Venom 3 + Red One

 

   

Red One

Score:  B+

Directed by

Starring Dwayne Johnson, Chris Evans, J.K. Simmons, Lucy Liu, Kiernan Shipka

Running time: 123 minutes

Rated PG-13

Following in a recent trend of Christmas action-comedy movies, Red One brings some serious star power and does so in a surprisingly effective and entertaining way.  The movie's world is clever, putting Santa and the North Pole in the midst of a human world-myth world security and intelligence network.  A silly concept, of course, but the movie takes just the right balance of tone between tongue in cheek with enough seriousness to be compelling and even tense at times.  The cast is also very well chosen: Dwayne Johnson is perfect as the head of Santa's security; it's basically his usual schtick, but it fits naturally here.  Chris Evans is also great as more of a cunning, sly ne'er-do-well, which also makes for a great holiday-style redemption arc.  The dialogue is snappy and funny throughout, with neat nods and tie-ins to its various components (Christmas, The Rock's movies, etc.); not surprising, as Red One was directed by Kasdan who made the impressive Jumanji reboot and several TV comedies.  The action is fun, too, but it's the inventive world, committed and well-suited star performances, and even some holiday cheer that make this a great trip to the theater.

Venom: The Last Dance

Score:  C

Directed by Kelly Marcel

Starring Tom Hardy, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Juno Temple

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated PG-13

Venom: The Last Dance is, apparently, the last in the superhero trilogy of anti-superhero Venom, a combination of human Eddie Brock (Hardy) and a symbiotic shape-shifting alien.  While the series has had entertaining moments and its main character is a nice change of pace in the genre, I'm not sad to see it end, particularly on this "blah" note.  The Eddie-Venom dynamic is the most interesting part of the series, but this movie strangely only has a few moments that focus on them.  Instead, much of the screen time is devoted to a whole new (dull) villain that is chasing after the main duo.  Worse than this unimaginative setup is the final, incomprehensible sequence when the internal "rules" of the world go out the window (Symbiotes can be eaten but... survive? Each character seems to get "killed" multiple times), ruining any suspense.  Venom still provides some chuckles from his untamed, predatory yet not-quite villainous persona, and some of the action is fine.  But mostly, it's a mess with little pay off.

***

It's been a pretty slow fall for movies so far, and I wasn't even going to write a review for Venom 3 at first.  But I thought it served as a nice contrast with Red One: while Venom seems a cash grab using its star and genre but serving audiences poor to mediocre results, Red One rises well above its seeming cash grab origins to provide a very solid, entertaining, and distinctive experience.  Fortunately, Red One just came out so you should still have a chance to catch it in theaters.  There are a few other movies coming out in the last month or so of the year - notably Gladiator 2, which I will see and review soon.  Hopefully the year will end on a high note at the theater!

* By SocialNewsXYZ, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77071925

* By Dwayne Johnson's Instagram post, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77219523

Saturday Night

 

Score:  A

Directed by Jason Reitman

Starring Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Sennott, Corey Michael Smith, Matt Wood, Lamorne Morris, et al

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Saturday Night is a well-conceived origin story for the storied NBC comedy show, putting audiences right in the thick of the chaos of the first episode.  The cast of mostly unknowns does great work - it's the characters themselves that we all know, and everyone from leader Lorne Michaels to volcanic Belushi to an overwhelmed aide are compelling to watch.  Combine this with a great script, direction, music, and more, and you have both an entertaining and Oscar-worthy trip to the theater.  Highly recommended.

October 11, 1975: it's 10:00 PM in New York City, and Lorne Michaels (LaBelle) has just arrived at 30 Rockefeller Plaza to launch a strange new late-night comedy show.  The problem is, well, everything.  Michaels finds out that NBC affiliates from around the country have come to see the show's debut in person, led by legendary NBC executive David Tebet (Dafoe).  The show's cast is mostly in place, although Belushi (Wood) still refuses to sign his contract, some wonder what the hell is going on, and others fret that their sketches will be cut.  Plenty more obstacles must be overcome in order to launch their live show at 11:30 PM, mostly having to do with the unique, not quite definable nature of the show.  But there is a lot of talent and willpower on set as well, and the various forces collide all the way up to the last minute.

Saturday Night is a wildly entertaining, very well-made, and highly appropriate origin story movie for the legendary SNL (now celebrating its 50th season!).  The structure is its main strength: it all takes place in the 90 minutes leading up to the first broadcast (mirroring the show's is 90 minutes run time).  This gives the movie urgency and, yes, a feeling of being live and in the moment.  We get just enough backstory/exposition to understand what's going on but the movie is mostly about the nuts-and-bolts chaos of actually putting this crazy thing on air.  The events portrayed are also a very nice mix: the movie mostly follows Lorne Michaels, who created SNL, though it focuses on others, too.  The primary lens shows Michaels dealing with his cast members and crew both on stage and behind the scenes.  We get just enough of the "bigwigs" to portray the stakes involved: how slim SNL's chances were of success and how ready the execs were to pull the plug.  There's also a perfect amount of re-enactment of SNL sketches being rehearsed, sprinkled throughout the movie: they are brilliantly and hilariously shot, from Weekend Update to Billy Preston to the construction workers sketch and more.

The cast and the vibe of the film are perfectly suited as well, drawing audience in closely to the events.  LaBelle is great as Michaels; he's certainly nowhere near as charismatic as the cast, rather he is a combination of audience surrogate as well as a distinct character with sheer grit and determination as well as the kind of cool under pressure leader the show required.  The actors playing cast members are fantastic, from Belushi to Chase to Akroyd to Radner, Curtin and Morris.  They all show both comedic chops on stage but also are believable as "real" people off stage.  There are plenty of great non-cast member roles, too: Sennott as Shuster, Michaels's wife (in a rocky time) and a writer/co-leader of show who appears just as visionary as him; a put-upon Dick Ebersol; fiercely funny and passionate head writer Michael O'Donoghue, Dafoe, Simmons, etc. etc.  It's amazing that the movie could fit in all these characters so well (plus a few intriguing "cameos").  The script is excellent, both for comedy (few direct jokes - mostly just natural humor) and for the inner workings of a TV production.  The overriding vibes of the movie are fun and excitement; it's easy to root for Michaels and Co. to succeed, and feel drama even when knowing the final outcome.

***

Saturday Night is the first drama of the season I've seen, and it was a great way to start!  I've been a fan of SNL for years, which perhaps biases my opinion.  But I feel the movie really captured the essence of the show well.  Does SNL always work and is hilarious? No - it's often just OK, or even bombs at times.  But there's a constant feeling of upbeat, fun, positive energy from the show, and it keep me hooked - and that comes through in the movie Saturday Night, too.  Now, beware that, just like the show, the movie gets a bit raunchy at times - and there's a fair bit of cursing.  This is just a really fun ride, though, with all the elements clicking together so well.  It might be too late to see it in a theater, but catch it on streaming if you can!

* By Columbia Pictures - https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1821568411362795671, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77575339

Deadpool & Wolverine

 

Score:  A

Directed by Shawn Levy

Starring Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman

Running time: 128 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Marvel is back!!!  The only new theatrical release this year for the blockbuster action franchise is a biggy, teaming up two of the most popular characters.  Although they come from very different origins, Deadpool and Wolverine turn out to be like chocolate and peanut butter.  Come for the lovable, 4th-wall-breaking snark from Deadpool, stay for the MCU's unmatched event-movie spectacle. Warning, for those expecting a typical superhero movie: there is lots of bloody/gory fighting and plenty of swearing.  Still, for those who can stomach it, this is a tremendously entertaining summer movie!

The "Merc with a Mouth", Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool (Reynolds), is going through a rough patch.  He aspires to the heroics of better-known icons like Thor and Captain America, but he can't seem to leave parts of his past behind him.  While working mundane jobs, a mysterious agency introduces him to the multiverse, however, in a development that threatens to literally upend Wade's entire world.  Wade knows that he can't fix the problem on his own and, using the newly discovered multiverse to his advantage, searches for a partner.  He manages to locate the mutant he has always worshipped, Wolverine (Jackman) - but it's not what he expects.  The two odd bedfellows must work past their differences and together confront a deadly threat to the multiverse.

