Monkey Man: A ferociously violent revenge thriller

Monkey Man (2022) • View trailer

3.5 stars (out of five). Rated R, for rape, profanity, drug use, nudity and relentless gore and bloody violence

Available via: Movie theaters

By Derrick Bang

When George Lucas created Star Wars, he was inspired by the writings of mythologist Joseph Campbell, and 1930s and ’40s Hollywood serials.

 

When Kid (Dev Patel, center left) attends a political rally, to observe his opponent in a
public setting, he's dismayed to discovered that his enemy is closely aligned with a
messianic guru who holds dangerous sway over a large chunk of the local population.

Dev Patel was stimulated by the ancient legend of the divine Hindu monkey deity Hanuman — symbol of wisdom, strength, courage, devotion and self-discipline — and hyper-violent Asian action and revenge thrillers such as Oldboy,The Raid, and The Man from Nowhere ... along with a healthy dollop of our very own John Wick series.

Both filmmakers clearly were attentive students.

 

And, just as Lucas’ Star Wars universe also became a pointed parable regarding the oppressive behavior of dictators and autocratic regimes, Patel’s film has an equally relevant subtext that mirrors real-world events.

 

That, however, takes awhile to emerge.

 

Monkey Man has been Patel’s dream project for nearly a decade: one that took much longer than expected to complete, and very nearly went off the rails due to Covid, financing issues, assorted other delays, the star’s broken limbs, and an ill-advised distribution deal that would have seen it vanish into the vast wasteland of straight-to-streaming. Credit Jordan Peele for a last-minute rescue, when he chaperoned the project to the big-screen release it deserves.

 

Because, seriously, John Wick fans are gonna lap this up like soda pop.

 

Patel directed, produced, co-wrote — with Paul Angunawela and John Collee — and stars in this slow-burn action epic, which takes its time building to each of its two lengthy, jaw-dropping displays of bone-crunching, eye-gouging, slicing, dicing, defenestration and every other manner of mano a mano mayhem one could imagine.

 

All of which is choreographed with stunning razzle-dazzle by fight coordinator Brahim Chab and a massive stunt team.

 

But their efforts come later.

 

Following a fleeting, idyllic prologue that focuses on the loving relationship between a young mother and her adolescent son — clearly a flashback, although context isn’t yet clear — the story opens as Kid (Patel) endures another pummeling at an underground fight club. He ekes out a meager living, night after night, wearing a gorilla mask and following the orders of tacky emcee Tiger (Sharlto Copley), to get beaten bloody while losing to more popular opponents.

The 2024 Oscar Shorts: (Some) good things in small packages

The 2024 Oscar Shorts (2023) • View trailer

3.5 stars (out of five). Not rated, but akin to PG-13 for subject matter and dramatic intensity

Available via: Movie theaters

By Derrick Bang

With the Academy Award nominations in hand — and predictions and second-guessing increasing by the day — it’s time for one of my favorite traditions: checking out the live-action and animated short subjects.

 

As always, this year’s nominees range between the good, the bad and the baffling. I’ve long been puzzled by the wildly divergent tastes of those who select these nominees; it’s intriguing that the folks who pick the obviously excellent stand-outs also (apparently) find something to admire in entries I wouldn’t consider for a second.

 

But as my father often said, That’s why we have horse races: divergent candidates for every taste.

 

Turning first to the live-action candidates, director Wes Anderson’s handling of Roald Dahl’s “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar” is the obvious stand-out for bravura creativity. I cannot imagine a more perfect artistic collaboration, and blend of sensibilities, than Anderson and Dahl.

This droll tale stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the title character, a bored and self-centered aristocrat who, as a result of a book he steals, painstakingly develops the talent to see through objects. What he ultimately does with this gift proves unexpected.

 

Dahl, played by Ralph Fiennes, narrates much of this saga — “Henry Sugar” actually is three stories nested within each other — although Dev Patel’s Dr. Chatterjee occasionally takes over. The staging throughout is theatrical and exaggerated, with backdrops sliding back and forth, sometimes manipulated by visible tech hands. Occasional scenes rely upon vintage rear projection. The result is bravura filmmaking, and totally cool.

 

Danish writer/director Lasse Lyskjaer Noer eschews fancy bells and whistles in “Knight of Fortune,” a quietly poignant study of a recent widower, Karl (Leif Andrée), who is overwhelmed by having to bid his deceased wife farewell, while she lies in state in a morgue room. Seeking any sort of distraction, he agrees when Torben (Jens Jorn Spottag) requests company while paying the final visit to his wife.

Except that things aren’t quite what they seem. Noer’s little story takes an oddly quirky turn — the tone and atmosphere uniquely Scandinavian — en route to a sweet conclusion.

 

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, and other Roald Dahl Tales: Sadly uneven

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, and other Roald Dahl Tales (2023) • View trailer

3.5 stars (out of five). Rated PG, and much too generously, for creepy images and concepts

Available via: Netflix

By Derrick Bang

I cannot imagine a more perfect artistic collaboration, and blend of sensibilities, than Wes Anderson and Roald Dahl.

 

The fact that this joint effort by filmmaker and author has long been posthumous — Dahl died in 1990 — matters not a jot.

 

While Henry Sugar (Benedict Cumberbatch) relates part of his tale to a policeman
(Ralph Fiennes), both men briefly "break the fourth wall" and stare at the viewer, in
order to emphasize a point.

Dahl certainly has been well-loved on the big screen, with adaptations — sometimes more than once — of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Witches, James and the Giant Peach and Matilda. Anderson also delivered a terrific stop-motion version of Fantastic Mr. Fox in 2009.

Dahl was a highly visible presence of television during his lifetime, mostly due to the UK’s Tales of the Unexpected. This series adapted 26 of his short stories over the course of its nine-season run from 1979 to ’87; these morbid little tales — patently adult, and often with twist endings — blended dark humor with murder, infidelity, blackmail and all manner of other beastly behavior.

 

Few people remember the first TV series Dahl hosted, the U.S.-produced Way Out, which ran a mere half-season in 1961, following Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone in CBS’ 10 p.m. Friday slot. Dahl’s unapologetically macabre horror series was far too gruesome for that era’s viewers, and was canceled shortly after airing its 13th episode, “Soft Focus,” the notorious climax of which scared the hell out of everybody (and still packs a punch to this day).

 

The current quartet of adaptations — “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar,” “The Swan,” “The Rat Catcher” and “Poison” — debuted on Netflix one per day, late last week. They also draw from Dahl’s adult-oriented short stories.

 

As is Anderson’s habit, his approach is — shall we say — unusual.

 

Recognizing that Dahl’s precise and marvelous prose style is responsible for much of the atmospheric magic in his stories, Anderson has these stories narrated — retaining as much text as possible — by Dahl himself (played with appropriate eccentricity by Ralph Fiennes), and also by the characters within the tale.

 

Fiennes’ surroundings are impressively authentic: seated within a nook of Dahl’s re-created “Gipsy House,” his desk laden with many of the totems and ephemera that were part of the author’s actual working environment. (One must marvel at Anderson’s rigorous attention to detail.)

 

“Henry Sugar,” starring Benedict Cumberbatch as the title character, is the longest of these pieces, at 37 minutes. It concerns a bored and self-centered aristocrat who, as a result of a book he steals, painstakingly develops the talent to see through objects. What he ultimately does with this gift proves unexpected.

 

The Personal History of David Copperfield: A Dickens of a treat

The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) • View trailer

4.5 stars. Rated PG, for occasional dramatic intensity

By Derrick Bang • Published in The Davis Enterprise, 7.9.21

I haven’t had this much fun with Charles Dickens, since 1982’s miniseries adaptation of The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby.

 

Mind you, “fun” isn’t easy to pull off, when it comes to Dickens. He does love to make his protagonists suffer.

 

As a clever means of helping his friend Mr. Dick (Hugh Laurie, right) exorcise the
"thoughts of King Charles I" that constantly haunt him, David (Dev Patel) suggests
that these snatches be written onto scraps of paper, to then be attached to a large
kite, so they can be blown away and "erased" by a strong wind.

