LOST IN A CALIFORNIA DREAM: a review of "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood"

"ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD"
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED R

"All the leaves are brown
And the sky is grey
I've been for a walk
On a winter's day
I'd be safe and warm
If I was in L.A.
California dreamin' 
On such a winter's day..."
"California Dreamin'"
music and lyrics by John Phillips and Michelle Phillips

I am perplexed. Truly perplexed.

For nearly three decades, Writer/Director Quentin Tarantino has cemented himself as one of American cinema's most thrilling, exciting, controversial and enormously unpredictable filmmakers. With his first eight films, Tarantino has amassed a level of quality control that is uncommonly high for any filmmaker to scale with his peerless dialogue, characters and storytelling and an A level cinematic approach to what are all essentially exploitation films.

As far as I am concerned, over his career, Tarantino has helmed not one but four veritable masterpieces with the game changing "Pulp Fiction" (1994), the orgiastic samurai/western hybrid "Kill Bill" (2003/2004), the World War II revenge fantasy of "Inglourious Basterds" (2009) and the titanic, grueling slavery opera of "Django Unchained" (2012). Quentin Tarantino has forged a glowing career of basically inventing a completely idiosyncratic film genre unto himself making each new entry an event simply because it has arrived.

With his ninth film, "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood," the event status has arrived once again but the end result for me was one of admiration but decidedly muted and in some cases, underwhelmed. A completely surprising and unexpected reaction to be sure as even the Tarantino films I have been slightly softer with are more inventive and well written and conceived than most other motion pictures being released at the same time.

With his new film, many of the standard Tarantino qualities are in place, from his stellar direction, conception and the top to bottom performances he elicited from his cast. Additionally, there is exceedingly much to dissect, discuss and debate and I would not necessarily call it a disappointment either. Truth be told, I have not been able to get this film out of my mind since seeing it and I am indeed anxious to view it again. But something was possibly missing with its cumulative effect or something was off with my reaction to it. Yet for all of Quentin Tarantino's excellence, and quite possibly arriving with his most personal film to date, "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" is no masterpiece. Not even close. But that being said, it is undeniable to me that Quentin Tarantino, at this stage in his career, has surprised me by releasing a work that is demonstrably unlike anything he has previously accomplished. 

Set during the sunset of Hollywood's Golden Age during 1969, "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton, a once legendary television star of the Western series "Bounty Law" who is now a falling star, as his classic good looks have fallen out of favor, his hopeful leap to feature films have failed, and he is now relegated to playing villainous guest spots on other people's television programs. Adding insult to injury are the emphatic recommendations of Marvin Schwarz (Al Pacino), Hollywood producer as well as Dalton's agent, for Dalton to go to Italy and partake in the burgeoning "Spaghetti Western" film boom. And finally, Dalton's rampant alcoholism and increasing sense of insecurity are not aiding him in the least.

Brad Pitt stars as Dalton's longtime stunt double and best friend Cliff Booth. A war veteran with a dark past yet armed with a laconic cool, confidence and even wisdom lives in a dilapidated trailer next to a drive in theater with his faithful pit bull Brandy yet serves as Dalton's unofficial chauffeur and often live-in confidant/sidekick.

The luminous Margot Robbie is featured as Sharon Tate, who with her husband Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), plus celebrity hair-stylist Jay Sebring (Emile Hirsch), have rented the home next door to Rick Dalton in the gated community of Cielo Drive. Upon learning of their arrival to the neighborhood, Rick dreams of one day being able to meet Polanski with the hopes of resurrecting his career and status as a leading man. 

Yet running underneath or better yet alongside the sunshine days pf Hollywood fame and glory is the darkness of the rising counter culture, in which Charles Manson (Damon Herrian) and his "family" cult lurks.

Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" is resplendent filmmaking. Meticulously designed with all manner of period details and visualized lusciously by legendary Cinematographer Robert Richardson, Tarantino has crafted what is easily his most romantic film to date, a poetically nostalgic ode to a time long gone and one that Tarantino barely knew, as he was a mere 6 years old in 1969. And possibly, this is the point of Tarantino's approach as he is working both as a film historian and dream weaver, presenting a Hollywood that may not quite have been like this in reality but it is indeed what it looked and felt like to Tarantino as a child.

Quentin Tarantino gives us a world where the Hollywood backlots are a playground, a world where we can see the professional dream weavers at their crafts making visual magic for the silver and television screens. It is a world and a time where boys can regard MEN being MEN, surrounded by money, foul language and clouds of cigarette smoke while playing the same dress up adventures as children. It is a fairy tale where one could challenge none other than Bruce Lee (Waunakee, WI'S very own Mike Moh) to a fight on the backlot of "The Green Hornet" and (improbably) win!

And this is where and how I believe we should be reading the portrayal of Sharon Tate by Margot Robbie, something that has given the film its share of (frankly) needless to the point of being ridiculous controversy. Yes indeed Robbie does not possess much screen time or actual dialogue but that is because this film is not a biopic about Sharon Tate or anything resembling an expose about her.

In "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood," Tarantino is presenting Tate as an archetype, a symbol, a representation of the vision of the Hollywood dream--and therefore, the California fantasy itself. Radiant in its beauty and breathtaking in its sense of freewheeling glamour, hope and possibility. As Tate twirls and dances at the Playboy Mansion or takes in an afternoon screening of herself in her latest film, Director Phil Karlson's "The Wrecking Crew" (1969) starring Dean Martin, adorned with the same giant glasses as she wears in the film and a glowing smile as bright as the sun itself, Margot Robbie evokes the enormous purity of guileless anticipation and ambition.

