Angels in America: The Television Miniseries

ANGELS IN AMERICA

The theatrical epic Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes is held as one of the greatest Broadway productions in all history. I have never seen even a local or regional production, probably due to its expansive nature. For those of us who will probably never see a live production, there is the Mike Nichols television miniseries. After finishing Angels in America, I leave thoroughly puzzled over why people would want to watch both parts. 

Split into two parts, Millenium Approaches and Perestroika, with each part subdivided into chapters, the overall plot covers much territory. The story entangles two groups. On one side, there is Louis Ironson (Ben Shenkman), a Jewish man in a long-term relationship with WASP Prior Walter (Justin Kirk). Walter, scion of an old American family, has AIDS. Louis, despite his liberal leanings, cannot handle his partner's illness and leaves him. 

Weaving in and out of Louis' life is Mormon Republican attorney Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson). He is married to drugged-out Harper (Mary-Louise Parker), who is stupefied through her Valium pill-popping haze. She occasionally goes into fantasies where Mr. Lies (Jeffrey Wright) takes her through the refrigerator to Antartica. Harper knows what Joe will not admit to perhaps even himself: Joe is gay. 

Someone else who will not admit that he is gay is Joe's mentor, notorious attorney Roy Cohn (Al Pacino). Like Prior, Cohn is dying of AIDS, but he refuses to admit that he has the disease. Eventually though, Cohn needs hospitalization but uses his connections to get his hands on massive quantities of AZT, which were not freely available in October 1981. Prior and Cohn are attended by nurse Norman Ariaga, better known as Belize (Wright in a dual role). Belize is friends with Prior and Louis, though he finds the latter difficult to intolerable.

Cohn wants Joe to take up a Washington job so that he can keep himself from being disbarred. Joe, honest and upright, refuses. He also finally surrenders to the pleasures of the flesh with Louis, with whom he has fallen in love with. Joe also admits his homosexuality to his mother, Hannah (Meryl Streep). While Hannah will not accept this announcement, she sells her home and moves to New York to look after him. 

Prior, for his part, finds himself visited by two of his ancestors (Michael Gambon and Simon Callow), who are precursors to an Angel (Emma Thompson), who declares that Prior Walter is a prophet whose great work begins.

I think that is all Part One. Part Two has Prior tell Belize his vision, which includes him having a version of sex with the angel. He also begins hunting down Louis' new partner, as is appalled that Joe Pitt is actually hot. Belize recognizes him as Roy Cohn's protege, which enrages Louis who thinks of Cohn as the Devil Incarnate. He also suspects Joe was Roy's lover, which Joe vehemently denies. Eventually, Louis cannot abide being with a closeted Mormon Republican. 

Prior, still in his prophetic role, finds an unlikely ally in Hannah. As a devout Mormon, she is not surprised about angels visiting mortals. She even manages to see The Angel come to Prior. While Hannah is terrified, she also instructs Prior on how to battle against the Angel. He forces the Angel to take him up to the ruins of Heaven, as God has abandoned it for humans, who are His playthings. Will he take up the mantle of bringing God back to Heaven?

One person who will not see Heaven is the dying Cohn. He not only is dying but has to content with the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg (Streep), who in her Nuw Yawk accent taunts her nemesis. Will Roy Cohn be defeated by someone from beyond the grave or will he get one last laugh before shuffling off this mortal coil? Will Louis, now with a mother figure in Hannah, live long enough to see the fall of the Soviet Union and begin his own great work?

Who am I to argue against what I have been told is one of the greatest works of fiction ever written? Well, I will be, for I found Angels in America boring and at times outlandishly albeit unintentionally hilarious. I figure that this adaptation is close to how the original production was. After all, Angels in America playwright Tony Kushner adapted his play for the miniseries. I cannot vouch for any changes, but again I figure this production is as close to how a stage production would play out.

If so, I would have been howling with laughter during several scenes. I probably would have started chuckling at the beginning, when we see Meryl Streep in drag playing an old rabbi. You can clearly see that it is Meryl Streep through the makeup, and I was genuinely wondering if Angels in America was a comedy, her Hebrew manner a bit exaggerated for my tastes. 

During Perestroika, I would have been on the floor rolling with laughter when Prior and Hannah see the Dark Angel come to castigate the Prophet for refusing his command. A previous scene where Prior and the Angel have something close to angelic/human sexual intercourse was already making me chuckle at the absurdity that I was watching. I thought Thompson was hamming it up to the Nth degree as the Angel, as if playing a heavenly figure gave her permission to go over-the-top. The Angel's penchant for referring to itself as "I...I...I..." did not help clamp down on my laughter. The grandiose nature of it all, coupled with the acting of Thompson, Streep and Kirk made everything hilarious, at least to me.

Part of me gets that sometimes things had to be a bit exaggerated. Gambon and Callow (whom I initially thought was Peter O'Toole) being quite exaggerated as Prior's foppish ancestors, I get. I can even roll with Thompson's Angel being grand. I cannot quite roll, however, with another of Thompson's roles as Prior's Southern nurse. I thought her Southern drawl was a bit forced.

