Omniflick Spotlight: Alida Valli in The Third Man

May 31st marks the birthday of Italian great Alida Valli, who passed away ten years ago; a month short of her 85th birthday. Aside from wanting to celebrate a screen legend's birthday, I thought it would be fun to also recognize said actor's greatest role. In Valli's case, the choice was a no-brainer. Though she appeared in Hitchcock's The Paradine Case opposite Gregory Peck and garnered numerous awards in her home country, as well as a Golden Globe nomination for her role in the 1964 film The Paper Man (El Hombre de Papel), widespread fame eluded her. Nevertheless, what would Carol Reed's masterpiece The Third Man be without Valli's haunting beauty and tragic melancholy? Her character; Anna Schmidt, is a study in emotional anguish. The film begins and ends with a funeral; the first being a sham while the second is the genuine article. In both scenes, we see Schmidt bereft; the loss of her lover too much to endure twice.

Most cinephiles know the plot of The Third Man very well. American dime-novelist Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) is invited to join his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in post-war Vienna, only to find he has met his demise in mysterious circumstances. Martins suspicions are aroused, prompting him to conduct an investigation of his own, which runs afoul of British officer Major Calloway, who acts as law enforcement in the British controlled sector of the city. Calloway warns the writer repeatedly to return home. But as he becomes acquainted with Lime's sketchy reputation as a black marketeer, he also encounters his friend's lover, Schmidt; a local actress who sadly pines for her deceased boyfriend. Before long, Martins also succumbs to Schmidt's dark charms. We know how the rest of the story goes.

Vienna in Reed's film is a multicultural, poly-glot. Americans, French, British and Russians share urban space with native Austrians. In this stew is Schmidt, who has not only lost her country, but her lover. She must also contend with Martins' unsolicited attention and Lime's criminal past, which lingers in the Viennese streets like something foul and pestilential.

Schmidt is a fascinating character. Her unwavering loyalty to a confirmed criminal and her refusal to fall for a well-meaning naif like Martins says much about her complicated personality. Valli's lovely, dark features are perfect for a gloomy noir like Reed's. Her face reflects both grief and anger, emotions that perfectly articulate her complex feelings about her lover (and maybe her country's condition). What is it about Lime that draws Schmidt to him? Why would a flower attach itself to a weed? Only Schmidt knows the answers.

Her walk from the cemetery is one of the loneliest in movie history. She is oblivious to Major Calloway and Martins and everything else as she silently strolls the long, bleak path. She leaves us wondering what she might be thinking. Whatever it is, we can be sure it will remain unexpressed. If Valli is remembered for nothing else in her career, at least she left us one of the most fascinating women in film history.

X-Men: Apocalypse

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Bryan Singer/Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Oscar Isaac, Rose Byrne, Olivia Munn, Tye Sheridan, Nicholas Hoult, Evan Peters, Sophie Turner, Kodi-Smit McPhee and Ally Sheedy

Professor X's gang is back for another CGI carnival; X-Men: Apocalypse; director Bryan Singer's latest franchise installment. The cast for this franchise seems to be growing at an exponential rate. This time we have the ferociously talented Oscar Isaac joining the magnificently-talented Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy for a movie that is fairly entertaining but hardly distinguished. The film's propulsion operates on casting and acting power rather than solid storytelling and a riveting plot. For me, any movie starring Jennifer Lawrence, Fassbender, McAvoy and Isaac is reason enough to pay the admission price. The four actors are solid anchors for a comic book movie that resembles not only the series predecessors but The Avengers. I'm starting to confuse the respective franchises.

In the latest story, we see ancient Egypt, or an idealized, comic book version thereof. Under an enormous pyramid, a ritual is in process which will transfer the soul and power from a god-like being known as En Sabah Nur to another, thus ensuring life everlasting. But saboteurs ensure the transference fails, which destroys the pyramid; leaving Nur buried under rubble; dormant for centuries thereafter.

In present day Egypt, CIA operative Moira Mactaggert (Rose Byrne) trails a group of men who unearth an underground passage to En Sabah Nur's burial site. Mactaggert watches in dismay as the all-powerful entity is resurrected.

In another part of the world, we see Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), otherwise known as Magneto, working anonymously in a Polish foundry; his identity concealed from his co-workers. In hiding from the world, Magneto has managed to start a family and maintain a low profile. But when he uses his powers to save a fellow co-worker, the authorities become aware of his true identity. Not long after, Lehnsherr, his wife and child are confronted in the woods by a posse of law enforcement officers with non-metallic bows and arrows. One projectile is accidentally discharged, killing Magneto's daughter and wife. Though powerless to manipulate any weapon lacking metallic properties, a chain with a medallion is used to dispatch all the officers in an efficient, lethal manner.

Meanwhile, in Westchester County, NY; Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) seeks out Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) to alert him to Magneto's whereabouts. Though a mutant, Mystique's reluctance to connected to the organization or to even be referred to as her crime-fighting appellation is acute, which contrasts sharply with Xavier's commitment to helping and guiding all mutants.

While Mystique and Xavier concern themselves with Magneto, Nur wanders Egyptian streets, observing all that has become of the world he once knew. Feeling nothing but contempt for what he sees, he initiates an agenda to cleanse the world. He enlists others with mutant powers: Storm (Ororo Munroe); a waif who sees Nur use his powers to dispatch a group of men who accost him on the city streets; Angel (Ben Hardy); another mutant whose powerful wings serve as offensive and defensive weapons and Psylocke (Olivia Munn), whose weapons of choice are dual lethal swords. Utilizing his god-like powers, Nur augments his follower's abilities; rendering them more dangerous. But the most dangerous recruit is Magneto himself, who sees Nur's plan for global destruction a goal worthy of his own.

Xavier and the X-Men become aware of Nur when he and his newly formed group infiltrate their headquarters for the express purpose of kidnapping Professor X, whose ability to detect and communicate with mutants worldwide becomes highly coveted. When Nur and his team succeed in kidnapping Xaver, Mystique becomes the reluctant leader of a rescue team which consists of Quicksilver (Evan Peters), Beast/Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult; sporting cool-looking blue hair and beard), Jane Grey (Sophie Turner), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), and Nightcrawler (Kodi-Smit McPhee), whose ability to transport himself instantaneously through space becomes highly useful. But their efforts go awry when a mutant-hating Colonel named Stryker captures the team and imprisons them in a cell in a secret facility. This subplot is kind of fun. The group discovers another famous mutant being held in the facility. Nightcrawler and Jane Grey manage to help the group escape, which leads them on a collision course with Nur and his followers, who have already begun the process of transferring Xavier's mighty powers of mind to the Egyptian God. But the group must also stop Magneto, whose augmented powers have been harnessed to destroy cities and bridges worldwide.
The latter half of the film is the inevitable battle between the X-Men and Nur's super-mutant team.

Director Bryan Singer is an old hat with Marvel movies, having directed several through his career. He coaxes a reasonably interesting story from his co-written script and gives the X-Men a formidable foe to test their powers against. Nur is an interesting villain with unbelievable power but somehow he becomes a bit bumbling during the climactic fight. What looked like an unbeatable villain early on proves to be less dangerous later in the film. What little suspense the story held was established early on but it spilled away in the second half.

It's tough blogging about superhero films because the normal critical foci; direction, cinematography, acting, etc., play second fiddle to the almighty visuals. With superhero flicks, it's CGI-uber-alles.

But in spite of the towering visual effects, some humanity manages to sprout. It seems Professor X and Mystique will forever try to convince Magneto that a spark of goodness still exists in him. The indication is that they may have succeeded, which is too bad, considering the X-Men movies are always more fun when Magneto is disgruntled and on a rampage. The series has certainly undergone a youthful makeover; younger actors have now assumed the roles of principal characters.

I think I've come to expect a McDonald's experience with the Marvel movies. One knows a Big Mac's taste will never vary, nor will anything else on a Golden Arches menu. In spite of that fact, we still return; satisfied that some things remain the same, year in, year out. To me, the analogy seems very apt. I get what I expect with superhero movies, so I'm never dissatisfied. But there is hope. Deadpool and Antman offer the genre more humorous possibilities.

Please forgive my afore-expressed editorial but I have little more to say about X-Men: Apocalypse other than it wasn't dull. If you'd rather not cough up a dozen dollars to reach the same conclusion, then might I suggest you see...uh...Captain America: Civil War?

Holy Hell

Director: Will Allen

Knowing very little about director Will Allen's documentary Holy Hell, I was only aware the film dealt with a spiritual group known as Buddha Field; who, in the mid-80s' formed a utopian community in California with the sole purpose of achieving enlightenment, spiritual fulfillment and happiness. But a half-hour into Allen's film, one is queasily aware of where the story will lead, which it does. We are very fortunate to have Allen's first-hand account of his time in the group, which is supplemented by his indispensable footage; made possible by his status as Buddha Field's filmographer-designate. Allen's footage; which is wed to moving, sometimes alarming first-hand recollections from former members, forms the narrative structure of his film. Allen is able to remain objective throughout in spite of unique perspective.

