Forgiveness, like many things, starts with the heart

Brian Banks reminds me of another quiet, unassuming and powerful story, The Soloist. The former deals with Injustice visited on a young Black Man in Long Beach, CA and the other, Mental Illness and Homelessness on the streets of Downtown LA.

When a film says "based on a true story" I don't immediately become suspicious. But, my antennae are definitely up, realizing that Hollywood does bend the truth in service of a good story. I don't fault it for that. The story here, however truthful is quite compelling, as it involves a young Black Man in Long Beach, California who is falsely accused of rape as a teenager, and whose life is, quite literally destroyed as a result. When the film begins, Brian is watching kids playing football, and thinking about how he might have gone to the NFL had he not gone to prison instead.

The rest is worth not spoiling, but I highly recommend this soft-spoken drama, well-cast with many great actors including the always-dependable Greg Kinnear as the head of the California Innocence Project: a White Man who takes on the cause of seeking Justice for a Black Man he does not know. With no financial incentive. That's an Ally folks, or whatever you want to call it.

To the Lighthouse

For some reason I hesitated to watch this masterful of psychological thriller, perhaps because I couldn't really get into the Director Robert Eggers' other widely-praised film, "The Witch". At least, I didn't see what critics and audiences who raved about it saw.

No such issue here, and sorry I waited so long. Eggers' compact Gordian Knot of a film is pieced together with Wes Anderson-esque precision, with solid writing, bravura performances by both leads and remarkable black-and-white camerawork in 5:4 (technically, 1.19:1, if IMDB are correct) aspect ratio that both contains the growing madness of the two characters but threatens to burst, at many points.

The remarkable Willem Dafoe is in fine form as the Lighthouse Keeper and the under-appreciated Robert Pattinson is every bit his equal as his seasonal assistant. Both are, in a way, trapped on a lonely island off the coast of New England, somewhere toward the end of the 19th Century. Mainly because, a couple of weeks into their stay a fierce storm hits the island with almost Biblical force, and the promised ship can't appear to take them to shore.

While scene and setting play a major role in the film, the relationship between the two main characters is its driving force. Dafoe's character seems to be already insane, and Pattinson's seems to gradually go insane as the film moves forward. Is it isolation? Does Pattinson's character have dark secrets that only Dafoe's character's relentless prodding is going to knock loose? Is there a monster living in the top floor of the eponymous Lighthouse? Is there really a Mermaid in the waters off shore?

As one disappointed Amazon reviewer points out, none of these questions is really answered adequately. If you like ambiguity, beautifully wrought from a Cinematic standpoint you will love "The Lighthouse". If you need your Knots steadily but completely unraveled to conclude in a Big Reveal, I'm afraid Eggers' weird masterpiece is not for you.

Hello, Young (and Old) Lovers of Cinema, Wherever You Are

It is hard to say anything original about this masterpiece of the Hollywood Studio system. But, here goes.

It begins, and ends, with the spectacular Score and Book from Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein. Although I am sure much has been said over the years that casts this inimitable pair in a more realistic light, I still find little fault in nearly anything they did. And that is coming from a Progressive Liberal who thinks "Oklahoma!", despite the complete absence of Native Americans is, still, a masterpiece.

I had the good fortune to see a smaller scale but still wonderful stage version of “The King and I” in New York several years ago. Again, the music and lyrics really drive the piece, so it matters little whether it is on a small, or large stage: the musical still, well, sings is the best way I can put it. And, against the breathtaking canvas of CinemaScope this film version is one for the ages.

It continues with the two leads who are perhaps two of the best that could have ever been chosen: Academy Award-winner Yul Brynner and the splendid Deborah Kerr. Brynner was really a giant of the silver screen, although unfortunately he didn’t appear in as many films as we might have wanted to him to. If he had only ever done King, with his commanding presence tempered by a heart of gold, that would have been enough. And Englishwoman Kerr did so many great American films with a perfectly straight American accent it is a relief to hear her speak and sing with her English accent and diction. It, as the saying goes, classes the joint up a bit. Am I right?