There are essentially three good performances in Angels in America. Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Jeffrey Wright and Mary-Louise Parker all won Emmy Awards for their performances. As I said that there were three, I would remove Parker. I understand that her whacked-out Harper was meant to be almost comatose. However, I found her too comatose to where I never believed that she could be a real person, let alone a character. Her final scene where, looking out of an airplane window, she addresses the audience was a bit off-putting to me. I found it a touch theatrical.

Wright was strong and effective as Belize, balancing a flamboyant manner while not being cartoonish. He recreated his Tony Award-winning performance, and I think he had many excellent moments. A highlight is a scene where he puts Louis in his place for lecturing him about his moralizing while justifying leaving his dying lover. In equal turns bitchy and compassionate, Belize was an interesting character worth following thanks to Wright's performance. He was not as good when playing Mr. Lies, but my sense is that he was meant to be a little absurd, so it is not a dealbreaker.

Streep was strong playing both Hannah and Ethel Rosenberg. Major credit should be given to the Emmy Award-winning makeup work, which made Streep look eerily like Rosenberg. She managed to make the two different people look as if they were being played by two different people. Hannah is firm in her faith and worldview, but she is also sensible and a genuine mother figure to Prior. I would say less so with Joe, for whom she seems to almost harbor a dislike. However, it is to Streep's credit that her performances were very strong.

If only she had not played the rabbi. She just looked goofy in that makeup and her accent. I found it a poor way to begin.

Unlike Streep and Wright, Al Pacino played only one role. His Roy Cohn is arrogant, cruel, vindictive and a liar to both others and himself. In his rages and defiance against his metaphorical and literal ghosts, Pacino held your attention. It is to where when he manages to outwit Ethel Rosenberg at his literal deathbed, I actually found him almost likeable. I think that was helped by how Ethel's smug face delighted in Cohn's death. I do not expect anyone to offer sympathy for the devil. I do hope that people, even ghosts, can be better than that. 

The other main cast members, all of whom received Emmy nominations, were not in my view good. Shenkman was at times laughable and insufferable as Louis. Yes, I suppose that Louis was meant to be laughable and insufferable. However, at times it felt as though Shenkman was attempting to do a Woody Allen impersonation. Patrick Wilson was pretty as the closeted Joe. However, he was also pretty blank, not making his internal struggle good. Kirk's Prior was acceptable but not great. He too had some of Shenkman's whining manner. However, given that his character was dying of AIDS, I can be more flexible on the matter.

I confess to both falling asleep and falling on the floor laughing at certain parts of Angels in America. I do not think that was intention. The performances from Pacino, Streep and Wright make it bearable. I would, however, not want to sit through all this again just for them. Ultimately, I think that Angels in America carried too much of its theatrical roots to make a fully formed transition to television. What works on the stage does not necessarily work on television. I know the stage play and television adaptation are both highly praised. For myself, I could not go along with the adulation Angels in America has received. 

I would not want this Angel at my table. 

2/10

Materialists: A Review

 MATERIALISTS

The singles scene is fraught with all those lonely people. Materialists attempts to make our trio tie into the overall search for love. Longer than it should be, Materialists barely manages to hang on. 

Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a successful matchmaker for the Adore Matchmaking firm. She is now on her ninth married couple and attends the wedding. Here, she encounters Harry (Pedro Pascal), who is rich, handsome, tall and single. In the matchmaking world, he is a unicorn, one who is entranced by our young Dolly Levi. She is intrigued and interested in our elegant older man. There is a complication though.

That is her ex, John (Chris Evans). Supplementing his acting career with catering gigs, John and Lucy find that they still are interested in each other. Harry, for his part, will not be denied and woos Lucy. Soon, they become lovers, though Harry still keeps the reason for the scars on his legs to himself. They go see John perform on the stage, and John sees Lucy slipping from him.

Tragedy hits Lucy when Sophie (Zoe Winters), an Adore client who has proven difficult to match, informs Adore that Lucy's latest match assaulted her. Lucy is devastated by the news, and her professional confidence is shaken. Lucy becomes entangled in both John and Sophie's lives. She also wonders if Harry is right for her. Will Lucy find true love and matchmaking success? If she does find love, with whom will she find it with?

I was not impressed by writer/director Celine Song's first effort, Past Lives. One of my colleagues is far harsher than I am about Past Lives, routinely calling it "Cuck: The Movie". While I would not go that far, he is not far off from my views on Past Lives. That being said, Materialists is a bit more standard in terms of storytelling compared to Past Lives. It is closer to a romantic comedy but with more drama than flat-out farce.

In some ways though, Materialists does not move away from expectations. When the plot blurb is, "A young, ambitious New York matchmaker finds herself torn between the perfect match and her imperfect ex", it does not take any thinking to realize with whom said New York matchmaker will end up at the end. Just as I was reminded of The Matchmaker (which in turn was made into the musical Hello, Dolly!), while watching most of Materialists, I was reminded of all things, the Hallmark television movie Dater's Handbook. In that trifle starring the current Duchess of Sussex, the main character has to decide between a perfect man and a wacky man. If you follow the conventions of romcoms, you should know how it will all play out.

