Piccadilly: A Review (Review #1974)

PICCADILLY

A blending of East and West is found in Piccadilly, where Anna May Wong showcases her unique, extraordinary charm and talent. 

The dance duo of Jim (Cyrill Ritchards) and Mabel (Gilda Gray) are the king and queen of the Piccadilly entertainment district and its namesake club. However, Piccadilly Circus impresario Valentine Wilcot (Jameson Thomas) receives loud complaints about being served his meal in a dirty dish from a portly customer (Charles Laughton in an early role). To Valentine's horror, he discovers that the kitchen staff is being distracted by hoochie dancer Shosho (Anna May Wong). She struts her stuff joyfully, but an enraged Valentine fires her.

Valentine, who is also Mabel's lover, pushes Jim out of the show to showcase his star attraction. That suits Jim fine, as he wants to try his luck in America and has been rebuffed by Mabel. Unfortunately, Mabel has also been rebuffed by the audience, who want the duo and are not big on Mabel. In desperation, Valentine tracks down Shosho to the Limehouse district. He hopes that a Chinese-centered act will draw in audiences. Shosho agrees on condition that her boyfriend Jim (Kim Ho Chang) be her accompanist.

Shosho's dance is a hit, so much so that she essentially replaces Mabel as the Piccadilly Circus Club star attraction. Shosho also replaces Mabel in Valentine's affections, but how much so Mabel does not know. Things come to a head when Mabel spies Valentine going to Shosho's flat for a visit. There is a confrontation between Mabel and Shosho. During it, Mabel faints and Shosho is found murdered.

Whodunit? Was it Mabel? Maybe Valentine? Can Jim be behind Shosho's killing? The trial reveals its secrets, until we learn that Life Goes On.

Piccadilly is an inventive film visually, which we see right at the opening. The opening credits appear via the scenery, with the title appearing as a sign on a double-decker bus. Mabel and Victor's dance routine has strong camera work, being very free flowing. Other scenes, such as a woman spying inside a bar with various ethnicities mixing and the actual killing, are equally dramatic in terms of their visual style. This is a very beautiful looking film, with sequences that look quite impressive.

Director Ewald Andre Dupont should get praise for making Piccadilly visually attractive. He also should be given some credit in how he directed the performers. Anna May Wong showed herself a very charismatic and natural actress in the film. Her first scene where we see her joyfully dancing reveals Shosho to be free and easy, delighting in life.

As Piccadilly goes on, we see Wong's magnetic personality come through. She can be playful and vampish. She can also be moving and heartbreaking. The defiance she presents when confronting Mabel reveals a strong, independent woman. We also see that horror and terror as she realizes that she is going to be murdered. Unlike many actresses from the silent era, Wong was not given to exaggerated facial mannerisms. Instead, she is luminous and intriguing as Shosho, this woman who loved the dance but danced too close to the fire.

As stated, Dupont deserves some credit in how he directed his actors. I mentioned how Wong stayed away from grand, theatrical gestures. Granted, her final scene where she is killed may now look a bit overdone. However, as her character is being murdered, you can forgive some great dramatic manner. That exaggerated silent film acting style goes to Gilda Gray. There is a scene where Gray's Mabel is laughing, if memory serves right, when Mabel is dumped by Valentine both professionally and personally. The scene made Mabel's hysterical laughing exactly that in every way possible. Gray seemed exaggerated even for the stereotype of silent film acting. The other actors ranged between Wong's naturalism and Gray's exaggeration.

One issue that I had was with what is meant as a twist in the murder case. I never accepted it as plausible. That knocked Piccadilly down a bit for me. I also was a bit puzzled on the manner of Shosho's death. If memory serves right, it looks as if she was shot at on two separate occasions versus merely murdered. That might be due more to the editing than the film itself.

These, on the whole, while making it fall a bit do not take away from how strong Piccadilly is. Anna May Wong proves herself a strong and charismatic actress in Piccadilly. She and the film should be better known and remembered.  

DECISION: B+

Our Son: A Review

OUR SON

Luke Evans is a rarity in Hollywood. He is an openly gay actor who for the most part has stayed clear of playing gay characters. He tends to play characters who are either straight (such as his turns in Dracula Untold and the live-action Beauty and the Beast) or where his sexuality is unimportant (such as in the live-action Pinocchio or Fast & Furious 6). As such, Our Son is outside Evans' normal filmography. Perhaps Our Son is well-intentioned. I just would have liked it to have been better.

After thirteen years of marriage, book publisher Nicky (Evans) and his partner, former actor and now stay-at-home dad Gabriel (Billy Porter) are finding themselves drifting apart. They have different parental philosophies when it comes to raising Owen (Christopher Woodley), who is Nicky's biological son but whose surrogate mother is black. Poppa Gabriel is very nurturing, while Daddy Nicky is stricter when it comes to things like letting Owen sleep in their bed despite him being eight. 

Now things come to a head when Gabriel confesses two things: desire for another man and how he no longer loves Nicky. They openly though calmly fight about Owen in front of their friends, including lesbian couple Claire (Liza J. Bennett) and Judith (Gabby Beans), who are about to have a gender-neutral baby of their own. Nicky now has to try and raise Owen by himself, no easy feat given how he has pretty much shunted child raising to his spouse Gabriel. For his part, Gabriel has no real way of supporting Owen, though there is the possibility of working for their mutual friend Matthew (Andrew Rannells). 

