Steven Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” Review and Theatrical Status Report

Going to see Steven Spielberg’s latest film “Disclosure Day” on a Wednesday afternoon, nearly a week after it officially opened, seemed to provide a bit of awkwardness for yours truly. That’s because I found out I wouldn’t be experiencing it with a large crowd who hadn’t already seen a million reviews on social media. Plus, just going to a movie on a late afternoon felt like playing hooky from your job—even though I was on month’s leave from Amazon for inguinal hernia surgery. 

When I arrived to my prominent Regal Cinemas theater on the east side of Salem, OR, I confirmed I’d be the only one seeing “Disclosure Day.” Even though I hadn’t been to a movie theater for nearly three years, I wasn’t aware that this theater had already closed their front box office two years prior. You had to buy tickets at the snack bar now, along with a less than subtle push from the lone staffer to maybe buy some refreshments.

So it was that I had the entire auditorium to myself for the entire run of the film. Occasional visitations from a staffer coming in to watch bits & pieces was the only company there. But, the nostalgia was still in me because “Disclosure Day” seemed like a companion to “Close Encounters” (and maybe a little “E.T.”), the first of which was my first great movie experience with my parents.

After sitting through nearly 40 minutes of inexorable commercials (alongside briefer movie trailers), the film finally started at 4:20 pm, making it move the needle into an almost evening showing. The first quarter of “Disclosure Day” might take you aback at first since it takes a while to set up its premise. If you didn’t even know it was about UFOs and interstellar or terrestrial beings, you probably wouldn’t know what was really going on in the first 45 minutes. 

At first, it just looks like a typical American espionage/cat & mouse chase thriller as a presumed cybersecurity expert named Daniel Kellner (played by Josh O’Connor) is on the run from a company called Wardex while possessing hard drives of above top secret material. Helping him to hide is his former girlfriend, Jane (played by Eve Hewson), who so happened to be a former nun. Hiding in her former convent seemed right out of “The Sound of Music”, and it’s there when the aspect of faith runs into the reveal by Daniel of the media he’s stolen from mysterious corporation Wardex.

On the warpath to find Daniel is the villain of the movie: Noah Scanlon (played by Colin Firth) who runs Wardex. This and a few other aspects provide a lot of weakness to the film, even though you’ll fall into a more compelled mindset once the real central character comes into play…

What Happens Within as a Spielberg Movie Trait

It’s Emily Blunt’s character Margaret Fairchild (a weather girl on a local Kansas City cable station) who makes the movie. She’s the female equivalent to Richard Dreyfuss’s Roy Neary in 1977’s “Close Encounters.” When she suddenly becomes imbued with an ability to read people’s minds and speak foreign languages after a mysterious visit from a cardinal bird in her apartment, you’ll immediately notice a structural comparison to “Encounters.”

What made latter film so compelling nearly 50 years ago is that it dealt with profound things going on in the character’s brain, ultimately leading to crazy behavior in the physical world. That’s exactly what happens with Margaret, soon realizing she’s on some kind of oddball mission she has no idea about…yet. Her uttering of strange clicking sounds during her live weather forecast is apparently inspired from South African languages, even though designed to be a truly alien language here.

By midpoint, the story of Daniel and Margaret merge as latter has a telepathic drive to seek out Daniel. Yes, this recalls Roy Neary being mentally imprinted with that image of Devil’s Tower and not being able to understand what it means. 

This approach to going within in human beings is still effective because it’s really not done in movies. It’s seldom been done since “Close Encounters” came out, albeit some touches in Spielberg’s “E.T.”

But, Yes, Let’s Address the Plot Weaknesses

Some will say that the weaknesses bog the film down too much, hence making it a waste of time to sit through. I don’t look at it that way, namely because the weaknesses are a matter of creative taste more than being universally recognized criticisms. 

To me, the worst aspect is Colin Firth’s character, Noah. Firth does well with what he’s given, but the slimy behavior of Noah Scanlon just seems right out of an old-school villain playbook. Yeah, almost at Darth Vader level, especially since he has possession of these unexplained glow sticks that can enable him to connect mentally to just about anyone. His Wardex corporation has apparently held UFO/alien secrets for years and somehow acquired some of the alien technology.

Noah first links up mentally with Daniel’s former nun girlfriend, Jane. It’s these scenes that kind of reach into contrived sci-fi tropes, not including all the presentations of computer monitors filled with—uh, reams of cyber information. Sure, I’ll have some say, what more would you expect in a UFO/espionage film taking place in the modern day? Considering Firth’s Noah character practically does a Dr. Evil cackle with pinky to mouth, it just comes too close to being unintentionally funny. 