That Song opted not to go for a more humorous take on this plot is a credit to her. Materialists cannot be said to take things totally seriously. However, it is not a laugh-fest. Instead, it takes a more serious manner to the premise. Separate from the faux love triangle, we see how current dating sets up both men and women for failure.

In some ways, Materialists is critical of women and their expectations in romance. There are some montages of Lucy attempting to please the various requirements that her female clients present for their ideal match. We hear these women ask for almost impossible standards in terms of a potential date's height, age and financial status. At one point, Lucy is told by a potential client that said client is a catch. Lucy, as diplomatically as she can while expressing clear irritation, informs her that she is actually not a catch. This may be a reaction against Sophie's assault and the guilt that Lucy carries about it. However, it is nice to see someone deflate people's egos.

We get a nice bit in the end where we hear that Sophie has hit it off with a short dentist. There is a lesson here about how people need to cut off potential mates based on high expectations that they do not hold themselves to.

It is a bit surprising how women are criticized in Materialists. Harry admits the reason for his leg scars. In this well-written and acted scene, we see not just that women can be shallow about men. We also see the sometimes-extreme lengths that men will go through to attract a mate.

Materialists is probably Dakota Johnson's best performance. Yes, she is pretty. However, here she is more matter of fact, almost staccato in her manner. I think it fits the character of Lucy well. She is forthright, direct, and diplomatic. She believes herself to be doing a genuine good. Even when she fails, Lucy carries a sense of responsibility and later, guilt, over her failures. Pascal did well, although he was quieter as Harry. His last scene when he reveals the truth about himself to Lucy is a good closing moment for the character.

I cannot say much about Evans though. Outside of Captain America, I cannot think that he has had a standout acting moment. Materialists is not it. He is playing an actor, and even in the scene where we see him "act", I cannot convince myself that he is acting. I think he did the best that he could. 

I do think that Materialists is maybe longer than the film should be. Both my cousin and I nodded off at different points. It is curious that there are no male employees at Adore, though said male might not want to be an Adore-A-Girl. Moreover, few clients are male. I do not know if that suggests that men are not looking for love or would try this expensive journey. 

However, on the whole Materialists has some good moments and performances to make it barely passable. There is a bit of a payoff in the final scene with the original couple featured early on. I get what Celine Song was aiming for. I just think that she barely the target. 

DECISION: C+

The Life of Chuck: A Review

THE LIFE OF CHUCK

You watch a film, you know what it wants to say, and you can even respect what it wants to say and where it is going. However, one decision, just one, has you thinking that it could have and should have been better. Such is the case with The Life of Chuck, a film that pushes one into seeing the importance of living your life, but which stumbles just enough to not quite get a recommendation from me. 

Told in reverse order, The Life of Chuck is divided into three chapters. Chapter Three: Thanks, Chuck shows a world that is falling apart. California has sunk into the ocean. There are wars and chaos all around. The internet and automobiles are starting to fail. Schoolteacher Marty Anderson (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is doing the best that he can to keep living. He and others still living in this decaying universe, including his ex-wife, nurse Felicia (Karen Gillan) see one billboard and ad continuously pop up. It is of a nondescript, slightly smug looking fellow with a coffee cup and the message, "Charles Krantz. 39 Great Years! Thanks, Chuck!". 

Who is this Chuck, and why is he as one character called him, "the Oz of the Apocalypse"? As the world slowly comes to an end, we see Chuck in bed, dying, as his wife and son bid him a tearful farewell with, "39 great years! Thanks, Chuck!". The stars around a reunited Marty and Felicia start dying away, and the world goes dark.

Act Two: Buskers Forever has us informed by our Narrator (Nick Offerman), who did pop up in Act Three, about Charles "Chuck" Krantz (Tom Hiddleston). He is a 39-year-old accountant who has nine months left to live, though he does not know it. In Boston for a conference, he comes up Taylor Frank (The Pocket Queen), a drummer who makes a living off busking (playing music in public for donations). Chuck pauses at Taylor's drum set, begins to listen, and then begins to bust the moves. He even manages to get Janice (Annalise Basso), who was just dumped by her boyfriend, to join her in cutting a little rug to the delight of onlookers. Despite her offer to go on the road, Chuck and Janice turn down Taylor's invitation. Chuck for his part does not know why he opted to dance like no one is watching (even though everyone was).

Act One: I Contain Multitudes has the Narrator once again filling us in on the early life of Charles "Chuck" Krantz. He lost his parents and unborn sister in a car accident. Raised by his grandparents Sara (Mia Sara) and Albie (Mark Hamill), the grieving family soon starts emerging from their grief. Sara and Chuck soon dance together and watch musicals ranging from Singin' in the Rain to Cabaret on VHS. Albie, an accountant, loves Chuck but also increases his alcohol intake and forbids Chuck from going into the Victorian era cupola in their home. Chuck joins the Spinners and Twirlers dance class at school. He is a lord of the dance, even teaching everyone else the moonwalk. He endures more loss but also great joy. After both his grandparents pass on, he finally sees what is in the cupola and decides he will live out his life. Quoting from Walt Whitman's Song of Myself, he tells himself, "I am wonderful. I deserve to be wonderful. I contain multitudes". 

