Reviews

West Side Story (2021)

We can't forget that "West Side Story" is a musical. It's a fantasy, a Shakespearean vehicle for sparkling song and dance. The first movie version, from 1961, knew that and emphasized that. The theater of the so-called tough characters is made lyrical and anti-realistic right from the first scene, snapping their fingers, going around the chalk drawing, moving with fluidity down the street. In the newer version, there is still dance (and snapping of fingers, briefly), but the mis-en-scene is about late 1950s reality.

Reality? That ends up being the raison-etre for the remake, actually. I had to laugh when I read that the war zone appearance of the opening scenes was to make the film about gentrification. So director Spielberg and writer Kushner want to give a more accurate snapshot of post-war New York City, and Puerto Rican migration? In a musical?

So for all the great effort here, and some truly inspired performances, there is a steady undermining of the real core of the film, the fantasy world of a musical set in a semi-rough neighborhood in mid-century Manhattan. A quick way to see the difference in how the films feel is to see the first one as a Broadway play adapted to a Technicolor screen, and the second one as a Broadway script worked into a new kind of movie. Spielberg's version is trying, very hard, to do something different. For me the whole effort is burdened by Kushner's politicizing, but it does have a more authentic handling of the cast, Maria most of all. And the inclusion of Spanish without subtitles is great, though the constant on-screen reminders to speak "in English" feels like a tired device.

What about the photography? There is a lot of exciting moving camera. It's a complex filming plan, heavily edited but with precision. The choice of lighting is fitting for their larger goals-leaning into realistic kinds of light and color, often subdued (though never dull), unlike the deeply rich and truly gorgeous (and not so realistic) palette of the 1961 movie. The cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, chose to follow recent trends in emphasizing, and even introducing, excessive lens flare (including those anamorphic horizontal blue lines), and once you notice it (which is right away for me) it becomes obstructive. This kind of New Hollywood thinking (remember, Spielberg is New Hollywood, coming out of the late 1960s) is often about showing the flaws so that the scenes feel more real.

But again, this isn't a realistic story. Sure, a flare in the lens now and then is part of our cinematic language, but here it becomes a stylistic watermark, showing up everywhere like unexpected stains on a color photograph. The 1961 version is just barely pre-New Hollywood, and the visual feeling is polished and perfect, a look that isn't much in favor now, but which truly suited that production.

Aladdin (2019)

A live-action remake with remarkable fidelity to the famous animated version (starring Robin Williams). It's fun, it has lots of effects, and it depends to a remarkable and surprising degree on the earlier version for its structure, song, plot, and even attitude. It has to be said from the start: the first 1991 version is better in every way.

Every way except one, that is. This 2019 update makes a really good attempt to be politically and socially astute. So the actors are largely more "authentic" than the earlier version, which got slammed in some quarters for insensitivity. But to be clear, the leading characters are still completely "Western" at their root. The genie is Will Smith (from Philadelphia). The title character is Egyptian (raised in Canada) and the love-interest princess is Indian (raised in England). But this begins to correct some of the criticisms of the Robin Williams version (which has moments of real, rare genius, and this newer one does not).

Will Smith does what he can to be the charming, outrageous, funny genie that became the Robin Williams hallmark. But the bar is high, and though he does a credible job, he's hampered by some larger decisions about how to present him-special effects are especially capricious, not always lifting the performance.

The crushing problem in the film is that it's not actually very well "made" in the simple sense of direction and cinematography. So there is a stiffness to scenes that are clearly expensive with many characters and a mis-en-scene extravagance. The camerawork is especially constricting-it tends to be serviceable, but this kind of movie requires something aesthetic, inventive, or just simply dramatic...and I mean the photography has to be dramatic, not just the subject. Why they handed this big big job to the inexperienced Alan Stewart is a mystery.

The director, Guy Ritchie, who has a couple of strong movies under his belt ("Snatch" is a favorite and he's done the recent Sherlock movies), doesn't seem to feel the material. Except, importantly, for the two leads in their more normal moments. Aladdin and Jasmine are both made to be real, sympathetic, and with good chemistry (as far as that is taken). They really make the movie, and must be the reason for its huge commercial success.

To Be or Not to Be (1942)

This is a powerful and yet peculiar and flawed movie. The best of it is the satire of the Nazi regime and Hitler himself. You have to remember this is during the war, and so it was aimed at the enemy.

