Blood Diamond: A Review

BLOOD DIAMOND

I have found that, on occasion, filmmakers will couch a message in their films. Blood Diamond uses a lot of action as a way of informing us to the evils of illegal diamond trading to finance wars. A bit heavy-handed and far longer than it should it, Blood Diamond has one particularly good performance and one serviceable one to make it worth seeing.

Sierra Leone, 1999. Humble fisherman Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) lives quietly with his wife, two daughters and son Dia (Kagiso Kuypers). Things are peaceful until the Revolutionary United Front, an armed group attempting to overthrow the government, storms into his village. They kill and maim the population, with Solomon being spared due only to him making for a good slave.

His task, along with other men, is to search for diamonds. These diamonds, known as conflict or blood diamonds, will be smuggled from Sierra Leone to Liberia, where they can be certified as conflict-free and thus legal for sale. Diamond companies, aware of the deception, will then buy them and either keep them in vaults to increase demand or create jewels for the international market. Solomon has found a very rare pink diamond and attempts to escape with it, hoping to use it to buy his family's way out of Africa. Caught by the evil Captain Poison (David Harewood), Solomon has the first of many fortunate escapes when government troops find the rebel camp and is arrested.

In jail, Poison's loud revelation of Solomon's find catches the attention of Rhodesian mercenary David Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio). Archer, a gun and diamond smuggler, gets Solomon out of jail and is desperate for him to tell him where Solomon buried the pink diamond. Solomon wants nothing to do with Archer or that cursed diamond. When Sierra Leone's capital of Freetown falls to the RUF, however, Solomon agrees to work with Archer in exchange for Archer helping locate Solomon's family and get them out.

Easier said than done, for Archer is under pressure from his former commander and frenemy Colonel Coetzee (Arnold Vosloo) to get the diamond too. Archer wants the diamond to finance his own way out of Africa and plans to betray both Solomon and Coetzee. He, however, had not counted on American journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly). Investigating the connection between blood diamonds and the powerful Van De Kaap family/diamond corporation, the beautiful Vital Affairs Magazine reporter has Archer slowly questioning his life choices. 

Solomon and Archer, having joined forces, now go to find the pink diamond. Solomon, horrified that Dia has been brainwashed into being a RUF child soldier, attempts to rescue his son. That ends in disaster, but luck is still with Solomon and Archer. Will Solomon and his family escape this nightmare? Will Maddy expose the evil Rudolph Van De Kaap (Marius Weyers) and his aide Mr. Simmons (Michael Sheen)? Who will live and who will die?

I am sure that I saw Blood Diamond when it was released. I, however, do not remember it being as long as it is. At nearly two-and-a-half hours, Blood Diamond is a surprisingly long film. This is a major flaw in Blood Diamond (no pun intended). Charles Leavitt's screenplay (with story by Leavitt and C. Gaby Mitchell) has a curious habit of going on either going on tangents or attempting almost to make two films. For the former, there is when Archer, Solomon and Maddy stumble onto the school of Benjamin Magai (Basil Wallace). Magai has rescued child soldiers and provided refuge and education for them. When looking for Dia, Magai goes with them and ends up getting shot but not killed by child RUF soldier Dead Body. Magai's cheerful, almost naive manner is bizarre given how he should know how traumatized and indoctrinated the child soldiers are.

He does survive, but once he's helicoptered to the hospital, we never see or hear from or about him again. Was he there just to remind us how amputations of African de facto slaves began under the Belgian King Leopold II? Leopold exploited Africa for his own gain, but how he is responsible for creating RUF child soldiers or the RUF leaders using alcohol, drugs and mental manipulation to both terrorize and indoctrinate children no one answers. 

As stated, Blood Diamond also seems to want to make a whole film about child soldiers. A surprising amount of time is taken up by Dia's turn into a RUF zombie. In a very curious choice by director Edward Zwick, the film cuts between a group of journalists coming across the aftereffects of a RUF/government battle and the training and manipulating of Dia and the other children. This decision to go from the journalists to the child soldiers and then back to the journalists undercuts both stories.

In fairness, Blood Diamond did precede Beasts of No Nation, which is also about African child soldiers, by almost a decade.

Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou received Oscar nominations for their performances in Lead and Supporting Actor respectively. This was DiCaprio's third nomination out of a current six (one win) and Hounsou's second and currently final nod. Hounsou's nomination was well deserved. 

