Molly's Game

Score:  A

Directed by Aaron Sorkin
Starring Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner
Running time: 140 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Aaron Sorkin's new drama - which he wrote and directed - is based on the true story of a one-time world-class athlete who ended up building an enormous, underground gambling empire.  The one-two punch of Sorkin and Chastain's mastery is very impressive, but just how well they work together is what makes it all click.  Featuring not just an intricate plot but also real, powerful character work, Molly's Game deserves attention from audiences that it's been denied by the Oscars.  Highly recommended.


Molly Bloom, a former Olympic skier, is awoken one night by the FBI and is taken into custody by armed agents.  Charged with multiple felonies, Molly (Chastain) - though broke - contacts Charlie Jaffey (Elba), a high-profile lawyer.  Although Molly has written a book on her extraordinary life events, Charlie feels that he doesn't have the full story and refuses to take her case.  Desperate, Molly decides to be more forthcoming with Charlie, detailing the events that took place after a freak accident in Olympic trials ended her athletic career.  Starting from scratch as a lowly club server, Molly takes a detour from her planned path to law school when an employer brings her on as an assistant in an underground poker game.  Her competitive fire stoked, Molly becomes more active - and complicit - in the gambling.  Years later, Molly faces a different high stakes game: give up names and ruin dozens of other lives, or face the end of her own freedom.

Molly's Game benefits handsomely from its stellar cast, both the core trio as well as the supporting players.  It truly is Molly's show here, however, performed by Jessica Chastain.  Chastain is one of the very best actresses in Hollywood today, and she brings her "A" game.  Many actors would be challenged simply to act while reciting Sorkin's famously complex, rapid-fire dialogue, but not only does she make that look easy, she breathes real life into both the script and her character.  Her physical performance - she spends plenty of time in silence, too - is remarkable, and is what allows her to develop both the character's professional as well as personal life.  Chastain holds an air of natural confidence (and at times competitiveness), but is also believably vulnerable when called for.  Idris Elba is also great in an even showier role; as a testament to Chastain's acting, you find yourself almost begging Elba to help you (er, Molly).  Elba is strong yet funny, cool at times and passionate at others, and always locked in.  Costner, in a smaller role as Molly's father, is both familiar to previous roles yet somehow fresh and perfectly enmeshed with Chastain and younger versions of Molly.  While relatively brief, his role is crucial to the emotional, personal side of the story, and he delivers.  There are a number of very small roles that still are important in further enlivening the action, including Michael Cera as a devious card shark and Chris O'Dowd as a hilarious loser.

Molly's Game is an excellent drama built on Sorkin's writing and Chastain's acting genius, and the way it blends those strengths together so well (and adds other synergistic themes) is impressive.  Those familiar with The West Wing, The Social Network or other Sorkin-penned works will recognize the style of writing instantly.  His work is as strong as ever here, well-suited for a story bursting with both technical (yet intriguing) plot details as well as competitive, whip-smart characters.  Honestly, I missed a good bit of the dialogue yet its strength of plot and character arcs - complex yet never bogged down - that that didn't matter.  It'll only make repeat viewings all the richer.  While the gambling plot is fascinating (and enriched by Sorkin's telling), Molly's Game is elevated to true greatness by the human story told in the character of Molly.  The meat and greatest amount of time in the film is spent on the escalating tale of crime, it's true; but this subtly also does the heavy lifting of illustrating Molly's nature, her tendencies, her successes and failures.  The personal side is briefly but effectively introduced at the very beginning, and then slowly builds back up in the second half before finally bursting forth as the film's thesis: Molly's strength and success as a human being.  Two crackling scenes illustrate this particularly well, and even more than showing Sorkin at the height of his technical powers, they are as poignant as any drama's thanks to the performances.  Oh, and it should be noted that the film has a great sense of humor, too, perfectly calibrated to the film's tone.

