The Current Wars: Director's Cut

First Hit: Although informative about three great men Edison, Westinghouse, and Tesla, the story wasn’t very compelling about how we electrified the United States.

Growing up, I believed that Thomas Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch) took Benjamin Franklin’s discovery of electricity and put it to use for all of us. I made the assumption that he alone brought electrical power to the people. I must not have paid attention in school, or the textbooks were wrong, or I was misled by my teachers. My guess was I wasn’t paying attention.

If the information in this film is correct, Edison’s pure genius was in the plethora of products he dreamed up and made real. The electric light bulb was probably his legacy, but he also made products like the phonograph and ways to see motion pictures. Both the phonograph and motion picture machine started as hand-powered units that eventually became electrified.

Yes, he did electrify sections of cities using his DC (direct current) generators and underground copper wires.But it’s limitations, including economics and distance shortcomings, were the downfall of his company to electrify whole cities.

On the other hand, George Westinghouse (Michael Shannon) decided to be Edison’s competitor by using AC (alternating current), which allowed him to provide electrical power over long distances inexpensively. The AC system was an invention of Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult), who sold it to Westinghouse. The perceived issue with AC current was that if improperly installed or used, it could harm or kill people.

Tesla first worked for Edison, but because Edison didn’t want to listen to the possibilities of AC power, Tesla left after a short period.

Tesla and Westinghouse worked together to bring inexpensive electrical power to all of the United States. And although each were inventors in their own right, it was Edison who invented many of the practical products we use today.

One of the sweetest parts of the film was when Edison tells Westinghouse about how he felt when one of his many experiments with the incandescent bulb worked. The power of trying and not succeeding. Then trying again and again was meaningful and enduring and beautifully shared.

The critical component of the film was the different personalities of these three men and how it affected their approached to work. When Edison breaks his much-touted promise to not bring harm to another human gets challenged, he’s heartbroken. Tesla was creative in how he documented his inventions. Westinghouse had an ability to look at the big picture and to methodically persevere.

Both Edison and Westinghouse had exciting and intense discussions with the dominant banker and financier J.P. Morgan (Matthew Macfadyen) about how to finance the electrification of cities and about the money they all could make on it through his support.

I thought many of the scenes were interestingly developed but faltered with less impressive follow-through. How did Edison really feel about his wife dying? Did the use of electricity to kill someone as corporal punishment advance this practice of putting people to death for crimes?

Cumberbatch was excellent in many scenes as Edison by bringing a single and driven focus to his work. But I didn’t have a sense of how he became this amazing inventor. Shannon felt a little miscast. He usually plays a darker character because of his looks and intensity; however, as Westinghouse he’s given to be more gentle in his words and actions and it seemed incongruent. Hoult was solid as Tesla, quietly working in the background pulling ideas out of thin air and creatively documenting them in his notebook. Macfadyen was terrific as the financier J.P. Morgan. His practicality and drive to support geniuses were well presented. Tom Holland, as Samuel Insull, Edison’s right hand man, was outstanding. His belief in Edison was well earned. Michael Mitnick wrote a thought-provoking screenplay that will have me do further research on how the US became electrified. Alfonso Gomez-Rejon did a good job of directing this film. I do think there were opportunities missed to delve deeper into the impact of these men and also their histories.

Overall: This was a solid film, but not great, and I think it could have been a great story to tell.

The Laundromat

First Hit: Confusing in presentation and often meandering away from the point, this movie fails in presenting how shell companies work to launder money and how this wrongdoing is hidden from governments.

This film attempts to teach and engage the audience about the art of laundering money through a story of tragedy, charts and graphs, and humorous vignettes. It fails on all three fronts.

Jurgen Mossack (Gary Oldman) and Ramon Fonseca (Antonio Banderas) are two flamboyant law partners based in Panama City who run a set of bogus insurance and reinsurance companies. These insurance companies scam others by taking their money, hide it, change documentation, and then legally never payout against the claims. They also have set up schemes of shell companies where money is hidden and moved around so that taxes are never paid on the money.

The human life stories they use include Ellen and Joe Martin (Meryl Streep and James Cromwell, respectively) who are in retirement and decide to go on a lake tour boat. The boat capsizes because of a rogue wave, and Joe dies along with several others. Ellen, as one of the survivors, expects a class action financial settlement from the tour boat company’s insurance company.

