Spider-Man: No Way Home

**SPOILER WARNING!!!***

Score:  A

Directed by Jon Watt

Starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe

Running time: 148 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man: No Way Home is the first truly great addition to the MCU, post-Avengers, thanks to its combination of carefully-crafted nostalgia, epic action, and well-earned emotional pay off.  Long-time superhero movie fans will be thrilled to see the return of familiar faces from as long as twenty years ago, and somehow it all mixes well with the current generation.  The MCU's typical humor is still fully on display, too.  There's no better choice for a winter blockbuster - highly recommended.

Directly following the events of Far From Home, Peter Parker's (Holland) secret identity as Spider-Man is revealed to the world - and he soon finds himself mobbed by both the media and authorities.  Parker's secret, along with his being framed for earlier events, upends his life both personally and as a superhero.  Hoping to fix the situation, he seeks help from Doctor Strange (Cumberbatch); Strange agrees, but the solution does not go as planned.  Instead of less attention, Parker suddenly finds himself pursued by even more - and deadlier - foes.  Spider-Man and Strange, along with Parker's school friends, have overcome long odds before, but now they must face a completely new kind of challenge.

Spider-Man: No Way Home is excellent, a high mark for the post-Avengers: Endgame Marvel superhero movies that shares many of its predecessors strengths.  It's impossible to tip-toe around the spoilers, so to just lay it all out: No Way Home is certainly still part of the Avengers world and all its characters, but it also incorporates characters (and played by the original actors) from the previous Spider-Man film series; specifically, the five from 2002 to 2014.  As I've written before, the first Avengers film was an impressive accomplishment from a difficulty standpoint alone, fitting in multiple solo-leads, each with their own style and tone, into a seamless, exciting team.  Well, No Way Home had a similar challenge in mashing many characters together, but perhaps an even greater one in that these were all definitely intended to be three separate "universes", from a filmmaking perspective.  Again, they borrow a proven strategy from Avengers: a healthy dose of humor, allowing time to just shoot the breeze.  No Way Home also retains the particular brand of light, silly humor from Homecoming and Far From Home, especially in the first part of the movie.  When Doctor Strange arrives - the only other Avengers hero here - they include him in the fun.

Continuing with the Avengers comparison - and, with the original band now broken up, Spider-Man now serves as essentially the anchor of the MCU in its place - the stakes, both in action and emotion, are also ramped up from previous Spidey films.  There is quite a bit of action, the best of which takes place in the first half of the film: a great duel between Spider-Man and Doc Ock, with his menacing tentacles, on a bridge, and an Inception-like, dazzling chase between Spider-Man and Doctor Strange in the Mirror Dimension.  The climactic battle is not all that spectacular, especially compared to the titanic sets from the Avengers movies.  But it makes up for it by being packed with emotion and touching moments.  Those familiar with the Maguire and Garfield movies will get Spidey-tingles from some of the callback moments but ultimately, Holland's hero is now our main Spider-Man and he is faced with not one but two gut-wrenching decisions.  This comes at the end of an especially grueling movie for Peter Parker; an intense battle in the middle act results in a death, one that marks a sad but powerful end to his carefree web-swinging days.

Already, No Way Home has the typical Marvel bases covered in providing great, plentiful humor as well as some crackling action scenes; and it goes beyond many of its kin with the level of emotional investment.  But there's still yet another layer: the addition of the Maguire/Garfield film characters.  The story twist to get them involved in the first place is brilliant, combining Parker's newly-revealed identity with Doctor Strange's abilities.  The villains get the most screen time, led by Octavius/"Doc Ock" and Osborn/ "Green Goblin", and they are still charismatic; their remarkable presence winked at while still remaining deadly dangerous.  But again, as typical with the MCU, the focus is on the hero.  The question is how Parker is to deal with them: leave them to their original fates, or try to save them knowing the dangers?  Maguire and Garfield, entering pretty late in the film, mostly serve to both add humor and also help their new Spidey-brother - with their webs, yes, but moreso with their hard-won ethical experiences.  It pays off, as Holland's Parker makes the ultimate, non-death-related sacrifice at the end to prevent utter chaos.  The final scene, the quietest of the film, is devastating and well-acted by Holland and his young counterparts.  No Way Home starts with the light and silly and develops over a lightning fast two-and-a-half hours into a solemn but hopeful ending with few clues but much excitement for what comes next.

***

Spider-Man: No Way Home is just the kind of awe-inspiring blockbuster that is great to see in theaters around the holidays, similar to the Lord of the Rings movies twenty (!!!) years ago.  I really enjoyed the previous Holland Spider-Man movies, especially Homecoming, but No Way Home truly belongs with the top MCU films like Avengers (and its sequels), Black Panther, and Captain America: Winter Soldier.  While the post-Avengers Marvel movies have all been solid to really good, this proves that they can also still hit the electrifying heights of the previous generation.  There's still one other (potential) big blockbuster for me to see (The Matrix sequel) before turning back to more Oscar-type outings and, hopefully, some pleasant surprises, as the early months often bring.  First, though, be sure to watch this one (I'll be seeing it again, myself)!

* By https://www.sonypictures.com/sites/default/files/styles/max_560x840/public/title-key-art/spidermannowayhome_keyart_1400x2100_v2.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69217407

West Side Story

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Starring Ansel Elgort, Rachel Zegler, Ariana DeBose, David Alvarez, Mike Faist

Running time: 156 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  All-time great director Steven Spielberg took on the challenge of updating an all-time great musical in West Side Story with high-quality, entertaining results.  Whether you're seeing this story for the first - or the thousandth - time will, of course, affect how you receive it.  But the music and dancing will blow away even the most skeptical audiences, enough to override some concerns with the lead actor and - to me - some elements of the story/structure itself that haven't aged as well.  Highly recommended.

In 1950s New York City, two gangs, the Jets and the Sharks, vie for control of a neighborhood that will soon be taken from them both.  Riff (Faist), leader of the Jets, pleads with recently-parolled Tony (Elgort) to help his old gang push out the Puerto Rican Sharks once and for all.  Tony is conflicted, having a sense of opportunity after being released from prison, and he meets Maria (Zegler) - sister of Sharks leader, Bernardo (Alvarez) at a dance.  Romance blossoms quickly between the two, but tension between the gangs also increases.  The outcome for the community seems inevitable, but choices by individuals still have the power to change hearts and minds.

West Side Story, Steven Spielberg's adaptation of the famed musical, is a faithful, crowd-pleasing production that will dazzle a wide audience.  Before getting to the details of this film, though, my own - and likely many others' - reaction to it is strongly affected by context.  I'm referring, of course, to the audience's familiarity with the musical - on stage and/or the 1961 film version.  I confess that I had not seen West Side Story in any form before this, though I knew the broad outline. So, I personally had few expectations and no direct comparisons.  What I did see earlier this year was another musical, In the Heights.  These musicals are much different in many ways, of course, but they still share some important similarities: historic, tight-knit NYC neighborhoods on the verge of major change; focus on immigrant experiences; and so on.  The sensation of seeing these two within six months was a bit like drinking Coke with a brownie - both taste great on their own, but together, their similarities are not a great mix.  Both are great movies, without a doubt - I just wish that they'd been released further apart.