***

Molly's Game is an excellent film, among the best I've seen in years.  It makes me quite upset that it's been so badly snubbed by the Academy; its only nomination is for Adapted Screenplay.  That one is well-deserved, but nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress (Chastain) should have been automatic, with Elba in strong contention for Supporting Actor and Sorkin for Director, too.  I will admit that the film is a bit long, and could have been edited down to perhaps just over two hours.  But its masterful mix of the technical and the personal can't be denied, Oscars be damned.  Come for Aaron Sorkin's brilliant script (not to mention impressive debut directing effort), and Jessica Chastain's amazing acting; come for a unique, interesting story and plenty of surprises and entertainment.  Just go see this film.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54940343

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Score:  A-

Directed by Rian Johnson
Starring Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Carrie Fisher
Running time: 152 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Last Jedi is the second film in the third Star Wars trilogy (still following?), following up the massive success of 2015's The Force Awakens.  Rey leads the way again as she continues to seek both her personal origins and her abilities in the Force; she's rejoined by Dark Side-counterpart Kylo Renn and, this time, a very welcome return for Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker.  Bold creative and narrative choices abound, as well as of course the franchise's spectacular action and visual effects, making for a great theater experience.


Following the destruction of their Starkiller Base, the menacing First Order military group pursues the scattered bands of Resistance across the galaxy.  They locate General Leia Organa (Fisher) with the core of the group, which manages to barely escape annihilation.  However, running on fumes, the Resistance fleet still faces peril as the First Order has somehow been able to track them wherever they flee.  Meanwhile, Rey (Ridley) arrives on Ahch-To, a remote planet where she finds Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (Hamill).  Still confused and anxious about her ability to manipulate the Force, which she discovered just weeks prior, she begs Skywalker both to help her personally as well as to rejoin the fight against the First Order.  Luke, however, has become disenchanted with the ancient Jedi Order, and a physically distant figure - Dark Side-follower Kylo Renn (Driver) - stands between the two.  As the remnants of the Resistance struggle for survival, the fate of the galaxy rests once more on the courage and faith of just a few individuals.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi features much of the same primary cast as its predecessor, although it highlights a few different ones, both new and familiar.  Rey, played by Daisy Ridley, is the lead again, although not as clearly as in The Force Awakens.  Ridley continues to do very well in the role, building on her previous work as a strong, courageous and instinctively good heroine, who is also vulnerable through her inexperience and difficulty understanding others' less pure intentions.  Partly due to her reduced screen time, she is a bit overshadowed here, though.  Mark Hamill reprises his role, thirty-plus years later, of Luke Skywalker, and does so exceedingly well.  He is a believably evolved version of that passionate young hero of long, long ago; similarly reclusive to Alec Guinness's Obi-Wan, but with Luke's distinctive flame burning just below the surface.  Adam Driver continues to improve as the new Big Bad of the Star Wars universe; still not the looming presence of Darth Vader, but he has nailed down Kylo Renn's contemptuous, rage-filled, yet still very human role.  Oscar Isaac gets a bigger part this time as Resistance hotshot pilot Poe Dameron.  His acting is just fine, but the character himself is struggling to overcome cliche.  Carrie Fisher's Leia Organa also gets a bigger role.  Her return has been the most startling and uncomfortable for me, both in her role and her performance (I acknowledge this is at least a little sexist, but it was my honest reaction), but I'm coming around to it.

The Last Jedi is a well-made but inevitably flawed film, not just another gargantuan blockbuster action film but a distinct new entry in the world's most famous film franchise that will be debated for years to come.  It can be difficult to know where to start talking about a film like this, particularly for Star Wars fans (like me).  Here are the basics: it is, of course, a SW film - with all the history, ideas and characters that come along with it (some of it directly relevant, some not) - and it is the second in a trilogy (although not just a trilogy; the third trilogy in an interconnected series).  This all makes for bewildering complexity for, not to mention pressure on, the filmmakers.  The Last Jedi makes an admirable effort to include both continuity as well as originality to both the details and the spirit of the SW adventure; each of these find both success and failure, to me.  We'll start with the details, then attempt an analysis of the film's overall success.

I'll start with/get out of the way a little bit of Star Wars nerd annoyance.  The Last Jedi creates a "world view" that now almost exactly mirrors the original trilogy, when I wish it would have tried something new.  The First Order (Supreme Leader Snoke, Kylo Renn, General Hux) is now for all intents and purposes the new Galactic Empire (Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader, Tarkin) - generically evil (although at least the GE had origins) powers that dominate the galaxy; while the Resistance (Leia, Poe, Finn) is the new Rebellion (Leia-again, Solo, Calrissian) - a scrappy underdog fighting for good.  This is not mere fanboy grievance, I would argue; I think it handicaps the storytelling options available to these (and future) filmmakers.  The script here refuses to allow you to miss the resemblance, too, with clunky dialogue in the middle of action like "we are the spark that will light the fire that'll burn the First Order down".  The film does a fine job showing us interesting new ideas - like emphasizing survival and teamwork over destruction and independence - but too often shouts it, literally.  Among other things I didn't like so much, Finn and newcomer Rose are intriguing but their "common person" potential was wasted on noisy, too familiar and unnecessary action.  The film is indeed the longest in the franchise and could have used significantly more editing.