Courtesy of NEON

I think that writer/director Mike Flanagan's adaptation of Stephen King's short story has a good message and a good heart. The idea of how every life is important, living your life to the fullest, and how even something as apparently simple as accounting can be joyful is a most positive one. There is something good to be said about how such a film with a life-affirming message like The Life of Chuck is almost needed now. As such, why then am I giving it a mildly negative score?  

Simply put: Nick Offerman. As the Narrator, he does not appear on-screen. I recognized his voice pretty quickly, which sad to say was almost distracting from the start. What made it fall for me was in how much of it there was. Acts Two and One were pretty narration dominant. That in itself was difficult, as the narration became more and more distracting as it grew and grew. The worst part of the narration was not, however, the excessive amount of it.

Rather, it is the tone that Flanagan directed Offerman to take. At times, it was almost sarcastic in detailing Chuck's life. Voiceover can be tricky. It can be used to great effect such as in Sunset Boulevard and the original Blade Runner release. More often than not, however, voiceover narration can be a pretty lazy way of filling in plot and character development. In The Life of Chuck, we get insights into the characters through the voiceover when it could have easily come through their own actions and words. It does not help that The Narrator says something, and a character repeats it verbatim. Such things make it play like a joke. I think that The Life of Chuck is not meant to be a joke, or at least a comedy. 

Take for example when Sara, Chuck's beloved Bubbe, reveals that she is emerging from her grief. I could go with Offerman's voiceover that she is starting to cook when she had previously ordered food. However, we could have easily seen her grief in how she started dancing joyfully to Dance Hall Days on the radio and bringing in her grandson as her partner. I think The Life of Chuck began relying too much on the voiceover to where, at least for me, it grew maddening. That Act Three was not as voiceover heavy as Acts Two and One makes one wonder why Flanagan opted to be sparing in the beginning only to be more indulgent as the film went on.

Courtesy of NEON

I think that the structure of The Life of Chuck, starting with the end and moving back, was not a bad idea. It perhaps might be a little deceptive in how in Act Three, we see almost no connection between the world slowly dying and this ubiquitously strange, smiling figure. I say "a little" because in a way, Chuck is the god of this universe. The various figures that populate this apocalyptic world do appear in Chuck's life as the film goes on. Some, like Sam Yarborough (Carl Lumbly) end up playing a greater role in Chuck's life than Act Three lets on. Others, like Felicia's coworker Bri (Rahul Kohli) make essentially cameos to where you might wonder why and how they took on greater importance as he lay dying.

It is most interesting that despite seen Chuck with a wife and teen son at his death, they are not a major part of The Life of Chuck. We got a long backstory of his interest with Cat McCoy (Trinity Bliss) the best female dancer of the Spinners and Twirlers. After struggling between taking his grandfather's words about the importance of numbers and his genuine love of dance, Chuck faces his fears and with Cat free themselves to Steve Winwood's Gimme Some Lovin' at the school dance. 

You might also be startled at seeing Loki break out into a Gene Kelly routine in Act Two. One might be left speechless at seeing Tom Hiddleston burst out into a well-choreographed impromptu dance. It is interesting that Hiddleston is actually not a major part of The Life of Chuck. He appears mostly in pictures in Act Three and, given that Act One covers his childhood, he makes the briefest of appearances there, telling his wife the truth about a scar. Act Two is where he is featured the most, and most of that involves his smooth moves versus much acting. He carries the dancing off well, so there is that. 

Courtesy of NEON

The other cast members had actual moments. I did not recognize Hiddleston's fellow MCU alumni Gillan as Felicia. She was effective as the nurse who is just trying to get through the days of this ending world. 

As a side note, was the nickname that her fellow nurses received meant as some kind of comic book in-joke? In The Life of Chuck, Offerman's voiceover narration informs us that the crumbling world had many people kill themselves. As such, Nurse Felicia and her team were dubbed "the suicide squad". Make of that what you will.

Sara and Hamill were equally if not stronger as Sara and Albie, Chuck's loving but troubled grandparents. Hamill had his potential Oscar clip, a monologue where he explains that numbers are both important and just as musical as the dancing that Chuck so loves. The grief and joy that Sara shows in her performance is wonderful to see. 

I will not reveal the ending, where the mystery of what is in the cupola is revealed. I think it works within the film, even if it vaguely 2001: A Space Odyssey-like. 

I did want to like the film. I see many positives in The Life of Chuck. It is deeply unfortunate that Nick Offerman's narration: in what he said, how much he said and how he said it pushed the film down. I get the message of The Life of Chuck: each life is important, no matter how seemingly small and unimportant it appears to be. It came so close, so terribly close. 

However, it just missed the mark. I do not take away from anyone finding meaning, maybe even comfort, in The Life of Chuck. I wish though that those 39 years did not have so much narration. 

