bud-morans Reviews

The Wages of Fear (2024)

If it weren't a remake of a classic . . .

[5/10 · 31 March 2024]

. . . the new Wages of Fear would just be a mediocre action/adventure movie. But since it's a remake of a singular classic, it's atrocious. The original took a deep look at its characters, had a remarkable location, and delivered prolonged nail-biting suspense. This remake manages to be slightly exciting at moments, but that's all. But for viewer's who know the original -- or William Friedkin's remake, Sorcerer -- such excitement quickly wanes.

The scenario is the same: nitroglycerin must be delivered by trucks to an oil well fire to extinguish the flame. Nitroglycerin is highly unstable, so the drivers are taking their lives in their hands. In the real world, nitroglycerin has been replaced by other more stable explosives, so why it must be nitroglycerin now should have been explained, as it was in Friedkin's Sorcerer. A definite strike against this remake, but it's not the biggest problem.

The remake adds a ticking clock to the scenario: unless the fire is extinguished in twenty-four hours, a neighboring natural gas field will explode and destroy a nearby village. This does little to amplify the viewer's suspense.

The characters aren't much: two brothers, one of the brothers lover, and a bad guy. The brothers are estranged, as one blames the other for leaving him behind at the scene of a robbery nine months prior, and he has been doing time in a brutal prison. The brother who was at liberty during this time is the one with the lover, and he feels just dreadful about leaving his brother behind, but that's it. The at liberty brother's lover is quite lovely and works for a Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Bordere) type NGO, so she has principles and cares, but that's it. The bad guy works for the oil company and only reveals himself as the bad guy gradually. But any astute viewer, with no knowledge of the original, will see the reveal coming miles away.

But in this case, knowing the original might work against figuring that out, because there is no bad guy in the original. Instead, characters reveal themselves, their hidden natures, weaknesses, strengths, brutalities, and kindnesses as they haul their dangerous cargo over treacherous roads. One cries out, "We're paid to be afraid!" and in the original they are afraid, going up in isolation against the ever present possibility of death. And in this remake? They're kinda scared. At moments. But these are action/adventure heroes, buddies - no! Better! Brothers! - so their fear doesn't cut deep. How could it? They're cardboard cut outs. And here is where this remake falls off a cliff and explodes.

Beyond that, there's not much to say. The finale is sentimental, meant to be moving, which may have some screaming at the TV. I did. I guess anything resembling the original finale's breathtaking nihilism must have been vetoed by a producer, but that may be a good thing-I doubt the filmmakers could have pulled off anything close to it.

The acting is fine, although the actors aren't given much to work with. The acting and the cinematography, which often including sweeping panoramas of the desert, makes watching this new Wages of Fear tolerable. But people who remake a classic should aim for something higher than that. Otherwise they'll end up having contributed yet another data point in favor of the proposition that classics should not be remade.

Julia (2022–2023)

Why Watch This When You Could Watch Her Original French Chef Series?

[2/10 · 23 November 2023]

The Julia Child here bears almost no resemblance to the real Julia Child, neither in terms of physicality or personality. Julia Child was not plump but tall and athletic; she did not muddle through but projected confidence and ease despite a certain awkwardness. I don't understand how anyone who ever saw an episode of The French Chef could tolerate this nonsense, and if you haven't ever seen an episode of that groundbreaking series, I urge you to. From the very first episode, it's clear that she was a natural. Her delivery was fluid despite covering detailed and technical material; she is completely confident and at ease. And why shouldn't she be? She already had remarkable experiences and accomplishments to her credit. She worked under William "Wild Bill" Donovan for the OSS in World War II, handling a variety of secret materials. How distant and uninteresting is the sad dishrag of a woman presented in this series from the true and remarkable Julia Child.

We Summon the Darkness (2019)

Poor Editing Spoiled What Could Have Been a Good Movie

[5/10 · 4 June 2021]

"We Summon the Darkness" disappoints as a comedy, as a horror movie, and as a comedy/horror movie. It's not the acting: Alexandra Daddario et al. Are all fine, committed, credible. The script had problems, particularly that serious Christians will not take the Lord's Name in vain while dropping f-bombs, etc. Left and right, but was generally sound. The problem is the editing: instead of the taut editing comedy and drama require, takes play out leisurely as if we're in some indie dramedy, gestures and dialogue given time and space to "breathe." I don't know why this is: both editors credited have respectable filmographies (although that there were two editors hints at problems behind the scenes). On top of which, the music was generally inapt. Watchable as a curiosity or if you're a big fan of any of the actors here.

