Wednesday, April 13, 2022

What I Watched While Recovering from Covid - Hits and Misses

[I review "House of Gucci," "Lucy and Desi," "Flee," "The French Dispatch," "Life & Beth," and "The Thing About Pam."]

Yep.  I got it.  After getting vaxed and boosted and being careful, I managed to avoid the dreaded Covid for over two years, and then once I thought the world was doing better, and I let my guard down by traveling to Washington State for a party, I GOT IT!

Yuck.  And it's embarrassing.  Admitting to getting Covid is almost like admitting to doing something wrong.  I feel there is a stigma in there somewhere, so in addition to feeling like crap physically, I have to feel like crap that I got it.  

So 5-10 days of quarantine feeling like crap (cough, cough) is one thing, but the worst part?  The boredom and isolation.  So good thing I had lots of content on my beloved telly.  I was entertained. (And I read some books too!)


So here is what I watched:


Movies



House of Gucci (2021)


Family intrigue in the House of Gucci.

I know I am rather late to this party, but there was that little thing called The Pandemic, and I lost interest in going to the theatre, so wasn't able to see this film until it just now showed up for rent on Apple+.  And even though I am late to the party, I wanted to see if this film, along with Lady Gaga and Jared Leto, deserved to be robbed of Oscar nods.  

After all of the buzz around the film and Gaga's and Leto's performances, the film garnered only one Oscar nomination - hair and makeup!  How can that be?  We know Leto will do anything to make his role work.  Who can forget his losing 40 pounds for his Oscar winning role in "The Dallas Buyer's Club?"  And Lady Gaga reportedly kept her Italian accent day and night for nine months while filming this. She was nominated for an Oscar for her first starring role in "A Star is Born." Was that a flash in the pan?

I had to get to the bottom of this!

The film is the true story of the family machinations that brought down the House of Gucci, a powerful fashion brand that dominated the fashion world for much of the mid-20th century. Lady Gaga plays Patrizia Reggiani, a Liz Taylor look-alike, who meets Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver) at a party in 1970.  She is beautiful and charming, he rather shy and awkward, but when she heard his name, ka-ching! Patrizia made a point to get herself a date with Maurizio and through sheer force of will, her will, he fell in lover with her.  He didn't have a chance.  Patrizia was a force of nature.  They married but all was not well in the Gucci family.  Maurizio's father, Rodolpho (Jeremy Irons - and no one does bored aristocrat like he does!), did not approve of his only son marrying Patrizia, thinking her a gold digger. Duh. But Patrizia had ambition, more ambition than her husband, and when Rodolpho died, she constantly worked on Maurizio to take out his uncle Aldo (Al Pacino) and cousin Paolo (Leto). Patrizia didn't have much to worry about with Paolo.  He was a sad character.  As his own father, Aldo, says about him, "He's an idiot, but he's my idiot."

Maurizio moves up in the company but his marriage to Patrizia fades and he unceremoniously discards her, even though they have a daughter together.  However, Patrizia is not going down without making Maurizio pay. And with the help of her psychic, Pina (Salma Hayek), she plots her revenge. 

So...after watching all two hours and 38 minutes of this film, I have come up with my conclusion.

Somebody associated with this film pi**ed somebody off, because not only should this film have been nominated (I mean it was directed by Ridley Scott, for god's sake!), but both Gaga and Leto were robbed.  They both should have been nominated because their performances were brilliant.  

The film, with a screenplay by Becky Johnston and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book "The House of Gucci" by Sara Gay Forden), was beautiful to look at and was engaging, all two hours and 38 minutes of it. It captured the opulence of the very rich.  Leto did what he usually does.  He embraced the role fully from his latex face makeup to his fat suit, all making him unrecognizable.  But makeup and prostheses aside, he brought the role of the sad, incompetent Paolo Gucci to life.  And Lady Gaga.  She was amazing in this.  Never once did I think I was watching the superstar singer.  I was watching the beautiful and charming Patrizia Gucci make waves all over Milan and Lake Como.

If we are going to have 10 movie nominations (something I don't agree with, by the way), this one totally deserved to be in that group.  It certainly could have replaced "Drive My Car," which in my opinion did not deserve to be in the Best Picture category.  Likewise, when I compare Best Supporting Actor nominee Jesse Plemons performance in "The Power of the Dog" to Leto's, though a good performance, no comparison.  Likewise, much as I enjoyed J.K. Simmons as William Frawley in "Being the Ricardos," his part was so small, again, no comparison, and much as I like Ciaran Hinds as an actor, I hardly remember him in "Belfast."  In my mind, Leto could have taken one of those places.  

As for Lady Gaga, she should have been nominated for Best Actress instead of Kristin Stewart.  If you read my review of "Spencer," you know I hated that film.  It made a mockery of Princess Diana, and though Stewart's performance was okay, she mimicked Diana's mannerisms but there was no there there.  And then she had the gall to wear shorts to the Oscars!

As for the other actors, Al Pacino was quite wonderful as Aldo Gucci, Maurizio's uncle.  He was uncharacteristically toned down, well, as toned down as Al can get.  Jeremy Irons?  What can't he do? And Adam Driver as Maurizio.  His role was less flashy than the others, but crucial to the film and he was great.  Though he has consistently been nominated for awards, I still feel he is an underrated actor.  You don't hear his name come up in "greatest actors" conversations, but he is right up there.

And as for the film itself, though I am not a fan of movies that run two hours and 38 minutes, this one didn't feel that long.  My gauge on such things is whether or not Hubby stays awake, and he was awake for the entire film!  And the film did move along. It's a fabulous, real life soap opera.  My only other criticism is that I wish there had been more time spent on the ending of Patrizia's and Maurizio's marriage and why she chose to do what she did.

Rosy the Reviewer says...an enjoyable and satisfying film experience that deserved more than one Oscar nomination!


Lucy and Desi (2022)


The rise of Lucy and Desi and how "I Love Lucy" changed Hollywood.

"Being the Ricardos" was a fine dramatization of a time in Lucille Ball's and Desi Arnaz's marriage but this is the real thing.  Directed by Amy Poehler and with the help of Lucy and Desi's daughter, Lucie Arnaz Luckinbill, who also narrates, this film gives insight into not just Lucy and Desi's marriage but Lucy and Desi themselves.  Lucie shares her mother's tapes and videos, never-before-heard or seen, and from them we see the personal side of Lucy and Desi.

Written by Mark Monroe, the film covers each of their careers - Lucy as a young girl growing up in Jamestown, New York but leaving home early, heading for New York where she modeled and was a chorus girl on Broadway. She was discovered by Hollywood and went under contract with RKO.  She was happy for the work, did what she was told but never really made it past the "B" movies to stardom.

