Love Field (1992)

It's sometimes fun to begin a review with odd facts.  Here are two to grab your attention:

1. Love Field was supposed to have Denzel Washington as the main protagonist.  He backed out at the last minute for unknown reasons.

2. Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated for Best Actress for her role in the film, but lost out to Emma Thompson who won for Howard's End.

Do those factoids entice you?  Hope so!

Back in '92, a little known film came out that dazzled reviewers.  The New York Times used the words "remarkable grace" to describe the acting.  The Washington Post called the film a "marvel."  Rolling Stone said that Michelle Pfeiffer "weaves magic."

I have to agree.  I happened on this film late one night.  I had not heard of it.  Since I have long been a true movie buff, and wondered how this film slipped between my fingers, I began to watch.  I was wowed within minutes!

Here are the basics, and again, I am careful not to provide any details that could spoil the film for viewers.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays Lurene, a 60s housewife, who is verbally abused by her husband, yet has a heart of gold.  Lurene feels a special bond for Jackie Kennedy: Both have lost a child.  She is a true Pollyanna... to her the world is beautiful, and all the more so because of the Kennedys.

The date is the third week of November, 1963, and Lurene learns that JFK and Jackie will be visiting Dallas, a long bus ride away.  She is crazy about the new president and his beautiful wife, and she wants to see them when they ride a motorcade in Dallas.  She leaves on her trip on a whim, because, well, that's how Lurene is!  She is sweet and loving, and lovable to us.

On the bus, she meets an African-American man and his daughter, who are on a mysterious journey of some kind. Being curious, affable, and a bit nosy, she gets to know them.  In doing so, she becomes suspicious: Is there some kind of foul play at hand?  Why does the little girl not seem to know her "father?"

That's all I can say!  Remember that we are in the 1960s.  Johnston has not yet signed the much-needed Civil Rights Act.  African-Americans are second class citizens in this country, and they are supposed to sit in the back of the bus.

Remember too that Kennedy is about to be assassinated.  It's a strong emotional potpourri:  Well-meaning white woman, troubled black man, grieving country, racists everywhere, and possible interracial friendship in the making.

Oh my!

The stars are fantastic.  For those of you who don't know Dennis Haysbert, who replaced Denzel Washington as the lead role, he deftly played President David Palmer for six years on 24.  He was also masterful as the young, dignified Nelson Mandela in The Color of Freedom.  And he was a real tough guy in the TV series The Unit.

Michelle Pfeiffer has a long list of credits.  She has played opposite the greats:  Al Pacino in Scarface, Harrison Ford in What Lies Beneath, Matthew Broderick in Ladyhawke, Sean Connery in The Russia House, and Robert Redford in Up Close and Personal.  She's a fantastic actress.

I have seen every one of Michelle's films, and I have always been impressed.  But truth to tell, I think I like her best as Lurene in Love Field.

So, if you want to uncover a sleeper that many consider a gem, try to find Love Field.  Brace yourself for a strong emotional experience:  Racism, History, and Love form a potent mix.

WHAT IF? Three Intriguing FilmS

In this review, I look at a fascinating theme that runs through many movies.  What if I, or you, had taken a different path at a major crossroad in life?

Don’t you love thinking about that? 

We’ve all had fantasies about how differently our lives might have turned out had we taken another job, chosen another career, met another significant other, had children, not had children, dated someone else, said something, not said something…. Oh my, the list is endless!  And think of the strange timing of events too:  what if you had been somewhere else at the very moment something momentous happened?

If you’re fascinated by what COULD have happened in your life, you might enjoy three of the best films out there on the subject.

Back in 1998, a very young Gwyneth Paltrow starred in Sliding Doors.  After getting fired from her job, she rushes to catch a train.  In one scenario, she gets there on time.  Then her life evolves rather melodramatically:  she gets home in time to catch her boyfriend in bed with another woman, then falls in love with a “gentleman” who turns out to be married, and finally has a terrible accident.  In the other scenario, she misses the train.  Her amorous life goes in a different direction, she has other job offers, and meets other people.  How daunting!  Which “sliding door” in life is the best?  Watch the film and find out!

Our next film stop is Run Lola Run!  What an unusual piece of filmmaking.  A German production, starring Franka Potente before she teamed up with Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity, the film offers no less than three alternative futures.  Lola’s boyfriend robs a bank in each scenario.  And in each, poor Lola, who dazzles with her bright red hair, meets a series of different fates.  Watch for the little changes that make each “life” so different.  Again, it’s all about timing:  Will young Lola arrive in time to save her boyfriend?  How and why will each outcome change?  Again, the idea of a split second of time in our lives, those moments that are seemingly serendipitous, makes us wonder about the “ifs” that happen every day.