Deadpool & Wolverine is a great return to form for Marvel superhero movies, full of fun and able to manage some tricky balancing acts.  Deadpool is a unique superhero, not only more sarcastic and vulgar than most, but also frequently breaking the "fourth wall" by talking directly to the audience.  While Marvel doesn't take itself completely seriously, either, it is still "traditional" story-telling; as Deadpool himself remarks, his appearance in the MCU is thus an awkward fit.  However, this third Deadpool movie, and the first one "sharing" space with another franchise, works very well, largely due to the now-maligned multiverse concept.  When you have infinite universes at your disposal, it's a perfect situation for Deadpool, who thrives on the bizarre, extreme, and unrealistic (and each of those elements is still kept in check enough to hold the audience).  Among the most entertaining scenes are those showing different versions of the title characters; perhaps the best is "Dog"-pool, which is, naturally, the ugliest breed of dog on the planet.  The plot is not super interesting; it does nicely build off previous Wolverine /X-Men movies, but between this and the multiverse components (even I'm not sure I got everything!), it's a bit reliant on superhero fandom.  Still, it's solid enough as a vehicle for the main entertainment.

Instead of plot, the movie focuses mostly on the co-leads' relationship, which is a great decision as they are both distinct, charismatic - and very different - characters.  Deadpool is the primary focus, and his character is developed in small but thoughtful chunks despite all the surroundings shenanigans.  At the same time, his trademark dirty humor isn't toned down at all - and Wolverine's own more subtle but also dark humor is a great companion for him.  The whole movie is hilarious - particularly the more familiar you are with superhero movies, with several great cameos.  But even for those who aren't, there is plenty of slapstick and sight gags as well as Marvel's signature wisecracks and banter.  The action is also a lot of fun, even though it suffers from "Superman syndrome" in that the leads are basically immortal.  However, at least half the time they are fighting each other, so rather than worrying about what may happen to them, you just enjoy the impressive, creative, and funny choreography.  There's only one regular "henchman" fight, but it basically turns into a music video (hint: boy bands) so it's great, too; the finale battle isn't amazing, but the movie didn't really need one.  Even the ending is somewhat poignant, despite the good-humored cynicism of most of the movie.  After all the blood and bickering, it shows that even the rougher-edged among us need good companions.

***

Deadpool & Wolverine had a lot to live up to as the only Marvel movie to be released this year and the first time the unique Deadpool experience was mixed with a more traditional movie.  Fortunately for audiences - and Marvel - it was a resounding success.  It was truly an open question, to me, if Deadpool could really work within the MCU framework.  As much as the multiverse concept has been worn out, though, it turned out to be the perfect tool to re-introduce this almost "meta" character.  Deadpool himself suggests that perhaps it's time to retire the multiverse plot, winking at declining critical and box office results for Marvel.  Along with the legal troubles of actor Jonathan Majors, who played the key villain, this could well be the right call.  Whether or not Deadpool returns is left nicely ambiguous by the ending (although $$$ signs seem to point toward "yes") - if he does, I now have quite a bit more confidence that it can work out perfectly well.  Now that Marvel is already done for the year, though, it's back to the guessing game of what's next for me at the movie theater!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/deadpool_and_wolverine_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73871602

Fly Me to the Moon

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Greg Berlanti

Starring Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Woody Harrelson

Running time: 132 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Greg Berlanti (producer behind everything from Dawson's Creek to my favorite CW superhero series) directs an intriguing rom-com, mixing fact and fiction in the time of the moon landing.  Johansson and the supporting cast are great but Tatum is awful, and the movie has sharp writing, humor, and design.  It just lacks a genuine "spark" to truly lift off into the upper echelon.  Still, a worthwhile, change-of-pace summer visit to the movie theater.

The great Space Race of the 1950s and 60s kicks off with great excitement and apprehension.  Yet, when America finally closes in on President Kennedy's vision of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, the country's interest has waned.  Apollo 11 mission launch director Cole (Tatum) is hard at work in Florida, working on the rocket and training with the astronauts, but he struggles with tightening budgets.  So the government calls in saleswoman/conwoman extraordinaire, Kelly (Johansson), to bring back buzz, attention - and most importantly, dollars - for the moon landing mission.  Cole and Kelly appear to be polar opposites, but the country depends on their magnetism to achieve a spectacular success.

Fly Me to the Moon is a fun, well-made rom-com despite its odd conglomeration of parts; still, it could have been even better, perhaps a classic, except for some key shortcomings.  The movie has three main distinct, though intertwined, components: romance (Cole and Kelly), historical (based pretty closely on Apollo 11 preparations), and "Hollywood" (filming a fake moon landing).  It was a tall task, considering the different tones needed for each part - but it pulls off the balance impressively.  The "rom" is more restrained, focusing more on "com" and the plots, both historical and Hollywood.  Scarlett Johansson is fantastic as the lead, easily the main character draw in the film.  She is charismatic and clever, a little ruthless and self-centered but very sympathetic.  Tatum, on the other hand, is just... not good.  I've never thought much of him, but it's painfully obvious here how out of his depth he is.  The movie could have been much better with a different actor.  The supporting cast is great, adding a significant boost to all elements of the film, from Harrelson's devious agent to Garcia as Kelly's partner, to Cole's various co-workers (young, charmingly naive engineers, as well as his old partner played by Ray Romano, etc.). Johansson's husband (SNL's Colin Jost) even gets a hilarious cameo!

The comedy is excellent, as is the dialogue and writing, but there is a glaring vacuum where there should be a strong emotional investment.  Once again, the cast does a great job with the comedy.  Johansson is superb here as she is in her overall performance, and Harrelson was made for his role - even Tatum manages some good laughs.  But it's Kelly's film director friend, played by Jim Rash, who is the comedy MVP.  The writing feels very natural, crisp, and understated, in a movie that was ripe for florid overwriting or on-the-nose dreck; each scene is well done and fits together nicely.  Unfortunately, while it's easy to admire the skill of (most) of the actors, writing, set design, directing, and so on... it just can't seem to find that one, strong connection to really pull in the audience.  The romance is fine but hampered by Tatum's acting; even the plot also lacks a spark to truly pull you in, to fully invest the audience like the best movies do.  It's also too long, mostly due to a drawn out conclusion.  Those involved should be proud of their accomplishments here, but no need to take too long a victory lap.

***

Fly Me to the Moon is much different from the kind of movies I usually see in the summer - but that was one of the main reasons I wanted to see it.  I find that good variety is key to my enjoying movies of all kinds.  I advise you pay closer attention to the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes (91%) than the critics' score (65%) for this movie.  Is it a classic?  No - but it is well worth seeing in the theater, particularly since so few of its genre are shown in theaters at all anymore, let alone in the summer.  It is a shame that it's so far flopped at the box office.  Casting Tatum was an avoidable error, but I don't blame the movie for lacking the "spark"; it's there or it's not, you can't control it.  Everything else that could be controlled - from the performances to writing to directing - is finely done.  Next up for me is another sharp turn: Deadpool & Wolverine, here we come - Marvel is finally back!

* By Columbia Pictures/ Apple Original Films - http://www.impawards.com/2024/fly_me_to_the_moon.html#google_vignette, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76870601

Inside Out 2

 

Score:  B

Directed by Kelsey Mann

Starring Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Kensington Tallman, et al.

Running time: 96 minutes

Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Inside Out 2 brings Pixar back to the world of one of its biggest original hits, this time with the Emotions contending with an adolescent host.  Like the first movie, there are plenty of clever ideas and gags, but the sequel falls well short of the masterful 2015 film.  It's just too overstuffed, and doesn't bring enough freshness to the world despite the new Emotions and real world setting.  Still, it's a perfectly good option, especially for families looking for a summer theater trip.

