BradWesley123’s Movie Journal- April 2021

The storytelling a both too blunt and too messy, but there's a great deal of power to The Prince of Tides. Streisand brings some solid filmmaking to the film, with great craft and sensitivity (especially in some of the films more harsh moments of trauma, which are rough but not exploitative), and she wrings the best out of a mixed screenplay. The script, really, is the main flaw of the film. It has a very hard time merging the traumas of Nolte's character with the romance he has with Streisand, leading to lopsided film in his favor. The fact that so much of the film hinges on this romance renders much of the presumed emotion from it moot.

That said, the strongest aspect of this film is the acting, which is why the film ultimately succeeds. While Streisand's arc does get short shrift, that means that Nolte gets the gulf the story's emotional moments, and he gives such a powerful performance that it's hard to feel completely unsatisfied. It's one of the best of his career, and should've been an Oscar winner (I'm not saying Anthony Hopkins didn't deserve it that year, though; maybe a tie would've sufficed). The plot threads of the story never completely coalesce satisfyingly, but Streisand wisely centers the film on a towering lead performance, succeeding in the process.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Actor- Nick Nolte

The Fabulous Baker Boys is about as smooth a film as you'll find. It doesn't do much, if anything, that rocks the boat narratively, but it doesn't need to. Writer/director Steve Kloves gives characters room to breathe, letting the story build in a natural way that feels lived-in and genuine. A well-structured screenplay, certainly, but exceptional filmmaking, too. Everything flows with such nuance and precision that it's, frankly, stunning that this comes from a first time director. There's not an aspect of this movie that doesn't sing; the sound, editing and cinematography, in particular, craft the rhythm expertly, planting the viewers in the smoke-filled dives and upper-crust ballrooms that the film lives in. In addition to the brilliance behind the camera, the stars don't so much act as embody their roles. Pfeiffer and the Bridges are flawless (Jeff Bridges, in particular, is surprisingly smooth, given his typically shaggier screen presence). This is an immensely pleasurable film the pops off the screen.

Monthly Wesley AwardsBest Picture
Best Director- Steve Kloves
Best Supporting Actor- Beau Bridges
Best Score- Dave Grusin
Best Cinematography (Modern)- Michael Ballhaus
Best Production Design (Contemporary)- Jeffrey Townsend and Anne H. Ahrens
Best Editing- William Steinkamp
Best Sound Mixing- Stephan von Hase, Gary Alexander, Doug Hemphill and

Grand Canyon is an odd film. The tone shifts on a scene-by-scene basis, seemingly important plot lines stall (Danny Glover's) while lesser ones (Mary-Louise Parker) take more room than necessary, there are vivid dream sequences that take a weirdly long time; this thing is all over the place. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it occasionally infuriating. There's some brilliant moments here (despite their odd placement, those dream sequences feel more realistic than any other I've seen in film), with terrific subtlety and humanity (this is one of the few race films made by white people that doesn't feel too condescending), but there is, also, some truly poor plotting, slack pacing, and little cohesion behind the cheap conceit of "we're really all the same, right?" I do recommend it though. It's such an odd film that I could see people absolutely loathing, and some absolutely adoring it.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Ensemble Performance

The setting and characters do invigorate the conspiracy-mystery film, lending it a singularity when compared to others in genre, but a rather bland screenplay that values efficiency over personality hampers the heights that Thunderheart can reach. There is a personality to this, mind you, but it's always in service of plot, not character. The film does get better as it moves towards it's conclusion, but the first hour of this movie is really just opaque setup, with a buttoned-up cypher that's not nearly as interesting as the supporting characters on the Sioux Reservation. Those characters, and this setting, give this movie it's dramatic heft. The injustices perpetrated against Native Americans separates this from most conspiracy thrillers because, well, it's not entirely divorced from reality (by entirely divorced, I mean several aspects of this story are based on real events). This gives the film an indignation, a reason for being. It's a shame that, yet again, it's filtered through a white man's gaze. Solid, but not particularly involving.

Light and reasonably entertaining, Smokey and the Bandit is nevertheless a mixed bag of easy jokes that either work in and of themselves or, more often, work ironically, plodding storytelling, and some rather fun stunt work. There's not a whole to say about a movie like this. You're either won over by it's shaggy, blunt charms, or you're not. I really wasn't, though it isn't that hard to see why someone else would (especially with a couple of drinks in them).

