The Creator

Posted on September 28, 2023 at 5:39 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for violence, some bloody images and strong language
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended action, peril, and violence, some involving a child and a pregnant woman, disturbing and grisly images, very sad death of a major character
Diversity Issues:	Some concerns about racial stereotypes
Date Released to Theaters:	September 29, 2023

“The Creator” is an apocalyptic sci-fi story about a war with AI that looks great but has a storyline that is an overlong (2 1/4 hour) mash-up of better, more thought-provoking films with more skillfully constructed world-building. I wonder how many reviews will suggest that if this is the kind of project we can expect from bot screenwriters, humans don’t have much to worry about.

Science fiction often extrapolates current conflicts by imagining the worst-case scenario of current technological developments or mirroring historical conflicts. “The Creator” does both, drawing from classics like “Terminator,” “Blade Runner,” “Her,” “Captain Marvel,” and “Apocalypse Now,” maybe a bit of “Dances with Wolves,” but just highlighting how much better those films are than this one.

The best moments are the film’s opening, with what appear to be archival black and white newsreels from the 1950s and 60s, chirpily introducing wonderful new thinking machines that will take over our most tedious tasks, make life easier, and free up our time for people and activities we love. They amusingly capture the upbeat tone and aesthetics of the post-WWII era.

But then we learn that (as in “Terminator”), the artificial intelligence humans created began thinking for itself, and what it thought was that it did not want to be the servants of humans anymore. And so, we are told, the AI dropped an atomic bomb on Los Angeles, wiping out the city. The AI robots are now so advanced that some, called simulants (think “Blade Runner’s” replicants) have faces and skin like humans, though no back of the head, and big, whirring, empty metal circles behind their ears. The humans and the AI are at war.

Humans have recently gained an edge when the story picks up in 2065. A military installation in the sky called NOMAD is powerful enough to track and destroy AI bases. Joshua (John David Washington), a former soldier with robotic arm and leg prosthetics, is living peacefully with his pregnant wife, Maya (Gemma Chan) in a house on an isolated beach. Around them is a community of friendly simulants.

They are discovered by NOMAD. Joshua, who turns out to have been undercover, trying to locate the mysterious person known as Nirmata, considered the creator and leader of the AI, tries to save Maya, but she appears to bekilled with the blown-up and shot simulents. Joshua is devastated. When military officers approach him to help them find a new weapon, reportedly the most powerful ever developed, he refuses, until Colonel Howell (Allison Janney) shows him evidence that Maya is still alive.

Joshua agrees to guide the mission to what was Maya’s community, and there he finds that the “weapon” is a highly advanced stimulant in the form of a little girl with a shaved head. She looks like she is about six years old. She can control power circuits and absorb information at an exponential rate. And so, like “The Last of Us,” a man and a young girl go on a journey. In this case, they are being chased by both the AI entities and the humans.

The action set-pieces are ably staged and the settings are striking. But the story is weak and superficial. Basically, the white people with cities and fancy weapons are the bad guys and the AIs, who mostly look Asian and live gently on the land, just want liberty and peace. A simulant says that it was human error that led to the bombing of LA. But one could just as easily say that it was human error that lead to artificial intelligence that violate Asimov’s laws of robotics, with no harm to humans an essential rule. Why do simulants eat and sleep? If they are so smart, why haven’t they learned from history that building the most powerful weapon has never led to peace? If they are so smart, why don’t they develop some proposal for peaceful co-existence?

More important, what does the movie want us to feel about all of this? Its politics are as muddled as the inconsistent world it invites us to consider.

Parents should know that this film has extended peril and violence, some involving a child (or an entity that looks like a child) and a pregnant woman. Many characters are injured and killed, including sad deaths of major characters, and there are onscreen deaths and some graphic, bloody images. Characters use strong language. There are unfortunate racial stereotypes, even with non-human AI.

Family discussion: Why make an AI in the form of a child? What kinds of rules should we impose on the corporations who develop and sell AI?