Delving deeper, we are witnessing what is essentially a personalized road map into Tarantino's cinematic proclivities and passions as "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" just may be the one film in his complete oeuvre that is informing all of us in the audience as to why he wanted to become a filmmaker in the first place. With this film, what we have is essentially Quentin Tarantino's version of George Lucas' "American Graffiti" (1973), an unapologetically swooning ode to the nostalgic dream of his childhood, complete with a wall-to-wall visual and sound collage starring a brilliantly methodical collection of sunshine pop songs, commercials, billboards, films and television programs, movie one-sheet posters, vehicles, cigarettes and fashion, all filtered through his explicitly unique cinematic vision.

As lush and as surprisingly tender as much of this film is, this is indeed Quentin Tarantino we are dealing with and he is wise to not ignore the dark undercurrent of the 1969 counter culture as well as the political and societal shifts due to the turbulent changing of the times that fully brought the season of peace and love to its crushing end. To that end "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" can also be seen as Tarantino's version of Joel and Ethan Coen's "No Country For Old Men" (2007), as we have our main characters aging most uncomfortably with the times and emerging into a world they are unable to comprehend let alone navigate.

Leonardo DiCaprio has once again demonstrated just why he is indeed one of the finest actors of his generation, as the fullness of his commitment and dedication shines through every solitary moment of his portrayal of Rick Dalton, which I am curious is somewhat of a representation of Tarantino's fears of possibly becoming creatively irrelevant--perhaps a reason as to why he has continued to pledge that his 10th film with be his last.

For as much as the film is also about white male bonding, friendships and patriarchy, both within Hollywood as well as the Charles Manson cult, it is also a film about white male fragility. With Rick Dalton, we have a figure who is so desperately clinging onto his persona, mythology and legacy in a time period that is moving beyond him and the threat of complete irrelevancy terrifies him, leading him into alcoholism, crying fits and hanging onto every complimentary word from a precocious child co-star (Julia Butters) on his latest villainous television guest spot. 

On one hand, I was curious if this character was slightly modeled upon Clint Eastwood, or better yet, an Eastwood type figure if he had not navigated the Hollywood system as brilliantly and as artfully. Unlike Eastwood, who moved from television Westerns to the Sergio Leone "spaghetti Westerns" to becoming an filmmaking auteur, Rick Dalton is falling star rapidly becoming a man out of time, one who possesses conservative values and has bought into his own mythology to the degree that he is unable to figure out how to remain afloat in Hollywood...that is, unless he can finally meet his neighbor Sharon Tate and therefore her husband, Roman Polanski.

By contrast, Brad Pitt's characterization of Cliff Booth is one of still waters running deeply. Considerably lower on the Hollywood food chain than Rick Dalton, and essentially having Dalton as his meal ticket as well as best friend, Booth is considerably more grounded, streetwise, and accepting of his existence. Yes, he houses his laments but they are private and buried where Dalton's are out  in the open. The juxtaposition of the steadfast (Booth) and fragility (Dalton) of the late 1960's white male ego regarding these two figures is compelling, as each of them are becoming relics and therefore obsolete. 

Time waits for no one within Tarantino's film, and he is very clever with detailing the people and places that are not what once was, especially the location of Spahn Ranch, formerly the home of location shoots for B movie Western but by 1969 was the home of Charles Manson and his "family." This crucial element is indeed what leads the film and its characters to its climax where darkness falls and Tarantino finds himself in more familiar territory as the Manson family arrives to unleash their specialized brand of helter skelter.

As with both "Inglourious Basterds" and "Django Unchained," we also deal with some revisionist history as to how the Manson attacks play out. Yet, Tarantino's unique remixing of events and the merging of characters both real and from his imagination serve the entire, almost fairy tale quality of the film as we witness past and then-present collide fueled by Tarantino's urgent wishes that the Hollywood of his dreams can remain untainted and unscathed.   

Yes indeed, there is a tremendous amount to unpack within "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" as Quentin Tarantino has clearly given this project his all and then some. And yet, I felt that something was absent. Now, truth be told, this is the first Tarantino film that essentially does not contain a story or a plot as it is essentially a portrait of a time and the figures that existed within that time. I appreciate him tremendously for challenging himself conceptually and taking this storytelling risk as he has always been a filmmaker devoted to the art of storytelling. While he has often delivered exceedingly lyrical imagery, there is no mistaking him for a filmmaker like Terrence Malick, so to speak, and I think the tone poem aspect of this film was slightly out of his directorial grasp.

Frankly, the film could used some serious editing! Aside from "Reservoir Dogs," Quentin Tarantino has made epic films, nearly all of them running over two hours and just shy of three hours and every time, he has held me riveted. With "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood," the mood was purposefully languid, the pacing deliberate, the tone meandering and at times, it was a bit...well...boring, something I have never felt in any Tarantino film thus far and the need for tightening felt necessary.

I look back to "Inglourious Basterds" and the character of Nazi Private First Class Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), his starring role in the movie within the movie, the Nazi propaganda film "Nation's Pride" and the blurring of the lines between his on-screen persona as the Nazi who killed 250 opponents in a single battle and the real life solider. For that character, Tarantino gave us all that we really needed to know regarding the imagined film and the character while continuing to keep his narrative moving swiftly.

