Tag: movies

When I was a child, my mother got very excited about an upcoming children’s television special–something I don’t remember her doing before or since. She told me that I had to see The Hobbit. Catching her enthusiasm, I sat down in front of the TV at the appointed hour and was pulled into an enthralling tale of wizards, elves, dwarves, dragons, and a strange being I’d never heard of: a hobbit. Two hours later (I assume it was two hours with commercials), I had hobbit fever. I pulled The Hobbit and, later, The Lord of the Rings off my parents’ bookshelves and devoured them. Somehow, either as a gift or purchased with my own savings, I obtained the original soundtrack to the special and listened to it again and again. I insisted on seeing Ralph Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings (and at the time, I liked it). I fervently wished that hobbits were real and that I could meet one.

I was obsessed.

I don’t remember any other cartoon affecting me quite so much. What was it about this one that so enchanted me? First and foremost is Tolkien’s story, neatly condensed into a 90-minute format. Although this Rankin/Bass production is shorter than The Battle of Five Armies, the shortest of the movies in Peter Jackson’s trilogy, it somehow manages to capture most of the book, except for Beorn. (I’ll come back to Jackson’s trilogy in a moment.)

The voice actors are also good, especially the narrator and Gandalf, both voiced by John Huston. The cast includes Orson Bean, Richard Boone, Cyril Ritchard, and Otto Preminger. Paul Frees, whose voice can be heard in many a Rankin/Bass movie, voiced Bombur and “Troll #1,” and voice actor Don Messick was Balin, a goblin, the Lord of the Eagles, and “Troll #3.”

Then there’s the music, some of it sung by Glenn Yarbrough. I’ve read The Hobbit aloud to both my husband and my child, and in each instance, I had a hard time not singing Tolkien’s songs as they were written in this film (they are not exactly the same, so if you do start singing the Rankin/Bass tunes to Tolkien’s words, eventually you’ll have to start improvising).

Put it all together, and you get this:

In just over three and a half minutes, the folks at Rankin/Bass have distilled the essence of the party’s first encounter with the goblins, and they’ve done it well.

I think few, if any, people will dispute that Peter Jackson did an amazing job with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, finally giving fans what we’d been wanting. Understandably, we were all excited when we learned he’d be directing The Hobbit as well. And then, many of us were disappointed.

There was value to Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. I thought Martin Freeman was a perfect pick for Bilbo, and I was glad Ian McKellan was once again playing Gandalf. I thought the first movie wasn’t bad. I very much enjoyed Bilbo’s encounter with Smaug in the second movie. But the further into the trilogy I got, the more disappointed I was with Jackson’s additions: unbelievable action sequences that weren’t in the book (as if the book wasn’t action-packed enough) and an unnecessary love triangle.

By using three movies to tell the story, Jackson had room to include what Rankin/Bass left out, particularly Beorn. But with three movies to fill, he ended up padding a masterpiece. What the Rankin/Bass production gets right is letting Tolkien’s tale shine through. The Hobbit works better as an abridged work rather than as a story that has been supplemented with additional plotlines.

If you are a Tolkien fan who was disappointed in Jackson’s trilogy and who hasn’t seen the Rankin/Bass version, I encourage you to seek it out. And if you have young children you want to convert into little hobbit fans, by all means show them the cartoon. It’s definitely a ’70s production and not up to today’s cartoon standards, but in the end, it will still do an excellent job of telling Tolkien’s story. Forty-five years after it was released, it’s still the best film version we have, and a pretty good one at that.

When I first read about A Stray in 2016, I was intrigued. But as so often happens, I didn’t get around to seeing it while it was in theaters. Thankfully, it is now available on both Amazon and YouTube. I finally watched it a few weeks ago and was glad I did. The film has a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes for a good reason: it is a beautiful drama that is unlike any film you’ve seen before.

Adan is a young Somali immigrant living in Minneapolis. When we first meet him, he upsets the other men he is living with and ends up homeless. He tries to be a good Muslim, but he has a hard time doing the right thing. Just when it appears that things are looking up for him, he hits a dog with his car. Urged by a passerby to take her to the vet, he suddenly finds himself looking after an animal that is viewed as ritually impure by many Muslims.