There is also plenty on the "Light Side", too, though, starting with - appropriately - Luke Skywalker.  Hamill has done the best work out of the three returning Star Wars legends, although it helps that the filmmakers found a particularly interesting new role for him.  Three main areas highlight his contributions.  First, he is both the familiar Jedi hermit-grump we've known before, but also has the spark of his younger self - winking with R2-D2 and Leia, visibly wrestling with himself in scenes with Rey and Yoda.  Next, his role coming between Rey and Kylo Renn is quite interesting - giving a fresh take on the apprentice-betrays-the-master idea - and provides the film its most emotional and affecting scenes, such as Luke's interrupting the two younsters.  And Luke's confrontation with Kylo Renn at the end - unveiling a new Jedi ability in doing so - is tense, emotionally-fraught, creative (and perfect for the plot).  One of the best scenes in the franchise, it even encores an instant classic line: "every word you just said is wrong".  The developing relationship between Rey and Kylo Renn - the most interesting part of this new trilogy, by far - was nearly overshadowed by Luke, but it still impressed with not only more neat Force trickery (long-distance connection) but also a genuine tug of war between the Dark and the Light.  The lightsaber battle they engage in with Snoke's guards ranks among the best in the franchise, thanks to the new flavor it provides.  Speaking of action, the opening space battle is also cool and inventive.  It's not all action, though: there is plenty of good humor, from Luke to a brand new species of cuddly alien, Wookiee-loving critter.

Overall, The Last Jedi does well to advance the Star Wars story, within the trilogy as well as the franchise as a whole.  In the difficult middle-child position of the trilogy, it effectively builds on the characters and ideas of the first film while leaving plenty of potential (but little specific direction) for the final film.  Like Empire Strikes Back, it puts (and leaves) the good guys in a precarious position, although I wish the tone had reflected this a bit more (see: awkward "hopeful" dialogue - put in there for the kids?).  For Star Wars in general, I've already described my positives (Luke, Rey-Kylo) and negatives (First Order-Resistance repetition).  It's also pretty clear that Disney is shifting other parts of the franchise, which has upset some fanboys but I think is positive.  We see a continued increase in non-white-male leaders and heroes, as well as a shift in emphasis from kill-the-bad-guys to save/help-the-innocent.  I might prefer a less, well, Disney, tone in doing so, but I think I'll just have to adapt, too.

***

There are still other things I'd like to discuss, as a Star Wars fan - role of Snoke, more on Leia, etc. - but I've already written more than enough for a review.  That there is so much to consider and talk about is itself an accomplishment of the filmmakers.  I've written this review only after two viewings and a month since the film's release because of how difficult I found it.  My score of "A-" reflects overall positive reactions to it; some aspects are even beyond my expectations, but others make me hesitate (or I at least need more time to accept).  If nothing else, I already can't wait for the next one!




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52959884

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

Score:  B+

Directed by Jake Kasdan
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Karen Gillan
Running time: 119 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is another Hollywood bid for nostalgic audiences - but it should earn fans from every generation.  Led by a star-studded cast that brings great humor, the film has a clever, fascinating video game world take on the traditional action/adventure genre.  In fact, the usual blockbuster whiz-bang spectacle is almost an afterthought here.  Recommended for theater viewing.


In 1996, teenager Alex Vreeke receives a board game called Jumanji from his father.  He sets it aside, preferring video games, but the next day he finds a cartridge version of Jumanji; as soon as he tries out this strange new game, he disappears.  Twenty-one years later, four teenagers find themselves in detention.  Sent to the basement for punishment, they find the Jumanji video game and they, too, are swept away.  Suddenly in the middle of a jungle, the kids have not only been transported to another world, but they also find themselves in the bodies of the characters that they chose.  They are literally  in the game - one that they must play, and win, if they wish to survive and return to the real world.