Yet, with "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood," we are subjected to extremely long sequences of Rick Dalton acting out scenes from his latest television performance (also blurring the lines within his head of his persona and who he is in reality as a fading celebrity), and therefore, also watching Sharon Tate watching herself in a movie theater and Rick and Cliff watching Rick's performances on television. A little of that goes a long way, as well as repetitive scenes of Cliff driving around Los Angeles and as I felt that Tarantino may have been purposefully attempting to lull us into the old Hollywood spell, it also felt as if he just did not know when to turn his attention away from those moments and just keep the film moving along with purpose.   

Additionally, the ending of the film threw me as it is one that tonally runs completely in the opposite direction from all of his ending moments in his previous eight films. In fact, as the end credits began to appear, I thought to myself, in that Peggy Lee "Is That All There Is" fashion, "Oh..it's over?" And I just sat there n my theater seat, scratching my head.

Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" is a work that decidedly less orgiastic and more grounded and realistic, more like "Jackie Brown" (1997) and not as theatrical as the bulk of his output. Languid to a fault, it confused me, puzzled me, and did not quite entrance me as I think Tarantino may have intended. And yet, it has retained its grip upon me, quietly imploring me to return to it and revisit this time and place that contains so much importance and meaning to him.

While not his best film, it is absolutely essential to his ongoing filmography, and if it is indeed his penultimate motion picture, it makes me more than curious to see how Quentin Tarantino's story in the movies will come to a close.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR AUGUST 2019

The dog days of Summer just may provide me with more strong films for this cinematic year.

It is jointly interesting and troubling to me about the current state of our cinematic landscape. On the one hand, essentially everything that I have been able to see this year are films of high quality. On the other, whats troubling me is the fact that less and less films are even being released theatrically or are purely unable to try and build "legs" or word of mouth, allowing them to co-exist alongside all of the sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes and re-imaginings.

It is a time that is hurtful for the movies and audiences for not every film we can or should see should involved superheroes and special effects. Films that are not mythologies but portraits of what it means to be a human being are crucial to the passing of stories as well as allowing us to build empathy for those different than ourselves while also being entertained in a darkened room alongside a group of strangers. 

With August, I am hoping to view three films to feel to be tailor made for accomplishing the feat of viewing the world via eyes different from our own vantage points and perceptions.

1. Director Lulu Wang's "The Farewell" starring Awkwafina has seemingly become an independent film success and as of this writing, has at last arrived in my city. Unfortunately, I won't be able to screen it this week but I am hoping it hangs on tightly until next weekend.

2. Director Gurinder Chadha's Bruce Springsteen themed coming of age film "Blinded By The Light" is one I have been itching to see since I saw the trailer. And based upon my hugely negative reaction to Danny Boyle's "Yesterday," I wonder if this film will actually exist as a movie with a story or as yet another jukebox flick that exists only for audiences to sing along with. We'll see...

3. When Director Richard Linklater makes a film, I pay attention and now, with his adaptation of the best selling Maria Semple novel starring Cate Blanchett in the titular role, I am more than ready!

With my review of Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood" still being composed, that posting plus these three films will definitely keep me more than busy this month and here's hoping that life doesn't insert itself terribly much. Please send me your well wishes and I'll see you when the house lights go down!!!

PETER PARKER'S EUROPEAN VACATION: a review of "Spider-Man: Far From Home"

"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME"
Based upon the Marvel Comics series created by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko
Screenplay Written by Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers
Directed by Jon Watts
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

And what is known as "Phase 3" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe now comes to a close.

Now with my specific brand of "superhero movie fatigue," of which I have expressed to you time and again over the years, I am indeed of somewhat mixed feelings at this time. On the one hand, it is good to know that we will have at least a year before we have a new Marvel installment to experience and to that, I am already enjoying the fact that we will have a break, some time away to allow ourselves to miss this cinematic world and experience new ones before the inevitable grand return.

On the other hand, what in the world could possibly follow Anthony and Joe Russo's "Avengers: Endgame," the titanic and outstanding culmination of Marvel's 11 year, inter-connected adventures in the movies?! One woud think that the powers that be at Marvel would want to have significant time away to re-group and think about where they could possibly go next now that the battle against Thanos has concluded with a certain line-in-the-sand finality. In short, the Marvel movie world will never be quite the same again.

So, we arrive at Director Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: Far From Home," the sequel to the surprisingly terrific "Spider-Man: Homecoming" (2017), as well as serving as what is essentially an epilogue to "Avengers: Endgame." Even more surprisingly, what Watts has delivered is no mere post-script, a more low-key palate cleanser to the gargantuan epic nature of "Avengers: Endgame."

While the tonality of the latest escapade of your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is decidedly lighter than the wrenching, doom laden experience of "Avengers: Endgame," it is not an exercise in frivolity. On the contrary, Jon Watts has accomplished a feat that deserves any and all of the attention it receives as "Spider-Man: Far From Home" is a richly textured, high-flying and wholly complete installment that not only closes the book on all that has arrived before but it also deftly sets the stage for what may arrive in the future, while simultaneously ensuring that this one film can stand firmly and fully upon its own cinematic feat.

Opening months after the triumphant and tragic events of "Avengers: Endgame," the world is still within its earliest stages of coming to terms with Thanos' inter-galactic genocide (heretofore known as "the Blip") and recovering from it.

Peter Parker, otherwise known as Spider-Man (again played wonderfully by Tom Holland), more than personally affected by "the Blip," returns to his Queens, New York high school wanting nothing more than to take an extended break from his super-heroics, going so far as to blatantly ignore contact from Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) himself.