Carole Lombard is clearly the lynchpin here, acting with aplomb-both humor and, oddly, gravitas at times. Jack Benny is all over the map-both humor (of course) and sometimes the serious actor they needed from him. But he's sometimes off pitch, hitting chords that are out of step (for me) with the script. One example would be the overextended use of Hamlet, which is meant to add another layer both deep and comic, but it runs dry fast.

Of course, behind this all is the strong direction by Lubitsch, who was trying for an elevated mix of humor and irony. Sometimes it's spot on, as when the dramatic comedy is interrupted by a bombing raid and the leading actors are in a shelter. Briefly.

Most of the time there is a mix of actors pretending to be Nazi types and usually getting away with it, with the laughs you'd expect. But underneath it all is the dreadful truth, which the audience felt all too deeply, and which you can still sense today.

I see the movie is highly rated, and I'd say the best of it is sublime. But not every scene or every character rises to this level, and the larger result is a mixed experience. One worth seeing, however.

Lonesome Dove (1989)

I understand that this is a beloved series, and that America-or at least "middle America"-sees this rough frontier world of ranchers and Indians in a sympathetic light. I also see that there is a stellar cast here, not just Danny Glover, Tommy Lee Jones, and of course Robert Duvall, but Chris Cooper, Steve Buscemi, and (toward the second half of the series) Anjelica Huston (who is not at her best).

I also see that the story is about a kind of love for friends, and family in a way, and of a feeling for the land and herding cattle, about life and death under the big sky. It has all these qualities that many people appreciate.

So what is my complaint? I think, first, to sum it up, it feels and looks and sounds like a "made for TV" movie. What do I mean? 1) The heavy fill light both inside and outside (to keep the dynamic range low for television screens of the time), 2) the dulled and echoed sounds for interior scenes, 3) the typically deep depth of field and tight cropping, and the langorous editing so that the run time is long (8 hours) for a story that might actually have been a stronger 2 hour movie.

The novel (Larry McCurtry's book of the same name) is about archetypes, which these days means stereotypes-well worn types. Furthermore, these are all "cleaned up" for television. This isn't really a gripe (I'm glad old school t.v. Is safe for kids), but it makes for a rosy view of a rough world. The prostitutes, the ranchers, and the general townspeople are given a "pretend" toughness. Even Duvall, to me, is a bit of a soft-scrubbed hero, likable and sincere, but restrained and incomplete.

Which brings the problem of the Indians-the Native Americans-who are either played by non-Indians, or are portrayed as brutish thugs, Western style. Even Danny Glover is somehow given a slightly secondary role, as in his first appearance when he's the one, as a black man, who has to put the horses in the stable. Mexicans barely appear, even though part of the movie is even set in Mexico. White folks? They act rough and earthy in a sanitized way. It really starts to seem like a parody. Except the actors aren't in on the spoof.

Oddly enough, the series is also slow in many parts. The dialog takes its time, the actions scenes quickly turn to a calm appraisal of the moment (the leading survivors have calm conversations about the mayhem or tragedy that just happened). The filming (camerawork) is not bad, but very straight forward, including the lighting (when needed). It feels like McCurtry (for the story) and the producers (for this version) all learned about the old West by watching movies. Old movies.

Death, by the way, appears often and is quite casually administered. This might be the most realistic aspect of the "film," but I don't know how to judge that. It certainly comes off a bit thin, without the life-and-death reactions you'd expect from at least some of the characters. There are exceptions, but few.

I have read some comments from people who object to some of these same things but come away saying it's still worth watching. Really? That's a painful way to look at things. I would say that about "Gone with the Wind" because, for me, the acting and story and filming make the somewhat racist story line bearable, and compensated. But I can't here. I'd avoid this mini-series, sentimental and false, and all for herding some cattle across several states that didn't used to belong to the ranchers in the first place.

Yes, this is big, heroic material. But you need a Texas Ranger/Manifest Destiny outlook to watch it without cringing. Or maybe just an interest in human love and interaction without strings attached. And history. And yes, it ends with a sunset.

Drive My Car (2021)

A thoughtful, and sometimes deep, movie about a man trying to understand his life.

Of course, that's what many of us would like to figure out, and so we're linked to his steady, slow, often restrained to the point of frustration process. That's part of what makes you latch on to it.

