Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

CHIEF OF STATION

US, 2024, 97 minutes, Colour.

Aaron Eckhart, Olga Kurylenko, Alex Pettyfer, Chris Petrovski, Nick Maureen, Daniel Bernhardt, James Faulkner.

Directed by Jesse V. Johnson.

Chief of Station is an easily enjoyable espionage thriller, 21^st-century style. He has quite some exotic settings, especially in Hungary as well as Croatia and, of course, in Washington DC.

In more recent years, Aaron Eckhart has been acting in films like this, for instance, The Bricklayer. And he has a reliable supporting cast including Olga Kurylenko and Alex Pettyfer.

A great deal of intrigue, a marriage, seeming betrayal, and assassination, from Russia, Eastern Europe, and the threat to the hero’s son.

And, some twists, and an exposure of a friend as a villain.

Seen many times but, of course, easily enjoyable.

1. 21^st-century espionage, the CIA, Eastern Europe? Clashes between East and West? Russian intervention?
2. The locations, the atmosphere of Budapest, Hungary, Washington DC? The musical score?
3. The credibility of the plot, espionage and international plots, greed, betrayal is?
4. Ben Malloy, his experience, his status in Eastern Europe, CIA? The relationship with his wife, the wedding anniversary, the dinner, the bomb, her death? The relationship with his wife, her work, not communicating details with her husband?
5. The return to Washington, the deputy chief and relationships with him? His work, information about his wife and her death?
6. The return to Hungary, work with his colleagues, John Branko as a longtime friend?
7. His son, IT expert, his relationship, living in Croatia, the plan for the meeting in Paris, his being abducted?
8. Evgeny, the clashes in the past, tongue in cheek friendship and collaboration? The thugs? The fights? Information about his wife? The attack on Malloy, Evgeny, the assassins?
9. John Branko, saving Malloy, the boat, the truth, torture, abduction of his son?
10. The role of Christine, a character, information, working with his wife? Interventions, helping?
11. The laptop, the information, the bribes, Malloy’s wife having the information about Branko and the official? The deputy director?
12. Nick, the kidnapping, the trade?
13. The buildup to the confrontation, and the expose?

THE UNION

Mark Wahlberg, Halle Berry, J.K.Simmons, Mike Colter, Alice Lee, Jessica De Gouw, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jackie Earle Haley, Stephen Campbell Moore, Lorraine Bracco, Dana Delaney.

Directed by Julian Farino.

The Union is a secret organisation, very secret, which runs all kinds of international operations – and opening one in Trieste a which fails, the death of several agents.

This is a kind of popular espionage film with some comic touches that has been popular, especially since the 1960s with tongue-in-cheek heroes, paralleling James Bond.

This time it is Mark Wahlberg, an ordinary worker, with very few ambitions and horizons, called on by a former girlfriend, one of the heads of The Union, played by Halle Berry. As a bonus, the boss is played by JK Simmons who is later accused of being a mole.

All is drugged and abducted, wakes in London, goes through all kinds of rigorous training, psychological evaluation, new identity, and, probably most improbably, set out to do all kinds of actions, retrieving money, going to option beatings, in great danger.

Looking at the cast list, there is quite a long list of prominent actors from the past as well as in the present, meaning that the range of supporting characters is always interesting.

Clearly building up to a confrontation a climax, a Revelation of the true mole, kinds of action – and, just as it thinks he is free, the head of the Union comes up with another mission.

The cast and the action keep the audience entertained even though, in retrospect, it is just one another of those undercover espionage action romps.

1. The title, the secret union? Undercover? International? American espionage? Threats and expose?
2. The opening in Trieste, the action, betrayals? Deaths? The London scene, action? The contrast with the ordinariness of New Jersey? The musical score?
3. Roxanne, her role, her relationship with Nick, his death in Trieste? Tom Brennan? The situation, the threat of exposure, suspicions? Who worked for 25 years?
4. Mike, Mark Wahlberg role, his work, ordinary life, day by day, the past, the past with Roxanne? Not likely action film hero?
5. The action sequences, and upkeep audiences interested? The various plots, suspects, the plans?
6. The mission, the abduction of Mike, the hotel, London, Tom Brennan and the explanations?
7. The issue, the information, the option, the representatives from various national interests? The range of spy bidders?
8. Mike, the training, new identity, psychological training?
9. The crisis, the ambush, the money lost, the role of the Koreans?
10. Strategies, undercover, sabotage?
11. Juliet Quinn, collaboration, her role, tactics?
12. Nick, reappearance, alive, tactics, motivation? The relationship with Roxanne? His envy, anger? Involvement? Ruth and his motivations?
13. Mike, tantrums, collaboration, the briefcase, the chases, the fights?
14. The final, the confrontation with the deputy director, Tom Brennan vindicated?
15. The future, Mike and his role in the Union?

