The Holdovers

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Alexander Payne

Starring Paul Giamatti, Dominic Sessa, Da'Vine Joy Randolph

Running time: 133 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Holdovers is good old-fashioned filmmaking, a holiday dramedy featuring a great cast with star Paul Giamatti and two relative unknowns.  There are plenty of chuckles and good feelings to be found as Giamatti's grouchy teacher gradually gives in to the influence of his fellow boarding school shut-ins.  Highly recommended for all adults (not sure why it's rated R, though).

As the holidays approach, the boys at Barton boarding school are filled with excitement - all, except for those who are unable to go home and must stay at school, like Angus (Sessa).  Only a skeleton staff remains to oversee the handful of students, including unlucky faculty representative Paul Hunham (Giamatti), an unpopular grouch who believes he is being punished by the school's director.  Hunham subjects Angus and the other boys to a regimented schedule, killing any remaining holiday cheer they cling to.  Over time, though, as Hunham, Angus, and the school's head cook, Mary (Randolph) get to know each other, a grudging respect builds as they try to make the best of their sour situations.

The Holdovers is an old-fashioned and solid, heartfelt holiday dramedy thanks to a cast with great performances and chemistry.  The story and style hark back to simpler, more earnest filmmaking days, focusing on the relationships of three people unhappily stuck together for the holidays.  This, along with the strong cast and effective script, allows for nice, wholesome sentiment throughout the film, with satisfying moments and mood changes throughout.  It's not all happily-ever-after but the holiday setting helps keep spirits up even in the difficult moments.  There is also plenty of good humor: maybe not belly laughs - the film is too gentle for those - but still effective thanks largely to the cast.  Those actors do a remarkable job, primarily the three leads.  They each get a certain amount of depth but the film doesn't strain itself trying to be too intricate or dissonant (again, this is old-fashioned).  Giamatti, long an excellent performer, is basically a perfect fit for the role of curmudgeonly faculty member - yet as believable as he is, he's never too off-putting and builds quite a bit of genuine sympathy for himself as the film goes on.  Sessa and Randolph, as the restless teen holdover and the wise head cook, respectively, both help Giamatti's Paul develop in crucial ways.  But they're far from just plot devices: they, too, each get well-drawn characters with both tragic family backstories as well as senses of humor rivaling Giamatti's.  The cast and strong, traditional filmmaking style make The Holdovers a great holiday treat, but it does have some weaker points that hold it back a bit.  The running time is a little excessive at two hours fifteen minutes; two hours, or even less, probably would have been plenty.  And for all the strengths of the movie's style, it also falls prey at times to its drawbacks via some stilted or awkward dialogue and events.  But I'm nitpicking: this is a very nice holiday film whose sentiment will stick with you for some time.

***

The Holdovers is just the kind of film I hope to see in theaters - but can't count on - this time of year.  It's far from a box office juggernaut, with a paltry $17 million so far, but it has received well-deserved (as I can now confirm) critical praise and awards buzz.  I particularly enjoyed its old-fashioned filmmaking; while I certainly don't want every movie to be like this, it was a nice change of pace.  Really, it would be so nice to simply see more high quality dramas, or dramedies, like this released in theaters throughout the year.  We'll see if some more pleasant surprises come to the theater soon.  A glance at the showtimes reveals very little else of interest to me, for now!  Check out The Holdovers if you're lucky enough to have it in a theater near you.

* By Focus Features - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74995266

Napoleon

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby

Running time: 157 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Napoleon is the latest film from Ridley Scott, a well-made epic starring Joaquin Phoenix that showcases the French general's massive if fleeting impact on European history.  Scott brings his blockbuster-scale talents to the movie's gripping, creative battle scenes, while Phoenix also shares quieter yet still intense scenes with Napoleon's wife, Josephine.  It's a little too sprawling to be an all-time great but it's still very entertaining and highly recommended for most adult audiences.

Napoleon tells the extraordinary tale of the rise and fall of the (in)famous French general and Emperor, from 1793 to 1821.  Napoleon (Phoenix) begins his journey near the end of the French Revolution as an army officer who rises through the ranks due to his success both repelling foreign intruders as well as suppressing further rebellions against France's new leaders.  As he is introduced to new groups of the wealthy, influential, and powerful in France, Napoleon meets Josephine (Kirby), with whom he immediately falls in love and eventually marries.  Napoleon's battlefield genius leads to both France's and his own power steadily increasing, but even he finds there are limits in life, from the most personal to the grandest scales.

Napoleon is an intense and riveting historical epic with strong action and acting, but it's held back from greatness by a combination of too much scope with too little understanding.  The famed director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Alien, etc.) showcases his talent for creating vivid, fascinating historical worlds, from the violent battles to the fancy dinners to the commoners on the street.  Unlike many historical epics, though, Napoleon has plenty of rougher-around-the-edges, if not outright uncouth moments, from bad manners to unexpected and/or informal language among the leaders and aristocrats to, well, several unshy sex scenes.  Along with providing a subtle, sly sense of humor sprinkled through the film, these moments highlight Napoleon's unusual position in places of power; he doesn't ever truly seem to belong.  Phoenix, who played the villain in Gladiator, is unsurprisingly great as the title lead.  He makes Napoleon just human and semi-sympathetic enough to want to follow, yet also brimming with ego, temper, and brutality that often bursts forth.  Kirby is also great as Josephine in a surprisingly large role.  She is both co- and independent with Napoleon, strong yet fragile and flawed, too.  There is a large cast of side characters, adding nice color to the film but little importance to the main characters.  Finally, there's also plenty of jaw-dropping action, befitting the story of one of history's greatest generals.  Three primary battles stand out, from a sneaky nighttime raid on a port city; to a virtuosic winter scene composed of a giant, horrifying trap; to Napoleon's grand fall at Waterloo.

Unfortunately, while Napoleon is good, even great, in many individual scenes, it could have been even more potent if it had better focus.  The movie takes place across roughly twenty-five years - which is a long time in an ordinary life, let alone one as busy as Napoleon's.  The running time is neither rushed nor drawn out - a bit past two-and-a-half hours - with about two-thirds devoted to his battles and political roles and the other third to Josephine and other personal scenes.  I have little problem with any of what does make it on screen, there are two concerning shortcomings.  First, there is just so much internal French politics and external foreign relations that are critical to Napoleon's life, yet so little time to explain it; even as a history major myself, I only knew the basic outlines.  Focusing more on one specific period in the larger story probably would have helped, a la Lincoln or Selma.  Second, while the Josephine relationship is interesting, there's not nearly enough on Napoleon's own background and character.  Quite simply, why did he do what he did?  Just because he could?  What motivated and drove him?  For me, there weren't good enough answers to these questions.

***

While Napoleon seems like a natural Oscar-buzz type movie, I'm not sure that it actually is a Best Picture contender among critics.  Still, it was fun to go see this kind of historical epic in the theater again.  I would hope that other filmmakers considering similar projects will take notes on its many strengths - while also making sure that they try to dig into their central characters as well as possible.  I'm not sure exactly what to expect at the theater in the next month or two.  There are relatively few big holiday blockbusters this year - at least, ones I'm interested in (no thanks, Wonka).  So hopefully theaters near me will bring in some interesting smaller ones, including those that hope to be up for awards soon.  Until next time!