It would not be fair to say the movie is ponderous. But it is patient bordering on slow. And slow can be good. The writing is superb-often relying literally on the embedded play by Checkov within the larger movie which has some key echoes to the 1899 play. The heightened intensity of meaning made by linking the contemporary plot with the Russian one is both brilliant and a ploy, a device we've seen before. I'm not sure this is bad offhand, but it seems like a construction.

As someone from the United States, I was fascinated by the Japanese aspects to the film. But I was also struck by how overtly "westernized" it was, from the Checkov element to a series of smaller references, including one of the actors in the acting troupe who prefers to speak English. (The multiple languages used, including ASL or sign language, is a huge attraction, so this might be a necessity, having an "American" along.) The result is a film that is less Japanese than it might have been. I'm guessing it's about attracting an international audience-which is it pulled of superbly.

Then there is the car. I drive a Saab, a more recent one than the one in the movie, and I can only imagine how rare and interesting this car would be in Japan. Steering wheel on the left, but driving also on the left (which is not the norm in Europe, including Sweden, though they once were, in fact like Japan and Britain in this sense). A curiosity-the final scene shows the car on a highway driving on the right, as you would in the U. S. Not sure what that meant, but it had to have been deliberate.

In some ways the movie is great for being so steadfast, looking inward, asking questions about relationship and meaning outside of relationship. The lead actor is superb-indeed everyone is convincing and right on. That holds the sustained quiet feeling, with lots of driving along highways at night, together. Part of me loved the experience. Watch it if you are ready to settle in.

The Lost Daughter (2021)

I loved this movie even with its many shortcomings. It is so beautifully layered from a woman's point of view, it comes off as fresh and original, even though the events are something we've seen before in many ways. Olivia Coleman is certainly key, playing the main role and the pivot for events in current time and the many flashbacks. The younger version of her character, played by Jessie Buckley, is also really complex and impressive.

All the specifics of the story end up as spoilers, because each part is essential to the larger whole. So in the most generic terms we see a woman question her life choices regarding career and family, and then transferring some of that to a young woman and her daughter as a kind of echo. There are some pushy parts to the plot (the doll) and moments that seem a bit off (bad timing or not quite believable for a movie that relies on being believable), but in all the nuances and good intentions are superb.

Why do so many people get bored with it? Because it is about creating a mood, and does so at a simple pace. I never was bored, and I liked the mood, and was in fact rather rapt through most of it. I think it's a remarkable achievement, and a different editor might have clinched this as a true gem. Worth seeing if you like honest, probing, dramatic psychological movies.

Don't Look Up (2021)

The mixture of comic cynicism, witty one liners, and a lot of trying too hard to be funny makes this a strange movie to like. It's obviously aware of how it wants to be likeable (and this wordy description is on purpose). Self-aware movies require insight, and intelligence, even if they attempt to hide it.

But here you kind of just go for the ride, and enjoy bits and pieces along the way. Which isn't so terrible, except that you are thinking all the time how good it actually could have been. The ostenstible plot event-the comet-is workable, but the real point is the range of political excesses along the way. Yes, it reacts to the world as we know it in 2020, and we laugh a little at the rejection of science when the science is so obvious, and at the incompetance of the presidency, but it's not really as funny as it might seem on paper.

Great cast. Enjoyed Tyler Perry with Cate Blanchett. Leonardo DiCaprio was fine if a bit uninspired.

Best advice-don't expect too much and you'll enjoy it!

This barebones cast and even more barebones set try to do something curious and admirable: create a "realistic" feeling for what a family in the wilderness centuries ago would do if they encountered, or imagined, witchcraft in their midst.

If you don't believe in witches, then this is kind of for you (except the last 5 minutes, which I will not talk about). It makes a compelling case for how people pushed to the edge deal with tragedy and mystery. They live at the edge of the wilderness (not sure where, maybe Northern New England, since there are wolves at hand). They face starvation and hard work and lots of cloudy, rainy days. It's gloomy. But they have God and religion--a very well written version of loving and fearing God and believing in Jesus and yet finding things they can't explain.

Hence witchcraft, which means that some one or more people in the group are causing the problem through sorcery. It's pretty vivid stuff. Sometimes it veers into excess--a lot of gore and screaming, which might be okay if you like horror films, but if you don't it's the one difficult part. This is a great addition to movies about the Salem witch trials. And it's an inroduction to the up and coming Anya Joy-Taylor in the lead role.

But everyone acts their heart out and this movie, whatever its flaws (or whatever its limitations, rather), gets somewhere.