If you're curious about Charlie Chaplin the artist, Chaplin is not the movie for you. Neither is it if you want to know about Chaplin the man, either. Chaplin's got all the big name events and moments of the legend's life, his loves and losses, but can't reconcile them with any cohesive vision of how they impacted him; i.e. what drove Chaplin? The film hints at a constant feeling of loneliness, an internal void that only his work could fill, but doesn't make any time to explore that. Instead, it focuses on typical biopic schlock; name dropping, scandal, melodrama. Even then, it never actually invests in any of these topics (a whole film could be made out of Chaplin's attraction to underage girls).

It's just a wildly misguided effort with little to no focus. It swings wildly from some big thing to the next, not trusting the material to sell a scene, nor the audience to understand it. Case in point; the film ends with title cards of most of the major figures of the film. James Woods plays an opposing attorney in Chaplin's paternity suit from Joan Barry. His character means little-to-nothing to the overall arc of the film, nor Chaplin's life. He gets the same amount of information as Mack Sennett (Dan Ackroyd), the man who gives Chaplin his start in Hollywood cinema. Ridiculous.

While this does, frequently, lead to splashy, comforting fun (a sort-of jingling keys style cinema), it doesn't add up to much in the way of depth and/or insight. Outside of some wonderful craft and a terrific lead performance from Robert Downey Jr. (nailing the stars mannerisms expertly; adding nuance to a script that had none), there's nothing really here to captures viewers.

Monthly Wesley AwardsBest Costume Design (Period)- John Mollo and Ellen Mirojnick
Best Production Design (Period)- Stuart Craig and Chris Butler

The bones are sturdy, and the leads are phenomenal, but baggy plotting and slack editing dampen some of the slapstick energy of the otherwise freewheeling 9 to 5. Fonda, Tomlin and Parton are all so strong here, as well as Dabney Colman (playing one of his near-patented misogynist pricks), that they keep things chugging along rather smoothly. They do this despite a plot that doesn't actually kick in until about over an hour in and, until that point, languishes in fun scenes (like the revenge fantasies) that get stretched too thin. Once the actual plot does kick in, the film is much more fun and ridiculous, and keenly observant of what can happen when women take leadership roles. If the film had the same energy in it's first half, it would have been a stronger film.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Song- "9 to 5"

Thunder Force is yet another example of Netflix's content over quality algorithm. I genuinely believe that the streamer's hands-off, let filmmakers work mentality is a boon to cinema; sure, it may be harmful to theaters, but what theatrically-based studio would spend money on black and white period films, financially-inflated passion projects, non-English language films, documentaries, etc.? With that being said, however, this film represents the downside of that; just give a blank check to big name talent, and take not one second to see if the material is worth the hundreds of millions their spending on it.

The story is another in the growing sub-genre of superhero movies, ones that attempt to place the mechanics of super beings into the real world, typically satirizing the genre and/or the real world. Force hints at poking fun at the genre, but never actually does. In fact, the film doesn't really do much of anything. The story has no bite, no hook, and absolutely no momentum. There's no point to any of this, no inspiration; it just happens, with a clear lack of interest by the creative team (Falcone's 0-5 in his directorial efforts), with one big caveat.

The only time this thing comes to life is when Jason Bateman is onscreen. His mundane, bland-guy work as henchman The Crab. Genuinely, everytime that he's onscreen, everything perks up. Falcone's direction and script are very bad, but have somehow stumbled on an original, inspired creation in The Crab. Bateman's performance is a knowing one; he understands the ridiculousness of the situation, but never overplays that. Whenever he's there it works, especially when he's with McCarthy, who play off each other brilliantly. Enough so to wish that they just forgot the rest of the plot, and just made this a weird rom-com. A very bad movie elevated by one character and performance.

Monthly Wesley AwardsBest Costume Design (Fantasy)- Carol Ramsey
Best Visual Effects- Yael Majors, Dave Morley, Robert Snyder, Durk Tyndall

It's got similar pacing problems to a glut of 70s-80s films (largely due to the technology at hand), and the story suffers a bit for it, but Private Benjamin is a funny, surprisingly deft dramedy with an exceptional lead performance from Goldie Hawn. There's a lot of humor to be found in the film, but the film, wisely, does not go too hard on the easy laughs, instead relying on character rather than hijinks. This does, unfortunately, lead to some dry spells, especially in the middle section (which is a bit airless). The positive to this character-based work is that the story becomes much richer, leading to a last act that, honestly, snuck up on me, even when I knew, generally, where it was headed.

Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar is one of the most ridiculous films that I've seen in quite some time, and I'm thankful for that. There's not a single solitary moment of anything resemble genuine human motivation; it's all absurdity, all the time. That's the magic of the film; if it lets up for even a moment and plays it straight, or even hints at some something resembling sanity, the wall is broken and the film will crumble.

I'm certain that it won't play to everyone's tastes, but it had me from the opening moments (of a young paperboy/henchman named Yoyo lip-syncing "Guilty" by Barry Gibb and Barbara Streisand). Not every joke works, but the ones that do will, likely, be played on rotation in social media posts for years (the Jamie Dornan beach song is great, but I think my favorite was the lounge singer rendition's of "I Love Boobies"). It's the kind of film we need right now.

Monthly Wesley AwardsBest Soundtrack
Best Costume Design (Contemporary)- Trayce Gigi Field
Best Makeup and Hairstyling- Liz Lash, Jodi Mancuso

"The funniest movie of the year!", hails Masochist Magazine. Quo Vadis, Aida is, to put it mildly, a death march. You know how this story is going to end. Even if you don't know anything about the history of the event, the dread that director Jasmila Zbanic is able to carry through every scene portends disaster. It's anxiety-inducing, to say the least. It's worth it, however. The film is tautly crafted and doesn't let up for a moment, using Zbanic's filmmaking and Jasna Djuricic's powerful lead performance to sell the horror of the situation, while never letting in stray from reality. Aida is a haunting reminder of the perils of inaction, a tribute to the fallen and those left behind.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Actress- Jasna Djuricic

The story at the heart of Shampoo is a stirring one. A group of people are trapped in a constricting 1960s society. Some cling to anything that could possibly allow them to break free, some look to succeed, to buy their way out of the cycle, while some simply adhere to it, believing that they kind derive meaning from it (as generations previous had). The film sells the hollowness of this world, but never quite captures the emotion. Considering that this is supposed to be a satire, emotion shouldn't necessarily be that big of selling point. Yet, the last act, essentially, plays the last act straight. It is affecting in spots, including the parting shot, though that's mostly because the actors sell the hell out of it (Grant and Warden, in particular, balance the comical and dramatic moments beautifully). The first two acts, while not quite nuanced in their satire/drama mix, work better at selling the world; the ridiculousness with the longing. It's ambition is admirable, but Shampoo works more in pieces than a coalesced whole.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Supporting Actress- Lee Grant

Part morality play, part swashbuckling adventure, Mutiny on the Bounty is a smart, entertaining slice of classic Hollywood that thankfully, doesn't feel too dated. When I say "too", I'm speaking more to the technical aspects of the film; it's quite well made, and rather dynamic for a Golden Age picture. The story, too, feels fairly relevant (stories about corrupted power structures and a faulty leadership will, unfortunately, always be relevant). The story's told skillfully, with strong character work throughout. While the structure feels a bit baggy in the film's last act, it does work rather well in the build-up, even if it is a bit repetitive (though, to show the crew's growing dissent Laughton's Captain Bligh, this repetition can be forgiven).

The script's biggest issue is with nuance; themes are stated over and over, bluntly. The characterization of Captain Bligh, too, rarely finds the middle ground that it should; he's either a cruel, temperamental tyrant or, as he is following the mutiny, a smart, calculating seaman (ha ha) who knows the job backwards. The last, weirdly, reverts back to the first act characterization, which works within the confines of the trial at the end, but somewhat negates the previous scenes. This doesn't negate the film's impact though. In fact, they work in moment enough, thanks to the story and Laughton's performance, that the melodrama keep the film emotional investing throughout (though the island getaway portions, especially in the last act, feel a bit choppy). This is big, fun classic entertainment with more on it's mind than most old Hollywood pictures.

Monthly Wesley AwardsBest Classic Picture
Best Adapted Screenplay- Talbot Jennings & Jules Furthman and Carey Wilson
Best Cinematography (B&W/Classic)- Arthur Edeson
Best Production Design (Classic)- Cedric Gibbons and Albert C. Wilson

Fine, but dated. Though it may have been a breath of fresh air in 1938, You Can't Take It with You is rather pat today. It's baggy in the way that many older films are, hampering it's humor mightily. The leads couple (Arthur and Stewart) don't have much chemistry and, worse, they don't get much in the way of character development (Arthur's character, in particular, goes through changes that feel either way too rushed and/or way too lagging). The movie fares better with it's ensemble, however, as the Sycamore's iconoclastic lifestyle (though not original enough to shirk the need to place black characters in subservient roles) provides the film with it's humor and heart (led by a terrific Lionel Barrymore, in a complete 180 from his most famous Frank Capra collaboration). It's message, too, is fine; money isn't everything. That's really my general feeling of the film. It's fine.

