It's hard out there for an original horror movie. For every fluke that hits the jackpot, like Hereditary, The Babadook or It Follows, there's a slew of remakes, sequels and spin-offs that slaughter everything else that comes their way because of brand recognition, with little thought given to overall quality, at least in most cases.
That means that the lion's share of original horror flicks have an uphill battle when it comes to success, with the vast majority never even making it to theaters in the first place, leaving any sort of future popularity to the cult-driven masses. It's nothing new, either, as a lot of popular all-time faves were box office bombs at the time of their release, be it such unchallenged masterpieces as John Carpenter's The Thing or most of David Cronenberg's early work, like Shivers or Rabid.
Such is likely to be the case with Overlord, which certainly owes a debt of gratitude to those films, as well as Romero's zombie epics, particularly Day of the Dead, or even something like the Tarantino/Rodriguez crime/vampire flick mash-up From Dusk Till Dawn. Like that latter film, Overlord starts as one thing- in this case, a full throttle World War II-era war film- before completely morphing into something else, in this case, a variation of the mad scientist/zombie flick.
The fun begins, appropriately enough, on D-Day, as a group of paratroopers head into enemy territory in France, with the goal being to destroy a German radio tower embedded in a local church. This is, of course, easier said than done, as the Germans are taking out soldiers left and right, using then-state of the art weaponry. The film's impressive opening sequence is nothing less than horror's answer to a similar scene in Spielberg's classic Saving Private Ryan, only this one takes place in a plane flying into the battlefield, as gunfire and bombs crash down all around them.
Eventually, the damage to the plane is such that the surviving soldiers have to bail or die, as the plane is about to go down. We literally follow Private Boyce (Jovan Adepo, The Leftovers) as he jumps out of the plane and careens down into the war zone, tumbling and struggling with his parachute all the way, in one unique, thrilling shot that is quite unlike anything I've ever seen in any war movie, quite frankly, much less a horror film.
So, right off the bat, we, the viewers, know that we're not dealing with the average horror flick. The chaos only continues on the ground, with the subsequent battling ultimately leaving only four survivors: Privates Boyce, Tibbet (John Magaro, Orange is the New Black) and Chase (Iain De Caestecker, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and explosives expert Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell, Ingrid Goes West), the de facto commander after their squad leader is killed.
When they stumble across a local French woman, Chloe (Mathilde Ollivier, Boss Level), Ford orders her to take them to the vicinity of the church he's tasked with bringing down. She begrudgingly does, but Nazis are all over the place, forcing the group to hole up in her house, where they discover that her aunt (Meg Foster, They Live) is not looking good, the direct result of Nazi doctor experimentation, which involves a mysterious tar that is located underneath the village and which the scientists are mining to use for nefarious purposes.
Eventually, the group formulate a plan to infiltrate the church, all the while trying their best to elude their primary threat, a bloodthirsty, rapey Nazi by the name of Captain Wafner (Pilou Asbæk, Game of Thrones), who is ready and willing to do anything he has to do to defeat the group- including taking an experimental drug derived from the aforementioned tar that supposedly has the power to make people super-powered... but at a cost.
Things proceed from there, as the platoon encounter Nazis and the monstrous, zombie-like results of all their experimentation at every turn, doing their best to stay alive and complete their mission. Needless to say, not everyone makes it out alive in the bombastic finale, which dovetails into the announcement that the D-Day invasion was a success and the tide of war is turning in their favor.
This is a unique, fun movie with impressive production values that belie the relatively low budget (by Hollywood standards) of $38 million, which unfortunately, proved to be a bit high by horror movie standards, resulting in the film barely making back its budget with around $41 million worldwide- not exactly a blockbuster.
That's too bad, as the film is one of the better original horror flicks I've seen in quite a while- dare I say even better than Hereditary, which, lest we forget, nicked a substantial part of its plot from the Paranormal Activity franchise. (Don't even try to tell me differently.)
Overlord, on the other hand, is a pretty unique mélange of war and horror, which is not a combination one sees very often. I racked my brain, and about the only other ones I could come up with, sans internet help, were The Keep, Jacob's Ladder and the Dead Snow movies (sort of). I'm sure others slightly more informed than I am can come up with others, but regardless, it's not a combination one sees often, so for that reason alone, it's worth celebrating, given how hard it is to come up with something original these days- in any genre, quite frankly.
