7 Days in May | Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2 and The Circle

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 (2017)



I liked it better than the first one. It's just as funny and visually interesting and the music is just as cool, but it has a better villain and some really great (and truly touching) development for at least three characters. And awesome cameos.

The Circle (2017)



I'm going to spoil some things, but you shouldn't watch The Circle, so feel free to keep reading. This movie is so disappointing.

I love the cast and the concept is intriguing, but The Circle does a lousy job of making whatever point it's trying to communicate. There's one good scene that raises worthwhile questions about a) the relationship between truth and transparency, and b) the tension between those things and privacy. But I don't know what the rest of the movie is about.

It's not the thriller that the marketing wants you to think it is. Mae (Emma Watson) is never in any physical danger and the only stakes are that if she leaves her job then she also loses the awesome health insurance that's finally getting her dad (Bill Paxton) some help with his MS. That's okay, though. It's enough to put her in an interesting quandary. Should she stay with an employer that has a ridiculous lack of boundaries when it comes to employees' personal lives (and apparently no HR department at all)? The movie could have explored that more fully and I wouldn't have missed the lack of fights and chases. But it's not really about that, either.

I can't tell if Mae is ever skeptical about the Circle's participation policies. I assumed that she was and that her "yeah, yeah, no problem" attitude towards them was simply an attempt not to make waves in her cool, new job. But she never really puts up a fight; not even when senior employee Ty Kalden (John Boyega) decides to entrust her with some concerning information. And after that she's just one bad evening and a pep talk from Tom Hanks away from completely buying what the Circle is selling.

She says some truly stupid things in that section, too. She calls watching videos of other people's experiences "a basic human right," for instance. And says that it's selfish not to post experiences online for everyone to see. She hasn't just swallowed Eamon Bailey's (Tom Hanks) Kool-Aid; she's swallowed the pitcher itself and the entire soft drink aisle. I kept expecting that at some point she would reveal that she was faking it and was really working with Kalden the whole time, but that moment never came.

There's of course a confrontation between Mae and Bailey by the end, but there are two huge problems with it. First, the movie never reveals what it is exactly that Bailey is doing wrong. He's full of terrible, harmful ideas, but there's no explicit indication that he's actually planning to use his collected data for evil purposes. The potential is certainly there and I wanted to see him stopped, but his final unmasking is nothing more than a revelation that he has secrets just like everyone else. Nor does the movie care about telling what those are. So the climactic showdown between him and Mae doesn't have any punch, because it's never clear what would happen if Bailey won.

The second huge problem with the final confrontation is that Mae's ideas are now just as harmful as Bailey's. She still believes in total transparency. Her problem with Bailey is just that he wants to be exempt from it. So I'm not exactly rooting for her, either.

It's not wrong that the movie ends with no clear answers. What I don't like is the way it phrases the question. It presents two, horrible solutions and asks which is preferable. There's some discussion that can be had around that, but the discussion would be so much richer if the film took its dilemma seriously and offered a couple of actually reasonable perspectives for its viewers to contemplate.

Charlie Chan at the Olympics (1937)



I like Warner Oland's Charlie Chan movies, but this is a minor entry. All the detective work is loaded toward the front with as much passion as Law & Order. It's just trying to get through that as quickly as possible so that it can move on to the spy story that it really wants to tell. And sadly, even though it's set at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, it's not at all interested in the political situation at the time. There's never even a mention of Hitler or the Nazi party.

Zorro (1957-61)



A few more episodes into Season 2 and Zorro's still in Monterey. I had to look ahead at descriptions of future episodes to make sure he doesn't permanently relocate there. He doesn't, but it'll be a while before he gets home.

The excuse for now is that he needs to stay and deal with another rebel against oppression. Unlike the original novel and the 1920 Douglas Fairbanks film, the Californian government in the Disney show isn't depicted as completely corrupt. But the governor isn't as wise or careful as he should be either, so his underlings are often able to get away with cruel activities. When that starts to happen in Monterey, a hotheaded local named Joaquin Castenada rises up in defiance. But while Zorro appreciates the young man's passion, he disagrees with the brutality of his methods. It's an interesting conflict, but one that I hope is wrapped up soon.

