HARRIET

Cynthia Erivo     Leslie Odom, Jr.     Janelle Monae     Joe Alwyn     Jennifer Nettles     Clarke Peters

     This story about the American hero, Harriet Tubman, who risked her life many times, first to save herself, then to save others, is a sobering account.  Its strength—not a singular one—is in showing how despicable slavery is to the human body and soul and the strength and assertiveness of one woman in rebelliously going against a whole society in her efforts to free slaves.

     The movie begins showing Harriet as a young woman married to a free man.  It becomes apparent to her when the prospect of being sold arises, that there is a way out, and she’s ready to take that step (literally, a “Give me liberty or give me death” move). Leaving her reluctant husband behind, she runs, swims, gets surreptitious help along the way, and somehow manages to get 100 miles north of her home in Maryland. Although she can’t read, she’s very good at following directions and locating people she is told will help her.  That is when she is directed to and reaches an organization in Philadelphia that runs the Underground Railroad.  

     Not content to make a life of her own at that point, Tubman continues to return home to help family members escape.  Her first trip to bring her husband with her results in some disappointing news, but she is able to rescue other family members.  She develops such a passion for freedom, she continues to help people get to the underground railroad, soon being named a “conductor” among the abolitionists.

     Cynthia Erivo is exemplary as Tubman, and I don’t know if the real Tubman sang, but when Erivo belts out a song at meaningful times, her voice is beautiful. Strong support is lent by Leslie Odom, Jr. as a major abolitionist for the Underground Railroad and Janelle Monae in a cameo role, as an ally who helps Tubman present herself as a free woman.  Also strong in a ferocious way is Joe Alwyn, as the slave owner’s son, who has loving memories of Tubman caring for him when he was gravely ill, but has self-entitlement so ingrained it gives him more impetus to catch her, with the aim of …you can guess.

     I kept feeling like I should like this film better than I did.  It was depressing, as tales of slavery always are and that’s understandable, but when evil or heroism are being portrayed, it lacks the “zip’ that would make it a moving experience.  This may be attributed to Kasi Lemmons’ direction along with the editing by Wyatt Smith.  Two other detractions related to implausibility are the depictions of Tubman’s visions, which I found hard to believe, and a scene in which Alwyn could have easily picked up his gun and stopped the fleeing Tubman.  It’s too bad the story ended when it did, leaving out Tubman’s later career in spying for the Union Army during the Civil War and her continued assistance to others.

     It is a good thing that Harriet Tubman’s story is—finally—being told.  I hope that other films follow with more of an in-depth look into what an extraordinary person she was.

A story about the American heroine Harriet Tubman that, unfortunately, lacks dramatic weight.

Grade:  C                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE KING

Timothee Chalamet     Joel Edgerton     Robert Pattinson     Ben Mendelsohn     Thomasin McKenzie    Lily-Rose Depp

     The King presents an interesting picture of King Henry V of England I in the early part of the 15^thCentury.  The script, co-written by Joel Edgerton and director David Michod, draws some from history, more from Shakespeare’s plays, Henry IV and Henry V, and then elaborates on all sources.  The viewer should regard it as primarily a dramatization only loosely drawn from history and Shakespeare.

     As it turns out, the filmmakers have rewritten their sources to create a story about a “reluctant prince” who has major conflicts with his father, King Henry IV (Mendelsohn) about the constant wars the father has waged.  Henry V (Chalamet) is presented first as a playboy who has no desire to be a king, and doesn’t even want to attend to his ailing father. 

     It’s a bit of a stretch that such a person could suddenly turn into an admirable figure as he does in the film, but that’s the drama of it.  After the sudden change, Henry is shown to be a skilled and ferocious opponent in swordplay, a man who is astute and listens carefully to arguments presented to him, and makes shrewd decisions based upon his deductions.  He is not susceptible to indignations purposed upon him by others; he can take decisive, even ruthless, action when he suspects someone is lying or outright betraying him; and he keeps a cool head in negotiations with opponents.  Of course, he is also very handsome and appealing.

     The way Henry V becomes king is his take-charge stance after his father has chosen second son Thomas as his successor, someone who seems not to be a match for his brother, either intellectually or physically.  Henry tries to save him and avoid another war, but Thomas is recalcitrant, and after a series of events and time, the reluctant Henry becomes king.

