Frankenstein: The True Story. The Television Miniseries

FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY

Frankenstein: The True Story is a bit of a misnomer in that it does deviate from the Mary Shelley novel. While it may not actually be "the true story", Frankenstein: The True Story is still an entertaining and well-acted production. 

After a brief introduction by The True Story star James Mason, we go to the Regency-era setting. 

After the death of his younger brother William, Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) becomes convinced that he should stop death itself. At the very least, he should be able to bring the dead back to life. He finds that renegade doctor Henry Clerval (David McCallum) has managed to reanimate small animals and human body parts. They join forces to achieve the impossible: bring life out of nothing.

They take body parts and resign themselves to using a peasant's brain for their new creature. However, Dr. Clerval dies in the secret lab before being able to write a warning. Clerval has discovered to his horror that the animation process is reversable. Victor, misreading the "R" that Clerval has written to mean "Ready to begin", proceeds with his plan. Out of respect, he takes Clerval's brain to place on his creation. The Creature (Michael Sarazzin) soon begins to learn about life under Frankenstein's tutelage. 

To his horror, Frankenstein finds that the Creature is devolving from the beautiful creature into a less appealing creature. Desperate to escape his horror, the Creature jumps to his apparent death. Alas, he survives his suicide attempt. Soon, the Creature becomes friends with the blind farmer Lacey (Ralph Richardson). Lacey's daughter Agatha (Jane Seymour) and her love interest Felix (Dallas Adams) however, are horrified when they see the Creature. His actions lead to both Felix and Agatha's deaths, albeit both unintentionally.

The Creature goes to the lab, hoping Victor will bring her to life. He's in for a surprise when he finds Dr. Polidori (Mason) instead. Polidori was Clerval's mentor who had a falling out with his pupil when Clerval insisted on using the sun's power rather than Polidori's liquid methods. Now, Polidori has a new corpse, or at least head, to try out his own ideas. With that, he gives metaphorical birth to Prima.

Prima, unlike the Creature, has managed to stay beautiful and pass herself off as human. Polidori cajoles the now-married Victor to let Prima learn from his in-laws and wife Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) about how to get along in society. Prima is no innocent. She is a hard, cold, cruel creature. She is also being groomed by Polidori into being a mistress for powerful figures as part of his plan for world domination. Those plans are brought to ruin when the Creature returns yet again to life. The chaos he unleashed will soon consume everyone involved in this sordid saga. Who if anyone will ultimately survive this series of terrors?

It has been ages since I read Frankenstein: Or the Modern Prometheus. While the television movie (edited into two parts for American television) bills itself as "The True Story", it goes against my recollections of the novel. I do not recall such things as Doctor Polidori having any role in the Creature's creation. I also do not recall a desperate flight for the Frankensteins and Polidori to the United States. I would say that in terms of fidelity to the source material, the first part is closer.

Once we get past the Creature's first survival, Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy's screenplay seems to come from their imagination rather than Shelley's novel. This is not strictly speaking a bad thing. Their screenplay does have some moments of wit in it. When the Creature seems reluctant to have Agatha's corpse seen, Polidori is having none of it. 

"Come on. I have no use for delicacy, especially in monsters", Mason says in his rich tone. His delivery seemed to border between serious and hilarious. It brought back, for good or bad, echoes of when Bugs Bunny was telling his monster about how they must lead interesting lives.

I suspect that Isherwood and Bachardy were having a grand time with The True Story. How else to explain how the Creature would sometimes misremember his name as "Polly Dolly"? How else to explain the impromptu ballet that Prima breaks out into at a ball? How else to explain how Dr. Polidori's first appearance to the Creature made him look like Fu Manchu, complete with two Chinese assistants? 

Good or bad, there was some camp within this presentation. Polidori's end ought to elicit laughter more than terror. In the midst of the tempest that the ship everyone is in is caught, the Creature manages to hoist the terrified Polidori upwards. Polidori is not so much afraid of being strangled as he is afraid of thunder. As he goes higher and higher, Mason seems to go hammier and hammier. It is to where when he meets his end, you are not taking this seriously.

This is a standout for James Mason, though perhaps not in the way he might have wanted. Mason is having a whale of a time being as grand and operatic as his skills let him be. There is something comical in how he relishes being bonkers. As he goes on about how he will use Prima as his ticket to the heights of political power, James Mason looks like he is about to climax in orgasm. It is not a bad performance. I do not think it is even an unhinged or loony performance. I would say that it is a grand, delicious performance, one where director Jack Smight did not bother restraining him. It is hard to take James Mason seriously when he is dressed like an exiled Chinese emperor. 

David McCallum too was intense. His waxing rhapsodic about a dismembered arm with a life of its own looks almost rational. However, it worked for his character of Clerval. He sometimes too leaned into theatricality. However, I found his intensity matched the downright bonkers manner of Clerval. 

I think the best performance is from Jane Seymour. She had to play two parts. She was first the innocent and sweet Agatha, caught up in an unintentional tragedy. She later had to be Prima, the female creature. She was excellent as the villainous Prima, mocking everyone around her. Her failed efforts at seducing Victor. Her simulation of pregnancy, ridiculing Elizabeth. Seymour had to make the smallest gesture with her face or lip to convey false innocence. It is almost to where one feels for her gruesome end.

Leonard Whiting will probably be best remembered for his role in Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. As Victor Frankenstein, he acquitted himself well. He was mostly soft spoken, but like with McCallum, it worked for the character. He was a strong blend of innocence and arrogance, of genuine concern and ruthless dismissal. 

I do have a caveat about Michael Sarrazin as The Creature. The True Story opted to follow Shelley's lead in making the Creature a beautiful figure. However, I do not think that Sarrazin was "beautiful". He certainly was not as beautiful as Leonard Whiting. I think it would have worked better if they had switched roles. Sarrazin was not bad in the role. He communicated the Creature's disillusionment and anger. He was not bad at all. He was just not beautiful.

The True Story is filled with excellent production work. It also moves fast despite its three-hour runtime. Some things do come across as funny, such as how Polidori is a mesmerist who can work on almost anyone. Overall thought, Frankenstein: The True Story has enough in terms of entertainment to keep the viewer interested. It may not live up to its title, but it works quite well. 

8/10

The Running Man (1987): A Review (Review #2064)

THE RUNNING MAN (1987)

Sometimes, it is best to give audiences what they want. I do not know if that means seeing people killed in gruesome ways. However, that is part of the premise of The Running Man, a solid and entertaining action picture that knows what it is and goes with it.

Los Angeles, 2017. America is a dystopian police state with no jobs and an oppressed population. Military officer Benjamin Richards (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has been ordered to fire upon a group of rioters asking for food. Richards, seeing that the protesters are both unarmed and filled with women and children, flat-out refuses. His helicopter is soon overtaken by the rest of the crew that will obey this order. 

Eighteen months later, Richards is imprisoned at the Wilshire Detention Center. He is billed as "the Butcher of Bakersfield", blamed for the massacre that he actually fought to stop. The video proof has been altered to convince the public that Richards did indeed kill unarmed civilians. However, Richards engineers a daring escape. Aiding him are tech whiz Harold Weiss (Marvin J. McEntyre) and resistance fighter William Laughlin (Yaphet Kotto). Richards wants only to escape and has no interest in the attempt to overthrow the repressive government.