If you like this, try: “Blade Runner,” “The Tomorrow War,” and “Terminator”

Dumb Money

Posted on September 14, 2023 at 5:15 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for pervasive language, sexual material, and drug use
Profanity:	Constant very strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol and brief drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	None
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	September 15, 2023
Date Released to DVD:	November 13, 2023

Crazy times create crazy events. There has seldom been a crazier time in the United States than the early months of the pandemic and there has seldom been a crazier series of events in the modern history of investing than the time a group of small individual investors with very little capital took on some of the wealthiest and most powerful people on Wall Street and they kind of won. Now that sounds like a movie, and, for the second time, it is.

First there was the documentary, Eat the Rich: the GameStop Saga. And now, the feature film, “Dumb Money,” with an all-star cast, a smart screenplay by Lauren Schuker Blum and Rebecca Angelo, and lively direction from Craig Gillespie. The movie does a good job of conveying the intricate details of investing and finance in the context of a movie that maintains a heightened tone through sharply executed editing, provocative needle-drops on the soundtrack (beginning with WAP), and minimal exposition.

In very sharp contrast to the music on the soundtrack, Paul Dano plays the central figure, mild-mannered Keith Gill, who lives with his wife, Caroline (Shailene Woodley), and their baby daughter in a modest home in Brockton, Massachusetts. Like a movie superhero, he has a secret identity. By day he was a financial analyst with MassMutual. By night he had not one but two personas, one on the subreddit r/wallstreetbets (DeepF***ingValue) and one on YouTube (Roaring Kitty). In both, he talked about stocks he liked and he revealed his own trades. In January 2021, he announced that he had invested in 50,000 shares and 500 call options for GameStop, the store that sells video games in malls. Most investors, including Wall Street billionaires, thought GameStop was going to go bankrupt. The US was still in pre-vaccine pandemic lockdown, though GameStop somehow got listed as an essential business because it sold some computer peripherals, so the stores were still open. But Keith explained his reasons for thinking the stock, trading at under $4 a share, was undervalued.

The Wall Street billionaires also put their money where their mouths were and bet against the company by going “short,” meaning they would make money if the stock went down. Normally, they would have succeeded. But nothing in this story was normal. It was a perfect storm. First, the pandemic shut everything down and made people feel even more mistrustful of big institutions than they were before. This was especially true of the people of Keith’s generation, who were in school on 9/11 and were entering the job market just as the financial meltdown hit the economy with no consequences for the people who caused it. Second, social media made it possible for anyone, like Keith for example, to express views on platforms that were as accessible as traditional media. And it made it possible for followers to support each other and bring in more. Gill went viral. Third, thanks to a new app with no fees, buying and selling stock and even complicated securities like puts and calls (options) was suddenly as easy as sending a text. And fourth, people were stuck at home. They felt stuck in an unfair world. They did not have access to complex investment securities analysis about big, complicated corporations. But they could understand Roaring Kitty, and they could understand GameStop.

And then, Roaring Kitty. People followed his recommendations because he showed them that he was using his own money, because he was an outsider and therefore more like them, because that trading app on their phones was called Robin Hood and trades were “free,” and, this is the key point, after a while, when it was clear that they were costing the Wall Street short sellers billions as their purchases made the stock go up, they were just as happy to be beating the mega-wealthy as they were to be making thousands, tens of thousands, and in Keith’s case, millions for themselves. The trading app was named Robin Hood, which sounded anti-Wall Street. These new investors came up with a new meme-able term: “stonks,” meaning “we’re doing it our own way and it is more about the fun than about making money.” Their loss is almost entirely limited to their modest investments while the short sellers risk losses one television commentator (in real-life archival footage) calls “infinity.”

Gillespe has a sure hand with a chaotic story, giving us just enough information to follow what is happening without weighing us down with the details of finance. Schuker Blum and Angelo have a sharp sense for telling detail. One of the investors is a GameStop employee (Anthony Ramos) with a bureaucratic boss. We get a glimpse of the gulf between the MBAs at headquarters sending out lists about which products have the highest profit margins (“push the loyalty card!”) and the reality of the tiny shop in the otherwise-empty mall. Other investors include a nurse and single mother (America Ferrara) and a pair of debt-ridden college students played by Talia Ryder and Myha’la. Sebastian Stan appears as Robin Hood co-founder Vladimir Tenev. He claims that they were inspired by Occupy Wall Street and his coyness about how they make money when they do not charge a transaction fee turns out to be very significant when Robin Hood’s connection to another player in this story comes out.