His performance is exceptionally strong as the father caught in these terrible circumstances. Hounsou brings Solomon's continuous shock and determination to survive to life with great compassion. I questioned both his stubborn insistence on total honesty even when it harmed him and his apparent stupidity in trying to rescue Dia with only a vague plan. However, one can sympathize with Solomon, who is put in terrible circumstances and attempts to do the best that he can.

DiCaprio is a bit hit-and-miss. This was a banner year for DiCaprio who had a nomination for Blood Diamond while also starring in that year's Best Picture winner The Departed. Perhaps the Academy gave him a nomination for Blood Diamond over The Departed because his Afrikaner accent was slightly more believable than his Boston accent. Technically, Danny Archer was Rhodesian (what is now Zimbabwe) and not South African, but he did grow up in South Africa. DiCaprio is an actor who apparently went through an "accents showcase my versatility" period. While his Afrikaner tones were not awful, they did at times feel a bit forced and mannered. It comes across as an actor trying too hard. I think we are meant to focus on Archer's evolution from merciless mercenary to more compassionate person. He did a good job of that, good not great. However, his accent is again someone trying too hard. 

This is especially the case when DiCaprio shares scenes with Arnold Vosloo, who is South African. While he is best known as Imhotep in 1999's The Mummy, Vosloo was quietly effective and menacing as Colonel Coetzee. It is a shame that Vosloo was not given the Archer role. I understand why: Leonardo DiCaprio can open a film, Arnold Vosloo cannot. However, I think Vosloo would not have struggled with the accent the way that DiCaprio did. 

I wonder if the Connelly character was even necessary. Was she there to provide Archer with something of a love interest (the film does have them appear to be interested in each other)? Would it have made the film better if Bowen had been a man? Out of the three leads, this was probably the weakest.

The subject of blood diamonds seems to have been pretty much forgotten now. Whether it is due to the various conflicts no longer ongoing, the overall market being more effective in monitoring conflict diamonds or a lack of interest I cannot say. It is not a totally lost opportunity to mix a serious message with a lot of action. Blood Diamond did a serviceable job, but it is far too long to reach the levels it aspired to. 

DECISION: C+

Dead Man Walking: A Review

DEAD MAN WALKING

There are some issues that are very contentious that stir up fierce passions. Abortion is one such issue. Another is the death penalty. Dead Man Walking does something rare: provide balance between the opposing views. It is not a screed against or for execution, but a journey to find the humanity among the victims and victimizers.

Sister Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) works among the Louisiana poor at Hope House. She has been corresponding with Matthew Ponselet (Sean Penn), who is on death row for the killing of teenagers Walter Delacroix (Peter Sargaard) and his girlfriend, Hope Percy (Missy Yager). She agrees to help him with his final appeal.

Sister Helen meets Ponselet in person. She also brings attorney Hilton Barber (Robert Prosky) to attempt to change the sentence to life in prison, which is what the other man convicted of the Delacroix/Percy murders received. Their efforts fail and Ponselet will be executed. 

While Sister Helen is opposed to the death penalty, she also has the chance to meet Walter and Hope's parents. Earl Delacroix (Raymond J. Barry) is more receptive to seeing Sister Helen than his wife, the agony of their only child's death eventually breaking up the marriage. Clyde and Mary Beth Percy (R. Lee Ermey and Celia Weston) are under the mistaken idea that Sister Helen has come around to support the execution. None are pleased to see Sister Helen serve as Ponselet's spiritual adviser as the execution date grows. Through her work, Ponselet finally takes responsibility for his actions. She is able to be with him until the actual execution. Wiser, having seen both sides now, Sister Helen can now help Earl Delacroix find his own way back.

I think many would be leery about the subject matter of Dead Man Walking as it stood. Knowing that Tim Robbins (who wrote and directed the film) and his then-partner Sarandon were the people behind the project might also give some people pause. Robbins and Sarandon were very much politically active at the time, so the thought that Dead Man Walking would be some anti-death penalty lecture might cross a viewer's mind. However, Robbins, adapting Sister Helen Prejean's book, did something extremely wise.

It humanized both sides.  

Had Robbins and Sarandon merely wanted to make a purely anti-death penalty film, it would have fallen into the trap of painting Ponselet as almost a victim. He could have been portrayed as innocent. The focus could have shifted to his own suffering mother (Roberta Maxwell) and his brothers. However, Dead Man Walking took the time to have Sister Helen meet and talk to Earl Delacroix and the Percys. She saw them not as monsters baying for the blood of Matthew Ponselet.