Peter's wishes for a getaway arrives in the form of a two-week European summer excursion with his classmates, including best friend Ned Leeds (Jacob Batalon), wealthy rival Flash Thompson (Tony Revolori), Betty Brandt (Angourie Rice) and secret crush MJ (Zendaya) plus his teachers Roger Harrington (Martin Starr) and Julius Dell (JB Smoove) as chaperones.

Yet, not long after arriving in Venice, potential cataclysm arrives in the form of the Elementals, massive creatures devised of the four elements of air, water, fire and earth and all ready to wreak havoc--the very type of forces Peter desperately wishes to avoid and is indeed unable to stop all by himself. Help miraculously appears in the form of Quentin Beck a.k.a. Mysterio (a terrific Jake Gyllenhaal), a hero from an alternate Earth in the expanding Multi-verse who has been hunting down the creatures and bent on destroying them once and for all.

For Peter Parker, Beck is precisely the figure he feels that he needs at this time; someone more equipped than he to shoulder the weight of saving the world and also possibly, central ingredient to a potential new team of Fury's Avengers. But all is not as it seems, as Peter reaches a new crossroads in his life as Spider-Man...and oh yes, will he ever be able to ask MJ out for that date?? 

In a time and place when we really do not ever need to have another Spider-Man anything, Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: Far From Home" is indeed that rare sequel that improves upon its already strong first installment, through a tight screenplay, rich characters, excellent performances throughout, superlative visual effects as well as one razzle dazzle of a cliffhanger that upends the Marvel universe even further. Watts also greatly accomplishes performing the especially tricky task of building upon the Marvel Cinematic Universe by immediately following up "Avengers: Endgame" and the consequences of "the Blip" while not sacrificing the more playfully energetic tone and energy of "Spider-Man: Homecoming" and the results are absolutely splendid.

Jon Watts continues to create a dazzling aesthetic that contains a pace and style that suggests a work akin to Preston Sturges by way of John Hughes, as the dialogue and humor is as superbly fleet of foot as the action set pieces. While he continues to have the film fly at a breakneck pace, Watts attains an even greater sense of control and purpose for detailing his vision for what a Spider-Man film could be, and for "Spider-Man: Far From Home" (and without divulging any potential spoilers), he has created a film that works simultaneously as a comic book adventure, romantic comedy, coming-of-age film and even one that is more than self-reflexive regarding the nature of how we interact with not only special effects, but the art of the movies themselves--engaging ourselves within the act of believing what we know is unbelievable. And dear readers, Watts has devised of several psychedelic sequences that have, in my humble opinion, skyrocketed past the sights seen in the Quantum Realm in Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man" (2015) and the mystical metaphysical visions showcased in Scott Derrickson's "Doctor Strange" (2016).

For as genuinely funny and as entertaining as "Spider-Man: Far From Home" is, I deeply appreciated the sense of pathos that Watts gently injected into the film regarding Peter Parker's inner journey and for that matter, Tom Holland is equal to every moment given to him, creating tremendous empathy and a hero we will always root for. In many ways, especially as Peter Parker looked up to Tony Stark as his mentor, the film places echoes of Stark's journey within Peter Parker's.

Up until the devastating events of Anthony and Joe Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018), the Peter Parker we knew was one of restless teenage abandon, a young man anxious to be a part of the action, to be an Avenger, to be an adult and his recklessness literally reduced him to ashes. With "Spider-Man: Far From Home," we meet a Peter Parker forever changed from the events of Blip and rightfully so, he is reluctant to pick up the hero's mantle again and more than likely, he is indeed scarred with PTSD, just like Tony Stark was afflicted after venturing through a wormhole in Joss Whedon's "The Avengers" (2012). 

Jon Watts is now delivering a more reflective Peter Parker, more troubled, shaken and unsure of himself plus his reluctance to grow up as well as even questioning his desires to be Spider-Man anymore, let alone pick up where the previous Avengers had left off. All of this is handled in a light, and even tender style, again much like a John Hughes film, where smack dab in the middle of the adventure, Watts gives us a Hughes-ian heart-to heart between Peter Parker and Tony Stark's former bodyguard Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), designed to help Peter make sense of where he has been, his present state and how he will move onwards because even after tragedy, life does indeed still progress...and the world of Marvel still needs its heroes.

Dear readers, this year has truly found the Marvel movies in an especially sweet spot, as well have received three films this year that have interlocked and advanced the larger narrative intricately and with grand style and substance. Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: Far From Home" has beautifully concluded this latest wave of Marvel films not with a placeholder but one that is essential to the ever expanding conceptual canvas. 

And for as much superhero fatigue as I am harboring, this film has made me more than thirsty for the next one.

ALL THE WRONG NOTES: a review of "Yesterday"

"YESTERDAY"
Story by Jack Barth and Richard Curtis
Screenplay Written by Richard Curtis
Directed by Danny Boyle
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

The mystery and magic of The Beatles will never cease to amaze me.

For example, for all of us who have ever loved The Beatles, it amazes me that over these 50 plus years and regardless of generation, race and walk of life, these four men--John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr--were inexplicably able to create music that spoke to the time in which it was created while also transcending it, generating songs that were universal and yet, for every listener, the music and the experience of interacting with it was also intensely individualistic. My life with The Beatles is not the same as anyone else's. My favorite songs and albums are not the same as anyone else's as the experiences of them are indeed so deeply personal to the point of even being primal. And yet, we all can join together for the same shared feeling...the love we all have for the same music.

