The Fall Guy (2024): A Review

 

THE FALL GUY

I think most of the audience who ventured to The Fall Guy were unaware of the 1980s television series on which it is loosely based. Very loosely based. So loosely based that it bears no resemblance save for the name and two quick cameos. The Fall Guy thinks it is an action romantic comedy. It fails spectacularly at each of those elements. 

Colt Stevens (Ryan Gosling) has been the primary stunt double for action star Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) for six years. Colt enjoys his job. He also finds himself drawn to Jody (Emily Blunt), a camerawoman on Ryder's latest film. A freak accident, however, has injured Colt both professionally and personally.

18 months later, Colt is essentially a recluse, working as a valet and withdrawing from everyone. Megaproducer Gail Meyer (Hannah Waddingham) finally tracks him down. She pleads with him to go to Australia and come out of retirement to double for Ryder on Metalstorm, his newest film. He reluctantly goes after learning that Jody, who is directing Metalstorm, personally requested him.

Once in Australia, he finds out two things. One: Jody not only did not request his services but was unaware that he had even been hired. Finding it too late to find anyone else, she reluctantly and somewhat bitterly accepts him. Two: Gail actually brought him to find Ryder, who is missing after a drug and alcohol bender. Soon, Colt finds himself escaping various drug dealers and is horrified to find a dead body in Ryder's room. Could it be Tom Ryder himself whose corpse is somehow missing?

Attempting to balance escaping various attempts on his life and solve this mystery while also working on his relationship with Jody and keep her cinematic dreams alive, Colt continuously dodges hits all over Sydney. With help from his friend, stunt coordinator Dan Tucker (Winston Duke) as well as Alma (Stephanie Hsu), Ryder's personal assistant, and even Ryder's French-comprehending dog, Colt discovers Ryder is not only very much alive but involved in nefarious business. Will Colt live to return in triumph as the Unknown Stuntman? Will Jody's movie be saved? Will Colt and Jody Moreno get back together?

I understand that The Fall Guy was crafted as a love letter to stunt men and women who go unrecognized by even filmmakers (there is a jab about there being no Academy Award category for Stunts). After seeing The Fall Guy, I would say it is less love letter and more poison pen letter. 

As a side note, I continue to firmly oppose a Best Stunts or Stunt Directing category. I also oppose a Best Casting category, but I digress.  

Drew Pearce's screenplay is shockingly disjointed and bloated. For example, once Colt arrives for location filming, he is put through take after take while Jody, directing for the first time, goes over their thwarted relationship as "direction" to her stunt man. I put aside for the moment the idea that a stunt man needs motivation for the character. What we could have wrapped up in one "take" instead goes to four "takes". That means we have to keep going on and on, seeing the same thing over and over while these two are openly talking about their troubled romance. Worse, in this section, we are getting flashbacks to something that The Fall Guy never built up.

We saw in the opening scene Colt and Jody being mildly flirtatious with each other. However, in this section, we were treated to scenes of what supposedly was their great love affair (or at least their fling). The audience would not have such information prior to this, so there is little emotional investment in seeing Colt and Jody together. Moreover, given how Metalstorm is the big break for "visionary director Jody Moreno", her taking up time in this expensive production to bemoan getting dumped by this himbo makes her out to be unprofessional.  

As another side note, I do wonder how this very British woman can be "Jody Moreno". Is she Rita Moreno's London cousin? Maybe Alfred Molina's niece? How this daughter of Britain has a Hispanic surname The Fall Guy is never going to bother answering. I also do not get how anyone can be declared a "visionary director" on her/his debut film. Yes, it is a minor point to be fixated on, but there it is.

Director David Leitch, who started out as a stuntman himself, does not appear to understand that maybe less is more. We get, for example, a scene where Colt has a hard time with a hotel room key. We have all been there, and it might have worked if made into a quick montage. Instead, we have to have two long scenes of Colt struggling to use the malfunctioning key until he literally breaks the door down. 

I am asked to believe that Colt can get thrown into Metalstorm and perform elaborate stunts on almost a minute's notice. The chariot race sequence in the 1959 Ben-Hur took a year of preparation and a combined five weeks to film. One or two cameras were accidentally destroyed during the filming. I am aware that technology has improved in these 65 years, but I doubt they have improved so much that any stuntman can jump in for big stunts almost right off the plane. 

The Fall Guy is very disjointed as I mentioned earlier. We have more than one section where two events are going on that do not mesh. In the opening, we see Colt's encounter with someone he worked with and his call with Gail. The way it was edited, it was unclear when the valet's revenge took place: whether it was that very night or some time before. Later, we get what is supposed to be a major action sequence underscored by Jody, forever pining for Colt, belts out Phil Collins' Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) to reveal how upset she is at Colt not showing up. At one point we see Colt literally passing by the karaoke bar where everyone is singing along to this power ballad. It is dumb.

Not that seeing a guy singing Genie in a Bottle is any less cringe-inducing. 

There is another scene where it is a split screen between Jody and Colt where she consults him about using a split screen for Metalstorm. I figure this was meant to be meta, but it came across as far too clever for its own good. This constant self-referencing is maddening.

The worst is when we finally see a clip from Metalstorm. Jason Momoa in a cameo takes the Tom Ryder role. One would think it is because Ryder was arrested for the crimes he committed. No, in a mid-credit scene we find that the moron got himself blown up, then see Alma suddenly arrive and call for Momoa's agent. If that set up had been switched (we see Ryder's end and then seen Momoa), it would have worked and been funny. As it is in The Fall Guy, the joke loses its bite because we heard the punchline before we got the setup. 

