The Shallows

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra/Starring: Blake Lively, Brett Cullen, Oscar Jaenada and Sedona Legge

Director Jaume Collet-Serra's track record has been less than inspiring the last decade. With several Liam Neeson action films (groan) and a mediocre horror film (Orphan) in his resume, you'd might expect his next directorial effort to be more of the same. But with his new film The Shallows, we enjoy a respite from his characteristic clunkers to have a bit of fun. Don't mistake my post for a gushing rave. Though his film defied my low expectations, it is very much like its title. It is shallow, often silly and its characters have fewer dimensions than the savage shark who menaces the heroine therein. But if you relax your mind and set your thought controls to cruise, you'll find the movie to be an enjoyable trifle.

Blake Lively (needing desperately to atone for Age of Adaline), plays Nancy; a young woman in her mid-twenties on holiday in Mexico. Her surfing getaway has a purpose, for she hopes to find the remote, inaccessible-to-tourists beach her mother once visited. The film tells us Nancy's backstory efficiently and economically with her brief phone call to her father (Brett Cullen), who asks why she is surfing when she should be in medical school. We also learn of her mother in a series of iPhone photos she looks upon wistfully. One picture shows her mother in her carefree youth, the next with a head-covering, which clues us into her cancerous demise. So we know Nancy's journey to the beach is a sort of pilgrimage which imparts a sentimental dimension to her vacation and the film.

The backstory behind us, the story forges ahead. Why does Nancy's guide Carlos (Oscar Jaenada) offer ominous advice about surfing the beach when she asks its name? He doesn't divulge it but drives off in his jeep, leaving Nancy to her surfing.

Collet-Serra takes time to show us blue waters and the thrills of surfing as Nancy and two young Mexican men hit the waves. The men are amiable and nonthreatening as they leave Nancy to herself though she ignores their advice about quitting at the end of the day.

Floating about on her surfboard, Nancy begins to sense something isn't right. Of course we know what's coming when she is attacked by a Great White shark, which bites into her thigh. Terror-stricken and bleeding, Nancy manages to swim to safety, which happens to be on the floating carcass of a whale. Her medical training comes in handy when she tends to bleeding leg. She manages a crude suture (the squeamish can turn their heads), then shreds part of her wet suit to slip over her injured leg, which tests her capacity for pain.

But her safety proves to be ephemeral, for the angry shark--yes, he's angry--begins ramming the whale's dead body, causing Nancy to fall into the water. Desperate, she manages to swim to a rock outcropping, which she barely reaches. Knowing her safety on the rock is guaranteed until high-tide, Nancy is aware her next perilous swim may be for a relatively distant buoy. Nancy rests on the rock while keeping tabs on the shark fin that pokes menacingly from the water's surface. Her only company is a wounded seagull whose wing is dislocated.

No need to go further into narrative detail for the story plays out the way one would expect a battle between a sexy blonde star and a Great White might. A few people get munched trying to help Nancy and a few failed attempts at hailing a passing ship leave her at the mercy of the vindictive shark. Incidentally, Nancy eventually learns why the shark is so pissed--apparently he suffers the wound inflicted upon him by someone or something and is out to even the score. I guess the shark has a backstory too.

The fact that the film had a screenwriter shocked me. Someone had to write this? You mean they didn't make this up as they went along? All you need is the premise: blonde, American babe squares off against killer shark during a surf excursion. The rest writes itself, que no?

Nevertheless, the movie is still fun. Lively manages to express excruciating pain and fear quite well and of course looks amazing doing it in her alluring bikini. The shark looks quite real and convincingly vengeful.

Just as The Exorcist is a film many horror flicks must pay a toll to, Jaws is the shark thriller to which others of this sub-genre must genuflect before. Though Collet-Serra understands its mythic stature, he mostly ignores it. You have to respect his artistic impertinence.

The film has its logical slips; Nancy doesn't seem to be troubled by a lack of potable water and one may wonder why the shark doesn't feast on a whale carcass instead of a bikini blonde. Some other minor puzzlers come to mind but who cares, who needs fidelity to reality when Blake Lively and a Great White are locked in inter-species combat?

I walked out of The Shallows feeling quite satisfied and hardly duped. It doesn't pretend to offer anymore than what it does: surfing, a surfing babe, vicious shark and minimal gore. For a June afternoon at the multiplex, more would be criminal.

The Fits

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Anna Rose Holmer/Starring: Royalty Hightower, Alexis Neblett, Inayah Rodgers and Da'Sean Minor

Director Anna Rose Holmer's debut; The Fits, defies expectations and also challenges us to parse its very strange narrative, which is open to multiple interpretations. Knowing little about the film beforehand, I walked into the movie expecting a documentary on an African-American girl and her enthusiasm for competitive boxing, like Zachary Canepari and Drea Cooper's excellent T-Rex, which has also just been released (see my January blog-post for my thoughts on that film). But though Holmer's film is about a young, black, female boxer, it is also a narrative film about something more abstract. Just when you think you think you've sat down to watch a fictional film about an inner city youth, the movie becomes something else; a non-linear story where departures from reality share narrative space with a setting that is tethered to the real world. Arresting images, an intellectually demanding story and an affecting performance from its young star, Royalty Hightower, set Holmer's film apart from the usual art-house fare.

Hightower plays Toni; a young, black girl in a black community in an unidentified city, who spends her days at the local boxing gym, which occupies a space at a community center. She trains with her brother Jermaine (Da'Sean Minor), who runs her through vigorous boxing drills. Toni has easy relationship with her older brother, whose caring, loving regard for his sister is quite touching.

Always in the gym, Toni notices the older girls from the dance class ogling her brother and his friend through the gym's glass doors. Though the all-female dance troupe practices and rehearses next door, Toni's time is spent exclusively in the male-dominated environment. Before long, she begins to notice the girls practicing next door. She also notices their choreographed dance routines, which require dedication and physically demanding moves, which sometimes seem as aggressive as the boy's boxing. Shortly thereafter, Toni steps into their dance room and begins mimicking their moves. And only a short time later does she join the troupe, learning their movements and routines.

Toni befriends two girls her age, who she pals around with before and after class. Of the large assemblage of girls in the troupe, only Toni spends time in the gym.

A strange phenomenon begins to take hold among the dancers. Some girls begin to fall to the floor, convulsing, or having fits. Though the girls and the adult coach are at a loss to explain it, someone mentions that the water may be the culprit. I thought for a moment the film was to be commentary on the situation in Flint, Michigan, where the water supply has been found to be polluted. But no, it is only a coincidence. As Toni moves further and further away from the boxing and more into the dancing, she too experiences something that can only be called bizarrely transformative as she too experiences fits but also levitative manifestations and floating across the floor.

The story is less important than what the strange occurrences represent. As aforementioned, interpretations are legion and I can only offer my own, which are no more or no less valid than other analyses. For those who don't care to have the story spoiled further, skip to the final paragraphs.

For me, the film seems to be about how gender roles are permanently assigned us in childhood. Toni feels comfortable about boxing and spending time in a male-dominated world as an 11 year old, which is just around the age girls begin to enter puberty and pre-adulthood. I interpret the girl's fits as a symbolic moment when womanhood is irrevocably stamped on the female psyche, expelling any traces of the masculine. Just as the older, teen dancers peek through the glass to watch the teen boys in the gym, Toni eventually does the same as she glances through the small windows to watch the boys. Toni trades her boxing gloves and warm-ups for a sparkly dance uniform; a significant transition of gender identity. The gym and dance room are adjacent yet hopelessly separated by biology and psychology. For Toni, her transformation is complete once she has her fit.