Much has probably been written about whether “The King and I” is a culturally sensitive depiction of 19th Century “Siam” (today known as Cambodia) or whether it celebrates or fails to take account of the destructive power of British Imperialism. That is perhaps not important in a basic Amazon film review. Nonetheless, the film-makers tried to get much right about the Siam of the 1800s, from the brief location photography in the opening to the exquisite set piece of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” set to classic Cambodian- style, Kabuki-esque theater. The latter, alone, is worth the price of admission. And of course the costumes. Oh, man, the costumes!

One final comment. If you love great music, then admire the late, great Arthur Newman’s masterful adaptation of the musical’s timeless score – listed as “orchestrations” in the credits but really much, much more than that. It won Newman – one of the titans of Hollywood film scoring – one of his several Academy Awards. The astonishing opening melody sends shivers up my spine, it is so good.

Watched on Amazon Prime Video. The print and transfer seemed to be of very high quality.

Dark, indeed

Although this "ripped from the headlines" story has a decided anti-big business bent to it, it is nonetheless a gripping, slow-burn thriller about one man's campaign to see justice done.

Mark Ruffalo is superb as a big city lawyer who takes on a small town class action lawsuit against Dow Chemical - jeopardizing his job, his marriage and even potentially his life. Supporting cast includes Tim Robbins and Anne Hathaway, but Ruffalo's restrained performance is the main event, here.

Reminds me of another finely etched role about a David fighting a Goliath, Michael Mann's excellent "The Insider" with Russell Crowe. Or, the similarly solid "A Civil Action" with John Travolta, and, of course the nearly peerless "Erin Brokovich" which won Julia Roberts her one and only Academy Award.

Hollywood loves it its David or Davida vs. Goliath stories, don't it?

Sheer Cinematic Genius

It would not be a complete exaggeration to say that "Great Expectations" is a nearly perfect film. There are of course many other films that deserve this rating that are its equal, if not its superior. Anything by Truffaut or many things by Bergman. Hitchcock's Vertigo comes to my mind. But David Lean's 1946 masterpiece just has way too much going for it not to be considered one of the truly great works of the British film industry. It starts with Lean who, like Stanley Kubrick hardly ever made a film that one could just call "good". His body of work was of so consistently a high caliber that his loving adaptation of his countryman’s finest novel is like a small, beautiful miniature (Wes Anderson much?) to the later grand Epics like Lawrence of Arabia that cemented his reputation.

It continues with the source material. Like Michael Crichton, or maybe Ernest Hemingway, Charles Dickens wrote novels that are either easy to adapt into film, or so well loved that great directors and screen writers work hard to get them right. Dickens’ own body of work is so vast, and impressive that it is easy to say that Great Expectations is merely one of three or four true masterpieces – Nicholas Nickleby, any one? Bleak House, my pet? – that the great pop culture author produced.

That is not to say Dickens is easy to adapt. His characters are some of the most vividly imagined, his dialogue and description some of the richest ever put to paper. Don’t get me started on plotting, as Dickens can drive even his loyal readers mad with his positively…Dickensian (yes, I went there) story lines. Small wonder Lean himself, along with four others penned the screenplay. And what a screenplay it is, condensing Dickens medium-length novel into a relatively crisp 118 minute running time. I don’t believe all the couple of dozen main characters from the novel made the cut, but the main ones, and the primary story lines survive.

And, what a story it is.

Young Orphan “Pip” is raised in the 19th century by the saintly Joe Gargery – deftly and tear-jerkingly played by Bernard Miles – when he encounters an escaped convict out on the moors. A kind gesture from Pip would seem to go unnoticed. I won’t spoil the Big Reveal for you and say that, fast forward a few years, and one heartbreak, and Pip is living with his good friend in London when a Benefactor blesses him with a fortune. Plots and fates intertwine until the grand Denouement. That is all the needs to be said because you really need to see how it all plays out so skillfully in Dickens’ plotting.

The film won the Best Oscar for Art Direction (now called Production Design, I think) and Cinematography. Both are of course superb. Look at the detail in just one set piece, the nearly Biblical destruction of Miss Havisham’s Great Hall about 1/3 of the way through the film. I was amazed at how dust was flying from the table and furniture. Dust which had to be put in place to resemble dust that would have gathered for decades.