Watching the film, one may feel dumbstruck and bewildered, wondering how something seemingly so benign and positive could become something toxic and potentially dangerous. Allen's film is a spellbinding yet disturbing cautionary tale about the perils of being a disciple in what eventually becomes a cult.

Allen prefaces the true story with his biographical background; a relatively unremarkable childhood with his parents and two female siblings. He mentions his coming out during his teen years and how he became dissatisfied with his life while recognizing the pervasive unhappiness he saw around him. A passion for film-making arises; a voice-over factoid accompanied by shots of homemade films.

Shortly thereafter, we learn how the Buddha Field came to be and how the leader of the group; a mysterious man named Michel became the group's guru and spiritual leader. The sizeable membership (as we see in footage) consisted of young, attractive men and women; all seeking life direction, spiritual guidance or a sense of belonging. In Allen's footage, we see the group interacting, giddy with positive vibes and drunk on the energy generated by Michel. Past members talk about life in the commune; receiving spiritual edification from Michel as the group becomes a mutually-supportive, loving family.

We also learn about Michel's prescribed physical standards for the group; his intolerance for any body type that didn't fit into his lofty notions of attractiveness. In the footage of Michel walking among his followers, we see evidence of this. The leader's tanned, defined muscular torso and his sun-browned legs appear as a model physique for others to emulate.

Former members discuss Michel's proscriptions against watching T.V., movies and listening to music. Abstinence from sex is also an unwritten rule. In spite of the prohibition against sex, carnal activity persists among the members but kept "on the down low."

We see footage of Buddha Field rituals, such as one where Michel presses his thumb into the forehead of his followers, bringing them to a kind of orgasmic, spiritual ecstasy. The members become excited when Michel announces he is to select those who will receive what he calls the Knowing; a special communion with God made possible by the leader's intercession. While the select experience emotional elation, a member who is selected against tearfully recalls not being chosen; cogent evidence of Michel's capriciousness.

As viewers, we begin to wonder when the cheese will slip off the cracker and the story to take a darker turn. Sure enough, Michel relocates his community and Buddha Fields to Austin, Texas, after the situation becomes too iffy for the guru in California. In Austin the group builds a compound.

In the film, we learn how Allen's life in Buddha Fields affected his family. His relationship with his parents becomes strained as he begins to distrust them. His sisters, who were also in the group, also turn against their parents. Meanwhile, Allen's mother bemoans her children's estrangement.

In the latter half of the film; the Austin chapter, we begin to see things unravel as Buddha Fields becomes less about the community and more about Michel, whose egomania and outsize demands of his followers begin to wear on the group. Satisfying his passion for ballet, Michel has a member buy property for the sole purpose of building a theater for the group to perform plays, or more specifically, for him to star in productions. When construction is delayed, a furious Michel expresses his impatience. Other diva-like behavior includes Michel's rubdowns and massages; administered by his assistant, which must be made available twenty-four hours a day. Another member relates an incident about buying a dog, which infuriates Michel, who demands the dog be given away. The member is subsequently scolded for not asking Michel's permission.

Eventually, the disconcerting, creepy side of Michel emerges. His past as a failed actor and his short career as a gay porn star come to light. Male group members, including Michel's heterosexual assistant, begin to resist their leader's sexual coercion, but find themselves being manipulated into having sex anyway. Michel's vindictiveness becomes apparent when he discusses plans to ruin a former member financially.

As members begin to fall away and leave the life behind, their tearful feelings about being betrayed become quite poignant. One woman talks about how she left the group with $48.00 to her name. Their illusions about Michel and Buddha Field dashed, many speak of the wrenching experience of departure.

In an epilogue, we see Allen track down Michel years later in Hawaii only to find a whole new group of followers. An encounter with Michel on a Hawaiian beach serves as the film's coda.

The unasked question the film poses is: how can so many people have been so blind and complicit in Michel's chicanery? Other questions might be: how can grown men be forced to have sex, repeatedly; against their will? How could a woman willingly have an abortion at Michel's insistence? As pointed out in the film, the infamous Waco disaster unfolded a hundred miles north of the Buddha Field compound. How do people like David Koresh and Michel accrue so many followers who are willing to sacrifice their own happiness for the well-being of unstable, manipulative megalomaniacs?

A happy ending for many of the ex-Buddha Fielders seems to have been achieved, though we learn some remain with Michel to this day. For the audience, who may find themselves nauseated by this story, feelings of satisfaction and closure may elude them. Though the film doesn't end (thank goodness) in tragedy the way the Waco, Jonestown and Heaven's Gate's incidents did, we're still left with many nagging questions. In Holy Hell, we find many seemingly intelligent people can come under the sway of the most unscrupulous con-men; as if they were sleepwalkers.

Not only is Allen's film soberingly fascinating, it should serve as highly effective, preventative medication; a way to warn the emotionally vulnerable away from holy men who have no qualms about controlling others and psychically enslaving their brethren and sistren.

Paths of the Soul

Director: Yang Zhang

Though the world's faiths are separated by deities, one common trait they may all share are forms of asceticism, albeit to varying degrees. In Chinese director Yang Zhang's ethereally beautiful Paths of the Soul, we experience the grueling, self-imposed hardships of Tibetan Buddhists as they make their way from their village to Lhasa; the country's spiritual and governmental capitol. At times the film seems to straddle narrative and documentary storytelling forms but it would naive to assume all non-fiction films are objective and free of directorial manipulation. But for Zhang's film, this hardly matters because the story's power is conspicuous; fact or fiction.

Early in the film, we see the Tibetan villagers going about lives in their mostly technologically-free community. Though modern conveniences are few, the villagers survive as they probably have for centuries. And unlike what we might see in the western world, a strong communal spirit exists in the village. Neighbors call on neighbors for help, while also extending social invitations, like visits for tea. But we also see the devout spirituality of the villagers and familial prayer gatherings. We hear talk of pilgrimages and shortly thereafter, we see the logistical preparations for one to Lhasa. Supplies and religious accoutrements are gathered and crafted for the pilgrimage; woodblocks for the hands are cut and apron-like garments are fashioned from animal skins. Their functions become abundantly clear during the pilgrimage. Finally, we hear talk about "seeing the Lama."

Though the pilgrims are given no ceremonial send-off, other villagers inquire about their trip as the group makes their departure.

Save for an older Tibetan manning the vehicle that pulls their support cart, the other pilgrims practice kowtowing, which consists of first prostrating oneself with hands stretched in front of one's head (this is where the hand-blocks and aprons show their protective qualities) before rising, clapping the blocks together twice, taking several steps then repeating the process. What is particularly amazing is the distance they hope to cover, which, in this group's case, is 1200km (roughly 745 miles)! Even more amazing are the conditions in which the continual prostrating and rising is done. The high altitude, mountainous surroundings are often cold, rainy and snowy, while in narrow passages through the mountains, rocky landslides threaten their safety. Personal regard for comfort is minimal while the pilgrims remain undaunted by the distance they traverse. It is astonishing that nary a complaint is heard from anyone, not even from a young girl.

As part of the group's daily ritual, the kowtowing ceases at days-end for overnight rest in their camp they themselves make.

Zhang's film allows us to not only marvel at the group's devotion and superhuman stoicism in the face of deprivation but to gaze in wonder at the spectacular beauty of the mountain vistas the pilgrims (and we) see along the way. This is made possible by visual, panoramic still shots, which capture the treeless expanse and the breathtaking, snowy heights. Watching the pilgrims from extreme distances, the group appears as tiny specks amid the towering immensities. From such a magnificent perspective, we can understand why a faith that stresses self-abnegation and ego effacement would flower in a place like Tibet.

Along the way, significant moments interrupt the monotony. An expectant mother goes into labor, which necessitates a visit to the hospital. The infant becomes a pilgrim of sorts, riding along in the support cart. A perilous pass through avalanche-ridden hillsides wounds one Tibetan, making it necessary for the procession to temporarily halt its slow, forward progression. In another scene, the tractor hauling their gear is accidentally run off the highway, making it necessary for the group to pull the cart themselves. This they also perform without complaint and without sacrificing kowtowing movements. Pulling the cart ahead, the villagers stop, turn back and kowtow the distance wasted by the cart.

The group finally arrives in Lhasa, hoping to find an audience with a Lama, which they eventually secure. But their prolonged stay makes it necessary for them to find work, which they manage to accomplish performing odd jobs.
A scene where one young, male pilgrim seeks out a hairdresser for a haircut leads to flirtation. We see the courting impulse cannot be stayed by a spiritual quest.

