Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

Score:  B+

Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac
Running time: 142 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Star Wars, as the world has known it since 1977, comes to a conclusion in this ninth film, and sure enough there are echoes from around this entire galaxy throughout Rise.  Rey, as played by Daisy Ridley, continues as the strong lead in this particular trilogy, and her story takes on even greater prominence than before.  Unfortunately, there's just too much packed in around her, and supporting players like Poe and Finn fall short as it all reaches an exciting yet predictable climax.  Obviously a must-see for fans, but it isn't quite the level of special we've come to expect.


As the First Order, under the command of Kylo Ren (Driver) continues to spread its shadow over the galaxy far, far away, the Resistance fights to survive.  A spy within the Order gives our heroes a breakthrough, revealing that an old foe on an unknown planet is the focal point of their plans.  The last remaining Jedi, Rey (Ridley), ventures out with ace pilot Poe (Isaac), stormtrooper-turned-rebel Finn (Boyega) and Chewbacca to find the planet and defeat their foe before it's too late.  However, Ren - once a Jedi himself - continues his personal mission to find and turn, or destroy, Rey.  The fate of the galaxy, then, rests once more on the outcome of a clash in the Force.

The cast of Rise of Skywalker is quite large, adding to the characters introduced in the previous films in the trilogy.  The lead is Daisy Ridley's Rey, as she has been throughout this Star Wars series (for some stupid reason, though, she is only the fourth actor to appear in the credits).  While the script still doesn't help her as much as it did her predecessor Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), she impressively conveys her own, distinct mix of strength and vulnerability.  She is now almost fully in command of her tangible powers in the Force - from floating serenely in the air to zapping enemy ships with deadly lightning.  Yet she is also still clearly bothered with the mystery of her place in the Force; now that she had ordinary parents, and that she is also the last of the Jedi, what is her responsibility, to the ancient (and essentially extinct) order and to the war raging around her?  Ridley is equally compelling and believable in showing both her internal and external conflicts, and my only regret is that she wasn't given more to work with in this trilogy.  Adam Driver also does well, though I'm not sure he is as successful with Kylo Ren as Ridley is with his opposite in Rey.  I don't think it spoils much to say that Ren remains conflicted for much of the film, and though Driver favors his own, dour mask rather than the Vader-like device, it may hide his own struggles a bit too well here.  Poe and Finn, played by Isaac and Boyega, respectively, reprise their roles as Rey's buddies, but sadly they are less interesting and more generic in this last chapter.  Poe is a bit more the mischievous one, and Finn more protective of Rey, but they really serve the same purpose of following her around until the final battle.  With so much action and attention revolving (appropriately) around those four, the rest of the cast gets bits and pieces, some more effective than others.  Carrie Fisher's Leia gets a poignant and fitting end, and C-3PO has one of the film's more clever, humorous touches.  Still, several of the new characters are pretty much irrelevant, and if you happened to enjoy some of the other returning ones, you may also be disappointed (or if you didn't like them, pleased that they are minimized).

The Rise of Skywalker, as the end (perhaps?) of the Star Wars tale forty-two years in the making, is epic, blockbuster filmmaking; inevitably, there are both thrilling victories and plenty of nagging concerns.  I will attempt to review it here by two standards: as a standalone film, and as an entry in the Star Wars universe.  A new Star Wars movie is always one of the biggest spectacles to experience in the theater, and Rise of Skywalker makes good on that promise.  Plenty of dazzling space battles and intense lightsaber duels, along with a story that, while focused on characters, also features literally planet-exploding stakes.  The thing is, it's getting harder and harder for even blockbusters to truly inspire awe.  The Force Awakens managed this through a modernized visual style on the old school SW feel; The Last Jedi used some new techniques and the element of surprise to achieve it.  Skywalker seems to mostly go with quantity over quality, though, and so it doesn't measure up to the previous two films.  There are exceptions, particularly scenes teased in the trailers (Rey's desert showdown with Kylo, and their duel on the wreckage of the Death Star).  The "bigness" of a film can swallow it up, but Abrams keeps the characters central as much as possible.  Again, fan allegiances may (will, really) sway how you feel about it, but many characters get little more than nods that also help keep the film grounded.  It's the main characters that truly carry the film, though, and here, Ridley and Driver are what make it a worthy adventure (even if Poe and Finn - secondary roles - drag it down a bit).  The pace is rocket-fueled from the start, which in general is just fine and helps the two hour-twenty minute show flow right along, though like Last Jedi it stuffs in too much superfluous material.  The humor is below standard, though the droids, particularly C-3PO, continue to please.

**Star Wars saga commentary - spoiler alert!!!**

As a Star Wars film - both the ninth overall, and the third in this "mini" trilogy - the events of Rise of Skywalker are frequently the culmination of extensive plot and character developments.  Probably the most significant of these are Rey's triumph over the Sith and her embracing the role as the last Jedi; Ben Solo's redemption (Kylo Ren being his "bad guy"/Sith name) and death; the revelation of Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter; and the defeat of the First Order.  I liked the first two results, and have mixed or indifferent feelings about the last two.  While parallel in many respects to Luke's, Rey's victory feels distinct, too; I think her individual resolve shines through even more.  Obviously the Sith have proven rather durable, but Rey (hopefully?) extinguished Palpatine once and for all; if nothing else, he and his pals have no more "home base" to rally from.  The finality of that victory is appreciated, and I'm also glad that Ben's sacrifice did not seem to overshadow Rey's achievement.  In fact, what he - the Skywalker, remember - does is of a literal supporting rather than leading role.  On the other hand, I might have preferred that Rey truly was a "nobody", rather than a Palpatine.  It still works - and the presence of Palpatine himself is important as the symbol of the Sith through the entire saga - but it would have been even more potent to make this one, vital deviation from the family lineage theme.  There's also the defeat of the First Order, which is practically an afterthought, compared to the Jedi-Sith showdown.  Really, the FO was Empire-lite from the start.  The rebels vs. empire rehash was probably the weakest part of the entire trilogy, both lazy and dull, and the weakest element of Disney's bending to demand for the "good old days" of Star Wars.  No one will agree with every single creative choice made, of course, but the fierce debates are both a sign of and the reason for the enduring, widespread love for the galaxy far, far away.

***

The Rise of Skywalker is among the last movies that I will see this year, and therefore the decade, which seems appropriate given its status as the last* Star Wars (HUGE asterisk).  Two of my other favorite franchises concluded their journeys this year, in Avengers and Game of Thrones.  The first was a resounding success in the form of Endgame, improbably pulling together twenty-one previous films and approximately 35890 characters into something not just coherent but emotionally resonant and viscerally powerful.  Game of Thrones... not so much.  An incredible, intricately-constructed six seasons gave way to two rushed seasons where character development went out the window, the plot became predictable, and my favorite characters (Tyrion and Daenerys) were ruined.  So Star Wars falls somewhere in between those two extremes, probably pretty close to the exact middle.  It's inspired me to do a rewatch of the series sometime, similar to what I did with the Avengers movies this spring.  Stay tuned!

**Update, after second viewing:  I enjoyed the film significantly more the second time around, as I concentrated more on the best parts - basically anything with Rey and/or Kylo Ren - and didn't let the swirl around it distract me.  It is still too busy, and Poe and Finn still unimpressive, but it's quite a bit of fun even beyond the tremendous leads.  I also paid more attention to the score, and I must beg John Williams for forgiveness - I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier (I have deleted the evidence!).  So upgrade this to an A- for me, and most likely a spot in my top 10 of the year.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61598068

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Score:  B-

Directed by Marielle Heller
Starring Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Chris Cooper
Running time: 108 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The famous children's TV show creator has been getting his due recently, and not much can strive to do that better than a feature film with Tom Hanks in the title role.  Unfortunately, this biopic does not live up to its ambitions.  While putting Rogers in more of a side role is smart, the core story is almost unwatchable; only when Hanks shows up does it have a pulse.  Look elsewhere for drama in the theaters; or, check out the Mr. Rogers documentary instead (now on HBO).


Dealing with tumult in his personal life both positive (a new son) and negative (a rift with his father), magazine writer Lloyd (Rhys) is given a "fluff" assignment: a brief profile of Fred ("Mr.") Rogers.  Renowned for his deep, cutting looks into public figures, Lloyd's innate skepticism meets its match in the quiet, modest, and almost unbelievably kind Mr. Rogers.  Still, Lloyd hangs around the set of Mr. Rogers' children's TV show, trying to find his angle.  His focus on this article becomes more intense, too, as his personal life continues to spiral out of his control.  Nearing the end of his tether, perhaps only an opening of his professional mind will allow Lloyd to find peace.

