One Battle After Another

Well, that’s an interesting concept for a movie: make a film about characters whom only a crazy person would find sympathetic. I guess this is what happens when you start from a position of making sure you have the correct politics, and then work on developing the story from there. That applies especially so when those correct politics echo the most deranged fever dreams of campus justice warriors. The result here is that the story’s villains are plainly villainous, but the putative heroes are simply bundles of uncontrolled animal urges who are not any more admirable than the other side. Other relatively minor issues grow out of a muddled timeline—the tale clearly has contemporary happenings on its mind, but includes a time shift that requires an origin point much further back in the day—and a central relationship that is preposterous on its face. So much for the problems. On the other hand, one must acknowledge that the plot has good pacing, the performances are solid all around, the script does not shy away from any particular difficulties, and—lastly but certainly not least—the core story in its human dimensions overcomes the film’s self-inflicted wounds to grow increasingly more compelling as the narrative moves forward. Also, the movie deserves credit for presenting a most compelling argument for the fact that security and liberty are diametrically opposed forces; increased emphasis on the former necessarily undermines the latter. That’s a political statement that is very much worth making these days, more so perhaps than the blanket canonization of one population cohort versus the demonization of another. So while this flick would hardly qualify as a Best Picture nominee (let alone winner) but for it tickling the strings of Hollywood’s preferred viewpoints, it must merit consideration as a good to maybe even excellent film—it’s just not an example of greatness. So don’t take that PURR as more than it really is. As usual, the real neverending battle is the fight to get people to stop overhyping whatever catches their momentary, acculturated but unrelated fancy. 

The Outlaw

What a weird movie. The film was directed by both Howard Hughes and Howard Hawkes, and it’s pretty apparent where the direction came from the amateur and where it came from the pro. Many scenes are oddly paced and strangely cut—editing may more accurately be called the issue, rather than directing—while the script sort of meanders through a story that has little real narrative and careens wildly between overly dramatic and jarringly comedic. In short, the piece is something of a mess. Yet, it is a relatively entertaining mess at that. Though the writing may be idiosyncratic in terms of narrative, there’s some good, snappy dialogue in many of the scenes. Meanwhile, the actors mostly acquit themselves well; Walter Huston in particular stands out, while Jane Russell lets it all hang out (metaphorically, of course; this was made in the 1940s, after all). As for historical veracity, your guess is as good as mine. Probably little to none, but that hardly detracts from the entertainment value. All in all, it’s not a great movie, but it isn’t a bad one, either. Nor is it really as scandalous as the reputation may have it. A curiosity, but hardly an outlaw production. 

One Crazy Summer

“Stupid” is not always a pejorative. For instance, this is, objectively, a stupid movie. Yet, it’s not entirely a bad movie, and indeed, in certain parts the stupid is the appeal. The film hits all the '80s youth comedy fundamentals: the appealing couple (John Cusack and Demi Moore) in the lead roles, the cartoonishly obvious villains (including the de rigueur mean, uberblond rich kid), the musical montage at a key plot point (if one can even say this film has a plot), and an absurd and improbable victory in the climactic competition. Further fun derives from the supporting cast; you’re really hitting the '80s comedy taproot when your flick has both Bobcat Goldthwait and Curtis Armstrong in it. After that, having Mark Metcalf — that's Animal House's Niedermeyer, not to mention Buffy’s The Master, to you—as the primary villain is an embarrassment of riches. The soundtrack—a melange of then-contemporary pop hits to complement various Beach Boys "Soundtrack of Summer" tunes—also goes a long way toward building audience goodwill. Mostly, the appeal at this point grows out of a sense of nostalgia…if you’re the type who would actually remember the era and its characteristic entertainments. As noted, it’s really a pretty stupid movie, so anyone lacking the nostalgic angle—i.e., young people—probably won’t see anything good here. But for us elderly types, there’s a touch of amusement to be had from this work. 

