The Comedian

Posted on February 2, 2017 at 5:32 pm

They say all clowns want to play Hamlet, and often they turn out to be outstanding dramatic actors, from Mickey Rooney to Robin Williams. But it does not always work the other way. Dramatic performers want to be clowns. Robert De Niro is one of the greatest actors in the world and he can be very funny (“Analyze This,” “Midnight Run,” “Silver Linings Playbook”). He does not always choose the best material (“Dirty Grandpa”), but like his fellow Oscar winners Tom Hanks and Sally Field, that doesn’t mean he can play the part of a stand-up comic. It is generally understood that stand-up comedy is the most difficult and terrifying of all in show business professions because they go out on stage with nothing but their ideas and a microphone — no script, no other performers, no sets, no music — just the comic and his or her ideas, and an audience expecting to be amused. Comic and comedy writer Dylan Brody told me that stand-up comics who want to be on television have to be able to deliver four laughs a minute.

In “The Comedian,” De Niro plays Jackie, an “insult comic,” whose humor is based on his ability to fire off quick, punchy, provocative responses to the people around him, to be outrageous by saying what people might think but would never admit to. Jackie was once the star of a popular “Honeymooners”-style television show and is constantly annoyed when fans of the show ask him to repeat his character’s catch phrase.

The problem is that Jackie is never as funny as the movie thinks he is and needs him to be. De Niro makes us see Jackie’s frustration at constantly being confronted with having his most popular work over long ago and not something he was especially proud of even at the time. (See Ricky Gervais in “Extras” for a much better exploration of this theme.) But when it gets to the crucial moments of his performances, he never gets the rhythm of the jokes or shows us the mental imperatives that keep comedians punching. Cloris Leachman (another Oscar winner) does better as a 95-year-old stand-up being “honored” with a Friar’s Club roast. Though she is old and frail, we see in her the fearlessness that made it possible for her to do the one thing tougher than being a make stand-up; being a female stand-up. Her character, a Phyllis Diller/Joan Rivers type, still has the reflexes and gutsiness of someone who has spent decades, going back to the 50’s, relying only on her wit, proving herself in front of audiences. And the cast includes real stand-ups, like Billy Crystal and Hannibal Buress, who remind us what comedians really sound like.

Jackie gets into trouble punching a heckler — not because he insults him but because he appropriates Jackie’s routine for his web series. He is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service and it is at the homeless shelter where he is putting in his hours that he meets Harmony (Leslie Mann), also working off an assault charge (her ex and his new girlfriend). Not the greatest of meet-cutes. He brings her to his niece’s wedding where he makes a toast that is profane and insulting but everyone, including Harmony and the bride, thinks it is hilarious (except for his sister-in-law, a terrifically furious Patti LuPone). He then does stand-up at a nursing home where once again, he is profane and insulting but everyone thinks it is hilarious (except for Harmony’s father, a what-is-he-doing-in-this-movie Harvey Keitel). The greatest acting challenge in this movie is pretending Jackie is funny.

Parents should know that this film includes very strong and crude language with insulting epithets, bodily function and sexual humor, intentionally offensive and provocative jokes, sexual situation, references to drug overdose, assaults, and discussion of a sad death of a child.

Family discussion: Why didn’t Jackie enjoy hearing from fans of his television show? Was Jackie funny? Why?

If you like this, try: “Sleepwalk With Me,” “Punchline,” “Mr. Saturday Night”

Related Tags:

Comedy Drama

The Space Between Us

Posted on February 2, 2017 at 5:15 pm

An intriguing premise is repeatedly undercut by clunky dialog and corny plot twists in “The Space Between Us,” the story of a teenager born on Mars and his first trip to Earth.

It begins in 2018, just before the launch of the first expedition to colonize Mars. Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) has been planning it since he was 12 years old and now, a joint project from NASA and the private Genesis corporation is sending a team not just to explore Mars, but to live there for four years, in a settlement called East Texas. With the depletion of resources and abuse of the planet, Mars is the best chance for humanity to continue. “Mother Nature does not negotiate.” The night before launch, Shepherd presents the crew, lead by Sarah, who captivates the crowd with her gallantry and confidence. “Courage,” she tells them, “is fear that has said its prayers.”

