Madame Claude [2021] ★½
From the trailer and poster, you’d think this fact-based story about Madame Claude, the woman who created a business empire dedicated to prostitution in 1960’s Paris would be at least intriguing to check out. Alas, the final result is an incoherent mess that doesn’t have any of the good qualities of a biography. The problem here is that we’re not given a chance to root for any of the characters we meet. Instead, the movie jumps from one unrelated scene to the next like a music video, and not a very good one either. Maybe there’s a good story buried somewhere in there, but I can’t find it. If you’re interested to know more about Madame Claude and her girls, I can guarantee you that this movie will offer you nothing. It’s dull, disjointed, and a giant mess. Skip it.
I haven’t seen many great films this year, but “Mank” is certainly one of them. For one, it paints an evocative picture of old Hollywood, circa 1940, a time where Orson Welles was preparing for his next feature: “Citizen Kane”. For that, he’s going to hire an unlikely candidate to write the script: screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz aka “Mank”, a man with demons of his own. In true Citizen Kane fashion, the film takes us back and forth in time to understand how the story of Charles Foster Kane came to be. It’s fascinating, to say the least, and you couldn’t ask for a better cast to bring it to life. Gary Oldman gives yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Mank himself, and he’s surrounded by a first rate cast that includes Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Charles Dance and Tom Burke as Orson Welles. David Fincher directs with an incredible eye for detail; you can basically smell the air of old Hollywood, which makes it so easy to get lost in its irresistible charm. You can credit cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt for his gorgeous black & white shots, but all of this wouldn’t mean a thing without a great story, and “Mank” has it all. It encapsulates everything we go to the movies for, making it a perfect candidate for award season. How can Oscar resist?
It sounds like Oscar bait: Tom Hardy starring in this fact-based story about notorious gangster Al Capone, who spent his final year suffering from dementia and constant paranoia, before his death at the age of 48. It’s a juicy role for Hardy, the kind awards were created for. Except it’s not, at least not in the case of Josh Tank’s “Capone”. Aside from a good performance by Hardy (who truly gives it his very best, despite an underwhelming script) and lavish sets, the film feels curiously dull and lifeless. Tank, who also wrote the script, tries to inject his movie with dream-like sequences that feel completely out of place. Instead of being pulled in, I found drifting away from it. Movies like “Capone” should have the ability to deliver an emotional experience. Alas, it rarely happens here. Still, Hardy is a show all by himself, and watching him walk the fine line between sanity and madness is well-worth something. I just wish the movie itself had more surprises up its sleeve.
Simply put, “Dolemite is my Name” is one of Netflix’s finest movies. It gives Eddie Murphy the role of a lifetime, playing Rudy Ray Moore, the underground comedian who rose to fame in the 1970’s and inspired a generation of artists. This is Murphy’s territory, and he lets it bleed, giving a comeback performance that impressed even the naysayers. The 1970’s recreation is remarkably good, from costuming and hairstyles to the details of shooting a movie in a studio and on location. You simply can’t take your eyes off the screen. I had no idea what to expect from a biopic about a man I knew very little about, but this is why we go to the movies (or stream in this case). Murphy and his supporting cast bring this story to life with great attention to detail. The result is pretty damn irresistible. What’s more, it gave me a lot to think about, long after those credits started rolling. That’s as much as I could ask of any biopic.
It’s not a classic in the making, but Netflix’s “The King” has an interesting history lesson to tell, and a great ensemble cast to bring it to life. I do not know how the real Henry V talked or acted, but I do know that Timothée Chalamet makes a believable young King, who was crowned following his tyrannical father’s death in the year 1413. History books will tell you that Henry V died of dysentery 9 years later, but the focal point of the movie is the early days of his rather short reign. Having inherited war and deceit, the new King must do whatever it takes to forge a new path for England. “Great reforms are best enacted with regime change”, his royal advisor tells him early on. It’s a fascinating time in history, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll have a good time watching the story unfold. The movie is also fueled by lavish sets and well-crafted battle scenes, but it’s the characters and the memorable dialogue that make it worth the watch. I know we’ve seen a lot of Historical dramas that do not bring anything new to the table. “The King” never pretends to be anything more than a history lesson, but it does it well enough for me to recommend it.
If you want to see Renee Zellweger transform herself completely to play an older Judy Garland, then this film is definitely for you. As someone who heard a lot about her sad demise, I was curious to know more about this legendary Hollywood actress/singer. And the movie does not disappoint. After an opening sequence that shows Garland as a teenager on the set of “The Wizard of Oz, the movie takes us 30 years in the future and focuses on her last days. She’s a shadow of her former self and can’t seem to score new gigs. Desperate to keep her children from being taken away by her ex-husband, she travels all the way to London to perform a series of shows. Nobody sings quite like Garland so even Zellweger cannot always keep up. But I am willing to forgive the film’s few shortcoming for the sake of a larger reality, and that’s what this endearing tribute manages to achieve. It’s an empathetic portrait of a Hollywood icon that deserved much more. And Zellweger gives an incredible performance on and off the stage. At the end, “Judy” may not be Judy Garland’s quintessential biopic, but it’s a good movie that will satisfy anyone looking to know more about her.
