I Am Ali (2014)

* ½ out of ****

I became a boxing fan on September 15, 1978, the night that Muhammad Ali beat Leon Spinks by decision to become the heavyweight champion for the third time. There was only one TV in the house, and since my sister and I were 10 and 8 respectively, we ended up watching what my dad wanted to watch just about every night. And while I'm sure I had watched fights with my dad before, I don't remember any prior to this match, mainly because of the impact the decision had on my dad. He cried, he laughed, he mooned over the images of Ali on the TV screen. He was deeply moved.  I remember it like it was yesterday.

Such is the type of emotion that Muhammad Ali generates in those that lived through his tenure as a prizefighter. Ali was more than an athlete; due to the strength of his voice in both the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, he became an icon. During the 60s and 70s he was at the same time the most loved and most hated athlete in the world, and the single most recognizable face on the planet. He was bigger than boxing.  He was bigger than just about everything.

Directed by Clair Lewins, “I am Ali” virtually ignores Muhammad Ali the athlete and focuses on  the icon. And not to put too fine a point on it, basically treats him as Muhammad Ali the saint. Or martyr. Or God..... I appreciate that Lewins tried to do something different here - the amount of media available about Muhammad Ali is so vast that it is virtually impossible to learn anything new about the man. So Lewins doesn't even try and instead made a movie hailing the wonderful-ness of Ali. But since this is a documentary I feel it fell very short of making any kind of real statement, more because of its omissions than its content.

It would be okay to have the people that love and admire Ali discussing how he has influenced them. It's fine to have his family talk about how much they love and admire him. What I found not okay was the absolute refusal to address the reality that Ali left a trail of broken hearts in his wake. The film shows an interview with Muhammad Ali Jr about his upbringing, but fails to address the non-relationship between he and his father now. It also shows interviews with Marvis Frazier where he speaks to some degree about how Ali's taunting hurt his father Joe during their three fight history, but glosses over it rather than hit it head on. I have zero doubt at all that Marvis had a lot more to say about this, but the editing left it as a “they loved each other in spite of it all” feeling to it. Joe forgave Ali in the end but spent DECADES being eaten up inside about being called "Uncle Tom" and "The Gorilla".

Even Veronica Ali, Muhammad's third wife, gives a “kid gloves” treatment to Muhammad. When she discusses Ali's infidelities, it's more in a “nudge nudge wink wink, isn't he naughty” way than how in reality it was the sole reason for their broken marriage. So overall I can't say this paints a real portrait of Ali – it just paints the bright side and leaves the dark side almost completely alone.

There is some great stuff in this film though. Being an Ali-o-phile I noticed quite a few photos and videos that I hadn't seen before, and though it is all daddy-daughter stuff the recorded conversations from the 70s of Ali with his kids is also new to hear. And since there is so much Ali-related stuff out there, it is difficult to make a new documentary that doesn't simply re-tread the same old footsteps. “Muhammad Ali: The Whole Story” (1996) is the most complete, comprehensive and honest documentary about the man, and “AKA Cassius Clay” (1970) gives you a really great account of what he meant to the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, “I Am Ali” falls into the vein of the dramas made about Ali (“The Greatest 1977 and “Ali” 2001) – they are just not very good viewing.

Muhammad Ali is many things. A superior athlete, a great but deeply flawed man, an entertainer, a cruel egomaniac, an icon of anti-war and anti-segregation. But he is no saint, despite what “I Am Ali” seems to convey.  I love the man personally – loved him as an athlete and loved his courage as a political statesman. But I most love him because on the night of his last great triumph, my dad cried tears of joy because of what Ali meant to him. He deserves a better tribute than this film provides him.

The Babadook (2014)

*** out of ****

When you were a kid did you ever lie awake at night convinced that some sort of boogeyman was right there in your room? Did you ever look out from under the covers and see a shadow that appeared to be a monster moving in to finish you off? Can you remember the deep-in-your-gut terror that you felt as a child at those times? Well Jennifer Kent, the writer and direct of “The Babadook” does, and her dark and spooky little movie proves it in spades.....