All goes well at first, but it turns out, about halfway to Mars, that Sarah has committed a reckless misjudgement. She is pregnant. Nathaniel, worried about losing funding for the project, keeps it secret. Sarah dies giving birth and the baby is raised by the scientists on Mars, without anyone on Earth knowing about him other than Nathaniel and a couple of his colleagues. “East Texas runs on money, science, good faith, and PR,” Nathaniel says. He will not risk the mission. And the child, gestated in zero gravity, might not be able to survive the trip home or life on Earth.

By the time we see him again, Gardner (Asa Butterfield, still soulful, and quite the beanpole since we saw him in “Hugo”) is a teenager. His only friends are an astronaut scientist named Kendra (Carla Gugino), who treats him like a lab assistant, and a robot sidekick.

In some ways, he is just like teenagers on earth, moody, uncommunicative, very interested in meeting a girl, determined to find his father, and determined to test whatever boundaries there are. In some ways he is different. He knows very little about the most basic elements of life on earth. And, because he is the first human to grow up in the 62 percent lower gravity of Mars, his physical development — bone density, heart — has been affected so that even if he did get a chance to come to earth, it could kill him.

But remember what I said about boundaries? And girls? Gardner has been e-chatting with a high school girl named Tulsa (Britt Robertson, seven years older than Butterfield and looks it), who lives in foster care in Colorado. He runs away from the NASA/Genesis medical facility to meet Tulsa and asks her to help find his father, with Nathaniel and Kendra in pursuit. There were so many possibilities here, to see Earth through the eyes of someone whose only knowledge of the planet and human interaction involving more than the same five people came from Wim Wenders’ “Wings of Desire” and old how-to movies about dating. Instead, we get a syrupy love story and chases with a helicopter, a crop duster, and a series of stolen cars.

Last year’s “The Martian” made the science fascinating. “The Space Between Us” tries to make it superfluous, neglecting some basic principles of physics but even worse, some basic principles of logic.

Parents should know that this film includes some mild language, non-explicit teen sexual situation, alcohol abuse, teen mayhem (stealing, reckless driving), some peril, childbirth scene, sad death, and health risks.

Family discussion: What’s your favorite thing on earth and why? What surprised Gardner most? What advice would you give him about how to act on Earth?

If you like this, try: “The Martian” and the film Gardner watches, “Wings of Desire”

A Dog’s Purpose

Posted on January 26, 2017 at 5:29 pm

The doesthedogdie website helpfully lets us know what some people consider the most important deciding factor in selecting a film. They — and their visitors — will have a tough time with this one because in one sense there are at least three dogs who die in this film but in another the whole point of the movie is that dogs do not really die; there are doggy spirits that go on from dog to dog, learning how to be more devoted, more loving, more helpful. So yes, there are some tough moments for both the human and canine characters in this film. I cried just watching the trailer. But on the other hand, there are gorgeous and adorable dogs. Even better, there are puppies.

“A Dog’s Purpose,” based on the best-selling book by W. Bruce Cameron is an unabashed love letter to dogs and the humans who are lucky enough to be loved by them. Yes, it is sugary and sentimental, but so is the devotion dogs and people have to each other. These are not cats like Garfield, who often scorn us and bestow their favors sparingly, or an “Every Which Way But Loose” orangutan who can outwit us. These are dogs who have nothing but time to play with us or comfort us and are always overjoyed to see us.

Bailey, voiced by Josh Gad of “Frozen,” is born (puppies), then quickly caught by animal control and (subtly) killed. Then, he is born again, and adopted by a boy named Ethan. Bailey is curious about the world and his place in it. Much of the gentle humor of the film comes from Bailey’s efforts to understand human behavior, and much of the sweetness comes from his realization that his purpose is to love, to help, and to remind humans of something important they tend to forget and dogs are very good at — to appreciate this exact moment, to inhabit it fully.