The film could also be interpreted as a young woman becoming liberated from the male-dominated world and the fits are merely the moment when the rite occurs. It is no accident that the community center is named Lincoln; for the president's name is synonymous with the emancipation of slaves. Is Toni a slave to gender or male dominance or both? Why has Holmer set her story in a black community? Are the roles assigned young girls any different in a white community?

Holmer leaves us with many interesting images, which include Toni alone in an empty swimming pool; practicing her moves; the troupe in full regalia dancing inside a boxing ring and of course her moment when she experiences her moment of fits. It is interesting that we never see any parents and only one adult in the film. The locations of the community center, the swimming pool and a small bridge where Toni and her brother train and the small bridge the dance troupe later stands across may represent the finite spaces black people are relegated to in inner cities.
The interpretations are endless.

Holmer's first film is an astonishing debut. She obviously has a lot on her mind and isn't bothered or hindered by film-making conventions. Good for her. If her career continues along this course, she will no doubt make a prominent name for herself in cinema. The Fits is challenging and thought provoking and a daring riposte to all the dumbed down summer offerings.

Genius

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Michael Grandage/Starring: Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Laura Linney, Guy Pearce and Dominic West

Films about literary figures seldom make much of a splash in movie theaters. It's understandable, considering how difficult it is to make writers and writing cinematic. The filmmakers next best option is to dramatize the writer's life, focusing on anything and everything salacious or tragic. In Michael Grandage's directorial debut, he does what filmmakers making movies about writers almost never do: he dramatizes some of the writing process but he doesn't spare us the more unseemly aspects of the writer's life.

Films about literary figures have a marketing handicap; they appeal to a very narrow sliver of the movie-going audience and if one is unfamiliar with said personage's career, it becomes necessary for the filmmaker to demonstrate why we would should care about the subject in a compelling narrative. Does the director accomplish this task here? In Genius, Grandage has his work cut out for him for very few people know or care about the legendary literary editor Maxwell Perkins, who can be partially credited for shaping the works of the authorial giants Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and in this story; Thomas Wolfe. Of course a ticket buyer must care a little about Thomas Wolfe or at least be aware of his imprint on 20th century American literature to appreciate the movie. Therein lies the main problem with this film. From casual conversations I've had with movie-goers who have seen it at the local art cinema theater I frequent, it's apparent not many know who Maxwell Perkins was and are only slightly more aware of Thomas Wolfe. But that really shouldn't be an impediment to liking the movie if the director and the screenwriter strike a balance between being informative and entertaining.

I came to the movie expecting little but after seeing the film, I can say it wasn't painful or dull (my familiarity with both men may have helped) though it won't set the world of cinema on fire. Grandage's film is what I expected it to be; well-acted and tasteful but it didn't leave me in awe, which is too bad; given Perkins' extraordinary talent as an editor and Wolfe's incredible writing.

Based on A. Scott Berg's biography; Max Perkins: Editor of Genius, Grandage's film gives us a sense of who the editor was by focusing on a particular chapter of his life--late 20s', early to mid 30s'--when he took on an author every publishing house in New York City had previously passed on. Colin Firth plays Perkins while Wolfe, his brilliant discovery, is played by Jude Law, with the same sort of exuberance the author is said to have had in abundance.

In the early scenes, we see Perkins and F. Scott Fitzgerald (Guy Pearce), in the editor's office at Charles Scribner's and Sons. Fitzgerald, at the nadir of his career; in financial straits and tending to a mentally ill wife, accepts a kind, monetary gift from Perkins. The gesture tells us something about Perkins, who gently reminds Fitzgerald of the advances on his next novel, which he has already exhausted.

Not long after, Perkins becomes engrossed with a manuscript he can't put down. We see him read it on a train-ride to his home in the suburbs, north of New York City. We see his comfortable home, where his loving daughters and wife Louise (Laura Linney) welcome him warmly. But upon entering his house and after saying hello to his family, Perkins finds a quiet place in his daughter's closet in which to read the manuscript.

Some time later, Perkins meets with the author; Thomas Wolfe; in his office. Wolfe, unlike the composed Perkins, is grandiose and dramatic, which seem even more hyperbolic with his North Carolinian drawl. Though Wolfe has shopped his manuscript to every publishing house, he believes he has met with another rejection until Perkins informs him he wants to publish his book. Wolfe's response is characteristically ebullient but the sizeable stack of typewritten pages presents a daunting challenge. The two begin work in earnest a few days later.

A close friendship forms between the editor and writer as they hammer away on what will eventually become one of Wolfe's major works: Look Homeward Angel. As Perkins comes to know Wolfe, he finds he has been living with a theatrical costume designer named Aline Bernstein (Nicole Kidman); who has left her staid, dull husband for the writer she finds exciting. But as the two men become closer, Bernstein begins to resent Perkins; feeling Wolfe has forsaken her for the editor. Wolfe and his manuscript begin to dominate Perkin's life, keeping him away from home and his family. Another problem arises when Wolfe continues to add to the 5000 page novel Perkins must whittle down to a respectable length. Perkins constant struggle to keep Wolfe from writing more becomes trying.

Eventually, the book is completed and published. Perkins and Wolfe await the critiques in suspense, which turn out to be favorable. Wolfe presents Perkins with another challenge when his second manuscript--several boxes of writings--arrives in his office.

Though they develop a firm friendship, Wolfe's personal foibles become vexing to Perkins and those around him. Wolfe's self-centeredness becomes a bit much, as the writer's passion for talking and talking about himself becomes tiresome. A key scene in the film, which takes place during a dinner gathering with Perkins, Louise, Wolfe, F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald in attendance, becomes a disaster. Wolfe's cruelty shows during dinner, when he behaves insensitively toward an already fragile Zelda, which leaves the gathering bewildered and dismayed. Wolfe also behaves selfishly with Aline when she asks him to attend a very important theatrical performance, only to be rebuffed. Aline then issues an ultimatum, which doesn't end well for her. Later, she warns Perkins that he too will be cast aside when Wolfe no longer has any need for him.

Perkins friendship and working relationship continue with the editing of Wolfe's second novel Of Time and The River though we see a crack begin to form. Wolfe accuses Perkins of being merciless in his editing while the editor suggests that his friend may be fielding offers from rival publishing houses.

During a scene on a beach, where Wolfe walks alone, we see him collapse. He is subsequently hospitalized. Wolfe rushes to be with his friend and discovers the prognosis to be "tuberculosis of the brain." A heartfelt scene follows when Perkins and Wolfe share a few words at his hospital bed, which precedes a tragedy that doesn't feel all that tragic when one considers how irritating Wolfe seemed to be--at least onscreen.

I found it odd that a movie about the American literary world of the thirties would be cast with British and Australian actors; Laura Linney being the exception. No matter. Firth is outstanding in any role and is an interesting Perkins. Of course Law has the juicier, more outsize character but I couldn't help wonder if the real Wolfe was as flamboyant and annoying as he is portrayed onscreen. I found Law's performance to be hammy, and seems all the more so next to Firth's imperturbable Perkins.

The look of the film is fashionable gray and muted brown--colors often used these days in any film that takes place in America before 1950 to give us a sense of something antiquated. It has become tiresome but I guess it serves its visual purpose here.

