Fool’s Paradise

Dr. Ken Jeong screaming over and over “I am somebody! I am somebody!” as he is floating atop a mosh pit of security guards who are about to 86 him from the Downtown LA Standard Hotel is a highlight in Fool’s Paradise. Sadly, the highlights are few and far between. There were other stand out moments, like the scenes with Adrian Brody, especially drunk driving at night and shooting out the La La Land streetlight from his supped up Mustang on Mulholland Drive. And every time he said, “I’m coming for you!” right before a scene in the movie within a movie, Billy the Kid, was about to start. And there were a few fun moments with the inimitable Drew Droege who I had the good fortune of working with when I was the Cinematographer on the Ringo Le’s feature, Big Gay Love. Drew lit up the screen in Fool’s Paradise. He’s a natural in front of the camera. 

To look at Fool’s Paradise on paper, from the talent-side alone, you’d think there is no way this will miss. But you’d think wrong. At the heart of the film is a parable in the vein of Charlie Chaplin. The protagonist doesn’t speak, wears a bowler, walks and runs with the same gait as the master. However, a cursory glance at the works of Chaplin like Modern Times, The Great Dictator, City Lights and The Kid reveal a character who was active in the world. He wanted things. He wanted to be gainfully employed. He wanted to be in love …and would fall in love. Even watching the last scene of City Lights simply puts Fool’s Paradise to shame. There is so much power in movie making that this film never explores and has left on the table. It only somewhat hints at the magic of cinema once. A shot where a lamp in Echo Park, a movie location since 1910, starts to flutter. Instead we have a protagonist who is blank slate. A mirror to the insanity around him. But he’s helpless. What he wants most is to sleep on a park bench. And we want him to. We don’t want him to succeed in Hollywood. We just want him to be left alone. 

It was disconcerting to me how bad this film unraveled. It doesn’t help to overanalyze it. As D said, the jokes were flat. 

It’s a comedy that wasn’t funny. 

Big George Foreman

I’d like to start this review by pointing to the great craftsmanship in this film. Sometimes it even feels slightly overproduced. For example, a street sign in a part of town that is supposed to be downtrodden looks like it was just created and polished in the prop shop. But in general the film is well made and impressive from a technical point of view. It’s a big movie for a big guy. 

However, it’s not a great movie. There is just so much about George Foreman. His will and his achievements are almost incomprehensible. How could you focus on just one aspect, one moment? To the detriment of the story, the filmmakers didn’t even try. Alternately, let’s look at the 2018 Ruth Bader Ginsburg film, On the Basis of Sex (I break down how the film works in the penultimate paragraph of this essay, Power). It didn’t focus on her illustrious career. It honed in on her very first case. It was so effective in that telling, that we could understand her thought process and extrapolate from there. If given this situation, RBG is going to handle it like this. This is what she’s like. 

In Big George, we come to similar epiphanies but go on an epic roller coaster ride. During the end credits we are told that the George Forman® Grill rights were sold by George for 137 million dollars. The grill was only mentioned once, in passing, during the entire movie. That story alone could have taken an hour and a half to tell. Maybe it’ll be the sequel? To be fair, there were a lot of interesting things I didn’t know. How Forman won the Olympic Gold Medal in ’68. How Foreman became world champ not once, but twice…20 years apart!  And a lot about his deep faith and how he came to it. Over the course of his life, George Foreman’s spirituality and intellect rose to match his raw power and athletic talent. 

This is an epic film. It’s a long film and it feels that way…but I still enjoyed it. As D pointed out, it plays more like a filmed graphic novel. I rejoined that if it were a Bob Ross painting, it would be painted using only his famously wide two inch brush. To quote the most prolific painter the world has ever known,  “There are no mistakes. Just happy accidents.” Big George Foreman does have a lot of heart and gives you plenty to think about. It’s a good movie that’s worth watching. 

Polite Society

Polite Society begins with a very cool montage of London. D. leaned over and said, “Where is this?” And I replied in a little louder than a whisper, “She just rode her bike into Shepard’s Bush Market.”  