Finallly, don’t miss a really fun one:  The Family Man.  Starring Nicholas Cage and Tea Leoni, the story is charming and profound.  A self-centered Wall Street macho man, a confirmed bachelor who cares for nothing and no one except money, meets a magician of sorts.  The magician changes the playboy’s reality:  he suddenly awakes in bed next to the girlfriend he was supposed to marry sixteen years earlier.  Worse, he’s got two kids!  The story is a hoot, truly entertaining, and often laugh outloud funny.  But there’s a deep message here:  Which of the two lives is the one the protagonist would choose?  How does he cope with an alternative reality?  What happens in the end?  Cage is at his best as the confused and surprised husband, and you’ll be charmed by Tea Leoni as the patient wife. 

If you ever think about the WHAT IFS in life, you will revel in these three films.  I would recommend all three, because each provides a unique view on different paths in life.

Strangely, the three films were made within the same two years, 1998 to 2000.  Were folks looking at the great millennium change and wondering about the direction of their lives?  Who knows? 

Who can explain the weird meeting of chance and opportunity that comprise all of our lives?  Leave it to the movies to explore the mystery.

Hidden Figures

You know how sometimes you say, they don’t make ‘em like that any more?    Hidden Figures ranks up there in that near-perfect category.  

It’s a whopper, a winner, a top-notch story not to be missed. 

OK, now that I’ve exhausted most of the hyperbole, let me come down to earth and say a few words about this most remarkable piece of work.

Never the spoiler, I’ll simply repeat what most folks know:  It’s about three extraordinary African-American women, who, because of their unique skills in math and engineering, are hired by NASA at a time when few women, and fewer women of color, worked at the government establishment.

The film takes us back to the early 60s, the dawn of the Kennedy years, when racism and institutionalized segregation in many states were the norm.  The first part of the film is a painful, bitter reminder of how white America mistreated and abused fellow Americans of color.

You’ll no doubt squirm, then feel like vomiting, when you are reminded of the state of our country for African Americans back then.   But the first part of the film is important:  For it is against this background of oppression that the emergence of three bright, brave women is all the more extraordinary.  Also in the mix: the incredible prejudice back then against women.  

What really grabs our attention, however, is the backdrop against which the race drama plays out:  Will America get a manned spaceship off the ground and catch up with the Russians?  After all, Yuri Gagarin has just circled the earth and returned safely and the Russians are celebrating in the streets!  Can Kennedy's dynamic young America prove its mettle?

Acting:  Wow!   Let’s start with Kevin Costner.  As the leader of the NASA space team, he is fantastic as a man deeply committed to making the program a success.   He wins our hearts when he works to counter the biases against women of color.   In this movie, he reminds me of the Costner I liked so much in Field of Dreams.

Octavia Spencer:  She’s ALL that, as the saying goes.  What a performer!  Remember her in The Help?  She is full of pride, courage, and tenacity, and she speaks with such gentle eloquence that everyone listens.  She’s at her best when she quietly stands up to her bigoted boss.

Taraji P Henson plays a role as strong as Octavia’s, and she does so with equal aplomb.  As the math genius who shows the other mathematicians how to calculate space vectors, she excels for her wit, charm, and strong determination. She has few prior films to her credit, so this role will no doubt catapult her to stardom.

Kirsten Dunst:  What a bitch!  Haha.  Yes, she’s awful.  But as an actress, awful is good.  It’s not easy to play a villainess, but Kirsten does it with style and edginess.  We come to hate her, so she does her job well!  Hats off to the actress who got her start as a kid in Jumanji and later landed so many key roles.

I think you get the idea.  This is a quality film.  I usually temper my compliments with at least one critical observation.  So just one comment:  I think the third woman, played by the singer Janelle Monae, was the weakest portrait of the three.  We never really got to know her.

Overall, I cannot suggest how the film could be better!  It's a gem.

RUN out and see this one!   You will think about it for a long time afterward.

Pink Panther (2006)

OK, viewers, I'm returning to 2006.

Why?  Believe it or not, I never saw Steve Martin's version of The Pink Panther.  I must explain why:  I always loved the Peter Sellers films that came out in the 60s, and I did not want to spoil my fun with a potentially lousy updated version.