I found the dramatic tension between Firth and Law to be adequate. It didn't burn red hot but like everything else in the film, it worked satisfactorily. If that statement isn't exactly a rolling boil it's because the director or cast can't convey the passion of a writer or the exhausting effort necessary to make great novels. We can hardly fault Grandage in that respect. Though we're given a fly-on-the-wall perspective of some of the editing process, how exciting was it in real life?

Movies about writers will never be as thrilling as the writing itself. I can't count the number of well-meaning biopics about writers and poets that end up like dusty, unread books on a bookshelf. I can't even think of a classic film about writers or poets that isn't a documentary, can you? If you can, please share it with me. The one exception is Barfly, written by Charles Bukowski about Charles Bukowski, which is offbeat and funny. But movie-makers never give up. One day I may see a brilliant film about a brilliant writer. Until that day, feel free to see Genius, or better yet, read Thomas Wolfe's early novels, which bear Maxwell Perkin's brilliant stamp.

De Palma

Directors: Noah Baumbach and Jake Paltrow

Director Brian De Palma is the subject of directors Noah Baumbach and Jake Paltrow's new documentary De Palma, which chronicles his early years and a career that spans five decades. Baumbach and Paltrow's film isn't a hagiography but a fascinating, in-depth examination of a director's life and body of work; told not by industry talking heads but by De Palma himself. De Palma's up and down career; his successes and failures, are discussed in detail. Isn't often we have a notable director discuss his own work; sharing fascinating behind-the-scenes anecdotes and invaluable insights into his creative process.

We learn something of De Palma's childhood in New Jersey. One of three boys, De Palma recalls his physician father being emotionally-detached from his family while his mother was anything but. Unlike most directors, De Palma didn't show any precocious, cinematic leanings and never considered a life in film; instead he excelled in science and math at Protestant and Quaker schools he attended in his youth. He mentions how he actually won a science fair prize for a project on differential equations.

De Palma talks about his time at Columbia University, where his academic pursuits included a degree in physics. His nascent passion for film was stimulated attending film series, where the fare consisted of Welles, Hitchcock, Antonioni and other masters of the medium. De Palma's post-graduate studies carried him to Sarah Lawrence, where his love for film led to early forays in movie-making. Among those cast in his early films was then unknown actor named Robert De Niro. Making films in the 60s' brought De Palma into the orbit of Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese; peers who became friends.

It is particularly interesting listening to De Palma talk about his early films; how his projects were independent endeavors that didn't garner much attention but provided invaluable experience. Undaunted by box-office failure, he forged ahead and was able to land a job behind the camera for the now classic horror film Carrie; his commercial breakthrough. De Palma discusses the making of the film, particularly its casting. Having settled on an actress to play Carrie, Sissy Spacek made an 11th hour plea for the part. Figuring it couldn't hurt to have her audition, De Palma agreed though his mind and heart were fixed on the incumbent. Spacek thoroughly convinced him she was the better choice. The film's unexpected success enabled De Palma more freedom and bigger budgets for subsequent projects, including The Fury and Dressed To Kill, which featured De Palma's former wife Nancy Allen. The latter film drew heavily on Hitchcock's influence, as would later projects.

His love for Antonioni's films inspired his next project; Blow Out; which was followed by the violent classic Scarface. I was surprised at how little he had to say about the film, considering its one of his most famous. He touches upon his videos for Bruce Springsteen and mentions in passing his next couple of films but seems to have more to say about The Untouchables; his 1987 crime film starring Kevin Costner. De Palma discusses the casting of the film; his decisions to use Sean Connery, Kevin Costner and Robert De Niro and how Andy Garcia came to his attention. The famous baby carriage scene; De Palma's homage to Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin; earns screen-time.

Casualties of War is covered in more detail. De Palma's Vietnam film starred Sean Penn as a sadistic sergeant whose unit kidnaps a Vietnamese girl to use for sex; a heinous act opposed by the film's conscience; a soldier played by Michael J. Fox. As the two main characters become adversaries in the film, De Palma recalls how Penn avoided Fox during shooting, which helped forge palpable tension between the two actors. During a military courtroom scene later in the film, after Fox's character testifies against those in his unit, we see an angry Penn stop to whisper something in his nemesis' ear. According to De Palma, Penn said "TV actor," which was an obvious shot at Fox's resume, which relegated mostly to the little-screen at the time.

De Palma's biggest big screen bomb; Bonfire of the Vanities isn't swept under the carpet but is dealt with honestly. The casting of Tom Hanks is mentioned as one of the many criticisms of the film but the disdain felt by those who loved Tom Wolfe's book was the worst.
The latter half of De Palma's career fills the documentary's last reel as films like Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, Mission to Mars, and Black Dahlia receive their share of the director's memories.

Relying on one person's perspective means less desirable topics are given short shrift, like the contention by critics and feminists that De Palma's films are alarmingly misogynistic. Given the evidence, the accusation isn't far-fetched but it isn't totally fair either. De Palma doesn't devote much time to the subject though he doesn't ignore it completely either.

Allowing the director to tell the story without talking heads denies the audience perspective though I found Baumbach and Paltrow's approach to telling his story sound. Here we have an artist and his recollections, which are inherently subjective; objective observations from talking heads are beside the point.

De Palma seems very unpretentious and personable. It's easy to be drawn into what is essentially an artist's monologue.

Critical assessments of his work are topics for another film or book. What we have here is De Palma on De Palma, which is fascinating enough. If the film fails to make the viewer want to revisit De Palma's work, it will nevertheless impart a deeper appreciation for his work.

Central Intelligence

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Rawson Marshall Thurber/Starring: Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Amy Ryan, Danielle Nicolet and Aaron Paul

Central Intelligence has Hollywood mass market, factory product written all over it, which means the movie will be more about star power than quality movie-making. But in spite of the movie-from-a-mold look and feel, director Rawson Marshall Thurber's comedy isn't a drag. It actually goes down smoothly but I wished the creative minds behind the project had gotten more out of the pairing of its two very likeable stars: Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson. Thurber and company are very aware of their glaring, physical differences (how could one not be?) and they do employ role-reversal--Johnson plays the character with self-esteem issues while Hart's is the former high-school star. But the shortcomings of these films are always the same: lack of creative reach and formulaic characters though Central Intelligence also encumbers itself with a clunky, CIA plot. If not for both actor's charm, Thurber's film would be disposable on arrival.

Beginning twenty-years in the past, we see Robbie Weirdicht--(Dwayne Johnson); a grossly overweight high school kid (Johnson's face CGI'd onto a real body), taking a shower in the school locker room. Seemingly alone, Robbie dances merrily, unashamed of his beefy frame. Unbeknownst to him, a group of bullies watch from around a wall. They approach Robbie shortly thereafter, looking to make his life miserable. Meanwhile, in the school gymnasium, the school's track star and most popular kid; Calvin "The Jet" Joyner (Kevin Hart) enjoys the enthusiastic applause of the student body. While he addresses the gathering, the gym doors burst open. The bullies then hurl Robbie's naked, large body onto the gym floor. Humiliated before his peers, the one person who offers him help is Calvin, who removes his letterman jacket to provide Robbie the means to cover his nakedness. We know the events in the school gym will he a key moment in the character's lives. (question: why would Robbie be taking a shower during a school assembly?)

