All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.
- The Beatles (1967)
"A Wrinkle In Time": B. Since 1922 a division of the American Library Association has annually bestowed the Newbery Medal to the author of the book deemed to be the most distinguished contribution to American literatue for children. In short, it's an award for writing the best children's book of the year, and is widely considered the most prestigious literary prize of its kind. New York author Madeline L'Engle won the Newbery in 1963 for A Wrinkle In Time, which to this day remains one of the most popular children's books of all time.
Until the recently released film of the same title, L'Engle's book had never been produced as a feature film for the cinema. Walt Disney Pictures, which had created a made-for-television film of the novel in 2003, also financially backed producers Jim Whitaker and Catherine Hand for the new adaptation directed by Ava Marie DuVernay. Her film, which follows the book more closely than the average "book-to-screen" project, tracks the adventures of a junior high age girl who, with the assistance of three mysterious fairies, transcends the universe in search of her missing father. The film stars fourteen year old Storm Reid, who plays the abandoned daughter, Meg. She is accompanied by her precocious five year old brother, Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), and her teenage friend Calvin (Levi Miller).
The story starts out with Meg leading a rather ordinary life, if not for the fact that her father (Chris Pine), a scientist, disappeared a couple of years ago. Meg's mother, Kate (Gugu Mbatha Raw), tries her best to raise her two kids as a single parent, never letting them give up hope that one day their dad will return. Easier said than done, as everyone in their small town has an opinion -- most of them unkind -- about what happened to him. Even Meg's schoolmates are not beneath taunting and bullying her, an addition to the novel no doubt suggested by unfortunate twenty-first century behavioral issues. It's not long before Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) appears in the family's kitchen, and when she does the story line arcs into science fiction. Only little Charles Wallace, who seems to have an intellect way beyond his years, is not surprised by her presence.
Mrs. Whatsit is eager to help the children locate the missing scientist, and soon partners with her two strange friends, Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey) and Mrs. Who (the sweet Mindy Kaling). The scenes in which these three fairies -- or call them good witches if you prefer -- are present comprise the best parts of the movie. In fact, that's an understatement because the story drags a little when the kids are left to cope on their own. No surprise that Oprah's character is the leader of the trio, sometimes having to rein in the exuberance of the younger Mrs. Whatsit. Mrs. Who has fewer lines, but her observations manifest her wisdom.
In order to keep the run time to a manageable 109 minutes, the filmmakers have truncated or deleted several scenes from the novel. Some decisions, such as eliminating an entire intermediate stop of the space travelers between Earth and their ultimate destination, are well-reasoned. Others, like a too-brief explanation for one of the character's abrupt change of heart near the end of the story, or the elimination of an oversized disembodied brain, the evil IT, prove a little unsatisfying. What works without question are the special effects which, thankfully, are more artistic than explosive. On the other hand, I found Ramin Djawadi's music to be annoying and cliched. Must we have violins and French horns playing in almost every suspenseful and important scene?
More comparisons between the novel and the film are inevitable. In the book, Charles Wallace is endearing, while in the movie he lacks personality. Is that by design? I don't know. The book spends little time developing the character of the AWOL father, but the script writers have given Pine, the actor who portrays him, more camera time. As for Meg and Calvin, the young actors with those roles show promise; it wouldn't surprise me if Disney casts them again.
So, what, exactly is a wrinkle in time? As imagined by author L'Engle, it is a supernatural state which allows one to pass through light years at an infinitesimal fraction of the time ordinarily required. To get a visual of the concept, place a small cloth over a table and pinch two spots (Point A and Point B) a couple of feet apart. The distance between the two spots represents a distance of X light years. Now, as you raise and bring your two pinching hands closer together, notice the cloth folds below. The distance between the two spots, and therefore the time needed to travel from Point A to Point B, has diminished due to the fold, otherwise known as a "wrinkle." Only creatures like the three fairies have the power to create such a wrinkle in space (and therefore time). Nice of them to help the kids out.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Getaway Matinee
It is a common practice for Major League Baseball to schedule the final game of many series as a day game. This enables the visiting team, and in some cases the home team as well, to hit the road to their next destination without having to take a red eye flight. For this reason the final game of a series is often called a "getaway game" and the day on which it's played is "getaway day." This season the Twins home schedule includes twenty-five series, of which all but three finish with a day game.
In recent years I have developed a propensity to attend weekday afternoon games. Maybe they remind me of loving to go to Cubs games at Wrigley Field when I was a kid. Every home game back then for the North Siders was a matinee. In fact, the Cubbies never hosted a night game until August 8, 1988. Another reason for my attraction to day games might be linked to my attraction for beer, which always goes down better under the sun. A third explanation is that during the twenty-eight years I worked in downtown Minneapolis, I can only remember once or twice when I played hooky to go to the Metrodome and then returned to the office. Now that I'm retired I don't have to play hooky! The feeling of freedom is cause for celebration.
I brought Momma Cuandito, who has developed into a full-fledged Twins fan, to the Twins game against the St. Louis Cardinals on a recent Wednesday afternoon. National League teams make only one appearance per season here, and the Cards historically field a very good squad. In fact, when the Twins-Cards series started, the Red Birds were only a game out of first place in the NL Central Division. With the Twins trying to keep up with the Cleveland Indians, the cream of the AL Central, this game was a good one for us to attend.
What follows are some random observations of our game day experience.
My advice for attending a weekday matinee at Target Field is simply this: Don't drive unless you are prepared to pay through the nose for parking. The downtown office workers take up almost all of the primo spots. I used to park for $5 in a surface lot at Second & Second in the Warehouse District. That property is now a mammoth hole in the ground. Apparently there is no such thing as too many apartment buildings all over downtown.
The low point for the game in question was the pay lot next to Cuzzy's at 8th Avenue and Washington. The sign on the curb advertised a fee of $10, but once at the lot entrance around the corner we found out the actual charge was $30. As Momma Cuan pointed out, that's the kind of price gouging one would expect in Wrigleyville, not here in Minnesota Nice territory. We settled for parking in the ramp behind the Bull Dog on 11th Street for $8.
Target Field, now in its ninth year of operation, remains one of the best ball parks in MLB. It still amazes me how the architects fit the stadium into its small footprint, nestled among an interstate highway, entrance and exit ramps, heavily-traveled four lane roads and the city's major rail transportation hub near the heart of downtown. Amazingly, when people are walking toward the stadium on most approaches such as 6th or 7th Street, the stadium does not come into view until they are practically right on top of it.
For many fans Target Field's food choices are practically more important than the game itself. For years our favorite option was the cubano sandwich from Tony'O's, which has kiosks on the first two levels. This time we tried the roast beef sandwich from Murray's. It may not have been as filling as Tony's offering, but the meat was top drawer. At $14 a pop, it should be.
