mharah Reviews

Disturbing the Peace (2020)

Not anywhere near as bad as the naysaers would have you believe...

[4/10 · 18 June 2023]

Gosh, the self-appointed critics sure got together to attack this one. However, an unbiased eye would have realized that it has quite a few good points. True, a lot of things could have been done better, and a surer hand probably would have seen to that. Guyy Pearce might be mistakenly criticized for walking through role. Not true - his style was totally motivated and definitively handled.

Pearce - for whatever reason he decided to do a B-movie - brought a lot of credibility to the project. Pearce's career is at a point where he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do, so he must have had some personal reason for signing on. And he had to have known that his coworkers were less than the seasoned pros he was used to.

Devon Sawa - capable but unremarkable in his beginnings as a child actor - is excellent as the chief bad guy. He deftly avoided all the pitfalls of villain cliches as well as overacting. He proved to be an worthy nemesis for Pearce.

Barbie Blank - Pearce's love interest - sort of - is a WWE star, and the role took good advantage of her skills. As an actress, she was handed a very one-dimensional role, which she handled accordingly.

Most of the rest of the cast are experienced actors - albeit nothing outstanding, and by and large they acquitted themselves well (with a few very notable, glaring exceptions).

The problems began with the script, which, although full of potential, failed to overcome its weak points in production.. The flow of the plot - which could have been all too familiar and all too trite - managed to avoid the screamingly ordinary. While there are only so many ways to handle the details of the plot - all of which have been filmed a lot in the past, this movie handled them fairly well. The "clunky" moments - and there a lot of them - are more a problem of staging and/or direction.

Director. Shackleton was handling his ninth and most recent stint in the director's chair. I'm not familiar with his earlier work. But it doesn't seem to have thoroughly prepared him for what is essentially an action film. The pacing - which is unnecessarily leisurely most of the time - doesn't lend itself to being corrected in post.

All in all, this film is definitely not the waste of time that multiple imdb critics would have us believe. Pearce is quoted as describing the film as "abysmal". He would be greatly responsible for that if it were true, which it is not. Perhaps his reaction has been taken out of context, because he had to have known what he was getting into.

Shackleton's next project is in preproduction for which he is also listed as a producer. Normally, I would say that being both producer and director may not be the best decision. However, "Disturbing the Peace" has a producer list that went on for miles; and Shackleton wasn't one of them. Perhaps, he should have been.

A Lawless Street (1955)

This could have been a A-List, but...

[5/10 · 25 April 2021]

Sometimes Columbia took a good story and trashed it. A Lawless Street is a good example. Columbia gave the project a B-List writer, a B-List producer a B-List Director, and a B-List supporting cast. Not surprisingly, Columbia came out with a B-List film. Considering what Columbia aspired to in the 50s, the result was probably not unexpected. The two stars had previously shown they were worthy of A-List projects, but studios weren't adverse to putting their best contract players in whatever would keep them working, since, working or not, they were getting paid. The result was, all-too-often, films such as A Lawless Street. Both Randolph Scott and Angela Lansbury were better than this, and their work in the film has flashes of their better work. Maybe someone will discover this buried treasure and give it the A-List rewrite it deserves.

Da 5 Bloods (2020)

Maybe Spike mght have used a nom de plume

[6/10 · 7 March 2021]

The Spike Lee fans on IMDB are in a tizzy. Spike apparently isn't allowed to make anything that doesn't top his last film . Okay, this one doesn't do that. But that doesn't make it a bad film. It's a treasure hunt with a bunch of "grumpy old men". And it does seem somewhat unlikely in spots, but who knows for sure? Few of us have been trekking in the Vietnamese jungle. Delroy's MAGA character was somewhat extreme, but this is Spike after all; he's hardly a moderate. The film is a good watch, a bit long perhaps, but still engaging. Excellent work from a skilled cast and crew. In short, this film probably might have been less vociferously received had it been the work of someone less iconic.

