Funny Face

This movie starts from the preposterous notion that dressing Audrey Hepburn like an Albanian peasant somehow hides the fact that she is perfectly exquisite. Don’t worry—they get over their misapprehension soon enough. From there you get a healthy dose of Hepburn in all her usual glory—appearing glamorous, laying on the charm, and even singing and dancing in mock bohemian-beatnik style—not to mention plenty of Parisian beauty and joie de vivre. Plus you get to watch a delightful performance from Fred Astaire, who reminds the viewer that even this late in his game he still brought plenty of charm and dash to his role. Sure, the musical numbers are somewhat dated at this point, and I must admit my usual lack of enthusiasm for dance set pieces—but the film as a whole gives ample reason for one to enjoy its fun and clever humor and romance. Such simple pleasures may no longer be fashionable, but quality moviemaking is always in season. 

The Cocoanuts

Vaudeville is dead. At least in cinema it is. Some of today’s concert dog and pony shows can trace their roots to that antediluvian entertainment format, more so than most people today can imagine. But in movies it’s as dead as the proverbial doornail. And this movie shows why it had to go. That’s really what this movie is: filmed vaudeville. It presents a series of staged set pieces, some of them musical numbers of forgettable character, others comedic bits that are hit-and-miss as far as the funny goes. That’s rather surprising, given all that the Marx Brothers would eventually accomplish in later films, but here only some of the comedy hits the mark. It is also fair to say that the movie’s pacing is too slow, and the story does not generate enough interest to hold the viewer’s attention. Frankly, I got bored with this film before it reached its climax. All of those flaws probably didn’t matter much to audiences in 1929, who were simply astonished that actors in films could actually talk—but for those of us left here today, it all adds up to less than what we would hope to see. This film stands largely as an historical document, a work that shows how a classic group’s career arc started, but hardly the team’s best effort. Speaking of history, one item worth noting is how much of the plot—such as it is—revolves around grifters and shady business dealings, i.e., selling swamp land in Florida. It may be comforting, perhaps, in these days of the reign of The Great Bezzle, that it has ever been thus—and thus perhaps better times could come again. One can wish. As for the Marxes, one mostly wishes for viewers that they focus on later, better efforts than this one. 

Song Sung Blue

There’s a reason why jukebox musicals are so popular on Broadway lately. You take a roster of songs that are proven popular and build a narrative around them and you have a show that will please a crowd. The value of such a production, beyond the nuts and bolts of the music’s appeal, thus boils down to what the story has to say. In this case, the message here that comes through loud and clear is that, while there may be an overclass of famous people who receive the lion’s share of the attention and affection in this world, there are all sorts of other people—obscure and unknown and often overlooked—for whom we should be rooting just as hard. Maybe even more so. The characters of Mike and Claire are so authentic and worthy of compassion that it’s hard to imagine anyone not feeling a desperate desire to see them succeed. That’s why the story’s ups and downs have such a profound impact, almost to the point that they nearly overwhelm the viewer’s power to endure them (even if the events depicted run right up to the brink of believability). Ultimately, though, the tale achieves a balance that is more redemptive than discouraging. And, if nothing else, you get to hear some amazing music. I’m a believer, at least enough to recommend this one. 

Mean Girls (2024)

You hear a lot lately about how high school kids are different these days, how all the cliques and stratification and such are no longer the norm in that milieu. Well, if that’s true, the people who make movies and musicals have not caught up to the current secondary school zeitgeist. There’s a remarkable amount of overlap between this story and that ultimate expression of the teenage dramascape, Heathers—which first came into being way back in 1987. True, this work is the derivative of a musical that was based on a movie of the same name from 2004, so perhaps it has a permission slip for being behind the times socially. Or, maybe just maybe, things have never really changed all that much. Whatever the case, this film offers a distinct and enjoyable take on the familiar story of a new girl who tangles with the local power base, here set to a musical score that mostly works, with several strong songs and only a few minor misses with a couple of numbers. The script offers a generous dose of genuine laughs, while the performances of the young ladies are generally first rate (not to mention that the Plastics are gorgeous, which certainly helps the viewer maintain interest). Ultimately, the tale ends with its heart in the right place, all while presenting just enough divergence from the original story to give the new version a sense of being at least a bit fresh. I don’t know if today’s teens really are more accepting and compassionate than they used to be, or if the meanness still reigns, but at least in cinema the genuine still trumps the plastic. 

