Review: A Man Called Otto

A Man Called Otto
Cert: 15 / 126 mins / Dir. Marc Forster / Trailer

Content warning: This film contains upfront references to suicide. Along with various spoilers, so does this review.

A Man Called Otto is the new outing from Marc Forster (written for the screen by David Magee), as we follow its titular hero (played by Tom Hanks) struggling to adapt to life without his recently deceased wife (played by Rachel Keller in an ongoing series of flashbacks). Otto has always been a stickler for order and routine, but cannot find comfort in these at his lowest ebb. An attempt to take his own life is interrupted when a young family (Mariana Treviño, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, with Alessandra Luna and Christiana Montoya) moves in across the road of the gated compound which he has made his fiefdom over the years. Never one to share his problems publicly Otto slowly warms to these new arrivals, although his own demons prove harder to evict...

First things first: the film is nowhere near as twee and cuddly as its carefully market-tested trailer might suggest. Second things second, it's nowhere near as coherent and heartwarming as it needs to be, either. The central lane of this particular journey is a man repeatedly trying - and failing - to take his own life. Adapted from a Swedish novel and its own screen-version, the fingerprints of a pitch-black European farce are still evident, but it's clear much has been lost in translation (not to English, but to Hollywood™). In a bid not to upset the mainstream appeal of its leading man, the film never truly explores the depths of his despair, opting instead for a series of soft-focus flashbacks in which genuine emotion is drowned in cack-handed schmaltz. Back in the present-day, everyone seems to be acting for the PG13 Judd Apatow version of the movie, also at odds with the story about actual grief.

SOURCE

It's probably worth remembering that this is the director who previously helmed Christopher Robin and World War Z; both from much loved source material, both ambitious with clear good points, and both something of a mess when all was said and done. Hanks plays Hanks™ here of course, great in its own right but not suitable for a character who needs much rougher edges. Hoping to come across as Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, Tom's curmudgeonly outbursts at neighbours and store-clerks never really convince, and while his quieter scenes of reflection are much more reliable they feel like similar performances from his other films.

Worse still is the bewildering choice to cast Hanks' actual son Truman as his younger-self for the unfurling flashbacks: a man who neither looks, sounds nor acts like his father. If anything, Truman seems to be channelling the wide-eyed, clunky innocence of Forrest Gump, which would be fine except that's not the way Tom is playing things, even if both characters are clearly neurodivergent (but in massively different ways - Tom understands this, at least). So for two thirds of the film you never forget that you're watching Tom Hanks, and for the other you never believe that this guy is going to grow up to be Tom Hanks...

That said, at least they tried to solve this with casting. One flashback sequence features a digitally de-aged Hanks to play Otto at a point where he neither looks like 27yr old Truman or 66yr old Tom. And as CGI-work goes, it's not too bad. Well, not too bad apart from the effects team's range of reference material meaning that every intercut camera angle shows Hanks at an apparently different point of his younger life, as if the one scene out by his garage takes place over about ten years.

BAR

The reason all of this is so frustrating is that when A Man Called Otto does work, it's nothing short of beautiful. At its core this is a story about companionship and humanity, and the best sub-plots are the quieter ones where the performers aren't relying on the dialogue. Given how robbed of screen-time everyone apart from the Hanks's are, it's actually remarkable that Rachel Keller, Mariana Treviño and Mack Bayda turn out to be the film's high points. There were a couple of moments where even a hardened old cynic like myself almost had Something In My Eye, and they hint at a much better version of exactly the same story waiting to be made.

But ultimately, there's just not enough connective tissue between what's great and what Columbia Pictures thinks the audience of a Tom Hanks movie wants, expects and indeed deserves. Story-turns and reveals feel sketched in, and it's left to the goodwill of the audience to paper over the cracks in the screenplay*¹.

Not as bad as it could be, nowhere near as good as it should be, the necessary darkness is almost non-existent and Marc Forster can't even get the heavy-handed, cookie cutter, mawkish sentimentality right. A Man Called Otto has moments of greatness, just not enough to make it the film it wants to be.

