Tomb Raider

Score:  B+

Directed by Roar Uthaug
Starring Alicia Vikander, Dominic West, Walton Goggins
Running time: 118 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  One of the better-known video game characters, Lara Croft, returns to the big screen, this time portrayed by Alicia Vikander, in Tomb Raider.  Forget its video game origins (and all that tends to signify), though: this is a really good adventure film that concentrates on its strength of exciting set pieces and a formidable performance by its star.  The rest of the film is also quite solidly done, so you don't feel the dreaded brain drain.  Recommended to anyone looking for a fun time at the theater.


Lara Croft (Vikander) is a wayward young woman, struggling to support herself by zipping through the streets of London as a bike courier.  Her father's disappearance years ago is what has derailed her once bright, promising future; however, she has refused to accept his likely fate and therefore also her massive inheritance.  Pushed to a breaking point, she finally relents.  After figuring out a puzzle her father left for her, she discovers a hidden office which provides clues to his last mission, and whereabouts.  With just the clothes on her back and her father's notes, Lara sets off to find a tiny island in the Pacific.  While she is most concerned with finding and saving her father, her curious, sharp mind can't help but consider her father's own pursuit, an ancient legend about a peril to the world hidden for centuries.

Lara Croft has a nice, compact cast that does an impressive job for a film of its genre.  Alicia Vikander takes on the role of Lara Croft, the popular video game character similar to Indiana Jones.  Vikander quickly dispels fears of simplification or stereotype that might arise from the genre in general, or her particular character's over-sexualized reputation.  She is an Oscar-winning actress, and puts that talent to use in creating a headstrong, feisty, compassionate heroine.  Her performance also conveys her human vulnerability and complexity, though, making her remarkably relatable, not to mention quite likable and sympathetic.  Vikander clearly did extensive physical training for the role, too, therefore making the action feel credible; again, however, her character's mission is not the adventure and fighting itself, but rather the rescuing of her father that requires such an arduous journey.  Dominic West does nicely as her father, both a warm parental presence at times and a realistically addled survivor at others.  Lara is joined for a good portion of her journey by Lu Ren (played by Daniel Wu), whose own father has gone missing; he is effective in throwing some of Lara's own attitude back at her, and playing the supporting (yet fortunately not romantic) role.  Walton Goggins is the "villain", but the script and his own acting make that a simplistic description.  He doesn't get a lot to do, but Goggins doesn't need much to convey a good dose of sinister.  There are a few even smaller roles, notably Kristin Scott Thomas's mysterious business partner, and Nick Frost for some nice comic relief.

Lara Croft transcends the limitations of its sub-genre, and succeeds as one of the better adventure films released in recent years.  The film's main focus is, of course, action and excitement; frankly, many similar films fail even at this, but Lara Croft does it very well, and even frames it within an intriguing overall narrative.  The adventure aspect benefits from several standout set pieces, a consistently gutty, edge-of-your-seat feeling, and a refreshing lack of emphasis on fighting.  A stormy shipwreck at night (despite heavy CGI, almost made me seasick) and an extended, "what else can go wrong?!" escape scene are highlights, but little if any action is done by rote; it's all interesting, meaningful to the plot, or both.  The literal feel of the action also helps; as impressive as Lara/ Vikander's stunts are, she is still quite mortal and is bumped, bruised and worse all along the way; grunting and thrashing, we feel her ordeal, and are all the more impressed with her mere survival.  The story that guides the action along is not the most original, but it's a solid one, and it works best in the details and execution.  We are given just enough exposition; the film doesn't get bogged down in lore, but also gives due attention to critical (and often recurring) details.  The main journey itself starts neither too quickly nor too slowly, and the development of Lara's character occurs smoothly throughout the film - it's all very well-paced, in other words.  The script also wisely does not go too heavy on the comedy, rather inserting a few well-placed chuckle moments here and there.  Finally, the climactic scenes reveal not a Mummy-like fantasy, but a surprisingly realistic twist on the legend that is forebodingly set up early on; this makes the conclusion all the more satisfying.

***

Lara Croft is a very impressive adventure film, a video game adaptation that doesn't feel like one at all.  Certainly, it helps tremendously that the focal point of the movie, its lead character, is played by an excellent actor in Alicia Vikander (which makes me think I should give the Michael Fassbender-starring Assassin's Creed a chance).  Still, that hardly ensured success, as great actors are frequently victimized by bad films.  Rather than coast on Vikander's presence and the franchise's popularity, clearly a lot of thought and effort was put into everything from the script to the production of the action pieces (emphasizing practical stunts over CGI effects) to the cohesive, distinct tone and feel.  It also helps that the filmmakers' ambitions are modest - it doesn't try to be a fanboy circus (i.e. I had no problems not knowing anything about the video game) nor even try to elevate the drama too much.  It's just a really fun adventure film, and an excellent choice to go see in the theater.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56013434

A Wrinkle in Time

Score:  C+

Directed by Ava DuVernay
Starring Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, Storm Reid
Running time:  109 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  An acclaimed filmmaker steps out of her comfort zone to bring a classic children's story to the big screen in A Wrinkle in Time.  It features big stars Oprah, Reese Witherspoon and others, while also presenting something new for the family audience and emphasizing contemporary themes.  But it's ultimately still too much of the modern, standard film style, which is fatally constraining to the wondrous tone and magic of the original story.


Meg Murry (Reid) is a lonely girl, adrift despite the presence of an adoring younger brother, Charles Wallace (McCabe), due to the mysterious disappearance of her father four years ago.  Her parents were groundbreaking astrophysicists, inspirations to their children but not taken seriously by the world.  One day, as Meg introduces her family to a rare new friend, Calvin (Miller), a strange woman suddenly appears in the yard.  The woman - calling herself Mrs. Whatsit (Witherspoon) - seems to know about Meg's father, and offers to take Meg, Charles, and Calvin to find him, along with two other beings, Mrs. Who (Kaling) and Mrs. Which (Winfrey).  By using a tesser, or a "wrinkle" in space-time, the group travels to distant, exotic new worlds.  As amazing as this new universe of possibilities may be, however, Meg and company soon discover that the key to finding and saving her father will depend on their own courage and resourcefulness.