A good deal of the scariness of “The Babadook” comes from how effectively it plays on our fears. The kid-fears are obvious.  But all parents are terrified that something awful will happen to their kids, and nothing is more terrifying that hear your child shriek in the night. The heroine of the movie is single-mom Amelia (Essie Davis), whose son Samuel (Noah Wiseman) has pretty typical nighttime fears. He's a very intense kid, and spends a lot of time in trouble with the school and with other parents that see him as a behavior problem. Amelia tries very hard to keep things normal for him, but the stress of dealing with everything alone keeps her pretty close to the razor's edge most of the time.

One night at storytime Samuel pulls an unfamiliar volume from his shelf called “Mr. Babadook”. It starts off like most Grimm fairy tales, but soon takes a turn into unfriendly waters and Amelia shuts it down. Samuel however becomes immediately convinced that “The Babadook” is the mysterious monster that haunts him at night. As the days pass and strange things begin to occur around the house, Samuel attributes everything to the Babadook. Amelia naturally sees it as his excuse to get out of responsibility and eventually tears the book up and throws it away.

So far pretty standard scary-movie fare and you are of course sure that there is more to this than Amelia thinks. But then the story actually moves into more primal fears. The book re-appears on her doorstep taped back together, but with some more frightening imagery. The new pages tell her that the more you deny the existence of Babadook the stronger he becomes, and now includes a few disturbing pop-ups including one showing Amelia with her throat cut. This time she burns the book but it's clear that something or someone is stalking or haunting her and her son – the only questions are what it is and what it wants.

"The Babadook" is a bona-fide fright-fest of a movie. As things get worse and worse at the house Amelia realizes that what Babadook wants is her son and it needs to use her to get it. She starts seeing really eerie, haunting images virtually everywhere.  Jennifer Kent's use of lighting contributes greatly to the fear as the shadowy images you see (or don't see) build the tension. At one point (probably the tensest in the entire film) Amelia actually hides under the covers like a little kid (the last thing you do when you KNOW the boogieman is right there....). Amelia's constant battle between self preservation and her need to save her son is what makes this movie so tense – if you have kids you will see exactly what I mean when you watch it.

“The Babadook” is getting rave reviews wherever it is seen, and I guess mine is fairly rave as well. It is taut, tense, disturbing and at times really scary. You will get goosebumps. It isn't the best horror movie you'll ever see, but it is assuredly a good time at the movies if you like to be genuinely creeped out. Stephen King's short story “The Boogeyman” (from the collection “Night Shift”) left me with the same feeling of creepiness, and that, coming from me, is high praise indeed. A terrific little creeper.

This is Where I Leave You (2014)

* ½ out of ****

How is it possible that a movie can be made that is supposed to be both touching and irreverent, then only gives you characters that you don't particularly care about and who are almost completely unfunny? Well if you do all that, you have “This is Where I Leave You”, a painfully uninteresting comedy-drama without drama or comedy.

Jason Bateman is Judd Altman, a radio producer who comes home early to surprise his wife and instead catches her in bed with his boss. The scene where he walks in on them is the funniest in the movie, as he walks into the room and sits down while they remain oblivious. He and his wife split, he quits his job and is mouldering in self-pity when he finds that his father has dies and he needs to come home for the funeral.

His family is well cast, I'll at least admit that. Jane Fonda is his mother, a sexually liberated author that takes joy in making her sons uncomfortable. Tina Fey is the sister in a loveless marriage, and his brothers both have their issues, one in a marriage where his inability to get his wife pregnant rules is every move, and one shiftless brother who is getting marries for money. They all sit shiva for a week with their family, and reconnect with one another.

I could go on at some length about some of the plot points, but really that's all you would need to know. The film tries to make a touching story about how the siblings are all there for each other (and are still each others' greatest tormentors) and how blood connections always seem to be able to overcome. But it just isn't that interesting. Fey considers infidelity with a childhood friend, Bateman is tortured over his failures as a husband.... it's all pretty boring, run of the mill stuff. The film simply fails to make it interesting. But even worse, it fails in every attempt to make the relationships themselves interesting.  Bateman himself gets a few laughs with his straightman routine, but not much else.

There is a pretty fun little spot in the middle where the brothers sneak off from temple to get high, but even that feels like a missed opportunity. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but director Shawn Levy has never made a movie that I considered more than “okay” and this one is no exception. Even the “parting of ways” scenes at the end that are supposed to tug at your heartstrings are a complete yawn.