I was walking the streets of London last Summer and there is an instant nostalgia at every turn. You feel as though if you just stand still long enough the buildings will invite you to tea and start regaling you with stories from Mozart to Lady Di.

One thing about Polite Society is that it’s a movie which Quentin Tarantino would approve of (both D. and I have added his great book, Cinema Speculation, to our collections). Polite Society is vibrant. Crackling with energy. It’s exuberant. It’s fun. In a world of simply staid movies it stands out.

A Pakistani-British fairy tale, it’s absurd in some aspects. Hyper-real, literary, graphical — all those things — but what keeps it tied to the audience is a fantastically grounded performance by Priya Kansara as aspiring stuntwoman Ria Khan. At one point, I felt such joy watching this performance and also of the fight in this characters’ arc that it made me recall why I got into making films in the first place. To tell meaningful stories in an entertaining way. To bring characters to life. I enjoyed this film to no end. 

Plot-wise however, it got off to a slow start. Then, it pursued a story-line we have seen time and again. Most recently in Sorry to Bother You —another strong film with a serious twist. However, Polite Society for me was about great casting and performances. And the soundtrack is straight to the top and off the damn charts. Right up there with Baby Driver and The Big Sick. If you want to see a kung-fu, kick-ass, coming of age story, I highly recommend  Polite Society. It’s anything but.   

Somewhere in Queens

Something we haven’t written about in a while is expectations and film going. It boils down to this, keep your expectations low and you won’t be disappointed…at least not too bad. This was a difficult lesson to learn. Not to beat a dead Sully but I’m still shaking my head there. What made me think that would be God’s gift to celluloid. Meanwhile I had zero expectations of Free Solo. I was even wondering what we were doing there at first. I think we may have been the only people in the theater. And that film went on to blow everyone’s mind and win the Best Documentary Academy Award. So there. 

Another thing about expectations is that we, LnD, are opposed to trailers. We actually have our routine timed in such a way that we can saunter into the cinema —amuse the managers, grind the ticket counter person, goof around with the concession staff— and mosey on into the movie as the opening frames start flashing.

Which brings me to Somewhere in Queens. Frankly, I wasn’t expecting much. Ray Romano was, maybe still is, a household name. He had a hit TV show for 9 seasons, 210 episodes from 1996 to 2005. Of course, I have never seen it. I may have watched it once. Maybe twice. I know his dad was grumpy and his brother was tall. The point is, I didn’t have any Ray Romano baggage going into this film. When D leaned over to say at the beginning of the film, “Is this a Ray Romano is sad movie?” I just shrugged. I am supposing that Ray Romano wasn’t sad on his TV show. Romano, co-wrote, produced, directs and stars in Somewhere in Queens. His character isn’t sad. He’s complicated. He’s like a weathered ship in a storm. A guy who needs a shave so badly, but when will he find the time? His wife is a cancer survivor who hasn’t psychologically overcome the disease. His son, who probably should have been diagnosed with something by now, is reclusive, introverted. Romano works for an indifferent father and insensitive brother. He does have a few good buddies he works with. There is at least that. But it’s shaky. Everything is slightly shaky for this Ray Romano character. He lives vicariously through the exploits of his son on the high school basketball court. And from here the twists and turns of the narrative and great references to Rocky begin. It turns out that Rocky Balboa is Romano’s philosophical standard-bearer.

There are a lot of laugh out loud moments in this film. There are also a lot of awkward, cringy by design moments. Something was off though. The pacing? I’m not sure. Somewhere in Queens doesn’t knock you off your feet like say, CODA. It’s almost too relatable for that. There is nothing special and yet everything is special about this family. It’s like a mirror of a film. There won’t be shootouts, or car crashes, or witticisms. Just moments…that will make you laugh, or hurt…that you can relate to. It actually blew away my expectations in that it told a very solid story, with strong performances and charming vignettes along the way.  