Until the ludicrous last 5 minutes, which makes it all cheap. Sorry.

Pillow to Post (1945)

A harmless but also frivolous war time movie that was good escapism at the time and a bit unnecessary eighty years later. But you're reading this and I watched the whole thing with my usual interest in everything in classic Hollywood, including Ida Lupino who carries this movie along start to finish.

This kind of movie has all the required polish of an A-list but not quite high priority release, and competent direction by Vincent Sherman. It depends most of all on a great script which it doesn't ahve, but there is an attempt here at a comedic hook-a dilemma, an unexpected fix, and the necessary complications. None of this is very convincing or even always so charming, but it works. The other thing that is naturally important is a few sparks of love, and that is something the audience really must have craved: a chance for some domestic happiness as the world was crumbling all around. And that sort of happens. Again, it's Lupino who holds up the rest.

Speaking of the rest, it has to be added that Sidney Greenstreet is a fabulous actor with truly limited talents-and he is miscast here badly as a somewhat kindly but a big boorish officer who sees and ignores what is going on around him. And Lupino's co-lead, the cute man in uniform that she is meant to be suddenly matched with, is William Prince, who is really a t.v. Kind of actor, and once t.v. Came along he fit into that world well. Here, not so much, though he's vaguely likable.

There is also a brief but revealing (characteristic) performance by Louis Armstrong (and singer Dorothy Dandridge). It might be worth it for that for some viewers (it was what drew me to it at first).

OK...if you do see this, enjoy it as a period piece, and for its setting (a motor court that's quite classic). And hang in there for the last 20 minutes where Lupino gets good and drunk. She's funny and touching. The zany aspects of the movie collide here and it's a naturally feelgood ending. Perfect...except maybe that the drunk leading lady is driving off with her boyfriend at the end.

The Unsuspected (1947)

Another Michael Curtiz gem (think of "Casablanca" and "Mildred Pierce") but with a story that is less compelling and, oddly, more complicated. The film is gorgeous, filmed with lush intelligence. And Claude Raines is terrific as the leading man throughout. Perhaps the rest of the cast is too routine to lift the film out of the ordinary in other ways. But I still found it striking and interesting all through, even the second time.

Anthropoid (2016)

Right from the start, this is a movie with a grim, gritty realism, but with beautiful understatement. The setting is Chechoslovakia in the depths of WWII, and some anti-Nazi patriots have parachuted back to their homeland to try to kill the Butcher of Prague, also known as the man who formulated the Final Solution. High stakes, low odds.

The valor, and almost certain death, for the leading men (and even some of the women at their sides) is part of what grips you, and so the realism makes you feel that valor as something true and rare. And maybe desperate, too, because they all leap into a dire situation and only gradually come to terms with its biggest proportions: dying.

Terrible wonderful stuff for a movie, and to see it visited in 2016 is really interesting.

It's a Wonderful World (1939)

A comedy with the creds to guarantee a decent success-James Stewart and Claudette Colbert as leads, a script written and screenwritten by Ben Hecht, and direction by the solid W. S. Van Dyke. So it clicks quickly into play with a serious seeming plot (independent detectives and a crime) in a chipper entertaining tone (fast and easy). There is a clear lack of depth as you go-this isn't going to be a moving or hard hitting classic, but rather a fun and well crafted entertainment-and it's too bad. The basics are here to make a really fine movie.

And that's what keeps it going-the really fine movie part. There is first of all a sincere performance by Stewart, earnest and nuanced as the regular guy detective who knows good from bad (an important distinction here). He goes quickly out on a limb and he cuts through the sometimes corny side characters. Colbert, when she shows up, is no Myrna Loy (Van Dyke directed the first "Thin Man"), but I like her a lot (she was in "It Happened One Night") and she gives the comedy a zaniness that works.

But Stewart never cracks a smile, and it's a relief because he's the backbone of an improbable series of events. The murder itself is practically the McGuffin here-the screwball romance part of things is the main plot. What matters more is Stewart and Colbert-picking apples as enemies, for example. They both need the food, and both don't trust the other, but they are both nice people at heart and so it kind of happens to make sense in a funny way.

The Stratton Story (1949)

I expected to like but not love this movie, but Jimmy Stewart and June Allison are so likeable and natural together, it ends up being a really enjoyable movie.

