Saturday Night: A Review

 

SATURDAY NIGHT

I read somewhere that the trajectory of a long-term career or public persona goes from sensation to over-sensation to vacation to institution. Saturday Night Live fits that description. Now on its 50th year on the air, the late-night comedy variety show has gone through various ups and down: from being the cutting edge of comedy to a laughingstock kept alive through sheer inertia to a creative revival to now something that is just there. Saturday Night is a film about its very first episode, chronicling the rise of this group of young artistic rebels. Selling me on something that I never fully bought into, Saturday Night works thanks to some standout performances. 

October 11, 1975. With only 90 minutes to airtime, young, harried Saturday Night producer Lorne Michaels (Gabriell LaBelle) must pull himself and his show together. This is not an easy task, as everything and everyone around him seems set on bringing Saturday Night down. The network brass, embodied by Dave Tebet (Willem Dafoe) makes clear that Saturday Night is just a bargaining chip the network is using against their prickly Tonight Show host, Johnny Carson, during contract negotiations. Carson himself calls prior to broadcast to let Michaels know he thinks Michaels, his cast and show are all useless. Into the mix comes none other than Mr. Television himself, Milton Berle (J.K. Simmons). Uncle Miltie, who might fill in as a last-minute guest host and films at another variety show nearby, has equal contempt for these young kids and their brand of humor.

The outside forces brewing against Michaels is nothing compared to the enemy inside his camp. His guest host, George Carlin (Matthew Rhys) finds some of the material idiotic. His cast members are all over the place metaphorically and in the case of John Belushi (Matt Wood) literally, having walked off due to his irritation at the bee costume he has to wear. Add to that, Belushi has still not signed his contract, veering dangerously close to making his entire appearance doubtful. Other cast members such as arrogant Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith) and lothario Dan Aykroyd (Dylan O'Brien) veer from cooperative to contemptable. One of Saturday Night's writers, Michael O'Donoghue (Tommy Dewey) loves pushing the buttons of the NBC censor, whom he openly calls an "evangelical c--t", balking at the idea that anyone, even Michaels, would dare alter his genius. The sole black cast member, Garrett Morris (Lamorne Morris) continuously wonders what his role on Saturday Night is at all, save for literally putting "color" to color television. 

Waiting in the wings to know if they are even going to get on the air are comedians Billy Crystal (Nicholas Podany), puppeteer Jim Henson and eccentric standup comic Andy Kaufman (both played by Nicholas Braun). Henson has been given no script. Kaufman keeps wandering off while in character, and the cast and crew have no idea what material that in dress rehearsal took three hours will stay or go to fill those ninety minutes. With only NBC junior executive Dick Ebersol (Cooper Hoffman) on his side, Lorne Michaels must hurry and push himself and everyone else to get Saturday Night on the air without physically and emotionally collapsing. Will he be able to do so? 

The conceit of Saturday Night is that we are given a "you are there" feel. The film runs nonstop for those 90 minutes prior to the debut broadcast, which is meant to give you the urgency and desperation Michaels is going through as his dream seems on the brink of total collapse before it even starts. I get what director Jason Reitman, and his cowriter Gil Kenan, are going for.

I appreciated the effort. I just never fully bought into it. Case in point is when Saturday Night announcer Don Pardo (Brian Welsh) stumbles over Aykroyd's name, calling for help on how to pronounce it. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Pardo would have barely come across Aykroyd's name prior to airtime. He, I figure, might have found it difficult when first seeing it, but by the time of dress rehearsal, Pardo would know who Dan Aykroyd is, along with knowing how to properly pronounce the name.

I also was not fully accepting that Saturday Night would be so chaotic. I can see how, with almost no direction from Michaels, the original Not Ready for Primetime players would not know what would or would not make it to air. However, would they also be so inexperienced that they would not know what to do? My sense is that this was done for dramatic effect. I can give Reitman that. I can also give him some leeway when it comes to using an Aaron Sorkin-like "walk and talk" style as Michaels goes from managing one crisis to another. 

Saturday Night wanted to make me feel tension on whether the show would make it at all (no spoiler, it did). Jon Batiste's score and the editing by Shane Reed and Nathan Orloff worked hard to build up the tension. I did not feel it but appreciated the efforts to do so. I did think they had a great moment when they transitioned from Carlin fighting to the softness of the earnest Janice Ian song At Seventeen which Ian would perform during the broadcast. 