NOSFERATU

US, 2024, 133 minutes, Colour.

Lily-Rose Depp, Nicholas Hoult, Bill Skarsgaard, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Willem Dafoe, Emma Corrin, Ralph Ineson, Simon McBurney.

Directed by Robert Eggers.

Nosferatu was the title of the early film version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, 1922, Germany, vivid black-and-white photography, angles, framing, Expressionist. The title was also used in 1979 for Werner Hertzog’s version of the story and tribute to the 1922 film. Now, a 2024 version, once again the tribute to the 1922 film, not only tribute but incorporating many of its visual aspects, and directed by Robert Eggers, only a few films so far in his career, but atmospheric, the Witch, The Lighthouse, The Northman.

Since the 1920s, there have been Dracula and vampire films every decade, some serious, many British, some parodies, even the recent Renfield with Nicolas Cage’s Dracula, also featuring Nosferatus, Nicholas Hoult.

We are in Germany, 1838, wonderful recreation of the town, the streets and ambience, the homes, elegance. There is a very strong supporting British cast including Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Emma Corrin, Ralph ineson, Simon McBurney. There is also a lot of strong dialogue throughout, the point of view of the rationalist who does not believe in the supernatural contrasting with those who do believe and those who are pragmatic faced with unexplained phenomena.

The question can be raised, why another Dracula film in 2024. And will it contribute to an appreciation of the Dracula and vampire legends?

The first attempt at an answer is to consider this film as a drama apart from the horror. The focus is on a young woman, Ellen, Lily-Rose Depp in a striking and physically and emotionally demanding performance. She dreams, has mystical experiences, is in love, makes a pact – which, in fact, will be a diabolical pact. But, she has the possibility of living a normal life, marrying Thomas (Nicholas Holut), hope that he will support and save her. But, he is commissioned by his manager to travel to Romania to negotiate with a mysterious Count Orloc who wants to buy a Castle in the German town. Ellen is fearful as Thomas leaves, and rightly so…

There is mysterious drama, Thomas finding himself in a strange village, superstitious villagers, and then his encounter with the Count.

And the second attempt at and some is to consider the film as horror. The atmosphere at the castle is more than eerie, the suggestions of the malevolent presence of the Count, his face, his behaviour and cruelty, his threats, diabolical consequences. Is played by Bill Skarsgaard as monstrous Some direct horror scenes but always the sense of horror menace. And, when Thomas returns home, the psychological disturbances in Ellen and her erratic behaviour, the count killing his friend’s wife and child, the discussions with an expert (Willem Dafoe) and the explanations of vampire behaviour. And, as well, the town is besieged by a plague of rats. And, Ellen’s disturbed dreams, erotic menace and horror, the unmasking of the Count.

And so, we can ask what are the comparisons with other versions of the story, how well these variations work as drama and horror, and how we are immersed in a world of evil destroying hope and love.

