MauryMickelwhite Reviews

The Power of Film (2024)

Thought provoking

[7/10 · 8 March 2024]

I'm adding a review to counter a review from 2/1/24. I won't say that this reviewer's thoughts aren't valid. I just wanted to clarify an issue that may have been overlooked, so others have a clear understanding of what to expect.

In the first episode of the series (as he does in the forward of the book with the same title) Suber states that he is only commenting on a select group of popular and memorable movies, since these are movies that most people have probably seen and remember. They act as exemplars. The goal here isn't to provide insight to a wide range of movies; it is to discuss why we respond to movies so that we can apply those insights to the movies we personally remember best.

Having said that this is a series of lectures, with the professor talking into a interrotron camera rig and with select movie scenes used as illustration. I can see how that might not be entertaining for a lot of people and even though I really liked this, I did zone out from time to time.

Personally, I don't think this is really a series about movies. This is a series about audiences. I think a more apt title might have been The Power of Audiences, but who would watch that:)

Licorice Pizza (2021)

Atmosphere, mood, and nostalgia

[7/10 · 4 April 2022]

I am an admitted PTA fan but I'll be the first to admit that I'm not always sure I understand what he's trying to accomplish. Sometime, he seems to forge an a path that is clear to me, like Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood. This movie is more like Magnolia for me - I really like it but I'm not sure I know why.

For me, PTA's ability to create immersive world is his strongest skill. I've never lived in Southern California but I feel like I have simply by watching this movie.

Dunkirk (2017)

Nolan lets the story take the forefront

[7/10 · 3 April 2022]

I like Chris Nolan movies but even at their best, they can be style before story. That does not happen here. There is lots of action, It's a war movie, but the action advances the story.

Dunkirk is an amazing historical story but it is an intriguing story for a war movie. Instead of the more common victory over overwhelming odds, this is the story of strategic retreat. Heroism looks different when the fighters are forced to retreat. It's about surviving to fight another day and not about needlessly sacrificing one's life to the sounds of a swelling soundtrack.

Tom Hardy pulls off a great performance despite being cramped into a cockpit with his face covered by his flight mask in almost every scene.

Win Win (2011)

Not what I assumed it would be but still worth the effort

[7/10 · 29 March 2022]

I watched this assuming it was a sport movie but that is not completely accurate. It does include wrestling but it isn't a prominent detail - you could rewrite the script, leave wrestling out, and still explore the main elements and themes of this movie.

This is absolutely an underdog movie, which is a common sports movie theme. I'm not sure there is a character on screen who isn't dealing with their underdog life at some level. I'll admit, the movie was challenging to watch at one point because the main character is so unlikable. If you feel that way, stick with it because he get's a chance at redemption. That final scene is weirdly bland but also right on point and satisfying.

Inside Moves (1980)

worthwhile

[5/10 · 29 March 2022]

For me, this is a movie I can appreciate but I didn't feel any emotional connection to the characters. That's not to say there aren't some good emotional moments but the overall story seems to require those moments so they seem perfunctory.

The French Dispatch (2021)

Quirk over substance

[4/10 · 29 March 2022]

Movies like this frustrate me because some will assume it's brilliant no matter what appears on screen, which means not liking it suggests a lack of taste.

This movie is pretty. Overall, the acting is really good. And, I understand that it is an homage to long form journalistic writing. But it's just not very good. It's oppressively quirky. Visually quirky. Structurally quirky. Paragraphs of quirky monolog end, and then follow-up with a quirky afterthought - and then another, and sometimes another quirky afterthought.

If you must watch, fast-forward to the Concrete Masterpiece, which is pretty good but skip the rest. Watching this movie in its entirety is exhausting.

The Adam Project (2022)

Bittersweet with laughs and action

[7/10 · 19 March 2022]

I am confused by the comments the this movie is like Back to the Future or, really odd in my opinion, E. T. Yes, this is a time travel plot and yes, a young boy finds a spaceship, but the sci-fi action elements are used to tell a touching story about grief.

Ultimately, this is the story of boy who is so devastated by his father's death that he will push away his mother and focus on self-destructive actions. AND, this is the story of a man who hated himself as a child and regrets all of the stupid things he did, most importantly, making his grieving mother's life more difficult. They each have lessons to teach to, and to learn from each other, which can only happen in a time travel movie.

