The Many Worlds Theory

 

I have been dabbling lately in the current state-of-the-art in Quantum Physics - a little thing I like to call the "Many Worlds" theory. Ha ha.

I have been reading, though, about Everettian mechanics, and getting my head pretty blown. Basic idea is that given the messiness of Quantum Physics, the only way to fix it is to posit that measurement of anything, including sub-atomic particles, creates an infinite number of branches, or worlds. Not necessarily "timelines" as SciFi likes to theorize.

So, what a diversion this ambitious, yet somewhat confusing take on, well, Reality is. Critics ranged from raving praise to dubbing Belgian helmer Jaco Van Dormael's perhaps overlong meditation on time, space and love a complete waste of time. But, with Many Worlds, time can't really be "wasted". See how I did that?

Oscar-winner Jared Leto is pretty good as Nemo Nobody, a 118-year-old man reflecting on his life, and most importantly on the decisions he made that created his own "branch". Most of this in an unchallenging heteronormative fashion involves which girl he chooses, or doesn't chose to spend his life with. Nobody, you see, is the last living mortal person alive at a time when mortality has been nearly wiped out by infinite cell regeneration. But, that's for another film. Really, as Dormael spends literally no time explaining how the world got to where it is.

The risk of such a far-reaching premise is that it collapses under its own weight -- which the film ultimately doesn't -- or that you never get "everything explained" in the end, as in the Big Reveal. Did Nobody actually live two, or even three simultaneous existences? Is it possible to wind Time backward once the Universe reaches its fullest Big Bang expansion?

Alas, these big questions aren't really answered. But the Ride is pretty entertaining thanks to some of best Film Editing you'll ever see. A team of Editors (I think including Dormael) must have worked for months to splice together the multiple threads of the story. If, a la Christopher Nolan, you are a fan of film technique then Mr. Nobody is for you. If you want your stories a bit more well-explained, and wrapped up, then you might pass on this one.

Or, maybe the Branch You doesn't pass on it. Ha ha. Sorry...

Love and (Not) Rockets

Well well well. Perhaps the long-in-the-tooth Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has some life after all. I have read recently that Disney has milked the legendary comic book-cum-film franchise, quite literally, to death. In the name of profit, perhaps.

Once again, the great Taika Waititi saves the day.  It wasn't that long ago that the MCU -- with Disney only recently having bought Marvel Studios -- was gasping a bit for air. Enter half-Maori (Te-Whanau-a-Apanui) creative Waititi who sends us Thor-Ragnarok, which was not only a stunning visual entertainment, but funny in only the way Taika can do funny. I can't even say "Korg" without laughing.

Thor: Love and Thunder has perhaps toned down the dire stakes and visual feast of Ragnarok, in exchange for an intimately personal story about love, family...and of course Thunder. And it is damn funny. Who else would have one of the central narratives of the story be a a God weapon that is jealous of another God weapon, so much that its God-owner, Thor, has to coo to it to make sure it doesn't emit a "janky Bifrost" (LOL) at a key moment in the story.

And the story here is that Thor, wherever he is on the rather complex timeline of the MCU has been languishing and growing a "Dad bod" as he pines for his lost friends, and most importantly, is lost girlfriend, Jane Foster. All is certainly not well, but to steal a phrase from a Shakespeare professor I had at Cal State Northridge, we do need a real "threat" to move things along.

Enter a God Assassin, played with scenery-chewing relish by Christian Bale. Purely out of spite against Gods, he not only threatens the Universe, but does so while kidnapping a bunch of kiddoes from the village/themepark thingy that Ragnarok has become after its destruction in...well, I forget which MCU entry managed that neat trick. That's it, that's the setup.

The storylines mostly concern those that have loved, and lost. In particular Thor and Jane. What Thor doesn't know -- what he can't know -- is that Jane has Stage 4 something-Cancer and is not well. But, she manages to get Thor's Hammer to reassemble and literally becomes Thor, while Thor himself settles for a second rate weapon, nonetheless forged out of a dying star, or some such MCU nonsense.

Following a brief, and perhaps unnecessary detour to visit the rotund Zeus, played by the rotund Aussie actor Russell Crowe and steal Zeus's Thunderbolt (oh, I see what you did there, Taika) the apocalyptic scene plays out in due course. And, things end in both a satisfying, and sad fashion. No spoilers.

Overall, Thor: Love and Thunder delivers the kind of action, visual spectacle and humor that we have come to expect from some entries in the series (Guardians of the Galaxy, anyone?). And of course it has Korg, which is worth the price of admission.

What just happened

 

I read reviews of this film before, and after I watched. I love the Clickbait web pages that promise to "explain the ending" but never do. Spoiler alert, they don't. Mainly, my complaint about Sundown is I have no idea what happened at the end.