A Beautiful Day has a fairly small cast, and the characters involved don't fulfill the roles one might expect.  It is the journalist Lloyd, played by Matthew Rhys, who is the lead, rather than the famed Mr. Rogers (and the vaguely recognizable actor portraying him).  Unfortunately, this lead role is at the center of the film's deficiencies.  Rhys' acting itself is pretty bland, mostly either unengaged or forced despite being placed in a variety of either dramatically or interpersonally dynamic scenarios.  I'm not sure which was worse: the casting choice, or Rhys' effort.  The script doesn't do him any favors (more on this later), but I put a lot on the performance.  In a significant supporting role is Tom Hanks's Mr. Fred Rogers, and he does excellent work despite some challenges.  Yes, Hanks - perhaps Hollywood's most likable actor - is an obvious choice to play the supernaturally kind Rogers.  But when the audience is very familiar with the appearance and personalities of both actor and character, it's also a strange experience.  It's almost like watching a clone of the two of them mushed together.  Still, Hanks does great, nuanced work, picking up on Rogers's trademark slow and gentle physical and vocal rhythms.  Once again, a better script could have improved the effect further, but it's fascinating nonetheless.  Elsewhere, Watson's subtle performance as "the wife" is really good, while Chris Cooper, playing Lloyd's father, appropriately does as poorly as Rhys (like father like son?).

A Beautiful Day is a bit of a paradox in several ways; it's a straight-ahead drama while trying to insert interesting stylistic aspects here and there, and ultimately it's just OK when it could have been great.  The film is at its core a Mr. Rogers biopic, and the central, if unusual, decision to make Fred a supporting character in his own movie was very wise, I think.  Despite having been a flesh-and-blood human being, Rogers is practically fictional for how different he seems to the rest of us; therefore, a "common" person to serve as audience surrogate was useful.  The problem is that the film presents an entirely uninteresting family drama as the main story and frame it with the Mr. Rogers elements, which when added in feel either bizarrely fantastical or simply too different in tone from the rest.  In fact, the family drama story is treated as a giant episode of Mr. Rogers's show - mainly metaphorically, but also literally in a few odd moments (the first scene is a re-enactment of the start of a Mr. Rogers episode - cool! - and ends in Fred revealing a picture of Lloyd - umm...).  I know this is based on a true story - it's a biopic, after all - but Lloyd's family drama is incredibly dull for how well-worn and predictable it is.  Add in the aforementioned poor performances, and too much of the film that doesn't have Hanks/Rogers in it is almost painful to watch.  Rogers's presence almost always boosts things, but it's also frustratingly hampered by the contexts in which he's placed.  Now, it's not all bad.  Most of the scenes on the TV set - and accompanying characters - are pretty good, and if expanded would have been very welcome.  Along with Hanks's overall performance, a handful of parts are pretty special: the final few moments are so good, in fact, it's an aching reminder of how good the whole thing had the potential to be.

***

A Beautiful Day was disappointing to me, but I seem to be in the minority on this one.  It has a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; despite a modest-sized release, it's also made $47 million so far.  It's hard to imagine a more enticing film if you want a feel-good drama than one about Mr. Rogers, and I'd like to see more films coming out with this general premise and purpose.  I also understand that Marielle Heller (who made last year's outstanding Can You Ever Forgive Me?) was trying to frame her biopic in a way that best suited her subject, and perhaps show off some stylistic flourishes here and there.  But - in my opinion - it just did not work.  The family drama was so simplistic, over done, poorly performed and flat-out insipid that even the legendary Mr. Rogers could not resuscitate it.  See it when it comes on streaming if you're really curious - and Hanks's performance is worth getting at least a little taste.  But I would strongly advise you turn to the excellent documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? if you need Mr. Rogers in your life again.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61900962

Knives Out

Score:  A-

Directed by Rian Johnson
Starring Daniel Craig, Ana de Armas, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, et. al.
Running time: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Knives Out is a star-laden whodunnit, a sharp turn for one of Hollywood's most intriguing new directors, Rian Johnson.  Although it's not sci-fi, like Looper or his Star Wars, Knives Out similarly toys with audience expectations for a well-worn archetype.  The cast is sharp and entertaining, and while you may not agree with all the myriad ways Johnson has rearranged the furniture, you'll have a great time anyway.  Highly recommended.


A celebrity is dead, and renowned detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) is on the case.  On the night of elderly crime novelist Harlan Thrombey's birthday - with his entire family home to celebrate - an act of violence throws his clan into disarray.  While it is initially ruled a suicide, Blanc has been hired by a mysterious donor to investigate, and when he interviews the family and house staff, he finds that there are indeed some suspicious details.  Harlan had generated a considerable fortune from his writing, and motives for his untimely demise abound.  But as he finds subterfuge around every corner of the mansion, even Blanc's impressive skills are put to the test to solve this grisly case.

Knives Out has a star-studded cast, and the well-known players seem to be having a blast with their outsize characters.  While there's no clear lead, Daniel Craig's private detective Blanc is at the center of the action.  Similar to his role in Logan Lucky, Craig again shows that he can easily loosen up his acting - in a variety of ways - from the cool 007 he's best known for.  The British actor employs a heavy, sometimes exaggerated, southern drawl, and even as he shows a genial, innocent face to his nervous witnesses, he also has all the skills and attentiveness of a Poirot-style hero.  Craig seems like he might be having even more fun than anyone else, but I have to admit that his approach falls a bit too much into parody for me.  Great fun, but maybe a little too much.  The relatively plain house nurse Marta, played by Ana de Armas, is arguably the co-lead.  Unlike her co-stars, de Armas mostly plays it straight, except for a single incredible, ingenious tic.  A relative newcomer (after an impressive appearance in the Blade Runner sequel), de Armas may be disarmingly beautiful but fully inhabits her modest and quiet, while internally strong yet stressed character.  Chris Evans, famed as Captain America, also plays against type with his selfish, aloof yet calculating heir named Ransom.  Evans puts his considerable charisma to use for ill here, in particular via a scene-stealing, mid-film introduction.  Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette, and Don Johnson are all great as proud siblings bickering over their inheritance - and grudges.  There are plenty of other, smaller roles that are intriguing, too, from Christopher Plummer as Harlan (in flashbacks), to the manipulative granddaughter played Katherine Langford.

Knives Out is a well-made, supremely entertaining new take on the whodunnit genre, thanks not only to its starry cast but also to a rising talent in the director's chair.  Rian Johnson has made just four other feature films including Looper, an excellent but under-the-radar sci-fi flick, and the radar-dominating - and highly polarizing - Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  He very much continues his path of subverting expectations in well-known genres; I think it works even better here, though I don't necessarily love all the individual elements (yet, anyway).  Things seem different right off the bat, as the usually crucial (and later-arriving) interrogation of suspects happens early; rather than letting the secret family histories trickle out slowly, as expected, I was jarred by how much is revealed so quickly.  Additionally, instead of slowly accumulating clues to the murder itself, we get the whole scene played out in the first half.  Thus, the film's main perspective (and therefore the audience's) is actually not Blanc's as the detective, but rather the culprit's, who I will SHOCKINGLY reveal to be lowly little Marta.  But that spoiler isn't as bad as it may seem.  I like the idea of this change of focus, but it personally made me squirm uncomfortably as I oddly began rooting against Blanc from figuring it all out.  The style and context of the film are perhaps just as important as the switcheroo Johnson pulls with the murder plot structure.  It's blatantly taking place amidst current events, and several of the characters reflect either individuals or groups (from Gwyneth Paltrow to social media pundits).  At the same time, much of the dialogue and even action is tongue in cheek or outright silly (from Blanc's hilarious fixation with donut analogies to the world's slowest care chase).  Your mileage will vary to the extent that you buy all this or enjoy it.  I found it hit or miss, but above all I appreciate the efforts of the filmmakers to try something new, providing a great time at the theater.