*¹ Okay spoilers, highlight-to-read: In the third-act it's revealed that Otto's wife Rachel had been paralysed in a traffic accident shortly after they were married and had moved into their dream-house in the 1960s or 70s. There was an earlier throwaway comment (in the present-day) from a neighbour about the house having low-worktops in the kitchen (except they're not that low, so at that point you just assume Rachel was short), but this new information comes after we've already seen that the house has an upstairs. And no stair-lift. Otto and his wheelchair-bound wife have apparently lived for over forty years in a house where he's had to carry her upstairs - unaided - every single day, and apparently he's not then built like Hulk Hogan. And we know by now that he's got a heart condition as well. Neither of them had thought about moving to a house more suitable for their needs, they're both so in love with their dark, poky little new-build, inner-city compound-condo, even getting slightly outraged when more houses are built at the end of the street (that they can't see until they go outside, since they're facing their opposite neighbours across the dual-lane tarmacked roadway). It's like they're all living in an open prison-complex, and this script feels like it's still in second-draft... [/End] ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood

A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood
Cert: PG / 109 mins / Dir. Marielle Heller / Trailer



Arriving just in time for both awards season and the mood in which a vast swathe of audiences no doubt find themselves submerged, Marielle Heller's A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood is the tonic we'd forgotten we needed.

Focusing on near-legendary American children's TV presenter Fred Rogers, it's less of a biopic and more a musing on the cultural impact of his work over the decades. Played expertly by Tom Hanks with quiet and relentless patience and optimism, the film's story-proper takes place in 1998, following curmudgeonly journalist-in-crisis Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) as he's despatched by Esquire magazine to get a 400-word interview on the concept of modern-day heroes. Upon meeting Rogers, Vogel begins to be drawn into his well of calm, and begins to unpick the knotted threads of his own life.

And it's lovely. Ponderous in some places, outright surrealist in others Beautiful Day is no less sappy than you'd imagine but certainly darker than you'd expect. A parable for 2019, the film cuts through our cynicism like a knife while never forgetting how it was formed in the first place. Through Rogers, Heller reassures us that everything will be alright in the end, but there's work to be done to get there, and not everything matters as much as we think it does.

A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood is likely to drift through the UK box office without creating too many ripples. Don't let it pass you by.

Wish I Was Here, Miles Ahead.



It is.
I'm very aware that the majority of UK audiences will be in the room because of Tom Hanks rather than knowing who Mr. Rogers is, but I assure you as someone who was in that exact camp that this is worth watching, even as an introduction to the man.



It is.



It's definitely 'up there'.
Although I'm not exactly a huge fan of Hanks, so...



That's possible.



There isn't.



Level 2: Chris Cooper is in this, and he was in 2012's Muppets movie along with Donald 'Calrissian' Glover.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Toy Story 4

Toy Story 4 (Spoilers. No seriously, SPOILERS.)
Cert: 12A / 100 mins / Dir. Josh Cooley / Trailer



Well, the rule of sitcoms has always been that after the difficult third series, you just make a movie where you send the characters on holiday. And since the powers-that-be have started doing that for animated movies now, who are Pixar to argue?

SHORT

Toy Story 4 picks up some short amount of time after the third entry, with young Bonnie now the custodian of the toys and about to start kindergarten. When she fashions a new pal, Forky, made from pipe cleaners and a plastic spork, he's slightly neurotic although begins to fit in with Woody, Buzz and the gang. But things go awry during a road trip when Forky becomes lost, Woody goes on an adventure to rescue him, and meets an old friend in the process...

Clocking in almost a quarter of a century after the first entry, Pixar's fourth full-length chapter in the Toy Story series can hardly be accused of being a quick cash-in. The studio's quality levels are (usually) high, and they're one of the few safe bets when it comes to animated entertainment - not only working to ensure the film takes all the time it needs to be created, but also that it tells a story worth watching.

BANG

Concentrating more on high-adventure this time rather than heart-melting nostalgia, the animation here is better than ever (even if Andy still looks weird), with the photo-realistic scenery and smoothly-moving, well sculpted and weighted models*¹ you'd expect from an industry leader. The pacing is brisk, the stakes are reliably high, Andrew Stanton and Staphany Folsom's script is tight and often laugh-out-loud funny, although it's notable that those moments usually come from the newly introduced characters (Forky, Duke Caboom, Ducky & Bunny). On that subject, it's also good to see Disney/Pixar embracing the idea of more sinister dolls*², although it feels a little Goosebumps at times.

The old gang are present, correct and on-character (as far as they're used - this is very much Woody's show), but tend to bring wry smiles rather than outright guffaws. Despite the frequent action, the film doesn't have the peril of previous adventures (although Toy Story 3 really pushed that to its limit anyway), but it's still great.

Toy Story 4 is an enormous amount of fun, but is it more that that?
More to the point, does it need to be?

CASH

Although it's been asked countless times since the film was first announced, the question isn't so much 'does the Toy Story series need a new chapter?', more 'now that two Lego movies have taken the idea of sentient toys in parallel interacting realities and moved it on a notch, is there still a story to be told with Woody and Buzz?'. The Lego movies don't have the emotional punch of the Toy Story ones, but they seem more adept at making broader, more societal points.

On an entirely smaller level, it feels a bit wrong where the toys band together to control the RV in the final act, wresting control from the human driver. The Toy Story films have always played with the 'just out of sight' motif - it's not as if the toys can't move when people are just watching, they just have the discipline not to - but the tension has previously arisen from the 'OMG will they be seen?' moments. In Toy Story 4, our heroes are pretty much running around in plain sight, and by the end almost causing a fatal traffic accident. If I want that, I'll watch Gremlins, thanks.

BRAVO

There also appear to be a couple of glaring tonal mis-steps in the final moments (even though these are thoroughly cued up by the preceding film). When Woody chooses a life as a 'lost toy' with Bo Peep and is assured by Buzz and Jessie that "Bonnie will be alright", doesn't this completely undercut the final scene in Toy Story 3? Woody was going to be the one toy that Andy kept and took to college, the lone memento of his childhood. He's been Andy's action companion throughout the years who's now earned a comfortable retirement, as adulthood beckons but with one nostalgic eye on the formative past. When Andy sees Bonnie's face light up on discovering Woody at the bottom of the box, he knows that Woody's adventures can now continue in new hands, that it's okay to let his favourite cowboy go knowing he'll be fulfilling his purpose all over again. So then we fast-forward a few months and what? Woody's picking up dustballs in the closet while Bonnie plays with plastic cutlery? Is that all Woody counts for? Is that all the affection Bonnie can manage? She got these toys for free and she treats them like trash, no wonder she makes her own ones from the bin, the entitled little shit. Bonnie deserves to play in garbage. There, I said it.

But it's not just the kid who's to blame here*⁴. With Bo Peep assuring Woody that kids lose toys every day and that Bonnie will quickly get over it, not only is Bo underlining the point above about the kid's attention span, she's also ignoring the very point of the previous three films, surely? Bo abuses the goodwill of her previous relationship with Woody to get him to gainsay his own golden rule - a toy must be there for their kid. Bo's own abandonment issues have morphed into soft-spoken nihilism over the years, and now she's passing on her blithely hedonistic manifesto to any toy she encounters. As a cowboy, Woody symbolises the hardworking optimism which forged America's early days - the truth, compassion and family values which Woody has preached throughout the series. Now Disney (of all people) are showing us how easily these can be disregarded in the 21st century, and ultimately how replaceable we all are*³.

HALLOWEEN H

Don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy Toy Story 4. But I’m happy to join the consensus on this one and be like “Great work guys, now stop”.

Although fair play to Pixar for making a movie showing a young black girl getting lost in a fairground at night then being reunited with her parents, and not having her wear a Michael Jackson's Thriller t-shirt. Don't think I'd have been able to resist, especially with Jordan Peele in the voice-cast...

