Michael Green

The Call of the Wild

First Hit: I was very distracted by the computer-generated dog, Buck, that acted more like a human than a dog, therefore, I missed the power of the story.

This film is based on the great Jack London short novel of the same name. From the moment we meet Buck, his looks and mannerisms reflect the humanization of the dog. Being a dog owner, I really disliked this. Reading into a dog’s eyes and looks to reflect our human emotions is a fantasy I don’t particularly like.

Basically, the story goes that Buck is stolen from his owner Judge Miller (Bradley Whitford), in Santa Clara, CA. While with the Judge, Buck had the run of Miller’s home, and the opening scenes we see him eating whatever food he can find, and then he ruins a whole table full of food, by sampling or eating more food than a dog, of that size, could ever eat.

Now stolen from his home, Buck is shipped to Alaska and meets John Thornton (Harrison Ford), who is grumpy but sees something in Buck he likes and gives a wry smile.

Buck is purchased by the mail delivery team of Perrault (Omar Sy) and Francoise (Cara Lee). Although Buck is a huge dog, he’s out of his element because Perrault and Francoise are dog sled mail delivery workers, and Buck has never been a working dog and knows nothing about snow or being a sled pulling dog. He’s been a home dog.

Buck is mystified by the snow and then becomes demoralized after being hooked up to a harness and asked to pull a sled led by other computer-animated dogs. He does his best but, in a human way, makes mistakes.

But CGI Buck decides to become the best dog in the team, which comes across as another human aspect. The lead dog appreciates Bucks's efforts (more human emotions), but the entire movie audience knows what is coming, a confrontation with the lead husky.

This confrontation ultimately ends up in glory for Buck, Perrault, and Francois, but as the story would have it, Buck gets sold again to a greedy miner Hal (Dan Stevens) who wants to find gold. He and Thorton get into it, and bad blood arises over Hal’s treatment of Buck.

Buck escapes Hal, finds Thornton, and they walk together into the wilderness, the call of the wild sort of speak.

Together they create an excellent partnership. Upon arriving at a remote cabin, they set up shop, and Buck starts to flirt with and hang out with timberwolves. Of course, there is one final predictable confrontation with Hal, and we all know what will happen.

There are lovely and poignant moments, and they mostly revolve around Thornton’s grumpy demeanor and Buck’s loving, caring way.

Not being able to forget just how humanized Buck was made to be, the film’s real story about self-redemption and following your dream, was left on the cutting room floor.

Ford was terrific as John Thornton, a man who was still mourning the loss of his son. Sy was great and engaging as Perrault, the sled driver. Gee was excellent as Perrault’s co-sled team driver. Michael Green wrote this screenplay. There wasn’t anything wrong with the screenplay, but the execution of the CGI dog just failed the film. Chris Sanders did a reasonable job of directing this story, but the CGI hurt the effort, and Sanders is part to blame because he allowed too much humanization of Buck.

Overall: This was a difficult film to watch because it seemed too made up.

Academy Awards - The Oscars

Once again it is time to celebrate a year of film watching. Here are my choices for the following awards along with a few thoughts about some of the selections and non-selections The Academy made.

