Tag: Historical

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood has the Right Focus

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

The review:

As I discovered last year with the documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor, Mr. Rogers has a calming and cathartic effect on me; in Marielle Heller’s* A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, it seems that Tom Hanks playing Mr. Rogers has the same effect. I think this movie was wise to avoid the biopic treatment and instead frame the story around a journalist who has a lot of problems which lets us substitute our own selves in for him as Fred Rogers takes an interest. It’s also full of actors I love to watch** and includes many memorable scenes.***

The verdict: Good

Cost: $9.75 (I didn’t plan well. I could have seen this at the Jubitz theater for $6)
Where watched: Living Room Theater (Part I of New Year’s Eve Double Feature!)

Consider also watching:

Further sentences:

*This film follows Heller’s excellent Can You Ever Forgive Me? which was her second feature after her incredibly enjoyable debut The Diary of a Teenage Girl. All of these films are worth your time. And hopefully Heller will continue directing films every other year or so.
**I’m always up for Chris Cooper and Enrico Colantoni (Keith Mars!) and though I wasn’t familiar with them I thought Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson and Maryann Plunkett were excellent.
***Some of which show up in the article that is featured in the film and which you can read. My favorite scene though, was Fred and Joanne Rogers playing a duet on the twin grand pianos in their home.

Questions:

  • What is it about Mr. Rogers that elicits such feelings?
  • What’s your favorite Mr. Rogers moment?

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

This movie is based on the article “Can You Say…’Hero’?” by Tom Junod, which was published in the November 1, 1998, issue of Esquire Magazine. In 2019, before the release of this film, Junod wrote an article in The Atlantic that was partly about this process. It started, “A long time ago, a man of resourceful and relentless kindness saw something in me that I didn’t see in myself. He trusted me when I thought I was untrustworthy, and took an interest in me that went beyond my initial interest in him. He was the first person I ever wrote about who became my friend, and our friendship endured until he died. Now a movie has been made from the story I wrote about him, which is to say ‘inspired by’ the story I wrote about him, which is to say that in the movie my name is Lloyd Vogel and I get into a fistfight with my father at my sister’s wedding. I did not get into a fistfight with my father at my sister’s wedding. My sister didn’t have a wedding.”

Other reviews:

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Little Women: The Millennial Version

Little Women

The review:

By eschewing a linear narrative, Greta Gerwig manages to make the twists and turns of Little Women* into something I want to watch more than once.** As I watched the 1994 version in August, I’m heavy on the comparisons/contrasts,*** but I think this movie did what was needed to be done to the story to make this one of the best movies I’ve seen in 2019. It’s a film full of life and laughter and tears, not to mention several versions of cross-in-front sweater wraps (not quite these, but close****) that I need the pattern for.

The verdict: Recommended

Cost: $9.00 (and I had to go to the theater two days in a row because the first day was sold out)
Where watched: Hollywood Theater with an audience who gasped aloud in places, proving they hadn’t recently watched the 1994 version.

Consider also watching:

  • Little Women 1994
  • Frozen
  • Your Sisters Sister
  • Sense and Sensibility
  • The Virgin Suicides

Further sentences:

*A story I’ve never liked.
**True story: after the movie ended, I checked my bus arrival time, found it wasn’t coming for another 17 minutes, and snuck into the later showing so I could experience whatever scene I encountered once again.
***See below for my drilldown
****For those of you who are interested, here’s a handy article about how to steal the movie’s style without looking like an extra in a period piece.

Questions:

  • Which version do you think comes out on top? Aside from 2019 and 1994, there’s also the 2018 present-day one, the 2017 PBS one, the 1949 June Alyson one, and the 1933 Katherine Hepburn one (which I mostly remember because the sleeves were out of control!)
  • Which of the sisters are you?

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

Although they portray heroines of American literature, none of the four actors are American. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are English, Saoirse Ronan is Irish, and Eliza Scanlen is Australian.