Also, the glow sticks bring a weird New Age vibe that arguably bogs things down. It destroys any sense of mystery, and just looks like an unnecessary and pedestrian sci-fi element as an excuse to present a little bit of special effects. 

I’d say the biggest plot weakness, though, is its sense of narrative time. Sure, Spielberg told us all before release that it was fast-paced and we needed to just hold on for the ride. The problem is that far too much happens in a small space of time, making it feel overly rushed. I’m not exactly sure what the time frame was supposed to be in the film, though it looks like everything happens in less than 48 hours. Yeah, that means Daniel stealing all the alien video files, the adventure with Margaret, plus the tailspinning finale all happen in two days, which strains credulity.

In “Close Encounters”, you probably remember all the events are spread out over a week or two, if not more. It would have done “Disclosure Day” well to kind of spread things out narratively to make it breathe a little more. Besides, when the actual disclosure happens at end, it also seems like it had to be rushed up to keep the running time to 2 hrs, 25 min. And rushing that final scene wasn’t good because it almost ruins the other details there that will give you chills.

The Film Will Capture You By Last Half

Those “Close Encounters” allusions will definitely become all too apparent as the action starts to ramp up by the three-quarter mark. As Roy Neary hooked up physically and mentally with stranger Jillian Guiler to go on their journey to Devil’s Tower in Wyoming, Margaret ends up on a frantic trip to link up with Daniel, and also see mysterious former Wardex head Hugo Wakefield (played by always excellent Colman Domingo) who helps her along by phone to stay safe. Margaret has no idea why she has to go to Hugo, though the outcome is kind of shocking in a near Truman Show way. 

Spielberg has always done fairly well with action scenes in his prior films. You’ll see some here, and they’re all exciting, if using devices we’ve all seen before. For instance, once Margaret goes on a frantic ride with Daniel, they’re chased by one of Noah’s cohorts to a railroad stop. Now, this also echoes the famous UFO encounter by Roy at a railroad crossing, if also an excuse in “Disclosure Day” to nearly be squashed by a fast-moving freight train.

We’ve all seen the car being pushed into an approaching train trope in action movies. Well, it’s still a hair-raising sequence here, as are various car chases. None of those are absolutely necessary for the plot. They’re just there to keep you on your toes. 

Can UFO Disclosure Be Done as Quickly as Depicted in the Film?

Once Margaret and Daniel get to Hugo’s secret headquarters, we see why he’d been building what appeared to be the set of a suburban house. Turns out, it’s a replica of Margaret’s childhood home. They were setting it up just for her, because they knew she and Daniel were—uh, “chosen ones.”

The reveal of how Margaret and Daniel are connected from their childhoods is filled with wonderment, and seems to feed into real-life tales of how people have supposedly been abducted by alien beings. In “Disclosure Day”, however, it seems to suggest that only two people on earth have had official contact—ignoring the millions of supposed real stories of kids and adults having similar experiences. 

This might not go down well with some in the UFO community. Still, it gives an intriguing twist on how it connects people. Even “Close Encounters” made it appear that Roy Neary and a small group of others were the unexplained, privileged few. 

Once that reveal is done, Noah tracks down Hugo’s hiding place, forcing Margaret and Daniel to get the UFO files live on air at her local Kansas City station. Their storming of the set and taking over the producing team booth seems unlikely as well, if forcing you to roll with the premise. Of course, Noah and his cohorts try to shut it all down and fail. Daniel somehow uploads all his files he stole into the station’s database. All of it rolls out live—which then gets picked up (live, no less) by major news networks. 

Would it really be this fast if such a scenario truly played out? We’re already seeing bits and pieces of UFO videos being released through the Pentagon now. It’s looking more than likely all of any so-called disclosure on UFOs will roll out very slowly…over years rather than in days. In fact, much of it may get rejected anyway based on one thing the film tries to defy: Reality.

The film shows the world reacting with quiet shock to videos showing aliens being taken into custody and even a re-creation of craft debris being taken from Roswell. Only once will you see someone in the periphery yell out “It’s AI!” Everyone else believes it, including real-life former news anchor turned actor, Courtney Grace, who makes it all the more believable with her emotional reaction while anchoring on NBC.

But—it’s the defiance of reality that works against “Disclosure Day.” With so much fakery nowadays, even a video showing definitive footage of UFO debris retrieval and aliens would be rejected immediately by more than three-quarters of the world population. We’d have to see evidence with our own eyes in our own backyards before anything is believed when placed on TV or phone screens. 