Adan has an ambivalent relationship with the dog, whom he names Laila. On the one hand, he clearly cares for her; on the other hand, he does everything he can to avoid touching her and keeps trying, at least half-heartedly, to find a new home for her.

The film wanders with Adan as he travels through Minneapolis and St. Paul, trying to find money and spots where he can catch a little sleep. I was frequently surprised by Adan’s choices. He is astray, trying to find his way. The end of the movie itself is ambiguous. Adan is poised to take a certain act, but will he do it? That’s left to our imaginations. If you’re like me, you’ll find yourself pondering what you think he’ll do and whether or not that’s the right choice.

I’m not always a passive consumer of entertainment: I will laugh out loud as I read passages in books or cringe when I can tell something bad is about to happen in a film. This movie had me deeply engaged, as I gave Adan advice and laughed at his interactions with Laila.

This film is short, under 90 minutes long. The script and cinematography are exquisite (take a look at the trailer below to get a taste). Adan is played by Barkhad Abdirahman, who you may have seen in Captain Phillips or the TV series Fargo. I hope to see more of him.

Notes: There have been a lot of films about dogs with the word “stray” in them recently, including The Stray (2017) and Stray (2020). Maybe if you accidentally watch one of those, you’ll stray across something good (sorry, couldn’t resist), but if you want to watch this one, you’re looking for A Stray (2016).

Also, while the film is not rated by the MPAA, I don’t think of it as a family film. You’d have to read subtitles to a young child whenever someone was speaking in Somali, and you’d have to explain a lot as you went along. I’d recommend it for ages 11 and up, though of course, every child is different.

Note: This review of Funny Face contains spoilers. I wanted to dig into the movie a little in order to discuss its good points and flaws. The only way I could do that was to give away the plot. If you don’t want to spoil the movie, please watch it first. Then come back and let me know if you agree with my assessment of it.

Also, I completed this post prior to Election Day. No matter how my readers feel about the election on the day this goes live, I’m certain there will be plenty of bad news that we need to escape from. It’s 2020, after all.

The first time I watched the movie Funny Face, I fell in love with the look of it — the costumes, the sets, the imagery. It turns out that part of its look comes from contributions by photographer Richard Avedon. His photos are most notably featured in the opening title sequence, but they also appear in the brilliant number “Think Pink” and in a fashion shoot segment later in the film.

On the surface, Funny Face is all about fashion and romance. Kay Thompson (yes, the author of Eloise) plays fashion magazine editor Diana Vreeland Maggie Prescott, who is looking for a different sort of model to represent Quality magazine. Fred Astaire is fashion photographer Richard Avedon Dick Avery, who finds the next “Quality woman”: Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn).

Avery faces two obstacles: (1) Prescott thinks Stockton has a “funny” face (Stockton thinks so, too). (2) Stockton, who is studying a form of philosophy called “empathicalism,” has no interest in modeling.

But Avery prevails — in part because the modeling shoot will be in Paris, where Stockton can meet Professor Flostre, father of empathicalism. And on the shoot, romance blossoms between Stockton and Avery. The question is: Will it last? In a fit of jealousy, Avery, who had sold Prescott on Stockton’s “character, spirit, and intelligence,” tells Stockton that Flostre is “about as interested in your intellect as I am.” Ouch.

The fashion is delicious, but the romance bothers a lot of people for good reason. The 30-year age gap between Astaire and Hepburn is off-putting (never mind that plenty of prominent men these days still marry women who are young enough to be their daughters). More important is that low blow Avery delivers during his argument with Stockton. At the time she tells him, “We’re very fortunate to have found out these things now.” Their differences are glossed over by the end of the film, which is too bad.

So while the movie is beautiful to look at, with such a problematic romance, why am I recommending it? Well, there’s another element that I love about this film: it’s almost feminist in its depiction of women. Stockton and Prescott are both strong female characters — intelligent and ambitious. Prescott dictates fashion but is never a slave to it. After she has declared pink to be the “it” color, someone asks her when she will start wearing pink. She replies that she wouldn’t be caught dead in it. As for Stockton, she’s a thinker who stands up for herself.