The beginning, and middle, are pretty interesting. I love Tim Roth -- although am becoming convinced every character he plays is Tim Roth -- and he, of course, has to carry the film or it fails. He is very good. Roth plays a British fellow on Holiday with his family. From the beginning you aren't sure about a lot of things, including if the woman (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg) is his wife. Apparently, that is director Michel Franco's gig - obfuscating what might otherwise be clear.

OK, I buy that. But at some point it ought to be a bit clearer. Is it? Kinda yes, and kind no. The woman's mother dies, the family returns to London -- minus Roth's character -- and everything gets pretty interesting. A existential drama turns into a love story, and then a crime thriller.

Then, what? The final frame features a shirt draped over a chair with waves breaking in the background. Huh? I like ambiguity but this was a bit much for me. But, the critics loved the film. So, who am I to judge.

This Revenge Fantasy is no Bull

 

Nearly no critics did not like this grueling, Django Unchained style film. And what's not to like, unless you are even a little bit squeamish. Then you should probably avoid this Paul Andrew Williams entry. Because it starts violent and gory, and goes downhill from there.

The basic plot is almost too simple to lay out. The story of a brutal Mob Enforcer betrayed and seemingly murdered by the same mob, then miraculously returning to wreak vengeance is so simple, it is, itself a Trope. As many have observed, Neil Maskell is impossible to turn away from as the titular Bull (think DeNiro in Taxi Driver) , and David Hayman is almost better as the "ruthless Mob boss" from Central Casting.

If their great tradition of Mob Cinema is to be believed, the Brits are about the scariest Organized Criminals on the Planet - with the exception of Bratva. I soooo don't want to ever cross Bratva. Nope.

But Bull is not about the acting, or the direction or photography, all of which are first rate. It is about the lean, spare almost anorexic efficiency of how Williams tells the story. This efficiency is enhanced by a great narrative technique: the back-story of how Bull "dies" is told in flashbacks, chronologically, as the main story moves forward. Again, nothing particularly new here, but the technique is used so well it fits perfectly with the films overall manic purpose.

Clocking in at 88 minutes, Bull is a full speed freight train that starts fast and shifts into super high gear, never letting up until its curious Ending.

Yes, about the Ending. WTF? Is Bull actually a Demon from Hell (a la the excellent Nicholas Gage film Drive Angry)? Is this all a fever dream of a slowly dying Bull, who has been lit on fire and shot with a shotgun? We may never know. And that is probably very OK.

The Cinematic "prose" is Lean (Ha ha)

While I am a lifelong member of the David Lean Marching and Shouting Society, I had actually never heard of this minor jewel. Glad I checked it out.

In an earlier review I praised Lean's masterpiece, "Great Expectations" for remaining true to the spirit of the Dickens classic, while creating something new, as films so often do. "Madeleine" has more of a challenge, being based on a sensational True Crime story from the 19th Century.

Quick summary, daughter of a upper middle class family in 19th Century Glasgow has fallen in love with a smoldering French Lothario, while her by the books Christian Father desires that she matches with a some what milquetoast-y fellow who probably has 100 quid a year, or more. The story does involve murder, but I won't spoil it by saying much more.

Ann Todd, at the time the wife of David Lean is solid as the tortured daughter, and the cast as a whole is quite good. What Lean and screenwriters Stanley Haynes and Nicholas Phipps do so well is to spin the real-life story into something combining Henry James with Daphne Du Maurier, with a hint of Noir. This is 1950, mind you, for some the very height of the genre.

Like Stanley Kubrick, Lean's film-making is robust, meaty and always artistic. An example of this is a scene part way through the film where Madeleine and her Lothario are on a hillside above the Scottish resort town of Rohr (don't know the spelling) and hear music coming from the Pub down in the town. M starts dancing, and tries to get her man to join in.

Dancing, of course, post Hays code and pre- nudity in films is a metaphor for Sex, and as the camera deftly cuts back and forth between the townspeople dancing sweatily, and our two Lovers doing so more sedately. There is that classic cut where, it is assumed, they have had sex but they are completely dressed. They might as well be smoking cigarettes, the implication is so clear,

Much else about Madeleine is to be praised, including the Score, and of course Art Direction and Cinematography. I don't think there are a lot of Lean detractors, but they probably exist. If you like or love Lean, and haven't seen this one, Amazon has the excellent Criterion Collection version: Restored Film digitally transferred - presumably first for DVD. Streamed on a decent HD TV the film looks exquisite.

I don't usually compare the book to the movie, but...

 

I had seen this solid Carl Franklin thriller a few years ago. I recently read the book, and have fallen in love with Walter Mosley. I'm a big fan of Noir, Crime Thrillers, and trying to expand my reading of BIPOC authors.