The Little Things (2021)

Really just a run-of-the mill TV movie

[4/10 · 5 March 2021]

I can see why Eastwood, Spielberg and DeVito ultimately passed on this. The script just never lived up to its potential. Actors do projects for all sorts of reasons, but let's just say that Washington, Malik and Leto were slumming and leave it at that. Leto, as always, was very interesting. (He seemed to be filling in a lot of blanks in the script.) Malik seemed determined to demonstrate that he can be more than just Freddie Mercury. (He can be, of course, but his unique look is always a reminder.) Washington could have phoned it in. (Maybe he did.) Well photographed, but the sound alternated from fair to dreadful. And that, coupled with the actors muttering many of their lines, was very distrtessing. (Perhaps they feel it makes them seem serious. Perhaps, but their words still need to be clear.) John Lee Hancock, who wrote, produced and directed, needed someone looking over his shoulder. It still would be a TV movie, but it could have been a much, much better one.

The Search for Santa Paws (2010 Video)

I was stunned...

[7/10 · 2 November 2020]

...at the vociferously negative reviews... and so many of them. It is almost as though some folks are ganging up on the rest of us. Calm down. Not every movie is for everyone. Just because it has a Christmas motif doesn't make it universal. And it also doesn't mean it's a horrible film.

I found The Search for Santa Paws to be very charming. If some viewers are looking for Christmas stories that are entirely upbeat and positive, then no, this isn't for them. However, others of us have different expectations. Reading reactions from reviewers running off with their hair on fire because the film didn't live up to their standards is very misleading. (I don't care for films in the tradition of Bad Santa, so I simply avoid them. I don't come unglued.)

Now then, that having been said, several characters could have used some more development. Mr Huckle was alternatively both unsympathetic and silly for no apparent reason, while his wife seemed mostly oblivious to his mood swings. The orphanage matron was just relentlessly and boringly obstinate. If she had even tried to be really mean rather than just persistently irritable, we might have learned something about how she even got into the orphan business. (She openly complains that it doesn't pay very well.) Mrs Claus was mostly sycophantic. Surely, she has a lot to say about how the North Pole operation is conducted. We needed to hear that. And Quinn - who is apparently a regular in these movies - is just annoying. Her diction is terrible, and her acting is wooden. (There are plenty of good child actresses. Go find one.)

Still, overall, the film is engaging. It certainly doesn't deserve to be castigated just because the viewer wanted something else. What I mostly read here weren't reviews. That were just complaints.

Home Fires Burning (1989 TV Movie)

A Shadow of Its Real Slf

[5/10 · 18 October 2020]

Home Fires Burning is one of the best novels I have ever read, and I'm glad that the novel's author - Robert Inman - actually wrote the teleplay. That way he got to preserve as much of the original as possible - which lamentably isn't much. In today's market, it would have been properly done as a mini-series, making good use of the rest of the book. Most of complete story occurs before the action on the screen and is vital to the character development of every character. Having to start the narrative with the airplane stunt gives the whole story a much lighter tone.

To be fair, this film would have been better titled, "Incidents from Home Fires Burning", because it strings together a set of occurrences which would have made far better sense if the viewer already know what had come before. The characters, as drawn, have little depth. The events, which here come out of nowhere, would seem quite expected. The relationships that brought them to this point could reveal so much.

However, in television, you don't get to tell the story you want, you tell the story you've got. There are brilliant actors comprising this cast - not a weak portrayal in the bunch. But very few would have done the real story credibly. Too old, mostly. And that's the problem here: Too many lose ends that - even superficially - could never have been explained away with this cast.

It is hard to review this production, knowing what could/should have been. This story just can't br compressed into an hour and a half. The bottom line is that it really doesn't work. Some stories just shouldn't be told if they can't be told well. This one isn't told well.

Marci X (2003)

What is with you reviewer people!?