***

Knives Out is a strong film by itself, one of the year's better entries, but perhaps even more encouraging as a general direction for Hollywood to (hopefully) embrace.  It is a critical hit, its 97% score on Rotten Tomatoes almost unheard of for a genre film like this; audiences aren't flocking to it quite as well yet, with $27 million in the opening weekend, but a strong hold in the coming weeks could make it a financial success, too.  Admittedly, just like The Last Jedi, I wasn't sure how I felt about it as I walked out of the theater, as opposed to, say, Ford v Ferrari (on the positive) or Ad Astra (on the negative).  But I think that is mostly because Johnson is giving audiences films they haven't seen before.  Is it all for the better?  Probably not.  Still, as I harp on this blog regularly, trying new things is essential, in Hollywood as it is elsewhere.  I therefore look forward to seeing this again, hopefully soon, and encourage you to try it (or give it a second watch), too.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61197044

21 Bridges

Score:  B-

Directed by Brian Kirk
Starring Chadwick Boseman, Sienna Miller, Stephan James, J.K. Simmons
Running time: 110 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  21 Bridges is a cop thriller, but it demands attention well beyond that mere label due to the people attached to it.  Chadwick Boseman, now a full-fledged star, is very good in the lead role, and he's supported by quite a bit of other talent, from Sienna Miller to J.K. Simmons.  While this won't make for an enduring classic, the exciting first part of the film and committed performances throughout make it worth a try if you're in the mood.


When police officers are gunned down in a drug robbery gone wrong, detective Andre Davis (Boseman) is brought in in the wee hours of the night.  Davis is infamous as a cop-killer avenger, and after assessing the grisly scene, convinces both his department superiors and New York's mayor to shut down the island of Manhattan while he hunts down the culprits.  Despite having the full force of the NYPD at his disposal, Davis has just a few hours to exploit the trap he's set, and complicating factors - both personal and professional - put his skills to the test.

21 Bridges has an impressive cast, one that gives the film its life but is also restrained from using its full talent.  Chadwick Boseman plays the lead police detective, and he is a steady, compelling focus for this cop thriller.  Having played a variety of both well-known historical (Jackie Robinson, etc.) and otherwise powerful (Black Panther) characters, Boseman has an easy command of the screen.  His detective is a level-headed, talented and sympathetic hero, though the script could have thrown in a bit more vulnerability.  At any rate, he's believable and engaging in the role.  His partner, a narcotics agent, is played by Sienna Miller in a much grittier role than I've come to expect from the actress.  It took me some time to even recognize her, in fact, and she is quite committed to her hard-nosed, at times ruthless, character.  Makes for a good contrast with Boseman's Davis.  Stephan James plays a cop killer, who gets substantial screentime attempting to hideout and flee through the city.  He's portrayed fairly sympathetically, probably overly so, but he does a fine job.  J.K. Simmons gets the final significant role, as captain of the slain officers.  As expected he has an easy air of authority, and nicely shows the conflict between the grief and rage he feels at the crime and his sworn duties.  There are several other smaller roles, the only one worth mentioning being Alexander Siddig's criminal fixer, who makes his cliched role interesting.

Entertaining and solidly made, 21 Bridges doesn't nearly reach its full potential and so is a fine if disposable experience.  For a fairly formulaic movie, this has an impressively talented set of people behind it.  Along with the stars in the cast, it's produced by Anthony and Joe Russo, of Avengers fame, and directed by a newcomer to the big screen in Brian Kirk (who still has great experience with TV projects from Game of Thrones to Luther).  To the extent they're able, these filmmakers provide a gripping and absorbing trip to the theater.  Exposition and introduction is kept to a minimum, while still providing a bit of foreshadowing; it quickly jumps to the harrowing shoot out that triggers the frantic hunt lasting most of the rest of the film.  Tight and tense direction of these bloody scenes, followed by the urgency of Boseman and others in the minutes that follow, are the strongest, most intense in the film.  Unfortunately, Bridges can't maintain that energy and momentum.  There are a few exciting moments later, but the action is mostly predictable, plot- and dialogue-laden affairs (which the actors, again, make as good as they can).  Worse, it becomes apparent, sooner or later, that the whole endeavor is a bit empty.  I don't want to give many specifics, because in the moment excitement and revelations are the main draw here.  Most of the dialogue is decent, if perhaps a bit cliched, particularly later on, but still better than most of its peers.  But once you start thinking beyond the scene-to-scene view of the film, it's disappointingly thin.  As the dramatic stakes lower, the story becomes more formulaic, perhaps just trying to give the proceedings some meat, but of course this doesn't work out too well.  Still, the actors remain committed throughout, and the film does not drag out at all; as I've been writing, if anything you're left wanting a bit more.

***

21 Bridges is a fine film, a good change of pace in this season of Oscar contenders and blockbusters.  More and more, I feel that a film with talented people I enjoy is worth taking a risk even if it's lower-rated (21 Bridges has a borderline 50% Rotten Tomatoes score) or simply taking a different direction than I'm used to.  Produced by Anthony and Joe Russo, whose Avengers I enjoyed so much, and featuring one of today's brightest stars in Chadwick Boseman, I was definitely on board for this, even though I was less enthusiastic about other factors.  I wouldn't rush out to the theater to see this, but it makes a perfectly enjoyable experience if you aren't inspired by (or have already seen) other options.  I doubt I'll ever see this again, but I also don't regret seeing it once; worth giving it a try!




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60786447

Ford v Ferrari

Score:  A

Directed by James Mangold
Starring Christian Bale, Matt Damon, Caitriona Balfe, Jon Bernthal
Running time: 152 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Ford v Ferrari tells the exciting yet complex tale of an historic race, the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans, which ultimately came down to the close bond between two friends.  Those friends are played by titans of Hollywood, Christian Bale and Matt Damon, and they are worth every penny and more that they made.  Surrounded by a strong supporting cast, the leads excel at creating both race track excitement and moments of hilarity.  Come for the stars, and enjoy one of the most well-rounded, entertaining films in recent years.  Highly recommended.


In 1963, Henry Ford II was nervous.  Heir to one of the most famous industrialists of the 20th century, Ford had begun to struggle against his competition.  Nerves turned to rage after being humiliated by the iconic Ferrari, and so he became determined to beat the Italian car company at their own game.  Ford turned to Carroll Shelby (Damon), winner of the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans race in France, to lead a racing team.  While Shelby took to designing a powerful new car, he had stopped racing himself due to a heart condition, and so recruited his brilliant but volatile driver friend Ken Miles (Bale).  Even as the two got to work on the technical challenges of their mission, though, they found themselves opposed by other forces within the Ford company itself before even getting to the race track.

Ford v Ferrari boasts an impressive cast that brings its outsized personalities to life.  Christian Bale is the co-lead as the prickly British race car driver Ken Miles, and he is predictably outstanding in the role.  I've long been a fan of Bale, but his recent string of performances (The Big Short, Vice) has elevated him in my view to one of the best - if not the best - contemporary actors.  Finally employing his native accent, Bale clearly relishes playing the hotheaded master of the race track, fully bringing out the humor and awe it entails but also presenting him as a sympathetic, believable man out of the car.  From struggling with his day job to singing with his son to negotiating with his wife, Bale creates both a very compelling as well as entertaining character.  Add in the nuanced physical traits and tics that Bale does so well, and it's another bravura performance.  Matt Damon, a great actor himself, can't help but be overshadowed.  Yet he does excellent work, too: part Ocean's Eleven-type cool/competent dude, part weary but savvy veteran of his trade, Damon is the perfect yin to Bale's yang.  At times almost an audience surrogate, Damon's Shelby is particularly crucial (and effective) at outmaneuvering scheming Ford executives.  The rest are supporting roles, but there are plenty of good ones.  Top of the list is Caitriona Balfe playing Miles's wife; she's a strong and supportive yet independent woman, with one particularly good scene in which she turns the racing car tables on her husband.  Jon Bernthal doesn't play his usual tough guy asshole (which he excels at) here, but does a nice job as one of the few good guy Ford execs.  Tracy Letts as Henry Ford II and Ray McKinnon as a racing team member are also fun parts in this super cast.

Ford v Ferrari is a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated film, but its overall strength, particularly in its performances and main set pieces, make it a terrific if traditional Hollywood effort.  You'll probably be familiar with the basic premise:  out of a feud between organizations, a scrappy team is assembled that must overcome all sorts of challenges to prevail.  Interestingly, the film portrays the team's sponsoring organization - Ford - as practically the villain.  That's impressive in its own right, due to today's climate of films currying favor with if not explicitly giving them product placement ads for mega-brands (also fun to poke a finger in the eye of arrogant and abusive corporate executives, but I digress).  It also allow the audience to focus even more specifically on the success and well-being of the team itself; despite not caring for car racing at all myself, I felt fully invested.  Clearly a lot of care, thought, and effort was put into the car races themselves, dazzling in their variety and excitement.  You've got everything from a dusty, backyard-league-type race, to glitzy NASCAR-like fanfare to prestigious, weighty affairs in the Le Mans race itself.  Not only do the settings differ significantly, but the stakes and the challenges in each are unique (most involving the crucial human  element).  Even the training scenes can be breathtaking, thanks in large part to Bale's committed, intense performance, and often involve humor, none better than Damon's taking Henry Ford on a bowel-loosening joyride through an obstacle course.  Speaking of humor, there is plenty of it; not only are Bale and Damon terrific in their timing, but some scenes left me howling, such as a throwback, middle school-like brawl between the two stars as Mrs. Miles looks on, bemused.  The boardroom intrigue, race car action, and consistent laughs flow together so well that the two-and-a-half hour run time just flies by.  The end is admittedly a bit abrupt, just as in a car race, but it's ultimately appropriately done.  It's not all happily-ever-after; there are searing losses and wonderful journeys concluded, in a few well-placed, poignant dramatic moments.