I have no doubt that there are some people out there that will like this film, but I will frankly state that I am not one of them. When it comes to films about families, give me “Ordinary People”, “The Royal Tenenbaums” or “The Kids Are Alright” instead – they're funnier and more dramatic, which is what I like to see in comedy-dramas.

Left Behind (2014)

* out of ****

Okay, I was ready for this movie to suck. And don't get me wrong, it does. But its general suckiness doesn't have to do with the performances or production values (which I honestly did expect to suck) but from a plot that tries very hard to be realistic when it isn't. Kind of like if the “Army of Darkness” had been passed off as a historical drama......

So to be clear off the top, I think the idea of the “Rapture” is almost off-the-charts crazy (as I do with all “end of the world” doctrines). But according to the doctrine this film is based on, at some point in the future, either just before the second coming of Christ or just at the point of the birth of the Antichrist, all of the “saved” will simply vanish from the Earth. Be “taken up into the air”, as it were. I would be clearer on this but there seems to be no real consensus amongst believers on when this will happen, only that it will. After that, only the non-believers will be left on earth to be sorted out by either God or Satan (or both).

So in an attempt to meld new testament end-of-the-world doctrine to the modern disaster movie, “Left Behind” tells the story of what could happen if the rapture occurred today. Now I will admit that despite the critical trashing that this movie received and the silliness of people vanishing into thin air because they are the saved, I felt that this sounded interesting enough to watch. And I watched the whole thing, so maybe it was. But it probably wasn't.

Nicolas Cage is an airline pilot with an extremely religious wife (played by Lea Thompson) and a beautiful cynic daughter, Chloe (played by Cassie Thompson). Cage's character Ray is about to fly to London, with his mistress-to-be stewardess along for the ride. Also on the flight is Buck Williams (Chad Michael Murray), an investigative reporter who Chloe has a romantic interest in. When the rapture occurs (with a handful of people vanishing on the plane) we get “Airport 1975” if it had been written by Pat Robertson. The reactions of the plane occupants are probably pretty realistic if this were ever to actually happen – some are scared, some are angry and some are convinced there is a conspiracy afoot. Nobody seems to think of the rapture, which I thought was cute. Don't these people read?

Meanwhile back on the surface, the saved have also vanished. Chloe's brother disappears during a hug – her frantic searching for him in his backpack was pretty good, but where else was she going to look? The rioting and looting starts almost immediately (why not? Only the foul have been left behind, right?). Chloe is convinced that everyone that means anything to her is gone (mom and brother whisked away and Dad assuredly crashed on his transatlantic flight) and she then of course considers suicide. What else would a reasonable non-believer do, right? Did I overuse the word silly already?

Now I am not going to rip this film for its religious theme. Films with religious themes are often pretty good (for example, I enjoyed this year's “God's Not Dead” despite some heavy preachiness in it). I greatly look forward to Christian Bale as Moses in the upcoming “Exodus”. But this one doesn't really try to tell a story – it's a message. Get right with God or be left behind. Those folks that were taken were so lily-white and pure, they had it all together and were at peace with the world when they were taken. On the other hand, those left behind were either foul human beings or tortured, tormented people who just didn't have any real direction in them. It's the condescension as much as anything else that loses the message here. And a message movie that gives the message ineffectively will suck. This one proves it.

I like Cage and can't imagine what he was doing in this film. For the most part the special effects and production values are acceptable, but it is a poor excuse for popular entertainment. Had this been a “Living Waters” presentation I would have gotten what I expected. But I expected a little more movie and a little less preachy and I didn't get it.

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014)

** out of ****

“Horrible Bosses” (2011) was a screwball comedy that found most of its fun in the bumbling attempts of three basically good-natured guys to do bad-natured things. Their innate goodness and over-reactions to the events they found themselves in was the source of the comedy. The source of comedy in this basically unnecessary sequel is much more straightforward. Stupidity.

Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day return as Nick, Kurt and Dale, who have now given up their hated careers for entrepreneurship. They have developed a completely idiotic product called “The Shower Buddy” which dispenses your shampoo and conditioner directly to the top of your head at strategic points during your shower. Despite this product's utter uselessness they receive a career-making order of 100,000 units from an online company run by Christoph Waltz. Now I love Waltz (except in the weirder-than-weird “The Zero Theorum”) but he is remarkably un-funny in this film. Of course, they play him as mean and cruel rather than stupid, which is where this film tries to get all its laughs, so perhaps he wasn't meant to be funny.