     The rest of the story is about Henry’s being drawn into war, despite all his efforts against it, his need to identify those around him he can trust, and resorting to finding his old friend and caretaker John Falstaff (Edgerton) to be his primary advisor and strategist (especially in war) and supporter.

     The French don’t come across very well in this story; both the dauphin (Pattinson) and his father, King Charles VI, are disdainful and insolent toward Henry, refusing to go along with the ways he presents to avoid war.  Although they are partially redeemed by their eloquent--rather audacious—princess Catherine (Depp) who stands up to Henry in a very entertaining contretemps.  

     The craft of The King is admirable in Michod’s direction, the music (Nicholas Britell) and the cinematography (Adam Arkapaw), and the actors capture their roles well for the most part, especially Chalamet, Edgerton, McKenzie, and Depp.  Editing (Peter Sciberras) can be faulted for extending the battle scene far too long in a movie that is already over two hours in length. The scenes are effective in showing the bloodiness, muck, and brutality, but become tiring halfway through.

     I liked the Michod and Edgerton’s elaboration on historical events to present a character who is admirable in so many ways, trying to achieve peaceful resolutions, but mindful of counteracting forces.  This Henry V is someone we can admire, but viewers should not go with the expectation of seeing a production up to the level of a play by Shakespeare.

Henry V is an entertaining take-off of Shakespeare’s version, this one having a message of peace and the value of unity.

Grade:  C+                                                By Donna R Copeland

TERMINATOR: DARK FATE

Arnold Schwarzenegger     Linda Hamilton     Mackenzie Davis     Natalia Reyes     Gabriel Luna

     Opening the film is an apparently normal teenager in Mexico making out with her boyfriend in an isolated area when they see a woman fall off a high bridge. They investigate and determine that she needs medical help, but when they’re approaching potential assistance from policemen who have appeared, they’re seen as suspicious and the police are ready to take them in.  But something amazing happens.

     Be prepared.  Shortly after that, this film directed by Tim Miller, a special effects artist, proceeds with a half-hour(?) of that which is dear to his heart:  All kinds of vehicles (including a plow truck driven by an AI and a pick-up driven by a modified human with a mission) sensationally chasing and crashing into one another on freeways and country roads, with the AI having the ability to throw out a black tar-like substance that magically transforms into a weapon and even his own reconstitution.

     Gradually we hear about the background leading up to this moment.  Cryptically, Grace (modified human majestically portrayed by Mackenzie Davis) has been sent to protect Dani, the teenager (Natalia Reyes), from the AI Rev-9 Terminator (stoically played by Gabriel Luna). They will meet up with characters from previous renditions of the Terminator, a grieving Sarah Connor (Hamilton) and her nemesis T-800 (Schwarzenegger).

     It continues the Terminator theme of man vs. machines, with the message that even though it seems like a losing battle, one should never give up hope of human supremacy.  In the dream world created by the screenwriters of this gem (David S. Goyer, Justin Rhodes, and Billy Ray), where anything can happen and need not have a smidgen of reality or logic attached to it, yes, they can make it happen.  The only problem is that the writers’ imagination is not very imaginative and the dialog is so trite, that after 2+ hours the film becomes tedious to watch:  It’s essentially a series of special effects.  

     Inconsistencies that can be bothersome to a viewer based in reality are frequent, such as Grace being able to bound 50 feet into the air and swoop down with the speed of lightning, but when boarding a train, she walks gingerly up the steps. Sometimes the characters do miraculous feats, yet other times, those same feats are not available to them.

     One of my biggest problems with the film is the glorification of guns, even though they’re often shown to be woefully ineffective.  Still, what is shown is meant to appeal to gun-rights champions.  The joke was on me at one point when the small group of fleers realizes they need weapons—lots of them.  It’s then revealed they’re in Texas, and I laughed, not catching on (thanks to my colleague) to the fact that many in the audience were laughing for opposite reasons than I was.  Was it a laugh at or a laugh with Texas? 

     The only sequence of substance that I picked up on was T-800 Terminator (Schwarzenegger) describing what transpired in him after he became inactive.  He spent the time learning to be human, i.e., having a purpose, seeing the value of caring for others; and learning what a conscience is, which he acts out behaviorally even though the experience is beyond him.  This is a clever bridge between technology and humanity.

