The Stooges were a part of my grade school years in the 50s and I watched them Saturday mornings on our black and white TV with great glee. They were masters of physical farce and extreme slapstick. The timing never ceased to amaze me. It’s impossible to do what they do without instantaneous timing magic. They had been doing this Vaudeville shtick since the 30s and they had it nailed. And they were also controversial. Even back in the 40s and 50s, there were those that complained about gratuitous violence in the movies and on TV, and the Stooges led that list. But to their many fans, they were amazing and everyone laughed.
Various iterations of the Stooges appeared in over 200 films and 190 short subjects in their 50-year history. Despite much commercial success, he Stooges suffered health problems that ultimately finished their careers. Larry Fine suffered a series of strokes culminating in his death in 1970. Moe Howard died of lung cancer in 1974. Joe Besser died of chronic heart failure in 1988. Their act has never been successfully reproduced…until this week in 2012.
The revival of The Three Stooges, starring actors that weren’t alive at the height of the Stooges popularity. They tried hard, but in the end their performances don’t satisfy. They don’t really resemble the original Stooges physically and the tightly choreographed sight gags are close but not in the same league of the original. The plot of the film borrows from the Blues Brothers (saving the orphanage) without the action and inimitable Blues Brothers humor.
I chose an early afternoon showing, and there were only about ten people there. I sat munching popcorn and freely laughing at most of the sight gags that were funny enough to laugh at but not howlers. Few others were laughing. I think the film will flop and be sold to HBO next week. I also think there will never be any more Stooges. I think the act died with Larry Fine, Moe Howard and Joe Besser, and will only be remembered by the medium of YouTube (which BTW is worth a watch).
Best feature: Peanut shot out the snout of a dolphin ricochets around the zoo finally impacting the rear end of a male lion, causing a very visible cremasteric reflex.
Worst feature: Sight gags don’t quite match the timing of the original.
I give it 2 of 5 Nyuk Nyuks. Wait till it comes out on HBO or Comcast and watch it for free. A few good laughs.
When the original “Titanic” came out in 1997, Director James Cameron is said to be certain it would be in the league of Heaven’s Gate”, a flop that single handedly brought down United Artists. Heaven’s Gate, with a previous Oscar winning director Michael Cimeno and a full cast of bankable stars, should have been a winner. Titanic, with cost over-runs, a prolific director who had never won an Oscar and a lot of actors never seen in major films before should have been what the Director predicted, a phenomenally expensive mega-turkey.
Titanic got fourteen Oscar nominations and eleven wins, including Best Picture and Director, grossed over US$1.8 billion dollars, remaining the highest grossing film ever made until Cameron’s next directorial effort, Avatar in 2009. Titanic made Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio world class stars and gave James Cameron a seat at the table with David Lean and Stanley Kubrick.
Written by Cameron, the story line is engrossing and original. The plot has substance and maintains interest. The action and direction are over the top. Photography is incredible. Each character lives. The ending is an authentic two-hankie weeper.
This issue in 2012 is big screen (IMAX) 3D.
Roger Ebert has led the list of critics unfriendly to the new medium of 3D. It adds nothing to the film experience creates annoying distractions and gives the film industry a reason to charge twice as much.
My experience with 3D for this film occurred at an IMAX theater with a huge screen. The theater was pretty full and we ended up over to one side, which meant we had to constantly shift our eyes from side to side to see the action. The screen was noticeably dimmer than a normal film and very, very loud. The actual 3D effect was technically very well done and did not inspire vertigo or a headache.
I tend to agree with Ebert that the 3D effect didn’t do much to enhance the quality of the experience, although certain parts were more vivid. The big screen was a little overbearing and, again, not really much of an “improvement”. More like just there for no particular reason other than to add bigness and loudness. US$26.00 for two people. If you go, be like a cat, get as high and middling as possible in the seating.
In the past, I have only given a very few other motion pictures a five/five rating. One (The Deer Hunter) was NOT suitable for popular consumption. Its genius was its ability to generate a profound emotional disturbance in an unwary filmgoer. It should have been destroyed after the premier. Titanic yields a similar visual and emotional impact without the viewer entering a suicidal depression afterwards. I give this film a rare five of five rating because it is filmmaking genius that virtually everyone can see and experience in relative safety. There is something to be said for that.
