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