* By https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/napoleon/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74312765

The Marvels

 

Score:  B

Directed by Nia DaCosta

Starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani, Teyonah Parris, Samuel L. Jackson

Running time: 105 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short: The Marvels is the latest chapter in the MCU superhero saga, both a sequel to Captain Marvel and also a cinematic introduction to Kamala Khan and Monica Rambeau (first seen on Disney+).  The plot may be hard to follow for the casual movie-goer, but it satisfyingly continues and/or resolves multiple threads from the broader superhero universe.  Still, it's good fun for anyone, thanks to great work from the cast and entertaining (but not overstuffed) action scenes.  Recommended for any superhero fans, and anyone else looking for a nice blockbuster.

When the powerful alien civilization known as the Kree hatches a new plot, three of Earth's superheroes - Carol Danvers (Larson), Kamala Khan (Vellani), and Monica Rambeau (Parris) - find themselves inexplicably switching places with each other.  Carol, aka Captain Marvel, has been in deep space on her ship conducting missions; Kamala, aka Ms. Marvel, has been struggling through high school in New Jersey; and Monica, no nickname, works with Nick Fury (Jackson) in a space station orbiting Earth.  The Kree leader, Dar-Benn, is trying to restore her devastated homeworld by any means necessary, and placing the entire universe in danger as a result.  Carol, Kamala, and Monica must therefore figure out a way to stop her before it's too late.

The Marvels is a very entertaining superhero movie and a worthy next step on the Marvel Cinematic Universe's (MCU) famously interconnected path of films.  It's not among the franchise's top-tier films, but there's still lots of fun to be had for both Marvel fans and newcomers alike.  If you are a Marvel fan who has kept up with not only the movies but the Disney+ streaming series of the last few years, you'll get quite a bit more out of this (and feel a lot less confused).  The Marvels is not just a sequel to 2019's Captain Marvel, which introduced Carol Danvers, but it also continues plots and characters from Ms. Marvel, WandaVision, and Secret Invasion, not to mention including the multiverse again as a key part of the plot.  That might all sound exhausting, but I believe even "newbies" will enjoy this movie, if you just relax and not try to understand all the plot points.  All things considered, the script does an impressive job tying it all together in intriguing and (mostly) comprehensible ways - and in a very reasonable hour and forty-five minutes.  While I can get frustrated when plots like this veer too far from the superheroes themselves, the movie does a particularly nice job of integrating the fates of two alien races - the Kree and the Skrulls - who were deeply affected by events in Captain Marvel and Secret Invasion.  The tone of the movie, which is mostly fun and light-hearted, doesn't allow it to address them perfectly, but I give Marvel credit for continuing to pay close attention to the collateral effects and aftermath of superheroic events (see Captain America: Civil War, Avengers Endgame, and more).

Apart from the intricate plot, there is a lot of visual fun and humor here, too.  The primary theme, which is clear in several trailers/ads, is the superhero place-switching.  This provides both striking visuals and humor, particularly in the initial extended action sequence.  Wide-ranging - from a cramped, sterile space station to the Khan's increasingly-shredded living room - it has a frenetic pacing that keeps you glued to the screen and tests your ability to follow but is not overwhelming.  The final battle is also quite cool - not groundbreaking but also modest and brief enough to fully take in and enjoy.  There's also humor throughout; two elements in particular verge close to too silly - one involving a literal superhero musical scene and the other Captain Marvel's voraciously hungry cat - but both manage to hold it together.

Finally, the characters of The Marvels are worth discussing, as in any Marvel movie worth its salt.  Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel, played by Larson, is the lead, and I'd looked forward to a sequel giving her character more opportunity after 2019's original gave us disappointingly little.  We still get little on her background, and thus her motivation, unfortunately; I think the ship has sailed here.  But Larson still gives Carol a nice, distinctive personality that is fun to watch: Tony Stark's sarcastic intelligence, Steve Rogers' sense of duty and caring, yet with a vulnerability and imperfection that is needed considering her superpowers are so strong.  Vellani as Kamala is just as charismatic as she was on Ms. Marvel, even though she is sharing the lead here.  Her spunky cheer is just what the movie needed, and it's also great to see her immigrant Pakistani family continue to play a significant role.  Parris's Monica gets the short end, not really surprising considering she had just a small role on WandaVision before this.  There's not much to her character or personality, and is honestly most important for her relationship to Carol (who was best friends with her mom... long story!).  But the ending leaves opportunity for much more.  The main actors are the film's strongest point and their chemistry and team dynamics in particular were an interesting new version of what the Avengers introduced eleven years ago.

***

Usually, the movies I score a "B" get my shortest reviews - they are neither fantastic nor terrible, with all that allows me to write about.  The Marvels is, thankfully, not a boring good-enough but bland, unambitious movie.  It has some great strengths to it, but it's also weighed down by the combination of them all, along with being a little rough around the edges occasionally.  Still, it's the best addition to the MCU in 2023, what has been a down year (well, I haven't seen all of Loki season 2 yet, though the first episode left me a bit dazed and wary of continuing).  Critics and commentators have been quick to pounce, especially since The Marvels crashed at the box office with a (relatively) miserable $45 million opening weekend.  Sure, there is definitely some superhero fatigue; and following the show-stopping, biggest-movie-of-all-time Avengers finale in 2019, it's been impossible to match those previous heights.  But the new era, which started with streaming in the midst of the pandemic, has many strengths, too, just of a different kind.  I will most definitely be continuing to follow Marvel's stories, on both the big and small screens, for the foreseeable future.  For now, there will still hopefully be plenty of other good things to see at the theater in the coming months!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/marvels_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73059469

Killers of the Flower Moon

 

Score:  A

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone

Running time: 206 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Killers of the Flower Moon is famed director Martin Scorsese's latest film, based on the best-selling and widely praised book.  Unfolding over a formidable 200+ minutes, Scorsese manages to keep audiences rapt throughout thanks to a brutal yet fascinating murderous plot and a set of phenomenal performances from standbys DiCaprio and De Niro and newcomer Gladstone.  It earns the awards hype - recommended for all adults, just beware there is plenty of bloodshed.

In 1919, World War I veteran Ernest (DiCaprio) moves to the Osage reservation in Oklahoma where his brother, Byron, and uncle Hale (De Niro) live.  The Osage have been surrounded by a large white community, thanks to the massive oil field discovered on their land; courts have required the Osage (deemed "incompetent") to work with white men to manage their oil revenue.  Ernest, in his job as a local driver, meets an Osage woman named Mollie, and they soon marry.  While they enjoy their lives together, alongside Mollie's family of sisters and others, a number of disturbing mysterious Osage deaths rock the community.  The riches of the land have driven some bad people to horrific crimes, and Ernest is soon forced to choose between the people he loves.

Killers of the Flower Moon is an excellent historical crime drama, superbly acted and plotted to keep you engaged throughout despite an unusually long running time.  The movie is not for the faint of heart, though: it does not shy away from white men's brutality against the Osage tribe.  Scorsese is not gratuitous, like Tarantino, in his images, but there is still plenty of cold-blooded violence and an omnipresent awareness of the despicable, often breathtaking, plots to deceive and loot the Osage.  Still, I did not find Killers to be an overwhelmingly dark movie - personally, I found it far more bearable than the much less violent Power of the Dog, for example.  It is very serious and realistic, but it is certainly no documentary (despite the historical roots) and even sprinkles in some much-needed humor here and there, usually based on Ernest's stupidity.  As riveting and hair-raising as the first three-quarters of the film is, the tone shifts gears for the final act as the wheels of justice finally - blessedly - kick in.  This part often trips up similar films; as cathartic as it is for the bad guys to get caught, it's too often done inartfully (as is the case in the recent streamer The Burial).  Here, the BOI (early version of FBI) does its job methodically and straightforward but it's in the same realistic, restrained tone as the rest of the film.