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (1992-93)



The first of the two episodes I watched last week had Indy working as a motorcycle courier, running messages between the French military HQ and the front lines. It's a heavy-handed commentary on the disconnect between the fighting men and the leaders who command them, but it's good in that it puts some cracks in Indy's view of the war. He abandoned the Mexican Revolution when it became complicated, then avoided the Irish Revolution for similar reasons. Both times he set himself resolutely towards Europe to fight the Germans who had ruthlessly invaded Belgium to get to France. Seemed like an uncomplicated bad guy to fight, but as he learns in this episode, the cause of World War I is pitiful and extremely complicated. Unfortunately, it's too late for him to get out now.

In the second episode (written by Carrie Fisher!), Indy is given leave to visit a friend of his father in Paris. The friend is played by Ian McDiarmid, so there's a double Star Wars connection, but the episode is actually about Indy's hooking up with Mata Hari. It's about relationships, so I enjoyed it more than the previous one even though there's not much plot to it. It has some great insights on love and jealousy and the lies we tell early in romances.

Underground (2016-present)



After the big event of an entire episode about Harriet Tubman's speech, the next couple of episodes get back to the main story around Rosalee and Noah's plan to free Rosalee's family. Of course that doesn't go as planned and everything falls apart. But that's just in time for the last couple of episodes (the finale airs this week) to hopefully bring it back around. Hopefully.

I'm very invested in these characters and the way last season ended gives me encouragement that this one will go out on some kind of victory. But the show is nothing if not surprising.

Jam of the Week: "Shout" by Tears for Fears

I love these guys in a way that isn't healthy and I'm finally seeing them live this Thursday, so I've been all about them this past week. They have many excellent songs and I'd love to feature a deeper cut here, but there's no better song than "Shout." Probably by any band.

The Year in Movies: 1931 - Mystery and Horror

Dracula (1931)



It's tough not to compare Tod Browning's Dracula to Murnau's Nosferatu from nine years earlier. The ability to add sound to movies was a great reason to do a new version of Stoker's story (with all the proper rights, too, instead of sneakily changing the characters' names) and Browning was a good choice to direct it. His style is very different from Murnau's, but it's distinct and creepy and brings some beautiful atmosphere to Dracula.

But Murnau's version is actually scary and Browning's never is. Murnau's Count Orlok is a true monster, from his very appearance to his strange powers that Murnau so cleverly gives him through special effects. Browning's version - truer to Stoker's novel - is meant to be creepily charming. You don't realize he's a threat until it's too late. Which is cool, but Browning uses so little effects that even when Dracula is supposed to be frightening, it's mostly suggested by the way other characters are reacting to him.

That can be very effective sometimes, especially in the case of Dwight Frye's Renfield, who's easily the most chilling character of the film. Edward Van Sloan also adds to Dracula's menace as Van Helsing. The Van Helsing character is a giant weakness of Nosferatu, but I always have a lot of fun watching him work in Dracula, trying to first figure out who the vampire is (initially suspecting Renfield), then playing a game of wills against Bela Lugosi's monster.

I wish that Helen Chandler was a better Mina, though. Mina is the heart of any version of Dracula and it's important to get her right. Nosferatu gives her a tragically heroic role (renamed Ellen and played with full commitment by Greta Schröder). In Browning's movie, Mina is simply the MacGuffin; the object that the characters are all fighting over. She's not written very well, but she's played even worse by Chandler who never eases into the character and always reminds me that she's an actress playing a role. (Lupita Tovar is much better in the Spanish version that was shot simultaneously with Browning's using the same script and sets, but with a different director and cast. That's a different review, though.)

The movie is also dreadfully slow, but in spite of that and my misgivings about Chandler, I always enjoy revisiting Browning's Dracula for its mood and its cultural impact and especially for Lugosi, Frye, and Van Sloan. I should give a quick shout out to David Manners' John Harker, who's mostly nondescript, but has one great moment when he throws down his newspaper in disgust and leaves the room because of Van Helsing's crackpot ideas about shape-changing, immortal blood-suckers. Manners is visually pretty nondescript, but he's grown on me as an actor and I always seem to find something to enjoy in his performances.

The Sleeping Cardinal (aka Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour) (1931)



Unlike the silent Sherlock Holmes from 1922, this is a pretty good representation of Holmes and Watson. Holmes is smart and knows it, but his arrogance is gentler than in a lot of adaptations. Watson is always a step behind, but he's familiar with Holmes' methods and no fool. I liked these guys a lot.