She saw them as deeply grieving parents, ones who wanted justice for their children and felt that Ponselet's death would be that justice. The scenes with Earl and the Percys, as they talk about Walter and Hope, are difficult to watch. Robbins includes flashbacks to their killings as the parents talk to Sister Helen, which I imagine is what she is seeing in her mind. 

At one point, Clyde Percy firmly berates Sister Helen for siding with that "monster". Dead Man Walking makes the case that Matthew Ponselet is a terrible man, but not a "monster". He is a racist and a murderer who comes to repentance and acceptance only at the bitter end. However, he is also a human, with a family that loves him and a daughter that he will never see. 

At the same time, Dead Man Walking also shows that the Percy and Delacroix families, along with those who side with them, are also human. They have lost loved ones, had their lives wrecked perhaps beyond repair, and are left to live their lives with this permanent pain. It is not that they want to inflict pain on the Ponselets. They may not even want that eye for an eye that is quoted by them. They just want peace. 

Tim Robbins' script does well in guiding the viewer through a complex subject that does not tell one what conclusion to reach. At the execution, Matthew Ponselet asks forgiveness of Mr. Delacroix and tells the Percys that he hopes that his death will bring them peace. He also says that he thinks killing is wrong, no matter who does it. When he is executed, we see Walter and Hope reflected. It may be a bit poetic, and perhaps this is either symbolism or Matthew's vision. It works so well that one can read all sorts of things into this scene. 

Dead Man Walking is well-directed by Robbins as well, earning one of the film's four Oscar nominations. There are no big dramatic scenes, no grandiose rages or self-righteous speeches in favor or opposed to someone's view. It is, in fact, a surprisingly quiet film. 

Sarandon, the film's only Oscar win for Best Actress, is very quiet even when Sister Helen is firm. She communicates so much with her eyes, expressing deep sympathy for the parents who lost their children. She is comforting but also realistic, carrying a quiet strength throughout. Sister Helen, however, is not afraid to be firm when needed. Near the end, she quietly but firmly tells Matthew that he bears responsibility for his actions. Other actresses or directors might have made this a big scene, one where there is shouting and grand movement. Dead Man Walking has Sarandon speaking firmly but still in relatively hushed tones. She is not sotto voce, but she is not yelling either. That makes it more effective.

Penn, the third Oscar nomination (the film's fourth being for Bruce Springsteen's closing title song) also does well as Ponselet. He too does not rage, though he shows anger. That makes his final scenes where he tearfully breaks down all the more effective. Perhaps the Louisiana accent was a bit much, but that is a minor point. Everyone else in the cast was ably guided to where the film did something that should be standard: have us see the characters and not the performers.

There are moments of levity to ease the tension, but they are built into the story. Sister Helen and her fellow Sister, Colleen (Margo Martindale) are discussing where to bury Ponselet. Sister Colleen points out that the first available grave is to a deceased sister who left her fiancee at the convent and swore never to so much as touch another man. Now she was going to spend eternity next to one. After a brief pause, the two nuns burst out laughing. It is a natural moment, and one that cuts the tension of the situation.

For a film that runs a little over two hours, Dead Man Walking moves very fast. Perhaps the score with vocalizations by the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Eddie Vedder, was a bit much. The same goes for Springsteen's song, which I was not big on. I do not know if having Tim Robbins' brother David write the score was a good or bad thing. 

In retrospect, Dead Man Walking is well-crafted, ably acted and surprisingly balanced. Whatever your views on the death penalty, it is worth watching Dead Man Walking to give some thought to the opposing view.

DECISION: B+

La Vie en Rose: A Review

 

LA VIE EN ROSE

In the history of the Academy Awards, only two women have won the Best Actress Oscar for non-English films. The first is Sophia Loren for the Italian film Two Women. The second is Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose, the French biopic of chanteuse Edith Piaf. I have high praise for Loren, who transcended her beauty to reveal a brilliant, heartbreaking performance.

I truly wish I could say the same for Cottillard, but I cannot. In both the performance and the film, La Vie en Rose did not make a case on why the Little Sparrow was worth following for almost two and a half hours. 