A Wrinkle in Time has quite a few big stars, although it relies heavily on its mostly unknown, younger actors.  Storm Reid is the lead as young Meg Murry, and she does a decent though underwhelming job.  Storm is a composed and consistent performer, but she is unable to truly bring Meg to life, to summon the spark that makes her such a compelling character on the page.  The set up is fine early on, when the story introduces Meg as a distressed, lost young girl in everyday life, but the passion of the character - at times productive and at others harmful - just doesn't come through once they leave Earth behind.  Levi Miller as Calvin O'Keefe is similarly average and uninspiring, but Deric McCabe  is significantly better as precocious (although more than that) young Charles Wallace, attempting to carry the torch of adventure and whimsy that is lacking in others.  Stars Oprah, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling bring their distinctive presences to bear for the film - but little else.  Not only does the script miss the true, unique essences of the Mrs.s, but the actresses themselves play them fairly generically (if also with earnest effort).  Chris Pine, as Meg's father, gets to do a lot of emotion-filled staring but little else, and there are a few other familiar faces with smaller roles, too.

A Wrinkle in Time is a sincere effort to bring a classic children's fantasy to the big screen, one that is well-made in some ways but ultimately misses the mark in the big picture.  To start, if you're not familiar with the story, it's important to understand that it is a pretty strange tale.  The original, the book, is even more so, and the movie's attempts to standardize and explain it is one of its biggest failures.  To me, the warm, mysterious tone of the story, and its unique, flawed, compelling characters are the great strengths of the book.  DuVernay - a great filmmaker (Selma, 13th) - seems most attracted to emphasizing the ideas of diversity, female empowerment, and scientific curiosity.  All of those things are great, but DuVernay sanitizes the story and fantasy around it - by over explaining some things, and making major (often ill-advised) deviations from the original - to make it easily digestible for the 21st century family audience.  I wish that she (or perhaps Disney?) had just trusted more to the source material, and in doing so, trust in the audiences - young and old alike - to use their imaginations, to find those same ideas she wanted to emphasize, without hitting us over the head with them.  I don't mean to say this film is entirely bad.  The production values are pretty good, with some clever (if not visionary) interpretations of some of the fantastical elements.  Although the performances are not great, and the script a bit clunky, there is a genuine, good faith effort behind it which makes it watchable.

***

A Wrinkle in Time is a well-intentioned, decent film, but one that ultimately proves the power of another medium - books - and how tricky it can be to translate stories both by format and style.  As is probably obvious from my review, I did go back and re-read the story just before seeing the film.  It really does bring the old cliche to life in transporting you, the reader, to another world; I strongly suggest it for children (for age suggestions, you should look elsewhere), and even adults should find it a pleasant return to younger days.  I even more strongly recommend reading it before seeing the film, if you intend to do so.  Admittedly, I'm not sure a faithful film version of A Wrinkle in Time that captures the essence of the story is even possible.  If it is, I think it would be something much different than what we are used to seeing on a screen of any kind.  But I also think that kind of bold, inventive filmmaking is something that would benefit us all.  For now, thanks for bringing the story back to our attention, DuVernay et. al.; but the book remains by far the best choice.




By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54564757

2017 Cinema & Stadium Film Year-in-Review

2017 Cinema & Stadium Film Year-in-Review

It's time for my favorite post of the year, where I get to look back on all the films that I saw in the previous year and talk about the highlights as well as some of the disappointments.  In doing so, I often find that my opinion has changed a little, particularly if I got the chance to see a movie again on Netflix.  Overall, it was another strong year at the movies, although it seems I focused even more heavily on the action/adventure and drama genres than usual.  Plenty of those either had a lot of humor or mixed in other styles, but I only saw two animated films, and just one traditional comedy.  Since I go to see films based on a mixture of the appeal of its premise (and stars/filmmakers) plus its Rotten Tomatoes score, it seems those genres could use a little work in 2018!

I don't think it's broke, so I'm not fixing the format of my year-in-review.  As always I'll begin with my top 10 films of the year, with a brief summary of why I chose each.  In general, my top 10 is made by a combination of how good I thought the movies were and how much I liked them.  After that, I'll have a few miscellaneous awards (overrated/underrated, etc.), a brief rundown of movies I saw on Netflix but not in theaters, and finally a list of links to other movies I saw (and reviewed) during the year.

You can find my annual companion piece, my Oscar-style awards, here.  I hope you enjoy reading, and feel free to let me know what you think (or if I missed a movie you liked)!


Top 10 Films of 2017

10 (tie).  The Big Sick (directed by Michael Showalter; starring Kumail Nianji, Zoe Kazan)

I'm already cheating here a little: this is the eleventh film on my top ten.  But it's the one film in 2017 that I'm kicking myself for not seeing in theaters, and it deserves a mention.  The dramedy's story, one that might seem a perfectly typical Hollywood tale, is actually based on the real experiences of star Kumail Nianji and his now-wife (who is played by Zoe Kazan here).  An excellent script manages to juggle several different objectives: insight into cultural differences, a sweet (not sappy) romance, and sharp humor alongside a wrenching emotional plot.  Veterans Hunter and Romano are strong, and Nianji and Kazan are stars in the making.  Make sure to see it.

10 (tie).  Get Out (directed by Jordan Peele; starring Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Bradley Whitford)

Breakout movie of the year, and one of the most hyped, Get Out holds up to the attention it's getting.  Horror is normally one of the only genres I avoid, but Jordan Peele (of Key and Peele) writing and directing it pulled me in.  Fans of the sketch show will recognize Peele's unique style and sharp mind at work here: probably very few others could effectively pull off a horror that's funny, and also is such an effective mirror on society, too.  Daniel Kaluuya is great as the lead, and he makes us feel like we're each alone with him, too.  While I wouldn't say it's as great as some other Best Picture-nominees are, it's truly unique and certainly worth seeing (take it from this non-horror fan!).