     This film is obviously for viewers who love an emphasis on special effects and are less interested in human interactions and the value of well-written dialog that illuminates beyond thrills and chills.

Terminator devotees will likely find the film satisfying; others are likely to find it tedious and boring.

Grade:  D+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN

Edward Norton     Willem Dafoe     Gugu Mbitha-Raw     Bruce Willis     Alec Baldwin

Dallas Roberts     Leslie Mann     Bobby Cannavale     Michael Kenneth Williams     Cherry Jones

     Picture New York City in the 1950’s with a gumshoe detective following clues to weed out the killer of his life-long mentor.  Or at least picture one of the detective films you’ve seen—or heard on the radio—from that time (e.g., Mr. Keen, Tracer of lost persons; Dragnet), with the smokiness of the rooms, the seediness of the neighborhoods, and the persistence of a committed private detective.  That’s the movie Edward Norton has written (based on Jonathan Lethen’s novel), produced, directed, and starred in, in Motherless Brooklyn.  Norton and his cinematographer Dick Pope capture this period’s mood and effluence of city corruption that ends up being a crime thriller, complete with car chases, goons, and the pressure of rescuing an endangered damsel.

     The extra intriguing twist to this story is that the main character Lionel Essrog (what a name!), played spot on by Norton, has Tourette’s Syndrome (a disorder involving involuntary tics and utterances).  It’s not really relevant or essential to the story, but adds a touch of color.  Lionel works in a private detective agency headed by his lifelong mentor Frank Minna (Willis).  From the time Frank took pity on and rescued Lionel from bullies in a boy’s home, he has continued to protect him.

     But Frank is also mysterious about jobs he’s working on, giving Lionel and the others only sketchy details about it, but explicit instructions about how to keep an eye out and what to do if…  The movie begins with just such a job, during which Frank is killed.  What ensues is Lionel following the slim clues he’s been given or picked up to find the killer.

     This leads him into major city politics and Frank’s role in it; Moses Randolph (Baldwin), who seems to be in charge of major city “improvements”; a homeless man (Dafoe); activist    Gabby Horowitz (Jones); and a mysterious “black woman” Laura Rose (Mbitha-Raw).

     The novel—and consequently the film—seem to be at least loosely based on true historical events in the 1950’s, documented in a 2018 film, Citizen Jane:  Battle for the City, when Robert Moses, a city planner, began to dismantle city neighborhoods to construct freeways and bridges through them without regard for the people affected.  That is what is happening in this film, but it’s put into a drama that is exciting and will pull at the heartstrings.  

     This is a fun movie for those who can get into period dramas from not too long ago and follow leads and cues the detective Lionel chases—all while explaining his “brain problem.”  The cast is superb (what a juxtaposition of Baldwin’s Moses Randolph and his “Saturday Night Live” Trump impersonations), with Norton capturing the Tourette-plagued Lionel, Mbitha-Raw as an attractive, accomplished woman with a dark history, Willem Dafoe as the mysterious homeless man with a significant background, Bobby Cannavale as a compromised man, and Leslie Mann, Michael K. Williams, and Cherry Jones all providing star-quality performances.

A cloak and dagger story harking back to the 1950s with the added twist of a detective with Tourette’s, but possessing a formidable memory.

Grade:  B                                                By Donna R. Copeland

JOJO RABBIT

Roman Griffin Davis    Taika Waititi    Thomasin McKenzie          Scarlett Johansson     Sam Rockwell     

Rebel Wilson     Archie Yates     Stephen Merchant     Alfie Allen

     What an ingenious anti-war film!  Taika Waititi has invested all of his creative energies into putting viewers into the mind of a child to take the journey from hope and hero worship on to despair and disillusionment, then full circle to hope, in a most unusual coming-of-age story set in Germany during the end of WWII.

     It begins (significantly, with a Beatles song “I want to Hold Your Hand” in German) with Jojo (incredibly portrayed by Davis in his first film), a gung-ho young German attending a youth camp for Nazi training.  He’s so into it, he has his [imaginary] friend Adolph Hitler (Waititi) by his side, bolstering him up when he’s discouraged and urging him on to a promising future as the bravest of Nazis.  There are signs, however, that Jojo might be too tenderhearted, and that’s how he gets his nickname, Jojo Rabbit.  (Jeers on all sides from his trainers and fellow recruits—except for one Captain “K” (Rockwell) who, uncharacteristically among Nazi soldiers, seems to have some empathy for him.)