La Vie en Rose jumps from the final days of Edith Piaf (Cotillard) to her early days and her rise (and various stage falls) to become the definitive French singer. Piaf, born Edith Gassion, lives in grinding poverty at the end of World War I. Her trampish, destitute mother sings on the shabby streets of Paris. Edith's father, currently fighting in the war, takes his little girl to Normandie, where she is looked after by his mother, who happens to be the madam of a brothel.

As a side note, I think this is the same background as comedian Richard Pryor, but I digress.

Edith becomes the pet of the whores, in particular Titine (Emmanuelle Seigner). Titine cares for Edith when Edith temporarily goes blind and later recovers, thanks in part to their devotion to Saint Therese, which Edith carries for the rest of her life.

Life is hardscrabble for Edith, who sings on street corners for change. Her life takes a turn when cabaret impresario Louis Leplee (Gerard Depardieu) spots her and builds her into Edith Piaf. She seems on her way until Leplee is murdered by gangsters. Owing to her past association with gangsters, she is suspected of being an accessory but has no involvement. With her career threatened, she turns to songwriter and voice coach Raymond Asso (Marc Barbe) for help. Asso pushes Piaf not just vocally but physically, training her in diction and body movement, convinced that she could be la plus grande chanteuse dans toute la France.

In between her musical triumphs, Piaf has an ill-fated love affair with boxer Marcel Cerdan (Jean-Pierre Martins), gets hooked on heroin, goes through rehab, meets Marlene Dietrich (Caroline Silhol), who astonishes her by telling her how Piaf's singing evokes Paris to her, and then lives out her last day.

I am sure that there are people who, when they think of Edith Piaf, they will recall how she was called "that crazy Mexican lady" in Bull Durham. La Vie en Rose serves to clarify that she is not Mexican but French. Apart from that, I found it a slog, wishing that this thing would end.

As we go through Piaf's life hither and yon, I can understand how director Olivier Dahan (who cowrote the screenplay with Isabelle Sobelman) wanted to get away from the standard biopic treatment. There are usually two ways to make a biopic: a birth-to-death coverage of someone's life or a specific time period that covers a major turning point in the subject's life. Better Man is something like the former, Hitchcock is something like the latter. La Vie en Rose seems to want it both ways: cover the entirety of Piaf's sadly brief life while hitting on major turning points (her discovery by Leplee, her affair with Cerdan, her final day). I think that in retrospect, it might have been better for La Vie en Rose if it had opted for one of those methods rather than try to go halfway one route, halfway another.

I might have been dozing off at certain points, but I think that the structure in La Vie en Rose sometimes obscured who some of the people Piaf interacted with were. There is the character of Doug Davis (Harry Hadden-Paton), who I gathered was Piaf's American boy-toy whom she ended up getting killed when, on almost a whim, she ordered him to drive her to see her childhood home during a heavy rainstorm. Who is Doug? Why is his death basically unimportant? 

I am not well-versed in Piaf's life, but from what I saw in La Vie en Rose, as an adult she always looked disheveled and inches from falling, be it the gutter or on the stage. The film starts with her giving a concert in New York, where the ambulance is ready for when she collapses. Near the end, she jokes that people have come to see her fall and she hasn't yet. Unsurprisingly, she does shortly afterwards. It is to where I wondered if her collapses from emotional or physical exhaustion were there for show. 

In terms of performances, I was not won over by the Gallic charms of Marion Cotillard. She is a fine actress who has appeared in American films such as Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. I found her performances overwrought even if it was Edith Piaf, a woman forever falling apart. I saw Cottillard make a lot of faces, keeping her head titled almost always on one side. I, however, did not see Edith Piaf. I saw an almost cartoonish parody, exaggerated and almost hysterical in every sense of the word. While I will concede that losing your lover unexpectedly in a plane crash would leave one distraught, Cotillard's performance here did not touch me or move me. It was all that I could do to stop myself from howling with laughter at how almost operatic she was.

I will say that this section did have one good moment when in her grief and mad running through the hotel, the transition to her performing Hymne a L'Amour was good. I also thought it was good of the film to include Piaf singing in English, particularly the title song, which I think more people know because of Louis Armstrong's cover.

Cotillard is the show, but I found it almost unhinged to where I wondered that Piaf could not have been that overwrought and at times downright loony. Depardieu did well as her first mentor, and Barbe did as well as the stricter Henry Higgins like Asso. The Cerdan-Piaf romance worked well too, thanks to Martins. Here, Cotillard came across as more human rather than the slightly crazed woman about to literally fall apart in front of everyone. 

