Savage Salvation (2022) Review

rating: ****

the story: An ex-military ace seeks revenge on the system that allowed his wife to overdose.

review: Such are the times that star actors can see their movies swallowed into a void.  Robert De Niro costars in this, but his presence didn't prevent such a fate for Savage Salvation, which also features John Malkovich and stars Jack Huston.

Huston's the reason I made sure to watch.  The latest of a storied Hollywood family, he's struggled to find footing since Ben-Hur, which otherwise suggested to me a new talent worth following, but few enough starring roles to show for it.  Most of the story beats of Salvation are well-trodden material, so it's not something you watch for originality, but I've certainly never let it get in the way of spending time with quality actors.  De Niro is in subdued mode, and for him Salvation is No Country for Old Men, Hell or High Water territory.  You wait for Malkovich's part to amount to something, and on that score the end twist is telegraphed, as Huston discovers the system is all too happy to exploit individuals without much concern to the consequences.  Waiting for that to play out is more suspenseful than the revenge rampage Huston undertakes, or the withdrawal scenes he appears in.

With so little to show for his career to this point, Huston had a lot riding on whether or not he could carry Salvation, and to my mind he does, and for that reason watching him find a context in the rampage, how he carries himself is worth the experience.  The greater narrative around all of this, the eponymous concept, both when the body of his wife is baptized and when he himself sinks into the water at the end, it gives depth to the rampage that can sometimes be relegated only to the original impetus, since the reward tends to be reduced to mere memory, rather than consequences or some greater goal, which in this case is finding peace, from a community that both supports him (De Niro) and betrays him (Malkovich), as well as beyond it.

Where Huston goes from this point I'm as eager as ever to find out.

Amsterdam (2022) Review

rating: *****

the story: Three friends make a pact during WWI, and unexpectedly find themselves having to fulfill it during WWII.

the review: The movies one considers a classic are sometimes confused with personal favorites, especially when critics have decided to ignore, overlook, or downplay their worth for whatever reason.  I suspect this occurred with Amsterdam since director David O. Russell has had bad publicity in recent years stemming to his treatment of Amy Adams on the set of American Hustle, and he hasn't produced a wide success on the order of Silver Linings Playbook, despite high expectations for both Hustle and Joy after it.  I've been a fan of Russell since Three Kings, which remained my favorite of his efforts despite his critical reputation blowing up with Playbook, and while I loved what he did with Christian Bale in The Fighter (a showy supporting role, but one that took pressure off an actor who can sometimes get lost in his performances, and thus became a career highlight), I hadn't been wowed by one of his films again.  Russell is an idea guy in the vein of Orson Welles, and the way he achieves his results can lead to complicated productions, but the results speak for themselves.  George Clooney found his first great film in Kings, when he was often typecast as a rogue (Out of Sight being the exception that proved the rule) without a way forward.  Russell used the film to make a bigger point about the chaos of war, and how even the worst of intentions (stealing Iraqi gold) can lead to altruistic results (saving the innocent lives being ground up by the war).  That Russell shows up in Amsterdam, plus a cast I couldn't resist (and certainly Russell has developed a reputation for great casts, regardless of what he does with them) in Bale, John David Washington, and Margot Robbie.  So when I saw the results for myself, I found myself with an instant personal favorite, which for me turned out to be a classic waiting to be discovered.

The leading factor in my evaluation is Bale's performance.  I haven't seen all of his films (much less some of his more famous, or infamous, ones in American Psycho and The Machinist), but he's long been a favorite, so I have a decent idea of his range, and certainly his willingness to transform himself for a role.  One of the great joys of following a career is seeing an actor age, and what they do with that.  Amsterdam is the first time I've seen him lean into his aging as part of the performance, not merely because the film covers more than a decade of time, but that instead of gaining or losing weight to inform a character, he gets to showcase how his face has changed over the years.  This time it's very much the hair that helps shape the look, a period style that accentuates the effect of seeing Bale look older.  Besides that, he gives an atypically lively performance, a comedic one that gives the film its voice.  I've read critics suggest there's no memorable dialogue in Amsterdam, and even if that were the case (which it is not), the pleasure of Bale's phrasing keeps things moving along nicely.  Too often we take for granted the mere acting, unless it's filling out a greater message, which Bale's does not.  All he does is set the tone.  This film, as a result, is very easy to watch.  It's unlike anything Russell has done before.  Even Clooney didn't get into his Golden Age act until well after Kings.