Twenty-years later, in the present, we see Calvin at his job at an accounting firm and at home with his beautiful wife, Maggie (Danielle Nicolet). Feeling acute disappointment that his life has failed to build on his success in high school and is less than exciting, his anxiety is made more acute when he receives an invitation to his high school reunion. Calvin is determined not to go, in spite of his wife's urging,
A perplexing Facebook invitation from a Bob Stone turns out to be none other than Robbie Weirdicht. Robbie's invitation to have a drink leaves Calvin uneasy but he accepts nevertheless. Expecting to see an older version of Robbie, Calvin is flabbergasted to see Robbie has transformed himself into a towering mass of muscle. As the two sit for a drink, the pretty blonde waitress can't help throwing herself at Robbie while she looks dismissively at Calvin. It is particularly funny to see Robbie wearing a corny, unicorn t-shirt; which the waitress loves but looks utterly ridiculous on a muscle-bound man. Robbie showers Calvin with compliments and reminds him that he was the only one who helped him during his degrading ordeal in high school. Robbie is honest with Calvin and forthcoming about his unhappiness and boredom with his life. When a group of bar toughs challenge Robbie to a fight, Calvin tries desperately to defuse the situation until he watches Robbie give all three men a sound beating.

Calvin soon discovers his friend is into something fishy when Robbie asks him to look into some accounting records that contain alarming lists of sizeable payments. The next day, a CIA agent named Pamela Harris (Amy Ryan) finds Calvin at his house and questions him as to what he knows about Robbie. Harris tells Calvin that Robbie is a rogue CIA agent and is in possession of top secret information concerning satellite codes. Before long, Calvin is drawn into Robbie's cat and mouse game with Harris and the CIA, who believe him to be The Black Badger; a terrorist intent on selling the codes to the highest bidder.

The CIA stuff is less interesting than Calvin and Robbie's relationship, which develops in spite of the espionage nonsense the movie takes too seriously. Robbie's quest to regain his self-esteem, which still bears scars from his high school years, and Calvin's search for a more interesting life, are the real stories within the over-cooked plot.

We know how this will play out. The characters will work out their problems and Robbie will get even with the high school bully (a cameo appearance by a well-known actor) at the high school reunion (where another well-known actor makes an appearance). And of course we know the real Black Badger will eventually emerge.

As stated earlier, I found the CIA angle boring and cliched. If only they had made Harris a funny parody of a CIA agent, it would have expanded the comedy quotient. At least they played with Dwayne Johnson's onscreen tough-guy persona by giving him body-image issues and making more unsure of himself. Hart's character and performance was more on a default setting. We've seen him play this character before and it's wearing thin. Time for something new.

When I first heard Hart and Johnson were to star in a movie together, the idea had great appeal. The very sight of a Goliath like Johnson and a diminutive actor like Hart playing anything onscreen together seemed like a can't fail enterprise. As I mentioned earlier, they could have done much more with the story but Hollywood seldom thinks past casting in movies of this ilk. The movie manages not to be dull, which is due largely to both actors, who have a lot of screen presence and charm.

I'm trying to recall particular moments in the movie but they are quickly eluding me as the days pass. If you see the film, you may suffer the same movie-goers dementia as I have. See the movie if you can't resist Kevin Hart or Dwayne Johnson. Otherwise; wait for something better.

Time to Choose

Director: Charles Ferguson

Charles Ferguson, director of the hard-hitting Inside Job, which examined the causes of the financial crisis, is back with a sobering, penetrating documentary Time to Choose, which tackles the climate change crisis. Though we've seen many films on this subject before, Ferguson's film mingles startling photography with exposes about the global warming's major culprits and how they circumvent government regulation and public outrage to make billions of dollars destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. But unlike many films on the climate problem, Ferguson's offers optimism. He also shows how the crisis is being challenged through private sector innovation and political activism.
This is a film that will naturally stir outrage (unless you're a climate-change denier), though it hopes to galvanize the audience into action. If you're fully aware of how humans are altering the atmosphere with CO2 but you regard the issue passively, this film will jolt you out of your complacency. Ferguson's film is a powerful antidote to ignorance and apathy.

The film lists the biggest contributors to global warming; fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrialized farming, which Ferguson addresses in order. Ferguson employs data, facts and talking heads to shed light on a relentlessly grim story though optimism leavens its gloom.

In the film's first reel, we see and hear facts about global warming's impact on the environment, expressed by narrator Oscar Isaac. The frequency of violent storms, drought and the melting ice caps are but a few of natural catastrophes mentioned early on. A scientist discusses the dangerous rise of sea levels, which, if unimpeded, could reach 23 feet. Such a seemingly insignificant height would be enough to flood most coastal cities of the world, leaving millions homeless and property deluged.

Corroborated by stirring facts and data, a harsh light is cast on the culprits behind global warming. In the first part of the film, we learn about how our coal dependence--a major factor in climate change--has polluted--almost irrevocably--many areas of the world. We learn about Boone Country, West Virginia, where coal companies have effectively turned a large swath of land into what one talking head describes as a lifeless, lunar landscape. We see the devastating effects of what is known as mountain-top removal mining and how coal extraction has led to the exposure of toxic elements which otherwise reside harmlessly inside the earth. Evidence of such is the mud created by the "cleaning" of the coal; a process that rids the stone of arsenic, lead, antimony, aluminum and several other elements, which collect in large pools of viscous, toxic sludge. The toxins then seep into the ground, contaminating the water system. Several residents talk about loved ones who have developed cancer and other deadly maladies from drinking the water.

What is particularly infuriating is hearing how the U.S. Geological Survey conducted tests on the pollutants released into the environment from West Virginian mining, only to curtail their investigation when they didn't like what they found. Nice to know the U.S. Government doesn't brush their findings under the rug (don't let my heavy sarcasm escape you!).

China's coal industry is also addressed, which is far worse than its American counterpart in terms of environmental devastation. We hear about how China's dependence on coal has made it one of the world's biggest global warming culprits. Stunning shots of the Shanghai skyline at night are contrasted with a shot of a fleet of coal barges floating past the same skyline during the day. The fact that coal is the major source of electricity in China, the spectacular glow of the Shanghai skyline becomes something more ominous than beautiful. The horrific impact of Chinese coal mining on the environment and the atmosphere recalls Boone County but on a more Biblical scale.

Throughout the film, the correlation between fossil fuel mining and human exploitation becomes a recurring theme. We learn a little about the how mining in China and places like Boone County makes people captive laborers. With no other industry than coal to provide jobs, the populace becomes beholden to the very industry imperiling their lives and environment.

The film moves ahead to address the depredations of the oil industry. Footage of many oil spills of the last thirty years share narrative space with the history of Nigeria's oil industry, which serves as one example of fossil-fuel's criminal impact on nature and humanity. A former Nigerian activist (who has since died) discusses the savage impact of oil drilling in his country, which made one-time, life-sustaining fishing and foraging impossible. What is particularly astonishing (but not surprising) is that of the 600 billion dollars generated by oil revenue since 1960 in Nigeria, 90% of it has gone to the wealthiest 1%. Sound familiar?

Just when you might despair, Ferguson balances the bleak with something optimistic. A counter to oil and coal are the rapidly booming solar and wind power industries. Data about the incredible cost-saving alternatives and their growing ubiquity are a ray of hope. Several individuals talk about the free, clean solar power that will bring electricity to the third world poor, which will provide better access to information and education. The benefits of wind power--a environmental documentary staple--are discussed in length as many testify to their low, operational cost. Electric cars are touted as a viable alternatives to gas-guzzling, air-fouling motor cars. The Tesla corporation figures prominently in this segment, as we watch and marvel at an electric car out-running a Maserati. It is satisfying to learn of the electric car industry's robust growth.