The Emotions of young Riley (Tallman) - Joy (Poehler), Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust - continue to steer the girl through life, which is now entering the treacherous high school stage.  Riley loves hockey, and she attends an important camp with her two best friends; her performance at the camp could determine whether she makes the high school team.  Joy and the others feel confident that they can help Riley succeed, but their usual directions start to go awry - and they also find new company in Riley's head, led by a determined Anxiety (Hawke).  The Emotions must act fast to prevent the hockey camp from becoming a train wreck for Riley, and also work out their own new roles in her life.

Inside Out 2 is a fine animated film, but it is a pale follow-up to a Pixar classic, trying to stuff in too many themes and characters with not enough originality.  The structure is quite similar to the first Inside Out with the action playing out in two areas: Riley's real human life and the anthropomorphized Emotions working inside Riley "HQ": control rooms, vast memory vaults, etc.  I would have expected to like the sequel to follow the original's successful formula, but it just didn't work as well - primarily because it's overstuffed in both "worlds": more time on Riley's life, and a new batch of Emotions.  Those colorful beings are still fun, with all the originals returning.  Unfortunately, two of them have new voice actors, which I found pretty distracting (Hader and Kaling had been perfect for Fear and Disgust).  Familiarity brings fondness, but the filmmakers also realized they needed to spice up Riley's internal world with some new Emotions.  Anxiety and Embarrassment are particularly good but again, it just ends up being too much, a dilemma for the film.  Meanwhile, though it makes sense to see how the battle of the Emotions is playing out in Riley's life, her hockey camp story is fairly bland.  Partly this is the difficulty of aligning real events to match the internal work of Emotions but there are some highlights, too, including Riley's sudden overreactions to the Emotions' prompts (thanks, puberty).

The overarching genius of the original Inside Out was in the way that it literally connected traditional movie action/plot to fundamental human psychology.  Somehow, it also melded all the intricate details with a cohesive message (i.e., the importance of sadness).  The sequel has some great psychological and human themes as well - but maybe too many of them.  I really liked the final theme, of humanity's complexity - we each hold many, often contradictory, feelings and qualities and have to balance them, but it's also what makes us resilient.  The other ideas leading up to it are thoughtful, too, but it's so much that the impact of each diminishes.  It feels odd writing this, but there's almost too much dialogue here - the film could have done more showing and less telling.

***

Since Inside Out was one of my favorite Pixar movies, I really looked forward to the sequel.  I enjoyed it but, maybe inevitably, was disappointed.  I should also note that I was feeling pretty tired during a good portion of the movie, so that could well have affected the way I felt about it.  Unless a second viewing completely changes my mind, though, I am pretty convinced of one thing: Pixar needs to get back to making original movies and keep the sequels to a minimum.  Last year's Elemental was a great example, I loved it - unfortunately, because it didn't do well at the box office, Pixar is probably going to lean even more into the sequels (especially now that Inside Out 2 is over $400 million in just two weeks).  I want to emphasize: this is not a bad movie by any means and, as with just about all Pixar movies, both kids and adults will enjoy it.  But I am a bit depressed by what the box office returns for the last two Pixar releases will mean for the creative direction of Hollywood for the foreseeable future.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/inside_out_two_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75269099

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

 

Score:  A-

Directed by George Miller

Starring Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Burke

Running time: 148 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Furiosa is a high-quality follow-up to the 2015 post-apocalyptic action thriller, Fury Road.  Newcomers Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth are steady, but the real star is director George Miller's degraded desert world that nevertheless teems with the desperate remnants of humanity.  They chase and slay one another in vintage internal combustion vehicles, keeping the audience rapt in scenes that come up with one marvel after another.  Highly recommended for theater viewing.

Decades into the future, Earth is a post-apocalyptic wasteland; Australia, the setting of the film, is now almost entirely desert except for a few miraculous oases.  Raiders stumble across one such oasis, and a young girl, Furiosa, tries to stop them from escaping and revealing the secret of her land to the many savage gangs that stalk the desert.  Instead, she is taken prisoner to one of the gangs, the Horde, led by Dementus (Hemsworth).  As she struggles to survive, Furiosa meets others in the ruthless, "mad" desert world and finds that she has the strength to hold her own.  Furiosa blends in with the gang, proving her value, but all the time waiting for the chance to escape and return to her beloved home.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a thrilling, well-made action movie; while it lacks the elegant simplicity of 2015's Fury Road, it is still a worthy prequel to that visually gritty, unique movie.  Furiosa portrays the growth of its main character from an innocent girl living in the sanctuary of the Green Place, right up to the events of Fury Road, where she has become a fully battle- and tragedy-hardened woman.  That's about fifteen years, quite a difference from the few days over which all of Fury Road takes place; this has both positive and negative effects.  The best part of Fury Road comes over fully intact, however: the action.  Once again, it is quite violent but with relatively little gore, and more importantly, it is such creative and intense work in an entirely unique setting.  Most of it involves fighting among vehicles driven at break-neck speeds, from motorcycles to souped-up, broken down cars to improvised gliders to the mammoth "War Rig".  There is surely a good bit of CGI involved, but there is also plenty of  incredible stunt work as fighters jump from vehicle to vehicle and pulverize each other in all sorts of ways.  Frequently, the action appears "sped up", the frame rate increasing to make it look almost cartoonish; this heightens the fantasy of it while keeping the grittiness and also symbolizes the brief, fragile reality of life in this desert world.  The movie's extended sequences are by far its best parts: the opening, with its hunting of raiders and subsequent escape; a War Rig chase scene reminiscent of Fury Road; and Furiosa (and her ally's) main showdown with Dementus, a particularly long, brutal showcase.  These scenes absolutely capture your entire attention and hold you in the moment, which is especially impressive for how long they last - they're worth the price of admission by themselves.

Alas, not everything in Furiosa is as good as its action.  The characters are fine - not classic, but worthy of following through the film.  Taylor-Joy's Furiosa does a good job following up Theron from Fury Road; neither of them are recognizable, from their bald heads and grime-covered skin to the hardened edges they present.  Taylor-Joy seems a bit too slight for this brutal world, but she still does well with the physical work and it feels believable enough.  Hemsworth is a very engaging antagonist, at least in the first third of the movie: while he's crazy and ruthless, he somehow also manages to often be funny and give off traces of sympathetic humanity.  There are other characters with lines, too, but to be honest, the waves of deadly, anonymous desert pirates are the third most interesting role.  As mentioned, the extended scenes are great; however, the movie's longer timeline results in a bit of disjointed unevenness.  The movie attempts to expand and further mythologize the Mad Max world, which is intriguing at times but overall is pretty difficult to follow who is who and why they do what they do.  The ending is also a bit of a letdown, largely because of how quickly and suddenly (to me) things wrap up and before you know it, we have the inevitable final Furiosa-Dementus confrontation.  It's at least quieter than most action movie finales, but I wanted more for Furiosa.  Still, what a ride!

***

Now this is more like the summer movie season starter I usually expect!  It made a paltry $26 million in its opening weekend, though, despite a 90% Rotten Tomatoes score and the popularity of Fury Road.  C'mon, people, this is the kind of movie you have to see in the theater!  Anyway, it's interesting that this is the second desert-based action epic I've seen this year, following Dune: Part Two from the spring (which was properly rewarded for its quality and entertainment value, as it's currently the year's top-grossing movie).  I'm finally becoming a little more discriminant about the sequels and reboots I will go see, but this was a no-brainer.  Hopefully more filmmakers will continue to bring this kind of creativity and intensity to the movie theater.  Until next time!

* By IMDb, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76616879

Fall Guy

 

Score:  B+

Directed by David Leitch

Starring Ryan Gosling, Emily Blunt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, et. Al.

