Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) * * * *

Directed by:  Martin McDonagh

Starring:  Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, Abbie Cornish, Peter Dinklage, John Hawkes, Lucas Hedges, Caleb Landry Jones, Clarke Peters

Three Billboards never ceases to surprise us.   Its characters zig when we expect them to zag.   We think we know how it will play out, but its depth, anger, humor, and truth blindside us.    Scene after scene gives us wonderful emotional or humorous payoffs, and sometimes more than one in the same scene.    The ending is a reconciliation of two characters who were miles apart in every way when the film opens, because Three Billboards allows its people to grow, to learn, and to recognize that limitations imposed by life don't necessarily need to be heeded.

Like last year's Manchester by the Sea, Three Billboards creates a tone of humor which reveals sometimes even the darkest aspects of human nature.    The people don't have to be predictable and act lockstep according to the situation.    There is wiggle room and we can't quite nail them down, which makes the experiences all the more absorbing.    The actors are more than up to the challenge, creating some of the best work of their careers.  

Three Billboards takes place in, you guessed it, Ebbing, Missouri.    Grief-stricken Mildred Hayes (McDormand) offers to rent three billboards on a little traveled road in town.    Why?    To advertise the lack of movement in the case of her daughter who was brutally raped and murdered on that road seven months earlier.     There are no leads and no evidence to link anyone to the crime, but that is of little comfort to her.    Her third billboard reads, "How Come Chief Willoughby?"   Chief Bill Willoughby (Harrelson) is naturally humiliated by Mildred's billboards while at the same time empathizing with her and frustrated over the lack of leads.    The case has gone cold, but Mildred won't let it stay that way.

The Ebbing police department is not a model department, which includes angry, alcoholic hateful racist Jason Dixon (Rockwell), who is pissed at Mildred about the billboards and harasses the advertising shop owner Red (Jones) to try and force him to take them down.     But, Mildred is not breaking any laws by calling out the police department and the law can be pesky sometimes in that it prevents cops from behaving like maniacs.    Or does it?    The simmering anger inside Dixon isn't interested in such trivial matters as the law, which is shown when his harassment of Mildred and the Red reaches dangerous proportions.    But Chief Willoughby is a good man who loves his family, and is dying from pancreatic cancer.     His future actions directly lead to unforeseen changes in some of the other people touched by them. 

The movie stops to examine the family lives of Mildred, who has a teenage son (Hedges) struggling with his sister's death and an abusive ex-husband who left her for a 19-year old girl.    If you think you know how this subplot will play out, think again.    Other people stand on the periphery, waiting for their chance to get involved, including a dwarf (Dinklage), who has a crush on Mildred and this payoff is another you don't see coming.

McDormand masterfully manages the imperfections of Mildred.    She is grieving, bitter, plain spoken and frustrated, although she might still be bitter and frustrated even if her daughter were still alive.    Yet, there is a scene in which she talks to a deer hanging around the billboards which touches us in ways we don't expect.     Her anger flashes out of control and causes her to make decisions she should not make and has no right to make, one of which has unintended consequences for Dixon.     The movie never asks us to condone all of Mildred's actions, but to observe them and to ask ourselves how we would react in her situation.     Would we be able to hold our tongue?    Or sit idly by?    Or move on?    It is a remarkable performance.  

Sam Rockwell has played nice people and others with weird streaks, but his Dixon is fully realized and goes through the most changes, all of which completely plausible and compelling.   It is a special performance.   Woody Harrelson is among our most dependable actors, but I'm not sure I completely expected the depth he shows here, especially as he reaches out from beyond the grave to change others with his blunt honesty.    You will see how.   Dixon especially transforms directly as the result of Willoughby's actions and what happens to him he almost treats as penance for past misdeeds.

I surely can't and don't want to spoil the surprises Three Billboards presents.    It challenges, inspires, and makes us laugh, wince, and cry.    Certain payoffs stab us like a dagger to the heart, while others grow out of life and observant humor.     After many months of pretty good movies, and one really good one (Wind River), we now have the best film of 2017 so far.    With only one month left in the year, I would be shocked to find a better one.  



  

Leatherheads (2008) * * *

 

Directed by:  George Clooney

 

Starring:  George Clooney, Renee Zellweger, John Krasinski, Jonathan Pryce, Stephen Root

 

Football was once played with no pads and leather helmets which likely did not prevent any head injuries.    A football player's shelf life was relatively shorter, I'm sure, but they dusted themselves off and played as long as possible.   It was a living.   George Clooney's Leatherheads takes place at the dawn of professional football, when the sport was fledgling and needed a commissioner appointed to crack down on trick plays, injuries, and unethical financial dealings.     It needed a wholesome star to get behind and the sport found it in Carter "The Bullet" Rutherford (Krasinski), a World War I hero who had an entire German battalion surrender to him.   That is his story and he's sticking with it.

 

Leatherheads stars Clooney as Jimmy "Dodge" Connolly, a player for the early 1920's Duluth Bulldogs  who doubles as the team's promoter.   Dodge cleverly employs the local newspaper to write laudatory stories about the Bulldogs...as dictated by Dodge himself.   But, the team and the league are struggling financially, so Dodge recruits Carter out of Princeton to play for the Bulldogs.    Carter, based on his war stories, is an immediate hit.    All seems well, until Chicago reporter Lexie Littleton (Zellweger) comes snooping around, sensing Carter's war record isn't what it seems, while engaging in mock hostility with Dodge, whom we all know will soon be her love interest. 