I realize this isn't going to appeal to those who want an action movie and that some will be put off by Reynold's snark (or frustrated that there isn't enough snark.) Maybe this is a movie that is bound to disappoint because it doesn't neatly fit into a niche - it's a round peg for a slightly oval hole - but I liked it for what it is. Call it sentimental, but the scene in which adult Adam consoles his mother is really touching.

Turning Red (2022)

Good moments but sweet overall

[7/10 · 13 March 2022]

An online reviewer was called a racist because he inelegantly wrote that he didn't connect with this movie. I'm not in the position to judge his character but I can see how he might not have connected here - much in the same way that female viewers might have struggled to connect with the past 40 years of juvenile movies geared toward boys.

I have hardly anything in common Mei, but I still recall how I felt when I was her age. One day, you're convinced that nothing is possible, and then suddenly, and with great confusion, there is a window in which everything seems possible. It doesn't matter than Mei is a girl, or Canadian, or Asian, I experienced the same thing in my own way.

I think this is more of a cute movie, than a great movie but I do appreciate that it sidesteps some of the typical animated movie pitfalls. Yes, there is a skyscraper sized red panda at the end, but the climax turns out to be a very personal, quiet moment.

And, I'm kinda obsessed with 4Town.

Free Guy (2021)

Fun and worth watching

[7/10 · 10 March 2022]

This movie makes very little internal sense but it's funny, clever, and most important in my mind, an original idea. If we must have movies that are more FX than substance, let them be like this.

Altered States (1980)

Still interesting 40 years later

[8/10 · 4 March 2022]

I really liked this movie when it first came out. I was an artsy-fartsy kid so this was right up my alley.

Watching it as an adult who knows a lot more about movies (and who is much less artsy-fartsy) I still like it. I know who Paddy Chayefsky is so I really recognize his dialog - mostly babble that is fun to hear actors try to present. I seen other Ken Russell movies so I recognize the trippy, blasphemous imagery. I read that they didn't get along but they make a pretty good team.

The special effects are still pretty impressive, possibly because they are primarily optical effects which don't feel dated compared to modern technology.

Coherence (2013)

You'll probably either love it or not

[7/10 · 4 March 2022]

Based upon viewer comments, this is either great or horrible and, for my money, I agree in both cases. Maybe it's a matter of expectation? If you like movies with effects and high production values (no shame in that) this isn't for you. It you like creators trying to be unique, then this might be fun.

For me, there are a couple ooooo moments that make this worth while. And I love that Nicholas Brendan's twin brother shows up as a special effect, like he did in that really good episode of Buffy.

D.O.A. (1949)

Worth watching

[7/10 · 22 February 2022]

This is hard to see with fresh eye. The plot is really inventive (although certainly not unique) but it might seem too common with all we've see since 1949.

It may not be fair to say the cast is weak, since some of the weaker performances are early in their careers. Neville Brand is bizarrely creepy as Chester.

Is it just me? Bigelow goes to the doctor with an upset stomach and they call in a toxicologist who does a full blood panel on the spot? My doctor, who I like, would have just nodded empathetically and told me to take it easy and let him know if I don't feel better.

Is it just me? I know Dimitri Tiomkin is a well-respected composer but the music did't always seem to serve this movie. On occasion, it was more like a Looney Tunes score emphasizing action rather than mood.

Still, this is a good noir that plays with conventions in interesting ways.

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

a slow burn with some A+ Kirk Douglas

[7/10 · 22 February 2022]

I'm not sure I'm seeing this movie the way I'm supposed to. The consensus seems to be that this is a movie about a ruthless movie producer, Jonathan Shields, played by Kirk Douglas, who backstabs and betrays his friends in order to achieve success. I'm not sure that's what happens here. Who is the bad and who is the beautiful?

The plot is presented in flashback with three segments told from the perspective of a famous director, a leading lady, and an award-winner writer who worked with Shields in the past. They have been approached to work with him one last time, as a favor, to save his career.

The director says he's has a perfect treatment of a difficult-to-adapt novel but he acknowledges how much better that perfection gets with Shields assistance. The leading lady is an alcoholic with no discernable acting talent who, with Shields attention, dries up long enough to become a star. The writer is a vain, elitist academic who can be flattered into taking a lot of money to write a script. Despite the remarkable success they achieve with Shields assistance, they all feel that he has betrayed them.