Running time: 126 minutes

PG-13

Long Story Short:  Stuntman-turned-director Leitch turns his camera back on the dirty, painful business behind action filmmaking in a fun, cheerful, if a bit too over-the-top action comedy.  Gosling and Blunt are a great pair of leads with good chemistry, and the first part of the movie is rollicking.  Opinions will vary on the wisdom of going beyond the movie's initial premise, but it all comes back around for a nice finale.  Recommended for a fun start (? - it's already available on streaming now... sigh) to summer movie season.

Colt (Gosling) has a good thing going: the stunt man (or “fall guy”) for a superstar actor (Taylor-Johnson), he does the coolest scenes in the movies while spending time with his flame, camerawoman Jody (Blunt).  In an instant, however, Colt’s life is turned upside down and, a year and a half later, finds himself alone and out of the business.  Life seems to give him a second chance, and Colt seizes it, returning to the stunt world.  His reunion with Jody does not go as hoped, though, and even his meal ticket, the lunkhead actor, seems to have gone off the reservation.  Colt must fight for himself, and the ones he loves, or his second chance could quickly go up in smoke.

Fall Guy is an entertaining movie with an interesting spin on the action comedy genre, but it goes too far afield and extreme when focus and restraint would have mostly been better.  The director, whose debut was the superior action movie, John Wick, started as a stunt coordinator himself and fittingly pays tribute to his original field here.  And that premise is a really good one which pays off in a great first third of the movie.  It focuses on the movie-making business, with the stunts at the center, of course, featuring not just Gosling’s brash but likable Colt but also Blunt’s shy yet capable camerawoman as well as a feisty, energetic producer (played by Waddingham from Ted Lasso).  It’s only after Colt and Jody’s falling out, though, that their chemistry really kicks into high gear with some hilarious banter.  Gosling, other than being one of today’s megastars, was a great choice for the lead as he does well as a counterpart for strong female leads (with Stone in La La Land, Robbie in Barbie, etc.).

Unfortunately, a somewhat strange development ends up turning the course of the movie upside down, as Colt is forced to grapple with the movie star’s having gotten himself into trouble.  There are several scenes of essentially the kind of action you might expect from John Wick or something similar - and yes, there’s plenty of humor involved and doesn’t take itself too seriously, but the characters seem bafflingly unfazed by it all and the action starts to crowd out - in time and attention - what could have better been used on plot and character work.  Colt and Jody could have used more direct interaction, and the movie star and producer would have been more interesting were they less exaggerated.  Still, the climax is well-conceived and executed - largely because it finally brings it back to the ostensible point of the movie, stunt work.  Colt and the “good guys” make a clever plan that is silly but not ridiculously action-y, and allows everyone in the cast a chance to shine.  It’s easy to leave the theater with a smile on your face.

***

Fall Guy is not the kind of movie I expect to kick off the summer movie season - in fact, 2024 is the first year since 2009 that Marvel has not occupied this space.  Still, we got a perfectly enjoyable - if considerably smaller-scale - popcorn movie here.  Due to the writers’ and actors’ strike last year, and Marvel’s (hopefully short-term) pullback after a tough 2023, the offerings are a little more meager this year.  I would love to see more movies along the lines of Fall Guy, though - if anything, scaling back the action even more.  Perhaps I’ve just seen enough movies at this point that action alone isn’t nearly enough to satisfy me.  Originality and creativity, on the other hand: more, please!  Once again, I’m not sure what is coming up next for me at the theater, but hopefully it’s another good one.

* By Universal Pictures - http://www.impawards.com/2024/fall_guy.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75207794

Challengers

 

Score:  A

Directed by Luca Guadagnino

Starring Zendaya, Mike Faist, Josh O'Connor

Running time: 131 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Auteur director Luca Guadagnino brings his intimate filmmaking to the tennis world, zooming in on a tumultuous three-way relationship between young stars.  The sports action is much more exciting than usual, thanks to both clever filming and its close associations with the outside relationships (which get plenty of more direct but PG-13 level expression).  The actors are talented, fully committed, and bring their characters to life.  Highly recommended.

The intertwined relationship of three tennis phenoms - Tashi (Zendaya), Art (Faist), and Patrick (O'Connor) - evolves over the course of thirteen years.  Art and Patrick are high school best friends and both find success at the US Open tournament in the juniors division.  While celebrating their wins, they meet Tashi, the junior girls' champion, who they both are attracted to.  The three stay in touch over the years, though there is plenty of change as they attend college, struggle on the pro level, endure sudden setbacks, and deal with their pasts.  One match between Art and Patrick at a minor event - but the first they've played against each other as pros - promises to have consequences far beyond the modest prize money and ranking points.

Challengers is a viscerally intimate and riveting drama, more a closely observed relationship movie than a typical sports movie.  The cast is really just the three main characters - which is good, allowing the film to focus on them completely.  That might make it feel like a small movie, but the tennis elements, and really the sport itself, make it feel bigger.  A "love triangle" is the central feature, but what makes this one particularly unique and interesting is it's really a love triangle-squared: each individual has their own personality (each very different from the others); their own romantic interests; and their own relationship with the shared vocation of tennis.  The young actors not only credibly pull off a wide age range through the movie, from teenagers to jaded young adults, they have phenomenal chemistry with each other; they truly feel symbiotic, even when they hate each other.  The writing is fantastic, with both very believable and interesting dialogue, as well as well-rounded characters (although there's also enough mystery left to be enjoyable to imagine) who have both endearing strengths and repulsive flaws - just like real people.  Personally, I "rooted" mostly for Art and Tashi; Patrick reminded me too much of a typical asshole male (how do women fall for them???), and his smile/sneer made me want to punch him.

Along with the compelling interpersonal triangle, the movie is greatly helped by its non-linear structure.  It begins at the end, basically, with the start of Art and Patrick's match; just as you realize there is more to this match than the usual competitive rivalry, we are taken back to the very beginning of the threesome's relationship.  The movie then flips back and forth: it spends the most time on the final match (and the events directly leading up to it) but also looks at critical scenes from the previous thirteen years.  Thus you gradually get to know the characters and the final match evolves in its meaning - genius move.  Finally, the viewing experience is revved up further by the intense physicality and sensuality of the tennis and love scenes.  The tennis matches are creatively shot and varied, showcasing the high level of exertion involved and how hard the ball is struck, almost violently at times.  Even as a tennis fan, I admit that it can be a bit dull to watch, but the director and cinematographer make it more exciting than you can imagine.  On a general sports level, it even pulls off the impressive trick of keeping the outcome of the final match very much in doubt!  Bonus points for tennis fans in providing a realistic sense of the pro tour, and even having real TV announcers give some background commentary.  There are also plenty of steamy scenes; no direct sex or nudity but some intense make outs, or even just highly sexually-charged moments, that parallel the tennis in some ways.  The soundtrack provides a great final accompanying feature, amplifying the intensity and emotions of scenes with pop instrumentation but also knowing when to back off.

***

Challengers was an out-of-the-blue movie for me, as I didn't know about it very long before it came to theaters and it's definitely not the kind of movie I expect to see this time of year.  But I'm very glad that I saw it, as it's one of the most entertaining and well-made movies I've seen in the last few years.  It also restored my faith that sports can be effectively incorporated into movies; most "sports movies" are dull and predictable, though sports and movies can combine well if done thoughtfully (see also: Moneyball).  It's not exactly the start of the summer movie season, but I'll take it!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/challengers_xlg.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75698722

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Guy Ritchie

Starring Henry Cavill, Eiza Gonzalez, Alan Ritchson, Til Schweiger, et. al.

Running time: 120 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short: Part action movie, part lost-WWII history, Ungentlemanly Warfare appropriately goes around the usual boundaries of its genres to deliver a well-made, entertaining journey.  While not for the faint of the heart, with its impressive Nazi body count, there is still a good balance of quieter espionage and political maneuvering to go with the violent mayhem.  Add in a star-studded and well-chosen cast that is at the top of its game and you have a highly recommended pre-summer theater experience.