Wicked: For Good

It’s a wonder that Baum stopped with the money supply. The impression from watching this continuation of the story is that the cultural relevancy of the foundational work is even more profound than a first glance tells. It’s all in here, and explicitly so: the social, political and personal themes that populate this split movie’s first half stand out even more in this denouement. Indeed, it’s rather astonishing how much the writers of the script could pen lines of dialogue that evoke (before the fact) specific parallels to current events and consternations. Again, it really says something that this story and its elements could be reborn and repurposed—from original incarnation (book series, then a classic movie), to another book, to the stage, and then to screen again—to say something old yet new. That whole process was helped immensely by wonderful casting, particularly in the leads (though Ariana Grande is distractingly skinny, to the point where you want to shove a donut or two into her mouth). As before, the visual design is comprehensively delightful, while most of the songs are superb. This is the whole package, a truly impressive accomplishment. Wizardry without humbug, for sure. 

The Wizard of Oz

No, I didn’t try the Dark Side of the Moon thing; maybe next time. It’s an astonishing fact that, until now, I had never watched this movie all the way through from start to finish; I had only seen pieces of it here and there. Now I can report that the effort is well worth it. The story is a marvel, chock full of fun and pleasure, interesting symbolism, and more than a bit of old-fashioned wisdom. From a visual standpoint the film is hard to beat, even at this late stage. The look of everything holds up remarkably well, and that moment when Dorothy opens the door and step out of the sepia into that technicolor dreamscape is pure magic. Judy Garland is terrific as Dorothy, even if she was a tad old for the role (the character comes across as somewhat younger than the teenager Garland depicts). The supporting cast performs admirably throughout, including Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch, and Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley as the Scarecrow, the Lion, and the Tin Woodsman, respectively, perform perfectly in their roles. And that’s not just in the acting—they nail it in the singing and dancing, too. The musical numbers throughout are great, and the score perfectly complements the action, with “Over the Rainbow” serving not just as the lead number but also as the primary musical theme as well (with a touch of help from Mussorgsky’s Night on Bald Mountain at the Witch’s castle). It is all a delightfully rich tapestry, one that has grown over time to be one of the most beloved movies ever, and deservedly so. It is worth noting that this film is thoroughly within the realm of fantasy stories, even given its literary roots (with the book’s symbolic agenda of critiquing the then-current economic structure), and that that genre has always come in for its share of criticism and outright dismissal from those who pretend to be intellectually superior—yet, it is this fantasy tale that has endured and continues to have cultural relevance, while less whimsical works like, for instance, Dark Victory (another 1939 academy award nominee) is hardly remembered these days. Maybe stories that see the world in more colorful dimensions truly are the ones that inspire us the most. Something to think about the next time you feel like watching or reading the latest work about modern suburban angst or some such thing. As for me, I’ll gladly go over the rainbow to bring a bit of brightness to my own angsty life. 

Moana 2

Part of the problem is quickly apparent: this story feels rushed, like it was not given any chance to develop organically. Instead, the tale is presented more as a “plot accompli” based on presumed prior knowledge, clumsy explication, and prioritizing cultural instruction. Indeed, a lot of the early part of the movie is like the world’s most highly-produced sensitivity training workshop video. You get the feeling that, unlike with the first movie, where the cultural consultants were there to give input, here they were allowed to go nuts—and not to particularly entertaining effect. So the proceedings begin with something of a deficit. Does the film turn it around? Yes, to an extent, largely through the efforts of Auli’i Cravalho, who still brings great presence and charm as the title character. Among the supporting cast, Dwayne Johnson is still mostly entertaining as Maui, while the rest of Moana’s fellow sailors are a hit or miss bunch. The musical numbers fall within a range, from solid to middling; a few advance the story well enough, though none are really standout pieces. All in all, this is a decent outing, nothing to be ashamed of but not really anything spectacular. Apparently, this will be one in a chain of islands, so to speak, so any review of this flick will hardly be the last word; maybe we’ll have to experience the voyage in total before we really know where it goes. 