I wish I could heap praise on the stadium's beer selection, but alas, unless you are a light beer devotee or a Bud drinker, you have to look hard for anything better. One of the very few vendors who has a decent selection is located down the left field concourse on the first level. Minnesota craft beers are his headliners. There is usually a long line of serious swillers who are willing to put up with the wait. Similarly, Hrbek's, which is an enclosed bar right next to the gate bearing the former Twin first baseman's jersey number (14), has some interesting beers in addition to the usual suspects. A tip of the hat to Herbie for adding a new outdoor patio to the premises. A funny aside: I struck up a brief conversation with a Hrbek's bartender who told me that no matter how many varieties of beer are available, all the Milwaukee Brewers' fans order is Miller Light.
While we are on the topic of beer, Mary and I often wait for her grade school classmate, Tommy Newell, to make his way to our section. He has been a Twins beer hawker for years. When Mary went to the end of our row to purchase beer from him, he told the two women whose view he was blocking that Mary was the valedictorian of their class.
Aside from the paucity of good beer, I have three other gripes about the stadium. First, the right field porch which juts out from the wall is too gimmicky for my taste. The wall of the porch is made of stone. which sits above a wooden wall and (below that) a padded wall. Thus on a long drive which is about to carom off the wall, the right fielder has to guess which of those three materials the ball will strike if it doesn't carry over the wall for a home run. Each of those three materials creates a different carom. It is incumbent on the center fielder to be ready to retrieve the ball if the right fielder guesses incorrectly.
My second peeve is the disregard the scoreboard operator has for those of us keeping score. Yes, I realize that keeping score is becoming a lost art, but the Twins do make scorecards available (for free!), so they must be aware that some fans do enjoy tracking the game in that manner. There are many times when the fans in attendance or those watching on television would like to know how particular plays are evaluated by the official scorer, such as (i) hit or error, or (ii) wild pitch or passed ball. Another example is the official scoring on a ball hit into a defensive shift. Was that the shortstop or the second baseman who fielded that ball to the right of second? The scoreboard does have a space for "Scoring Decision," but whoever is responsible for posting current info in that space is asleep at the switch at the most inopportune times.
My third minor complaint has to do with this rhetorical question: Is the average Twins fan a total rube? How else do you explain the need for the scoreboard operator to urge, in huge all-caps letters, "MAKE SOME NOISE" or "CLAP YOUR HANDS!" flashing frenetically across the outfield wall? If you have to be told when to cheer at a baseball game, my sympathies go out to you.
A lot of attention was given to the decision by MLB to require, or at least strongly recommend, that teams install protective netting to separate the field of play from the infield box seats. The objective was to prevent injury to inattentive fans who would otherwise be struck by a foul ball. For decades only the seats more or less directly behind home plate were behind a net. But then a few fans, including a young girl in Boston, were seriously injured by scorching liners into the seats, and MLB decided to take action. The main objection to broadening the width of the netting to at least the dugouts was that it would obscure the vision of those fans siting behind the netting. After having attended many games when I had to look through the net to see the field, I can attest that in just a matter of a half-inning or so, you don't even notice that the netting is there.
Finally a word about the visiting team's fans. The Cardinal fans were loud and proud as their team beat the Twins 7-5. Most of the red-garbed visitors were seated behind their team's third base dugout and en masse along the left field line. It reminded me of a Twins game I attended against the Astros last year. The Houston fans, having much more to cheer about than the Minnesotans, practically took over Target Field. I have been in their shoes many times, wearing "my" team's colors on the road in the opponent's den. It is hard to explain, but if you're lucky enough to see your team win on the road, at least two feelings come over you. You feel that, somehow, your vocal encouragement contributed to the win; and, you almost forget about the hundreds of dollars you probably spent to be there.
In recent years I have developed a propensity to attend weekday afternoon games. Maybe they remind me of loving to go to Cubs games at Wrigley Field when I was a kid. Every home game back then for the North Siders was a matinee. In fact, the Cubbies never hosted a night game until August 8, 1988. Another reason for my attraction to day games might be linked to my attraction for beer, which always goes down better under the sun. A third explanation is that during the twenty-eight years I worked in downtown Minneapolis, I can only remember once or twice when I played hooky to go to the Metrodome and then returned to the office. Now that I'm retired I don't have to play hooky! The feeling of freedom is cause for celebration.
I brought Momma Cuandito, who has developed into a full-fledged Twins fan, to the Twins game against the St. Louis Cardinals on a recent Wednesday afternoon. National League teams make only one appearance per season here, and the Cards historically field a very good squad. In fact, when the Twins-Cards series started, the Red Birds were only a game out of first place in the NL Central Division. With the Twins trying to keep up with the Cleveland Indians, the cream of the AL Central, this game was a good one for us to attend.
What follows are some random observations of our game day experience.
My advice for attending a weekday matinee at Target Field is simply this: Don't drive unless you are prepared to pay through the nose for parking. The downtown office workers take up almost all of the primo spots. I used to park for $5 in a surface lot at Second & Second in the Warehouse District. That property is now a mammoth hole in the ground. Apparently there is no such thing as too many apartment buildings all over downtown.
The low point for the game in question was the pay lot next to Cuzzy's at 8th Avenue and Washington. The sign on the curb advertised a fee of $10, but once at the lot entrance around the corner we found out the actual charge was $30. As Momma Cuan pointed out, that's the kind of price gouging one would expect in Wrigleyville, not here in Minnesota Nice territory. We settled for parking in the ramp behind the Bull Dog on 11th Street for $8.
Target Field, now in its ninth year of operation, remains one of the best ball parks in MLB. It still amazes me how the architects fit the stadium into its small footprint, nestled among an interstate highway, entrance and exit ramps, heavily-traveled four lane roads and the city's major rail transportation hub near the heart of downtown. Amazingly, when people are walking toward the stadium on most approaches such as 6th or 7th Street, the stadium does not come into view until they are practically right on top of it.
For many fans Target Field's food choices are practically more important than the game itself. For years our favorite option was the cubano sandwich from Tony'O's, which has kiosks on the first two levels. This time we tried the roast beef sandwich from Murray's. It may not have been as filling as Tony's offering, but the meat was top drawer. At $14 a pop, it should be.
I wish I could heap praise on the stadium's beer selection, but alas, unless you are a light beer devotee or a Bud drinker, you have to look hard for anything better. One of the very few vendors who has a decent selection is located down the left field concourse on the first level. Minnesota craft beers are his headliners. There is usually a long line of serious swillers who are willing to put up with the wait. Similarly, Hrbek's, which is an enclosed bar right next to the gate bearing the former Twin first baseman's jersey number (14), has some interesting beers in addition to the usual suspects. A tip of the hat to Herbie for adding a new outdoor patio to the premises. A funny aside: I struck up a brief conversation with a Hrbek's bartender who told me that no matter how many varieties of beer are available, all the Milwaukee Brewers' fans order is Miller Light.
