16 August

We Need To Laugh: The New “Naked Gun” Will Do It For You.

by Jon Katz

Movie critics, in general, are the most pompous and self-important of all the critics. I find endlessly that too many movie reviews I see go on forever, and are much more about the critic showing off their vast knowledge of movies.

My idea is simple – to suggest whether the movie is worth seeing or not, with whatever caveats were essential to me.

This one is worth seeing. You will laugh more than once.

Today, Maria and I both went to see the newest iteration of “Naked Gun, From the Files of Police Squad.” I’m not going to waste your or my time by meticulously comparing the first Naked Gun, released in 1988  starring Leslie Nielsen,  to this one, starring one of the best actors in the country, Liam Nelson as the hapless and hilariously clueless Lt. Frank Drebin Jr.

Maria loved her way through this remake; I laughed up to about 70 percent.  She never stopped laughing. I worry sometimes that my age affects my response to movies. What happened in the old days doesn’t matter to me or you.

The film was hilarious, but I needed to accept that times change, audiences change, and Hollywood changes—a thoughtful review changes, too.

We went because we felt the country was in a grim state these days; we just wanted to have a good time and laugh. We did, more times than I can count.

I won’t even try to lay out the plot, nor does it matter in the least, which is the hallmark of the blockbuster superhero movies; their shadow hung over this comedy just a bit.

Liam Neeson was an inspired choice; he possesses a gravitas and seriousness that are perfect for deadpan acting, goofball antics, hilarious wordplay, and a kind of oblivious innocence and blundering that reminds me of W.C. Fields or the Marx Brothers, who were funny for the same reasons.

Chaos erupts all around him, but he never seems to notice it.

There is a timeless quality to many of the jokes in this movie, and not all of them work, but so many are packed into this film that every one that flops is followed by several that succeed.

The first Naked Gun was a great comedic movie because it was so skillfully inane. This one is an almost perfect comedy, thanks mainly to Neeson, but it didn’t quite reach greatness. It came close.

I got turned off near the point where the comedy in this one did a bit too good a job at flirting with the explosions, mobs, battles, loud music, and confusion of the movies that teenagers have come to love and expect.

I’ll sum up now: the movie is often hilarious and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. Neeson played it perfectly. The writers ran amok and without restraint, so there is plenty to laugh at.

Leeson’s deadpan gravitas brought out what makes slapstick comedy so funny: a performer who is so unwieldily gravely out to lunch that doing so many profoundly stupid things is funny. (Think of W.C. Fields kicking Baby Leroy out of a room.)

Whatever absurdity is exploding around him, this Lt. Trebin takes it seriously. I’m glad to say the movie is blessedly short – a refreshing 85 minutes. Children of almost every age will enjoy it, which will make the parents who take them happy.

I left the theater quite happy. I did blow $2 on one of the electric game machines in the lobby. I won’t do that again.

13 July

The Superman We All Want To Be But Hardly Ever Are…A Yearning For A Hero With Heart

by Jon Katz

The first words Superman (David Corenswet) says in James Gunn’s new movie (the launching pad for  the new era of DC’s superhero characters are “gosh,” followed by various “gollies.”

This new Superman is interesting for many reasons, one being that this version of the character avoids the mistakes of all the gloomy and depressing Batman and other superheroes – they are mostly miserable, bitter, and sad.

This new Superman is a picture boy for the great American midwestern farm boy who is caring, straightforward, and well…unforgiving and nice. Imagine a humble Superman.

This one most wants not to conquer evil but to live as a good human. Bless his heart, a Superman who should run for President.

Men in America are rarely held in high regard these days. Here is a rare role model of the perfect man.

One good reason to see the movie is to make your son go with you. I didn’t see many women in the theater I went to.

Here, Superman sincerely wants to help people and won’t quit on them.

He comes closer to early John Wayne hero models – die for a cause but never cry or quit –  than any of the Superhero characters Hollywood keeps churning out.

He suffers unbearable abuse and cruelty, but it does not sour him in any way. He has anxiety and worries about his worthiness. But he never stays depressed for long. He is humble. His father talks him out of his sudden and brief malaise in about three minutes.

I can’t help but suppose Gunn wanted to create an anti-Trump hero here. He is the very opposite of our president, in every imaginable way.

Corenswet is the man we want to admire. Instead of seeking revenge or gloating over a fallen enemy and villain, Superman in this movie launches into a sincere and impassioned speech about his complete and abject love of humanity, his fallibility, and his determination to be a good person, not just a tough one.

Not the usual stuff of Superheroes or politicians.

