Arthur the King – for Love of a Dog

3 Stars (out of 4)

When we think of courageous dog movies, who can forget “Lassie Come Home,”  “Old Yeller,” “Rin, Tin, Tin” and “Benji?”  The most recent canine hero movie to add to the mix is the heart-string tugging film “Arthur the King” – a moniker for a Santo Domingo street dog who befriends an adventure racing team on a grueling 700-km (435-mile) race across the Dominican Republic.

Michael Light (Mark Wahlberg) is a disgraced American runner who stubbornly led his adventure racing team to a humiliating defeat in Costa Rica when he refused to listen to his wiser team mates and was stranded with the ebbing tide on the first day of the race.  Three years later he is still brooding about the loss and tries to assemble a new team for an adventure in the Dominican Republic.  His wife, Helena (Juliet Rylance), a former teammate of that Costa Rica disaster encourages him in this endeavor.

Early in the adventure, Michael befriends a mangy street dog by offering him packaged meatballs.  At the next race checkpoint (transition camp), the dog suddenly appears, having mysteriously crossed more than 200 miles of jungle.  When the dog saves the team from falling off a cliff, the team adopts him as their mascot and names him Arthur the King. 

There are ups and downs in this adventure film and Arthur is beloved by everyone – especially the audience.  Rather than relate any more of the heroics of the team and Arthur, I urge you to see this movie and share this unique race which includes biking, kayaking, climbing and running.  Not only are these adventure races real, the actual story of Arthur is based on a true story.  As a real-life adventure, the audience gets to share photos of the actual Light family and their dog as the final credits roll.  This is something I always relish – looking for similarities between the real life people and the actors cast to play them. 

While the film is slow at its start and the director, Simon Cellan, might have figured a better way to introduce the dog Arthur at the onset of the film, it is very impactful and engaging when we finally get to the actual race. 

In an interesting aside, last Saturday’s showings at the Park Plaza Cinema were set aside to benefit the Hilton Head Humane Society with patrons encouraged to bring their dogs to the theater for canine festivities. 

As is often my custom, I saw this film in the front row at Park Plaza Cinema with my movie buddies Kathy and Tracey.

One Life – A Story We Never Knew

3 of 4 Stars

If my star ratings were based on emotional impact alone, this biographical drama would be off the charts.  The story is based on true events in the life of Sir Nicholas “Nicky” Winton at the beginning of WWII and its aftermath.

At the age of 29, Nicky (Johnny Flynn) visits German-occupied Czechoslovakia at the urging of his friend Martin Blake (Ziggy Heath), where he discovers whole families who have fled Nazi Germany and Austria just before the outbreak of WWII.  Nicky, a London stockbroker with a clear humanitarian bent, is moved by the poverty, squalor and fear of the refugees living in Prague.  He meets Doreen Warriner (Romola Garai), head of the Prague office of the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia (BCRC), an organization responsible for relocating adult refugees.  With avenues for relocation of the refugees in scant supply, Doreen and her colleagues are overwhelmed by the task set before them.  It is difficult just to keep the families alive.  But Nicky’s compassion turns to the children who will surely die if they are not given asylum.  He decides to take matters into his own hands by devising a plan of escape for the children.

With the assistance of his mother, Babi (Helena Bonham Carter), herself a Jewish refugee, and friend, Martin, Nicky embarks on a bold campaign to move the children to foster homes in England.  This requires raising funds, a shift in focus of the BCRC, removal of bureaucratic impediments, enlisting British foster parents, and coordination of transit plans – all before the borders are closed by the Nazis. 

The film shifts between an aging Nicky (Anthony Hopkins) fifty years after the initial evacuations and 1938-39 Prague.  Few people were aware that Nicky helped 669 primarily Jewish children flee to safety in Britain.  But when Nicky decides to donate his papers to an archive, his story is revealed and the recognition that he never sought is thrust upon him with heart-rending results, as he comes face-to-face with the now-adults of the many children he helped escape to freedom.  Since so many of the children lost their birth families to the Holocaust, a great number remained in Britain.

While the film is somewhat slow in the beginning, and we are not quite sure where the appearance of the elder Nicky will lead, the movie quickly picks up speed in a race against time and the impending threat of the Nazis and the plight of the children.  This was an amazing event which has been all but lost to our collective consciousness of the Nazi campaign to exterminate the Jews and others thought by Hitler to be undesirable.  It is a film well worth seeing and an amazing piece of history that needs to be highlighted. OKKKKL 

I saw this film from a front-row seat at Park Plaza Cinema along with my movie buddies, Kathy and Tracey.   