***

In a very up-and-down year at the movies, Ford v Ferrari is an extremely enjoyable triumph.  The film doesn't really go with the newest Hollywood trends, let alone try to break new ground; though it does subtly hint at some important themes in society (timeless themes, at that).  Still, it does a great job effectively blending the classic style of film with something that feels modern; otherwise, it ran the risk of feeling rather stale.  As a non-racing car fan, I can confirm that others like me will find this plenty enjoyable; if anything, I found myself more intrigued by some of the minutiae of the sport that gets bandied about than I would have thought possible.  And that's attributable to just how connected I felt to the team, led by Bale and Damon's characters.  I highly recommend this for any and all audiences.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60921288

Zombieland: Double Tap

Score:  B+

Directed by Ruben Fleischer
Starring Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin
Running time: 99 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The most sarcastic but deadly zombie hunters are back for more in Double Tap, a sequel to 2009's surprise hit Zombieland.  It can't capture the same freshness and lighting in a bottle of the original, but it doesn't really try.  Instead, it leans on the reliable core cast and adds some welcome new faces to the mix in a simple story with much more thought for detail than the usual sequel.  Recommended for fans of the original, and anyone looking for action-comedy entertainment.


Intrepid survivors of the zombie apocalypse Tallahassee, Columbus, Wichita, and Little Rock (named for their hometowns) have gotten the hang of their new environment, and move into a long-abandoned White House.  While still close as a group, Wichita and Little Rock - practically sisters - decide something's not right, and take off one night.  But Wichita soon finds herself dumped as well, after the pair meet a charismatic new guy promising sanctuary, a promise Wichita doesn't believe.  She comes back to her old friends for help, and they set off in search for Little Rock - but find the landscape has changed, with new residents both living and dead.

Double Tap has a large cast - surprisingly so, considering it's the apocalypse - but both the returning and the new faces are pleasant presences.  Woody Harrelson's Tallahassee is arguably the focal point of the four returning stars, still an unabashed hillbilly whose bark belies a soft center.  He becomes a bit more a leader here (relatively speaking), particularly in his guardian-like role with Little Rock.  He still has plenty of put-downs for Columbus, but even here he pulls back some.  Harrelson clearly takes great relish in the role again, and is key in giving the film a laid back feel.  Jesse Eisenberg's Columbus and Emma Stone's Wichita engage in a surprisingly ordinary relationship, despite the desolation and danger around them.  Eisenberg gets a more active part here, though he's no longer top dog, and Stone seems to just be enjoying hanging out with her goofy pals again.  Breslin's Little Rock has her own story this time, although relatively little screen time considering its importance to the main plot.  She's the least recognizable of the originals, but maybe that's because we didn't really get to know her the first time.  Along for the ride this time is a fun group of newcomers, generally playing either doppelgangers - or polar opposites - of the main cast.  Zoey Deutch gets the biggest role as Madison, Wichita's opposite as a dumb blonde.  She's also literally a competitive opposite, vying for Columbus, and Deutch's performance along with a clever script gives the film an important jolt early on.  Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch are basically Tallahassee and Columbus clones, and the film plays it knowingly.  They're not around long, but they mimic their counterparts well.  Avan Jogia and Rosario Dawson also appear, as a community hippie and Elvis hotel manager, respectively; mostly they're plot devices, but Dawson is an appropriately formidable presence.

The Zombieland sequel is among Hollywood's better attempts at a follow-up to a surprise hit; it doesn't aim too high but it hits its marks pretty accurately.  As irreverent and self-aware as the first film was, the sequel is even more so.  The first few minutes are basically the trailer for the film; slo-mo zombie takedowns and a house-warming White House montage (the latter of which would have made a pleasant surprise, but oh well).  Fortunately, the story kicks into gear before long, and splits in the team - both geographically and emotionally - are well conceived.  Still, it's the first newcomer who makes the film feel distinct from its predecessor.  Madison's bimbo-ness stretches the silliness of the tone without breaking it, but she also fits into the more dramatic character dynamics, too.  While Little Rock is on her own, somewhat bland path (although the parody on apocalyptic haven tropes is broadly funny), the new Gang of Four gets more fun.  There are new zombie foes, from super deadly "Terminator" drones to harmless "Homer" dolts.  And the meeting of Tallahassee and Columbus and their clones is a highlight, from a dorky/hilarious rules competition to an exciting zombie battle.  After that, the action proceeds fairly predictably to the end, although there are still some glorious moments of fun to be had.  The film runs its course not much over an hour and a half, and that's just about the perfect amount of time to spend reconnecting with these old friends.  But stay for the credits, or you'll miss what's possibly the best part!

***

In a sea of sequels, Double Tap is definitely well above average, particularly among 2019's largely disappointing offerings.  It's been a modest success with both critics (68% on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences ($27 million opening weekend).  Along with sequel fatigue, it's probably also partly a result of this being the tail-end of the zombie phenomenon; even The Walking Dead is fading away.  But it also does a lot right: it's been ten years since the original, so we're ready for another taste of what was a successful formula.  And it introduces some fun new characters and a few clever ideas/ gags, while resisting the urge to go overboard and lose the spirit of the first film.  If you enjoyed the original, definitely see this; it's a summer-like action comedy treat right in the middle of fall!




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59805887

Joker

Score:  A-

Directed by Todd Phillips
Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz
Running time: 122 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short: Joker is a film showcasing one of the comics' most famous villains, illustrating how he came to be.  Phoenix's interpretation of this old standby is a worthy addition, and he keeps you on edge the whole time.  Controversy has erupted over its violence and other themes, but I would argue it's earned a valid, thoughtful discussion of a variety of topics.  Be prepared, but also don't be afraid to give it a shot and decide for yourself.


In a small apartment lives Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) and his mother, Penny; he struggles to support them, working as a clown and dealing with multiple mental illnesses.  They are in Gotham City, a huge metropolis with soaring towers and larger-than-life figures, but also ubiquitous crime and poverty on the streets.  While Arthur and his mother laugh each night at the antics of TV hosts like Murray Franklin (De Niro), he finds a much tougher crowd in his clown makeup.  A tragic, violent encounter on the subway one night rips apart Fleck's tenuous status quo, and he begins to delve into his personal history just as wider events threaten to swallow him.

Joker has a small cast, and nearly every moment is focused on the infamous, titular comic book villain.  Joaquin Phoenix steps into the role this time, one that has seen a wide variety of actors and styles, from Cesar Romero to Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger.  Phoenix's Joker is front and center, of course, and so it's the most well-developed look yet at this famous character; it's also an origin story and thus (mostly) pre-Clown Prince of Crime, Batman's archenemy.  Both physically and psychologically, Phoenix is disturbing yet spellbinding.  The tone of his voice makes him sound like a boy, and indeed he behaves childlike in most scenes, unsettling yet understandable due to his upbringing and mental problems.  Arthur is awkward in all social settings, only truly comfortable either with his mother or alone, where he often writhes and even dances, which Phoenix uses to show a certain release but also tangible sign (through his contorted physique) of long-term neglect.  One of the Joker's primary features, his laugh, is cleverly used as a manifestation of Fleck's illness, and Phoenix develops an effective one, at times innocent and pitiful, at others menacing and creepy.  Ultimately, Phoenix's Joker/Fleck is a perfect fit for this Gotham City, and his performance is one worthy of the full attention it receives in every frame.  De Niro has a small part, and one mostly at a distance, but he's a perfect fit as the idolized talk show host who also shows more underneath in a key scene.  Zazie Beetz brings her significant charisma with her to her role as Fleck's neighbor; another small part, yet still distinct and crucial to the film.  Frances Conroy and Brett Cullen are the other notable players, as Penny Fleck and Thomas Wayne, respectively, who do good work.