None of this is to say that Saturday Night is a bad film. Far from it: Saturday Night is a good film thanks to some of its impressive performances. Cory Michael Smith and Dylan O'Brien are to my mind two of the standouts in Saturday Night. Both bear a passing resemblance to Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd respectively. It is more than their physical appearance or ability to sound like Chase and Aykroyd though. Smith shows us Chase's raging ego and thorough belief in his own legend. That makes his scene with Simmons all the more wonderful. 

Here is the old guard facing off the new guard. Chase imagines that he can easily defeat Berle, especially when it comes to women as Berle does not shrink on hitting on a woman whom he is unaware is Chase's girlfriend. Somewhere in all that though, Chase and Berle get into a metaphorical dick measuring contest. It might have become literal, given Uncle Miltie's notorious reputation for having an especially large penis. In quick flashes, we see there is a hint of insecurity from Chase, and a fear that perhaps he will not become the star that Berle was.

O'Brien too excelled as Aykroyd, who was not arrogant like Chase but who was fully aware of his own Berle-like sexual prowess. The mannerisms and manner that O'Brien brought was on form. Even Dafoe's Tebet is aware of Aykroyd's star power, advising Michaels that he likes the "handsome gentile".

Gabriel LaBelle too was strong as Lorne Michaels. He made him close to an innocent, something of a nebbish, working feverishly to keep things floating. Braun in a dual role was almost unrecognizable, able to go from the almost sweet Henson to the whacked-out Kaufman easily. Rhys is similarly almost unrecognizable as George Carlin, who thinks the skits (which Michaels repeatedly tells people to call "sketches") are all idiotic. Dewey's O'Donoghue is more than his match. I ended up openly disliking O'Donoghue in his own smugness, but that is a credit to his performance. 

I was not too impressed with Woods' Belushi, for I felt it leaned too much into the popular image of Belushi as a real-life Bluto from Animal House. The female cast members: Jane Curtin (Kim Matula), Laraine Newman (Emily Fairn) and Gilda Radner (Ella Hunt) got a bit lost in things, though Matula had a good moment with Morris' Morris (no relation). Lamorne Morris was also well-cast and did an excellent job as Garret Morris. Everything from his concerns over the reason for him being there to his racist song during the sound check worked.

Saturday Night might not have needed to exist. I never cared to know how Saturday Night Live came to be, let alone see the chaos and confusion of its debut episode. Still, I found it well-acted and well-written. In terms of directing the actors, nepo baby Jason Reitman did good work. In terms of directing the film itself, again I never felt the tension Saturday Night wanted me to feel. 

I haven't seen Saturday Night Live in years, though I did make a recent exception for this year when Stevie Nicks was the musical guest. I'd do anything for Stevie Nicks. I genuinely had no idea who any of this generation's Not Ready for Primetime Players were save for Kenan Thompson, who seems to have been born on television. Saturday Night is probably not the exact story of being at the start of The Creation, but its many positives outweigh the few negatives. 

Overall, it is a good Saturday Night. 

DECISION: B-

Joker: Folie a Deux. A Review

 

JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX

Maybe it is true that you can't go home again. After scoring a critical and popular triumph with Joker, director Todd Philips and star Joaquin Phoenix reunite with Joker: Folie a Deux. This is not a cash grab from a popular film. This is not the newest part of the saga for the Clown Prince of Crime. This is an absolute abomination, perhaps the worst film of the year. At minimum, Joker: Folie a Deux is a film that delights in hating its audience. 

Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) is awaiting his trial for committing five murders, including that of television host Murray Franklin on live television. Currently at Arkham Asylum, Fleck is seemingly meek and broken. His attorney Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener) will push an insanity defense where Fleck is a split personality. There is Arthur Fleck, troubled man, and then there is his alter ego of "Joker", criminal mastermind. It was Joker, not Arthur, who killed.

While at Arkham, he makes the friendship of Lee (Lady Gaga), who is infatuated with Arthur ever since she saw a television movie about him. She tries to help him escape but they are caught, and he is thrown into solitary. Nevertheless, Lee manages to get to his cell for a one-night stand. She also stands by him after her release from prison, where she is one of Fleck/Joker's eager fans attending the trial of the century.  