1. The literary tradition of Dracula and Nosferatu, the late 19^th century, Bram Stoker’s novel? The cinema tradition, the 1922 version, the English language tradition of Dracula, serious films, horror films, comedy and parodies? Werner Hertzog and Nosferatu 1979, homage to the 1922 version? This 2024 version, homage, reworking the particular perspectives of the writer-director?
2. Audience familiarity with the story, the traditions, the variations? This version changing the names of the characters, the German city? Drawing on the basic ideas and themes from Bram Stoker and the Nosferatu films?
3. The style of filmmaking? The importance of colour, colour grading, black-and-white, vivid colour, scenes tinted, unsaturated colour, but sometimes with bright highlights? The overall impact of this colour experience? The framing of the film, the angles, the homage to the 1922 version, using its styles? The style of the dialogue, old classical style, all, sometimes arch and artificial, placing the audience in the period, Germany, 1838? The film presented as a modern interpretation of old filmmaking styles?
4. The framework, Ellen, young, the focus on her face, her calling out to the vampire to come to her? Her age, her commitment, her dreams, her melancholy, psychological states? The years passing, her marriage to Thomas, happiness, yet her melancholy, fears, love, his going away, her anxieties? Staying with Richard and Anna? Her dreams, her moods, their concern, a sense of what was happening to Thomas while away, the coming of the mysterious lover? The doctor, his concern, treatment, seeking out of Professor von Frantz, his diagnosis, treatment? Further dreams, the return of Thomas, the sexual encounter and her wanting love, the continuing menace of the mysterious shadow, the shadow coming to the house, overcoming her, the sexual encounter, the sun rising, her commitment, his sacrificing himself for her love?
5. The title, the focus on the vampire, the estate agent, Knock and his eagerness, Count Orloc wanting the house, sending Thomas, the buildup of financial advantage, for his marriage? Knock, his madness, in servitude to Nosferatu, his madness, in the cell, confrontations, killing the guard, the interview with the professor and the doctor? Death? The plague?
6. Count Orloc, in Ellen’s visions, the Shadow, skeletal, the long fingers and nails, Thomas arriving at the village, the village people and their fears, the atmosphere, singing and dancing, yet warnings, was going to the Castle, walking in the snow, the carriage, his experience in the Castle, overwhelmed by the count, violence, blood, his debilitation, escape, taken by the nuns, the Orthodox religious ceremonies, his leaving, out of the power of the Count, his return, debilitated, with the doctor, the professor, Richard, Anna’s death, the plague?
7. The Count, the voyage, in the container, the sailors, the Captain, the rats, the plague, the deaths, the ship arriving in the Port, the dispersion of the rats, the plague and deaths, deaths in the street? The Count, visiting Anna, her being pregnant, the blood? His attack on the two daughters, the deaths, Richard and the burials? The mausoleum and his visits?
8. The doctor, his concern, medical help, friendship with Richard, the reputation of the professor, going to visit him, persuading him to join in? The professor, his personality, reputation, researchers, the occult? The visits to Anna? The visits to Ellen? Thomas’ return? Richard and his scepticism?
9. Richard, friendship with Thomas, lending the money, Richard and his wife, the family, the boisterous two daughters, in the shipping business? His scepticism about the professor, the support of the doctor, his narrations, the death of the family, the burials?
10. The buildup to confronting the Count, the three nights, his approaching the town, coming to Ellen, her trying to resist? The scenes of his possession of her, her not being herself, her face, the town, Thomas and his shock?
11. Thomas and his determination, hurrying to the mausoleum, expecting the vampire, discovering Knock, his madness and death, through the heart?
12. The hurrying back, the encounter with Ellen, the sun rising, remains of the creature, Thomas and his grief, in the final image of Ellen and the remains of Nosferatu?

FRENCH GIRL

Canada, 2024, 104 minutes, Colour.

Zach Braff, Evelyne Brochu, Luc Picard, Vanessa Hudgins, Antoine Olivier Pilon, Muriel Dutil, William Fichtner.

Directed by James A.Woods, Nicholas Wright.

This is a variation on the romantic comedy theme. It is a Canadian production and, while it opens in New York, the main action takes place in Québec.

It all begins rather familiarly, even with veteran comic actor Zach Braff as Gordon, a creative teacher in a high school. But, it soon emerges that is something of a “nerd”, clumsy, caught up in his own emotions, contacting his novelist father, William Fichtner, who has a very different approach to life. He is in a relationship with Sophie, Evelyne Brochu, who seems far more sensible than he.

And the crisis. She is invited to return home to Québec to apply for the position of chief chef in in a fashionable hotel. Will he go with her or won’t he? He does, therefore of flights, emerging from the flight in a wheelchair, mixed up with the luggage, creating a very bad impression on Sophie’s family, especially her farmer father.

There are lots of domestic scenes illustrating Gordon’s awkwardness, always putting his foot in it, revealing information that could have been kept confidential, but making friends with Sophie’s younger brother, offering to teaching English as he wants to apply to the police Academy while his father wants him to cope working on the farm.

But the main complications come with the entrance of entrepreneur, Ruby, Vanessa Hudgins, and the revelation that she was previously in a relationship with Sophie. By accident, Gordon finds out what has happened, is wary, and while helping out on the  with the father, challenges to his fastidiousness, he finds ways of confronting Sophie was eager to have the job, clashes with some of her co-workers, is put under pressure by Ruby.

One of the better comic sequences is Ruby’s insistence through reality TV show in Sophie’s family home.

The film ends with a comedy of errors, Sophie breaking with Ruby, Gordon misunderstanding and making rash judgements, finding out the truth and having to apologise and professes his love.

This kind of film is always a matter of taste. And Sophie is a Canadian girl!