What stands out most to me about West Side Story is the music. This is actually what I was most familiar with before seeing the movie: not only had I heard all the main tunes, I had played several of them in band.  The music was stuck in my head for days after, particularly "Tonight" which is reprised or adapted throughout the film.  My favorite, though, is "America", and this also goes to the next best thing about West Side Story: the dance routines.  The choreography and performances are spellbinding; the precision and athleticism to the creativity, emotion and storytelling.  "America" is where this all comes together best, I think.  But there are plenty of other great numbers, too, from the bravura "Mambo" dance to the silly "Gee, Officer Krupke" to the quietly affecting "Maria".  The teams of performers that bring these numbers to life are led by a strong cast - though the supporting players outshine the leads.  Ariana DeBose as Anita and Mike Faist as Riff are the true stars; unsurprisingly, both have extensive stage experience.  They both let it rip, whether in the dance numbers or just the raw expressiveness of their dramatic roles.  Rachel Zegler as Maria is also a tremendous singer, but in my opinion the part is simply not very good; she is Tony's love interest, that's about it.  And Ansel Elgort as Tony is probably the weakest link in the cast, unfortunately.  He is a decent singer, but his acting is a bit embarrassing next to DeBose and Faist.  Finally, the movie was a bit long for my taste - though it's almost exactly as long as the original, so I sympathize with Spielberg for prioritizing faithfulness in his adaptation.  Still, the strengths are easily worth putting up with a few weaknesses - which may not be weaknesses based on your own context!

***

West Side Story is the second-consecutive Oscar-caliber movie I've seen in the theater, but shares little else in common with the first, Belfast.  I'll repeat: your own familiarity with West Side Story will probably determine just how good you find this adaptation.  Another element to consider is that, though Spielberg has updated the visuals (it still takes place in the 1950s) and other framing details, the story and structure is - I think - left mostly untouched.  Bringing back my comparison to In the Heights, there is a considerable difference - plot, characters, and music aside - between a musical made in the 1950s and one made in 2005 (when Lin Manuel Miranda launched Heights).  I highly recommend giving this 2021 adaptation (by one of the greatest directors of all time, no less) of one of the best musicals of all time a chance in theaters!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/west_side_story_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68730791

Belfast

 

Score:  A

Directed by Kenneth Branaugh

Starring Caitriona Balfe, Jamie Dornan, Judi Dench, Ciaran Hinds, Jude Hill

Running time: 97 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Belfast is the latest from writer-director Kenneth Branagh, an awards season contender that is also the filmmaker's most personal, intended as a semi-autobiography.  The film is led by its excellent cast, and Branagh achieves an impressive balance of a realistic style with riveting entertainment. Come for the acting, stay for the scenery and sounds; highly recommended for theater viewing.

In late 1960s Belfast, young Buddy (Hill) is growing up in a close-knit community with his brother,  parents and grandparents. A spasm of turmoil and violence - the beginning of the Troubles - jars the city, however, and so regular childhood life is soon joined by a parallel atmosphere of danger, tension, and increasing awareness of differences amongst what was once a unified community.  Even as Buddy passes by soldiers and checkpoints on his way to school each day, he is still more concerned with impressing the older kids, working on his math homework, and receiving the doting attention of his grandparents.  Buddy does also become more aware of his father's tenuous situation, one that threatens to disrupt his daily life even more than the Troubles.

Belfast may be a modest, small-scale drama but, loosely based on writer-director Kenneth Branagh's childhood, it is very well made from beginning to end in all facets, adding up to a big impact.  On the surface, it has obvious comparisons to the 2018 Best Picture winner, Roma.  It, too, was based on the upbringing of its filmmaker and, appropriate to the theme of memory, shot in black and white.  They also both contrast a fairly ordinary family life with nearby political upheaval and violence.  Still, the structure and tone of the films are distinct.  Belfast is more dramatically-heightened, with both clearer narrative lines as well as more intentionally high and low points, emotionally.  But Belfast is driven primarily by a scene-by-scene, day-by-day realism like Roma, a mode that is effectively given shape and direction by the supporting elements of a few family "plot points" and the background of the Troubles.  There are many shots of the streets of Belfast, sometimes bright and full of children and laughter; at others dark and quiet with perhaps a single man patrolling the middle.  The family home also receives lots of attention.

Driving the realistic scenes of Belfast is an outstanding cast.  Jude Hill as Buddy, an 8-10-year-old stand in for Branagh, is among the best child actors I've seen.  He is really the key to the film, present in almost every scene, and following him was as natural as watching a documentary, yet hitting all the beats in  entertaining and/or emotional ways throughout.  Not even a glimmer of self-awareness in the corner of his eye; this is a true performance of childhood innocence.  The parents, naturally well-attuned to both their children's ordinary development as well as the harrowing conflict all around them, are also played with effective realism by Caitriona Balfe and Jamie Dornan.  Balfe gets the more substantial role and provides the film's biggest emotional moments and fireworks in an excellent performance; Dornan is good, too, in a more subtle, side role.  And Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench mostly just get to have fun, as grandparents should, but each also gets some powerful moments as well, befitting their talents.

Belfast doesn't rely on only its intriguing characters and specific locations; there is plenty to keep someone restless like me engaged.  The first scene is the showiest of the film, while also setting the stage well for what is to come.  I don't want to spoil it, but it all takes place on a single block, the camera swooping up and down it, while a radical transformation takes place before your eyes.  The running length is just about perfect, as is the pacing; Branagh keeps the tone consistent throughout, but mixes up the dialogue versus the still shots, the serious and the humorous effectively.  As mentioned, Belfast is shot in black and white and this plus some impressive cinematography makes it a pleasure to simply look at.  Finally, it's also nice to listen to.  Van Morrison did the soundtrack and his slightly jazzy instrumentals are fun; they seem a little out of place at first, but play a key role in setting the overall tone.  And music plays a key role in a dance scene seemingly out of the blue near the end; it was both the most joyful and, surprisingly, touching of the movie to me.

***

Belfast is the first Oscar contender I've seen this year - in fact, the first I've seen in a theater for nearly two years.  It was quite a way to start that familiar season on the movie calendar - I could easily see this winning, and deserving, the Best Picture prize.  I'm not quite sure it ranks as an all-time classic yet, but it is certainly high-quality in every way, and also among the most entertaining of its kind.  Hopefully I'll continue to get to see a variety of movie genres at the theater in these next few months - there are some blockbusters I'm looking forward to, and with any luck some smaller films like Belfast will pop up, too.

* By Studio and or Graphic Artist - [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68638309

Eternals

Score:  A-

Directed by Chloe Zhao

Starring Richard Madden, Gemma Chan, Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek, Kumail Nanjiani

Running time: 157 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Eternals introduces a host of new heroes in this post-Avengers Marvel world, and these guys are quite literally heavenly.  With a sprawling, fantastical premise and so many characters, a fine balance was necessary; many critics assert that it failed to find it.  But I was impressed by this true team - no individual stands above the rest - and Oscar-winning director Zhao's focus on them, through whom the action and everything else becomes more engrossing and specific.