In the dark depths of World War II, with Nazi Germany spreading mercilessly across Europe and beyond, Britain is desperate for relief.  It seeks the United States' help, but the Nazis' U-boat submarines are wreaking havoc in the Atlantic Ocean.  Fortunately, an intelligence breakthrough reveals key Nazi U-boat secrets, and even as his advisers urge him to surrender to Germany, Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Kinnear) authorizes a black-ops mission to cripple the U-boat threat.  Gus (Cavill) leads a small team of capable but condemned men to lead the attack, while special agents Stewart and Heron prepare the way.  Secrecy and courage are essential as this high-risk, high-reward mission begins - with the fate of the world at stake.

Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is a very entertaining and well-made action/espionage movie with an impressive effort to maintain its historical premise (albeit with plenty of Hollywood spectacle).  The movie is basically split into two parts: one mainly focused on the action with Gus and his gang of macho men, and one focused on two sly secret agents just as crucial to the mission.  The Gus part is somewhat of a typical action movie, although a particularly well-choreographed one at that and with a valuable specificity of time, place, and adversary.  I must note that this part of the movie is intensely violent at times; the Nazi body count is pretty high, though there's not a lot of gratuitous gore, IMO.  Plus, if anyone is going to get massacred like this, it probably should be Nazis!  The opening scene is particularly good, dropping the audience in the middle of the action - Gus and co. ambush a Nazi ship - then backing up the timeline afterward.  It combines surprise, humor, modest action, and creativity; the other battle scenes are good, too, and importantly, not overwhelming and/or numbing.

While I enjoyed the action, I actually preferred the other section, featuring espionage with agents Stewart and Heron.  There are neat tricks and nods to the technology and tactics of the time (via communications, decoys, etc.), details that are often overlooked in these movies.  There is also more suspense and danger in this section: the agents are vulnerable, and while they're quite capable they must keep up the disguise and subtlety - this makes for a good combo with the brute force action.  I also liked the actors here a lot.  Olusanmokun's Heron is distinctive (with a very spy-like voice), and feels totally in control; Gonzalez's Stewart is an incredibly capable (and gorgeous) agent, moving deftly from seductress (but NOT a Bond girl!) to markswoman and more.  Schweiger's SS officer is also a great bad guy, creepy and menacing and richly deserving of an ass-kicking.  The soundtrack is great, from western to jazzy or caper-like (think Ocean's Eleven) but also with some powerful, victorious parts that stand out.  Humor is liberally sprinkled throughout (and thankfully it doesn't try to make the violence "funny"), including a third section, involving brief moments with Churchill and his military leaders steering (or hampering) the plans.  The movie might have been even a bit better if the action team faced more resistance. There are certainly twists and obstacles, but it feels somewhat pre-determined.  Still, that's a quibble: this is a strong movie.

***

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is a tasty appetizer as we approach the summer movie season, effectively combining three of my favorite film elements (action, history, and espionage).  It's also only the second good movie I've seen in the theater this year, I'm afraid.  I saw the new King Kong-Godzilla movie, and Madame Web, the new Spider-Man-adjacent superhero movie, neither of which were even worth my time to write reviews for.  As I've said before for other movies, hopefully Hollywood will take note of Ungentlemanly Warfare as a source of inspiration.  It's difficult for action movies to stand out from the pack, or even for its signature violence to have any impact.  When it's combined with some interesting, specific context and some other genre elements like this, it makes for much more effective entertainment.  Well, I'm not sure what is coming up next, but I can guarantee that the wait won't be nearly as long for whatever it is!

* By Lionsgate, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75770134

Dune: Part 2

 

Score: A

Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Starring Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Stellan Skarsgaard, et. al.

Running time: 165 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short: Dune Part 2 is the thrilling, epic conclusion (sort of) to auteur Denis Villeneuve's spectacular adaptation of the classic scifi book.  Villeneuve fully makes good on the promise and potential he set up with 2021's first installment, particularly in his desert world of sight and sound that will just blow you away in the theater (find the biggest one around!).  I'm still left a little cold by the hero but the mixture of the supernatural/mystical with worlds-spanning political battles to the death bring to mind Star Wars and its kin in satisfying ways.  Highly recommended.

Following the devastating Harkonnen attack on House Atreides on the desert planet Arrakis, the only survivors - Paul (Chalamet) and his mother, Lady Jessica (Ferguson) - flee to the sand home of the Fremen.  The Fremen, natives of the arid planet, reluctantly accept the newcomers.  Some, including Stilgar (Bardem), believe that Paul and Jessica might be outsiders who have come to fulfill an ancient prophecy; others see them only as dangerous refugees from an exploitative empire.  Paul attempts to blend in with the Fremen, becoming closer to skeptical Fremen his age, like Chani (Zendaya).  As the Fremen continue to make life difficult for the conquering Harkonnen, however, they incur a more brutal response from the Baron (Skarsgaard) and his minions.  The status quo cannot last, and Paul must choose what part to play in the inevitable collision.

Dune Part 2 is epic cinema on a level that few in the last decades can match, and must be seen in the theater if at all possible; the story is also good, though it isn't quite up there with the very best.  Dune Part 1, directed by one of today's best filmmakers in Villeneuve, set the stage for this, establishing the desert world and its characters and was very good (highly recommend you to stream before seeing Part 2 - now on Hulu and Max).  Part 2 is the real pay off, though, for both the major action and the characters.  Villeneuve has been a truly immersive director from the start, everything from Prisoners to Blade Runner 2049, pulling you into his worlds with both images and - especially - sound and music.  Dune Part 2 is his best work yet in sensory mastery - again, this MUST be seen in a theater if you can, it's amazing!  Everything is so well done, including the little details: the movement and impressions in the sand; the thump-thumping of the Fremen's wurm-calling devices.  The biggest moments also are fully realized, partly thanks to excellent CGI but moreso due to its blending with the actors and sound: massive, realistic ambushes on Harkonnen mining - the lasers are actually scary, and the Fremen commandoes are terrifying, deadly sand ghosts. But the best of them all are the giant - but mostly heard, unseen - underground sand wurms.  Paul's first "ride" is incredible, from the thrill of anticipation as the wurm approaches to the sensory chaos of his grabbing hold to the freeing open air release of success.   The characters themselves get interesting looks and voices, especially the Bene Gesserit "witches" who provide a little spookiness with unnaturally projected voices and distorting faces; the Fremen, due to the chemical-laden desert, have kinder, distinctive blue eyes.

Dune: Part 2's story and characters also good, if overshadowed by images and sounds; they're also not quite good enough to raise it to true scifi/fantasy "classic" status with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and so on.  Dune of course helped set the path for SW and others, as the book was published in 1965: it has the main elements we're now familiar with, both the spiritual/prophetic (like the Force) and political maneuvering (like the rebels vs. the Empire).  The Bene Gesserit's Force-like powers are notably darker (see: Part 1's hand-in-box) and more mysterious; it's also not at all clear that they're ultimately used for good.  I felt, from the book, that Lady Jessica was the one BG who tried to actively use the powers for good, but was disappointed that the movie doesn't seem to do so (or at least emphasize it). Villeneuve effectively makes the "political" players, the Harkonnen, repugnant, evil creatures, not just in their actions but in their appearance: glistening, slimy white, and hairless, a people from a black-and-white world where gladiator contests and cannibalism abound.  The Fremen, meanwhile, are the classic "rebels", though they, too, are quite brutal; you ultimately root for them and their innocent civilians, but this is definitely more shades-of-gray realistic than other scifi worlds.  Ultimately, I just don't connect as well with the heroes of this story as in my favorite scifi/fantasies, especially Paul.  The same was true of the book: it's just hard to find the real human inside this vessel of power and prophecy. The main villain, Baron, is suitably grotesque, both physically and morally, a worthy Darth Vader analog, but I just couldn't get attached to the "good guys".  The ending clearly indicates a third part: the first book is now finished but there are more (I've only read the first), leaving only the barest hints of what will happen next.  It's not exactly a "happy" ending, though Villeneuve's best character work is with Chani who, after supporting and coming to love Paul as he struggled for acceptance among the Fremen, is now abandoned but likely (hopefully) still has a part to play as he seems headed toward conquest.