1. Canadian comedy, romance? English-speaking audiences? French-speaking audiences?
2. Two settings, New York City, Brooklyn, homes, school? The Québec sequences, the landmarks, the background scenery, homes, hotels and kitchens? The musical score?
3. Audience response to Gordon, genial, family, teaching, his enthusiasm for history and literature, his costume, the classes? But his also being somewhat nerdish? His relationship with Sophie? The French-Canadian background? Cook? Their life together?
4. Sophie, the contact from Ruby, the audition for the job, the discussion with Gordon, his decision to go with her, the nervousness on the plane, the drugs, in the wheelchair, on the luggage wheel, initial impressions? The family at the airport, the response to him, so his father and criticism, the mother more kindly?
5. The home sequences, Gordon trying to do his best, and with the brother, martial arts, going to the fight, the son fighting with his father? The son wanting to be a policeman, passing English exam, Gordon offering, revealing this at the meal table? His continued putting his foot in it, especially with the father, the selecting of the lamb, the slaughter of the lamb and his participation? Going to meet Sophie?
6. The background between Sophie and Ruby, the relationship, Ruby and her assertiveness, personality, at the hotel, with the staff, the demands? Sophie, the memories, the relationship, the break? Ruby, infidelity, control? Sophie spending more and more time at the hotel?
7. Gordon, seeing the book and photos, learning the truth, upset with Sophie? Her continually being at the hotel? Their having the time for a meal together, Ruby and the Englishman, his intrusion, spoiling the evening?
8. The ring, Gordon and his father, novelist, the phone calls, the advice? The old grandmother, her behaviour, erratic, not always with it, stealing the ring? Gordon’s attempts to get back, her death, yanking it from her finger?
9. Having to sell the farm, the idea of the TV show, Ruby in control, the filming and the effect on everyonw?
10. Sophie, the job, the possibilities, the challenge, the interactions with Ruby, slapping her? Ruby kissing her? Gordon, wanting everything to be right, seeing all this?
11. The final chase, through the city, her father helping him, her brother and the police, the final explanations, declaration of love? Happy ending?

LARA

Germany, 2019, 98 minutes, Colour.

Corinna Harfouch, Tom Schilling, Gudrun Ritter.

Directed by Jan Ole Gerster.

Lara is the dramatic portrait of a very strong woman on her 60^th birthday.

Lara is an arrogant woman, disdain for her former husband, clashing with her mother, a strained relationship with her son, a composer and pianist.

The action takes place on the day which will end with his concert performance, her getting remaining tickets and distributing them to associates, linking up with friends, meeting her former teacher and having a conversation with him, his revealing her talent but the limitations she imposed on herself.

She also visits her mother, finds her  son staying with her mother, listens to his composition, makes some criticisms which he takes seriously, deciding to change the program for his recital in the evening.

During the recital, Lara is overcome, leaves, meets up with her former professor for celebration afterwards, and his revealing more about her past and an analysis of her character.

Lara is a very uncomfortable person to watch but there is a great deal of insight in this dramatisation of a character and the interactions with the people in her life.

1. The portrait Lara, her 60^th birthday, as a character, as a woman, at her age, relationship with her mother, relationship with her son, his performance, her visit, the criticisms of husband, manager, former teacher?
2. A German drama, the German tone?
3. The introduction to Lara, audience response, waking, the open window, contemplating the fall, her attitudes towards people, angers, criticisms? Her going to work, civil servant, intimidating, her coworkers, their response to her?
4. Her son’s concert, going to the box office, buying the remaining tickets, at various times to distribute them, the friendly cab driver, the visit from her son’s girlfriend and her haughty reaction, work, associates, neighbours?
5. Lara and her day, discussion with her former husband, her son’s manager? Intruding backstage?
6. Her relationship with her mother, the visit, the animosity, the memories of the past? Her son living with her mother? The mother protective?
7. The interaction with the son, the tension with him, her control of him, years of supervision and practice, his concert, his composition, playing it, his asking advice, her harsh comment, not good enough, his taking note of it, omitting it from the performance?
8. The meeting with the professor, his not remembering her, gradually, the ticket, his being impressed with the performance, the discussion afterwards, remembering her, her talent, her interpretation of the comments, her misinterpreting his comment, falsely cutting short her career? Compensation with her son?
9. The son, the performance, her going outside, the acclaim, with the girlfriend, the celebration after the concert? The discussion with her teacher?
10. The audience spending the day with Lara, wary of her, dislike of her, her behaviour, control and manipulation, her learning the truth about herself, her son?

PEDRO PARAMO

Mexico, 2024, 130 minutes, Colour.

Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Tenoch Huerta, Dolores Heredia, Ilse Salas, Mayra Batalla, Roberto Sosa.

Directed by Rodrigo Prieto.

