The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

THE MUMMY RETROSPECTIVE: 

THE CONCLUSIONS

The myth of "the mummy's curse" is so engrained in popular culture that we take it for granted that is a longstanding fact that entering an ancient Egyptian tomb will unleash supernatural dangers. In reality, this idea of a curse and of a long-dead Egyptian shuffling along, all wrapped up in cloths, is a Hollywood invention. 

This invention is more perplexing when you stop to watch the four Mummy films that I saw for this retrospective. Save for the 1959 version, none of the Mummy movies featured anything close to the popular conception of a bandaged, slow-moving, moaning figure. I figure that this image came from the myriad of sequels or follow-ups, which I did not see for this retrospective. In the same way that Frankenstein's monster evolved from an articulate creature to a slow, grunting one, this Universal monster went from mysterious to almost camp.

Three of the four Mummy movies have held up rather well. Each brought their own take on this figure too. The one exception? The 2017 Mummy. I think the reason the 2017 version failed is because Universal Studios lost focus. Rather than aim to make one good movie, they decided to take The Mummy as the kickoff to a franchise, their hoped-for Dark Universe. It went from one action sequence to another, but there was no joy, no fun, no sense of mystery or adventure. We were essentially watching a trailer for something that will never come. The Dark Universe is dead, deader than Imhotep (or in the 2017's version, Princess Ahmanet).

That was never the issue with the 1999 version. That version of The Mummy was unapologetically fun. It was open about being a throwback, wanting to give audiences nothing more than a good time, blending action with romance and even a touch of comedy. The 1999 Mummy is still beloved by fans, I think precisely because it was fun. It was pure fantasy, with a dashing and daring hero, a beautiful and strong female lead, and if not a sympathetic antagonist at least one with a reason for being. 

Finally, there is the original 1932 version. That one has the benefit of being the genesis, not having to compete with what came before. I cannot say that it is "scary". In some ways, looking at it ninety-plus years removed, 1932's The Mummy is tame. However, this version of The Mummy is very atmospheric, eerie. It also has a standout performance from Boris Karloff or Karloff the Uncanny as he is billed on posters. There is a great use of mood in The Mummy. Karloff and the film itself look supernatural, otherworldly. This pushes it to being a strong, effective film. 

The first three versions of The Mummy were, to my mind, enjoyable. I thought well of the original and the first one made within my lifetime. The one between them was good but not great. The most recent one, well, I guess they tried. 

And now, my ranking for the four version of The Mummy, from Best to Worst.

1932

1999

1959

2017

Thank you for joining me for this Mummy Retrospective. 

Pacific Liner: A Review (Review #1888)

PACIFIC LINER

There is a film about a deadly virus originating from China that forces anyone infected to be locked in isolation from those not infected. No, it is not about COVID. Pacific Liner moves fast though the drama does not fully come up to where it could have gone.

The S.S. Arcturus is sailing from Shanghai to San Francisco. Chief Engineer McKay (Victor McLaglen) is firm but beloved by the crew. Not as well-known is the ship's new doctor, Tony Craig (Chester Morris). He sees the Arcturus as both a way to get to San Francisco and to his former sweetheart, nurse Ann Grayson (Wendy Barrie). McKay is also attracted to Ann, but he is a bumbler when it comes to her. Ann for her part, has a tangled romantic past with Craig.

Things seem to be going well until McKay spots a stowaway, a Chinese peasant. McKay is more irritated than concerned when the stowaway dies. Craig realizes that the stowaway has an infectious disease, treatable but dangerous. He pushes that the men working the boilers, all who had contact with the stowaway or someone with the stowaway, must be quarantined. 

Soon, the quarantined men are falling ill. While the passengers dance above them unaware, the crew faces a great crisis. Will the crew launch a mutiny after they are bolted shut to stop them from going above? Will McKay or Craig win Ann's heart?

It is interesting that Pacific Liner has eerie similarities to the past few years' great health crisis, physical and mental. The early section of Pacific Liner seems to play almost like comedy. This is particularly true with the love triangle of McKay, Craig and Grayson. McLaglen has a wry manner to his acting here, particularly when discussing things with his silent parrot. His stumbling manner with Ann, his blustery manner with the crew, they indicate a more humorous film. Once the plague starts spreading, Pacific Liner takes a more serious, almost menacing turn.

Of particular note is Barry Fitzgerald as Britches, the first crewman to meet his end. He is surprisingly effective as the crewman who at first is not taking the crisis seriously until it is too late. 

As mentioned, McLaglen is good as McKay, someone who inspires loyalty and contempt in equal measure. Morris has an almost crazed intensity as Dr. Craig, one that appears more crazed when we see his eyes all but burst out of his head. Barrie had very little to do apart from being the love interest, though in fairness she does well when using her feminine charms to get McKay to comply with something Craig needs.

Pacific Liner also has some wonderful visual moments, such as when the crew has to burn the material found inside a victim's locker. The film is a brisk 76 minutes, which to my mind suggests that Pacific Liner is meant as a B-picture, one that did not get as much as the premise might have allowed. I think that is again because of John Twist's screenplay which to my mind spent too much time on the romantic aspects versus the growing crisis.

However, director Lew Landers kept things going and the performances are respectable if not spectacular. On the whole, Pacific Liner might be worth revisiting in a remake. Granted, it might hit too close to current events, but that is something Pacific Liner cannot control. 

DECISION: C+

The Mummy (2017): A Review

 

THE MUMMY (2017)

In the annals of contemporary Hollywood, there are few actors whose name alone can open a film. Maybe Tom Hanks. Maybe Denzel Washington. One name, though, towers above them despite his short stature. Few names still have cache with the public in terms of sheer stardom more than Tom Cruise. Cruise is also one of the shrewdest actors around, aware of both his image and what makes a hit film. Therefore, one looks upon The Mummy, the first of a planned cinematic universe, with puzzlement on how Tom Cruise and everyone involved in The Mummy failed so spectacularly with this film on every level imaginable. 

Long ago, a group of Crusaders bury a knight with a special ruby. This jewel was from the Nile, or rather ancient Egypt. It was part of a dagger used against Egyptian princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), who was set to ascend the Pharoah's throne until a male half-brother was born. She kills her father, the baby mama and the infant, then was about to slice a lover to allow the god Set to take human form when she herself is killed.

Moving on to present-day London and Iraq, you have two sections that eventually blend. The Crusader tomb is found while building a new part of the London Underground. This section is taken over by mysterious figure Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe). In Iraq, renegade Sergeant Nick Morton (Cruise) and his little buddy Corporal Vail (Jake Johnson) are out treasure hunting versus fighting Iraqi insurgents. Fortunately for them, they do bumble their way into an unknown and elaborate Egyptian tomb.

Unfortunately for them, it is that of Ahmanet. British archeologist and Nick's fling Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis) is more intrigued with the tomb than with whatever treasures may be found. Nick and Vail care only for gold but know enough to get out of a dangerous tomb. Vail is bitten by a spider that causes him to fall under Ahmanet's power. He goes on a killing spree and is sadly killed off by Nick.