Hsu's entire character is emblematic of the shambles that is The Fall Guy. She just pops in, drops her MacGuffin, then disappears until the very last moment. Same for Iggy Starr (Teresa Palmer), Ryder's girlfriend who attacks Colt when he enters Ryder's apartment. Leaving aside for the moment how dim Jody is by never inquiring where her star is or Gail going through such machinations to frame Colt when anyone on set would have done, Iggy's attack is bizarre on so many levels.

Who is she? Why is she flinging swords at Colt? Is she Ryder's costar as well as lover? Is she unaware of Ryder's actions? Where did she go after this alleged bit of action comedy? 

The Fall Guy has just such abysmal performances from almost everyone. The more I see of Gosling, the more I am becoming convinced that he not only cannot play comedy, but he pretty much has contempt for the genre. Every time he has played comedy, Gosling comes across as too self-conscious of how it is a comedy. I was not impressed with his comedic turns in Crazy Stupid Love, La La Land or Barbie, and in The Fall Guy he has the same issue Katharine Hepburn had when she played comedy. 

Hepburn could do comedy: The Philadelphia Story, Bringing Up Baby, The African Queen. Granted, she had brilliant directors behind those films (George Cukor, Howard Hawks, John Huston), a list David Leitch has not been added to. However, when Hepburn played comedy poorly such as in The Iron Petticoat, she was always too aware that it was "funny", so she ended up forcing the humor. Similarly, Gosling too continuously makes one aware "this is FUNNY" and it ends up being anything but. There is a blankness in his eyes, a sense that his heart is not in it. He may be funny, but in The Fall Guy he is simply trying too hard. At one point he screams "You JINXED IT!", and in his performance, it seems he cannot decide to be serious or not.

Same with Blunt. To be fair, her character is a terrible one: the woman forever fixated on the man who never got back to her. Jody is not an independent and strong female, but a lovelorn fool who would sink her big break just to work out her relationship issues with a stunt man. The Fall Guy seems such a strange follow-up to their Oscar nominations for Barbie and Oppenheimer respectively. They have no chemistry together, making the romantic relationship between Colt and Jody ridiculous.

I can give grudging praise to Aaron Taylor-Johnson, channeling Matthew McConaughey accent and all as the whacked-out Tom Ryder. It was by no means a great performance, but it was not a great character, so I cut him some slack.

The Fall Guy is just terrible. I do not remember the television show (despite the cameos from The Fall Guy's Lee Majors and Heather Thomas). I will wager, however, that the television show is better and more entertaining. 

DECISION: F

Boy Kills World: A Review

 

BOY KILLS WORLD

I am not big on violent films, finding graphic depictions of death very distasteful. That being said, I found that Boy Kills World is surprisingly entertaining, even if on familiar ground.

Boy (Bill Skarsgard) has been trained for years by a reclusive figure named Shaman (Yayan Ruhian) in the art of killing. Boy's task is to avenge the deaths of Boy's mother and sister at the hands of the villainous Van Der Koy family. The murderous matriarch, Hilda (Famke Janssen) murdered them in cold blood and left Boy to dangle to his death until Shaman rescued him. Boy, despite being deaf & mute due to the Van Der Koy's evil ways, is able to read lips. 

Boy may not be quite ready to take down the Van Der Koy dictatorship, but into the breech he goes. With help from forced labor Basho (Andrew Koji) and Bennie (Isaiah Mustafa), whose lips he cannot read and thus not fully understand, Boy begins his bloody takedown of the Van Der Koys. That means going after such figures as Glen Van Der Koy (Sharlto Copley), deranged television show host whose program broadcasts the annual killings. There is also his crazed wife Melanie (Michelle Dockery) and her brother, Gideon (Brett Gelman), whose artistic vision is perpetually thwarted by his in-laws. As more mayhem and blood goes around, Boy discovers his true identity as that of June 27 (Jessica Rothe), the masked hitwoman who is tied to all.

Will Boy manage to lead the revolution? Will shocking twists bring a crisis for him? Who will triumph in this battle royale?

I respect, even admire, films that are fully aware without being self-aware. Boy Kills World is such a film. It does not pretend to be a deep exploration of the human condition. It is not even a deep exploration of Boy's condition. Instead, it is about bloody, over-the-top action. In that respect, Boy Kills World delivers. Sometimes the violence was a bit shocking to me (Glen's bloody end took me so much by surprise that I literally gasped). I also may never look at a cheese grater the same way again.

However, while Boy Kills World was at times a bit more gruesome for my tastes, I also see that the film worked to be serious in its deliberately looney manner. It embraced its outlandishness without winking to the camera or mocking the viewer. I would go as far as saying that Boy Kills World actually has respect for the viewer, giving him/her what they want without talking down to them.

Director Moritz Mohr, who cowrote the screenplay with Tyler Burton Smith and Arend Remmers, all know the tropes of something like Boy Kills World. You even have Boy's voiceovers in an exaggerated manner mimicking a video game narrator (voiced by H. Jon Benjamin). You are given an explanation for this, and initially I thought the voiceover would become a distraction. Instead, it blended well with the overall tone of the film.

As Boy has to rely on his internal voice to give us some insight into him, we have to rely on Bill Skarsgard's face to express more. He does quite well in giving us Boy's mindset. Skarsgard gives us everything from Boy's determination to confusion on what he cannot understand. A running gag involves his inability to read Bennie's lips, thus making what he thinks he says bizarre. Each misinterpretation is hilarious, and Skarsgard's performance reveals that mix of befuddlement and frustration.