I also enjoyed how much focus the movie gives to some of the supporting characters before bringing in the detectives. That helped pull me into the mystery.

M (1931)



Sort of Ocean's Eleven meets Silence of the Lambs with a gang of crooks teaming up to capture a serial killer/pedophile. Peter Lorre is super creepy and appropriately baby-faced as the murderer, but my favorite part is the cat and mouse game when the criminals have him holed up in an office building and he's working to get away from them. That section holds up next to any modern thriller.

And the film wraps up with a fascinating meditation on justice that had my son and I arguing about what the right thing to do would be. Nicely done.

The Maltese Falcon (1931)



It's been a long time since I've seen the original, so I can't compare the two versions, but I really enjoyed Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade. He's a sleazy, but charming ladies' man in a way that Bogart can't possibly pull off. As interesting as that is, though, I couldn't really root for him the way I can with Bogart. And I kept missing Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet.

It was sure great seeing Dwight Frye as a tough though. I love that guy.

The Black Camel (1931)



It's fun to see Warner Oland as Charlie Chan interacting with Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye from the same year as Dracula. And The Black Camel a pretty good mystery story. But this is early days in the Charlie Chan series and it moves slowly. There are much better as the series goes along.

Murder at Midnight (1931)



Fun, if unbelievable and convoluted mystery about a murder that takes place during a party in front of witnesses. Once you know the relationships between the victim and the other characters, the broad strokes of the plot are predictable, but there were also a couple of twists that I didn't see coming.

Daughter of the Dragon (1931)



Aside from the problems of non-Asian actors playing Asian characters, I always enjoy Warner Oland as Charlie Chan. That doesn't make him a good Fu Manchu though. He's not threatening enough, though Daughter of the Dragon's script gives him a pretty good scheme to implement.

As the title suggests, it involves his daughter, played by Anna May Wong. She's great in the role, but the character has super shaky motivations for taking over her father's vendetta against an English family. And not just that, but she also has extremely good, personal reasons not to pick up that mission. But even though her struggle isn't really earned, the movie does some interesting things with it and there are enough pulpy elements to keep the story entertaining.

The Phantom (1931)



I usually have a high tolerance for slow-moving movies of the early '30s, especially if there's an old, dark house involved, but I couldn't finish this one. Without an interesting actor to latch onto or any sort of plot development that I haven't seen done better in countless other mystery/horror films, it became too much of a chore to keep going. Dull and unremarkable.

Frankenstein (1931)



Seen it a million times, but I'm still surprised at how scary and creepy it is. Not much faithful to the plot of Mary Shelley's novel, but very faithful to its themes.

My only issue is the way it rushes through parts of its final act. Everyone learns about the monster and processes that information really quickly. On the other hand, I'm not sure I actually want a slowed down version.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)



The inventive camera work can be distracting, but the performances are so earnest and March's makeup is so effective that the movie is legitimately horrifying, even today. Miriam Hopkins is especially heart-breaking as Hyde's terrorized, primary victim. March's Hyde is easily the most monstrous of movie monsters from that era.

31 Werewolves | Werewolf of London

1941's The Wolf Man may be Universal's most famous werewolf movie, but it wasn't their first one. That would be 1935's Werewolf of London, which is also the first Hollywood werewolf movie period.

Unfortunately, Werewolf of London borrows a lot of elements from other popular Universal monster movies. Henry Hull is doing a good Colin Clive impression as Wilfred Glendon, an obsessed doctor married to the understanding, but impatient Lisa (Valerie Hobson). Hobson played a similar role as Elizabeth to Clive's mad scientist in Bride of Frankenstein that same year. And then there's Warner Oland, during the height of his Charlie Chan popularity, putting on the yellow-face again to play the enigmatic Dr. Yogami, a Van Helsing-like character who knows a lot about werewolves if only someone would believe him.

Werewolf of London also borrows from a classic, non-Universal monster movie: 1931's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Doctor Glendon owes a lot to Jekyll. They're both serious scientists, but good men with devoted servants and loving women in their lives. They're also both afflicted with curses that cause them to lose control and indulge their passions, which leads both of them to sneak out of their labs through secret entrances and take up residences in shady parts of London. The Jekyll/Hyde story has a lot in common with werewolf themes and Werewolf of London makes a lot of use of that.