Well, the Toy Story flicks.



It is.



It is.



It's not but let's be fair, that's a very high bar.



It's possible.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: The voices of Major Bren Derlin and BB-8 are in this, and it shares a writer with Star Wars Resistance.





*¹ And yes, I would totally buy a three-pack of 3¾"-scale Combat Carl figures in their different fatigues. Yes please. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although on that subject, I don’t think that Gabby Gabby earns her redemption here. She spends more than half the movie wanting to disable the hero and is just one of those weird old toys to begin with. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ If you think this is harsh, don't even go near my ideas on what The Boss Baby is really about… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Although it is largely the kid. ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Post

The Post
Cert: 12A / 116 mins / Dir. Steven Spielberg / Trailer



Well, we're still in January so Worthy Chin-Stroke Film Season continues with Steven Spielberg's telling of the Pentagon Papers affair of 1971, in which the US government tried to stop the press (chiefly the New York Times and titular Washington Post) from publishing documents claiming they'd lied to the public over the Vietnam War. A srs-stry requires a srs-cst of course, and Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks have been drafted in to do the heavy lifting. Cue two hours of polyester shirts*¹, hand-held camerawork and actors talking over each other to give the impression of fast-paced chaos.

And it's fine.

While I appreciated the overall exposition as someone who wasn't alive at the time of the film's events, the script feels a little over-written in some places (yet wilfully obfuscating in others). And although the visuals of the movie are undeniably on-point for the 1971 setting, and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski captures the documentary-feel of the storytelling, this always felt like a modern-day facsimile of the era, rather than an immersive environment. Although I suspect Linus Sandgren's outstanding work in Battle Of The Sexes has rather spoiled it for everyone else, now (speaking of such matters, dear lord Tom Hanks does a lot of manspreading in this movie).

Another of the director's regular collaborators, John Williams brings a score which is great at the pomp and urgency of the proceedings, but occasionally becomes too sweeping and lyrical for the story it's attached to. Although the same can be said of Spielberg's direction, to be fair.

But the film tells its story with the conviction of a committed cast and crew; I can't fault it for that. There were, however, two main stumbling blocks preventing me from enjoying it more...

Firstly, I couldn't forget that I was watching Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, not newspaper proprietor Katharine Graham and editor Ben Bradlee. This is isn't necessarily a new problem of mine with Mr Hanks, but Streep usually manages to disappear into her roles, becoming the character completely. And it's not like she's has nothing to work with here, I was just always aware that I was watching an actor, acting. The problem could well be the star-wattage of the cast - Streep or Hanks on their own have more chance of blending into a scene with their supporting players, but together their light just shines more brightly than any film they're part of.

Secondly, I couldn't forget that the while the presented issues concerning press-freedom may well be very prescient in 2018, it's also a far more complex situation now. Freedom of speech is more than a right, it's a responsibility, and the needle sways both ways in 2018. Now admittedly, that's not what The Post sets out to cover, but it was in my mind throughout. And while I also don't particularly like dragging my own politics into what is supposed to be a casual movie-review blog*², the film's stars took what can only be described The Bare Minimum Amount Of Prodding to wade into current events while promoting the film. All The Politics isn't something you can really brush aside with this movie as that's precisely what it's about.

So, all in all, The Post is basically fine. I found the story itself interesting, but got little more out of the feature than that. A well-assembled documentary would have been just as good from where I was sitting. Your mileage will vary.

Oh, and we get the fourth Insidious movie in 2.35:1 aspect-ratio, but Steven Spielberg's delivers his awards-nudger 'tv-sized' 1.85:1? Have a word, mate…

The Fifth Estate, Spotlight.



Well, pretty much everyone else seems to think so.



Unless your thing is historical politics or Spielberg, this is a rent/stream.



It's not.



I wouldn't think so.



Hang on, you've put a Vietnam jungle battle-scene at the beginning of the film and there's still no Wilhelm? Insane.



