Tag Archives: C+

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, DON’T DIE

Producers: Gore Verbinski, Robert Kulzer, Erwin Stoff, Oliver Obst and Denise Chamian   Director: Gore Verbinski   Screenplay: Matthew Robinson   Cast: Sam Rockwell, Haley Lu Richardson, Michael Peña, Zazie Beetz, Asim Chaudhry, Tom Taylor, Juno Temple, Georgia Goodman, Daniel Barnett, Artie Wilkinson-Hunt, Riccardo Drayton, Dino Fetscher, David Sturzaker and Dominique Maher   Distributor: Briarcliff Entertainment

Grade: C+

Gore Verbinski’s first film in a decade is an ambitious fable about the dangers of A.I.  It apparently took the director some time to secure funding for the project, so one can surmise that when Matthew Robinson wrote the screenplay, the subject was more cutting-edge than it is now, A.I. having become a common villainous trope in today’s action movies.  As it is, “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” now might seem a bit behind the curve.

What’s distinctive are the approach it takes, a tone that’s goofily satirical as well as monitory, and the structure, which is like a video game.  The result might remind you of Terry Gilliam’s work, and for those who love his films, it may prove a hoot.  But it’s less clever than it aims to be, and in the end proves somewhat more grueling than amusing.

The plot is put in motion in a lengthy sequence set at a Norms Diner in Los Angeles, where customers are eating and scrolling on their phones one night when the place is suddenly invaded by a scruffy fellow (Sam Rockwell, sporting a dripping raincoat and a big beard) who announces he’s from the future.  Most take him to be a typical bum, a mental case, and the cook orders him to leave, but he’s an aggressive sort and cows the crowd, saying this is his hundred and seventeenth effort to choose a crew of seven of them to cross town and end an imminent threat to humanity—or, more precisely, to a humanity free of control by the technology to which most have become increasingly addicted.  All his previous attempts have failed, so he’s back to select yet another permutation of recruits from the diners, something he has to continue until he gets the combination right. (His motivation is eventually revealed in a flashback to the future, if that’s an acceptable phrase.)

His harangue goes on at length as he rejects some diners who’ve proven failures in previous attempts or others he thinks unsuitable, considers those who volunteer and forces others to join.  He’s like a gamer who’s gone through the process myriad times and never reached the highest level of play, and is starting out from scratch again.

Ultimately, he has the seven he needs.  One is Susan (Juno Temple), a morose woman whose reason for volunteering is revealed in a flashback involving the death of her son Darren (Riccardo Drayton) in a school shooting and the dead boy’s sort-of return in cloned form.  Another is Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), a girl in a ragged princess outfit whose backstory, again shown in an extended flashback, reveals that she’s allergic to every form of wireless technology.  Then there are Mark and Janet (Michael Peña and Zazie Beetz), teachers who have fled their school, where students, we’re shown in another extended flashback, have been zombified by their dependence on their phones.  The remaining three lack similar backstories.  There’s Bob (Daniel Barnett), a slovenly assistant scout leader, volatile uber driver Scott (Asim Chaudhry) and reserved, pensive Samantha (Dominique Maher).

From here the movie becomes a gauntlet the newly-formed squad has to run on its way to a house across town, where the target—a bald nine-year old (Artie Wilkinson-Hunt) is obsessively working at his computer keyboard, forming patterns and equations that are already worming their way into phones like those controlling Mark and Janet’s students.  First there’s an onslaught of police, and later of masked vigilantes.  They will also have to face a wild-eyed street guy with a huge blade in hand, and a very peculiar kitty.  Finally, they’ll have to deal with the boy’s parents and an array of toys that come to life to protect his work.  Not all of the team survive the trials.

This sounds exciting and fun, but what’s surprising about it is that it’s not, at least not very.  A major part of the problem is that the dangers are totally random.  One doesn’t expect complete logic, of course, but an anything-can-happen vibe is of little help to those trying to play the game the movie poses for the audience’s side of the screen.  And the final confrontation in the boy’s house seems to go on forever, though the cheesy effects there and elsewhere have a certain goofy charm.