[7/10 · 21 September 2020]

This a hoot!!

Well, okay, I am seeing it 20 years later for the first time, so opinions have had a long period and lot of real-life craziness to catch up.

Paul Rudnick, no slouch when it comes to writing comedy - although it may not appeal to all of us, that's true - has taken potshots at damn near everyone around the turn of the century. New York elites, right-wing politicians, bad rap music masquerading as hip-hot (they're not the same), swaggering gangsta-music executives, black pomposity, white condescension, demonstrator nonsense, TV anchor stupidity. This is beyond satire, it's even beyond spoof. It's a whole raft of wildly talent people, and they are not letting anyone go unscathed.

Christine Baranski as a right-wing zealot? Anyone who has seen "The Good Wife" or "The Good Fight" knows that this character is a first-class acting job! Damon Wayons as a sexually-ambiguous Michael Jackson-like creature? A creative unique addition to his collection of take-offs. Lisa Kudrow - sort of like Phoebe, but not really - is clearly an Ivanka Trump wanna-be - and prescient so many years ahead. The list goes on, i.e. Boys Are Us (plenty of targets there),

Marci X is indeed short on coherent plot, but that is probably not really a problem since plot is not the point here. It is merely a pretext to hang the shenanigans on. Nobody escapes. Considering all the scathing reviews, perhaps it was ahead of its time. Re-release it today (if you can find a theater that's open - streaming perhaps?) and see how many people think it is taking a broad swipe at Donald Trump.

Maybe it's time for a sequel. What a classy job Rudnick and Wayans could do with that!

Man Overboard (2008)

Typical beginner mistakes.

[3/10 · 24 August 2020]

Man Overbard is pretty much a "first film". It isn't a bad idea at all. And the talent, both in front of and behind the camera, is promising. But it needs direction. The script is an interesting first draft but needs some serious rewriting, especially continuity (there isn't much) and plot device set-ups, preferably by a proven script doctor. The actors all seem to be seasoned day players. There's often a reason why actors are day players. And here, that reason is apparent. (Maybe they were mostly all friends - that rarely works, either.) The director was mostly just stringing together scenes, not setting up the plot devices, the gags or the relationships.

Since this film was made 12-13 years ago, probably all the participants have gained more experience. Man Overboard was not a bad idea; in fact, it was a pretty good one. It would be interesting to see how it would have been improved. Perhaps they would be able to get back together for "Man Overboard II".

Hi De Ho (1947)

Archival value and that's all

[3/10 · 11 August 2020]

It's a treat to see anything of Cab Calloway's work. Much of it here would not be readily available on film, so that's a plus. Even as an actor, he was promising.

The balance, with the exception of a few bits here and there, is hideous - too much horrible acting in one place. Without singling anybody out, the line readings - and they were mostly readings - were just plain bad. In 1947, Hollywood just didn't have much depth of black acting talent, and this is proof. (Unless someone was just casting their friends - always possible - these "actors" just need to find another line of work.) The technical work ranged from average to embarrassing. The musical numbers were mostly just stage shots but handled okay. The acting scenes were often badly blocked, badly lit, badly miked. Nobody since to early days of one-camera silents used back and forth pan shots for conversations. Yet here they are.

All in all, a good gig for Cab alone. The rest of it - phew!

The Kid (2000)

There is another film in here trying to get out...

[7/10 · 4 June 2020]

I would love to have seen this film while it still had the Jerry Goldsmith score. (Can you believe it? They scrapped the Goldsmith score for this more-than-adequate but loosely assembled pastiche.) It must have happened about the time someone decided that "The Kid" was really a kids' movie. (It isn't.) How much would they have done differently, or was it just tweeked in the editing room? (The Goldsmith score was actually used as a rough track. Who uses Goldsmith as a rough track... and then dumps him... for this?) Someone knows the answers. So maybe someone will eventually spill the beans. (Often Wikipedia has the goods, but not this time. At least, not yet.)