But what it really boils down to is the Cast, and the acting. As would be expected from the Brits – especially during this era – every single actor and actress is superb. From a young Alec Guiness as Pip’s young adult pal Herbert Pocket and the legendary John Mills as an “adult” Pip, to a youthful Jean Simmons as the devilish Estella and of course Martita Hunt in the scene-chewing role as Miss Havisham. I could go on and on, but I need not, because this constellation of characters is ably played by a galaxy of fine British A and B players.

The end result is, as I have said, sheer cinematic magic. And, by the way, the print and transfer on Amazon Prime are both superb. So, no reason not to rent, or buy (as I did) this treasure. It is a worthy addition to any true film lover’s library.

Matthew McConaughey's "American Hustle" moment

If you don't know the amazing real-life story that inspired "Gold" you should check it out. It is one of those clear examples of "truth is stranger than fiction". A Filipino Engineer, Michael de Guzman perpetrated what was at the time the largest fraud ever attempted in the Mining industry. He may (or may not) have gotten away with tens of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. Or, he may have fallen -- or been pushed -- out of the window of a Helicopter, hundreds of feet above an Indonesian rain forest.

You literally cannot make this stuff up.

What "Gold" does, somewhat successfully, is tell that story by dressing it up, re-locating the main North American action, adding and subtracting characters, etc. If you want your films to be true to the "inspired by true events" moniker then "Gold" is not for you. It takes significant creative license with the facts. But, if you want your stories entertaining and fairly well made, then this is your kind of film.

"Gold" has one main guilty pleasure, and that is Matthew McConaughey chewing the scenery as the fictional character, based on the real-life Calgary Mining investor, David Walsh. As Christian Bale was transformed for the much better “inspired by true events” “American Hustle”, McConaughey dons a bald/wig, probably gained real weight and is sporting one of the most obscene sets of false teeth perhaps ever attempted in a major motion picture.

The results could have been a disaster, but in the hands of an Oscar-winning actor they are splendid. Since his character in the film is mostly fabricated, it is not possible to say he becomes David Walsh, but he does become something interesting: watching him nearly lose everything, make a wild bet on a Filipino engineer and trudge through the jungles of Borneo, all the while contracting Malaria and driving up the value of his company’s stock is a sight to behold.

The rest of “Gold” is, to some extent, window dressing. Actor/director Edgar Ramirez is passable as the film’s version of de Guzman: if it is possible to “un-foreground” a character, “Gold” does that with deGuzman. The location photography is very good and the overall technique of Stephen Gaghan’s direction builds good tension by jumping from Reno, NV to Borneo to Wall Street.

But again, come for the story – which, even if it is mostly made-up, is still good – but stay for McConaughey. You will not regret it.

Things that go bump

Solid 1970s era chiller with the late, great George C. Scott (yes, Patton) in the featured role. Scott plays a grieving widower who thinks a change of scenery -- moving from NYC to Seattle -- will help his condition. Think, again. He has the bad fortune to get leased a creepy "Victorian" mansion that just, well, LOOKS haunted. The rest, as they say, is story and character development.

I love that this analog fright fest uses completely conventional SFX and heavily relies on atmosphere, sound effects and just simply the creepiness of the house itself to establish the scare factor here. Backstory is that a little boy may have been murdered in the house early in the Century and his spirit most definitely is NOT at rest.

Scott's performance is a slow burn revelation, as he devolves from self-assured piano playing intellectual to amateur Ghost Hunter. The story evolves from him just solo dealing with the Ghost to, eventually, a whole team of parapsychic researchers (he'll try anything at this point) and then eventually involves taking down a sitting US Senator.

Great stuff.

Now, the digital file on Amazon has some strange stuff going on with it. Either the print was not done correctly, and that causes some very strange delays or jitters in scenes with slow moving motion in them -- especially camera pans -- or that technique was actually intentional on the part of director Peter Medak and his DP. Not sure. It doesn't ruin the overall enjoyment of the film.