Thousands of years ago, just as human civilizations began to emerge, a group of ten beings called Eternals were sent to Earth to protect our ancestors from alien predators.  The Eternals hunted these aliens for many years, and remained on Earth through the present day, disguised as regular people.  When two of the Eternals, Sersi (Chan) and Sprite (McHugh), are attacked, they suspect that the pattern they've followed for thousands of year has been disrupted.  As they reunite with the other Eternals, Sersi learns more that challenges what she thinks she knows.  Having settled in among the humans, Sersi is shaken awake to the stakes involved not just for the planet but for worlds beyond.

Eternals, despite being part of the Marvel movie universe I love, shares many elements of movies that don't tend to work well; but somehow, it does work here.  It's similar to the Avengers - and especially Infinity War and Endgame - in that properly balancing a large number of characters, the background (which in this case is entirely new), and the current plot is enormously challenging.  The big risk is that so many elements will end up as window dressing within a busy but incoherent two-and-a-half hours.  Fortunately, Marvel has continued to land the most appropriate directors, from the hidden gems (Joe and Anthony Russo) to bigger names - in this case, recent Best Director Oscar winner, Chloe Zhao.  I haven't seen her other work yet, sadly, though I do know that it is almost in the opposite of a Marvel blockbuster.  Zhao and the screenwriters wisely stick to the Marvel tradition of focusing on the hero characters while balancing the action and plot pretty effectively; at least, in my opinion.

Marvel movies have become associated with their interconnectedness; not just returning characters, but narratives that run through a dozen and more films.  Well, Eternals is about the least connected Marvel movie I've seen in a long time.  I actually missed the main connection while watching it, but I can safely say it doesn't affect your enjoyment or understanding of the movie.  The reason it's relatively standalone is that the premise starts literally at the beginning - how Earth was formed and humans developed (Marvel's fictional version, of course).  Eternals doesn't bombard you with all the details at the beginning, though; you get just enough to start, and then a combination of flashbacks and a bit of present-day dialogue fills in the rest of the picture.  The movie's first action scene follows the initial exposition; it and a few other skirmishes throughout are admittedly ho-hum, by Marvel standards.  But there is more tension in the action scenes than usual, as several heroes die in the film, a rarity for Marvel; despite their raw power, there is a clear sense of their vulnerability.  An action scene in the Amazon is particularly good, with multiple phases, unpredictability, and emotion.

The crowd of heroes that make up the Eternals - ten in all - are a charismatic bunch, helping to increase concern for their fates in those action scenes.  While there are no true standouts, most give solid to very good performances, and Zhao uses their contrasting personalities to maintain energy and variety through the long running time while minimizing the downside of not being able to focus on any one for too long.  Sersi (Chan) and Ikaris (Madden) bring a more traditional romance to the Marvel universe, though one clearly shaped by their powers and mission.  Kingo (Nanjiani) and Phastos (Henry) bring the comedic element though in distinct forms, while Sprite (McHugh) and Druig (Keoghan) bring sharp contrarian personalities.  And there's even more, if somewhat overshadowed: Thena (Jolie) brings both power and vulnerability, and Makkari (Ridloff) confidently represents the differently-abled.  The plot is interesting and, in the main, straightforward enough to follow without straining (I got lost on a few supporting elements, but it didn't matter).  Yet it is the journey of following these characters, as they go from ancient alien saviors to present-day individuals immersed in humanity, that drives the movie.  We don't get any images of civilians fleeing the crumbling of a city (though there is an epic CGI creation to behold); Zhao instead trusts the audience to see the global - and galactic - stakes through her ten heroes.  The final battle, reminiscent of a great one in Infinity War, pits the heroes against their own motivations more than any external enemy.  You can quibble with the execution of this scene or that one, the pacing, and so on, but Zhao truly directed Eternals in just the way it had to be.

***

Eternals brings yet another dimension to the Marvel movie universe: a historic, almost divine one.  I am glad that they let this one stand pretty much on its own, post-credits sequences aside.  And despite the length, I am also even more interested than I usually am to see this one again in the theater.  Critics have savaged this movie, which I think is mostly because they are tired of Marvel movies and are eager to pounce at the slightest opportunity to be negative.  It certainly is not a perfect film, but if they actually gave it a fair chance with an open mind, I feel more would see it the way I do.  I encourage you to try it for yourself, whether or not you are a Marvel fan!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/eternals_ver3.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67750433

Dune

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Starring Timothy Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Jason Mamoa

Running time:

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Dune marks both the latest adaptation of a classic sci-fi novel and the newest film from one of my favorite directors, Denis Villeneuve.  Especially considering the challenge involved, Villeneuve and his impressive cast and crew succeed remarkably well in being both faithful to the source and also cinematically rewarding in its richly created world.  I wish that they had trusted the audience to figure the story out without hammering the plot, but those who haven't read the novel recently may appreciate the help. Highly recommended for theater viewing.

In a distant future in which humans have spread across the stars, the House Atreides is ordered by the Emperor to move from its home planet to the desolate but important desert world, Arrakis.  Atreides is led by the Duke Leto (Isaac), who is determined not just to continue harvesting an essential, valuable resource on the planet, but also to make peace with the long-subjugated native people there.  He is joined by his concubine, Lady Jessica (Ferguson), who trains his son in the mysterious ways of the sisterhood known as Bene Gesserit.  However, House Harkonnen, rival to Atreides and former rulers of Arrakis, are infuriated with the change in the balance of power.  As Atreides adjust to their strange new world, they must reckon with both friends and foes from afar and close at hand.

Dune, the latest film adaptation of the classic sci-fi novel, is an entertaining, stylish, and intriguing work; nevertheless, due to the nature of the source material, it's also impossible to get it all right for both the fans and the newcomers.  The movie starts in just the right place, though: Denis Villeneuve, one of my favorite contemporary directors, was a perfect choice to make it.  There is a lot to unpack in Dune, the novel, but Villeneuve's mastery of big, awe-inspiring cinematic sights and sounds, making you truly feel like you are inhabiting the world in front of you, addresses its most critical element.  Sure enough, Villeneuve, the cinematographer and a host of production and effects artists capture the expanse of the desert world, one filled with wind-swept, sun-beaten vehicles, buildings, people and creatures.  Soaking these in, in the quieter moments, is actually even more impressive than the movie's action scenes.  There's also plenty of great sound, especially the Bene Gesserit "voice" and the colossal, booming movements of the tech. The soundtrack is also very good - Hans Zimmer is one of today's best composers - but I can't help but feel Villeneuve's former collaborator, Johann Johannsson, who tragically died a few years ago, would have made it even more special.

Dune is an adaptation - as many films are - but this one has bedeviled Hollywood for decades, such as 1984's infamous attempt.  I read the novel over the summer, since I knew Villeneuve would be directing the movie, and now I know why it's been so hard to adapt: there is a LOT in it (some parts of which are stylistically dissonant), much of it takes place in characters' thoughts, and, frankly, the book itself is uneven in quality (in my opinion).  The film mirrors the book in that the characters are hit or miss. My favorite by far is Lady Jessica, and I think they found the perfect actor in Rebecca Ferguson to play her.  She is truly the heart and soul of the story, at the intersection of the family aspects (mother of the main character), the political intrigue (concubine of the Duke), and the fantasy parts (a Bene Gesserit sister). Jessica - and Ferguson - is beautiful and entrancing, loyal and loving yet with as distinct and strong an agenda and interests as any other character.  Timothy Chalamet also does a good job in main role as Paul, portraying a gradual maturation rather than jumping suddenly into hero mode.  On the other hand, Jason Mamoa was a poor choice as Duncan Idaho, as well as the accompanying expansion and dumbing down of the role.  I also might have chosen someone more abrasive than Oscar Isaac for the Duke, though he does a fine job; Stellan Skarsgaard as the revolting villain is a better match.