Anyway, I did really like this, the second time. Only thing, I felt the book did do a better job of capturing the spirit of racisim that existed in post-war LA, especially from the point of view of the main character, Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins. I will literally watch anything that has Denzel Washington in it, and here he is smooth, savvy self-assured as Mosley's GI Bill homeowner-turned-factory worker. What we don't know as that in this, the first Easy Rawlins mystery, Easy is learning to be what he will become in future books, a Private Detective. Or "Private Dick" as Jennifer Beals's Daphne Monet almost spits out when she first meets our hero.

The direction is assured, the screenplay sometimes a bit creaky, but largely true to Mosely's novel. Some reviewers have pointed out that the film takes a bit of a left turn in the Third Reel. I kept waiting for a crucial scene in a remote hideaway (won't spoil it, read the book) but that is morphed into a shootout in a Malibu house.

Cast here is top-notch. I would say, perhaps, Tom Sizemore as the sleazy gangster Albright may be best. He kind of inhabits the role. Beals is just OK as Daphne. I suppose the issue I had was with her hair and makeup - and costume. I kept thinking they dressed and made up Faye Dunaway way better in Chinatown. Not sure what to make of the minor characters, as they mostly seem a bit cardboard. Was expecting more from Don Cheadle as Mouse. Mouse is a crucial character in the book, albeit one who, although talked about a lot only appears in person in the second half. Cheadle seems to be thoroughly enjoying the role, but I don't think he ever nails it. Perhaps I was distracted by the Gold implants in his teeth.

Overall, taken separately from the book, "Devil" is a good film. Enjoyable, and breezy. A great slice of post-war LA. If you read the book, or plan to, perhaps watch the film first. Must my suggestion.

Love in the (Magical) Afternoon

 I spend a lot of time reviewing older films, so I thought I would take on a (very) recent one. 

Anyone who has read my reviews knows that I tend to insert personal details into them. I suppose that is one way I connect with Film - on a personal level. The Harry Potter series of books and films has a special significance for me, as my daughters grew up reading the books, and seeing the films. I had the good fortune of attending a handful of special screenings of the films at the Warner Brothers lot with my daughter, Ali.

Regardless of how one feels about the "Wizarding World" is it is now so Corporately known, it is hard not to love the story both of how J.K Rowling struggled for years to get her books noticed (because she was a Female Fantasy writer?) and also how later Alan Horn of Warner Brothers promised her that he would shepherd the beloved books into legitimately good films. She didn't believe him, at first, but he came through. Mainly because he involved her in the production -- and she let go of the actual screenplay writing -- and early on, brought in the marvelous Steve Kloves to do the adapatation.

In some ways, in "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore" the band is back together. Minus Horn, who parlayed a highly successful run at WB to take perhaps the most coveted position in Hollywood, Head of Studio at Disney. But Rowling and Kloves re-unite to create a whole new story, that is not based on a book. They kind of "Game of Thrones" it, to some extent. Literally, and figuratively.

The world of this FB film is not the relatively happy world of the Harry Potter films. Oh, yes, they were tinged with darkness, but early on, and even through the end the kids -- grown into adults -- were what really drove the story. Here, no such luck. The eerily-named Grindelwald -- the name even sounds German -- is attempting to exert the Magical world equivalent of White Supremacy, by taking over the Worldwide Confederation of Magic with an aim toward wiping out the non- pure-blood "Muggles". 

How and why, and how it ends is for you to find out. I do not include Spoilers in my reviews. The conflict itself sets the stage for a multi-layered, surprisingly complex drama that is peppered with action set pieces. Jude Law plays a young-ish Aldus Dumbledore, excellent Danish actor Mads Mikkelson takes up the character of Grindelwald from Johnny Depp (that's a whole nother story) and the entire cast is brilliant. Veteran Wizarding World helmer David Yates turns in perhaps his best effort to date, and James Newton Howard's score pays just enough homage to John Williams without sounding obsequious.

 But, again, the accomplishment of FB III is how it juggles numerous very human story threads against the backdrop of a "the world is going to end" conflict. In that sense, another film where a small human drama plays out against a much larger backdrop, Casablanca, comes to mind. Dumbledore has been rumoured for years to possibly be Gay, or Bi. I won't say whether that is confirmed our denied here (I missed FB II, so don't scold me if it was revealed there), Eddie Redmayne is pining for his lost love. I would watch a film that was just about Eddie Redmayne pining for his lost love, he is so, so good. And numerous seemingly minor characters attain nearly Cosmic significance. Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowlaski is about the best "schmo" I can remember in film. Or, at least, for quite some time. And, in "Seabiscuit" fashion he plays a role in the Resolution that I, again, won't spoil.

Finally, Fantastic Beasts is really about the Beasts. And Magical they are. From the brilliant creations of the Qilins to the horrifying Beast which inhabits a Wizard prison in Germany, the SFX folks really went way, way beyond the call of duty. If you love the Wizarding World, or even if you don't you should spend some time here. You will not regret it.