Is this the end of Vail? Far from it, for he now warns Nick of Ahmanet's power. Ahmanet wants to use Nick to bring Set back and enact her plans for world dominations. Dr. Jekyll and his alter ego now must stop her. The lives and afterlives of everyone are in danger, and it will take Nick becoming a hero to save the world.

The Mummy was intended to kick off a whole new franchise dubbed the Dark Universe, a pun on the Universal Studio name as well as a cinematic universe. The idea was to bring back the classic Universal Studios monsters (the Mummy, the Wolf Man, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde) into a series of connected films for a long-running film series. The Mummy could not have been a more disastrous launch for such an enterprise. It is to where I jokingly wonder if screenwriters David Koepp, Dylan Kussman and Christopher McQuarrie along with director Alex Kurtzman were paid off by rival studios to deliberately sabotage the Dark Universe. 

The Mummy never took the time to genuinely set things up. Part of the problem is that The Mummy has essentially two starts. We start with the Crusader burial in 1127 England, then we get Crowe's voiceover telling us of Ahmanet. You know that these stories are eventually going to meld, but it does seem rather convoluted to have so much stuffed before the opening credits. Add to that the rather distasteful part of having Ahmanet kill an infant, and you are playing with fire. 

The Mummy is spreading itself too thin with its set up, but then despite its almost two-hour runtime seems desperate to rush though things. So much time is spent on an action sequence in Mesopotamia (which the film helpfully reminds the audience is now Iraq) that people who walked in late might have thought they had walked into the newest Mission: Impossible film by mistake. We never get a proper introduction to Nick, or Vail, or Jenny. Having already barely gotten a vague introduction to Ahmanet and not getting much if any introduction for Crowe or his Dr. Jekyll (here almost always called "Henry"), audiences can't latch on to who these characters are.

That is not counting a truly baffling moment when Crowe tells Nick the story that we already know about Ahmanet. I get that this is Jekyll explaining to Nick who this is and what preceded his involvement, but why have the audience sit through it again? Why not just save the flashback to this moment? 

I think The Mummy was too obsessed with being wall-to-wall action to bother trying to make the characters interesting. The film certainly gave what it thought were exciting action sequences, such as a crashing airplane. However, that led to more questions than answers. Jenny tells the soldiers taking Ahmanet's sarcophagus back to Britain not to shoot Vail because the plane is pressurized, but shortly afterwards Nick shoots Vail three times. The plane does crash, but the debris seems to be spread over an excessively wide area. If The Mummy is to be believed, the various corpses, including a still remarkably fit then-55-year-old Cruise, could be recovered but the sarcophagus is still being sought at the crash site. 

The film desperately tries to be exciting, with constant action sequences and Brian Tyler's bombastic score pounding out the menace and danger of it all. Neither helped: the action sequences were shockingly boring and lifeless, the music overblown and almost incessant. 

The Mummy also seems unaware of what it actually wants to be. Whenever Jake Johnson appears, it almost seems to want to be a comedy. His postmortem scenes look like a rip-off of An American Werewolf in London. Vail, for reasons I'm not sure anyone can explain, prattles on to Nick about how he repeated shot Vail. He's a corpse that only Nick can see, so that would make him a ghost. However, I think he is also a literal corpse. I say this because at the end, Vail is fully human, Nick using his powers to bring him back to life (and setting him up for future Dark Universe films). I figure Vail was going to be the comic relief in this hoped-for franchise, but it did not pan out.

As a side note, Jake Johnson, who did the best he could with what he was given, may have the rare distinction of being one of the few people who manages to look shorter than Tom Cruise on screen.

I think Cruise went into The Mummy with high hopes of creating another franchise. He took a stab at comedy with Nick, who was meant to be a quippy type of fellow. In his first scene, he rebukes Vail for suggesting that he is a grave robber. He tells Vail that they are "liberators of precious antiquities". Nick did not come across as a daring man of action with a way with women and weapons. He came across as an idiot. It does not help when it looks like at one point that Tom Cruise is close to getting raped by a corpse. 

Wallis' Jenny was so blank that she is hardly worth mentioning. To be fair, Jenny was a poorly written character: she was not particularly smart, not interesting and wavered between being a potential love interest and being irritated by Nick. Crowe thought that underplaying Henry (again, the use of Jekyll is curious), he could make Jekyll come across as mysterious. It had the opposite effect of making us not take any of this seriously, but not in a good way.

There is nothing in The Mummy that is good. It is not fun. It is not scary. It is not interesting. It is just there. 

If The Mummy was created to be the first of many monster films, it failed in spades. The Dark Universe franchise died with The Mummy. Perhaps it is fitting that this living corpse of a film killed off yet another film series that I think few people wanted. 

DECISION: F

The Mummy Retrospective: An Introduction

The Mummy (1932)

The Mummy (1959)

The Mummy (1999)

The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

Conclave: A Review

CONCLAVE

The work of sinful man is at the heart of the sacred process of selecting the Successor to St. Peter in Conclave, a film convinced of its own grand importance but falling short.

The Pope is dead. Now it falls upon Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) to oversee the College of Cardinals, the group of men who in theory are guided by the Holy Spirit to find the new Pontiff among the brethren. However, there is a good amount of politicking and machinations among the various candidates who wish to sit upon the Throne of St. Peter. 

There is American liberal Aldo Bellini (Stanley Tucci) who wants to continue the late Pope's progressive agenda. There is his archrival, the ultraconservative Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), who wants to foster a counter-revolution to Second Vatican. Nigerian Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati) straddles the other candidates: socially conservative, economically liberal. Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow) is closer to the conservative side, but he is more interested in power than in theology or internal struggles on the Church's direction. Finally, there is a surprise Cardinal: Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), appointed by the late Pope as Archbishop of Kabul but whose appointment was kept secret for his own safety.

As the conclave continues, various skeletons start emerging for all the potential candidates. One fathered an illegitimate child with a nun. One has been bribing other Cardinals for votes. Lawrence, himself a liberal, finds himself in the running, facing off against the growing rise of Tedesco. Sister Agnes (Isabella Rossellini) finds herself a pawn, perhaps a willing one, in the various schemes and counterschemes to become Pope. Will a dark horse emerge to rise above the others, especially after a bombing near the Vatican shakes up the race? Once Habemus Papam is declared, there is one more surprise about Pope Innocent XIV that would shock the faithful, but one that will not be revealed to the faithful at Saint Peter's Square.

When I finished Conclave, I ended up not being as impressed with Conclave's twist ending as others have been. I think it has to do with how I know about the legend of Pope Joan, alleged to be the first and only female Pope who ascended to the Papacy while disguised as a man. Conclave to be fair does not feature a female Pope, but the twist is not that far off from having Her Holiness Pope Joan II. 