Oscar Picks for 2024

Last week I spoke about how “Oppenheimer” is likely to sweep the Oscars, which isn’t my favorite outcome.  Having seen all but two of the movies nominated in the top categories, I’d like to talk about my favorite picks and why.

Best Picture:  My pick is “American Fiction.”  Since it debuted so late in the season, it has little chance of winning – with the top flick going to “Oppenheimer.”  But the timeliness of the subject matter of “American Fiction”– racism in the arts – the fabulous cast, and effortless flow of the movie with not a scintilla of dead space make this my top choice among the nominees.  Unlike “Oppenheimer,” which is frankly boring in many places, “American Fiction” is engaging every moment.

Best Actress:  Emma Stone is positively mesmerizing in “Poor Things.”  It is a rather weird film and what she is called to do in the film is extraordinary.  I applaud Carey Mulligan’s performance in “Maestro” because it is often nuanced.  But Emma Stone is simply over the top.     

Best Actor:  I know Paul Giamatti is a favorite in “The Holdovers,” and I loved his performance, too.  Bradley Cooper was fabulous in “Maestro” and his recreation of Bernstein’s style and panache overcome what I believe to be a lousy script which misses the musical genius of Bernstein and merely settles for the the prurient.  I also loved Jeffrey Wright in “American Fiction” but the character of Bernstein was more challenging.

Best Supporting Actress:  My hands-down pick is the favorite:  Da’Vine Joy Randolph in “The Holdovers.” This is essentially an ensemble movie with only three characters.  Randolph’s role as the school’s chef is pivotal and keeps the movie grounded as she espouses the wisdom of the obvious.

Best Supporting Actor:  I love DeNiro in “Killers of the Flower Moon” and Gossling in “Barbie.”  Even Downey is mesmerizing in his paranoia in “Oppenheimer.”  But Mark Ruffalo’s role in “Poor Things” is memorable as he loses control and slips over the edge.  The nominees are a remarkable group of talented men.

Best Director:  My nod goes to Yorgos Lanthimos for “Poor Things” since it is a movie with so many strange characters and moving parts.  But the sentimental favorite who has long been overlooked by the Academy is Chrisopher Nolan of “Oppenheimer.”  I so wish that Noland had been willing to pare down an over-long script.

Best Original Screenplay:  This has to go to “The Holdovers” when placed against its competition.  Had “Maestro” focused more on the musical genius of Bernstein rather than his sexual proclivities, this would have been a winner.  But the premise was all wrong.

Best Adapted Screenplay:  This is a toughie.  “Barbie” deserved to have a lot more nominations.  For that reason, it is my pick.

Best Cinematography:  I’ll pass on this one.  If filming the incredible landscape of New Mexico is a major criteria and the “big blast” in the desert, my nod goes to “Oppenheimer.”

Best Editing:  “Oppenheimer” needed to leave a lot more footage on the cutting room floor.  I simply have no pick in this category.

Best Costume Design:  I applaud “Barbie” in this area.  But Barbie’s clothes were already designed by Mattel.  Whereas the mini skirts and knee-highs in “Poor Things” are a standout in what is supposed to be the Victorian Era.  Simply too imaginative for words.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:  If this award were given to the actor most unlike the character he/she plays, it would have to go to Helen Mirren in “Golda” for her portrayal of Golda Meir.  While I give high-fives to Badley Cooper for the the hooked prosthesis he wore on his nose, it does not compare to the authenticity the makeup transformation gave to Mirren as Israel’s formidable prime minister.     

Why Oppenheimer Will Sweep the Oscars

Although not my personal choice for Best Motion Picture, “Oppenheimer” is likely to sweep the Oscars.  In defense of the power of “Oppenheimer,” it was the first Hollywood extravaganza to emerge post Pandemic and a bright spotlight suggesting that Hollywood is not dead and that, just perhaps, we do not have to spend the rest of our lives streaming mostly mediocre, made-for-TV films.   

Let me, however, state what I believe is the obvious:  movies that come very late in the “Oscar Season” get seriously shortchanged.  Things like Best Picture, Best Director and, often, Best Actor have often been decided long before the “holiday” movies roll out at Thanksgiving and Christmas.  For movies falling into the late calendar year to win significant Oscars, the other nominees in those categories have to be seriously anemic. 

Beside timing of release, another factor at play in Oscar selection is: Who selects the winners?  Every once in a blue moon, the Academy will throw a bone to a female director or an Afro-American, Asian or other minority actor or film.  This helps the white males, who have the most clout, sleep at night and dupe themselves into believing that they are fully evolved.