Best quote: Ismay: “But this ship can’t sink!” Thomas Andrews: “She’s made of iron, sir! I assure you, she can… and she will sink. It is a mathematical certainty”.
Worst feature: None. It is perfection.
I give it 5 of 5 sweaty palms against the jalopy rear window.
But wait……..A freebie EXTRA……………..
“Steal this Film II”, a brief film-let examining the ethics of Internet file-sharing, specifically the issue of “The Pirate Bay, the world’s most resilient bit-torrent service, still going strong after many years of legal threats.
I won’t comment on the legality or ethics of file sharing. This film examines the issues that brought file sharing about; including the rise of the decentralized “Internet” we all use daily and the emerging issues of user autonomy and the transition towards broader participation in creating culture.
Information has always been a valuable commodity and accordingly has always been guarded and marketed. The concept of “copyright” and intellectual property has existed to assure media is accessible to the masses only under defined circumstances. After the first printing press produced exact copies of sequestered media, the Church pronounced it a tool of the devil. The only way to access music or books was to purchase them under defined conditions at a controlled price.
The argument is made that the decentralized nature of the Internet, by way of user-generated content, turns consumers into producers leading to the creation and sharing of content not motivated by financial gains. This paradigm shift has fundamental implications for market-based media. This is the irrevocable Future. The genie is out of the bottle and will never be forced back into it.
The whole concept of copyright is now obsolete and must change according to the dictates of what is real in society, not what is desired. Proprietary owners of copyright wailed that the advent of VCR thirty years ago would destroy the industry. They found a way to profit from it. In 2009, Avatar cost US$273 million dollars to make. As of 2011 it has grossed US$2,7 billion dollars. Apple sold ten billion songs on iTunes as of 2010 for 99 cents each with a 30-cent profit per song. This in the middle of the file sharing frenzy.
The issue of file sharing and intellectual property is complicated and quite interesting. Download it here if you want to see more.
The reviews have been extremely loud and incredibly negative. It’s a bit too much of a tearjerker with little convincing plot substance to support the emotional upheaval. The progression of events was kind of interesting, but too interspersed with maudlin fillers. I think it borders on 9/11 exploitation. Films of people falling from open windows are a little much. I think too soon to be accepted as a semi-documentary of how people would react to losing their loved ones in this manner.
The worst reviewed film ever to be nominated for an Academy Award. One wonders why “Drive” with an incredible 93% favorability on Rotten Tomatoes didn’t fare better. Throwaway roles for otherwise talented Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock who usually choose good projects. The kid does a good job of juggling very adult emotions. Max von Sydow is of course, exceptional, as he has always been. Watch for Viola Davis in a pre-“Help” role.
I was uncomfortable watching it. I reluctantly give it 2 1/2 of five sad voice mail messages, mainly for Max von Sydow and the extra half for underrated actor Jeffry Wright as William Black.
Double Feature Review: “The Descendents” and “The Artist”
Interesting paradoxes of film that there can be an exceptional production you really don’t really want to see.
Sometimes emotionally disturbing content can promote critical thought as to the subject matter and can be worth the effort. Other times, the disturbing content can simply make you wish you were somewhere else. Sometimes you get into it and sometimes you wish you hadn’t.
“The Descendents” is technically and artistically a good film. Exceptional acting, good direction, photography and a strong, coherent story line that you should avoid. You really don’t want to witness the issues in “The Descendents” on a big screen. The issue of marital infidelity is appropriately prickly and doesn’t go anywhere. The issue of families dealing with severe brain injury and coma is handled reasonably well, but profoundly and open-endedly depressing. It sucks you into a black hole leaving you little in return other than hives.
Compare and contrast to “The Artist”, a film depicting bad luck, bad timing, bad tidings, bad life decisions and pathos. The story skillfully allows you into the world of the actors, lets you experience the story and then get out cleanly. The silent motif is profoundly successful in forcing you read the story line from the actor’s subtle body language. You experience the story through the actors in very different ways than usual, and it absolutely works.
Accordingly, I can’t recommend “The Descendents”, the Golden Globes not withstanding. An appreciation of good technical film doesn’t mitigate the pain you go through to be in the same room with it. If you must see it, get it off Netflix so you can mercifully turn it off without embarrassing yourself spilling popcorn all over the lady next to you as you make an escape from the theater.
* Best feature: George Clooney is an excellent actor
* Worst feature: Sticking your head in an oven before the film is halfway over.