Overlord had quite a bit going for it, thanks to the involvement of über-producer J.J. Abrams, of Lost, Star Trek and Star Wars fame, who is known for liking a good hybrid genre piece, between this and the likes of Alias, Fringe, Super 8 and Cloverfield. Indeed, word on the street early on was that this film was connected to the Cloverfield universe, which later proved to not be the case, but got the film some early attention nonetheless, which is always a good thing.
As much as I like the film as it is, perhaps some small connection might not have been a bad thing, as it might have helped the film at the box office. As it stands, though, Overlord barely broke even, which is a real shame, as we could use more horror films like it- which is to say, original horror films that stand on their own, and aren't spin-offs or remakes or reboots or whatever.
The film was originally written by noted screenwriter Billy Ray, best-known for films like Shattered Glass, Flightplan, Captain Phillips and for co-writing The Hunger Games and for co-creating and writing for the TV shows Earth 2 and The Last Tycoon. Abrams and Ray came up with the story, then Ray hammered out a screenplay, with another screenwriter, Mark L. Smith (the Vacancy films, The Revenant) brought in later on to punch it up a bit.
In the director's chair is Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, who made the underrated crime thriller Son of a Gun and will be working with Abrams again on the upcoming The Heavy and has been recruited to helm a Flash Gordon reboot, so his career is obviously on the rise. He certainly does a great job here, with that eye-popping, pulse-pounding opening scene, as well as the progressively more and more intense later scenes, as the horror element comes more into the film.
Shout outs as well to the two ace cinematographers, Laurie Rose (best-known for his claustrophobic work with director Ben Wheatley, which includes Kill List and High-Rise, as well as the recent Pet Sematary remake) and Fabian Wagner (Justice League, Game of Thrones). Not sure which of them was responsible for that awe-inspiring opening sequence, but good work all around, regardless.
Though the cast is comprised of mostly lesser-known actors, they're all really good in their respective roles, with Russell and Asbæk the real standouts, though Adepo makes for a likeable, relatable, sympathetic leading man, who always tries to do the right thing, even when it leads to trouble, as it almost always does. Russell, it should be mentioned, channels his famous dad, Kurt, more than ever here. If you don't think of The Thing during that explosive finale, then you must not have seen it, which should be rectified immediately.
I just loved this one, and it almost certainly would have made the list of my favorite movies of the year, had I seen it sooner. Of course, I realize that, given my bitching earlier, that I'm part of the problem, as I didn't see it in the theatres, either, but I'm obviously not the only one.
As such, I have the opportunity to rectify that now, by giving this one my highest recommendation, especially to horror fans looking for something a little different, or even war movie fans that want to see something they've never seen before in a war film. Trust me, you will see things here that you've never seen in any war movie, ever!
By all means, check this out ASAP! 😀
It wasn't too terribly long ago when Aquaman was more of a punchline than anything else- witness Entourage's full-on, season-long skewering of said superhero, which had no less a fan of all things underwater than director James Cameron participating in the ongoing roasting. If the bro-tastic likes of Entourage- which doesn't exactly have the moral right to be talking down to anyone, let's face it- much less box office giant Cameron, not exactly known for his withering sense of humor, are making fun of it, then it doesn't exactly scream: "Let's make that movie for real!"
And yet, I have to hand it to the folks at DC Films- casting hulking actor Jason Momoa as the titular character was nothing short of a stroke of genius. I mean, just look at the guy. Are you gonna make fun of him? Even the poster above has Momoa glaring at the viewer, as if to say: "You got something to say, buddy? Bring it on." I don't know about you, but I will be taking a hard pass on all that noise. I mean, that's Drogo, for Christ's sake.
Indeed, the film gets all of those "Ooh, he can talk to all the fishies" put-downs out of the way early on, in a clever way, as some bullies attempt to torment a young Arthur Curry at a local aquarium for seeming to do just that. Arthur gets a certain look in his eyes, then the fish all come swimming towards him, with a particularly threatening shark taking the lead, as if to say: "Yeah, I can talk to fish, but guess what, asshat? That includes sharks." Needless to say, the bullies back off.
In a sort of sister scene, when Arthur is a full-grown man, another group of seemingly sinister bully-looking guys approach him... only to ask him for a selfie! Lol. Arthur begrudgingly agrees, taking several, as the crew of guys get progressively drunker and more aggressively silly, thus defusing what seemed to be an iffy situation.
