Can You Ever Forgive Me? (***)

I was anxious to see this film after a promising trailer and and in intrigue around the scandal of a woman using forgery to get ahead. Based on a true story, Lee Israel fabricated over 400 typed letters and passed them off as the private correspondence of long-dead writers and celebrities. She walked away with a bundle but was ultimately caught and convicted in federal court. Talk about a wild ride.

The movie centers around Israel, played by Melissa McCarthy in a departure from tone for the comedic actress. Once an Oscar-nominee for "Bridesmaids," the actress has fallen into a rut of low-brow comedies with fart and fat jokes galore. It's refreshing to see her stripped down, no makeup, diving deep into a character with so many problems just below the surface. Lee, once a successful writer, has fallen on hard times. Her books no longer sell, her agent has lost faith (an agent who is more focused on her famed client Tom Clancy... It's set in 1991). Her cat is sick, and she needs money fast. Through a series of unlikely circumstances, Israel stumbles upon a letter tucked away in an old book written by Fanny Brice. In an attempt to sell the letter, the buyer offers some advice: it would be more valuable if it had more juicy gossip. Israel concocts an idea.

Marielle Heller, our director, creates a story with a New York feel and sense of place. It clicks along nicely and tells the story it intended, nothing more. McCarthy shows us a woman who is nearly broken. Her past relationships have failed, her apartment is a hoarders nightmare, and she shies away from the world because she knows she is unwanted by all others... All others except Jack Hock (Richard E Grant), a neighborhood drunk and former friend who finds her in a bar and carries her forward with a new sense of purpose. Where Israel is a shut in, Hock is a flamboyant character that leaps off the screen. Not discussed in the trailer is the fact that both of our "heroes" are gay, with Hock using his sex as currency, while Israel pulls away from any sense of love. It's a well-crafted combo.

The film, for me, was simply adequate. We know what will happen, and we understand the stakes. Much of the forgery is glossed over in favor of more human elements, such as when Israel goes on a date with one of her sellers and she simply can't take a hint. While I enjoyed McCarthy in the lead role, it's really Richard Grant who walks off with the movie (and maybe an Oscar?). His is a performance that simply breaks through the mundane to become something more real - a living, breathing character who has a beating heart underneath all the callous layers.

It's kind of a routine story when you break it down - one where our protagonist uses her skills in a new way and ultimately realizes that she isn't a failure after all. This isn't a caper film that uses quick editing and suspense to create a mood of "will she get caught?" We know she will. The story is ultimately about someone stepping outside her shell, and as a result gets a new perspective on life. Maybe that's a bit boring when it's summed up like that, but ultimately this movie really seeks to tell us nothing more. A modest recommendation here, if only so you can see one of the year's best performances from Mr Grant.

Bohemian Rhapsody (**)

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY is such a "color-by-numbers" film that I think anyone with half a brain could have written a version at least as competent. The film, long in production hell and with a history of stars attached, hits all the familiar notes we expect in a musical biopic... And little else. This is less a movie about Queen as it is Freddie Mercury, and it's even less a film about Mercury as it is about the tropes of a long-cliched genre. Did these filmmakers have anything new they wanted to say??

The film opens on Mercury (Rami Malek) as he gets up from the dinner table to listen to a local rock band. The scene is complete with the angry father telling him he needs to get a job and whatnot. Cut to a dingy band performing halfway decent music, but suddenly losing their lead singer. "What are we going to do next?" Would you believe Freddie approaches these musicians and offers them some handwritten songs and his own vocal skills? Mercury, with his eclectic style and feminine mannerisms, is soon a hit. The band begins a tour, and then records a record, and then it's on to a global tour!

Not only does Bryan Singer (the fired director) have no idea how to approach such a historically popular band, but he also does not understand the pacing of film. We go from these boys forming a misfit garage band to signing a record deal in the span of 30 seconds, and from there we begin countless montages that show the cities Queen tours in. There is no exploration of their rise to fame, we instead make the jump from nobodies to superstars. Whoopie. Even the creative process is washed over with boring scenes of songwriting that feels less like artists working and more like a director directing.

Rami Malek, a star who I frankly have little interest in, is one of the few shining stars of the movie. In interviews, this wide-eyed actor with a penchant for the weird seems like the most uncharismatic actor in Hollywood today. On screen, there is an undeniable transformation. No, it's not the wig and false teeth that sell this performance (wigs that frankly look ill-fitting and more in tune with a stage production of Peter Pan), it's the mannerisms with which Malek captures the man. He moves about on the stage with ease, and with slight gestures and struts, we believe this is a person who could be a pop star. In comparison to the flat personality of Malek we see off screen, this is a remarkable performance in a certain way.