This Jumanji sequel/reboot, unlike the original, has not one star but a raft of them, whose impressive performances give the film a significant boost.  Dwayne Johnson, the biggest (literally and figuratively) new Hollywood star of the past few years leads as "Dr. Smolder Bravestone".  Rather, Smolder is just the body - Johnson's acting reflects the person who inhabits that character, the timid teenage nerd, Spencer.  This is the driving element of the film, having four well-known stars playing teenagers, and it works remarkably well.  Johnson hasn't been placed in particularly demanding roles (in which he continues to improve), but he deserves credit here for allowing the audience to believe that the person behind his glowering gaze is a scared kid.  The script does allow him to show his hero side, too, of course, and also his surprisingly funny side.  Kevin Hart teams up with Johnson again here, and he is as reliably entertaining (via stealthy-good acting) as always.  His "Mouse Finbar" avatar holds a much-larger-in-real-life football player, with bizarre and hilarious character traits (one weakness: cake).  Karen Gillan is strong as "Ruby Roundhouse", a video game girl with all that entails, plays a shy but brilliant teenager.  Not given a lot to work with, Gillan still does well to avoid cliche and create a respectable, funny character every bit as capable as Johnson.  But Jack Black tops them all here, doing a superb job in the gender swap role ("he" is in fact a bratty teenage girl).  His mannerisms, from the voice to posture to gestures, are both effective and consistent in this; yes, it's a bit exaggerated, for comedic effect, but not over the top (IMO).  I haven't seen Black in much lately, and this makes me want to see more; he hasn't lost anything on his fastball.  Nick Jonas and Bobby Canavale co-star as the lost Alex and villain Van Pelt, respectively, but neither really add up to more than plot devices.

Jumanji is a high quality, mass audience adventure film that overcomes formula thanks to the stellar cast and a cleverly devised world.  I've said all I need to say on the individual cast members; stacking the deck like this far from assures success, but this foursome hits a grand slam.  Beyond individual roles, the film makes a good effort to establish relationships and connections among them from the start and build on them through the film.  These aren't exactly deep - the old friends who have grown apart, the nerds attracted to each other - but they hold up and should be particularly good for family and/or young audiences.  Then there are the "rules" of the game.  Most important, of course, is the avatar concept, but there are so many little things - from NPCs (non-playable characters) repeating the same dialogue over and over, to the characters having literal strengths and weaknesses - that truly immerse the audience in the idea of it being a game world.  And these details don't distract or come off as awkward in the flow of events, but rather enhance them.  Oddly, the film is weaker in some of the core genre elements: the action sets are a bit underwhelming, with little tension or sense of awe (purposely, as a family film?).  The plot is extremely straightforward (as many video games' are), but this is just fine as it allows the film to instead focus on its strengths - the performances, comedy, and video game aspects - and not drown them in pointless plot twists and contrivances.

***

Jumanji is about as good, solid entertainment for a mass audience as you can get, living up to the original even if in a much different way.  The 1995 film relied on one standout performer in a show of big, effective action but also a fairly dark, creepy tone.  The new film obviously has more of a team spirit, and is much lighter and brighter (and funnier).  It also gives me an appetite for more from its stars; the Johnson-Hart team is very effective (see 2016's Central Intelligence) and should continue on; Black returned from his hiatus to show he is still a top comedic force in Hollywood; and Gillan proves she has leading-lady acting chops, too.  This isn't award-winning material, but Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle has earned itself a spot on the re-watchable action/adventure shelf.  Certainly worth a trip to the theater, but also a good option to try sometime at home.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54174459

Darkest Hour

Score:  B+

Directed by Joe Wright
Starring Gary Oldman, Lily James, Ben Mendelsohn
Running time:  125 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Darkest Hour is a historical drama with Oscar aspirations, and similarities to other recent films in structure (Lincoln, Selma) and time period/topic (Dunkirk).  The highlight by far is Gary Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill, undergoing not only a complete physical transformation but also bringing him to life in multiple ways.  Unfortunately, the filmmakers seemed to take the narrative and themes of this well-known chapter of history for granted, and so underneath the sparkling performances it feels undercooked.  Good, but not essential theater viewing.


In May 1940, with the fate of all of Europe - and perhaps the world - on the precipice, the British Parliament demanded that its leader prepare the nation for war.  Having done little to stop Hitler to that point, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Pickup) was forced to resign.  The popular choice for his successor, Lord Halifax (Dillane), declined, leaving the Conservative party to hold its nose and name Winston Churchill (Oldman).  Stepping into the role immediately yet warily, Churchill was faced with a skeptical King (Mendelsohn), fractured government, and frightened nation.  Germany soon invaded the Low Countries and threatened France with imminent conquest.  Determined to resist Hitler under any circumstances - yet finding fewer and fewer options to do so - Churchill became pressed on nearly all sides to consider a (hopefully) peaceful surrender.  Yet even at such a military disadvantage, Churchill willed himself, his colleagues and the nation to fight anyway, no matter the cost.

