Aquaman

Score:  B-

Directed by James Wan
Starring Jason Mamoa, Amber Heard, Patrick Wilson, Nicole Kidman, et. al.
Running time: 143 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The famous yet often belittled superhero Aquaman finally gets his own movie, led by Jason Mamoa and as part of the DC Extended Universe franchise.  Mamoa is a strong lead, with more attitude and humor than most of his DC kin, but despite some big names, the rest of the cast doesn't quite shine like those from a certain *other* superhero studio.  James Wan guides this fairly standard superhero vessel steadily, but often cliched sentiments and extended action overshadow the good elements.  Go see it for a popcorn adventure ride, otherwise save it for Netflix.


In 1980s Maine, a lighthouse keeper rescues an underwater princess, Atlanna (Kidman), who he finds injured on the shore.  The two become close, but eventually Atlanna returns to Atlantis, her underwater kingdom, knowing that her people will never allow her to stay.  Thirty years later, their son, Arthur (Mamoa), patrols the high seas, yet lives on land among humans.  Another Atlantean princess - Mera (Heard) - comes to find him, warning him that his half-brother, Prince Orm (Wilson), is planning an attack on the "surface world".  Although he has long ago rejected the half of his heritage that dwells in the sea, he grudgingly joins Mera in an attempt to protect the other half.  Still, while Arthur's strength and abilities are formidable, he soon finds that he can't afford to remain ignorant to the ways of - and his role in - the incredible world beneath the waves.

Aquaman boasts an impressive cast, although the extent to which its talent is utilized varies.  Jason Mamoa, introduced in the role of Arthur (aka Aquaman) in Justice League, takes on the lead here.  A big, burly guy who's a bit thick but also funny, Mamoa and his character somewhat resemble Marvel's Chris Hemsworth/Thor.  His swaggering, devil may care attitude sets him apart from even his Marvel cousin, and as it tends to get him in trouble, the self-effacing humor that results is fun.  Sadly, rote plot requirements mean this gets downplayed as the film goes on, but as a primary mode it serves him well as an entertaining lead.  Amber Heard plays Mera, and to the film's credit she gets a significant role and one that is only minimally the "love interest".  Unfortunately, what she gets to work with is not all that interesting, and it doesn't help that Heard isn't able to come up with a distinctive angle to play it so Mera ends up as little more than a faithful sidekick.  Veteran actors Nicole Kidman and Willem Dafoe both get considerable roles as Queen Atlanna and her advisor Vulko, respectively, and both show up for more than just the paycheck.  Kidman is a natural underwater royal and is also invested in her familial roles, while Dafoe is a steady, no-nonsense presence that you're still not one hundred-percent trusting (after all his other roles, probably not even fifty).  Rounding it up, Patrick Wilson does a solid job toeing the line as the bad yet not villainous Prince Orm, and Yahya Abdul-Mateen hams it up a bit too much in a superfluous fanboy role as "Black Manta".

Aquaman is a solidly entertaining superhero movie, but its adherence to formula and overreliance on more (of everything) waters down the genuine quality bits that can be found.  The structure is quite familiar; this is really an origin film, even if we've seen the character before (similar to Wonder Woman).  As that other DC film showed, a certain lack of originality in this is not necessarily bad, but the prologue illustrates how it fails here.  Kidman does her best, but the circumstance is somehow both ridiculous and dull, and the CGI youth-ification of the actors doesn't help.  Even the irreverent Mamoa gets dragged eventually into the heavy and tired harping on his outsider ("half-breed") status and what he was "born to be".  For a decent portion early on - after the prologue - Mamoa's smirking attitude rights the ship, such as at a seaside bar scene and in little asides during fights or as Mera guides him to Atlantis.  Once we get there, by the way, it is a pretty impressive sight: the sheer scale and detail of this underwater world are absorbingly colorful and alive.  It's all fantastical of course, but this frees the designers to be more creative, from bucking and roaring shark "steeds" to a 360-degree labyrinth of floating structures.  It's also easy to buy into the nature of underwater interactions, with gently bobbing bodies and floating hair.  On the other hand, unfortunately, the action scenes are generally too big, long, and similar, from a chase scene on land in Sicily (which had promise) to the gigantic final battle.  There are some highlights, certainly, such as close quarters combat on a sub and a creepy nighttime encounter with sea bug-like drones, and those somewhere in between like the Arthur-Orm duels.  They show the potential here for something better, something with a more intimate focus on the innovative strengths present rather than another blown up spectacle.