What an unbelievable feat to achieve and how extraordinary that even now, in the 21st century, the songs feel as fresh as the day they were written and recorded and I just find it inconceivable to imagine a world without The Beatles existing in it--and that even includes the inevitable sad day to come when all four men pass on into the universe.

This conceit is precisely what makes the concept of "Yesterday," the new musical fantasy from Director Danny Boyle and Writer Richard Curtis, so ingenious. To honestly imagine a world where The Beatles, so omnipresent and a part of our collective existence as the sun and the sky, suddenly vanished from existence and human consciousness save for only one individual is exactly the conceptual kick in the cinematic pants the movies have needed since we have been so overrun with sequels, prequels, re-boots, remakes and re-imaginings. And that is what makes it so tremendously disheartening to announce that "Yesterday" is a resounding failure.

It is not for lack of imagination for the concept is, as I have already stated, ingenious. But an idea or a concept is not a film and unfortunately, this is what both Boyle and Curtis have arrived with: an idea masquerading as a full length film, an idea that clearly was never even thought of beyond its own initial stages, making for an experience that is demonstrably beneath anything worthy of The Beatles and for anyone who has ever loved them. Yes, this is easily the worst film I have seen so far this year.

"Yesterday" stars Himesh Patel, in a thoroughly winning performance, as Jack Malik, a former school teacher and struggling singer/songwriter. Lily Allen, co-stars as Ellie Appleton, also a school teacher and Jack's childhood friend and manager who also secretly loves him.

On one fateful night, as Jack is riding his bicycle home, a global blackout occurs and he is hit by a transit bus, knocking him to the pavement unconscious, When he awakens in the hospital, he soon discovers (aside from two teeth being gruesomely battered out of his mouth from the accident), that he is the only person in the world who possesses any knowledge of The Beatles.

Seizing this newfound opportunity, Jack soon begins to pass off the music of The Beatles as his own compositions, a decision that ultimately garners him worldwide attention and acclaim as the greatest singer/songwriter even as he grows increasingly conflicted now that is life has become a lie.

Dear readers, I am simply incredulous at the wasted opportunity Danny Boyle's "Yesterday" actually is, especially when armed with such a truly inspired concept. In some ways, it is the latest entry in the new round of, what I guess could be called "jukebox classic rock musicals," during which the overall result is to just have audiences happily sing along with the tunes we all know and love and to completely disregard the work it takes to create a good movie fueled with and anchored by great storytelling. And despite the large amount of songs on display in the film from end to end, "Yesterday" accomplishes, so to speak, a bizarre feat--to be a Beatles inspired movie that honestly has really no regard or any real opinion about The Beatles.

As I watched "Yesterday," Julie Taymor's Beatles inspired musical kaleidoscope "Across The Universe" (2007) came to mind often as that was indeed an ambitious yet unsuccessful film that was a wholly strange one as Taymor created an experience which was Beatles inspired, contained characters named after Beatles' song characters who sang one Beatles song after another and existed within a very real 1960's landscape filled with the iconographic figures and events of the era...except for The Beatles themselves!

To be fair, Boyle and Curtis do create some genuinely warm moments throughout "Yesterday," while also delivering a gentle satire about the sad state of affairs in the 21st century music business (addressing the novelty of having one songwriter as opposed to a fleet of writers and producers was sharp and additionally, Ed Sheeran, who portrays himself, is a trooper with all of the barbs flying in his direction). Again, Hamish Patel, in his debut film performance during which he sings and elicits musical performances with genuine verve and depth, is absolutely terrific as is Joel Fry as Jack's sidekick roadie, Rocky.

And finally, we have Lily Allen, who unquestionably made the most of her criminally underwritten role as the long suffering, perpetually unrequited Ellie. She certainly shared some rich chemistry with Patel but honestly, it is 2019, and our actresses deserve so much better than being forced to enliven the type of insipid role that went out of date decades ago.

But having Lily Allen essentially look pretty, wistful and sad for two hours was not this film's greatest cinematic sin. It is the fact that both Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis elicited no ideas beyond its initial one. Granted, as the film begins, all is well and involving. As Jack slowly begins to realize how the world around him has changed and he begins to plagiarize Beatles songs and then perform them for friends and family, he doesn't initially receive any rapturous responses.

At first this confused me but quickly, I realized that this was may have been the right move to make because, if we are to believe that we are witnessing a world that has no idea of who or what The Beatles even are, then, of course, it would be a world that would never miss them. In doing so, no one would know what they are missing in the first place. It would be as if say...Culture Club ceased to be in the public's collective consciousness or something like that. The world would simply go onwards without a care.

But then what?

This is where "Yesterday" goes disastrously wrong, and even during those early scenes when Jack's friends and family are not initially bowled over by his "new" songwriting compositions. For if these people are not transformed by the songs, then what is it about The Beatles' music that has made it so beloved for generations upon generations in the first place?

"Yesterday" doesn't even begin to even ponder what it is about The Beatles and their music that would even make it something to be loved and therefore to be missed to the point where the world itself would never feel the same to Jack. And in doing so, Jack's rise to stardom also does not make any sense whatsoever because the film never bothered to explore what makes these songs so brilliant and timeless.

Why do we love The Beatles? This is really a question that only people who love The Beatles can answer for each and every answer, I would imagine, would be so different yet so inter-connected. Furthermore, if the same people were asked how they would envision a world with The Beatles, just imagine what answers would be given!! In essence, a potential film like that is more interesting than any moment within "Yesterday" because neither Danny Boyle or Richard Curtis ever, at any point, bother to even approach that very question and it was just unfathomable to me, and after some time, it even began to make me angry.

