The Personal History of David Copperfield

Dev Patel is well-off, then bad-off, then well-off, then bad-off, and then well-off again in this brisk and charmingly color-blind adaptation of Charles Dickens' novel.

I wonder if they thought, "Dev Patel would make a great David Copperfield" and then decided to ignore race in the casting, or if they decided to ignore race, and then realized Dev Patel would make a great David Copperfield.

Two hours of screen time is not long enough for an 800-page novel. I've yet to read it, but I don't need to know what was shortened or cut out to know that it was done. Severely, I expect. And that's why I'm glad I saw this before reading it. Because I enjoyed it immensely, and though I know I'm missing something, I haven't a clue as to what. Well—I do in a general sense. But more on that later. At first brush, David's journey of growing up and becoming a writer, surrounded by a rollercoaster of ups and downs, and an even more wild ride in the forms of eternally kooky supporting characters, feels like Dickens 100%. If you get a Dickens itch, this will scratch it.

It speeds along through the plot at sometimes too great speeds, although it never gets exhausting and has good pacing. The only thing I waited for was for young David to grow into Dev Patel—and once he did the film came alive and found its lively and comfortable groove. I don't know what David's personality is supposed to be like, but Patel seems to me a Dickens hero through and through. Easy-going, energetic, funny and sincere with occasional outbursts of anger and naïve stupidity. Ideal. Tilda Swinton, Hugh Laurie, Peter Capaldi, Rosalind Eleazar, Benedict Wong, Aneurin Barnard, Morfydd Clark, and Ben Whishaw all added to it, but it was Patel who made the movie sing.

There are some first-rate scene transitions in this thing.

The problem comes in when the movie reaches the dramatic parts that are meant to have stakes, and you realize that they were skimmed over so quickly that it's tough to figure out what bad had happened, let alone care about it. This movie hits the colorful, charming, and fun notes remarkably well; but in order to be fully satisfying, a story needs the audience investment that serious drama brings. And while it's not lacking in it completely, it was frustrating when the movie ended, and I realized the film had only included us in half of David's experiences. We get a full sense of his happiness, but the trials are cut short and brushed aside. I grasped that Ben Whishaw was the movie's main villain in the same scene in which he's defeated. I had no time to care. Without the downs of a story, how can an audience fully appreciate the ups?

So it left me fully charmed, but only partially invested. And that's too bad, because while I like being charmed, it's getting into the nitty gritty of caring about the characters that ultimately most important to my falling in love with a story. Still, you can hardly blame The Personal History of David Copperfield for focusing in on what it did. It may have left me a little empty, but it clearly wanted to focus on the brighter side of everything and have fun, and that's what it did. All in all, its shortcomings left me wanting to read the book—and that's a compliment in itself. 

The Dead Don't Die

Spoiler-free!

*Puts some Sturgill Simpson on Spotify*

In this plotless and super dry zom-com, Adam Driver, Bill Murray, and Chloë Sevigny are small town cops in way over their heads when the dead come back to life... due to the Earth being thrown off its axis... due to fracking on the poles. It's always the fracking. Tom Waits as a woods-dwelling hobo man and a strange-acting Tilda Swinton seem to know what's going on though. And Adam seems to get it too: This is gonna end badly.

Doesn't mean you can't have a good time until then...

To say it's dry and has no plot isn't a criticism, though. I quite liked director Jim Jarmusch's last film (also with Adam Driver) Paterson, which was similarly dry and similarly without much happening plot-wise. Where that movie excels though, is in character. The Dead Don't Die is more about the zombies' character than the living people's. And that's where it falls apart for me. The movie wants to draw a parallel between the fictional zombies and real humans who are slogging through life, not much more than animated bodies. Sure; 90% of zombie movie in existence make that comparison. This movie only seems to believe that the only viable solution is to... not... be... human... anymore.

Like as humans we're doomed to be "zombies." And it's cool for a horror film to be fatalist of course, even a comic one, but it sure does put a lot of effort into showing the fate without showing the alternative. Of the three people who can "see behind the curtain" which is the role-model? If there is no role model, then how is the message expected to come across? There's a warning sermon, but no helpful applications offered. The characters are completely undeveloped to the point of self-awareness when the movie point-blank refuses to give one a backstory. Other times you think relationships and dynamics will be developed... but then the zombies intervene.

It's like the whole movie was a neat set up that ends before it ever gets going.

Still the cast is great fun as they have a competition over who can make their face the most dead-pan as they deliver punchlines. For my money, Adam Driver wins, but Bill Murray is never second-rate in a dry delivery either. The real problem with the comedy is that there simply isn't enough of it to go around. With such a big cast and so many irrelevant characters but a normal shortish run time, you barely get a taste of your favorite before the credits roll and it's all over. Plus, only about a third consists of comedy when there's a gruesome zombie murder quota to fill and a message to chuck across.