Desi started out in Cuba in a rich family but when the Cuban Revolution of 1933 occurred, Desi's father lost everything and the family fled to Miami.  Desi had musical talent, formed a band, and was discovered by Xavier Cugat which in turn led to him starting his own band, The Desi Arnaz Orchestra, where he played the conga drum and sang.  He was credited with introducing the concept of conga line dancing.

Desi had appeared on Broadway in "Too Many Girls" and when he was called to Hollywood for the movie version, he met Lucy.  They fell in love and married. However, his touring schedule and her work kept them apart for much of their early marriage which led them to think of what they could do together.  And "I Love Lucy" was born.  They did the TV show so they could be together.

In "Being the Ricardos," Nicole Kidman did a good job of portraying some of Lucy's famous comic moments on the show, but there is nothing like seeing the real thing.  This documentary has many of Lucy's funniest moments, reminding us what a gift she had for physical comedy. The irony was that Lucy was not a funny person.  In fact, she was a very serious person who took the work of being funny very seriously. But she was an actress.  She knew how to get a laugh. And more importantly, she was not afraid to look silly or unattractive in order to get that laugh. She put in hours and hours of rehearsal so it would all work.

Though Desi was often overshadowed by Lucy, he was the glue that held it all together, and he turned out to be a good producer. Because the quality of the film that played on the East Coast wasn't very good, he came up with the idea of filming the show live with an audience using three cameras, an innovative concept at the time. He also invented "re-runs." Desi and Lucy formed Desilu Productions and eventually bought RKO Pictures, the very studio where Lucy had been under contract and where they had met. Desilu was responsible for such TV shows as "Star Trek," "The Untouchables," "Mission Impossible," and so many more. 

But over time, it all became too much for Desi. He just didn't enjoy it, and the marriage suffered. Lucy and Desi divorced, married others, but always maintained a close relationship until Desi's death.

Like "Being the Ricardos," the documentary also deals with Lucy being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee for registering as a Communist but doesn't dwell there as much as the dramatization did.

Seeing this old footage from the "I Love Lucy" show brought back so many memories.



I was five years old when we got our first TV, so I guess I must have started watching Season 2 (the show started in 1951).  Funny how I remembered every bit of the footage shown and it's still so funny. And it was groundbreaking as well.  Never had a pregnancy been a focal point of a TV show before.

Bette Midler, Carol Burnett, and Norman Lear all weigh in about the influence Lucy had on television and on them. Lucy was dedicated to helping other women come up and Carol and Bette share their experiences and friendship with Lucy.

Those of you who grew up with Lucy and Desi will love this and so will those of you who didn't.

Rosy the Reviewer says...a fitting tribute to television icons (Amazon Prime).


Flee (2021)


An animated documentary about a man forced to flee Afghanistan as a boy and the secret he had to live with.

Despite the fact that this film had three Oscar nominations this year – Best International Feature Film, Best Documentary Feature and Best Animated Feature Film – you might not know about it, but now you will. And that’s a good thing because this is one of the best films of 2021 and you don’t want to miss it.

This Danish film, written and directed by Jonas Poher Rasmussen, is the true and harrowing story of Amin Nawabi (not his real name), an Afghan refugee who shares his story about fleeing Afghanistan as a young refugee. Amin had fled Afghanistan after the Mujahideen took control in the 1990’s and arrived in Copenhagen alone. Rasmussen and Nawabi met as teens and became friends with Rasmussen eventually becoming a film director and Amin becoming an academic. As adults, they reconnect for this documentary so that Amin can tell his story.

The story begins with the adult Amin lying on a couch looking straight ahead telling his story for the first time, beginning with his childhood in Afghanistan, a happy one until his father was taken away by the communists in the 1980’s. When the Mujahideen gained power, the family – Amin’s mother, two sisters and brother - escaped to Russia where, overstaying their visas, they lived a fearful life, until Amin’s other older brother in Sweden was able to help. Several harrowing attempts to escape with traffickers ended badly – imagine being in a container on a container ship with inadequate food, water or air. Finally, Amin is chosen to make his way alone, and when he surrenders himself to Danish officials, asking for refugee status, he must tell a lie that haunts him into his adulthood and is the reason he needs anonymity for this film.

And then there is the side story. Amin knew he was gay from a very young age but there wasn’t even a word for homosexual in Afghanistan. He felt it was something that would bring shame on his family so he kept it to himself and now as an adult he is having trouble committing to marriage to his partner, Kasper.

Though this is a documentary, it is mostly animated, an unusual device for a documentary, but it works, and it provides anonymity for the characters. And considering what is going on in the Ukraine right now, and the on-going refugee crisis around the world, it’s very timely. The film shows the horrors of what so many of our fellow humans have gone through and are going through to escape persecution and find a place of freedom and safety in this world, things many of us take for granted. This film is a compelling and poignant plea for compassion for refugees that ends on a note of hope. Keep some tissues handy.

I always think I don’t like animated movies anymore. Been there, done that (thank you, Mr. Disney). I’m all grown up now. I don’t do animated films, but then I take the plunge, surprise myself, and in so doing, discover some wonderful films like this one.

.
Rosy the Reviewer says…a chilling yet poignant reminder of the plight of refugees. Refugees are not immigrants. Most immigrants have time. Refugees must flee! A must see film!
(Hulu and on DVD)





Wes Anderson's homage to journalists.

For some, writer/director Wes Anderson is an acquired taste…and it’s a taste I have acquired! I have loved his movies. From “Rushmoreto “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” to The Isle of Dogs,you can count on Anderson to bring original, funny, and yes, sometimes weird, movies to the screen. And obviously actors galore have acquired the taste as well. Everyone seems to want to work with him and this film is no exception.

This time Benicio Del Toro, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, Henry Winkler, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Timothee Chalamet and Owen Wilson star along with too many others to list. Okay, I will list some more: Elizabeth Moss, Willem Defoe, Liv Schreiber. Did I miss anyone? I actually did. There are more.
This is Anderson’s homage to journalists, specifically those who worked for “The New Yorker,” a distinguished cast of journalists, but here the magazine is called “The French Dispatch,” published out of a little French town called Ennui-sur-Blasé, which is quite funny all by itself. The film plays out as a series of articles from the magazine where the viewer literally steps into the articles – an obituary, a travel guide and three feature articles
.
In the first of the feature articles, Benicio del Toro plays Moses Rosenthaler, an imprisoned murderer who also paints. His female prison guard (Lea Seydoux - gee, I forgot to mention her) acts as his nude model when she’s not putting him back into his strait jacket and “guarding” him. His abstract painting of her becomes famous with the help of the Cadazio Uncles and Nephews Gallery led by Adrien Brody.

In the second segment, Anderson pays homage to the French student movement of the 60’s as writer Frances McDormand gets romantically involved with Zeffirelli (Chalamet), one of the leaders of the youth movement, thus losing her objectivity for her story.