It’s by no means a political movie, but speaking only for myself, this is the leader I would love to have and save us in America. That’s one reason I liked the movie a lot.  While politicians cower, he will fight for us.

The movie is 90 percent explosions, collisions, and special effects, none of which I could follow or explain here. I understood nothing of the plot, which is expected and accepted in Superhero movies.

I’m not used to that, but the critics no longer even pretend to care.

Every time this Superman is beaten up, stomped, killed, choked, burned, or smothered, he rallies and returns to the fray – it’s his job and mission, and as battered and bloody as he is, hour after hour, he bounces back without anger or venom.

The special effects are brilliant (and loud.)

Superman doesn’t hate his enemies. I wish Donald Trump would see this movie and learn a valuable lesson about what American men aspire to be, rather than the strong men who try to take over the country and dictate to everyone else.

This return to the heroes of the old days will probably never happen, Superman reminds us. We have an Internet that most children learn from, and we all see where that is taking us.

This Superman is the man most Americans aspire to be, but rarely achieve. Superman represents the best of us; our political structure seems determined to represent the worst.

I soon discovered what so many Americans love about this movie: Superman is no radical, extremist, conspiracy addict, or small-minded person. He’s just a simple, good man.

In a sense, this movie is more reflective of the time than it is for offering any groundbreaking creativity. It helps us see where we are and where we wish to be.

One of the best actors in the Movie is a super-powered terrier named Krypton, Superman’s child companion.

He is a great character, a spoof on Americans’ obsession with dogs.

He saves the day more than once. His human can’t ever control him, but loves him dearly. It was a neat touch, at first I thought it had to be sappy, but there is nothing squishy about Krypton.

The other change is Lois Lane; she and Superman finally come out and can’t keep their hands off one another. Lois saves his ass along with Krypto. The beautiful news report about Superman’s day job was touching to me, a journalist who wanted to cry a bit.

It’s very obvious to me why the movie has taken off.  (Variety says Superman soared to $122 million, the Third-Biggest Box Office Weekend of the year.) This is what people want of one another.

This is the American hero who never gives up on doing good. I admit to yearning for a leader like that.

Here is a good person with power who wants to protect us, not pretend we are in danger so he can scare us. I recommend it, remembering that one of the real elements of the story is dazzling special effects.

The mess from Superman is almost a plea,  a superhero fighting for humanity.

I didn’t expect that.

13 July

Off To See Superman, With Tissues

by Jon Katz

I can’t tell you why I cry whenever I see a good Superman movie, the one out this week is getting rave reviews. It could be about a good and powerful person who wants to help people, an idea that needs some applause in America today.  This Superhero seeks to protect us. If I’m back in time, I’ll post some garden bed flowers I took this morning. Otherwise, I’ll be off duty today. I just posted the Cambridge Food Pantry support requests for today, and I hope you can find time to support this wonderful cause. I’ll post something short about the movie, and I’m bringing tissues.

24 December

Movies: “Maestro,” A Story Of Passion, Ecstasy, Love And Genius

by Jon Katz

One of the most revealing things I have learned about Leonard Bernstein was that he insisted on being called “Lenny” by everyone who knew him, from housemaids to cab drivers to ushers at the theater.

He had great fame but few airs and pretensions.

He was a person of great love and passion.

He conducted orchestras with every part of his body and soul, transferring his emotions to the dazzled audiences who came to see him.

As someone who cried every time I saw him conduct, I was eager to see this movie.

I liked it, but I didn’t love it. It is an excellent movie, but not the great one I was hoping for. I think Cooper stumbled when deciding to focus on his marriage rather than his music.

I was a little wary when I saw “Maestro” this afternoon.

The movie is the touching and sad story of one of the world’s most famous and revered conductors and the first great American composer in history.

The reviews suggested that this was mostly the story of Bernstein’s troubled but loving relationship with a Broadway actress. Felicia Montealgegre, played by Carey Mulligan.

The reviews were correct.

I should preface this essay by saying I have always had a deep love and respect for Bernstein and the music he conducted.

His passion and emotions were so deep and open that they made me cry whenever I saw him conduct at the New York Philharmonic or in his many televised performances.

His open emotions go through me like a blood transfusion. It might have been difficult to please me.

Bradley Cooper, who plays Bernstein, set out to capture the agony and ecstasy of Bernstein’s love. “Lenny” was a genius who loved music of any kind and could create it brilliantly in almost any form – plays, dances, songs, teaching.

Cooper did a valiant job, but I wish he had used a more practiced and charismatic actor than himself to capture a person who was and is more significant than life.

He did his best, and it was very good but Bernstein doesn’t look like him, and I quivered a bit when the movie ended with the real Berstein conducting an orchestra. I cried when I saw that. I don’t think Cooper was up to it, for all the hype about Hollywood tricks for disguise and detail.