9.  Coco (directed by Lee Unkrich; starring Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt)

Pixar just keeps on doing it.  Other than a few that I've skipped (like the latest Cars), the animation studio is just terrific at coming up with brilliant, creative ideas that have heart and timeless lessons, and Coco is no different.  One might cynically label this the "Hispanic Pixar" film, but that would entirely ignore the typically high level of thought and care that went into it.  Coco does a great job of exploring Mexican cultures and traditions within its story, and in doing so invents yet another level of visual wizardry in its land of the dead (and inhabitants).  Anchored in a specific, vivid new setting yet imparting more universal ideas on family, memory, and more, this is another home run.

8.  Thor: Ragnarok (directed by Taika Waititi; starring Chris Hemsworth, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hiddleston)

Despite well over a dozen films and billions of dollars in box office, Marvel refuses to rest on its laurels, and Thor: Ragnarok is a brilliant example of this.  Thor has never been the Avengers' most interesting hero, and so the studio allowed director Taika Waititi to overhaul the character's tone.  Now, Hemsworth and Hiddleston are out-Guardians-ing Pratt and company in sheer silliness and sense of fun, yet somehow without driving off the road into parody.  Thor is freed from his dour sense of royal responsibility, and has a blast with troublesome brother Loki, new BFF Hulk, and some great new friends, too.  One of the funniest movies I saw in 2017, it's still as good as its Marvel kin.

7.  Star Wars: The Last Jedi (directed by Rian Johnson; starring Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver)

Update: I still don't know exactly how to feel about this latest chapter in the Star Wars universe.  On the plus side, I could not have hoped for a better return for Hamill's Luke Skywalker, who is the most fun character in the film and provides an instant-class finale.  Credit to writer-director Johnson's narrative boldness, too, with some big surprises, many of which work well.  Star Wars is rapidly growing more diverse and reaping rewards from it, and the Rey-Kylo Renn relationship is still great (if somewhat underplayed).  But it's not all smooth sailing: it's simply packed too full, with several undercooked and unnecessary parts, and the quality is uneven, particularly in some sketchy dialogue. Still, this is the mother of all movie franchises, and hopefully you saw it while it was in theaters.

6.  Battle of the Sexes (directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris; starring Emma Stone, Steve Carell)

Tennis, two of my favorite actors, and a historical event with timely relevance?  Sign me up!  That's what I thought when I heard about the film in the fall, and the film fortunately makes good on its promise.  Full of great humor, Battle of the Sexes also generates quite a bit of tension as it lays out the  cultural stakes of the ostensibly silly match, and how strong Billy Jean King truly had to be as well as how Riggs got to his ludicrous position.  Not mere sideshows, the movie also looks at the beginnings of the women's tennis association and King's tumultuous personal life.  With outstanding acting and a great script, this is an excellent choice even if you haven't seen a single tennis match before.

5.  Wonder Woman (directed by Patty Jenkins; starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine)

As many of the most famous comic book characters enter their third or fourth incarnations, one icon remained glaringly, obviously ignored, until 2017: Wonder Woman.  The wait was too long, but the pay off was impressive, as Gal Gadot does a magnificent job as the heroine.  She is both inspiring and interesting to watch - strong and beautiful, certainly, but also bold and growing in ways unmatched by other heroes.  The movie around Gadot is also good; she has a fun, supporting partner in Pine's WWI pilot and the historical context gives it crucial specificity and tone.  That the film then combines this with its mythological elements to present valuable ideas about humanity is golden.

4.  Lady Bird (directed by Greta Gerwig; starring Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf)

I've seen plenty of coming-of-age dramedies, and frankly, I don't care to see many more.  Some are well done, but to me it's a tired out genre that is often nauseatingly self-aware or "clever".  I wasn't sure, then, about Lady Bird, but took a chance due to the Oscar buzz; I'm glad I did, because it's the best I've seen in the genre.  Takes a little while to get going, but the film does a great job of developing its teenage girl lead, through meaningful and interesting relationships, and by alternating high-impact, emotional scenes with everyday life.  The script is strong and the performances are great, particularly Ronan's.  This is one coming-of-age story that will stick with you.

3.  Hidden Figures (directed by Theodore Melfi; starring Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae)

Hidden Figures joins a growing list of recent high-profile films exploring the African American community through history (or historical fiction), and it stands shoulder to shoulder with them in quality.  It is much different than, say, 12 Years a Slave; it's designed as a crowd-pleaser, yet it retains incredible nuance, realism, and power in showing the pivotal roles that African American women (three in particular) played in the Space Race.  All of their impressive achievements are effectively presented, and Henson's lead in particular is well-rounded with her personal life.  Featuring some great humor and a really fun soundtrack, this movie is an all-around triumph.

2.  La La Land (directed by Damien Chazelle; starring Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling)

Like Lady Bird and Get Out, the genre here didn't exactly draw me in; still, the buzz and talent involved - Stone, Gosling and Chazelle (made the nifty Whiplash) - along with the chance to see something different got me interested.  It's a joy to watch, plain and simple (and really well made).  The story is a simple, classic one, but with a contemporary feel, and Stone and Gosling just have so much chemistry that the romance remains interesting and affecting.  Many are not fans of the ending, but I'm fine with it - and you can't argue with its superb execution.  The music is phenomenal, and the routines are neat (most importantly, they don't disrupt the film's overall flow).  Bold yet sensible, high-quality filmmaking that provides a great time at the theater - we need more of it.

1.  Dunkirk (directed by Christopher Nolan; starring Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy)

A war film is one of the last things I ever expected from Christopher Nolan, one of my favorite directors, but in Dunkirk he made the best war film I've ever seen.  Nolan brings his unmatched cinematic vision to a well-worn genre, and the departure from his normal setting allowed him to fully address some of his own weaknesses.  Dunkirk is an absolute feast for the senses: by far the best dogfighting shots I've ever seen, harrowing sounds of chaos as men scramble out of sinking vessels, and terrifying guns and bombs bursting (yet never a look at the attackers themselves), for just a few examples.  It shows - and you really feel - the desperate, all-consuming quest for survival in war, and it uses little dialogue at all to do so.  Instead, we rotate among three scenes at the famed evacuation - on land, on the sea, and in the air - and Nolan uses his technical genius to flow them seamlessly together even though they play out on completely different timelines.  The tension builds and builds, though we know little of the characters beyond their names, and the film truly earns its sense of emotional catharsis, something Nolan has previously struggled with.  The catharsis, just like the rest of the film, is different from other war films, and communicates the value of our shared humanity much more powerfully.  Hopefully you saw this epic in theaters, but if not, just be sure to see it.