I was not won over by La Vie en Rose. I thought it gave me no insight into the Little Sparrow. I will say that while I think it deserved its Best Makeup Oscar win, I wonder how weak that year's field was to have Cotillard's mugging win Best Actress. 

Many people think La Vie en Rose is great. I do not. What would I say to those who think highly of La Vie en Rose and think that I am wrong? Non, je ne regrette rien...

1915-1963

DECISION: D+

Wonder Woman (1974): The Television Movie

WONDER WOMAN: THE TELEVISION MOVIE

Film and television adaptations of Wonder Woman have been hit-and-miss. The 2017 film was successful critically and commercially. The 2020 sequel, however, was neither. On television, the 1975-1979 Lynda Carter series and its theme are still fondly remembered. The 2011 attempted reboot on the other hand was such a disaster that not only was it not picked up for series, but the pilot was also never aired. In the various attempted and realized adaptations, people forget that the year before Carter donned her satin tights, another Wonder Woman television series was planned. Wonder Woman is such a bizarre project that one should watch it only to marvel at how anyone in front or behind the camera thought that any of it was good. 

A television movie meant as a test pilot, Wonder Woman stars Cathy Lee Crosby as Diana Prince. She is an Amazonian who has made the great sacrifice to leave Paradise Island to go to the world of men, where there is evil at work. A notorious master criminal named Abner Smith has uncovered the identity of thirty-nine covert agents and will sell them to the highest bidder, putting all of them at risk. He will give the names back to the U.S. for $15 million, with them having three days to meet his ransom. While head spook Steve Trevor (Kaz Garas) has various men working on the case, he needs his secretary Diana Prince to go to France for a "dental appointment".

Once there, everyone knows that she is super-spy Wonder Woman. That includes Abner Smith's chief henchman George (Andrew Prine), who has both murderous and erotic designs on our heroine. She thwarts these assassination attempts with surprising agility and intelligence. No number of hired assassins or snakes sent to her various hotel rooms will stop Diana from pursuing Abner Smith. 

The ransom is agreed to be paid, as time is running short. It is an attempted trap to get Abner Smith to finally reveal himself, which he gladly does so when he captures Wonder Woman. The notorious Abner Smith (Ricardo Montalban) is charming and elegant. He also does not want Diana killed. George, already bitter that he has been rebuffed, chafes at the directive. However, George has an ace up his sleeve: renegade Amazonian Anhjayla (Anitra Ford), who has joined forces with George. Has Wonder Woman met her match? Will Abner Smith get away? 

The curious thing about Wonder Woman is, that apart from her origins on Paradise Island, there is absolutely nothing special or powerful about Diana Prince. Screenwriter John D.F. Black and director Vincent McEveety failed on every level to make Wonder Woman interesting. They decided that Diana had no great powers. Instead, she was in many ways almost ordinary. Moreover, a lot of Wonder Woman makes no sense.

Everyone working for Abner Smith knows who WW is, yet no one at the agency did. The various efforts to assassinate Diana range from bizarre to downright laughable. A group of men in one scene enter a moving elevator from above, and she is able to defeat them so easily that one thinks the scene is pretty pointless. Another time, a snake is sent to her hotel room. I will not diminish the threat of a potentially venomous snake. I will, however, question why Wonder Woman would open a box sent to her room so casually. I also have doubts on whether or not you can remove this threat by having Room Service send over a dish of milk.

I will also question why Abner Smith did not simply kill her when she goes into an obvious trap at a rented mansion. Is it even worth bothering at this point to wonder why "Abner Smith" seems such a ludicrous name for a master criminal? I wonder if George ever called him "Lil' Abner" behind his back.

Perhaps I can begrudgingly say that there is one semi-good moment of wit. When George and Diana are having dinner, George openly says, "Let me make love to you". Diana asks why. After pointing out his own virtues, Diana replies, "You misunderstood me. I didn't mean why should you want to. I meant why should I?". 

However, in all other respects Wonder Woman is oddball. Apparently, Abner Smith's plan was to kill Wonder Woman by trapping her in a sealed room and sending multicolored lava to smother her. This is after she has to follow a burro to find Abner Smith's hideout. A burro that Abner Smith sent Steve Trevor. A burro who is released with the ransom money by using the words, "Corras rapido, por favor", which translates from Spanish as, "Run fast, please". 