I give it 2 of five pasty brain death preps.
Alternatively, “The Actor” is near perfection. The film is fresh, novel, creative, well acted, directed and photographed. It came from nowhere to the top of the heap on the wings of talent and originality.
* Best feature: The intricate subtlety of the lead actor and actress that leaps off the screen (silently).
* Worst feature: A little long and tedious, takes a while getting used to the silence and the ending is just a bit incongruous.
I give it 4.5 of 5 manicured moustaches. Must see on big screen
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1974) is the first novel in the “Karla” series by John le Carré, featuring milquetoasty, middle-aged British intelligence officer protagonist George Smiley.
Smiley is recalled from retirement to help hunt down and identify a Soviet mole somewhere in the British Secret Service (M-16) loosely modeled after Kim Philby. John Le Carre’, real name David Cornwell) was an intelligence officer for MI-16 during Philby era, and it’s said that Philby betrayed his identity to the Russians in 1964, resulting in Le Carre’s forced retirement from the service. Philby defected to the Soviet Union in 1964 and died there in 1988. The Philby story is exceptionally interesting in itself.
In fact, it’s reliably thought that “Karla” is modeled after KGB Gen. Rem Krassilnikov, an undercover agent well known to the CIA who died in Moscow in 2003.
The novel is dense and Le Carre’s prose is hard to follow for most readers. In 1982, the author’s vision was clarified for millions of viewers in the TV Miniseries “Smiley’s People”, considered by most Le Carre enthusiasts to be the definitive work. So much so that Alec Guinness would be about as irreplaceable as Freddie Mercury.
That said, underrated veteran actor Gary Oldman brings a serviceable but rather laconic interpretation of the taciturn and meticulous Smiley, not unlike a more mature Ryan Gosling. But he faces an uphill credibility battle as the specter of the inimitable Guinness colors every scene. Heavyweights Colin Firth and John Hurt are excellent in creating the interconnecting intricacy of “the Circus”.
Much like Le Carre’s novel, the story line is murky and sometimes incomprehensible. The film may be perceived as a snooze fest by many accustomed to the 007 generation. In fact, the defense of the free world during the cold war was really pretty much accomplished in musty rooms full of paper by old men in reading glasses. The few violent scenes are very dispassionately and cold bloodedly functional.
I think it’s a noble effort with big name actors doing their best rather with obtuse subject matter. Much of the story is not of particular interest to most audiences and does not render a significantly fresh look at the author’s original vision. The appeal is not so much the story but the texturing of the character interpretations the actors do consummately well. The viewer might want to go into it with a bit of a knowledge base by reading the book (or the Cliff’s Notes) before seeing the film.
Best scene: Smiley describing his attempt at turning Karla to the West.
Robert Downey Jr was interesting in Iron Man. Jude Law is normally good in everything he does. Rachel McAdams is your basic all purpose starlet. All of them are probably hiding out somewhere in South America hoping this turkey isn’t a career ender like The Mothman Prophesies (2002) was for Richard Geer and Mars Attacks! (1996) Should have been for Pierce Brosnan.
Guy Ritchie proved that casting your wife in a truly bad film (Swept Away 2002) was a guarantee of instant divorce. He didn’t learn any lessons from that mistake. Professor Moriarty comes off about as sinister as Pee Wee Herman with a moustache. Downey does a convincing Hedley Lamarr. “My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.” All false bravado- like bullfighting on a handball court.
This film holds about as much interest as a forced two hour tour of your living room. The plot is all over the place, lacking any continuity. All the energy vaporizes into the ether and goes nowhere. It’s a Victorian remake of “The Wild, Wild West” (1999) a boneheaded film that nearly ended Will Smith’s career. Of course, as the film winds down, it shamelessly sets up a sequel if this one makes any money.
I give it ONE of five hyperactive detectives, and that’s a gift.
Hint: Be suspicious of glib, facile high budget films aimed at the mass market. They’re not all bad, but a high percentage are. Read reviews from critics with a track record of honesty (Roger Ebert) and check out the tomatometer on <rottentomatoes.com>. Look for films that win out-of-the way awards for excellence, and that includes many foreign films that are overlooked by Hollywood.
That said, I saw two extremely good films last week that never made it to American theaters. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to track them down, a chore that will require some resourcefulness.