It is almost shocking to see Dockery, the embodiment of posh Downton Abbey, so fully committed to this wild and whacked out murderess hostess. She was for me a highlight of Boy Kills World: though her role was small, she made the most of it. Gelman too shone as Gideon, far more interested in the theatrics of things than on human life. To be fair, I thought the initial argument between him and Copley was a bit too hammy for the overtly wild goings-on, but that was a minor matter. 

Rothe, perhaps the most serious of the performers, makes for an excellent hitwoman. Koji is a standout as the outrageous Basho, leader of this revolution, crazed but loyal. Quinn Copeland did well as Mina, Boy's vision of his late sister. She actually provided the few moments of drama, though having her spout off vulgarities is both old hat and something I am not big on.

As everyone was meant to be over-the-top to downright hammy, I cut them some slack.

This is not to say that Boy Kills World is idiotic. Far from it. Instead, it is knowingly aware of its premise. As such, everyone adopts the outrageous and rapid-fire manner of Boy Kills World without making things stupid. There is a fine line between ridiculous and stupid, and the film keeps to it. Fun, outlandish but never idiotic, Boy Kills World knows what it is, does not pretend to be anything else and gives the viewer what he/she came for. 

DECISION: B+

Never Too Late to Celebrate: A Hallmark Television Movie Review

 

NEVER TOO LATE TO CELEBRATE

Is it? Is it really Never Too Late to Celebrate? I have heard of how some Jewish men at 83 have a second bar mitzvah, but a Mexican woman celebrating a second (or even first quinceañera) at 30? This is what Hallmark will answer in Never Too Late to Celebrate, which is surprisingly entertaining, even amusing, if not particularly great. 

Camilla Lopez (Alexa PenaVega) is a busy dentist with no time for anything other than teeth. Still mourning the death of her Mexican father three years ago, she has time only for her Anglo mother Sherri (Sherry Miller) and her BFF Maren (Marissa McIntyre). She manages to squeeze in a Career Day presentation for Sherri's elementary school class before having to rush to her job. At Sherri's school though, she hears the singalong of Javi (Carlos PenaVega), the pretty long-term substitute teacher whose refrain of "colorin colorado, este cuenta se ha acabado" (loose translation, "this story has ended") to the kids brings back a Proust-like memory for her.

Wanting to reconnect with her Mexican heritage as well as finding Javi quite pretty, she agrees to go to his adult Spanish class. She also agrees to attend his niece's quinceanera, which she finds delightful and fun. With a little persuasion, Cami decides to go all-in on a double quince, using her 30th birthday to grow more Latina. That means a dress and a hall and salsa lessons with Sherri, who finds the instructor Rafael (Xavier Sotelo) a nice pair of hips.

Cami loves Javi's family. She is also clearly in love with Javi. Javi seems to be in love with her too, but he is still a prisoner of his past. Will he be able to overcome that heartache to be with our new Hispanic heroine? Will Camilla accept the offer to take over the dental practice or go work in Mexico? Will her dress work?

As a Mexican-American, I appreciated many things in Never Too Late to Celebrate. It was very respectful of elements of Hispanic culture, such as the importance of family and a struggle with how much assimilation is good. John Bellina and Talia Gonzalez's screenplay mostly resisted the temptation to have Cami doth protest too much when it came to having little to no background about her heritage. 

I enjoyed the relationship between Javi & Camilla with Javi's extended family, like his brother Manolo (Carlos Gonzalez-Vio) and their grandmother, who speaks almost only Spanish. Brings to mind, again, my own family that had a similar dynamic. 

Never Too Late to Celebrate is different from the few Hallmark Movie films that I have seen in that it is the male lead who is if not weak at least less defined. Javi, to my knowledge, never got a last name. He is the one with the tragic romance story. He is also the one who at the end is willing to give up his career for hers. It is so rare for the guy to give up a sure job to follow the girl, especially in these stories. Camilla, for her part, is in a surprisingly good place in life. She has a robust job, a good relationship with her mother, a wacky but not obnoxious friend and no relationship baggage. Instead, it is the male love interest who needs rescuing.

Moreover, Never Too Late to Celebrate introduces a potential love match between Sherri and Rafael. Their dance lesson veered very close to being Dirty Dancing: The Senior Years. They were all but having sex on the dancefloor. It is almost enough for me to want either a sequel focusing on Sherri and Rafael or even dumping the Javi/Camilla story in exchange for one about a widow, reluctant to retire, who falls for the swiveling hips of an older Latin salsa king.

I say this because frankly, Javi and Camilla are not that interesting either separately or together. Camilla's main issue is that she feels a desire to connect to her Mexican heritage because while her father was an immigrant, he assimilated so strongly that he rarely spoke Spanish to her and never thought of giving her a quinceanera. Javi, mostly likeable, was clearly so besotted with Camilla from the word go that it is a wonder why even the ghost of his failed engagement would stop him from pursing her. For most of Never Too Late to Celebrate, he was pretty persistent. Now, however, why does he pull back from her? It was probably for the drama, but it did not hold well. 

Carlos and Alexa PenaVega are, I believe, one of the few if only married couples in these Hallmark Movies that work together. To my knowledge, their commitment to both each other and their faith keeps them from venturing into other projects with other actors even among the Hallmark stable of stars. They did combine their surnames into one upon marriage after all (he was Pena, she was Vega). As such, there is something nice about seeing a married couple play a courting one. However, at times they do look bored and boring together. Knowing that they are in love in real life takes away from the idea that they are starting a romance in their films.