Honorable mentions:  Logan Lucky, Spider-Man: Homecoming, John Wick Chapter 2, Logan


Miscellaneous Awards:

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (runner-up: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2)
These two films were by far the most overrated, scoring 92% and 83% respectively on Rotten Tomatoes.  I liked the first Guardians movie a lot: Chris Pratt led a fun cast, it was silly and funny without being stupid, and was a great adventure.  All of the fine-tuning of the first went out the window in the sequel, though, as they went way overboard and got shockingly sloppy.  There are still a few laughs, but so many attempts here are just horribly written, unfunny, or even offensive.  The action becomes so ludicrous so fast that my suspension of disbelief was irreparably broken, and I was appalled by a scene of the murder of every one on a ship, one by one, with an arrow, and being asked to laugh at it.  A rare belly flop for Marvel.
I had similar high hopes for Three Billboards - a film that nearly won Best Picture!! - which were let down hard.  The premise, of a mother of a murdered child seeking both vengeance and justice through unique means, is fascinating.  Frances McDormand does a great job.  But the script is extremely uneven, and with jarring swerves between irreverent black humor and serious pathos.  The main culprit, I think, is how the two town cops are handled.  Harrelson's is far more interesting, but is in it too briefly, and the nature of his end is questionably handled, at best.  Rockwell's - a very fine actor - is even worse, magically transforming from a mentally disabled, hateful bigot into a sharp and compassionate detective.  We needed far more McDormand and far less of the cops, and only a massive rewrite could have corrected this failure.

Most Underrated Film of the Year:  Logan Lucky (runner-up:  Kingsman: The Golden Circle)
Admittedly, a good part of my choice of the The Golden Circle is because I love the original so much.  And I also admit that the sequel is not as good - not as original (well, duh) and not as tightly well crafted.  Still, it is bonkers fun, going over-the-top in a way that should make Guardians 2 salivate in envy.  If you didn't like the first... well, definitely skip the sequel.  But damn, I enjoyed the hell out of it (topped off with an action scene done to "Saturday Night's Alright (for Fighting)").
Logan Lucky is not over/underrated in the way the other four were; it scored a phenomenal 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.  But it made under $30 million in theaters, a pittance for a movie that should have been a significant hit.  It was released in August (where summer movies go to die), but it was so, so much better than a simplistic "Ocean's Eleven in West Virginia" description.  It has all the charm of its predecessor, features great turns from Tatum, Craig and the rest, and even has a hilarious Game of Thrones reference.  Just Netflix it.

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  War for the Planet of the Apes (runner-up: Justice League)
I really wasn't all that surprised by Justice League this year.  It wasn't all bad (thanks to Gal Gadot and Ezra Miller/Wonder Woman and The Flash), but when you compare it to The Avengers... well, there's just no real comparison to be made.  Marvel is eating DC's lunch; ten years ago, Spider-Man was basically the only Marvel character I was familiar with, while Batman was flying high with Christopher Nolan.  Times change... JL came and went with barely a whimper when it should have been a Hollywood-rattling event.
War of the Planet of the Apes was a huge letdown as the final part of the new, somewhat under-the-radar trilogy for the franchise.  Andy Serkis' motion capture acting, and the chimp-character's development (particularly in Rise) were revolutionary - entertaining and thought-provoking.  Dawn added menace and moral ambiguity.  And then War came and pooped out a big, dumb, ordinary blockbuster.  All nuance, gone (or at least recycled); sketchy writing; poor pacing; extremely predictable.  What a shame for poor Caesar/Serkis.

Most Surprisingly Good Film of the Year:  Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (runner-up: The Circle)
The Circle probably qualifies more as an underrated film of the year, since I only gave it a "B-".  But it got a putrid 16% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I think that's pretty unfair.  Yeah, it's frequently awkward, and some parts are just pointless (like John Boyega's entire character).  But it does have some interesting ideas and scenes, and it's hard to find more likable co-stars than Emma Watson and Tom Hanks.  Don't rush to see it, but I wouldn't avoid it altogether, either.
The Jumanji sequel has a solid 76% on Rotten Tomatoes and has made nearly a billion dollars worldwide, but let's be honest: it could have been a complete train wreck.  Instead, Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, and Jack Black put their impressive talents to full use, and the movie fully committed to its kids-playing-as-movie-stars-in-video-game-world concept to hilarious effect.  The action is actually pretty dull and unimaginative, but the stars keep it going nearly the whole way through.

Worst Film of the Year:  Guardians of the Galaxy (runner-up: The Mummy)
Technically a tie, since I gave both movies a "C-", Guardians 2 gets the "win" because it should have been so much better.  I already explained that one; I also don't have much to say about The Mummy, either.  Despite being crazy, Tom Cruise is almost always a very fun actor to watch, but even his movie star power gets dulled by a pointless premise/remake with nothing interesting to offer.  It bombed so badly, though, that it might at least prevent more movies like it in what was planned to be a new monster franchise (*shiver*).