Some people might get offended and say the film plays on stereotypes of Italian-American families. But at least from my own experience in a big Italian-American family, it’s pretty spot on. Apologies all around. But that’s what the dinner table is like. Please deal with it. I found it to be authentic in its stereotyping and not exploitive. How about that? There are reasons that stereotypes exist. And that was actually my biggest fear. I did break the rule, don’t watch the trailers! And watched the trailer to About My Father. That film stars De Niro and Maniscalco and it is truly a cringeworthy trailer. All the stereotypes there seem completely forced. Like, the film is a vehicle to exploit stereotypes, that’s why it exists. The laughs will be cheap and on the surface. That’s the opposite of what’s going on here. Maniscalco actually plays Ray Romano’s brother in Somewhere in Queens. Unlike his over the top, physical standup, which I enjoy, his performance was measured and poignant. He stayed true to his character and even seemed to have a little arc at the very end of the film. 

So, as someone who was actually born in Flushing, Queens. Home of the Amazin’ Mets of 1969. I say Somewhere in Queens is a worthwhile, earnest exploration of the things that scare us and the ways we can face them. 


The first thing to know about Air is that you already know the ending. …Or do you? You know that Nike makes kicks called Air Jordan. But did you know that the sneaker behemoth was once, before Air Jordan, a hair’s-breadth from dismantling its entire fledgling basketball division? Nike was predominantly known as a running shoe company in 1985. 

The other thing you know going into Air is that any film with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon as the main talent, as the producers and directors aka above the line, is going to be good. And Air is good. It doesn’t hurt when you cast the great Viola Davis either. Or this other actor you may have heard of, Jason Bateman. And the film lets these talents get right to it, lets them show off their range. 

It easily answers the question, can you make an interesting movie if the audience already knows the outcome? Yes you can. The movie is also a love letter to 1985 and all the products that went along with it. The montages of TV spots, the costumes and art direction were on point.

The film also flips the script on your traditional white savior story trope. In this movie, the savior is a 6’-6” African-American with an incredibly silky jumper, ice in his veins and a mom with a savvy business sense. It reminded me of The Founder, the story of Ray Kroc and McDonalds, in some ways.  As D pointed out of the comparison, Damon’s character, Sonny Vaccaro, becomes obsessed with a singular mission. Not to be cast aside, the character of CEO Phil Knight is played with hilarity and pathos by Affleck. But we are left to wonder about the means of production. Who makes these ethereal, leather bound beauties, that allow a man to defy gravity? That part of the story, besides a passing line by Bateman’s Marketing VP Strasser, never gets the spotlight. The film isn’t about a few folks reaping billions from the work of below minimum wage off-shore laborers, forced labor, child laborers in sweatshops. That’s a different movie. This one is about the tenacity and vision of someone who risked it all, thinking outside the box and who ultimately championed athletes. …Though that other question is left to float like the iconic Air Jordan logo. 

The epilogue of the film, the little montage you often see of, “Where Are They Now” is simply jaw-dropping. And I didn’t wonder, as I had before the movie started, why Damon and Affleck chose this particular story to tell. 

John Wick: Chapter 4

Am I going to reference Cocaine Bear in this John Wick: Chapter 4 review? You bet I am! 

Now, I have said my piece regarding John Wick in a March 11, 2017 essay (6 years ago people!) here on this very blog. Let’s just say it is filed under an undignified LnD category labelled: “Terrible”. Regardless, I am coming around to John Wick. Mostly for the amazing locations and art direction. In terms of its filmic reality, it’s still an absolutely absurd video game, with only the special effect of spawning (when your player kind of electronically buzzes back to life) missing. However (here it is!) unlike Cocaine Bear, the violence in John Wick is essentially abstract. Poofs of blood-like mist emanate from people shot at close range. And the fighting…it’s choreographed like a fantastic dance. Actually, I think it would be cool if they just turned John Wick: Chapter 5 into a musical. Sure, a violent musical, but a musical nevertheless. 

There was a great nod to the famous shots of a match being blown out cutting to a sunrise in Lawrence of Arabia. And the car chase scene around the Arc de Triomphe rivals anything that screeched in the French Connection. So if you are a fan of this series, you will certainly have plenty to cheer about in this installment.  