  • Actor in a Leading Role – The nominees are: Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out), Timothee Chalamet (Call me by Your Name), Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour), Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread), and Denzel Washington (Roman J. Isreal, Esq.). Who else could be on this list? Tom Hanks (The Post), James Franco (The Disaster Artist), and Richard Gere (Norman). However, regardless of who wasn’t on the list, the runaway best performance is Gary Oldman for Darkest Hour. His Winston Churchill was simply sublime.
  • Actress in a Leading Role – The nominees are: Meryl Streep (The Post), Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water), Margot Robbie (I, Tonya), Francis McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, and Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird). Who didn’t get nominated? Rachel Weisz (My Cousin Rachel), Emma Stone (Battle of the Sexes) and Jessica Chastain (The Zookeepers Wife). If it were up to me, I’d select Saoirse Ronan in Lady Bird because of the variety and excellent delivery of teenage emotions she effectively brings to the screen. Margot Robbie was utterly fantastic as Tonya Harding. Francis McDormand was filled with angst and fire as the woman who lost her daughter to rape and murder. Sally Hawkins was ethereal as Elisa Esposito a deaf woman who communicates with the captured creature. Meryl Streep showed the subtle development of strength as her character Katharine Graham.
  • Supporting Actress – The nominees are: Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread), Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird), Allison Janney (I, Tonya), Mary J. Blige (Mudbound). Octavia Spencer (The Shape of Water). Who is missing from this list? Melissa Leo (Novitiate), who gave one of most outstanding performances of the year. The film wasn’t seen and that is a shame. This is a strong field but choosing from the nominees, I’d select Allison Janney. Her depiction of Tonya Harding’s mother was vividly cold.
  • Supporting Actor – The nominees are: Christopher Plummer (All the Money in the World), Woody Harrelson (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Willem Defoe (The Florida Project), and Richard Jenkins (The Shape of Water). A great set of actors. Missing? Steve Carell (Battle of the Sexes) gave us an incredibly life like Bobby Riggs. I’d have to say that Sam Rockwell would get my vote although each of the above deserve the recognition.
  • Best Cinematography – The nominees are: Bruno Delbonnel (Darkest Hour), Hoyte van Hoytema (Dunkirk), Rachel Morrison (Mudbound), Dan Laustsen (The Shape of Water), and Roger Deakins (Blade Runner 2049). Great list of people creating and delivering great pictures. My vote would go for Hoyte van Hoytema in Dunkirk. I admired the multitude and type of scenes that were shot and how they were made into a cohesive feeling of awe.
  • Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – The nominees are: Dee Rees and Virgil Williams (Mudbound), Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter (The Disaster Artist), James Ivory (Call Me by Your Name), James Mangold, Michael Green and Scott Frank (Logan), and Aaron Sorkin (Molly’s Game). My vote would go to  Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter for The Disaster Artist.
  • Writing (Original Screenplay) – The nominees are: Guillermo del Toro and Vanessa Taylor (The Shape of Water), Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani (The Big Sick), Jordan Peele (Get Out) and Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird). This is probably the tightest category to be contested. Each of these stories is amazingly original. Therefore, I don’t have a single selection, they all are deserving.
  • Film Editing – The nominees are: Lee Smith (Dunkirk), Tatiana S. Riegel (I, Tonya), Jonathan Amos and Paul MacHliss (Baby Driver), Sidney Wolinsky (The Shape of Water), and Jon Gregory (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri). All very good, however the standout in editing goes to Lee Smith for Dunkirk. This is a story based film and not a character based film and because of this the editing makes this film engaging.
  • Directing – The nominees are: Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread), Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water), Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk), Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird), and Jordan Peele (Get Out). What is missing. To me there are huge gaps here. Margaret Betts (Novitiate), Kathryn Bigelow (Detroit), Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya), and Joe Wright (Darkest Hour) all had a great firm hand on their story's and told them with excellence. Out of the nominees, I’d vote for Christopher Nolan and Dunkirk because he made this event come alive. However, Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) got amazing performances from her cast.
  • Picture – The nominees are: Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, Phantom Thread, Get Out, The Post, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Shape of Water, and Lady Bird. All these pictures, except Phantom Thread (review in process) are films I loved to watch for different reasons. What is missing? I think Novitiate, Detroit, and Battle of the Sexes were deserving as well. However, Novitiate would be my candidate for replacing Phantom Thread which I didn’t really find likable or engaging. Who will win? My wish would be Dunkirk, Lady Bird, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri in that order. If Novitiate was in the mix, it would be a tie between it and Dunkirk.

Thank you for visiting my site. May you all Be Well...

Murder on the Orient Express

First Hit:  I was bored through and through.

I’m not a Kenneth Branagh fan and he doesn’t disappoint here. The whole film from the very beginning was over-done and confusing. The opening sequence is an elongated setup to prove that Hercule Poirot (Branagh) is the very best detective of all time. Solving a crime at the wailing wall where the accused, a priest, a Rabbi, and a Imam are accused of stealing an important object from where an icon stands in a temple. Of course, the world greatest detective pontificates in front of a huge crowd as he explains the story in excruciating detail and finally accuses someone else. The capturing of the real criminal in front of the crowd was too obvious.

