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