There’s an “Empire Strikes Back” element when the people with billions at risk start playing hardball. But Gill understands that Wall Street is overlooking the app investors the way they look the customers of GameStop and his followers, dazzled by their gains and thrilled by schadenfreude. If they had not felt that they were being treated like losers for so long, the win would not mean as much.

The superb cast includes Clancy Brown and Kate Burton as Keith’s parents and Pete Davidson as his slacker brother, whose job in the movie is to contrast and target for exposition. Nick Offerman is excellent as billionaire Ken Griffin and Seth Rogen is in top form as Gabe Plotkin, the guy whose highly leveraged bet against GameStop turns out to be a monumental mistake. In the beginning of the film, his casual entitlement in talking to a contractor who is supposed to be tearing down a house so Plotkin can have a tennis court is in sharp contrast to his unraveling as things go south. You can see the real Plotkin’s testimony here. (Don’t feel sorry for him. He’s now an owner of the Hornets.) There are a dozen clever details that give the story texture, from the recreation of the stonk memes to the coaching for the zoom testimony to a Congressional committee. (You can see Gill’s testimony here.)

It’s entertaining and thought-provoking. With any luck, it will inspire other Gills to find what the experts overlook, which is, after all, how capitalism works.

Parents should know that this film has non-stop strong and vulgar language, spoken by the characters and on the soundtrack, including the n-word. Characters drink alcohol and briefly smoke marijuana and there is a bawdy, sexualized game at a college party.

Family discussion: Who would you trust to give you investment advice? Why did so many people trust Keith?

If you like this, try: the “Eat the Rich” documentary, the book by Ben Mezrich, and “The Big Short” (Note a brief appearance by the real-life character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Wolf of Wall Street,” Jordan Belfort)

Jules

Posted on August 10, 2023 at 5:49 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for strong language
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Character attacked, sad death of a pet, violent murder off-screen
Diversity Issues:	Ageism
Date Released to Theaters:	August 11, 2023

Martin (Ben Kingsley) goes to every meeting of the town council in his western Pennsylvania community. Given one minute to express his views, he points out that he believes the town motto, “A place to call home,” is confusing and an intersection needs a crosswalk. Martin’s daughter Denise (Zoë Winters), a veterinarian, worries about him because his memory is slipping. She found a can of beans in the upstairs bathroom medicine cabinet and a newspaper in the freezer. But he stubbornly insists that he is doing fine.

And then a spaceship lands in Martin’s back yard, and his primary concern at first seems to be that it crushed his azaleas. He calls 911 but they think it’s a prank and hang up on him. And then something or someone from the spaceship is lying on on his porch.

Martin puts a blanket over his new visitor, and the next day invites him/her/it/them inside the house to get warm. (The characters in the movie call the visitor “him,” so I will, too.). Martin offers him snacks, but the only food the creature will eat are apple slices. Martin goes to the grocery store to buy more apples, explaining to the cashier that there is an alien in his house. “Like an illegal alien?” No, like someone from outer space. Zoe hears about it and gets more concerned.

Sandy (Harriet Sansom Harris) sees the alien and cautions Martin to keep him a secret. They decide to call him Jules. Another neighbor, Joyce (Jane Curtin) thinks he looks more like a Gary.

This is a low-key charmer, a kind of “E.T” for AARP. Jules does not speak and it is not clear how much he understands, but the look of his character is well designed (with movement by Jade Quon) to gain the trust and affection of Martin, Sandy, and Joyce, and of us in the audience. He is small in stature but humanoid in shape, with arms, legs, and face that look familiar to earthlings, and a peaceful blue skin color. His eyes seem knowing and his expression is solemn. He draws pictures of cats for Martin, and eventually the three senior citizens will figure out why.

Although there is an (off-camera) moment of violence and a sad loss, there’s a gentleness to the story that is very endearing. Because Jules is silent, people around him tend to open up to fill the silence, sharing confidences with him. Harris and Curtin are wonderful in those scenes. Director Marc Turtletaub’s understated tone allows these performances to bloom so that finally we feel that Jules’ superior intelligence is proven by his choice of a landing spot.

Parents should know that characters use strong language, and assault, and a violent death offscreen that is graphically described.

Family discussion: Do you think you will ever meet an alien? How will Tim react to his father’s message?

If you like this, try: “Cocoon” and “E.T.”