As the custody battle between Gabriel and Nicky begins, both men struggle with their feelings of whether he will be the best choice for Owen or not. Nicky also begins exploring the world of clubs again (Gabriel already having strayed into a brief extramarital affair with the object of his desires). Who will end up having primary custody of Our Son, Owen?

Our Son is the gay version of Kramer vs. Kramer, with Luke Evans playing the Dustin Hoffman part and Billy Porter playing the Meryl Streep part. There are so many similarities between Our Son and Kramer vs. Kramer that one is within his/her rights to think that screenwriters Peter Nickowitz and Bill Oliver (who also directed) watched the latter and took notes to see how to adapt it to a gay setting. I am not saying that Nickowitz or Oliver actually or literally stole from or used anything from Kramer vs. Kramer. 

I am saying that for me, there were scenes and situations from Our Son that reminded me of Kramer vs. Kramer. Daddy Nicky, like Dustin Hoffman's Ted, cannot make breakfast for his son. Poppa Gabriel, like Meryl Streep's Joanna, leaves his spouse because he does not love him anymore. Owen, like Justin Henry's Billy, can be a bit insufferable where I thought he would be better off being put up for adoption. To be fair, Our Son makes both Nicky and Gabriel at times so awful as parents that Owen would probably be better off being raised by Isabella (Nuala Cleary), the very sensible and patient babysitter who comes around every so often.

Perhaps I am being too harsh, as Our Son makes the case that Nicky is a pretty clueless and absentee dad, and Gabriel is almost the perfect mother. Nicky is not, for example, overly devastated that Gabriel confesses to desiring another man. He seems more perturbed that Gabriel did not ask permission to pursue an extramarital affair, suggesting to the audience that they have an open marriage. That, at least, was the impression that I was left with, which is a very bizarre one. 

In terms of performances, Our Son had me at times laughing at what were meant as serious, somber moments. A fight between Nicky and Gabriel which was meant to be devasting in the emotional revealing had me chuckling. I think it has to do with how earnest everyone was playing the scene. Despite everyone's best efforts, it came across as parody. More laughable was when Judith was giving birth to their gender-neutral Sheila. Granted, I have never witnessed or given birth myself, but Judith's facial expressions coupled with her stating, "IT HURTS!" made me wonder why either of them did not think that it would not. Haven't they invented drugs to dull the pain? 

I think highly of Luke Evans, who is very skilled in almost everything that I have seen. I think that he gave it his all in Our Son. It is unfortunate that the end result made Nicky into a total wimp. Evans was nothing but weepy and forlorn in the film. I understand that Nicky was upset about the prospect of losing Owen, but he was not that involved prior to the breakup. As such, his reaction seems to be more out of character. He was even a bit bitchy when the subject of Gabriel's career came up, dismissing his former spouse's claims of an acting career as being nothing but upstate summer stock. The only thing that I got out of Evans' performance was my surprise at how tatted Evans is. 

This is, I think, one of the first projects where I have seen Billy Porter take a major role (I remember him from 80 for Brady, which was traumatic enough without him). I think he too tried to match what he thought of as a major drama. It never worked for me, though, as if Porter was trying too hard. 

I will say that I thought Woodley as Owen did a decent job, even if at times he came across as whiny and obnoxious. 

"It must be hard fighting for the right to marry and then just ending up in a divorce court like everyone else", Nicky's nephew Max (Will Coombs) essentially scolds his uncle when Nicky finally tells his religious family about the breakup. I am perplexed on the thinking that, once same-sex marriage was legalized, such relationships would be permanent and immune from things like a breakup and now custody battles when only one parent could be biologically related to a child. I think Our Son came with noble and sincere efforts. It just did not work for me. 

DECISION: D-

The Best of 2024 So Far

2024 was a bad year for cinema. It was a struggle to find ten good movies, but I managed to cobble together a list of films that made 2024 tolerable. Some would normally not make a Ten Best List, but given the slim pickings before me, I think they are as good as it gets.

Number 10: The Beekeeper

I make no argument that The Beekeeper is a great film. If you want to call it a routine Jason Statham film, I won't argue with you about it. I can say that The Beekeeper knew what it was, did not pretend to be anything other than what it was, and met its goals. I was entertained and surprisingly not horrified by the violence. It never overstayed its welcome and kept things interesting. In a year of pretentious garbage, The Beekeeper kept faith with its audience.

Number 9: Saturday Night

I have not seen Saturday Night Live in years if not decades. I did watch one episode of this, its fiftieth season, but that was to see Stevie Nicks perform as the musical guest. As this late-night variety sketch show reaches its half-century mark, I can see why Saturday Night was released now. This film about the premiere episode of what was first called NBC's Saturday Night, with its stories of egocentric stars past and present, dismissive executives and a beleaguered showrunner who looked like he was twelve was made in an interesting style. Its runtime of around a hundred minutes covered the hour and a half before NBC's Saturday Night hit the airwaves, chronicling the chaos and machinations that swirled around it. Saturday Night made what could have been a dry recitation of the events into a fascinating watch. It is also elevated by standout performances from Gabriel LaBelle, Cory Michael Smith and Dylan O'Brien as Lorne Michaels, Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd respectively. We even get surprising turns from J.K. Simmons and Matthew Rhys as Milton Berle and George Carlin, showing other sides to their skills.