Between these two scenes, the Aquaman "controversy" is swiftly dealt with, so that any still dubious viewer is placated enough to get on with the real story at hand. It's pretty smart thinking all around, and a sign early on that this isn't going to be your typical DC superhero flick.
Of course, you can't really blame fans for being a little dubious. After all, in comparison to Marvel, DC films are almost notoriously hit-or-miss. For every genuinely good one, like Wonder Woman, there's several others that are not so great, most infamously the dreary Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, which is just as laborious as that title- a better title might have been: Batman and Superman: The Middle-Aged Grumpy Years.
Justice League was only slightly better, but one senses that it would have been just as bad, had former Marvel man Joss Whedon not have been brought in to add a bit of zing to the dialogue, so that it didn't just play like DC's version of the Thanos story-line from the most recent Avengers flick. But no amount of CGI-abetted Henry Cavill mustache-cleansing could cover up the fact that the film was still a bit of a slog.
Aquaman seems to have learned the lesson of the last few Marvel movies, particularly The Avengers: Infinity War and Black Panther, which is that a superhero movie is only truly compelling if the main villain is, as well. Both those films featured villains that weren't so much bad guys as they were concerned citizens that had valid complaints that did, in fact, need addressing. It was only their respective approaches to solving said problems that were on the iffy side. But underneath it all, they had a good point: mankind can be the absolute worst.
Aquaman gets that, and provides us with a likewise worthy villain in that of Orm Marius (Patrick Wilson, an ongoing fave of director James Wan- he was in both The Conjuring and two of the Insidious films), who also just so happens to be Aquaman's half-brother to boot, upping the moral quandary that much more. Orm's complaint is that the "surface world" inhabitants have already essentially declared war on the undersea kingdoms by dumping all their waste and the like in the oceans for centuries now, to the point where it's starting to have a disastrous effect on the underwater dwellers.
As such, he wants the various kingdoms to band together to wage war on the land-bound humans, to put a stop to them before they spell the end of underwater kind for good, to say nothing of potentially destroying the planet in general. In short, this is sort of the ultimate climate change horror movie, if you think about it. Suck on that, deniers! 😆
And lo and behold, ecological conservatives, lest you think this was all falling on deaf ears, damned if Aquaman didn't clean up... at the box office, at least, where it made a hefty $1.147 billion at the box office on a roughly $200 million budget. Wow- that's a lot of clams! And I wouldn't be the least surprised if a lot of kids that saw this end up becoming activists looking to save the oceans in a way that's hopefully less destructive and evil than what Orm gets up to here. Not too shabby for a superhero flick, much less a DC one.
The movie itself is admittedly a lot of fun, thanks to Momoa's near-effortless charisma, which is wonderfully deadpan and snarky. He's definitely a different kind of superhero, that's for sure, and damned if he hasn't almost single-handedly ret-conned Aquaman for a whole new generation. That's a pretty impressive feat, considering what an uphill battle it was, given the character's laugh-inducing reputation.
Another key part of the solution is undeniably the drafting of James Wan into the DC-verse. Wan has already worked wonders for the horror genre, having spawned a host of franchises, including the Saw series (eight films to date) and the aforementioned Insidious flicks (four films to date) and Conjuring-verse (two main films, plus six spin-offs and counting, with more on the way), to say nothing of his re-invigorating the whole Fast & Furious series with the seventh installment, which alone is pretty impressive, considering how terrible most franchises are upon reaching that many given films. Hell, most are lucky to eke out a worthy trilogy.
Given all that, it makes perfect sense that DC would recruit someone with such a solid track record, even if they were unproven in terms of big-budget superhero flicks. But one look at Wan's elaborate planning ahead for Aquaman in the extensive behind the scenes features on the Blu-Ray and it's clear they made the right call- dude went above and beyond.
One thing I loved was how the horror genre continued to inform his choices here. Wan didn't just toughen up Aquaman himself, he even managed to butch up the likes of seahorses and mermen/mermaids. And don't get me started on how cool those trench creatures are, which are like a cross between the Creature of the Black Lagoon and the Humanoids of the Deep. Also of note is the H.P. Lovecraft-inspired Karathen, a massive, miles-long leviathan that guards the Trident of Atlan, which Arthur must claim, in order to have a prayer of defeating Orm and becoming the rightful king of Atlantis.