There are also some choice bits along the way, some of which manage to combine dark humor and poignancy.  Susan’s story, for example, delivers a strong satiric punch in the attitude that’s developed among the public about the frequency of school shootings, and the response to them in cloning techniques that allow parents to choose between “ad” and “ad-free” alternatives, as though restored children were like streaming services; the smirking jollity of the salesman (Dino Fetscher, a Ryan Reynolds type) is also a plus. 

In Ingrid’s case, it’s the mixture of hope and despair that catches one unprepared.  She seems to have found an ideal partner in Tim (Tom Taylor), a guy who’s as uninterested in technology as she must be because of her condition.  But when he’s introduced serendipitously to the world of virtual reality, their life together is shattered.

Whether the coda to the adventure represents a satisfying close, however, is debatable.  It fits with the snarky quality that’s pervaded the picture, without a doubt, and conforms to the idea that the house is fated to win the game when there’s a joker in the deck.  But given the audience’s cheer when Ingrid gives her rousing battle cry, the twist is sure to leave a sour taste even in the most cynical mouth.

What’s obvious is the commitment with which the entire cast throw themselves into the proceedings; given that, it’s unfortunate that many of them are given too little top-flight material.  That’s particularly the case with Rockwell, whose patented shambling charm can’t compensate for the fact that this Future Guy’s verbosity isn’t sprinkled with much wit; as a result the character becomes rather boring by the time he beams back to his own day.  Temple and Richardson have greater variety at their disposal, and seize on every bit of it, while Peña is looser than usual, if still not ideally so.  The rest do what’s asked of them, with Drayton earning a special nod as the kid who’s programmed, in his clone form, to periodically sing the praises of a fruit drink.

The tech crew also deserve praise for using what must have been limited resources so well.  David Brisbin’s production design is far from opulent but works, and James Whitaker’s cinematography is basically functional but adequate, as is the editing of Craig Wood, who must have found dealing with such an episodic piece a challenge.  The VFX supervised by Jessica Norman is sometimes laughably chintzy, but presumably that’s intentional, and Geoff Zanetti’s score reflects the wildly vacillating moods.

If “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” fails to completely pull off what it’s aiming for, and hardly matches the best of Verbinski’s earlier movies (e.g., “Rango”), it’s an improvement over the two bombs that effectively derailed his promising career—“The Lone Ranger” and “A Cure for Wellness.”  In any case, it’s good to have him back, and one hopes he’ll stay around.                       

THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE

Producers: Andrew Morrison, Joshua Horsfield, Viktória Petrányi, Mona Fastvold, Brady Corbet, Gregory Jankilevitsch, Klaudia Śmieja-Rostworowska, Lillian LaSalle and Mark Lampert   Director: Mona Fastvold   Screenplay: Mona Fastvold and Brady Corbet   Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Lewis Pullman, Thomasin McKenzie, Matthew Beard, Christopher Abbott, Viola Prettejohn, David Cale, Stacy Martin, Scott Handy, Jeremy Wheeler, Esmee Hewett, Millie Rose Crossley, Benjamin Bagota, Harry Conway  and Tim Blake Nelson   Distributor: Searchlight Pictures

Grade: C+

Mona Fastvold’s film about Ann Lee (1736-1784), the founder of the American Shaker sect, is stunning, but one can be stunned into either admiration or stupefaction.  One should expect that “The Testament of Ann Lee” will elicit an approximately equal number of reactions of both kinds. 

Either way, the film can be a test case for those who complain that Hollywood rarely takes religion seriously.  What such critics usually mean, of course, is that Hollywood doesn’t take their religion seriously.  One thing that can be said indisputably about Fastvold is that she treats Shakerism respectfully, an approach that will rankle some.  It has cultish aspects, after all (one can’t yet say “had,” because there are still a few adherents about).  Certainly the notion that God is both male and female, and that “Mother Ann” represented the second coming, will not be received with universal equanimity.

Others will be irritated by what many will find the film’s most praiseworthy aspect—a style that’s extravagant in the extreme, the very opposite of a staid docu-dramatic tone.  The flamboyance is obvious in the musical numbers, which are energetically choreographed, but even the expository sequences have a hyper-realistic, reverential tone.  Whether you like it or not, the result is certainly different.      

