Hating the puerile Charlie’s Angels brand has been a default passion among persons of breeding and cultivation for over 40 years. The original mid-to-late ’70s ABC TV series…synthetic garbage. The universally reviled McG-directed reboots, Charlie’s Angels (’00) and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (’03), delivered instant lobotomies to untold millions. Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Bill Murray as sidekick “Bosley”…please.

Yesterday it was announced that Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska will topline a 2019 reboot. It’ll directed and co-written by Elizabeth Banks (who will also play Bosley). Another female empowerment saga, kick-ass lust objects, presumably to be infused with a partly lesbian vibe, at least as far as Stewart’s character is concerned…right? You can’t release an action flick about a trio of crime-fighting heterosexual honeys in 2019. Banks will have no choice but to get with the program.

In the original series and two McG versions the possessive apostrophe meant that the girls belonged in a sense to John Forsythe‘s “Charlie,” their suave provider, protector and benefactor. The implied message was “we love you, foxy ladies, as you bust the bad guys and stand up for justice, but at the end of the day Uncle Charlie pays the bills, steers the ship and knows what’s best.” So will the Banks’ version use the same unseen, paternalistic Charlie as a provider of guidance and perspective? Or will Charlie be a woman? I can’t imagine the newbie (which will open on 9.27.19) going back to that old McG well.

CNN’s Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein and Marshall Cohen reported this evening that embattled attorney Michael Cohen, President Trump‘s former fixer and bagman, is ready to testify that Trump knew in advance about that June 2016 Russian dirt meeting in Trump Tower.

The idea before the meeting took place was that the Russians might supply good campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton. Wiki page: “On 6.9.16, a meeting was held in Trump Tower between Trump campaign honchos – Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort – and at least five other people, including Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.”

CNN is reporting that Cohen is ready and willing to make his “Trump knew” assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller.

“Cohen’s claim would contradict repeated denials by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., their lawyers and other administration officials who have said that the President knew nothing about the Trump Tower meeting until he was approached about it by the New York Times in July 2017,” the story reads. “Cohen alleges that he was present, along with several others, when Trump was informed of the Russians’ offer by Trump Jr. By Cohen’s account, Trump approved going ahead with the meeting with the Russians, according to sources.”

Cohen doesn’t have audio recordings to corroborate the claim, but he’s willing to testify to this effect.

My first viewing of Mission: Impossible — Fallout (Paramount, 7.27) was last Monday evening inside a gargantuan IMAX theatre within Loews’ Lincoln Square. My second viewing will happen an hour from now inside a 180-seat Bowtie Cinemas theatre in Wilton, Connecticut. (Here’s my earlier review.) A couple of days ago I mentioned to a Bowtie guy where I’d seen the film in Manhattan, and he replied “Uhhm, we can’t compete with that.” I was actually kind of surprised to see this little multiplex in operation at all. I thought local cinemas were dying. Any and all reactions are welcome below.

Unfortunate technical issue, posted at 11 pm on Thursday, 7.26: I’ve just come back from my second viewing of Mission: Impossible — Fallout. After catching it at Loews’ Lincoln Square in beautiful full-blown IMAX last Monday evening, tonight I saw it inside a spiffy little Bowtie Cinema in Wilton, Connecticut. It was okay — decent-sized screen, 180 seats, nice popcorn, etc.

Except for one significant problem, I mean.

One of the things I loved about the IMAX sections (the HALO and the helicopter finale) at the Lincoln Square was how the image suddenly got taller, shifting from 2.39:1 aspect ratio to 1.75:1. I would’ve preferred an even taller a.r. (1.4:1 would’ve been great) but whatever.

The Wilton Bowtie house doesn’t have adjustable screen heights, so I was naturally expecting that during the HALO and helicopter scenes the 2.39:1 aspect ratio would shift to 1.75 by cropping off the left and right sides.

Guess what happened during these two sequences at the Bowtie? The 1.75 image wasn’t created by side masking. Instead it was stretched horizontally by the projection system, and so it filled out the full 2.39:1 width via distortion, and so suddenly everyone had the mumps or had gained weight. And it just took me right out of the movie.

Errol Morris‘s American Dharma, which will debut at the Venice Film Festival, is a documentary about a “dialogue” with Steve Bannon. Which obviously implies Bannon riffing on this and that aspect of the Trump malignancy and Morris capturing each and every word and maybe challenging the narrative here and there.

The concern, of course, is that Morris won’t reveal the other side of Bannon’s face and will more or less allow him to expound a la The World According to Dick Cheney (’13). Half of me wants to see American Dharma, of course, but the other half is suspicious and anxious. The Hindu definition of “dharma” is “the principle of cosmic order.”

This morning I chatted with World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy about the slates for the Venice, Telluride and Toronto film festivals. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Here’s the mp3. Jordan attended Sundance last January (he shared my condo) and also did Cannes, and he’ll be in Toronto in five weeks’ time. He knows his stuff. Again, the mp3. Just a chat, this and that. 71 minutes.