Even though Werewolf of London rehashes a lot of '30s monster movie tropes, it's still an enjoyable film. Hobson is especially strong and less understanding of Glendon's lying and sneaking about than she is of Clive's in Bride of Frankenstein. When Lisa's old boyfriend (who also, conveniently happens to be the nephew of a big shot at Scotland Yard) shows up, she renews her friendship with him over Glendon's objections. There's never any hint that she's fooling around with the other guy, but she's not going to let her husband tell her what to do when he's obviously hiding something. Good for her.

The sets and tone of Werewolf of London are also very good, especially the large estate that's the setting for the film's climax. And the werewolf makeup is excellent. Jack Pierce designed it and though it's not as complex as what Pierce came up with six years later for The Wolf Man, it's still very effective and Hull does nice things with it.

Quick Reviews: National Treasure 2, I Am Legend, and Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo

National Treasure: Book of Secrets

National Treasure required a lot of suspension of disbelief. It was a fun movie, but you really had to let your brain go a bit to buy that the founding fathers went to that much trouble to hide the secret, Masonic treasure. All the clues leading to clues leading to more clues was fun, but a bit hard to believe.

Book of Secrets stretches credibility even further, starting with why Nick Cage gets involved in the first place. It's supposedly to clear the name of an ancestor who's recently been implicated in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but I don't think you're supposed to think that hard about how finding a lost City of Gold is going to do that. Just like you're not supposed to think too hard about the even more ludicrous string of clues.

But if you're willing to ignore all that, it is a movie about a bunch of treasure hunters looking for a lost City of Gold. And, like National Treasure, it's got a great cast. All the original folks are back except Sean Bean, but he's replaced by Ed Harris, which is a fairly even trade. And it's got Helen Mirren as Nick's mom. I could've sworn the first movie said she was dead, but going back and rewatching that scene just now, it's really left open to interpretation, so no need to call the continuity cops.

Three out of five conspiratory presidents. (I give the original four out of five.)

I Am Legend

I let my hopes get raised by some friends who saw this before I did and loved it. Yes, Will Smith does a wonderful acting joy and it's worth seeing just for that.

Unfortunately, the ending is completely changed from the novella and not for the better. The novella actually makes you ask some interesting questions about what it means to be human. This is just a Hollywood, feel-good ending.

It's an okay Will Smith flick, but it's not I Am Legend. Also, the mutants are boring.

Two out of five boring mutants.

Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo

Charlie Chan movies are fairly formulaic, but I like the formula. They're usually about a bunch of rich people, at least one of whom has gotten him or herself into trouble with a murder and it's up to Charlie Chan to figure out what really happened and save the day. I can see why the average moviegoer in the '30s would've liked them. You get a glimpse at the glamorous, rich life, but you also see that rich folks have a lot of problems of their own. And it's nice to see a friendly, man of the people like Charlie be the one to fix everything.

Monte Carlo isn't any better or worse than the rest of Warner Oland's Chan films, but all that means is that it's a clever mystery and utterly charming.

Four out of five shifty-looking bartenders.

Behind That Curtain (1929)

Behind That Curtain is the first non-silent movie to feature Charlie Chan. Actually "feature" is a strong word because Chan barely appears in it. He's mentioned early on as a great detective who occasionally helps the movie's main investigator and then he's brought in for the ending, but most of the film follows Scotland Yard detective Sir Frederick Bruce.

Even though Chan doesn't fit into it much, the plot is actually pretty cool. Or, it has the potential to be cool. Unrealized, but under different writers, it could've been really good.

A young heiress named Eve defies her controlling uncle and rejects her best friend in order to marry a louse named Eric Durand. As soon as they're hitched, Durand moves her to India and begins boinking the help. Then Eve gets word that Durand may have been involved in a murder back in England, so when Eve's jilted friend John, a world-traveling explorer, shows up in India, Eve leaves Durand and goes out into the desert with John. What adventures will they find? Will they find true love in each others arms? Is Durand really guilty of murder? It's up to Sir Frederick to find out.

Unfortunately, none of the answers are nearly as exciting as the questions. Eve and John don't really find adventure in the desert. Their time there is mostly spent lamenting their not being able to be lovers and John's trying to convince Eve to stay with him. True love eludes them though because Eve's a stupid decision-maker. Even the question of Durand's guilt is never seriously in doubt.