Subsequent chapters on deforestation, where vast tracts of land are cleared in the Amazon for soy and Indonesia for palm oil, respectively, highlight its terrible carbon impact. Many viewers may not realize how much land is cleared to feed livestock. An interesting fact about how livestock once shared space with farmland; providing soil-enriching dung for crops has been replaced with industrial farming, where cows are fed with the produce grown on other farms, such as the Brazilian soy variety. Such Amazonian farms have cleared vast tracts of rainforest; eliminating habitats and vegetation. The corrupt palm oil industry in Indonesia gives us an idea how illegal deforestation is accomplished with a government's passive complicity. Again, the lucrative palm oil business, which has created several Indonesian billionaires, exploits those who work the groves where 4 dollars a day is standard pay for back-breaking work. An agency created to stop deforestation was met with heavy government and military resistance, rendering it highly ineffective. As Ferguson's film is quick to point out, palm oil is a key ingredient in many products we find on our grocery store shelves. And as the film makes clear, changes in our diet and our grocery lists can have an impact on the environment and indirectly, global warming.

As we might expect, no one from any of the fossil fuel industries or those responsible for deforestation cared to be interviewed for the film. Conversely, those seeking solutions to the problems; from various CEOs' in the solar and wind industries to politicians like former Governor Jerry Brown of California and animal activist Jane Goodall weigh in heavily on the issues.

A tough critic might criticize the film for its one-sidedness but what other side is there to global warming, except denial? As one Republican politician in the film states; "Global warming is a hoax," which is followed by a list of fossil fuel energy corporations donating to his office. Again, not a surprise.

As the title suggests, humans have the ability to choose what kind of world we wish to inhabit. As it eloquently points out, we have the power to reverse or retard global warming's deadly progress. The have-nots outnumber the infinitesimally small number of energy barons who reap billions from the industries that help wreck the atmosphere. What will we do? Ferguson's film, like most eco-documentaries, suggests action. Awareness just doesn't seem to be enough anymore.

The Pantheon of the Underrated, the Underpraised and the Impressively Intelligent

I've devoted two Pantheons to the Overrated, the Overpraised and Oppressively Empty-Headed so I thought I'd compile its antithesis; a short list of movies and talent from the film world who I think are Underrated, Underpraised and Impressively Intelligent. After-all, it's only fair that one heap honors upon the deserving once-in-awhile rather than just target things for sniping--as fun as that can be.

I didn't brainstorm the list but casually scribbled some things that came to mind. The process was brief but spontaneous. I kept the list short and sweet but acknowledge the infinite number of personalities who might have appeared here. There is always space for those worthies on a future list.
For now, I hope you enjoy what I came up with on short notice. As always, feel free to include your own choices in the comment section below.

The Innocents--Director: Jack Clayton--The Underrated
A terrific adaptation of the Henry James novel The Turn of the Screw, Jack Clayton's film is gloomy, moody and spooky as all get up. Deborah Kerr plays a governess on an estate that may or may not be haunted by two spirits who may or may not be manipulating the children in her care. Filmed in black and white, cinematographer Freddie Francis' eerie, shadowy visuals are both beautiful and frightening. The film is seldom included in best horror film lists but it deserves a place there, nevertheless.

Charles Bronson--The Underrated and Underpraised
Everyone knows Charles Bronson but all too often he is spoken of dismissively as the guy who played the vigilante in Death Wish. But what is often overlooked is his work in the 1960s, including The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, The Dirty Dozen and Once Upon a Time in the West. He even turned up in an old episode of the Twilight Zone I watched recently (The Man, 3rd season). Bronson brought charisma and machismo to his action roles and could hold his own on screen against the likes of Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen and Lee Marvin. He deserved better than the weak material he was saddled with later in his career but his best work is beyond reproach.

To Live and Die in L.A.--Director: William Friedkin--The Impressively Intelligent, The Underrated and The Underpraised
One of the most overlooked films of the 1980s, Friedkin's film is an exciting thriller about a couple of government agents who will stop at nothing to bring down a counterfeiter. William Petersen and John Pankow are brilliant as said agents who find themselves in a gray, moral area when they break the law to pursue Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe), their brutal and complicated prey. Friedkin's smart, convoluted story never slips and never lets up.

David Oyelowo--The Underrated
Though he is 40 years of age, actor Daniel Oyelowo seems like he just arrived. His exceptional work in Selma, as Martin Luther King and A Most Violent Year as a tenacious district attorney intent on bringing a sketchy businessman to justice is a clear indication we'll see more great performances in the future. The fact that Oyelowo is British makes his affecting performance as MLK all the more magnificent. Hopefully the film industry will reward him with more interesting work.

Straight Time--Director: Ulu Grosbard--The Underrated and Underpraised
Grosbard's gritty crime film tells the story of an inmate, Max Denbo (Dustin Hoffman, in one of his best roles) who tries to live straight after his release from prison, only to find an unconscionable parole officer, Earl Frank (an excellent M. Emmet Walsh) and a trying civilian life nearly insurmountable obstacles. Dustin Hoffman is superb, as is Harry Dean Stanton, who plays Denbo's ex-con friend. The tension between Denbo and Frank is particularly fascinating. The story is unsentimental and bleak but unforgettable.

Dianne Wiest--The Underrated and Underpraised
It's a crime we don't see more of Dianne Wiest in films because given excellent material, she is excellent onscreen. Though she has won two Oscars and been nominated for countless other awards, she is rarely seen in movies these days, which is travesty. Her versatility as both a dramatic and comedic actor is evident in Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway, both Oscar-winning roles. Her performance as Helen Sinclair in Bullets is one of the funniest in American cinema. Though Wiest has distinguished herself in a variety of roles, it is safe to say her some of her best work has been in Woody Allen's films.

Emmanuel Lubezki--The Underrated
Mexican cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki has been recognized for his extraordinary work and will no doubt garner more attention in the future, but he may never become famous (cinematographers never do), which is a pity. Consider his impressive resume from the last five years: The Tree of Life, Gravity, Birdman, The Revenant and The Knight of Cups; five films known for their extraordinary visuals, and one begins to understand his boundless talents. Unfortunately cinematographers never occupy the spotlight for long unless they're standing behind a dais at the Oscars but the aforementioned films would be the poorer without his considerable contributions.

Thank you for taking a moment of your day to read or at least look over my list. I hope you enjoyed it. See you here soon.

The Conjuring 2

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: James Wan/Starring: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Frances O' Connor, Franka Potente, Madison Wolfe, Lauren Esposito, Simon McBurney and Maria Doyle Kennedy

From the case files of the ghostbusting couple Ed and Lorraine Warren comes The Conjuring 2; director James Wan's follow-up to his frightening first film in what will most likely be a small franchise or at least a trilogy. The 2nd installment is a worthy successor to The Conjuring. Based on "real" events, Wan's film tells the story of one of the Warren's more famous investigations, which took place in Enfield, England in 1977. Though the film has its missteps, it nevertheless dispenses effective doses terror and chills. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga reprise their roles as Ed and Lorraine; characters they've settled into nicely and play with affecting ease.

When the story begins in Enfield in the late 1970s', a young girl named Janet Hodgson (Madison Wolfe) and a friend are caught smoking in a school stairwell. Shortly before they are called to the Headmaster's office, Janet's friend returns a makeshift Ouija board to her (not that thing again), which provides the story dark portent. At home, we get a sense of Janet's home-life as the shabby family abode is conspicuously absent a father. The mother; Peggy (played by rarely seen Frances O'Connor), is a single parent trying to hold her family together with meager finances. Her troubles include her young son Billy's (Benjamin Haigh) speech impediment and Janet herself, whose school life is less than happy.