I absolutely hate it when movies are wasted opportunities for no reason other than the filmmakers never tried and "Yesterday" is precisely that, a movie that doesn't even try to address the very subject it introduced. It was a film inspired by The Beatles that possessed no opinions about The Beatles so what was the point of the whole escapade? To that end, the film often abandoned the concept to just rally itself around terminal romantic comedy cliches as if we were witnessing rightfully discarded scenes from Curtis' "Love Actually" (2003). 

And even then, neither Boyle or Curtis ever seemed interested in how or why something so bizarre like the erasure of The Beatles could happen--and for that matter, why are other well known items like Coca Cola, Harry Potter and Oasis (a nice touch) removed from public knowledge, and therefore, existence? And with an omission this glaring, "Yesterday" is a film that truly contains no reason or resolution. Honestly, Thanos' SNAP was more compelling!!!

And even then, I absolutely loathed a late film sequence which was clearly designed to be a moment of perhaps tearful, hopeful whimsy but in actuality, formulated a moment and emotions that felt so unbelievably wrong and frankly, irresponsible as it was so shamelessly cheap.

Dear readers, I happened to see this film on the 79th birthday of Ringo Starr and one month, almost to the day after seeing Paul McCartney live in concert in my city and from the 15th row at that! Those two milestones hold such significance for me because The Beatles have been instrumental to my DNA ever since the year of my birth and for 50 years since my arrival. I have never known a world without The Beatles and I honestly am unable to conceive of a time when they did not exist, even though I know that time did exist.

For me, The Beatles are dreams and visions. The Beatles are hopes and heartbreak. The Beatles are plans, schemes, fun, frivolity, passion, playfulness, pain, healing, uplift, despair, individualism and independence as well as blessed union and communion. The Beatles are indeed peace and love as presented through the prism of an inexplicable alchemy that happened when those four men joined together to play and create music.

Why didn't Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis do just that? Just sit together, shoulder to shoulder and transcribe what The Beatles possibly meant to themselves and then, fashion a story and screenplay based upon the list they devised and then, fashion a cinematic experience to honor their perceptions of what The Beatles mean to them? These two men are talented filmmakers and storytellers...so, what in the hell happened with "Yesterday"?

 The Beatles and everyone who loves them deserved so much better.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JULY 2019

Last month was a bust. Broke down and busted!

That statement was not directed at any of the perceived quality of films released during the moth of June. And that is because I just did not see any...literally.

Due to an inexplicable mishap with my glasses and being saddled with an ancient pair armed with an equally ancient prescription making it difficult to view anything at all-including this very computer screen on which I am currently writing to you--I saw not even one film in June, and one of the ones that I had hoped to see, the comedy "Late Night," has already bombed at the box office and has vanished from my local theater screens.  Such is the sad state of the current theatrical landscape where films do not eve have an honest chance anymore...but that is for a whole 'nother posting...

So, with the addition of Danny Boyle's "Yesterday," which just opened but I have yet to still see as I do not have my new glasses, I am going to keep this month's activities rather conservative...

Director Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: Far From Home," the latest addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and post-script to "Avengers: Endgame" has arrived and of course, I'll be there.

Beyond that, the most anticipated film of the month for me is unquestionably...

Yes indeed...the penultimate film of Writer/Director Quentin Tarantino's film career is almost upon us and especially after its rapturous reception at this year's Cannes Film Festival, I am more than ready to bask in the unparalleled dialogue and storytelling gifts of this idiosyncratic artist.

All things considered, this is more than enough to realistically plan for this month. So, please, as always wish me luck and i will see you w hen the house lights go down!!!!

THE BALLAD OF CAPTAIN FANTASTIC: a review of "Rocketman"

"ROCKETMAN"
Screenplay Written by Lee Hall
Directed by Dexter Fletcher
*** (three stars)
RATED R

First things first. It is an exceedingly better, more inventive, imaginative film than anything we saw in Bryan Singer's "Bohemian Rhapsody" (2018), his award winning, box office bonanza biopic, such as it was, of Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury, a film I was enormously disappointed with. But that being said, "Rocketman," the biopic and self-described musical fantasy of the life of Elton John as directed by Dexter Fletcher, who incidentally completed "Bohemian Rhapsody" once Singer was fired from that film's troubled production, is not the high flying success I wished for it to be either.

Now this is not to say that "Rocketman" was necessarily a disappointment and it is not remotely a bad film and in turn, it is not a great one either. That said, Dexter Fletcher has indeed crafted an unusual, unorthodox, often dazzling, often treacly film that did house a certain nuance and conceptual depth that "Bohemian Rhapsody" botched over and again. But it was often also an awkward film too--one that smacked of existing as more of a jukebox musical, a primer for Elton John's Las Vegas residency performances rather than an actual movie, a tactic which did indeed dilute the emotional impact for me.

Focusing upon the time period from his early life through the early/mid 1980's, "Rocketman"  opens with titanic, seemingly on top of the world music superstar Elton John (Taron Egerton), fully adorned within the red devil costume from his rock concerts, storming into an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, after plummeting to his rock bottom as he is consumed with alcoholism, drug, spending and sex abuse, and rage issues.

As he begins to explain and explore how he has arrived at this point in his life, the film takes us back to his unhappy childhood, under his given name of Reginald "Reggie" Dwight (played by Kit Connor and Matthew Illesley, respectively), complete with his uninvolved, often absent, taciturn Father, Stanley (Stephen Mackintosh) a Royal Air Force officer and his depressingly cold Mother, Shelia Eileen (Bryce Dallas Howard). If it were not for the warmth and grace of his Grandmother Ivy (Gemma Jones), Reginald would never have known love at all. 