It is in Lhasa that we learn the group leader's motives for undertaking the pilgrimage. An accident that claimed the lives of two people made it necessary to compensate the victim's families but the pilgrimage serves as means to atone for his actions.

In Lhasa, it becomes reasonable to think the journey might be at an end but the group continues on, hoping to reach the foot of a sacred mountain. En route, the group experiences a tragic loss; which forms a natural cycle of birth and death within the pilgrimage.

Zhang's film is quite powerful and staggeringly beautiful. Though the pilgrim's quest fulfills an abstract, spiritual need, the film captures its more earthy aspects. The soul may be intangible but its frail vessel, the human body, must bear the physical rigors the pilgrimage demands. A scene where the group must decide whether to prostrate through what appears to be cold, mountain runoff is met with equanimity and humor. The film can thus be said to be a confluence of the physical and spiritual.

By the film's conclusion, one may feel transported, through physical and metaphysical space; allowing one a rudimentary grasp of the Tibetan's sacrifice. The path to wisdom, enlightenment and purification is an arduous one, which the pilgrim's journey makes very clear. Zhang's expert camera work and unbelievable cinematography, as well as his wonderful storytelling, make Paths of the Soul a profound, cinematic experience.

The Nice Guys

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Shane Black/Starring: Ryan Gosling, Russell Crowe, Angourie Rice, Matt Bomer, Kim Basinger, Keith David and Margaret Qualley

I really liked the idea of a buddy comedy starring Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling. Neither actor is known for comedic roles and the unlikely pairing is enough to intrigue even the most casual movie-goer. Unfortunately for director Shane Black's The Nice Guys, the concept alone isn't enough to overcome the film's deficiencies. How can a comic send-up of a noir set in the mid to late 1970s' possibly go wrong when the period and setting offer so much potential for satire and farce? Well, this is Hollywood; where any number of issues dealing with conception and execution can derail a film. For Black's flick, a dearth of gags is hardly the problem. What is the problem are the lack of quality gags and funny scenes, which fail to transmute grins to guffaws. As is so often the case with a comedy so heavily promoted as Black's film, the funniest stuff is in the trailer and if what you see in the preview doesn't elicit a giggle, then you're out of luck.

Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling play detectives Jackson Healy and Holland March, respectively; who are brought together by chance when each find themselves embroiled in the same case involving a porn star who commits suicide. A person of interest in the star's death is a young woman named Amelia Kuttner, whose connection to the death is later made clear.

The meeting between detectives is hardly auspicious as Healy roughs up March after mistaking him for a cad chasing young girls. The bumbling March is an amusing contrast to Healy; a no-nonsense, violent man who gets quick results. Because Healy isn't technically a detective, he hires March to help him find Amelia. Their search leads them all over disco-era L.A. Along for the ride is March's young daughter Holly (Angourie Rice), who becomes a third member of the sleuthing team after she ignores her father's repeated commands to stay home.

Healy and March run afoul of some thugs hired to find Amelia, who represent an organized crime syndicate in Detroit. The baddies try to kill the detectives at a party where the two are chasing down a lead.

The early scenes show some comic promise as Holly proves to be the most level-headed member of the trio. Not a lot of snappy repartee passes between the three but their chemistry at least makes them worthwhile company.

In time, Healy and March meet with the head of the Justice Department, Judith Kuttner (Kim Basinger), who has more than a passing interest in finding her daughter. She hires the two detectives to find Amelia.
Amelia's activities with a protest group who demonstrate against L.A.'s smog problem and the pollution generated by the Big Three auto makers in Detroit comes to light. The detectives discover Amelia is behind the making of a porn/protest film intended to be shown at an industry car show as a way of shaming the auto makers.

As Healy, March and Holly dodge hitmen and follow leads, they eventually discover Judith Kuttner is actually in cahoots with the auto makers and is intent on stopping her daughter. When the protest film is shown at the car show, Kuttner's thugs attempt to steal it, which results in a showdown with Holly and March.

The plot isn't exactly Chinatown though we shouldn't expect or want it to be but the story takes a detour from comedy to semi-seriousness, which places a kink in the fun.

Gosling shows a surprising flare for comedy though he could do better with better material. Crowe is mostly the straight man but he too shows some comedic ability. A scene where the two dispose of a body by throwing it over a wall, where it lands on a party below is amusing though we saw it coming in the trailer. Most scenes are all set-up with no comic pay-off. Gosling is at times over-the-top, particularly a scene where he whimpers uncontrollably.

As the film progressed, the silence in the theater became overpowering. What might have been a fairly funny noir parody became one more forgettable afternoon at the multiplex.

For all heavy promotion the film received and the commercial tie-ins (never trust a movie with tie-ins), the movie just came across as a factory product. Too bad; both Gosling and Crowe were game for some something different. The eternal question: will this become a franchise? The eternal answer; wait and see.

The Darkness

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Greg McLean/Starring: Kevin Bacon, Radha Mitchell, Paul Reiser, David Mazouz, Lucy Fry and Ming-Na Wen

The horror film The Darkness, which dramatizes a family's ordeal with angry, Anasazi Indian spirits, is so utterly weak, timid and innocuous, one might find it suitable programming for a cruise line catering to retirees seeking a pleasant, languid vacation. What is particularly disappointing about the film is that it isn't out and out bad. Had it been that, I might have at least been treated to some laughs. But no, this film features Kevin Bacon and Radha Mitchell; two actors capable of interesting performances if given half-way decent material (but rarely are they provided such). The film doesn't lack production value, just a compass to steer it away from the well-trod paths conventional horror films tend to walk. Even bad horror films can sometimes spook an audience but director Greg McLean's mediocre effort will only stimulate chronic fatigue.

How the Taylor family comes to be tormented by said specters is fairly mundane. During a family vacation taken with friends in the Arizona desert, the Taylor's young, autistic son Michael (David Mazouz) is left on his own by his older sister Stephanie (Lucy Fry). Shortly before, an attempt by the Taylor's friend's son to scare Michael with stories of evil spirits from Anasazi lore failed to have the desired effect on the autistic boy.

While on his own, Michael falls through a shaft in the canyon floor and lands inside a sacred Anasazi chamber. Seeing four inscribed stones resting on a mound of dirt, Michael takes them then finds his way back to his family.

Back home in their suburban, L.A. home, the Taylors contend with family issues. Peter (Kevin Bacon) and Bronny (Radha Mitchell) show signs of marital discord while their daughter Stephanie (Lucy Fry) is discovered to have bulimic issues. While Bronny turns to alcohol to cope with her philandering husband, Peter is introduced to an attractive associate at work who has just joined his architectural firm (Before it became apparent, I anticipated his architectural occupation. It seems like a typical go-to job for male, suburban professionals in the movies). A flirtation begins immediately, which seems to be encouraged by Peter's boss (Paul Reiser).

While the Taylors' confront their domestic problems, Michael begins to act oddly. Peculiar behavior, such as angry outbursts with his father, conversations with an imaginary person and gazing silently at his bedroom wall, leave his family unnerved. Before long, shadowy apparitions begin to skulk about the house and mysterious black hand prints cover Stephanie's bed. At one point, Michael actually drools black liquid.

Stephanie dreams about a wolf invading the house (we don't know it's a dream at first--the dustiest trick in the horror genre catalogue) and begins to realize the black hand prints (why black hand prints?) are not Michael's doing. Carrying the stones around in his backpack, Michael visits his grandmother, who is spooked by the appearance of a rattle snake on her kitchen counter. As the weird happenings become more frequent, the crisis culminates with a fire in Michael's bedroom and blood-red drawings on the bathroom wall.

Having had enough, Bronny seeks the services of a woman who deals with all issues related to hauntings (there's always that person in horror films who deals with paranormal pests).

With the help of spiritualists and some internet sleuthing by Bronny, the Taylors discover Michael has inadvertently invited Anasazi spirits into their home. We also learn how the spirits came to be trapped inside the stones in Michael's possession and why autistic people are the perfect conduits for malevolent entities seeking ingress into our world. The spiritualists warn the family that the spirits will attempt to abduct Michael once they've wreaked havoc on the household.

The strange animals the Taylors encounter in their home--a raven and coyote--are revealed to be spiritual vessels. Believe it or not, no one; not once, ever makes a connection between the rattle snake at grammy's house and the strange animal appearances in the Taylor residence. I guess dangerous, slithering reptiles don't raise many eyebrows in suburban Los Angeles.

When a spectral portal appears on the wall in Michael's room, Peter passes through it in an attempt to save his son, who are hellbent on carrying him away to wherever evil Anasazi spirits hang out. Peter makes a sacrifice for his son until Michael realizes returning the stones to the chamber is the key to stopping the spirits and ending the ordeal.
Is there a happy ending?