Bringing all of this to life is a tremendous cast, both the main characters as well as the supporting cast.  Leonardo DiCaprio turns in another great performance as Ernest, the lead, a white man who becomes closer to the Osage tribe than most.  He is technically a villain, yet so well developed and nuanced, thanks to both writing and acting, that he feels fully human and so at least somewhat sympathetic.  His love for his wife also feels real, and his agony over the conflicts this causes are some of the film's most poignant.  He is also a simple man, though occasional moments of cunning seem out of character; maybe that is realistic, too, though?  Robert De Niro, a frequent muse of Scorsese, also does typically great work, here a patriarch of not only his family but also the community.  I don't think it's too much a spoiler to reveal that he is the true villain of the movie responsible for virtually all the evil done (even if others carry it out).  That he ingratiates himself so effectively on the Osage tribe makes him all the more vile.  Lily Gladstone as Mollie is at least as good as those two superstars - but she does so through amazingly understated performance.  She has very little dialogue, yet communicates so much through her eyes and expressions; she is a perfect symbol of why many white men mistook indigenous people like her as simple "incompetents", yet she is so smart, strong, and capable.  One of the film's weaker points is its relative lack of development of her character, but Gladstone's acting still makes it a vital role.  Finally, I did not really mind the long running time of the movie, although it could certainly have been shorter.  Still, I can't blame Scorsese for keeping the length generous.

***

Killers of the Flower Moon was a great way to kick off the unofficial start of Oscar movie season.  Due to the writers' and actors' strikes (which have now ended, with both groups getting important wins!), the release schedule might be a bit different this year.  The Dune sequel was delayed to next year, among others.  Killers went against my concern for increasing length of some movies, but it at least earned the extended time.  Next up will be the latest Marvel superhero release titled, um, The Marvels - which will hopefully end the year on a high note for the MCU after both Ant-Man 3 and Guardians 3 were disappointments.  Be back soon!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/killers_of_the_flower_moon_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74421048

Dumb Money

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Craig Gillespie

Starring Paul Dano, America Ferrera, Pete Davidson, Seth Rogen, Shailene Woodley, et. al.

Running time: 104 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Dumb Money brings the stranger-than-fiction GameStop stock saga to the big screen with an impressive cast of Hollywood faces.  Recalling events barely three years old, the movie focuses on its large and wide-ranging cast along with some stylish presentation (internet memes galore) for good measure.  Opinions can and will vary on the success - and desirability - of the real life outcomes, but check it out for some thoughtful entertainment.

Keith (Dano) is struggling along with his wife and baby through the pandemic like the rest of the world in 2020.  His main escape from the daily challenges is his interest in the stock market and posting videos about it on an internet forum, Reddit.  Although an old friend, who has investing experience, thinks he's crazy, Keith devotes his family's life savings into GameStop, a stock that he feels is undervalued.  It is also one that several big hedge funds are betting will soon fail, and if it does, their "short squeeze" will further enrich them.  A confluence of events in the wild world of 2020, however, results in GameStop stock surging, with Keith - internet name "Roaring Kitty" - leading the charge.

Dumb Money is an entertaining dramatization of the fascinating and recent real-life "meme stock" phenomenon.  It doesn't dive too deeply into the complex human and technical issues, but it doesn't really have to - they jump off the screen at you, and the filmmakers turn a fairly online-heavy story into a stylish one.  Dealing with complex financial systems and highly idiosyncratic online cultures, Dumb Money had quite a challenge in making a watchable drama.  Fortunately, a large cast of talented actors help bring it to life.  Paul Dano is a natural choice as the lead, one of Hollywood's more "ordinary" looking faces and easy to believe as, well, a dork.  He is superhero-like in a way, with his family role as husband, father, and dull day job while his alter ego as "Roaring Kitty", a leader of like-minded internet and stock addicts, is far different.  While Dano shows a few moments of embracing his sudden fame and power, he's mostly pretty unassuming and mild-mannered - a good choice that feels much more genuine than if he was completely transformed by the end.  It also helps that Dano has plenty of help; the standouts to me were Pete Davidson as his jovial bum of a brother and Rogen's ruthless but very human hedge funder.  Both are quite funny but also provide some of the film's strongest dramatic moments.  Offerman, Ron from Parks & Rec, is of course a welcome face in a small role, and Marvel's Stan shows a new side as Robinhood's CEO - at times a goofy bungler and at others an evil schemer (one of the film's more cartoonish parts but not overboard). Then there are several everyday people who get in on the GameStop stock ride, including Ferrera in the put-upon working woman role she always excels at, and Ramos (In the Heights), who still really rubs me the wrong way; he just feels like that asshole you knew from high school - maybe it's just me, though.

Dumb Money, beyond its cast, does a good job of showing the stock roller coaster ride, even if still proves difficult to sustain effectively throughout.  The filmmakers pulled quite a bit of original video content that was produced during the GameStock surge, largely edited videos portraying the Robinhood "good guys" taking on the hedge fund "bad guys".  A contemporary hip-hop soundtrack also helps set the mood (though I found a lot of it distasteful, IMO).  This styling helps recreate the 2020-21 environment of these events, so while the repeated drama of "oh wow, look how high the stock is now!" grows old, the movie sustains momentum well, helped by its good cast.  It's impossible - well, at least for me - not to also get sucked into the real life issues involved in the story.  The movie portrays Keith and his kindred spirits as the good guys, and ultimately shows them as being successful, even if it's hazy on the details (and the final results, of course, are yet to be determined).  I sympathize with this, at least to the extent that I believe everyone should be able to lead a secure and relatively comfortable life no matter their occupation; no one should have to take wild gambles simply to dig out of (responsible) debt or to afford housing.  But the GameStop model for the little guy to succeed is a terrible one; Ferrera's nurse friend adroitly explains why, but the movie doesn't show any of the probably numerous individuals who lost a lot in the end.  What the world needs (pardon the brief soapbox) is not high risk-reward hero's adventures but boring old government regulation to ensure, to the extent possible, that the economy works for everyone - and when the economy still falls short, to make the lucky few who strike it rich pay back to society to support the many unlucky.  You don't have to agree with me on all this to find that the movie provides a great opportunity to consider duller yet urgent issues underneath the surface of all the excitement.

***

Dumb Money, while not quite an Oscar-contender-level drama, was still a nice way to start off the fall movie season.  I'm often leery of seeing movies or TV shows about recent events or famous people, but this one didn't seem as exploitative or simply lazy as many others do - and I was right!  At the moment, despite its star-packed cast, it's made only about $12 million; that might be partly due to not being in as many theaters as others.  At the moment, most theaters seem to be offering 13,415 horror movies, Paw Patrol, and Taylor Swift.  Ugh.  So if you do find Dumb Money playing at a theater near you, I recommend you go see it!  Until next time, which will hopefully hold another pleasant surprise.