Number 8: Sonic the Hedgehog 3

I never played video games as a child, let alone as an adult. I also have no great attachment to the character of Sonic the Hedgehog. This franchise has been hit and miss: the first one was great while the second one was weak. Now we have the third in what I trust will close out this series. Sonic the Hedgehog 3, like the aforementioned The Beekeeper, knows its audience. It, moreover, respects its audience, giving them nice shoutouts and in-jokes that do not leave non-Sonic followers lost. Balancing kid and family-friendly appeal with sometimes dark elements, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 charmed me with a mix of humor, self-awareness and even touching moments.

Number 7: Boy Kills World

Boy Kills World bombed at the box office, which I think is a real shame. Like two other films on this list (The Beekeeper and Sonic the Hedgehog 3), Boy Kills World is fully aware of itself and embraced its wild premise with glee. Normally, I shy away from graphically violent films. However, I found the film wildly entertaining if at times gruesome. Everyone in the cast gets into the spirit of things, so one does not mind too much if some of the performances veer into camp. I think it is because, apart from Bill Skarsgard's title character, everyone plays things with a bit of tongue in cheek. Skarsgard, to be fair, does not make Boy into a somber character. He's more of an almost wide-eyed innocent at times. Boy, however, is able to join in the mayhem and serves as a balance to some of the deliberate scenery chewing that makes Boy Kills World entertaining to watch. 

Number 6: The Bikeriders

Biker gangs are a mysterious world, one where loyalty can come with a heavy price. The Bikeriders gives us an entry into this world through the eyes of good but deeply flawed people. The performances from Austin Butler, Jodie Comer and Tom Hardy are all standout ones. We get to know, understand and even like these people even though we may be at times be shocked by what they do or what happens to them. The Bikeriders shows us a world that began well enough, but which eventually entered into a darker, uglier one where no one left undamaged in some way. We see the allure of the biker world, but also the cost of living among them. 

Number 5: Dune: Part 2

I remember seeing the first Dune four times. Dune: Part 2, oddly, is one that I saw only twice. I think that I am less enamored of this second part of what is now a trilogy than I was of the first part of this massive space saga. Nevertheless, Dune: Part 2 has some extremely impressive pieces to recommend it. You have strong performances from the cast both from those returning (Timothee Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson) and newcomers (Austin Butler). The visuals continue to impress; the epic scope seems at times richer, deeper. I think despite the runtime, the ending was a bit rushed. I suspect that it was due to how it was decided to make a third Dune film when I think most people expected there to be only two. Whether this proves a good or bad idea remains to be seen, but as it stands, Dune: Part 2 is a good though not great follow-up to its predecessor.

Number 4: Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story

Almost every year, at least one documentary manages to sneak into my Ten Best List. This year, that documentary is Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story. Using Reeve family footage and interviews with Reeve family, friends and colleagues, we get Reeve's story of struggle and success in his professional and personal life. Super/Man does not deify Reeve. We learn that he could be selfish, insecure and prone to mistakes. We also learn that it was only by literal inches that his accident could have either resulted in instant death or merely an embarrassing fall versus the paralysis that ended up happening. The audience that I saw Super/Man with was openly sobbing by the end. This is a respectful but honest portrait of Christopher Reeve, who was flawed but who time and again met the challenges placed before him the best way that he could.

Number 3: A Complete Unknown

Perhaps my enjoyment of A Complete Unknown comes from the fact that I am a big Bob Dylan fan. However, I think A Complete Unknown gives us a very good portrait of the artist as a young man, one with great talent, great ambition and at times great hubris. This Bob Dylan is brilliant and brash, sometimes charming, sometimes elusive, sometimes welcoming, sometimes distant. A Complete Unknown is, however, not just a showcase for Timothee Chalamet's Bob Dylan. It was filled with great performances all around, from Edward Norton's sincere Pete Seeger to Monica Barbaro's knowing Joan Baez. Each received a well-deserved nomination for their performances. Chalamet was denied both a Best Actor Academy Award and a chance at history to become the youngest Best Actor winner, losing to the current record-holder for the youngest Best Actor winner title, Adrien Brody for The Brutalist. However, I think that in the future, it will be Chalamet's turn as Zimmy that people will prefer versus the cold but efficient Brody in The Brutalist.

Number 2: Nowhere Special

Nowhere Special is a curious film in that it took several years to hit the States. Premiering in 2020, Nowhere Special hit the United Kingdom in 2021 but only managed to come to the United States in 2024. I am puzzled on why it took so long to make it here. I am, however, thankful that it managed to come out at all. This tale of a working-class Irishman who, knowing that he is dying, is seeking a family for his young son to take care of him is a deeply moving portrait of a father's love. James Norton's performance is one of the most beautiful that I have seen as John. John is generally quiet, perhaps prickly but ultimately a noble man. The beauty in Nowhere Special is that it takes the situation seriously without drowning in pathos or mawkishness. It also shows that the various families that John visits are all good people who, in their way, would love young Michael (Daniel Lamont). I am not ashamed in admitting that I was moved to tears at the end of Nowhere Special, a film that reminds us of how special a father-son bond can be.