It's a baseball movie, for what that's worth. I mean, there are usually a lot of clichés that go with the build up of a rising star in the sport. And a lot of that is here (coaxed by Frank Morgan, who is spry and quite good in this post-Wizard role). And if you like baseball movies this is good enough to keep it going.

But this isn't just a baseball movie, and that's a good thing. It's a romance, a drama, a tragedy. It layers up some deep and moving events without overdramatizing it. (I won't way what happens.) And the baseball part of the movie leads to this other drama really well, as a contrast and a kind of broken-dream tale.

It has to be said that it seems Stewart and Allison might make any story fly. But this one really works, especially as an MGM drama. Sam Wood is director and producer here-and if he's not famous as a director any more, he did have a key role as a Marx Brothers director early on. He certainly shows a deft touch for basic realism even as the extremes seem beyond normal life.

But then, it's Stewart and Allison who pull it off in the end. They made two more movies together (the "Glenn Miller Story" is really good, much better than I expected).

Look for Agnes Moorehead here, and for some decent but straight forward photography by Harold Rossen (of "Wizard of Oz" and "Singin' in the Rain" fame). Mostly, set yourself up for the second half, which is beautifully restrained and searching.

Dear Heart (1964)

I started this movie almost by accident the first time, perhaps taken by the title. Then the sharp, clean set design from the early 60s and the bright modernis photography took me in. And yes, of course, there is the odd leading stars, and aging Glenn Ford and the impressive Geraldine Page. This is a totally contrived set-up movie, with a fun premise and not a lot of depth (not atypical of a lot of early 60s Hollywood fare). But it survives because of those very things, as a kind of movie we don't see much anymore, driven by some great acting and good writing, and a willingness (by the viewer) to sit back and get sucked in.

Slice of life? Not a chance. Deep social comment? Not really. But still significant? Oddly, yes, it works, and I've seen it twice. So there.

The Florida Project (2017)

Filled with contradictions-it's meant to be a serious movie (film not digital, Panavision lenses, Technicolor post-production) and yet it's loosely filmed (and with amazing aweful distortion in many of the shots) and is a mess.

It attempts to be a slice of life of some imaginary but seemingly based on fact world of a welfare hotel in Florica. But why? What kinds of clichés are really going to make this meaningful? I think people like this movie because it shows them things they want to see-a kind of armchair voyeurism-but I don't think that's enough at all. Even if you identify with the problem or have empathy for it.

I know that the movie has gotten a lot of high praise, and that could be a welcome sign that there is a craving for movies that have substance, and that are not only about effects and pizazz. But I'm also for a higher kind of craft, or something with real cinematic force.

Scarecrow (1973)

A seemingly simple drama about a guy out of prison...but with Gene Hackman as the leading role expect something special. And then Al Pacino plays the sidekick, and an interesting, and little talked about, New Hollywood film is under way. The setting is a kind of revision of the American West, the big dry outdoors no longer the wild West, but still something unique in the visual lexicon.

The director is also little discussed-Jerry Schatzberg-and this might be his best film, aided by the elegant, searing cinematography of Vlimos Zsigmond (famous for "Days of Heaven"). Seeing how the film unfolds you might agree that it's Zsigmond's film, for it carries forward with a brilliant, quiet choreography. Elemental scenes where actors move through space, or through a diner, are made almost gripping by how the camera tracks them.

Of course, we eventually have to admit this is a two-man show. Hackman is his usual comfortable best, filled with loud nuance. I mean, he is a strong character, but his actions are loaded with little, natural details. And Pacino plays an unexpected sweetie with a cute smile. It's a compelling pair.

Things are slow, for sure. It's an easygoing flow with often little really plot. We get into their lives and their heads. This is no "Midnight Cowboy" by any means, but it comes from the same intention, it would seem. Two slightly mismatched outsiders find they need each other, and a bond deeper than mere friendship is formed.

When Trumpets Fade (1998)

A raw, realistic look at a how a fictional soldier tries to get through an actual mismanaged battle against the Nazis. As the deaths mount, the leading man (played by Roy Eldard) has to take larger risks to try to not get killed. It's a depressing movie with scant heroism except for the main effort near the end, which has a kind of Hollywood bravado at odds with the tough psychology of the rest.

Saying all that, it's clear that this movie is bravely trying to understand an actual situation of war that might be typical. Forget the aura of other movies, or the storytelling of veterans around the fire (if that ever happens). This is about the mechanics of failure and the will of a single man.