Wan's imagination here is as expansive as the incredibly detailed underwater world he creates here, which gives Cameron a run for his Pandora money, quite frankly. I didn't see it in 3D, but I kind of wish I had in retrospect. Either way, Wan- and by extension, DC- cleaned up at the box office, so DC can clearly clock this one as another win, as the film not only made lots of money, but critics essentially dug it as well, myself included. That's progress, as far as I'm concerned.
From what I hear, the next film in the DCU, Shazam!, which I haven't seen yet, is quite good as well, and I have high hopes for Birds of Prey (I not only read the comics for that one, I even watched the short-lived TV series, and own it on DVD) and Wonder Woman 1984 as well. If what they say about Shazam! is true, then DC is officially on a roll, so let's hope they can keep it up. Certainly hiring the likes of Wan and Whedon is a step in the right direction.
I will allow that Aquaman is perhaps a bit longer than it needed to be, and that the story is a bit convoluted, but the characters are pretty endearing overall- I particularly liked Aquaman's dad (Temuera Morrison, Once Were Warriors); Vulko, his trainer (Willem Dafoe); and it was a kick seeing Dolph Lundgren (who is experiencing a career resurgence of sorts, between this and Creed 2) and Randall Park (Fresh Off the Boat) as Dr. Stephen Shim, an Atlantis obsessive that clearly will be a more prominent part of the follow-up, if that mid-credits scene is any indication.
However, this movie is undeniably boosted that much more by the presence of its leading ladies, including my long-time crush 😍 Amber Heard (my faves of hers are All the Boys Love Mandy Lane and Drive Angry) as Princess Mera, who- no shrinking violet she, a la your typical movie princess- might actually be more powerful than Aquaman himself, given her unique powers; and, of all people, Nicole Kidman, who has never been more kick-ass on screen as she is here as Queen Atlanna. Those two know how to fill out a swimsuit, if you know what I mean. Oh, and if the voice of Karathen sounds familiar, that's because it's none other than OG Mary Poppins, Julie Andrews.
Factor in the stunning visuals, Wan's able direction and fertile imagination, and excellent cinematography by Don Burgess- no stranger to superheroes, water-logged epics or fantasy flicks, thanks to his prior work on the likes of Spider-Man, Cast Away and Enchanted- and you have all the ingredients one needs for a completely worthwhile superhero flick.
While it still remains to be seen whether DC can reach the lofty heights of the Marvel-verse, they've certainly been rising to the occasion as of late, so that's something. If they can keep making movies on the level of Wonder Woman and Aquaman, they might just eventually give Marvel a run for their money. Nothing fishy about that. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) 😏
It seems appropriate that, on a day in which someone presents a document to the public which many suspect has been tampered with to the point of being heavily suspected to be a falsehood meant to give the impression of something it's not (and not for the first time, I might add- see here) that I review a movie about someone who did a similar type of thing.
In this case, it's about a woman who wrote letters purporting to be from celebrities, which she then sold to brokers to be auctioned off to rich collectors, making a small fortune in the process for all concerned. Of course, she was eventually found out and got in serious trouble with the FBI, potentially facing years in prison for her crimes, as innocuous as they might seem, which is more than can be said for what's going on right now. Yet. (We'll see.)
In a rare dramatic turn, comedic actress Melissa McCarthy- who took over for Julianne Moore when she and the filmmakers had a falling out over creative differences- earned herself another Oscar nod (the first was for Bridesmaids), though she ultimately didn't win. She's fantastic in the role- this could open up a whole new avenue for her in the future.
Of course, it's not entirely unprecedented. McCarthy's first big role was on the semi-comedic dramatic series Gilmore Girls and she showed some decent dramatic chops in the indie flick St. Vincent, where actor Bill Murray did most of the comedic heavy lifting. Oftentimes, comedic actors have a real affinity for drama, in fact, as evidenced by the likes of Murray himself, as well as comedians-turned-serious-actors like Robin Williams, Steve Martin and Jim Carrey.
Here, McCarthy plays real-life author Lee Israel, best-known for writing several biographies of left-of-center celebrities like actress Tallulah Bankhead and journalist Dorothy Kilgallen. When her latest book tanks, a biography on cosmetician Estée Lauder, as the direct result of Lauder herself putting out a competing autobiography at the same time, Israel finds herself between a rock and a hard place, in terms of paying the bills. Ironically, had Israel accepted Lauder's offer to not do the book for a sizable amount of money, she might have avoided what happened next.