While we are on the topic of beer, Mary and I often wait for her grade school classmate, Tommy Newell, to make his way to our section. He has been a Twins beer hawker for years. When Mary went to the end of our row to purchase beer from him, he told the two women whose view he was blocking that Mary was the valedictorian of their class.
Aside from the paucity of good beer, I have three other gripes about the stadium. First, the right field porch which juts out from the wall is too gimmicky for my taste. The wall of the porch is made of stone. which sits above a wooden wall and (below that) a padded wall. Thus on a long drive which is about to carom off the wall, the right fielder has to guess which of those three materials the ball will strike if it doesn't carry over the wall for a home run. Each of those three materials creates a different carom. It is incumbent on the center fielder to be ready to retrieve the ball if the right fielder guesses incorrectly.
My second peeve is the disregard the scoreboard operator has for those of us keeping score. Yes, I realize that keeping score is becoming a lost art, but the Twins do make scorecards available (for free!), so they must be aware that some fans do enjoy tracking the game in that manner. There are many times when the fans in attendance or those watching on television would like to know how particular plays are evaluated by the official scorer, such as (i) hit or error, or (ii) wild pitch or passed ball. Another example is the official scoring on a ball hit into a defensive shift. Was that the shortstop or the second baseman who fielded that ball to the right of second? The scoreboard does have a space for "Scoring Decision," but whoever is responsible for posting current info in that space is asleep at the switch at the most inopportune times.
My third minor complaint has to do with this rhetorical question: Is the average Twins fan a total rube? How else do you explain the need for the scoreboard operator to urge, in huge all-caps letters, "MAKE SOME NOISE" or "CLAP YOUR HANDS!" flashing frenetically across the outfield wall? If you have to be told when to cheer at a baseball game, my sympathies go out to you.
A lot of attention was given to the decision by MLB to require, or at least strongly recommend, that teams install protective netting to separate the field of play from the infield box seats. The objective was to prevent injury to inattentive fans who would otherwise be struck by a foul ball. For decades only the seats more or less directly behind home plate were behind a net. But then a few fans, including a young girl in Boston, were seriously injured by scorching liners into the seats, and MLB decided to take action. The main objection to broadening the width of the netting to at least the dugouts was that it would obscure the vision of those fans siting behind the netting. After having attended many games when I had to look through the net to see the field, I can attest that in just a matter of a half-inning or so, you don't even notice that the netting is there.
Finally a word about the visiting team's fans. The Cardinal fans were loud and proud as their team beat the Twins 7-5. Most of the red-garbed visitors were seated behind their team's third base dugout and en masse along the left field line. It reminded me of a Twins game I attended against the Astros last year. The Houston fans, having much more to cheer about than the Minnesotans, practically took over Target Field. I have been in their shoes many times, wearing "my" team's colors on the road in the opponent's den. It is hard to explain, but if you're lucky enough to see your team win on the road, at least two feelings come over you. You feel that, somehow, your vocal encouragement contributed to the win; and, you almost forget about the hundreds of dollars you probably spent to be there.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Movie Review: "Beirut"
"Beirut": B+. Although the Lebanese Civil War did not technically start until 1975, the vibe in the capital city of Beirut three years before was not one of peace and tranquility. The uneasiness stemmed from a combination of a weak central government and several revolutionary factions who were biding their time waiting for the most opportune moment to strike a match. Those factions had their roots in political, religious and ethnic causes. Lurking in the background were the Israelis, who many felt were just looking for an excuse to invade. Even without an invasion, the invisible Mossad was never far away. The scene in 1972 Beirut was described by Mason Skiles (Jon Hamm), the main character in the movie Beirut, as "a boarding house without a landlord."
Yet, to a casual observer or even a tourist, life in the Mediterranean city went on undisturbed. When we are introduced to Skiles, an American diplomat stationed in Beirut, he and his wife, Nadia, are hosting a sophisticated party in their upscale residence. Skiles is dashing, eloquent and at ease making the rounds, graciously catering to his guests. He is helped by a thirteen year old Lebanese orphan, Karim, whom Skiles and Nadia have rescued off the streets.
The first sign of trouble occurs midway through the party when Skiles' best friend and colleague, Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino), confronts him with the shocking news that one of the terrorists behind the recent Munich Olympics massacre is Karim's brother, Rami (Ben Affan). An incredulous Skiles is slow to react. Moments later the worst fears as planted by Riley come true.
We leap ahead ten years to Act Two. Skiles is back in the States, his life as a rising star in the world of diplomacy long gone. When bad things happen on your watch, that is the end of the line. Instead, he is a depressed alcoholic, working as a labor contract mediator trying in vain to get union reps and management "suits" to meet in the middle. It is as far removed from his previous exciting career as possible. While sitting alone at a bar, his usual haunt, a former acquaintance, Sully, drops an envelope in front of Skiles and tells him his presence is requested in Beirut to deliver a lecture at the American University. Inside the envelope is a passport, $6,500 and a plane ticket. Skiles correctly figures the lecture is just a pretext for getting him back to Lebanon, now in the midst of its civil war, but he takes the bait anyway.
Things move fast when he arrives in Beirut. The city is a shambles, armed military personnel is everywhere, and keeping a low profile is the order of the day. At the U.S. embassy Skiles is greeted by three male State Department officials, Gaines, Muzak and Shalen, plus their apparent subordinate, Agent Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike). Skiles wants to dispense with the niceties and cut right to the chase. Why was he needed in Beruit, a place from which he'd been professionally exiled a decade ago? The foursome advises Skiles that he's there to negotiate and facilitate the release of an American hostage from his militant captors. Skiles' background as a labor mediator and his fluency in Arabic will come in handy. It soon becomes apparent to Skiles that the Americans are less interested in the welfare of the hostage than they are about the possibility of him divulging under duress highly classified information. The identities of the captive and the chief captor may surprise you -- but probably not.
Beirut was written and produced by Tony Gilroy, who also wrote the scripts for four Jason Bourne movies plus Michael Clayton, my highest-ranked film from 2007. I had heard that the story line for Beirut was complex, so I brought some insurance with me to the cinema, viz., Momma Cuandito, whom I sometimes rely on for post-viewing explanations. It turns out the story, while a little tangled at times, is not as complicated as I'd feared. An expert writer, Gilroy surely does know how to spin a tale.
John Hamm was a splendid choice to play Skiles. He is mostly known as a television actor, particularly for his work in the hit show Mad Men, which ran for seven seasons, an almost unheard of feat in that medium. Mason Skiles is by far the best movie role in which Hamm has ever been cast, a fearless go-between who is willing to walk into volatile environments without packing a weapon. As AARP Magazine might say, Beirut is a movie for grownups. Put it on your Must See List.