Finding Neverland (2004)

Fanciful, sometimes amazing, oddly touching even if outwardly contrived. And layered up with that archetypal gem of a story, Peter Pan, which this is directly related to.

The author of Peter Pan is J. M. Barrie, a name barely known compared to his creation. And that man is the character here in a period. It's all really really interesting.

Why it doesn't quite take off and be as transformative as the original might have to do with how amibitious it seems, layereing it up, creating something on top of something. I usually like that a lot, but this sometimes makes the real emotional impact less direct.

On the other hand, I want to see it again...it's that kind of movie, worth it, and demanding. I have to add that I've never quite liked Johnny Depp (I know, I'm in a minority) and I've always loved Julie Christie. Winslet is undeniable.

The Post

A very well made but also very straight forward movie about a moving moment in newspaper publishing history. Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep are both superb-and the few scenes where it is just the two of them (like an early restaurant conversation) they are really amazing. Worth seeing just for that, if you love good acting.

But what drives the movie is a sense of justice-and a certainly pro-democracy anti-Republican kind of justice (that's a given, these days). That is-Nixon was a crook and was trying to squash the free press, and the people behind the scenes, publisher and editor, were caught in a trap because they were in many ways part of the social and political world of their subjects.

This is where the movie has real potential, trying to remind us how even newspapers are caught up in the actual net they are reporting on. Which means lots of conflicts. The screenplay starts to deal with this (the writers would insist they dealt with it thoroughly) but in fact they miss a real opportunity to talk about a huge problem of boundaries and honesty in reporting. And publishing.

What the movie turns to more convincingly is a straight up drama about the courage of a relatively small newspaper (the Washington Post) in a quest to give facts and depth to our understanding of the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers would be a resounding encouragement to good investigative journalism. And the movie ends (with no spoiler here) with a quiet, and chilling, portrayal of the discovery of the Watergate break-in.

So, a great story, with some great acting. End of story. (Though you can find MORE of the real story in a recent New Yorker article about the connection between the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.)

The Little Giant (1933)

By 1933 the gangster genre was in full blown maturity, and Warner Bros. Along with Edward G. Robinson were key to that. This is a lesser known movie but still a good one, two years after his phenomenal "Little Caesar." This time, they thought the genre had room for comedy, and it doesn't always take off. Robinson is good, and Mary Astor is also good in a very different way, though not always on the same page as Robinson.

Mostly this is part of the larger picture-there are better Warner Bros gangster films, but this one holds its own.

7 Cajas (7 Boxes ) 2012

An amazing film. It isn't just that you get a young person's glimpse into lower class Paraguay, and the markets and hustling going on. Or a charming (and sometimes overly simple) story of cops and robbers, ambition and innocence.

The movie is also brilliantly filmed.

The language is nominally Spanish, but my South American wife had trouble following some of it-not for the accent, it seems, but for a vocabulary that is... And for every improbable turn or slightly awkward motivation we have a slew of tender, sharp, and creative bits.

Well, I have a 4 year old going on 5, and I've already seen this film a dozen times. Okay, maybe 10 times. So I'm an expert of some sort.

And it's got so many great aspects-for kids at least-I have to only admire the construction, the acting (via voice and animation), and the music (which is not incidental).

I do like jazz, which helps, because I bemoan its continuing marginalization. The film makes it seem relevant on some basic level, a way to talk with layers and beauty. Yeah, the movie actually has qualities of adult loss that add to the very childlike wonder and the basic twisting plot.

I don't talk plot, so can only say that there is a key twist (on the hospital bed) that took me by surprise the first time and still thrills me on later watching. It's key to the willingly inventive qualities thoughout. For my taste, the recreation of heaven and souls and the apparent rules that govern that world are fun but just a shell for the rest of the movie (just as they are inside the head of the girl in "Inside Out."

But I have to return to the music, and to the dramatic stylizing of Jon Batiste, who is funny and talented in real life, too. The two or three times the movie turns its attention to complete absorbtion in the music I am swept away. I just hope other people are, too, since jazz is one of the great Black developments in world music, and world art.

Mank (2020)

The movie that everyone wants to like. But why?

Oh, Gary Oldman as Mankewitz is rather terrific. And the subject matter should hold water, concerning William Randolf Hearst and that 1930s world of excess, not to mention Orson Welles and that obvious Citizen Kane connection.