Separate from that, Conclave makes a classic film mistake in confusing slowness with solemnity. At two hours, Conclave feels longer, and I put that on the overall style of the film. A good description of Conclave for me would be "stately": slow, deliberate, ponderous and serious, oh so serious. The film is so utterly convinced of its seriousness and great importance that it sucks the life out of what could and should have been a great drama of plotting and scheming among the men of God.

Edgar Berger's previous film was All Quiet on the Western Front, which left me thoroughly unimpressed. Conclave, which is also an adaptation of a novel, left me with the same feeling. The performances have such a sense of seriousness to them that except for on occasion Tucci everyone behaved as if there were slightly drugged.

I will walk that back a bit. Castellitto delighted in devouring the screen as the reactionary Tedesco, raging at how the Church has been too accommodating to such evils that he sees, such as Islam and relativism. Others, such as Msamati, came close to making their characters human. However, his great scene had me suppressing chuckles versus being shocked or saddened. 

Talk of Rossellini for Best Supporting Actress needs to be tempered. It is not a bad performance. It is, rather, that is such a small part that she is almost insignificant to the overall film. I do not know if her character has enough to warrant consideration. 

The performances overall are not bad. They are just rather stately, grand, almost self-aware of how important everyone and everything is supposed to be that it ends up making them seem less characters and more caricatures. 

There are positives that recommend Conclave. Volker Bertelmann's score is serious but sets up the mood well. It also is miles ahead of the three note-humping he did for most of All Quiet on the Western Front. The sets and costumes are extremely well-crafted, so much so that it almost does look like the Sistine Chapel was used.

Had Conclave opted to make the College of Cardinals more flawed than cool, cool, considerate men, the film would have been better. It is not a bad film, but its sense of greatness dwarves any shady dealings that go on in the Vatican.    

DECISION: C-

The Freshman (1925): A Review (Review #1885)

THE FRESHMAN

Who does not love college football? The Freshman is a loving homage to the wild and wacky, not to mention whacked-out, world of school sports and the rewards of persistence in the face of total obliviousness.

Harold Lamb (Harold Lloyd) is off to Tate University, described in the title cards as "a large football stadium with a college attached". Wanting to make a good impression, Harold takes his cues from the films he has seen to show how to behave. Among the things Harold knows to do is to do a little jig every time he meets anyone, which is met with everything from puzzlement to derision. 

He also meets the pretty Peggy (Jobyna Robson), first on a train to Tate, then when owing to his naivete finds lodgings in her mother's hotel. Harold is determined to make the best impression among his collegiate class, down to presenting himself as "Speedy". He ends up getting the mocking nickname "Speedy the Spender", thoroughly unaware that everyone is literally cashing in on him. 

Nevertheless, Speedy is set on joining the football team despite having no athletic skills. Harold tries out for the football team and ends up the team's literal practice dummy and later as their waterboy. Thoroughly convinced that he is a Big Man on Campus, Speedy the Spender throws a great soiree where his unfinished suit causes him chaos. Despite this disaster and the revelation of the truth, Harold is determined to make his mark on the gridiron. Will Harold find the chance to be the College Hero that he knows himself to be?

Despite my poor knowledge of football rules, even I knew that, technically, the climatic football game was filled with illegal plays. Harold would have been ruled down on many drives. However, one would have to be downright petty to give much thought to such matters. The Freshman, like its hero, is so full of heart and humor that it does not matter that endless rules were violated or ignored. That is actually part of the fun in The Freshman, its ability to operate on its own logic. 

As a side note, if one thinks about it, The Freshman's hero preceded Adam Sandler's similarly-themed The Waterboy by a good seventy-three years. Both have our naive football players serve as waterboys, pursue the girl of their dreams and come through for their college team at the end. This may be the only time I compare Harold Lloyd with Adam Sandler.

The Freshman works because Harold Lloyd takes the premise seriously. He is fully committed to the story and the character. For example, after being the football team's literal punching bag, he comes home absolutely exhausted and battered. He then sees that a friend has brought over someone he has never met. Despite his physical condition, Harold nonetheless does his greeting jig, albeit in a state of near collapse. 

The film has various brilliant sight gags and title cards that elicit laughter. When Harold arrives at Tate, he is blissfully unaware that the car he is directed to take is not for him, but for the Dean. "The Dean of the College--he was so dignified he never married for fear his wife would call him by his first name", the title card reads. While The Freshman runs a mere 76 minutes, it is so packed with great moments of humor that it never feels it skimped out on anything. 

One of the best sequences does not even involve the big game. Instead, it involves the dance that the totally unaware Speedy throws. Owing to time, Harold's suit is not ready. A hurried job to complete it is made before he rushes off. Aware that his suit is constantly coming apart, the tailor is at the ready attempting desperately to keep it together. The various efforts at keeping up the rouse is hilarious from start to finish.

The Freshman has delightful turns from everyone in the cast. Lloyd excels as the naive Harold Lamb, sweet, unaware but determined. Ralston was very pretty as Peggy, the girl who saw the hero behind Speedy's cluelessness. 

Fast-paced, charming, sweet and most of all extremely funny, The Freshman gets the ultimate passing grade. 

DECISION: A+

Los Tallos Amargos (The Bitter Stems): A Review

LOS TALLOS AMARGOS (THE BITTER STEMS)

Even the most well-meaning people can end up corrupted by greed and suspicion. Los Tallos Amargos (The Bitter Stems) gives us an almost Expressionistic film noir, one filled with tragedy and a dark twist ending.

Alfredo Gasper (Carlos Cores) is a struggling journalist, one who wants to accomplish great things in the world. He, however, struggles with a sense of failure, especially compared to the wartime exploits of his late father. He is also struggling financially until he meets Liudas Paar (Vassili Lambrinos), a Hungarian refugee who is in Argentina illegally. His immigration status has him working for low wages at a Hungarian bar, but that does not stop his ambitious plan.

Liudas wants to create a fake journalism correspondence course, where he will bilk people out of money by selling lessons by mail to allegedly help them break into newspaper writing. Liudas has no intention of actually teaching anyone anything, but his plan is not for profit alone. He will use the money to bring his Hungarian family to Argentina, starting with his oldest son Jarvis. Alfredo, partly out of greed and partly out of a desire to help someone in need, agrees to join the scheme.

Alfredo at first is surprised, even delighted, that the scheme is working. However, he soon begins to doubt that Liudas is on the up-and-up. Is he being played for a fool? Does this Hungarian family actually exist, or is it part of a scheme to steal the money and make Alfredo the patsy? The doubts grow with Alfredo until he decides that Liudas has to go into Alfredo's country home garden. Things take a horrifying turn when Alfredo finds himself facing Jarvis (Pablo Moret) a few days after Liudas "disappeared". Jarvis has come to Buenos Aires looking for his father. He then finds romance with Alfredo's sister Esther (Gilda Lousek). Will the seeds that Alfredo casually tossed over Liudas' grave give the game away?