Dune is made at such a high-level of quality, but I also couldn't help myself from thinking about what I would have done differently (although I take this itself as a positive sign; any movie that keeps me thinking later on is a good one).  I had the advantage of having recently read the novel, but selfishly I wish that the movie was more ambiguous, and even more atmospheric, versus the plot and action.  Too much is just stated outright, and one of the pleasures of the novel was sort of piecing things together for yourself; show, don't tell, and let the audience work on it!  The story is an important forerunner of much sci-fi/ fantasy to come (Star Wars, etc.) but the results of some of its familiar structures (e.g., "the Chosen One") have been done better by its successors.  So more emphasis on the sights and sounds of the world (courtesy of Villeneuve and his team's talents), and characters (played by an exceptional cast) speaking more natural dialogue - rather than exposition - would have been refreshing (to me).  Cut down on the action scenes, which are mostly referred to in passing in the novel, to make room.  Still, I'm mostly nitpicking; while you may recognize the outlines of this story, it's the details brought to life by the filmmakers that make this necessary viewing in a movie theater.

***

I'd been looking forward to seeing Dune - for longer than usual, thanks to the pandemic.  But, like Bond, I'm really glad that the studio didn't just dump it on streaming and bypass the theater (though Dune is also available now on streaming, too).  Those two films also felt similar to me in other ways, whether it's Hans Zimmer composing the music for both, a reaction of good-but-could-have-been-even-better, and darker than typical (but not dismal) tones.  Well, next up will be a return to my current favorite franchise, Marvel, with The Eternals.  It's also getting to the time of year where Oscar hopefuls should start showing up.  Stay safe, but head to the theater if you can for one of these big screen-optimized options!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/dune_ver16.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68273917

No Time To Die

 

Score: A-

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga

Starring Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes

Running time:

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Delayed a eighteen months by the pandemic, Daniel Craig's fifth Bond movie finally hits theaters, and I'm glad they resisted the urge to just put it on streaming.  It isn't Craig's best, but the first half makes a trip to the theater well worth it.  No Time To Die follows through on Craig's previous outings, so not only do you get the usual spectacular action and locales, but also an emotional payoff.

In the aftermath of James Bond's (Craig) defeat of Blofeld, leader of the terrorist organization Spectre, he takes Madeline (Seydoux) on an Italian getaway but soon finds that he cannot escape his life as a spy so easily.  Years later, with Bond out of the picture, a team of commandos raids a biological weapon facility in London and makes off with a dangerous prize.  Bond begrudgingly gets back into the "game", but much has changed since he last fired his Walther pistol.  Although Blofeld is in prison, Spectre is alive and well but no longer the only gang threatening the world.  Bond will need all his allies, both new - including the agent who took his place as 007 - and old - like tech expert Q - to prevent catastrophe.

No Time To Die is a very good, if uneven, entry in the James Bond action/spy film franchise.  The first half or so of the movie is especially good; if it had kept it up, it might have been the best Bond yet.  It's no secret that this is Daniel Craig's last time in the 007 tux, and the first part of the film combines both action and, unusual for a Bond film, emotional elements in a rollicking start.  Before getting to the present day, an extended prologue includes an intimate, mysterious (and chilling) Bond-less intro followed by a more typical pre-credits action set that leaves you shaken and stirred.  After an intriguing, quieter setup of the main plot, the film lets Craig's Bond indulge in the kind of showy, slightly winking action set that was more common for his predecessors - but it works for Craig, too, as kind of a last hurrah.  Craig himself is upstaged here, though, by a brilliant CIA agent in Ana de Armas (Craig's co-star from Knives Out).  She is a traditionally gorgeous female counterpart yet is also cheerfully nonplussed by her famous partner and drops baddies shot-for-shot with him; it's a scene of pure, fun adrenaline.  The new 007, played by Lashana Lynch, is much more restrained (perhaps too much the quiet, well-trained agent) but she also has her moments and, like de Armas, ensures this is not a one-agent show.

While the second half of the film is not bad, it falls back on a more predictable path with less creative energy.  There are some missed opportunities, or moments that should have been better, particularly between Bond and an old flame.  The main villain, played by Rami Malek, is disappointingly bland (though his henchmen, including a rogue scientist and a traitor, are fun), and the inevitable assault on his secret island base feels too obligatory with not enough variation.  Still, the film's status as the finale for Craig's Bond helps keep the stakes high, and it's much more personal here than in most Bond endings.  There are a good number of franchise callbacks, particularly in the music, throughout, which helps maintain the feeling of the film's place in Bond's history.  It's quite long at over two-and-a-half hours but it has very good pacing, and the focus on Bond's fate makes it feel more like a regular length film.  Just as 007 would have it, though, there's no wasted time at the end; just a nice final shot that both circles back to the beginning for Craig and (hopefully) launches into the next era for Bond.

Bucking franchise history, Daniel Craig's Bond, over the course of five films, established and concluded a satisfying narrative and emotional arc.  Casino Royale is still my favorite - not just of Craig's films, but of all Bond movies.  And Skyfall is also a more consistently excellent film; I need to rewatch the others, Quantum of Solace and Spectre, to decide how they fit in.  Craig himself made an excellent James Bond, and the unifying arc turned out to benefit each individual film.  Going forward - certainly, I hope that we'll get more Bond! - there are things I'd like to see carried forward and others changed.  I do like having connections between the movies but it doesn't have to be anything major; the Craig arc is a good model for how much to do there.  But I would also like to see more of an emphasis on Bond's spycraft and the relationships - both with his allies and his enemies - in the next iteration.  Partly, this is because Casino Royale proved this model can work brilliantly - and partly because the action genre is becoming both overcrowded and, in the case of a few films like John Wick and its sequels, doing it better than Bond.  So much more could be mined from examining the tensions between Bond's traditional attitudes - toward women, booze, violence, etc. - and contemporary sensibilities, too.

***

No Time To Die is a nice, entertaining way to kick off the fall movie season; I got to it a little late.  I have been a Bond fan since 1995's GoldenEye (and I'm still partial to Pierce Brosnan), and many franchises in general, from Star Wars to Harry Potter.  Among other reasons, I find it enjoyable getting to know these characters that we get to come back to again and again; yet also see the evolution or variations by different actors and/or eras of filmmaking.  Next up for me will be Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of Dune; I'm looking forward to this sci-fi classic by one of today's most talented directors.  And as the pandemic hopefully continues to recede, I'm looking forward to a more normal rhythm of movie theater-going.  Bring on both the familiar characters and worlds, and the exciting new ones!

* By Official James Bond 007 Website, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61977088

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

 

Score:  B

Directed by Destin Daniel Cretton

Starring Simu Liu, Awkwafina, Meng'er Zhang, Tony Leung

Running time: 132 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is the last blockbuster release of the summer, and an entertaining note to end the season on.  Like Captain Marvel, it's too preoccupied with the extraordinary elements at the expense of the more important characters.  Still, the kung-fu action is great and there are plenty of interesting elements introduced - and hopefully more fully developed later.  Recommended for a trip to the movies.