But there are so many scenes where the writer is straining to make sure the audience is keeping up with things, for example giving us first names (and variations on first names) to clue us in on who is who. The strain of having to inform the audience chokes the intended authenticity. The scene early on where some screenwriters (including Ben Hecht) are chatting about screenplays and ideas is so forced it's embarrassing-especially since it's about screenwriting.

The movie has its beauty, for sure, filmed in greyish black and white that is a softened, more detailed version of classic Hollywood. Films from the time it is set, mid-1930s to 1940, are noticably "harder" in tonality, meaning deeper blacks and more overall contrast. Citizen Kane is a prime example. It's worth noting that the photography for "Mank" is generally very poised and luminous, lots of backlighting and delineated grey scales, not much like the photography in Kane.

Now you might expect the film to grow into its own vocabulary, to have a style of its own whatever the borrowings of its substance. But no, the script is stubbornly derivative and simplistic (almost as if the writers were in their 20s and just discovering Hollywood, and literature). And the reason for this is as old as the hills-the son David Fincher is adapting the screenplay of his beloved departed father, Jack Fincher. A natural mistake, but not one to put $50,000,000 on.

The plot, what little there actually is, blunders along, dull as pancakes in July. The cliches abound, the supporting cast spouts obvious quips, and the name-dropping is endless and revealing. I do love Citizen Kane, and admire Welles, and I also greatly admire many of Fincher's films on another level, so it all is a disappointment.

The saving grace is certainly Oldman, who acts his heart out, and sustains many scenes, even ones that don't offer much worth saving. True, he's a 62 year old playing the part of a man between 37 and 42, roughly, and that doesn't help. But he's committed and complex. A good job.

And the movie isn't a total wreck...but with all the hype, it really deflates and confounds. How and why, with all this talent, did it end up so underachieving? Or then again, who really cares?

Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943)

A film significant only to those who already love the Universal-era monster films going back to "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." It's not bad in any way, really, and has some dramatic lighting and archetypal moments. And it's actually really good for one thing (to me): Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolfman. His pathos convinces and wins every scene.

Bela Legosi is a surprisingly weak monster, stumbling around with his arms up in a parody of the truly ungainly vigor of the original Karloff versions (which include the first three "Frankenstein" movies). The meeting of the two legends, as both actors and characters, is the hook to the movie.

And so of course we keep waiting for them to meet, which they do, and it is clearly the monster who is bad and the Wolfman who is good, deep down. This avoids, unfortunately, the pathos once attributed to the Frankenstein monster, and the second half of the film turns into some simplified fighting and silliness that undermines the building up of the Wolfman story in the first half.

There are a few obvious borrowings (lets call them homages) from the earlier 1930s films (Chaney's original "Wolfman" was 1941, just before this one). One of them is the laboratory where Dr. Frankenstein once worked. And there is an also obvious low budget at work, limiting some of the effects needed to make things creepy-and it fails to update to a Casablanca-era production value the audience is now used to.

But it's fun, and Chaney is great.

Dragnet (1954)

You can't watch this without knowing something about the t.v. series, which ran from 1951-1959. So this movie was a kind of spin-ff, but rather than creating a television show from a movie this goes the other way around.

The familiar voiceover is there, and the familiar voice: Jack Webb. He holds it all together with a clear factual style we expect and like. He is the creater of the t.v. show and he made this version come around (he directed). Why do it? Maybe just a different audience, and shooting in color, and maybe to create a longer story, over an hour.

Sadly, the Peacock TV (NBC) version streaming in 2020 was cropped to t.v. (4:3) proportions, and it feels cramped. I'm sure that Webb and the photographer, Edward Colman, wouldn't appreciate it. The color is restrained-the Kodak version called Warnercolor, not Technicolor-but it works well here.

I haven't seen the t.v. episodes in years, but I have a funny feeling you could find episodes that work with economy and power better than this one, which doesn't quite make use of the extra time well. There is a lot of clever, fast dialog, but to excess, making it strained and obvious. Fun, yes, but the movie isn't held up by these cheap quips.

Except sometimes. Early on, a cop says about the gun shots, "The first two cut him in half." Webb replies, "The second two turned him into a crowd." Classic Dragnet matter-of-fact style. It works. In fact, it might be this delivery, with fact after fact, that makes the show and the movie what it is, above all. The plot is routine as much as murder in the movies is routine, but the delivery is interesting.

But I have to just be blunt here...it's a huge bore on another level. Yes it has steady determination, but it's not a dramatic feature movie in any normal form.