Number 1: Juror #2

Like Nowhere Special, my Number One Film of 2024 was pretty much ignored. Like Nowhere Special, the fact that few people saw or heard about Juror #2 is a depressing sign of how Hollywood has lost its way. How is it that the (probable) final film from Clint Eastwood could be so widely ignored and dismissed by Warner Brothers? How could people who have seen both Juror #2 and Emilia Perez genuinely think that the latter was not only better than the former, but that Emilia Perez deserved thirteen Academy Award nominations while Juror #2 did not deserve even a screening? Juror #2 perhaps was too intelligent for Academy members, filled with things that they apparently recoil from, such as good acting, good directing, and a good screenplay. This film about the flaws of both the justice system and those who are part of it is a complex picture of individuals attempting to do the right thing even if it means doing harm to others. The performances are all first rate. The story gives us genuine people, not saints or sinners. The film moves steadily, gripping you at times with suspense and sometimes with deep tragedy. Juror #2, I fear, will be lost to filmgoers except for those who want to complete a Clint Eastwood directing filmography. I watched Juror #2 with rapt attention, filled with empathy for the situation and people, concern that there would be a miscarriage of justice no matter what the result, and impressed by the entire project. In a just world, Juror #2 would have been the dominant film at the Academy Awards while Emilia Perez would have been laughed out of even the Razzies. We obviously do not live in a just world. I urge you to invest time in Juror #2 and see what people can accomplish in terms of storytelling.

With that, I name Juror #2 as the Best Film of 2024 So Far.

Next time, some Odds and Bitter Ends.

Passion Fish: A Review

 

PASSION FISH

A current trend today is to suggest that only a woman can write and/or direct a film about women. This is why such films as The Marvels and the 2019 version of Little Women needed to be directed by women. I do not think that only women should direct a female-centered film in the same way that I do not think that a woman cannot make a male-centered film. A good example of a man crafting a well-made film around women is John Sayles' Passion Fish. While I think its runtime is much too long, Passion Fish gives us what now seems a struggle: strong women who have flaws.

Soap opera diva Mary-Alice Culhane (Mary McDonnell) has been left paralyzed after a car accident. Written out of her show, she is miserable in her condition. Fortunately, she is a woman of independent means, so she goes to live in seclusion and moves back home to Louisiana, where she is originally from. Here, Mary-Alice drowns her sorrows in booze and sarcasm, driving all the caregivers sent to her away or finding that they do not work well together.

That is until the newest caregiver in this cavalcade comes. That is Chantelle (Alfre Woodard), who finds this "bitch on wheels" difficult but who is willing to tolerate Mary-Alice because she needs stable employment. The push and pull between Mary-Alice and Chantelle leads them to slowly accept the other. While not friends, they begin to see a bond start slowly building. 

This is in tandem with their relationships to two men. For Mary-Alice, that is Rennie (David Strathairn). He is a good Cajun boy whom Mary-Alice knew in her early years. While they are smitten with each other, Rennie is a married man with five children. He builds her the ramp for Mary-Alice's wheelchair, but both know that it can go only so far. That kind of physical and emotional limitation is not in the cards between Chantelle and horse trainer Sugar La Deux (Vondie Curtis-Hall). Charming and rakish, unashamed of his way with fillies of all kinds, Sugar is sweet on Chantelle, who initially rebuffs him. However, she too falls under Sugar's spell, and a relationship begins.

As Mary-Alice and Chantelle begin accepting the reality of their situations, they also have the past come for them. Mary-Alice has a chance to return to her soap opera in a revamped version, but at a cost that she does not want. Chantelle has a chance to reunite with her young daughter Denita (Shauntisa Willis), currently under the guardianship of Chantelle's father, Dr. Blades (John Henry Redwood). Will either or both find what they need in the swamps of Cajun country? 

Passion Fish (the title coming from a legend that Rennie tells them about a particular swamp critter) is two hours and fifteen minutes long. While the Academy was well-pleased with the screenplay enough to give Sayles a Best Original Screenplay nomination, I felt that it sometimes went on too long and dragged. I sadly confess to nodding off from time to time, puzzled over why Passion Fish was so long. I figure that some scenes, while pleasant to amusing, could have been trimmed or cut altogether. There was the scene where the Robineaux sisters Ti-Marie and Precious (Nora Dunn and Mary Portser) came to visit their high school frenemy Mary-Alice. There was when Chantelle has an unexpected encounter with Sugar's daughter. We could have had a shorter montage of the various caregivers who, for one reason or another, were not suited for Mary-Alice's temperament. 

I understand that the last one was there to build up for when Chantelle finally came in. However, I think we got the point early on. That is probably Passion Fish's greatest flaw, but it is a long one.

Separate from that, Passion Fish works well in almost every other respect. Mary McDonnell received the other of the film's two Academy Award nominations for her performance as Mary-Alice. She elevates what in other hands could have been a stereotype: the formerly agile woman who now depends on others to move about. She is prickly, sarcastic, sometimes downright mean. However, we also see the hurt, regretful, and frightened woman. We even see a sometimes more relaxed manner, such as when she reunites with some of her former castmates, including an early appearance from Angela Bassett as a former costar. 