Overall it was very much what I expected so I was able to enjoy it as it came -- only one point was a surprise, and that was an element of the tone. It gave off an impression of being a project done out of a desire to goof around and have a little fun over trying to be a "real" movie. Basically no story, no character arcing; just a lot of wandering around and seeing where you are, then going off the rails to try something else. With that in mind, it's hard to blame it for not being a serious movie that plays by the rules. If it didn't even want or try to. It's not saying, "I'm great because I'm different"; it's saying, "I'm different because I was doing my thing," and never claims any level of greatness at all.

So I'll take what I enjoyed and forget the rest!

The Dead Don't Die has a reputation for being politically charged, and it's clearly made out of frustration over the current Presidency, but goes so far over the top that no particular ideology is required to enjoy. Fracking is an easy fictional troublemaker, and Steve Buscemi's hat hilariously and nonsensically reads, "Keep America White Again" as he awkwardly explains to Danny Glover that when he said the coffee was too black, he meant it was too strong. When he bites the dust, Tom Waits muses that you reap what you sow, and then takes a bite of a chicken he stole from him. Political satire? Or parody of political satire? Take it as you like.

When you're a movie character in the zombie apocalypse, you let off steam by killing zombie heads; when you're a film director, you do it by writing it into your movies starring your friends. When you're famous, the finished product gets into theaters. And when you're a film fan, you can see it, and maybe get a kick out of it too. It might end up badly, but even so, it's not the end of the world.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe

Second to The Lord of the Rings, I credit this adaptation of C. S. Lewis's The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe for being the movie that made me a movie fan. The Lord of the Rings was a party I was late to, but with Narnia, I was obsessed from seeing the trailer -- in fact, seeing this movie's trailer was the most memorable thing about seeing Revenge of the Sith in theaters. It was my first fandom, and has always been so personal to me that I never reviewed it, but after not watching it for a few years I came back to it, and found that I can view it now... if not without bias, at least with open eyes, so time to give it a review, I think!

It's not perfect by any means, but to me, it's still magical.

Along with not watching it for a long while I also haven't given the book a read in years either. When the film came out, I critiqued every single little change; with this most recent viewing I could hardly remember which things were changes at all. I also saw it in a less Christian light. I still of course appreciate the allegory and symbolism present, but before, I think I saw it almost religiously -- like the Christian meaning in it was the most important part. And since I've realized that in spite of all that, and how neat and thoughtful it is, it's fundamentally a story, and that's where I'm coming from now.

So, story-wise; The Chronicles of Narnia. I've done some serious picking on the changes this movie made in adapting, but truthfully this is an excellent adaptation of the book. It adds scenes of action to keep the pace going, but also takes great pains to preserve the heart of the story -- along with as many little details as possible. Like the bluebonnet in the window. Before I'd complain that the bug was supposed to be dead. Truthfully, the writers and director Andrew Adamson were obviously dedicated to the quality of the film, and I appreciate that so much.

It took a while for me to notice the difference between making changes for artistic reasons, and lazy ones.

The movie starts off beautifully with the raid and subsequent removal to the country -- still one of the most lovely film openings I can think of. They take their time to establish characters and mood, set to gorgeous music that has you drawn into the world of Narnia way before Lucy even steps foot there. Then once she does the world of Narnia is so rich and feels like it could be real. New Zealand's landscapes helped with that, as did Weta's prop and costume designs. This movie took notes from Lord of the Rings and applied it all well. Lord of the Rings has had a huge influence on so many films, but in the more recent years the borrowing has become lazier and lazier. Narnia used the influence to create and be its own thing.

Of course I still find the river crossing scene awkwardly fake. And the more I see it, the the more apparent the spotty acting gets. The four children were well cast as their characters, but the acting and line delivery is sometimes cringe-worthy. Lucy and Edmund -- Georgie Henley and Skandar Keynes -- have a better excuse, being young kids, but they're actually the best of the four with that consideration. Peter and Susan -- William Moseley and Anna Popplewell -- had moments of equal awkwardness in spite of being older. However, they look the parts and are perfectly capable of maintaining a character and character progression. After that, line delivery can fall flat and be covered up.

....with the assistance of more seasoned and dedicated actors.