Caveat:  Truth to tell, comedy is one of my least favorite genres.  Whenever others tell me to run out and see the "funniest film ever," and I do, I usually sit there and wonder where the humor is.  Maybe it's me?  Or them?  Haha.  Hard to say.

Yet the old Pink Panthers had a certain lightness and fun about them that really got me.  The portrait of the bungling Inspector Clouseau, the Brit with the over-the-top French accent, the fool who always won out in the end, made me laugh until tears came to my eyes.  Sure, the humor was simple, often no more than old-time slapstick.  Yet, the whole breeziness of the films, each of them, made me howl.

Just last week, laid up with a bit of flu, I found a replay of the Steve Martin version.  I thought, okay, I'll give it a try.  I needed cheering up!  Being quite the Peter Sellers enthusiast, I thought, no way, Steve Martin, will you come close to the humor of the original.  How wrong I was!

The 2006 version actually improved, in some ways, over the original.

If any of you recall the character Kato in the Sellers' version, the humor was distasteful.  When Sellers made racist comments about his Asian houseboy, the lines were inappropriate, unnecessary, and demeaning. Those were not funny moments.  In the current story, the character of Kato does not exist.  Now that is what I call a fine upgrade!

Also, Clouseau's boss in the originals, played by Herbert Lom, was way too exaggerated at times.  While he added to the humor, he was often just too farcical to maintain any believability.

Steve Martin is every bit the bungler, falling all over himself and creating disaster wherever he goes, and he does so with the same charming smile and disarming innocence of the original character.  I found his portrayal of the inspector at times even funnier than the original.

The story too was improved.  I won't give away details, since I never want to be a spoiler, but somehow the plot hangs together much better in the 2006 version.  Of course, in all the Pink Panther films, we need lots of suspension of disbelief.  Yet the updated story does seem sort of plausible, in an other-world sort of way.

A word about the characters:  Steve Martin is great.  Always.  Such a talent.  Jean Reno is just okay, maybe somewhat miscast.  Beyonce is not bad, considering she's a singer and not an actress.  But the real surprise is the role of Nicole, Inspector Clouseau's assistant.  Played by Emily Mortimer, the character dazzles!  Mortimer actually steals the show more than once.

My grade:  A+!!!

Prepare to laugh, my friends.  Oh wait.  I'd better not say that!  Humor is so individual that you might find the film utterly un-funny!

So I say: Watch it and try to enjoy!

La La Land

Gawd, I needed a film like this right now. Confession #1: I love musicals. Confession #2: I loved this one. I felt 2 things from director, Damien Chazelle, while watching this film: a love of an era and a love of film history. I particularly appreciated that the first trailer I saw for this movie told me nothing! Too many trailers give away all the good parts. The second trailer I saw made it look like an entirely different film and in a way it is two films. It is a joyful romp of romance and youth and dreams, with a dose of hard reality of love and sacrifice for those dreams. The color palette was dead on in its homage to an anachronistic mid-century feel. And while this is a musical, the numbers are sparse and integral – not an “in your face at every turn” musical. I’ve always liked Emma Stone (local Valley girl!). She is not “pretty” in traditional sense, but so darned appealing, and her signature singing piece here is a show (and heart)-stopper. Ryan Gosling was fearless in song and dance and actually learned how to play jazz for this role. That’s all I’ll say. More in discussion.

Manchester by the Sea

The Afflecks are a talented family:  Ben did wonders in Argo, which garnered numerous awards, including the Oscar for Best Picture.  And who could forget his great role as a working class guy in Good Will Hunting, which he co-wrote with Matt Damon?

Brother Casey is no slouch as an actor.  He got an Oscar nomination for his role as the "coward" Ford who shot Jesse James.  He's also known for his fine work in Gone Baby Gone, a kidnapping thriller.  But my personal favorite is his role as a crazy psychopath in The Killer Inside Me.  Don't miss that one!

Manchester is a serious piece.  No spoiler, but the basic plot is that Casey's character is a perennial loser. He has botched just about everything he's done in life, including marriage and jobs.  Unexpectedly, he's called upon to care for a troubled teen, the son of his brother who died.

Check out the picture:  There they are, the troubled twosome.

Does the "loser" rise to the challenge?  If he can't care for himself, how can he care for the nephew?  What about his own search for success?

These are only the surface questions in this dreary, depressing flick.  The tone:  Yes, somber.  Never anything else.  Good thing the story takes place by the sea: up there, it's always cloudy, rainy, and overcast.  Let's not let any sun shine on this tale!