Netflix Summary:

The Big Sick (A-):  see top 10 list - highly recommended dramedy.
War Machine (B):  This didn't make too much of an impression, as I don't remember it very well.  It's a satire on the Afghanistan War; Brad Pitt hams it up as the gung-ho new commander.  It's fine, worth a watch if you want something with contemporary flavor or are interested in the topic.
American Made (B):  Based on a true story, Cruise is entertaining as a commercial pilot who gets pulled into (allows himself to) drug smuggling, CIA clandestine operations and world headlines.  It's a bit much, and Cruise just plays himself after awhile, but if the premise interests you, another fine one.
Despicable Me 3 (B-):  The franchise is fun, if a far cry from Pixar.  This one is diverting, but the concept is wearing thin (at least for me).
Kong: Skull Island (B-):  Maybe I've just already seen too many monster/disaster movies, but I'm glad I decided to skip this in theaters.  Cool special effects, but it doesn't do anything new, and fails to take advantage of a great cast.
IT (C+):  I generally avoid horror movies like the plague, but I thought I'd see what the fuss was about (it made over $300 million in the U.S.).  There are a few interesting bits with the kid characters, but there's even more awkwardness/bad acting, and jarring dissonance with the horror element.
The Great Wall (C):  A flop in the U.S. ($45 million), it was a hit in (duh) China ($170 million).  Directed by Zhang Yimou and starring Matt Damon, I wanted to get a look at, if nothing else, a new strategy for targeting an international audience.  The plot is dull and the script laughable, but it does have some top-notch special effects.  Bit of a chest-thumper for China, although Damon is ultimately the hero... I'll be curious to see how the international movie scene continues to evolve.


Other Films I Saw in Theaters (and reviewed):

Baby Driver (B+)
The Founder (B+)
Darkest Hour (B+)
Blade Runner 2049 (B)
Murder on the Orient Express (B)
The House (B)
The LEGO Batman Movie (B)

***

I hope you enjoyed reading some or all of this year-in-review (and come back later if you're in need of movie night suggestions)!  2018 is already off to a great start, and hopefully it will continue strong with the likes of Avengers: Infinity War, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and hopefully many pleasant surprises.

**One final thought!  If you like going to the theater to see movies but find it too expensive to go often, sign up for the Movie Pass app/service.  For $10 per month, you can go to as many movies as you want (one per day) for no extra charge!  Not only is this a fantastic deal, but it lets you see movies the way they were meant to be seen.** (not a paid advertisement, I just want to help fellow movie-goers :-)



* Dunkirk. Accessed March 5, 2018.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/

2017 Cinema & Stadium Film Awards

2017 Cinema & Stadium Film Awards

With the 90th annual Academy Awards ceremony coming this weekend, it's also time for my own selections of the best achievements in film for the past year.  As in previous years, there are two "rules" which guide my picks:  1) only films released widely in 2017 are eligible, and 2) only films that I've actually seen are eligible.  I'll note who the Academy Award nominees are for each category, too, and when there are differences it's often because of one or both of those rules.

You can find my companion post here, where I name my top 10 films of the year and some other thoughts on the movies I saw.  I hope you enjoy, and please feel free to let me know your own opinions!

Winners in bold
Runners-up underlined


Best Actor:
Steve Carell (Battle of the Sexes)
Ryan Gosling (La La Land)
Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out)
Michael Keaton (The Founder)
Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour)

Oscar nominees not listed:  Timothee Chalamet (Call Me By Your Name), Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread) - didn't see the films and not released widely in 2017; Denzel Washington (Roman J. Israel, Esq.) - didn't see the film

I want to start things off with an honorable mention for Mark Hamill reprising his role as Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi; I'm skeptical of bringing back classic characters, but he steals the whole movie, in a good way.  Michael Keaton continued his career resurrection in The Founder, creating a charismatic but overly ambitious and ruthless restaurant tycoon.  Steve Carell, despite his reputation as a comedian (whose acting is overlooked), is one of the most talented thespians in Hollywood today; fortunately, he gets to put his full powers of humor to use in Battle of the Sexes, while also creating a surprisingly sympathetic villain.  Ryan Gosling is another top tier acting talent, and he guides his dreaming male lead in a perfect - and equal - partnership with his better half in La La Land.  All eyes are on Daniel Kaluuya in Get Out, a likable but normal young man who suffers first the "ordinary" cruelty of racism before plummeting into a fantastic horror - and makes both of those feel hauntingly genuine.

The top lead male acting performance of the year is Gary Oldman's as Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour.  Despite the enormity of the historical events of the film - Nazi Germany's conquest of western Europe and Britain's decision to wage war - Oldman's iconic role is by far the most interesting part of the film.  The physical transformation is astounding, of course, and Oldman also impressively develops and maintains a body language that buries any possible skepticism.  But the way that Oldman captures the famous man's incredible strengths as well as surprising doubts and weakness, lets you show what's going on in his head and heart, is truly incredible.


Best Actress
Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman)
Taraji P. Henson (Hidden Figures)
Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird)
Emma Stone (La La Land)
Emma Stone (Battle of the Sexes)

Oscar nominees not listed - Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water), Meryl Streep (The Post) - films not released widely in 2017; Margot Robbie (I, Tonya) - didn't see the film, not released widely in 2017

A little cheating here, with six nominees, but I'm doing this to illustrate the particularly impressive and diverse roster of performances this year.  While not a typical Oscar role, Gal Gadot really embodied her very influential superheroine; she just radiates strength and confidence, while allowing herself to be vulnerable as her character grows.  Frances McDormand is all intensity in Three Billboards, sometimes erupting, yet more often showing it in her fierce and sorrowful gazes.  Emma Stone pulled off two very different yet exemplary performances within a year.  In both La La Land and Battle of the Sexes her characters balance tender, enrapturing romance with the (successful) struggle to achieve professional success; young Emma is already a model of grace and control.  Taraji P. Henson delights audiences in Hidden Figures, the victim of segregation's grievous wounds yet fully capable and determined to forge on as both mathematical genius and loving mother.

Saoirse Ronan rises just above the rest in a significantly different kind of role in Lady Bird.  She utterly disappears into the (nicknamed) title character, an average high school teenager with dreams of something better, all the while battling herself and those around her as she grows by fits and starts.  Just as any person has their own bewildering paradoxes, Lady Bird has her own, too, from moments of searing contempt to others of wrenching compassion (often both for her mother).  That Ronan is able to hold all of it in and keep herself together, from the throwaway moments to the sublime, is a tremendous achievement.