And though Funny Face is definitely a comedy, it also touches on a very real problem for women: sexual harassment. When Avery insulted Stockton with his assessment of Flostre’s interest in her, he was right. She wants to talk philosophy, but Flostre replies, “We’ll talk. Later. … I need you now.” She has to defend herself in order to get away.

Funny Face has its flaws, but it also gives us strong women dealing with issues that too many women still have to deal with more than 60 years later. More importantly (in my mind), it’s a fun, gorgeous escape — perfect for the days when you can’t take one more piece of bad news.

Readers who have been with me a while know that I try to avoid recommending the things that everyone’s talking about. You don’t need me to tell you that you should watch Parasite or listen to Lizzo; you’ve already heard that a million times. But I take great joy in dredging up movies, music, and books from the past that you may have missed, or occasionally unearthing current entertainment that I think you might not have heard about. This week I’m going back to the ’80s to recommend two films about people having really bad nights.

After Hours (1985)

We’ll start with the darker movie: Martin Scorsese’s After Hours. Shortly after meeting a woman, Paul Hackett decides to visit her, losing his money en route to the place she’s staying… and then things get weird. He encounters a series of people who are connected with each other through a tangled web of relationships. Conversations, seductions, errands, all go uncompleted. Everything seems out of kilter. Paul and the people he meets have wild mood swings and say things you’d never say to someone you’d just met. As the night progresses and his problems escalate, Paul goes from wanting to get home to saying, “I just want to live.”

The cast of this well-crafted movie includes Rosanna Arquette, Linda Fiorentino, Teri Garr, John Heard, Cheech Marin, Tommy Chong, and Catherine O’Hara. See it when you’re up for something dark and strange.

Adventures in Babysitting (1987)

Want something lighter? Adventures in Babysitting features a teen-aged protagonist, Chris Parker (Elizabeth Shue). When her boyfriend cancels their date, she accepts a babysitting job for the evening. Her night has barely started when a friend calls, begging to be rescued from the bus station. Chris takes the kids and heads into the city, getting a flat tire along the way. As with After Hours, it’s this initial journey that sets off the string of awful events. Chris, however, has better luck than Paul. She is more effective than he is at solving problems. She also meets up with people who come to her aid like helpers in a fairy tale. (You could say that Paul also meets helpers, but things always seem to go wrong for him.)

Adventures in Babysitting was remade by Disney in 2016, but it looks like the remake is significantly different from the original, and the 1987 version has the better rating on IMDB. See it when you want a frothy, fun adventure with a strong heroine.

I watch a lot of sci-fi. Not surprisingly, most of the movies and TV shows I consume are either American or British productions. So when I hear about movies from other parts of the world, I make sure to add them to my “to watch” list. Recently I’ve viewed The Wandering Earth, a 2019 Chinese film, and Crumbs, an Ethiopian movie released in 2015. The Wandering Earth left me cold, but I enjoyed every minute of Crumbs‘ quirky, low-budget weirdness.

Written and directed by Spanish filmmaker Miguel Llansó, Crumbs takes place sometime after a war that has decimated Earth’s population. In the introduction Llansó tells us, “The news of the sporadic birth of a child, probably conceived out of neglect, was received with condescending smiles the same as in those who mock ignorant people who with pride show off their out of style garments.”

In this world, Candy and Birdy* live together in a bowling alley that is overshadowed by an enormous dead spaceship. They collect and revere pop culture artifacts, even worshiping at an altar with a photo of Michael Jordan.  Early in the film Birdy gives Candy a plastic toy sword, still strapped to its cardboard packaging. “This sword was manufactured by Carrefour,” she tells him, “the last total artist. It will protect you during your trip.”

When one of the bowling machines starts working again on its own, Birdy wonders if they are receiving some sort of message from the spaceship. Candy checks the bowling machine and decides to consult with a witch. The rest of the story involves Candy’s journey and Birdy’s experiences in the bowling alley. The trailer makes it look like horror, but the film isn’t particularly scary.