But look closely. Each of their stories is told in their own words and their words reveal the reality. The director, whose biggest effort to date had been Attack of the Cat Men is "betrayed" because in order to make their movie the way they dreamed in would be made, Shields must hire a prominent director in order to get them a million dollar budget they needed. The leading lady reports that he "knows how to handle her" even though she was not in a position to hear him say this; by adding this tiny detail to her story, she turns him into the villain of her story, when the reality may be that he simply wasn't interested in her attention. The writer, who blames Shields for his wife death, presented his wife as a silly woman who envied the fame that intended to be his.

Shields may not be an innocent party but they are all really slimy. They are the bad and the movies the create are the beautiful.

Turning the table on this plot, and seeing the artists for what they truly are, seems to be supported by a key detail. In the final flashback, Shields has directed his first movie and, by his own estimation, it is not worthy of release. He is broke and ruined. It is in this light that we assume the three have been brought in to save him, but that isn't the case. In that flashback, he had three Oscars on his shelf, but as the three "victims" are telling their stories, he has five Oscars on his shelf. The entire scenario is a ruse designed to play to their vanity and egos. This is clear in the movie's final scene: three terrible people listening in on a second line to Shields, who is undoubtedly buttering them up.

Gun Crazy (1950)

Must watch

[10/10 · 22 February 2022]

Not all 5-star movies are the same. This one is low-budget, simplistic, and exploitive. It is also brilliantly filmed, remarkably acted, visually stunning, and I'm not sure that there is an unnecessary or wasted frame.

How do we live in a world in which our film legacy does not include many, many more Peggy Cummins movies? Her's is one of the best performances recorded on film; poor John Dall suffers from just being remarkable here.

Every Girl Should Be Married (1948)

ick

[5/10 · 22 February 2022]

I'm really confused by this movie. It barely held my attention the last time I watched it and, to be fair, I was playing a game on my iPad when I watched it this time, but I think I watched a slightly different movie this time.

To be clear, this is an appalling movie. Yes, it is well directed and the production is top notch, but the story is . . . Ew. The idea that a 20 year-old (according to the script) woman would notice a man in a store who is at least twice her age and, within seconds, to not only fall in love with him, but to articulate that love in terms of wanting to have his babies and make intimate dinners for him for the rest of her life, is weird even for a romantic comedy.

To make matters worse, 80 minutes are devoted to her ""trapping"" him into marriage. The writer go so far as to suggest that all husbands have be trapped, at least according to an audience of women in movie. And, to make matters even worse, this movie isn't about the clever traps women set. They are not masterminds; they are lionesses who chase their prey until it is too exhausted to run. Dr. Brown is aware that he is being trapped from the beginning. He is a victim of the relentless harping that breaks a man down and forces him to accept his trap.

If film noir is a response to male neurosis formed when they returned from the war to find that women had gotten along fine without them, then this movie is a RomCom film noir. Anabel is a femme fatale who wishes to destroy a man's happiness; Dr. Brown is the weak protagonist who is powerless to avoid what fate holds for him; and it ends badly for everyone involved - in this case, marriage.

With that said, when I watched the movie this time, I noticed Betsy Drake for the first time. I've always seen her, wrongly it seems, as the plain actress who got cast because she was married to Cary Grant. While I hate the character she plays here, she did a really good job. She presented her character naturally even though she was burdened with the anti-woman exposition."

Caesar and Cleopatra (1945)

Beautiful to look at, pretty good to watch

[7/10 · 22 February 2022]

A movie version of a play is usually not a good thing. It can be too play-like with no cinematic effort; it can have big stars who "movie" their way through a role they could never pull off on stage; it can move so far away from the play, in an effort to be cinematic, that there is no point to the effort; or, it can expose the fact that play wasn't all that interesting in the first place (this happened a LOT in the studio age.)

This movie manages to succeed as much as possible. First, it's a really good play. It is funny and intriguing. Watching it allows that elitist jerk who lives quietly inside all of every educated adult to laugh knowingly at subtle barbs thrown at long dead people and institutions. (The problem with watching this at home it that there was no audience to hear me laugh - how else would they know how sophisticated I am?)