Yet, to a casual observer or even a tourist, life in the Mediterranean city went on undisturbed. When we are introduced to Skiles, an American diplomat stationed in Beirut, he and his wife, Nadia, are hosting a sophisticated party in their upscale residence. Skiles is dashing, eloquent and at ease making the rounds, graciously catering to his guests. He is helped by a thirteen year old Lebanese orphan, Karim, whom Skiles and Nadia have rescued off the streets.
The first sign of trouble occurs midway through the party when Skiles' best friend and colleague, Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino), confronts him with the shocking news that one of the terrorists behind the recent Munich Olympics massacre is Karim's brother, Rami (Ben Affan). An incredulous Skiles is slow to react. Moments later the worst fears as planted by Riley come true.
We leap ahead ten years to Act Two. Skiles is back in the States, his life as a rising star in the world of diplomacy long gone. When bad things happen on your watch, that is the end of the line. Instead, he is a depressed alcoholic, working as a labor contract mediator trying in vain to get union reps and management "suits" to meet in the middle. It is as far removed from his previous exciting career as possible. While sitting alone at a bar, his usual haunt, a former acquaintance, Sully, drops an envelope in front of Skiles and tells him his presence is requested in Beirut to deliver a lecture at the American University. Inside the envelope is a passport, $6,500 and a plane ticket. Skiles correctly figures the lecture is just a pretext for getting him back to Lebanon, now in the midst of its civil war, but he takes the bait anyway.
Things move fast when he arrives in Beirut. The city is a shambles, armed military personnel is everywhere, and keeping a low profile is the order of the day. At the U.S. embassy Skiles is greeted by three male State Department officials, Gaines, Muzak and Shalen, plus their apparent subordinate, Agent Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike). Skiles wants to dispense with the niceties and cut right to the chase. Why was he needed in Beruit, a place from which he'd been professionally exiled a decade ago? The foursome advises Skiles that he's there to negotiate and facilitate the release of an American hostage from his militant captors. Skiles' background as a labor mediator and his fluency in Arabic will come in handy. It soon becomes apparent to Skiles that the Americans are less interested in the welfare of the hostage than they are about the possibility of him divulging under duress highly classified information. The identities of the captive and the chief captor may surprise you -- but probably not.
Beirut was written and produced by Tony Gilroy, who also wrote the scripts for four Jason Bourne movies plus Michael Clayton, my highest-ranked film from 2007. I had heard that the story line for Beirut was complex, so I brought some insurance with me to the cinema, viz., Momma Cuandito, whom I sometimes rely on for post-viewing explanations. It turns out the story, while a little tangled at times, is not as complicated as I'd feared. An expert writer, Gilroy surely does know how to spin a tale.
John Hamm was a splendid choice to play Skiles. He is mostly known as a television actor, particularly for his work in the hit show Mad Men, which ran for seven seasons, an almost unheard of feat in that medium. Mason Skiles is by far the best movie role in which Hamm has ever been cast, a fearless go-between who is willing to walk into volatile environments without packing a weapon. As AARP Magazine might say, Beirut is a movie for grownups. Put it on your Must See List.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Movie Review: "The Shape Of Water"
"The Shape Of Water": A-. I had decided not to see The Shape Of Water unless it won the Best Picture Oscar this year. The genre in which the media and advertisers placed it, science fantasy, is not attractive to me, although I am a big fan of the leading female actress, Sally Hawkins. As luck -- good luck it turns out -- would have it, the film did win the top prize, so I dragged Momma Cuandito, who was also somewhat reluctant, to the theater. We both loved it.
Hawkins plays Elisa Esposito, a mute custodian who works in a secret government building along side her co-worker and interpreter, Zelda (Octavia Spencer). The building is a high security facility, where secret experiments are conducted with the aim of giving the United States an edge in the Cold War. One of those experiments involves the incarceration of a man-like aquatic creature who is restrained by chains in an indoor salt water pool. Like Elisa, the creature does not speak, but through gestures, body language and facial expressions, he obviously is keenly aware of her kindness toward him. Secretly, Elisa finds time to visit the creature, while her friend, Zelda, covers for her. Elisa did not have a man in her life, but now she does... sort of.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Elisa and Zelda, two chains of action are in the works which will spell trouble for the creature and his new-found friend. Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon), the army officer who captured the creature out of a South American river, is ordered by his superior to perform a biological experiment which will result in the captive's death. Ordinarily one would think that receiving such an order would give a man, even a military officer, pause, but not Colonel Strickland. He does not put up an argument, partly because of his rank and partly because he is probably psychopathic. An objection to the planned demise of the creature is raised, however, by a scientist, Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg), which leads us to the second "chain."
Hoffstetler, although he works in the facility's secret lab, is actually a Soviet spy named Dimitri Mosenkov. He is the most conflicted character in the story, having to take orders not only from Strickland but from his Soviet handlers who also want the creature killed for their own competitive militaristic reasons. In quick succession, Elisa learns of the U.S. Army's sinister plans for her amphibious friend, and with the help of Zelda, Mosenkov and her next door neighbor, Giles (Richard Jenkins), she frees the creature with a daring escape and hides him in her apartment.
The stage is now set for the budding romance between Elisa and the amphibious "man" to evolve, but how long can she successfully hide him before he is either recaptured or perishes due to absence from his natural habitat?
At first blush a story of a romance between a woman and a non-human being sounds creepy, if not disgusting (not to mention illegal). But hats off to writer-director Guillermo del Toro for keeping things on the up and up. Doug Jones, the actor who plays the amphibious creature, certainly deserves more than a nod too. If the viewer is willing to accept that the movie is, indeed, a fantasy, the love story will probably not pose a problem. Actually, I had a harder time accepting that a bathroom could completely fill up with water merely by turning on the bathtub faucet, stuffing a washcloth in the drain and plugging the gap between the bottom of the door and the bathroom floor with a towel or two!
Hawkins turns in another first rate performance, as I knew she would. The combination of her entrancing eyes and smooth delivery of sign language enables us to guess with a high degree of confidence what she is feeling and communicating in her own way. On the other end of the spectrum, Shannon makes a terrific villain, one of the most sadistic in recent memory. His use of a taser stick in a couple of scenes is hard to watch. Even the side characters, those portrayed by Spencer and especially Jenkins, add beneficial supplements to the story, although a certain scene with Jenkins sitting at the counter in a pie shop should have landed on the cutting room floor.
Two of the Academy Award Oscars went to del Toro for direction and Alexandre Desalt for his amazing score. The latter wrote twenty of the twenty-eight songs sprinkled throughout the movie. I find it interesting and disappointing to compare the performances of Sally Hawkins, who was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar but did not win, with Frances McDormand, who did for her performance in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (reviewed here on December 23, 2017; B+). Without uttering a single word, Hawkins' Elisa conveyed love, curiosity, kindness, concern and bravery. McDormand's Mildred Hayes was a foul-mouthed, aggrieved, monotone and mostly boring woman. Apparently that is what the Academy voters were looking for.