Behind That Curtain could've been a cool movie, with or without Charlie Chan, but instead it's a poorly executed, horribly acted mess. Lois Moran as Eve is especially bad. She delivers every line as melodramatically as possible, even for the '20s. E.L. Park is a goofy, charmless Charlie Chan too, so that when he finally shows up, you wonder what the point is.

Boris Karloff does show up in a bit part as John's manservant, but it's the only exciting part of an otherwise disappointing movie.

Charlie Chan

Because I was so bothered by my recent viewing of The Mask of Fu Manchu, I was a little nervous about watching the Charlie Chan movies for the first time. Shouldn't have been though.

I'm not inherently offended by yellowface. I would be if it were to take place today, but I don't feel the same ickiness watching it in its historical context that I do when watching Bing Crosby do blackface in Holiday Inn, for example. I don't know why that is and it's possibly indefensible, but in the case of the Charlie Chan movies -- at least in the Warner Oland ones -- I was able to accept it and move on. Maybe it's the fact that Oland (unlike, say, Boris Karloff) makes a pretty convincing Chinese man. Or maybe it's the fact that the other Asians in the series were played by actual Asians. Or maybe it's just the fact that Charlie Chan is such an intelligent, likable character anyway and I was utterly charmed by him.

It's amazing to me that the same time period that spawned the Yellow Peril movies also saw the popularity of the Chan films. You might not have been able to cast an Asian man in a lead role in the '30s, but that you could make a main character out of one is remarkable. My first thought -- overly sensitive maybe from the Fu Manchu experience -- was that Chan is so humble and self-deprecating that he may have put audiences more at ease. He certainly does embody some negative stereotypes. But they're far outweighed by the positive image he portrays and I don't think it's fair to say that the negative ones are what endeared him to moviegoers.

He doesn't play dumb because no one will accept a Chinese man as a serious detective. That's obviously not the case because in the four films I watched he's taken very seriously and is highly respected by everyone who knows him. He makes light of himself because he knows that criminals will underestimate him and slip up. He's sort of a precursor to Columbo that way.

Charlie Chan in London is the fifth Chan movie to star Oland. The first one, The Black Camel, is still around, but it's apparently not representative of the series. The next three have been lost, so London is the first one of what people usually think of when they think of Charlie Chan movies. In it, Chan transports a criminal he caught in Hawaii to England and gets asked to prove a murder convict's innocence by catching the real killer. It's a nice little cozy mystery; all takes place at an English country manor, complete with fox hunt.

Charlie Chan in Paris has him continuing his world tour by investigating a French bank suspected of forging bonds. It captures the flavor of Paris in the same way that Disney's Epcot Center does, but even if it's not authentic, it's a wonderful, romantic view of the city where even the sewers look like fun to roam around in. It's also a notable movie because it introduces Chan's son Lee into the films. I'm the oldest son in my family and my dad often called me "Number One Son" when I was growing up. I've always known that was a Charlie Chan reference, but this was the first time I'd actually seen Chan and son operate together. Keye Luke is awesome as Lee.

Next is Charlie Chan in Egypt, which would be my favorite of the four I watched except for one element. Stepin Fetchit is at best annoying; at worst an incredibly offensive '30s stereotype of Black men. He's a controversial figure though, because while most non-White actors in the '30s had a hard time putting food on their tables, Stepin Fetchit was the Eddie Murphy of his day (in the sense that he was hugely popular with moviegoers) and made a fortune playing the character he created. I guess White audiences loved his act back then, but he's rarely funny (he did have a couple of good lines) to today's ears. I finally decided that the best thing for me to do was to imitate Chan in the film and just ignore him as much as possible.

What's great about Egypt though is its Scooby Doo plot with a hidden treasure, an Egyptian curse, lots of suspects, and a villain who dresses up as a ghost to scare off the curious.

What ended up being my for real favorite was Charlie Chan in Shanghai which reintroduces Keye Luke and has Chan working with American Intelligence to catch some smugglers. I don't want to give anything away, but there's some great cat-and-mouse going on as Chan and the bad guys try to outwit each other. Keye Luke as Lee Chan is especially cool this time as he tries to manage a love life around his responsibilities to his dad and the case. Charlie never does call Lee his Number One Son though. Maybe that comes later in the series.

All in all, the Warner Oland Chan films are a lot of fun, mainly because the lead character is so lovable. I'm very curious now to check out the Sidney Toler version and see how those compare.