Shaun (Liu) and Katy (Awkwafina) are best friends, valets by day and partiers at night, who seem content with their day-to-day lives.  When Liu is attacked by a gang seeking a pendant, however, Liu is snapped out of his carefree life and back to his Chinese upbringing.  His father, Wenwu (Leung) is the leader of this gang and so he goes to his sister, with Katy in tow, to warn her.  Wenwu is after much more than a typical gang's bounty, and only his children know the dark history behind it - a history that also created their family.  Liu, his sister and Katy must work together to prevent this darkness from being unleashed on the world at large.

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (I'll go with Shang-Chi from here) is a top-quality production as is expected from Marvel; its closest kin is Captain Marvel, and is similarly one of the lesser films in the MCU.  Make no mistake, Shang-Chi is a very entertaining film and because its plot is less dependent on other Marvel films, it is probably all the more so for non-MCU fanatics.  With the financial muscle and influence of Disney behind it, Shang-Chi has great sets, costumes, performers, and special effects.  Shang-Chi, beyond being a Marvel superhero movie, is at heart a kung-fu film.  Liu did much of the martial arts himself, and the very first fight, set on a moving bus, is my favorite for its intensity and creativity.  The final battle leaves behind the raw physicality in favor of more effects and super powers, but it is among the better of its style; it's still relatively contained and therefore more focused than expected, and the film actually finds some of its most effective emotional moments here.

The characters in a Marvel movie, as I've been insisting for years, are both underrated and pivotal to their success.  Simu Liu, portraying the title character, is a rare non-star in a leading Marvel role.  He is clearly talented - not just in his athletic fighting scenes, but also in conveying a haunted, capable yet unsure hero in the making.  Yet it's not a home run, as so many of Marvel's heroes have been; like in Captain Marvel, I blame this almost entirely on the script, not the performer.  Liu (like Larson before him) doesn't get as much focus in the quieter moments as Downey, Jr., Evans, and Hemsworth did.  Awkwafina could have added a shot of energy and (good) crazy, but she's disappointingly subdued here; though there are other prominent female characters, they are largely vanilla, too, unfortunately.  The brightest spot is the villain - a surprise for a Marvel film, whose villains are often passable at best, preferring to focus on the hero.  But Leung is excellent; very menacing and dangerous in a smooth and quiet way; yet also affecting and even sympathetic in other scenes.  A few minor characters give Shang-Chi some extra flavor, including The Daily Show's Ronny Chieng, Benedict Wong's sorcerer, and another returning character who I don't want to spoil if you have yet to see it.

A significant reason for the uneven quality of Shang-Chi's characters is that, like Captain Marvel, the movie places too much emphasis on the background mythology of the story.  As much as the aliens in Captain Marvel or the traditional/mythical world of the Ta Lo in Shang-Chi are neat and add something new to the Marvel universe, the filmmakers (and probably the studio) liked it too much; there's just not enough time for the characters in "normal" scenes.  The script, I'd also note, doesn't have the zippiness that characterizes MCU movies; its too-short introductory scenes of Shang-Chi and Katy are where this was missed most.  Unlike Captain Marvel, it must be said, Shang-Chi does benefit from an interesting family web of characters; even if individually they don't pop as they should have, the film takes time to explore its history (in sometimes confusing, but mostly good, reverse-order flashbacks).  And it leaves plenty of room to further develop these potentially-interesting characters and settings, as well as how they may fit into the wider MCU (apart from a few cool teases).  I'm up for more!

***

Shang-Chi is the second Marvel theatrical release since the pandemic closures, and the first to introduce new characters to the MCU.  It is certainly quite a bit different from Black Widow, not to mention the steady stream of other action movies released in the last few months.  While I don't feel that Shang-Chi quite met the MCU's typical high standards, it was at least an interesting start to a whole new part of this superhero world; this is not a repeat by any means.  It does also follow in the MCU's tradition of incorporating other genres into its world and overall style.  And in a crazy, pandemic-influenced year, this is probably the first and last time a major blockbuster will be released on Labor Day weekend!  I recommend Shang-Chi for a trip to the theater, Marvel fan or not.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/shangchi_and_the_legend_of_the_ten_rings_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67440841

Free Guy

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Shawn Levy

Starring Ryan Reynolds, Jodie Comer, Taika Waititi, Lil Rel Howery

Running time: 115 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Free Guy dives into the gaming world that has increasingly come to dominate our own, but sends it up in an entertaining way.  Ryan Reynolds is fun as cheerful victim Blue Shirt Guy (although his ego shows through, too, to me) and beyond the usual technical wizardry is a nice positive change of tone from the usual.  Go see it for a fun time at the theater.

Guy (Reynolds) is an NPC, or Non-Playable Character, in the open-world video game Free City.  While human players' characters interact with Guy (usually violently), his daily routine consists of an ordinary, programmed "life" from bank teller to coffee addict.  But Guy deviates from his coding one day when he sees a character named Molotov Girl and seeks her out, though he's not sure why.  Molotov Girl (Comer), played by a young woman named Millie, is searching for something herself: evidence of a crime that she's sure Free City's creator has committed.  As Guy and Millie meet and learn from each other, they realize that the other is essential to their own mission; but they must act quickly, as Free City's boss (Waititi) is on the hunt.

Free Guy is one of the most fun films of the summer, unapologetically projecting a positive, sunny attitude where the genre can get bogged down in cynicism.  While its premise - the main character as a video game NPC, or essentially a manakin - is a bit nerdy, it's one that's pretty easy to catch on to for a general audience.  And that NPC is played by one of today's biggest movie stars, Ryan Reynolds, who has burnished his reputation for silliness and irreverence in Deadpool among others.  He is certainly likable here, hiding his sarcastic side for a mostly earnest, naive mode.  I must admit that, personally, the role started to grate on me, particularly as Guy becomes more aware and "heroic".  Reynolds' purpose for the role seemed to become showing off as the Cool Guy, ironically heightened by his supposedly making every effort not to seem cool (or at least seem ego free).  Your mileage may vary.

Fan or not of Reynolds, it's hard not to get sucked in to the vivid video game world created in the film.  Despite the fact that human players wreak havoc on its peaceful denizens, there's still a playfulness about it and at any rate the violence is soon backgrounded after it serves its purpose early on.  As with many movies with neat premises, Free Guy starts strong, but it also maintains momentum significantly better than others thanks to a plot that is different enough to keep it interesting while not getting lost in the technical weeds.  The non-Reynolds characters are a bit of a mixed bag, but overall are a source of strength (and help dilute the star's ego trip).  I haven't seen Jodie Comer in much (if anything) before, so I was startled and impressed by her sheer expressivity; her video game avatar Molotov Girl is completely different than her real Millie self, and it's not just the wig; MG herself changes noticeably but subtly after a major event.  Lil Rel Howery, a great comic actor, unfortunately chooses to simply imitate Kevin Hart here, but Taika Waititi is the real comic scene-stealer here as the bad guy boss.