At his trial, Fleck finds himself facing off against Assistant District Attorney Harvey Dent (Harry Lawtey), who has a strong case against Fleck. Fleck shocks the court by first firing Stewart and representing himself, then by appearing in full Joker makeup and wardrobe. He earns the ire of the Arkham guards, including his frenemy Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson). The testimonies are devastating to Fleck's case, but he is not worried. He's got Lee Quinzel on his side. He still loses, especially after his closing arguments are that he is guilty. 

He still has fans, however, willing to bust him out with a car bomb. He also still has enemies, who will sexually assault and break him. He does not have Lee, who has abandoned him and faked her whole life story. Will Arthur Fleck find redemption or damnation at the end?

One of the biggest issues with Joker: Folie a Deux from viewers is that the film is a musical. More than one person has told me that they were shocked to find that Joker: Folie a Deux has musical numbers. I am somewhat surprised that people walked into the film unaware that Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga would perform song-and-dance routines. It was not a secret, though judging from audience reaction, it was not emphasized either. 

On that level, Joker: Folie a Deux is an absolute failure. A good music, even one that uses previously written pop standards like That's Life or For Once in My Life, will use them to express character moods or move the plot forward. This film does neither. I could get the argument that For Once in My Life does express Fleck's rediscovered joy through Lee Quinzel (the name Harlequin is never used). 

However, you cannot have it both ways. The musical numbers veer from Fleck's fantasies (such as when he and Lee perform To Love Somebody and Gonna Build a Mountain) to real-life (such as the aforementioned For Once in My Life and If My Friends Could See Me Now during their attempted escape). I could have accepted the use of The Joker when Fleck fantasizes about killing the jurors and judge. However, that is not what Joker: Folie a Deux did.

I am not sure if even the film knew what it wanted to do with the musical numbers. The one takeaway that I got from the musical numbers is one of contempt for the audience. As Phoenix gleefully tap dances while Gaga covers Gonna Build a Mountain, all I could think was that everyone involved in Joker: Folie a Deux are all laughing at the audience. I felt that the people behind the film simply hated the people who liked the first film and wanted to ridicule them. In a certain sense, they treated the audience how Gotham treated Arthur before he lost all grip of reality. 

The split in Joker: Folie a Deux can be best summarized when Gary Puddles (Leigh Gill) returns from the first film to give testimony. Gill is playing this extremely straight, delving back into Puddles' deep emotional trauma of seeing a man murdered in front of him but being spared by his then-friend Arthur because Puddles was the only person to show Fleck any kindness. This shows a strong, dramatic, even emotional situation. 

On one side, there is the drama. On the other, you have Phoenix, careening between a Southern accent even Daniel Craig would say was cartoonish and a Cockney accent going on about how he could not believe the witness' name was "Puddles". Yes, Joker might not take things seriously. However, you have one character taking this extremely seriously, the other not. The split between them reveals how tonally unbalanced Joker: Folie a Deux is. We are watching a film at war with itself, attempting to be clever, perhaps even daring by having musical numbers but also wanting to say something. No one is quite sure what it wanted to say, but it took a long time in saying nothing.

One last part on the musical numbers. I can cut Joker: Folie a Deux some slack as I do not think Arthur Fleck was meant to be a singer. However, why give a non-singer like Joaquin Phoenix so many songs? Moreover, why have Lady Gaga there if all she is going to do is do admittedly good covers?

It is surprising how unorganized Joker: Folie a Deux is. Lady Gaga's character seemed so unnecessary to the overall story. We can't even say that the character was there for name recognition, as again the name "Harlequin" was never used, and she was always called "Lee" versus the more familiar "Harleen". Keener, one of our best actresses, was not only underused in the film, but dismissed once Fleck decided to represent himself. Steve Coogan has one scene as a tabloid interviewer, but again this was unnecessary.