Passion Fish is a double act, which makes it difficult to believe that Alfre Woodard was not nominated for her performance as Chantelle. She is not a saint nor a longsuffering caregiver. Woodard makes Chantelle a strong but vulnerable figure. She knows when to push, when to pull back. She also brings her own struggles and issues to where she becomes relatable. Chantelle has her own problems for which she is working to correct. Her journey is just as fascinating as Mary-Alice's. Perhaps a reason why Passion Fish is so long is that it gives as much time to Chantelle's journey as it does to Mary-Alice's. It does not make it any easier to accept, but it does make it balanced.

The film's two male characters are also complex and interesting. Strathairn is a bit hard to accept as this good old Cajun boy. Granted, his Louisiana bayou tones are nowhere near as cartoonish as Channing Tatum's accent was in Deadpool & Wolverine, so he has that as a positive. He also brought a shy manner to Rennie, someone who had a yen for Mary-Alice but who never could get the deal closed. He is a good man, someone who is clearly fond of Mary-Alice but who could not betray his wife and kids for her. Curtis-Hall's Sugar, who also has a good old Cajun boy manner, is delightful and charming as the very confident love interest. He is a man who not only knows the way to a woman's heart (and bed) but who delights in his way with the ladies. He is roguish, but we end up falling for him the same way that Chantelle does.

Passion Fish also has the benefit of beautiful cinematography and is filled with great zydeco music. 

I understand that many nowadays think that contemporary filmmakers struggle in making films about women. Sometimes they are shown as fluttery, other times as fierce. Passion Fish manages to create a female-centric story with complex characters. It is probably far longer than it should be, but on the whole Passion Fish works as a dual character study of women who are distinct yet similar in their struggles.

DECISION: B-

The White Angel: A Review

THE WHITE ANGEL

Biopics, particularly of historical figures that people hold up in lofty terms, can run the risk of being very stiff. Gandhi is one such case. Another is The White Angel, the biographical film of Florence Nightingale. It is not that The White Angel is bad, per se. It is that it mistakes nobleness for insight, preferring to idolize The Lady with the Lamp rather than reveal her inner light.

Upper-class society lady Florence Nightingale (Kay Francis) wants to become a nurse. This shocks her family and friends, as nursing was seen as a disreputable profession, particularly for well-born women such as Nightingale. Nurses were thought of lazy, lax and drunks, closer to prostitutes than caregivers. Florence, however, will not be denied her dream profession. Convinced that she can bring needed reforms, order and respectability to the profession, Florence goes to train as a nurse and yet continues to struggle against the stigma of her chosen profession.

Now comes the Crimean War, and Florence is appalled at reports of the high mortality rate among the wounded versus those who have died in battle. This is the ideal place to test out her various theories on nursing and the effectiveness of proper medical care. She is still fiercely opposed by the British high command, especially Dr. Hunt (Donald Crisp), who sees her as nothing but a society doyenne with nothing to offer and the entire concept of female nurses' repellent. Finally showing some gumption, Florence will again not be denied. She is willing to tough it out, even when she is stricken with cholera herself. Will her efforts, however, be in vain? Will Queen Victoria see Florence Nightingale as a positive or negative force?

The worst thing that a biographical film can do is make the subject either too good or too bad. The Reagans television movie is a good example of the latter, making the fortieth President and First Lady almost cartoonishly satanic. A good example of the former is The White Angel. This Florence Nightingale almost floats over the world, forever noble, forever quietly courageous. Ethereal is the best way to describe the Florence Nightingale in The White Angel. The film makes the case that our Flo essentially will give her life to humanity by being a nurse. 

I found so much of the acting and Mordaunt Shairp's screenplay so still and noble as to be maddening. I am surprised that director William Dieterle could not get his cast to make the real-life and composite characters come across as real. It seemed a real shame that The White Angel opted for deification versus exploration of the subject. 

It is not as if there were not some flashes of what The White Angel could have been. Late in the film, Florence is told that she cannot have the blankets and shirts that she requires for the men under her and her staff's care. Genuinely angry, she defies the guards and essentially commandeers the supplies over their firm objections. However, for the most part, this Florence Nightingale is very noble in her manner, almost wallowing in her sacrificial manner.

Such is the case when she is told that she cannot enter to see a general. She therefore waits patiently outside in the snow rather than leave. Perhaps this could have been made into a moment of defiance and quiet strength. The White Angel could not make the case that it was such a moment.

I think Kay Francis showed herself to be a beautiful woman in The White Angel. I do not blame her for her portrayal of Nightingale as the embodiment of nobility. That is more on Dieterle's directing and the screenplay, which gave her an almost absurdly noble and saintly figure. She did have some good moments, including her interactions with Tom (Billy Mauch), a literal little drummer boy whom she nursed back to health who later stood up for her. 

The film also has a strong moment when the men salute Nightingale as she is carried out when she is suffering from cholera. There was also some good acting from Crisp as one of her many antagonists. For the most part though, The White Angel bungles the opportunity to show the full woman behind the legend. It is not that one is looking for some damning expose of Nightingale. It is that one would like to see a more complex figure than the one we were shown.

Florence Nightingale was truly ahead of her time. She saw a desperate need and defied convention if something needed to be done. The White Angel may not be a good film, but perhaps it can be an introduction to this most important of figures and to the beauty of Kay Francis. 