Struggling financially, and not having much luck hawking her latest intended book on comedienne Fanny Brice, Israel, in an attempt to earn some quick cash, sells a letter from actress Katherine Hepburn, who wrote Israel to thank her about a magazine article she wrote about her for Esquire magazine. In addition, she offers up a letter she pilfered from library archives written by Brice.
Impressed with the amount of money she's able to get for the letters, she takes note- no pun intended- when a local seller, Anna (Dolly Wells, Doll & Em) mentions that Israel would have fared even better had the letters been juicier. To that end, Israel takes it upon herself to do just that, using old typewriters and stationery to forge fake letters from old-school celebrities, which she then shops around town to various brokers, who then sell them to collectors for a profit.
By doing so, Israel is able to dig herself out a financial hole and then some. She eventually tells drinking buddy Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant, firmly in Withnail & I mode), who helps her out when the heat inevitably comes down on her and Israel is no longer able to do it herself. The FBI get wind of it when she sells a particularly dubious letter, ostensibly from playwright/composer Noël Coward, in which he none too subtly references his homosexuality at a time in which no one did- for fear of legal trouble, ironically enough.
Perhaps needless to say, it's all downhill from there, a matter not helped by her and Hock's alcoholism and Israel's generally unpleasant disposition, neither of which do them any favors. From there, things play out generally how one would suspect, though the film soft-pedals things a bit more than the reality of the situation IRL for Israel and Hock, which is not to say things still don't get ugly at various points.
The end result is easily one of McCarthy's best efforts to date, and arguably her best overall performance as well. Though the film is pretty dark for the most part, it's not without a dark sense of humor, making it play a bit like something like Barfly, only with more laughs. So, yeah, basically like a real-life Withnail & I, though that film was also largely autobiographical as well.
Interestingly, just as with McCarthy, Grant was not the first choice for the role, which was originally intended for actor Sam Rockwell, who dropped out when Moore did. In addition, so did director Nicole Holofcener (Walking & Talking, Lovely & Amazing), who also co-wrote the script with playwright Jeff Whitty.
Taking over the director's position was Marielle Heller, of The Diary of a Teenage Girl fame, who retained Holofcener and Whitty's script and drafted the film's co-star, Ben Falcone's wife, McCarthy, as the former had already been cast and suggested she might be a good fit for the role. Initially, actor Chris O'Dowd (TV's Get Shorty) took Rockwell's place, but had to drop out when the film's shooting was postponed, on account of his TV show.
Someone suggested Grant for the role, citing the aforementioned Withnail & I, and the film became a huge influence on Can You Ever Forgive Me?, with several nods to it within the narrative, i.e. the cleaning the apartment scene, Grant's ordering "two double whiskeys" and saying "chin chin," etc. If you're not familiar with that film, I highly recommend you check it out- it's very British, but very well-done.
I'm also an even bigger fan of Grant's demented, oddball black comedy How to Get Ahead in Advertising, and though it certainly has its problems, his turn alongside Sandra Bernhard in the somewhat underrated Bruce Willis vehicle Hudson Hawk is worth seeing for those two alone. Grant's been doing solid work for decades, in other words, so it's nice to see him land a truly great role here.
Both he and McCarthy received a slew of awards nominations for their efforts, including Oscar nods for the two stars, as well as screenwriters Holofcener and Whitty. Also, notably, the film landed Independent Spirit Awards for both Grant and the screenwriters. In addition, Grant, McCarthy, Holofcener, Whitty and director Heller and the film itself won multiple other awards to boot, albeit in lesser-known competitions.
Whatever the case, this is a film that is well-worth your time, even if you're not typically a McCarthy fan, or if you've never heard of Lee Israel, or if watching a movie about letter forgery sounds about as exciting as watching paint dry. I assure you, it's much more interesting than it sounds, and the film is filled with memorable, funny and dramatic moments, as well as nice supporting turns by Wells and former SNL star Jane Curtin, as Israel's much- beleaguered agent.
I wasn't sure it would be my cup of tea, either, and I really enjoyed it, which makes two movies I can chalk up to my mom (along with Green Book, which I reviewed earlier this week) that I might not ever have seen otherwise. If anything, I enjoyed them way more than the other movies I watched over this past weekend, and most of those were my own choices. Go figure. (More on those others later on.)