Washington, who was a breakout star in both BlacKkKlansman and Tenet, has his first real chance to shine on his own merits.  Putting aside my reservations of his physical appearance (how Spike Lee designed the distracting afro) in the former, and Christopher Nolan's patented ambition in the latter, in Amsterdam Washington has a part that rises or falls on its own, how he plays against other actors.  He couldn't ask for better partners than Bale and Robbie, both of whom could very easily swallow him whole if he couldn't keep up with them, but he can.  He's not his father, who commands effortlessly any scene he's in, sometimes with very little dialogue at all.  He doesn't even particularly look like Denzel Washington.  Clean-faced, he almost looks anonymous, but Amsterdam soon gives him a look to match Bale's, and the result is more proof that the man pulls off a beard as well as anyone ever has.  The undercurrent of race relations that never plays out in conflict with Bale or Robbie, or any other character who carries weight in the movie, is instead moved to subtext, a complementary commentary to the reasons for the conspiracy the characters unite against as they attempt to solve a murder mystery.

Probably the critics poopooed the movie since they feared it went against their chosen narrative of the present, a conspiracy plotted against FDR and therefore the country itself that perhaps suggests too closely the Trump debacle.  Whether you choose to interpret it that way isn't mandatary; like any good story it's merely a cautionary tale, and that becomes its second key selling point, a story with an actual point, and one that doesn't lose its compelling lead characters in the process, but rather one that gives them their weight.

There is of course Robbie rounding out the leads, and Hollywood has found another way to explain her volatile charm, like I, Tonya a movie asking you to sympathize with her despite the insane circumstances around her, which her other big 2022 movie, Babylon, didn't quite pull off, leaving the viewer to be lost mesmerized by the spectacle she inevitably creates, in very much the Harley Quinn way.  This girl was determined not to be just a pretty face.  She's the Brad Pitt of actresses, and Amsterdam is ultimate proof.

Rounding out the cast are Robert De Niro, Anya Taylor-Joy, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, and of all people Mike Myers (who previously appeared with Robbie in Terminal), a small but crucial role deftly walking the tightrope between comedic and dramatic, evoking his appearance in Inglourious Basterds.

If The Batman hadn't pulled off a miracle by once again redefining its title character and thus further developing one of the modern era's defining fictional creations, I wouldn't hesitate to call Amsterdam the best film of 2022.  It is a masterpiece, and by all rights should have swept all the awards ceremonies.  Hopefully it'll be rediscovered in time.

The Irishman (2019) Review

rating: ****

the story: An aging Frank Sheeran reflects on his life highlighted, among other things, by a close association with Jimmy Hoffa.

review: Martin Scorsese ignited a firestorm of controversy when he lamented the current state of filmmaking while releasing The Irishman, which was done on the streaming platform Netflix rather than exclusively in theaters.  Scorsese is a filmmaking master, so the fact that he had to use Netflix at all is either high praise for Netflix or faint praise, and an indictment of current pop culture's appreciation for talent on the level of Scorsese.  Much of the initial reception of The Irishman centered either on this or the de-aging CGI work stars Robert De Niro and Al Pacino experience to tell the stories of Sheeran and Hoffa.

To get that other point out of the way, the de-aging only matters if you really think it has to.  Because it shouldn't.  It should have no relevance to your appreciation of the results.