As an ardent fan of Jennifer Kent‘s The Babadook (’14), I’ve been awaiting her follow-up film, The Nightingale, with bated breath. The violent period drama, about a young convict woman (Aisling Franciosi) seeking revenge for a crime committed against her family, will debut at the 75th Venice Film festival.

Today I happened upon an interview with Kent, posted today (7.26) by IF.com’s Don Groves:

“Jennifer Kent had a clear purpose when she started writing the screenplay of The Nightingale: To define the nature of violence and its impact on women, Aboriginal people and the land.

Aisling Franciosi, star of Jennifer Kent’s The Nightingale.

“The story itself — a young female Irish convict chases a British officer through the wilderness of 1820s Tasmania after he commits a terrible act of violence against her family — just ‘dropped from the ether,’ she tells IF today.

“The production was financed on the first draft, a rapid process which she credits to the success of The Babadook. The thriller will have its world premiere in competition at the 75th Venice International Film Festival, which starts on August 29.

“’The point of the film is not to revel in violence but how to retain our humanity in dark times,” she says. She cast Aisling Franciosi as the protagonist, Clarem after the Irish/Italian actress nailed the audition without seeing any of her earlier work in Game of Thrones, The Fall or Legends.

“’Aisling was not an obvious choice for the financiers but there is no risk because she is absolutely right for the role,’ Kent says. At the outset she did not consider Sam Claflin for the part of the British officer after seeing him in romantic roles but quickly changed her mind after he auditioned. ‘He is a revelation,’ she says.

We’ve all heard the hoo-hah over Bradley Cooper‘s A Star Is Born (Warner Bros., 10.5). Movie stars (Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Robert De Niro) love it. The reaction to a 7.18 exhibitor screening in Hollywood was “through the roof,” according to Deadline‘s Pete Hammond. Toronto Film Festival director Cameron Bailey has told Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson that it’s “an absolutely beautiful film…it’s really emotional and works on a gut level.”

And yet there’s a certain hesitation about how and where to screen it. A Star Is Born will debut at the forthcoming Venice Film Festival but out of competition. It’ll also screen at the Toronto Film Festival but not at Telluride, which seems odd for an alleged crowd-pleaser that everyone believes is a lock for a Best Picture nomination.

“This is a calculation,” Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson wrote a couple of days ago. “The studio that consistently avoids wearing its Oscar hopes on its sleeve is refusing to be judged in Venice Competition, and the Lady Gaga starrer is not going to Telluride to be judged by the Oscar pundits.

“Is this a sign of insecurity? More likely, the studio is confident of the film’s mainstream commercial bonafides, but is treading carefully where critics — and Oscars — are concerned.”

What this means, of course, is that films that work on a gut emotional level tend to work better with exhibitors and ticket buyers, but not necessarily so much with critics. Except when it comes to Hollywood Elsewhere. I’m different. Unlike your average dweeby critic, I’ve occasionally succumbed to effective emotional movies. Big-screen heart tugs don’t put me off. If a movie turns the emotional lock, I’m in.

“Movies critics can’t agree on much, but there’s one assumption most of them hold deeply without ever discussing it,” the late Richard Corliss wrote on 11.22.06. “It’s that a film that says life is crap is automatically deeper, better, richer, truer than one that says life can be beautiful.

“That’s a 180 from the prevailing notion in classic Hollywood, where optimism was the cardinal belief, at least on-screen. (It was in the front office that the knives came out.) Most movies, whatever their genre, were romances; they aimed for tears and ended with a kiss. But to serious critics then, and to the mass audience now, sentiment is suspect. Feeling is mushy, girly — for fools. To be soft-hearted is to be soft-headed.

“So critics will see a horror film with extreme violence, or (less frequently) an erotic film with extreme sex, and accept these as genre conventions, whether or not they’re grossed out or aroused. But a movie that tries to make them feel is somehow pandering to their basest or noblest emotions and, as they see it, deserves a spanking from any smart reviewer. These days, nothing is as easy to deride as dead-serious romance.”

Yesterday Last Jedi director Rian Johnson deleted 20,000 old tweets because he doesn’t want to take a chance on becoming the new James Gunn. His account now lists only 1200 tweets. How many others will follow in his path?

Mick Jagger is celebrating today. Bless his persistence and good health and general refusal to wear Bruce Dern-styled old man shoes. “Three-quarters of a century…makes a girl think.” — Marilyn Monroe‘s Sugar “Kane” Kowalczyk in Some Like It Hot (’59).

I can remember people saying in the mid ’80s that it was time for the geriatric Rolling Stones to think about hanging it up for the sake of dignity, that being a post-40 rocker is embarassing. The last I saw Jagger live was at the El Rey on Wilshire Blvd. back in November ’01; the stand-out moment was when he performed “God Give Me Everything.” Favorites shift from year to year, but right now my favorite Jagger-Richard tune is “Back Street Girl,” largely because of the background accordion or Hammond organ or whatever it is.

