The Films of 2025: Jay Kelly (dir by Noah Baumbach)


Jay Kelly features George Clooney at both his best and his worst.

Clooney plays the film’s title character, an actor who has just hit 60 and who is having an existential crisis as he realizes everything that he’s lost as a result of being rich and famous.  Clooney’s best moments are when he plays Jay as being essentially a prick, a guy who might be well-meaning but who lacks the self-awareness necessary to understand just how condescending and fake he tends to come across to the people who know him.  This is the Jay who insists on having a drink with Tim (Billy Crudup), a former actor who lost a key role to Jay and who has never forgiven him for it.  (It starts out as a friendly drink but it eventually becomes a fight after Tim reveals that he hates Jay and Jay responds by being smug.)  This is the Jay who has alienated both of his daughters (Riley Keough and Grace Edwards) and who doesn’t seem to understand that the rest of the world doesn’t travel with an entourage.

Jay is gloriously unaware in those scenes and they give Clooney a chance to show that he’s still capable of giving a sharp comedic performance.  Watching him in those scenes, I was reminded of the gloriously dumb characters that he played for the Coen Brothers, in both Burn After Reading and Hail, Caesar.  For that matter, I was also reminded of his burned-out hatchet man from Up In the Air, who was not a dumb character but still was someone who, like Jay Kelly, always seemed to be performing.

Unfortunately, as the film progresses, Jay himself starts to wander into flashbacks of himself as a young actor and, even worse, he starts to talk to himself about everything that he’s lost due to his fame and suddenly, he transforms into the insufferably smug Clooney who spent the earlier part of this year in greasepaint, lecturing us all about Edward R. Murrow.  The flashbacks to Jay Kelly’s past often feel like stand-ins for flashbacks to George Clooney’s past (and it’s probably not a coincidence that both Kelly and Clooney are from Kentucky) but they don’t really add up to much.  Jay Kelly is a character who becomes less compelling the more that one learns about him.

The characters around Jay Kelly are far more interesting than Jay himself, though I have my doubts whether that was intentional on the part of director Noah Baumbach.  (An overly long and indulgent sequence on a train would seem to suggest that Jay Kelly was envisioned as being a more fascinating character than he turned out to be.)  Just as he did in Baumbach’s The Meyerowitz Stories, Adam Sandler gives the film its heart, playing the role of Jay’s loyal but unappreciated manager.  Sandler and Laura Dern have a few showy scenes together but Sandler’s best moments come opposite Patrick Wilson as a client who feels that he’s being neglected in favor of Jay Kelly.  (For that matter, Wilson is so good in those scenes that I almost wish he had switched roles with Clooney.)  One might not expect the star of Jack and Jill and That’s My Boy to emerge as one of Hollywood’s best sad-eyed character actors but that’s what has happened in the case of Adam Sandler.

With all that in mind, I have to admit that I enjoyed Jay Kelly more than I thought I would.  Some of that has to do with expectations.  Jay Kelly is currently getting so roasted on social media that I was expecting the film to be a self-indulgent disaster.  While the film is definitely self-indulgent and about 30 minutes too long, it’s not a disaster.  When Clooney’s performance works, it really works.  (Unfortunately, the inverse is also true.)  Adam Sandler, Billy Crudup, Riley Keough, and Stacy Keach all give performances that elevate the occasionally shallow script.  Cinematographer Linus Sandgren captures some beautiful shots, especially towards the end of the film.  Visually, Jay Kelly is a marked improvement on the bland imagery of Marriage Story.  Like its title character, Jay Kelly is imperfect and occasionally annoying but it does hold your attention.

As for the film’s Oscar chances, the reviews are mixed but it’s a film about how tough it is to be an actor and one should not forget that the Actor’s Branch is the biggest branch of the Academy and the majority of the voters are people who are probably going to watch Jay Kelly and say, at the very least, “Hey, I know that guy!”  (Few will admit, “I am that guy,” but that will still definitely be a factor in how they react to the film.)  Regardless of how social media feels about the film, I imagine Jay Kelly will be remembered when the nominations are announced.

Film Review: Bridge of Spies (dir by Steven Spielberg)


Bridge_of_Spies_poster

I saw Bridge of Spies last weekend and I’m a little bit surprised that I haven’t gotten around to writing a review until now.  After all, this is not only the latest film from Steven Spielberg but it also stars the universally beloved Tom Hanks and it’s currently being touted as a possible best picture nominee.  (Mark Rylance, who plays an imprisoned spy in this film, is also emerging as a front runner for best supporting actor.)  The screenplay was written by the Coen Brothers.  (Oddly enough, films scripted by the Coens — like Unbroken, for instance — tend to be far more conventional and far less snarky than films actually directed by the Coens.)  Even beyond its impressive pedigree, Bridge of Spies is a historical drama and by now, everyone should know how much I love historical dramas.