By all means, if this film sounds the least bit interesting to you- or even if it doesn't, but you're a fan of McCarthy and/or of Grant- you should definitely check it out, for sure. It absolutely would have made my Top 25 movies of last year if I had seen it sooner. 😊
Writer's Note: I know, I know. Weren't you supposed to be back to normal by now, doing reviews of old-school horror and cult movies? I was, but this new Tuesday/Thursday schedule is sort of limiting, and I rarely feel like writing over the weekends anymore, as I'm tired from the previous week. What can I say? I'm getting older. It happens.
With summer approaching, I'm hoping to get my schedule back to the old one, which I honestly preferred, quite frankly, as it allowed for me to write on Monday/Wednesday/Friday, instead of just two days a week, but what are you gonna do? The best I can say to fans of my other stuff is to hang in there. Rest assured, when I return to the older stuff, I'll trumpet it from the hills on social media.
Until then, I keep seeing newer movies, and I continue to want to review them, so it's not as if I'm not continuing to review stuff- it just might not be the stuff some of my fans want to see. But we'll get there eventually, I promise. 😉
I was a little hesitant to watch this one, let alone review it, given how divided people were about it on the whole, with some calling it a typical white person's revisionist history about the black experience of the 60's (and in general) and lambasting it for playing fast and loose with the facts, as it is based on a true story. Meanwhile, the film cleaned up around awards season, including landing the big one: Best Picture at the Oscars.
As someone who picked BlacKkKlansman as my favorite movie of 2018, you can imagine how I felt about that. I grew up a massive Spike Lee fan, and though I typically end up watching a lot of the Oscar nominees eventually, oftentimes, it can be a chore, feeling more like homework than an enjoyable watch.
Granted, it's not as if Lee himself can't be a bit preachy, but in the case of BK, he managed to be as entertaining as he was informative, like the best films based on true stories are. But I can't say I blame him for being upset about being out-shined by what appeared- on paper, at least- as a sort of role reversal of Driving Mrs. Daisy. This time it's the white guy driving the rich black guy around! That's progress, right?
That said, if there's one thing I hate, in regards to movie reviewers- or would-be movie reviewers, of which there are a lot more in the internet age- it's passing judgment on a film that one hasn't even seen. (I get into it in closer detail in my review of Tully here.) As such, I wanted to see it and make my own mind up about it myself, thank you very much.
As it happened, I was home over the weekend, and had the opportunity to see it with my mom, who tends to be oblivious to that sort of internet fervor, as she only uses the internet to pay bills and email and the like, not keep up to date on... well, everything, like I do. This put me in the unique position to get a review of the film that wasn't prejudged, at least not the way Green Book typically is. She knew it'd won the Oscar, but beyond that, not much else.
So, spoiler alert: she basically loved it. No shocker there- it seems like the film's most ardent supporters are indeed of the older demo variety. In her case, it certainly wasn't a situation where she missed the "good old days" or whatever, or that she could pat herself on the back for how far we've come as a society. If anything, she'd probably, like myself, argue the exact opposite, given how things are at the moment in Trumplandia. (Now you know where I get it from.)
No, if anything, she appreciated how little the film actually did white-wash things, pun definitely intended. And it's true- the film doesn't at all back away from how ugly things were back then. As tempting is it is to say the more things change, the more they say the same, at least African-Americans can stay in whatever hotels they want and use the regular bathroom like anyone now, so there's that.
As you might be aware, the film's title refers to the real-life Green Book, which was something I admittedly wasn't aware of until this film came out, so points for educating me before I even saw the film. Of course, it's no surprise that's the case, given that schools- especially in the South, where I live- tend to downplay such things in retrospect. I basically got, like most Southern kids, an abbreviated version of the truth at best.
So, credit where it's due for that, right up front. In addition, despite some people's outright dismissal of the film as soft-pedaling the reality of the times, it actually doesn't, really. It also doesn't hide the fact that the main character, Frank "Tony Lip" Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen), starts out pretty damn racist, to the point of being dubious of his wife being home alone when two black repairmen come over to fix stuff, and even going so far as to throw away the glasses they drank from when she offers them something to drink.
Tony is definitely is a walking stereotype of Italian machismo, and the very definition of politically incorrect. So, as you might guess, when he's hired to serve as the personal driver for Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali), a rich black classical music pianist with highfalutin ways, things do not go well, at least at first. I'm sure the older crowd got a kick out of Tony's decidedly un-PC ways, especially given how stringent things have gotten in this day and age.