Blackberry

Posted on May 11, 2023 at 3:14 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language throughout
Profanity:	Constant very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Tense confrontations
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	May 12, 2023

We used to get movies about knights, cowboys, soldiers, usually with a lot of highly simplified clarity about the good guys and the bad guys. These were exciting in and of themselves, but they were also origin stories, those foundational, profound, and defining sagas that tell us who we are: the descendants of courageous people who triumphed over evil. many of the best had some depth and complexity. It is not necessary to abandon moral clarity to the point of “both sides-ism,” but to be honest and meaningful the stories should recognize the losses, the compromises, and the consequences of conflict.

Our recent cinematic origin stories look back at our most recent history with heroes in boardrooms, not battlefields. Instead of jousting with lances or dropping bombs from airplanes we have people typing code on keyboards and making presentations in bespoke suits. The hero of the “Tetris” movie is not the man who created the game; it’s the man who sold the game. Michael Jorden, one of the greatest athletes in history, barely makes an appearance in “Air,” the movie that mentions his extraordinary ability but makes as its central characters the men who made the deal to sell his branded sneakers. The upcoming “Flaming’ Hot” is the underdog story of the janitor who came up with the idea of extra-spicy Cheetos. And “Blackberry” is the rise-and-fall cautionary tale of the mismatched pair, the genius engineer and the Harvard-educated business powerhouse who joined forces to create a transformational new technology that ruled the world — until it was overtaken by another transformational technology. “Flamin’ Hot,” coming soon, is the origin story(ish) of a popular spicy snack. Maybe some day they’ll make a movie about the Betamax.

Mike Lazaridis (Jay Bảruchel) and Doug Freigen (played by writer-director Matt Johnson) make an inept pitch to executive Jim Balsillie (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’s” Glenn Howerton) and he tosses them out. But when he is fired, he remembers something they said. Lazaridis quoted his high school shop teacher: “The person who puts the computer inside the phone will change the world.”

He makes a proposal to the young entrepreneurs — he wants to be the CEO and have 50 percent of the stock. Lazaridis is willing but Freigen is not. They think they’re in good shape because they have a lucrative deal for modems already. But engineers are better with soldering guns than PowerPoint, and they realize they need each other.

There are a lot of vivid, telling details in the film. When we first see Lazaridis, he is so bothered by a hissing sound of a machine in the office of someone he has not even met that he cannot help opening it up to fix it. That moment ties in very well with the movie’s conclusion. When Lazaridis and his team have just one night to produce a sample, they race through a store to pick up the components, including an early children’s Speak and Spell toy (like “ET”), creating a sort of Franken-phone. We see the difference between the engineers’ faith that if they build it everyone will want one and the marketing expert’s understanding that what sells new technology is not the functionality but the prestige, and especially the FOMO.

We know when the engineer and the MBA have a conflict early on: Balsillie says “Perfect is the enemy of good enough” and Lazaridis replies, “Good enough is the enemy of humanity,” we’re going to see that come back at them. And before it happens, we know that Lazaridis, with his hippie friend in the headband and the nerdy engineers who goof off and watch movies on one side and the demands of a suddenly mammoth company with huge technical and operational demands on the other will have to make some painful choices. Some will be the right ones, if the priority is the business over the friendships and the “perfect.” Some will be the wrong ones with the biggest conflict not within Blackberry but between his idea about what people want and Steve Jobs’ idea when he introduces the iPhone — no buttons! open source apps! Coolness (again prestige).

Bảruchel plays a very different character than the slacker-ish but endearing roles we’ve mostly seen before. He does a good job of conveying the prematurely gray Lazaridis in the early years as someone who is passionate about his work but uncomfortable talking to people instead of tinkering with technology, and then showing us the more polished version years later. We do not know all of the turning points where he was forced to compromise on issues he had previously considered non-negotiable, but we can see what those compromises, or, as Balsille says, sacrifices have done to him. And Howerton is on fire as Balsille. We can see in his posture and in every gesture the fury that fuels him.

This is not the kind of movie that is going to give you glimpses into the private lives of the characters. While we get a glimpse of one character’s conflicts when he is trying to buy a different business at the same time he needs to be at a crucial Blackberry meeting, we never find out if they have families. This is a rare movie about top-level achievers without a scene of loved ones complaining that they don’t get enough time. This is a story about business, but it is also very much in the classic mold because it is about passion, innovation, and hubris.