Along with creating a fun world, Free Guy features some good commentary as well; it's not exactly subtle (nothing in this movie is) but it's also not preachy.  Primarily, it pointedly asks why we play video games, shows how we can get sucked into them, and even a bit of the rebound effect back on our real lives.  My favorite part involved Molotov Girl listing the differences between the video game world and the real world before coming to gun violence and stopping short with an "oh, wait...".  Free Guy is either indebted to or at least eerily similar to some recent films; a mashup of The Matrix, Ready Player One, and even The LEGO Movie would be a good description.  But it's good-natured enough to brush those comparisons aside, at least for a few hours of fun.

***

Free Guy pulled me to the theater with its new(ish) premise, very good Rotten Tomato score (82%), and, yes, even my confidence that Ryan Reynolds would be entertaining in the role.  Despite my feelings that Reynolds veered too far into Cool Guy posturing mode, he is admittedly fun much of the time and the movie around him is strong; Jodie Comer was a revelation for me, too.  I think I'm ready for a bit of variety at the movies now - although I'm always up for anything Marvel, like its upcoming Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings - but it's been a very solid summer so far.  In fact, better in quality than most recent years.  I definitely recommend Free Guy if you want to see a good action comedy.

* By IMP Awards / 2021 Movie Poster Gallery / Free Guy Poster (#5 of 12), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68188487

The Suicide Squad

 

Score:  B

Directed by James Gunn

Starring Idris Elba, Margot Robbie, John Cena, Viola Davis

Running time: 132 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  James Gunn moves from Coke to Pepsi - er, Marvel to DC - in helming this new film adaptation of The Suicide Squad, a team of comic book villains coerced into fighting for good.  It's certainly more stylish than its predecessor, and the first part of it promises a truly wild, fun new approach.  But it steadily moves back to the well-worn genre approaches, leaving a less satisfying taste by the end.  

When an island nation's government is overthrown, a secret advanced weapons facility is suddenly under the control of hostile forces.  To prevent its use, American agent Waller (Davis) recruits a team of the most dangerous - and bizarre - criminals to destroy the facility, in exchange for reduced sentences (and other coercion).  What this strange team of misfits finds on the island is indeed something far beyond what a usual commando mission entails - and they must rely on each of their unique, powerful talents just to survive.

The Suicide Squad, first of all, is a part-sequel, part-reboot of the 2016 film Suicide Squad (no "the"), and it modestly improves on its predecessor.  However, it still doesn't do enough to distinguish itself from either Deadpool's R-rated shock style, nor comic book convention.  As a "superhero" movie that in fact stars villains, the most important element is collecting a cast of charismatic, bad-in-a-good-way, and just plain old fun characters.  That is also a very similar objective that director James Gunn faced when he made the Marvel film Guardians of the Galaxy (a MUCH better movie).  Margot Robbie reprises her Harley Quinn from the 2016 film, and is once again the true star if not the main character.  Idris Elba essentially takes over Will Smith's part, a slight enhancement in more of a fatherly role.  Others, like John Cena's Peacemaker and Daniela Melchior's Ratcatcher 2, are fun early on but gradually become more vanilla.  Still, this film gets much more creative with its convict cast than the previous Suicide Squad.

The first part of The Suicide Squad is easily the best part, seeming eager to set itself apart right off the bat. Very little time is spent - though it is spent wisely - on introducing the characters and premise before launching into the mission.  And the mission... does not go as planned to start, with a number of both famous new faces and returnees from the 2016 version finding an early demise.  A bit later, Gunn lets his star, Harley, take over.  She gets her own little subplot, falling in love with yet another sociopath; while it's a diversion, plot and tone-wise, it's well done and gets a bit more development for Quinn, the veteran character in this film (it's her third).

Unfortunately, these good things begin to fall by the wayside as the film goes on.  The characters, as mentioned, become tamer in concert with the plot becoming standard issue.  Yes, the "final boss" is suitably ridiculous, but, particularly in the final act, it all proceeds too much by the book (and drags on too long), where a film like this really should zig where you expect it to zag.  The action, after the opener, is also just too predictable and, for all it tries to ramp up the blood and gore, increasingly numbing and even dull.  Harley's escape from captivity in the middle of the movie - and right after the good, development parts - is a perfect example, as she single-handedly cuts down dozens of henchmen and emerges from it with a smile.  It was just unnecessary - to the plot, to adding action to the film (didn't need more), to showing us Harley can kick ass (we've seen her do this several other times - and more entertainingly - in previous movies).  It's a shame that Gunn and co. didn't stick to the obvious strengths that they showed early in the film.

***

While I'm not sorry to have seen The Suicide Squad, I came away fairly disappointed, particularly when seeing it get 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.  Would it make the experience better or worse to have not seen the 2016 Suicide Squad first?  Or Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy, or Robbie's solo film Birds of Prey starring role for Harley?  Again, I was quite pleased with the first part of this one, promising a fresh approach, but it also increased my disappointment with the ending.  Maybe my reaction is simply my getting tired of this sort of film - I certainly have seen a lot of superhero movies in the last 10 years!  Partly true, at least, but I loved Black Widow - which shows just how well Marvel has done to both build development and attachment for its characters and world, while also providing new perspectives in its individual projects.  You can do worse than The Suicide Squad for a trip to the movie theater, but if you really want to see it, HBO Max would be just fine, too.

* By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67214291

The Green Knight

Score:  B+

Directed by David Lowery

Starring Dev Patel, Alicia Vikander, Joel Edgerton, Sean Harris

Running time: 130 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Green Knight is the latest film from rising star filmmaker David Lowery, a point as relevant as its being based on a tale of King Arthur's court.  It is full of great images and sounds, conveying a world and a journey that are weird and even illusory.  Dev Patel plays the decidedly non-heroic main character well in this film emphasizing sensation over plot.  Check out this mid-summer Oscar contender.

In Arthur's court, the King's nephew, Gawain (Patel), longs to become a Knight but he is stuck in youthful frivolity.  When a strange creature comes to the court with a challenge, however, Gawain accepts it.  To his and others' surprise, he seems to be victorious, but the "game" is not yet over: in a year, Gawain must face the final part of the challenge.  As Gawain sets off after a too-quick year, he is beset by dangers on his journey, both common and magical.  In order to become a Knight - and simply survive - Gawain must find the necessary courage and honor within himself.

The Green Knight is a unique fantasy film, its style, sound and images making the supernatural even stranger than usual, resulting overall in a fascinating experience.  Made by a top, up-and-coming director in David Lowery, this really does not feel like a typical fantasy film from the very start; it feels grounded in reality, even if many of the fantasy elements are treated as ordinary by the characters.  In fact, it can be difficult to tell what is real and what is dream or illusion, which can be both frustrating and entrancing.  Different characters are played by the same actor; a desperate victim turns out to be a ghost; an anthropomorphic fox comes along for the journey without a comment; the film keeps you off balance much of the time, for better or worse.  The main plot - Gawain's challenge - is parallel to this; logical in that he wants to become a Knight, but the specifics of it are baffling, even unintentionally amusing.

To convey this strange tale, Lowery created a rich, engrossing world of sounds and images.  The score, especially in the first half of the film (at least, that's when I most noticed it), is excellent and, again, goes against what you typically think of in a fantasy.  Yes, there are bits here and there reminiscent of the genre but the lead element is a choir that does as much as anything in the film to set the tone: from creepy to glorious to ominous.  There is plenty of CGI but it mostly blends in to the background, save for a bizarre (and kind of boring) horde of placid giants.  Instead, the visual intrigue comes from phenomenal editing and cinematography.  Things as simple as watching Gawain slowly ride out of Camelot, to a mindbending 360 rotation of both time and camera, make this film an enjoyable experience separate from character, story, and so on.  And Lowery certainly lingers on these images and sounds - mostly to the good, but it results in a slightly overlong film (at least cut out those giants!).