Joker is a contentious film, but also a highly thought-provoking one that's engrossing and well-made for the most part.  It's also, of course, a comic book adaptation, yet change some of the names here and it's really a fairly regular (if dark) thriller/character study.  The simple title is apt, because this really is all about Phoenix's Fleck.  We get a close, sometimes uncomfortably so, look at everything from his debilitating if unpredictable mental illness - including uncontrollable laughter (a stress response, it seems) and delusions - to his stressful, thankless day job as a clown (and his wary colleagues) and his evening routine with mother, seemingly unchanged over many years.  An eerie, effective score helps set the scene, too, building throughout the film.  Thanks to the city itself - which is really the co-star, in a way - the film gets narrative momentum before long, an inexorable yet often surprising and poignant journey for Fleck from a trampled nobody to his criminal destiny (ironically, revered by many).  The script is strong, much of which is captured in Fleck himself, but it also has a good flow and pacing.  The film effectively shows how the various aspects of Fleck's life - his comic aspirations, workplace, relationships - affect each other, and on top of that how key incidents change those directions subtly yet profoundly.  The comic book elements only gradually reveal themselves, and at times they are the film's clumsier moments.  Along with the psychological darkness, there is considerable physical violence.  While it makes a certain amount of sense in the context of the Joker character's history, it's obviously one of the most controversial elements; I can understand the concern over it, but most of it does at least fit appropriately in the story.  The ending is also debatable, one in which the film's restraint, which loosens along the way, breaks away completely and we get an outright horrifying vision that melds together the fate of Fleck and Gotham itself.  Wrapping things up yet representing just the beginning of a universe of comics lore, it's one that left me intrigued.

My thoughts in the week since seeing Joker have been drawn towards that path Fleck takes in becoming the Joker.  I think it's driven by a confluence of very real factors: his mental illnesses, his physical abuse as a child, and the wider society (which provides few opportunities to someone like Fleck, makes him vulnerable to random crime, and even cuts the few lifelines to treatment he depends on).  These are all distressingly realistic scenarios, ones which too many individuals face every day (obviously, in a wide variety of forms and degrees).  But this is all kindling, as bad as it has made life for Fleck.  It's the tragic coincidences and confrontations that truly turn that bad situation into an inferno.  And I don't mean to say that Arthur is innocent in all this, that he is merely a victim: he clearly makes not just wrong but evil decisions that are at least as important as those he can't control.  But a final aspect of his life that is essential to see is the lack of love and support in his life.  Without it, those crucial decisions he makes are based on knowing that he is truly alone - to fight for his own survival, to fight for revenge against his many (real and perceived) tormentors.  So as an origin story for the Joker character, it's a grim but appropriate tale.  We should be very careful, at the least, in applying anything from the film to the real world.  But I think it's important to be mindful of both the dangers and/or vulnerabilities of the above (mental illness, abuse, classism, racism) and to realize that we must love and respect one another to overcome these and other challenges.

***

Joker is one of the most hotly debated films of the year, as evidenced by a lukewarm 68% on Rotten Tomatoes, and more so by getting everything from the Venice Film Festival's Golden Lion award, to scathing critiques from leading social thinkers.  As you can probably tell, I found it a fascinating film, if nothing else (I definitely need to see it again, at least).  Well-made overall (particularly Phoenix's performance), and while it is troubling or questionable in some parts, it provides an in-depth origin story for one of pop culture's most famous villain's as well as taking an unsparing look at some very real-life issues.  Beyond discussion of the explosive themes, many critics point out similarities to Martin Scorcese films like Taxi Driver.  I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on comparisons, but it's yet more to be discussed.  I don't exactly want to see a lot more comic book/superhero movies in this particular style - but it's good to see a different take on one of my favorite genres.  I do encourage most audiences to give it a try; some will love it, some will hate it, but that's just one of the things I love about the movies!



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60399334

Brittany Runs a Marathon

Score:  A-

Directed by Paul Downs Colaizzo
Starring Jillian Bell, Michaela Watkins, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Lil Rel Howery
Running time: 103 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The title may capture the basics of this dramedy, but there's much more going on in this high-quality film.  Led by a great performance from Jillian Bell and a superb supporting cast, new filmmaker Colaizzo also pens a fantastic script to overcome a few newbie hiccups.  This is probably not what you're expecting, but it's for the better.  Highly recommended.


Brittany (Bell), in her late-twenties, finds herself adrift and growing - but in the wrong ways.  Her doctor warns her of the risks of not getting her weight under control, and so she grudgingly hits the streets of New York, if not at a brisk pace.  There she finds a whole new world of runners, from other aspirers like herself to the long-time enthusiasts like her seemingly-perfect neighbor, Catherine (Watkins).  As Brittany struggles to take control of her physical life, a domino effect of other changes begin in her life, and she relies on relationships both old - such as her close brother-in-law, Demetrius (Howery) - and new - such as slacker house-sitter, Jern (Ambudkar).  Despite her devotion, it's a hard road to travel, and the goal of transformation is hardly assured.

Brittany Runs a Marathon has an ecclectic yet excellent cast, led by its title character.  Jillian Bell, a notable but mostly peripheral up-and-comer, takes on the lead and breathes genuine, gripping, and sympathetic life into her ostensibly ordinary character.  Aided by a tremendous script, Bell avoids a minefield of cliches and other acting dangers to create a truly unique, believable character.  Cynical and jaded at the start due to the everyday ways others - and she herself - treat her, the inevitable turn toward improvement and self-respect comes in fits and starts.  Yes, she's funny, but it's not her dominant feature or strength; rather, it's her will power and quiet, steady persistence that shine through.  She is capable of lashing out at others - even friends - in ways that mirror her own wounds, yet Bell ultimately allows her deeper, less showy humanity win out.  She's basically like anyone else but also her own self, and thus the definition of a great character.  Everyone else is supporting, but they provide a rich, varied web of relationships for Brittany.  Watkins and Micah Stock are her running buddies; Stock is good comic relief, and Watkins is a standout in several poignant scenes.  Howery is laugh-out-loud at times, as expected, but succeeds in quieter moments, too.  But Ambudkar nearly steals the whole show, as a hilarious deadbeat early who develops organically into a flawed yet warm, likable guy.  Only Alice Lee, as Brittany's toxic roommate, overplays things a bit, but her role still produces the intended results.

Brittany, both the character and the film, begin as potentially derivative stereotypes that immediately deliver more meaningful and entertaining - and far deeper - results than expected.  The premise is a familiar one in which a character with a central, visible flaw works to overcome it through an overall transformation.  That's fine, but you need either a really impressive script or performances to get something out of it that stands out.  Fortunately, Brittany has both.  I'm having a hard time recalling any film that sketches out a more vivid and believable real-world scenario than this.  It's of this moment in time, finding a place for everything from social media to opioids in a natural way while not flaunting them.  Most important is the seeming mind-meld between first time writer-director Colaizzo and star Bell.  While the actress communicates both subtly and devastatingly with her mere body language, she also delivers her great lines just the way they need to be.  If everyone else in the film were mere scenery, though, it wouldn't have been nearly as good.  As in real life, Brittany shows that we owe who we are at least as much to those around us as to our own efforts and traits.  Brittany may have lived with a longtime "friend" at the start, but that and the loss of other relationships had a direct effect on her spinning out of control.  While she takes the initiative herself to turn things around, it's only by meeting and truly getting to know Watkins' once-reviled neighbor - and a few other friends - that it takes hold.  And when setbacks threaten to upend her efforts, it's both new and old friends again who help her back up.  There are a few awkward turns along the way, and some conversations that get a bit too on-the-nose; when Brittany's feeling down, the cable TV-quality score is also an ear-sore at times.  But Brittany gets the important things right - oh, and she does run that marathon, and it's at least as uplifting as hoped - and in ways that you probably won't expect.

***

Brittany Runs a Marathon is a great success of its own, and an equally good sign for the film industry overall.  Produced by tech giant Amazon, this is a far better effort than its well-intentioned but poorly executed Late Night from earlier this year.  If we can get more creative, talent-driven films like these funded going forward, it's only a good thing for film.  Colaizzo, up to now involved in theater, and Bell, a supporting comedic actor, are the kind of people we want leading films; what we don't want is efforts like Ad Astra - coasting on familiar names and previously-successful formulas to disaster.  Since this is from Amazon, it will hopefully be available on Prime at some point.  Be sure to give it a try when you can!



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60964660

Ad Astra

Score:  C-

Directed by James Gray
Starring Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga
Running time: 124 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Brad Pitt is an astronaut with a family legacy to live up to in this sprawling sci-fi picture.  Despite a promising set up, Ad Astra ends up adrift due to trying to be both a serious, awards-style drama and an exciting adventure.  The script is nowhere near up to the task, and Pitt, left to work pretty much solo, isn't, either.  Not recommended for any but the most hardcore sci-fi fans.