     Jojo’s kooky-on-the-outside mother (Johansson) has a way of supporting her son while at the same time glossing over his stated fears.  In a way, she entertains him out of these concerns, but always with an underlying steadfastness that proves her worth.  She’s a mysterious character who appears to have important things going on, but Jojo doesn’t really know where she is when she’s gone from home.

     Which, because he is alone, is how he discovers an extra person in the house, “Elsa” (McKenzie) named, for purposes of subterfuge, after his dead sister, a young Jewish girl Jojo’s mother is hiding.  Jojo’s and Elsa’s interactions provide a context for Jojo to spout out all that he has heard of Jews (having never met one) and a framework for Waititi to illustrate how stereotypes vanish when actual people meet actual people, the distance shrinking as they become friends.

     Seldom have anti-war movies covered the scope of Jojo Rabbit.  It portrays the internal experiences of a young Nazi in training ushering us on through his figuring out “Jews”, his encountering primal fears of home searches, his observing people he trusts of glossing over facts for humanitarian concerns, and his discovery of who important people in his life really are, including his mother and his ever loyal friend, Yoki (Yates).  But beyond all of that, it has its comedic moments, e.g., reverse psychology is rephrased as “backwards mind power”, and the name of Jojo’s “book” about Jews he is writing is entitled, “Yoo-hoo, Jews”).

     I thoroughly enjoyed Jojo Rabbit, and hope that viewers will grasp all the underlying messages in it about children and about war.  It’s a satirical spoof, a heart-warming drama, a comedy, and horrifying picture of the costs of war.

Jojo Rabbit is not to be taken lightly, although it is a comedy, along with being a satirical spoof and heart-warming drama.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE LIGHTHOUSE

Willem Dafoe     Robert Pattinson     Valeriia Karaman

      In a creaky old lighthouse, two men, one subordinate to the other, ride out a storm—and are much worse for the wear. Thomas Wake (Dafoe) is the “wickie” (name ascribed to lighthouse keepers who have to change the wicks) in charge, and he has a new, taciturn assistant (Pattinson) who needs the job but is clearly not happy to be in this particular place.  We get the impression right away that Wake is an irascible taskmaster who gives his assistants menial chores and has a high turnover in assistants.  Reportedly, the last one went nuts.  Wake attributes that to the loneliness of their job, and the isolation is just too much for some.  Or is it him?  The conumdrum persists throughout the story.

      It does seem to have affected Wake; he’s an odd duck who garbles out seafaring poetry, is generally disdainful, insists on being the only one who can go upstairs and tend the lighthouse light, and farts with abandon.  His assistant Winslow seems to have a chip on his shoulder, but he gives so little away about himself, he’s a bit of a mystery—at least in the beginning. Much—although not enough for this viewer—will be revealed in “giving his beans” to Wake when they’re drunk.

     One day, Wake expresses apprehension about the wind changing, which is a harbinger of a major storm on the way.  As is usual, Winslow brushes this off; he frequently expresses his skepticism toward Wake and even accuses him of lying, if for no other reason than to provoke Winslow.  

     But the storm does indeed arrive and stays for days.  Envision these two men cooped up together with alcohol and dwindling supplies. Writer/director Robert Eggers has envisioned that in a much more grotesque way than you would likely ever imagine.  Wake goes off on rambling, indistinct tangents of poetry about the sea and bonny lasses, Winslow seems to work hard (not according to his boss), with escalating resentment, and by the end, in drunkenness, hurling insults at Wake with vivid imagery.

     As the storm rages on, the scene inside the lighthouse gets weirder and more bizarre, which is the major part of the movie.  Is this simply a picture of what happens to people when they are mashed together in a small space for too long of a time?  Is this the outcome of one person literally driving another crazy?  Is it that Winslow’s dark past is having repercussions in the form of hallucinations and paranoia?  Is it about Winslow killing a gull, which Wake had specifically warned him against because of the dire consequences? 