The final factors influencing the “sweep” are the many the award ceremonies that precede the Oscars:  Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Emmy, Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and BAFTA Awards.  With the exception of the Emmy (which is only about television), every award for Best Picture has gone to “Oppenheimer.” There is simply no room for the Academy to find otherwise.  The Director, Christopher Nolan, is an incredible talent who is long overdue to receive an Oscar for his directing.   

Furthermore, “Oppenheimer” received so much hype before anyone even saw it, proving that dollars do speak.  It was epic in length and the subject matter was something that everyone on the planet knew about – the Atomic Bomb.  Interestingly, “Barbie” came out at the same time and was also promoted with much hype and awaited with baited breath.  Many movie fans saw both films with a dinner pause between shows.  The duo was referred to as “Barbenheimer.” 

I saw both films; but the audience and its reactions were worlds apart.  “Oppenheimer”  attracted a mixed audience of male and female.  After the movie, many moaned about the length of the movie, the linear biographic quality of the movie and its faithfulness to the 700+ page book of the same title.  But few in the audience I attended where mesmerized by the movie itself.  The cinematography – especially of the bomb blast in the desert – and the awful reality of the event were discussed, but I never felt there was a real embracing of the movie for all its grandeur.  Despite its three hours in length, the characters who emerged most fully formed were not the primary stars.

On the other hand, the “Barbie” audience was predominantly female – young and old – many dressed in pink to honor the icon of their childhood.  But the take-away from the film was not as epic as the atomic bomb; it was on a visceral level.  The take-away was Barbie’s discovery that the “real” world, not the Barbie Land world where women were presidents and leaders of industry – no, the “real” world was run by men.  While many of us have realized this for years, it was a revelation to Barbie – and maybe a wake-up call for us all.

My next review will be my personal selection for the major Oscar winners.  Stay tuned…. 

Wonka isn’t Wonderful

2 ½ /4 Stars

I found “Wonka” to be a bit disappointing – and this was before I had seen the original “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” – the  1971 film staring Gene Wilder as the master chocolatier on which this prequel is based.  Having just watched the 1971 classic for the first time, I am even more disappointed in this prequel, which I saw with my teen grandchildren, Nathan and Evie.  Both had seen the original “Willie Wonka” movie and had reactions similar to my own.   

Let’s start with the original.  The music is endearing and enduring; the choreography with the Oompa Loompas is funny and charming.  Of course, Wilder has the genius of comic timing and facial impressions.  While the film is magical in its theme and the outlandish settings, its comedy is both delightfully slapstick and subtle.  Add to this Wonka’s character – which waxes and wanes between indifference and geniality.  But that is all part of the charm and the wonder.  When Wonka shows his true self in offering impoverished Charlie the entire factory operation, it is a moment of sheer joy, and Wilder’s grin and goodwill explode across the screen.  Bravo!  The movie is simply FUN.

So when Timothée Chalamet steps onto the set as a very young Willie Wonka, I was hoping to see some inkling of the Wilder Willie.  As charming and adorable as Chalamet is (and he is both, in spades), he is hampered by an insincere plot with so many twists and turns and master villains that it all seems designed to keep an uninspiring plot moving.  But it fails to capture the imagination and engage the audience.  It just is not FUN! 

The casting is quite good with mostly British actors and comics whom you will recognize immediately.  Most notable are Jim Carter (Downton Abbey) as Abacus Crunch, an accountant who befriends Willie, and Olivia Coleman as Mrs. Scrubitt, the shifty landlady who runs a shabby boardinghouse where Willie is lured into staying.  With a nod to the Oompa Loompas from the original film, we meet Lofty, the renegade Oompa Loompa, played by Hugh Grant (if you can imagine that bit of jaw-dropping casting).  The movie was filmed in Great Britain which may account for the predominantly British cast.  The acting is very good considering the limitations of the script. 

The new music is unmemorable.  It is a far cry from “Pure Imagination” and “The Candyman” from the original movie.  I was not alone in my disappointment as my teenage grandson found the score equally uninspiring.  It was fun to revisit the original “Oompa Loompa” song but “Pure Imagination” did not play until the screen credits were rolling.  Perhaps featuring more songs from the original movie may have lent more inspiration to the score.

The sets are brilliant in true Warner Brothers fashion.  The set directors even managed to capture the original setting of the chocolate factory with its vibrant colors, candies growing on trees, and pools of chocolate.  Afterall, this is a fantasy.  So prepare to be carried away.  I just wish it were more playful and fun.      

I saw this film in the front row at Park Plaza Cinema with my Maryland family – Jeff, Cindy, Nathan and Evie.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.