As humanity reaches further and further into the galaxy - including a moon base and frequent explorations into deep space - the Earth itself begins to be subjected to mysterious power surges.  Astronaut Maj. Roy McBride (Pitt) meets top officials, who inform him that the surges may be emanating from the mission of the famed Clifford McBride, Roy's father.  The younger McBride agrees to lead a search mission, though just getting to space requires a battery of sensitive psychological testing and work with a team of eager yet naive flight mates.  Clifford has not been seen or heard from in sixteen years; has his personal quest grown out control, endangering his son and many others?

For a big movie, Ad Astra has a small cast, and even fewer significant players involved.  Brad Pitt is the focal point, as Maj. McBride.  One of Hollywood's last remaining megastars, Pitt really doesn't show us anything new here; in fact, it's an underwhelming performance that he seems vulnerable to now and then.  His McBride is the brooding hero type, stoic to the outside world (particularly on those pesky psych evals) yet supposedly anguished and conflicted on the inside.  A large portion of the blame goes to the inert script, but Pitt just can't seem to resist being seen as an ubermensch, cooly competent and unerringly right when those around him flail helplessly.  This movie is crying out for emotional connection, but Pitt can't provide any.  There really aren't any other major characters; the most important is the elder McBride, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who is seen in brief recorded clips until a few minutes of live action.  Jones makes sense in the role but he's wasted; the inevitable father-son reunion is sterile, and Clifford disappointingly dull.  Ruth Negga gets the next biggest part but it's basically a plot device to help Pitt on his way; and Liv Tyler gets to play yet another Sad Wife (it would have been better to cut this part entirely).

Ad Astra tries to be both Prestige Pic and exciting action film; it never strikes the balance and ends up failing altogether, save the visuals and a few set pieces.  The premise and near-future world of the film are at least interesting.  A mysterious, long-lost explorer may hold the key to averting disaster on Earth, and it's interesting, in the first part of the film, seeing the imagined space infrastructure - from massive, miles-long low orbit stations to a commercialized moon base.  Some of the action is exciting (although ultimately predictable), and the cinematography - esp. eerie blue Neptune and its rings - is well done and the film at least knows enough to give it a co-starring role with Pitt.  But frankly, it's just a mess after that.  It tries to achieve two main narrative goals, both through Pitt: make his way to deep space to (physically) find his father and prevent a disaster; and, ostensibly more importantly, emotionally find his father and inner peace.  Unfortunately, the script is a disaster, both in the overall plotting and the scene-to-scene execution.  The threat - power surges - is on one hand too abstract, but also happens to strike at the most convenient times (if not for poor Pitt) to try to juice the film with a little action.  The government is implied as a cynical, if not sinister, force... yet Pitt ends up doing exactly what they want him to do, anyway.  Much of the action is also ludicrous, if not unintentionally hilarious, from murderous space monkeys, to Pitt literally surfing through Neptune's rings, to a space shuttle version of the airplane take off-stowaway ploy(!).  Some of this might be acceptable if the film was just meant as a simple blockbuster, but most of the time it is clearly trying to be a Dark, Slow, Awards Bait movie.  This is where the father-son portion comes in.  But for all the voice-over describing how Pitt felt abandoned by his father and has now ruined his own life by following in his footsteps, there is absolutely no feeling of connection to either McBride or their relationship.  The movie tries to shoehorn in beats from other (far superior) sci-fi films to achieve prestige and power, but they are all for show, and all the emptier by comparison.

***

Ad Astra is another disappointing film in a year that has been worryingly full of them for me.  I am rather stupefied that it has an 83% score on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment (though some critics do seem to share my far more negative views on it).  I must say that my interest in sci-fi has waned quite a bit in recent years; partly because they are usually too dark and moody, partly because I'm tiring of many of the well-worn tropes (Ad Astra grates on me with both of those).  On the other hand, I have called for more original films from Hollywood in this very space in other reviews.  Well, this is not the way to do it.  If you're a huge sci-fi fan, hey, give it a try - maybe you'll like it more than I do, as many of the critics do.  But otherwise, I recommend just skipping it altogether.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61092966

Hobbs & Shaw

Score:  D+

Directed by David Leitch
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Vanessa Kirby, Idris Elba
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Hobbs & Shaw brings the high adrenaline action of the Fast & Furious franchise, with the feuding couple of Johnson and Statham taking the original family's place.  If you've seen other F&F films before, you'll know what to expect - along with an extra, unpleasant dollop of the leads' out of control testosterone race.  Yeah, there are a few interesting stunts - but not nearly worth it for everything else you have to put up with.  Avoid.


When an MI6 task force attempts to secure a secret biological weapon of mass destruction, a terrorist group led by Brixton Lore (Elba) intervenes.  The task force's leader, Hattie Shaw (Kirby), is forced to inject herself with the dormant weapon and flee, but she is soon on the run not only from the terrorists but also her own leaders.  Longtime rivals Deckard Shaw (Statham), Hattie's brother, and Luke Hobbs (Johnson) are called in to find her; they both begin the search, but refuse to work together.  The clock is ticking, however, and soon the virus will kill its carrier - and likely unleash a plague on the world.

Hobbs & Shaw stars two of the newer and bigger, literally and figuratively, stars of the Fast & Furious franchise, along with several welcome additions.  Dwayne Johnson, as the unlikely global star emerged from a start as a pro wrestler, is the 1A lead of the film as Luke Hobbs.  While he has shown some considerable acting skill in other film roles, Johnson quickly falls back on the masculine posturing that can still trap him, a likely vestige of his wrestling days.  He is quite good at bringing the camera and audience's attention to himself, but here it's all testosterone-driven, which he tries and fails to offset with an occasional and awkwardly forced lighter side.  Statham, as Deckard, lacks the star wattage of his co-lead, but his character and performance are at least a bit more honest and consistent.  A gruff, self-absorbed criminal, he grudgingly works for the good - though only because his sister is in danger.  The film's ugly humor also therefore fits him more naturally.  Vanessa Kirby, off a nice supporting role in last summer's Mission Impossible, is the most interesting - when she gets the chance to be.  Mostly she's the damsel in distress (despite being a trained MI6 agent), but early in the film shows some fun spunk.  Idris Elba, a great actor and particularly in villainous or intimidating roles, is utterly wasted here.  He's about as physically imposing as possible (even referred to as "black Superman"), but his script is disappointingly bland and, frankly, so is his performance.

Hobbs & Shaw, while a spin off of the main Fast & Furious franchise, still retains most of its cousins' DNA - for good, but mostly for bad.  The biggest difference is in fact the most obvious one: most of the F&F team is on the sidelines here, with only relative newcomers Hobbs (joined in the fifth film) and Shaw (first starring in the seventh film) leading the way.  The plot is outright conventional action blockbuster, though the franchise overall has moved this direction, too.  Although the obvious reason for teaming up Johnson and Statham is to amp up the fight scenes, H&S still has several set pieces featuring vehicles.  As we've come to expect, these are over-the-top, to one degree or another.  The most ridiculous one, involving chaining cars together - while moving - to bring down a helicopter, produces the most delirious fun in the film.  Aside from it, despite boosting the intensity and stakes in just about every way possible, little else manages to achieve this one pleasure that you hope to get out of a F&F film.  Mostly, it's a failure of imagination.  Oh, a random virus that can kill every human on Earth?  Hmm, a broken man rebuilt into a nearly indestructible cyborg?  When everything is Extreme As Possible, it all loses its potency.  Then we get to the truly bad parts of F&F, which H&S carries on proudly (and/or obliviously).  No one goes to an action blockbuster for the writing, but these scripts are so bad they make my head hurt.  Only a cameo from Vin Diesel, delivering a choice line in his trademark horrible way, could have made it worse.  Along with the usual cringey, forced "all for family" schlock, H&S spends a lot of time on very unfamilial insult duels, racing each other to the lowest common denominator.  Here, "art" seems to imitate life, as Johnson and Statham apparently were concerned to a very, very sad level about how much they each got dissed and punched compared to the other.  The competition extends to their fictional sex lives as Statham, angry that his "sister" may take a liking to Johnson, gets Eiza Gonzalez to make out with him before disappearing again.  There is impressive stunt and effects work on display in H&S, and I don't want to dismiss their efforts - but when it comes to the guys on screen, yuck.