For a final way in which The Green Knight is not your typical fantasy, Gawain is far from a typical hero, whether in battle - there are basically no fighting scenes - or in his disposition.  Dev Patel, far removed from Slumdog Millionaire, is great as the reluctant, often unworthy and humiliated yet still sympathetic Gawain.  It's not an overtly outstanding performance, but he is almost always on screen, mostly has to communicate without dialogue, and allows those surrounding images and sounds to dominate when needed.  Alicia Vikander is excellent as usual, too, in playing two (very) different characters, and supporting actors from Sean Harris's King Arthur to Joel Edgerton's helpful nobleman add nice flavor.  The climactic scene is a visually-arresting, wordless surge ahead in time, but rather than focus on the action, it makes you think about the morals of the story.  It's an ambiguous but fitting ending.

***

I found out about The Green Knight only recently and, seeing its high Rotten Tomatoes score, gave it a chance.  If anything, I'm probably rating it too low; my opinion of it is growing the more I think about it.  I should emphasize - despite this being a tale of King Arthur's court, this is not your typical fantasy.  The other film from Lowery I've seen is The Old Man & the Gun, starring Robert Redford, which is great but much different than this.  Think of it more as a talented filmmaker's (and the talented cast's) most recent project that happens to have visuals and themes that are out of the ordinary.  It's likely to be an Oscar contender, including possibly for Best Picture and Director.  In other words, not your typical summer blockbuster - but just as entertaining, if in different ways.

* By Studio and or Graphic Artist - Can be obtained from film's distributor., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63091746

Black Widow

 

Score:  A-
Directed by Cate Shortland
Starring Scarlett Johansson, Florence Pugh, David Harbour, Rachel Weisz
Running time: 134 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Marvel, the studio that came to dominate the last decade in Hollywood, symbolizes the return of theaters with the release of the delayed Black Widow.  While it's sort of a "left-over" - a well-established main character (finally getting her own title role) in the midst of a story arc that's complete - Black Widow is one of the most poignant superhero movies, focusing on a family of characters.  It also delivers the blockbuster goods in action, too, and so it's a perfect place to make your return to the theater.

Following the events of Civil War, in which the Avengers have split up in reaction to the government's attempt to control them, Natasha Romanoff (Johansson), aka Black Widow, is on the run.  She receives a strange package which she soon discovers is sought by mysterious, malevolent forces.  Tracking the package to its source, she finds her surrogate sister, Yelena Belova (Pugh), and after a rough welcome, the two grudgingly decide to work together.  They have found the secret to their once-tormented lives under the influence of the sinister Red Room.  Reuniting with their "parents" along the way, Romanoff and Belova are determined to end the reign of the Red Room, whatever the cost.

More than ten years after first appearing in the MCU, the first female Avenger, Black Widow, gets her own  movie; I don't know if it was "worth the wait", but it meets and exceeds Marvel's own impressive standards.  Black Widow is a return for Marvel itself, in several ways; it provides perhaps a final look at the narrative arc that the 2008-2019 films developed and, of course, it's the first Marvel movie to appear in theaters in two years, thanks to the pandemic.  While coming films will move ahead with new stories and characters, this was a nice coda for that previous era.  And Romanoff deserved to finally have the spotlight on her character.  Pieces of her past were revealed in earlier films, but Black Widow fills out both her past details and her present self in satisfying ways.

In addition to a strong performance from Scarlett Johansson in the title role, Black Widow finds its true strength in the hero's spy "family".  Romanoff, ruthlessly trained from childhood to be a cold spy and assassin, is an isolated and reserved character - so it makes a certain sense that we get to know more about her through her relations with others.  Florence Pugh's Yelena, Romanoff's sister, is the primary supporting character and she shows the same tremendous talent and skill that she has in recent projects like Little Women.  The scenes in which Romanoff and Belova are getting to know each other again are probably the strongest in the movie: intense at times, funny at others, but the actors do a great job showing that, for as many reasons as they have to loath each other, there's also an unbreakable bond.  David Harbour gets the most fun role in the film as "dad" Alexei.  A massive man, Russia's answer to Captain America (to whom he continually, hilariously compares himself), he is also the emotional softie of the family and is key to holding the (understandably) often cold, distant females together.  Rachel Weisz also does great work, in a much more restrained, low key role as "mom"; she still has strong ties to the bad old days, but shows the internal struggle in trying to support her family.  The opening scene of the film, a flashback to their 1990s undercover days in America, provides a brief but intense and perfectly executed introduction to these characters, who are then the focus - twenty years later - of the remainder of the film.

Black Widow may have an emphasis on its character development and relations, but it has more than its fair share of Marvel superhero action, too.  Much of it is in the hard-hitting, grounded, realistic (relatively speaking) style of The Winter Soldier, which I find a refreshing change from some of the more CGI-heavy battles that other MCU films rely on.  Romanoff's fights against the Taskmaster, a Robocop-like bad guy, and then a sparring match against Jelena, are small-scale by Marvel standards but highlights for their choreography and tension; a vehicle chase through Budapest is more explosive but similarly great.  I think the film goes a bit overboard on the action, though, with some scenes - notably the prison breakout and finale - just going on too long.  But if you're seeing this in the theater, at least you're getting your money's worth of big-screen spectacle!  The villain is also kind of weak, a pattern for Marvel, mostly because the film focuses overwhelmingly on the heroes (again, as usual).  Romanoff's final showdown with him is among the best in the franchise, though, with higher emotional stakes than usual - plus a fantastic callback to the original Avengers movie.  Not as quippy as some MCU films, Black Widow still has plenty of humor, too.  In short, it pretty much has everything you want from a summer blockbuster and then some.

***

It is so good to see a Marvel movie in the theater again!  Originally scheduled for release in May 2020, Black Widow was well worth the wait - I am so glad that Disney patiently waited until it was safe to release it in theaters, rather than rushing it out on streaming (*cough DC's Wonder Woman sequel*).  At this point, I would rank the movie just below the very top tier of MCU titles, although I definitely look forward to seeing it again sometime - and possibly re-evaluating that.  Despite the continued impact of the pandemic this year, there has already been plenty of Marvel, via three all-new streaming TV series on Disney+ (which I plan to review later this summer).  And because of the backlog, there are three more movies scheduled for release in 2021.  I'm hopeful and confident that there will be plenty of other great, non-superhero movies to watch in theaters this year, too, but Black Widow is an early standout.

* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61327223

In the Heights

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Jon M. Chu

Starring Anthony Ramos, Melissa Barrera, Leslie Grace, Corey Hawkins

Running time: 143 minutes

PG-13

Long Story Short:  In the Heights is the big screen adaptation of Lin-Manuel Miranda's (Hamilton) Broadway musical.  Similar to its mega-popular musical brother, Heights portrays a slice of the diversity of America, this time in a present-day New York neighborhood.  An upbeat, energetic film, it's perfect for the summer and emphasizes the power and necessity of community, just as we're all craving it more than ever.  Highly recommended.