As far as science fiction goes, Crumbs is definitely bizarre. It has far less in common with action-packed movies like Gravity than it does with 2001. If you’re looking for an adventure that will keep you on the edge of your seat, look elsewhere. This is a quiet, oddly beautiful fairy tale, complete with a Santa Claus who pops up in an unexpected place.

The film is in Amharic with occasional errors in the subtitles (for instance, “desert” becomes “dessert”). But those small glitches don’t detract from this quirky story. If you’re ready for a different sci-fi experience, you can find Crumbs on streaming services such as Amazon and YouTube.

*If you look at the film’s credits, Birdy is referred to as Sayat. Perhaps Birdy is the English equivalent of that name?

We all have different tolerance levels for scary movies. Some people can watch anything; others are very sensitive. I’m somewhere in between. I made it through The Shining and had no trouble sleeping that night, but I deeply regret watching The Blair Witch Project.

If Halloween puts you in the mood for movies that are slightly spooky  — but not too scary —  I have two suggestions for you, both from the 1980s. While I can make no promises, the first film is probably fine for all but young children. The second, a vampire flick, is a little more gruesome but still relatively mild for a “scary” movie.

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

Young Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have anything to do with traditional Halloween topics, but it’s a great choice for anyone searching for a “scary” movie that older children can watch. Written by Chris Columbus, directed by Barry Levinson, and produced by a team that includes Steven Spielberg and Henry Winkler, this underrated film imagines Sherlock Holmes’ start as a detective. The mystery begins with a series of deaths caused by hallucinations.

Most of the hallucinations and resulting deaths are just disturbing enough to lend a spooky air to the film. But the story behind these deaths give it an even more chilling edge. As Holmes digs deeper into the mystery, he discovers the Rame Tep cult, which drugs young women and then sacrifices them by covering them with molten wax.

Fans of the BBC series Sherlock may be interested in certain parallels between the cult scenes in “The Abominable Bride” and those in Young Sherlock Holmes. And if you think post-credits scenes began with Marvel superhero movies, you’re in for a pleasant surprise: this movie should be watched all the way through to the end. (No, this isn’t the first movie to feature a post-credits scene.)

If you and your fellow viewers can watch the ceremonial opening of the ark at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, you should have no problem with Young Sherlock Holmes. One word of warning: in Raiders of the Lost Ark, deaths are mostly confined to the “bad guys.” I make no such promises for Young Sherlock Holmes.

The Lost Boys (1987)

Now we’re going to take the scare factor up a notch — but not too far. The Lost Boys is a vampire film that is more gory than frightening, though I definitely wouldn’t show it to young children (it’s rated R for a reason). The gore starts during a meal with some unappetizing hallucinations but gets far worse during a series of confrontations with vampires at the end.

Unlike many full-on horror films, The Lost Boys is sprinkled with levity, primarily delivered through the Frog Brothers, who are dedicated to ending the plague of vampires in their town. If you’re a fan of the two Coreys, this is the first movie to feature them together. Corey Feldman plays one of the Frog Brothers, while Corey Haim is a new kid in town.

The vampires in this movie are not sexy, Anne Rice-style vampires, nor are they sparkly, good vampires like Edward and his family in the Twilight series; only the half-vampires have any appeal. This would seem like a good recipe for a scary movie, but — perhaps because of the comic elements — the film lacks true horror. There’s tension. There are gross, bloody scenes, with most of the blood coming from the vampires themselves, not their victims. But this film is unlikely to keep you up at night. If it doesn’t bother you to watch Shawn of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, you should have no problem with The Lost Boys.

Bonus: If you are familiar with “I Still Believe” by The Call, you’ll probably find the cover of that song at the beginning of the film pretty hysterical — or at least a bit disconcerting.

Last fall I decided that I wanted to watch every movie nominated for the 2019 Academy Awards’ Best Picture category. I made a list based on critics’ predictions. Most of the movies on my list were, indeed, nominated, with two exceptions: Can You Ever Forgive Me? (which is well worth seeing) and If Beale Street Could Talk. (Once the nominations came out, I also had to add two films to my list: Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody.)