Film noir is an already bleak, almost despairing genre, with little hope among the lost souls and femme fatales. Los Tallos Amargos seems determined to make our protagonist even more tragic in that he feels the guilt and suspicion gnawing at him from the beginning all the way to the ending. We start Los Tallos Amargos with voiceover, Alfredo suspicious of his shady partner. Sergio Leonardo's adaptation of Adolfo Jasca's novel gives us glimpses into how this good man got to his condition. Alfredo's ambitions in and of themselves are not terrible. He wants to do something great, to live up to some glorious vision. Journalism would give him that outlet, exposing corruption. Unfortunately, he has little to show for his work.

He can rationalize his acts by believing Liudas' story about bringing his family from Hungary even after Liudas tells him that he's aware the correspondence course will scam people. However, once Alfredo begins doubting Liudas and believes that he is being played for a dupe, things take that tragic turn. Los Tallos Amargos builds on the dark and tragic twists, with one of the bleakest and most ironic endings in film noir.

Curiously, there is no true femme fatale here, no wanton woman luring the schmo to his doom. Rather, it is a man's internal doubt and struggle with trying to balance good and greed that brings his downfall. Once Jarvis shows up, Los Tallos Amargos turns to the human cost, our two innocents oblivious to the horrors their older relatives have created. 

The film is beautifully filmed by Ricardo Younis. Of particular note is a dream sequence that veers into German Expressionism. It is quite avant-garde, full of grandly lit scenes. Other sequences, such as Liudas and Alfredo's ends are well-filmed and acted. 

Another excellent moment is when Alfredo has followed Liudas to a club where he sees Liudas with Elena (Aida Cruz), whom Alfredo presumes is his mistress and partner in crime. Alfredo overhears snippets of their conversation that sound incriminating, while the music blocks out other parts. When Elena, in a deeply moving scene so well-played by Cruz, reveals the entirety of the conversation, it turns a tale of greed and betrayal into one of great tragedy.

Los Tallos Amargos builds up on the various twists culminating with Jarvis' sudden appearance. It makes the film less about the crime and more about Alfredo's growing guilt and paranoia. 

The performances are all well-directed by Fernando Ayala. Cores' Alfredo is a man driven by emotions: shame, guilt, greed and back to shame and guilt. As mentioned, Cruz does excellent in a small role. Lambrinos' Liudas comes across as equally sleazy and almost naive, though Moret's Jarvis is naiver. 

Los Tallos Amargos' ending will be devastating, an ironic punctuation mark on this sad tale of greed gone wrong. Well-acted, beautifully shot, with a story full of twists and turns, Los Tallos Amargos is worth seeking out. 

DECISION: A +

Skippy: A Review

SKIPPY

One should know that what was once insanely popular in one generation is pretty much forgotten in the next. Such is the case with both the source material and film adaption of Skippy. Innocent, sweet and charming, Skippy is a delight.

Little Skippy Skinner (Jackie Cooper) is at heart a good kid, though prone to get into trouble. Though he is the son of wealthy Doctor Skinner (Willard Robertson), Skippy likes to slum it on the literal wrong side of the tracks, which he considers more fun. In Shantytown, Skippy is unofficial leader of a tween gang and soon bonds with a local boy, Sooky (Robert Coogan). Sooky's whole life is his dog, Penny, though the dog is technically illegal as Sooky's family is too poor to afford the $3 license.

Skippy does his best to scheme his way to get those $3. His efforts at getting at his savings flop, so he organizes a benefit, where Eloise Sanders (Mitzi Green), the girl who is sweet on Skippy, will be the openly hammy star. It is all for naught, as the evil dogcatcher Mr. Nubbles (Jack Rube Clifford) uses the money raised to repair the windshield Skippy and Sooky had accidentally damaged. It does not help that Mr. Nubbles is father to Harley Nubbles (Donald Haines), the Shantytown tween bully. More complications come when Skippy learns that his father believes the best thing to do is shut Shantytown down and has the power to do so. Will Skippy succeed in his efforts to save Penny and Shantytown?

What makes Skippy so successful is that we get this story from the kids' point of view. Skippy does not pretend to be highbrow. Instead, it is very open about how these kids, in their own world, operate. There are little touches that give us this perspective which make Skippy so sweet and delightful. At the benefit show, there is an offer for what they bill as a "cachurs gluv" for 31 cents. The use of the phonetic spelling shows the first commitment to making Skippy as real as possible.

The simplicity and directness in Skippy become more amusing when these kids attempt to take adult situations. Skippy's best friend and Eloise's brother Sydney (Jackie Searl) tells Skippy that he cannot fight anyone, even the smaller Sooky. "I'm nervous and I'm strung high", he tells Skippy. Later, Skippy asks Sooky, "What does your father do?". Sooky replies, "He just stays where he is. He's dead". It is said so matter-of-factly in a thoroughly innocent and guileless way that it makes it all the more hilarious.

A perhaps less-noted aspect in Skippy is how the kids are quite free of prejudice. There is one black member of Skippy's Shantytown gang, the perhaps ironically named Snowflake. None of the kids ever exclude him from the goings-on. His race is never mentioned or noted. He even participates in the benefit show when he is part of the sawing in half act. The fact that Sooky, who is supposed to be the one being sawed in half, has a white head but black feet make the scene sweeter. 

Director Norman Taurog, who won Best Director for Skippy and was the youngest Best Director winner for decades until Damien Chazelle won for La La Land, should be credited for being able to get solid performances from his mostly child cast. Granted, the story of how Taurog got his nephew Cooper to cry by threatening to shoot his dog is cruel.

Minus that, the performances from everyone in Skippy are delightful. Jackie Cooper received a Best Actor nomination for the title role, making him at age nine the youngest nominee in this category. He more than earned that nomination. Skippy is sweet and well-meaning even when disobeying. Sydney bemoans how he and Skippy went to Shantytown despite Skippy's promise to his father that he would not go over the railroad tracks. Skippy replies that he kept his word to Doctor Skinner in that he did not cross over the railroad tracks. They went under them. 

We first see Skippy calling out to his mother that he is getting dressed even though he is still in bed. Once he hears his father calling, one never saw a kid jump out of bed that fast. Cooper had the comic bits down well. However, Cooper was able to move your heart and bring you to tears. Late in the film, Skippy is praying for Sooky, devastated by the loss of Penny. Skippy's sincerity and compassion gets to you. Few child actors were able to cry as effectively as Jackie Cooper, his sweet face and genuine acting performance moving the viewer.

The other child cast members were equally strong.  Robert Coogan was delightful as Sooky, so much so that he got his own film in a sequel. To be fair, Coogan was not on Cooper's level, but as he was much younger one can cut him some slack. Coogan has a wonderful moment where he applies a certain logic on how Penny is more thoroughbred than genuine thoroughbreds. It is an amusing moment where Coogan draws attention away from Cooper, not an easy task.

Searl and Greene were amusing as Skippy's wealthy friends, forever getting roped or roping themselves into Skippy's newest ventures. Haines' Harley Nubbins balanced being the bully with being himself bullied by his father. 

