Boston Strangler plus Short Takes on Reggie along with some other cinematic topics

For the Record: What Is the Truth?

Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters even though I’ll have to sacrifice seeing such wonders as Cocaine Bear (Elizabeth, Banks).

  Boston Strangler (Matt Ruskin)   rated R   112 min.

Here’s the trailer:

       (Use the full screen button in the image's lower right to enlarge its size;

       activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

          

What Happens: Boston Strangler's “Inspired by a true story” (so I’m not indicating any Plot Spoilers here because all crucial aspects are already in the public record); we begin in 1965 in Ann Arbor, MI where a neighbor hears noises that turn out to be a woman killed in her nearby apartment.  Then we shift back to 1962 in Boston, MA where 3 older women have been raped and murdered, killed by strangulation; Boston Record American reporter Loretta McLaughlin (Keira Knightley) thinks there’s a serial killer on the loose as all 3 had stockings tied around their necks in a bow so she wants to investigate but meets resistance from editor Jack MacLaine (Chris Cooper).  He relents when a 4^th woman is killed in the same manner, assigns Jean Cole (Carrie Coon) to work with McLaughlin due to her previous experience only on the Lifestyle desk where a story can consist of testing out a new toaster, while Cole’s been working undercover on various exposés; McLaughlin’s initial article draws wrath on MacLaine, though, from the Boston Police Commissioner.  These newspaper women face sexist attitudes from their managing colleagues (who added their photos to the articles to draw attention to these pretty women, even as such publicity endangered their well-being) and the police who feel the stories are indicating law enforcement incompetence, even though these cops aren’t sharing details with other cities when the reporters are contacted by the New York City police where similar murders have occurred, one by Paul Dempsey (Christian Mallen).  Loretta even gets creepy phone calls at home, yet husband James (Morgan Spector) generally supports her efforts.  Albert DeSalvo’s (David Dastmaichian) taken into custody as he’s already been convicted of numerous robberies and sexual assaults, but when a neighbor of one of the Strangler victims, who got a quick look at the killer, comes to a lineup she instead picks out George Nassar (Greg Vrotsos).

 In 1964, DeSalvo confessed to all 13 Strangler murders in the Boston area (although the pattern’s broken with some younger victims, 1 African-American whereas the others were White), but as there’s no evidence to connect him to these crimes he simply goes back to prison for his life sentence for the other offenses.  In 1965 McLaughlin learns of 6 murders in Ann Arbor that match what she’s been covering, with likely (arrested) suspect being Daniel Marsh (Ryan Winkles), but he gives no cooperation to her or the cops.  In 1973 DeSalvo calls McLaughlin from prison, asks her to come hear his story the next day; however, that night he’s stabbed to death by another inmate.  Following a tip, she meets instead with Harrison (John Lee Ames), who tells her DeSalvo, Marsh, and Nassar were in the same ward at Bridgewater State Hospital where they encouraged DeSalvo’s confession so Nassar could collect reward money.  When she interviews Nassar he admits he wanted the cash but denies any coaching of DeSalvo, chastises her for creating a media sensation about the Boston Strangler (she came up with the name), implies there’s more than 1 murderer. (That’s how it’s presented in the film, but this new obituary says Nassar died, unreported, in 2018, always believing DeSalvo’s confession, claiming he [Nassar] had nothing to do with the murders, said he’d have killed DeSalvo if he’d known about the crimes at the time.)   Ultimately, McLaughlin and Cole run a story that Dempsey killed the first 6 Boston women, then moved on to NYC while copycat killers continued the slaughter in Boston and Ann Arbor, with DeSalvo confessing so Nassar could get the $10,000-per-victim-reward, DeSalvo would get famed attorney F. Lee Bailey (Luke Kirby) as his lawyer while also securing a million-$-book-deal to help his family; whether that’s the end of this story is not clear, because no firm evidence exists to verify this theory nor any other one.

So What? This docudrama continues within the varied-tradition of actual newspaper reporters working diligently to solve different true crimes, including All the President’s Men (Alan J. Pakula, 1976; won Oscars for Best Sound, Art Direction, Adapted Screenplay [William Goldman], Supporting Actor [Jason Robards]—admittedly, political crimes in this case by President Richard Nixon and his cronies rather than physical assaults against other people [except for the emotional trauma it caused to some in the process])—Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007; a bit more emphasis on police work here than the journalists’ contributions attempting to find a self-promoting-murderer in the San Francisco area), Spotlight (Tom McCarthy, 2015; sexual abuse by clergy in the Boston archdiocese; won Oscars for Best Picture, Original Screenplay [Josh Singer, McCarthy]; review in our November 19, 2015 posting), She Said (Maria Schrader, 2022; about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse of female actors; review in our January 12, 2023 posting).  In all of these cases, certain elements of the historical record have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes on screen, although you can find more-fully-factual-accounts of each of these situations, including the Boston Strangler murders which still haven’t been conclusively solved, although DeSalvo’s now been strongly connected to the 1964 killing of Mary Sullivan; however, if you want a concise account of the Strangler story this video (10:46; ads interrupt at 2:34, 7:21, 9:21) would be helpful as it adds some further information to what’s contained in Boston Strangler—including how in the early 2000s Sullivan’s sister and DeSalvo’s brother got the case reopened, convinced Albert wasn’t the killer, until DNA from his exhumed body matched evidence from Mary’s murder, plus you can go to this site for a few more specific details.  (Also, don’t confuse this current film with one called The Boston Strangler [Richard Fleischer, 1968], starring Tony Curtis as DeSalvo [in the photo just above], which seemingly takes many factual liberties, doesn’t get into the reporters’ pursuit of the killer at all, as best I try for recall).

 Specifically, with Boston Strangler much of what we see is based on fact (as with the photo just above), although some timelines have been altered in minor manners, along with disagreement from various others as to whether DeSalvo did all of the killing or not; further, the character name of David Marsh (not the name of the real guy he references) is added, in that another possible suspect does exist but his identity has never been revealed by the authorities.  While none of that detracts from the impact of this film for me, I did wonder at first why this story’s resurfacing roughly 50 years from when the murders took place, but then the Zodiac events occur mostly from 1969 to 1978 (gets to 1983 eventually) so there’s about a 25-year-gap there as well, with the critical response notably positive (Rotten Tomatoes 90% positive reviews, Metacritic 78% average score), much more so than with Boston Strangler.  Possibly the motivating factor here is to give proper credit to these women who painstakingly covered every aspect of the crimes that they could, lauding them for the difficult—even dangerous—work they contributed to determining what actually happened in Boston, New York, and Michigan all those decades ago.  Their quest is presented very effectively with solid acting by all involved (this is one circumstance where I'm satisfied with Knightley instead of wishing for close-lookalike-Natalie Portman), enhanced by the consistent creation of a tense, mysterious atmosphere.

Bottom Line Final Comments: Well, what did I miss in my avoidance of theaters last weekend: John Wick: Chapter 4's (Chad Stahelski) killing spree; poorly-reviewed superhero sequels (Shazam! Fury of the Gods [David F. Sandberg], Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania [Peyton Reed]), and, of course, Cocaine Bear (Elizabeth Banks)—but the latter’s also now available on Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, Vudu, etc. for a $19.99 rental, so I’ll need a further excuse to avoid it (maybe that I have absolutely no interest in watching it, unless it’s free and I’m beyond bored).  The only thing out there I haven’t already seen but would like to is A Good Person (Zack Braff; starring Florence Pugh, Morgan Freeman), although it seems the OCCU wouldn’t encourage such with RT 53%, MC 49%, so I guess I was better off after all with Boston Strangler as it scored 67% positive RT reviews, a 58% MC average score, which, I admit, is still not a rousing level of support, but at least it’s headed in the right direction, especially because I enjoyed it thoroughly (much better than these critics’ collectives), encourage you to do the same as long as you’re a Hulu subscriber (it’s free if you are), as this is your only option for viewing Boston Strangler.  True, the ending’s a bit ambiguous—except to note McLaughin continued her journalism career becoming a noted medical reporter for The Boston Globe while Cole also stayed in the profession for over 30 years so it is reasonable that we’re finally getting wider knowledge about their contributions to this horrid-homicidal-situation which captured the public attention so very actively back in the mid-20^th century.

 TIME’s Stephanie Zacharek agrees: “Boston Strangler isn’t an account of a case whose resolution remains inconclusive to this day; it’s the story of women getting the job done even when the men around them think of them only as ‘skirts.’ […] Because of certain complications surrounding DeSalvo’s confession, we still don’t know the truth of these 13 murders. But Boston Strangler operates on the assumption that admitting what we don’t know is always better than buying a lie.”  Yet, I can’t ignore Ty Burr, former film critic for The Boston Globe: “The movie’s ‘Zodiac’ running on fewer cylinders, with many pointed things to say about the difficulties faced by working women in the early 1960s but a lugubrious narrative structure that sprawls and wanders and eventually sputters out. And dark! I was a kid in during the Strangler’s reign of terror, and I can attest: We had lightbulbs that went higher than 25 watts. Decent accents, though, and Chris Cooper’s here, which is never not a good thing.”  Take your choice as you see fit about following up on it (you can get Hulu for a 30-day-free-trial or pay just $8 monthly so this film’s accessible), but at least take a listen to my usual review-capper of a Musical Metaphor, this time The Rolling Stones’ “Midnight Rambler” (on their 1969 Let It Bleed album) at https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=G-bBhgMtPsc (a live 1971 London performance), seemingly inspired by DeSalvo, recounting one of his killings: “He’ll leave his footprints up and down your hall […] I’ll stick my knife right down your throat, baby / And it hurts!”  In its own way the song’s as gruesome as what went on way back then, done by DeSalvo or whoever found killing women to be some sort of a sick pleasure

              

SHORT TAKES

       Reggie (Alex Stapleton)   rated PG-13   104 min.

This is a documentary about famed sports star Reggie Jackson who had a 20-year-career in Major League Baseball, primarily with the Oakland Athletics and the New York Yankees during which time he was often a hitting-machine, especially in the post-season earning him the title of “Mr. October,” although the film focuses equally on racism he encountered in this time.

Here’s the trailer:

 No spoilers in my comments on this excellent documentary, Reggie, about exceptional baseball superstar (elected to the Hall of Fame in 1993), Reggie Jackson, because all of the details about his life can be found in many sources, such as this extensive biography, while the film’s ultimate focus on the racism Jackson and other Black Major Leaguers had to endure during their careers is also a disgustingly-well-known-fact, so there’s nothing to keep quiet about here regarding this doc’s contents, although I do encourage you to see it to hear directly from one of the premiere athletes of the 20^th century how his success on the field was often ignored because of the color of his skin, just as his outsized-personality at times led to discord with some teammates (especially due to negative remarks attributed to Jackson [true or not, unclear] about fan-favorite New York Yankees catcher Thurman Munson) and egomaniacal-Yankees-manager Billy Martin, yet those personnel-problems never kept Jackson from saying what he thought, insisting on higher salaries  (which he sometimes got) in payment for his frequent success on the field, including crucial game-winning home runs, other hits, All-Star Game appearances, MVP titles, etc.  This is not a full biography in that it presents little about his early life (born in 1946 near Philadelphia, parents divorced when he was 4 so he was brought up by his tailor/former-Negro League-second basemen Dad).  Mostly it focuses on the years 1967-1978 with lots of details and footage from the time about his minor-league miseries in racist Birmingham, AL, his continually-growing-triumphs with the Kansas City Athletics (who moved to Oakland, CA in 1968), leading to World Series championships with the A’s in 1972-’74, then his trade to the Baltimore Orioles in 1976 (due to miserly-owner Charlie Finley not willing to pay him what he determined he felt he was worth*), then free agency to the New York Yankees in 1977 with 2 more World Series championships that year and ’78 (he retired after 1987 back in Oakland where I saw him briefly on the field a couple of times as the season ended); he’s now a special advisor to Houston Astros owner Jim Crane (where he acquired a 6^th World Series ring after their win in 2022).

*OK, it's now time for full disclosure about my interest in Mr. Jackson being more than just cinematic curiosity: My wife, Nina Kindblad, had just graduated from high school in Oakland, CA in 1968 so she and one of her older sisters took a trip to Disneyland where they stayed across from the park at the Jolly Roger motel.  When the A’s traveled to Anaheim to play the Angels, cheapskate Finley also booked them into this budget destination rather than the kind of hotel Major Leaguers were usually accustomed to, so by chance Nina met many of the A’s including Reggie who continued to be friends with her for the next few years (including free tickets to some home games).  Sadly, there’s no Jolly Roger footage here in this doc, but I got to get a personal enhancement of the film's content anyway.

 But in addition to this focused-aspect of his biography, there’s frequent emphasis on the burdens of racism on Black players in baseball, which seems to also manifest itself in the lack of Black managers, executives, and owners—seemingly the MLB honchos negated Reggie’s attempts to purchase first the A’s, then the L.A. Dodgers years ago.  Conversations on this topic between Jackson and home-run-maestro Hank Aaron are especially poignant (other notable appearances are by former A’s Joe Rudi, Rollie Fingers, Dave Stewart, Dave Duncan, Vida Blue [even Finley in old footage], former/current Yanks Joe DiMaggio, Derek Jeter, Aaron Judge [Munson, former owner George Steinbrenner III in archival imagery]), with lots of current commentary from Reggie, who tells us “I’m gonna speak the truth!” according to “How I see it,” including “Sometimes I feel like a hood ornament.”  Reggie's on Amazon Prime Video, with the CCAL barely aware of it as the marvelous RT rating of 100% positive’s based on just 8 reviews so far, while the MC site has nothing yet (check back later?), so I’ll just join what encouragements exist to watch it while leaving you with the not-the-same-as-usual-approach to my Musical Metaphor, Stevie Wonder’s “My Cherie Amour” (on his 1969 album of the same name) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5E2njwNCg, though it has nothing directly to do with the film but Nina tells me it was one of Reggie’s favorite songs (assuming that fascination has held up since over a half-century ago; also, I know this opening instrumental here sounds more like Marvin Gaye’s "What's Going On" [from his 1971 album of the same name], but I think “Mr. October” would be supportive of that tune too, just like I know Nina is; it all fits well for both, I hope); so, Reggie, if you’re out there somewhere and happen to stumble across this review let me know if there’s something else you’d prefer—and you can say “Hi” to Nina while you’re at it.  The porch light’s always on; we’ll be glad to have you drop by, even electronically.

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:

           

Here are a couple of options for your consideration: (1) Is a remake of Vertigo really necessary?; 

and (2) Ben Afflick's Air, about Nike's Michael Jordan sneakers, may be 2023's first big hit.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

             

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

               

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 2,740 (as always, we thank all of you for ongoing support with hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers, especially because recently the numbers really fell off, as last month’s total approached nearly 17,000 [wow!]); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):

Palm Trees and Power Lines plus Short Takes on a few other cinematic topics

A May-December Rotten Romance

Review and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters even though I’ll have to sacrifice seeing such wonders as Cocaine Bear (Elizabeth Banks).

                Palm Trees and Power Lines (Jamie Dack)

                                       rated R   110 min.

Here’s the trailer:

                   (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge it; activate 

                   that same button or use the “esc” keyboard key to return to normal size.)

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: Palm Trees and Power Lines takes place somewhere in Southern CA, seemingly in an L.A. suburb, where 17-year-old Lea (Lily McInerny) is spending a boring summer, hanging around with a small group of friends, seemingly sharing everything with BFF Amber (Quinn Frankel), having meaningless casual sex with Jared (Timothy Taratchia), finding little to interact about with busy real estate-agent-Mom Sandra (Gretchen Mol), perturbed both that her father now has a new family in Arizona with the second wife not interested in Dad having any contact with Lea and that Mom seems to have a steady flow of useless men who aren’t doing either one of them any good.  (It’s not clear if these teens are high school seniors finished with that phase of their lives but with seemingly nothing to move on to in the fall or if they’re just killing time until their upcoming senior years).  One night in a diner with her group, Lea and Amber suddenly find themselves stuck with the check (hasn’t even arrived yet) as their 3 crappy guy friends leave, sticking them with the bill.  Lea and Amber try to make a run for it, the cook catches them outside, but he’s physically persuaded by Tom (Jonathan Tucker), who’d observed the whole situation from another booth, to let them go.  As Lea walks home Tom follows her in his truck, finally convinces her to let him give her a ride home, puts his number into her phone, tells her he’s a 34-year-old handyman, leaves it to her to call him.  Lea’s intrigued, hints to Amber she’s met a guy who fascinates her, but lies that he’s a student at some other nearby school.  Eventually, Lea calls Tom, they start hanging out together, he offers an emotional connection that he too is estranged from his father (as we’ll learn later, it’s hard to know what to believe of what he says), then she agrees to go to his place, which turns out to be a motel room (he claims he’s between situations at present), with their romance interrupted by banging on the door leading to Tom going to the second floor to chase away a man (a drunken boyfriend?) hassling a woman who lives up there, but it’s not clear to Lea about what all’s going during that night.

 Soon, during a day at the beach, Lea’s friend Emma (Lily Collias) sees her and Tom who introduces himself to her, Emma tells Amber about it, Lea beseeches Amber to stay quiet, even as Tom tells Lea “You’re mine.”  At another diner, Tom goes outside to take a phone call as the waitress asks Lea if she needs help getting away because she’s seen Tom there with other girls before.  Lea ignores it but outside asks Tom what's up; he goes in, has strong words with the waitres, who apologizes.  Later, with her teen gang, Jared cracks a joke about Lea being with a “geriatric,” with Lea angry at Amber, then runs off to Tom’s motel.  He wants her to forget everyone else, go with him to a hotel somewhere in the area (Sandra rarely knows where her daughter is, doesn’t press her about it, willing to believe the lies she’s always with Amber).  While there he shifts their usual sex play into oral for him (we’re always clear what’s going on with Lea, but nothing too graphic is ever shown), then tells her they need money so she needs to have sex with a man who’ll be there soon.  ⇒She’s horrified but goes along with it, then runs away while the guy’s in the shower, but Tom catches her; they go to a restaurant, she slips out the back, goes to a gas station, calls Amber to get her.  Back home, Lea spends more time with Mom (and Amber), but wants to contact Tom, finds his phone disconnected, returns to the motel, convinces his female friend there to call him; Lea gets on the phone, wants to know why Tom hasn’t contacted her, says she still cares for him, film ends there.⇐

So What? While some listings call Palm Trees and Power Lines a 2022 film because it debuted that year at the Sundance Film Festival (won the U.S. Dramatic Competition Directing award), for me it’s from 2023 because that’s when it had its domestic debut in a small number of theaters on March 3 of this year, simultaneously available for streaming on several platforms.  The meaning of this title eludes me (unless it alludes to this situation about avoiding catastrophes), although it seems to just refer to the story’s location in Southern CA (filming takes place there as well) where there are plenty of those items everywhere, so is it intended to note the L.A.-San Diego area is a place where sexual abusers like Tom are so frequent that you just have to allude to the locale to imply this sort of thing that happens to Lea is ubiquitous in the supposedly-family-environs of Disneyland, Sea World, etc.  Whatever that case may be, what struck me the hardest about this story is that ⇒Lea still has unrequited-feelings for Tom, she seems ready to go back to him despite the disgusting situation he created for her,⇐ reminding me of the equally-horrid-conclusion of the stage version of A Streetcar Named Desire (Tennessee Williams, 1947) where Stella goes back to atrocious-husband Stanley despite how he’s raped her sister, Blanche, sending her into a state of further-mental-delusion (whereas the otherwise-marvelous-film-adaptation [Elia Kazan, 1951], bowing to the self-imposed-industry-“standards” of the time, shows Stella refusing to have anything more to do with this tyrant).

 Why Lea would ever want to see Tom again—let alone being upset with him for not contacting her after she ran away from their hotel—just shows (to me, at least) how empty her life has become, that this is the only future she sees for herself knowing full well now what to expect from Tom if she continues being with him.  In my opinion, that desperation on her part seems almost as tragic as what happens to Lea at the hotel that awful night.  Despite the sordid situations depicted here, the acting’s solid throughout with McInerny playing Lea as a girl very sure of herself yet easily duped as she gives herself over to Tom so willingly while Tucker presents Tom as an ambiguous combination of working hard to be decent (even though he knows full well he has no business pursuing someone half his age, a teenager at that) yet hiding a true self who has no qualms about lies, manipulation, self-serving actions.  You can easily sense early on Tom’s trouble for Lea, despite his attempts to convince her otherwise, yet he’s so good at manifesting his decent-public-persona that you can’t help but hope maybe there’s more sincerity to him than we fear; yet, as we get to know him better all we can try to envision is that she sees what’s really happening here, gets away as soon as possible.

Bottom Line Final Comments: Yes, as I said up front, I’m still mostly avoiding theaters—not that I think I’m missing much regarding the likes of Shazam! Fury of the Gods (David F. Sandberg), Scream VI (Matt Bettinelli-Olpin), or Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (Peyton Reed), although Creed III (Michael B. Jordan) is likely worthwhile for bargain-matinee-prices, but I’m saturated with this whole Rocky-inspired-boxing-narrative for now, will wait to see when I’m ready to watch 2 guys pound each other into (near?) death again—plus last weekend also featured other options, some of which were time well-spent, such as a hearty St. Patrick’s Day dinner last Friday (if you’re ever near Harry’s Hofbrau in San Leandro, CA, make your way there to satisfy any hunger-pangs because I got enough in that one meal to carry over to 2 more), attending a powerful play, Cambodian Rock Band (Lauren Yee, 2018) at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre (active music, searing look at the trauma caused by the Khmer Rouge regime decades ago), and re-watching Oscar’s 2023 Best Picture, Everything Everywhere All at Once (Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert, 2022; review in our April 14, 2022 posting) on cable TV’s Showtime (also on their streaming service as well as still being in a lot of theaters) where it’s just as confusing-but-fascinating as ever (you can also find Elvis [Baz Luhrmann, 2022; review in our July 7, 2022  posting] on HBO Max or for cheap rental at several sites, rightfully nominated for 8 Oscars yet, sadly, winner of none; I also re-watched via Netflix disc the magnificent Best Picture Oscar winner Midnight Cowboy [John Schlesinger, 1969], the only Best Picture with an X rating [now re-rated down to an R as mores change over time]), others were more miserable as my Golden State Warriors basketballers seemed again incapable of winning a game on the road (despite being NBA champs last year, yikes!), were getting perilously-close to falling out of the playoffs picture entirely, although this week’s better as they finally won 2 away from home (beating Houston and Dallas, as my new home [since 1984] beat aspects of my old home [since 1947, minus a couple of years in NYC in the early 1970s]), so Palm Trees and Power Lines was all I had time to fit in, although it came close to being the only choice I’d have cared to make as well (maybe next week I’ll find 2 options to share with you; we’ll see how that plays out).

 Given the very limited theatrical release of Palm Trees … I have no figures on its box-office take, but I can say it’s a hit with the CCAC as the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are at 90% positive while the Metacritic average score is a most-encouraging (for them, the usually-hesitant) 73%.  If you’ve ever known anyone like Lea or Tom, this film may be somewhat difficult to watch, but I encourage you to give it a try if you feel that you can, as it doesn’t attempt to gloss over its disturbing aspects.  Streaming’s probably your best option to find it for a $4.99 rental on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, other platforms.  I’ll leave you to ponder whether it interests you or not while listening to my standard review-closure-item of a Musical Metaphor, this time being Joni Mitchell’s “You Turn Me On, I’m a Radio” (on her 1972 For the Roses album) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oozk LBjDkIc, even as a few lines don’t fit (“I’m a country station, I’m a little bit corny” despite Lea saying early on she’s not a fan of country music; “I know you don’t like weak women, you get bored so quick,” yet that’s exactly what Tom wants so he can manipulate them) while many of the lyrics are appropriate (“And you don’t like strong women ‘cause they’re hip to your tricks”) especially as we learn Lea’s still ready to give herself to this jerk (“Dial in the number who’s bound to love you”), implying the choice is up to him (“If there’s no good reception for me then tune me out”).  Overall, this song’s more upbeat and hopeful than I see in any immediate future for Lea; however, her situation’s indicative of how so many people take the easy road toward something sometimes sparkling but mostly's dangerous, even when they know deep down there must be better options somewhere else.

         

SHORT TAKES

             

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:

            

Ben Affleck reveals the demands Michael Jordan had before he could direct his new film, Air; and (2) Writers Guild proposes allowing AI in scriptwriting as long as humans get credit.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

             

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

         

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 2,740 (as always, we thank all of you for ongoing support with hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers, especially because recently the numbers really fell off, as last month’s total approached nearly 17,000 [wow!]); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site).

A Man Called Otto plus a few Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

“Everybody, get off of my lawn!  OK, it’s a public sidewalk and street, but get off of it anyway!”

(not a direct quote from the film although in proper context with it)

Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters even though I’ll have to sacrifice seeing such wonders as Cocaine Bear (Elizabeth, Banks). Before delving into what is likely my last review of a 2022 movie, though, I’ll remind you that you can revisit my 2023 Oscars posting, which has now been updated with the winners (so you can compare them to my previous predictions/preferences), plus a few final comments about the results.

                     A Man Called Otto (Marc Forster, 2022)

                                    rated PG-13   127 min.

Here’s the trailer (an extended version [9:56], using the opening scenes):

                   (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge it; activate 

                   that same button or use the “esc” keyboard key to return to normal size.)

If you’d like to see a more conventional (and shorter [2:39]) trailer as well, here it is.

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: A Man Called Otto (click on the 3 little lines in the link's upper left for more info) is set in a Pittsburgh suburb (an ironic location as this protagonist is so radically different from Pittsburg guy Fred Rogers who Tom Hanks portrayed in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood [Marielle Heller, 2019; review in our December 11, 2019 posting]) where retiree Otto Anderson (Hanks) is a miserable man both because his departure from a steel plant was largely forced on him and he’s angry over the death of his wife, Sonya (Rachel Keller, seen in flashbacks when they were young, deeply in love [Tom’s son, Truman Hanks, is Otto in these scenes], although he faced a personal crisis years ago when he tried to enlist in the Army but was rejected because of his enlarged heart).  Otto lives in a small cluster of condos with the street they all face semi-blocked-off with swingable-gates so parking’s available only to the residents; even though he was also forced off his previous position of chair of the neighborhood association, he continues to impose his restrictions on every violation he sees (or perceives) from his neighbors or delivery people, treating them all with a grumpy attitude that shows no willingness to listen to any response to his daily harassments.  However, his true focus as this point is to commit suicide, which proves unsuccessful as his attempt at hanging fails when the hook he puts in the ceiling is pulled out when he hops off a stool, then when he tries carbon monoxide poisoning in his garage he’s interrupted by new neighbor Marisol (Mariana Treviño)—a renter who’s just moved across the street with husband Tommy (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) and daughters Luna (Christiana Montoya) and Abby (Alessandra Perez)—because she needs a ride to the hospital where’s Tommy’s been taken after falling off a ladder loaned by Otto.

 His next attempt at ending it all is to jump in front of a commuter train, but that’s interrupted by an old man who faints, falls onto the tracks, so Otto rescues him, barely gets back on the platform before the train pulls in, with a video someone took of the event going viral.  Later, Otto begrudgingly agrees to teach Marisol to drive, then tells her about a friend, Reuben (Peter Lawson Jones), whom he’s had a falling-out with, has suffered a stroke, lives nearby cared for by wife Anita (Juanita Jennings) and adult son Jimmy (Cameron Britton).  Otto finally begins to loosen up a bit, taking in a stray cat he’d previously shooed away (Anita tried to adopt, Jimmy was allergic), then allows transgender teen Malcolm (Mack Bayda) to sleep over both because the kid’s father’s thrown him out and Malcolm tells Otto Sonya was his supportive teacher.  Otto’s not all smiles, though, as he pushes away social media journalist Shari Kenzie (Kelly Lamor Wilson) who wants to follow up on the train station video, then tries suicide by shotgun but is interrupted by Malcolm.  Then Otto gets helpful again, learning  condo owners are about to force Reuben into a nursing home after learning Anita has Parkinson’s, followed by him telling Marisol that Sonya died after their trip to Niagara Falls when their bus crashed, so she was paralyzed, had a miscarriage, passed away.  ⇒Anita and Reuben are allowed to stay due to Otto’s efforts, but Otto collapses, is taken to the hospital where he lists Marisol as next of kin so she’ll inherit his condo, car, and bank accounts, then she goes into labor delivering a baby boy.  Later Tommy and Marisol discover Otto dead from his heart problem.⇐

So What? This film represents a nice cluster of transformations from the original 2012 novel by Fredrik Backman as it has previously been made into a Swedish film named A Man Called Ove (Hannes Holm, 2015; nominated in 2017 for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar)—same title as the novel—with this latest version further adapted by screenwriter David Magee.  While this will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog (of which there are several thousand worldwide, according to Google, but most of what I get in response to these postings are spam attempts to attach promotional links to various products—the reason why I see every attempt at a comment before I allow it to go public), I haven’t read/watched either of these previous versions, but based on summaries I’ve explored (thanks, Wikipedia!) this version is quite reflective of the earlier ones with just a few names, nationalities, and other minor details changed, so if the concept intrigues you and you’d rather see locations in the U.S. northeast rather than Scandinavia, then the current version would likely be a good choice (otherwise, Holm’s movie sounds great too, with CCAL support at 91% from Rotten Tomatoes, 70% from Metacritic).  Of course, if this story feels a bit too sentimental for you (certainly not in the early going where Otto’s grouchiness is presented as funny [as long as you’re not on the receiving end of his complaints], yet becomes increasingly tender so as it moves along) you could find other tales of irascible elders, such as one with a more-consistent-comic-plot (where the 2 lead males are in constant conflict more so than visiting their bad humor on neighbors) in Grumpy Old Men (Donald Petrie, 1993) with a truly-commanding-cast of Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon, Ann-Margaret, Burgess Meredith, Daryl Hannah, Kevin Pollak, Ossie Davis, and Buck Henry—comes with a sequel, Grumpier Old Men (Howard Deutch, 1995), with some of the original stars back, joined by Sophia Loren (choose carefully, though, because the first of these 2 had 64% positive RT reviews, a 53% MC average score, while the second dropped to an RT 21%, MC 46%).

 Or, If you might prefer a more-consistently-serious-presentation of an old grouch, then there’s Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008) with some relatively-recognizable-plot-parallels to … Otto including a planned death but with greater purpose than Otto’s angry desperation (except for the … Ove film, this one worked best for the CCAL with 81% positive at RT, 72% MC average score).  Given these references to earlier versions of similar narrative approaches in … Otto, I most admit the story elements/developments will likely seem predictable; however, I’ll propose that any of us have had days, if not years, where events that have befallen us put us into the sour mental frame Otto carries around, so I think it’s useful to watch an exploration of challenging the stimulus for those rotten feelings, finding a strategy to move beyond them before we do damage to ourselves or others; further, I’ve never considered the time invested in watching Tom Hanks on screen (even as Col. Parker in Elvis [Baz Luhrmann, 2022; review in our July 7, 2022 posting], despite a lot of rejection of that role by others) to be wasted effort, as he’s such a marvelous actor with Otto as another success.

Bottom Line Final Comments: A Man Called Otto opened domestically on December 29, 2022, then expanded in January 2023 with its widest release coming to 3,957 theaters (to date bringing in $64 million, $109 million worldwide); as it’s still in 347 of them you might have a chance to see it on the big screen somewhere in your area, but, more likely, you could turn to streaming where JustWatch would show you $5.99 rental options at Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, etc.; of course, if you decided to watch it like I did last weekend (as my only viewing choice in addition to the Oscars broadcast and a couple of desperately-needed-basketball-victories by my local [San Francisco Bay Area] Golden State Warriors [over on-paper-better-teams at that]) you’d have—like me—had only the option of buying  it for $14.99 (I bought), so now you can choose whether you want to put it into your personal video library or not.  However, the CCAL would just barely encourage either option as the RT positive reviews sit as 69% while the MC average score is an even-less-encouraging 51% (more details in Related Links down below, as with anything I'll explore in any detail in my postings).

 To get an idea of what’s powering aspects of the negative voices here’s Peter Travers of ABC TV’s Good Morning America: “But this risk-free, rigorously conventional adaptation of the Swedish bestseller and Oscar-nominated 2015 foreign-language film, ‘A Man Called Otto,’ follows the broad strokes of a glaringly obvious plot that can be seen from outer space. […] With a lesser actor than Hanks, the movie would suck you down into sentimental quicksand. Even with Hanks, the gooey stuff is hard to hold back. But if all you're looking for in a movie during these stressful times is harmless fluff, then ‘A Man Called Otto’ delivers the goods.”  Although I’m more in line with Katie Walsh of the Tribune News Service: “[…] a story about the loss of human connection in a modernized and rapidly changing world, and the effort it takes to knit a community through the ties that bind: personal ones. It is also a story about the transformative nature of grief, and the beauty and cruelty of life lived in moments both mundane and monumental. [¶] If these lessons are all a little bit obvious, and somewhat maudlin, well, yes, they are, in ‘A Man Called Otto,’ but that doesn’t make them any less effective.”  Overall, I enjoyed it quite a bit, hope you might as well, as I leave you with my usual Musical Metaphor, this time The Beatles’ “Nowhere Man” (on 1965 UK Rubber Soul, 1966 US Yesterday and Today) found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scSwaKbE64 (an album version, but you might also like a live performance, although the sound quality’s a bit lacking) as lyrics like “Sitting in his nowhere land / Making all his nowhere plans for nobody” sounds like Otto to me, although when he’s able to “Leave it all ‘till somebody else lends you a hand” it does get better for him, and for us as we watch his slow evolution, although you might want to consider the Holm or Eastwood films noted above as well (only the latter of which I can really speak/advocate for directly).

          

SHORT TAKES

        

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:

          

Here are just a couple of options to explore, regarding aspects of the Oscars: (1) Oscar choices and broadcast were safe, conventional; & (2) Historic night for Asians at Oscar ceremony.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 2,740 (as always, we thank all of you for ongoing support with hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers, especially because recently the numbers really fell off, as other months' totals approached nearly 17,000 [wow!]); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):