The film somewhat glosses over Mercury's sexuality, choosing to bypass any homosexual relationships with montages involving red light and scantily-dressed men. Even his ultimate relationship to his partner, Jim, is covered by no more than 3 or 4 minutes on screen. The eventual culmination of the film (which occurs on the day of the Live Aid concert) is blatantly unlikely. You would think that on the morning of the biggest concert in the world, the lead singer wouldn't have time to hunt down a love interest in a phone book, have tea at his parents, and also get to the stage on time. Think again.

I left this movie no more than 5 hours ago and large chunks are already wiped clean from my mind. I can't remember much about the story, since so much is condensed into black and white arguments over fame and family, and we learn little about the inner workings of these characters. Even the fellow musicians of the band, each unique in their own way, are merely pawns in this story tailored to hit all the highs and lows of the Freddie Mercury story. Nothing more. Did we need a movie about Queen? Sure. I only think that given the length of time they spent trying to get it to the big screen, you would think the final product might be a bit more of a spectacle.

Suspiria (*****)

I began reading some of the reviews for Luca Guadagnino's SUSPIRIA, and I am not surprised to find a split right down the middle. Is this the most polarizing film of the year? It's possible, although this year's  Hereditary likely had as much divisiveness among moviegoers if not moreso. What a year for horror! Clearly I fell on the side of praise. I left the theater chilled to the bone. This is a powerful, horrific, and heartbreaking story.

I will admit I have not seen the original film (the Dario Argento horror classic), although I am led to believe that this is not a straight remake. The film is broken down into 6 acts including an epilogue, a structure that would make Quentin Tarantino proud (and we know he liked this film, Guadagnino himself said that Tarantino was in tears after a private screening). We have two stories playing out: one of an American dancer named Susie (Dakota Johnson) who travels to Berlin to join a dance troupe held in high esteem, and another of an elderly psychologist (Tilda Swinton in a gender-bending and uncanny performance) who is investigating the disappearance of one of the dancers who has gone missing.

The story is logical, linear, and in some aspects we might see where the inspiration behind "Black Swan" was sourced. Here we learn about the girls in this company, how they wake up, stretch, and go through fluid and natural exercises led by Madame Blanc (again, Tilda Swinton). She is a former dancer herself, working alongside a set of elder women who oversee the operation. The girls are not charged to attend this school, but they are expected to commit to the regimen. Susie, at first shy, quickly establishes herself as a willing subject, taking the lead and working one on one with Blanc to hone her skills.

Beneath the surface, and very quickly, we see everything that is not right. In the film's opening sequence, the missing dancer (played by Chloe Grace Moretz) divulges the secrets of this school to her doctor. That these women are witches, and that they will follow her to no end. "Delusions of grandeur" is just about all the doctor jots down in his notebook. It's not even by act 2 that we come to see the truth... The film's first introduction to the horror is one that will be in my mind for weeks: that of a dancer who's movement rips apart the body of another through some sort of spell. This isn't "Rosemary's Baby" in which we are left guessing until the finale. The stakes are very clear and are established in plain sight. Perhaps that's what helps add to the suspense of it all.

At 2.5 hours, this film might feel like a drag, but with some of the most effective editing of the year, the story paces along. There is a visual language that is so clearly Guadagnino (who directed Call Me By Your Name last year and other Italian greats like "I Am Love"). The camera oftentimes lazily drifts around, our perspective shifts, the editing is not paced... It's unsettling in a way that is difficult to place. In another film, we would not notice. The clever way this film is assembled is just another layer to the madness. Viewers might question the constant intercutting to this elderly doctor, and old man who walks slow and talks quietly. You might ask yourself until the very end, when Susie and he finally have a conversation in the final scene, and it's a moment that might bring tears to your eyes if you are still engaged in the story. I sure was.

From dance sequences with razor sharp editing to the climax, a horrifying sequence in the school's basement that is shot entirely in red light and feels like a nightmare, this is a movie I will be thinking about for a while. What makes it so effective is that there are no aspects of this film that rely on modern horror conventions. This is a style that is long gone. It's refreshing to see, and especially exhilarating when it's accomplished so well. I know many people will find distain for this film. Many might outright hate it. All I can advise is to go in with an open mind and to view it not a a "slasher" but as a mystery. Maybe even melodrama. Across all aspects, this is one of the most impressive movies I've seen all year.