Bruce Willis overcomes the opportunities to be silly, and not yet 8-year-old Spencer Breslin (in his first film) holds his own quite well. (Willis obviously respects him. That's important. Too many adult actors have no idea about that.) Good supporting turns from pros like Lily Tomlin, Jean Smart , Emily Mortimer and Dana Ivey. (Even Matthew Perry, but you probably didn't recognize him.)

All in all, a satisfying watch. Still, I would love to have seen the hidden version. I'll bet it would have been amazing!

Careful, He Might Hear You (1983)

It captures the story but misses the nuances

[7/10 · 7 March 2020]

Careful, He Might Hear You - the novel by Sumner Locke Elliott (a thinly disguised autobiographical piece) - is a meandering, but still engaging, narrative of a six-year-old Australian boy, orphaned at birth with the death of his mother and an forever absentee father. The movie - beautifully rendered and magnificently acted - is an intelligently adapted work, condensed for enactment, to be sure, but still faithful to the evolution of the events. However, the subtleties of the character interactions - so vital to the novel - were largely glossed over in the film, and that is its shortcoming. True, produced in 1983 in Australia, it is the product of film-making 40 years ago when the emphasis was more on story and less on character. The film does its best to bridge that gap - what success there is in defining the relationships is excellently attempted by the actors - they did all they could with the script they were given - but in the end we see very little of the emotions which drew them together and yet tore them apart. It is these emotions which are the guts of the story.

The boy - "PS" as he has been dubbed by his dying mother, who saw him as a beloved post script to the end of her determinedly daring life - is set in 1930s Australia. PS lives with Lila and George, his mother's older sister and her husband, who see him as their own. Their circumstances are modest in the those Depression years, but they are managing. Back into their lives comes Vanessa, yet another aunt/sister (there are still even two more), who has been living in England as a companion to Ettie, their family's wealthy cousin. It seems that PS' missing father has been persuaded to assign "Ness" with a role in PS' guardianship. A tug of war ensues between Lila and Vanessa for PS' allegiance, and it is his eventual destiny that is the story's denouement.

The acting is superb. Wendy Hughes and Robin Nevin as Vanessa and Lila, are restrained where they could have cut loose. John Hargreaves, as PS' still mostly absent father, was nobly worthless, which explained so much. Nicholas Gledhill, in his first role, is brilliant - he carries the film. The technical contributions - direction, cinematography, sets, lighting, sound, costumes, make-up - are all first rate.

If one has not read the book, I am sure the movie - in the 1980s - would be satisfying. But this story deserves so much more. Today, it would probably be done as miniseries - freeing the writer to bring out the characters, their relationships and their emotions, all of which are vital to understanding PS' journey to find himself.

Cats (2019)

All the grumps have reviewed this show....Don't pay any attention to them!

[10/10 · 21 December 2019]

If you don't like musicals, then don't see this one. If you're expecting to see the stage version, you'll be disappointed. If one of the actors is a fave of yours, be prepared for something different. All the grumpy critics have already logged in, don't listen to them. They're a bunch of Philistines.

This film should be called "CATS: The Movie", because it's very different from the stage show. The re-conception is brilliant. It turns a stubbornly stage musical into a film experience, an achievement that often doesn't go too well. All the elements - dancing, singing, visuals, storytelling - come together beautifully. Every cast member fits the template; it is very much an ensemble piece, not a star turn. Several players whose names you won't recognize (Munkustrap, Shimbleshanks, Mr Mistofelees) just simply dazzle alongside bravura work from the star names.