We never get an explanation as to who Anhjayla is, or how she managed to hook up with George (interpret that any way that you wish). She and Diana have a battle of javelins that essentially ends in a draw. "You know as well as I do that we will face each other again", Anhjayla tells her frenemy. I figure that was a tease for the hoped-for television series. We will never see this promised confrontation.

All the better, as Wonder Woman has some woeful acting. For most of Wonder Woman, Ricardo Montalban is deliberately kept off screen, with only his hands and voice to appear on camera. He's hamming it up for all its worth, delighting in the chance to be cartoonish. He was, I think, fully aware that Wonder Woman was not a pilot for a series but camp, silly and illogical. Pity that no one else got the memo. 

Former tennis pro Cathy Lee Crosby, I think, did the best that she could with the material. However, there was very little to show that she could have carried a full series. She as at times blank and wooden as Diana Prince. Fortunately for her, she recovered from this error when she later cohosted the television docuseries That's Incredible! but here she could not communicate much. Again, to be fair, Black's script and McEveety's directing were not helpful. 

Everyone else save Montalban gave a bad performance. Garas' Steve had little to do. Jordan Rhodes, who played the smitten agent Bob, was in one scene and added nothing to even a tease for a future romance or at least comic flirtation. Andrew Prine as George was done in not just by his overall bad performance. George is also a rather repulsive man. I get that as a male chauvinist pig he was meant as the opposite of Diana's enlightened woman. However, he was lousy no matter whom he interacted with. Anitra Ford's Anhjayla, like Crosby, I think tried to make this seem interesting. 

I think Wonder Woman, if seen at all, will be as a curiosity, a reflection of its time with "women's lib" becoming more dominant. This is not a good version of the superheroine, and it is good that they opted against a series which would have flopped. You've come a long way, baby, but when it comes to Wonder Woman, you had a little more way to go.

2/10

Thunderbolts*: A Review

THUNDERBOLTS*

When I think on Thunderbolts*, the newest episode of the world's longest and most expensive soap opera, I don't think "why" so much as "who". The "who" is both as in "who is this made for?" and "who are these people?". Thunderbolts* is not terrible. It just was there.

Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh) is so tired and so bored with her job of being a hitwoman and agent to CIA director/Tulsi Gabbard lookalike Valentina de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus). She wants out, or at least assignments that don't require killing and destruction. Valentina, facing impeachment for her nefarious work, agrees and has her take one last assignment: destroying a secret lab to cover up de Fontaine's nefarious work.

Ah, beware those last assignments, for this was really a trap to get all of de Fontaine's rogue agents to kill each other off. In a case of Spy vs. Spy, Yelena's intended target of John Walker/ex-Captain America 2.0 (Wyatt Russell) is there to kill Ava Starr/Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen). Ghost is there to kill Antonia Dreykov/Taskmaster (Olga Kurylenko), who is there to kill Yelena. Out of this international Mexican standoff, only Starr manages her task. Exactly how random man Bob (Lewis Pullman), who is also in the lab, fits into all this we do not know.  

De Fontaine, along with her excessively loyal aide Mel (Geraldine Viswanathan), is stunned to find that Bob is alive. He was a new experiment that managed to live, delighting de Fontaine. Not delighting her is how the other agents also live and are now on the run. Bob's powers are growing, but will de Fontaine manage to make use of them to starve off impeachment? 

Into this comes Yelena's father, Alexei Shostakov/Red Guardian (David Harbour) as well as Congressman James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan). They join forces when they see that de Fontaine will not stop until they are killed and she gains full control over Bob. Bob is now de Fontaine's newest creation, Sentry. Sentry/Bob, who has struggled for years with both self-esteem and drug addiction, now grows both more powerful and more dangerous. He has the power to plunge people into shadow, requiring the newly formed Thunderbolts (Alexei naming them as such in honor of Yelena's childhood soccer team) to enter Sentry's void to sort out his issues. Will de Fontaine manage to get away with her new plan of "the New Avengers"? What of the mysterious outer space craft that the New Avengers/Thunderbolts see on the screen in the second post-credit scene, with a Number Four prominently displayed on it?

I do not know if it is a good thing that, while watching Thunderbolts* (the asterisk apparently to signal their unofficial name versus the New Avengers moniker), I actually wanted de Fontaine's plan for them to kill each other off to work. In a sense, it did: Taskmaster was killed. However, I think by now the issue with Thunderbolts* or any upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe film is that you need to know so much of what happened before that if you don't, you will be lost. At the minimum, you won't care. I remember Yelena and Alexei from Black Widow. I've seen de Fontaine before. I have seen Bucky before (and as a side note, never liked him). 