 

The movie itself scores no points for originality.   In fact, it is proud to be a throwback to screwball romantic comedies where everyone wisecracks liberally and all turns out well in the end.    The villains get their comeuppance and the couple we think will get together does.      What makes Leatherheads work is how much the actors clearly buy in.    Clooney is born to be a Cary Grant smoothie and plays it perfectly.    Zellweger is wonderful at playing a tough dame who doesn't make it easy for Dodge (or Carter) to win a spot in her heart.    But, when she falls in love, she does it very convincingly.    Krasinski is the straight man; naïve, goofy, and wide-eyed with an "aw shucks" expression permanently plastered on his face, even when he is fighting Dodge in a minutes-long fistfight which surprisingly results in no broken noses, black eyes, or even bruises.

 

Leatherheads captures the spirit of 1930's and 1940's comedies well, when such plotlines were considered fresh.   The movie maintains a certain goofy energy which makes it fun, and naturally slight.   But, you know what?  That isn't a bad thing. 

 

Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) * * *

Directed by:  Dan Gilroy

Starring: Denzel Washington, Colin Farrell, Carmen Ejogo

Like Nightcrawler (2014), writer-director Dan Gilroy's Roman J. Israel, Esq. gives us a professional on the fringes of his profession who crosses ethical lines in order to get ahead, or in Roman's case a piece of the good life which has eluded him.  Or maybe in Roman's case a measure of respect from colleagues who think he is a schnook.  Roman does not do much to dissuade their opinion.  He is socially awkward, with an Afro which screams 1960's social activist and not 21st century attorney, and wears a sports jacket two sizes too big and a suit which barely passes for one.  

Roman is played by Denzel Washington, who through his own charisma is able to make such an odd guy palatable.    And Roman is odd indeed, but possesses a savant-like legal mind.    As the movie begins, Roman is the behind-the-scenes attorney in a two-man Los Angeles law practice.  His partner is the face of the practice in court, while Roman writes briefings and motions.  One morning, his partner suffers a fatal heart attack and we see why Roman is kept away from a courtroom while filling in for his partner.  He tactlessly earns a contempt of court citation from a judge, while the practice is soon dissolved.   An associate of Roman's partner, a slick legal mind named George Pierce (Farrell), hires Roman and at first regrets the decision when Roman pisses off an assistant district attorney by rejecting a plea bargain which results indirectly in the death of a client. 

It is at this point where Roman stops toeing the line of legal ethics and dives into murkier waters.   I won't say how or why, but it here when Roman J. Israel, Esq. gains a plot and stops being strictly a character study.    We see Roman act "practical" as it puts it, but will this end well for him?    Unlike Nightcrawler's Louis Bloom, Roman is not a sociopath and maintains a conscience while doing things which are very un-Roman.    But he likes it when George begins treating him with respect and doesn't just keep him hidden away in a corner office. 

The events of Roman J. Israel, Esq. take place over three weeks, which strains the limits of credulity considering how much happens during that time.  It feels much longer.   But in the center of it all is Washington, who gives us a little more than just a nerdy man with tics and a weird wardrobe.  There is a sense of an ethical struggle mixing with a practical one.  "I'm tired of doing the impossible for the ungrateful," he tells George, whose own vision of his big-time L.A. firm may be going in the opposite direction.  I was impressed with Farrell, who takes a character we think we have figured out and unleashes a few surprises on us.    He paints George with broad strokes as a slick, rich, power-hungry lawyer, but we also see the nice touches of humanity peeking out from behind his expensive suits. 

The scenes between Roman and George are a study in opposites at first, but then they move toward more common ground.    They are the best things about the movie.    Roman gains a love interest, a civil rights activist named Maya (Ejogo), who allows Roman to reawaken her inner protester.    But, that relationship feels tacked on, as if we needed a love story thrown in right about now.     Roman J. Israel, Esq. moves along though and doesn't waste time.    We sense things will not end well for Roman and the movie works best when the noose caused by his own ethical lapses begins to tighten around him.    Roman J. Israel, Esq. is not a typical movie.   It is about an unusual character more than plot and the funny thing is, Washington attempts to dial down his charisma but it still shines through anyway.

Unforgiven (1992) * * * *

Directed by:  Clint Eastwood

Starring:  Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris, Frances Fisher, Jaimz Woolvett, Saul Rubinek

Clint Eastwood's Oscar-winning Unforgiven is not a simple Western in which a gunfighter kills bad guys.    There is a moral price to pay, either now or later, but the bill eventually comes due.    By the time of Unforgiven's 1992 release, Eastwood was long established as a movie icon and director.    Unforgiven made him an awards season favorite as well; with Eastwood walking away with Best Picture and Best Director Oscars for this film and twelve years later for Million Dollar Baby (2004).    Both films are thoughtful takes on genres we assumed were milked for all they were worth, but Eastwood adds moral complexities to the mix.   

Unforgiven opens in the 1880s Old West, with William Munny (Eastwood), a notorious former gunfighter and drunk, trying to eke out a living as a hog farmer.    He was once a feared gunman with a wicked streak, but then retired after marrying and having two kids.    The wife is now dead, but Munny tries to maintain his sobriety and keeps his guns gathering dust on the shelves.    "He ain't like that no more," he tells people, but is that truly the case?    A gun-toting bounty hunter dubbed "The Schofield Kid" (Woolvett), who hopes to kill off a group of men who abused a prostitute in the town of Big Whiskey, approaches Munny with an offer to join him in collecting the bounty.    Munny reluctantly agrees, because he needs the money, and in some humorous scenes, we see how out of practice he is in even mounting a horse.     But, we have the itching suspicion Munny will remember how to shoot when the chips are down.