Despite critical acclaim and the fact that it was directed by Barry Jenkins, whose movie Moonlight won Best Picture a couple of years ago, If Beale Street Could Talk bombed at the box office. And that’s a shame, because the critics were right: Beale Street is a gorgeous movie.

The movie is based on a 1974 James Baldwin novel of the same name. (I’ve added the book to my “to read” list.) The main characters, Fonny and Tish, are long-time friends who have fallen in love. After Fonny is unjustly accused of a crime, Tish discovers she is pregnant. She and her family make it their mission to get Fonny out of jail before the baby is born. The story, at least in the movie, is told out of order but is easy to follow.

Despite the sadness and tension around Fonny’s incarceration, If Beale Street Could Talk is a quiet film filled with luminous scenes of Fonny and Tish wandering through the streets of New York in a haze of love. The script, the acting, the costuming, the cinematography — all contribute to the beauty of the movie. I saw many good films last fall and winter as I tried to chase down every movie on my list, but Beale Street was hands down the best of the bunch. (Yes, better than The Favorite.)

I’m not entirely sure why Beale Street didn’t get a Best Picture nomination. Maybe people believed it was too soon to nominate another Barry Jenkins film. Maybe Annapurna Pictures didn’t spend enough on a campaign for the film during nominating season. Or maybe the nominators were uncomfortable with the film’s theme. Whatever the reason, if you haven’t seen this movie, you absolutely should. Beale Street deserves better.

 

       

Strictly Ballroom and Muriel’s Wedding have a lot in common. Both are Australian comedies from the ’90s. Both feature a female lead who undergoes a physical transformation. In both films, actor Bill Hunter plays a key supporting role. Both movies were inspired by real life. Strictly Ballroom started out as an improvised play by Baz Luhrmann, the film’s director, based on his experience as a competitive ballroom dancer. Muriel’s Wedding director P.J. Hogan based the lead character on himself and his sister. And both films are on a list of “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Schneider.

So much for their similarities. While the films have a lot in common on the surface, they are very different in terms of plot and tone.

Strictly Ballroom is a frothy, silly rom-com focused on the world of competitive ballroom dance. At first it comes across as a mockumentary, but it soon settles into a more familiar format. The movie starts out with footage of and interviews about Scott Hastings, son of two retired competitive dancers, one of whom now teaches. Scott seems to be reaching the height of his career, but then he horrifies the world of ballroom dance by resorting to his own steps during a competition.

When Scott searches for a new partner, beginner Fran asks him to try dancing with her. He agrees, despite being offended that she would dare approach him.

From there, the movie takes a relatively predictable rom-com path filled with love and obstacles that are thrown in the dancers’ paths. But it’s so utterly delicious that it doesn’t matter that it follows a traditional formula. After all, we humans frequently gravitate toward predictable story patterns, like the hero’s journey, told in new ways. Strictly Ballroom fits the bill beautifully.

Muriel’s Wedding, while also a comedy, is more serious and less predictable. It’s a powerfully feminist tale about a young woman, Muriel, whose life is a complete wreck. She’s unpopular, jobless, and obsessed with two things: Abba and weddings. After she steals money from her family and tags along on vacation with a group of women who clearly don’t like her, she bumps into an old schoolmate, Rhonda. Like Muriel, Rhonda was unpopular in school, but she’s found happiness, and in encountering her, Muriel’s life takes a turn for the better.

Featuring Toni Collette and Rachel Griffiths, Muriel’s Wedding is decidedly darker than Strictly Ballroom, making the latter movie the better choice if you’re in the mood for something light. But this movie is surprising in ways that Strictly Ballroom is not, and it packs powerful messages. While its mature themes make it unsuitable as a family film, its feminist message — that who you are is more important than who you’re with — makes it a great film for sharing with teenage girls. And despite its serious side, the film delivers its message with lots of laughs and a great Abba-filled soundtrack.