Wicked

From unlikely soil can spring forth remarkable fruit. The great power of this story (both this movie and the play upon which it is based) lies in the fact that it is the offspring of a story that was created over a hundred years ago—and as a metaphor for the populist movements of that far off era, to boot. In a world that seems devoted to constant change, and outright rejection of the past, it is heartening to see some cultural continuity where the tales, symbols and characters of another age can still hold charm and appeal even today. Indeed, the charm of the lead characters here—Cynthia Erivo’s Elphaba and Ariana Grande's Glinda—is what propels this adaptation up into rarified air and makes this work as entertaining and emotionally satisfying as it is. Some of the ensemble songs are a bit too ensemble, if you know what I mean, but the solo and duet numbers are standout. Also, this conception of the highly eccentric kingdom of Oz provides a visual feast throughout. There are a few elements that threaten to pull the viewer out of full absorption with the tale—the themes and subtext sometimes get dangerously close to preachy—but for the most part this ride can be enjoyed on its primary, straightforward terms. Let’s hope the filmmakers are able to find an equal amount of magic to pour into the forthcoming sequel/conclusion of this tale. So far, so good, witches. 

Joker: Folie à Deux

This movie routinely confounds expectations. Usually, that’s a recipe for something interesting, and in this case I think that mostly works out here—although it is plain why some viewers might not have been particularly enchanted with this result. The execution of this flick's fantasy conceit is uneven; some of the songs are almost apologetic intrusions into a standard narrative, while others come onto the screen as full-blown set pieces à la traditional musicals. That conveys the sense that the filmmakers really didn’t know what to do with their ideas, or at the very least that they weren’t convinced of their own concept. You have to wonder, then, how such a concept was likely to go over with viewers. At least the performances are good; both Phoenix and Gaga acquit themselves well in their roles, although one suspects that the overall experience might have been better if his character had been more the dynamic Joker and less the relatively passive Arthur Fleck. In the end, this is a different, and a mostly welcome, odd spin on the comic book genre—not awful by any means, engaging throughout (I was never bored through the running time), and at least somewhat creative and ambitious, though perhaps not really all that necessary in the final analysis. If you’re going to take the stage, you should open with a strong joke, then finish with something equally good. This movie mini franchise got the first half of that right, but offers a closer that’s good for a chuckle, not a roaring mic drop.

The Sound of Music

An ode to beauty, both musical and visual. From the very first shots this movie is gorgeous to look at, and impressive visuals fill the screen throughout, while the music and songs present a lovely tableau that provides delight and warmth throughout. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer are splendid in their roles, as are the children, even if their transformations play a little too quick and easy (especially so with the Captain, who goes from hardass to softie in a relative blink). But that’s a quibble. Mostly, this story hits all the right notes, up to and including a touch of drama and derring-do at the climax. Even though it runs almost three hours this movie never drags; you stay engaged and entertained all the way to the end. No wonder this is perennially popular. You can do a lot worse than to include this one among your favorite things.

Mary Poppins

I dare you to watch this movie, after having seen the Simpsons episode that parodies it, and try to not laugh your ass off. It’s basically impossible. Having said that, the question is, how good is this film on its own merits? The answer is more complicated than you might expect from a movie that is so well known, if not an outright classic. Truth is, there’s a lot of weirdness in this flick: many of the scenes that blur live action and animation have an almost hallucinogenic quality to them (especially visually); the direction is kind of schizophrenic—in some parts the story plays it straight, in others it plays fast and loose with its narrative structure (literally, as when Dick Van Dyke's character breaks the fourth wall, the only character who does so); and the dance sequences either work well, or drag on too long. So where’s the appeal? Mostly in Julie Andrews’ terrific performance; when her Mary does something magical, you believe she’s really capable of it, and her vocal performances are peerless. It’s really her show, and her and some good touches of humor—intended, not secondary laughs—make this one still worth watching, if not exactly worth cherishing. A spoonful of perspective helps an earnest but flawed effort go down well enough.