In fact, the first thirty minutes of this two-hour-eighteen-minute film could have been removed altogether. From the opening animated sequence through the first meeting with Lee, it felt as if things were dragging, waiting for the story to begin. You had the repeated appearance of Ricky (Jacob Lofland), a timid young man who seemed to have a romantic yearning for Arthur. He first comes up to Fleck and tells him that the guards told him that Fleck is a good kisser, and since Ricky has never been kissed, he shyly asks for one. It is so random and bizarre, with no rhyme or reason. The same goes for the various songs the film uses, there being no blending of how the musical numbers flow into or out of the film.

The ending, where Arthur Fleck is knifed and dies, is also seemingly random. Fleck's killer, billed as "Young Inmate" (Connor Storie) is seen once, maybe twice, in the background. That they offered to not give him a name shows one of two things. Either the theories that Arthur Fleck is not THE Joker are true, or the film just wanted to give one "shocking" twist that was not. Nothing in Joker: Folie a Deux lands with the shock or horror or pathos they thought audiences would get.

Perhaps grudging respect can be given that the prison shower rape scene Arthur goes through at the hands of the guards is nowhere near graphic. However, it does not have any emotional impact. Joker's fantasies about going on a court-filled murderous spree or the car bomb that lets Arthur escape (and has a blink-and-you-miss it suggestion that this is when Harvey Dent starts shifting into Two-Face) does not either. 

The performances are fine. Gill is a standout in his brief moment as Gary Puddles, about the only one showing what Joker: Folie a Deux could have been if it had abandoned the notion of being a musical. Phoenix is fine, not great but fine. Same for Gaga, who did what she could and had good musical moments. 

Joker: Folie a Deux is a terrible, terrible film. It has nothing of redeeming value. It is a total waste of time and effort. It is pointless. If I am honest with myself, it may be worse than Argylle. 

DECISION: F

The Mummy (1959): A Review

THE MUMMY (1959)

The Hammer horror films are a genre onto themselves. Having tackled past monsters such as Frankenstein and Dracula, we now go to The Mummy. While not as good or scary as it could have been, The Mummy is acceptable if a bit muddled.

Egypt, 1895. An archeological dig has at last discovered the tomb of the Princess Ananka, high priestess to the god Karnak. While Steve Banning (Felix Aylmer) is thrilled, his brother and fellow archeologist Joseph Whemple (Raymond Huntley) advises caution. He especially pushes for his nephew John Banning (Peter Cushing) to leave the dig to have his leg reset. John won't go, so he ends up with permanent leg damage. 

It is still better than what his father got. Going alone into Princess Ananka's tomb, Steve begins reading out loud the Scroll of Life. No one can understand why Steve started screaming and now has gone insane. Now three years later, they are back in England, where John is married to Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux) and Steve is in a mental institution, keeping a firm silence. Suddenly, he begins to speak, warning John about the mummy Steve encountered in the Princess' tomb. 

Has the dead Karnak high priest Kharis (Christopher Lee) come back to life? There is evil at work, with the strange Egyptian Mehemet Bey (George Pastell) doing Karnak's work in England. Bey has sworn vengeance against those desecrators of Ananka's tomb, which means killing the three blasphemers who entered her tomb. Steve and Joseph meet their ends, and John knows he will be the next target of the living dead. Inspector Mulrooney (Eddie Byrne) does not believe Banning's fantastical story, so John must find his own way. Will Isobel's resemblance to Princess Ananka help or hurt John? Will Kharis, former high priest who attempted to restore his love Ananka's life but was punished for it, enact his revenge? It is a battle of wills to see who will emerge alive by the end.

The Mummy has a bit of comedy thanks to a couple of drunk and bumbling delivery drivers who are the first to catch on to the evil works going on about the Egyptian. Apart from that, The Mummy does try to make things serious while still keeping a more fantasy world manner. I say fantasy world due to the sets and costumes, which do not look real. That does not take away from the positives in The Mummy.

Credit to Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as John and Kharis/The Mummy. Cushing took things seriously, and even managed to be authoritative when warning Isobel away from the monster. Lee had to act mostly silently, with only the flashback to give him any chance to act. Despite this, his imposing height and eyes manage to make the Mummy if not menacing at least credible.

I did, however, wonder about the film's structure. For example, there is a flashback to when Steve is in the tomb. We first only heard him start reciting the Scroll of Life and then hear his scream off-camera. Later on, we go back to the beginning, where he keeps reciting the Scroll and we see Kharis rise from his own tomb. I leave aside how Kharis understands English, which is the language Steve is speaking and which Bey too addresses the Mummy in. 

