Joel Mathis

For the 25th anniversary of STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT, my personal ranking of best Trek movies. Top Tier Classics: * Wrath of Khan * First Contact Really Good:  * The Voyage Home * The Undiscovered Country Reasonably Entertaining: * The Search for Spock * Generations * Nemesis (I realize I'm on the short list of people who would even rank it this high.) * 2009 reboot What fresh hell is this? * The Final Frontier * The Motion Picture * Into Darkness Nope * Insurrection * Beyond

 Three thoughts about NOMADLAND.... * This would be a great double bill with WILD, the Reese Witherspoon movie from a few years back. That featured a young woman moving through the wilderness, dealing with her demons and encountering similar adventurous souls. This movie features an older woman moving through America's vistas, doing much the same.  * I'm trying to think of another recent movie that deals so much with the act of work. Frances McDormand's character, Fern, holds a series of seasonal jobs -- Amazon warehouse worker, camp host, Wall Drug cook, beet harvester -- portrayed in nonjudgmental fashion. (Controversially so, in the case of Amazon.) In so much of popular entertainment, work is the setting for other adventures, not the story itself. SUPERSTORE might've been a recent exception. Fern does this because she has to -- early retirement won't provide the benefits she needs to live -- but also, it's clear, because she wants to. She literally cleans up

 We sat down as a family to watch the new Raoul Peck documentary about colonialism. Made it 24 minutes in before my 12-year-old son burst into tears. Deservedly. 

Some quick thoughts about PRIDE AND PREJUDICE: * I have never read the novel nor seen any of the adaptations before. This was delightful. * The British class system is pretty fucked, but there's a reason it provides the basis for so much art: There's *so much subtext* in every conversation, every glance. Only rarely are people saying what they mean to say. (This gives writers and actors so much to play with, to convey in ways other than dialogue what they mean to convey.) The characters who obviously see the absurdity in all of this are the ones we modern folk are most likely to empathize with. Still, it's kind of fun to spend six hours with a romance in which the only kiss comes in the final freeze frame shot. * That said, she was kissing his chin in that shot. * Also, I don't get all the hubub about Colin Firth in a wet shir t, but to each his own. * Maybe I *should* read some Jane Austen.

 You can find the synopsis of THE SECRET GARDEN right here. No movie is the same as the book that inspired it, of course. I like some of what this movie does that's different than the book -- it leans into a haunted house vibe more heavily (it feels a bit like Alfred Hitchcock's REBECCA), which is aided by the appearance of Elsa Manchester (THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN) laughing endlessly just a little too much. But: It makes villains out of characters who were anything but villainous in the book, and it more strongly hints at a love connection between Dickon and Mary. (Given that the actor playing Dickon was nearly 20 when the movie was made, it's good they didn't take it further.) There is some first-rate child tantruming in this movie. But the real star is, of course, Margaret O'Brien as Mary. She has a charismatic presence, and it's easy to see how she became a (child) star during this era. Overall this movie is a pleasant enough way to spend an afternoon, but

  This is a story about an artist who comes up in the industry starting out at strip clubs, is abusive to women, and does a lot of drugs. Bob Fosse went on to make ALL THAT JAZZ, which is considered his autobiographical film, but if he hadn't made that, LENNY would probably suffice. Yeah, it's about Lenny Bruce. But if you're familiar with Fosse's biography, you know that this movie isn't just about Lenny Bruce. Valerie Perrine won an award at Cannes for her role here, and I've got to say that this is a great performance from her as Bruce's stripper wife, Honey. Dustin Hoffman buries himself in the role. But something feels like it's missing from this movie -- a sense, perhaps, of why Bruce might've been compelling beyond mere shock value. Or maybe that's all there was. LENNY is playing now on the Criterion Channel.

Vulture says G3 is getting a rerelease in theaters: " In honor of the film’s 30th anniversary, this edit of The Godfather Part III will feature some exciting new punctuation and will be called Mario Puzo’s THE GODFATHER, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, according to a press release from Paramount Pictures." I love the Godfather pictures -- I'm a middle-aged white guy, and I've only recently come to realize how much that makes me a cliche -- and my dirty secret is I don't think Part III is actually that bad. Don't get me wrong: Pacino is way over the top in this movie. I would love to know how the silent Michael Corleone of the 1950s became the shouty guy of the late 1970s, but I suspect that's more a Pacino thing than a story thing. That said, it has all the elements of a potentially great Part III: * A young up-and-comer who wants to carry on the family legacy, even though... * The king, who turned to a life of crime to protect his family, wants to

  With the exception of some '80s period details, this movie feels like it could've been made during (say) the 1930s. Those early talkies were often plays that were remade into films. That's not the history of MOONSTRUCK, but this is a dialogue-driven film that could easily be performed on the stage. Opera sits at the core of this film, and that's appropriate, because this is a romantic comedy that is ... operatic. Over the top in its dialogue and emotions, and yet utterly charming even so. Cher is radiant, Nic Cage is Nic Cage, and Olympia Dukakis deserves every bit of the Oscar she got for this movie. A pleasure.