Bailey and Ethan adore one another, happy to play together all day. Bailey gets up to the usual dog mischief, but the real problem in the family is when Ethan’s dad becomes depressed, begins to abuse alcohol, and becomes abusive. By that time, Ethan is a teenager, in love with Hannah (Britt Robertson), and being recruited for football scholarships to college. But things go wrong for Ethan, and Bailey gets old and tired…and is reborn as Ellie, a K-9 dog partnered with Carlos (John Ortiz), and then as a corgi adopted by a lonely student (Kirby Howell-Baptiste), and then as a neglected dog abandoned by his owner’s boyfriend.

There’s nothing subtle, surprising, or sophisticated about this story, which is as chewed over as a dog’s favorite bedroom slipper. But audiences will be won over by the unabashed affection for its subject and funny-only-after-the-fact incidents that will be only too familiar to anyone who has ever lived with a dog. Its belief in the deep connection between humans and the devoted dogs in their lives — and did I mention the puppies? — help it connect to us as well.

NOTE: The release of some leaked behind-the-scenes footage appeared to show one of the dogs being mistreated by a handler in order to get him to do a stunt. The producer of the film has made a detailed statement about the incident, accepting responsibility for some mistakes but also making it clear that the leaked footage was edited to distort what happened. Anyone concerned about the treatment of the dogs on the film should read his statement in its entirety.

Parents should know that this film has tense, sad, and dangerous situations including very sad deaths of beloved pets and character injured, alcohol abuse, depression, domestic abuse, neglect of animal, fire, law enforcement violence including kidnapping, shoot-outs, and rescue, some potty humor, and some disturbing images.

Family discussion: What do you think a dog’s purpose is? How is it different from a human’s purpose?

If you like this, try: The book by W. Bruce Cameron and the movies “My Dog Skip,” “Marley & Me,” and “The Three Lives of Thomasina”

The Founder

Posted on January 19, 2017 at 5:40 pm

McDonald’s began as a hamburger stand in San Bernardino, California, the idea of two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald, who brought to food what Henry Ford brought to cars: ultra-efficient assembly-line production: consistent, reliable, and scalable. But McDonald’s, the worldwide “billions and billions served” fast food franchise phenomenon with the iconic golden arches was the creation of the man who put “founder” on his business cards, Ray Kroc.

Balzac famously said that behind every great fortune there is a crime, and this story of one of the great disruptive forces in 20th century business shows us the vision, the passion, the triumph and the heartbreak behind it. Michael Keaton is well cast as Kroc, a struggling salesman who listens to motivational tapes about the importance of persistence — a more significant factor, according to the lectures, than ability or resources.

Kroc is on the road trying to sell milkshake machines to restaurants. He calls his secretary for messages. A prospect says no. A bill collector wants to be paid. And some hamburger stand in California wants to buy six. Kroc is sure that is a mistake. No one has ever wanted more than one. He calls and speaks to one of the McDonald brothers. He can hear the activity in the background. And the order gets upped to eight. Kroc has to go see it for himself.

The McDonald brothers (John Carroll Lynch and Nick Offerman) welcome Kroc warmly, proud to tell their story and show off their innovations. In one of the movie’s highlights, they explain the trial and error and meticulous planning that led to their operational and conceptual innovation. They had three brilliant insights. First, they got rid of the inessentials: no wait staff, no plates to wash or break, and they limited the menu offerings to the items that were most often ordered. You want chicken — go somewhere else. They got rid of the cigarette machine and jukebox and thus got rid of the undesirable customers, teenagers and others who come to hang around instead of those who eat and leave. That left busy families, who appreciated the wholesome atmosphere and utter consistency and reliability. Second, they streamlined production, again reinforcing consistency and reliability and attracting families. One more difference to appeal to families: no waiting. Food was delivered almost instantly. Indeed, when on his first visit Kroc received his food neatly packed in a bag seconds after placing the order, he looked at it confused and asked, “What’s that?” The McDonald brothers realized they were not just providing customers with food; they were providing them with something even more precious: time.