DECISION: C-

The Pursuit of Happyness: A Review

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS

Inspirational tales do not come more inspirational than The Pursuit of Happyness, the biopic of Chris Gardner. Time has softened the film's impact, but it still holds up relatively well.

Chris Gardner (Will Smith) has put all his family's savings into portable bone-density machines that he is convinced will be great sellers. Unfortunately, in 1981 San Francisco these bulky devices are seen by many doctors as an unnecessary extravagance. To make ends meet his wife Linda (Thandie Newton*) works double shifts at a hotel. This puts a strain not just on their finances but on their marriage, with only their son Chris, Jr. (Jaden Christopher Syre Smith*) holding them together.

The Gardners continue struggling, though, until Chris notices a sign for interns with the Dean Witter Brokerage Firm. He through sheer will makes a positive impression on Jay Twistle (Brian Howe), a partner at the firm, with a little help from a Rubik's Cube that Gardner is able to solve. This internship, which can lead to getting hired at Dean Witter, may be a way out of the Gardner family financial struggles. Chris, however, is devastated when he learns that it will not only be unpaid, but that there is no guarantee that he will get a job there if he makes it through.

Despite this, he agrees to enter the internship. This is the end for Linda, who leaves him for a job in New York. Eventually conceding to Chris' insistence, Chris, Jr. stays with him instead of his mother. Now, Chris Sr. and Jr. continue struggling to keep body and soul together. It is not that Chris, Sr. does not work. It is that unpaid parking tickets, poor bone-density machine sales (including the theft of two of them) and the unpaid nature of the internship continue to wreak havoc. It is to where Chris Sr. and Jr. are made homeless, having to sleep in BART restrooms and homeless shelters.

Chris, however, will not give up. He boldly goes to the home of a potential client whom he barely missed an appointment with: Walter Ribbon (Kurt Fuller). Gardner never lets on to his potential clients or fellow interns that he is living in a homeless shelter or that he is beyond broke. Will Chris Gardner earn that coveted job post-internship and save his son from poverty?

I remember watching The Pursuit of Happyness  (the spelling of "Happyness" coming from a misspelled mural at Chris, Jr.'s daycare) and being deeply moved at the time. Perhaps I have grown more cynical in the almost twenty years since The Pursuit of Happyness premiered. Perhaps the antics of Smith pere et fil in the ensuing years now colors somewhat my view of them in the film. I was surprised that I did not have the same reaction to the film now. 

What I mostly thought was how dumb Gardner was at times. Why could he not bring in that bone-density machine to his initial internship interview? Certainly, it would have made more sense than to leave it with some hippie street singer. Granted, he did say in voiceover that "this part of the story is called Being Stupid", so credit where it is due. However, he also seemed genuinely surprised that the police would come for him over unpaid parking tickets or that the IRS would raid his banking account. 

I will leave aside how he probably should not have invested everything into those bone-density machines. I kept thinking that Gardner kept making one lousy decision after another. 

Another element that now has me less enthusiastic about The Pursuit of Happyness is on the portrayal of the homeless. I figure that there are such cases like the Gardners, who through poor economic choices and circumstances do end up in homeless shelters. However, I think this is more the exception than the rule. Many homeless have mental health issues, some downright delusional and with various chemical dependency problems. I could not shake the idea that The Pursuit of Happyness was attempting to suggest that homelessness was strictly and purely financial when it is a very complex issue. To be fair, the film is not about homelessness but about Chris Gardner's personal story. As such, I may be reading too much into things, but I digress.

I think that one element that pushes The Pursuit of Happyness down is Will Smith's voiceover. I understand what Steven Conrad's screenplay was going for whenever he had Chris Gardner tell us his thoughts. I just thought that there was too much of it to where it veered close to parody. It did give Will Smith a nice Oscar clip when he tells Chris, Jr. to never let anyone tell him he cannot do something. Oddly, this was not the clip that was used at the Academy Awards presentation when Smith was nominated for Best Actor. Perhaps the overt nature of the "Follow your dreams" speech was too much even for the Academy. 

I think the film would have done better to cut back on the voiceovers. Again, I think it wanted to suggest a more intimate conversation with Gardner. I just found it distracting and excessive. This is not to take away from a good performance from Will Smith as Chris Gardner. His best scenes were when playing off against his real-life son Jaden. There was a natural manner to those scenes which made them effective. His last scene, when he learns that he did get the job, is quite good in its understated manner. We see only the tears forming, but it is the quite manner that gets the viewer more than if he had broken down and had a big dramatic moment. He was less effective when he was working with others. His scenes with Newton seemed a bit more forced, as if they wanted to push the drama but were pushing too hard.

Speaking of Newton, I felt that The Pursuit of Happyness portrayed Linda Gardner in perhaps an unfair light. She came across as almost irrationally angry when in reality she had every right to be frustrated at Chris' poor decision making. Here she is, attempting to keep a steady job and care for her son, and her husband continues to struggle to have an even income. I did not think that she was wrong in her frustrations or worry or anger. I think the film did.