The movie is essentially biographical, but though chronological it’s otherwise told in a highly peculiar way, with Ann’s career explained in periodic voiceover by her later follower Mary Partington (Thomasin McKenzie), who’s seen leading a musical memorial to her in a prologue.  The story proper begins in Manchester, England, with young Ann (played successively by Esmee Hewett and Millie Rose Crossley) having spiritual visions at a time of evangelical ferment while feeling revulsion at the sight of her parents (Willem van der Vegt and Maria Sand) having sex. 

By the time Ann reaches young adulthood (now played by Amanda Seyfried), she’s drawn to a Quaker subgroup led by Jane Wardley (Stacy Martin) and her husband James (Scott Handy), whose adherents engage in ecstatic singing and dancing in response to being touched and purified by the divine—a practice that leads to their being called the Shaking Quakers.  She’s accompanied by her loyal, supportive younger brother William (played successively by (Benjamin Bagota, Harry Conway and Lewis Pullman). 

Ann’s theological views are further radicalized following her marriage to blacksmith Abraham Standerin (Christopher Abbott).  Submitting to his extreme, often brutal sexual demands, she gives birth to four children, only to see all of them die in infancy—a tragedy recorded in a powerful montage by editor Sofia Subercaseaux.  This convinces her that sex is sinful in God’s eyes, a doctrine she preaches to her followers, who ultimately adopt the practice of voluntary celibacy.  (William, for instance, is shown leaving a male lover as a result.)          

The sect is eventually suppressed by local authorities because of noise complaints from neighbors about the “orgiastic” goings-on, and Ann is incarcerated for treatment. During the imprisonment she has visions and mystical experiences that convince her and her devoted followers that she represents the second coming in God’s feminine form and that they should seek freedom to practice their beliefs by emigrating to the Americas, which they do in 1774.  Their voyage is marked by an extraordinary episode in which they respond to a dangerous storm with an ecstatic dance that calms the waters to the amazement of the crew.

The small group is welcomed by adherents in New York, where Standerin, frustrated by Ann’s belief in chastity, abandons her for more sensual pursuits.  Ann decides to move from the city to establish a community upstate that will embody her utopian and egalitarian ideals, and—in one of the film’s more amazing touches—depicts the selection of the site being determined by the spiritual possession of follower John Hocknell (David Cale), who’s frantically led by his finger, acting as sort of digital divining rod, to choose the land he and his son (Jamie Bogyo) purchase.  The film then portrays the establishment of the Shaker community at the location, an austere, self-sufficient farm where the group’s now-renowned skill in inventing practical tools and simple but beautiful furniture is shown as part of their way of life but not made its dominant focus.

The settlement becomes a center for evangelization, with William in particular venturing into neighboring areas to spread the word and encourage conversion.  But although he has some successes—a pastor played by Tim Blake Nelson is portrayed as bringing his flock into the fold after some initial trepidation—most of those approached are hostile, and Ann’s insistence on holding to pacifistic neutrality during the Revolutionary War adds to the prejudice against the community.  Attacks on the settlement from both sides follow, the persecution continuing until Ann and William die in 1784.

One can quibble about some aspects of the reconstruction of Shaker practice during Ann’s life: the beautifully executed dances choreographed by Celia Rowlson-Hall appear more characteristic of those dating from the period after her death, for example.  And of course the music based by Daniel Blumberg on Shaker hymns, with its harsh orchestral accompaniment, is distinctly modern.  But in other respects the film, courtesy of Samuel Bader’s production design and Malgorzata Karpiuk’s costumes, comes across as quite authentic, even if William Rexer’s cinematography gives everything an almost supernatural glow.               

A good deal of the film’s mesmerizing power derives from the intensity of Seyfried’s performance, which persuades us of Ann’s absolute certitude about her vocation.  She’s ably partnered by Pullman as her devoted brother, while the supporting cast is uniformly excellent, with Cale standing out as her most dependable patron.  Special mention is due the dancing ensemble, which pulls off the intricate numbers devised by Rowlson-Hall and shot by Rexer with aplomb. 

This is a remarkable film, but one that’s going to be extremely divisive; some will find it enthralling, while others will consider it absurdly affected.  But love it or hate it, you’ll probably be fascinated by its self-indulgent eccentricity.