However, Ellen’s lawyer (Larry Clarke) discovers that the insurance company used by the boat tour company had sold the policy to someone else and that the timing issue means the boat company wasn’t insured.

The film spends a little time with the boat owner, Captain Paris (Robert Patrick), as he discovers from his employee Matthew Quirk (David Schwimmer) that he’d gotten a deal on the insurance, and that’s why he selected this company. The payments were going to a shell company (postal box) on Nevis Island in the Caribbean that is run by Malchus Irvin Boncamper (Jeffrey Wright).

Ellen, who is mad as hell, traces the payment scheme and goes to Nevis, hoping to recover a settlement and discovers that the address is only a postal box.

The film stupidly adds in stuff about how Boncamper has two families, one on Nevis and one in Miami. And he gets caught in this charade while being arrested in Miami by the federal government.

The story also adds in other drama about a wealthy man, from Africa, living in the US having an affair with his daughter’s college friend. Getting caught by the daughter, he bribes her to not tell her mother by giving her a company that’s supposedly is worth $20M. Because of a previous indiscretion that his wife knew about, this man had also given his wife a company. Angry at the bribe and tired of his shenanigans, the wife and daughter head to Panama City to visit Mossack and Fonseca and cash in their stock.

Of course, they discover that their companies are fake shell organizations, and the stock is worth nothing because the husband has transferred all the funds to his own companies.

There are ill-timed and confusing graphics thrown into the mix, and there are additional maudlin scenes of Ellen with her daughter and grandchildren in Las Vegas where Ellen and Joe had met. The whole Las Vegas segue could have been left out as it added little to the story.

This film suffers significantly from the beginning moments with Mossack and Fonseca in contrived scenes with them talking to the camera and attempting to explain financial schemes in horrible accents that make it even more muddled.

Streep is wasted and horribly underused in this story. Oldman is horrible. I’ve no idea of what he was attempting to represent because one moment he’s sitting in a beach chair and the next he’s pretending to be a lawyer using a perverse accent. Banderas was slightly better than Oldman, but not much. Wright was okay as the elusive representative of a fake insurance company. Schwimmer was OK as the relative and employee of the tour boat company that had looked to save them money on insurance premiums. There are nearly forty other actors playing roles in this story, but because the story is confusingly contrived, no one character is developed. Scott Z. Burns wrote a disastrous screenplay. Steven directed this, and it would have been interesting to better understand what was in his head. I was thrown from one ill-conceived scene to another while being interrupted with graphic explanations with poorly articulated voiceovers.

Overall: I learned little to nothing about shell companies and tax avoidance because the stories thrown up on the screen were poorly conceived.

Pain and Glory

First Hit: At times, this story of a filmmaker in decline was engaging.

At times I could begin to feel the pain of Salvador Mallo (Antonio Banderas) as he slowly moved about the confines of his home. Other times I didn’t sense the embodiment of pain at all. It felt inconsistent.

The film begins when Mallo has just been asked to talk to a group about a presentation of his movie “Sabor.” It is a 30-year retrospective presentation of this film for which he’d become famous and had received praise and recognition. We learn that he disliked the way the lead actor in that film, Alberto Crespo (Asier Etxeandia), made the main character. But having just seen it again after all this time, he ended up liking what Crespo did with the role.

Wanting Crespo to join him on the stage for the a Q&A about the film, Mallo reaches out to Crespo and asks to meet up with him. There were awkward moments at this first meeting in thirty years, but they become soothed when Crespo introduces Mallo to heroin. The drug eases his physical and inner pain along with his angst towards Crespo.

During Malo’s sleep and when he’s drugged up, the film flashes back to these moments when he was a boy, and we begin to learn something about this creative man and where his creativity comes from.

We see an early scene where Salvador is a young boy (Asier Flores), and he’s with his mother Jacinta (Penelope Cruz) in a train station after having left their home. They are waiting for Salvador’s father (Raul Arevalo) to come take them to their new home. They are tired, and he lies on the bench to sleep, while she lies on the floor. This is a sharp image early on in the film and is used again at the end.

The flashbacks include when his mother is much older (played by Julieta Serrano) and Salvador’s attempt to care for her. She uses guilt to have him attend to her as she wishes.