***

Aquaman is another solid superhero film for DC Comics, but it also shows that they are still definitively second class, compared to Marvel.  Aquaman entered with a lot of advantages: it's the character's first solo film yet already fairly well-known; the lead is a charismatic rising star; and the underwater setting is different from others in the genre.  While the film does use each of those well to varying degrees, it's difficult not to think "Marvel would've done it better."  DC might have all the ingredients for success, but Marvel clearly holds the gold standard recipe.  Still, Aquaman can be worth a trip to the theater, if you're a fan of the genre or just want some high production value, escapist entertainment.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57916546

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald

Score:  B-

Directed by David Yates
Starring Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Ezra Miller, et. al.
Running time:
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Crimes of Grindelwald continues the new Harry Potter-universe saga begun in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.  The introductions of Johnny Depp and Jude Law are a double-edged wand: while great presences in themselves, they also herald the full transformation to all-out wizarding war.  Redmayne's Newt is still an awkward fit for the story arc, and though there are other interesting characters and dynamite action aplenty, it's too much and too familiar.  Worth it if you're a big Potter fan or need a shot of action, skip it if not.


The dangerous dark wizard Grindelwald (Depp) is on the loose once more.  The magical authorities of the world are distressed that he is rapidly gaining followers as he demands that wizards stop hiding from Muggles (non-wizards) and take control of the world.  Newt Scamander (Redmayne), who helped stop Grindelwald last time, has little interest in these politics, yet he is being confined to England unless he agrees to help the search for a mysterious young man called Credence (Miller).  So Newt, along with his American friends Queenie (Sudol) and Jacob (Fogler), head to Paris, along with an array of other interested parties.  Much depends on the hunt for Credence, an outsider: his past holds answers to dark wizarding secrets, and his future could determine the fate of the world.

The Crimes of Grindelwald has quite a large cast, returning most of the characters from the first film and adding some major new players, too.  Eddie Redmayne is once again the lead as Newt Scamander, a shy wizard who prefers the company of magical animals - and once again shows that the character is a questionable choice for the role.  Redmayne's performance is fine, although he's forced to dispense with much of the fun quirkiness from the first film.  However, the character is just swallowed up by the serious, foreboding nature of the plots.  While Newt gets the most screen time, everyone else fights for supporting roles to varying degrees.  Newcomers Depp (technically not new, but had only a cameo last time) and Law are great for their roles as the two most powerful wizards, Grindelwald and Dumbledore.  Law in particular captures his famous character's charm and slight mischievousness, along with the arrogance of a younger man.  Zoe Kravitz also does well as a new character with a familiar last name - Lestrange - who gets just enough to become interesting but could have used more.  Of Newt's three returning friends, Alison Sudol's Queenie gets the biggest part, an interesting turn which should be more fully explored in future chapters.  Dan Fogler and Katherine Waterston are essentially reduced to cameos, unfortunately.  And while everyone and the plot is so focused on Credence, Ezra Miller himself doesn't actually get a lot of screen time, nor a chance to convey change during this pivotal time for the character.

The Crimes of Grindelwald is an entertaining movie with top-notch production values and some neat characters; unfortunately, it's also overstuffed and accelerating the blurring of a franchise.  The second in a five-film series, this film wastes little time in moving past the relative "frivolities" of the first and honing in directly on what is sure to be the main theme of the series, the war against Grindelwald.  The set up recalls both the X-Men franchise, in having an angry group of "others" wanting to rise up and rule over all, as well as Star Wars, in having a powerful yet naive individual torn between a good, if untrustworthy, establishment and a bad outfit that promises him freedom.  Combined with constant callback to the Potter-verse's own canon, it's all a little too familiar even if the faces are new.  There are plenty of side elements present to potentially deepen the narrative and its characters, from Leta Lestrange's school past with Newt to Queenie and Jacob's odd but adventurous future, from Nagini's mysterious past as a "freak" to Tina's achieving her potential as an auror.  But there are too many interesting strands that get started, and ultimately washed out by the main action.  That action, it should be said, is often quite thrilling, though.  Grindelwald's escape at the beginning is particularly exciting, thanks to an attention to detail and brought to life through astounding CGI.  The "Beasts" in the title - whose exploits were the highlight of the action in the first - are given only a token role here, but digital magic does provide a useful visual role in the climactic showdown, and choosing of sides, between Grindelwald and the Ministry (good guys).

***

Fantastic Beasts, part two, is a finely made, entertaining film, but still a disappointment, both as a single film and as a signal of what the rest of the series is likely to be.  While the original Harry Potter eventually built up to the same level of bombast, the fact that the children and their school remained at the core kept its heart and its grounding.  Newt is undoubtedly to be the unlikely hero type, to go with his friendships with Tina, Queenie and particularly Muggle/No-Maj Jacob, but at least so far it is a hollow replacement for Hogwarts.  We don't need another epic series within the Harry Potter universe.  If I was in charge, I would instead release unrelated, one-and-done films that live within that universe.  It would allow for so much freedom, although they should skew to the lighter, yet still emotionally resonant, side.  It would keep the franchise fresh, and with so much lore, you could still callback to interesting elements here and there to have fun tie-ins.  Anyway, we have what we have - if you're a HP fan and you want some blockbuster fun at the theater, go for it.  If not, there will surely be better options this holiday season.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58960320

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Score:  A

Directed by Marielle Heller
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant
Running time: 107 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Melissa McCarthy takes a detour in this stranger than fiction biopic about an author turned literary forger.  Teamed with Richard E. Grant, McCarthy is spectacular as the down in the dumps lead, and this perfect coupling along with the bizarre story generate both dark humor and unique character development.  Add in a bevy of thoughtful themes and ideas, and this is a must-see.