The sets put a damper on things as they look like sets, though to be fair Ananka's tomb is nice. It looks like something from a theme park ride, but it looks nice.

The Mummy, curiously, is decades ahead of the time in how Bey condemns Steve and John for taking Egyptian artifacts out of Egypt. The film also takes a surprising stand against faith. When John confronts Bey, whom he suspects of being behind the killings, he mocks those who worship the minor god Karnak. Bey calls him "intolerant", to which John replies, "Not intolerant. Just practical".

The Mummy does drag and has an artificial manner to it. However, on the whole it is mildly passable entertainment. 

DECISION: C+

The Mummy Retrospective: An Introduction

The Mummy (1932)

The Mummy (1999)

The Mummy (2017)

The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

Megalopolis: A Review (Review #1875)

MEGALOPOLIS

Megalopolis has been the dream project for its director, legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola, for decades. It has been the subject of discussion and fascination before, during and after its production. Now, it is here. Megalopolis is not for everyone. It is grandiose, at times incoherent, even downright bonkers. Yet, I enjoyed almost every crazy moment in it. 

Subtitled "A Fable", Megalopolis revolves around a mythical place called New Rome (an amalgamation of ancient Rome and modern New York). Here, the ruling families battle it out for control, their competition visions for New Rome clashing. On one side is brilliant architect Cesar Catalina (Adam Driver), who envisions an almost literal shining city on a hill called Megalopolis. It will be a fantastic place, built for the ages, where people can work and pursue grand visions of the future.

On the other is his rival, New Rome Mayor Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito). He would want to take the land Catalina wants to build Megalopolis on and build a government-approved casino which will fund basic services and provide for taxpayers. Cicero and Catalina are bitter rivals stemming from when as District Attorney, Cicero prosecuted Catalina for murder, Catalina's wife dying in mysterious circumstances. 

Things grow more tense when Cicero's daughter Julia (Nathalie Emmanuel) shifts her loyalties. She loves and defends her father dearly. She, however, is also intrigued by this Randian-like genius and they eventually begin an affair. More family intrigue builds when Catalina's mistress, finance reporter Wow Platinum (Aubrey Plaza) marries Catalina's rich, powerful and slightly dotty Uncle Hamilton Crassus (Jon Voight). That is not counting the machinations of Hamilton's son and Catalina's cousin Clodio (Shia LaBeouf), who is pretty crazed, pretty jealous and pretty ambitious. He wants power too, but will his populist revolt get him to push both Cicero and Catalina out? What will the future hold for everyone as they battle for Megalopolis?

Truth be told, I think I gave Megalopolis a more coherent plot summary than the film itself did. Therein lies one of Megalopolis' greatest flaws, one aspect that many reviewers and viewers focus on: how unwieldly the overall structure of the film is. You get so many ideas, so many plot points, so many characters, that it soon becomes muddled. What was the point of either Jason Schwartzman or Dustin Hoffman appearing in Megalopolis? The former is writer/director Francis Ford Coppola's nephew, the latter a veteran actor who I figure was doing a friend a favor. Neither of them, however, needed to be there.

I think Coppola had a vision so vast and grand that he got lost in it. There are several ideas flowing through Megalopolis, but eventually it becomes too much to hold the thing together. At times, Megalopolis becomes more involved in the visuals and the style than in whatever plots it is trying to shape. 

I personally could see shades of the Claus and Sunny von Bulow case best known from Reversal of Fortune with Catalina and his late wife. I saw strong elements of I, Claudius with the wildly dysfunctional Crassus-Catalina family (especially after LaBeouf's Clodio appeared in Romanesque drag, shades of John Hurt's Caligula floating about my head). Things seemed to be borderline incoherent, such as Wow's dramatic end with Jon Voight recreating Who Killed Cock Robin while dressed as some kind of Robin Hood. There is even a bit of Thomas Becket and Henry II when Clodio screams out "Will no one rid me of this f-ing cousin?", harkening the attributed "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" that led to the murder in the cathedral. 