Onward

From the first moments, I kinda hated this movie. And then...well, I didn’t exactly grow to like it; more like it got more tolerable as it progressed. While the film’s heart might be in the right place, there are simply too many elements that come across as grating and never really do enough to earn validation by the end. The setting of a magical world populated by fairy tale creatures seems contrived; you can’t help but wonder, while viewing early scenes, if this choice was made for any reason other than the crucial use of magic to make the story work—and that comes across as not very creative, perhaps even lazy, storytelling. Tom Holland’s voice, whiny and and annoying under the best of cinematic circumstances, is like a dentist's drill throughout much of these proceedings. Other elements that have become de rigeur in late-period Disney works only serve to elicit eye rolls here. Simply put, none of this ever truly clicks here; the viewer waits in vain for moments of actual cinematic wizardry. This work, combined with the disappointing production of Toy Story 4 immediately proceeding, marks the real beginning of a steep decline in the quality of Pixar movies, one that has yet to be reversed as of this writing, now four years after this piece made its debut. Geese do not lay golden eggs forever, I guess. Let’s see them try to scare up some movie magic like they used to make; that’s the real quest the studio needs to focus on.

Oppenheimer

Normally, the movie industry wants to shy away from bombs. But this story ain’t normal. Perhaps that explains the way director Christopher Nolan presents this tale—in a most unconventional way, particularly for a biopic. The storytelling here is eccentric, impressionistic, and idiosyncratic, with an almost staccato rhythm and pacing in the way it weaves its the tale. And 'weaving' is the correct term, as this story is nearly a co-biography of the title physicist and businessman and government official Lewis Strauss, with the parallel paths that the two men follow in the later years of their public careers displayed in intertwining narratives. Cillian Murphy is fine in the title role—he carries a heavy load here, being in almost every frame of the film—though Robert Downey Jr. almost steals the show (and will be a strong contender for a supporting actor award come next spring) as the antagonistic Strauss. The movie does have some flaws: some character introductions and scenes feel obligatory, the sorts of cinematic elements one often sees in a biopic; even with this work's nonstandard DNA, it can’t avoid some of the genre's cliches. Also, Nolan’s penchant for representational visual interjections—which lends a lot of that aforementioned staccato pacing—grows annoying after a while. Really, the whole style of the film is the greatest challenge the average viewer will face in watching this one. If you’re open to a non-conventional approach and allow the story to do its work, you will find this film to be rewarding, intriguing, in stretches even engrossing. But I also suspect that many viewers will be put off by the way Nolan’s direction asks a lot of the audience. That may be why, of the summer's two most anticipated releases, this one appears to have been left somewhat in the dust. Perhaps this should have been an Oscar-season release after all, and should not tried to swim against the summer blockbuster tide. Such a decision might have aligned expectations better for this film. Nevertheless, this movie is ultimately a success on its own terms, and one more interesting entry in the catalog of one of today’s most successful and intriguing directors. No bomb here; this project produced its intended product, be it a blockbuster or not.

Oliver & Company

A mostly charmless exercise. This film displays what may be the first instance of gross product placements a Disney flick. That's bad enough. Worse, the animation is inconsistent; sometimes the drawings are impressive, but often they're Saturday morning cartoon quality. This movie may also stand as the first instance of familiar voice syndrome; several of the principals are more doing their schtick than creating characters. Furthermore, there's the setting that's problematic; this film displays the sort of Eighties-era admiration of New York that produced such grotesqueries as Wall Street (the movie, not just the financial crime center) and Donald Trump. All in all, it's about what you'd expect from the last of the studio’s "wilderness years" productions--this was immediately followed by The Little Mermaid, thus demonstrating that the transition from so-so (and worse) quality to the genius to come played out at something near warp speed. On this movie's own terms...I’ve never read Oliver Twist, so I cannot comment on how loosely based (or not) this film is to the source material, but I’d put my money on "not so much." At least some of the music and songs show improvement over the canon's earlier efforts (probably the product of having Billy Joel playing a big part here). All in all, this movie conveys a sense of the studio struggling to raise its vehicle off the ground--they were trying, and knew they needed to get better, but had not yet found the formula. Ultimately, to the everlasting gratitude of the film industry, the effort eventually paid off in a big way. Just not here.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