He goes to his brother's apartment only to find that there is a new resident there. It is Amber Mendez (Maria Conchita Alonso), who writes jingles for ICS, the government-run television network. Richards forces Amber to help him try to escape. That attempt fails, but that is a blessing to someone else. Damon Killian (Richard Dawson) is the king of ICS as host of Running Man, the biggest hit on television. Working with the Justice Department, Killian is the emcee who literally launches the unwilling contestants to a contained area where they must try to escape before they are killed. Following the contestants, all of whom are convicted criminals, are large men known as Stalkers. Richards, as the so-called Butcher of Bakersfield, will bring in the highest ratings.

Richards is shocked to find that Weiss and Laughlin will be forced to join him in the literal death field. He is more shocked when Amber is thrown in, she having discovered the truth and tried to expose it. It will take all of Benjamin Richards' physical and mental skills to defeat the various Stalkers. This will lead to the revolutionaries finally having a chance to reveal the truth to a mislead population. It will also mean a final confrontation with Damon Killian. 

Fortunately, the world of The Running Man did not fully come to pass. The first adaptation of Stephen King's novel (written under the pen name Richard Bachman) was set thirty years from when the film premiered. As someone who had not seen The Running Man until now, it is interesting how in some ways, our world now is not too far removed from how The Running Man envisioned it.  

Two years after The Running Man was released, the television series American Gladiators took the nation by storm. While I think American Gladiators had been in development before The Running Man started production, there are curious similarities. Both feature amateurs facing off against more physically imposing figures meant to stop them. Both had colorful names. American Gladiators had figures like Hawk and Nitro. The Running Man had Stalkers named Buzzsaw (Gus Rethwisch) and the opera-singing Dynamo (Erland Van Lidth). Two other Stalkers, who were more cameos than major players, were Fireball and Captain Freedom. They were played by Jim Brown and Jesse Venture, performers who would be recognized by audiences.  

Contemporary audiences would have recognized certain elements in The Running Man that they would be familiar with from television at the time. Part of the television Running Man show included a gaggle of dancing beauties. This would be similar to the television series Solid Gold, which featured pop songs and a group of choreographed dancers. 

Perhaps the best and shrewdest element in making The Running Man highly believable is in casting Richard Dawson as Running Man's impresario Damon Killian. Dawson at the time was best known to audiences as the host of Family Feud. As such, audiences would know him as a game show host. It lent to the credibility of the story. 

The temptation to see Dawson's performance as almost a send-up of himself should be avoided. Dawson was not just a game show host but a trained actor. He was playing a fully formed character, not a variation of himself. This Killian was a true villain. He was outwardly charming and grandiose. Off screen though, he was equally ruthless, uncaring and evil. Dawson gives a standout performance in The Running Man. He never went over-the-top in playing Killian as loony or cartoonish. Instead, Killian was coldly efficient and calculating. 

Director Paul Michael Glaser knew that he was not making a deep exploration of the evils of television. This is not Network, though I think that it has similar elements in how television has dulled people's minds. We got good though not great action scenes. We got winking quips thanks to Stephen E. de Souza's screenplay. There was a lot of winking to the audience in this respect.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger gives his signature line "I'll be back" before getting sent to the death zone, Dawson's Killian has a great retort. "Only in a rerun", he snidely tells him. I suppose that audiences would expect Schwarzenegger to break out the line that made him famous. It was nice to see someone respond to it.

The quips kept coming. When Amber asks Richards, "What happened to Buzzsaw?", he replies, "He had to split". That was a clear pun on how we saw Buzzsaw killed. It was funny albeit cheesy. It perhaps should be expected. The tongue-in-cheek manner continued in other ways. As the credits to the Running Man television show played behind Killian, we saw that the production crew were not taking this too seriously. "Make Up: Paint Your Face", "Music: Do Ray Me" and "Titles: Type M Wrong" could be read. Glaser must have known that people could read them based on how the camera was placed. De Souza knew what he was adding.  

The film is in some ways a bit of a lark. Fleetwood Mac's Mick Fleetwood appears in a small role as Mic, the head of the underground movement. Dweezil Zappa also appears as Stevie, another revolutionary. Jim Brown and Jesse Ventura were also aware that The Running Man was a mix of menace and mirth. There is something a bit surprising in seeing Jesse Ventura in spandex doing aerobics.

Other actors were playing this more straightforward. Maria Conchita Alonso played Amber as someone evolving from accepting what was presented without question to someone who knew she was being lied to. Yaphet Kotto and Marvin J. McEntyre brought some gravitas to their roles of Laughlin and Weiss respectively. Arnold Schwarzenegger was there for the action scenes, able to rattle off quips and disbelief effectively.  

The premise of The Running Man is not as outrageous at it might appear. Granted, The Amazing Race does not involve people getting killed. However, the issues of Artificial Intelligence and AI imagery, manipulation of information and being entertained to death have only grown more concerning. This is not to say that The Running Man was prescient about how people could be deceived to believe what is not true. It still moves well and should please action fans. However, looking back on it now almost forty years later, I think The Running Man works both as pure entertainment and a warning about entertainment itself. 

DECISION: B+

After the Hunt: A Review (Review #2063)

AFTER THE HUNT

The accused was presumed innocent until proven guilty, but not anymore. Now, the mere accusation of anything from sexual harassment to racism is enough to "cancel" anyone or anything. After the Hunt, I think attempted to give a wider scope to whether the truth is stronger than "your truth". It is unfortunate that while there were a few strong moments, After the Hunt is a sheer disaster. 

College professors Alma Imhoff (Julia Roberts) and Hank Gibson (Andrew Garfield) are both up for tenure at Yale University. These frenemies find the prospect of one getting tenure and one not both amusing and nerve-wracking. Hank is a proud bachelor, enjoying flirting with everyone, even the students. Alma for her part has her loyal husband Fredrick (Michael Stuhlbarg). One thing that Alma and Hank have in common is Ph.D. candidate Maggie Resnick (Ayo Edebiri). Michael, as swishy a straight man as has been seen in film, thinks that Alma likes Maggie and Hank because they look up to her. He goes so far as to say that Maggie in particular seems to model herself after Alma and may, as a lesbian, harbor secret passion for Alma.

However, does Hank harbor secret passion for Maggie? If so, how far would he go to fulfill said passion? Maggie goes to Alma and says that Hank, who was inebriated when both left the Imhoff's party, attempted to assault Maggie. Alma is not as believing as Maggie would like. Maggie believes that Hank is using his white cisgender male privilege as protection. Later, Hank contacts Alma where at an Indian diner, he tells her that this accusation is false. It is revenge for Hank finding that Maggie has plagiarized her dissertation and confronting her about it. 

There is no time for a "he said, she said" type of situation. Hank is fired due to the allegations alone. An enraged Hank confronts both of them in Alma's class. Fredrick makes his feelings clear at the dinner that Alma invites Maggie to at their home. He is openly passive aggressive: blaring loud music and walking in and out of the kitchen with theatrical flair. Now, however, there is room to doubt Maggie. Could she be using her own black female lesbian privilege in being presumed the victim? The publicity that Maggie is getting for her "courageous" act, thanks in part to her transgender girlfriend Alex (Lio Mehiel), raises Alma's suspicions. 