This is well worth seeing. Don't be put off by the naysayers.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

Too Clever by Half

[8/10 · 16 November 2019]

I dare you not to like this film. Tom Hanks is the perfect Mr. Rogers. (Even almost creepy now and then. Look for the scene in the coffee shop.) Matthew Rhys - the consummate actor from Wales who does Americans better than Americans - makes being a troubled soul seem effortless. (It's not easy at all.) Chris Cooper brings off one more disagreeable character, and he makes it quite different from any of the same characters you've seen him do before. Susan Kelechi-Watson - as the long-suffering, patient wife makes more out of the role than the script seems to give her. And Christine Lahti gives Ellen - the "shut-up-and-get-it-done" magazine editor - a subtle humanity that was barely expected and beautifully woven in. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is NOT about Mr Rogers; he's really a supporting player. But the story - which could have been told without him - would otherwise not have worked. I dare you not to like it.

Dolemite Is My Name (2019)

An minor tribute to an unsung pioneer

[6/10 · 27 October 2019]

Rudy Ray Moore was probably destined for obscure status in the widespread consciousness. Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Moms Mabley - they all knew just how far to push their off-color delivery; they brought their free-wheeling black comedy skills to a mainstream audience and gained acceptance. Moore went further than that, and his target audience was committed but limited. Perhaps he didn't see his own self-imposed boundaries. Eddie Murphy's brilliant portrayal suggests that Moore realized the limitations... and didn't care. He much preferred to remain true to his art. If so, Murphy's Moore should be seen as a wonderful tribute to a skilled performer little known outside the world he decided to inhabit. If the viewer buys this, Dolemite is My Name is a stirring tribute. But if the viewer sees the subtle suggestions that he may have longed for more, the conclusion may be bittersweet.

The Lighthouse (I) (2019)

...Pretentiousness, beautifully done

[6/10 · 27 October 2019]

If I were twenty years old again and still in film school, I would be raving about The Lighthouse. It is brilliantly directed, gorgeously produced. The actors - both of proven skills - are expertly chewing the scenery, a talent that is increasingly required as the horror genre has finally decided to move beyond cheap scares. (Thank you, Jordan Peele.) But at heart, The Lighthouse is essentially a drawn-out, Victorian-era ghost story. If you like this sort of thing, it will not disappoint. If however you've moved beyonf art house horror, well...

Judy (II) (2019)

It's really not a bio-pic...

[7/10 · 19 October 2019]

...for a variety of reasons. But that doesn't mean it isn't an important window into the last year of Judy Garland's life. Renee Zellweger gives a bravura performance as Garland, and the obvious reality that so much of the narrative is, shall we say, conceptualized, gives Zellweger a much freer reign to create the character.

Judy Garland died 50 years ago, so this film, based on a 2005 musical play by Peter Quilter, is a long way from first hand information. And while the highlights - actual events - have always been well-known, the details are probably not. And this rendition is very dependent of those details. Since many who were close to Garland were, by the time of the underlying play probably long gone themselves, it is probably safe to assume that more than a bit of the narrative was left to "filling in the blanks." That is the strength of "Judy." We may never know the actual conversations - so important in this film, but they are undoubtedly as faithful as they need to be, and that is the strength of the film

Judy is probably not an historically accurate portrayal, but it doesn't need to.

Harriet (I) (2019)

Harriet Tubman was a great American hero.

[8/10 · 6 October 2019]

Up to now, her story has been little told. That is unfortunate, but not unusual when it comes to black heroes of the Civil War era. Hopefully, this is one of the first of many. However, as with many of the long-lingering characterizations of legendary American men (and women), "Harriet" has been gracefully "airbrushed." Not unexpected, and perhaps even necessary at this point in the spectrum of black history in America. We need many more black icons in our country's history, so maybe it will be good to see them lionized, at least at first.

Ad Astra (2019)

I rarely advocate for longer movies...