What do you think?

McLean, who co-wrote the screenplay, does a feeble job drawing a parallel between the family's issues and the appearance of the spirits, who are supposed to serve as some kind of metaphor for the domestic strife. The family's problems, which seem to get fixed with little effort, are dispensed with efficiently and economically. Treating Stephanie's bulimia means a visit to the therapist. An affair of Peter's is the subject of an emotional confrontation between husband and wife, which neatly covers a few minutes of screen time. We might assume the Anasazi spirits moonlight as family therapists because all seems blissful in the Taylor household after they depart.

Were the spirits ever really a menace, save for making messy hand-prints and prompting Michael to scorch part of his bedroom wall? Their presence is more of a nuisance than a terrifying incursion into the Taylor's bland suburban home. The Anasazi fiends were very fortunate they weren't arrested for vandalism. Those spirit-world hooligans; they should be sentenced to community service!

McLean's bag of scares are limited to loud, jarring sounds and dark apparitions passing unnoticed behind the character's backs. He doesn't reach for visceral dread but hopes the mere appearance of the dark Anasazi apparitions will be frightening enough. Unfortunately they're not.

The final, life-affirming shots of the Taylors (I guess I'm giving the ending away--I'm usually careful about that) remind us the story is mainly about the family becoming a cohesive unit. I guess we're supposed to think the existential threat from beyond helped bring them together...or something like that.

The Darkness is pretty limp horror but hey, at least Radha Mitchell was eye candy for an hour and a half (at least for me). If curiosity gets the best of you, fear not; the movie will turn up on some streaming service shortly, I'm sure.

So there you have it folks. Remember to stay clear of those Anasazi caves; lest you release malign spirits who practice diabolical acts of wall defacement.

A Bigger Splash

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Luca Guadagnino/Starring: Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Matthias Schoenaerts, Dakota Johnson and Aurore Clement

I usually detest remakes; finding them an unnecessary and inadequate copy of the original but Italian director Luca Guadagnino's A Bigger Splash, which re-imagines Jacques Deray's 1969 La Piscine, establishes its own dramatic identity. Guadagnino transports the original story from the French Mediterranean to a Sicilian retreat, where psycho-sexual tensions motivate the characters actions. Guadagnino's film is a sensual delight. Hedonistic diversions serve as opportunities to not only unshackle the sexual potential of a friendly sojourn, but also crash a couple's almost inviolable marriage.

The premise is something we've seen a billion times before; a small group of people gather together in a scenic retreat presumably to relax and enjoy one another's company. What follows thereafter is also something we've seen many times before; characters dealing with barely suppressed acrimony, sexual tension and past resentments, which eventually erupt. In this case, the end result is extreme and tragic. Though the plot is hardly new, Guadanino's cast makes the story's psychological richness compelling.

Tilda Swinton plays Marianne Lane; a rock star of considerable renown, who, with her documentary filmmaker boyfriend Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts) decide to rent a place in Sicily for a getaway that serves in a large part as a convalescent retreat. Marianne has just had throat surgery, which has rendered her literally speechless--or nearly so. While Marianne recovers from her surgery, Paul recovers from alcoholism. From what we see of their physical relationship, we can safely assume Paul and Marianne are very much in love.

But their blissful state is interrupted by the arrival of Marianne's old flame and Paul's former friend and collaborator; Harry Hawkes (an exuberant Ralph Fiennes) and a beautiful, young woman he introduces as his daughter; Penelope Lannier (Dakota Johnson). From Marianne and Paul's reactions to his presence, we can safely gather they aren't entirely happy to see their manic friend, for reasons partly obvious.

As the parties spend time under one roof, respective back stories come to the fore in flashbacks as we see Marianne and Harry from long ago when their passionate relationship burned stellar hot. We also see Harry and Paul in the past during the making of a music documentary. After Harry asks Paul if he would like to meet Marianne, the documentarian eagerly assents. Harry's act of generosity comes back to haunt him after Paul and Marianne's relationship becomes viable. Interestingly enough, we never see Paul and Marianne interact in a flashback.

Though Marianne seems firmly committed to Paul, Harry slowly makes attempts to seduce her and woo her back. Meanwhile, Penelope begins her own slow seduction of Paul, who resists her in spite of her powerful sex appeal.

The sensual charms of the Sicilian milieu are irresistible not only to the characters but may be to the audience as well. Guadagnino spares none of our senses. The group's naked or half-naked bodies delight the eyes while the island's culinary pleasures tempt our palates. A delectable sight of a large fish cooked and coated in a thick layer of breading is but one of the film's gustatory visuals. A scene where Harry shares a memory from his professional life as a music producer on the Rolling Stones' album Emotional Rescue serves as prelude to his actually playing the song of the same name for the gathering, who fall under the music's enchanting spell. No one is more carried away by the music than Harry, who ends up outside, rapturously overcome by the music.

The contrasts in personality between Harry and Paul are very conspicuous. Where Harry always seems annoyingly "on" and always game for a good time, Paul is more reserved and introspective. As the film moves along and Harry's play for Marianne becomes more aggressive, one might wonder which man is better suited to be her companion. Everything in Harry's nature seems related to his passion for music, which makes he and Marianne the rock star, the more logical pairing.

As the four loll about the pool and wander about the arid surroundings, the tension begins to build. Harry presses Marianne for sex, hoping to rekindle their former relationship while Penelope never tires of assailing Paul's nearly impenetrable wall.

During a village festival, Harry commandeers a karaoke machine in a town bar. Harry's spirited performance begins to draw a large crowd. During one song, he waves Penelope over. She joins him in a sexy, highly inappropriate dance that raises a few eyebrows in the village.

As Harry and Penelope's vacation nears an end, all the pent-up tension detonates, resulting in a tragedy that seems almost inevitable.

The story's conclusion leaves the audience with several questions. When Paul and Penelope wander off on a day-long walk, does he finally give into temptation as she stands beside a rocky pool, naked and inviting? Is the father/daughter relationship between Harry and Penelope really a sham? Are they in fact, lovers? Their relationship is called into question when Marianne and Paul discover Penelope is actually 17 though she has claimed all along to be 22. And Penelope's cold demeanor toward Marianne is that of a jealous rival rather than a daughter.

A film like A Bigger Splash relies heavily on its cast to handle its rich psychology, which is not a problem for someone like Tilda Swinton, who excels in roles like Marianne. Schoenaerts' broody performance is a perfect counterpoint to Fienne's Harry, whose emotions and simmering sexuality are never concealed. Harry's sexual power is a bomb blast that spreads in all directions. We even see its subtle, barely perceptible effect on Paul. Fienne's performance is almost over-the-top but he grounds his character enough to make him credible. He certainly makes everyone else look as though they are grossly underplaying their parts. I don't know that Johnson's character is drawn as well as her co-stars but she handles her role well enough.

One would think Guadagnino might indulge himself in visual sweeps of his Sicilian home but he never goes for breathtaking pans or arresting long shots of the island's topographical beauty. Though the surroundings are very much in evidence, he never lets the film become a mere travelogue.
Guadagnino leaves us with unsolved mysteries that he wisely avoids addressing. We come away from the film, having had an intoxicating, sensual experience. Behind the epicurean delights and Mediterranean sunshine is an engaging but ultimately tragic story.

Money Monster

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jodie Foster/Starring: George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jack O'Connell, Dominic West, Giancarlo Esposito, Caitriona Balfe and Emily Meade

Jodie Foster's Money Monster is one of those films that courts audience outrage; condemning greed and graft while depicting its hero as a victim (mostly innocent) of the rapacious forces that often prey on the poor. The film relies heavily on the stock characterization of the evil CEO to supply its villain. This isn't The Big Short; Adam McKay's excellent film about the housing market collapse from last year, which showed us the origins of the economic tailspin caused by shameless greed. Foster's film would like to think of itself as an intense, searing drama about a common man who loses all his money to a stock investment in a high profile corporation but what unfolds onscreen is nothing of the sort. The story we see is often nonsensical and preposterous. I wish I could say the film made me shake my fist in rage but more often than not, it was used to prop up my head so it wouldn't fall on to my chest.

The plot seems like something that could happen in the real world but never does. Investment TV personality Lee Gates (George Clooney) and his director director Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts) prepare for an installment of Money Monster. Gates' show is flashy at times; incorporating dancers and outlandish costumes into segments to mingle dazzle and showmanship with sage investment advice. Meanwhile, a youngish man sneaks into the building where the show is broadcast.