At several points in the movie, I also felt that a lot of it, if not most, was centered on Felicia, who loved Bernstein as he loved her but could not reconcile herself to his public and indiscreet romances with men.

Other people might react differently, but I was puzzled to see her dominating the movie so much when she wasn’t nearly as interesting as her husband.

This was a chance to learn how Bernstein made and conceived his music and how he became the most famous conductor in the world. Not this time.

I’ve read various Bernstein biographies that detail his relationships with men, including the great composer Aaron Copeland and perhaps his most intense male lover, David Oppenheim, came about.

I wanted to know how he conceived of his music and the process he used.

One of the tragedies of Berstein’s life was to see several of his closest male lovers die painfully from Aids.

Bernstein was unfailingly generous and supportive of these victims at a time when the President of the United States wouldn’t even speak the word “aids” in his public appearances.

Almost all of his genuine and intense relationships with men were treated as fleeting, even casual,  if at all. It might be that they were the most meaningful of all.

Bernstein was known for paying for health care, rent, and nursing support for his gay friends and lovers.

The relationships I read about were not one-night stands, they were deep and long lasting.

Bernstein and Felicia did love each other, but like so many married couples of the time, they had to live a lie since it was a dangerous time to admit being gay or being married to someone who was.

At the movie’s end, Bernstein is shown as utterly devoted to Felicia, whose life he had made miserable for years. But his real commitments seemed elsewhere, at least in real life.

And Felicia admits to a friend that she was the one who was dishonest, not Bernstein.

(Why wasn’t this film titled “Lenny?”)

At times, I thought this was the story of Felica as much as it was the story of Bernstein. It feels like a Hollywood version of Bernstein’s life, almost honest but somewhat too choreographed and slick.

Cooper has made a fast-packed, beautiful, and touching chronicle of a famous and brilliant life, a whole of highs, lows, creative passions, and artistic milestones. But to me, this is more evidence that we cannot safely, efficiently, or lovingly lie to our partners or the world outside and have a happy and lasting relationship.

Bernstein was openly gay and happy about it, but he couldn’t keep up the lie for Felicia; he just wouldn’t or couldn’t be discreet about it.

She knew that and accepted it, but it wasn’t enough for her, and she turned angry, even vicious, at times when his sexuality came unapologetically into the open. It seemed to me that they loved one another as best friends and as people who had given birth to three beautiful children. It wasn’t enough.

It felt like the two kept unconsciously using one another: Felicia to be married to this remarkable human and have children, and Bernstein, happy to use his marriage as a cover to hide who he was.

One of the film’s most potent moments can be found at Bernstein’s country home in Connecticut after the birth of one of his children.

The scene opens with Berstein walking across the vast lake with his daughter in his arms. He strolls over to his best friend and sometime lover, Aaron Copeland, another brilliant and gifted musician.

“Lenny,” as he was known by everyone, even maids and hotel doormen, holds the baby gently and holds him up so that Copeland can see the baby’s face.

Bernstein holds the baby close and cuddles him, and the two men sit quietly. The moment’s tenderness says as much or more about Berstein’s true self than almost anything else in the movie.

Almost all of the film’s most deeply felt and touching scenes involved Bernstein with his children and closest male friends and lovers.

This bothered me about the movie; I felt it was as much about Felicia’s sad, disappointing, and painful life as it was about Bernstein’s remarkable generosity, love for people, and immeasurable genius.

That was the movie I feared I would see, and the movie I did see.

His genius, not his music, made him one of the most beloved people in much of the world. I would have loved to learn more about that or see it in action.

The reviews are almost all raves; I’m in the minority here.

The camera work is lovely and imaginative. I ended up being fascinated but somewhat disappointed. It wasn’t the Bernstein I saw and loved.

Bernstein was a great man, one of the greatest of his time.

He alone brought classical music back to life, and after his death, it has been receding rapidly once more. It was astonishing to see teenagers showing up in droves at Lincoln Center to see him conduct classical music. Now, they’re all on TikTok and YouTube.

Bernstein succeeded with his talent but failed to revive classical music for the long haul, which was his great goal. It didn’t stick as he did.

I had this feeling that political correctness might be part of the reason the movie focused so much on a character who was not the star, as represented. She was a woman humiliated.

I have no trouble recommending it. It is one of the most compelling movies of the year and will surely win many Oscars and other awards.

I was troubled to see that the accurate Bernstein, the real one, appeared just as the credits rolled, which was my best evening performance. Cooper looked much like Bernstein but could never capture his incredible and passionate emotion.

If Carey Milligan stole the show a bit from Cooper, then the real Lenny in the cameo blew both off the stage.

 

28 October

Review: “Killers Of The Flower Moon:” Brilliant, Sombre, Beautiful, Violent, Heart Breaking. It Is, In Fact, A Masterpiece From Martin Scorcese, Leonardo Dicaprio, Robert De Niro and Lily Gladstone

by Jon Katz

It’s a challenge to write a short review of a movie that is three and a half riveting hours long. This is a masterpiece, a word that is overdone and that I don’t like using. The movie is a surprise; for all of the hype, I was expecting something different. One of the genius elements of the movie is that as epic and long and beautiful as the movie is, Scorcese tells the story almost exclusively through the eyes and love of Ernest Burkhart (Dicaprio), a war veteran who comes back from fighting in World War I and finds his naive self plunged into the hellish churn of inhumanity and greed.

The movie is exciting and disorienting; it was put together perfectly – the screenplay, the backdrop, the lighting, the acting,  the backdrops, the history, and the tragedy of the Osage Nation and of so many Native Americans.

It’s a long movie, but I write short reviews. I will keep it short but could go on longer. This is the story Ron DeSantis does not want your children to see or read about.

I want to be honest upfront: I have no nits to pick with this movie, a rarity for me. I loved every single thing about it. Scorcese deserves every one of the raves he is getting. I think anyone who loves movies, history, or romance would love this film every minute of its more than 3.5 hours. It’s too violent for young children; there is nothing in it that teenagers haven’t seen a hundred times.

Early on, Ernest, a weak and confused man,  falls in love with Molly Kyle (Gladstone), a quiet, often silent Osage woman with watchful and mysterious eyes and colorful blankets she drapes over her shoulders like a Queen. She has the poise and discipline of a queen. He comes to Oklahoma to work for his uncle, William Hale (terrifically played by DeNiro  (The King Of Osage Hills). It’s clear from the beginning that Hale is scheming, greedy, and manipulative.

There are many ways to portray evil, and Scorcese did it with flawless skill, discipline, and restraint. It’s a different kind of villain for him to play, but he rose to it and then some. DiCaprio was equally impressive.

The movie, set mainly on the Osage reservation, goes back to 1921 and portrays the murder of several dozen Osage natives after oil is discovered on Osage land, and the greedy white and murderous business community comes swarming in, determined to get rich from the oil discovery no matter how many Osage they need to kill.

There is a lot of violence in the movie, but it is presented with discretion. DiNiro, Decaprio, and Gladstone are on screen almost every minute of the long movie, and they never stop being breathtakingly wonderful. Three and a half hours seemed like a long movie, but it flew by. I could have handled another hour or two; everything I saw was beautiful and well done. You rarely get to see acting like this.  The 3.5 hours went zipping by.

The historical backdrop of the Osage murders, apart from the obvious, was that it signaled the birth of the FBI as a federal investigative unit of last resort.  And it marks one of the first times America was asked to reckon with what they had done to the Native American tribes.

Towards the end of the movie,  federal agents finally show up to stop the killings and figure out who was responsible. This is, in a fundamental way, also a who donit, and Scorcese doesn’t play games. We know pretty soon who is accountable in this corrupt and cruel town nearby where all the greedy white businesspeople live. DiCaprio gives us an iconic portrait of weakness and corruption.

For years, the murders were known as the Osage Reign of Terror, but that name was misleading. It suggests that the Osage were somehow responsible. They were not. The murders were savage, cold-blooded, and greed-based. The slaughtered Osage never had a chance and never tried to fight. Scorcese did a fantastic job with this movie.

He managed to make it with both intimacy and scale.

The move is not overtly political, but it is clearly meant as a rebuke and indictment of America’s horrific treatment of the Osage and other Native Americans. Good for Scorcese (who makes two appearances before and just at the end of the move). He’s 80 years old and better than ever.

This is your big, holds-no-barred, bigger-than-life Hollywood movie with vast and beautiful vistas, astonishing camera work and clothing design, vivid parades, and wide open spaced, with gloomy interiors as dark and shadowy as the Osage murderers.

Everything about this movie was terrific, even perfect. The movie is an epic, a historical narrative, and an apology to the Osage and, indirectly, the Native American Nations. It’s also, at heart, a romance, a western, a mystery, and a civics lesson for America in the awful and bloody history of the Osage murders, a bloody stain on America’s arrogance and self-delusion. It could have been a bloody mess. It was anything but.

As you can tell, I recommend it. It is long but worth every second, and it needs to be seen on a big screen while that is still possible.

Email SignupFree Email Signup