However, Thunderbolts* really expects the audience to have an almost encyclopedia-level knowledge to know or even remember who the characters are. Ghost appeared in Ant-Man and the Wasp, which was seven years ago and who hasn't to my knowledge or memory been part of the MCU since. Black Widow was four years ago. That was the first appearance of Taskmaster. She pops up and is popped so quickly in Thunderbolts* that it is a puzzle on why she was there at all. There is brief mention of events from Captain America: Brave New World, which was a mere two months ago, so I guess that is an improvement. I never saw the Disney+ show The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, so this is my first introduction to John Walker. As such, I had a lot of filling in to do. 

For those complaining that Thunderbolts* is the B-Team of the MCU (and to be fair, the closing credits naming them as such was a nice touch), I would offer that the MCU is digging deep into the barrel if your antagonist is Valentina de Fontaine. Julia Louis-Dreyfus' take on the character has always been more comedic in my memory, a bit of a bumbler who tries to be some sort of master manipulator and fails at it. I do not know if Louis-Dreyfus or director Jake Schrieder actually tried to make de Fontaine a true villainess. However, when Louis-Dreyfus as de Fontaine exclaims, "Righteousness without power is just an opinion," the audience laughed. Was that intentional? 

The end result for me was that de Fontaine did not come across as a genuine threat. She came across as a smug, obnoxious twit who has inexplicable political power.

One thing that I found also inexplicable is why Thunderbolts* was edited the way that it was. The film cuts between the four-way Mexican standoff in the lab and the Washington, D.C. soiree that de Fontaine is throwing. I think that Eric Pearson and Joanna Calo's screenplay wanted us to connect the two events. I just think that the back-and-forth did not work. I also do not know how Alexei went from being a limo driver in Mother Russia to a limo driver in Washington, D.C. who conveniently overhears de Fontaine's plans for the human targets. What exactly are the odds that Alexei would be the limo driver? 

Worse is how what is meant as a tense action scene with Walker, Starr and Yelena escaping in Alexei's limo, the button that Alexei hits does not launch a missile but starts playing Ginuwine's Pony. It is enough to give MCU humor a bad name. 

Again, when Thunderbolts* wanted to be exciting and dare I say sincere, it did not work. When Sentry goes rogue and becomes Void (whom I called Shadows because that is what he looked like to me), a lot of it had me rolling my eyes. Of particular note is when the various New Avengers started saving people from Sentry/Void's purging. All I could think of was, "if these people do not have enough sense to get out of the way when objects are flying about them, they kind of deserve to be crushed". By the time we get to Void's surreal world, I was as bored as Yelena was.

I think Yelena's boredom was actually Florence Pugh's boredom with being in Thunderbolts*. I'm sure that she was well-paid for her lack of efforts. She reminded me of Madeline Kahn's performance in Blazing Saddles to where she would make for an excellent Lily Von Shtupp parody. Given that Kahn's character was meant to be a Marlene Dietrich parody, I do not know whether that is a compliment or insult for Pugh. 

Harbour was appropriately hammy as Alexei/Red Guardian. Thunderbolts* has two nepo babies: Wyatt Russell (son of Kurt and Goldie Hawn) and Lewis Pullman (son of Bill). I am not familiar with the previous work of either. I think Russell commended himself well as the obnoxious "Junior Varsity Captain America" as de Fontaine mockingly calls him. I was not impressed with Pullman, though to be fair Bob was not a particularly great character. Like another 2025 nepo baby, Pullman looks a bit too much like his father to let me fully separate them in my mind. Stan, John-Kamen and Viswanathan were fine but again, limited by the script. 

The mid-credit scene was bad (Alexei harassing a random grocery shopper to show her his face on a Wheaties box) and the post-credit scene was there to connect Thunderbolts* to the upcoming Fantastic Four: First Steps. I did not hate Thunderbolts*. However, I did wonder that with them being the New Avengers, how will that work with the Young Avengers teased in The Marvels? In the end, to my mind Thunderbolts* are not go. 