Next, the cast is remarkable. Yes, it is filled with movie stars of the era but they are really good here, in particular, Claude Rains.

Finally, while this is ultimately a weakness, the play remains largely intact, most likely due to Shaw's adaptation of his own work. There is no effort to visualize a story here, but there is a great deal of effort to present this play with great visuals. This may the be best approach to presenting plays on screen - get them off a stage but stick to the script.

Lady Bird (2017)

Sweet, complicated, thoughtful

[9/10 · 22 February 2022]

Lady Bird has a brilliant beginning. The movie opens with Lady Bird and her mother, sleeping face-to-face in a hotel room. They are sharing a summer road trip visiting colleges (I think.) Lady Bird tells her mom that she doesn't have to make the bed, to which her mother replies, "Well it's nice to make things neat and clean." And then mom reaches out and tucks Lady Bird's hair behind her ear. WOW! Their entire relationship is captured in these opening moments and is punctuated a few moments later when Lady Bird "exits" their argument.

What follows is the year in a the life of a self-absorbed high school senior who is so impatiently focused on what will become of her life that she is blind to her own existence (also known as being a teen-ager.) Her mother seems to be in the opposite position. She is so buried in the present that she is terrified of what the future might bring. Their relationship is remarkable in that each seems to rely upon, and distance herself, from the other.

Lady Bird asks her mother how much money it cost to raise her so that she can one day write a check and then never need to speak to her again. Then, later, she desperately begs her mother to speak to her, when mom feels betrayed that her daughter applied to an east coast school without consulting her.

Mom's feelings seem to be more complex. She has a tough life as a psychiatric nurse, which is complicated by her own husband's struggle with depression. Might she need Lady Bird to remain close to home after college because, without her daughter, her work and personal lives will merge? We get a feeling for this burden, and of how similar mother and daughter are, in two moments that echo one another: Lady Bird promising a closeted friend and mom promising a priest that they will not share their secrets.

The fact that my thoughts can only be illustrated by tiny moments is why I like this movie so much. It is not a splashy or cleverly plotted movie. It is a series of quiet and funny and thoughtful episodes that play out in the same way that life seems to play out when remembered with the wisdom and distance of experience.

Million Dollar Legs (1932)

For W.C. Field completists

[4/10 · 22 February 2022]

In the 1930s, Paramount was known for its sophisticated comedies. This may be one of them but the details are lost to me in 2018. It's hard not to compare this to Duck Soup, which was made by Paramount in the same general time frame, but this movie seems inferior for two possible reasons.

First, while it does present the political intrigue of an imaginary kingdom, the intrigue is tied to participation in the very real Los Angeles Olympics. So, this is both a political farce and a commercial tie-in to a moment of actual, sincere national pride. Combining the two seems to weaken them both.

Second, this a Jack Oakie movie. Nothing against him but there is too little W. C. Fields. At the time, Fields had not yet broken out into stardom but it is clear here that he is the more interesting of the two leads. History remembers him as a drunken misanthrope but this movie, all too briefly, shows his grace and agility. His hat routine, during his opening scene, is his best of the movie.

Only in retrospect do I realize that I've seen Lyda Roberti in movies before. Here, she plays a cootchie dancer which is weird and a bit distracting. (Maybe, contemporary audiences found her performance titillating?)

I was excited when Ben Turpin appeared on screen but he never really gets a chance to do anything except appear, in his own cross-eyed way. His spy never really accomplishes anything. I'm not even sure which side he was spying for.

My favorite scene of the movie is Andy Clyde chasing the romantic leads. They start out fleeing on horseback, then transition to an automobile, then to a speedboat. All the while, Clyde relentlessly follows, in overcranked splendor, dressed in a full-body goat suit. It's such a great scene that they apparently named the movie after his character."

Move Over, Darling (1963)

Skip this and watch My Favorite Wife instead

[2/10 · 22 February 2022]

Ugh.

Okay, it's not fair to limit my thoughts to one word. Movie Over Darling is the type of movie you get when a bunch of old fogies born before Prohibition try to create a swinging 60s-era sex comedy. You know how hip they are because the treacly score throws in some bongos from time to time and, for their source material, they remade a movie from 1941 based loosely upon a poem from 1864.