His friendship with the director of the Orient Express train from Istanbul to Europe gets him a first-class accommodation on the train. There are numerous characters on the train; Bouc (Tom Batemen), Pilar Estravados (Penelope Cruz), Princess Dragomiroff (Judi Dench), Samuel Ratchett/John Cassetti (Johnny Depp), Hector McQueen (Josh Gad), Edward Henry Masterman (Derek Jacob), Dr. Arbuthnot (Leslie Odom), Caroline Hubbard/Linda Arden (Michelle Pfeiffer), Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), Pierre Michel (Marwan Kenzari) and a few others.

The murder of Samuel Rachett/Johnb Cassetti, one night in his cabin, sets Poirot off on finding out who killed him. This is where the film just sinks. It acts as more as a play than a mystery film. The pontificating by Poirot gets old very quick.

The train stopped, because of an avalanche, is supposed to make finding out who the killer is easier. However, everyone has a link to the murder of a young girl many years earlier by Cassetti and therefore everyone is vested in having Ratchett/Cassetti killed.

As Poirot puts the pieces together, the audience has to wait and wade through all the extraneous drama and storytelling.

The showdown scene where he’s going to name the killer Poirot stands in front of a long table with all the others on one side of the table facing him, just like the last supper. Really? This is so over done it becomes tedious just sitting there waiting for the end.

Yes, it is a matter of justice being served correctly and retroactively but the way we get here is a time waster. Branagh comes across as self-important both in the film and of the film. He just can't seem to get out of his own way. His poor direction makes him the standout actor and it’s noticeable. Pfeiffer was probably the best of the lot, as she had a strong role and delivered despite the direction. Depp was mediocre as the villain and he tries to do more with series of looks versus acting. Gad was OK as was the rest of the acting team. Michael Green wrote an Okay script. Given better direction and less Branagh egocentricity of having to be elevated above and separate from the role/film and rest of the cast, it might have been a better or more interesting film.

Overall: This movie was mostly “telling” versus “showing” and because of this, I just had to wait until it was over to leave.

Blade Runner 2049

First Hit:  Although this film was well shot and interesting in its context, I ended up not caring about the characters.

The original 1982 ‘Blade Runner’, projected our life in 2019. It was bleak and focused on the creation, use, and abilities of replicants. It left us with questions as to whether replicants could re-create. Given that we are developing robots, self-driving autos and other interesting things, we are not what was projected back then.  Given this, it is my guess that we won't be what this film says about 2049. The only caveat would be, we could be worse off than what is projected.

The original wasn't popular (gross sales) when it came out, however it did organically grow a larger and wide-ranging audience because of its questions, pacing and the way it was shot. It became more of a cult film that aged really well. In other words, as time went by, its positive qualities came forth and lasted. In that film replicants went back to Earth to find their creator and Rick Dekard (Harrison Ford) was sent back to kill these renegade replicants and in doing so, he started having questions of his own.

In this new version, again the languid pacing is in its own world, and because we have a history of this, it's expected. This makes this better understood in the first viewing. We are placed into the year 2049 and Los Angeles is this bizarre sort of world of real humans and replicants. If replicants can reproduce, then what use are humans? The story then, is about a Blade Runner “K” (Ryan Gosling) who thinks he’s found the remains of previously pregnant replicant and is tasked by his boss Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) to find out if this baby lived and destroy all evidence of its existence.

This is asked of him because there is a fear that there will be a war between humans and replicants. As he learns more about this person’s possible existence he learns more about his possible part of this evolution.

This film’s storyline isn’t easy to follow; however, one aspect is that K thinks he may have real memories, versus programed memories and he tries to validate this by official memory maker Dr. Ana Stelline (Carla Juri). He also speaks with the head of company that makes replicants Niander Wallace (Jered Leto).

Wallace is trying to program replicants to reproduce and in one scene, a fully grown and replicant reproduced woman drops onto a padded platform in the middle of an empty room. To make the point that this is a reproduced replicant, she arrives via a replica of an amniotic sac. Rather interesting and telling scene.