White Orchid (2018)

Stylish, insubstantial, disappointing

[4/10 · 29 March 2019]

As premises go, it's thin: Claire is a freelance investigator for the San Luis Obispo Country Department of Social Services who finds relatives and family members of those who die alone with no known heirs. (Aside: if the count government had such investigators, they'd be working for the probate court, but never mind). Claire is assigned the case of an unidentified murder victim known only as the White Orchid who was killed in a particularly grisly way. She is only supposed to identify the victim and leave the actual murder investigation to the police. Since Claire is a brunette who immediately presents as plain, timid, and inhibited, of course she dives into not only the murder investigation, but the identity of the victim, who was a stylish and (bi)sexually uninhibited blonde bombshell. Just because a movie's premise is thin and implausible doesn't mean the movie can't be good or even great: Hitchcock's Vertigo, which this movie alludes to several times with all the subtlety of a jackhammer tearing up concrete, seems similarly silly on paper, but delivers a great experience to its viewers in its visual style, great performances and direction, and a memorable soundtrack. White Orchid only has visual style going for it. Direction and soundtrack are undistinguished, while the performances are pretty bad, which isn't so much an annoyance as it is a puzzler, since many of these actors are capable of good or even outstanding work (an exception is Nichelle Nichols, who turns in a tiny gem of a performance as a shut-in retiree). It doesn't take long before the viewer realizes what this movie wants to be, and how far short of its goal it fell. You may stay with it for the (unfortunately predictable) plot twists, or you may turn it off before that. I stayed with it despite realizing I would be disappointed.

The ABC Murders (2018)

Not for those looking for fidelity to Christie's original-

[9/10 · 19 March 2019]

-or for those deeply attached to David Suchot's Poirot. This is a dark and gritty tale of Poirot as an aging man with a moral calling rather than a dedication to fastidiousness pursuing that calling despite being shunned by Scotland Yard as a possible imposter and by society at large as an unwelcome foreigner. Poirot's previous patron among the detectives at Scotland Yard retired under a cloud because Poirot's claimed association with the Belgian police before his emigration could not be verified; the series paints the UK of the 1930s as beset by racist sentiments and even fascist organizations. This is certainly not for those looking for fidelity to Christie's original vision of Poirot or this particular story, and is neither for those David Suchot is Poirot. I fall into neither of those categories (although I very much enjoy Suchot's Poirot) and I found it engrossing despite a few unfortunate (and I think completely avoidable) missteps. If there is a major failing to it, I think it is making the issues of the England of its time merely a stand in for those of the present day. Despite that, i remained engaged by it all the way to its final moments and hope we can see John Malkovich essay this version of Poirot again.

Mar de plástico (2015–2016)

Disappointing

[4/10 · 17 March 2019]

From a plot outline, one might think this would be a terrific series. Unfortunately, it doesn't deliver on the potential: the performances are mostly one or two note affairs, and too many situations fly in the face not only of common police procedure, but even common sense. Example: a pre-teen boy walks into a police station with a loaded gun intent on killing a detective, who talks him down from it-but then allows the kid to simply to simply walk out of the station. On what planet would this kid not be on the ground and in handcuffs the second after the gun was out of his hands? Even the most compassionate response would be to detain the kid gently for a psychological evaluation. And this is just the one example that comes to mind.

Strangers (I) (2018)

Unrealistic one dimensional characters detract from an interesting situation and plot

[5/10 · 6 March 2019]

I'm five episodes in, and while I'm engaged and want to find out what happens next, I find myself wanting to reach into the television and strangle Jonah Mulray, the main character played by John Simm. I can't fault Simm's acting: it's Mulray's that makes me want to kill. He's a professor of...well, something from the UK with a wife whose work (also unspecified) requires her to spend half her time in Hong Kong. He's never accompanied her to HK since he's afraid of flying, but he'll have to fly there now as she dies in a car crash there in the very first scene of the show. Once there, he discovers her life there was not what she claimed it would be; more than that would be a spoiler, so I won't go on. Suffice it to say, Mulray wants to get to the bottom of his wife's death, and there's nothing he won't do get there. This could have led to sounding his character's depths, a weak and unworldly man in a strange and tough land discovering himself, but that's not what you get. Instead, he becomes progressively more reckless while not just remaining naive about Hong Kong society, but showing a headache-inducing stupidity and inability to learn from his experiences. The characters aren't much better, each representing a single type or affect. However, I'm staying with it because the basic situation is interesting and I want to peel back the layers of the mystery the show presents to the viewer. But if Mulray doesn't show that he's learned anything about the society he's moving in (if every cop you encounter someplace is corrupt and dishonest, what should you reasonably conclude about the police department there as a whole? And guess how Mulray responded at a situation at the end of episode 4), I'm going to start yelling at the TV

The Other Side of the Wind (2018)

Welles' Last Movie-more challenging than his first?