As a side note, it is amazing how tiny physically both of them look. Carlos is listed as 5'6" and Alexa as 5'1". When you see them together or with others, you cannot help noticing how small they look compared to almost everyone else. 

Carlos and Alexa PenaVega were fine in Never Too Late to Celebrate. They did not excel but did not embarrass themselves either. I thought Carlos's singing voice was a bit high and did not have a great character to play, but it worked as mild entertainment. Same goes for Alexa, though she had something of a conflict late in the film about staying in her town or going to Mexico. The other actors, however, outshined them. Miller and Sotelo worked well together to where I did want to see more of them. McIntyre managed to stay barely outside the "annoying best friend" mold to be tolerable. Her subplot about her boyfriend Evan (whom we never see) was unnecessary. Her character is Jewish (she mentions memories of her bat mitzvah), but fortunately we'll never see Never Too Late to Celebrate II: Hebrew Hijinks as that would require Maren to be 83 for her to have a second bat mitzvah. 

I think once Camilla decides to have her quince, Never Too Late to Celebrate starts lagging. We get the usual "dress is a disaster" tropes. We get typical Hallmark Movie confusion: why did Cami opt to have the quince at Manolo's Mexican restaurant instead of the ballroom she looked at? Who exactly is footing the bills for all this? To be fair, the "dress is a disaster" trope did have one line that made me laugh out loud. "I look like Little Red Riding Hood skipped Grandma's house and went to Prom". I did wonder how Camilla never saw the double quince dress or just explain to the dressmaker that she was 30, not 15, so maybe cut down on the ruffles.

As a side note, having been to a few quinceaneras, I can say that the ones we saw in Never Too Late to Celebrate were surprisingly mild and restrained. I have been to totally over-the-top events that make the Met Gala look like a backyard bar-b-que. I also note that, in a curious criticism, there was too much Latin music. While we do have salsa, cumbia and traditional Mexican/Latin music, we would also have what teenagers of today listen to. You will have Selena, but you will also have Bad Bunny. 

Never Too Late to Celebrate was surprisingly touching and entertaining. Credit to the writing and director Felipe Rodriguez for keeping things on track and moving. While not perfect, Never Too Late to Celebrate was a good Hallmark film. 

Take that for what you will. 

One last note. Personally, I hate horchata (reminds me of spoiled milk). While I'm not a big fan of tres leches cake (I find it sometimes too watery), it is sometimes good. I do, however, love mole.  

6/10

The Final Conflict: Omen III. A Review

 

THE FINAL CONFLICT (OMEN III: THE FINAL CONFLICT)

Going by The Final Conflict (also known as Omen III: The Final Conflict), people can rest in the knowledge that Lucifer will not conquer this world. Sometimes unintentionally hilarious, The Final Conflict has some beautiful imagery amidst the sometimes odd acting and story.

Damien Thorn (Sam Neill) is now a powerful industrialist, eyeing a Senate run and manipulating his way to being appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James, a post once held by his late father. Why the great interest in these posts?

Damien is fully aware that he is the Antichrist, heralding in a new and glorious Dark Age where his true father the Devil will reign over the earth. Damien especially wants to prevent the return of "The Nazarene", his sworn enemy. To battle against Damien is an order of monks, led by Father DeCarlo (Rossano Brazzi). These seven holy men have acquired the seven daggers needed to kill the Antichrist and have gone to London to complete their mission.

Caught in all this is Kate Reynolds (Lisa Harrow), the Barbara Walters of the United Kingdom. Drawn to Damien, she still senses something is off. She at first welcomes his interest in her son, Peter (Barnaby Holm), but the strange goings-on around Damien, such as an assassination attempt, trouble her. Peter, for his part, has fallen under Damien's spell, a willing teen manservant Hecubus to his Sir Simon Milligan.

Damien is aware that The Nazarene has been reborn, so he must recreate Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents to assure that He is eliminated. A series of strange infant deaths of baby boys born on March 24 start to occur in Britain. How will that affect Damien's loyal henchman, Harvey Dean (Don Gordon), whose wife Barbara (Leueen Willoughby) just had a baby boy on March 23 or March 24? Will DeCarlo convince Reynolds of Damien's Satanic background before Damien schtups her? Will Damien and the Nazarene face off in the Final Conflict?

It might be good to focus on the positives in The Final Conflict. The production design and overall look of the film is quite nice. There is a montage where we meet the merry monks that is impressive in seeing their various personalities without them speaking. Oddly, the opening section where the seven blades of Megiddo are rediscovered, sold and brought to the monastery is also mostly silent save for Jerry Goldsmith's score. Damien's black mass lair where he mocks the image of "The Nazarene" also looks nice.

Andrew Birkin's script also gives some of the actors, especially Neill, a chance to speak surprisingly articulate words. As Damien mocks the figure of his enemy, he speaks of the new Satanic kingdom, where we will see "the grandeur of melancholy, the divinity of loneliness, the purity of evil and the paradise of pain". 

However, Birkin's script also has some howlers in terms of dialogue and plot. When Damien states in a half-bark half-blank statement, "Liquidate the Nazarene!", it sounded oddly funny. As he addresses his coven, the Disciples of the Watch, it was hard to suppress the giggles as he goes on about the importance of their mission to kill the Christ Child. 