Background: in this Mexican film is based on the celebrated novel, published in 1955, by Juan Rulfo. It is credited with offering cultural and religious background in Mexican history and, in the literary world, introducing the style of “magic realism”. While it has an introductory narrative, the novel and the film moves between the real world and an imaginary world, spirits, ghostly presences, there are flashbacks to an actual past combined with the consequences in the real world and in the spirit world. There is a Catholic background, represented by an obsessive priest, but also pre-Christian beliefs about death, heaven and hell, the after-world, of the spirits of the dead roaming the world.

This film version was written by Spanish writer, Matteo Gil. It has been directed by cinematographer, Rodrigo Prieto, his first feature film, a favoured cinematographer by Mexican directors as well as for several films by Martin Scorsese – and Barbie!

Here, the cinematography is evocative, vast arid Mexican plains, the remains of the ghost city, vibrant and colourful flashbacks of life when the city prospered, and many dark sequences, strange presences, death experiences, ghostly communications.

The film opens with a man coming to the town where he was born, at the behest of his mother, to meet his father, make claims from him, understand him. However, his father is dead. And, in the town, many strange characters, women who had encountered his father, his father’s devoted housekeeper, some of his father’s wives and women. And the question is whether the man himself, with his experience in the town, is now dead and is part of this unearthly community.

The book and the film provide many challenges to readers and viewers, to identify the particular characters, especially the father, seeing him as a very young man, middle-aged, older, finding their place in the town, in relationships.

The time setting th ranges from the end of e 19^th-century, era of wealthy landowners, patriarchy, exploitative of women, ignoring children, arrogant presuppositions of superiority to the Mexican revolutions of the 1910s. And the role of the church, religious traditions, funerals, confessions, and strange theological expressions.

The film was well received, comparisons naturally made with the novel, but the film is an interpretation of the novel and they are not to be equated.

1. The original novel, its worlds, the real world, the spirit world, the history of Mexico, the late 19^th century, early 20^th century, patriarchy, exploitation, the revolutions of the 1910s?
2. The adaptation of the novel, structure, characters, its variety of worlds, and novel texts and speeches becoming part of the screenplay?
3. The landscapes, the opening, mountains plains, desert, the abandoned town, the wrecked buildings, the dark streets? The dark atmosphere, characters appearing and disappearing? Juan and his journey, whether he was dead or alive?
4. The contrast between the ghostly abandoned town and the flashbacks, prosperity, farms, the landowner, the workers, the foreman?
5. Pedro, the title, talk about him, audience attitudes, Juan’s mother and her leaving, the encounter with the man, his being one of Pedro’s sons (and his later appearance to plead for money for the burial of h and is wife and his being rejected, killed)?
6. The role of women in the film, the dead mother and her history, the marriage, her period and suggesting her friend substitute for her with the husband, her pregnancy, the birth, departure? Susanna, as a girl, flirtatious with Pedro, her having to leave, looking back, her later return, the black-and-white pool sequences, the relationship, her illness, Pedro and his attentions? The role of the priest and his interventions, especially as she was dying, the experience of her death? The mother’s friend, still in the town, offering hospitality to Juan, her stories, especially about his mother? Her disappearance?
7. Damiana, her appearance, guiding Juan, the flashbacks, the significance of her role in the household, housekeeping, advice, with Pedro, with the other women, serving them? Her influence on Juan?
8. The woman in black, hunched, observing, on the outer, needing food, her interventions, her guiding Juan? The forceful character?
9. The presence of the priest, his attitudes, the deaths of his relatives, the blaming of Pedro, the funeral of the son, his initial refusal to pray, the sprinkling of the holy water? His utterances, theological, life and death? The confession sequences? His continued presence, rituals, his presence at Susanna’s death, the weirdness of his prayer, incorporating traditions and superstitions, earth and the mouth, the nature of sin and corruption, possibilities of forgiveness or not, hell and heaven? The revolutionaries, arrival, Motley again, threats to Pedro, the table, checking the leaders, offering the money, the bargain, the consequences?
10. The portrait of Pedro, as a wilful young man, his wealth, his father, the women, the story of his son, his son and his exploitative behaviour, his death, the funeral? His foreman and the work, on the property, the workers? His prosperity, the socials, his wives, his behaviour, Susanna’s return and its effect on him? The visit of the revolutionaries, his sitting with them, offering his help, the foreman, the killing him and leaving him in the flowing water?
11. Time passing, changing Mexican society, the challenge to the patriarchy and the landowners, Pedro and the death of Susana, his grief, his sitting in the chair, growing older? The final challenge, the attack on him, on Damiana, their deaths?
12. The impact of this film for Mexican audiences and their knowledge of the novel? On Spanish-speaking audiences? On world audiences and their being invited into this very different world?