I feel bad for Doris Day. Irene Dunne was allowed to be strong and witty or, to be fair, stronger and wittier than Cary Grant, in the original. Day is allowed to be jealous, weak, and stupid. In a minor plot point, Dunne spontaneously came up with the idea to present a shoe salesman as Adam, the man she shared an island with all of those years. She does so to spare her insecure husband's feelings. Here, the idea is conceived by Thelma Ritter because Day is too dumb to think for herself and, you know, women are manipulators.

It's shameful to realize that it was once okay to portray women like this."

After the Thin Man (1936)

A great double feature along with the first movie in the series

[8/10 · 22 February 2022]

I love this title. The Thin Man ends with Nick and Nora taking off from New York on a cross-country train and the second movie begins with them arriving in San Francisco. So, this movie is literally after the Thin Man. On board the train, we get one of the movie series best lines.

Nora, rushing to get pack their bags (from off screen): Are you packing?

Nick, sitting down to drink a cocktail: Yes dear, I'm putting away this liquor.

While this movie isn't as witty as the first, it is still wittier than any random 10 movies combined. What it lacks in wit from the first movie, it makes up for it in the mystery. The murder happens on screen and many people were positioned to be the killer - now that is a mystery to be untied. We also get Jimmy Stewart, a few years before his star shined bright, as one of the suspects gather at the end.

The Thin Man (1934)

It's not true, he didn't get anywhere near my tabloids

[9/10 · 22 February 2022]

TCM is doing a marathon of all the Thin Man movies tonight. I've seen them all before but it is hard not to watch them when they are on. The first movie is one of my favorites. If I were to inhabit a movie, it would be this one. Oh that I might be as witty, smart, and brave as Nick Charles and, oh that I might be able to handle my liquor as well.

The Feminine Touch (1941)

Worth it for Rosalyn Russell

[5/10 · 22 February 2022]

The Studio System had its pros and cons but it's hard to argue that the collected talent did not create great romantic comedies. As I write this, the contemporary Hollywood romantic comedy is dead, so RomCom lovers have been forced to the Hallmark Channel for their fix. Unfortunately, Hallmark RomComs resemble classic Hollywood RomComs in the same way that diarrhea resembles a turd: the same substance, but in a looser, smellier form.

Okay, that is a gross analogy, but I'm developing the idea of the RomCom spectrum, with the sublime (think It Happened One Night) on one end and everything ever broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on the other. The Feminine Touch is a weird movie in that it doesn't neatly fit on the spectrum. To assess its value, you really need to break it into components.

On the positive side of the spectrum is the cast. Rosalyn Russell can wring every possible laugh from the most basic line. In one scene, after an argument, she storms off to the bedroom, closes the door (one-one-thousand) opens the doors, sticks her head through and says, "I'm pretty sick and tired of you not knowing who Bob Jordan is," and then slams the door. Yeah, this doesn't make any sense out of context but trust me, this is an actress at her prime. Don Ameche and Van Heflin ably play second-fiddle to Russell and have fun doing foolish things. Kay Francis seems a bit miscast (her sophistication and wardrobe seem to belong elsewhere) but she does her best to fit in.

Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, is the dialog, which needs to be separated from the story. The dialog is sharp and funny and, in the back of your head, you think "remember that gem to throw into my own, less witty, conversations."

Then there is the story, which is entirely focused on the concept of jealousy. Certainly, there is room for jealousy in a RomCom but the genre collapses when it is the main point. It's like making money the focus of a caper movie instead of the planning and execution of the plan.

RomCom characters need to start out at ends and, through their interactions, find an acceptable middle ground that leads to happily-ever-after. Yes, their interactions are usually not realistic (that is the difference between a RomCom and a Romantic Drama) but there has to be some internal logic to their interactions. Here, we have a professor whose philosophy is built upon the fact that jealousy does not exist. For some reason, his devoted and loving wife needs her devoted and loving husband, to be jealous. Their conflict is black and white so there is no middle ground to achieve. One of them must be completely wrong and submit to the other.