So, What Are the Aliens in the Film?

Nothing is really answered on what the aliens are. Yes, it does show one in captivity who briefly interacts with Daniel and Margaret. These aliens look kind of like the ones from “Close Encounters”, except much taller. The bigger question becomes: What are they exactly? Spielberg doesn’t give any answers on whether it’s a physical alien race or spiritual beings.

It all hints that we should be empathetic toward them and our fellow human beings on a level of universal communion. For those of us who’ve long put a spiritual connection to what these things might be, it might feel frustrating that he can’t call them spiritual forces masquerading as physical aliens. Plus, we don’t really know whether they’re good or bad, even if many Christians in reality say it’s a combination and they’re in a spiritual battle until the Second Coming.

While faith is touched on here (predominately with the Catholic faith, for better or worse), it ultimately didn’t open that can of worms on identifying the aliens. Perhaps it was better that way, or it might have offended far too many more audience members. The final message by an alien passed on through Margaret to mass media audiences is up to everyone’s interpretation. Same could be said for the final word Margaret utters before end credits. Maybe we’ll find out in streaming what the message is since Daniel utters it to Margaret via whispered lip movement only.

In this regard, it decides to take the “Close Encounters” route, albeit with more details explaining things than “CE” ever did, including the aliens disguising their guises behind wild animals. Spielberg can’t help himself in more than hinting at a sunny “what’s really wrong with this?” view, though.

Does John Williams’s Score Make the Film Better?

There isn’t a doubt that John Williams has long made nearly every Steven Spielberg film infinitely better. I was looking forward to hearing new John Williams music in “Disclosure Day”, but ultimately felt underwhelmed by much of it. Yes, it was meant to be more subtle in the film (save a crop circle sequence), and that was maybe a better way to go for today’s audiences. It probably helped the film more than I could tell. Regardless, the end credits is where you’re going to hear more sounds familiar with Williams’s style.

I stayed through the end credits to hear the “suite” of the movie score. It was kind of emotional since I remember hearing the famous “Close Encounters” suite during its end credits with my parents as a little kid. The ending theme here will remind you a bit of that, so prepare to shed a slight tear. Especially if it’s Williams’s final score, which I hope to God is not.

The Final Verdict

Back when I reviewed some movies for this blog, I used a rating scale of 1 through 10 to allow for more critical leeway. Movies nowadays are more complex and can have lousy elements while still being worth seeing overall. “Disclosure Day” fits in that category, if also—just because it’s Spielberg. All the Spielberg touches are still intact, no doubt about it.

I’m giving it a 7 due to the weaknesses above, but I figure any movie rated over 6 is worth sitting for the full running time. However, I have to note that the last quarter could easily be watched alone and probably draw you in immediately to its mostly realistic emotion. 

Once the film is on streaming (or basic cable), you can be sure a lot of people are going to watch that last half-hour to try to decipher what the whispered message is from the alien to Daniel and Margaret. Really, that’s kind of how “Close Encounters” has worked for the last 50 years during TV watches. Most of us who’ve seen it multiple times usually tune in just to watch the final, monumental mother ship visitation on the runway near Devil’s Tower. You can watch that alone and still be blown away.

My guess is the finale of “Disclosure Day” will be a fan favorite for a long time to come. Whether it’ll fit in with reality by then is up for reality to decide. 

As a side note: go see it in a theater if you can. My local movie theater seems to be dying, and there was more proof of that as I left where the public restrooms were also falling apart. Nobody was coming in either for the next showing, even if that might have all been amended with “Toy Story 5” debuting a couple days later.

(7 out of 10 stars)

/End

“Mary Poppins Returns” Review: Succeeding with the Impossible

Mary_Poppins13

More than 80 years ago, the media considered Walt Disney making “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” one of the biggest risks and mistakes of his career. Newspapers called it “Disney’s Folly” at the time, even if they had to eat their words a year later.

When it was announced a year and a half ago that Disney was going to make a “Mary Poppins Returns”, you couldn’t help wonder if “Disney’s Folly” would prove true 81 years later.

It turns out many had to eat their words again. You can say that with me as well after initially criticizing the attempt at first announcement. But Disney managed to consult with the brilliant creatives who made the original and tap into the film’s rarefied conduit of magic.

They got it mostly right. However, there are a few criticisms on plot decisions. Seeing “Mary Poppins Returns” has to work in a certain context, namely being able to share the experience with those who grew up with the film.

Here’s my impression of the film and my standard look at the audience around me. Latter were mostly older who likely saw the original when first released.