And finally, Jeffrey Wright (sheesh, someone else I forgot to mention!) plays food writer, Roebuck Wright, a James Baldwin-esque writer, who while interviewing the special police chief, whose job is to provide special food for the police, gets involved in a kidnapping.

Written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, and Hugo Guinness, the film is a sort of anthology with each segment able to stand on its own. There are all kinds of literary allusions and insider jokes relating to the New Yorker and its writers and the art and culture of New York and Paris during the mid 20th century, and it can be fun to try to catch those, not to mention recognizing all of the actors who come and go. It's all very French and satiric, and Anderson uses absurdist humor in parts 1 and 2 respectively to comment on "What is art?" and youth protests. Not sure what the third one was doing, but props to Anderson for paying homage to journalists of that era, journalists who wrote beautifully and took risks. It is a good reminder of a time when print media was king. Sadly, that has mostly been replaced by the “anything goes” Internet.

It's all unmistakably a Wes Anderson film, a dizzying array of madcap antics and beautiful images, something you can count on from Anderson, but it's not one of my favorite Anderson films. Points for ambition, but I think he just tried to do too much. There is a lot going on at all times and some of it is incomprehensible. It has the feel of “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” but, for me, not as much fun. I was scratching my head too much.

Rosy the Reviewer says…if you are an Anderson fan, this might be a disappointment. It was for me.
(HBO)

TV


Life & Beth (2022)


Beth is 40, unmarried, and childless and wondering how she got there and where she is headed.

I know that Amy Schumer can be polarizing, because she is not afraid to "go there."  Some of the things that come out of that innocent face of hers...but women comics have had a difficult road. Women often aren't considered funny.  John Belushi famously said his female counterparts on SNL were not funny, Jerry Lewis said female comedians weren't funny and author/journalist Christopher Hitchens said women in general were just inherently not funny.  But what did they know?  Belushi didn't live a very smart life, Lewis didn't respect women and was supposedly an abuser and Hitchens was just a grouch.

I admit up front I am an Amy fan.  And she proved her worth at the Oscars when she came out after the slap heard round the world and said, "Did I miss anything?" Brilliant. Even before that she and Wanda and Regina were killing it as hosts. And they were funny! 

But whether you are an Amy fan or not, this series shows a very different side of her.  Yes, it's funny and she still goes there, but she is toned down. She almost plays straight woman to a cast of odd characters. You see, Beth (Schumer) is not a particularly happy women.  She is a wine cellar rep who feels the clock is ticking on her life.  She is almost 40, unmarried, childless and then her mother dies and her mother's death shakes up her life. 

So Beth moves out of Manhattan, back to her childhood town and home on Long Island, where she has to confront many painful childhood memories and try to rekindle her relationship with her sister, Ann (Susannah Flood). In flashbacks, between Beth's middle school years and her adulthood, we see where Beth's angst came from: middle school bullying, her parents' divorce, her mother's affair with her best friend's father, the constant stream of new men coming and going in her mother's life, a boating accident that ruined her high school volleyball career and her dealing with all of that by pulling her hair out.

But she also meets John (Michael Cera), a local farmer who doesn't seem to have a filter.  He's a nice guy but very flat and socially awkward and just too darn honest.  Perhaps Beth needs that. But underneath that flat exterior he also has a sense of humor, though an odd one.  He thinks it's fun to read out loud the items for sale for less than $100 in his local paper.  And, actually, you know what?  It was quite funny.  I need to do that.

Perfect casting for the young Beth (Violet Young) and was that David Byrne playing Beth's doctor? Michael Rappaport plays Beth's ne'er do well father, Leonard, the kind of Dad who thinks it's funny when his daughters are entering the kitchen to pretend he is going to put their poodle in the microwave. Now he is practically homeless and losing his memory. In flashbacks, we meet Beth's mother, Jane (Laura Benanti) as Beth relives their sometimes unhappy relationship. Excellent casting all around.

What I love about Amy is that she is unafraid to say just about anything.  She pushes the envelope.  Her bits don't always work, but I appreciate what she does. Her comedy is all about shattered expectations and awkward situations - life! - and she is always all in. She has no problem making fun of herself and she's not a skinny bitch.  She's a real girl. She makes me smile. 

Created by Amy and written by Amy and a team of co-writers (she also directed four episodes), this is taken from her own life and she tackles the age old issue of confronting our parents' weaknesses and faults, realizing how those have influenced us, forgiving them and then moving on. This is a raw, more poignant Amy Schumer, and, yes, she still goes there, but there is a sweetness to where she goes.

Rosy the Reviewer says...it's all very droll but its a side of Amy you have never seen and a satisfying little series about grief, forgiveness, empowerment and hope. (Hulu)



The Thing About Pam (2022)


Who really killed Betsy Faria?

It’s difficult to know whether to take this seriously or not, though it’s a very serious subject. As Keith Morrison would say, it’s all about mu-u-u-r-der. And speaking of Keith Morrison, he actually narrates this dramatization of the Betsy Faria murder case that has been all over the news lately making us think that we are watching a “Dateline” re-enactment. And we kind of are, because "Dateline" was the first to blow the whistle on Pam Hupp, the "star" of this story, and they don't want you to forget that. But it’s actually a drama series starring Renee Zellwegger in a fat suit as Pam Hupp, the woman at the center of this murder case.

You see, Betsy’s husband, Russ (Glenn Fleshler), was actually convicted of killing his wife, Betsy, and went to jail. He was basically railroaded by an overzealous D.A. (Judy Greer), an incompetent judge and the testimony of Betsy's "friend," Pam Hupp, who testified that Russ was an abusive husband. Nevermind that Betsy had made Pam the beneficiary of her life insurance. Never mind that Russ had an alibi. If it wasn’t for Joel Schwartz (Josh Duhamel), Russ's very zealous lawyer who believed in his innocence, Pam’s husband would still be rotting in prison. And it was Schwartz who believed it was really Pam who murdered Betsy. And Pam went on to commit more crimes to cover her deed.

But why? Why would Pam, who seemed like such a nice Middle American woman, kill her best friend and frame her husband?

The first couple of episodes seem rather silly and odd considering the subject matter and may put you off, but stick with it. It gets better and I think the whole point of the style of this series is to show that seemingly nice, ordinary people, like your next door neighbor, can turn out to be killers. Because, you see, the thing about Pam? She was just so...nice. And, oh, yeah, she turned out to be a killer. Life is a tragicomedy sometimes, right?

Renee is behind this series along with Jason Blum of the Blumhouse horror movie factory, behind such films as the Purge series and "Paranormal Activity." But Blumhouse also does lighter, almost comic horror, like "Happy Death Day" and "The Hunt," and this would fall into that category.