Darkest Hour has a fine cast, although the lead gets extra emphasis - and delivers.  One of the most famous figures of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, is played by Gary Oldman, and his performance is an early Oscar favorite.  Part of this is sheerly physical: if you're not familiar with him, Google "Gary Oldman" and then "Oldman+Churchill", and you will be astonished.  Yet if you didn't know about that transformation while watching, you'd be forgiven for thinking Oldman was himself a plump, wrinkly old dude, too.  With the camera almost always focused squarely on him, Oldman not only had to constantly maintain Churchill's basic physical posture and mannerisms (one small criticism is that his slurred, mumbled speech is at times hard to understand), but more importantly, also communicate his internal workings.  Here, Oldman recreated an extraordinary yet still very real and flawed man.  He had the necessary confidence and drive, yet his ego often gives him trouble and worsened divisions with critical allies and colleagues.  He had a sharp wit and genuine compassion for others, yet struggled mightily not only to address Britain's strategic crisis but also to be fair to both those in his private life (at home) as well as the nation (via radio and the papers).  Others deserve recognition, too.  Kristin Scott Thomas makes for a strong, vivid Mrs. Clementine Churchill, and Ben Mendelsohn captures a regal tone as King George, while also grounding him in his limited screen time.  Ronald Pickup and Stephen Dillane, as Churchill's biggest rivals, Chamberlain and Halifax, are also great - effective opposition, yet not villainous.  Lily James also has a significant role as Churchill's secretary, though the role itself and her performance are among the weaker elements in the film, as they're both a bit cliche, forced, and at times just not very well done.

Darkest Hour fits the recent, trendy style of historical drama and while it succeeds in "nearsighted" terms, via its characters, it falls short in the "farsighted", or narrative and thematic, areas.  First and foremost, the film is an acting showcase, and within that space, of course, the emphasis is on Oldman as Churchill.  As described above, he does do fantastic work; whether it's the physical mannerisms, his sense of humor, or just watching his mind work, Oldman is great and interesting to watch whether by himself or playing with/screaming at others.  The supporting cast (mostly) fits in perfectly around him, too.  Scene to scene, you want to see what he does next.  The main "action" points of the film are Churchill's speeches, and the filmmakers (and of course Oldman) deserve credit for making these dramatic, stirring, and creative - without the use of an overbearing score! - though it starts to become a bit much in the final act.  However, taken as a whole - and even while I was watching it - the film comes off as incomplete when considering the broader narrative, and even just Churchill's role in it.  The film begins right as Parliament calls for Chamberlain's ouster, and then Churchill soon materializes and off we go.  We do get a bit of back story, and the history is well-known by many (in the audience), but narratively it's ineffective, especially frustrating precisely for those who do know a bit more: why Churchill?  Why does he feel as he does, and is so driven to stand up to Hitler?  While more questions spring from those, the film's ignoring or minimally addressing these critical points is both bizarre and undermining of its foundation.  The film also underplays and/or wastes some of the adjacent historical events, particularly the Dunkirk evacuation. I understand that not everything can (or should be - they don't call it the fog of war for nothing) be explained, but a better alignment of information/presentation with characters' various decisions and feelings was needed.

***

Darkest Hour is a good historical drama with some considerable strengths, but one that ultimately left me underwhelmed and a bit disappointed.  Again, Oldman's performance as Churchill is brilliant and deserving of the accolades he is receiving (and is sure to continue to).  I still like the general idea of following closely one pivotal historical figure and, perhaps even more importantly, a limited chronological and thematic focus.  However, I think the overall narrative isn't as effective.  I may simply not have been in the right mind set when I watched it.  Also, I have a particular interest in WWII history, so this may have given me certain expectations that I wouldn't have with another topic.  But the way I feel right now, with those caveats, is that the film treated the context and narrative as an afterthought (perhaps feeling that was the "easy" part?), hurting the overall experience of the film.  It's still good, and I recommend it be seen for Oldman's performance if nothing else, but it can wait for Netflix/DVD.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55363331

Lady Bird

Score:  A-

Directed by Greta Gerwig
Starring Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Lucas Hedges
Running time:  93 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Lady Bird is a coming-of-age story featuring one of the leading actresses of the indie film world, Saoirse Ronan, and another behind the camera in Greta Gerwig.  Although the genre has seen countless attempts (mostly tiresome and all-too-similar, IMO), Lady Bird stands out thanks to a fantastic cast and smart and effective style, editing and script.  Highly recommended.