When the young man enters the studio, Fenn and her staff mistakenly believe him to be a delivery boy until he walks onto the set. Gates himself is unsure of his purpose until the man pulls out a gun and discharges it. Though Fenn's first impulse is to cut the cameras, Gates urges her to keep them running. After a few moments, the man; Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell, encumbering himself with the heaviest New York accent I've ever heard) forces Gates to open one of two boxes he brought to the studio. In one box is a vest with explosives, which Kyle forces Gates to wear. Kyle warns everyone that the detonator in his hand is activated by the release of his thumb, which ensures his protection against anyone who dares to approach him or shoot from afar.

As Kyle holds Gates hostage, the drama plays out on television and is broadcast wide. As Kyle explains, the money he inherited from his mother--$60,000--was lost after the company Gates pushed as a sound investment; IBIS, found its stock plummeting following a computer glitch. After Kyle refuses compensatory money offered him by Gates, a plan is hatched to have IBIS Public Relations Director, Diane Lester (the stunning Irish actress Caitriona Balfe) explain the "glitch" on-air when the company CEO Walt Camby (Dominic West) can't be found.

When Lester appears onscreen to offer an explanation, Kyle finds her empty Public Relations-speak tiresome, which prompts him to shoot the TV projecting her image.

As the situation grows more intense, the police concoct a plan to have SWAT snipers infiltrate the building and the studio. Meanwhile, Fenn manages to have most of her staff leave the building while she, Gates and a cameraman stay behind.

Shots of people watching the incident unfold from various bars, public places and even Times Square (wouldn't most people be watching on their cell phones? I guess that isn't as cinematic or dramatic as a pub full of patrons glued to a TV) give the audience the sense that the crisis has become a lurid spectacle with a far-reach.

In an attempt to subdue the situation, police Captain Powell (Giancarlo Esposito; doing time as a character that was probably described on page as: Police Captain, blue suit) contacts Kyle's pregnant girlfriend Molly (Emily Meade), who is unaware of the mess her boyfriend is in. But after Kyle and Molly make visual contact, she seizes the opportunity to dress him down before the televised audience; going out of her way to attack his manhood before mocking his attempts to invest. That a pregnant girlfriend would choose that moment to embarrass the father of her child and detail his failings before an audience of ten million seems unlikely but I guess we do live in a confessional culture. Humiliated and dejected, Kyle hangs his head in the studio as SWAT members move into place, hoping to disable the bomb by shooting the receiver in Gates' pocket, which means actually shooting the TV host himself.

The film edges nearer a climactic showdown as Gates is suddenly transformed from goat to hero-seeking-redemption when he deliberately thwarts the SWAT operation by avoiding the bullet. Shortly thereafter, he and Kyle leave the studio and enter the street, where they hope to face Camby in a prearranged meeting.

Earlier, we learn the glitch wasn't an electronic error but a human one, caused by Camby's underhanded stock manipulation involving a mine in South Africa.

In facing Camby, Kyle hopes to force the CEO admit he was wrong. The meeting is pure Hollywood screenwriting hackery, as Kyle is nearly martyred, Gates redeems himself and Camby's nefarious shenanigans become broadcast for the world to see and hear.

In the real world, a CEO like Camby would never admit to a poor slob like Kyle his wrongdoing and he certainly wouldn't have to fear the law. As we saw in The Big Short, people get rich from catastrophic losses and not only do they get away scot-free, they prosper. Foster's film is naive enough to believe the Cambys' of the world get their comeuppance. Jodie, where have you been the last ten years?

The movie reduces its characters to tiresome cliches: the angry everyman victimized by a robber baron, the man who recognizes the hero's virtue and his own culpability, thereby ensuring his redemption and the robber baron himself, who is ultimately brought low, because damnit, the unscrupulous rich just can't get away with their crimes. This is old fashioned hogwash and wishful thinking...at least in this day and age.

Much of Foster's film is just a newspaper headline heated to scorching temperatures and stretched into a narrative. The performances are adequate (Roberts herself is Queen of Adequacy) but nothing more. The film can't even be troubled to properly allow its martyr to achieve proper martyrdom.

Money Monster isn't the worst film of the season. In fact, it isn't a terrible film at all. It's a lot like Jack O'Connell's New Yorky accent; overdone, unconvincing, and just plain silly.

The Man Who Knew Infinity

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Matt Brown/Starring: Dev Patel, Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones, Devika Bhise, Jeremy Northam and Stephen Fry

The famous Indian mathematician; Srinivasa Ramanujan, whose contributions to his field are comparable to the greatest mathematical minds, is a man who truly deserves a biographical film. But director Matt Brown's The Man Who Knew Infinity; based on the book The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanjan, calls out for a documentary format rather than a narrative to tell his incredible story.

The problems with films about geniuses, whether they be scientists, artists or writers, deal with the issue of communicating accomplishments to a movie audience who may not grasp the implications of said genius's intellectual or creative works. I for one am no mathematician and haven't even a rudimentary knowledge of what the personalities in Brown's film are on about. This in itself isn't necessarily a problem; we can thank the filmmakers for not condescending to audience or dumbing down the material to the point of oversimplification. But for a narrative film about one of mankind's mathematical giants, a little elucidation wouldn't hurt. This is where a few talking heads in a biographical documentary might help a lay person (like myself) understand the mathematician's work. I don't need much, nor does an intelligent audience who find Ramanujan's work intriguing. Unless the filmmaker can effectively articulate genius without the reliable method of having characters stand around, offering explication, like Salieri in Amadeus, our conception of said genius is incomplete. In Brown's film, we know Ramanujan is someone special because a gaggle of academics frequently tell us his work is amazing. We grasp the significance of his work but the details of his ideas remain frustratingly beyond our reach (unless one is a mathematician).

In the film, we meet Ramanujan (Dev Patel); a poor laborer struggling to earn a living in the second decade of early twentieth century Madras, India. Ramanujan's passion for mathematics is readily apparent as we see him draw equations in chalk on the stony floor of a Hindu temple. He carries around a tattered book of his work, which he shows to his employer at his accounting job where he serves as a clerk. Always eager to submit his work to someone who might understand its importance, he presents his journal to his boss; Sir Francis Spring (Stephan Fry); who is initially skeptical of Rmanujan's work until he too recognizes the young man's exceptional talent. Spring helps Ramanujan along by submitting his work to the famed mathematician G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) at Trinity College at Cambridge University.

Hardy and colleague J.E. Littlewood (Toby Jones) are taken with Ramanujan's work but the lack of proofs in his equations prove to be a red flag. Troubling them also is Ramanujan's lack of formal education and academic credentials. But recognizing the singular brilliance of his work, they invite him to Cambridge. The extraordinary opportunity isn't lost on Ramanujan. But leaving India for Great Britain poses problems for him at home. Pursuing his passion means leaving his wife and mother, whose rivalrous claims for his affection do him little good.

But Ramanujan finds other problems awaiting him at Cambridge, where a bigoted student body and faculty await him. He also finds Hardy to be emotionally distant though Littlewood proves to be more welcoming and helpful.

The scenes at Cambridge show us a battle of wills, methods and faith as Hardy takes exception to the lack of proofs in Ramanujan's work. An intuitive mathematician, Ramanujan grows impatient with Hardy's frequent demands to back his work, which becomes an ongoing bone of contention. While Hardy expects Ramanujan to attend classes, the Indian prodigy demands his work be published.

But other issues involving school-life prove to be difficult for him to surmount. Bigoted behavior by students and a professor who becomes incensed when Ramanujan excitedly but ill-advisedly takes to the blackboard during class to solve a math problem, only to incur his instructor's wrath after class. Being separated from his wife and living alone on campus contribute to his adversity, as does the outbreak of WWI, which turns Cambridge into a hospital for injured soldiers.

As he continues to submit work to Hardy and Littlewood, Ramanujan finds his intuition has limits, for errors are found in his work involving prime numbers.

Hardy finds some of his colleagues are less than pleased with his treatment of Ramanujan. Bertrand Russell (Jeremy Northam) chides Hardy for not allowing Ramanujan to run free with his work. The tensions between Hardy and Ramanujan mount as the former's atheism and celibacy clash with the latter's profound religiousness and his life beyond math, namely his love for his wife and mother. Though Hardy is resolute in his atheism, he finds Ramanujan's love for Hinduism to be equally passionate. An interesting moment in the film is an exchange between the two men when Hardy asks Ramanujan where his mathematical insights come from. He tells Hardy a Hindu god places the equations on his tongue.

In the film's third act, Hardy and Ramanujan collaborate on what is known as Partition Function, or as it is referred to in the film; Partitions. Ramanujan and Hardy's project quickly draws incredulous reactions from the college's math faculty, who see their work as something impossible. What Partitions are remains a mystery to me and probably will to most film-goers. But at least we know it is something monumental.