During the fallout of the dissolution of his parents' marriage, Reggie takes up an interest in the piano, begins studies at the Royal Academy Of Music and also discovers the power of rock and roll. All of these experiences are stepping stones that led not only to the formation of Bluesology, a combo Reggie (now portrayed by Egerton) performed at local pubs with, but also his fateful meeting with budding lyricist Bernie Taupin (a strong Jamie Bell) and Reggie's adoption of the name and new identity of "Elton John."

From here, the film is a rocket ride indeed as we are propelled through Elton John's rise to super-stardom with one high flying radio hit after another, sold out stadiums, riches, wealth, global fame and outlandish costumes galore. And yet, the yellow brick road is not always painted with gold bricks as Elton John struggles with his closeted homosexuality, a dark, secret affair with the duplicitous, abusive music manager John Reid (Richard Madden), a downward spiral into all manner of debauchery, seemingly bottomless anger and suicide attempts--all fueled by his intense desire to find love--the love, his Grandmother and Bernie Taupin notwithstanding, that has largely eluded him throughout his life, honest, true and wholly accepting.   

As I ruminate over "Rocketman," I am unable to not think about the most curious odyssey of Dexter Fletcher as he, in fact, was the original director of "Bohemian Rhapsody"...that is, until the studio in question rejected the screenplay he had, which was decidedly much darker, more explicit and R rated than the considerably safer, tamer, PG 13 version that was delivered and that Fletcher completed after the aforementioned firing of Bryan Singer.

With "Rocketman," it is easy to gleam precisely what Fletcher would have brought to the table with "Bohemian Rhapsody," and what he was finally able to achieve was a film experience that was unquestionably and refreshingly more daring, yet at the same time, it did indeed not wish to color outside of the cinematic lines too boldly for fear of alienating that mass appeal. So, Fletcher, I felt, kind of wanted to have it both ways, which I do think is achievable but also for me, one that did water things down when the whole experience could existed at a full on boil. 

While the film length confessions-at-an AA meeting format was more than a little corny for my tastes, it did, however, possess a certain classic more melodrama conceit that does work fairly well with the Elton John mythology. Furthermore, what this format did accomplish well was to be a music biopic while essentially eschewing with the music biopic format, and ultimately, Fletcher was then able to circumvent all of the obstacles that became the very worst elements that impeded the success of "Bohemian Rhapsody" so tremendously, most notably, all of the historical and factual inaccuracies throughout in favor of decisions that invented "drama" rather than just leaning upon the inherent drama in the story of Freddie Mercury and Queen.

As this is a film that does exist within the mind of Elton John taking stock of his life, Dexter Fletcher's "Rocketman" is, at its core, is a film about memory, and since memories are not always reliable, especially a man's memories now muddled with time, anger, heartache and a variety of addictions, we are dealing not with strict facts but the emotional facts of Elton John's life. Any factual liberties taken within "Rocketman" are purposeful as events may or may not have happened in the exact way as presented in the film, but what we see, and what we feel are designed to give us an impression for what it may have felt like to be in Elton John's platform shoes. That is where the drama exists and in doing so, the film remains emotionally honest where "Bohemian Rhapsody" failed consistently and inexcusably.

Was the genesis of "Your Song" really concocted, nearly in full and instantaneously, at Elton's childhood home as depicted so lovingly in the film? Maybe...maybe not. But, perhaps this is what it felt like. A wonderful sequence set during the early 1970's at the Troubadour club in Los Angeles, depicts Elton John, and the audience, being literally lifted off of the ground during his performance, something that may truly been what it felt like at the time it happened for real. A wild later sequence set during an orgy again may have been what it felt like rather than being literally real. The deeply vertigo inducing "Pinball Wizard" sequence, so dizzying it was difficult for me to fully watch it, was also quite perfect as the images made you feel what Elton John himself had to have been feeling during his 1970's heydey as he was the center of the swirling cyclone of fame, success and turmoil.

Even better is the film's true storytelling core as "Rocketman" is indeed a tale of the cycle of abuse and the lengths it took to break that cycle within John himself as he rebuilt himself psychologically and emotionally after the damage done by his parents and his manager. Fletcher often utilizes the tactic of having the adult Elton John interact with the child Reginald Dwight, again an emotional truth as presented through all manner of dream sequences and suicide attempt driven hallucinations--inducing a great one set within an ocean like swimming pool as adult Elton sings "Rocket Man" alongside the child Reginald, who sits at the bottom of the pool with an air bubble around his head. 

For all of the razzle dazzle, and furthermore, it cannot be overstated how important it was that the film did not exist as remotely as "straight-washed" as "Bohemian Rhapsody," Dexter Fletcher is no Ken Russell, so to speak, the Herculean filmmaker behind orgiastic films like his adaptation of The Who's "Tommy" (1975) and his dangerously unhinged biopic of Franz Liszt with "Lisztomania" (1975)-for whether Russell succeeded or failed artistically, he was utterly fearless and uncompromising with his cinematic visions...and he never blinked.  