Along with the mystery of who killed Betsy Faria, there is also the mystery of why Renee would want to play Pam Hupp considering the fat suit and all of the makeup she would have had to endure and Pam certainly is not a sympathetic character. But obviously this story was a fascination for her, and if you have seen live footage of Pam, you can see that Renee does an excellent job of capturing her. I actually forgot at times that I was watching Renee Zellwegger.

True crime purists might quibble over the quirky style of this series but, hey, we true crime lovers also have a sense of humor, right?

Rosy the Reviewer says…the thing about this series? It's love it or hate it. I grew to love it. I mean, Keith Morrison narrating? Renee in a fat suit? I enjoyed the ride because I love true crime, I love Keith and I am fascinated by fat suits! And Renee was clearly having a blast!
(Hulu, Peacock, Apple+)


Thanks for reading!

See you again soon!

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to like it and share it on Facebook, Twitter, or other sites; email it to your friends and/or follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rosythereviewer 

And next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). Go to IMDB.com, find the movie you are interested in.  Scroll over to the right of the synopsis to where it says "Critic Reviews" - Click on that and if I have reviewed that film, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list (NOTE:  IMDB keeps moving stuff around so if you don't find "Critics Reviews" where I am sending you, look around.  It's worth it)!

(NOTE:  If you are looking for a particular movie or series, check out this cool site: JustWatch.  It tells you where you can access all TV series and movies)


Monday, March 28, 2022

What Rosy the Reviewer Thinks is Worth Watching

[I review the TV series "Pam & Tommy," "The Tourist," "Inventing Anna," "Servant" and "The Gilded Age"]


Pam & Tommy (2022)



Who knew a mini-series about the theft of Pamela Anderson's and Tommy Lee's honeymoon sex tape would turn out to be one of the best series of the year?

Well, it is.

Lily James has come a long way from playing Cinderella in 2015 to playing Pamela Anderson in this new eight-part series on Hulu that highlights Pam’s Tommy Lee period (he was the drummer for Motley Crue, in case you are too young to remember) and the release of their infamous sex tape by a disgruntled carpenter who had worked for them. How did he come by the tape? Well, that’s half the story as the series is as much about Rand, the carpenter (played by Seth Rogan sporting an epic mullet and putting in a great performance), as it is about Pam and Tommy and how the release of the sex tape affected them all.
Lily embodies Pam from her eyebrows to her hair to her breathy voice to… Well, let’s just say she is Cinderella no more and there is a breast plate in evidence. And speaking of bodies, lots of flesh on display and one can’t help but think there is some CGI at work here, especially when Tommy has a conversation with his penis. And the penis talks! Yes, you heard me. It even gets a credit in the cast list (Jason Mantzoukas)!

Created by Robert Siegel, the series is part love story (Pam and Tommy got married after knowing each other only four days) and part revenge story. It’s a case of the rich and entitled brought down by the poor and overlooked. Let’s just say, Karma is a bitch because Tommy, wonderfully played by Sebastian Stan, is a thong-wearing d**k and jacks Rand around so much that Rand decides it’s payback time.

But this is also a story that is uniquely about the 90’s and the burgeoning power of the Internet, how it had, and still has, the power to invade the private lives of celebrities and feed our obsessions with them. Ironically, one could say that this series also does that by bringing all of this up again for Anderson, though it’s sympathetic to her. Whereas sex tapes helped the careers of Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton, this early sex tape hurt Pam, her marriage and especially her career, since she wanted to move beyond her sexy image and be taken more seriously. But ironically it actually helped Tommy whose career was already waning as punk rock was replacing heavy metal. In situations like these, women get slut-shamed and men get high-fived!

Rosy the Reviewer says…all in all, this is a really good, engrossing story, stylish, and a lot of fun, and, even if you aren’t interested in Tommy Lee and Pamela and their sex tape, this is just a really well-done series, one of the best of the year! And no, I never saw the tape. (Hulu)





Jamie Dornan is hot and steamy again, but he's not in another installment of “Fifty Shades of Grey.” No, this time Jamie is in trouble in the hot and steamy Australian Outback.

Our hero (Dornan), known only as “The Man” is The Tourist, driving through the desolate Outback, where out of nowhere, he is chased and run-down by a trucker driving a semi. The trucker is unseen except for his eerie whistling and his fancy cowboy boots. When our hero awakens, he is in the hospital and, not only doesn’t remember what happened, but can’t even remember his name or anything about his past. He has no ID, nothing. His only clue is a piece of paper in his pocket with an address and a time. So he checks himself out of the hospital to embark on a journey to regain his memory. Good thing because here comes those boots and the whistling trucker to pay him a visit in the hospital (I knew I would see those boots again)! When our hero arrives at the address on that piece of paper – a restaurant in a small town called Burnt Ridge - a bomb goes off right where he had been sitting. Yikes.
Someone wants him dead. But why? And is our hero really a hero? Or is he a bad guy? An assortment of strange characters try to help him sort this all out – Helen (Danielle Macdonald), a rookie lady cop with her own issues, the landlady at his B & B, a mysterious woman named Luci (Shalom Brune-Franklin) who seems to know something. And then there’s that guy buried underground who calls him! What? And that’s just the first episode.

What’s going on here? Well, written by Jack and Harry Williams and directed by Chris Sweeney and Daniel Nettheim, there are six episodes that take us on a harrowing journey full of surprises to find out.

Macdonald makes an unlikely leading lady but a wonderful one. What I particularly like about UK and Australian movies and TV shows is the fact that they hire actors who actually look like real people, and when you do that, those of us real people out in the real world can identify. Macdonald is a lovely woman, a bit Rubenesque by film standards, but that's what makes her easy to identify with and easy to root for.

I have had an interest in Australian shows, especially those that take place in the Outback, ever since "A Town like Alice" played on PBS. I find Australia a fascinating country and the Outback a forbidding landscape which makes it a wonderful backdrop for a series like this.

Rosy the Reviewer says…if you like thrillers with a Coen Brothers vibe, this is a must see. Another great series that you won’t be able to stop watching. (HBO Max)

 





The true crime story of con-woman Anna Delvey who bilked New York elite and her own friends of money to live a life as a socialite.
If you have been following my blog and/or reviews, you probably noticed that I am fascinated by true crime, and how people are led to do bad things (I’m obsessed with “Dateline” even though I already know the husband did it), but my particular fascination lately has been with cons and catfishing. I just can’t believe how people can be so easily manipulated, ignore red flags and suspend disbelief, especially when it comes to love and money. But I guess it’s because most people have good hearts and want to believe that is also the case with others. Unfortunately, no.
So that’s the long intro into why I was drawn to this new Netflix miniseries right out of Shondaland. You know, Shonda Rhimes, who most recently gave us the hot bodice-ripper Regency drama “Bridgerton,” but who also gave us – “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Scandal.” This series harks back to those more modern stories.
I had already seen the story of Anna Delvey (real name Anna Sorokin) – was it, oh, maybe, “Daaateline? (that's my Keith Morrison impression)” – so I knew what this was all about. I had actually read a book and some articles about her as well. Anna was a young woman who appeared to show up in New York City out of nowhere, lived in a $1500 per night hotel room and convinced everyone in the New York social set that she was a German socialite (she was really Russian) with lots of money. Her story was that she was in New York to start a foundation and arts center but was in fact trying to bilk banks and society folks out of millions.
When the series begins, Anna (Julia Garner) is at Rikers Island waiting to go on trial for her misdeeds, and Vivian Kent (Anna Chlumsky), a feature writer for “Manhattan” magazine wants to kick-start her career and write a story about Anna (this series is based on an actual article in "New York" magazine by Jessica Pressler).