Lee Israel's (McCarthy) problems in the early 1990s began with a bad case of writer's block.  A biographer and magazine staff writer, Israel alienates her agent with increasingly desperate ideas and gets herself fired for behavior.  Alone with her cat, Israel resorts to selling one of her prized possessions, a personal letter from Katharine Hepburn, to pay her rent and vet bills.  Helping to keep her going, too, is a new acquaintance named Jack (Grant), met at a bar, who delights in mischievous fun and commiserating on their bad luck.  Still hanging on by a thread, Israel soon catches on to an idea that will allow her to put her talents back to use - and money in her wallet.  The only catch is that it's illegal.  Still, spurred on by professional slights and egged on by Jack, Israel decides to take the plunge that will define her legacy - for better or worse.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? has a very small cast, but the two leads are so good that it's better that way.  Melissa McCarthy is the perfect choice as Lee Israel.  Best known, of course, for her various hilarious comic roles, she is also an underrated actor, and she inhabits the flawed, real-life author very well.  Most distinctive is her pessimistic outlook, at times taciturn and glowering and at others bursting with bitter yet sharp, clear-headed insults.  McCarthy somehow makes this miserable creature sympathetic, though (she's had practice in other roles like Bridesmaids and The Heat).  Her affection for her cat is sweet and genuine, and her humanity seeps through in her combative yet respectful friendship with Jack.  She portrays Lee as a woman who is driven yet doesn't even realize it, someone full of glaring flaws yet persistent inner strength.  Richard E. Grant is also great as the drifter Jack, who appropriately comes in and out of focus through the film.  He is almost the opposite of Lee in some ways: he is overtly charming, pleasant and energetic, yet privately guarded and even afraid of success.  While he encourages Lee to come out of her shell and enjoy herself, she provides a model for him of (relative) stability.  Grant gooses the film with his smile and personality just enough to balance Lee's dour disposition.  All other roles are minuscule in comparison, though Dolly Wells is another nice presence as a book seller who works with Lee.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? is a modest little biopic in some respects, yet with its tremendous performances, script, interesting story and thoughtful themes, it is also a great one.  The central premise is Lee Israel's criminal forgery of personal letters from literary greats.  It provides a darkly humorous as well as fascinating backbone as the main action, but the film develops all the surrounding elements so well, too.  The film begins with Lee at rock bottom, with her humiliating professional failures and deteriorating living conditions, effectively establishing the character and her circumstances.  It's this gut-punch of a start that gives such great perspective on Lee's choices in getting more and more involved in her forgeries.  Especially as you see the haughtiness of the collectors - and their own lack of scruples - it becomes easier to root for her.  Equal attention is given to developing Lee and her relationships.  Jack, as mentioned above, is the perfect companion for her, not only in helping her cope with her darkest days but also in illuminating her character by contrast with his own.  We're also shown both Lee's past relationships - with her agent, a past girlfriend - and how they have soured her outlook, as well as potential new ones, like with Anna the book seller, and their fits and starts.  By the end, we have an impressively complete picture of this woman.

The film goes beyond even these elements, in illustrating themes and asking questions on a variety of professional and personal topics.  Authenticity and commercial success/fame at times go together - but what about when they don't?  Each has its own rewards, but without the other, also considerable problems.  Lee is not a very likable person, which the film makes clear is due to a combination of her own poor choices as well as to the actions taken by those close to her.  We all fall somewhere on that spectrum - can we be honest and strong enough to see that in ourselves and others?  Lee hasn't answered these questions by the end, let alone become a perfectly happy or (legitimately) successful writer.  But she, like the rest of us, is a work in progress.

***

Can You Ever Forgive Me? is a great success, thanks to a nice confluence of story, performances and more.  The premise is a great hook, but it still allows for a very grounded film to be made around it, and the writers and filmmakers took full advantage of that combination.  McCarthy and Grant are phenomenal leads, and while there are other important roles here and there, the film is able to focus its attention on the pair.  The film's ambitions may seem modest at first, but the themes derived organically from the plot and characterization are deep, interesting, as well as uncommon.  This is not  necessarily a good choice if you need a pick me up, or something light and cheerful, but you should still see it some time.  Highly recommended for all.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56873249