Wonka

Chocolate, as a general rule, is a delight in almost any form. Nevertheless, not every candy in the aisle is equally tasty. Case in point, this movie. Certainly, there are some good pieces in this package, even a few morsels that are downright scrumptious. But then again, as in the proverbial box of chocolates ... there are a few sour quince logs. As the title character, Timothée Chalamet is perfectly fine, particularly when he is being his most Wonka-ish. Even his song and dance numbers are generally clever and entertaining; not quite so when the rest of the rather uneven cast is called upon to make with the musical. (One wise choice by the filmmakers: many of the original songs call back to the themes in the tunes of the first, classic flick.) The strength among the other characters is Noodle, portrayed with charm, wit and wisdom by young Calah Lane. Visually, the film is very well done, both in its overall design and in some clever but not overly obtrusive special effects. Those are the positives. On the other side of the ledger, the supporting cast is an uneven bunch—Willy's fellow inmates range from tolerable to bland to almost nonexistent, the evil chocolatiers are overly  outlandish, to the point of unbelievablility, and Keegan-Michael Key basically embarrasses himself—plus the story runs a bit too long (even at its relatively modest run time) and comes across as mildly misdirected. The original provides its villains with comeuppance along the way; this movie builds towards a big, blowout dispensation of justice that ultimately comes across as flat and anticlimactic. So, overall, watching this work is an up-and-down experience. There’s enough entertainment in these scenes to eek out a loud MEOW, or maybe something a bit higher if you are somewhat indulgent—as the chocolate lovers among us tend to be.

Encanto

In certain respects, this movie is trying way too hard. But beyond that surfeit of effort, it is funny, clever and charming in a most heartfelt way. Unlike many a Disney story, this one is mostly villain-less. That’s because what really lies at the heart of the tale are the challenges of family dynamics and how those can be difficult if not impossible to overcome. That makes this story relatable to practically every viewer, even in the face of its very specific cultural foundation (which the film pushes very hard). Perhaps it is due to that cultural grounding that the animation here is an over the top riot of color and movement; the very nature of the visuals reinforces the perception that this is, despite its somewhat untraditional setting, a fairy tale that lives in a world removed from where most of us reside. The only real complaint comes from that overly energetic telling of its tale, a frenetic presentation that rarely gives the audience a pause to soak in any one character or tableau. We see that in the songs, too; while lively and catchy, they are mostly impossible to catch on first listen (and I doubt they’d be easy to follow along even with the benefit of a singalong’s subtitles). But when taking in the overall effect, you can’t help but enjoy the package as a whole—no particular miracle required.

Grease 2

This is closer to a successful sequel than I expected it to be. But, as they say, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If this were a standalone piece, one that does not specifically try to remind the viewer of its antecedent, it might be a worthwhile effort -- but it is not a work born out of its own idea, and it suffers continually from the ever-present comparison to the original. It might have been a better idea to make a “2” from elements that were wholly divorced from the first piece. There are some solid moments in this film -- some of the songs work better than others (particularly those focused around Michelle Pfeiffer, who is [or at least was] a better singer than one would have ever imagined) -- but the effort is uneven throughout, and overall the effect is one where the movie is less than the sum of its parts. So while I did enjoy watching a lot of this flick, I can’t quite bring myself to give it a PURR. The MEOW is not a slam by any means; the work falls just barely below the top tier. But true positive reviews must be earned on merit, and that merit just isn’t here.

In the Heights

True fact: most "heights" back east aren't really all that high--ones in New York City included. There's already an interesting dynamic swirling around this film, which I should probably avoid in this review--not because it's third-rail stuff (it's mostly just stupidity), but because I prefer to judge films simply on their own merit (as best that can be achieved) within their own context (ditto). Here goes: we have real strengths in this flick, mostly in the talented, charismatic presences of the principle leads: Anthony Ramos, Melissa Barrera, Corey Hawkins (who may be the most talented actor on the scene today) and Leslie Grace more than acquit themselves well, giving inspired performances both musical and dramatic. That's the good. The "not exactly bad but troubling enough to keep popping into mind during the running time" part lies in a certain incongruity between the message of most of the movie and its ultimate conclusion, especially in terms of the former being expressed throughout in the sentiments of the characters. That's a bit complicated, I know, but watch it and you'll get what I mean (trying to avoid spoilers). Also, there's definitely a vibe here--mentioned before in this space in other contexts--of people who think problems can be solved simply by dancing. They can't. So in a superficial sense, there's a rollicking good time here, along with a few moments of major pathos, that many will enjoy without a critical thought. But you have to wonder, ultimately, if these people really have their minds made up about their situation, or if it's just an infinite loop that holds them (literally) in place. Thus, "heights" perhaps, but hardly Olympian in stature.