In one scene, Harley was actually sympathetic. In their efforts to get money to bail Penny out, Skippy and Sooky see that Harley had bought himself an ice cream cone. Both of them do want the money but also a taste of Harley's ice cream. For once, Harley is the innocent party as his frenemies attempt to hoodwink him out of money and ice cream. 

Skippy is a genuine cinematic treat: sweet, innocent and appealing to mass audiences. I think both the film and the comic book series it is based on have mostly been forgotten. If anything, more than likely if Skippy is mentioned, it will be the peanut butter that comes to mind, not the Academy Award-winning film. That is a real shame, for Skippy is a wonderful film, taking the child's perspective and giving us a nice glimpse on their unique brand of logic. A simple story told and acted well, Skippy charms. 

DECISION: A-

The Mummy (1999): A Review

 

THE MUMMY (1999)

There is a joy in revisiting an old friend. The Mummy is perfectly aware of what it is: a throwback to a fantastical adventure. Full of vim and vigor, with heaping helpings of humor, The Mummy is longer than it should be but nonetheless fun.

In long-ago ancient Egypt, the High Priest Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) has been having an affair with Ank-sun-amun (Patricia Velasquez), the Pharoah's mistress. Discovered, Ank-sun-Amun kills the Pharoah before killing herself. Imhotep, having fled the capital, spirits her body to the mystical city of Hamunaptra to bring her back to life. Again discovered, Imhotep is punished with the worst curse: Hom-Dai, buried alive. 

Now in 1926, librarian Evelyn Carnahan (Rachiel Weisz) is desperate to show off her Egyptologist credentials but keeps tripping over herself. She is none too pleased when her equally bright but lazier and greedier brother Jonathan (John Hannah) brings what she thinks is another trinket. However, she realizes that it is a key that also carries a map to Hamunaptra. Unfortunately, Jonathan "borrowed" the key from American Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser), a former Foreign Legion member and all-around scoundrel about to be hanged. Evie's interest is archeological. Jonathan's interest is financial. O'Connell's interest is staying alive.

Together, they join forces to rediscover Hamunaptra, which O'Connell has actually been to. Unfortunately, they are hampered by O'Connell's frenemy Beni (Kevin J. O'Connor), who was also with O'Connell at Hamunaptra and has brought a trio of treasure seeking Americans to find the lost City of the Dead. The group has muddled their way to revive Imhotep, who now will kill everyone involved in his resurrection and use them to bring Ank-sun-Amun back. Imhotep soon starts dispatching everyone who gets in his way save Beni, who has become his willing slave to save himself. The Magi, a group of desert warriors who have sworn to keep Imhotep in eternal slumber, is displeased by this motley group of bumbling Americans and half-British half-Egyptian adventurers. Reluctantly, the Magi's leader, Ardeth Bey (Oded Fehr) joins forces with them to stop Imhotep. It will take Evelyn's smarts and O'Connell's fists to defeat The Mummy, but will they be able to stop Imhotep before he destroys the world?

One of, if not perhaps, the best decision The Mummy made was to set it in the past. By setting it in the 1920's, the audience is allowed to see The Mummy as good old-fashioned fun, a fully-fledged fantasy that is meant to be a delightful romp. The Mummy is meant to be a bit scary but nothing that would be downright terrifying. Instead, The Mummy is clearly meant to be good, escapist fare.

We see this with the various sight gags and funny lines that The Mummy has. The Mummy starts very seriously, with Fehr's Ardeth Bey giving grand voiceover to set up the plot. Once we get to 1926, however, things blend between light and safely dark. Our introduction to Evie is her bumbling through the Museum of Antiquities' library, where she manages to demolish the bookshelves when trying to reshelve a book on the opposite side of where she stood on a long ladder. When searching for the source of a strange noise, she hesitantly calls out, "Abdul? Mohammed? Bob?". 

The Mummy never takes itself too seriously, which is a reason why it is so successful as entertainment.  In the middle of the various deaths the characters, particularly the trio of O'Connell, Evelyn and Jonathan, are allowed many moments of humor. Facing almost certain death at the hands of Imhotep's minions, he immediately begins mimicking their zombie-like "Imhotep" chant, reducing them to brainless followers and allowing him to escape. Another time, one of them quips, "Americans", when the Yanks are shooting off the various Magi attempting to stop their expedition. 

A good, albeit small, comic bit comes from Bernard Fox's addled Captain Winston Havelock. The old flyer, sad that he has outlived all his comrades from the Great War, is asked by O'Connell to help them fly to Hamunaptra. Why should Winston take His Majesty's plane out? "Rescue the damsel in distress. Kill the bad guy. Save the world," is O'Connell's response. 

The Mummy is almost downright brilliant in doing what contemporary Hollywood struggles with now. It presents a positive female character as well as a heroic male one. Evelyn is bright and unafraid, if perhaps a bit naive and focused on the wrong things. One character dismisses Evelyn when they are at Hamunaptra, remarking "After all, what would a woman know?"; we the audience already know that not only is Evie far more intelligent than everyone else but that she is on the right track because of her vast studies. Later on, when she correctly translates a misinterpreted hieroglyphic, she gleefully calls out, "Take THAT, Pembridge scholars!", almost oblivious to the horde of zombies about to storm the museum. 

Evie is a strong, positive female character long before the age of the girl boss. When facing off against a fully revived Imhotep, Beni translates the mummy's words, ending with saying that she will be his "Forever". Without batting an eye and clearly frustrated, Evie corrects him with a terse "For all eternity, idiot". 

That is the quality in Rachel Weisz's performance. Long before she became a "serious actress", Weisz showed us that she could be breezy, sweet, clever and amusing. Weisz makes Evie into an intelligent woman, but one who is also not above finding the charms of Brendan Fraser's Rick O'Connell. 

The same can be said for Fraser. He makes Rick O'Connell a shameless rogue, looking out for Number One who transforms into someone in love with this bright but innocent woman. He is masculine and brave, able to fisticuff with the best of them. However, Fraser also never once dismisses or looks down on Evelyn. He actually is almost always respectful and defers to her knowledge. There is their first meeting when he forces a kiss on her, though in his defense he was about to be executed by hanging. 

Hannah, better known for drama, was fun as the good-natured but opportunistic Jonathan. He is shamelessly greedy for treasure. However, he is fiercely loyal to and protective of his sister. O'Connor's weaselly Beni, with his high-pitched voice and squirrely manner, makes him a bumbling threat.

Everyone plays his or her part correctly, taking the premise seriously without being too serious. The one possible exception is Fehr, who plays Ardath Bey very seriously. That, however, works within the film, his extreme seriousness almost a counter to the lighthearted manner around him.

A surprising element in The Mummy is how it ties itself to of all things, the Bible. Imhotep's rise unleashes the Ten Plagues of Egypt mentioned in Exodus, which Jonathan quotes when seeing them. When Beni attempts to save himself from Imhotep, he pulls out various charms and quotes from their specific holy scriptures as the Mummy slowly comes at him. It is only when he pulls out a Star of David and begins speaking Hebrew that Imhotep stops, recognizing it as "the language of the slaves". This again connects The Mummy to that of Hebrews from the Old Testament.