The business deal goes south when they discover that the big order was a scheme to get them to leverage themselves to the hilt so that when the order is canceled and they go bankrupt, Waltz's company can buy the inventory at auction for pennies on the dollar and then buy out the patent. That these yahoos never thought to get a DEPOSIT on the order is mind-boggling. Nobody would be that stupid in reality.

So in order to save their company, they decide to kidnap Waltz's son Rex (played by Chris Pine) and ransom him for the value of their outstanding loans. Rex was for me the best character in the movie, as he was equally stupid but also cunning and manipulative and pretty much hilarious in his over-the-top mistreatment of everyone else around him. Pine appears to have had a lot of fun playing this part, or else he is a much better actor that I ever gave him credit for – he seems to be literally brimming with mirth the entire time.

The three leads being who they are, of course nothing goes to plan. But where in the original it was comical to see them react to their misfortune, in this one it is their stupidity that leads to the misfortune. In trying to steal nitrous oxide from Dale's old boss (Jennifer Aniston) you almost have to hold your head to keep it from exploding, so ridiculous is their attempt at robbery. This is forgivable though, as it got Aniston back into the movie.....

Overall, I have to admit there are some laughs in this film. Quite a few of them in fact. And while I am only giving it a very moderately lower rating than the original, it really isn't half as enjoyable. Jason Bateman's comeback continues – for a guy that was nowhere 10 years ago he is surely in a lot of films these days, and generally plays as good a “straight man” as you can find in modern film. But it is a disappointment overall and what we would have traditionally called “a renter”.

Oliver! (1968)

**** out of ****

When I was 13 years old my entire grammar school was called to the gymnasium for an assembly - like most everyone else, I had no idea what it was about. Unbeknownst to virtually all of us, some of the grade 7 and 8 students were putting on a play – the musical “Oliver!” and this was their dry-run before performing for the parents that night. And much to much absolute shock, I found myself loving every second of it.

If you'd asked me beforehand if I would ever like a musical, given my experience with them (my mother watching Doris Day and Julie Andrews movies on TV) I would have responded with a resounding “Hell no!”. But “Oliver!" is one of those nearly perfect pieces of art that you have to work awfully hard to screw up, thanks to how well written it is. My school's play tried to reproduce the 1969 Best Picture Oscar winner as closely as possible, and who could blame them?

To my eye, this is the most perfect musical ever laid on celluloid. A taut, exciting and heart-felt story with catchy tunes that contribute mightily to the story, rather than leaving you feeling that most songs were there for no reason. Even the slowest numbers that are the only slight drag on the story (“As Long as He Needs Me” and “Who Will Buy”) still add to the plot to give you a clear idea of the mindset of the characters. Happily, those slightly inert ones are offset by some of the most delightfully fun songs in the history of musicals – my favorites have always been “Consider Yourself”, “Pick a Pocket or Two”, “I'd Do Anything”, “It's a Fine Life” and “Om Pa Pa”. All fantastic, grin-inducing numbers.

But enough about the music – how about the movie? Well, what else can you say other than it is one of the greats? Oliver Twist is an orphan, grinding away at the workhouse when he dares to ask for more of the disgusting gruel they are served for dinner. He is removed from the workhouse and sold to a local undertaker where it will be his job to lead funeral processions. After a fight with the undertaker's son, Oliver escapes to London to seek his fortune. This is where the story stops being merely interesting and starts being great theatre.

Upon arriving in London Oliver crosses paths with the Artful Dodger, a child pickpocket and thief par excellence. Dodger hooks Oliver up with his benefactor Fagin, who runs an entire ring of child criminals out of an abandoned industrial building. While Oliver learns the tricks of the trade, we also meet a former pupil of Fagin's named Bill Sykes, who is now one of the most talented and feared criminals in London. We also meet his girlfriend Nancy, who recognizes Oliver as something special and tries to shield him from some of the uglier parts of their lives.

After Oliver is caught for a crime committed by Dodger and sent to court, the kindly victim of the crime decides to try to offer Oliver a better life and takes him in. Fagin and Sykes however are afraid that Oliver will rat out their operation and get them all caught, and scheme to steal him back. The songs continue throughout and keep the feeling upbeat – which is good because the basic storyline is very grim despite the fun. Sykes reveals himself to be a true villain while Fagin is a bit of a “heart of gold” type beneath it all, but the film doesn't cheap out by going for unrealistic happy endings.