Best Supporting Actress
Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049)
Holly Hunter (The Big Sick)
Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird)
Janelle Monae (Hidden Figures)
Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures)

Oscar nominees not listed - Allison Janney (I, Tonya), Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread) - didn't see the films, not released widely in 2017; Octavia Spencer (The Shape of Water) - not released widely in 2017; Mary J. Blige (Mudbound) - didn't see the film

In the visually extraordinary and weird Blade Runner 2049, Ana de Armas exemplifies those traits more than any other as a holographic character; sweetly human yet obviously artificial, her constant, slight flickering produces more feeling than anything else in the film.  Holly Hunter is a desperate, stricken mother in The Big Sick, and both her outbursts and grudging acceptance anchor the heart of the film.  Janelle Monae is one cool cat in Hidden Figures, perhaps overlooked by some but crackling with energy, and outstanding in one of the film's quietest, most powerful scenes.  Laurie Metcalf is another movie mother, but she, too, far exceeds that limiting label in her struggles with Lady Bird; she loves her fiercely, and her anger and frustration are shocking yet understandable.  Symbolizing her community's quiet, patient struggle for equality, Octavia Spencer was a perfect choice for her role in Hidden Figures.  Her relationship with a white supervisor is nuanced and powerful, and her benevolent shepherding and ultimate success are genuine and inspiring.


Best Supporting Actor
Kevin Costner (Hidden Figures)
Daniel Craig (Logan Lucky)
Woody Harrelson (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Michael Keaton (Spider-Man: Homecoming)
Chris Pine (Wonder Woman)

Oscar nominees not listed - Willem Dafoe (The Florida Project), Christopher Plummer (All the Money in the World) - didn't see the films; Richard Jenkins (The Shape of Water) - not widely released in 2017; Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards...) - I consider this a lead, not supporting, role

Often this is the most competitive acting category for me; this year it was kind of slim pickings.  Chris Pine is one of today's most enjoyable actors, and a good fit for Wonder Woman: suitably heroic, and funny, but fully makes way for the heroine.  Kevin Costner's NASA boss in Hidden Figures isn't the most subtle character, but his presence is welcome while, again, not overshadowing the real stars. Michael Keaton plays a chilling villain in the freshly revamped Spider-Man, one of Marvel's better bad guys thanks to his relatability.  Daniel Craig is a hoot in Logan Lucky, playing virtually the opposite of James Bond: a hillbilly (also incredibly smart) bomb maker.  Woody Harrelson shines with the highest Oscar pedigree, a down-to-earth cop in Three Billboards who boosts the film considerably.  He provides intriguing complexity (if briefly), and a worthy opponent for Frances McDormand.


Best Director
Damien Chazelle (La La Land)
Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird)
Theodore Melfi (Hidden Figures)
Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk)
Jordan Peele (Get Out)

Oscar nominees not listed - Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread) - didn't see film and not widely released in 2017; Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water) - not widely released in 2017

First, an honorable mention for Taika Waititi of Thor: Ragnarok; he boldly went for broke in the well-established Marvel franchise, goosing Thor with humor and energy while keeping it from falling into parody.  Theodore Melfi maintained a tricky balancing act of his own, illustrating the injustices of the era repeatedly while keeping his film entertaining and appropriately light.  Jordan Peele, a first-time director who wrote his own script, deftly mixes classic chills and horrors with its realistic but unsettling social setting.  Damien Chazelle modernized an entire genre, bringing musicals into the 21st century by dusting off classic themes and injecting them into contemporary society.  Greta Gerwig took a well-known coming-of-age structure in Lady Bird and perfected it, reflecting the rhythms of its teenage lead by mixing carefree and critical moments, joyous and despondent scenes.

The most accomplished director of the year was Christopher Nolan with his instant-classic war film, Dunkirk.  Featuring little dialogue, Nolan instead lets the action on screen - through its thrilling visuals and sound, so real that you can practically feel it - create the terrifying urgency of war.  He uses one of his trademarks, manipulating the chronology of the film to integrate three distinct parts and bring them closer and closer, the tension accelerating throughout the film.  A triumph of the mind and the heart - and the gut - Nolan has created a masterpiece.


Best Screenplay
Rebecca Blunt (Logan Lucky)
Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird)
Adrian Molina and Matthew Aldrich (Coco)
Jordan Peele (Get Out)
Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi (Hidden Figures)


Best Visual Effects
Blade Runner 2049
Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Thor: Ragnarok
War for the Planet of the Apes

Black Panther

Score:  A

Directed by Ryan Coogler
Starring Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Lupita Nyong'o, Martin Freeman, et. al.
Running time:
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Black Panther is the first feature film for the previously introduced title character, and it is a true Marvel well beyond the scope of a typical superhero film.  The plot focuses on a fictional African nation, inspiring awe in its visual designs and advanced technology while also serving as an interesting reflection point on the real world.  The cast, full of new and fascinating faces, bring it fully to life, and the action and humor are as strong as in any superhero adventure.  A must-see.


Following the death of his king father, T'Challa (Boseman) returns to his home nation of Wakanda - a country that appears a modest, rural African country from the outside, but is in fact home to the most technologically advanced civilization in the world.  After proving his worthiness to the throne, T'Challa takes up the mantle of king of Wakanda, in addition to his identity as the Black Panther, the nation's traditional protector.  Soon after returning home, T'Challa learns that a long-time foe of Wakanda, Klaue (Serkis), has stolen an ancient Wakanda artifact that contains the nation's precious metal vibranium, which enables their advanced technology.  T'Challa goes out with other Wakandans, including his sister, Shuri (Wright), and former lover, Nakia (Nyong'o), to retrieve the artifact and capture Klaue.  However, in doing so T'Challa encounters another Wakandan, one with connections to the nation's royalty and a secret, dark history.  The past has returned for a reckoning, and T'Challa faces a grave challenge to the fate of not only Wakanda but the rest of the world.