Therefore, with all the incoherence in Megalopolis, why then do I recommend it when so many seem to despise it? In retrospect, it is because of Coppola's grand vision. I don't think many films nowadays dare to even try to be so big, so heady, so grandiose. They seem satisfied with being simple, rote, predictable. I do not think any of those words can be used to describe Megalopolis.

Stripped of a lot of its craziness, Megalopolis has many parts that are quite good. The movie has some dazzling cinematography, grand imagery unafraid to go all-in. Some sequences, such as the presentation of the Vestal Virgins, is admittedly crazed to baffling. However, visually, it is a tour de force. Other moments, such as when Catalina goes to see his wife, are also visually splendid. The film also has an excellent score by Osvaldo Colijov, which works well in the craziness of the whole thing. The production and costume design also do excellent work in creating the fantastical alternate world.

I think the performances are also quite good. Adam Driver is a skilled actor, and Megalopolis gives him a chance to be if not the sanest person here, at least a chance to create an extraordinary character. While his "Go back to the club" has become a meme, I think his delivery of the line is correct to the character: this vaguely Ayn Rand-like figure whose vision to create something eternal will not be stopped by the concerns of the present. "Don't let the now destroy the forever," he declares when presenting his vision of Megalopolis to the public. Catalina is a blend of The Fountainhead's Howard Roark, New York builder Robert Moses and creator Buckminster Fuller. Driver delivers an excellent performance.

He is matched by Esposito as his rival. Near the end, he did look a little goofy with his military helmet, making me think of Salvador Allende before Augusto Pinochet's forces iced him in the Chilean coup. Nonetheless, his mix of arrogance and love for Julia worked well. I do not know much of Emmanuel as an actress, and while I thought at times, she was a bit weak, I can put part of that on the character. Voight and LaBeouf were all-in on the cray-cray, Plaza less so. Still, I thought the performances on the whole were good.

I see that, on the whole, Megalopolis' ambitions were undone by its overall execution. With that being said, I stand by view that Megalopolis is out of control and crazed but fascinating. 

DECISION: C+

Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story. A Review

 

SUPER/MAN: THE CHRISTOPHER REEVE STORY

Christopher Reeve was most known for the four films where he played the comic book character Superman. He fought against typecasting with some success. His greatest fight, however, was when he suffered a devasting accident that left him paralyzed. Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story, tells his tale of life pre-and-post accident, revealing a complex figure who found courage to overshadow that of the Man of Steel himself.

Using home movies and interviews both current and archival, Super/Man chronicles Christopher Reeve's life and career. His youngest son Will Reeve states that he has weak memories of his famous father, as he was not yet three when Reeve took to the horse show that brought about his paralysis. Most of Will Reeve's memories come from talking to his older half-siblings Matthew and Alexandra or from the home movies Super/Man shows us. 

In fact, Will Reeve celebrated his third birthday on June 7, 1995, eleven days after Reeve's devastating spinal cord injury. Reeve, devasted emotionally and physically from his paralysis, contemplated suicide. His wife, Dana, told him that while she would support whatever decision he made, "You're still you, and I love you". That was the trigger that kept him going. He was also aided in his emotional recovery by his friend and Julliard classmate Robin Williams, who could always get him laughing.

Seeing the effects of spinal cord injury, the reality of life for the disabled, and his own longstanding commitment to activism, Reeve now found a new purpose. He would channel his energy and work to making life better for the disabled. Dana, the light of his life, eventually got Reeve to have a dual focus: tomorrow's cure and today's care. This especially became important when he got pushback from members of the disabled community. A television commercial that showed him walking outraged certain disabled people, who took the notion that their lives would improve if they had no physical limitations as an insult.

However, despite his activism mixed with directing and acting work (such as his Rear Window remake), Christopher Reeve could not escape the physical damage. On October 10, 2004, Christopher Reeve died, almost ten years after his near-fatal accident. Will Reeve endured a more shocking event when his mother, Dana, died of lung cancer almost two years later despite her being a non-smoker. The now-Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation goes on.

Anyone who might think that Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story is a hagiography on Reeve will be surprised by how it does not paper over the less positive aspects of Reeve's story. I can argue that it does downplay his part in the critical and commercial failure of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (he does have a "Story By" credit and was at least initially keen to use Superman IV to promote an anti-nuclear weapons message). He also got taken to task by sections of the disabled community for his advocacy for a cure. 