The devotion to scene-setting shown here is so meticulous and focused that one must conclude that it was the entire point of the exercise. For sure, given the context set up by all that lovingly-crafted detail-fetishing, it will be very exciting once this film decides to start telling an actual story—you know, with a plot and all that. The viewer may have to wait a few years past the closing credits for that; perhaps Tarantino will get around to that on a 10th anniversary special edition, on whatever medium is popular and profitable then. Which is to say, there’s really not much in the way of a story here, just a train of character-connected scenes that pay homage to a bygone time and place, with an ominous backdrop to give the whole pastiche a vibe of historical import. None of this is to say these scenes aren’t a lot of fun—for sure they are, particularly Pitt’s ass-kicking encounters. Indeed, all the principals do well in moments here. But the indulgence comes at a cost, conveying a sense —not for the first time in his career—that Q could have achieved something truly transcendent with a little more discipline. Overall, this flick is good, and fun, and worthy of appreciation—but also maddeningly incomplete.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

I appreciate this film’s generous use of the word ‘idiot.' It’s a refreshing echo of a saner time. In other news...other marks of distinction are sprinkled throughout this flick. The animation is not the masterful artwork we saw in earlier works from the studio, yet it does have a certain visual character to it, a style of drawing the inhabits the screen with a certain panache. We know that by this point, Disney's studio was cutting corners in the graphics department--using Xerox machines to make animation cels, apparently--but here I wouldn't say the work suffers from that; more that it, again, gives this work it's own visual style. And there’s more story here than we saw in, say, Lady and the Tramp. Then again, the characters beyond the dogs are either bland (the couple) or over the top and simplistic at the same time (the henchmen, if not Cruella herself). Also, there's more of having a song where most of the lyrics are a character's name repeated throughout; it would take a couple more decades for really good songwriting to make its appearance in the studio's oeuvre. Still, the film portrays a continuous thread of kindness and generosity shines throughout its running time, and that sensibility (plus one heroic cat) elevates what would be an otherwise simple but flawed comedic story into an enjoyable presentation. This film may not have been particularly well trained, but at least it's housebroken enough to tolerate its presence.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Major problems face the viewer who watches this film in 2021, approaching 50 years after its release. Most prominent among those problems is the distraction factor that comes from having seen a great many of these actors in various other roles. You have to make an active effort to sink yourself into the time and place of this movie. When you lock in, you recognize that one of the key ingredients here is actually subtlety. If this film were made today, the strokes would be much broader; Nurse Ratched would be a Cruella-type villain and McMurphy would be a faultless hero. Neither applies to the presentation here; you can see both sides of this "argument" although ultimately, the movie's moral still comes through in the end. Another impression: it's entirely possible that Jack Nicholson has never played any character other than Jack Nicholson. I'm not sure what to make of that--just bringing it up here. All in all, this is a film worth seeing; not sure I would have made it Best Picture (though I don't have the perspective to compare it to all of its competition from that year), but this film's long-lasting influence has the ultimate say.

Office Christmas Party

Yeah, this movie is exactly what you think it is. So why the positive review for something so formulaic and utterly predictable? Because it's particularly well-done formulaic and predictable work. It's funny most of the way through, delivering occasional laugh-out-loud moments, and never really goes particularly wrong in performing its mission. The real strength here may lie in the fact that, even with such a large ensemble cast, no one ever really steps on anyone else or tries to take over the show (maybe T.J. Miller, a little bit, but he is what he is). All in all, this is exactly what an unabashed raunchy, adult comedy is supposed to be like, and when people achieve their own goals, that should be recognized.