***

I looked forward to Dune: Part 2 less as a fan of the book than as a fan of Denis Villeneuve, and he certainly put together a spectacular movie - high-quality blockbuster entertainment in early March!  I believe he will also be working on Dune: Part 3 which I'll definitely see as well.  I kind of hope that he takes a break from scifi after that, though; Sicario and Prisoners showed that we does not need fantastical worlds or creatures in order to make movie magic.  It will be a tall order for any big movie this year - or the next several - to match the quality of this epic; I'm hoping that there will at least be some original efforts to take a crack at it and not just sequels and remakes.  Until next time!

* By CineMaterial, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73709643

2023 "On Your Left" Film Year-in-Review

 

2023 "On Your Left" Film Year-in-Review

It's that time again - celebrating a year's worth of movies!  It was a great year overall as the movie industry tries to establish a post-pandemic and streaming-dominated new normal.  The number of movies released in theaters, as well as the overall box office, each increased 20% from 2022.  I may be forgetting some, but it seemed like there were actually fewer "big" movies that were streaming-only than there were in 2022 - a positive development!  Action and horror genre movies continue to dominate, at least in sheer numbers, but there were some surprises that hit big, too.  It was a down year for Marvel, fifteen years on from Iron Man.  Some criticism and audience shunning was undeserved (The Marvels) in my opinion, while other efforts showed Marvel veering dangerously off-track (Ant-Man 3).  But I got to see plenty of good, bad, and ugly through the year and I'm glad to share it with you!

Here is the format of this post, same as in years past:

• Top 10 films of the year!
• Most underrated/overrated films
• Most surprising/disappointing films
• Worst film of the year
• List of other films I saw in theaters (with links to my reviews)
• Films I saw on streaming

Please check out my companion post here, which is more like my Oscar-style awards.  I hope you'll check out some of these movies for yourself!

Top 10 Films of 2022

10. Napoleon (directed by Ridley Scott; starring Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby)

In many ways a classic, Oscar-style biopic, Napoleon veers outside the genre's standards enough - and is too raunchy - to get snubbed at the awards.  First, the title character is not exactly a traditional hero;  many would understandably call him a villain.  But this uncertainty is part of what makes the movie interesting, and Phoenix goes all in to make The Little Corporal entertaining; he remains a bit too mysterious, though, holding the film back.  Napoleon's manners are quite raw, offering both humor and simple change of pace from the expected, particularly his closely observed relationship to Josephine.  Oh, and this is Ridley Scott (Gladiator), so the battle sequences are spectacular, too.

9. Dungeons & Dragons (directed by Goldstein & Daley; starring Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Hugh Grant, et. al.)

From one expectation to the opposite: I never thought D&D would be any good, based on the miserable track record of game adaptations (though this year turned those tables! Pun intended).  A strong cast, especially lead Chris Pine, earnest yet funny tone, and quality script resulted in one of the year's most entertaining movies.  Pine is almost an audience surrogate here, an average guy in a fantasy world, and he uses all of his charm to good effect; his teammates are varied and likable, too.  Their quest is a pretty familiar one, but it is enlivened by some genuinely inspired scenes and humor, particularly Page's brief "hero" role and a graveyard interrogation.  You don't need to be a fanboy: all are welcome.

8. John Wick: Chapter 4 (directed by Chad Stahelski; starring Keanu Reeves, Bill Skarsgard, Donnie Yen, et. al.)

I never got around to a writing a review for this, which is bizarre considering I liked it so much.  Right from the original, Keanu created a new action legend in John Wick, and the writers spun an interesting world around him.  This is the final movie in the series and it manages to combine some of the more personal elements (as in the original) with such over-the-top action that you have to laugh - except that it's so well done that you're riveted and it never feels like a parody.  Action movies easily blur together but Wick is distinctive and that remains true here, with spectacular sets from the very first battle to a crazy one around the Arc de Triomphe to the deadliest staircase of all time.  I'll miss you, Baba Yaga.

7. The Holdovers (directed by Alexander Payne; starring Paul Giamatti, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, and Dominic Sessa)

Sometimes it's hard to beat a good old-fashioned dramedy, and that's what we get here.  Simpler than most modern dramas - or comedies, for that matter - this focuses on the tense pairing of grizzled, grumpy old professor Paul (Giamatti) and his restless, resentful school-for-the-holidays charge, Angus (Sessa).  As films of years past have done, the two reconcile by the end, but it's the often-bumpy journey that makes it worth it.  It takes place in 1970; semi-modern, yet not encumbered by iPhones and other tech; it's just Paul and Angus, with a fun helping from Randolph's cook, Mary.  The final act teeters on the edge of melodramatic but it fits, and the ending is satisfyingly direct yet modest.

6. American Fiction (directed by Cord Jefferson; starring Jeffrey Wright, Tracee Ellis Ross, Leslie Uggams, Sterling K. Brown, et. al.)

Another great dramedy here, but this one is quite modern - in mostly good ways.  We follow the once-quiet life of single professor/writer Monk, and perennial supporting-actor Wright does a fantastic job carrying the movie in the role.  The movie is split by the two halves of his life - the personal and the professional - and they offer quite the contrast.  Monk's personal life is dominated by a family tragedy, though it's the smaller, hidden elements of their relational dynamics that come out in potent, effective ways.  Monk's career enters almost stranger-than-fiction territory, on the other hand, as he gives in to the artistic commodification of Black suffering and finds surprising success.  The two different tones don't always play nicely together, but it is a unique, thought-provoking, and well-made movie.

5. Barbie (directed by Greta Gerwig; starring Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, America Ferrera, et. al.)

Possibly the least-expected #1 movie of the year ever, Barbie earned both its critical and commercial success with a package that perfectly blended entertainment and insightful art.  Margot Robbie is Barbie, by all indications (as Helen Mirren confirms in the narration), a stunning blonde, but she also morphs subtly and effectively from vapid toy-world queen into a strong but struggling woman in the making.  Gosling kind of steals the show, though, with his hilarious Ken while his deadpan performance skewers toxic masculine culture effortlessly.  Everything just clicks nicely, from the tongue-in-cheek visual presentation to the great cameo roles (McKinnon, Ferrell) to the crowd-pleasing musical numbers.  It might have begun as overt product placement, but Gerwig transformed it into a Hollywood classic.

4. Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1 (directed by Christopher McQuarrie; starring Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Esai Morales, et. al.)

I feel a bit like a broken record with this one, but Tom Cruise just keeps making knock out action movies in recent years.  In addition to last year's #1 movie, Top Gun Maverick, Cruise has turned MI from a one-off 90s remake into one of the best action franchises ever.  The jaw-dropping stunts are what make the headlines (and Dead Reckoning has another great signature set) but Cruise is great throughout; I especially liked a mini-car chase through Rome (while hand-cuffed to someone else).  This entry also features AI effectively in the main plot and brings plenty of personal stakes via both the villain and his increasingly familiar team.  It's a wild ride, and no one is doing it better right now than Cruise.

3. Poor Things (directed by Yorgos Lanthimos; starring Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, and Willem Dafoe)

When I saw that a Lanthimos film was in the Oscar shuffle again, I was wary: the first of his films I saw, The Lobster, was awful, but the second, The Favourite, was weird yet well-made.  I was surprised to see it showing at my local theater and took a chance on it, fortunately.  This is definitely another weird one, a new take on Frankenstein.  But Emma Stone is phenomenal in the lead "monster" role.  Her physical, mental, and emotional evolution from newborn baby to a wise, independent woman is remarkable.  Stone, and the movie overall, offers visceral thrills (from adults acting like babies to... sex, lots of sex), visual grandeur, and subtle social and psychological insights that fit neatly into the story.  How many movies do all that, and do it well??  Give it a try - it'll take a few minutes to settle in, but it's worth it.