As Hardy and Ramanujan feverishly chase their goal, personal problems begin to dog the Indian autodidact. The war creates a shortage of food while the English cold creates an unforeseen vexation for a man used to the warmth of Indian climes. And as Ramanujan's homesickness and his longing for his wife prevail the racist culture of his environment persists. A group of British soldiers, taking umbrage to his presence, beat and kick him, leaving him bruised. The assault precedes a angry confrontation with Hardy, who he scolds for deliberately ignoring his wounds.

More troubling is the diagnoses of tuberculosis a doctor gives Ramanujan after his cough becomes more pronounced. In spite of Hardy's optimistic outlook, Ramanujan is more pessimistic about his health. The illness makes time spent on Partitions more precious.

It isn't spoiling the story to say the two men eventually succeed, earning the admiration and awe of their fellow mathematicians. Equally impressive is Ramanujan's acceptance to the Royal Society.

When Ramanujan returns to India to be with his wife and mother, Hardy expects to see him in a year's time, but the audience knows he has most likely seen the last of his colleague and friend. The end subtitles confirm this, as we're given information about Ramanujan's work, which stands as a towering achievement in the annals of mathematics. We also learn something about a lost notebook that was uncovered in the 1970s'. To give the audience some perspective, we're informed the notebook's significance is something akin to finding Beethoven's 10th symphony.

The main story is ill-served by two weak subplots; Ramanujan's relationship with his wife and mother and the strained relationship between the two women, which really do nothing to bolster the main story. Hardy and Ramanujan's relationship isn't as dramatic as it should be. Though we often hear Hardy's colleagues needle him about the impersonal distance he maintains with his collaborator, I never really felt it or realized it was much of a problem. Given the surroundings and the prestige a legendary university like Cambridge confers on its students and faculty, I would expect any student to not be emotionally coddled in such a an intellectually demanding environment. This seems like manufactured, touchy-feely stuff grafted on to the story and characters. Though Ramanujan and Hardy have disparate thoughts on religion, the movie also devises a religion vs atheism dynamic, which boils down to faith and God good; atheism and reason bad. Hardy's atheism is seen as an extension of his cold, emotionally distant demeanor while Ramanujan's religious devotion is supposed to be part of his warm demeanor and a key to his mathematical insights.

In a narrative biopic about a mathematician, we hardly need delve into equations in minute detail but Brown could have thrown us a bone with a working explanation of Partitions, just as Ryan Gosling attempts to explain the abstruse minutiae behind housing collapse in The Big Short.

Mostly everything about Brown's film seems perfunctory though Patel and Irons at least make the drama simmer with their affecting performances.

The film gets a few facts wrong in the film. Littlewood points to a tree on the Trinity College grounds and says "that's where Newton sat when he devised his theory of gravitation." This is niggling but Newton actually had his serendipitous moment on his mother's farm. Also, the film leads us to believe Ramanujan's death was caused by complications arising from tuberculosis when in fact it was mostly caused by a parasitic infection he picked up in Madras earlier in his life. But I guess tuberculosis always makes for a more romantic death.

Ramanujan's story is more fascinating than Brown's film. As aforementioned, his story would be more thoroughly told in a documentary. What is the impact of his work? How is he regarded by contemporaries? Is he really in Newton's league as a great mind? A narrative film can only tell us so much. The Man Who Knew Infinity is a worthwhile introduction to its subject but not an absorbing drama. A man as incredible as Srinivasa Ramanujan needs more than an middling art house flick to tell his story. Maybe something more powerful is to come.

Maggie's Plan

**Spoiler Alert

Director: Rebecca Miller/Starring: Ethan Hawke, Greta Gerwig, Julianne Moore, Maya Rudolph, Bill Hader, Wallace Shawn, Travis Fimmel and Mina Sundwall

Rebecca Miller's Maggie's Plan is a difficult film to review (I still consider my posts more impressions than reviews) because it seems to have strengths and weaknesses in equal measure. Its flaws aren't necessarily crippling but they keep an otherwise interesting movie from being totally satisfying. It's pleasing to know a female director has been able to make films on her own terms without having to compromise her vision or standards, but I have to admit, I've never been a fan of Miller's films. They always seem important for a moment but never leave a lasting impression. In fact, I can't remember the titles of any of her former films and chances are, I'll forget this film in a few months time too but I also have to admit her latest is one of her better efforts. It doesn't always work but her cerebral characters are well-drawn, with distinctive personalities that betray insecurity and weakness. If the situations, characters and the story feel too much like vintage Woody Allen filtered through Noah Baumbach, it mimics their films well enough to be entertaining. Maggie's Plan isn't as funny as Woody's best work but its humor is subtle; aiming for sophistication and wit.

The film doesn't waste a moment establishing character as Maggie Hardin (Greta Gerwig; uncharacteristically non-irritating) meets her close friend Tony (Bill Hader) on the street. In their exchange, we learn Maggie's search for a sperm-donor has born fruit though Tony is disdainful of her choice; a pickle-entrepreneur by the name of Guy who was also their college classmate. We also learn Maggie--by her own admission--has never been able to maintain a long-term relationship; hence her need for a sperm donor.

When Maggie later shows up at the school where she serves as a liaison to the business community for artistic students looking to market their work, she learns her paycheck is delinquent. She meets another faculty member who shares a similar last name; John Harding (Ethan Hawke) who is also short a paycheck. They suggest to the difficult clerk their similar names may be responsible for the mix-up. The clerical error allows them to meet and make small talk. During their conversation, we learn John is a highly respected academic in the esoteric field of ficto-critical anthropology. Later, during a lunch in the school cafeteria, Maggie catches sight of him then again in Washington Park, where they stroll and become more acquainted. In the course of their conversation, John talks about a novel he is writing and when Maggie shows interest, he asks her to read the first chapter, to which she eagerly agrees. After Maggie praises Tony's novel to the heavens, their friendship and the story thickens.

In a subsequent scene, we get a taste of John's home life, where we meet his wife and colleague Georgette (Julianne Moore, having fun with a thick, Icelandic accent); an icy intellectual who seems indifferent to her husband's creative pursuit.

One night, after the pickle entrepreneur, Guy (Travis Fimmel), visits Maggie sans the sperm sample she requested, he suggests impregnating her the old fashioned way, which elicits a polite rejection. Having selected Guy as a donor because of his mathematical background, he explains to Maggie why he rejected a life as an academic to operate his own business. He expresses what he finds beautiful about mathematics--and though it sounds poetic; it also sounds unconvincing as movie dialogue. When he steps out of the bathroom, sample in hand, he sees her dance around her apartment and watches, enchantedly; his adoration of her palpable.

His visit precedes John's as the academic/writer-manque arrives to say he's been inadvertently locked out of his house. During his visit, he professes his love to Maggie and mentions the end of his marriage. Following their mutual declarations of love, the two act on their passion and shortly after the film moves forward a year as we see Maggie with her small child, her motherhood secured.

Though the film is described in ads as being screwball, it's hard to see the film as such. There is no shortage of comedy but the story's poignant, dramatic moments make the film's screwball appellation seem strange. The humor is also far too subtle at times to be legitimately screwball. Screwball tends to not be very subtle. But let's move on.

The story becomes a triangle of sorts as John and Georgette's kids spend time between two homes, while his daughter with Maggie brings a tangle to the equation. Though Georgette accepts the situation, she naturally sees Maggie as a homewrecker.

The triangle becomes a quagmire when Maggie begins to see John as self-involved and selfish; his novel an excuse to avoid his family and parental duties. She accepts the sad truth that he was most likely better off with Georgette and sets about concocting a plan to return him to his former wife, thus extricating herself from her unhappy marriage. Of course the plan involves Georgette; who wants nothing more than to have him back. The story's third act involves the plan's impact on both families.

But another issue, hinted at earlier, addresses the question as to who Maggie's daughter's father might truly be.

I thought Gerwig was quite good as Maggie. Though her character bears a close resemblance to many others she's played in films past, she seems more real here. What is particularly interesting about Maggie is the dubiousness of her victim status. As much as John seems to blame for their unhappy marriage, her claim about not being able to maintain a relationship for longer than six months makes us wonder if she is indeed an agent of her own misery.

Julianne Moore is able to find pathos and humor in her role, which was no mean feat considering her accent evokes memories of her character in The Big Lebowski. Georgette seems more like someone we would find in a Woody Allen movie; a character we might laugh at for her lofty, intellectual pretensions. Georgette comes awfully close to being cartoonish but Moore is able to make us forget the accent and focus on the character.

Ethan Hawke has done some fine work in film lately. He was terrific in Born to Be Blue and is again as an academic who believes he has a great novel in him and is prepared to sacrifice his and everyone else's happiness to achieve his goal.

The film made me smile at times and chuckle once or twice but the its best quality are its dramatic moments, which are at times very compelling.