MARTHA

US, 2024, 115 minutes, Colour.

Martha Stewart.

Directed by RJ Cutler.

In the later decades of the 20^th century, most Americans knew the name, Martha Stewart. She had become a significant “influencer”. Not so well-known outside the United States, but influential with her range of magazines and her company, the focus on “Living” and how best this could be done in the US context are American women and home keepers, especially in the changing feminist perspectives of the 20^th century.

For non-Americans, there was a general awareness of Martha Stewart and her high profile. So, it was something of a shock when in 2004 she was in court, sentenced to prison and serving her sentence.

This documentary, well written and directed by RJ Cutler (many documentaries, especially an insightful portrait of comedian and actor, John Belushi), offers us a portrait and study of Martha Stewart. Because of her high-profile, there is a great deal of newsreel footage over the decades, and especially her television presence and her shows. No lack of photo material. No lack of people able to comment.

But, the major advantage is a long interview with Martha Stewart herself (the later 70s) which forms the core of the documentary, Martha Stewart in her own words, and the audience able to look at her, listen to her, note her reactions, note the body language, hear the intonations. She herself made some objections about the documentary itself and what was included and what was excluded. (Not favourable to her final aged image very happy with the first half of the film.)

There is the expected material about her childhood, comfortable in New Jersey, intelligent and smart, modelling, commercials, in the mid and late teens, her being an enterprising young woman, her marriage, studies, pregnancy and child, but her being strong-willed and determined.

For audiences who want more background to Martha Stewart, the Wikipedia article is quite extensive and detailed.

With Martha Stewart herself giving the commentary as well as all the media that can be drawn on, the audience sees her career as a stockbroker on Wall Street, her moving into the catering business, being a shrewd businesswoman, many saying she was very difficult to work with, developing all kinds of advice for American women and their households, cooking to gardening, her move into writing, the link with the Time company, books and range of magazines. By 2000 her company, Omniliving, went public, Martha Stewart the billionaire.

For those familiar with the charges of insider trading, this documentary spends a lot of time with explanations of Martha Stewart’s friendships and connections, developments of drugs and medication, deals, collapses, her decisions about selling stock, the charges. And, there is a great deal about the trial itself, her reaction, her presence, sentence.

While she was imprisoned for five months,, finding it difficult, she nonetheless survived and made the most of it. And, in the coming years, sometimes retiring from public view, she recovered, emerged, the documentary spending a lot of time on her role at a Roast for Justin Bieber, her taking over, her humour, her relating to the younger generation, the connection with Snoop Dog at the Roast and then teaming with him for a television show, showing that in her 70s, she was not prepared to look back and that you connect with the younger generation!

So, RJ Cutler presents this portrait of Martha Stewart, very much in her own words, very much in the images of her, the American dream of success, her fall but, nevertheless, recovery.

(A very good insight is provided by film reviewer, Owen Gleibman Variety: marketing the Martha personality: the self-empowered WASP goddess, direct and imperious, with an eerily serene grin of beatific power. She was a woman who glowed, who peered at the world through an upscale glaze. Those familiar with Carl Jung and personality types, and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Martha Stewart could be a powerful example of the Type, ENTJ, the type shared, it is suggested, by Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, D Roosevelt, Steve Jobs…)

MARY

US/UK, 2024, 112 minutes, Colour.

Noa Cohen, Anthony Hopkins, Ido Tako, Hilla Vidor, Ori :Pfeffer,  Gudmunmdur Thorvaldsson, Mila Harris, Dudley O'Shaughnessy, Eamon Farren.

Directed by D.J. Caruso.

Almost immediately, Mary looks straight to camera telling us to trust her, that we do not know her story at all. And, by the end of the film, we realise that, apart from the key Gospel scenes of the infancy narratives, just how much inventiveness there is in this storytelling. It is the work of screenwriter, Timothy Michael Hayes who is credited in the Internet Movie Database note, as responsible for “inventive biopics”. This is certainly the case here (and we might agree with the familiar  declaration during the final credits that, while based on actual characters, characters and events have been reworked for dramatic purposes.

It was only in the second and third centuries that Christians wanted to know more about the biblical characters, creating alternative narratives, different Gospels, giving names to characters who are not even mentioned in the Gospels, especially Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne. The screenwriter has drawn on some of these apocryphal Gospels, especially the proto-evangelion of James, as well as the visions of mystics like Maria of Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, the latter one of the inspirations for Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.