Hawkins plays Elisa Esposito, a mute custodian who works in a secret government building along side her co-worker and interpreter, Zelda (Octavia Spencer). The building is a high security facility, where secret experiments are conducted with the aim of giving the United States an edge in the Cold War. One of those experiments involves the incarceration of a man-like aquatic creature who is restrained by chains in an indoor salt water pool. Like Elisa, the creature does not speak, but through gestures, body language and facial expressions, he obviously is keenly aware of her kindness toward him. Secretly, Elisa finds time to visit the creature, while her friend, Zelda, covers for her. Elisa did not have a man in her life, but now she does... sort of.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Elisa and Zelda, two chains of action are in the works which will spell trouble for the creature and his new-found friend. Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon), the army officer who captured the creature out of a South American river, is ordered by his superior to perform a biological experiment which will result in the captive's death. Ordinarily one would think that receiving such an order would give a man, even a military officer, pause, but not Colonel Strickland. He does not put up an argument, partly because of his rank and partly because he is probably psychopathic. An objection to the planned demise of the creature is raised, however, by a scientist, Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg), which leads us to the second "chain."
Hoffstetler, although he works in the facility's secret lab, is actually a Soviet spy named Dimitri Mosenkov. He is the most conflicted character in the story, having to take orders not only from Strickland but from his Soviet handlers who also want the creature killed for their own competitive militaristic reasons. In quick succession, Elisa learns of the U.S. Army's sinister plans for her amphibious friend, and with the help of Zelda, Mosenkov and her next door neighbor, Giles (Richard Jenkins), she frees the creature with a daring escape and hides him in her apartment.
The stage is now set for the budding romance between Elisa and the amphibious "man" to evolve, but how long can she successfully hide him before he is either recaptured or perishes due to absence from his natural habitat?
At first blush a story of a romance between a woman and a non-human being sounds creepy, if not disgusting (not to mention illegal). But hats off to writer-director Guillermo del Toro for keeping things on the up and up. Doug Jones, the actor who plays the amphibious creature, certainly deserves more than a nod too. If the viewer is willing to accept that the movie is, indeed, a fantasy, the love story will probably not pose a problem. Actually, I had a harder time accepting that a bathroom could completely fill up with water merely by turning on the bathtub faucet, stuffing a washcloth in the drain and plugging the gap between the bottom of the door and the bathroom floor with a towel or two!
Hawkins turns in another first rate performance, as I knew she would. The combination of her entrancing eyes and smooth delivery of sign language enables us to guess with a high degree of confidence what she is feeling and communicating in her own way. On the other end of the spectrum, Shannon makes a terrific villain, one of the most sadistic in recent memory. His use of a taser stick in a couple of scenes is hard to watch. Even the side characters, those portrayed by Spencer and especially Jenkins, add beneficial supplements to the story, although a certain scene with Jenkins sitting at the counter in a pie shop should have landed on the cutting room floor.
Two of the Academy Award Oscars went to del Toro for direction and Alexandre Desalt for his amazing score. The latter wrote twenty of the twenty-eight songs sprinkled throughout the movie. I find it interesting and disappointing to compare the performances of Sally Hawkins, who was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar but did not win, with Frances McDormand, who did for her performance in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (reviewed here on December 23, 2017; B+). Without uttering a single word, Hawkins' Elisa conveyed love, curiosity, kindness, concern and bravery. McDormand's Mildred Hayes was a foul-mouthed, aggrieved, monotone and mostly boring woman. Apparently that is what the Academy voters were looking for.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Quarterly Cinema Scan - Volume XXXI
In 2016 Ron Howard, a former childhood actor who is now one of Hollywood's most admired directors, made a documentary titled The Beatles: Eight Days A Week -- The Touring Years. Although volumes have been written about the Beatles phenomenon, there have not been many films, especially full length feature films, on the subject. It is hard for many baby boomers to relate to the younger generation just how crazy things got musically and even culturally during the so-called British Invasion, which started in 1964. Thank you, Ron Howard. You have made our task much easier.
Howard's documentary starts in England in late 1963. The Beatles were fast becoming the number one music group in the UK, if not in the entirety of Europe. Yet in the United States, the band was unknown. On December 17, 1963, Washington, DC radio station WWDC became the first outlet in our country to play a Beatles tune, I Want To Hold Your Hand. But it wasn't until the famous Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964 that American teens were introduced to the mop tops.
Howard has assembled an amazing collection of interviews with all of the Beatles, including modern day dialogues with the two surviving members, Paul and Ringo. There are press conferences, concert footage and television broadcasts, as well as perspectives from historians, music critics, and contemporary musicians. Howard also includes reflections of a handful of celebrities like Sigourney Weaver and Whoopi Goldberg on how the Beatles impacted their lives. The concert footage is excellent, considering it was recorded over fifty years ago. The movie's viewers definitely get a true sense of what it was like to be present among the screaming fans.
Being a linear guy, I appreciate the construction of this documentary. Scenes proceed in chronological order, from the Liverpool days to the famous Apple Corps rooftop concert on January 30, 1969, the last time the lads played together in public. But as you'd guess from the film's title, the emphasis is on the period from the Sullivan show to the Candlestick Park concert on August 29, 1966. As most Beatlemaniacs know, that was their final gig on their last-ever tour.
There has been much written on how the Beatles formed as a group and what led to their 1970 breakup. Howard's documentary focuses on a less-examined question: Why did the Beatles, at the pinnacle of their popularity, cease touring after Candlestick? There is no one reason; in fact there are several, some obvious and some more nuanced. The Howard film shows us not merely "the what and when" but "the why" as well. It also examines how the voluntary cessation of touring affected their subsequent artistry as song writers, musicians and arrangers.
***
Here are the movies I watched on the tube during the first quarter of 2018.
1. The Beatles: Eight Days A Week -- The Touring Years (2016 documentary covering roughly the period starting with the early '60's Cavern Club/Hamburg days to the 1969 Apple Records rooftop concert in London.) A
2. The Firm (1993 drama; new Harvard Law School grad Tom Cruise accepts an offer from a Memphis law firm, after which his wife Jeanne Tripplehorn's suspicions about the firm's partners, including Gene Hackman, become reality.) A
3. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009 comedy; Kevin James, a hapless mall security guard, risks his life to save his crush, Jayma Mays, when bad guys take over a huge suburban mall.) C
4. A River Runs Through It (1992 biopic; two brothers, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt, grow up with a love for fly fishing in Montana, but as adults choose disparate paths.) B+
5. Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017 drama; Denzel Washington is an idealistic, introverted criminal defense lawyer in LA who, following his senior partner's death, reluctantly accepts an offer from a silk stocking mega-firm headed by Colin Farrell.) B
6. Splendor In The Grass (1961 drama; Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty are small town Kansas teenagers who seem perfectly suited for each other, but things start to fall apart when Beatty's eagerness to take things to the next level sexually do not mesh with Wood's strict upbringing and fragile mental state.) C+
7. The Usual Suspects (1995 drama; US Customs Agent Chazz Palminteri grills con man Kevin Spacey about a ship explosion which occurred after a former dirty cop, Gabriel Byrne, had led a small group of ex-cons on board.) B+
8. The Year of Living Dangerously (1982 drama; during the initial stages of Indonesia's civil war in 1965, Australian reporter Mel Gibson relies heavily on local photographer Linda Hunt, and romances English foreign service insider Sigourney Weaver.) B+
Howard's documentary starts in England in late 1963. The Beatles were fast becoming the number one music group in the UK, if not in the entirety of Europe. Yet in the United States, the band was unknown. On December 17, 1963, Washington, DC radio station WWDC became the first outlet in our country to play a Beatles tune, I Want To Hold Your Hand. But it wasn't until the famous Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964 that American teens were introduced to the mop tops.