Although it didn’t strike me as anything more than dryly amusing in a spotty, in-and-out sense (i.e., occasionally smirky but mostly doleful), I agreed after the fact that Phantom Thread could be processed as a kind of dry, cold comedy. I knew the hipper-than-thous were saying this in their salons and so I figured “sure, okay…I’ll bend over backwards and meet the Guy Lodge cabal halfway.”

But an “after the fact” accommodation invalidates any notion of actual comedy being the intent. It was received that way by smarty-pants types, but this is why people don’t trust critics as a rule. Because they tend to enjoy perverse, understated, “are you hip enough to get it?” humor more than any other kind, whereas Joe Popcorn tends to prefer films that are actually funny in a cards-face-up sense.

My preferred type of humor is the subtle, no-laugh-funny kind in Shampoo, Greenberg, The Informant! and Logan Lucky, the kind that no one is making a great effort to “sell” but has obviously been conceived and written with a certain humorous intent. Phantom Thread doesn’t park its car in this garage. The humor is in the performances (DDL and Manville’s) and less so the writing.

From “Paul Thomas Anderson’s Howl,” posted on 12.7.17: “I personally loved the give-and-take scenes between Reynolds and Alma and Reynolds and Cyril; all that repressed emotion behind witheringly cutting lines. The audience I saw it with laughed loud and hard at some of that stuff, as though it were a drawing-room comedy, which seemed strange. Oscar Wilde-ish Phantom Thread‘s dialogue is not; what dark humor there is lies in the acting, rather than the writing.

“It’s always fascinating to watch DDL work because he’s so good. But you feel the effort more when the material is as thin as this. In the end the film doesn’t pay off, emotionally or dramatically. But that’s never been what Anderson’s films are about. He seems to purposely avoid anything that would gratify any audience member in an obvious way.

“An audience film immediately announces what it’s about, tells a linear story with characters who are not only easy to understand and identify with but who make you eager to root for them. Audience films invite you in, show you around and make you comfortable so that you always know where you are. The Post is a good example of a well-made audience film.

“Critics’ films make you come to them. They challenge you to essentially jump aboard an already moving train and figure out where it’s going. The best critics’ films pay off that bet for audiences who believe the critic and take the challenge; the worst critics’ films (like The Master) have champions who make you believe there’s more than meets the eye here when, in fact, it’s all in their film-theory-addled imaginations.

An image as simple and penetrating as this one, gently augmented by the sound of cleansing fresh water, reminds that there’s a whole universe of absorption, contemplation and transportation beyond the corporate prison realms of Dwayne Johnson, Chris Pratt, Robert Downey, Jr., et. al. Oh, Lordy, bless the coming award season. Bless it now and forever.

The chilling effect of the James Gunn Disney assassination (early-Obama-era tweets can detonate your present-day career) and the ScarJo Rub & Tug thing (cisgender actors cannot play transgender characters) have been kicked around by Deadline‘s Mike Fleming and Peter Bart.

Fleming: “[Industry execs] fear this desire to please loud special interest groups, given a bullhorn by social media, will spread to the point where you couldn’t make Brokeback Mountain or Dallas Buyers Club by casting straight actors like Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger and Jared Leto, whose desire to stretch and win awards made these films possible.

“Stars always represented the underrepresented in the Dream Factory. Daniel-Day Lewis in My Left Foot? Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man? Al Pacino in Scent Of A Woman? Tom Hanks in Philadelphia? I would argue these award-winning performances and movies I mentioned opened eyes and organically helped create empathy and tolerance by finding common ground. Would those actors and studios make these movies now and risk the shaming campaigns?

“Financiers are already inclined to favor films with sequel/blockbuster potential. They’ve now been given one more reason to kick these projects to the curb. This all could have been handled better but like the James Gunn mushroom cloud, these decisions are being made in real time out of fear of the white-hot social media chorus, and the blaring headlines of media eager to fan provocative stories. Deadline had one of its highest traffic days ever when we broke Disney’s dismissal of Gunn last Friday and it hasn’t abated. So I’m not saying we’re immune to the appeal of provocative copy. But I don’t think anybody was helped by the outcome on Gunn and Rub & Tug.”

Bart: “The constraints of the moment would surely have created huge obstacles for many past films that proved ground breaking. Consider Being There: Its message was that the next President of the United States would inevitably be an idiot (Peter Sellers) who could neither read nor write and who did little but watch television. Whoops. Apart from its dicey theme, both Sellers and Hal Ashby, its director, were erratic in their personal pronouncements and would have been annihilated by the social media. As it was, Being There (funded in 1979 by Lorimar Films, of which I was then the President) was rejected by two distributors and suffered from clumsy half-hearted marketing.