The article that Maggie writes also raises Alma's suspicions. It is strikingly similar to an article that Alma herself wrote about her own experience when she was a young woman in Germany. Even that story, however, may not be what it appears? Could Maggie have weaponized her status as a minority as well as her family's considerable wealth to get away with something sinister? More secrets and accusations come. There is the medical scandal Alma unleashes when trying to pull a fast one on Dr. Kim Sayers (Chloe Sevigny), the student liaison and licensed physician. Who will come out on top of the tangled web?

I do not know if I can give a more succinct review to After the Hunt than by reciting how the audience that I saw it with responded to the movie. I saw two couples walk out, three if you count the one that came back. As I left, I overheard a group of three women talking to each other. "Where do I go to get my money back?" one asked. After the Hunt is a disjointed mess. The fault for this fiasco comes from two people: screenwriter Nora Garrett and director Luca Guadagnino. 

I think Garrett deserves less of the blame. The overall plot lurking about After the Hunt is actually a pretty interesting one ripe with possibility. The idea that someone could use their status as a minority to shield themselves from their actions is an intriguing one. The twist that Maggie, far from being a victim, could instead be the villain would be fascinating to explore. Maggie is black, a woman, and a lesbian. In some circles, this would suggest that she is oppressed on a myriad of levels due to her race, her gender and her sexual orientation. However, she is also the daughter of wealthy Yale patrons. Could she have used these aspects of herself to her own advantage against the embodiment of oppressors: a white cisgender male? Would or should people take the word of someone as true based not on an investigation but on perceived victim status? 

Other moments, such as Alma berating some of her students for insisting that they cannot be made uncomfortable, also work well. It is as if After the Hunt had something within it but kept losing itself. 

It is Guadagnino who denotated After the Hunt beyond saving. It is almost as if he intended to make an anti-film, something that went out of its way to be rubbish. His directing of scenes is almost unhinged in its chaotic nature. After Hank storms out of Alma's classroom, the various closeups look strange. It is as if a novice cameraman is attempting to film the actors moving about. When a surprisingly small number of students surround Alma in solidarity with the oppressed Maggie, the camerawork too is a bit odd. 

It is not just in how After the Hunt looks. It is in how it is acted. There is not a bad actor in the film. There is not a good performance in it. If I judge by degrees, I will say that the best performance is Chloe Sevigny. That is because she probably has the smallest amount of screentime. Her character of the doctor caught between treating Maggie and finding Alma's deception gives her something to do. Who can explain Michael Stuhlbarg in this? I left After the Hunt convinced that the character was gay and in a lavender marriage. He was so exaggerated in his manner, almost theatrical. He could be waving his towels like a flag girl. He could be very bitchy in playing loud music and stomping about. I found it all inexplicable.

Andrew Garfield is one of my favorite actors. I figure that he is hitting a downturn in his career. This is probably one of if not his worst film performance (and that includes his turns as Spider-Man). He was, like Stuhlbarg, so exaggerated as the essentially alcoholic Hank. It was very strange to see. I soon became fixated on two things with Garfield. The first was how jerky his body was. I figure that he was trying so hard to communicate something. What that was, I do not know. The second was on a tattoo on his arm. Was it for the character? Was it Garfield's own ink? I can't figure any of it out.

I think Julia Roberts did her absolute best with her role. There were moments, flashes of what could have been a fascinating, contradictory character in her performance. She needed both a better director and a better screenplay.

After the Hunt is loaded with flat-out odd choices that make one wonder if the film was even trying (Julia Roberts aside). The Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score was very peculiar. That is not counting the sound of an incessant ticking clock. I figure that was meant to represent something. Again, what exactly it is meant to represent is anyone's guess. The cinematography at times makes even beautiful people like Roberts and Garfield look atrocious. 

It is to where when the film literally ends with someone shouting "Cut!", I thought I was hallucinating. This closing bit comes after a postscript informing us of some absolutely bonkers conclusions. It is five years after how things ended. Alma had both her tenure offer suspended indefinitely and was hospitalized for massive ulcers. Maggie's plagiarism was exposed. Hank's career is in ruins. Now, Alma Imhoff is Dean at Harvard. She and Maggie reconnect at the Indian diner where Hank told his side of the story. Despite Maggie publicly having slapped her all those years ago, they are very chummy. Hank, we are told, has I think gone into politics as an aide or consultant.

How any of this happened or why will not be revealed. Yet, after all that, After the Hunt ends on the camera focusing on the bill and a $20 to cover the check and an offscreen voice shouting, "CUT!". I sat there, flabbergasted, convinced that I had not actually heard someone shouting "CUT!". It was all so horrendous.

It is deeply, deeply frustrating to have a film that touches on interesting topics and do nothing with them. Worse, it almost seems to be making fun of them while thinking itself a serious drama. After the Hunt is probably not the worst film of the year. The reason for that is that there are simply too many other films that somehow managed to be even worse. 

DECISION: F

With Love, Meghan Episode Seven: Elevate the Everyday

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: ELEVATE THE EVERYDAY

Original Airdate: March 4, 2025

Special Guest: Vicky Tsai

Mentions of "Joy": 0

Passive Aggressive Moments: 1

Gushing Praise for Markle: "I love coming to your place to eat because you always make it feel like a home, and a community".

Who needs JOY when you have Tsai? "Founder and friend" Vicky Tsai comes over in Elevate the Everyday, our seventh With Love, Meghan episode. There at least was a lot of love in Elevate the Everyday, at least expressed towards Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The word "joy" may not have been heard. However, I suspect that Meghan experienced a great deal of joy being high flying, adored by her neighbor.

Meghan Sussex is waxing rhapsodic more than usual about the person stopping by for a bit of a nosh. This Vicky Tsai must be extremely important. Unlike past With Love, Meghan guests, the Duchess actually takes time to tell the audience who Tsai is. We learn about her company Tatcha, her line of Asian-inspired skincare products. We learn that Tsai was also one of the first contributors to Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor's earlier lifestyle website, The Tig, as a de facto foreign correspondent. Meg is so excited that she almost burns down her rented kitchen/studio when making a creamer for her coffee-addicted BFF.

Even before we see the sight of Tsai, Vicky is enraptured with Meghan Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Offscreen, we hear a female voice say, "You're always the hostess with the mostest. Always. Always". The gushing from Tsai is nonstop. "I was new in town, and you welcomed me with one of your beautiful cornucopias of vegetables from your garden", this titan of industry tells us. 

At this point, I would not be surprised if Meghan had offered up her husband, Prince Harry, inside said cornucopia. 

After getting some eggs from the henhouse of her son, Prince Archie, the girls will now make potstickers. Vicky marvels at how good Meghan is at shaping the potstickers despite not being Asian herself. She reminds the Duchess that "Things that have lived and been dropped and put back together again are more beautiful". This brings Meghan close to tears.

The praise for the hostess with the mostest continues unabated. "I love how you're young and hip, and you also love things like mahjongg". The potstickers are finally made, though not without a few stumbles on the crumbles. We also go on to learn How to Make Chili Oil and then polishing masks before sipping some traditional Japanese tea. We conclude Elevate the Everyday with the knowledge that, and I quote, "I would never have made it here without you. I'm so grateful to you".

One guess as to who said it to whom.

I had once thought that Delfina Figueras from Love is in the Details had won the "It's the Joy of My Life to Be in Your Presence, Meghan" Contest. Being a fair man, I see that Vicky Tsai has overtaken our Argentine polo queen in terms of giving our grande dame rather grandiose ebullient praise. Tsai's comments went far beyond gushing and straight into laughable. If Tsai is to be believed, Meghan is beyond royalty into almost downright divinity. 