Jaden Smith was precocious as Chris, Jr., with some good moments. Of particular note is when he and Chris, Sr. are pretending to have gone back in time and see dinosaurs. In retrospect, we can see that Jaden Smith is good when he is not the central character. 

It is nice to see that the stockbrokers in The Pursuit of Happyness were not portrayed as Gordon Gekko types who celebrate greed. Instead, they were decent people who cared for their own families and in a nice moment, showed both gratitude and respect for past kindnesses. 

Again, I was surprised that The Pursuit of Happyness did not hit me as hard as it did the first time. It is still a pretty good movie. It is appropriately inspirational and with a good performance from both Smiths. Time may have diminished some of its power, but I think people will still get something out of The Pursuit of Happyness.

DECISION: C+

*Mr. Smith was billed as "Jaden Christopher Syer Smith" and Ms. Newton was billed as "Thandie" at the time they appeared in The Pursuit of Happyness. Smith now goes by his first and last names and Newton has since returned to her original name of "Thandiwe". To avoid any potential confusion, I used the names used at the time of the film's release.  

Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance. The Television Movie

HARRY & MEGHAN: A ROYAL ROMANCE

There was a time, my dear children, when Prince Henry of Wales and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, were not just admired but genuinely loved by the public. This was long before Megxit, long before With Love, Meghan and long before videos of Her Royal Highness twerking while nine months pregnant with the fifth in line to the British throne as her backup dancer. Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance is the first of three films chronicling the early married life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This first part of the Sussex trilogy has some awful acting, awful casting, awful story, awful dialogue and awful plotlines. It is also surprisingly awful all around.

After brief visits to the childhoods in 1997 (where 12-year-old Prince Harry is struggling with the grief over his mother's death) and 1993 (where 11-year-old Meghan Markle is struggling against sexism in television commercials), we get down to the main story in 2016. 

As a side note, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance premiered in 2018 a week before their wedding. 

Meghan Markle (Parisa Fitz-Henley) is a highly successful television actress who exudes feminist power. She in her first scene tells her director (Kurt Evans) that she won't turn her character into a flirt, she asks for changes in the script that suggests she is being coquettish and won't do another scene where she emerges in a towel. A friend sets her up on a blind date while she is in London for work. Meghan, leery of blind dates, has only one question: "Is he nice?". Harry (Murray Fraser) has only question: "Is she hot?". On their date, she scolds the Prince of England for being 40 minutes late. Despite this, an instant attraction develops, helped by their mutual traumas (his mother's death, her struggles against racists).

Harry's older brother Prince William (Burgess Abernethy) and sister-in-law Catherine (Laura Mitchell) look on with wariness at the budding romance. "She's American. She's divorced. Her mum is black. She makes Wallis Simpson look like Dame Judi Dench," the Duchess of Cambridge remarks to her husband's brother. For her part, Meghan is also wavering on pursuing a romantic relationship with Harry. "Glass ceilings, not glass slippers," she confides to her makeup artist. 

However, Harry will not be denied. He keeps wooing his divorced, biracial actress, even going dressed as a frog to a Halloween party for the Suits cast and crew. Here, as they enthusiastically anticipate Hillary Clinton becoming the first female President of the United States, Meghan shows her moxie by standing up to Harry's bullies. He returns the favor by standing up for her to his father, then-Prince Charles (Steve Coulter) and the Cambridges for their racism against Meghan. Through it all, Meghan wavers between her feminist principles and her desire for love until she finally agrees to marry Harry.

This will involve getting permission from Harry's granny, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Maggie Sullivun), who has a surprise of her own about the Windsor's own racial heritage. With that, Harry & Meghan can conclude their royal romance on a joyful note.

It is not surprising that television networks, in this case Lifetime, wanted to cash in on this story. As Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance was essentially rushed into production so as to coincide with the royal wedding, one can see how poor the entire production was. Terrence Coli and Scarlett Lacey's screenplay is sometimes filled with scenes and dialogue that are howlers of comedy. 

Perhaps the nadir of A Royal Romance's script is when Harry and Meghan go to the Suits cast and crew Halloween party. I get that the frog costume was meant as some kind of joke for our Frog Prince. Meghan, for her part, was dressed in a pantsuit and wearing a Hillary Clinton mask. When Harry removes his frog head to have a drink at the bar, he is verbally harassed and mocked by a Suits crew member dressed as a pirate (Corey Schmitt). "Your grandmother can kiss my ass," he mockingly tells Harry. It is at this point that Meghan literally unmasks herself, causing our drunk pirate to literally cower in fear. "Meghan, I didn't realize it was you," he says, trembling. 

The whole thing is hilarious. I understand that he is a Suits crewmember and that Markle may have some sway in whether or not he keeps his job. However, the idea that this man in full pirate costume is bold enough to mouth off to a member of the Royal Family but is left shaking by his actress girlfriend seems wildly off. That she was dressed as Hillary Clinton lends an extra air of the absurd. It is not so much that the scenario emasculates Harry and shows Meghan as almost a warrior queen. It is in how Menhaj Huda directs the scene that makes it all the more hilarious.