I think this was done by writer/director Stephen Sommers (who shares story credit with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre) to make The Mummy if not relatable at least to tie it to a story most audiences know or are aware of. The Mummy, in short, is not afraid to reference, even obliquely, the Biblical story of Exodus. It is also unafraid to show a strong man, an intelligent woman and how they complement and like each other. 

I think it benefits greatly by keeping a lot of the violence off-screen, using shadows to show the killings a few times. There is some violence that might scare younger audiences, but for the most part the threats are manageable and in a fantasy setting. 

The Mummy has strong visual effects work that hold up twenty-five years later. It has a fun and breezy manner that moves things along. It does have a flaw that it is perhaps longer than it should be, running a little over two hours. One wonders if cutting out or trimming characters and situations would have made things go faster and smoother. 

Perhaps the worse element is when one of the Americans, Mr. Burns (Tuc Watkins), loses his glasses. We get that tired routine of "character without glasses suddenly becomes blind". Someone does not instantly lose his or her sight without their glasses. Things become fuzzy, perhaps indistinguishable, but they do not automatically lose their sight. That bit always bothers me no matter the circumstances. 

That is a minor point. The Mummy as a whole is filled with action, adventure and romance. It is fun, breezy and does not take itself too seriously without winking at the camera. It takes the premise seriously, but also has fun with it. Unashamed to give audiences a blend of lightness and danger, with strong acting and a good story, The Mummy is a great success and a good time. 

DECISION: B+

The Mummy Retrospective: An Introduction

The Mummy (1932)

The Mummy (1959)

The Mummy (2017)

The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

Goodrich: A Review

 

GOODRICH

Why? 

Of all the films that I have seen this year, I look at Goodrich and ask, "why?". What specifically about this sappy, predictable, rote film was so interesting that I was asked to review this specific film which I probably wouldn't have even bothered with? I saw the Goodrich trailer and barely paid attention to what I thought was a sappy little thing. Having now seen Goodrich, I can say that while the audience clearly liked it, I got the sense that I was watching a variation of Life Itself except that Goodrich was better than that. 

Struggling art gallery owner Andy Goodrich (Michael Keaton) gets a late-night call from his wife, Naomi. She tells him that she has checked herself into Journeys, a 90-day rehab center for her prescription and I think alcohol addiction. Goodrich is so unaware that he never realized that Naomi was popping pills, even though everyone else did. Even his tween children Billie (Vivian Lyra Blair) and Moses (Jacob Kopera) did. Now Andy has to raise his kids, something that he is a bit clueless about.

Not only does he have elementary school children, but he is also about to become a grandfather. His daughter from his first marriage, Grace (Mila Kunis) is about to give birth. Grace points out to her half-siblings that at 36 she is 27 years older than they are. That would make her old enough to be Billie and Moses' mother. Andy now has to balance a variety of situations. There is his impending grandfatherhood. There is the raising of his two younger children. There is trying to keep his art gallery afloat. 

That last part may come courtesy of Lola Thompson (Carmen Ejogo). Lola is a struggling singer who has recently inherited the paintings made by her late mother Teresa. Every art gallery and museum has gone after Teresa Thompson's paintings, and after seeing Andy with his family initially agrees to let him exhibit, curate and sell her mother's collection. I did say initially for a reason.

Will Andy find a successful balance in life? Will Grace heal the wounds of not having the relationship with her father that Billie and Moses have? Will Andy's new friend, gay actor and struggling father Pete (Michael Urie) help him heal? 

Goodrich is acceptable. It is not a terrible film. It certainly pleased the audience that I saw it with, especially the man who insisted on sitting next to me despite there being several seats open. This is not a bad film.

It is just a very standard one. Writer/director Hallie Meyers-Shyer made a film that has familiar beats, familiar characters, and familiar tropes. Perhaps the familiarity is fitting for a film about families. Goodrich is pretty much a sitcom with some dramatic moments.

In Goodrich, you have stock characters and situations. There is the male lead, so utterly clueless about raising kids that he cannot prepare anything close to a meal. For Halloween, he has Moses and Billie dress up as Andy Warhol and Frida Kahlo, confusing the woman at whose house they stop at for trick-or-treat. There is the wise-beyond-her-years female child, able to speak eloquently about things she in real life wouldn't have the faintest idea what any of it was about. There is the bitter but loving older daughter. There is even the requisite gay best friend (or at least friend) who bizarrely and briefly thought that Andy wanted a romance with him.

This is a particularly odd and silly bit because Pete is aware that Andy is married to a woman and, apart from offering Pete some old wine and playing jazz records, has never indicated any type of interest outside a sympathetic ear to someone going through a similar situation.

Goodrich also wants us to feel the drama of whether or not Andy will land the Teresa Thompson estate. The film tries to make this a major turning point, even throwing in what is meant as a sad and surprising twist. However, it left me cold.  

I think I know why. It is the question of relatability. Here are these very wealthy people, with eccentric careers, whom I am supposed to care about. There are many films where I have not given much thought or interest about their careers, but somehow Goodrich felt so foreign to me. An art gallery owner. A man who lives in a vast house. A rehab center that looks like a spa. A man who sends his children to a very elite private school. Goodrich is the first film, in at least a long time, where I felt the term "first world problems" fit.

I speculated on how much better Goodrich could have been if you had transplanted the situations to a more middle-to-working class family. If Andy had been a mechanic or plumber or desk jockey, his struggles would have been harder. If Pete had been an accountant or bartender instead of a struggling actor with an epileptic son, his struggles would have been harder. How does one genuinely feel for someone whose biggest job crisis is whether he can sell a million-dollar painting? 

You could even keep the art gallery owner bit, but change it to someone who has decided to retire and close the gallery, specifically to "spend more time with his family" only to have to deal with his wife abandoning that family before he was ready to take that responsibility? Now Andy Goodrich has to see what "spending more time with his family" looks like, and he finds that it is not the romanticized version he had in mind. It is hard to raise young kids as a single father, and now he also has to oversee the final exhibition and closure of his life's work simultaneously. That makes for potential drama. Goodrich as it stands now, does not. 

The performances are fine. They are neither wonderful nor terrible. Michael Keaton does his best to make the drama work, and to his credit he does a fine job here. Keaton never goes crazy or to my memory even yell at anyone. That shows Keaton to make Andy a surprisingly even-keeled person, someone who takes the blows as they come. Mila Kunis makes a good effort, though I was never unaware that she was "acting". This, however, I put more on the script than on her. While I hated Billie's character, the stereotypical "child who thinks and speaks like an adult" role, I again put that on the script than the young actress.

Goodrich wants us to care, but I could not. It all feels so programmed, as if someone found a template for a domestic drama and just typed it in. Again, Goodrich is not a terrible film. It is just not a good one. For anyone curious, yes, Goodrich is better than Argylle.