Even so, director/co-scripter Armando Iannucci’s Personal History of David Copperfield — available via HBO Max — is a high-spirited romp: enlivened by marvelous performances, a cheeky interpretation of Dickens’ semi-autobiographical novel — co-scripted with Simon Blackwell — breathless pacing, and occasionally dazzling bursts of Terry Gilliam-style special effects.

The mere fact that this film cleverly covers so much of Dickens’ dense novel — 877 pages (!), in the Oxford edition — is astonishing all by itself. Granted, this cinematic experience is akin to a 119-minute sprint, but it’s hard to complain when the result is so entertaining.

 

David Copperfield boasts two of Dickens’ best-known supporting characters: the melodramatic, nobly flustered and penniless Wilkins Micawber, steadfastly retaining his dignity while forever one short step ahead of legions of debt collectors (and based on Dickens’ father); and the smarmy, sneakily loathsome Uriah Heep, one of the most creepily detestable villains ever concocted. They’re brought to glorious life by, respectively, Peter Capaldi and Ben Whishaw.

 

Acknowledging the joy and phenomenal success that Dickens experienced giving public performances of his works — less staid readings, and more acting tours de force (one of the author’s friends noted that “Dickens was like an entire theater company … under one hat”) — Iannucci opens his film as the adult David Copperfield (Dev Patel) stands on the stage of a theater crowded with fans, holding a stack of pages, and intones one of Dickens’ most famous introductions:

 

“Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.”

 

Young David (Ranveer Jaiswal, cute as a button) spends his happy early years without a father, raised more by a doting housekeeper, Clara Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper), than his loving but waiflike mother (Morfydd Clark), who mourns the loss of her husband. Alas, when David is 7, she re-marries the cruel and abusive Edward Murdstone (Darren Boyd, suitably imperious), who beats the boy for falling behind in his studies. 

 

Murdstone is accompanied by his equally nasty spinster sister, Jane (the imposing Gwendoline Christie, well remembered as Brienne of Tarth, in HBO’s Game of Thrones).

Lion: Roars too softly

Lion (2016) • View trailer 
Three stars. Rated PG-13, for dramatic intensity
By Derrick Bang

Saroo Brierley’s personal saga is the stuff of harrowing Dickensian melodrama: a deeply emotional and ultimately triumphant journey recounted in his 2014 memoir, A Long Way Home.

Waiting to reunite with an older brother who fails to return for him, 5-year-old Saroo (Sunny
Pawar) boards a parked train, assuming that it eventually will take him back home. Sadly,
and alarmingly, he's in for a nasty surprise.

The story screamed for big-screen treatment, but the result disappoints. Poet and novelist Luke Davies’ script focuses only on the beginning and end of Brierley’s chronicle, ignoring a lengthy middle segment and — as a result — leaving viewers with all sorts of questions. Perhaps more crucially, the film’s powerful first half completely overwhelms what follows; first-time feature director Garth Davis lacks the skill to hold our attention during the increasingly tedious and dull second act.

On top of which, Dev Patel — who plays the twentysomething Brierley — is badly overshadowed by young Sunny Pawar, who plays 5-year-old Saroo.

Pawar’s performance is stunning. Patel ... not so much.

The film clearly has been a marketing challenge, given the various posters created to pique viewer interest. None is very dynamic, perhaps the most misleading dominated by large close-ups of Patel and co-star Rooney Mara, staring into each other’s eyes, thus implying a romantic focus that’s only a very small part of the narrative.

All of which is a shame. Davies didn’t adapt the story very well; Davis brought nothing to the table; and the Weinstein Company bungled the marketing. Brierley deserved far better.

We meet Saroo as an adorably precocious little boy, completely devoted to older brother Guddu (Abhishek Bharate). They live in cruel poverty, in the Ganesh Tilai neighborhood of rural India’s Khandwa, in the Nimar region of Madhya Pradesh. The boys beg, scuffle for odd jobs, and steal coal from moving trains, to supplement the meager wages earned by their single mother, Kamla (Priyanka Bose), who moves rocks at construction sites.