Parents should know that this film has constant very strong language, along with some tense confrontations and breaking the law.

Family discussion: What kinds of sacrifice are necessary for greatness? How did Mike change? What will be the next disruptive technology?

If you like this, try: “The Social Network,” “Steve Jobs,” and “Tetris”

Air

Posted on April 5, 2023 at 5:45 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language throughout
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Some alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	None
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	April 7, 2023

A good movie will capture our attention even when we know, because it is a true story, how it turned out. How it happened can be an engrossing story itself, especially if it was a shift with consequences so pervasive we can hardly remember when things were different. Today, dozens of celebrities, even the biggest box-office actors and platinum-selling singers, make more money from their lines of cosmetics, fragrances, clothing and shoes, housewares, books, phone plans, liquor, and perhaps, someday, steel-belted radial tires and vacation time shares. But it began when a man named Sonny Vacarro, working for Nike, made a deal with an athlete who had not yet played his first professional basketball game. His name is Michael Jordan.

Matt Damon plays Sonny, with director Ben Affleck as Nike founder Phil Knight. As the movie begins, In 1984, Nike was known as a running shoe company. Converse and Adidas had most of the market for basketball shoes. Nike, with only 17 percent, was considering giving up entirely. Vacarro, whose life could easily fill a few more movies, wants to change the division’s approach, a poor (in both senses of the word) imitation of the vastly more successful competition. They would pay the top athletes a set fee to appear on posters and ads, representing the brand. Sonny and his colleagues discussed the lower-tier athletes they might be able to afford but no one thought that pursuing the same failed strategy would produce a better result. They just did not know what else to try, and the old system might not work, but it was safe.

Nike was an upstart company, and, as Sonny reminded Phil Knight, before they were a public company, with all of the bureaucracy and high profile disclosures that requires, they were the opposite of safe. The film cleverly uses the company’s real-life principles as commentary or chapter headings. “Our business is change” is number one.

Sonny decides that instead of hedging their bets by picking three basketball players and hoping one of them would excel, they should spend their entire budget on Michael Jordan a #3 draft pick rookie who has not yet set foot on a professional court. He has to persuade his colleagues (Chris Tucker and Jason Bateman, both excellent as always). He has to persuade Knight. He has to persuade Jordan’s ultra-alpha agent, David Falk (Chris Messina, nailing it like the real-life Jordan buzzer-beater). And when Falk refuses to give Sonny a meeting, Sonny has to persuade Jordan’s parents, more specifically, Jordan’s mother Deloris.

She is played by the magnificent Viola Davis because that was real-life Jordan’s one request for the film. And she is on fire. A scene near the end has a phone conversation between Deloris and Sonny that will be in the highlight reels for both stars forever.

Affleck is a fine actor and a better-than-fine director. As an actor since childhood, his skill at selecting the right actors and allowing them to do their best is to be expected. He also has an exceptional sense of narrative structure. The script from first-time screenwriter Alex Avery was chosen as Best Unproduced/Blacklist Screenplay of 2021. He gets sole credit, but Affleck and Damon, Oscar-winning screenwriters in their 20s for “Good Will Hunting,” worked with him on the final version. It is the way the story is shaped that allows each of the characters to make a contribution and keeps us somehow wondering how it will come together.

There is also a deeper meaning, a medium is the message connection. It is the first film from a new company formed by Damon and Affleck that hopes to do for the people who work on films what Sonny did for Michael Jordan, recognizing the contributions of below-the-line crew like cinematographers, designers, and sound technicians with a chance to share in the profits of the work they help to create. Let’s hope they all do as well as Jordan, who, according to the film’s ending updates, makes $400 million a year from the Nike products bearing his name.

Parents should know that this film has constant strong “locker-room” language

Family discussion: What made Nike different from its competitors? Which of the Nike principles do you think are most important? Would you buy something just because it had the name of a celebrity on it?

If you like this, try: “Sole Man,” the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary about Sonny Vacaarro and some of the interviews with Vacarro on YouTube, especially the ones concerning his reversal from creating marketing programs that exploited amateur athletes to leading the Supreme Court challenge that recognized their right to be paid for the use of their images and names