The cacophony of adoration is downright astonishing. I have already mentioned many of Ms. Tsai's words of worship. However, there are more doozies to serve up along with those potstickers. Upon seeing just how well Meghan's potstickers were, Tsai tells her, "I am very impressed. I give you an A++++". She sounds out each "plus". I counted four. There may have been five. Tsai's delight at Mrs. Sussex's culinary acumen reminded me of A Christmas Story. All those "pluses" made me flash back to when Ralphie imagined his teacher giving him all those pluses after reading his essay of his wish for a Red Ryder air rifle. That scene was deliberately played in an exaggerated manner. It is meant as a joke.

This scene in Elevate the Everyday was presumably played straight. Later on, Tsai cheerfully proclaims, "You're so much fun!" and I began to wonder if Tatcha was in safe hands. This is especially true given that her "YOU'RE SO MUCH FUN!" line came after the Duchess threw shade at the Foundress.

As Vicky was explaining some mixture for the potstickers, she called the concoction "a slurry". Meghan looks more than puzzled. "I've never heard that word", the hostess with the mostest proclaims. Finding "slurry" amusing, she soon after sings "slurry with a fringe on top" while going through her spice rack. Meghan is clearly evoking The Surrey with the Fringe on Top from Oklahoma! Yet that whole scene is a bit cringey. 

Slurry is a perfectly acceptable word. It is not some esoteric word that just came into existence. Slurry is something that people do use in cooking. One can give Markle a little leeway in never having heard the word "slurry". It is her reaction, or to my mind overreaction that makes her claims to Elevate the Everyday ring hollow. It is one thing to say that you have never heard the word "slurry". It is another to harp on the word "slurry", down to quoting Rodgers & Hammerstein in a surprisingly obnoxious and arrogant way. 

I found it all tacky to downright meanspirited. Given how Tsai was almost psychotic in giving Markle such almost worshipful praise, it all came across as Meghan doing her best to belittle her guest.

None of those rhymes were intentional.

One element in Elevate the Everyday did catch my attention. Tsai, in her endless gushing, remarked how remarkable it was that despite being "young and hip", Meghan loved mahjongg. However, Vicky Tsai was noticeably absent in The Juice is Worth the Squeeze where Meghan's other gal pals were playing mahjongg. I thought it odd that Tsai delights in how Meghan can be simultaneously trendy and traditional yet was not included in Meghan's reindeer games. Yes, presumably Tsai and Sussex have played mahjongg together with two other people. However, there was no mention of the mahjongg game that occurred in a previous episode. 

There may be a logical reason for all that. It just seems curious how the episode prior to Elevate the Everyday focused around a mahjongg game but Vicky Tsai was nowhere to be found.

To be fair, Elevate the Everyday did give Vicky Tsai a lot more background than any past With Love, Meghan guest. We got to hear about her background. We even learned that Tsai's Taiwanese mother puts fajita seasoning in her potstickers because she lives in Texas. That is an endearing revelation that charms the viewer. I do wonder why Vicky Tsai got more background than past guests. My sense is that Tsai was enraptured around Meghan. I also think that her beauty products might make for good cross-marketing with whatever Meghan, Duchess of Sussex wants to peddle to others. 

Elevate the Everyday has little to offer anyone in terms of actual knowledge. "It's always nice to decant your condiments on the table. You don't need to have a large jar sitting in the middle of a beautiful table spread", Mrs. Sussex tells us early on. All I could imagine was putting ketchup from a store-bought bottle into a clean bottle. Hardly seems worth the effort. This episode may be worth watching if you like seeing Meghan, Duchess of Sussex coming close to tears when compared to something that was broken and made more beautiful. You might also watch to marvel at how the most innocuous compliment can overwhelm our former Suits star.

After being told, "I love how you're young and hip and you also love things like mahjongg", the Duchess looks deeply moved. "That is the most generous thing anyone's said", she replies. I guess that was more generous than being told how getting some of your jam was "the most glamorous moment of my life". 

Elevate the Everyday did elevate Meghan Markle's day. Whose day wouldn't be elevated by the endless adoration that she got?

2/10

Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere. A Review

SPRINGSTEEN: DELIVER ME FROM NOWHERE

I wonder now if there is a movement to disparage Bruce Springsteen and his musical output. I admit that I am not the biggest fan of The Boss. However, I do like some of his songs. I have sung along to everything from Dancing in the Dark to Radio Nowhere. It is to where I thought the title for the new Springsteen biopic came from the latter. I, for full disclosure, do not understand the cult that Springsteen has around him. I figure therefore that Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere might be for a smaller audience. Deliver Me from Nowhere is not a bad film, which has some good performances in it. It also at times plays more like a biopic of an album than it does of a person. 

Bruce Springsteen (Jeremy Allen White) has just wrapped up a successful tour in 1981. Now, the Scion of New Jersey is taking a brief respite to create new music. His manager Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) would prefer that the Boss keep working on new material and get some rest. However, Bruce does sneak off every so often to play at the Stone Pony. Here, he meets Faye Romano (Odessa Young), a single mom who is the sister of one of Bruce's old high school friends. 

Bruce keeps working on his newest material. However, he is also struggling with the memories of his troubled glory days. His father Douglas (Stephen Graham) was an alcoholic who could be abusive, mostly verbally but on occasion physically. Bruce's mother Adele (Gaby Hoffmann) loves and protects her son. All these memories keep going at Bruce. So do the writings of Flannery O'Connor and the film Badlands. The tale of young killer Charles Starkweather (whose story inspired Badlands) soon have Bruce delve deep within his own soul.

Using the most recent technology, Bruce holes up in Landau's rented home and begins recording his acoustic takes. The songs that emerge are sparse, somber and deeply tragic. This dark night of the soul soon takes its toll on his relationship with Faye. It affects his working relationship with both Landau and Bruce's backing group, the E Street Band. His parents, now living in California, also bring about trouble, albeit unintentionally. Douglas disappears, seemingly unaware of where he is in time. 

All these things keep going at Bruce. The record label is displeased with the overall sound of his material. They are more displeased that Bruce will not tour, do press or even release a single from the album. Landau struggles to get the sound that Bruce wants, which is not the polished sound that the studio can get. Will Bruce get the album that will be known as Nebraska out there? Will he come to terms with his unacknowledged depression?

I remember the film Blinded by the Light, which was about the most unlikely Bruce Springsteen fan: a young British of Pakistani descent. I was the outlier in absolutely hating Blinded by the Light. I find myself again an outlier in saying that I did not hate Deliver Me from Nowhere. It has many good qualities.

I am generally unfamiliar with Jeremy Allen White. I know of his shows Shameless and The Bear but have yet to see an episode of either. I think White got Bruce Springsteen's raspy voice mostly well. He also can pass for looking like The Boss, albeit from a distance. In terms of an actual performance, White did well in capturing this lost, isolated figure. This Bruce is somber, serious, pretty inward looking.

Perhaps therein lies a problem in Deliver Me from Nowhere. I understand that Nebraska is a dark album. However, I have not heard Nebraska, at least to where I would instantly recognize any of its songs. I figure that like most Americans, I would know Springsteen's follow-up album, Born in the U.S.A. than I would Nebraska. Yes, the title song from Born in the U.S.A. is routinely misinterpreted as being flag-waving when it is anything but. However, the somber nature in Deliver Me from Nowhere makes it hard to believe that this is the same man who could come up with the passionate I'm on Fire, the equally passionate but more upbeat Dancing in the Dark or the slightly less serious but again upbeat Glory Days. 