In the third act, for no reason other than a man shaves his beard (and the plot needs a resolution), the loving, jealous-free husband becomes a raving green-eyed lunatic in the blink of an eye. His transformation means that his wife has destroyed his hopeful world view through spite and manipulation. The result is an inverted RomCom. We started with a loving couple in a healthy relationship and end with damaged, unsympathetic individuals who seem unworthy of love.

"

Get Out (I) (2017)

A lot to think about

[8/10 · 22 February 2022]

This is promoted as a horror film but I don't see much resemblance to the genre - it's more of a dark comedy/thriller. That said, there are some genuinely scary moments: a black man's solo walk through a white suburban neighborhood and the look on Rose's face when she realizes Chris cannot kill her.

I doubt that I have anything to note that hasn't been noted before. What I like about the movie is that it does not explain itself; rather, it presents ambiguous scenarios and allows the audience to consider them.

Is this a horror/comic movie from the perspective of a black man meeting the family of a white girlfriend? Must he give up his identity to be acceptable?

Is this about creating the ideal, acceptable black man? (One with a fashionably black exterior and a practical white interior.)

Is this a riff on white liberals who badly want to seem color blind? Or, who limply embrace superficial aspects of black culture in order to feel superior to their less-woke friends?

Is this a commentary on a history of white theft of black culture? Here, Chris is a talented photographer and we see Rose checking out the talent for her next victim; in our world, Elvis, Pat Boone, Led Zepplin, etc.

Is it about black people needing to be submissive in white culture? (The movie takes off when Chris is undone by, possibly the whitest of all white things in the movie, the teacup of a privileged elitist.)

Is it, as Rod the TSA agent insists, about white people's tendency to over-sexualize black people? It is hard to ignore that big buck that Chris was forced to stare at as he's strapped to a chair, and hard not to cheer when he uses is as weapon to penetrate his white captor - yeah, a dick reference.

Is it about the fear older white people have of black people (and to be fair, of everything else the can't control in today's world?) Their revenge is to use their bingo cards as slave auction paddles to take control of their fears.

And, did Jordan Peale vaguely suggest that Tiger Woods might, deep inside, be an old white golfer piloting a black athlete?

The Cheaters (1945)

Probably not worth it

[3/10 · 22 February 2022]

I would write, "wow, this is a bad movie" but it would require more enthusiasm than the movie deserves. It's also hard to care enough to consider what's wrong with it, but I'll try.

The sets make no sense. They are a collection of things clinging to the edge of the soundstage. The intent was to present wealth, but the result is lots of dead space in front of a backdrop, like a 70s era variety show skit. In some instances, the lighting is so poor that the image is flat with no distinction between foreground and background.

The cast makes little sense. How does Eugene Pallette, an acceptable character actor, get cast in such a prominent role? His range extends from gruff to somewhat less gruff. The "writer" (yes, the quotes are meant to be bitchy) wrote her version of a Billie Burke character (she played the same character in the similarly plotted, but excellent, Merrily We Live), so Billie Burke makes sense. The problem is that the writing is so weak. Or her enthusiasm is so faint, even her talent can't carry it. Joseph Schildkraut doesn't seem to know why he is there. The script allows him to alternate between proto-Shakespearean soliloquies and sleeping - could they not afford his full salary so his contract allowed him sleep through a portion of his screen time?

The story does not seem connected to the character's development. This is another version of poor person teaches the meaning of life to rich people plot but, in this case, we get two poor people. This isn't just an abundance of magical poor people, it is a sign that the writer could not determine what story she wanted to tell. Neither of the poor people seem particularly wise or seem changed or influenced by their interaction with the rich family. And, the rich family are just devices and not developed characters. Whereas Scrooge required visits from four ghosts to understand the error in his ways, this rich family needs only 90 seconds of an actor describing the plot of A Christmas Carol to shift their perspective 180 degrees.

In the end, the rich family admits that they are trying to steal five million dollars from the poor actress and, since she has known them for 24 hours and heard the same description of the A Christmas Carol plot, she agrees to split the fortune 50/50. Then the two poor character types laugh manically and my wife and I look at each other and think WTF!

Life, Animated (2016)

Touching

[7/10 · 22 February 2022]

This is a pretty straight-forward documentary: it focuses on documenting rather than lurking around their subject long enough to find an entertaining narrative. What we get is a touching portrait of a young man trying to live independently and of a family grappling with obligation, responsibility, and love.