* By Sony Pictures Releasing - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74449492

A Haunting in Venice

 

Score:  B

Directed by Kenneth Branaugh

Starring Kenneth Branaugh, Tina Fey, Michelle Yeoh, Kelly Reilly, et. al.

Running time: 103 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  A Haunting in Venice, a third adaptation of Agatha Christie's Poirot mysteries by director/actor Kenneth Branaugh, is a pleasant early fall entertainment.  While not a great, memorable movie, it's nevertheless rock-solid, a close match in quality to the first Murder on Orient Express.  Poirot continues to be a dependable good guy in this unashamedly traditional franchise.

Hercule Poirot (Branaugh) has decided to leave his famed investigative work behind and hide away in Italy in retirement.  However, one day an old frenemy appears, writer Ariadne Oliver (Fey), who tempts Poirot to join her in attending a seance for a wealthy single woman's dead young daughter.  Poirot is quickly able to discern the medium's (Yeoh) tricks, but soon one of the participants turns up dead.  Trapped in the building that night by a fierce storm, Poirot is determined to get to the bottom of the situation quickly - before anyone else ends up haunting the doomed home.

A Haunting in Venice is a fine, well-made film, providing light fall entertainment that's not super ambitious yet also performs its role as a traditional mystery quite well.  This is Branaugh's third adaptation of Agatha Christie's Poirot stories, and like the others, the plot and characters do have quite a different feel to them compared to contemporary equivalents.  Earnest might not quite be accurate, with all the inevitable twists and relative complexity to the characters and relationships; still, it's a welcome change of tone (IMO) from the cynicism, self-awareness and sheer darkness that many of today's new stories bring.  The atmosphere and various moods are fairly restrained - it's more of a mental exercise than an emotional one.  But there is a light Halloween-y feel to it, with creepy moments but certainly well short of a horror.  There's also some good humor sprinkled in, usually having to do with Poirot's electicisms.  I would say this is about as good as the first Branaugh-Poirot movie (though also nicely distinct from it), thanks in large part to a renewed focus on the lead character.  He's an interesting, and ultimately good, character, fighting for justice by using his wits.  There's precious little moralizing, as there are quite a few shades of gray, but where there is right and wrong, it springs straight from the facts.  I do wish Fey had been given a little more to do, but maybe too little is better than too much in this case.  Ultimately, it's a film that's unlikely to stick with you for a long time but it's also a very pleasant diversion for a wide array of audiences.

***

Although they aren't among the very best films ever, I've enjoyed Branaugh's Poirot mysteries and was glad that another one came out this fall to provide something worth seeing during what's usually a miserable month at the theaters (unless you like horror... yuck!).  I was a bit nervous about this one, though, because the second movie was nowhere near as good as the first.  It strayed from Poirot himself, who was mostly reduced to an observer of a rotten cast of wealthy assholes.  I'd be happy to see a few more of these from Branaugh, provided that they are more like his first and third films.  Now that it's just about October, we should be getting some Oscar contenders as well as blockbuster-level entertainment (can't wait for The Marvels).  Hopefully the next theater trip will be soon - until next time!

* By 20th Century Studios - Disney Media Kits, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73652505

Oppenheimer

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey, Jr.

Running time: 180 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Oppenheimer is star director Christopher Nolan's latest, a historical epic about the development of the a-bomb.  It's the darker half of this summer's "Barbenheimer" phenomenon and is well worth (if you didn't already) a visit to the theater.  Nolan emphasizes a rapidly moving story across multiple time periods in place of his more typical sci-fi flair.  The final act is unfortunately a misfire, but what leads up to it is quite good.

At a time of building tension in the world and the rise of the murderous Nazi regime in Germany, a startling scientific discovery is made in 1938: nuclear fission.  J. Robert Oppenheimer (Murphy), working as a theoretical physicist at universities in California, immediately realizes the significance not just to his own field but also for the terrible possible consequences it could have in war.  The Army recruits Oppenheimer to develop a program to weaponize the new science - desperate to do so before the Nazis, who are believed to be ahead of the Americans due to their formidable physics establishment.  Oppenheimer works quickly, driven by both scientific curiosity and horror at the consequences of the Nazis winning this "race".  But another game is being played under the surface as American politicians grow suspicious of their fragile alliance with the Soviets and potential influences on the scientists.

Oppenheimer is a typically high-quality movie from director Christopher Nolan; it's stylishly made and entertaining, though it is held back from Nolan's top tier by an unnecessary and poorly done final act.  Many of Nolan's movies are sci-fi or at least have a strong emphasis on the visual elements (e.g., Dunkirk).  This movie does have some creative - and a few spectacular - images as well, from Oppenheimer's imagining of stars and molecular processes to the humongous fire of the Trinity test to haunting hallucinations in the aftermath of the bomb's use on Japan.  But these are relatively scarce, with Nolan instead focusing on a fast-edit style that bounces among several different time periods - chiefly, the Manhattan project (1942-45), a security hearing on Oppenheimer (1954) and a Presidential cabinet vote (1959), though there are also scenes showing Oppenheimer's rise from 1926 until the fateful a-bomb project.  This fast-edit style mostly works well: it keeps the pace moving briskly despite the large time span and character spread, and focuses each mini-scene on the most essential dialogue (sometimes just a word or two), details, and images.  There are also cues that help the audience place scenes within the overall puzzle - film quality (including black & white), recurring sets, etc.  The ultimate outcome is obvious to all, yet Nolan still wrings plenty of intrigue from the process, and spends enough time on the physical details of that first test bomb and its preparation to make it feel chillingly real.

Unfortunately, the film lingers on far too long after the first atomic bomb explodes.  Some type of resolution was necessary and appropriate, of course, but the race to get to a successful test of the a-bomb was by far the highest-stakes and most compelling part of the movie.  Instead of leaving it as the film's pinnacle, Nolan extends the film another thirty to forty-five minutes to dwell on Oppenheimer's post-Manhattan advocacy and his political fate.  Even if you didn't know before, it's pretty obvious what is going to happen - and as opposed to the race to develop the a-bomb, is far less consequential or, frankly, interesting.  To make matters worse, Nolan loses his subtle touch and turns the messy political fight into a literally black and white struggle.  Robert Downey, Jr. plays the "villain" here and early in the film he is quite good - but the character becomes far less interesting as his diabolical (but also kind of pathetic, when you think about it) plot unspools.  There are good performances throughout the film, where you'll find a huge number of stars or at least familiar faces in small roles.  Oppenheimer himself is played well by Murphy, an engaging presence, but he remains difficult to decipher, partly because his behavior is wide-ranging.  Matt Damon gives the best performance I've seen from him in a long time as Oppenheimer's supervising Army General, an earnest figure with a nicely dry sense of humor.  There's just not enough time for anyone else to stand out; this three-hour movie feels the same way, packed with lots of good things but ultimately didn't know where to stop.

***

Oppenheimer is a good film that I'm glad I got to see in the theater, despite doing so almost two months after it was released.  Nolan is one of my favorite directors, and while this one falls a little short of my high expectations for him, it still has plenty going for it and was especially good to see in a theater.  It also confirms that Nolan can succeed outside the sci-fi genre; Dunkirk already did that - it's my favorite war movie of all time - but Oppenheimer shows that it wasn't just a fluke.  But please, Nolan: be careful not to lose control like you did a bit with the ending of this movie!  Hopefully there will be some interesting movies coming up this fall - longer term, I'm growing more concerned about the extended writers and actors strikes, but I'm also all for them getting the full compensation they deserve, and waiting until that happens.  Until next time, hopefully soon!