Alright let’s take care of the elephant in the room right away: I’m no car aficionado. I know almost nothing about Le Mans or NASCAR racing in general. So why would a movie about a rivalry between Ford and Ferrari set in the 60’s interest me at all? That’s what I kept telling myself as I walked in to see “Le Mans ’66”. Surprise: the movie is spectacular. In fact, I can’t remember the last time a film truly pulled me in as much as this one. It does benefit from having two terrific actors behind the wheels. Matt Damon plays American car designer Carroll Shelby, who, together with British driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale, in one of the best performances of his career), designed a race car for Ford Motor Company to take on the dominating cars of Enzo Ferrari at the Le Mans in France in 1966. On paper, this simple slice of history shouldn’t work as much as it does. But director James Mangold has turned it into a powerful film packed with tension and potent human drama. And all the actors truly sink their teeth into their characters. The result is a film that grabs you from the word go and never lets go. Cheers too, to cinematographer Phedon Papamichael, who shot a series of pulse-pounding racing scenes that truly raise your adrenaline level. And so, “Le Mans ’66” quickly emerges as one of the best car racing films of all time. And to do all this without losing sight of what’s human and striving behind the helmets is no small achievement. I say this with full confidence: This film is a must-see.
A movie about Ted Bundy, the serial killer who caused mayhem during his trial in the late 1970’s after he brutally murdered dozens of young women, wasn’t something I was looking forward to. But having seen the terrific Netflix documentary “The Ted Bundy Tapes”, I decided to give the movie a chance. As it turns out, it was a waste of time and talent. Aside from Lily Collins’ solid performance as Bundy’s girlfriend, who refused to believe that her long-time partner was capable of such atrocious acts, this film version of one of the most notorious serial killers of all time is a complete misfire. Zac Efron doesn’t look or sound like the real Bundy, but that’s the least of this film’s problems. Director Joe Berlinger (who, ironically, directed the much superior documentary) recounts most of the events that we’ve seen in the documentary, except they’re bits and pieces that never really stick. There are a few good moments here and there, but they’re overshadowed by a paper-thin script and a sense that we’ve seen it all before. Sorry to say, this movie sucks.
It probably won’t get the same attention as “Bohemian Rhapsody”, but in many ways, “Rocketman” is a superior movie. This musical biopic about the highs and lows of Sir Elton John, from his early days living in a loveless family, to his rise to fame with such hits as “Your Song” and “I’m Still Standing”, is truly outstanding. Credit writer Lee Hall and director Dexter Fletcher for not following the same formula we’ve come to expect from most biopics. Instead, “Rocketman” emerges as a full-blown musical extravaganza that truly captures Sir Elton’s state of mind. And at the center of it all is Taron Egerton. Known mostly for his role in the “Kingsman”movies (we do not speak of that horrible “Robin Hood” reboot), “Rocketman” could finally be the movie that puts him on the map permanently. Simply put: he’s phenomenal. Musically, the film is a miracle, fueled with beautiful sets that are riveting in every detail. Egerton lets it bleed, giving a performance awards were invented for. If you’re an Elton John fan or if you appreciate music in general, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. It’s one of the best performances of the year. Same goes for the movie.
First a personal story: for as long as I can remember, Laurel and Hardy were always a part of my life. When I was a kid my grandfather made it his mission to introduce me and my cousins to the famous duo. Needless to say, we were all hooked. So on my way to see this movie, I kept telling myself: “I hope it meets my expectations!” Laurel and Hardy mean the world to me and up to this day, I had never seen a big screen adaptation made about them. But from the opening sequence, I knew I was in for something special. “Stan & Ollie” is a wonderful film, the kind the real Stanley and Oliver truly deserve. You can practically breathe the air of Hal Roach’s studios, circa 1937, a time when Laurel and Hardy were the most famous comedy duo in the world. Their films were dubbed into so many languages and distributed all around the world. Fast forward 16 years and we’re toward the end of their careers this time. Writer Jeff Pope chose to take a closer look at this particular period of time; Our boys are now in their 60’s, touring England to half-empty theaters while trying to accept the fact that they’re no longer major stars. Call it “Laurel and Hardy’s Swan Song” if you may. And you couldn’t ask for better actors to fill these tricky shoes: Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly are truly sensational. There were times where I forgot I was watching them act and convinced myself that they are the real Stan & Ollie. That’s how good they are (why weren’t they considered for an Oscar?). But what matters most is that the film manages to pay tribute to a loving friendship and partnership. Those qualities are rooted in truth and give the film its foundation and emotional impact. For Laurel and Hardy fans around the world, that’s a rare gift. I loved this movie so much.
Let's Talk About Movies 