More hilarity comes courtesy of the Order of St. Keystone Cops, forever botching the simple job of killing the Antichrist. Let's put aside for the moment how in The Omen, we are told that it takes all seven daggers to kill the Antichrist while The Final Conflict only one is required. These inept clerics constantly botch things in more and more laughable ways. I'm not sure if the first stab at Damien (pun intended) was the funniest. The monk, who managed to enter the television studio where Damien will be interviewed, comes close until Harvey sees him and calls out to Damien. He then falls and manages to set himself on fire as he swings back and forth before the cameras.

Somehow, I figure Birkin and director Graham Baker expected this to be shocking. Instead, it somehow ended up funny, more so with Neill's thoroughly disengaged manner. Try as they might, these monks can't kill Damien. The Final Conflict never firmly establishes whether all the various hit jobs were planned, organized and/or approved by DeCarlo or whether they were just rogue monks going their own way. The attempt on Damien's life at the fox hunt is a case of poor planning. Despite knowing Damien's powers, two monks were unaware of how he could control animals, leading to grisly ends for both. 

Even that was not the worst one. As three are climbing up to an abandoned castle, Damien fools them into killing the wrong person. To be honest, I expected this only due to the film's runtime.

The Final Conflict is not big on logic either internally or in the overall Omen timeline. Again, there is the number of daggers needed to kill Damien. There is oddly no mention that Damien Thorn will rise to the same position that his father held. Harvey has been a willing henchman for Damien, but somehow he did not think his child would be in danger? It never makes sense why Harvey, who appears to know Damien is the Antichrist, suddenly opts to try and run from his influence. It is a bit muddled.

Kate, despite receiving DeCarlo's warnings and surviving almost drowning in front of Damien, shortly afterwards has sex with him. Again, a bit muddled. 

Damien orders his henchmen to kill the baby boys, but he apparently can get someone to kill her baby with mere mind control. That begs the question why didn't he just do that with all the newborn parents rather than have a priest kill one baby at that baby's baptism.

As a side note, how the priest managed to do the Devil's bidding in a church but couldn't go into one in The Omen will be left unexplained. 

Add to that, Damien's age seems to be in final conflict with what has come before. He says he plans to run for the Senate in 1984, making him at least thirty. The Omen and Damien: Omen II pretty much establish that Damien is about 13 in 1983 (Omen II taking place seven years after The Omen, where he is around 5 or 6). 

Bless Rosanno Brazzi for taking this seriously and giving the best performance in this oddly loopy film. Sam Neill appears to have been directed as if The Final Conflict was Hamlet, his soliloquy against the Nazarene coming across as too serious where it shifts into camp. Harrow's Kate came across as a bit dim and sometimes bored. I will give Holm some credit as young Peter, the young worshipful and doomed teen. While not a great performance, I put it down more to Graham's directing than Holm himself.

The ending should be uplifting, but it feels almost anticlimactic, as if just had to end as it did. 

There are some good points in The Final Conflict. Some of the visuals are impressive and the score is quite strong. However, disjointed, unintentionally funny and at times illogical, you cannot give this devil his due. 

Damien Thorn & Peter Reynolds: The Remix

DECISION: C-

Dangerous (1935): A Review (Review #1810)

 

DANGEROUS

In 1934, a scandal broke out among the Hollywood set when Bette Davis was not nominated for her performance in Of Human Bondage. The response to this snub was so ferocious that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences allowed for write-in voting to let the non-nominee Davis into the race. She ultimately lost to Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night, though where exactly she ultimately placed in the overall voting is an unsolved mystery. Come the next year, Davis was going to win the Oscar come hell or high water. That hell or high water mark was Dangerous, a win which even Davis felt was a consolation prize for the Of Human Bondage snub. Dangerous, if remembered at all, is for Davis' Oscar win. While the film is a little dated and creaky, it is passable.

Joyce Heath (Davis) once ruled the Great White Way. However, a series of personal and professional tragedies led her to think she was a jinx to both people and Broadway shows. One person intrigued by Joyce is Don Bellows (Franchot Tone), who was inspired by her turn in Romeo and Juliet that he gave up a safe career and follow his dreams to be an architect.

A chance encounter with Joyce has him bringing her to his country retreat so she could dry out and pull herself together. At first, she is fine with being a lush but soon starts recovering and hopes for a comeback. She also falls for Don, who likewise is drawn to this tempestuous star despite being engaged to wealthy society debutante Gale Armitage (Margaret Lindsey). He, reluctantly, breaks off with Gale and soon mounts her comeback production of Forever Ends at Dawn. 

He proposes marriage, but she declines. Why? It is because Joyce has a terrible secret that makes marriage to Don or to anyone impossible. Will Joyce continue being an "evil star" and bring misery to all who cross paths with her? Will Don and Joyce find happiness?

Dangerous might be the first time an actor would win an Oscar for reasons outside the nominated performance, though this certainly would not be the last time such a thing happened. Oscars have been won by people for "the wrong movie" or because they were "overdue" or as a de facto Lifetime Achievement Award. Ask everyone from Joan Fontaine to Leonardo DiCaprio to Jamie Lee Curtis. I think even Davis would say that, if not for her Oscar win, no one would remember Dangerous, let alone bother to see it. 

As a film, Dangerous is not terrible. It does have a somewhat awkward manner of early sound films where you think people are being placed in relation to where the microphone is. It is also a bit of a stretch to believe that Don would take Joyce to his country retreat or that Joyce, in her early condition, would stay.