Plus there's a top notch supporting cast to make up for it. James McAvoy's iconic faun Mr Tumnus -- spot on. Liam Neeson's voicing of Aslan is as great as the lion's animation which is still holding up. And Tilda Swinton's Jadis is ever-incredible. She makes a beautiful, deeply evil and deeply captivating villain. These three probably carry the movie more than the kids do. I also love Jim Broadbent's Professor Diggory Kirke. He's a wonderfully charming bookend character for the story.

What with the iconic characters, the many roadblocks that probably came with creating the magical and mythical creatures of the world -- not to mention the detail of the world itself -- and the pressures that came with adapting such a story, one of the things I appreciate most now it how simply the story is told. It just is. Pacing is steady and natural and scenes themselves are unrushed, patient and involving. This movie came from and was put together a lot of different places, but there was a clear vision and that vision was maintained consistently. There are parts for me to wrinkle my nose at still, but I love how tidy and complete the movie is as a whole. It's simple, but there's artistry to it; its not just a prewritten story cranked out onto film.

And it kept loyal to the themes of the book too.

I have long known that Lewis's books themselves were permanently set in my affections, but I am pleased to find that this adaption has found it's way there too. With maybe a smidgen less adoration, but seemingly just as permanent. For a long time I was both afraid to see flaws in this film and smugly pointing out flaws where they really didn't exist, but finally the movie has settled to a place of happy contentment with me. So, long live Aslan -- and if you need me, I'll be daydreaming of adventure and checking the backs of wardrobes.

Doctor Strange

Spoilers are marked.

Marvel's latest origin film stars the unstoppable Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Stephen Strange, a highly skilled, highly sought-after, highly rich and highly pompous neurosurgeon. On top of his game and on top of the world, Strange's great life is obliterated in a single devastating moment. And while on a desperate journey to find healing, he finds so much more when he finds a mystic known as the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who expands his worldview -- and simultaneously the MCU -- into the vast realm of magic.

And I do mean vast.

Marvel it may be, but Marvel it certainly doesn't feel. Doctor Strange take a giant leap into the unexplored, leaving behind practically everything we know about the universe. It's very much its own movie; just as much as, say, Iron Man was, only Iron Man had the advantage of no canon to dictate to it. Strange is in such a different place from other Marvel flicks that it was free to do new things and set up its own world, and it takes great advantage of that.

There are three very small references that tie it to the preceding Marvel films, and besides that, my brain was having a hard time accepting it as being from Marvel at all. And I still like Marvel-y Marvel films, but it's great to know that the box can -- and has been -- broken out of. It's only the similar on a very base level in the story; the skeleton of a superhero origin. How it builds on that is, appropriately, all by its own rules.

Ugh, this photo! I never thought I would fall in love with Marvel cinematography in this way...

The first thing I noticed about it was the tone. And not that it's actually darker than other serious superheroes, but at the same time, it is. Literally. The color palette is dark, brown and muted with highlights of neon. The lighting is beautiful and minimal, with lots of silhouetting and scenes that seem barely lit at all, but are done expertly, to create and enhance an edgy darkness. Unexpectedly, handheld cameras are often used, which lends the film some earthy grit; a great counterbalance for the trippy, spacey psychedelics that pop up. The contrast of the shiny, crisp and sparkling magic with the deeply sturdy and grounded feel of the physical world is excellent. I applaud the filmmakers for going in that direction.

Director and co-writer Scott Derrickson is known for horror films, and while there's nothing very scary about Doctor Strange, the style translates very well. (That also accounts for an incredibly decent jump scare in the movie!) Writing is the one place where I wished for more. It's really not a negative because I know there will be more later in sequel films, but for now, the world isn't as explored as it should be. It's not overloaded, which is great, but I did feel slightly pandered to occasionally. I could have handled more, but the film needed to be accessible to even casual fans, and I think it hit the optimal middle ground. And I firmly believe that the film will improve in retrospect, once even more development is added to the characters and their worlds.

Fine actor makes for excellent character!

Segue: Characters! To be perfectly candid, I expected to not really care for Benedict Cumberbatch and his character in this film. Not that I don't like him or think him a bad actor, I had just seen too much of him recently. And I was feeling cynical and thinking he was probably only cast in the part because he looked like the character and was the hot new thing who everyone wants in their movie. But no -- he was excellently cast, and gives a practically mesmerizing performance as Stephen. There's lots of drama to handle, and he never takes it too far over the top where we viewers are unwilling to follow. The character arc is handled expertly; at first he's very reminiscent of Sherlock, which wasn't a great start for me with my cynicism, but that only made his elegant transition into zen and gentlemanly hero even more impressive. Also, he is a master at making his hands shake!

Basically, I liked her because of the two character's relationship.