[10/10 · 4 November 2018]

The tl;dr: I think The Other Side of the Wind richly rewards repeated viewing. Maybe that means its for Welles fans and completists. If you are one, dig in. If you're not, approach with caution; there's still a lot to enjoy, but you can't expect it to be served in the usual way. And if you think you might be one, read on-

Although Citizen Kane was well received by those who got to see it when first released (it was Hearst's embargo that ruined it commercially), it must have been a bit of a challenge for viewers used to a chronological narrative driven by plot, although it's not hard to grasp that it coheres around the unraveling the mystery of Kane's personality. In contrast, The Other Side of the Wind seems to lack any coherence: it's documentary footage of director Jake Hannaford's birthday party intercut with footage shown there from his unfinished last movie, which is also entitled The Other Side of the Wind. But on second viewing (yes, I had to watch it twice to get this, and maybe that counts against it and reveals me to be a fan rather than an impartial viewer), it becomes clear it's also about undoing the mystery around a man, Hannaford, another larger than life figure. Where the psychosexual aspect of Kane's personality was encoded in a bad joke ("Rosebud" was Hearst's nickname for Marion Davies' private parts), here it's front and center. Hannaford's movie, such as it is, is explicitly erotic, showing a passive male being stalked by a sexually hungry female; the conversation around Hannaford at his birthday concerns his past loves, and Hannaford's friends and entourage display disturbing levels of aggression, dependency, and thwarted homoeroticism-except for the one woman among them, Zarah, an older actress who claims she and Hannaford were never initimates, and whom Hannaford addresses as "Mother." The other adult woman, critic Julie Rich (and based on Pauline Kael?), is an outsider looking for a pat "answer" to Hannaford's mysteries, and whose sallies in this direction also shed light while her conclusion should be rejected as, well, pat and simplistic. That all this is disclosed to the viewer as the funding for Hannaford's last picture collapses and its male lead goes missing is not an accident: Hannaford's public persona is collapsing and with it goes not just his ability to navigate the business aspect of making movies, but the source of his creative abilities as well. While each scene from Hannaford's birthday may seem random and disconnected from a plot perspective, they each reveal new aspects and depths to his inner conflicts and the now dead (or at least dying) sources of his creativity, and the successive scenes of Hannaford's last movie build to a denouement explicitly showing what is only hinted at in the party scenes (and no, it's not that Hannaford is a latent homosexual)

This may make it sound as if The Other Side of the Wind is an intellectual challenge (or at least a puzzle for the viewer to put together) rather than a movie that can be straightforwardly enjoyed, but that's not the case. The performances are terrific, vivid, and there are many unexpected delights scattered throughout. The visual style of the film within a film is a deliciously nasty parody of Michelangelo Antonioni's (who Welles' evidently derided as a "festival director"), while its editing pace is thoroughly Wellesian, and that it manages to be linear and driven despite lacking dialogue is a piece of bravura technique (or maybe just showing off, but still amazing and fun). John Huston's performance is wonderful, a shambling mess of a man who can still terrify, control, and seduce. Lilli Palmer's Zarah is an eerie echo of Marlene Dietrich's Tanya in Touch of Evil. There is a riveting and disturbing scene with boarding school teacher that maybe discloses something about Welles' own boarding school experiences. And who knew that Peter Bogdanovich was such a good impressionist? Had the party scenes been shot and edited in a more conventional way, The Other Side of the Wind might be more accessible: think the party scene from All About Eve on steroids (which, considering The Other Side of the Wind is about the simultaneous fall of old Hollywood and old macho, isn't just a wisecrack). But the frenetic editing pace and variety of film stocks used for the party scenes render it all challenging, even for viewers used to contemporary action-adventure movies.

To paraphrase Tanya's last line in Touch of Evil: It all, it was some kind of film. What does it matter what you say about movies?

Georgia (1995)

Intense character study

[8/10 · 21 April 2014]

If you enjoy or are in the mood for a character driven movie with terrific performances and can endure scenes where a character so embarrasses him- or herself that you cringe, then you'll find Georgia rewarding viewing. Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific as always—but so is Mare Winningham.

If you don't enjoy such movies, or are not in the mood for one, you will be bored or annoyed or upset by Georgia. There is not much in the way of a plot, and the movie stops rather than ends.

As you can tell by my rating, I (often, but not always) enjoy character driven movies, and I think Georgia is one of the most memorable I've seen. That said, I have found myself in moods where I'd rather gargle glass than watch this (or a John Cassavetes movie, who I think is the master of the type).

The plot—or perhaps situation is a better word—is simple. Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as Sadie Flood, a singer whose chops are mediocre at best but can convey raw, honest emotion, and whose life is lived in the shadow of her successful sister, Georgia, a country/folk singer with a mellifluous voice that conveys no emotion whatsoever and who enjoys a bit more than modest success in the Pacific Northwest. As played by Leigh, Sadie is an open wound of a human being: for every chance given her, she will mess it up; every trust extended she will betray. Why? Because she has neither the talent nor the love of her sister, who is as tightly wound a control monster as you will ever meet in life or fiction. About the only emotion she allows herself to express is a poisonous hatred for Sadie. Early on the movie you can see it leaking from Georgia in spite of herself, and there is a scene where Georgia extends a chance to perform for a large audience, and Sadie's performance is so awful (purposefully on Leigh's part, of course) that it might cause a viewer to feel such disdain is justified, but Georgia must surely know her sister, and to give her a such chance is to invite disaster.

As I wrote above, the film does not end as much as stop, inter cutting between two performances by Sadie and Georgia. I don't know if Georgia even knows she hates Sadie, but Sadie knows she will always be in her sister's shadow; hence her never ending abuse of drink and drugs to blot out that knowledge and the pain of rejection.