However, you do have a good performance from Davis as this troubled woman. In the middle of the film, she reads to Don a play, But to Die, from his library. It is not until the end that he realizes that she was making the whole thing up as she went along. That she was able to fool people showcased a committed actress to a part. Davis at times did appear a bit theatrical, such as when she drunkenly recites Shakespeare when Don first finds her. I put that down to her still developing as a film actress. Throughout Dangerous, we see an actress giving the part her all. Davis made good work out of Joyce Heath. She did not come across as some drunken harpy or pathetic lush but as an angry, bitter but terrified woman.

Davis even has a bit of comedy when dealing with Don's housekeeper, Mrs. Williams (Alison Skipworth). Surprised to find herself in strange surroundings and with an unknown woman, Joyce is naturally startled. Informed about her host's artistic abilities, Joyce snaps at the woman, "I suppose you're Mrs. Bellows, or are you just one of his sketches?". Davis does veer close to over-the-top when searching for more alcohol shortly afterwards, but I can forgive the somewhat overblown manner to things. 

I cannot say much for the supporting cast. Tone had a curiously breezy manner for most of Dangerous, as if he was not taking this seriously. It works well in the early moments when he is a young, mostly carefree lad, but even when things are meant to be serious, Tone still seems a bit too jolly. Lindsey had a nothing role, so I won't belabor her dull manner. Skipworth was better, though underused. Late in Dangerous, we are introduced to Gordon (John Eldredge), who holds the key as to why Joyce and Don cannot get married. He too had little to do and is a bit of a bore.

Dangerous came at the start of the Code era, meaning that a tacked on happyish ending was made. I was not convinced things would work out the way they did. That, however, was more the constraints Laird Doyle had on his screenplay than on the actors or director Alfred E. Green. 

Dangerous is a film that has possibilities and might be worth a remake. I doubt, however, that whoever takes the female leading role will replicate Davis in winning a Best Actress Oscar. Sadly, Dangerous does not make the case that Davis should have won for this role. 

DECISION: C+

Civil War: A Review (Review #1809)

 

CIVIL WAR

I think many people disliked Civil War because it did not fit neatly into their preconceived notions. Others, I think, disliked it precisely because it fit neatly into their preconceived notions. The reaction on Civil War strikes me more as a reflection of our unnecessarily divisive times than on the film itself. Quieter, more meditative than I expected, Civil War works if you look at it with as open a mind as you can muster.

In a dystopian America, the United States are united no more. The President (Nick Offerman) is assuring the loyal states that two factions are close to losing the war. The Florida Alliance is the lesser of the two, but the Western Forces of California & Texas are, he assures, on the verge of collapse.

In reality, the WF are fighting their way to Washington, D.C., teetering on the verge of collapse. A group of journalists are determined to get as close to the capital and interview the President. There is renowned photojournalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and her colleague Joel (Walter Moura), who captures the chaos with her pictures and he with his prose, both set on landing the big interview. New York Times veteran Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) asks to go with them up to Charlottesville, feeling he is too old to join them in the final assault but still wanting to see the action. Finally, there is Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), an aspiring photojournalist who sees Lee as a heroine. Reluctantly and over Lee's objections, Jessie joins them.

As they travel across dangerous territory, the group witnesses various horrors such as battles and vigilante actions. Of particular note is when they barely manage to escape mercenaries at a mass grave site. Not everyone makes it to the final push into Washington, D.C. Here, the chaos of war leads to the second Fall of Washington, where again lives are lost in the efforts to capture both the shot and the President.

I think people walking into Civil War were misled by the advertising. I figure many expected a violent action film. Others expected a commentary on present-day America, down to where people complained about Texas and California joining forces. I do not think Civil War was meant as allegory but fantasy. By having two diametrically opposed states as California and Texas unite, we have that ambiguity that I think the film aimed for. 

I know people saw Offerman's President as a President Donald Trump stand-in. My own relatives have said that the "fascist" dictator President on his third term in Civil War was Trump. That, I believe, is projecting their own ideas into something that, based on what I saw, did not exist. A part of me thinks that the people who equate the Civil War President with Trump would genuinely like to stand over his corpse, grinning at finally freeing America from a fascist dictatorship. 

Oddly, as a small tangent, I did not see the Offerman character as Trump. I was actually reminded of Chile's Salvador Allende, who committed suicide at the Chilean Presidential Palace of La Moneda rather than be taken by the military coup that was overthrowing him. Like in Civil War, the president's official residence was attacked by armed forces with the beleaguered head of state trapped inside. Allende was a Socialist. 

Civil War is not specific on what the unnamed American President believes or what the second Civil War was about. If I took a guess, it would be to that illegal third term, but writer/director Alex Garland does not specify or even offer any reasons for the war. I think many have expressed frustration about that. I would offer that Garland and Civil War are not interested in specifics or in attempting to lay down parallels to today's divided America. Despite what many thought on release, Civil War is not laying the groundwork for a parallel to today. 

Instead, Civil War is about those chronicling the war and the effect the violence and brutality have on them and the population at large. Oftentimes, we see war films either from other nations or set in the past. By using the present-day United States for the film, Garland was not speaking about America now. He was just bringing the scenario to familiar territory. 

Civil War has some good performances that draw the viewer in. I think those who say that Dunst looks bored or disengaged from things miss that the character was, if not bored at least a bit dead inside. She made Lee into a professional who over time evolves into a more engaged, even tragic figure. Early on she tells her protégé Jessie, "We record so other people ask," and later adds that she would take shots of Jessie's death should they make for a good picture. I think it is clear that this is foreshadowing, but I was not picky about this.

