from Elliott by force of charisma alone. She has always been an intense personality and this is no exception. And, as always, she uses her chops and ability to deliver a complex character, even if there is little there to work from. Along with Prepon was a surprisingly vulnerable turn by Krysten Ritter that couldn’t be farther from her breakout Jessica Jones. This Ritter is meek and tenderly broken, despite her hostile demeanor.

After their collaboration on I’ll See You in My Dreams, Brett Haley and Marc Basch teamed up again with Haley back at the helm. In some ways, this is the reverse view of that previous story, at least in gender perspective. It is also a bit more successful overall. The two creatives make a great team and I look forward to what they produce next given their growth with each film. 

The Hero

 

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

[3.5 stars]

The first Kingsman was a delightfully unexpected and irreverent romp in spy-land. Taron Egerton (Eddie the Eagle) returns for this middle story of a planned trilogy and manages to grow the character and give us another, if much more violent, round of spy games. It may have lost some of the element of surprise, but the movie compensates with sheer audacity of spectacle and story. And everyone gets to show off a bit in this film.

On team England, Mark Strong (Miss Sloane), Sophie Cookson (Huntsman: Winters’ War), and Colin Firth (Bridget Jones’s Baby) all reprise roles adding to the mythology. But the surprise addition of Hanna Alström (Kingsman: The Secret Service) showed us that Eggsy wasn’t just a love ’em and leave ’em guy, he was capable of commitment. It is a nice flourish for his story.

Team America (1) is a bit more complex to pull apart. A great deal was made of Channing Tatum (The Hateful Eight) and Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water), but their parts are relatively small. It is more Halle Berry (Cloud Atlas) and Pedro Pascal (The Great Wall) that drive that team. To be truthful, I wish I had known a lot less about this section of the film as it is slowly revealed over the first third of the plot, but it is impossible to not know it given the advertising and the cast.

Team America (2) is the US Government officials led by Bruce Greenwood (Spectral) and Emily Watson (Everest). Greenwood provides an ugly version of the office that was a scarily good guess at the current tenor given that it was in production during the changeover of administrations here at the time. Watson’s is an important role, but a bit of a cipher as a character, which is a shame given her abilities.

In opposition to them all are Edward Holcroft (London Spy) and Julianne Moore (Vanya on 42nd Street). Holcroft isn’t much more than a prop to bridge the movies and make it personal for Eggsy and the Kingsmen. There just isn’t much there other than anger and a desire to succeed. Julianne Moore, however, has a bit more meat on her character bones. Her speech on the motivation and plan she has put into action is one of the more interesting, subtle pieces of the social commentary that underlies this story. While she delivers it all well, there isn’t all that much for her to work with. Still, she kept it from being a cookie-cutter villainess. She also has one amusing, surprise guest with a fun story-line, but I’m not going to spoil that here.

The most interesting returnee to this universe is director and co-writer Matthew Vaughn. This is his first ever sequel. After launching Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class, he left the franchises to others. He does a credible job coming back for this round, but he did miss a few marks. First, despite its scope, the film doesn’t feel international. It feels like Hollywood. This is in large part due to the rather nasty portrayal of the US government as well as only showing us a view of the world events via a fictionalized Fox News. “Fictionalized” as it is Fox actually doing news (rather than misreporting or opining). But there are no feeds from the other affected countries. That was a mistake I’m sure was insisted on by Fox Studios, but it really rather hurt the credibility of the tale. And Vaughn really has to stop trying to recreate his amazing “Time in a Bottle” sequence from X-Men. It just isn’t going to happen.

On a technical level, the film really excels. The script is constructed solidly to use everything as well as to redeem characters and even the golden circle symbol itself. And the editing, both between scenes and within fights, is pretty amazing. While there are moments it is very much obvious, which you don’t really want editing to be (like a couple of the cross-fades), they’re so beautifully executed that you can’t help but admire the choices. But the intra-fight editing is the real prize: is damn near seamless, which is astounding when you realize the complexity of the shots.

As a whole, this is just as entertaining as the first film in the series. It isn’t so much about discovery any longer, we’ve had our origin story after all. This round is about redemption and growth and finding a place in the world… and a whole lot of violence getting there, as adolescence often is. The film absolutely sets up a third installment, but fully resolves the story it starts in this outing. It has a ton of laughs, car chases worth of Fast & Furious or Bond, tons of flying lead and mashed bodes, and a social message that may or may not resonate for everyone, but that is certainly interesting to note. If you liked the first, you will like the second. If you haven’t found this series yet, start with The Secret Service and then return to this. While it may stand on its own, it will have a whole lot more depth with the background for you.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Art, writing, life explained… or at least commented upon…