Rachel McAdams as Christine, his ex and fellow doctor... I'm just not a fan of McAdams, so I can't help but think that almost anyone could have played the part, but she didn't annoy me nearly as bad as she has in other movies. I enjoy her more when she plays dislikeable characters, and Christine splits the line. She's complicated and her role as romantic interest stands on shaky ground, which is interesting. What won me over was the inscription on the watch she gave Stephen, and how much he values it.

Chiwetel Ejiofor. We all know he's great, but I admit I didn't know what his purpose was for a while, plot-wise. I liked his character, but wondered where he was headed. In the moment, it seemed like a negative, but his arc does complete to perfect satisfaction, so that everything about him makes sense. Now I'm eagerly anticipating more from him. On that note, the one thing I think maybe should have been done differently: the end credit scene was important to the closure of his arc -- too important, I think, to be left as the end-credit scene. Though I don't know where it should have gone... just know that I strongly recommend sticking around for it!

Great stuff from these two.

Tilda Swinton I enjoyed immensely! She held my attention so well, and was so fully immersed in her role -- a unique, thought-provoking, and moving character. She was a pleasure. Ejiofor's fellow cast mate from The Martian, Benedict Wong, was there, mostly for comic relief, and handled it splendidly. Mads Mikkelsen as the villain is perhaps slightly on the forgettable side -- another in a long line -- but it was appropriate that he just serve his purpose and then disappear; his villainy came before Stephen entered the life, and the story is told from Stephen's eyes. And Mikkelsen's performance was good and convincing. It worked.

The vagueness and mystery worked for him.

Like with the colors (dark, highlighted with neon) and the tone, (earthy, highlighted with dazzling psychedelics) this movie's comedy is an occasional extreme highlight; it's silly. And this is something that I honestly don't know what to think about. On one hand, it's a little jarring when the movie is so beautiful and muted and serious, and then all of a sudden has cute comic relief out from left field. On the other, it's not like it was shoehorned in; the story almost required it in some places. And it was genuinely funny. Sometimes a joke would come across so awkwardly, but then another layer would be added that made it funny again. There was also a little subtle humor that I appreciated more initially.

Maybe it's not a hundred percent my cup of tea, but I do think it works. It's odd -- it's Strange! -- but it's right. I may vaguely wonder if the goofy comedy was a self-conscious apology for making such a wacky story take itself so seriously, but deep down I think I understand that if the story had taken itself seriously without those highlights, I wouldn't have been able to be as invested in the seriousness. Instead, every time the silliness pulled me out of the movie's depths, I was even more eager to plunge back in. And it helped me to accept the inherent silliness in the plot. Like the scene on the balcony of the hospital, which was such a beautiful, beautiful scene -- visually and emotionally -- but there was a silliness to it too -- a silliness that by that point I had fully embraced.

This is just crazy.

Two more things that just impressed the stuffing right out of me: (this paragraph gets a little spoilery!) In the climax, I was absolutely flabbergasted and amazed to find that it rode on smarts instead of action! Almost unheard of for Marvel movie, but there you have it. And even more unheard of, collateral damage? Destruction? Zero. Zero! There was no destruction in the end. But it was just as involving -- if not more -- as any superhero flick with destruction. I loved that. I am so impressed and happy at that clever change-up. (End Spoilers)

I started out this review thinking this film was excellent -- technically exceptional, and practically flawless, and not quite my kind of movie. It made me laugh, it made me think, it made me grin gleefully at the screen and feel the heartbreak of its characters alike, but I was sure I wouldn't fall in love with it until after a sequel, like it has been with so many other Marvel films. But, as I wrote about the few flaws they morphed into praiseworthy aspects, and as I wrote about all the little moments I expected to someday treasure, I found myself treasuring them already.

And eager for more magic from Marvel!

This was not a story that I was determined to love because of a certain character or actor or story line that I was biased towards. Doctor Strange is wholly new, and I knew it would need time. It snuck up on me, with its subtly welcoming heart, cool beauty, and jarring highlights of total craziness, and has since sunk right into my heart. I was going to quote the movie and say "Doctor Strange, 'time will tell how much I love you,'" but... it already has.

Hail, Caesar!

Essentially a day-in-the-life movie about a film studio producer and "fixer," Hail, Caesar! follows Eddie Mannix (a guy whose name and vocation is true to real life -- who knows about the rest) played by Josh Brolin as he goes busily to and fro various movie sets, smoothing wrinkles and covering up scandals.

Hail, Hollywood!