As Munny is drawn back in to the life he had left behind a long time ago, he revisits old partner Ned Logan (Freeman) and persuades him to join the trek to Big Whiskey.   Ned himself is now retired and battling daily with his own conscience over men he killed in the past.    "We aren't like that no more, Will, we're farmers now," he tells Munny, but like Munny, farming isn't as lucrative as he would like.    The three ride on to Big Whiskey, which is ruled with an iron fist by the sadistic sheriff Little Bill Daggett (Hackman-in his Oscar-winning Best Supporting Actor performance).   Little Bill doesn't like the idea of bounty hunters coming to his town to stir up trouble and delivers a particularly savage beating to a bounty hunter named English Bob (Harris), who speaks of civility and culture in a world not quite ready for either.

We know what will happen as far as the plot goes, but what we aren't prepared for are the moral implications of killing someone.    Did the men deserve justice for their acts of violence?   Yes, but this brand?    In which they are brutally shot and in some cases while defenseless?    Unforgiven does not sidestep these questions.    The characters answer them for us, especially in Munny's realistic speech to a shaken Schofield Kid: "It's a hell of thing killing a man.   You take away all he has and all he is ever gonna have,"   Munny, Ned, and Schofield Kid all learn exactly where they stand when it is time to pull the trigger.   Two are unable to do it, while one tucks away his conscience to finish the job they started.   

There are moments of violence, but we aren't assaulted with them.    Blood doesn't spurt out from heads blown to smithereens.    Gunfights are savage enough and there are consequences to them.    We see the myth of the Old West being shaped by a writer (Rubinek), who tags along with Little Bill to mythologize the West by writing books which glorify murderers as seekers of truth and justice.    When Munny kills a roomful of men, he asks shamelessly, "Which one did you kill first?"    Munny is having none of this, telling the writer, "I know who I am going to kill last,"   This may be the first time the writer ever truly gazed into the inferno.

Beautifully shot and crisply edited, Unforgiven does drag a bit in the early going and at times, the movie pounds its point home a little too often.     In a way, though, Eastwood answers his earlier Western roles as "The Man with No Name" with a rebuke that is Unforgiven.    He suggests even those characters had to be alone with their thoughts at some point and those thoughts may not have been pleasant.     This isn't the first time Eastwood has done this.    When Dirty Harry (1971) was criticized for being fascist in its approach to criminals, Eastwood starred again as Dirty Harry in Magnum Force (1973), in which he plainly rebuffs the notion his character is a mindless instrument of violence.    Eastwood himself always instills his characters with an innate intelligence.    He is incapable of playing dumb and is fully capable of reflection.     He is quite a talent; efficient and minimalist both in front of the camera and behind it.   

Lady Bird (2017) * * *

Directed by:  Greta Gerwig

Starring:  Saorise Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts, Lucas Hedges, Beanie Feldstein, Timothee Chamalet, Stephen McKinley Henderson

If the first half of Lady Bird were as real, truthful, and absorbing as the second half, we would have a miracle here.    The opening scenes contain so many quick cuts we can never establish our emotional footing.    The movie is in too big a hurry to go someplace.     But, then it slows down and draws out the uniqueness of its characters.    We grow to love them for all of their faults and unexpressed emotions.    The family depicted in Lady Bird feels real, which is based on aspects of writer-director Greta Gerwig's teenage life.     The people are depicted lovingly, even if like most families, its members can grate on your nerves from time to time.

The Lady Bird of the title is 17-year-old Catholic high school senior Christine (Ronan), who demands to be called Lady Bird because, like many teens, she is looking to stand out from the crowd in some way.    By wanting to stand out from the crowd, she feels as ordinary, insecure, and afraid as everyone else, so Lady Bird is hardly unique.    Her strained relationship with her mother Marion (Metcalf) is not unique for many teens that age.    The two butt heads because they are probably more alike than they realize, but don't even attempt to suggest that to either party. 

Lady Bird tries out for the school musical, but only manages a small part in the chorus.    She falls for the lead actor, a nice guy named Danny (Hedges) who, if we didn't know better, one would assume is gay.   There are vibes.    Lady Bird's best friend is the portly Julie (the lovable Feldstein), but in a short time Lady Bird befriends the school's popular kids and leaves Julie in the dust.    Lady Bird is nowhere near as unique as she thinks she is, no matter what she dubs herself.    Marion and her recently unemployed father Larry (Letts) want her to go to a college closer to home for financial reasons.    Lady Bird wants to go to school in New York, mostly because it isn't Sacramento, which she dubs "the Midwest of California".    Maybe, maybe not, but there sure aren't any movie stars hanging around.

Lady Bird's second half is much more engrossing than the first half, which seems to be racing towards some sort of finish line we can't see.    Saorise Ronan, as she displayed in Brooklyn (2015), is the picture of youthful intelligence mixed with a dash of naivete.   She is stunned to learn she lost her virginity to a guy who lost his years ago.    She assumed, for whatever reason, he was also a virgin.    Isn't that how it is supposed to work?     Ronan is capable of expressing plenty of enchanting dualities, such as love/hate relationship with her family, her home, Sacramento, and just about everything else.    The more insecure Lady Bird feels, the more we want to hug her.   Not every actress can accomplish that.

As Lady Bird's parents, veterans Metcalf and Letts find just the right notes.   Larry is more or less stable despite being out of work, while Marion shoulders the breadwinning responsibilities and her awkward relationship with her headstrong daughter.    Metcalf's final scene at the Sacramento airport is so riveting and true, it is enough to land Metcalf a deserved Oscar nomination.     Letts' calm and more friendly relationship with Lady Bird provides a nice counterpart to Metcalf's passive-aggressive volatility.

I was so involved by the time the movie ended, I wish it tacked on another fifteen minutes, or at least dispensed with some of the earlier scenes.     The finished product is one which redeems itself as it goes along, but I left the theater glad that I saw the film, while almost regretting how great it could have been. 

Justice League (2017) * *

Directed by:  Zack Snyder

Starring:  Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill, Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, Ciaran Hinds, Jeremy Irons, Diane Lane, Amy Adams, Jason Momoa, JK Simmons, Connie Nielsen

If the Justice League and Avengers keep this up, there will be no more places left on Earth to annihilate.    They will have to start fighting evil on the moon or Mars.    Maybe Mark Watney from The Martian can help out if he's still on Mars when the next battle ultimately befalls the Red Planet.    I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas with that offhand comment.   

So, we have Justice League, the latest entry in the superhero movie universe, which whether DC or Marvel keeps recycling the same formula.     The plots are interchangeable.    An ultimate evil being invades Earth and needs some sort of box, or weapon, or item to fulfill their destiny of ruling the universe.    Poor Earth.   The universe is ever-expanding and one would assume may have intelligent life somewhere other than this planet, but all of the baddies keep trekking from wherever to wreak havoc here.     If these villains were as smart as they were ruthless, they would pick a planet where the Justice League or Avengers do not hang out.

As Justice League begins, Superman is still dead and Bruce Wayne/Batman (Affleck) recruits other heroes to fight impending doom in the form of Steppenwolf (voiced by Hinds), a total CGI villain who traveled to Earth to gather up three boxes with powers which would allow him to take over the universe.    He has other CGI minions which act as thingies for the Justice League to battle before taking on Steppenwolf in the main event.    If Steppenwolf will gather enough power to rule the universe, why does he need thugs?    What good are these thugs when Aquaman can kill one with when poke of his trident?   

The heroes are Wonder Woman (Gadot), The Flash (Miller)-who can whoosh through time and space faster than the speed of light, Aquaman (Momoa)-who rules the oceans, but is apparently amphibious too and has lots of tattoos, and Cyborg (Fisher)-a part human, part robot being who can....well, I'm not quite sure what he does.    I won't even pretend to explain.    But, he is there and Superman will make his eventual comeback in the most interesting subplot of the movie.     The movie at least slows down long enough for Superman/Clark Kent (Cavill) to have a tender moment with Lois Lane (Adams) and his mother Martha (Lane) and I mean one fleeting moment. 

Because Justice League crowds in all of these characters, there isn't a lot of time to care for anyone as an individual.    We are introduced to newcomers Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman, but they are quickly sucked into the fray.    I admired the actors for at least trying to punctuate their characters with a spark of humanity.    Maybe a standalone movie will flesh them out, but I may get exactly what I deserve by suggesting this and I may regret it.   

Justice League is a CGI frenzy with things blowing up and bodies flying around.    How exactly the Justice League figures out how to thwart Steppenwolf is anyone's guess.     One of the points I admired about Batman v. Superman (2016) is how it took time to be about something instead of mindless violence (except for the final 30 minutes).    Justice League ignores any of the dilemmas brought up by that film and doubles down on the mind-numbing noise and chaos.     We have a remote, abandoned nuclear power plant in Russia with only one family seemingly in danger from collateral damage, so the heroes and villains can plunder and destroy with mostly reckless abandon.  

My advice for superhero movies is to dial down on CGI, violence, fights, and try to be about something.    I enjoyed this summer's Spider-Man: Homecoming because it didn't think big and chose people over violence.    I'm at the age now where I've seen more than my fair share of movie action.    There isn't much more which can be done to make it fresh or interesting, while my mind goes on shutdown after overload. 

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) * * *

Directed by: Kenneth Branagh

Starring:  Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Penelope Cruz, Josh Gad, Leslie Odom, Jr., Daisy Ridley, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Derek Jacobi, Tom Bateman

Because I want to tread lightly and not give away spoilers, I feel free to compare Kenneth
Branagh's remake of Agatha Christie's classic whodunit to Sidney Lumet's 1974 film, which if I were reviewing I would give three and a half stars.     Albert Finney, who played Hercule Poirot in Lumet's version, thoroughly reveled in his role of the Belgian sleuth with a meticulous eye for detail and lies.  Don't say anymore around Poirot than absolutely necessary, because he doesn't miss a thing.    And he would never be shy about telling you of his brilliance.

Branagh's Poirot is more dramatic, less subtle, and even has a lost love whose picture he says goodnight to before dozing off for the night.    Who knew Hercule Poirot ever had a girl?    Branagh's facial hair is as wild as his acting flourishes, which isn't a bad thing.    The movies themselves are contrasts in style.   The murderer (or murderers) aboard the famed train in Lumet's version were killers alright, but they did it, with dare I say panache and a touch of class.    You have genuine movie legends like Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Wendy Hiller, Anthony Perkins, and Jack Warden in the cast.    No need to ruffle their feathers while trying to solve the perfect murder.    But, it is just that reserve which made Lumet's version so fun to watch.    Their feathers do get ruffled as much as they try not to show it and Poirot twisting the knife is devilish fun.