1820-1910

DECISION: C+

Half Nelson: A Review (Review #1970)

HALF NELSON

It seems an inevitable part of being a teacher, that of students being shocked that the women and men that they see only in the classroom have lives, sometimes quite debauched, beyond the chalkboard. Half Nelson tells one such story, where teacher and student switch roles with each other. With strong performances throughout, Half Nelson is less cautionary tale and more portrait of those struggling between their ideal and true selves. 

Daniel Dunne (Ryan Gosling) wants to inspire his young students to think of history as more than people, places and dates. He stands out in his inner-city Brooklyn school as the rare young white man in a predominantly black area. When he is not teaching or coaching the girls' basketball team, he is either hitting the bars or smoking crack. After his ex-girlfriend and recovering addict Rachel (Tina Holmes) shows up, he hits the coke in the girls' restroom. He is so out of it that he seems rather unaffected that one of his students has come upon him in his sorry state.

That student is Drey (Shareeka Epps). She is no stranger to the drug trade, her beloved brother Mike (Collins Pennie) doing time for selling drugs for local kingpin Frank (Anthony Mackie). Frank, minus the drug running, is not a bad man, going so far as to provide for Drey and her mother as a thank you for Mike taking the fall for Frank. Drey, who likes both Dunne and Frank, now feels the push and pull from both of them.

Despite his addiction, Dan wants Drey to stay clear of Frank. For his part, Frank wants Drey to help him sell drugs. Eventually, Dan's life spins close to unmanageable, causing him to start crumbling. While the Dunne family, with whom Dan is distant from, seem unaware of his condition, Drey and Dan's fellow coworkers know something is amiss. Eventually, the tangled lives of Dan, Drey and Frank connect through the matter of supply and demand. However, there is still some hope for Dan and Drey, that they might escape their own troubles and help the other out.

Half Nelson is no To Sir, With Love.  Told in a straightforward, non-flashy style by director and co-writer Ryan Fleck (writing with Anna Boden), Half Nelson takes a unique twist on the "inspirational teacher" trope to show a flawed, troubled man behind the casual veneer. Daniel Dunne does care about his students and is committed to social change. At one point, he agrees with his students that he, as a white man, is part of the machine but opposed to a lot of the machine. He, however, is actually part of the problem not due to what I suspect in the future would be called "white privilege". Rather, it is because his addiction is in a way responsible for Frank's business, Mike's imprisonment and Drey potentially entering this dark world.

Dan may be an idealist (or a Communist, which Drey suspects due to the books in Dan's apartment). He is also an addict who rationalizes his issues. There is a good moment when Rachel and Dan are at the park, talking about their pasts. Rachel has dealt with her past addiction. Dan won't. It is not that he cannot deal with them. It is that he does not see the problem. Denial can be a harder drug than cocaine.

For her part, Drey does see that Mr. Dunne is a good man, but so is Frank. He stands by her as she forces a bully to return her bike to him. In some ways, Frank and Dan are playing father figures to Drey. That one is a pusher, and the other is an addict does not bode well for Drey's future. It does, however, show Frank and Dan to be more than their business and addiction.

Half Nelson earned Ryan Gosling his first Oscar nomination at the age of twenty-six, one of the youngest men to have done so. He is exceptional in the role. You see the haunted man who wants to be a good man. That split between his ideal and true self comes across often. Gosling lets his eyes do a great deal of the acting. He looks lost, fearful, and sometimes angry. Generally gentle as he goes Looking for Mrs. Goodbar, the few times that Dunne becomes angry are still not rage-filled moments. At one point, he becomes angry at a basketball referee, down to throwing a ball at him. Even here though, it is not intense but calm mixed with a tension and edge.

This is a very controlled performance, but in a good way. In his struggle, Gosling makes Daniel Dunne a deeply flawed man who can still find his way out. He can be a bit sanctimonious, but he is also very troubled. Near the end of the film, Drey and Daniel see each other at his most vulnerable. Gosling does not show Dunne as shocked, or upset, or ashamed. Instead, he gives her a look of almost quiet resignation and acceptance of his situation. It is a deeply moving performance.

He is matched by Shareeka Epps as Drey. She is a smart girl who looks on Daniel not as the cool teacher, but as a good man who does a bad thing. Her relationship with both Frank and Mike give her a better perspective. She knows the suppliers of the drug trade. Now she sees the customers. It is her evolution and realization of what this world is that makes Half Nelson a stronger film than if it were just about Daniel Dunne. 

Anthony Mackie has charm and even wisdom as Frank. Never downplaying the reality of his business, Mackie still makes a case that Frank has some good intentions when it comes to both Mike and Drey. We don't see Frank as evil. He is just working in a business that is illegal and harmful.

Half Nelson is a well-acted and written film. It shows that those who teach have sometimes deeply troubled, secret lives. Teachers are just as much in need of learning as their students. 

DECISION: B+

The Worst of 2024 So Far

I have not done a Best or Worst of Lists for some time.  I now will attempt to rectify that. 

2024, I found, was a simply terrible, terrible year. This year's Best Picture winner, Anora, was one that I found rather distasteful and rather long and boring. That does not even cover another Best Picture nominee, Emilia Perez, which I thought played like parody and whose two Oscar wins (Best Supporting Actress for Zoe Saldana and Best Original Song) to be not just among the worst of the year, but of all time. How that film earned the most Oscar nominations for 2024 at 13, coming one short of tying the record for the most Oscar-nominated films in history, is grotesque. 