Like the characters in Noah Baumbach's films, Miller's aren't people I feel I would want to know but they aren't tedious either. Tiresome sometimes, but not tedious. I think Miller had the good sense to restrict her story to a 90 minute running time so as to not give us too much of their company. She does a great job satirizing the intellectual world without making her characters seem buffoonish. Maggie's Plan is her most accomplished work yet, in my opinion. It's certainly her most enjoyable movie to date.

Al's Omniflick at 350 and Mother's Day: 5 Memorable Moms

This post celebrates a milestone and Mother's Day, which just happen to fall on the same day. As of this blog-entry, Al's Omniflick boasts 350 posts! That's right, folks; it's no joke. That means 400 isn't far away but for now, let me take a moment and another posting to commemorate this hallowed event and to also wish Moms everywhere a Happy Mother's Day.

I thought it might be fun to compile a short list of moms you may remember from cinema past. You might notice the list is mostly composed of moms we might be glad to say aren't our moms but hey, at least they aren't dull.

I kept the list brief and have no doubt overlooked many other movie moms who were worthy of inclusion. If I omitted a favorite of yours, kindly inform me in the comment section below.

FIVE MOMS IN FILM:

Janine "Smurf" Cody (Jackie Weaver)--from the film Animal Kingdom (2010)
Jackie Weaver received Oscar and Golden Globe nominations for her role as the matriarch of a family of hard-nosed criminals. Behind this mom's sweet, sunshiny grin is a sharp razor blade; ready to cut those who would cross her or her family. A wonderful depiction of a not-so-wonderful mom.

Joan Crawford (Faye Dunaway)--from the film Mommie Dearest (1981)
Based on the memoir of Christina Crawford, adopted daughter of screen siren Joan Crawford; Mommie Dearest is as close to being a horror film as a non-horror-genre film can get. If the film and Christina's memoir are to be believed, Joan was a abusive wreck who made her daughter's life a living, vivid hell. For Crawford the elder; maternal and infernal were interchangeable terms.

Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand)--from the film Fargo (1996)
Marge Gunderson isn't technically a mom, but her very pregnant body makes her a mom-to-be. Smart, perceptive and a better cop than her male colleagues, Marge's expectant mother quirks include sizeable food servings and a very funny moment of crime scene nausea, which we discover is connected more to her pregnancy than disgust for the bloody bodies strewn across the snowy landscape. We know Marge will be a terrific mom because her memorable moment in her police vehicle when she tsk tsks the brutal killer Gaear Grimsrud (Peter Stormare) en route to jail sounds like a parent castigating a child. McDormand is sublime in this role.

Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway)--from the film Chinatown (1974)
Faye Dunaway makes this short list twice for her other malign mom role. The problem with Evelyn Mulwray's character here is that she is more than a mom to her daughter. If you've seen the film, no further explanation is necessary. Evelyn isn't an evil mom, but a victim of an evil man; which makes her a tragically sympathetic character.

Mother (Susanne Wuest)--from the film Goodnight Mommy (2014)
The mommy in Goodnight Mommy is diabolically creepy in the early part of the film until she becomes an object of sympathy, which is a spectacular understatement. To watch this mom suffer unspeakable indignities at the hands of her "sons," is to suffer as an audience member as well. No breakfast in bed for this mother.

I hope you enjoyed this very quick list. Thanks to those who have visited this blog in the past and continue to do so and to those for whom it applies, an encore Happy Mother's Day. See you all soon.

Captain America: Civil War

**Spoiler Alert**

Directors: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo/Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Jeremy Renner, Chadwick Boseman, Sebastian Stan, Don Cheadle, William Hurt, Daniel Bruhl, Marisa Tomei, Tom Holland and Frank Grillo

Geez, the cast list alone for Captain America: Civil War could almost be a posting in itself. It's fairly impressive. All those bodies have to share screen-time, which makes the film's 146 running time an imperative.

Watching the latest Captain America movie, the audience might be deceived into thinking the latest Avengers was playing instead. If I'm not mistaken, more superheroes have been assembled for CA: CW than all other Marvel adaptations, including the X-Men movies--and I'm not even factoring in Thor and Hulk, who are absent from this story. No fewer than twelve superheroes fill the screen for directors Anthony and Joe Russo's dizzying but entertaining action extravaganza.

In the opening scenes, we find Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Secretary of State, Vision (Paul Bettany) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) gathered at the Avengers complex to listen to Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) discuss the issue of vigilantism. As Ross explains, the U.S. government and world leaders are concerned The Avengers have become a destructive force operating without oversight and without restraint. Citing The Avenger's operation in Sokovia (remember The Avengers battle with Ultron?), which caused untold carnage and death, Ross proposes the crime fighters deploy only with UN consent; an idea Iron Man and most of the gathering are receptive to with the exception of Captain America, who finds the proposal unreasonable. The plan is formalized in what Ross explains is the Sokovia Accords; a proposal that grants the UN the control they seek, thus preventing unnecessary destruction and loss of life. Following Ross' departure, the members discuss the issue further as Iron Man and Captain America lock horns in a disagreement over whether the Avengers will cede control of their organization.

During the Sokovia Accords, which take place in Vienna, the King of Wakanda addresses a gathering of world leaders. Unbeknownst to the attendees, a terrorist act takes place outside the building, which comes to the attention of the King's son; T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman). Powerless to stop the bomb detonation, the blast destroys much of the building and takes the life of T'Challa's father. Blame for the blast is assigned to Captain America's old friend; Bucky Barnes or as he is commonly known; The Winter Soldier; a Soviet-trained assassin and soldier. Aware of the shoot-to-kill order issued in the manhunt, Captain America finds his friend; hoping to save his life. After a scuffle, The Winter Soldier loses his friend on a motorcycle chase through the city streets. As Captain America follows in hot pursuit, he finds someone else has joined the hunt; a character known as Black Panther; T'Challa's alter-ego, who wants nothing more than to kill Winter Soldier to avenge his father's death. The violent chase, which takes place on the city street, is kind of an all-against-all fight; each party trying to stop or destroy the other.

But Captain America's effort to save his friend is complicated by the Accords he has violated, which make him an international criminal in the eyes of the law and the other Avengers. Shortly thereafter, Iron Man manages to catch up with Captain America with the intent of bringing his friend to justice. Iron Man finds the plan is easier to conceive than execute.

Another party interested in Bucky's capture is a shadowy figure by the name of Zemo (Daniel Bruhl); who is after information regarding Winter Soldier's training; a special project conducted by the Russians in the early 1990s'. How and why the project is of interest to Zemo is revealed later.

Before long, tensions between Captain America and Iron Man escalate, which draws Avengers members loyal to each side into a war of sorts. Black Panther joins the fray on Iron Man's side; his commitment to the Accords his father helped establish being one of his motivations. A surprise visit to Queens by Tony Stark brings another fledgling superhero into the fray while Ant Man (Paul Rudd), is brought into the fight on Captain America/Steve Roger's side. The ensuing battle is a carnival of mayhem as a dozen superheroes unleash their powers, weapons and martial arts skills on one another in exciting and sometimes humorous ways.

In time we learn Zemo has been searching for the location of five other Winter Soldiers; a secret he manages to pry from Bucky. We also learn of his culpability in framing Bucky for the Accords bombing.

A showdown with Zemo and a brutal battle between Iron Man and Captain America makes up the film's third act. The end doesn't come with a neat resolution but minor dissent within the hero ranks. No rapprochement but no permanent split either.

Amid all the noise and destruction and the film's breakneck pace is the issue concerning the moral and ethical applications of power and how its unbridled use can be as pernicious to the world and society as the destruction unleashed by criminals. The film's perspective on this issue is hardly black and white. Various shades come into play as Stark realizes power cannot always be contained and can be a detriment even in the service of good while Rogers sees the the application of power as a positive absolute if used for the greater good. Stark has firmer argumentative grounds. Early in the film, he meets a mother whose done died in the Sokovia operation; a loss for which she holds The Avengers culpable. The Sokovia incident is also the catalyst for Zemo's wrath, for he too blames the costumed crime fighters for the destruction visited upon his country.

Captain America: Civil War is an entertaining movie and a comic book geek's delight. Crowding the screen with superhero bodies is a great way to keep the fans turned on and a sly way of introducing characters who are sure to have franchises of their own, like Black Panther.

The story isn't bad and action is guaranteed every few frames so there isn't much to gripe about, though there isn't much that resonates either. What more can one say about a Marvel movie? It delivers what we've come to expect and leaves room for more, which is sure to come.