The story also explores his first love Federico Delgado (Leonardo Sbaraglia). Salvador gives Crespo a one-person play he’s written (Addiction), and when Federico happens to see it, he locates and calls Salvador. Their reunion is incredibly sweet.

There is also a flashback of Salvador teaching an adult young man, Eduardo (Cesar Vicente), how to read and write. These are beautifully choreographed scenes, especially when you see Salvador sitting with Eduardo, tasking him to work on his writing. 

 I’m not sure I understood Salvador’s relationship with Mercedes (Nora Navas) other than she was an actress looking for work and genuinely cared for Salvador. 

Many of the shots and scenes are beautifully presented, and then pull away at the end was clever and poignant. 

Banderas was good. I didn’t think he expressed his pain very well because there are scenes where he moves with a particular gait and then delivers a different opposing stride in another scene. I also wanted to better understand why he had this pain, both physical and mental. Etxeandia was excellent as the drug-addled actor. In his scenes where he’s performing the play “Addiction,” he was excellent. It was very moving. Sbaraglia was very strong as Salvador’s old friend and flame. Cruz was excellent as Salvador’s younger mother. Vicente’s performance as the young man whom Salvador teaches was excellent. Flores as young Salvador was terrific. He rebelled against going to school at a church because he hated the thought of being a priest. Pedro Almodovar wrote and directed this film. While watching this film, I kept thinking about how close this film is to being a biography. 

Overall: The next day, I wasn’t very impressed or impacted by this film.

Zombieland: Double Tap

First Hit: There are some wonderfully funny moments in this zombie spoof.

Ten years after the original Zombieland, the same characters are back, older, wiser, and ready to take on the ever-evolving zombies. To this end, the team talks about the three different types of zombies, but then they learn about the high powered zombies.

Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Columbus (Jessie Eisenberg), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) are still roaming the eastern part of the United States, taking what they want, living where they want, and killing all the Zombies that come their way.

The women are struggling with the men. Little Rock is feeling out of sorts because she’s running around with adults, and she would like to find people her own age. Wichita is feeling pressured by Columbus to get married. Adding to the women’s misery, Tallahassee thinks he’s the boss of this motley crew and spends most of his time tinkering with The Beast, the Gatling gun protected car.

Deciding to take residence in the White House, things come to a head. Little Rock and Wichita steal The Beast and leave a cryptic note for the men saying “so long.”

Wichita and Little Rock run into a young hippy they call Berkeley (Avan Jogia), who is a pacifist guitar-playing guy looking for Babylon. A place he says, where no guns allowed, and the compound is walled off to protect the residents from the zombies.

Columbus runs into Madison (Zoey Deutch) at a mall that he and Tallahassee are pilfering. She’s a dumb blonde who has been living in a freezer that keeps her safe from the zombies. She goes back to the White House with him and seduces him.

Little Rock leaves her sister Wichita to run off with Berkeley in search of Graceland and then maybe Babylon. Alone, Wichita comes back to the White House to ask Tallahassee and Columbus to help her find her younger sister. But as soon as she gets there, she confronts Columbus for sleeping with Madison so quickly after she had left.

Deciding to stay together, they head out to find Little Rock, fearing she’s making a mistake. The journey has them killing lots of zombies on their way to Graceland, thinking that is where Little Rock was headed. After seeing Graceland empty, they find the church of Elvis and find Nevada (Rosario Dawson) running the joint, alone. Ready to rest before heading out again, The Beast is run over and crushed by a monster truck driven by Albuquerque (Luke Wilson) and Flagstaff (Thomas Middleditch).

With Albuquerque and Flagstaff acting just like Tallahassee and Columbus, respectively, there are moments of great full-throated laughs through the one-ups-man-ship of these four guys. The back and forth is priceless.

The theme of this film is outrageous fun through gags and props. Some of the accessories are; The Beast, the suburban van, the motorhome, Babylon (pronounced by Madison as “Baby lon”), and who killed Bill Murray. Murray is shown in the opening minutes of the ending credits, stay for this. Even Elvis gets his due in this film.