It's 2002, and Christine - or "Lady Bird" as she insists others call her - is another high school senior being prevented from reaching her potential.  That's how Lady Bird sees it, anyway, although her counselor at the Catholic school is skeptical about her dreams of escaping boring Sacramento for the dreamy independence of New York private colleges.  As she squabbles with her mother about the future, Lady Bird's status quo is upset during her last year in school.  She tries to start living the vision she has for herself, but in doing so strains old, reliable relationships with friends like Julie, and tests new ones with rebellious boys like Kyle.  Lady Bird finds herself thrown into turmoil as she struggles with the people in her life, trying to figure out not only who she is but who she wants to be.

Lady Bird has a great cast with some familiar faces, all of whom provide grounded performances.  Saoirse Ronan (pronounced "sir-sha"; whoever said SNL isn't educational programming?!) is tremendous as the lead, titular character.  While she's joined by her friends and family, the focus is entirely on her and she shines.  She does so well because she plays Lady Bird as just an ordinary girl; she (Ronan) rejects archetype and the pressures to fit one or another.  There is enough that's specific about her - the desire to go to a "cool" college in NY, her various social activities - yet the script mostly has her doing everyday things where her personality shines through.  Lady Bird loses her temper and screams, shrieks with joy, and - most commonly - struggles in silence figuring out how she does feel, and Ronan's impressive accomplishment is to make it all cohesive, a fully formed person.  Laurie Metcalf, playing Lady Bird's mother, has the most significant supporting role, and she does just as much with her part.  Sparks fly and the film is as its strongest in the pair's scenes together.  The film enjoys a number of other smaller but very well done performances, too, from Lucas Hedges' sweet boyfriend to Beanie Feldstein's best friend Julie, not to mention the quiet but influential father played by Tracy Letts.

Lady Bird is an outstanding coming-of-age film, one structured around a fairly standard story but enacted effectively with a great tone, script and style, in addition to the aforementioned stellar cast.  So many of these movies focus on the last year of high school for one or more young characters, too, but Lady Bird shows it all through a brand new lens.  The action starts off in a tense yet ordinary car trip with Lady Bird and her mother, introducing their powerful and realistic relationship that is the film's foundation.  This ends up being one of the longer scenes; although I was expecting the following montage of clips, introducing various aspects of Lady Bird's life, much of the rest of the film is composed of snippets strung together between the occasional longer set.  I don't recall seeing another film do anything quite like this, but it's very effective.  It keeps the pace humming and encourages you to remain attentive to detail; storywise, it allows the film to show "throwaway" moments that may not be important to the plot but are essential to an adolescent's daily life.  Importantly, it's also not done in a too clever or self-aware style, either.  This brings us back to Lady Bird's (and the film's) lack of an archetype - the film is not trying to guide you into feeling a certain way, and in fact, several times there is a jarring (yet natural) transition from elation in one scene to devastation in the next, much like real life.  As refreshing as both the emotions and the editing are, the script fortunately matches up with them.  The dialogue and acting is occasionally awkward; at first I thought it might be a weakness of script and/or performance, but it's simply capturing the awkwardness of teens in certain situations, and this becomes clearer as the film goes along.  Finally, Lady Bird has some good humor throughout, but I have to mention that it also has one of the funniest parts I've seen in a long time, featuring a football coach attempting to diagram the roles in a drama production.  You just have to see it.

***

Lady Bird is a triumph in many ways, not least in easily sidestepping most of the pitfalls of this well-worn genre, so often cliche-ridden and self-conscious.  It's not perfect; at times the abrupt editing style and naturalistic script just doesn't work so well, particularly early on.  It's both affecting and effective, but it's not built for quite the depth or endurance of impact that other dramas are able to achieve.  Still, those are just quibbles, and by any standard Lady Bird is a very well made film.  The style is perfect for telling the story of an average girl, not just because it creates such a vivid portrait of her and her world but also because it generates genuine compassion for her.  Perhaps other coming-of-age films might effectively explore unique angles or aspects of the genre, but when it comes to these films in general, I can't see any topping it (or even worth attempting).  Great way to balance the holiday movie excitement of Star Wars - try it out.