And, to be honest, so did I, really. Truth be told, I've about had it up to here with all the SJWs and moral policing that's been going on as of late- in many ways, that's precisely what led us to this decidedly unfortunate period of time we now find ourselves in. In the past, it's not as if people weren't still fucking up, but at least we could laugh about it, thanks to stand-up comedy and talk shows and the like, and even if things got a bit blue, no one complained that much.
Nowadays, if you even step slightly out of line, there's an entire army of assholes out there at the ready to call you on it, and even go so far as to demand an apology, even if it doesn't directly affect them personally. That pisses me off to no end, and it ticks me off even more to know that it's exactly that sort of elitist nonsense that led to where we are now, and that most liberals don't get that.
President Voldemort may be wrong about- well, most everything, really- but on one count, he was in the ballpark: there are indeed "bad people" on both sides. Granted, that most decidedly does NOT include the Neo-Nazi side, ever, but you know what I mean- some liberals are definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution, and when they jump all down someone's throat for even the smallest slight, it's annoying AF.
So, oddly enough, it was actually kind of refreshing to see someone be unfiltered in a movie once again, even if my mother and I were both sensible enough to get that we don't necessarily need more of that sort of thing in our lives for real. It's a fun place to visit, in other words, but we certainly wouldn't want to live there, as it were.
Not everybody does get that, which is part of the problem, but what we do need is a little more levity, which is why I think we need to laugh more than ever. It's why I tend to veer more towards news shows with a more comedic slant (i.e. The Daily Show, The Jim Jefferies Show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) instead of "straight" news, as it were.
It's also why I think that an occasional un-PC comedy never hurt anyone. So long as people get that we're laughing at ourselves more than anything- which admittedly not everyone does- then it's all good. I used to live with a guy whose GF would always scoff at my watching The Colbert Report. "Why do you watch this crap?" she vented, typically before leaving the room in a huff.
I soon realized that she didn't get that it was satire, not the real deal. Anyone who knows me knows that I wouldn't watch the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Alex Jones if my life depended on it. Colbert was obviously poking fun at those sort of conservative blowhards, something he continues to do with much success to this day, although I do miss his former "Colbert" character, admittedly.
And in a way, that's sort of the problem- as a nation, we've kind of lost our touch with nuance. It's either one thing or the other- my way or the highway- there's no room for anything in between, and there used to be. It used to be if you didn't like something, you simply didn't watch it, listen to it or read it or whatever. We've become a country of outrage, and it's gotten so bad that even the rest of the world think many of us have lost our damn minds.
Who can blame them, when what we're known best for these days is a moronic president that separates families, puts kids in cages, wants to abolish Obama Care just because it's called that (even though he has nothing valid to replace it with) and basically undo every good thing Obama did in general, even if its counterproductive to, you know, our own well-being as humans, just because Obama hurt his widdle feelings once upon a time.
Well, that, and the fact that he's precisely the kind of old-school racist for whom Green Book is a tribute to the real "good old days," when people knew their place, and whites ruled supreme. People like him don't get that there's no going back to that, and, if anything, white supremacy is on its way out sooner than later, and good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. I think deep down, they know it, and that's why they're being so damn cruel. Cornered animals have a tendency to lash out.
So, given all that, I can see why Green Book rubbed some people the wrong way on general principle- after all, it's a lovingly rendered tribute to the way things "used to be." But, like I said, it's not as if they soft-pedal things. Tony says and does some iffy stuff throughout, from lecturing a black man on fried chicken- which we're obviously meant to laugh at- to paying off cops to look the other way when it comes to Dr. Shirley's proclivities. Shirley is gay- a true double whammy back then- but it still is to a certain extent, especially in the black community.
That said, though the film is ostensibly the tale of Tony's journey to being "woke," I wasn't really offended by it on the whole. Sure, there are some questionable scenes, and, to be sure, Tony's given to being un-PC, but so what? People aren't perfect, and neither is Hollywood. I've no doubt the film was made with the best of intentions, even if some missteps were made along the way. It happens.
I also find it suspect that Shirley's family conveniently came out to bitch about the way Dr. Shirley was portrayed here right around award season. I mean, it's not as if Ali's carefully-considered portrayal here- which rightfully won him an Oscar, BTW- is even remotely offensive. He does mention being somewhat estranged with his family, but that's not surprising, given that he was a traveling musician- if anything, that's sort of par for the course.