So who was Anna Delvey nee Sorokin? What was her true story? Why did she do what she did? Vivian sets out to solve the mystery.

Fans of the TV show “Ozark” will recognize Julia Garner as Anna, though trying to recognize her bizarre accent is a different story, but that’s on purpose because Julia is playing a con-woman with a fake accent (she is really Russian pretending to be German). She is quite wonderful as Anna.

Anna Chlumsky hit it big as a child actress in “My Girl” back in 1991 but her career went on hiatus from 1999 to 2005 and, though she has had TV roles, most notably in “Veep,” she has largely avoided the same kind of fame she had as a child star. This series is as much about Vivian as it is about Anna, and I have to say, I could have done without that aspect. It was too much about her when I really cared about Anna and what she was up to, though my problem with Vivian's story could have been more about Chlumsky's acting than the actual storyline. Her acting style was too wide-eyed and intense, and I found her character annoying, which I don't think was the intent. I think this might have been a more powerful series if it had focused more on Anna and less on Vivian, but I understand the writers probably wanted to give props to Pressler who broke this story. But then, dare I say, perhaps, a different actress might have helped?

With that said, the series starts out a little slow, focusing on Vivian in her quest to get an interview with Anna but hang in there. In episode two, Vivian begins to interview Anna’s “friends,” and you start to get how Anna was able to do what she did - how she managed to con so many people and institutions, how she could be all things to all people, how despite the fact she posed as an heiress she was able to get her friends to pay for everything. She was very good at it. She embodied the adage, "The best defense is a good offense." If anyone questioned her, she just told them off. It appears that we regular folks are willing to ignore obvious red flags and be influenced by good acting, a load of arrogance and expensive shoes if it gets us close to the money.

Interesting fun fact. In real life, Anna was paid to have her story told and she is now famous around the world. So does the con continue and she got what she really wanted? Ironically everyone else connected with this case, victims included, benefited in one way or another as well.

This story might appeal more to women than men because, well, it's about a woman and Anna's crimes might not seem very big. I saw a comment from a guy responding to this series by saying, "What's the big deal? She just stole from her friends." Typical guy thing. He needs to see some real criminal activity. Okay, how about wire fraud and grand larceny? And whether friends or not, her stealing from them probably was a big deal to them considering it was in the tens of thousands and more. However, I found this to be a fascinating story and also a mystery. I watched to see why Anna did what she did and to answer this question: was she an evil sociopath?

A case could be made that this didn't need to be a nine-part series - I mean, isn't everything just too long these days? - but I will give it a break because I loved watching Julia Garner deliver this character and it is a fascinating story.

Rosy the Reviewer says…there seems to be some sympathy for Anna in this series and for what her final lofty goal was. You will have to decide for yourself if she was evil or not, because the series doesn't take a stand, but at the same time, you might ask yourself…do I really know the people I hang out with? (Netflix)




Servant (2019-)


***Possible spoilers***

Dorothy and Sean have lost their baby, Jericho. Dorothy hasn't handled the problem very well. In fact, she has a doll standing in as Jericho and everyone appears to be playing along, so much so, that a nanny is now on the scene to help with the charade. A very creepy nanny.

And that's what we have here. Creepy psychological horror. Sometimes I am in the mood for some psychological horror, aren't you? Maybe watching someone else deal with creepy makes our real lives less creepy.
Dorothy (Lauren Ambrose) is a TV anchor woman and Sean (Toby Kebbell) is a chef. Both are well-off financially if their beautiful Philadelphia brownstone is any indication but they are grieving the loss of their baby, Jericho, both in very different ways. Dorothy has not been able to accept that Jericho is gone, so her therapist has recommended that she have a therapy doll, which Dorothy treats as her living, breathing Jericho. Sean and Dorothy's brother, Julian (Rupert Grint), continue the charade when Dorothy is around but don't seem to have problems flinging the doll about when she is not.
Leanne (Nell Tiger Free) is the young nanny who shows up out of nowhere bringing with her three seasons of baggage. She doesn't think twice about taking care of the doll and acts as if everything is normal, that the doll is a real baby. Leanne is an odd duck and not someone I would want living in my house. I'm just saying. But then, the doll comes to life and becomes a living breathing baby! What? Is that really Jericho? Has Leanne somehow brought Jericho back to life? Or is it another baby?

Well, that's how it all starts, but if that isn't enough, turns out there is a cult after Leanne, the circumstances of Jericho's death come to light, the mysterious Aunt Josephine and Uncle George show up, and Leanne runs away with Jericho and is eventually tracked down and ends up as a prisoner in Dorothy and Sean's attic. What? I'm out of breath just relating all of that. And there is more, much more.

Is there supernatural stuff at work here or is there some kind of shared psychotic disorder going on? Or something else? And is Leanne good or evil?

Fans of Harry Potter will recognize an all grown-up Rupert Grint as Dorothy's ne'er do well, but very interesting brother, Julian, who has a best friend relationship with wine but who eventually gets sober. Both issues present their own problems. Ambrose, Kebbell and Free are all compelling and draw us into their complex stories that take place mostly in the very dark and claustrophobic Philadelphia brownstone. Ambrose is particularly good because she is not afraid to make her character unlikable and clueless, which she often is.

The series, created by Tony Basgallop, is all about psychological creepiness, with some dark humor thrown in, and there are many twists and turns, some of which make sense, some of which don't. But it's all very addictive despite the fact that Season 3 drags a bit. But hey, a Season 4 is already on the way and rumor has it that M. Night Shyamalan, who is one of the executive producers, expects this to go to six seasons.