Black Panther features a large, stellar cast, one that also reflects significantly more diversity than most other films, let alone blockbusters.  Although the film is part of the extensive Marvel universe, Chadwick Boseman's T'Challa (aka Black Panther) is one of the few familiar characters here.  He does very good work here again, primarily in portraying the calm strength and dignity of his royal and heroic heritage.  Although confident and capable, T'Challa is also modest not only in his rise to ruling his nation but also in heralding a brand new, hopeful yet daunting era.  I'd love to see continued development of his character, which at times is overshadowed by his brilliant co-stars.  One of those co-stars is villain N'Jadaka ("Killmonger"), played by Michael B. Jordan.  Thrust into the film suddenly, Jordan establishes him quickly, as strong a man as T'Challa but with swagger directly opposite his rival.  N'Jadaka is one of the most menacing supervillains in years because he is ruthlessly effective rather than overtly intimidating.  I could write a full review on just the trio of Wakandan women in this film, yet another of the film's highlights.  Letitia Wright is my favorite, T'Challa's feisty little sister who is a tech nerd yet also stands toe-to-toe with her brother and all who oppose them.  Danai Gurira is a tough, honorable member of an all-female bodyguard unit who kicks ass with the best of them.  Oscar-winner Lupita Nyong'o is actually outshone by the others, but still effective as an independent spy (and T'Challa's love interest).  Even after all of that, Winston Duke also steals scenes as Wakandan warlord M'Baku, a potentially dull role that he makes fizzy.  Finally, Andy Serkis (playing a human, for once) and Martin Freeman play significant supporting (and frequently funny) roles as an arms dealer and CIA agent, respectively.

Black Panther is not only an excellent superhero film, continuing the ever-expanding Marvel universe, but also one with intriguing ideas that have more real-world relevance.  The movie has all the hallmarks of its Marvel kin, from rollicking action to plentiful humor to expansion of previously introduced themes and characters.  However, the showcase of the film is actually a place - the fictional Wakanda - which orchestrates all other elements of the film and imbues them with fresh energy.  Black Panther directly acknowledges the overall, real-world exploitation of Africa, but flips all of that on its head with Wakanda.  The nation uses its technological wonders to conceal itself from the rest of the world (rather than boast, like others), and does not subjugate others with its might.  There is a rich diversity of cultures within the country, and certainly not all agree with the way Wakanda relates to the rest of the world - a realistic, fascinating place, in other words.  Wakanda is also beautifully designed, from the variety of colorful, traditionally-inspired dress to the cityscapes and vibranium mines to the whiz-bang gadgetry and tech, all a feast for the eyes.  The main plot is a familiar one, in which an heir to the throne is challenged by an outsider, but on top of this is layered the struggle for Wakanda's role in the world - what does it have the responsibility to do, and not do?  Of course, there are also the joys of the superhero adventure, too.  Black Panther has his own style of action; aided by a lithe yet tech-y suit, he whirls about and pounces like his namesake.  And every character gets to show a sense of humor, particularly T'Challa's sister.

***

Black Panther is a triumph, lifting the Marvel superhero universe to new heights but also standing on its own as an entertaining and thought-provoking movie.  For me, the overall concept and involvement of Wakanda itself is its central strength, an interesting and inspiring fantasy, fully realized.  Related to that is the film's strength in its diversity, as its impressive roster of new characters are well-developed, allowing their particular perspectives to be naturally compelling and not just for show.  It accomplishes all of that, something any drama would be proud of, while also providing tremendous entertainment that appeals to a mass audience.  Make sure to see this in the theater (and if you already have, see it again!).




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54261761

The Post

Score:  A-

Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bob Odenkirk
Running time: 116 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Post is a historical drama about the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, an event that led to national upheaval on the Papers' topic - Vietnam War - as well as to a critical showdown between the press and the government.  The movie's theme is all too relevant in today's society, but more than holds its own as a quality piece of art and entertainment, too, thanks to Hollywood legends Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks.  Highly recommended.


In 1970, the New York Times publishes top secret documents about the Vietnam War - a struggle going on at its peak both on the bloody battlefield as well as the tumultuous home front.  The Times begins to reveal the extended history of the conflict, but the Nixon administration soon blocks it from writing more.  Four years earlier, an analyst had visited Vietnam and, after seeing its horrors first-hand, then witnessed the hypocrisy of the government's policies, leading to his theft of the documents.  Meanwhile, the Washington Post, led by heiress Katharine Graham (Streep), struggles to gain relevance as it goes public to keep the lights on.  Shocked like the rest of the nation, the Post searches for the source of the secret documents and lands on the prized - yet dangerous - package.  Graham is faced with an agonizing choice: play it safe, or continue the journalistic mission to bring out the truth of the Vietnam War and risk the paper's very existence.

The Post has an impressive cast of familiar faces, headlined by perhaps the two most celebrated actors working today.  Although advertised as a duo, Meryl Streep is the true lead and the heart of the film.  Unsurprisingly, she is fantastic as the high-profile yet privately uncertain owner of the Post.  Hers is not a showy performance; even at the climax, she does not overreach for a glorious heroic turn.  Instead, she is a much more interesting, nuanced character.  Comfortable mixing it up with Washington's power players, she still keenly feels the weight of her family's newspaper legacy, and two incredibly challenging yet vastly different problems.  She is confident, yet still finding herself; smart and savvy yet warm (and not cliche).  Excellent work.  Tom Hanks as editor Ben Bradlee is certainly next up, but in, I'd argue, more of a supporting than a lead role.  Tom is always fun to watch and he digs into the hotshot boss role with relish, but it's also somewhat unremarkable (by Hanks's standards).  I will give him (and the script) credit for not trying to steal the spotlight, which is and should be Streep/Graham's.  Bob Odenkirk has a pretty decent sized role as a reporter, one that is quite similar to his Better Call Saul role, actually (pay phones included).  Bradley Whitford and Bruce Greenwood, as a Post board member and McNamara, respectively, are great as complex "villains".  There are plenty of others, but they're essentially cameos.