A Royal Romance is filled with such oddball dialogue. You hear Prince Harry fiercely objecting to the suggestion that Meghan shut down her blog, The Tig, or at least stay away from commenting on contentious topics like Brexit. Harry as portrayed here must have been totally bewitched by Meghan if he, with a straight face, could call The Tig "a community of inspiration". He then tears into his father, brother and sister-in-law for suggesting that Meghan may not be royal wife material. "What you say what you really mean. It's not just that she's opinionated, divorced, and an actress," pause for effect, "It's that she's African-American". 

This is a strange accusation to level insofar as even in A Royal Romance, the closest anyone has come to make any vaguely racist comments was Catherine when she pointed out that Meghan's mother Doria (Melanie Nicholls-King) was black. A Royal Romance leans in on how so many in royal circles objected to Meghan due to her race. "Do you think she'll (the Queen) let her grandson marry a black girl?" a reporter heckles Doria. Harry at a wedding berates Lady Victoria (Barbara Wallace) for wearing a blackamoor brooch. "It's a symbol of our imperialist domination in Africa, something we should well apologize for, not flaunting," he berates the befuddled, fussy old woman.

I do not know the reason why A Royal Romance opted to use "Lady Victoria" rather than Princess Michael of Kent, who did wear a blackamoor brooch when attending an event where Meghan, then Harry's fiancée, was also present. Also, the incident was not at a wedding but a Christmas gathering. Granted, those are not important details to the story. 

It does, however, reveal a thread in A Royal Romance that race was a major factor in the family's objection to Meghan. It makes it all the stranger given that the Queen reveals that the Windsors themselves are of mixed-race through Queen Charlotte, wife of George III. Sure, there are seven generations and two hundred years between Charlotte and Harry. Sure, the claims that Queen Charlotte was of Moorish heritage are based on an ancestor of Charlotte's that was eight generations prior to her. Details, details. Yet, I have digressed.

In terms of performances, A Royal Romance is one of horrifying levels. Perhaps the worst is Burgess Abernethy as William. Somehow, despite being only 31 years old when the film was made, he looks well past fifty. He looks and sounds absolutely nothing like the then-Duke of Cambridge. Laura Mitchell looked more like Sarah Brightman than Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. She, like Abernethy, were given leaden lines to read, and both recited them with the enthusiasm and conviction of bored individuals. Steve Coulter's Prince Charles at least had the good fortune to not be on screen long enough to leave a mark. 

He does, however, have a prophetic line. "The monarchy must remain dignified," he admonishes his son when it comes to Meghan's outspoken manner. I wonder if anyone involved in A Royal Romance thought of that line when they saw Meghan Sussex twerk in a hospital delivery room as a way to induce labor.  

Murray Fraser, to be fair, at least came close to sounding like Harry. He did not look anywhere near to him though. His performance was in two modes: sad or scowling. When he isn't missing Meghan or still struggling with the aftereffects of his mother's death, he is going off against racism all around him.

The best of the lot is Parisa Fitz-Henley as Meghan. She both looks and sounds like the Duchess of Sussex. She also manages to make most things believable. Some scenes do not work to be fair. "I worked too hard to be my own woman," she scolds Harry when he releases a statement defending her against "racist trolls". That, however, is the fault of the script, not of Fitz-Henley. She did the best she could with what she was given. She did do a good job, even if at times her "I AM WOMAN" manner came off as more spoof than authentic.

Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance does remind me of another television movie chronicling the courtship of Harry's father. Like with Charles & Diana: A Royal Love Story, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance is at times unintentionally hilarious, dreadfully acted and bad entertainment. 

Who would have imagined that A Royal Romance would lead to this? 

2/10

Karate Kid: Legends. A Review (Review #1980)

KARATE KID: LEGENDS

I have in the past expressed puzzlement over how Ghostbusters became a franchise, with various film and animated series spinning from the first film. I now turn to another beloved 1980's film that also created its own universe. Karate Kid: Legends is the newest entry into an unexpected franchise of four previous films and a television series. Curiously, I saw both the first Ghostbusters and The Karate Kid when theaters reopened after the forced COVID shutdowns. I was surprised at how long both films were. Yet I digress. Pleasant enough, harmless enough, Karate Kid: Legends pretty much coasts on said legends.

Li Fong (Ben Wang) moves from Beijing to New York City due to his mother (Ming-Na Wen) taking a new job as a doctor there. She also wants to move Li away from her uncle Han (Jackie Chan), who has been training his great-nephew in kung fu. While Dr. Fong does love Han, she blames in part for the death of her other son, killed in a stabbing after a kung fu tournament by the person he defeated. For his part, Li is still deeply traumatized by his inaction during the stabbing but still yearns to learn kung fu.

It takes approximately less than a week for Li to meet pretty Mia Lipani (Sadie Stanley) and gain a bitter enemy in Conor Day (Aramis Knight). Conor is the five-borough champion in kung fu. He is also tied to loan sharks who are putting the squeeze on Mia's father, retired boxer turned pizza restauranteur Victor Lipani (Joshua Jackson). Victor has decided that only a comeback to the ring will help get him enough money to pay off the loan sharks and maybe have some left over for Mia's education.