By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55096958

Coco

Score:  A

Directed by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina
Starring Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt
Running time: 109 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Coco is the latest Pixar film, another visual masterpiece and featuring elements of Hispanic culture and tradition.  Perhaps not as wildly (and weirdly) creative as some of its kin, Coco nevertheless belongs in the company of some of the studio's best, delighting audiences with both sight and sound, and warming hearts with its characters and themes.  Highly recommended for all.


Miguel (Gonzalez) is a small, young boy with big, age-old dreams.  Raised by a family of shoemakers in Mexico, he idolizes the historic father of Mexican pop music, Ernesto de la Cruz (Bratt), and hopes to follow in his footsteps.  Unfortunately for Miguel, his family despises music due to a scandal from long ago, and they insist that he take up the family tradition of shoemaking and forget his dreams.  Frustrated, Miguel is determined to show them - and the world - that he is meant for music by entering a local competition.  First he must find a guitar, though, as his family took his away, causing Miguel to make a desperate and fateful decision.  Bound by a curse, Miguel must embrace his family again - albeit a much different version of it - to free himself, while keeping a tight hold on his love of music.

Coco features a compelling cast of characters brought to life by both Hollywood stars and newcomers.  Anthony Gonzalez lends the young lead, Miguel, an inspired and bright personality, gushing with enthusiasm and an independent spirit.  Miguel is extremely likable, and you find yourself actively rooting not just for him to overcome the various challenges but for his happiness; that may seem a simple thing, but all too often the plot (and any danger involved) in films like this becomes the focus rather than the young protagonist him/herself.  The two main supporting characters are Ernesto, Miguel's hero, and Hector, a scallawag of the Land of the Dead.  Hector provides a nice foil for Miguel as his companion through much of the film, a man who is also focused on a mission for himself but goes about it with cynicism in contrast with Miguel's idealism.  Ernesto is more significant as a symbol than as an active player in the story, but he eventually also plays a direct, key role as well.  There are plenty of other supporting characters, some of whom are a bit cliche but as a whole make up a unique and fascinating family portrait which gives the film a sturdy, warm foundation.  And Pixar has also come up with another instantly lovable dog companion, just for good measure!

Coco is an outstanding film, fitting nicely into the Pixar family with many of its familiar trademarks yet making its own mark through visuals, music and classic themes.  The story structure is a fairly familiar one, following a young lead on a fantastical journey to achieve a dream, in animated and family films generally, not just Pixar.  In less capable hands, this could easily have led to a predictable, unremarkable film that passes the time pleasantly but leaves little lasting impression.  And admittedly, Coco starts fairly slowly, although Miguel (and Gonzalez's performance) still creates a spark.  The slow start also allows room for the musical theme to be introduced, via some catchy, beautiful tunes.  It's not too long before Miguel enters the Land of the Dead, and Pixar's visual team gets its chance to shine, creating an unbelievably complex and colorful world, populated by skeletal denizens that convey their "status" while remaining capable of expressing human emotion.  Having wowed audiences through sensory wizardry, Coco begins to unpack the narrative themes which were quietly, patiently developed in the first half of the film.  Impressively, the themes of family are both specific to the intergenerational aspects of Hispanic culture as well as universally relatable (perhaps not just reaffirming but also enlightening).  A related theme is that of memory, another Pixar favorite. As always, you may want to have tissues on hand for some well-earned (and happy) tears.

***

Coco is yet another triumph for the best film studio of the past twenty years, Pixar.  Perhaps Marvel got its idea from them:  create a brand of films that share an overall feel (technical achievement and effective, genuine themes) at a consistently high level of quality, but give each individual film a unique angle on that worldview.  It is easy to say that Coco's "angle" is the Hispanic flavor Pixar film, but it is so richly and intricately created that that label is far too simplistic.  Yes, there is a distinct cultural feel (mark that as a success), but it is easily and naturally relatable to all.  Go for the characters, go for the culture; go for typically great Pixar animation and hummable tunes; and of course, go for all the feels and timeless lessons to be (re)learned.  Just go see the movie!