In search of his own beginnings, K then goes to San Diego which is a waste dumping ground, and speaks with Mister Cotton (Lennie James) who helps him put real context to a dream he has. Then he heads to a deserted and dust filled Las Vegas and finds Deckard (Harrison) hiding out with a rangy dog. At first Deckard doesn’t trust K that’s validated when all of a sudden others come to kill them both. Deckard is abducted by Luv (Syliva Hoeks) as a way to control the future.

However, K feels kindred to Decker and helps him escape. In the end, this film leaves the viewer with questions, as it's suppose to do, and makes one wonder if there will be one more film.

The music is a great part of this film. It enhances the sense, time, and etheric feeling of this film. The visual pacing is variable; however, the overall sense was, for me, too slow and pedantic. There were sections I wanted sped up or removed as the sense of the pace was already established and it was taking too long to develop and I was losing interest.

Gosling is strong is this type of role. His inner quiet and strength is what made him the right person for this part and he does it well. Juri is wonderful as the manufacturer of memories. Wright was good as K’s boss. Hoeks was strong as the steely person wanting to control what information gets out and what doesn’t. Leto is very good as the person creating the replicants. His otherworldly presence is felt. Ford was perfectly grumpy and irritated that his life was discovered and made more complicated by K. Ana de Armas as the hologram Joi was enticingly strong. James was excellent as the leader of the orphan kids in San Diego. The music by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch was a very strong part of this film. The mood, sets, and pacing by Denis Villeneuve was very strong under his direction. Hampton Fancher and Michael Green wrote the complex screen play that did a good job of moving the overall story forward.

Overall:  I struggled with the pacing, loved many of the sets, and thought the overall story was interesting enough to keep me engaged.

Logan

First Hit:  As a superhero movie, it's realistically dark and thoughtful.

Most superhero films are either tongue in cheek, lighthearted, go overboard on the superpower action, or all of these things. This film doesn’t do any of this. It is downright about the characters some who have superpower traits.

We have Logan (Hugh Jackman) as Wolverine who is aging, ill, and driving a limousine to make enough money for him and Caliban (Stephen Merchant) to take care of X-Men leader Charles (Patrick Stewart) who is dying. They are living out in the middle of nowhere and seem to be counting their days till they fade away and die. There haven’t been any new mutants born in the last 25 years and the clan is dying out.

However, a Dr. Rice (Richard E. Grant) has been experimenting with genetics on embryos and young children trying to create warriors/soldiers with superpower abilities. He's trying to create his own mutants. However, he's discovered that they have feelings and minds and cannot be controllable easily. He thinks he's got a way to make mutants that don't act on their own so he decides to kill all his previous experiments. Learning this, the young kids who are still alive, stage a revolt and escape.

Laura (Dafne Keen) is assisted by a nurse in the clinic and is in search of finding Logan because Laura has Logan's genetics and his wolverine superpower. The story is about how Logan helps Laura escape Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), Dr. Rice and a group of soldiers whose job is to kill all the remaining mutant children.

The effective parts of the story include strong acting by Jackman as a superhero whose both aging and slowly being poisoned by the adamantium (fictional metal alloy) that is imbedded in his body. The high-strung touchiness by which Logan and Caliban have towards each other while taking care of an ever-fragile Charles is indicative of their fading lives. The scenes are designed to breathe and nothing was rushed to show the strength of the mutant children, Laura, Charles, Logan, or Caliban. However, the ending fight was a little elongated and the men brought in to capture the mutants were too large an army to be believable.

From an acting point of view Jackman was perfect. It would be my guess that he’s probably glad to end his reign as Wolverine. He ends it with dignity which is a good thing because Marvel has let other characters in its stable get too far afield to enjoy or believe. Merchant was wonderful as Caliban with his ability to track and find. He made this role work. Stewart was wonderful and, like Jackman, is probably glad to have this role end because series like these can get too wildly convoluted. Grant was appropriately arrogant as Dr. Rice. Keen was mind-blowingly sublime. I loved her character and silence throughout the film until the end. She was totally believable. Holbrook as the soldier tasked with finding Laura was appropriately demonized. Scott Frank, James Mangold, and Michael Green wrote a very solid, strong and not overdone script. Characters could grow and develop which is rare in a superhero type film. Mangold did a wonderful job of directing this story and making it work.

Overall:  This was one of the best superhero mutant films on the books.

googleaa391b326d7dfe4f.html