One-Half Real Life, One-Half Fantasy

Bringing more stark reality to a “Mary Poppins” movie was the best thing that director Rob Marshall and screenwriter David Magee could have done. The only real sense of reality seen in the original “Mary Poppins” was the suffragette movement and some of the Banks family’s internal struggles.

This film takes place during the 1930s when London was also under as worse of a Depression as the U.S. We see a grown Michael Banks (a believable Ben Whishaw) facing near financial ruin due to falling behind in his mortgage payments. He now occupies the famous Cherry Tree Lane house with his wife and two kids, though lawyers come calling with an eviction warning if he doesn’t pay his loan in full.

It’s the first quarter of this film that gives some bleak reality Disney hasn’t always dished out. Then again, many live-action Disney films made during Walt’s lifetime showed families making the best of it during troubling times, even if the troubles weren’t always emphasized.

Along with the sobering news that Father and (presumably) Mother Banks have passed on, the main plot is set up: If Michael Banks doesn’t find a certificate showing claim to his father’s shares in the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank, he’ll lose the house.

With a major sense of dread and a pall in the first half-hour, you might forget for a brief moment that you’re watching a “Mary Poppins” sequel. Even the audience I watched this with fell ghastly silent wondering where the film was going.

It couldn’t have been a more brilliant ploy, because the arrival of Mary Poppins is all the more nostalgic knowing the stark realities at hand.

Wisely, the film uses small sections of score material from the original film to heighten the nostalgia. Using the instrumental of “Spoonful of Sugar” as Mary descends from the sky feels almost like a metaphorical Second Coming.

However, this Deus ex Machina is a far snarkier Mary Poppins than we remember from the first film. It’s prim and proper prickliness that makes Emily Blunt’s Poppins fun to watch. There’s even a few times when she resembles Julie Andrews from the first film, whether intentional or not.

Alas, though, the fact that Julie Andrews didn’t participate (to avoid overshadowing Emily Blunt) removes one degree from being legitimate. Thankfully, two notable cameos from the original wrap an official bow on the film by the end.

The Downside to the Fantasy Sequences

With Mary Poppins in the mix to help save the day, we see her take Michael Banks’ children on wild adventures with Jack, the lamplighter (a charming Lin-Manual Miranda). What makes this a little too familiar is that each sequence seems a one-up variation on the fantasy worlds seen in the original.

The first of these is at least unique, if really a nod to “Bedknobs and Broomsticks.” It’s an underwater sequence that starts out in a bathtub. Some of you might laugh to yourself when you remember Emily Blunt cowering in a bloody bathtub in the recent film “A Quiet Place.”

Here, it’s an entryway to an underwater kingdom filled with a colorful amalgam of hand-drawn animation and CGI characters. Those of you who love and miss the old 2D animation days will give extra points to the film for bringing it back. As a result, it makes the film have a more retro quality as if made in the ‘60s.

One of the most dazzling fantasy sequences is “The Royal Doulton Music Hall”, even if it’s more than a little reminiscent of the “Jolly Holiday”/”Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” sequence with Bert and Mary.

Its best creative touch is they enter this realm through a painted design on an antique bowl belonging to the Banks family. We even have the obligatory chase scene involving a group of nefarious animated characters. After these anthropomorphic thieves attempt to steal some Banks family heirlooms, a wild chase ensues, leading to a breathlessly imaginative outcome.

Yes, some darker animated and live-action characters turn the film a little more adult than you ever saw in the original. There’s clearly a good reason for this decision.

The Influence of the Director, Rob Marshall

If you had to balance the scales, you could say “Mary Poppins Returns” is 75% Disney nostalgia and 25% Rob Marshall adult product.

You can see a lot of Marshall touches in the film, which gives the project a little more edge in some of the production numbers. For instance, you’ll quickly notice the influence of Marshall’s “Chicago” during the eye-popping Royal Doulton Music Hall number. Mary Poppins more or less transforms into the guise of Velma Kelly, complete with more sophisticated hairdo.

The same goes with the entertaining Meryl Streep sequence (playing a character named Topsy who owns a fix-it shop that suddenly turns upside-down). Streep’s number here harkens to her other rare musical numbers in films, especially Marshall’s “Into the Woods” when she played the witch.

All other numbers tap into the Disney mystique, particularly an invigorating dance number from Jack and the lamplighters. It’s more than a little reminiscent of the classic “Step in Time” number, despite having its own original merits.

While some critics carped about “BMX Bikes” being used in this number, those bikes are really 1930s era if you look carefully. As a result, it makes the bicycle stunts all the more impressive.