During one evening at home, Janet shows her older sister Margaret (Lauren Esposito) her Ouija board, which they use to contact spirits, only to experience failure. The board is subsequently cast aside.

Meanwhile, in Long Island, NY, the Warrens investigate the infamous Amityville house after the owners complain of a hostile spiritual presence. During a seance, Lorraine places herself in a trance-like state in an attempt to experience the grisly murders that preceded the house's haunting. The sequence is creepy but less so than what takes place at the Warren's Connecticut home thereafter. Lorraine begins to dream of an entity with a ghostly pallor, dressed in a nun's habit. The malevolent spirit leads her to a basement, where it points to a figure standing in the shadows. The figure is revealed in a later dream as her husband. Lorraine interprets the dream as a threat from something malevolent in the spirit world though she knows not what. The next morning she finds Ed painting a figure from a dream he had the night before--the nun from Lorraine's dream. Convinced of the danger posed by said spirit, Lorraine asks that they suspend their investigations for the time being.

Back at the Hodgson household, eerie noises and strange incidents begin to unnerve the family. Janet begins to sleepwalk, which prompts her to tie herself to the bed. When the creepy occurrences become too much for the family to bear, the police are called to investigate. The police's cursory search of the house turns up little, until the officers see a chair move by itself across the floor. Spooked, the police refuse to get involved but refer the matter to paranormal expert, Maurice Grosse (Simon McBurney), who discovers he too is at loss to help the Hodgsons. When the situation becomes desperate, the Warrens are inevitably contacted and though they are on hiatus, they are persuaded to visit the Hodgsons in England to hear their case. Assured by Grosse their participation will be limited, they are nonetheless fully drawn into the nightmare. Having determined that Janet may be possessed by a spirit, the Warrens, Peggy, Grosse and an academic named Anita Gregory (Franka Potente) investigate the haunting further, needing proof of possession for the Catholic church to consent to an exorcism.

What is particularly interesting about the film is Anita Gregory, who brings unanticipated skepticism to the proceedings--and the film. Convinced Janet and Hodgsons are perpetrating a hoax, Gregory chides the Warrens and Grosse for being taken in though they, Grosse and Peggy insist the haunting is real. Of course the audience knows Janet and Hodgsons are on the up and up but I really thought for a moment the film might actually debunk all the claims of the haunting and possession. I was pleased the movie accepted everything at face value because who goes to a horror movie to be convinced the supernatural is hokum?

An elderly man's voice begins to emanate from Janet's mouth, making it necessary to conduct a test to determine who the spirit might be. While Janet sits on an old leather chair in the living room, Ed holds a question and answer session with the spirit. After the spirit vigorously resists Ed's questions, he identifies himself as Bill Wilkins; a former occupant who died while sitting in the same chair Janet occupies. Wilkins issues a forceful command to the Hodgsons to "leave his home." But as Bill furthers his reign of terror, Lorraine discovers the demonic entity haunting she and Ed's dreams is the very same nether-fiend manipulating Bill's spirit into menacing the family. I found this plot development to be original and very unusual. It's the first time, to my knowledge, that a demon has controlled a ghost for its own purposes in a horror film. In an attempt to stop the demon who is hell-bent (if you excuse the expression) on destroying Janet Hodgson and Ed, Lorraine realizes she must learn its name in order to control it.

The plot comes to a scorching boil when the spirit holds Janet hostage inside the Hodgson house. A desperate effort to gain entry into the Hodgson home by forceful means ensues. A unintentionally absurd moment where Peggy's neighbor tries to break down the basement door using an axe becomes a comically unrealistic, protracted affair. Come on; it's an old, wooden door; two whacks with an axe should have reduced the thing to splinters!

While Lorraine and said neighbor try to gain violent ingress, Ed manages to reach Janet by another route. When the demon tries to make Janet leap from the window onto a lethally pointed tree trunk (foreseen in one of Lorraine's dreams), Ed's life becomes imperiled too when he tries to stop her. Lorraine finally arrives to attempt an intervention.

There is much I found refreshing about Wan's film. Though it called upon some familiar horror tropes to tell its story, it was also eccentric in many ways most films in the genre are not. The aforementioned demon/ghost plot device is one. Another are the dual hauntings; the Warrens in Connecticut and Hodgsons in England, which ratchets up the tension nicely. There were also some moments that felt decidedly non-horror and more dramatic. I've always found it frustrating in horror films when person A tries to persuade person B of a frightening encounter with something supernatural, only for the entity to become silent or unobtrusive, which casts person A as a liar or crank. In Wan's film, this almost never happens.

The movie has its flaws. I find it puzzling that the Warrens, Peggy and Grosse conveniently forget very convincing evidence for the entity's existence--the chair moving on its own across the floor--for instance--when countering Anita Gregory's claims of fraud. How would one doubt what one has seen when the entire house shakes and the lights go out? How could Janet fake that? Billy's tent on the Hodgson house second floor also makes little sense (another of the film's slips; I've seen a similar tent in countless other horror films). Why doesn't he or the family tear down the damn thing after his toys begin to roll out of it?
Why does a demon go to all the trouble to frighten and bully? Why not just kill Ed Warren? And why would the Warrens be much of a threat to powerful forces from beyond? Bits and pieces of the The Exorcist can be found in the story, including a possessed young girl who speaks in male voice and the time-honored Ouija-as-culprit-for-possession angle. I guess there's no way around that film's influence on horror.

But all in all, I found the film to be done quite well and sufficiently scary. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are slowly becoming an iconic presence in modern horror cinema. They are quite excellent (and certainly more glamorous than their real-life counterparts) as Ed and Lorraine Warren and never treat the material as a lark. Frances O'Connor is quite terrific, as are the young cast who make up the Hodgson brood.

Wan earned his horror bona fides long ago and continues to hone his craft. He knows how to coax the scares out of the story without resorting to cheap trickery or hackneyed scare devices (or at least not too many).

The Conjuring 2 is one of the few sequels that is worthy of the original. A third film would not be unwelcome. A word of caution to those who plan on seeing the flick. Do not read the case on which the film is based. The real story is more mundane and is most certainly a cheesy hoax. It doesn't bother me that Paul Bunyanesque-size liberties were taken with the real story--who really thinks any of the Warren's cases are authentic or real anyway? All I ask of a horror film is that it frightens me without becoming mired in a bog of cliches and tired scare tactics. Wan's film is made well and a fun experience to boot.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Taika Waititi/Starring: Sam Neill, Julian Dennison, Rima Te Wiata, Rachel House, Taika Waititi, Tioreore Ngatai-Melbourne and Rhys Darby

Taika Waititi, director of the vampire comedy What We Do in the Shadows has a new film set to release later this month called Hunt for the Wilderpeople. If you're attuned to Waititi's screwball sense of humor, you'll no doubt enjoy his latest film, which I found funny, touching and to use an over-worked word--heartwarming. Filmed in his breathtaking native New Zealand, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a movie that works well in spite of its rapidly shifting tones. One moment its dramatic, the next its thrilling then humorously off-the-wall. It is also a movie that might play well in America, with our love (or at least tolerance) for buddy movies. Adapted from the novel Wild Pork and Watercress by Barry Crump, Waititi's film never strays far from comedy. His characters are lively and amusingly odd, as are his heroes; beautifully played by Sam Neill and the young New Zealand actor, Julian Dennison.