The results of the film itself have often been described as an elegiac response to Scorsese's career, often exploring the life of mob figures, in pop culture most famously in Goodfellas, which for me has long been the least interesting of his films, the most obvious, least nuanced, which should otherwise not be words associated with a filmmaker of his caliber.

It's a long film, but it doesn't really feel like it is.  I had previously read the book upon which it's based, which is sometimes itself considered somewhat a work of fiction, as it ultimately turns on whether or not you believe Sheeran's confessions, about being responsible for Hoffa's disappearance (by being his assassin) or even the suggestion that he played a role in JFK's assassination (by helping ship the weapons responsible).  The latter is heavily downplayed in the movie, but the Hoffa angle is clearly the focus, other than Sheeran's relationship with Russell Bufalino, a mob figure who ages along with him, whose aging is itself the most visible element of the film's true message, a meditation on aging, on the rare instance of Hollywood allowing the elderly to be the point of a drama without necessary fixating on the inevitable death, but rather the decline itself.

Bufalino is played by Joe Pesci, a familiar figure from the Scorsese catalog, playing well against type as a restrained figure, possibly because he's the one most reflecting that element, a figure being chauffeured on his final rounds in a road trip that helps begin the film's journey.  Some critics have focused on the significant lingering shots that begin and end the film, but I think it's inside the car with Pesci, Robert De Niro, and the actresses playing their wives, as Pesci asserts his no-smoking policy that's just as promptly ignored, and Pesci doesn't pitch his usual fit...

De Niro is the star, and oddly, when we see him at his oldest he looks his least convincing.  I don't even understand how that's possible.  He's the obvious target for criticizing the de-aging effects, but the scene where his younger self stomps someone, which some say looks least convincing, is most important as the moment Sheeran's daughter realizes she wants nothing to do with him.  

Pacino doesn't sell Jimmy Hoffa so much as deliver another Al Pacino performance, and since it's been so long since we've gotten one of those, who's to really argue about this?  The idea of Hoffa, now, means the mystery of the disappearance, which is what the film features, because his image as the ultimate union boss is no longer relevant.  

Arguably, the real draw here is of course getting to see De Niro and Pacino act together.  After decades of being described as the best actors of their generation, they shared the screen in Heat, which ended up being better known for the wide ensemble around them, and then Righteous Kill, which no one counts.  Here it's almost all De Niro and Pacino, delivering their signature performances.

Which is not to say there isn't plenty of talent around them.  Besides Pesci there's Ray Romano, Bobby Cannavale, Anna Paquin, Harvey Keitel (another Scorsese veteran, his De Niro before De Niro), Jesse Plemons, and Jack Huston, playing and sounding like Bobby Kennedy but otherwise recognizable.  Someday he'll be considered a major selling point all his own, given the opportunities.  

So much of the past fifty years has been chasing The Godfather, and arguably Scorsese has been doing exactly that for much of his career, and The Irishman is probably the closest he'll ever come, with a story that follows real events and therefore carrying more than just great acting and mob intrigue, and on that score weighing nicely against the iconic Marlon Brando performance, the breakthrough Pacino.  

It's too early to say for certain.  But it's another great film from Scorsese.  Not his best.  For me those are Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Departed, Silence.  But darn close.  In the conversation.  The one that matters.

Joker (2019)

rating: ****

the story: Arthur Fleck begins to suspect his life is a comedy.

review: Toss Andy Kaufman, Heath Ledger's Joker, Taxi Driver, and You Were Never Really Here into a blender, and you would get Joker.  The result is greater than the sum of its parts, and completely justifies making a movie about Batman's most famous nemesis, something Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight, virtually was, based on Ledger's show-stopping Joker.

You Were Never Really Here also stars Joaquin Phoenix, by the way, in a role that almost combines the concept of Batman and the Joker (at least as represented in Joker), a man living with his mother and meting out terrible vengeance.  Phoenix doesn't make any effort to duplicate Ledger's performance; visually the similarities begin and end with the stringy hair we see Arthur Fleck, late in the movie, dye green.  The makeup is halfway between Ledger's and your average circus clown (and we see him apply that, too; no chemical baths in this story, thank you).

Director Todd Phillips (previously best known for the Hangover trilogy before branching out with War Dogs) was vocal about evoking Scorsese; that's your Taxi Driver connection (the social commentary is there, too, demonstrated best by Peter Boyle in perhaps his best role), other than Robert De Niro himself, sounding like Lawrence Welk as a Gotham late night TV host.  Brett Cullen, who appeared in a different role for Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, puts a sinister spin on Thomas Wayne (you know, Batman's dad), an elite who thinks he knows what's best for the poor but won't associate with them if he can help it, including viciously cutting off Arthur's mom when her problems prove too complicated.  Zazie Beetz (for the second time, following Deadpool 2) puts in another small but knockout supporting role as a would-be love interest for the erstwhile Joker.

And, Andy Kaufman?  Today he's best remembered for the Jim Carrey movie Man on the Moon, but his whole career was defined by defying logic, rebelling against expectations.  Arthur may not be intentionally following in his footsteps, but that's the best way to explain his reality, including a misguided sidestep into standup comedy that most feels like Kaufman. 

This is another 2019 movie (after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) that feels like a classic in the making that I'm not ready to dub quite yet.  It's got better viewing appeal than You Were Never Really Here (a relentless tone that alienates the viewer), and mesmerizes in its descent into madness, as it spirals to the inevitable.  This may not become the definitive Joker, but it will be the definitive Joker story; it will be impossible to beat.  The movie is set in the '80s, but feels as if it's ripped from the playbook of the modern era, in which riots are well-intentioned but...still riots.  Heroes are hard to find, and even those who stumble into the role seem more like villains.  Arthur Fleck is the hero we deserve but don't need.  Wasn't that said about somebody else?  Something like that?

Anyway, Joker will be a definitive film for this era, regardless of its ultimate worth. 

Stardust (2007)

rating: ***

the story: A young man seeks to win the heart of a beautiful woman by seeking a falling star.

review: The idea of new cult movies seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years, possibly because the MCU Avengers cycle has effectively made geek cinema mainstream in just about every iteration imaginable.  But Stardust is about as liable a contender as anything that's been released in the last fifteen years, in large part to a cast that has kept on giving, and a writer and a director whose legacies keep expanding.

The cast.  Oh, the cast!  You've got Charlie Cox as the lead character, Tristan.  Cox eventually found another spotlight in the Netflix series Daredevil.  Henry Cavill, in a much smaller role as Tristan's romantic rival (in Tristan's imagination, anyway, insofar as Tristan ever really had a chance), is perhaps the biggest easter egg in the movie, nearly unrecognizable as a fop with blond hair.  He would, of course, later take on the role of Superman.  Ian McKellen, at this point only a few years removed from his career-defining role as Gandalf in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, is narrator.  Mark Strong, who would become a much better recognized supporting actor across a dizzying array of films, plays a would-be king.  Rupert Everett is in there, unrecognizable.  Ricky Gervais is easier to spot.  Claire Danes is the falling star.  Michelle Pfeiffer is the witch who wishes to be young again.  Sienna Miller is the girl Tristan thought he deserved (an oddly low key role, considering this was Miller's heyday).  Peter O'Toole, looking surprisingly frail, is in there.  And Robert De Niro.

Ah, De Niro.  This was the period where De Niro was finally coming to grips with his father.  Robert De Niro, the most famous tough guy of modern cinema, was the son of a gay man.  He'd directed The Good Shepherd (2006), a kind of allegorical film about his father, and then appeared in Stardust as a pirate who is secretly gay.  The gay aspects of the character are kind of parody, but the role is unexpected for De Niro, so seeing him this way is itself kind of reason enough to see Stardust.  I suspect part of the cult appeal for it comes from the LGBTQ community.