The real heart of the movie is Ron Moody as Fagin. His performance is truly wonderful, both in his half-hearted villainy, his lost father figure to the boys in the crime ring and in his clear joy throughout the musical numbers. He delivers lots of laughs but also a nicely played out “sad story” which leaves you rooting for him despite his involvement in child exploitation. Shani Wallis is also very enjoyable as Nancy, and Oliver Reed is deliciously evil as Sykes. And the actor playing the Artful Dodger, Jack Wild, is so darn good even as a very young teen that I'm kind of amazed that I have never seen him in anything else. His screen confidence is outstanding for a kid.

A can't miss, even for those who don't generally like musicals. You may want to scan past the musical number in the middle of the film (“Who Will Buy”) as it is very long and doesn't contribute a great deal to the story (and isn't that much fun to watch or listen to), but that is my only complaint about the entire film.

And for those who may read this that I went to grammar school with and were in that play, I owe you a long overdue thank you for introducing me to the material. I loved seeing friends do something so outstanding. Melanie W as Oliver Twist, Bill G as Fagin, Steve B as Sykes.... though I'll be damned if I can recall who played Dodger. Thanks one and all. It still means a lot to me, 30 years later.

Blue Ruin (2014)

**** out of ****

When you describe the plot of “Blue Ruin” it doesn't sound like very much. When you describe the cast it sounds like even less; the most famed actors in it are Jan from “The Brady Bunch” and Buzz from “Home Alone”, and only in brief supporting roles.  The dialogue, usually is the aspect of a film that most appeals to me, isn't very interesting and in fact may be more sparse than in any movie I can think of that didn't involve cavemen....... but for my money “Blue Ruin” is the best movie of 2014. And there is nothing else that really comes close.

Macon Blair (so unheralded that as of this writing he has only 1700 Twitter followers) is Dwight Evans, a timid Delaware vagrant trying to get through life on the smallest scale possible. He doesn't want to be noticed by anyone and does everything possible to stay out of the line of sight.  His blue ruin is a bullet riddled, beat-to-hell old Pontiac that he lives in on the beach. We find all this out about Dwight before we hear him utter even a single word on screen. Succinct, concise film-making and a great, subtle performance from Blair lay this out for us so we have a clear background picture of the character before the plot even begins to unfold.

When it does, we learn that Dwight fell away from society many years ago after his parents were murdered. He simply vanished and left everyone and everything behind. But now he learns that his parents' killer is about to be released from prison.  He decides he needs to avenge his parents and despite his timidity and general lack of any idea of how to accomplish it, Dwight goes off to murder the murderer.

Without giving too much away, Dwight is initially successful in his attempt only to find out that the family he is messing with has far more in common with the Hatfields and McCoys than the aforementioned Brady Bunch. They decide to keep the police out of things and settle all scores on their own. Left with little choice and virtually no resources Dwight has to figure out a way to live through this, or at least make sure they leave his long-lost sister and her family alone.

I can't describe how wonderfully this film tells Dwight's story. Jeremy Saulnier's direction is brilliant in its simplicity - he mostly just lets it all unfold. There are no voice-overs or muddy attempts to explain what is going on at any time, and when there is confusion on the part of the viewer about what is happening or who we are looking at, it solves itself through what we see on the screen. Completely without pretense and using no pyrotechnics or special effects, this is the ultimate minimalist revenge film. Nobody is a kung-fu expert, there isn't a single character that can crack into CIA files to find information, and basic human need is always the motivation.

Alternately abhorrent and embracing of the violence necessary to the plot, and far better at building tension than a thousand horror films, “Blue Ruin” is one of those great needle-in-the-haystack finds. You may have walked in expecting little, but you walk away with a genuinely wonderful movie experience. Macon Blair plays the part perfectly, using his hang dog looks to always convey his “I really wish I was somewhere else” attitude throughout. Devon Ratray (Buzz from “Home Alone”) is surprisingly good as a childhood friend of Dwight's and everyone else does credible work as well. But it is the story that draws you into "Blue Ruin" and carries you along.

I sincerely don't expect this film to get much (if any) notice from the Academy in February, deserving or not. Little films like this never are. But it is, mark my words, the best movie of 2014. If you have any opportunity to see it, don't pass it up. It is remarkable.