* By Universal Pictures Publicity, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71354716

Haunted Mansion

 

Score:  B

Directed by Justin Simien

Starring LaKeith Steinfeld, Tiffany Haddish, Owen Wilson, Danny DeVito, Rosario Dawson

Running time: 123 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Haunted Mansion, a Disney movie based on a park ride, rises above its origins to provide a perfectly entertaining summer diversion, especially for families.  Younger ones will enjoy the gentle ghost jump scares, but adults will appreciate the impressive cast with both funny - Wilson, Haddish, and DeVito - and high-quality - Steinfeld, Dawson - stars.  If you need a summer outing, this is a nice way to spend your time.

Astrophysicist Ben (Steinfeld) is working on a spectacular new tool, a "camera" that will allow him to see the unseen - dark matter.  He meets a ghost tour guide in New Orleans and, despite the opposing nature of their work, the two fall in love.  Years later, Ben finds himself alone and adrift when he meets another odd stranger, Father Kent (Wilson).  He brings Ben to a long-abandoned mansion on the city's outskirts, where a single mother (Dawson) and her son are terrified and bewildered by the mysteries of their planned bed and breakfast.  Before long, Ben is pulled into an adventure that calls for his special expertise - but also requires that he go beyond it, to confront his past and the things he does not understand.

Haunted Mansion is a solid, very entertaining family adventure movie propelled by its strong and likable cast as well as an interesting plot.  Disney's casting director did a great job here, finding a number of stars who fit their roles quite well.  Steinfeld and Dawson get the two main dramatic roles and anchor the film well; the former as a private, traumatized but determined scientist and the latter as an in-over-her-head but fiercely protective mother and strong leader.  Haddish, Wilson, and DeVito, meanwhile, get the juicy comic support roles.  Each feels suited to their specialty - a psychic, priest, and professor, respectively - and each is hilariously a fraud or failure in their own way (Wilson's priest has possibly my favorite prayer opening ever: "God... give us a break!").  The cumulative effect is that the group effortlessly feels like a family, if a very odd one at that, that's easy to root for.  This improvised family works through the mystery of the mansion together, one that is filled with silly horror - this is Disney, after all! - rather than scary/gory horror (us non-horror fans appreciate this).  There are some neat special effects and a few action/suspense sets, but the spectacle doesn't seem to be the main attraction.  Along with the cast, what drew my attention most was the thoughtful history the writers created for the mansion and how it intertwines with the present-day characters (being filled with ghosts, a main theme is loss, but done in a non-depressing or gloomy way).  The ending is nice and tidy, typical of Disney, but it feels earned, too.

***

Haunted Mansion was an enjoyable mid-summer treat, and hopefully Hollywood will continue to emulate some of its overall strengths - namely, creative use of a talented cast, and a nice middle-of-the-road yet still intriguing plot for a wide array of audiences.  Now we're into the late-summer doldrums so I am not sure what the next movies up will be (still hoping to catch Oppenheimer!).  Hopefully the studios will come to their senses soon and give the striking actors and writers what they deserve, to ensure that we enjoy their creative talents for the coming months and years.  Until next time!

* By Walt Disney Pictures / Rideback / Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73177824

Barbie

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Greta Gerwig

Starring Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, America Ferrera, Will Ferrell, Kate McKinnon

Running time: 114 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Barbie is, yes, about the toy doll, but it's not your average brand cash-in, thanks to a top filmmaker in Greta Gerwig and stars like Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling.  It certainly knows how to have fun, creating a colorful, lively Barbie World filled with cheery Barbies and Kens.  But Gerwig and co-writer Baumbach have a clever script that somehow connects the surreal with our everyday world.  It's a blockbuster for (just about) all ages - enjoy!

In a parallel universe, Barbies rule a pink, magical world, loving life with Kens at their side.  One day, however, Stereotypical Barbie (Robbie) finds that her happy routine has been interrupted by disturbing thoughts and feelings.  After visiting the outcast "Weird" Barbie (McKinnon) for advice, she decides to go to the real world to find the source of the disturbances.  There, she and Ken (Gosling) find a drabber and far different society.  They can't simply go home, though: Barbie must learn how to address her new feelings and figure out how to reconcile two seemingly opposite worlds.

Barbie is a very fun and funny movie that also has overt but appropriate and striking empowerment themes.  The first thing to almost pop off the screen is the movie's visual flair, a true summer movie if I ever saw one.  The Barbie World is garishly colored, but there are few computer effects and so the physical sets make it feel both more grounded and incongruous (in a good way).  Barbie World truly comes alive during a handful of musical scenes, adding to the happy tone.  The talented writers Gerwig and Baumbach thread the needle with their humor, anticipating the audience's awareness of the absurdity of the premise and seeming to play it at face value but with subtle nods/winks at the ridiculousness.  In Barbie World at the beginning, Barbies and Kens speak and behave like you'd imagine that "living" toys might, in their perfect yet simplistic world.  Then, transitioning to the real world, there's equal humor in these toys' "fish out of water" experiences.  Robbie and Gosling are great fun as the co-leads.  Robbie has to do more of the dramatic heavy lifting (though she has plenty of fun in the first third of the film) while Gosling - appropriately subordinate as Ken - gets to let loose a bit more, but still brings more depth than expected to the role, too.  Ferrell and McKinnon are hilarious, of course, and on the other end, Ferrera, as the one average person, brings real strength in a key if somewhat surrogate-like role.  It's not all fun and games in a suitably fantastic plot, though.  Director and writer Gerwig seizes the opportunity to really dig into what Barbie represents in the real world, and how that plays out in gender dynamics.  She keeps most of it directly connected with the humor - Gosling/Ken's amazement at the power of patriarchy and its... horses; "brainwashed" Barbies being literally woken up by the enlightened Robbie and Ferrera while the Kens are distracted.  But there's also a sweet, earnest moment with Barbie's human creator, and a happy but not so tidy ending.  All this in a well-paced, two-hour package!

***

Having enjoyed Ladybird, I knew Barbie had potential, coming from the same talented filmmaker in Greta Gerwig.  It's turned out to be quite the cultural phenomenon, though I can't say I'm too plugged in to all of that.  What I do know is that the movie is strong summer entertainment, and something much more appealing to, frankly, women, than most blockbusters - but as I can attest, absolutely fine for men, too!  Hollywood desperately needs to make more films along these broad strokes - we need them to bring people of all ages, stages and backgrounds into the movie theater, not just those like me who love superheroes and action.  Whether that happens or not is an open question, but in the mean time, make sure to go and enjoy Barbie!

* By Carolina Cinemas, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72508674

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning-Part One

 

Score:  A

Directed by Christopher McQuarrie

Starring Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Rebecca Ferguson, Esai Morales

Running time: 164 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Tom Cruise returns to his spy agent role Ethan Hunt for a seventh time in Dead Reckoning - Part One, and he - and the movie - are as good as ever.  It's long, but packed with both great action and intriguing personal battles more intense than before.  Whether the stunts are actually bigger than ever is debatable but they are at least as entertaining, and the direction and writing maximizes its impact with good variety and pacing.  This is a must-see summer blockbuster for all.