DECISION: C-

Average Joe (2024): A Review (Review #1880)

 

AVERAGE JOE

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Such is the First Amendment to the Constitution, and these simple words have been fought over ever since. Average Joe, based on the Supreme Court case Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, wants to avoid the trappings of a "Christian" film. It is unfortunate that, despite an interesting story and some good performances, what Average Joe thinks distinguish it end up hampering it. 

Intercut with a series of interviews between Joseph Anthony Kennedy (Eric Close) and his wife Denise (Amy Acker), Average Joe reveals how this ordinary man got to his situation. Abandoned as a child, young Joey (Ezra Richardson) was adopted into a large family that was not horrible but was not particularly welcoming. Joey's only positive was the metaphorical girl next door Denise (Annabelle Holloway), whom he quickly fell in love with and whose parents were constantly fighting. Eventually abandoned by his adoptive family, Joey makes his way through life the best he can.

That involves joining the Marines, where young Joe (Austin Woods) does well while maintaining correspondence with Denise (Andrea Figliomeni). He does come back only to find Denise engaged to someone else, so he does the most logical thing in the world. He marries her cousin. Denise's first husband is himself abusive, Joe's first wife and he drift apart especially after his deployment to Iraq, but after decades he and Denise finally marry. 

Things, while not perfect, are moving along. Joe, attempting to be there for his wife after she suffers health issues, has a renewal of faith. He is pursued by Smiling Sam (Exie Booker) to join the local high school football coaching staff. Eventually seeing this as something for God, Coach Kennedy is born. He is a good Coach, but he wants to honor God. The way he does so is by going to the 50-yard line to offer a simple prayer, win or lose, after every game. His way with the boys and sincerity wins him the respect of the players, who ask to join him. That alarms school officials, who put the squeeze on Coach Kennedy to curtain his religious activities. He does so, once, and instantly regrets it. The next game, over objections, he goes back to his 50-yard prayer.

The school declines to renew his contract and Coach experiences ostracism. A simple Facebook post about his plight launches a court case that reaches the Supreme Court. The Kennedys experience hard times, especially as Denise works at the school district in Human Resources. Will Coach Kennedy be allowed to freely practice his religion or will he be found to be trying to establish one?

Average Joe begins in a surprisingly startling manner for a film billed as a faith-based production. We see our protagonist, riding the back of a truck, whooping and hollering while attempting to rope a horse wearing only his underwear and a hat. The film then immediately cuts to the faux interview of Coach and Mrs. Kennedy, the latter insisting that it did not happen that way and the former stating that there was less clothing involved. "I'm no choir boy," Kennedy tells us directly.

My sense is that screenwriter Stephanie Katz and director Harold Cronk did not want to give viewers the impression that Coach and Mrs. Kennedy were holy people but rather whole people, flawed, imperfect and with a lot of baggage. In short, Average Joe (which I figure is a pun on both the ordinariness of Kennedy as well as on his first name) wants us to see the leads as sinners.

On that level, Average Joe does a good thing. It is interesting that I have complained for many years that many Christian-based films had characters completely unaware of what sin was. The characters in many Christian-based films are very sanitized, not perfect but never doing such things as drinking or fornicating. One wonders why such people need God if they have little to nothing to be redeemed of. 

That is not my biggest issue with Average Joe. My biggest issue is that the film almost maddeningly gives us a winking to the camera style that stubbornly reminds us that this is a movie. We start with them telling us that they are aware that Average Joe is a movie. The film awkwardly pauses to try to be meta in pointing out that they are in a movie. For example, there is a scene where Joe and Denise finally kiss. At that point, fireworks start firing behind them. Average Joe stops things cold by having Acker's Denise tell us that this is all fiction because there were no fireworks going off. "That's how I remember it," Close's Coach quips.  

Bits like those, I think, pleased the audience. I, however, sat in frustration, growing more irritated at Average Joe's self-awareness. Due to moments like these, other moments lose the impact the film aimed at. After Coach goes back onto the field and asks God for forgiveness for wimping out and caving to pressure, the stadium lights go out. Coach is taken by surprise, wondering if perhaps this is some kind of sign. I was expecting someone to comment that it did not happen that way, but no one did. 

A little self-awareness is fine, almost clever. Incessant callbacks to "we know this is a movie" undercut the drama. That is a real shame, because there are times when Average Joe has genuine moving moments. It is difficult if not impossible to not feel a lump in your throat seeing young Joey get beaten up by life at such a young age. After spending a great camping weekend bonding with his adoptive father despite being expelled from yet another school, they arrive to find that it was all a way to soften the blow when Joey is sent away. Later, he runs away from the group home he was sent and rushes back to his home, pleading to the door that he will change, only for him to find that his family has left the home. His screams of frustration and pain hit the viewer hard.

Another moving moment is when Kennedy goes to the altar and asks God for guidance, strength and acceptance. Denise, who is nominally a Christian but who has struggled with her own faith, goes to him at the altar and the two share a quiet moment. Close's acting here in particular got to me, which took me by surprise. 

Another thing that took me by surprise is how Average Joe might have gone overboard in making Kennedy such a regular guy that he came across as basically clueless about even routine elements of his faith. When Joe talks to someone opposed to his 50-yard prayers, his opponent tells him, "You're like Peter". Kennedy replies, "Peter who?". In order to explain to this born-again Christian who this "Peter" he was talking about was, his opponent has to use the analogy of the Caped Crusader. Just as Batman had Robin, Jesus had the Apostle Peter. Kennedy remarks that he is no Biblical scholar but understands the parallel. I was left rather dumbstruck that Kennedy could be so unaware of this part of his faith. I get if someone had quoted him a passage from the Letter of Philemon or the Old Testament book of Habakkuk, but to need a Batman & Robin analogy to understand who the Apostle Peter?  

Eric Close did a good job as Kennedy. He has moving moments, such as when he asks God for guidance or when he is reunited with an old mentor who encourages him to fight. He can be amusing, such as when he gets a visit from a religious rights group, First Liberty. Trying to remember who the man is, Close's Kennedy finally says, "You're the Liberty Bell guy", clearly muddling things in a way comprehensible to him. Another nice bit is when Denise suggests that he agree to the school district's request that he go to a private area for his prayers. As she keeps speaking, he leaves her midsentence and goes into a closet. "What are you doing?", she says, flummoxed. "I'm praying," he retorts, clearly ridiculing her suggestion without needing to say so. 

Amy Acker was weaker as Denise, who at times looked almost bored by things. I will put some of that on the screenplay, which left some questions unanswered. Why did Smiling Sam so pursue Kennedy for a coaching position? What happened to Joe and Denise's kids? Why did we get so many "winking at the camera" moments? Why does Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson pop up at the end to explain how Kennedy vs. Bremerton overturns Lemon vs. Kurtzman? Moreover, how did Robertson end up the voice and face of modern American evangelical Christianity? 

Oddly, the court case went by surprisingly fast, leaving little impact on the overall story.

This is an interesting story but not told well. I think Average Joe made a terrible mistake by trying to be too clever, too meta with the material. Yes, the Kennedys are flawed people. Yes, you can have a framing device of an interview to go over their lives pre-Kennedy vs. Bremerton. However, because those moments kept barging in, I feel Average Joe ends up slightly below average. 