[5/10 · 6 October 2019]

If you can't show us the story in two hours, there had better be a very good reason. But Ad Astra just couldn't be told in two hours...and it wasn't. The problem began with the writer and the director being the same person: there's no one around to say, "Uh, Jim, this isn't working." Then there is the problem of the first person narrative. If the protagonist is the storyteller, then every bit of his narrative must be included, or we won't understand, much less appreciate, his story. In Ad Astra, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) - a cool, analytical individual - has a lot to say - to himself if not anyone else. Unfortunately, two hours just wasn't long enough to say it, so the audience is denied a lot of what has compelled him to accept his mission. A good third-party director would have raised the questions. It may have resulted in a longer script, but, on balance, it would have been a better one.

Joker (I) (2019)

For Joaquin fans, this is a field day...

[5/10 · 6 October 2019]

...for the rest of us, not so much. Does Warner Bros really want to take its franchise down this road?

The Goldfinch (2019)

Same narrative, different story

[7/10 · 1 October 2019]

The book is not the movie, the movie is not the book.

The Goldfinch (Donna Tartt's novel) is a first-person narrative, one of the hardest pieces of prose to convert into film. The book is divided succinctly into two parts - young teenage Theo and mid-20s young adult Theo. The structure is linear, and the narrative is young adult Theo's reminiscence of his life's journey. We first see him in a Dutch hotel on Christmas Eve, seriously contemplating suicide. The book is 962 pages - some critics have described it as less than that but still long - not a treatise which lends itself readily to a 2-plus hour adaptation.

The Goldfinch (the movie) is the same narrative, and it sticks very closely to the source. At 2 hours, 29 minutes, quite a lot had to be omitted. Thus, the movie became the same narrative, as told by a second-hand, third party raconteur - interested but recounting after the fact with input from young adult Theo and a few of his on-the-spot, in-the-moment, after-the-fact recollections. Although the narrative is the same, the story becomes very different from the book. In short, the film lacks the color that was so much a part of the novel.

For viewers who read the book - especially those who loved it - the movie may disappoint. To say much more will constitute a spoiler. The production elements are impeccable. The screenplay suffers from the same problem as the novel - it is convoluted and too tightly packed - not a catastrophe but somewhat inexplicable. The performances are first-rate, but don't expect the characters to be exactly the same as the novel; there isn't enough time to develop that. Oakes Fegley (young Theo) is breathtaking he is so good. Finn Wolfhard creates an amazing teen Boris. His accent is consistent and quite believable. (Forget the accent critics; trying to understand authentic non-natives tackling American English is mostly unintelligible - not suitable for a movie.) Ansel Elgort (young adult Theo) gives an excellent grown-up version of himself. Supporting turns by Nicole Kidman, Luke Wilson, Jeffrey Wright, Sarah Paulson make it obvious why they are stars. (And except for Kidman, I probably wouldn't have envisioned any of them for the characters as portrayed in the book.)

If you loved the book, you probably won't like the movie. If not - or if you didn't read it, ignore the critics; they are wrong.

The Good Fight: The One Inspired by Roy Cohn (2019) Season 3, Episode 2

OK - Enough is Enough!

[5/10 · 25 August 2019]

This series, spinning off from the sublime series, "The Good Wife", has made its politics obvious from the beginning. They don't like Trump - I get it. But the dislike of Trump doesn't seem to have anything much to do with the core of the show, which is litigation amid intra-firm contentiousness. Nobody should be surprised to find a hotshot law firm in Chicago whose partners and associates don't like Trump; it is a growing surprise to see a pivotal partner in that firm - already established as a brilliant attorney who regularly demonstrates her ability to argue the law irrespective of her own politics - becoming increasingly unhinged when her renowned Republican husband even uses the word "trump" casually. And then she apparently goes to a great length to secretly record Republican conversations at a cocktail party/GOP fundraiser - strictly illegal in Illinois and an offense for which she could be disbarred. (How did she even get in? She's an outspoken liberal Democrat.) I find this series continues to be brilliant, but let's get back to the core narration. And that's not Donald Trump.

The Twilight Zone: The Comedian (2019) Season 1, Episode 1

Wow! Is this ever terrible!