Why is Bert Missing?

With Jack the lamplighter being a protégé of Bert, we learn the latter is still alive, yet off somewhere else. Considering Dick Van Dyke plays the nephew of the original banker (Mr. Dawes, Jr. here), he could have also played Bert. Then again, the timeline perhaps wasn’t conducive, despite Dick Van Dyke easily passing for 20 years younger than 91 as he was during filming.

Having Bert away from London ruins a bit of the mystery on the possible relationship he had with Mary. There were hints to that in the first “Mary Poppins”, yet we never really knew. With Mary’s new curt query of “How is Bert?” during her arrival, it seems they hadn’t seen one another in a long time.

It’s too bad this wasn’t explored more, though the continuing mystery of Mary herself makes her all the more intriguing this time.

The good news here is that Dick Van Dyke isn’t the only one who shows up in the film. You’ll also see Karen Dotrice (the original Jane) have a quick cameo in front of the Cherry Tree Lane house. Both of these give an official stamp of sequel approval.

The Songs Take Time to Settle in Your Brain

There isn’t any doubt the expectations were far too high for the songs in “Mary Poppins Returns.” You can’t help but agree with the more negative critics who thought the songs aren’t as memorable as the masterpieces created by the Sherman Brothers.

The good news is the songs will definitely stick in your mind, even if it might take a few days. Give a listen to the soundtrack album alone and you’ll appreciate the magic of this score and the insightful lyrics. After all, Richard Sherman did act as a “musical consultant.”

Standouts are “(Underneath the) London Sky”, “The Place Where Lost Things Go”, and “Trip a Little Light Fantastic.” Latter is a new “Chim Chim Cher-ee”, and “Lost Things” will make you bawl if you’ve lost someone important in your family or circle of friends.

“Nowhere to Go But Up” in the finale is also superb, making it the official “Let’s Go Fly a Kite.” Yet, this song has a lot more resonance for our times and falls under a film theme we only see occasionally.

Looking at the Horrible From a Different Perspective

All the depressive realities we see in Michael Banks’ world seem counterbalanced by his sister Jane (played by Emily Mortimer). She lives not far away and always seems more hopeful about things. Michael has already lost his wife and may soon lose the house without finding his father’s proof of bank shares.

The bad guy here is a bit of a caricature: Bank President William Weatherall Wilkins (played by Colin Firth). He’s intent on hiding the truth that the bank shares owned by the former Mr. Banks are indeed in the register.

While his comeuppance is predictable, how it plays out (with Dick Van Dyke’s cameo) will leave you with a huge smile on your face.

Part of this involves an exhilarating nod to “Back to the Future” involving turning back time on Big Ben. Little did we know we’d see attempted time-travel in a Mary Poppins movie, even if it seems she can do everything else.

With the entire temperament of “Mary Poppins Returns” helping us see the world from a positive light amid troubling times, the entire message hits a bullseye. This particular theme recurs only once in a while in film, most notably in “Forrest Gump.”

From a real-life perspective, you can liken the same message to Fred Rogers’ philosophy and frame of mind as noted in recent “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”

When things look beyond bleak, we truly have “nowhere to go but up.” The film’s sequence of this (with balloon lady Angela Lansbury, who seemed like she missed out being in the original) will make you smile wide and tear up concurrently.

Even though we see Mary Poppins leave again, it seems inevitable she’ll be back someday, especially with the stellar box office performance as of this writing.

Whether or not Emily Blunt will want to continue in a new franchise will depend on whether she wants to overshadow her award-winning performance here.

Outside of minor flaws, “Mary Poppins Returns” should be giving people hope and endorphin rushes for years to come through hard times, just like the original still does.

The Audience

Since I attended the first showing of the day on opening day, it was expected that the audience I’d be seeing it with would tilt older. As expected, 95% of the people in the audience were retirees.

My freelance schedule allows me (occasionally) to escape to a matinee showing of a movie rather than being stuck in an office. Truth be told, it was refreshing to hear the reactions from those who likely saw the first film in 1964 as kids or young adults. Kids were still in school as well, eliminating any chance of hearing a three-year-old scream in fear during a few edgy sequences.

“Mary Poppins Returns” is really made for adults from 20-something to long past retirement age. Some kids may not understand the represented hardships of what it’s like to be a responsible adult. This cinematic confection reminds us once again to tap into that Forrest Gump/childhood well when things seem impossibly dreary.

With faithful patience, almost every bad situation has as good of an outcome as Michael Banks ultimately experiences.

 

*Nine and a half out of ten stars*