Cocaine Bear

In the not too distant past, L&D headed off to the late Marcus Tuesday screening to take in what was certain to be a memorable event, however it went, and it went exceedingly well.

“How good could a movie called Cocaine Bear be?” you ask.

Well, the L&D mantra of late is “To ask the question is to answer it.” Cocaine Bear is exactly as good as it can be, it’s hard to imagine that it could have been any better. It’s ridiculous, it’s funny, it’s thrilling, it’s gross, it’s surprising, it has star power, it’s remarkable across the board.

To say the movie is based on “true events” is akin to saying The Wizard of Oz is based on true events — indeed, a young woman got caught in a storm and hit her head once. As for the rest, well.

The intertwining plotlines fall somewhere between serviceable and solid. Keri Russell gets top billing as the mom tracking down her cheerfully truant explorer daughter and pal (Matthew Rhys sneaks in, as well). Isiah Whitlock, Jr. has cop buddy detail, he’s the one chasing down the big lead. Margo Martindale puts on a tub of lipstick as the lonely ranger setting a honey trap. There is a smattering of young park thugs who get more than they bargained for in the affair. And it’s Ray Liotta himself as the exasperated crime figure in what was his last major role.

There are a number of laugh out loud moments, though laughter did not seem uniform throughout the theater. The opening scene with the drug runner gleefully tossing bricks of coke out of the plane is surprisingly hilarious. The entire EMT sequence is surprisingly inspired . And the finale featuring Liotta shows some surprising intestinal fortitude.

So big ups from L&D, if you think you might like Cocaine Bear, you should head out and see Cocaine Bear.

Cocaine Bear

My highly anticipated Cocaine Bear review is finally here. I have milked this bear for zingers for weeks now, so it’s only fair I at least give you, dear reader, a cursory review. But first, box office don’t lie. Let’s run the numbers. Cocaine Bear has been out in theaters for 5 weeks. It’s still a top 10 US release with a total haul of $63 million. Yesterday alone, it raked in $250,000. Not bad for a film that cost $30 million. Adding up the total $19 million internationally, to date our wired ursid has grossed $82 million. 


Is it a good movie? Ohhh. (Deep sigh.) It’s an absurd movie based on events that did actually occur but then are exploded with creative license. It’s alternately funny — though I’m sure we were laughing at the wrong places. Viscerally and gratuitously gory. And held together by some sincere, grounded performances and a few believable bears…and a few unbelievable ones. …And bear cubs! C’mon. That’s not fair. 

As D mentioned while the opening scene unfolded, a movie called Cocaine Bear only has to deliver on two things. And this it does. A Universal Pictures release, there is at least one homage to Jaws, early on, which sets the tone.

The marketing of the film as a horror comedy doesn’t quite get it right. It’s more like a gore comedy. How do I mean? If the sight of someone’s head being partially blown off elicits a shrug or chuckle or perhaps a belly laugh from you — this film was made for you. I’m only slightly squeamish but in general I don’t care for that in movies. I find this kind of normalization of gore to be troubling. This also happened in Violent Night. It’s incredibly, over the top gory. I’ve personally worked on and shot gory, violent movies. It’s not a problem that these depictions occur in films. What grinds my gears is that it is being presented to a mass audience as run of the mill and now mainstream. A cinematic bait and switch. Obviously I’m expecting violence but it’s a lot. There is a film class at a local state university that studies historical times when gore is popular vs times when psychological horror films reign. Maybe this is simply the zeitgeist. All I know is that since Midsommar, I feel like my stomach is on a trampoline at a lot of movies. Thanks, Sweden! 

Finally, Cocaine Bear is Ray Liotta’s final performance before his passing. And it’s a good performance. A solid one. So there is that too.

If you miss Cocaine Bear, don’t fret, my sources tell me that Cocaine Shark is already in production. 

The Batman

What the hell was that?

The question constitutes the quick take from our L&D special guest, who joined us for the world premier of The Batman Thursday evening.

My answer? That was a limited Netflix-type series condensed down into three hours and change. There are clearly four or five separate episodes here, replete with the cuts between ‘episodes.’ Indeed, at one point I thought the movie might be over, it had that natural break feel about it. But, after lingering a beat or two, we moved on.