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47613889

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Score:  C

Directed by Martin McDonagh
Starring Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell
Running time:  115 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Three Billboards, an awards season contender, features an interesting premise in the push for justice through unusual means by a grieving mother.  Frances McDormand's lead performance is as good as advertised, but the film itself falls well short.  The premise is squandered by an inability to find the right tone, which is often waylaid by dark comedy and violence, and an inconsistent script.  Opinions may vary widely, but proceed with caution.


A disconsolate woman, Mildred (McDormand), mother of a brutally murdered daughter, one day comes across three forgotten billboards alongside a little-used road.  At last, she has found inspiration: with the criminal investigation gone cold without producing any leads, Mildred rents the billboards in order to call out the police department in a very direct way.  Once local media puts her act of confrontation in the news, Mildred soon finds herself at odds not only with the police and their cancer-stricken Chief Willoughby (Harrelson) but much of the town's population, too.  Mildred's resolve is unshakeable, however, even as she and her teenage son receive harassment and abuse from everyone from the dentist to school children.  When tragedy strikes once more, Mildred's campaign comes under more pressure, even as new interest in and questions about her daughter's case emerge from unexpected sources.

Three Billboards has a great cast portraying a colorful set of characters.  Frances McDormand is the lead as despairing yet ruthlessly driven Mildred.  She does an excellent job, primarily through her physical embodiment of a barely contained rage; just a glance at her locked-in expressions tells you all you need to know, an expression that holds whether she is face-to-face with a pastor, the police chief, or a kid.  However, her underlying grief breaks through from time to time, and McDormand believably sheds the rough exterior and transforms into a genuinely vulnerable mother.  If anything, the film would have benefited from more of her.  Next is Woody Harrelson as Chief Willoughby, who brings an equal mixture of dramatic tension with Mildred and a darkly comedic element.  Harrelson is also very good, mostly dropping his eccentric trademark (save for a few bits) for a straight part.  He is intriguingly complex, buffeted by not only Mildred's attacks but also his personal problems yet remaining principled... to an extent.  Sam Rockwell has another significant role as a dim-witted, drunken yet also often humorous police officer.  Rockwell often gets oddball supporting parts like this and as usual, he does a great job - with what he's given, at least.  All other parts - most notably including Peter Dinklage and Caleb Landry Jones - are fine, but much smaller.

Three Billboards has many good elements (particularly the cast) within a great premise, but they are mostly spoiled by an inconsistent script and tone, which are at times bewildering and at others distasteful.  The story is very interesting, contrasting support for a mother's demand for justice against  unease at the methods she uses on others.  There are plenty of related, timely, fascinating themes in this, from the criminal justice system (and sexual assault in particular) to the relationship of media and public opinion.  While the film does well to avoid being too heavy-handed with any of that, it goes too far in the opposite direction by distracting from the story with oddly (and often, IMO, inappropriately) placed black humor and chilling violence.  Where these two elements are in Mildred's scenes, they work well and are appropriate, but the two police officers steal far too much screen time and focus.  Harrelson and Rockwell, again, do well, but the comedy and violence in their scenes is distracting and disorienting at best, and appalling at worst.  Both of their characters undergo dramatic changes which drive the development of the story (which should have been Mildred's job), and are otherwise problematic: for Harrelson, it's the way the film views his fateful choice, and for Rockwell, it's an implausible 180 degree shift in character.  There are further sidetracks, too, though at least they tend to involve Mildred.  One involving her ex-husband is cliched and mostly uninteresting, and the other, with Dinklage, had potential but is over in the blink of an eye.  Finally, too often the film veers between being too direct and unsubtle (mostly thanks to awkward moments in the script) and artsy-abstract, where coincidences often transform awkwardly into crucial realities.

***

Three Billboards is one of the biggest letdowns for me recently among awards contender films (also Hacksaw Ridge - terrible, way out of place with last year's other excellent Best Picture nominees and should be skipped).  In skimming critics' reviews, I haven't seen much about the film's tone, but it really bothered me.  This film had so much potential, particularly from the premise but also from the cast, but it squandered it with poor direction and an inconsistent script.  I didn't like many of the choices made, from the undue focus on the cops to an often tasteless application of the comedy and violence.  I think my overall score may be based more on my personal reaction to it than it is for other films, so you (like the critics) may come to a very different conclusion than me.  So give it a try if you're so inclined, but in my opinion you can wait until it comes to Netflix or DVD, if at all.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53574638