The Interview (1998 Australian), starring Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in all the Matrix films, and “V” in “V for Vengence”.) An extremely interesting and engrossing film reminiscent of “The Usual Suspects” (1995). 1998 American Film Institute winner for Best Film, for Best Original Screenplay and for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.
Incendies. (Canadian 2010- spoken French, English subtitles). A highly emotionally charged drama reminiscent of “The Bridges of Madison County (1995). Extremely intense. Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Won eight awards at the 31st Genie Awards, including Best Motion Picture, Best Actress (Lubna Azabal), Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Overall Sound and Sound Editing.
The mention of that name instantly divides my readership into two discrete groups. Those who know who “Lisbeth” is and those that don’t. If you know who Lisbeth is, you are eagerly awaiting “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” in theaters this weekend. If you don’t, we’ll talk.
The original film (2009) was Swedish with English subs. A faithful rendition of Stieg Larsson’s sordid first (and best) novel from the trilogy that has become a worldwide phenomenon. Originally portrayed by Swedish actress Noomi Rapace who for my money defined the role of the lost and abused child-woman Lisbeth who can hack any computer and deal out merciless retribution when abused. A sinister creature formed from abuse and injury; how you would expect a young woman to evolve under those circumstances in the new millennium. She’s an updated, punked out version of “La Femme Nikita” (1990). Original Lisbeth Noomi Rapace is a tough act to follow and I entered the 2011 version armed for ruthless criticism.
Updated film version this week is directed by David Fincher and stars Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara (shirt-tail relative of the Pittsburgh Steelers Rooney family). The film is basically a straight up Agatha Christie potboiler put to snow and ice. Daniel Craig is good. Christopher Plummer is outstanding. You’ll remember Stellan Skarsgård as Robin Williams’ former Harvard mathematician professor roommate in “Good Will Hunting (1997).” The story line is interesting, well photographed and expertly directed. The problem is Rooney Mara.
I don’t think Rooney Mara quite fills the bill. She doesn’t reinvent Lisbeth. She puts a viscerally unique spin on the incredibly involuted character. But in the end, she’s a good copy, but a copy nonetheless. Despite harsh makeup and black hair dye, she’s a little too soft and pliable for the character as I envisioned her. She just didn’t work.
There’s another significant problem. There’s no inherent reason why violence shouldn’t be explored in films where it’s a natural consequence of the plot. However, The very explicit and graphically sexually violent scenes have nothing to do with the plot and develop a life of their own detracting from the thrust of the film. It’s almost as if they were thrown in to attract the bloodthirsty American audience’s interest. None of it enhances or defines he character. There doesn’t seem to be any point to it.
Therefore, I have a two-pronged review depending on which group you find yourself in:
Group 1: If the name “Lisbeth” means nothing to you and you have no intention of reading the book, you should see this 2011 version as a stand-alone, then go down the road having been exposed to the encapsulated author’s vision. It’s the best you can do with minimal time and energy expenditure. Toward that end, I give it a 3 out of 5 lip rings.
Group 2: If you know who Lisbeth is, you are probably a Stieg Larsson nut case and a film interpretation of the book film is mandatory if for no other reason than to visualize the author’s vision. However, I cannot recommend the 2011 film out this week. I think it’s an OK but not spectacular re-build of the 2009 film. I recommend you go to the source and get the 2009 film on DVD, torrent or Netflix. I think it will serve you better in terms of understanding Stieg Larsson’s original vision. I give the 2009 version 4 of 5 nose piercings.
The history of the “Mission Impossible” series goes way back to 1966. Steven Hill played the original IMF leader. As an Orthodox Jew, Hill had to leave on Fridays at 4 p.m. to be home before sundown and was not available until sundown the next day, which ultimately got him replaced without explanation in favor of the more available Peter Graves (James Arness’s brother) who created the role of Jim Phelps from 1967 to 1973. The second lineup included Academy Award winner (Ed Wood) Martin Landau and his wife Barbara Bain, who went on to do “Space 1999” in 1975 (the moon breaks off it’s orbit and wanders around space looking for adventure).
The plots were of a cold war theme, popular in that era. The TV series did not have a huge budget. The plots were more along the lines of John Le Carre’, clever and imaginative but low tech. A similar genre was “Secret Agent” (or in Europe, “Danger Man”) in 64-’68, starring the late, highly under-rated Patrick McGoohan. The IM regulars were the James Bonds of their day but without a License to Kill. Only a license to creatively manipulate.