I am endorsing this one because there was so much I enjoyed about it and I will enjoy discussing it with other Bat-fans. For example, I liked how the entire musical score is built around Nirvana’s “Something in the Way” (which serves to tell you pretty much all you need to know about the mood of this one). I loved Robert Pattinson in the leading role; he put the goth in Gotham, for sure. Now there’s a Dark and gloomy Knight for you! There was good action throughout, including the sequence where muzzle flash provided the only light. And a great car chase!

But the verdict is that this is a case of trying to do too much and, as a result, not doing enough things well, and leaving too many things undone. Case in point, there is a great To Live and Die in LA chase sequence, but why were they even chasing him? What was the payoff? (Those familiar with the White Knight story arc should certainly see my point here). The purpose was that they needed to introduce the Batmobile (I doubt that constitutes a spoiler). Yes, following the chase there was a pretty fun back and forth with Gordon and The Batman here during the grilling, but ultimately this defied credulity even moreso than usual.

But my biggest gripe is certainly that the writers grossly overestimated the payoff from their “big” plot reveals. I am not sure exactly how we were supposed to respond when that news came out, but my response was: Yawn! I saw that movie already! So pretty disappointing on that front, pretty good story, not a great story.

Plenty of starpower, including Peter Sarsgsaard, Zoë Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, Paul Dano, John Turturro, Andy Serkis, and Colin Farrell. That’s a lot of characters to introduce, develop, and complete a story arc on. The Batman doesn’t, and couldn’t, without another few hours of exposition. I listed the actors in descending order of how I thought of whether the character worked, from Sarsgaard as the DA to Farrell as a pretty forgetable Penguin. What a waste of makeup and acting talent (though I am definitely the minority view on this assessment). Kravitz as Catwoman is certainly remarkable in the true sense of that term. Another something to chat about on the ride home. I thought Dano was good in spots as the Riddler, but, meh.

So, there you have it, a dark, brooding eight hours of entertainment mushed down to three. If you go to these types of movies, you will almost certainly find something to like. But this feels more like The Dark Knight Rises than The Dark Knight in terms of the overall quality and payoff. It’s going to be in theaters for a while, so you’ll have plenty of time if you want to see this one.

No Time to Die

Wait, Felix is from Milwaukee?

Alright, then. We headed off to opening night of the latest, but not the greatest, edition to the Bond canon, which gives a well-publicized sendoff to Daniel Craig in the title role. The movie is, in my estimation, the second or third best of the Craig era, and right about tenth in my personal rankings in the series.

I don’t really have a full-blown review here, but I do have some notes from some texts I shared with one of our loyal readers. First off, Daniel Craig is bored. This shows up intermittently throughout the film when he isn’t doing his best to pretend otherwise. Unlike the aging prizefighter looking for that last paycheck, however, he came in in excellent shape!

Second, the story is not a bad story, all told, but the villain by committee is both unsatisfying and uncharacteristic of the series. It’s like watching a baseball game where the manager keeps changing pitchers. I guess the writers sacrificed the prospect of one last great Bond villain in the service of a bunch of other things they wanted to include.

Third, the action is OK. There are a couple of very cool scenes, including the first part of the opening scene (this is a really long movie), but nothing that holds a candle to, say, the opening scenes of The Dark Knight Rises or Tenet.

I bring up those latter two because it is difficult to discern whether the many, many, many similarities and parallels to action films generally (including The Dark Knight Rises (!)), or Bond films specifically, are hat tips or homages or just mere coincidences. That said, many things happen in this movie that are new to the Bond series, the types of things you can probably read about in reviews that have ample spoiler alerts.

In my estimation, there are a handful of Bond films that are good, stand alone movies. Then, depending on the day, there are five-to-ten in the series that are durable as fun action movies, but aren’t terribly good stories and you wouldn’t consider watching them if it didn’t have the Bond pedigree. No Time to Die is probably in the former category for now. The novelties herein will probably have people revisiting this one more than they might have otherwise.