As Mia and Li begin a slow dance of romance, Li finds it difficult given that Mia and Conor have had a bad romance in the past. In exchange for teaching her Mandarin, she shows Li New York. For her part, Dr. Fong hires Alan Fetterman (Wyatt Oleff) to tutor Li on his math, and he becomes an unofficial friend and love advisor. 

Things come to a head when Victor's near comeback is thwarted by sucker punches that leave him close to death. The trauma of Li's brother's death returns, along with the guilt and anger from Mia. Also returning? Han, who has come to train him. Han, however, is not alone, for he eventually talks Han's late friend Miyagi's favorite and best student to help him. With that, Li trains with both Han and Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio). Will their training help Li defeat Conor and save Victory Pizza? Will Li find redemption and romance? Will Daniel delight in New York pizza with his frenemy Johnny Lawrence (William Zabka)?

The most that I can in favor of Karate Kid: Legends is that children, mostly if not totally unfamiliar with what came before, will like it. A couple of them cheered and applauded at the conclusion of the Li/Conor match on a New York City rooftop. Perhaps I can be positive also in noting that Rob Lieber's screenplay managed to integrate Han from the 2010 Karate Kid reboot/Jaden Smith vanity project into the overall Karate Kid mythos. It might even merit extra points in how Karate Kid: Legends did not include Jaden Smith at all.

I would be remiss if I did not complement some of the cast. Of particular note are Wang and Stanley as Li and Mia. Individually and together, Wang and Stanley did well in the film. Wang was charming when playing romantic with Stanley, a mix of innocent and almost arrogant goofiness. He handled the action scenes well too. Stanley, who to me looks like a younger Jennifer Lawrence, did not lean heavily into a Nuw Yawk accent, which was a plus. She too was charming as Mia, mostly balancing a sensible girl with someone who was aware of her own mistakes.

That is not to say that Wang and Stanley did not stumble at times. When attempting to play dramatic, both of them looked a bit exaggerated. However, that is not a dealbreaker in the overall positive performances that they gave.

What is harder to accept are both the adults and the overall story. While watching Karate Kid: Legends, I began to wonder who Victor Lipani was. He looked and sounded familiar, even with a bizarre New York accent that seemed very forced and unnatural. It took a while, but I finally realized that it was Pacey from Dawson's Creek. It is unfair to think that given that Joshua Jackson has had a solid career post-Dawson. It is not his fault that I can only remember him from a teen soap from over twenty years ago. What is his fault is the exaggerated tones of Victor's speaking. He was not convincing as this Brooklyn/Bronx boxer.

It also does not help that Karate Kid: Legends seems almost a bit of a Karate Kid remake with Li as Mr. Miyagi and Victor as Daniel-san. Long stretches of a surprisingly short film are taken up by Li training Victor to get him into shape for his comeback. Try as the film might, we are not invested in Victor's story because we should be invested in Li's story. 

Add to that how in other ways, Karate Kid: Legends still plays like a greatest hits album from a cover band. Conor is nothing more than a combination Johnny Lawrence pre-Cobra Kai and Terry Silver from The Karate Kid: Part III. I cannot say anything about Aramis Knight's acting ability because there was no character in Conor Day. He was EVIL from the first shot, and his efforts to be brutal at times veered towards comical. In some ways, it must have been the easiest money Knight could have made. His performance consisted of nothing more than posing and making faces, an antagonist needed because the film needed one.

I find that Karate Kid: Legends barely ties into the overall Karate Kid universe. Daniel LaRusso could easily have been written out without affecting any part of the film. Moreover, the way he gets involved is by a very thin thread. Why he opts to go to New York after saying that he wouldn't the film never answers. I know that Han is supposed to be Mr. Miyagi's good friend, but is that enough for Daniel to fly out and train some kid he does not know? Macchio is just there for nostalgia bait. 

Chan did better as Han, having some moments of drama and humor. I cannot say comedy, for the times that Karate Kid: Legends tried for laughs they fell flat for me. A training scene where Daniel and Han are debating their methods while causing Li to continuously fall was meant to be funny. It felt forced.

All that and more can be blamed on director Jonathan Entwistle. He was enamored of split-screen montages set to pop music. There were endless such scenes. By trying to be a bit flashy with the look, Entwistle only succeeded in drawing attention away from whatever heart Karate Kid: Legends was aiming for and more about how clever things can be. Having a video game ping sound whenever points are scored at the five-borough tournament is a little cringey. 

Finally, I think that while Macchio could have been removed without affecting the film, minimizing Ming-Na Wen's role to almost nothing should be thought of as the greater sin. 

Karate Kid: Legends is well-intentioned and harmless enough. It does have some funny bits (Mia calling Li "the Chinese Peter Parker" and a running gag about Li ordering "stuffed crust" from the pizza puritan Victor are pleasant). However, it is not as good as it could have been. Karate Kid: Legends fails to live up to its title.

DECISION: C-