The Phantom of the Open: Another British Drama/Comedy

Movie Review: The Phantom of the Open (2021) on Apple TV or Prime Video 👍

Are superhero sports heroes your thing? Maybe you prefer an everyday anti-hero who rises to the occasion despite his shortcomings to succeed beyond his wildest dreams. That's the story behind The Phantom of the Open. (See the movie trailer below.)

    The Phantom of the Open is based on a true story. Maurice Flitcroft (Mark Rylance) is a British crane operator about to lose his job to nationalization. When teased about transitioning to his dream job, all he can think of is winning the British Open Championship, although he's never played golf in his life. Still, the alure of living the lavish lifestyle seems dreamy and it becomes his obsession. 

    Everyone in the family is smitten with his obsession, too. His wife Jean (Academy Award Winner Sally Hawkins) helps him send in the qualification round forms. Step son Michael (Jake Davies), who is part of the management team negotiating nationalizing the company, helps his step dad get the equipment, clothes, and sponsorships befitting his entry. And twin sons Gene (Christian Lees) and James (Jonah Lees) volunteer to be his caddies. Everything feeds his obsession and his self-overconfidence heading into the championship.

    Mark Rylance often plays self-deprecating characters and Maurice Flitcroft fits this role perfectly. Although he falsely poses as a professional player it is out of ignorance, and he displays no false sense of acumen. From the first shot to the last, he gives each his best shot. It's not long before everyone around him realizes he's not a golf pro and he hasn't qualified. 

    But that's not the finish of Maurice's dream. Although he's been banned from the British Open Championship forever and from joining any clubs, he keeps trying, thinking surely with enough practice he will get better. Wearing disguises he re-applies each year to try once again. 

    Just when he's about to give up, he receives good news from an entirely unexpected place. A golf club in the United States is so inspired by his high score that first year and his perseverance, they offer to pay all expenses for his whole family to visit so they can celebrate him. (I had never heard of this before, but this was in my own backyard! It took me watching this film to find out. What a great suprise!) 

    The family and community had practically disowned Maurice after his disgraceful performance, but this celebration helped them see Maurice in an entirely new light. The uplifting end and humor in this story make it a great family film with a good message and good feels.

Film trailer from YouTube:

The Trial of the Chicago 7: The event and personas lost in the patina of time

Movie Review: The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) on Netflix

If you're a Boomer, you remember the summer of '68 and the chaos surrounding the Democratic National Convention, and the resulting trial of "The Chicago 7", for good or ill. As each succeeding generation lives through its own moments of turmoil, that time and the turmoil it produced likely bring back the memories of "the sixties" and "the movement" that produced the clash of civilizations that led up to The Trial of the Chicago 7. So this bit of historical drama brings it back into focus for those of us who lived in that time and those who may only have heard about it--and especially for those who are barely aware of it.

First, it's important to be aware, this drama plays out almost like a documentary, written by one of the premier political-drama fiction screenwriters of our time: Aaron Sorkin, who also directed the film. It is, of course, foremost a drama, but the feel and attention to detail is documentary-like. That's not to say it doesn't borrow from dramatic license. 

Second, we all benefit from hindsight, or "hindsight is 20-20." So it is a story that lays out with the benefit of the end in mind and can connect dots and plan for conclusions that in real-time--documentary time--would not be possible, even with editing. So Sorkin has 51+ years of experience and context to work with here.

And finally, what a cast! This film is as much about the characters as it is about historical events, and Sorkin put together an amazing ensemble of players to portray the personalities of a movement who were as transformative as the changes they sought to bring about (again, for good or ill, whatever your perspective). They had to be who the characters had been in real life, and remembering those times, these actors exuded their being. Eddie Redmayne was Tom Hayden. Alex Sharp was Rennie Davis. Jeremy Strong was Jerry Rubin. And, especially, Sasha Baron Cohen was Abbie Hoffman. Mark Rylance was William Kunstler, their attorney. Even more minor characters were so on-target for their portrayal, although they were lesser known in their time. 

I guess the takeaway I'd suggest from seeing this film is how real this film seems, feels, looks, and presents itself of the events, the times, and personalities of the time. It has a point of view, of course--all films do. But it picks up an event and personas lost in the patina of time and presents them again with the advantage of time and context and perspective, with some drama.

I would rate The Trial of the Chicago 7 A^ for Above Average in storytelling, writing, and acting. Well worth a see.

Dunkirk: Widely Misses the Mark

Movie Review: Dunkirk (2017)
Version: Library borrow

Evacuation of Allied soldiers from the British Empire, and France, who were cut off and surrounded by the German army from the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk, France, between May 26- June 04, 1940, during Battle of France in World War II.

Allied soldiers from Belgium, the British Empire and France are surrounded by the German Army, and evacuated during a fierce battle in World War II.

Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard, James Bloor, Barry Keoghan, Mark Rylance, Tom Glynn-Carney, Kenneth Branagh


The massively award-nominated and occasionally awarded film Dunkirk (2017) has been lauded by multiple critics. Among its nominations are for direction, editing, and musical score. I've afraid I cannot agree. But who am I, just a film fan, to disagree?

Dunkirk is the story of Britain's effort to rescue nearly 400,000 troops from Dunkirk, France, in late-spring 1940 as they wilted under the superior military strength of the Germans. The scale of the film in showing the threat posed to the troops, the efforts and failures the Brits faced, and their struggle to survive a brutal and unethical and continual attack is massive.  Just the scope of the filming, the number of extras, and the logistics is amazing. The special effects and stunt work to demonstrate the damage to ships on which troops were loaded for their escape and sunk was pretty good. But that's where the thumbs up end for me.

Editing? The film jumps around between characters and settings and time frames, making you lose the narrative thread of the story line right from get go. We were well into a third of the movie before we realized what was going on as the scenes shifted from day to night to day to night to day to night, on and on. Characters suddenly started showing up in disjointed places in the story. We might be at the beginning of the story or in the middle of the story, at any one time we weren't sure.

Directing? The editor works closely with the director and while the editor makes choices based on the script, the director makes the final decisions. This confusing disjointedness of the story is more likely his problem. Sure, the overall vision of the film, the grand scheme of the story, is attributable to him, but so are the nits. So I'll give him kudos for the overall vision, but I'll also give him boos for the messy narrative thread, too.

Musical score? To be blunt, there was nothing memorable about it. It should be memorable. It should help drive the emotional elements of the story, build the tension and stimulate the elation, even touch the heart. You should be able to hum the musical score when the movie is over. There's no "there" there from this film.

And there are few magical moments for actors in this film, either. I don't think anyone has been nominated for an award yet -- Oscar nominations are yet to be announced as of this writing. This is an ensemble cast of un-notable performances, save Mark Rylance playing a fairly minor part as Mr Dawson, the owner of a small private boat on his way to rescue the soldiers, and Kenneth Branagh as Commander Bolton, head of the British Naval Forces in charge of the evacuation, who stayed behind when all ships had finally left. There were good performances otherwise, but nothing exceptional. It was, basically, an ensemble cast of dozens. Ho-hum. Rylance is a memorable British character actor. Branagh is an accomplished international star. Neither was the star of the film, yet they shined.

Dunkirk was a story needing telling. Perhaps in Britain and Commonwealth markets it plays differently and the actors are better known and their performances better appreciated. So maybe I'm missing something. But the way this film was edited, the way the narrative thread was spliced together so haphazardly, I think it missed its mark. Sorry. My take is, this film widely misses the mark and is overrated.