Episodes always began with the leader of the IMF getting the assignment via a tape recorder and an envelope of photos and information. The tape always begins with “Good morning/afternoon/evening, Mr. (then) Phelps.” Then it explains the situation and ends with “Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it. The listener is then reminded, “As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.” An enduring shtick that has held up for over 40 years.
Then in 1996 came high tech cinematography and Tom Cruise. The writers and directors combined flashy action shots with pretty good writing for three consecutive MI feature films (1996, 2000 and 2006). They were all entertaining and worth the watch. The latest in the series “MI: Ghost Protocol” is a stunningly energetic new iteration, clearly made for big screen IMAX.
Filmed in Prague, Moscow, Mumbai and Dubai, Tom Cruise is in top form, bolstered by good writing and fantastic cinematography. The story is coherent, the action is world class, and the photography is breathtaking. Director Brad Bird’s best film was the imaginative “Ratatouille” (2007), an excellent film if you haven’t seen it, you should. Any director that can make a rat cooking your supper look good is serious talent.
Best feature: Cruise doing his own action shots dangling off the Burj Khalifa hotel, the world’s tallest building. Bet his insurance premiums are about as high.
Worst feature: The film starts big then slows down toward the end, with increasingly silly and impossible action sequences almost as if the writers ran out of ideas.
I recommend you choose to accept this mission. I give it four of five big toothy Tom Cruise grins.
A word about IMAX. I think IMAX is overrated. The screen is really too big, requiring the viewer to sit in the nosebleed seats to avoid straining your neck turning from side to side following the action. The surround digital sound track is too loud. And today for the matinee show Usually six bucks for an afternoon show, it cost US$11.00 apiece and I don’t think it was worth it.
I remember Marilyn well. I was in high school during her career peak. My mother held her up as the lowest form of pseudo-feminine media manipulator. My father always said she had no talent and got by on her willingness to work the false promise of forbidden sex. But wherever she went, throngs of crowds followed and dozens of books have been written about her.
Whatever she had, it worked and is still working. When she was on her game, no one could take their eyes off her. Marilyn didn’t need talent. She was fascinating for being Marilyn, a fragile, helpless apparition in distress, begging for salvation from a progressive self-annihilation of which viewers could perceive but not interact.
All this of course forces the comparison to new millennium versions of the Marilyn mercurial diva brand, most notably Kim Kardashian, who definitely has no talent but makes millions enticing people to watch her every move. Kardashian’s image is steeped in a Plutographic fascination with callous, calculating, moneyed trailer trash brats. Quite a difference fifty years makes.
But sure enough, here we are fifty years later watching Marilyn channeled by the outstanding actress Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain) and a cast of outstanding actors (Kenneth Branagh, Judi Dench, among others). The film is based on the (questionably authentic) memoirs of Colin Clark, who toiled as a gofer on the movie set and is said to have became friends with Marilyn. A telling quip summarizes the plot well: “Marilyn was a film star trying to be an actress and Olivier was an actor trying to be a film star. It wasn’t working for either of them”.
Williams carries Marilyn consistently and accurately even though sans makeup there isn’t a striking physical resemblance. The film production is near perfection. Michelle Williams glows. The supporting actors carry every scene masterfully. The pace is well timed and there are few boring interludes. The soundtrack is great and fits the action (Remember Nat King Cole?). I will be very surprised if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar.
Best feature: Marilyn, Marilyn and Marilyn.
Worst feature: Colin’s dalliance with Lucy the property girl is extraneous and goes nowhere.
I give it four and a half of five pouts.
Eagerly awaiting:
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy– underrated actor Gary Oldman and Colin Finch. Promises to be world-class portrayal of Le Carre’s book, the first of the Karla Trilogy (1974). Will be a must see.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo– American re-make of Steig Larsson’s first book of the trilogy. The book was excellent, original film was great (subtitles). Shows good promise.
The Artist. Said to be getting excellent preliminary reviews. We’ll see.
You can be sure your intrepid reviewer will be on the job
I rarely look back at previous reviews. The new Starz show “Boss” starring Kelsey Grammar has rated a second look and some more detail.