Some thoughts about ONCE UPON A TIME ... IN HOLLYWOOD, after the trailer:   I don’t know how to feel about this movie. For much of its running time, ONCE UPON A TIME … IN HOLLYWOOD is a quiet, even moving meditation on aging and ephemerality. The movie is littered — like so much of Quentin Tarantino’s output — with references to other movies, but this time you don’t really have to be a film buff to get them: There are movie posters and marquees galore, on walls and signs and everywhere, filled with movies and TV shows that all but the hardiest film buffs (again, probably QT) have forgotten. I watch a reasonable number of classic movies, and I was unfamiliar with many of the titles on display. All the money and effort and ego goes into producing creations that mostly have a short shelf life. Look upon my movies, ye mighty, and despair! Leonardo DiCaprio’s arc as Rick Dalton, a semi-washed up former TV star, is compelling in the same way: He was famous and now he is less so, called upon

A dozen thoughts about Ann Sheridan in KINGS ROW, coming up after the trailer:   Ann Sheridan is awesome. The first movie I remember seeing her in is ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES, which is one of my favorites. She’s the female lead, having to play off Jimmy Cagney’s swaggering gangster. She is tough as nails and gives better than she gets. She is awesome. Tonight, I saw her in KINGS ROW. KINGS ROW is remembered — to the extent that it’s remembered — as a star-making turn for Ronald Reagan. And deservedly so! His line upon discovering that his legs have been amputated — “Where’s the rest of me?” — has been quoted quite a bit over the years. But when the moment comes, it’s full of panic and pathos. It’s genuinely moving. But Ann Sheridan is the rock of this movie. It’s a weird little movie. What is it exactly? Small-town coming of age story? Family drama? Tragic romance? Gothic horror? All of the above? Well. All of the above. I can’t even really sum up the plot line really all that well. Che

 Three thoughts about THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, coming up after the trailer... * This is Orson Welles' follow-up to CITIZEN KANE, and it shares much with its predecessor: The use of shadows, light, and deep-focus shots on the technical front, as well as an obsession with the decline and fall of wealth -- of a single man, in the case of KANE, of a whole family in AMBERSONS. It is beautiful to look at, and I'll want to revisit it again sometime in the near future. * Welles' narration of this movie reminded me very much of the narration in Martin Scorcese's THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, and in a way that makes a whole lot of sense: The source novels for both movies appeared two years apart, and they both document the fine details of wealth -- both the physical setting, as well as the social customs -- in an era just before modernity struck. * The studio famously stuck a kind-of happy ending onto this otherwise dark picture, and hoo boy, it shows. Everything is depressing until th

13 thoughts about Gene Hackman in THE FIRM (spoilers!) coming up after the trailer. 1.  THE FIRM is a pretty decent bit of early 1990s suspense thriller filmmaking — something studios used to do a fair bit of before everything became either a low-budget indie or a massive blockbuster. The cast of this movie is filled with ringers: Gary Busey makes what amounts to a cameo, Holly Hunter is the second female lead, Ed Harris does Ed Harris things and Wilford Brimley is evil. But even among all these stellar actors and movie stars: Gene Hackman stands apart. 2. Gene Hackman plays a character named “Avery Tolar.” This is because John Grisham is terrible at making up character names. See also: F. Denton Voyles, Roy Foltrigg, Clint Von Hooser, Wally Boxx, Gavin Vereek, and Fletcher Coal — names from THE FIRM, THE CLIENT, and THE PELICAN BRIEF, respectively. 3. Tolar has a lot of great lines in THE FIRM. Like this exchange: Mitch McDeere : What led you to law school? Avery Tolar : It's so

 Three thoughts about LUST FOR LIFE, coming up: * I love Kirk Douglas. But I went into this movie unsure if he was the right man to play Vincent van Gogh. Douglas is fierce and proud and righteous in movies like SPARTACUS and PATHS OF GLORY, and van Gogh ... isn't those things, and least not in the same way. So give Douglas credit here: He wasn't playing Kirk Douglas with red hair dye. The character is scary and violent at times, heedless of others, self-involved -- and, yes, mentally ill. My favorite scene is when he greets Paul Gaugin, played by Anthony Quinn, and becomes a pure puppy dog -- hunched over (instead of upright) in submission to Gaugin, his face full of joy. The performance isn't subtle, exactly, but it works. * Vincent's brother Theo is played by John Donald, and the movie makes the unusual decision to have Theo narrate Vincent's letters instead of using Douglas' voice. One thing this does is let us view Vincent through the eyes of somebody who l

Ow-OOOOOOOOOH: * This is a movie from 1935, when Hollywood was still getting used to making "talkies," and the influence of silent moviemaking is apparent here -- in the exaggerated physicality of some of the acting, in the closeups of the wolfman's face. One of the real fun parts of old movies like this is looking at the IMDB pages of the actors and realizing some of them were born around the time of the Civil War. Those folks witnessed a lot of change in their lives. * It's funny how ancient some of our tropes are. Does the promiscuous young woman get killed by the werewolf after seducing a young security guard into infidelity? Damn straight. * That said, this is one of Universal's early monster movies, and while it's enjoyable enough, it lacks some of the artistry you find in, say, James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN movies, or even THE WOLF MAN. Sometimes you have the touch. Sometimes you don't.