Gone But Not Forgotten: William A. Wellman's Westward the Women (1951)

Director: William A. Wellman/Starring: Robert Taylor, Denise Darcel, Hope Emerson, John McIntire, Henry Nakamura, Julie Bishop and Renata Vanni

I recently attended a screening of Westward the Women as part of a weekly western series at a local cinema and though the story is set mostly in the old west, it isn't a western as we've come to think of films in that genre. This isn't a shoot-em-up with gunfighters and third-act showdowns, but a riveting, powerful drama that hews to history rather than myth.
William A. Wellman, who brought us the original A Star is Born and Beau Geste, is also known for the gritty western The Oxbow Incident, which, like Westward; tells a tough, gritty story about America's past. It's astonishing that a film like Westward the Women hasn't gotten more attention and critical regard but then again, a film mostly about women undertaking a dangerous trek from Chicago to California in mid-nineteenth century America might be less interesting to critics and Hollywood than cartoonish Westerns featuring gun-play and hokey machismo.

Robert Taylor plays Buck Wyatt; a tough and rugged wagon trail escort who has settled into his life in California farm country. Though Wyatt has mostly retired from the rough and dangerous escort trade, he is approached by a member of the all-male community for a risky business proposition. Wyatt is asked to lead a group of women from Chicago across the unforgiving American frontier to California as prospective brides for the legions of bachelors who reside there. Wyatt is naturally reluctant; being well aware of the inherent dangers in such an undertaking. But seeing that the men are eager to marry, he reluctantly accepts the job. The year is 1851; antebellum America, which has yet to become a constituted nation.

The process by which the women are chosen is the one of the more fascinating sequences in the story as 150 female candidates fill a Chicago Hall, hoping to be selected. The wide shot of the womanly assemblage is humorous, as the bonnet and well-dressed gathering hardly seem ideal candidates to suffer the rigors of a cross-continent journey. But after Wyatt explains the brutal experiences awaiting them on the trail, he finds the women determined and undaunted, even after he mentions that 1 in 3 won't survive the trip. Still unconvinced the women have what it takes to survive, he asks the women if any can shoot a gun. A few women raise their hands and demand a pistol, whereby two take aim at a poster of a man and shoot out the eyes. The scene is funny but it also says something about how some women of the time were as rough and tumble as the men.

We meet some of the women who sign up for the trip, including Fifi Danon (Denise Darcel); a French woman who takes an immediate shine to Wyatt; Patience Hawley (Hope Emerson), who is short on charm but tough and a natural leader and Mrs. Maroni; an Italian widow with a young son and dog who hopes to start again in California.

In a key scene that follows, Wyatt addresses a group of men he has hired to help guide the wagon train to California. He explains to the men the women are off limits; a rule we know will most likely be broken. During the hiring process, a short, Chinese man named Ito (Henry Nakamura) draws jeers when he asks to sign up. Noting his determination, Wyatt takes him on.

As we might expect, the journey is difficult but as Wyatt and his men discover, the women are more than up to the challenge. Along the way, Wyatt maintains a professional distance from the women and finds Fifi's advances off-putting.

Somewhere in the deserty west, the train is set upon by a Native-American tribe who ride off when they meet organized resistance. Wyatt finds keeping discipline to be another problem when one of the women is raped. The perpetrator and the gathering find Wyatt's punitive measures to be quite harsh.

More adversity and tragedy follows on the trail when a particularly tricky descent through a canyon claims a life. A long shot of the women helping a wagon down the mountain via a rope is particularly striking. One might swear one was looking at an old daguerreotype.

The women's willingness to endure hardship becomes evident but as disciplinary measures and desertion thin the ranks of hired men, Wyatt is faced with the dilemma of returning to Chicago or pressing on. Ever the tough and determined guide, Wyatt decides to continue but recognizing the man shortage, he decides to train the women to shoot. During the training, a shocking accident takes place, which visits tragedy upon Mrs. Maroni.

Wyatt's prognostication about woman dying on the journey becomes grimly accurate, as the hostile Native-American tribe returns to attack the gathering. Facing death and loss with equanimity, the women honor the names of their sistren in a way that is very moving.

The hardships mount but the women find their destination is within reach. The meeting between the men and women makes for yet another great sequence. And at this point, we know what will become of Wyatt and Fifi; who have overcome a tempestuous journey together.

The film is way ahead of its time as a convincing statement of female empowerment. Of course we know the trials women suffered on westward migrations were no less arduous and deadly, which the film depicts with impressive fidelity.
I find it hard to believe I had never heard of Wellman's film. It is a truly remarkable work. I had expected a romantic, sentimental tale of the old west but instead found something powerful and starkly beautiful. Wellman's camera work was very inspired. A scene where Danon rides off from the group in anger with Wyatt in furious pursuit brings us close to the action as the horses ride almost directly at the lens.

We learn some of the the women's back stories; their motivations for making the trip, which are varied and interesting. One seeks an escape; the child in her womb a source of shame while others merely seek opportunity.

I hope this movie is revived some time and given the attention it deserves. Wellman stripped the the old west of its romanticism and rather than focus solely on male exploits, showed us women who were no less courageous, determined and resourceful. His film aims for truth and authenticity and nails it. Westward the Women is a film every cinephile or casual movie-goer should see for themselves. You won't be sorry.

The First Monday in May

Director: Andrew Rossi

In the last decade, two documentary genres have come into their own: films about the world of fashion and museums. We've seen films on many major fashion designers as well as those who are prominent names in the industry, like Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. And we've seen films about museums; the Hermitage, the Louvre and the narrative/doc hybrid; Russian Ark; to name a few. Documentary director Andrew Rossi, who brought us the gems Le Cirque: A Table in Heaven and Page One: Inside the New York Times, has melded the two genres in his staggeringly beautiful new film; The First Monday in May. The film goes behind the scenes to capture the preparations for the Metropolitan Museum of Art's annual Gala; one of the fashion world's biggest and most glamorous events, and the museum's Costume Institute Curator Andrew Bolton's painstaking efforts to create the fashion exhibit: China: Through the Looking Glass.

Such a unique film experience is made possible by Rossi's almost unlimited, all-access freedom, which allows him to document the conceptual development behind both projects.

But Rossi's film is much more than planning and logistics, for it addresses a pertinent question posed in the film; why isn't the critical regard for fashion as rarefied as other artistic media? Another question the fashion industry has long pondered; why isn't fashion considered an art form? By the film's end, both questions are indirectly but compellingly addressed.

For the exceptionally talented Bolton, China: Through the Looking Glass, which explores the Chinese influence on western fashion, the exhibit presents a formidable challenge. We learn that his extremely successful 2011 exhibit on the work of fashion designer Alexander McQueen; Savage Beauty established a level of excellence his subsequent exhibits have been unfairly measured against. The pressure to create something as successful is palpable.

As the exhibit take shape, we see some costumes slated for viewing from China's past. One particularly beautiful costume is from the 16th century, which, along with many other costumes, has been shipped with the utmost care.

We see a lot of Amy Wintour; Met museum trustee and gala organizer; overseeing details for the Gala, which involves much hair-pulling over where to sit high-profile, prospective attendees--fashion luminaries and personalities from the world of entertainment--and decisions about whom they will share a table with. Rossi is able to capture Wintour's input on the delicate task, which entails keeping tabs on who have RSVP'd and those destined to be snubbed.

Seeking cultural guidance on an exhibit the museum directors fear could be dismissed as exploitative or stereotypical, Bolton wisely seeks the counsel of consultants from China's art world. One unexpected sage is Chinese director Wong Kar-Wai, whose films and ideas prove to be an invaluable resource.

As the film progresses, Rossi allows us to feel the hectic excitement of the formative process as the exhibit and gala preparations eventually come together.

What we see on Gala night is breathtaking. Bolton's talent for exhibition design is conspicuous. Video screens share space with sculpture and dazzling garments from China's past. A massive mock vase, a story or two high, is improbably covered in 250,000 flowers.
The gala itself is as wondrous, as we see shots of fashion icons Karl Lagerfeld, John Galliano, Jean-Paul Gaultier wondering among the exhibits; marveling at the presentation, while outside the museum, celebrities enchant onlookers on the red carpet.
The procession is overwhelmed by the arrival of Rihanna; the Gala's designated entertainment, whose stunning, otherworldly, yellow gown and sprawling train proves to be a work of art in itself.

Rossi's documentary is refreshingly free of talking heads, who might have intruded on the film's privileged fly-on-the-wall, shot-as-it-is-happening perspective. We feel we are at Bolton and Wintour's sides throughout. But Rossi doesn't deny us the spectacle of artistry and pageantry the event promises.

We learn in the end subtitles the exhibit drew more attendees than Bolton's Savage Beauty, thus ensuring its eclipsing success. As for Wintour's Gala, which raises funds for the Museum, the take was $12.5 million, but we never are told the cost of the event. That factual disclosure is discreetly avoided.

Rossi's film is intoxicating, stunning and and in many ways, a cultural event on its own. By the end credits, we are certain The First Monday in May knows the answer to the question; is fashion art? Does fashion belong in a museum; sharing space with sculpture and paintings? The answers will be clear to everyone who sees this film.