A young, troubled boy named Ricky Baker (Julian Dennison), a ward of New Zealand's child welfare system, arrives at the country home of Hector and Bella Faulkner (Sam Neill and Rima Te Wiata, respectively) with welfare worker Paula Hall (a very funny Rachel House) at his side. Though Bella welcomes him warmly, Ricky's silent skepticism prevails.

Having been bounced around foster homes, Ricky's hooliganism has made him a difficult foster child; a fact Hall is keen to share with Hector and Bella. As Ricky's attempts to become a member of the Faulkner household prove sluggish, Hector keeps a cold, detached distance from the boy. Ricky makes a half-hearted attempt to run away one night but is found by Bella the next morning--a mere 200 meters from home.

In an attempt to make Ricky feel welcome, Bella bakes him a birthday cake and sings an impromptu song that has the boy joyously joining in though Hector's expression is a comic scowl. Bella and Hector give Ricky a dog, which he promptly names Tupac, after his favorite rapper.

Though the Faulkner home is located in hilly, lush surroundings, Ricky finds country life to be eye-openingly earthy when Hector and Bella introduce him to hunting and the bloodier aspects of skinning kills.

As Ricky begins to warm to his new home and Bella's unconditional love, tragedy strikes when he finds Hector sobbing over his wife's collapsed body. Just when you might think the film will become somber, the following scene at Bella's wake shows Waititi's irrepressible sense of humor. During the sparsely-attended funeral service, the minister (Waititi himself) delivers the worst eulogy ever heard but it is also one of the funniest. The minister's bungled service degenerates into a question and answer exchange with the parishioners.

Not long after the funeral, Hector receives a letter from child services informing him that Bella's passing means Ricky will be removed from the Faulkner household. Ricky protests, expressing his anxiety about being placed in juvenile detention. Violently opposed to returning to foster care or "juvi," Ricky makes a mock-up of himself which he sets ablaze in Hector's barn with a suicide note attached. Miscalculating the flame's expansion, the barn becomes engulfed. Ricky flees into the forest and becomes hopelessly lost. Before long, Hector finds him; the suicidal ruse a failure. The two become fugitives when Paula Hall initiates a manhunt after finding the Faulkner home deserted and the phony corpse in the barn. Hector and Ricky disappear deeper into the forest and the New Zealand wilderness; on the run from Hall, the police and the military.

The flight from the authorities kicks the film into adventurous high gear but it also becomes a story about Hector and Ricky's unlikely, burgeoning relationship. It is also an opportunity for high-jinks and for the two to encounter all manner of strange and funny people. Three bumbling, would-be vigilantes find themselves at the end of Ricky's gun when they try to overpower Hector. Repeated encounters with the trio become an amusing gag. Hector's run-in with a young woman has romantic possibilities but yields to friendship. The scene where Ricky visits the young woman in her home becomes farcical when her father asks to take a selfie with the young teen rather than turn him into the authorities. Later Ricky and Hector meet a loony, conspiracy theory crack-pot named Psycho Sam (Rhys Darby), who is more clownish than dangerously demented.

While Ricky and Hector show signs of familial bonding, their trek through the New Zealand wilderness affords some spectacular views. Green, treeless expanses and mountainous horizon share visual space with the forest interior, which the two fugitives must negotiate as the authorities come ever closer to their prey.

The two become a news sensation though Hector is wrongly suspected of being a child molester after a thoughtless comment by Ricky is misconstrued by the vigilante trio.

The hunt eventually comes to an end, which leaves us with questions about Hector and Ricky and whether their relationship will endure. The ending satisfies all curiosity.

The film's strengths are many but its greatest are the performances of its two leads. Neill is a dependable pro who we unfortunately seldom see in movies. He shows his comedic side; an opportunity he's rarely had in film. Dennison almost steals the show. His beefy presence is part of his appeal and he too shows how funny he can be. He almost carries the film on his own.

Waititi is well on his way to becoming a household name in the directorial world. His confidence behind the camera shows in his panoramic shots and natural touch with action scenes. And as mentioned earlier, he juggles the multi-tone story with aplomb. He is also a funny actor.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople is light, funny and has its moments of touching drama and exciting action. It could be a summer hit if the production's promotional budget is even half that of most Hollywood films. It is likeable, charming, an occasional rib-tickler and just plain fun. May it visit your neighborhood soon.

Me Before You

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Thea Sharrock/Starring: Emilia Clarke, Sam Claflin, Stephen Peacocke, Janet McTeer and Charles Dance

You might think I had nothing better to do with my Sunday afternoon than see Me Before You; Britain's answer to Nicholas Sparks book-to-film adaptations. But it was this or suffer through Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which looks excruciating. If you've seen the trailer for director Thea Sharrock's debut feature-film, you can claim to have seen the movie. A person raised by wolves in the wilderness and who has never seen a movie could anticipate every twist and turn in novelist Jojo Moyes' story. Moyes also wrote the screenplay so at least we can say the writer is close to her material. Let me disabuse you of any lingering doubts you may have; the movie is shamelessly weepy and utterly predictable but as shameless, weepy, predictable movies go, it isn't bad. If you read that last statement as an endorsement, then wait awhile; I'll disabuse you of that delusion too.

A pretty, perky, young British woman experiences the trials of high unemployment in her charming little English town. Having lost one job, her family pressures her to find another, being that her father is unemployed and because the family's economic situation is decidedly anemic. The young woman; Lou Clark (the charming Emilia Clarke) interviews at the home of the town's wealthy family, whose palatial spread overlooks a medieval castle they own and manage. The lady of the manor; Camilla Traynor (Janet McTeer), interviews Lou in the Traynor living room. Lou's mini-skirt mishaps become an embarrassing issue for her during the interview, much to the puzzlement of Camilla.

The job is straightforward; Lou is to provide companionship and care for Camilla's son Will (Sam Claflin); who was rendered a quadriplegic after being struck by a motorcycle--something we see in the opening moments of the film. Camilla introduces Emilia to Will and as we might expect; the initial meeting is hardly auspicious. We can immediately see Will resents his condition (who wouldn't?) and is keen to let everyone know. Lou's quirky fashion and talky, offbeat personality contrast sharply with Will's solemn gloom. Will is curt with her but in spite of the uncomfortable first meeting, Lou lands the job, which is met with jubilation at home.

Can you already see where this story will go? Ask yourself the very simple question: what will happen in a story where a young woman desperate for a job meets an angry, but handsome and rich quadriplegic whose true love left him for another man? Any guess will most likely hit the target and if not, won't be far off. Don't we already know that the irrepressibly upbeat and optimistic Lou will eventually melt Will's wounded heart? And knowing Lou must stay in her stagnant hometown while her sister goes off to college, can we anticipate the film's main themes will be about getting away, discovering oneself and living life to the fullest?

There is one wrinkle one might not anticipate. Lou learns Will's condition won't improve and because he also pines for his former life of adventure, he seeks out an organization that assists those who want to end their own lives. The film doesn't get into the morality or ethics of such a decision, which is a good thing--it's been done before and that stuff has no place in a teary romance.