Howard has assembled an amazing collection of interviews with all of the Beatles, including modern day dialogues with the two surviving members, Paul and Ringo. There are press conferences, concert footage and television broadcasts, as well as perspectives from historians, music critics, and contemporary musicians. Howard also includes reflections of a handful of celebrities like Sigourney Weaver and Whoopi Goldberg on how the Beatles impacted their lives. The concert footage is excellent, considering it was recorded over fifty years ago. The movie's viewers definitely get a true sense of what it was like to be present among the screaming fans.
Being a linear guy, I appreciate the construction of this documentary. Scenes proceed in chronological order, from the Liverpool days to the famous Apple Corps rooftop concert on January 30, 1969, the last time the lads played together in public. But as you'd guess from the film's title, the emphasis is on the period from the Sullivan show to the Candlestick Park concert on August 29, 1966. As most Beatlemaniacs know, that was their final gig on their last-ever tour.
There has been much written on how the Beatles formed as a group and what led to their 1970 breakup. Howard's documentary focuses on a less-examined question: Why did the Beatles, at the pinnacle of their popularity, cease touring after Candlestick? There is no one reason; in fact there are several, some obvious and some more nuanced. The Howard film shows us not merely "the what and when" but "the why" as well. It also examines how the voluntary cessation of touring affected their subsequent artistry as song writers, musicians and arrangers.
***
Here are the movies I watched on the tube during the first quarter of 2018.
1. The Beatles: Eight Days A Week -- The Touring Years (2016 documentary covering roughly the period starting with the early '60's Cavern Club/Hamburg days to the 1969 Apple Records rooftop concert in London.) A
2. The Firm (1993 drama; new Harvard Law School grad Tom Cruise accepts an offer from a Memphis law firm, after which his wife Jeanne Tripplehorn's suspicions about the firm's partners, including Gene Hackman, become reality.) A
3. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009 comedy; Kevin James, a hapless mall security guard, risks his life to save his crush, Jayma Mays, when bad guys take over a huge suburban mall.) C
4. A River Runs Through It (1992 biopic; two brothers, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt, grow up with a love for fly fishing in Montana, but as adults choose disparate paths.) B+
5. Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017 drama; Denzel Washington is an idealistic, introverted criminal defense lawyer in LA who, following his senior partner's death, reluctantly accepts an offer from a silk stocking mega-firm headed by Colin Farrell.) B
6. Splendor In The Grass (1961 drama; Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty are small town Kansas teenagers who seem perfectly suited for each other, but things start to fall apart when Beatty's eagerness to take things to the next level sexually do not mesh with Wood's strict upbringing and fragile mental state.) C+
7. The Usual Suspects (1995 drama; US Customs Agent Chazz Palminteri grills con man Kevin Spacey about a ship explosion which occurred after a former dirty cop, Gabriel Byrne, had led a small group of ex-cons on board.) B+
8. The Year of Living Dangerously (1982 drama; during the initial stages of Indonesia's civil war in 1965, Australian reporter Mel Gibson relies heavily on local photographer Linda Hunt, and romances English foreign service insider Sigourney Weaver.) B+
Friday, March 16, 2018
Fouls To Give
March Madness, The Big Dance, Hoops Hoopla. The NCAA men's tournament has started. Many of us will now watch games between two teams we haven't followed all year. Even if we don't have a rooting interest or a connection to either of the combatants, we can always resort to cheering for the team wearing the darker jerseys; they are the lower seed, and therefore the underdog. The excitement level of most year's tournaments is directly proportional to how many upsets occur. The tournament is comprised of sixty-seven games, and you can bet that a chunk of them will go to the underdog. In fact, since the turn of the century there has been only one year, 2008, when the top seed from each region made it to the Final Four.
One basketball term which the television and radio announcers have been using more over the past several years is "fouls to give." I don't remember that term being used much, if at all, until about two or three years ago. What does it mean, and why is it important?
In men's college basketball, a non-shooting foul (sometimes referred to as a "common foul") does not result in a free throw until the offending team has committed its seventh foul of the half. At that time, the opponent is in the "bonus" and is therefore entitled to a "one-and-one," i.e., a free throw which, if successful, is followed by a second free throw. Once a team commits its tenth foul of the half, the opponent is in the "double bonus" and is therefore entitled to shoot two free throws even if the first attempt is unsuccessful.
When a team has "fouls to give" that means it has not yet reached its sixth team foul of the half, so the commission of its next foul will not put their opponent in the bonus. Thus the next common foul will not result in the opponent getting any free throw. The opponent will merely get to inbound the ball. With that in mind, sometimes teams with a foul to give will intentionally foul a player on the other team toward the end of a close game.
Consider this scenario. Minnesota leads Iowa by three points with ten seconds to go in the game. Iowa inbounds the ball at the opposite end of the court (ninety-four feet away) from its offensive basket, and Minnesota has fouls to give. The Minnesota coaches have a choice to make. Do we simply play tough defense for ten seconds, or do we intentionally foul an Iowa player when the clock has dwindled down to about four or five seconds? Because Minnesota has fouls to give, if Minnesota executes the latter strategy, Iowa will not go to the free throw line. Iowa will have to inbound the ball with only four or five seconds left.
There are two schools of thought on the wisdom of employing the end-game strategy of intentionally fouling an opponent when your team has fouls to give. Here are the most important pros and cons.
The Pros:
1. Generally, fouling the opponent disrupts the opponent's rhythm. It is not unlike a track sprint race with a false start. Now the athletes have to start all over again, only in a basketball game there is now less time available for a team to do what it had originally planned.
2. The strategy works best if the opponent does not have any time out remaining. The opponent's coach probably spent his last time out designing a play to run for the situation which presented itself at the ten second mark. That plan at least partially, if not completely, goes out the window after the intentional foul.
3. Following along the same lines as # 2, it stands to reason that the more time which elapses between the coach's instruction and the moment of execution, the less likely successful execution will be. This is particularly true if the team with the ball is young, inexperienced and on the road with thousands of fans screaming. In our hypothetical, if Iowa is playing several underclassmen in The Barn, their chances of tying the game are decreased by Minnesota's intentional foul.
4. The opponent is forced to inbound the ball, not always an easy task. Minnesota will probably have its tallest player, with a wing span resembling that of a Boeing 747, jumping and waving his arms in front of the inbounds passer. Minnesota will want to force Iowa to inbound the ball to a Hawkeye running away from his basket. That will eat up a few more precious seconds.
5. Even if Iowa completes the inbounds pass, with fewer ticks left on the clock, Iowa will be limited as to how many dribbles and passes it can make before its final shot.
6. If Minnesota still has yet another foul to give, it might even do so again after the inbounds pass has been completed.
The Cons:
If intentionally fouling when you have fouls to give is such a brilliant end-game idea, why don't teams do it all the time? Here are some reasons why, and they are all deal breakers.
1. Minnesota must not be called for an intentional foul, even though they are intentionally fouling! In other words, the Gopher committing the foul has to be somewhat of a good actor. He can't just hack at the Iowa player he wants to foul. If the referee rules that the foul was intentional, Iowa will shoot free throws and then retain possession of the ball. A good rule of thumb for making an intentional foul look unintentional is this: Swipe up at the ball, not down. If you swipe up, you will not be called for a hack.
2. Equally as dangerous as # 1 is the possibility of fouling a player in the act of shooting. If the Gopher player is just a few tenths of a second too late with his intentional foul, the Iowa player could launch a shot in the process. If the referee deems the foul was a "shooting foul" (not a common foul), Iowa will shoot one free throw if the shot goes in, or two free throws if the shot misses. Either way, bad news for the Gophers.
3. The Minnesota coach should be able to trust a bench player to commit the intentional foul. You want to avoid having to use a starter, especially one who already has three or four personal fouls, to be the one who commits the foul, because if by some miracle Iowa sends the game into overtime, you want your starter available for the OT. The problem for Minnesota is that the bench player may not be accustomed to being used in crunch time, and now you are asking him to perform a key role in your strategy.
4. This might be the biggest warning of all, and it is one emphasized by basketball analyst/guru Fran Fraschilla many times. A coach whose team has a foul to give should not ask his players to do so unless his team has repeatedly practiced that end-game scenario throughout the season. The art of intentionally fouling an opposing player in the heat of battle requires (as noted above) perfect timing and a bit of acting. This is not something you whip up on a clip board during a thirty second time out. Using a "foul to give" has to be part of a team's regular arsenal. If it's not, just play tough D and forget about giving the foul.
One basketball term which the television and radio announcers have been using more over the past several years is "fouls to give." I don't remember that term being used much, if at all, until about two or three years ago. What does it mean, and why is it important?
In men's college basketball, a non-shooting foul (sometimes referred to as a "common foul") does not result in a free throw until the offending team has committed its seventh foul of the half. At that time, the opponent is in the "bonus" and is therefore entitled to a "one-and-one," i.e., a free throw which, if successful, is followed by a second free throw. Once a team commits its tenth foul of the half, the opponent is in the "double bonus" and is therefore entitled to shoot two free throws even if the first attempt is unsuccessful.
When a team has "fouls to give" that means it has not yet reached its sixth team foul of the half, so the commission of its next foul will not put their opponent in the bonus. Thus the next common foul will not result in the opponent getting any free throw. The opponent will merely get to inbound the ball. With that in mind, sometimes teams with a foul to give will intentionally foul a player on the other team toward the end of a close game.
Consider this scenario. Minnesota leads Iowa by three points with ten seconds to go in the game. Iowa inbounds the ball at the opposite end of the court (ninety-four feet away) from its offensive basket, and Minnesota has fouls to give. The Minnesota coaches have a choice to make. Do we simply play tough defense for ten seconds, or do we intentionally foul an Iowa player when the clock has dwindled down to about four or five seconds? Because Minnesota has fouls to give, if Minnesota executes the latter strategy, Iowa will not go to the free throw line. Iowa will have to inbound the ball with only four or five seconds left.
There are two schools of thought on the wisdom of employing the end-game strategy of intentionally fouling an opponent when your team has fouls to give. Here are the most important pros and cons.
The Pros:
1. Generally, fouling the opponent disrupts the opponent's rhythm. It is not unlike a track sprint race with a false start. Now the athletes have to start all over again, only in a basketball game there is now less time available for a team to do what it had originally planned.
2. The strategy works best if the opponent does not have any time out remaining. The opponent's coach probably spent his last time out designing a play to run for the situation which presented itself at the ten second mark. That plan at least partially, if not completely, goes out the window after the intentional foul.
3. Following along the same lines as # 2, it stands to reason that the more time which elapses between the coach's instruction and the moment of execution, the less likely successful execution will be. This is particularly true if the team with the ball is young, inexperienced and on the road with thousands of fans screaming. In our hypothetical, if Iowa is playing several underclassmen in The Barn, their chances of tying the game are decreased by Minnesota's intentional foul.
4. The opponent is forced to inbound the ball, not always an easy task. Minnesota will probably have its tallest player, with a wing span resembling that of a Boeing 747, jumping and waving his arms in front of the inbounds passer. Minnesota will want to force Iowa to inbound the ball to a Hawkeye running away from his basket. That will eat up a few more precious seconds.
5. Even if Iowa completes the inbounds pass, with fewer ticks left on the clock, Iowa will be limited as to how many dribbles and passes it can make before its final shot.
6. If Minnesota still has yet another foul to give, it might even do so again after the inbounds pass has been completed.
The Cons:
If intentionally fouling when you have fouls to give is such a brilliant end-game idea, why don't teams do it all the time? Here are some reasons why, and they are all deal breakers.
1. Minnesota must not be called for an intentional foul, even though they are intentionally fouling! In other words, the Gopher committing the foul has to be somewhat of a good actor. He can't just hack at the Iowa player he wants to foul. If the referee rules that the foul was intentional, Iowa will shoot free throws and then retain possession of the ball. A good rule of thumb for making an intentional foul look unintentional is this: Swipe up at the ball, not down. If you swipe up, you will not be called for a hack.
2. Equally as dangerous as # 1 is the possibility of fouling a player in the act of shooting. If the Gopher player is just a few tenths of a second too late with his intentional foul, the Iowa player could launch a shot in the process. If the referee deems the foul was a "shooting foul" (not a common foul), Iowa will shoot one free throw if the shot goes in, or two free throws if the shot misses. Either way, bad news for the Gophers.
3. The Minnesota coach should be able to trust a bench player to commit the intentional foul. You want to avoid having to use a starter, especially one who already has three or four personal fouls, to be the one who commits the foul, because if by some miracle Iowa sends the game into overtime, you want your starter available for the OT. The problem for Minnesota is that the bench player may not be accustomed to being used in crunch time, and now you are asking him to perform a key role in your strategy.