The writer of the book from which Stardust is derived is Neil Gaiman, who also wrote the epic Sandman comic book series.  Stardust was his first major screen adaptation.  The director is Matthew Vaughn, whose geeks credentials have expanded since. 

The results aren't as magical as all that.  You'd want a contender for The Princess Bride, but it just isn't there.  The presence of all those stars is just about enough compensation, though, with De Niro leading the pack.  McKellen sets the tone with his storybook narration.  Princess Bride is a storybook that spirals hilariously out of control.  Stardust remains storybook.  But it's still a good modern storybook.  Few enough elements compete with De Niro.  One is the collection of dead brothers.  The other is the goat who becomes a man (somewhat unconvincingly).  There's also Strong's undead duel with Tristan.  If there had been more of that, there'd be a better chance at truly comparing the results to Princess Bride.

Not that there has to be a comparison.  As its own thing, Stardust lightly sparkles.  And then, again, you see yourself drawn to all those stars...

Heat (1995)

rating: ****

the story: An epic showdown between cop and criminal.

review: Long billed as the long-awaited pairing of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino onscreen together (they previously both appeared in Godfather Part II, but in separate sequences), Heat is actually an embarrassment of riches, in hindsight, full of actors who would populate the big and small screens for years to come.  And it's arguably the predecessor to The Dark Knight in terms of action movies.

Here's the talent assembled for Heat: De Niro, Pacino.  Val Kilmer and Natalie Portman.  Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd.  Jon Voight (who like Kilmer sports long hair for the movie).  Tom Sizemore.  Mykelti Williamson, who the year previous had his breakthrough appearance as Bubba in Forrest Gump, and would later play another cop in the underappreciated TV gem Boomtown.  Dennis Haysbert, years before playing a president in 24, or helping us be in good hands with All-State.  Danny Trejo.  William Fichtner, who still has yet to be properly noticed.  Wes Studi, Hank Azaria, Xander Berkeley (who also later appeared in 24).  And Jeremy Piven, another talent who deserves much greater recognition for his screen presence.

And they're all here!  Just spending the time enjoying them make their appearances, large and small, is worth watching this one.

Of course, it circles back to De Niro and Pacino.  De Niro is in subdued mode, not the outsize gangster he is in Scorsese movies but more as he appears in Tarantino's Jackie Brown, two years later.  Pacino, as he often does, chews a lot of scenery, but when it counts, he matches De Niro's mood, and it's everything you always heard Heat was.  These are screen giants, and their epic showdown is exactly what it was always supposed to be.

But Michael Mann, who made his name in television, including Miami Vice (which he later adapted to the big screen in the same mold as Heat), isn't merely interested in acting.  He's got a big action movie in mind, in the kind of scope he basically perfects, in the years before superheroes came to dominate the genre, in the years after the '80s saw them dominated by action stars.  This is an experience that crosses all boundaries. 

And yeah, it's exactly the kind of experience that Christopher Nolan later duplicated for The Dark Knight.  The hype and magnetism of Heath Ledger's Joker was what everyone talks about, but Nolan was the first director since Mann to nail this kind of action movie.  And at its heart, Dark Knight is more this kind of action movie than it is a superhero movie, and I think that's what Nolan realized, and was going for, and what audiences liked so much about it, too. 

If Heat doesn't get talked about enough these days as a milestone of the '90s, and filmmaking in general, it's because it's remembered now for the De Niro/Pacino pairing, and the fact that after this their careers were never quite the same again.  De Niro reached a dramatic peak, and went in the direction of comedy, and Pacino became dismissed for what's since become best illustrated by Nicolas Cage, the idea that acting style is suddenly a crime, where the idea of movie stars has slipped by the wayside.  Which is ironic, as the dawn of the modern blockbuster begins with a movie where the acting is, distractedly, the whole point, by observers who can't quite keep the whole scope of the experience in mind.