Spaeny was a nice counterbalance as the more naïve Jessie. Granted, at times I found her annoying and dim. However, the genuine fear she had at the mass grave site is a strong bit of acting. Henderson's Sammy did well as the voice of wisdom, slightly cynical but able to rise to greatness. Moura was probably the weak spot here, for I never believed his determination to get the sit-down with the President.

Civil War also has some beautiful and frightening images. When the foursome drive through a burning forest fire, the scenery is frighteningly beautiful. When the Lincoln Memorial was blasted, that was jarring in how it did not pull away.

I also had a hard time with some elements of the premise. This is especially true when they finally arrive in Washington, D.C. Part of me did not believe that the President would not have negotiated for his life or fled the White House before the inevitable fall. Again, a similar situation occurred on September 11, 1973 in Santiago, Chile. However, Allende stayed to the bitter end. This President hid under his desk, which I found unbelievable. 

If you watch Civil War without the idea that it is meant to be about the United States as it is now, you will find a film focused on the randomness and destructiveness of war. Civil War is, again, not allegory. It is a speculative film that takes the premise seriously and makes one think about what could happen if it did happen. Effective and well-made, Civil War should not be avoided. 

DECISION: B-

Notes of Autumn: A Hallmark Television Movie Review

 

NOTES OF AUTUMN

It is a curious thing that out of the four Hallmark movies that I have seen so far, two of them have a gay love story given that the target audience for these films tend to be straight women. Do straight women like seeing movies about male same-sex romances? 

I do not think that people would accuse Hallmark movies of being deep or particularly good. They seem to be the television version of comfort food: something filling for the feelings. Notes of Autumn, my latest sojourn into this world of sappiness, makes me genuinely wonder why I put myself through all this. Poorly acted, poorly written, at times veering on cringey, Notes of Autumn is not so much a disaster as it is brain-melting.

Ellie Matthews (Ashley Williams) was once an aspiring pianist who now works as a flustered and somewhat frustrated events planner. Leo Carrington (Luke Macfarlane) is a highly successful writer of the Parkington Manor book series which, judging from the reenactments he sees, is a vaguely Regency-era romance series. Ellie just got fired from her latest job due to constant distractions and a scatterbrained manner. Leo is struggling with his latest Parkington Manor book, his fifteenth book in fifteen years.

As a side note, the dialogue states that Leo has written fifteen Parkington Manor books in 15 years. That makes it at least a book a year for a decade and a half. No wonder he's bereft of ideas. Moreover, I don't think even James Patterson can knock his books out that fast, though to be fair, Patterson does have coauthors, but I digress.

To get away from their troubles and find new sources of inspiration, lifelong BFFs Ellie and Leo decide to swap homes for two weeks. This will give Ellie a chance to recharge and reevaluate what she needs to do to move on. It will give Leo a chance for a long-delayed vacation from British Columbia and perhaps break his writer's block.

They cross paths ever so briefly at an airport, so briefly that they cannot let the other know about each other's living situations. In rural Pinewood, Leo fails to make clear to Ellie that she will be helping Sam Perkins (Marcus Rosner), a nature guide who is organizing the local Piano Ball. He needs help with both organizing the charity event as well as the amateur chamber quartet trying to learn Vivaldi's Autumn section of his Four Seasons concertos. Similarly, Ellie fails to make clear to Leo that she has let her friend Matt (Peter Porte) use her large kitchen as a testing ground for new dishes to interest investors for his hoped-for restaurant. In those two-plus weeks, Ellie & Sam and Leo & Matt will find inspiration and romance from and with each other.

After enduring Notes of Autumn, I had exactly one question: what the hell are gourds? Ellie goes on about gourds and their decorative powers for fall-themed events, but I simply kept wondering what gourds were.

Rick Garman's screenplay was hellbent on Ellie and Leo having mirror situations. I am not talking about the swapping homes situation. After all, Notes of Autumn relies on this as the engine that drives the plot forward.

I am talking about, instead, the dual couples having simultaneously similar situations that I think are among the television movie's many low points. For reasons I simply cannot fathom, both Ellie and Leo essentially have to break into each other's home where they will meet their love interest. Ellie cannot find the keys to Leo's lavish rustic retreat, so she tries to shimmy up to the second floor when Sam happens to pass by. Leo does have a key, but he sees that someone else is already inside, so he grabs a figure of a giraffe as protection against the probable burglar. Hilarity and hijinks are supposed to ensue.

These duo disasters rely on an implausible if not impossible set of circumstances. Not once does it occur to Ellie to let Leo know that she gave Matt permission to use her kitchen? Not once did Leo make clear that he was volunteering Ellie to be his substitute? This oddball situation is explained away by both having to share these vital pieces of information as they pass each other at their connecting airports. However, a more sensible thing would have been to talk about it with each other or even texted. The television film starts with them calling each other often, but that soon is forgotten and they rarely if ever check on each other until they again cross paths at the airport. 

Adding to the overall idiocy of Notes of Autumn is over why couldn't Matt use Ellie's kitchen. Leo tells Matt that he needs privacy to work. However, all Leo and Matt had to do was call Ellie or come to an agreement between them to where Matt could use the kitchen (which the owner already gave him permission to do) when Leo was out, say for a walk or a visit to whatever tourist trap the big city of Westerhaven had.

As a side note, the degree of ruralness between Westerhaven and Pinewood is almost nil. The latter looked the former's suburb. 

There is just so much that is astonishingly dumb about Notes of Autumn. While Ellie knows that Leo is gay (it is about a good ten minutes before we get a quick mention about him not having had a boyfriend in a while), she apparently didn't know Matt was. Either that, or she did know and never thought that the two gay guys she knows might hit it off. I think she did, but if so, why she never thought Leo and Matt could make a connection one can't figure out. 