Other reviews:

1994 vs. 2019:

  • Meg: Trini Alvarado beats Emma Watson
  • Jo: Tie. I like both Winona Ryder and Saoirse Ronan for different reasons
  • Beth: Claire Danes knocks Eliza Scanlen out of the park. (I think Claire Danes is the best part of the 90s version.)
  • Amy: Kristen Dunst as young Amy beats Florence Pugh. Pugh did a good job acting younger, but she didn’t look younger. Dunst takes the win there. Florence Pugh beats out Samantha Mathis as older Amy. Best Florence Pugh scene: telling Laurie no.
  • Laurie: Christian Bale beats out Timothée Chalamet simply because Timothée Chalamet looks incredibly youthful and thus I didn’t fully believe he was grownup Laurie. Who did I enjoy watching more? Chalamet.
  • Marmee: Tie. Susan Sarandon brings more gravitas than Laura Dern, though Dern is not saddled with all that moralizing. She’s a hippie-style Marmee.
  • Aunt March: Meryl Streep beats out Mary Wickes (you know, because she’s Meryl Streep)
  • Professor Bhaer: Gabriel Byrne (IMDB has him ranked second in the casting lineup!) beats out Louis Garrel. Though I think the much older Byrne was closer in age (44 at time film) to the Professor Behr in the book (The internet is telling me 40) Louis Garrel is 36, but he doesn’t look it.
  • Mr. Lawrence: Tie. Both John Neville and Chris Cooper are good
  • Hannah: Florence Paterson beats out Jayne Houdyshell

The 1994/2019 verdict:

  • 1994: 6 wins, 3 ties
  • 2019: 2 wins, 3 ties
  • Yet somehow I enjoyed the 2019 version so much more! Directing matters!
Little Women

The Two Popes is a Good Conversation

The Two Popes

The review:

Considering that The Two Popes is a movie of basically two guys talking, Fernando Meirelles directs a very good film.* For those fans of walking and talking, wrestling with weighty issues, and sins of the past, this will be a treat.** For fans of good acting, you have both Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce bringing their A game.

The verdict: Good

Cost: Netflix monthly fee ($8.99)
Where watched: at home

Consider also watching:

Further sentences:

*I mean, granted, the two guys talking aren’t dudes on the #6 bus; they’re men who became popes. The title doesn’t lie.
**Plus, you get to see the process for choosing a new pope, which I found interesting.

Question:

Do you think that the head of the Catholic Church should follow the Pope Benedict model (traditional, pomp and circumstance) or the Pope Francis model (reform, the carnival is over)

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

Jonathan Pryce commented on his physical resemblance to Pope Francis at the Toronto International Film Festival: “The day Pope Francis was declared Pope, the Internet was full of images of me and him, and ‘Is Jonathan Pryce the Pope?’ Even my son texted me, ‘Dad are you the Pope?'”

Other reviews:

The Two Popes

Motherless Brooklyn is Nearly a Very, Very Good Film

Motherless Brooklyn

The review:

Edward Norton makes a worthy detective story set in the 1950s and Motherless Brooklyn was nearly a very, very, good film.* While the Tourette’s aspect feels very much like Mr. Norton is shooting for an Academy Award nomination and thus, from that angle, is distracting, it is interesting to watch his performance and how the syndrome affects his character.** The movie is also populated with excellent actors (hooray for another good role for Gugu Mbatha-Raw!) and the mystery was engrossing.***

The verdict: Good

Cost: $6.00
Where watched: Jubitz Cinema

Consider also watching:

Further sentences:

*It pains me to say that it’s the slightest bit too long, like maybe we didn’t need that much time watching jazz musicians at the club. As it is, it’s a very good film.
**I found it interesting that no one in the film made fun of him, or was repulsed by for his tics and twitches. I felt like that wasn’t quite up to snuff for film set in the 1950s.
***I figured out one thing before Lionel did, which made me feel very smart.

Questions:

  • Should Edward Norton direct more films?
  • How many favors do you think Mr. Norton called in to get all those really great actors? (Never mind. Answered in the IMDB triva item below.)

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

According to writer, director, and actor Edward Norton, the principal major stars all worked for free on this, his second directorial outing.