It is a sign of just how awful 2024 in film was that failing to make my personal Ten Worst Films of the Year were films were such horrors as The Crow remake or The American Society of Magical Negroes, the latter which I found far more racist than what it thought it was commenting on. I thought these films were better than something like Madame Web, which I found less bad and more incompetent, veering close to a "so bad it's good" type of film. Yet, despite how awful those films were (and they were), I would rather watch them again than I would the following films which I have as my Ten Worst Films of 2024 So Far.

Number 10:
The Fall Guy

In retrospect, I think both Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are probably better actors than I give them credit for. I recently saw Gosling in Half Nelson and Blunt has handled both comedy and drama with films as varied as The Devil Wears Prada and Oppenheimer. However, I found The Fall Guy incredibly smug and obnoxious, convinced that it was the height of hilarity when it was the height of idiocy. Scenes that ran far too long, with leads that looked as if they wanted to be anywhere but there, I continue to be amazed that The Fall Guy is so beloved by so many people. Allegedly a love letter to stuntmen and women, The Fall Guy had a convoluted plot. I also continue to believe that Gosling struggles if not is incapable of playing comedy. He is far too serious to make any kind of humor believable on screen. Maybe he is a funny guy off screen. In the few comedies that I have seen in Gosling's filmography, I am never able to shake the sense that he wants to force the comedy. It ends up having the opposite effect of making it look fake. 

Number 9:
Deadpool & Wolverine

I watched the original Deadpool in horror, finding the violence and vulgarity far too graphic and gratuitous. I get that many people, however, love the Merc with a Mouth, his snide quips and sarcastic tone a tonic to other somewhat overly serious comic book films. You do not get more serious a comic book character than Wolverine, so bringing the somber Logan and the absurd Wade together seemed like the joining of titans. I know that many people were laughing throughout Deadpool & Wolverine, but I did not even crack a smile once. At a certain point, smugness and sarcasm cannot or should not make up for not having anyone or anything to care about. Also, at 55 and 47 years old respectively, isn't it time for Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds to move on?

Number 8:
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

One of the great mysteries to me is how Ghostbusters ended up as a franchise. The original Ghostbusters was one of the first films I saw in theaters after they were allowed to reopen during the pandemic that has been essentially memory-holed. It was entertaining albeit longer than I remembered it to be. After that, I did not see any need to make more Ghostbusters films. To many other people, however, these mad scientists became so beloved that we needed more movies, a cartoon series and then an all-female version and more follow-ups. When I, very reluctantly, went to see Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire when it premiered, I looked at the grown men, who were probably in their forties and/or fifties, dressed in their Ghostbusters costumes and thought they were a sad and sorry sight. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is simply too stuffed with characters, unable, unwilling or uninterested in trying to be one thing. It can't integrate the original Ghostbusters cast. Worse, it can't integrate the new Ghostbusters cast. Going all over the place, Frozen Empire ends up nowhere. Finally, thanks to Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, the term "lesbian ghost sex" will forever haunt my mind (no pun intended). 

Number 7:
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

Try as I might, I cannot convince people that Henry Cavill cannot act. He is a breathtakingly beautiful man. I concede as much. However, in terms of acting, of being able to portray a character, Cavill has the acting range of a wet paper bag. In The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, Cavill showcases his total inability to act because he is speaking in his actual British accent. As such, he cannot hide behind the idea that his lack of acting ability is due to how he has to keep his mind on speaking with an American accent. Attempting to pass off a true-life story into something that makes Inglorious Basterds look like The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is something totally deadly in a film that is meant as an action/action-comedy film. It is boring. 

Number 6:
Argylle

For the longest time, I would say about a bad film, "Well, at least it is better than Argylle". Argylle became a byword for "bad film", something so irredeemably awful, stupid, pointless and brain-killing that to make anyone watch it would constitute a crime against humanity. There is simply so much wrong with Argylle. Even good actors like Bryan Cranston, Sam Rockwell and Catherine O'Hara appear lost to where it elicits sorrow to see them here. The plot is totally nonsensical. The sight of Bryce Dallas Howard skating on oil is groan inducing. Seeing the smaller Rockwell lift her up in this pas de deux makes one question the logic of life itself. Oh yes, and Henry Cavill still can't act, his dead expression attempting to pass him off as a human and not an auto-animatronic figure. Perhaps the worst aspect of Argylle is the suggestion that not only will this be the first film of a new franchise, but that it will eventually tie itself into the Kingsman film series. Not since some brainless satanic figure thought up the idea of having the 21 Jump Street films morph into the Men in Black universe has there been such a monstrous concept. Lawrence Welk headlining Woodstock is more believable than having more Argylle films.

I held out on having Argylle be my Worst Film of 2024 for the longest time. I simply refused to believe that there could be worse films than that. Even now, I struggle with the idea that there were films worse than Argylle. However, I have to bend to reality and acknowledge there are other 2024 films that I would watch Argylle over. 