Harrelson is hilarious. He uses sincere looks while going through his mood swings. But the underlying smirk of amusement and self-deprecating humor makes his performance thoroughly enjoyable. Eisenberg was excellent as the semi-cautious list-making member of this crew. Stone is terrific as Eisenberg’s love interest and older sister to Little Rock. Breslin has physically changed more than anyone of the other actors in this crew because she was very young in the original film. She carried her scenes with strength. Deutch was so much fun as the dumb blonde. She made this role work exceptionally well, and I enjoyed her as an addition to this team. Dawson was beautiful as the proprietor of the church of Elvis. Wilson and Middleditch were great as memes of Harrelson and Eisenberg respectively. The swagger of Wilson and the nerdiness of Middleditch were correctly done. Jogla, as Berkeley, the hippie, was OK. I just didn’t think he brought the same level of humor and fun to his role. Murray, in the credits, was excellent. Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, and Dave Callahan wrote a fun script. They didn’t try to make it too close to the first film and just let the fun be expressed in this one. Ruben Fleischer did an excellent job of directing this film with a loose fun-filled feel while keeping the story logical and moving.

Overall: This film was a great follow-up to the original.

Where's My Roy Cohn?

First Hit: Cohn was a despicable arrogant man, and I can see why he and Trump were good friends.

When Donald Trump asked out loud, “where’s my Roy Cohn,” he was fondly thinking about his past relationship and mentor Roy Cohn. Cohn was a former federal prosecutor who prosecuted the Rosenbergs’ in 1951 and then became assistant to Joseph McCarthy during the McCarthy communist hearings of 1954.

Regarding the Rosenberg trial, in one of the clips in this movie, he’s shown saying he would have liked to flip the switch to kill them both. His hooded eye look, when he talked, gave many people the sense and feeling that Roy was the devil, shady, to say the least.

In the McCarthy hearings, Joseph McCarthy and Cohn made names for themselves. Cohn and McCarthy were pathological in their intent that they alone were the defenders of our democracy. In doing so, they believed they needed to call-out and root out anyone suspected of being a communist sympathizer. They were focused on fear-based thought that the Soviets (Russia and the Soviet Union at the time) were going to destroy our government and our way of life. During these sets of hearings, they destroyed the lives of many people.

What we see as audience members are that both McCarthy and Cohn used the tactic of deflection of the truth with an alternative story to push attention on to something other than what needs to be focused on.

Although I was unaware of it earlier, the film also points out the McCarthy was a closet gay man. With Cohn also being a closeted gay man, the hearings also helped to deflect attention away from their own personal stories and struggles. Those stories also provided fodder for their downfall.

Reading the above, do you note how Trump uses the same pattern of deflection to steer attention away from his own wrongdoing? Yes, this is what DJT does, when he is caught up in something that is a detriment to himself, he deflects and pushes the subject towards something else. Additionally, throughout the film, Cohn is quoted and is shown saying he never apologizes or admits he is wrong about anything. Note the similarity to DJT?

When did DJT learn more about the effects of openly lying and deflecting away from the real story? Donald Trump and his father Fred met Cohn in 1973 when DJT and his father were being sued by the US Government for violating the Fair Housing Act. Cohn came to the rescue. Continuing the pattern of lying and deflection, the case was not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It was at this time, Donald and Roy became close friends, and for years Cohn worked with Trump to excoriate opponents of the DJT companies. Roy became Donald’s mentor.

The film spends time talking about his upbringing and his lifestyle. It showed him high from the full range of drugs he’d consume, but it was also always about creating a more prominent story somewhere else so that the attention to his own issues or behavior was not being scrutinized.

Cohn denied he was AIDS-stricken and until the end he publicly stated he wasn’t gay and that he didn’t have AIDS, although his friend Nancy and Ronald Reagan got him into specialized AIDS treatment programs.

I cannot imagine that he died with internal peace.

The only redeeming value brought up in the film about Cohn was that he was loyal to his friends. It was interesting to note that when he was finally disbarred from practicing law for his many illegal practices, his friends, including Trump, failed to show him support.

The documentary uses photos, news stories, and film/video clips of interviews with Cohn to document Cohn’s career.

Matt Tyrnauer directed this film chronologically and highlighted the salient points of Cohn’s life.

Overall: It’s no wonder Trump said, “where’s my Roy Cohn” when he admonished his Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not lying, covering up, or protecting him like Cohn. Cohn was a liar and thief, and as wrong as Sessions was, he wouldn’t go that far.