2. Elemental (directed by Peter Sohn; starring Leah Lewis, Mamoudou Athie, Ronnie del Carmen, et. al.)

Pixar is back!  Well, it hadn't gone anywhere, but the last one that I saw in a movie theater was 2019's Toy Story 4.  Elemental is working in the studio's wheelhouse: a familiar story - here, a rom-com - but with features possible only in a richly-animated world - a city full of fire, water, and other elemental beings.  This was one of Pixar's more inspired combinations in my opinion, which is saying something.  Animation allows the movie to fully express the significant personality differences and powerful emotions that take place in a romantic story; the stakes are higher, too, although it manages to keep the focus on its two main characters.  It's not quite as riotously funny as some other Pixar movies, but it's one of the most poignant.  Best seen in theaters, like all Pixar movies, but check it out on Disney+!

1. Killers of the Flower Moon (directed by Martin Scorsese; starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, Robert De Niro, et. al.)

In a year with some improbable or different-than-expected top movies, I think it's fitting that Killers of the Flower Moon takes the top spot for me.  It's unusually long, at three-and-a-half hours, amid a trend in Hollywood of ever-longer movies; however, it doesn't feel nearly that long.  Its historical subject is grim and bloody, yet it manages to do justice to the Osage tribe and also provide the audience with some earned catharsis, too.  Based on the critically-lauded book of the same name, Killers pulls no punches in showing the white plot, led by William King Hale (De Niro), to not just rob the Osage tribe of its oil wealth but to do so by ingratiating themselves and, once in possession of inheritance rights, literally murdering their way to ownership.  Horrific, but the movie also focuses on the relationship between Ernest (DiCaprio) - Hale's nephew - and Mollie (Gladstone), whose family is prominent among the Osage.  Scorsese delves into the relationship and fully brings out humanity - the light as well as the dark - via these characters.  When the feds finally get wind of the plot, the final act brings much-needed comeuppance to the villains.  All is not well, of course - but when the credits run, you'll be deeply satisfied with this engrossing, affecting, and finely made movie.

Honorable mentions: Oppenheimer, Creed III

Most Underrated Film of the Year:  The Marvels

Usually this award goes to a movie I liked a lot - often in my top-10 of the year - that was maligned by critics.  No movies fit that description this year, so I'll go with The Marvels due to its use in endless superhero-genre eulogies and shockingly low box office (it made half - $84.5 million - of what the next-lowest MCU movie made).  This is a pretty darn good movie - especially if you have been a Marvel fan, and I think there are a few of you out there, judging by the MCU's dominance of Hollywood over the last 15 years.  The movie failed because it got sucked into an overall narrative that everyone was tired of superheroes and the admittedly-fair assessment that Marvel otherwise was having a weaker year.  Even for non-fans, it offers plenty of entertainment - give it a try!

  

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Asteroid City 

I admit it: I'm not a huge fan of Wes Anderson.  I appreciate that he's a unique filmmaker, and we need more of those.  But beyond the interesting visual geometry, I quickly weary of the quirky story- and character-styling that he does.  Well, Asteroid City is all that on, uh, steroids.  What was it all about?  What even happened??  Who knows.  I do find most of Anderson's work watchable and something charming in each one - except this one.

Most Surprisingly-Good Film of the Year:  tie-Barbie and Dungeons & Dragons

Both of these movies are in my top-10 of the year, so there's not much more I need to say.  But when you can doubt that a movie is going to be any good just from a title, you know that it presents a challenge to the filmmaker.  That each of these are so good is not just an impressive achievement for those involved in making them, it's also proof that so many ideas can be made into good movies - with an emphasis on can!

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania

This wasn't an outright bad movie - but it was the worst Marvel superhero movie yet, in my opinion.  The first two Ant-Man movies, while they featured a clearly fantastical ability to shrink people to the size of ants (or smaller, or enlarge them... you get the picture), were also firmly grounded in the "real world" and so they had a certain charm that was unique in the MCU.  By setting the third film in essentially an alien world, with a Guardians-like silliness, the groundedness completely vanished.  Throw in a poor script and some shoddy plot development (again, by Marvel standards) and it was a disaster.  Hopefully this was at least a good wake up call to the Marvel honchos to reign it in; with only Deadpool 3 coming out this year, perhaps they'll regroup and come back fresh.

Worst Film of the Year:  Knock at the Cabin

The one good thing about this was that it was the first movie I saw in theaters in 2023 so... literally everything was better after that!  No, it wasn't the only good thing about the movie.  The initial home invasion is effectively creepy and mysterious, without resorting to gore or exploitation.  But the movie then sets itself up for what should be an actually very valuable lesson: these lunatic invaders are convinced that the world is going to end unless the victims do (something) - and the movie should have shown that the invaders were in fact wearing the emperor's new clothes.  Instead... the world actually is ending???  Sorry to spoil it for you - but hopefully I also just spared you from having to watch this.

Movies I Streamed in 2023:

• Air (B+).  This is a very well-made and entertaining dramedy.  I'm glad that they left Jordan himself (my favorite athlete ever) mysterious, instead focusing on Nike and a typically likable Matt Damon.  Viola Davis adds some good heft, too.  But still... it's a movie about a shoe.
• Nyad (B+).  I wasn't really expecting to enjoy this too much, and it's not "fun".  But Bening does a great job with the intensity and single-mindedness of the lead endurance (to say the least) swimmer.  Rarely do I feel thrilled by an athletic achievement in a movie, but I did here.
• The Creator (B+).  I considered seeing this in theaters but didn't, since my interest in sci-fi movies has been plummeting.  But I'm glad that I caught it on Hulu, because it's definitely better than most of its kin.  Washington does a good job and the story is creative and interesting (more AI!).
• Super Mario Bros (B).  I knew I wanted to see this eventually - just not in theaters.  Predictably, it's not a classic, but it's also better and more entertaining than it might have been.  Jack Black was a great choice for Bowser, and lots of neat little winks (Star Power music!!).
• The Killer (B).  I must admit, I already don't remember this very well, which isn't a good sign.  Just a well-done action movie, better than most but be warned that it is brutal.
• The Burial (B).  The premise here, an Amazon Prime original, is really interesting, and Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones are a fantastic duo.  But the script is just a major letdown, dumbing it down and trying too hard to make it "relevant" when the story could easily speak for itself.  Missed opportunity for a great one.
• Indiana Jones & the Dial of Destiny (B).  I am a HUGE Indiana Jones fan, but after the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull debacle, I couldn't bring myself to face another disappointment in theaters.  This is at least better than KCS but it still can't touch the originals.  I think I'm personally too attached to the unique style of the first three, something I doubt can be replicated.  This is fun, though, at least until the time travel.
• Strays (B-).  Will Ferrell, using his innocent Elf voice on a live-action (or at least realistic digital) dog in a raunchy comedy.  Odd premise, but it works pretty damn well.  This is not for polite company and not everything works, but it got some nice laughs out of me.
• A Man Called Otto (B-).  Poor Rotten Tomatoes reviews kept me away from the theater, but I was curious so tried it on Netflix.  Yes, it's a fairly shameless tear-jerker.  But Tom Hanks is still a great actor and he raises it above where it otherwise should be.
• Ghosted (C+).  This should have been 1) so much better - and (only if 1 were true) available in theaters!!  I mean, you've got Chris Evans bringing his charisma and humor from Captain America playing against type as the clueless civilian, and smoking hot, super cool Ana de Armas as the deadly spy.  And it's still fun... but could and should have been so much better.  Alas.
• No Hard Feelings (C+).  I almost went to see this out of sheer desperation to see at least one pure, old-school comedy in the theater in 2023.  I'm glad I didn't, though, because this is just so dull.
• Asteroid City (C+).  I've already described this one - you already know if this one is for you or not!