I understand that Springsteen was dealing with unrecognized depression. However, one gets almost no respite from said downbeat manner until the very end. Also, a lot of Deliver Me from Nowhere seems to be more about Nebraska than about Bruce. There are many scenes of Bruce, Jon, the record producers and the E Street Band in the studio. Oftentimes, they are scenes of Bruce pretty much whining about how they can't get the sound that he wants right. It makes our working-class hero come across as almost an obnoxious artiste versus merely a perfectionist trying something new. Yet, I digress.

In one brief scene, Jon Landau tells his wife that the material Springsteen gave him is very somber and serious. I do not know why Landau would be surprised. The Bruce in Deliver Me from Nowhere could barely crack a smile. Jeremy Allen White is very good in the role. It is unfortunate that he had one mode to play: serious. 

Jeremy Strong is good as Jon Landau, the man who will stand by and believe in Bruce Springsteen no matter what. Writer/director Scott Cooper's adaptation of Warren Zane's Deliver Me from Nowhere did give him some offbeat lines. "I think the Mus came down and kissed you in the mouth", Landau tells Bruce after hearing Born in the U.S.A. (a scene that was good). It took all of me to not start laughing. When they discussed getting the same sound on the album that he got in the home recordings, we got this exchange.

"I don't want to make it better", Bruce says. "I just want to get back to how it was in the bedroom". There, I did openly laugh in the nearly empty theater. Deliver Me from Nowhere has a set of strange, cliched lines. When a car salesman is presenting the car that Bruce will buy, he tells him, "I know who you are". Replies Bruce, "Well, that makes one of us". I found that a bit much.

The film has strong supporting work from others as well. Odessa Young did well as Faye, the love that Bruce eventually lost. Stephen Graham's Douglas does double duty playing the younger father as well as the older father. Director Cooper decided to film the flashbacks in black-and-white. While this was not a distraction, I did find it a bit much as well. I especially found it a bit overboard when the adult Bruce comes into the scene with his younger self. 

I do not think that you have to be a Bruce Springsteen super-fan to enjoy Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere. I do think that it would help. Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere is in the end is more about the making of Nebraska than about the making of The Boss.

Born 1949

DECISION: C+

Anthony Adverse: A Review

ANTHONY ADVERSE

I do not think that Warner Brothers were known for making epic, prestigious movies. Anthony Adverse, the adaptation of Hervey Allen's massive historical novel, was their stab at grand cinema. It did get them seven Oscar nominations and four wins, including the inaugural Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Sadly, Anthony Adverse has not stood the test of time. Very long, surprisingly dull, Anthony Adverse is an adversity to sit through.

The marriage between young Maria Bonnyfeather (Anita Louise) and the Spanish Marquis Don Luis (Claude Rains) has yet to be consummated. Maria, a Scottish merchant's daughter, is not in love with the Marquis. Her heart belongs to Denis Moore (Louis Hayward), who is younger and handsomer. She certainly consummates her relationship with Denis. Unfortunately for her, Don Luis has recovered enough from his gout to feel frisky. Unfortunately for Don Luis, Maria is knocked up. Maria and Denis attempt to escape, but Don Luis manages to catch up with them and kills Maria's lover.

Maria, despondent, dies in childbirth. Conspiring with Maria's wicked housekeeper Faith Paleologus (Gale Sondergaard), they take the newborn boy to a nunnery. Here, the sisters raise the child they call Anthony (as he was found on Saint Anthony's Day). By a strange twist of fate, young Anthony is taken to John Bonnyfeather (Edmund Gwenn) to be his apprentice. John deduces that Anthony is his grandson based on his resemblance to Maria and how one of Anthony's few possessions is a Catholic figure that he identifies as Maria's. He cannot claim Anthony as his blood owing to potential postmortem scandal. As such, he gives the child what he considers an appropriate surname: Anthony Adverse.

Anthony (Fredric March) grows strong and handsome and kind. He also grows to continue his love for the Italian cook's daughter Angela Guisseppi (Olivia de Havilland). Angela yearns to be an opera singer, an aspiration that succeeds due to her father winning the lottery and able to now take his family up socially. Everyone in their village of Leghorn (pronounced Legohn) now faces a new challenge: the rise of Napolean Bonaparte (Rollo Llyod). Fortunes financial and romantic rise and fall under the Napoleonic Age. Anthony and Angela marry. So do Faith and Don Luis. Bonnyfeather struggles to keep his fortune. Circumstances and misunderstandings separate Anthony and Angela.

Anthony ends up first in Cuba and then in darkest Africa, where he becomes a bitter slave trader. Will the morality of abolitionist Father Francois (Pedro de Cordova) reform Anthony? Will Anthony wrestle the late John Bonnyfeather's fortune away from Faith, now the Marquise Don Luis? Will Anthony and Angela reunite, or will he find that the Emperor's newest mistress is something that they share in common?  

Anthony Adverse is close to two and a half hours. I figure the reason for it being so long is because the filmmakers wanted to showcase the breath and scope of the film. It is also true that the Hervey Allen novel is exceptionally long. It was, per my understanding, published in three volumes, with each volume containing three separate sections. Had it been made now, I imagine that Anthony Adverse would have been a miniseries or even a whole television series. Unfortunately, it became a film that is far too long for its own good.

It takes close to half an hour (twenty-two minutes by my count) to get to Anthony. That whole time is spent on a very overwrought romance between Maria and Denis. That includes the unconsummated honeymoon between Don Luis and Maria, Maria and Denis endlessly declaring their love for and to each other, Don Luis' recovery, the discovery of the liaison, the flight to the Alps, the killing of Denis (owing in no small part due to Maria's idiocy), the birth of the literal bastard, and the abandonment of said bastard.

All that, I imagine, could have been covered in less than ten minutes. We did not have to have at least two scenes of Maria and Denis making googly-eyes at each other. We did not have to have a scene where Don Luis is taking the cure. We did not have to have a scene where Don Luis and Faith literally laugh maniacally. 

Even worse, it takes forty-two minutes for the adult Anthony to appear. That means another twenty minutes is spent on Anthony's childhood. He is highly sheltered within the convent's walls. He is tutored by the local priest. He spies the young Angela. He is taken to Bonnyfeather where local children taunt him. They do more than that to Anthony, who has never interacted with children and does not know how to behave around them. Bizarrely dressed as a little priest, Anthony is soon literally stripped of his cloak, revealing him to be stark naked underneath.

That is well close to almost an hour on things that could have been wrapped up in half the time. Add to that how, once Anthony and Angela are reunited, we have twenty minutes to go. Anthony meets his son (at least I presume it is his son). In many films, this might have been the end. However, we needed to have a big opera scene where Anthony discovers that Angela is not just a diva, but Napoleon's newest mistress.  

I suspect that Anthony Adverse was Warner Brothers' big step towards prestige production. In a certain sense, they did show that they could. The sets are opulent. The costumes are rich and elegant. Of particular note is when Angela unexpectedly sees Anthony at a ball in Napoleon's honor. On the production side, no expense was spared. While I doubt that Anthony Adverse actually went to Africa to film the slave trading scenes, it looked convincing enough. 