When Guddu gets word of potential work a short nighttime train ride away, Saroo demands to tag along, insisting that he’s strong enough to do anything his brother can do. Guddu relents, but the journey proves exhausting for the little boy; Guddu leaves him to rest on a platform bench, promising to return soon.

But he doesn’t.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel: Second-rate

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015) • View trailer 
Three stars. Rated PG, for mild profanity and sensuality
By Derrick Bang • Originally published in The Davis Enterprise, 3.6.15

In this particular case, “second best” is ... merely OK.

It’s like visiting a friend you haven’t seen for a few years, only to discover that the friend has changed. And not for the better.

Able — if only for a moment — to forget the various issues plaguing his personal and
professional life, Sonny (Dev Patel, center) reflects on the warm bond he has established
with Muriel (Maggie Smith, at his immediate right).

The set-up is familiar, and therefore offers less of the first film’s delightful sense of discovery; the subplots are more contrived, giving a sense, at times, that all concerned are trying too hard; and Maggie Smith doesn’t get nearly as many of her deliciously piquant one-liners (echoing those she also flings so readily on TV’s Downton Abbey).

At 122 minutes, this sequel also is a bit long, and drags in spots.

Fortunately, familiarity isn’t an entirely bad thing. The entire cast has returned for this second outing, as have writer/director John Madden and co-scripter Ol Parker. They’re all seasoned pros, and while the ground on which they tread may be worn, they nonetheless step with alacrity.

There’s no question that the first Hotel’s success owes much to aging baby-boomers who tire of comic-book movies; we also can point to similarly delightful “aging relic” characters in recent films such as Quartet, Philomena, Pride and even the aforementioned Downton Abbey. Frankly, it’s refreshing to spend time with people who weren’t in diapers a mere decade ago.

That said, Madden and Parker shrewdly hedge their bets by including the much younger Dev Patel, even more familiar now, in the wake of his three-season run on HBO’s The Newsroom His Sonny Kapoor continues to be the hilariously over-enthusiastic glue that binds the residents of his Jaipur-based Exotic Marigold Hotel.

Patel also knows his way around a well-timed line delivery, and Sonny remains much like the dinner guest who invariably embarrasses himself, no matter what the conversational circumstances, by going one ill-advised sentence over the edge.

But poor Sonny endures more than his share of flustered setbacks in the second outing, and Patel struggles gamely to navigate these abnormal waters. That he mostly succeeds has more to do with his skill as an actor, than with the material with which he’s forced to work.

And “forced” seems the operative term. Much of the first film’s dynamic revolved around fish-out-of-water tension: the need for ex-pat Brits to navigate this exotic and wholly alien territory. Well, the territory has become comfortable, which means that Madden and Parker have to pull new narrative tricks out of their hats ... and the strain is noticeable.

Chappie: Too many nuts, not enough bolts

Chappie (2015) • View trailer 
Three stars. Rated R, for violence, gore and constant profanity
By Derrick Bang

The best part about Chappie is the title character: not the robot per se, but the marvelous motion-control “performance” given by Sharlto Copley, which was built into a CGI character by the film’s video effects wizards.

Once Chappie falls in with rather evil companions, his "maker" Deon (Dev Patel) tries to
share some important moral imperatives ... such as Thou Shalt Not Kill. But while this
suddenly sentient robot understands the notion of conscience, his "monkey see, monkey do"
tendencies often yield less than ideal results.

We never see Copley on screen, of course, and there’s certainly no way that he could be concealed within this robot’s streamlined mechanical form ... but the actor grants this character a personality, awareness and sense of presence that evoke the similarly brilliant manner in which Andy Serkis brought Gollum to life, in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films.

I only wish that director Neill Blomkamp’s film were the equal of its star.

The South African-born Blomkamp burst on the cinematic scene with 2009’s stunning District 9, a thoughtful sci-fi parable that explored racism, class divides and political skullduggery, while simultaneously building to a rip-roaring climax: a neat trick in all respects.

But Blomkamp has recycled many of the same story elements in subsequent projects, to diminishing returns. Its much bigger budget notwithstanding, 2013’s Elysium played the same narrative card: the violent efforts of an oppressed underclass to rebel against a harsh and long-established social order, with the catalyst being a lone individual who undergoes a spiritual and even physical transformation.

And here we are at Chappie, Blomkamp’s third sci-fi epic, and — as in District 9 — our central character once again is an innocent forced to adapt to horrific circumstances, while unwittingly becoming the face of social upheaval.

This time, though, Blomkamp and co-scripter Terri Tatchell have compounded the sense of déjà vu by borrowing heavily from previous cinema sci-fi. The result too frequently feels like a clumsy blend of Robocop (the 1987 original) and Australian director George Miller’s savage, post-apocalyptic Mad Max series, stitched together like Frankenstein’s monster.

Along with elements that have become Blomkamp clichés after only three films, most particularly the testosterone-enraged, alpha-male villain who comes after our hero with bigger, badder hardware: David James’ Koobus, in District 9; Copley’s Kruger, in Elysium; and now Hugh Jackman’s Vincent Moore, in Chappie. They’re all the same character: unhinged psychopathic thugs. Been there, grimaced at that.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel: Make a reservation

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011) • View trailer
Four stars. Rating: PG-13, for sexual candor and fleeting profanity 
By Derrick Bang 

Change can be difficult — sometimes heartbreaking — even when embraced willingly.

It becomes considerably worse when change is forced upon us.

Evelyn (Judi Dench, left) and Madge (Celia Imrie) bravely embrace the hustle
and bustle of Jaipur, the city where they've elected to spend their "golden years."
Some of their companions, back at the self-professed Best Exotic Marigold
Hotel, lack this adventurous spirit ... which, obviously, is their loss.

During the prologue to director John Madden’s thoroughly charming The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, we meet seven individuals who fear they’ve reached that point in their lives — “of a certain age,” as the fashionably polite suggest — when society deems them irrelevant. Worse yet, all these folks are further burdened by their own personal baggage, in some cases a soul-crushing weight that has dragged them down for decades.

Recently widowed Evelyn (Judi Dench) has just learned, to her humiliation, that her husband left her financially stranded and — by relegating her to the role of “companion” — unable to fend for herself. Graham (Tom Wilkinson), a High Court judge, finally has let cynicism overrule compassionate objectivity. Muriel (Maggie Smith), a fearful, reflexive xenophobe, needs hip replacement surgery.

Singletons Madge (Celia Imrie) and Norman (Ronald Pickup), refusing to gracefully accept their advanced years, continue to seek sexual thrills like thirtysomething sybarites. Tragically, marital bliss died long ago for Jean (Penelope Wilton) and Douglas (Bill Nighy); now she only snipes at him, while he patiently endures.

Fans of British cinema already realize they need read no further; with a cast like this, how could Madden’s adaptation of Deborah Moggach’s These Foolish Things — screenplay by Ol Parker — miss?

It doesn’t, of course. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a gentle reminder that life doesn’t stop at 60; that new experiences are to be embraced, not avoided; that fate truly does reward the brave; and that it’s never too late to make new friends or find new lovers.

Through chance, serendipity and design — and, in Muriel’s case, medical necessity (no waiting time for her surgery) — all these retirees find themselves on the same plane to India, responding to the skillfully worded promise of colorful brochures and come-hither Internet sites extolling the luxurious accommodations of Jaipur’s Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.

The Last Airbender: Total vacuum

The Last Airbender (2010) • View trailer for The Last Airbender
Zero stars (out of five). Rating: PG, for really silly action violence
By Derrick Bang • Originally published in The Davis Enterprise, 7.8.10
Buy DVD: The Last Airbender • Buy Blu-Ray: The Last Airbender (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy)

Goodness, my cup runneth over... 

The Last Airbender may not be the worst movie Hollywood is capable of unleashing, but it'll do until that one comes along. 

...or... 

Although he possesses the power to create strong winds and harass
enemies with various atmospheric "weapons," Aang (Noah Ringer,
center) apparently prefers to whack at his foes with a stick ...
presumably because director M. Night Shyamalan believes it looks
cool. (It doesn't. It looks way-dumb.)

In my wildest imagination, I never would have believed that M. Night Shyamalan could have made a movie worse than 2006's Lady in the Water ... but he did. 

...or... 

Paramount execs must've started a pool, with their competitors at Fox, Universal and all the rest, to see which studio could release the worst film of the summer. 

Paramount won. 

...or, finally, for folks who've been reading me for awhile... 

The Last Airbender is worse than the 2000 big-screen adaptation of Battlefield Earth, and I've been using that one as the ne plus ultra of bad filmmaking for the past decade. 

Adjectives fail me. 

This flick isn't merely bad; it's indescribably awful. It's atrociously written, laughably acted and "directed" by somebody who must have been drunk 24/7 or absent from the set every single day. It's also boring, boring, screamingly boring. Sitting through this mess is torture akin to root canal surgery. Watching paint dry would be more exciting. 

I knew we were in trouble, not even a minute into this flick, the moment young stars Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone uttered their first lines: Rarely have we experienced such stiff, wooden, self-conscious line delivery. They're both bad actors in the manner of the talentless kids who pop up on the worst TV sitcoms. 

They're also visually wrong for this story: fresh-faced, clean-cut California beach kids who look wholly out of place in a saga that screams for Asian faces. Or at least European faces. Or — is it asking too much? — faces that know how to react to joy, fear or any of the other emotions these two are incapable of projecting. 

Shyamalan has taken sole authorship credit for this travesty, which is rather audacious, considering that this live-action film is based on a Nickelodeon cartoon series that has run for several years, during which its quite complex mythology was developed by all sorts of other writers who fail to get mentioned here. 

Slumdog Millionaire: It is written!

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) • View trailer for Slumdog Millionaire
Five stars (out of five). Rating: R, for violence, profanity, torture and graphic child abuse
By Derrick Bang • Originally published in The Davis Enterprise, 12.12.08
Buy DVD: Slumdog Millionaire • Buy Blu-Ray: Slumdog Millionaire [Blu-ray]

Some filmmakers — precious few — deserve to be cherished for their totality of talent: the degree to which they understand and exploit every aspect of the motion picture medium, from actors and camera angles to music and production design.

Jamal (Dev Patel, left) has enough on his plate, while facing progressively
harder question as a contestant on India's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire; the
last thing he needs is the rising hostility from the show's host, Prem (Anil
Kapoor), who feels increasingly threatened by the stage presence of this
no-account kid from the Mumbai slums.

Nothing is accidental in the hands of such an artist; everything is planned. Watching the resulting film is less a passive experience and more a celebration.

Director Danny Boyle has given us just such a movie this holiday season, with his dazzling Slumdog Millionaire.

This is a truly original creature: a distinctly different approach by the British Boyle to tell a story set halfway around the world, using a cast of primarily children and young people to tell a tale so audaciously melodramatic — from exhilarating love story to crime drama, travelogue and underdog saga — that we half expect the film to collapse under the weight of its own structure.

But that never happens. Boyle and screenwriter Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day), adapting Vikas Swarup's novel Q&A, trigger every human reaction possible as their film proceeds.

Initially, though, you're likely to go pale.

The story begins brutally, as 18-year-old Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) is hauled into a police station by an inspector (Irrfan Khan) who wants answers: As we discover via flashbacks, the boy, a contestant on India's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, is one question away from winning the top prize.

Clearly, Jamal has been cheating ... because how could an orphan from the slums of Mumbai possibly have known the answers to all those diverse and increasingly obscure questions?

The inspector wants his own answers, and isn't above employing torture to get them. But Jamal cannot grant the inspector's desire, and the attending sergeant — who cranks the car battery to shock the boy into submission — finally voices the unthinkable: What if the kid really knew the answers?

How, scoffs the inspector, could that ever be the case?

Jamal, tossed into a chair, eagerly responds to this question he can handle. But the answer is complicated, and requires him to return to his adolescent days on the streets: a harrowing saga shared with his older brother, Salim.