Other Movies I Saw in Theaters:

• Dumb Money (B+)
• Renfield (B+)
• Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (B+)
• Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (B)
• A Haunting in Venice (B)
• The Flash (B)
• Haunted Mansion (B)
• Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (B-)
• Blue Beetle (C+).  I didn't get around to writing a review of this because it was so... meh.  It's not bad, you can do much worse if you just want a simple, fun thing to stream.  The hero's family is fun, though the hero himself is dull as dirt, and the plot and action are very forgettable.
• Shazam: Fury of the Gods (C).  See above.  Definitely worse than the 2019 original.  We lose most of the unique foster family dynamics from the previous movie and just get a lot more generic action in its place.

* source: https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/killers-of-the-flower-moon/

2023 "On Your Left" Film Awards

 

2023 "On Your Left" Film Awards

It's the time of year again to celebrate the best of the previous year's movies.  I saw quite a few movies, either in theaters or at home via streaming - and as always, there was a mixture of the good, the bad, and the OK.  I've written more about the movies themselves in my Year-in-Review post, but here I'll focus on the best performances of the year.

For this Oscar-style awards post, I'm sticking with my rule that only films I've seen are eligible.  Other than that, if it's eligible at the Oscars this year, it's eligible for me.

Please also check out my year-in-review post with my top-10 movies of the year, most overrated and most surprising movies, and more, too!

Winners in bold

Runners-up underlined

Best Actor

Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1)

Leonardo DiCaprio (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Paul Giamatti (The Holdovers)

Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer)

Joaquin Phoenix (Napoleon)

Jeffrey Wright (American Fiction)

Honorable mentions: Chris Pine (Dungeons & Dragons), Keanu Reeves (John Wick Chapter 4)

Didn't see: Bradley Cooper (Maestro), Colman Domingo (Rustin)

2023 featured a bevy of fine performances - not only do I have six nominees, but two other actors deserve honorable nods for genre work.  Chris Pine had just the right deadpan - funny yet serious - to make Dungeons & Dragons the surprise hit of the year, and Keanu Reeves did outstanding action work yet again in his final appearance as his already classic bad ass John Wick.  Tom Cruise is pretty much an automatic nomination for me with his consistently stupendous stunt work and star power.  Giamatti fits his acting in with The Holdover's old school style, earnestly and endearingly grumpy yet warm.  Murphy is on the other end of the spectrum, providing Nolan's newer style with a convincingly enigmatic lead genius.  Phoenix, another perennial contender, gleefully casts aside biopic period conventions, exuding the flaws of a literally and figuratively small man trying to fill great boots.  Wright - the second stuffy professor on this list - displays both nuanced family interaction as well as showy comedy skills. DiCaprio takes the top spot again this year; his character is just as ugly as Napoleon, if on a far smaller scale.  DiCaprio also benefits from a closer focus, allowing him to build a unique character both slow and cunning, brutal yet at times sympathetic.

Best Actress

Annette Bening (Nyad)

Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Margot Robbie (Barbie)

Emma Stone (Poor Things)

Iman Vellani (The Marvels)

Didn't see: Sandra Huller (Anatomy of a Fall), Carey Mulligan (Maestro)

I'd never heard of Nyad, based on the true story of a woman determined to swim from Cuba to Florida, but I saw it when it came up on Netflix and Bening is remarkable in it.  I wanted to give Vellani some credit for her charismatic breakout on the Ms. Marvel series and she is just as good (in a less prominent role) in the movie.  I'm not outraged that Robbie didn't get an Oscar nomination but she did do a great job in Barbie - I think the movie itself is just bigger than her (title) role in it.  Gladstone gave a uniquely understated performance in Killers - so quiet, yet so self-possessed - that so effectively countered the evil schemes of her white counterparts.  There can be no question of the winner, though, with Emma Stone essentially growing from a newborn into a distinguished retiree in the span of two-and-a-half hours.  The physical performance early on is hilarious and distinct, then her mental growth astounds - bravo!

Best Supporting Actress

Viola Davis (Air)

Vanessa Kirby (Napoleon)

Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers)

Tessa Thompson (Creed III)

Leslie Uggams (American Fiction)

Disagree w/ Oscars: Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer - fine, but... really?), America Ferrera (Barbie - her admittedly great speech probably got this for her, but I think that's more about the writing), Jodie Foster (Nyad - very good, but not quite good enough)

Didn't see it: Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple)

A lot of differences for me in this category compared to the Oscar nominees!  Viola Davis is great in a pretty small role as MJ's mom in Air; the daring, fateful phone call alone seals it for her.  Thompson wrapped up her character's arc in the Creed trilogy very nicely here, even though her sage advice is not heeded by her husband (surprise, surprise!).  Kirby is a worthy sparring partner (in multiple forms...) for Phoenix in Napoleon though I actually wish she'd been a little less featured.  Randolph is such a nice, strong presence in The Holdovers; she could easily have overplayed it but does it just right and fits perfectly with her costars.  Uggams is the best of them all this year, in the role of Jeffrey Wright's deteriorating mother in American Fiction.  She anchors the family, even as both her past reminiscences and present dementia bring bittersweet anguish.

Best Supporting Actor

Sterling K. Brown (American Fiction)

Nicolas Cage (Renfield)

Robert De Niro (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Robert Downey, Jr. (Oppenheimer)

Ryan Gosling (Barbie)

Mark Ruffalo (Poor Things)

Another fantastic group of performances - and even though I've cheated to get there (6 slots), this is a rare time where my nominees mirror the Oscars'!  Any of these guys could have won in a given year, or at least been runner-up.  My addition is Nicolas Cage, whose turn as Dracula in Renfield was gonzo, both horrifying and hilarious.  Cage almost supplanted Ruffalo for me, but I decided he deserved a nod; his loutish playboy is the perfect hunter-becomes-the-hunted for Stone in Poor Things.  Brown is intense as Wright's gay, wayward brother in American Fiction, insightful about everyone but himself.  Downey, Jr. is great as the smooth but vengeful Washington power broker in Oppenheimer, although the script lets him down by turning him into a cartoon villain in the final act.  De Niro is fantastic, horrifyingly realistic as the leader of the murderous scheme to swipe the Osage Nation's land, wealth, and pride, while appallingly casting himself (effectively) as their protector.  But the winner has to be Ryan Gosling's Ken, the most fun movie or TV role I have seen in many years.  He truly seems like Malibu plastic come to life and, all due respect to Robbie, is the top reason to enjoy Barbie - even while being hilariously fake, his reflection of real-world masculine attitudes is as cutting as any other part I've seen.

Best Director

Greta Gerwig (Barbie)

Goldstein & Daley (Dungeons & Dragons)

Yorgos Lanthimos (Poor Things)

Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer)

Martin Scorsese (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Didn't see: Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall), Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest)

Goldstein & Daley, directors I'd never heard of before (Oh wait, they did Game Night! Check that one out, too), might seem an unusual nominee for Dungeons & Dragons.  However, I base my director picks on the movies that combined a high degree of difficulty with overall quality, plus getting the most out of its elements (acting performances, story, etc.).  I had very low expectations for D&D but found it one of the most entertaining movies of the year, and very well-made.  Nolan is pretty much a shoo-in for me whenever he makes a movie, and for the most part he meets expectations despite Oppenheimer lacking the visual fireworks of his other films; he's not the winner for me, though, because the final act is a bizarre disappointment.  Lanthimos already showed that he is very willing to do things differently than other directors, and takes that another step with Poor Things; while it's a little uneven, the overall effect and quality are tremendous despite the film's sheer strangeness.  Scorsese is an all-time great, and this one deserves a spot near the top of even his impressive list; Killers is a daunting three-and-a-half hours but it felt shorter than some ninety-minute movies to me because it just keeps you riveted with both disquieting historical crime and justice, and somehow a little joy, too.  Gerwig was the Oscar snub of the year, to me, as she wins my Best Director award.  How do you make a movie about Barbie dolls that is both silly - but in a very smart way - as well as coyly adding effective social commentary?  It all had to work together and with a tight focus, and it does: that's why Gerwig is my winner.

* By source https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/styles/hero_image_phone/public/osc-banner_statuette.jpg?itok=7JAY8gYm