Some thoughts about A DRY WHITE SEASON, a Grishamesque legal thriller with a powerful conscience. Spoilers ahead: * This movie came out in the late 1980s, as the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa neared its climax. The opening credits show a white child and a Black child playing together, joyfully. Before 15 minutes have passed, the Black child will be dead. This is not a movie that shies away from that violence -- the camera lingers on the faces of dead children, massacred for the crime of protesting. This is not a movie that will let you feel comfortable. Not even at the end.  * The protagonist is played by Donald Sutherland - we'll talk more about that in a bit - a schoolteacher who comes to realize his own complicity in apartheid, the death, cruelties and injustice inflicted in its name that he has let himself ignore for the sake of living a comfortable life. "They must have had a reason," he says when his gardener's son is arrested. The costs of coming to t

Three thoughts about PALM SPRINGS, coming up: * This movie has been compared with GROUNDHOG DAY a lot, and that's fair as far as it goes. But whereas the earlier movie is all about self-improvement, PALM SPRINGS is more about surrender, about finding peace -- and maybe happiness -- in the mundane grind that is this life. That sounds like messages that are at odds with each other, but I don't think they have to be. I'll have to sit with it. * Cristin Milioti is the soul of this movie, playing so many layers of emotion as she explores her reactions to the time loop. The camera focuses on the eyes of its lead characters a lot, and Milioti's eyes are so big and expressive. She's been around for awhile, but this movie should make her into a bona fide star. I'm not sure how the pandemic affects the star-making machinery these days, though. * I owned Genesis's INVISIBLE TOUCH cassette when I was a kid, so I cannot tell you how excited I was to hear "The Brazil

Oliver Stone is still trying to find JFK's real killer: The NYT heavily annotates its interview with Stone to point out that his grasp and interpretation of facts can, uh, depart from mainstream understandings of the matter. But it struck me to read this interview on the same day President Trump retweeted this bonkers bit* of conspiracy mongering: Back to Stone: His movie, JFK , which was all about evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president in order to really go to town on the Vietnam War, reportedly made more than $200 million worldwide during its run in 1992. I saw it in the theater myself! The film received eight Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture. I mention all this by way of making what is perhaps an obvious point: Conspiracy mongering in the United States is often, well, a profit-driven enterprise. A studio invested its money into creating an alternative version of the JFK assassination, and it reaped benefits. A substantial portion of moviegoers ended up beli

Three thoughts about AD ASTRA: * TOMMY LEE JONES' EYEBROWS ... IN ... SPAAAAAAACE! * "Hey guys, let's try to make a movie like 2001, but with fewer acid trips and more daddy issues!" * And that's it. Feels like there should be more there there with this movie. It's well-crafted, but seems empty. Oh well.

There were many John Grisham movie adaptations made during the early 1990s. This is one of them. Three thoughts about THE CLIENT, coming up.... * My favorite thing about John Grisham movies/novels is all the ridiculous names. Reggie Love. Roy Foltrigg. Thomas Fink. Avery Tolar. Gavin Vereek. Sometimes Grisham went the Dickensian route, matching names to the characteristics of his characters. And sometimes, I swear, a cat walked across the keyboard. * That said, this is pretty powerhouse cast: Tommy Lee Jones and Susan Sarandon, obviously, but also Mary-Louise Parker, JT Walsh, Bradley Whitford, William H. Macy, Will Patton, Anthony Lapaglia, and Ossie Davis, just to name a few. This is a by-the-numbers 1990s legal thriller, but all the good actors in it -- even in minor roles -- make it just a little better than it should be.  * Two things really embarrassed me about this movie, though. Parker's character is a single Southern mom living in a trailer park, and my God, she plays it t

Finally saw Spielberg's LINCOLN this week, and I loved it, but one thing bothered me: A story about the end of black slavery in America largely pushes Black people to the margins. That's somewhat understandable -- the country was run exclusively by white men, so depicting the political machinations of the age is going to be very heavily focused on white men. But it's a movie about the fate of Black Americans in which Black Americans have very little screen time. I thought of the movie today when reading Frederick Douglass's "What tot he Slave Is the Fourth of July?" speech . Particularly this part: Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of j