***

Hobbs & Shaw checks many of Hollywood's warning boxes, yet still suckered me to see it in the theater.  I've seen several of the other F&F movies before; what they've been able to boast in effects and stunt work has always been canceled out by mind-numbingly poor scripts and performances, even by action blockbuster standards.  Still, I thought H&S might finally be the one to acknowledge, if not fix, the past problems while keeping the fun parts.  Symbolically, Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Hart both show up in cameos (sorry to spoil - but hopefully you won't see this movie anyway).  At first, it was nice to see them.  Instead, both their presence and the film as a whole worsen the main problem at the franchise's core:  film as the most purely blunt weapon possible, bludgeoning its audience at every turn - from the silly action to the false family moments - telling, demanding you to accept what it wants (and fails) to be.  This will be the last Fast & Furious move I ever see - theater or otherwise.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59828436

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

Score:  B+

Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie
Running time: 161 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Quentin Tarantino takes audiences back to one of his beloved eras - in the world and on film - in late-60s LA.  Appropriately, contemporary superstars DiCaprio and Pitt lead the way in a movie focused on recreating the look, sound, and feel of the past.  Considering that the plot is secondary, it's a bit long, but there's still plenty of fun to be had in one of the auteur's most relaxed works yet.  A great way to spend a warm summer evening.


Los Angeles, 1969, is a city in transformation, with some old stars fading into obscurity and new ones just beginning their rise.  Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) is a long-time TV star, but has found himself resorting to one guest role after another.  He is followed in his set-hopping by old friend and stunt double, Cliff Booth (Pitt), once a star in his own right.  After meeting with a big time producer, Dalton sees one last opportunity to revive his dying career, though the habits he's fallen into over the years present formidable obstacles.  Meanwhile, Booth's encounters the city's growing population of hippies as he journeys through the city, at once fascinated and suspicious of them.  A sprawling place, LA still isn't big enough for the increasingly divergent cultures it contains, and a clash is inevitable.

Once Upon a Time... is anchored by two of Hollywood's biggest megastars, but has a lot of other familiar faces, too.  Leonardo DiCaprio, as the fictitious fading TV star Rick Dalton, produces a tremendous performance, the best in the film.  Most effective are the acute and diverse ways in which he shows Dalton's vulnerability and crisis of confidence; these range from subtle withdrawn postures to hilarious, full-on meltdowns.  Any positive trigger in his life brings out the old confident, even egotistical side - it's always lurking - but it's a ruthless time in LA for Dalton, and DiCaprio shows the turmoil it causes exquisitely.  Pitt is fun to watch as usual, too, but his "cool guy" routine is not appropriate for the role, in my opinion.  Whether it was intended to be that way, or Pitt just made it so, it doesn't quite add up.  It's hard to blame him, though, considering the overall vibe of the film, and he knows how to do it.  Margot Robbie portrays the famed Sharon Tate; although she gets quite a bit of screen time, she has very little dialogue.  It's primarily a visual role, something the gorgeous Robbie is well-suited for, though she also still does a good job conveying her character's care-free, innocent demeanor.  There's a dizzying number of cameo roles (portraying both real and fictitious people... it gets confusing), from Al Pacino to Lena Dunham, but the big three are the primary players.  Still, two supporting roles stand out: Julia Butters as Dalton's precocious young Method-actor (not actress) co-star, and Mike Moh in a brief but hilarious scene as Bruce Lee.

Once Upon A Time is one of Tarantino's most intimate and personal films, full of his trademark style but ultimately too indulgent to achieve greatness.  The setting - a blur of real and made-up LA and Hollywood from the late-60s - is another new one for Tarantino, but as usual it is guided by highly flawed yet intriguing individuals.  The narrative is of very little consequence here; Tarantino instead seeks to - and succeeds wildly - bring the audience into the scenery, from the eternally bright sunshine to the glorious classic rock to the vintage garb of the cool kids.  Unfortunately, two hours and forty minutes is rather long for such a meandering film, and Robbie's role (in addition to the foreboding of her very presence) is basically to give the film super-charged jolts of this style as interludes within Dalton and Booth's stories.  Easily fifteen minutes of this could have been cut out.  Still, Tarantino undeniably creates an absorbing, unique feel that is its own pleasure.  Despite being close partners, Dalton and Booth basically split off into separate adventures.  Thanks largely to DiCaprio's work, I found Dalton's professional struggles - from hilarious trailer meltdowns to clever exchanges with his young co-stars to his on-set failures and triumphs - more compelling.  But the film seems to favor Booth's, with its higher-stakes conflict and historical context.  It is also the one that leads directly to the film's conclusion; having resisted for almost two-and-a-half hours, Tarantino at last unleashes his typical, brutal violence.  While I liked that he once again inverted history for the audience's sadistic, vengeful pleasure, it was also not nearly as easy to fully surrender to it as in the slaughter of evil Nazis and slave owners in Basterds and Django.  A surprising yet somehow smooth end for the film, I walked out, like Dalton, satisfied if not unruffled.

***

While Once Upon a Time falls short (for me) of my favorite of the auteur's movies, it's still a high-quality and refreshing change of pace in the summer season.  Neither a sequel nor a reboot, this - like Tarantino's other films - stands by itself yet is out to entertain just as much as any blockbuster.  While the TV seasons have been thrown into disarray by streaming, the movie schedule has budged little.  It does make sense to have more big, popcorn action spectacles in the summer than in other seasons, but it's great to have a little variety, too.  Right now, only a handful of visionary filmmakers - Tarantino, Nolan, Scorcese, etc. - seem to get the resources required to reach a mass audience.  They are making not only the films we want to see today - mixed with the blockbusters and other genre standards - but also the ones likely to inspire the next generation's visionaries.  Be bold, Hollywood!  Highly recommend Once Upon a Time, but if you're sensitive to gore and violence, careful about the ending.




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60263751

Toy Story 4

Score:  B+

Directed by Josh Cooley
Starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Christina Hendricks, Tony Hale, et. al.
Running time: 100 minutes
Rated G

Long Story Short:  Toy Story 4 is a somewhat surprising continuation of Pixar's flagship franchise, returning Woody (Hanks), Buzz (Allen) and the rest.  The film is positively bursting, with new characters, various plot lines, and, of course, laughs.  Not as consistent or as soaring as earlier entries, the fourth is still a very strong animated adventure.  Recommended for all.


Woody (Hanks) and Co. are happy with their new child owner, Bonnie, who plays with them just like Andy used to (even if Woody now gets left in the closet at times).  Bonnie is about to have a little less play time, though, as she's set to begin kindergarten.  At orientation, she feels lonely and makes herself a new toy from a plastic spork.  Bonnie becomes quite attached to it, but Woody is kept busy preventing Forky (Hale) from throwing himself away.  All the toys come along on a family road trip, but Woody and Forky soon get separated from the rest.  Making their way to the family's destination, they find old friends and new foes, learning new lessons both about becoming attached and finding your own way.

The Toy Story family, already filled with famous voices, adds quite a few welcome additions to its ranks in this fourth installment.  Tom Hanks's Woody remains the lead, ever the loyal and courageous toy.  Hanks's versatile, emotive work once again provides the dramatic, emotional anchor in a story with several familiar themes but also new ones that allow Woody some introspection.  Newcomer Tony Hale, as the improvised toy "Forky", is arguably the co-lead here.  With his high-pitched, cheerful yet nervous voice, Hale is a perfect choice for the obliviously, sometimes pitifully, amiable misfit.  Tim Allen's Buzz Lightyear is relegated to second-string in part four, although he is at least as funny here as before.  Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is technically a returning character, though she missed part three and is much different as well as more prominent in a lead role.  Potts does well showing her as a strong, independent woman (toy).  While the rest of the old gang is around, the only other significant parts go to newcomers.  My favorites are (Keegan-Michael) Key and (Jordan) Peele as prize toys Ducky and Bunny.  They are just as hilarious as you'd expect, bringing their own brand of humor but still fitting it neatly into the tone of the Pixar-verse.  Christina Hendricks plays a rather familiar-seeming villain, this one off-setting her ruthlessness with a cheery lighter side.  Finally, Keanu Reeves also (literally) crashes the party as Canada's own Duke Caboom.