I am now, as of episode 7 (of 8) last night, on record as opining that Boss is the best show I have ever seen on television, reluctantly forcing my previous favorite “Deadwood” into a back seat. This show has just blown me away. I have never seen anything approaching it. If you have any appreciation of the fine art of human drama, you MUST see this show.
That said, I will also go on record as urging you NOT to see the series finale unless you have followed the entire series, in which case you know where you’ll be at 10 pm next Friday night. The final episode will be the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers and you simply will not be able to comprehend it unless you’ve followed the entire series.
Accordingly, I will pull the entire season off the torrents next week and put all eight episodes on Drop box with a masked access route. You can also probably pull the entire series off Xfinity, Hulu or Netflix in time. It has been enthusiastically renewed for another 10 episodes in 2012. I think Grammar has a lock on the Emmy for Best Dramatic Actor.
Some history: Looking back at the history of cable channels and the series that made them players. For HBO, it was The Sopranos; for Showtime, Dexter; for FX, The Shield; for AMC, Mad Men. These were game-changers. And now Starz has its defining series in “Boss”, a monumental effort that puts Starz on the map.
“Boss” was developed by a relatively unknown writer, Farhad Safinia in late 2010, with creative input from Kelsey Grammer. Safinia was born in Tehran, Iran, in 1975. He left Iran with his family at the age of four to live in Paris, then London. He attended King’s College, Cambridge, where he studied Economics; he directed and acted in a number of stage productions for the Cambridge University Amateur Dramatic Club and other theatre companies. After graduating, he moved to New York City where he studied film at New York University‘s Tisch School of the Arts. Safinia co-wrote Apocalypto (2006) with Mel Gibson.
“Boss” is a spectacle surrounding Chicago Mayor Tom Kane, a man who understands that his constituents need to be led, but Chicago is a city with many social, economic and ethnic special interests that can’t be controlled with an iron fist. It requires a time-honored mixture of compromise and balance to maintain a functional equilibrium, frequently of a barbarous nature. And a lot of players with their own self interest, including those closest to Kane.
Each episode of “Boss” opens (appropriately) with Robert Plant’s eerie “Satan,Your Kingdom Must Come Down”. Kelsey Grammer is persuasive as a cunning old-school political bully. The mayor’s henchmen normally enforce his decrees with methods that would make even stone cold Russian Apparatchiks giggle. But the mayor has a devastating secret: a degenerative neurological disease that he hides with the same ruthless guile he uses to cover up all the barbarous manipulations that get things done. Suddenly a man with absolutely power is put in a position where he intermittently cannot tell the difference between real and Memorex.
The result is an absolutely uncompromising, brutal view of an amorphous world held in and out of check by a ruthless leader absolutely without scruples, even dealing with his own family. No one is exempt from his blessings, and no one is safe from his wrath as his personal aide finds out when Kane quietly cuts a chunk out of her soul with a couple of lines so chilling that I hid behind a couch pillow (see blurb below).
It’s a riveting drama, textured, and relentless. Kelsey Grammer brings to life an unflinching character lingers in your headspace for days. It’s a beast of a show, the best new drama of the fall season.
It gets an enthusiastic five of five Starz (with a bullet)
—————————-
Reply to Mike Darwin (12/4/2011)
Darwin winges that I’m being hyperbolic when I way “Boss” is the best I’ve ever seen, that there are many genres of film and each can have a top of the line, that it is impossible to choose just one.
To that I say “Pooh-Bah”.
Kane is the most incredibly multi-dimensional character I have ever seen in film. Bar none. And Kelsey Grammer LIVES that character. He knows his exact course and he knows how to implement it. Unpredictable but only to those around him.
“Caution: there be spoilers ahead**
In dressing down the candidate for Governor, he spews he (Kane) is a bad man and has done bad things, but he always knew what he was doing. The object of his venom is an equally bad man but can’t do it well. Kane always does it extremely well. In dressing down Kitty, he rails that amateurs have no idea what they’re getting into when they deal with him and every episode yields more texture to the man.
But in all his callous manipulation, he calls his daughter and breaks down in genuine tears knowing what it about to happen. It honestly breaks his heart and he weeps openly but it must be done for his higher order of reasoning the viewer may or may not agree with. Like him or not, he has an emotional range that has not shown any evidence of boundaries. He doesn’t require the affection of viewers to hold their rapt attention. He is impossible to categorize or pigeonhole.
Gonzo66's Blog 