Speaking of Shyamalan, his stamp is all over this when it comes to creepy and twisty. Remember his "The Sixth Sense?" That was creepy and twisty, right? It was so twisty in fact that I remember watching in the theatre with my daughter, and at the end, I looked at her quizzically, as in "What the hell just happened?" and she mouthed "Mom, he was dead (and sorry, if I just spoiled that for you but you deserve it if you haven't seen "The Sixth Sense.") Sometimes I am slow to get it. And there is a little of that here but maybe it's just me.
Rosy the Reviewer says...if you like supernatural creepiness, you will like this because it's creeeepy, addictive and hella good even if sometimes it doesn't make sense, but like I said, maybe that's just me. But, hey, there are at least three seasons to figure it all out. And did I say it was creepy?
(on Apple+)






It's all about old money vs. those vulgar nouveau riche social climbers.
If you have been missing "Downton Abbey," its creator Julian Fellowes has now given us fans this new HBO version about old money (think the Astors and the Vanderbilts) vs. new money, this time in 1880's New York, an era of social problems "gilded" by economic growth, hence the nickname The Gilded Age.

Bertha (Carrie Coon) and George Russell (Morgan Spector) and their daughter, Gladys (Taissa Farmiga, Vera's younger sister), and son, Larry (Harry Richardson), are the "new kids" on the block. New as in new money. George is a railroad tycoon and Bertha wants to use all that new money George is making to join high society. They have just built a huge house across the street from Agnes Van Rhijn (Christine Baranski) and her unmarried sister Ada Brook (Cynthia Nixon). Agnes is all about old money and does not approve of the Russells, and would never lower herself with an introduction, though she is dying to see inside their house. They are joined by Marion Brook (Louisa Jacobson, Mery's Streep's daughter, and she looks just like her), their young, pretty niece from Pennsylvania who has been left penniless after the death of her father and has nowhere to live. Marion befriends Peggy Scott (Denee Benton), a young ambitious African-American writer who also moves into the house to work for Agnes.

It's all about who is in and who is out when it comes to high society and Bertha is dying to get in. There is some romance for Marion and side stories involving drama among the servants, a middle class African American family, and a gay couple, very much a no-no in those days.

The actors are fine, though it took me awhile to warm up to Carrie Coon, who underplayed so much she almost put me to sleep. And the writing seemed stilted at times. But Nathan Lane is always fun (he plays one of the arbiters of high society) and Christine Baranski makes a good attempt at an American version of Violet Crawley, the Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith's character in "Downton Abbey"), complete with caustic, haughty bon mots.

Rosy the Reviewer says...Okay, this isn't "Downton Abbey," despite the upstairs downstairs formula and the rich folks, but the costumes and set design alone are worth your time. And remember, Fellowes is a Brit. This is his take on U.S. history and social manners, and I give him props for taking us on. Give it a chance. You will warm up to it. (HBO)


Thanks for reading!

See you again soon!

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to like it and share it on Facebook, Twitter, or other sites; email it to your friends and/or follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rosythereviewer 

And next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). Go to IMDB.com, find the movie you are interested in.  Scroll over to the right of the synopsis to where it says "Critic Reviews" - Click on that and if I have reviewed that film, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list (NOTE:  IMDB keeps moving stuff around so if you don't find "Critics Reviews" where I am sending you, look around.  It's worth it)!

(NOTE:  If you are looking for a particular movie or series, check out this cool site: JustWatch.  It tells you where you can access all TV series and movies)


Wednesday, March 9, 2022

The Road to the 2022 Oscars, Part 3: Which Film Will Win Best Picture?

[I review Best Picture nominees "West Side Story," "Belfast," "Nightmare Alley" and "Drive My Car"]

If like me, you participate in Academy Award competitions or you just want to be knowledgable around the proverbial water cooler or at cocktail parties, I feel it is my duty as Rosy the Reviewer, that critic you have come to count on for true, reliable (and often all about me) reviews, to review as many of the Best Picture nominees as possible before the event on March 27. So here we go.

And the nominees are...


Dune

The Power of the Dog

Don't Look Up 

Licorice Pizza

King Richard

CODA


As well as "West Side Story," "Nightmare Alley," "Belfast" and "Drive My Car," which I am reviewing here.

With the four reviews in this post, I have now reviewed all of the nominees (click on the links above for my earlier reviews) except "Dune" and "Licorice Pizza," but that's okay, because they are not going to win anyway (but if I watch them between now and the awards on March 27, I will probably review them, so watch this space, and if you didn't see "The Road to the 2022 Oscars, Pt. 1 and Pt. 2," here they are)

I could go into the whole issue of there being ten Best Picture nominees (which I don't agree with and don't get me started), but I won't so let's get on with it.



West Side Story (2021)


Stephen Spielberg decided he needed to remake "West Side Story."  Oh, no he didn't!

When I first heard that Steven Spielberg was remaking "West Side Story," my first thought was "Whaaaaat?"  Why?  Because number one, I hate remakes of perfectly wonderful films, and number two, you can't remake perfection.  I mean, the 1961 film was directed by Jerome Robbins, a king of Broadway musicals and Robert Wise, Hollywood royalty, and the film won Best Picture along with nine other Oscars. With music by Leonard Bernstein and lyrics by a very young Stephen Sondheim and choreography by Robbins, it also was the film version of a play that changed the face of musicals. So, I said out loud (I do that sometimes), Mr. Spielberg, don't mess with "West Side Story," and I decided to boycott it, which wasn't difficult since there was that little thing called the pandemic, so going to a movie theatre was no longer my idea of fun.  And it actually looks like the public agreed with me because the box office for this remake was disappointing.  

But then the Academy Award nominations came out and the film was nominated for Best Picture, not to mention nominations in several other categories, and it is also streaming for free on HBO Max and Disney+ so I decided I needed to do my due diligence as a critic. So here I am.  Despite my misgivings, I did go into watching the film with an open mind.  I really wanted it to be good. I really did. It wasn't. 

As a bit of background, back in the 50's, it was Robbins' original idea to make a contemporary musical play about Romeo and Juliet. So Romeo and Juliet became Tony and Maria, and the Capulets and Montagues became two rival gangs - the Sharks (the Puerto Rican gang) and the Jets (the white American gang) - both fighting for turf on the Upper West Side of New York City. The play was a smash on Broadway and the 1961 film adaptation won Best Picture and nine other Oscars, the most ever for a musical. The music, lyrics and choreography were all new and exciting, and it was unusual for a musical to deal with real life issues like race and immigration. This musical heralded the modern world. 

In this version (screenplay by Tony Kushner), Maria (newcomer Rachel Zegler) lives with her brother, Bernardo (David Alvarez) and his girlfriend, Anita (Ariana DeBose, nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress). Tony (Ansel Elgort) is just out of prison and is living in the basement of Doc's general store under the watchful eye of Valentina (Rita Moreno), Doc's widow.  And like the original, Tony and Maria meet at a dance, fall in love and all hell breaks loose from there. But in the meantime, there is that sublime music and fantastic dancing. 

When you try to remake a classic film, you run the risk of the remake being compared to the original, and in this case, since the 1961 film was so iconic, that couldn't be helped.

First of all, I can't quibble with the production values.  As in any Spielberg film, they were wonderful, though I missed some of the set design I have come to associate with the film, such as the underground parking garage.  And the acting was mostly fine, though I think that Elgort was miscast. He underplays too much, and I just didn't feel any passion coming from him. Likewise, there was something about the Riff character (Mike Faist) that didn't do it for me. However, I commend Spielberg for hiring an all hispanic cast to play the Puerto Rican characters, something that was not the case in the original. Also everyone did their own singing, again not the case in the original, but that's about all the props I can give this film that to me was not a satisfying film experience.  

So what went wrong?  

The opening was not at all inspiring. I know Spielberg was making a point about gentrification as the camera panned over the rubble of reconstruction.  But I missed the ominous whistling in the opening of the original. There was a little of it, but it was really down-played.  I also missed the underground parking garage where the Jets sang "When You're a Jet" with the finger-snapping choreography.  I mean, how many of us haven't copied that hopping and snapping down a deserted street late at night?  Duh-duh-da-da-da, duh-duh-da-da-da...

And what the heck was Rita Moreno doing in this film?  I guess I can answer my own question.  Spielberg created that character for her to play to give this remake an authentic feel.  See?  There she is, the original Anita.  Okay, I get it but when she sang "Somewhere," one of the most beautiful and romantic songs in the film, one that Tony and Maria are supposed to sing together, well, I lost my...well...you know. And to make matters worse, Moreno can't really sing. That beautiful song was just lost. 

Those all might seem like small things but put all together, I just couldn't buy this remake.  It lacked passion and it just didn't come together for me.

Okay, so Spielberg wanted to remake a classic film.  But why? He didn't really do anything new with it. It was fairly faithful to the original.  It was still in the 1950's. Why not update it?  Adapt it for the present day? Make it shorter? He did add some realism, making a stronger case for the immigration and racial issues in the story as well as adding the rise of gentrification, but even with that, the film lacked energy. 

Can you tell I am upset? I just can't fathom why Spielberg would want to take this on and think he could make it better. The only positive I can see in this new version is bringing this wonderful story, music and choreography to a younger generation who might have overlooked the original, but then I would say, "You have to see the original."

I was twelve when I saw the original film.  I was smitten with every moment of it, and I cried my eyes out at the end.  Did I cry at the end of this one?  Well, I did a bit, but it was an emotional response to the music which reminded me that seeing this film back in the early 60's was the beginning of my teen years, a time long gone. I was also reminded that my young daughter starred as Maria in a high school version of the play, another time that is long gone. My daughter is now 37 and lives in another state.  So there is a lot of emotion around this film, a reminder to me that time has moved on. But this story and the music - timeless.  I just wish Spielberg had done a better job with it.

Rosy the Reviewer says...it's not going to win Best Picture so see the original instead.                                                                                      (Streaming on HBO Max and Disney+)



Belfast (2021)

Actor/Writer/Director Kenneth Branagh's coming-of-age tale of his childhood in Belfast in the 1960's.

As the camera pans over a modern day Belfast in living color, it slowly fades to black and white and we find ourselves in 1969 Belfast at the beginning of The Troubles.  

Now if you don't know what The Troubles were you need to bone up, but basically it was a time where Northern Ireland was engulfed in a conflict that appeared to be between the Catholics and the Protestants, though it wasn't really a religious war.  It was a nationalistic conflict between those who wanted Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and those who wanted to stay, and since those who wanted to stay were mostly Protestants and were in the majority and those who wanted out - the Irish Nationalists and Republicans - were mostly Catholic and the minority, the conflict appeared to be a religious war. But it was indeed a war.  The Protestants took advantage of their majority and many made life miserable for the Catholics. Anyway, like I said, you need to bone up on that part, because the film takes place during The Troubles and it is always in the background.  It plays a major role, but the film is not really about that. It's really about family. It's Branagh's personal story of his childhood, a love letter to Belfast and the adult world seen through the eyes of a nine-year-old boy. 

As the film begins, we meet nine-year-old Buddy (Jude Hill), running up the street of his neighborhood, carefree, until a mob appears, reminding us of the time and place he lives in. He lives in Belfast with his mother (Caitriona Balfe) and brother, Will (Lewis McAskie).  His Dad (Jamie Dornan) is also around but works in England, so he is gone for weeks at a time, putting a strain on his parents marriage. They struggle over his Dad's desire to move to England because opportunities are better there and his mother's desire to stay.  But Buddy also has Granny (Judy Dench) and Pop (Ciaran Hinds) who live nearby, and the entire neighborhood is his playground, Protestants and Catholics living peacably together and everyone looking out for everyone else. Buddy plays with his friends, has a crush on a girl, goes to the pictures to see "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," a typical life for a young boy except there is always that ever present war playing out around him. (I couldn't help but wonder if that scene of the family enjoying "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" was the moment Branagh decided to become and actor)!

I usually have an aversion to overly precocious child actors but young Jude Hill is a wonderful young actor and, well, adorable.  I couldn't take my eyes off of his face.  Jamie Dornan has come a long way since he used to tie up Dakota Johnson in the Fifty Shades of Grey films and is a fine actor.  There is one scene in this film where Dornan's character comes to a realization and it plays out slowly on his face, one of those "a picture is worth a thousand words" moments.  Likewise, veteran actors Judy Dench and Ciaran Hinds can always be counted on to bring in wonderful performances and this film is no exception.  It's also refreshing to see actors allowing themselves to age naturally, unlike American actors.  Let's just say we are not supposed to look like Jane Fonda when we are 84.  But the main revelation for me was Caitriona Balfe, who I did not recognize at first, even though I had watched several seasons of "Outlander."  As Claire in "Outlander," I actually thought she wasn't a very good actress.  I found her to be stiff and overly formal, but here she shines as a woman fighting for her marriage, torn between her love of her husband and her desire to stay in Ireland. She is also gorgeous.  Just ask Hubby.

Rosy the Reviewer says...a sweet and poignant little film with a great Van Morrison soundtrack, but not likely to win Best Picture.                              (on DVD and for rent on Apple+, Amazon Prime and Vudu)



Nightmare Alley (2021)

An ambitious con-man running from his past hooks up with an unethical psychologist.

Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper) is a mysterious film noir figure running from what appears to be a murder. In fact, in true film noir fashion, he is a man of few words.  He says nothing for the first 11 minutes of this film. He joins up with a carnival where he meets Clem (Willem Dafoe), whose "act" is a geek show. So what is a geek show, you ask?  Let's just say the "ew factor" is very high.  It's an act in which a man bites the head off of a live chicken and eats it.  Clem seeks out alcoholics with troubled pasts to be his geeks, luring them in with promises of a temporary job, then regularly giving them opium-laced alcohol to keep them in line. So right there, you know this film is going to be dark.  They don't call this genre film noir for nothing. And yes, it shows the guy biting the head off of the chicken.  I just hope there is a disclaimer at the end of the film saying no chickens were hurt during the making of this film.

I can't help but wonder how the word "geek" came to be used for socially inept people when it was originally a guy biting the heads off of chickens. And who are these people who would pay to see such an act? But I digress.

Stan also meets "Madame Zeena (Toni Collette)" and her alcoholic husband, Pete (David Strathairn). Zeena is a so-called clairvoyant who with the help of her husband uses coded language to read the audience. Oh, the tricks of the carny trade that you can learn in this film.  Pete has a whole book with the coded language and he begins teaching tricks to Stan. But Stan is an ambitious guy. He is also a murderer. He kills Pete, steals his book and runs off with Molly (Rooney Mara), another carnival performer he has fallen in love with. 

A couple of years later, Stan is in Buffalo and has reinvented himself as a medium and has a successful nightclub act with the help of Molly, who uses the coded language from Pete's book to feed him clues.  All is going well for Stan until he meets psychologist Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett), who has figured out his act and is impressed with his skills.  However, she is not what you would call an ethical doctor.  Many of the Buffalo elite have been her patients and she has tapes of all of their sessions. The two join forces to con the rich out of their money.  But Stan is a loser and it doesn't go well for him.

Directed by Guillermo del Toro, who won the 2018 Best Director Oscar for "The Shape of Water  (the film also won Best Picture)," this is a remake of the 1947 film from the book by William Lindsay Gresham (del Toro also wrote the screenplay with Kim Morgan). The film has an all-star cast and breathtaking production design thanks to Tamara Deverell.  It felt like a film noir movie from the Golden Age of Hollywood - think "The Postman Always Rings Twice" or "Double Indemnity," with a little bit of Tod Browning's "Freaks" thrown in -  but at two and a half hours, it's just too long, though I have to say that Hubby stayed awake the entire time which says something about how mesmerizing this film is. And it didn't fall under my usual aversion to remakes since I had not seen the original and, anyway, remaking something after almost 75 years doesn't bother me as much (but don't mess with "West Side Story" - see review above).

I have never been a big Bradley Cooper fan.  Not sure why, but he is outstanding here.  His Stan is malevolent and self-serving but just sensitive and inept enough for you to care what happens to him.  Blanchett is her throaty-voiced, vampy self whom we have come to expect and Mara Rooney is the one person who seems to have a soul.  Ron PerlmanRichard Jenkins and Mary Steenburgen also make appearances.

I have to say that I knew how it all would end about halfway through the film, because I have this theory that appears to work almost every time.  If there is a plot element that is odd or a character, especially one played by a big name but the character doesn't appear to have much to do, that plot element will figure prominently at some point or that character will be the one who did it.  Anyway, even though I figured it out, that did not dampen my enjoyment of this film, if enjoy is the right word.  The film is very dark and there are not many redeemable characters but it is a satisfying, if too long, movie experience.

Rosy the Reviewer says...film noir at its finest, but again, not likely to win Best Picture.                                                                                            (streaming on HBO, HBO Max, Disney+ and Hulu) 



Drive My Car (2021)


After his wife's unexpected death, a reknowned actor and director travels to Hiroshima to direct a play and discovers not only his wife's secrets but comes to grips with his grief.

When one of the main plot elements is a man's wife dying and she doesn't die until an hour into the film, you know it's going to be a long movie. And this one is at a whopping three hours.

Actor and theater director Yūsuke Kafuku (Hidetoshi Nishijima), who is preparing to star in Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya," is married to Oto (Reika Kirishima), a screenwriter who seems to have her most creativity right after sex. One day, as Yūsuke is leaving for work, Oto tells him she wants to talk to him later that evening. But Yūsuke returns home late to find Oto dead from a brain hemorrhage. Two years later, Yūsuke has given up acting but accepts a residency in Hiroshima, where he will direct a multilingual adaptation of "Uncle Vanya".  Because of his glaucoma, the theater company requires that Yūsuke not drive but be chauffeured in his own car, his beloved red 1987 Saab 900 Trubo. He objects at first, but relents after meeting young Misaki Watari (Toko Miura), who proves herself to be a good driver. Over the course of the film, secrets are revealed in that car and Yusuke and Misaki bond, him sharing his guilt over his wife's death and she over the guilt she feels about her mother's death and each helps the other with their grief.

After the death of Oto, the car serves as a haven for Yusuke as he drives around listening to a tape of Oto reading him his lines when he was preparing to star in "Uncle Vanya." Later, it's a safe place for Yusuke and Misaki to share their stories.

If you are not a Chekhov fan or someone who enjoys the acting process, this might be a slog for you. The last half of the film consists of rehearsals for the play where not much happens. Even I, who does enjoy Chekhov and have dabbled in acting, found this to be tremendously tedious. 

I know this film, directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi with a screenplay by Hamaguchi and Takamasa Oe (based on a short story by Haruki Murakami), is all about collaboration and the creative process and life and death and the kitchen sink, it just went on so long I had to fast forward through some of it. Why do movies have to be so long to get the point across? Since this was not the only film I have seen recently that exceeds two hours by a mile, I am starting to think that our contemporary directors are having difficulty editing themselves, that every single filmed moment is important to them. They can't stand to let any of it go onto the cutting room floor. But let me say - less is more!

However, I must be alone in my views, because this film is the first Japanese film to ever be nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture, and it has also been nominated for Best International Feature (the category used to be called Best Foreign Film). Only a few films made in other countries have had that distinction, "Parasite," a film from South Korea, was one of them, a surprise win for 2020's Best Picture AND Best International Feature.  I really liked "Parasite."  I did not like this film.

But like "Parasite," will this film also have the distinction of winning Best Picture and Best International Feature?

Rosy the Reviewer says...No.                                                                         (In Japanese with English subtitles now streaming on HBO Max)


My Prediction for the Best Picture Oscar?  

Though it's not my favorite movie of the year nor is it my favorite Jane Campion film, I believe the winner will be:

"The Power of the Dog"

(though "CODA" could be a spoiler)


Thanks for reading!

See you again soon!

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to like it and share it on Facebook, Twitter, or other sites; email it to your friends and/or follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rosythereviewer 

And next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). Go to IMDB.com, find the movie you are interested in.  Scroll over to the right of the synopsis to where it says "Critic Reviews" - Click on that and if I have reviewed that film, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list (NOTE:  IMDB keeps moving stuff around so if you don't find "Critics Reviews" where I am sending you, look around.  It's worth it)!

(NOTE:  If you are looking for a particular movie or series, check out this cool site: JustWatch.  It tells you where you can access all TV series and movies)