Halloween (**)

HALLOWEEN was being touted as a great film by early reviews - a return to form for a series that has only seen poorly-made sequels to the infamous (and still suspenseful) 1978 classic. How great the anticipation was, and how great was the thud when I realized that this sequel/reboot/thing was just as bad as everything that came before it.

It was a curious but maybe inspired decision to pen this as a direct sequel to the original film. No longer is Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) the estranged sister of Michael Myers. No more nieces and nephews and pagan cults and Tyra Banks and the like. This was a fresh start to continue a story that ended when a masked killer disappeared into the night after killing a slew of horny teens.

Strode has grown up tormented by the terror of that night when 3 of her friends were killed. She has built a life around defense, training, learning how to fire guns, and training her daughter (Judy Greer) and granddaughter to fight as well. Her house is a militarized base on the off chance that Myers returns to Haddonfield. Well what do you know...

The film begins on a sour note when we meet two podcasters journeying to the prison (or asylum) where Michael Myers is held. What might have been a suspenseful scene ala "Silence of the Lambs" as we journey deeper into this prison, we instead have an awkward scene in which the journalist presents Michael with his old mask and then the other prisoners in the vicinity begin to giggle with anticipation. I forgot, is the mask some sort of spiritual item that Michael has lost? Why is this scene filmed with such staccato editing and rousing music? (Or is it just a cheap halloween mask he stole from a store to conceal his identity all those years ago... Answer: it's just a mask.) The whole film begins to feel like that - something more profound than it really is. Even the opening credits recreate the famous pumpkin, only this time with very jarring CGI.

What do you know, Michael is due to be transported to another facility on October 30th, and the bus breaks down (if you are smart you might be able to figure out what happened to the driver). Off goes the killer with a stolen truck to wreak menace once again. His first series of kills are carried out in a long take (about 2-3 minutes maybe) where Myers wanders through trick-or-treaters and sneaks in back doors to violently slash single women at home. Notice how the scene plays out: with the Halloween theme blaring over the images. No longer do we have the quiet stalking of the original film - the director is basically forcing us to understand something: MICHAEL MYERS IS BACK!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out all the flaws in this film's ill-advised script. Not only is the connection between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers explored (the doctor at one point says something along the lines of "what is the bond you two share??"), but the whole motive of Myers is astoundingly backwards. In the first film ("the night HE came home"), we see Myers has camped out in his childhood home, only to begin stalking Laurie once she comes knocking on his door. That's it. Now 40 years later, we are supposed to believe that he still wants to kill the one that got away. Give me a break. Another item of fascination is how random these characters are, and in so many different places, yet Michael Myers always manages to walk his way to the right victims at any given moment (including stumbling upon Laurie Strode's granddaughter no less). What a small town!

While the original film lacked some levity, it made up for with tone - that ominous music, the drawn out pace... The success of John Carpenter's original is in the build up - the victims go about their night, unaware that their every move is being watched from the shadows. It's a stroke of genius for pacing. This sequel seems not to care. Kills are overly-violent, astonishingly frequent, and met with some of the most out of place humor I can think of. One kid (who is indeed funny with several one-liners that made me laugh) walks in on his babysitter being stabbed. Instead of screaming or running away, the little boy all but says "oh Hell no I picked the wrong night to go to bed early" complete with the Three Stooges *womp-womp-womp* sound as he runs off in a trail of smoke. Another egregious sequence shows two police officers discussing sandwiches and brownies. It's clear this scene was included for a laugh. How highly, highly humorous.

I will admit the film's final 30 minutes are what kept the movie afloat with 2 stars. It's a well-constructed sequence in which Laurie Strode hunt for Michael in her own home. As silly as the motives are and as unlikely as the story leading up to this moment, it's still effective in it's absence of music, dark shadows, and mounting tension at every turn. Still if you think about it, this is a similar story to "H20" in which Laurie Strode faces Michael Myers after all these years and becomes empowered to fight back. I'm going to say it - that film had a much better conclusion, too.