And the thing is, I enjoyed Bridge of Spies.  I thought it was a well-made film.  I thought that Tom Hanks was well-cast as an idealistic lawyer who stands up for truth, justice, and the Constitution.  I agreed with the pundits who thought Mark Rylance was award-worthy.  It’s become a bit of a cliché for Amy Ryan to show up as an understanding wife but it’s a role she plays well and she made the most of her scenes with Tom Hanks.  Steven Spielberg knows how to put a good film together.  This really should have been a film about which I rushed home to rave.

And yet, at the same time, I just could not work up that much enthusiasm for Bridge of Spies.  It’s a good film but there’s nothing unexpected about it.  There’s nothing surprising about the film.  Steven Spielberg is one of the most commercially successful directors in history and the American film establishment pretty much orbits around him.  He’s good at what he does and he deserves his success.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a subversive bone in his body.  Bridge of Spies is a lot like his previous Oscar contender, Lincoln.  It’s very well-made.  It’s the epitome of competence.  But there’s not a truly surprising or unexpected moment to be found in the film.

And I have to admit that, even as I enjoyed Bridge of Spies, I still found myself frustrated by just how risk-adverse a film it truly was.  After all, we’re living in the age of Ex Machina, Upstream Color, and Sicario.  Bridge of Spies is a good movie and, in many ways, it provides a very valuable history lesson.  (The film’s best moments were the one that contrasted the U.S. with the cold desolation of communist-controlled East Germany.)  But, overall, it just didn’t make a huge impression on me.  It was just a a little bit too safe in its approach.

Film Review: Blood Ties (dir by Guillame Canet)


So, there’s this fucking movie called Blood Ties and it’s about a lot of fucking guys who live in fucking New York City in the fucking 70s and they’re all kind of a bunch of fuck-ups but they all know how to fucking use the word fuck as both an adjective and an adverb.  That’s the main impression that I took away from Blood Ties, a film that feels a lot like a mash-up of Place Beyond The Pines and every Martin Scorsese film ever made.

The year is 1974.  After serving several years on a murder conviction, 50 year-old Chris (Clive Owen) has been released from prison.  Chris’s transition back into society is a bumpy one.  For one thing, his ex-girlfriend (Marion Cotillard) is now a prostitute and refuses to let Chris see his children.  Though he gets a new girlfriend (Mila Kunis), he still finds himself struggling to hold down a job and he soon finds himself tempted to once again pursue a life of crime.

What might make that difficult for him is the fact that his younger brother, Frank (Billy Crudup), is now a cop with an old school porn star mustache.  Frank makes little secret of how much he resents his older brother and it isn’t long before the two of them are constantly fighting.  However, Frank has problems beyond Chris.  For one thing, he’s romantically pursuing Vanessa (Zoe Saldana), despite the fact that he earlier put her husband, Anthony (Matthias Schoenaerts), in prison.

In order to keep their dying father (James Caan) happy, Chris and Frank try to put aside their differences.  However, when Frank sees Chris fleeing from the scene of a robbery, it becomes harder and harder for him to ignore his brother’s activities.  Meanwhile, Chris has to decide whether or not to potentially sacrifice his freedom to keep his brother safe from a vengeful Anthony…

When Blood Ties was originally released at the beginning of the year, I considered seeing it but — for some reason — I ended up seeing The Legend of Hercules instead.  (Don’t you hate it when that happens!)  And I have to admit that I had forgotten about Blood Ties until I discovered that we were getting EPIX for free this holiday weekend.  Blood Ties is one of the films that’s currently showing on EPIX and, when I saw it was available, I thought to myself, “I can’t wait to see A Most Violent Year but until that opens up down here in Dallas, why not watch another violent New York period piece?”

And so I watched Blood Ties and … well, bleh.  Actually, bleh may be too harsh of a judgment.  The film is full of fun period details and Billy Crudup gives a really good performance as Frank.  There are some well done action scenes and I appreciated the fact that, for the most part, the film did not try to make violence look glamorous or fun.  The film has a great soundtrack though, for the most part, most of the songs here can also be heard in a countless number of superior Scorsese films.

But, ultimately, Blood Ties is never as good as you want it to be.  The film’s plot is about as predictable as can be and, far too often, scenes that start out interesting quickly degenerate to various characters standing around and yelling at each other.  And while that may often be what happens in real life, it still doesn’t make it particularly interesting to watch.  And then you’ve got poor Clive Owen, a good actor who is seriously miscast here.  Casting Clive Owen as a streetwise New York gangster is a bit like casting Ray Liotta as a member of the Queen’s Guard.  It just doesn’t work.

For those of us hoping for a great New York City crime epic — well, we’re just going to have to keep hoping that A Most Violent Year turns out to be just as good as everyone says it is…

Blood_Ties_poster