Ethan (Cruise) is faced with perhaps his least-possible mission yet: battling not just crafty human foes, but also a menacing AI program gone rogue.  Developed by the Russians, "the Entity" quickly grew beyond the bounds, and control, of its creator, leading to an international race among the world's powers to try to seize control of the dangerous software.  Realizing the Entity is too dangerous to be allowed to survive as a pawn in the intelligence wars, Ethan decides to destroy it, but to do so he'll need to recover the literal key to the program.  Teaming up with old friends Luther (Rhames) and Benji (Pegg), as well as new allies, Ethan must find the key before it slips out of his - and everyone else's - grasp forever.

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning (Part One) is another exemplary installment of the nearly thirty-year-old franchise, as Cruise & Co. somehow continue to push the boundaries of practical action stunt work but also ground it in rock-solid storytelling and characters.  I have to begin with the action, since it's the main draw, even though it's not the only good thing going.  The variety, creativity, and sheer intensity are brilliant, and director and writer McQuarrie does a great job of building it up gradually throughout the film to a fantastic finale.  It actually starts rather slowly - no big, pre-credits set piece like in Bond movies.  Instead, we get a pretty direct picture of the stakes of this new mission and the ominous AI, or "Entity".  It's not too subtle, but you'll be grateful for that later.  The first great action scene is more like MI's classic stealth and deception setup, as Ethan attempts to make a quick switch with an unsuspecting target at an airport while also evading agents who are after him.  It mixes in so much yet seamlessly, from humor, to "plan B, C, & D" improvising, to dark hints of the Entity's power.  Next up is a car chase through Rome that vaguely recalls the one from MI-Fallout, yet it is both just as good as and utterly distinct from that one.  I particularly appreciated that, for all Ethan's talents, the chase is also filled with goof-ups (from both good and bad guys); and his pairing with a skilled thief - but a newbie to multi-party, full throttle urban chases - provides humor and grounding.  The final act on a train is much slower and longer, but does not feel drawn out at all, thanks to its split into multiple, distinct sub-scenes.  This is where we get the big stunt of the film, Ethan's jump off a cliff on a motorcycle which you've probably seen part of in previews - it's another great moment for MI.  A desperate scramble for survival at the very end might even top that cliff jump, but I won't spoil it here.

MI-Dead Reckoning Part One is, just like its title, quite long, at two hours and forty five minutes.  A good portion of this is the action described above, but there is plenty else going on that, as with any similar franchise worth watching, is also engaging.  Although the movie starts in fairly un-MI-like style with its overt description of the Entity and its capability, the rest of the movie slides easily back into the series' penchant for duplicity and work in the shadows, both seen and implied.  And the characters playing this all out are equal to the task, thanks in no small part to the film's continuation of previous stories and themes.  Tom Cruise as lead IMF agent Ethan Hunt is still on top of his game - certainly in the action scenes, where he is utterly believable and still runs like a man on, well, a mission - but also in the quieter in-between scenes; Ethan has both softened, showing increased affection for his friends, but also deeply troubled by his foe here.  Atwell (new) and Ferguson (returning) are tremendous as well, every bit Cruise/Hunt's equal in the field but utilizing very different styles to do so.  They are strong, independent characters yet their complex relationships with Hunt help shed new light on him, too.  Morales is a chilly and effective presence as main baddy Gabriel - cool, competent and fearless.  But there are also plenty of sheer fun roles, starting with Hunt's loyal partners Luther (Rhames) and Benji (Pegg), as good as ever.  Returning Alanna (Kirby) is still snarky fun and Pom Klementieff (Guardians' Mantis) is a riot as a psycho terminator.  All these vivid characters give the plot and action much more meaning; the AI "takeover the world" might feel a bit distant, but the battle to control or destroy it brings out very personal and ruthless stakes.  Some of Hunt and Co.'s old tricks are breaking down in this new digital era, whether because AI co-opts or disrupts them, or they simply stop working.  One thing's for sure, though: this Mission Impossible works at least as well if not better than ever.

***

Mission Impossible was one of the films I was counting on this summer, similar to my expectations for any new Pixar film - and just like Elemental last month, it came through brilliantly.  To provide another comparison, even though this is a part one-of-two movie, there is no feeling of letdown at the end, only excitement for what's next, like in Avengers Infinity War.  Let's keep it going: Mission Impossible is absolutely one of the great action movie franchises of all time, right there with James Bond.  Two other recent, "mini-franchises" are also great, in Matt Damon's Bourne movies and Keanu Reeves's John Wick (I saw the fourth movie this spring - I haven't written my review yet but I will!).  I find it more and more difficult to enjoy other action movies now, as they almost always pale in comparison to these fantastic series.  Next up is quite a change of pace - Oppenheimer - and after that, I really have no idea.  Until next time!

* By Deadline, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73287380

The Flash

Score:  B

Directed by Andy Muschietti

Starring Ezra Miller, Michael Keaton, Sasha Calle

Running time: 144 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Flash gives the spotlight to a lesser-known member of the Justice League, and the result is a solid, entertaining film that rises above many others by simply not trying to do too much.  The action truly is a draw here, entertaining and not simply an obligatory spectacle.  The multiverse pops up yet again here, as does time travel, but there are enough fun characters to get through it easily enough.  No prior superhero knowledge required: recommended for any looking for a nice action blockbuster.

Barry Allen, aka The Flash, is a member of the Justice League of superheroes, including Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman.  Like several of his companions, Barry has suffered a tragedy: his mother was murdered when he was a teenager, and his innocent father was framed for the crime.  Using his powers of incredible speed, Barry one day discovers that he can literally run backward in time, giving him a temptation too good to resist.  However, Barry soon finds, as all time travelers do, that interfering with the past can have both subtle and major consequences - and far beyond that of his own family.

The Flash is a fun superhero movie, better than it probably even should have been considering the circumstances.  The circumstances are these: it is one of the last DC superhero films in the studio's years-long, elaborate (and decidedly mixed-results) plan that already feels stale; and its plot heavily involves the very well-worn themes of the multiverse and time travel.  Those factors certainly weigh on the film to some degree, but it also overcomes them surprisingly well.  The multiverse aspect here at least feels (relatively) contained, and allows for neat alternate superheroes (more later).  Time travel tropes are present as well, but it allows the film to explore Barry's character in a more interesting way than most DC films.  One of the best parts of the film - and, frankly, why most people would want to see it in the first place - is the action.  For a nearly two-and-a-half hour superhero film, it's kept to a modest three main set pieces; and crucially, they each feel more intimate and less numbing than much superhero action has become (even from Marvel).  The first showcases the Flash's extraordinary speed, but for the purpose of rescue, and humor, rather than battle (plus cool cameos from his Justice League partners).  The second and third are darker, more brutal scenes, but not overly so; they allow for more vulnerability in the heroes than usual and so feel more tense and intriguing.