DECISION: C-

The Apprentice: A Review

 

THE APPRENTICE

With the once and perhaps future President Donald Trump once again making headlines and others taking metaphorical and literal shots at him, it may not be surprising to see a biopic about Trump now in theaters. The Apprentice is a good film, until it isn't. While the film has good performances in it, The Apprentice slips into familiar territory that keeps it from achieving greater heights.

Young Donald John Trump (Sebastian Stan) is desperate to get the government off his family's back. He and his father Fred (Martin Donovan) are being sued by the federal government, which is accusing the Trump organization of racial discrimination in their Trump Village apartment complex. For help, he turns to the most ruthless lawyer in New York City: Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong). Using methods both legal and illegal, Cohn wins the case, though Fred is leery of this man.

Cohn takes a liking to young Donald, though exactly what kind of liking is open to interpretation. Taking the young Trump under his wing, Cohn gives him his Three Life Lessons: always attack, never admit wrongdoing and always claim victory even if you lost. Trump soon looks to Cohn as a true father figure. It might not be surprising given that Fred openly sees his namesake son Freddy (Charlie Carrick) as a failure for becoming an airline pilot and not part of Fred's real estate business. Donald has, but he is still not good enough in Fred's eyes. This comes to a head when Trump wants to go into New York and turn a dilapidated hotel in a rundown neighborhood into a luxury hotel. Cohn again fixes things for Trump, saving him from his own foolishness.

Cohn can't save him from Ivana Zelnickova (Maria Bakalova), a Czech model who is flattered by Trump's interest but is not interested herself in him. Nevertheless, he persisted, and they marry. As we enter the 1980's, Trump exhibits greater narcissism and greed. He turns his back on Freddy, now a hopeless alcoholic. He rapes Ivana after a fight. He pops pills like they were candy and seeks both liposuction and a hair transplant. He finally turns his back on his mentor Cohn, who is unwilling to admit that he is gay and that he has AIDS. Will Trump triumph over his enemies and frenemies? Will Cohn see his apprentice become the master of the art of the deal?

For the first half of The Apprentice, screenwriter Gabriel Sherman and director Ali Abbasi did something that seems impossible: they humanized The Donald. With both Stan's performance and the script, the early part of The Apprentice shows Donald Trump to be naive, almost innocent, about life. When sitting at Cohn's table, surrounded by various shady characters, Trump looks lost and insecure, hesitant even. This is not the brash, braggadocio persona we all know and (love/hate). This is almost a little boy, terrified and desperate to please and be wanted. So desperate is he for help and validation that Donald Trump, who is a teetotaler in large part because of what he has seen alcohol due to his beloved older brother, reluctantly drinks on Cohn's orders. At the end of his first alcoholic experience, he leaves Cohn's car and promptly throws up.

Trump may not have thrown up when he stumbles into a gay orgy that Cohn is participating in, but young Donald is genuinely shocked to downright terrified at what he walked into (Cohn too distracted by the sex to even notice the bedroom door opening). This Trump is so naive and unaware that when at Cohn's party, he genuinely has no idea who an artist named Andy Warhol (Bruce Beaton) is. When Warhol told him that he was an artist, Trump merely smiled and asked if he had found any success at it. His bumbling efforts to fit in at Cohn's decadent party paint Trump as the ultimate square.

The Apprentice also makes us shockingly sympathetic to Trump when he goes to Trump Village to collect the rent. Yes, we see Donald Trump be a literal rent collector. The various denizens of Trump Village range from the obnoxious to the dangerous. Trump has to endure people going from begging to more time (which Trump gives some leeway to) to having one aggressive person throw boiling water at him, causing Trump to cuss him out after the occupant slams the door on him. This is not the ruthless, arrogant figure. This is someone who is trying to please his father and father figure.

We even get genuinely human moments from Trump. His romancing of Ivana is actually sweet, his grief at Freddy's death moving. 

Had The Apprentice ended there, we would have had a film that while not celebratory of Trump, would have given him nuance and showed him as human. However, once we go into New Year's in the 1980s, complete with Blue Monday playing to signal we were in the 1980s, The Apprentice becomes what I think people would have said it would be: a hatchet job. His sudden ruthlessness, casual cruelty, obsession with his weight and potential hair loss start slipping into farce. It also seems to come out of nowhere. That The Apprentice did not show this amount of evil from Trump prior to Blue Monday makes the transition all the more jarring.

This is best or worse captured in Trump assaulting Ivana after a fight. The President will deny it, the first wife is dead and unable to say anything. It is impossible to say what happened. It is, however, hard to imagine that Ivana would have joyfully appeared in a Pizza Hut commercial with her rapist, spoofing their divorce. Introducing these elements as well as other bits like struggling to get oral sex from a random woman, take away from the good half of The Apprentice.

This is unfortunate because The Apprentice is made up of some strong performances. Sebastian Stan does a credible job as the young Trump, someone who is unsure, looking to make his mark in New York instead of his family's Queens. Stan captures Trump's voice and mannerisms. He also makes Trump into if not a pleasant person, at least a more relatable one. Once we shift post-Blue Monday, Stan becomes the parody that so many leftists and Never Trumpers take as the real Trump: buffoonish, arrogant, cruel. 

Stan, however good he was, is simply no match for Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn. Right from the get-go when Trump and Cohn look on each other, The Apprentice makes clear that Cohn is the ultimate malevolent force. With his staccato delivery and almost expressionless face, Strong forever pushes, prods and provokes all those around him. He makes Roy Cohn ruthless but direct, unable to show anything other than a drive for total domination of everything and everyone. It is a bit of a surprise to find future political fixer Roger Stone (Mark Rendall) be a pool boy at Cohn's place, but there it is. 

Unlike Stan, however, Strong never shifts from his performance. That is why his last scene is shocking, even moving. At Cohn's last birthday party where Trump presents him with an American flag cake, a visibly feeble Cohn looks at it and then breaks down in tears. It takes one aback to see this monstrous figure collapse, fully aware of his imminent death but regretful only for that and for nothing else. It does what was impossible: make Roy Cohn remotely human.

Bakolava does well as Ivana, and both Donovan and Catharine McNally as Trump's Scottish-born mother Mary Anne do well in their small roles. Donovan in particular does strong work as the disapproving and ultimately mentally incapacitated Fred Trump, Sr. I was, however, surprised that not once in The Apprentice did we ever hear Ivana call her first husband "The Donald", an accidental nickname that I believe he still uses, though to be fair it is not as prevalent as it was before. 

The Apprentice starts out well and then shifts midstream into more familiar anti-Trump territory. It does not take away from strong performances by Stan and especially Strong. I am sure that there is a better way to portray someone seen by many as a savior, others as the New or Worse Than Hitler. The ingredients are there, but The Apprentice did not mix them well enough. 

Donald Trump: born 1946
Roy Cohn: 1927-1986

DECISION: C+