In the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York, a community struggles against gentrification but uses its strong personal ties to make it day by day.  Usnavi (Ramos) owns a corner bodega, where he looks after cousin Sonny (Diaz) and pines for the lovely Vanessa (Barrera), a frequent customer who works at a local salon.  News spreads quickly at the salon, where they learn talented Nina (Grace) has finished her first year at Stanford but comes home with doubts.  She still feels a strong connection to the Heights, including her businessman father, Kevin (Smits) and his employee (and her longtime friend), Benny (Hawkins).  All are forced to adjust to not just a changing world, but also their often-conflicting dreams and community ties.  But all of it - the ups and downs - is celebrated in music and dance.

In the Heights embraces everyday life, proclaiming that our ordinary joys and sorrows should be lifted up; here, in the form of jubilant musical dance routines.  While the concerns and stories of individual characters are of varying interest, the main element to me is the exploration of the Heights as a community.  Those individual concerns really all swirl together, anyway, as we get to see life at the pool, in the bodega and salon, in the club.  It all feels authentic and homey, yet also distinct and interesting because of the detail and the care with which it is handled.  Of course, the fact that these places are also often the scene of raucous musical numbers doesn't hurt, either.

While I'm not a huge fan of the genre, I was impressed and very entertained by the scale, energy, and choreography of the film's many musical sequences.  Some songs may remind you of Hamilton, while others are more standard musical material.  Along with the skill of the performers and the fun of the songs themselves (few favorites for me, but decent tunes), I particularly liked how they incorporate those community settings.  And many of the performers look like regular people you'd find in the community, too, with a range of ages, body types, clothing, and so on.  The creativity and - again - authenticity are what impressed me the most about this typically bombastic element of the musical.

The main characters and their stories are a bit more on the mediocre end, to me, but still good.  Usnavi reminded me of some not great kids from my own school days, so it was difficult for me (and my bias) to buy him as the hero.  Each individual conflict leans a bit cliche, and much of the introductory exposition is buried in the opening musical number (I enjoyed the song, but got lost on the details).  But all of the four young leads are talented, both as dramatic actors and dancers, and they're never boring.  It's really the supporting characters - the matriarch, the struggling businessman - that I found the most compelling, which I suppose fits with my overall interest in the community elements.  This is definitely an ensemble effort - each part, big or small, makes the others better.

By the end of the film - which goes on a bit long, I have to say - it feels more like the end of a season in the neighborhood than the resolution of the various plot lines which is as it should be, I think.  As real as this community has felt, the film still makes room for some dreamy summer fantasy, too, through some fun visuals - from characters tracing smoke images in the air to literally dancing off the walls.  It's a good combination:  creating a warm sense of connection to the characters and community, but also capturing some of the magic of summer in a movie theater.

***

In the Heights is a high quality musical, and perhaps the perfect movie to come to theaters right now.  We have all been missing our communities during the long pandemic, and even just to see a distant, fictional one is a joy.  So while it's not perfect and it's not my favorite kind of summer blockbuster, this was about the best time for me to see it and I suspect that the same is/will be true for many others.  With Hollywood having been thrown into turmoil for the last fifteen months, it will be interesting to see exactly how the rest of the year shapes up - a combination of delayed 2020 releases and, hopefully, some things slipping under the radar that we never expected.  For now, In the Heights is a great way to get back into the movie theater!

* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62568194

Godzilla vs. Kong

 

Score:  B-

Directed by Adam Wingard

Starring Godzilla, King Kong; Alexander Skarsgard, Millie Bobby Brown, Brian Tyree Henry

Running time: 113 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Godzilla vs. Kong is Hollywood's first big step, literally and figuratively, back into theaters as the pandemic begins to lift enough for us to venture out again.  It delivers a pair of title fight matches between the classic heavies that are worth the price of admission (esp. for those of us starved for the theatrical experience).  Sadly, it can't also overcome the genre's plot and human character pitfalls.  If conditions are right in your area (and you've been vaccinated!!), this is a perfectly nice outing.

In a present-day version of the world, monsters stalk the earth.  Godzilla mysteriously roams the seas, occasionally terrifying coastal cities with his appearance.  Meanwhile, the skyscraper-sized ape known as Kong is contained on a far off island by Monarch, the monster research organization.  After a brief but devastating Godzilla attack on a tech corporation in Pensacola, a conspiracy theorist podcaster, Bernie, follows his wild imagination to very real, insidious plans.  In an effort to gain some control over Godzilla's immense power, Monarch agrees to transport Kong to a secret experimental site.  But now there are two monsters at large in the world - and they don't like each other.

Godzilla vs. Kong is, above all, a mega-blockbuster about enormous monsters making a spectacle on the big screen, and it fulfills this objective pretty darn well.  There are two primary action sequences, and Wingard and the visual effects team come through with fun, exciting, bone-rattling showdowns.  The first is particularly effective, taking place at sea with the navy involved; not only is the setting different than usual in these monster movies, but the context adds some elements other than which monster hits the other harder/more often.  Now, not all the action is great; there are several scenes featuring one monster or the other, and they come off rather humdrum, almost afterthoughts compared to the main two (the final final battle - blessedly short - also just shatters the ludicrous meter into pieces).  But the monsters themselves are also just amazingly rendered, even when "quiet", making the overall film a true theater showcase.

Once you get past the main draw, an admittedly exhilarating 20-30 minutes (or more?) of action, the surrounding elements plummet in quality.  Worst is the plot, or the sorry excuse for one we get.  This film is a sequel to two solo Godzillas and a Kong, so it's understandable (and probably saves some time) to just take the existence of these monsters as a given, though the off-handed references to them can be amusing. There are also, though, many moments of "wait, did I miss something?"; again, you can just kind of go with it, because the main point is the monster mashing, but even for a blockbuster, there is little effort to introduce or explain some important organizations or plot points.  The piece de resistance of the story is a flabbergasting concept called the Hollow Earth, which seems to be an alternate world that you get to by going to the center of the earth, where gravity is reversed, and... you get the point.  The entire point of it seems to be to make the rest of the plot work (sort of...).

Finally, the people involved - yes, there are human characters, though far less important than the title monsters - are a mixed bag, at best.  The main leads - the usual white male hero, Nathan, played by Alexander Skarsgard, and the scrappy kid everyone overlooks, Madison, played by Millie Bobby Brown - are vague and uninteresting to the point of almost blending into the background.  A young deaf girl, Jia, is pretty cliche (and often feeds the ridiculous plot points), but played effectively adorably by Kaylee Hottle.  Just two actors look like they're actually having fun, and transmit that to the audience: Brian Tyree Henry's conspiracy theorist podcaster, Bernie; and Demian Bichir's arrogant, scenery-chewing CEO.

***

Godzilla vs. Kong has some really entertaining monster melees, but the further from the experience that I get, the more it feels weighed down by the ridiculous plot points and feeble characters that surround it.  If you don't mind staying home, I would recommend Pacific Rim as a superior monster movie any day.  But for simply having the advantage of being the first big blockbuster released in theaters after the yearlong pandemic shutdown, I'm cutting it some slack.  There really is nothing like seeing a movie in the theater (even, maybe especially, the ones you might not bother seeing at home, like this one).

*By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=66522708