There are also actions in his personal life that look dismissive, even cold. His older son Matthew, the first of two with Reeve's longtime partner Gae Exton, recalls that Christopher Reeve went off to a ski holiday in France the day after he was born. This revelation is not sensationalized or treated with anger, but it is not couched in softness. It is presented as fact, which it is. 

Reeve's fraught relationship with his disapproving father Franklin is also brought up, revealing the troubled Reeve family and the fears of marriage that plagued Christopher Reeve for decades. A sad moment is when Christopher is at first surprised and thrilled when his father is enthusiastic about his son playing Superman. That mutual joy is short-lived though when both discover that the information was misunderstood. Franklin, an intellectual and poet, thought Christopher was going to be in a film version of George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman. The role of the Man of Steel, to Franklin's eyes, was not an academic enough role. 

We also learn that Reeve's accident was freakish in more ways than one. If he had fallen a few inches in on direction, it would have been instant death. If he had fallen a few inches in the other, a merely embarrassing fall that he would have walked away from. Other revelations, such as the difficulty and fear he faced when appearing at the Academy Awards or receiving a letter from none other than Katharine Hepburn expressing her shock are surprising. 

Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story is informative about the life and times of this actor. Moreover, it is also moving in this profile in courage. The audience that I saw the film with was visibly and audibly sobbing as we learn from his children, former companion Exton and colleagues about what drove Reeve. There are moments of humor, such as when Reeve's off-Broadway costar Jeff Daniels remembers what he thought when Reeve went off to film Superman. Reeve attempted to downplay the significance of his casting. Daniels was having none of it. "I may have been in Dumb and Dumber but I'm not stupid," he quips when recognizing that Reeve's life was going to permanently change, something Reeve either didn't or didn't want to admit. 

Co-directors Ian Bonhote and Peter Ettedgui crafted a respectful but not reverential portrait of Christopher Reeve, a driven, flawed, even fearful man who nonetheless rose to the challenge placed before him. Hearing from other of Reeve's costars such as Glenn Close and Susan Sarandon, his family and even from Christopher and Dana Reeve themselves lets us in on the complex, even at times contradictory life of the man behind the myth. Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story will move the viewer and give us insight into an actor who played the Man of Steel but who became a greater symbol for truth, justice and the American way. 

DECISION: A-

The Mummy (1932): A Review (Review #1873)

 

THE MUMMY (1932)

The discovery of Pharoah Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922 inspired a wave of "Egyptomania", where anything connected to the Land of the Pharaohs was in vogue. Ten years later, the very first film version of The Mummy was released. Atmospheric and effective with a standout central performance, The Mummy is not scary but well-crafted. 

A British Museum expedition to Egypt in 1921 has uncovered a previously unknown tomb. Archeologist Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) is thrilled with the discovery. Here, Whemple finds the mummified remains of Imhotep, an Egyptian priest who was buried alive. Alive again Imhotep becomes when a young archeology photographer opens a seal casket, reading the ancient Scroll of Thoth. The Mummy now walks free.

Now in 1932, Sir Joseph's son Frank (David Manners) follows in his father's footsteps. He is about to close out this season when a mysterious Egyptian figure calling himself Ardath Bey (Boris Karloff) guides him to another previously unknown tomb. This is the tomb of the Princess Ankh-es-an-Amon, which thrills Frank and is important enough to bring Sir Joseph back to Egypt after the latter swore off the land of Pharaohs after the 1921 expedition. The Whemple family friend, renowned occult expert Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan) is in Egypt too. He is the informal chaperone to Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), the half-Egyptian daughter of the British governor of the Sudan. 

Helen soon falls into unexplained trances, leading her to the Cairo Museum where Ankh-es-an-Amon's treasures are located. She and Frank find themselves soon attracted to each other. She also bears a striking similarity to the Egyptian princess. What power does the mysterious Ardath Bey have? Could the dead really walk among the living? Will Helen find herself the Mummy's bride?

Looking at it now, almost a century after its release, The Mummy is by no means scary. It, however, builds up the mood and atmosphere, giving The Mummy an appropriately spooky sense. Karl Freund, best known as one of the premiere cinematographers of his time, takes on directing responsibilities in The Mummy. 