DECISION: D+

Conquest (1937): A Review (Review #1975)

CONQUEST (1937)

The saying "behind every great man is a great woman" is usually not applied to the two wives of Napoleon Bonaparte: the Empresses Josephine and Marie Louise. In fact, the phrase, "Not tonight, Josephine" is used as a byline for turning down sex. However, can that phrase be applied to one of his mistresses? Conquest is surprisingly embracing of adultery and out-of-wedlock childbirth, shocking at a time when the Hays Code was being enforced. Lavish if a bit overacted, Conquest is better to look at than to watch.

Countess Marie Waleska (Greta Garbo) is devoted to her much older husband Anastas (Henry Stephenson). She, however, loves three things: her brother Paul (Leif Erikson), Poland and the Emperor Napoleon (Charles Boyer). She sees the Emperor as a champion of the people, one who will restore an independent Polish state. Her ardor is so great that she sneaks into his camp, where Napoleon is enchanted by this beauty. As fate would have it, Anastas has arranged an audience with Napoleon at a ball, where the Emperor and the Countess begin a flirtation.

The Polish aristocrats essentially pimp Marie out for Poland, begging her to use her feminine wiles to seduce Napoleon into reestablishing Poland as an independent state. Soon, they become lovers and then they fall in love. Anastas has his marriage annulled and Napoleon divorces Josephine, which works out for Marie, who is expecting a child. Unfortunately, Napoleon has opted to marry a Hapsburg princess to create a new royal bloodline. Marie does not tell the Emperor of his new child, though she does tell Napoleon's mother Laetitia (Dame May Whitty).

As Napoleon rises, falls, is exiled to Elba and then attempts a comeback, Marie eventually goes to him and reveals their child Alexander to him. Will our lovers be truly together, or will history conspire to keep them apart?

If anything, Conquest is lavish with a capital L. The film received two Oscar nominations, one of them for Best Art Direction. It more than earned that nomination, for Conquest has grand sets that sometimes overwhelm the audience. Of particular note is when at the Emperor's welcoming ball. The palace is opulent and massive, filling the screen with its grandness. 

Even in scenes that do not require such visual splendor, Conquest delivers. An effective moment is during the French retreat from Russia. Napoleon is berated to his face by a soldier who initially does not recognize him. The sets provide a plausible Russian winter, which gives the scene an extra touch of sadness at how Napoleon's arrogance has led to misery for his men.

The second nomination was for Charles Boyer as Best Actor. Here, I will quibble with the nomination. I found his performance acceptable. He does have some good moments, such as when attempting to learn to dance. The sight of the Conqueror of Europe attempting to cut a little rug brings a touch of levity to something as opulent as Conquest. The aforementioned scene of his retreat is also effective. However, for the most part, I found Boyer a bit exaggerated as Napoleon. 

He and Garbo had an unofficial battle of accents (his French vs. her Swedish), and while they are playing foreigners, it does lend an accidental level of humor; sometimes their scenes together seemed a bit overly dramatic. A case in point is when Marie goes to Elba to reunite with Napoleon and introduce him to his hereto unknown son. As Napoleon goes on about his decision to return, they both started becoming almost unrealistic in playing her disillusionment and distress to his blind ambition.

I think today people would look upon Garbo as also slightly exaggerated in her manner. However, she more than makes up for any overacting with her luminous quality. As she sees Napoleon ride off, Garbo's tearful eyes glisten, making her look more beautiful.

The supporting cast was better, particularly the female supporting players. Marie Ouspenskaya and Dame May Whitty are not in Conquest long. However, they both lend Conquest a bit of humor to what could have been a stodgy period film; there is a great scene where Napoleon calls on Marie. Ouspenskaya, as the addled Dowager Countess, does not recognize the Emperor and thinks that he is merely the corporal Napoleon told her that he was. While playing cards, the illogic of the Dowager Countess' beliefs builds to a humorous rage, with her violent anger and threats to call on Louis XVI to deal with this impertinent soldier almost charming.

The same goes for Dame May Whitty as Napoleon's mother. Initially hostile to his son's newest mistress, her imperious manner soon gives way to an almost motherly affection. Whitty also has a great scene with Boyer when Napoleon is on Elba, advising him that looking through his telescope won't bring France any closer. 

The male supporting cast did not fare as well, all of them coming across as stiff and grand.

Conquest is worth watching for the grand sets and the beauty of Greta Garbo. You also have fun turns from Marie Ouspenskaya and Dame May Whitty to enjoy. While I found the leads a bit overly dramatic, I think Conquest met its goal to tell its story of epic love. 

1786-1817

DECISION: C+

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+