The third brilliant insight created some conflict with their new partner after Kroc persuaded them to put him in charge of franchising. For the McDonald’s, money was not the top priority. They valued, well, values.

It is instructive that there are several points throughout the film where someone explains that McDonald’s is not about hamburgers. All of the other answers are right in their own way, along with many others. This is a rare film that looks at what it takes to create a globally dominant business, and what it costs as well.

Parents should know that this film includes one f-word, some predatory business behavior, illness, and marital strain and divorces.

Family discussion: How many things other than hamburgers did people say the business of McDonald’s really was? Why did Kroc call himself “founder?” Who was right, the brothers or Kroc, and why?

If you like this, try: “Tucker: The Man and his Dream” and “Joy”

Related Tags:

Based on a true story Biography Drama

Live By Night

Posted on January 12, 2017 at 5:45 pm

Ben Affleck the director picked the wrong screenwriter and the wrong star for “Live By Night,” based, like his far better “Gone Baby Gone” on a book by Dennis Lehane.

Unfortunately, this time Ben Affleck the director picked Ben Affleck the screenwriter and Ben Affleck the actor for this crime drama set in post WWI, prohibition-era Boston and Florida. Affleck the director has a good eye for detail. He understands the pacing of individual scenes, selects a great cast (other than himself), cinematographer (Robert Richardson), and composer (Harry Gregson-Williams) and has a good sense for visual storytelling. But in this case he was let down by Affleck the screenwriter, who allows the storyline to become so episodic it loses energy. And Affleck the actor gives the weakest performance in the film. He wants to be strong and stoic but comes across as blank and unfocused. It is disappointing to see Warner Brothers, the studio behind gangster classics, produce a film that has nothing of their grit or vitality.

Affleck plays Joe Coughlin, son of an Irish-American cop (Brendan Gleeson) who returns from fighting in WWI determined not to answer to anyone again. He wants to make his own rules. So he becomes involved in crime. Even criminals have rules, and Joe breaks those, too, having a passionate affair with Emma (Sienna Miller), who is supposed to be the girlfriend of the boss of the Irish mob. She betrays him (revealed early in the film, unlike the book), and is reported killed in a chase that ends with her car going into the water. He is badly beaten and then sent to prison.

When he gets out, he goes to Tampa, where he and his friend Dion Bartolo (Chris Messina) muscle their way into the crime scene there. Joe becomes involved with Graciela (Zoe Saldana) and she encourages him to take over the rum distribution. Immediately after telling him she will not sleep with him, she sleeps with him, discomfiting even in a retro story. More thuggery. More killing.

A local cop named Figgis (Chris Cooper) explains that he associates with crooks but is not one himself. His compartmentalization is geographic as well as moral, and he outlines for Joe with a map where he can operate. Later, when Joe needs leverage, he shows Figgis photos of his adored daughter Loretta (willowy Elle Fanning), hooked on drugs and prostituting herself. Joe will tell Figgis where she is in exchange for redrawing those moral boundaries. We later see Figgis punishing her by whipping her bare behind. And she becomes an Aimee Semple McPherson-style evangelist, showing the needle scars on her arms to the crowd as proof of her redemption, and calling on her followers to stay away from the demon rum that Joe is selling.

Joe’s run-ins with cruder thugs, including the KKK, are intended to show that he, too compartmentalizes and perhaps to raise the question of how each of us draws lines, and then redraws them, as we make choices about how far we will go. The excellence in production design and cinematography only show by contrast the superficiality of the story which like the other recent period film from an actor-turned-director, Warren Beatty’s “Rules Don’t Apply,” puts form above substance, or, worse, thinks they are the same thing.

Parents should know that this is a gangster film with extensive violence, including many graphic and disturbing images and characters who are injured and killed. The film also has strong language including racist epithets and sexual references and situations.

Family discussion: Why did Joe want to talk to Emma? How was Joe different from some of the other gangsters? How did his experience in the army influence him?

If you like this, try: “The Godfather,” parts 1 and 2

Related Tags:

Based on a book Crime Drama