I want to keep venting, if only because this film promised so much and left me so thoroughly upset. I want to complain about the doctor, who makes the most unlikely decision midway through the film that nearly ruined it all if not for his sudden departure from the story. I want to complain about the countless teenage characters who have no purpose, no motivation, and no clear contribution to this film. I can't even remember Laurie Strode's granddaughter's name, or her boyfriend, or what her motivation was... No matter. Even John Carpenter's score (how great that the original director, writer, and composer returned to do the music?) feels phoned in and mostly rehash of the 1978 version. The film is meant to conclude on a moment of finality - but how dumb are these characters that they think Michael Myers is dead? He's been shot, burned, blown up, fell down a well, and burned some more... The screenwriter should have taken a couple notes from "Halloween H20"... Watch that film's conclusion to understand why.

A Star Is Born (****)

There's the famous story how Judy Garland was due to give birth to her son on the night of the Academy Awards. Cameras were on standby as it was believed she was the frontrunner by a mile for her rendition of "A Star Is Born." Of course, Grace Kelly beat her out, and the camera crew surreptitiously snuck out to leave Garland in the dirt. There have now been 4 incarnations of the "Star is Born" story, and though Judy's version might be the most acclaimed, here comes an unexpected duo to give her a run for her money.

I remember when this project was first announced, Clint Eastwood would be the director and Beyonce would be the star. How much it has changed, but I can't imagine any cast reaching the success of Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper (who writes and directs as well). The story is essentially the same dating all the way back to the 1937 original with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. Our hero, Ally (Gaga) is a poor nobody with barely a dream of becoming a star. By chance, she has a run in with Jackson Maine (Cooper), a country/rock star who fans constantly stop in the streets. Their first encounter is detailed in the first 30 minutes of the film, one long night of talking, drinking, singing, and driving around the quiet LA streets. Jack is a charming drunk, Ally sees him as a man, not a celebrity. The two hit it off.

The movie's most successful sequence comes when Jack calls Ally to fly out to one of his concerts, and despite hesitation, she makes the journey to watch him from the side stage. He calls her to stage to perform an arrangement of a song that she concocted when they first met, and voila, she is instantly a star. It's Gaga's best moment as an actress - her fear of the stage, but her firm belief that all she needs is a break to make it big. As she sings the lyrics, she covers her face, she shies away from Cooper and his charm on the guitar. You forget that this is a woman who has sold out arenas for years. As she's singing this song ("The Shallows," one of many great songs in the movie), you can't help but see this character living and breathing.

If you've even heard a bit about the story, then you know the whole movie. The two fall in love, get married. Jack continues drinking himself to destruction. Of course Ally gets a record deal, and her music is overly-produced and shallow. She sings about how good a guy looks in his jeans, and dances on stage with choreographed backup performers in shiny tight outfits. It's somewhat of a meta-commentary for Gaga herself, though I would argue that her music up to now has been a bit more thoughtful and personal. It reminded me of many recent movies, mostly "La La Land" in the way we see a musician sell out in order to get ahead. At times it's a bit heavy-handed, and rolls easily into the classic melodrama that all the original incarnations embraced. Does the idea of artists selling out still work today? Maybe, but it's definitely not as potent the 4th time around.

As much as the acclaim is going to Lady Gaga for her breakout performance (her first leading role, and it reminds me of when Cher broke away from poop songs to star in "Silkwood" and "Moonstruck," for which she won an Oscar), I really think the star is Bradley Cooper. He's made the transition from comedy to drama, and with 3 Oscar nominations for acting (soon to be 4), it's hard not to see how greatly talented he is. I don't even mean his singing voice, which is very good, but the subtle way he transforms into this southern man on the verge of destruction. He adopts an accent that is meant to mimic his on-screen brother (played by Sam Elliott, who is very good in his few scenes), and he travels from extreme highs to the lowest of lows, oftentimes in the same scene. Could the Oscar go to anyone more deserving?

It's a well-made film that isn't for everyone but I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy. For a first-time director, you can feel Cooper giving it his all. There are certainly pitfalls in the story (the relationship between Bradley Cooper and Sam Elliott certainly feels washed over, barely there) and the long sequences without music made me wish we could cut back to Lady Gaga at the piano that much sooner. For what it is, this is still a showstopper that hits the ground running. The first 45 minutes up until we hear that first duet is magic. I only wish the rest of the film could have kept up the pace. Will Gaga become the critical darling and compete for an Oscar? I don't know. The track record for "A Star Is Born" winning Oscars isn't great, but this feels like one that could change all the rules.