The Post is a strong historical drama with an important, contemporary theme and an interesting lead role.  Anyone not living under a rock for the past year is surely aware of a rising criticism from certain areas (e.g. our reality-TV president) of the media; "fake news" is spreading around the globe.  Spielberg took up this film precisely because of this disturbing trend, and the publishing of the Pentagon Papers is certainly a powerful symbol of the essential importance of a free press to democracy.  There is little sermonizing, however; the film is driven more by the urgency of the Post's attempt to get access to the Papers - and subsequently, the wrenching decision of whether or not to publish.  The "journalistic thriller" side is fine and fun, but also a bit predictable and by-the-numbers, particularly if you've seen films like Spotlight.  It also struggles to convey the importance of the topic of the Papers themselves, the Vietnam War.  Aside from brief, half-hearted war-and-protest scenes at the beginning, the discussion of what the Papers represent is fairly bloodless.  Fortunately, Streep helps enliven and elevate the impact of the Post's publishing on its own fate.  This is by far the strongest, most impactful aspect of the plot (though again, the power of the press theme is obviously vital, too).  This could have been a simplistic, if still relevant, portrayal of men's underestimation of women, particularly those in power.  But Streep's Graham is both liked and respected - though when opposition comes, particularly as the stakes rise, this gives way to skepticism, even by Hanks's Bradlee.  Graham is not an invincible superwoman, but she learns, she summons her courage, and ultimately balances the competing arguments of powerful men to come to the right decision.

***

The Post is a worthy Best Picture-nominee, with three of the biggest names in Hollywood (Spielberg, Hanks, Streep) teaming up for an entertaining movie with themes particularly relevant today.  I do feel that the film failed to quite live up to its potential, though, considering the premise and the players.  Hanks is fun but forgettable; Spielberg creates an engaging story but fails to really juice the action as much as he usually does.  It's Streep who stands out, with a truly great performance, and the script gives her enough of the spotlight to develop and emphasize her intriguing part of the tale.  If you are in the mood for a pretty standard but rock-solid drama led by stars, this is a great choice; and don't underestimate the film's ability through drama to show the importance of the press (often at its peril), either.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55743990

The Shape of Water

Score:  A-

Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Starring Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins, Michael Shannon, Octavia Spencer
Running time:  123 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Shape of Water, this year's most Oscar-nominated film, is a live-action fairy tale in the distinct vision and design of filmmaker Guillermo del Toro.  Sally Hawkins gives an outstanding performance in the lead (and mute) role, and the supporting cast around her helps to bring a fairly standard story to life as she befriends a strange, fantastical creature.  The style is mesmerizing, so if you need an escape or diversion, this is a great theater choice.  Recommended.


Every day is much the same for Elisa (Hawkins), a mute custodian: she wakes up, says hello to her neighbor, Giles (Jenkins), and takes the bus to a Cold War-era government facility where she clocks in with an army of co-workers.  One day, however, something secret arrives at the facility, and is put into an area where Elisa and her friend, Zelda (Spencer), work.  Elisa at first knows only that there are massive water tanks, and at times a great commotion, but eventually discovers to her shock that a humanoid sea creature is being held.  Elisa's curiosity gets the better of her and she begins to interact with it, through sign language.  However, she is not the only one interested in the creature - the facility has grand ambitions for it, and word leaks out to other parties as well.  Elisa seems to have little power to protect her strange new friend, but she finds help from unexpected sources that just might be able to keep it from becoming a victim of Cold War paranoia.

The Shape of Water has an interesting mix of characters, familiar yet fresh thanks to some very good performances.  Sally Hawkins is the lead as Elisa; the heart and soul of the film, her great work serves as a solid foundation for the rest.  Unable to speak, Hawkins must communicate strictly through body language, especially her "fluent", appealing facial expressions.  She effectively conveys everything you need to know: Elisa is a content, static woman at the start, but pushes past her initial fear when confronted by the life-altering entrance of the sea creature and develops into a strong, compassionate heroine.  The performance gives the film a distinctly old-fashioned feeling, in a good way: Elisa is vibrant, expressed through images rather than words.  Richard Jenkins is the surprisingly buoyant neighbor-friend of Elisa, a chatty guy who more than makes up for her silence.  His is a character that easily could have spilled over the top, but Jenkins is great, particularly how he plays opposite Elisa's lead.  Michael Shannon is the facility boss, and he makes an effective "villain".  It helps that his appearance and voice lend themselves to the role, but he's also truly menacing while getting in some surprising nuance, too.  Octavia Spencer plays a familiar maternal role here and she does it well, and Michael Stuhlbarg is sneakily good, too, as a timid but concerned scientist.

The Shape of Water is a modern fairy tale, one that draws its strength and simplicity from a previous age while utilizing modern techniques to paint a unique picture, resulting in a pleasant, leisurely experience.  The structure of the film is pretty standard, nothing new to see, but it's also solid and allows other elements to be the main focus.  Primary among these are Elisa and her relationship with the sea creature.  Along with the supporting cast of characters, you could almost imagine the story played out in Disney animation.  To be sure, this is more serious and subtle than Cinderella, but the heart of the film is pure, thanks largely to Hawkins's performance and her undivided loyalty and care for the creature (part of this is what earns the film an R rating and is not family-friendly, but it's tastefully done).  Besides the familiar yet unique journey, the film has great design and style, such as thematic color choices (green is emphasized), dark and foreboding yet not grim sets, and a fun soundtrack with distinct themes and instrumentation.  The whole physical realm of the film has an odd fantastic-realistic feel, like the grimy yet symbolically important waters.  The design is so well conceived and executed that it can override the narrative and even the characters at times; combine this with the familiar story structure, and the film struggles to maintain its tension.  However, the action is well-paced and there is always something interesting on screen - whether in the action or simply the images themselves.

***

The Shape of Water is a very well-made film, and deserving of recognition (it has an impressive thirteen Oscar nominations - not difficult to see it dominating at least the "technical" categories).  I must admit that while I thought the film was pleasant and well done, it also didn't make a very big impact on me.  This kind of fantasy/fairy tale is fine, but neither the story nor the main Elisa-creature relationship stood out to me; I think it much more likely I'll remember the design, and perhaps Sally Hawkins's performance.  Therefore, while I don't begrudge it its Best Picture nomination, there are some significantly better fellow nominees (so far: Dunkirk, Lady Bird; and, though it was snubbed a nomination, Molly's Game).  If you are looking for a fairly simple film with great design and visuals (this is the best argument for a theater viewing), then it's still certainly a fine choice in the middle of a cold winter.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54631984