In time, a romance blossoms between Will and Lou; which is preferable to her seven-year relationship with a fitness freak whose idea of a romantic getaway is a triathlon in Norway. Some scenes are pleasantly enchanting. Lou and Will's stroll through the castle remains is a subtle prince/princess in the kingdom moment. Another scene where Lou accompanies Will to his ex-girlfriend's wedding leads to a consummation of their relationship; a development Camilla isn't averse to.

And what film of this ilk would leave out the requisite message from the tragic hero about living well and living life to the fullest and all that twaddle tragic heroes or heroines spew when their time is near? The ending is sure to draw tears but it is also a life-affirming lollipop. A letter read in voice-over is supposed to be wise; dispensing touching advice about how Lou (and by logical extension; the audience) should live life while a very slow fade eases us into the closing credits.

I must say, I enjoyed the movie in spite of its production-line plot. If this had been an American weepy with an American cast, it would have been torturous. But an English director, an English cast and an English setting do wonders for an otherwise formulaic story. Emilia Clarke and Sam Claflin actually have chemistry and do more with their characters than play attractive mannequins. Clarke makes a potentially annoying character delightful and at times sassy. I wish Janet McTeer and Charles Dance (for once he isn't playing someone evil and creepy) had had richer parts but the story belongs to Will and Lou. McTeer and Dance do well with very little before them.

Me Before You won't make anyone's Best of 2016 list but at least its a breather from the superhero movies bullying the competition. I seriously doubt I'll remember the title of this film a month from now but while it's here, it just may draw a sentimental tear or two from one's ducts. Can you remember the last time that actually happened to you in a theater?

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping

**Spoiler Alert**

Directors: Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone/ Starring: Andy Samberg, Akiva Schaffer, Jorma Taccone, Sarah Silverman, Tim Meadows, Maya Rudolph, Chris Redd, Joan Cusack and Imogen Poots

Former SNL cast member Andy Samberg and writers Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone have joined forces for the pop-rock-mockumentary Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping. It's been awhile since anyone has tried their hand at this genre, which is surprising, given that pop-music personalities are always ripe for satirical plunder. Comparisons to Spinal Tap are inevitable but the movie reminded me more of Rusty Cundieff's Fear of a Black Hat; another mockumentary that chronicled the rise and fall and rise of a rap group. Schaffer and Taccone's film bears a close resemblance to that story but is distinctive enough to claim its own identity. Having seen the trailer, I expected the material to be uneven, which it was, though it leans more toward being unfunny. In spite of itself, the movie is able to be kind of fun without actually being funny most of the time.

The documentary gives us some background on the former members of the boy band The Style Boyz, who are kind of a Boyz to Men/Beastie Boys amalgam. Its three members; Conner (Andy Samberg), Owen (Jorma Taccone) and Lawrence (Akiva Schaffer) have been friends since childhood. We learn that Connor's musical origins can be traced to his infancy, where we see his baby self adroitly working a drum kit (though comically improbable). Conner, Owen and Lawrence's childhood friendship leads to the formation of The Style Boyz and a clip of the group shows them performing later, in a small club, where their profanity-laden rap lyrics raise the eyebrows of a staid audience. Though the group achieves widespread acclaim and fame, internal dissension leads to a break-up. Conner forges ahead on his own as Conner 4Real, a semi-solo act that reduces Owen to the role of DJ while Lawrence leaves the group to become a farmer in Colorado. Serving as the group's manager is Harry (Tim Meadows); whose own attempt at musical stardom was a short-lived stint in a band whose name becomes a gag in its own right. Also in Conner's employ is his PR person Paula (Sarah Silverman). Though Conner4Real is ostensibly a two-man group, Owen finds himself playing a secondary role while Connor receives a heavily disproportionate share of the fame and glory.

The mockumentary has its share of famous talking heads from the world of music, who comment on both The Style Boyz and Connor4Real's successes and influence. Among the real life musicians who share stories and views with straight faces are Questlove, 50 Cent, Nas, Mariah Carey, Carrie Underwood and even Ringo Starr.

We get a taste of Conner4Real's material when we see footage of him perform Finest Girl (Bin Laden Song); a song about a randy woman who asks Conner to do to her what the United States military did to Osama Bin Laden. Another unintentionally amusing song comes from a video called Equal Rights, which is supposed to be Conner's progressive statement about gay marriage but as the song (and the video) progresses, the singer's homophobic declarations of heterosexuality become humorously evident.
The mock-doc really begins a few days before the release of Conner4Real's CONNquest; a hugely anticipated album in the music industry. It is funny to see the absurdly long list of producers on the album; evidence of obscene artistic overkill.

But upon release, Conner finds the album has not been well-received. In a Spinal Tap moment, he looks on the internet to read the reviews. After one bad review, he reads Rolling Stone magazine, hoping for an alternate critical reaction. It is very funny to see the magazine's negative review, which includes a sh*t emoji. In searching for a positive response, he manages to find one but isn't hip to The Onion's comic irony.

Undeterred by horrific album sales, Conner moves ahead with his tour. Hoping to find a corporate sponsor to defray the cost of the tour, an appliance manufacturer offers its support. Appliances that play an artists' music might be considered gauche to most musicians but Conner nonetheless accepts their offer.

As the tour commences, Conner and Harry find the venues are far from being sold out. Harry suggests they take on an opening act to draw a larger crowd; an idea the singer hardly finds thrilling. With little choice, they select an up and coming rapper by the name Hunter the Hungry. Hunter and Conner hit it off, but the rapper becomes his bane when his touring antics become too much for everyone to bear.

Comic mishaps and malfunctions plague the tour. A prank involving a wardrobe change onstage, a la Katy Perry, goes awry, leaving Conner publicly humiliated. It comes to light shortly thereafter that Hunter was behind the prank, which prompts Conner to kick him off the tour.

The story becomes a tale of misfortunes as Conner's career takes a hit. Horrifically absurd bad luck seems to follow him everywhere. An elaborate attempt at "resetting the media" becomes a near tragedy when Conner's proposal to his girlfriend Ashley (Imogen Poots) goes terribly wrong. Knowing Ashley's fondness for wolves, he has several on-hand when he proposes to her, while the R&B singer Seal performs on a stage nearby. Unfortunately the wolves break free to terrorize the gathering and ultimately Seal, who is viciously mauled. The scene is funny and surreally zany.

As the film moves along and Conner's misfortunes mount, Owen tries to bring Conner and Lawrence together to mend a frayed friendship. We learn Lawrence's departure from the group was less than amicable, as Conner wrongly claimed songwriting credit for The Style Boyz's catalogue. The story's friendship theme comes to the forefront as the three friends slowly rediscover their past relationship. Mending broken fences, the three friends reunite for a pop awards show, which serves as a kind of happy coda to the "documentary."

As always the case with a mock-dock, one hopes the comic hits will outnumber the misses. With Popstar, the unfunny moments overpower the story. But the movie isn't without its inspired moments. One of my favorite scenes takes place during the three friend's reunion inside a limo. While Lawrence and Conner air out their animosities, a woman presses her naked breasts to the window. Unaware that a man's penis has replaced the breasts behind the window, Conner points to what he thinks are breasts while trying to make a point.

Samberg is an ideal Conner. It seems he's played this character in some incarnation or another, on Saturday Night Live. He is quite funny but as a writer, he has comedic lapses. Tim Meadows stands out as the double-dealing manager but Justin Timberlake is unfunny as Conner's personal chef.

The periods between laughs began to stretch until they became all-encompassing. But the experience was far from dismal. I can see Samberg and Company coming up with something terrific, given more opportunities in future projects but Popstar is a mostly a miss. Maybe next time.