Set inside of Hollywood's golden age of bright cheesiness, 1951, this latest caper from the Coen Brothers has gobs and gobs of distraction on it's surface. So much so that you might not even notice that it actually is about something underneath all that cheese and glam. Mannix is mulling over the idea of leaving his hard job of long hours for something else that is tempting, but he feels is lacking in some way. Then one of the studio's biggest actors (and star of their new epic "Hail Caesar," a story of Christ told from the perspective of a Roman soldier), Baird Whitlock, (George Clooney) goes missing! He's actually been kidnapped by commies -- a bunch of Hollywood writers who came up with a ransom scheme to get the money they believe they deserve. They sit around and fill Baird's head with communism while Mannix continues to take one problem at a time.

This one thing at a time attitude is where the distraction comes in. Every time Mannix visits a different film set, we get a lengthy view into the world of filmmaking, which may or may not be your cup of tea, but it sure was mine. Water sets, tap dancing scenes, cowboy flicks, period drama romances, all with their own thing going on and their own problems. Played for comedy, and really quite amusing. I was almost disappointed at times when we didn't get to see a second take -- or the third take -- and instead had to move along. Here we are introduced to the film's wide spread of big-name talent, most of whom are really no more than a fun cameo. Like Jonah Hill's very amusing part, or Ralph Fiennes' humorously refined but irritated director. Everyone is some stereotype or another. Scarlett Johansson was unexpected in a part that reminded me slightly of Lena Lamont of Singing in the Rain. Tilda Swinton's duel-role was brilliant. And Channing Tatum was... well, more then I expected.

Hail to the guy who leads?

Some of the characters felt unnecessary if you think about it. But, at the same time, I wonder if you go even deeper, would they all eventually make some kind of sense? I certainly get the feeling that the film is very purposeful; more purposeful than meets the eye. To get to the theme and the message of the story I had to go deeper than I expected to considering the style of the storytelling and the fun and quirky atmosphere, but there it is. Maybe Tilda Swinton didn't need to play one, let alone two characters, maybe she did, but some of these characters do play into a purpose, and drive home a rather abstract, but interesting idea.

Of course this is most obviously found in our lead Mannix. Josh Brolin hits the perfect key with this guy, by the way -- as he always does. He's a great lead, and the character is a powerful guy; he has respect and authority, but he also is very religious going to confession every day. He tries very hard to make people happy, especially his wife (Zelda Fitz-- I mean Alison Pill) who wants him to quit smoking. He seems very much like the boss, but of course he has a boss of his own, albeit an absent one. Then there's Baird. He's not a really likable character and Clooney plays him well in that vein. He's a huge actor. Mention his name and people go "Ohhh!" But he's an empty coconut if ever there was one. He has an influential voice but his words are given to him -- by a script, or by a commie, or couple hard slaps upside the head. He's importance in on the surface only.

Hail to the guy who looks like the leader?

Then there's the guy who you wouldn't think is important but really is. That's Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle. Hobie is a smaller-time lead; the cowboy guy. He's always in the pursuit of doing something right, whether it be a handstand on a horse, or, when he's moved over to the posh romantic drama, saying that line just as he's supposed to. Maybe he doesn't have the talent for certain things, but he's a dedicated worker and does everything he's given to do the very best that he can. And in the end that devotion makes him a pivotal character to the plot. Ehrenreich of course is a delight to watch which helps even more -- he has that screen presence that makes everything he does twice as interesting, and then he actually does quite a lot of interesting things! He's a dedicated performer himself, learning those lasso tricks. And he was the movie's scene-stealer, hands down.

And Mannix himself, as high up as he is, is only a background worker. The movie studio would fall apart without him, but he gets very little of the glory. However he (and we) discover the importance of the way things work, and get a reinvigorated belief in the importance of the work being done. (A little bit of a love-letter to film never hurts!) The movie's multiple layers of the movie within the movie is neat and draws some interesting parallels, but at the same time, there is a jumbled aspect going on that is difficult to see through, with all those distractions of so many films being placed together in this one. I was impressed at how neatly everything tied together though, in the end. I expected it to be more pointless going in.

If only it were so simple. If only it were so simple. If only...

I can certainly understand criticism of this film, as it is very unusual, and not what one might naturally expect it to be. It has the plot of, I guess, I popcorn flick, with it's bright-and-breezy entertainment qualities, and what seems like a main arc of trying to recover the missing actor. That's something that could very easily go action-y in the final act, but instead the film at the surface stays the same; light and inconsequential. Underneath builds the mildly abstract and not exactly prominent ideas of power, authority, and dedication that is driven by characters; characters, who, for the most part, don't get it any more than we do. For them, it's just another eventful day. But it was an important day, and this film does have some interesting things to say, in typical, understated Coen fashion. It may not a be a masterpiece, but if you want more from it than a plethora of quirky performances, hearty laughs and light, colorful entertainment, it's there for you to find.