However, where Anthony Adverse fails and fails big time is in its structure. So much of Anthony Adverse could have been shortened. I suspect that in hands other than those of screenwriter Sheridan Gibney, we could have seen a shorter film. The sprawling nature of Anthony Adverse ends up making it feel unimportant. Still, he cannot be blamed for everything.

Some of that blame lands on director Mervyn LeRoy. There is a lot of embarrassing acting going on in Anthony Adverse. Anita Louise and Louis Hayward start things out badly. Their love scenes are almost cartoonish in their manner. They are so overwrought attempting to show how passionate they are towards each other that it goes into almost crazed theatrics. Claude Rains is my favorite actor of all time. Here though, I winced a bit in his early scenes. There is a scene where he and Gale Sondergaard were literally cackling to where I think both of them were so over-the-top and knew it. I almost thought that it was a hammy outtake that had been left in accidentally. 

Fredric March too could also be overdoing things. While Rains eventually settled down, March went the opposite route. He started out fine. Once he got to Africa and attempted to show how bitter and disillusioned Anthony had grown, he started looking laughable. I do not think that he ever fully recovered.

Olivia de Havilland was the standout in Anthony Adverse. Yes, she could be a bit overly dramatic too. However, she was also able to make some of her scenes moving. When she sees her husband has returned, the shock that de Havilland shows looks genuine rather than silly. I will say that the idea of Olivia de Havilland convincing anyone that she was this Italian peasant girl is a bit of a stretch. It is a bit more unbelievable to see her as some kind of opera diva. Still, in her defense de Havilland did not embarrass herself in the film.

If Anthony Adverse is remembered at all today it is due to Gale Sondergaard and her Best Supporting Actress Oscar win. This was the first year that the Academy presented Oscars to actors for both supporting and lead performances. Did Sondergaard deserve the win for her turn as the villainous and unfaithful Faith? That conversation is for another time. I will say that Gale Sondergaard did seem to delight in making Faith this wicked woman. In her face, her manner, the contempt that she shows, Sondergaard did go all-out. It kind of kept to the spirit of much of Anthony Adverse's acting; it was either big or going for big. 

Sondergaard was one of four Oscar wins that Anthony Adverse received out of seven nominations including Best Picture. I will not argue against Erich Wolfgang Korngold's score (awarded to the Warner Brothers' Studio Music Department). I also will not argue against its Cinematography win. It is a nice-looking film if that. I would take up some issue with the Film Editing win. 

Anthony Adverse is pretty much forgotten now. Even Gale Sondergaard's Best Supporting Actress Oscar win is more a historical footnote than something people still talk about. She is more remembered for two things outside Anthony Adverse. It is for either being blacklisted during the McCarthy Era or for turning down the role of the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz. Anthony Adverse is far too long and overly acted to enjoy. It is more for Best Supporting Actress winner completists than for anything else. It is ultimately a true adversity to sit through. 

DECISION: D+

Jezebel: A Review (Review #2060)

JEZEBEL

There are all kinds of wicked women. There are the femme fatales, who lure men into a life of crime. Then there are the temptresses, who lure men into sins of the flesh. The lead character in Jezebel is a vixen, one who is set to get her way. With standout performances all around, Jezebel is a strong picture if perhaps a bit dated.

Fiery Southern belle Miss Julie Marsden (Bette Davis) rules 1852 New Orleans society. She is a firecracker who flaunts convention every time that she can. This distresses both her Aunt Belle (Fay Bainter) and her financial guardian, General Bogardus (Henry O'Neill). Both, however, are pleased that she will soon be someone else's problem. That someone is her fiancée, Preston Dillard (Henry Fonda). He is too busy dealing in business to accompany Miss Julie to a dress fitting for the Olympus Ball, the social event of the year. Furious at being rebuffed, Miss Julie decides that she will shock New Orleans by appearing in a fiery red gown.

This might appear to be a strange way to scandalize the Big Easy. However, despite it being 1852 and not the Dark Ages, no unmarried woman attends the Olympus Ball in anything other than a white gown. Despite promising not to wear scarlet red, Miss Julie decides to do so anyway. Preston is enraged. Aunt Belle and General Bogardus are deeply upset. Even Miss Julie's former beau and Pres' frenemy Buck Cantrell (George Brent) advises her not to. Buck, the finest sharpshooter in New Orleans, is like Julie in speaking his mind. However, he tells her that this will bring her nothing but misery.

At the Olympus Ball, her dress horrifies the elites. Realizing too late that she has, as Buck predicted, made a spectacle of herself, she begs Pres to take her out. Pres, however, is quietly enraged at her actions and sees to it that her humiliation is complete. With that, he breaks off the engagement and heads North. A year passes, and Miss Julie is now essentially a recluse. Fortunate, a yellow jack plague has taken hold in New Orleans, forcing her and Aunt Belle to take refuge in their plantation of Halcyon.

Good news seems to come their way when Preston returns to help deal with the growing health crisis. Miss Julie, now contrite for her scandalous behavior, hopes for a reconciliation. Everyone is in for a shock when Preston shows up with Amy Jenkins (Margaret Lindsay), the new Mrs. Dillard. With that, Miss Julie starts a chain reaction that leads to duels and unintended deaths. The new plague ravaging New Orleans may have met its match, but who will find death and who will find redemption?

Bette Davis had been in the running for the role of Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind for some time until Vivien Leigh was ultimately selected for the part. While she may have lost out of that role, Jezebel gives us a glimpse of what might have been if Gone with the Wind had picked a Yankee over an English girl. Having the fortune of hindsight, I think that Bette Davis was right for Jezebel and wrong for Gone with the Wind. 

Bette Davis, winning her second and surprisingly final Best Actress Oscar of her career, is appropriately fiery and fierce as our antebellum queen. She has that haughty, fierce manner as Miss Julie. The film wisely holds back on presenting Davis until a good seven minutes into Jezebel. She is a tornado on screen, flinty and determined. We can see that those Bette Davis eyes are working overtime in displaying Julie's flinty flirtations and fierce fury. 

Yet, she is also able to communicate those little bits of regret when she learns of Pres' desperate condition. I think many people found Julie's sacrificial turn a bit fake. I thought it worked here. She was perhaps more contrite than repentant. However, she also may have taken her final actions as a way to atone as well as spend time with the man she lost.

Like Davis, Fay Bainter won an Oscar for her performance in Jezebel. As Aunt Belle, she did pretty much nothing but warn and worry. However, the emotions that cross Belle's face when she is greeting the new Mrs. Dillard reveal a mix of horror, fear and concern for all involve. 

Henry Fonda was solid as Pres, the much put-upon man who has to endure much. In a brilliant bit from director William Wyler, Pres has brought a walking stick to presumably discipline Julie. Preston and Julie negotiate their different stands, with the walking stick a visible threat. It shows both Preston's inability to fully stand up to her, and her ability to weasel her way out of situations. "Don't forget your stick," I think she tells him when she has won this round.

However, we also see his own anger and determination to rid himself of this antebellum tart. As they dance at the Olympus Ball, the crowd starts drifting away, not wanting to associate with this loose woman. The fear in Davis' eyes communicates Julie's realization of her disastrous choices. She begs Preston to go, but he forcibly continues her ritual humiliation by insisting on keeping to the dance. When they arrive back home, he tells her that he is leaving. "Evidently you've made up your mind," she tells Preston when she realizes that this is the end. "No Julie. You've made up my mind", he coldly replies.  