Leo, newly inspired by his feelings for Matt, has started writing, but not the newest Parkington Manor novel that his editor Karen (Lucia Walters) wants. Instead, he submits the first three chapters of Cornerstones, about two male architects in love. Karen at first rejects it for unnamed reasons, but later tells Leo and Matt that she will push to publish Cornerstones. My question is, why can't he publish it under a pseudonym as J.K. Rowling has under her pen name of Robert Galbraith? Nothing prevents him from publishing Cornerstones, which sounds infinitely better than anything in the Parkington Manor series.

To be fair, this series led to probably the only intentional laugh I got from Notes of Autumn. Matt, vaguely aware of Leo's books, told him that Ellie had mentioned that Leo had written the "Parking Lot Mansion" books. I think Garman may have been inspired, unintentionally or not, by Misery. The Parkington Manor series reads like the fictional Misery books, and Matt tells Leo that his Italian mother may hold Leo hostage if he cannot finish another Parkington Manor book.

Truth be told, from the deliberately overacted sections of Leo's thwarted Parkington Manor: Part 16 book, they look like terrible reads. I understand two stars of Hallmark's When Calls the Heart series appear in the sepia-toned reenactments. I guess that is nice for Hallmark viewers, not so much for anyone unfortunate enough to give Notes of Autumn the time to watch.

Yes, I am probably overthinking all this. I had to do something to combat the boredom and mind-numbing stupidity of Notes of Autumn.

Ellie and Sam's story is no better. As played by Williams, Ellie comes across as a near-total idiot, mistaking perky for insipid. She comes across as irritating, dim, and the type of woman whom men should flee from. Rosner can best be described as "Hallmark hot": a bland character but an attractive man, complete with woodsman beard. Yes, we know that they will eventually fall in love. However, Notes of Autumn never makes the case as to why either would genuinely want to.

I do not know if coming out was the best career choice for Porte or Macfarlane. Good for them if they want to be open about their lives, but I wonder if they will ever play it straight, so to speak. Porte comes close to being a stereotype of a gay man. Macfarlane plays it straight (again, no pun intended), playing Leo as someone who does not even want a friendship with Matt, let alone see him as a potential love match. He is not so much closeted as he is detached. It is to where when Leo initially pulls away from Matt's effort to kiss him, it comes across as a straight man pulling away from a gay man's mistaken impression, not a gay man's overall reluctance at romance. 

Oddly, I saw things that Notes of Autumn may not have intended with some of the lesser characters. When meeting the quartet, Sam introduces each by name. "Beau is playing the violin," he says. I literally asked myself, "Was that a pun?" 

Beau is playing the violin. Bow is playing the violin. 

Maybe that is giving Notes of Autumn way too much credit.

Somehow, "Beau playing the violin" is one of the best parts in Notes of Autumn. His jazzier take on the fiddle reminded me of Nickle Creek. I'd rather follow a romance between Aidan Kahn's Beau and Kelsey Lopes' Wendy than either Ellie & Sam or Leo & Matt. 

The split stories did not mesh well. We get more of Ellie than of Leo, and the quartet does try to give each a personality. It might have worked better to split the stories into two separate films (Notes of Autumn and Notes of Autumn 2: Parkington Manor's Revenge).

I can forgive the "she doth protest too much" when the quartet keeps asking her to accompany them on piano. The television film needs this faux-conflict (faux-flict?) that will be resolved in the end. However, one would think that Ellie's almost incessant whining about how she can't do XYZ would drive Sam away from her. Again, as played by Williams, this woman is somewhat whiney and dim. He could do much better. Despite Sam's heterosexuality, Leo is a better prospect for him than Ellie.

It is curious that Sam mentions how he has to drag Leo to a nearby farmers' market when we see how Leo seems to actually be enjoying going to a farmers' market with Matt. OK, it might be due to a potential attraction. However, why did director Troy Scott not make Leo more reluctant to go to the farmers' market so as to show consistency. 

That simultaneously similar farmers' market visit, I might add, was before Leo found out that Matt was "single" when Matt mentions how Leo sounds like his ex-husband. For all the celebration Notes of Autumn and Hallmark gave themselves about representation, Leo could only say that Matt was "single". The film metaphorically went "don't say gay". Yet, I digress again.

Sam tells Ellie that Leo helped him craft beautiful words for his Pinewood Nature Tours brochure. However, when Sam and Ellie are at a Pinewood farmers' market and earlier on a nature hike, Sam was so eloquent by himself that Leo would have done better to walk in the woods with this hunky man than go off to the more cosmopolitan Westerhaven. The Matt & Leo romance felt forced. To be fair though, it is hard to make some of the dialogue sound anything less than cheesy.

"Ellie says it's because of me and I know it's because of you", Matt tells Leo about him sparking new life in him to pursue his dreams. Leo replies, "I think it's because of us". There might not have been great or even good acting in Notes of Autumn. However, no actor could work with such an awful script and make it sound anything other than laughable. 

To be honest, I can no longer remember if it was Matt who said that to Leo or vice versa. I don't think it really matters, it's still awful. 

Notes of Autumn, even by the surprisingly low standards of a Hallmark Television movie, is bad. Uninteresting characters poorly acted with a pair of at times flat-out stupid stories, it has nothing to offer viewers not addicted to the Hallmark formula.  

One last point about Notes of Autumn. Matt is the only major character to not have a last name. I do not know why that detail stuck out, but it did. 

1/10