Level 1: As noted, this film's got the one and only John Williams on score-duty…





*¹ The period-detail of sets and wardrobe is reliable enough in all the right places, although at one point Hanks' wife (played by Sarah Paulson) lifts a framed photo from the side cabinet in their lounge, showing the couple reclining on a sofa with John and Jackie Kennedy. "That picture makes me sad", she says, to which I inaudibly replied "Yeah me too, love. It looks like it was put together by the intern using MS Paint. Why can't film production companies employ dececent graphic artists to put together faked historical photos in movies? They're the one thing other than the cast that the camera always lingers on, put some bloody effort in." ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although y'know, as I've linked to articles at the New Statesman and the Guardian, you can probably guess which side of the fence my own deckchair is on. It's not that I'm not on the side of The Post, I absolutely am. I'm just more worried that The Post isn't always on the side of The Post, and hasn't noticed. ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Sully

Sully
Cert: 12A / 96 mins / Dir. Clint Eastwood / Trailer



The new Clint Eastwood directed movie, Sully - the story behind airline pilot Chesley Sullenberger and the famous forced water-landing in 2009 whereby he successfully prevented any fatalities - is currently sitting at an 85% critics' approval rating over at Rotten Tomatoes, with the audience response slightly higher at 87%. I only mention this because if you want to read something reassuringly positive and uplifting about the film, that's where you'll find it…

Fresh from failing to adequately depict or explore PTSD, Uncle Clint manages to take another remarkable story which would have made a fantastic documentary, and instead fashion a mawkish, simplistic and completely patronising TV melodrama. Naturally, in addition to several depictions of the forced landing in question, the film also features two exquisitely CGI'd sequences of a passenger jet crashing into the New York skyline in a ball of flames and seared flesh, just to show that our heroic captain is having 'episodes' after the incident and absolutely not at all to be exploitative and dramatic about an event where everyone actually survived. Dear me no, no. Dear me, no.

Todd Komarnicki's screenplay*¹ clunks from one scene to the next, with characters either narrating exactly what's happening on-screen or just verbally spouting their inner monologues full of clichéd platitudes to fill the gaps. Overall, it's Aaron Eckhart who manages to escape with the most dignity, starring as Sully's co-pilot with the fewest lines in the script. And don't let the reviews kid you, Tom Hanks' performance in this film is in no way special or extraordinary; he just plays Tom Hanks With White Hair, metaphorically phoning in his performance (unlike Laura Linney as his wife, who literally phones in hers). Meanwhile, the dastardly crash-investigation team smirk and twiddle their moustaches for two and a half acts before Mr Eastwood stops one beat short of sending a silver-service butler into the courtroom to announce "And now ladies and gentlemen, some humble-pie of truly epic proportions is about to be served!". All that remains is a closing-credits sequence whereby the actual real Mr Sullenberger is reunited with his actual real passengers in an aircraft hanger for forced jollity all round. Like the film hasn't already shown the guy going through enough without having to appear as himself in a bad version of his own worst day.

I'm very much aware that due to its content and tone, Sully is a sort of cinematic sacred-cow. I don't care, this is a terrible movie and it needs to be called out. The film doesn't celebrate Chesley Sullenberger, it patronises him to within an inch of his life, and Clint Eastwood couldn't direct traffic on a one-way street.

Anyway, if memory serves, Denzel Washington did pretty much the same thing, but with a crushing hangover to boot. I think we all know who the real hero is here…

Biting the inside of your own cheek to avoid shouting at the screen for an hour and a half.



Yeah, the four (four) flight simulations we're treated to at the film's climactic courtroom scene work so much better on the big screen.



According to the folks over at RT, yes.
Obviously, I beg to differ.



It's not even Eastwood's best as a director, and that's saying something.



Y'know what? I might, a little bit…



There isn't.



Level 2: This film stars Sam Huntingdon, who was also in Fanboys alongside Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Ray Park and a metric shit-ton of Star Wars references.





*¹ The poster cites this as "The untold story behind the miracle on the Hudson". Untold story. It's based on Sullenberger's own book. That's where we are before we've even sat down in the auditorium...

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.