George Brent is equally strong as Buck Cantrell, the man whom Julie can manipulate to tragic results. Buck is not a fool. He sees things as they are and is not afraid to call them by their names. However, he also has an arrogance and a stubborn manner that leads to his own fall. 

Jezebel, as a song of the South, might startle people with a scene where the slaves come up to Halcyon and sing, We're Going to Raise a Ruckus Tonight. The sight of happy slaves singing might now raise eyebrows. I found it illogical that all these slaves would be up at such a late hour for a hoedown. It does not help that Davis as Miss Julie joins in and pronounces the word as "Roo-kus" versus "Ruck-us" that I am more familiar with. Is it a Southern version. Wyler also films the panic of the plague very effectively.

This adaptation by Clements Ripley, Abem Finkel and John Huston (the latter early in his career) of the Owen Davis, Sr. play is surprisingly free of stage trappings. This is a credit to everyone involved in Jezebel. This applies to Max Steiner's Southern tinged score as well, one of Jezebel's five Oscar nominations.

Bette Davis may never had been the ultimate Southern belle. However, Jezebel shows why she was a strong Scarlett contender. While Jezebel will never escape Gone with the Wind's shadow, it does show that Davis could be fiery when needed. 

DECISION: B+

Nobody 2: A Review

NOBODY 2

After 2021's Nobody proved a surprise hit film, perhaps it would be inevitable that a sequel would be pumped out. Nobody 2 goes deep into the violence. While it does not hold up as well as the first, Nobody 2 is in a manner of speaking, harmless. 

Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) is exhausted physically and emotionally from the constant hit jobs that he has to do to pay off the debt from his last adventure. He appeals to his de facto boss The Barber (Colin Salmon) for a break. The Barber agrees to let Hutch take a vacation. With that, Hutch takes his whole family to the town of Plummerville. It has a combination amusement park and mini resort that Hutch has fond memories of going to as a child.

Hutch now can relax with his family. He has his wife Becca (Connie Nielsen), his son Brady (Gage Munroe) and daughter Sammy (Paisley Cadorath). He even brings along his dad, David (Christopher Lloyd). Hutch soon sees that you can't go home again. The Plummerville resort/amusement park has fallen on hard times. So has Plummerville itself.

As it so happens, Plummerville is not a variation on Branson, Missouri. It is a hotbed of criminal activity. The sheriff /amusement park owner Wyatt Martin (John Ortiz) has kept things going overall well. His corrupt deputy Abel (Colin Hanks) wants to overthrow Wyatt. An altercation between Hutch and Wyatt's son Max (Lucius Hoyos) sparks a full-scale war. Abel is determined to take full control. For that, he needs the full support of crime queen Lendina (Sharon Stone). That involves kidnapping Max to keep Wyatt in line. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Nobody is here.

Soon, Lendina has to come down to squash this unexpected rebellion. Hutch, who has rescued Max and brought him to safety with the Mansells, prepares for war. He joins forces with Wyatt and has help from his brother Harry (RZA). It is a bloody battle where Becca too must stand her ground. Who will emerge triumphant as these two forces battle it out?

The best thing that I can say about Nobody 2 is that it is blissfully short at 89 minutes. It is slightly shorter than the original Nobody, a film that I enjoyed. I was cooler with Nobody 2 than I was with Nobody, though. I think it is because Nobody 2 essentially erased what I enjoyed the most from Nobody. Hutch in the first film felt like an average, even below average, man who was actually a master assassin. Here, he seemed to be less average. I get that Hutch is still this expert killer. It just felt as if the characters were just going through the motions.

Try as I might, I could not get the glee out of seeing a put-upon man unleash his bad self. I think it is because Hutch was not really unleashing his bad self. He was not being driven to strike back. He just struck back because Derek Kolstad and Aaron Rabin's screenplay said so. I cannot quite put my finger on it. I just watched Nobody 2 not with frustration or boredom, but with growing disinterest. 

I get that Plummerville was just a setup for the final battles. Therein perhaps lies part of the problem. The setup did not feel altogether natural. It seems a wild stretch that this rundown town was really a hotbed of criminal corruption and shady dealings. 

I do not fault the actors themselves. Well, maybe I will fault Connie Nielsen a bit. Part of Nobody's appeal was how she was an average woman caught up in this maelstrom of murder. It takes away a bit of the fun when Becca can turn out to be an excellent markswoman like her husband. At least she did not turn out to be an assassin herself. However, it again did not feel authentic, even for something as gleefully bonkers as Nobody 2.

Sharon Stone loved being able to camp it up to almost unseen levels. I did not recognize her until my cousin, who saw Nobody 2 with me, told me that it was Sharon Stone. She understood the assignment be as over-the-top and cartoonish as you can. Maybe more if possible. She was so broad as Lendina that it was impossible to take her seriously.

Bob Odenkirk also understood that things were meant to be a bit silly. He could play serious moments well. He could also be in on the joke, as when a group of Abel's goons attack him on an excursion boat. Here, perhaps, is where I have an issue with Nobody 2. I get that this is an action comedy. I do not quite get the humor of the old couple in front of the excursion boat (along with the tour guide) being completely unaware of the chaos behind them. 

It is nice to see Colin Hanks handle a villainous role. He does well, if again by the end it seemed a bit too exaggerated. We got some solid acting in John Ortiz and Lucius Hoyos as Wyatt and Max Martin. Ortiz's Wyatt was not a bad man, and he did have an evolution through the film. Hoyos' Max was a bully. However, I think audiences will feel for him when he is abducted, remembering that he is also a kid who is put in danger. Christopher Lloyd and RZA were underused.

Nobody 2 has that action and blood that people would like. It was a bit much for me, but it was not a dealbreaker either.

Nobody 2 was fine. I think the first one was better. While I did hope for a sequel, Nobody 2 is serviceable. It would have been nice, maybe clever, if David Mansell had broken out into some Emily Dickinson.

"I'm Nobody. Who are you? Are you Nobody 2?"

DECISION: C+

Relay: A Review

 

RELAY

I have used the relay service to communicate with the deaf when I worked, many painful years ago, at a probation/parole violators' center. It was not a fun experience and consider it among the three worst years of my life. I would not go as far as saying that Relay was worse than working at that center. I will say that Relay is built on a lot of implausible moments and some awful performances that make it a slog to sit through. 

Mysterious operative Ash (Riz Ahmed) is a go-between for corporate or government whistleblowers who wish to return incriminating documents to their former employers. Ash ensures that his clients are protected both physically and financially. He informs the most recent corporation that his client is returning the material; however, Ash will keep a copy at a secure location. This information will leak out only if his client meets with an unfortunate accident. All the companies have agreed to this, so Ash has a solid track record.

Apart from that, Ash leads a very solitary life. His life is all work with no current vices. Ash's former vice is one we learn about as Relay continues. His newest client is Sarah (Lily James). She has damning information about genetically modified wheat. Feeling the pressure from the corporation, Sarah has been put in contact with Ash. Ash is extremely careful in not leaving any fingerprints metaphorically or literally. He never meets with the clients. He never is photographed. His only communication is via a relay system which is used for the deaf. These calls have the added benefit of never being recorded for legal reasons.