Also, it may well be Shirley's family's guilty conscience speaking. After all, like I said, it wasn't exactly commonplace for homosexuality to be accepted back then- or, like I said, even now. As such, it's more than a little likely that, if they were estranged, that might have had more than a little to do with it, and that may be the real reason some of them are crying foul now- guilt can be a bitch, especially if there's nothing to be done about it in retrospect.
It's also worth noting that Shirley's family isn't in control of his estate- he tellingly left it to a friend- a white friend, I might add. He did make sure his family was “taken care of,” but still- that must have stung that he felt compelled to put control of his legacy in the hands of an outsider.
I'm sure Shirley's family probably never expected that there would be a glossy Hollywood film about him in their future, and, according to the filmmakers, at least, they weren't too interested in helping ensure his story was told properly, so the filmmakers were left to their own devices. So, it seems like crying over spilled milk to me. It's a little too late to complain after the fact, you know? I mean, if you're that upset, make your own damn movie.
Besides, like I said, it's not as if the film isn't completely sympathetic to Dr. Shirley, even when he does something dubious, like hooking up with a white guy at the local YMCA, when he knows good and well it's asking for trouble. (Which could be completely made up, I realize.) As with Tony, he's allowed to show his faults, and to learn from them, just as Tony does. That's kind of the point of the movie- the two learn from each other, not just Tony learning from Dr. Shirley.
In a way, I guess that's Dr. Shirley's family's real point of contention: the very idea that their esteemed family member could learn anything from someone like Tony, who they claim he barely knew, much less that they were they lifelong friends, as the film claims.
I don't know the real truth, but what I do know is that Tony's family (one of whom co-wrote the script) had taped interviews with Shirley himself and letters to draw from to corroborate their version of the story. If, like Shirley's family claim, the two barely knew each other, then they should prove it with stuff to back it up, as the filmmakers did here.
All I know is that it's not like the film plays favorites with any one character. Tony is absolutely portrayed as a racist early on, and only later learns to accept Dr. Shirley, once he gets a better idea of what life's like for him, especially in regards to going on tour, especially in the South- and Shirley does have his reasons for going there in the first place.
Likewise, Shirley seems to be fairly portrayed here- he's not without faults, but, if anything, he comes off a hell of a lot better than Tony does on the whole, and like I said, Tony's own family did the writing honors here.
The one truly valid complaint that does hold true is that the film does indeed adhere to the whole "white savior" trope, which is to say, a movie in which a white person "saves" a non-white person from some unfortunate circumstance- hence "white savior."
Director and co-writer Peter Farrelly said he was well-aware of said stereotype and sought to avoid it by having both characters be imperfect and learn from each other, rather than the white guy "saving" the black guy.
While he doesn't entirely succeed- after all, there are several scene in which Tony does precisely that, i.e. the scene in which he rescues Dr. Shirley from being roughed up by some rednecks, or the one in which he pays off some cops none too happy about a black guy being driven around by a white guy in "their" state, particularly after dark- Farrelly doesn't entirely fail at it, either. The end result is imperfect, but I wasn't particularly offended, either.
Of course, that's just me (and my mom, for that matter), so I fully sympathize with those who were, most of all those within the African-American community, who I completely get being more than a little miffed that a story like this was being filtered through a white perspective, and was written and directed by white people.
To be fair, though, the film was executive produced by several notable African-Americans, including actress Octavia Spencer and Kwame Parker (Kill Bill), so it's not without some cred in that department, either, so there's that.
But forget about all of that, because my bottom-line job as a reviewer is to say whether or not a film is entertaining, not wade into all of this political stuff, really. And on that count, I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it, and believe me, my feelers were up, given how much this film's reputation preceded it. It's no BlacKkKlansman, to be sure, and it certainly wouldn't have topped my Best Of list had I seen it sooner, but it might have at least made the list, I suppose, so that's something.
So, yeah, my advice is to ignore the hype and backlash and just ask yourself a simple question: does this seem like something I might enjoy? If not, you probably won't. But even if you go in with some preconceived notions, like I admittedly did, you might be surprised at how well-done it is. Who knew the writer/director heretofore best known for putting Ben Stiller's jizz in Cameron Diaz' hair (as he did in There's Something About Mary) had it in him?
Check it out- but tread carefully... 😑