To that end, "Rocketman," as unorthodox as it often is, does stay in fairly safe territory instead of  being the art film high wire act that it could have been, therefore keeping it as a film that is not in the same league as films like Bob Fosse's relentless "All That Jazz" (1979), Milos Forman's astonishing "Amadeus" (1984), Oliver Stone's operatic "The Doors" (1991), Todd Haynes' loosely veiled David Bowie/glam rock era/homosexual awakening saga "Velvet Goldmine" (1998) as well as his largely ahead of the curve Bob Dylan pastiche "I'm Not There" (2007), which featured no less than seven actors portraying pieces of the Dylan persona and finally Don Cheadle's underseen, undervalued "Miles Ahead" (2015), his searing portrait of the the artist Miles Davis during his self-imposed, drug infused sabbatical when he did not create.

Certainly, this is not to suggest that a musical biopic styled film cannot be artistically driven and work on mass appeal as Taylor Hackford's terrific, Oscar winning "Ray" (2004) about the life and times of Ray Charles, can attest. Yet what all of these aforementioned films can equally attribute to their successes, and what I felt to be lacking in "Rocketman" was a strict attention to its own inherent tonality and full attention to what sort of a film does it want itself to be.

As I have previously stated, I often felt what Flethcher presented in "Rocketman" was, overall, a tad awkward. Did this film wish to be a rock opera or a classic MGM musical or a stage musical or a hybrid or something entirely different? There are sequences where characters sing directly to each other as if in either a rock opera or classic MGM musical or a stage musical and sometimes the tactic works and other times, it just doesn't.

And mostly, everything felt, a tad too often, to be a film akin to Julie Taymor's dream vision of The  Beatles' music with "Across The Universe" (2007), a wildly inventive film that unfortunately sagged under its own ambitions, and the reality that Taymor added one Beatles song after anther and another even when it made no narrative sense whatsoever.  And therefore, it was the jukebox quality of "Rocketman" that keep it at arms length a bit for me as the addition of songs just to add them, felt like mass appeal pandering rather than actual storytelling.   

The same uneven quality could also be descriptive towards the film's performances as well. Where Jamie Bell, Richard Madden and even Stephen Graham as British music publisher and label head Dick James were all excellent for instance, Bryce Dallas Howard, try as she might, certainly struggled with her English accent, thus keeping the fullness of her performance off-kilter.

But I do have to turn my attention to Taron Egerton in the film's leading role as Elton John and wile he ran rings around what we saw with Rami Malek's work as Freddie Mercury in "Bohemian Rhapsody," I wouldn't entirely call it a home run either.

Look...it is an extremely daring, swing for the fences choice to have Egerton, at his own insistence, perform all of his own singing in the film, especially as he attempts to emulate the now iconic singing voice of Elton John, and that element of his performance is a huge risk that paid off handsomely. But singing in your own voice is not a full performance either.

Now, this is not to say that Egerton can't act. He most certainly can and he often does tap into some true, primal emotional territory as he brings John's story and inner world to vivid life with high wattage energy, a strong physicality and yes, his strong singing voice. But also, in other aspects, Egerton's performance is a bit one-note as he has not yet developed a greater nuance to convey a wider emotional reach. In essence, there are more ways to convey anger, confusion, and spiraling out of control than just yelling and screaming your dialogue at full throttle, a technique Egerton leaned on a bit heavily as the film wore on and that too also kept the film at arms length for me. Perhaps this was how he was directed or perhaps not. Even so, he kept reaching for the stars and I deeply appreciate him for trying at his most valiant.

Better yet to try and take risks and to not try at all. When it was all said and done, Dexter Fletcher's "Rocketman" was a good film I think I appreciated more than I actually liked...but as I ponder over it now, I wonder if it was perhaps a little better than I am giving it credit for. Regardless, as a cinematic piece of the on-going Elton John mythology, the film does make for a fine addition to the canon and i this worth re-visiting.

But, I think I'll just stick primarily to the albums I have loved for almost the entirety of my life instead.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JUNE 2019

I wish to see this film right now!!!

In our time of sequels, prequels, franchise, remakes, reboots and re-imaginings, I have decried the plethora of these films at the expense of absolutely every other kind of film that could be made for movie lovers, like myself and as I would gather, for you as well. Yes, I loved "Avengers: Endgame" and you know, I am just salivating with anticipation for "Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker" this Christmas. But that being said, I have no need for those types of films each week, as the diversity of what we can all experience in the movies decreases tremendously, therefore hurting audiences and the movies as an art form overall.

Basically, there are times when I just want to see movies about human beings. And most of all, I wish to see films that are original.

So, when I first saw the trailer for "Yesterday," the latest film from Director Danny Boyle, about a young musician who awakens to find himself in a world where not one soul has ever heard of The Beatles other than himself, I nearly jumped out of my seat because, here was a film I had not seen before...as well as one where my love affair with The Beatles could hopefully continue beautifully. I am hoping the end result proves itself to being a veritable magical mystery tour.

In addition to that film, I am hoping to check out...

1. "LATE NIGHT"
As I have been writing about in recent years, especially, representation is everything! And the fact that "Late Night," starring Emma Thompson as a veteran late night comedy talk show hostess and Mindy Kaling, as her new staff writer (and who also wrote this film), having these viewpoints already makes me perks up my cinematic ears, so to speak. So, I am looking forward to this one.

2. "THE LAST BLACK MAN IN SAN FRANCISCO"
The trailer for this film, from first time Director Joe Talbot, was haunting in its elegance and it deeply intrigued me. I hope it makes it to my city so I am able to check it out.

And with the screening of "Rocketman" awaiting me this weekend, I am thinking that this makes for a realistic list of potential films to see for the month. So, as always, wish me well and I'll see you when the house lights go down!!!