Pitch Perfect

It is nigh on impossible to watch this movie without wearing a smile, or at least a bemused grin, on your face. The musical numbers are wildly entertaining...which is good, because really, that's about all there is to this flick. The storyline, such as it is, is only the most skeletal framework upon which to hang this series of singing set pieces, all of which feature impressive talent on the part of at least some of the cast members. Even where anyone might be lip-syncing, the dubbing is done so well that most viewers won't be able tell. What's interesting to note is that many of the musical selections date back to a time when most of the putative college students here, in a movie released in 2012, would not have been born yet. More evidence that kids of the '80s are dominating movie-making these days. So if you're of a certain age--I am--then this flick should have some appeal even if it's not entirely your thing. And, if all else fails, you get to spend two hours hanging around with Anna Kendrick--hardly difficult duty. PURRing isn't singing, but this film works well enough to make even the Bad Cat make a joyful noise.

Grease

A 42-year re-viewing of what most people (at least my age) would consider a classic. It may not get a ton of respect, but it is immensely entertaining, and--I would argue--worthy of the love it gets from a couple of generations of viewers. The lyrics on almost all the songs are really sharp; you notice how clever the songs are when you watch it a couple of times. The performances are good, ranging from fine to a real blast, especially from some of the bit players who inhabit the fringes of the story; the cameos from stars of yesteryear add a lot of fun to the proceedings. Mostly, though, this about the principals, and they deliver the goods. Travolta really is fine, but Olivia Newton-John...oh, my. If nothing else, this movie is about as close as you can get to spending the bulk of two hours with the girl of your dreams, if you're not so lucky in real life. (Few of us are.) Yes, the ending remains problematic, but that's a quibble (and probably says more about me than the ending itself). Mostly, this flick is a joy to watch--which you should do, or do again, before the '50s theme gets another day older and out of date.

Rocketman

Thanks to some unfortunate scheduling, this outing suffers from an inevitable comparison to Bohemian Rhapsody, that other, at least superficially similar '70s rock-icon bio. There is a key difference, though, in that this work's "filmed stage musical" approach doesn't work quite as well as a straightforward narrative treatment of Sir Elton's story might have. Furthermore, the device of telling the story through the artist's songs--without much concern for their temporal sequence, for anyone old enough to be familiar with the discography--makes the life story seem somewhat muddled. Egerton's acting performance--playing someone thoroughly well-known to most of the audience, so a challenge there--is strong, though his singing voice doesn't really match John's very well. And the representation comes with certain other veracity issues, even given--or perhaps because of--the subject's clear participation in the production. (One obvious example: movie Elton never goes as bald as the real-life rocker did). Ultimately the film relies heavily upon the goodwill viewers have for the music; as that resource exists in abundance, this film edges more towards positive territory. It doesn't shoot into orbit, but it flies just high enough for most fans.

Xanadu

Caught this one late one recent night, on TCM of all things, after having not seen it in decades. The verdict, upon re-viewing so much later in life: it's weird. Very weird. It's also probably ill-conceived, overly ambitious, rather clueless, and ultimately a failure. And it probably deserves a HISS, but...There's someting in its strangely innocent ambition--trying to tie together big band and classical musicals to the roller-disco era, among other things--that elicits a certain amount of sympathy. The presence of an absolutely radiant Olivia Newton-John aids the proceedings immensely; she's a dream girl in every frame of the thing, where as her co-stars look profoundly unimpressive in comparison (Michael Beck is a nobody, and even Gene Kelly just looks foolish through most of the proceedings). Ultimately, the whole thing is preposterous, but just entertaining enough that you don't want to find every extant reel of the film and burn it. But I can't exactly say it's recommended, either.

La La Land

My first, immediate impression upon watching this movie: if all the most popular kids in your high school got together and made a movie--a movie celebrating the most popular kids in your high school--it would look a lot like this. Later in the show, my impression...was pretty much the same thing. Admittedly, these would be fairly talented popular people making this movie, particularly the ones doing the art direction; this film always looks good, from start to finish. But it's just a little hard to believe Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as strugglers, especially long-term strugglers; they--he in particular--are just too pretty to make convincing losers. Yeah, that's right: if you strip away all the bright and sunny, or even the drama, this really is a story about losers who only eventually become winners. It's all a little hard to digest. Especially all the people that happy about being stuck in traffic. But there's entertainment here; certainly some good songs and music. It's just not the work of genius it was made out to be.