It's a reasonably entertaining film, with a great deal of energy and ambitious, but Tom Jones is also a scattered, rather hollow film that never invests in it's heightened world beyond surface pleasures. Director Tony Richardson is the star of the film, adding a irreverent air to the film, at times bordering on outright parody. The editing, too, is so light and breezy that it doesn't really let you stop to consider many of the film's flaws. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the flaws are not there.

First and foremost is the void the film places at it's center. Albert Finney does everything he can with the character, but the film is so busy that it never gives us a moment to understand him, to see him as anything more than a classic literary hero who really likes sex. The screenplay gives him (and, ultimately, the film itself) no tangible personality, leaving the heavy lifting of the film to the supporting cast and the technical aspects. It's a shaggy, light film, but one that can't escape the hollow hole that the screenplay places it in.

I'd seen this one on TV before, though it's been several years, and I'm not entirely sure if I've seen it uncut, from beginning to end. In any case, I was under no false illusions; I knew/know this movie was shit. The bones are there for a decent race film. Nothing that'd crack any "best-of" lists, but a solid rainy afternoon TNT viewing wasn't out of it's reach. Instead, you're more likely to see it in the very early morning, still on TNT (or TBS, or AMC). I'm not quite sure which aspect of the film is more to blame for this failure; a wildly confused screenplay that's scattered beyond repair, or filmmaking that believes it can paper over this with rapid and incoherent plotting.

The film starts out reasonable enough, establishes the world well and gives clear motivation to the characters. It then proceeds to sand all of this away, erasing most of the conflict. It could've gone two ways; pure sports movie pulp, or some maybe more casual, a quasi-Robert Altman mosiac of racers lives. It attempt to do both, because it keeps the sports movie plotting (winning/losing, grizzled old timers and cocky rookies), but then makes the odd choice of making all of the characters like each other, root and support each other. It leads to a weird disconnect where the audience is supposed to invest in some characters, but does nothing to specify which ones. In other words, it's a lot of shit. Most of the races are over-edited, hacked to hell (though, in a better film and less edits, the Chicago streets race would've been well-regarded), but I'll give credit to the stunt drivers, the sound team, and even cinematographer Mauro Fiore, who keep things pretty watchable throughout (even entertaining, at times). Honestly, this is a pretty fun film to watch, as long as you know what it is (bad).

Monthly Wesley AwardsBest Sound Editing- Christopher S. Aud, J. Paul Huntsman
Worst Picture

The most honest complement that could be paid to Malone is that it doesn't overstay its welcome. At less than 90 minutes without credits, it's a quick, blunt piece of b-movie pulp that will, likely, entertain the undemanding viewer. It's reasons for entertaining, however, may be a bit varied. Some, I'm sure, will find pleasure in its cheap, paperback plotting, and Reynolds righteously mowing down eugenics-adjacent villains. Others, like myself, will enjoy the ridiculousness of it all. Sure, I enjoy seeing cartoon baddies get there's, but I more enjoyed beholding Burt's shitty wig work, questioning why Cliff Robertson walks into every scene wearing a ball cap, posturing like a retired baseball manager, cringing at the relationship between our titular hero and a teenage girl (mitigated, only slightly, by the actress being in her 20s). This is not a good film, but its certainly enjoyable.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Worst Picture

On the surface, this might seem like a too-hip, too-quirky for it's own good riff on the mystery-noir genre. Though it does start off down that road, Zero Effect slowly becomes an engrossing detective story with terrific performances and a witty script, making every bit as compelling, if not more so, as the old noirs that it mildly deconstructs. It really is one that sneaks up on you; it's a fun film to start, but by the end the script has built to a finish with surprising emotional heft. This is, largely, because writer/director Jake Kasdan wisely focuses the film on character more so the plot. That's not to undersell the mystery at the center, it's a strong one, but the work done with the titular P.I. (Bill Pullman in a rare lead role gives a terrific, layered performance that gives the film it's resonance) and the supporting characters (Kim Dickens, in particular, is exceptional) is what makes the resolution matter.

Monthly Wesley AwardBest Original Screenplay- Jake Kasdan