Toy Story 4 is a very strong animated film and (final?) entry to the franchise that launched Pixar, although its world's very familiarity leads to diminishing returns.  For Part Four, the filmmakers retained much the same overall structure that we've seen before (at least until the end), while mixing things up more in the details.  There's yet another new toy (Forky), charming on its own yet threatening the old guard with competition for attention.  But not only is Forky not interested in this competition in the slightest, he's even (early on) unsure of his identity and purpose - an object of almost pure imagination and almost too blank of a slate, which is intriguing.  The "villain" is the most disappointingly self-plagiarized part of the film, tweaking just the surface details but basically the same as the Prospector or Lotso from previous films.  It results in part of the film's final act being fairly anti-climactic.  However, Bo Peep's rogue is a breath of fresh air.  She's untethered from any human - but unlike other toys in the series, she loves it.  The film very cleverly yet subtly combines this attitude with the form of another iteration of Hollywood's recent (and welcome) explosion of strong, interesting heroines.  Woody is helplessly drawn to her, at first by their past closeness, but then is unable to resist confronting the idea he has always been so strenuously opposed to: being childless.  On a more general level, Toy Story 4 is as funny as its predecessors, but less consistent in overall quality.  Buzz's revelation of his "inner voice" is hilarious, as are Bunny and Ducky's asides, though the film has less of the series' genius humor in its natural flow.  Similarly, the pacing is rather uneven; for example, most of Forky's development occurs early on before suddenly switching gears to the traditional toys-get-separated adventure (not surprising, as eight people are listed as working on the story).  While the journey is a little rougher along the way this time, the film's true ending is both pleasantly surprising and also appropriately sweet.

***

Toy Story 4 is yet another sequel, but like Spider-Man, represents a significant improvement to the summer's offerings.  Well over half the films I've seen this year - and all of the summer titles so far - have been sequels or remakes.  That's the result of my own choices, and there is a huge range in outcomes for these films (I've also avoided some prominent ones, like Godzilla - "fool me once..." - and Aladdin - "eh...").  Toy Story 4 is one of the franchises that has produced rewarding sequels, though both it and Pixar in general are probably at the point where going back to original ideas for awhile is for the best.  As I've said before, all of Hollywood could learn some valuable lessons by studying what this incredibly good animated studio has been doing for over twenty years now.  Sequel/remake fatigue or not, I highly recommend Toy Story 4 for families and anyone else.





* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60272362

Spider-Man: Far From Home

Score:  B+

Directed by Jon Watts
Starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Samuel L. Jackson, Jake Gyllenhaal
Running time: 129 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man: Far From Home is the latest film in the MCU superhero world, as young heroes like Tom Holland's Peter Parker look to fill the boots of RDJ and the old guard.  It works as both general, crowd-pleasing summer blockbuster and as an exciting vanguard of the franchise.  It overstretches in most areas just a bit, but that's based on the MCU's high standards; go see this whether you're an MCU devotee or simply want some summer fun in the theater.


Months after the Avengers restored order to the universe - and half its souls - society continues to adjust.  For Peter Parker (Holland), that includes strange effects on his high school, where he and many of his classmates pick up where they left off even as others - now five years older - have moved on.  He is relieved for the chance at a break via a field trip to Europe, and decides to leave his tights and web-slingers at home.  Meanwhile, however, new threats have already surfaced.  Nick Fury (Jackson) and Maria Hill find that what appeared to have been massive storms were actually attacks by elemental creatures.  These creatures came from another world in the multiverse, a byproduct of the crisis averted by the Avengers.  Fortunately, a new good guy, Mysterio (Gyllenhaal), came along with them.  Parker just wants to enjoy some quiet time, but finds himself pulled into the latest danger; soon he must decide what part to play in this dangerous new, post-Iron Man world.

Far From Home returns most of the cast from the MCU's first Spider-Man film, Homecoming, and adds one more famous name to it.  Tom Holland reprises his role as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man, and while it's his second "solo" movie, he has now appeared in five total MCU titles.  That means the audience is now comfortable seeing him - the third actor, and by far the youngest - in the famous role, yet there remained plenty of room to explore his new take on it.  The film focuses most on Parker's continued ambivalence over his role as Spider-Man, and Holland conveys this convincingly.  In his many scenes with his classmates, he fits in easily, as awkward and nervous around them as he is in battle.  He remains one of the MCU's most charismatic new stars, and has developed good chemistry with his cast mates, particularly Zendaya.  She, playing MJ, gets a significantly larger role this time, actively involved in both the action and personal moments.  While still mostly the same quiet girl with an air of indifference, MJ also breaks out of that mold here, particularly as her feelings for Parker grow.  Yet she maintains integrity of the character, something many young actors fail to do in such a transition.  Jake Gyllenhaal is a great new addition, a warm, father-like figure to Parker early on before revealing a delightfully weirder side as it goes on.  MCU mainstays Nick Fury (Jackson) and Happy (Favreau) are welcome presences; the latter gets perhaps his most interesting MCU part yet, while the former just feels a bit off.  Finally, the other students - and two teacher chaperones - get significant screentime; while amusing, they ham it up a bit too much occasionally.

Spider-Man: Far From Home definitively shows that the MCU still has plenty of creative gas left in the tank following Avengers: Endgame's epic conclusion to the first eleven years' worth of films.  It plays a similar role to the Ant-Man films - relatively light "chaser" diversions on the heels of massive Avengers adventures.  Still, while there is plenty in here for the MCU fan excited for the franchise's new direction, it is also a general crowd-pleaser, largely thanks to its coming-of-age dramedy elements.  Parker's pursuits of MJ are front and center, but even sidekick Ned gets his own romantic subplot; to go with this drama are the hijinks of a group of teenagers fooling around as tourists and their exasperated teachers giving chase.  Unfortunately, I found it to be a bit overdone, losing the subtle touch of Homecoming's school scenes.  Certainly plenty entertaining, still, but both the script and the performances almost seem to be grasping to match the intensity of the action.  This aspect, too, is amplified in comparison to the previous film.  Spider-Man and Mysterio's raging battles with elemental beasts (animated forces of water, fire and so on) are just the appetizer.  The action is best when Spider-Man is trying to save lives - stopping a building from falling down, for example - and a scene involving ever more elaborate illusions is a true highlight.  But it also drifts towards too big and too much at times, the screen becoming so busy with CGI that it begins to blur together.  Some of that busyness is a direct consequence of the plot, which is well conceived.  It's not hard to see from early on that it's going to have a major twist, but it's nevertheless a clever one.  Really, it's all good, from the plot to the action to the Parker scenes, with the MCU's typically high level of quality.  Pulling back on it all a little could have made it truly special, but it's still another strong superhero movie.

Now, as the MCU geek I am, I'll delve a little into details related to the franchise overall - so feel free to skip this, either if you're not interested or want to avoid SPOILERS!!!  As the first film post-Iron Man, Cap, and (???) Thor, Far From Home gives us some interesting possibilities while still leaving much up in the air.  The villain's mission, to manufacture artificial crises just so that he can play the "hero", makes perfect sense in a world with a major superhero vacuum.  There are still plenty out there, of course, but leaderless and recuperating (physically and otherwise).  Throughout the film, I felt there was something off about Nick Fury, so it relieved me but also horrified me when the post-credits scene showed that he and Hill were Skrulls in disguise the whole time.  I had really hoped that Captain Marvel would be the last we saw of those aliens, but apparently not.  Maybe it's just a one-off thing - but what the hell was that ship the real Fury was on?!  Finally, maybe most importantly, I'm glad that the film remembered Peter Parker is still just a teenager.  He's figuring himself out, and - despite his impressive abilities and tech - is vulnerable to clever, manipulative foes.  Obviously this is worth keeping in mind due to the other credits scene (JK Simmons is back!!!), but also something the MCU needs to replicate throughout its new chapter: the heroes just keep getting more and more powerful, from Black Panther to Captain Marvel, and they need their own challenges (perhaps even "kryptonite"), too.  But so far, so good.  Excited to see what's next for the MCU!

***

Spider-Man: Far From Home fortunately breaks a streak of disappointing sequels/spin-offs this summer, both maintaining the MCU's remarkable critical-approval streak as well as surely blowing up the box office.  We've been in uncharted waters with the MCU for years now - how it can sustain both critical and popular success while producing multiple new films each year, each of which is strongly tied to all the others - but now we'll see if it can survive the loss of its three leading/ "founding" actors.  Hollywood and theaters increasingly depend on not just the superhero genre but specifically the unprecedented success of the MCU; Endgame and Captain Marvel are #1 and #2 this year, combining for more than 20% of the entire box office.  Here's the thing: Marvel hasn't been making extraordinarily entertaining, high quality clones for these 11 years.  It's improved, taken chances, and pushed cinema to new places with its continuing narrative form.  That is a formula not exclusive to Marvel, and if Hollywood wants to survive and thrive in this new media world, it should take notes.





* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60832103