L&D Report

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. 

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.  

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. 

Huuum.

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. 

While enjoying Mr. Butler’s most recent offering as star of Plane, I continued thinking about his credits as Producer. 

LnD first noticed this role in his thriller Angel Has Fallen and so I was intrigued. Butler’s first major Producing credit came in 2009’s Law Abiding Citizen. That film cost $50 million and grossed $128 million worldwide. That’s a healthy start to a producing career. However, Butler isn’t a nominal Producer. He’s a role up your sleeves, develop the script, choose the cast and director type of Producer.

And it shows. The films he makes seem on the surface to be straight to streaming affairs. But as you watch them, you notice the craftwork and talent involved. For example, I was really enjoying some of the cinematography in Plane. There were these artistic shots, contemplative ones, that broke up the action. It showed a concern for and understanding of pacing. Would it surprise you, as it has me, that the film was shot by Cinematographer Brendan Galvin, Irish Society of Cinematographers, who lensed the classic, The Crying Game?

I watched a 15 minute behind the scenes video of Plane on YouTube and it reaffirmed my feeling. Every character, no matter how small a part, has developed a backstory for themselves. None of the players here are just phoning in their performance. Mike Colter, who plays Gaspar, an accused murderer and French Foreign Legion vet, has got all of the conflicting aspects of his character and those of Captain Brodie Torrance played by Butler, down pat. Even though his character is involved in some of the most gratuitous and even absurd violence, since, well since Violent Night, there is a lot of depth to the performance in the scenes where Colter can show his dramatic range. 

As an involved Producer, Butler is tuned in to the story. He is thinking about what happened before and what is going to happen next. He works as a creative partner to the Director. It’s effective, because he chose the director in the first place. They have been partners on the film from its inception. It’s a chemistry that translates to the big screen. And on that note, I encourage you to watch Plane on as big a screen as possible. Not because the special effects are great, they are not. But because you want to watch the true pathos in these performances come through in as epic a way as possible.