With the focus on the young Mary, her elderly parents praying for a child, their dedicating her to the temple, Mary as a young student at the temple, the encounter with Joseph…the film might well be described as a Young Adult interpretation of Mary aimed at the young adult audience. But, while the film might have been open to younger children’s audiences but the Mary stories interwoven with the dramatic history of Herod the Great, played by Anthony Hopkins in his mid-80s like a King Lear gone wrong, with some very bloodthirsty sequences, his torture of the High Priest, and the expected massacre of the innocents.

Filmed in Morocco, one of the difficulties is that the film’s sense of geography, Nazareth in Galilee, Jerusalem in the south, Bethlehem near Jerusalem, is rather skewiff, especially the closeness here of Nazareth to Jerusalem.

The screenplay also draws on some familiar Gospel themes and applying them these characters, Joachim fasting for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, the visitation with Mary and Elizabeth, Mary under suspicion for her pregnancy and the possibility for her being stoned…

One of the difficulties of the screenplay is the frequent appearance of Gabriel, always in blue, sinister rather than angelic and also Satan with taunts and temptations for Mary. Which means then that Mary as the mother of the Messiah seems to be fairly common knowledge not only for her family, but for the high priest, for Herod, and for the people, the knowledge of the bright star signalling Jesus birth. Not exactly the Gospel perspective on the gradual awareness of Jesus and his mission.

One Gospel character does get some welcome attention, the prophetess Anna in the Temple, friend and protector of Mary (a credible and welcome interpretation of her role), with a frail Simeon coming in with his words to Mary of the sword piercing her heart.

There will be a variety of responses to this film, biblical scholars probably not enthusiastic at all, ordinary viewers, not familiar with Gospel details and literary forms, enjoying it at the Young Adult level mixed with swords and sandals atmosphere.

An American priest, from Green Bay diocese,  Edward Looney, a theologian with an emphasis on Marian studies, was invited to  write almost immediately an analysis of the screenplay for Crisis Magazine, relating it to the Gospels, and noting the influences of the early alternate Gospels and the visions of the mystics. It is well worth Googling: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-unrecognizable-netflix-mary

1. The traditional Gospel films, biblical epics, Mary stories?
2. A film for the 21^st-century, imagination about Mary, the re-creation of her early life?
3. The Gospel references, comparatively few, the drawing on second century apocryphal Gospels and their narratives, the naming of characters unnamed in the Gospels, Joachim and Anne? The Gospel-referenced Simeon and Anna, the attention given to the prophetess, Anna? The influence of the German mystics, Spanish and Italian mystics and their visions?
4. The screenplay, the young Mary, the young Joseph – and the tone of a Young Adult story? The language of coming-of-age?
5. The visuals, the recreation of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the surrounding desert? The placing of Nazareth nearer to Jerusalem than it is? The musical score?
6. Audiences watching the film, biblical scholars reacting to the license taken with the storytelling and imagination, the Catholic and Christian audience and their knowledge of Mary, interest in the imaginings? Non-Catholics and members of other religions, or not, observing it as a narrative?
7. The setting, Joachim and Anne, his 40 days in the desert, her pregnancy, giving birth, committing Mary to the temple, their life in Nazareth, Joachim under attack? The concern for Mary, the meeting with Joseph, the betrothal, her pregnancy, the law and her possibly being stoned?
8. The appearances of the Angel Gabriel, the blue cloak, the somewhat sinister androgynous look? Appearing to so many people, the screenplay indicating that most people knew that Mary was chosen, the birth of her son, his mission? The appearances of the Satan, his confrontation with Mary?
9. Mary, the temple, with the other young women, her concern about the poor, charity? With the authorities? Reprimanded? With Anna? The washing, the encounter with Joseph?
10. Joseph, young, his friends, the discussions, not particularly interested, fascinated with Mary, his approach to her parents, the courtship, the betrothal, her situation (and his not being warned in a dream to take her), the journey to Bethlehem, the crowds, the inn, the birth?
11. The other half of the film with Herod, Anthony Hopkins as a demented monarch, his relationships, wife, executions, his family? The rebuilding of the temple? His military advisor? His status, his image of himself? The tantrums? Visit to the temple, confrontation with Mary? The news about the child, the visit of the Magi, the attack on the children of Bethlehem, the killings, the rounding up of the babies, the corridor with the cribs? His vision of himself, in relationship to Rome and the Empire?
12. Mary and Joseph going to the temple, the presentation of Jesus, Simeon and his prophecy?
13. A satisfying drama, dramatising biblical stories, the inventions, the 21^st-century perspective of storytelling?