[3/10 · 25 August 2019]

The original Twilight Zone is a classic. Any remake should be undertaken with great skill. Granted, this is only the first episode , but the show is off to a very bad start. Too long, too frantic, too loose, too erratic. It may suffice for some other platform, but not The Twilight Zone. Only wonderful actors and great production work keep it from being completely unwatchable. If this is an example of how the producers plan to revisit The Twilight Zone, the prospects are dim indeed.

Late Night (2019)

Get over yourselves...

[4/10 · 14 July 2019]

When Hollywood can finally get past being gaga (and no offense to Lady G herself) over Mindy Kaling, and when Mindy gets over her obsession with herself, perhaps we can see something worth looking at. Late Night is a watchable but rather overworked film (hard to say "comedy" - the audience only chuckled twice). It's a Lifetime movie pumped up for theaters. Wonderful actors - which probably saved it from going straight to DVD. Emma Thompson excellent. John Lithgow brilliant but wasted. (He could have phoned it in, but he didn't.) Many other stars in smaller roles who were VERY good but little to work with. (Watch for Luke Slattery - only two very slight scenes - but he made a LOT out of them .) Anyway, we get it. Mindy Kaling's Molly was a diversity hire who found a way to make it work for her. Mindy herself is at a caerer point where she needs to do the same. In Late Night, she is just relying on trite but cute. We've seen her do that before... too often.

Greta (2018)

A Throwback to the 60s?

[4/10 · 12 March 2019]

If you are a fan of this sort of thing, it's probably a nice diversion for a rainy evening. Otherwise, we've seen this movie before... many times. Back in the 60s, Joan Crawford, Olivia De Havilland, Shelley Winters, Agnes Moorhead, Susan Hayward, Ann Sothern, Tallulah Bankhead, ... even Debbie Reynolds, and most memorably Bette Davis (who did a whole string of the things, both in movie theaters and on TV) all turned to the horror/thriller genre when they got too old to be leading ladies. The legendary Isabelle Huppert may have arrived at that stage of her career. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation for getting involved in this tired old plotline. (Although the film isn't a remake, ii isn't unfamiliar.) Huppert and co-star Chloe Grace Moretz acquit themselves well, but surely they can both find better things to do. The script is sort of clunky, plot holes abound, and a number of "oh, come on! Seriously?" moments appear regularly. (The bumbling detective was very obvious.) The dream (nightmare?) sequences are particularly clumsy, to the point that it isn't even clear exactly what is a dream and what isn't. A shout-out to Maika Monroe, who handles her throwaway role as the wiseacre roommate with far more acumen than it is written. So, how many more leading ladies will be turning to this sort of movie-making? Kind of a scary thought itself, isn't it?

If Beale Street Could Talk (2018)

Maybe I expected too much.

[6/10 · 28 November 2018]

This film is based on James Baldwin's novel of the same name. I read it at the time and was very moved. It told me so much I didn't know. But that was in 1974, and one has heard the same story over and over since then. Barry Jenkins is telling a period piece, a mood piece. It is brilliantly acted and gorgeously shot. The music is too loud, but maybe that is deliberately appropriate. The narrative moves very slowly, with the deceptive languor of the South. That might work if it were set in the South, but it's not; it's Harlem. It has the feel of 1974, and it certainly could be New York - or Philadelphia or Baltimore - or Chicago or Detroit (which was only beginning to disintegrate then). In short, it doesn't feel tethered. Memphis, it is not. The result is that, unlike Moonlight, which was very involving, this film is rather stereotypical. Again, that was new in 1974. But not now. Today, we see the same stories over and over on TV screens - some of which are sadly still all too true, and others which are probably ginned up and definitely exploitive. I kept looking at my watch and thinking, "will nothing ever happen?", and it didn't. In short, If Beale Street Could Talk does look impressive. (Jenkins' fans are already gushing. And I am one, but I'm not blown away.) Moonlight it is not.