     As you might have guessed, The Lighthouse is difficult to watch—not the least of which (for me) are the dark screens in which you can’t see what’s taking place.  This is one of my pet peeves about current cinema:  It’s frequently too dark!!  If I go to see a movie I expect to be able to see it.  But it’s also difficult to watch because it’s stomach-curdling (scenes of a dirty hovel, drunkenness, gaucheness, and disgusting violence). Just as the darkness of the scenes obscures meaning, the muffled speech of the actors is frequently indiscernible, especially Dafoe’s (whom I usually love).  Robert Pattinson is a great foil in his challenging mysteriousness and barebones ability to show his character in the raw.  These two actors are the best of the movie.

     The script by Eggers and his brother Max constitutes the weakness of the film in its inability to convey some kind of meaning beyond that of two men under certain circumstances making a toxic combination.  Perhaps if the background of both characters had been made more explicit, the story would be more meaningful.   

This lighthouse doesn’t give off much light, either literally (it’s mainly dark gray) or metaphorically.

Grade:  D+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

PARASITE

Kang-ho Song     Hye-jin Jang     Woo-sik Choi     So-dam Park

Sun-Kyun Lee     Yeo-Jeong Jo     Ji-so Jung     Hyun-jun Jung

     Bong Joon Ho’s stories take you into another world so that you have to re-orient yourself into real life after you come out of a screening.  He has the ability to get you so engrossed in the characters, their environment, and the events—and keeping it all straight—you’re in something like a trance immediately afterwards.  This is especially so when you think you’ve seen the major part about halfway through, then he lowers the boom, taking your breath away once again.  The movie is full of surprises.

     The story begins with the Kim family (mother, father, adolescent son and daughter). They live in a slum, barely getting by because jobs are scarce, but they all seem to be resourceful and industrious (how much becomes part of our fun later on.) Son Ki-Woo (Choi Woo Sik) has a friend who is tutoring a child in a wealthy family, and when he has to go abroad for a study period, he convinces Ki-Woo to take his place while he’s gone because he trusts him more than his college buddies.  Ki-Woo takes it on and it’s working out very well, when he learns that the family’s young son is artistic and hyperactive.  He realizes the child Da-song could use an art teacher, so recommends someone he says he knows (actually his sister Ki-jung) to the mother, Yeon-kyo (Yeo-Jeong Jo).

     The farce begins when every Kim family member is working for the Parks under assumed names, not revealing their relationships.  Granted, to achieve this, the Kims have to resort to ruses that are considered illegal/unethical.  Here is where the writers (Ho and Jin Won Han) nudge us a bit.  By this time, we have sympathy for this poor family; how much do we tolerate their means of achieving a better living?

     The Park family is interesting for very different reasons.  The father (Sun-kyun Lee) is a successful businessman devoted to his family.  His wife, good-hearted Yeon-Kyo (Yeo-Jeong Jo), is an easy mark for deceit, welcoming each new addition to the staff with open arms.  Daughter Da-hye (Ji-so Jung) develops an instant crush on her new tutor, and son Da-song (Hyun-jun Jung) is in his own world, able to be tamed only by his “art teacher”, Ki-jung (So-dam Park).

     Bong Joon Ho likes to juxtapose the “haves” and “have-nots”, just as he has done in Snowpiercer, and, to some extent, Okja.  This time, he does it in ways that allow one to be sympathetic to both sides.  He does portray the Parks as preoccupied in their own world with little/no awareness of the suffering around them.  They are both easy marks for “clues” planted by the Kims, especially in a hilarious scene of step-by-step paranoia related to a pair of panties in their chauffer-driven car.  Ho is a bit easier on the poorer family, coming close to excusing their sociopathic strategies to achieve basic needs for food and housing and the education necessary to acquire them.

     Bong Joon Ho has solid backing from his composer Jaeil Jung and cinematographer, Kyung-pyo Hong.  The music and visual contrasts between the lives of the Parks and Kims and where they live are accentuated to show the desperation of the Kim family and the Parks’ sense of entitlement and lack of awareness of what is happening beyond their secure gates.  The pictures are eloquent in saying what Bong Joon Ho intends for us to infer about the ethics and values involved on both sides.

This film will make you squirm, tense up, and chuckle, even horrify you—all reasons enough to see it.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland