Delayed Reaction: Frankie & Johnny

Premise: A recently released convict gets a job at a New York diner and falls for a waitress working there who isn't sure she wants a relationship.

 

I know it's the easy privileged thing to say, but when looking back at art, it really is importantly to keep in mind that the perception of some things has changed over time. If Frankie and Johnny was released today, it would not fare well. It's a movie about a guy who basically stalks the woman he likes and refuses to hear no until she finally says yes. Yes, that's problematic. It opens a lot of women up to victimization and confuses men about what is and isn't ok. It's hard for me to watch this movie for the first time now and think that Johnny's persistence is sweet. But, at the time and for decades, that was presented as cute. I don't have the time or knowledge to get into the deep systemic effects of all that here. I'm just saying that I have to assume the best intent when watching a movie like Frankie and Johnny.

 

This movie does make more sense with less glamourous people in the lead roles. Apparently, this is based on a play in which the two lead characters are both - let's say - homelier. Even though the movie is very different from the play, I agree that it does make more sense without Michelle freaking Pfeiffer in the lead role. So, that's another thing I just have to accept: beautiful movie stars got the lead roles in a 1991 RomCom.

 

OK. I've established the parameters. So how do I feel about the movie? I kind of liked it. I think it has some funny jokes, especially the little New York touches Garry Marshall throws in. Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino are sweet together. I tend to forget how great peak Pfeiffer was. This is a "carpe diem" movie for Pacino and a "open yourself to love" movie for Pfeiffer, and they play those notes well enough. Perhaps Garry Marshall and company defang the premise a little too much, but honestly, does anyone want to see Marshall direct the gritty, bittersweet version of this movie? Given the pieces and context, I think this is the best version of the movie they could make.

 

That said, I did have a lot of trouble looking at this from a non-2021 context. Pacino's persistence struck me as needy and threatening; like the movie was about Pfeiffer seeing her neighbor in a physically abusive relationship, not realizing she was in an emotionally abusive one now. Pfeiffer and to a lesser extent Pacino as well as the rest of the supporting cast really are charming and wonderful, but not enough to overcome my issues with that core relationship.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Godzilla (1954)

Premise: Japan is attacked by a giant dinosaur creature from the sea.

 

Rambo is the American Godzilla. Here me out. First Blood is a surprisingly thoughtful and restrained action movie. It has real commentary on recent history with John Rambo as a Vietnam veteran trying to cope with the darkness of that time. While it does turn into an action movie, it's all foregrounded with real thoughtfulness. Then, someone saw First Blood and took away from it "This Rambo guy is a real one-man-army." So, all the Rambo sequels have been about Rambo as a super soldier in extreme situations.

 

The Godzilla franchise is pretty similar. This first movie is a really thoughtful commentary on weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. dropping two atomic bombs on them had a profound effect on Japanese society, and Godzilla is evidence of them still trying to find a way to cope with it. Sure, there's some big action sequences of Godzilla destroying buildings, but that's not the point of the movie. Then, after this movie, the Godzilla franchise turned into "What other giant creature can Godzilla fight now". I haven't seen these sequels, but something tells me that Godzilla vs. Megalon doesn't spend as much time discussing the morality of man controlling weapons with great destructive power.

 

Anyway, Godzilla is pretty good. I like how restrained it was. It made the sequences with Godzilla unleashing even more satisfying. The movie was a little chatty, but I mostly liked the moral discussions they were having. I have no desire to track down any of the sequels, but I sure am glad I got around to seeing the original.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Those Who Wish Me Dead

Premise: A smokejumper finds a young boy in the woods and tries to keep him safe from the hitmen who wish him dead.

Angelina Jolie is famous because...?

 

I like Angelina Jolie. I'm generally intrigued to hear when she's in a movie, but it sure is tough to look at her filmography and think that it's the credits of a star. Like, a top tier star. She has that early Oscar win. The Tomb Raider movies were big but haven't had little lasting impact. Mr. & Mrs. Smith was fun. She got another Oscar nomination for Changeling. Maleficent was a hit thanks to some excellent casting. But really, what about her filmography suggests that she's one of the biggest stars in 4 different decades?

 

For someone who doesn't work a ton, Those Who Wish Me Dead is a very odd role for her. Jolie can play a number of roles. She can be an emotional train wreck, the most elegant woman in the world, a badass agent or spy, an evil stepmother, etc. One thing I can't buy her as is salt of the earth. You know, I just can't imagine her wearing flannel. That makes this movie weird. Well, that's one of the reasons.

 

This is a pretty strange movie all-around. It's one of those movies where everyone seems surprised that they're in a movie together. Jolie plays a smokejumper with a death wish. She's protecting a kid from the city whose father was killed for knowing too much. Aidan Gillen and Nicholas Hoult are international assassins. Jon Bernthal is a local sheriff with a pregnant wife. Whenever any of the characters interact, they treat the other person like an interloper in their movie. I didn't dislike it. Just, repeatedly while watching this, I found myself thinking "OK. I guess this is the kind of movie I'm watching".

 

This is a nice enough thriller. It belongs in 1998 starring Ashley Judd, probably (but I hear from Miramax execs that she's difficult to work with). I don't get why Jolie took this role, but she's OK in it. This feels like a movie they would've relegated to HBO Max in some way even if there was no pandemic.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Hearts & Minds

Premise: A documentary with an unfavorable look at the Vietnam War.

 

I imagine Boomers look at the Iraq war protests in the mid-2000s and think "That's cute". I didn't live through the Vietnam War, but thanks in large part to the draft still being intact, it was a level of magnitude bigger than any of the military conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since. I've done what I can over the years to understand what that whole mess was about, but I'll never have the full context, no matter how many Ken Burns documentaries I watch. Hearts and Minds is an interesting historical artifact, because it's fresh off the end of the Vietnam War. It exists in the small window between the end of Vietnam and Nixon's resignation*. When this was completed in 1974, it still looked like Vietnam would be the biggest event of the decade.

 

*The Watergate scandal was still going on, but this was completed before it was clear that he would resign.

 

Hearts & Minds isn't exactly fair and balanced. It is very anti-war. It is thoroughly one-sided though. It covers all the things that are bad about the war. The lying politicians. The negative effects on the soldiers who served. The destruction it wrought upon the Vietnamese population. The ineffectiveness of it all. This doesn't answer the questions "What was the Vietnam war about?" but it sure answers "Why were people angry about the Vietnam War?" This is a raw movie. No one involved has really had time to digest it all. And, unlike a Fahrenheit 9/11, the filmmakers don't make themselves the story. It's a deeply upsetting movie. Much of the footage taken in Vietnam is horrifying. It's insane to me how much footage of the death and destruction going on there was on the news at the same time that George Carlin was getting in trouble for the "seven dirty words".

 

The main critique I'd have of this movie is baked into the premise: it's not balanced. This is clear anti-Vietnam propaganda. I think over time, its proven to mostly be on the right side of history, but no one could mistake this for an earnest attempt to understand the Vietnam War. The filmmakers went in to make a movie about how awful the Vietnam War was. I don't find that kind of documentary filmmaking as interesting, but Hearts & Minds is effective at what it's trying to do.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Personal History of David Copperfield

Premise: Another take on the David Copperfield story, a young man whose life swings from rags to riches a couple times.

 

It will surprise no one that I haven't read this book. In fact, I don't believe I've read any Charles Dickens. At first glance, Armando Iannucci sounds like an odd person to adapt Dickens' classic novel. I associate Iannucci with profanity laced projects about modern politics. Then I thought about it a little and it makes more sense. Iannucci is a satirist who comments on modern life, which is something Dickens was known to do. Dickens was a popularist. Even though Iannucci hasn't broken huge stateside, he is very much about speaking the vernacular of the people, building characters with recognizable flaws. In other words, Armando Iannucci is perfect for the David Copperfield story.

 

I enjoyed this movie plenty. It's very charming, especially with Dev Patel in the lead role. Patel is somehow only 31 despite Slumdog Millionaire coming out 3-Spider-Men, 3 Batmen, and 20-something MCU movies ago. I don't know how anyone can look at him in this any not think "Atta boy". The cast is filled with Iannucci favorites like Hugh Laurie and Pater Capaldi. Tilda Swinton is having a blast playing David's oddball aunt. There are also a few moments throughout where I could feel Iannucci resisting the urge to unleash with his regular verbal fury in the screenplay. Characters get right up to the point of going full Malcolm Tucker before pulling back and remembering they are in this charming Dickens adaptation. Frankly, The Personal History of David Copperfield has serious Paddington energy and I like it.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Stardust Memories

Premise: A famous filmmakers suffers from creative stagnation while trying to choose between two women.

 

This movie marks a turning point in Woody Allen's filmography. He had his early comedies (Bananas, Sleeper, Love & Death) followed by his most critically adored but less overtly funny films (Annie Hall, Manhattan). Stardust Memories seems to mark when he stops caring about pleasing an audience. Before that, he made them laugh. He got pushback when he tried bringing his audience along for something more serious. Stardust Memories is him venting his frustrations with his own fame and his audience's entitlement. After this movie, he begins his epic run of directing 38 movies over 36 years without skipping a year. His movies started fluctuating in tone and topic more. He didn't worry about making perfect films or pleasing the audience with each one. He often still did please the audience, but he never chased that.

 

I appreciate aspects of Stardust Memories, but I didn't really like it much overall. Despite Allen's claims to the contrary, I read this as him complaining too much about his audience. There's a contempt for his fans and what people appreciate about his movies that rubbed me the wrong way. It's fine to hate your fans. I imagine Chris Nolan and George Lucas sure are exhausted by their fans. There's no need to make a movie about how invasive they are; chastising them for preferring certain movies over others. I also like his comedies better. Pardon me for liking the comedic work of a great comedy writer over, say, a beautiful black and white movie about a 42-year-old dating a 17-year-old. Perhaps if I was in the crowd who prefers Annie Hall over Love & Death, Stardust Memories would speak more to me. I think it undeniably marks the end of 1970s Woody Allen though.

 

I do want to say that I loved seeing Jessica Harper show up in this. I've mainly just seen her in Suspria and small roles in other things. I just like seeing her on screen.

 

Side Thought: It's crazy how much in Woody Allen movies are "If someone tells you who they are, believe them". He just made a movie about dating a 17-year-old. Then this movie has him get in an argument with Charlotte Rampling because she thought he was flirting with her 13-year-old cousin (which he doesn't really deny). In hindsight, the only thing that was actually surprising about Soon-Yi Previn is that she was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Adam's Rib

Premise: Married lawyers go against each other in a trial about a woman who shoots (but doesn't kill) her cheating husband.

 

The appeal of this movie is that it's Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracey, a real-life couple in their sixth film collaboration, going mano-e-mano in a legal battle of the sexes. In that respect, it's a very enjoyable movie. I love how it alternates between the legal theatrics in the day and the couple's discussion and arguing at home in the evening. Hepburn and Tracy are all-timers very much in their element.

 

I didn't realize this also featured Judy Holiday as the wife on trial. In fact, Hepburn and company intestinally used this as a showcase for Holiday so she could get the film role in Born Yesterday that won her an Oscar the next year in one of history's most competitive acting races*. Unsurprisingly, Holiday is quite good too. She more than holds her own despite the movie being so concerned about Hepburn and Tracy.

 

*Again, Holiday beat Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard and both Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in All About Eve. That is a competitive field.

 

Aspects of the movie don't age tremendously. The battle of the sexes stuff is quaint by today's standards, and I rolled my eyes at the "OMG. A woman can be an accomplished and brilliant doctor" scenes. It was 1949 though. I'm cutting it some slack.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Eraserhead

Premise: A man attempts to take care of his deformed child and... that’s pretty much it.

 

One of my favorite things about the David Lynch discourse is how much disagreement there is about it. There are just as many people saying that Eraserhead is a messy start that Lynch grew from as there are fans who say that he lost what made Eraserhead great the longer he worked in the Hollywood system. This works with my theory that people don't really know what they like about David Lynch's work. They like to point to surrealism and commentary on suburban decay or identity confusion, but really, they just like following his nutso whims. That's fine. I mean, I don't do a good job explaining my love of David Lowery's pretention A Ghost Story either. That doesn't mean I'm making up that I like it. I just don't act like other people are lesser movie fans for not getting the movie.

 

Eraserhead is a weird movie. It's made on a shoestring budget, but I think that helps it. This basically looks like a really good student film. I don't get many of the decisions Lynch makes in the movie. They seem intentional though. And the film is very eerie and unsettling. For Lynch fans, this is a nice origin story for his work.

 

I'll admit, I'm still not a fan. The best way I can explain it is this. If I tasked a mediocre filmmaker to rip off Eraserhead, I'm not convinced I'd be able to tell which one was genuine and which was the rip off. I think Lynch's work is too often protected under the shield of surrealism. I mean, if I say something doesn't make sense, I'm met with "it's not supposed to make sense." How the hell am I supposed to argue with that? I was bothered by the sound design of the film. It's punishing, which I know is the point. The way it's punishing though is that most of the film sounds like someone forgot to shut the window. There's a constant howl of wind that grated on me. Is that great sound design or is it playing an annoying sound long enough to irritate me?

 

Successfully doing something is not the same as doing something well.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Project A

Premise: A rogue Marine Police officer in 19th century Hong Kong attempts to thwart a plot by gangster pirates.

 

I'm a broken record about these Jackie Chan Hong Kong action movies already. I love them. And Project A is no different. This is my first of his Hong Kong movies outside the Police Story franchise. Project A is a period piece, which is a nice change of pace. The stunts have the same ambition: the clocktower sequence in particular. Apparently, Chan responded to a lack of enthusiasm for his last period movie by loading this one with even more stunts. I believe that. This has numerous stunt sequences with excellent choreography and sight gags. This still falls a bit short of the utter chaos of the first Police Story, but I'm learning that that movie might just be the gold standard. Otherwise, Project A has all the things that I'm coming to love about Jackie Chan's native films.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Top Hat

Premise: A dancer falls in love with a woman who believes he is his married best friend.

 

I'm only 2 movies into the Astaire and Rogers catalog and a few things are very apparent. 1) Put them in a dance scene with a catchy song, and I'm happy. 2) I really need to stop thinking and just enjoy the screwball confusion. One of the defaults of my brain is that I have a hard time turning it off long enough for some contrivance. I spend most of the time with my brain screaming for someone to just explain what's going on. It's such easy confusion to avoid, and if they can't untangle this simple mix up, then they don't stand a chance as a couple long term...See? I'm even doing it with a hypothetical. These screwball comedies are so unabashedly silly that it is easier for me to just go with it. The mix up in Top Hat is decently clever and Rogers and Astaire play it well enough. I end up watching these like old variety shows though. I'm putting up with the jokes so I can get to the next song. "Cheek to Cheek" is the obvious stand out from this film, but it's not the only good song and dance number. At this point, I'm all in on tracking Astaire and Rogers movies down. Maybe Swing Time next.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend