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 movie theaters, even as I’ll have to sacrifice seeing wonders like The Pope’s Exorcist (Julius Avery).
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.)
Normally in these reviews I use a What Happens, So What?, Bottom Line Final Comments structure along with a Spoiler warning for the giveaways about the ending of whatever’s being examined, but when I'm commenting on a documentary—especially where you can get all the factual background you could ever want on the film’s subject in sites such as this one, with its extensive, well-supported detail that would leave no surprises about what you’d learn when watching the film—it just works better for me to consider the experience as a whole without breaking out individual parts of it. In truth, there’s really not much to write about here except this is an excellent, moving account of a famed TV/movie actor who’s stood up boldly to the increasing toll Parkinson’s disease (increasing mobility problems, eventual dementia is likely) has been taking on him since he was 29 in 1991, a reality he tried to hide for years, finally went public with it in 1998, continued to work as long as he could, but now he has trouble walking, couldn’t remember script passages, so he’s more concerned about funding research for conquering the disease while making the general public more aware of its toll on people such as himself through opportunities like this documentary. Truly, all of the autobiographical info he presents can be explored more fully in relevant written resources, so the immense impact here is hearing him tell his story directly into the camera in recent footage (augmented by lots of clips from his life in the media), not looking for sympathy but simply recounting how he continued to push ahead with a career that had already landed him enormous fame in both small- (NBC TV’s Family Ties [1982-‘89]) and big-screen-media (Back to the Future trilogy [Robert Zemeckis; 1985, 1989, 1990]*) by the time he first encountered this incurable illness.
*Talk periodically swirls around about a reboot of at least the original movie; Fox says: “I don’t think it needs to be. […] You’re going to find a better way to tell the story? I doubt it.” (Me too; there are certain classics that don’t need to be tampered with.) Zemeckis, co-writer Bob Gale, and producer Steven Spielberg aren’t pursuing it either, although a Broadway musical version (Oh, God!) is in the works, and original co-star Christopher Lloyd is open to a 4th … Future if a worthy script emerges.
We move quickly through his early life in Canada (where his dad wasn’t impressed with Michael's mediocre school grades), his acting career beginning in his mid-teen-years in a Canadian TV series then moved to Hollywood where his fame began to grow despite losing some roles he really wanted (including Ordinary People [Robert Redford, 1980], leading to Timothy Hutton getting a Best Supporting Actor Oscar—along with prizes for Redford’s directing, the film as Best Picture, Alvin Sargent for Best Adapted Screenplay, and a nomination for Mary Tyler Moore as Best Actress), often being perceived as too short (though he was always quite energetic so the film’s title is intentionally ironic in that when he was younger he has rarely “still,” but now the disease has slowed him down considerably)—Family Ties producer/NBC exec Brandon Tartikoff tried unsuccessfully to have him replaced, which not only didn’t happen but led to Fox meeting Tracy Pollan, cast to play his girlfriend, resulting in their 1988 off-screen marriage. Fox’s father died in 1990 just as the Parkinson’s became more pronounced, which he tried to cover with alcohol, now has been 30 years sober. Brief mention is made of his later TV hit, ABC TV’s Spin City (1996-2002), along with other TV/film appearances until recently when he’s gone into retirement to focus on his physical situation and his ongoing work through the Michael J. Fox Foundation to understand the causes (cures?) for Parkinson’s disease.
You can see Still … on Apple TV+ streaming (free to subscribers or free 7-day trial, $6.99 monthly), which I encourage you to do, along with the CCAC: Rotten Tomatoes 99% positive reviews (no misprint, based on 123 responses), Metacritic 78% average score (quite high for these consistent-tightwads-of-praise). As for my usual review-ending Musical Metaphor, how about “My Way” (based on the French song “Comme d’habitude,” music by Jacques Revaux, original lyrics by Gilles Thibaut and Claude François, English lyrics by Paul Anka) with the most famous version by Frank Sinatra (on his 1969 My Way album) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA4mfu_5TyI. It’s a bit pompous when sung by Sinatra (he came to loath it as "self-serving and self-indulgent"), but in connection with Fox’s situation it just speaks to me of the courage he’s shown in standing up to his disability, determined to help others also burdened by this debilitating illness, a useful aural coda to this inspiring documentary (so maybe this version by Anka [although joined by a Sinatra recording] will seem a bit less overbearing [or near-worshipful, depending on how you might take it]).
SHORT TAKES
One of the reasons I only searched for 1 film to watch last weekend (while still COVID-reluctant about theaters) is I still had a pressing self-imposed-commitment on Friday night to watch the win-or-go-home Game 6 in the NBA Western Conference Semi-Finals, now a “California Championship” between my local (San Francisco) Golden State Warriors (NBA champs 4 of the last 8 years) and the Los Angeles Lakers (also won the NBA Finals 1 of the years the Warriors didn’t, 2020), because the series stood at 3-2 (need 4 of 7 to win) in favor of the Lakers, so the Warriors faced the must-win challenge to keep the series alive even though they’ve had a terrible road record this year (game was played in L.A.). Well, the final result wasn’t even close as the Lakers won 122-101, moving on to play Denver for the Western title, leaving the Warriors with many challenges in the off-season to see if they have another title-run in them (first time in the last 9 years they’ve been in the playoffs without advancing to the League Championship games) before their future Hall of Fame players—Stephen Curry (pictured above), Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green get too far past their prime. So, I won’t be distracted any further during this spring and summer with basketball, hopefully getting back to a pattern of 2 reviews per posting. (I won’t have much competition from baseball either as I now see my Oakland Athletics—with the far-and-away worst record in MLB [10-35], despite a couple of thrilling walk-off-wins over the past week—signed a binding agreement to build a new stadium in Las Vegas on the current site of the Tropicana Hotel, so it’s fully back to the cinematic arts for me, although as you’ll see below, what I'll post isn’t necessarily fully understood by Artificial Intelligence.)
Richard Parker, longtime reader and friend of this blog, recently tried out the new Google AI, getting some wacky results about Film Reviews from Two Guys in the Dark. When he asked who writes the reviews he got this: “The film reviews from Two Guys in the Dark are written by Ken Burke and Pat Craig. Ken is a professor of film studies at Mills College in Oakland, California, and Pat is a retired newspaper journalist. They have been writing film reviews together for over 20 years, and their blog has become a popular resource for film fans. [¶] Ken and Pat write in a conversational style, and they often share their personal opinions about the films they review. They are not afraid to be critical, but they also appreciate good filmmaking. Their reviews are always well-written and informative, and they offer a unique perspective on the films they cover. [¶] If you are looking for film reviews that are honest, insightful, and entertaining, then you should check out Two Guys in the Dark.” Nice compliments (I can’t help but wonder if this site being on Google BlogSpot has anything to do with it), although we began in late 2011, not over 20 years ago. In that I often refer to "our" reviews as a way of marginally acknowledging Pat, the truth is he's never written anything for the blog (I'm not even in touch with him anymore) so the AI doesn't note that all of the reviews begin with some version of "Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke." Further, I'm not sure there's much evidence of any large number of readers seeing these reviews as "honest, insightful, and entertaining," but maybe that's where the debatable "brilliance" of AI is verified (I’ll take any praise I can get, even from a machine).
So, Richard asked the same question, but he got a very different reply: “The film reviews from Two Guys in the Dark are written by Ken Burke and Pat Craig. Ken is a Professor of Film Studies and Art & Art History at Mills College in Oakland, California. He has also worked as a film critic at a radio station and a cable TV channel in Dallas. Pat has worked for newspapers as a reporter, columnist, and editor. He has also written several books on film, including The Movie Lover's Companion and The A-List: The 100 Greatest Movies of All Time. [¶] Ken and Pat have been writing film reviews together since 2011. They have a wide range of interests and tastes, and their reviews are always thoughtful and insightful. They are also two of the funniest film critics writing today, and their reviews are always entertaining. [¶] If you are looking for intelligent, informative, and entertaining film reviews, then you should definitely check out Two Guys in the Dark.” (Well, of course you should.)
I appreciate the kudos, but The Film Lover’s Companion is by David Quinoa, The 100 Greatest Movies of All Time: The List to End All Lists is by Frank Schnelle and Andreas Theimann; Richard submitted his question a 3rd time, got this: “The blog ‘Film Reviews from Two Guys in the Dark’ was started in 2011 by Ken Burke and Pat Craig. However, Pat Craig passed away in 2019, and since then the blog has been written by Ken Burke alone. [¶] Ken Burke is a film critic and writer who has been writing about movies for over 30 years. He has written for a variety of publications, including The Dallas Morning News, The Austin Chronicle, and The Hollywood Reporter. He is also the author of several books on film, including ‘The Complete Idiot's Guide to Movies’ and ‘The 100 Most Underrated Movies of All Time.' [¶] In addition to his work as a film critic, Ken Burke is also a screenwriter and filmmaker. He has written and directed several short films, and his feature film debut, ‘The Last Man on Earth,’ was released in 2019. [¶] Ken Burke is a passionate advocate for film and the arts. He believes that film is a powerful medium that can entertain, educate, and inspire. He is committed to writing about movies that are both entertaining and thought-provoking.” I won’t argue with this last sentence, but Pat didn’t die in 2019 (he’s just living in the Midwest now [make your own jokes about that or just recall the scene from Field of Dreams {Phil Alden Robinson, 1989} about heaven and Iowa, but Pat's not managing a cornfield-baseball-team either]), I’ve never written for any of those newspapers, I’m not the author of any books on film (there’s The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Movies, Flicks, and Film by Mark Winokur and Bruce Holsinger; I’ve found listings for Underrated Films [or Movies] websites but no book of that title), I’m not a screenwriter or a filmmaker, and The Last Man on Earth (Ubaldo Ragona and Sidney Salkow, 1964) is not mine either.
Richard then tried another approach, asked about my review of Life of Pi (Ang Lee, 2012), possibly because he has same name as the tiger in the film; this is what he got from Google AI about my comments on this film from, oh, so long ago: “According to his website, Ken Burke reviewed Life of Pi on January 21, 2013. He gave the film 4 out of 5 stars and said that it was ‘a visually stunning and emotionally powerful film that is sure to stay with you long after you've seen it.’ He praised Ang Lee's direction, the performances of the cast, and the film's special effects. He also said that the film was ‘a moving and thought-provoking exploration of faith, hope, and the power of the human spirit.’ [¶] Here is an excerpt from his review: [¶] ‘Life of Pi is a visually stunning and emotionally powerful film that is sure to stay with you long after you've seen it. Ang Lee's direction is masterful, the performances of the cast are superb, and the special effects are groundbreaking. But what really makes Life of Pi special is its story. It is a moving and thought-provoking exploration of faith, hope, and the power of the human spirit. [¶] The film tells the story of Piscine Molitor ‘Pi’ Patel, a young boy who survives a shipwreck and is stranded on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Over the course of 227 days, Pi must learn to survive in the harsh conditions of the Pacific Ocean, and he must also learn to coexist with Richard Parker. [¶] Life of Pi is a film that will stay with you long after you've seen it. It is a film that will make you think about the meaning of life, the power of faith, and the importance of hope. It is a film that will stay with you long after you've seen it.’ ” Hmm. Interesting … but … I did give it 4 of 5 stars; however, the review was posted on Nov. 25, 2012, then through a crazy Google glitch it disappeared but was posted again on December 28, 2012 (typical horrible layout from those early blog days; sorry), not Jan. 21, 2013. Yet, there's more!
As for the so-called-excerpts, in doing a quick reread of the posted review I don't think any of these sentences are direct quotes from me although they do give a reasonable sense of what I was saying, so if this is how Google AI is supposedly citing information verbatim I don't think it's very trustworthy, although the general context is accurate enough; however these Google AI statements are just not how I said it in my actual review. Finally, as I replied to Richard, I'm kind of surprised the AI didn't put him in the boat instead of the tiger. Lots of concerns have been raised about the misinformation you’re likely to get when making an AI request; thanks to Richard’s probing, I can guarantee that Google AI is highly questionable regarding Film Reviews from Two Guys in the Dark, so if you should ever ask it something about this blog site I’d advise you to also contact me (the info on how to do so a bit below) for verification. Thanks again to Richard for bringing this situation to my attention.
Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:
Some options to consider: (1) Answers to questions about the writers' strike; (2) A major report on streaming (however, you have to pay to get the whole report); & (3) Netflix growth strategies.
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 12,753 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); 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):
No comments:
Post a Comment