HOT FROSTY

Canada/US, 2024, 93 minutes, Colour.

Lacey Chabert, Dustin Milligan, Craig Robinson, Joe Lo Truglio, Katie Mixon Greer, Lauren Holly.

Directed by Jerry Ciccoritti.

Hot Frosty, a Netflix Christmas movie amongst many others, was described as “affable”. And, for most audiences, it is.

It is a variation on the Jack Frost story, Jack Frost coming alive and joining a community for Christmas. Over many years, Lacey Chabert has been a popular star of television films, over 30 for Hallmark. Here she is again, Kathy, a grieving widow, managing a cafe, many friends in the small town, but letting her life and repairs on her house slide.

She is given a red scarf by her friends at a store, wraps it around a snowman in the centre of town where there is a display of sculptured snowmen. And she takes a photo of him. And, he comes alive, a touch embarrassed with no clothes, scaring an elderly couple, falling backwards through the window of the store, getting some clothes, one with the label, Jack. He is continually cold and tries to avoid, sometimes unsuccessfully, anything which might heat him up.

As expected, he is charming, very agreeable in conversation, no memories before Kathy and the scarf, but, as the film progresses, he is able to pick up all kinds of information from watching television programs, becomes a handyman par excellence, and, shirtless, attract a lot of attention from the rather middle-aged ladies of the town. He also helps out one of their sons, the school principal, helping with repairs at school, working with the kids, absolutely charming.

On the other hand, the by-the-book and beyond sheriff of the town, played by veteran Craig Robinson, quotes the law all the time applied rigidly, and is determined to arrest the vagrant who scared the elderly couple and who smashed the window of the store and stole the clothes. He assisted by a very genial comedian, Joe Lo Truglioi, as his more sympathetic Deputy.

Kathy resists the romance, Jack relies on her and fixes the house. And he invites her to the school dance. And, of course, the sheriff arrests Jack, the doctor stating that he is a snowman, and the townspeople making an appeal. And, eventually, Jack and Kathy kiss. Jack had seen a promotion for Hawaii, not realising it was hot, but, as he seemed to come alive as human, he had Kathy buy a ticket for Hawaii.

A cheerful and light variation on the theme.

THE ROAD TO MOROCCO

US, 1942, 82 minutes, Black-and-white.

Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Dorothy Lamour, Anthony Quinn, Dona Drake.

Directed by David Butler.

This is the third of the Road to… Movies starring Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour. The films were very popular in the 1940s, most of them released during the war.

All popular at the time, in retrospect they seem rather silly. Although, a good word to describe them is “zany”. By this third film, there are all kinds of in references to Paramount Studios, to Dorothy Lamour surely turning up, audiences coming late into the film and missing Bing Crosby’s song… And, Bob Hope, always enjoyable, doing a lot of ad-libbing and eyebrow raising.

This time they are two friends stranded at sea when the ship blows up (Bob Hope smoking in the powder room). There is discussion about Bing Crosby eating Bob Hope to survive if they are at sea for a long time. However, they land in the desert, licked by two camels (and the spitting scene was actual rather than rehearsed), riding into a town, a lot of mixups, Bob Hope pretending to be mentally limited because locals were honoured (definitely not politically correct these sequences). Then, Bing, always smooth, trying to get the upper hand, sells at Bob  who finishes up in a palace luxurious style. And the Princess’s Dorothy Lamour.

So, a whole lot of contrivances for slapstick comedy, mistaken identities, the tough swashbuckling locals, led by Anthony Quinn, doublecrossing romance, and the final disruption of the wedding ceremony by the two with all kinds of silly tricks. Dona Drake appears as the maid sympathetic to Bob Hope.

And, at the end, they all stranded – but off the coast of New York, Bob  declaiming about being lost at sea, the Statue of Liberty being pointed out and his own comment that is missing was cut and he might have had an Oscar nomination!

Bing and Dorothy Lamour both sing Moonlight Becomes You. But, the famous song is We’re off on the Road to Morocco – and the famous line “like Websters Dictionary, we are Morocco-bound”. However, there were two further variations on Morocco-bound:

We may run into villains but we're not afraid to roam
Because we read the story and we end up safe at home (yeah)
Certainly do get around
Like Webster's Dictionary we're Morocco bound

We certainly do get around
Like a complete set of Shakespeare that you get
In the corner drugstore for a dollar ninety-eight
We're Morocco bound

Or, like a volume of Omar Khayyam that you buy in the
Department store at Christmas time for your cousin Julia
We're Morocco bound