OK, I'm a bit sarcastic on the tone.  Some will argue it's "real."  In fact, pundits of the "slice of life" genre will say that life is a bitch, so just deal with it.  Or better, view it at the movies!

Here's the rub:  I can live with dark films.  I can handle a bleak view of life.  BUT:  I do expect something in return.  What?  Simple:  Character growth and development.

I would argue that nearly every satisfying film teaches us something.  We usually enjoy seeing folks change, hopefully for the better, given a set of life circumstance.  Some might call this redemption.  I would insist that at the minimum a film needs to present characters who grow.

Does Casey's character grow?  Does he learn anything from life's trials?  What about his ex-wife? Does she grow?  And what about the teen's estranged mother....any growth there?

I would argue:  NO!  But others might disagree.

This is the best reason to see this film.  How will you find the characters?  Will you consider them static or organic?  Will you find a redeeming feature in the dour, sour, gloomy mood of the film?

I hope so!

Please note that I have said almost nothing of the plot. There are several plot details that, I must admit, are intriguing.  Check out the flashbacks.  There's good stuff there.

I never spoil films for the viewer. But I must opine on a film I find woefully weak:  Manchester by the Sea.

My grade:  C-    This is generous.  And, by the way, most reviewers LOVE this film.  Guess I've never been a follower.

Jackie

Hi Readers!

It's been some time since Valerie and I have reviewed films.  We got a bit busy with life!  But I am back, and I hope you enjoy some of my thoughts.

SPOILER ALERT:  There is NONE!  haha  Yes,  just a reminder that I never give away plot details in any review.  I can't tell you how annoyed I get reading other reviews that give away details I would appreciate learning on my own when watching the movie!  My other goal:  To make the reviews SHORT.  So with those parameters in mind, I resume the blog and hope you find the comments fun and useful.

By the way, Valerie and I have covered hundreds of films over the five or so years we've been doing this project, so please feel free to browse our titles.

JACKIE:  Oh my, what an enigma she was.  Before saying anything about the film, we recall some of her conflicts.  She was well-educated, having attending Vassar and studied at the Sorbonne.  But as First Lady at a time when being literate as a woman was not prized, she developed the stereotypic wispy, Marilyn Monroe-esque voice and affect of a dingbat!  She loved Jack, but he played around.  Later, after the assassination, she felt insecure financially and married an old magnate twice her age!  That's why the headlines of the 80s read:  "Jackie O! " or "Jackie OH!"  Yes, she was an enigma.

On to the movie.  There is one major reason to see this film.  Natalie Portman does an exquisite job of capturing Jackie.  The mannerisms are uncannily accurate.  The voice, the face, the gestures...pure Jackie.  Think of Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin.  Yes, viewers, you will rarely see acting brilliance like this.

Unless some other actress comes along with a whopper of a role, consider Natalie Portman a shoo-in for Best Actress.

This would be her second one!  Wasn't she great in Black Swan?  If you did not see it, rent it and watch her enormous talent.  By the way, go back to when she was a young teen if  you want to see her great acting ability in its infancy, in a film called The Professional.

What about the film itself?  Pathetically empty.  I had hoped to learn something of the times. I wanted to learn new things about JFK, about the marriage, about the assassination...about something!  I can't say the film gave me one new piece of information.

Yet the times were entrancing!  JFK and Jackie did create Camelot in the White House.  They epitomized youth and vibrancy.  Who can forget the music soirees they presented?  Who can forget the wonderful pictures of little John-John running around under the president's desk?  Or Jackie wowing Charles De Gaulle by speaking French?

So why didn't the film capture some of the magic?  Why didn't it show us the charm and wonder of the JFK years? Why didn't it get deeper into the marriage? Why didn't it give us some Jackie history via flashbacks, say when she first met JFK?

No idea. Maybe the director did not want to portray any of the joy of the times.  Or maybe everyone just wanted to focus on Natalie's acting.

Without giving any spoiler details, I'd simply label the film DOUR.  Sad, depressing, bleak, dark...like a two-hour funeral.  You'll get to see just that:  lots of shots of the funeral, folks in black, folks with tears, folks in shock.

Sure, the terrible days when JFK was shot, the ensuing funeral, the murder of Oswald, and the transition of power were daunting and heart-wrenching.  But there was so much more to the story!  In fact, the major question I'd have addressed is this: Why did America love this couple so much?  Why did they love Jackie?

So my grade for the film is C-.  That's generous, because I'm a former teacher, and I hate to give failing grades!

However:  A+ for superb acting.