Number 5:
Venom: The Last Dance

I never understood the fandom for the Venom films. I thought the first Venom was terrible but also unfairly bashed, finding that it might just have been made for people who do not care about things like plot or acting. Venom: Let There Be Carnage was something that I found barely passable, a film that was bad but also bizarrely goofy to where I did not hate it. No such reprieve for Venom: The Last Dance, however, a jumbled mess of a movie that does not bother to try and make sense. For all the talk about the acting brilliance of Tom Hardy, I find nothing to suggest that he is his generation's Richard Burton. Burton could be hammy, but at least he had his boozing to blame for that. Hardy has no such recourse (I hope), going into The Last Dance fully aware that it goes all over the place. Incoherent, unfunny, with nothing to say, The Last Dance is hopefully true to its word.

Number 4:
Gladiator II

I never thought that Gladiator was this unimpeachable work of cinema. It was fine. It was entertaining, good popcorn fare. I still would have voted for Traffic as that year's Best Picture winner, though maybe I could be persuaded to selecting Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as well. Still, Gladiator has many fans. I can't believe, however, that those fans thought a sequel to Gladiator was needed, especially since the title character dies in the first film. How do you have a sequel to a film whose main character is dead? Gladiator II has an easy answer: just remake the first film and tie in some characters from the first film in some misguided step at continuity (and I think I am being generous in that view). Son of Gladiator is an absolute disaster from the very opening. The plot asks us to believe that the charisma-free Paul Mescal could lead anyone to try and overthrow the Roman Empire. Gladiator II: Judgment Day has sharks floating around the Coliseum, which to my mind is probably one of the more logical things in Gladiator II: Electric Boogaloo. Denzel Washington is hamming it up for all its worth, but at least he was doing something. Everyone else in Gladiator II: Freddy's Revenge was just embarrassing him/herself. There has been talk of a Gladiator III. We as a nation have already suffered enough.

Number 3:
Monkey Man

There is a danger to high praise in that it makes one believe that his/her work is actually good when it is anything but. Such is the case with Monkey Man, a film beloved by critics and held as some kind of new John Wick. To be fair, I have seen only John Wick: Chapter 4, but Monkey Man is anything but a new John Wick. An idiotic plot that is more interested in attempting a visual style that ends up chaotic. A film that thinks it is blending high action with strong social commentary. Monkey Man is moronic. I thought that it was better than Argylle, but in retrospect at least Argylle was not as punishingly ugly visually as Monkey Man was. Written, directed and starring Dev Patel, Monkey Man is not an homage to or inspired by John Wick. It is a vanity project for Dev Patel.

The Numbers Two and One Worst Films of 2024 can go either way, as I found them both rather grotesque and abominations to cinema. I have gone back and forth between them, but now, I think I am ready to decide.

Number 2:
Joker: Folie a Deux

My cousin travels for his job. He told me that on one of his trips, he went to Joker: Folie a Deux and left angry. First, he did not know that it was a musical. Second, he found Folie a Deux so traumatizing an experience that he did not go to another movie the rest of his business trip, worried that he would find something equal to if not worse than Joker: Folie a Deux. The first Joker film made my Ten Best Films of the Year, a film that went past its comic book origins to profile a troubled and self-destructive man. I do not know if Joker: Folie a Deux would ever have reached those lofty heights even if it was crafted as a faux-musical. It is not a real musical in that Folie a Deux just uses pop songs and has the characters perform them. Far too long, too convoluted, and too openly hostile to the audience, Joker: Folie a Deux did not subvert expectations, unless one expected a good movie. 

Number 1:
Emilia Perez

Thirteen Oscar nominations. Emilia Perez, the single worst film of 2024, received thirteen Oscar nominations, the most for a foreign language film and one short of the record currently held and shared by All About Eve, Titanic and La La Land. Unless there is a massive number Academy members who have had lobotomies recently, no sane person would look at Emilia Perez as anything other than what it is: a massive pile of shit. The story of a fearsome Mexican drug lord who has a sex-change operation and then attempts to force him/herself back into the life of his/her wife and kids via a self-righteous female lawyer is already idiotic. That it is an alleged musical makes it more laughable. That should be the reaction to Emilia Perez: laughter, but not the good laughter. You laugh at Selena Gomez's struggles with Spanish, as the film never makes clear whether her character is a native Mexican or a Mexican American. You laugh at the songs. Gomez's big number, Bienvenida, has her thrashing about a bed looking like she is having an epileptic seizure. The song El Mal performed by Saldana (which were the film's sole Oscar wins) is equally laughable, with bad lyrics and a cartoonishly idiotic dance routine by Saldana. The film's title character, played by Karla Sofia Gascon, also attempted to sing in El Mal, but it was horrendous. What is the film's message: that becoming a woman makes you a better person? Forget the misery that Emilia's previous life as drug lord "Manitas" (which translates to "Little Hands") created for everyone, from those he had killed to his vaguely American, vaguely Mexican wife and kids. Forget the horrendously staged musical numbers. Forget the lack of acting performances that would make Henry Cavill look like Alec Guinness by comparison. Emilia Perez plays like parody, like some kind of joke that no one outside Cinema Intelligentsia would take seriously. Emilia Perez will be forgotten within a year or be shown as punishment. Both El Mal and Zoe Saldana will go down as among the worst wins in their respective categories. 

Emilia Perez is the worst film of 2024. It is also one of the worst films ever made. It manages to make Argylle look like Goldfinger by comparison. Emilia Perez is so bad that yes, I would wish it on my worst enemy, on a permanent loop, for time and eternity.