The cast in Branagh's version is more prone to raw passion and emotion.   Even the killing, when it is shown, is more violent and shot more frenetically, while the killer (or killers) in Lumet's version not only go about their business of killing more quietly, they helpfully explain their motives while doing the dastardly deed.    The victim here is Ratchett, played by Johnny Depp as a guy oozing secrets and sleaze.    You just know he is rotten through and through.    In Lumet's version, Ratchett is played by Richard Widmark, who at least attempts to provide his Ratchett with some attempt at a classy facade, so as to throw off everyone as to his wicked past.

No matter.   Ratchett is soon found dead in his train compartment with multiple stab wounds to his chest.    Poirot, who was looking forward to a relaxing train ride before his next assignment in Asia, is thrust into solving the case by Mr. Bouc (Bateman), the railroad company owner who doesn't want the bad publicity of an unsolved murder aboard his train.    The train is also snowbound by an avalanche, so all of the suspects (which is pretty much everyone) are trapped aboard and thus easy to interrogate for Poirot.   It's not like they have anyplace to go.

Branagh's method of interrogation is to relax his subjects into saying more than they should.    Extraneous personal information is used against them because Poirot, as he never tires of telling anyone, is the world's greatest detective and connects the dots quickly.    The plot did not count on Poirot being aboard the train, so improvisation becomes a tall order.    The cast in this film does not hold much in reserve.    There are allusions to current sociological issues, such as an interracial romance between Ridley's governess and Odom's doctor which they try desperately to hide.    We see various takes on religion and guilt, which plays a part in one character looking like she is just dying to spill the beans because her conscience can't handle the weight of the deed.   Poirot's conscience is also tested in critical scenes because Ratchett, as we learn, is a villain who got what was coming to him.    Does the justification excuse the crime?    Poirot painstakingly works his way through the ethics and logistics of the case, while Finney's Poirot was a smoother operator who played everything, including his conscience, close to the vest.

Trust me.   I have not revealed any spoilers.    I saw the 1974 version several times, so I knew how the movie would end barring a swerve which would have been delightful.    I watched this version to see how a different, yet no less talented cast, would handle the same material.    They play it differently, much like a singer puts his/her spin on an old classic, but they still are effective.    Branagh makes much use out of beautiful cinematography and what looks to be part CGI to make the mountains the Orient Express travels through much more foreboding.    We even see a little of Poirot's quirks, which border on OCD.    But mostly, we see a retelling of Christie's book and Lumet's film adaptation done well, with perhaps more raw emotion which makes Branagh's take seem more contemporary. 

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) * *

Directed by:  Taika Waititi

Starring:  Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Karl Urban, Jeff Goldblum, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tessa Thompson

Thor: Ragnarok is slightly superior to its predecessor Thor: The Dark World (2013) and injected with more humor and levity, not that it helps much, since the cookie-cutter superhero plot involves yet another being with superpowers trying to take over the universe.    If my science is correct, the universe is supposedly ever-expanding, so who in their right mind would want to rule it all?    Who wants that headache?    And who in the business of wanting to take over things would want to leave herself with no more worlds to conquer?    

Yet, here we are, with a third Thor standalone movie which at least infused Chris Hemsworth with some one-liners and expanded the character a bit.    He actually laughs and cracks jokes in Thor: Ragnarok, which is somewhat better than reciting platitudes about duty, honor and courage.    The God of Thunder is at least a little more than a one-dimensional god who wields a mighty hammer.    He will need it against Hela (Blanchett), the oldest daughter of Odin (Hopkins) who returns to destroy her homeland in a way previously prophesized.     Thor enlists his on-again, off-again enemy Loki (Hiddleston), scavenger Brunnhilde (Thompson), and eventually, the Hulk/Bruce Banner (Ruffalo), whom Thor must battle first in an arena.    I won't recap how that happened, but the movie spends so much time with this subplot we forget Hela is plotting to destroy Asgard.   

The actors have more of a ball with the material than previous Thor films.    Blanchett is an alluring, seductive, and sufficiently hateful villain, while Loki approaches these events with equal parts mischief and bemusement.    His allegiances shift on a dime, which grows tiresome after a while.    Make Loki a villain or a hero and have him be that person.    Hemsworth is surely a great physical presence and at least is allowed to have some fun.     Doctor Strange (Cumberbatch) shows up for a cameo, but like his movie from one year ago, his presence left me confused.   

Hulk is also allowed to utter some dialogue, which provides him with more character than before, while his character (and the movie for that matter) is one big CGI explosion.    Masses of people share the screen with explosions, noise, and semi-coherent action.    Even if Hela were successful in defeating Thor, her task of eradicating her homeland was practically completed for her anyway.    There aren't many citizens of Asgard apparently, since they are all able to fit onto a smallish spaceship, like an intergalactic Noah's Ark.

Thor and company will return in the looming Avengers: Infinity War, which is supposed to combine the Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and every other Marvel character written since Stan Lee decided to draw up his first comic book.    And here I am thinking Thor: Ragnarok has extraneous subplots and characters already.    The next Avengers movies might cause a full brain meltdown. 

Daddy's Home 2 (2017) * *

Directed by:  Sean Anders

Starring:  Mark Wahlberg, Will Ferrell, Mel Gibson, John Lithgow, Linda Cardellini, John Cena

It is faint praise, but Daddy's Home 2 is slightly better than the original, which saw a stepfather and biological father battling it out over who is the more appropriate daddy in their children's lives.    The sequel adds each guy's respective fathers to the mix, which bumps the laugh quotient up a little bit, but falls back on slapstick gags which are perhaps more elaborate, but not funny nonetheless.    The movie doesn't have enough faith in its premise to wring out laughs out of truth or human nature, so let's have an out-of-control snow blower wreak havoc on the Christmas decorations.    Or one guy pelted by not one, but three snowballs.    Slapstick doesn't equal laughs as much as desperation.

As Daddy's Home 2 opens, Dusty (Wahlberg) and Brad (Ferrell) seem to have the co-parenting thing down pretty pat.    Christmas is approaching, however, and the kids dread having to spend Christmas at both houses, so they all plan to spend Christmas together.    Yay.   But throwing a monkey wrench into the happy plans is the arrival of Kurt (Gibson), Dusty's largely absent, macho dad who mocks Dusty's and Brad's partnership at every turn.    Further complicating matters is the arrival of Don (Lithgow), the overly sweet and sensitive father of Brad, who greets his son with a mouth to mouth kiss.   Kurt assesses the situation and determines to drive a wedge between Brad and Dusty through a series of machinations too laborious to be recapped here.

The whole crew, including the kids stuck in the middle and Brad's and Dusty's spouses all trek to a winter cabin rented by Dusty and the hijinks ensue.    The plot doesn't contain any surprises except what object will be used to pelt someone in the face.    Dusty and Brad are soon at each other's throats and the arrival of the biological father of Dusty's stepchild (Cena) seems like overkill in a movie already teeming with too many characters and subplots.

The movie's laughs belong to Gibson and Lithgow, two self-contained actors and characters who find a way to rub off on each other anyway.    We wish everyone else would get out of the way so we can watch them do their thing, but the movie cuts back to the unconvincing rekindling of the feud between Dusty and Brad, while everyone else scrambles for their fleeting moments in the sun.   All is resolved on Christmas Day at a movie theater crippled by a power outage in which the characters engage in a puzzling version of Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas?", which plays a part in one of Dusty's childhood regrets.    If you really, really want to know how, go see Daddy's Home 2.    I could tell you and save the price of admission, which also may save you from a slog of forced slapstick.    If you like that sort of thing, however, you will get mad at me and we wouldn't want that.  
Maybe Daddy's Home 3 will follow Don and Kurt around and leave everyone else home.   Now that would be an interesting comedy to see.

Beverly Hills Cop (1984) * * *

Directed by:  Martin Brest

Starring:  Eddie Murphy, Judge Reinhold, Ronny Cox, Steven Berkoff, Lisa Eilbacher, John Ashton, Gil Hill

Axel Foley (Murphy) is a hotshot Detroit cop with a penchant for doing things his way, which gets him tongue lashings from his superiors.    After a friend is murdered in front of his apartment, Axel traces the case to Beverly Hills, where he butts heads with a police force which does things way too by-the-book for Axel's liking.    Beverly Hills Cop is a swift, funny actioner which relies heavily on Murphy's comic timing and charm.    He is genuinely amused by the stuck-up, affluent rich folks who strut down Rodeo Drive, but is also a fairly convincing action hero.  

There isn't much new in the fish-out-of-water story which was originally slated to star Sylvester Stallone, who dropped out probably to make Rhinestone or perhaps some other lesser movie.    Murphy is the more proper fit for the material so it works.    The sequels, released in 1987 and 1993, focused more heavily on slick action and weren't bad, just not entirely necessary.    But, you know how it is with Hollywood and unnecessary sequels to hit comedies (see The Hangover).

The movie opens with Murphy involved in a long chase through Detroit's streets in which dozens of cars were destroyed and property damage costs would rival those from natural disasters.    Foley is chewed out by his boss, Inspector Todd (Hill), who in real life was a former cop and Detroit politician.    His only three movie credits were the Beverly Hills Cop series and he was a highlight; creatively and comically chewing out Foley in equal parts exasperation and yet, a twinge of love and respect for the young man.   

There are plenty of shootouts, fights, and chases to satisfy those looking for action, (as well as an unconvincing stunt double for Murphy whose moustache is entirely too thick), but I preferred the smaller scale comedy in which Murphy pokes fun at the rich, worms his way out of one tight spot after another, and chuckles at the stiffness of the Beverly Hills cops assigned to tame him.    The cops, played by Ashton and Reinhold, have some nice comic scenes of their own, such as when Reinhold informs Ashton of the dangers of red meat.   

Beverly Hills Cop is too standard to be listed among the truly great Murphy comedies, but it is among his most famous roles.     Murphy is certainly funny here, but never allowed to transcend into a performance which shows us his many comic gifts.     The movie was happy to be an action comedy and on that level, it does the job. 

48 HRS. (1982) * * * *

Directed by: Walter Hill

Starring:  Eddie Murphy, Nick Nolte, James Remar, Annette O'Toole, David Patrick Kelly, Frank McRae, Brion James, Sonny Landham

The plot of 48 Hrs. is nothing new.   It wasn't even original back in 1982, but the movie successfully worked the formula and spawned an entire generation of cop buddy movies.  In this case, one of the buddies is a convict, but the idea remains the same.    What separates 48 Hrs. from its imitators is the Murphy/Nolte chemistry and the wattage pumped up really high.    The movie hums along, with very few slow spots, and then of course Murphy shakes down a redneck bar while posing as a cop, and a movie star was born. 

Nolte is San Francisco cop Jack Cates, a dog-tired, cynical, borderline alcoholic on the trail of slimy, sadistic thief Ganz (Remar), who broke out of prison and killed Cates' partner in a shootout.     Desperate to catch Ganz, Jack enlists the help of convict Reggie Hammond (Murphy), Ganz' former partner who is six months away from completing a three-year prison sentence.    Jack arranges for Reggie to leave prison on a 48-hour pass to team up and catch Ganz and Billy Bear (Landham), who wields a knife similar to the one Crocodile Dundee used.

Despite a mutual goal, Jack and Reggie do not get along, hurling a variety of racial slurs and insults at each other, but of course, they develop a truce followed by respect and maybe even friendship.    We know Jack is a curmudgeon, but a good guy at heart.    Reggie is a slick criminal, but with a strong sense of humor and streetwise toughness.    They make a strong team, while Remar and Landham play sufficiently brutal bad guys.  

The movie's most famous scene is Reggie tearing up an all-white redneck bar with Confederate flags adorning the walls.    Using sheer verbal force, assertiveness and personality, Reggie obtains the information he needs while completely intimidating the clientele.    Think of Popeye Doyle rousting a Harlem bar in The French Connection, only funnier and meaner.    Even Jack is amazed.  

It is a pity we haven't seen much of Eddie Murphy lately.   By the early 2000's, he shifted gears towards a string of mostly mediocre family-friendly films which highlighted Murphy's likability while muting his humor.    Save for a little-seen 2016 movie called Mr. Church, Eddie Murphy has been mostly absent from the big screen for half a decade.   I miss him.   Watching 48 Hrs. again recently made it abundantly clear why. 

LBJ (2017) * * *

 

Directed by:  Rob Reiner

 

Starring:  Woody Harrelson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jeffrey Donovan, Bill Pullman, Richard Jenkins, Michael Stahl-David, C. Thomas Howell

 

With HBO movie "All The Way" starring Bryan Cranston in his Emmy-nominated role still fresh in people's minds, LBJ may seem redundant, but it is a more spry, livelier look at the former President.   All The Way featured a spot-on performance by Cranston, but it tried to cover too much ground and bogged itself down.    LBJ sets its sights on Johnson's pre-Kennedy political career and how Kennedy's assassination thrust a politically dead Johnson suddenly into the Presidency.    The film is buoyed by an energetic Woody Harrelson performance.    He wouldn't be the first actor you think of to play Lyndon B. Johnson, but he was a correct one.  

 

Harrelson infuses Johnson with a never-say-die attitude.    He knows the angles and how to play them.    He may have been Texas born and bred, but he was able to talk plainly to the Kennedys while working compromises in order to help Kennedy pass his Civil Rights Act, which LBJ ran to the finish line when it was signed into law in 1964.    LBJ and the Kennedys were opposites, which the movie repeatedly underlines, but we see Johnson still fighting for political relevance and a slim possibility of running for President in 1968.    His belief was Kennedy was set to be an eight-year President, but that belief was shattered on November 22, 1963.  

 

Johnson was faced with an unprecedented outpouring of grief over Kennedy's death, while trying to move the business of government forward.    Johnson was, as LBJ documents, a master of walking the tightrope over political disaster.    He opposed Kennedy in the 1960 primaries, but Kennedy's media darling status made him a virtually impossible candidate to beat.    To everyone including Johnson's surprise, Kennedy asked him to be his running mate as a way to solidify the Southern vote.

When in the White House, Johnson is made chairman of committee on racial inequality which no member of the cabinet takes seriously and by the fall of 1963 is in no man's land politically.    Johnson feels, not unreasonably, he was pushed aside by machinations set in motion by Robert Kennedy (Stahl-David).     Through it all at Johnson's side is Lady Bird (Leigh), who is there to comfort him in his rare moments of vulnerability.    It seems almost a waste to have a fine actress like Leigh relegated mostly to the sidelines save for a couple of key scenes.    Her intimate moments with Lyndon are among the best in the film, but there aren't enough of them.

LBJ sinks or swims on Harrelson and he is up to the task.    The movie shows us how Johnson rose from the Washington political scrap heap to carry on Kennedy's legacy through toughness, resourcefulness, and not being afraid to get his hands dirty.    We see him wheel and deal with his lifelong friend Senator Richard Russell (Jenkins), a hardline Southern Democrat, which means he was also a staunch segregationist.     It is interesting to bear witness to how Johnson, in his plainly spoken way, understood why the Civil Rights Act was necessary and, after nearly 100 slaves since the slaves were freed, its time had come.    We also learn in the epilogue how Johnson got Medicaid and Medicare off the ground.    Not bad for a guy who had resigned himself to being an eight-year vice president. 

                       

 

 

Bobby (2006) * *

Directed by:  Emilio Estevez

Starring:  Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, William H. Macy, Shia LaBeouf, Brian Geraghty, Laurence Fishburne, Nick Cannon, Christian Slater, Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Ashton Kutcher, Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, Joshua Jackson, Anthony Hopkins, Harry Belafonte, Heather Graham, Joy Bryant, Freddy Rodriguez

There is a stirring movie to be made about Robert F. Kennedy's ill-fated 1968 Presidential run which stirred hope and idealism in Vietnam War-torn America, only to end with Kennedy's assassination in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles .    This is not that movie.    Kennedy himself is only featured in Bobby in archive news footage and leaves a more lasting impression than any of the fictional characters writer-director Emilio Estevez chose to focus on instead of Kennedy.

Bobby bogs itself down in an endless loop of interlocking stories all taking place in the hotel on June 5, 1968, hours before Kennedy was fatally shot by Sirhan B. Sirhan.    There are entirely too many stories, too many characters to keep straight, and nowhere near the emotional tug a backdrop like Bobby deserves.     We lose track of what is going on as the movie hurries to touch all of its bases, which some characters receiving short shrift and other stories which go nowhere.  

Bobby becomes a "Wait, there's..." movie as we recognize each of the famed actors logging their first onscreen appearance.    I start to figure out their connections to each other in my mind as opposed to becoming immersed in their stories.    Martin Sheen is Estevez' father, of course, but Fishburne co-starred with Sheen in Apocalypse Now, while Demi Moore co-starred with Estevez in two films and was once his fiancée, while Moore's real-life husband at the time, Ashton Kutcher, shows up as a completely irrelevant drug dealer.    It's as if Moore put in a good word for her husband and Estevez shoehorned in a small role for him.    There are numerous connections to be sure, all of which are likely more interesting than the stories they star in.

The film captures its sense of time and place well with the aura of Kennedy's spirit pervading the hotel as the staff makes preparations for his arrival.   All of the characters will play some role in the events to come, but we don't care so any emotional impact is lost.    When Kennedy himself appears, albeit in the form of a double seen from behind while Kennedy's front is seen in the archive footage, the movie perks up slightly, if only because we know what will come.     I found this technique curious.    Why not have an actor play Kennedy?    Why the distracting editing?    Did Estevez blow his budget on hiring all of these well-known actors for cameos, so he wasn't able to afford anyone else?

The performances are fine, to be sure, but to what end?    The assassination scene and its aftermath of shock, grief, and suddenly lost aspirations of a better America are effective, but they beg the question why Estevez didn't focus his efforts more on Kennedy himself and cut out some of the extraneous subplots, which would likely be all of them.

Superman (1978) * * * *

Directed by:  Richard Donner

Starring:  Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, Margot Kidder, Jackie Cooper, Terence Stamp, Jeff East, Marc McClure, Valerie Perrine, Ned Beatty, Susannah York, Glenn Ford, Phyllis Thaxter

Superman is a joyous film.    Casting is everything and Christopher Reeve was, and remains, the perfect Clark Kent/Superman.     The recent Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman chose to show Superman as a nearly expressionless bore.    He takes no joy in what he does and seems oppressed by the weight of his own story.    If you can do something which no one else can do, such as run faster than a locomotive or leap tall buildings in a single bound, then isn't it kind of cool?     The 1978 version of Superman, and to an extent its next two sequels, understood this.    

We see the origins of Kal-el, who was born on Krypton to Jor-El (Brando) and Lara (York), and is sent away just before the planet explodes into oblivion.    His spaceship lands on Earth in the cornfields of Smallville, Kansas, where his adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent (Ford and Thaxter) stumble upon him and immediately recognize his great powers.    They teach Clark to keep his powers under wraps, mostly because they fear the world would not understand them.    However, soon Clark grows curious about his origins and treks to the North Pole, where a glorious ice palace called The Fortress of Solitude awaits him.    It is here he learns of his past and understands his purpose.    He leave the fortress as Superman, while keeping his superhero alter ego carefully hidden under nerdy, klutzy Clark Kent persona.

Superman fights crime, saves his co-worker Lois Lane (Kidder) from falling off the Empire State Building (she doesn't know he and Clark are one and the same), and soon encounters the dastardly zillionaire Lex Luthor (Hackman), who plans to use an atomic bomb to explode and sink half of California into the Pacific while cleaning up on the remaining real estate which he owns.    Yes, Lex Luthor doesn't want to rule the world just yet.    He has modest goals, which is to become a multi-zillionaire real estate mogul.

You may ask how come Lois Lane, who is supposed to be an ace reporter for The Daily Planet in Metropolis, can't tell Clark and Superman are the same man.    Clark sports glasses and wears his hair differently, but there is more.    Clark is such an affable putz there is no way Lois could ever mistake him for the buff, confident Superman.    Lois falls for Superman (and vice versa), while Clark has to pretend to be jealous.     The movie has fun with this "love triangle" as we see sly looks and smiles from Clark which serve as a wink to the audience.     Clark knows exactly what he's doing behind the hapless façade.

Gene Hackman is among the first movie villains who has all the fun.    He engages in hilarious byplay with his dim-witted assistant Otis (Beatty) and his sultry girlfriend Miss Teschmacher (Perrine), who is all in with Lex and his evil scheme...up to a point.   They live in a plush, modified underground train terminal.     She distresses at having a Park Avenue address 200 feet below street level.    "Do you know how much they are shelling out up there for a few measly rooms off a common elevator?", Lex reasons.    He is so busy making us laugh we occasionally forget he is the villain, until we see the sinister evil twinkle in his eye and his plot to destroy half of the West Coast.

Much was made of Brando's $5 million dollar salary (which was considered astronomical at the time) and he is in the movie roughly fifteen minutes while receiving top billing.     He shot scenes for the sequel which were edited out after the producers' dispute with director Richard Donner caused him to leave the project.     Good news though:  Brando's scenes can be seen in the special Richard Donner cuts of Superman and Superman II, which were filmed at the same time.    Donner doesn't rely heavily on visuals to create the world of Superman.    He prefers to keep it mostly grounded with humor and insight.

It became cool in the early 2000s for superhero films to give us scene after scene of painful soul searching from the hero; performing their daily wars against evil as more of a chore than a pleasure.   Where did Spider Man find the time to battle the Green Goblin when he is so busy looking perplexed and deep in thought?    Superman chooses its spots well in showing us the human side of Superman, especially when his loved ones perish and he, as an immortal, can only stand by and watch it happen.    "All of these things I can do.   All of those powers.   And I couldn't even save him," Clark says at a funeral in his teens, which thoughtfully provides him the impetus to do what he does in the climactic scene to save the life of another loved one.     Even though we have been inundated with countless superhero films and cinematic superhero universes, Superman remains among the very best of the genre.