The characters in The Flash are middling: not Marvel-level quality, but more interesting than those from many DC movies.  Ezra Miller's Barry leads the way, and in fact, we get a double dose via a younger version who shadows the "present day" version for most of the film.  Nothing too deep here, but at least you get a better feel for Barry as a human being and not just the hero.  Batman and Supergirl get little background but are still fun.  Having Keaton back in the cape and cowl just brings a fond smile, and Calle brings a mood of foreboding to Supergirl that fits Krypton's fate (and the likely fate of her alternate-Earth).  Although in smaller parts, we also get a number of people from Barry's normal life including his parents, of course; a brief romantic interest; and even roommates.  Along those lines, The Flash also benefits from a pretty solid script, mostly shying away from the ponderous and more toward humor (actually funny humor, mostly, and not nakedly poor attempts at it).  Like the action, the story feels contained - so despite being another link in a multi-year chain of Justice League superhero movies, it doesn't bring the sense of a necessary or even inevitable sequel.  There are other limitations, such as the little we have to go on the alternate superheroes, and an eyebrow-raising side plot to transfer the Flash's powers.  But there are no truly fatal flaws: this is an easily enjoyable superhero film.

***

The Flash was better than I expected and, believe it or not, is so far my favorite superhero movie of the year, besting Marvel's two offerings.  I was already a bit more familiar with this comic book character than usual, though, since I watched the first five seasons or so of The CW show about him.  That familiarity ended up being both a pro and a con, I think, so probably a wash in the end.  I did like the show quite a bit, so I'd recommend checking it out on Netflix if you're interested.  There are two more movies I'm eagerly anticipating this summer - Mission: Impossible #?? and Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer - but hopefully there will be some other good ones to come along.  Although I've mostly enjoyed a summer full of familiar brands (e.g., Pixar) and sequels, I'm looking forward to something fresh.  Until next time!

* By Warner Bros. Entertainment - http://www.impawards.com/2023/flash_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72998005

Elemental

 

Score:  A

Directed by Peter Sohn

Starring Leah Lewis, Mamoudou Athie, Ronnie del Carmen, Catherine O'Hara

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Pixar is back in theaters at long last* with Elemental, and it feels just like the good old days.  The premise is among Pixar's cleverest and most effective, using a city of element-people to bring to life both a heart-bursting rom-com as well as a poignant immigrant story.  The animation is as astounding as ever and the humor and emotions will send you soaring just like you remember.  Highly recommended for, like all Pixar films, any audience, from young families to cinephiles.

(*last year's Lightyear was technically Pixar's return to theaters, but I didn't see it and it didn't really seem like a true Pixar film, you know?)

Element City is a special place, one that, over the years, has adopted - but not yet fully integrated -  a colorful set of people in the form of elements: Fire, Water, Air, and Earth.  Ember (Lewis) lives with her parents in the Fire section of the city where they run the neighborhood bodega.  Ember is set to inherit the shop one day, but, appropriate to her element, must first overcome a quick and powerful temper.  Another obstacle to her taking over the Fireplace soon arrives when a dreaded water leak develops in the basement.  There is only so much that Ember can do by herself, so she is forced to trust in the other elements in the city around her for help.  It's a test of compatibility in a city long kept separated out of fear and ignorance.

Elemental is a great animated film with all of Pixar's typically great visual design, cleverness, and emotional impact, and its story is particularly well-suited to the animation format.  As you've likely glimpsed from trailers, Pixar's latest provides a nice, bright, poppy color palette for its summer release.  What I only truly appreciated in the theater, though, was the extraordinary texture effects of the elements, particularly Fire and Water (the two main elements in the film).  Pixar has again made the seemingly impossible appear effortless with the natural blurriness and flicker of flames and the smooth but erratic-seeming flow of drips of water.  The idea of elements as people (a bit like Inside Out's emotions) also leads to much of the humor, which is very well done.  Most of it happens naturally, within the flow of "normal" element-city life: water's tendency to cry and the unique products of the Fireplace were some of my favorites.  It's not all happy, bright colors and jokes, though: Pixar makes Element City parallel to real cities in its incorporation of "immigrant" communities (exemplified here by Fire).  The differences among the elements naturally lead to this comparison - and to the implicit segregation - and the effect is moving but not unduly heavy.

Helping to balance out the immigrant themes - some of Pixar's most serious yet - is the rom-com aspect of the story.  You'll find many of the usual genre beats: the awkward first meeting, the jaunt around town together, the traumatic split before the final act, etc.  And just as the use of elements is a good illustration of immigration, the very format of animation turns out to be a great one for romantic comedy.  The characters in Elemental are as expressive as live-action humans, thanks to Pixar's artists, but we're still watching clearly non-human beings.  That allows you to more easily project your own mental images into the story, as rom-coms are so good at inviting us to do.  With a screen packed full of imagination, audiences might therefore have even more going on in their heads than during the usual Pixar adventure.  Speaking of characters, it was nice to see Pixar turn to a cast of (relative) unknowns for the voice acting.  Of course, it's great to give new talent a chance to shine (or rather, to be heard) but it also doubles down on the audience's impressions of the characters or story not being colored by familiar personas - via sight or sound.  Finally, Elemental's animation also allows the action to more closely match the intensity and wonder of the relationship's emotions, from a spectacular underwater date to a perilous and tearful (but ultimately happy!) finale.

***

It was so great to see a Pixar movie in the theater again!  The last time I saw one was 2019's Toy Story 4, which feels like forever ago.  While the premise, or the part of it I got from the trailer, didn't grab my interest at first, I knew immediately that I had to go see it - and, just like most Pixar films, it exceeded my expectations.  Part of my enthusiasm could be the excitement of the theatrical experience but looking back, even when it occasionally seems that a part of the story fell flat or wasn't going anywhere, the movie either quickly got back on track or turned the weakness into a key development later on.  Also: Pixar continues to include a short story before the main film, this time about Up's Carl and dog, Dug.  It's one of the best yet!  So be sure to see this one in a theater while you can.  Amid a sea of summer sequels - even the good ones - it's so refreshing to see another Pixar hit.

* By Pixar - http://www.impawards.com/2023/elemental_ver10.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73800022

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson

Starring Shameik Moore, Hailee Steinfeld, Brian Tyree Henry, Luna Lauren Velez, Oscar Isaac, et. al.

Running time: 140 minutes

Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man leaps back into the fray, this time in animated form, in a sequel to 2018's Into the Spider-Verse.  Like that film, this one focuses on a theme of multiverses, where there's not just one Spider-Man but many.  We get to focus on Miles and Gwen, here, mostly, and their personal stories are well done.  While there's good action, too, the plot is just OK.  Put all that aside, though: the visuals alone are worth the price of admission, with dazzling color and thoughtful detail and styles.

More than a year after Into the Spider-Verse introduced the Spider-People of multiple universes, Miles (Moore) and Gwen (Steinfeld) find themselves alone again in their own universes.  The multiverse will not let them go so easily, however.  Gwen meets a new team of multiverse Spiders while battling a villain, and Miles confronts a different villain who can open portals at will himself.  The two good friends are joyful when they finally reunite, but circumstances are much different than when they last met.  Both are dealing with difficult personal problems at home as a result of their superhero activities, and both have urgent Spider-missions, ones that are not necessarily aligned with each other.  They must learn more about the wild multiverse they've become a part of, soon, though, and rely on both new and old friends to avert disaster.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is a solid, very entertaining sequel to the 2018 animated original film.  By far the best part of it is the astonishing visuals, though it is weighed down a bit by a too-familiar plot.  Although the style is much different, Across the Spider-Verse is just as jaw-dropping as the best Pixar animation.  While it mostly has a fairly realistic physical sense, the colors in particular are quite malleable and serve as the most interesting part of most of the film, whether through sheer beauty or emphasis of the emotional tone/mood of a scene.  It has a distinctive style throughout, but it also retains plenty of flexibility, too.  Just remarkable, and begging to be seen on the big screen.  There is plenty of action, of course, being a superhero movie, and the animation is both particularly appropriate for Spider-Man (with all his web-based "flying", "lassoing" and other acrobatics) and helps suspend your disbelief.  The action can go on a bit too long, and one particularly wild chase is a little overboard, but that's mostly quibbling - it's a lot of fun.  Speaking of too long, the film overall is also too long, even if for the noble intention of trying to pay as much attention to the personal parts as the action.