Other Reviews:

Motherless Brooklyn

Harriet is the Movie Harriet Tubman Deserves

Harriet

The review:

Kasi Lemmons directs the incredible Cynthia Erivo in Harriet, giving Ms. Tubman a worthy story that is painful, tense, and hopeful throughout.* Erivo leads an excellent cast and the movie keeps the focus on the former and current slaves rather than tells the story through the eyes of white people.** This is also a biopic that includes a fair amount of speechifying that never comes off as pedantic, it isn’t draggy and has no endless scenes of drug use.***

The verdict: Recommended

Cost: $4.00
Where watched: Academy Theater with Matt, who also enjoyed it

Consider also watching:

Further sentences:

*So rarely do we get to see women take the reins and steamroll over all the messages they are being told. That it’s a woman trapped in slavery makes this narrative all the better.
**I say this because so many movies about the black experience in the USA get co-opted by the white narrative (I’m looking at you Mississippi Burning)
***I’m looking at you Bohemian Rhapsody,and Walk the Line, and Straight Outta Compton. Though I had forgotten that Harriet Tubman experienced spells where she collapsed. So there’s a goodly amount of fainting.

Questions:

  • How do you feel about a British person playing a US hero?
  • Have you watched Kasi Lemmons‘ other films? (Black Nativity, Talk to Me, The Caveman’s Valentine, Eve Bayou) I’m thinking about a director retrospective in 2020.

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

This is the first feature film to be made about the life of Harriet Tubman.

Other reviews:

Harriet quote
(I love this quote so much!)

Jojo Rabbit is the Funniest WWII Movie in Decades (And Also Sad)

The review:

Taika Waititi’s Jojo Rabbit continues his streak of really great movies focused on children.* This movie is both funny and heavy** and does a great job of showcasing all the talents of its stars.*** Sure, you may have been living your life thinking there would never be a movie with Adolf Hitler as an imaginary friend, but now that there is, you must see it.

The verdict: Recommended

Cost: Free for me (we used my birthday dinner money)
Where watched: at the Baghdad, where there was robust clapping as the film ended.

Consider also watching:

Further sentences:

*Or as Waititi puts it: boys with dad issues.
**There are so many dark World War II dramas; this was a breath of fresh air.
***Roman Griffin Davis carried the film, despite being eleven, Thomasin McKenzie got the nuances of a young woman in hiding, Rebel Wilson and Sam Rockwell did their thing as the comic relief, Waititi made an excellent imaginary friend/Adolf Hitler and Scarlett Johansson vacillated between a solid mother figure and one unhinged by war (though I think the choice to do the German accent was a mistake) (People who are annoyed by accent choices may have some problems with this film).

Questions:

  • What’s your favorite film with a child star?
  • What’s your favorite WWII film set in Germany?

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

Taika Waititi discovered in his research that WWII Germany was very vibrant and fashionable, and was interested in shying away from traditional war films showing it as dreary and dark, instead presenting the town as a seemingly celebratory place and dressing characters as stylishly as possible. He liked the idea that everything seems happy, but just underneath the surface “the third Reich is crumbling, and, you know, the dream is over.”
(This was true. Aside from great costumes, I also thought the house Jojo lived in was gorgeous.)

The King is Overly Long, but not Interminable

The review:

David Michôd crafts an overly long* tale of Henry V** with some good performances.*** As someone who has only vague knowledge of English history, I wasn’t troubled by potential historical inaccuracies.**** Overall, this movie wasn’t a stunner, but a sedately paced royal-succession-and-battle-type movie that left me feeling like I hadn’t wasted my movie-watching time.

The verdict: Good

Cost: Netflix monthly fee ($8.99)
Where watched: at home

Consider also watching:

Further sentences:

*At 2 hours and 20 minutes I fell asleep for about 15 minutes and am pretty sure I didn’t miss much.
**Or Hal, if you are one of his drinking buddies.
***Joel Egerton’s Falstaff was a restrained drunkard (It took me about 30 minutes to wonder aloud, “Is that Joel Egerton?” though I was dealing with a beard and that weird haircut.), Timothée Chalamet’s Hal/Henry hit both the wild and the serious; and Thomasin McKenzie’s small role as Phillippa was a nice treat. (I’d like to see more of her. She was so great in Leave No Trace)
****Was Henry V really such a peacenik or was that something inserted for the purpose of plot?

Questions:

  • What’s your favorite English Royal movie?
  • Does the extreme bowl haircut make it harder to identify the actors? Do you think it’s due for a comeback?
  • Do you know about the history of Henry V? If so, how accurate was this?
  • How did you feel the accent work in this movie was?

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

The scar seen on Henry’s cheek is historically accurate, as the real Henry V was struck by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, when he was just sixteen years old. This is the same battle where Henry fights Percy Hotspur in the movie. The arrow was removed from Henry’s face, but left a permanent scar.

Also, in this article, it seems that the real Henry V didn’t have Mr. Chalamet’s chiseled good looks.

Judy is a Great Movie About a Sad Time

The review:

Rupert Goold directs Judy, a tenderly sad movie—because what other kind of Judy Garland movie can there be?—with a masterful performance by Renee Zellweger. This movie got me thinking about what we expect of our performers—is it not enough to have the amazing singing voice?*—and how hard it is to reconcile those expectations with real life. This is also a film that captures the 60’s quite nicely, and not with the usual cliches.

The verdict: Recommended

Cost: $6.00
Where watched: Laurelhurst Theater

Consider also watching:

A star is Born (’18)
A star is Born (’54)
The Runaways
Love and Mercy

Further sentences:

*The answer was no when Judy Garland was a girl, and is still no today.

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

Renée Zellweger was born the same year that Judy Garland died: 1969.

Questions:

  • What’s your favorite Judy Garland performance?
  • What’s your favorite Renee Zellwiger performance?
  • What does a performer owe the audience, aside from the performance?

For Insiders, the Downton Abbey Movie is a Gem

The review:

Michael Engler creates an excellent two-hour episode* of Downton Abbey which will be enjoyable to all who have watched the show and which also will probably incomprehensible to newcomers.** While I wasn’t particularly pining for the Downton gang, the movie reminded me how much I loved the characters, and the movie—unlike, at times, the series—had a tight, comprehensive plot that touched on nearly all of the characters.*** Overall, a great movie, assuming you have done your background research.

The verdict: Recommended

(assuming you are already a fan)

Cost: $11.35
Where watched: Regal Tigard Stadium 12 (where they waste time making you pick your seat)

Consider also watching:

  • Downton Abbey Season 1
  • Downton Abbey Season 2
  • After that, the plot gets very soap opera-y
  • If you like the characters, the rest of the series is worth watching

Further sentences:

*It’s not really a movie, just a longer version of the show.
**Who are all these people? If you haven’t watched the show, this movie isn’t going to enlighten you.
***Bates wandered in an out and otherwise wasn’t present, but nearly everyone else was around.

Trivia:

The mansion that King George V and Queen Mary visit after Downton Abbey, where the ball is held at the end of the film, is Harewood House. Although the name of the village is pronounced as it is spelled (Hare-wood), the House and the title Lord Harewood are perversely pronounced Har-wood, as was correctly done throughout the film.

Here’s a bonus picture because I just love it so much

Little Women: the Gen X Version

The review:

Gillian Armstrong’s Little Women is my generation’s Little Women and it’s full of great performances and too much moralizing.* While everyone is batting a thousand, Claire Danes goes the extra mile, not only ugly crying, but also killing it in her deathbed scene.** I’ve never liked the bones of the story***, but this is still fun to watch.

The verdict: Good

Cost: Netflix monthly fee ($8.99)
Where watched: at home, in preparation for the Greta Gerwig version

Consider also watching:

  • In Her Shoes
  • The Virgin Suicides
  • Frozen
  • Sense & Sensibility

Further sentences:

*I mean, geez, I know how progressive Louisa May Alcott and her family were, but it seems like every time Marmee opens her mouth it’s to provide a mini-lecture about their advanced beliefs. My eyes were rolling.
**Pun intended. Simple words said beautifully, and the waterworks start.
***Amy. Brat with few redeeming qualities. Jo. Belongs with Laurie. Or at least a single writer. Anyone but that old guy.

Favorite IMDB trivia item:

While filming, Claire Danes was carrying a candle up the stairs and her hair caught on fire.

Update: an oral history of this film’s production, provided by the New York Times. Worth reading!