In terms of the overall look and feel of The Mummy, Freund did wonders. In the opening sequence, we get Imhotep's slow awakening in an effective and chilling manner. The mummy slowly opens his eyes, then moves, again slowly, building up the tension. We do not see the mummy himself, but just the wrapped hand come upon the table. Bramwell Fletcher as the unfortunate expedition photographer Ralph Norton only reacts to what he sees as a terrifying figure. The fact that we do not see the mummy himself, coupled with Fletcher's crazed laughter, gives us the suggestion of something utterly frightening.

It is, as a side note, curious that while the popular image of The Mummy as this heavily wrapped figure shuffling along is engrained in pop culture, we get very little to no actual images in The Mummy to match that image. There is the opening scene of Karloff as Imhotep resurrected. However, we see only a bit of the mummy himself in The Mummy.

In most of The Mummy we get the character of Ardath Bey, this eerie, slightly withered figure. While Boris Karloff will always be best remembered as the Monster in Frankenstein, he does an absolutely excellent job as Bey/The Mummy. He is courtly and calm, frighteningly so, making the viewer feel slightly unnerved. Karloff has great eyes which The Mummy enhances with excellent camerawork, suggesting the sinister evil going on behind them. 

Boris Karloff, billed as "Karloff the Uncanny", gives it his all in The Mummy and delivers an exceptional performance. It is the rest of the cast that lets him down. Zita Johann is pretty as Helen, the lost princess returned. However, I found her rather exaggerated in the film, and a bit stiff. Manners was breezy, charming and also pretty as Frank, the young man who aims to protect his lady love. However, there was not much for him to do in my view.

Van Sloan brings gravitas to Muller, the man forever warning and fighting against the forces of darkness. While Byron did well enough as Sir Joseph, his final scene seemed exaggerated, almost funny.

The acting may have been overall a bit stiff to overwrought from the cast save Karloff. However, I will grant that part of it may be due to this being Karl Freund's first time directing a film versus just photographing one. I think his past experience as a cinematographer gave him a leg up in how The Mummy looks. Freund is the man who shot Metropolis and Dracula, the latter another Universal Film with a malevolent monster attempting to have a woman as his dark queen of the dead. 

The Mummy looks impressive. The sets were well-crafted, blending ancient Egypt with the current setting. The overall look and feel of The Mummy showed great skill in giving the viewer an eerie world. In that, Karl Freund did brilliant work. In terms of the acting, only Boris Karloff came away looking like he knew what he was doing. 

The Mummy is atmospheric, well shot, and with an excellent performance from Boris Karloff. It may not frighten people now, but I think contemporary audiences would have been at least caught up in most of the menace that rose from the Valley of the Kings. The Mummy comes alive and does so quite well.

DECISION: A-

The Mummy Retrospective: An Introduction

The Mummy (1959)

The Mummy (1999)

The Mummy (2017)

The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

The Mummy Retrospective: An Introduction

THE MUMMY RETROSPECTIVE: 

AN INTRODUCTION 

October, the spooky month. The month of things that go bump in the night. With that in mind, I thought it would be nice to do a brief retrospective on a particular monster. I do not know if this will be an annual tradition. It might be, if I can remember to make it so.

Whatever the case, this year I will look at the four versions of our friendly Egyptian monster, The Mummy. First appearing in 1932, he unwrapped himself again in 1959, 1999 and 2017. I will review each version. It is not so much as looking for the best version, though I probably will rank them. Rather, I am curious on how this creature has evolved over the years. 

I did think about covering some of the sequels, but I think that is a bit distracting. It also is hard to find some of the other Mummy films. Add to that, there are technically few Mummy sequels. 1932 and 1959 did not have official sequels. Instead, they had follow-ups and reimaginings. 2017, the first of a hoped-for Dark Universe, failed to create that cinematic universe. Only 1999 had actual sequels: The Mummy Returns and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. 

I might look at those films. I might even overcome my overall loathing of Abbott & Costello and watch Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy. That remains to be seen. 

With that, I hope people will enjoy this brief Mummy Retrospective. 

The Mummy (1932)

The Mummy (1959)

The Mummy (1999)

The Mummy (2017)

The Mummy: The Conclusions