The characters and plot of Across the Spider-Verse are well-developed, although the results are somewhat mixed.  To start with, the whole multiverse concept is getting a bit tiring.  The current series of live-action Marvel films uses it as its main connecting theme; last year's Oscar winner Everything Everywhere... was built on it, and, of course, the 2018 animated original used it, too.  There was always going to be some element of the multiverse involved (Miles and Gwen had to get back together somehow!), but the film leans into it even harder this time.  Even the switch of focus away from the villain and onto the team of Spider-People - who ostensibly should be good but hide a more dubious goal - feels overly familiar.  This is made up for in good measure by a solid family story and structure for both Miles and Gwen - and in part, it's because we don't get the way-too-familiar Aunt May/Uncle Ben dynamic.  Miles, in particular, feels very well-rounded here.  An adult Peter Parker, voiced by funnyman Jake Johnson, is a bright spot again, basically just serving as comic relief (and now with baby in tow).  On the other hand, Steinfeld's Gwen and Isaac's Miguel grated on me a bit.  I think it's because they've both recently starred in live-action Marvel series, too, and their usual personas are on display.  Even though it's only their voices, I still felt like I was watching recycled roles.

***

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse vaults to the top of my superhero list for the year, thanks to Marvel producing - unprecedentedly - back-to-back disappointments (Ant-Man 3 and Guardians 3 - maybe it's curse of the 3s this year?).  It was a very fun time at the theater, even if I don't feel gushing about it.  That may in part be because my attention wandered a bit more than usual; and I haven't seen the 2018 original since it was in theaters five years ago.  Still, I highly recommend it (family-friendly, too!).  DC will have the next few cracks at the superhero genre, starting with The Flash.  I'll also be seeing another animated movie again, Elemental, quite soon - my first new Pixar in theaters since Toy Story 4 in 2019.  Hopefully the summer will bring more movie goodness!

* By https://twitter.com/SpiderVerse/status/1651254816025313281/photo/1, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72536149

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3

 

Score:  B-

Directed by James Gunn

Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Bradley Cooper

Running time: 150 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The third Guardians movie sees the team of lovable losers continue to try to protect the vast (and always wild) frontier in space.  Unfortunately, Vol. 3 is closer in most ways to the disappointing Vol. 2 than to the incredibly creative and successful original movie.  There are some interesting ideas and character developments, moreso at least than its predecessor.  But while the action is impressive at times, it is simply too bloated, squeezing out or minimizing everything else.  Worth a theater trip if you're a Marvel fan or need big blockbuster action; otherwise, wait for streaming.

The Guardians of the Galaxy have established a home on the strange celestial artifact, Knowhere - but the past will not let them go.  Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord, can't get past his "double" loss of Gamora (Saldana), killed by Thanos but then "returning" via a parallel universe.  This new Gamora, however, neither knows nor likes Quill.  Rocket is still haunted by the grotesque experiments performed upon him years ago.  And Nebula still searches for her place on the team after having been Thanos's loyal servant.  A sudden attack, however, puts Rocket's life in danger, and so the Guardians return to space to find a way to save him.  Along the way, they encounter both old friends as well as a new adversary who hopes to rid the galaxy of its "imperfections" - misfits like the Guardians themselves.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is an entertaining blockbuster start to the summer, but like Vol. 2 before it, it does not live up to the original due to trading too much of its cleverness and character chemistry for the spectacle.  I'll start with the good.  There is an overabundance of action, yes, but admittedly it is pretty impressive for the most part.  There are still a few neat ideas (like an organic space station), and the special effects are high-quality.  The first action scene, with the god-like Warlock attacking the Guardians in Knowhere, is jarring for its suddenness and intensity (not to mention its consequences).  The movie is also brimming with interesting ideas, and its underlying theme contrasting the villain's goal of creating a perfect sentient organism with the Guardians' core quality of being the "cast-off" heroes is appropriate.  I liked that they continued Avengers: Endgame's Quill-Gamora dynamic, as he fights to win her back in vain.  And most of all, I liked the backstory given to Rocket.  We already knew the broad strokes of how he became a super-intelligent raccoon, but his character deserved this deeper dive into how it psychologically shaped him.  Rocket befriended with several other similarly-victimized creatures during his captivity, all of them adorable despite their mutilations; it helps that they have super cute voices (especially Cardellini, sounding heavenly).  Their introduction, as they console and embrace Rocket, the new guy, is the most touching of the movie.

Despite the not-insignificant bright spots, Guardians Vol. 3 ultimately wastes more potential than it fulfills due to its sprawling emphasis on the action.  There are at least three large-scale set pieces, and each of them is unnecessarily drawn out, each more so than the next and representing weaknesses carried over from Vol. 2.  The first, on the organic station, had good potential and a few nice quips - but also forces the humor just as much, and feigns high stakes and danger before wiping it all away in a flash.  The second battle is on an "artificial" Earth (think the suburbs with anthropomorphized critters as neighbors).  Mass, breathtaking damage and casualties ensue, which feels wrong for the Guardians tone and the toll is barely acknowledged (reminding me of Vol. 2's mass-murdering arrow).  And the third, finale action scene is the longest of them all, between two gigantic space vessels and the dozens of characters within them.  It is often incomprehensible - even for a Marvel movie nut like me - and moments of deus ex machina just pile up.  Each of these three mega battle scenes have some good to offer - but they all simply go overboard and the weaknesses, at times just from shoddy writing, are too glaring.  With so much time spent on these battles, there is also just not enough to devote to the intriguing themes and characters I previously described - despite the moving being 2.5 hours long.  Especially with this being the likely end of the Guardians as we've known them, I'm disappointed that they decided to go out with more literal bangs than narrative/character ones. (I also didn't like the needle-drop soundtrack on this one nearly as much as the first two movies - but opinions on that will differ!) 

***

Guardians Vol. 3 was a stuttering - though not awful - start to the summer movie season.  It also is a startling second-straight disappointment from Marvel this year, following Ant-Man 3.  I'm a bit nervous that, in trying to top the movies that culminated in Endgame, Marvel is going the conventional blockbuster direction of simply amping up the action and the special effects.  I would much prefer less of that and more character and narrative development (which some recent Marvel movies have indeed done well).  Two new Disney+ streaming series are coming soon, and I think November's The Marvels will be a big test for the franchise to see what direction - in tone and style - it wants to go.  I also want to say that, following Guardians Vols. 2 and 3 and The Suicide Squad, I'm increasingly skeptical of James Gunn's talent.  But he will now be the (or one of the main) driving forces behind DC's superhero films starting soon - good luck with that!  Well, that's a lot of superhero talk, but there are plenty of fun-looking movies in other genres coming out in the next couple months.  Stay tuned!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/guardians_of_the_galaxy_vol_three_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72394795