Octopussy

The Brits deign to discover their former empire. Bond spends a lot of time in this one hanging out in India, with only a reasonable amount of condescension. That doesn’t make this a sterling outing, just a little different from the rest of the line. Clearly, the producers were searching here, trying to find something to freshen up what had become a stale franchise by this point; they didn’t entirely succeed. One interesting point: this, as well as several of the preceding and subsequent Bond films, displayed a level of detente between the Cold War adversaries that was actually ahead of its time, certainly for the early ‘80s. It’s a long way from From Russia With Love, to be sure, in several ways, but perhaps these filmic thaws were contemporary evidence that the world was not really on the edge of destruction, as most of us back then believed it was. Still, something as good as the first few films would have been more welcome, even if it had relied more on the old, cutthroat east-west rivalry.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

Not bad. Given the absence of Connery and the presence of George Lazenby, this film has a negative reputation for a piece of the Bond canon, but it’s actually an enjoyable bit of work. There’s good humor, plenty of well-done action sequences, hot girls, wonderful scenery, and nothing too ridiculous in terms of the plot. The tone is a bit uneven; Lazenby’s Bond gets a little too sensitive now and then, and 007 is really not meant to be that kind of animal. All in all, a better movie than its immediate predecessor, and one that proved the concept that someone else could step into the role--thus ensuring the future of filmdom’s most durable franchise.

Oz the Great and Powerful

The crux of the matter here lies with the source material. To wit: are we seeing a faithful representation of Baum’s work, or is this a Disneyfied version of the extended world of Oz? Having only read one of the Oz works--that one--I can’t say for sure; maybe the weaknesses are Baum’s and not those of the Disney people or director Sam Raimi. Even with a certain obviousness to the story--it’s a tale that practically wallows in stereotypes--you can still get a good, old-fashioned movie-viewing experience out of this film. It all depends on how high your critical threshold is; demanding types, stay away, but those more open will probably have a decent time.

Oblivion

This one seems to be a near miss. There’s a lot to like here: Cruise is good (he never isn’t, really), the look of the thing is wonderful, the twist is pretty good as movie twists go, and there’s even some good science that’s important to the movie’s reality (i.e., the presumed effects on Earth if our Moon were destroyed). But there’s one bit of dumbness that cancels out that good science: the story relies on the by-now well-worn clone fallacy (that clones would somehow share memories with the original organism). Probably not a bad rental, now that it’s out of theaters, certainly worth watching for free. But no surprise this wasn’t a big hit at the googolplex.

127 Hours

Director Danny Boyle pulls every trick out of the filmmaker's bag in order to give movement and energy to a mostly static tale. In a few places, the holes in that cinematic curtain show through, but for the most part the effort is successful, resulting in an entertaining, impactful, almost riveting movie. Not to be missed.

Open Range

A film that's beautiful from the first scene, but not very engaging at the start. That's why it's such a pleasant surprise when the story grows more engrossing and enjoyable as it progresses. The ultimate payoff comes as a satisfying film about realistic, complex characters that never falls prey to being too showy, too heavy-handed, or anything it doesn't need to be. Costner lets his film speak for itself, and you'll like what it has to say.

Outside Providence

Not the laugh riot you expect from a Farrelly Brothers association (they scripted), but that doesn't mean it's bad, either. Some parts are flat, but most of the film adds up to a low-key but effective coming of age story. The best stuff lies in the relationship between Shawn Hatosy's lead bonehead teenager and his father, strongly played by Alec Baldwin. There's some touching drama here, making for a nice balance against a good chunk of sharp humor. This one flew below the radar, but if you happen to catch hold of it, you will not be disappointed.

Ocean's Twelve

Another celluloid smirk from Soderbergh and company--one that's actually better than its predecessor. Sure, it's got a flimsy premise and a redundant story. So why didn't I care? Because the pace is good, the performers are all spot on, the dialogue is sharp, and the visuals are particularly rich. And it ends in an orgy of self-satisfaction. Now, what could be more entertaining than that? In this case, nothing.

The Opposite of Sex

A movie with all the hallmarks of the "indie" film: lots o' sex and violence (though relatively tame here), strange, over-the-top characters, even some "meta" filmmaking techniques (an antagonistic voiceover, fake-out scenes, etc.). Of course, "indie" can also mean muddled storytelling, narrowly focused characters who don't "speak" to all in the audience, and other problems. So too with this one. It has some positive traits, but it also runs too long and doesn't do enough to develop any bond between the characters and the audience. See it or not; it probably won't matter either way.

The Others

Moody and stylish, just the way you like 'em. The twist is obvious, but I don't really care about such things, so I don't take points off for that. It's the journey, not the destination, that matters here.