4. This might be the biggest warning of all, and it is one emphasized by basketball analyst/guru Fran Fraschilla many times. A coach whose team has a foul to give should not ask his players to do so unless his team has repeatedly practiced that end-game scenario throughout the season. The art of intentionally fouling an opposing player in the heat of battle requires (as noted above) perfect timing and a bit of acting. This is not something you whip up on a clip board during a thirty second time out. Using a "foul to give" has to be part of a team's regular arsenal. If it's not, just play tough D and forget about giving the foul.
Monday, February 26, 2018
Movie Review: "All The Money In The World"
"All The Money In The World": B. I may not go down in history as the World's Greatest Grandfather, notwithstanding my noble efforts, but dag nabbit, after watching All The Money In The World, I'm positive I won't be called the World's Worst either. Nope. That title indisputably belongs to multi-billionanaire oil baron J. Paul Getty.
The movie takes place in 1973 when Getty's sixteen year old grandson, John Paul III (Charlie Plummer), is kidnapped off the streets of Rome in the wee hours of the morning. The kidnappers are comprised of a small band of criminals who are under the mistaken notion that their captive's mother, Gail (Michelle Williams), can tap into her own personal fortune to pay a $17 million ransom. What they apparently don't realize is that Gail is not a rich woman, having chosen to turn down enormous alimony payments from the billionaire's son (her child's father) in connection with their divorce settlement nine years earlier. In return, the child's father (Andrew Buchan) has relinquished all parental rights.
Although she is contractually cut off from the Getty fortune, Gail nevertheless goes to her former father-in-law to beg for the ransom money. The old coot abruptly turns her down, with an explanation that paying for his grandson's release would only amount to an invitation for other criminals to kidnap his other grandchildren. The grandfather is heartless, unable to mask the real reason for his rejection of Gail's desperate plea, viz., his miserly frugality. What's more, his air of disinterest makes him despicable. His saving grace is his willingness to direct one of his company's top negotiators, Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), to investigate. Chase is a former CIA veteran who is well-equipped to deal with the criminals.
Williams, who gets top billing, is excellent as the boy's beleaguered mother. As if worrying about her boy isn't enough, she also is besieged by the rude and intrusive media who can't believe that she is not at least a millionaire herself. Although he is working for Getty, Chase develops an arm's length closeness (if that's not an oxymoron) to Gail. As movie viewers, it's hard for us to know which way their relationship is heading. No matter; as strong a woman as she is, Gail needs Chase to save her son.
Many kidnapping stories include a captor who empathizes with the captive, almost to the point of switching sides. That good-hearted criminal is usually a female, but here it's Cinquanta (Romain Duris) who, in many ways, becomes the boy's protector. To what lengths will this (almost) good-hearted kidnapper go to shield the teenager from the cutthroats?
The main off-screen buzz surrounding All The Money In The World pertained to eighty-eight year old actor Christopher Plummer, who plays the senior Getty. Plummer was called upon by producer-director Ridley Scott to take the place of defrocked Kevin Spacey, originally cast to play the billionaire, after the latter became the subject of many sex abuse allegations made after the film's production was completed. Scott, determined to retain the scheduled mid-December release date, required Plummer to learn his part in only nine days during which the scenes which had contained Spacey were reshot with Plummer. Not only did Plummer heroically ace this challenge, he has been nominated for -- and is favored to win -- the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award.
Unfortunately the middle and final thirds of the movie do not fulfill the promise of the beginning. Maybe an endless series of phone conversations is to be expected with this type of story, but they become momentum inhibitors. There are too many times when things don't add up, and the denouement is too formulaic. I will give extra points, however, for the scene in which the grandfather has a change of heart and states his willingness to pay a small portion equal to $1 million of the ransom. That is the amount which he can claim as a tax deduction. The oil man never does figure out that you can't take it with you.
The movie takes place in 1973 when Getty's sixteen year old grandson, John Paul III (Charlie Plummer), is kidnapped off the streets of Rome in the wee hours of the morning. The kidnappers are comprised of a small band of criminals who are under the mistaken notion that their captive's mother, Gail (Michelle Williams), can tap into her own personal fortune to pay a $17 million ransom. What they apparently don't realize is that Gail is not a rich woman, having chosen to turn down enormous alimony payments from the billionaire's son (her child's father) in connection with their divorce settlement nine years earlier. In return, the child's father (Andrew Buchan) has relinquished all parental rights.
Although she is contractually cut off from the Getty fortune, Gail nevertheless goes to her former father-in-law to beg for the ransom money. The old coot abruptly turns her down, with an explanation that paying for his grandson's release would only amount to an invitation for other criminals to kidnap his other grandchildren. The grandfather is heartless, unable to mask the real reason for his rejection of Gail's desperate plea, viz., his miserly frugality. What's more, his air of disinterest makes him despicable. His saving grace is his willingness to direct one of his company's top negotiators, Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), to investigate. Chase is a former CIA veteran who is well-equipped to deal with the criminals.
Williams, who gets top billing, is excellent as the boy's beleaguered mother. As if worrying about her boy isn't enough, she also is besieged by the rude and intrusive media who can't believe that she is not at least a millionaire herself. Although he is working for Getty, Chase develops an arm's length closeness (if that's not an oxymoron) to Gail. As movie viewers, it's hard for us to know which way their relationship is heading. No matter; as strong a woman as she is, Gail needs Chase to save her son.
Many kidnapping stories include a captor who empathizes with the captive, almost to the point of switching sides. That good-hearted criminal is usually a female, but here it's Cinquanta (Romain Duris) who, in many ways, becomes the boy's protector. To what lengths will this (almost) good-hearted kidnapper go to shield the teenager from the cutthroats?
The main off-screen buzz surrounding All The Money In The World pertained to eighty-eight year old actor Christopher Plummer, who plays the senior Getty. Plummer was called upon by producer-director Ridley Scott to take the place of defrocked Kevin Spacey, originally cast to play the billionaire, after the latter became the subject of many sex abuse allegations made after the film's production was completed. Scott, determined to retain the scheduled mid-December release date, required Plummer to learn his part in only nine days during which the scenes which had contained Spacey were reshot with Plummer. Not only did Plummer heroically ace this challenge, he has been nominated for -- and is favored to win -- the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award.
Unfortunately the middle and final thirds of the movie do not fulfill the promise of the beginning. Maybe an endless series of phone conversations is to be expected with this type of story, but they become momentum inhibitors. There are too many times when things don't add up, and the denouement is too formulaic. I will give extra points, however, for the scene in which the grandfather has a change of heart and states his willingness to pay a small portion equal to $1 million of the ransom. That is the amount which he can claim as a tax deduction. The oil man never does figure out that you can't take it with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)