Sarah is facing off against Dawson (Sam Worthington), the corporation's muscle. Dawson and his team now play a cat-and-mouse game against Sarah and Ash. Each is determined to outwit the other and avoid capture. Things take an unexpected turn when Ash ends up falling in love with Sarah and when Sarah neglects to turn over every document. She claims that the few pages that she did not submit were innocuous. Ash realizes that it actually means that they did not complete their side of the bargain. As such, Dawson is perfectly right to pursue them with vengeance. 

Ash, we learn, is an alcoholic. He was a formerly successful Wall Street wunderkind. However, the mix of corporate greed and the pressures a Muslim in post 9/11 America push him to the bottle. He at least has a sponsor, New York City Detective Wash (Eisa Davis). Things come to a head when Ash learns that Sarah will be murdered to keep her silent. Ash now must rescue her at a classical music concert. However, we get one "shocking" twist that puts Ash's life in danger. Will Ash survive this double cross?

Oh, for that "shocking" twist. That "shocking" twist that was both expected and wildly implausible. Perhaps I am being a bit unfair about Relay having a wildly implausible twist. I do not know if Justin Piasecki's screenplay had that twist be totally implausible. I just thought that for it to work, a lot of things had to happen exactly as Relay had them happen.

What guarantee was there that Ash would have that kind of connection with Sarah? What guarantee was there that Ash would care about her ultimate fate? What guarantee was there that he would not get caught? I am never big on films where situations occur exactly in such a way as to have things go the way they did. It just does not feel natural. It feels forced and calculated. 

Relay is curious in that for the longest time I thought Ash was literally mute. It takes a long, long time for Riz Ahmed to speak. Even after we see that he does have the ability to speak, he does not say much that is interesting. It almost made one initially wonder two things. First, it made one wonder if Ash genuinely needed the TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) versus using it to cover his tracks. Second, it made me wonder if he was using Relay to keep his sign language skills fresh after making Sound of Metal. 

I get that Ash was meant to be a morose figure, alone and lonely, locked away from the world. I did not expect him though to be so boring. Ahmed can act. He just did not do so in Relay. He got some moments to have monologues, such as when he talks to his AA group about how he fell to drink. Even here though, I felt no emotion other than a desire to nod off.

The advertising touts him as "Academy Award winner Riz Ahmed". That is true. He won for co-directing that year's Best Live-Action Short Film. I take the opportunity to repeat that said short film, The Long Goodbye, is total garbage. It is a rap music video that is about how racist white people are. Riz Ahmed won an Oscar for rapping on camera.

The Long Goodbye awful as it is, at least has one thing going for it. It does not have Sam Worthington in it. Sam Worthington is cinematic plank wood. He cannot act. He simply cannot act. The determined efforts to make Sam Worthington into a star continue to collide with reality. Yes, he lucked out by being in the Avatar franchise. However, do people really go to an Avatar film to see the CGI version of Sam Worthington? 

To be fair to director David Mackenzie, no one has managed to get Sam Worthington to actually act. As such, he cannot be blamed for Worthington's inability to play a character. 

Lily James, I think, did do better as Sarah. She did initially convince the viewer that she was something of a damsel in distress. Her twist is not convincing. However, she gave it a good try.

Relay, if not for the "shocking twist", might have been passable fare. It is not great, but it was not terrible. At least until it decided to become more routine in its tale. As I watched, I thought it might have been better to have called it End of Message (how all the TDD calls ended). Relay is a good film to have playing in the background while you are doing something else. 

DECISION: C-

Ring of Fire: The Television Movie

RING OF FIRE

Perhaps Ring of Fire was doomed before it started. The television biopic of June Carter Cash premiered in 2013, eight years after Reese Witherspoon won the Best Actress Academy Award for playing June Carter Cash in Walk the Line. As such, there was always the risk that Ring of Fire was essentially playing as an also-ran against Walk the Line. For better or worse, Ring of Fire will always be in the shadow of Walk the Line. That is a bit of a shame, as Ring of Fire is not a bad production. 

June Carter is part of the Carter Family, one of the most preeminent families in country music. Mother Maybelle Carter (Francis Conroy) is particularly annoyed whenever their music is referred to as "hillbilly". June Carter for her part feels that she cannot measure up to her legendary family. She sings but has little confidence that she is good. She feels her forte is in cornpone comedy, blending her musicianship with jokes.

Eventually, June Carter (Jewel) strikes out separate from the Carter Family. Her star does rise at places like the Grand Old Opry. She also meets Carl Smith (Linds Edwards), a fellow Grand Old Opry performer. Catnip to the women, Smith finds that June Carter is the one for him. They marry but he is a poor fit for the more traditional and respectful Carter clan. 

Less of a fit is the highly talented country newcomer, Johnny Cash (Matt Ross). He is married himself, but he tells June that one day he will marry her. June is faithful to her marriage vows, but Carl is not. She is equally loyal to stockcar driver Rip Nix (Alan Heckner) though they eventually grow apart. Johnny is talented but troubled. June, who routinely tours with him as a "special guest" tries to help him despite his self-destructive ways. She is also unafraid of him, able to stand toe-to-toe with the Man in Black.

Eventually they do marry and have one son, John Carter Cash (Austin Stack). Johnny, however, cannot fully mend his ways. June does all that she can, but even she has her breaking point. In time, June Carter Cash and her husband come to peace through love and music. Only death can separate them.

Ring of Fire is meant to be June Carter Cash's story. I think on the whole it was a strong primer on the Country Music Hall of Fame inductee. A successful biopic does not require for someone to look exactly like their subject. Jewel does not exactly look like June Carter Cash, at least initially. However, as Ring of Fire continued, she began to look more like the older June. 

I do not think people often think of Jewel as an actress. She is still remembered primarily for being a folk-like singer. I think that Jewel acquitted herself quite well as June Carter Cash. She has a solid moment when in a forced therapy session, she talks about the frustration that she feels. June has just seen Johnny yucking it up with fellow addicts. June feels that she has had no opportunity to enjoy her life, having cared for Johnny all those years. Now, here he was having the joy that she had not. Worse, he was not sharing that joy with her, but with strangers. Jewel was pretty solid as Carter Cash. She was funny in her comedy delivery and handled the drama well.

Matt Ross was placed in a pretty difficult situation. He already had a daunting task falling under Joaquin Phoenix's Oscar-nominated turn as Cash in Walk the Line. He was also having to fall under the shadow of Johnny Cash himself. I do not think many people would have thought Ross was Johnny Cash. It was not a terrible job acting-wise. He had some good moments, such as his efforts to go cold turkey on his prescription addiction. He was hampered by not looking or particularly sounding like Johnny Cash. However, I think he got close to how Cash was, so it was not all for naught.

Francis Conroy was stronger as Mother Maybelle Carter. She was firm but in a gentle way. Mother Maybelle told the girls early on that she realized that they were missing out on a lot of things their peers did. However, she reminded them of two things. One, this was work. Two, that many people had paid to see them. This was not something to dismiss but to appreciate. 

Ring of Fire does not go very deep into some of the June and Johnny Cash story. Poor Rip comes and goes rather fast. The actual writing of Ring of Fire was given a very cursory scene. I never got what exactly inspired her to write this ode to dangerous love. However, Ring of Fire has other positives. Seeing Johnny and June perform together, especially whenever Johnny is falling apart on stage, makes for interesting viewing. 

Ring of Fire is entertaining if not particularly great. Jewel gives a good, solid performance. That, along with a respectful if perhaps thin overview of June Carter Cash's life and career makes Ring of Fire worth seeing if you come across it.

1929-2003

5/10